ASME fittings with openings

[mtien]

I a scenario for each of a 12" seamless pipe pressure vessel.

1. A 12" CL-600 blind flange with 2 2" CL-600 flanges attached on one end of a 12" pressure vessel.

2. A standard 12" cap with a 1" weldolet on the other end of a 12" pressure vessel.

It is my assumption that since there is an opening in both of the standard ASME fittings that there needs to be separate calculations completed (UG-32 & UG-34) for each since UG-34(c)(1) and UG-44 are no longer applicable.

Please advise.

 

[mtien]

Also,

I assume that per UG-36, the 2" openings in the blind need not be evaluated for additional reinforcement.

 

[trottiey]

To sort this out, first check if my understanding of your problem is correct:
CL = class? I usually see that written as 600#.
Your blind flange conforms to ASME B16.5?
All three of your openings meet UG-36(c)(3), including no rapid fluctuations in pressure?

If I understood correctly, then UG-34(c)(1) still applies and you don't need to calculate the thickness of the flat head. But I think you do need to show a calculation for the pipe cap per UG-32, regardless of whether or not you have an opening in it.

 

[mtien]

Ya 600#.

End cap matches shell schedule (standard ellipsoidal head).

Blind flange and end cap conform to ASME B16.5.

Both of them now have some opening in them, but openings conform to UG-36(c)(3) for no reinforcement calcs.

Since they have openings now in them do these both now fail to conform to the ASME B16 standard then need to be calculated?

The openings should not need reinforce calcs as I understand, but I interpret the code as stating that I now need to calculate the thickness of the blind and the end cap per UG-32 and UG-34 because of the openings.

 

[trottiey]

"end cap conform to ASME B16.5" - there must be some confusion here, because ASME B16.5 is a flange standard. Maybe you mean B16.9 for the cap? Or is this a dished and flanged head?

When you cut an opening, you just have to reinforce it. Outside of the limits of reinforcement, the presence of the opening has negligible effect. The rest of the part doesn't get calculated or proven any differently, with or without an opening.

Anyway, it sounds like you've already made up your mind. If you really want to convince me, you'll have to explain your reasoning in more detail.

 

[SJEC]

Please check following link.
It will answer your questions.

http://www.codeware.com/support/faq/1062.html

Good luck!

 

[mtien]

Thank you both.