Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

ASME VIII div. 1 - Weld efficiencies 1

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ing. Aponte

Mechanical
Jan 7, 2024
4
0
0
SK
Dear Forum Colleagues,

I have some problem in understanding how ASME div. 1 treats welds and efficiency. Little bit of background: I have to design a simple small vessel with design pressure of 0.8 bar but without a dedicated program so I prepared my calculation by hand - following code - and after asked to a friend of mine, who have pvelite, to check my design.

Basis of design:
1)pressure vessel is small and Client think that the expanses for x-ray check will not be covered by the sparing in term of materials using better seams efficiency.
2)for process problems ends has to be flat end
3)temperature is high and close to creep limit but chosen material is outside creep zone. We need to support it with 4 simple legs to avoid transfer to much heat to floor

Idea of the project

Vessel_diybzh.png
.

Most of what I don’t understand is included in flat ends pveleite design:

1)pvelite requires on input both longitudinal and circumferential seam efficiency. I agree with my friend that longitudinal doesn’t exist here. He input 1 but for me, because vessel will be built without weld check, should be 0.85 here. Who is right?
2)same problem, on longitudinal seams, on shell: this component will be realized with a seamless pipe 20” diameter. He told me use 1 as longitudinal efficiency but for me it has to be 0.85. Who is right?
3)second point: circumferential seam here is covered by UG-34: I chosen detail g (chamfer on flat head with full penetration from outside). From code C factor is between 0.2 and 0.33. I adopted 0.2 as conservative value, right? In my opinion weld category is corner joint type 7 but code doesn’t indicated a value for efficiency. My friend inserted 0.7: frankly speaking I have not a reason to refuse but if I will proceed like this we will obligated weld all the flat ends by TIG to have a minimal coherency with the selected value. If process is not TIG we have to decrease - maybe 0.6 but I am not sure how much - right?

Last point: where we weld the leg to the equipment we have superimposing of welding. It is correct like this?

Thanks for help and have a nice week end!
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Ing. Aponte, I'd offer some statements and observations without claiming they are definitive.

1) A longitudinal joint efficiency of 1 may be applied to seamless shells. A circumferential joint efficiency would apply if there is a circumferential butt seam, as if joining two or more shell courses. This efficiency would be selected per rules in Part UW. Usually not of any interest, unless parhaps some external loading exists. See UW-12(d).

2) Corner joints may be assigned an efficiency of 1 if needed, see Table UW-12.

3) Use of C = 0.2 may or may not be conservative, see the definition of "m". Unless a weld seam exists within the flat head "E" for UG-34 equation (1) is 1. Weld process used has no bearing on the corner joint efficiency. Your chosen sketch (g) probably wouldn't be my first choice, though it is acceptable. See details in UW-13 for others.

4) It is permissable for welds to cross welds, but I'd try to avoid it. See UG-82.

Last, and no offence meant, I'd say that both you and your friend are out of your depth here. You might consider hiring an experienced pressure vessel designer.

Regards,

Mike

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top