ASME VIII Division 2. Nozzles Inside weld 1

[RCD1960]

ASME VIII Division 2. Table 4.2.10

Can a nozzle be calculated a flush nozzle and actually be fabricated with an inside projection without the inside fillet?
Are all nozzles without the inside fillet required to trim or set flush inside?

Detail 3 vs Detail 5

Thanks
RCD

 

[DriveMeNuts]

For div 1, the sketches do not show an internal fillet weld and I recollect that there is a Div 1 code interpretation which says that the internal fillet weld is not mandatory.

For Div 2 the weld is shown with a minimum dimension. That suggests that it is mandatory. With the lower design margin, I would agree with it, especially if the equipment is in cyclic service.

Perhaps if you can boost up the design of the nozzle so that it complies with Div 1 design margins and geometry rules, then the design auditor may use judgement to accept it? Possibly means making the shell thicker though.

 

[RCD1960]

I don't believe there's any advantage that trimming the nozzle flush inside. There is not an inside groove for the fillet to cover as shown in Detail 5.
The nozzle extending inside provides more metal in the reinforcement area making this a stronger design.

 

[r6155]

Never use inside projection in the nozzles for:
1) Manhole
2) Drain
3) Vent

Regards

 

[DriveMeNuts]

I think the rule removes a stress concentration in the corner, preventing crack growth. Perhaps conservative for a vessel not subject to cyclic service.

r6155 has been a random word generator for the last week.
Manways and Vents with internal protrusion are okay and often the best option for many applications.

 

[RCD1960]

Thank you guys for your input.

 

[r6155]

@ DriveMeNuts
You are wrong

1) PIP PIP VESV1002 COMPLETE REVISION
Design and Fabrication Specification for Vessels January 2019
ASME Code Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2

4.4.3.4 Nozzles for pressure relief devices and for drainage shall be flush with
the inside wall of the shell or head.

2) The neck of the manhole must be as short as possible,
3) The manhole is generally used for cleaning/drainage during manufacturing and service.
4) The manhole is usually used to fill with water for pressure testing in the shop - air can be trapped if the neck is
not flush with the inside wall of the shell or head
5) The inner projection of the neck is not suitable when coating is required. See NACE.

Your comment is based on calculation and you do not consider manufacturing details.

Regards

 

[DriveMeNuts]

r6155,
The reference you cite is for process design, not mechanical design. Where there is no process design for many vessels (i.e. the vessel is a gas buffer vessel), your comment is irrelevant. Your second post downgrades your own first post from mandatory to ambiguous. It's laughable.

You are also backtracking from your original post where use the word "never". While your points are good practice, they are not mandatory. A top manway may need internal protrusion to prevent the need for a Re-Pad. There are easy methods to prevent air from getting trapped during the hydro test.

Your entire post is irrelevant to side entry manways where a uniform 100mm wide manway is 'advisable' to prevent injury to the user climbing through the manway. Your all-encompassing mandatory comments always have a plethora of exceptions. In future you should present them as advisable, which would be quite reasonable. Yet another thread filled by you with false information.

 

[r6155]

@ DriveMeNuts
You are very confused with codes, and you don´t have experience in fabrication and inspection.
Looks like you've never entered through a manhole and you have not idea about of confined space,
then you can´t understand why the neck of manhole must be short.
Avoid welding inside (confined space). The inside neck projection would make rescue more difficult. The space contain a obstruction that the rescuer would need to maneuver around.
You need to read OSHA

The fabrication details governs, then calculations be made.

Regards

 

[DriveMeNuts]

r6155,
You have now expanded from fictionally passing off advisory rules as mandatory to telling a fictitious unfounded story about a person you know nothing about.

Your rant here is no different to your rant last week where you cited design methods and appendices to codes that were not remotely relevant to the OP.

And here yet again, your post is misleading and not relevant to the OP.