Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations GregLocock on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

B16.47 blind with hole and UG-34 thickness

Status
Not open for further replies.

ElCidCampeador

Mechanical
May 14, 2015
269
thread794-380735

Referring to the thread above, I have a similar case, with a blind acc. to B16.47 type B with a centered hole.

Problem: I would reinforce the hole with a sort of reinforced LWN, but in the calculation of the reinforcement the Area Required shall be calculated acc. to UG-39 (a)(1) formula, where t is calculated as per UG-34 (c)(2)(2).
Even if reinforcement check would be ok, there is a problem: "t" (as minimum required thickness) acc. to UG-34 is higher than B16.47 std blind flange. Is it anyway acceptable as analysis? It's odd because I could skip blind thickness calculation because of pressure rating of B16.47...thanks
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

ElCidCampeador, I have treated flat covers with a central opening as loose flanges under Apx 2 occasionally. You'd have to try it to see if any advantage in your case. The other methods in UG-39 apparently would be no help.

I wanted to say to ignore excess thickness in the blind (A1=0), but I don't think you can ignore that the altered blind is inadequately thick. You may be better off starting from scratch.

Regards,

Mike


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

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor