I need an example of Section VIII Div I appendix 1-10 calcs 2

[pvhd]

I need to verify my spreadsheet is correct and would very much appreciate a typical example of these calcualtions to compare my work against.
A normal to the vessel pipe nozzle with or without a pad would be great.
I am using 2010 section VIII Div I code books.

 

[SnTMan]

pvhd, if you attach a your input, I will try to run your case using commercial software and post the output in a day or two. I will caution that I am not familiar with these calculations.

Regards,

Mike

 

[LSThill]

pvhd (Structural)

Question

What page number are you reference to in 2010 Section VIII Div I appendix 1-10 calcs?

 

[pvhd]

to answer LSThill it is page number 388

to answer SnTMan can you try a 10" sch-40 pipe .365 wall 10.002 ID SA53B-ERW 14,600 max stress normal to vessel wall 125 psi internal max.
0.188 shell SA-516-70 28" ID with 20,000 psi max allowable stress 250°F max. Pipe will not interfere with long seam or girth welds. pipe extends 6" outside the shell wall and 2" inside. no mechanical loads on pipe.
If you need more detail I can provide spreadsheet. I am using office excel 2007.

 

[SnTMan]

pvhd, your example does not appear to meet the definition of a large diameter opening. See UG-36(b)(1).

However by assuming a 16" nozzle diameter, and a couple more assumptions for unspecified data I can provide the following, hope you find it helpful.

Regards,

Mike

 

[TomBarsh]

FYI, the 2010 Edition of ASME Section VIII Div 1 now permits using Appendix 1-10 for all openings, regardless of size, in lieu of UG-37. Generally, this analysis (based on investigation of stresses) may permit designs to pass that might not have passed UG-37's area replacement requirements.

 

[SnTMan]

TomBarsh, yeah I guess so, I hadn't read it that way.

pvhd, apologies.

Regards,

Mike

 

[TomBarsh]

SnTMan, you don't need to read it that way. It's in the 2010 Edition, paragraph UG-36(c)(2)(d), dedicated just to this point.

 

[SnTMan]

Indeed, I overlooked that in reviewing the 2010 changes, as well as yesterday. Thanks