CuMo
Mechanical
- May 1, 2007
- 146
Hello folks.
I'm struggling with the following situation.
I have a big diameter thin walled stainless steel vessel with light stiffening rings for the shell cylinder.
Full Vac design condition is present of course.
Our client has requested a specific position for the manway
so that one of the light stiffeners has to "go through" it.
I am almost certain the manway itself will provide a lot more rigidity in the area if compared to the light stiffener
but have been unable to find a procedure which could help me prove it.
Both PD5500 and ASME VIII-1 seem to address stiffener rings with unsupported lengths in an identical way
and if I don't consider the manway - the gap in the ring would be way to great to satisfy any of the codes.
(At least by doing some quick on screen math).
But the manway neck/flange are in place so can't just be ignored I guess.
Have you had this situation before?
Sketch attached for reference.
Any comments welcome!
I'm struggling with the following situation.
I have a big diameter thin walled stainless steel vessel with light stiffening rings for the shell cylinder.
Full Vac design condition is present of course.
Our client has requested a specific position for the manway
so that one of the light stiffeners has to "go through" it.
I am almost certain the manway itself will provide a lot more rigidity in the area if compared to the light stiffener
but have been unable to find a procedure which could help me prove it.
Both PD5500 and ASME VIII-1 seem to address stiffener rings with unsupported lengths in an identical way
and if I don't consider the manway - the gap in the ring would be way to great to satisfy any of the codes.
(At least by doing some quick on screen math).
But the manway neck/flange are in place so can't just be ignored I guess.
Have you had this situation before?
Sketch attached for reference.
Any comments welcome!