Possible Bug

[Karloss12]

I am designing a nozzle to Figure UW-16.1(h).

The "lower fillet, New" box says the minimum sized weld can be 0mm. Shouldn't the minimum sized weld be tc as per the figure?

It works correctly for UW-16.1(s) where "lower fillet, New" minimum size is tw.

And it works correctly for when the shell and pad are both full pen where the "lower fillet, New" is optional and therefore as I understand it can be 0mm.

Is this a bug in compress?

 

[Cheops]

It is not a bug. See Interpretation VIII-1-86-89

 

[Karloss12]

VIII-1-86-89 is for a full penetration weld. If both Shell and pad were welded then this would apply.

I'm refering to Figure UW-16.1(h) in which the pad is not welded and the figure clearly shows an internal fillet weld of minimum size tc.

Compress seems to allow this minimum weld to be optional.

 

[Cheops]

In my opinion, the interpretation covers the case of a full penetration weld between the nozzle neck and the shell. The pad does not necessarily have to be welded with full penetration.

I realize that this is in conflict with UW-16.1(h) which indicates a minimum size of weld tc at the internal projection. On the other hand, the fact that the weld of reinforcing pad to neck is full penetration or not should not have any impact on the need for an internal weld.

I have been using this type of attachment without internal welds for some time now based on the above interpreation.

You may want to write to Technical Support at Codeware to see if they have any better or more recent internpretation?