Sect VIII Corner Joints

[BigTank]

Is a size-on-size corner joint allowed in a vessel of non-circular cross-section? It appears that with the full-penetration joint option in UG-34, size-on-size is precluded by the 1.2*ts requirement. Can anyone find an exception to this in either UG-34 or UW-13?

--------------------------------
Fitter, happier, more productive

 

[GenB]

too bad!

 

[GenB]

LETS SAY that I am your AI: Too bad I can't help you.
You can always ask for a Code Case to the ASME and if the/your Jurisdiction accept it, you will be okay.
to modify your joints and weld sizes.
genblr

 

[Duwe6]

And the intent of the Design portion of Sect VIII is not to require more than 100% joint strength [100% effective fillet weld size]. They are not stupid enough to require more weld than basemetal -- fillet weld effective size greater than the thickness of the thinner material]. Wastes time, adds extra distortion due to welding, gains no strength.

However, they do have a little problem [here & there] in writing clear sentanceses & clauses.

 

[BigTank]

Thank you, Duwe6! That just made my day to see someone read the words as I did.

--------------------------------
Fitter, happier, more productive

 

[GenB]

Great: I am learning and the next time I design and weld a nozzle, I will not bother in putting the required fillet.
Because it is not needed and it will distort the materials.
or Even a girt or long weld, no reinforcing from now on.
This is the end of me on this post. I learned the lesson,
now I am in a position of manipulating the Code in
my favor. Have a great day you all.

 

[BigTank]

The difference is, GenB, that UW-21 plainly states the weld requirements. The only verbage not present in UW-21 is related to the 'set-back' of the flange on the nozzle. That is found in Appendix 2 or B31.X.

It's not a manipulation of the code in my favor, as you put it. I'm reading the plain language given. It's written poorly, and my only point was that there is at least one interpretation of those words that is just as valid as the popular one, which in my opinion is more self-serving than the one I present here. I'm sorry if this challenged your methods. Had there been presented an explanation of the sentence in question in terms of the engineering methodology behind the sentence, there wouldn't be this back-and-forth.

--------------------------------
Fitter, happier, more productive