Thick Flange Flued Design

[MQM90]

1. My Heat Exchanger Software uses the formulas in TEMA RCB-8 to determine the value of the stresses for Expansion Joint design check.

2. And in same software check allowable stresses per ASME Section VIII, Div 1, Appendix 5.

My Question:

The software include checks for some but not all TEMA minimum thicknesses i.e. RCB-8.10 is one TEMA minimum thickness that is not checked.

Then is it relaible to depend my design for Thick Flange Flued Joint Design done in this software (as it mentions its limitations)

Secondly, per my design of thick flange flued expansion joint my overall calculation clears at thickness of te (Flexible Shell Element) = 10 mm. Is this thickness realistic for the annular plate element ?


Osama Nusrat Ali

 

[BigInch]

So, MQM, still working with trying to make that fitting to fitting spool piece work?

"We have a leadership style that is too directive and doesn't listen sufficiently well. The top of the organisation doesn't listen sufficiently to what the bottom is saying." Tony Hayward CEO BP
"Being GREEN isn't easy." Kermit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpiIWMWWVco

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.liv

 

[MQM90]

Hah !!

No BigInch, there is another work assignment. This exchanger is an existing installed exchanger at the Plant. My client needs to modify the material of the tubebundle from CS to SS and the material of expansion joint from SS 240 304 to SS 240 316.

When i performed the analysis, the software output reports shows various warnings regarding calculated MAWP lower than the design presssure (which i directed towards the problem of differential expansion of shell and tubeside).

I have checked that the expansion joint MAWP calculated doesn't clear at even design pressure = 0 kg/cm2g.

When i made some trials, the joint design clears by following options:

1. Flange and Flued type to Bellow type joint.
2. When i increase the thickness of flexible shell element (FSE) = te = 10 mm

This is the complete story. Now i want to know that an expansion joint SS 240 316 can be 10 mm thickness compared to the existing which is SS 240 304 and thickness = 3.5 mm

Osama Nusrat Ali

 

[BigInch]

I would guess so, but that may depend on the standards of the particular joint, model number and the typical pressure ratings available in the sizes you want to use. If I could only get 3.5 mm, I'd sure be in trouble. I can rarely use less than 9 mm wall thicknesses for anything.

"We have a leadership style that is too directive and doesn't listen sufficiently well. The top of the organisation doesn't listen sufficiently to what the bottom is saying." Tony Hayward CEO BP
"Being GREEN isn't easy." Kermit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpiIWMWWVco

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.liv

 

[MQM90]

Ok

Thanks BigInch

Osama Nusrat Ali

 

[MQM90]

I want to understand that in such component designing what are general recommendations for following conditions?

a) Cycles to be used in analysis
b) Flange and Flued joint design thickness limitations
c) Thin walled joint design thickness limitations
d) Which type of expansion joints are relatively better for BEM type exchanger.

Best regards,
Osama


Osama Nusrat Ali