U2-(g), appendix 46

[Vrpeng-tips]

Hello,

Unit - Div.1 U-Stamp heat exchanger
Most of the design of the unit can be done using div.1 rules (Shell, Nozzles, head,etc..)
For a fixed tube sheet div.2 part 4.18 applies. And design can be completed using DBA.

In a rare case when we have tube sheet geometry out of scope and there is need for thickness validation, do we absolutely have to do DBA per div.2 part 5?
Or we can do the FEA and validate the T.S thickness and stress per div.2 part 4?

Thank you in advance.

 

[Vrpeng-tips]

correction.
For a fixed tube sheet div.2 part 4.18 applies. And design can be completed using DBR.

 

[Vrpeng-tips]

Hello Experts,

Any insight on this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

 

[TGS4]

I'm not 100% certain of what your actual question is. Please restate your question.

 

[Vrpeng-tips]

Hi TGS4,

Thank you for your response.

For Div.1 ed.2023 fixed tubesheet heat exchanger, all components are designed using Div.1 design-by-rule methods. However, for a non-circular fixed tubesheet which also acts as a support, Div.2 Part 4 design-by-rule formulas cannot be used. Does this mean Div.2 Part 5 (design-by-analysis) is the only option?

Before in ed.2017 the U2-(g) allowed accepted methods ( satisfactory to AI) and my company used FEA to derive the tube sheet thickness using allowable criteria set in UHX 13. (i.e 1.5S limit for design load cases and 3S limit for operating load cases).

Hope this is clear.
Thank you for your time and consideration.