ASME Code Case 2148 - Nozzles
ASME Code Case 2148 - Nozzles
(OP)
I'm currently dealing with a Sect VIII Div. 1 vessel that has 2" and 1.5" nozzles which fall under this Code Case. They are made from SA-479 316L and their wall thicknesses are less than their NPS Sch 40 counterparts (they are close to the Sch 5 thicknesses). The nozzles were not manufactured using the "ring method" that the Code Case suggests.
I was hoping to perform a stress analysis on the nozzles to justify them, but I need a paragraph from Div. 1 that allows me to do so. I seem to remember that there is a clause which allows methods that are "as safe as intended by the Code", but I could be remembering this from Sect. III.
Can anyone help? Or if this doesn't seem like the right way to justify them, could you suggest a different route?
Thanks!
I was hoping to perform a stress analysis on the nozzles to justify them, but I need a paragraph from Div. 1 that allows me to do so. I seem to remember that there is a clause which allows methods that are "as safe as intended by the Code", but I could be remembering this from Sect. III.
Can anyone help? Or if this doesn't seem like the right way to justify them, could you suggest a different route?
Thanks!





RE: ASME Code Case 2148 - Nozzles
RE: ASME Code Case 2148 - Nozzles
I've been looking for over an hour for that. 1000 yard stare I guess.
RE: ASME Code Case 2148 - Nozzles
Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants
www.tankindustry.com
RE: ASME Code Case 2148 - Nozzles
If so you are entirely outside the Code Case and there is no way this is acceptable.
Reread the Code Case and UG-14,UG-45.
RE: ASME Code Case 2148 - Nozzles
As Steve above stated, if rules exist in the Code for a certain design, the rule cannot be superceded by U-2(g).
Just as you cannot run a proof test to prove a design when rules are provided in the Code for that design.
At a minimum, your nozzle thickness shall not be less than standard wall pipe of the same diameter.
RE: ASME Code Case 2148 - Nozzles
Is a Code Case considered a mandatory requirement, or is it advice from the Committee on recommended practice, but not necessarily madatory?
Just curious. For the record, we're not the manufacturer, we're performing an analysis on a vessel that was already built by a client of ours, so that it can be registered for a CRN in Ontario. We weren't the designer.
RE: ASME Code Case 2148 - Nozzles
As a side note: The 05 Addenda to VIII Div 1 is perhaps going to put this issue to rest by adding a new paragraph UG-14(b) explicitly prohibiting the use of rod and bar for certain applications, while allowing its use for small diameter hollow parts consistent with the ASTM/ASME material specifications for forgings and fittings.
Contact an AIA for more information.
RE: ASME Code Case 2148 - Nozzles
RE: ASME Code Case 2148 - Nozzles
The TSSA has pulled this Code Case out, which they haven't before, and are refusing to register the design. I've never had this problem before.
I'm just trying to get some ammunition to go back to them with, though it looks like there isn't much.