×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

API 650 Add. 4, App. E Annular Plate Width Calc

API 650 Add. 4, App. E Annular Plate Width Calc

API 650 Add. 4, App. E Annular Plate Width Calc

(OP)
I would greatly appreciate if anyone would comment or provide their opinion regarding the following matter:  should the annular plate inside projection calculated in appendix E of API650 Add. 4 be taken as the controlling required projection when greater than that taken from section 3.5.2?  I am specifically referring to section E.6.2.1.1.2 and the "L" calculation in subsection (c).  Also, as part of this calculation, do you use the actual annular plate thickness for the value of "ta" or the minimum required thickness per 3.5.2 (exclusive or corrosion allowance)?  Thanks in advance for your input.

RE: API 650 Add. 4, App. E Annular Plate Width Calc

The way I read the requirement, the width of the annular plate has to meet the L equation, using the corroded thickness of the annular ring, even if that thickness is greater than required for seismic loading.

The intent there is that a certain amount of water near the shell is going to be used to furnish overturn resistance, and the annular ring width has to be wide enough to develop that amount of force.

I guess the issue you have is that if for some reason, the annular ring is thicker than it needs to be for seismic, do you also have to make it correspondingly wider?  I suppose this could be where you have a customer-mandated minimum thickness, or where some intermediate decimal thickness is adequate, but you're rounding up to next thickness, or where Table 3-1 or maybe App. M requires a thicker annular ring than required by seismic.

I think logic dictates that you could set the width based on some lesser thickness that was also adequate.  But that isn't what it actually says.

This would be a good question for an API interpretation, using each of those cases.

RE: API 650 Add. 4, App. E Annular Plate Width Calc

A related question is if radiographs per 6.1.2.9 are required if the annular ring is only required by App. E.  I think API answered that in the negative, although I can't find that interpretation at the moment.  But it tends towards the idea of separating the App. F and the 3.5.2 requirements.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources