×
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

SA53B ERW for Shell

SA53B ERW for Shell

SA53B ERW for Shell

(OP)
Hello All,

I'm new to the ASME Sec. VIII, Div. 1, and wish to clarify my understanding. I tried searching the threads for this, but perhaps my question is too elementary.

Assume a vessel constructed of SA53B ERW pipe (K03005) and semi-elliptical heads, type 2 welds, no radiography. For shell thickness, is it correct to use S=14600 and E=1 in UG-27(c) Eq (1) , and S=17100 E=0.65 in Eq (2)? Notes G3 and G24 in Sec. II, D seem to imply that the pipe is spot x-rayed by the manufacturer.

I look forward to attending ASME BPV training soon, but in the mean time this question keeps nagging me.

Thanks.

RE: SA53B ERW for Shell

Spot radiography by the pipe manufacturer does not get represented on the manufacturer's data report.  That inspection has not been performed by the fabricator.  In you case there are a couple of items at play here.  The efficiency of the head (not head to shell joint) would be 0.85 as the requirements of UW-11(a)5(b) have not been met.  See UW-12(d) and try and understand where the 0.85 comes from.

The circumferential joint will have an efficiency but it will seldom govern unless there are other loads to be considered.  Given this is a pipe material spec it is unlikely that this vessel will be large enough to be worried about that.  

In calculating the required thickness of the pipe shell, you would also consider the joint efficiency of 0.85 under UW-12(d) because the longitudinal seam in the pipe already has the joint efficiency applied to the allowable stresses in Part II D.

In direct response to you questions above,

EQ (1) would have E=0.85, S per Part II(D)
EQ (2) would have E and S per above but it really doesn't matter.

As you start to learn the code you will find there are many areas where you just put a statement in your calcuations to cover an area without haveing to do any calculations.

1 example would be, if you have twice the required wall thickness (it does sometimes happen using pipe for vessel shells) you could simply state that nozzle reinforcement calculations are not required as the shell will easily have enough excess material for the opening to be adequately reinforced.  This is of course only applicable it large openings are not a problem etc, etc, etc.

EJL

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