×
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

Let's revisit the infamous F correction factor

Let's revisit the infamous F correction factor

Let's revisit the infamous F correction factor

(OP)
There has been much discussion in this forum regarding the F correction factor of UG-37 and Figure UG-37. Through these discussions I have garnered a complete explanation and consequently, understanding, of the theoretical aspects of this factor.

I need no further explanations; what I do desire, and would be most appreciative of, is at least one single, real-world, practical, actual application of the F correction factor. One in which an economic or otherwise meaningful impact was derived from its use.

RE: Let's revisit the infamous F correction factor

(OP)
Thank you jte. I will order a copy of the cited paper.

RE: Let's revisit the infamous F correction factor

JTE has shown application of use of the F factor to existing vessels (creative use of weld repair can save ones bacon for existing vessels...my apologies, JT if I misinterpret the paper).

But the F factor has important application to construction of new vessels as well.

For example, nozzle necks inserted through the shell may be either cut square or may be cut as contoured to the inside surface of the shell. If they are cut square then the resulting internal projection of the nozzle neck in plane theta=0° can be used for reinforcing area (F=1.0). But then the plane through the nozzle at theta=90° (F=0.5) must be considered separately as well.

Generally for a radial nozzle with "integral reinforcement" the plane at theta=0° will be the critical plane and there is no need to check reinforcing on other planes, they are good "by inspection".

But for this case where the (integral) reinforcing area provided actually varies around the circumference of the nozzle with angle theta, then at least the cross-sections at theta = 0° and 90° should be investigated. This is because it can no longer be determined by inspection that the section at theta = 0° governs the reinforcing.

This has real-world application for fabricators who work with expensive materials, or with nozzle forgings with very thick wall (eg: very thick walls for, say, the FVC type heavy barrel forgings). I see this regularly.

RE: Let's revisit the infamous F correction factor

(OP)
Thank you TomBarsh. Once again, your post is very informative and most appreciated. I will incorporate the new knowledge that you have imparted into my literary endeavors.

RE: Let's revisit the infamous F correction factor

Here is an example.

There are some process columns with very large inlet nozzle tangential to shell, you have much longer cord length (sometimes twice long) at 90 degree than the opening width at 0 deg, with F=0.5, a much smaller insert plate can be used for reinforment.

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