×
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

UHX: Opening very close to Tubesheet (with integral Shell/Channel).
2

UHX: Opening very close to Tubesheet (with integral Shell/Channel).

UHX: Opening very close to Tubesheet (with integral Shell/Channel).

(OP)
Dear all,

I need to clarify the following issue: if a "discontinuity" (like a saddle, a "small" opening to drain/vent the shell/channel chamber, a "large" opening for the INLET/OUTLET of the Process Fluid, ...) may be "close" to an INTEGRAL tubesheet ["close" mean distance less than: 1.8 x RADQ (D x t)] when the shell/channel thickness is used as "reinforcement" to reduce the tubesheet thickness ?

(See UHX-12.5.10 and UHX-13.6 for references)

I was not able to find any of such constraints in ASME VIII-1: the only available "criteria" is an extrapolation of the MIN. Distance between two LOCAL AREA of DISCONTINUTY (where S >= 1.10 x Sm) stated in the ASME VIII Div. 2 Code (Ex. Appendix 4).

Does someone has a "criteria" to suggest? I see very often request of quotation of Exchanger with "large nozzles" or "Supports" very close to an Integral Tubesheet with reduced thickness ("clamped" at shell/channel shell barrels ends).

NOTE: The New European Codes (EN-13445/3) and other Old EU National Codes (Ex. BS-5500, VSR) state a MIN distance respect to a "discontinuity" (Flange, Cone-to-Cylinder attachment, .... )!
 

RE: UHX: Opening very close to Tubesheet (with integral Shell/Channel).

2
Ganfoss2,

Currently UHX does not have any rules that limit the size or location of a nozzle in an integral shell or channel relative to the tubesheet. We (SG-HTE) have an open item to investigate this issue but at this time we do not have a proposal for consideration.

When a shell or channel is integral to a tubesheet, UHX considers it to support the tubesheet regardless if the shell is thickened or remains constant thickness the entire length. Therefore, an integral shell or channel will always provide support to the tubesheet.

The criteria I used is to keep the distance from the back of the tubesheet to the OD of the nozzle 1.5 x sqrt(Rt,where R is the shell radius and t is the shell thickness, or the distance from the nozzle centerline to the back of the tubesheet d, where d is the nozzle ID, whichever distance is greater. As a designer, you must use engineering judgement to decide if the nozzle is large enough to be of concern. For example, a NPS-2 nozzle in a 48 inch shell would not be of much concern but if the nozzle were NPS-12, it may be of concern.

RE: UHX: Opening very close to Tubesheet (with integral Shell/Channel).

(OP)
Ok! I agree with your criteria!

Thanks

RE: UHX: Opening very close to Tubesheet (with integral Shell/Channel).

Ganfoss2, my reading of UHX 12.5.10 & UHX 13.5.10 is that an opening in an intergral shell or channel would not be permitted within 1.8*SQRT(Ds*ts) of the tubesheet. I think that a support located within this distance would not affect the stiffening effect of the cylinder on the tubesheet where a "large" opening could.

Its' true that the people that prepare the RFQ's don't always allow for some of the Code requirements, they have other fish to fry, like getting the new exchanger to mate with existing piping and foundations.

You could, if in doubt, treat the tubesheet as simply supported and avoid the issue at the cost of a thicker tubesheet.

BTW, I am not a big fan of Part UHX. I miss the old days:)

Regards,

Mike

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