is Appendix 1-10 independent from UG-37?
is Appendix 1-10 independent from UG-37?
(OP)
I am playing with the inputs in PVELITE and I can't get a result where UG-37 fails while Appendix 1-10 passes (shows local primary stress less than Allowable membrane stress). It seems that if UG-37 area requirements passes it follows that App 1-10 is also passing.
Can I use Appendix 1-10 without considering area requirements as per UG-37?
Can I use Appendix 1-10 without considering area requirements as per UG-37?





RE: is Appendix 1-10 independent from UG-37?
1-10 is an alternative calculation way for "large openings". It is normal to get different results. App 1-10 is less conservative than UG-37, but has some limitations. So read the code...
RE: is Appendix 1-10 independent from UG-37?
RE: is Appendix 1-10 independent from UG-37?
Anyway, I based this on what UG-36 says, that for large openings App 1-7 shall be satisfied "in addition" to the rules of the paragraph...and App 1-10 can be used in lieu of App 1-7. note that i put emphasis on "in addition."
Furthermore when I run PVElite - Codecalc for large openings it would run UG-37 area calculations and 1-10 or 1-7 (depending on my choice).
I checked codeware's website and i got a different view. They say App 1-10 can be used independently. While App 1-7 must be used together with UG-37.
Did you use App 1-10 independently before for one of your vessels?
RE: is Appendix 1-10 independent from UG-37?
I agree the wording is confusing right now, and I have seen a code interpretation to clarify the issue yet. I trust Compress's approach because Mr. Bildy of Codeware developed the methods in Appendix 1-10. Of course you can always take a conservative approach and require UG-37 + Appendix 1-10.
RE: is Appendix 1-10 independent from UG-37?
RE: is Appendix 1-10 independent from UG-37?
RE: is Appendix 1-10 independent from UG-37?
This thread discusses the status of the situation:
www
RE: is Appendix 1-10 independent from UG-37?