MAWP Limiting Component
MAWP Limiting Component
(OP)
When the customer requires MAWP calculations. Is there an industry standard that dictates which component (heads, shells, nozzles) is allowed to be limit the MAWP for ASME code pressure vessels?
thanks
thanks





RE: MAWP Limiting Component
The typical spec would say something to the effect of minor components shall not limit MAWP. "Minor" is generally considered to be nozzle necks, opening reinforcement, sometimes flange rating. Body flanges are often considered "major".
jt
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
I cannot see the difference in limiting between a minor or major component because in the end you are still maximizing a design.
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
I have seen flange temp/pressure ratings limit vessels
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
It comes many times that customers want to see if they can increase MAWP's of existing products then the engineers have to look at EVERY single pressure part calculation to see if there is still room. Even if found possible to increase MAWP and proceed to do it, it is then called 'alteration' and the pressure part has to be re-calculated and re-certified, inspected, stamped, registered, etc. the whole nine yards with no exceptions.
If only talking about limiting components on the material cost side, I would say normally they are the large items and the ones which consume largest quantities of materials. For example, steam drums and vessels (weakest parts are shell thicknesses), furnace tubes (weakest are thicknesses at bends), piping and components (limited by pressure ratings), etc. The design engineers are very 'frugal' in the calculations and selections because of the highest cost contributions. For example, nowadays, the shell thickness of a steam drum typically allows only 0.02 inch of corrosion otherwise it will not satisfy MAWP. For a furnace tube the number is 0.04 or 0.08 depending on conditions. Smaller items such as nozzles, fittings, etc., like Vesselfab says, one can normally find extra strengths on them and they are not the limiting components. No matter how, like said, every thing needs to be checked for sure.
Boilerone
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
This is why I believe that it is acceptable to have a nozzle as a limiting component for an any MAWP design. After all as stated above, most systems have a safety device like a pressure relief valves and if the system is lacking a one then it probably does not make a difference if your head or your nozzle is the limiting component because over pressurization is going to be an issue.
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
The intent is that heads, shells and transitions are the most costly part of the vessel and once these have been selected the customer wants to maximize the rating they can get from them and will uprate the minor components as necessary to take advantage of this potential for increased rating.
There is nothing in code that requires this practice and unless it is specified in the Customers specifications, there is nothing to say that a fabricator has to do this. Consequently, I have also seen many vessels where very minor nozzles have limited the MAWP.
Some end users do prefer to allow the "minor" components to limit the rated MAWP and then to use the extra thickness on heads, shells and transitions as additional corrosion allowance on those components. My only concern with this is that if you need additional corrosion allowance on the heads, shells and transitions, don't you also need it on the minor components?
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
The users will get higher MAWP rating by specifying this requirement. Otherwise, fabricator will use design pressure as the basis to design nozzles and use the extra thickness in shell and heads for area reinforcement.
I disagree that nozzle flange rating cannot limit MAWP. Fabricator does not pick flange rating. The users or their engineering contractors select the flange rating. It does not make sense to change flange rating of all pipes connected to the vessel just because the fabricator used extra thick plates on vessels.
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
generally speaking, if the client is asking for MAWP, he will have in his specifications that the mawp whall not be limited by nozzle reinforcement.
if that is not in his specifications, leave your calcs like they are. if it is in there, you must adjust your calcs.
If you are using commercial software, there is normally a switch for this.
If you are designing by hand, find mawp of major stuff first, the design the nozzles.
NOW, if you are intent on keeping the nozzles the same, you can reduce the thickness of the top head or bottom head to a decimal equivalent to reduce the mawp. that is if you need .7837 for design thickness and you select .8125" min with a 7/8" nominal, you can call out a smaller decimal required thickness of head with the same size nominal to make your nozzle reinforcing design work out. May have to change top nozzle calcs, but somethings got to change.
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
I find it interesting that it appears that there is a distinct difference in perspectives here - I get the impression that most of the folks arguing for no limiting component restrictions are fabricators and that they speak as though they know what's best for the user.
Folks - why don't you identify your role in the game? Preferrably by going to the "my stuff" tab and choosing "my profile" and filling in the little box titled "tell other members about yourself." You can see mine by clicking on the "jte" at the top of this post. The second paragraph lets you know my background. Its only fair in these discussions to clearly identify what side of the fence your personal income is coming from. Let's not pretend that has no influence on your perspective!
jt
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
But I said minor components normally do not limit mawp
funny how that works isn't it?
but i did not see anyone really saying a minor component should/could limit MAWP....other than the original poster.
truthseaker...the reason behind this is to let the major parts limit the vessel because of changes in service later. the vessel limits itself. if the vessels is good for 200 psig and a nozzle is only good for 150 psig (the design pressure), the the vessel has a hard time time upgrading with out NBIC repairs to nozzles.
If the fabricator spends a few bucks for a pad based upon the 200 psig for shell, then the vessel can be upgraded to 200 psig later with no NBIC repairs/alterations.
We do all our vessels this way, by the way. whether required or not...just good practice
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
I was thinking more along the lines of:
Design Pressure: 346 psig
Calculated MAWP (to be stamped on nameplate): 498 psig
Limiting Component: Nozzle
I understand that sometimes units require re-rating as time goes on. But re-rating involves many other issues such as thickness readings of all components which I will not go into at this time. My question is: will the customer really being given an inferior product with the above design if I limited the MAWP to a nozzle? Don't want to give people the impression that the nozzle has to always be designed to the design pressure.
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
1) Safety (if the relief valve fails, a "major" component such as a shell/head will blow apart before a nozzle shoots off).
2) Cost-effective maximization of MAWP (don't let inexpensive items such as nozzle reinforcement limit the MAWP).
I don't think adding this requirement accomplishes either objective, because 1) a component's calculated MAWP per Code tells you little about what pressure it will actually fail at, and 2) fabricators deliberately make major components such as heads thinner in order to make it the "limiting" component.
If you want a vessel to be able to withstand a higher pressure, specify a higher design pressure on the data sheet. It's that simple.
-Christine
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
But the question is, does removing that extra thickness and adding repads instead provide any benefit to the owner?
The assumption is being made that major components will remain the same thickness reqardless of how openings are designed. That may or may not be the case, depending on the circumstances.
If you want that extra thickness AND want to be able to re-rate to a higher pressure, specifying a higher design pressure will accomplish that. Specifying that minor components not limit the MAWP may or may not accomplish that- it just depends on who designs it and how.
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
AS A FABRICATOR: it is our requirement to furnish a vessel that meets the design parameters, specifications, purchase order, and ASME code.
If we specify a lower minimum thickness on a part that is formed and will have thining, we can do so as long as our minimum thickness meets the design calculations and the head manufacturer certifies that the head meets the specifified minimum thickness.
do you somehow feel like this is a bad practice?
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
However, I'd bet that if more owner/users were aware of this practice, they would drop their "limiting component" requirements in a hurry.
-Christine
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
Yes... having more additional nozzle reinforcement benefits me as an owner/user. I generally don't get "increase the MAWP" type requests. Most of the time I get "We have a thin spot! Now what?" issues. More added opening reinforcement tends to help me with thin shells near openings. On the other hand, I don't agree with the 100% reinforcement crowd who won't allow any credit for excess thickness in the shell. I think that's taking things too far.
jt
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
Option A, use 0.75" thick shell plate with MAWP limited to 300 psi by a nozzle.
Option B, use 0.625" thick shell plate with MAWP limited to 300 psi by the shell plate.
Now, if I'm understanding correctly, Option B would actually be preferred, even if Option A was cheaper to buy?
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
extra thickness/weight = extra cost
you buy steel by the pound
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
For an exact example. It was a boiler steam drum: one supplier gave roughly 3" shell with almost all reinforced nozzles (forged material with thicker walls than the pipes they connect to), the other showed 4" shell with no almost reinforced nozzle at all. The prices offered by both vendors turned out to be very comparable so it was hard decision by us (technically we always like thinner shells for boiler drums because of thermal stress concern, by the way). The first vendor might has limited capabilities of its roller so was forced to spend money on nozzles. The second one might has large investments on its roller and even furnace so can save money on nozzles.
In all, it is just about the strength and compensation calcs if ever did once. When you look at cal sheets by both vendors, the first one has almost no extra thickness on the shell so had to use thick nozzles to compensate the lost of strength at nozzle openings so is limited on MAWP by the shell, the 2nd one has enough meat to allow for sizable openings without much need of compensation from the nozzles so the nozzles just needed to as thin as possible to just take care of themselves under MAWP but thus nozzles became the limiting components.
If either or both vendors are very frugal on exact thicknesses of both shells and nozzles (might never happen) then EVERY THING might become a limiting component. That's why I said the same in my earliest reply.
If the aboves are clear and now I say I jump to the customer's side of the fence, I would prefer the thicker shell option for possible future MAWP increase because you can add re-pads to the nozzles but you can hardly do any thing to the shells.
Boilerone
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
So, although I tend to agree with vesselfab, I can appreciate boilerone's argument as well. In general, I strongly prefer integral reinforcement over re-pads, so that is a strong argument if I'm making the decision. I generally don't get involved at that level, though, with the exception of multimillion dollar orders.
So... I'd encourage all you fabricators out there to put your money where your mouth is! Start providing our project folks with dual quotes: One which meets the RFQ and is fully compliant with the spec, along with an alternative in which some minor component is allowed to govern MAWP. Show me the savings!
For what its worth, I've recently written the MAWP requirement out of some spec's that I'm working on. Introducing a new four letter acronym instead. We'll see how that goes with the second/third level internal review. Hopefully it'll get published with my changes!
jt
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
Nuff said.
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
I'm a designer & fabricator of highly specified customer vessels & heat exchangers. We deal with a lot of customer specifications. I pretty much take the approach of "If it's in there, I will meet it. If it's not, ...."
For a fabricator, part of the engineer's job is to design a good quality vessel that meets all of the requirements of ASME Code and the customer specifications. Another part of their job is to design the most cost effective design that he/she can in order to ease shop load & maximize profits. A good engineer does both to the best of their abilities.
RE: MAWP Limiting Component
I want vessels stamped with their actual MAWP, not just the design pressure I asked for. I want the designer to calculate and indicate to me what component limits the MAWP of their design. Other than that, I actually WANT them to do the leg-work to find out the most cost-effective way to achieve my design pressure within the limits of the code. That's their job.
If the limited component is a nozzle neck in the corroded condition, we'll probably change that!