×
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

stamp Vessel without UG-46 (f)
2

stamp Vessel without UG-46 (f)

stamp Vessel without UG-46 (f)

(OP)
We are fabricating a stamp Vessel (ASME Sec VIII Div 1) with dia 1000 mm,  which do not have any Manway only one handhole of 14'' (as per client datasheet).

Since above conditions are not fullfilling UG-46 (f) (3) our inspector is not ready to register under asme,and our client
recommended to use project spec or data sheet first and if not clear then use codes.

Any suggetions are welcomed.

RE: stamp Vessel without UG-46 (f)

You need to talk to your client. They may be able to make one pipe connected to one nozzle removable so you can use UG-46(f)(7) to meet the code requirement.

It is strange for your client to specify a 14" hand hole in lieu of 16" manhole to meet code requirement. I typically see a 8" or 10" handhole.

RE: stamp Vessel without UG-46 (f)

Jasmel,

I think you can bypass mandatory manhole of UG-46(f)(3)when manhole were not impracticeable. Since, in the current case, mandatory manhole was not impracticeable because 14 inch could have been 16 inch easily.
 

Nasir
Welding Engineer
DESCON ENGINEERING LIMITED
PAKISTAN

RE: stamp Vessel without UG-46 (f)

Jasmel,

Sorry there was a little mistake in my above post.

I think you can not bypass mandatory manhole of UG-46(f)(3)when manhole were not impracticeable. Since, in the current case, mandatory manhole was not impracticeable because 14 inch could have been 16 inch easily.

Nasir
Welding Engineer
DESCON ENGINEERING LIMITED
PAKISTAN

RE: stamp Vessel without UG-46 (f)

In this case, if there is a nozzle 16" or bigger, then you can use it to satisfy the code requirement.

RE: stamp Vessel without UG-46 (f)

Jasmal,

I am of the view, since 16 inch manhole was not impracticeable so UG-46(f)(3) could have been complied with easily. You can go to UG-46(f)(7) only when 16 inch manhole was really impracticeable.
Please add further.

Nasir
Welding Engineer
DESCON ENGINEERING LIMITED
PAKISTAN

RE: stamp Vessel without UG-46 (f)

There is nothing wrong to designate a large nozzle as manway as long as it can be removed easily for access. There is no code requirement that a manway has to be totally closed by a blind. Thinking about top manways on reactors. It also serves as inlet nozzle.

RE: stamp Vessel without UG-46 (f)

well, if client says, give it a try and if it does not fly comply with the Code: easy change it to a 12x16 manhole and you're good.

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