×
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

ABSA CRN Approval using Compress's FEA module

ABSA CRN Approval using Compress's FEA module

ABSA CRN Approval using Compress's FEA module

(OP)
Anyone having trouble submitting Compress's FEA analysis for nozzle loads to Alberta for a CRN? We had a FEA analysis of a offset nozzle rejected using Compress's FEA option. Alberta then set us a specification "AB-520 document, Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Requirements" to follow that was really ridiculus.  

RE: ABSA CRN Approval using Compress's FEA module

Explain why you think that AB-520 is "ridiculous"?

RE: ABSA CRN Approval using Compress's FEA module

Well I have two questions concerning AB-520.

1. The statement "The turn angle of each element used on inside fillet radii must be indicated"
What does this statement mean?

2. The statement "This section of the report must include a proposed method to verify that the model results reflect the real response of the physical pressure equipmnt"
How could you verify this statement other than to say the deflection and stresses look resonable?
 

RE: ABSA CRN Approval using Compress's FEA module

Bobfromoh - Here's my take on that.

1.  What is the total angle of your inside fillet radius?  Take 90° as an example.  How many elements do you have around that fillet radius?  Take, for example, 6.  Therefore, the turn angle of each element is 15°.

2.  Define "look reasonable".  If you have checked the far-field hoop stress, and it exactly matches the PR/t stress, and the far-field longitudinal stress exactly matches PR/2t, then you're probably pretty close to achieving this requirement.  You can also discuss deflection (or strain) measurements that could be made in-service that would validate your FE model.

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