Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Member Login

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now!
  • 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!

Join Eng-Tips
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

LINK TO THIS FORUM!

Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical Forum.
Just copy and paste the
code below into your site.

Partner With Us!

"Best Of Breed" Forums Add Stickiness To Your Site
Partner Button
(Download This Button Today!)

Feedback

"...What a great service! This is the best site I've ever seen!!! It totally restores my faith in humanity when people take time out to help other people..."

Geography

Where in the world do Eng-Tips members come from?
ReddeV (Mechanical)
17 Apr 12 12:35
I'm trying to apply for ABSA CRN approval some HX I manufacture.
Such units have NTIW tubesheets and are excluded by the scope of UHX per UHX-10.
I calculated those tubesheets according to TEMA R, feeling confident that this could be the soultion, but the Revisor rejected the calculation since NTIW models are excluded from TEMA too.
TEMA RCB-7.3 (1) mention such configuration, but obviously desn't give any solutions, leaving all the issue in the hand of the inspector.
Now the ABSA revisor "suggested" to calculate the tubesheets with the following approach
1. calculate the perforated area with TEMA R considering the radius passing throught the outmost tube
2. calculate the unperforated areas with UG-34, considering the tubesheet as an un-stayed flat end.

I consider such approach not only overly conservative, but especially for the point 2 something not applicable.

UG-34 considers the pressure only by one side. So which pressure should I consider in my calculation? The shellside or tubeside one?
Furthermore which sketches do I use? The one welded to the shell or the other one with the flanged extension bolted?
If I consider the flanged one I would calculate an unstayed plate retained only by the bolts. That's not corrected since it  doesn't consider the other side welded. In such way I would calculate some kind of "floating" end.

So now I need to find a good solution in compliance with U-2(g) and I would like to avoid the FEA calculation for now.

Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance

ReddeV

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!

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close