×
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

Sec. VIII Div. 1 Separator Sump Attachment

Sec. VIII Div. 1 Separator Sump Attachment

Sec. VIII Div. 1 Separator Sump Attachment

(OP)
I’ve been asked to review the design of a 500 psig MAWP separator having a NPS 12 liquid “sump” that is set on (abutted to) the exterior surface of the main, horizontal, 30” diameter shell. Liquids are communicated to the sump through two 2” diameter holes that are drilled through the main shell in the area ‘covered’ by the sump. The sump-to-shell connection is T-joint made by a single, external groove weld (sump material) topped with a fillet weld.

This is a far cry from a traditional sump that is treated / designed essentially as a nozzle, Code wise. I’ve known this fabricator to creatively minimize their costs and this design fits their MO. I have non-Code reasons to reject the design but would like to include Code reasons as well but, with limited research, so far I’m not having much luck. The design is a variation of a nozzle and a communicating chamber, Category D joint all the way but nothing explicit in the Code that I’ve seen.

Comments or suggestions are appreciated.

RE: Sec. VIII Div. 1 Separator Sump Attachment

My opinion: as long as the weld design (full penetration with outside fillet (and inside fillet if possible)), and proper NDE, it is good to go. The shell plate with holes inside the 12" nozzle becomes non-pressure part.
Also, fabricator has to run nozzle reinforcement per code to see if pad is needed.

My question: is the (2)-2" hole big enough for process ? why not drill one big hole ?

RE: Sec. VIII Div. 1 Separator Sump Attachment

(OP)
Why not drill one big hole indeed. Their strategy is to avoid reinforcement by using two small holes that the Code doesn't require to be reinforced. A larger hole would start to resemble a real nozzle and kick in all the requirements thereof.

I haven't found a Code basis for evaluating the strength of that type of joint and it doesn't lend itself to RT. Part of my process will be to ask for their calculations.

I'm not thrilled about the non-venting vapor space that will exist at the top (sides) of the sump.

Thanks for the comments.

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