×
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

2" LWN in lieu of 2" CPLG for Sec8 UG-46(f)

2" LWN in lieu of 2" CPLG for Sec8 UG-46(f)

2" LWN in lieu of 2" CPLG for Sec8 UG-46(f)

(OP)
Do two 2" LWNs satisfy the Sec 8 Div 1 inspection opening requirement on a 36" ID vessel?

My vessel falls under UG-46(f)(2):
"All vessels 18 in. (450 mm) to 36 in. (900 mm), inclusive, I.D. shall have a manhole or at least two handholes or two plugged, threaded inspection openings of not less than NPS 2 (DN 50)."

I read this as, vessel shall have one of these three:
1) manhole
2) two handholes
3) threaded inspection NPS 2

Others read it as shall
1) have an opening not less than NPS2
2) it can be a manhole, two handholes, or a threaded inspection opening

Under my interpretation, a pair of 2" LWNs with a 2" finished opening would not qualify as a threaded inspection opening of NPS2. It would also not meet UG-46(g)'s definition of a handhole (2" x 3" minimum opening).

Under others' interpretation, it is NPS 2 or larger and it is reserved as an inspection opening.

Others' argument makes sense to me, the opening on the 2" LWN (2.0in) is larger than that of a 2" 6000# coupling (1.7in), but I just cannot get my brain to read the code the way they are reading it.

RE: 2" LWN in lieu of 2" CPLG for Sec8 UG-46(f)

I've never gotten a 100% clear interpretation from people on this one either.

One difference I see between a 2" coupling and a 2" LWN is the radial offset from the vessel, and in turn the amount of the inside surface of the vessel that will be visible. The 2" coupling puts you much closer to the vessel, giving you a steeper viewing angle down the longitudinal axis of the vessel.

I'm also very curious to hear the perspective of other forum memebers.

RE: 2" LWN in lieu of 2" CPLG for Sec8 UG-46(f)

ConstanrE. You are comparing a 6k coupling with a LWN. Its the ID what counts and the I'd of the LWN is less than the threaded 2 in. I guess if you use a larger, say 2.5 or larger ID LWN may be acceptable to the AI. Check the ID if it is 2.375 in. Also keep the face as short as possible to the vessel. This is a complicated issue,the shall is a must have 2 openings per Code...

RE: 2" LWN in lieu of 2" CPLG for Sec8 UG-46(f)

(OP)
GenB,

I did mess up the ID of the 2" coupling. I looked at the bore of a socketweld coupling and assumed it was the same for a threaded coupling. Thank you for catching that.

So that lends more validity to my stance that a 2" LWN would not equate to a 2" coupling.

Good enough for me, unless someone else can reply "yeah, we always use 2" LWN handholes and our AI loves them!"

RE: 2" LWN in lieu of 2" CPLG for Sec8 UG-46(f)

Why not 3"NPS pad flanges, so you can actually see some of the interior? LWN is like looking down a gunbarrel, and a 2"NPS cplg [the intent of Sect-VIII], is not much better.

Will admit to some prejudice; I inspect them and fix them, but have only built a few. And a cplg is cheaper and easier to install. But it is close to useless to evaluate the interior.

RE: 2" LWN in lieu of 2" CPLG for Sec8 UG-46(f)

Does it really make any difference the 2" or 3" opening in a vessel? There is black pitch dark in a 4" opening, let alone the smaller ones. You can't see anything inside anyway. If you need to use a borescope, then why would you spend money on fancy large openings, when you can do with the cheapest and the smaller one on market, provided the nozzle thickness conforms the code. Use the most cost effective nozzle and if the LWN is cheaper but you need to cut it a bit shorter then do it. BTW, is it really a 2" NB handhole?! Must be very, very small hand...but once inside the nozzle, how would you look inside, past the hand? Perhaps a manhole could be practical if you need extensive inspection and NDE tests inside the vessel, but otherwise, small holes for borescope.
Cheers,
gr2vessels

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