×
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

ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

(OP)
Hey there,

I am currently analyzing a vessel that uses an unstayed flat head that is bolted down with thirty two 1-1/8-8 bolts. The gasket is a full-face typed elastomer gasket that follows sketch (p) of Fig. UG-34. Generally, Appendix 2 is used to carry out calculations for the bolts and the flange or cover, but in the first line of Appendix 2 it states it can only be used when the gasket material is contained completely within the bolt diameter. Seeing that this vessel utilizes a full-face gasket that has bolt holes machined out it, Appendix 2 can't be used.

I know that I can use equation 1 in UG-34 to calculate the thickness of the flat head, but how should I go about calculating bolt stresses and the required thickness of the flat head because of the compression stress of the bolts? Is there a standard I can reference or do I need to use FEA or some textbook equations?

Thanks,
David

RE: ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

Hi David,

Try this DS/CEN/TR 1591-5. I have not used this myself yet but know such thing exists.

RE: ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

(OP)
mechanical2014, I will try to find a copy of this, thanks for pointing me to it.

Also, is my assumption about not being able to use Appendix 2 correct?

RE: ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

DMay121, full face gaskets are often designed per Taylor Forge Bulletin #45. You are aware this work was done for many years before FEA methods were available, right? Most canned software will do these calculations.

Examination of the relevant UG-34 equation will reveal that the bolting is of no interest in calculating the head required thickness.

You can actually use Appendix 2 methods to establish the required bolting, if taking proper account of gasket geometry, etc.

Regards,

Mike

RE: ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

DMay121, not having luck uploading this bulletin, will try again later.

Regards,

Mike

RE: ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

(OP)
SnTMan,

I am aware that that much of pressure vessel design was completed way before the days of FEA.

I am just curious about the effects of overbolting on the flange and cover thickness. The vessel that I am analyzing is a 20 psi vessel that has 32 bolts on a 33.38" diameter. The spacing is definitely more than adequate, but I am trying to understand the effects of what could happen if someone fully torqued all 32 of the 1 inch bolts. I know in appendix 2 they size the flange based on the pressure load and the gasket load, which takes into account the total force that can be applied by the bolts onto the flange.

Also, thank you for trying to upload that bulletin!

David

RE: ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

DMay121, the difference is that with full-face gaskets, no edge moment due to bolting is considered to act on the flange / head. Refer to UG-34 eqns (1) [Sketch p] and (2) [sketch j] for example. This is why I say the bolting is of no interest to the head thickness.

You will find an old, poor copy of Bullletin #45 attached, maybe you can locate a better one. A discussion and calc form for this is also included in TF Bulletin #502.

Regards,

Mike

RE: ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

(OP)
When you say no edge moment due to bolting, are you referring to the fact that the gasket compression reaction is at the same location of the bolting reaction, i.e. there is no moment acting on the flange?

Does that being true eliminate the need to consider bolting because there is effectively no bending of the cover or flange occurring?

RE: ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

Yes, and yes. Again, compare the UG-34 eqns (1) and (2).

This assumes that the gasket is the same width from bolt circle to OD and bolt circle to ID.

See Bulletin #45 for a more general treatment.

Regards,

Mike

RE: ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

(OP)
Mike,

If the gasket has twice the width inside the bolts than that outside the bolts, then I could definitely see how the equivalent location of gasket reaction would be inside of the bolt holes by a small amount. I found a book that deals with this very topic.

David

RE: ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

SnTMan, the link you provided did not work.

RE: ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

XL83NL, DMay121, apologies, I cannot seem to get this file to upload, after several tries. Never had problems before...

Any suggested alternates to Engineering.com?

Regards,

Mike

RE: ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

Try 4shared, scribd.com or mediafire.

RE: ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

Was a bad file name. Had the pound (#) character in it.

Enjoy,

Mike

RE: ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

(OP)
SnTMan, I have another question for you. In regards to UG-37, area reinforcement calcs, if the required thickness of a head or shell, tr, is less than 1/16", do we use 1/16" for tr? I am trying to understand if UG-16 minimum head/shell thickness requirements govern tr in UG-37 calcs.

Thanks,
David

RE: ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

That one works SnTMan, thanks :)

RE: ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

DMay121, thickness required for pressure (and any other loadings) tr, is exactly that and may be thinner than UG-16 min. thickness, just as thickness of nozzle wall for pressure (and any other loadings), trn, is not subject to either UG-16 or UG-45 mins.

Regards,

Mike

RE: ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

(OP)
SnTMan,

Is the fact that tr can be less than UG-16 minimum (which makes perfect sense, because the reinforcement area required is dependent on the actual loading) stated anywhere in the code book? Or is that just common sense?

I am asking because I am acting as a third party reviewing calcs that were already completed. It would be nice to point to a specific article that justifies the above statement. Generally, using a higher tr increases the Areq, which means the original calculation could be considered "more conservative" because the area available still met that higher Areq.

Thanks again,
David

RE: ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

XL83NL, you're welcome :)

DMay121, I doubt you are going to find it written in the Code. I frankly don't believe I have run into a situation where tr has been so small that UG-16 thickness is a consideration, not that it couldn't happen. As well, re-reading UG-16, it would appear to not apply to nozzles, where trn below UG-16 thickness could be more commom.

Common sense? I dunno. Common practice? I'd say yeah.

Of course, if tr is set at UG-16 thickness and reinforcement makes without adverse economical effects on the design, I suppose the practice is not wrong. I'm thinking of a situation where, say, shell / head thickness is 1/4", tr is 0.050", tr is then set to 0.063" and reinforcement is adequate. No harm in a little extra conservatism.

This is the kind of thing that makes checking / reviewing other's work such a joy. I have myself found it necessary to adopt the philosophy "If it ain't wrong, it's right."

Good luck,

Mike

RE: ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 UG-34

Thank you SnTMan, I've been looking for a copy of TF Bulletin 45 for hours!

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