ASME VIII - UG-37 "area in excess thickness" vs UG-29 "combined ring cross section&qu
ASME VIII - UG-37 "area in excess thickness" vs UG-29 "combined ring cross section&qu
(OP)
Hy Engineers,
My today's concern is regarding ASME VIII - UG-37 "area in excess thickness" vs UG-29 "combined ring cross section".
Let's consider a vessel working under external pressure.
Stiffeners are installed and partial length of the shell is considered (and combined) with the stiffener to check the inertia required by stiffeners to resist to buckling under external pressure as permitted by UG-29.
In paralell we've a nozzle that is requiring reinforcement and we consider for area calculation the "area in excess thickness available in the shell" as permitted by UG-37.
Problem is that the UG-37 "area in excess thickness" and UG-29 "combined ring cross section" are overlaping meaning that we're considering the same section for two differents stress.
ASME doesn't specify if we can consider UG-37 "area in excess thickness" and UG-29 "combined ring cross section" only under condition that areas are not overlapping...
Shall we check if those areas are overlapping or not, it seems that software (Autopipe Vessels and Sicapwin) don't make this verification...
My today's concern is regarding ASME VIII - UG-37 "area in excess thickness" vs UG-29 "combined ring cross section".
Let's consider a vessel working under external pressure.
Stiffeners are installed and partial length of the shell is considered (and combined) with the stiffener to check the inertia required by stiffeners to resist to buckling under external pressure as permitted by UG-29.
In paralell we've a nozzle that is requiring reinforcement and we consider for area calculation the "area in excess thickness available in the shell" as permitted by UG-37.
Problem is that the UG-37 "area in excess thickness" and UG-29 "combined ring cross section" are overlaping meaning that we're considering the same section for two differents stress.
ASME doesn't specify if we can consider UG-37 "area in excess thickness" and UG-29 "combined ring cross section" only under condition that areas are not overlapping...
Shall we check if those areas are overlapping or not, it seems that software (Autopipe Vessels and Sicapwin) don't make this verification...





RE: ASME VIII - UG-37 "area in excess thickness" vs UG-29 "combined ring cross section&qu
RE: ASME VIII - UG-37 "area in excess thickness" vs UG-29 "combined ring cross section&qu
I'm 100% in line with all points of you mail.
For clarity i'm working on PV only subject to external pressure, thus with a lot of stiffeners. Large nozzles are frequently crossing one or two stiffeners and sometimes they're just fitting between two stiffeners and it's in that configuration that the areas are overlapping.
The reason of my thread is that I sadly realized yesterday that the two softwares I used for PV calculations are not checking this particular point...
RE: ASME VIII - UG-37 "area in excess thickness" vs UG-29 "combined ring cross section&qu
Regards,
Mike
The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
RE: ASME VIII - UG-37 "area in excess thickness" vs UG-29 "combined ring cross section&qu
prex
http://www.xcalcs.com : Online engineering calculations
http://www.megamag.it : Magnetic brakes and launchers for fun rides
http://www.levitans.com : Air bearing pads