ASME.BPVC.VIII.1 fig UG-37.1 F correction factor.
ASME.BPVC.VIII.1 fig UG-37.1 F correction factor.
(OP)
Hello,
in an opening reinforcement calculation, according to ASME.BPVC.VIII.1 fig UG-37.1, for a circular opening in a cylindrical shell, without reinforcing element added, when checking the 90° theta to longitudinal axis location,
is it enough to modify the correction factor F (value become 0,5) in A "Area required" and A1 "Area available" formulas before comparing the A1+A2+A41 to A?
best regards,
Cyril
in an opening reinforcement calculation, according to ASME.BPVC.VIII.1 fig UG-37.1, for a circular opening in a cylindrical shell, without reinforcing element added, when checking the 90° theta to longitudinal axis location,
is it enough to modify the correction factor F (value become 0,5) in A "Area required" and A1 "Area available" formulas before comparing the A1+A2+A41 to A?
best regards,
Cyril





RE: ASME.BPVC.VIII.1 fig UG-37.1 F correction factor.
Regards,
Mike
The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
RE: ASME.BPVC.VIII.1 fig UG-37.1 F correction factor.
RE: ASME.BPVC.VIII.1 fig UG-37.1 F correction factor.
Does it imply that, for checking at 90° theta to longitudinal axis location instead of 0°, only F must be modified, and all other data can be left unchanged?
Since at the bottom of Fug. UG-37.1 there is the NOTE (2) "This formula is applicable for a rectangular cross-sectional element that falls within the limits of reinforcement.", I'm not sure whether changing only F is correct, because the sections at 90° for the vessel are not "rectangular" when looked at like on the illustration below.
example when only changing the value of F (in the following calcs. A41 is the same in both locations):
- at theta = 0°, A = 144,4 cm²; Area = 147 cm² > reinforcement OK (98% of needed area A)
- at theta = 90°, A = 72,2 cm²; Area = 198 cm² > reinforcement OK (36% of needed area A)
(I extracted calculations results from COMPRESS and changed only the value of F from 1 to 0,5.)Illustration of the locations:
best regards,
Cyril
RE: ASME.BPVC.VIII.1 fig UG-37.1 F correction factor.
Note 2 is referring to the rectangular cross-section of the repad....see A5 calc.
RE: ASME.BPVC.VIII.1 fig UG-37.1 F correction factor.
So, to answer your question, yes, I believe only the F factor needs be changed.
Regards,
Mike
The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
RE: ASME.BPVC.VIII.1 fig UG-37.1 F correction factor.
david339933, thank you, this is right. I thought this note applied to the whole content of the Figure UG-37.1.
SnTMan, I will check the Appendix L in previous versions of the Code (2010; 2011a) or PTB-4.
best regards,
Cyril
RE: ASME.BPVC.VIII.1 fig UG-37.1 F correction factor.
I went through example L-7.7 (hill side) nozzle, and I checked my model in COMPRESS with an added Offset of 1 mm CL to CL, so that the reinforcement check is first done in the plane perpendicular to the vessel axis and also in the plane parallel to the longitudinal axis.
In the plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the A41 can be zeroed.
So we would only resquest that "tc" of Figure UW-16.1 (a) is present at the location perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
Thank you for you help.
best regards,
RE: ASME.BPVC.VIII.1 fig UG-37.1 F correction factor.
RE: ASME.BPVC.VIII.1 fig UG-37.1 F correction factor.
Good luck with that :)
The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand