×
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 VIII-1 Para. UHX-10(c)

ASME VIII-1 Para. UHX-10(c)

ASME VIII-1 Para. UHX-10(c)

(OP)
I'm working on a heat exchanger design in accordance with ASME VIII-1, and have been posed an interesting question by a reviewer. First off, I have attached a screenshot of our tube layout. This layout was specified by our customer, we did not come up with it...


The reviewer is asking us to address the untubed area at the top of the bundle in our calculations. I believe this is being asked to address paragraph UHX-10(c), which states:
(c) The tubesheet shall be uniformly perforated over a nominally circular area, in either equilateral triangular or square patterns. However, untubed lanes for pass partitions are permitted.

My first question would be, what is a "nominally circular area"?

I have seen many NTIW single segmental heat exchanger designs that include large untubed areas on both the top and bottom windows, where this question has never been asked. Where would you draw the line on these designs to say that it is no longer a "nominally circular area"? Untubed over 1/8th of the tubesheet diameter? 1/4 of the tubesheet diameter?

Has anyone else had to address such a question before, and how would you go about justifying the design?

-Marty

RE: ASME VIII-1 Para. UHX-10(c)

marty007, wow, bad luck on your reviewer. Even before Part UHX was effective, TEMA rules had limited applicability for "large untubed areas".

These designs are very common and to my knowledge, this particular question as never been addressed, even in the most casual manner. So you either use an accepted method or, I guess, FEA.

To the reviewer, I guess I would try to defend use of Part UHX under U-2(g). And hope fo the best...

Regards,

Mike

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

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