I believe ASME Section VIII Division 1 clause UG-21 makes it clear that the specified design pressure must be greater than any possible operating condition.
I would not be using individual reinforcing plates on each nozzle. I would use a thickened insert (try 2 times tshell) or perhaps a full thickened ring though I'm not sure where the large nozzle on the far side is.
I have never used PV Elite so I don't know how to specify an insert like this...
For a loose-type flange g0 is the"thickness of hub at small end" as defined in clause 2-3, so neither of the dimensions in your sketch. See Figure 2-4 Detail (1) or (2).
The neck thickness is only considered for optional or integral flanges.
Not sure I understand the "ridged cylinder". Sketch?
If there's just an upper fillet isn't that a pinned rather than moment connection?
Is the pressure high enough to fall within ASME Section VIII Division 1 and thus you should follow the details and rules in UG-34?
If you are a student why aren't you posting your question in the student forum? : https://www.eng-tips.com/forums/student-engineer-general-discussion.1630/
While API 650 says you should not do this, it also provides rules for where there is no other feasible option.
This forum is about storage tanks, like those covered by API 650 or AWWA D100.
You seem to have pressure vessel question which would be better asked in either https://www.eng-tips.com/forums/boiler-and-pressure-vessel-engineering.794/ or...
There are times when I wish the Code Committee would explain their response, not just yes or no.
I have re-read the Code and I can't see where the Committee is finding this requirement. It seems to me that they've added a requirement that isn't actually in the Code.
Nonetheless, UG-34 is...
UG-39(a) addresses opening in flat heads. This does reference the rules in UG-36(c)(3) for opening size and spacing limits.
If you meet these size and spacing limits then the blind flange does not need to be reinforced for these openings.
ASME Section VIII clause UG-42 addresses closely spaced openings.
We always join the two circles with tangential lines rather than the "bar bell" shape you've shown.
There are not separate efficiencies for longitudinal and circumferential. This seems to be an invention of Mr. Schueler's which does not exist in the Code. This is the primary reason I advised ignoring this posting.
There are separate formulas for longitudinal [clause UG-27(c)(1)] and...
NO. I said I've never heard of "equivalent longitudinal efficiency". Thus I have no opinion on how, or even why, anyone would calculate it.
My only advice would be to follow the Code rather than a 20 year old Q&A posting. If the Code is not clear to you I'd suggest asking your supervisor how...
I've been designing pressure vessels for 30+ years and have seen the name Robert Schueler many times, so I know he's very knowledgeable, but I can't make much sense of his answer. I've never heard of "equivalent longitudinal efficiency'. Thus I only tried to give information I know, and...
