How authentic is 1-10 in lieu of UG-37? 3

[Minamtungekar]

Now i have read the related post but it's still unclear to me. My question is simple..
Can I use 1-10 independently in place of UG-37? The reason for me asking this is..
When I read UG-36, it says that when a certain opening diameter limit is exceeded, then you go for the rules of 1-7 in addition to UG-37.
Alternatively you can use 1-10.

 

[prex]

Yes, you can, the code says that clearly. You can even use 1-10 for openings not exceeding those limits.

prex
[URL unfurl="true"]http://www.xcalcs.com[/url] : Online engineering calculations
[URL unfurl="true"]http://www.megamag.it[/url] : Magnetic brakes and launchers for fun rides
[URL unfurl="true"]http://www.levitans.com[/url] : Air bearing pads

 

[Minamtungekar]

After studying some on this topic I found that when UG-37 is selected in pv elite as the design basis, the required area formula is as per UG-37(c) - area required under internal pressure, and when 1-10 is selected as the design basis then UG-37(d) formula is selected in the calculations, ie; area required under external pressure which is half of the above formula for internal pressure. Why is this formula taken when pressure inside is higher?

EDIT: After some more digging I found out that 1-10 rule does its own area availability calculations and checks for the pressure sufficiency at that area ( I still need to confirm the pressure sufficiency part myself), so there is no such provision in 1-10 rule to calculate the area required unlike UG-37. So when you click on 1-10 as your design rule instead of UG-37 in PV ELite,it takes the formula of UG-37(d) that is for the external calculations, and for internal calculations it calculates the area availableand checks that area for the internal pressure sufficiency.
The reason i think UG-37(d) for external pressure is taken when you choose 1-10 as your design option in the software is that 1-10 does not address external pressure calculations.
I hope am right on this one. Please correct me if i am wrong. I guess they could have used appendix 1-8 for the external calcs in place of UG-37(d) in pv elite.

 

[marty007]

Yup, I think you have it right.

One thing to be careful of is jurisdiction and customer requirements. I know that Alberta for example has special considerations for Appendix 1-9 and 1-10 designs. If used, the vessel falls into a special category of registration. Customer specs also sometimes limit the use of these appendices. Just make sure you look at all of the codes/specs.

 

[SnTMan]

Minamtungekar, I think UG-37(d) are the only rules for external pressure reinforcement. Apx 1-8 is for reinforcing of cone / cylinder junctions under external pressure. Does not apply to openings in the cone itself.

Regards,

Mike

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

 

[pdiculous963]

I would recommend using Code Case 2695 in lieu of Appendix 1-10, which allows for Div. 2 rules on a Div. 1 vessel. The rules in Appendix 1-10 are antiquated and will be removed from the Code soon. The Div. 2 rules are updated pressure area rules which are an improvement compared to the rules in Appendix 1-10.

 

[Minamtungekar]

Thank you so much for the input guys.. Pdiculous... Is there an option to use code case 2695 in pv elite?

 

[Minamtungekar]

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=418063

Also please try and reply to the above post

 

[pdiculous963]

Yes, there is an option to use CC2695. I personally haven't used the software for years, but this Link has some information. But remember to follow marty007's advice that some jurisdictions or customers may have supplemental requirements if these rules are used.