×
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

Fun with UG-36(c)(3)(a) Exemptions

Fun with UG-36(c)(3)(a) Exemptions

Fun with UG-36(c)(3)(a) Exemptions

(OP)
Here is an interesting trick I have seen in the past and that has come up twice this week.

"Small" openings may be exempt from reinforcing area requirements based on rules of UG-36(c)(3)(a). But UG-36(c)(3)(d) limits the number of exempted nozzles that may exist in a cluster of nozzles.

COMPRESS automatically exempts nozzles from reinforcing area based on these rules. Some users ask why one nozzle isn't exempt when it would seem to be exempt based on its size. The COMPRESS nozzle report contains descriptive text that the subject nozzle is "too close" to the other nozzles per UG-36(c)(3)(d).

It gets interesting when the "unexempt" nozzle does not have sufficient reinforcing area. Rather than add a reinforcing pad or increase the neck thickness, etc, it may be possible to apply the UG-36(c)(3)(a) exemption to the "problem" nozzle and force another nozzle to meet the area replacement requirements...hopefully that nozzle will meet the area requirements as it is currently constructed, so that no additional work is necessary.

COMPRESS provides an option on the nozzle dialog to specify that the the UG-36(c)(3)(a) exemption should not be applied to the current nozzle: click the Areas button on the nozzle dialog [Edit: this is now the Calculation Options button] and click the option No UG-36(c)(3)(a) Exemption. When calculations are run again this nozzle will not receive the exemption, which allows another of the adjacent small nozzles in the cluster to receive exemption. If we're lucky, that nozzle will be exempt without any further ado. I have seen this a few times!

Tom Barsh
Codeware Technical Support

RE: Fun with UG-36(c)(3)(a) Exemptions

(OP)
Special Reminder!!  There is a break point at 3/8" shell thickness between the size of "exempt" openings being either 2 3/8" or 3 1/2".  ie: 2 3/8" in 3/8" or less thickness, or 3 1/2" in greater thicknesses.

In years past, the Code was not clear on whether the 3/8" referred to nominal thickness or to required thickness. COMPRESS took the conservative approach and used the nominal thickness.

But with a recent Edition, the Code now explicitly refers to the exemption being based on "required minimum thickness". Thus the break point at 3/8" is based on required thickness, not nominal thickness.

COMPRESS now exempts nozzles more readily as a result.

(If my memory serves me well, this change took place in the 2004 Edition)

Tom Barsh
Codeware Technical Support

RE: Fun with UG-36(c)(3)(a) Exemptions

TomBarsh,
I've seen several of their courses and they look pretty good. I've never taken any but the people I know who have were quite satisfied.

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! Already a Member? Login


Resources

White Paper – Data Security and Know-How Protection
Our data is constantly exposed to the danger of being intercepted or stolen as it wends its way over global data networks. Data security measures and measures for protecting intellectual property should not, however, first be implemented when data is exchanged – companies must lay the foundation for these measures within their own organization. Download Now
White Paper – Collaboration in the PLM Context
The influence exerted by the Internet of Things (IoT) means that there is a steadily growing need for collaboration in industry. Partners from new industries and areas of application need to be integrated in cross-company business processes to ensure that the lifecycle of smart, connected products can be managed from end to end. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close