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


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

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

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

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

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

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


eBook - Rethink Your PLM
A lot has changed since the 90s. You don't surf the Web using dial-up anymore, so why are you still using a legacy PLM solution that's blocking your ability to innovate? To develop and launch products today, you need a flexible, cloud-based PLM, not a solution that's stuck in the past. Download Now
White Paper - Using Virtualization for IVI and AUTOSAR Consolidation on an ECU
Current approaches used to tackle the complexities of a vehicle’s electrical and electronics (E/E) architecture are both cost prohibitive and lacking in performance. Utilizing virtualization in automotive software architecture provides a better approach. This can be achieved by encapsulating different heterogeneous automotive platforms inside virtual machines running on the same hardware. Download Now
White Paper - The Criticality of the E/E Architecture
Modern vehicles are highly sophisticated systems incorporating electrical, electronic, software and mechanical components. Mechanical systems are giving way to advanced software and electronic devices, driving automakers to innovate and differentiate their vehicles via the electric and electronic (E/E) architecture. As the pace of change accelerates, automotive companies need to evolve their development processes to deliver and maximize the value of these architectures. 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