×
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

Nozzle reinforcing questions- Section VIII Div. 1

Nozzle reinforcing questions- Section VIII Div. 1

Nozzle reinforcing questions- Section VIII Div. 1

(OP)
First Question:  Section VIII defines the "limits of reinforcement", but the definitions become somewhat ambiguous when applied to curved plate.  Are the limiting lines assumed to be parallel to each other, or normal to the tank surface?  If normal, are the limits measured from one point, or from varying points depending on the radius?  See the attached sketch to see what I mean.  This won't affect calculated area so much, but does affect whether the reinforcing area extends into the knuckle of a head or not.

Second Question:  Where the shell-to-nozzle connection is not a full-penetration weld, there will be some gap between the nozzle wall and the shell.  Is this gap limited or accounted for in any way?

Thanks!

 

RE: Nozzle reinforcing questions- Section VIII Div. 1

Here is a course outline by Whiteside on openings in PV's that might be of assistance. I don't recall whether its specifically address the area of reinforcement.

http://www.pdhonline.org/courses/m205/m205content.pdf

 

RE: Nozzle reinforcing questions- Section VIII Div. 1

Area of reinforcement is measured "parallel to the vessel wall."

You are not restricted from having a repad extend from the shell to the knuckle or vice versa.

See Interpretation VIII-1-89-83.

jt

RE: Nozzle reinforcing questions- Section VIII Div. 1

(OP)
Well, if you assume "parallel to the vessel wall" means following the curve of the vessel wall, then you could take the extent of reinforcing as an arc measurement.  Only you have several different radii at which the arc could be measured, and with a hill-sided nozzle, several different points from which you could start the measurement- see the second two figures in the sketch.  I assumed there was some sort of accepted procedure here, maybe there isn't.

And of course the motivation in keeping the area out of the knuckle is to use the reduced crown thickness.  

RE: Nozzle reinforcing questions- Section VIII Div. 1

Personally I have always used the arc length measured at mid wall like in your Figure B (not Figure C; Figure A is not according to code as noted above).
I think this one is in accordance to code because:
-d is to be taken at mid surface as specified by UG-37
-as the main limit for reinforcement is based on d it would be inconsistent to measure the limit on a different plane

prex
http://www.xcalcs.com : Online engineering calculations
http://www.megamag.it : Magnetic brakes and launchers for fun rides
http://www.levitans.com : Air bearing pads

RE: Nozzle reinforcing questions- Section VIII Div. 1

(OP)
Thanks, sounds like I'm not totally out of the ballpark.

Where Fig. C came from- there is also a requirement that you have the same amount of reinforcing on each side of the opening.  Originally, I drew the repad so it was centered over the intersection of nozzle and required-thickness, which made it obviously unbalanced.  And I assume the repad would be centered on the neck when installed, anyway.  But also, if all limits are measured from the center of nozzle/ center of required thickness, then the "excess plate thickness" will be unbalanced for a hillsided nozzle.  So it would make sense to me if at each radius, the limit was taken from the nozzle axis, although this is not stated anywhere in the code.

RE: Nozzle reinforcing questions- Section VIII Div. 1

Carefully reread that code sentence. It doesn't tell you that you need the same amount of reinforcement on each side, but only that you need at least half of the required on each side. In other words you cannot compensate metal lacking for compensation at left with some excess metal on the right.
Another way of looking at it is that you should check the compensation on one side only of the opening at the most unfavourable angular position, using of course half of the required compensation.

prex
http://www.xcalcs.com : Online engineering calculations
http://www.megamag.it : Magnetic brakes and launchers for fun rides
http://www.levitans.com : Air bearing pads

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 - PLM and ERP: Their Respective Roles in Modern Manufacturing
Leading manufacturers are aligning their people, processes, and tools from initial product ideation through to field service. They do so by providing access to product and enterprise data in the context of each person’s domain expertise. However, it can be complicated and costly to unite engineering with the factory and supply chain. 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