Contact US

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!

*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

NTIW tubesheet calculation

NTIW tubesheet calculation

NTIW tubesheet calculation

I'm trying to apply for ABSA CRN approval some HX I manufacture.
Such units have NTIW tubesheets and are excluded by the scope of UHX per UHX-10.
I calculated those tubesheets according to TEMA R, feeling confident that this could be the soultion, but the Revisor rejected the calculation since NTIW models are excluded from TEMA too.
TEMA RCB-7.3 (1) mention such configuration, but obviously desn't give any solutions, leaving all the issue in the hand of the inspector.
Now the ABSA revisor "suggested" to calculate the tubesheets with the following approach
1. calculate the perforated area with TEMA R considering the radius passing throught the outmost tube
2. calculate the unperforated areas with UG-34, considering the tubesheet as an un-stayed flat end.

I consider such approach not only overly conservative, but especially for the point 2 something not applicable.

UG-34 considers the pressure only by one side. So which pressure should I consider in my calculation? The shellside or tubeside one?
Furthermore which sketches do I use? The one welded to the shell or the other one with the flanged extension bolted?
If I consider the flanged one I would calculate an unstayed plate retained only by the bolts. That's not corrected since it  doesn't consider the other side welded. In such way I would calculate some kind of "floating" end.

So now I need to find a good solution in compliance with U-2(g) and I would like to avoid the FEA calculation for now.

Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance


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


Low-Volume Rapid Injection Molding With 3D Printed Molds
Learn methods and guidelines for using stereolithography (SLA) 3D printed molds in the injection molding process to lower costs and lead time. Discover how this hybrid manufacturing process enables on-demand mold fabrication to quickly produce small batches of thermoplastic parts. Download Now
Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM)
Examine how the principles of DfAM upend many of the long-standing rules around manufacturability - allowing engineers and designers to place a part’s function at the center of their design considerations. Download Now
Taking Control of Engineering Documents
This ebook covers tips for creating and managing workflows, security best practices and protection of intellectual property, Cloud vs. on-premise software solutions, CAD file management, compliance, and more. 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