Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in
  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Impact Testing Exemption for SA 266 Gr. 2 Tubesheet

Status
Not open for further replies.
ashaykadam

ashaykadam

Mechanical
Jun 17, 2012
34
We are designing one S&T heat exchanger with Carbon Steel MOC.
The Design MDMT for shell side is -29 degree C.

Tubesheet MOC is SA 266 Gr. 2 & its thickness is 67mm.

We can not take Impact Testing exemption as per UG-20(f) as specified in the project documents.
When we designed the heat exchanger in COMPRESS we found that it is not considering reduction in rated MDMT for Tubesheet as per Fig. UCS-66.1.

However, the same is being considered for body flanges with same MOC SA 266 Gr. 2.

I shall be thankful if you kindly inform why COMPRESS is not considering reduction in rated MDMT for Tubesheet as per Fig. UCS-66.1?
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
Please let me know the type of HE and size. I will cross check in PV ELITE
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have checked and found that curve selected for this material is B. If you provide a normalized material and produce it to fine grain practice, the curve will become C and new MDMT is -31 deg C which is below the requirement

Cheers
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Noted & thanks for your reply.

Our Tubesheet MOC is not normalized & falling under Curve B.

However, my query was why COMPRESS is not considering reduction in rated MDMT for Tubesheet as per Fig. UCS-66.1.

Because if it considers this exemption, there will not be any requirement of normalizing & fine rain practice.

That is because minimum required thickness of tubesheet is very less as compared to provided thickness.

Here, we need to provide higher thickness for tubesheet so as to accommodate collar bolt arrangement as per API 660.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Your flange is exempted by UCS-66(b)(1)(b) considering coincident ratio.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks brkmech1234!

Noted that in our case flange is exempted.

However, My query was regarding Tubesheet.

I wish to know why COMPRESS is not considering reduction in rated MDMT for Tubesheet as per Fig. UCS-66.1.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I guess the following is the reason. The calculations flange is very easy compared to tube sheet and software easily back calculate the required thickness and there by coincident ratio. The same thing may not be easy for tube sheet. Same thing you can raise it to compress

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Amr Shams
  • Locked
  • Question
SA-182 F60 WNRF FLANGE IMPACT TEST
Replies
1
Views
673
Transferer
Transferer
Amr Shams
  • Question
Advisory Warning on CS-2 Vacuum Chart Temperature Limit- Allowable compressive stress
Replies
0
Views
2K
Amr Shams
Amr Shams
Amr Shams
  • Locked
  • Question
Assistance for Multi-Chamber Vessel Design in COMPRESS
Replies
2
Views
3K
amillsmuel
A
Amr Shams
  • Locked
  • Question
UW-21 minimum requirement for External weld for SO Flange
Replies
2
Views
774
Amr Shams
Amr Shams
chaulklate
  • Locked
  • Question
Code Case 2901-1
Replies
1
Views
1K
Cobra17
Cobra17

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top Bottom