#15540 - 01/28/08 06:19 AM
Differences between flanges
|
Member
Registered: 12/03/07
Posts: 7
Loc: Brazil
|
I have a flange, originally 24" ANSI 300#, wich thickness PVElite declares insufficient. The design pressure is 2.16 MPa. The curious thing is that either the 150# and the 600# passed the calculations.
I prepared a file with screen shots of that, but I canīt realize how to add it to the post, even using Internet Explorer 7.
Can anyone tell me what is going on?
Attachments
239-flangesV-231505.doc (751 downloads)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#15548 - 01/28/08 10:24 AM
Re: Differences between flanges
[Re: Filgueiras]
|
Member
Registered: 10/21/04
Posts: 102
Loc: UK
|
Filgueiras,
It looks like there may be an issue with the calculation. I have tried the same comparison and the 24" 300# is insufficient but the 20" 300# is OK. If you look at the calculation, the value of 'f' (hub stress correction factor) seems high for the 24" 300# flange.
_________________________
---------- Stan McKay
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#15555 - 01/28/08 01:12 PM
Re: Differences between flanges
[Re: Stan McKay]
|
Member
Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 347
Loc: Houston,TX,USA
|
Filgueiras,
Usually the issue is with the small end hub thickness. Try changing it to a thicker value and see what happens.
_________________________
Scott MayeuxCADWorx & Analysis Solutions Intergraph Process, Power, & Marine
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#15560 - 01/28/08 03:13 PM
Re: Differences between flanges
[Re: Scott_Mayeux]
|
Member
Registered: 12/03/07
Posts: 7
Loc: Brazil
|
Stan, I checked the calculations, and found that PVElite choose f=1 for the 150# and 600#. For the flange 300#, it has made f=7.3
Scott, You're right, g0=12.7mm worked.
Thank you.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#15574 - 01/29/08 03:35 AM
Re: Differences between flanges
[Re: Filgueiras]
|
Member
Registered: 10/21/04
Posts: 102
Loc: UK
|
Now this is where it gets strange. If you reduce g0 it also works???
_________________________
---------- Stan McKay
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#15580 - 01/29/08 06:45 AM
Re: Differences between flanges
[Re: Stan McKay]
|
Member
Registered: 12/03/07
Posts: 7
Loc: Brazil
|
Good play, Stan!
g0=8.55mm also goes well.
I only calculated the flange at clientīs request. So, I'm going to shake the dust off an old spreadsheet, and present it.
Regards,
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#15587 - 01/29/08 08:28 AM
Re: Differences between flanges
[Re: Filgueiras]
|
Member
Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 347
Loc: Houston,TX,USA
|
I took some time this morning to type the 24inch 300lb flange problem into an Excel spreadsheet that was developed independently by an outside source. The stress results, moments, hub factors etc. were completely identical between PV Elite and the spreadsheet. This leads me to believe that there is some sort of spike in the equations for this combination of hub properties. As Stan mentioned, a smaller thickness also works.
Also note, the hub slope for this flange violated the 1 by 3 that ASME generally requires (see ASME Figure 2-4 sketch 6).
_________________________
Scott MayeuxCADWorx & Analysis Solutions Intergraph Process, Power, & Marine
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#15596 - 01/29/08 02:11 PM
Re: Differences between flanges
[Re: Scott_Mayeux]
|
Member
Registered: 12/03/07
Posts: 7
Loc: Brazil
|
Scott,
Thank you, for expending your time in this question.
I'll check with the client about the reason why he requested the calculation of this flange, since UG-11/UG-44 say it's not required. I will not use a different thickness for g0, since the part is already ordered, and my practice is to have 100% match between drawings and calculations. But it's possible to consider the flange loose, in last case.
Anyway, this problem has been interesting and, for sure, improved my confidence in PVElite ( and in my spreadsheet, also .
Best regards,
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
52
Guests and
1
Spider online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
12065 Members
14 Forums
16973 Topics
75151 Posts
Max Online: 303 @ 01/28/20 11:58 PM
|
|
|