WRC 386 checking for Manways

Posted by: Ramin

WRC 386 checking for Manways - 05/11/12 09:37 AM

Hi everyone,

I have read a lot of stuffs about WRC386 checking of manways on this forum, I have a couple of questions regarding what is the right approach to check manway nozzles:

To my best knowledge, most manways fail WRC107 provided thrust pressure is activated in checking. This means that WRC107 is so conservative at least for manways. In most stress reports that I came acroos with no one checked manways against WRC107 with thrust pressure!

On the otherhand, thrust pressure is an existing axial load, that I believe needs to be checked and this leads to checking it against WRC386 that I recently discovered! I'm not familiar with this bulletin a lot, but I seem to have difficulty checking the manways in the vessel I am modeling now.

My vessel spec is:
D=OD=36-in and d=Manway OD=24-in

There is a parameter in WRC 386 i.e. D/d that needs to be less than 0.5 for stress parameters to be within suggested range, which in my case is NOT (D/d=0.67) and I get this warning in Caesar that the checking may NOT be accurate!

Does any one come across this issue? How are manways checked in general and how one makes sure if they are properly designed in case of large D/d as in my case? I'd rather avoid checking it by FEA due to time shortage.

Thanks,
Ramin

Posted by: mariog

Re: WRC 386 checking for Manways - 05/13/12 02:14 AM

Well, now it is more clear what "manway" is.
I'm not sure that explains why there is a need to activate "pressure thrust" for "manway" checking.
Posted by: Jozm

Re: WRC 386 checking for Manways - 05/14/12 09:53 AM

@ dingqian....: using sarcasm language in a technical discussion forum is not appropriate, we are here to learn. you could ask Ramin to explain more if you have not understand,
@ Richard:
you are requested to add a clause to your discussion forum rules against using too much non-technical languages.
thx
Posted by: danb

Re: WRC 386 checking for Manways - 05/14/12 10:13 AM

Javian,

I thinkis a spam or even more. Think that message should be removed.

In any case do not access the link.