UG-36, UG-37 and Appendix 1-10

The addenda to VIII-1 which came out in mid 2009 changed (more accurately clarified)the role of appendix 1-10. Where it had appeared from a literal reading to require that 1-10 if used be used as a suppliment to UG-37 for large openings, and 1-10 title did say large opening rules, now both UG-36 and the new scope paragraph to 1-10 clearly state that 1-10 is an alternative approach for nozzle designs to UG-37. The term "large opening" has been removed from the title of 1-10, and it is allowed for use on all sizes. The Nozzle menu should allow for each nozzle on a vessel the choice of: a)UG-37 with a1) Appendix 1-7 or a2) 1-9 for large openings, OR b) appendix 1-10. Regretably, the August patch/update failed to catch the change. So until the program catches up, I constructed a MATHCAD sheet for 1-10.

IS there a way to show a nozzle so weight, spacing et al can be considered, but surpress the reinforcement computation, so that I can make a note directing a reader to another calculation without having a calculation package that appears to contain a calculation failure? I can include an anotation, but can I surpress the calculation?

Pete,

The 2011 version of PV Elite has the updated ASME Code updates that concern the use UG-37 and Appendix 1-10 (ASME 2010 Edition). It will be up to the analyst to use either the area replacement rules of UG-37 or the pressure area method of 1-10 for nozzles on cylinders or nozzles on cones. There is not an option to have an individual nozzles calculated to either method.

Hopefully, PV Elite version 2011 should do what you need it to do.

I did not see any code requirement that all nozzles on a vessel must be calculated the same way. The flag to choose the method should be settable nozzle by nozzle. However, 1-10 will probably become the default standard so in the long run it probably does not justify what may be complicated programming for you. Thanks Scott!

Hello Pete

The method in Appendix 1-10 is a later technology. It is a simplified method used in ASME Section VIII, Division 2, which has abandoned the old area replacement method. We thought users could use this method for all nozzles.

Dear Ray,

When the calcualtiosn shall be made by pressure area method i-e 1-10, weld strength calculatiosn shall be made for each nozzle irrespective of the fact how the nozzle is attached.
How PV-Elite shall perform these weld strength calculations? would it take help from VIII-2?
Weld strength calculations of UW-15 and UG-41 are not applicable for the weld strength calculations as per opening paragraph of 1-10.

Nasir,

Yes we are using the Div.2 for weld calculations when using 1-10. When you get your copy of PV Elite 2011 you will be able to check for your self.

Contact your local dealer to find out about your copy of PV Elite 2011.

However, Appendix 1-10 says Quoted
''The rules of this Mandatory Appendix may be used in lieu of the rules in UG-37 and 1-7, as applicable, for the design of reinforcement for openings in cylindrical or conical vessels under internal pressure.''
It says UG-37 and1-7 (not UG-37 or 1-7). Which mean UG-37 and 1-7 both must be met in order to use 1-10.
Can we apply 1-10 for nozzle other than large opening?

Dear Mr.Mandeep Sir,

If you are doing weld calculations as per division 2 for satisfaction of appendix 1-10 in division-1, then please help with following question.


" there are terms such as A2,A3,Sn,PL in division 2 weld strength calculations. Should we use values of these terms as per division 1 or as per division 2?"

Regards
ASD23789

Vishaltailor,

Yer we can also apply 1-10 to nozzles other than large openings.

Thanks.

Mukesh B. Chopra
theculminates@yahoo.com
+91-9428500192