Dears,

In NozzlePro, a nozzle local load calc for external forces & moments shows failure.

If I put P=0, it is OK with allowable stress derated - by Smh in primary check & by Smavg in primary & secondary checks. Is this approach right ? Is pressure here having anything to do with pressure thrust ?

In WRC107, is no Pr thrust inclusion same as putting zero value for pressure?

From the viewpoint of reliability, I consider this type of allowable derating subjective in nature & better to avoid.
What do you all think about it ?

regards,

sam

Maybe you should direct this towards Paulin Research Group, the owners of NozzlePro.

It isn't easy to contact to Paulin Research Group.
when you buy the NozzlePro, the free technology service just one year.
Normally, As a engineering software, it is very bad.

As we know, for CII, we have this forum, we can get any answer from Mr.AY.

Other side, if we search from internet, we rarely find general place where the discussion about NozzlePro is flourish.

Sam,

This is a NozzlePro/PRG issue and not, directly, a CAESAR II question. But we're such a helpful lot! Here's what Tony Paulin says...

“When a WRC107, 297 or FEA calculation shows that a Code violation occurs, removing one of the components (pressure in this case) is generally not advised. The options to remove pressure thrust from WRC calculations was provided because the WRC calculation may include pressure stresses in several ways, some of which are considered “double dipping”, i.e. the stress is added twice. If you use the nozzle stress intensities from VIII-2 for example with the nominal pressure stress, it is usually not necessary to include the pressure thrust.

The FEA method eliminates these concerns because there is no “double dipping” with any of the pressure terms.

If you are within about 10% of the allowable, the new Div 2 will provide some relief. This is included with the latest version of NozzlePRO. Additionally, including enough material data to perform the 2sy check may provide relief if the violation is due to secondary loads.”

New Comer,

I disagree with your statement:
"Normally, As a engineering software, it is very bad."

Where else can you find a template-based FEA modeler that also compares calculated stresses to Code-defined allowable limits?

Dave Sir,

Thank you very much for the reply. I understood your justification.

I purposefully put the question in the forum instead of addressing this to PRG support, as we all know that most, if not all, of the NozzlePro users use Caesar-II also. So, getting reply will be quicker & better in quality.

We, the users of NozzlePro, know that it is very useful template-based FEA modeler that also compares calculated stresses to Code-defined allowable limits. Elsewhere, in any general purpose FEA software, analyst can make the FEA results opaque to the people who do not understand that particular FEA software.

regards,

sam

To Tony Paulin

Sir,

“When a WRC107, 297 or FEA calculation shows that a Code violation occurs, removing one of the components (pressure in this case) is generally not advised." Neither I am adding pressure thrust in the external forces & moments input of nozzlepro.

For SA387 Gr-22 Cl-1 material in ASME Sec-VIII Div-1 with operating temperature of 549C, Smc = 117.819 Mpa, Smh=48.744 MPa,Syc=206.84Mpa, Syh=163.4Mpa & STc = 413.68 MPa input, at 3350mm IDx42mm thk vessel 7 1219.2mm ODx 22.23 mm nozzle, nozzlepro local stress failure occures just for internal pressure of 1.01 Mpa only without any external forces / moments.

Is the arrangement safe from Sec- VIII Div-1 ?

regards,

sam

Hi Dave,

I think Stress River(New Comer) really mean is that one year free service after purchasing NozzlePro is not enough.

Henry

Sure, What I meant is not NozzlePro bad but the free service is too short.