Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Interpretation: VIII-77-41

    Uploaded by

    rtrajan_mech5408
    7 views1 page
    The document discusses testing requirements for tube-to-tubesheet joints. It considers whether additional testing could be eliminated for proprietary designs with a proven track record, and whether other joint designs like double tubesheets would be allowed if additional testing was mandated. The responses indicate that experience data could be provided to justify eliminating extra testing for some designs, and that other designs would still be permitted even if extra testing was required, though manufacturers would need to verify compliance.

    Original Description:

    12

    Original Title

    864-14

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document discusses testing requirements for tube-to-tubesheet joints. It considers whether additional testing could be eliminated for proprietary designs with a proven track record, and whether other joint designs like double tubesheets would be allowed if additional testing was mandated. The responses indicate that experience data could be provided to justify eliminating extra testing for some designs, and that other designs would still be permitted even if extra testing was required, though manufacturers would need to verify compliance.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views1 page

    Interpretation: VIII-77-41

    Uploaded by

    rtrajan_mech5408
    The document discusses testing requirements for tube-to-tubesheet joints. It considers whether additional testing could be eliminated for proprietary designs with a proven track record, and whether other joint designs like double tubesheets would be allowed if additional testing was mandated. The responses indicate that experience data could be provided to justify eliminating extra testing for some designs, and that other designs would still be permitted even if extra testing was required, though manufacturers would need to verify compliance.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Reply 1: The values for acceptability for rolled only joints are based on available published data which

    has been submitted to the Committee. If you have any further test results to contribute in order that consideration can be given to your request, please forward same to our attention. Question 2: The testing of tube-to-tubesheet joints is an added expense and is of little or no value where previously established proprietary designs have proven to be adequate and reliable. Should this additional testing be eliminated based on proprietary designs and experience? Reply 2: If on the basis of experience you can provide the Committee with data or any other technical basis for the elimination of additional testing as outlined in Appendix A, please forward same to our attention. Question 3: If Appendix A should become mandatory, would other designs, such as double tubesheets, be precluded? Reply 3: Should Appendix A become mandatory, other special designs beyond what is required in Appendix A would not be precluded; however, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to review his design with his Inspector.

    Interpretation: VIII-77-41 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Nonmandatory Appendix A Date Issued: April 25, 1977 File: BC73-467 Question 1: Is it necessary to achieve a 1.4t minimum weld size for all applications in Appendix A?

    Reply 1: Appendix A, as revised by the Winter 1976 Addenda to Section VIII, Division 1, gives relief for welds of less than 1.4t minimum weld size and provides for the case when the weld is less than 1.0t in Table UA-002. Question 2: determined? For the thickness "t", as described in Question (1), on what basis is this thickness

    Reply 2: The tube wall thickness is based on nominal dimensions which is in agreement with Code practice. For example, see Fig. UW-16.1.

    Interpretation: VIII-77-42 Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, Nonmandatory Appendix A Date Issued: April 25, 1977 File: BC73-467 Question: In nonmandatory Appendix A to Section VIII, Division 1, is it necessary to achieve 1.4t minimum weld size for all applications? Reply: Appendix A, as revised by the Winter 1976 Addenda to Section VIII, Division 1, gives relief for welds of less than 1.4t minimum weld size and provides for the case when the weld is less than 1.0t in Table UA-002.

    You might also like