You are on page 1of 17

# Rangkuman Mailing List

How conservative Mechanical Engineering was?
Cahyo Hardo To cover uncertainity in the real world, design engineer always add factor to cover it. We call "safety factor". Adding 20% capacity for dehydration tower is make sense, to cover uncertainity in gas feed condition. Water content, which is the target to be reduced is really function of gas feed temp. & pressure. Higher temp. & lower pressure are condition that should be anticipated. That's why, gas in saturated condition with water, always be an assumption during design the dehydration system. Adding 20% excess area in heat exchanger (HE) is also still make sense since what we calculated in HE, is just a prediction, eventhough sophisticated process calculation was used. Another argumentation was, adding excess area will safe your heat transfer performance, eventhough fouling occurs inside of HE. For gas turbine engineer, specify inlet air temperature at average condition is a not-make sense assumption, since the performance of the machine is strongly function of inlet air temp. So, to cover uncertainity, the engineer always assumed inlet air at highest temp. condition, which give us a bigger size unit (in energy term). But, when you buy a pressure vessel, a repeat question always come back again in my foolish brain. ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineer) Section VIII define thickness of the cylindrical pressure vessel under internal pressure as: t = P Di/(2SE-1.2P) + C For Div I, ASME applied S as 1/3.5 of Tensile Strength (TS) For Div II, applied 1/3 of TS British Standard (BS) 5500 define thickness for the same vessel as t = PDi/(2SE-P) + C, when S = (2/3) of specific minimum yield strength (SYMS)

MECHANICAL

65 for no radiograph). Our vessel met "passive protection" concept. those just my opinion.5 times.! A. And for BS. if we can bargain the design. And probably.Rangkuman Mailing List note: P = design pressure Di = inside design pressure S = max. give us 100% of SYMS. because cost of vessel is linear with weight (linear with wall thickness). But. choosing 3/3 rather than 2/3 of SYMS will saving wall thickness by 1. according to the stress vs elongation diagram is the point when the vessel start to broken. the reduction of wall thickness could be 3 times. If we compare with 100% of TS. Why? because our vessel inherently self protected. why ASME applied safety factor for S only 1/3.5 times of design pressure. Meanwhile for BS. probably cost will be decrease significantly. The question are. allowable stress C = corrosion allowance F = joint efficiency (1 for fully radiograph. Let's expert to explain these. probably we can take out PSV block discharge-type forever without diluting safety. we can alco take out our existing HIPPS system. By re-calculate the S factor use the same thickness but use 1.. wait the minute. TS. For existing vessel. I try to correlate this with hidrotest pressure. These values cause thickness of the vessel is thicker. Why mechanical engineering is very conservative? Are there any correlation with welding of accessories attached to the vessel? I really do not know. which is usually equal with 1.5 or 1/3 of TS value. Jamal MECHANICAL .. 0. give us S about 50% of TS. I just think. both of them are not make sense to me. Therefore.5 times of design pressure. why both standards applied different value? The next question probably more interesting.

. belum wajib. Pak Tahzudin bisa memberikan nama designer yang telah menggunakannya. kondisi mekanikal integritinya joos. metode ini masih diajarkan untuk anak tingkat 4. Tentunya kudu dihidrotest lagi kali yach (saya lupa code-nya bilang apa.. Kenapa ya?. Jadi. Yan Salam kenal.MAWP (Max.. kayaknya mas cahyo ini sangat ekomomist sekali jadi sedikit penambahan ketebalan vessel karena safety factor menjadi issue yg sangat dipertimbangkan. Suharyo I'm not sure..Design pressure .. Mungkin sudah ada beberapa designer yang melakukannya. allowable working press) MECHANICAL .Operating pressure . Di Jurusan Teknik Mesin ITB mata kuliah ini dijadikan mata kuliah pilihan. syukur-syukur. Atau mungkin.. Mungkinkah sudah diakomodir oleh ASME dalam revisi terbaru Section VIII nya?.menarik sekali membaca bahasan mas cahyo ini. Jadi pingin ikutan nimbrung nih. Andromeda.. Saya belum check lagi. (bukannya memang begitu??) * Lalu buat mas Jamal.. kalau saya punya pressure vessel yang dibangun di tahun sebelum 1999. kalau memang ASME sudah memasukkan fracture mechanics dalam formulanya maka akan sangat baik sekali. Selama ini designer pressure vessel hampir selalu menjadi ASME sebagai reference.. ada info mas??) kalo mas cahyo sempat melihat name plate atau data sheet dari vessel itu disana tentu tertulis antara lain : . Mungkin Pak Tahzudin bisa memberikan referensi Standar yang telah menggunakan metode ini.Rangkuman Mailing List Tahzudin Noor Bukankah sekarang sudah memasukkan fracture mechanics dalam pembuatan-pembuatan vessel dll? Haryono.apa dianggap terlalu advance?. Seingat saya. berarti boleh dong saya operate di atas tekanan yang sekarang. Sir.