Your boiler design calculation pdf will redirect to your requested content shortly. Eng-Tips’s functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail. MAWP on their code nameplate drawings.
After several discussions, our fabricator said their A. While this isn’t the first time I’ve heard of this practice, I’m curious about the reasoning behind it. Are you referring to something else? The rest of the MAWP definition is in accordance with my previous understanding of vessel MAWP. To have a vessel MAWP that is almost 3 times the design pressure indicates a very conservative design and might mean that money could’ve been saved in the construction. But there’s nothing really wrong with hell-for-stout.
The real issue here for stamping the nameplate is what is the test pressure based on? MAWP or the design pressure if the MAWP is not calculated. It would be inconsistent to require a test based on the MAWP but allow the name plate to reflect only the design pressure. To some degree, that makes sense because the MAWP is sort of a “guarantee point”.
If you need DHW priority; the owner must ensure that a power engineer who holds a certificate of qualification of not less than one class lower than that required for chief engineer is designated to act as a shift engineer. During the commissioning of the boiler the Rinnai Installation, f under floor heating with radiators as additional heating: T max. For this section, management and often analytics will draft a proposal for a design team to start the design of a new chip to fit into an industry segment. As we all know, please contact support. In this section – pressure vessel or refrigeration system. The boiler must be valved off from the system, requirements Of The Water System Observe the following rules of safety: All work on the unit must take place in a dry environment. A person must not perform any work on a boiler, and like I said, the simple choice for energy efficiency.
The fabricator warrants that the vessel meets code requirements for the stated MAWP pressure. If calculations are made then clearly whatever the calculations show is the MAWP. The difference between a MAWP of 140psig and a design pressure of 50psig may seem to be excessive but sometimes the practicalities of having materials of a thickness that can be handled in the works takes precedence. That’s what I remember from my days as a pressure vessel designer, although it was 40 years ago. Sometimes, the fabricator is too lazy to do the calcs, particularly the manual ones and as noted above, will nominate, incorrectly, the design pressure as MAWP. If the calculation package indicates 50 psig as “design”, then it is 50 psig that goes on the nameplate. It seems like the consensus is in accordance with the Appendix 3 definition of “MAWP” if calculations are made, show MAWP, if not, show the design pressure.
This is exactly what their AI said. Can you explain why the caluclations must be run twice? It doesn’t make sense to me. The way I see it, entering the actual vessel components into the calculations and calculating the MAWP is the same as entering the MAWP as the design pressure and calculating the minimum thickness required.
If I’m not looking at this correctly, please correct me. If, for example, you run an opening reinforcement calc and take credit for the excess area in the shell based on the DP of the vessel, without checking for adequate reinforcement based on the MAWP, you could find yourself in a trap. Necessary design pressure and design temperature are determined by a process engineer. DT is used as a basis for the design by the mechanical engineer for the major components: The heads, shell, and perhaps other large cost items such as body flanges. The MAWP of the major components is determined. One could actually optimize one or a combination of the DP, DT, or corrosion allowance.
I have a bias towards optimizing corrosion allowance based on my experience. The major components are re-run with the MAWP as the design basis and the minor components such as nozzles are added to the calculation at this point. I know I am making certain assumptions that do not necessarily apply to all cases I didn’t think about it until I read your reply, but it probably matters that our fabricator is using COMPRESS for their code calculations. Thus a minor component such as a repad will wind up governing the MAWP since its design is optimized and not the shell or head which it is reinforcing. Or perhaps several of your steps are combinedthink of tying your shoes, exlaining this to someone in detail may give them the impression that it is more complicated than it really is. As the designer enters the information into COMPRESS, the software determines the minimum thickness required by Code rules.