All times are UTC + 2 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:15 pm 
Offline
----------------
----------------

Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:52 pm
Posts: 36
Anybody.....

What does the ASME Section VIII Div. 1 code say about alignment holes near the bolt circle of a flange. The alignment hole will be used to put a small rod in so alignment of the mating flange will be maintained. The alignment hole is inside the bolt circle, not the outside.

I am guessing that the "meat" under the alignment hole has to also be greater than tr (required flange thickness).

Does the rod have to be a tight friction fit to be assumed a part of the flange, and therefore not require any consideration???

Would appreciate any help on this matter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:17 am 
Offline
----------------
----------------
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 1:00 am
Posts: 235
Location: Bochum, Germany
Hello Jim,

I suppose we are talking about an App. 2 flange (in any case after you have drilled an additional hole). As far as I remember you will not find any information on alignment holes here. The question is: Are the rules applicable although such an additional weakening is not considered?
Assuming that the alignment hole is relative small in comparision to the bolt holes and that the hole is a very localized discontinuity, in my opinion an App. 2 calculation is acceptable without additional considerations.

Regarding the rod: It is not a part of the flange.

Best regards
Michael


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:16 pm 
Offline
----------------
----------------

Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:52 pm
Posts: 36
Thanks Michael.....appreciate it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:47 pm 
Offline
----------------
----------------
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:11 am
Posts: 480
Location: England
Localised discontinuities generate high stresses. I would not recommend it when you could have fatigue issues.
AFAIR such holes are not provided for in B16.x, rendering such a flange non-standard. UG-44 does not apply to them.

_________________
Konrad Anikiel


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:01 pm 
Offline
----------------
----------------

Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:52 pm
Posts: 36
Thanks Konrad....appreciate it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:02 pm 
Offline
----------------
----------------
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 1:00 am
Posts: 235
Location: Bochum, Germany
Hello Konrad,
You are right, as usual fatigue requires special examinations. However, even with cyclic loadings I would not be worried, supposed the local discontinuity "alignment hole" is less severe than the local discontinuity "bolt hole". Especially since the hole is not in an area governed by primary stresses.

Michael


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:45 am 
Offline
----------------
----------------
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:11 am
Posts: 480
Location: England
Sure Michael, I don't know whether this is going to be a problem. It's up to Fernandez whether he gives any consideration. And whether the stresses will be high- it actually depends on proportion of diameters and exact location. It could be roughly estimated from table of stress concentration factors, but without a proper FEA it is a guess only.
By the way: Professor O.C.Zienkiewicz just died on 2nd Jan...

_________________
Konrad Anikiel


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 2 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

phpBB SEO