Set in and set on nozzle

Ikram · **Joined:** Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:53 am **Posts:** 71

we are using self reinforced integral nozzle (single forging) to shell side of a heat exchanger. The vendor has proposed set on configuration as per figure UW 16.1(a). We have proposed the set in configuration as per UW 16.1(c). Can any one advice which one is preferrable and what is the difference between the two.

Vana · **Joined:** Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:46 pm **Posts:** 7

Hi

Refer to your process/client specifications. There must be limitations specified in use of Set-On nozzles. Set through (or Set In) nozzles are always preferred.

Ikram · **Joined:** Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:53 am **Posts:** 71

What types of limitaions may be? Are there any code or else reference for the preference of set in nozzles over the set on nozzles. Please advic.

There is no Code limitation. If your Client does not oblige you, use the configuration you prefer. Usually self reiforced nozzles are thicker than shell and in this case set in is more economic and usually is preferred if not mandatory by the Engineering Companies.
Mauro

Ikram · **Joined:** Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:53 am **Posts:** 71

Is there any practical difficulties for going to set in configuration at shell/channel having large thicknesses. Please advice.

sanjeev_shukla70 · **Joined:** Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:05 pm **Posts:** 260

If shell thickness is much more than the nozzle nech thickness, a lot of weld deposit with set-in construction as compare to set-on.

Ikram · **Joined:** Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:53 am **Posts:** 71

One of our colique said that set on configuration is a preferred option for channels having larger thicknesses(160mm in our case). So if get aside the fabrication problems, then which one is the preferrable option for higher thicknesses and why.

Ikram · **Joined:** Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:53 am **Posts:** 71

For small nozzles and threaded nozzels (6000#) which one approach is better. our client has used set on configuration. Please advice.

Gonzaga · **Joined:** Sat Dec 15, 2001 1:00 am **Posts:** 789

Ikram wrote:

For small nozzles and threaded nozzels (6000#) which one approach is better. our client has used set on configuration. Please advice.

It is the best choice.
Mauro

Ikram · **Joined:** Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:53 am **Posts:** 71

Our vendor has quoted figure (f) of AD 610.1(set through configuration) of asme section VIII Div(II) instead of figure UW 16.1 (a), set on configuration, of ASME Section VIII Div(I) for chanell to nozzle weld. Which one is better approach, please advice.

Gonzaga · **Joined:** Sat Dec 15, 2001 1:00 am **Posts:** 789

Ikram wrote:

Our vendor has quoted figure (f) of AD 610.1(set through configuration) of asme section VIII Div(II) instead of figure UW 16.1 (a), set on configuration, of ASME Section VIII Div(I) for chanell to nozzle weld. Which one is better approach, please advice.

It is a good compromise between set-in and set-on. If you are happy, do it.
MG

Ikram · **Joined:** Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:53 am **Posts:** 71

Can we use the reference of ASME Section VIII Div(2) as our design code is Div(1). If this is the case, then at which code (Div 1or Div 2) will we inspect the particuler weld.

Please advice.

Gonzaga · **Joined:** Sat Dec 15, 2001 1:00 am **Posts:** 789

Ikram wrote:

Can we use the reference of ASME Section VIII Div(2) as our design code is Div(1). If this is the case, then at which code (Div 1or Div 2) will we inspect the particuler weld.

Please advice.

Sect.VIII Div. 1 has the requirement of tc which is the same as for Div.2. I would fulfil the requirement of Div.2 as well in respect of the depth of the nozzle insertion = tn (min)
Mauro

Set in and set on nozzle

Who is online