UG-45

F.Thome · **Joined:** Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:53 pm **Posts:** 19

Angenommen ein Stutzen ist so klein das nach UG-36 (c) kein Flächenausgleich erforderlich ist, muß dann UG-45 für das Stutzenrohr trotzdem eingehalten werden?

Vielen Dank für die Hilfe.

MfG
F.Thome

F.Thome · **Joined:** Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:53 pm **Posts:** 19

Sorry I forgot board language is english.
The question again:

Is UG-45 required for small nozzles acc. UG-36 (c) (3) (no reinforcement)?
Many thanks.

Regards
F.Thome

Frohnert · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:14 pm

Hi F.Thome

The answer is YES. A nozzle neck thickness check according to UG-45 is required, even if the nozzle is exempt from area calculations per UG-36(c)(3)(a).

Best Regards
Frohnert

F.Thome · **Joined:** Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:53 pm **Posts:** 19

Many Thanks for your quick reply.
Regards

F. Thome

Dr. Koelbl · **Posted:** Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:39 pm

Hi,

Please note that UG-45 is a bit dangerous.
The bad news is that a Standard Pipe is not sufficient when there is corrosion allowance specified, which needs to be added.

The good new, UG-45 only applies to nozzle conniections, not to inspection openings, covers, etc.

Have fun
DK

akonrad · **Posted:** Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:44 pm

My understanding of UG-45 is that it applies to nozzles, which is a stub to which a pipeline is attached intentionally (and bending moments may act). When you have a port (say for a temperature control)- then it's not a nozzle. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's the same sort of conclusion as using bar stock for such small ports without using 2148 Code Case (or under SecIV).

Konrad

UG-45

Who is online