[Skip to Content]
Provided by ASME The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Banner
PVP 2027
Location: Marriott Rive Gauche
Paris, France

Conference: July 25–July 30, 2027
Exhibition: July 26–July 27, 2027
Menu
  • Home
  • Publication Schedule
  • My Account
  • Event Site
  • Policies
    • Conflict in Ukraine
    • Presentation Requirements
    • Confirm Co-Authorship
    • Code of Conduct/Anti-Harassment
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • The Role of the Corresponding Author
  • Help
    • Contact Us
    • Author Resources
      • ASME Presenter Attendance Policy
      • ASME Plagiarism Screening (iThenticate)
      • Full-length Paper Preparation
      • Conference-Specific Information and Templates
      • Copyright Transfer Form
      • Technical Presentation Tips
      • Indexing
      • Author FAQS
      • Submission Types
    • Help Desk Calls
    • Webtool Feedback And Feature Requests
    • Organizer Resources
  • Home
  • ASME 2021 Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference (PVP2021) Session Gallery
  • DA-01-02 Design & Analysis of Heat Exchangers & Components II
  • A Comparative Study of Radial Nozzle Criteria; Section VIII, Division 2, Part 4.5.5 to Part 5.2.2

Session: DA-01-02 Design & Analysis of Heat Exchangers & Components II

Paper Number: 66583

Start Time: Wednesday, July 14, 2021, 05:00 PM

66583 - A Comparative Study of Radial Nozzle Criteria; Section VIII, Division 2, Part 4.5.5 to Part 5.2.2 

A study is presented which compares nozzle thickness requirements based ASME Section VIII, Division 2, Parts 4 and 5[1].  Specifically, the simplified geometry of a set-in, radial nozzle without inward projection or repad is considered.  The comparative technique considers a design pressure at the capacity of the shell and identifies the minimum nozzle thickness that satisfies applicable stress limits.  For Part 4, the methodology of 4.5.5 is used.  For Part 5, the elastic method in 5.2.2 is used.  The study employs these techniques for R/t geometries of 20 to 180 and d/D ratios of 0.01 to 0.3.  The comparison indicates elastic analysis Part 5 methods can improve the design from that of Part 4 over some, but not all, configurations within the study’s scope. The bounds of where the elastic analysis Part 5 methods benefit are identified.  In the process of the study’s effort, numerous responses are identified and compared between design methodologies.  The comparison is one of needed nozzle thickness for similar geometries.  Behavior responses are shown from the range of configurations in the large simulation set created by the Part 5 method.  For the Part 4 response, charts are shown that identify the needed nozzle thickness based on the varying reinforcing limit logic employed in that method.

 

Presenting Author: Craig Boyak TBD

Authors:

Craig Boyak TBD

A Comparative Study of Radial Nozzle Criteria; Section VIII, Division 2, Part 4.5.5 to Part 5.2.2

Category

Technical Paper Publication

This site supports all modern browsers, such as Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. Microsoft has announced it will no longer support IE 11 as of August 2021. If you prefer to or you are required to continue using a Microsoft browser, you can use Edge.

  • ASME.ORG
  • Press
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Statement
  • ASME Communication Preferences
  • Community Rules

© The American Society of Mechanical Engineers

Stay Connected