Volume 3: Design and Analysis 2008
DOI: 10.1115/pvp2008-61805
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Cone-to-Cylinder Junction Reinforcement Requirements Between ASME Section VIII, Division 1 and Code Case 2286-1

Abstract: Paragraph UG-28 of the ASME Section VIII, Division 1 provides rules for reinforcement of the cone-to-cylinder junction based on line of support criteria. Code Case 2286, on the other hand, provides rules based on actual stresses versus allowable stresses. In this paper, the authors compare the results of the calculations for the reinforcement of the cone-to-cylinder junction for each method. It was found that, in some cases, the reinforcement method of UG-28 will produce non-conservative results.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Heat transfer rate was computed from structural and thermodynamic random variables. Bardia et al [265] compared the cone-to-cylinder junction reinforcement requirements provided in two ASME codes based on different criteria.…”
Section: Cone-cylinder Junctionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Heat transfer rate was computed from structural and thermodynamic random variables. Bardia et al [265] compared the cone-to-cylinder junction reinforcement requirements provided in two ASME codes based on different criteria.…”
Section: Cone-cylinder Junctionsmentioning
confidence: 99%