Recent content by JCrash

You can also manually specify Kept or Dropped midside nodes with the "Method" command.

What's non-linear about your material? Are you trying to model an elastic/plastic curve? Or just do a elastic/perfectly plastic analysis? For steel, the simplest option would be to add Bilinear Isotropic Hardening to the material, insert the yield and a tangent.

Insert a "Force Reaction" probe in your solution output, and set it to read boundary condition "Weak Springs". This will give you the forces that the weak springs are putting on your model to hold it in place. These numbers should be orders of magnitude less than the other forces in your...

I've imported cylindrical objects from STEP files (created in SE, even) into Workbench without jagged edges before. Whether this is due to Workbench auto-healing the geometry or if they exist in the STEP file this way, I am not certain - but they do come in as round, non-jagged cylinders. JCrash

Sim, Are you sure that it has 3D meshed the line, or is it just displaying it that way? Go to: View > Thick Shells and Beams and turn that off. That should show you just a line. JCrash

Thanks, Fawkes. I'm trying to get my organization to buy a copy. We're pretty unfamiliar with CEN specs here. Are there any other standards that provide analytical methods that anyone knows of?

When using a retaining ring (Figure UG-34(m)) to hold in a flat head, I have to maintain a factor of safety of at least 4 against all possible means of failure, per UG-34(d). One of the listed failure modes is radial deformation (flaring of the end of the vessel). The code doesn't provide any...

Would UW-11(a)(4) require radiography for this case? Or does the language only apply to the welds IN nozzles, not the welds of nozzles to vessels?

metengr and stanweld - Thank you for your insight on these matters. If it's not clear, I'm not a weld engineer nor do i have experience with these particular code requirements... I just would have thought that if small welds can initiate failures, they should require the impact tests in and...

metengr - Thank you for your clarification. We will have to proceed in this fashion. Can you (or anyone else) shed any light as to the reasons why the code requires this? If I were to do the SAME small groove welds on the SAME material but I didn't have the large > 6" weld, I would not have...

As a further clarification - the > 6" weld is performed by Vendor A, and the small groove weld is performed by Vendor B. Vendor B (which is performing assembly of some internals) doesn't currently have a procedure qualified with the impact testing. Unfortunately, this weld had to be performed...

metengr - Thanks for the correction. Can you provide me a rough reference to where your information is from? stanweld - I am not certain how your answer relates to my question. The governing thickness of the weld i am talking about is from UCS-66 of Section VIII div 1. Could you further clarify?

Lets say I have a pressure vessel being built to ASME Section VIII Div 1. The main portion of the vessel is a rolled cylinder (SA-516 Gr 70) that requires impact testing due to an excessively large weld (>6" governing thickness). Therefore, per UCS-66 and UCS-67, i need impact testing on my...

Thanks vesselfab. Should I treat this like a defective material (AF-104.2)?

Designing a vessel to ASME BPVC Section VIII Div 2. We have a flat head (SA-516 Gr 70) that has geometry as shown below: ________ | | | | | | | | | | | | > | (These v's are RTJ grooves for a flange face) |________| ________ (This is a...