- #1
CFDFEAGURU
- 783
- 10
I recently rejected a code calculation because the flat head thickness on a 6" NPS Sch. 80 header was thought to be too thin. This calculation was for an unreinforced flat head per Section 1, PG-34 sketch g-1. The design has tubes that are within the distance of 2*sqrt(d*ts) and the value of m was not 1. I thought this was incorrect and the value of m had to be 1. It was pointed out to me by an A.I. (Authorized Inspector) that there was a code case from 1988 that allowed for a fully reinforced hole to be place within that distance and a value of m less than 1 code be used.
I was curious to see what Section VIII Div. 1 had to say about this. In that section this is not permitted unless rigorous stress analysis is performed or you built one to scale and test it until it fails under pressure.
The two sections are in total disagreement on this issue. Can anyone explain why the codes differ?
Thanks
Matt
I was curious to see what Section VIII Div. 1 had to say about this. In that section this is not permitted unless rigorous stress analysis is performed or you built one to scale and test it until it fails under pressure.
The two sections are in total disagreement on this issue. Can anyone explain why the codes differ?
Thanks
Matt