ASME – American Society of Mechanical Engineers

Custom Air Coolers currently holds the ASME U and UM stamps. Our products
can be designed, constructed, and tested to meet the requirements of the
applicable section of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Coils
constructed in accordance with the requirements of the ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code for Unfired Pressure Vessels under Section VIII, Division
1 of the code.

Additional Certifications
CWB
Canadian Welding Board
This is a structural steel welding certification for the country of Canada. The current
certification is under standard W47.1-Division: 3.
NDE
Non-Destructive Examinations
Custom Air Coolers is approved for several different Non-Destructive Examinations, which is
the act of evaluating a welded component (or material to be welded) without affecting the
serviceability of the part or material.
Magnetic Particle Inspection (MT):
Commonly referred to as Magnaflux testing, is only effective at checking for flaws located at
or near the surface. MT uses a metallic powder or liquid along with strong magnetic field
probes to locate flaws (Particles will align along voids). MT can only be used on materials that
can be magnetized.
Liquid (Dye) Penetrant Inspection (PT):
Uses colored or fluorescent dye to check for surface flaws but will not show sub-surface
flaws. PT can be used on both metallic and non-metallic surfaces such as ceramic, glass,
plastic, and metal.
Ultrasonic Testing (UT):
UT is a method of determining the size and location of discontinuities within a component
using high frequency sound waves. Sound waves are sent through a transducer into the
material and the shift in time required for their return or echo is plotted. Since ultrasonic
waves will not travel through air, flaws will alter the echo pattern.
X-Ray Inspection (RT):
Also known as Radiographic Testing, a wave of energy will pass through most materials and
develop the negative image of what it passes through on film. The x-ray picture is a
permanent record of a weld used for quality inspection purposes. These inspections can
reveal flaws deep within a component.
Hardness Testing:
A test to determine resistance to penetration. Also to determine weld and heat affected zone
hardness per methods described in ASTM A-370.

I have performed a calculation with Advanced Pressure Vessel software which says I can take the UCS-
66(b) reduction for a lower MDMT. Is this correct (assuming 3/8" Tn and E* of 85%)? There are no
calculations printed in order to verify that they are correct. The link is to the calculation sheet
hakkik (Mechanical)31 Mar 10 18:10
Yes, UCS-66(b) allows some reduction on MDMT. The rationale behind this is simple. MDMT rating
assumes you are fully stressing (Table 1A allowable stress) the part, but in reality generally you are not.
so your part is stronge (and thicker) than the required thickness. Read UCS-66(b) carefully. You will find
your answers :)

Sometimes using this reduction not allowed. Check eng specs also.

sethevans (Mechanical)
(OP)
1 Apr 10 09:05
Hakkik,
Thanks for responding. The thing that has me concerned is the fact that SA-106 Gr. B is not listed in Fig.
UCS-66 under curves "B", "C", or "D". Therefore, you would have to use curve "A". Unless I am using Fig.
UCS-66.2 incorrectly, I'm coming up with a ratio of .9078. Using Fig. UCS-66.1, that ratio is subsequently
not giving me the reduction I need for curve "A". I need this vessel to be designed for an MDMT of -49
deg. F. If this material won't work, can anyone lead me in the direction I need to be in?

Thanks in advance!!
doct9960 (Mechanical)1 Apr 10 10:39
sethevans,

Curve "B" applies to SA-106-B. I don't think you could rate SA-106-B to -49°F MDMT. Try SA-333-6.
sethevans (Mechanical)
(OP)
1 Apr 10 11:15
doct9960,
I did the calculation by hand, and I'm still not getting by with it. UsingFig. UCS-66.2, I'm coming up with
the following:

tr E*/tn – c = (.2598)(.85)/(.312-.125) = .22083/.187 = 1.18

If I'm calculating this ratio correctly, SA-333 Gr.6 won't work either. Can someone confirm that my
calculations aren't totally out of whack?

Thanks again!
hakkik (Mechanical)1 Apr 10 11:33
sethevans,

doct9960 is right, Curve B applies for pipes(Fig UCS-66 Note(2)(c) ) So you have -20°F without impact
testing and UCS-66(b) reduction.

all values taken from your calc. rep.

ratio = (0,2881x0.7)/(0.375-0.125) = 0.80
with the ratio calculated above you can reduce MDMT without impact testing 20°F approx. so your
MDMT=-40°F

looks like you have no chance to rate your pipe(SA-106-B) -49°F without impact testing. again doct9960
is right :)

you have two options.

1) impact tested SA-106-B. (see UG-84)
2) using SA-333Gr6(same allowable stress value at375°F)

I would prefer the second option.

hakkik (Mechanical)1 Apr 10 12:10

sorry i miscalculated calculated ratio above. i forgot about pipe undertolerance 12.5% and tr in corroded
condition.

Correct one

ratio = ((0.2881-0.125)x0.7)/((0.375*0,875)-0.125) = 0.562

so you get ~50°F reduction. you have no problem with SA-106-B.

again sorry for the mistake,

eliebl (Mechanical)1 Apr 10 17:20
I wouldn't try impact testing SA-106 B. It's very unlikely that it would pass. SA-333 gr6 is acceptable
under UCS-66(g).

EJL
doct9960 (Mechanical)1 Apr 10 18:45
sethevans,

Keep in mind that the MDMT and MAWP are related to each other. As you decrease the MAWP, you
decrease the coincident ratio, thus decreasing the MDMT.

Let's assume that the vessel MAWP is limited by the shell with the following conditions:
design pressure = 200 psi
design temp. = 375°F
design MDMT = -49°F
joint efficiency = 0.85
corrosion allowance = 0.125"
shell material = SA-106-B (14" STD pipe)
MAWP = S x E x t / (Ro - 0.4t) = 17100 x 0.85 x 0.203 / (7 - 0.4 x 0.203) = 426.46 psi

Now let's calculate for the rated MDMT for three different cases of MAWP.

Case 1: MAWP = 426.46 psi

tn = 0.375" x 0.875 = 0.328"
Unadjusted MDMT = -20°F (Curve B)
tr = MAWP x Ro / (S x E + 0.4 x MAWP) = 426.46 x 7 / (17100 x 0.85 + 0.4 x 426.46) = 0.203"
Coincident ratio = tr x E* / (tn - c) = 0.203 x 0.85 / (0.328 - 0.125) = 0.85
From Fig. UCS-66.1, temperature reduction = 15°F
Adjusted MDMT = -20 - 15 = -35°F
Since the adjusted MDMT of -35°F is warmer than the design MDMT of -49°F, you need to impact test or
change material.

Case 2: MAWP = 350 psi

tn = 0.375" x 0.875 = 0.328"
Unadjusted MDMT = -20°F (Curve B)
tr = MAWP x Ro / (S x E + 0.4 x MAWP) = 350 x 7 / (17100 x 0.85 + 0.4 x 350) = 0.167"
Coincident ratio = tr x E* / (tn - c) = 0.167 x 0.85 / (0.328 - 0.125) = 0.699
From Fig. UCS-66.1, temperature reduction = 30°F
Adjusted MDMT = -20 - 30 = -50°F
Rated MDMT = -50°F (no impact test required)

Case 3: MAWP = design pressure = 200 psi

tn = 0.375" x 0.875 = 0.328"
Unadjusted MDMT = -20°F (Curve B)
tr = MAWP x Ro / (S x E + 0.4 x MAWP) = 200 x 7 / (17100 x 0.85 + 0.4 x 200) = 0.096"
Coincident ratio = tr x E* / (tn - c) = 0.096 x 0.85 / (0.328 - 0.125) = 0.402
From Fig. UCS-66.1, temperature reduction = 92°F
Adjusted MDMT = -20 - 92 = -112°F
Rated MDMT = -55°F (per UCS-66(b)(2))(no impact test required)

As you can see, MDMT decreases as MAWP decreases. If you still want to use SA-106-B without impact
test, you need to rate your vessel with an MAWP that will satisfy the design MDMT of -49°F. This is
assuming that your vessel MAWP and MDMT is governed by the SA-106-B shell.
rneill (Mechanical)2 Apr 10 10:57
Given the relatively small cost difference between A106-B and A333-6, I wouldn't even bother with A106-
B below its normal Curve B temperature. I have had A106-B material fail impact testing at temperatures
well above -20F (for thick material) and for any use now below the normal regularly accepted MDMD on
Curve B, I just default to A333-6. myself, I don't bother with the stress ratio reduction.

Locally, A333-6 is readily available and has a very small cost premium over A106-B.
sethevans (Mechanical)
(OP)
2 Apr 10 10:58
doct9960,
If I'm using the calculations with the new MAWP correctly, my adjusted MDMT would be as follows:

Case 4: MAWP = 395 psi

tn = 0.375" x 0.875 = 0.328"
Unadjusted MDMT = -20°F (Curve B)
tr = MAWP x Ro / (S x E + 0.4 x MAWP) = 395 x 7 / (17100 x 0.85 + 0.4 x 395) = 0.188"
Coincident ratio = tr x E* / (tn - c) = 0.188 x 0.85 / (0.328 - 0.125) = 0.787
From Fig. UCS-66.1, temperature reduction = 22°F
Adjusted MDMT = -20 - 22 = -42°F
Since the adjusted MDMT of -42°F is warmer than the design MDMT of -49°F, I need to impact test or
change material.

The other materials that are on this vessel are SA-234 Gr. WPB and SA-105, so the design is governed by
SA-106 Gr. B & SA-234 Gr. WPB which are both 17,100 at this temperature.

Thanks for Everyone's help on this!

rneill (Mechanical)2 Apr 10 14:43
With the SA-105 you might want to consider SA-105N. there is quite a bit of data out there that SA-105
in the as forged condition is not suitable for the MDMT's permitted by Code.

If it were me, I'd switch to SA333-6 (pipe), SA350-LF2-Class 1 (flanges), and SA420-WPL6 (fittings).

The cost of this would be less than conducting impact testing on alternative materials.
sethevans (Mechanical)
(OP)
9 Apr 10 09:34
To all,
Would I be correct in assuming that by using SA-333 Gr. 6 pipe, SA-350 LF2 Class 1 flanges, and SA-420
WPL6 fittings for the vessel, then postweld heat treating the vessel, per UCS-68(c), I would get a 30 deg.
F reduction which would put me @ -50 deg. F?

This seems like the easiest way to go if it is true.

Thanks in advance!