250 views

Uploaded by Mohammed Eljammal

- Flange Leakage (Working Copy)
- NON Circular Pressure Vessels
- Design Calculation Anchor Flange - ASME VIII Div 1 App.2
- SIF's for Trunnion
- Design of Flange Joint
- Local Stresses WRC107
- ASME B1.20.1 Pipe Threads, General Purpose (Inch)
- pressure vessel
- Finite Element Analysis of Gasketed Flange Bolted Joint
- CAESAR II_Fatigue Analysis
- Total Piping Stress Analysis
- Davit Arm Calculation
- Bending Moments and Leakage at Flanged Joints Part 1~3
- Asme Pressure Vessel Support
- 75577376 Point Pipe Stress Analysis by Computer CAESAR II
- Flanges Types, Classes and Assembly
- 224813666-Pipe-Stress-Analysis.ppt
- Catalogue 2012 Small
- Spiral Wound Gasket Brochure Flexitallic
- Design Practise Piping Support System

You are on page 1of 8

Texas

PVP2007-26456

COMPARISON OF FLANGE STRESS CALCULATED BY ASME DESIGN CODE AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Satoshi NAGATA Applied Technology Department Technology Business Division Toyo Engineering Corporation Narashino, Chiba JAPAN Toshiyuki Sawa Professor Department of Mechanical Engineering Hiroshima University Higashi-hiroshima, Hiroshima JAPAN

ABSTRACT A flange strength calculation method for flange joints based on the researches carried out by Waters at el. is adopted in ASME B&PV Code and has been used with many good practices in several decades. However, it is also the fact that there are some cases like that the code calculation gives over conservative results or a leakage trouble occurs even if the calculation meets the code requirements. Discrepancy is pointed out between the calculation condition and the actual condition, too. This paper clarifies the difference of flange stresses calculated by ASME design code and finite element analysis. Furthermore, using the ASME Code formulas proposed by Waters with the bolt load and the gasket load obtained by finite element analysis, flange stresses are calculated and compared with the results of finite element analysis. Finally, the paper discusses the adequacy of flange stress calculation formulas and shows the point to be modified in ASME design method. OBJECTIVES This paper deals with the difference of flange stress calculated by ASME Code formulas and finite element analysis in several gasketed flange joints. It is well known that the flange calculation method adopted in ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section VIII[1] is one of the major design methods for the gasketed flange joints and widely used in the history of oil & gas, chemical and the other industries. There are many good practices to design those flanges. However, some problems are pointed out like that the relationship between the gasket seating condition and operating condition is not considered, the definition of the gasket factors m & y are not clear, and so on. In this decade, efforts to develop a new leakage based flange design method have been made to overcome those problems and to response the demands by the environmental point of view. Authors developed a simplified method to calculate the deformation of the gasketed flange joints due to the application of internal pressure after

bolted-up using the load factor. By this calculation, the changes in the bolt load and the gasket load can be calculated and the gasket stress distribution is also obtained. A leakage evaluation is available by using the calculated gasket deformation. Here, to complete the flange design, flange strength should be also checked by using the calculated bolt and gasket loads. An accurate stress calculation seems necessary, though the stress calculation available is the ASME formulas only at present. Thus, the present study focuses on the suitability of ASME flange stress formulas. The calculated flange stress according to ASME formulas is compared with those calculated by finite element analysis and the difference between those is checked in detail. Finally, the results of the present study are summarized and the problems of the present Code formulas are pointed out. MODELING OF ANALYSIS Figure 1 shows a finite element model for the present study to calculate stress distribution in a gasketed flange joint. An axisymmetric model is employed considering the shape and the loading conditions. It was already verified that the axisymmetric modeling leads to acceptable results in comparison to 3-dimensional modeling by the previous study[2]. Bolts and nuts are modeled by a ring which is an orthotropic solid material and has an equivalent compliance represents total ones in the axial direction for bolts and nuts. Ligament portion of the bolt holes are also modeled by a ring which is orthotropic solid material. These materials consider that the modulus of elasticity in the axial direction is adjusted by the ratio of cross section of the model and that of actual one. The modulus of elasticity in the circumferential direction is omitted. The modulus of elasticity in the radial direction is modeled by the same manner as that of the circumferential direction. Flanges, bolts and nuts are assumed as linear elastic material. The gasket material is modeled as a nonlinear material which can represent the loading-unloading curve of the gasket. The stiffness is only considered in the gasket thickness direction. Figure 2 illustrates the loading-unloading curve for

the gasket which is employed in the present analysis. This idealized curve bases on the loading-unloading test results for spiral wound gaskets. Among the three bodies of flange, bolt and gasket the contact conditions are considered. Finite element analysis for a gasketed flange joint is usually performed by two steps. The bolt-up condition is the first step and represents the condition after completion of bolt tightening. Bolt preload is assumed uniformly distributed to all the bolts in this study and omitted the simulation during the bolt tightening. The pressurized condition is the second step and simulates the condition internal pressure is applied to the joint under the operating condition. Internal pressure and also the end thrust force is applied to the model after bolted up. Finite element analysis in the present study is carried out using ANSYS Release 10.0. Flanges, bolts and nuts are meshed by PLANE183 element which is implemented as a high order 8-node isoparametric element. Gasket is meshed by INTER193 element which is so-called gasket element. Bolt preload is represented by PRETS179 element which is a special element to generate the specified pretension. Contact condition between bearing surface of nut and back side of flange is considered by

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

Gasket Closure, mm

Fig.2 Gasket Loading-Unloading Curve the contact pair of TARGE169 and CONTA172 elements with the bonded contact option. Lift-off of nut may be omitted due to the results of preliminary analysis. FORMULAS FOR FLANGE STRESS The method to calculate flange stress adopted by ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section VIII is based on the research by Waters at el.[3] as it is well known. The followings are the formulas to calculate flange stresses. Longitudinal hub stress

SH =

Radial flange stress

fM o Lg12 B

(1)

SR =

(1.33te + 1) M o

Lt 2 B

YM o ZS R t2B

(2)

ST =

(3)

Here, the definitions of the symbols used in the above equations are referred to those explained in the Code. These formulas calculate flange stresses where a moment is applied to the flange ring and the other loads are not considered, though the formulas are used for both bolt-up and operating conditions. Figure 3 shows the analytical model for the calculation. The model consists of three parts pipe, tapered hub and flange ring. Since stress on the flange subjected to a moment is solved based on the theory of shell and plate, the calculated stress is essentially classified in bending stress. Thus, SH is considered as the bending stress in the axial direction at the point A of the hub shown in Fig.3. SR and ST are the bending stress in the radial and tangential directions at the point B of the flange ring shown in Fig.3.

CALCULATION RESULTS Load Factor Load factor is defined by the ratio of bolt load increment to the external axial force applied to the bolted joint. For the gasketed flange joint internal pressure applied, the load factor is determined by the ratio of total bolt load increment or decrement to the end thrust force due to internal pressure[5]. Table 2 shows the load factors calculated from the results of finite element analysis. It is found the load factors to be negative. This means that the bolt load decreases due to the application of internal pressure. The load factor becomes smaller when the flange size becomes larger. For the larger size flange, the bolt load decrement will be substantial and this is the reason why the leakage happens easier for large size flanges than small ones. The ASME flange calculation deals with the gasket seating condition and the operating condition independent each other at present. The loads used in the flange stress calculation under the operating condition do not represent the pressurized condition after bolting-up. Thus, in this study, the loads based on the results of finite element analysis are employed to evaluate the flange stress under the pressurized condition according to the formulas shown as equation (1) through (3). Table 2 Load Factor obtained by FEA

NPS 2 3 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24 Seating Operating Bolt Load Bolt Load Bolt Load Increment kN kN kN 88.8 88.1 -0.7 99.6 99.4 -0.2 196.1 194.5 -1.6 312.1 306.9 -5.2 307.4 296.1 -11.2 602.3 585.8 -16.6 663.3 637.2 -26.1 809.7 782.1 -27.7 1055.9 1013.4 -42.5 1385.7 1322.7 -63.0 1658.3 1576.0 -82.3 2102.7 1970.7 -132.0 Pressure End Thrust kN 85.9 94.7 186.3 288.3 263.9 534.9 565.0 694.8 899.4 1178.4 1396.7 1711.3 Load Factor -0.187 -0.019 -0.126 -0.198 -0.243 -0.255 -0.288 -0.255 -0.303 -0.356 -0.379 -0.425

Fig.3 Analytical Model for ASME Flange Calculation FLANGES STUDIED Standard flanges, Class 150 WN RF from NPS 2 through NPS 24, standardized in ASME B16.5[4] are studied. Table 1 shows major dimensions for the studied flanges. Schedule 40 piping is assumed to be welded to the flanges. ANALYSIS CONDITIONS Flange stresses are calculated for the gasketed flange joints listed in Table 1 by finite element analysis as well as the formulas according to the Code. Stress is evaluated under the bolt-up condition and the pressurized condition, respectively. The bolt preloads are determined by the flange design bolt load for gasket seating defined in the Code. The operating condition is taken as 1MPa internal pressure for Class 150 flanges at room temperature. Table 1 Dimension of Studied Flanges

NPS 2 3 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24 Flange Flange Hub OD Thk Length mm 152 191 229 279 343 406 483 535 595 635 700 815 mm 19.5 24.0 24.0 25.5 29.0 30.5 32.0 35.0 37.0 40.0 43.0 48.0 mm 35.1 35.4 41.4 51.7 60.5 57.9 68.3 77.1 74.3 82.8 83.7 84.9 g1 mm 12.6 15.0 16.3 19.0 21.7 25.2 31.0 33.3 38.1 38.1 40.5 44.5 g0 mm 3.9 5.5 6.0 7.1 8.2 9.3 10.3 11.1 12.7 14.3 15.1 17.5 Bore mm 52.5 77.9 102.3 154.1 202.7 254.5 303.2 333.4 381.0 428.7 477.8 574.7

Stress Distribution Figure 4(a), 5(a), 6(a) and 7(a) show stress distributions of stress intensity, longitudinal stress, radial stress and tangential stress in NPS24 flange, respectively, obtained by finite element analysis under the bolt-up condition. Figure 4(b) through 7(b) show those under the pressurized condition. Each stress distribution for stress intensity and stress components does not change very much after internal pressure applied from that under the bolt-up condition. The maximum stress intensity appears at the point the hub and the flange ring connected on the back side of hub. Stress evaluation section for the hub stress is taken along the thickness of the larger hub end and the evaluation is done according to Division 2 of ASME B&PV Code Section VIII. Stress evaluation section for the flange ring is also taken along the flange thickness at about the center of the ring.

ANSYS 10.0A1 FEB 19 2007 17:38:09 PLOT NO. 1 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=3 SINT (AVG) PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES=Mat DMX =.575213 SMN =.498435 SMX =131.17 .498435 15.017 29.537 44.056 58.575 73.094 87.613 102.132 116.651 131.17

ANSYS 10.0A1 FEB 19 2007 17:39:45 PLOT NO. 1 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=4 SINT (AVG) PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES=Mat DMX =.578247 SMN =1.187 SMX =123.581 1.187 14.786 28.385 41.985 55.584 69.183 82.783 96.382 109.981 123.581

MX MN

MX

MN

/PVP2007/24B150lb-Sch40-SWG

/PVP2007/24B150lb-Sch40-SWG

1 ANSYS 10.0A1 FEB 19 2007 17:38:53 PLOT NO. 1 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=3 SY (AVG) RSYS=0 PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES=Mat DMX =.575213 SMN =-88.979 SMX =90.359 -88.979 -69.053 -49.126 -29.2 -9.273 10.653 30.58 50.506 70.433 90.359 1

ANSYS 10.0A1 FEB 19 2007 17:40:06 PLOT NO. 1 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=4 SY (AVG) RSYS=0 PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES=Mat DMX =.578247 SMN =-86.701 SMX =89.536 -86.701 -67.119 -47.537 -27.955 -8.373 11.209 30.79 50.372 69.954 89.536

MX

MX

MN

MN

/PVP2007/24B150lb-Sch40-SWG

/PVP2007/24B150lb-Sch40-SWG

ANSYS 10.0A1 FEB 19 2007 17:39:05 PLOT NO. 1 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=3 SX (AVG) RSYS=0 PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES=Mat DMX =.575213 SMN =-61.662 SMX =108.194 -61.662 -42.789 -23.916 -5.043 13.83 32.702 51.575 70.448 89.321 108.194

ANSYS 10.0A1 FEB 19 2007 17:40:14 PLOT NO. 1 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=4 SX (AVG) RSYS=0 PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES=Mat DMX =.578247 SMN =-49.625 SMX =95.235 -49.625 -33.529 -17.434 -1.338 14.757 30.853 46.949 63.044 79.14 95.235

MX

MX

MN

MN

/PVP2007/24B150lb-Sch40-SWG

/PVP2007/24B150lb-Sch40-SWG

1 ANSYS 10.0A1 FEB 19 2007 17:39:28 PLOT NO. 1 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=3 SZ (AVG) RSYS=0 PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES=Mat DMX =.575213 SMN =-85.1 SMX =57.094 -85.1 -69.301 -53.502 -37.702 -21.903 -6.104 9.696 25.495 41.294 57.094 1

ANSYS 10.0A1 FEB 19 2007 17:40:24 PLOT NO. 1 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=4 SZ (AVG) RSYS=0 PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES=Mat DMX =.578247 SMN =-78.887 SMX =76.327 -78.887 -61.641 -44.395 -27.149 -9.903 7.343 24.589 41.835 59.081 76.327

MX

MX

MN

MN

/PVP2007/24B150lb-Sch40-SWG

/PVP2007/24B150lb-Sch40-SWG

Fig.7(a) Tangential Stress in Bolt-up Condition Comparison of Flange Stress by ASME and FEA Table 3 shows stress obtained by ASME formulas and finite element analysis. Membrane plus bending stress is evaluated in finite element analysis. Membrane plus bending stress in the longitudinal direction at the section in the larger hub end is taken to compare with the hub stress SH calculated by the equation (1). Membrane plus bending stress in the radial direction and the tangential stress at the section in the flange ring is taken to compare with the radial flange stress SR and the tangential flange ST calculated by equations (2) and (3), in the same manner.

Fig.7(b) Tangential Stress in Pressurized Condition Figure 8 indicates the ratio of the SH calculated by ASME formula to that by finite element analysis. Figures 9 and 10 plot the ratio of the SR and ST to the results by finite element analysis, respectively. Regarding SH shown in Fig.8, the ratio becomes saturated to about 1.5 for larger size flange, though the ratio is over two for NPS10 and smaller. This tendency seems to come from the deviation in the assumptions of the theory adopted in the ASME calculation. For SR plotted in Fig.9, the ratio scatters around 5 and does not show a specific tendency. The discrepancy between the Code formula and finite element analysis is very large. The formula does not seem to

NPS 2 3 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24 SH MPa 129.7 68.6 138.7 122.4 75.7 121.6 96.7 107.7 105.7 95.3 98.5 95.8 ASME SR MPa 126.9 58.6 129.3 124.0 76.7 142.6 149.7 157.2 181.7 138.5 137.3 128.2 ST MPa 75.3 39.2 70.8 53.2 30.7 50.7 43.2 47.0 50.1 37.5 38.8 36.2 SH MPa 41.0 28.2 62.5 59.7 39.8 67.2 60.6 65.0 69.7 60.7 65.8 62.9 FEA SR MPa 16.8 12.9 27.1 21.1 17.4 26.6 39.6 41.9 54.6 34.1 38.7 27.3 ST MPa 36.8 22.8 53.7 46.2 33.0 60.4 59.8 63.6 74.6 57.1 64.3 58.1

represent the actual stress distribution. About ST indicated in Fig.10, the ratio is somewhat small and less than 1.0 for larger size flanges. The tendency that saturation is observed with the size increasing is as same as the ratio of SH. Table 4 shows membrane plus bending stress intensity through the larger hub end and the flange ring obtained by FEA. Stress levels for both sections are almost same. No significant change in the stress level from bolt-up condition to pressurized condition. Table 4 Membrane plus Bending Stress Intensity at Larger Hub End and Flange Ring obtained by FEA

NPS 2 3 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24 Bolt-up Condition Larger Hub End Flange Ring MPa MPa 49.2 64.0 31.0 44.1 65.6 50.5 59.0 98.8 39.5 59.3 66.5 70.0 60.4 57.7 64.6 57.2 69.3 66.3 60.5 87.0 65.8 81.1 63.1 86.3 Pressurized Condition Larger Hub End Flange Ring MPa MPa 50.4 63.3 33.1 43.1 67.3 49.5 58.0 96.5 38.5 56.5 62.9 67.2 56.8 54.0 60.0 55.5 66.4 65.0 57.9 82.5 60.9 76.2 58.5 79.8

NPS 2 3 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24 SH MPa 127.5 72.3 141.9 125.7 79.9 123.8 97.3 108.1 105.0 97.8 101.0 96.7 ASME SR MPa 121.6 61.4 131.6 128.0 78.9 143.4 148.4 158.3 177.5 139.4 146.6 128.8 ST MPa 74.9 41.5 72.7 54.9 32.6 51.8 43.6 47.6 49.7 38.6 40.4 37.1 SH MPa 39.6 27.1 60.7 57.2 39.1 63.4 57.0 60.9 65.4 59.4 62.6 60.3 FEA SR MPa 16.0 12.0 25.6 18.6 14.1 22.9 34.0 37.4 48.3 27.0 31.7 20.3 ST MPa 36.1 22.5 53.2 45.2 32.1 58.6 57.9 61.4 72.1 55.2 62.0 55.5

3.5 3.0 Ratio of SH by ASME/FEA 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 NPS

Fig.8 Ratio of Longitudinal Hub Stress SH Calculated by ASME Formula to FEA

Section Evaluated

8.0 7.0 Ratio of SR by ASME/FEA 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 Section Evaluated 2.0 1.0 0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 NPS

Fig.9 Ratio of Radial Flange Stress SR Calculated by ASME Formula to FEA

1.5

0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 NPS

Fig.10 Ratio of Tangential Flange Stress ST Calculated by ASME Formula to FEA

seems appropriate considering the stress limit of ST. ST is CONCLUSION limited to S in the Code though the stress should be The followings are found though the present study. classified in the bending stress and the limit should be (1) All the Class 150 standard flanges have a negative load taken as 1.5S. factor. (2) ASME hub stress formula gives SH about 1.5 times greater than the actual one. In the small flanges, the REFERECE 1. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, discrepancy becomes larger. Since the stress in the larger Division 1 and Division 2, 2004 hub end should be considered the primary stress, it may 2. Shoji, Y., Nagata, S., Sawa, T., An Iterative Method for say the formula is appropriate and includes some margin. 3-Dimensional Analysis of Gasketed Flanges, However, in case the factor f greater than 1.0, the Proceedings of the ASME PVP Conference, ASME PVPdiscrepancy becomes greater and the formula seems to Vol.405, pp.115-122, 2000 give overly conservative results. All the studied cases 3. Waters,E.O., Rossheim,D.B., Westrom,D.B. and Williams, have the factor f less than 1.0. (3) ASME radial flange stress formula gives SR about 5 to 7 F.S.G., Development of General Formulas for Bolted times greater than the actual one. Considering this Flanges, Taylor Forge & Pipe Works, 1943 4. ASME B16.5 Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings, 2003 overestimation, the Code stress evaluation for SR seems 5. Nagata, S., Matsumoto, M., Sawa, T., Load Factor Based inadequate or overly conservative. The evaluation of SR Calculation for Bolt Load and Gasket Load Changes due may be eliminated from the Code. (4) ASME tangential flange stress formula gives ST about 0.7 to Internal Pressure, Proceedings of ASME PVP times of the actual one for relatively larger size flanges. Conference, ASME PVP-Vol.478, pp.89-96, 2004 Though the formula gives underestimation, the formula ________________________________________________

- Flange Leakage (Working Copy)Uploaded byabrarakbar
- NON Circular Pressure VesselsUploaded byfergolz
- Design Calculation Anchor Flange - ASME VIII Div 1 App.2Uploaded bylosmoscasbr
- SIF's for TrunnionUploaded byfileseeker
- Design of Flange JointUploaded bymichal_lysy
- Local Stresses WRC107Uploaded bynaeand
- ASME B1.20.1 Pipe Threads, General Purpose (Inch)Uploaded byCristina Zamora
- pressure vesselUploaded byMeylia Rodiawati
- Finite Element Analysis of Gasketed Flange Bolted JointUploaded byInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- CAESAR II_Fatigue AnalysisUploaded byzhaljoug
- Total Piping Stress AnalysisUploaded byDesmond Chang
- Davit Arm CalculationUploaded byjoeriji
- Bending Moments and Leakage at Flanged Joints Part 1~3Uploaded bym5416
- Asme Pressure Vessel SupportUploaded bySourendra Dey
- 75577376 Point Pipe Stress Analysis by Computer CAESAR IIUploaded bymsdohar
- Flanges Types, Classes and AssemblyUploaded byRaj Bindas
- 224813666-Pipe-Stress-Analysis.pptUploaded bypourang1361
- Catalogue 2012 SmallUploaded bySugianto Barus
- Spiral Wound Gasket Brochure FlexitallicUploaded byhvdb72
- Design Practise Piping Support SystemUploaded byryncsc
- Bolted Flanged Connections for Non-Circular Pressure VesselsUploaded byKenneth Beer
- PTB-7-2014.pdfUploaded byLuisMedina
- MW Kellogg TrunnionDesignUploaded byLionel Torrado
- Flange SupportUploaded byvijayanmks
- design_procedure_for_aes_he.pdfUploaded byRyan Goh Chuang Hong
- Concepts of Pipe Stress AnalysisUploaded byTejas Patel
- Bolted Flanged Joints New Methods Practices - ProceedingsUploaded bysupercooljt
- ASCE 7-10 Wind LoadsUploaded byLuis Miguel Castrejon Espinoza
- ASME B16.25-2017 Buttwelding EndsUploaded byLucas Romani
- Wind Calculation SheetUploaded byaauppal

- Seconardy treatmentUploaded byMohammed Eljammal
- Pages_285-295_from_Complete_Idler_Roller_Catalog-6.pdfUploaded byMohammed Eljammal
- Activated Sludge ModelUploaded byvikas2504
- Fourier Series TutorialUploaded byJose Villegas
- BS6399p1Uploaded byGopan Pillai
- Chain CalculationsUploaded byTeguh Nugraha Kusnan
- Stress Intensity Factors and Weight Functions for Special Crack ProblemsUploaded byVũ Kiên
- Influence of Local Wall Thinning on Elastic Shakedown boundary of Pipe Bend.docUploaded byMohammed Eljammal
- Pv Quick StartUploaded byΔημήτρης Αντωνιάδης
- ModiconPremium-ScraperChain.pdfUploaded byMohammed Eljammal
- sc.pdfUploaded byMohammed Eljammal
- Storage Tank CalculationUploaded byPaijo Tejo
- TableUploaded byAhmed Mandor
- Wrd Ot Clarifier Calculations 445211 7Uploaded byroyal in
- Shakedown and limit load of pipe bends with local wall thinning under combined internal pressure and cyclic in-plane bending moment.pdfUploaded byMohammed Eljammal
- 2Uploaded byBeny Abdou
- Din 2576 Manufacture Din2576 Flange and Flanges Plate of Din 2576 Pn10, Pn 10Uploaded byMohammed Eljammal
- 2012Sept-IPC2012-90582 OvalityUploaded byMohammed Eljammal
- 2012Sept-IPC2012-90582 OvalityUploaded byMohammed Eljammal
- Conveyor Design-Draft.xlsUploaded bymkchy12
- Tipple-Leak_Before_Break_Analysis-SCC2012-Final.pdfUploaded byMohammed Eljammal
- Weights CalculationUploaded byMohammed Eljammal
- ULC UL142 Comparison SpreadsheetUploaded byMohammed Eljammal
- 2 Bar problem detailed analysis.pdfUploaded byMohammed Eljammal
- Rectangular Tank Design.pdfUploaded byPrajwal Shetty
- Limit moment of local wall thinning in pipe under bending.pdfUploaded byMohammed Eljammal
- CA46S_Austenitic_Stainless_Steel_Air_and_Gas_Trap_DN40_and_DN50-Technical_Information.pdfUploaded byMohammed Eljammal
- 20_NT_IUploaded byMohammed Eljammal
- ASME-PVP2011-57108-FINAL.pdfUploaded byMohammed Eljammal
- Leak DetectionUploaded byliyana_anuar_3

- COP AND EERUploaded byطاہر رضا
- Hypercoat PU - 40.pdfUploaded byICPL-RWP
- Experimental Study of the Post Tensioned Prestressed Concrete Corbels.1Uploaded byRômulo Menck Romanichen
- Cooling tower reportUploaded byjuaxxo
- Stress Classification ASME DIV2 Sec5 V1Uploaded bypajadhav
- rotary_kiln-1910.pdfUploaded bySunday Paul
- Moist ControlUploaded bySara Grech
- Low-profile-T45-60(30)-905Uploaded byjrandeep
- Composites Used in AerospaceUploaded byNono4138
- AnalysisUploaded byRazosFyfe
- DVS SolarVenti Price BrochureUploaded byjzmateo
- Columns Design PDFUploaded byLuis
- 1-s2.0-S0142112304001392-main.pdfUploaded byJorge Luis
- 94267109-Portal-Frame.pdfUploaded byeidalin
- 1851665676Uploaded bythirumali muppur
- CE2305 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING Anna University Question Bank Question Paper 2 Marks and 16 MarksUploaded byPrabhumk07
- Injection MoldingUploaded byAnoj pahathkumbura
- Machine DesignUploaded byVikram Borkhediya
- (2) Boiler ProperUploaded byEr Gandhi Munusamy
- JMUploaded byGuillermo Ardena
- Foundation of Chemistry(1)Uploaded byapi-3701851
- H6105JUUploaded byhunghiepvan
- High Rise Fire SafetyUploaded byRichard M Patton
- Chapter 13 the Feedwater LoopUploaded byFrancis Benedict Baygan
- Measurment of velocity profile in square ductUploaded byMotasem Ash
- Unipier Selection GuideUploaded byEsteban San Jose
- Conduit Tube and Acce e So Ries 2014Uploaded bycyelectrocontrolll
- Lesson Plan 4th SD-I(CE-1208)Uploaded byprasad
- Lab 1 (LAA)Uploaded byYeow Kiat
- BoqUploaded byLakmal Jayashantha