Division 2. Paragraph 4.
18 of Section VIII, Division 2 has rules
Assuring Tube-to-Tubesheet Joint
Tightness and Strength
Stanley Yokell
MGT Inc.
F201 The Academy,
970 Aurora Avenue,
Boulder, CO 80302-7299
e-mail: syokell@mgt-inc.com
This paper describes preparing mockup tubesheet specimens for
visual examination using a digital microscope to determine that
tube-to-tubesheet joint welds are of the specified size and that
expanded joints are satisfactory for the intended purpose. It dis-
cusses nondestructive examinations (NDE) of the tubesheets and
tube joints intended to assure achieving sufficient tightness and
strength to satisfy the uses to which the exchangers will be put.
This paper refers to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code (Code) paragraphs that apply to tube joint welds and
expanded joints including shear load testing when the Code
requires it [1]. The discussion also addresses the need for manu-
facturers to have qualified tube joining procedures and personnel
qualified to use the qualified procedures. The work concludes with
a summary of ways to assure tube joint tightness and strength.
[DOI: 10.1115/1.4006123]
Keywords: ASME code, control hole, control tube, digital
microscope, gas-bubble testing, hybrid expanding, hydroexpanding,
mock-up, nondestructive testing, percent wall reduction, roller
expanding, tube joint, tube expansion, tube weld, ultrasonic testing,
liquid penetrant testing
Introduction
Tight, strong tube joints are essential for long life and satisfac-
tory operation of shell-and-tube heat exchangers. To assure tight-
ness and strength requires manufacturers to have and to follow
procedures for tubesheet drilling, tube hole preparation, tube joint
welding, and tube expanding. In this connection, Table RCB-7.21
and 7.21M and Paragraphs RB 7.24 and RC-7.24 of the TEMA
Standards have requirements for tubesheet drilling and prepara-
tion with annular grooves; the HEI Standard for Power Plant Heat
Exchangers Paragraph 5.72 has standards for drilling and annular
grooves; the HEI Standards for Closed Feedwater Heaters Para-
graph 3.8.3 and Table V have requirements for tubesheet drilling
but are silent on requirements for annular grooves [2–4].
The vast majority of shell-and-tube heat exchangers in North
America and many other locations are designed and constructed
in accordance with the rules of Part UHX of Section VIII Division
1 of the Code. For designs that Part UHX does not cover, Para-
graph U-2(g) applies. The text of Paragraph U-2(g) is as follows.
This Division of Section VIII does not contain rules to cover all
details of design and construction. Where complete details are not
given, it is intended that the Manufacturer, subject to the accep-
tance of the Inspector shall provide details of design and construc-
tion which will be as safe as those provided by the rules of this
Division. Manufacturers often use finite element analysis to sat-
isfy U-2(g).
Depending upon the service conditions to which the exchanger
will be exposed and its design conditions are sometimes advanta-
geous to design and construct exchangers to Section VIII
Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received June 27, 2011;
final manuscript received October 25, 2011; published online October 18, 2012.
Assoc. Editor: William J. Koves.
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright V
C 2012 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/10/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
for permissible materials, design, and construction of shell-and-
tube heat exchangers built to this division.
Tube Joint Welds. Both Section VIII Divisions 1 and 2 of the
Code define full-strength welds as those in which the weld design
strength is equal to or greater than the axial tube strength. They
define partial-strength welds as those in which the design strength
is based on the mechanical and thermal axial loads (in either
direction) that are determined in accordance with referred to para-
graphs and appendices. They define seal welds as welds used to
supplement expanded joints to ensure leak tightness with weld
sizes not determined based on axial tube loading. Both sections
say of full-strength and partial-strength welds, “Such welds do not
require qualification by shear load testing,” and “full-strength and
partial-strength welds also provide additional tube joint leak
tightness.” It is noteworthy that the design procedures of both
divisions are the same; however division 2 allows higher allow-
able stresses than does division 1.
Individuals concerned with tubular exchangers should be aware
that full-strength and partial-strength tube joint welds may meet
all of either division’s requirements but not seal the tubes to the
tubesheets if there is a gap in the weld. Similarly, gaps in seal
welds prevent sealing.
Code Requirements for Welded Joints
Tube joint weld requirements for tube joints of exchangers built
to Section VIII Division 1 are in Paragraph UW-20 and subpara-
graphs UW-20.1–20.7 of the current edition of the Code. Rules
for tube joint welds of exchangers built to Division 2 are in Para-
graph 4.18.10. To ensure leak tightness, the author’s criterion is
that the thickness of the weld through the root shall be at least as
great as the thickness of the tube wall.
Welded joint tightness depends upon the welds being continu-
ous, without cracks or gaps. Full-strength and partial-strength tube
joint welds must meet the Code sizes. Because there is no simple
way to determine whether the welds meet the Code requirements,
it is prudent to validate the procedures by preparing specimens
(tubesheet mockups) and examining them under magnification.
For this purpose, the specimens must be sectioned and polished.
The purpose of examining the welds is to determine that the weld
sizes meet the Code requirements and are not flawed with cracks
or porosity.
Weld Procedures, Procedure, and Personnel Qualifications.
It is the manufacturer’s responsibility to prepare and qualify weld-
ing procedure specifications (WPSs), maintain procedure qualifi-
cation records (PQRs) for welded tube joints, and to qualify and
maintain records of the workers’ qualifications in the use of the
qualified procedures (WPQs). The Code’s Section IX has sug-
gested forms for these purposes. The tubesheet and tube materials
used in preparing mockup specimens must very closely match the
materials of production exchangers. The report of examination of
the mockups should include the mill test reports for the mockup
tubesheet and tubes.
Specimen thicknesses of mockup tubesheets must be reasonably
close to the thickness of the production tubesheet except in cases
where tubesheets are very thick. Many specimens that the author
has examined have been as thick as 280-mm (approximately
11-in.). Where tubesheets are clad with weld metal, weld metal on
mockups must be applied using the production weld procedure,
and liquid penetrant (LP) and UT examined in the same manner
as that of the production tubesheet.
Any laboratory examinations should identify the specimens
with the manufacturer’s job number and cite the mill test report
identification for the materials of the mockup along with the man-
ufacturer’s procedure identification and the name of the welder. It
is desirable to also include the PQR number and the welder(s)’
DECEMBER 2012, Vol. 134 / 064502-1
 qualification for using the procedure in the report of the
examination.
Code Requirements for Expanded Joints
When Code tubesheet thickness calculations take advantage of
the stiffening effect of the length of tube expanded into the tube-
sheet, tubes in expanded joints must have continuous, intimate,
hydraulically tight contact with the tube hole surface. When tube
holes are prepared with annular grooves, tube metal must pene-
trate and make intimate contact with the bottom of the grooves.
In the Code’s Division 1, nonmandatory Appendix A provides
a basis for establishing allowable loads for tube joints. It is impor-
tant to be aware of Paragraph A-1(b) in Appendix A which states,
The rules in this appendix are not intended to apply to U-tube con-
struction. In its Division 2, normative Annex 4.C of the current
edition provides a basis for establishing allowable loads for tube
joints of exchangers built to that division. Paragraph 4.C.1.2 in
Annex 4.C has an identical paragraph as in Appendix A of Divi-
sion 1. It states, The rules in this appendix are not intended to
apply to U-tube construction. The word normative in the title of
Annex 4.C indicates that it is expected that design and construc-
tion will follow the rules of the annex.
Tube Joint Efficiencies. Tables A-1 of Section VIII Division
1 and 4.C.1 of Division 2 list tube joint efficiencies. These effi-
ciencies are not based on any published experimental or analytical
work but were established by Code Committee members with
much experience with tube joints. With few changes and addi-
tions, the listed efficiencies have been successfully used for
decades.
Tube Expansion Procedures and Personnel Qualifications.
The ASME Code does not have requirements to certify tube
expanding procedures and to certify the qualifications of the per-
sonnel authorized to use the certified procedures. TEMA and HEI
Standards are also silent about tube expanding procedures.
In order for the ASME Code certified manufacturers’ heat
exchangers to be acceptable for export to members of the Euro-
pean Community, in addition to meeting the Code requirements,
they must meet the requirements of the European Pressure Vessel
Directive (PVD [5]). The PVD requires heat exchanger manufac-
turers to have certifications of expanding procedures and qualifi-
cations of workers who use the procedures. The PVD
requirements parallel their requirements for welding procedures
and workers who use them.
In the Code’s Division 1, nonmandatory Appendix HH estab-
lishes requirements for tube joint expanding procedure specifica-
tions. The text and accompanying forms parallel the text and
forms for WPSs, PQRs, and WPQs of Section IX of the Code. Ap-
pendix HH has definitions for various types of tube expanding and
the equipment used in doing it. Paragraph HH-4 has requirements
for tube expanding procedure specifications (TEPS); paragraph
HH-5 has requirements for tube expanding procedure qualifica-
tions; paragraph HH-6 has requirements for tube expanding per-
formance qualification; paragraph HH-7 subdivides tube
expanding variables to be described in the procedures into essen-
tial and nonessential variables, paralleling the system used for
WPSs. Form QEXP-1 provides a form for manufacturers to record
their TEPS. It is accompanied by Table QEXP-1 that has instruc-
tions for filling out the TEPS form.
Division 2 does not have an appendix similar to that of Appen-
dix HH. However for design and construction to either division, it
is prudent for specifying engineers to require manufacturers to
have and qualify procedures for tube expanding using the forms
suggested in Section VIII Division 1 Appendix HH. Most reputa-
ble North American heat exchanger shops have such written pro-
cedures and workers qualified in their use. But except for shops
that have met the PVD requirements, the procedures are not certi-
fied by an Authorized Inspection Agency. Similarly, except for
064502-2 / Vol. 134, DECEMBER 2012
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/10/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
shops that meet the PVD, there are no certifications of personnel
in the use of the procedures.
The strength and tightness of expanded joints, and the efficien-
cies listed in Tables A-1 and 4.C.2 assume that there will be con-
tinuous intimate contact between the tubes and holes and that
where the holes are grooved with annular grooves, tube metal will
substantially fill the grooves.
Measurements and Settings. Procedures for production tube
expanding should include measuring a representative number of
tube holes and measuring a representative number of tubes to be
expanded into the measured tube holes. These should be desig-
nated control holes. The measuring tools for making these meas-
urements must be of recent calibration. The holes and tubes
should be measured for the depth of expansion at 45 deg intervals
around the circumference and at 25-mm (1-in.) intervals along
the depth. Percent tube wall reduction measurements of expan-
sions in the control holes are used to set hydrostatic expansion
pressures (or if explosive expanding is used, explosive content)
and torque settings for roller expanding. After trial expansions
achieve appropriate settings for the desired percent wall reduction,
the manufacturer should verify by measurement the percent wall
reduction every 50 expansions for tube end counts of 500 or
greater. When the tube end count is less than 500, the manufac-
turer may adjust the intervals accordingly.
Examining Tube Expansion in Mockups. The purposes of
examining tube expansions in mockups are (1) to determine that
expansion begins at an appropriate distance from the root of the
front face welds, (2) to see whether there is continuous interfacial
contact, and (3) to make sure there is penetration of tube metal
into the grooves.
Shear Load Testing
When the manufacturer builds a heat exchanger using joint effi-
ciencies listed in Tables A-1 of Section VIII Division 1 and 4.C.2
of Section VIII Division 2 that requires shear load testing, the fix-
ture used for testing must conform to Figure A-3 for construction
to Division 1 and 4.C.2 for construction to division 2.
It is noteworthy that although the division 1 Appendix A and
Division 2 Annex C do not apply to U-tube construction, it is a
common practice for specifications for U-tube closed feedwater
heaters to require shear load testing specimens for intermediate
and high pressure heaters. The reason for including this require-
ment is the assumption that shear load tested joints that equal tube
strength will meet the tightness requirements of the heater. This is
a fallacious assumption because it is possible to have a tube joint
as strong as the tube that has a discontinuity in the weld or if
welded and expanded, a leak path through the expanded tube
length and a discontinuity in the weld.
Where the Code requires shear load testing, manufacturers
should test an appropriate number of tube joints. Be aware that
push-out shear load tube testing welded and expanded joints
causes some loss of the interfacial pressure between the tube and
hole surface because of the Poisson effect. Yokell illustrated this
phenomenon in a paper on hybrid expanding that showed failures
in the weld before the tubes yielded [6].
Tightness Testing Specimens
The paper “Pressure Testing Feedwater Heaters and Power
Plant Auxiliary Heat Exchangers” pointed out that the purpose of
hydrostatic testing pressure vessels is to stress the structure to
show that it is capable of resisting the loads due to pressure [7]. It
states that, although the Code does not permit leaks during hydro-
static testing, such testing does not disclose minute leaks through
tube joints when the back face of the tubesheet is not visible. It
demonstrates by mathematical analysis that graduations on the
test gages customarily used to measure hydrostatic test pressure
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 1 Ultrasonic testing feedwater heater tubesheet after Fig. 3 Gas leak bubble testing feedwater heater tube-to-tube-
weldwire cladding and machining sheet joints

Fig. 4 Typical layout of mockup tubesheet specimen for feed-

Fig. 2 Liquid penetrant examining a feedwater heater tube- water heater with two tube thicknesses
sheet cladding after machining

and declines in hydrostatic test pressure are too coarse to indicate

minute leaks. This is especially of concern when the tubeside
pressure is higher than that of the shellside.
Consequently, purchasers should specify and manufacturers
should use other nondestructive means to assure tube joint tight-
ness. These are ultrasonic testing tubesheets after weld metal clad-
ding and machining (Fig. 1), LP examining the tubesheet after
weld cladding and again after tube joining by welding (Fig. 2),
followed by gas-bubble testing (Fig. 3), and, where tightness is of
extreme importance, helium leak sniffer testing with the helium
air mixture in the shell and the tube joints sniffed. Such nondes-
tructive test must conform with the requirements of Section V of
the Code. The workers administering the tests should be qualified
to level 2 or level 3.

A Typical Preparation of a Mockup for Examination

Under the Digital Microscope
Figure 4 is a typical layout of a set of specimens cut from a
mockup that a feedwater heater manufacturer prepared. The num- Fig. 5 Photograph of specimen A 0.035 wall tubes
bers indicate the tubes selected for examination under the digital
microscope. In the specimen shown in Figs. 5–8, the tubes were
first full-strength welded, then hybrid expanded after welding. began approximately 12-mm (approximately 1/2-in.) beyond the
The manufacturer performed the welding using a qualified weld root. Because Appendix A of Division 1 and Annex 4.C of
WPS for autogenous gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW). Expanding Division 2 of the Code do not apply to U-tube feedwater heaters,

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology DECEMBER 2012, Vol. 134 / 064502-3

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/10/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Fig. 6 Photograph of specimen B 0.035 wall tubes
Fig. 7 Photograph of specimen A 0.049 wall tubes
there was no requirement for the manufacture to prepare speci-
mens for shear load testing and the manufacturer did not prepare
such specimens.
The first stage of the hybrid expansion was by hydroexpanding
intended to produce approximately 3% wall reduction. The hydro-
expanding was performed in the inner rows with tube IDs in
0.520-in. (13.2-mm) range using a HydroPro, Inc. mandrel p/n
7130-74023-1300 with 41,800–42,100 psi (288,200–290,269
kPa) expanding pressure. The remaining rows with tube IDs in
0.548-in. (13.9-mm) range were expanded using a HydroPro,
Inc. mandrel p/n 7130-74023-1375 at a pressure of 40,000–41,000
psi (275,790–282,685 kPa) expanding pressure. The HydroPro
system used was a p/n 6100-10020-60702 unit with 0–60 ksi pres-
sure capability and a transducer p/n 84754 that had recently been
calibrated.
The second stage of the hybrid expanding was by roller expand-
ing intended to produce a final total percent wall reduction of
6–8%. Airetool manufactured the #1214 gun and tool for 6-in.
(152-mm) reach with 2-in. (52-mm) roll depth. The tool is
fitted with a thrust collar. The roll gage setup for 0.049-in.
(1.24-mm) minimum wall tubes was Airetool number 2330 with
torque setting 2–6. For 0.035-in. (0.89-mm) minimum wall
064502-4 / Vol. 134, DECEMBER 2012
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/10/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Fig. 8 Photograph of specimen B 0.049 wall tubes
tubes the roll gage setup was Airetool #1214 with a torque setting
of 2–4.
After welding the tubes to the mockup tubesheet and subse-
quent expanding, the manufacturer filled the tubes with a plastic
medium that neither shrunk nor expanded upon hardening. The
manufacturer sawed the specimen on the axial centerlines of the
tubes and polished the halves to close to a mirror finish. The rea-
son for sawing along the tube axes was to minimize the possibility
of loosening the tubes.
Tables 1 and 2 tabulate the hole measurements and expansions
of five tubes each of 5/8 in. OD  0.035-in. (16-mm  0.089)
and 5/8-in. OD  0.049-in. (16-mm  1.24-mm) tubes for a
5-7/8-in. (150-mm) thick mockup tubesheet specimen.
Examination of Specimens Using the Digital Microscope
The author examined the specimens shown in Figs. 5–8 using
the digital microscope shown in Fig. 9. He marked the specimens
as Specimens A and B, 0.035 with the tubes numbered 6–10, and
specimens A and B 0.049 with the tubes numbered 1–5. Tube
walls are identified on the microphotographs as L for left side and
R for right side and with the tube number. Figure 10 illustrates the
microphotograph of the welds taken at the ligament between tubes
numbers 6 and 7 and shows the weld measurement and the mea-
surement of the unexpanded gap behind the weld root. Upon com-
plete examination of the welds of the specimens a small number
had leak paths through the welds smaller than specified.
Figure 11 illustrates the microscopic examination of the expan-
sions in the region of the first annular groove. It shows the tube/
hole interference at the intersection of the tubes with the groove
edges and the penetration and bottoming out of the metal
deformed into the grooves. Figure 12 shows the contact of the
tube OD and hole ID at the land. Figure 12 shows the land
between the grooves with the tube in intimate contact with the
tube hole. Figure 13 shows the second groove with tube metal bot-
toming out in the groove. The examination of the expanded length
of tubes beyond the grooves was at 2-in. (51-mm intervals).
Figure 14 shows intimate contact of the tube OD with the hole ID
at 2 in. Figure 15 indicates that there were no discontinuities over
the entire expanded length. Complete examination of all the
expanded tubes in the specimens indicated that all tubes bottomed
out in the grooves and corner discontinuities were insignificant in
all grooves examined.
All but two expanded lengths showed intimate hole/tube con-
tact. Figure 16 shows one microphotograph where there are dis-
continuities. The conditions shown in Fig. 16 prevailed through
the expanded length which led to its rejection. The author’s
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 1 Tubesheet Mockup Specimen First Stage Hydroexpanding/Second Stage Roller Expanding: 0.035 Minimum Wall Tubes
Two Ring Grooves 1/4in wide 3 1/64in Deep, Trapezoidal

Tubesheet thickness 5–7/8in Job No. deleted

Percent wall reduction 3% initial statge, 8% final. Expansion depth 5-3/4in

Measurements and calculations prior to tube expansion for 0.035 MW tubes

Holes for calculations

Tube row/hole No. per figure 1 1 2 3 4 5

Hole ID (a) 0.632 0.632 0.632 0.632 0.632

Tube OD (b) 0.624 0.624 0.624 0.624 0.624
Tube clearance (a and b) (c) 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008
Tube ID (d) 0.549 0.549 0.549 0.549 0.549
Tube ID þ clearance (e) 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557 0.557
2  wall thickness (b–d) (f) 0.075 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.076
Wall reduction factor 0.08/0.03 0.08/0.03 0.08/0.03 0.08/0.03 0.08/0.03
% Wall reduction/100 Rw
Wall reduction (Rw  f) (g) 0.006/0.002 0.006/0.002 0.006/0.002 0.006/0.002 0.006/0.002
Calculated expanded ID (h) 0.563/0.559 0.562/0.558 0.562/0.558 0.563/0.559 0.563/0.559

Table 2 Tubesheet Mockup Specimen First Stage Hydroexpanding/Second Stage Roller Expanding: 0.049 Minimum Wall Tubes
Two Ring Grooves 1/4in wide 3 1/64in Deeep, Trapenzoidal

Tubesheet thickness 5–7/8in Job No. deleted

Percent wall reduction 3% initial stage, 8% final. Expansion depth 5-3/4in

Measurements and calculations prior to tube expansion for 0.035 MW tubes

Holes for calculations

Tube row/hole No. per figure 1 1 2 3 4 5

Hole ID (a) 0.633 0.633 0.633 0.633 0.633

Tube OD (b) 0.626 0.626 0.626 0.626 0.626
Tube clearance (a–b) (c) 0.007 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.007
Tube ID (d) 0.520 0.520 0.520 0.520 0.520
Tube ID þ clearance (e) 0.527 0.527 0.528 0.528 0.527
2  wall thickness (b–d) (f) 0.106 0.106 0.105 0.105 0.106
Wall reduction factor 0.08/0.03 0.08/0.03 0.08/0.03 0.08/0.03 0.08/0.03
% Wall reduction/100 (Rw)
Wall reduction (Rw  f) (g) 0.008/0.003 0.008/0.003 0.008/0.003 0.008/0.003 0.008/0.003
Calculated expanded ID (h) 0.536/0.531 0.535/0.530 0.536/0.531 0.536/0.531 0.536/0.531

Fig. 10 Tube-to-tubesheet welds at 6L and 7R Leak paths

Fig. 9 VHX digital microscope used to examine the specimens 0.0364 in. and 0.0364 in. Unexpanded gaps behind weld roots
shown in Figs. 10–16 0.387 in. and 0.375 in.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology DECEMBER 2012, Vol. 134 / 064502-5

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/10/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Fig. 11 7R and 6l Groove 1. Discontinuities are insignificant. Fig. 14 Tube 6L and 7R at 2 in. No discontinuities.
Grooves are trapezoidal.

Fig. 12 7R and 6L Land between grooves. No discontinuities.

Fig. 15 Tube 6L and 7R at 5 in. No discontinuities over the
expanded length.

Fig. 13 6R and 7L Groove 2. Insignificant discontinuities.

Grooves are trapezoidal. Fig. 16 Tube 7R and 8L at 2 in. Tube 8L is not in intimate con-
tact with the tubesheet and the expansion is unacceptable.

criterion for acceptance of discontinuities in contact between the

tube and hole surfaces in tubesheets 50-mm (approximately 2-in.) Summary and Conclusions
or thicker is that a minimum of 90% of the expanded length shall Assuring the attainment of satisfactory leak tightness and
be in intimate continuous contact. For thinner tubesheets, the strength of tube-to-tubesheet connections requires nondestructive
author’s criterion is 100% intimate contact. testing tubesheets and tube joint welds during and after

064502-6 / Vol. 134, DECEMBER 2012 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/10/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 construction. Although the Code-required hydrostatic testing veri-
fies that the exchanger strength is adequate, it does not disclose
minute leaks through the tubesheet when the tubeside pressure is
higher than that of the shellside. Other means of leak testing must
be used if leakage of the tubeside stream into the shell is not
tolerable.
Examining sectioned and polished mockup tubesheet speci-
mens at magnifications of 24X using the VAX digital micro-
scope can reveal weld quality, weld size conformity to
specification and Code requirements. Illustrations showed how
such examination reveals tube/hole surface contact and lack
thereof and penetration of deformed tube metal into annular
grooves. The VAX microscope allows much higher magnifica-
tions to examine the specimen when there is suspicion of a
potential indication.
The combination of applying appropriate nondestructive testing
methods and microscopic examination of sectioned mockup speci-
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/10/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
mens along with helium leak sniffer testing assures that tube-to-
tubesheet connections will be tight and strong enough for the serv-
ice of the exchanger.
References
[1] The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, The American Society of Mechani-
cal Engineers, New York. The current edition of the Code is the 2011 edition.
The Code is published at two-year intervals.
[2] Standard for Power Plant Heat Exchangers, 4th ed., 2004, The Heat Exchange
Institute, Cleveland, OH.
[3] Standards of the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association, 9th ed., 2007,
The Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association, Tarrytown, NY.
[4] Standards for Closed Feedwater Heaters, 8th ed., 2008, The Heat Exchange
Institute, Cleveland, OH.
[5] Directive 97/23/EC of the European Parliament.
[6] Yokell, S., 2007, “Hybrid Expansion Revisited,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Tech-
nol., 129, pp. 482–487.
[7] Yokell, S., 2011, “Pressure Testing Feedwater Heaters and Power Plant Auxil-
iary Heat Exchangers,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 133, 054502.
DECEMBER 2012, Vol. 134 / 064502-7