Regarding large openings in equipment
Thread Content
The equipment features large openings, and the calculation using GB150 standards shows it is acceptable. The designers added reinforcement rings out of habit – is this approach appropriate? What are your thoughts?
This *habit needs to be changed. What does it mean for a calculation to pass? Why add another reinforcement ring? The person reviewing the drawings must ensure quality.
Reinforcement using a reinforcement ring is not suitable for hole reinforcement calculations based on the analysis method; it is only applicable within the scope of the equal-area reinforcement method.
The analysis method assumes that the nozzle and the shell form a continuous integral structure, and its reinforcement is designed using integral reinforcement methods for the shell or the nozzle. As designers, it is necessary to increase the requirements for ultrasonic testing regarding the penetration quality of the welds that connect the pipe fittings to the shell, as well as the quality of the pipe fitting and shell materials themselves.
It’s ** now, so things are strict; but then again, such a *habit is not good, as it reflects a lack of rigor in a unit’s design philosophy. .
The load on the pipe opening also needs to be taken into consideration. Even if the calculations pass, it is better to leave a certain margin of safety. For calculations using analytical methods, it is preferable not to use reinforcement rings but instead forged pipes. For small openings, the reinforcement principles are determined based on membrane stress, while for large openings they are determined based on bending stress; therefore, it is best to use forged pipes with an appropriate margin of reinforcement to withstand bending stress and the load on the pipe opening