Elastic modulus problem
Thread Content
In the GB150 code for pressure vessels, whether it is the 1998 or 2011 version, the elastic modulus values for carbon steel and low-alloy steel are the same. However, in the DL/T 5121-2000 technical specifications for the design of smoke, air, and coal powder pipelines in thermal power plants, the elastic modulus values for Q235, Q345, 10, and 20 steels differ； And this standard citation is GB150-1998; I’m really surprised – the values are different from those in GB150-1998 ； Although the elastic modulus generally has little impact on calculation results in conventional design, it recently affects many calculation outcomes when studying the stress-bearing behavior of cylinders under external pressure, which is quite troublesome. This electrical code hasn’t been updated in 17 years now, and the material grades and standards used are outdated……
It should be the difference between structural steel and steel for containers...
The elastic modulus can’t differ by that much
According to the mechanical design manual, the value for carbon steel E is between 196 and 206; for pressure vessels, the GB/T150 standards must be used, especially for pressure calculations.
According to the mechanical design manual, the value for carbon steel E is between 196 and 206; for pressure vessels, the GB/T150 standards must be used, especially for pressure calculations.
According to the mechanical design manual, the value for carbon steel E is between 196 and 206; for pressure vessels, the GB/T150 standards must be used, especially for pressure calculations.
Pressure vessels are made of vessel-grade steel; I’m not using vessel-grade steel, but rather ordinary materials such as Q235, Q345, 10, and 20
You’re not using container steel, but the specifications for material grade 150 are based on carbon content and sulfur/phosphorus levels as defined in TSG 21; the chemical composition indeed has a significant impact. As you mentioned in your screenshot, DL serves only as a reference
The electrical parameters should follow GB150; the data must be completely in line with GB150. I can’t understand why the electrical standards contain such messy and inconsistent data； Furthermore, apart from GB150, no other standards for external pressure calculations provide the A–B curve for materials; therefore, the A–B curve given in GB150 must be used for such calculations
It is said that C1 is based on 150, but it isn’t stated that C2 also uses 150; therefore, there is no point in making a comparison. Different industries have different standards, so there’s nothing comparable
If the materials are the same, the elastic modulus should also be the same, right? However, 150 li is also an elastic modulus obtained by classifying materials, and it isn’t very accurate.