The wall thickness of the static equipment exceeds the standard
Thread Content
Dear all**, there is a static equipment unit available, with a diameter of 1800 mm, a design pressure of 12 MPa, and a design temperature of -196 degrees Celsius; it is made of 316 stainless steel. Its calculated thickness is around 83, but the maximum thickness allowed per GB150 is only 80 mm, so it exceeds the standard. I would like to ask everyone the following: 1. Is it possible to use analytical design to calculate the wall thickness of this pressure vessel? By using such analysis, can the wall thickness be kept within 80 mm? 2. Analyze whether the design does not take in excessive allowances and safety factors; moreover, the safety factor used in the calculations for a wall thickness of 150 according to national standards is relatively conservative. 3. If the analytical design is feasible, could an analytical design for this container be prepared (including wall thickness and reinforcement for openings in the nozzles)? If we approach relevant firms for this, what would the cost be? Thank you all!
Analytical design can be adopted. The theoretical approaches of analytical design and conventional design differ, as does the way in which failure modes are considered. Therefore, it cannot be simply said that conventional design has a higher safety factor; rather, the safety factor for materials in conventional design is higher than that in analytical design because conventional design does not take many factors into account as thoroughly. For example, at the junction between the nozzle and the cylinder, only primary and secondary stresses are considered, without regard to peak stresses. Conventional design also does not take fatigue or local thermal stresses into account. Hence, in many cases, limitations based on the range of use and safety factors are applied to prevent such failures from occurring. Therefore, analytical design is safe and economical. The cost of analytical design is, of course, very high; this is also why conventional designs remain the dominant choice in the market. The specific prices vary, ranging from 30,000 to 150,000, and are influenced by factors such as the manufacturer and the design of the equipment
Analytical design can be adopted. The theoretical approaches of analytical design and conventional design differ, as does the way in which failure modes are considered. Therefore, it cannot be simply said that conventional design has a higher safety factor; rather, the safety factor for materials in conventional design is higher than that in analytical design because conventional design does not take many factors into account as thoroughly. For example, at the junction between the nozzle and the cylinder, only primary and secondary stresses are considered, without regard to peak stresses. Conventional design also does not take fatigue or local thermal stresses into account. Hence, in many cases, limitations based on the range of use and safety factors are applied to prevent such failures from occurring. Therefore, analytical design is safe and economical. The cost of analytical design is, of course, very high; this is also why conventional designs remain the dominant choice in the market. The specific prices vary, ranging from 30,000 to 150,000, and are influenced by factors such as the manufacturer and the design of the equipment
This post was last edited by Lantian on 2018-1-18 09:47. Our company can handle analysis and design work; contact us at 13905481281.