HCBBS Forum (English)
Submit Chemical Projects / Find Solutions
Amplify Your Requirements on a Broader Chemical Platform *Engineering · Technology · Equipment · Solutions*
Submit Request

Regarding the issue of \"opening reinforcement calculations for the takeover of jacketed equipment\"

2018-05-09View Original

Thread Content

Without further ado, let’s take a look at the diagrams first. For the jacketed equipment, the design pressure of the inner cylinder is -0.1 MPa, while the design pressure of the hot water in the jacket is 0.8 MPa. In the stress calculation based on the openings shown in the diagram, should it be calculated using -0.1 MPa or -0.9 MPa? Welcome to leave critical comments
Reply #22018-05-09
It’s definitely necessary to use -0.9 MPa, after all, the specification for 150 is based on the maximum difference between internal and external pressures.
Reply #32018-05-09
The last edit to this post was made by wanlirn on 2018-5-9 at 22:15. I think it’s sufficient to calculate the reinforcement for the openings using an internal pressure of 0.1 MPa. What interests me greatly is how stability is taken into account in this case
Reply #42018-05-10
You can use -0.1 for the calculation; your jacket already has ring plates, and the openings in the jacket need to be large enough to accommodate the local stresses resulting from the connection between the inner tube and its fittings
Reply #52018-05-10
Calculate at -0.1 MPa, but note that the effective range of hole reinforcement is limited to the diameter of the area within the transition ring.
Reply #62018-05-10
The stability of the inner cylinder is considered as a whole, based on a maximum pressure difference of 0.9 MPa.
Reply #72018-05-10
Well, I’ve thought about that too, of adjusting the B value for calculation. But I’m not sure if it’s reasonable.
Reply #82018-05-10
The overall stability of the inner cylinder is considered at -0.9, but is using this same pressure value for local reinforcement openings too conservative?
Reply #92018-05-10
Yes, I think so too. So I’d like to ask everyone for their opinions. If calculated at -0.9 MPa, regardless of whether it is correct or not, it is certainly the most conservative and safest approach; however, its correctness is debatable ; However, there is no basis for calculating it at -0.1 MPa.
Reply #102018-05-10
The shell can also be calculated using -0.9; it’s the safest approach in any case. However, the calculated thickness for the pipe fittings should be based on -0.1.

Submit a Project

**Looking for Chemical Technology, Equipment & Solutions?** No Registration Required Broader Platform Exposure | Global Chemical Service Provider Connections

Submit Request — Free Consultation

Disclaimer

This is an automated machine translation of the original thread. Some technical terms may have inaccuracies; the original text shall prevail. Click "View Original" at the top right to access the source page, which supports IP-based automatic real-time language translation. Please watch out for contact details and sales inducements to prevent fraud. All content and translations are for reference only, representing solely the poster's personal views. For enquiries, email service@hcbbs.com.