Welding issues for nozzles of thick chromium-molybdenum steel vessels
Thread Content
This post was last edited by Customs in the world_FZXA on 2018-11-17 at 16:24. For details, see the three images in the attachment: which welding method is the best, and what are the differences between them? file:///C:\Users\YSC210~1\AppData\Local\Temp\ksohtml\wpsCD22.tmp.jpgfile:///C:\Users\YSC210~1\AppData\Local\Temp\ksohtml\wpsA.tmp.jpgfile:///C:\Users\YSC210~1\AppData\Local\Temp\ksohtml\wps99DA.tmp.jpg
Please re-edit your theme image section.
This post was last edited by bravestorm on 2018-11-19 05:58. Undoubtedly, option 3 is better, as the joint welds can be inspected. Also, which book is this picture from?
There are three types of structures; the third type withstands forces best, with the lowest stress levels. An embedded structure could also be considered.
The diagram is based on the unified engineering standards; I use it to create templates for technical agreements
Whether this is good or not depends on the perspective from which it is viewed. From a stress perspective, the third type of embedded fitting with overall reinforcement is definitely better. But in terms of cost, it is also the most expensive. So it is generally used in important situations, such as category 3, high pressure, high altitude, explosive environments, and so on. For Class D1 and D2 devices, it is not recommended to use the third option; an insertable design offers better cost-performance, better compatibility, and is more suitable. It’s like the national basketball competition for primary and secondary school students, where Shanghai sends Yao Ming as the team leader. Is it suitable?
Well, this application is used in hydrogenation reactors with low pressure
For hydrogenation reactors with low pressure requirements, the second structure is sufficient. Reason 8 is explained on the 8th floor.
Okay, thank you! What is your hospital?