Regarding the hazards associated with the filling height in atmospheric-pressure containers for explosive media

Sharing my personal opinion: Every standard has its limitations or imperfections. Although atmospheric-pressure vessels have a design pressure below 0.1 MPa and are therefore not applicable nor fall within the 150 range, according to the standard NB/T 47003.1-2009 \"Steel Welded Atmospheric-Pressure Vessels\", in the section on provisions, 1.3: Vessels used to hold media that are extremely or highly hazardous due to their toxicity require high standards in terms of design, manufacturing, inspection, and acceptance; hence they are classified under GB150. (The screenshot is already above.) Although this device is a pressure vessel at normal pressure, due to its special characteristics, the requirements applicable to pressure vessels at normal pressure do not guarantee its safety. Therefore, NB/T 47003.1 classifies it under 150, setting a higher standard to ensure its safety. So, one should look at more standards; it’s not enough to just consult one or two.

The interpretation does not have legal effect. Testing plates are not necessary, but 100% non-destructive testing is recommended.

It seems that the old standard for atmospheric pressure vessels specified 150; I’ve seen that before. For safety reasons, 150 is the safest choice

Of course, if you’re bold enough, you can design whatever you want; there’s no regulation anyway

In the pressure vessel industry, once you win a contract, you have responsibilities; it’s better to be cautious

For atmospheric-pressure vessels containing highly hazardous and explosive media, we always design them in accordance with the requirements of GB/T150

So far, everyone except you has supported proceeding at 150. As a platform builder, your responses are more persuasive than those of ordinary netizens; therefore, try to be as detailed and objective as possible. After all, a single word from you could ruin the original poster’s career, or even force them to work in low-paying jobs. The terms are explicitly stated in the standards, not listed separately in the interpretations. The definition serves as a supplement to the standards, helping to prevent misinterpretation or incorrect understanding by practitioners, and it should also be given due attention. Based on your reply, the original poster might think that only non-destructive testing is required. The selection of materials, airtightness tests, whether it is a fully welded structure, protective devices, and even the grade selection for flanges – all of these are often overlooked. There are quite serious risks. After all, special equipment entails lifelong responsibility; it doesn’t end once the design is completed. As long as nothing goes wrong, whatever design is used is fine, but once an accident occurs, the responsibility cannot be avoided.

If it is a vessel with a volume of 5,000 cubic units and subject to normal-pressure height hazards, do you still design it according to GB/T150?

What if it’s 20 cubic? If an accident happens, are you responsible? Can we be more objective and avoid using extremely extreme examples? After all, the original poster didn’t specify that precisely, so let’s discuss it based on the standard volume. Thank goodness you didn’t say something like a constant-pressure tank big enough to hold the entire universe… It scared me to death.

Atmospheric pressure vessels fall outside the scope of regulation for **special equipment; for media that pose a high level of hazard, higher design requirements can be specified in the drawings, but these cannot be based on the regulations for pressure vessels. This is a conceptual issue that should not be confused.