Definition of SW6 regarding no additional reinforcement
Thread Content
The design pressure is 2.0 MPa; all requirements specified in 6.1.3 for additional reinforcement calculations are met. For the reinforcement calculation of a single integral flange, such calculations are not required for the cylinder, but does that mean the end cap is automatically considered non-compliant? What is the reason? Are there any differences in the definition of heads and shells regarding the requirement of no additional reinforcement?
Your software version needs to be updated. Meeting the condition of no additional reinforcement does not mean that the reinforcement calculation is satisfactory.
I wonder if the original poster used an older version of SW6 for the calculations; previous versions did not perform such calculations. The current version of SW6 will carry out calculations even in cases where the requirements of 6.1.3 are met and no additional reinforcement is needed. If the calculations do not meet the requirements, the following message will be displayed: “This opening meets the conditions for no additional reinforcement, but the required reinforcement area is insufficient; please consider carefully.” Personally, I suggest that the original poster use the latest version of the software for the calculations. If the calculations do not pass, even in cases where the requirements of 6.1.3 allow for no additional reinforcement calculations, it is still advisable to consider increasing the thickness to ensure that the calculations succeed.
Yes, it’s available in the new version as well; when using version 5.0, no message stating 6.1.3 appears. The screenshot I’m showing is from version 4.0, and in that case such a message does appear. I just don’t understand why the cylinder part can be exempt from calculation, while the head part is marked as Unqualified
Is your calculation correct? A1=1?
After discussing it for the whole morning, I roughly understood that the elliptical area of the actual openings in large-diameter end caps is too large; compared to vertical openings in the cylinder, much more reinforcement is required. Therefore, even though requirement 6.1.3 is met, the actual amount of reinforcement needed is far from sufficient{:3_66:}
I see; the oval opening in the end cap is large, so the area that needs to be reinforced is too big
It seems you have some misunderstanding regarding the concept of exempting calculations! ! !
Hehe, this is the difference between placing it on the cylinder and the head. I once encountered a situation where I used versions 4.0 and 5.0 of SW6 to perform calculations for the same pipe fitting; the results from version 4.0 indicated that reinforcement was necessary, while version 5.0 also showed that reinforcement was required but under the condition that no additional reinforcement was needed. In other words, according to version 4.0, reinforcement is essential, whereas according to version 5.0, it can be omitted.
This post was last edited by zjq1962 on 2022-7-5 09:18. The hole diameter is 113 mm, and the SW6 calculation shows that no additional reinforcement is required! Does version 5.0 of the software only consider the take over diameter, ignoring the actual opening diameter? Why do more problems arise as it gets upgraded!