When using SW6-2011 for container head calculations, it is required to modify the nominal thickness or corrosion margin
Thread Content
I changed jobs. When using SW6-2011 for container head calculations, one reviewer requested that the nominal thickness value be changed to the reduced thickness (with the reduction rate based on head standards); another reviewer then said that the amount of reduction could be added to the corrosion allowance. After comparing the calculation sheets produced by the two software programs, I made adjustments based on the thickness reduction. But haven’t software manufacturers thought of this problem? Does the section on reinforcement for openings in the standards address this issue?
The thickness reduction should be added to the corrosion allowance; the weight of the head still needs to be calculated based on the nominal thickness.
As long as the operation is done properly, it won’t change
Either one is acceptable, but it should be noted that since the nominal thickness causes a reduction in the allowable stress of the material, it is possible to use the actual nominal thickness and add the amount of thinning to the corrosion amount, or directly create specific thickness-stress data in the user’s material database. During one of the certificate renewal processes, the officer in charge mentioned this matter, but not in great detail; he recommended filling in the nominal thickness and adding the amount of thinning to the corrosion amount.
I think it would be better to add a column for \"material thickness\" after the \"nominal thickness\" of the software, which would more intuitively address the issue of allowable stress ranges.
The software manufacturers don’t produce end caps either; they simply don’t care about that； What does this have to do with hole reinforcement? Calculate it based on the thinning
According to the calculation sheet, it has a direct impact on reinforcement. Changing the nominal thickness has a more pronounced effect on insufficient reinforcement than changing the corrosion margin. For example, a certain calculation showed the results of reinforcing the opening: leaving everything unchanged resulted in a +20% increase, changing only the nominal thickness led to a -11% change, and changing only the corrosion margin resulted in a -9% change ； Upon comparison, it was found that only the A value in the reinforcement changed.