How is this kind of skirt seat inspection hole calculated?
Thread Content
Sea friends, take a look at the image below first. This device seems to be from the 1970s; the inspection openings in the form of \"doors\" that are provided on such pedestals – do they meet the structural requirements specified in current standards, according to those standards? How should it be calculated? Design considerations?
It is not possible to determine the specific dimensions and material from the image, so an accurate calculation and evaluation cannot be carried out. Generally speaking, the design of the skirt seat inspection holes should meet structural requirements, including aspects such as strength, stiffness, and stability, while also ensuring convenience for use and maintenance. Regarding specific design considerations, they need to be evaluated and determined based on the actual situation. It is recommended to refer to relevant design codes and standards, or consult a professional structural engineer. .
2nd floor; this ‘cliff’ is nothing but artificial intelligence – saying it is the same as not saying anything
This type of door-shaped inspection hole is quite common when the equipment has a large diameter, a low skirt height, and few fasteners.
How to calculate it? Are there any things to keep in mind? Please give some guidance
This type of inspection hole is used when conventional inspection holes cannot be arranged in the vertical direction; its calculation is similar to that of the critical sections for inspection holes in skirt shells or larger pipeline access holes using conventional methods. The inspection hole is positioned between the two foot bolts, and care must be taken to ensure it does not come into contact with the foot bolt covers.
This device is shown here; it weighs over 200 tons, and the thickness of its skirt cylinder is over 50 mm. Are there any precautions to take? You say that calculating the critical cross-section is the same as for ordinary openings, but I disagree with this. The stress concentration factor at the corners of a rectangle is much higher than that of circular or oval openings as recommended by standards; in conventional design, it seems impossible to quantify the stress level at these locations
SH/T3098 specifies that the inspection holes in the tower skirt should be circular or oval in shape; specifications for these holes also depend on the diameter of the skirt, and this can be used as a reference. I’ve never seen images like this: L
I have encountered devices with this structure, which are quite common in pharmaceutical fermentation tanks. The diameter of the inspection hole’s semi-circle is 500, and the length of the straight section of the inspection hole is 500 mm; the anchor bolts serve only a fixing purpose.
What we are discussing is the structural form of the inspection hole; it has nothing to do with anchor bolts. You say that the foundation bolts of your equipment serve only to fix it and enable self-stability, but that doesn’t mean there is no stress in the cross-section of the inspection holes. Talk about how the design of the door openings in your pharmaceutical fermentation tanks was considered Is it necessary to reinforce the openings of the inspection holes, and how should they be reinforced? How should the local stress at the corners of a rectangle be considered?
The standard does not provide for such a fully extended structure; the number of foundation bolts is also determined by the structure, so use it with caution