For a container with a fixed volume, what is the optimal ratio of diameter to cylinder length for the most economical manufacturing? (Already recommended)

Personally, I think a ratio of diameter to length of 0.4 to 0.6 is optimal.

OP, going straight for a spherical shape uses the least material.:lol

The cost of manufacturing spherical tanks is too high; otherwise, they would be used everywhere. Our ammonia tank has a diameter of 3 meters and a length of 14.8 meters – this ratio should be sufficient. If it were any longer, we would need to thicken the structure to ensure sufficient stiffness.

Take a look; the third edition of the Pressure Vessel Design Manual has explanations there.

This is a great question. Starting from mechanical and economic considerations, it’s best to optimize the product through design; the approach should be economical while still meeting practical requirements.!loveliness:

I compared them before. Following these steps to design it – I’m not sure if this is the most cost-effective approach. The maximum diameter is taken based on the design pressure and the estimated wall thickness. For example, if the design pressure is 1.77 MPa, 16 plates thick (16MnR) are generally used; it is advisable to choose a smaller value – in cases where 14 or 16 are options, 14 should be chosen – in order to make the equipment as long as possible. Based on experience, when the volume remains constant, the wall thickness has a significant impact on the total weight of the equipment. Then use 16 to work backwards and determine the maximum diameter that can be achieved for a given wall thickness~~ And that diameter is then chosen! ! The equipment doesn’t look very pretty when calculated, but it is relatively inexpensive. Factors such as cutting the end caps are not taken into consideration, as material can be reused in many places. This post was last edited by cpu_amd on 2007-12-25 16:58 ]

Your idea is great; please give an example. I think we should also consider the cost-effectiveness of processing and installation, right?

I have also made comparisons; when pressure, temperature, and volume remain constant, the total weight of the equipment reaches a minimum as the diameter increases from small to large. The data from my experiments are as follows: design pressure of 1.0 MPa, design temperature of 50 degrees, and material is Q235B. Corrosion allowance: 1.0 mm, volume: 1.5 m3. Diameter in mm; total weight of the equipment in KG: 400 – 735.90, 450 – 655.09, 500 – 591.50, 600 – 498.66, 700 – 435.38, 800 – 523.69, 900 – 480.71, 1000 – 450.07, 1100 – 538.01, 1200 – 520.22, 1300 – 509.85, 1400 – 505.64, 1500 – 609.87, 1600 – 616.51, 1700 – 628.02. From a weight perspective alone, a diameter of 700 mm results in the lightest weight for the equipment. If reasonable processing and cost-effectiveness are taken into account, other factors such as the processing cost of the end caps and equipment transportation must also be considered. I haven’t analyzed it either.

It’s very classic; I hope there are more detailed empirical data available.

See the post: http://bbs.hcbbs.com/viewthread.php?tid=32502&highlight=%B3%DF%B4%E7%B1%ED There are many documents discussing the determination of economic dimensions, which can be referred to

Spherical shape – hehe, it does save space, but it’s not clear whether its economic efficiency has been taken into account. Of course, compared to other shapes, the spherical shape does have a higher stress-bearing capacity, but considering that as the only factor is unreasonable. As for what the original poster said about being the most economical and reasonable option, that would require taking practical considerations into account in a comprehensive manner: lol

With a constant volume, the closer the ratio of diameter to height (length) is to 1, the more economical it is； Because at this point, the surface area of the cylindrical shape is as close as possible to that of a sphere.

I remember that the length-to-diameter ratio of horizontal containers is generally kept between 3 and 5, while that of vertical containers is kept between 1.2 and 1.5

When manufacturing containers, it is necessary to consider not only costs in terms of diameter but also transportation issues and space requirements; in short, it is a matter that requires comprehensive consideration

I once read an article in which, using its formula, the length-to-diameter ratio of the structure that requires the least material was found to be close to 1; such a shape appears too bulky and unsightly. I wonder if there is a formula for calculating the minimum amount of material needed while also taking into account an aesthetically pleasing and reasonable length-to-diameter ratio

Each case needs to be analyzed on its own; there is no fixed ratio. This falls under the category of optimized design for pressure vessels. There is an article on this topic in the magazine \"Pressure Vessels\" that can serve as a reference.

On the fifth floor, which manual has it?

Let me share some experience regarding the fabrication of horizontal vessels. When the wall thickness of the vessel’s shell and head is the same, it’s possible to use diameters of 2400, 2500, and 2600; using a diameter of 2600 results in the lowest weight for the shell and head. However, things change when considering the saddles – for vessels with low pressure and thin walls, the saddles add a significant amount of weight

When the wall thickness remains constant, an increase in diameter and a decrease in length both lead to a reduction in the equipment’s mass. When the wall thicknesses are different, it is difficult to determine from the mass formula which factor – diameter or wall thickness – has a greater impact on the mass; therefore, a specific calculation is required to make such a comparison. From the quality formula for the head, it can be seen that as the diameter increases, both the height and wall thickness increase as well, which results in a significant increase in the mass of the head.