Regarding the takeover corrosion allowance
Thread Content
Must the size of the corrosion allowance for the take over be the same as that of the main body of the container?
It should be consistent with the cylinder body. However, it is not necessarily required to be identical to the cylinder body, as corrosion conditions vary depending on the location; generally, there is no issue of gas-phase corrosion, so a smaller corrosion allowance can be used for the connections. If there is vapor corrosion, it is not advisable to make it small. This needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Not necessarily. Depending on the material and medium, in many cases the corrosion allowance for different sections of the equipment varies as height changes.
Generally, a larger corrosion allowance is required than for the main body of the container, as its flow rate is high and thus the wear amount is greater than that of the container.
Unless otherwise specified, the same corrosion allowance is naturally used in the calculations
It is generally the same as that of the cylinder; if it is different, it should be specified separately
Under normal circumstances, it should be the same as that of the cylinder; otherwise, it should be specified.