To save on sheet material by adding welds, does this really reduce costs?
Thread Content
To save metal sheets, the riveters in the workshop use jointing methods, that is, they increase the number of longitudinal or circumferential seams. It is claimed that this does help to reduce costs, but does it really achieve that?
This can only be calculated by that unit; the result can be determined only by comparing the costs of all welding materials, materials used for non-destructive testing, as well as any additional labor hours.
The question posed by the original poster isn’t very clear; it needs to be considered in its entirety. If you are using special materials that are particularly expensive, making the most of those materials naturally helps to reduce costs. If it is ordinary material, the remaining material can be used in other applications; for example, U-shaped rings can be used in boilers, and the circular portion left after cutting can be used as a head. When a company operates normally, there is no excess material. Then there’s no need to splice the material. Of course, the materials should be made full use of. This post was last edited by Lan Meng on 2009-3-19 09:18]
A comprehensive consideration is necessary: although increasing the number of weld joints saves material, it increases labor costs for welding, costs for welding materials, and also costs related to non-destructive testing. For the container itself, an increase in the number of weld joints means a reduction in its overall safety performance; therefore, a comprehensive evaluation is required.
Try not to join ordinary materials together; I don’t think this helps save material. Even with special materials, or those that are more expensive, if they are used once, they might be needed again in the future – for example, for process evaluation or as test pieces for welder examinations. Moreover, companies don’t operate for just a year or two; scrap materials are always useful anyway. There’s no need to join materials together without any principles just to save material
I don’t think it’s necessary, at the current price of steel. I’m afraid the cost of labor and auxiliary materials is higher than that. Adding the factor of product appearance quality, it’s likely that such an approach is not worth it.
It can be considered comprehensively. I think if the leftover material can be used, try not to splice it. Otherwise, the extra welds not only increase the workload but may also cause defects in the equipment manufacturing.
This is a problem that arises when arranging layouts; without specific data, we’re also at a loss. If no seams are used, it’s argued that more material is wasted, while if seams are used, it’s claimed that welding material and labor are wasted. In short, there’s always something they can say. Working in technology means either suffering from hard work or dealing with stress
It would be more convincing if someone had done a comparison of these costs. Nowadays, bosses only care about immediate, visible savings; things that are not visible are considered insignificant. I share the same view as the person on floor 8
If cost savings are achieved through splicing, the thickness of carbon steel plates should be >=40; for stainless steel, a thickness of over 20 is required to achieve cost savings. In the case of composite panels, splicing can help reduce costs significantly, as the scrap material from such panels can generally only be used as carbon steel
Let’s decide based on the original poster’s actual situation. If there are not many butt welds and the material can be reused, it is also feasible. Materials cannot be just left there; some of them may become unusable if left unattended. What most companies consider are likely the obvious costs – things that, as everyone says, are like \"it’s easy to give advice when you’re not the one having to carry out those actions.\" Running a business is like living a daily life: full of trivial matters, but also practical.