Can shell-and-tube exchanger types other than those specified in GB151 meet the minimum wall thickness requirements for the shell?
Thread Content
As the title suggests: Can shell-and-tube exchangers outside this category fail to meet the minimum wall thickness requirements specified in GB151? There is such a condenser: the fluid flowing through the tubes is waste gas vapor at a negative pressure of 60 mmHg, with an inlet temperature of 140°C and an outlet temperature of 80°C ； The shell side uses cooling water at a pressure of 0.3 MPa ； Inlet temperature 40°C, outlet temperature 65°C. According to the capacity regulations, it should be exempt from supervision and inspection. Both the tube side and shell side are made of stainless steel. May I ask, is it acceptable in this case if the thickness of the cylinder does not meet the minimum thickness requirement specified in GB151? Moreover, devices identical to this are in use now for 5 to 6 years, with the shell and tube vessel walls being made of 4mm thick 304 stainless steel.
I believe it should be designed in accordance with GB151. The fact that it is not subject to tolerance inspection does not mean that the equipment can be designed arbitrarily; it still needs to be designed based on relevant standards and undergo strength calculations.
If the minimum thickness specified in GB151 is not met, then you should not mention GB151 on the drawings. If you have previously designed similar equipment, you can use analogous design methods as a reference; however, I believe it is best to follow the guidelines in GB151 to avoid problems that might cause you trouble
Not subject to regulatory classification, but must be designed in accordance with 150 and 151
The problem is that our bosses in South Korea think the previous equipment was working just fine – why do we have to thicken the cylinders? I explained to him that this is what GB151 requires, but he insisted that it isn’t a conventional pressure vessel and therefore doesn’t need to be designed in accordance with GB151.
Refer to relevant foreign design standards. Additionally, designers need to know how to protect themselves, but is it advisable to cause the company to incur unnecessary costs in order to do so?
As mentioned on the 3rd floor, unless it is not designed in accordance with GB151. Although what is stipulated by standards is not necessarily reasonable, it does make some sense. Moreover, designing and manufacturing in accordance with GB151 has nothing to do with whether it falls under the jurisdiction of relevant regulations. Just because there’s a device that works fine ahead doesn’t mean you can keep going behind it. Be careful!