Discussion on whether flaw detection is required for the skirt base
Thread Content
Recently, I saw suggestions that ultrasonic testing of each steel plate used in the skirt base be carried out; I’m not sure whether such a requirement is reasonable. Is there any standard to support it, and under what circumstances should it be applied?
Under normal circumstances, such a requirement does not exist, but perhaps the material of this equipment is special, such as pure chromium-molybdenum steel, or the equipment is of great importance; in that case, technical requirements may be increased to include testing of the skirt as well.
There is no basis for this, but it’s possible that the designer intentionally raised the detection requirements
I have never seen non-destructive testing performed on Class A and B welded joints of skirt bases, let alone ultrasonic testing of the materials. What was said on the second floor is correct; perhaps the equipment has some special features to enhance safety. In short, there must be a reason behind the strict requirements set by designers.
If the device is important, or if the customer requests it, this can be done
I specifically checked the relevant documents just now and found only one reference: according to JB/T-2005 for Steel Tower-Type Vessels, section 6.2.2 states that the steel used for the skirt base should be selected in accordance with the requirements for steel used in pressure vessel components. It makes sense for designers to interpret things based on this
Generally, testing is not necessary, unless it is particularly important or the operating conditions are very harsh. Structural members and compression members are different; it might be due to special considerations in the design or an oversight that led to the confusion.
Thank you for your answers; I now have a basic understanding of the situation. “The steel used for the skirt base is selected in accordance with the requirements for steel used in pressure vessel components; it makes sense for the designer to choose it based on this understanding. I also thought it made some sense when I saw that, but I still felt it was a waste, haha
This post was last edited by lisy on 2009-6-2 23:26. It is sufficient to conduct mechanical property tests on the skirt seat as a supporting component of the device. Personally, I think there’s no need for flaw detection; it’s too wasteful. I also want to ask the original poster: What device does this group seat correspond to?
JB/T4710-2005 Steel tower vessels 6.2.2: The steel used for the skirt base should be selected in accordance with the requirements for steel used in pressure-bearing components; therefore, the material selection for the skirt base must comply with the relevant provisions in the material section of GB150； Sections 6.3 and 6.3 of SH30983 provide particularly detailed specifications for the materials used in the skirt base ； It makes sense for the designer to base their understanding on this
There is no standard support for the situation mentioned by the poster. I wonder what the designer had in mind. If the supported equipment is very special, a transition section can be provided. The skirt is a supporting structural element; it makes no sense to design it in full accordance with the requirements for pressure vessels. The intention of that statement in GB151 is to remind everyone not to overlook the design of the skirt base, and to raise the standards regarding material selection. As for the specific methods, SH 3098 details them. Because a long time ago, it was possible to use ordinary carbon steel or even boiling steel for the skirt. I think SH 3098 will be more than sufficient.