Is a standard Type B flange considered an integral flange?

The calculation method depends on the size of the weld leg; the weld legs specified by the 4702 standard are not sufficient for integral flanges. If the weld legs are large enough, an integral calculation can be used, while if they are not large enough, a loose-type design is required. The original poster is discussing software, not standards. In the case of software, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a holistic or arbitrary approach; if an arbitrary approach fails to meet the conditions for loose calculation, the software will provide a judgment for you ； But if you’re satisfied with having the software calculate at any desired time, it will automatically use the loose setting. Incidentally, with the way the original poster has phrased their question, only a competent designer can be considered; there’s still a long way to go before one can become an excellent designer

Reply to 2# Hooligan: Right now, I’m not even considered a qualified designer – I’ve only been working for three months. The issue is that the shear stress calculation differs for flanges of the arbitrary type and those of the integral type: for integral flanges, the thickness of the entire flange plus the height of the weld legs are taken into account, while for arbitrary-type flanges, only the height of the weld legs is considered

In my opinion, type B flanges are not considered integral flanges; those with a short cylinder can be treated as integral flanges. However, the same data should be entered for both the large neck and the small neck. If a liner structure is used, calculations should be carried out using the appropriate formula, as the shear height is insufficient in such cases, and the actual shear height should be entered at that time. I’m not sure if this understanding is correct.