In the formula for calculating the maximum spacing of Type C reinforcing columns in B/T47003.1-2009 \"Steel Welded Atmospheric Pressure Vessels\"

The calculation for P149 is based on 1200; there’s nothing wrong with that, right?

I hadn’t paid attention to this calculation in the appendix before; if we use 1200 as the value, then Lpmax=1296, so 1200 is also a viable option. Taking the device at its original length is indeed not appropriate; you should be careful about that.

According to the standard definition on page P149, item 5, in the design table for the reinforcement column, A=L=4500, which represents the total length of the container; however, the standard requires A=LP=1200, which does not match the standard requirements. This person should go and check the standards and the relevant definitions.

This post was last edited by Yanjinqinfenqiu cx on November 25, 2015, at 14:47. According to the formula for calculating the maximum spacing between Type C reinforced columns as specified on page 68 of the standard: when A is set to LP=4500, the calculated value of LPmax is 1323.97, not 1296. (Is this different from your calculation result?) ? ? ? ) In this case, it is indeed correct to set LP at 1200, but with such arbitrary standards, what kind of standards are these? ? ? Furthermore, the E-type reinforcement method required by the standard is based on types C and D; the examples given in the standard’s explanations also do not match the requirements specified in the standard. When considering both the standard itself and the examples provided therein, ambiguity arises. If the calculation method specified for type E in the standard is used, the results are excessively large and unreasonable ； If we use the example given in the standard definition, the resulting value is too low, which raises concerns that the strength and stiffness of the reinforcement elements may not be sufficient. Logically, it is the standards that have legal effect, and one should not rely on interpretations of those standards; however, the results obtained from applying those standards are clearly too high and do not make any sense.

If we use the formula for the maximum spacing of Type C reinforcement columns as specified on page P68, with A set to LP=4500, the calculated value for LPmax is 1323.97, not 1296 – is this different from your calculation results? ? ? ? ) In this case, it is indeed correct to set LP at 1200, but with such arbitrary standards, what kind of standards are these? ? ? Furthermore, the E-type reinforcement method required by the standard is based on types C and D; the examples given in the standard’s explanations also do not match the requirements specified in the standard. When considering both the standard itself and the examples provided therein, ambiguity arises. If the calculation method specified for type E in the standard is used, the results are excessively large and unreasonable ； If we use the example given in the standard definition, the resulting value is too low, which raises concerns that the strength and stiffness of the reinforcement elements may not be sufficient. Logically, it is the standards that have legal effect, and one should not rely on interpretations of those standards; however, the results obtained from applying those standards are clearly too high and do not make any sense.

It’s inevitable that standards contain errors; otherwise, what would there be for corrections?

NB/T47003-2009 is a standard from 2009; it’s now the end of 2015, yet **the relevant authorities have not issued any corrections for it. At least, I haven’t found it.

Take a look at the E type – it’s very difficult to meet the requirements for reinforcing columns; I even doubt there’s something wrong with the specifications~

This post was last edited by Yanjinqinfenqiu cx on November 27, 2015, at 14:38. According to the standard interpretation: 1. When A = LP = 900 mm and B = H1 = h1 = 2500, α = 0.05655. It can be calculated that LPmax = 916.5 > LP = 900, which meets the strength requirements. However, I believe that the value assigned to B in this calculation is highly controversial. 2. Why, even though the calculation in the previous step showed that the spacing between the reinforcement columns no longer met the strength requirements, the value of LP used in the design of the top-edge reinforcement elements remains 1000. It cannot be understood here.