Weld joint factor?
Thread Content
A container with a diameter of 219x10 and a length of 1000 mm. Pressure 7 Mpa, temperature 250 degrees. Is it correct to use a welding joint coefficient of 0.85 in the overall diagram, and a welding joint coefficient of 1 when calculating the cylinder and the head? The use of a welding joint coefficient of 1 in the calculations is based on the fact that neither the cylinder nor the head itself contains any weld seams. A welding joint coefficient of 0.85 is adopted in the overall diagram, mainly for testing the weld joints between the cylinder and the head; the reference is clause 10.3.1 of GB150 P335. I’m not sure if this approach is correct
It can be done in this way. It is recommended to indicate “the head plate is cut as a single piece with no joints”...
Changing the welding joint coefficient on the drawings to 1 will suffice; the welding joint coefficient indicated on our drawings refers to the longitudinal welding joint coefficient of the cylinder. It’s not that you can indicate which connection you want just by doing so.
The welding joint coefficient should be changed to 1.0, mainly because internal inspection is not possible after use. 100% radiographic inspection should be carried out
The cylinder is directly made of seamless tubes. No longitudinal weld joints
There are also equipment flanges on the cylinder top. Since internal testing for this item is not possible, it can be ignored.
Noting this point is redundant. . . For this 219 head, the cutting dimensions require only a little scrap material; who will do the assembly?
The cylinder is composed entirely of seamless tubes, with no longitudinal weld joints
The cylinder is composed entirely of seamless tubes, with no longitudinal weld joints
Should 1 be used for calculations, and 0.85 for the overall layout? The thickness calculated using 1 should be less than that calculated using 0.85. Why did the original poster choose this value? If 0.85 is used for calculation while the standard of 1 is used for testing, it is a more conservative approach; however, it won’t work the other way around. I think it’s not possible to do that