Heat exchanger expansion joint selection issues – urgent! Urgent! Urgent!
Thread Content
There is currently a heat exchanger with a design pressure of 2.0 in the shell side, a design temperature of 300, and an inner diameter of 1400. The fluid handled by this exchanger is corrosive; therefore, stainless steel must be used for the expansion joints. After evaluating several materials according to GB16749-1997, the strength calculations using SW6 software showed that none of these materials are suitable for use in such expansion joints. Is it possible to use other materials or different types of expansion joints? If other types of expansion joints are chosen, what are the relevant standards?
Just double-layer too? ! If it just doesn’t work, then create a custom design by reducing the wave height. In this way, you can produce a diagram of the expansion joint and use it for procurement – it’s no problem; you can get it in whatever size you need! The cost isn’t high either!
Try to use a single layer; you can make slight adjustments based on the standards and assign a reasonable value – that’s all that’s needed. I often do this: lol. The actual stiffness value calculated for SW6 is often higher than the real value; if the expansion joint is purchased from an external supplier, it is best to have the manufacturer provide a stiffness value.
After reviewing your design requirements, it seems that a non-standard expansion joint should be used for the shell side; by adjusting some of the values within reasonable limits, based on the standards for expansion joints, it should be possible to carry out the calculations. I have designed units with much more stringent requirements than yours in the past.
Thank you all for your responses. I adjusted the wave height as well as the wall thickness; when calculating it separately, the expansion joint passed the checks, but when considering the entire equipment as a whole, the expansion joint still fails the tests. I’m not sure why
I calculated it again, this time more carefully; in each case it was the σR value that was involved. However, since it was greater than 2σST, the allowable number of cycles wasn’t met. The software didn’t show exactly how many cycles it was, but after doing the calculation manually, I found that it was over 100,000 cycles. Can’t it still be considered acceptable if it’s over 100,000 cycles? Is there a problem with the software?
Expansion joints for pressure vessels are only specified by GB16749-1997