dear ALL,
thank you very much for your comments/indications.
this confirms my concern regarding to shell - attachment connection, and i've brought out 2 conclusions:
1. WRC 537 should be avoided in this kind of junction
2. here is more concern for external attachment than the shell itself due to...
dear Mike,
thanks for your advice.
the issue is:
the attachments have been fabricated and welded to the vessel (vessel thk = 73 mm) and W/O PAD.
vendor has been preformed WRC analytical verification and my concern is if values for c1 & c2 can be considered as indicated in may 1st message?
I've...
Hi to everyone,
can anyone tell me if there is any restriction for WRC 537 application in case for external attachments (for example Cross plates) welded directly to the cylindrical pressure vessel and w/o pad reinforcement (see attached file for attachment design and welded side has marked in...
hi,
"abrasive product" requirements came from the client's experience, dicalite mixture.
anyhow, thank to all for your very useful comments and suggestions.
i think I've plenty info to present to the client.
I'll come back to you in case of any further doubt.
thanks again.
alek
hello,
and thanks again for your interest to find solution for this topic.
the pressure vessel will be new one so in that case there is no bad experience.
according to indication from EdStainless, final solution goes to Stainless steel, and will propose to client in this case using of SS 316L...
hello,
thanks for your prompt reply.
here are more details as oer your indications:
- Pd = -0.015/0.02 barg (atmospheric pressure vessel)
- Td = 98 °C
- not corrosive environment and fluid is Enfleurage water with density = 1220 kg/m3, also pH = 4
- solid product is Dicalite Perlite(white...
hello to everyone,
one short consultation:
from your experience and engineering point of view, for high abrasion resistant which material is better to select
carbon steel or stainless steel?
thanks in advance.
alek
