Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Vessel shell / dome mismatch
- Thread starter 07071975
- Start date
waskillywabbit
Mechanical
Whoops!
Head ID: 3476 mm = 136.85"
Shell ID: 3400 mm = 133.85"
You are only 3" off. Seems like a conical reducer at the intersection would be about as simple a fix as any.
Good luck...measure twice and cut once!
Brian
Pressure Vessels and Autoclave Systems
The above comments/opinions are solely my own and not those of McAbee Construction.
Head ID: 3476 mm = 136.85"
Shell ID: 3400 mm = 133.85"
You are only 3" off. Seems like a conical reducer at the intersection would be about as simple a fix as any.
Good luck...measure twice and cut once!
Brian
Pressure Vessels and Autoclave Systems
The above comments/opinions are solely my own and not those of McAbee Construction.
The conical reducer sounds like an obvious option. But whatever you do, you're either going to have to do some re-engineering to make everything fit (and possibly reduce allowable pressure as well) or else bite the bullet and buy/fabricate the right item. If you put that conical reducer in, everyone that sees the thing for the next 50 years will wonder why it was built that way.
In the event that the thickness was considerably larger than the the offset, you might have other options. If the design pressure were actually very low, you'd have some other options.
As weldtek suggest come back with more information.
In addition to his request you might add whether the vessel was PWHT'ed and the length.
PS:
I would get someone to fab the reducer if you go that way. The insulation guys are going to love you.
In addition to his request you might add whether the vessel was PWHT'ed and the length.
PS:
I would get someone to fab the reducer if you go that way. The insulation guys are going to love you.
You may convert the head to crown and petal type and still maintain the shape with in the permissible tolerances of UG 80/81 of ASME Sec VIII Div 1.
To reduce the amount of welding you may have only 3 petals and a small central crown. A good fabricator can easily maintain the shape with in limits.
To reduce the amount of welding you may have only 3 petals and a small central crown. A good fabricator can easily maintain the shape with in limits.
Unless your company is fabricating this drum for it's own use, I would be hard pressed to believe that a purchaser would accept an extra cone section in their vessel.
Without the material/thickness/etc. information requested by weldtek, I would have to guess that in general, a new formed head may be less than or equal to the cost of the intensive cutting and welding required to resize the existing head.
Without the material/thickness/etc. information requested by weldtek, I would have to guess that in general, a new formed head may be less than or equal to the cost of the intensive cutting and welding required to resize the existing head.
Let me guess... you cut and rolled the shell BEFORE you strapped the head OD. Depending on design requirements and thickness, could you use a lap welded joint between shell and head?
Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants
Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants
- Thread starter
- #11
You didn't say which diameter was correct, however, if the larger diameter is the one you want, or if not, but the owner could live with it, I would suggest cutting several feet out of the shell can(s) and splicing in a piece large enough to yield the correct diameter. Cutting back and adding a larger piece will enable you to avoid having two long seams just inches apart.
If you need the smaller diameter, the first thing I would do is contact the head fabricator to discuss the possibility of having him reshape the head(s). If you feel that none of these ideas will work, let us know, because there's obviously lot of talented people participating in this forum.
If you need the smaller diameter, the first thing I would do is contact the head fabricator to discuss the possibility of having him reshape the head(s). If you feel that none of these ideas will work, let us know, because there's obviously lot of talented people participating in this forum.
waskillywabbit
Mechanical
Just for curiosity's sake I'd like to know more of the specs of the vessel...length, orientation, supports, service...and particularly why the heads (~1") are twice as thick as the shell (~1/2")?
I can't see any customer accepting anything other than a "normal" shell correctly sized and attached to a correctly sized "normal" head, i.e. you fix the mistake so the vessel won't look like a "Frankenstein". While some of the suggestions are certainly "viable" options and structurally/code acceptable, I just can't seem to see some of them as anything other than "booty fab"...and I feel a customer would see them as the same, i.e. a cheap attempt to remedy a major mistake.
Best of luck.
Brian
Pressure Vessels and Autoclave Systems
The above comments/opinions are solely my own and not those of McAbee Construction.
I can't see any customer accepting anything other than a "normal" shell correctly sized and attached to a correctly sized "normal" head, i.e. you fix the mistake so the vessel won't look like a "Frankenstein". While some of the suggestions are certainly "viable" options and structurally/code acceptable, I just can't seem to see some of them as anything other than "booty fab"...and I feel a customer would see them as the same, i.e. a cheap attempt to remedy a major mistake.
Best of luck.
Brian
Pressure Vessels and Autoclave Systems
The above comments/opinions are solely my own and not those of McAbee Construction.
Check with your dished end manufacturer and get this re-pressed again to 3400mm diameter. Other option of making to shell ID to 3476 will call for approval from client/process, etc. I suppose 3400mm is correct diameter.
What are the design conditions which are causing disned end of 25mm thickness and shell of 14mm?
What are the design conditions which are causing disned end of 25mm thickness and shell of 14mm?
hey! I see no fixes here, you will have to change the shell or heads and use it in another job.
you have to accept and eat the mistake.
If you have a machine to expand the shell ends, disregard the above and calc for the thinning and enlarged OD
ER
you have to accept and eat the mistake.
If you have a machine to expand the shell ends, disregard the above and calc for the thinning and enlarged OD
ER
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question