Which Software is better for tank design?

[Insincere]

Friends i want to know that which software is more easier and user friendly to design a tank?

1>ETANk

Or

2>TANK

Can anybody advised with difference.

 

[IFRs]

This is not the answer you were looking for but here goes: I find that for a complete understanding of the process, it is useful to "program" it yourself using MathCAD or other similar general purpose program. Then you can make it do what you want, have confidence in the setup and have learned a bunch while doing it.

 

[chicopee]

I like your attitude IFR.

 

[Insincere]

Dear Brother,

I like your suggestion and this is same planning I have but as a beginner, initially I have to start work on any software.

 

[JohnGP]

I totally agree with IFRs - you should have an understanding of the tank or vessel code you are using for design, and the best way to achieve that is to develop some spreadsheets, or preferably something in Mathcad if you have it, based on the code equations. As a beginner, you definitely need to start with the code.

Proprietary software is fine, but you need to completely understand the data required to be input, and the meaning of the results. Sure, you'll likely get an answer, but this will be dependent on how well you have driven the program.

(I should point out that I haven't used Etank or Tank, but just rely on my evolving spreadsheet to check fabricator's designs. If I had to formally present calculations, then I would use Mathcad).

 

[JStephen]

I use various spreadsheets, supplemented by hand calculations when necessary.

I don't have anything against canned software, but to use it as a substitute for understanding what is going on is a very poor practice.

I don't know how the software currently is, but there have been times when the software apparently wasn't updated for the current revision of API-650.

 

[IFRs]

JStephen has a good comment - check both for complete update to API 650 11th Edition. Then I'd ask for demo versions. Try them both and see which one you like best.

 

[michigander]

I have been looking for a complete API software package, and to date, there aren't any. Etank is, without a doubt, the absolute worst. They still have not incorporated Addendum 4 to the 10th edition and we are currently at addendum 1 to the 11th edition. Support is non existent.

Innovative Tank Solutions is the most user friendly I have seen. They are currerent with the code, but still do not do nozzle designs. The have committed to having them in place by spring. I am waiting for the nozzle additions, and I intend to migrate from E tank to ITS.

Hope this helps.

Michigander

 

[jlcochran1]

We switched from ETank to ITS Design some time ago and have been happy with the program and the support. ITS has automatic frequent internet updates and new features are added regularly. Also has AWWA design.

 

[jaydees]

ITSdesign has just released their new version with shell nozzle calculations which includes nozzle replacement calculations and weld shear path failure calculations. It also checks weld spacing between nozzle welds and bottom weld, horizontal welds seams, and wind girders or vacuum rings. As with any software you need to understand the code requirements. Software is only an aid in doing your work. Software should produce a report that you can check against the standard to verify for yourself that it is providing proper calculations. You are responsible for the calculations and must understand the requirements of the standards.

 

[carthago]

I agree , Etank is not satisfactory ..
What I did is = prepare some mathcad files ( see ahat you get and what you ) ..software is good for iterative calcs such as " variable foot method" . I believe = to understand API 650 or 620 one has to do hand calculations..

 

[MathGuy]

Wow, I cant believe no one mentioned the APV design sofware created by computer engineering inc. Here is a link to check them out.

http://www.computereng.com/products/design_software.aspx

 

[JStephen]

I don't see API-650 included in the software there, though- am I overlooking something?