×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Compression Ring for API-650 tanks

Compression Ring for API-650 tanks

Compression Ring for API-650 tanks

(OP)
Concerning requirements for a compression ring for a tank with a small internal pressure, is the compression ring mandatory? All the figures of F-2 show a ring. My understanding (please confirm it) is that if "participating area" of roof and shell is sufficient, ring is not required.

2nd part of the question: is the internal pressure acting on the inside surface of the roof the cause of the compression?

Thanks
Mike

RE: Compression Ring for API-650 tanks

I agree with your first item, that an additional piece need not be added where the area is available in the shell and roof. I think this would apply to Appendix F tanks only, that non-Appendix F tanks will require a top angle. Note that in Detail "i", the compression ring could be the same thickness as the roof.
And second question, yes.

RE: Compression Ring for API-650 tanks

(OP)
JStephen, thanks. Does not seem logical to me that App.F tank may not require it if shown by calculation that it is not needed, but non-Appendix F tank must have it? Please clarify further.
Thanks

RE: Compression Ring for API-650 tanks

I think it's just an inconsistency in the standard. If you have ideas on how to resolve that, forward them on to the committee.

RE: Compression Ring for API-650 tanks

(OP)
JStephen, would you say that it is "common practice" to include the the top angle (or similar section) than to omit it? If it was not omitted on a vessel would that be generally against common practice?

Then just one aside question, is the top angle considered a top wind girder also? Are they one and the same or considered independently?

Thanks

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources