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


Cylinder-to-cone Reinforcement

Cylinder-to-cone Reinforcement

Cylinder-to-cone Reinforcement

A reinforcing plate has been added to the outside periphery of the bottom cone head of an existing API 620 storage tank. See attached sketch. The client has asked me to verify that the modification shown in the sketch is good for a given operating temperature and pressure. I am trying to justify using the cone thickness and reinforcing plate thickness together as the available thickness. The cone thickness beyond the reinforcement will be calculated separately.

Here is my thought process...
  1. When computing required thickness using unit forces calculations, it shouldn't matter if the thickness is a single layer or multiple layers assuming the resulting unit force is in tension and each layer is at least 3/16".
  2. The top layer (reinforcing plate) would be equivalent to a double fillet weld joint efficiency (E or JE) of 0.70 and the bottom layer (existing cone) has a 0.85 JE. Even though the combined joint configuration is not specifically covered in API 620, Table 5-2, taking the lower of the two JE (0.70) as the combined JE should be a safe practice.
My questions are...
  1. Given the aforementioned thought process, am I violating the letter or intent of API 620?
  2. What suggestions/comments/advice can be offered?
  3. Am I completely off base with this line of reasoning?

RE: Cylinder-to-cone Reinforcement

You have two separate issues. One, is it adequate. Two, does it meet the API-620 standard. You could potentially come up with all sorts of arrangements that were structurally suitable that don't comply with API-620. That is, they're just not covered by the standard.
That being said, I'd be inclined to treat the lapped part like the lower plate wasn't there, figuring you'd never get them fit up where both plates had identical tension.
One of the API-620 requirements relates to the centroid location of the composite section, and when that extra plate is added, it may throw that off.

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!


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close