石油化工设备技术 ›› 2026, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (4): 19-25.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8805.2026.04.004

• 静设备 • 上一篇    下一篇

压力容器弹性与弹塑性局部过度应变评定方法的对比分析

左安达1,林建2,褚建伟3,何艳恒4   

  1. 1. 惠生工程(中国)有限公司,上海 201210;
    2. 中集安瑞科工程科技有限公司(原南京扬子院),江苏 南京 210048;
    3. 江苏中圣压力容器装备制造有限公司,江苏 南京 211112;
    4. 析翼(上海)石化工程技术有限公司,上海 201210
  • 收稿日期:2024-10-16 修回日期:2026-04-27 接受日期:2026-06-28 出版日期:2026-07-17 发布日期:2026-07-17
  • 作者简介:左安达,男, 2013年毕业于大连理工大学安全技术与工程专业,硕士,主要从事石化、氢能领域压力容器的常规设计与分析设计工作,高级工程师。

Comparative Analysis of Elastic and Elastic-plastic Local Excessive Strain Evaluation Methods for Pressure Vessel

Zuo Anda1, Lin Jian2, Chu Jianwei3, He Yanheng4   

  1. 1. Wison Engineering Ltd., Shanghai, 201210;
    2. CIMC Enric Engineering Technology Co., Ltd., Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210048;
    3. Jiangsu Sunpower Heat Exchanger & Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd., Nanjing, Jiangsu, 211112;
    4. TechWing (Shanghai) Petrochemical Engineering Co., Ltd., Shanghai, 201210
  • Received:2024-10-16 Revised:2026-04-27 Accepted:2026-06-28 Online:2026-07-17 Published:2026-07-17

摘要: 文章针对国内工程设计中常采用的、基于弹性应力分析的“三个主应力代数和”准则在评定局部过度应变失效时存在的做法不统一与评定结果过于保守问题开展研究,以压力容器圆筒体上开斜接管结构为例,分别进行弹性和弹塑性分析,并对评定结果进行对比。结果表明:采用弹性分析总应力的“三个主应力代数和”准则进行评定时,其结果超出限制值22.5%,被判定为不合格;而采用弹塑性分析进行评定,则结果为合格,且仍具备约85%的安全裕量。说明该结构按弹性应力分析并采用总应力的三个主应力代数和进行评定会导致设计过度保守。因此,建议对特殊复杂结构的局部应变失效分析优先采用弹塑性分析的评定方法和准则,以实现更合理和优化的设计。

关键词: 局部过度应变, 主应力, 压力容器, 弹性分析, 弹塑性分析

Abstract: This paper conducts a study on the inconsistent practices and overly conservative assessment results associated with the "algebraic sum of three principal stresses" criterion which is commonly adopted in domestic engineering design and based on elastic stress analysis. Taking the structure of an inclined nozzle on a pressure vessel cylindrical shell as a case study, elastic and elasticplastic analysis were carried out respectively with a comparative analysis of the evaluation results. The results show that the evaluation based on the "algebraic sum of the three principal stresses" of the total stress from elastic analysis exceeds the limit value by 22.5%, rendering the structure unqualified; but the evaluation by elastic-plastic analysis obtain a qualified result with a safety margin of approximately 85% remaining. It is demonstrated that the evaluation of this structure using the "algebraic sum of the three principal stresses" of the total stress based on elastic stress analysis leads to an overconservative design. Therefore, it is recommended to prioritize the adoption of elastic-plastic analysis methods and criteria for localized strain failure assessment in special complex structures, thereby achieving more rational and optimized design.

Key words: localized excessive strain, principal stress, pressure vessel, elastic analysis, elastic-plastic analysis