Mauro, just cut it in a plane perpendicular to the shell axis. You might be able to calculate the reinforcement such that you don't need the pad in that plane. Then the halves do not need to touch at all.

_________________
Konrad Anikiel

OK, actually I understood what you meant, I just wanted to be sure because it is so "un-conventional". Do you think there is any Code permittin it? Although by the point of engineering is correct.

The code is not a set of permitions. It is a set of requirements. None violated=good job.

PS how about a contest for a badly designed vessel, which doesn't violate the BPVC?

_________________
Konrad Anikiel

Konrad, I love the idea of an ill-design contest.´ I am sure that will wake up some grandfathers in the Committees. At the same ime there will be some guys who do not understand our contest, and copy the ill design to production. However, we will discuss with the Team how we can set up this idea.

Thanks
Dirk

I have to say Konrad, That is an excellent suggestion!
That is thinking outside the box!.

A reinforcing element/pad perimeter welded to a nozzle, but not welded to the shell or even the split in the pad?

The question now is, is it acceptable as a reinforcing element?

Does the Code have specific prohibition against it?

That will take some pondering.....and research.

I would not want to be the one accepting that idea unless I could back it up ....proposing the idea is a different thing and worthy of the research....

_________________
A question properly stated is a question half solved.

Well, I can't think of any reason not to do it that way. I am sure nobody could convince me it's against the rules. I just don't need it in my designs. Probably I would run an FE analysis to convince myself (the hardest part), but I don't expect any revelations.

(sorry for my quick sketching)

_________________
Konrad Anikiel