Design of Pressure Vessel using COMPRESS - Components of Pressure vessel

A: CO2 corrosion feels reasonable because there's water and carbon steel, but 1200 ppm H2S shifts the risk toward sulfide-driven cracking rather than slow wall loss; CA doesn't arrest cracking. High-temperature hydrogen attack trips people who see hydrogen in the stream, yet 65°C is far below the Nelson curve thresholds. Erosion–corrosion is a real mechanism in multiphase systems, but nothing in the duty hints at velocities or geometry that would dominate vessel integrity across the shell. Hardness limits, PWHT, and NACE alignment are where the risk actually sits.

A: Hemispherical heads seduce with low stress and thin walls, but they drive height and forming cost, clashing with crane and schedule limits. Flat heads show up in low-pressure equipment, yet the bolting and thickness explode quickly and inspection convenience doesn't offset that. Torispherical heads are common, but their higher knuckle stress pushes thickness up, which works against weight and MAWP margin. The 2:1 elliptical option sits in the narrow window that respects fabrication reality and mechanical limits.

A: Hydro pressure gets blamed often, but 1.3 MAWP sits inside code practice and wouldn't selectively crack a nozzle weld. Lamellar tearing needs specific plate quality and loading through thickness; forming alone doesn't line up with a circumferential nozzle crack. Thermal fatigue sounds plausible when cold water is mentioned, yet a single hydro cycle doesn't generate the cycling needed. The combination of reinforcement geometry, high restraint, and skipped PWHT leaves residual stress sitting right where the crack showed up.

A: Operating conditions and CA live in datasheets and calcs, but they aren't required nameplate data. Hydro pressure and coatings matter for QA, yet they don't belong on the stamped plate. Nozzle tags help construction, not code compliance. The plate is about code identity and limits, and those have to align with what COMPRESS certified.