Defining Each Course as A Part
If your courses are different – with respect to their diameters, thicknesses, materials or lengths – or if, for any reason, you would like or have to manage arrangement of each course separately, enter each course’s data as a, independent shell and then act according to one of the ways mentioned earlier to set its constituent plates.
Defining Each Part of Plate of Each Course as a Part
Although this method is not recommended, you will, however, be able to enter each Shell or every constituent part of it as a square on this page using “Extra Part as Plate” option. Suppose that there are a number of plates in your work shop and you plan to use them in constructing a source or a Shell. In that case, it is still recommended to use “Defining Course as a Part” case coupled with manual defining of plate arrangement.
Observing Each Shell’s Constituent Plates
After registering each shell’s data, you can observe each record’s constituent plates by right clicking on it.
Fig. 40 – (Observing Shell’s Constituent Plates)
If you have not yet set Shell plates, Show Sub Plate(s) option does not exist and you can only set its plates using Sub Plate(s) Define.
If you have already set Shell plates (whether manually or automatically) the number of its constituent plates are visible on Sub Plate(s) QTY column. Show Sub Plate(s) is active, too. Clicking on this option makes Shell constituent plates visible and reportable. If constituent plates are defined automatically,
“Auto Course” is marked; and vice versa.
Fig. 41 – (Observing Each Shell’s Constituent Plates)
Optimizing Plate Arrangement
If standard plates as long as 6,000 and as wide as 1,500 millimeters are used to construct the vessel in figure-35, development drawing and required materials are as in the following figure.
Fig. 42 – (Development drawing and Table of Vessel Materials with 6000 x 1500 Standard Plates)
If the minimum distance allowed between the weld lines is considered 400 millimeters, development drawing and table of required materials for the vessel above will be as the figure below. In this case, also, 6,000 × 1,500 millimeter plates are used.
Fig. 43 – (Development drawing and Table of Vessel Materials, adhering to the minimum distance)
Fig. 44 – (Cutting Plan with Regard to Fig. 43)
If the Vessel’s plate arrangement is performed based on 2,000 × 9,000 millimeters, development drawing and table of materials will be as the following figure.
Fig. 45 – (Development drawing and Table of Vessel’s Materials with 2000 x 9000 Standard Plates)
Fig. 46 – (Cutting Plan with Regard to Fig. 45)
If plate arrangement of the vessel above is performed based on 2,000 × 12,000 millimeters, and distance limits of the adjacent welds are still met, development drawing and table of materials will be as follows:
Fig. 47 – (Development drawing and Table of Vessel’s Materials with 2000 x 12000 Standard Plates)
Fig. 48 – (Cutting Plan with Regard to Fig. 47)
It is deduced from the previous figure that we can use 8 plates as long as 12,000 millimeters and 1 plate as long as 6,000 millimeters so as to reduce the amount of waste (although it is still usable and is introduced as Off-cut).
If we have only one vessel or the project content is limited, it will be quite easy to prepare a cutting plan, as indicated above. However, in case the number of equipment items is large and we are subject to lack of time, the need to be furnished with an intelligent tool which can prepare the cutting plan as soon as possible is inevitable. Additional to this issue are market limits; the fact that dimensions of required plates are not always in accordance with our wishes and that market status designates the measurements of the plates in use!
Fig. 49 – (Comparative Table of Various Cases)
Comparing data in the table, we understand that case “A” is not an appropriate option, due to the long cut as well as the weld length (one and a half times more than other cases). Although case “B” has a shorter cut than other cases, it is not an appropriate option either because of greater amount of waste. It should be noted, too, that weld length is the same in all cases except for case “A”. Thus, “E” proves to be the best option because, compared with other cases, it has smaller amount of waste. We should also keep in mind that in case we are bound to choose between cases “B” and “C”, “B” will be the best option since it has a shorter cut. If plate’s waste is the basis for our decision, our most favorable option is still “E”. If, however, we regard the issue from a larger viewpoint, we can never neglect expenses caused by cutting, edge preparing, welding, and testing.
Frankly speaking, which pattern should we follow if we want to achieve all together the best plate arrangement mode for a number of vessels with respect to the aforementioned limits?
In a case when plate dimensions are changing constantly and especially according to the market status, how can we reach a favorable and appropriate result in no time using a brisk tool?
I will promise users of PVManage software that there are designed appropriate tools in the software to meet this requirement, which render the arrangement of your project’s entire required plate
up-to-date in no time together with cutting plans of all the plates, offering them to you as an AutoCad file!
Selecting “Optimize” when setting each Shell’s constituent parts will calculate the best arrangement which is optimized in every respect. Keep in mind that you must consider the optimized mode of all issues (primary materials, the minimum weld line, the minimum waste).