Background of New Code Rules for Integral Flat Heads with a Large, Central Nozzle

1981 ◽  
Vol 103 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-119
Author(s):  
R. W. Schneider
Keyword(s):  
Head Diameter ◽  
Central Nozzle ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Central Opening ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Bolted Flange

Paragraph UG-39 (c) of ASME Section VIII, Division 1, 1980 Edition states: “Flat heads that have an opening with a diameter that exceeds one-half of the head diameter or shortest span, as defined in UG-34, shall be designed as a flange in accordance with the Rules for Bolted Flange Connections given in Appendix 2.” The application of Appendix 2 to such configurations is subject to various interpretations, accordingly, rules have been written for the specific case of a single, large central opening (nozzle) in integral flat heads. The new rules will appear in the Winter 1980 Addenda; for configurations not provided for the designer is referred to U-2 (g).

A Novel Approach to Evaluating Spiral-Wound Gaskets in Bolted Flange Joint Calculations

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor G. Seipp ◽  
Christopher Reichert ◽  
Mathew Schaeffer
Keyword(s):  
Solid Metal ◽  
Flange Joint ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Bolt Stress ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Bolted Flange ◽  
Spiral Wound

In this paper, the authors introduce a compound gasket approach to performing calculations on bolted flange joints with spiral wound gaskets. The spiral windings and the solid-metal centering ring are treated independently. Using the calculation methodologies of ASME Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix 2 and EN-1591-1, the authors calculated the assembly bolt stress for multiple bolted flange joint sizes over a range of classes. The calculations assumed that the flange sealed on the solid-metal centering ring as well as on the spiral windings. This bolt stress required to achieve this seal was added to the bolt stress required to compress the spiral windings fully to the centering ring. The resulting total bolt stresses are similar to the practical bolt stresses recommended by ASME PCC-1. Thus, using this new approach to the spiral wound gasket provides a better understanding of bolt stresses required to achieve an adequate bolted flange joint.

scholarly journals ANALISA STIFFENER RING DAN KONSTRUKSI VESSEL HP FLARE KO DRUM PADA PROYEK PUPUK KALTIM-5 MENGGUNAKAN SOFTWARE COMPRESS 6258

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 9
Author(s):  
Fadhlika Ridha
Keyword(s):  
High Pressure ◽  
Knock Out ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Section Viii

Pada proses pembuatan pupuk di PKT-5, berbagai gas limbah berbahaya dimusnahkan dengan cara membakarnya melalui Flare, sebelum terbakar di Flare gas-gas tersebut dialirkan dan ditampung pada sebuah Vessel bertekanan atau biasa disebut Vessel High Pressure Flare Knock Out Drum. Dalam perancangan konstruksinya perlu dilakukan analisis sehingga desain dari vessel tersebut sesuai dengan yang diharapkan dan aman untuk dioperasikan. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan mensimulasikan desain dari Vessel KO Drum menggunakan perhitungan manual sesuai 2007 ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1 dan Software Compress 6258. Perhitungan dilakukan pada desain head, shell, saddle, nozzle, stiffener ring secara manual dan menggunakan software untuk mengetahui tegangan-tegangan yang terjadi. Selanjutnya dari kedua metode tersebut akan dibandingan hasil perhitungan manual & software.

Investigation of Nozzle on Knuckle Region of Dished Head

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sujay S. Pathre ◽  
Ameya M. Mathkar ◽  
Shyam Gopalakrishnan
Keyword(s):  
Stress Pattern ◽  
Design Specification ◽  
Specific Location ◽  
Bending Effect ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
User Design ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Design Requirements ◽  
Induced Stresses

Abstract ASME Code Section VIII Division 1 [1] provides rules for the shape of openings, size of openings, strength and design of openings, however, the existing rules do not provide any restrictions on the specific location of the nozzle on the dished head knuckle region. Many corporate guidelines/ user design requirements meant for pressure vessel design and specification suggest avoiding placement of any type of nozzle in the knuckle area of a dished head and generally state in their design specification to limit the placement of a nozzle including its reinforcement within the crown area. This applies to Torispherical and Ellipsoidal dished heads. Code [1] rule UG-37(a) provides the benefit in reinforcement by reducing the required thickness (tr) of the dished head when the nozzle is in the spherical portion of the dished head for the Ellipsoidal and Torispherical dished head. High stresses occur in the knuckle region of the dished head due to the edge bending effect caused as the cylinder and head try to deform in different directions. For various reasons the user design requirements insist on placing the nozzle in the knuckle region, further compounding the complexity of the stress pattern in the knuckle area. The work carried out in this paper was an attempt to check whether it is safe to locate a nozzle in the knuckle region of the dished head since the knuckle portion is generally subjected to higher stresses in comparison to the crown portion of a dished head and the Code [1] and [2] does not impose any restrictions for the placement of nozzles in the knuckle region. Also, in this paper an attempt was made to evaluate the induced stresses when equivalent sizes of nozzles are placed in the crown as well as the knuckle portion of the dished head.

Background of the Half-Pipe Jacket Rules in Section VIII, Division 1

1994 ◽  
Vol 116 (3) ◽  
pp. 336-338
Author(s):  
M. H. Jawad
Keyword(s):  
Background Information ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Made In

New rules for the design of half-pipe jackets were developed by the ASME Subgroup on Design of Section VIII. This article gives the background information for the derivation and various assumptions made in developing the rules.

The Applicability of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XII, Transport Tanks, for Use in U.S. Federal Maritime Regulations

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen Selz ◽  
Daniel R. Sharp
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Road Transport ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Department Of Transportation ◽  
The Road ◽  
Dangerous Goods ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
The Us ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Marine Applications

Developed at the request of the US Department of Transportation, Section XII-Transport Tanks, of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code addresses rules for the construction and continued service of pressure vessels for the transportation of dangerous goods by road, air, rail, or water. The standard is intended to replace most of the vessel design rules and be referenced in the federal hazardous material regulations, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). While the majority of the current rules focus on over-the-road transport, there are rules for portable tanks which can be used in marine applications for the transport of liquefied gases, and for ton tanks used for rail and barge shipping of chlorine and other compressed gases. Rules for non-cryogenic portable tanks are currently provided in Section VIII, Division 2, but will be moved into Section XII. These portable tank requirements should also replace the existing references to the outmoded 1989 edition of ASME Section VIII, Division 1 cited in Title 46 of the CFR. Paper published with permission.

A Study of the Conservatism in ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 2 Opening Design for External Pressure

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry Millet ◽  
Kaveh Ebrahimi ◽  
James Lu ◽  
Kenneth Kirkpatrick ◽  
Bryan Mosher
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element ◽  
Internal Pressure ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
External Pressure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Finite Element Analyses ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Allowable Compressive Stress ◽  
Division 2

Abstract In the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, nozzle reinforcement rules for nozzles attached to shells under external pressure differ from the rules for internal pressure. ASME BPVC Section I, Section VIII Division 1 and Section VIII Division 2 (Pre-2007 Edition) reinforcement rules for external pressure are less stringent than those for internal pressure. The reinforcement rules for external pressure published since the 2007 Edition of ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 2 are more stringent than those for internal pressure. The previous rule only required reinforcement for external pressure to be one-half of the reinforcement required for internal pressure. In the current BPVC Code the required reinforcement is inversely proportional to the allowable compressive stress for the shell under external pressure. Therefore as the allowable drops, the required reinforcement increases. Understandably, the rules for external pressure differ in these two Divisions, but the amount of required reinforcement can be significantly larger. This paper will examine the possible conservatism in the current Division 2 rules as compared to the other Divisions of the BPVC Code and the EN 13445-3. The paper will review the background of each method and provide finite element analyses of several selected nozzles and geometries.

Weld Joint Efficiency in Design by Analysis

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor G. Seipp
Keyword(s):  
Weld Joint ◽  
Joint Efficiency ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Division 2

In the original ASME Section VIII, Division 2, no consideration was given to partial weld joint efficiencies (values of the factor E less than 1.0) because that version required full radiography and only permitted weld joint efficiencies of unity. In the new (post-2007) Section VIII, Division 2, partial weld joint efficiencies as small as 0.85 are now permitted. Furthermore, much Design By Analysis work is performed on vessels fabricated to ASME Section VIII, Division 1 and the ASME B31 Codes, which all permit partial weld joint efficiencies. However, no guidance is provided on how to account for these values in Deign By Analysis to ASME Section VIII, Division 2, Part 5. This paper provides the technical justification for the proposed changes to ASME Section VIII, Division 2, Part 5 and API RP-579/ASME FFS-1 regarding weld joint efficiency. Guidance is also provided on how to incorporate this change into ASME Section VIII, Division 1 by way of U-2(g) and the B31 Codes.

Evaluation of ASME Pressure Vessel Code Prohibitions on Rod and Bar Stock and Potential Remedies

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J. Aumuller ◽  
Vincent A. Carucci
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Early 20Th Century ◽  
Economic Disadvantage ◽  
User Experiences ◽  
The Public ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Billet Material ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Division 2

The ASME Codes and referenced standards provide industry and the public the necessary rules and guidance for the design, fabrication, inspection and pressure testing of pressure equipment. Codes and standards evolve as the underlying technologies, analytical capabilities, materials and joining methods or experiences of designers improve; sometimes competitive pressures may be a consideration. As an illustration, the design margin for unfired pressure vessels has decreased from 5:1 in the earliest ASME Code edition of the early 20th century to the present day margin of 3.5:1 in Section VIII Division 1. Design by analysis methods allow designers to use a 2.4:1 margin for Section VIII Division 2 pressure vessels. Code prohibitions are meant to prevent unsafe use of materials, design methods or fabrication details. Codes also allow the use of designs that have proven themselves in service in so much as they are consistent with mandatory requirements and prohibitions of the Codes. The Codes advise users that not all aspects of construction activities are addressed and these should not be considered prohibited. Where prohibitions are specified, it may not be readily apparent why these prohibitions are specified. The use of “forged bar stock” is an example where use in pressure vessels and for certain components is prohibited by Codes and standards. This paper examines the possible motive for applying this prohibition and whether there is continued technical merit in this prohibition, as presently defined. A potential reason for relaxing this prohibition is that current manufacturing quality and inspection methods may render a general prohibition overly conservative. A recommendation is made to better define the prohibition using a more measurable approach so that higher quality forged billets may be used for a wider range and size of pressure components. Jurisdictions with a regulatory authority may find that the authority is rigorous and literal in applying Code provisions and prohibitions can be particularly difficult to accept when the underlying engineering principles are opaque. This puts designers and users in these jurisdictions at a technical and economic disadvantage. This paper reviews the possible engineering considerations motivating these Code and standard prohibitions and proposes modifications to allow wider Code use of “high quality” forged billet material to reflect some user experiences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document