A Study of Axial Compression in the ASME B&PV Code for Pipe Supports and Restraints

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phillip E. Wiseman ◽  
Zara Z. Hoch
Keyword(s):  
Axial Compression ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Slenderness Ratio ◽  
Elastic Buckling ◽  
Allowable Stress ◽  
Linear Elastic ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
American Society ◽  
Allowable Stress Design

Axial compression allowable stress for pipe supports and restraints based on linear elastic analysis is detailed in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Subsection NF. The axial compression design by analysis equations within NF-3300 are replicated from the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) using the Allowable Stress Design (ASD) Method which were first published in the ASME Code in 1973. Although the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code is an international code, these equations are not familiar to many users outside the American Industry. For those unfamiliar with the allowable stress equations, the equations do not simply address the elastic buckling of a support or restraint which may occur when the slenderness ratio of the pipe support or restraint is relatively large, however, the allowable stress equations address each aspect of stability which encompasses the phenomena of elastic buckling and yielding of a pipe support or restraint. As a result, discussion of the axial compression allowable stresses provides much insight of how the equations have evolved over the last forty years and how they could be refined.

A Study of Axial Compression in the ASME B&PV Code for Pipe Supports and Restraints

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phillip E. Wiseman ◽  
Zara Z. Hoch
Keyword(s):  
Axial Compression ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Slenderness Ratio ◽  
Elastic Buckling ◽  
Allowable Stress ◽  
Linear Elastic ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
American Society ◽  
Allowable Stress Design

Axial compression allowable stress for pipe supports and restraints based on linear elastic analysis is detailed in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Subsection NF. The axial compression design by analysis equations within NF-3300 is replicated from the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) using the Allowable Stress Design (ASD) Method which was first published in the ASME Code in 1973. Although the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code is an international code, these equations are not familiar to many users outside the American Industry. For those unfamiliar with the allowable stress equations, the equations do not simply address the elastic buckling of a support or restraint which may occur when the slenderness ratio of the pipe support or restraint is relatively large, however, the allowable stress equations address each aspect of stability which encompasses the phenomena of elastic buckling and yielding of a pipe support or restraint. As a result, discussion of the axial compression allowable stresses provides much insight of how the equations have evolved over the last forty years and how they could be refined.

Heat Treatment of Fabricated Components and the Effect on Properties of Materials

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shyam Gopalakrishnan ◽  
Ameya Mathkar
Keyword(s):  
Heat Treatment ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Test Specimen ◽  
Stress Relieving ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Alloy Steels ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Properties Of Materials ◽  
Division 2

Abstract Most of the heavy thickness boiler and pressure vessel components require heat treatment — in the form of post weld heat treatment (PWHT) and sometimes coupled with local PWHT. It is also a common practice to apply post heating/ intermediate stress relieving/ dehydrogenation heat treatment in case of alloy steels. The heat treatment applied during the various manufacturing stages of boiler and pressure vessel have varying effects on the type of material that is used in fabrication. It is essential to understand the effect of time and temperature on the properties (like tensile and yield strength/ impact/ hardness, etc.) of the materials that are used for fabrication. Considering the temperature gradients involved during the welding operation a thorough understanding of the time-temperature effect is essential. Heat treatments are generally done at varying time and temperatures depending on the governing thickness and the type of materials. The structural effects on the materials or the properties of the materials tends to vary based on the heat treatment. All boiler and pressure vessel Code require that the properties of the material should be intact and meet the minimum Code specification requirements after all the heat treatment operations are completed. ASME Code(s) like Sec I, Section VIII Division 1 and Division 2 and API recommended practices like API 934 calls for simulation heat treatment of test specimen of the material used in fabrication to ascertain whether the intended material used in construction meets the required properties after all heat treatment operations are completed. The work reported in this paper — “Heat treatment of fabricated components and the effect on properties of materials” is an attempt to review the heat treatment and the effect on the properties of materials that are commonly used in construction of boiler and pressure vessel. For this study, simulation heat treatment for PWHT of test specimen for CS/ LAS plate and forging material was carried out as specified in ASME Section VIII Div 1, Div 2 and API 934-C. The results of heat treatment on material properties are plotted and compared. In conclusion recommendations are made which purchaser/ manufacturer may consider for simulation heat treatment of test specimen.

Reliability Factors and Tightness of Tube-to-Tubesheet Joints

1996 ◽  
Vol 118 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Z. F. Sang ◽  
Y. Z. Zhu ◽  
G. E. O. Widera
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Preliminary Study

The main purpose of this paper is to provide an applicable method to establish reliability factors for expanded tube-to-tubesheet joints. The paper also reports on the results of a preliminary study to validate experimentally the reliability efficiencies listed in Table A-2 of Appendix A of Section VIII, Division 1, of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME, 1986), and tightness of expanded tube-tubesheet joints. A comparison between the actual reliability factors fr determined from testing the damage strength of the joint and calculated according to Appendix A-4 of the ASME Code and those of Table A-2 is carried out. The results are discussed in light of the restrictions inherent in Table A-2. It is confirmed that some existing values of fr are conservative, while others are less so.

Overview of Revisions to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section VIII Division 3 for the 2015 Edition and Near Future

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Peters ◽  
Adam P. Maslowski
Keyword(s):  
High Pressure ◽  
Stress Analysis ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Elastic Stress ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Chemical Safety ◽  
Linear Elastic ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
American Society ◽  
Near Future

This paper is to give an overview of the major revisions pending in the upcoming 2015 edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) Section VIII Division 3, Alternative Rules for Construction of High Pressure Vessels, and potential changes being considered by the Subgroup on High Pressure Vessels (SG-HPV) for future editions. This will include an overview of significant actions which will be included in the upcoming edition. This includes action relative to test locations in large and complex forgings, in response to a report from the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) report of a failed vessel in Illinois. This will also include discussion of a long term issue recently completed on certification of rupture disk devices. Also included will be a discussion of a slight shift in philosophy which has resulted in the linear-elastic stress analysis section being moved to a Non-Mandatory Appendix and discussion of potential future of linear-elastic stress analysis in high pressure vessel design.

Flaw Evaluation Procedures and Acceptance Criteria for Nuclear Piping in ASME Code Section XI

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas A. Scarth ◽  
Gery M. Wilkowski ◽  
Russell C. Cipolla ◽  
Sushil K. Daftuar ◽  
Koichi K. Kashima
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Mechanics ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Limit Load ◽  
Acceptance Criteria ◽  
Linear Elastic ◽  
Evaluation Procedures ◽  
Piping Systems ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
American Society ◽  
Plant Evaluation

Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code provides rules and requirements for maintaining pressure boundary integrity of components, piping, and equipment during the life of a nuclear power plant. Evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria for the evaluation of flaws in nuclear piping in Section XI of the ASME Code were first published in 1983 and have been under revision for the past several years. This paper provides an overview of the procedures and acceptance criteria for pipe flaw evaluation in Section XI. Both planar and nonplanar flaws are addressed by Section XI. The evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria cover: failure by plastic collapse as characterized by limit load analysis; fracture due to ductile tearing prior to attainment of limit load, as characterized by elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) analysis; and brittle fracture as characterized by linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) analysis. A major revision to the evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria was published in the 2002 Addenda to Section XI. Evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria in the 2001 Edition, as well as the revisions in the 2002 Addenda, are described in this paper. Code Cases that address evaluation of wall thinning in piping systems, as well as temporary acceptance of flaws in moderate energy piping systems, are also described.

A Risk-Informed Assessment of ASME Section XI, Appendix E

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Gamble ◽  
William Server ◽  
Bruce Bishop ◽  
Nathan Palm ◽  
Carol Heinecke
Keyword(s):  
Thermal Shock ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
Pressurized Thermal Shock ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
American Society ◽  
Regulatory Commission ◽  
Reactor Pressure ◽  
The U.S

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code [1], Section XI, Non mandatory Appendix E, “Evaluation of Unanticipated Operating Events”, provides a deterministic procedure for evaluating reactor pressure vessel (RPV) integrity following an unanticipated event that exceeds the operational limits defined in plant operating procedures. The recently developed risk-informed procedure for Appendix G to Section XI of the ASME Code [2, 3], and the development by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of the alternate Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) rule [4, 5, 6] led to initiation of this study to determine if the Appendix E evaluation criteria are consistent with risk-informed acceptance criteria. The results of the work presented in this paper demonstrate that Appendix E is consistent with risk-informed criteria developed for PTS and Appendix G and ensures that evaluation of RPV integrity following an unanticipated event would not violate material or operational limits recently defined using risk-informed criteria. Currently, Appendix E does not have evaluation criteria for BWR vessels; however, as part of this study, risk-informed analyses were performed for unanticipated heat-up events and isothermal, overpressure events in BWR plant designs.

Basis of the Upcoming Changes to the Piping Inelastic Fatigue Design Rules in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, Division 1, Article NB-3600

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy M. Adams
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Service Level ◽  
Fatigue Analysis ◽  
Elastic Plastic ◽  
Fatigue Design ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Class 1 ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Code Changes ◽  
Near Future

In conducting a Class 1 piping analysis per the simplified rules of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Article NB-3600, a fatigue analysis is required per paragraph NB-3653 for both Service Level A and Service Level B. The fatigue analysis provides two options. The options are dependent on Equation 10 of subparagraph NB-3653.1. If this equation is met for a given load set pair under consideration, then the analysis proceeds directly to subparagraphs NB-3653.2 through NB-3653.5. If however, Equation 10 is exceeded, the Code allows the use of a simplified Elastic Plastic Analysis as delineated in subparagraph NB-3653.6. The first requirement of NB-3653.6 is that both Equation 12 and Equation 13 must be met. The changes in the seismic design in the last 25+ years have not been appropriately reflected in the subparagraph NB-3653.6(b) Equation 13. Also, the Code provides no clear guidance on seismic anchor motions in paragraph NB-3650. In 2012 ASME Code Committees undertook an action to address these issues. This paper provides the background and basis for Code changes that are anticipated will be implemented in the near future in paragraph NB-3653.6 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1 that will address both of these issues. This implementation will make the Elastic Plastic Fatigue rules of NB-3653.6 consistent with the design by analysis approach of NB-3228.5.

Technical Basis for Conversion of Non-Mandatory Appendix F of Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code to a Mandatory Appendix: Part I — Appendix Rewrite

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Wen ◽  
Suzanne McKillop ◽  
Timothy M. Adams ◽  
Robert Keating
Keyword(s):  
Allowable Stress ◽  
Design Rules ◽  
The Past ◽  
Component Design ◽  
Safety Margins ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Class 1 ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
History Of ◽  
Technical Basis

In 1974, the Level D Service Limits for Section III, Division 1, Class 1 components were published in Non-Mandatory Appendix F titled “Rules for Evaluation of Service Loading with Level D Service Limits”. Over the past 40 years, the scope of Appendix F has been expanded to be applicable to certain Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 components and supports in Division 1 as well as in Division 3 and Division 5. With each addition, the organization and implementation of the rules in Appendix F became more cumbersome for the user and consistency between the Appendix and the Code Books1 was not maintained. At the same time, the use of these rules has evolved to the point where the non-Mandatory Appendix is essential the default for Level D Service Limits. Starting in the 2017 Code edition, the component design rules will reference Mandatory Appendix XXVII when Design by Analysis is used to determine Level D Service Limits. This paper describes the methodology utilized to convert Non-Mandatory Appendix F to Mandatory Appendix XXVII which includes the history of the Level D Rules in the ASME Code, the philosophy taken to convert Non-Mandatory Appendix F to Mandatory Appendix XXVII, and an overview of the new Appendix XXVII. The approaches to ensure identical safety margins are maintained and the basis for adding or clarifying three allowable stress limits are also included.

Validation of Pipe Flaw Evaluation Procedures in Section XI of the ASME Code Against Pipe Fracture Experiments

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phuong H. Hoang ◽  
Gery M. Wilkowski
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Mechanics ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Limit Load ◽  
Acceptance Criteria ◽  
Linear Elastic ◽  
Evaluation Procedures ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Elastic Fracture ◽  
American Society ◽  
Plant Evaluation

Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code provides rules and requirements for maintaining pressure boundary integrity of piping during the life of a nuclear power plant. Evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria for the evaluation of flaws in nuclear piping in Section XI of the ASME Code were first published in 1983 and have been under revision for the past several years. The evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria cover: failure by plastic collapse as characterized by limit load analysis; fracture due to ductile tearing prior to attainment of limit load, as characterized by elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) analysis; and brittle fracture as characterized by linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) analysis. A major revision to the evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria was published in the 2002 Addenda to Section XI. A brief overview of the pipe flaw evaluation procedures published in the 2002 Addenda are provided in the paper. The evaluation procedures that were published in the 2002 Addenda have been validated against the results of a large number of pipe fracture experiments. The results of this validation exercise are summarized in this paper.

Elastic-Plastic Shakedown Evaluation Using ASME Code Section III and Section VIII Methods

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
David P. Molitoris ◽  
John V. Gregg ◽  
Edward E. Heald ◽  
David H. Roarty ◽  
Benjamin E. Heald
Keyword(s):  
Elastic Analysis ◽  
Acceptance Criteria ◽  
Elastic Plastic ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Plastic Analysis ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
American Society ◽  
Plastic Shakedown ◽  
Division 2

Section III, Division 1 and Section VIII, Division 2 of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code provide procedures for demonstrating shakedown using elastic-plastic analysis. While these procedures may be used in place of elastic analysis procedures, they are typically employed after the elastic analysis and simplified elastic-plastic analysis limits have been exceeded. In using the Section III, Division 1 and Section VIII, Division 2 procedures for elastic-plastic shakedown analyses, three concerns are raised. First, the Section III, Division 1 procedure is vague, which can result in inconsistent results between analysts. Second, the acceptance criteria contained in both procedures are vague, which can also result in inconsistent results between analysts. Lastly, differences in the procedures and acceptance criteria can result in demonstration of component elastic-plastic shakedown under Section III, Division 1 but not under Section VIII, Division 2. The authors presume that the ASME Code intends to provide similar design and analysis conclusions, which may not be a correct assumption. To demonstrate these concerns, a nozzle benchmark design subject to a representative thermal and pressure transient was evaluated using the two Code elastic-plastic shakedown procedures. Shakedown was successfully demonstrated using the Section III, Division 1 procedure. However, shakedown could not be demonstrated using the Section VIII, Division 2 procedure. The conflicting results seem to indicate that, for the nozzle design evaluated, the Section VIII, Division 2 procedure is considerably more conservative than the Section III, Division 1 procedure. To further assess the conservative nature of the Section VIII, Division 2 procedure, the nozzle benchmark design was evaluated using the same thermal transient, but without a pressure load. While shakedown was technically not observed using the Section VIII, Division 2 acceptance criteria, engineering judgment concluded that shakedown was demonstrated. Based on the results of all the evaluations, recommendations for modifications to both procedures were presented for consideration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document