A Comparison Study of Pressure Vessel Design Using Different Standards

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frode Tjelta Askestrand ◽  
Ove Tobias Gudmestad
Keyword(s):  
Stress Analysis ◽  
Elastic Stress ◽  
Limit Load ◽  
Technical Committee ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Elastic Plastic ◽  
Load Analysis ◽  
American Society ◽  
Division 2

Several codes are currently available for design and analysis of pressure vessels. Two of the main contributors are the American Society of Mechanical Engineers providing the ASME VIII code, Ref /4/ and the Technical Committee for standardization in Brussels providing the European Standard, Ref /2/. Methods written in bold letters will be considered in the discussion presented in this paper. The ASME VIII code, Ref /4/, contains three divisions covering different pressure ranges: Division 1: up to 200 bar (3000 psi) Division 2: in general Division 3: for pressure above 690 bar (10000 psi) In this paper the ASME division 2, Part 5, “design by analysis” will be considered. This part is also referred to in the DNV-OS-F101, Ref /3/, for offshore pressure containing components. Here different analysis methods are described, such as: Elastic Stress Analysis Limit Load Analysis Elastic Plastic Analysis The Elastic Stress Analysis method with stress categorization has been introduced to the industry for many years and has been widely used in design of pressure vessels. However, in the latest issue (2007/2010) of ASME VIII div. 2, this method is not recommended for heavy wall constructions as it might generate non-conservative analysis results. Heavy wall constructions are defined by: (R/t ≤ 4) with dimensions as illustrated in Figure 1. In the case of heavy wall constructions the Limit Load Analysis or the Elastic-plastic method shall be used. In this paper focus will be on the Elastic-plastic method while the Limit Load Analysis will not be considered. Experience from recent projects at IKM Ocean Design indicates that the industry has not been fully aware of the new analysis philosophy mentioned in the 2007 issue of ASME VIII div.2. The Elastic Stress Analysis method is still (2012) being used for heavy wall constructions. The NS-EN 13445-3; 2009, Ref /2/, provides two different methodologies for design by analysis: Direct Route Method based on stress categories. The method based on stress categories is similar to the Elastic Stress Analysis method from ASME VIII div. 2 and it will therefore not be considered in this paper.

A Comparison of Design by Analysis Techniques for Evaluating Nozzle-to-Shell Junctions per ASME Section VIII Division 2

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phillip E. Prueter ◽  
Robert G. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Stress Analysis ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Elastic Stress ◽  
Limit Load ◽  
Plastic Collapse ◽  
Elastic Plastic ◽  
Plastic Analysis ◽  
Non Linear ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Division 2

Part 5 of ASME Section VIII Division 2 offers several design by analysis (DBA) techniques for evaluating pressure retaining equipment for Code compliance using detailed computational stress analysis results. These procedures can be used to check components for protection against multiple failure modes, including plastic collapse, local failure, buckling, and cyclic loading. Furthermore, these procedures provide guidance for establishing consistent loading conditions, selecting material properties, developing post-processing techniques, and comparing analysis results to the appropriate acceptance criteria for a given failure mode. In particular, this study investigates the use of these methods for evaluating nozzle-to-shell junctions subjected to internal pressure and nozzle end loads. Specifically, elastic stress analysis, limit load analysis, and elastic-plastic stress analysis are utilized to check for protection against plastic collapse, and computational results for a given load case are compared. Additionally, the twice elastic slope method for evaluating protection against plastic collapse is utilized as an alternate failure criterion to supplement elastic-plastic analysis results. The goal of these comparisons is to highlight the difference between elastic stress checks and the non-linear analysis methodologies outlined in ASME Section VIII Division 2; particularly, the conservatism associated with employing the elastic stress criterion for nozzle end loads compared to limit load and elastic-plastic analysis methodologies is discussed. Finally, commentary on the applicability of performing the Code-mandated check for protection against ratcheting for vessels that do not operate in cyclic service is provided. The intent of this paper is to provide a broad comparison of the available DBA techniques for evaluating the acceptability of nozzle-to-shell junctions subjected to different types of loading for protection against plastic collapse. Predicted deformations and stresses are quantified for each technique using linear and non-linear, three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA) methodologies.

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.

Assessment of Weep Holes in Cylindrical Shell Based on Elastic-Plastic Stress Analysis Method

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dipak K. Chandiramani ◽  
Suresh K. Nawandar
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Steel ◽  
Stress Analysis ◽  
High Pressures ◽  
Material Selection ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Elastic Plastic ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Vessel Walls ◽  
Division 2 ◽  
Plastic Stress

In urea plant equipment, particularly those operating in the synthesis cycle, anti-corrosive liner plates are usually applied to the pressure retaining carbon steel vessel walls. Even with the correct material selection, controlled fabrication methods and maintenance, the risk of highly corrosive urea-carbamate solution leaking through these liners always exists in these equipment which might eventually damage the carbon steel walls. Existing designs of these equipment utilizes “weep holes” to reveal such leakages. Various designs exist, but in general these weep holes are 15–20mm dia. plain openings in the vessel walls connecting the space between the liner and the vessel wall to the outside atmosphere or the leak-detect apparatus. These equipment operate at high pressures and temperatures and therefore ASME Section VIII Division 2 is normally the preferred design and construction Code. This Code, earlier to the publication of its Edition 2007, had provisions in it to exempt openings not exceeding certain diameters, from any reinforcement calculations. Traditionally, equipment designers have been applying this clause to seek the exemption of these weep holes from any further calculations. However, starting with Edition 2007, this Code did away with such exemptions and has made it mandatory to assess openings of all sizes, particularly if they are in the monobloc vessels. Weep holes are no exception. This paper discusses how the assessment of these weep holes in cylindrical shells can be carried out by applying the “Elastic-Plastic Stress Analysis Method” stipulated in Para. 5.2.4 & 5.3.3 of the ASME Section VIII Division 2 Code. This paper also provides the basis for recommending this method. In the application of this method, the subject is approached as a “shell with opening” and not as conventional “nozzle opening in the shell”.

Design Optimization of Pressure Vessel in Compliance With Elastic Stress Analysis Criteria for Plastic Collapse Using an Integrated Approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 143 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mingjue Zhou ◽  
Artik Patel ◽  
BoPing Wang ◽  
Weiya Jin ◽  
Yuebing Li
Keyword(s):  
Stress Analysis ◽  
Design Optimization ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Maximum Stress ◽  
Elastic Stress ◽  
Integrated Approach ◽  
Optimization Methods ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Design Codes ◽  
Division 2

Abstract The design and verification of pressure vessels is governed by the design codes specified by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC). Convention design satisfying the ASME BPVC code requirements would lead to a conservative design. This situation will to be solvable by modern structural optimization methods. The size optimization of pressure vessel complying with design-by-analysis requirements within the ASME Sec. VIII Division 2 specification is discussed in this paper. This is accomplished by an integrated approach in which the stress analysis is carried out by ANSYS. These results are used by an optimization code in matlab to perform design optimization. The integrated approach is fully automated and applied to the optimal design of a real pressure vessel. The results show that the material used by the pressure vessel can be minimized while satisfying the maximum stress specified in the BPVC.

Evaluation of limit load analysis for pressure vessels - Part II: Robust methods

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaohui Chen ◽  
Bingjun Gao ◽  
Xingang Wang
Keyword(s):  
Limit Load ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Robust Methods ◽  
Load Analysis

International Standardization of Boilers and Pressure Vessels

1974 ◽  
Vol 96 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-139
Author(s):  
Bernard Fishman
Keyword(s):  
Materials Design ◽  
Technical Committee ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
National Standards ◽  
International Organization ◽  
International Organization For Standardization ◽  
Working Groups ◽  
International Standardization ◽  
American Society ◽  
Tc 11

International standardization in the field of boilers and pressure vessels is being carried out within the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) by Technical Committee No. 11. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) is responsible for coordinating this activity on behalf of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Forty-two countries are involved in the work of TC 11 which is organized into 4 subcommittees and 16 working groups covering major areas such as materials, design, welded construction, and serially made pressure vessels.

Elastic-Plastic Stress Analysis of Pressure Vessels

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang-chun Deng ◽  
Gang Chen
Keyword(s):  
Internal Pressure ◽  
Stress Analysis ◽  
Strain Hardening ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Plastic Instability ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Structural Deformation ◽  
Elastic Plastic ◽  
Thin Walled ◽  
Plastic Stress

To save material, the safety factor of pressure vessel design standards is gradually decreased from 5.0 to 2.4 in ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes. So the design methods of pressure vessel should be more rationalized. Considering effects of material strain hardening and non-linear structural deformation, the elastic-plastic stress analysis is the most suitable for pressure vessels design at present. This paper is based on elastic-plastic theory and considers material strain hardening and structural deformation effects. Elastic-plastic stress analyses of pressure vessels are summarized. Firstly, expressions of load and structural deformation relationship were introduced for thin-walled cylindrical and spherical vessels under internal pressure. Secondly, the plastic instability for thin-walled cylindrical and spherical vessels under internal pressure were analysed. Thirdly, to prevent pressure vessels from local failure, the ductile fracture strain of materials was discussed.

A Novel Comparison of Design-by-Analysis Methods

2012 ◽  
Vol 134 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Stonehouse ◽  
Trevor G. Seipp ◽  
Shinichiro Kanamaru ◽  
Shawn Morrison
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Elastic Limit ◽  
Compressive Load ◽  
Limit Load ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Elastic Plastic ◽  
Axial Compressive Load ◽  
Analysis Methods

There exist some atypical loads on pressure vessels during transportation. This is particularly true when the pressure vessel weighs over 500 tonnes. In this example vessel, the transportation was via rail on a “Schnabel car,” in which the vessel is suspended horizontally between the top nozzle and the skirt, and a significant axial compressive load is applied. During the evaluation of the stresses in the top head, a particularly novel situation was encountered which brought about some interesting issues with regards to the three design-by-analysis methods: elastic, limit load, and elastic-plastic. This paper discusses the comparison between all three of these design-by-analysis methods, and provides recommendations for which is most appropriate for this type of evaluation. Additional recommendations and warnings are provided for the use of the elastic and limit load methods as well.

Plastic Limit Load Analysis of Cylindrical Pressure Vessels with Different Nozzle Inclination

2015 ◽  
Vol 97 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-174
Author(s):  
Anupam Prakash ◽  
Harit Kishorchandra Raval ◽  
Anish Gandhi ◽  
Dipak Bapu Pawar
Keyword(s):  
Limit Load ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Plastic Limit ◽  
Plastic Limit Load ◽  
Load Analysis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document