ASME B&PV Code Section VIII Pressure Vessel Design: A Comparison — Division 1 Versus Division 2

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dwight V. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Main Design ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Design Requirements ◽  
Division 2

Historically, the ASME B&PV Code, Section VIII, Division 2, Alternative Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels (Div.2), ASME [1], was usually considered applicable only for large, thick walled pressure vessels. Otherwise, ASME B&PV Code, Section VIII, Division 1, Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels (Div. 1), ASME [2], was typically applied. A case can also be made for the application of the Div. 2 Code Section for some vessels of lesser thicknesses. Each vessel should be closely evaluated to ensure the appropriate choice of Code Section to apply. This paper discusses some of the differences between the Div. 1 and Div. 2 Code Sections, summarizes some of the main design requirements of Div. 2, and presents a ease for considering its use for design conditions not usually considered by some, to be appropriate for the application of Div. 2 of the ASME Code.

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.

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.

Review of Section VIII, Division 1 and 2 Changes, 2008–2010

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas P. Pastor
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Major Event ◽  
The Past ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Division 2

Three years ago the major event within Section VIII was the publication of the new Section VIII, Division 2. The development of the new VIII-2 standard dominated Section VIII activity for many years, and a new standard has been well received within the industry. As expected with any new standard, some of the material that was intended to be published in the standard was not ready at the time of publication so numerous revisions have taken place in the last two addenda. This paper will attempt to summarize the major revisions that have taken place in VIII-2 and VIII-1, including a detailed overview of the new Part UIG “Requirements for Pressure Vessels Constructed of Impregnated Graphite”. I have stated in the past that the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code is a “living and breathing document”, and considering that over 320 revisions were made to VIII-1 and VIII-2 in the past three years, I think I can safely say that the standard is alive and well.

Comparison of Different Methodologies for Stress Analysis of Reinforcing Pads

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael W. Guillot ◽  
Jack E. Helms
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element Analysis ◽  
Finite Element ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Software Package ◽  
Research Council ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Element Analysis ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Design Requirements

Finite element analysis is widely used to model the stresses resulting from penetrations in pressure vessels to accommodate components such as nozzles and man-ways. In many cases a reinforcing pad is required around the nozzle or other component to meet the design requirements of Section VIII, Division 1 or 2, of the ASME Pressure Vessel Code [1]. Several different finite element techniques are currently used for calculating the effects of reinforcing pads on the shell stresses resulting from penetrations for nozzles or man-ways. In this research the stresses near a typical reinforced nozzle on a pressure vessel shell are studied. Finite element analysis is used to model the stresses in the reinforcing pad and shell. The commercially available software package ANSYS is used for the modeling. Loadings on the nozzle are due to combinations of internal pressure and moments to simulate piping attachments. The finite element results are compared to an analysis per Welding Research Council Bulletin 107 [2].

Code Case 2286 Applied to the Design of Pressure Vessels

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kanhaiya L. Bardia ◽  
Kim Nguyen ◽  
Manfred Lengsfeld ◽  
Donald G. LaBounty ◽  
Bernie Au
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Petrochemical Industry ◽  
External Pressure ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Compressive Stresses ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Shell Design ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Sample Vessel

Code Case 2286-1 [1] of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code [2][3] provides alternate rules for determining the allowable external pressure and compressive stresses for cylinders, cones, spheres, and formed heads in lieu of the rules of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2. The authors in this paper present a comparison of the longitudinal and circumferential compressive stresses in pressure vessels based on the methods outlined in Paragraph UG-28 of Division 1, Section VIII of the ASME Code and Code Case 2286-1. The Do/t ratio in this paper is limited to 600 which covers the majority of pressure vessel designs found in the petrochemical industry. A sample vessel shell design is presented applying both the ASME Code, Section VIII, Div. 1 method and that of Code Case 2286-1.

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.

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.

scholarly journals An Ability to Adapt and Change

2014 ◽  
Vol 136 (11) ◽  
pp. 36-37
Author(s):  
Madiha El Mehelmy Kotb
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Electronic Format ◽  
The World ◽  
Regulatory Approach ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Division 2 ◽  
Service Inspection ◽  
Technical Services

This article reviews about the views of Madiha El Mehelmy Hotb, the Head of the Pressure Vessels Technical Services Division for Regie Du Batiment Du Quedec, on how ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code has evolved over the years. Hotb reveals that during the 1980s, ASME’s regulatory approach covered all aspects of the life cycle of a boiler or a pressure vessel from design to being taken out of service. It also confirmed every step in between – fabrication, installation, repair and modification, and in-service inspection. During later years, the institution moved toward accreditation of authorized inspection agencies, changed the publication cycle from three years to two, eliminated addenda, and restructured the Code committees. New Section VIII and division 2 were written, and the Codes were published in digital electronic format. Hotb believes that the Code will continue to be widely used and adopted in future. It will have a bigger and larger input from all over the world and will have further outreach and adoption by far more countries.

A more accurate method for predicting the stresses in a flat steel ribbon wound pressure vessel

1999 ◽  
Vol 213 (8) ◽  
pp. 787-793 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Y Zheng ◽  
P Xu ◽  
L Q Wang ◽  
G H Zhu
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Accurate Method ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Friction Model ◽  
Interfacial Friction ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Helical Winding ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Flat Steel ◽  
Steel Ribbon

Flat steel ribbon wound pressure vessels have been adopted by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 1 and Division 2. An excellent safety and service record has been built up in the past 34 years. Based on the interfacial friction model proposed by Zheng [1], a more accurate method for predicting the stresses in a flat steel ribbon wound pressure vessel is offered in this paper, taking account of the axial displacement, the change in the helical winding angle, the interfacial friction between ribbon layers and the effect of lamination. Comparison between experimental results of five test vessels with an inside diameter varying from 350 to 1000 mm, four different helical winding angles (18, 24, 27 and 30°), two width—thickness ratios of the ribbon (20 and 22.86) and results of calculation using the stress formulae available demonstrates that the method in this paper is more accurate and that interfacial friction gives a marked strengthening contribution to the axial strength of the vessel.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document