Analysis of Shells of Noncircular Cross Section

Author(s):  
Jack E. Helms ◽  
Michael W. Guillot

Minimum requirements for the design of shells of noncircular cross section are given in Appendix 13 of Section VIII, Division 1 of the ASME Code. The ASME Section XII Committee is re-examining the design of noncircular shells as part of their activities on cargo tank design. In this study finite element analysis is used to model a thin-wall noncircular shell. The results of the analysis are compared to experimental data provided by RTL, Inc.

Author(s):  
Ihab F. Z. Fanous ◽  
R. Seshadri

The ASME Code Section III and Section VIII (Division 2) provide stress classification guidelines to interpret the results of a linear elastic finite element analysis. These guidelines enable the splitting of the generated stresses into primary, secondary and peak. The code gives some examples to explain the suggested procedures. Although these examples may reflect a wide range of applications in the field of pressure vessel and piping, the guidelines are difficult to use with complex geometries. In this paper, the r-node method is used to investigate the primary stresses and their locations in both simple and complex geometries. The method is verified using the plane beam and axisymmetric torispherical head. Also, the method is applied to analyze 3D straight and oblique nozzle modeled using both solid and shell elements. The results of the analysis of the oblique nozzle are compared with recently published experimental data.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sujay S. Pathre ◽  
Ameya M. Mathkar ◽  
Shyam Gopalakrishnan

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.


Author(s):  
John J. Aumuller ◽  
Vincent A. Carucci

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.


Author(s):  
Zhe Liu ◽  
Fuqiang Zhou ◽  
Christian Oertel ◽  
Yintao Wei

The three-dimensional dynamic equations of a ring with a noncircular cross-section on an elastic foundation are obtained using the Hamilton variation principle. In contrast to the previous rings on elastic foundation model, the developed model incorporates both the in-plane and out-of-plane bend and the out-of-plane torsion in displacement fields. The errors in the derivation of the initial stress and the work of the internal pressure in previous rings on elastic foundation models have been corrected. The mode expansion was used to obtain the analytical solution of the natural frequency. The initial motivation is to develop a theoretical model for car tire dynamics. Therefore, to validate the proposed model, the in-plane and out-of-plane vibrations of a truck tire have been analyzed using the proposed method. To further verify the accuracy of the model, the results of the theoretical formula are compared with the finite element analysis and modal test, and good agreement can be found.


Author(s):  
Dennis Williams

This paper presents the first of a series of solutions to the buckling of imperfect cylindrical shells subjected to an axial compressive load. In particular, the initial problem reviewed is the case of a homogeneous cylindrical shell of variable thickness that is of an axisymmetric nature. The equilibrium equations as first introduced by Donnell over seventy years ago are thoroughly presented as a basis for embarking upon a solution that makes use of perturbation methods. The ultimate objective of these calculations is to achieve a quantitative assessment of the critical buckling load considering the small axisymmetric deviations from the nominal shell wall thickness. Clearly in practice, large diameter, thin wall shells of revolution that form stacks (as found in flue gas desulphurization absorber assemblies) are never fabricated with constant diameters and thicknesses over the entire length of the assembly. As such, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section VIII fabrication tolerances as supplemented by ASME Code Case 2286-1 are reviewed and addressed in light of the findings of the current study and resulting solutions with respect to the critical buckling loads. The method and results described herein are in stark contrast to the “knockdown factor” approach currently utilized in ASME Code Case 2286-1. Recommendations for further study of the imperfect cylindrical shell are also outlined in an effort to improve on the current design rules regarding column buckling of large diameter shells designed in accordance with ASME Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2; and ASME STS-1 in combination with the suggestions contained within Code Case 2286-1.


Author(s):  
Shyam Gopalakrishnan ◽  
Ameya Mathkar

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.


1996 ◽  
Vol 118 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Z. F. Sang ◽  
Y. Z. Zhu ◽  
G. E. O. Widera

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.


Author(s):  
Yogeshwar Hari

The objective of this paper is to determine the maximum allowable working pressure per ASME Code [1] of a slab tank using finite element analysis [2]. The slab tank is to store various criticality liquids used in today’s industry. The slab tank has been designed on the basis of the capacity of the stored liquids. The slab tank design is consists of (a) two long side members, (b) two short side members, (c) top head, and (d) bottom head. The slab tank is supported from the bottom at a height by a rectangular plate enclosure. The heads are designed for internal pressure and static pressure at the bottom where the pressure is the maximum. The slab tank has been designed to withstand internal pressure plus static pressure due to liquid head. The procedure used to determine MAWP is as follows: (1) The dimensioned slab tank is modeled using STAAD III finite element software. (2) Two loading conditions are used: (a) internal pressure; (b) static pressure due to liquid head; (c) combined internal pressure plus static pressure. The maximum stress and deflection is evaluated at the above three conditions for determination of MAWP. The stress due to the static pressure due to liquid will remain the same. Only the stress due to internal pressure can be changed by changing the internal pressure. New internal pressure is calculated to meet the ASME code stress criteria, which then will be the MAWP condition. A procedure is established to determine the MAWP of slab tanks using FEA.


1979 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. H. Faupel

Background information is given relative to Code design procedures for pressure vessels of noncircular cross section. Such vessels have wide application as component parts of air-cooled heat exchangers, duct work, special piping, extrusion chambers and specialty vessels used in laundry and hospital service and heat transfer applications. Present design coverage is for internal pressure only for unreinforced, reinforced and stayed vessels of rectangular and obround cross section.


Author(s):  
Donald J. Florizone

An amine reboiler was constructed with very large openings in one semi-elliptical head. The openings extended beyond the “spherical” portion of the head into the knuckle region. The vessel was designed to 1998 ASME Section VIII Division 1 (VIII-1). Initially the manufacturer of the amine reboiler vessel chose the proof test after the calculations submitted to the approval agency were not accepted. Non-destructive strain gage proof testing per VIII-1 UG-101(n) was planned, but the minimum proof test pressure to achieve the desired MAWP exceeded the maximum firetube flange test pressure therefore an alternate method was chosen. Finite element analysis (FEA) was done in addition to the strain gage testing. The strain gage results at the maximum hydrotest pressure were used to verify the FEA calculations. The FEA calculated strains were higher than the measured strains. This indicated that the assumptions made in the computer model were conservative. By combining FEA with strain gauge testing, the design was proven to meet Code requirements.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document