Background and Summary of Revisions to Appendix M of ASME Section VIII, Division 1: Stop Valves Located in the Pressure Relief Path

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Basile ◽  
Clay D. Rodery
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Relief Valve ◽  
Pressure Relief ◽  
Stop Valve ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Current Code ◽  
Petrochemical Industries

Appendix M of Section VIII, Division 1 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code[1] provides rules for the use of isolation (stop) valves between ASME Section VIII Division 1 pressure vessels and their protective pressure relieving device(s). These current rules limit stop valve applications to those that isolate the pressure relief valve for inspection and repair purposes only [M-5(a), M-6], and those systems in which the pressure originates exclusively from an outside source [M-5(b)]. The successful experience of the refining and petrochemical industries in the application and management of full area stop valves between pressure vessels and pressure relief devices suggested that the time was appropriate to review and consider updates to the current Code rules. Such updates would expand the scope of stop valve usage, along with appropriate safeguards to ensure that all pressure vessels are provided with overpressure protection while in operation. This white paper provides a summary of the current Code rules, describes the current practices of the refining and petrochemical industries, and provides an explanation and the technical bases for the Code revisions.

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 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.

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.

Ellipsoidal Head Rules: A Comparison Between ASME Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor G. Seipp ◽  
Nathan Barkley ◽  
Christopher Wright
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Theoretical Treatment ◽  
The Past ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Calculation Methodology ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Division 2 ◽  
Equivalent Dimensions ◽  
Different Thickness ◽  
Current Code

In ASME Section VIII, Division 1, rules are provided for calculating the thickness of 2:1 ellipsoidal heads in UG-32. UG-32(c) also states that “an acceptable approximation of a 2:1 ellipsoidal head is a torispherical head with a spherical radius of 0.9D and a knuckle radius of 0.17D”. However, calculating the thickness of a torispherical head with those “equivalent” dimensions results in a thicker head. This result is inherently inconsistent, which starts to bring into question the so-called equivalency. Code Case 2260 further perpetuates this equivalency by providing alternative rules for calculating the thickness of torispherical heads, and then permitting the engineer to calculate 2:1 ellipsoidal heads implementing this 90-17 equivalency. Additionally, the calculation methodology for a 2:1 ellipsoidal head in ASME Section VIII, Division 2 uses the torispherical head calculation methodologies and directly implements this 90-17 equivalency. However, this calculation method results, for the same allowable stress basis, in a completely different thickness from the above three methods. This paper reviews the past 90+ years of work on this topic, and presents some theoretical treatment of the different head geometries. A review of the current Code rules is presented, with a comparison of results for several sizes. A survey of head fabricators is presented to show the actual geometries produced for use in ASME pressure vessels. Finally, conclusions regarding whether or not the 2:1 ellipsoidal head is in fact equivalent to the 90-17 torispherical head are presented, and recommendations for future revisions to both ASME Section VIII, Division1 and Division 2 are provided.

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].

Recent Advances in the ASME Section VIII Division 1 and 2 Pressure Vessel Codes

1981 ◽  
Vol 103 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-124
Author(s):  
G. G. Karcher ◽  
R. A. Ecoff
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Basic Design ◽  
Recent Advances ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
The Subject

Numerous revisions, updates and advances have been incorporated in the ASME Section VIII Code on “Pressure Vessels.” All of them have been published in “Mechanical Engineering” as required by ANSI accredited organization procedures and a few have also been the subject of specific technical papers. The objectives of this paper is not the duplication of these already published works but rather a highlighting of the more significant or, in some cases, subtle revisions that have been incorporated in Section VIII since the 1974 edition. By way of introduction, the basic design philosophies of Division 1 and 2 are also outlined.

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.

The Effect of Reduced Design Margin on the Fire Survivability of ASME Code Propane Tanks

2005 ◽  
Vol 127 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-60
Author(s):  
A. M. Birk
Keyword(s):  
Wall Thickness ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Relief Valve ◽  
Pressure Relief ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Failure Scenario ◽  
Fill Level ◽  
Relief System ◽  
Design Margin

In the 1999 addenda to the 1998 ASME pressure vessel code, Section VIII, Div. 1 there was a change in design margin for unfired pressure vessels from 4.0 to 3.5. This has resulted in the manufacture of propane and LPG tanks with thinner walls. For example, the author has purchased some new 500 gallon ASME code propane tanks for testing purposes. These tanks had the wall thickness reduced from 7.7 mm in 2000 to 7.1 mm in 2002 and now to 6.5 mm in 2004. These changes were partly due to the code change and partly due to other factors such as steel plate availability. In any case, the changes in wall thickness significantly affects the fire survivability of these tanks. This paper presents both experimental and computational results that show the effect of wall thickness on tank survivability to fire impingement. The results show that for the same dank diameter, tank material, and pressure relief valve setting, the thinner wall tanks are more likely to fail in a given fire situation. In severe fires, the thinner walled tanks will fail earlier. An earlier failure usually means the tank will fail with a higher fill level, because the pressure relief system has had less time to vent material from the tank. A higher liquid fill level at failure also means more energy is in the tank and this means the failure will be more violent. The worst failure scenario is known as a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion and this mode of failure is also more likely with the thinner walled tanks. The results of this work suggest that certain applications of pressure vessels such as propane transport and storage may require higher design margins than required by Section VIII ASME code.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document