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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Continued Study on the Effect of Mean Stress on Ground Storage Vessels for Hydrogen Fueling

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel T. Peters ◽  
Myles Parr
Keyword(s):  
High Pressure ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Life Assessment ◽  
Gaseous Fuels ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Pressure Storage ◽  
Cyclic Service ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Division 2

Abstract The use of high pressure vessels for the purpose of storing gaseous fuels for land based transportation application is becoming common. Fuels such as natural gas and hydrogen are currently being stored at high pressure for use in fueling stations. This paper will investigate the use of various levels of autofrettage in high pressure storage cylinders and its effects on the life of a vessel used for hydrogen storage. Unlike many high-pressure vessels, the life is controlled by fatigue when cycled between a high pressure near the design pressure and a lower pressure due to the emptying of the content of the vessels. There are many misunderstandings regarding the need for cyclic life assessment in storage vessels and the impact that hydrogen has on that life. Some manufacturers are currently producing vessels using ASME Section VIII Division 1 to avoid the requirements for evaluation of cylinders in cyclic service. There are currently rules being considered in all of ASME Section VIII Division 1 and Division 2, and even potentially for Appendix 8 of ASME Section X. Recommendations on updating the ASME codes will be considered in this report.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document