Pressure Temperature Ratings of Aluminum Alloy Flanges

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kang Xu ◽  
Mahendra D. Rana
Keyword(s):  
Aluminum Alloys ◽  
Safety Margin ◽  
Technical Information ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Ferrous Alloy ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Aluminum Forging ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Technical Basis

ASME B31.3 Appendix L provides the pressure and temperature ratings of forged aluminum flanges. The flanges are from NPS 1/2 to NPS 24 in three rating Classes 150, 300 and 600 with two grades of aluminum alloys: ASTM B247 3003-H112 and 6061-T6. However, B31.3 does not provide any technical information on the basis of the pressure and temperature ratings. A review of the historical development of ASME B16.5 indicated that the aluminum flanges had the same technical basis for pressure and temperature ratings as the ferrous alloy flanges in ASME B16.5. The 1960 Addenda of the 1957 Edition B16.5 included both aluminum flanges and ferrous alloy flanges. A new Code Case 2905 has been recently approved to allow B31.3 Appendix L aluminum flanges in fabricating Section VIII Division 1 pressure vessels as B16.5 flanges on the basis that both flange specifications have the same safety margin. In this paper, the technical basis of the pressure and temperature rating of aluminum flanges is revisited. Based on the same principle, the pressure ratings are extended to Class 900 and Class 1500 for the two aluminum alloys using the same analysis. Since ASTM B247 5083-H112 is another common grade of aluminum forging alloy, the pressure and temperature ratings are proposed for 5083-H112.

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.

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.

Technical Basis for ASME Section VIII Code Case 2235 on Ultrasonic Examination of Welds in Lieu of Radiography

2000 ◽  
Vol 123 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahendra D. Rana ◽  
Owen Hedden ◽  
Dave Cowfer ◽  
Roger Boyce
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Mechanics ◽  
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics ◽  
Acceptance Criteria ◽  
Ultrasonic Examination ◽  
Linear Elastic ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Elastic Fracture ◽  
Technical Basis ◽  
Division 2

In 1996, Code Case 2235, which allows ultrasonic examination of welds in lieu of radiography for ASME Section VIII Division 1 and Division 2 vessels, was approved by the ASME B&PV Code Committee. This Code Case has been revised to incorporate: 1) a reduction in minimum usable thickness from 4″ (107.6 mm) to 0.5″ (12.7 mm), and 2) flaw acceptance criteria including rules on multiple flaws. A linear elastic fracture mechanics procedure has been used in developing the flaw acceptance criteria. This paper presents the technical basis for Code Case 2235.

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.

Fatigue Consideration of Layered Vessels

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kang Xu ◽  
Mahendra Rana ◽  
Maan Jawad
Keyword(s):  
Fatigue Life ◽  
Structural Integrity ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Cyclic Service ◽  
Gap Height ◽  
Technical Basis ◽  
Division 2

Abstract Layered pressure vessels provide a cost-effective solution for high pressure gas storage. Several types of designs and constructions of layered pressure vessels are included in ASME BPV Section VIII Division 1, Division 2 and Division 3. Compared with conventional pressure vessels, there are two unique features in layered construction that may affect the structural integrity of the layered vessels especially in cyclic service: (1) Gaps may exist between the layers due to fabrication tolerances and an excessive gap height introduces additional stresses in the shell that need to be considered in design. The ASME Codes provide rules on the maximum permissible number and size of these gaps. The fatigue life of the vessel may be governed by the gap height due to the additional bending stress. The rules on gap height requirements have been updated recently in Section VIII Division 2. (2) ASME code rules require vent holes in the layers to detect leaks from inner shell and to prevent pressure buildup between the layers. The fatigue life may be limited by the presence of stress concentration at vent holes. This paper reviews the background of the recent code update and presents the technical basis of the fatigue design and maximum permissible gap height calculations. Discussions are made in design and fabrication to improve the fatigue life of layered pressure vessels in cyclic service.

New Common Design Rules for U-Tube Heat Exchangers in ASME, CODAP and UPV Codes

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Osweiller
Keyword(s):  
Heat Exchangers ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Design Rule ◽  
Technical Approach ◽  
Design Rules ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
European Code ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Technical Basis ◽  
Year 2000

In year 2000, ASME Code (Section VIII – Div. 1), CODAP (French Code) and UPV (European Code for Unfired Pressure Vessels) have adopted the same rules for the design of U-tube tubesheet heat exchangers. Three different rules are proposed, based on different technical basis, to cover: • Tubesheet gasketed with shell and channel. • Tubesheet integral with shell and channel. • Tubesheet integral with shell and gasketed with channel or the reverse. At the initiative of the author, a more refined technical approach has been developed, to cover all tubesheet configurations. The paper explains the rationale for this new design rule which is being incorporated in ASME, CODAP and UPV in 2002. This is substantiated with comparisons to TEMA Standards and a benchmark of numerical comparisons.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document