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.

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.

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.

Proposed Code Case of Creep Fatigue Evaluation of 9Cr-1Mo-V Steels for High Pressure Vessels in ASME Section VIII Division 2

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susumu Terada ◽  
Masato Yamada ◽  
Tomoaki Nakanishi
Keyword(s):  
High Pressure ◽  
High Temperature ◽  
Fatigue Curve ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Inelastic Analysis ◽  
Creep Fatigue ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Fatigue Evaluation ◽  
Division 2

9Cr-1Mo-V steels (Gr. 91), which has an excellent performance at high temperature in mechanical properties and hydrogen resistance, has been used for tubing and piping materials in power industries and it can be a candidate material for high pressure vessels for high temperature processes in refining industries. The current Section VIII Division 2 of ASME code does not permit method A of paragraph 5.5.2.3 to be used for the exemption from fatigue analysis for Gr. 91 steels due to limitation of specified minimum tensile strength (585 MPa > 552 MPa). Method B of paragraph 5.5.2.4 also can’t be used because it requires the use of the fatigue curve which is limited to 371 °C lower than the needed temperature. Therefore new rules for fatigue evaluation of Gr. 91 steels at temperatures greater than 371 °C and less than 500 °C similar to CC 2605 for 2.25Cr-1Mo-0.25V(Gr. 22V) steels are necessary. This paper provides fatigue test results at 500 °C for Gr. 91 steels, the modification of CC 2605, sample inelastic analysis results for nozzles. Then, the new Code Case for Gr. 91 steels is proposed from these results.

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.

General Criteria and Evaluations for the Selection of ASME Section VIII, Division 1 or 2 for New Construction Pressure Vessels

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Barkley ◽  
Matt Riley
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Design Rules ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
New Construction ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Division 2 ◽  
Design Pressure ◽  
Selection Of

Abstract For new ASME pressure vessel designs that have a design pressure less than 10,000 psi (70 MPa), it is commonly questioned whether Section VIII, Division 1 or Division 2 should be used as the code of construction. Each code offers specific advantages and disadvantages depending on the specific vessel considered. Further complicating the various considerations is the new Mandatory Appendix 46 of Division 1 which allows the design rules of Division 2 to be used for Division 1 designs. With the various options available, determining the best approach can be challenging and is often more complex than only determining which code provides the thinnest wall thickness. This paper attempts to address many of the typical considerations that determine the use of Division 1 or Division 2 as the code of construction. Items to be considered may include administrative burden, certification process, design margins, design rules, and examination and testing requirements. From the considerations presented, specific comparisons are made between the two divisions with notable differences highlighted. Finally, sample evaluations are presented to illustrate the differences between each code of construction for identical design conditions. Also, material and labor estimates are compiled for each case study to provide a realistic comparison of the expected differential cost between the construction codes.

Cost and Fatigue Life Comparison of Vessels Meeting the Rules of ASME Section VIII Division 1 and 2 Code and En 13445 Standard

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas P. Pastor
Keyword(s):  
Fatigue Life ◽  
Life Assessment ◽  
Cost Estimates ◽  
Fatigue Life Assessment ◽  
Standard Cost ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Division 2

Several identical vessels were designed using the applicable rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 1, Division 2 Code and EN 13445 Standard. Cost estimates were obtained on these vessels. Fatigue life assessment was also conducted on two vessels using the rules of ASME Section VIII, Division 2 and EN 13445. The results of this study are presented.

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.

Design and Inspection Considerations for Cyclic Equipment

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Ryan Jones
Keyword(s):  
Remaining Life ◽  
Specific Interest ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Guidance Documents ◽  
Cyclic Service ◽  
Pressure Swing ◽  
Division 2

The management of pressure equipment operating in a cyclic service can be difficult as little guidance is provided in the codes of construction or in any of the post construction guidance documents. In terms of design, the ASME Section VIII, Division 2 Code does provide guidance for the design and fabrication of vessels that will be in a fatigue service. Of specific interest are those vessels that were designed to ASME Section VIII, Division 1 with varying levels of attention paid to the cyclic nature of the operation. This becomes a problem when operating facilities must determine the long term strategy for a piece of equipment where fatigue is the only (or dominant) method of degradation. With the variation in design methods, methods of addressing fatigue crack growth, material properties, and the desire to minimize inspection expenditures for this type of equipment; practical guidance for long term inspection considerations is presented in this paper. A case history for a Pressure Swing Adsorbtion (PSA) vessel that is subject to cyclic pressure only is discussed to illustrate design considerations, inspection strategies, and determination of remaining life. This provides a fairly simple and approachable example for determination of remaining life and inspection strategies, as well as highlighting regions of interest in these types of vessels. The same approach can then be applied to equipment where more complex (mechanical, thermal) cycling occurs.

Design Formulas of Blind End Closures for High Pressure Vessels

2009 ◽  
Vol 131 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
R. D. Dixon ◽  
E. H. Perez
Keyword(s):  
High Pressure ◽  
Fatigue Life ◽  
Maximum Stress ◽  
Accurate Determination ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Stress Distributions ◽  
Fatigue And Fracture ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Section Viii

The available design formulas for flat heads and blind end closures in the ASME Code, Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 are based on bending theory and do not apply to the design of thick flat heads used in the design of high pressure vessels. This paper presents new design formulas for thickness requirements and determination of peak stresses and stress distributions for fatigue and fracture mechanics analyses in thick blind ends. The use of these proposed design formulas provide a more accurate determination of the required thickness and fatigue life of blind ends. The proposed design formulas are given in terms of the yield strength of the material and address the fatigue strength at the location of the maximum stress concentration factor. Introduction of these new formulas in a nonmandatory appendix of Section VIII, Division 3 is recommended after committee approval.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document