Failure Modes for Acrylic Polymers in Section VIII Pressure Vessels

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bart Kemper ◽  
Guy Richards ◽  
Taylor Nappi ◽  
Veda Thipparthi ◽  
Ana Escobar
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Design Method ◽  
Current Method ◽  
Empirical Method ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Glassy Polymers ◽  
Acrylic Polymers ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Vessel Material

Abstract Section VIII of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code is introducing the use of acrylics as a pressure vessel material. The design method is specified in ASME PVHO-1, Safety Standard for Pressure Vessels for Human Occupancy. The current method relies upon an empirical method developed in the 1960–70’s. It does not use “allowable stress” or other mechanical properties traditionally used to calculate design dimensions, but instead uses a fixed range of dimensions for specific shapes and determines the wall thickness using a curve. Understanding the PVHO-1 design assumptions and typical failure modes is important for a non-PVHO pressure vessel designer using acrylics. An ASME Codes & Standards task group is developing a “design by analysis” method (DBA) for acrylics and other glassy polymers for pressure vessel components. The proposed DBA methodology uses Verification and Validation (V&V) techniques and Finite Element Method (FEM) as the design method framework in order to advance the use of glassy polymers as pressure vessel materials.

scholarly journals Developing “Design by Analysis” Methodology for Windows for Pressure Vessels for Human Occupancy

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bart Kemper ◽  
Linda Cross
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Design Method ◽  
Empirical Method ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Case Review ◽  
Element Analysis ◽  
Engineering Theory ◽  
Operational Variables ◽  
Stochastic Finite Element Analysis

Abstract The ASME pressure vessels for human occupancy (PVHO) codes and standards are engineering standards developed to provide a reliable design method for pressure vessel windows. This empirical method is based primarily on years of government-sponsored testing and development and does not directly use engineering theory. This empirical algorithm makes it challenging to revise without additional large-scale physical testing. The industries using the PVHO code need a way to incorporate advances in material science, manufacturing technology, and overall engineering advances without spending years in code case review. Verification and validation techniques, coupled with stochastic finite element analysis (FEA) to address operational variables, can be the basis for a “design by analysis” method to complement the existing testing requirements to produce a full engineering package consistent with other pressure vessel and pressure vessel component design. A design method sufficiently reliable for PVHO could be used in other applications.

Safety Assessment of Long Term Serviced Pressure Vessels: A Case Study of Typical Refining and Chemical Plants in China

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhiyuan Han ◽  
Guoshan Xie ◽  
Haiyi Jiang ◽  
Xiaowei Li
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Safety Assessment ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Time Dependent ◽  
Chemical Plants ◽  
Safety Specification ◽  
Detailed Assessment

Abstract The safety and risk of the long term serviced pressure vessels, especially which serviced more than 20 years, has become one of the most concerned issues in refining and chemical industry and government safety supervision in China. According to the Chinese pressure vessel safety specification TSG 21-2016 “Supervision Regulation on Safety Technology for Stationary Pressure Vessel”, if necessary, safety assessment should be performed for the pressure vessel which reaches the design service life or exceeds 20 years without a definite design life. However, the safety and risk conditions of most pressure vessels have little changes after long term serviced because their failure modes are time-independent. Thus the key problem is to identify the devices with the time-dependent failure modes and assess them based on the failure modes. This study provided a case study on 16 typical refining and chemical plants including 1870 pressure vessels serviced more than 20 years. The quantitative risk and damage mechanisms were calculated based on API 581, the time-dependent and time-independent failure modes were identified, and the typical pressure vessels were assessed based on API 579. Taking the high pressure hydrogenation plant as an example, this study gave the detailed assessment results and conclusions. The results and suggestions in this study are essential for the safety supervision and extending life of long term serviced pressure vessels in China.

Methods for Design of Explosion Containment Vessels

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yongjun Chen ◽  
Jinyang Zheng ◽  
Guide Deng ◽  
Yuanyuan Ma ◽  
Guoyou Sun
Keyword(s):  
Time Use ◽  
Design Method ◽  
Failure Criteria ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Design Criterion ◽  
Load Factor ◽  
Multiple Use ◽  
Strain Limit ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Future Work

Explosion containment vessels (ECVs), which can be generally classified into three categories, i.e., multiple use ECVs and one-time use ECVs, single-layered ECVs and multi-layered ECVs, metallic ECVs and composite ECVs according to the usage, structural form and the bearing unit, respectively, are widely used to completely contain the effects of explosions. There are fundamental differences between statically-loaded pressure vessels and ECVs that operate under extremely fast loading conditions. Conventional pressure design codes, such as ASME Section VIII, EN13445 etc., can not be directly used to design ECVs. So far, a lot of investigations have been conducted to establish design method for ECVs. Several predominant effects involved in the design of ECVs such as scale effect, failure mode and failure criteria are extensively reviewed. For multiple use single-layered metallic ECVs, dynamic load factor method and AWE method are discussed. For multiple use composite ECVs, a minimum strain criteria based on explosion experiments is examined. For one-time use ECVs, a strain limit method proposed by LANL and a maximum strain criteria obtained by Russia are discussed for metallic vessel and composite vessel, respectively. Some improvements and possible future work in developing design criterion for ECVs are recommended as a conclusion.

Adoption of the Composite Reinforced Pressure Vessels (CRPV) Into the ASME BPV Code

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard C. Biel ◽  
Gregory Cano
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Fiber Strength ◽  
Substantial Reduction ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
The Body ◽  
Construction Technique ◽  
Plastic Composite ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Hoop Stresses ◽  
Full Utilization

Adoption of composite reinforced pressure vessels (CRPV) into the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code represented advancement in the technology of pressure vessels. The advantage of this construction technique is that the weight of a CRPV for compressed gas service built may be reduced to about one-half conventional pressure vessel of the same capacity. The concept of hoop wrapping fibers in a plastic composite (>90% fiber fill) makes full utilization of the fiber strength as the fibers share the hoop load with a metal cylinder. With reduced hoop stresses in the metal, a substantial reduction in wall thickness is attainable. The process of adoption of this technology presented several challenges and some robust administrative hurdles. These included coordination with ASME BPV Code Section X for the composite application and Section VIII for the steel design and overall acceptance of the Case. The most vexing technical challenge was the inspection of an unfinished weld on the inside of the shell from the outside of the shell. The next challenge was to gain consensus on the testing criteria for the acceptance of finished vessels. Case 2390 was drafted in the winter of 2000 and spring of 2001 and approved for publication after nine revisions with an approval date of October 9, 2002. The Case was subsequently adopted into the body of ASME BPV Code Section VIII, Division 3 [1] (VIII-3) in the 2010 edition.

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.

Square Root 3: Background to the New Design Margin for High Pressure Vessels

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Keltjens ◽  
Philip Cornelissen ◽  
Peter Koerner ◽  
Waldemar Hiller ◽  
Rolf Wink
Keyword(s):  
High Pressure ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Design Code ◽  
Code Change ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Background Material ◽  
Practical Information ◽  
High Pressure Equipment ◽  
Design Margin

The ASME Section VIII Division 3 Pressure Vessel Design Code adopted in its 2004 edition a significant change of the design margin against plastic collapse. There are several reasons and justifications for this code change, in particular the comparison with design margins used for high pressure equipment in Europe. Also, the ASME Pressure Vessel Code books themselves are not always consistent with respect to design margin. This paper discusses not only the background material for the code change, but also gives some practical information on when pressure vessels could be designed to a thinner wall.

Accounting for the Effects of Inservice Inspection Flaw Depth Sizing Errors in Developing Flaw Size Distribution Tables

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. R. Gosselin ◽  
F. A. Simonen
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Reactor Pressure Vessel ◽  
Expert Elicitation ◽  
Flaw Size ◽  
Physical Models ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Valid Comparison ◽  
Vessel Material ◽  
Reactor Pressure

Probabilistic fracture mechanics studies have addressed reactor pressure vessels that have high levels of material embrittlement. These calculations have used flaw size and density distributions determined from precise and optimized laboratory measurements made and validated with destructive methods as well as from physical models and expert elicitation. The experimental data were obtained from reactor vessel material samples removed from cancelled plants (Shoreham and the Pressure Vessel Research Users Facility (PVRUF)). Consequently, utilities may need to compare the numbers and sizes of reactor pressure vessel flaws identified by the plant’s inservice inspection program to the numbers and sizes of flaws assumed in prior failure probability calculations. This paper describes a method to determine whether the flaws in a particular reactor pressure vessel are consistent with the assumptions regarding the number and sizes of flaws used in other analyses. The approach recognizes that ASME Code Section XI examinations suffer from limitations in terms of sizing errors for very small flaws. Direct comparisons of a vessel specific flaw distribution with other documented flaw distributions would lead to pessimistic conclusions. This paper provides a method for a valid comparison that accounts for flaw sizing errors present in ASME Code Section XI examinations.

Comparison Between the ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 3 and the Chinese Regulation TSG 21-2016 With Regard to the Design of High Pressure Vessels

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Fuenmayor ◽  
Rolf Wink ◽  
Matthias Bortz
Keyword(s):  
High Pressure ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Chinese Economy ◽  
High Pressure Vessel ◽  
Safety Technology ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Design Construction

There are numerous codes covering the design, manufacturing, inspection, testing, and operation of pressure vessels. These national or international codes aim at providing assurance regarding the safety and quality of pressure vessels. The development of the Chinese economy has led to a significant increase in the number of installed high-pressure vessels which in turn required a revision of the existing regulations. The Supervision Regulation on Safety Technology for Stationary Pressure Vessel TSG 21-2016 superseded the existing Super-High Pressure Vessel Safety and Technical Supervision Regulation TSG R0002-2005 in October of 2016. This new regulation covers, among others, the design, construction, and inspection of pressure vessels with design pressures above 100 MPa. This paper provides a technical comparison between the provisions given in TSG 21-2016 for super-high pressure vessels and the requirements in ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section VIII Division 3.

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.

Overview of Revisions to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section VIII Division 3 for the 2017 Edition and Near Future

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Peters ◽  
Gregory Mital ◽  
Adam P. Maslowski
Keyword(s):  
High Pressure ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Central Area ◽  
Local Strain ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Conformity Assessment ◽  
Inspection Planning ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
American Society ◽  
Rules Changes

This paper provides an overview of the significant revisions pending for the upcoming 2017 edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) Section VIII Division 3, Alternative Rules for Construction of High Pressure Vessels, as well as potential changes to future editions under consideration of the Subgroup on High Pressure Vessels (SG-HPV). Changes to the 2017 edition include the removal of material information used in the construction of composite reinforced pressure vessels (CRPV); this information has been consolidated to the newly-developed Appendix 10 of ASME BPVC Section X, Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Pressure Vessels. Similarly, the development of the ASME CA-1, Conformity Assessment Requirements standard necessitated removal of associated conformity assessment information from Section VIII Division 3. Additionally, requirements for the assembly of pressure vessels at a location other than that listed on the Certificate of Authorization have been clarified with the definitions of “field” and “intermediate” sites. Furthermore, certain design related issues have been addressed and incorporated into the current edition, including changes to the fracture mechanics rules, changes to wires stress limits in wire-wound vessels, and clarification on bolting and end closure requirements. Finally, the removal of Appendix B, Suggested Practice Regarding Post-Construction Requalification for High Pressure Vessels, will be discussed, including a short discussion of the new appendix incorporated into the updated edition of ASME PCC-3, Inspection Planning Using Risk Based Methods. Additionally, this paper discusses some areas in Section VIII Division 3 under consideration for improvement. One such area involves consolidation of material models presented in the book into a central area for easier reference. Another is the clarification of local strain limit analysis and the intended number and types of evaluations needed for the non-linear finite element analyses. The requirements for test locations in prolongations on forgings are also being examined as well as other material that can be used in testing for vessel construction. Finally, a discussion is presented on an ongoing debate regarding “occasional loads” and “abnormal loads”, their current evaluation, and proposed changes to design margins regarding these loads.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document