Evaluation of limit load analysis for pressure vessels - Part II: Robust methods

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaohui Chen ◽  
Bingjun Gao ◽  
Xingang Wang
2015 ◽  
Vol 97 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-174
Author(s):  
Anupam Prakash ◽  
Harit Kishorchandra Raval ◽  
Anish Gandhi ◽  
Dipak Bapu Pawar

Author(s):  
Frode Tjelta Askestrand ◽  
Ove Tobias Gudmestad

Several codes are currently available for design and analysis of pressure vessels. Two of the main contributors are the American Society of Mechanical Engineers providing the ASME VIII code, Ref /4/ and the Technical Committee for standardization in Brussels providing the European Standard, Ref /2/. Methods written in bold letters will be considered in the discussion presented in this paper. The ASME VIII code, Ref /4/, contains three divisions covering different pressure ranges: Division 1: up to 200 bar (3000 psi) Division 2: in general Division 3: for pressure above 690 bar (10000 psi) In this paper the ASME division 2, Part 5, “design by analysis” will be considered. This part is also referred to in the DNV-OS-F101, Ref /3/, for offshore pressure containing components. Here different analysis methods are described, such as: Elastic Stress Analysis Limit Load Analysis Elastic Plastic Analysis The Elastic Stress Analysis method with stress categorization has been introduced to the industry for many years and has been widely used in design of pressure vessels. However, in the latest issue (2007/2010) of ASME VIII div. 2, this method is not recommended for heavy wall constructions as it might generate non-conservative analysis results. Heavy wall constructions are defined by: (R/t ≤ 4) with dimensions as illustrated in Figure 1. In the case of heavy wall constructions the Limit Load Analysis or the Elastic-plastic method shall be used. In this paper focus will be on the Elastic-plastic method while the Limit Load Analysis will not be considered. Experience from recent projects at IKM Ocean Design indicates that the industry has not been fully aware of the new analysis philosophy mentioned in the 2007 issue of ASME VIII div.2. The Elastic Stress Analysis method is still (2012) being used for heavy wall constructions. The NS-EN 13445-3; 2009, Ref /2/, provides two different methodologies for design by analysis: Direct Route Method based on stress categories. The method based on stress categories is similar to the Elastic Stress Analysis method from ASME VIII div. 2 and it will therefore not be considered in this paper.


2018 ◽  
Vol 192 ◽  
pp. 02024
Author(s):  
Sutham Arun ◽  
Thongchai Fongsamootr

Cylinder is one of the most commonly used components which has a risk of having circumferential cracks, especially in the welding zone. When cracks are discovered, it is necessary to perform the failure strength assessment of cracked cylinder and the limit load play an important part as the input of the assessment. At present, the limit load solution for circumferential cracked cylinder under combined bending and torsion can be estimated by using the methods of equivalent moment or biaxial failure parameter. However, these methods still have some limitations. The main aim of this paper is to propose the alternative method for predicting the failure moment of circumferential cracked cylinder under combined bending and torsion. The method used in this paper is based on the modification of biaxial failure parameter and the data from finite element analysis. Details of this method is presented in this paper.


2006 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 460-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fu-Zhen Xuan ◽  
Pei-Ning Li ◽  
Shan-Tung Tu
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Shiju V. P. George ◽  
Trevor G. Seipp ◽  
Shawn W. Morrison

Equipment nozzle loads essentially originate from sustained (gravity) sources and restraint of the free thermal displacement of the attached piping. A common practice has been to assume that these thermal piping loads develop only secondary stresses. That is, a 1.5Sm [2] check on membrane stress intensities arising from thermal piping loads is typically not performed. The key assumption used in support of this approach has been that these loads decay appreciably with local shell deformation such that the associated stresses are truly self-limiting in nature. This paper illustrates that this assumption may not be appropriate in all instances. A typical pressure vessel and piping configuration is examined. In this example, the associated stresses and deformations developed due to thermal piping loads resulted in significant deformation of the shell arrangement. In static evaluations of local stresses in shells, the ASME Code only offers two classifications that may be applied to stresses resulting from thermal piping loads: primary or secondary. Given these results it may be more reasonable to treat thermal piping load membrane stresses as being primary.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document