scholarly journals Design Optimization of Leaf Spring Using FEM and RSM

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 1253-1264
Author(s):  
Dilkhush Kumar,
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Structural Modification ◽  
Applied Pressure ◽  
Design Approach ◽  
Leaf Spring ◽  
Part D ◽  
Alternative Materials ◽  
Prime Objective ◽  
American Society ◽  
Stress Minimization

Abstract: The prime objective of this design and analysis work is to design a Pressure vessel by following the standards of American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Pressure vessel as a subject matter was opted for the design and analysis with a principal aim to minimize the stress being produced within the structure by structural modification in the Pressure vessel by using analytical approach. ASME (BPVC) Sec-VIII Div- I and Div-II was used to follow the Design by Rule (DBR) and Design by Analysis (DBA) approach. Along with that ASME (BPVC) Sec-II Part- A and Part- D was followed. Cylindrical, Horizontal bullet type Pressure vessel with Hemispherical head was used for this analysis .This work was intended for Stress Minimization within the structure as a principal aim, which is being caused by the exertion of pressure of the fluid on the internal wall and for this SA516Gr65 and SA537 CL 1 material was selected form ASTM Library. This designed Pressure vessel to be used for the LPG gas storage under the internal design pressure of 1.55MPa at 55°C. The design and analysis work was carried out in two sections Design by Rule (DBR) which is a conventional design, for that empirical formula was used to calculate the value of stress being produced under the given conditions and for the required thickness of the shell, head and nozzle to sustain the applied pressure of fluid by following the standards of ASME (BPVC) SecVIII Div- I and Deign by Analysis (DBA), which is a analytical design approach, here Finite Element Method (FEM) was opted for the analysis of the designed model, which was done in the CATIA V5, here in the CATIA two models, Model 1 and Model 2 were created and a structural modification was done in the model 2 and then analysis was performed in the Ansys Workbench 16.0. The comparison was made for both the design approach for the minimized stress values of Hoop Stress and Longitudinal Stress by structural modification and the required thickness under the alternative materials selections criteria was discussed. Up to 25% less stress value was seen in comparative structural analysis of Model 1 and Model 2. This report also discusses the use of SA537 CL 1 material as an alternative options which helps to reduce the thickness of the vessel when compared to the existing materials because this material can sustain the same amount of pressure under given condition at a thinner shell also, this is numerically proved here in this work. Keywords: Pressure Vessel, ASME, Stress Minimization, LPG, FEM, DBR, DBA, Optimum Design.

ASME Pressure Vessel Internals and Their Design Code

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry Millet ◽  
George Miller ◽  
Richard Whipple ◽  
Kenneth Kirkpatrick ◽  
Bryan Mosher
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Structural Members ◽  
Structural Components ◽  
Steel Buildings ◽  
Design Code ◽  
Part D ◽  
Internal Structures ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
American Society

It is common for designers to use the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME) when designing vessel internals (i.e. process trays, bed supports, bolted connections, etc). Typically the ASME allowables are directly applied to internals without any regard to the member geometry or failure modes. The ASME code was developed for modes of failures experienced in the pressure boundary and was not intended to be utilized for the design of structural components. ANSI/AISC 360-10 “Specification for Structural Steel Buildings” (AISC) addresses the failure mechanisms experienced in structures based on their geometry and boundary conditions. This paper will provide several examples along with a direct comparison between structural members designed to the AISC and ASME codes. This paper will also provide guidance for using the AISC methodology with material properties at design temperature from ASME Section II Part D for robust design of internal structures.

A Study of Axial Compression in the ASME B&PV Code for Pipe Supports and Restraints

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phillip E. Wiseman ◽  
Zara Z. Hoch
Keyword(s):  
Axial Compression ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Slenderness Ratio ◽  
Elastic Buckling ◽  
Allowable Stress ◽  
Linear Elastic ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
American Society ◽  
Allowable Stress Design

Axial compression allowable stress for pipe supports and restraints based on linear elastic analysis is detailed in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Subsection NF. The axial compression design by analysis equations within NF-3300 are replicated from the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) using the Allowable Stress Design (ASD) Method which were first published in the ASME Code in 1973. Although the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code is an international code, these equations are not familiar to many users outside the American Industry. For those unfamiliar with the allowable stress equations, the equations do not simply address the elastic buckling of a support or restraint which may occur when the slenderness ratio of the pipe support or restraint is relatively large, however, the allowable stress equations address each aspect of stability which encompasses the phenomena of elastic buckling and yielding of a pipe support or restraint. As a result, discussion of the axial compression allowable stresses provides much insight of how the equations have evolved over the last forty years and how they could be refined.

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.

Design criteria for exposed hydro penstocks

1978 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 340-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. L. Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
High Strength Steel ◽  
High Strength ◽  
Design Criteria ◽  
Similar Work ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Control Procedures ◽  
American Society

At present there are no national codes for the design of exposed hydro-electric penstocks. Thus an engineer must either make reference to other national codes for similar work, such as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers boiler and pressure vessel code or the American Water Works Association Standard for steel water piping, or he must write his own code and is then faced with the decision of having to select design criteria that must cover a wide range of steels; different operating and waterhammer conditions; a wide range of quality control procedures used in manufacture and erection of the penstock; and different types of penstocks, isostatic where the stresses can be calculated with precision, and hyperstatic where the stress calculation is more imprecise. This paper discusses design criteria, factors of safety, and corresponding quality control procedures that can be used for either isostatic or hyperstatic penstocks using mild, intermediate, or high strength steel for penstocks supplying reaction of impulse turbines.

New ASME Rules for Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Radioactive Material and Waste Storage Containments

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph S. Hill ◽  
Gerald M. Foster
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Fuel ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Spent Nuclear Fuel ◽  
The Body ◽  
Radioactive Material ◽  
Comprehensive Understanding ◽  
Waste Storage ◽  
American Society ◽  
High Level

In 2004, a new Code Case, N-717, of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (Code) will be published. The new Code Case provides rules for construction of containments used for storage of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive material and waste. Some time after publication, CC N-717 will be incorporated into the body of the Code. This paper provides an informative insight to the Code Case so that Owners, regulators, designers, and fabricators have a more comprehensive understanding.

Study on Design Approach for Tall Pressure Vessels With Intermediate Support in Consideration of Bottom Structure Flexibility

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shunsuke Sasaki ◽  
Takanori Nanjo ◽  
Toshikazu Miyashita ◽  
Shunji Kataoka ◽  
Yoshiaki Uno
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Reaction Force ◽  
Steel Structure ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Design Approach ◽  
Intermediate Support ◽  
Fixed Model ◽  
Structure Flexibility ◽  
Additional Support ◽  
The Impact

Abstract The skirt and shell thicknesses of vertical tall pressure vessels are sometimes much increased in FPSO (Floating Production, Storage and Offloading) due to ship motion acceleration. In that case, intermediate support is used as an additional support from steel structure surrounding the vessels. By theoretical calculation, Nanjo et.al. introduced dimensionless parameter N that can represent stiffness of pressure vessel and acceleration load with the assumption of structure drift at intermediate support [1]. The authors proposed N-chart to investigate the necessity and effective elevation of intermediate support by using the parameter N. The flexibility of steel structure on the bottom affects the function of intermediate support (e.g. increasing reaction force at intermediate support, effect on bottom skirt calculation); however, the flexibility is not included in the parameter N. In this paper, an additional factor for the flexibility was studied and introduced by structural analysis. A model with flexibility of structure supporting the bottom skirt was used for the analysis. The variable flexibility of steel structure was applied to the bottom of the model to study the impact of bottom structure flexibility on the pressure vessel design. The analysis result was compared with the bottom fixed model without structure flexibility to study an additional factor. Finally, appropriate design approach for tall pressure vessels with intermediate supports was proposed.

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety

2021 ◽  
pp. 93-124
Author(s):  
Thomas H. Fehring ◽  
Terry S. Reynolds
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
The Other ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Technical Problems ◽  
Engineering Society ◽  
The Creation ◽  
American Society

A variety of factors prompted Leavitt, Thurston, Sweet, Worthington, and the other founders of ASME to promote the creation of a new professional engineering society in 1880: need for a forum to discuss technical problems and share views, desire to promote mechanical engineering as a profession, a means of guiding the next generation. One of the primary factors that prompted the formation of ASME, however, was a desire to establishment of codes and standards relevant to the field. Not surprisingly, codes and standards were topics that occupied considerable attention in the early volumes of the Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Overview of Revisions to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section VIII Division 3 for the 2015 Edition and Near Future

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Peters ◽  
Adam P. Maslowski
Keyword(s):  
High Pressure ◽  
Stress Analysis ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Elastic Stress ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Chemical Safety ◽  
Linear Elastic ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
American Society ◽  
Near Future

This paper is to give an overview of the major revisions pending in the upcoming 2015 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, and potential changes being considered by the Subgroup on High Pressure Vessels (SG-HPV) for future editions. This will include an overview of significant actions which will be included in the upcoming edition. This includes action relative to test locations in large and complex forgings, in response to a report from the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) report of a failed vessel in Illinois. This will also include discussion of a long term issue recently completed on certification of rupture disk devices. Also included will be a discussion of a slight shift in philosophy which has resulted in the linear-elastic stress analysis section being moved to a Non-Mandatory Appendix and discussion of potential future of linear-elastic stress analysis in high pressure vessel design.

BWR Steam Dryer Issues and Lessons Learned Related to Flow Induced Vibration

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chakrapani Basavaraju ◽  
Kamal A. Manoly ◽  
Martin C. Murphy ◽  
William T. Jessup
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Structural Integrity ◽  
Thermal Power ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Flow Induced Vibration ◽  
Safety Function ◽  
Water Reactors ◽  
American Society ◽  
Loose Parts

Steam dryers in Boiling Water Reactors, located in the upper steam dome of the reactor pressure vessel, are not pressure retaining components and are not designed and constructed to the provisions of Section III of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. As such, these components do not correspond to any specific safety class referenced in the Code. Although the steam dryers in BWRs perform no safety function, they must maintain the structural integrity in order to avoid the generation of loose parts that may adversely impact the capability of other plant equipment to perform their safety functions. Therefore guidance from Section III of the ASME Code is utilized in the design and fabrication of replacement dryers as well as for design modifications of the existing dryers for extended power uprates. The majority of licensees of operating nuclear plants are applying for EPU, which generally increases the thermal power output to 20% above the original licensed thermal power. Nuclear power plant components such as steam dryers can be subjected to strong fluctuating loads and can experience unexpected high cycle fatigue due to adverse flow effects while operating at EPU conditions. However, there are some unique challenges related to steam dryer operation at EPU conditions requiring special considerations to prevent fatigue damage from the effects of flow induced vibration. This paper examines the issues and lessons learned related to FIV considerations during EPU reviews of BWR steam dryers.

A Risk-Informed Assessment of ASME Section XI, Appendix E

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Gamble ◽  
William Server ◽  
Bruce Bishop ◽  
Nathan Palm ◽  
Carol Heinecke
Keyword(s):  
Thermal Shock ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
Pressurized Thermal Shock ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
American Society ◽  
Regulatory Commission ◽  
Reactor Pressure ◽  
The U.S

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code [1], Section XI, Non mandatory Appendix E, “Evaluation of Unanticipated Operating Events”, provides a deterministic procedure for evaluating reactor pressure vessel (RPV) integrity following an unanticipated event that exceeds the operational limits defined in plant operating procedures. The recently developed risk-informed procedure for Appendix G to Section XI of the ASME Code [2, 3], and the development by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of the alternate Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) rule [4, 5, 6] led to initiation of this study to determine if the Appendix E evaluation criteria are consistent with risk-informed acceptance criteria. The results of the work presented in this paper demonstrate that Appendix E is consistent with risk-informed criteria developed for PTS and Appendix G and ensures that evaluation of RPV integrity following an unanticipated event would not violate material or operational limits recently defined using risk-informed criteria. Currently, Appendix E does not have evaluation criteria for BWR vessels; however, as part of this study, risk-informed analyses were performed for unanticipated heat-up events and isothermal, overpressure events in BWR plant designs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document