Allowable Stresses for Nonrectangular Sections Under Combined Axial and Bending Loads

1988 ◽  
Vol 110 (2) ◽  
pp. 188-193
Author(s):  
S. Chattopadhyay
Keyword(s):  
Cross Sections ◽  
Rectangular Cross Section ◽  
Shape Factors ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Depth Study ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Bending Loads ◽  
Interaction Curves ◽  
Division 2

The design stress allowables for various loading conditions involving bending in Section III, Division 1 and Section VIII, Division 2 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code are based on the assumption of a rectangular cross section of the structural members. These allowables do not necessarily provide the same level of safety for all general cross sections. In this work, stress allowables have been proposed for design, level C and test condition loadings to provide adequate safety for all combinations of axial and bending loads. The limits are based on an in-depth study of the interaction curves for the fully plastic condition under combined axial and bending loads. These proposed limits are intended to replace the existing ones in the ASME Code. These modifications apply to the design, level C and testing limits. (NB-3221.3, NB-3224 and NB-3226) of Section III, Division 1, and to the Design and Testing limits (AD-140 and AD-151) of Section VIII, Division 2 of the ASME Code. The modified limits are based on the inclusion of shape factors of individual cross sections.

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.

Heat Treatment of Fabricated Components and the Effect on Properties of Materials

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shyam Gopalakrishnan ◽  
Ameya Mathkar
Keyword(s):  
Heat Treatment ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Test Specimen ◽  
Stress Relieving ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Alloy Steels ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Properties Of Materials ◽  
Division 2

Abstract Most of the heavy thickness boiler and pressure vessel components require heat treatment — in the form of post weld heat treatment (PWHT) and sometimes coupled with local PWHT. It is also a common practice to apply post heating/ intermediate stress relieving/ dehydrogenation heat treatment in case of alloy steels. The heat treatment applied during the various manufacturing stages of boiler and pressure vessel have varying effects on the type of material that is used in fabrication. It is essential to understand the effect of time and temperature on the properties (like tensile and yield strength/ impact/ hardness, etc.) of the materials that are used for fabrication. Considering the temperature gradients involved during the welding operation a thorough understanding of the time-temperature effect is essential. Heat treatments are generally done at varying time and temperatures depending on the governing thickness and the type of materials. The structural effects on the materials or the properties of the materials tends to vary based on the heat treatment. All boiler and pressure vessel Code require that the properties of the material should be intact and meet the minimum Code specification requirements after all the heat treatment operations are completed. ASME Code(s) like Sec I, Section VIII Division 1 and Division 2 and API recommended practices like API 934 calls for simulation heat treatment of test specimen of the material used in fabrication to ascertain whether the intended material used in construction meets the required properties after all heat treatment operations are completed. The work reported in this paper — “Heat treatment of fabricated components and the effect on properties of materials” is an attempt to review the heat treatment and the effect on the properties of materials that are commonly used in construction of boiler and pressure vessel. For this study, simulation heat treatment for PWHT of test specimen for CS/ LAS plate and forging material was carried out as specified in ASME Section VIII Div 1, Div 2 and API 934-C. The results of heat treatment on material properties are plotted and compared. In conclusion recommendations are made which purchaser/ manufacturer may consider for simulation heat treatment of test specimen.

Elastic-Plastic Shakedown Evaluation Using ASME Code Section III and Section VIII Methods

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
David P. Molitoris ◽  
John V. Gregg ◽  
Edward E. Heald ◽  
David H. Roarty ◽  
Benjamin E. Heald
Keyword(s):  
Elastic Analysis ◽  
Acceptance Criteria ◽  
Elastic Plastic ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Plastic Analysis ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
American Society ◽  
Plastic Shakedown ◽  
Division 2

Section III, Division 1 and Section VIII, Division 2 of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code provide procedures for demonstrating shakedown using elastic-plastic analysis. While these procedures may be used in place of elastic analysis procedures, they are typically employed after the elastic analysis and simplified elastic-plastic analysis limits have been exceeded. In using the Section III, Division 1 and Section VIII, Division 2 procedures for elastic-plastic shakedown analyses, three concerns are raised. First, the Section III, Division 1 procedure is vague, which can result in inconsistent results between analysts. Second, the acceptance criteria contained in both procedures are vague, which can also result in inconsistent results between analysts. Lastly, differences in the procedures and acceptance criteria can result in demonstration of component elastic-plastic shakedown under Section III, Division 1 but not under Section VIII, Division 2. The authors presume that the ASME Code intends to provide similar design and analysis conclusions, which may not be a correct assumption. To demonstrate these concerns, a nozzle benchmark design subject to a representative thermal and pressure transient was evaluated using the two Code elastic-plastic shakedown procedures. Shakedown was successfully demonstrated using the Section III, Division 1 procedure. However, shakedown could not be demonstrated using the Section VIII, Division 2 procedure. The conflicting results seem to indicate that, for the nozzle design evaluated, the Section VIII, Division 2 procedure is considerably more conservative than the Section III, Division 1 procedure. To further assess the conservative nature of the Section VIII, Division 2 procedure, the nozzle benchmark design was evaluated using the same thermal transient, but without a pressure load. While shakedown was technically not observed using the Section VIII, Division 2 acceptance criteria, engineering judgment concluded that shakedown was demonstrated. Based on the results of all the evaluations, recommendations for modifications to both procedures were presented for consideration.

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.

Investigation of Nozzle on Knuckle Region of Dished Head

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sujay S. Pathre ◽  
Ameya M. Mathkar ◽  
Shyam Gopalakrishnan
Keyword(s):  
Stress Pattern ◽  
Design Specification ◽  
Specific Location ◽  
Bending Effect ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
User Design ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Design Requirements ◽  
Induced Stresses

Abstract ASME Code Section VIII Division 1 [1] provides rules for the shape of openings, size of openings, strength and design of openings, however, the existing rules do not provide any restrictions on the specific location of the nozzle on the dished head knuckle region. Many corporate guidelines/ user design requirements meant for pressure vessel design and specification suggest avoiding placement of any type of nozzle in the knuckle area of a dished head and generally state in their design specification to limit the placement of a nozzle including its reinforcement within the crown area. This applies to Torispherical and Ellipsoidal dished heads. Code [1] rule UG-37(a) provides the benefit in reinforcement by reducing the required thickness (tr) of the dished head when the nozzle is in the spherical portion of the dished head for the Ellipsoidal and Torispherical dished head. High stresses occur in the knuckle region of the dished head due to the edge bending effect caused as the cylinder and head try to deform in different directions. For various reasons the user design requirements insist on placing the nozzle in the knuckle region, further compounding the complexity of the stress pattern in the knuckle area. The work carried out in this paper was an attempt to check whether it is safe to locate a nozzle in the knuckle region of the dished head since the knuckle portion is generally subjected to higher stresses in comparison to the crown portion of a dished head and the Code [1] and [2] does not impose any restrictions for the placement of nozzles in the knuckle region. Also, in this paper an attempt was made to evaluate the induced stresses when equivalent sizes of nozzles are placed in the crown as well as the knuckle portion of the dished head.

A Study of the Conservatism in ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 2 Opening Design for External Pressure

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry Millet ◽  
Kaveh Ebrahimi ◽  
James Lu ◽  
Kenneth Kirkpatrick ◽  
Bryan Mosher
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element ◽  
Internal Pressure ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
External Pressure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Finite Element Analyses ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Allowable Compressive Stress ◽  
Division 2

Abstract In the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, nozzle reinforcement rules for nozzles attached to shells under external pressure differ from the rules for internal pressure. ASME BPVC Section I, Section VIII Division 1 and Section VIII Division 2 (Pre-2007 Edition) reinforcement rules for external pressure are less stringent than those for internal pressure. The reinforcement rules for external pressure published since the 2007 Edition of ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 2 are more stringent than those for internal pressure. The previous rule only required reinforcement for external pressure to be one-half of the reinforcement required for internal pressure. In the current BPVC Code the required reinforcement is inversely proportional to the allowable compressive stress for the shell under external pressure. Therefore as the allowable drops, the required reinforcement increases. Understandably, the rules for external pressure differ in these two Divisions, but the amount of required reinforcement can be significantly larger. This paper will examine the possible conservatism in the current Division 2 rules as compared to the other Divisions of the BPVC Code and the EN 13445-3. The paper will review the background of each method and provide finite element analyses of several selected nozzles and geometries.

Weld Joint Efficiency in Design by Analysis

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor G. Seipp
Keyword(s):  
Weld Joint ◽  
Joint Efficiency ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Division 2

In the original ASME Section VIII, Division 2, no consideration was given to partial weld joint efficiencies (values of the factor E less than 1.0) because that version required full radiography and only permitted weld joint efficiencies of unity. In the new (post-2007) Section VIII, Division 2, partial weld joint efficiencies as small as 0.85 are now permitted. Furthermore, much Design By Analysis work is performed on vessels fabricated to ASME Section VIII, Division 1 and the ASME B31 Codes, which all permit partial weld joint efficiencies. However, no guidance is provided on how to account for these values in Deign By Analysis to ASME Section VIII, Division 2, Part 5. This paper provides the technical justification for the proposed changes to ASME Section VIII, Division 2, Part 5 and API RP-579/ASME FFS-1 regarding weld joint efficiency. Guidance is also provided on how to incorporate this change into ASME Section VIII, Division 1 by way of U-2(g) and the B31 Codes.

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.

Applications of Code Case 2605 for Fatigue Evaluation of Vessels Made in 2.25Cr-1Mo-0.25V Steels Slightly Into Creep Range

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susumu Terada
Keyword(s):  
Fatigue Curve ◽  
Time Dependent ◽  
Inelastic Analysis ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Preliminary Study ◽  
Number Of Cycles ◽  
Fatigue Evaluation ◽  
Division 2 ◽  
Made In

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 when the design allowable stress is taken in the time dependent temperature range. Method B of paragraph 5.5.2.4 also cannot be used because it requires the use of the fatigue curve which is limited to 371 ° C and below the needed temperature. Code Case 2605 is a rule for fatigue evaluation of 2.25Cr-1Mo-0.25V steels at temperatures greater than 371 ° C and less than 454 ° C. An inelastic analysis including the effect of creep shall be performed for all pressure parts according to Code Case 2605. Especially, a full inelastic analysis shall be performed using the actual time-dependent thermal and mechanical loading histograms for the lateral nozzle based on preliminary study. It takes much time to perform this inelastic analysis for all full histograms and obtain the fatigue evaluation results when large number of cycles of full pressure is specified in user’s design specification. This paper provides sample analysis results for nozzles and clarifies issue of implementation of Code Case 2605. Then, the proposal of simplification and modification of Code Case 2605 from these results are proposed.

Stress Classification Using the R-Node Method

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ihab F. Z. Fanous ◽  
R. Seshadri
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Data ◽  
Complex Geometries ◽  
Element Analysis ◽  
Shell Elements ◽  
Linear Elastic ◽  
Stress Classification ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Division 2

The ASME Code Section III and Section VIII (Division 2) provide stress classification guidelines to interpret the results of a linear elastic finite element analysis. These guidelines enable the splitting of the generated stresses into primary, secondary and peak. The code gives some examples to explain the suggested procedures. Although these examples may reflect a wide range of applications in the field of pressure vessel and piping, the guidelines are difficult to use with complex geometries. In this paper, the r-node method is used to investigate the primary stresses and their locations in both simple and complex geometries. The method is verified using the plane beam and axisymmetric torispherical head. Also, the method is applied to analyze 3D straight and oblique nozzle modeled using both solid and shell elements. The results of the analysis of the oblique nozzle are compared with recently published experimental data.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document