Improved Construction of Multilayer Vessels to Apply the ASME Code Section VIII, Division 2

1975 ◽  
Vol 97 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-21
Author(s):  
T. Yamauchi
Keyword(s):  
Thermal Conductivity ◽  
Stress Analysis ◽  
Test Piece ◽  
Solid Wall ◽  
Nondestructive Inspection ◽  
Construction Method ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Welding Part ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Division 2

It has been made possible to design the multilayered vessel by employing stress analysis according to ASME Section VIII, Division 2, using the construction method of reinforcing the flexual rigidity at the discontinuous part, and assuring the shell thermal conductivity to some fraction of the solid wall shell. Nondestructive inspection for the welding part has been tested to improve the construction method by the test piece.

Applicability of Design Rules for Openings in Shells, ASME B&PV Code, Section VIII, Division 2 - A Case Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gurumurthy Kagita ◽  
Krishnakant V. Pudipeddi ◽  
Subramanyam V. R. Sripada
Keyword(s):  
Stress Analysis ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Element Analysis ◽  
Design Rules ◽  
Area Method ◽  
Replacement Method ◽  
Local Stresses ◽  
Pressure Area ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Division 2

Abstract The Pressure-Area method is recently introduced in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code, Section VIII, Division 2 to reduce the excessive conservatism of the traditional area-replacement method. The Pressure-Area method is based on ensuring that the resistive internal force provided by the material is greater than or equal to the reactive load from the applied internal pressure. A comparative study is undertaken to study the applicability of design rules for certain nozzles in shells using finite element analysis (FEA). From the results of linear elastic FEA, it is found that in some cases the local stresses at the nozzle to shell junctions exceed the allowable stress limits even though the code requirements of Pressure-Area method are met. It is also found that there is reduction in local stresses when the requirement of nozzle to shell thickness ratio is maintained as per EN 13445 Part 3. The study also suggests that the reinforcement of nozzles satisfy the requirements of elastic-plastic stress analysis procedures even though it fails to satisfy the requirements of elastic stress analysis procedures. However, the reinforcement should be chosen judiciously to reduce the local stresses at the nozzle to shell junction and to satisfy other governing failure modes such as fatigue.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Evaluating the Effect of Nozzle Weld Stiffness When Using Shell Finite Element Models for ASME Code Evaluations

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan Dunlap ◽  
Hassan Ziada ◽  
John Julyk
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element ◽  
Finite Elements ◽  
Shell Element ◽  
Finite Element Models ◽  
Shell Elements ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Shell Finite Element ◽  
Code Compliance ◽  
Division 2

Typically the use of SHELL finite elements to model nozzle/vessel interfaces will not include details of the weld at the interface. The omission of the weld details from SHELL element models is due to the difficulty in implementing such details and the assumption that additional interface stiffness due to the weld will have a negligible effect on results at locations of interest for Code evaluation. This study will demonstrate a proposed method for modeling weld details with SHELL elements and then evaluate the magnitude of the weld stiffness effect on results and Code compliance. The method of modeling the weld details with SHELL elements used in this study will follow the guidance provided by ASME BPVC Section VIII, Division 2, Annex 5.A [2] for such interfaces. Models of nozzle/vessel interfaces will be shown comparing results of SOLID element models with and without the weld detail, and then SHELL element models both with and without the weld detail. The results from these models will be evaluated and recommendations for future modeling and evaluation of nozzle/shell interfaces with SHELL elements will be offered.

A Comparison of Design by Analysis Techniques for Evaluating Nozzle-to-Shell Junctions per ASME Section VIII Division 2

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phillip E. Prueter ◽  
Robert G. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Stress Analysis ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Elastic Stress ◽  
Limit Load ◽  
Plastic Collapse ◽  
Elastic Plastic ◽  
Plastic Analysis ◽  
Non Linear ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Division 2

Part 5 of ASME Section VIII Division 2 offers several design by analysis (DBA) techniques for evaluating pressure retaining equipment for Code compliance using detailed computational stress analysis results. These procedures can be used to check components for protection against multiple failure modes, including plastic collapse, local failure, buckling, and cyclic loading. Furthermore, these procedures provide guidance for establishing consistent loading conditions, selecting material properties, developing post-processing techniques, and comparing analysis results to the appropriate acceptance criteria for a given failure mode. In particular, this study investigates the use of these methods for evaluating nozzle-to-shell junctions subjected to internal pressure and nozzle end loads. Specifically, elastic stress analysis, limit load analysis, and elastic-plastic stress analysis are utilized to check for protection against plastic collapse, and computational results for a given load case are compared. Additionally, the twice elastic slope method for evaluating protection against plastic collapse is utilized as an alternate failure criterion to supplement elastic-plastic analysis results. The goal of these comparisons is to highlight the difference between elastic stress checks and the non-linear analysis methodologies outlined in ASME Section VIII Division 2; particularly, the conservatism associated with employing the elastic stress criterion for nozzle end loads compared to limit load and elastic-plastic analysis methodologies is discussed. Finally, commentary on the applicability of performing the Code-mandated check for protection against ratcheting for vessels that do not operate in cyclic service is provided. The intent of this paper is to provide a broad comparison of the available DBA techniques for evaluating the acceptability of nozzle-to-shell junctions subjected to different types of loading for protection against plastic collapse. Predicted deformations and stresses are quantified for each technique using linear and non-linear, three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA) methodologies.

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document