Technical Basis for Conversion of Non-Mandatory Appendix F of Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code to a Mandatory Appendix: Part I — Appendix Rewrite

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Wen ◽  
Suzanne McKillop ◽  
Timothy M. Adams ◽  
Robert Keating
Keyword(s):  
Allowable Stress ◽  
Design Rules ◽  
The Past ◽  
Component Design ◽  
Safety Margins ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Class 1 ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
History Of ◽  
Technical Basis

In 1974, the Level D Service Limits for Section III, Division 1, Class 1 components were published in Non-Mandatory Appendix F titled “Rules for Evaluation of Service Loading with Level D Service Limits”. Over the past 40 years, the scope of Appendix F has been expanded to be applicable to certain Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 components and supports in Division 1 as well as in Division 3 and Division 5. With each addition, the organization and implementation of the rules in Appendix F became more cumbersome for the user and consistency between the Appendix and the Code Books1 was not maintained. At the same time, the use of these rules has evolved to the point where the non-Mandatory Appendix is essential the default for Level D Service Limits. Starting in the 2017 Code edition, the component design rules will reference Mandatory Appendix XXVII when Design by Analysis is used to determine Level D Service Limits. This paper describes the methodology utilized to convert Non-Mandatory Appendix F to Mandatory Appendix XXVII which includes the history of the Level D Rules in the ASME Code, the philosophy taken to convert Non-Mandatory Appendix F to Mandatory Appendix XXVII, and an overview of the new Appendix XXVII. The approaches to ensure identical safety margins are maintained and the basis for adding or clarifying three allowable stress limits are also included.

Technical Basis for Conversion of Non-Mandatory Appendix F of Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code to a Mandatory Appendix: Part II — Associated Code Book Updates

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne McKillop ◽  
Jie Wen ◽  
Robert Keating ◽  
Timothy M. Adams
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Design Rules ◽  
The Core ◽  
The Past ◽  
Component Design ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Class 1 ◽  
Service Loading ◽  
Technical Basis ◽  
Code Book

In 1974, the Level D Service Limits for Section III, Division 1, Class 1 components were published in Non-Mandatory Appendix F titled “Rules for Evaluation of Service Loading with Level D Service Limits”. Over the past 40 years, the scope of the Appendix F has been expanded to be applicable to certain Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 components and supports in Division 1 as well as in Division 3 and Division 5. With each addition, the organization and implementation of the rules in Appendix F became more cumbersome for the user and consistency between the Appendix and the Code Books1 was not maintained. At the same time, the use of these rules has evolved to the point where the non-Mandatory Appendix is essential the default for Level D Service Limits. Starting in the 2017 Code edition, the component design rules will reference Mandatory Appendix XXVII when Design by Analysis is used to determine Level D Service Limits. In particular, the component design rules, or rules specific to design of components and not Design by Analysis, were removed from Appendix XXVII and placed in the appropriate Code Book. This approach resulted in noteworthy updates to the support rules in Subsection NF, the core support rules in Subsection NG, the valve rules in NB-3500, and the piping rules in NB/NC/ND-3600. The detailed approach used to incorporate the component design rules into each Code Book are presented in this paper.

A General Comparison of the Design Margins and Design Rules for ASME Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Barkley
Keyword(s):  
Tensile Strength ◽  
Ultimate Tensile Strength ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Design Rules ◽  
Component Design ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Class 1 ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Division 2 ◽  
Design Margin

Beginning with the 2017 Edition of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, vessels designed according to the rules of Section VIII, Division 2 shall be designated as either Class 1 or Class 2. One of the key differences between Class 1 and Class 2 is the applicable Design Margin of 3.0 and 2.4 against the Ultimate Tensile Strength of the material, respectively. Vessels designed in accordance to Section VIII, Division 1 have a Design Margin of 3.5 against the Ultimate Tensile Strength of the material. Code Case 2695 allows the vessel designer to utilize the design rules of Section VIII, Division 2 for a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel while maintaining the tensile strength Design Margin of 3.5. However, Design Margins against the Ultimate Tensile Strength of the material are not the only applicable margins that must be considered. This paper reviews the procedure for deriving the allowable stresses of materials under tensile loading based on the required Design Margins for each Division and Class with some historical background provided. Discussion and comparisons of some of the relevant differences between the design rules of Section VIII, Division 1 and 2 and how the differing Design Margins affect the component design is presented. Carbon Steel with joint efficiencies of 1.0 are used for simplicity.

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.

Comparison of German KTA and ASME Nuclear Design Codes for Class 1, 2, 3 Components and Piping

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Hofer ◽  
Henry Schau ◽  
Hu¨seyin Ertugrul Karabaki ◽  
Ralph Hill
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Design Codes ◽  
Nuclear Facility ◽  
Design Standards ◽  
Design Rules ◽  
Design Specifications ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Class 1 ◽  
Standard Organization

This paper compares the design rules of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components, with German nuclear design standards for Class 1, 2, 3 components and piping. The paper is focused on a comparison of the equations for Design by Analysis and on Piping equations. The ASME Section III Code has been used in combination with design specifications for design of German nuclear power plants. Together with manufacturers, inspectors and power plant owners, the German regulatory authority decided to develop their own nuclear design standards. The current versions being used are from 1992 and 1996. New versions of KTA design standards for pressure retaining components (KTA 3201.2 and KTA 3211.2) are currently under development. This comparison will cover the major differences between the design rules for ASME Section III, Div. 1 and KTA standards 3201.2 and 3211.2 as well as code or standard organization by sections, paragraphs, articles and code development.

Technical Basis and Strategy for Consolidation of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Subsection NC (Class 2) and Subsection ND (Class 3) Into a Single Subsection

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Wen ◽  
Robert Keating ◽  
Timothy M. Adams
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Task Group ◽  
Detailed Result ◽  
Code Change ◽  
Component Design ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
The Status ◽  
Code Maintenance ◽  
Technical Basis

Abstract ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Subsection NC, Class 2 components, and Subsection ND, Class 3 components, have significant technical and administrative similarities. The ASME BPV III Standards Committee has a long-standing goal of combining these two subsections (NC and ND). Consolidating Subsections NC and ND will simplify, reduce repetitions and make the Code easier to use. Additionally, a combined Subsection NC/ND will simplify Code maintenance. To facilitate this consolidation, the Subgroup on Component Design, under the BPV III Standards Committee assigned a Task Group to develop a strategy to combine the two subsections into a single subsection while maintaining both Class 2 and Class 3 as separate classes of construction. Both Subsections NC and ND of the Code have been completely reviewed, compared and the technical bases for the differences have been established. The conclusion of this review is that there are only a few major technical differences between the two code class rules; however, there are a significant number of editorial differences. Based on the review, the Task Group developed a strategy that completes the consolidation within two publishing cycles of Code edition. For the Code Edition 2019, two separate Subsections NC and ND books will be published to resolve editorial differences and otherwise align the two subsections. For the Code Edition 2021, a single merged subsection will be published. This paper provides the background for the proposed code change, discusses the detailed result of the NC/ND comparison, and provides the basis for the major technical differences. The paper will also update the status of the project and code actions needed to consolidate to a single subsection.

New Common Design Rules for U-Tube Heat Exchangers in ASME, CODAP and UPV Codes

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Osweiller
Keyword(s):  
Heat Exchangers ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Design Rule ◽  
Technical Approach ◽  
Design Rules ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
European Code ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Technical Basis ◽  
Year 2000

In year 2000, ASME Code (Section VIII – Div. 1), CODAP (French Code) and UPV (European Code for Unfired Pressure Vessels) have adopted the same rules for the design of U-tube tubesheet heat exchangers. Three different rules are proposed, based on different technical basis, to cover: • Tubesheet gasketed with shell and channel. • Tubesheet integral with shell and channel. • Tubesheet integral with shell and gasketed with channel or the reverse. At the initiative of the author, a more refined technical approach has been developed, to cover all tubesheet configurations. The paper explains the rationale for this new design rule which is being incorporated in ASME, CODAP and UPV in 2002. This is substantiated with comparisons to TEMA Standards and a benchmark of numerical comparisons.

Implementation of ASME Code, Section XI, Code Case N-770, on Alternative Examination Requirements for Class 1 Butt Welds Fabricated With Alloy 82/182

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edmund J. Sullivan ◽  
Michael T. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Stress Corrosion Cracking ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
Butt Welds ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Class 1 ◽  
Final Rule ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Areas Of Concern ◽  
Regulatory Commission ◽  
The U.S

In May 2010, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a proposed notice of rulemaking (75 FR 24324) [1] that includes a new section to its rules to require licensees to implement ASME Code Case N–770, “Alternative Examination Requirements and Acceptance Standards for Class 1 PWR Piping and Vessel Nozzle Butt Welds Fabricated with UNS N06082 or UNS W86182 Weld Filler Material With or Without the Application of Listed Mitigation Activities, Section XI, Division 1,” [2] with 15 conditions. Code Case N-770 contains baseline and inservice inspection (ISI) requirements for unmitigated Alloy 82/182 butt welds and preservice and ISI requirements for mitigated Alloy 82/182 butt welds. The NRC stated that application of ASME Code Case N-770 is necessary because the inspections currently required by the ASME Code, Section XI, were not written to address stress corrosion cracking of Alloy 82/182 butt welds, and the safety consequences of inadequate inspections can be significant. The NRC expects to issue the final rule incorporating this Code Case into its regulations toward the middle of 2011. This paper discusses the new examination requirements, the conditions that NRC proposed to impose, and potential areas of concern with implementation of the new Code Case.

Basis of the Upcoming Changes to the Piping Inelastic Fatigue Design Rules in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, Division 1, Article NB-3600

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy M. Adams
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Service Level ◽  
Fatigue Analysis ◽  
Elastic Plastic ◽  
Fatigue Design ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Class 1 ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Code Changes ◽  
Near Future

In conducting a Class 1 piping analysis per the simplified rules of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Article NB-3600, a fatigue analysis is required per paragraph NB-3653 for both Service Level A and Service Level B. The fatigue analysis provides two options. The options are dependent on Equation 10 of subparagraph NB-3653.1. If this equation is met for a given load set pair under consideration, then the analysis proceeds directly to subparagraphs NB-3653.2 through NB-3653.5. If however, Equation 10 is exceeded, the Code allows the use of a simplified Elastic Plastic Analysis as delineated in subparagraph NB-3653.6. The first requirement of NB-3653.6 is that both Equation 12 and Equation 13 must be met. The changes in the seismic design in the last 25+ years have not been appropriately reflected in the subparagraph NB-3653.6(b) Equation 13. Also, the Code provides no clear guidance on seismic anchor motions in paragraph NB-3650. In 2012 ASME Code Committees undertook an action to address these issues. This paper provides the background and basis for Code changes that are anticipated will be implemented in the near future in paragraph NB-3653.6 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1 that will address both of these issues. This implementation will make the Elastic Plastic Fatigue rules of NB-3653.6 consistent with the design by analysis approach of NB-3228.5.

The History of the B2 Stress Index

2002 ◽  
Vol 124 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vernon C. Matzen ◽  
Ying Tan
Keyword(s):  
Stress Index ◽  
Bend Angle ◽  
Element Analysis ◽  
Primary Stress ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Class 1 ◽  
History Of ◽  
Stress Intensification Factor ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Relationship

The history of the primary stress design equations for Class 1 and 2 elbows in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (Section III, Division 1, Subsections NB and NC) is reviewed. The review includes the early analytical solutions for elbow bending, Markl’s stress-intensification factor, the development of Code equation (9), the relationship between SIFs and the C2 and B2 stress indices, development of B2 equations that are functions of internal pressure and bend angle, and a suggested definition of the B2 index which is based on nonlinear finite element analysis.

U-Tube Heat-Exchangers: New Common Design Rules for ASME, CODAP, and EN 13445 CODES

2005 ◽  
Vol 128 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-102
Author(s):  
F. Osweiller
Keyword(s):  
Heat Exchangers ◽  
Design Method ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
European Standard ◽  
Technical Approach ◽  
Design Rules ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Technical Basis ◽  
Year 2000

In the year 2000, ASME Code Section VIII—Div. 1, CODAP (French Code) and EN 13445 (European Standard for Unfired Pressure Vessels) have adopted the same rules for the design of U-tube tubesheet heat exchangers. Three different rules were proposed, based on a different technical basis, to cover: —Tubesheet gasketed with shell and channel; —Tubesheet integral with shell and channel; —Tubesheet integral with shell and gasketed with channel or the reverse. At the initiative of the author, a more refined and uniform technical approach has been developed, to cover all tubesheet configurations. The paper explains the rationale for this new design method which has been incorporated recently in ASME, CODAP, and EN 13445. This is substantiated with comparisons to TEMA Standards and a benchmark of numerical comparisons

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document