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

Author(s):  
Suzanne McKillop ◽  
Jie Wen ◽  
Robert Keating ◽  
Timothy M. Adams

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.

Author(s):  
Jie Wen ◽  
Suzanne McKillop ◽  
Timothy M. Adams ◽  
Robert Keating

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.


Author(s):  
Jie Wen ◽  
Robert Keating ◽  
Timothy M. Adams

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.


Author(s):  
Nathan Barkley

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.


Author(s):  
Daniel Hofer ◽  
Henry Schau ◽  
Hu¨seyin Ertugrul Karabaki ◽  
Ralph Hill

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.


Author(s):  
Timothy M. Adams

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.


Author(s):  
Thomas P. Pastor

Three years ago the major event within Section VIII was the publication of the new Section VIII, Division 2. The development of the new VIII-2 standard dominated Section VIII activity for many years, and a new standard has been well received within the industry. As expected with any new standard, some of the material that was intended to be published in the standard was not ready at the time of publication so numerous revisions have taken place in the last two addenda. This paper will attempt to summarize the major revisions that have taken place in VIII-2 and VIII-1, including a detailed overview of the new Part UIG “Requirements for Pressure Vessels Constructed of Impregnated Graphite”. I have stated in the past that the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code is a “living and breathing document”, and considering that over 320 revisions were made to VIII-1 and VIII-2 in the past three years, I think I can safely say that the standard is alive and well.


Author(s):  
Timothy M. Adams

When the piping seismic design rules of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1 Subsections NB, NC, and ND were updated in 1994 a strain based criterion was incorporated in Article NB-3200. Due to objections to this criterion by the USNRC they were subsequently removed and replaced by guidance which stated that for Article NB-3200 for Service Level C and D reversing dynamic loads use the simplified design rules of Article NB-3600. The use of simplified Article NB-3600 rules in the NB-3200 design by analysis Article is inconsistent with the philosophy of NB-3200 and precludes the analyst from using detailed analysis methods for piping for Service Level C and D reversing dynamic loads. In 2012 an effort was undertaken to develop a more detailed design by analysis criteria for reversing dynamic loads. This paper provides the background and basis for changes that are anticipated to be implemented in the near future in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1 for the design by analysis rules of Article NB-3200 for reversing dynamic loads in piping systems.


2004 ◽  
Vol 34 (136) ◽  
pp. 339-356
Author(s):  
Tobias Wölfle ◽  
Oliver Schöller

Under the term “Hilfe zur Arbeit” (aid for work) the federal law of social welfare subsumes all kinds of labour disciplining instruments. First, the paper shows the historical connection of welfare and labour disciplining mechanisms in the context of different periods within capitalist development. In a second step, against the background of historical experiences, we will analyse the trends of “Hilfe zur Arbeit” during the past two decades. It will be shown that by the rise of unemployment, the impact of labour disciplining aspects of “Hilfe zur Arbeit” has increased both on the federal and on the municipal level. For this reason the leverage of the liberal paradigm would take place even in the core of social rights.


2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 136-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sung-Ae Lee

To displace a character in time is to depict a character who becomes acutely conscious of his or her status as other, as she or he strives to comprehend and interact with a culture whose mentality is both familiar and different in obvious and subtle ways. Two main types of time travel pose a philosophical distinction between visiting the past with knowledge of the future and trying to inhabit the future with past cultural knowledge, but in either case the unpredictable impact a time traveller may have on another society is always a prominent theme. At the core of Japanese time travel narratives is a contrast between self-interested and eudaimonic life styles as these are reflected by the time traveller's activities. Eudaimonia is a ‘flourishing life’, a life focused on what is valuable for human beings and the grounding of that value in altruistic concern for others. In a study of multimodal narratives belonging to two sets – adaptations of Tsutsui Yasutaka's young adult novella The Girl Who Leapt Through Time and Yamazaki Mari's manga series Thermae Romae – this article examines how time travel narratives in anime and live action film affirm that eudaimonic living is always a core value to be nurtured.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document