Section VIII—Division I: Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels

2018 ◽  
pp. 21-1-21-112
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Division I ◽  
Section Viii

Design Formulas of Blind End Closures for High Pressure Vessels

2009 ◽  
Vol 131 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
R. D. Dixon ◽  
E. H. Perez
Keyword(s):  
High Pressure ◽  
Fatigue Life ◽  
Maximum Stress ◽  
Accurate Determination ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Stress Distributions ◽  
Fatigue And Fracture ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Section Viii

The available design formulas for flat heads and blind end closures in the ASME Code, Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 are based on bending theory and do not apply to the design of thick flat heads used in the design of high pressure vessels. This paper presents new design formulas for thickness requirements and determination of peak stresses and stress distributions for fatigue and fracture mechanics analyses in thick blind ends. The use of these proposed design formulas provide a more accurate determination of the required thickness and fatigue life of blind ends. The proposed design formulas are given in terms of the yield strength of the material and address the fatigue strength at the location of the maximum stress concentration factor. Introduction of these new formulas in a nonmandatory appendix of Section VIII, Division 3 is recommended after committee approval.

Methods for Design of Explosion Containment Vessels

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yongjun Chen ◽  
Jinyang Zheng ◽  
Guide Deng ◽  
Yuanyuan Ma ◽  
Guoyou Sun
Keyword(s):  
Time Use ◽  
Design Method ◽  
Failure Criteria ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Design Criterion ◽  
Load Factor ◽  
Multiple Use ◽  
Strain Limit ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Future Work

Explosion containment vessels (ECVs), which can be generally classified into three categories, i.e., multiple use ECVs and one-time use ECVs, single-layered ECVs and multi-layered ECVs, metallic ECVs and composite ECVs according to the usage, structural form and the bearing unit, respectively, are widely used to completely contain the effects of explosions. There are fundamental differences between statically-loaded pressure vessels and ECVs that operate under extremely fast loading conditions. Conventional pressure design codes, such as ASME Section VIII, EN13445 etc., can not be directly used to design ECVs. So far, a lot of investigations have been conducted to establish design method for ECVs. Several predominant effects involved in the design of ECVs such as scale effect, failure mode and failure criteria are extensively reviewed. For multiple use single-layered metallic ECVs, dynamic load factor method and AWE method are discussed. For multiple use composite ECVs, a minimum strain criteria based on explosion experiments is examined. For one-time use ECVs, a strain limit method proposed by LANL and a maximum strain criteria obtained by Russia are discussed for metallic vessel and composite vessel, respectively. Some improvements and possible future work in developing design criterion for ECVs are recommended as a conclusion.

Adoption of the Composite Reinforced Pressure Vessels (CRPV) Into the ASME BPV Code

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard C. Biel ◽  
Gregory Cano
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Fiber Strength ◽  
Substantial Reduction ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
The Body ◽  
Construction Technique ◽  
Plastic Composite ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Hoop Stresses ◽  
Full Utilization

Adoption of composite reinforced pressure vessels (CRPV) into the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code represented advancement in the technology of pressure vessels. The advantage of this construction technique is that the weight of a CRPV for compressed gas service built may be reduced to about one-half conventional pressure vessel of the same capacity. The concept of hoop wrapping fibers in a plastic composite (>90% fiber fill) makes full utilization of the fiber strength as the fibers share the hoop load with a metal cylinder. With reduced hoop stresses in the metal, a substantial reduction in wall thickness is attainable. The process of adoption of this technology presented several challenges and some robust administrative hurdles. These included coordination with ASME BPV Code Section X for the composite application and Section VIII for the steel design and overall acceptance of the Case. The most vexing technical challenge was the inspection of an unfinished weld on the inside of the shell from the outside of the shell. The next challenge was to gain consensus on the testing criteria for the acceptance of finished vessels. Case 2390 was drafted in the winter of 2000 and spring of 2001 and approved for publication after nine revisions with an approval date of October 9, 2002. The Case was subsequently adopted into the body of ASME BPV Code Section VIII, Division 3 [1] (VIII-3) in the 2010 edition.

Fitness-for-Service Strategies for Impulsively Loaded Vessels

2020 ◽  
Vol 143 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas A. Duffey ◽  
Kevin R. Fehlmann
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Material Behavior ◽  
Remaining Life ◽  
Structural Damping ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Simplifying Assumptions ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Repeated Use ◽  
Internal Blast Loading ◽  
Service Strategies

Abstract High-explosive containment vessels are often designed for repeated use, implying predominately elastic material behavior. Each explosive test imparts an impulse to the vessel wall. The vessel subsequently vibrates as a result of the internal blast loading, with amplitude diminishing exponentially in time after a few cycles due to structural damping. Flaws present in the vessel, as well as new flaws induced by fragment impact during testing, could potentially grow by fatigue during these vibrations. Subsequent explosive tests result in new sequences of vibrations, providing further opportunity for flaws to grow by fatigue. The obvious question is, How many explosive experiments can be performed before flaws potentially grow to unsafe limits? Because ASME Code Case 2564-5 (Impulsively Loaded Pressure Vessels) has just been incorporated in Section VIII, Division 3 of the 2019 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, evaluation of remaining life and fitness-for-service of explosive containment vessels now draws upon two interrelated codes and standards: ASME Section VIII-3 and API-579/ASME FFS-1. This paper discusses their implementation in determining the remaining life of dynamically loaded vessels that have seen service and are potentially damaged. Results of a representative explosive containment vessel are presented using actual flaw data for both embedded weld flaws and fragment damage. Because of the potentially large number of flaws that can be detected by modern nondestructive inspection methods, three simplifying assumptions and a procedure are presented for conservatively eliminating from further consideration the vast majority of the flaws that possess considerable remaining life.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document