Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 120 views

    Pressure Vessel Example

    Uploaded by

    mohamed
    This document compares pressure vessel design requirements between European Standard EN 13445 and American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Section VIII Divisions 1 and 2. It analyzes thickness requirements and resulting material and fabrication costs for several example pressure vessel components. Overall, thickness and therefore material cost differences between standards are small. However, differences in post-weld heat treatment requirements can result in more significant cost impacts. The conclusions note some ASME requirements may be unconservative or not fully conform to the European Pressure Equipment Directive.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pressure Vessel Example

    Uploaded by

    mohamed
    120 views48 pages
    This document compares pressure vessel design requirements between European Standard EN 13445 and American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Section VIII Divisions 1 and 2. It analyzes thickness requirements and resulting material and fabrication costs for several example pressure vessel components. Overall, thickness and therefore material cost differences between standards are small. However, differences in post-weld heat treatment requirements can result in more significant cost impacts. The conclusions note some ASME requirements may be unconservative or not fully conform to the European Pressure Equipment Directive.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document compares pressure vessel design requirements between European Standard EN 13445 and American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Section VIII Divisions 1 and 2. It analyzes thickness requirements and resulting material and fabrication costs for several example pressure vessel components. Overall, thickness and therefore material cost differences between standards are small. However, differences in post-weld heat treatment requirements can result in more significant cost impacts. The conclusions note some ASME requirements may be unconservative or not fully conform to the European Pressure Equipment Directive.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    120 views48 pages

    Pressure Vessel Example

    Uploaded by

    mohamed
    This document compares pressure vessel design requirements between European Standard EN 13445 and American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Section VIII Divisions 1 and 2. It analyzes thickness requirements and resulting material and fabrication costs for several example pressure vessel components. Overall, thickness and therefore material cost differences between standards are small. However, differences in post-weld heat treatment requirements can result in more significant cost impacts. The conclusions note some ASME requirements may be unconservative or not fully conform to the European Pressure Equipment Directive.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 48
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The document compares thickness requirements and other factors between the EN and ASME pressure vessel standards.

    The document compares the EN 13445 and ASME Section VIII Division 1 and 2 standards.

    Thickness differences are mainly due to different nominal design stresses allowed between the standards, and sometimes different post-weld heat treatment requirements.

    COMPARATIVE STUDY

    EN 13445 / ASME Section VIII Div. 1 & 2


    Reinhard Preiss and Josef L. Zeman

    EX 01

    EX 01

    EX 01

    EX 01

    EX 01

    EX 01

    Example 2: Hydrogen Reactor /


    General

    EX 02

    EN 13345-3 DBF (forged course)B


    Part
    nom thickness /
    reference

    material

    main cylindrical shell

    190 mm (MW)

    11CrMo9-10
    EN10222-2

    manhole cover

    190 mm

    11CrMo9-10
    EN10222-2

    upper end

    110 mm (MW)

    11CrMo9-10
    EN10222-2

    lower end

    100 mm (MW)

    11CrMo9-10
    EN10222-2

    B)

    DBA does not render reduced wall thicknesses for the upper end

    EX 02

    EX 02

    ASME VIII/1 (forged C) course)


    Part
    nom thickness /
    reference

    material

    main cylindrical shell

    181 mm (MW)
    (190)f) (124)w)

    SA 387 Gr. 22
    Cl.2; SA 336
    F22 Cl. 3

    manhole cover

    185 mm (center)
    145 mm (periphery)
    (190)f) (155)w)

    SA 387 Gr. 22
    Cl. 2

    upper end

    86 mm (MW)
    (110)f) (100)w)

    SA 387 Gr. 22
    Cl. 2: SA 336
    F22 Cl. 3

    lower end

    86 mm (MW)
    (100)f) (75)w)

    SA 387 Gr. 22
    Cl. 2: SA 336
    F22 Cl. 3

    B)

    DBA does not render reduced wall thicknesses for the upper end

    EX 02

    EN 13345-3 DBF (welded course)B) 2)


    Part
    nom thickness /
    reference

    material

    main cylindrical shell

    124 mm (MW)
    (190)f)

    12CrMo9-10
    EN10028-2

    manhole cover

    155 mm
    (190)f)

    12CrMo9-10
    EN10028-2

    upper end

    100 mm (MW)
    (110)f)

    12CrMo9-10
    EN10028-2

    lower end

    75 mm (MW)
    (100)f)

    12CrMo9-10
    EN10028-2

    B)

    DBA does not render reduced wall thicknesses for the upper end

    EX 02

    ASME VIII/1 (welded C) course)


    Part
    nom thickness /
    reference

    material

    main cylindrical shell

    181 mm (MW)
    (190)f) (124)w)

    SA 387 Gr. 22
    Cl.2; SA 336
    F22 Cl. 3

    manhole cover

    185 mm (center)
    145 mm (periphery)
    (190)f) (155)w)

    SA 387 Gr. 22
    Cl. 2

    upper end

    86 mm (MW)
    (110)f) (100)w)

    SA 387 Gr. 22
    Cl. 2: SA 336
    F22 Cl. 3

    lower end

    86 mm (MW)
    (100)f) (75)w)

    SA 387 Gr. 22
    Cl. 2: SA 336
    F22 Cl. 3

    B)

    DBA does not render reduced wall thicknesses for the upper end

    EX 02

    ASME VIII/2 A) (welded B) / forged C) course)


    Part
    nom thickness /
    reference

    material

    main cylindrical shell

    151 mm (MW)
    (190)f) (124)w)

    SA 387 Gr. 22
    Cl.2; SA 336
    F22 Cl. 3

    manhole cover

    160 mm (center)
    108 mm (periphery)
    (190)f) (155)w)

    SA 387 Gr. 22
    Cl. 2

    upper end

    75 mm (MW)
    (110)f) (100)w)

    SA 387 Gr. 22
    Cl. 2: SA 336
    F22 Cl. 3

    lower end

    75 mm (MW)
    (100)f) (75)w)

    SA 387 Gr. 22
    Cl. 2: SA 336
    F22 Cl. 3

    B)

    DBA does not render reduced wall thicknesses for the upper end

    EX 02

    EX 02

    EX 03

    EX 03

    EX 03

    EX 04

    EX 04

    EX 04

    EX 05

    EX 05

    EX 06

    EX 06

    EX 06

    EX 07

    EX 07

    EX 07

    EX 08

    EX 08

    EX 08

    EX 08

    EX 09

    EX 09

    EX 09

    Example 1 CNG
    Storage Tank
    Relative costs

    EX 01

    Example 2 Hydrogen
    Reactor
    Relative costs

    EX 02

    Example 3 Jacketed
    Autoclave

    Relative costs, Series production


    (10)

    EX 03

    Example 4 Stirring vessel


    Relative costs

    EX 04

    Example 5 AES Heat Exchanger


    Relative costs

    Example 6 BEM Heat Exchanger


    Relative costs

    Example 7 NEN Heat Exchanger


    Relative costs

    EX 05, 06, 07

    Example 8 Water Separator


    Relative costs, Series
    production (30)

    EX 08

    Example 9 Air Cooler


    Header
    Relative costs

    EX 09

    Conclusions 1
    Thickness differences in most cases due to different
    nominal design stresses (allowable stresses)
    EN DBA, EN DBF, ASME VIII/2, ASME VIII/1
    Thickness differences result in small material
    cost differences
    Thickness differences result sometimes
    in different PWHT requirements, result
    in possibly decisive cost differences

    CompStudy 43

    Conclusions 2

    Thickness differences due to different nominal


    design stresses mainly in the cryogenic,
    the ambient, and the medium temperature
    regime (up to appr. 200C)
    Savings in material cost for EN is partly
    compensated by increase in DT requirements
    Thickness differences for external pressure action!

    CompStudy 44

    Conclusions 3

    Additional cost for ASME designs plus PED


    conformity assessment (marginally) small
    NDT requirements EN/ASME are similar, related
    cost differences small
    DT requirements (test coupons) higher for EN
    designs, related cost differences small

    CompStudy 45

    Conclusions 4

    Cost differences between different manufacturers


    greater than differences for single manufacturer
    and different standards
    Overly conservative DBF formulae may result in
    cost disadvantages compared to DBA-DR,
    larger DBA costs are easily offset

    CompStudy 46

    Conclusions 5

    ASME fatigue results are considered


    unconservative for welded regions, not
    in conformity with PED requirements
    Problems for ASME designs with standard
    hydraulic test requirements in accordance
    with PED (to be applied as a general rule)
    PT = 1,43.PS
    PT = 1,25.PS.C(T)
    CompStudy 47

    You might also like