External Pressure

© All Rights Reserved

3 vues

External Pressure

© All Rights Reserved

- ABSA news 008-V13-Iss1
- ASME VIII Div.1 _ Standards _.pdf
- Asme Sa516 Grade 70 and Astm a516 Grade 70
- exp2
- Design Calculations for Pressure Vessels
- Series 101 Worker Bee Convection Vacuum Gauge Data Sheet
- API training & ASNT NDT level III examination preparatories from INDTT, Mumbia INDIA
- Aramco Reference Standard
- ts407
- Saad Bin Sharf Cv
- Ecs 208 Topic
- TSP0004U
- tube_freq
- API 510 CM-3.pdf
- 802700_ch27
- BQ
- NB-331NC
- Bogusz
- Kat-A 5024 Variplus-dc Edition2!06!10-2016 En
- dsstrainers_r06

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 22

Pressure Vessel Engineering reviews and registers many designs a year which are subject to a

variety of loadings. As external pressure calculations start out more complex than versus internal,

naturally we then receive many more questions. Below we hope to address many of our most

commonly asked questions and provide working samples to help explain loading cases. The

Tower sample includes seismic and external loading and were completed using Compress.

• External Pressure

• Loads on Flanges- The ASME Way

• File PVE-3602

• Contact: Brian Munn – bem@pveng.com

• Contact: Michael Tomlinson – mct@pveng.com

• Contact: Laurence Brundrett – lrb@pveng.com

This tower sample focuses on the combination of seismic and external pressure loads. The

calculations are done in Compress, and the drawing is made in SolidWorks. Download both at the

bottom of the page. Tower dimensions and calculations found in the calculation set and on the

drawing are discussed throughout this sample.

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 2 of 22

Drawing of the sample tower with combined external pressure, wind and seismic loads

Compress

This vessel is calculated using the Compress pressure vessel code program by Codeware Inc.

Compress is our favorite program for tower design. Its extensive library of available calculation

methods makes it useful for many vessel design tasks. The report is longer than other programs,

but often is easier to read and includes extensive references, and illustrates most of the

calculation steps, allowing the methods to be checked.

SolidWorks

The drawing is created in SolidWorks. By default, we use SolidWorks to create vessel drawings.

Use of solid modeling is like building the vessel once in advance before it hits the shop floor. Solid

modeling often takes more time than 2D CAD, but it also shows many design errors or issues in

advance. The extra time can easily pay off during construction.

Each shell section is calculated for internal and external pressure loads. For some of the sections

internal pressure governs, for others external. Internal pressure calculations are based on

diameter and thickness (+ angle for cones). Calculations are found in the ASME VIII-1 code book.

In the sample calculation, look for the Appendix 1-1 calculations for the Cylinders and App 1-4(e)

for the cones. The external pressure calculations also use the diameter, thickness, and adds the

use of the section length. Long shapes collapse easier than short shapes of the same section,

and the code rules account for this. Look for UG-28(c) calculations for the cylinders and UG-33(f)

for the cones.

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 3 of 22

Required thickness based on internal and external pressure only. Some sections are governed by the

internal pressure design (Upper Cone and Lower Cone) and some by external pressure (Upper

Section, Middle Shell and Lower Shell). Seismic loads have not been added yet.

This tower is designed to support IBC wind and seismic loads as programmed into Compress.

Response modification factor “R” is the input users get wrong most often. From Earthquake-

Resistant Design Concepts, FEMA P-749 / December 2010

R is a response modification factor that accounts for the ability of some seismic-force-resisting

systems to respond to earthquake shaking in a ductile manner without loss of load-carrying

capacity. R values generally range from 1 for systems that have no ability to provide ductile

response to 8 for systems that are capable of highly ductile response. The R factor is used to

reduce the required design strength for a structure.

The tower material is assumed to have ductility, but has limited ability to absorb energy by

yielding without also collapsing. The goal is not always to prevent damage, but to prevent loss of

life. ASCE 7-05 Table 15.4.-2 “Seismic coefficients for nonbuilding structures not similar to buildings”

provides the correct value to use for a tower (this table is linked below):

Table 15.4-2: All other steel and reinforced concrete distributed mass cantilever structures not

covered herein including stacks, chimneys, silos, and skirt-supported vertical vessels that are

not similar to buildings. R=3

Other factors required to do the seismic calculations are included in the table below. Typically, all

except the R factor are provided by the end user.

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 4 of 22

Site Class B

Redundancy factor, ρ 1

From these inputs the base shear can be calculated. See pages 135 and following for the actual

calculations. Some points of interest:

• The seismic spec provides Sa – seismic load at short period and at S1 – seismic load at 1 second. The

calculated period is 0.447 seconds (page 116) Again from Earthquake-Resistant Design Concepts,

Figure 30, The generalized period vs acceleration graph looks like this:

• For this and most towers, the period of vibration is between Ts and 1.0 second.

• Using Sa, S1 and R, the calculated acceleration is 44% of g. The R factor of 3 lowers the amount of

base shear that the tower has to experience on the assumption that 2/3 of the seismic energy applied

to the base of the tower gets absorbed internally – converted to heat – during a seismic event. If the

tower did not have this ability – for example if the skirt was built from brick and R=1 – then the

calculated base acceleration would be 133% of g (see page 120 cs=0.444)

• Consider the seismic load to be a random shaking in all 3 dimensions. A vertical load term is calculated

(page 119, 1.1867 and 0.4133)

• The calculated base shear is 44% of the weight of the vessel (page 138 cs=0.44). This is reduced to

70% to account for the increased stresses allowed for occasional loads by the ASME codes. At this

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 5 of 22

point the seismic and operating loads can be combined and compared to the ASME allowable

operating stresses. Throughout the calculation set both combined and operating loads are checked

individually to make sure neither is excessive.

Previously, each section was calculated for internal and external pressure on its own. Now wind

and seismic loading is added. The VIII-1 code rules do not cover the combined load. There are

many ways available, and Compress uses the methods of Bergman and Calif, ASME 54-A-104,

1954 An interesting off topic note from the paper:

The codes furnish the designer with a list of approved materials and the maximum stress

values in tension permitted over their usable range of temperatures. The design rules in the

codes are limited to vessels of cylindrical or spherical shape under internal or external

pressure, and to heads and nozzle attachments for such vessels. Rules for more complicated

types of construction and for loadings other than that due to pressure are beyond the scope of

the code. To include such rules would turn the code into a design handbook. And it would

restrict the designer in working out his design in accordance with acceptable engineering

principles. The code requires that he “shall provide details of construction that will be as safe

as those provided by the rules of the code.”

Today as in 1954, the code book contains explicit rules covering the design of basic vessel

components, and also today, there are no rules for combining loads. However, many would argue

that their fears of turning the VIII-1 code into a design handbook have come true. Many more

mandatory sections exist than in Bergman and Calif’s day. When designs do not fall within the

scope of code rules, reviewers can insist on design changes to make code rules applicable, and

thus mandatory. This is a particular concern in Canada when designs need to be approved by

multiple reviewers for different provincial jurisdictions. To be innovative, vessels need to be

designed under the more flexible VIII-2 code, when the jurisdictions allow. The method of

Bergman and Calif combines the seismic load with the external pressure to create a new,

increased equivalent external pressure for the wind and seismic conditions. (Look for “External

Pressure + Weight + Seismic Loading Check Bergman, ASME paper 54-A-104” in the calculation

sets). The method calculates a new effective external pressure for the vessel section. Because

the combined load is an occasional load, the combined limit is higher and the calculated thickness

at external pressure might be higher than the combined load required. This chart shows the new

effective pressures and from that, the combined load required thickness:

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 6 of 22

Wind Seismic

Pe Pe int combined

Upper Cone 36.25 -> 0.875 15.05 15.07 0.6249 0.4673 0.3708

120.25

Lower Cone 120.25 -> 84 0.875 15.13 15.27 0.6041 0.5074 0.3911

t

Combined load is the governing load case the Lower Shell. Wind load does not govern the design. Combined

loads now govern the lower shell, but the same nominal thickness still works.

Two things need to happen at the junctions between the cones and shells: 1) the discontinuity

stresses created by the change in shape between cones and shells must be kept within the limits

specified by the code, and 2) the junction has to be strong enough to act as a line of support.

When the shape of a shell changes, local discontinuity stresses are created. All of the cone to

shell junctions are discontinuities. The code uses a simple “area replacement” method to

determine if the junction is strong enough to withstand the discontinuity loads. All the junctions

pass without the need for additional area. [Look for the Appendix 1-5(d & e) calculations for the

cones, comparing required with actual area.] Without any lines of support, the external pressure

and combined load calculations would be based on the entire pressurized length of the vessel.

The longer the section, the thicker the material needs to be for these loads. Without lines of

support, the required thickness for this tower would be much larger. The lines of support on this

tower are made up of rings rolled the hard way welded to the shells close to the cone to shell

junctions. Each cone and shell section has been isolated and can be calculated individually. The

junction’s ability to act as a line of support is judged on the combined moment of inertia of the

connecting shells and any reinforcing present. [Again look for the Appendix 1-5(d & e)

calculations for the cones, this time looking for I’s and I’]:

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 7 of 22

Junction Ring Area Req Actual Area Req Actual I Req I Actual

Upper Cone Small 3/8 x 0.4183 1.2656 0.1751 1.1393 0.5699 0.7887

End 2

End 5

End 6

Lower Cone Small 1/2 x 0.1524 2.0393 0.9225 1.7468 10.4426 16.2853

End 5

Every junction passes the requirements for area replacement without additional reinforcement. Rolled rings

have been added to every junction to also pass as lines of support. Internal and external pressure

calculations are also run on the heads and the nozzles, but they are beyond the scope of this

article.

• Calculations (15 Mb)

• Drawing (page 1 of 3 only)

• Purchase: ASCE 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures(Link goes to 7-10

which replaces 7-05)

• ASCE Standard 7-05 Table 15.4-1

• From Earthquake-Resistant Design Concepts, FEMA P-749 / December 2010 – see chapter 5.

https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.nibs.org/resource/resmgr/BSSC/FEMA_P-749.pdf

External Pressure

File: PVE-3473, Last Updated: July 5,2012, By: Laurence Brundrett

External pressure (vacuum) calculations start off more complex than internal pressure

calculations and once jackets or other sources of pressure are added the difficulty increases. The

external pressure rating depends upon more variables and the failure mechanism is more difficult

to understand. This article is only an introduction, but it also covers many of the areas of external

pressure that we repeatedly have to explain. Common mistakes made with external pressure

calculations are listed.

Sample vessel calculations are included throughout this article based on a vessel 48″ diameter x 96″ long with

a Flanged and Dished (F&D) head at one end and a Semi Elliptical (SE) head at the other. As the design

conditions change, the required shell thickness is updated. Internal pressures are calculated at 30 psi for

comparison. Download the sample calculations at the end of this article.

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 8 of 22

Quick Links

• 1 – The Basics – Failure Mechanisms

• 2 – Designing for External Pressure

• 3 – Vacuum Rings

• 4 – External Pressure from Simple Jackets

• 5 – Half Pipe Jackets

• 6 – Stayed Surfaces for External Pressure

• 7 – More than One Source of External Pressure

• 8 – Cones, Lines of Support and Junctions

• 9 – Understanding Stability

• Videos and Other Sites

• Companion Calculation Set

The mechanism of external pressure failure is different from internal pressure failure. Different

methods are required to design vessels to safely handle this different failure mechanism. Internal

pressure failure can be understood as a vessel failing after stresses in part or a large portion

exceeds the materials strength. In contrast, during external pressure failure the vessel can no

longer support its shape and suddenly, irreversibly takes on a new lower volume shape. The

following 3 pictures show vessels of reduced volume after external pressure failure. The forth

picture shows an internal pressure failure for contrast.

A storage tank tested crushed after hydrotest Vacuum failure of a barometric condenser

when a plastic sheet blocked the top vent (vacuum vessel) after the internal support

during draining. The volume of vessel rings failed. The volume of the vessel

decreases. decreases.

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 9 of 22

internal vacuum (external pressure). The during hydrotest (caused by pressure stress

volume of the vessel decreases. and helped by unacceptable material

properties) . Here volume increases until

failure occurs. compare this with the external

failure examples.

• From a pressure outside a vessel greater than atmospheric (typically from some types of jacket or a

surrounding vessel)

• From a combination of the first two – vacuum inside + pressure greater than atmospheric outside.

Two simple and unexpected sources of vacuum – unloading a vessel or a tank that is not

adequately vented – or – cooling down a vessel filled with steam that condenses to water. It is

good practice to design any vessel exposed to steam service for full vacuum, the cool down rate

can be very fast overloading vacuum protection equipment.

External pressure failure can be understood as a loss of stability. The vessel no longer has the

ability to hold its shape and suddenly collapses to a shape with less internal volume. Good videos

can be found on YouTube – see the links at the bottom of this article.

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 10 of 22

ASME type pressure vessels use code rules to calculate the safe external pressure load. The

stability of a straight shell under external pressure depends on four variables:

• length (the longer the less stable)

• thickness (the thinner the less stable)

• material properties – a lower yield point is less stable from plastic collapse and a lower modulus of

elasticity is less stable from elastic collapse. Elastic and plastic collapse will not be discussed further

here.

Large vessels typically have lower external than internal pressure ratings.

These four variables are used in Code equations which can specify the thickness of a safe

straight shell. Similar methods are used to calculate heads. Nozzles are calculated using the

familiar area replacement rules. In addition we can use burst (proof) testing or finite element

analysis to calculate components not covered by the code rules. The code rules are on average

very conservative, but greatly simplify what would otherwise be very difficult calculations – this

has been a good trade off. The finite element analysis and burst testing are done to a usually less

conservative 3x factor of safety (See ASME VIII-1 UG-101(p)) where exact testing or analysis

information replaces generalized code rules.

The easiest way to design for external pressure is to make the shell thick enough to make the

vessel stable with an acceptable factor of safety (pass code calculations). The length of the

vessel used in the calculations includes some of the head at each end. The calculations are found

in ASME VIII-1 UG-28. The shell calculations are for a cylinder with supported ends (the heads at

each end). Calculations are also given for the heads which are treated as spheres.

The effective length of a vessel includes some of the length of the heads. The head is

calculated as a sphere.

(See the companion calculation set part 2 starting on page 4.) A typical vessel 48″ diameter with a straight

shell 96″ long needs a shell 0.056″ thick for an internal pressure of 30 psi, but needs to be 0.225″ thick for a

15 psig external pressure (full vacuum) per VIII-1 UG-28. The F&D head on the left end needs to be 0.082″

thick for the interior pressure but 0.142″ for the vacuum. A SE head needs to be 0.046″ thick for the interior

pressure but 0.127″ for the vacuum. The F&D and SE heads are both calculated as if they are part of a

sphere, but the two heads are given different equivalent radiuses resulting in different required thicknesses.

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 11 of 22

4x factor of safety in external pressure 4x factor of safety – the design exceeds the

buckling analysis code required 3x factor of safety

FEA results show that the shell will collapse at 4.04x the 15 psi applied pressure. This is greater than the 3x

safety factor expected in the code and shows the code results to be acceptable.

3 – Vacuum Rings

Instead of making the shell thick enough to handle the external pressure, an economical vessel

can often be designed by reinforcing the shell. When the reinforcement is as strong as required

by UG-29, the effective length of the shell is reduced and thinner shells can be used. In this case,

L1 and L2 are calculated separately. Each zone independently passes the code calculations. The

UG-29 reinforcing calculation ensures that the reinforcing is strong enough that whatever

happens on one side of it has no impact on the other.

(See companion calculations starting on page 9.) The sample vessel shell reduces in required thickness from

0.225 to 0.168″. Not bad for the addition of a 0.25 x 2.5″ bar rolled the hard way. More rings could be added to

lower the required thickness further. The required head thickness could also be reduced by adding some type

of reinforcement. VIII-1 allows for this, but provides no guidance on the design.

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 12 of 22

8.1x factor of safety with a thinner shell and a The code rules are excessively conservative in

vacuum ring added. this case.

FEA results show that the shell will collapse at 8.1x the 15 psi applied pressure. This is much greater than the

3x safety factor expected in the code and is acceptable. The vacuum ring has successfully separated any

action on one side of the ring from affecting the other side. (page 13)

Simple jackets made from rolling plate welded to the shell at both ends create zones of external

pressure. If there is no internal vacuum then the length used for the external pressure calculation

is the length of the jacket.

(See companion calculations starting page 15.) If a 24″ long jacket at 30 psi is added to the outside of the

straight shell, then the external pressure of 30 psi needs to be calculated for an effective length of 24″. The

shell needs to be 0.160″ thick under the jacket per UG-28, but could be 0.063″ elsewhere for the 30 psi

internal pressure (minimum code allowed thickness = 0.063″).

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 13 of 22

The jacket rings are not functioning as vacuum The jacket closure is not stiff enough to

support rings (action on one side of the ring is function as a vacuum ring – the jackets effects

not isolated from the other side) but the factor extend beyond the effective length of the

of safety is acceptable at 4.3x. jacket but the design is acceptable.

Finite element analysis results show that the effect of the external pressure is not confined to the length of the

jacket. The jacket closure per App 9-5 is not as strong as required by UG-29 but the outer jacket shell adds to

the stiffness of the shell. The FEA shows the factor of safety is adequate at 4.3x and experience indicates that

this type of design is safe.

Stronger end rings on the jacket can isolate the action inside the jacket area from the rest of the

shell. This goes above and beyond the VIII-1 code requirement which does not require UG-29 on

jackets.

The jacket closure ring is stronger – it now The effect of the pressure is now confined to

meets UG-29 requirements. the span of the jacket. The factor of safety is

5.8x (Acceptable).

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 14 of 22

(See companion calculations starting page 17.) The jacket closure is now 1″ x 1.5″ and passes UG-29 rules

for a vacuum ring. Action of the jacket has been isolated within the span of the jacket. The factor of safety is

5.8x. This level of safety goes beyond what the code and practical experience indicates is necessary.

The simple jackets in the picture below do not connect – two separate zones of external pressure

are calculated. As the zones get shorter, the required thickness to pass external pressure

calculations is reduced. See Fig UG-28 for a definition of L that shows the treatment of the zones

as separate lengths.

A common mistake is to assume that the external pressure has to apply to the full vessel length or that the

separate sections need to be treated as common. See UG-28.

Multiple unconnected jackets lead to the case of half pipe jackets. The length of the external

pressure has been reduced enough that it often has no impact on the design (but it still needs to

be calculated). The code calculation could be based on the dimension L and the regular code

calculations applied for the straight shell, but there are no code rules available for the half pipe on

the head. Appendix EE contains rule EE-2(1) which provides a means of calculating the required

shell thickness to handle the jacket pressure. This provides the same required thickness for the

shell under the jacket regardless of the local shape of the vessel – it is the same for the head and

the straight shell.

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 15 of 22

(See companion calculations starting page 22.) If the shell is calculated using UG-28, then a thickness of only

0.095″ is required, however these results cannot be applied to the head. The appendix EE half pipe

calculation requires a wall thickness of 0.188″ (the lowest value provided for on the charts) for a 3″ half pipe

jacket pressurized up to 243 psi on shell or head.

A common mistake with half pipe jackets is to assume that the vessel has to be designed for external

pressure – this is only true if there is another source for external pressure other than the pressure in the half

pipe jacket. The accepted method of calculating the required shell thickness is to use the rules of appendix

EE-2. EE-2 is not mandatory so other methods such as UG-28, burst test and finite element analysis are also

available to the designer.

A common mistake with half pipe jackets is to assume that the full head of a vessel under the jacket needs to

be calculated for external pressure. The EE-2 method is very useful because no code rules exist for a head

that is only partly exposed to external pressure.

A common mistake with half pipe jackets is not to calculate the required vessel thickness under the jacket to

EE-2(1) or other methods.

Stayed surfaces provide freedom to the designer using jackets. No longer do we care about the

shape of the object under the jacket, or the shape of the jacket itself. We do not care whether the

shape has pressure on an internal (concave) or external (convex) shape. We do not care if the

failure mechanism is the crushing type of collapse (external) or tearing (internal). What we care

about is the distance between stay rods – are the stay rods strong enough, attached well enough,

and are the shell and jacket surfaces thick enough to support the span between stays.

Stayed Surfaces

The rules for stayed design are found in VIII-1 UG-47 and work the same way as the design of flat

heads found in UG-34 but now we look at the distance between stays instead of the diameter of

the head. Because the rules are designed for flat surfaces (the weakest shape found in pressure

vessels) they will work for any shape of vessel or jacket. The distinction between what is the

vessel and what is the jacket is often not important.

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 16 of 22

The complex shape of this locomotive firebox A dimple jacket is a form of stayed surface

can be calculated as if it is a simple flat plate –

with correctly spaced stay supports

(See companion calculations starting page 25.) If our vessel has a jacket supported by stays on a 6″ spacing,

then the required head or cylindrical shell thickness is 0.164″. The stays have to be 0.4″ dia

The rules for the dimple jacket are found in Appendix 17. The internal (pressure vessel wall)

thickness is calculated per 17-5 (b)(1) or (2) – modified flat plate calculations that can be used for

any shape of vessel. The jacket portion is tested by burst test and can be used for any shape of

vessel. Note that laser welded and inflated jackets have special restrictions regarding the burst

test (last portion of section 17-5(a)(2).

This laser welded dimple jacket will be inflated once it is rolled into the shape of a shell and

welded to the rest of the vessel. The inflation pressure can be as high as 800psi. This inflation

pressure is higher than the required burst pressure and is far in excess of any allowed external

pressure for the vessel. This only works because the pressure inside a dimple jacket is not an

external pressure. The dimple jacket is a form of stayed jacket that can be any shape.

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 17 of 22

If our vessel has a dimple jacket with a 6″ spacing then the required head or cylindrical shell thickness is

0.140 inch. (Equation 17-5 (2), not included in the calculation set.)

A common mistake with dimple jackets is to assume that the vessel has to be designed for external pressure

– this is only true if there is another source for external pressure other than the pressure in the jacket. The

accepted method to calculate the required shell thickness is to use the rules of 17-5.

A common mistake with dimple jackets is to not calculate the required thickness of the head or shell but

assuming that it will be adequate because it is thicker than the dimple jacket. A shell of inadequate thickness

can lead to yielding under hydrotest showing the location of the dimple welds from inside the vessel (the

inside surface is no longer smooth). The dimple jacket has some strength from its shape that the shell does

not have.

External pressure calculations are more difficult with more than one source of external pressure –

a typical example is a vessel with an internal vacuum and pressure in a jacket. The cases with the

stay rods, half pipe jackets and dimple jackets are the simplest – first calculate the complete

vessel for the vacuum condition as if the jacket does not exist (see the first cases above). Next

calculate the shell for the local loads under the dimple/pipe/stay using the combined P + Vacuum.

Finally design the jacket for the pressure P.

Step 1: the external pressure is now 15+30 = 45 psi (vacuum +30 psi jacket pressure). The required thickness

under the dimple jacket rises to 0.172″ (Formula App 17-5 (2)). The minimum stayed thickness is now 0.200″

(Page 29). The thickness under the half pipe jacket remains at 0.188″, the minimum thickness provided for in

the appendix EE charts (Page 30).

Step 2: the whole vessel has to be calculated under the 15 psi external pressure. This was calculated back at

pages 5, 6 and 7 in the calculation set: The F&D head – 0.142″ thick, the SE head – 0.127″ thick, the straight

shell 0.225″ thick.

Step 3: the maximum thickness from step 1 and 2 above is used. The straight shell is limited by the 15 psi

external pressure – it needs to be 0.225″ thick. The F&D and SE heads are limited by the half pipe jackets

found on them and need to be 0.188″ thick.

A common mistake is to attempt to calculate the entire vessel for an external pressure of P+V.

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 18 of 22

Vacuum + external pressure on half pipe, dimple and stayed surfaces – Vessel straight

shell is supported by a UG-29 style vacuum ring

The required thickness of the straight shell from the vacuum only load can be reduced by adding

the vacuum stiffener as previously calculated. More stiffeners can be added until the shells

required thickness from vacuum pressure is equal to that required by the dimple/pipe/stay

calculations.

The straight shell external pressure calculation with vacuum ring was calculated on page 10. The required

thickness = 0.169″ less than required under the dimples, stays or half pipe jackets. Those required

thicknesses now govern and the shell thickness cannot be further reduced by adding more vacuum rings.

Half pipe jacket The half pipe jacket increases the stiffness of

the shell

The required shell thickness has been calculated for two cases: 1) for the P+V case under the

stays/dimples/half pipes and 2) the whole vessel under the external pressure from the vacuum

only. However, the vessel is not the same as the original vessel. The external jackets and stays

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 19 of 22

increase the stiffness of the vessel – its strength against external pressure collapse has increased

but code rules are not provided to determine how much stronger it now is. Refer to interpretation

VIII-81-47 July 1, 1981 file BC80-326:

Appendix 14, are used as shells subjected to external pressure loading on the

embossed side, may properties of the embossed assembly be considered when

determining the required thickness of the flat plate for the external pressure?

Reply: Yes. The geometry covered by your inquiry is not specifically covered by any

of the rules of Division 1. However, the rules of U-2(g) shall apply.

External pressure burst testing or finite element analysis could be used to determine a thinner

safe vessel thickness than possible using standard code calculations. The burst test or FEA

would include the stiffening effect of the jacket.

In addition to jackets and vacuum rings, conical transitions can also reduce the effective length of

a vessel. A conical section must be calculated with each end of the section as a line of support in

order for the effective length to be reduced. A line of support is describe as:

• 1/3 the depth of a formed head, excluding conical heads (Fig UG-28.1)

• a vacuum ring meeting UG-29

• a jacket closure meeting Appendix 9-5

• a cone-to-cylinder junction or head junction that meets the requirements of Appendix 1-8

The goal of a line of support is to effectively segment the vessel into sections that can bear the

pressure load independent of adjacent components. What happens on one side of the line of

support does not affect the other side. This can be seen in the UG-29 vacuum ring example back

at the beginning of this article. One cone acts as two lines of support if each cone – shell junction

passes the area replacement or special analysis rules of App 1-8. The area replacement rules

work for cones with an angle up to 30 degrees. Special analysis is required over 30 degrees.

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 20 of 22

If a cone is not checked against Appendix 1-8 the effective length will continue straight through

the conical section. Each adjacent cylinder will be calculated using the full effective length, Le

(see illustration).

More commonly, each end of the cone is calculated as a line of support. App 1-8 provides the

rules for area replacement. Special analysis is required for cone angles > 30 degrees. The cone

and shell thickness both affect if the juncture passes. Alternately, stiffening rings like vacuum

rings can increase the stiffness of the junction to meet code rules.

(See page 31 of the companion calcs.) The left head, and straight shell sections are calculated the same way

as before. The cone is calculated to pass external pressure on its own (page 34), and again as a juncture with

the shells (page 36). Because the angle of the cone is 45 degrees, a special analysis based on Boardman’s

methods as presented by Bednar in “Pressure Vessel Design Handbook” is used. This meets the

requirements of ASME 1-8 and the cone provides two lines of support. FEA analysis verifies that the method

is acceptable (see page 40).

9 – Understanding Stability

At the beginning of this article, the failure mechanism for external pressure was given, but not an

explanation of how the failure mechanism works. A stable system is one that is stronger than

required. When the vessel is pushed on, it pushes back and returns to its original shape. As

external pressure is added to the system, the vessel has less reserve strength left to push back.

Eventually the vessel reaches a point where it has very little reserve strength. You push on the

wall of the vessel and it cannot push back. At this point the vessel can change shape to a smaller

volume configuration. The change is sudden and irreversible and if you watch the YouTube

videos, very scary.

Alternately, one can visualize a long pole mounted in the ground. When the pole is pushed on

from the side, it bends. Once the load is removed, it bends back. A small weight can be placed on

top of the pole. The pole stays centered until it is pushed, and returns back to center once the

sideways force is removed. However, as the weight on the top of the pole is increased, the pole

loses its ability to push back against the sideways force. At a critical weight, the pole has no

additional strength, and a fly landing on top causes it to topple – without any sideways force. The

failure is irreversible and sudden. The weight on top of the pole is similar to the external pressure

on the outside of a pressure vessel.

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 21 of 22

Because the exact calculation of the critical external pressure on a vessel is difficult, we set a 3x

factor of safety, higher than many other safety factors in pressure vessels. The code aims for a 3x

factor of safety, sometimes calculating high, sometimes low. Less conservative approaches would

require more exact calculations, such as provided by FEA, but at the cost of extra engineering

effort.

YouTube videos:

Collapse of a cylinder

A cylinder imploding

Buckling of a submarine

under internal vacuum,

equivalent to external This very brief video

pressure. shows the FEA

animated collapse of a

submarine hull

This iconic video shows

55 gallon drum

vacuum collapse of a

railway transport tanker. How to collapse a

storage drum with the

help of condensing

steam.

Condensing steam

again used to create a

vacuum.

Other Websites:

Shell Buckling

An extensive photographic library of shell buckling failures and

mechanisms along with explanations of the failure mechanism.

J. Ed Akin at Rice University, Houston, Texas has written a very readable

book on using SolidWorks to do Finite Element Analysis (FEA) – “Finite

Element Analysis Concepts Via SolidWorks”. Chapter 12 covers buckling

analysis without getting lost in math. The approach used would be of

interest even to people not doing FEA.

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

Combined Loading – Pressure Vessel Engineering Page 22 of 22

Calculation Set

File: N/A, Last Updated: Sept. 9, 2008, LB

Summary

flanges. The calculations use three loads – HT, HG &

HD and two operating conditions – seating and

operating. What are these loads, how are they

calculated, and where are they applied to the flange?

In the article below, a sample flange is calculated using ASME Appendix 2 methods and by finite

element analysis (FEA) to illustrate the application of the loads and show the resulting stresses.

Downloads

• Loads on Flanges Article

120 Randall Drive, Suite B

Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

N2V 1C6

519-880-9808

https://pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/combined-loading/ 4/5/2018

- ABSA news 008-V13-Iss1Transféré parMas Arman Tewo
- ASME VIII Div.1 _ Standards _.pdfTransféré partincho099
- Asme Sa516 Grade 70 and Astm a516 Grade 70Transféré parAjay Sengar
- exp2Transféré parAbdul Addahary
- Design Calculations for Pressure VesselsTransféré parAstri Ngent
- Series 101 Worker Bee Convection Vacuum Gauge Data SheetTransféré parInstruTech, Inc.
- API training & ASNT NDT level III examination preparatories from INDTT, Mumbia INDIATransféré partraining6156
- Aramco Reference StandardTransféré paressence1
- ts407Transféré parLyubomir Lazarov
- Saad Bin Sharf CvTransféré parSaad Bin Sharf
- Ecs 208 TopicTransféré parnurulselangor
- TSP0004UTransféré paradjaya
- tube_freqTransféré parDarien Lim
- API 510 CM-3.pdfTransféré parAly Mhaskar
- 802700_ch27Transféré parmvjayaram007
- BQTransféré parArkaprava Ghosh
- NB-331NCTransféré parMiguel Serrano
- BoguszTransféré parAndo
- Kat-A 5024 Variplus-dc Edition2!06!10-2016 EnTransféré parRamki Chandran
- dsstrainers_r06Transféré parLê Tuấn Anh
- Steel Pipe is 1161Transféré parShuvro Chakravorty
- SF_CECAR5Transféré parAndres Granados
- Concrete Forming HardwareTransféré parPrakash
- BST005-RTransféré parAssure Turbines
- Overpressure ProtectionTransféré parrodrigoperezsimone
- LWS Series 2015-10.pdfTransféré parJulio Tovar
- MS-01-107 TubingTransféré parsaha
- Index 2013 Pressure Vessels Field ManualTransféré parİsmail Sancaklı
- Rubberexp Connectall.pdfTransféré parFathy
- Cambios Norma NFPA 52 Para El Año 2019Transféré parAlberth Rojas Castellanos

- Beam Deflection FormulaeTransféré par7575757575
- Bowling - Steel Pipe Catalogue, Bun Kee LimitedTransféré parandreiasbd
- IS:1239 PART 1 - MILD STEEL TUBE PIPETransféré parRathnakar Naik
- Jai Bajrang Eway BillTransféré parAbhijeet Sahu
- Siemens PLM Whats New in NX 10Transféré parEduardo Aleman Reyna
- Appendix a - Tank Calculations - A4L0L6Transféré parIgnacio Oñate
- packing listTransféré parAbhijeet Sahu
- vessel drawingTransféré parAbhijeet Sahu
- No Cavitate Orifice PlateTransféré parAbhijeet Sahu
- 367716027-Lala-Ramswaroop-Ramnarayan-Panchang-2018-à¥¨à¥¦à¥§à¥®-à¤ªà¤‚à¤šà¤¾à¤‚à¤—-à¤°à¤¾à¤®à¤¸-à¤µà¤°à¥‚à¤ª.pdfTransféré parAbhijeet Sahu
- CardStatement 2018-06-08Transféré parAbhijeet Sahu
- 1528696872586ZSfL62hi1Z9TdJ1pTransféré parAbhijeet Sahu
- 367716027-Lala-Ramswaroop-Ramnarayan-Panchang-2018-à¥¨à¥¦à¥§à¥®-à¤ªà¤‚à¤šà¤¾à¤‚à¤—-à¤°à¤¾à¤®à¤¸-à¤µà¤°à¥‚à¤ª.pdfTransféré parAbhijeet Sahu
- IS 813Transféré parAbhijeet Sahu
- IS 813.pdfTransféré parAbhijeet Sahu
- 84865382 Cement PlantTransféré parAnonymous iI88Lt
- RhodesCook-BasicEngineeringDrawingTransféré parsilambu02
- febTransféré parAbhijeet Sahu
- 517030845295352801Transféré parAbhijeet Sahu
- INSULATION THICKNESS.xlsTransféré parPradeep Sukumaran
- monu-1Transféré parAbhijeet Sahu
- Receipt (1)Transféré parAbhijeet Sahu
- Balacing Valve ReplyTransféré parAbhijeet Sahu
- 45113333 (1)Transféré parAbhijeet Sahu
- Sumit Soam UpTransféré parAbhijeet Sahu
- https___www.irctc.co.in_eticketing_printTicket raju-2.pdfTransféré parAbhijeet Sahu

- Flanges DIN2505Transféré parfsalmin
- PHY1014Transféré parSri Harsha
- Pappin Et Al - Seismic Design of Stone Cutters Bridge, Hong KongTransféré parcheewingyuen
- Dynamic Condenser ModelTransféré parSyed Haider Ali
- Rigidity transitions and molecular structure of AsxSe1Àx glassesTransféré partedmozbi
- Electric Di Pole OnlineTransféré parNima Namjouyan
- LIB101580_Stability_of_Bridge_Column_Rebar_Cages_During_Construction (1).pdfTransféré parRoberto Chacon Alvarez
- Metallurgy & WeldingTransféré parVe Doua
- Tank Roof Design - ConstructabilityTransféré parjvillarro7
- Example of Convective Heat TransferTransféré parMuhammad Fakhir
- 8. Understanding Impulse and Momentum635442183912518384Transféré parGDGGFGF
- Helical Gear Box Series) Maintanance ManualTransféré parSham Aiyappa
- COP Calculation of an HVAC SystemTransféré parAbhishek Pange
- Zero Thermal Advanced Algae Based Polymer Science PresentationTransféré parEnrique Chang Franco
- Mechanical Insulation Best Practices GuideTransféré parihllhm
- 98617015 an Overview of RF MEMS SwitchesTransféré parsrinu85raju
- Standart Cina Untuk WeldingTransféré parandristy90
- ex1[1]Transféré parAbhay Khedia
- surface-tensionpractice-problem (1).pdfTransféré parnilesh
- Basell-2427KTransféré parPhuoc Tran
- IS 9137-1978Transféré parkarthikraja21
- Anchored Sheet Pile WallTransféré par12151973
- Multiple Layer Radiation Absorber 2012 Physics ProcediaTransféré paraaaa
- Growth of PbS Thin Films on Silicon Substrate by SILAR TechniqueTransféré parSusi Salinas
- 34 Flame PhotometryTransféré parPrince Pavan
- HDPE_pipe-spec_v002Transféré parPrechard Mpofu
- distillation column internalsTransféré parrvsingh
- Ocean Final AcidificationTransféré parravibiri
- Assigment Test Questions RER 11OE426 NewTransféré parHari Krishna
- AVESTA How to Weld Duplex SteelTransféré parGMacella

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.