ASME Section I vs ASME Section VIII Div.1

  • Thread starter CFDFEAGURU
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Section
In summary, both Section I and Section VIII Div.1 of PG-34 allow for a fully reinforced hole to be placed within the distance of 2*sqrt(d*ts) within the circular head of geometry sketch g-1. However, the code values for m are different. Section I allows for a value of m less than 1, while Section VIII Div.1 requires rigorous stress analysis or a full size test of the design to be performed until it fails. The materials are the same for both sections.
  • #1
CFDFEAGURU
783
10
I recently rejected a code calculation because the flat head thickness on a 6" NPS Sch. 80 header was thought to be too thin. This calculation was for an unreinforced flat head per Section 1, PG-34 sketch g-1. The design has tubes that are within the distance of 2*sqrt(d*ts) and the value of m was not 1. I thought this was incorrect and the value of m had to be 1. It was pointed out to me by an A.I. (Authorized Inspector) that there was a code case from 1988 that allowed for a fully reinforced hole to be place within that distance and a value of m less than 1 code be used.

I was curious to see what Section VIII Div. 1 had to say about this. In that section this is not permitted unless rigorous stress analysis is performed or you built one to scale and test it until it fails under pressure.

The two sections are in total disagreement on this issue. Can anyone explain why the codes differ?

Thanks
Matt
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
How is each section applied? In other words, to what systems, and at what temperature and pressure ranges, and what materials?
 
  • #3
The situations are identical. The temperature only affects the allowable stress. The allowable stresses for both sections are the same. The pressures are the same.

Per PG-34 in Section I or UG-34 in Section VIII, Div.1 the calculation for the flat unstayed circular head of geometry in sketch g-1 there is a constant C that is equal to 0.33m. If m is less than one and a hole is within the distance 2*sqrt(d*ts) according to section VIII, Div.1 rigorous stress analysis (FEA) or a full size test of the design has to be tested until it fails. However, in Section I, you are allowed to place a hole within that distance and no additional stress analysis or testing is required.

In both situations it is assumed that the hole is properly reinforced.

Thanks
Matt
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Materials?
 
  • #5
The materials are the same.

I will draw up a sketch for this problem tomorrow.

Thanks
Matt
 
  • #6
Hi Matt,
I'm not familiar with this paricular part of the code, and I'm sure you use the code much more than I do, but I'll toss this out for consideration.
CFDFEAGURU said:
The allowable stresses for both sections are the same.
That may be true for your particular material, but my understanding is that, in general, the allowables are different. Div 1 uses 3.5 to ultimate, Div 2 uses 3.0. However, often times, it's the yield strength that governs the allowable stress and I believe they both use 1.5 to to yield. Here's a decent summary of the differences between the codes:
http://www.absa.ca/faq/SectionVIIIcomparison.PDF [Broken]

In general, Div 2 requires more analysis but allows higher stress which has the potential for vessels to use less material and thus they can be less expensive to manufacture, but to achieve this, there is more analysis required for Div 2. I'd assume the difference between the hole placement is due to the potential for higher stresses in Div 2.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
Yes, the allowable stress values are different between Div.1 and Div.2 of Section VIII. However, like you pointed out, the analysis is much more indepth. In many cases FEA is almost always needed when designing to Div. 2.

This thread is about the differences between Section I and Section VIII Div.1

Basically, all that is happening is that Section I is allowing reinforced holes to be placed within a certain distance of a flat head with the value of m being less than 1 without additional stress analysis and that Section VIII Div.1 does not allow this to happen without additional stress analysis.

I think it comes down to differences between the code comittees and chairmen. Section I is very mature compared to Section VIII.

Thanks
Matt
 
  • #8
For clarification in post #3 PG-34 should be PG-31.

See attachment for the sketch.

Here is an example calculation.

m = ration of tr/ts (m cannot be less than 0.20)

where tr = thickness required for pressure of seamless shell, pipe, or header

ts = minimum specified thickness of shell, pipe, or head.

Now if a reinforced hole is placed within a distance of 2*(d*ts)^1/2 the value of m cannot be less than 1 (without rigorous stress analysis) per Section VIII, Div.1.

So the thickness for a flat head for a 6" NPS Sch. 80 pipe is calculated from this equation.

t = d*((C*P)/S)^1/2

with an allowable stress of 14400 psi, a pressure of 650 psig, a diameter of 5.761" and a C value of 0.33 the head will have to be

t = 0.703" (plus a corrosion allowance if one is specified)

Now the same calculation per PG-31 in Section I with m less than 1 and C = 0.2

t = 0.547" (plus a corrosion allowance if one is specified)

So Section I allows the flat head to be 22.14% thinner then Section VIII for the same materials, geometry, and conditions.
 

Attachments

  • PG-31 Sketch.pdf
    103.5 KB · Views: 508
Last edited:

1. What is the difference between ASME Section I and ASME Section VIII Div.1?

ASME Section I and ASME Section VIII Div.1 are both codes developed by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) for the construction and inspection of pressure vessels. However, Section I covers the design, fabrication, and inspection of power boilers while Section VIII Div.1 covers the design, fabrication, and inspection of pressure vessels used for various industrial applications.

2. Which code should I use for my pressure vessel design?

The choice of which code to use depends on the type of pressure vessel you are designing. If your vessel is used for power generation, such as in a power plant, then ASME Section I would be the appropriate code to follow. However, if your vessel is used for other industrial purposes, then ASME Section VIII Div.1 would be the appropriate code to follow.

3. Are the design requirements different for ASME Section I and ASME Section VIII Div.1?

Yes, the design requirements differ between the two codes. ASME Section I has more stringent design requirements due to the high-pressure and high-temperature conditions found in power boilers. On the other hand, ASME Section VIII Div.1 has more flexibility in design requirements to accommodate a wider range of industrial pressure vessels.

4. Is there a difference in inspection and testing requirements between ASME Section I and ASME Section VIII Div.1?

Yes, there are differences in the inspection and testing requirements between the two codes. ASME Section I requires more rigorous inspection and testing procedures, including hydrostatic testing, radiographic examination, and ultrasonic testing. ASME Section VIII Div.1 also has inspection and testing requirements but they are not as strict as those in Section I.

5. Can I use both ASME Section I and ASME Section VIII Div.1 for my pressure vessel?

No, you cannot use both codes for the same pressure vessel. Each code is specific to the type of pressure vessel and their requirements cannot be mixed. It is important to determine the purpose of your vessel before deciding which code to follow.

Similar threads

  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Materials and Chemical Engineering
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
525
Replies
96
Views
9K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
8K
Back
Top