See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/239431185

Design of Horizontal Pressure Vessels Using the Decision Support Problem

Technique

Article  in  Journal of Mechanisms Transmissions and Automation in Design · June 1986

DOI: 10.1115/1.3260803

CITATIONS READS
8 4,872

2 authors, including:

Farrokh Mistree
University of Oklahoma
592 PUBLICATIONS   10,840 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Automation of Design Space Exploration I - many-goal cDSP solver View project

Dam-network planning View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Farrokh Mistree on 13 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Design of Horizontal Pressure
N. Nguyen
Stress Analyst.
Vessels Using the Decision
Bechtel Energy Corporation,
Houston, TX 77056 Support Problem Technique
A design method has been developed to determine systematically the system
F. Mistree variables that will best achieve multiple design objectives involving both cost and
Associate Professor. damage tolerance of horizontal vessel design. The method is computer based, and is
Department of Mechanical Engineering, particularly suited for designing pressure vessels using multiple (conflicting)
University of Houston, objectives. The method has been tested and validated against a computer program
Houston, TX 77004 used extensively in industry. Better results by the new design method are demon-
strated through case studies. The results indicate a wide range of vessel dimensions
to which the design method can be applied. In general, application of the method
will increase the efficiency of the design of horizontal pressure vessels.

1 Overview of Horizontal Pressure Vessel Design

Large horizontal pressure vessels (Fig. 1) are commonly
used in industry for the purpose of product storage and other
process functions. As the name implies, the main purpose of
pressure vessels is to contain a fluid under pressure and
temperature. In so doing, they are subject to the action of
support loading, pressure loading and piping reaction, all of
which require an overall knowledge of the stresses imposed by
different loading conditions on various vessel components.
Various codes governing the procedures for the design,
fabrication, inspection, testing and operation of pressure
vessels have been developed in many countries around the
world [16]. These procedures furnish the standards by which
the regulatory authority of any country or state can be assured
of the safety of pressure vessels installed within its boundary.
The code used for pressure vessels in the United States is
Section viii, Division 1, of the ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code [14]. Many states require that pressure vessels be
designed and fabricated according to these specifications.
Further, it is necessary in some states that pressure vessels be
designed to the code specifications in order to obtain in-
surance on the plant in which the vessels are to be used.
Design of pressure vessels thus has to be done in accordance
with specific codes which give formulas, rules and
specifications for satisfactory and safe construction of the
main vessel components [13-15]. The codes, however, leave it
up to the designer to decide what method or methods should
be used to solve specific design problems. Up to now, the
pressure vessel engineers have by and large not made use of
any systematic rational design procedure. The engineer is
often asked to check the structural adequacy of the vessel
engineer in the design-analysis cycle, a computer-based
rational design method should now be an achievable goal.
The rational design method presented in this paper involves
the formulation of a suitable design procedure to determine
systematically the system variables that will best achieve a set
of specified design goals, within the assumptions imposed on
the system.
The development of the rational design method for pressure
vessels is a complex task involving three phases: Structural
analysis, to determine the response of the pressure vessel to
multiple load combinations; analysis of failure modes and
stresses in various vessel components defines the system
constraints on the design for maintaining structural integrity
of the pressure vessel. Cost analysis of the vessel components,
to determine the total fabrication cost for economic con-
sideration in the design process. Development of a design
synthesis methodology, to solve the resulting decision support
problem.
A design method called Automated .Design of Fessel as an
Advanced Nonlinear ly Constrained Engineering System
(ADVANCES) has been developed for the design of
horizontal pressure vessels and is presented in this paper. The
effectiveness of this method will be tested against a com-
mercial computer program in postsolution analyses. Also,
Head Tangent Line
^Hea<
H (Depth of
Head) -Typ.
^ Weld Seam (All Around)
/ ,TSR (Saddle Ring Thickness) -"
Knuckle
Region
/-Typ.
^ T V R (Vacuum
-^ijfa.Ring Thickness)
^\\ -Typ. -^ .END VIEW

components before the design is finalized. However, with the TP (Thickness

of Saddle
ever-increasing capability of the computer to interact with the Wear Plate)

Saddle Hoi
Saddle Rib

Contributed by the Design Automation Committee and presented at the

Design Engineering Technical Conference, Cincinnati, Ohio, September 10-13,
1985, of THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. Manuscript Fig. 1 Basic components and dimensions of a horizontal cylindrical
received at ASME Headquarters June 14, 1985. Paper No. 85-DET-84. pressure vessel

Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design JUNE 1986, Vol. 108/203

Copyright © 1986 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/13/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
 Design Specif represent either selection or compromise. Selection involves
choosing one from several alternatives without modifying
Select Vessel Materl The Selectlo them, whereas in compromise the designer seeks to improve
an alternative through modification. The information
The ADVANCES required for solving a decision support problem is of two
Assume V a l u e s of the
System Variables types: " h a r d " information (based on scientific principles,
accurate data, etc.), and "soft" information (based on
Minimize Cost
'The Comprom assumptions, experience, judgment, etc.). All design
problems involving synthesis include both types of in-
! Damage Tolerance
formation.
In general, a decision support problem involving selection
Final Design
can be stated as follows [6]:
Post-Solution Analys

Selection: Choose one feasible alternative from several

Fig. 2 The ADVANCES method of pressure vessel design alternatives without modification.
Given: A set of alternatives.
important conclusions will be drawn from insight acquired Identify: The principal attributes that influence
while applying this method to the design of pressure vessels. selection.
A survey of the literature on the subject of horizontal The relative importance of the attributes.-
pressure vessel design shows that adequate analysis methods The feasible alternatives.
have been developed in the areas of structural analysis and Rank: The feasible alternatives in order of
cost estimation [1, 3, 17, 20]. However, there is a lack of a preference based on their attributes and their
design method for achieving the best design within the system relative importance.
contraints. The ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Committee
recognizes the lack of research on design methods in the field The decision support problem involving compromise has
of pressure vessels and strongly recommends that research be the following structure [6]:
done more extensively in this field [17, page x.]. Even so, the
literature survey does not show any publications of studies Compromise: Improve an alternative through modification.
being done on rational synthesis for vessel design. Given: An alternative.
Find: The value of the independent system
2 The Decision Support Problem Technique variables.
The value of the deviation variables.
Design synthesis involves the identification, formulation Satisfy: System constraints. These must be satisfied
and solution of the decision support problems [6, 10] which for feasibility.

Nomenclature

A = distance from the tangent line to the saddle

center-line, in. D2 = amount by which the damage tolerance factor
ASR cross-section area of the saddle ring, sq in. falls short of 1.0
AVR cross-section area of the vacuum ring, sq in. Z)3 = amount by which (TS-TH) falls short of zero,
B saddle width, in. in.
B\PL minimum width of the saddle wear plate, in. D4 = amount by which the vessel cost exceeds zero,
C distance from the neutral axis of the saddle dollars
ring to the inside of the shell, in. D5 = amount by which the damage tolerance factor
CA corrosion allowance, in. exceeds 1.0
COST, cost of shell, dollars D6 = amount by which (TS-TH) exceeds zero, in.
COST 2 total cost of 2 heads, dollars DOE = effective outside diameter of the shell (with
COST 3 total cost of nozzles and manways, dollars additional stiffening of the vacuum rings), in.
COST 4 total cost of 2 saddles, dollars DOUTH = outside diameter of the head, in.
COST, total cost of 2 wear plates, dollars DOUTS = outside diameter of the shell, in.
COST 6 total cost of all vacuum rings and saddle rings, DYE = vacuum ring spacing, in.
dollars E = weld joint efficiency
COST 7 cost of painting, dollars ES = Young's modulus at design temperature, lesser
COST 8 cost of shop handling, dollars of all material moduli (of shell or rings), psig.
COST, cost of post-weld heat treatment, dollars EXWP = minimum distance from the saddle horn to the
COST 10 shop profit, dollars edge of the wear plate, in.
D distance from the neutral axis of the saddle F = horizontal load on the saddle web, lb.
ring to its tip, in. FCj = capability function
amount by which the damage tolerance factor FDj = demand function
falls short of the target factor H = depth of the head (H=DI/4), in.
amount by which the damage tolerance factor N = number of vacuum rings
exceeds the target factor N, = factor of safety
DCL bending deflection at the shell midpan, in. P = total number of the components considered
DENS density of the contained liquid, lb/ft 3 Pj = ordinal priority factors used in goal
DI vessel inside diameter in new condition, in. programming
A deviation variables used in goal programming PAH = allowable external pressure on the head, psig.
D, amount by which the vessel cost falls short of PAS = allowable external pressure on the shell, psig.
zero, dollars PE = external design pressure, psig.

204/Vol. 108, JUNE 1986 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/13/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


M a t e r i a l S e l e c t i o n Guide
Trial-and-Error
Fig. 3 The traditional method of pressure vessel design
Goal constraints. These need to be achieved
as far as possible.
Bounds. Lower and upper bounds on both the
system and the deviation variables.
Minimize: The deviation between the specified goals and
the estimated performance.
The design of horizontal pressure vessels is found to fit well
into this framework. The problem of material selection for
the shell and heads is structured and solved manually in the
preliminary design phase. Next, the compromise problem of
fabrication cost and damage tolerance is formulated and
solved with the aid of a computer.
A general procedure using the ADVANCES method for
horizontal vessel design is flowcharted in Fig. 2. For com-
parison purposes, the traditional method of design widely
used in industry is presented in Fig. 3. Both the traditional
method and the ADVANCES method attack the design
problems of material selection and cost-strength objectives.
However, there is a sharp contrast in how the problems are
Nomenclature (cont.)
PI = internal design pressure, psig.
PIH - internal design pressure plus the pressure head
due to the contained liquid, psig.
Q = load on each saddle, lb.
R = inside radius of the shell {R—DIIT), in.
S = allowable tensile stress of the vessel material at
the design temperature, psig.
SR = allowable tensile stress of ring material, psig.
allowable tensile stress of the saddle material,
SS = psig.
longitudinal bending stress at the shell mid-
SIM = span, psig.
longitudinal bending stress in the shell at the
SIS = saddle location, psig.
tangential shear stress in the head, psig.
SIH = tangential shear stress in the shell, psig.
S2S = circumferential stress in the shell over the
S5 = saddle, psig.
S6R = stress at the tip of the saddle ring, psig.
S6S = stress in the shell at the saddle ring location,
psig.
S7 = stress in the saddle web, psig.
TCOST = total vessel cost, dollars
TH = minimum head thickness, excluding corrosion
allowance, in.
TP = thickness of the saddle wear plate, in.
TS = minimum shell thickness, excluding corrosion
allowance, in.
TSR = thickness of the saddle rings, in.
TVR = thickness of the vacuum rings, in.
TW = thickness of the saddle webs, in.
Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/13/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
handled to obtain the final designs. In the traditional method,
material for the shell and the heads is selected using material
design guides [18] which recommend commonly used
materials in a variety of design conditions. These guides are
useful in selecting materials in extreme cases where severe
design conditions permit only the use of certain suitable
materials. They do not offer any guide to selecting the best
material for a design when more than one material may be
available. On the other hand, the selection problem in the
ADVANCES method is solved systematically using the well-
developed selection method [7], which helps the designer
identify not only the best alternative but also the second best
and so on. Both the traditional method and the ADVANCES
method start solving the cost-strength compromise problem
with an assumed set of system variables. These values are
based on certain rules of thumb as well as on preliminary
calculations. The traditional method makes use of essentially
a trial-and-error procedure to check the adequacy of the vessel
cost and its strength. If either the cost or the strength of the
vessel does not meet the design specifications, the system
variables are modified to upgrade the design for the next
iteration. The design is considered final after the vessel cost
and the strength goals are achieved to the greatest possible
extent. In the traditional method, there is virtually no in-
teraction between the system variables. Neither is the in-
teraction between the cost objective and the strength objective
taken into account. In the ADVANCES method, the in-
teraction between the cost and strength objectives is taken into
account. The multiple objectives of the problem are handled
by the goal-programming technique [4, 5], a form of op-
timization which allows for the consideration of multiple
goals. The lower priority goal (strength) is considered only
after the higher priority goal (cost) has been achieved. In-
teraction between the system variables and the system con-
straints is accounted for as a matter of course. Postsolution
analysis is an additional feature of the ADVANCES method.
TYE = effective shell thickness in corroded condition
(with the additional stiffening of the vacuum
rings), in.
WT — vessel empty weight, lb.
WTOP = vessel operating weight, lb.
Xt = system variables used in programming
XCRI = critical length of the shell under vacuum
condition, in.
XIE = moment of inertia of the shell (with additional
stiffening of the vacuum rings), in. 4
XISR moment of inertia of the saddle rings, in. 4
XIVL minimum moment of inertia of the vacuum
rings, in.
XIVR = moment of inertia of vacuum rings, in. 4
XIVRM = minimum moment of inertia of the vacuum
rings, in. 4
XKS = allowable external pressure factor
XL = length of the vessel (from tangent line to
tangent line), ft.
XLE = effective length of the shell under vacuum
condition, in.
XSSL = minimum modulus of elasticity of the saddle
rings, in. 3
YSS = yield strength of the vessel material, psig.
YSR = yield strength of stiffener ring material, psig.
ZK, = constants used in computing stresses induced
in the vessel by the saddles
\_yFDj
damage tolerance factor
P ,tt FC(
l/N, target factor
JUNE 1986, Vol. 108/205
 This offers the designer an understanding of the sensitivity of
the solution to changes in the design space. Postsolution
analysis helps the design engineer to establish the stability of
the current solution and also to explore the design space for
better alternative solutions.
The scope of the ADVANCES method is limited to large
horizontal pressure vessels on support saddles. Other vessel
configurations as well as other support modes are not covered
in this work. However, successful application of this design
method to the horizontal vessel category will yield a promising
future for various other potential applications in the field of
pressure vessel design.
3 Goals of the Compromise Decision Support Problem
The primary goal of the compromise problem is to
minimize the fabrication cost of the vessel. A desirable design
should satisfy all the imposed strength constraints and at the
same time require a lower initial investment than those of
other competitive designs.
The secondary goal is to augment the damage tolerance
level of the design under vacuum condition. This goal can be
achieved by minimizing the difference in factor of safety for
the shell and the heads [10]. Since the allowable external
pressure on the vessel is determined by the lesser of the
allowable pressures on the shell and on the heads for the
vessel to operate as one unit, an even distribution of factor of
safety among the components is desirable to avoid material
wastage. The strength potential of the vessel material is
utilized efficiently to augment the damage tolerance of the
design when a well-selected distribution of material is
achieved.
The third goal of the compromise problem is to minimize
the difference in thickness between the shell and the head.
This objective serves to facilitate the fabrication process
which may be burdened with complicated machining and
welding of shell-head joints of greatly different thickness.
This also plays an important role in reducing the localized
stresses at the junction. Great irregularities in stress
distribution occur when there are abrupt changes in cross-
section of the vessel wall. The type of pressure vessel under
consideration, normally made of ductile material and subject
to only a steady pressure in operation, is not of great concern
for stress concentration analysis [3, p. 332]. Nevertheless, a
reduction in the localized stress at the shell-head junction
contributes significantly to the safety measures against
emergency cases in which failure may occur as a result of
prolonged vibration.
The minimization of cost is the priority goal of the com-
promise problem. The other goals are secondary, to be
considered only after the priority goal has been achieved.
In order to present a clear picture of the design objectives,
the goal constraints are described before presenting the
compromise problem.
3.1 Goal Constraint on the Vessel Cost. The goal
constraint on the vessel fabrication cost can be put in the
following form [9]
TCOST + Z ) , - Z ) 4 = 0 (1)
where 10
TCOST= £ ) C 0 S T ,
/=i
Minimization of the vessel cost is achieved by minimizing
the value of the deviation variable D4. Note that this goal
constraint is fictitious since there is no real constraint on cost
of a design. It is formulated in this way so as to be compatible
with the other objectives [8].
3.2 Goal Constraint on the Damage Tolerance of the
Vessel Under Vacuum Condition. The purpose of this goal
206/Vol. 108, JUNE 1986
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/13/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
is to augment the damage tolerance of a design with respect to
external pressure loading (vacuum condition). This objective
is achieved by minimizing the difference in factor of safety for
the shell and the heads. An efficient vessel structure can thus
be designed with a well-selected distribution of material for
effective resistance to failure and deterioration. As an
example of an inefficient design, consider a design with
allowable pressures of 6 psig and 12 psig on the shell and on
the head, respectively. The vessel as a whole can only be rated
at 6 psig maximum external pressure, although the head can
take a much higher pressure of 12 psig. Supposing that the
external design pressure of this vessel is 6 psig, one can see the
given design is an adequate but inefficient structure. In order
to achieve an efficient design, the average value of component
factors of safety is compared against a desirable value
denoted as the target factor for damage tolerance [10]. The
difference between these two values is then minimized. Note
that the average factor of safety is always greater than or
equal to the target factor since the factor of safety for each
component has been included as a system constraint in the
mathematical formulation of the decision support problem.
The general constraint on damage tolerance of a design is
written as [10]
Note that FCJFD, and N, represent the individual com-
ponent factor of safety and the target factor of safety,
respectively. Using the preceding constraint for the damage
tolerance of the vessel design yields
1 / PE PE \ ^ 1
2(m4S+3lW/)+rfr-rf'=3 (3)
In the equation, the capability for the shell is 3PAS since the
value of the allowable pressure PAS is taken as 1/3 of the
theoretical maximum pressure [14]. A similar argument holds
for the capability function for the head. Multiplying both
sides of equation (3) by 3 gives
/ PE PE \
0 5
- (PAS + PAH)+D^D^1 (4)
This is the goal constraint on the damage tolerance of the
design. A desirable distribution of component factor of safety
is achieved by minimizing both the values of the deviation
variables D2 and D5.
3.3 Goal Constraint on Thickness of Shell and
Head. The goal constraint on the shell thickness and the
head thickness is put in the form
TS-TH+D3-D6=0 (5)
The purpose of this design goal is to minimize the difference
in thickness of the shell and of the head. To achieve this
objective, both the deviation variables D3 and D6 are to be
minimized.
4 The Mathematical Formulation and Solution of the
Compromise Decision Support Problem
4.1 The Mathematical Formulation. The mathematical
formulation identifies the portions of the compromise
decision support problem as follows [6]:
Given: Design of a horizontal pressure vessel supported
on saddles, subject to internal and external pressures, under
nonsevere service, fabricated of carbon steel or stainless steel.
Find: The values of the system variables: TS, TH, A, TP,
TSR,TVR,Dl,D1,Di,DA,Di,D6<F\&.\).
Satisfy: The system constraints
(a) The design constraints [1, 11, 12, 14, 21, 22] involving
the constraints on the following design considerations: the
stresses induced in the shell and in the heads due to various
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 1 Summary of case studies
Goal Case ADVANCES
Cost 1 9,805 dollars
2 17,278 dollars
3 26,351 dollars
4 40,060 dollars
Allowable 1 22.86 psig
external 2 9.51 psig
pressure* 3 6.14 psig
4 5.06 psig
Shell-head 1 Oin.
thickness 2 Oin.
difference 3 Oin.
4 l/16in.
•Lesser of the allowable pressure on shell and the allowable pressure on head
loads, the shell deflection due to bending, the stresses in the
saddle rings and in the vacuum rings, the stress in the saddle
web, and miscellaneous dimensional constraints. The
mathematical equations expressing these design constraints
are listed in the Appendix.
(b) Bounds on the design variables [23]
(c) The goal constraints: goal constraint on the
fabrication cost, as in equation (1); goal constraint on the
damage tolerance of the vessel in vacuum condition as in
equation (4); and goal constraint on thickness of the shell and
the head, as in equation (5).
(d) Bounds on the deviation variables [23]
Minimize: The fabrication cost of the vessel, the dif-
ference between the damage tolerance factor and the target
factor, and the difference in thickness between the shell and
the head; i.e., minimize the objective function
Z=P4D,+P2D2+P5D5+P3D3+P6D6
whereP 2 = P 5 =P3 = P 6 , a n d P 4 > >P2,P5, P 3 . ^6
Notes to the Mathematical Formulation
1 A detailed description of the mathematical formulation
and derivation of the constraints (1) through (19) has been
presented in reference [23],
2 Only six dimensions of a vessel design are selected as the
design variables. Other vessel dimensions such as diameter,
length, design pressure, and so forth are dictated by process
specifications. Therefore, they do not participate in the
decision support problem as system variables.
3 The number of vacuum rings (A/) also participates in the
decision support problem as an integer parameter. Separate
solutions are obtained for the design problem using different
discrete (integer) values of N. The best alternative among the
solutions is selected as the final design.
4 There are 21 nonlinear inequality constraints and 2
linear inequality constraints in the problem. All of these
constraints are formulated according to the standard format
[8] and presented in reference [23].
5 P2 through P6 are the ordinal priority factors
representing the relative ranks of the design goals. They are
related to the objectives of the decision support problem as
follows: PA - fabrication cost; P2, P 5 - damage tolerance;
and P3,P6- thickness of shell and heads.
4.2 Solution of the Compromise Decision Support
Problem. The compromise design problem is solved using
computer program SLIP2 developed by Mistree et al. [8, 9].
This program is capable of handling optimization problems
with system constraints and multiple-objective function which
may be any combination of linear and nonlinear functions.
Subroutine flowcharts, subroutine listing, data preparation
and other relevant information regarding the application of
Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/13/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Superiority of the
ADVANCES method over
PVD the PVD program
10,302 dollars 4.82 percent
19,443 dollars 11.14 percent Cost
32,992 dollars 20.13 percent reduction
51,174 dollars 21.72 percent
10.09 psig 126 percent
5.53 psig 72 percent Higher
5.53 psig 11 percent allowable
5.29 psig - 4 percent pressure
Oin. —
Oin. —
Oin. —
Oin. -
program SLIP2 to the vessel design procedure have been
documented in reference [23].
5 Case Studies: The Application Range
The ADVANCES method is tested against the Pressure
Vessel Design (PVD) program [19], a computer program
developed and used extensively by Bechtel Petroleum
Company. This program is used for designing vessels which
are supported on saddles, skirt or legs. Component shapes are
limited to cylindrical shell, conical head, hemispherical head,
elliptical head and torispherical head. The design criteria used
in the PVD program are based strictly on the specifications in
ASME Pressure Vessel Code, Section viii, Division 1 [14]
according to Bechtel engineering practice [18].
The PVD program has been used by Bechtel in designing
hundreds of pressure vessels on numerous petrochemical
(6) construction projects. This program therefore represents a
reliable standard to which the ADVANCES method may be
compared.
The feasibility of using the ADVANCES method is
examined by using both this method and the PVD program to
design vessels of various sizes in case studies. Conclusions
regarding the feasible application of the ADVANCES method
to vessel design will be drawn from the comparison of results
obtained by both methods. Even after the scope of this work
has been narrowed down to the design of horizontal vessels on
support saddles, it is virtually impossible to consider all the
possible designs which have combinations of different
dimensions and design conditions. Therefore, two assump-
tions are established in this section for the simplicity of
analysis: First, the length and the diameter of each design are
related to each other by L/D = 5 where L is the length and D is
the inside diameter of the vessel. Second, all design conditions
of each case study (pressure, temperature, material, etc.) are
identical.
Four cases are considered, based on the two preceding
assumptions. The vessels in these case studies have the
following dimensions: case 1, 4 ft diameter, 20 ft long; case 2,
6 ft diameter, 30 ft long; case 3, 8 ft diameter, 40 ft long; case
4, 10 ft diameter, 50 ft long.
The vessel cost, the allowable external pressure, and the
thickness difference for all case studies are summarized in
Table 1 for comparison. The results indicate the superiority of
the ADVANCES method in achieving designs of lower costs
and higher allowable external pressures. The difference in
thickness between the shell and the head is well achieved by
both methods in most cases.
An important conclusion is drawn from observing the trend
of fabrication cost: The larger the vessel dimensions (diameter
and length), the more feasible (more cost reduction) the use of
the ADVANCES method is. This trend is due to the over-
design of small-sized vessels which require minimum corn-
JUNE 1986, Vol. 108/207
 ponent dimensions (of shell, rings, etc.) exceeding the strength
requirement. However, when the vessel size is large, stresses
imposed in the vessel by the loads play an important role in
determining the minimum component dimensions. The larger
the size of the vessel, the further its components are from
overdesigned dimensions, and subsequently, the cost
reduction by using the ADVANCES method is more
pronounced.
6 Material Selection for Shell and Head: The Selection
Decision Support Problem
The ADVANCES method helps the vessel designer in
specifying the best alternative among commonly used vessel
materials to suit particular design conditions. This method is
helpful when the decision on what material to use is left up to
the vessel designer in the lack of stringent project
specifications. The project specifications sometimes may
impose material requirements exceeding the normal design
practice because of the special request of the client. The
selection of construction material for code-stamped pressure
vessels has to be made from code-approved materials [13].
There are many factors, supported by laboratory test results
and experience, which must be considered in selecting the
most suitable material for the design. These factors include
the following: Allowable stress from ASME Pressure Vessel
Code [14], objective. Cost based on cost information from
estimating standards [20] and vessel handbooks [1, p. 281],
objective. Availability based on experience in current trend of
steel market, subjective. Fabricability based on the degree of
tests required [13, 14] during manufacturing (such as
radiography, magnetic particle, liquid penetrant, ultrasonic,
etc.) and metallurgical properties [1, Chap. 11], objective.
Corrosion resistance from laboratory results [2], objective.
Future maintenance based on experience in past designs with
similar design conditions, subjective. Toughness from impact
test results presented in ASME code [13], objective. Weight
based on steel manufacturers' catalogs [15, p. 36], objective.
These eight factors are chosen as attributes in the selection
decision support problem [7, p. 25] to select material for the
vessel. It is emphasized that this method is not developed to
attempt a cookbook procedure for material selection in any
design case. Rather, it outlines a general approach to the
selection problem which may assist a design engineer in
selecting materials for any specific case of design.
6.1 The Word Problem.
Task: Select material to fabricate the shell and the heads
of a horizontal pressure vessel supported on saddles, under
nonsevere service.
Identify:
(a) The principal attributes influencing selection in order
of decreasing importance: allowable stress, cost, availability,
fabricability, corrosion resistance, ease in future main-
tenance, toughness, weight.
(b) The candidate system (example of a typical system):
SA-516 Gr. 70 (carbon steel), SA-285 Gr. C (carbon steel),
and SA-240 Gr. 304L (stainless steel).
Rank: Ranking of the candidate materials in order of
preference based on the principal attributes.
6.2 The Basis for Calculations. The methodology of
selection procedure, developed by Mistree et al. [7, p. 25],
offers a convenient approach to the algorithm necessary for
the selection decision support problem. Important concepts
and formulas developed for this procedure are summarized in
reference [23] to give the reader an understanding of the basis
used in calculations.
7 Closure
7.1 Objective Achieved. A rational design method has
208/Vol. 108, JUNE 1986
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/13/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
been developed for the design of horizontal pressure vessels.
This design method (ADVANCES) consists of two elements:
compromise and selection. The solution to the selection
problem gives the best alternative among the possible can-
didates for vessel material. The compromise problem provides
a means for achieving a good design using three different
goals (vessel cost, damage tolerance and wall thickness). The
ADVANCES method is used in several case studies and is
shown to yield superior designs compared to those by a
typical pressure vessel design program used in industry. The
feasibility study shows that the ADVANCES method is most
suited for use in designing large-sized pressure vessels. We
believe that the ADVANCES method represents an advance in
the field of vessel design. This method is ready for application
to horizontal vessel design in industry to produce designs
superior to those by competitive computer programs. Its
capability to handle problems involving nonlinear constraints
and multiple goals enables a designer to obtain a rational
design most efficiently. The rational design method developed
may be extended to application to various other areas of
vessel design, some of which are suggested in the next section.
The development of a rational design procedure for vessels
depends on the particular needs of the user. It could range
from a relatively short computer program for solving a
specific design problem to a comprehensive program for
solving most of the vessel design problems in industry. The
latter presents a challenging task in the field of pressure vessel
research. The success of such a development would un-
doubtedly revolutionize design practice in the pressure vessel
industry, leading to invaluable rewards in terms of economy
and technical superiority of the designs.
7.2 Future Research
Other Vessel Configurations. Vertical vessels on support
skirt and spherical vessels on pipe legs are usually required to
have shell sections with various thicknesses because of the
variations in load distribution on different vessel sections. For
tall vertical vessels on skirt, the governing load is the wind,
which may be severely strong in open areas. The hydrostatic
pressure due to the contained liquid is the important load on
the wall of the spherical vessels. A well-selected distribution
of vessel material, obtained through a rational design
procedure, would produce optimal designs with low costs and
high level of damage tolerance.
Damage Tolerance as the Primary Design Goal. In the
compromise decision support problem presented in this
paper, the vessel fabrication cost is considered as the primary
design goal. This selection is justified because of the im-
portant economic factor involved in designing large-sized
vessels which are rather costly. However, severe or lethal
design conditions may dictate some mode of failure as the
primary design considerations regardless of the cost. In this
case, the damage tolerance of the design with respect to the
considered failure mode would be chosen as the priority
design goal. The rational design method presented in this
paper is generalized enough to be used in developing a design
program for that purpose.
Acknowledgment
We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Ms. Debbie
Heidemann in the preparation of this manuscript.
References
1 Bednar, H. H., Pressure Vessel Design Handbook, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, 1981.
2 Chuse, R., Unfired Pressure Vessels, F. W. Dodge, 1960.
Transactions of the ASME
 3 Harvey, J. F., Pressure Component Construction, Van Nostrand (4) Longitudinal compressive stress at the shell midspan:
Reinhold, 1980.
4 Ignizio, J. F., Goal Programming and Extensions, Lexington Books,
1976. / E\/TS\/ 200 TS\
TS\ PI.R
5 Ignizio, J. F., Linear Programming in Single and Multiple Objective
Systems, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1982. ITS
6 Mistree, F., and Muster, D., "Design Harmonization: A Computer-Based
Approach for Design in the Systems Age," Optimization in Computer-Aided
Design, J. S. Gero, ed., North-Holland, 1985.
7 Kuppuraju, N., and Mistree, F., Design Through Selection: A Method
That Works, Design Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, April 1985, pp. 91-106. / 1+2 T-
8 Mistree, F„ "SL1P2: User Manual," Report NAVARCH/80/3, Universi- 3Q.XL I (\2XL)2 >0
ty of South Wales, 1980. •wR2.TYE\ H 3XL
9 Mistree, F., Hughes, O. F., and Phuoc, H. B., "An Optimization Method 1+
for the Design of Large, Highly Constrained Complex System," Engineering 9XL
Optimization, Vol. 5, No. 3, Aug./Sept. 1981.
10 Mistree, F., Lyon, T. D., and Shupe, J. A., "Design of Damage Tolerant
Offshore Structures," MTS-IEEE Ocean 82. (5) Longitudinal compressive stress in the shell at the
11 Strum, R. G., and O'Brien, H. I., "Computing Strength of Vessels Sub- saddle location:
jected to External Pressure," ASME Transactions, Vol. 69, 1947.
12 Strum, R. G., "The Study of the Collapsing Pressure of Thin-Walled
Cylinders," Bulletin 329, University of Illinois, 1941. PI.R 1
+ - YSS
13 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Sect, ii, Material Specifications, 2TS 2
Part A—Ferrous Materials, 1983. A RZ-H2
14 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Sect, viii, Div. 1, Pressure
Vessels, 1983. Q.A \2XL + 2AA.XL\
15 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Sect, viii, Div. 2, Pressure
Vessels, Alternative Rules, 1983. 0.603R2.TS\ H
16 Design Criteria of Boilers and Pressure Vessels, ASME, Pressure Vessel 1+
9XL
Division, 1969.
17 Pressure Vessel and Piping: Design and Analysis—A Decade of Progress, (6) Longitudinal compressive stress at the shell midspan:
ASME, 1972.
18 Pressure Vessel Design, Design Guide C-4, Bechtel Corp., 1979.
19 Pressure Vessel Design Program—PVD User Manual, Bechtel Corp.,
1981. // l 1+2
+l
20 Process Plant Construction Estimating Standards, Vol. 4, Richardson
PI.R 1 3Q XL / (12XL)2
— - + - YSS + 2
Engineering Service, 1982. 2TS 2 irR .TYE\ W 3XL
21 Zick, L. P., "Stresses in Large Horizontal Cylindrical Pressure Vessels on
V 1+
Two Saddle Supports," Welding Journal, Vol. 30, 1951. 9XL
22 Vessel Design Guide—Design Procedure for Calculating Stresses in
Horizontal Vessels on Two Saddle Supports, Fluor Corp., 1969. (7) Bending deflection at the shell midspan:
23 Nguyen, N. D., "A Computer-Based Method for the Rational Design of
Horizontal Pressure Vessel," M.S. thesis, University of Houston, Department 0.024 XL-DCL>0
of Mechanical Engineering, May 1983.
(8) Tangential shear stress in the shell:

APPENDIX ZK3.Q / 12XL-Z4 \

• ¥orA>R/2:Q.%S-———-^-— ^°
Design Constraints R(TS+TP)\ 4 /
\ X2XL+-H/
This appendix contains all the design constraints used in the
3
compromise decision support problem (section 4.1). The 2K4.Q
design constraints are put in standard format for use in » ForA<R/2:0.8S —>0
R(TS+TP)
computer program SLIP2 [8], i.e., LHS (left-hand side)>0.
(1) Longitudinal tensile bending stress in the shell at the (9) Tangential shear stress in the heads:
saddle location: ZKAQ
A J?2-//2, • ForA<R/2: 0.8 5 - >0
+ R.TH
PI.R Q.A J ~ 12AX 23 A. XL
S.ES- >0 • Foryl>/?/2:0.8-l/77/>0
2 [
~2TS T\R TS H
1+
9XL (10) Circumferential stress in the shell over the saddle
(2) Longitudinal tensile bending stress at the shell mid location:
span: 1 ZK7.Q 1
R2-H2 - YSS , >0
2 (TS+TP) (8 + 1.56V#77S)
/1+2 T
PI.R (11) Stress in the shell at the saddle ring location:
S.ES- 3Q.XL I (12XL)2 A >0
2TS TIR2.TYE\ H 3XL pr n
1+ * ForS6S>0:SR- \S6S\ — >0
9~XL 2TS
(3) Longitudinal compressive stress in the shell at the
saddle location:
* ForS6S<0: -YSR- IS65I > 0
200 TS\_PI.R 2
(!)(")(» ~3~ ~R~)~ ITS ZK9.Q ZK10.Q.R
i?2-//2 where S6S= -I —
ASR XISR/C
Q.A 12^L ' + 24A.XL^ (12) Stress at the tip of the saddle ring:
+ >0
0.603R2.TS] H 1 /ZK9.Q ZK10.Q.R\
1+
9XL 2YSR-(l4SR- +
laSR7D)*0

Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design JUNE 1986, Vol. 108/209

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/13/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 (13) Stress in the saddle web: where
XIVRM
2 ZKU.Q DOUTS2 A2XLE
SS- >0 TS+
3 1 10.9 V" ' 12XLE) 2 \DOUTS)
-R.TW (17) Use of the saddle ring as a vacuum ring:
3
(14) Saddle clearance: XISR-XIVRM>0
.4 - 0.78V/?. 7 S - - fl-4 > 0 (18) Design of the head for external pressure:
2 PAH-PE>0
(15) Design of the shell for external pressure: (19) Local stress reduction, and fabrication ease:
PAS-PE>0 TO-73 + 0.125 > 0
(16) Minimum moment of inertia for vacuum rings: (20) Minimum thickness for the wear plate:
XIVR-XIVRM>0 TP-TS>0

210/Vol. 108, JUNE 1986 Transactions of the ASME

DownloadedViewFrom:
publicationhttp://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/
stats on 09/13/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use