Proceedings

Proceedings of the ASME 2009 Pressure Vessels and Piping of PVP 2009
Division Conference
2009 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference
PVP2009
July 26-30,
July 26 – 30, 2009Prague,
2009, Prague,Czech
CzechRepublic
Republic

PVP2009-77838
PVP2009-77838
Weight Savings Using ASME Section VIII, Division 2,
Design-by-Analysis Methods

Kanhaiya L. Bardia Donald G. LaBounty Michael M. Basic Timothy D. Breig

Fluor Corporation Fluor Corporation Fluor Corporation Fluor Corporation
3 Polaris Way 3 Polaris Way 3 Polaris Way 3 Polaris Way
Aliso Viejo, CA 92698 Aliso Viejo, CA 92698 Aliso Viejo, CA 92698 Aliso Viejo, CA 92698
ken.bardia@fluor.com donald.la.bounty@fluor.com michael.basic@fluor.com timothy.breig@fluor.com

ABSTRACT Maximum Shear Theory

The 2007 ASME Section VIII, Division 2, Part 5 Design-
By-Analysis provides requirements for vessels and
components using analytical methods. The authors have
spent a considerable amount of time in studying and
applying the requirements of the design by analysis
methods in Part 5. As a result of this process, the
authors have concluded that the main factor for weight
savings is the stress criteria used to calculate the
thickness by the design-by-analysis method. An example
is provided to demonstrate the methods presented.
INTRODUCTION
As pressure or external loads are applied to a structural
component, stresses created at any point can be
resolved into three principal stresses. These principal
stresses can be related to a material elastic limit through
strength theories and ordered such that σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3. The
ASME Code uses different strength theory criteria for
establishing an elastic limit which sets minimum wall
thickness in pressure vessels depending on the code of
construction [1]. The three theories of interest are
explained below.
Maximum Stress Theory
The maximum stress criterion is the simplest way of
classifying stress limits. A principal stress is calculated,
and then compared directly with an allowable stress.
There is no account taken for the interaction between the
other principal stresses.
max (σ 1 , σ 3 ) ≤ S a
This theory compares the difference between the
maximum and minimum principal stresses (which is
known as “stress intensity”) with an allowable stress.
When the signs of the principal stresses match, it is the
same as the Maximum Stress Theory.
σ1 − σ 3 ≤ Sa
Distortion Energy Theory
The distortion energy theory sums the strain energy of
distortion caused by all three principal stresses and
simplified into a single equivalent stress, or a von Mises
stress [2]. This simplification allows empirical stress data,
which is mostly gathered through a uniaxial testing
environment, to be compared with the triaxial stresses
that most designs encounter.
σe =
1
2
[(σ 1 − σ 2 )2 + (σ 2 − σ 3 )2 + (σ 3 − σ 1 )2 ]
0.5
≤ Sa
MODELING MATERIAL BEHAVIOR BEYOND THE
ELASTIC LIMIT
When the calculated stress exceeds the yield point, the
material behaves inelastically as additional load is
applied (plastic deformation will occur which will not be
recovered when the load is removed). This does not
necessarily mean that the component will fail. Typically
plasticity will occur at a local discontinuity or where there
is an uneven stress distribution across the thickness,
then the additional load will redistribute to other parts of
the structure until those areas also reach their yield point.
There are three ways used in ASME Section VIII,
Division 2 to model the material beyond its elastic limit:

1 Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/01/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 linear elastic analysis, limit-load analysis and elastic-
plastic with strain hardening analysis. [3]
Linear Elastic Analysis
A linear elastic analysis assumes there is not an elastic
limit nor any load redistribution. This model is widely
used but is also the most crude because of these
assumptions. It does not adequately approximate actual
material conditions because the lack of consideration of
nonlinearity. General stress guidelines are put in place to
account for the expected yielding to occur yet minimizing
ratcheting [1].
Limit-Load Analysis
A limit-load analysis simplifies the material’s plastic
behavior by assuming that it becomes perfectly plastic as
the material reaches its yield point, thus unable to
support additional loading. This material model is
presented in Fig. 1.
Elastic-Plastic with Strain Hardening Analysis
An elastic-plastic with strain hardening analysis
simulates actual material behavior by modeling the strain
hardening which occurs beyond the elastic limit. Strain
hardening material properties can be derived using
equations found in ASME Section VIII, Division 2, Annex
3.D. Fig. 2 illustrates a material stress-strain example, as
defined by the Code, and a curve fit profile used by the
Authors for the example presented in this paper.
DESIGN METHODS
The 2007 ASME Section VIII, Division 2 pressure vessel
code provides four different design methods to calculate
the minimum wall thickness for a pressure boundary
shell.
Method A - Design Rules for Shells Under Internal
Pressure
This is the common method for calculating a pressure
vessel wall thickness outlined in ASME Section VIII,
Division 2, Part 4.3. The minimum wall thickness is given
by a closed-form expression involving the design
pressure, diameter, joint efficiency, and allowable stress.
This expression is derived using the Maximum Shear
Theory to establish an elastic limit along with a limit-load
analysis to account for the plasticity through the shell [2]
and [4]. The equation in the Code then substitutes the
ASME Section II, Part D allowable stress with the yield
stress, which provides the design margin. Local loadings
are considered using a linear elastic material model and
the linearization of principal stresses across the
thickness per Annex 5.A, then combined using the von
Mises criteria and compared with the code allowable
stress.
2 Copyright © 2009 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/01/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Method B – Elastic Stress Analysis Method
Using this method (described in ASME Section VIII,
Division 2, Part 5.2.2), the minimum wall thickness is
determined by iteration. An initial wall thickness results in
a calculated primary general membrane von Mises
equivalent stress and this value is compared to the
allowable stress found in ASME Section II, Part D. The
Code minimum wall thickness results in an equivalent
stress less then the allowable stress. The von Mises
equivalent stress is solved using three principal stresses
in the circumferential, longitudinal, and radial directions
which are linearized across the thickness. Local stress
classification procedures are the same as those found in
Method A.
Method C - Limit-Load Analysis Method
The requirements for a design based on a limit-load
analysis are found in ASME Section VIII, Division 2, Part
5.2.3. This method utilizes an elastic then perfectly
plastic material model using the von Mises yield criteria.
Figure 1 shows a typical limit-load stress-strain curve. A
finite element analysis model is required along with load
case combinations and load factors found in Table 5.4.
The thickness is found by the minimum thickness which
does not result in plastic collapse of the numerical
model. The local strain acceptance criterion (found in
Part 5.3.3) using the limit-load method restricts the
triaxial strain.
Method D – Elastic-Plastic Stress Analysis Method
This method is outlined in ASME Section VIII, Division 2,
Part 5.2.4. It is similar to Method C, however, actual
material behavior is more closely approximated because
strain-hardening characteristics of the material are
considered. Figure 2 shows a stress-strain curve with
strain hardening of the material used in the example
below. Load factors and load combinations can be found
in Table 5.5. The local strain acceptance criterion is the
same as that is required with Method C.
Each of the four methods (A, B, C, and D) requires
increasing levels of engineering analysis and detail, but
the resulting design could be more cost competitive (due
to reduced weights), yet fully meet the safety
requirements required by the ASME Code.
EXAMPLE
The authors have analyzed a sample pressure vessel
with each of the four methods and solved for the
minimum ASME Code thickness. The purpose of this
comparison example is to highlight potential weight
savings using the advanced methods. Since most of the
potential weight savings are found in the general shell
thickness, away from local discontinuities, only the
general shell wall thickness was evaluated. Local
discontinuities require specialized engineering detailing
 but are beyond the scope of this paper. The estimated
weights using the aforementioned methods are σe =
1
2
[(σ 1 − σ 2 )2 + (σ 2 − σ 3 )2 + (σ 3 − σ 1 )2 ]
0.5

compared in Table 1 and are representative of what

could be saved by using these techniques.
Pr
t ≅ 0.866
Design Data for Example: S
Shell Material: SA-387-11-2
(1¼Cr-½Mo-Si) This method of estimating an initial shell thickness
Inside Diameter: 106.3 in method only requires closed-form equations that are well
Vessel Tangent to Tangent: 136.8 ft known and will almost always result in wall thicknesses
Design Temperature: 700 °F less than those determined with the rules in Method A.
Internal Design Pressure: 1305.3 psig
DISCUSSION
Material Allowable stress: Maintaining an adequate safety margin is the main
Method A Sa = 22,600 psi concern when reducing the required wall thickness in
Method B Sa = 22,600 psi pressure vessels. The ASME Code has traditionally
Method C See Figure 1 allowed for reduced design margins as long as increased
Method D See Figure 2 engineering and NDE supported the reduction without
compromising safety. The historical basis [1] for the
Table 1 – Comparison of the wall thickness and reduced wall thickness on Division 2 vessels supports
weight results from the four analysis methods. this philosophy.
Weight Savings
Design Vessel Wall Fabricated Compared with Vessels designed to [3] require that local discontinuity
Method Thickness Weight Method A stresses be evaluated along with a detailed fatigue
A 3.189" 611 kip 0% screening. The reason for the increased scrutiny in these
areas is because vessels will likely fail in these locations
B 2.756" 527 kip 13.7 % first. These areas already require special detailing and
C 2.756" 527 kip 13.7 % potentially extra reinforcement. A small addition of
D 2.441" 468 kip 23.4 % material in these areas would not affect the design or
cost significantly.
PROCEDURE FOR SUGGESTED METHOD
Using these advanced methods for establishing a A concern of owner or operators is that their new vessel
minimum wall thickness requires a significant amount of was designed with a material behavior beyond the elastic
initial, yet intensive, engineering analysis. An engineer limit for limit-load and elastic-plastic designs. It should be
might need to justify this work to project staff or arrive at clear that although the method is using a strength
a thickness for estimation purposes. The authors design, the design load factors are such that the vessel
propose an expedient method for determining the will always be designed to operate with the material
required wall thickness using Design Method B which will behaving linearly elastic away from local discontinuities.
give the engineer a general idea of potential material
savings by investigating the simplest of the advanced CONCLUSION
methods. Most of the potential cost savings from the analysis
techniques presented comes from the general reduction
For this thickness estimation, thin-wall shell theory is in plate thicknesses and the corresponding welding
assumed. Since the engineer requires a more accurate costs. The result of the methods will vary due to the
thickness calculation, greater emphasis can be placed different failure philosophies. The basis for the traditional
on linearizing the stresses across the thickness and Code formulas is founded on a limit analysis with
adding in stresses resulting from appropriate load Maximum Shear elastic limit. This method inherently
combinations. requires a thicker shell because it does not consider the
combination of the three principal stresses inherent to
Pr pressure vessels. Whether a linear elastic stress model
σ1 = or a limit-load evaluation is performed, by considering the
t
triaxial stresses an immediate 10-14% thickness
Pr
σ2 = reduction may be realized, as shown when comparing
2t Method B and C to Method A. The elastic-plastic
σ3 = 0 evaluation provides for the maximum wall thickness

3 Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/01/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 reduction and does so because it is the only method
which accurately simulates the actual material behavior.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of
management of the Fluor Corporation Aliso Viejo Office
in preparing and publishing this paper. Special thanks are
expressed to Dennis Moss and Kim Nguyen of Fluor
Corporation for their review of the manuscript and for
their encouragement, and to Ken Hathaitham for his
work with the FEA software.
REFERENCES
[1] ASME, Criteria of the ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code for Design by Analysis in Sections III and
VIII, Division 2, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York, New York, 1969.
[2] Timoshenko, Stephen. Strength of Materials 3rd ed.
Vol. 2. New York: Van Nostrand Company, Inc, 1940.
[3] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 2007,
Section VIII, Division 2, Alternative Methods.

[4] Kalnins, Arturs, and Dean P. Updike. “Limit Pressures

of Cylindrical and Spherical Shells.” Journal of Pressure
Vessel Technology, 123 (2001): 288-92.

4 Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/01/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Figure 1 –Limit-Load Analysis stress-strain plot

o
Limit-Load Curve for SA 387 Grade 11 Class 2 Normalized & Tempered at 700 F

40

35

30

25
Stress σ , ksi

20
5

15

10

0
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.010

Strain ε
Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/01/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Figure 2 – Elastic-Plastic stress-strain plot

o
Stress-Strain Curve for SA 387 Grade 11 Class 2 Normalized & Tempered at 700 F
(Annex 3.D.3)
110

100

90

80
True Stress σ , ksi

70

60

50
6

40

30

20
ASME Annex 3.D.3 Curve
10
Author's FEA Data Points
0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36

True Strain ε
Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/01/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use