Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ASME VIII
1
Introduction
Background: A harmonised standard related to a "New
Approach" Directive does give the manufacturer the advantage
of the presumption of conformity to the Essential Safety
Requirements of the Directive itself, but to be accepted and
applied, it must also bring economic and/or technical
advantages.
3
Benchmark Examples - Overview
4
Benchmark Examples - Overview
5
Conformity Assessment
For estimation of the costs the following combinations of codes and
conformity assessment routes were considered:
EN 13445 and conformity assessment according to the PED (CE-
marking).·
ASME Section VIII (Division 1, Division 2 if applied) and conformity
assessment according to ASME (U-stamp, or U2-stamp).
ASME Section VIII (Division 1, Division 2 if applied) and conformity
assessment according to the PED (CE-marking).
8
Benchmark Example 1 – CNG storage tank
10
Benchmark Example 2 –
Hydrogen Reactor
11
Benchmark Example 2 – Hydrogen Reactor
13
Benchmark Example 4 – Stirring Vessel
14
Benchmark Example 4 – Stirring Vessel
18
Overall Summary – Cost Comparison Table
19
Overall Summary
20
Overall Summary
Use of Design-by-Analysis according to EN 13445-3 Annex B can
decrease the material costs considerable in some cases, especially
for more advanced or complex design or in serial production. The
increased design costs are easily compensated by the savings for
materials and – if applicable – by the savings of the post weld heat
treatment costs.
According to the cost estimations of the manufacturers, the extra
costs for ASME designs to meet the PED requirements are in general
small for the approach used in the study.
21
Overall Summary
22
Discussion on ASME reply
23
Discussion on ASME reply
According to the paper “Comparison of Pressure Vessel Codes
ASME Section VII & EN 13445” by Antalffy et.al. ([2], PVP 2006-
ICPVT-11) the vessel manufacturers providing cost estimates in the
study are not based in countries which produce the majority of
pressure vessels in the world (Japan, Korea, USA).
According to [2], the size and quantity distribution of vessels used in
the Comparative Study is generally not representative of typical
chemical, petrochemical or petroleum process facilities. The greater
part of the total cost of pressure vessels is attributed to only a
relatively small number of the higher end pressure vessels. For these
high end vessels ASME Section VIII Div. 3 can be used, which
reduces wall thickness and cost by up to 15 percent over present
Division 2 requirements.
24
Discussion on ASME reply
According to [2] a review of the EN standard has shown several
important and innovative features. The ASME is in the process of
rewriting Section VIII, Division 2, which will make a range of Division
2 vessels even more competitive with the EN standard. This rewrite
is an opportunity to incorporate the latest advances in pressure
vessel design, as well as new and innovative features that will enable
the ASME Code to remain the preeminent pressure vessel standard.
The survey presented in [2] concluded that throughout the global
industry there is a strong preference to use the ASME codes for
pressure vessel design and manufacturing. Even though the PD5500
or EN 13445 may have a few specific areas or cases where there is
a small economic advantage, when considering the overall aspects
of the entire organization, plant, or project cost, the ASME code
seems to provide a better overall advantage.
25
Comparative Study: EN 13445 –
ASME VIII
26