欢迎来到麦多课文档分享! | 帮助中心 海量文档,免费浏览,给你所需,享你所想!
麦多课文档分享
全部分类
  • 标准规范>
  • 教学课件>
  • 考试资料>
  • 办公文档>
  • 学术论文>
  • 行业资料>
  • 易语言源码>
  • ImageVerifierCode 换一换
    首页 麦多课文档分享 > 资源分类 > PDF文档下载
    分享到微信 分享到微博 分享到QQ空间

    ASME STP-PT-007-2006 COMPARISON OF PRESSURE VESSEL CODES ASME SECTION VIII AND EN13445 Technical Commercial and Usage Comparison Design Fatigue Life Comparison《压力容器规程ASME第VIII节和EN1_1.pdf

    • 资源ID:456937       资源大小:896.16KB        全文页数:48页
    • 资源格式: PDF        下载积分:10000积分
    快捷下载 游客一键下载
    账号登录下载
    微信登录下载
    二维码
    微信扫一扫登录
    下载资源需要10000积分(如需开发票,请勿充值!)
    邮箱/手机:
    温馨提示:
    如需开发票,请勿充值!快捷下载时,用户名和密码都是您填写的邮箱或者手机号,方便查询和重复下载(系统自动生成)。
    如需开发票,请勿充值!如填写123,账号就是123,密码也是123。
    支付方式: 支付宝扫码支付    微信扫码支付   
    验证码:   换一换

    加入VIP,交流精品资源
     
    账号:
    密码:
    验证码:   换一换
      忘记密码?
        
    友情提示
    2、PDF文件下载后,可能会被浏览器默认打开,此种情况可以点击浏览器菜单,保存网页到桌面,就可以正常下载了。
    3、本站不支持迅雷下载,请使用电脑自带的IE浏览器,或者360浏览器、谷歌浏览器下载即可。
    4、本站资源下载后的文档和图纸-无水印,预览文档经过压缩,下载后原文更清晰。
    5、试题试卷类文档,如果标题没有明确说明有答案则都视为没有答案,请知晓。

    ASME STP-PT-007-2006 COMPARISON OF PRESSURE VESSEL CODES ASME SECTION VIII AND EN13445 Technical Commercial and Usage Comparison Design Fatigue Life Comparison《压力容器规程ASME第VIII节和EN1_1.pdf

    1、STP-PT-007COMPARISON OFPRESSURE VESSEL CODESASME SECTION VIII ANDEN13445Technical, Commercial, and Usage ComparisonDesign Fatigue Life ComparisonSTP-PT-007 COMPARISON OF PRESSURE VESSEL CODES ASME SECTION VIII AND EN13445 Technical, Commercial, and Usage Comparison Design Fatigue Life Comparison Dat

    2、e of Issuance: December 12, 2006 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by ASME Pressure Technology Codes and Standards and the ASME Standards Technology, LLC (ASME ST-LLC). Neither ASME, ASME ST-LLC, the authors, nor others involved in the preparation or review of this report, nor

    3、 any of their respective employees, members, or persons acting on their behalf, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its

    4、use would not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report was prepared for ASME ST-LLC by independent consultants and is based in part on information not within the control of either ASME ST-LLC or the consultants. Neither ASME ST-LLC nor the consultants have made an analysis, verified, or ren

    5、dered an independent judgment of the validity of the information provided by others. While it is believed that the information contained herein, will be reliable under the conditions and subject to the limitations set forth herein, neither ASME ST-LLC nor the consultants guarantee the accuracy there

    6、of. Use of this report or any information contained therein shall constitute a release and agreement to defend and indemnify ASME ST-LLC and such consultants from and against any liability (including but not limited to liability for special, indirect or consequential damages) in connection with such

    7、 use. Such release from and indemnification against liability shall apply in contract, tort (including negligence of such party, whether active, passive, joint or concurrent), strict liability, or other theory of legal liability; provided, however such release, limitation and indemnity provisions sh

    8、all be effective to, and only to, the maximum extent, scope or amount allowable by law. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring

    9、by ASME ST-LLC or others involved in the preparation or review of this report, or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of the authors, contributors, reviewers of the report expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of ASME ST-LLC or others involved in the preparation or review of this

    10、report, or any agency thereof. ASME ST-LLC does not take any position with respect to the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any items mentioned in this document, and does not undertake to insure anyone utilizing a publication against liability for infringement of any applicab

    11、le Letters Patent, nor assumes any such liability. Users of a publication are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, is entirely their own responsibility. Participation by federal agency representative(s) or person

    12、(s) affiliated with industry is not to be interpreted as government or industry endorsement of this publication. ASME is the registered trademark of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. No part of this document may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, w

    13、ithout the prior written permission of the publisher. ASME Standards Technology, LLC Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990 ISBN No. 0-7918-3093-4Copyright 2006 by ASME Standards Technology, LLC All Rights Reserved Comparison of ASME Code and EN13445 STP-PT-007 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD. iv ABS

    14、TRACT . v PART I - PVP2006-ICPVT11-94010: Comparison on Pressure Vessel Codes ASME Section VIII and EN13445 . 1 ABSTRACT . 2 1 INTRODUCTION . 3 2 REVIEW OF “COMPARATIVE STUDY EN 13445 AND ASME SECTION VIII, DIV. 1 AND 2” 3 3 CODE PARAMETER COMPARISONS 4 3.1 Material Properties 4 3.2 Carbon and Low A

    15、lloy Ferritic Steels. 4 3.3 Austenitic Stainless Steels. 5 3.4 Design Rules . 9 3.5 Heat Treatments 10 3.6 NDE/Inspection Requirements 11 4 COST STRUCTURE BREAKDOWN 11 5 SURVEY ANALYSIS. 15 6 CONCLUSION 21 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 22 REFERENCES. 23 PART II - PVP2006-ICPVT11-93059: Design Fatigue Life Compari

    16、son of ASME Section VIII and EN 13445 Vessels with Welded Joints . 25 ABSTRACT . 26 NOMENCLATURE. 27 1 INTRODUCTION . 28 2 ASSESSING DESIGN LIFE FOR WELDED JOINTS 28 3 FSRFS IN SECTION VIII DIVISION 2 29 4 EXAMPLE 3 OF EC STUDY . 30 4.1 Fatigue Analysis in the EC Study 30 4.2 Fatigue Analysis by ASM

    17、E Code . 30 5 EXAMPLE 4 OF EC STUDY . 31 5.1 Batch Operation. 31 5.2 Stirrer Operation 32 6 DISCUSSION32 7 CONCLUSIONS . 33 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 34 REFERENCES. 35 iii STP-PT-007 Comparison of ASME Code and EN13445 FOREWORD This report presents two papers presented during the 2006 ASME Pressure Vessels an

    18、d Piping Division Conference held July 23-27, 2006, in Vancouver, BC, Canada. The papers have also been published by ASME along with the Proceedings of PVP2006-ICPVT-11. The papers resulted from projects sponsored by ASME in response to the “Comparative Study on Pressure Equipment Standards”, publis

    19、hed in June 2004 by the European Commission, Enterprise Directorate-General. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) is a not-for-profit professional organization promoting the art, science and practice of mechanical and multidisciplinary engineering and allied sciences. ASME develops co

    20、des and standards that enhance public safety, and provides lifelong learning and technical exchange opportunities benefiting the engineering and technology community. Visit www.asme.org. The ASME Standards Technology, LLC (ASME ST-LLC) is a not-for-profit Limited Liability Company, with ASME as the

    21、sole member, formed in 2004 to carry out work related to newly commercialized technology, expanding upon the former role of ASMEs Codes and Standards Technology Institute (CSTI). The ASME ST-LLC mission includes meeting the needs of industry and government by providing new standards-related products

    22、 and services, which advance the application of emerging and newly commercialized science and technology and providing the research and technology development needed to establish and maintain the technical relevance of codes and standards. Visit www.stllc.asme.org for more information. iv Comparison

    23、 of ASME Code and EN13445 STP-PT-007 ABSTRACT Part I of this report includes paper PVP2006-ICPVT11-94010, “Comparison of Pressure Vessel Codes ASME Section VIII and EN13445.” This paper consists of a comparative study of the primary technical, commercial, and usage differences between the American S

    24、ociety of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section VIII and the European Pressure Vessel Code EN13445 (EN). This study includes a review of “Comparative Study on Pressure Equipment Standards” published by the European Commission (EC) and provides technical comparisons betw

    25、een the code design requirements, material properties, fabrication, and contributing effects on overall cost. This study is intended to provide a broad viewpoint on the major differences and factors to consider when choosing the most appropriate vessel design code to use. Part II of this report incl

    26、udes paper PVP2006-ICPVT11-93059, “Design Fatigue Life Comparison of ASME Section VIII and EN 13445 Vessels with Welded Joints.” The “Comparative Study on Pressure Equipment Standards” performed by the EC included a comparison of design fatigue life of welded vessels allowed by the ASME Boiler and P

    27、ressure Vessel Code (B and 2) materials with a tensile elongation greater than 35%. To simplify this brief comparison, only the second group of materials will be discussed, which generally encompasses the 300 series group of stainless steel materials. For austenitic steels that have a minimum tensil

    28、e elongation property greater than 35%, each of the Codes establishes allowable stresses considering both the minimum yield strength and ultimate tensile strength of a material. However, the relationship between these two properties that is used to establish allowable stresses differs significantly

    29、from the EN Code to ASME. Table 2 below illustrates the specific allowable stress bases for each Code. Table 2 Allowable Stress Basis for Austenitic Steels Design Code Allowable Stress ASME Section VIII Division 1 Case 1: Lesser of 5.3FTuand 5.1FT2.0yCase 2: Lesser of 5.3FTuand T2.0yF90.0 ASME Secti

    30、on VIII Division 2 Case 1: Lesser of 0.3FTuand 5.1FT2.0yCase 2: Lesser of 0.3FTuand T2.0yF90.0 EN 13445 max 5.1FT0.1y, min 0.3F,2.1FTT0.1uy TuF = Ultimate Tensile Strength at Design Temperature T2.0yF = 0.2% Offset Yield Strength at Design Temperature T0.1yuF = 1.0% Offset Yield Strength at Design T

    31、emperature As noted in Appendices 1 and 2 of ASME Section II Part D, it is recommended that the higher stresses shown by Case 2 be used only where slightly higher deformation is not in itself objectionable, and are not recommended for the design of flanges or other strain sensitive applications. The

    32、re are two significant factors in the EN 13445 Code that produce higher allowable stresses. First, the yield strengths used for establishing the austenitic steel material properties are based on a 1.0% strain offset. SA-370 of ASME Section II Part A requires the yield strength testing of materials t

    33、o be based on a 0.2% offset. A review of the material yield strength properties published in EN 10028-7:2000 for stainless steels indicates that the 1.0% yield strength is anywhere from 30% to 40% higher than the 0.2% yield strength. This higher material yield strength basis leads directly to higher

    34、 allowables. 5 STP-PT-007 PART I Comparison of ASME Code and EN13445 The second significant factor that contributes to the higher allowable stresses in the EN Code is the comparison basis between the yield and tensile that is used for establishing the allowables. Table 2 shows that the EN 13445 allo

    35、wable stresses are a function of the greater of two values, whereas in the ASME Code the allowable is always based on the lesser of two values. (See Table 2) When combined with the fact that the value of the material yield strength used for these comparisons is always greater under the EN Code philo

    36、sophy, the EN 13445 allowable stresses for austenitic materials will typically be higher than those specified by ASME. The exception to this general observation would be for applications where slightly higher deformations are not detrimental to the equipment design (see Case 2 criteria in Table 2).

    37、Figure 5 illustrates this case, where the ASME allowable stress is based on a value that does not exceed 90% of the minimum specified yield strength of the material. 0.05.010.015.020.025.030.0100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000Temperature (F)Allowable (ksi)SA-516-70 Div 1SA-516-70 Div 2EN 10028

    38、-2 P295GH Up to 16mm EN 10028-2 P295GH 16-40mm Example5 &6Figure 1 Allowable vs Temperature for Carbon Steel 6 Comparison of ASME Code and EN13445 PART I STP-PT-007 5.010.015.020.025.030.035.0100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000Temperature (F)Allowable (ksi)SA-387-22-2 Div 1SA-387-22-2 Div 2EN-1

    39、0028-2 12CrMo9-10Example 2aFigure 2 Allowable vs Temperature for 2 Cr - 1 Mo Plate 5.010.015.020.025.030.035.0100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000Temperature (F)Allowable (ksi)SA-336-F22-3 Div 1SA-336-F22-3 Div 2EN 10222-2 11CrMo9-10Example 2bFigure 3 Allowable vs Temperature for 2 Cr - 1 Mo For

    40、ging 7 STP-PT-007 PART I Comparison of ASME Code and EN13445 10.012.014.016.018.020.022.024.0100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000Temperature (F)Allowable (ksi)SA-240-316Ti Div-1EN 10028-7 X6CrNiMoTi17-12-2 Example 4Figure 4 Allowable vs. Temperature for 16Cr 12 Ni 2Mo Ti 10.012.014.016.018.020.0

    41、22.024.0100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000Temperature (F)Allowable (ksi)SA-240-304 Div-1SA-240-304 Div-2EN 10028-2 X5CrNi18-10Example3Figure 5 Allowable vs Temperature for 18 Cr 8 Ni 8 Comparison of ASME Code and EN13445 PART I STP-PT-007 5.010.015.020.025.030.035.040.0100 200 300 400 500 600

    42、700 800 900 1000Temperature (F)Allowable (ksi)SA-542 tp D Cl 4a Div 1SA-542 tp D Cl 4a Div 2EN-10028-2 13CrMoV9-10Example 2aFigure 6 Allowable vs Temperature for 13Cr Mo V 3.4 Design Rules The ASME Section VIII (ASME) and the EN 13445 (EN) Codes have similar requirements for design and the rule base

    43、d equations seem to be identical for both codes. The EN is a combined Code including design by rules and design by analysis. The advantage of this approach is greater consistency of design requirements when a combination of rules and design by analysis are employed. The design by analysis rules prov

    44、ides two options in the EN Code. The first is stress categorization including linearization similar to the present methods provided in Section VIII Division 2. However, the EN Code provides for a second option which is called the “Direct Route which provides a method more attuned to finite element r

    45、esults. It seems that the primary difference between the design by rules method of the ASME and EN Codes are the additional requirements and limitations associated with the non destructive weld inspection. The EN Code sorts equipment based on “Test Groups” which define the required NDE and other lim

    46、itations. The ASME joint efficiency is only tied to the radiographic requirements. A review of EN 13445, Table 6.6.1-1 shows the test groups and requirements of the EN Code. The various Testing Groups in Table 6.6.1.1 of EN 13445 assume a significant degree of sophistication and expertise on the par

    47、t of the design engineer. Table 6.6.1.1 permits joint efficiencies of 1.0, 0.85, and 0.70 for certain materials, with the related NDE requirements in Table 6.2.1.1. It is not immediately clear which joint efficiency / NDE / material combinations actually result in more cost effective designs. The AS

    48、ME Codes are more straight forward. ASME Section VIII, Division 1 permits joint efficiencies of 1.0, 0.85, and 0.7. Designs with lesser joint efficiencies require less examination, but result in thicker vessels. ASME Section VIII, Division 2 only permits joint efficiency of 1.0 and requires 100% NDE

    49、 of welds. As an example, for those vessels designed using a weld joint coefficient (joint efficiency in ASME) of 0.7, the EN Code limits the materials, the thickness and the design temperature. No such limits are placed on an ASME vessel using this joint efficiency. Also, those vessels designed with in Test Group 4 are not intended to be in cyclic service for the EN code. The direct impact on the cost is not known, but the additional limitations and requirements for the EN Code could impact cost especially 9 STP-PT-007 PART I Comparison


    注意事项

    本文(ASME STP-PT-007-2006 COMPARISON OF PRESSURE VESSEL CODES ASME SECTION VIII AND EN13445 Technical Commercial and Usage Comparison Design Fatigue Life Comparison《压力容器规程ASME第VIII节和EN1_1.pdf)为本站会员(刘芸)主动上传,麦多课文档分享仅提供信息存储空间,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对上载内容本身不做任何修改或编辑。 若此文所含内容侵犯了您的版权或隐私,请立即通知麦多课文档分享(点击联系客服),我们立即给予删除!




    关于我们 - 网站声明 - 网站地图 - 资源地图 - 友情链接 - 网站客服 - 联系我们

    copyright@ 2008-2019 麦多课文库(www.mydoc123.com)网站版权所有
    备案/许可证编号:苏ICP备17064731号-1 

    收起
    展开