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.pdf

《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.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《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.pdf（48页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

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