Global FRP Standards

A comparison between four different design codes for FRP vessels

1.- Introduction

The use of FRP and dual laminates has grown a lot during the last years, due to its high corrosion
resistance and cost-effectiveness compared with the expensive metallic alloys usually required
for handling highly corrosive fluids.

Usually big companies are operating worldwide, and every country requires applying different
codes or standards for designing FRP vessels. In addition, many different suppliers can be
chosen for manufacturing these vessels, being even possible choosing a manufacturer from a part
of the world for supplying material to any other part of the world. In addition, the company
technical staff is based in world headquarters usually, having many restrictions for getting
personally involved in the manufacturing process of these type of vessels. Considering all these
questions, the design, manufacturing, inspection and transport of a FRP vessel can become an
important challenge for any multinational company.

Several design codes are available for FRP vessels, having important differences among them.
As a result, it is very important choosing the right one to avoid problems during all the
manufacturing and installation process. The aim of this study is comparing four different design
codes for FRP vessels, so the technical differences among them can be established. Once these
differences are known, it will be easier making the right decision when choosing the design code
we are going to apply.

2.- Description of the comparative study

The four design codes for FRP vessels that has been compared on the study are shown next:

• AD Merkblatt N1 (Germany)
• BS 4994:1987 (Great Britain)
• EN 13121 parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 (European Union)
• ASME RTP-1 Ed. 2007 (United States of America)

To compare them, five different hypothetical vessels have been designed, using every one of the
design codes:

• Storage tank under mild service conditions (ST-1-1)

• Storage tank under severe service conditions (ST-1-2)
• Scrubber column (CS-1)
• Horizontal pressure vessel under mild service conditions (HP-1-1)
• Horizontal pressure vessel under severe service conditions (HP-1-2)

The geometry of the two storage tanks is equal (they only have different design conditions and
contain different fluids). The same thing happens for the horizontal pressure vessels.
Once the design of all the hypothetical vessels has been made through all the design codes, the
equations used for the design and the results obtained have been analyzed and compared,
showing the main differences among them, and their main weak and strong points.

3.- Comparison of the safety factors

First of all, we are going to compare how the safety factor is obtained by every design code:

3.1.- AD-Merkblatt N1

In this case, the safety factor is obtained as a product of four subfactors (A1 to A4). These
subfactors are related to the next questions:

• A1 -> Models the long term behaviour of FRP laminates

• A2 -> Models the behaviour and chemical strength of the resin against the attack of the
fluid contained on the vessel
• A3 -> This subfactor is a ratio between the mechanical properties of the laminate at room
temperature, and the same mechanical properties at design temperature. As a result this
subfactor gives us the reduction of the mechanical properties at design temperature,
having as reference these properties at room temperature.
• A4 -> This subfactor is a measure of the statistical dispersion of the real mechanical
properties obtained from proof tests on laminate samples

3.2.- BS 4994:1987

In this design code, the safety factor is obtained as a product of five subfactors (K 1 to K5), being
calculated as shown next:

• K1 -> This subfactor depends on the manufacturing procedure chosen for the vessel (hand
lay-up, filament winding or spraying)
• K2 -> Models the behaviour and chemical strength of the resin against the attack of the
fluid contained on the vessel
• K3 -> This subfactor depends on the difference between the design temperature for the
vessel and the heat distortion temperature of the resin (HDT)
• K4 -> Models the behaviour of the FRP laminate against cyclic loads (fatigue behaviour)
• K5 -> This subfactor depends on the type of curing applied to the laminate (depends on
whether post-cure is applied or not)

3.3.- EN 13121 part 3

In this design code, the safety factor is obtained again as a product of five subfactors (A1 to A5),
depending on the next questions:

• A1 -> This subfactor gives a measure of the statistical dispersion of the real mechanical
properties obtained from proof tests on laminate samples
 • A2 -> Models the behaviour and chemical strength of the resin against the attack of the
fluid contained on the vessel
• A3 -> This subfactor depends on the difference between the maximum allowable
temperature for the resin when containing the fluid considered, and the heat distortion
temperature of this resin (HDT)
• A4 -> Models the behaviour of the FRP laminate against cyclic loads (fatigue behaviour)
• A5 -> Models the long term behaviour of the FRP laminates depending on the laminate
composition and the type of effort applied (traction or bending)

3.4.- ASME RTP-1 Ed. 2007

In that case, the safety factor is a fixed figure which depends on the design and testing
conditions, as shown in the next table:

Service Design conditions or final test Safety

Type of design considered
conditions requirements factor
Subpart 3A or Subpart 3A + Long term 10.0
Non critical Subpart 3B Short term or buckling 5.0
service No acoustic emission 9.0
Only subpart 3B is applied
Acoustic emission 8.0
Subpart 3A or Subpart 3A + Long term 12.5
Critical Subpart 3B Short term or buckling 6.25
service No acoustic emission 11.25
Only subpart 3B is applied
Acoustic emission 10.0

When critical service conditions are considered, the safety factors must be increased a 25 %.

Notes:
• Subpart 3A consists on a classical design by rules (equations)
• Subpart 3B is a much more refined stress analysis
• For the comparative study only subpart 3A (design by rules) has been considered

4.- Comparison of the mechanical properties

Once the safety factors have been compared, it is very important analyzing how the mechanical
properties of the laminates are obtained through every design code.

4.1.- AD-Merkblatt N1

This design code proposes just one method for obtaining the mechanical properties of a laminate,
being a pure empirical procedure which consists on performing proof tests on laminate samples.
The results obtained from these tests must be treated statistically, so the average mechanical
properties can be obtained. As a result it is not possible to estimate the mechanical properties
before performing the tests, being required manufacturing samples for obtaining their properties.
The methods for performing these proof tests and for treating statistically the results are not very
clearly explained on the design code, doing more complicated its application.
Finally, it is important highlighting that the procedures given by this design code for obtaining
the maximum allowable strength of the laminate, does not incorporate the maximum allowable
strain. As a result, this strain limit is not implicitly included in the maximum allowable stress,
and two independent verifications will have to be performed during the design process, one for
the stress and another one for the strain applied into the laminate.

4.2.- BS 4994:1987

This design code calculates the mechanical properties adding the typical strength and modulus
given for every glass reinforcement layer stacked in the laminate. These typical strength and
modulus for every type of glass reinforcement are given in tables included on the code.

The maximum allowable stress of a laminate is obtained as a function of the safety factor and the
maximum allowable strain for the resin considered. As a result, the strain limit is implicitly
included in the maximum allowable stress for the laminate, so just a strength verification is
required during the calculation.

BS 4994:1987 allows calculating the tensile properties (stress and modulus), but it has not a
procedure for obtaining the bending properties (which might be considered when wind and
seismic loads are applied into a vessel).

4.3.- EN 13121 part 3

In that case, the mechanical properties can be obtained through two different procedures,
depending on whether we are applying a basic or advanced design:

Basic design:

This procedure is exactly the same used by BS 4994:1987, so the typical strength and modulus of
every glass reinforcing layer must be added for obtaining the mechanical properties of the whole
laminate. Again, the laminate strength will depend on the safety factor and the maximum
allowable strain for the resin considered, being the strain limit implicitly included in the
maximum allowable stress.

In that case there is a method available for obtaining the flexural modulus of the laminates, based
on laminate theory. This method is very similar to the one proposed by ASME RTP-1 Ed. 2007.

Advanced design:

The second procedure proposed by EN 13121 is very similar to the one given by AD-Merkblatt
N1. It consist on obtaining the mechanical properties empirically, performing proof tests on
laminate samples, treating later the results statistically for obtaining the average mechanical
properties. Compared with AD-Merkblatt N1, the procedure is better explained and fully
included on the code, being easier applying it.
4.4.- ASME RTP-1 Ed. 2007

Finally, ASME RTP-1 includes three different procedures for obtaining the mechanical
properties:

• For hand-lay up laminates, mechanical properties can be obtained from tables in subpart
2A, depending on the ply sequence applied (just chopped strand mat or chopped strand
mat combined with woven roving), and the total laminate thickness

• According to chapter M-3, the mechanical properties can be also obtained through
lamination analysis. In that case laminate theory is applied for obtaining the properties of
the whole laminate, adding the mechanical properties of every layer, which can be
previously obtained from figures, as a function of their glass content and the resin
modulus.

• The last procedure available is using design basis laminates, which is again an empirical
method that obtains the mechanical properties after treating statistically the results
obtained from proof tests on laminate samples (being very similar to the methods given
by AD-Merkblatt N1 and the advanced design on EN 13121 part 3)

5.- Calculation of a cylindrical shell

All the design codes compared requires verifying the cylindrical shell under three different
conditions:

• Calculation of the shell under combined tensile efforts

• Calculation of the shell under combined compressive efforts
• Calculation of the shell against buckling due to external pressure

These conditions are obtained by all design codes as a combination of the next typical loads:

• Head and hydrostatic pressure

• External pressure (or vacuum)
• Vessel (and liquid contained on it) weight
• Wind loads
• Seismic loads
• Snow loads

The calculation procedure for a cylindrical shell is quite similar for all the design codes, but two
different approaches can be distinguished among them:

BS 4994:1987 and EN 13121 part 3 are applying an iterative procedure (exclusive for FRP
design codes), which requires performing the next steps:

1. Defining a typical laminate for the shell

2. Calculation of the mechanical properties of this defined laminate
3. Calculating the stress applied into the shell by the different load cases
 4. Comparing the stress applied into the shell with the maximum allowable value obtained
for the defined laminate. In case the laminate is not strong enough, it will have to be
reinforced and the procedure will start again on step 1.

On the other hand, AD Merkblatt N1 and ASME RTP-1 subpart 3A calculate the minimum
thickness required for the shell as a function of the laminate maximum allowable stress and the
load combination considered. This procedure is shared with the design codes for metallic vessels.

For the study, a laminate composed by a combination of filament winding and woven roving
tissues has been considered for the shell of all the hypothetical vessels calculated. The cylinders
have been divided into rings (H-1, H-2, H-3, etc.) at different heights, allowing having different
thicknesses along them. The next thicknesses have been obtained for the different hypothetical
vessels:

Storage tank under mild service conditions:

Shell thickness (in mm)

Level AD Merkblatt
BS 4994 EN 13121 ASME RTP-1
N1
H-4 14.7 11.3 10.7 14.5
H-3 14.7 11.3 10.7 14.5
H-2 14.7 11.3 12.3 14.5
H-1 14.7 11.3 12.3 14.5

Storage tank under severe service conditions:

Shell thickness (in mm)

Level AD Merkblatt
BS 4994 EN 13121 ASME RTP-1
N1
H-4 17.2 13.8 13.2 18.0
H-3 17.2 13.8 13.2 18.0
H-2 17.2 13.8 14.8 18.0
H-1 17.2 13.8 14.8 18.0

Note: H-1 is the ring placed at shell bottom, while H-4 is placed at shell top.
Scrubber:

Shell thickness (in mm)

Level AD Merkblatt
BS 4994 EN 13121 ASME RTP-1
N1
H-12 22.5 21.7 23.3 25.8
H-11 27.3 22.3 23.3 29.0
H-10 27.3 22.3 22.3 29.0
H-9 26.2 22.3 22.3 29.0
H-8 26.2 22.3 22.3 29.0
H-7 26.2 22.3 22.3 28.4
H-6 26.2 22.3 22.3 28.4
H-5 26.2 22.3 22.3 28.4
H-4 26.2 22.3 22.3 28.4
H-3 27.3 22.3 22.3 28.4
H-2 25.7 22.3 23.9 28.4
H-1 24.1 19.1 23.9 25.8

Note: H-1 is the ring placed at shell bottom, while H-12 is placed at shell top.

Horizontal pressure vessel under mild service conditions:

Shell thickness (in mm)

Level AD Merkblatt
BS 4994 EN 13121 ASME RTP-1
N1
H-1 30.5 24.9 21.7 33.7
H-2 30.5 24.9 24.9 33.7
H-3 30.5 24.9 24.9 33.7
H-4 30.5 24.9 24.9 33.7
H-5 30.5 28.1 28.1 33.7
H-6 30.5 24.9 24.9 33.7
H-7 30.5 24.9 24.9 33.7
H-8 30.5 24.9 24.9 33.7
H-9 30.5 24.9 21.7 33.7

Note: H-1 is the ring placed at left side of the shell, while H-12 is placed at right side.
Horizontal pressure vessel under severe service conditions:

Shell thickness (in mm)

Level AD Merkblatt
BS 4994 EN 13121 ASME RTP-1
N1
H-1 32.2 26.7 23.4 38.0
H-2 32.2 26.7 26.6 38.0
H-3 32.2 26.7 26.6 38.0
H-4 32.2 26.7 29.8 38.0
H-5 32.2 29.9 29.8 38.0
H-6 32.2 26.7 29.8 38.0
H-7 32.2 26.7 26.6 38.0
H-8 32.2 26.7 26.6 38.0
H-9 32.2 26.7 23.4 38.0

Note: H-1 is the ring placed at left side of the shell, while H-12 is placed at right side.

For all the vessels, it can be seen that the minimum thicknesses are obtained by both
BS 4994:1987 and EN 13121. Next we can find AD-Merkblatt N1 and ASME RTP-1, which are
giving higher and very similar thicknesses. Considering that the parameter that is governing most
of the vessel’s design is the vacuum, it can be said that the procedure given by BS 4994:1987
and EN 13121 part 3 (which allows dealing with stepped shells with no uniform thickness),
allows obtaining smaller thicknesses than AD Merkblatt N1 and ASME RTP-1.

6.- Calculation of a flat bottom

All the design codes except AD-Merkblatt N1 includes a procedure for calculating a flat bottom,
based on the typical solution for a round plate with fixed edges, submitted to an uniform load.
These procedures allows obtaining the bending moment on the plate (so the stress can also be
calculated), and the maximum deflection at the center of the plate.

All the three design codes which include this procedure, are also giving a limit for the maximum
deflection allowed at the plate center. This limit is different depending on the design code
considered:

• For BS 4994:4987 and EN 13121 part 3, the deflection limit is equal to 1.5 times the flat
bottom thickness, for avoiding the second level effects.
• For ASME RTP-1 Ed. 2007, the deflection limit is equal to 1.5 % of the vessel diameter

AD-Merkblatt N1 does not include any method for calculating a flat bottom, so a procedure
given by any other design code must be borrowed, or it will be required adapting to FRP the
typical solution for round plates with fixed edges submitted to uniform load.
The procedures explained above are applicable for the central part of the flat bottom, but it will
be also required calculating the flat bottom knuckle. Depending on the design code considered, a
different method must be applied:

• BS 4994:1987 applies a very simplified procedure which consists on increasing a 50 %

the loads obtained at the bottom of the cylindrical shell. The knuckle laminate will have
to be strong enough for withstanding these increased loads.
• EN 13121 part 3 includes a very detailed procedure for calculating the loads applied into
the knuckle, depending on the ratio between the transition radius and the vessel diameter.
• ASME RTP-1 Ed 2007 only requires calculating the flat bottom knuckle when the
vessel’s diameter is higher than 144 inches. In that case, subpart 3B (stress analysis) must
be applied for calculating this part of the vessel. When vessel diameter is lower than 144
inches, the same thickness can be applied for both the central part and the flat bottom
knuckle.

A flat bottom made by hand lay up procedure has been considered for all the hypothetical vessels
calculated, obtaining the next thicknesses:

Flat bottom thickness (in mm)

Vessel Part AD ASME
BS 4994 EN 13121
Merkblatt N1 RTP-1
Storage tank under mild Central part 32.2 26.7 23.4 38.0
service conditions Knuckle 32.2 26.7 23.4 38.0
Storage tank under Central part 32.2 26.7 23.4 38.0
severe service conditions Knuckle 32.2 26.7 23.4 38.0

It can be seen that the results obtained for both vessels are equal, because the design conditions
are very similar for them. The biggest thickness is given by ASME RTP-1 due to the higher
safety factor applied by this design code. The smallest thickness is given by EN 13121 part 3,
due to the smaller safety factor applied.

7.- Calculation of a domed head

All the design codes require performing two different verifications for calculating a domed head:

• Calculation of the domed head against internal and external pressure

• Calculation of the domed head against buckling due to external pressure (or vacuum)

Again, two different approaches can be found on the design codes compared:

BS 4994:1987 and EN 13121 part 3 apply an iterative procedure (exclusive for FRP design
codes), which requires performing the next steps:
 1. Defining a typical laminate for the domed head
2. Calculation of the mechanical properties of the defined laminate
3. Calculation of the stress applied into the domed head by the internal and external pressure
4. Comparing the stress applied into the domed head with the maximum allowable value
obtained for the defined laminate. In case the laminate was not strong enough, it will have
to be reinforced, and the procedure will start again on step 1.

AD Merkblatt N1 and ASME RTP-1 subpart 3A calculate the minimum thickness required for
the domed head as a function of the maximum allowable stress for the laminate and the
internal/external pressure considered. This procedure is shared with the design codes for metallic
vessels.

It also has to be highlighted that BS 4994:1987 and ASME RTP-1 subpart 3A give an uniform
thickness for the whole domed head. On the other hand, AD Merkblatt N1 and EN 13121 part 3
calculate independently the head knuckle and crown, giving different thickness for both parts
(usually higher stresses are applied in the knuckle, so a more optimized design can be obtained).

A hand lay up laminate has been considered for the domed heads of all the hypothetical vessels,
obtaining the next thicknesses:

Flat bottom thickness (in mm)

Vessel Part AD ASME
BS 4994 EN 13121
Merkblatt N1 RTP-1
Storage tank - mild service Crown 15.2 11.3 14.1 13.2
– top domed head Knuckle 19.0 11.3 14.1 13.2
Storage tank - severe Crown 17.7 13.8 16.6 16.6
service – top domed head Knuckle 21.5 13.8 16.6 16.6
Crown 23.0 23.0 26.8 26.8
Scrubber – top domed head
Knuckle 23.0 23.0 26.8 26.8
Scrubber – bottom domed Crown 23.0 26.0 26.8 26.8
head Knuckle 23.0 26.0 26.8 26.8
Horiz. pressure vessel – Crown 15.2 11.3 14.1 13.2
mild service - domed heads Knuckle 19.0 11.3 14.1 13.2
Horiz. pressure vessel – Crown 17.7 13.8 16.6 16.6
severe service domed heads Knuckle 21.5 13.8 16.6 16.6

The minimum thicknesses for the domed heads are given in general by BS 4994:1987. Bearing in
mind that the equations used are similar for all the design codes, these results are due to the
different constants used on these equations.
8.- Calculation of reinforcing pads for nozzles

Two parameters must be calculated for a reinforcing pad around a nozzle, its thickness and its
diameter. Two different approaches for calculating these parameters can be found on the
compared design codes:

• AD Merkblatt N1 and EN 13121 part 3 require calculating a stress intensification factor

(SIF) around the hole made on the wall for placing the nozzle. The stress around the hole
must be calculated multiplying the stress previously obtained for this part of the vessel by
the SIF. The reinforced pad thickness will have to add enough strength to the vessel’s
wall for withstanding correctly the stress around the hole.

• BS 4994:1987 and ASME RTP-1 subpart 3A calculate the loss of strength caused by the
hole made on the wall for placing the nozzle. The reinforcing pad thickness will have to
be enough to balance this loss of strength.

Two different approaches are also applied for calculating the reinforcing pad diameter,
depending on the design code considered:

• When AD Merkblatt N1 and EN 13121 part 3 are applied, the reinforcing pad diameter is
obtained as a function of the vessel’s diameter and the vessel’s wall thickness (it is
independent of the nozzle diameter)

• When BS 4994:1987 and ASME RTP-1 subpart 3A are applied, the reinforcing pad
diameter is obtained as a function of the nozzle’s internal diameter only

Being the procedures applied by the design codes so different, the results obtained for the
reinforcing pads are also very different depending on the one applied. It has to be highlighted
that the reinforcing pad diameter is bigger for small nozzles when AD Merkblatt N1 and EN
13121 part 3 are applied. The opposite effect is obtained for big nozzles, being the reinforcing
pad diameter smaller when AD Merkblatt N1 and EN 13121 part 3 are applied.

9.- Calculation of support skirts and saddles

Only EN 13121 part 3 has an specific method for calculating a support skirt for vertical vessels.
This procedure is very detailed and even considers the effects of the different pressure and
temperature applied to both parts, vessel and the support skirt.

AD Merkblatt N1 has not an specific method for calculating this part of a vessel, so for the study
it has been applied the method given by AD Merkblatt S 3/1 for metallic vessels, adapting it to
FRP particularities.

BS 4994:1987 and ASME RTP-1 subpart 3A do not have any method for calculating the support
skirt neither. For solving this question during the study, the support skirt has been considered as
an additional part of the cylindrical shell, but submitted to the specific loads applied at this part
(no pressure or vacuum and room temperature have been considered for the support skirt).
Only EN 13121 part 3 has an specific method for calculating an horizontal vessel supported by
saddles. The procedure included in this design code is based on Zick’s method (used by most of
design codes for metallic vessels), but adapted to FRP particularities.

For AD Merkblatt N1, it has been applied the procedure given by AD Merkblatt S 3/2 for
metallic vessels, but adapted to FRP properties and safety factors.

For the horizontal vessels designed according to BS 4994:1987, the procedure given by the
design code BS 5500 for metallic vessels has been applied, adapting it to FRP (as it has been
made for AD-Merkblatt N1). The procedure given by BS 5500 is also the Zick’s method for
horizontal metallic vessels.

Finally, when the horizontal vessels have been designed according to ASME RTP-1 subpart 3A,
it has been applied the method given by ASME VIII div. 2 for horizontal metallic vessels. This
procedure is again the Zick’s method (the same used by BS 5500 and EN 13121 part 3).

10.- Manufacturing cost for the different hypothetical vessels

Once the calculation procedures used by the four design codes have been compared, it is also
interesting comparing the manufacturing cost of the hypothetical vessels designed during the
study. The next figure shows these costs compared:

The hypothetical vessels are represented by the next codes on the figure:

• HP-1-1 -> Horizontal pressure vessel under mild service conditions

• HP-1-2 -> Horizontal pressure vessel under severe service conditions
• CS-1 -> Scrubber
• ST-1-1 -> Storage tank under mild service conditions
• ST-1-2 -> Storage tank under severe service conditions

The manufacturing cost is shown in Euros in the figure, and it has been calculated considering
the hypothetical vessels are manufactured in Ollearis workshops in Spain.
It can be seen that the most cost-effective design code is EN 13121 for all the hypothetical
vessels. On the other hand, the less cost-effective design code is ASME RTP-1 when subpart 3A
is applied. It is important highlighting that cost-effectiveness of ASME RTP-1 can be improved
applying subpart 3B, but this particular case has not been considered for this study.

Finally the figure shows that the cost differences among the different design codes are bigger
when the vessel becomes more complicated (scrubber) and when the design pressure is increased
(horizontal pressure vessels).

11.- Inspection and certification requirements

Once the vessel has been manufactured, it will be required registering it, but the legal
requirements to do so are very different depending on the place where the vessel is going to be
installed. Some examples of the rules that must be applied for vessels in different countries are
shown next:

• European Union -> Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) 97/23 EC – CE marking is

required according to this European rule
• United States of America -> ASME RTP-1 or ASME X – ASME stamp is required in
most cases according to these codes.
• Russia / Bielorrusia / Kazajstan -> Gost R certification is required
• China -> Special Equipment Licensing Office (SELO) certification is required
• Middle East -> In these countries application of ASME RTP-1 or ASME X, plus ASME
stamp is required commonly
• India -> Indian Boiler Regulations (IBR) certification is required

These certifications and markings usually require the approval of an independent third party for
the design, manufacturing and testing process. It is very difficult finding inspectors and
engineers trained on FRP inspection and calculation outside France and the USA, so dealing with
these third parties could become an important challenge.

Two typical examples about how the design code must be chosen for simplifying later the
vessel’s certification and marking are described next:

Example No. 1 – An USA company needs a FRP vessel for one of its plants in a country
inside the European Union:

In that case the best option would be designing the FRP vessel according to EN 13121, which is
an harmonized code in Europe. As a result, using this design code you will have direct
conformity with the Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) 97/23), and it will be easier preparing
the documents required for putting the CE marking. In most cases a Notified Body (third party
authorized by the local government to perform these tasks), will have to verify the whole design,
manufacturing and testing process, before allowing the manufacturer to put the CE marking onto
the FRP vessel.
Example No. 2 – An USA or European company needs a FRP vessel for one of its plants in
China:

When this case is considered, the best option will be choosing ASME RTP-1, mainly because it
can be understood more easily by engineers non skilled on FRP design. As a result, it will be
easier for the third party involved in the SELO certification understanding the calculation note
they have to revise.

12.- Final conclusions

The final conclusions of this study can be summarized showing the strong and weak points
detected on every design code:

AD-Merkblatt N1

Strong points Weak points

It has very detailed procedures for designing The procedures given for obtaining the safety
the next parts of a FRP vessel: factor and the mechanical properties of a
laminate are complicated, and require always
• Cylindrical shells (especially when performing proof tests on laminate samples.
they are submitted to vacuum)
• Reinforcing pads for nozzles The inspection procedures and acceptance
• Domed heads criteria for the laminates are not included
directly on the code.
It is not well known by most of engineers
outside Germany.
There is not a procedure for calculating the
shell and domed head against local loads, so a
procedure from any other design code must be
borrowed to do so.
It does not include procedures for calculating
some typical parts of a FRP vessel as:
• Flat bottom
• Support saddles (for horizontal vessels)
• Support skirts (vertical vessels)
BS 4994:1987

Strong points Weak points

It has procedures for designing most parts of a The same safety factor is used for both long
typical FRP vessel. and short term conditions, so the cost-
effectiveness is reduced.
It includes clear and simple procedures for
obtaining the safety factors and the mechanical It has been developed and issued in 1987, so
properties of a laminate. some parts are obsolete nowadays.
It is very well known all around the world The procedure included for calculating the flat
because it has been one of the first design bottom knuckle is too simple, so the cost
codes issued for FRP vessels. effectiveness is reduced.
It includes a detailed procedure for calculating There is not a procedure for calculating the
the effect of local loads in domed heads and flexural properties of a laminate, and they are
shells. usually required when bending moments are
applied.
It does not include procedures for calculating
some typical parts of a FRP vessel as:
• Support saddles (for horizontal vessels)
• Support skirts (vertical vessels)

EN 13121 part 3:

Strong points Weak points

It contains procedures for designing all the It requires considering more design cases for
typical parts of a FRP vessel. the vessel calculation when the design code is
fully applied.
It includes clear and simple procedures for
obtaining the safety factor and the mechanical It is the most complex design code among the
properties of a laminate. four compared, so it is more difficult to deal
with it for engineers non skilled in FRP.
It includes a detailed procedure for calculating
the effect of local loads applied on the Some minor typing mistakes are still
cylindrical shells. remaining on the design code text, so they will
have to be corrected on future editions.
It is the most cost-effective design code among
the four compared. It is not very well known outside Europe
It is harmonized with the Pressure Equipment because its first edition was issued very
Directive (PED) 97/23 EC, so it gives you recently (2008).
direct conformity with this Directive. As a
result, it allows putting the CE marking
required in Europe in a very easy way.
ASME RTP-1 Ed. 2007:

Strong points Weak points

It contains procedures for designing most When the design temperature for the vessel is
typical parts of a FRP vessel. higher than 180 ºF (84 ºC), it is mandatory
performing proof tests on laminate samples at
Subpart 3A of this design code is the most this design temperature. These tests will allow
simple among the four codes compared. As a verifying that the mechanical properties
result, it is easier to deal with it for an engineer considered at this temperature are correct.
non skilled in FRP calculation.
Subpart 3A of this code is the less cost-
The procedure for obtaining the safety factor is effective among the four codes compared.
very simple compared with the rest of design
codes. Subpart 3B (stress analysis) is quite
complicated when compared with the rest of
A very detailed and complete procedure for design codes. As a result it is more
obtaining the mechanical properties of a complicated dealing with it, even more for
laminate (based on laminate theory) is engineers non skilled in FRP.
included.
In many cases it requires putting the ASME
Subpart 3B allows dealing with almost any stamp on the FRP vessel. However, outside the
possible geometry or design case considered USA and Canada it is very difficult finding
for a vessel. It also allows improving the cost- FRP manufacturers allowed to put this stamp.
effectiveness of the code.
It is a design code very well known all around
the world, especially in America and the
Middle East.

In Barcelona 15th of May 2014

A. Adriano Ureña
Industrial Engineer
OLLEARIS, S.A