Anda di halaman 1dari 4

1/26/12 ASME (mechanical) Code Issues - Div-2 Safe Pressure thickness fails in co

1/4 www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=255971
Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
Go Find A Form Go
Join
Directory
Search
Tell A Friend
Whitepapers
Jobs
Home > Forums > Engineering Codes, Standards 8 Certifications > Engineering Codes, Standards 8 Certifications > ASNE (mechanical) Code !ssues
Forum
Div-2 Safe Pressure thickness fails in combined load calculation
thread292-255971
BPVFEA (Nechanical) 6
Oct
09
6:18
Hi,
! am referring to ASNE Sec v!!! Div 2 Ed 2007 Add 2008
! calculate the safe pressre thickness of cylindrical shell by clause +.3.1 t=Df2(exp(PfSE)-1)
Now ! go to Cl +.3.10.2 to calculate the stress under combined loading. ! take only pressure load . (No moment, force, weight etc.)
! am surprised to find that the thickness t fails in combined stress calculation.
Some Designers feel that there is some mistake in the code 8 ASNE will correct it. But ! found that ASNE has not corretced it in recent 2009 addenda.
! request your opinion on this,
1) !s ASNE calculation given correct?
2) !f not, then what is should be ?
Thanks in advance.

TGS4 (Nechanical) 6 Oct
09
11:+1
!n my experience, the calculations are correct. Please post your calculations here for review.
For example, if ! use:
D=100in
P=2000psi
S=25000psi
E=1
Then, t=+.16+in, and Do is 108.329in
sigma_theta-m=25000psi
Assuming no external net section force, no external bending moment, and no net section torsion moment (F=0, N=0, theta=0, and Nt=0), then
sigma_sm=11527psi
tau=0
sigma1=25000psi
sigma2=11521psi
sigma3=1000psi
sigma_eqv=20837psi, which is < 25000psi
BPVFEA (Nechanical) 7

Shae Thi
1/26/12 ASME (mechanical) Code Issues - Div-2 Safe Pressure thickness fails in co
2/4 www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=255971
Oct
09
2:05
Sorry. !t was my mistake. Actually my observation is regarding Spherical Shell (+.3.5.1 8 +.3.10.2.a.2) and not regarding cylindrical shell.
The Safe pressure thickness of spherical heads fails in combined stress calculation.
See the below example.
D = 200 in
P = 1000 psi
S = 25000 psi
E = 1.0
t = Df2*( exp( 0.5Pf(S*E) )-1) = 2.0201 in (+.3.5.1)

Therefore, Do= 20+.0+02 in

When no external loads acting,
Sigma_theta_m = 25000 psi (+.3.35)
Sigma_s_m = 25000 psi (+.3.36)
Tau = 0 psi (+.3.37)
Sigma1= 25000 psi
Simga2= 25000 psi
Simga3= -500 psi
Equivalent Stress from Eq +.3.++ would be
25500 psi > Allowable 25000 psi !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TGS+- !n your example sigma3 shall be negative i.e -1000psi
! feel that there would be some specific case in which cylindrial shell also may fail.

BPVFEA (Nechanical) 7
Oct
09
2:57
Here is the example showing that it is applicable to Cylindrical Shell also, when shell is TH!CK
P=7000 psi
D=100 in
S=20000 psi
Required shell t by +.3.1 is
t=20.95 in
Therefore Do= 1+1.90 in
Sigma_theta_m = 20000 psi
Sigma_s_m = 6905.03 psi
Sigma1 =20000 psi
Sigma2 = 6905.03 psi
Sigma2 = -3500 psi
Equivalent Stress from Eq +.3.++ would be
20396 psi > Allowable 20000 psi !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TomBah
(Structural) 7
Oct
09
9:25
1/26/12 ASME (mechanical) Code Issues - Div-2 Safe Pressure thickness fails in co
3/4 www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=255971
This may or may not be related to the current question, but my ears perked up when ! read that this was about spherical shells.
There is a typographical error in equation +.+.55 (page +-90), paragraph +.+.7.1. The denominator has the ratio FhefSy, this is transposed, the correct
ratio is SyfFhe. This has been pointed out to the Code committee correction but did not make it in time for the 2009b Addenda.
The same typographical error exists in the original Code Case 2286 (and the corresponding nuclear code case). But the original derivation by Clarence
Niller shows the correct ratio.
Using the ratio as currently published produces an unrealistic graphical plot of Pa versus nominal thickness when plotted for a given set of values for
OD, Sy, and Ey. Hopefully nobody has used this for a nuclear job.
TGS4 (Nechanical) 7 Oct
09
13:28
Thanks for the heads-up Tom. !t's not related, but very useful information.
BPvFEA - you are correct, the sigma3 should be negative. ! agree with the results of your example posting (7 Oct 2:57).
Fundamentally, ! don't think that there is any inconsistency with that specific result. The thickness equation is correct for thick or thin
vessels. However, the combined loading equations are essentially stress linearization, which 5.2.1.3 says should not be used for Rft ratios less than or
equal to +. Your example above results in an Rft ratio of 2.386.
However, the fact that the selected thickness "fails" the combined loading analysis means that an increased thickness is required - a conservative
measure in my opinion.
!f you feel that there is something fundamentally wrong with this, please send a letter to the ASNE Code Committee about it. However, ! do not believe
that there is any error, per se, in the existing text.
BPFEA (Nechanical) 7 Oct
09
23:+6
Following is the explanation ! had given to some other party when this issue came up. ! request TGS+ 8 others for their views on this
========================================================
1) !t seems, the pressure thickness formula for Div-2 t=Df2(exp(PfSE)-1) +.3.1 is based on limit load.
Other way in the term of stress it would be S= Pf ln[(Di+2t)fDi| = Pf ln[DofDi|.
When ! compared it with Lame's Equation, S is approximately matching with Hoop Stress at !NNER Contour of Shell i.e !D S=P * (Do'2 + Di'2)f(Do'2
- Di'2)
! would like to mention here specifically that S is NAX stress in thickness and not the AvERAGE stress in thickness.
!f we look into pressure thickness formula in old Div.2 was t = PRf(S-0.5P) AD-201(a) was based on stress intensity.
Other way in the term of stress it would be S= PRft - (-0.5P). Here it is the difference of AvERAGE hoop stress 8 AvERAGE radial stress.
!f we refer formula for AD-201(b) for thickness under External loading, the stress intensity is calculated based on AvERAGE stresses.
e.g sigma3=-0.5P is average radial stress.
2) Now coming to the Combined loading stress calculations as per +.3.10.2 of new Div.2
Sigma_sm (+.3.33) 8 tau (+.3.3+) are AvERAGE stresses, while Sigma_theta_m is the NAX stress in thickness.
! think the Problem we are facing in calculating Combined stress thickness is due to
a) Nixing up the average and max stresses in Combined von Nisses stress calculations. Here Average Sigma_theta_m needs to be used.
b) The theories used for Pressure Thickness 8 Combined load thickness being different (i.e limit load 8 Distortion energy respectively)
===================================================
TGS+- !n short, the stress linearization of Sigma_theta_m componenet has not happened in combined loading equations.

TGS4 (Nechanical) 1+
Oct
09
16:31
1/26/12 ASME (mechanical) Code Issues - Div-2 Safe Pressure thickness fails in co
4/4 www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=255971
On first glance - your summary appears to make sense.
I would suggest that you write an inquiry to the Section VIII Code Committee with your concern and above-noted explanation. Perhaps then, at least
you can receive an explanation from the Code Committee.
Join | Jobs | Advertise | About Us | Contact Us | Site Policies
Copyright 1998-2012 Tecumseh Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Unauthorized reproduction or linking forbidden without express written permission.
Pressre Pipes 2011
Suppl & Demand forecasts European market report to 2015
www.amiplastics.com

Anda mungkin juga menyukai