×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Alternative norms to ASME Sec. VIII

Alternative norms to ASME Sec. VIII

Alternative norms to ASME Sec. VIII

(OP)
Hi,
I deal with a customer who has somewhat confused ideas about stress limit criteria for pressure vessels (in this case, it's a series of hydro-plant conduits).
We always use and refer to ASME Section VIII for this kind of calculations, but the customer asks if other less restrictive norms can be used.
I don't exactly know where the customer wants to go with "less restrictive", perhaps accept lower thicknesses in order to save money...
Are the ASME really so constraining as the customer is pointing out? Per our experience, no component we dimensioned following strictly the ASME failed because of design...
Any ideas? Any comments?
Thanks!

RE: Alternative norms to ASME Sec. VIII

I believe what your "customer" is asking is "are there cheaper alternatives to designing these hydro-plant conduits? ASME B&PV code uses design margins to assure  reasonably safe and long service lives of pressure retaining components. So in a way, design margins could be construed as adding cost.

I am not that familiar with hydro-plant conduits. If they are not covered under the scope of ASME B&PV code or some other Code or Standard, your customer might be on to something. I will leave you with this thought – safety is most important and must be considered in every component design.

RE: Alternative norms to ASME Sec. VIII

"Hydroplant conduits" sounds like "water piping"?  In this case, check out AWWA's manuals and standards for steel piping.  I believe the stress normally used for hoop stress is half the yield, or somewhat higher than ASME uses.

RE: Alternative norms to ASME Sec. VIII

(OP)
Thank you for your inputs!
I also do believe that safety must come before any other consideration. In the case of Hydro-electric power plants, the failure of a penstock part can have dramatic consequences. That's why I am so reticent to depart from ASME.
I'll look at the AWWA also. In the meantime I discovered that probably any country has its own technical directives as regards pressure vessels, and these can range from the severest you could imagine (one customer from Chile wrote in the tech requirements that hoop stress had to be less than 0.25 times the strength limit, where ASME wants 0.33!), up to the most "fantasist". In fact, in Italy a very old directive (dated 1966...) prescribes limits apparently greatly higher than ASME, but without any distinction btw pure membrane stress, local stress, bending, peak...!!! Sincerely, it's the first time a customer in Italy does not want at least the ASME limits in order to be safe...

RE: Alternative norms to ASME Sec. VIII

ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) has several publications regarding evalulation, inspection and monitoring of penstocks. These may provide you with some additional guidance.

click this link and search for "penstock"

https://www.asce.org/bookstore/search.cfm#SResults

RE: Alternative norms to ASME Sec. VIII

I think what your Customer is asking is to refer to other design codes which are less expensive to implement when the manufacturer does not reside in USA.
 To exemplify, you will find out that in Europe the pressure vessels are usually manufactured in accordance with PED - Pressure Equipment Directive - which is the european equivalent to ASME.
 There will be no safety compromise - but the cost of Certification (for example) is vastly cheaper.
 

RE: Alternative norms to ASME Sec. VIII

cloche,
ASME VIII is known to be more conservative than many other rules for pressure vessels, especially for room temperature components, as in your case: recent editions of ASME have addressed this point by lowering some safety margins with respect to what was applicable a few years ago.
So I understand your client's worryings and think that he is addressing the above situation.
BTW italian rules have been updated in 1995 (but the way pressure interacts with a containing wall is the same from the time of the big bang!). Today in Europe you can use one of many different codes, and among them of course the european code EN 13445.
Basically with this one (and also the italian code) the allowable stress is the minimum of yield/1.5 and tensile/2.4, but of course you'll have to decide how to handle the efficiency of longitudinal welds too.
Can't see a reason why you shouldn't use the european code. Of course if you increase the safety margin, generally speaking you'll be safer, but the codes are there exactly to specify an acceptable margin...

prex

http://www.xcalcs.com
Online tools for structural design

RE: Alternative norms to ASME Sec. VIII

(OP)
1) Pumpkind, we have no certification problems, our company is a multi-national corporation already certified at corporation level. Generally speaking we internally follow the ASME standards for all components assimilated to pressure vessels (spiral cases, penstocks, distributors, etc...)

2) Prex, our company has chosen the ASME because of two main advantages:
- they are the most widely accepted norms around the world
- we think that the "degree of conservativeness" on which they are based is the most suitable for critical components like the ones in hydraulic power plants (human lives can easily be lost in case of disaster). Based upon more than 100 years of internal experience, we could ourselves establish internal norms, but they wouldn't be usable for contracting of course...

3) We already are updated as regards ASME (we have the latest edition of Section VIII) and we use part 2 which is refered to the complete analysis of the stress field in the component, which we achieve with FEM); thanks to the suggestions of you all, the interesting thing is now that:
- we can perform our calculations and tell the customer what would be the most adapted criteria based upon our internal experience (almost coincident with ASME)
- we can make comparisons to the EuroNorms and other international norms, and estimate the possible loss of security margin between them. The customer will be then able to choose the right balance of cost/risk. In other terms, surely the best thing in this particular case is for me to "parametrize" the criteria in the strength analysis report.

RE: Alternative norms to ASME Sec. VIII

It only comes down to corrossion;
you can very much save a bunddle on material thickness if you cut to te minimum,
but the real engineering will be in the corrossion add-on
it is what you can live with? and save in accidents later.
ER

RE: Alternative norms to ASME Sec. VIII

(OP)
Well, in this case corrosion would be a little bit difficult to precisely estimate, as the water carried by the penstock has an "unknown" (I mean, estimated but not exactly known...) content of sand and other aggressive particles. It's more a matter of erosion than of corrosion. Surely we can make additional exams on the water, but perhaps it would be more expensive than to keep a "bigger" safety margin...

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources