Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
(OP)
When does a Pressure Vessel become a Pipe and vice-versa?
Is there a minimum diameter for a Pressure Vessel?
Is there a minimum diameter for a Pressure Vessel?
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS Come Join Us!Are you an
Engineering professional? Join Eng-Tips Forums!
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail. Posting GuidelinesJobs |
Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
|
Pressure Vessel vs PipePressure Vessel vs Pipe(OP)
When does a Pressure Vessel become a Pipe and vice-versa?
Is there a minimum diameter for a Pressure Vessel? Red Flag SubmittedThank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts. Reply To This ThreadPosting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! |
ResourcesWhat is rapid injection molding? For engineers working with tight product design timelines, rapid injection molding can be a critical tool for prototyping and testing functional models. Download Now
The world has changed considerably since the 1980s, when CAD first started displacing drafting tables. Download Now
Prototyping has always been a critical part of product development. Download Now
As the cloud is increasingly adopted for product development, questions remain as to just how cloud software tools compare to on-premise solutions. Download Now
|
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
Piping code = piping
PV code = PV
No code = call it what you want
While I am not aware of any real minimum dia. for a PV, vessels 6" dia and smaller are excluded from the scope of Sec VIII, Div 1, for example. Other codes may have different limits.
Also piping is primarily for transport of fluids, while PV's typically process them in some way, such as changing temps, separating, etc.
Hope this is helpful, no doubt somebody else can give you something more definitive.
Mike
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
In any case heat exchangers, filters, scrubbers, and any equipment that is connected to a piping system with one or more objectives other than just transportation of fluids are PV's. Hence i agree with SnTMan.
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
I am getting old.
I was trying to remember if it was 4" or 6" or what.
In this age of electronics, I do not have access to the section VIII or B31's except via computer.
It takes all day to search and I go blind mousing and screen-looking at damn PDF's
So, thanks again.
I did not complicate the question with reference to in-line (piping) devices such as static mixers, but my faulty memory says that they are exluded too.
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
Mike
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
well..... plus you can search it easily too
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
Mike
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
"Pressure Vessels are containers for the containment of pressure either external or internal. The pressure may be obtained from an external source, or by the application of heat from a direct or indirect source, or any combination thereof..
This seems clear to me for pressure vessels - size has nothing to do with pressure vessels.
Piping is a pressure-retaining component that conveys fluids.
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
Here is another example: You can all decide.
I have a 50 scfm instrument air receiver. Most people would agree that it is a pressure vessel (100 psi).
I have a 16" pipe, schedule 40, of sufficient length to give me 50 scfm equivalent volume. Most people would agree that it is a pipe (100 psi).
I can use the two interchangeably, if I have to.
The air receiver falls under ASME Sect. VIII. The Pipe in my my case falls under CSA Z662.03.
It's a tough call.
My colleague and I still don't know what the right answer is.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
I agree that the line is blurry, but if an inline component is simply fabricated from standard pipe and piping components then it should be possible to design and fabricate to a piping code.
I have seen some pig launchers/receivers though designed to B31.3 and others to ASME VIII, so sometimes it seems to come down to personal choice.
Once one has to start rolling plate and pressing dished ends, then to my mind the component is definitely a pressure vessel.
In your case of the air receiver (I guess you meant 50 scf volume), there is no problem in using a piping system to provide a storage capacity above standard flow related sizing. I can't imagine even the most hardnosed AI insisting on the use of a PV code in such circumstances.
Just my thoughts,
John
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
Note also that there are provincial acts which exempt specific situations to ensure that devices such as domestic water heaters and water system expansion tanks are exempt.
The dividing line between vessels and pipe becomes gray as illustrated below:
Let's say we have a piece of 8" pipe connecting two large pressure vessels in a process plant. That would generally be considered a piece of ASME B31.3 piping, even though it is greater than 6" ID and greater than 1.5 cubic feet in volume, and the relief pressure is above 15 psig.
Now let's say that the pipe has a reducer at each end to 4" linesize. Still a piece of pipe, right?
Now let's say that it has reducers at either end to 1/2" NPT or a 1/2" flange, or a Swagelok connector for 1/4" OD tubing. Is this still a piece of pipe? Most people, presented with this piece of "pipe", would conclude it is an ASME VIII vessel, even though it is still no more than an assemblage of piping components.
Even though the codes don't state it in words, what they're concerned about is the volume of stored energy or hazardous material under pressure. The principal enclosures with the largest stored volumes of materials are considered vessels and subject to the rules and codes as vessels, where the lines interconnecting these are considered pipe and subject to the rules and codes associated with pressure piping.
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
Is the air reciever pipe a pressure vessel or pipe?
Is the pig receiver/launcher pressure vessel or pipe?
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
If I was head of the Jurisdiction that regulates boilers and pressure vessels for your hypothetical situation, I would deem them pressure vessels.
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
Fair enough regarding the pig traps (depending on size I would tend to think of them as inline piping components though). There's no way however that I would consider a length of pipe in a system as being a pressure vessel, just because it had a larger diameter than one may think necessary to transport air from one location to another.
Regarding CSA B51, moltenmetal, I am totally not familiar with that document so cannot add anything there, but feel that if a piece of piping between a couple of vessels looks like a pipe, then it must be a pipe.
This in no way clarifies the blurriness that exists between what constitutes piping or pressure vessels in some cases (probably because my mind is just as blurred) - sorry shopper1732.
Cheers,
John
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
If the design were for use in Ontario and I was subject to the TSSA Act, the air receiver would be an ASME VIII vessel, whether you chose to make it from pipe or not. It is the major source of hazard from stored energy in the associated system AND it would fall within the definition of an ASME vessel. There is a specific exemption for small air receivers (to exempt the average shop air compressor tank) but I'm far too lazy to look it up.
Designation of mere line enlargements like pig launchers etc. is pretty much at the discretion of the owner. As long as the components were designed and fabricated in accordance with either ASME VIII or B31.3, TSSA would probably be satisfied.
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
My bad. The CSA came from me - I am currently working in Canada, and hence, the CSA requirement for my pipeline. However, in the US, pipeline would be covered by ASME would it not? In anycase, where to draw the line remains as fuzzy on both sides of the border.
moltenmetal,
The instrument air receiver (ASME pressure vessel kind) typically runs at abut, 120 psi, maybe 150 psi maximum depending on the compressors? This is hardly high pressure.
The instrument air (IA) header that runs around the plant (2" pipe) is at about 120 psi. I don't see the IA header piping posing any more of a stored energy hazard than the receiver. In fact, a receiver should present more of a hazard than the pipe?
By the way, I do agree with both you and metengr - it really comes down to the inspector. However, sometimes, they are wrong too!
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
We may be crossing our wires to some extent - I was picturing Ashereng's scenario with the pipe of 50cuft volume as just a section of pipe of increased diameter within a system of air distribution pipework. To my mind designed in accordance with a piping code. I also agree that it is quite likely that a discrete "vessel" would be designed to a PV code (and required to be), even though it may be constructed from standard piping components. No problem. But the line between the two can become blurry as discussed above.
Ashereng, what happens in the US is just as big a mystery to me, but I suspect a similar situation applies - it really depends on how one's AI views the world. I'm sure the same fuzziness exists in all parts of the world.
Cheers,
John
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
Yes. My solution is to not have a "air receiver" vessel. I want to replace the vessel with an "enlarged" air distribution header, made of pipe.
An air receiver basically takes the air from the dryer, holds it, acts as a "dampner" and holding volume to even out the air load requirements while maintaining pressure. I believe I can achieve the same with sufficiently large pipes.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
Brian
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
When was the last time somebody threatened to hit you over the head w/a "300 ft length of 16" sched 40 pipe"?
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
I don't understand your answer. Can you clarify, using my example?
If a pipe and a vessel both serve the same purpose, is it to piping or PV spec?
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe
I started to learn bits and pieces on Australian pressure vessel code (AS 1210) only recently. So excuse my limitation of knowledge on the topic at hand. However, having seen some examples in our plant, I think I can shed some light here with sufficient confidence.
I shall present two excerpts from AS 4343 (Hazard level) that will give you some pointer (if not definitive answer) to the topic under debate:
"Pressure piping is hazardous and, for simplicity, diameter is used in place of volume. The hazard level is made the same as for a pressure vessel with volume equal to that of a pipe length of 10 diameters."
"With a pressure vessel, the entire contents have the potential to be released instantaneously but with pressure piping it is only the volume close to the ends (at the pressure point) of a completely ruptured pipe which influences the immediate damage. In most cases, pressure would reduce and often the flow would be stopped through isolation being provided after the failure."
Due to the above reason, blanked (even if at one end only) pressure piping registered as a pressure vessel will have a lower hazard level than a pressure vessel (as we normally understand of it) of same volume. So, the bottom line is that intended design function and hazard level can dictate whether you will opt to register a blanked (with flanges) pipe segment as a pressure vessel.
For example, in the plant I am working I have seen 1.2m high pressure vessels (vapour condensers) made out of 450mm dia pipe section (ASTM A53 Gr. B, carbon steel) but registered as pressure vessels, because of their function and hazard level (mild-scale laden non-condensable odourous vapour condensed inside the vessel after being flashed off by the lake water spray injection; cleaned vapour is sucked out thru a nozzle on the top flange via a vacuum pump whereas scale laden lake water comes down (gravity flow) thru' the the bottom nozzle to a seal tank via 150mm dia piping.
Comments, most welcome.
Cheers,
Amin
RE: Pressure Vessel vs Pipe