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!

*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.

Jobs

2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

(OP)
Hi all,

I understand that 2:1 Ellipsoidal head has crown radius (L) = 0.9D and Knuckle radius (r) = 0.17D. So is it true that 2:1 Torispherical head has the same crown radius and knuckle radius as 2:1 Ellipsoidal head ? If yes, Can someone guide me where to find this information.

Or someone can guide me where to find information regarding above to let me have a good understanding.

Thanks and cheers.

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

As per UG-32(e), the crown radius = outside diameter of skirt for torispherical heads
For ellipsoidal the crown radius L is obtained from Table UG-37.

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

Ellipse has infinite radius
Torispherical (spherical dished) head has L= inside spherical or crown radius and r = inside knuckle radius
Ellipsoidal head 2:1 means that inside diameter is 2 x inside depth of head

UG-32 (C): An acceptable approximation of a 2:1 ellipsoidal head is one with a knuckle radius of 0.17D and a spherical radius
of 0.90D

Regards
r6155

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

r6155 has it correct that ASME Section VIII, Division 1, paragraph UG-32(c) does indeed allow that a permissible approximation of a 2:1 semi-elliptical head is a torispherical head with a crown radius of 0.9D and a knuckle radius of 0.17D.

However, in my opinion, that is a geometric approximation only. The two heads have very different stress results, particularly at the edge of the so-called knuckle. In fact, if you calculate the required thickness of this "equivalent" 90-17" torispherical head using the rules in Appendix 1-4, you will end up with a thicker head than a pure 2:1 semi-elliptical. This is recognized as a problem/inconsistency in the Code, and one that I have the privilege of acting as Technical Project Manager (in SG-Design of VIII) to correct. I (along with a few colleagues) are also writing a "whitepaper" on the subject that will be published at the 2017 PVP Conference.

So, I know this topic inside and out. Go ahead and ask any more questions... smile

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

To avoid problems I propose to delete UG-32 (c) entirely.

Regards
r6155

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

Sorry my mistake

To avoid problems I propose to delete the last sentence of UG-32 (c): "An acceptable approximation of a 2:1 ellipsoidal head is one with a knuckle radius of 0.17D and a spherical radius of 0.90D"

Regards
r6155

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

I just assumed that the 90%/17% approximation was based on the assumption that heads weren't formed much more accurately than that, anyway, so you were just fooling yourself to think that one head was truly elliptical and one truly torospherical in the comparison of the two profiles.
Come to think of it, is the inside surface supposed to be an ellipse, or the outside, or the middle surface, or the middle surface of the corroded profile or what? I'm thinking that when you offset an ellipse by a given thickness, the offset curve is no longer an ellipse. Normally, theoretical analyses assume the middle surface is the exact profile.

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

r6155Thank you for your opinion. That is one of the options that I am considering. However, the rules for heads are very different between VIII-1 and VIII-2, with the latest technology skipping VIII-1 and going straight into VIII-2. UG-32(d) and/or 1-4 doesn't align with 4.3.6 (even using an equivalent allowable stress basis), so there's a consistency problem, too.

JStephenIt's the inner surface. Because when the head manufacturer forges the head, his die is for the ID. he can make many different thickness heads with the same die just by changing the blank thickness.

Here's where things get a little bit more complicated - the information that I have been provided by head manufacturers (and I am very interested to hear from other head manufacturers) is that sizes greater than ~4' dia will not be forged with an elliptical die, but rather bumped and spun, meaning that they will be torispherical heads. So, with UG-32(c), even if you order a 2:1 semi-elliptical head, over 4' dia you will likely get the equivalent torispherical head.

What makes this important for me is that, as an FEA guy who often gets called when manufacturers need to do things like put nozzles into head knuckles, even if the drawing says a 2:1 semi-elliptical (and the calculations show the thickness for a 2:1 semi-elliptical), it may in fact be a 90-17 torispherical. And this would make a huge difference in the stress state for a nozzle in said knuckle.

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

(Sighhhhh) I miss the old days :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

I may misunderstand the forming process- but I thought on a spun head, the crown/knuckle radius came from the movement of the rollers, not from the curvature of the rollers, so it wasn't necessarily a torispherical head even if spun.

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

TGS4 – Another inconsitency is in UG-81
(b) Hemispherical heads or any spherical portion of a
torispherical or ellipsoidal head designed for external
pressure shall, in addition to satisfying (a) above, meet
the tolerances specified for spheres in UG-80(b) using a
value of 0.5 for L/Do .

We can’t do thickness calculation as ellipsoidal head and then inspect as torispherical. I always inspect ellipsoidal head with template made with dimensions according to ellipsoidal.

Regards
r6155

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

"Come to think of it, is the inside surface supposed to be an ellipse, or the outside, or the middle surface, or the middle surface of the corroded profile or what? I'm thinking that when you offset an ellipse by a given thickness, the offset curve is no longer an ellipse. Normally, theoretical analyses assume the middle surface is the exact profile."

1- In my discussions with head manufacturers they will generally form the heads so that the inner surface is ellipsoidal. But this needn't always be the case, one could pay the piper (or for head fabricator) to form the head to any desired configuration.

2- Yes, it's mathematically true (and practically so, as well) that a curved line "parallel" to an ellipse is not itself an ellipse.

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

T.E heads?
I've been working in pressure vessels since '86 and never built, bought or specified a T.E head. Ever.
Back in the 1950s when vessels were designed on a slide-rule, T.E heads made some sense.
Why?
Well, stresses in spheres and toroids were very well understood at the time [Timoshenko, etc.], and a T.E head is simply a part of a sphere attached to a part of a torus, attached to a cylinder: a fairly simple calculation. S.E heads were a bit of a black art back then, being designed on empirical bases.
In the modern (computer) age I cannot see any justification for a T.E over an S.E and I do not think I will use them ever again.
PS: If a sub-supplier has difficulty rolling an S.E head to your requirements, maybe he is not the one for you .....

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

Have you ever checked any of your 2:1 semi-elliptical heads with a template to see whether or not they are true semi-elliptical heads or if they are equivalent 90-17 torispherical heads? And can you even tell with the tolerances in UG-81? With the statement in UG-36(c) (note that this used to be UG-36(d)), it is likely that you weren't even told of the switcheroo, because it was/is all perfectly legal.

I will also refer you VIII-2 4.3.6 and 4.3.7, whereby the thickness of 2:1 semi-elliptical heads are explicitly calculated using the 90-17 torispherical head approximation.

p.s. your abbreviations T.E and S.E are not understood on this side of the pond. I find that abbreviation generally don't translate well - which is why I have taken the pains to spell out as much as I can...

p.p.s. Elliptical heads are generally pressed, not rolled. Torispherical heads are generally rolled/spun.

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

Have you ever checked any of your 2:1 semi-elliptical heads with a template to see whether or not they are true semi-elliptical heads or if they are equivalent 90-17 torispherical heads?

YES, and Code tolerances apply.

I will also refer you VIII-2 4.3.6 and 4.3.7, whereby the thickness of 2:1 semi-elliptical heads are explicitly calculated using the 90-17 torispherical head approximation.

Yes, and what is wrong with that? I never said that design of S.E heads is anything other that empirical (see above). Code design rules.

p.s. your abbreviations T.E and S.E are not understood on this side of the pond...

Do not care. You say tomato and I say tomato. We are not all Americans, please accept.

p.p.s. Elliptical heads are generally pressed, not rolled. Torispherical heads are generally rolled/spun.

Yep, my fault. Thanks!

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

Quote:

Have you ever checked any of your 2:1 semi-elliptical heads with a template to see whether or not they are true semi-elliptical heads or if they are equivalent 90-17 torispherical heads?

YES, and Code tolerances apply.
Very interesting. Do you have any anecdotal data to say whether or not you were getting 2:1 semi-elliptical or 90-17 torispherical? At what sizes? Most head manufacturers that I have talked with say that below 4' diameter you will usually get a 2:1 semi-elliptical, but above that size will be the 90-17 equivalent torispherical.

Quote:

I never said that design of S.E heads is anything other that empirical (see above). Code design rules.
The design rules in 4.3.6 are most certainly not empirical, but quote rigorously scientific, evaluating multiple failure modes.

Quote:

We are not all Americans, please accept.
Indeed we are not - I am not American either. Many on here don't even speak English as a first language. If you want yourself to be understood, you may want to keep the lingo/abbreviations/shorthand to a minimum.

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

You first said that:

(I) "the thickness of 2:1 semi-elliptical heads are explicitly calculated using the 90-17 torispherical head approximation" [i.e., empirical]

and yet later you say that:

(II) "the design rules are most certainly not empirical, but quote rigorously scientific [ ... ?], evaluating multiple failure modes"

Could you explain whether the design rules for S.E heads are based on rigorous science (as you say in II), or empirical bases (as you say in I)?

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

I said that the rules in 4.3.6 are rigorous. The rules in 4.3.6 are for torispherical heads.

I'm not so sure how happy I am with the approximation in 4.3.7 (approximating a 2:1 semi-elliptical head with a 90-17 torispherical head), but if that is, in fact, what head manufacturers are providing for semi-elliptical heads above certain sizes anyway, then it really doesn't matter, does it?

Nevertheless, the biggest concern is that although the 2:1 semi-elliptical head and the 90-17 torispherical head, although from a geometric perspective they appear to be close enough approximations, the stress results from them are anything but. Apparently, shells of revolution are extremely sensitive to minor variations in shape smile

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

I made tank heads for 28 years. Back in the olden days we made SE 2:1 heads using an 85-15 approximation. Later we switched to the 90-17 method because it is more economical. However we always checked our SE heads against templates that were cut to actual 2:1 elliptical radii. Using either the 85-15 or 90-17 method produced parts well within the tolerances of UG-81. We're not making Swiss watches here guys/gals. FYI the depth of a 2:1 elliptical head is not 1/2 the diameter it is 1/2 the radius or 1/4 of the diameter.

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

Quote (Don56)

We're not making Swiss watches here guys/gals.

Thank you for that:)

Regards,

Mike

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

Hi,

I know this post is a few months old but I did not think I needed to create a new one since it is exactly about this topic.

First of all, thank you all for sharing your thoughts on this, really great discussion.

I understand the "inconsistency" of this approximation and I share the thoughts of TGS4 on this. However I still have one question, on designing using the formula provided on UG-32(d) and by the aproximation of 90/17 using 1-4(d) I end up with a thickness 1.19 times higher when calculating as a torispherical head. I also plotted the ratio between these thicknesss varying diameter,pressure,allowable stresses and when comparing, this ratio remains always the same.

So I ask, when designing a vessel if I specify a semi eliptical head say of minimum thickness X, and my head manufacturer supply me with a approximated torispherical head of minimum thickness X, is this vessel code compliant? I ask because this 20% thickness difference, that on one hand helps saving money, but on the other hand can lead to safety issues. What is your opinion on that.

Kind Regards,

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

That inconsistency is definitely an issue that is well recognized by the ASME Code Committee. As far as I am concerned, it all depends on whether you're getting a true semi-ellipsoidal or torispherical head.

Btw, I am putting forward a proposal at the August Code Committee meetings to delete the equivalency in UG-36(c), per r6155's suggestion above. The proposal will also require head manufacturers too explicitly state which shape they are using. And, it will impose the external pressure tolerances on thin heads where knuckle buckling is a governing condition. Ideally, I would like to completely replace the VIII-1 head rules with what's in VIII-2, but that may be a tougher sell. Comments from the community?

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

I agree on deleting the equivalency in UG-36(c). However, in Divison 2, this equivalency is the basis of the design for the elipsoidal head in 4.3.7.1, will be there any change on that also?

The way I see, if it goes with only deleting the UG-36(c), the head manufacturers that supply "false" elipsoidal heads will either have to adapt their technology (high costs for them), or the designers will have to stop specifying "true" elipsoidal heads, hence adding more cost to the project as the thickness calculated by the "false" elipsoidal head is about 20% higher.

The scenario today is designers specifying "true" heads and getting "false" heads. Good for the investor (less cost on head plates), good for the manufacturer (no need to invest in different dies). However, it is indeed an engineering problem, one has to define if this approximation can or cannot be made and the rest will be consequence for that.

In my humble opinion, I think the best way would be as you described, completely replacing the rules of division 1 by the rules on division 2. This way we would be getting always "false" elipsoidal heads, but that is what we would be designing for. But as you said, a tough sell to be made.

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

Out of interest, have there been any vessel failures cause by this discrepancy between SE and TS heads initiating the investigation of these methods, or is it more for completeness of the S8 codes?

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

No failures that I'm aware of. Possibly hydrotest failures. The margin against failure is high enough that 18% shouldn't matter. Internal self-consistency is important, however.

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

In one respect the equivalency comment and discrepancy between UG-32(c) and 1-4 is good because it triggers useful discussions between engineers and manufacturers. Conversely, as already stated, although geometrically similar the circumferential stress can be quite different and the discrepancy can lead to different opinions and inconsistencies when doing design and/or in-service assessments. Going forward, for consistency above all else, I think the deletion of the equivalency comment and mandating manufacturers explicitly state the shape and external pressure limits is an excellent idea.

I'm certain this wouldn't fall under the ASME B&PV Working Group remit but what are the thoughts to adding detail within API 579 on what considerations should be made if assessing wall thinning damage - or other damage mechanisms - in the region of the head where there is a compressive circumferential stress. Perhaps a sentence or two within the 2C.3.5 or 2C.3.6 on the geometric sensitivity and taking actual measurements using a template, plumb line and/or laser etc.? Possibly something within Part 5 of ASME VIII-2 also to cover instances where features are added to this region.

RE: 2:1 Elliptical Vs 2:1 Torispherical Heads

From reading above, it sounds like a head produced to the 90:17 meets the tolerances for a 2:1 elliptical?
IE, if you have the physical head in front of you, is there any way to confirm which profile it was intended to represent?
So far as changing up the code, I'm not seeing what problem that solves.
I'd be curious if those two profiles get closer together when pressurized.


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


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close