Full vacuum is only 15psi. Assuming you're not talking about quite large tanks, should be fine.

You can use it providing that the name plate says full vacuum as the min pressure.

Many even high pressure vessels don't like negative pressure.

But some size and pressure rating of the vessel would be good to know.

e.g. see this for info https://www.pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/extern... noting that you might need thicker shell / heads for vacuum than pressure if the pressure is relatively low.

I think if you're talking MAWP of >50 bar you're probably Ok, but the devil is in the detail.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

If designed for high pressure the tank may be OK. But even then you need to check for external pressure suitability to be on the safe side. Also since the pressure is variable, the fatigue criteria need also be checked.

Engineers, think what we have done to the environment !https://www.linkedin.com/in/goutam-das-59743b30/

Thank you all for your feedbacks.

Many ASME compressed air tank tells about its maximum pressure rating without min pressure rating.
For example, McMaster Carr is selling an ASME code pressure tank, which does not talk much about its min pressure. I think there is no way that I con contact the seller/manufacturer of this tank and ask this question about the min pressure... right?

I was looking at 60 gallon tank:
https://www.mcmaster.com/9426K23/
Quick FEA seems okay with 1/8" wall thickness .. but this is overly simplified model.

Joseph_L, if you are thinking of buying an off-the-shelf tank, I think the cyclic service is going to be a deal breaker.

Regards,

Mike

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

If there is external pressure, it must be stated on the nameplate. Nothing listed means it hasn't been designed for what you call "min pressure".
I highly doubt 1/8" will meet FV....add cyclic and as Mike stated...a deal breaker.

Well at the end of the day, if the tank fails in vacuum then it collapse or leak and little harm comes to anyone standing next to it. you suddenly lose vacuum which might cause an issue, but we don't know.

HOWEVER, if you use it this way and it fatigues a lit then someone decides to use it as a compressed air tank again then that's a potential rupture right there.

If there is no specific vacuum designation then it is not designed / certified for it.

5 time a minute for how many minutes / cycles?

I can't see a 1/8" steel tank designed for internal pressure lasting very long if this is 10 hours a day for weeks on end.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

The FEA analysis you have done (presumably with external pressure) does not indicate any deflections. Usually FEA software do not have the facility for checking the elastic stabilities under external pressure or compressive loads. So you may get a stress lower than yield stress but the vessel may be elastically unstable and hence buckle. This needs to be checked according to Sec VIII-1.

Engineers, think what we have done to the environment !https://www.linkedin.com/in/goutam-das-59743b30/

Well a little search found this https://www.pneumaticplus.com/vacuum-receiver-tank...

Now the price seems to be about 4 - 6 times more than your air receiver. This tells me there is a big difference between an air receiver and a vacuum when it is properly designed.

You pays your money you take your chances....

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Thank you for all feedbacks.

Cyclic loading is indeed a challenge.
Custom making one will be quite expensive... so I was hoping to find an off-the-shelf item.

This tank is never subject to a pressure higher than atm for its entire lifetime.
This tank is subject to be under cyclic loading 5 times a minute - continuous duty (24 hours).

From the quick FEA with 1/8" wall, max stress is 24 Mpa (3.48 ksi).
General fatigue strength is 40% of ultimate tensile strength.
Roughly 170 MPa (24 ksi) for steel from my research.

The stress seems to be well under its fatigue strength... would it still be a deal breaker?



-------

@goutam_freelance, oh. I should re-calculate the stress.

@joseph_L You should check with Sec VIII Div 1 clause on external pressure design. A detailed procedure is given. Here you check both for stresses and elastic stability.

Engineers, think what we have done to the environment !https://www.linkedin.com/in/goutam-das-59743b30/

What eccentricity did you apply? Have you checked buckling criteria?
What will happen with the light one is that it will start to distort around joints and fittings, and then the local loads will change, and then the loads will become less uniform. A simple dent or ding in the side could lead to collapse.
Pay 5x and get one rated full vac.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed

Thank you all for helping me out.

@goutam_freelance
I will definitely check out ASME Sec VIII Dev i claus for this.

@EdStainless
Would a tank rated for full vacuum withstand the cyclic loading then?
Problem is that I would much prefer to buy a stainless steel tank; then the price would be 7~8 times. If I have to, I will do. I do not want to take a chance in any cases.

Don't take the chance. If you buy an expensive SS non-rated tank then fail it you will look very foolish.
What grade of SS are you looking for?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed

I am looking for 304L or 316L stainless steel.
This tank will be placed in a food processing facility.
I was also considering steel tank with powder coating outside and epoxy lined inside to lower the budget too.

I have contacted McMaster-Carr about the manufacturer of some items and they have passed that information along to me; often the manufacturer won't do a direct on-piece sale, so McMaster-Carr does not lose out.

I am curious as to how the tank will be evacuated and refilled so rapidly. The pressure swing isn't much different than pressure vessel use, so there is that, but I also note that, for example, a soda bottle can see 150psi with no problem but cannot withstand more than 1 psi vacuum. See what happens if there is a flat or dent in the long side of the FEA model to be sure it's stable. (I now see that Ed had a similar observation.)

I am puzzling over the temperature cycle - it seems to me that there will be more cooling than heating, allowing condensation on the humid side (inside and or outside.)

This vacuum receiver tank is used as a vacuum reservoir.
It will be constantly connected to a vacuum pump.

This tank will be used to pull a vacuum from a smaller container rapidly.
So, the ports to those smaller container will be open and close, which would cause the fluctuation of vacuum level.

Did you miss my post? Vacuum receivers are a ready supplied thing but are more expensive. This will be for a good reason.

Search vacuum receivers and stop trying to nickel and dime this.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

@LittleInch, thank you.
I've been contacting many vacuum receiver manufacture.
Appreciated your feedback :)

Joseph_L, one more thing about your analysis, if it has been mentioned I didn't see it.

No openings? Any pressure vessel without openings is....useless.

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

I was being a little harsh there, but the point remains. Clearly vacuum receivers have very different load and stress paths than positive pressure vessels and especially for the lower rated receivers like air receivers, they just are not suitable for use as vacuum receivers.

So if it costs 4-6 times then that's what it costs for something that will last for years.

Try a non certified design intended for a different purpose and see what happens, but if it fails in service this will be a false economy. But will you be long gone by then? Or will the plant manager remember you saved a couple of thousand dollars in construction, but now the plant is down for 5 days while you fix it which results in hundreds of thousands of dollars lost revenue?

Your choice.

But please let us know which choice you made and why.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

@SnTMan, There will be openings... I did not worry too much about the openings at this point, as there will be a port (NPT, Tri-clamp, etc) which would enforce it.

@goutam_freelance, I followed section VIII - Div 1. Got Factor A and B, and from that, I calculated Pa (allowable working pressure).
Yet, I don't quite understand the result. What is the unit of Pa?
If I have not made any mistakes, I got Pa = 0.25 when 1/8" wall is used for 20" dia. (L = 42.5")

@LittleInch, I understood. I know the obvious answer from the engineering standpoint.
The challenge is, the person who will approve or reject my proposal is not an engineer.
I will have to fight against many scientific mythe, company's financial related issues (upfront cost vs. future hidden cost, etc), and many rather interesting 'educated guess' from another field of engineers.
I can easily expect a situation where many conceptual thoughts are thrown at me, and in many cases, those concepts are outside of my comfort zone.
I was trying to think of many other solutions/approaches (nickel and dime basically) to prepare myself in that situation, which would bring you to the uncomfort zone.
But I do appreciate your pushback on me for going non-standard routine.

In case anyone is experiencing the same problem,
Factor B has a unit of MPa. (Strangely the chart that I was referring to is missing a unit).
Pa = 0.25 [MPa]. -> 36 psi

Joseph_L, I ran a guesstimate calculation based on your previous posts, assuming CS material at up to 300 F. I got 33 psig. Mind you, this was for the cylinder only. Calculations shall be made for each component of the vessel, including perhaps opening reinforcement. Lowest value wins.

There is still the cyclic service aspect. That will likely not be so easily finessed.

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

Yes you can use a pressure tank provided it MUST be protected by means of having Vacuum Safety Valve or Breather Valve.

Azrihms.

Did you read the post?

The OP wants to use a standard positive pressure vessel as a vacuum tank. So having a vacuum valve or breather valve means it won't work!

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Quote (Joseph_L)

The stress seems to be well under its fatigue strength.

Yes, assuming carbon steel material Ultimate strength S_ut=60 ksi=414 MPa. The nominal endurance strength S'_e=0.5S_ut=207 MPa. Assuming various fatigue strength modification factors as 0.6 (guess) the fatigue strength S_e=0.6S'_e=124 Mpa.
From your FEA output the max stress is 24 MPa. So it appears safe in fatigue. But this needs to be worked out in detail including the effects of openings where stress can concentrate.

Engineers, think what we have done to the environment !https://www.linkedin.com/in/goutam-das-59743b30/

Designing for external pressure is more complicated than for internal pressure. The failure mode on exceeding the vacuum limit is sudden buckling collapse.
https://www.pveng.com/home/asme-code-design/extern...