×
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.

Students Click Here

Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool
5

Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

(OP)
A customer is installing a custom pipe spool within a piping system, simple flanged 'spool' as below. Different material (thicker and higher allowable stress) to the piping. The problem is they require the spool to be designed as a pressure vessel (ASME VIII-1) rather than a pipe spool. Now as the piping designer how do we show the 'nozzle'/body loads from the piping are OK to the vessel code? Any shortcuts? Can we just say the piping stress will be higher than the spool and piping calculations are no less conservative than ASME vessel calculations?

The spool/vessel designer is not being supplied any piping loads, so we will not be getting the calculations from them.

Trying our best to convince the customer to change to the piping code and we just include the spool in the piping stress model.

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

It’s responsibility of the piping designer to receive the actual design condition of the “ASME BPVC pipe” from the responsible Vessel Engineer to ensure that the connecting B31.1 piping are properly specified. Don’t assume anything if something is not clear or lack of information.

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

(OP)
MK3223 thanks for reply
We are have drawings of the "vessel" but with no allowable nozzle/flange loads. The piping is existing so we can not change the pipe. Just need to show the spool/vessel passes code when installed.

We do know for sure the spool is OK if was piping.

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

I don't think you can.

Vessel codes and stresses are different to piping.

Can't understand why this is a vessel, nor can I understand why you didn't supply loads to the vessel designer from your stress analysis??

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

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

Curious about diameter and what is "different material". I may have a simple answer for you.

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

KevinNZ, if you are forced to stay with VIII-I, UG-44(b) has guidance on external loads on standard weld-neck flanges. You may find it useful to specify allowables. Or not :)

Regards,

Mike

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

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

Note that Code Case 2901 has been revised under ASME BPVC C.C Supplemental 4 and might be a better option for design those flanges.

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

OP,
Had a similar situation, may or may not apply. A customer needed a have a venturi fabricated for a steam line. Was it composed mainly of standard piping components? yes, but both the entrance and exit nozzles required fabrication. Because of this, a method for design and fabrication was required. The customer decided to use the BPVC as the guidance. Was this a stamped asset? no, it was just requested so the design and fabrication had known conformity. This may be why your customer is requesting this. It also may be as simple as your customer doesn't want a spool piece that doesn't match the rest of the piping's specification, so they are viewing it as a piece of equipment instead of a standard spool.

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

As the piping designer I would perform the stress analysis considering the spool is just part of the piping using the actual wall thinkness and material allowables of the spool per B31.1. If the stress analysis passes B31.1 requirements then it is OK. They can design the component to be put in the piping to any pre-qualified code or standard allowed by B31.1 but it would still be considered part of the piping.

Piping codes allow components installed in lines to be designed per different codes such as codes for valves, fittings, strainers, etc., and venturies mentioned by Heavyside above. That does not mean they are not part of the piping. Strainers and other components are sometimes designed per ASME B&PV Code as an option of the manufacturer if you want a very heavy duty construction. This does not mean when you install it in the piping you need to analyses the nozzle loads like you analyze a real pressure vessel nozzle loads. No you would just do a piping stress analysis of the piping and model the strainer as a rigid and if the piping stress passed you would assume that the load in the rigid was OK too assuming it is stronger than the piping. What else can you do as you cannot re-evaluate the entire design of the strainer with the piping loads included. You don't even have the original manufacturer's calculations for the strainer.

Besides the nozzle of a real pressure vessel is nothing like a nozzle of an in-line piping component where the nozzle in your case is the full size of the piping. In a pressure vessel nozzle you are analyzing the local stress in the vessel wall due to forces and moments at the nozzle. In your case the situation is totally diffrent and the loads are transfered not to the wall but to the entire structure of the in-line spool just like a piping component. So I would analyze it just as a piping component. As the design engineer of record who is stamping a design I believe you have the authority to make such engineering decisions when you are confronted with non-straight forward cases.

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

As being pipe stress and vessel designer for years, none of the above replies are correct, or shall say only partially correct.
Any pipe or spool can be treated as vessels for specific reasons. I have done 12", 18", 24" pipe as vessels with code stamp. However, stamp is not mandatory if client is ok with that. It can comes with top ,bottom or body flanges, very common and not a big deal, same as the spool.

Snickster you are correct to model as B31.1 for the spool, which is very common to do so and shall do so. But you are not correct when a pipe spool is treated by a vessel code. You can only qualify up to the B31.1 mating flange, but for the body flange on the pipe spool, you will need to use UG-44(b) or equivalent pressure method to qualify. Equivalent pressure method is much more conservative than UG-44(b). Either method is fine. Keep in mind the equation in UG-44(b) is not mandatory. So many people have the wrong impression that that equation is mandatory. It is not. You can use other approaches to prove your flange is good for internal pressure plus external loading. CAESAR II has built-in function to check flange rating with external loading, which is completely different from UG-44(b) and we accept it such that vessel supplier does not need to perform UG-44(b). This is another simple concept but I won't waste time to address here.

For the pipe spool itself, since it will be treated as vessel, then must obtain the longitudinal tension and compressive stresses and compare with Section II, Part D and B factor compressive allowable respectively. If wind/seismic is included, the allowable stresses can be increased by 20%. The vessel code calculation is much complicate than B31.1 or B31.3.

So Kevin, get the external loading at the face of flange, and get a guy who is familiar with vessel code, and either model into PV Elite or Compress, or by hand calculation. This spool is very simple, hand calc can be done to check spool thickness due to internal pressure, the maximum longitudinal tension and compression stresses due to internal pressure (PR/2t), axial force and bending moment acting at the face of flange, than compare with two different allowable. Also to qualify the flange rating per UG-44(b). Very simple, not a big deal.


RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

JT1234

I agee that you should check the flanges per the equivalent pressure method which is included as a subprogram of Caesar. This is typically done for all in-line flanges.

If you think the spool must be analyzed strictly as a pressure vessel then I would do the piping stress analysis and provide the nozzle loads to the manufacturer of the spool. They are designing the spool to ASME so I would let them take full responsibility for the design. I would not take responsibility for a pressure vessel design calculation for a vessel that was designed and provided by others.

I don't know but it seems you are trying to kill a fly with a hammer, but honestly I am not sure what is legally the absolute correct way to proceed.

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

It appears the OP has no knowledge of the applied loads. If so and if the spool uses standard weld neck flanges:

1) Spool cylinder is thicker and of higher allowable than adjacent piping. By inspection cylinder is adequate for loads imposed by the piping.

2) Flanges: evaluate right hand side of equation UG-44(b)(4) equal to, say, X. Inform customer that the left hand side, 16Me + 4FeG ahall be <= equal to X.

MAWP of the spool is easily found from Sec VIII Div 1 and flange rating.

Anyway that was kind of my thinking in offering up UG-44 :)

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

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

(OP)
Hi all, thanks for the input.
Some more context. The spool is DN350 class 300 WN flanges. 10mm wall 2205 stainless (CA 0.5mm). The piping is CS STD 9.52mm (CA 3mm). Design pressure well below full class 300 rating. We have the full piping model and the loads at the flanges. The purchaser has not given these to the spool/vessel vendor/designer.

Engineering logic says the spool is fine if the piping each side is OK. But the miss match of codes is the problem. Looks like someone is going to need to do the ASME vessel and flange calculations to complete the loop, no shortcut? or we could get agreement with the client (and inspector) to redesign it as a pipe spool.

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

What is you roll in all of this. Are you not working as engineer for the purchasing company? I guess a lot depends on what is your liability and responsibility in all of this.

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

Hi,

Refer to U-1(c)(2)(-d), I think that is worth trying to use this paragraph to convince the customer that the spool shall be designed using one of the piping Codes.

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

Wait a minute guys.
No one is talking about if it is an option to design the spool as pressure vessel to Sec VIII Div 1? Typically, a pressure vessel will have a cylindrical body with two end heads and openings.

In our spool case, the cylindrical shell (DN 350) will have both ends with full opening.

Can someone highlight the rules of Div 1 paras that the spool can be designed as a pressure vessel? Once it is viable, the loadings from the two B31.1 piping on the spool is not an issue and many members have talked about it.

GDD
Canada

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

(OP)
Thanks all
U-1(c)(2)(-e) covers this spool nicely. Will use this to get the design code changed.

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

And the stud material is still the same?
Design temperature?

Regards

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

ASME VIII DIV 1
U-1
(a) See below. (1) The Foreword provides the basis for the rules described in this Division. (2) For the scope of this Division, PRESSURE VESSELS ARE CONTAINERS for the containment of pressure, either internal or external. This pressure may be obtained from an external source, or by the application of heat from a direct or indirect source, or any combination thereof (a)

U-1
(2) Based on the Committee’s consideration, the following classes of vessels ARE NOT INCLUDED in the scope of this Division; however, any pressure vessel which meets all the applicable requirements of this Division may be stamped with the Certification Mark with the U Designator: ….....
(-e) piping components, such as pipe, flanges, bolting, gaskets, valves, expansion joints, and fittings, and the pressure-containing parts of other components, such as strainers and devices which serve such purposes as mixing, separating, snubbing, distributing, and metering or controlling flow, provided that pressure-containing parts of such components are generally recognized as piping

I insist: PRESSURE VESSELS ARE CONTAINERS. This spool is not a container and ASME VIII div 1 is NOT APPLIED.

Regards

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

r6155 is correct. The Spool ordinarily can't be treated as pressure vessel.

GDD
Canada

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

Too bad that you guys are not doing enough or seeing enough. I do agree that this small pipe spool shall be treated as piping code, B31.1 or B31.3. However , it can also be treated as vessel if client insists so, just pay more money to have someone to run the required code calculations. Client is not going to gain any extra benefit by doing so, but they pay the money so keep them happy.
We have so many small pipe with specific internals and service, nothing wrong with Div. 1 as I have said.

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

jt1234 is 100% correct. There is nothing prohibitive in using XIII for this purpose. All that those quotes communicate, is that there is nothing requiring the use of XIII for this usage, which is the stated purpose of the code as communicated in the paragraph prior.

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

This is similar to our current project.
Coils for Fired Heaters are specifically excluded from ASME B31.3 but the Contractor is Designing, Fabricating and Inspecting in accordance with B31.3 (with Clients approval)

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

If you are willing to spend the money you could literally have your kitchen sink be designed, fabricated, and stamped in accordance with ASME Section VIII.


-Christine

RE: Pressure Vessel Pipe Spool

In similar situations I add in the respective documents "NOTE: By client requirements (client name)"

Regards

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! Already a Member? Login



News


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