HSB Global Standards - steeltank.com Vessels/2012 Fall Conf… · ... Section VIII, Division 1,...

Presented by: David M. Allore

Field Services Manager

September 12, 2012

HSB Global Standards

ASME Code Changes and Discussions

Copyright © 2012 The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance

Company of Connecticut. All Rights Reserved.

AGENDA

• Guidelines for AI Review of Design Calculations

• Frequent Mistakes on ASME Design Files

• Overview of COMPRESS, APV and PV Elite Output Files

• What’s New at ASME

• ASME B&PV Code Updates: 2011 Addenda

2



Guidelines for AI Review of

Design Calculations

3

Section VIII The Inspector has the duty of verifying that the

applicable calculations have been made and are on file

at the Manufacturer’s plant at the time the Data Report is

signed. Any questions concerning the calculations

raised by the inspector must be resolved




Design Calculations (Cont.)

Interpretation: VIII-79-45

Subject: Section VIII, Division 1, U-2(e) and UG-90(c)(1)

Date Issued: July 26, 1979

File: BC-79-105

Question (1): Is it the intent of U-2(e) of Section VIII, Division 1, that the Authorized Inspector

shall check and accept (by signing the U-1 Form) the accuracy of the design calculations with

respect to the proper choice of applicable design formulas, stress values for materials used, and

mathematics?

Reply (1): U-2(e) requires the Inspector to verify that the applicable calculations have been made

and requires that any questions raised by the Inspector be resolved. The Inspector is not required

to check the calculations.

Question (2): Is the intent of U-2(e) in any way modified when Section VIII, Division 1 does not

provide rules covering all the design details as per U-2(g)?

Reply (2): No.

4





Interpretation: I-81-03

Subject: Sections I, IV, and VIII, Duties of Authorized Inspectors

Date Issued: January 27, 1981

File: BC-80-691

Question (1): As related to Section I, Section IV, and Section VIII - Division 1 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, is the Authorized Inspector responsible for the accuracy of the calculations submitted for the finished Code component or part?

Reply (1): No. It is the duty of the Authorized Inspector to determine to his own satisfaction that the necessary calculations were done in accordance with the Code. The responsibility for accuracy of the calculations lies with the Manufacturer.

Question (2): What is the extent of Authorized Inspector responsibility in reviewing design calculations that are made available by the Manufacturer [UG-90(c)(1)(b)]?

Reply (2): The Authorized Inspector must verify that all required design calculations applicable to the construction have been made in accordance with the Code, and that any questions raised by the Inspector are resolved. The Inspector is not required to check for accuracy of the calculations. The responsibility for accuracy of the calculations lies with the Manufacturer.

5





• “necessary calculations” or “required design calculations”

– Phrases interpreted to mean that all pressure retaining

components covered by the Code Stamp must be supported by

code calculations

– AI must have a clear understanding of what constitutes the Code

Stamped Vessel when reviewing assembly drawing

– Complications include:

• Multiple chamber vessels, where one chamber may not be stamped

• Communicating chamber

• Mfg. includes additional piping under Code stamping

6





• Phrase more difficult to interpret

– “… done in accordance with the Code “

• Two possible interpretations

– 1) Verify that each pressure retaining component is supported by a

Code calculation using the correct Code equation, when one is

published, or U-2(g) or equivalent.

– 2) Verify that each pressure retaining component is supported by a

Code calculation using the correct Code equation, when one is

published, or U-2(g) or equivalent. Additionally verify that all of the

variables (dimensions, allowable stress, joint efficiency, etc.)

substituted into the equation are correct. The AI is not responsible

to perform the math.

7





• Interpretation 2 Can Present Some Challenges

– Variables substituted into the equation may not be readily

available; for example

• Component dimensions

• Mixed use of units

• Allowable stress; need access to II-D; interpolation may be

necessary depending on design temperature

• Joint efficiency; requires working knowledge of joint efficiency rules

• Complex calculations; e.g. Part UHX tubesheet calculations, App. 5

& 26 bellows, App. 13 noncircular vessels, App. 2 flanges

• Verification of correct test pressure (hydrostatic or pneumatic)

8



Frequent Mistakes on ASME Design Files

• Common Design Mistakes Identified During Design

Reviews

– Codes & Standards design review process not only verifies that

pressure/temperature (P/T) rating for vessel described on

drawing is correct, but that the P/T rating for all vessel

components are fully supported by the calculations

– Most common mistake

• Discrepancies between drawings and calculations

– Multiple revisions to drawings not always reflected in calculations

• Difference in dimensions

• Difference in material specification or grade

• RT marking versus joint efficiency, E, used in calculations

• Design pressures

9



Frequent Mistakes on ASME

Design Files (Cont.)

• Drawings lack details needed to verify calculations

– Vessel support dimensional information

– Material information; calculations often require detailed

information about material ( e.g. spec/grade/class, normalized or

Q&T, impact tested (Yes or No)

– Weld sizes ( e.g. nozzle, supports)

– UG-22 – Manufacturers should indicate on either drawings or

calculations that UG-22 loads have been considered

10





• Openings

– Reinforcement –

Taking credit for

material that

does not exist

11





• Openings – Overlapping limits of reinforcement

– Some commercial and Mfg. in-house software do not look at the

location of opening in relation to other openings

12





• Small opening weld size

– Small openings that are exempt from reinforcement per

UG-36(c)(3) and weld strength per UW-15, still require their

attachment welds to satisfy UW-16

13





• Finite Element Analysis (FEA)

– Not enough information provided

• Finite element calculations often only include stress result plots

• Critical information missing

– Type of analysis performed; e.g. elastic, limit load, elastic-plastic

– Description of finite element model; e.g. 3-D, axisymmetric

– Description of model elements used

– Description of boundary conditions applied

– Description of applied loads

– List of assumptions, including some technical justification for the assumption

– Reference back to drawings

– Summary with code allowable stress comparisons; stress classification per VIII-2

• Wrong stress theory comparison – Sections VIII-1 based on Maximum Principle Stress Theory; incorrect to use von Mises stresses

14



Overview of COMPRESS, APV and

PV Elite Output Files

• Most common commercial software used for VIII-1

calculations

• COMPRESS by Codeware

• APV (Advanced Pressure Vessel) by Computer

Engineering

• PV Elite or CodeCalc by Coade (or Intergraph)

15



COMPRESS

• Summary Tables – usually in the front of the package

16



COMPRESS

• Summary Tables - continued

17



COMPRESS

• Most of the programs also have listing of UG-22 loads

and whether they were considered.

18



COMPRESS

• The Weight

Summary is also a

good place to see

if they accounted

for items such as

insulation and

other attached

equipment. These

would add weight

to the vessel

support structure.

19



COMPRESS

• Also important to review is the hydrostatic/pneumatic test

summary.

20



COMPRESS

• Drawbacks of the summary tables:

– Location of nozzles

– Nozzle (UW-16) or SO flange weld sizes (UW-21)

– Sizes of supports

• Should check these against the drawing

21



APV

• APV does not have a summary section.

• Need to review each page to determine if the correct

materials, diameters, thicknesses, efficiencies, etc. have

been used.

• Be careful – The cover page is just that - a cover page.

It could have different pressures, temperatures, RT

indication and MDMT than the actual calculation

package uses.

22



APV

• Each page/section will have the inputs (materials, sizes,

thicknesses, efficiencies) that need to be compared to

the information on the drawing.

23



APV

• Some issues to be aware of when looking at APV

calculations:

– Does not look at location of nozzle in relation to anything else

– Joint efficiency is a manual input regardless of what “RT” or type

of joint is chosen.

– Joint efficiency for the longitudinal and circumferential stress

equations can be different and is a manual input not dependent

on type of joint (i.e. designer needs to know the Code well)

24



PV Elite

• PV Elite and CodeCalc both produced by Coade.

• Similar in structure but PV Elite has more for the overall

pressure vessel designer.

25



PV Elite

• Summary tables like COMPRESS but they tend to be at

the back of the reports.

• Summarizes not only nozzle size and thicknesses but

also locations, actual weld sizes for the attachment of

nozzles and SO flanges.

26



PV Elite

• Does list the inputs (materials, sizes, pressures, etc.) at

the front of the report but does it from a point (node) to

point (node) basis. Difficult to interpret sometimes and

to check that they have all components in the report.

27



PV Elite

• It appears that the designer selects the RT marking in

the inputs and the program then selects the efficiencies.

28



PV Elite

• Hydrostatic Test pressure determined for each

component.

• Nozzle flanges P-T ratings summarized in the report

29



PV Elite

• Some advantages to PV Elite is that is contains

Appendix 13 rules as well as some of the more popular

International wind and seismic Codes.

30



Miscellaneous

• We have not seen any programs that evaluate the weld joint

(fillet and groove sizes) of UW-13 for the attachment of flat

heads or tubesheets.

• APV does not have a Division 2 option where COMPRESS

and PV Elite do.

• Although they all have their pros/cons, drawbacks and

idiosyncrasies, if the correct inputs are used, the Code

calculation part of the process is correct.

31



What’s New at ASME?

• 2011 Publication

– ASME published complete reprints (white pages) for all B&PV Code books

– Some books were published with their old software and some with new

software (xml)

– Even though it is a complete reprint, it is considered an Addenda

• On Data Reports, “2010 Edition” and “2011 Addenda” would be listed, not like when

the 1998 Edition came out

• Next publication will be the 2013 Edition

– No Addenda in 2012

– Code Cases will still be published quarterly

– Errata will be published on ASME website as soon as approved

– “Special Safety Notices” may be published on website

– Can subscribe to notifications on website

32




• Code Symbol Stamp

– phased out separate stamps (such as the U) for each Code

– Moved to a single mark for all codes

– new term: "Certification Designator “or “Designator“ defines

the area in which the Certificate Holder is certified by ASME

– For example, for VIII-1, "U" , "UV" or "UD“ marked on the

nameplate directly under the Certification Mark

– Non-nuclear Code Case for 18 month transition

• 2710 (I, IV, X, XII), 2714 (VIII)

• See Code Services Discussion database postings for further

details

– Numerous errata in 2011 Addenda

– ASME posted FAQ’s regarding use of the new Mark.

U

33




• Code Construction at Location Other than that Listed on Certificate

– Certificate Holder may request ASME to authorize code construction at another

location

• Intended for situations where Cert. Holder needs additional production space to

handle overflow work, or perhaps access to a larger crane

– Certificate Holder would apply to ASME requesting permission to fabricate at

additional location (temporary shop)

– ASME would request AIA to audit Temporary Shop and verify that it is suitable

for intended construction activity

– Following receipt of the AIA’s audit report, ASME may issue a Letter authorizing

temporary use of a new shop location for a period of not longer than one year

or to the time the Certificate Holder’s Certificate will expire

34




• Adding Additional Shop Location to Current Certificate

– New Policy - Issued April 2012

– Permits adding one or more locations to existing certificate w/o

audit by ASME

– Intended for shop locations near ( approx. 6 miles ) address on

certificate

– Requires AIA audit to verify all necessary controls in place to

ensure Code compliance at both locations

– Requires same AI to service all locations

– According to Bob Wielgoszinski, there may be some future

restrictions placed on this new policy in near future

36



SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS

FROM 2011 ADDENDA

37



Significant Revision 2011 Addenda

Section VIII, Division 1

• UG-11 – Prefabricated or Preformed Pressure Parts

– Complete rewrite of paragraph

– Combination of restructuring existing requirements, significant clarifications and additional rules

– NET RESULT - clearer rules may be viewed as “new rules”

• Major changes include:

– Emphasis that all UG-11 parts must comply with applicable rules, including design

– Each part must be supported by documentation to demonstrate Code compliance relative to materials, basis for P/T rating, welding complies with Section IX

– Cert. Holder can subcontract welded part fabrication to a non-certificate holder

38



Significant Revisions in 2011 Addenda


• UG-90(c)(1)(n) – “acceptance by the Inspector”

– Statement added that by the Inspector’s acceptance, an Inspector

does not assume any responsibilities that belong to the

Manufacturer

• UG-93 and App 3 – Material documentation

– UG-93(a)(1): expanded documentation requirements for plate

material

– App 3: revised definition of “certificate of compliance”, “material”,

“material supplier” and “Material Test Report”

39





• UW-11(a) – Requirements for full radiography

– Rewrite of UW-11(a)(1) through (a)(4) [See Interpretation VIII-1-07-14]

– Revisions prompted by inquiry

– Changes involve:

• UW-11(a)(2) – changed “vessels” to “shell and heads of vessels” to be consistent with

UW-11(a)(1); also relocated small nozzle and communicating chamber exemption to

UW-11(a)(4)

• UW-11(a)(3) – Added coverage for unfired steam boilers with design pressure < 50

psi (350 kPa)

• Separate full radiography requirements for nozzles and communicating chambers

from vessels [UW-11(a)(2)] and place the requirements in UW-11(a)(4)

– Net Result Unfired steam boiler with P < 50 psi and thickness at welded joint

exceeding thickness limits defined in UW-11(a)(2) will require Full RT

40





• UW-21 – use of B16.5 Flanges

– Code change and Intent Interpretation – rules apply to B16.5 socket

and slip-on flange welds, no matter where they are installed on the

vessel

• Question: Is it the intent that the socket and slip-on flange attachment

details given in Fig. UW-21 for ASME B16.5 flanges apply only to

attachments to nozzle necks?

Reply: No; These attachment details shall be used wherever an ASME

B16.5 slip on flange is used on a Section VIII, Division 1 vessel.

– Note: The revision to Fig. UW-21shows that the dimensional

requirement of the ID fillet weld is only for sizing the weld.

• The artwork was corrected by Errata. It now shows that the fillet

weld is not necessarily flush with the face of the flange.

41





• UW-50 – pneumatic test NDE

– clarify that the required NDE is to take place prior to pneumatic

testing

• UW-51(a)(4) – incorporation of CC 2235 (UT)

– Refers to VIII-2 paragraph 7.5.5 for UT procedure, flaw evaluation

and acceptance criteria

– UT may be used for t > ½ in. (13mm)

– VIII-1 Cert. Holder will need to purchase VIII-2 for UT rules

• UB-30 – subcontracted brazers

– Made consistent with UW-26(d)

– permit subcontracted brazers only at the location(s) at which ASME

has authorized the Manufacture to do work

42




Sections VIII-1 & VIII-2

COMMON RULES

• UCS-67 and 3.11 – toughness rules

– completely rewritten for production testing

– Some technical changes

– Paragraphs deleted and reformatted for better clarity

• UW-3 and 4.2.2 – weld joint Categories

– Clarified that not all weld joints are assigned to a Category

– For example, jacket closure-to-shell and bellows expansion joint

fillet welds

43




Sections VIII-1, VIII-2 & VIII-3

• Tolerances

– Insert the contents regarding tolerances in the Forewords

– New paragraphs: VIII-1 = U-5, VIII-2 =1.5, VIII-3 = KG-160

– Foreword not part of the Code

• Updated referenced standards

– VIII-1 = Table U-3, VIII-2 = Table 1.1, VIII-3 = Table KG-141

– If the Table references “Latest Edition” for the “Year”, this would be

the latest edition publicly available by the standard developing

organization (e.g., ASME or ASTM) as of the contract date (similar to

setting the Edition/Addenda)

• Other editions may be accepted on a case-by-case basis subject to

concurrence by the AI (and SCS and/or Home Office, if necessary)

44




Section IX

• Diffusion Welding

– Added as a new welding process

– QW-185 paragraphs added

– QW-266 – new table of variables

– QW-4XX – new variables added

– QW-386 – new welding operator requirements

– QW/QB-492 – new definition added

• QW-161.1 – specimens

– allow multiple specimens to be taken across the weld

– the entire weld and heat affected zones are tested

45




Section IX

• QW-264 – Laser Beam Welding (LBW)

– Deleted and added references to existing variables and added new

variables

– Made less restrictive

– Will require evaluation of WPS’s and PQR’s

46

Date post:	01-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dangdien
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

HSB Global Standards - steeltank.com Vessels/2012 Fall Conf… · ... Section VIII, Division 1,...

Documents