ASME B&PV CODE SECTION VIII PRESSURE VESSEL DESIGN

A COMPARISON – DIVISION 1 versus DIVISION 2

Dwight V. Smith
Colt Engineering Corporation
400, 10201 Southport Rd., S.W.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2W 4X9
Tel: 403-258-8000
Fax: 403-258-5899
E-Mail: smith.dwight@colteng.com

ABSTRACT stresses now permitted, reduce the thickness advantage of Div. 2

Historically, the ASME B&PV Code, Section VIII,
Division 2, Alternative Rules for Construction of Pressure
Vessels (Div.2), ASME [1], was usually considered applicable
only for large, thick walled pressure vessels. Otherwise, ASME
B&PV Code, Section VIII, Division 1, Rules for Construction of
Pressure Vessels (Div. 1), ASME [2], was typically applied. A
case can also be made for the application of the Div. 2 Code
Section for some vessels of lesser thicknesses. Each vessel
should be closely evaluated to ensure the appropriate choice of
Code Section to apply.
This paper discusses some of the differences between the
Div. 1 and Div. 2 Code Sections, summarizes some of the main
design requirements of Div. 2, and presents a case for considering
its use for design conditions not usually considered by some, to
be appropriate for the application of Div. 2 of the ASME Code.
INTRODUCTION
In the past, it was generally accepted that Div. 2 designs
could result in considerable cost savings, Lengsfeld [3], through
reduced material thicknesses only for large, high pressure ASME
Code vessels. This was primarily because of the higher allowable
design stresses permitted for Div. 2, ASME [4], resulting in
thinner materials. Savings were realized by lower costs for
material, fabrication and associated infrastructure. The reduced
costs could be substantial where thick materials were involved.
Thus, only where cost savings were large and obvious, was there
a tendency to utilize a Div. 2 design. Given an increasingly
competitive market place, and considering the potential for cost
savings, Div. 2 designs for lesser thicknesses may be prudent.
Although Div. 1 specifies relatively lower allowable design
stresses, in recognition of advances over the years in steel making
technology and non-destructive examination techniques, Div. 1
has recently been revised to include a design factor of 3.5, as
opposed to 4.0. As a result, the higher Div. 1 allowable design
designs, which utilize a design factor of 3.0. However, a current
in-progress ASME review of Div. 2, may also result in higher
allowable design stresses in future editions of that Code, creating
additional opportunities for increased economy through use of
Div. 2 vessel designs.
Div. 1 stresses reflect the simplified design methods of
Div. 1 which are commonly referred to as ‘design by rules’, as
opposed to Div. 2, where engineering design is referred to as
‘design by analysis’.
Div. 2 recognizes the technical progress made over time,
Canonico [5], with respect to design methods, material
manufacture and non-destructive examination techniques, which
permit the use of higher allowable design stresses consistent with
the following:
• combined stresses under all loading conditions are calculated
more accurately
• vessel materials undergo more extensive examination and
testing
• welded joints are subjected to increased non-destructive
examination
Div. 2 generally dictates a more rigorous engineering design
approach, however, it does provide simplified rules for design in
Part AD. The vessel designer must utilize these rules, as
applicable, in which case some aspects of the design may not be
much more complex than that of a Div. 1 design.
Although a Div. 2 design requires additional engineering,
including Fatigue Analysis evaluation, technical documentation
and inspection, as well as invoking certain in-service restrictions,
the use of thinner materials with the associated cost savings can
easily offset the additional costs of these items. When the
additional requirements of a Div. 2 design are closely evaluated,
it is apparent that they are not necessarily difficult or expensive
to implement. Finally, the availability of computer software
programs today allow for ease of design of either Div. 1 or Div. 2
pressure vessels.
 In proposing a Div. 2 design for a given vessel, the end user
must be consulted and the applicable Jurisdictional requirements
must be understood. The requirements for monitoring, for
example of cyclic conditions, as well as for future inspection, can
add costs that are not acceptable to some end users. In addition,
some Jurisdictions stipulate more stringent requirements
regarding field repairs to Div. 2 vessels. For example, detailed
analysis and repair procedure preparation and approvals can add
significantly to scheduled shutdown times. A given Jurisdiction
may also have more stringent registration requirements, such as
stating that the design firm and/or the design engineer be
registered in that Jurisdiction. The above should be clarified prior
to initiating a Div. 2 design proposal.
It should be noted that the advantages of a Div. 2 design for
SA516-Gr 70 materials are most apparent for design temperatures
of 300°F or less. At higher temperatures, the allowable Div. 2
design stresses for SA516-Gr 70 materials are lower, where those
for Div. 1 are fairly consistent up to much higher temperatures.
Some design condition scenarios can actually result in a Div. 1
design thickness being less than that of a Div. 2 design.
This paper relates primarily to SA516-Gr 70 materials. Other
types, such as high strength materials may provide much greater
economy through the use of a Div. 2 design.
It should not be assumed that, because a particular vessel
design does not require what is traditionally considered ‘heavy
wall’ material, that a Div. 2 design would not be economically
advantageous. Each case should be individually evaluated.
Finally, although a Div. 2 design may be considered for
reasons of economy, Rapoport [6], certain specific design
conditions may also dictate its use. These include:
• cyclic temperatures and pressures
• severe operating temperature gradients
• complex geometrical configurations
REQUIREMENTS FOR ASME SECTION VIII, DIV. 2
User’s Design Specification
A “User’s Design Specification” is required for vessels
designed to Div. 2. This document is usually prepared by the
engineering company on behalf of the end user, and contains
details such as the operating and design conditions, materials of
construction, Fatigue Analysis evaluation, method of support and
location of installation, along with reference to the fabrication
drawings and the process design data.
The Specification is issued to ensure compliance with the
requirements of the latest applicable Edition and Addenda of the
ASME Code, Section VIII, Div. 2 and must be stamped by a
Registered Engineer. This document is not usually complicated or
expensive to prepare.
Manufacturer’s Design Report
A “Manufacturer’s Design Report” is also required. This
document is prepared by the Manufacturer and contains design
and fabrication details/drawings related to the vessel.
The information in the report is a compilation of vessel
related data that already exists as a result of the design and
manufacture of the vessel. This information is also required by
most Clients for a Div. 1 vessel. This document also requires a
Registered Engineer’s stamp and Fabricators of Div. 2 vessels
usually have qualified Engineering personnel on staff. A
Fabricator licensed and experienced in the design and fabrication
of Div. 2 vessels will not have problems generating this
document, nor should it add significant cost.
Fatigue Analysis
Although Fatigue Analysis, where required, can be
expensive, many vessels consist of conventional carbon steel
materials with simple geometric configurations, where Fatigue
Analysis is not required.
The decision as to whether or not a Fatigue Analysis is
required for a particular vessel involves a number of criteria and
is documented in the User’s Design Specification.
Even in cases where an analysis is required, the cost should
be evaluated relative to savings in other areas, as an analysis is
not necessarily overly complex and may be readily carried out by
Engineers experienced in this area. It should be noted that a
Fatigue Analysis may also be required for a Div. 1 vessel.
Inspection
Inspection requirements for a Div. 1 vessel may differ little,
if at all, from those invoked by Div. 2. Many industry
specifications, such as those for vessels in sour service, stipulate
inspection requirements exceeding those of Div. 1. In some cases
the specified inspection requirements even exceed those of Div.
2. Therefore, the engineering company, or end user specified
inspection details, for a particular vessel, must be evaluated
against the requirements of the applicable ASME Code Division,
to assist in the decision as to the appropriate Code Division to
apply.
PURCHASING/FABRICATION
The fabrication costs for a Div. 2 vessel can actually be less
than those for Div. 1. The thinner material requirements may
result in reduced material purchase price, as well as a reduction in
preparation, handling and welding costs.
INSTALLATION/INFRASTRUCTURE/SHIPPING COSTS
Because of the reduced material thickness and weight,
installation and infrastructure costs can also be reduced.
Therefore, the total installed cost of a vessel may be reduced
further through savings related to concrete foundations, structural
steel and lifting cranes. Shipping costs should also be lower, and
in fact, fabricators who would not otherwise be able manufacture
or ship a vessel designed to Div. 1, due to weight restrictions,
may otherwise be able to provide a quotation for Div. 2 vessel
with materials of lesser thicknesses.
A WORKABLE EXAMPLE
Following is an example of a vessel that historically, might
not be considered as a candidate for a Div. 2 design. (ref. Table 1,
“WORKABLE EXAMPLE PARAMETERS” and Cost &
Thickness Summary Graphs, Figures 1 and 2, respectively):
Design Conditions:
Material: SA 516-70 ID: 14 ft.
Pressure: 450 psi Length: 100 ft.
Temperature: 300°F Jeff: 1.0
Heads: 2:1 SE CA: 0.1250 in.
 Allowable Calc Actual Calc Actual Calc
Stress t t ∆t ∆t Wt
(psi) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (lbs)
Div. 1 20,000 2.041 2.0625 482,000
0.2190 0.1875
Div.2 22,500 1.822 1.8750 430,421
* Cost savings based on $2.50/fabricated lb.
TABLE 1
WORKABLE EXAMPLE PARAMETERS
DISCUSSION OF WORKABLE EXAMPLE
Table 1 shows a comparison of Div. 1 versus Div. 2, in
terms of the differences in calculated thicknesses (Calc ∆t) and
the differences in actual thicknesses (Actual ∆t). Actual thickness
(t) values represent commonly commercially available material
thicknesses. Similarly, the corresponding differences in calculated
and actual weights, are also shown. Finally, the resulting
calculated and actual cost savings are indicated.
Figure 1, “Vessel Cost Summary”, shows the variation in
cost relative to three factors; vessel length, vessel diameter and
the Code Div. utilized. It can be seen that, as the diameter for a
given length increases, the Div. 2 cost benefit also increases.
Further, as the vessel length increases, the Div. 2 cost benefit also
increases. This is because, as the vessel length increases, the
vessel weight increase is greater for a Div. 1 design, than for a
Div. 2 design. Greater weight corresponds to increased cost.
Figure 2, “Vessel Thickness Summary”, shows the variation
in thickness relative to three factors; diameter, pressure and Code
Div. utilized. It can be seen that as the pressure for a given
diameter increases, the thickness also increases. Further, as the
vessel diameter increases, the thickness benefit (cost reduction)
related to a Div. 2 design also increases.
The data shows that even without considering reduced
infrastructure requirements, the capital cost savings can be
significant by utilizing a Div. 2 design. In this example, any
additional requirements invoked by a Div. 2 design, might be
justified from a cost perspective, even allowing for additional
costs where a Vendor quotes higher pricing for a Div. 2
engineering design. It should be noted however that the number
of qualified manufacturers for Div. 2 vessel work, is much lower
than that for Div. 1. This means that a less competitive
environment may exist for Div. 2 vessel manufacture.
Smaller vessels or other design conditions may result in less
cost savings per unit. However, individual evaluation of each case
will maximize commercial benefits. This is particularly true
where a number of vessels are involved, where the cumulative
cost savings can be significant. In the example presented here, if
two vessels were being purchased, the cost savings could
approach a quarter of a million dollars, even without considering
infrastructure cost savings.
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
In addition to large, thick pressure vessels, in some cases
significant cost savings may be realized by utilizing an ASME
Code, Div. 2 design for large carbon steel vessels at lower design
pressures/temperatures, with thinner materials. This is primarily
true for design temperatures of 300°F or less.
Although a Div. 2 design requires additional engineering,
including Fatigue Analysis evaluation, technical documentation
and inspection, as well as invoking restrictions on future field
Actual Calc Actual
Calc Cost Actual Cost
Wt ∆wt ∆wt
Saving* Saving*
(lbs) (lbs) (lbs)
487,100
51,579 44,100 $128,947.00 $110,250.00
443,000
repairs and monitoring, the use of thinner materials can offset the
additional costs of these items.
When the additional requirements of a Div. 2 design are
closely evaluated, it is apparent that they are not necessarily
difficult or expensive to implement.
Lower weights and thinner materials should reduce
fabrication and shipping costs, as well as costs for installation and
infrastructure.
Fabricators who would not otherwise be able to provide a
quotation, due to inability to manufacture or ship a vessel
designed to Div. 1, because of weight restrictions, may be able to
provide a quotation.
For certain pressure vessels, the use of an ASME Code,
Section VIII, Div. 2 design can result in substantial cost savings,
in terms of total installed cost. This is particularly true, for
example, where large vessels will be field fabricated. However,
even smaller, lower pressure vessels to be shop fabricated can
result in significant cost savings, particularly on a cumulative
basis.
Each case should be evaluated on an individual basis to
determine the most cost effective design Code, and where
preliminary calculations indicate that a Div. 2 design may result
in significant cost savings, Vendors should be requested to
provide costs for both a Div. 1 and a Div. 2 option.
REFERENCES
1. ASME International, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code, Section VIII, Division 2, 2001 Edition, New York
2. ASME International, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code, Section VIII, Division 1, 2001 Edition, New York
3. Lengsfeld M., Holman R., Lengsfeld P., 1995 “Economic
Advantages of Division 2 Design For Vessels Per ASME
Code Section VIII”, PVP 313-2, International Pressure
Vessels and Piping Codes and Standards: Volume 2 – Current
Perspectives ASME 1995
4. ASME International, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code, Section II, Part D, 2001 Edition, New York
5. Canonico D. A., 1999, “Adjusting the Boiler Code”, An
article based on an address delivered to the 68th General Joint
Meeting of the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Inspectors and the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
6. Rapoport A., 1990, “ASME Code, Section VIII, Div.2 & its
Comparison to Div.1”, Colt Engineering Corporation,
Calgary, Alberta