Chapter 2

2.1 design process and consideration

PRESSURE vessels and piping systems, as components of a complete plant, are designed to meet those
requirements specified by the team of process engineers, thermos dynamists and physicists responsible
for the overall design. PRESSURE vessels and piping systems, as components of a complete plant, are
designed to meet those requirements specified by the team of process engineers, thermos dynamists and
physicists responsible for the overall design.
The first step in the design procedure, is then to select all the relevant information, establishing in this
way a body of design requirements. The necessary information includes in the first instance the
functional and operational requirements and limitations. In addition, the requirements of one or several of
the Design Codes may also have to be considered.

Once all the design requirements have been established suitable materials are selected. For the materials
selected, the specified Design Code will give an allowable design or nominal stress that is used to
dimension the main pressure shell. Additional Code rules usually cover the design of the various vessel
components, such as nozzles, flanges, etc. Following these rules, This preliminary layout is then studied
and possibly modified until a final design is obtained and shown to be adequate.

Most of the types of failure relevant in pressure vessel design are primarily stress dependent. For this
reason, it becomes necessary in order to ensure the adequacy of the design to assess the stress distribution
following the general methods. The stress level is then maintained below the values established , where
the following types of failures are considered in detail:

 Plastic collapse in one pressurization.

 Incremental collapse and fatigue.
 Low stress brittle fracture.
 Creep.
 Buckling
Also, design rules, based on experience, are given. It is essential for these rules to be incorporated in the
design. The proposed design, obtained following this procedure, is finally altered until the most
economical and reliable product is obtained.
For our specific pressure vessel the general process of the design are the following
 Identify and input the design specification.
 According to the design specification define and identify the required pressure vessel.
 Select material according to the specification by considering different factors.
 Determine the weld types and weld efficiency.
 Determine the length and diameter using standard (L/D) ratio according to the given
25 pressure value.
 Calculation and design of the shell based on the specification and the appropriate ASME
code
 Selecting the preferable type of head based on the given pressure and calculate head
 Thickness.
 Selecting standard flange based on flange rating and design the flange.
 Consider the following factors while designing the flange Operation and gasket seat
parameters Specified gasket widths, Flange facing, nubbin width, Bolt size number
and spacing.
  In gasket design determine gasket type gasket width, gasket materials and contact
facings.
 Identify and select standard wall thickness of the nozzle.
 By using area replacement method, we will check reinforcement requirement.
 Examine our pressure vessel for maximum allowable working stress for the
combined internal service pressure and external loads.
 Design manhole (inspection) for our pressure vessel.
 Support design and finalize the design and prepare the 3D and 2D drawing by using
the appropriate parameters from the analysis above.
 Presenting your design for the customer

2. 4 selected concepts
2.4.1 Designing a pressure vessel for containing nitrogen using stainless steel as the material
choice involves focusing on specific design objectives and key features tailored to this material:

1. Corrosion Resistance: Stainless steel is chosen for its excellent corrosion resistance properties.
Designing the vessel to utilize the corrosion-resistant nature of stainless steel ensures durability
and longevity, especially in environments where nitrogen might induce corrosion.
2. Pressure Rating and Strength: While stainless steel is inherently strong, it's essential to ensure
that the vessel design accounts for the specific pressure rating requirements of containing
nitrogen. This involves selecting stainless steel grades with appropriate tensile strength and
thickness to withstand the internal pressure.
3. Temperature Control and Thermal Stability: Stainless steel maintains its mechanical
properties over a wide range of temperatures, making it suitable for storing nitrogen, which can
be stored at cryogenic temperatures or at ambient conditions. Design considerations should
ensure that the vessel maintains structural integrity and does not undergo significant changes in
properties due to temperature fluctuations.
4. Weld ability and Fabrication: Stainless steel is known for its weld ability, allowing for the
fabrication of complex vessel geometries. Designing the vessel with suitable welding techniques
and procedures ensures strong, leak-proof joints, critical for containing high-pressure nitrogen
safely.
5. Surface Finish: Proper surface finish is crucial to prevent contamination and ensure cleanliness,
especially in applications where the purity of nitrogen is essential. Designing the vessel with
appropriate surface finishes such as electro polishing or passivation helps maintain the integrity
of the stored nitrogen.
6. Fatigue Resistance: Nitrogen storage vessels might undergo cyclic loading due to pressure
variations during filling, emptying, or temperature changes. Designing the vessel with
considerations for fatigue resistance helps prevent failure due to repetitive stress cycles, ensuring
long-term reliability.
7. Compatibility with Nitrogen: Stainless steel should be selected based on its compatibility with
nitrogen gas to avoid any adverse reactions or material degradation over time. This involves
considering factors such as embrittlement or hydrogen-induced cracking in the presence of
nitrogen.
2.4.2 Alternative design concepts for achieving the goal
A survey of the literature on the subject of horizontal pressure vessel design shows that adequate analysis
methods have been developed in the areas of structural analysis and cost estimation. However, there is a
lack of a design method for achieving the best design within the system constraints. The ASME Pressure
Vessel and Piping Committee recognizes the lack of research on design methods in the field of pressure
vessels and strongly recommends that research be done more extensively in this field, page . Even so, the
literature survey does not show any publications of studies being done on rational synthesis for vessel
design.
Design synthesis involves the identification, formulation and solution of the decision support problems
whichrepresent either selection or compromise. Selection involves choosing one from several alternatives
without modifying them, whereas in compromise the designer seeks to improve an alternative through
modification. The information required for solving a decision support problem is of two types: "hard"
information (based on scientific principles, accurate data, etc.), and "soft" information (based on
assumptions, experience, judgment, etc.). All design problems involving synthesis include both types of
information.

In general, a decision support problem involving selection can be stated as follows

: Selection: Choose one feasible alternative from several alternatives without modification.
Given - A set of alternatives.
: Identify: The principal attributes that influence selection. The relative importance of the attributes.- The
feasible alternatives.
Rank: The feasible alternatives in order of preference based on their attributes and their relative
importance.

The decision support problem involving compromise has the following structure
Compromise: Improve an alternative through modification
Given: An alternative.
Find: The value of the independent system variables. The value of the deviation variables.
Satisfy: System constraints. These must be satisfied for feasibility. Goal constraints. These need to be
achieved as far as possible. Bounds. Lower and upper bounds on both the system and the deviation
variables.
Minimize: The deviation between the specified goals and the estimated performance.
The design of horizontal pressure vessels is found to fit well into this framework. The problem of material
selection for the shell and heads is structured and solved manually in the preliminary design phase.

Next, the compromise problem of fabrication cost and damage tolerance is formulated and solved
with the aid of a computer.
A general procedure using the ADVANCES method for horizontal vessel design is flowcharted in Fig. 2.
 For comparison purposes, the traditional method of design widely used in industry is presented in Fig. 3.
Both the traditional method and the ADVANCES method attack the design problems of material selection
and cost-strength objectives. However, there is a sharp contrast in how the problems are handled to obtain
the final designs. In the traditional method, material for the shell and the heads is selected using material
design guides which recommend commonly used materials in a variety of design conditions. These guides
are useful in selecting materials in extreme cases where severe design conditions permit only the use of
certain suitable materials. They do not offer any guide to selecting the best material for a design when
more than one material may be available. On the other hand, the selection problem in the ADVANCES
method is solved systematically using the well-developed selection method, which helps the designer
identify not only the best alternative but also the second best and so on. Both the traditional method and
the ADVANCES method start solving the cost-strength compromise problem with an assumed set of
system variables. These values are based on certain rules of thumb as well as on preliminary calculations.
The traditional method makes use of essentially a trial-and-error procedure to check the adequacy of the
vessel cost and its strength. If either the cost or the strength of the vessel does not meet the design
specifications, the system variables are modified to upgrade the design for the next iteration. The design
is considered final after the vessel cost and the strength goals are achieved to the greatest possible extent.
In the traditional method, there is virtually no intraction between the system variables. Neither is the
intraction between the cost objective and the strength objective taken into account. In the ADVANCES
method, the intraction between the cost and strength objectives is taken into account. The multiple
objectives of the problem are handled by the goal-programming technique, a form of opitemization which
allows for the consideration of multiple goals. The lower priority goal (strength) is considered only after
the higher priority goal (cost) has been achieved. Intraction between the system variables and the system
constrains is accounted for as a matter of course. Post solution analysis is an additional feature of the
ADVANCES method.
The scope of the ADVANCES method is limited to large horizontal pressure vessels on support saddles.

1 Goals of the Compromise Decision Support Problem

 The primary goal of the compromise problem is to minimize the fabrication cost of the vessel. A
desirable design should satisfy all the imposed strength constraints and at the same time require a
lower initial investment than those of other competitive designs.
 The secondary goal is to augment the damage tolerance level of the design under vacuum
condition. This goal can be achieved by minimizing the difference in factor of safety for the shell
and the heads.
 The third goal of the compromise problem is to minimize the difference in thickness between the
shell and the head. This objective serves to facilitate the fabrication process which may be
burdened with complicated machining and welding of shell-head joints of greatly different
thickness. This also plays an important role in reducing the localized stresses at the junction.
 The minimization of cost is the priority goal of the compromise problem. The other goals are
secondary, to be considered only after the priority goal has been achieved.
1.1 Goal Constraint on the Vessel Cost.
The goal constraint on the vessel fabrication cost can be put in the following form.

Minimization of the vessel cost is achieved by minimizing the value of the deviation variable D4.
Note that this goal constraint is fictitious since there is no real constraint on cost of a design. It is
formulated in this way so as to be compatible with the other objectives.
1.2 . Goal Constraint on the Damage Tolerance of the Vessel Under Vacuum
Condition
The purpose of this goal is to augment the damage tolerance of a design with respect to
external pressure loading (vacuum condition). This objective is achieved by minimizing the
difference in factor of safety for the shell and the heads. An efficient vessel structure can thus
be designed with a well-selected distribution of material for effective resistance to failure and
deterioration.
The general constraint on damage tolerance of a design is written as.

Note that FCJFD, and N, represent the individual component factor of safety and the target
factor of safety, respectively. Using the preceding constraint for the damage tolerance of the
vessel design yields.
 In the equation, the capability for the shell is 3PAS since the value of the allowable pressure
PAS is taken as 1/3 of the theoretical maximum pressure [14]. A similar argument holds for
the capability function for the head. Multiplying both sides of equation (3) by 3 gives.

This is the goal constraint on the damage tolerance of the design. A desirable distribution of component
factor of safety is achieved by minimizing both the values of the deviation variables D2 and D5.

1.3 Goal Constraint on Thickness of Shell and Head.

The goal constraint on the shell thickness and the head thickness is put in the form

The purpose of this design goal is to minimize the difference in thickness of the shell and of the
head. To achieve this objective, both the deviation variables D3 and D6 are to be minvimized.

2. The Application Range

The feasibility of using the ADVANCES method is examined by using both this method and the
PVD program to design vessels of various sizes in case studies. Conclusions regarding the
feasible application of the ADVANCES method to vessel design will be drawn from the
comparison of results obtained by both methods. Even after the scope of this work has been
narrowed down to the design of horizontal vessels on support saddles, it is virtually impossible to
consider all the possible designs which have combinations of different dimensions and design
conditions. The vessel cost, the allowable external pressure, and the thickness difference for all
case studies are summarized in Table 1 for comparison. The results indicate the superiority of the
ADVANCES method in achieving designs of lower costs and higher allowable external
pressures. The difference in thickness between the shell and the head is well achieved by both
methods in most cases.
An important conclusion is drawn from observing the trend of fabrication cost: The larger the
vessel dimensions (diameter and length), the more feasible (more cost reduction) the use of the
ADVANCES method is.

3. Material Selection for Shell and Head: The Selection

Decision Support Problem
The ADVANCES method helps the vessel designer in specifying the best alternative among
commonly used vessel materials to suit particular design conditions. This method is helpful when
the decision on what material to use is left up to the vessel designer in the lack of stringent project
specifications.
There are many factors, supported by laboratory test results and experience, which must be
considered in selecting the most suitable material for the design. These factors include the
following:
Allowable stress from ASME Pressure Vessel Code, objective.
Cost based on cost information from estimating standards and vessel handbooks objective.
Availability based on experience in current trend of steel market, subjective.
Fabric ability based on the degree of tests required during manufacturing (such as radiography,
magnetic particle, liquid penetrant, ultrasonic, etc.) and metallurgical properties objective.
Corrosion resistance from laboratory results, objective.
Future maintenance based on experience in past designs with similar design conditions,
subjective.
Toughness from impact test results presented in ASME code objective.
Weight based on steel manufacturers' catalogs objective.

4. Objective Achieved.
A rational design method has been developed for the design of horizontal pressure vessels. This
design method (ADVANCES) consists of two elements: compromise and selection. The solution
to the selection problem gives the best alternative among the possible candilates for vessel
material. The compromise problem provides a means for achieving a good design using three
different goals (vessel cost, damage tolerance and wall thickness). The ADVANCES method is
used in several case studies and is shown to yield superior designs compared to those by a typical
pressure vessel design program used in industry. The feasibility study shows that the
ADVANCES method is most suited for use in designing large-sized pressure vessels. We believe
that the ADVANCES method represents an advance in the field of vessel design. Its capability to
handle problems involving nonlinear constraints and multiple goals enables a designer to obtain a
rational design most efficiently.