A790 S31803 alternative for ASME VIII div 2 @ 600 F

[cornemo]

I hope someone here can help me out.
I'm doing a calculation for a little vessel according to ASME VIII div. 2. The design temperature is 316 degr C (600 degr. F.).
The prescribed seamless pipe material is A790 S31803. This material however may not be used on the design temperature. Can anybody advice me a similar material which may be used at 316 degr C for an ASME VIII div 2 vessel?

And I have a similar question for the flanges out of A182 F51 / F60. This material is not applicable either as it is not in ASME II part D. Any similar material I can use?

thanks in advance for your replies.
With regards,
Corné

 

[unclesyd]

What is the medium that this material will see?

Why was the S31803 chosen in the first place?

 

[rneill]

cornemo,

You probably need to get a newer edition of ASME Section II as my 2007 Edition has a whole host of Duplex materials listed including F51 (in both Table 1A for Div 1 and Table 5A for Div 2) - look at page 438 of this edition. Since F60 also meets F51 (it is slightly tighter chemistry) any of the mechanical properties listed for F51 could be used for F60 even though it is not specifically listed (the MTRs should all be dual certified anyway).

With regards to the maximum temperature, the maximum temperature of S31803 material is normally taken to be 600 F but in Table 5A for Division 2 vessels it is limited to 400 F. If you look at Table 1A, this material is permitted to 600 F when used in Division 1 vessels so perhaps an option might be to design this as a Division 1 vessel instead of a Division 2 vessel.

Since you describe it as a little vessel, and you are using pipe materials rather than plate, and since Division 1 increased their allowable stress values a few years ago, you may find that there is really not much economic advantage to using Division 2 in this case.

 

[EdStainless]

Yes, you will need to spec the material as S32205/S31803.

And yes I was beat the comment about Div 1.

The reason for the limits is that with a few hours exposure at 625F this material will be come brittle (like all duplex and ferritic stainless grades).

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube

 

[cornemo]

Thank you for your replies.

Let me give you some extra information (as far as I have any).
My design pressure is 304 bar (441 ksi). As ASME VIII div 1 is limited to 200 bar (290 ksi) I need to use div 2.

I don't know the exact reason for choice of S31803 and A182 F60. the medium is given as "PE + ethylene" for inside, and steam for outside (it is a jacketed vessel, inner material S31803, jacket material 316L, which is also strange for steam by the way).

As I don't know the exact reason for choice of S31803 and A182 F60 I want to stay as close to these material properties as possible but within ASME VIII div 2 allowable materials.

I indeed have an older version of the ASME II, so will check with a newer version for A182F51 and use these properties.

I hope any one can help me out on the S31803 issue.

Thanks in advance for further replies.
With regards,
Corné

 

[metengr]

cornemo;
One of the duplex stainless steel materials listed in Section VIII, Div 2, 2007 Edition is SA 790 UNS S31500. This material is listed in the 2009 Edition of ASME Section II, Part D, Table 1A. The maximum permitted service temperature is 750 deg F for Section VIII-1 and 650 deg F for Section XII.

 

[cornemo]

Thanks for your reply.
I indeed saw that this material is available. However it looks like it has a large difference in chemical composition in comparison to S31803. It is in the same spec A790 though. What are the differences between these two materials?

And is S31500 available for both seamless pipe and flanges?

With regards,
Corné

 

[metengr]

I am not an expert on duplex stainless steel. You can search the web site below because Sandvik manufactures UNS S31500. You have the ASME/ASTM material specification for mechanical properties for comparison. Now all you need is to do a little research on your own on fabrication, welding and corrosion performance.

http://www.smt.sandvik.com/

 

[rneill]

If you are looking at a Div 2 vessel you need to stick to Table 5A of ASME Section II Part D since Table 1A does not cover Div 2.

Regarding the pressure, U-1(d) of Division 1 doesn't say that a vessel with a design pressure exceeding 3000 psi can not be built and stamped to Division 1, it just says that the rules of Division 1 may not be wholly adequate for such vessels. Providing you apply the necessary supplemental measures to ensure that your vessel design and construction is appropriate, it appears theoretically possible to still use Division 1 as the base code.

I'm not that familiar with vessels exceeding 3000 psig so I could not advise on what additional measures and practices may be required but perhaps it is something you could consider?

Alternatively, suggest you follow metengr's suggestion.

 

[cornemo]

I've already discussed the option about using Div 1 with my client. But he wants to see a Div 2 calculation.
The search engine on the website gives me non useful links. And as I am really not a materials specialist other searches don't help me much either.

Can any of you please help me a bit more on this issue? Thanks in advance.

With Regards,
Corné

 

[metengr]

cornemo;
What I would do is to subcontract a pressure vessel material specialist to work directly with you on this pressure vessel. This is not going to be done over the interent, period.

There are pressure vessel engineering firms that can provide material expertise. You have a significant amount of design responsibility for the above. What we say here only provides general guidance; you need to have it confirmed.

 

[rneill]

Just my two cents worth, the reason Duplex is limited to 400 F is as mentioned by EdStainless so any other grade of material that is very similiar to S31803 are likely to have the same limitations.

You either need to give up the Div 2 design, or you need to find an alternative and acceptable material. In either case, I agree with metengr that this needs to move over to the realm of contracting for support. At this point you need someone who can provide indepth technical support and assistance and take professional responsibility for their recommendations and/or design. Far beyond what can be done via this forum.

 

[cornemo]

Thank you all for your valuable responses. I was already a bit afraid that a similar material wasn't easy to find. I'll contact my client to inform him.

Again thanks to all for your replies.

With regards,
Corné