Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

ASME Sec. VIII Div.1, Appendix 13, Sketch (9) 3

Status
Not open for further replies.

MHS1988

Mechanical
Jan 6, 2024
2
Hi,
I have a problem understanding this clause from Appendix 13 of Sec VIII regarding the stress calculation for a rectangular vessel with more than 3 compartments. The part of the clause in question says:

13-9 (f) (2): "... For a vessel with more than two compartments, use geometry shown in Figure 13-2 (a), sketch (8) with three compartments having the maximum dimensions of the actual vessel (thus, a five- or six-compartment vessel for example would be analyzed as if it had only three compartments)."


I am confused about the interpretation as I think of two different approaches for an example problem.
Consider a 6-compartment vessel with an overall height of "H" and the biggest compartment height of "h":
- 1st Interpretation: Use sketch (8) with three compartments, each having a height of "h"
- 2nd Interpretation: Use sketch (8) with three compartments, each having a height of "H/3"

The wording seems to lean towards the 1st interpretation. However, my understanding of the code makes me wonder if it might lead to a non-conservative simplification. To add to my uncertainty, applying a similar approach to a sketch (8) vs sketch (7) vessel, which means using a 2-compartment sketch (7) vessel instead of a 3-compartment one with the maximum compartment height of the latter, results in stresses lower than that of a sketch (8). Therefore, I'm wondering maybe using a 3-compartment vessel instead of a 6-compartment one, with overall height of the former significantly less than the latter, results in calculated stresses being lower than what they actually are.

By the way English isn't my first language, which might be contributing to this clause appearing somewhat ambiguous to me. Any insights or clarifications would be greatly appreciated.

P.S.
I attached the sketches in question to this thread.
 
 https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=837abfc1-1277-4ccd-8455-b1bb97c2511e&file=Appendix_13_Figure_13-2(a).png
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

In 13-9(f)(2), everything after "For example," is unintelligible English. Even the first half is confusing. I think with a small tweak to the wording, sense can be made:

13-9(f)(2) By selecting the compartment having the maximum 'h' dimension and then analysing the structure per (b) above for the case of a two‐compartment vessel and per (c) above for the case of a vessel with more than two compartments.
 
I would agree both with DriveMeNuts' interpretation and with the characterization of the language :)

EDIT: Having said that, I'd add that being able to parse out such language is a big part of what we get paid for :)

Regards,

Mike

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
 
DriveMeNuts said:
In 13-9(f)(2), everything after "For example," is unintelligible English. Even the first half is confusing. I think with a small tweak to the wording, sense can be made:

Quote:
13-9(f)(2) By selecting the compartment having the maximum 'h' dimension and then analysing the structure per (b) above for the case of a two‐compartment vessel and per (c) above for the case of a vessel with more than two compartments.

SnTMan said:
I would agree both with DriveMeNuts' interpretation and with the characterization of the language :)

Thank you very much, both you guys!
So as I understand the first interpretation in my original post is to be followed.

Again, your insight and input is very much appreciated.
 
The phrasing in VIII-2, 4.12.9 appears to be more optimal in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor