PED/EN13480/ASME/31.3 2

[superpiper]

This is aimed at engineers who are designing plant for operation within europe.

It is now law within europe that we use PED for plant design, and as such the use of EN13480 in Mandatory.

I am begining to use En13480 within the enviroment of Caesar II.

I have asked Coade about the inclusion of PED into Caesar,
and in my opinion they hve no understanding of it.
I currently believe that Caesar is unsuitable for stress analysis within the PED Context due to it being a stress
based program, as opposed to the strain based EN13480.

I am looking for information and forums that tackle the use
of 13480 for stress analysis,


does anyone know of such forumns?
The lack of information on the net regarding this subject is begining to worry me.

 

[MJCronin]

super,

Interestingly enough, ALGOR Sytems "PipePak", a competitor to COADE's CESAR-II, is planning to incorporate EN13480 into the version 14 software update in early 2004.

http://www.algor.com/service_support/updates/upcoming.asp

A German company offers a software package that claims to address EN13480, the program is "sisKNR"

http://www.gef.de/ing_eng/html/content/mainframe/software.htm

Good Luck.....



"There comes a time in the affairs of man when he must take the bull by the tail and face the situation." W.C. Fields

 

[JohnGP]

superpiper,

You say that use of EN13480 is mandatory per PED. As someone who has just recently been forced to look at PED in relation to supply of pressure vessels for a project, it was my understanding that design, fabrication, and inspection could be per any of a number of internationally recognised codes, provided you could convince the NB that essential safety requirements of PED were satisfied (i.e. use of EN13445 was not mandatory for pressure vessels).

Is it different for piping, or is it too difficult to achieve PED conformance if EN13480 is not used?

John

 

[bvi]

You can use B31.3 in Europe but you do not have a presumption of conformity with the PED. An EEMUA guide provides guidance on how to comply with the PED using ISO 15469, which in turn refers to ASME B31.3. Since B31.3 does not fully comply with the PED, some additional requirements must be considered.

 

[JohnGP]

I've not been exposed to the EEMUA guides, but just checked out the summary of that one on their site and it seems to be quite useful. Is it still possible to cover the additional requirements demanded by the PED (in relation to use of B31.3) if one uses CaesarII for the piping stress analysis? (Is it a matter of doing some additional calculation?)

Pardon my ignorance, but PED is a new animal for me.

 

[superpiper]

A simple answer to why it is unreasonable to use 31.3 in a
PED environment is if you compare it to EN14380 on size alone.
31.3 is a 'small' single volume document, EN13480 is a 7 volume document, covering all aspects of design and construction.

cb4 is correct,
however, in the event of an incident
happening on a project that has used 31.3 for a basis of design, the judge will be looking to see if the use of EN13480 would have eliminated the incident. if so, the you are in trouble!.

For the stress analysis using caesar II, i have disabled
the liberal stress allowance, and am keeping my stress levels down to 80%.
I am also looking at the operating cases (as defined in 13480)

Once we recieve a stress package that does facilitate EN13480,
then a historical analysis of a couple of our largest
Calculations, will be done on the new program to ensure
Safe working limits.

However, i believe that in answer to your question,

" Is it still possible to cover the additional requirements demanded by the PED (in relation to use of B31.3) if one uses CaesarII for the piping stress analysis? (Is it a matter of doing some additional calculation?)"

I don't know to be honest, i am only applying good
engineering practice to the points set out in 13480.
It is a huge subject.

 

[JohnGP]

Thanks superpiper, apologies for hijacking your thread but you have opened my eyes to the subject. I hope someone else out there has successfully grappled with stress analysis conversion to EN13480, and can provide meaningful discussion.

I have to give both of you guys a star as I'm sure what I have learned here will be useful in the future. Thanks guys.

John

 

[DDiehl]

I wish to comment on the line, "I have asked Coade about the inclusion of PED into Caesar, and in my opinion they hve no understanding of it."

COADE, is familiar with the PED. B31.3, with a few added considerations, addresses the safety requirements found in the PED. The Engineering Equipment & Materials Users Association (EEMUA) has published a guide to assist in meeting the requirements of the PED using B31.3. Visit

http://www.eemua.co.uk/news/pub-202.htm

to purchase a copy. The PED, as such, will not appear as a "code" in CAESAR II.

EN 13480 is another matter. Work commenced on adding this code to CAESAR II. The obvious change will be the inclusion of the hot modulus of elasticity in the structural and stress calculations. I guess that's your point when you write "I currently believe that Caesar is unsuitable for stress analysis within the PED Context (sic) due to it being a stress based program, as opposed to the strain based EN13480."

EN 13480 will be the major component of the next release of CAESAR II.