Proceeding of the International Conference & Exhibition on

Pressure Vessels and Piping, OPE 2006 CHENNAI,

7-9, February 2006, Chennai, India

Design and Material Issues in Relation to Pressure Vessel Codes

S. C. Chetal

Reactor Engineering Group

Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam 603 102, India
(e-mail: chetal@igcar.ernet.in Tel: 044 - 27480105 Fax: 044 - 274800068)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Pressure vessel codes cover rules as regards to materials, design, manufacture,

inspection and testing. Codes constitute a significant asset to regulatory bodies,
manufacturers, users, the engineering community, and the public. A code, in general,
represents the results of a cooperative effort performed in a systematic manner to reflect a
national consensus (or a set of nations) among the technical community in the form of an
effective engineering tool. An engineering judgement is a key ingredient in formulation of
pressure vessel codes. Thus, it is not surprising to have different design criteria in the various
codes. No code assumes the role of a last word only the latest word. There are, however, and
one should not ignore this, serious shortcomings in the codes. Codes could become liabilities,
if not properly utilised. One must keep in mind that codes are not handbooks and it is
necessary to be familiar with the background of the code. The purpose of this paper is to
reflect authors views on the design, material, inspection and testing issues for consideration
in review of pressure vessel codes.

2.0 ADMISSIBLE STRESS AS A FUNCTION OF DESIGN LIFE

Many codes like ASME[1,2,3] do not indicate the design life at the place where
admissible stresses are tabulated. It is not surprising that many users of the codes do not have
knowledge of the design life for which the components have been designed. Tabulated stress
is used even if the component is subjected to elevated temperature for a short or longer
duration in comparison to 105 h. It may result in conservative design for chemical plants and
engineering test facilities. On the other side, the trend in the nuclear industry is to have design
life of 40-60 y. In a nuclear plant, there are non-nuclear components referred to as Balance of
Plant, which are designed as per non-nuclear codes, like ASME Section VIII Div.1/B31.1. A
serious design deficiency can arise using these codes based on 10 5 h allowable stress. ASME
codes should provide admissible stress for design life beyond 10 5 h like BS 5500[4].
Alternative approach based on parameters like Larson-Miller could be stated for guidance to
adjust the design temperature upwards for which the admissible stress is to be read from the
tables.

3.0 DESIGN BASIS FOR MULTIPLE DESIGN CONDITIONS INCLUDING

SHORT TIME EXCURSIONS

In some cases, more than one design condition may exist in the design of pressure
vessels for use in elevated temperature where creep dominates. At present, the Code requires
that the most severe coincident design pressure and design temperature be taken as the design
condition. This basis is extremely conservative for short-term temperature excursion in
materials operating in temperature dependent creep behaviour. The ASME Code B 31.1 for
power piping permits an increase in the allowable stress of upto 20% for short term, high

A64(I)(Page1)
 Proceeding of the International Conference & Exhibition on
Pressure Vessels and Piping, OPE 2006 CHENNAI,
7-9, February 2006, Chennai, India

pressure or high temperature excursions that last for lesser than 1% of any 24 h operating
period. This short term excursion design approach, though very logical, has not been
reflected in the non-nuclear pressure vessel codes.

One way to consider multiple design conditions that are time dependent for a pressure
vessel is by applying Linear Life Fraction Rule[5]. The cumulative usage fraction U, is the
summation of individual usage factor Ui = ti/tri for all service conditions considered
U = ti/tri

where,
= as a subscript, 1 for prevalent operating condition, i = 2,3
etc for each of the other service conditions considered

ti = duration associated with any service condition, i, h

tri = allowable rupture life associated with a given service

condition, i, h

For design to be acceptable, U shall be 1. Towards evaluating the usage fraction, the
designer needs the creep-rupture data as a function of temperature and time as given in ASME
code NH[6] or Larson-Miller Parameter (or similar parametric approach).

4.0 PROOF TEST TO ESTABLISH DESIGN PRESSURE

Some of the ASME Codes do provide experimental rules for determination of design
pressure/maximum allowable working pressure for components designed against internal
pressure. The rules permit tests based on yielding and tests based on bursting of the part. The
design pressure/maximum allowable working pressure is determined by applying a factor of
safety of 5 on bursting test pressure in ASME Section III Division 1 Class 2 components [7] and
factor of safety of 4 (reduced from 5) in ASME Section VIII Div.1 with appropriate correction
for specified minimum tensile strength in comparison to actual tensile strength, design
temperature against test temperature, and corrosion allowance. The factor of safety of 5 is
very conservative when one takes into account that factor of safety of minimum tensile
strength is only 3.5 for establishing the maximum allowable stress, and the vessels designed
as per code rules and just meeting the design requirements would not provide this high margin
against burst pressure. It is proposed to bring down the factor of safety against burst pressure
to 3.5 to improve economics of pressure vessels and piping without undue concern for safety.

5.0 HEAT EXCHANGER TUBE THICKNESS DETERMINATION WITH

SIGNIFICANT CORROSION ALLOWANCE FOR OPERATION IN
CREEP REGIME

The design codes provide rules for determination of minimum thickness of pressure
vessel, piping and tubes. To the minimum wall thickness, additional thickness to allow for
corrosion expected on both surfaces of the pressure parts during the specified life is simply
added. While this approach leads to negligible conservatism in design for elevated
temperature creep regime for pressure vessels and piping, it can lead to undue conservatism in
heat exchanger tube thickness if corrosion from inside and outside fluids lead to significant
portion of minimum wall thickness. The codes should provide time dependent corrosion to be
considered and permit design based on cumulative creep damage. This approach, apart from

A64(I)(Page2)
 Proceeding of the International Conference & Exhibition on
Pressure Vessels and Piping, OPE 2006 CHENNAI,
7-9, February 2006, Chennai, India

reduced thickness of tube, also facilitates reduction in number of heat exchanger tubes as tube
wall thermal resistance will also come down. Sodium heated steam generator tube, for an
example, falls in this category where design corrosion allowance could be as much as 30% of
minimum wall thickness.

6.0 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF MATERIAL IN FABRICATED

FORM vs MILL SUPPLIED MATERIAL

A considerable debate has taken place over the years whether it is important to focus
more on evaluation of material properties in its fabricated form in comparison to mill supplied
material properties. Reduction in mechanical strength as a result of post-weld heat treatment
in carbon and low alloy steels or reanneal of mill supplied austenitic stainless steel are well
reported. An equally important case is that if as-fabricated material properties are used in case
of cold work austenitic stainless steel in temperature zone where creep is not important, higher
design stresses could be permitted. One can specifically exploit the benefit of enhanced yield
strength by cold work of austenitic stainless steel by introducing cold work in the finished
vessel. There is no doubt that ferritic steel vessels have performed well, in general, without
the complete knowledge of material properties in fabricated form. Knowledge generated has
resulted in (i) reduction in stress relieving temperature in order that strength properties are not
impaired (ii) specifying stress relieving temperature lower than tempering temperature (iii)
simulated post-weld heat treatment of mechanical test coupons for the shipped material to
simulate heat treatment which the material may receive during fabrication after heat treatment.

The last approach viz. vessel mechanical properties are not inferior than the values
used for establishing design allowable stress is very common in fabrication of nuclear
components and could be considered for critical applications in the non-nuclear industry.

7.0 WELDMENTS CREEP BEHAVIOUR

The rules in the non-nuclear pressure vessel codes for qualification of weld
procedures, welders qualification, and weld inspection do not necessarily provide safeguards
for elevated temperature welded pressure vessels. The admissible stresses in the code are
mainly based on wrought products. Significant data exist that in certain cases weldments
possess creep properties inferior to that of the base materials they commonly join. It would be
prudent to give caution in the pressure vessel codes for weldments creep behaviour. Pending
this, it is suggested that welding consumables may be chosen with modified chemical
composition, within the ASME/AWS (or other codes as the case may be) specification
yielding better creep properties. For example, minimum C+N of 0.105% in weld deposit with
316 MMA welding consumables will provide enough confidence that the weldments creep
behaviour is not inferior to SS 316 base material[8]. ASME Section VIII, Div.1, does not call
for any reduction in admissible stress for weldments due to inferior creep properties (joint
efficiency is related to weld joint configuration and inspection). Typical data taken from
ASME Code NH reflects the concern[6].

A64(I)(Page3)
 Proceeding of the International Conference & Exhibition on
Pressure Vessels and Piping, OPE 2006 CHENNAI,
7-9, February 2006, Chennai, India

Table: 1

Base material Welding consumables Ratio of weld metal creep rupture strength
to the base metal creep rupture strength
Temp, Time Reduction Factor
o
C 105 h
SS 304 E 308 550 0.91
SS 316 E 316 550 0.64
E16-8-2 550 0.87
Alloy 800H Inconel 82 600 0.83
750 0.67
9Cr-1Mo-V SFA 5.5 E 90xx-B9 550 0.89
(Grade 91)

8.0 CREEP RUPTURE DUCTILITY

There is obsession in design codes with the strength of the material. A high strength
material with poor ductility and toughness will often be less satisfactory than a lower strength
material of good ductility. Poor attention has been paid to the creep rupture ductility. Reheat
cracking in SS 321 and 347 during elevated temperature service in both fossil fired stations
and sodium cooled fast reactors has been attributed to inadequate creep ductility. SS 321 and
347 grades have not been included in the ASME code NH. It is prudent to use SS 304LN and
316LN grade instead of SS 321 and 347 grades. These grades ensure adequate creep strength,
better weldability and freedom from sensitization during welding in heat affected zone.

9.0 COLD WORKING LIMITS OF AUSTENITIC STAINLESS STEELS

Austenitic stainless steels find wide applications, in high temperature service in

nuclear, fossil fired and chemical industry. The construction of vessels, piping and heat
exchangers involves fabrication processes that in many cases result in considerable amount of
cold work in the material. There is either no limit of cold work in austenitic stainless steel or
limit is provided to ensure adequate room temperature ductility after cold work in the codes.
Typical cold work limit from room temperature ductility would be ~ 15%. The admissible
stress given in the codes are based on test done on the as received wrought products which
would have residual cold work much lower than that introduced in certain cold forming
operations like cold forming of dished heads and bending of pipes. Cold work material can
have rupture strength lower than that of annealed material depending upon temperature and
time.

Following table, as an example gives for SS 316 percentage of cold work at which
stress to rupture drops below that of annealed material for 105 h [9].

A64(I)(Page4)
 Proceeding of the International Conference & Exhibition on
Pressure Vessels and Piping, OPE 2006 CHENNAI,
7-9, February 2006, Chennai, India

Table : 2

Temperature oC % cold work

538 30
593 22
649 18
704 Any
760 Any

ASME Section I and ASME code NH provides rules, which are not reflected in other codes,
for post fabrication heat treatment of cold formed parts. As per ASME Code NH, cold work
upto 20% can be allowed for SS 304 and 316 components operating upto 595 oC for 105
hours, and 650 oC for 105 hours in case of Alloy 800H. Beyond this time/temperature
condition, heat treatment specified in the base material specification shall be followed.

10.0 OPTIMISED MATERIAL SPECIFICATION

For critical applications, it is worthwhile to draw material applications with

mechanical properties to ensure strength values consistent with or better than current data
base, while maintaining satisfactory weldability and fabricability. SS 304 material
specification, as an example, is shown in the following table for temperatures that are in the
creep regime of material of construction.

Table : 3

SS 304 SS 304
ASME Specification (ASME Code NH)
(SA 240)
(a) Chemical Composition
Carbon 0.04 0.08 0.04-0.06%
Nitrogen 0.1 0.04-0.07
Manganese 2.0 1.0-2.0
Sulphur 0.03 0.02
Phosphorous 0.045 0.045
Niobium -- 0.02
Aluminium -- 0.05
(b) Grain Size -- 3-6
(c) Melt practice -- AOD or AOD/ESR
(d) Suggested upper long term -- 595 oC
use limit
Note: All values are maximum percentage unless indicated as range

It is important that the engineers involved in preparing material specifications be in

constant touch with case histories of failures in particular with new or relatively new
materials. The experience reported on the failure of Grade 91 welded components has led us
to specify supplementary requirements of minimum hardness of 200 VHN and minimum Ni-
Al ratio of 2[9] for steam generator material.

A64(I)(Page5)
 Proceeding of the International Conference & Exhibition on
Pressure Vessels and Piping, OPE 2006 CHENNAI,
7-9, February 2006, Chennai, India

11.0 INSPECTION AND TESTING

11.1 Internal Pressure Test

Some of the pressure vessel codes specify pneumatic test (to be done on rare cases) to
be conducted at lower pressure than the hydrostatic test. There are codes which specify test
pressure for elevated temperature pressure vessels without factor for reduction in allowable
stress at design temperature compared to test temperature. Some of the pressure vessel codes
have not dealt the subject of risk of brittle fracture during testing. Caution needs to be stated
for testing of tall pressure vessels in horizontal condition as it will induce stresses quite
different from that will be induced during operation.

The test pressure rules in some of the codes are stated below as an example.

Table : 4

Design Code Internal Pressure Test

ASME Section-I Hydrostatic Test:
(2004) Minimum 1.5 of maximum allowable working
pressure. Maximum general membrane stress 90% of
yield strength at test temperature
ASME Section VIII Div.1 Hydrostatic Test:
(2004) Minimum of 1.3 of maximum allowable working
pressure multiplied by lowest ratio of allowable stress
for test temperature to allowable stress at design
temperature

Pneumatic Test:
Instead of 1.3 factor in hydrostatic test, the factor
specified is 1.1
ASME Section III Hydrostatic Test
Class 1 components Minimum 1.25 of design pressure
(2004)
Pneumatic Test:
Minimum 1.1 of design pressure

General primary membrane stress intensity shall not

exceed 90% of yield strength at test temperature for
hydrostatic test and 80% of yield strength for
pneumatic test.
BS-5500 Hydrostatic or Pneumatic test
Minimum 1.25 of design pressure multiplied by ratio
of nominal design strength at test temperature to
nominal time independent design strength value at
design temperature.

Maximum general membrane stress 90% of yield

strength.

A64(I)(Page6)
 Proceeding of the International Conference & Exhibition on
Pressure Vessels and Piping, OPE 2006 CHENNAI,
7-9, February 2006, Chennai, India

Overpressure test conditions apart from check on workmanship provides favourable

stress redistribution. Accordingly, the rules should reflect no distinction between hydrostatic
and pneumatic test and take into consideration the effect of temperature on allowable stress. It
P P
is suggested to have design = test
S S

P
design = (design pressure / allowable stress)
S

Stest = 90% of yield strength

11.2 External Pressure Test

All the design codes provide elaborate rules for design of pressure vessels against
external pressure. What about the test to prove that the pressure vessel designed and
manufactured as per the code rules is satisfactory? ASME Code rules call for internal pressure
test though the mode of failure are different for design and test conditions. Why not to ask for
external pressure test? Though it will increase the cost, it will be worthwhile to specify in
cases where the implication of pressure vessel failure could cause enormous loss in terms of
outage and cost to the plant. The rules for pressure test in BS-5500 are fitting to the needs.
The code states that where ever reasonably practicable, single wall vessels shall be tested
under vacuum or applied external pressure to simulate vacuum conditions. Wherever
practicable, the external pressure on the vessel under test, shall be 1.25 times the design
pressure but in no case shall it be less than the design external pressure.

11.3 Ultrasonic Examination of Base Materials

There is right emphasis on the inspection of the welds for pressure vessel and piping in
the codes. However, most of the codes do not have mandatory requirements for base
materials. It is suggested that for pressure vessels and piping designed to operate at
temperatures in the creep regime and for thick wall vessels and piping, ultrasonic examination
be specified for plates and piping to enhance reliability. For piping, guidance can be taken
from DIN 17175[11].

12.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

The pressure vessel codes do not, in general, consider environmental effects, but in at
least one ASME Code environmental effects are included. There is a footnote in ASME code
NH to the property data for 2Cr-1Mo specification that allowable stresses are to be used
with minimum carbon of 0.07%. This is because of the knowledge that at elevated
temperature, the material will get decarburised in a sodium environment. For the similar
reasons, for FFTF sodium cooled fast reactor in USA, minimum carbon in S.S. 304/316 was
specified as 0.06% [12] so as to ensure minimum carbon of 0.04% at the end of life (Minimum
carbon of 0.04% is specified in ASME code for usage of material property data for elevated
temperature).
The code users should ensure that creep data in design environment is not inferior to
that in air which forms the basis for material data in codes.

A64(I)(Page7)
 Proceeding of the International Conference & Exhibition on
Pressure Vessels and Piping, OPE 2006 CHENNAI,
7-9, February 2006, Chennai, India

13.0 PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING ALLOWABLE STRESS

13.1 Non Creep Regime for Steel Pressure Vessel and Piping

Improvements in steel melting practice resulting in improved impact strength and

successful experience with vessels designed to the present codes provide strong grounds to
consider construction of pressure vessels and piping in future with reduced thickness so as to
result in economic design without undue risk. Factor of safety on specified minimum tensile
strength has been decreased from 5 to 3.5 in ASME Section VIII Division 1 from 1925 edition
to present edition. A survey of pressure vessel and piping codes show that these codes have
factor of safety on yield strength at room temperature and design temperature. The same is not
true for factor of safety on minimum tensile strength as there is no concept of factor of safety
on this strength parameter in the German code, on room temperature strength only in BS-5500
and on both room temperature and design temperature strength in all ASME Codes. Though in
the area of design, one of the most controversial subjects had long been to design based on
both yield and tensile strength or yield strength alone, there is strong conviction that factor of
safety on yield strength should suffice. The factor of safety proposed is 1.4 against 1.5 in
existing codes at room temperature and design temperature value for wrought products except
the factor of safety on austenitic stainless steel is 1.1 for design temperature value as exists in
ASME Codes. This will result in at least 7% reduction in thickness of cylindrical and
spherical shells, and dished heads for design against internal pressure except that of
constructed in austenitic stainless steel operating at elevated temperature. Thickness reduction
in carbon steel vessels and piping would be over 19.5% for room temperature service in
comparison to ASME Section VIII Division 1 present rules.

The increased allowable stress would definitely need a relook into the materials
allowed in the codes and toughness requirements. Materials with high yield strength without
adequate toughness need to be discouraged, in the inclusion of materials for pressure vessel
codes.

13.2 Creep Regime for Pressure Vessel and Piping

ASME Section VIII Division 1 allowable stresses at temperature in creep range are
based on the lower of the following:

100% of average stress to produce a creep rate of 0.01%/1000 h.

67% of average stress to cause rupture at the end of 105 h.
80% of minimum stress to cause rupture at the end of 105 h.

Though not stated explicitly, allowable stress is also governed by factor to safety on
design life for temperature above 815 oC. The allowable stress has also factor of safety of 10
on design life on average stress to rupture vs time plot.

BS-5500 has factor of safety of only 1.3 on average stress to rupture in design lifetime.
It is prudent to have factor of safety on minimum values rather than average values.
Allowable stress based on 85% of minimum stress to rupture in design life time coupled with
factor of safety of 3 on design life is proposed.

A64(I)(Page8)
 Proceeding of the International Conference & Exhibition on
Pressure Vessels and Piping, OPE 2006 CHENNAI,
7-9, February 2006, Chennai, India

Based on the data available in ASME code NH for expected minimum stress to rupture
for 2Cr-1Mo, 9Cr-1MoV(Gr.91), SS 304, SS 316, Alloy 800H upto temperatures of normal
usage upto 525 oC for 2Cr-1Mo, 575 oC for 9Cr-1, 600 oC for SS 304, 650 oC for SS 316,
and 750 oC for Alloy 800H, the allowable stress at 10 5 h (85% of minimum stress to rupture)
provides a margin of 3 on design life (minimum stress to rupture for 3x10 5 h) with very few
exceptions. The shortfall in the allowable stress is negligible. Following table illustrates the
above.

Table : 5

Minimum stress to rupture MPa

Temp Sr2 to 0.85
Grade o 105 hr 3x105 hr Remarks
C Sr1
Sr1 Sr2
2Cr-1Mo 450 151 133 1.036
500 96 83 1.017
550 58 48 0.97 Marginal
shortfall
Gr.91 500 212 196 1.087
525 173 159 1.081
550 177 163 1.083
575 110 99 1.059
304 500 161 140 1.023
550 104 91 1.029
600 66 56 0.998 Very marginal
shortfall
316 500 248 219 1.039
550 147 125 1.0
600 94 79 0.988 Very marginal
shortfall
650 57 46 0.949 Very marginal
shortfall
Alloy 800H 550 148 128 1.017
600 101 87 1.013
650 67 57 1.0
700 45 38 0.993 Very marginal
shortfall
750 29 25 1.014

14.0 SUMMARY

Pressure vessel and piping codes establish rules governing materials design,
manufacture, inspection and testing. Contrary to normal thinking, users of codes need to be
knowledgeable. Unfortunately, less knowledgeable user can lead to unsafe vessel or increased
capital cost, both of these being undesirable, depending on design conditions. Non-nuclear
pressure vessel codes for design of components for elevated temperature in creep regime of
material lead to conservative design in cases with multiple operating conditions with short
duration elevated temperature excursions. Same is the case for heat exchanger tubes to include
entire plant corrosion allowance in the initial wall thickness requirement. Factor of safety to

A64(I)(Page9)
 Proceeding of the International Conference & Exhibition on
Pressure Vessels and Piping, OPE 2006 CHENNAI,
7-9, February 2006, Chennai, India

arrive at components based on burst test for internal pressure results to thicker components
than they need to be. The non-nuclear codes treat the weldments as parent material on
optimistic basis for creep properties. One needs to take weldment creep behaviour into
consideration. Cold working limits of austenitic stainless steel from the concern of lower
creep properties compared to as received wrought products, which forms the basis of design,
is not well covered in all the codes. Stablised austenitic stainless steels need to be
discontinued as their operating experience for elevated temperature usage is not satisfactory
and better alternatives are available. The rules for internal pressure test and pressure test for
vessels designed for external pressure need improvement. There is definite scope for relook
into the basis for arriving at establishing allowable stress and proposals are made to decrease
factor of safety on yield strength and minimum stress to rupture. Concept of factor of safety
on ultimate strength can be dropped. This will result in economical design. The proposals put
forward in the paper can be considered in future changes in the codes.

References

1. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII Division 1.

2. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section I.
3. ASME B31.1.
4. BS 5500 Unfired Pressure Fusion Welded Pressure Vessels.
5. WRC Bulletin 470.
6. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1-Subsection NH.
7. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes, Section III Division 1, Class 2 components.
8. Lefebvre J, Daeman R, and Niset M. Welding Consumables for AISI 316 High
Temperature Weldments,
9. Moen R.A., and Smith G.V., Trans Journal of Materials and Technology (1975) 162.
10. Viswanathan R, Bakker W.T. and Parker J.D., in Proc. Conf. Advances in Materials
Technology for Fossil Power Plants (2001).
11. DIN 17175.
12. Moen R.A., OKeefe D.P., Irvin J.E., and Tobin J.C., in Proc. Symp. Elevated
Temperature Properties of Austenitic Stainless Steels (1974), p.141.

A64(I)(Page10)