Today’s hydroprocessing reactor manufacturers use 2¼Cr–1Mo–¼V steel to build lighter reactors than conventional Cr-Mo reactors. Manufacturing even lighter hydroprocessing reactors has been enabled with the introduction of the new ASME Section VIII Division 2 Code, initially released in 2007. The higher allowable stresses in the new Division 2 for these Vanadium-modified steels permits even lighter reactors to be built while maintaining suitable design margins. The new Division 2 Code requires additional engineering to ensure safe design. One of the challenges the engineer is faced with, is preparation of the User’s Design Specification (UDS) including new and more stringent requirements for fatigue evaluation. As the operating temperature of the rector is higher than 371°C, engineers have to evaluate the fatigue life of the reactor in accordance with Code Case 2605 (CC2605). CC2605 requires inelastic analysis and evaluation effects of creep. Vanadium-modified reactors require additional care during fabrication to prevent higher hardness around weld areas, reheat cracking, and reduced toughness at lower temperatures in the “as welded” condition. This paper provide guidance for the preparation of an ASME Section VIII Division 2 User’s Design Specification including process descriptions of all the cycles expected for the life of the rector and analysis requested by CC2605. An example of such an analysis, including finite element analysis results, is provided in this paper. Requirements to provide the material specification is also discussed with an emphasis on prevention of reheat cracking, hardenability, and temper and hydrogen embitterment.

The analysis of tank nozzles for API Standard 650 [1] tanks is a complex problem. Appendix P of API 650 provides a method for determining the allowable external loads on tank shell openings. The method in Appendix P is based on two papers, one by Billimoria and Hagstrom [2] and the other by Billimoria and Tam [3]. Although Appendix P is optional, industry has used it for a number of years for large diameter tanks. For tanks less than 120 feet (33.6 m) in diameter, Appendix P is not applicable. In previously published papers [4–10], the authors used finite element analysis (FEA) to verify the experimental results reported by Billimoria and Tam for shell nozzles. The analysis showed the variance between stiffness coefficients and stresses obtained by FEA and API 650 methods for tanks. In this follow-up paper, the authors present stiffness coefficients for tank nozzles located away from a structural discontinuity. Factors to establish spring rates for nozzles varying from 6 to 48 inches and tank diameters from 30 feet to 300 feet and for nozzles at different elevations on the shell are provided. Mathematical equations are provided together with graphs for the stiffness coefficient factors.

Pressure vessels are sometimes supported in structures using skirts at the bottom tangent line, skirts on the shell, or intermediate supports such as lugs). Examples of pressure vessels with these kinds of support are coke drums and CCR reactors. In these cases some part of the shell and lower vessel head extend below the line of support such as the top of the skirt or lugs. The vessel can be separated into three sections: the first section (top) vessel shell and head above the support line; the second section (bottom) is the shell and head below the line of support; the third section is the combination of the top and bottom section. This paper presents a method to determine the design values of the shear and moment, of these three sections of the vessel and support in response to wind and seismic excitation to determine their loading of the support structure. It is important to assess the contribution of each section to the loading that is used to design the supporting structure. Direction is given as to which these three will govern the vessel design and which will govern the design of the structure. The loading which may govern the vessel design may not govern the design of the structure.

Code Case 2286-1 [1] of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code [2][3] provides alternate rules for determining the allowable external pressure and compressive stresses for cylinders, cones, spheres, and formed heads in lieu of the rules of Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2. The authors in this paper present a comparison of the longitudinal and circumferential compressive stresses in pressure vessels based on the methods outlined in Paragraph UG-28 of Division 1, Section VIII of the ASME Code and Code Case 2286-1. The Do/t ratio in this paper is limited to 600 which covers the majority of pressure vessel designs found in the petrochemical industry. A sample vessel shell design is presented applying both the ASME Code, Section VIII, Div. 1 method and that of Code Case 2286-1.

In a Zick analysis of a horizontal pressure vessel on two saddle supports with stiffening rings, there is no direct method of determining the distribution of the load between one stiffening ring adjacent to the saddle support and the shell. In this paper, the authors discuss a method of calculating the load distribution between the stiffening ring and the shell. After establishing the load distribution, the stresses in the ring and shell are calculated and compared against the allowable stresses in the ASME Code.