Proceedings of the ASME 2015 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
PVP2015
ASME PRESSURE VESSEL INTERNALS AND THEIR DESIGN CODE
Barry Millet
Fluor Corp.
Houston, TX, USA
Kenneth Kirkpatrick
Fluor Corp.
Houston, TX, USA
ABSTRACT
It is common for designers to use the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME)
when designing vessel internals (i.e. process trays, bed supports,
bolted connections, etc). Typically the ASME allowables are
directly applied to internals without any regard to the member
geometry or failure modes. The ASME code was developed for
modes of failures experienced in the pressure boundary and was
not intended to be utilized for the design of structural
components. ANSI/AISC 360-10 Specification for Structural
Steel Buildings (AISC) addresses the failure mechanisms
experienced in structures based on their geometry and boundary
conditions. This paper will provide several examples along with
a direct comparison between structural members designed to the
AISC and ASME codes. This paper will also provide guidance
for using the AISC methodology with material properties at
design temperature from ASME Section II Part D for robust
design of internal structures.
INTRODUCTION
It is common in industry for vessel fabricators to design
vessel internals. Since vessel fabricators are familiar with the
ASME code, they will typically utilize the ASME code when
designing the internals. The ASME code is intended for design
of the pressure boundary and not intended for design of the
internal components. The Forward provided in the ASME code
states the following The Committee's function is to establish
1
Graduate of University of Wisconsin
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86322/ on 05/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
July 19-23, 2015, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
PVP2015-45312
George Miller Richard Whipple1
Fluor Corp. Fluor Corp.
Houston, TX, USA Houston, TX, USA
Bryan Mosher
Fluor Corp.
Houston, TX, USA
rules of safety relating only to pressure integrity, which govern
the construction of boilers, pressure vessels, transport tanks,
and nuclear components. . . . Users of the Code should refer
to the pertinent codes, standards, laws, regulations, or other
relevant documents for safety issues other than those relating to
pressure integrity. [1] When designing internal structural
components the responsible engineer should use an appropriate
structural code. In the United States it is common to use the Steel
Construction Manual [2]. The Scope of the AISC code states the
following The specification requirements and other design
recommendations and considerations summarized in this Manual
apply in general to the design and construction of steel buildings
and other structures. [2] In this case the internals are considered
as other structures as defined by the AISC code.
This document is not intended to provide detailed
instructions to the reader on how to design structural
components, but rather is a discussion covering the design
philosophy, intent and application of each code.
Topics covered in this document include the following:
structural members, materials properties, effects of corrosion and
numerical modeling.
Topics considered outside the scope of this document are the
following: elevated temperature, time-dependent material
properties (i.e. design in the creep range), cold service designs
(i.e. fracture critical design), and fatigue.
FAILURE MODES
1 Copyright 2015 by ASME
 In design, it is important to understand the behavior of a
component and the appropriate failure modes. The basic
philosophy of design is to understand how each component
behaves (acts under load), determine how it fails, and design it
not to fail; this is true of pressure vessels, bridges, buildings, and
any component designed to carry load. Regardless of what code
is applied all appropriate failure modes must be addressed: for
pressure vessels this is the ASME code, and for structures in the
United States this is the AISC code. Both of these codes provide
safe designs against the appropriate failure modes.
ASME CODE FAILURE MODES
ASME Section VIII defines the failure modes of interest for
the pressure boundary. These failure modes are addressed to
ensure safe operation of pressure vessels and are not intended for
use of designing attachments or internals. The local effects of
the attachments to the pressure boundary fall under the design of
the ASME code. The description of the failure modes listed
below is taken from ASME Section VIII.
1. Protection Against Plastic Collapse Failure of the
vessel resulting in a burst of the pressure boundary.
2. Protection Against Creep Damage (Rupture and
Creep strains) Failure due to creep (e.g. continuous
distortion and strain until rupture or excessive creep
strain).
3. Protection Against Local Failure Failure due to
triaxial stress states. (e.g. cleavage, reduction in
ductility) This is typically not a gross failure, but one
local to a component, such as a nozzle attachment.
4. Protection Against Collapse from Buckling Failure
associated with structural instability. This failure mode
is more geometry dependent than stress dependent.
5. Protection Against Failure from Cyclic Loading
Failure due to fatigue (crack initiation and propagation)
of the material under repetitive loading. A load
histogram is used to define the cycle(s). Ratcheting
results in a continuous distortion under repetitive
loading. The use of the fatigue curves are based on the
ratcheting limits (i.e. shakedown).
6. Protection Against Brittle Fracture Fracture of the
pressure boundary in the presence of a flaw at low
temperature. Required material fracture toughness
based on thickness, temperature, flaw size and
membrane stress.
AISC CODE FAILURE MODES
Flexure (beam bending) is one of the most common checks
when designing internals and attachments for a pressure vessel.
It is often recognized that column design is controlled by
buckling, but not often recognized that the strength limits for
beams are also controlled by buckling of the compression side of
the member. Only checking the tensile side of a beam under
2 Copyright 2015 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86322/ on 05/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
bending is inadequate. The AISC code recognizes two design
methods Allowable Stress (Strength) Design (ASD) which
compares stress states to a stress limit, and Load and Resistance
Factor Design (LRFD) which is based on limit load and
reliability. A combination of load factors and resistance factors
are used to determine if the capacity (resistance) exceeds the
required demand.
1. Protection Against Local Buckling The width to
thickness check determines the failure modes that need
to be addressed for each beam section. Chapter B Table
B4.1b defines the limits on the width to thickness ratios
for each part of the beam section. The AISC code
classifies sections as: compact the full section is
able to reach fully plastic stress distribution no inelastic
buckling, non-slender the compression elements of
the beam section can reach partial yielding may result
in inelastic buckling, or slender element - one or
more of the beam compression elements of the beam
section will buckle elastically before yielding.
The capacity of the beam will be limited by the one
of following modes of failure.
Local Buckling of the Compression Elements - The
buckling in the compression flange can be either elastic
or inelastic. For compact the sections in compression
will not buckle in elastically, the limiting yield state is
the plastic moment (Z*Fy). For non-slender sections
the yield moment (S*Fy) is the limiting yield state and
can be achieved prior to buckling of the flange or web.
For slender elements, the flange or web will buckle
prior to achieving the yield moment.
2. Protection Against LateralTorsional Buckling
(LTB) This mode of failure is a consequence of
inadequate lateral bracing of the compression
element(s) of a beam. The un-braced length determines
the ability of the beam to resist LTB. All beams must
be restrained against rotation at the supports and along
the beam. From AISC Chapter F Section F1 The
provisions in this chapter are based on the assumption
that the points of support for beams and girders are
restrained against rotation about their longitudinal
axis. [2] The bracing must be adequate to assume a
lateral support. It is better to assume no lateral support
if the bracing is questionable. Figure 1 shows a lateral-
torsion buckling of a cantilevered beam. It can be seen
that the flange not only buckles laterally, but due to the
restraint of the tension elements the beam section also
rotates. From Steel Structures Design and Behavior the
author states Lateral support must not be ignored;
probably most failures in steel structures are the result
of inadequate bracing against lateral instability of some
type. [4]
The AISC code addresses LTB and provides corrections for
the moment gradient and the point of loading. A beam with a
uniform bending moment is more prone to LTB than a beam with
a varying moment along its length. The Cb factor is intended to
 adjust the capacity based on the moment distribution. The point
of loading has a secondary effect, the loading of a beam above
the shear center will result in greater propensity to twist, thus
reducing the capacity of the beam and aggravating the LTB
failure. An example of LTB is provided in the numerical
modeling discussion and annex.
Table 1 provides the designer with the applicable paragraphs
from the AISC code for common members.
Table 1 Basic Structural Design
Fig. 1 Example Lateral-Torsional Failure
LOAD COMBINATIONS
Load combinations are used in both the ASME and AISC
codes for design. Internals, external attachments, and support
systems should all be designed using AISC; however, more
conservative approaches are acceptable as long as all failure
modes are properly addressed. The following are the
recommended load combinations based on ASCE 7.

Recommended ASD Load Combinations for Internals

1. D
2. D + L
3. D + 0.7E
4. D + 0.75L + 0.75(0.7E)
5. D + Th
6. D + L + Th
7. D + 0.7E + Th
8. D + 0.75L + 0.75(0.7E) + Th
9. 0.6D + 0.7E

Recommended LRFD Load Combinations for Internals

1. 1.4D
2. 1.2D + 1.6L
3. 1.2D + 1.0E + 0.5L
4. 1.4D + Th
5. 1.2D + 1.6L + Th
6. 1.2D + 1.0E + 0.5L + Th
7. 0.9D + 1.0E

Notes:
1. The E loads in the above combinations are strength
level loads, thus applying 0.7E in the ASD load
combinations. If the loads are service level loads, then
the 0.7E should change to 1.0E. For LRFD load
combinations using service level loads, E must be
factored up to 1.4E.
2. In most cases, operational loads (i.e. catalyst) on
internals are considered as dead loads not live loads.
3. These load combinations are considered minimum and
the analyst must assure all combinations of loading are
addressed.

DESIGN MARGINS AND STRESS ALLOWABLES

The ASME code uses allowable stress design for

establishing structural integrity of the pressure boundary.
Normal stress and yield criterion are used for checking against
the stress limits for each failure mode. ASME code does not
address the specific behavior or failure modes of a structural
beam. The AISC code capacities are compared to the nominal
stress (ASD) or load (LRFD).

3 Copyright 2015 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86322/ on 05/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 The ASME code does not have a specific limit on bending
alone. The limits in the ASME code are based on stress
categorization and the limits are either on membrane stress or
membrane plus bending stress. The ASME code does not have
a check for LTB or flange and web buckling. Typically pressure
vessels are cylindrical and not prone to LTB. The code limits a
mechanical axial load and bending load in a cylinder to the
membrane stress limit of 2/3 yield or less. The ASME code also
defines the type of stress in a pressure vessel, whether the stress
is a result of displacement loading or a mechanical load. The
failure modes for each type are different. It is assumed in the
ASME code that a secondary stress does not cause plastic
collapse (burst), and are limited based on distortion, ratcheting,
brittle fracture, and fatigue as discussed above. The structural
code treats all loads the same. The Sps limit in the ASME code
cannot be used to evaluate structural members because structural
components will fail well before this limit is achieved. Sps is
intended to be a ratcheting check to ensure elastic action and
ensure shakedown. The design margins are stress based in the
ASME code and are based on specific margins relative to yield,
ultimate and creep. The margins for the AISC code are based on
reliability, testing and probability. AISC margins are based on
two limit states 1) Serviceability Limit State (functional
requirements) and 2) Strength Limit State (safety against
extreme loads or member material under strength). The LRFD
specification is based on a 99.7% reliability over 50 year life and
mainly addresses the strength limit state.
The ASME code was not developed to address the failure
modes of beam like structures. Using the ASME code to design
structures introduces significant risk of failure. No matter what
code is used, all appropriate failure modes must be addressed for
a design. For structural beams the AISC Code or other structural
code is the best engineering practice.
Two examples are provided in Annex A utilizing AISC code
calculations. The AISC calculated capacities based on A-36
steel, were compared to the ASME calculated capacities, and the
results are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 Calculated Capacities Example Results
Example
AISC ASME ASME
Shape
Limit 1.5*Sa SPS
1 W8X10 1,009 lb/ft 1,831 lb/ft 3,664 lb/ft
(15 kN/m) (27 kN/m) (53 kN/m)
Amount Over ASIC Limit 81% Over 263% Over
2 Rectangle 11,803 lb/ft 18,514 lb/ft 37,029 lb/ft
36 X 2 (172 kN/m) (270 kN/m) (540 kN/m)
Amount Over ASIC Limit 56% Over 213% Over
SERVICIABILITY CONSIDERATIONS
4 Copyright 2015 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86322/ on 05/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
Serviceability is defined as the ability of a design to fulfill
its intended purpose. Many times, the design of beams is often
controlled by serviceability instead of strength. Typical design
concerns regarding serviceability include the following.
1. Deflection A condition where deflections of a
structure prohibit its intended use. Deflections of the
system must be considered, it is not sufficient to only
review the deflections of each individual component.
For example: process trays which need to maintain a
prescribed liquid level across the entire tray.
2. Vibration When structures are optimized based on
strength alone flexibility and vibration can be a
concern. For example: component vibration due to
fluid flow or an external source.
3. Installation and Maintenance Internals are
segmented to facilitate installation and removal. Each
component must consider personnel, equipment and/or
scaffold loadings.
When evaluating deflections and vibrations the LRFD
factors should be set to 1.0.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
The AISC code has a limited set of materials allowed and
those materials are listed in paragraph A3 [2], these materials are
carbon and low alloy steels. Minimum yield and minimum
tensile stresses are given in the applicable ASTM specifications
for each material. These yield and tensile values are at room
temperature as the AISC Code is for structures assumed to be at
ambient temperature. The AISC code provides information in
Appendix 4 [2] on properties of steel at elevated temperatures,
but the context of this information is for fires (not long term use).
In most process environments the temperature will be above the
ambient temperature, and operation at these temperatures is for
years not hours. The minimum yield and minimum tensile
values for a particular operating temperature can be obtained
from ASME code Section II Part D (Table U for Tensile Strength
Values, Table Y-1 for Yield Strength and Tables TM-1 through
TM-5 for Modulus of Elasticity) [1].
The designer should be cautious when using experimental
values with limited data sets. The ASME code values are based
on large data sets and are obtained based on experience. The
experimental data if used should be adjusted down. The designer
should also use caution with non-ASME data as some foreign
codes use nominal values instead of minimum.
CORROSION ALLOWANCE
Internal components are typically exposed to corrosive
environments. Corrosion reduces the cross section and sectional
properties of shapes and plates thus reducing the strength and
stiffness. Since the corrosion occurs on all sides of the shape,
the effect of corrosion is doubled. Corrosion can be local,
affecting only a small area of a member or gross, affecting the
 entire member. The designer must determine how much of the
corrosion allowance should be applied to the member for design.
Some designers choose to apply the full corrosion allowance
while others only use half of the corrosion allowance trying to
find a balance between local and gross corrosion.
The loss of strength from corrosion on shapes and plates is
more pronounced than is on the pressure boundary. For
example, the strength of flat plate is proportional to its thickness
squared and the deflection is proportional to its thickness cubed.
The same effect applies to shapes which are not only affected
exponentially but by design rules that change based on geometry
proportions. Fig. 3 shows the effects of corrosion on the ultimate
strength of flat plate, standard structural shapes, and custom
shapes shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2 Shapes Used for Comparison of Corrosion Effects
Fig. 3 Effects on Ultimate Strength from Corrosion
5 Copyright 2015 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86322/ on 05/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
NUMERICAL MODELING
Advances in computing hardware and engineering analysis
software have lead to the widespread use of numerical modeling
in solving engineering problems. Modern general purpose finite
element analysis (FEA) software packages such as ANSYS [7]
and ABAQUS [8] provide extremely powerful modeling tools.
However, the user must understand the limitations, as well as
what is and is not being modeled. The use of general purpose
FEA software for structural analysis of the main load bearing
members for vessel internals can easily result in misleading
conclusions regarding the adequacy of the design. General
purpose FEA packages are not inherently setup or configured to
perform all of the AISC code checks like special purpose
structural design software packages such as RISA [9] or STAAD
[10]. For example, lateral torsional buckling of a uniformly
loaded beam in bending is not captured in a static stress analysis
in general purpose FEA unless geometric imperfections are
explicitly modeled and an appropriate solver is chosen. If the
geometry is modeled as a straight line between two points, the
static structural solution will continue well beyond the buckling
load, leading to the false conclusion that the beam is adequate as
designed.
The provided examples attempt to capture LTB of a beam
using a general purpose FEA package. The FEA models are
shown in Figs. 4 & 8. The ends of the beams were fully coupled
to reference nodes on each end using a kinematic constraint. The
references nodes were constrained to model a simply supported
pinned-roller configuration for each beam, including restraint
of twisting at the ends. A vertical uniform line load was applied
along the length of the beams using nodal forces on the top face
center line nodes. The beams were modeled as elastic-plastic
with strain hardening using a stress-strain curve typical of
ASTM A-36 steel as shown in Fig. 5 [4]. An elastic-plastic
model was chosen to better capture post buckling behavior of the
beams.
The maximum permissible out of straightness or sweep
per ASTM A6 for a 10 ft (3048 mm) long W8x10 is 1/8 inch
(3.175 mm) [5]. Hence, five different variants of the models
were analyzed with sweeps ranging from 0 to 1/8 inch (3.175
mm). Figure 6 & 9 show typical buckled shape with magnified
displacements. Figure 7 & 10 show plots of mid-span moment
versus mid-span lateral deflection for each case. For a sweep of
0 inch (perfectly straight) both models failed to predict
buckling and the lateral deflection never varied from zero as the
load continually increased.
These examples show that buckling type failure modes
cannot be easily captured using general purpose FEA software.
The level of detail and time involved is not feasible for routine
design of vessel internals. Hence, a preferred and more practical
approach would be the use of both structural and general purpose
software packages, only using general purpose FEA when the
structural packages are not capable of properly modeling the
behavior of the component(s) being analyzed.
 (C3D20R Elements)

Fig. 4 W8x10 FEA Model

Fig. 6 W8x10 Typical Post Buckle Deformed Shape

Typical Stress-Strain Curve for A36 Steel

60 414

50 345
Engineering Stress (MPa)
Engineering Stress (ksi)

40 276

30 207

20 138

10 69

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Engineering Strain (inch/inch) (mm/mm)

Fig. 5 Material Stress-Strain Curve * See Appendix A

Fig. 7 W8x10 Mid-Span Moment V.S. Lateral Deflection

6 Copyright 2015 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86322/ on 05/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 1,400 1898

(C3D20R Elements)
1,200 1636

1,000 1356

Bending Moment (kN-m)

Bending Moment (ft-kip)
800 1085
Sweep = 0 inch
600 Sweep = 1/64 inch (0.4 mm) 814
Sweep = 1/32 inch (0.8 mm)
400 Sweep = 1/16 inch (1.6 mm) 542
Sweep = 1/8 inch (3.2 mm)
200 LTB Moment * 271
Yield Moment *
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 (inch)
0 2.5 5.1 7.6 10.2 12.7 15.2 17.8 20.3 22.9 25.4 (mm)
Lateral Deflection
* See Appendix B
Fig. 8 Rectangular Beam FEA Model
Fig. 10 Rectangular Beam Mid-Span Moment V.S. Lateral
Deflection

ADDITIONAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

The following documents should also be considered when

designing internals.
Stainless Steel Design AISC Design Guide 27:
Structural Stainless Steel
Cold Formed Bent Shapes AISI S100-12 North
American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed
Steel Structural Members

CONCLUSIONS

It is the opinion of the authors that an appropriate structural

design code must be utilized for the design of pressure vessel
internals such as the AISC code and not the ASME code. The
ASME code is intended for the design of the pressure boundary
Fig. 9 Rectangular Beam Typical Post Buckle Deformed only. The failure modes associated with structural components
Shape are not addressed in the ASME code, therefore, utilizing the
ASME code for vessel internals does not provide a robust or safe
design.
The use of general purpose FEA software for structural
analysis of vessel internals can easily result in misleading
conclusions. These packages are not inherently setup or
configured to facilitate checking of all potential failure modes of
structural members. The level of detail and time involved in
performing an FEA of the internal structures is not feasible for
the routine design of vessel internals. The appropriate method is
to apply the AISC code design rules either by hand calculations
or a program designed to perform the structural code checks and
only use general purpose FEA in special cases.
It is imperative that when designing internals all failure
modes are addressed using the appropriate code for all design
conditions.

7 Copyright 2015 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86322/ on 05/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 NOMENCLATURE
Cb LTB constant APPENDIX A Example 1
D Dead Load
L Live Load (or Live load due to occupancy) Description Wide flange section bent about its major axis,
E Earthquake Load simple supported with a uniform distributed load in accordance
Fy Material yield at temperature with AISC 14th Edition LRFD Chapter F Beams and Other
Sa Code allowable stress Flexural Members
Sps ASME code allowable secondary stress
Th Thermal W8x10 A 36 Stl
Z Plastic section modulus Corrosion Allowance 0 in

REFERENCES

(1) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes, Rules For

The Construction Of Pressure Vessels, Published by
the American Society Of Mechanical Engineers, July
2013, New York, NY.
(2) American Institute of Steel Construction, Steel
Construction Manual, Published by the American
Institute of Steel Construction, 14th Edition, 2011
(3) Simulia Corp. Abaqus 6.14 Analysis Users Guide,
Published by Dassault Systmes Simulia Corp., 2014,
Providence, RI.
(4) Salmon, C.G., Johnson, J.E. and Faris A. Malhas, Steel
Structures Design and Behavior Emphasizing Load
and Resistance Factor Design, Published by Pearson
Education Inc., 5th Edition, 2009, Upper Saddle River,
NJ.
(5) ASTM International Standard A6/A6M-13a, Standard
Specification for General Requirements for Rolled
Structural Steel Bars Plates, Shapes, and Sheet Piling,
Published by the American Society for Testing and
Materials, October 2013, West Conshohocken, PA.
(6) ASCE/SEI 7 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures, Published by American Society
of Civil Engineers, 2010, Reston, Virginia
(7) ANSYS General Purpose FEA program, Version 15, by
Ansys, Inc, Cannonsburg PA, USA
(8) ABAQUS General Purpose FEA program, Version
6.14, by Dassault Systems, Waltham MA, USA
(9) RISA 3D Structural Design Program, Version 12, by
RISA Technologies, Foothill Ranch CA, USA
(10) STAAD Pro Structural Design Program, by Bentley,
Exton PA, USA

8 Copyright 2015 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86322/ on 05/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 APPENDIX B Example 2

Description Rectangular beam section bent about major axis.

Simply supported w/ uniform load in accordance with AISC 14th
Edition LRFD Chapter F Beams and Other Flexural Members.
(See numerical solution for dimensions)

9 Copyright 2015 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86322/ on 05/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 10 Copyright 2015 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86322/ on 05/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo