{"title":"Comparative analysis of the design rules of hemispherical, torispherical, and ellipsoidal heads under external pressure","authors":"Zelin Jin , Keming Li , Xiao Guo , Tao Shen","doi":"10.1016/j.ijpvp.2025.105507","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The hemispherical, torispherical, and ellipsoidal heads are common parts of pressure vessels under external pressure. This paper compares the design rules in main standards including GB/T 150.3, GB/T 4732.3, ASME Ⅷ-1, ASME Ⅷ-2, ASME Code Case 2286-6 and EN 13445-3. The theoretical basis of design rules among these standards is presented while equations for calculating key parameters are compared. Torispherical and ellipsoidal heads are designed as hemispherical heads by equivalent methods. The buckling pressure difference between torispherical and ellipsoidal heads and corresponding equivalent hemispherical heads is compared by finite element eigenvalue buckling analysis. For most torispherical heads, the equivalent design method is conservative. For ellipsoidal heads, the equivalent design method adopted in EN 13445-3 is conservative. The Four-Center equivalent method is aggressive for thin heads but conservative for thick heads. Further, head thicknesses calculated according to different standards for six design cases are compared. The results indicate that EN 13445-3 is more economical for low design pressure, and GB/T 4732.3, ASME Ⅷ-2 and ASME Code Case 2286-6 are more economical for high design pressure. For moderate design pressure, the choice of the standard depends on the material, with GB/T 4732 being more economical for Q345R, GB/T 4732.3, ASME Ⅷ-2 and ASME Code Case 2286-6 for S30408 and ASME Ⅷ-2 for S22053. Meanwhile, the thicknesses calculated by ASME Ⅷ-1 are always the largest. This paper aims to comprehensively compare the design methods used by different standards and differences in their theoretical basis and to suggest the use of standards in engineering practice for designers.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54946,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping","volume":"216 ","pages":"Article 105507"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308016125000778","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The hemispherical, torispherical, and ellipsoidal heads are common parts of pressure vessels under external pressure. This paper compares the design rules in main standards including GB/T 150.3, GB/T 4732.3, ASME Ⅷ-1, ASME Ⅷ-2, ASME Code Case 2286-6 and EN 13445-3. The theoretical basis of design rules among these standards is presented while equations for calculating key parameters are compared. Torispherical and ellipsoidal heads are designed as hemispherical heads by equivalent methods. The buckling pressure difference between torispherical and ellipsoidal heads and corresponding equivalent hemispherical heads is compared by finite element eigenvalue buckling analysis. For most torispherical heads, the equivalent design method is conservative. For ellipsoidal heads, the equivalent design method adopted in EN 13445-3 is conservative. The Four-Center equivalent method is aggressive for thin heads but conservative for thick heads. Further, head thicknesses calculated according to different standards for six design cases are compared. The results indicate that EN 13445-3 is more economical for low design pressure, and GB/T 4732.3, ASME Ⅷ-2 and ASME Code Case 2286-6 are more economical for high design pressure. For moderate design pressure, the choice of the standard depends on the material, with GB/T 4732 being more economical for Q345R, GB/T 4732.3, ASME Ⅷ-2 and ASME Code Case 2286-6 for S30408 and ASME Ⅷ-2 for S22053. Meanwhile, the thicknesses calculated by ASME Ⅷ-1 are always the largest. This paper aims to comprehensively compare the design methods used by different standards and differences in their theoretical basis and to suggest the use of standards in engineering practice for designers.
期刊介绍:
Pressure vessel engineering technology is of importance in many branches of industry. This journal publishes the latest research results and related information on all its associated aspects, with particular emphasis on the structural integrity assessment, maintenance and life extension of pressurised process engineering plants.
The anticipated coverage of the International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping ranges from simple mass-produced pressure vessels to large custom-built vessels and tanks. Pressure vessels technology is a developing field, and contributions on the following topics will therefore be welcome:
• Pressure vessel engineering
• Structural integrity assessment
• Design methods
• Codes and standards
• Fabrication and welding
• Materials properties requirements
• Inspection and quality management
• Maintenance and life extension
• Ageing and environmental effects
• Life management
Of particular importance are papers covering aspects of significant practical application which could lead to major improvements in economy, reliability and useful life. While most accepted papers represent the results of original applied research, critical reviews of topical interest by world-leading experts will also appear from time to time.
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping is indispensable reading for engineering professionals involved in the energy, petrochemicals, process plant, transport, aerospace and related industries; for manufacturers of pressure vessels and ancillary equipment; and for academics pursuing research in these areas.