CDKB Case Study
Page 1 of 4
Tool Provider -
Home / Tools About Partners Contact Us Links
Pressure Vessel Design Case Study Engineering Solver Applications Design Approach * Structural Behaviour * Design Equations * In-service Factors * Special Considerations * Codes / Standards Case Studies * Greyed out items above are enabled once items are selected from the axes.
Background Info
This case study considers the design of a cylindrical storage vessel typical of those used in chemical and process industries to store liquids. Corrosion resistance, strength and ease of fabrication make composite materials particularly attractive for this sort of application. The installed cost of a GRP vessel compares favourably with that of more traditional materials, such as stainless steel and lined carbon steel vessels. The majority of such vessels have diameters in the range 1 to 10 m, with wall thicknesses of between 5 and 50 mm. In many respects, the process of designing a composite vessel is the same as that facing the designer of metal vessels. The design must take into account the design stress resulting from the pressure and size of the vessel in question. However, the composite composite designer is faced with the additional additional task of designing the the material to be used. In so doing, they will generally take take the opportunity to use a variety of differing layers layers within the laminate construction in order to achieve the most economical and desirable combination of properties. The design methodology used in this case study is that developed in BS4994 BS4994.This .This requires that the design process is considered in three stages, assessment of allowable strain, calculation of the applied unit loads and the selection of an appropriate laminate configuration. configuration. Case Study Parameters The vessel considered in this case study is a cylindrical vessel, internal diameter 1.75 m with an effective pressure of 2 bar (0.2 MPa). The operating temperature temperature for the vessel is 40°C. In service, the vessel contents contents level will primarily be static, although on occasion, the vessel will be emptied and refilled. The case study will follow the design process, using the BS4994 methodology, to develop a suitable laminate configuration. BS4994 methodology, Allowable Design Design Strain BS4994 determines an allowable design strain through the use of a number of part factors, which account for the BS4994 determines effects of loading, environment and manufacturing conditions on the long-term chemical and mechanical behaviour of the GRP laminates. These part factors are defined as follows:
k1 k2 k3 k4 k5
method of manufacture (range 1.6 to 3.0) long term behaviour (range 1.2 to 2.0) temperature (range 1.0 to 1.2) cyclic loading (range 1.1 to 1.4) curing procedure (range 1.1 to 1.5)
The product of these factors, and a further safety factor of 3.0 r esults in an overall design factor, K, which is used to evaluate the allowable design strain, εL. For the case considered here, these part factors are evaluated as follows:
For hand lay-up, part factor k1 = 1.6 For long term behaviour, part factor k 2 = 2.0 For temperature, assuming operation at 40°C, and use of a resin system with a heat distortion temperature of 80°C or higher, part factor k 3 = 1.0 For cyclic stressing, assuming occasional filling and emptying, part factor k 4 = 1.1 For curing procedure, assuming post cure at elevated temperature, part f actor k 5 = 1.1
Therefore, as
The "load limited" allowable limit l oading uL is given by
CDKB Case Study
Page 2 of 4
where u is the ultimate tensile unit strength (UTUS is i n N/mm per kg/m2 ) of the material, and K is the design factor calculated above. chopped strand mat (CSM) the UTuS is 200 N/mm/(kg/m2 ), thus uL = 17.2 N/mm/(kg/m2 ) woven rovings (WR) the UTuS is 300 N/mm/(kg/m2 ), thus uL = 25.8 N/mm/(kg/m2 ) The load limited allowable strain is given by
where u and K are as previously defined and X is the laminate extensibility. For CSM , the extensibility is 12 700 N/mm/(kg/m2), giving εL = 0.14% For WR , the extensibility is 16 200 N/mm/(kg/m2), giving εL = 0.16% There is a further overriding upper limit to the design strain of the lesser of 0.2% or 0.1 x εr (where fracture strain of unreinforced resin in a simple tensile test.
r is
ε
the
Assuming a resin strain to failure of 3%, then, in this case, the design remains load limited and the design unit loading ux = uL, i.e. 17.2 N/mm/(kg/m2) and 25.8 N/mm/(kg/m2) for CSM and WR r espectively. Applied Loads The applied loading on the vessel is then calculated using conventional analysis techniques. In this case, assuming no significant axial loading, the vessel wall circumferential unit stress is given by:
where P is the pressure, D is the vessel diameter and t is the vessel wall thickness.
Laminate Construction At this point, it is possible to design the laminate construction. The total quantity of reinforcement, in this first case for a vessel constructed simply from multiple CSM layers, is simply determined by:
where w x is the weight of a single layer and nx is the number of layers.
Therefore a total weight of 10.2 kg m -2 of reinforcement is required. The distribution of this would be selected according to manufacturers' individual preferences, but one suitable configuration would be: 2 layers 300 g m -2 (one at each surface) = 0.6 kg m-2 16 layers 600 g m -2 = 9.6 kg m-2 Total = 10.2 kg m-2 Assuming a glass content of 30% for CSM, the wall thickness would be 2.2 mm per kg/m2 of glass, giving a total wall thickness of 22.4 mm. A more efficient structure is obtained using a combination of CSM with WR , in which case the laminate construction is determined as f ollows: The design unit loading in the WR must be reduced such that the strain does not exceed the design limit for CSM , hence
CDKB Case Study
Page 4 of 4
Resin rich layer with binding tissue
-
TOTAL
353.72
This gives an actual laminate thickness of 25.06, assuming a glass content of 30% for CSM with 2.2 mm per kg/m2 of glass, and a glass content of 55% for CSM with 0.95 mm per kg/m 2 of glass, as previously. For a laminate of this thickness,
and the assumed value of K s = 1.78 is reasonable. If it had been found that the value of K s was not acceptable, then the calculation would need to be repeated with a better estimate for the value of K s until convergence was achieved. Reference: BS4994 - Specification for Vessels and Tanks in Reinforced Plastics, BSI 1973. Keywords: BS4994, Design, Design strain, Part factors, Laminate, Code
