ASME District F - Early Career Technical Conference Proceedings
ASME District F - Early Career Technical Conference, ASME District F – ECTC 2013
November 2 – 3, 2013 - Birmingham, Alabama USA
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BENEFITS OF USING ASME BPVC SECTION VIII
DIVISION 2 IN LIEU OF DIVISION 1 FOR PRESSURE VESSEL DESIGN
James William Becker
Burns & McDonnell
Kansas City, Missouri, USA
ABSTRACT
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section VIII
Division 1 [1] is one of the most commonly used pressure
vessel codes in the world. The Division 1 rules were originally
written before the age of computers; they were intended to be
solved by simple hand calculations. This simplification led to
rules with a high safety margin and a conservative technical
basis. In 2007, ASME published a completely rewritten edition
of ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 2 [2], intended to lower
the safety margin by introducing more complex, technically
accurate pressure vessel design rules, and make the Code more
cost-competitive in an international market.
The Division 2 Code saves the user money on materials
with the use of higher allowable stresses and more accurate
design formulas. However, in order to justify the increase in
allowable stress, Division 2 mandates additional NDE and a
Professional Engineer’s stamp, which raise the vessel price. At
a certain thickness, the material savings outweigh the additional
cost, and Division 2 becomes cost-effective. Six years after
publication of the new Division 2, the industry has yet to
identify the thickness at which the transition from Division 1 to
Division 2 becomes cost-competitive. Division 2 is still most
commonly used only for very high pressure, high thickness
applications. This investigation compares Division 2 to
Division 1 to determine a reasonable set of design conditions
by which Division 2 will yield a more cost-effective pressure
vessel, even on some lower pressure applications.
NOMENCLATURE
= weld consumable cross section area
ASME = American Society of Mechanical Engineers
BPVC = Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
= corrosion allowance
= vessel diameter
= joint efficiency
°F
= degree Fahrenheit
FEA
= finite element analysis
ksi
= 1,000 x psi
MDR = manufacturer’s data report
MT
= magnetic particle testing
NDE
= non-destructive examination
= design pressure
ASME District F - ECTC 2013 Proceedings - Vol. 12
psi
PE
RT
∆
UT
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
pounds per square inch
Professional Engineer
vessel radius
radiographic testing
allowable stress
safety factor on tensile strength
safety factor on yield strength
minimum required thickness
Division 1 calculated minimum thickness
Division 2 calculated minimum thickness
change in thickness due to Division 2
design temperature
allowable tensile stress
minimum tensile strength
ultrasonic testing
minimum cost effective weight
allowable yield stress
minimum yield strength at design temperature
BACKGROUND
Pressure vessels, boilers and other pressurized equipment
can contain an abundance of energy and can be dangerous
should one fail. Prior to pressure vessel and boiler safety laws,
boiler explosions claimed thousands of lives. The single worst
maritime disaster in the history of the United States occurred in
1865 when the boiler on the steamboat Sultana exploded,
killing more than 1,600 of the 2,300 Union prisoners of war on
board. [3] The Sultana explosion was more deadly than the
sinking of the Titanic in 1912. At the beginning of the 20th
century there were over 1,200 deaths caused by more than
1,600 boiler explosions in the United States. [4] In 1905, at the
climax of the boiler explosions, the R.B. Grover & Company
Shoe Factory’s boiler exploded, killing 58 and injuring 150 in
Brockton, Massachusetts. [5] The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, along with the American Boiler Manufactures
Association, persuaded the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers to start work on a safety code for the construction
and inspection of boilers. [6] This first boiler code was
published in 1914, and an updated edition is still used today,
published as ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section I.
After the first boiler code was published, ASME published
the first pressure vessel code in 1925, still updated and
published today as ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1. Since
225
its inception in the early 20th century, Section VIII Division 1
has contained simple pressure vessel calculations that can
quickly and easily be solved by hand. For simplicity,
conservative assumptions form the technical basis of Division
1; therefore, Division 1 also contains a relatively high factor of
safety. In 1975, ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 2 was first
published as a more accurate, less conservative, pressure vessel
code, with a slightly lower factor of safety. [4]
INTRODUCTION
By the mid-1990s, pressure vessel technology and research
had advanced to a point where neither Division 1 nor Division
2 incorporated the latest research or technological
advancements. Computers and the advent of FEA allowed
engineers to study pressure vessel behavior more in depth and
obtain complex, rigorous results quickly. Division 1 was always
intended to house simple pressure vessel rules that, while
conservative, could be solved easily by hand. The advancement
in pressure vessel technology and computation speed provided
the opportunity for more rigorous and accurate calculations to
be included in the Code; however, since Division 1 was one of
the most commonly used pressure vessel codes in the world, the
decision was made to leave Division 1 as-is, a “simple”
pressure vessel code that the industry could continue to
implement without major change. In 1998, the ASME Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Standards Committee commissioned a
project to rewrite Division 2 that would update the Code with
the latest technology and lower the safety margin to make it
more cost-competitive in an international market. [7]
The new, completely rewritten Division 2 was published by
ASME in 2007, only nine years after it was commissioned. The
current Division 2 is a better defined Code than Division 1 from
a technical viewpoint, with more accurate and rigorous
formulas, a lower factor of safety on tensile strength, and a
more user friendly structure. [7] In general, the lower factor of
safety on tensile strength in Division 2 leads to higher
allowable stress values and, therefore, a reduced cost for the
pressure-retaining materials of construction. Alternately,
Division 2 mandates a Professional Engineer’s stamp and
requires an increase in non-destructive examination that among
other factors contribute as cost adders compared to Division 1.
[2] Due to general uncertainty surrounding the relatively new
Division 2, as well as the conflicting cost implications of higher
allowable stresses versus increased NDE, no clear guideline
exists for when a Division 2 pressure vessel might become
cost-effective over a Division 1 design. This investigation
attempts to analyze the cost implications resulting from
different allowable stress values in the two divisions, as well as
the variable and fixed cost adders for Division 2 as seen by the
vessel fabricator, to propose a set of parameters over which
Division 2 might become the more cost-effective pressure
vessel code. The focus of this investigation is on carbon steel,
ASME material specification SA-516-70 [8], as this is one of
the more commonly used materials in the fabrication of
pressure vessels. Other material specifications may yield
different results, and the decision to use Division 2 is typically
ASME District F - ECTC 2013 Proceedings - Vol. 12
much easier to determine with high cost, high chrome-type
materials. As in any investigation with a focus on cost, factors
such as market fluctuations, labor agreements and material
surcharges can greatly influence the results.
ALLOWABLE STRESS AND MINIMUM THICKNESS
Division 2 is a more accurate and technically complex
Code, therefore the safety factor on tensile strength is reduced
and the allowable stress for each type of material is generally
higher than Division 1. Before the relative thicknesses of a
pressure vessel built to either Division 1 or Division 2 can be
compared, first the calculated allowable stress from each
Division must be understood. ASME BPVC Section II Part D
Tables 1A and 1B list the Division 1 allowable stress values for
each material specification at varying temperatures. [9] Section
II Part D Tables 5A and 5B list the allowable stress values for
Division 2. [9] These allowable stress values are calculated by
applying safety factors to both the minimum tensile strength
and the minimum yield strength and setting the lower of these
two values as the maximum allowable stress at each
temperature, as shown in equations 1 through 3. Table 1
indicates the different safety factors for Division 1 and Division
2, which lead to the different allowable stress values in each
Division.
=
(1)
=
(2)
= minimum
(3)
Table 1 Safety Factors [10]
Division 1
3.5
1.5
Division 2
2.4
1.5
As indicated in Section II Part D Table Y-1, the minimum
yield strength of SA-516-70 decreases as the design
temperature increases [9]. In both Division 1 and Division 2,
, is 1.5. [10] In other
the safety factor on the yield strength,
words, the maximum allowable yield stress, , is two-thirds of
the yield strength, , at the design temperature in both
,
Divisions. The Division 2 safety factor on tensile strength,
is 69% of the Division 1 safety factor, leading to a Division 2
allowable tensile stress, , approximately 1.45 times greater
than Division 1 at room temperature. As indicated in Equation
3, the allowable stress of the material from Section II Part D is
the minimum of the allowable yield stress and allowable tensile
stress. [9]
At a given temperature, a material for which the allowable
yield stress is lower than the allowable tensile stress is
226
considered governed by yield strength and a material for which
the allowable tensile stress is lower than the allowable yield
stress is considered governed by tensile strength. Division 2
provides no general material savings benefit for a yield strength
governed material, such as stainless steel. The greatest benefit
from Division 2 is realized for a material that is tensile
governed up to a relatively high temperature. Figure 1 indicates
the allowable stress values for SA-516-70 for both Division 1
and Division 2 at a variety of temperatures. [9]
Allowable Stress (psi)
30,000
Division 1
Division 2
25,000
20,000
15,000
could be quoted at much different prices from different vessel
fabricators. This investigation studies the pricing of pressure
vessels on a percentage basis, because total cost becomes
arbitrary as the input parameters are changed. Regardless of the
total magnitude of cost savings, Division 2 does become costeffective when the percent difference between the Division 1
and Division 2 costs is zero. In general, as the size and
thickness of a pressure vessel increase, so does the total amount
saved by switching to Division 2; however, the percent
difference in cost may be the same for either large or small
vessels at the same design temperature, regardless of size and
thickness. For small pressure vessels, a 5% cost savings may
only be a few thousand dollars, whereas for very large pressure
vessels, a 5% savings may amount to hundreds of thousands of
dollars. In either case, Division 2 would be more cost-effective,
and the decision to use Division 2 should not be limited by the
total dollar amount saved but by the percentage reduction in the
cost of the pressure vessel when using Division 2. This
investigation analyzes the four cases, provided by Curtis Kelly
Inc. shown in Table 2. [12] The thickness shown is the Division
1 minimum required thickness.
10,000
0
100
200 300 400 500 600 700
Design Temperature (°F)
Figure 1 Allowable Stress vs. Design Temperature for SA-51670 [9]
Below 600°F, carbon steel is governed by tensile strength,
and above 600°F carbon steel is governed by yield strength.
Because the higher allowable stress values in Division 2 result
in the majority of the cost savings, this study focuses on design
temperatures significantly less than 600°F where the margin on
allowable stress between Division 1 and Division 2 is most
prominent. [11] When SA-516-70 becomes governed by yield
strength, the allowable stress values between the two Divisions
are identical and there is no financial incentive to choose
Division 2 over Division 1.
The minimum required thickness of the pressure vessel is
inversely proportional to the allowable stress for the material of
construction. Equations 4 and 5 are the minimum thickness
equations for Division 1 and Division 2, respectively. [1] [2]
While these equations appear vastly different at first glance,
they supply very similar results when using the same input
parameters and allowable stress values.
=
=
− 0.6
2
+
−1 +
(4)
(5)
DIVISION 2 VS. DIVISION 1 PRICING
The pricing of a pressure vessel is dependent on so many
factors that, when competitively bid, the same pressure vessel
ASME District F - ECTC 2013 Proceedings - Vol. 12
Table 2 Division 2 Pricing Data [12]
800
Case
Diam
Length
Thickness
1
2
3
4
10’
10’
8’
11’
80’
60’
64’
100’
3.75”
2.75”
3”
1.5”
% Weight
Savings
21%
18%
12%
6%
% Cost
Savings
12%
10%
6%
2%
These four cases cover a variety of pressure vessel sizes,
thicknesses and volumes. All four of these cases would
probably be considered “large” relative to an average-sized
pressure vessel. Traditionally, Division 2 has only been used for
large, thick pressure vessels, because until the Division 2 Code
was rewritten in 2007, there wasn’t much cost advantage for
anything on the average side of the vessel spectrum. [10] In
Figure 1, the Division 2 allowable stresses were plotted with
respect to the design temperature. The design temperature and
corresponding allowable stress for the four test cases are shown
in Table 3. As the design temperature decreases, the allowable
stress increases and therefore the benefit for using Division 2 in
lieu of Division 1 increases. Figure 2 shows the percent cost
savings as a function of the percent weight savings for each
vessel. In Figure 3, the percent cost and percent weight savings
for each of the four test cases is plotted against the allowable
stress. . Both Figure 2 and 3 apply for “large” pressure vessels,
which are defined as vessels whose material cost savings
greatly outweigh the fixed cost of a calculated Division 2
design, stamped by a PE. It should be noted that Figure 2 was
used in this investigation to determine the maximum costeffective design temperature; however, other factors, such as
market demand, supplier availability and volatile labor costs,
can affect the total cost of both Division 1 and Division 2
pressure vessels.
227
Percent Cost Savings
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Percent Weight Savings
Figure 2 Percent Cost Savings vs. Percent Weight Savings
Percent Savings
25
Cost
20
Weight
15
10
5
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
Allowable Stress (ksi)
Figure 3 Percent Savings vs. Allowable Stress [12] [9]
Table 3 Division 2 Allowable Stress Values [9]
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Design
100 °F
150 °F
250 °F
350 °F
Temp
Allowable
25.3ksi
23.8 ksi
22.8 ksi
22.1 ksi
Stress
RESULTS
In contrast to the material savings realized by switching to
Division 2 from Division 1, there are also cost adders
associated with Division 2, most notably the cost of a PE’s
design and certification, and the cost of additional NDE. In
order to use Division 2, a PE must prepare the MDR, which is a
fixed cost regardless of the pressure vessel size. In this
investigation, the cost of a PE to prepare and stamp the MDR is
estimated at $2,000 per pressure vessel. [12] There are also
variable costs associated with Division 2, which manifest in
additional NDE requirements. In most cases, Division 2
requires RT, UT and MT, in addition to the minimum
requirements in Division 1.
ASME District F - ECTC 2013 Proceedings - Vol. 12
By extrapolating the cost curve in Figure 3, the allowable
stress when the percent cost savings becomes zero is
approximately 21,800 psi. When the Division 2 allowable stress
is less than 21,800 psi, there is no cost benefit for using
Division 2 in lieu of Division 1, regardless of the pressure
vessel size. At 21,800 psi, there remains a 1,800 psi gap, or an
approximate 3% weight difference, between Division 1 and
Division 2 in which material savings can be realized; however,
the fixed and variable costs of a PE stamp and additional NDE
offset the material savings at that low of an allowable stress.
Even for large pressure vessels, when a 3% weight offset alone
could result in tens of thousands of dollars in material savings,
the amount of additional NDE increases as the vessel size
increases, and the additional savings are absorbed by the
increasing variable cost. As shown in Figure 1, the design
temperature associated with a Division 2 allowable stress of
21,800 psi is 380°F. [9] For conservatism, the highest design
temperature for which Division 2 is cost-effective is
approximated as 350°F, which results in an allowable stress of
22,100 psi. As shown in Figures 2 and 3, for large pressure
vessels, an allowable stress of 22,100 psi will result in an
approximate 6% weight savings and 2% cost savings by
switching to Division 2.
As the size and weight of a pressure vessel decreases, so
does the material required for fabrication, and therefore the
amount of money saved by switching to Division 2 also
decreases. The correlations shown in Figure 3 are only
applicable for relatively large pressure vessels, where the
material cost savings greatly outweigh the fixed cost. This same
curve would not be linear for small pressure vessels, because as
a vessel decreases in size the fixed cost of the PE stamp begins
to overwhelm the cost savings from using less material. For
example, the $2,000 PE stamp does not have much effect on a
large pressure vessel from which tens of thousands of dollars
can be saved by switching to Division 2; however, for a small
pressure vessel, where only a few thousand dollars in material
savings exist, a $2,000 PE stamp takes away a relatively large
percentage of the savings. Carbon steel built to the ASME SA516-70N material specification [9] typically costs
approximately 75 cents per pound. [12] SA-516-70N is one of
the most common pressure vessel material specifications for
thicknesses greater than 1 inch, which is the case for most
Division 2 pressure vessels. [13]
The minimum weight of a pressure vessel for which
Division 2 becomes cost-effective is not as simple as dividing
the fixed cost, $2,000, by 75 cents per pound and then dividing
by the minimum percent weight savings. There are cost
advantages from reducing the material thickness beyond
material savings alone, most notably weld labor time. As shown
in Figure 4, as the thickness of a pressure vessel decreases by
∆ , the amount of consumable material used decreases on the
order of ∆ . This also reduces the amount of weld time on the
order of ∆ .
228
design. As the vessel design moves further above and away
from the curve in Figure 5, the cost savings will approach the
values shown in Figure 2. The curve in Figure 5 represents an
estimated cost savings of 0%, or the break-even point for
Division 2.
Figure 4 Weld Consumable Cross-Section Area
In reality, the fabricated savings of a Division 2 pressure
vessel per pound is greater than the 75 cent material cost, partly
due to the reduction in consumable volume and weld labor
indicated in Figure 4. For large vessels, the fabricated cost of a
pressure vessel is close to $3 per pound, and for small pressure
vessels it can escalate to $6-7 per pound. This investigation
assumes the additional cost for Division 2 NDE requirements
will offset the savings realized from reduced weld consumables
and weld labor hours. To be conservative, a fabricated cost, or
savings, of 75 cents per pound is assumed on the marginal
weight difference between the two Divisions. Also, because the
weight savings percentages shown in Figures 2 and 3 apply to
“large” pressure vessels, as the size of a pressure vessel
decreases, the weight savings percentage by switching to
Division 2 also decreases. A small vessel will have a slightly
lower weight savings percentage at each allowable stress than
indicated in Figure 3. In Equation 6, the minimum weight of a
pressure vessel with a design temperature of 350 F is calculated
with a “small vessel” margin of 2 in order to get into a less
volatile weight savings percentage range. This “small vessel”
margin helps move the curve away from the fixed cost of a PE
stamp. At the maximum cost-effective design temperature of
350°F, the minimum fabricated weight at which Division 2
becomes cost effective is 88,622 pounds, as outlined in
Equation 6.
=
(2)($2,000)
= 88,622
$0.75
(6%)
,
(6)
A pressure vessel large enough or thick enough to weigh
90,000 pounds at a design temperature of 350°F will be
approximately the same cost as either a Division 1 or a Division
2 design. Figure 2 shows a 2% cost benefit at 350°F; however,
90,000 pounds is a small enough pressure vessel at 350°F that
the fixed cost begins to govern and the savings is offset. For
each design temperature within the recommended Division 2
range (-20 to 350°F) there is a minimum required fabricated
weight in order to overcome the fixed cost, as shown in Figure
5. To develop Figure 5, Equation 6 was used and the respective
weight savings percentage for each allowable stress was
substituted into the denominator, shown as 6% in Equation 6
for 350°F. A pressure vessel that falls in the range above the
curve in Figure 5 will be more cost-effective as a Division 2
ASME District F - ECTC 2013 Proceedings - Vol. 12
Figure 5 Division 2 Cost-Effective Range
= 1.1341 − 271.67 + 42842
100
350
= 27016
− 20
100 (7)
The polynomial curve fit equation shown on Figure 5 and
in Equation 7 represents the minimum weight at each design
temperature for which Division 2 may become cost-effective.
The price of any pressure vessel is highly dependent on more
factors than were analyzed in this study, including market
supply, demand, labor rates and material surcharges. The design
temperature is bounded on the low side by -20°F, and bounded
on the high side by 350°F, which is the highest temperature at
which Division 2 remains reasonably cost-effective. If a
pressure vessel design falls within the blue shaded region of
Figure 5 or above, a Division 2 design should be considered. At
design conditions close to the curve, the cost savings may be
minimal or nonexistent due to market fluctuations; however, the
equation shown in Figure 5, Equation 7, provides an easily
identifiable set of design conditions under which Division 2
should be explored for cost-effectiveness.
OTHER DIVISION 2 BENEFITS
The possibility of a lower pressure vessel cost is not the
only benefit of using the new Division 2 for pressure vessel
design. Unlike Division 1, all of the rules in Division 2 have a
strong technical basis. Some of the Division 1 rules were
written to be very conservative, and the technical basis has been
forgotten over the years. These rules, such as the reinforcement
area replacement or the 2-inch nozzle exclusion for
reinforcement continue to be published in Division 1 because
they have been around for almost 100 years. Although there
isn’t a technical basis for these rules, they have been proved
through experience to work, so they continue to be accepted.
Division 2 was written with a strong technical basis for all of
229
the rules, which is one of the reasons the safety factor on tensile
strength is reduced.
Another major benefit from using Division 2 is weight
savings. Some vessel applications, such as offshore oil rigs,
demand the lightest construction possible. In these situations,
Division 2 may be used even when it isn’t necessarily costeffective. Shell thickness is not the only avenue for weight
savings in Division 2. The opening reinforcement produce
smaller reinforcement pads, the external pressure calculations
require fewer stiffener rings, and the elliptical head formulas
generally calculate thinner than Division 1, even at the same
allowable stress values.
Division 2, partly because the line at which it becomes costeffective has been unclear. This investigation — and Equation 7
in particular — serve to better define the boundary at which
Division 2 should be analyzed, with hope that industry will
become more comfortable and confident using Division 2.
CONCLUSION
In response to numerous deaths resulting from boiler
explosions around the turn of the century, ASME published the
first pressure vessel safety code in 1925. This first code was
intended to be simple and conservative to enable the solving of
vessel equations by hand. It continues today in the form of
Division 1. In 2007, ASME published a completely rewritten,
more technically accurate code, known as Division 2. Division
2 is more technically sound, the equations are more rigorous,
and therefore the safety factor is lower than Division 1. The
lower safety factor in Division 2 leads to additional cost
savings by reducing the minimum required thickness of a
pressure vessel. There are also additional costs associated with
Division 2, most notably the cost of a PE stamp and additional
NDE requirements. As the size of a pressure vessel increases,
the material savings begin to outweigh the additional costs.
At higher design temperatures, the Division 2 allowable
stress values decrease and the cost advantage of Division 2 is
diminished. Figure 3 and Table 2 show that the maximum
design temperature at which Division 2 is still cost-effective is
350°F. At a constant design temperature, even as the size of the
pressure vessel increases, the cost savings percentage does not
increase. The variable cost of additional NDE as the size of the
pressure vessel increases is offset by additional variable
savings. The main driving factor that causes Division 2 to be
cost-effective is the raw material savings. Even with the
advantageous Division 2 allowable stress values, a small
pressure vessel may not be cost-effective due to the fixed cost
of a PE stamp. Figure 5 and Equation 7 show the minimum
required fabricated vessel weight in order for Division 2 to be
cost-effective at each design temperature. The cost of a pressure
vessel is dependent on many more parameters than outlined in
this investigation, such as market supply, demand, and labor
rates. Vessel design conditions that fall above the curve
bounded by -20°F, 350°F and Equation 7 should be explored
for Division 2; however, due to the many parameters that affect
the price of a pressure vessel, pressure vessels that fall above
but near the curve should be evaluated for both Division 1 and
Division 2.
Cost benefits are not the only advantage of using the new
ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 2. It is more accurate, has
a stronger technical basis and employs better design principles
than Division 1. Today’s market is slow to adapt to the new
REFERENCES
ASME District F - ECTC 2013 Proceedings - Vol. 12
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This investigation would not have been possible without
the strong technical and commercial support from Curtis Kelly
Inc. Many thanks are extended to the management team at
Curtis Kelly for their continued support and advice. Curtis
Kelly Inc. is a vessel fabricator in the Houston area.
[1] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee on Pressure
Vessels, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code: Section VIII
Division 1, New York: ASME, 2011.
[2] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee on Pressure
Vessels, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code: Section VIII
Division 2, New York: ASME, 2011.
[3] S. Ambrose, "Remembering Sultana," National Geographic,
1
May
2001.
[Online].
Available:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/05/0501_river5.
html. [Accessed 14 July 2013].
[4] K. Mokhtarian, Participant Workbook - ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code: Section VIII Division 1, Las Vegas,
Nevada: ASME Training & Development, 2012.
[5] D.H. Cook, "The R.B. Grover & Company Shoe Factory
Boiler Explosion," USGen Web, Brockton, Massachusetts,
2002.
[Online].
Available:
http://plymouthcolony.net/brockton/boiler.html. [Accessed 14
July 2013].
[6] S.F. Harrison, "Development, Relationship of the ASME
Boiler-and-Pressure Vessel Committee and the National Board
of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors," in International
Compressor Engineering Conference, Paper 73, 1972.
[7] David A. Osage et al, "Section VIII: Division 2 - Alternative
Rules," in Companion Guide to the ASME Boiler & Pressure
Vessel Code, New York, ASME, 2009, p. Chapter 22.
[8] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee on Materials,
ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code: Section II Part A, New
York: ASME, 2011.
[9] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee on Materials,
ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code: Section II Part D, New
York: ASME, 2011.
[10] K. T. Lau, "A Brief Discussion on ASME Section VIII
Divisions 1 and 2 and the New Division 3," in 3rd Annual
Pressure Industry Conference, Banff, 2000.
[11] The B&PV Taskforce on the new ASME Section VIII
Division 2 Code, "A Proposal for the Use of the New (2007)
ASME Section VIII Division 2 Code in Alberta," 2007.
[12] C. K. Kyle Kotzebue, Interviewee, Division 2 Cost
Comparison. [Interview]. 31 December 2012.
[13] E. F. Megyesy, Pressure Vessel Handbook, Oklahoma City:
PV Publishing Inc., 2008.
230