In pressure vessel design, the values of safety factor are still determined on the basis of engineering experience. Thus, they cannot properly reflect the influence of the consequences of failure and the variabilities in stress and strength. As a result, designsare often excessively conservative, while on the other hand, the possibility of failure still exists. Two approaches for determining the value of the safety factor, which are based on reliability analysis, are presented in this paper. As a result of a comparison, one approach based on a stress-strength model is found to be appropriate for pressure vessel design practice. By transforming the interference parts of the distributions of stress and strength into equivalent normal distributions, the approach allows stress and strength to have arbitrary distributions. Three examples, one in which a vessel is subjected to internal pressure, one in which a tall vessel is subjected to combined loads, and one in which a vessel is subjected to external pressure, are given in the paper. From threexamples, the principles for determining target reliability and the factors affecting the safety factor are discussed. It is concluded that by using the approach presented in this paper for pressure vessel design, different consequences of failure as well as variabilities in stress and strength can be taken into account. The approach yields a value for the safety factor that leads to a design which will be safer and yet more economical.

1.
Algermissen, S. T., and Perkins, D. M., 1976, “A Probabilistic Estimate of Maximum Acceleration in Rock in the Contiguous United States,” U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report.
2.
ASME, 1989, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division II, New York, NY.
3.
ASME, 1993, The Use of Decision—Analysis Reliability Methods in Codes and Standards Work, CRTD-Vol. 23.
4.
ASTM, 1993, Standard, Section I, “Iron and Steel Products, Designation: A20/ A20M, Standard Specification for General Requirements for Steel Plates for Pressure Vessels.”
5.
Bush
S. H.
,
1988
, “
Statistics of Pressure Vessel and Piping Failure
,”
ASME JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY
, Vol.
110
, pp.
225
233
.
6.
Dai, S. H., and Wang, M. O., 1991, Reliability Analysis in Engineering Application, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
7.
Dao-Thien, M., and Massond, M., 1973, “On the Relation Between the Factor of Safety and Reliability,” ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry.
8.
Ellingwood, B., Galambos, T. V., MacGregory, J. C., and Cornell, C. A., 1980, “Development of a Probability Based Load Criterion for American National Standard A58-Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures.”
9.
Harvey, J. H., 1991, Theory and Design of Pressure Vessel, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
10.
Haugen, E. B., 1968, Probabilistic Approaches to Design, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
11.
Inchikawa
M.
,
1984
, “
Confidence Limit of Probability of Failure Based on Stress-Strength Model
,”
Reliability Engineering
, Vol.
8
, pp.
75
84
.
12.
Inchikawa
M.
,
1993
, “
A Meaning of the Overlapped Area Under Probability Density Curves of Stress and Strength
,”
Reliability Engineering and System Safety
, Vol.
41
, pp.
203
204
.
13.
Jawad, M. H., and Farr, J. R., 1984, Structural Analysis and Design of Process Equipment, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
14.
Kapur, K. C., and Lamberson, L. R., 1977, Reliability in Engineering Design, John Wiley and Sons. Inc., New York, NY.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.