Log in

Login to your account

Username *
Password *
Remember Me

Mr. Seipp, an ASME Fellow, has over 22 years of experience in design, analysis, review and failrue analysis of process and power equipment, vessels, piping, and structures. He has extensive analytical experience including linear and non-linear finite element analysis using ANSYS and ABAQUS, buckling analyses, steady-state and transient heat transfer and thermal stress analysis of pressure vessels and piping, fitness-for-service evaluations, and fatigue assessments. Mr. Seipp has worked for clients all around the world, who are in many different industries such as oil sands, refining, chemicals, mining, metals processing, pressure vessel and piping fabrication, and aerospace.

Mr. Seipp is an author/co-author of over 30 journal and conference papers and presentations.  He is also very involved in ASME Codes and Standards, currently serving on the following:

  • ASME Board on Pressure Technology Codes and Standards
  • Subgroup on Design of Section VIII
  • Subgroup on Interpretations of Section VIII
  • Working Group on Design By Analysis of Section VIII
  • Vice-Chair of the ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division
  • Technical Program Chair for the ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference - 2019
  • Conference Chair for the ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference - 2020

Mr. Seipp is a licensed professional engineer in the Canadian Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario.  He is also a Responsible Member for Becht Engineering's Alberta Permit to Practice and the Saskatchewan and Ontario Certificates of Authorization.

ASME Section VIII, Division 1 - 2019 Edition - Changes to U-2(g)

asme-sec8_div1
What Do You Do When There Are No Rules?On July 1, 2019, the 2019 Edition of ASME Section VIII, Division 1 will be published.  Among the 117 changes to this Edition will be a revised paragraph U-2(g), and a new Mandatory Appendix 46.  The new U-2(g) will read:(g) This Division of Section VIII does not contain rules to cover all details of construction. Where complete details of construction are not given, the Manufacturer, subject to the acceptance of the Authorized Inspector, shall provide the appropriate details to be used.   (1) Where design rules do not exist in this Division, one of the following three methods shall be used:      (-a) Mandatory Appendix 46;      (-b) Proof test in accordance with UG-101;      (-c) Other recognized and generally accepted methods, such as those found in other ASME/EN/ISO/National/Industry Standards or Codes. This option shall provide details of design consistent with the allowable stress criteria provided in...
Continue reading
5
  8588 Hits
  0 Comments
8588 Hits
0 Comments

Basics of Design By Analysis in ASME Section VIII, Division 2

fea-pressure-vessel-nozzl_20181115-174743_1
How hard can it be?  I’ve heard from several (unnamed) analysts that because they have access to an FEA program and have successfully applied FEA in other fields, that FEA for pressure vessels should be a snap.  What is it about FEA for pressure vessels that makes it unique?I was recently discussing with another blogger regarding some distinctive aspects of performing Design By Analysis for pressure vessels.  We generated several questions, and so I decided to post this in a Question & Answer format.When do I have to use FEA in my pressure vessel design?The short answer here is that for most situations, you probably should not be using FEA to design your pressure vessel.  The rules for designing pressure vessels in ASME Section VIII, Division 1 and ASME Section VIII, Division 2 have a long history of successful application.  So, wherever possible, I would recommend that you follow those rules. ...
Continue reading
3
  8107 Hits
  3 Comments
Recent Comments
Guest — Atreya

guidelines for boundary condit...

Dear Trevor, In Design by Analysis process, are there any guidelines regarding boundary conditions applied on the FE m... Read More
Saturday, 02 November 2019 00:12
Trevor Seipp

Re: Guidelines for Boundary Co...

There are no rules in the Code in this regard. That's because the Code is not a handbook. Good engineering practice should alway... Read More
Saturday, 02 November 2019 13:30
Guest — Dheeraj Narang

Div.2

Trevor, Comprehensive and Well Written Blog ! I like the reference of three legged stool for FEA in pressure vessels. So true for ... Read More
Wednesday, 04 September 2019 04:45
8107 Hits
3 Comments

ASME Section VIII, Division 2 Elastic Analysis Discussion: Collapse vs Ratcheting

ASME Section VIII, Division 2 Elastic Analysis Discussion: Collapse vs Ratcheting
 So, you think you know what load case combinations to use for your ASME Section VIII, Division 2, Part 5 analysis to satisfy Protection Against? Common sense says to follow to Code rules in Table 5.3 – but do you fully understand what that means? And, what loads should you use to satisfy Protection Against Failure From Cyclic Loading: Ratcheting? Are the same as for Plastic Collapse, or are they different?Over the past couple of weeks, I have had one particular issue come up several times with respect to elastic analysis to Part 5. There seems to be widespread misunderstanding about how to apply load cases to Protection Against Plastic Collapse and Protection Against Failure from Cyclic Loading – Ratcheting. So, I wanted to write this post to (hopefully) clear up some of this misunderstanding.Article 5.2, Protection Against Plastic Collapse, describes what design load cases and design load case combinations must...
Continue reading
10
  16971 Hits
  2 Comments
Recent Comments
Guest — masood

ratcheting vs cycling

dear Trevor. we have a project which involves cyclic analysis. im not sure i have understood completely your article. apparently ... Read More
Wednesday, 06 January 2016 05:58
Trevor Seipp

RE:ratcheting vs cycling

Ratcheting is a different failure mode from fatigue; which is why each failure mode is handled separately in Part 5. You raise a ... Read More
Tuesday, 12 January 2016 12:41
16971 Hits
2 Comments

Performing an FEA in Section VIII, Division 1 to Qualify an Article U-2(g) Component

 While there are currently no explicit rules on how to perform a finite element analysis (FEA) if you are doing so in support of an ASME Section VIII, Division 1 vessel, there is good practice. Regarding rules, all you have is from Article U-2(g), which says:This Division of Section VIII does not contain rules to cover all details of design and construction. Where complete details are not given, it is intended that the Manufacturer, subject to the acceptance of the Inspector, shall provide details of design and construction which will be as safe as those provided by the rules of this Division.So, how exactly does an engineer perform an FEA, for which Section VIII, Division 1 has absolutely no rules, that is “as safe as” the rules otherwise provided in Section VIII, Division 1? Luckily, I’m not the first person to think about this. In fact, there is some pretty decent...
Continue reading
13
  20848 Hits
  9 Comments
Recent Comments
Guest — mojtaba vakilian

Thank you

Thank you mr. Seipp I so appreciate of your excellent post and research. Reading them is always enjoyable and helpful because they... Read More
Thursday, 04 July 2019 00:25
Trevor Seipp

Design Margins

The design margins provided in Part 5 are sufficient for protecting against the failure modes. The most important thing to rememb... Read More
Tuesday, 10 December 2013 12:00
Guest — Shino Ulahannan

Safety Margin over required th...

Thanks for your time & the details provided! My concern is to identify ' what should be the extra thickness to be provided over t... Read More
Tuesday, 10 December 2013 00:35
Trevor Seipp

Deformation values

"can we take the % strain or corresponding deformation against allowable stress(S - as defined by part D) from the stress strain p... Read More
Monday, 09 December 2013 18:01
Guest — shino Ulahannan

Thanks for the reply & details...

Thanks for the reply & details noted ! Pls let me know your opinion on ' can we take the % strain or corresponding deformation ag... Read More
Monday, 09 December 2013 02:50
Trevor Seipp

Re: Thanks for guidelines

Shino Ulahannan - thank you for your questions. "1. What does ASME say about allowable deformations for a pressure vessel or vacu... Read More
Saturday, 07 December 2013 01:04
Guest — Shino Ulahannan

Thanks for guidelines

Good review ! really useful. i have 2 questions? 1. What does ASME says about allowable deformation for a pressure vessel or vacu... Read More
Wednesday, 04 December 2013 01:07
Guest — Yuri Morozov

Good review

It is good addition to CC 2695
Wednesday, 06 November 2013 02:13
Mark Warner, PE

Thank you

Thank you for this review. I have used this approach for conformable pressure vessels where you need FEA to address the abnormal g... Read More
Friday, 13 September 2013 01:57
20848 Hits
9 Comments

Subscribe To Becht Blogs

Search Blogs