The Effect of Reduced Design Margin on the Fire Survivability of ASME Code Propane Tanks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1999 addenda to the 1998 ASME pressure vessel code, Section VIII, Div. 1 there was a change in design margin for unfired pressure vessels from 4.0 to 3.5. This has resulted in the manufacture of propane and LPG tanks with thinner walls. For example, the author has purchased some new 500 gallon ASME code propane tanks for testing purposes. These tanks had the wall thickness reduced from 7.7 mm in 2000 to 7.1 mm in 2002 and now to 6.5 mm in 2004. These changes were partly due to the code change and partly due to other factors such as steel plate availability. In any case, the changes in wall thickness significantly affects the fire survivability of these tanks. This paper presents both experimental and computational results that show the effect of wall thickness on tank survivability to fire impingement. The results show that for the same dank diameter, tank material, and pressure relief valve setting, the thinner wall tanks are more likely to fail in a given fire situation. In severe fires, the thinner walled tanks will fail earlier. An earlier failure usually means the tank will fail with a higher fill level, because the pressure relief system has had less time to vent material from the tank. A higher liquid fill level at failure also means more energy is in the tank and this means the failure will be more violent. The worst failure scenario is known as a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion and this mode of failure is also more likely with the thinner walled tanks. The results of this work suggest that certain applications of pressure vessels such as propane transport and storage may require higher design margins than required by Section VIII ASME code.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".