Proceedings of PVP2006-ICPVT-11

2006 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference

July 23-27, 2006,Proceedings
Vancoucer, of
BC, Canada
ICPVT-11
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY
July 23-27, 2006, Vancouver, Bc, Canda

PVP2006-ICPVT-11-94028
MJP/06/05

COMPARISON OF DESIGN BY ANALYSIS METHODS

Sebastian Schindler∗
TUV Austria
Krugerstrasse 16
A-1015 Vienna, Austria
Email: seb@tuv.at

ABSTRACT γ p Partial safety factor for the pressure.

The paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the
two well known Design by Analysis methods for unfired pres-
sure vessels: the stress categorisation method (as given e.g. in
the 2004 ASME B&BV Code Section VIII Division 2 [1], and
EN 13445-3 Annex C [2]) and the new Direct Route (using
elastic-plastic finite-element analysis) as given in EN 13445-3
Annex B [2]. A comparison of results is given for examples of
various degree of difficulty to show the principal ideas and the
applicability of the two approaches: a dished end with a nozzle in
the knuckle region, a cylindrical shell to flat end connection and
a rather complex header of an air cooler with rectangular cross
section. As shown by the considered examples, the Direct Route
method gives unique solutions (which is not always the case for
stress categorisation) and can be advantageous in some cases, but
requires a more time consuming analysis. The questionable de-
sign limits given by the 3f-criterion of the stress categorisation
method can be avoided by usage of the progressive plastic defor-
mation design check of the Direct Route if the required number
of action cycles is low.
NOMENCLATURE
E Modulus of elasticity.
ν Poisson ratio.
fd Design stress.
R p1.0 1.0% proof stress.
R p0.2 0.2% proof stress.
T Design temperature.
∗ Address all correspondence to this author.
γR Partial safety factor for the material.
Pm Primary membrane stress.
Pl Primary local membrane stress.
Pb Primary bending stress.
Q Secondary stress.
PGPD Allowable pressure according to the design check against
global plastic deformation.
PPD Allowable pressure according to the design check against
progressive plastic deformation.
PAP Allowable pressure according to the design check against
progressive plastic deformation in case of alternating plas-
ticity.
PSD Shakedown limit pressure.
PCAT Allowable pressure according to the stress categorisation
route
INTRODUCTION
In the following a short description and a comparison be-
tween the principles of the two possible Design by Analysis
methods is given. The principles of the stress categorisation route
are basically the same in ASME VIII Division 2 and EN 13445-
3, and therefore the EN 13445-3 Annex C is used, because of
the better comparability to the direct route given in EN 13445-3
Annex B. For both Design-by-Analysis methods Finite Element
Analyses are used today as a common practice. In dependence
of the geometry of the investigated vessel or structure different
types of Finite Element models are used, based on shell elements,
or 2- or 3-dimensional volume elements. All these types of Fi-

1 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 nite Element models can be used with both Design by Analysis
methods, offering different advantages and disadvantages. Es-
pecially shell elements are often used for models of thin-walled
pressure vessels. Building a Finite Element model with shell el-
ements is usually quite simple and leads to less time consuming
calculations than a model with 3-dimensional volume elements,
but with less accuracy especially in corners and other geometry
discontinuities. Both Design-by-Analysis routes require an addi-
tional fatigue analysis, in any case according to the Direct Route,
or if a number of load cycles greater than 500 according to An-
nex C of EN 13445-3 [2] or 1000 according to ASME VIII Di-
vision 2 [1] (see Article AD-160 for details) has to be reached.
Because of its different problems, this fatigue design check is not
considered in this comparison.
The Stress Categorisation Route
The design according to the stress categorisation method
is based on an analysis with a linear, fully elastic constitutive
law. The calculated stresses have to be categorised in the fol-
lowing categories: Primary membrane stress (Pm ), local pri-
mary membrane stress (Pl ), primary bending stress (Pb ) and sec-
ondary stress (Q). Peak stresses are taken into account solely
in the fatigue check, but not in the checks discussed here. Af-
ter this categorisation the stresses are compared with the respec-
tive allowable values in the following way: Pm ≤ f , Pl ≤ 1.5 · f ,
Pm,l + Pb ≤ 1.5 · f and Pm,l + Q ≤ 3 · f . The definition of primary
and secondary stress is given in EN 13445-3 Annex C as follows:
Primary stress: stress, which satisfies the laws of
equilibrium of applied loads (pressure, forces and mo-
ments).
Secondary stress: stress, developed by constraints
due to geometric discontinuities, by the use of materials
of different elastic modulii under external loads, or by
constraints due to differential thermal expansions.
The categorisation is, in principle, not unique. For guidance, for
some typical geometries the kind of stresses that occur are given
in tables in the Standard, but nevertheless this step is the most
difficult one in the whole analysis and very often not straightfor-
ward.
If significant compressive stresses occur, additional stability
design checks according to the corresponding Standard or Code
are required.
The Direct Route according to EN 13445-3 Annex B
The admissibility check according to the Direct Route, or
structures operating below the creep regime, is based on five de-
sign checks: Design check against global plastic deformation
(GPD-DC), Design check against progressive plastic deforma-
tion (PD-DC), the stability design check (SD-DC), the fatigue
2 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
design check (F-DC) and the static equilibrium design check
(SE-DC). Only the first three are discussed here.
For the GPD-DC a linear-elastic ideal-plastic constitutive
law, based on Tresca’s yield criterion has to be used. Unfortu-
nately Tresca’s flow rule is not implemented in most Finite El-
ement programs, and therefore√Mises yield criterion has to be
used with a reduction factor of 3/2 applied on the design yield
stress. See [3] for details. Partial safety factors for the yield
stress and for the loads have to be considered. These factors are
given in the EN 13445-3 Annex B in dependence of the types
of load cases (e.g. normal operating or test load cases). The de-
sign limit load is reached if either the structure shows non-limited
global plastic deformation (shown by a no more convergent solu-
tion of the FE-model) or the maximal principal structural strain
has reached a value of 5%.
For the PD-DC also a linear-elastic ideal-plastic constitu-
tive law, but
√ with Mises yield condition (without considering the
factor of 3/2) and all partial safety factors equal to 1 has to
be considered. The PD-DC can be performed by using Melans
shakedown theorem. The problem is to find an appropriate self-
equilibrating stress field, which is not always simple. If the struc-
ture does not shake down to linear elastic behaviour further inves-
tigation, such as a cyclic analysis is required. This additional cal-
culation shows if the structure shakes down to alternating plastic-
ity or if progressive deformation (ratcheting) occurs. If progres-
sive deformation occurs the admissible number of cycles can be
calculated by extrapolating the maximum principal strain to the
5% limit. If the structure shakes down to alternating plasticity,
fatigue will be the determining failure mode, and the F-DC is the
relevant check. For a more detailed description of the PD-DC
see [2–4].
The stability design check can be performed by a geometric
non-linear buckling analysis with consideration of the maximum
allowable initial deformation and the 5% strain limit. See [2, 3]
for a more detailed description of this design check.
EXAMPLE 1: TORISPHERICAL HEAD WITH NOZZLE IN
KNUCKLE REGION
The geometry of example 1 is shown in Fig. 1. The structure
is modelled with the nozzle closed by a flat end, to apply the
force caused by the internal pressure and to prevent warping and
ovalisation of the upper end. The flat end itself is not part of
the investigation. Due to the large diameter-to-wall thickness
ratio of the structure 8-node shell elements have been used. To
reduce the calculation time only one half of the geometry has
been modelled, as can be seen in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.
Material: EN 10028-7; X6CrNiMoTi17-2-2 (1.4571)
Design temperature: T = 180◦C
1.0% proof stress: R p1.0,180◦C = 200 MPa
Modulus of elasticity: E = 183.6 GPa
 Figure 1. Geometry Example 1

S1el

Figure 3. Example 1: Stress Categorisation: membrane stresses at

σ3 1 MPa internal pressure

S1pl


cycles 9–20
σ1 

σ2


S2pl S2el

Figure 2. Example 1: Deviatoric map, PD-DC.

Direct Route
GPD-DC: The check was carried out using Mises yield con-
dition with reduced design yield stress. The design√ material
strength parameter is given by: RMd = R p1.0,180◦C · ( 3/2)/γR =
138.5 MPa, with partial safety factor for the material γR = 1.25
according to EN 13445-3 Annex B Table B.8-2. The Finite El-
ement Analysis showed that the maximum absolute value of the
principal structural strain reached the 5% limit at a pressure of
0.451 MPa. According to EN 13445-3 Annex B Table B.8-1
the partial safety factor for pressure (without natural limit) γP
is 1.2. Therefore, the maximum allowable pressure according to
the GPD design check is PGPD = 0.451/γP = 0.375 MPa.
PD-DC: A detailed analysis, using Melan’s shakedown the-
orem with RMd = 200 MPa and all partial safety factors equal
to 1 according to EN 13445-3 Annex B, rendered a shakedown
limit pressure of PSD = 0.289 MPa. Since the limit pressure ac-
cording to the GPD-check is larger than the one resulting from
the PD-check further investigation of the cyclic behaviour of the
structure, with a pressure cycling between a minimum value of
0 MPa and a maximum value of 0.375 MPa was performed. In
the first step 4 full action cycles were calculated. An extrapo-
lation of the maximum principle strain of the determining node
Figure 4. Example 1: Stress Categorisation: membrane plus bending
stresses at 1 MPa internal pressure
to the limit of 5% gave a maximum allowable cycle number of
1440. But a further (more time consuming) cyclic analysis up
to 20 full cycles showed that the structure shakes down to alter-
nating plasticity after approximately 10 cycles. Figure 2 shows
the stress path in a deviatoric map [5] of the critical node, with
the typical trajectory for alternating plasticity which is symmet-
ric with regard to the origin [6]. Therefore a fatigue analysis has
to be performed to obtain the allowable number of cycles. There-
fore, PAP = 0.375 MPa results.
For more details of the GDP- and PD-DC see [3, 4].
Stress Categorisation Route
The design stress according to EN 13445-3 Clause 6 is given
by fd,180◦C = 133.3 MPa for an austenitic material with a rup-
ture elongation larger 35%. The evaluation of the membrane and
membrane plus bending stresses can be performed very easily
with shell elements. Stresses results in the middle plane of the

3 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 1. Example 1: Results of stress categorisation, stresses at 1 MPa
internal pressure. Stresses and pressure in MPa

Part Stress All. stress All. pres.

Cylindrical shell* Pm = 16.7 fd,180◦C 8.00

Nozzle* Pm = 19.0 fd,180◦C 7.03
Crown Pm = 115.1 fd,180◦C 1.16

Pm + Pb = 222.9 1.5 · fd,180◦C 0.897

Knuckle region Pl = 301.5 1.5 · fd,180◦C 0.663
Figure 5. Geometry Example 2
Pl + Q = 461.1 3 · fd,180◦C 0.867
Nozzle connection Pl = 663.0 1.5 · fd,180◦C 0.302

Pl + Q = 1389 3 · fd,180◦C 0.288

* Undisturbed

shell are membrane ones, in top and bottom plane membrane

plus bending stresses. Figure 3 shows the membrane stress at a
pressure of 1 MPa, Figure 4 shows the membrane- plus bending-
stress at the inside shell surface where the maximum stress oc-
curred. Table 1 shows the results for the different parts of the
structure. Determining for the limit pressure is the 3f-criterion at
the connection of the nozzle to the knuckle. PCAT = 0.288 MPa.
Figure 6. Example 2: GPD-DC: maximum principle strain.

EXAMPLE 2: WELDED-IN FLAT END

The geometry of example 2 is shown in Fig. 5. Due to
the symmetry of the structure, it was modelled by using 2-
dimensional 4-node axi-symmetric solid elements.
Material: EN 10028-2; P265GH
Design temperature: T = 20◦C
Modulus of elasticity: E = 212 GPa
Cylindrical shell: 0.2% proof stress: R p0.2,Cyl = 255 MPa
Flat end: 0.2% proof stress: R p0.2,End = 245 MPa
Direct Route
GPD-DC: The check was carried out using Mises yield con-
dition with reduced design yield stress. The design√ material
strength parameters are given by: RM√ d,Cyl = R p02,Cyl · ( 3/2)/γR =
176.7 MPa and RMd,End = R p02,End · ( 3/2)/γR = 169.7 MPa, with
partial safety factor for the material γR = 1.25 according to
EN 13445-3 Annex B Table B.8-2. The FE-Analysis showed
that the maximum allowable principal strain (εmax = 5%) was
reached in the fillet radius at a pressure of 14.85 MPa. To ob-
tain the pressure for which the 5% strain is exactly reached,
the pressure has been interpolated between the two related load
steps. According to EN 13445-3 Annex B Table B.8-1 the par-
tial safety factor for pressure (without natural limit) γP is 1.2.
Therefore, the maximum pressure according to the GPD-DC
is PGPD = 14.85/γP = 12.38 MPa. Figure 6 shows the maxi-
mum principal strains at the last load step before the 5% limit
is reached.
PD-DC: A simple way to check whether the limit pres-
sure obtained in the GPD-DC is also admissible in the design
check against progressive deformation is given in the follow-
ing: According to EN 13445-3 Annex B a linear-elastic ideal-
plastic analysis with Mises yield condition (RMd,Cyl = 255 MPa,
RMd,End = 245 MPa) and all partial safety factors for material
and actions equal to 1 has to be used. If the stresses remain inside
the yield surface at the end of one complete cycle of loading and
unloading, the structure has shaken down to linear-elastic behav-
iour. Figure 7 shows the compatibility ratio, the Mises equivalent
stress divided by the design material strength, at the end of one
pressure cycle between a minimum value of 0 MPa and a max-
imum value of 12.38 MPa. Since the ratio is smaller than 1 for
the whole structure, the principle is fulfilled and for the applied

4 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Figure 7. Example 2: PD-DC: compatibility ratio after unloading. Figure 8. Example 2: Stress categorisation: Tresca equivalent stress.

pressure the structure has shaken down to linear-elastic behav-

iour. Therefore, PPD = 12.38 MPa results.

Stress Categorisation Route

The design stress according to EN 13445-3 Clause 6 is
given by fd,Cyl = 170.0 MPa for the cylindrical shell and f d,End =
163.3 MPa for the flat end, both for ferritic material.
In case of solid elements the membrane and bending stresses
have to be calculated in the considered cross-section. In the used
Finite Element software ANSYS, this can be done by an imple-
mented command for a previously defined path (e.g. a cross- Figure 9. Geometry Example 3
section). In Figure 8 the Tresca equivalent stress for linear-elastic
material is shown for an internal pressure equal to 1.6 MPa. The If, on the other hand, the bending stress at the connection is
largest stresses result in the fillet radius connection to the cylin- treated as primary, the bending stress at the connection is gov-
der and a path (1-1) is defined in this section as shown in the erning: With the maximum bending stress at the connection, path
figure. For the categorisation of the bending stress in the flat end 1-1 of Fig. 8, given by 45.58 MPa, one obtains
at the connection to the cylindrical shell it is necessary to check
if the bending moment at the edge is required to maintain the
bending stress in the center region within the prescribed limits. 1.5 · 163.3 · 1.6
Pm + Pb ≤ 1.5 · fd,End ⇒ PCAT 2 = = 8.6 MPa.
See [1] Appendix 4 Table 4-120.1, and [2] Appendix C Table C- 45.58
(3)
2. For that purpose the maximum stress in the simply supported Therefore, the bending stress at the connection to the shell has to
flat plate at the same load, with R = 210.75 mm and h = 43 mm be categorised as primary bending stress Pb and this leads to the
is calculated: allowable pressure: PCAT = 8.6 MPa

6 (3 + ν) p · R2
σ plate (p = 1.6 MPa) = ± = ±47.6 MPa. (1)
16 h2 EXAMPLE 3: AIR COOLER HEADER
The geometry of the air cooler header with rectangular cross
If the bending stress at the connection is treated as secondary, section is shown in Fig. 9. Neglecting the beneficial influence of
then the bending stress calculated above, in the center of the sim- the end plates and also the influence of nozzles in the short side
ply supported plate is governing the maximum allowable pres- of the frame, only a slice of the middle portion has been mod-
sure: elled as shown in the side view in Fig. 9. The tubes are modelled
to include the stiffening influence on the tube side plate, but their
1.5 · 163.3 · 1.6 admissibility according to the design checks is not further inves-
Pm + Pb ≤ 1.5 · fd,End ⇒ PCAT 1 = = 8.2 MPa. tigated in this paper. It has to be checked whether the required
47.6
(2) maximum pressure of 7.2 MPa at a temperature of T=120°C is

5 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 1.2
1.0
0.8
Strain (%)

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 4.32 8.64
Pressure (MPa)

Figure 10. Example 3: GPD-DC, maximum princ. Strain

Figure 11. Example 3: PD-DC: equivalent stress after unloading

admissible. No thermal stresses are considered. According to
EN 13445-3 Annex B the modulus of elasticity may be calcu-
lated at a temperature equal to trE = 0.25tmin + 0.75tmax, where
tmax = 120◦C and tmin = 20◦C are the highest and lowest calcula-
tion temperatures at each point during whole action cycle. This
gives trE = 95◦C.
Material frame plates: EN 10028-3; P355NL1
Design temperature: T = 120◦C
Modulus of elasticity at trE : E = 206 GPa
0.2% proof stress at T : R p0.2,plate = 296 MPa

Material tubes: EN 10216-4; P215

Design temperature: T = 120◦C
Modulus of elasticity at trE : E = 206 GPa
0.2% proof stress at T : R p0.2,tube = 182 MPa1
Figure 12. Example 3: Stress categorisation: Tresca equvalent stress

Direct Route
GPD-DC: The check was carried out using Mises yield
condition with reduced design yield stress. The design mate-
rial
√
strength parameters are given by: RMd,plate = √R p02,plate ·
( 3/2)/γR = 205.1 MPa and RMd,tube = R p02,tube · ( 3/2)/γR =
126.1 MPa, with partial safety factor for the material γR = 1.25
according to EN 13445-3 Annex B Table B.8-2. Figure 10 shows
the maximum absolute value of the principal strain in the critical
node, located in the center bore of the plug plate on the outer sur-
face. The maximum principal strain is below the 5% limit with a
value of εmax = 1.2% at a pressure of 7.2·γ p = 8.64 MPa, consid-
ering the partial safety factor for the pressure γ p = 1.2 according
to EN 13445-3 Annex B Table B.8-1, and therefore, the pressure
of PGPD = 7.2 MPa is allowable.
PD-DC: To check the admissibility against progressive plas-
tic deformation one full pressure cycle between a minimum
value of 0 MPa and a maximum value of 7.2 MPa with all par-
1 For the tube material hot tensile properties are not given in the material stan-
dard. An interpolated value has been chosen, with interpolation between the
values for EN 10216-2: P195GH and P235GH
tial safety factors equal to 1 and Mises yield condition has been
calculated. According to EN 13445-3 Annex B Section 8.3.4
for the design material parameter RMd the value of the 0.2% -
proof stress (for ferritic material) at a temperature equal trE =
0.25tmin + 0.75tmax = 95◦C may be used. Figure 11 shows the
Mises equivalent stress of the plates (tubes unselected) after un-
loading. It can be seen that all stresses are lower than the yield
strength (R p0.2,plate,95◦C = 307 MPa). Therefore, the plates have
shaken down to linear-elastic behaviour and the principle is ful-
filled. There follows: PPD = 7.2 MPa.
Stress Categorisation Route
The design stress according to EN 13445-3 Clause 6 is given
by fd,plate = 197.3 MPa for the Plates.
The determining cross-section of the structure is the center bore
section in the plug plate, as can be seen in Fig.12 where the
Tresca equivalent stress at a pressure of 1 MPa is shown. As
prescribed in EN 13445-3 Annex C the stress linearization has
to be performed with the mean values over the ligament width.

6 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 60
50
Stress (MPa)
40
Pm + Pb
30
20
Pm
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (mm)
Figure 13. Example 3: Stress categorisation: membrane (dashed line)
and membrane plus bending (solid line) equivalent stresses
This is a very time consuming procedure, because it is not imple-
mented in the standard Finite Element software and the averaging
and linearization has to be performed by hand or a mathemat-
ical software. First, for the single stress components the mean
value over the ligament width has to be calculated for a number
of points over the plate thickness. Then the mean values of the
stress components have to be linearised over the plate thickness,
and with these values the equivalent stress of the membrane and
bending stress can be calculated. Figure 13 shows, for a pressure
of 1 MPa, the membrane and membrane plus bending stresses in
the considered cross section over the thickness oft the plate, mea-
sured from the outer surface, calculated in this way. The maxi-
mum of the membrane plus bending stress occurs at the outer sur-
face. The bending stress has to be categorised as primary bending
stress, and this gives Pm = 6.5 MPa and Pm + Pb = 59.6 MPa.
Therefore:
1.5 · 197.3
Pm + Pb ≤ 1.5 · fd,End ⇒ PCAT = = 4.97 MPa
59.6
All other cross-sections give much lower stress values, and are
therefore not determining.
CONCLUSION
The considered examples show that for simple geometries
the stress categorisation route is a quite easy to apply tool, es-
pecially if the structure has been modelled using shell elements.
Additionally a Finite Element software supporting elastic mate-
rial only is required. Nevertheless the stress categorisation route
gives much lower allowable loads for the considered examples
compared to the ones calculated according to the direct route. Ta-
ble 2 shows the result summary of the investigated examples. As
soon as the geometry of a structure gets more complex, the stress
categorisation becomes much more time consuming. The way in
which categories the stresses have to be classified is not always
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Table 2. Result summary
Ex. GPD-DC PD-DC Stress cat.
1 PGPD = 0.375 MPa PAP = 0.375 MPa PCAT = 0.288 MPa
(PSD = 0.289 MPa)
2 PGPD = 12.38 MPa PPD = 12.38 MPa PCAT = 8.6 MPa
3 PGPD = 7.2 MPa PPD = 7.2 MPa PCAT = 4.97 MPa
simple and needs often further investigation or lots of practice,
and could easily lead to misinterpretation.
In comparison the direct route gives a more suitable, adapted
tool with a much larger and better output of information. The
need of a plastic solution results in a larger calculation time, but
with modern computer hardware this argument does not count
any more. The design check against gross plastic deformation
is quite simple and straightforward in most cases. The check
against progressive plastic deformation is the more complicated
one, but there are some good guidelines given nowadays with
lots of examples [3–5,7]. Especially if thermal stresses occur this
design check gives unique solutions and lots of information about
the behaviour of the structure, useful for design improvements
and specification of dedicated in-service inspection intervals.
REFERENCES
[1] ASME, 2004. Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Section VIII,
Division 2: Alterntive Rules. ASME, New York.
[2] CEN, 2002. EN 13445-3, European Standard for Unfired
Pressure Vessels. European Committee for Standardization.
[3] N. Taylor, e., 1999. The design-by-analysis manual. Tech.
(4)
Rep. EUR 19020 EN, European Commission Joint Research
Centre, Petten - The Nederlands.
[4] Preiss, R., “Design by Analysis: The Racheting Check in
EN 13445-3 Annex B”. J.L. Zeman, ed., ICPVT-10 Vienna,
2003.
[5] Zeman, J.L., Preiss, R. “The deviatoric map - a simple tool
in design by analysis.”. Int. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping, 76 (1999),
pp. 339–334.
[6] Zeman, J.L. “The european approach to design by analysis”.
Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes and Standards, ASME
PVP 439, 2002.
[7] Zeman, J.L., et. al., 2006. Pressure Vessel Design: The Di-
rect Route. Elsevier.
7 Copyright © 2006 by ASME