6/2/2020 Basics of Design By Analysis in ASME Section VIII, Division 2 | Becht

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

By: Trevor Seipp
Sunday, November 25, 2018
Piping Pressure Vessels Reliability Improvement

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. However, there are some situations
where the rules don’t cover a specific design geometry or load that may necessitate the use of
FEA.

In ASME Section VIII, Division 1, that is covered in Article U-2(g), which I have
discussed previously. In ASME Section VIII, Division 2, you can move between Part 4 (Design By
Rules) and Part 5 (Design By Analysis) a little more easily, subject to the regulations in
the locale where the pressure vessel will be located.

What is Design By Analysis?

https://becht.com/becht-blog/entry/basics-of-design-by-analysis-in-asme-section-viii-division-2/ 1/5
6/2/2020 Basics of Design By Analysis in ASME Section VIII, Division 2 | Becht

Design By Analysis, as described in ASME Section VIII, Division 2, Part 5 is a methodical

approach for demonstrating the adequacy of a pressure vessel component design. It provides
detailed rules for performing analyses. The entire approach of this Code (which has changed
substantially from the pre-2007 Editions) is centered on the philosophy of Protection Against
Failure Modes. The Code writers (who, by the way are all volunteers) have spelled out four failure
modes that require attention:

Protection Against Plastic Collapse

Protection Against Local Failure
Protection Against Failure From Buckling
Protection Against Failure From Cyclic Loading
Ratcheting
Fatigue
For each failure mode, the analyst is presented with multiple options of how to perform the
analysis that would demonstrate that the specific failure mode has been protected against. In
general, these options involve an elastic method and an elastic-plastic method. For Protection
Against Plastic Collapse, the elastic method uses an Allowable Stress Design (ASD) approach,
whereas the elastic-plastic method uses a Load and Resistance Factored Design (LRFD)
approach.

What is stress linearization and categorization?

In demonstrating Protection Against Plastic Collapse and Protection Against Failure From Cyclic
Loading: Ratcheting, one of the methods provided in Part 5 is a linear-elastic method. Because
not all stresses will contribute to plastic collapse or ratcheting, a stress-at-a-point limit is not
meaningful. Therefore, the stresses as calculated in the FEA in specific locations, called Stress
Classification Lines (SCLs), are further linearized and classified. Then, those linearized and
classified stresses are compared to appropriate allowable stress limits. This is the general basis
behind what is known as the Hopper Diagram (because it resembles a grain hopper), shown
below.

https://becht.com/becht-blog/entry/basics-of-design-by-analysis-in-asme-section-viii-division-2/ 2/5
6/2/2020 Basics of Design By Analysis in ASME Section VIII, Division 2 | Becht

The topics of: where to place SCLs and how to validate them, how to linearize stresses, and how
to classify stress is rather long and involved; it generally takes the better part of half of a day for
me to go through these topics in my Part 5 Training Course.

Should I mesh my model with Solid or Shell Elements?

It really depends on the type of analysis that you are performing. I have used shell elements
rather successfully for demonstrating Protection Against Plastic Collapse, Protection Against
Buckling Failure, and Protection Against Failure From Cyclic Loading: Ratcheting using both the
elastic analysis method and the elastic-plastic analysis method. However, shell elements are
generally inappropriate for demonstrating Protection Against Local Failure. Furthermore, shell
elements require additional stress concentration/intensification factors to be applied when
demonstrating Protection Against Failure From Cyclic Loading: Fatigue; although the new
Structural Stress Method for the fatigue of weldments can directly use the output from shell
elements.

Stress linearization is definitely easier in shell elements because they are, by definition, linear in
the through-thickness direction. However, the methods shown in Annex 5-A for linearization of
stresses in solid elements are straight-forward to apply.

And either shells or solids may be used when applying the elastic-plastic methods for
demonstrating Protection Against Plastic Collapse, Protection Against Buckling Failure, and
Protection Against Failure From Cyclic Loading: Ratcheting.
https://becht.com/becht-blog/entry/basics-of-design-by-analysis-in-asme-section-viii-division-2/ 3/5
6/2/2020 Basics of Design By Analysis in ASME Section VIII, Division 2 | Becht

What are the limitations of the elastic analysis methods and the potential
problems?

The answer to this question is answered right in Part 5.

Article 5.2.1.2 says: For components with a complex geometry and/or complex loading, the
categorization of stresses requires significant knowledge and judgment. This is especially true for
three-dimensional stress fields. Application of the limit load or elastic-plastic analysis methods in
paragraphs 5.2.3 and 5.2.4, respectively, is recommended for cases where the categorization
process may produce ambiguous results.

Article 5.2.1.3 says: The use of elastic stress analysis combined with stress classification
procedures to demonstrate structural integrity for heavy-wall ( ) pressure containing components,
especially around structural discontinuities, may produce non-conservative results and is not
recommended. The reason for the non-conservatism is that the nonlinear stress distributions
associated with heavy wall sections are not accurately represented by the implicit linear stress
distribution utilized in the stress categorization and classification procedure. The misrepresentation
of the stress distribution is enhanced if yielding occurs. For example, in cases where calculated
peak stresses are above yield over a through thickness dimension which is more than five percent
of the wall thickness, linear elastic analysis may give a non-conservative result. In these cases, the
elastic-plastic stress analysis procedures in paragraph 5.2.3 or 5.2.4 shall be used.

And Article 5.2.1.4 says: The structural evaluation procedures based on elastic stress analysis in
paragraph 5.2.2 provide an approximation of the protection against plastic collapse. A more
accurate estimate of the protection against plastic collapse of a component can be obtained using
elastic-plastic stress analysis to develop limit and plastic collapse loads. The limits on the general
membrane equivalent stress, local membrane equivalent stress and primary membrane plus
primary bending equivalent stress in paragraph 5.2.2 have been placed at a level which
conservatively assures the prevention of collapse as determined by the principles of limit analysis.
These limits need not be satisfied if the requirements of paragraph 5.2.3 or paragraph 5.2.4 are
satisfied.

What are the potential problems that can occur in the interpretation of the
finite element analysis results?

The linear elastic methods involve a significant amount of interpretation of the results. It is
possible to interpret the stress results in an unconservative manner. The elastic-plastic methods
don’t suffer from this issue.

The other potential problem is in understanding the failure modes and the application of the
loading scenarios for evaluating each. I addressed this issue in a previous blog post.

The other potential problem can arise in the handling of fatigue of welds. There are two methods
available for demonstrating Protection Against Failure From Cyclic Loading: Fatigue for welds: the
Fatigue Strength Reduction Method (FSRF) and the Structural Stress Method. I have seen the
FSRF method applied incorrectly more than I have seen it applied correctly; it requires experience
and know-how, especially in choosing an appropriate FSRF value. The Structural Stress Method
is relatively new, and therefore the experience in industry with it is small. However, it is very
robust and based on a wealth of experimental data.

What is the status of elastic-plastic methods in the ASME Code?

The elastic-plastic method is my preferred method for Protection Against Plastic Collapse. ASME
PTB-1 states that the elastic-plastic method for demonstrating Protection Against Local Failure is
the only method that is adequately robust; I agree with that assessment. I have also co-written
https://becht.com/becht-blog/entry/basics-of-design-by-analysis-in-asme-section-viii-division-2/ 4/5
6/2/2020 Basics of Design By Analysis in ASME Section VIII, Division 2 | Becht

a paper which highlighted some significant shortcomings of the elastic buckling analysis methods,
and therefore I tend to prefer the elastic-plastic buckling method. The elastic-plastic Protection
Against Failure From Cyclic Loading: Ratcheting and Protection Against Failure From Cyclic
Loading: Fatigue are also quite robust. Especially for low-cycle fatigue, I think that the elastic-
plastic fatigue method is superior to the elastic method, because there are no factors that need to
be calculated.

Is it possible to replace the physical tests of a pressure vessel by FEA?

While I am generally a big proponent of saying that models don’t prove anything; in the context of
design, FEA isn’t being used to prove anything, but rather to demonstrate that certain failure
modes have been adequately considered. And, in the pressure vessel world, the design options
are: rules, analysis or destructive proof tests. A proof test just isn’t practical for a multi-million
dollar one-of pressure vessel.

The methods detailed in ASME Section VIII, Division 2, Part 5 do have a significant amount of
experimental data to back them up. That work is all detailed in ASME PTB-1. That said, it is never
a bad idea to place a strain gauge on a vessel and validate an analysis during the hydrostatic test.
The catch, however, is that FEA is typically used for determining localized stresses in regions of
high stress gradient, making it difficult to place strain gauges exactly where you want them to
provide that validation – on account of the finite size of the strain gauge. We do, however,
recommend in-service monitoring for vessels in severe cyclic service, such as coke drums.

Why is it that any analyst, with access to an FEA program and has successfully applied FEA
in other fields, finds FEA for pressure vessels so difficult? What is it about FEA for
pressure vessels that makes it unique?

I return to my original question to conclude this post. As can be seen by some of the questions
and answers, the field of FEA for pressure vessels is rather complex and filled with subtle
nuances. However, the best way that I have described it to people is as follows.

FEA for pressure vessels is a lot like a three-legged stool. The first leg is knowledge of mechanics
of materials (including thin and thick-shell theory) and the finite element method. The second leg
is working knowledge of the analyst’s particular software. And the third leg is a thorough
knowledge of the pressure vessel Code. If the analyst is missing just one of those legs, they are
sitting on a two-legged stool: not very useful.

Based on my experience, the leg most missing is that of the pressure vessel Code.
My training course takes four days just to introduce the concepts of Design By Analysis in ASME
Section VIII, Division 2, Part 5. Only a few engineers have made it their career to focus on this
specialty. When I field questions on the Linked-In ASME PVP discussion forum or eng-tips.com, I
often recommend to people that they secure the services of an engineer who specializes in FEA
for pressure vessels. And we need to ensure that engineers are using the latest Code editions,
because we are constantly making improvements to the methodologies.

If you would like more information on this blog you may post a comment for the author below. Or
you may contact Trevor by clicking the link below.

Trevor also teaches a course titled ASME Section VIII, Division 2 – Part 5, Design-By-Analysis –
offered in Houston, TX on 2 dates: May 18-22 and Nov 9-13. Click HERE to view this course
description.

https://becht.com/becht-blog/entry/basics-of-design-by-analysis-in-asme-section-viii-division-2/ 5/5