
Most pressure vessels can be designed with the formulas in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. But those formulas only cover standard shapes and loads. Large or closely spaced nozzles, heavy piping loads, unusual supports, lifting lugs, cyclic service and non-standard geometry all fall outside them, and that is where Finite Element Analysis (FEA) comes in.
ASME Section VIII, Division 2, Part 5 sets out how to use FEA to show that a design is safe, known as design by analysis. This guide explains the methods, the failure modes they check, the usual problem areas and what a good FEA report should contain.
The traditional route uses a linear elastic FEA model. Stresses are taken along stress classification lines through the wall and linearised into membrane, bending and peak components, which are then sorted into categories: general primary membrane (Pm), local primary membrane (PL), primary bending (Pb), secondary (Q) and peak (F). Typical limits, with S as the allowable stress, are:
Sharp peaks at corners are not compared with these limits; they feed the fatigue check. In our FEA of a hairpin heat exchanger bolted flange, the peak stress of about 235 MPa sat in a small zone at a geometric transition while the average stayed near 30 MPa, which is why the assessment used the linearised membrane and bending stresses rather than the raw peak. Choosing the lines and the categories takes engineering judgement, which is one reason Part 5 also offers elastic-plastic methods.
These methods need no stress categorisation, model the real behaviour more closely and are often less conservative, which can mean thinner walls or smaller reinforcement. The elastic-plastic route also checks local failure using strain limits.
Vessels under vacuum or external pressure, tall columns under wind and seismic loads, and shells near saddle supports can all fail by buckling. Part 5 covers it both with linear buckling analysis and design factors, and with non-linear analysis that includes the geometric imperfections every real shell has.
Our guide to weld fatigue analysis explains structural stress methods in more detail.
Load-carrying brackets and lugs are everyday FEA work, as in our FEA of a beam bracket for structural integrity.
Our transient thermal analysis of a plate under a laser heat source shows how temperatures develop over time, and our coupled thermal-mechanical analysis of a 1U CubeSat shows temperatures driving stresses in one model.
Vessels built to European or British standards follow the same ideas, in EN 13445-3 (Annexes B and C) and PD 5500. For an overview of simulation across the energy sector, see our guide to CFD and FEA in the energy industry.
Yes. Where Division 1 has no rules for a detail, U-2(g) allows the design to be shown by other means, and Division 2 Part 5 methods are widely used for this, subject to the Authorized Inspector's acceptance.
Elastic analysis is quicker and familiar to most reviewers. Elastic-plastic analysis avoids stress categorisation and is often less conservative. We recommend the right method for each case.
No. Code certification stays with the manufacturer that holds the ASME certification mark and with the Authorized Inspector. We provide the analysis and the report that support it.
Yes. Detailed FEA supports Level 3 fitness-for-service assessments to API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, which decide whether the vessel can stay in service, and under what conditions.
Send your drawings, design data and nozzle loads through our contact page. We will reply with a scope, timeline and quote.
From nozzle loads and saddles to fatigue, buckling and fitness-for-service, our engineers deliver clear design-by-analysis reports for your manufacturer and inspector. Send us your drawings and design data, and we will reply with a clear scope and quote.
Cover photo: Red Shuheart on Unsplash
