See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/372393952

Application of VVUQ Concepts to ASME Codes and Standards for Pressure

Vessels VVS2023-108506 (Presentation)

Presentation · May 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27849.72809

CITATIONS READS

0 141

1 author:

Bart Kemper
University of Louisiana at Lafayette
72 PUBLICATIONS 182 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bart Kemper on 16 July 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Application of VVUQ Concepts to
ASME Codes and Standards
for Pressure Vessels
VVS2023-108506

Bart Kemper, P.E., F.ASME, F.NSPE

18 May 2023
 Introduction

“Program managers need assurance that computational models of engineered

systems are sufficiently accurate to support programmatic decisions. This
Standard provides the technical community — engineers, scientists, and
program managers — with guidelines for assessing the credibility of
computational solid mechanics (CSM) models.
Verification and Validation (V&V) are the processes by which evidence is
gathered to determine the accuracy of the computer model for specified
conditions. These accuracy results, along with uncertainty quantification (UQ),
contribute to the determination of the credibility of the model for the conditions of
its intended use.” (VVUQ10, EXSUM)
How does this not apply to all engineering uses of CSM models?
VVS2023-108506 2
 Introduction

If engineering work is on a spectrum from the unknown of

“theoretical research” to the well established “traditional
engineering“ using codified design, then Verification, Validation, and
Uncertainty Quantification (VVUQ) goes from a detailed problem-
solving explicit effort to a shortened codified implicit series of design
checks.
VVUQ efforts increase with uncertainty and consequence.
This paper establishes the basis for pressure vessel designer,
working outwards from well-established deterministic codes, for
requiring adding VVUQ measures based on uncertainty and risk.
VVS2023-108506 3
 Introduction

VVS2023-108506 4
 Traditional VVUQ

• Requires methodical use of

experiments, theory, and simulation
• ID’s irreducible (aleatory) v reducible
(epistemic) uncertainty
• Intended to inform managers of risks in
project to assess time/resources
• Often for high consequence or
extraordinary novelty
• Detailed, time consuming, and
therefore expensive

VVS2023-108506 5
 It’s a spectrum

• In experimental work, VVUQ

quantifies equiment uncertainty
• Cutting-edge engineering needs to
examine materials, structures, joints,
loads, restraints because there
solution is not codified.
• Engineering requirements become
codified as field matures, reducing
explicit VVUQ requirements
(consequences permitting)
VVS2023-108506 6
 Pressure Vessel Code

• Progressive improvements through distributed research

and testing, findings added to code over years
• Thin wall (membrane) assumptions
• Established material properties, joining procedures,
limits on geometry – results all within “design limits”
• Materials require mill testing to verify properties,
hydrotesting, nondestructive testing goes to design
margin for joints – “experiments” are now quality
verification following specific standards
• Welders, facilities, inspectors must have certificates,
design review by Professional Engineer
VVS2023-108506 7
 Pressure Vessel Code

ASME BPVC Section VIII, Div. 2, Part 5, “Design

By Analysis” (also API 579/ASME FFS1)
Complete system (white oval)
Specifies:
Types of FEM analyses permitted
Material properties, curves at temp
Service condition (corrosion, fatigue, etc.)
Load combinations for different analyses
NDT, system testing requirements
Within limits of Part 5, solution verification is still
highly prudent, but not currently required
VVS2023-108506 8
Acrylics in PVHOs

Example of design info in ASME “Safety Standard for Pressure

Vessels for Human Occupancy” (PVHO1). Shapes, design tables
established in late 1960’s through US Navy testing
 BPVC design margins v. PVHO
ASME BPVC, Tensile Yield PVHO-1 design process:
Section VIII Margin Margin • Set design pressure (P) and temperature (T)
Division 1 3.5 1.5 • Look up Conversion Factor (CF) for temp, shape
Division 2, Class 1 3.0 1.5 • CF*P = Short Term Crit. Pressure (STCP)
Division 2, Class 2 2.4 1.5 • Look up design charge for geometry to get ratio of window
Barkley, N., "A General Comparison of the Design Margins
thickness (t) to inner diameter (Di)
and Design Rules for ASME Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2" • DOES NOT USE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
Assumptions for design margins: Assumptions for PVHO-1
• Thin wall pressure vessel • STCP = failure of window at temperature
• Internal Pressure • Pressure is internal or external
• Failure mode is tensile • Thin and thick wall pressure vessel design = same
• Design based on material minimums • Single set of material specifications (no grades)
• Materials are tested to designated alloy and • Material specifications are not used in design
grade specification • No use of FEM or other calculations considered
• Has specified “elongation at break” which is in • Minimum “elongation at break” is less than strain at yield –
plastic range perfectly brittle, no toughness
• No consideration for service (offshore v hospital)
VVS2023-108506 10
 Is the CF the design margin?
P = 27.6 MPa psi @ 10°C, 24°C CF Difference P (MPa) t/Di
(50F, 75F) for a conical frustum
1 27.6 0.25
@10° C STCP 5= P x CF = Difference 1 to 5 x5 200%
27.6 MPa x 5 = 110.4 MPa 5 110.4 0.5
@24° C STCP 6= P x CF = x6 220%
Difference 1 to 6
27.6 MPa x 6 = 138.0 MPa 6 138.0 0.55
Increase 5 to 6 20% 10%

Increase in t/Di is not proportional to

increase in pressure, nor constant
due to being on curve.
Design margin to failure does not
follow conventional pressure vessel
relationships.
Not a tensile failure. Original
developers rejected FEM due to
experimental failure.
VVS2023-108506 11
 Need for Design by Analysis
First order effects
Expands window design for PVHOs
Reduces the need for window-specific code cases,
speeding innovation
Method for conventional pressure vessels to innovate
in other industries
Potential to optimize for risk, uncertainty

Second order effects

Potential for expanding “fitness for service” methods
to windows (PVHO-2) System will be written “for glassy polymers”, not
restricted to PVHO. Given there are no engineering
Provides a comprehensive structural design methods
code calculations based on properties, it’s either
for glassy polymers “PVHO-1” or DBA with VVUQ. Dashed white oval
Can be adapted for ROV/AUS optics to aquaria to illustrates the concept DBA encompassing the PVHO1
aerospace windows (NASA) to protective structures design code, but limits are still in development.
12
VVS2023-108506 12
 Need for new code (innovation)
Crewed space systems are
switching glass to acrylics

Developments in medical Non-PVHO pressure vessels

hyperbarics and submarine for liquid chromatography

VVS2023-108506 13
 Need for new code (safety)

Store front signage

failure, falling to ground
and missing shoppers.
OEM specifications did
not extend to hurricane
winds. (2022)

Aquarium failure in Berlin,

Germany (Dec. 2022)
VVS2023-108506 14
 Design by Analysis

Starting point
User’s Design Specification (UDS). This will require
detailed guidelines in order to frame the process
correctly. Originates with system designer, includes
full viewport design. Not limited to PVHO. Risk drives
design margins, tolerances.

End point
PVHO Form GR-1 or variant. It will document explicitly
how the window meets the UDS. Lead document for
the full engineering package.
Instead of developing detailed data set and numerical
CHALLENGE: Developing the “punchlist” for UDS. criteria, the engineer will develop their own data set and
Assess what must be delivered vs. confidential and still critical values and address all design issues. Framework
avoid need for code case. allows for better 3rd party review for jurisdictions as
omission are notable. Large design package.
VVS2023-108506 15
 Design by Analysis

Simulation Prong
Replaces “Section VIII, Div. 2”
• Based on UDS, select methods, initial design,
literature values for materials, conduct initial Failure
Means & Effects Analysis (FMEA).
• Analyze initial design, including implicit nonlinear
FEA for range of variables. Diagnose critical areas.
• Update analysis using experimental material data.
Inputs for Design of Experiment (DoE) for prototype.
CHALLENGE: Design margin criteria, dimensional V&V guides the process. Use verified tools, validate the
tolerances, variables for stochastic analysis, analysis results. “Stochastic” addresses “uncertainty management”,
methods where a range of variables is solved to ensure the design
parameter set is reliable. Labs can have smaller range than
working arctic-to-tropic ocean environments.
16
VVS2023-108506 16
 Design by Analysis

Experiment Prong
Replaces “Section II”
• Based on UDS, select initial materials and test
methods. Ensure testing range satisfies UDS.
Establish QA, tolerances, incl. stochastic methods
• Analyze materials for use in implicit nonlinear
FEA. Develop specs for DoE for prototype for
analysis.
• Update testing based on analysis results,
implement DoE for prototype for key variables,
locations, conditions.
Polymer and window manufacturers should be held to the
CHALLENGE: Literature vs experiment criteria, same due diligence as alloy manufacturers & fabricators, which
requirements for: QA, statistical data, reporting, allows for a degree of “trade secrets.” The key aspect is
install & maintainance sufficient data to support the engineering report. Must advise
VVS2023-108506 regarding maintenance, installation hazards. 17
 Summary

• The need for VVUQ increases with uncertainty, novelty,

and consequence, “cutting edge engineering”
• “Traditional engineering” areas has been codified over
time, making the VVUQ aspects implicit requirements
• Traditional or “full VVUQ” is costly and time intensive
• ASME Pressure Vessel Code provides a full solution set
for using Finite Element Analysis for Design By Analysis
• As uncertainty, novely, or consequences increases, some
form of VVUQ is needed to mitigate risk.
VVS2023-108506 18
Application of VVUQ Concepts to
ASME Codes and Standards
for Pressure Vessels
VVS2023-108506

Bart Kemper
[email protected]
 References
[1] Hu, K. T., and Paez, T. L., 2016, "Why do verification and validation?," Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification, 1(1).
[2] Fong, J. T., Filliben, J. J., dewit, R., Fields, R. J., Bernstein, B., and Marcal, P. V., 2006, "Uncertainty in finite element modeling and failure analysis: a metrology-based approach."
[3] ASME, 2019, V&V 10 Guide For Verification And Validation In Computational Solid Mechanics, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, p. 44.
[4] ASME, 2009, V&V 20 Guide For Verification And Validation In Computational Fluid Dynaics and Heat Transfer, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, p. 48.
[5] ASME, 2018, V&V 40 Assessing Credibility of Computational Modeling through Verification and Validation: Application to Medical Devices, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, p. 61.
[6] Council, N. R., 2012, Assessing the reliability of complex models: mathematical and statistical foundations of verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification, National Academies Press.
[7] Webster, V., and Bourn, F., 2016, "The Use of Computer-Generated Animations and Simulations at Trial," Defense Counsel Journal, 83, pp. 439-459.
[8] ASME, Oct. 6, 2021, "ASME Code of Ethics of Engineers."
[9] Engineers, N. S. o. P., 2019, "NSPE Code of Ethics," N. S. o. P. Engineers, ed., NSPE.
[10] ASME, 2021, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII (Rules for Constructing Pressure Vessels), American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee, New York.
[11] Oberkampf, W. L., Trucano, T. G., and Hirsch, C., 2004, "Verification, validation, and predictive capability in computational engineering and physics," Appl. Mech. Rev., 57(5), pp. 345-384.
[12] Sudret, B., and Der Kiureghian, A., 2000, Stochastic finite element methods and reliability: a state-of-the-art report, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California
[13] Rangelow, P., Schneider, O., Hilpert, R., Schramm, K., Pellissetti, M., Nykyforchyn, A., and Stäuble, S., "Response of a Nuclear Power Plant Building under incoherent seismic ground motion excitation," Proc. Proc. 16th World Conference on
Earthquake.
[14] Szabo, B. A., and Muntges, D. E., 2005, "Procedures for the verification and validation of working models for structural shells." ASME
[15] Thacker, B. H., Rodriguez, E. A., Pepin, J. E., and Riha, D. S., "Uncertainty quantification of a containment vessel dynamic response subjected to high-explosive detonation impulse loading," Proc. IMAC-XXI: conference & exposition on structural
dynamics.
[16] Albee, A., Battel, S., Brace, R., Burdick, G., Casani, J., Lavell, J., Leising, C., MacPherson, D., Burr, P., and Dipprey, D., 2000, "Report on the loss of the Mars Polar Lander and Deep Space 2 missions."
[17] Héder, M., 2017, "From NASA to EU: the evolution of the TRL scale in Public Sector Innovation," The Innovation Journal, 22(2), pp. 1-23.
[18] Haas, C., and Witte, S. P., 2001, "Writing as an Embodied Practice: The Case of Engineering Standards," Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15(4), pp. 413-457.
[19] Bulleit, W., Schmidt, J., Alvi, I., Nelson, E., and Rodriguez-Nikl, T., 2015, "Philosophy of engineering: What it is and why it matters," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 141(3), p. 02514003.
[20] ASME, 2000, "History of ASME Standards," https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/about-standards/history-of-asme-standards.
[21] Ling, J., 2000, "The Evolution of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code," Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 122(3), pp. 242-246.
[22] ASME, 2021, API 579-1 / ASME FFS-1, Fitness-For-Service, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee, New York.
[23] ASME, 2019, PVHO-1 Safety Standard for Pressure Vessels for Human Occupancy, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
[24] ASME, 2019, PVHO-2 Safety Standards for Pressure Vessels for Human Occupancy: In-Service Guidelines, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee, New York.
[25] Rao, K. R., 2017, Companion Guide to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Volume 1, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME.
[26] Osage, D. A., and Sowinski, J. C., 2007, "ASME Section VIII—Division 2 Criteria and Commentary," ASME PTB-1.

VVS2023-108506 20
 References
[27] Laney, S. J., "Evaluation of the Creep Strength of 9Cr-1Mo-V and 1Cr-1Mo-1/4V Castings and Weldments Using Accelerated Creep Testing," Proc. ASME Turbo Expo 2020: Turbomachinery Technical Conference and Exposition, V10BT27A009.
[28] Suwan, S., Manuel, L., and Frank, K. H., 2003, "Statistical analysis of structural plate mechanical properties," AISI.
[29] Svensson, N. L., 1958, "The Bursting Pressure of Cylindrical and Spherical Vessels," Journal of Applied Mechanics, 25(1), pp. 89-96.
[30] Taylor, T. T., and Selby, G., 1981, "Evaluation of ASME section XI reference level sensitivity for initiation of ultrasonic inspection examination," Pacific Northwest National Lab.(PNNL), Richland, WA (United States).
[31] Davis, R. L., and Keith, H. D., 1972, "Finite-Element Analysis of Pressure Vessels," Journal of Basic Engineering, 94(2), pp. 401-405.
[32] Tso, F. K., Bryson, J., Weed, R., and Moore, S., 1977, "Stress analysis of cylindrical pressure vessels with closely spaced nozzles by the finite-element method. Volume 1. Stress analysis of vessels with two closely spaced nozzles under internal
pressure.[BWR; PWR; MULT-NOZZLE code]," Oak Ridge National Lab., Tenn.(USA).
[33] Peng, L.-C., 1988, "Pressure Vessel Research Committee: Local Stresses in Vessels—Notes on the Application of WRC-107 and WRC-297," Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 110(1), pp. 106-108.
[34] Porter, M. A., Martens, D. H., and Marcal, P., 1999, "On using finite element analysis for pressure vessel design," ASME-PUBLICATIONS-PVP, 388, pp. 191-196.
[35] Mackenzie, D., Boyle, J., and Spence, J., 1994, "Some recent developments in pressure vessel design by analysis," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part E: Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering, 208(1), pp. 23-29.
[36] Jones, J., 1989, "Finite Element Analysis of Pressure Vessels," The National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors.
[37] Oberkampf, W. L., Trucano, T. G., and Pilch, M. M., 2007, "Predictive Capability Maturity Model for computational modeling and simulation," Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), Albuquerque, NM, and Livermore, CA
[38] Rao, K. R., 2017, Companion Guide to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Volume 2, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME.
[39] Kemper, B., 2020, "Misapplication of Pressure Vessel Codes in Forensic Applications," Journal of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers, 37(1).
[40] Mehta, U. B., Eklund, D. R., Romero, V. J., Pearce, J., and Keim, N., "The JANNAF simulation credibility guide on verification, uncertainty propagation and quantification, and validation," Proc. 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, p. 0502.
[41] Kemper, B., "Shortfalls in polymer specifications for PVHOs," Proc. Underwater Intervention 2019.
[42] Das, P. S., 2001, "Redesign of NEMO-Type Spherical Acrylic Submersible for Manned Operation to 3000 ft (914 m) Ocean Depth," Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 124(1), pp. 97-107.
[43] Stachiw, J. D., 1973, "Recommended Practices for the Design, Fabrication, Prooftesting and Inspection of Windows in Man-Rated Hyperbaric Chambers," No. AD-773 737, US Navy, San Diego, California.
[44] Kemper, B., and Cross, L., 2020, "Developing 'Design by Analysis' Methodology for Windows for Pressure Vessels for Human Occupancy," ASCE-ASME J Risk and Uncert in Engrg Sys Part B Mech Engrg, 6(3).
[45] Sheffield, P. J., and Desautels, D., 1997, "Hyperbaric and hypobaric chamber fires: a 73-year analysis," Undersea & Hyperbaric Medicine: Journal of the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society, Inc, 24(3), pp. 153-164.
[46] Kemper, B., "Validation of Modern Finite Methods for Glassy Polymers Using Historical Studies," Proc. ASME 2021 Pressure Vessel & Piping Conference, ASME.
[47] Kemper, B., and Williams, K. K., "Attempting To Establish Design Margins for Glassy Polymers In Critical Structural Service," Proc. ASME 2021 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition V013T14A020.
[48] Kemper, B., "Criteria For Eliminating Cyclic Limit For PVHO Flat Disc Windows," Proc. 2013 Joint ASME/USCG Workshop on Marine Technology & Standards, ASME.
[49] Kemper, B., and Cross, L., "Heat Retention and Structural Integrity of Glassy Polymer Windows," Proc. 15th Manned Underwater Vehicle Symposium, Marine Technology Society.
[50] Du, Q., Hu, Y., and Cui, W., 2017, "Safety assessment of the acrylic conical frustum viewport structure for a deep-sea manned submersible," Ships and Offshore Structures, 12(sup1), pp. S221-S229.
[51] Pranesh, S., Kumar, D., Anantha Subramanian, V., Sathianarayanan, D., and Ramadass, G., 2020, "Numerical and experimental study on the safety of viewport window in a deep sea manned submersible," Ships and Offshore Structures, 15(7), pp.
769-779.
[52] Wang, F., Wang, M., Wang, W., Yang, L., and Zhang, X., 2021, "Time-dependent axial displacement of PMMA frustums designed for deep-sea manned cabin based on finite element analysis," Ships and Offshore Structures, 16(8), pp. 827-837.
[53] Gasratova, N., and Zuev, V., "On the design of deep-sea optical elements made of PMMA," Proc. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, IOP Publishing, p. 012069.
[54] Burdun, Y., Kochanov, V., and Yuresko, T., 2020, "Prediction of the service life of deep-sea conical acrylic portholes at designing," Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 1(1 (103)).

VVS2023-108506 21
 Conical Frustums: Testing
Measuring centerline deflection.

HIGH HIGH
PRESSURE PRESSURE

HIGH
PRESSURE
Two types of viewports, axisymmetric cross
section. Blue is the acrylic conical frustrum
window. Acrylic deforms under pressure and Testing above 69 MPa (10 ksi) using a naval gun shell casing.
seals gaps with metal seat as pressure The “high pressure” side is downwards, a follower measures
increases. This is the only PVHO viewport deflection upwards on the “low pressure” (ambient) side. Silicone
without a bearing gasket. lubricant paste held window in place during installation, also
reduced friction. 22
VVS2023-108506
 Conical Frustums: FEA Models

A 90 degree, 25.4mm (1.0 inch) diameter low pressure face, 12.2mm A window seat is modeled as alloy steel.
(0.5 inch) thick. All models are using the same material curve (Snoey, Contact elements allows the face to
1970) for acrylic window. The newer “window only” model has the deform against the seat as well as lift
same loads and restraints as the original analysis range as well as the off. A positive angle is a gap at the
physical testing its compared to. bottom, as shown. Angles and friction
varied.
VVS2023-108506 23
 Conical Frustums: Results
• Per previous slides, the variance in measured deflection is consistent
with likely minute misalignments and imperfections. Future testing will
use modern measurement methods.
• The error was in the comparing perfectly aligned models constrained
to a perfect surface to imprecisely installed small test items.
• Like many nonlinear results, strain is more indicative than stress.
• Analyzing reported test items failing in a less than 200 cycles shows
that a single implicit nonlinear FEA analyses that loads and unloads the
test item will have residual strains consistent with crack initiation.
• The images to the left shows strain patterns at 50% loading to failure
with different angular differences. The variance in strain patterns helps
explains the variance in observed failure patterns.
• Implicit nonlinear FEA with contact elements reasonably approximates
observed and historical failures.

VVS2023-108506 24
View publication stats