Skip to main contentEngineering Courses, Mentoring & Jobs | EveryEng
Pressure Vessel Design – Understand Different Code & it’s requirements banner

Pressure Vessel Design – Understand Different Code & it’s requirements

Pressure Vessel Design – Understand Different Code & it’s requirements banner
Live online Beginner

Pressure Vessel Design – Understand Different Code & it’s requirements

3(70)
4289 views
COMPLETED

Tell us and we’ll notify you when the next batch is scheduled.

5 hrs
-
English
4289 views
Shanmugam V
Shanmugam VLead / Senior Mechanical Engineer/Static Equipment Engineer
  • 7-day money-back guarantee
  • Session recordings included
  • Certificate of completion

Why enroll

1. How elementary and advanced topics of Solid mechanics are applied in development of Pressure vessel codes and standards.

2. Theoretical background behind design code requirements which helps an engineer understand the strengths, weaknesses and applicability of the code requirements.

3. An insight into the newly introduced codes.

4. Bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and code requirements.

5. University students who want to take up career in static equipment engineering and wants to learn about the most widely used Industrial standard.

6. Experienced engineers who want to understand the background of code rules and requirements

What enrolled engineers say

6 verified reviews
  • May 3, 2026

    Our team’s been circling a few vessel design choices lately, so a beginner pass through this helped anchor the codes. The walk-through comparing ASME Section VIII Div 1 vs Div 2, especially the MAWP calc using joint efficiency Table UW-12, stuck because I could map it to checks we’d flag in an arch review. wasn't sold on how briefly fatigue is handled—would’ve liked a short bridge to Div 2 methods or FEA assumptions for oilgas cases. I'll keep this bookmarked for the next arch review.

    Sunil P. Verified
  • May 3, 2026

    Good on-ramps for codes; the ASME Section VIII Div 1 UG-27 shell thickness walkthrough stuck, especially how MAWP shifts with joint efficiency. As a bootcamp grad, it's helped fill infra gaps fast, though I wasn't sold on the brief hydrotest calc—wished there was more on nozzle loads before hitting real prod drawings.

    Chockalingam N. Verified
  • May 3, 2026

    Curriculum looked heavy on codes, but delivery stayed lean and to the point. The walk-through in the ASME Section VIII Div 1 chapter, especially the UG-27 shell thickness example with allowable stress tables, stuck because it mirrors the calcs I still see in prod reviews. It doesn't oversell Div 2, which is fine for a beginner track, though I wasn't sold on how lightly hydrotest considerations were handled. Rare to see training map this cleanly to day-to-day work in energyutilities—close enough to what lands in a PR.

    Rajnikant P. Verified

Is this course for you?

You should take this if

  • You work in Oil & Gas Upstream or Pharmaceutical & Healthcare
  • You're a Mechanical Engineering / Metallurgy & Material Science professional
  • You prefer live, instructor-led training with Q&A

You should skip if

  • You need a different specialisation outside Mechanical Engineering
  • You need fully self-paced, on-demand content

Course details

This course will cover basic and advanced topics of Pressure Vessel Engineering Design and Manufacturing requirement to provide a robust understanding of the background theory behind technical requirements of Pressure Vessel codes and standards. This will serve as a refresher course on core and advanced topics of Pressure Vessel Engineering to understand technical background of design and analysis as per codes & standards.


This course covers all important aspects of Pressure Vessel Design, Fabrication and testing, which comprises of
• Design, Analysis and Engineering requirement for Pressure Vessel
• Metallurgy and Material Selection while designing Pressure vessel
• Fabrication prerequisite while Pressure Vessel engineering
• Heat Treatment requirement for Pressure Vessel
• Testing & Inspection essentials for Pressure Vessel Design


All of above topics are covered in different modules of this course hence we encourage you to enroll all modules to learn all major and critical areas of Pressure vessel engineering.
Classifications of Static Equipment Engineering is a specialized discipline of Mechanical Engineering which covers the design of static equipments like Pressure vessels (Process Columns, Drums, Reactors, Separators, Drain vessel), Heat exchangers (Shell and Tube, Plate and Frame, Plate and Shell, Air Coolers), Atmospheric Tanks (Low pressure and LPG Tanks), Flare Stack in chemical, petrochemical, or hydrocarbon facilities. We have different courses to cover above listed equipment & do participate in all courses.

Course suitable for

Key topics covered

1. Understand Different Code & it’s requirements

a. ASME Section VIII DIV 1 / 2 / 3 Standards

b. Dimensional Standards

c. Material Standards

d. Pipe thickness

e. Flange Standards

f. Fitting Standards

Opportunities that await you!

Career opportunities

Training details

This is a live course that has a scheduled start date.

Why people choose EveryEng

Industry-aligned courses, expert training, hands-on learning, recognized certifications, and job opportunities-all in a flexible and supportive environment.

What learners say about this course

Divya Patwa
Divya Patwa
May 3, 2026

The junior-to-senior gap shows up fast in this course, especially around when heat treatment is optional versus mandated. The PWHT exemptions walkthrough using UCS-56 Fig. UCS-56.1 stuck with me, where the instructor toggles thickness and material in PV Elite and you see the code checks flip; that felt like connecting theory to what actually blocks a PR in prod. As a grad entrant, it's helpful to map this to how we think about arch and infra constraints, even if the domain’s pressure vessels in energyutilities. I’ve already started mirroring the calc outputs into our repo and sanity-checking them the way I would CI results, which I didn’t expect. One gripe: the residual stress explanation was mostly there, but I wished for a bit more on how shops handle edge cases day to day. still, the pacing worked for beginner to intermediate, and it nudged me toward thinking ahead about migration work rather than just passing checks.

Ved Naik
Ved Naik Engineering
May 3, 2026

Came in needing clarity on how COMPRESS treats combined load cases beyond toy calcs, and this mostly delivered for a beginner course. The walkthrough of the UG‑22 combo with wind plus seismic, then tying it to the nozzle local stress check, stuck because it mirrors what I see in oilgas specs. I've already reused that flow in a PR for a calc note. Wasn't sold on the skim over external pressure; a bit more time there would've helped, but it's moved me from barely adequate to actually competent.

Avatar icon
Swapnil Kamble
May 3, 2026

First gripe: the lab setup assumes you’ve already got PV Elite and Compress licensed and talking; that ate time. After that, the pace fit a freelancer’s weekend better than expected. Sections map cleanly to client outcomes, not theory for theory’s sake. The UG‑27 shell thickness walkthrough where they toggle joint efficiency and watch the MAWP shift in PV Elite stuck. Same with the Compress nozzle reinforcement check against UG‑37—clear why the numbers move, not just where to click. Useful context on wind/seismic inputs too, which comes up a lot in energyutilities work. It wasn’t flashy, but it shortened my path from spec to calc in prod. found myself recalling the steps days later when reviewing a vendor calc.

Emavwodia Solomon
Emavwodia Solomon engineer
May 3, 2026

Signed up to patch a narrow gap before a role shift, mostly around PV Elite workflows I hadn't touched since school. The UG‑27 shell thickness calc walk‑through, then flipping the same case in Compress to compare assumptions, stuck with me because it maps cleanly to what we push to prod calcs. It moves fast but not hand‑wavy; I wasn't sold on the brief ASME BPVC fatigue bit and wished there was more nozzle reinforcement per UG‑37. last third clicks when Appendix 1 flanges and external pressure checks finally line up with real oilgas reviews.

COMPLETED

-

Questions and Answers

A: Option A walks the code path most people forget under pressure. P = 3.0 MPa, R = 1.0 m, S = 138 MPa, E = 0.85 gives a raw thickness just over 17 mm, then you add 3 mm CA to land at ~20 mm. B feels reasonable if you're used to piping rules, but ASME VIII applies E inside the pressure formula, not as a post-add. C borrows thin-wall logic from heat exchangers and quietly swaps diameter basis, shaving metal you don't actually have. D sounds conservative, yet Div 1 doesn't let you hand-wave E away; doing so double-counts safety in some spots and misses it in others.

A: A jumps out once you slow down and map symbols to code language. A fillet weld on a pressure-retaining nozzle contradicts a stated full-pen requirement, and UW-16 doesn’t give you wiggle room. B is a trap people fall into on brownfields, assuming notes magically fix geometry. They don’t. C leans on hydro as a cure-all, ignoring that code compliance is checked before pressure ever hits steel. D isn’t wrong in general, but here it sidesteps the direct mismatch between symbol and requirement.

A: A reflects basic gas law behavior that’s easy to forget when alarms chirp. A sealed gas volume will climb with temperature, and controlled venting keeps stress where intended. B feels safe, but you’d be chasing ghosts and extending outage for no gain. C ignores that test pressure limits are absolute, not average-over-time suggestions. D sounds proactive, yet adding hardware mid-test creates new failure paths and isn’t what the code expects during controlled pneumatic testing.

A: A is the quick sanity check that keeps you from embarrassing crane calls. Shell area ~113 m², plus heads gets you near 135 m²; multiply by 0.022 m and density and you land around mid‑40 tonnes. B drops length from the math by accident, something piping folks sometimes do. C piles on allowances that belong in installed weight, not bare vessel. D overestimates because a solid cylinder ignores that most of the volume is empty process space.