Tubesheet Heat Exchangers: New

Common Design Rules in UPV,

CODAP, and ASME
Francis Osweiller French CODAP rules devoted to tubesheet heat exchangers were adopted in the 1990s,
CETIM, for the European Unfired Pressure Vessel Standard (UPV). ASME Section VIII—Div. 1
52 avenue Félix Louat—BP 80067, rules issued in July 1998 are based on a similar approach. At the initiative of the author,
60304 Senlis Cedex, France who is a member of CODAP, UPV, and ASME respective Committees on Heat Exchang-
ers, it has been decided to make the tubesheet design rules of these three codes as
consistent as possible. This paper presents the various aspects of this harmonization that
covers both the theoretical basis of the rules and the editorial aspect (use of common
notations, common tubesheet configurations, common terminology, etc). The main ana-
lytical basis of these rules, and their differences are explained. Numerical benchmark
calculations, performed on real heat exchangers, outline the significant improvements due
to the consistency, with a comparison to current TEMA rules. Use of these common rules
in the coming years, both in US and Europe, is discussed in the general context of
globalization of the market. 关S0094-9930共00兲01003-9兴

Introduction 1 The tubesheet is disconnected from the shell and channel. A

shear force V E and a moment M E are applied at the tubesheet
During the last five decades, TEMA standards have been exten-
edge, as shown in Fig. 1共b兲.
sively used for the design of tubesheet heat exchangers. Due to
2 The perforated tubesheet is replaced by an equivalent solid
their simplicity, these rules do not account for several effects 共e.g.,
unperforated rim, tube expansion兲 and ignore some others 共e.g., plate of effective elastic constants E * and ␯*.
the connection of the tubesheet with shell and channel兲 that have 3 The tubes are replaced by an equivalent elastic foundation of
a significant impact on the calculated thickness of the tubesheet. modulus k w . In U-tube heat exchangers, the tubes do not act as an
For this reason, the author has developed a more rational treat- elastic foundation (k w ⫽0).
ment, which led in 1980 to the publication of new tubesheet de- 4 Classical thin plate theory is applied to this equivalent
sign rules in the French Pressure Vessel Code, CODAP 关1兴. tubesheet to determine the maximum stresses in the tubesheet, the
ASME, at approximately the same time, followed the same ap- tubes, the shell, and the channel. These maximum stresses are
proach and new rules were published in ASME Section VIII— limited to a set of maximum allowable stresses derived from the
Div. 1, in 1982 for U-tubes, and in 1992 for fixed tubesheets. Both concept of primary and secondary stresses, based on ASME Sec-
organizations, without having any contact at that time, came to the tion VIII, Div. 2.
same conclusion that it was necessary to develop a more refined
analysis than TEMA. Main Basis of Consistency
In 1991, CEN/TC54 decided to adopt CODAP 关4兴 tubesheet As explained in the foregoing, the consistency of the rules has
rules for its draft Unfired Pressure Vessel Standard 共UPV兲,1 been performed both for the analytical and the editorial aspects,
In 1992, ASME and CODAP decided to harmonize their which are briefly presented here.
tubesheet design rules as they had the same basis. This approach
was extended to UPV, and the author, as member of the three Analytical Aspect. Analytical aspect is based on the follow-
organizations, took responsibility for the harmonization which is ing three items.
now effective with the publication of new common rules in
ASME, CODAP, and UPV Codes. 1 Ligament Efficiency ␮*. ASME ligament efficiency ␮*
The purpose of this paper is to explain the basis of this consis- has been adopted by CODAP and UPV. It accounts 共see Fig. 2兲
tency, both on the editorial and analytical aspects. Design rules for an untubed diametral lane of width U L 共through the effective
devoted to U-tube tubesheet, fixed tubesheets, and floating heads tube pitch p * 兲 and for the degree of tube expansion ␳ 共through the
are presented and benchmark results provided. A comparison to effective tube diameter d * 兲. This will increase the value of the
TEMA shows the limits of this code. CODAP ligament efficiency by about 15–20 percent and will lead
As a conclusion, the author will present his views for the future to lower tubesheet thicknesses. CODAP has improved this con-
of these codes. cept by proposing a more general formula for p * , which accounts
for more than one untubed lane.
Analytical Treatment of Tubesheets 2 Effective Elastic Constant E* and ␯*. CODAP effective
The analytical treatment has the same basis in UPV, CODAP, elastic constants E * and ␯*, given by curves as a function of ␮*,
and ASME rules, and has been widely presented in many papers have been adopted by ASME and UPV. These curves account for
关1,2兴. It can be summarized in four steps 共see Fig. 1兲: the ratio h/p, which has a significant effect on the results 关3兴, and
was ignored in the ASME rules. Polynomial equations are pro-
1
These UPV tubesheet rules provide also an alternative method based on limit vided with a discrepancy less than 0.5 percent, which is below the
load analysis. This aspect is not covered by the present paper, which deals only with reading error of the curves.
methods based on classical elastic theory of thin shells.
Contributed by the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division and presented at the 3 Local Thickening of the Shell. When the tubesheet is inte-
International Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference 共CPVT-9兲, Sydney, Australia,
April 9–14, 2000, of THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS.
gral with the shell, the CODAP method allows thickening of the
Manuscript received by the PVP Division, February 1, 2000; revised manuscript shell at its connection to the tubesheet when the bending stress in
received April 10, 2000. Technical Editor: S. Y. Zamrik. the shell exceeds the allowable limit. This is an efficient mean of

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright © 2000 by ASME AUGUST 2000, Vol. 122 Õ 317

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/28401/ on 06/09/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/a

 Fig. 1 Analytical model used in design method—„a… real model, „b… analytical model

Fig. 2 Determination of ligament efficiency ␮*

reducing the tubesheet thickness significantly, even if the shell is Editorial Aspect. This is an important issue, as it is well
not overstressed. At the request of ASME SWG-HTE this prin- known that differences in notation, terminology, and presentation
ciple has been extended to the situation in which the shell has a of the rules are significant barriers to the use and dissemination of
different material adjacent to the tubesheet. foreign codes.
The details of the harmonization involved in the design rules
devoted to U-tube tubesheets, fixed tubesheets, and floating heads 1 Notations. This is probably the most significant improve-
are presented further in the sections dealing with these three types ment.
of heat exchangers. English notations, based on TEMA, have been adopted by

318 Õ Vol. 122, AUGUST 2000 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/28401/ on 06/09/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/a

 UPV, CODAP, and ASME. Following subscripts are systemati- 2 Design Equations. Due to these common notations, the
cally used: design equations are the same in the three codes.
• t for tubes The charts that are involved in these equations are presented in
• s for shell the same way. Equations or numerical tables are provided for
• c for channel these charts.
• no subscript for tubesheet
3 Tubesheet Configurations. The same terminology of
However, the following notations will remain different in US tubesheet configurations has been adopted, independently of the
codes 共ASME, TEMA兲 and European codes 共CODAP, UPV兲: heat exchanger type 共see Fig. 3兲: 共a兲 tubesheet integral both sides;
• Tubesheet thickness: h in US—e in Europe 共b兲 tubesheet integral shell side, extended as a flange on channel
• Shell and channel thickness: t s , t c in US—e s , e c in Europe side; 共c兲 tubesheet integral shell side, gasketed on channel side;
• Nominal design stress: S in US—f in Europe 共d兲 tubesheet gasketed both sides; 共e兲 tubesheet integral channel
side, extended as flange on shell side; 共f兲 tubesheet integral chan-
Aside from these exceptions, the notations are the same in all nel side, gasketed on shell side.
three codes and are shown on Figs. 4–6.

Fig. 3 Configurations of tubesheets—„a… tubesheet integral with shell and channel; „b… tubesheet integral with shell, gasketed
with channel, extended as a flange; „c… tubesheet integral with shell, gasketed with channel, not extended as a flange; „d…
tubesheet gasketed with shell and channel, not extended as a flange; „e… tubesheet integral with channel, gasketed with shell,
extended as a flange; „f… tubesheet integral with channel, gasketed with shell, not extended as a flange

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology AUGUST 2000, Vol. 122 Õ 319

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/28401/ on 06/09/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/a

 4 Design Loading Cases. The seven loading cases to be con- where
sidered for the design have the same reference number, based on G ⫽ mean gasket diameter
TEMA: Do ⫽ diameter of perforated tubesheet area
P ⫽ design pressure on shell-side ( P s ) or channel-side ( P t )
1 Tubeside pressure acting only, without thermal expansion. ␣ ⫽ tube pattern factor ⫽ 0.39 for triangular pattern
2 Shellside pressure acting only, without thermal expansion. ⫽ 0.34 for square pattern
3 Tubeside and shellside pressures acting simultaneously, ␮* ⫽ ligament efficiency
without thermal expansion. f ⫽ nominal design stress
4 Thermal expansion acting alone.
5 Tubeside pressure acting only, with thermal expansion. This formula is based on the equation of simply supported cir-
6 Shellside pressure acting only, with thermal expansion. cular plates subject to pressure and enables a direct determination
7 Tubeside and shellside pressures acting simultaneously, with of the tubesheet thickness.
thermal expansion.
For U-tube tubesheets and floating heads, only the first three load- Tubesheet Integral Both Sides „Configuration a, see Fig. 5….
ing cases are to be considered. In ASME rule, same formula is used with a correction factor F
5 Structure and Presentation of the Rules. Structure and pre-
sentation of the rules have been made consistent as far as possible.
In the three codes, each of the three types of heat exchangers
冋 冉 冊
e⫽ 0.556
G
Do
␣ •ln ␮ *
•G• 冑* 兩 P兩
␮ •共 2 f 兲
册
•F

共U-tube, floating head, fixed tubesheets兲 is covered by indepen- This factor, taken from TEMA, varies from 0.8 共when the
dent and self-supporting rules. tubesheet is clamped兲 to 1.0 共when the tubesheet is simply sup-
ported兲 as a function of shell thickness/shell diameter. As shown
U-Tube Tubesheet Heat Exchanger by Osweiller 关4兴, the factor F does not account correctly for the
connection of the tubesheet with the shell and channel. For this
Selection of a Design Rule. At the request of CEN/TC54, the reason, ASME rule was not adopted by UPV and CODAP.
author has undertaken an extensive work to select a design rule An improved method has been developed by the author, which
for U-tube tubesheets. Six methods were reviewed and compared, considers the mechanical support provided by the shell and chan-
both on the analytical and numerical points of view: TEMA, nel to the tubesheet, by accounting for the bending rigidities of
ASME, BS 5500, CODAP, STOOMWEZEN, AD- these three elements (k s ,k c ,k) through the bending stiffness ratio
MERKBLATT.
From this comparison 关4兴, it was decided to adopt the ASME k s ⫹k c
method for the following reasons: K R⫽
k
• Tubesheet design formula is straightforward. Two formulas are proposed to determine the stress in the
• It accounts for an unperforated rim and an unperforated dia- tubesheet which may occur.
metral lane.
• Design rule for tubesheet extended as a flange is covered in a • either at its center, when the tubesheet is rather simply sup-
more satisfactory way than other code rules. ported 共low value of K R 兲

冉 冊 冉 冊
• Tubesheet thickness obtained is generally lower than by other 2 ␣ •ln ␮ *
rules. Dm 2 兩 P兩
␴ 0 ⫽0.5562 1⫺ 2
KR Dm
Do 3⫹ ␯ * ␮ *e 2
The ASME method has been adopted by CODAP and UPV
with the same structure: three clauses cover the following three where D m ⫽(D s ⫹D c )/2
common tubesheet configurations. • or at its periphery, when the tubesheet is rather clamped 共high
value of k R 兲.
Tubesheet Gasketed Both Sides „Configuration d, see Fig.
4…. The method is based on the Gardner 关5兴 method, with some 兩 P兩
␴ p ⫽0.4332 K R D m2
improvement. The bending formula is straightforward and no ␮ *e 2
longer necessitates the use of a numerical table

冉 冊
The method is iterative. However, a direct formula is provided,
e⫽0.556
G
Do
␣ •ln ␮ *
•G• 冑 兩 P兩
␮ *•共 2 f 兲
which gives a tubesheet thickness on the safe side by assuming
K R ⫽0 共no mechanical support from shell and channel兲.

Fig. 4 Tubesheet gasketed both sides Fig. 5 Tubesheet integral both sides

320 Õ Vol. 122, AUGUST 2000 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/28401/ on 06/09/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/a

 Fig. 6 Tubesheet gasketed on one side, integral on the other side

Tubesheet Gasketed on One Side and Integral on the Other tubesheets are gasketed both sides 共G1 to G4兲, three tubesheets
Side „Configurations b and e, see Fig. 6…. The ASME method are integral both sides 共I1 to I13兲. Calculations are performed
is presently the only one which accounts correctly for the connec- using the same value of the nominal design stress, f, taken from
tion of the tubesheet with the shell and channel. UPV 共ASME and TEMA calculations were also performed using
The calculation procedure is similar to the foregoing one: the ASME allowable stress S兲.
Results, provided both for welded tubes 共no tube expansion兲
• determination of the tubesheet stress which may occur either and for fully expanded tubes, show that:
at its center or at its periphery, which leads to iterative cal-
culations; • TEMA and ASME rules lead to the lowest tubesheet thick-
• possibility to use a direct formula giving a tubesheet thick- ness in most cases.
ness on the safe side. • Use of S instead of f leads to thicker tubesheets 共about 15
percent difference兲.
Two improvements have been provided by CODAP to cover • Expansion of the tubes leads to lower tubesheet thickness
the cases where: 共about 5 percent difference兲.
• the tubesheet is not extended as a flange 共configurations c and
f兲; Fixed Tubesheet Heat Exchanger
• the gasket is full faced.
Analytical Treatment of Tubesheets. Configurations a, b, c,
Numerical Comparisons. Table 1 gives the results obtained and d of Fig. 3 are covered. The stresses are calculated according
by the eight code rules for seven U-tube heat exchangers: four to the four-step procedure described in the foregoing and shown in

Table 1 U-tube heat exchangers

All calculations made using same value of nominal design stress ‘‘f’’, except columns noted ‘‘S’’ in TEMA and ASME where ‘‘S’’ has been used.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology AUGUST 2000, Vol. 122 Õ 321

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/28401/ on 06/09/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/a

 Fig. 1. These stresses depend on a dimensionless parameter, X, • In cases 1 to 6, the tubesheet is integral both sides. Two of
which represents the ratio of the axial tube bundle rigidity to the them have an expansion bellows setup on the shell.
bending rigidity of the tubesheet. It is a fundamental parameter • In cases 7 to 10, the tubesheet is integral with the shell and
which governs the mechanical behavior of the exchanger. It may extended as a flange with the channel. Three of them have an
vary from almost zero 共tube bundle rigidity very low as compared expansion bellows setup on the shell.
to the tubesheet rigidity兲 to about 50 共very stiff tubes as compared
to the tubesheet兲. Common values generally range between 2 Calculations have been performed according to TEMA, ASME,
and 8. CODAP 95 and CODAP 99-UPV.
A second parameter, Z, which represents the degree of rota- The same allowable stress, taken from ASME section VIII, Div.
tional restraint of the tubesheet by the shell and channel, is also 1, has been used, to determine the optimized tubesheet thickness.
important. It may vary from zero, when the tubesheet is simply Additional calculations will be necessary to account for the fact
supported, to infinity when it is fully clamped. that the tubes, the shell, or the channel may be overstressed in
some cases. It is also possible to obtain lower values for the
Differences Between ASME and CODAP. Some theoretical tubesheet thickness by thickening the shell or using the elastic-
differences remain between the two design rules, although they plastic solution proposed by the ASME method.
rest on the same analytical treatment: Results shown in Table 2 show that:
• The tubesheet unperforated rim is treated as a solid ring in • ASME and CODAP 99-UPV rules lead to similar results for
ASME method. In the CODAP method the tubes are assumed to cases 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8. More significant discrepancies appear for
be uniformly distributed over the whole tubesheet. The main con- the other cases due to the differences between the two aforemen-
sequence is that the fundamental parameter X of the tubesheet will tioned methods.
always be higher in the CODAP rule than in the ASME rule. • CODAP 99 leads to lower tubesheet thicknesses 共10–15 per-
• In the CODAP method the radial displacement of the cent兲 than CODAP 95, due to the ligament efficiency which is
tubesheet at its connection with shell and channel is ignored. higher in CODAP 99.
• When the tubesheet is extended as a flange, ASME method • Thicknesses obtained by TEMA are, in several cases, quite
considers the loads due to the gasket and to the bolts. CODAP different for the reasons explained in the forthcoming.
does not.
Comparison to TEMA. The TEMA design method assumes
For more details, see 关1兴. that the weakening effect of the holes is balanced by the stiffening
These differences may have a more or less significant impact on of the tubes. The consequence is that the coefficient F which
the numerical results and explain the discrepancies obtained be- appears in the TEMA tubesheet formula
tween the two methods.
European Unfired Pressure Vessel standard has adopted the
CODAP method. T⫽F
G
3
冑␩ P
S
Numerical Comparisons. A benchmark comparison was per-
formed on 10 industrial fixed tubesheet heat exchangers 共see has a constant value F⫽1.0 if the tubesheet is simply supported,
Table 2兲: F⫽0.8 if the tubesheet is clamped.

Table 2 Fixed tubesheet heat exchangers

322 Õ Vol. 122, AUGUST 2000 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/28401/ on 06/09/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/a

 Fig. 7 Comparison of TEMA and UPV-CODAP 99 rules for fixed tubesheets

Writing the CODAP 共or ASME兲 formula in the same way, we • better consistency with the fixed tubesheet rules,
obtain • correct treatment of tubesheet—shell—channel connection,

冑␩
• reduced tubesheet thickness,
G P • possibility of covering new tubesheet configurations.
T⫽F CODAP
3 S
On the other hand, this method does not account for the unper-
were F CODAP depends strongly on the fundamental parameter, X, forated rim and the two tubesheets are assumed identical.
which represents the ratio of tube bundle axial stiffness to Three types of heat exchangers are covered:
tubesheet bending stiffness 共see Fig. 7兲. This figure shows that:
• immersed floating head,
• When X is low (X⬍2), the tubesheet thickness obtained by • externally sealed floating head,
TEMA will be lower than CODAP or ASME thickness. This hap- • internally sealed floating tubesheet.
pens for case 1 (X⫽1.8).
• When X is high (X⬎5), the tubesheet thickness obtained by The stationary tubesheet may have any of the configurations a
TEMA will be higher than CODAP or ASME thickness. This to f. The floating tubesheet may be gasketed to the floating head
happens in cases 2, 3, and 6. The discrepancy will increase dra- 共extended as a flange, or not兲 or integral with the floating head.
matically when X is very high, as in case 4 共X⫽41, which is quite The design procedure is similar to the fixed tubesheet proce-
unusual兲, case 5 (X⫽19) or case 7 (X⫽12). dure.
• In the intermediate range (2⭐X⭐5), CODAP and TEMA ASME Rule. The ASME rule is presently in course of devel-
thicknesses will be about the same: cases 8 (X⫽5), 9 (X⫽4), opment by the SWG-HTE. Like CODAP 99 and UPV, it will be
and 10 (X⫽2.5). In this range, the foregoing assumption made by based on the fixed tubesheet method.
TEMA is acceptable.
The main consequence is that TEMA does not provide the same Conclusion
design margin for all heat exchangers, leading to overthickness TEMA design rules do not ensure the same safety level for all
when the X value is high and underthickness when the X value is heat exchangers: they often lead to tubesheet overthickness, occa-
low. sionally to underthickness, which may be detrimental to the safety
For more details, see Soler 关2兴 and Osweiller 关6兴. of the vessel.
This is the main reason why both ASME and CODAP decided
Floating Head Heat Exchanger to develop a more rational approach and to reconcile their heat
exchanger design rules both on the analytical and editorial as-
CODAP-UPV Design Method. Until recently, the CODAP pects. This reconciliation work is now achieved with the publica-
95 关6兴 rule for floating heads was based on Gardner 关5兴 method. tion of consistent rules in ASME Code on 1 July 1998 in Section
This method has the following drawbacks: VIII—Div. 1 共Appendix AA兲 关7兴, CODAP Code on 1 January
• the connection of the tubesheet with shell and channel is not 1999 in Section C7 关8兴, and Draft UPV Standard Pr En 13 445 共6
treated correctly 共the tubesheet is considered as either simply months public inquiry launched in 1999兲 关9兴.
supported or clamped兲, These rules propose a better treatment of the mechanical behav-
• tubesheet thicknesses obtained are generally high, ior of the various components of the heat exchanger. They lead to
• some of the charts provided for the calculation of tube reduced tubesheet thicknesses, while ensuring a consistent safety
stresses were not usable in certain ranges of X. margin for all heat exchangers.
Use of common notations, common tubesheet configurations,
It was therefore decided to adopt the fixed tubesheet CODAP and common terminology will facilitate an easy correspondence
method for use with this type of heat exchanger, with the follow- among these three codes, while ensuring a progressive transition
ing benefits: from TEMA to these new design rules.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology AUGUST 2000, Vol. 122 Õ 323

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/28401/ on 06/09/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/a

 It is the opinion of the author that these new rules will gradually sion 1, Tubesheet Design Procedure,’’ Proc., ASME PVP Conference, Nash-
ville, TN, Vol. 186 共HOO605兲.
replace TEMA design rules both in US and Europe. This is based
关3兴 Osweiller, F., 1989, ‘‘Evolution and Synthesis of the Effective Elastic Con-
on the facts that ASME rule will become mandatory in US by stants Concept for the Design of Tubesheets,’’ ASME J. Pressure Vessel Tech-
2002 共nonmandatory Appendix AA replaced by new mandatory nol., 111, August, pp. 209–217.
Part UHX兲, CODAP rule is widely used in FRANCE, UPV should 关4兴 Osweiller, F., 1996, ‘‘U-Tube Heat Exchangers: A Comparison of Code De-
be issued by 2002. sign Rules,’’ Proc., ASME 8th ICPVT Conference, Montreal, Canada, July 2
共H10708兲.
At the dawn of the new millennium, these rules should find 关5兴 Gardner, K., 共1969兲, ‘‘Tubesheet Design: A Basis for Standardization,’’ Delft
increased use in national and international markets, thus following Conference, pp. 621–648.
the new trends of market globalization. 关6兴 Osweiller, F., 1986, ‘‘Analysis of TEMA Tubesheet Design Rules—
Comparison With Up-to Date Code Methods,’’ Proc., ASME PVP Conference,
107 共G00358兲.
References 关7兴 ASME, 1998, Section VIII, Division 1, Appendix AA, July 1.
关1兴 Osweiller, F., 1991, ‘‘New Design Rules for Fixed Tubesheet Heat Exchang- 关8兴 CODAP 95, 1999, Code français de Construction des Appareils ȧ Pression,
ers: A Comparison of CODAP and ASME approaches,’’ Proc., ASME PVP Section C7, revised on Jan. 1.
Conference, 110–2 共H00637兲. 关9兴 TEMA Standards, 1998, Tubular Exchangers Manufacturers Association, 7th
关2兴 Soler, A. I., and Caldwell, S., 1990, ‘‘A Proposed ASME Section VIII, Divi- edition.

324 Õ Vol. 122, AUGUST 2000 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/28401/ on 06/09/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/a