Objective
The purpose of this study is to perform a detailed comparison of pressure vessel design workflows using two different software tools – VCLAVIS and a leading industry-standard software (latest available as of April 2025). The focus is specifically on the design of a simple horizontal vessel which is placed outdoors, calculated under ASME VIIII DIV.1
This study evaluates how each software platform handles:
- Detail of input such as platforms / ladders e.t.c
- Stability analysis
- Lifting verification
- Workflow automation and report generation
By applying the same design scenario across both tools, the study quantifies the time required for each task, identifies workflow bottlenecks, and evaluates each tool’s usability. The goal is to assess not only time efficiency but also the reliability and user-friendliness of each software when designing pressure vessels.
Sample vessel specifications
Cylindrical vessel with two elliptical heads per ASME II supported on. The vessel is equipped with one offset platform and a ladder. The vessel is equipped with 4 lifting lugs for lifting using a single hook. Since the vessel is exposed outdoors, wind and snow loads need to be considered. Lifting lug local loads check is required by performing WRC analysis.
| Design Data | |
| Internal Design Pressure: | 1 MPa |
| Internal Design Temperature: | 250°C |
| External Design Pressure: | 0.1 Mpa |
| External Design Temperature: | 250°C |
| Corrosion Allowance: | 1 mm |
| Dimensional Data | ||||
| Component | Diameter | Thickness | Length | Material |
| Shell | OD=2500 | T=16 | L=20000 | ASME II: SA516-70 |
| Heads | OD=2500 | T=16 (af) | sf = 50 | ASME II: SA516-70 |
| Example Nozzle Index (Nozzles with Pads) | ||||||
| Tag | Description | Dimension | Make | Nozzle material | Flange Rating | Flange material |
| 1M | Manway | DN600 | Plate 16mm | ASME II: SA516-70 | 300# | ASME II: SA105 |
| 2M | Manway | DN600 | Plate 16mm | ASME II: SA516-70 | 300# | ASME II: SA105 |
| 1N | Inlet | DN200 | Pipe 12.7mm | ASME II: SA106-B | 300# | ASME II: SA105 |
| 2N | Outlet | DN200 | Pipe 12.7mm | ASME II: SA106-B | 300# | ASME II: SA105 |
| 3N | Drain | DN50 | Pipe 8.74mm | ASME II: SA106-B | 300# | ASME II: SA105 |
| 4N | Vent | DN50 | Pipe 8.74mm | ASME II: SA106-B | 300# | ASME II: SA105 |
| Platform and Ladder index | |||
| Tag | Dimension | Self weight | Snow Loads |
| P1 | L=10000, W=1000, offset from centerline 1000mm | 150 Kg/m² | 250 Kg/m² |
| L1 | Width 400mm, wind 0.4m²/m | 40 Kg/m | N/A |
| Design Execution Time: Industry Software vs. VCLAVIS | |||
| Industry software (2025 edition) | |||
| Examination Point | Time | Issues spotted | |
| 1 | Model primary components | 10 min | No problems spotted |
| 2 | Model nozzles | 20 min | Typically 5 min per nozzle |
| 3 | Model platform and ladder | 10 min | Ladder can’t be modeled properly (not even drawn). User needs to calculate ladder weight and enter it as “mass” on main shell. |
| 4 | Model wind for platform and ladder | 10 min | The software does not account ladder wind. User needs to calculate ladder wind area and implement it on the vessel as diametral increase |
| 5 | Model snow loads on platforms | 20 min | The software can’t account for platform snow loads. User needs to calculate the platform snow loads on a separate spreadsheet and enter them as “forces” on the main shell. |
| 6 | Account for platform offset | 10 min | User needs to calculate moments from platform offset and enter them as “forces” on the main shell. |
| 7 | Model and check wind | 10 min | Take time to check if wind is handled correctly |
| 8 | Design lifting lugs | 60 min | There is no automated process to set up the forces (longitudinal and transverse) for the case of 4 lifting lugs. A dedicated spreadsheet is required. Moreover user has to additionally apply a polar coordinate transformation on the calculated forces in order to obtain local WRC loads. |
| 9 | Time to print final report | 0 min | No problems spotted since this is a simple vessel |
| Aggregate time: | 150 min (2.5 hrs) | ||
| Design Execution Time: Industry Software vs. VCLAVIS | |||
| VCLAVIS | |||
| Examination Point | Time | Solutions adopted | |
| 1 | Model primary components | 10 min | No problems spotted |
| 2 | Model nozzles | 20 min | Typically 5 min per nozzle |
| 3 | Model platform and ladder | 5 min | Ladder is modeled |
| 4 | Model wind for platform and ladder | 0 min | Ladder wind is considered |
| 5 | Model snow loads on platforms | 0 min | Accounted on platform modeling |
| 6 | Account for platform offset | 0 min | Accounted on platform modeling |
| 7 | Model and check wind | 10 min | Take time to check if wind is handled correctly |
| 8 | Design lifting lugs | 10 min | Automated process for 4 lugs and single hook lifting |
| 9 | Time to print final report | 5 min | It takes some time printing all output into pdf final report and merging summary and calculations reports. However user does not need to perform any actions. |
| Aggregate time: | 60 min (1.0 hrs) | ||
The comparative analysis reveals a significant efficiency gap between the two software tools. Traditional industry software, while capable, necessitates considerable manual effort, including the use of auxiliary spreadsheets and manual input, in order to calculate a simple pressure vessel. In contrast, VCLAVIS streamlines the process with built-in capabilities for lifting and stability analysis, and automated reporting. By reducing the total design time from 2.5 hours to just 1 hour – a 60% reduction—VCLAVIS demonstrates its superiority in both speed and usability. These savings are not merely time-related; they also reduce the chance of user error, standardize compliance procedures, and free up valuable engineering resources for higher-level analysis and optimization.
