Short Description:
Calculate, using VCLAVIS, the required thickness of a stationary tubesheet for a floating type heat exchanger with immersed floating head (TEMA AES) according to ASME and EN 13445, then compare the results.
Design Data:
Download the official problem statement and technical data
Submission Guidelines :
Calculations must be performed using VCLAVIS.
To participate, please submit two (2) PDF documents:
1) ASME solution (PDF)
2) EN 13445 solution (PDF)
In your submission email, also refer:
1) The two (2) main reasons EN 13445 provides different results than ASME for this case
2) Your Name and Surname
3) Company / role (optional)
4) Country (optional)
Submission email :
info@vclavis.com
Key Dates :
Submission deadline: March 25, 2026
Winner announcement: March 31, 2026
Prize Details :
The selected participant for this challenge will receive:
- One-month VCLAVIS Professional license
- Featured spotlight on the VCLAVIS LinkedIn page
- Certificate of Achievement
Winner Announcement:
Winner Name: Jan
Winner Surname: Nagy
Company / Role: SE a.s. / Senior piping engineer
Country: Slovakia
Challenge Results:
Here are the results of this month’s challenge:
- Tubesheet thickness according to EN 13445: 46 mm
- Tubesheet thickness according to ASME Section VIII Division 1: 69 mm
EN 13445 generally results in thinner stationary tubesheets for typical AES-type heat exchangers. The main reasons are:
1. Higher allowable bending stress
EN 13445 permits an allowable bending stress of 2f for the tubesheet (as per equation 13.6.5.3), whereas ASME Section VIII Div.1 limits the bending stress to 1.5f (as per Div.2 paragraph 4.18.9.4 step 7 (c)), where f represents the design allowable stress. This higher permissible stress in EN 13445 allows a reduction in the required thickness, even if nominal material allowable stresses are similar in EN and ASME, as were the materials for this challenge.
2. Iterative calculation procedure
Tubesheet calculation method involves a repetitive (iterative) procedure to determine the minimum required thickness. Because the allowable stress used in each iteration is higher, the resulting reduction in thickness becomes more significant than what a simple proportional comparison would suggest.
Download the resulting reports here:
