Why enroll

How elementary and advanced topics of Solid mechanics are applied in the development of Piping and Pressure vessel codes and standards.
Theoretical background behind design code requirements which helps an engineer understand the strengths, weaknesses, and applicability of the code requirements.
An insight into the newly introduced codes.
Bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and code requirements.
University students who want to take up career in piping engineering or static equipment engineering and wants to learn about the most widely used Industrial standard.
Experienced engineers who want to understand the background of code rules and requirements.

Your instructor

Anindya Bhattacharya

Asset Engineer- Static Mechanical

Asset Engineer

Total experience: 31+ years
Location: United Kingdom

28Courses

3Articles

528Learners

4.1Avg trainers rating

23Followers

Course details

This course covers both fundamental and advanced topics in solid mechanics required to build a strong theoretical foundation for understanding the technical requirements of piping and pressure vessel codes and standards. The program is designed to bridge the gap between core mechanical engineering principles and their practical application in industry codes.

Participants will receive a structured refresher on essential concepts such as stress, strain, elasticity, plasticity, and failure theories, along with advanced topics relevant to pressure-containing equipment. These principles form the engineering basis for the design rules used in standards such as ASME B31.3 Process Piping Code and ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.

The course explains how solid mechanics concepts are translated into code formulas, allowable stresses, design limits, and safety factors used in piping and pressure vessel design. By connecting theory with practical code applications, the course enables participants to better interpret design equations, understand limitations of code rules, and apply engineering judgment in real-world projects.

Course suitable for

Is this course for you?

Perfect for

You work in Oil & Gas Downstream or Pharmaceutical & Healthcare
You're a Mechanical Engineering / Piping & Layout Engineering professional
You have 3+ years of hands-on experience in this field
You prefer live, instructor-led training with Q&A

Before you enrol

Advanced level — assumes working knowledge of Mechanical Engineering
Live online sessions — join on the scheduled dates

New to Mechanical Engineering? Browse beginner courses →

Key topics covered

Stress and strain-controlled fatigue- fundamental concepts.
The importance of mean stress and strain- Pros and cons of mean stress with respect to fatigue life.
Fracture mechanics approach to Fatigue analysis- Basics of fracture mechanics, Paris’ law
Use of statistical concepts in Fatigue analysis – Various statistical models, concepts of the probability distribution function.,
What is Creep and how does B31.3 address this issue? -Introduction to Creep and which Design codes to refer to for rigorous analysis of Creep and Creep/Fatigue interaction.

Training details

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

Opportunities that await you!

Career opportunities

✎ Where this fits — what comes before, what comes next

Frequently asked questions

Q: You're checking a high‑temperature carbon steel line and you literally google: creep rupture life calculation for piping at 540C ASME. The pipe is SA‑106 Gr B, sustained hoop stress 85 MPa, metal temperature 540°C, and the Larson–Miller constant C = 20. Vendor data gives LMP = 36,500 for rupture. What remaining life do you calculate?

A: Option A follows the Larson–Miller form engineers actually use in fitness‑for‑service checks: absolute temperature in Kelvin, no design factor, and rupture life rather than allowable stress. Option B feels reasonable if you're used to ASME allowable stress tables, but those already bury margin; the problem gave rupture data directly. Option C is a classic late‑night mistake — using °C instead of K inflates life badly while still looking numerically tidy. Option D imports a safety factor concept from design into life prediction; that turns a materials correlation into something it was never meant to be.

Q: Night shift, one engineer, one alarm. You search: ASME Section VIII creep fatigue interaction requirement. A pressure vessel sees daily thermal cycles at 480°C and steady load between cycles. Why does ASME require combined creep‑fatigue damage checks instead of letting you pass fatigue and creep separately?

A: Option A tracks the physical mechanism: creep during holds relaxes stress, redistributes strain, and alters the next fatigue cycle, so damage isn't additive in the simple sense. Option B sounds plausible if you've spent time in weld metallurgy, but creep rate hierarchy depends on filler, PWHT, and chemistry. Option C mixes two real ideas — temperature thresholds and S–N curves — yet fatigue curves don't embed time‑dependent creep damage. Option D is tempting when you're frustrated with code conservatism, but the interaction rules came from test observations, not lack of data.

Q: You're trending strain gauges and google: creep fatigue interaction thermal cycling piping trend interpretation. The metal temperature stays constant, but cycle frequency doubles due to operations. What happens to damage accumulation and what's the right response?

A: Option A reflects how the mechanisms split: creep follows clock time, fatigue follows cycles, so changing frequency shifts the balance. Option B ignores that fatigue doesn't care about calendar time, only reversals. Option C confuses stress relaxation during holds with number of reversals; more cycles with the same total time actually reduce creep per cycle. Option D is a safe‑sounding operational move, but without recalculation it may force unnecessary throughput loss.

Q: Skeleton crew, DCS alarm shouldn't be possible. You search: piping isometric creep temperature mismatch datasheet. The isometric shows 1.5Cr‑0.5Mo piping rated for 540°C, but the line list says CS with Tmax 425°C. Which document do you treat as governing for creep assessment tonight?

A: Option A is where creep evaluation actually pulls its inputs — material spec and design temperature from the line list that ties back to stress calculations. Option B feels right if you've been burned by bad paperwork, but an iso can lag material changes. Option C controls process intent, not metallurgy. Option D mixes change control authority with technical suitability; approval doesn't fix a wrong material call.