Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Regional Conference in Engineering

Education 2016
RHEd/APCETE/REES 2016

From Classroom To Commercialisation of

Interactive Pressure Vessel Design, iPVD
N.A. Rahman1*, S.R.S. Abdullah1 , N.S. Kamarudin1 and N.M. Ali2
1
Department of Chemical & Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia,43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
2
Institute of Visual Informatics, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
*
Corresponding author: norlizajkkp@ukm.edu.my

Abstract: The pressure vessel is the most crucial part of the plant. It is used to hold up the fluids at a pressure different from
the ambient pressure which is 15 psi. Students of the chemical engineering program study the designing of the pressure
vessel by referring to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code, ASME code. Three parts of the pressure vessel
contain top head, bottom head and vessel shell in various types of shape. From the theoretical learning program in the class,
the design pressure vessel can be commercialized to the market by introducing the interactive and simplified tool of effective
pressure vessel, iPVD. This interactive short cut method based on ASME code has the effective and accurate result in
designing pressure vessels in a short time compared to the manual calculation. Students of Department Chemical
Engineering and Process, UKM satisfied the interactive pressure vessel by surf the url during testing period is
http://www.ipvd.my/ukm and they preferred to use iPVD in learning and teaching process compared to manual calculation.

Keywords: Interactive pressure vessel, classroom, commercialization, mechanical design

1. INTRODUCTION American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code, ASME

The pressure vessel is a container that used to hold fluids
either in gaseous or liquid form at a pressure different
from the ambient pressure [1]. This vessel is designed by
the designer based on the standard code to ensure the
safety of the operating vessels in the plant, especially in
chemical plant which is related to the explosive
components. The pressure vessel is a combination of
several sections which are top head, bottom head and
shell. There are five (5) types of head, which are
ellipsoidal head, hemispherical head, tori-spherical head,
conical head and tori-conical head. There are two types of
shell which are cylindrical shell or spherical shell.
Classroom is the indoor place where knowledge is
transferred or delivers from someone to someone else [7].
One way and two way communication is a part of the
learning process to gain and share knowledge. The
theoretical knowledge in the classroom can also be
commercial to the marketplace by improving the
technical approach and help people to understand easily
compared to the traditional method. Refer to the
Cambridge Business English dictionary, the
commercialization is the process of making a product or
service for sale to the public. The product must have the
value on the market to exploit for profit, this is the
important aspect to look up the demand of the product in
the market and predict the profitable price. The series of
financing option to move the product of the company
from the conceptual level to the market place is known
as commercialization strategy [2].
Interactive pressure vessel design, iPVD is the shortcut
method to design a pressure vessel based on the
code that is used to design the pressure vessels [2]. There
are three (3) sub-section in section VIII [8]:-
Division 1 provides requirement applicable to the
design, fabrication, inspection, testing and certification of
pressure vessels operating at either internal or external
pressures exceeding 15 psig. It contains general rule and
usually followed to former low pressured
Division 2 requirements on materials, designing
temperature, and non-destructive examination is more
rigorous that in Division 1. However, higher design stress
intensify values are permitted. Usually, this division is used
in high pressure design to save cost.
Division 3 requirements are applicable to pressure
vessels operating at either internal or external pressures
generally above 10000 psig.
Section VIII of ASME code explained the way on how to
designing the pressure vessel. Pressure vessels that operate
on the internal and external pressure can be designed in
accordance with the ASME code. Besides, the summary and
graphs also included in order to facilitate designer to refer
back during designing.
The objectives of this interactive pressure vessel, iPVD
are to design smart Interactive Shortcut method tool with
the ASME code manual and to evaluate the application that
can support engineers for Pressure Vessel Designing. For
engineering student to design the safety pressure vessel,
they need to refer the ASME code and calculate manually
using equations including try and error method to get the
result of minimum thickness of the vessel. This manual
calculation requires reading graphs and tables to get the
unknown variables. By use this friendly interactive software
the time [3] to design the pressure vessel is shortened and

1
 Regional Conference in Engineering Education 2016
RHEd/APCETE/REES 2016
the result more accurate and precise. Moreover, this can
help students to understand the flow process of designing
the pressure vessel.
The target marketplace for commercial this interactive
iPVD product is focused on the education field and also
exposed this very useful software to the industry for
construction or maintenance of the vessel. Every
chemical engineering program offer at the local public
universities and other educational institutions have the
pressure vessels subject, this is the core subject of this
program. The university and institution that offer
chemical engineering program is listed below.
1. University of Malaya, UM
2. University Putra Malaysia, UPM
3. University Technology of Malaysia, UTM
4. University Science Malaysia, USM
5. University Malaysia Pahang, UPM
6. University Malaysia Sabah, UMS
7. University Teknologi MARA, UiTM
8. University Malaysia Perlis, UNIMAP
9. University Tun Hussien Onn, UTHM
10. University Malaysia Sarawak, UNIMAS
11. University Kuala Lumpur, UniKL-MICET
12. Taylors University
13. The University of Nottingham
14. Curtins University
15. Monash University malaysia
16. SEGi University
2. TECHNICAL PART IN INTERACTIVE
PRESSURE VESSEL, IPVD
2.1 Flow chart of iPVD
Interactive short cut method for designing the pressure
vessel was developed for upgrading the present
programming from 5 files (Visual Basic) to a single file.
Both systems have a same calculation but this iPVD
method is more interactive and innovative. The interface
of calculation online system consists of symbol UKM,
menu, contact us, log-in and register here.
Figure 1. Steps designing pressure vessel calculation
There are fifteen (15) steps, including summary of
calculation by entering the values needed by the design
and the result will be calculated by the system. This
system is embedded with all equations, graphs, figures,
2
and calculations.
This method is a part of extending the programming
algorithm until calculation of maximum allowable working
Pressure, MAWP obtain.
2.2 Validation of Interactive Short Cut Method
Technique
Two field measurements were made to verify the validity
of interactive short cut method for designing pressure
vessels based on ASME code. Firstly, by training & testing
of the interactive tools with the data from final year design
projects. Secondly, test data obtained from Year III students
at the Department of Chemical and Process Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia. This is because subject Mechanic
Design Process is one of compulsory subjects for Year III
students. An important part of this subject is the students
will learn procedure on how to designing pressure vessels
by using ASME code manual. Thus, Interactive Short Cut
Method, iPVD will introduce to the final year students for
designing the whole part of the pressure vessel because they
have learned it during year III and as a comparison between
iPVD and manual calculation. Basically, the system is
chosen compared to manual calculation because it is user
friendly and less time to calculate the value of minimum
thickness, tmin. The results indicated that the highest error of
only 1.1 percent was achieved giving evidence that the
systems developed to calculate the thickness of the pressure
vessel is appropriate. The URL for iPVD during testing
period is http://www.ipvd.my/ukm. Secondly, validation of
the iPVD with lecturers in the Department of Chemical and
Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built
Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
As a conclusion, the comparison of the user manual
ASME code and interactive short cut method, iPVD [4] for
designing pressure vessels based on ASME code indicated
that the interactive short cut method has equivalent
reliability rather than using user manual ASME code.
During apply this system, the designer should use manual
ASME code as reference for a better designing and prevent
incorrect calculations because the safety of pressure vessels
is very important while operating in the plant where it will
be installed.
3.0 Measuring Satisfaction Towards iPVD
For the first assessment, 15 respondents were chosen
among third year students of Chemical and Process
Engineering course. The assessments were carried out at a
Design Laboratory. Later, iPVD is being tested again by 11
respondents from fourth year students of Chemical and
Process Engineering department and it is carried out at the
computer lab of Chemical and Process Engineering (JKKP)
department. Meanwhile, 7 respondents of lecturers from
Chemical and Process Engineering department were taken
this workshop that held at Hotel Bangi-Putrajaya, Bangi.
The URL that was used for these two workshops was
http://www.ipvd.my/ukm/.
An introduction of iPVD software was delivered in
advance by an expert and respective students and lecturers
 Regional Conference in Engineering Education 2016
RHEd/APCETE/REES 2016

were required to register online for the assessment. At the

end of iPVD session, a survey form was delivered
manually to each student. The questionnaire was created Table 2 Demographic Data of Respondents for Students
into four parts that are Demography, Usability of iPVD
software, Comparison of iPVD and ASME Manual Code Demographic Data Assessment 1 Assessment 2
and Conclusion. This section is intended to look for Qty. Percentage Qty. Percentage
respondents preference between interactive software (%) (%)
iPVD, ASME Manual Code or no difference in term of Gender Male 4 27 3 27.3
their effectiveness of calculation offered. This part covers Female 11 73 8 72.7
12 questions and the results obtained were analyzed in Age <19 - - - -
percentage. 20-25 6 100 11 100
In Demography part, for students, they were asked for >25 - - - -
their gender, age, highest education, and ambition, Previous SPM - - - -
whereas for lecturers, they were asked for their gender, Education Diploma - - -
age and title. For Usability part, the questionnaire was Bachelor 6 100 11 100
created based on 5-point Likert scale measuring Degree
instrument (Table 1). Students were asked to mark in the Master Degree - - - -
interval scales to reflect their perception on the Ambition Engineer 13 87 9 81.8
questionnaire. Perception refers to student attitudes Lecturer 2 13 1 9.1
towards actual performance delivered. IBM SPSS Designer - - 1 9.1
Statistics 12 were used to measure the percentage of Others - - - -
response received.
During the lecturers assessment, only two male and five
female lecturers with the age range from 25 years old and
Table 1 5-Point Likert Scale of Measuring Instrument
above were taking part. One of them is an Associate
LIKERT Professor whereas another 4 are Doctor and another 2 are
SCALE PERCEPTION Miss or Mister or Madam. Table 3 represents demographic
1 data of lecturer involved for assessment 3.
Most Disagree
2 Disagree Table 3 Demographic Data of Respondents for Lecturers
3 Not Sure Demographic Data Assessment 3
4 Agree Qty. Percentage
(%)
5 Most Agree Gender Male 2 28.6
Female 5 71.4
3.1 Results and Discussion Age <19 - -
20-29 - -
For the first assessment, four male and eleven female >25 7 100
students with the age range from 20 to 25 years old took Title Mister/Miss/Madam 2 28.6
part. All of them hold a bachelor degree and ambitious to Doctor 4 57.1
be either an engineer or lecturer. While for the second Associate Professor 1 14.3
assessment, three male and eight female students with age
from 20 to 25 years old took part. In Part 2, this section offers 11 questions regarding
All of them also hold a bachelor degree and most of usability of iPVD software. Table 4 shows the data of Year
their ambitions to be an engineer. Others, their ambitions 3 and Year 4 students perceptions toward the usability of
are to become as a lecturer and designer. Table 2 iPVD software as the easier alternative to solve the
represents demographic data of students involved for complicated calculation. The notation, capital N in those
assessment 1 and 2. tables represents the number of votes on student perception
of each question.
Generally, the questions are about the usability of iPVD
software in designing pressure vessels within student
course. The user-friendly of software is the main aspect for
users to learn step by step. Lastly, the question is about the
effectiveness of iPVD to designing pressure vessel, the
precise calculated value, complete and detail complicated
calculation done easily without referring to manual
handbook.
By referring Table 5, the students perception on the
easiest method to calculate the pressure vessel can be
analyzed by using iPVD and manual ASME code.

3
 Regional Conference in Engineering Education 2016
RHEd/APCETE/REES 2016

Table 4 Students Perception Towards iPVD Software

Question No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total %

Most Disagree Y3 N - - 1 - - - - 1 1 1 - 4 2.4
% - - 6.7 - - - - 6.7 6.7 6.7 -
Y4 N - - - - - - - 1 - 1 - 2 1.7
% - - - - - - - 9.1 - 9.1 -
Disagree Y3 N 1 - - 2 - - 1 2 3 3 - 12 7.3
% 6.7 - - 13.3 - - 6.7 13.3 20 20 -
Y4 N - - - - 1 3 7 2 1 5 - 19 15.7
% - - - - 9.1 27.3 63.6 18.2 9.1 45.5 -
Not sure Y3 N - 1 2 1 4 3 4 6 3 8 2 34 20.6
% - 6.7 13.3 6.7 26.6 20 26.6 40 20 53.3 13.3
Y4 N 1 1 1 - 3 2 1 4 3 2 4 22 18.1
% 9.1 9.1 9.1 - 27.3 18.2 9.1 36.4 27.3 18.2 36.4
Agree Y3 N 14 14 10 11 11 11 10 6 5 3 10 105 63.6
% 93.3 93.3 66.6 73.3 73.3 73.3 66.6 40 33.3 20 66.6
Y4 N 5 5 5 7 4 3 1 2 5 2 3 42 34.7
% 45.5 45.5 45.5 63.6 36.4 27.3 9.1 18.2 45.5 18.2 27.3
Most Agree Y3 N - - 2 1 - 1 - - 3 - 3 10 6.1
% - - 13.3 6.7 - 6.7 - - 20 - 20
Y4 N 5 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 4 36 29.8
% 45.5 45.5 45.5 36.4 27.3 27.3 18.2 18.2 18.2 9.1 36.4
Total Responder Y3 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 165 100
Y4 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 121 100

Table 5 Students Comparison of iPVD and ASME Manual Code

Question No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total %

iPVD Y3 N 8 9 9 9 15 10 8 14 13 13 13 12 133 73.9
% 53.3 60 60 60 100 66.6 53.3 93.3 86.6 86.6 86.6
Y4 N 8 8 5 9 11 8 1 8 5 7 8 6 84 64.1
% 72.7 72.7 45.4 81.8 100 72.7 9 72.7 45.4 63.6 72.7 54.5
Manual Code Y3 N 4 2 4 2 - 2 7 1 1 1 2 3 29 16.1
% 26.6 13.3 26.6 13.3 - 13.3 46.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 13.3 20
Y4 N 3 2 5 2 - 1 10 2 5 1 2 3 36 27.5
% 27.2 18.1 45.4 18.1 - 9 90.9 18.1 45.4 9 18.1 27.2
No Different Y3 N 3 4 2 4 - 3 - - 1 1 - - 18 10
% 2 26.6 13.3 26.6 - 20 - - 6.6 6.6 - -
Y4 N - 1 1 - - 2 - - 1 3 1 2 11 8.4
% - 9 9 - - 18.1 - - 9 27.2 9 18.1
Total Y3 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 180 100
Responder Y4 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 131 100

Table 6 Lecturers Perception Towards iPVD

SoftwareStudentsSoftware
Question No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total %
iPVD N 7 7 7 5 7 5 6 7 7 6 6 6 76 90.5
% 100 100 100 71.4 100 71.4 85.7 100 100 85.7 85.7 85.7
Manual Code N - - - 2 - 1 1 - - 1 1 1 7 8.3
% - - - 28.5 - 14.2 14.2 - - 14.2 14.2 14.2
No Different N - - - - - 1 - - - - - - 1 1.2
% - - - - - 14.2 - - - - - -
Total Responder 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 84 100

Table 7 Comparison of iPVD and ASME Manual Code for Students

Question No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total %
Most Disagree N - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0
% - - - - - - - - - - -
Disagree N - 1 - - - - - 3 2 1 - 7 9.1
% - 14.2 - - - - - 42.8 28.5 14.2 -
Not sure N - 1 - 1 2 4 3 1 2 4 - 18 23.4
% - 14.2 - 14.2 28.5 57.1 42.8 14.2 28.5 57.1 -
Agree N 7 5 6 5 5 3 4 3 3 1 3 45 58.4
% 100 71.4 85.7 71.4 71.4 42.8 57.1 42.8 42.8 14.2 42.8
Most Agree N - - 1 1 - - - - - 1 4 7 9.1
% - - 14.2 14.2 - - - - - 14.2 57.1
Total Responder 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 77 100

4
 Regional Conference in Engineering Education 2016
RHEd/APCETE/REES 2016

Based on Table 4 and Table 6, we considered 63.6% of

Year 3 students, 34.7% of Year 4 Students and 58.4% of
lecturers were agreed with the usability of interactive
software iPVD. This explains that iPVD is suitable for
widely use appropriate for both student and lecturer level.
2.4% response for Year 3 students, 1.7% responds for
Year 4 students and none responds from lecturer with
most disagree as they still need ASME manual code book
as a reference on calculating pressure vessel.
However, this interactive software does not have a
visual diagram to help student understanding on the Figure 3 Lecturer Preference Of Measurement
important selection of heads and skirt base ring. To sum Methods
up, the feedback from students shows the interactive
software iPVD is suitable for students in this course. The
usability of iPVD software shows a great percentage to be
applied in teaching and learning process in future.
In addition, Table 5 and Table 7 are the compiled data
that compare between iPVD software and ASME manual
code. The student and lecturer have to choose the
preferred method they want to use. Either they preferred
using iPVD software, ASME manual code or no
difference between both to help student on designing the
pressure vessel.
They should choose the method that they easily
(i) (ii)
understand and use. Most manageable processes on
designing the pressure vessel to design pressure vessel is Figure 4 Usability of iPVD Software for Students
the important aspect to help them. Last part is the (i) Year 3
precision and accurate result from the complicated (ii) Year 4
calculation.
Refer to Table 5 and Table 7, 73.9% of Year 3
students, 64.1% of Year 4 students and 90.5% lecturers
more prefer iPVD software compared to ASME manual
code.
Based on Figure 4 (i), Figure 4 (ii) and Figure 5, it is
considered that 47% of Year 3 students, 30% of Year 4
students and 58% of lecturers were agreed with the
usability of interactive software iPVD. This explains that
iPVD is suitable for widely use appropriate for students
Figure 5 Usability of iPVD Software for Lecturers
and lecturers level. Besides that, it offers simple
calculation methods, easier performance of task division, Figure 2 (i), Figure 2 (ii) and Figure 3 shows 100%
comprehensive calculation module and give more precise
Year 3 students, 64% Year 4 students and 86% lecturers
answers compared to manual calculation. In contrast, agree with the selection of iPVD interactive software for a
only 1% of students and lecturers vote, with most simple calculation method in learning process compared to
disagree because they still need ASME manual code book ASME manual code book. In addition, iPVD is easy to
as a reference on calculating pressure vessel. bring anywhere, has simple learning tools and helpful in
students scientific project. Furthermore, it has potential to
be used in the future because it is able to enhance students'
understanding of technologys compliance with the
evolution of current technologies.
In addition, the selection of ASME manual code book is
27% for Year 4 students and 14% for lecturers, because
these students and lecturers still need to refer to the manual
book to shows the step method of design pressure vessel on
their design project.
While, the selection of no difference is about 9% of
Year 4 students because they agreed that both these methods
(i) (ii) are able to manage very well and also the precision result
Figure 2 Students Preference Of Measurement Methods obtained from both methods are not much different. This
(i) Year 3 feedback shows that some students still require manual
(ii) Year 4 reference such as ASME manual to compute safer and more
accurate pressure vessel when have more knowledge about
formula and related graphs. No differences explain that

5
 Regional Conference in Engineering Education 2016
RHEd/APCETE/REES 2016
students still get the same calculations through iPVD
software and ASME manual code. Therefore, both
methods help students for calculation in pressure vessel
design.
Regarding to the feedback survey form of the student
perception on iPVD software, there are many
opportunities to improve the usability software by
upgrading the visual diagram of the shell vessel and
import/export the data to the others visual software such
as Microsoft visio,autocad etc. Others, the calculation
step have to improve and the diagram of graph from the
ASME manual code have to show to increase and
encourage the student to use iPVD software.
The feedback from responder shows that students
preferred to choose iPVD in designing their pressure
vessel. Students satisfied with iPVD and want it to add in
their learning subject. Thus, Table 8 shows the students
preferred aspects and not preferred aspects on iPVD.
Table 8 Preferred and Not Preferred Aspects of iPVD
Preferred Aspects Not Preferred Aspects
Faster and easier for Problem with server
calculation down
Attractive user Require strong internet
interface connection
Step by step Less optional unit
calculation conversion
Portable software Not require for manual
solutions
Not require manual Lacking of calculation
handbook method
Attractive method Lacking of basic
for calculation fundamental of manual
code handbook
Students preferred to choose iPVD because of the
attractive and simple method of design pressure vessel. In
addition the user friendliness of this iPVD interface
encourages student to easily to learn step by step without
referring to ASME manual handbook iPVD software still
need lots to be improved based on student feedback.
These are the proposal to improve the iPVD system to
look more interactive and innovative:
1. More optional on type of material or steel
2. Show the negative (-) value and notation of error value.
3. Improve the calculation summary by shows the
calculation steps and the design of pressure vessel are
logic, feasible etc.
4. Add glossary list box to help user understanding of
skirt, internal fittings etc.
5. Add information box for general information.
6. Visualize the vessel after finish design pressure vessel
in the summary.
3.2 Conclusion Perception Toward iPVD
Generally, students and lecturers choose to use the
iPVD software for calculation with enormous data that
needs accuracy. However, students and lecturers should
know the basic of calculation in advance by referring to
ASME manual code book for example. Furthermore, the
effectiveness of iPVD interactive software should be studied
in depth, including enhancement from time to time, despite
receiving positive feedback from students and industry
during the testing session. Hence, iPVD can be used in the
future and potentially penetrate foreign markets.
4. CONCLUSION
Basically to implement a new product that category as
innovation product needs to study the market value of the
product. Interactive pressure vessel iPVD is the innovative
product that is based on the ASME code by presented in the
interactive and simplified tool for effective designing
pressure vessel. From this paper, the process flow of this
software is clearly following the ASME code also have been
supported by Asturi Metal Sdn. Bhd to validate the result of
this software. 73.9% of Year 3 students, 64.1% of Year 4
students and 90.5% lecturers more prefer iPVD software
compared to ASME manual code. This is because, iPVD is
user friendly and easy to use, automatically calculate,
generate the precise result and avoid the human error. The
proper design and construction of the pressure vessel is the
main safety to be achieved [6].
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Authors would like to thank Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia (UKM) for supporting this research through grant
L2M-2014-003.
REFERENCES
[1] Teoh Sun Jie. 2008. Thesis Computer Aided Interactive
Pressure Vessel Design. Universiti Malaysia Pahang,
UMP
[2] DawnBreaker Press, 1998 , Chapter 3 - Commercialize
Strategy.
[3] ASME Code 2012
[4] Azrul R. A. R. 2008. Software Perisian
http://ilplabuan.gov.my/download/080425%20artikel%
20software%20-%20azrul.pdf [3 Oktober 2010]
[5] Copyright iPVD, starting 1/5/2014.
UKM3.2.29/108/2/916
[6] B. S. Thakkar, S. A. Thakkar. Design of Pressure
Vessel Using ASME Code Section VIII, Division 1.
International Journal of Dvance Engineering Research
And Studies.
[7] Oxford Dictionary. 2015. Oxford Dictionary. Oxford
Dictionary,.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ms/perkataan/about
[14 June 2016].
[8] Sinnott, R. 2009. Chemical Engineering
Design.(Oxford Dictionary 2015)