In Division 2, which design approach is employed that differs from Division 1?

• A. Uses design by analysis
• B. Uses design by rule
• C. Requires additional fatigue justification
• D. Requires hydrostatic testing

Answer: (B)

The main idea being tested is that Division 2 uses design by analysis, whereas Division 1 relies on design by rule. In Division 1, the code provides prescriptive charts, formulas, and rules to determine minimum thickness, material selection, and geometry. You follow those rules directly to prove compliance. In Division 2, you justify the vessel’s adequacy through engineering analysis—using stress analyses, load combinations, and sometimes finite element methods, fatigue and fracture mechanics, and validated material properties. This approach lets you optimize or depart from standard geometries or thicknesses as long as the analysis demonstrates that the design still meets the code’s acceptance criteria and required safety margins. Hydrostatic testing and fatigue considerations may appear in both approaches, but they do not define the fundamental difference; the distinguishing feature is the move from rule-based design to analysis-based design in Division 2.