NAFEMS UK 2012 Final Paper

A comparison of simple analytical methods for evaluating local
stresses at pipe support attachments with Finite Element Analysis

results.
Copyright 2012 by Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V (CB&I). All rights reserved. Reproduction or
transmission in any form or use in any manner, in whole or in part, is prohibited without the prior written
permission of CB&I.
A comparison of simple analytical methods for
evaluating local stresses at pipe support attachments
with Finite Element Analysis results.
Anindya Bhattacharya
Principal Engineer (Stress Analysis)
CB&I
Email: abhattacharya@cbi.com
Abstract:
Stress Analysis of piping systems is usually done using beam based
finite element analysis and conventionally local stresses at pipe support
attachments are evaluated using elementary shell theory (ring loading
around circumference) . In this paper this approach will be reviewed
critically with reference to results from shell based finite element
analysis and stress classification on the guidelines of the ASME
Pressure Vessel Code Sec VIII Division 2. Results will also be
compared with more involved analytical solutions and industry
standards like WRC 107. The present study will involve only circular
attachments. Two FE codes, FE 107 (a special purpose FE code from
Paulin Research Group, Houston, Texas) and ABAQUS (a product of
Dassault Systmes) VERSION 6.9-1 have been used for the finite
element analysis.
Theoretical developments leading to the methods widely used in
the industry:
The theoretical work for cylinder-to-cylinder intersections can be broadly
classified into the way of approaching the problem. The first approach is
to use the governing differential equations using thin shell theory with
the applied loading based on a particular mathematical form (Double
Fourier series, ring loading etc.). The second approach is based on
equilibrium and compatibility considerations of two intersecting shells
along a space curve. Same or different shell theories have been used
for header and branch (circular attachments called trunnions, in the
context of this paper). In this paper we will mainly highlight the first
approach as it forms the basis for the two most widely used methods in
the industry. The second approach will not be discussed in detail.
results.
permission of CB&I.
We will start with the method usually known as the Kellogg method; its
origin can be traced in [3]. Since the method has its origin in the theory
of thin shells, we will refer to it as Timoshenko method in this paper
The Kellogg (Timoshenko) method:
Governing differential equation: [1]
For an Axi-symmetric loading on a circular cylinder, the governing
differential equation is the well known beam on elastic foundation
equation:
Z Kw
w
D
dx
d
= +
4
4
(1)
where,
D, is the Flexural Rigidity of the shell
w = deflection in vertical DOF
x = Direction of Longitudinal axis of the cylinder
Z = load in vertical direction
K = Foundation stiffness,
r
Et
2
E = Modulus of elasticity
t = Shell thickness.
r =Shell mid-surface radius
D
Z
Dr
Etw
w
dx
d
= +
2 4
4
(2)
) 1 ( 12
2
3

=
Et
D
where = Poissons ratio
Introducing
2 2
2
4
) 1 ( 3
t r

= i.e.
rt
28 . 1
= considering = 0.3
we therefore get
results.
permission of CB&I.
D
Z
w
dx
w d
= +
4
4
4
4 (3)
The solution of this differential equation and boundary conditions are
detailed in [1]
Extending the above analysis to a case of bending of a cylindrical shell
by a load uniformly distributed along a circular section [1], we get:
Maximum Bending Moment
4
P
= , where P= load per unit circumference
applied through the ring of load.
Bending stress
5 . 1
5 . 0
Pr 17 . 1
t
bending
= (4)
P can be defined in terms of a local radial load, P
r
, and local moment
M
r
. This is necessary because P is a line load distributed around the
circumference of the shell.
If a load P
r
is divided by the attachment perimeter it becomes
n
r
r
P
2
for
a nozzle of radius r
n
. Or a Moment divided by the Section modulus of
the attachment becomes
2
n
r
r
M
Flexural stresses are added to membrane longitudinal and hoop

stresses to get total stress = membrane stress in direction i + flexural
stresses in direction i computed by the expression in equation (4)
To compute P, the steps to be followed are:
Computation of loads in longitudinal and circumferential
directions by use of the following expressions:
Longitudinal force = (Longitudinal force x moment arm)/r
2
Where r = radius of Trunnion
Circumferential force = (Circumferential force x moment arm)/r
2
Radial force = Radial Load /2r
Equivalent circumferential force = 2 x Circ force +1.5xRadial
force
results.
permission of CB&I.
Equivalent longitudinal force = 1.5 x Radial force +Longitudinal
Force
The above forces are used as P in equation (4)
The reason behind the use of the factors 1.5 and 2.0 is attributed to
higher flexibilities in these directions.
The flexural stresses in longitudinal and circumferential directions are
then computed using these equivalent forces and the membrane
pressure stresses are then added to compute the total stresses.
Stresses in the Trunnion attachment is computed as
A
F
Z
M
+ where M=
Resultant applied bending moment (square root of squares of the
bending moments in longitudinal and circumferential directions) and F is
the applied radial force. Z and A are the section modulus and cross
sectional areas respectively of the trunnion pipe.
Points to note about the background theory and about the way the
above method is typically implemented in engineering design
using spreadsheets:
Use of thin shell theory <
1
( )
10
t
r
Axi-symmetric loading
Simple approach in specifying the loads are the main features of
this method
Stresses in the circular attachment computed by elementary
beam theory and not shell theory
Pl+Pb+Q [16] computed as a superposition of flexural stresses
using beam on elastic foundation theory with the membrane
stresses computed using elementary strength of materials
formulas.
Computation for fatigue stresses (Pl+Pb+Q+F)[16] is usually not
done using spreadsheets. This is not an inherent problem with
the background theory; it has to do with the way the method is
usually implemented in spreadsheets.
Multiplication factors used in circumferential and radial directions
to simulate higher stresses in these directions [11] attribute to
higher flexibilities in these directions.
results.
permission of CB&I.
No computation of shear stresses or Pl (local membrane
stresses) and Torsional stresses.
Where things can go wrong:
While thin shell theory is valid for most applications, the loading at pipe
supports does not create an axi-symmetric situation. Using on thick
shells where the governing differential equation requires modifications
(to include shear deformation).Nozzle (in this case trunnion) stresses
can be underestimated. Flexural stresses due to radial loading are
underestimated.
Advantages of the method:
This method is simple and not much of significant variance with
reference to FEA in terms of shell flexural stress when longitudinal
force/circumferential force is applied at the end of the nozzle. Nozzle
stresses however show values lesser than FEA/WRC 297. It can be
easily used as a spreadsheet based method. There is no limitation to
D
t
ratio as long as it is within the domain of thin shell theory (i.e. as
long as > 20
D
t
). Upper bound of
D
t
ratio can be taken same as that in
WRC 107 (=600). Although Pl stresses are not computed and since the
allowable stress for Pl+Pb+Q is kept the same as Pl, there should not
be a concern in overlooking Pl. Use of multiplication factors (>1.0) in
circumferential loading to simulate higher stresses in circumferential
direction is justified as the stiffness in circumferential direction is lower
than that in the longitudinal direction as can be explained from shell
theory and FE results [13].
WRC 107 and 297:
Another widely used method for computing local stresses in cylindrical
shells (pipe support attachments on pipe) is to use simple cookbook
style methods as outlined in the two documents: WRC bulletin no. 107
and 297.[8][9]
These bulletins were based on theoretical works by Professor Bijlaard
(WRC 107)[5] and Professor Steele (WRC 297)[10] . Bijlaards work
was based on Yuans equation [6] which again is a modification of
Donnel equations [4]. Donnel equations can be derived after suitable
eliminations of the variables u and v as an eighth order partial
differential equation in w, which is the cylindrical shell equation under
general loading (i.e. not axi-symmetric) and when external loading is
applied on a pipe through a pipe support, it is certainly not axi-
symmetric. Hence, in terms of applicability, the general equation is
results.
permission of CB&I.
more suited. Loading on the pipe is idealised as radial load,
longitudinal moment, circumferential moment, shear force etc., hence
the nozzles, as an example, are not part of the analytical model in this
case. WRC 107 was developed based on Bijlaards theoretical work
supplemented with experimental works. This document provides a set
of curves based on non-dimensional parameters on which stresses
could be computed along four different points around the loading
circumference.
Development of the theoretical work for WRC 107[5]:
The historical development leading to Bijlaards work can be
summarized as: Differential equation for cylindrical shell subjected to
general loading (Donnel) Modifications by Yuan Modifications by
P.P.Bijlaard.
Donnels equation [19] is quite simple and its homogeneous equation
can be expressed in complex valued displacement stress function form,
it can be decomposed into two second order partial differential
equations and is easy to solve in polar coordinate system for the
cylindrical shell with cut out [19].
Bijlaards equations [5] which are the theoretical basis for WRC 107[8]
are:
results.
permission of CB&I.

+ + + +

+ + =

2 4 6 6
8 2
2 2 4 6 6 2 4 2
6 4
4 2 4
12(1 ) 2
[ (6 )
(7 ) ]
w w w
w
t r x r r x
w Z
r x D
(5)

+
= + +

2 2 2 5 5
4
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4
1
( )
1 12
w w t w w
r u
x r x r u r x
(6)

= + +

+ +

3 2 2 5
4
2 2 2 2 4
5 5
2 3 3 3
2
(2 ) [
12 1
3
]
(1 )
w w t r w
r v
r x r r x
w w
r x r
(7)
where,
w, is displacement in radial direction,
u and v, are displacements along x and y direction respectively
on the middle surface,
, the circumferential angle
r, radius of cylinder
t, shell thickness
, Poisson ratio
= Del Operator
There can be different approaches to the solution to this equation, but
in this paper we will only highlight the approach taken by Bijlaard in his
work which was to represent the displacements and loadings as double
Fourier series. Fourier coefficients are a function of the type of loading
(radial, circumferential moment and longitudinal moment). The following
diagrams show the idealisations used by Bijlaard in simulating the
applied loads for radial, longitudinal and circumferential moments.
results.
permission of CB&I.
Main features of this method:
Thin shell theory
Solid attachment without hole in the pipe wall
Governing differential equations are solved using Double Fourier
series representation of loads and displacements. This method is
widely used but convergence may not be possible for certain
boundary conditions [14]
Simply supported boundary conditions
Central location of load application
Load application is through solid attachments and without any
hole on pipe wall
Internal pressure simulation can result in over conservatism
Results usually vary significantly with reference to FE analysis
for shear and torsional moment and for < < 0.5 1.0
d
D
results.
permission of CB&I.
Cautions:
Over-conservative behavior if pressure stress is simulated as a
radial load
For thick shells the theory requires modification
Results are generally un-conservative for shear force and
torsional moments
Valid range for
d
D
is less than 0.3 so for trunnion applications
where the size of the attached pipe is generally one size smaller
than the header pipe, the background theory is not applicable
[12]. This is mainly attributed to the sensitivity of the modelling of
the intersecting curve for > 0.3
d
D
[12]
Use of a linearly distributed radial force system instead of a
vertical force system results in a transverse bending moment
plus a force -- a fact not noted in this approach [19]
WRC Bulletin 297
This was based on the theoretical work of Professor Steele and the
development of equations was based on the works of Flugge -Conrad
and Sanders -Simmonds [10]. The applicable
D
T
was increased from
the WRC bulletin of 600 to 2500 and the issue of nozzle stresses was
included, i.e., this approach considered a true nozzle opening.
However, our present problem does not involve an opening and hence
WRC 107 is theoretically more applicable than WRC 297, although
computation of the nozzle stresses has been shown in the Results
section for comparison.
Difficulties in analytical solution of the problem:
The analytical models for both WRC 107 and 297 are based on thin
shell assumptions, so they are not valid for thick shell analysis. Bijlaard
[7] made changes to his earlier work based on incorporating thick shell
corrections using Flugge equations instead of Donnels. The other
difficulty is where > 0.5
d
D
. The main difficulty is the mathematical
complexity associated with 3D space curve of intersections which
cannot be simulated as a circle when
d
D
is high [11][12][15]) . Several
results.
permission of CB&I.
researchers have used different methods such as using differential
formulations (e.g., use of Donnels equations for header and Flugge
equation[2] for branch or Modified Morley equation for header and
Goldenveizer equation for branch[11][12]) . Donnels equation which
formed the starting point of Bijlaards work has serious deficiencies
when used for problems with > 0.5
d
D
. (Figure 6.14 of [18])
results.
permission of CB&I.
Challenges in FEA:
The issue of classification of the FE computed stresses on the line of
[16] has been dealt with in numerous papers [20] [16] and will not be
repeated here. In a nutshell, local membrane stresses are designated
as Pl, primary + secondary stresses as Pl+Pb+Q and peak stresses as
Pl+Pb+Q+F in line with [16]. Primary stresses develop to maintain
equilibrium with external loads, secondary stresses to maintain
compatibility of deformation (global) and peak stresses to maintain
compatibility of local deformation. Pl stands for local primary stress, Pb
for primary bending stress, Q for secondary stress and F for peak
stress. Peak stresses are significant only from the standpoint of fatigue
failure.
Elements used for FE analysis are 8-node reduced integration shell
elements as well as 20-node reduced integration brick elements. For
the continuum elements, membrane and bending stresses have been
segregated using linearization. The shell element has shown good
results in applications involving cylinder-to-cylinder interactions
specially when compared with 20-node hexahedral elements with
reduced integration. The same element has been used in two FE codes
(ABAQUS element type S8R). FE theory convergence theorems are in
2 L
or
1 H
norms which are difficult to implement when the exact
solution is not shown and in this paper no attempt has been made to
evaluate the convergence using these norms. For checking the
convergence of an FE model, percentage change in stress is
considered from a model with very fine mesh to gradually cruder
models. Stresses are checked at Gauss points for accuracy and
unaveraged. For convergence, monotonic behavior is checked with a
maximum permissible variation in stress taken as 5%.The mesh size
around the intersection is taken as 0.3 rt with progressive mesh
grading away from it. For continuum elements four elements have been
used through the thickness at and close to intersections. The objective
of the FE analysis was not to catch the peak stresses which are used
for fatigue evaluation, as once the Pl+Pb+Q stresses are computed, the
fatigue stresses can be computed using Fatigue Strength Reduction
Factors (FSRF) [16]. The paper referenced in [17] shows that modelling
of welds to properly simulate joint stiffness does not have serious
impact on the computed stresses and hence, welds are not part of the
model. To avoid end effect, the location of the trunnion has been taken
results.
permission of CB&I.
as 5D [13] with respect to the end of the header. The worst aspect ratio
around the intersection (HEX elements) was 6.0, average aspect ratio
2.0. One end of the header was fixed in all six DOFs and the other end
is fixed in five DOFs, the DOF along the longitudinal axis of the header
was kept free to generate longitudinal pressure stress (for models
where pressure was applied). Linear and full integration elements were
not used to avoid shear locking.
Results
Mesh around the intersection curve using HEX elements
results.
permission of CB&I.
Von Mises plot (30x24 HEX elements)
In the WRC 107/297 method, the length of the nozzle is not a
parameter and in all tables below, the loads have been applied in the
FE model at the end of the nozzle, i.e., the trunnion which in the WRC
107 /297 cases will be a force and a moment for obvious reasons. In a
separate table comparison of stresses between WRC 107/297 and FEA
has been shown with the loads applied at the shell-nozzle interface.
The stresses are Membrane+Bending; with the Timoshenko method the
computation is for flexural stresses only using equation (4). WRC 107
and 297 results are the maximum among the four locations specified in
these documents [8 ] [9]. Computed stresses are in Mpa and are the
maximum values rounded to the next integer (some exceptions being
stresses at trunnions).
results.
permission of CB&I.
(30 inch header, 24 inch trunnion,. wall thickness =9.52 mm for both)
Magnitude of Force =10KN, length of trunnion =100 mm, d/D=0.8,
t/T=1):
L
o
a
d
i
n
g

T
y
p
e
W
R
C

1
0
7
S
h
e
l
l
W
R
C

1
0
7

T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
W
R
C

2
9
7

S
h
e
l
l
W
R
C

2
9
7

T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
T
i
m
o
s
h
e
n
k
o
S
h
e
l
l
T
i
m
o
s
h
e
n
k
o

T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
F
E
A

S
h
e
l
l

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
(
S
h
e
l
l
)
F
E
A

S
h
e
l
l

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s

(
T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
)
F
E
A

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
u
m

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
S
h
e
l
l
)
F
E
A

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
u
m

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s

(
N
o
z
z
l
e
)
Radial
Force
45 N.
A.
50 54 6 0.6 10 15 9 12
Longi-
tudinal
Force
3 N.
A
6 6 3 0.4 6 5 5 3
Circum-
ferential
Force
16 N.
A
22 20 5 0.4 3 6 3 6
results.
permission of CB&I.
Results (36 inch header, 30 inch trunnion,. wall thickness =9.52 mm for
both) Magnitude of Force =10KN, length of trunnion =100 mm,
d/D=0.84, t/T=1)
L
o
a
d
i
n
g

T
y
p
e
W
R
C

1
0
7
S
h
e
l
l
W
R
C

1
0
7

T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
W
R
C

2
9
7

S
h
e
l
l
W
R
C

2
9
7

T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
T
i
m
o
s
h
e
n
k
o
S
h
e
l
l
T
i
m
o
s
h
e
n
k
o

T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
F
E
A

S
h
e
l
l

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
(
S
h
e
l
l
)
F
E
A

S
h
e
l
l
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s

(
T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
)
F
E
A

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
u
m

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
S
h
e
l
l
)
F
E
A

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
u
m

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s

(
N
o
z
z
l
e
)
Radial
Force
45 N.A 51 56 6 0.44 21 15 19 15
Longi-
tudinal
Force
2 N.A 5 4 2 0.2 7 5 6 6
Circum-
ferential
Force
12 N.A 17 16 4 0.2 5 4 4 5
results.
permission of CB&I.
Results (36 inch header, 12 inch trunnion, and wall thickness =9.52 mm
for header and 6.35 mm for trunnion) Magnitude of Force =10KN,
length of trunnion =100 mm, d/D=0.34, t/T=0.67):
L
o
a
d
i
n
g

T
y
p
e
W
R
C

1
0
7
S
h
e
l
l
W
R
C

1
0
7

T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
W
R
C

2
9
7

S
h
e
l
l
W
R
C

2
9
7

T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
T
i
m
o
s
h
e
n
k
o
S
h
e
l
l
T
i
m
o
s
h
e
n
k
o

T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
F
E
A

S
h
e
l
l

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
(
S
h
e
l
l
)
F
E
A

S
h
e
l
l

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s

(
T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
)
F
E
A

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
u
m

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
S
h
e
l
l
)
F
E
A

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
u
m

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s

(
N
o
z
z
l
e
)
Radial
Force
48 N.
A
54 103 15 2 46 48 44 46
Longi-
tudinal
Force
10 N.
A
16 30 11 2 16 16 13 14
Circum-
ferential
Force
31 N.
A
41 75 22 2 29 31 27 29
results.
permission of CB&I.
header and 6.35 mm for trunnion) Magnitude of Force =10KN, length of
trunnion =100 mm, d/D=0.84, t/T=0.67):
L
o
a
d
i
n
g

T
y
p
e
W
R
C

1
0
7
S
h
e
l
l
W
R
C

1
0
7

T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
W
R
C

2
9
7

S
h
e
l
l
W
R
C

2
9
7

T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
T
i
m
o
s
h
e
n
k
o
S
h
e
l
l
T
i
m
o
s
h
e
n
k
o

T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
F
E
A

S
h
e
l
l

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
(
S
h
e
l
l
)
F
E
A

S
h
e
l
l

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s

(
T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
)
F
E
A

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
u
m

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
S
h
e
l
l
)
F
E
A

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
u
m

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s

(
N
o
z
z
l
e
)
Radial
Force
44 N.A 44 90 7 1 19 20 17 19
Longi-
tudinal
Force
5 N.A 7 13 4 1 10 9 11 8
Circum-
ferential
Force
20 N.A 23 44 7 1 6 7 6 6
results.
permission of CB&I.
header and 8.18 mm for trunnion) Magnitude of Force =10KN, length of
trunnion =100 mm, d/D=0.36, t/T=0.86):
L
o
a
d
i
n
g

T
y
p
e
W
R
C

1
0
7
S
h
e
l
l
W
R
C

1
0
7

T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
W
R
C

2
9
7

S
h
e
l
l
W
R
C

2
9
7

T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
T
i
m
o
s
h
e
n
k
o
S
h
e
l
l
T
i
m
o
s
h
e
n
k
o

T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
F
E
A

S
h
e
l
l

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
(
S
h
e
l
l
)
F
E
A

S
h
e
l
l

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s

(
T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
)
F
E
A

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
u
m

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
S
h
e
l
l
)
F
E
A

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
u
m

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s

(
N
o
z
z
l
e
)
Radial
Force
47 N.
A
69 74 16 2 48 43 46 41
Longi-
tudinal
Force
21
N.
A
31 34 20 4 26 21 24 19
Circum-
ferential
Force
53 N.
A
77 78 40 4 46 43 44 43
results.
permission of CB&I.
36 inch header and 12 inch trunnion loads applied at shell nozzle
interface (Moment=10KN-m and Force=10KN (wall thickness of shell
=9.52mm, trunnion = 6.35 mm, d/D=0.34, t/T=0.67)
L
o
a
d
i
n
g

T
y
p
e
W
R
C

1
0
7
S
h
e
l
l
W
R
C

1
0
7

T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
W
R
C

2
9
7

S
h
e
l
l
W
R
C

2
9
7

T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
F
E
A

S
h
e
l
l

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
(
S
h
e
l
l
)
F
E
A

S
h
e
l
l

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s

(
T
r
u
n
n
i
o
n
)
Longitudinal
moment
99 N.A 153 295 108 105
Circumferential
moment
310 N.A 413 752 363 401
Radial force 48 N.A 54 103 46 48
Shear Force
(long)
4 N.A 4 6 6 7
Shear force
(circ)
4 N.A 4 6 10 9
Torsional
Moment
13 N.A 13 19 21 23
results.
permission of CB&I.
For the following tables, applied load in longitudinal,
circumferential and radial directions =10KN, pressure =18.9Barg.
For the WRC 107 analysis, pressure loading has NOT been added
as a radial loading at the trunnion attachment.
(30 inch header, 24 inch trunnion, wall thickness =9.52 mm for both)
WRC
107
Shell
WRC 107
Trunnion
Timoshenko
Shell
Timoshenko
Trunnion
FEA (shell
elements),
Shell
FEA (shell
elements),
Trunnion
258 N.A 87 1 121 63
(36 inch header, 30 inch trunnion, wall thickness =9.52 mm for both)
WRC
107
Shell
WRC 107
Trunnion
Timoshenko
Shell
Timoshenko
Trunnion
FEA (shell
elements),
Shell
FEA (shell
elements),
Trunnion
307 N.A 100 0.8 146 75
36 inch header, 12 inch trunnion, wall thickness =9.52 mm for header
and 6.35 mm for trunnion
WRC
107
Shell
WRC 107
Trunnion
Timoshenko
Shell
Timoshenko
Trunnion
FEA (shell
elements),
Shell
FEA (shell
elements),
Trunnion
321 N.A 125 4 170 105
Discussions and conclusions:
WRC 107 results may be higher or lower with respect to FEA results.
Flexural stresses based on analytical solution using axi-symmetric ring
loading are not significantly in error when compared with FEA as long
as the applied loading is not radial. Stresses due to applied loading in
circumferential direction are higher when compared with stresses due to
applied longitudinal force. This trend, however, is always valid when the
results.
permission of CB&I.
trunnion length is around 4d, something that is typically not expected in
a real life scenario where the shortest trunnion length is preferred.
Before FE analysis results are compared against analytical (including
analytical +experimental works like WRC 107/297), the basis behind the
analytical methods has to be understood, i.e., the governing differential
equations, solution methods, boundary conditions and the underlying
shell theory. The above methods such as Timoshenko, Bijlaard and
Steele are based on assumptions relating to a specific shell theory and
boundary conditions and hence the FE solution should not be
considered as a numerical counterpart to the analytical solutions, i.e.,
we should not expect the FE solution to monotonically approach the
above solutions with mesh refinement unless the geometry and loading
are the same. This is especially in view of the fact that the underlying
theory used in the development of the 8-node reduced integration shell
element (degenerated shell element, a development of the original
Ahmad element) is not exactly in line with the shell theory used in
Bijlaards ( WRC 107) or Steeles ( WRC 297) work. WRC 107/297 are
based on thin shell theories and are not valid for geometries where d/D
is >0.5, which is the most common case for trunnion attachments,
hence the results should not be used for d/D>0.5.The results of these
analyses can, however, be used for checking the correctness of an FEA
analysis for d/D<0.5 -- a situation unlikely for trunnion attachments. FEA
results if shown convergence should be given preference to WRC
107/297 results for d/D<0.5.However, when comparing results, it is best
to check the models on a component by component basis, i.e., the
model is loaded with only one force/moment component in the absence
of pressure. This check will show stresses because of which
components are over/under represented in the final results. Since WRC
107/297does not have a provision for checking pressure loading,
simulating the same by a modified radial load ( = applied radial load
+Pressure times area) or superposing the results with the usual
membrane stresses in the header pipe due to pressure, generally
makes the analysis overconservative. The modification of the radial
load in a WRC 107/297 based analysis is also incorrect as the branch is
not pressurized.WRC 107 is theoretically close to WRC 297 for trunnion
attachments as WRC 107 analysis does not involve opening in the
header which is exactly the case in trunnion attachments.
Mathematically the analysis involving axi-symmetric ring loading
(Kellogg/Timoshenko) is most distant with respect to the problem at
results.
permission of CB&I.
hand, but in comparison with FEA, a component-by-component
analysis has shown that the computation of Pl+Pb+Q stresses at
intersections is not grossly incorrect as long as the applied load is not a
radial one where stresses are significantly underpredicted. This method
is widely used in the industry in spreadsheet form with a conservative
allowable equal to the allowable for local primary membrane stresses
(Pl) and local primary membrane +primary bending ( Pl+Pb) which is
1.5Sh for the stresses which by and large should be in Pl+Pb+Q
category i.e., with an allowable of 3Sm [16]. This conservative allowable
irons out the un-conservatism in computation of flexural stresses. The
results of these spreadsheets should include computation of
Pl+Pb+Q+F stresses which can easily be incorporated by using Fatigue
Strength Reduction Factors. Shell-based analysis (8-node reduced
integration shell elements have shown good results when compared
with 20-node reduced integration brick elements). Theoretical work
based on equilibrium and compatibility of deformation along the
mathematically accurate space curve of intersection [12[14] is more
accurate than WRC 107/297 results, but is not currently available in a
form easily implementable in engineering design. These recent
developments are based on limitations in the approaches used in WRC
107,297, with respect to
d
D
and the drawbacks in Donnels equation
especially with the order of accuracy [19] and
d
D
.
Future work:
The analysis has to be extended for non-circular attachments,
attachments with reinforcement and for attachments at pipe bends.
Acknowledgement:
The author would like to express his thanks to Mr. Tony Paulin of Paulin
Research Group, Houston, Texas; Dr. S. Saha of Reliance Industries
Ltd, India; and Professor K.C. Hwang of Tsinghua University,
Department of Applied Mechanics, Peoples Republic of China, for
some interesting discussions and valuable guidelines.
results.
permission of CB&I.
References:
1. Theory of plates and shells, S.Timoshenko, Weinowsky Kreiger
McGraw Hill Publications 1959
2. Stresses in Shells W. Flugge , Springer 1962
3. Design of piping systems published by M.W.Kellogg Company
4. NACA Report no. 479 Stability of Thin walled tubes under Torsion by
L.H. Donnel
5. Stresses from local loadings in Cylindrical shells by P.P.Bijlaard ,
Trans ASME 77, (1955) 805
6. Thin Cylindrical Shells subjected to concentrated loads by W. Yuan,
Quarterly of Applied Mathematics Vol 4, 1946.
7. Stresses in junction of Nozzle to Cylindrical Pressure Vessel for
equal diameter of Vessel and Nozzle P.P.Bijlaard, R.J.Dohrmann,
I.C.Wang, Nuclear Engineering and Design Vol 5, 1967.
8. Local stresses in spherical and cylindrical shells due to external
loadings K.R.Wichman, A.G.Hooper, J.L.Mershon WRC Bulletin No.
107
9. Mehrson et al,Local stresses in Cylindrical shells due to external
loadings on Nozzle WRC Bulletin No. 297
10. Stress analysis of nozzles in cylindrical vessels with external load
C.R. Steele, M.L.Steele
11. A thin shell solution for two intersecting cylindrical shells due to
external branch pipe moments. M.D.Xue, D.F.Li, K.C.Hwang Journal of
Pressure Vessel Technology Nov.2005
12. An analytical method for Cylindrical shells with nozzles due to
internal pressure and External Loads-Part 1, Theoretical foundation
M.D.Xue, Q.H.Du, K.C.Hwang. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology,
June 2010.
13. Flexibility factors for branch pipe connections subjected to in-plane
and out of plane moments L.Xue, G.E.O Widera, Zhifu Sang Journal of
Pressure Vessel technology Feb 2006 ASME.
results.
permission of CB&I.
14. Stresses and Flexibilities for Pressure vessel attachments by
F.M.G. Wong, Dissertation thesis for Master of Science in Nuclear
Engineering submitted to MIT (1984)
15. The determination of Elastic stresses near Cylinder to Cylinder
intersections- J.G. Lekkerkerker. Nuclear Engineering and Design Vol
20 (1972)
16. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel code, Sec VIII Division 2 (2007
edition), ASME Publication.
17. A Finite Element-based Study on Stress Intensification Factors
(SIF) for Reinforced Fabricated Tees. A. Bhattacharya NAFEMS World
Congress Boston 2011
18. Beams, Plates and Shells by L.H. Donnel Mc Graw Hill Company
New York 1976
19. Private communication, Professor K.C. Hwang of Tsinghua
University, Department of Applied Mechanics, Peoples Republic of
China
20. A two step approach of stress classification and Primary Structure
method M.W.L.Y Chen and J.G. Li Trans ASME Vol. 122 February
2000
"This paper and may contain confidential or proprietary information.
The information, observations, and data presented in this paper are
intended for educational purposes only and do not identify, analyze,
evaluate, or apply to actual, specific engineering or operating designs,
applications, or processes. The comments and opinions are those of
the author and not CB&I, are based on available information, and in all
cases reference shall be made to the actual wording and meaning of
applicable codes and standards. The use of or reliance on any
information, observations, or data provided is solely at your own risk."

NAFEMS UK 2012 Final Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NAFEMS UK 2012 Final Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A comparison of simple analytical methods for evaluating local

stresses at pipe support attachments with Finite Element Analysis

Flexural stresses are added to membrane longitudinal and hoop

You might also like