Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Membrane Shell
Membrane Shell
Michael A. Porter
Dynamic Analysis
Lenexa, Kansas
Dennis H. Martens
Black and Veatch Pritchard
Overland Park, Kansas
S. M. Caldwell
Eastman Chemical Company
Kingsport, Tennessee
ABSTRACT
A procedure for evaluating the results of a finite element analysis
employing shell/plate elements is proposed based on several previous
papers by the authors and a review of other related works. This
procedure relates the stress levels produced by the finite element
software to the provisions of ASME Section VIII, Division 2.
WHERE TO EVALUATE
The first issue to be considered is where the stresses will be
evaluated. Here we have specific guidance from the PVRC document.
165 PSI
-6,480 LB
25,500 FT-LB
33,160 FT-LB
33,160 FT-LB
INDICATED STRESSES
Figure 3 illustrates the indicated Stress Intensities in the nozzle
under all loads. Note that the elements within the junction-ring
region have been hidden. As expected, the highest stresses are
indicated on the line of nodes adjacent to the hidden juncture-ring.
The stresses indicated in this illustration represent the combination of
both primary and secondary stresses on the nozzle (PL +Q) and are to
be compared with 3Sm. Figure 4 illustrates the membrane stresses in
the same region. If we consider these to be the local membrane
stresses (PL), they are to be compared with 1.5Sm. Note that this
model was refined several times to ensure convergence. The finished
model had 192 elements around the circumference of the nozzle. This
is a greater number of elements than the 96 elements that Ha (1995)
DISCUSSION OF STRESSES
The evaluation of stresses when complex configurations and
loadings are involved may be accomplished using the methodology in
Division 2. The code allowable stress must be based on the Division to
which the design and fabrication is conducted. With the indicated
stresses now plotted, the task becomes deciding which stress to
compare with which code criteria. Referring to Figure 4-130.1 of
ASME Section VIII, Division 2 Appendix 4, there are essentially three
levels of stress used for compliance analysis: kSm, 1.5kSm and 3Sm.
For this discussion, we will assume that k=1 and we will leave
discussion of the peak stress and the associated Sa for another paper.
General Primary Membrane - Sm
It is clear that well away from the nozzle the membrane stresses
in both the shell and nozzle are below Sm. As a measure of how close
to the nozzle we can be before the membrane stress is allowed to
exceed Sm, we can take guidance from ASME Section VIII, Division
2 Appendix 4, 4-112, (I), the definition for Local Primary Stress which
states:
A stress region may be considered as local if the distance over
which the stress intensity exceeds 1.1 Sm does not extend in the
meridional direction more than 1.0 Rt where R is the mid-surface
radius of curvature measured normal to the surface of the axis of
rotation and t is the minimum thickness of the region considered.
Using this criteria, the Stress Intensity should not exceed 22.0 ksi
(1.1Sm for A 516-70 up to 500 F per Division 1) at a distance of
approximately 2.5 and 6.9 from the nozzle/shell intersection in the
nozzle and shell directions respectively. The definition cited above
was included in Appendix 4 as a guideline based on the observation of
the stress decay with distance in a number of examples. The important
aspect of this evaluation is to be assured that the stresses are trending
toward Sm when they reach this distance.
This nozzle meets the criteria in both directions. At a somewhat
greater distance, the membrane stresses are well below the Sm
allowable for the primary membrane stress. Thus, the Sm criteria
would appear to be met. It should be noted that, in general, FE is not
needed to evaluate compliance with the Primary membrane criteria.
ave
=
max
The familiar = pr/t formula for the hoop stress in a cylinder is the
preferred means of checking compliance.
Primary + Secondary 3Sm
It is clear from Figures 5 and 6 that the stresses tend to increase
as the distance from the intersection between the nozzle and shell is
decreased. The maximum indicated stress in all cases is at the node
adjacent to the junction-ring. Comparing the maximum indicated
Stress Intensity (either from Figure 3 or Figure 5) with 3Sm to assess
compliance would be appropriate. Assuming that the material is SA516-70 (@ 500 deg), Division 1 Sm is 20.0 ksi. The maximum
indicated stress intensity is less than 58 ksi, so that compliance with
the 3Sm criteria for Primary plus Secondary (PL + Q) is indicated.
Note that by definition, PB does not apply in the nozzle region.
Local Primary Membrane 1.5Sm
The Local Membrane criterion requires that the membrane stress
not exceed 1.5Sm, in this case 30.7 ksi. From Figure 6, it is clear that
this stress level is met on both the nozzle and shell at the nodal SCL
line adjacent to the juncture-ring when the loading is due to pressure
only. When the piping load is applied, the local membrane stress at
the junction ring exceeds the 1.5 Sm criterion.
It is interesting to note that for many years the primary method
for computing the stress in nozzles that have a mechanical loading has
been WRC-107. The stresses computed with this procedure were then
compared with the Code allowables. WRC-107 does not classify the
stresses. General practice in many industries has been to compare
only the Primary plus Secondary (P + Q) Stress Intensity due to the
mechanical loading to 1.5Sm. While the membrane stresses are
computed, they are not always compared separately with the 1.5Sm
criterion.
The WRC-107 procedure computes the stress only at four points
(0, 90, 180 and 270 degrees), none of which is necessarily the point of
maximum stress. When the moment (or force) loads are nearly equal
for the two axes perpendicular to the axis of the nozzle, the highest
stress occurs at other than the points where stress is computed by
WRC-107. Thus, the use of FE analysis for computing nozzle stresses
can be considerably more conservative than WRC-107.
As documented in an earlier paper (Porter and Martens, 1996),
this nozzle meets the Code criteria when the WRC-107 stress
computation procedure is used. We can see from Figure 6 that the
local membrane criterion level of 30.75 ksi is closely approached in
the nozzle under pressure loading only. Typical bending loads
encountered in real life situations push the membrane stress over the
limit at the junction-ring. The authors have found this to be the case in
a (yet to be published) wide range of typical nozzle and loading cases.
In fact, it is the exception rather than the rule when a conventionally
designed nozzle will meet the local membrane criterion at the
junction-ring if the bending loads are included.
Koves and Sanger (1996) have indicated that a better method of
evaluating the membrane stress would be to average the stress within
0.78 RT of the intersection. In a newly published paper, Koves
(1999) presents an equation that relates the average stress in this area
to the maximum indicated stress. Using this relationship, we can
compute the average local membrane stress based on the maximum
indicated stress as illustrated in Equation 1.
0.4
a.
0.3
0.4
0.1
L
a
Equation (1)
Where:
RT of the
intersection
RT of the
intersection
L = RT
R = Mean radius of shell
T = Thickness of shell
a = Mean radius of nozzle
Equation 1 is based on the analysis of numerous actual burst tests
of nozzles and is considered to be a conservative estimate of the stress.
Thus, if we divide the allowable local membrane stress (1.5Sm) by the
right hand side of Equation 1, we get an allowable stress level that can
be compared directly with the maximum indicated stress from the FE
model. Using this procedure, the allowable local membrane stress
becomes:
1.5. Sm
0.4
a.
L
0.1
0.3
0.4
1
L
a
Equation (2)
With these facts in mind, it is the authors opinion that using the
Primary plus Secondary (PL + Q) Stress Intensity < 3Sm criteriononly procedures is sufficient for evaluating the stress in a nozzle
analyzed using FE and is just as conservative as using the current
WRC-107 stress computation procedure. It is possible that the local
membrane stress need not be evaluated at the juncture-ring. However,
pending further investigation, the average stress computation as
developed by Koves (1999) would seem to be an appropriate way to
evaluate the local membrane stress. The 1.1Sm criteria is applicable at
the distance from the nozzle/shell as stated in Section VIII, Division 2
Appendix 4, 4-112, (I).
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Using the Sm, 1.1Sm and 3Sm values and positions described, a
stress acceptance line can be constructed on Figure 5 (shown as Figure
7). The stress variance from the 1.1Sm location to the 3Sm location is
assumed to be linear for acceptance. However, on inspection, the FEgenerated stress is a curve. This presentation is of value to the engineer
for assuring that the stress contour is smooth and consistent. The
presentation can easily be adapted to a post processor to present a
graphic solution to compare the code allowable stresses versus FEdeveloped stresses and the stress profile within the joint. The authors
submit that a visual graphic presentation facilitates the engineers
review of the stress data and code compliance.
Figure 7 addresses the Appendix 4 Primary plus Secondary stress.
The Sm evaluation location is placed at 2.5 rt , the 1.1 Sm location is
placed at rt , and the 3Sm location is placed at the SCL. These
values are compared to the Stress Intensity (Tresca * 2) stress values
from the analysis.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The above procedure assumes that the engineer will employ the
proper elements and verification methods to ensure the validity of the
FE model used for the analysis.
References
ASME (1998), "ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code",
Section VIII, Division 2, The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York, NY.
Ha, J.L, Sun, B.C., and Koplik, B., 1995, Local Stress Factors of
a Pipe-Nozzle Under Internal Pressure, Nuclear Engineering and
Design, 157, Elsevier Science S.A., Lausanne, Switzerland, pp. 81-91.
Hechmer, J. L. and Hollinger, G. L., 1987, Three Dimensional
Stress Criteria Application of Code Rules, PVP Vol. 120, Design
and Analysis of Piping, Pressure Vessels and Components, W. E.
Short II, et al., ed., ASME, New York, NY, pp. 189-196.
Hechmer, J. L. and Hollinger, G. L., 1989, Code Evaluation of
3D Stresses on a Plane, PVP Vol. 161, Codes and Standards
Applications for Design and Analysis of Piping, Pressure Vessels and
Piping Components, J. P. Breen, et al., ed., ASME, New York, NY,
pp. 33-45.
Hechmer, J. L. and Hollinger, G. L., 1991, Three Dimensional
Stress Criteria, PVP Vol. 210.2, Codes and Standards Applications
for Design and Analysis of Piping, Pressure Vessels and Piping
Components, ASME, New York, NY, pp. 181-191.
Hechmer, J. L. and Hollinger, G. L., 1991, The ASME Code and
3D Stress Evaluation, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol.
113, ASME, New York, NY, pp. 481-487.
Hechmer, J. L. and Hollinger, G. L., 1997, 3D Stress Criteria:
Guidelines for Application, PVRC Grant 91-14 Final Report, ASME,
New York, NY.
Koves, W. J. and Sanger, R. J., 1996, Evaluation of Pressure
Design Criteria for Nozzles, International Conference on Pressure
Vessel Technology, Vol. 2, ASME, New York, NY, pp. 271-279.
Koves, W. J., 1999, Evaluation of Pressure Design Criteria For
Nozzles (II), to be presented at PVP-99, Boston, MA, ASME, New
York, NY.
Kroenke, W. C., 1974, Classification of Finite Element Stresses
According to ASME Section III Stress Criteria, Pressure Vessels and
Piping, Analysis and Computers, ASME, New York, NY, pp. 107-140.
Kroenke, W. C., Addicott, G.W., and Hinton, B.M., 1975,
Interpretation of Finite Element Stresses According to ASME Section
III, 75-PVP-63, ASME, New York, NY, pp. 1-12.
Martens, D. H., and Hsieh, C. S., 1998, Finite Element
Investigation of a CBA Reactor for the Effects of Thermal Loading,
PVP Vol. 368, ASME, New York, NY, pp. 139-146.
Porter, M. A. and Martens, D. H., 1996, "A Comparison of the
Stress Results from Several Commercial Finite Element Codes with
ASME Section VIII, Division 2 Requirements," PVP Vol. 336, ASME,
New York, NY., pp. 341-346.
Porter, M. A., Martens, D. H., and Hsieh, C. S., 1997, "A
Comparison Finite Element Codes and Recommended Investigation
Methodology," PVP Vol. 359, ASME, New York, NY., pp. 241-246.
Porter, M. A. and Martens, D. H., 1998, Stress Evaluation of a
Typical Vessel Nozzle Using PVRC 3D Stress Criteria: Guidelines for
Application," PVP Vol. 368, ASME, New York, NY., pp. 297-301.
Pad
r
b
P
T
a
Shell
Figure 1 Cross section of nozzle/shell junction
60000
50000
40000
SStress - PSI
40000
30000
30000
20000
20000
10000
10000
Nozzle
---
Nozzle
Shell
---
Shell
0
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
60000
3Sm
Limit Curve
Limit Curve
Stress Intensity - Inside
Stress Intensity - Outside
50000
Pressure Only
40000
40000
(rt)^0.5
1.1 Sm
(rt)^0.5
1.1 Sm
30000
50000
SStress - PSI
Stress - PSI
50000
(rt)^0.5
1.1 Sm
(rt)^0.5
1.1 Sm
30000
1.5Sm
20000
20000
2.5(rt)^0.5
Sm
2.5(rt)^0.5
Sm
10000
10000
Nozzle
---
Nozzle
Shell
---
Shell
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2