You are on page 1of 9

Proceedings of the ASME 2011 Pressure Vessels & Piping Division Conference

PVP2011
July 17-21, 2011, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

PVP2011-57100

ESTABLISHING ALLOWABLE NOZZLE LOADS

William Koves Elmar Upitis


Consultant, Ambitech Engineering Corp. Ambitech Engineering Corp.
Downers Grove, IL, USA Downers Grove, IL, USA

Richard Cullotta Omar Latif


Ambitech Engineering Corp. Ambitech Engineering Corp.
Downers Grove, IL, USA Downers Grove, IL, USA

ABSTRACT to all nozzle sizes, pressure classes, schedules and vessel


diameters and thicknesses and reinforcement designs within the
Every engineering project involving the design of scope of the tables. The internal design pressure must also be
pressure equipment, including pressure vessels, heat exchangers included along with the 3 forces and 3 moments that may be
and the interconnecting piping requires that the interface loads acting on the nozzle and the nozzle load tables must be
between the equipment and piping be established for the adaptable to all materials of construction. The Tables must also
pressure vessel nozzle design and the limitations on piping end be applicable for vessel heads. This paper presents the issues,
reactions. The vessel or exchanger designer needs to know the including the limitations of some of the existing industry
external applied loads on nozzles and the piping designer needs approaches, presents an approach to the problem, utilizing
to know the limiting end reactions on any connected equipment. systematic Finite Element Analysis (FEA) methods and presents
However, the final loads are not known until the piping design the results in the form of tables of allowable nozzle loads.
is completed. This requires a very good estimate of the piping
end loads prior to completing the vessel or piping design. The
challenge is to develop a method of determining the optimum INTRODUCTION
set of design loads prior to design. If the design loads are too
low, the piping design may become too costly or impractical. If The first step in addressing the problem of establishing
the design loads are too high the vessel nozzle designs will allowable nozzle loads is to define the objectives. The nozzle
require unnecessary reinforcement and increased cost. loads from the allowable nozzle load table should be acceptable
for typical vessel construction without significant reinforcement
The problem of the stresses at a nozzle to vessel in addition to minimum Code requirements, except that the
intersection due to internal pressure and external forces and small nozzles that would not require a pad for pressure may
moments is one of the most complex problems in pressure require a pad for external loads. The loads should be of a
vessel design. The problem has been studied extensively; magnitude that they can be accommodated by typical piping
however each study has its own limitations. Numerous layouts and that the loads are proportioned to include typical
analytical and numerical simulations have been performed moments, axial and shear forces. As the allowable nozzle loads
providing guidance with associated limitations. The objective is increase, the piping costs decrease, since piping flexibility
to establish allowable nozzle load tables for the piping designer (length) may be reduced. However, at some point the higher
and the vessel designer. The loads and load combinations must allowable moments will cause increasing vessel cost due to
be based on a technically accepted methodology and applicable reinforcing requirements. The perfect solution is one that

1 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


minimizes the cost of the project (vessels and piping plus Force = constant x Nozzle Diameter (1)
supports).
Moment = constant x (Nozzle Diameter)^2 (2)
There is an infinite combination of loads that will
satisfy a given stress criteria. The variables are: pressure, P, We have not seen a documented technical basis for
vessel diameter, D, nozzle diameter, d, vessel thickness, T, proportioning the loads and shears, relative to the moments. In
nozzle thickness, t, reinforcing pad thickness, tp, reinforcement conclusion, the existing load tables vary significantly and there
design (e.g. integral), and material allowable stresses. The is a need for a documented consistent approach. There is a
applied loads may be the result of primary (e.g., weight) loads concern for large diameter thin wall vessels, especially if
or displacement controlled (e.g., piping restrained thermal primary loads become significant.
growth) loads each consisting of 6 quantities, three forces and
three moments. The applied loads may also result in a A PRACTICAL APPROACH
combination of primary and secondary stresses. There will be
multiple sets of allowable loads for each different combination The objective is to produce a set of allowable nozzle
of the variables listed. There are also several methods of load tables that has a documented basis and is a function of
computing stresses at the nozzle junction. The boundary Pressure Class, since this is the format that the industry is
conditions assumed by the piping designer can also significantly familiar with. The problem is how to produce allowable nozzle
affect the piping end reaction loads. The appropriate allowable load tables with the large number of independent variables
stress values to use and how to handle reinforcing pads are involved. The first step was to establish a practical load set
other issues that are not consistently applied in the industry. where the moments and forces are in a fixed proportion to one
another. Observing that the B31 piping Codes SIFs (Stress
REVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICE Intensification Factors) for in-plane and out-of-plane loading
differ by a factor of approximately 0.75, the allowable
Many tables are based on nozzle size and rating only circumferential force and moment was assumed to be 0.75 times
without any limitations on the vessel and some tables apply to the longitudinal force and moment. However, based on results
more than one pressure rating. Some methods indicate that from the WRC (Welding Research Council) Bulletins, [2], [3],
primary loads may be up to 1/3 of the total and other methods [4], the ratio for the Class 150 vessels was reduced to 2/3 for
say nothing. The allowable loads and moments vary the Load Table development. A nozzle connection can take a
significantly from company to company. Many current methods high torsion load and the torsion was established as 1.25 times
do not address the following issues: the longitudinal moment. The forces scale with diameter, and
the moments with diameter squared as shown by equations (1)
They do not provide the basis of the nozzle load tables,
and (2).
except for a few specific instances where FEA was
applied. The materials of construction are assumed to be killed
Various materials of construction. carbon steel: SA 516 Gr. 70 for the vessel shell and SA 106 Gr.
B, and SA 105 for the nozzle neck at a design temperature of
The effect of design temperature. (Some nozzle load 650F. The allowable loads for materials other than killed carbon
tables state room temperature or 100 F). steel at 650F may be obtained by a simple allowable stress
The effect of internal pressure. ratio.

Limitations on vessel diameter and/or thickness. The objective is to arrive at allowable nozzle loads that
Limitations on the type of the vessel head. minimize the cost of the project. If the loads are too low the
piping cost will increase to allow more flexibility, if the loads
Location of the applied loads. (Some nozzle load are too high the vessel cost will increase due to added
tables do state that the nozzle loads are applied at the reinforcement required at the nozzles. The goal is to provide
vessel shell). nozzle loads that will not require significant increased
reinforcement other than a nozzle schedule greater than
Proportioning of the nozzle loads, moments and
Schedule 40.
shears.
The original basis of the majority of Tables used in the Geometry requirements to establish a bound on the
industry was probably WRC 107 [1]. Most tables follow a loads for the infinite combinations of diameters and thicknesses
simple Lbs/in basis for the loads as a function of nozzle size. were established by first examining the correlations from the
The general forms of the simple equations are: WRC Bulletins and from the general trends, establish bounding
conditions. WRC Bulletin 497 provides parametric correlations
for external loads on cylinder to cylinder connections and WRC

2 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Bulletin 368 provides parametric correlations for the effect of
internal pressure on cylinder to cylinder connections. Figure 1
shows the effect of pressure on the maximum effective (von
Mises) stress in an 8 NPS Sch. 40 nozzle connection when the
vessel wall thickness is the minimum required for pressure.

Figure 2

The conclusion is that for a larger d/D ratio the


allowable moment is less, for fixed values of d/t and D/T. When
internal pressure governs design then the diameter to thickness
ratios are approximately constant. When the D/T ratio is
Figure 1 increased, corresponding to a lower design pressure, the
allowable moment decreases.
For the larger diameter vessel, the greater the design
pressure, if the vessel wall thickness is the minimum required The plot in Figure 3 is Allowable Moment vs. Vessel
for pressure design and a full thickness reinforcing pad is used, inside Diameter (D) for a fixed nozzle diameter and schedule
the lower the effective stress due to pressure. This implies that, for two different pressures based on WRC 497. The plot
for this vessel, if allowable moments are established for the assumes that the vessel thickness is calculated based on the
minimum pressure of the pressure class, it should be minimum required for pressure and a full thickness reinforcing
conservative for all pressures in the pressure class. However, pad is provided. The plot at vessel diameters greater than about
there are exceptions and depending on diameter and pressure 72 inches is beyond the applicable limits of the parametric
range the higher pressure or an intermediate pressure could correlation in WRC 497 since the d/D ratio is less than 1/3 for
govern. Geometries with large nozzle to vessel diameter ratios the larger vessel diameters, however the trends are evident. The
are a possible exception. In general both the lowest and highest smaller diameters and thicknesses result in a smaller allowable
pressures for a pressure class were checked. The smaller moment even though the diameter to thickness ratio is constant
diameter vessel, with the correspondingly smaller thickness, based on pressure. Higher vessel design pressures result in
resulted in higher stress for a given pressure. Thickness was greater vessel thickness and higher allowable moments.
determined to be a critical variable.

The number of variables may be reduced by assuming


that the vessel wall thickness is the minimum required for
internal pressure and the nozzle size and schedule is selected,
which establishes both a D/T and d/t ratio. Figure 2 shows the
effect of diameter ratio, d/D, on the allowable moment when
pressure, D/T and d/t are fixed. The Moment Index is a factor
representing a proportional set of orthogonal moments acting on
a nozzle. The actual in-plane moment (1000 in-lbs) for a given
nozzle is obtained from multiplying the Moment Index by 0.785
t d2, where t and d are the nozzle thickness and mean diameter
respectively. The other moments and forces are in the same
proportion as shown in Tables 1A or 1B.

3 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Tables are intended for ASME Section VIII Division 1
construction, however it is unlikely that a Class 2500 vessel
would be built to Division 1. Division 1 provides limits for
general primary membrane stress and primary membrane plus
bending stress. Local secondary bending stresses in Division 1
are addressed by the construction details and not analysis
requirements except for some specific heat exchanger and cone-
cylinder junction details. Therefore the Design Code, Section
VIII Division 1, does not provide specific local stress limits
applicable to nozzle locations and it is the responsibility of the
designer/manufacturer. Division 2, paragraph 5.6 and Table 5.6,
does provide specific allowable stress limits applicable to FEA
analysis of nozzle connections. In general primary local
membrane stresses are limited to 1.5S and membrane plus
bending stresses are limited to 3S where S is the applicable
Code allowable stress. Division 2 also limits local membrane
Figure 3 stress in the nozzle reinforcing zone due to restrained
displacement to the 1.5S limit. The Division 2 allowable stress
The above comparisons indicate that if the vessel is limits were used as the criteria to establish the allowable nozzle
sized for the lowest pressure of its class and a high d/D loads for the worst case geometry and pressure for each
diameter ratio for a fixed nozzle size and schedule, the load set pressure class. The allowable external loads for flanges were
should be conservative for other thicknesses, diameters and also limited by the ASME Section III, NB 3658.3 equation for
pressures. This methodology is a good general approach to the each nozzle size and ASME B16.5 Flange Class. Integral and
problem, however, it was necessary to check other extreme pad reinforcement design was based on Division 1
conditions to assure that a conservative load set was computed requirements, based on design by formula. There is a problem
and each pressure class had a different set of issues. when the internal pressure only condition is close to or exceeds
the allowable stress limits. The allowable external loads would
The Class 150 nozzle loads provided a special be essentially zero. The problem is the result of applying
challenge since the vessel thickness is typically not controlled conservative design by analysis criteria to nozzle designs based
by pressure. Many practical applications will be for vessels with on design by formula, with the maximum possible pressure and
relatively low pressure where the Code pressure-temperature the use of the lower Division 1 allowable stress values. In order
required thickness calculations do not govern the wall thickness to address the problem, provide practical loads and use an
of the vessel. The thickness will be based on practical allowable stress criterion that would provide an acceptable
considerations and company practice. Therefore, an additional design, guidance from WRC Bulletins 297 and 497 were
assumption on geometry is required. This is why Class 150 applied.
Tables were developed for two assumed thicknesses. The Class
300 Table is also based on an assumed minimum thickness. Reference [7] demonstrates by burst test analysis that
elastic FEA produces very conservative results for pressure
The final loads were arrived at by factoring up/down design when the Division 2 criterion is applied. Mershon, et.al.,
the external load set until the local membrane and membrane reference [2], also discuss the conservatism in the Primary plus
plus bending stresses are within 90-95% of the allowable stress Secondary Stress limits for nozzles in WRC Bulletin 297. WRC
limits and within the allowable ASME B16.5 flange joint limits. Bulletin 497, reference [4], provides an increased allowable
This is an iterative trial and error process for each set of local membrane stress limit for nozzles. For typical geometries
conditions and each nozzle size. FEA analyses were performed this increase may be approximated from equation (23) in
for all parameters for the NPS 2, 6, 12, 18 and 24 inch sizes and reference 4 as a factor of 1.25. The technical issue is that the
forces and moments for intermediate sizes obtained by elastically computed local membrane and bending stresses are
interpolation from equations (1) and (2) where the constants are concentrated local to the nozzle and decay rapidly away from
derived from each specific FEA analysis. the junction. Small amounts of plasticity will redistribute the
local stresses, with relatively small strains, and for non-cyclic
ALLOWABLE STRESS LIMITS applications there will be a large margin on cycles. This is also
approximately the twice yield limit. This is the basis for
Several sources were referenced for establishing allowing a 25% increase in allowable primary plus secondary
criteria for the allowable load limits; ASME Section VIII membrane plus bending stress limits for specific cases as
Division 1, ASME Section VIII Division 2, and the applicable provided under note (1) below. This evaluation is based on total
Welding Research Council (WRC) Bulletins. The nozzle load operating loads (forces and moments) that are assumed to be a

4 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


minimum of 50% Primary. Note that this paper is not addressing The computed stresses are categorized in accordance
or recommending changes in the allowable stress criteria for with the Section VIII Division 2 requirements for Primary
nozzles and is only using the stress limits to develop practical membrane, Local Membrane, Membrane plus Bending Stresses
bounding loads. and compared with the allowable stresses discussed above. The
FEA model is a 3-D model of the nozzle and vessel with an
The design Code is ASME Section VIII Division 1 and the insert plate for reinforcement using shell elements. Nozzle/Pro
allowable stress limits used for the determination of allowable does not have automatic mesh generation for a separate
nozzle loads are: reinforcing pad. The FEA mesh convergence was validated by
The vessel wall thickness is based on Division 1 increasing the mesh resolution and model geometry limits with
design equation for pressure design. Therefore the insignificant change in the FEA results. The FEA models follow
Primary Membrane Stress limits are met. the geometry guidelines in WRC 497. 3-D FEA analyses using
solid elements and the FEPipe software [13] were performed on
Primary Local Membrane stress at the nozzle to shell
select examples of integral (thick wall) nozzle designs to
junction <= 1.5S. S = Division 1 allowable stress. compare with the shell model results and discussed in the
The Primary plus Secondary Membrane plus Bending validation section below.
Stress at the nozzle to shell junction <= (3Sps). Sps =
average of the ambient and design temperature The FEA software shell model treats the reinforcing
Division 1 allowable stress values. See Note 1 below. pad as an integral insert plate with reinforcement local to the
nozzle junction. The reinforcing pad thickness was based on the
The combined nominal Stress Intensity in the nozzle
same thickness as the shell with a pad width based on the
neck due to all primary loads <= S. Note that the ASME Section VIII, Division 1, UG-40 reinforcement limits.
supplemental requirement in paragraph 5.6 of Section However, the FEA analysis in this study was not based on the
VIII Division 2 was also checked and did not govern. total pad plus vessel thickness, it was based on a thinner
effective pad thickness that represents the bending stiffness of a
Note 1: The stresses due to Primary loads plus restrained free separate pad and vessel shell, but is conservative for local
membrane stress. When the local membrane stresses govern the
end displacement may exceed the 3Sps limit by up to 25%, for
maximum loads, an additional FEA analysis was performed
typical low-cycle applications, based on the fatigue life at the using full thickness. The effective vessel shell plus pad
small increase in strain and the fact that the stress limit would combined thickness is given by the following equation:
be close to twice yield. See also the discussions in WRC
Bulletins 297 and 497. te = (T2.5 + tp2.5)0.4 (3)

NPS 2 nozzles are assumed to be Schedule 40


DEVELOPING ALLOWABLE LOADS minimum and unreinforced in accordance with Section VIII
Division 1 minimum requirements. Two nozzle load tables were
The allowable loads are based on the methodology for developed for Class 150 nozzles, one for inch and one for 3/8
establishing the critical geometry discussed above and the inch minimum vessel thickness to avoid excessive conservatism
assumptions described below and are applicable to the pressure (See Tables 1A and 1B). Corrosion allowance is not included.
classes, nozzle sizes, and vessel thicknesses within the scope of The nozzle reinforcement may be pad, insert plate, integral
the tables. reinforcement or a combination. It is assumed that Integral
reinforcement would only be used when the vessel thickness
The approach is to perform elastic Finite Element exceeds 1.25, however this is not a general requirement. High
Analysis (FEA) of a series of pressures, and geometries that local bending stresses result when integral nozzle construction
represent the Worst Case for each nozzle size and pressure is used and the vessel shell is relatively thin. The tables were
class. The method of selecting the governing parameters for a developed for vessel diameter to thickness ratios (D/T) up to
given nozzle varies with pressure class and was discussed 320; however this is also not a general limitation. The final
above. The only practical way to make the extensive number of vessel and nozzle design details are the responsibility of the
FEA analyses required to develop comprehensive allowable vessel engineer.
nozzle load tables was to use a commercial FEA program with
automatic mesh generation. Nozzle/Pro, Ref. [8], using 3-D The nozzle loads provided in the tables provided are
shell elements was selected. Ideally the software would have based on the pressure class and thickness limitations specified
been based on 3-D solid elements with a non-linear plastic for each Table. The materials of construction are assumed to be
analysis capability; however this was the best practical option. Carbon Steels (SA-516 Gr. 70, SA-106 Gr. B, SA-105 and
similar) at a design temperature not greater than 650F. Nozzle
reinforcement is assumed except for NPS 2. Tables 1A and 1B

5 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


contain allowable nozzle loads for vessels with a Class 150 Seipp [9] performed plastic analysis on a very conservative
pressure rating. Other materials, temperatures and vessel example with elastic follow-up from a long run of a larger pipe
thicknesses are addressed by extrapolation as discussed in the on a smaller nozzle and showed the loads may have
following section. Loads exceeding the specified values require characteristics of both primary and secondary loads. The nozzle
individual special analysis. load Table was applied to that example and elastic FEA
performed assuming all of the loads are primary and the
EXTRAPOLATING THE TABLES computed stress was less than 60% of the allowable. The plastic
analysis nozzle limit load correlations by Wu, [11], were also
The Class 150 Tables are based on specified minimum compared with the Allowable nozzle loads and the design
thicknesses. There are applications for vessels with thinner wall, margin was a factor of 5 to 10 or more. However, pressure was
especially when the corrosion allowance is significant. If, for a not included in [11]. The effect of pressure was studied by
given applied externally applied load set, the local reaction Palusamy, [12], and reviewing the effect of pressure, the
running forces and moments acting on the vessel shell remain conclusion is that the Allowable Table Loads are conservative.
the same, the local membrane stress would be inversely
proportional to the thickness (Stress = Running The ultimate goal was to provide nozzle load tables for
Load/Thickness) and the local bending stress inversely the complete range of pressure classes, including Class 2500,
proportional to the thickness squared (Stress = 6*Running for completeness, even though it is not likely that a Class 2500
Moment/Thickness^2). If the resulting stresses are pure primary vessel would be built to Division 1. However, the geometries
stresses, this assumption would be true, and it should be covered by the nozzle load tables cover a wide range and the
conservative for an actual structure where the resulting stresses high pressure class integral nozzles are in a diameter to
are both load and displacement controlled. It is assumed that the thickness range where shell model results may be questioned.
following equation applies for thicknesses less than inch: Since all cases studied consider the maximum allowed pressure,
the worst case diameter to thickness ratio for the highest
M(T) = M(1/4) x (T/0.25)2 (4) pressure class vessels would be less than 10. Several 3-D elastic
FEA solid element models were run using FEPipe, [13], to
Where: compare with the high pressure class (CL 1500 and CL 2500)
M(T) = Allowable nozzle load (force or moment) for vessel of nozzle loads developed using the shell model approach.
thickness T
M(1/4) = Allowable nozzle l (force or moment) for vessel of Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the heavy wall shell element
thickness from Table 1A FEA and solid element FEA models respectively. The models
T = Vessel thickness were loaded with the same nozzle loads as developed with the
shell model. The results showed significant differences in the
Validation of the above equation was confirmed by maximum membrane plus bending stresses due to pressure for
performing FEA runs on a variety of geometries using applied the shell and solid element models. However, the SCLs (Stress
loads from the above equation when the applied pressure is less Classification Lines) were different for the shell and solid
than the maximum allowed by the ratio (T/0.25)2. models. Note that the small rectangles in Figure 5 represent the
through-thickness nodes for the SCLs of interest. These SCLs
The other extrapolation issue is the application of the of interest are the areas in the model where the maximum
Table to materials other than Carbon Steel up to 650F. The membrane, maximum bending, or maximum membrane plus
allowable loads for materials other than SA-516 Gr. 70 vessels bending occur. The solid element models picked up the high
with SA-106 Gr. B or SA 105 nozzle necks, or materials at pressure stresses at the inside corner, which are not in the shell
temperatures greater than 650F, may be obtained by multiplying element models. A comparison along equivalent SCLs is
the values in the applicable Table by the lowest ratio of the anticipated to be better. However, the maximum stresses due to
ASME Section VIII Division 1 allowable stress for the external loads only (no pressure) were comparable between
specified material at design temperature divided by 18,800 psi models and the shell model was in general more conservative.
for the vessel and 17,100 psi for the nozzle neck. The ratio shall Since internal pressure governs the design of these nozzles, the
not exceed the value of 1.0. Note that for materials with lower actual computed membrane plus bending stresses from the 3-D
modulus of elasticity, such as aluminum, the local deformation solid element FEA models due to external loads alone were a
at the nozzle location will exceed that of a carbon steel vessel. very small fraction of the allowable stress limits. The same is
true for the shell model stresses. Although the 3-D Solid
VALIDATION element models could not provide validation of the shell models
for the high pressure classes, the nozzle loads have very little
In addition to running independent elastic FEA runs to effect on the total stresses in the high pressure classes, and are
check the loads on practical examples, a comparison with reasonable in magnitude. However, we recommend that the
examples where plastic analysis was employed was also used.

6 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


stresses for the higher pressure classification nozzles should be [2] Mershon, J. L., Mokhtarian, K., Ranjan, G. V., and
validated by use of the 3-D FEA solid elements models. Rodabaugh, E. C., Local Stresses in Cylindrical Shells Due to
External Loadings on Nozzles-Supplement to WRC Bulletin
A 3-D solid element FEA model of a Class 300 vessel No. 107, Welding Research Council Bulletin 297, August 1984
with a reinforcing pad was also developed. The primary local
membrane plus bending and secondary membrane plus bending [3] Mokhtarian, K., Endicott, J.S., Stresses in Intersecting
stresses were within 10% of the shell model results using the
Cylinders subjected to Pressure, Welding Research Council
effective pad thickness.
Bulletin 368, November 1991.
NOMENCLATURE
[4] Koves, W., Mokhtarian, K., Rodabaugh, E., Widera,
P = Internal Pressure G.E.O., Wei, Z., Large Diameter Ratio Shell Intersections,
D = Vessel Diameter Welding Research Council Bulletin 497, December 2004.
d = Nozzle Diameter
T = Vessel Thickness [5] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII,
t = Nozzle Thickness Division 1, 2010, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
tp = Reinforcing Pad Thickness
te = Effective Combined Shell Plus Pad Thickness [6] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII,
S = Section VIII Division 1 Allowable Stress Division 2, 2010, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Mi = External Moment about Axis i
Fi = External Force Acting along Axis i [7] Koves, W.J., Sanger, R., Evaluation of Pressure Design
Axis x = Centerline of Nozzle directed radial out Criteria for Nozzles, Proceedings of the 8th International
Axis y = Centerline of Vessel directed up Conference on Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 2, July 1996
Axis z = Direction x cross y (Right Hand rule) ASME Design and Analysis, Ed. A. Chaaban,

[8] Nozzle/Pro V8.0, Paulin Research Group


CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
[9] Seipp, T.G., George, S.V.P., Morrison, S.W., Classification
Allowable nozzle load tables for shells and heads have
been developed that include the six coincident load Issues of Nozzle Loads, PVP2005-71535, Proceedings of
components, conservative geometry and the maximum effect of PVP2005, July 17-21, 2005, Denver, CO
pressure. Guidance is provided to extend the tables to other
thicknesses and materials. Future work may include adjustments [10] Hechmer, J.L., and Hollinger, G.L., 3D Stress Criteria
for the proportioning of piping loads, use of higher strength Guidelines for Applications, WRC Bulletin 429, February 1998,
materials and the use of plastic analysis to achieve more Welding Research Council, New York, NY
optimum limits.
[11] Wu, B.H., Sang, Z.F., Widera, G.E.O, Plastic Analysis for
Cylindrical Vessels under In-Plane Moment on Nozzle, Journal
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS of Pressure Vessel Technology

The authors would like to acknowledge the [12] Palusamy, S., Influence of External Loads on Pressure-
management of Ambitech Engineering Corp. for their support of Carrying Capacity of Outlet Connections, ASME Transaction
the work. Paper 72-PVP-8.

[13] FEPipe V6.0, Paulin Research Group

REFERENCES

[1] Wichman, K.R., Hopper, A.G., Mershon, J. L., Local


Stresses in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells due to External
Loadings. Welding Research Council Bulletin 107, March
1979.

7 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


NOZZLE ALLOWABLE LOAD TABLES

Table 1A Table 2
Class 150 Nozzle Loads Class 300 Nozzle Loads
Vessels with Thickness >= 0.25 Vessels with Thickness >= 0.375

Load(Lbs) Moments (Ft-Lbs) Load(Lbs) Moments (Ft-Lbs)


Axial Long Circ Long Circ Torsion Axial Long Circ Long Circ Torsion
NPS Fx Fy Fz Mz My Mx NPS Fx Fy Fz Mz My Mx
2 670 670 500 340 220 420 2 1,030 1,030 770 500 370 620
3 1,030 1,030 770 890 590 1,110 3 1,320 1,320 990 1,040 780 1,300
4 1,160 1,160 870 1,370 910 1,720 4 1,600 1,600 1,200 1,700 1,280 2,130
6 1,430 1,430 1,070 2,140 1,430 2,680 6 2,180 2,180 1,630 3,170 2,380 3,960
8 1,510 1,510 1,130 3,290 2,190 4,110 8 2,270 2,270 1,700 5,210 3,900 6,510
10 1,600 1,600 1,200 4,320 2,880 5,400 10 2,360 2,360 1,770 7,470 5,600 9,330
12 1,680 1,680 1,260 5,040 3,360 6,300 12 2,450 2,450 1,840 9,790 7,340 12,240
14 1,790 1,790 1,350 6,240 4,160 7,800 14 2,980 2,980 2,240 12,150 9,110 15,190
16 1,910 1,910 1,430 7,340 4,900 9,180 16 3,510 3,510 2,640 14,330 10,750 17,910
18 2,020 2,020 1,520 8,270 5,510 10,340 18 4,050 4,050 3,030 16,190 12,140 20,230
20 1,930 1,930 1,450 9,010 6,010 11,260 20 4,900 4,900 3,670 19,430 14,570 24,290
22 1,840 1,840 1,380 9,440 6,300 11,800 22 5,750 5,750 4,310 22,850 17,140 28,560
24 1,740 1,740 1,310 9,500 6,340 11,880 24 6,600 6,600 4,950 26,400 19,800 33,000

Table 1B
Class 150 Nozzle Loads Tables are based on carbon steels (SA-516 Gr. 70, SA-106
Gr. B, SA-105 and similar) at a design temperature not greater
Vessels with Thickness >= 0.375 than 650F and reinforced nozzles, except NPS 2. Thickness
limits are exclusive of corrosion allowance.
Load(Lbs) Moments (Ft-Lbs)
Axial Long Circ Long Circ Torsion
NPS Fx Fy Fz Mz My Mx
2 980 980 740 490 330 610
3 1,130 1,130 850 980 650 1,220
4 1,290 1,290 970 1,510 1,010 1,890
6 1,600 1,600 1,200 2,390 1,600 2,990
8 1,740 1,740 1,300 3,730 2,490 4,670
10 1,880 1,880 1,410 5,020 3,340 6,270
12 2,020 2,020 1,510 6,050 4,030 7,560
14 2,240 2,240 1,680 7,710 5,140 9,640
16 2,470 2,470 1,850 9,390 6,260 11,740
18 2,700 2,700 2,020 11,030 7,350 13,790
20 3,190 3,190 2,390 14,360 9,570 17,950
22 3,690 3,690 2,770 18,270 12,180 22,840
24 4,180 4,180 3,140 22,810 15,210 28,510

8 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Figure 4
Finite Element Shell Model
Figure 5
Finite Element Solid Model

9 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use