138 views

Uploaded by Arun

Establishing Nozzle Allowable Loads

- Castellated Beam Design Conformation and Examples
- External Loads on Nozzles and Piping Intersections Paulin Webinar Part 2 W044Rev1[1]
- Acceptable External Nozzle Loads Calculation for Pressure Vessels and Tanks - Boiler and Pressure Vessel Engineering - Eng-Tips
- WRC
- STRENGTH OF MATERIALS 2 MARK QUESTIONS
- A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TWO METHODOLOGIES FOR NON LINEAR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF KNIFE EDGE GATE VALVE SLEEVE
- Piping Stress Handbook - By Victor Helguero - Part 1
- 101094409 Allowable Nozzle Loads Pressure Vessel
- Upstand Finite Element Analysis of Slab Bridges
- Design & Analysis of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Components in the Creep Range 2009
- Pressure Vessel Design Handbook -Bednar
- Strand7 Tutorial
- Spreader Beam Calculation
- catia fea
- Structural Calculation EOT
- Strength of Material
- strength of materials
- Chung Kit Man Peter 1981 MEng
- Modeling and Analysis of Functionally Graded Materials and Structures
- Semi Form Active Structures

You are on page 1of 9

PVP2011

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

PVP2011-57100

Consultant, Ambitech Engineering Corp. Ambitech Engineering Corp.

Downers Grove, IL, USA Downers Grove, IL, USA

Ambitech Engineering Corp. Ambitech Engineering Corp.

Downers Grove, IL, USA Downers Grove, IL, USA

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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)

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

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.

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,

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.

REFERENCES

Stresses in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells due to External

Loadings. Welding Research Council Bulletin 107, March

1979.

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

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

Figure 4

Finite Element Shell Model

Figure 5

Finite Element Solid Model

- Castellated Beam Design Conformation and ExamplesUploaded byAlexandru Stefan Both
- External Loads on Nozzles and Piping Intersections Paulin Webinar Part 2 W044Rev1[1]Uploaded byNabil Al-Khirdaji
- Acceptable External Nozzle Loads Calculation for Pressure Vessels and Tanks - Boiler and Pressure Vessel Engineering - Eng-TipsUploaded byAdityaShetgaonkar
- WRCUploaded byshivabtowin3301
- STRENGTH OF MATERIALS 2 MARK QUESTIONSUploaded bysiraj
- A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TWO METHODOLOGIES FOR NON LINEAR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF KNIFE EDGE GATE VALVE SLEEVEUploaded byIAEME Publication
- Piping Stress Handbook - By Victor Helguero - Part 1Uploaded byDien Bien Nham
- 101094409 Allowable Nozzle Loads Pressure VesselUploaded byvenkatrangan2003
- Upstand Finite Element Analysis of Slab BridgesUploaded byTon Lee
- Design & Analysis of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Components in the Creep Range 2009Uploaded byOsmar Gabriel Peñaloza
- Pressure Vessel Design Handbook -BednarUploaded byRupesh Ubale
- Strand7 TutorialUploaded byRyan Santos
- Spreader Beam CalculationUploaded byhombre.muerto5959
- catia feaUploaded byMob Tuks
- Structural Calculation EOTUploaded byswatantar17
- Strength of MaterialUploaded bypurushoth313
- strength of materialsUploaded bykumarmkishore
- Chung Kit Man Peter 1981 MEngUploaded bysimon maaakla
- Modeling and Analysis of Functionally Graded Materials and StructuresUploaded bytb77
- Semi Form Active StructuresUploaded byHitesh Parmar
- Comparison of Bending Stresses in Involute and Cycloidal Profile Spur Gear ToothUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Worked exp Mechanics 2.pdfUploaded byamit1234
- GATE SAT 12Uploaded byswapnil
- MoT Bridge FailureUploaded byorpharion
- GTU Mos 1Uploaded byashikshah
- A Finite Line Crack in a Pressurized Spherical Shell-foliasUploaded bysupersalvi
- BucklingUploaded byrahul
- BE_ARCH_AM_401_A_2006Uploaded byJames Wall
- Ladders at LLO Gates Shaft-calculationsUploaded bySurya AV
- Efect Missalignment GearUploaded bywildan

- ASME Pressure Vessel Chart-2Uploaded byArun
- PVNewsletter.pdfUploaded byArun
- RASCHIG SUPER RING 2.pdfUploaded byArun
- System PracticesUploaded byArun
- Nickel-Base Superalloy.pdfUploaded byArun
- 316 & 316LUploaded byArun
- Ignite the Spark - eBookUploaded byArun
- Drew Ladder Safety Program Policy SOP 0412Uploaded byArun
- Stairways & Ladders_A Guide to OSHA RulesUploaded byeafarmihar2554
- Design of Tail LugUploaded byPrajwal Shetty
- Hinnant ASME Plant Engineering PresentationUploaded bykkozak99

- Quickdraw MSDS7.pdfUploaded byLuis Adrián Elguézabal
- 03Uploaded byandyhagger
- 03 - glaucophane-lawsonite schists - CMP 1980.pdfUploaded bymastergeo35
- Intel Technology Journal - Semiconductor Technology and Manufacturing - 2002Uploaded byMarcWorld
- Design and Development of Shape Memory Alloy Wire.pdf1Uploaded bysivainscribd
- SkyscraperUploaded byMatei Silviu
- KOBELCO - Welding rod for SUS 304.pdfUploaded bySikasep Tea
- Li Ion Safety July 9 2013 RechargeUploaded byKumar Shanu
- RCC2Uploaded byMangam Rajkumar
- Fire Proof ConcreteUploaded bytosinmann8385
- Surface Grinding ReportUploaded byNur Muhammad Fitri
- 2011 06 13-DI-PER8-Acoustic Insulation Catalogue-Rev 01Uploaded byTien Pham
- Look insideUploaded byBellworkEducation
- a short essay.pdfUploaded bySpirosKoutandos
- Kalzip Sets StandardsUploaded byClef Gonadan
- nitocote_en901Uploaded bypravi3434
- Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Thermal SpringsUploaded byHaVy Carrasco Tuston
- Structural Materials.pdfUploaded byCheng Por Eng
- ConcreteUploaded byRyan_Rajmoolie
- HydrogenUploaded byJack Lupino
- Experiments of Bolted Cover Plate Connections With Slotted HolesUploaded byapsapsaps1988
- Column SpliceUploaded bydudoodoo
- Lead Acid BatteryUploaded bySaravanan Viswakarma
- Power Industry Vanquishing VarnishUploaded byaqas_khan
- ChemUploaded byMoazam Khan
- ch10Uploaded byIlda Khaki
- Pre TensioningUploaded bymohdkhalidraza
- Recent Advances in Coating -Paper-13!7!07Uploaded bydrfmshuaeib2010
- Methanol ProUploaded byinju rehaman
- Names and Formulas of Complex Ions (A Lesson Plan)Uploaded byMark