fsdfd

© All Rights Reserved

86 tayangan

fsdfd

© All Rights Reserved

- Rebar Interface with concrete
- Fe-safe User Guide
- ASME_PTB-5-2013_cont_0101
- ASME Section III CODe comparsion
- Normal Forces and BM
- PTB-7-2014.pdf
- BEAMCOL13
- CP 116 (1965), Precast Concrete Code of Practice
- Solid Mechanics_S. M. A. Kazimi.pdf
- HW 1 EMA 405
- PSC Girder 23.75
- 109 - Load Capacity Rating of an Existing Curved Steel Box Girder Bridge Through Field Test
- Mathematics and Microeconomics
- Real Life Examples in a Solid Mechanics Course
- Crack width calculation to BS 8007 for combined flexure and direct tension 2002.pdf
- Mathcad - 4_75t
- AQE(7.782)
- Design of Slab Culvert
- View Content
- Strength of Materials Qb 2015

Anda di halaman 1dari 17

PVP2013

July 14-18, 2013, Paris, France

PVP2013-97622

STRESS ANALYSIS OF PIPE SUPPORT ATTACHMENTS: A COMPARISON OF

ANALYTICAL METHODS AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS FOR CIRCULAR AND

NON-CIRCULAR ATTACHMENTS

Anindya Bhattacharya

Technical Head, Stress Analysis

CB&I, 40 East Bourne Terrace, London, W2 6LG,

United Kingdom.

Phone: +442070535668

ABSTRACT

4. Comparison of FEA, WRC 107, WRC297 and Kellogg

methods w.r.t the following parameters:

Type of loading (Radial, Longitudinal, Circumferential)

applied in a stand-alone manner is absence of pressure

D , t and d ratios

T

T

D

Combined loading including pressure

Different element types

post processing facilities as per rules of ASME SEC VIII

Division 2, use of simple analytical methods like ring loading

around a circumference or more complex methods like

Welding Research council bulletins 107 and 297, will continue

to be used in the industry for a significant period of time for

stress analysis of pipe support attachments. The reasons are

few: not all engineering companies have such custom made

FE codes, lack of trained personnel to work with general

purpose FE codes, ease of implementation of the available

methods and their successful design history, cost and time

issues with FE analysis etc. In this paper these available

methods will be reviewed based on their theoretical

background, their range of applicability w.r.t the typical design

parameters and their comparison with FE analysis. More

recent analytical methods based on mathematically accurate

space curves of intersections for circular attachments will also

be discussed. This study will include both circular as well as

non-circular attachments. This paper will highlight the

strengths and weaknesses of the conventionally used methods

especially with respect to their mathematical limitations to

make an analyst aware of the potential over conservatism and

under conservatism of these analytical methods. Finite

element analysis models will be discussed in detail

specifically in relation to elements used, element parameters,

boundary conditions and post processing.

NOMENCLATURE

, - components in the ( , ) coordinate of the main

shell

r,R - mid surface radii of the branch pipe and main shell

E, - Youngs modulus and Poisson ratio respectively

un - radial displacement

0 - diameter ratio = d

T

p

, ,z

D

thickness of main shell

Airy stress function

internal pressure

global cylindrical coordinates in 3D space

directions

w - vertical displacement

ET 3

12( 1 2 )

loading in vertical direction

thickness of attached shell

ET

foundations stiffness = 2

R

direction of longitudinal axis of cylinder

section modulus of the trunnion pipe

area of cross section of trunnion pipe

INTRODUCTION

Z t -

following manner:

1. Discussion of the available theoretical methods, from the

simplest to the advanced.

2. Brief overview of basic shell mathematical model.

3. Brief overview of available finite element options.

K x S A -

THE PROBLEM OF ANALYSING A CYLINDRICAL

SHELL WITH CYLINDRICAL OR NON-CYLINDRICAL

ATTACHMENTS.

P - load per unit of circumference (applied as a ring

load)

rt - radius of trunnion

F - force on trunnion

1 , 2 - attachment parameters for rectangular attachments =

c1

c

& 2

R

R

c1 , c2 - half dimensions of the rectangle along

circumferential

and

meridional

directions

respectively

2 - Laplacian Operator, . ( )

2.1 Approach 1:

This approach is popularly known as Kellogg method in

the piping industry. This approach has been so named as it

appeared for the first time in [4] and is based on ring loading

around a circular cylinder.

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:

d 4w

(1)

H 4 + Kw = Z

dx

d 4 w ETw Z

(2)

+

=

dx 4 HR 2 H

1.28

3( 1 2 )

Introducing 4 =

, i.e. =

considering

2 2

RT

RT

= 0.3 .

1. SHELL THEORIES:

There are various shell theories and each one has its own

protagonist. Any shell theory has to be evaluated within the

postulates of Sanders-Koiters approach [12, 21] which can be

summarised as follows:

1. The equations can be written in general tensor form.

2. The deformations are described by six strain measures,

three of which are components of the usual membrane strain

tensor and the other three deviate from the components of the

geometrical curvature change tensor only by terms that are

bilinear in the components of the curvature and membrane

strain tensor.

3. The stresses are described by six stress measures that satisfy

the equations of equilibrium without approximation.

4. The theory has a principle of virtual work that is exact for

displacements obeying the Kirchoff hypothesis; in conjunction

with approximate constitutive relations between the stress and

strain measures. Well-set boundary value problems can be

formulated, and the usual minimum and reciprocal relations of

structural mechanics hold good.

5. The theory contains an exact static-geometric analogy. This

analogy can be formulated by replacing the static quantities by

corresponding geometrical quantities in homogeneous

equations of equilibrium and the resulting equations become

identical with the compatibility conditions.

6. When applied to the symmetrical bending of shells of

revolution, the stress and strain measures agree with those

generally used. They are consistent with those of the most

simple curved beam theory.

For the present purpose, we will discuss the issue of

cylindrical pipes with circular (referred to as trunnion) as well

as non-circular (referred to as pipe shoes) attachments. Hence

there is no puncture in the header pipe. The mathematical

problem of the main shell with cut-out is a boundary value

problem of partial differential equation. It means that the

cylindrical shell equation, whose general solutions have many

unknown constants, is suitable on the shell surface with or

without cut-out. In order to determine the unknown constants

the boundary conditions have to be used.

we therefore get

d 4w

Z

+ 4 4 w =

4

H

dx

(3)

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:

P

Maximum Bending Moment =

, where P= load per unit

4

length of circumference.

Bending stress, bending =

1.17 P R

1.5

(4)

moment, M r . This is necessary because P is a line load

distributed around the circumference of the shell.

If a load Pr is divided by the attachment perimeter it becomes

Pr

for a nozzle of radius, rt . or a moment over section

2rt

Mr

modulus of the attachment becomes,

.

rt2

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 eq-(4)

Computation of loads in longitudinal and circumferential

directions by use of the following expressions:

longitudinal force = (longitudinal force x moment

arm)/ rt2

circumferential force = (circumferential force x moment

arm)/ rt2

radial force = radial load/ 2rt

equivalent circumferential force = 2 x circ. force + 1.5 x

radial force

equivalent longitudinal force = 1.5 x radial force +

longitudinal force

The above forces are used as P in eq-(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. Stress in the trunnion attachment is

F M

+

computed as

.

A S

2.1.1. The case of Pipe shoes:

Schematic arrangements for some pipe shoes are shown in

fig-(1). Dimension B stands for shoe/gusset width, G =

number of gussets, L = gusset spacing (this depends on the

design), S = number of spines, M = spine spacing, and A=

shoe length.

The approach taken for analysis of pipe shoes is similar to

that of trunnion type attachments. The computations of section

properties (few examples) are cited.

1. Pipe shoe with no gusset:

3

longitudinal moment of inertia = A

12

distance to centroid, longitudinally = A

moment of inertia, circumferential = A

distance to centroid = B

12

3

longitudinal moment of inertia = A

distance to centroid = A

12

+ 5 BL2

9

3

moment of inertia, circumferential = B

distance to centroid = B

Bijlaard applied the radial force system, qn instead of

vertical force system, qz . When subjected to a radial force

system the resultants not only include moments, M xb or M yb

but also force, Fyb . This will be statically equivalent to

external load Z involving force, Fzb , transverse bending

moment, M xb and longitudinal bending moment, M yb . The

3. Saddle:

3

moment of inertia, longitudinal = A

distance to centroid = A

+ BL

12

3

moment of inertia, circumferential = B

distance to centroid = B

In fig-3(a), the linearly distributed force system, qz is

statically equivalent to the transverse bending moment, M xb

but in fig-3(b), the linearly distributed force system, qn is

+ AB

and force, Fy as in fig-3(d).

the work of Bijlaard [34, 26, 2]

Bijlaard derived a theoretical solution based on

Timoshenko equations [1, 26] for a cylindrical shell on end

supports under a force system, qn linearly distributed over a

square region defined by c , c , where c =

in

2

the developed surface. In deriving the equations it has been

assumed that 0 = 0 (circumferential strain).

The force/moment system is shown in fig-(2) below

Fig-(3) [25]

qz = qn cos = qn 0

M x = 2c

cos , q y = qn sin = qn 0

sin

0

0

q z Rc sin d = 2c 2 R

qn 0

A-4 of WRC 107)

For the thin walled model, the measured circumferential

and longitudinal stresses were both higher than the computed

values. Modifications were then done to Bijlaard's original

work for both longitudinal and circumferential stresses for the

bending components (and for the circumferential stress, for the

membrane component also) but for longitudinal stresses there

was minimal requirement for correction of the membrane

component. Correction factor used was around 2.7 for bending

component of circumferential stress + 20-25% for membrane

component and correction factor of 2.72 was used for bending

component of longitudinal stress (no correction for membrane

component). It is stated in WRC-107 that the modified curves

may be more conservative than the original work.

Longitudinal Moment ( taken from A.3.3.2 and Table A-4

of WRC 107)

For the thin walled model, the measured circumferential

and longitudinal stresses were both higher than the computed

values. Corrections were made to both the Membrane and

Bending components. For the Longitudinal stress, no

correction was required for the Membrane component. Higher

modification was required for membrane component (30%)

compared to bending component (18%) for circumferential

stress. Correction factor used was 6.75 in bending component

of longitudinal stress (no correction for membrane component)

Radial Load ( taken from A.3.3.4 and Table A-6 of WRC107)

Results agreed well on the transverse axis but the

theoretical results were conservative by factors as high as 2.0

on the longitudinal axis.

(5)

cos sin d

0

(6)

Fy = 2c

q y c d = 2c 2

qn 0

sin d

0

(7)

displacements.

The limitations of Bijlaards approach are the d 0.3

D

and the usage of Double Fourier series method which may not

show convergence for certain boundary conditions [32, 26].

The limitation of d is due to the use of radial force instead

D

of vertical force. This results in significant error outside

aforementioned d

limit. The stresses are computed in 8

D

specific locations around the intersection. The maximum

stresses need not be at these locations! Additionally stresses in

Trunnion/Shoes cannot be computed. For rectangular

attachments, the limitation is 1 & 2 < 0.5 .

It is to be noted that WRC-107 is not only based on

Bijlaards theoretical work but also experimental works by

Mehrson, Wichman and Hopper [34]. The bulletin shows a

comparison of the calculated and measured stresses for both

thick walled models and thin walled models. Following were

the main issues between the Experimental works and

Bijlaards work for thin shells.

well for cases that are restricted by

dm

Dm

applicability of the thin shell theoretical solution for

cylindrical shells with cut-out, Xue et al adopted Morleys

equation [9], which has the same order of magnitude of

accuracy as the general thin shell theory, i.e. O T , instead

R

of Donnells. Morleys equation is expressed in complexvalued form by Simmonds [11] as follows:

Dm

2

T

( )

2.3 Approach 3: Post WRC-107 approaches WRC297 and works of Morley, Simmonds and Hwang et

al. [5, 33, 11, 16, 25]

Theory of thin elastic shells, in which T/R<<1 is

insignificant in magnitude is derived on the basis of LoveKirchhoff assumptions. A generally accepted fact is this

approach has an error of order of magnitude O T .

R

When a solution is derived by omitting some terms, which

has order of magnitude larger than O T

(such as

R

2

4

2

2

+ 4 i 2

( )

( )

( )

= 0

R

2

4 = 12 (1 2 )

T

4 2

= un + i

ETR

( )

( )

) from

R

Flgges equation [13]. This equation is quite simple and can

be expressed in complex-valued displacement-stress function

form (Lekkerkerker [15] and Steele [3]) as follows:

2

4

2

(11)

where, and are the same as in eq-(10) and (9). The right

hand side of eq-(11) is a load function dependent on the

surface force components acting on the shell.

The cylindrical thin shell equations derived by

Goldenveizer, Morley, Simmonds and Timoshenko (which

was used by Bijlaard) have the same inherent error in order of

magnitude O T . The solution has the order of accuracy

R

O T . WRC-297, which is based on Steeles work on

R

shallow shell equations covers a range of only

r sin < 0.5 .

R

6

For detailed analysis of the approach taken by Xue et al

refer [17, 31].

In essence, the approach taken is to use compatibility

conditions enforced on the geometrically correct curve of

intersection as opposed to an assumed curve of intersection

and using theories which are of order O T

which may or

R

may not involve using different shell theories for intersecting

cylinders.

To summarize, different cylindrical shell equations are

suitable to different ranges of the developed surface. Fig-(4)

below shows the different ranges of developed surface [25].

R

solution is bound to be lower. The detailed analysis of the

above-mentioned concept can be found in well-known

literature and textbooks of thin shell theory [6].

The exact equations for thin elastic cylindrical shells are

very complicated. For a problem of cylindrical shell with cutout [25], Donnell [8] presented an approximate equation

O

= P ( p , p , p )

( )

(8)

(9)

(10)

Eq-(8) can be decomposed into two second-order partial

differential equations and is easy to solve in polar coordinate

system for the problem of cylindrical shell with cut-out [25].

However, as pointed out by Koiter, eq-(8) can only be applied

for shallow shells. Koiter [7] had written, It has been noted

[9,14] that Donnells approximation is sometimes inaccurate

and the generalization of Donnells approximation is

applicable in the case of shallow shells in which the wave

length L of the deformation pattern on the middle surface is

always small compared with the minimum principal radius of

curvature R. Based on fig-6.14 in Donnells book [10], the

applicable range of shallow shell equation for the problem of

cylindrical shell with opening is only r sin = 0.5 .

R

6

The edge effects of general cylindrical shells and shallow

shells mathematically differ.

( )

not have an easy tool to compare the FE results against some

published benchmarks for d >0.5. In other words, as long as

D

we do not have analytical tools which are easily

implementable and which will address the problems to be

analyzed without having significant restrictions on geometry

and loading conditions, FE analysis should be the preferred

tool for analysis. The objective of this paper is to make an

analyst aware of the potential over conservatism and under

conservatism in the available and widely used methods if an

analyst is constrained to use them.

4.0 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS APPROACH TO THE

PROBLEM

[33] provides an excellent discussion on the issues

involving conflicts between shell theory and finite element

analysis of shells. To briefly summarize them:

Fig-(4) [25]

Donnel [10] showed that his shallow shell equations could

be suitable to the range of < < i.e. 0 < 0.5 . In

6

6

[15] Lekkerkerker showed that the shallow shell equations

could be applied to the range of 0 0.25 . The different

applicable ranges adopted by different authors are dependant

on different allowable intrinsic errors.

energies between membrane and bending modes.

Use of low degree polynomial trial functions in the

displacement finite element method generally leads to

overstiffness in the response to bending actions.

Difficulty in deriving trial functions for in-extensional

bending.

hybrid elements. In this paper, however, we have used only

displacement based finite element method.

Finite elements available for shell analysis can be broadly

classified into the following groups:

ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS:

1.

2.

3.

experimental findings like WRC 107/297 methods) are

extremely useful in addressing stress analysis issues of pipe

support attachments as they are available in almost all

commercial pipe stress codes and methods like Kellogg

method can easily be developed into spreadsheets. The

difficulty is of course the limited range of applicability of

these methods specially in relation to d ratio and for the

D

Kellog method , its main drawback is its mathematical

oversimplification of a problem, an issue which is not

negligible when the predominant form of the loading is

Radial. More advanced approaches as explained in section 2.3

of this paper have solved the problem up to d =0.8, but

D

these methods are yet not available in commercial pipe stress

codes or as WRC bulletins and it will be a while before they

will be available as handy tools for engineering applications.

Such methods can be used to validate numerical analysis

Elements based on basic shell mathematical model.

Elements based on combination of plate and membrane

elements.

feature of these elements is the number and variety of adhoc

assumptions made to accommodate the standard procedures of

finite element formulation. The variation of strain through

thickness isnt linear. Assumptions regarding dependence of

determinant of Jacobian Matrix in the direction of thickness

can lead to violation of rigid body properties [19].

Type-2 elements are usually not available in commercial

FE codes. They suffer from rigid body motion problems [18].

The element S8R is ABAQUS is however close to these

elements as discussed in [18].

To explain the meaning of the term Basic Shell Mathematical

mode, we briefly describe the derivation of the governing shell

equations using the tensor approach which involves the

following steps [22]:

Fundamental assumption of the shell theory based on LoveKirchoff hypothesis and zero strain in the through thickness

direction.

Expressing the base vectors of a surface located off middle

surface i.e. a general surface in terms of the base vectors of

the middle surface (both covariant and contra-variant

versions).

Expressing the metric tensor of a surface located off

middle surface in terms of the metric tensor (both

covariant and contra-variant versions) of the middle

surface.

Expressing the rotation vector.

Expressing the Cristoffel symbols and permutation

tensors (Levi-Cevita tensors) of the surface located off

the middle surface in terms of the corresponding tensors

of the middle surface.

Expressing the strain tensors of a surface located off

middle surface in terms of the strain tensor of the middle

surface (both covariant and contra-variant versions).

Strain tensors are expressed as the difference between

metric tensors and curvature tensors in the deformed and

un-deformed states

Writing expression for stress and moment resultants.

Using appropriate constitutive relations.

quadratic variation of rotation (accurate representation of plate

bending because of linear curvature variation) and analytical

implementation of Kirchoff constraint at locations (DKT or

Discrete Kirchoff element).

STRI65 - Small Strain Triangular Element with 6 nodes and

Kirchoff constraint imposed numerically at points.

S8R- 8-node reduced integration element for small strain

formulation. This element has similarity with the Basic Shell

mathematical model as described in [18], although they are

not the same, the main difference being the use of Mindlin

hypothesis. This element is susceptible to element distortion.

The Hexagonal element used is a 20-node reduced integration

element. The method of analysis is Linear Elastic following

the Elastic Stress Classification Route of [28].

The issue of classification of the FE computed stresses on

the lines of [28] has been dealt with in numerous papers 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

[28]. 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.

FE convergence theorems are in L2 or H 1 norms which are

difficult to implement when the exact solution is not shown

and in this presentation 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

becoming cruder. Stresses are checked at Gauss points for

accuracy and un-averaged. 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 four elements have been used through the

thickness at and close to intersections. The objective of the FE

analysis wasnt to catch the peak stresses which are used for

fatigue evaluation, because once the Pl + Pb + Q stresses are

computed, the fatigue stresses can easily be computed using

Fatigue Strength Reduction Factors (FSRF) [28]. The results

of the analysis can then be extended to compute

Pl + Pb + Q + F in a straightforward manner. [27] shows that

modeling of welds to properly simulate joint stiffness does not

have serious impact on the computed stresses and hence,

welds are not part of the models. FSRF can be avoided if

Dongs method [28] is used. However, this requires special

post processing ability of the FE Code. If welds are modeled,

Element implementation, the interpolation of the shell

geometry is accomplished using the Iso-parametric procedure.

Covariant and Contra-variant base vectors of the interpolated

surface are computed using the usual finite element

interpolation procedures and the First Fundamental form, the

Second Fundamental form and the Christoffel symbols are

then computed from these base vectors. In the Type-2

elements as described in [18], the normal vector is calculated

normal to the interpolated middle surface, although the normal

vectors at the nodal points are exactly normal to the middle

surface.

For a discussion on type-3 elements any standard text

book on FEM can be referred [19].

The FE code used for the analysis is ABAQUS ver. 6.9-1.

The ABAQUS element library [20] for shells is divided into

three categories consisting of general-purpose, thin, and thick

shell elements. Thin shell elements provide solutions to shell

problems that are adequately described by classical

(Kirchhoff) shell theory; thick shell elements yield solutions

for structures that are best modeled by shear flexible (Mindlin)

shell theory; and general purpose shell elements can provide

solutions to both thin and thick shell problems. All these

elements use bending strain measures that are approximations

of those of Koiter-Sanders version of shell theory [12].

For stress analysis, the following elements from

ABAQUS library have been used.

though it is a singularity) linearization at the stress

classification line (SCL) as explained by Kalnins [29]. The

only issue with this procedure is the through thickness stress

component.

To avoid end effect, the location of the trunnion has been

taken as 5D [24] i.e. five times the Outside Diameter of the

Header Pipe 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 selected in the quadrilateral and brick versions to

avoid shear locking. References [35, 24] provide excellent

guideline on modeling of Large Diameter Cylinder

intersections.

Table-1 (Contd)

5.0 RESULTS

both. Magnitude of Force = 10KN, length of trunnion = 100

mm, d = 0.84 , t = 1

D

T

Radial

Force

Longitudinal

force

Circumferential

force

(STRI3) Cylinder

(STRI3) Trunnion

13

(STRI65) Cylinder

(STRI65) Trunnion

13

FEA continuum

element Cylinder

FEA continuum

element Trunnion

12

Loading Type

Table-2

Pb + Pl + Q category and are in N/mm2. Only maximum Von

Mises equivalent stress values are shown. For continuum

elements, stresses have been Linearized using [28] as a

guideline. For tables 1-5 the applied loadings are at the end of

the Trunnion which makes it a Shear Force + Bending

Moment at the Shell-Nozzle interface for the Longitudinal and

Circumferential Force applications.. Pressure is not a part of

the loadings in Tables 1-5. For WRC-107 and WRC-297

computations, code FE-107 has been used.

Radial

Force

Longitudinal

force

Circumferential

force

45

12

NA

NA

NA

51

16

56

16

Kellogg Cylinder

Kellogg Trunnion

0.5

0.2

0.2

Loading Type

Table-1

30 inch header, 24 inch trunnion, wall thickness = 9.52 mm for

both. Magnitude of Force = 10KN, length of trunnion = 100

mm, d = 0.8 , t = 1 :

D

T

Radial

Force

Longitudinal

force

Circumferential

force

(S8R) Cylinder

21

45

16

(S8R) Trunnion

15

NA

NA

NA

(STRI3) Cylinder

17

50

22

(STRI3) Trunnion

11

54

20

(STRI65) Cylinder

20

Kellogg Cylinder

(STRI65) Trunnion

14

Kellogg Trunnion

0.6

0.4

0.4

FEA continuum

element Cylinder

19

(S8R) Cylinder

10

FEA continuum

element Trunnion

15

(S8R) Trunnion

15

Loading Type

Table 3

Table 4 (Contd.)

mm for header; and 6.35 mm for trunnion. Magnitude of Force

= 10KN, length of trunnion =100 mm, d = 0.34 ,

D

t = 0.67 :

T

Radial

Force

Longitudinal

force

Circumferential

force

WRC 297

Trunnion

90

13

44

Kellogg Cylinder

Loading Type

Radial

Force

Longitudinal

force

Circumferential

force

Kellogg Trunnion

48

10

31

(S8R) Cylinder

19

10

NA

NA

NA

(S8R) Trunnion

20

54

30

41

(STRI3) Cylinder

17

103

30

75

(STRI3) Trunnion

19

Kellogg Cylinder

15

11

22

(STRI65) Cylinder

19

10

Kellogg Trunnion

(STRI65) Trunnion

20

(S8R) Cylinder

46

16

29

FEA continuum

element Cylinder

17

11

(S8R) Trunnion

48

16

31

FEA continuum

element Trunnion

19

(STRI3) Cylinder

42

14

26

(STRI3) Trunnion

43

15

27

(STRI65) Cylinder

45

16

28

(STRI65) Trunnion

47

15

30

FEA continuum

element Cylinder

44

13

27

Loading Type

FEA continuum

element Trunnion

46

14

29

Loading Type

Table 5

24 inch header, 8 inch trunnion, and wall thickness = 9.52 mm

for header and 8.18 mm for trunnion. Magnitude of Force =

10KN, length of trunnion = 100 mm, d = 0.36 , t = 0.86 :

D

T

Table 4

24 inch header, 20 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 = 0.84 ,

D

t = 0.67 :

T

Radial

Force

Longitudinal

force

Circumferential

force

47

21

53

NA

NA

NA

69

31

77

74

34

78

Kellogg Cylinder

16

20

40

Kellogg Trunnion

Radial

Force

Longitudinal

force

Circumferential

force

(S8R) Cylinder

48

26

46

44

20

(S8R) Trunnion

43

21

43

WRC 107

Trunnion

NA

NA

NA

(STRI3) Cylinder

44

22

40

44

23

(STRI3) Trunnion

38

19

36

Loading Type

10

44

22

40

(STRI65) Trunnion

39

19

37

FEA continuum

element Cylinder

46

24

44

FEA continuum

element Trunnion

41

19

43

moments at the Shell-Nozzle Interface as opposed to at the

end of the Trunnion in Tables 1-5. Pressure is not a part of the

Loading.

Table 6

Circumferential

moment

(STRI65) Cylinder

Longitudinal

moment

Circumferential

force

Shear Force

(Circumferential)

Longitudinal

force

Shear Force

(Longitudinal)

Radial

Force

Loading Type

Radial Force

for header and 8.18 mm for trunnion. Magnitude of Force =

10KN, length of trunnion = 100 mm, d = 0.36 , t = 0.86 :

D

T

Torsional Moment

Table 6 (Contd)

Loading Type

Table 5 (Contd)

FEA shell

element

(STRI65)

Cylinder

47

10

20

106

361

FEA shell

element

(STRI65)

Trunnion

45

23

104

402

FEA

continuum

element

Cylinder

44

18

106

360

FEA

continuum

element

Trunnion

47

20

104

398

and radial directions = 10KN (applied together), pressure =

18.9Barg.

and 6.35mm for header and trunnion respectively. Loads

applied at shell nozzle interface, Moment=10KN-m and

Force=10KN. d = 0.34 , t = 0.67

D

T

added as a radial load at the trunnion attachment.

WRC 107

Cylinder

48

13

99

310

WRC 107

Trunnion

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

WRC 297

Cylinder

54

13

153

413

WRC 297

Trunnion

FEA shell

element (S8R)

Cylinder

both (results shown for maximum Pb + Pl + Q in MPa)

Circumferential

moment

Longitudinal

moment

Torsional Moment

Shear Force

(Circumferential)

Shear Force

(Longitudinal)

Radial Force

Loading Type

Table 7

258

NA

Kellogg Cylinder

87

Kellogg Trunnion

103

46

10

19

21

295

108

752

363

FEA shell

element (S8R)

Trunnion

48

FEA shell

element

(STRI3)

Cylinder

46

21

106

359

FEA shell

element

(STRI3)

Trunnion

46

24

103

403

23

105

401

11

121

63

120

59

125

66

126

70

Table 8

Table 10

both (results shown for maximum Pb + Pl + Q in MPa)

WRC 107 Cylinder

307

NA

Kellogg Cylinder

100

Kellogg Trunnion

0.8

146

75

143

to 3-gusset, A=450, B=500, shoe plate thickness = 10 mm, L =

350 mm (refer fig-1); magnitude of load = 40KN. Pressure is

not applied. 1 = 0.56 , 2 = 0.49

Radial

Force

Longitudinal

Force

Circumferential

Force

181

18

61

Kellogg Cylinder

30

18

40

Loading Type

Kellogg Shoe

75

20

36

76

Cylinder

145

77

30

32

76

82

18

35

148

Cylinder

74

Shoe

82

18

35

Table 9

Cylinder

75

22

37

header and 6.35 mm for Trunnion (results shown for

maximum Pb + Pl + Q in Mpa)

Shoe

80

30

33

Cylinder

81

24

33

78

35

32

321

NA

Kellogg Cylinder

100

Kellogg Trunnion

0.8

157

Table 11

30 Pipe, wall thickness 9.52 mm, Shoe design corresponds to

3 Gusset, A=450, B=500, Shoe plate thickness=10 mm, L=350

mm (refer fig-1), Magnitude of load=40KN. Pressure is not

applied. 1 = 0.67 , 2 = 0.60

108

155

102

Loading Type

159

98

154

103

singularities have not been considered)

Note: WRC-107 method has been used even though in most

cases 1 , 2 are above the allowable limit. So far Pipe Shoes

are concerned, the typically used dimensions render them

unsuitable for use of WRC-107. Despite this fact, the author in

his experience has seen its usage for computation of local

stresses at Shoe Attachments and its use is mostly due to

availability of this module in most common pipe stress

programmes. For the WRC 107 computation of Pipe Shoes,

the geometry of the attachment has been considered as

Rectangular solid. Pipe Stress Program CAESAR II Version

5.2 has been used for this purpose. For Tables 10, 11 and 12,

2c1=500 mm and 2c2=450 mm.

12

Radial

Force

Longitudinal

Force

Circumferential

Force

173

21

63

Kellogg Cylinder

27

17

38

Kellogg Shoe

Cylinder

60

15

18

80

22

12

Cylinder

62

14

18

Shoe

75

22

13

Cylinder

60

14

20

Shoe

82

22

14

Cylinder

63

18

25

82

20

16

Table 12

to 3-gusset, A=450, B=500, shoe plate thickness = 10 mm, L =

350 mm (refer fig-1); magnitude of load = 40KN. Pressure is

not applied. 1 = 0.84 , 2 = 0.75

WRC 107 Cylinder

312

NA

Kellogg Cylinder

161

Radial

Force

Longitudinal

Force

Circumferential

Force

174

23

65

Kellogg Cylinder

24

15

34

115

Kellogg Shoe

131

Cylinder

35

12

22

Loading Type

73

22

10

Cylinder

34

12

22

Kellogg Shoe

12

126

118

128

113

132

119

Shoe

50

22

10

Cylinder

35

13

22

Shoe

53

17

10

298

Cylinder

39

15

24

NA

57

21

13

Kellogg Cylinder

136

Kellogg Shoe

12

80

85

84

89

82

83

24 header, wall thickness = 9.52 mm

and radial directions = 40KN( applied together), pressure =

18.9 barg. Pressure has been applied but not as radial thrust

load.

Table 13 (results shown for maximum Pb + Pl + Q in MPa)

36 header, wall thickness = 9.52 mm

WRC 107 Cylinder

330

88

NA

92

Kellogg Cylinder

186

Kellogg Shoe

12

180

155

184

156

182

153

188

159

13

FUTURE WORK

Significant differences exist for the Circumferential loading

case also. For both Trunnion and Pipe Shoes, for some cases ,

specially for the Radial Load scenario, stresses in the

shoes/Trunnion elements exceed stresses in the cylinder

which clearly shows the risk of using the Kellogg method for

computing stresses in the Pipe support attachments. A point to

note is that, the method of computing stresses in the Pipe

supports cannot be technically stated as Kellogg Method as

[4] only discusses computation of local stresses in the

Cylinder. The context of using the term Kellogg method for

the method of computing stresses in attachments is due the

fact that this computation based on elementary beam theory is

an essential feature ( in authors experience) of the

spreadsheets which use the Kellogg method to compute Local

stresses in the Cylinder. Hence the caution is using elementary

beam theory analysis for computation of local stresses in

Attachments. Significant differences in results have not been

seen in Finite element approach using different element types.

This however should not be taken as a blanket statement as the

models had proper mesh grading with adequately small

element size and the element distortion control was well

within the recommended limits of the FE code. For improper

mesh grading, element size, significantly distorted elements

and improper integration methods, significant differences in

results can be seen between the elements, especially for

Triangular elements which suffer from geometric anisotropy.

The stress analyst should carefully study the theory manual of

the FE code which he/she should be using with respect to

applicability, element distortion and integration rules.

Tables 1,2,4 show that WRC 107 and WRC 297 results

show significant differences with respect to FE results for the

radial load case. This is because of the high d ratio and

D

radial as opposed to vertical load representation of the same in

WRC 107 as explained in section 2.2 of this paper. Tables 3, 5

and 6 show that the results are comparable (even for the

Radial load case) indicating the criticality of the d factor in

D

WRC 107/297 approaches. For the Kellogg Method, the

significant difference is for the radial load case. This is

because of the basis of the method being axi-symmetrical ring

loading which significantly deviates from the actual

mathematical model in the radial load situation. The Kellogg

method also underestimates the stresses in the Trunnion. This

is due to the use of simple beam theory as opposed to shell

theory and the non-consideration of the compatibility

requirement between the header pipe and the Trunnion in this

method. Kellogg method also in most (but not all) cases

predicts lower magnitude of stresses in the Longitudinal and

Circumferential Force applications. However the allowable

stresses in the Kellogg method as long as they are specified as

the [28] allowable for local primary stress, the error will not in

general make the analysis non-conservative except for the

Radial Load scenario. For Tables 7, 8 and 9 which are for the

combined load scenario, WRC 107 results show significantly

higher magnitudes of Pb + Pl + Q with respect to FEA. Even

though the Pressure loading has not been modeled as a Radial

loading for these Tables, which would have resulted in even

higher magnitudes of Pb + Pl + Q if the direction of this load

would have been in the same direction as the additive radial

load, but the simplistic way of computing pressure stresses

also (as in Tables 7, 8 and 9) induces higher stresses in the

WRC 107 type of analysis. Pressure induced loading at a

cylinder to cylinder interface with or without other external

loadings is complicated and WRC 107 analysis which

considers the loading on the cylindrical surface as a

rectangular loading cannot predict the stresses correctly and

will err on the conservative side for most cases. WRC 107

/297 analysis has shown lower magnitudes of Stress for Shear

Forces and Torsion moments (Table 6 where the loadings have

been applied at the Shell-Nozzle Interface) with respect to

FEA. However, these loadings, in general are not the

governing loads in piping applications. When using WRC107/297 modules of a Pipe Stress Program, an analyst should

review the program document to see how pressure is modeled

in these modules.

combinations with varying magnitudes of the individual load

vectors to quantify the degree of over or under conservatism

of the available analytical methods. The present analysis

mainly focuses on the stand alone effect of individual load

vectors (although Tables 7-9 as well as Tables 13-15 does

address combinations but more tests need to be done with

varying magnitudes of the individual load vectors) . Effect of

variance in mesh grading and element size should be checked

to assist an analyst in selection of the best element for these

applications, if an analyst so desires. In the present scope of

work, the use of proper mesh grading, element size and

integration rules have ironed out significant differences

between the individual elements. Hence, the take away

message for an analyst with respect to individual element

types is, as long as mesh grading , element size, distortion

control and integration rules are properly used, there are no

preferred elements , although the analyst should carefully read

the Theory manual of the FE code which he/she intends to use.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS:

of variance in results between FEA and WRC 107/297 is most

significant with respect to radial loads. The reason can still be

attributed to the d even though in case of the shoe

D

dimension d is strictly not applicable but the dimension of

the order of magnitude of error inherent in that theory and its

14

with reference to d and D ratios.

D

T

pressurized for Pipe support applications where by branch

we mean the Trunnion.

based on the theoretical considerations that form the basis of

their developments, with elements based on basic shell

mathematical model being least popular because of the

problem of addressing rigid body motion. Commercial FE

codes should be having Hybrid elements in the element library

for shell applications.

paper has been referenced to as Kellogg method) has been

historically the most popular method for analyzing both

cylindrical and non-cylindrical attachments.

4. WRC-107 method which is based on Timoshenko equations

has the same error O T

as Morley, Simmonds and

R

Goldenveizer equations. WRC-107 results may be more or

less conservative than FE results. Results are generally overly

conservative for d > 0.5 . The analysis results show that in

D

some cases but not all (generally computation as per Kellogg

method has shown lower magnitude of stresses with respect to

WRC 107 or FE analysis), Kellogg method significantly

underestimates the stresses in Trunnion and Pipe Shoes. Hence

it is recommended that this method should not be used and

hence should not be used for evaluating stresses in Pipe

supports. A point to note is, the method as at appears in [4]

addresses only the local stresses at the cylinder, so the

evaluation of stresses in attachments cannot technically be

addressed as Kellogg method, rather calculation based on

elementary beam theory. It is against this later which, the

author in his experience has seen as widely used in the

Industry as part of the spreadsheets based on Kellogg

method is what this caution is directed at.

( )

on shell theory to work within the constraint of finite element

formulation. Assumptions regarding the mathematical form of

dependence of the determinant of the Jacobian Matrix on the

thickness direction coordinate can lead to violation of rigid

body properties.

10. Not much difference has been found in results using 8node reduced integration shell element developed on the line

of Mindlin hypothesis, triangular elements based on discrete

Kirchoff constraints (imposed analytically or numerically) and

use of solid elements for circular attachments. Stresses at

locations of singularity have to be carefully addressed [29].

The pattern of results i.e. relative invariance with respect to

element types need not be always correct depending on the

D

ratio, element distortion, element size and use of

T

alternate numerical integration rules. In general, as long as

thin shell theory is valid and reduced integration rule is used

for shear flexible elements, with proper mesh grading and

keeping the element size at the intersection region

significantly less than rt , type of element is usually not a

significant parameter. Stress Analyst should carefully review

the Technical Manual(s) of FE Code for the capabilities and

limitations of the available elements from the element library.

analysis of local stresses on the pipe at support locations, the

allowable stress should not be exceeded beyond the allowable

for local primary stresses as per [28].

6. WRC-297 method is based on shallow shell theory and the

order of magnitude in error is due to omission of some terms

which are of the order O

( T R)

D

implementation is required not only because the available

methods like WRC107/297 etc are inadequate for such

applications but also as a tool to properly benchmark the FE

results. Till such time, FE models will continue to be

benchmarked against WRC 107 type of analysis for similar

loading within the limits of the applicable geometry.

most of the cases analyzed. Use of WRC 297 for Pipe support

attachments is not recommended.

7. When comparing results between an analytical and FE

approach, it is best to check the model 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 WRC107/297 does 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-

12. Additional tests need to be done for Pipe Shoes for varying

effects of D and combined loadings. In authors opinion it

T

is futile to expect usability of WRC-107 for shoe attachments,

as based on typical dimensions of Pipe Shoes, these geometric

parameters will in most cases be not satisfied.

13. WRC 107 /297 analysis has shown lower magnitudes of

Stress for Shear Forces and Torsion moments (Table 6 where

the loadings have been applied at the Shell-Nozzle Interface)

with respect to FEA. However, these loadings, in general are

not the governing factors in piping applications.

15

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

[17]

Tsinghua University, Department of Engineering Mechanics

for providing some valuable suggestions and document

references and for answering some questions on her paper. The

author also wants to thank Dr.Subrata Saha of Reliance

Industries Ltd India, Mr. Suraj Kunder of Costain UK and excolleague and friend Mr.Arijit Chatterjee for providing

valuable guideline and suggestions.

[18]

[19]

REFERENCES

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[20]

Timoshenko, S: 1940, Theory of plates and shells, MCGraw Hill, New York

Bijlaard, P.P., 1955, Stresses from Radial loads and

External moments in Cylindrical pressure vessels,

Welding Journal, Miami, FL, US Vol. 34

Steele, C.R and Steele, M.L.M 1983, Stress analysis of

Nozzle in Cylindrical vessels with external Load,

ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 105

M.W.Kellogg Company,2011,Design of Piping

Systems

Mehrson, J.L, Mokhtarian, K., Ranjan, G.V and

Rodabaugh, E.C., 1984, Local Stresses in Cylindrical

Shells due to External Loadings on Nozzle Supplement

to WRC bulletin 107WRC Bulletin No. 297

Goldenveizer A.L., 1961, Theory of Elastic Thin shells,

Pergamon, Oxford,

Koiter, W.T, 1959. A Consistent First Approximation

in the General Theory of Elastic Shells, Proceedings of

the Symposium on the Theory of Thin Elastic Shells,

Delft, the Netherlands, W.T.Koiter ed., North-Holland,

Amsterdam.

Donnell, L.H., 1933, Stability of Thin Walled Tubes

under Torsion, NACA Report No. 479

Morley, L.S.D., 1959, An Improvement on Donnells

Approximations for Thin walled Circular Cylinders,

Q.J.Mech., Appl. Math., Vol. 12

Donnell, L.H, 1976, Beams, Plates and Shells, McGraw -Hill, New York, Chapter 6

Simmonds , J.G., 1966, A Set of Accurate Equations for

Circular Cylindrical Elastic Shells, ,Int. J. Solids

Structure., Vol. 2,

Budiansky,B and Sanders , J.L, 1963, On the best first

First Order Linear Shell Theory, Progress in Applied

Mechanics (The Prager Anniversary Volume),

Macmillan, London.

Flugge, W.1967, Stresses in Shells, Springer, Berlin.

Hoff, N.J., 1955, The accuracy of Donnells equations

J.Appl. Mech Vol. 22

Lekkerkerker, J.G., 1972. The Determination of Elastic

Stresses near Cylinder-to-Cylinder Intersection. Nuclear

Eng. Des., Volume 20.

Xue, M.D., Du, Q.H., Li, D.F. and Hwang, K.C., 2006.

Theoretical Stress Analysis of Intersecting Cylindrical

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

16

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 128.

Ming-De Xue, Qing-Hai Du, Keh-Chih Hwang, ZhiHai Xiang, 2010, An analytical method for cylindrical

shells with nozzles due to internal pressure and external

loads Part ITheoretical foundation; ASME Journal

of Pressure Vessel Technology Vol 132

Bathe, K.J.,Lee, P.S., 2005, Insight into finite element

shell discretizations by use of the basic shell

mathematical model Computers and Structures Vol. 83

Mac Neal, R.H., Finite Elements their design and

performance, Marcel-Dekker, NY.

Theory Manual ABAQUS, a product of Dassault

Systems, SA.

Mollman, M, 1981, Introduction to the Theory of Thin

Shells, Wiley-Blackwell.

Flugge, W., Tensor analysis and Continuum Mechanics,

Springer, Berlin.

Chen., M.W.L.Y., Li, J.G., 2000, A two step approach of

Stress Classification and Primary Structure Method.

Trans ASME Vol. 122

Xue,L.,Widera, G.E.O.,Sang, Zhifu., Feb. 2006,

Flexibility Factors for Branch Pipe Connections

subjected to in-plane and out of plane moments ,Journal

of Pressure Vessel Technology

Private communication, Professor M.D.Xue of

Tsinghua University, Peoples Republic of China.

Bhattacharya A, 2012, A Comparison of Simple

Analytical Methods for evaluating local Stresses at Pipe

Supports with Finite Element Analysis results

NAFEMS UK Conference 2012.

Bhattacharya A, 2011, A Finite Element based Study on

Stress Intensification Factors (SIF) for reinforced

Fabricated Tees NAFEMS World Congress Boston

2011

ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel code, Sec VIII Div2

(2007 Edition), ASME Publication

Kalnins, A, 2008, Stress Classification Lines Straight

through Singularities ASME PVP Conference, Chicago,

ILL, USA

Bathe, K.J., Chapelle, D., 2010, Finite Element

Analysis of Shells Fundamentals, Springer.

Xue, M.D., Li, D.F., Hwang, K.C, 2005, A Thin Shell

Theoretical Solution for Two Intersecting Cylindrical

Shells Due to External Branch Pipe Moments ASME

Journal of PVT Vol. 127

Wong, F.M.G, 1984, Stresses and Flexibilities for

Pressure Vessel Attachments. Dissertation thesis for

Master of Science in Nuclear Engineering.

Morley, L.S.D, Morris, A.J.1978, Conflict between

Finite Elements and Shell Theory, Paper presented at

Second World Congress on Finite Element Methods,

Bournemouth, UK.

Wichman, K.R., Hooper, A.G., Mehrson, J.L., Stresses

in Spherical Shells due to External Loadings, Welding

Research Council Bulletin No. 107.

[35]

2006, Large Diameter Shell Intersections, Welding

Research Council Bulletin No. 497.

17

- Rebar Interface with concreteDiunggah olehjack21ab
- Fe-safe User GuideDiunggah olehHadinoorizadegan
- ASME_PTB-5-2013_cont_0101Diunggah olehpouya_ms
- ASME Section III CODe comparsionDiunggah olehpvssrh9929
- Normal Forces and BMDiunggah olehpropone
- PTB-7-2014.pdfDiunggah olehLuisMedina
- BEAMCOL13Diunggah olehDwi Hermawan
- CP 116 (1965), Precast Concrete Code of PracticeDiunggah olehHugh Jennings
- Solid Mechanics_S. M. A. Kazimi.pdfDiunggah olehAyush Narayan
- HW 1 EMA 405Diunggah olehMeng X Xiong
- PSC Girder 23.75Diunggah olehras_deep
- 109 - Load Capacity Rating of an Existing Curved Steel Box Girder Bridge Through Field TestDiunggah olehkhamis
- Mathematics and MicroeconomicsDiunggah olehCatalin
- Real Life Examples in a Solid Mechanics CourseDiunggah olehdeathjester1
- Crack width calculation to BS 8007 for combined flexure and direct tension 2002.pdfDiunggah olehBinSayeed
- Mathcad - 4_75tDiunggah olehsere
- AQE(7.782)Diunggah olehP Allen Samuel Ignatius
- Design of Slab CulvertDiunggah olehAnonymous jyWsSbKCz8
- View ContentDiunggah olehKing1971
- Strength of Materials Qb 2015Diunggah olehsmg26thmay
- Tutorial 2.2 Twpv FeaDiunggah olehZahid Jiwa
- Hertz Pressure is the Contact Pressure Between the Roller and the TireDiunggah olehsufferingpete
- ABS- Guidance for FE AnalysisDiunggah olehogio
- Introduction to Machine Design_EDITEDDiunggah olehVenkatesh Gangadhar
- 9A01401 Strength of Materials - IIDiunggah olehsivabharathamurthy
- MECHANICS OF SOLIDS.pdfDiunggah olehjeelani
- SEM 2 20172018 Students Assignment Group DAM 21003Diunggah olehsilent sprits
- 00030Diunggah olehtheodorebayu
- 7315042Diunggah olehJay Patel
- Stress Analysis SummaryDiunggah olehMohammed Taher

- Graph Analysis Report - Template for DheyaDiunggah olehChristopher Brown
- hand railDiunggah olehChristopher Brown
- pss_dynamically stressed pipe supports.pdfDiunggah olehChristopher Brown
- 8 Project Quality TermsDiunggah olehChristopher Brown
- AISC MembersDiunggah olehAvinash Pathania
- Conflict ManagementDiunggah olehpearl6988
- 8 Project Quality TermsDiunggah olehkelmonroe
- 07QX564B-IPCS Labor Report-25May18.xlsxDiunggah olehChristopher Brown
- Lockhart-Martinelli.xlsxDiunggah olehChristopher Brown
- 21 Map Out the ITTOsDiunggah olehChristopher Brown
- PS-HPDiunggah olehWon Jang
- 02 - Heat ExchangersDiunggah olehDana Guerrero
- 01 - Fluid FlowDiunggah olehlouay
- Win Win NegotiationDiunggah olehChristopher Brown
- Carbon Calculator v3 2Diunggah olehChristopher Brown
- Jacobs Sustainability Plus Presentation ER and NR Rev 1Diunggah olehChristopher Brown
- Travel GuideDiunggah olehChristopher Brown
- Bp-lime Tree ScheduleDiunggah olehChristopher Brown
- Sweta SharemaDiunggah olehChristopher Brown
- Heat_Exchanger_-sodium-silicate.xlsxDiunggah olehChristopher Brown
- fao-roar.xlsxDiunggah olehChristopher Brown
- St. Louis Office (1)Diunggah olehChristopher Brown
- club 07.xlsxDiunggah olehChristopher Brown
- fao-roar.xlsxDiunggah olehChristopher Brown
- fao-roarDiunggah olehChristopher Brown
- PathikDiunggah olehChristopher Brown

- Laplace's EquationDiunggah olehJose Luis Condori
- Production Planning MSPDiunggah olehbatman92
- Assignment Set bDiunggah olehAkmalHelmy
- Galois Theory.pdfDiunggah olehP_lee
- Associated Laguerre PolynomialsDiunggah olehScottCracer
- Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics (Volume 2, 2nd Edition) [PDF]Diunggah olehhascribd
- Seminar PptDiunggah olehlakshmipriya94
- Gaussian QuadDiunggah olehchikukotwal
- EXISTENCE AND OSCILLATION OF SOLUTIONS OF NONLINEAR SECOND ORDER DELAY IMPULSIVE INITIAL-BOUNDARY VALUE PROBLEM CONTAINING ”MAXIMUM”Diunggah olehOyelami Benjamin Oyediran
- 2015 Extension 2 Task 1 SGHSDiunggah olehmeme
- ItoIntegralNewDiunggah olehcrovaxIII
- CLASS_XDiunggah olehAdarsh Raj
- Dynamic ProgrammingDiunggah olehVeronica Forchino
- XII Phy Ch1 Electric Charges and Fields Chapter Notes JulyDiunggah olehAakriti Goel
- The life and work of Fergus Gaines (1939–2001)Diunggah olehgylpm
- Cotsakis, Gibbons - Mathematical and Quantum Aspects of Relativity and CosmologyDiunggah olehapi-3835172
- Asymptotic NotationDiunggah olehFitriyah Sulistiowati
- Mathematical Methods For Physicists Webber and Arfken Selected Solutions Ch. 5Diunggah olehJosh Brewer
- Rotation MatrixDiunggah olehchessgeneral
- Cantor ProbabilityDiunggah olehSDS adad
- My presentation on CalculusDiunggah olehOsisiogu Ukachi
- 159258080-CXC-MATHS-Formula-Sheet.docDiunggah olehSeleneGoberdhan
- [Ivor Horton] Beginning C From Novice to Professi(Ben-ok.org)Diunggah olehCi
- Electricity and Magnetism II - Jackson Homework 2Diunggah olehAle Gomez
- Pa Spcs TablesDiunggah olehYon Alfonso Tavera
- Burkard Rainer E., Dell'Amico Mauro, Martello Silvano - Assignment Problems (2009, Wiley)Diunggah olehMax Neves
- IntegrationDiunggah olehSabith Gassali
- classbfs121001505899211.pdfDiunggah olehMësày Sâtâ
- 2461059 Computer Vision Solution ManualDiunggah olehChoi SeongJun
- StatDiunggah olehmusaab_zeeshan