362 Practices in Elevated Temperature Design: A Compendium of Breeded Reactor Experiences (1970-1987) Volume I-Current Status and Future Direc-
tions. Edited by A. K. Dhalla. April 1991.
363 Recommended Practices in Elevated Temperature Design: A Compendium of Breeder Reactor Experiences (1970-1987) Volume Il-Preliminary
Design and Simplified Methods, Edlted by A. K. Dhalla, May 1991.
364 (1) New Design Curves for Torispherical Heads, by A. Kalnins and D. P. Updike, (2) Elastic-Plastic Analysis of Shells of Revolution Under Axisymmetric
Loading, D. P. Updike and A. Kalnlns,June 1991.
365 Recommended Practices in Elevated Temperature Design: A Compendium of Breeder Reactor Experiences (1970-1987) Volume Ill-Inelastic
Analysis, Edited by A. K. Dhalla, July 1991.
366 Recommended Practices in Elevated Temperature Design: A Compendium of Breeder Reactor Experiences (1970-1987) Volume IV-Special Topics,
Edited by A. K. Dhalla. Auyust 1991.
367 Basis of Current Dynamic Stress Criteria for Piping, by G. C. Slayis, September 1991
368 Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure, by K. Mokhatarian and J. S. End~cott. November 1991.
369 Nitrogen in Arc Welding-A Review, by IIW Commission II, December 1991/January1992.
370 Recommendations Proposed by the PVRC Committee on Review of ASME Nuclear Codes and Standards. February 1992.
371 Characterization of the PWHT Behavior of 500 Nlmm2Class TMCP Steels, by Japan Pressure Vessel Research Counc~l.Apr~l1992.
372 Guidelines for Flow-Induced Vibration Prevention in Heat Exchangers, by J. B. Sand~fer. May 1992.
373 Research on Modem High Strength Low Alloy Steel Welding, June 1992.
374 Papers Presented at the Conference on "Life of Pressure Vessels" Held by the French AFlAP in 1989, July/Auyust 1992.
375 The Significance of the a/W Ratio on Fracture Toughness of a A-36 Steel, by R. A. Whorley and S. T. Rolfe. September 1992.
376 Metal Fatigue in Operating Nuclear Power Plants, prepared by ASME Sectlon XI Task Group on Fatigue in Operating Plants. November 1992
377 Development of Test Procedures for Fire Resistance Qualification of Gaskets, by M. Derenne. J. R. Payne. L Marchand and A Bazergu~, December 1092
378 Review and Evaluation of the Toughness of Austenitic Steels and Nickel Alloys Afler Long-Term Elevated Temperature Exposures. by S. Yukai;a.
January 1993.
379 Alternative Methods for Seismic Analysis of Piping Systems, February 1993.
380 Recommendations to ASME for Code Guidelines and Criteria for Continued Operation of Equipment, A p r ~:?33.
381 Non-identical Flanges With Full-Face Elastic Gaskets, by A. E. Blach. May 1993.
382 Nuclear Piping Criteria for Advanced Light-Water Reactors, Volume I-Failure Mechanisms and Corrective Actions, June 1993.
383 Non-destructive Measurement and Analysis of Residual Stress in and around Welds-A State of the Art Survey, July 1993.
384 Improving Steel Spot Weld Fatigue Resistance, August 1993.
385 Joining of 6061 Aluminum Matrix-Ceramic Particle Reinforced Composites, by R. Klehn and T. W. Eagar. September 1993.
386 International Views on Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity, November 1993.
387 White Paper on Reactorvessel Integrity Requirements for Level A and B Conditions, December 1993.
388 Research in the U.S.S.R. on Residual Stresses and Distortion in Welded Structures, by V. I. Pavlovsk) and K Masubuch~January 1994.
389 ( I ) Vibration Damping of Heat Exchanger Tube Bundles in Two-Phase Flow, by M. J. Pett~grew. C. E Taylor and A. Vasuo, (2) Acoustic Resonance in Heat
Exchanger Tube Bundles, by R. D. Blevms. February 1994.
390 Failure of Welds at Elevated Temperatures, by G. R. Stev~ck, Apr~l1994.
391 Elevated Temperature Testing of Gaskets for Bolted Flanged Connections, by M. Derenne, L. Marchand. J Payne and A. Bazergul,May 1994.
392 Developing Stress lntensification Factors: I-Standardized Method for Developing Stress lntensification Factors for Piping Components, by E C
Rodabaugh;II-Effects of Weld Metal Profile on the Fatigue L i e of Integrally Reinforced Weld-on F i n g s , by G E. VJoods and E C. Rodabauyh. June 1934.
393 lnterpretive Report on Dynamic Analysis and Testing of Pressurized Components and Systems-Fitth Edition, by J. S. Leung. G. A. Antakl, T. L. Wang.
R. D. Blevins. K. M. Vashi and M. S. Whltt, July 1994.
394 Simplified Methods for Creep-Fatigue Damage Evaluations and the Application to Life Extension, by M. J. Manlome. August 1994.
395 Vanadium and Columbium Additions in Pressure Vessel Steels, by P. Xu, B. R. Somers and A. W. Pense. September 1994.
396 Research Report on Characterization and Monitoring of Cracking in Wet H2SService, by M. S. Cayard. R D. Kane. L. Kaley and M. Prager. November 1994
397 Empirical Modeling for Real-Time Weld Process Control and Generator Monitoring, by X. X~aoshu. H. Vanderveld! and J. Evans, December 1994.
398 Reductions of S-N Curves for Ship Structural Details, by K. A. Stambaugh, D. H. Leeson. F. V. Lawrence. C. Y Hou a ~ G. d Banas. January 1995
399 The Influence of Consumable Composition and Solidification on Inclusion Formation and Growth in Low Carbon Steel Underwater Wet Welds, by A.
Sanchez-Osio and S. Liu, February 1995.
400 Interpretive Report on Weldability Tests for Hydrogen Cracking of Higher Strength Steels and Their Potential for Standardization,by B. A. Grav~lle. Apr1l1995.
401 Underwater Wet Welding of Steel, by S. Ibana. S. Liu and D. L. Olson, May 1995.
402 Creep-Fatigue Assessment in Type 316 SS Under Uniaxial and Mukiaxial Strain Cycling at 115O0F,by S. Y. Zamrik, and Mirdamadi, June 1995.
403 Metallurgical and Fracture Toughness-Studies of A516-70 Steel: (1) Metallurgical Characterization of the HA2 in A516-70 and Evaluation of Fracture
Toughness Specimens, by C. D. Lundin, G. Zhou and K. K. Khan. (2) Comparison of the CTOD Fracture Toughness of Simulated and Weldment HA2
Regions in A516 Steel with Deep and Shallow Cracks, by J. A. Smith. R. M. Holcomb and S. T. Rolfe, July 1995.
Note--A Catalog hstiny the Bulletins is available on request or visit www.forengmeers.org. L~stlngcontinued on ~ns~de
back cover
WRC Bulletins are published monthly except March and October by The WELDING RESEARCH COUNCIL. 3 Park Ave (27th floor), New York, NY
10016-5902 www.forengineers.org. All members receive WRC Bulletins as part of their membership. No warranty of any kind, expressed or
implied, respecting the data, analyses, graphs or any other information prov~ded in this publtcat~onis made by the Welding Research Council, and
the use of any such information is at the user's sole risk. All rights, including translations, are reserved by WRC.
October 2002 Update of March 1979 Revision
The October 2002 Update to the March 1979 Revision of WRC Bulletin 107 includes minor editorial changes for
improvement and readability of several equations, curves and some text. There are NO technical changes.
The calculation forms (Tables 2, 3 and 5) are improved, particularly to show the "+" and "-" quantities more
definitively.
The equation for stress in paragraph 3.6.3 is revised to be on one line.
The parameter definitions on several of the curves (beginning with figure SR-1) are improved and clarified.
Appendix 6, exponents in Equations 1, 2, 3 and 4 are enlarged for readability.
PVRC thanks Mr. James R. Farr, Honorary Emeritus Member of the Pressure Vessel Research Council, for his
assistance in preparing this update.
NOTE: WRC Bulletins 107 and 297 should be considered (and purchased) as an integral set. In addition,
PVRC Technical Committees are working on a project that is envisioned to culminate in a new publication to
add to the WRC Bulletin 107 and 297 set. The new publication will provide significant new technical information
on local shell stresses from nozzles and attachments.
Greg L. Hollinger
The Pressure Vessel Research Council
FOREWORD
to March 1979 Hevisio~l
Welding Research Council Bulletin No. 107 has been Present plans call for a review and possible extension of
one of the most widely used bulletins ever published by curves to parameters which will cover the n~ajorityof
WRC.Theoriginal bulletin was published in August 1965. openings in nuclear containment vessels and largestorage
Since that time, a revised printing was issued in December tanks. Plans are to extend R / T from 300 to 600 and to
1968; a second revised printing was issued in July 1970; a extend d / D range from 0.003 to 0.10 for the new R / T
third revised printing was released in April 1972; and a range, review available test data to establish limits of
June 1977 reprint of the third revised printing was issued. applicability. and develop some guidance for pad
As sometin~eshappens with publications of this type, reififorcements.
some errors were detected and then corrected in sub-
sequent revised printings. Long range plans are to review shell theory in general,
and Bijlaard's method in particular. The goal is to extend
In this March 1979 Revision of Bulletin 107, there are the R/t up to 1200 for a d / D ip to 0. I. This will include
some additional revisions and clarifications. The for- large deflection theory and other nonlinear effects. In
mulations for calculation of the combined stress intensity, addttion, available computer programs will be studied in
S, in Tables 2, 3, and 5 have been clarified. Changes in hope of developing one which will be an appropriate
labels in Figures IC- 1,2C- 1,3C, and 4C have been made supplement to Bijlaard's method. Finally, a review will be
and the calculated stresses for Model "R" in Table A-3 made of limit loads related to large R / T and small d / D .
and Model "C-I" in Table A-4 have been revised
accordingly. The background for the change in labels is J.R. Farr. Chairnlan
given in a footnote on p. 66. P YR C Desigr~Division
FOREWORD
Several years ago, the Pressure Vessel Research tion of this problem in spheres, aimed a t a par-
Committee sponsored an analytical and experi- ticular design problem, and the Pressure Vessel
mental research program aimed a t providing meth- Research Committee undertook a somewhat sim-
ods of determining the stresses in pressure vessel ilar investigation in cylinders. Results of this
nozzle connections subjected to various forms of work have recently become available emphasizing
external loading. The analytical portion of this the limitations in Bijlaard's data on cylindrical
work was accomplished by Prof. P. P. Bijlaard of shells, particularly as it applies to thin shells over
Cornell University, and was reported in Refer- the "extended range" (page 12 of Reference 10).
ences 1 to 8 inclusive. Development of the Incident to the use of Bijlaard's data for design
theoretical solutions involved a number of simplify- purposes, it has become apparent that design
ing assumptions, including the use of shallow engineers sometimes have difficulty in interpreting
shell theory for spherical vessels and flexible load- or properly applying this work. As a result of
ing surfaces for cylindrical vessels. These cir- such experience, PVRC has felt it desirable that all
cumstances limited the potential usefulness of the of Bijlaard's work be summarized in convenient,
results to d,/D, ratios of perhaps 0.33 in the case "cook-book" form to facilitate its use by design
of spherical shells and 0.25 in the case of cylindrical engineers. However, before this document could
shells. Since no data were available for the larger be issued, the above mentioned limitations became
diameter ratios, Prof. Bijlaard later supplied data, apparent, presenting an unfortunate dilemma, viz.,
a t the urging of the design engineers, for the values the test data indicate that the calculated data are
of P = 0.375 and 0.50 (d,/D, ratios approaching partially inadequate, but the exact nature and
0.60) for cylindrical shells, as listed on page 12 of magnitude of the error is not known, nor is any
Reference 10. In so doing, Prof. Bijlaard in- better analytical treatment of the problem avail-
cluded a specific warning concerning the possible able (for cylinders).
limitations of these data, as follows: "The values Under these circumstances, it was decided that
for these large loading surfaces were computed on the best course was to proceed with issuing the
request of several companies. I t should be re- "cook-book," extending Bijlaard's curves as best we
membered, however, that they actually apply to can on the basis of available test data. This de-
flexible loading surfaces and, for radial load, to the cision was based on the premise that all of the
center of the loading surface. I t should be under- proposed changes would be toward the conserva-
stood that using these values for the edge of the tive (or "safe") side and that design engineers
attachment, as was recommended for small load- would continue to use Rijlaard's extended range
ing surfaces, may be unconservative." data unless some alternative were offered. The
Following completion of the theoretical work, following paper is therefore presented in the hope
experimental work was undertaken in an effort to that it will facilitate the use of Rijlaard's work by
verify the theory, the results of which were pub- design engineers. Every effort has been made to
lished in References 17 and 18. Whereas this point out any known limitations in the work and
work seemingly provided reasonable verification to explain the exact nature of the changes which
of the theory, it was limited to relatively small d,/- have been made to Bijlaard's original curves and
D, ratios-0.10 in the case of spherical shells and data; however, users are warned that the resulting
0.126 in the case of cylindrical shells. Since vir- work is not necessarily adequate for all cases. I t is
tually no data, either analytical or experimental, the hope of the Subcommittee that additional theo-
were available covering the larger diameter ratios, retical work can be undertaken to provide more
the Bureau of Ships sponsored a limited investiga- adequate data on various phases of this problem.
F. S. G. WILLIAMS, Chairman
PVRC Subcommittee on Reinforced
Openings and External Loadings
CONTENTS
.
1 Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2.3 Rect. Att. Subject to P
.
2 General Equation . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2.4 Rect. Att. Subject to
3. Spherical S h e l l s . . . . . . . . . : . . M, . . . . . . . .
3.1 Sign Convention . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2.5 Rect. Att. Subject to
3.2 Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . ML . . . . . . . .
3.2.1 Round Attachments . . . . . 4.3 Calculation of Stresses . . . . . .
3.2.2 Rectangular Attachments . . 4.3.1 Radial Load . . . . . . . .
3.3 Calculation of Stresses . . . . . . 4.3.2 Circumferential Moment Load-
3.3.1 Radial load . . . . . . . . ing . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2 Moment Loading . . . . . . 4.3.3 Longitudinal Moment Loading
3.3.3 Torsional Moment Loading . 4.3.4 Torsional Moment Loading . .
3.3.4 Shear Load . . . . . . . . 4.3.5 Shear Load . . . . . . . .
3.3.5 Combined Loading (Computa- 4.3.6 Combined Loading (Computa-
tion Sheet) . . . . . . . . . tion Sheet) . . . . . . . . .
3.4 List of Nondimensional Curves . . . 4.4 Nondime~sionalCurves . . . . . .
3.5 Limitations of Application . . . . . 4.4.1 List of Nondimensional Curves
3.6 Abridged Calculation for Maximum 4.5 Limitations on Application . . . . .
Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 Radial Load . . . . . . . .
.
4 Cylindrical Shells . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 External Moment . . . . . .
4.1 Sign Convention . . . . . . . . . .
5 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Parameters . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.1 Shell Parameter ( u ) . . . . .
.
6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix A-Basis for "Corrections" t o
4.2.2 Attachment Parameter ('B) . . Bijlaard's Curves . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.2.1 Round Attachment . Appendix B-Stress Concentration fac-
4.2.2.2 Square Attachment . tors for Stresses d u e t o External Loads
iii
Local Stresses in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells
due to External Loadings
by K. R. Wichman, A. G. Hopper, and J. L. Mershon
Stresses in Shells 3
3.3.1.I I l a d i d Stresses (v,) : (N,IT) by:
Step 1. Using the applicable values of U, r and
p * , read off the dimensionless membrane force
(N,T/P) from the applicable curve which will be
found in one of the following figures: Figure SR-2 Step 4. By a procedure similar to that used in
or SP-1 to SP-10, inclusive. Step 3, calculate the radial bending stress
Step 2. By the same procedure used in Step 1 (6M,/T2),thus:
above, read off the value of dimensionless bending
moment (M, I P ) from the applicable curve. This
value will be found in the same figure used in
Step 1. Step 5. Combine the radial membrane and
Step 3. Using the applicable values of P and T, bending stresses by use of the general stress equa-
calculate the radial membrane stress (N,/T) by: tion (para. 2) together with the proper choice of
sign (see Table 1); i.e.,
Nr
-
T = (7-) . (g)
NIT
is given by:
in the manner previously outlined, membrane, considered, or when situations are encountered
bending and shear stresses can be evaluated a t that deviate considerably from the idealized cases
eight distinct points in the shell a t its juncturewith presented herein, the designer should refer to para.
the attachment. These eight points are shown in A.2 and Fig. A-1 in Appendix A or to the original
the sign convention chart, Table 1. references to ascertain the limitations of appli-
The numerous stress components can be readily cability for t h e procedure used.
accounted for if a scheme similar to that shown in Under certain conditions, it is possible that
Table 2 and 3 is adopted. In using this scheme, it stresses will be higher at. points removed from the
is to be noted that the Maximum Shear Theory attachment-to-shell juncture than they are a t the
has been used to determine equivalent stress in- juncture itself (as assumed in the foregoing proce-
tensities. Aleo, it is to be noted that evaluation of dure).' Of notable concern are the following:
stresses resulting from internal pressure has been 3.5.1 NOZZLE STRESS. The foregoing procedure
omitted. provides one with a tool to find stresses in the shell,
Test work conducted by PVRC has shown that but not in the nozzle. In some instances, stresses
stresses attenuate rapidly a t points removed from will be higher in the nozzle wall khan they are in
the attachment-to-shell juncture, the maximum the vessel wall, This possibility is most likely if the
stress frequently being located a t the juncture.* the nozzle opening is not reinforced, or if the rein-
However, in the general case of arbitrary loading, forcement is placed on the vessel wall and not on
one has no assurance that the absolute maximum the nozzle.
stress intensity in the shell will be located a t one
3.5.2 S HELL STRESSES. It has been found in
of the eight points considered in the above dis-
some cases that certain of the stress components
cussion.
(e.g., N , or Mi)may peak a t points slightly re-
moved from the attachment. Such situations are
3.4 List of Nondimensional Curves for Spherical Shells indicated in the accompanying curves by a dashed
Solid Attachment line for the stress component(s) in question. If
Fig. No. this situation is encountered, the designer could
SR-1 Maximum Stress due to external loading (Radial use the maximum value(s) and obtain a conserva-
land and overturning moment combined)
SR-2 Stress due to radial load P tive result. But in doing so, he should recognize
SR-3 Strew due to overturning moment M that stress components from different points in the
Hollow Attachment vessel would be combined, and all hough conserva-
Str-8 Due to Radial Load P on Nozzle Connection tive, the procedure is not theoretically correct.
When a rigorous solution of the problem is desired,
T P Fig. No.
Bibliographical References 4-9, 12, or 18 should be
5 0.25 SP- 1 consulted.
5 1 .oo SP-2
5 2.00 SP-3 3.5.3 ELLIPSOIDAL SHELLS. The method de-
5 4.00 SP-4
15 1.00 SP-5 scribed in the text may 'be applied t o ellipsoidal
15 2.00 SP-6 pressure vessel heads with reasonable accuracy if
15 4.00 SP-7 the mean shell radius R,,, a t the juncture with the
15 10.00 SP-8
50 4.00 SP-9 attachment is used in the applicable formulas.
50 10.00 SP-10
3.6 Abridged Calculation for Maximum Stresses Due to Radial
Stress Due to Overturning Moment M on Nozzle and Moment Loading Only at a Rigid Attachment
Connection
In the case of a rigid attachment, it has been
5 0.25 SM-I
5 1 .OO SM-2 found that the radial stresses (a,) a t the juncture
5 2.00 SM-3 are always larger than the tangential stresses (cr,).
5 4.00 SM-4 Hence, in situations where only radial and mo-
15 1.00 SM-5
ment loading are involved, it is possible to find the
- --- -- .----
Under cartair; conditions dressen may be higher in the nozzle well than maximum stresses by considering only the radial
they are in the veessl wall. Thin pomibiiity in most likely if the nozzle open-
ing is not reinforced or if (be reinforcement is placed on the vessel wall end
stresses (a,). Figure SR-1 has been plotted by
not on the nozzle. combining the nondimensional radial membrane
Stresses in Shells 5
Table 2-Computation Sheet for Local Stresses In Spherical Shells (Solid Attachment)
2 ) When f = 0 , S = l a r g e s t a b s o l u t e magnitude of e i t h e r
s = a x , cry o r (a, - ay) .
and radial bending stmmea given in Fins. SR-2 and DIAL LOAD (PI.
. .
SR-3, so that the following simplified procedure for Step 1. Calculate the value of the applicable
calculating maximum strews has b ~ developed.
n shell parameter (U) as given in para. 3.2.1.
3.6.1 MAXIMUM STRESS RESULTING FROM RA- Step 2. Enter Fig. SR-1 at the value of U found
6 Stresses in Shell8
Table 3-Computation Sheet for Local Stresses In Spherical Shells (Hollow Attachment)
Radial Load, P =-
Shear Load, -Ib' , G e o m a r i c Parameters
Shear Load,
OverturnmgMoment,
VI =
vz =
M, =
Ib.
-lb.
-in.lb
-nlb.
-
f
. '2
t
=- A
Overturning Moment, MZ = p 3 I =-
Torsional Moment, MT =- ~n.lb . I
2. Geometry
LIZ
rn,- 6
Sh-or stress d u e
t o tornuon, M T
2) When t = 0, S = l a r g c s t a b s o l u t e magnitude o f e i t h e r
S = O X ) Uy o r (ax UY) - .
in Step 1, and using the curve marked "radial
load P," read off the value of the nondinlensional
stress ( a , T 2 / P ) .
Step 3. Using the applicable value of load ( P ) ,
shell thickness ( T ) ,and stress concell tration factor
( K , ) , calculate the inaxiinum combined stress ( a )
thus:
~
tachment-to-shell juncture in both the circum-
inensional stress ( ( r , T 2 K ~ / M ) . ferential and longitudinal directions as shown in
Step 4. Using the applicable value of moment Fig. 2. A knowledge of the shell deflections re-
Cr> 26-'
( M ) , shell thickness ( T ) , shell mean radius (R,,), sulting from various modes of loading permits one
and stress concen tration fac tor ( K ,), calculate the to predict whether resulting stresses will be tensile
maximunl combined stress ( a , ) thus: (+) or compressive (- ).
M
2c1
I n the case of a cylindrical attachnlent, this stress
will be located on lhe outside surface of the vessel,
a t its intersectioil will1 lhe altachiiienl, on the "for-
ward side"' of the moment ( M ) . The stress ( u ) will
be distributed sinusoidallv around the attachment.
Since the stress normal to the surface of the vessel CASE I CASE I I CASE Ill
is zero, u is the maximum stress intensity, i.e., S = Consider Case I showing a direct radial inward
load, P. Here P acts similar to a local external
3.6.3 M AXIMUM STRESS RESULTING FROM COM- pressure on the shell causing compressive mem-
BINED L OAD (P) A N D O VERTURNING M OMENT ( M ) . brane stresses. Furthermore, local bending occurs
If load ( P ) and nloinent ( M ) are considered sep- so that tensile bending stresses result on the inside
arately as oullined in 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 above, it is of the vessel a t C and D while con~pressivebending
possible to consider the combined loading condi- stresses result on the outside.
tion by superposing results of the two cases as I n Cases I1 and 111, the applied moments are
follows: considered lo act as couples composed of equal and
opposite radial forces. Hence, tensile membrane
stresses result a t B and D while compressive mem-
brane stresses result a t A and C. As in Case I
8 Stresses in Shells
Appendix A.
Table 4-Sign Convention for Stresses Resulting from Radial
and Moment Loading on a Cylindrical Shell 4.2 Parameters
tensile bending stresses result a t A and C o n the in- 4.2.2.3 Rectangular Attachment Subject to Radial
side of the vessel, and B and D'on the outside of the Load (P): For this case P is evaluated as follows:
vessel. Similarly, compressive bending stresses
result a t A and Con the outside and B and D on the
inside.
In this manner Table 4 has been developed to
show the signs of stresses resulting from various
external loading conditions. These stresses are lo-
cated in the vessel wall a t its juncture with the at-
tachment. Use of Table 4 permits one to use the
nondimensional curves presented in the following
PI
procedure with a minimum of encumbency and rf- < 1, p =
concern for sign convention. Pr
The numerous stress components can be readily
accounted for if a scheme similar to that shown in
Table 5 is adopted. In using this scheme it is to where K values are obtained from Table 6.
be noted that the Maximum Shear Theory has been
used to determine equivalent stress intensities.
Also it is to be noted that evaluation of stresses 4.2.2.4 Rectangular Attachment Subject to Circum-
resulting from internal pressure has been omitted. ferential Moment (M,).
Test work conducted by PVRC has shown that 4.2.2.4.1: When considering membrane forces
stresses attenuate rapidly a t points removed from (N,): P = mp,, Then multiply values of
the attachment-to-shell juncture, the maximum N,/(M,/Rm2p)so determined by C, from Table 7
stress usually being located a t the juncture. How- (see para. 4.3).
ever, in the general case of arbitrary loading, one 4.2.2.4.2: When considering bending moment
has no assurance that the absolute maximum (M,): p = K,dP12ps where K cis given in Table 7.
stress intensity will be located a t one of the eight
points considered in the above discussion. The
maximum stress intensity could be located a t some 4.2.2.5 Rectangular Attachment Subject to Longi-
intermediate point around the juncture under an tudinal Moment (M,).
arbitrary load, or under a longitudinal moment 4.2.2.5.1: When considering membrane forces
with the circumstances outlined in para. 4.4 and (N: P = . Then multiply values of
Stresses in S h ~ l l s 9
Table 5--Computation Sheet for Local Stresses in Cylindrical Shells
R a d i a l 1003, P =- I b. Rm=-
Circ. Moment. Mc = i n . Ib.
Y = T
Long. Moments, M L = ----in. Ib.
T o r s i o n Moment, MT = -
in. Ib.
Sheor Lood, Vc =
-Ib.
Shear Lood, VL c -Ib.
Stress Concentration due to:
a) membrane lood, K n c -
V e s s e l thickness.
Attnchment rudius,
T
'o
= -in.
E -in.
b) bending load, K b s -
Add A I p o b n l c * l l ~lu s u r o t i e m
I I I I I I I I I
1) When T # 0, S = largest absolute magnitude of either
s = 1/2 [ox+ o) J(ox 0412 + 4 r 2 3 o r )(ax+ -
~ 4 + )4 4~ - .
2 ) When T = 0, S = largest absolute magnitude of either
N OTE : Above holds approximately within limits 4 2 4.3.1.2 Longitudinal Stresses (u,): Follow the 5
2 I/,). steps outlined in 4.3.1.1 except that [Nz/P/Rm]
calculated in para. 4.2, enter Fig. 3C and read off is obtained using Fig. 4C; and [M,/P], using Fig.
the dimensionless membrane force
6+
!
T2
= . [$+I [El the dimensionless membrane force N,/ (Mc/Rm2p).
Step 2. By the same procedure used in Step 1,
enter Fig. 1A and find the dimensionless bending
Step 5. Combine the circumferential membrane moment M,/(Mc/RmB).
and bending stresses by use of the general stress Step 3. Using applicable values of M,, R,, P
Stresses in Shells 11
and T, find the circumferential membrane stress
(N*/ T) by:
If only shear stresses are being considered, it is to
be noted that the equivalent stress intensity is
Step 4. By a procedure similar to that used in twice the above calculated shear stress.
Step 3, find the circumferential bending stress In the case of rectangular attachments, torsional
(6M,/ T 2). Thus: moment produces a complex stress field in the shell.
Acceptable methods of analyzing this situation are
not available a t this time. If the designer h e
reason for concern, the problem should,be resolved
by testing in accordance with est~blishedcode
Step 5. Combine the circumferential membrane procedures.
and bending stresses by use of the general stress
4.3.5 STRESSES RESULTING FROM SHEAR LOADS,
equation (Section 2) together with proper choice of
V, A N D VL. Bijlaard has proposed* that shear
sign (Table 4); i.e.:
force (V) can be assumed transmitted to the shell
entirely by membrane shear force. Therefore
stresses in the shell a t the attachment-to-shell
4.3.2.2 Longitudinal Stresses (a,): Follow the 5 juncture can be approximated as follows:
steps outlined in 4.3.2.1 except that [N,/ 4.3.5.1 Round Attachment
( M C / R m 2 ~is) ] obtained ueing Fig. 4A; and vc cos e
[M,/(M,/R,B)], using Fig. 2A. I t follows that: T,, = -
rroT
(max. a t A and B)
T*, = - VL
xroT
sin 0 (max. a t C and D)
T,, = -v,
4 ~T1
F h e a r c h Council.
15. %..;.ny. R. K.. "S~RYSConcentrations a t Lhe Junction of a Spherical 31. Van Dyke. P.. "Stresses About a CLcuLr Hole in a Cylindrical Shell."
h u n Veael and Cylindrical Duct caused h y Certain A x i s ~ m m e ~ c Harvard Univ. Technical Report No. 21 under Conkact Now-1866(02).
Sept. J964.
load in^." P r d i n ~ of s a Symuoaium. Royal Collese. C l r s ~ o w ,May 17-
20. 1960. ButLrrworths. 88 Kinpway. London W. C. 2. 32 Grnllnq, KC, E T A L Tkor&xl ud Expcrirwn~lSlraS dORNL
16. Tentative Structural h i g n Haais for H ~ a c l o rPreswre Vessels and TbiaSLcP Cyiider-(oCyliDda Modd No. 3". Repon No. ORUL5020, J w IW5.
Directly Amociaterl Com)nnenta (Fnssurized Water Cooled Sptems). 33. kknLaJ.L'WRCRQtYCLo RcLfaocrcll~ofOpcvlrgm-V-W.
December 1958 revision. WRC ~rlkci. NO. n (~.b*rs 7. .ad sm, U A~g IW.
17. Bijlaard. P. P.. and Cranch. E. T.. " I n k p r e t i v e Commentary on t h e 34. GNnLJ.M,ndWxor&dud ~~ysisdoRNLTbiPShell
Application of Theory to Experimental R a u l t s for S w and Deflections CJl"der-bKybda y.*(No. I'. R c p o r c ~ 5 1 3OCL . 1972.
tin No. *.
Due t o Local Losds on Cylindrical Shells," Wrldiw Remrch Council Bulk-
1-.2 (May 1960).
1
9 I ! : . .I I ' ' I " ' I I "
" I . I
Fig. SR-1--Maximurn stress due to external loading on a spherical shell (rigid plug)
0 0.5 1 .O 1.5 20 2.2
Fig. SR-2-Stresses i n spherical shell due t o a radial load P on a nozzle connection (rigid plug)
0 05 10 15 20 22
Fig. SR-3-Stresses in spherical shell due to overturning moment M oil nozzle connection (rigid plug)
0.5 I .O 1.5 2.0 2.2
Fig. SP-&Stresses in spherical shell due to radial load P on a nozzle connection
Fig. SP-2-Stresses i n spherical shell due t o radial load P o n a nozzle connection
Strcsscs in Shells
Fig. SP-3-Stresses i n spherical shell due t o radial load P o n a nozzle connection
Strcsscs in Shells
Fig. SP-4-Stresses in spherical shell due to radial load P on a nozzle connection
Fig. SP-5-Stresses in spherical shell due to radial load P on a nozzle connection
S l ~ ~ ~ I srl cShells
s
Fig. SP-6-Stresses in spherical shell due to radial load P on a nozzle connection
.
0 0,5 10 15 20 22
Stresses in Shells
Fig. SM-4-Stresses in spherical shell due to overturning moment M on nozzle connection
Fig. SM-5-Stresses i n spherical shell due to overturning moment M o n nozzle connection
Fig. SM-6-Stresses i n spherical shell due to overturning moment M on nozzle connection
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.2
Fig. SM-7-Stresses in spherical shell d u e to overturning moment M on nozzle connection
Fig. SM-8-Stresses i n spherical shell due to overturning moment M on nozzle connection
0
S/~,rssr.cin. Shrlls
Fig. 2A-Moment M,/(M,/~,,p):due to an external circumferential moment M. on a circular cylinder
Stresses i n Shells
0 0.05 0 10 0.15 0.20 0 25 0.30 0.35 640 045 6.50
Fig. 3A- Membrane force N+/(M,/R.,?B) due t o a n external circumferential m o m e n t M, o n a circular cylinder
St~.c~ll~
I ~ ( i . / ~ . s i~l l i . ~
Fig. 4A-Membrane force N,/(M,/R,,2[3) due to an external circumferential moment M, on a circular cylinder
Fig. 1B- Moment M+/(ML/R,.fl) due t o an external longitudinal rn0ment.M~on a circular cylinder (Stress on the longitudinal
plane of symmetry)
Stresses in Shells
Fig. ZB-Moment M,/(MI./R,,B) due t o a n external longitudinal moment MI, on a circular cylinder (Stress on longitudinal
plane of symmetry)
o 0.0s o.io 0.i5 0.20 0.25 030 035 o 40 0.45
Fig. 2B-1-Moment M,/(M,,/R,p) due t o an external longitudinal moment MI. on a circular cyl~ndel
Fig. 3B-Membrane force N+/(MI./R,,~,~J) due to an external longitudinal moment ML on a circular cylinder
Fig. 4B-Membrane force N,/(ML/Rm2fl) due to an external longitudinal moment ML on a circular cylinder
Slresscs in SIdls
Fig. 1C-Bending moment M9/P due to an external radial load P on a circular cylinder (transverse axis)
Fig. 1C-1-Bending m o m e n t Mx/P due to an external radial load P on a circular cylinder (longitudinal axis)
1
0 0.05 0 10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Fig. ZC-Bending moment M,/P due t o an external radial load P on a circular cylinder (transverse axis)
Sttmws in Shells
I
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Fig. 3C-Membrane force N+/(P/R,) due to an external radial load P on a circular cylinder (transQerse a x i s )
- Membrane force Nx!(P/R,) due to an external radial load. P on a circular cyllnder ( l o n g i t u d i n a l a x i s )
2 S h s s c s in Shells
0 0.05 0 10 0.15 0 20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.43 0.45 0.50
Fig. 4C-Membrane force Nr/(P/R,,,) due to an external radial load P on a circular cylinder ( t r a n ~ v e r s ea x i s )
- Membrane force Ns/(P/R,.,) due to a n external radial load R or1 a circular cyliuder (longitudhs1
,S/!~f.%VSI l l ~ S / / ~ / / . ~
APPENDIX A-BASIS FOR "CORRECTIONS" TO BIJLAARD'S CURVES
A.l Introduction
mately 37, 80 and 92, which parameters are all well
During the past year or more, data have become within Bijlaard's limits, as is indicated on Fig. A-1.
available indicating, or emphasizing, certain limi- Subsequently, Westinghouse Research Labora-
tations in Bijlaard's work for external loadings on tories tested four photoelastic models for the
nozzle connections. In some cases, the discrep- Bureau of Ships, under moment loading only, as
ancies involved were quite large and seemingly reported in Reference 24; these models had a
indicated a necessity for providing interim modifi- D m / T ratio of 51.0, one with a d J D , ratio of 0.13,
cations to a portion of Bijlaard's data pending de- two with a d , / D , ratio of 0.27, and one with a d , / D ,
velopment of a more adequate analytical treatment ratio of 0.50. Similarly, I I T Research Institute
of the problem. The following summary is pre- has tested one steel model for PVRC, having a
sented to document the nature of the discrepancies D,,,/T ratio of 236 and a d , / D , ratio of 0.50, the
and to explain the manner in which the curves preliminary results of which are reported in Refer-
based on Bijlaard's data have been modified ence 23. As indicated on Fig. A-1, these models
herein. provide one point well within Bijlaard's limits, two
approaching those limits and two well outside those
A.2 Spherical Shells limits.
Bijlaard's work on spherical shells was based on Also recently, the work of Penny-LeckieZ0be-
shallow shell theory, and the limitations which he came available, which is based on "not-shallow
placed on the theory were essentially as indicated shell" theory and which might offer hope of a more
in Fig. A-1, from which it will be observed that the adequate treatment a t the larger diameter ratios.
limiting d i / D i ratio is about for "thin" shells, A summary of the parameters for the above
and somewhat less in thicker shells ( D , / T ratios of mentioned models is contained in Table A-1, and a
20-55). The experimental work a t Cornell Uni- summary of the calculated and measured stresses
versity which was performed to verify the theory, in Table A-2. Reference 20 provides curves only
as reported in Reference 18, was for a d i / D , ratio of for the maximum of the two stresses, and states
approximately 0.10 and D m / T ratios of approxi- that " . . .for small values of t / T , the hoop stress
,Strcsse.s in Shclls
Table A-1-Parameters for Model Vessels Tested with External Loads on Nozzles
Fillet
Model radius, X T
Spherical shell models
West WN-BOA 2.52 0.80
West WN-50B 1.38 0.80
West WN-50C 1.36 0.80
West WN-50D 0.662 0.80
I I T R I S-1 5.41 -1.39
Fillet
radius, 2-T
Model X T R,
Cylindrical shell models
Penn St. "L" 1.0 1.005
Penn St. "R" 0.75 1.95
Penn St. "S" 0.75 ...
I I T R I "C-1" - 1.35 5.3
a Bijlaard's parameters.
Table A-2-Comparison of Calculated and Measured Stresses in Spherical Models under External Nozzle Loadings
-- Calculated s t r e s ~ e s ksi----
------Bijlaard-----
,~ ---- Measured stresses," ksi-----
Adjusted
mu Penny mu UL. (TI
Moment loading
WN-50A 2.72 2.13 3.64 4.81 6.05 5.03'
WN-50B 3.18 2.51 3.37 4.59 5.73 4.78'
WN-5OC 2.40 0.554 2.52 3.83 4.45 3 . 97c
WN-50D 2.11 0.447 2.09 2.73 3.15 2.8lC
S-1 ... ... 14.5 9.95 14.4 11.8*
Direct axial load (6000# pull)
S-1 ... ... 23.4 16. 56c 20. 66e 17.0d
18.3' 23.5' 19.3d
N OTES:
a Stresses due t o moment loading are reported a s a ratio of the stress in question to the'calculated bending stress in the
nozzle, as was reported by Westinghouse for the photoelastic models. These "base" nozzle stresses are as follows: WN-50A-
0.00398Mb; WN-50B-0.0135Mb; WN-50C-0.0274Mb; WN-50D-0.118Mb; S-1-0.0903Mb, where M b is the applied
moment.
Based on local S C F of 1.20.
' Based on local SCF of 1.12.
Based on local SCF of 1.22.
Average of eight separate measurements around nozzle.
/ Maximum of eight separate measurements around nozzle.
( u , ) is higher than the meridional stress (u,). calculated values for U, are greatly below the meas-
With increasing t / T , n u becomes smaller and U, ured values. As was explained in Reference 28,
larger, until U, begins to dominate. This change- the primary reason for this difference is that both
over takes over when t / T is approximately Bijlaard and Penny-Leckie provide only for the
0.75 . . . ." On this basis, the stresses from Penny- calculation of the stresses in the shell; however, for
Leckie are presumably for U, for the four photo- all four of these models, the maximum stress
elastic models (WN-50 series), and U, for the steel proved to be across the base of the nozzle, charac-
model ("S-1"). terized by a high bending stress in the axial (u,)
In the case of the photoelastic models (moment direction.
loading), it will be noted that the calculated In the case of the steel model (S-1), the calcu-
stresses from Bijlaard and Penny-Leckie agree al- lated stresses from Penny-Leckie agree almost ex-
most exactly for the smallest d,,'D, ratio (WN- actly with the maximum measured stresses under
50D), Bijlaard is about 5 % lower than Penny- both moment and axial loading, and would be
Leckie for models WN-50B and WN-50C, and 25% about 255307; conservative in relation to average
lower than Penny-Leckie for model WN-50A, indi- measurements adjusted for local stress intensifica-
cating a progressive deterioration of shallow shell tion. I t should be emphasized, however, that
theory. However, it will be noted that for these present figures are preliminary and "average" fig-
four models, all of the calculated values for u,, are ures may not be the most valid representation of
somewhat below the measured values, and all of the the data.
I n normal design procedure, it must be assumed complete stress data based on this theory, including
that the maximum pressure and maximum external the stress distribution in both the shell and nozzle.
loading stresses occur a t the same point. In the
case of Model "S-1," this was true insofar as can A.3 Cylindrical Shells
be determined from the preliminary data. In the About two years ago, PVRC undertook testing of
case of the photoelastic models, a duplicate of a seriesof simple, fabricated tee type models consist-
Model WN-50B was tested under internal pres- ing of two models a t a D J T ratio of 18.0, with
sure; for this model, the points of maximum stress d,/L), ratios of 0.63 and 1.00, and two models a t a
did not quite coincide. Assuming that the point D , / T ratio of 230, with dJD, ratios of 0.50 and
of maximum pressure stress will be controlling, 1.00. The primary purpose of these models was
the external (moment) loading stress a t that point to provide external loading data a t the larger
was perhaps 10-15% less than its maximum. On diameter ratios, in the hope of being able to extrap-
the basis of present evidence, it sho~lldnot be as- olate Bijlaard's curves for cylindrical shells on up
sumed that there is any large conservatism in to a d,,/D,ratio of 1.0.
considering the points of maxiinurn stress as coin- The results of lliis work have recently become
ciding (in the case of the larger diameter ratios in 7
available, the data on the two "thick ' shell models
spherical shells a t least). being reported in Reference 22 and the preliminary
Quoting Reference 28, the status of the theoreti- data on the smaller of the two thin shell models in
cal work on spherical shells can be summarized as Reference 23. The results from the thick shell
follows: models indicate discrepancies in Bijlaard's "ex-
"The theoretical solutions for the stresses and tended range" data (page 12 of Reference 10) of a
deflections in (spherical) pressure vessels produced magnitude consistent with that which would be ex-
by externally applied forces and moments have pected from shallow shell theory (as indicated by
been developed t o the point where they can be of the work on spherical shells). However in the case
considerable value to the designer if used with dis- of thin shell model, the results indicate that some
cretion. The discretion which must be used con- of this extended range data is greatly in error; in
sists of cognizance of the following limitations: addition, it appears probable that some of the
(1) When the loads are applied through rela- original curvesZs are significantly in error in the
tively thin walled nozzles, the rigid-insert approxi- very thin shell region (say, for values of P greater
matronTsupresses~e stresses clrciimferenmto tfZ than 0.15 and 0.10 a t values of 7 = 100 and 300,
nozzle. Whereas this approximation also exag- respectively). It appears that the basic reason for
gerates the meridional stresses, there is no reason this discrepancy is that, in thin shells, the longi-
to believe that the calculated meridional stress is a tudinal axis is relatively flexible and free to deform
good approximation of the actual circumferential in relation to the transverse axis, causing the trans-
stress. verse axis t o cai;y a disproportionate share of the
(2) When the lbads are applied through rela- load. This effect was not fully provided for in
tively thin-walled nozzles, the highest stress may Bijlaard's treatment of the problem, which treated
occur in the nozzle and a solution which gives only the nozzle as an "equivalent" square attachment.
shell stresses (as do Bijlaard's and Penny-Leckie's Actually, from superficial examination, some of the
solutions in their present form) may seriously un- test results appear so improbable as t o create
derestimate the peak stress. suspicion of major deficiencies in the test model.
(3) None of the theories are capable of con- However, upon detailed comparison with available
sidering the geometry of the junction in detail. internal pressure data, there is very good reason t o
Therefore, the concentrating effect of a sharp cor- bglieve that the e s u l t s are essentially correct.
ner must be estimated separately. Also, the addi-
tion of even a small fillet or weld bead can signifi- A.3.1 "Thick-Walled" Model Data
cantly affect the stiffness of the junction and result A summary of the parameters for the models in
in discrepancies between the actual and calculated question (Penn State Models "R" and '3' and
stress. . . ." IITRI Model "C-1") is contained in Table A-1,
On the basis of the foregoing, no changes in together with similar data (subsequently used for
Bijlaard's curves for spherical shells are considered comparison purposes) for Penn State Model "b,"
necessary, but particular attention should be paid reported in Reference 21.
to these limitations, and t o the limitations which A summary and comparison of calculated and
Bijlaard placed on his own work (as summarized measured data for the three "thick-walled" models
on Fig. A-1). Since Penny-Leckie's theory ap- is contained in Table A-3. These data indicate
pears to give the same results as Bijlaard's a t small that for Model "L," which presumably is a t about
diameter ratios but does not have the limitations the upper limit of shallow shell theory, the calm--
of shallow shell theory, and in addition covers both lated stresses under moment loading range from 10
flush and protruding (balanced) nozzles, the PVRC to 509; conservative; for Model "R," which in-
subcommittee hopes to provide, in the future, more volves an extrapolation of Bijlaard's curves, the
56 Stresses in Shells
Table A-3-Comparison of Calculated and Measured Stresses in Thick Walled Cylindrical Vessels with External Loads on Nozzles
--Calculated stresses, ksi- --
Total
Maxinrum mensurcd stresses, ksi
Gross
Membrane Bending Adjusted
Model "L"
Longitudinal moment 27.55
(250,000 in.-lb) 30.26
Transverse moment 48.8
(250,000 in.-lb) 31.1
Model "R"
Longitudinal moment 12.95
(500,000 in.-lb) 11.63
Transverse moment 35.66
(500,000 in.-lb) 25.0
Radial load (30,OCO#pull)
Longitudinal axis 6.79
7.86
Transverse axis 7.86
6.79
Model "S"
Longitudinal moment ...
(500,000 in.-lb) ...
'IYansverse moment ...
(500,000 in.-lb) ...
N OTES:
Besed on S.C.F. of 1.30.
b Based on S.C.F. of 1.40.
Based on S.C.F. of 1.20.
Based on S.C.F. of 1.15.
calculated stresses under moment loading range axis of the vessel, with the maximum value being
from about 7 to 45y0 unconservative, with all four better than twice that directly on the longitudinal
stress quantities being 38 to 55 Qj, less conservative axis; a very similar effect was noted under internal
than was the case for Model "L." This effect is pressure. Whereas we had forewarning of this
believed attributable to limitations analogous to possibility under internal pressure, the effect,
those of shallow shell theory, and is of a magnitude was quite unexpected under lorigitudinal moment.
not inconsistent with the effect noted in spherical Because this result seems somewhat in.at,ional, a
shells. special effort was made to evaluate the probable
For the case of radial load, data were not ob- validity of the results, sumniarized as follows:
tained on Model "L." For Model "R," the maxi- ( a ) The vessel was not a machined model and
mum measured stresses on the longitudinal axis was slightly out-of-round. Such out-of-roundness
(both U, and u,) are less than one-fourth the cal- may have some effect on the measured pressure
culated values. On the transverse axis, the meas- stresses, but we do not believe that it would
ured longitudinal stress, o, (longitudinal with re- significantly affect the stresses due to external
spect to the shell but circumferential with respect loading. The fillet and the area adjacent t o the
to the nozzle) was of the same order of magnitude nozzle-she:l juncture wele checked with templates,
as the calculated stress, although there is perhaps and it is believed that any deviation in thickness or
an indication that the membrane portion of the local contour is minor and does not constitute an
calculated stress is "low" and the bending portion explanation for the effects noted.
"high." In the case of the circumferential stress, ( b ) I n testing the model, only one quadrant
U, (circumferential with respect to the shell), the was coinpletely instrumented.* However, for
calculated stress is significantly lower than the the axes of symmetry, supplementary instrumen-
measured stress, but in this case the maximum tation was installed 180" opposite the primary in-
measured stress was across the base of the nozzle. strumentation. Also, for the external loading tests,
The next highest reading was in the shell and would the loads were applied in both the "positive" and
seem to be quite consistent with the calculated "negative" directions, giving a total of four read-
value. ings for each nominal location on the axes of sym-
A.3.2 "Thin-Walled" Model Data metry and two readings for locations off the axes of
symmetry. I n all cases, the critically stressed re-
A summary and comparison of the calculated
gion was found to be directly in the fillet a t the
and measured data for I I T R I Model "C-1" is nozzle-shell juncture. A plot of the stresses along
contained in Table A-4. From this comparison, it this fillet, under the four loading conditions used,
will be noted that in some instances there are very
is shown in Figs. A-2 t o A-5 inclusive, based on
large discrepancies between the calculated and arithmetic averages of the available data. The
measured stress values. Further, it will be ob- total scatter in the data for a given location slightly
served that under a longitudinal moment loading,
the maximum stress occurs well off the longitudinal S e e n o l e a l Lhr end of %Lion A.3.2.
Stresses in Shells 57
- - - -- -
Table A-4--Comparison of Calculated and Measured Stresses in Thin Walled Cylindrical Vessei (IITRI Model C-1) with Ertemal
Loads on Nozzles
- -Calculated strp~scs,h
i-- -Measured stresses, hi-
Membrane Bending Total Gross Adjusted
Longitudinal moment (18,000 in.-lb) . ,
Nares:
Based on local S.C.F. of 1.22.
b Maximum stresses were located 60 -70" off the longitudinal axis. These stresses are derived from strain gage measurements
oriented radially and circumferentially With respect t o the n o d e (or the hole in the shell). T h e maximum principal stress a t
thin location may be somewhat higher (but by definition cannot be lower) than indicated b y these measurements. r, desig-
nates the stress normal t o a plane a t this section ( = circumferential with respecl t o the nozzle) a n d w c , the stress in the plane
of such a eection ( a x h l with respect t o t h e nozzle). Therefore, on the longitudinal axis, a. = a, and a , = a.; on the trans-
verse axk, a, = a, and a, = r,.
exceeded 10% for the worst case (except in low the nozzle; see NOTE (2) in Table A-4) in the region
stressed areas where considerable scatter-. -in per 45-70" off the longitudinal axis under internal
cent--is normal); in most cases, the scatter was pressure and longitudinal moment (Figs. A-2 and
less than 10%. From the plot of the data on Figs. A-3, respectively). The readings off the axes of
A-2 to A-5 inclusive, it will be noted that the symmetry were obtained with two-element ro-
consistency of the data is good except for the case settes, readings from the t h u d element having been
of the stress, U, [circumferential with respect to discarded because of excessive scatter; the maxi-
Fig. A-2-Measured stresses in fillet of IITRI model C-1 tested Fig. A-3--Measured stresses in outside fillet of IlTRl cylindrical
under internal pressure (30 psi pressure) shell model C-1under longitudinal moment loading of 18,000 in-lb
58 Stresses in Shells
Fig. A-4--Measured stresses in outside fillet of l l T R l cylindrical Fig. A-%Measured stresses in outside fillet of IlTRl cylindrical
shell model C-1 under transverse moment loading of 3000 in-lb shell model C-1 under a radial load (pull) of 1000 Ib
mum principal stress a t each location may be n increases, the maximum membrane stress cir-
higher than indicated by present readings, but cumferential to the hole and the maximum stress
cannot be lower (by definition, assuming the basic on both surfaces all shift off the longitudinal axis.
validity of the data). (NOTE: The basic reason This "shift" develops first on the outside surface,
for the scatter in the third element is believed followed by a shift in the membrane stress and
attributable to difficulty in accurate orientation of finally by a shift in the inside surface stress. In
the '/32 in. gages; these readings will be checked each case, as the value of n increases, the maxi-
using '/I6 in. pre-assembled, three-element ro- mum stress increases progressively in magnitude
settes). and also moves progressively farther away from
(c) As a part of the PVRC reinforced openings the longitudinal axis. This is illustrated in typical
program, an effort is being made under the direc- fashion for the membrane stress, as shown on Fig.
tion of Dr. A. C. Eringen to provide an analytical A-6. Stress profiles for all three stresses are shown
solution for the cylinder-to-cylinder intersection on Fig. A-7 for a value of 52 closely approximating
problem under internal pressure. The basic theory that of the IITRI Model C-1. It should be empha-
and the first numerical results from this work are sized that these present results are for a hole with a
contained in References 25, 26 and 27. Dr. membrane closure ( t / T = O), and that the work is
Eringen has shown that the stresses in such an based on shallow shell theory, which would pre-
opening can be related to a single parameter, = sumably limit its validity to diameter ratios in the
(d,/D), dD,/T. Although present numerical order of Nevertheless, the results may give
results cover only the case of an opening with a qualitative trends for larger diameter ratios and
membrane closure (t/T = 0), these results show they definitely indicate that, for the cases studied
that as the parameter increases, the maximum (t/T = 0), an instability or bulge of increasing
membrane stress and the maximum surface stresses severity develops as the value of n increases.
both shift off the longitudinal axis. Although Although it is unfortunate that similar data are
the numerical results presented in these reports not yet available for finite t/T ratios, it seems ob-
cover values of 52 only up to a value of D = 2.8, vious that attachment of a nozzle will tend to re-
Van Dyke3* subsequently extended the range of strain this localized deflection and rotation at the
calculated data up to a value of n = -8.0. The edge of the opening. In such case, there is every
results from this work show that, as the parameter reason to believe that the high circumferential
Stresses in Mells 59
Fig. A-&-Development of critically stressed membrane area at Fig. A-7-Circumferential stress (u.) at edge of hole with mem-
edge of hole in cylindrical shell under internal pressure brane closure (t/T = 0) in cylindrical shell under internal pres-
(Eringen's and Van Dyke's data, t / T = 0) sure (Van Dyke's data)
stress (in relation to the nozzle), would be partially excellent agreement and there is nothing in the data
replaced by an axial stress which should "peak" at which would indicate any serious deficiency in the
essentially the same point. In this respect, then, model.
it should be noted that the form of the curve for the In the case of radial load on the nozzle, prior
axial stress, u,, shown on Fig. A-2, is quite consist- tests on Penn State Models "D," "E" and "R"21. 2 2
ent with the form of the curves on Figs. A-6 and indicated stresses on the transverse axis 3-5 times
A-7 [although the peak of the curve for the model those on the longitudinal axis. In the case of
(Fig. A-2) is farther from the longitudinal axis than Model "C-1," the ratio is 5.7 for U, and 8.7 for
indicated by the calculated data]. In spite of the u,. The qualitative effect is therefore the same,
latter difference, we feel that the calculated data but the difference is seemingly accentuated in the
provides good qua1itutic;e evidence of the validity thin shell model.
of the experimental data under internal pressure In the case of moment loading, results from Penn
loading. State Model "R" gave maximum stresses under a
( d ) For the external loading conditions, judg- transverse moment approximately 2-2.5 times
ment of the validity of the data must rest in consid- those due to an equal longitudinal moment.
erable measure on the internal consistency of the Calculations based on Bijlaard's curves predicted a
data itself. In this regard, a detailed comparison similar difference, although the absolute values of
of the stresses in the fillet on the axes of symmetry the calculated stresses were somewhat lower than
for the three external loading conditions is con- the measured ones in both cases. For equivalent
tained in Table A-5 for those cases where the stress moments on Model "C-1," the maximum stresses
was large enough to be significant (greater than 2.0 due to a transverse moment are 4-5 times as great
h i ) . In each case, the value listed is an average as those due to a longitudinal moment, with the
of readings obtained in the positive and nega- maximum stress. being located 60-70" o f f the longi-
tive loading directions. For all such cases, agree- tudinal axis i n the latter case; for the stress directly
ment between one axis of symmetry and its coun- on the longitudinal axis, the ratios are 12.1 and 5.0
terpart 180' opposite is within the range of 3 to for U , and a,, respectively. The comparative ef-
12%. Considering variations in fillet radius and fects noted in the Penn State and I I T models are
difficulty in exact placement of the gages, this is therefore qualitatively similar, with the added fac-
60 Stresses in Shells
--
Table A-5--Comparison of Measured Stresses on Opposite Sides of IlTRl Cylindrical Vessel Model C-1
0"
Maximum measured stress, hsi-
180" 90" 270"
-
Longitudinal moment (18,000 in.-lb)
0.
Transverse moment (3000 in.-lb)
UP
uz
Radial load (1000# pull)
tor of an apparent "instability" or local bulging in for 7 = 300 (i.e., for values of i2 greater than say,
the thin shell model. In the latter connection. it 2.0 - 2.5).
should be noted that the stress pattern for the axial
stress, a,, under longitudinal moment, as shown A.3.3 Modification of Curves
on Fig. A-3, is remarkably similar to that under
Since the experimental data indicates that the
internal pressure, Fig. A-2 (which, as has already
extended range of Bijlaard's data may be in error
been shown, would seem to be qualitatively con-
by factors of as much as 5.0, it seemed necessary to
sistent with calculated data).
provide interim "corrections" to Bijlaard's curves
On the basis of the foregoing, there seems to be
until such time as better analytical methods are de-
no reason to question the qualitative validity of the
veloped to compute these stresses. Unfortu-
data.* The reason for the high stresses on or adja-
nately, we have little basis beyond the experi-
cent to the transverse axis appears to be that, in a
mental data on which to make these "corrections,"
thin shell, the longitudinal axis is relatively flexible
and time may prove that their only virtue is that
and free to deform, and that the loads are thereby
they are in the "safe direction." &cause of this
transferred to (or toward) the transverse axis which
uncertainty, it seems necessary to document the
is less free to deform. On the basis of the data
exact manner in which the curves have been
available, it would seem that a large part of Bij-
modified, as outlined in the following paragraphs.
laard's "extended range" data may be unconserva-
tive; further it would appear that the very thin A.3.3.1 REDUCTION O F DATA. In proposing any
shellwregionof his original data2. may be signifi- modification to Bijlaard's curves, the first problem
cantly low. That is, values of 7 = 300 and-p = to be faced is that of placing the experimental and
0.25 would correspond to a value of D = [(dm/Dm) calculated data on an equivalent basis, which we
~D,/T] of approximately 6.95. However, the have endeavored to do by "correcting" the experi-
IIT model, with a value of i2 only slightly higher mental data for local stress intensification. The
than this, shows a very well developed condition of next step is to try to break the experimental data
instability under longitudinal moment and a down into membrane and bending components, in
marked shift of the load to the transverse axis un- order to determine the nature of the specific modifi-
der the other two loading conditions. On the basis cations required. For both the Penn State and
of the data reviewed above, it is considered that the IITRI models, stress distributions were obtained
original data is open to question a t d,/Di ratios in both the nozzle and shell on the axes of sym-
greater than 0.15 for 7 = 100 and greater than 0.10 metry. In the case of the IIT model, all such data
can be broken dowli into its membrane and bending
*N O TE : Subsequently, this high stressed zone was instrumented w the components except for the reading directly in the
remaining three quadrants on the model, two with 1/32 in. two-element
rosettes, and the other with 1/18 in. threeelement rosettes. The results are
fillet (the closest "valid" points being in. from
summa1 ized as follows (each value being an average of readings in the positive the fillet, on both the nozzle and shell). Such data
and negative loading directions):
seems to indicate that the membrane components
Tangential Normal of stress as calculated from Bijlaard are relatively
Position
age
length, in.
stress,
u,, ksi
stress,
u.. ksi
accurate, but that the bending components are
60' (original), '/a2 29.5 15.9 sometimes greatly in error. Also, in a number of
60' (retest) 30.6 17.1
120°
'/a2
'/a2 31.8 18.6 cases, the bending stress is large in relation to the
3oO0
240'
'/a
'/IS
27.8
24.5
15.3
14.1
membrane stress; for such cases, large percentage
increases in membrane stress would be quite in-
The 1 / 1 6 in. three-element rosette confirmed that the stresses measured by effectual in correcting the over-all total. For these
the tw-element rosettes were essentially the principal str- Although
there is some scatter in the data, and the readings obtained with the 1/18 in. two reasons, it was decided that the major correc-
rosette were 15-20% lower than the average of those obtained with 1/82 in.
rosettes, it is apparent that a high strrssed zone exists at this location in all
tions should be made to the bending stress curves,
four qvadrants (materially higher than on the longitudinal axis, itself). although relatively minor changes have been
These reaults would seem to remove any question concerning an isolated local
deficiency in the model and concerning the qualitative validity of the data. made to the membrane curves in a couple of cases.
Stresses in Shells 61
Fig. A-8-Moment Ms/(M/R,,,4) due to a circumferential
moment M Fig. A-9-Membrane force N+/(M/R,,,'B) due to circumferential
moment M
A.3.3.2 CIHCUMPEKENTIAI,
(THANSVEHSE)
M O-
MENT ing t h a t the curves for the membrane stress may
( a ) Circumferential Shell Stress, a,: I n the case of converge too rapidly in the thin shell region
the thick shell model (Model "IZ"), the calculated (which appears entirely possible, on the basis of
stress, u,, was about 14C/, lower than the maximum simple inspection). This portion of the curve has
measured value (after adjustment for local stress been revised accordingly, as shown on Fig. A-9.
int ensificalion). I n the actual model, the location Actually, the effect of this correction is almosl neg-
of ~naxitnumstress would perhaps be conslrued as ligible in terms of Lhe total difference between the
being across the base of the nozzle ath her than in calculaled and measured stresses, since the mem-
the shell; however, Hijlaard's theory for cylindri- brane stress is but a very small parl of the total
cal shells does not take into account the elfecl of slress. The resulting c.olwc.lion ~ ~ e q u i r efor
d Llle
relative stiffness of nozzle and shell (t T ratio), and bending stress ainounts to a faclor of 2.85, as
for a stiffer nozzle, Lhe local ion of 1 his maxilnuln shown 011 Fig. A-8.
stress could very well be shifted down into the I n the case of the bending slresses, the experi-
shell. 7'herefore, in the inlerest of conservatism, mentally determined points from Models "It" and
and until betler methods of analysis become "C-1" pose a problem in tlml the curves are seenl-
available, the maximum measured stress was ingly compressed into a very narrow band a t
treated as though it were in the shell. The bend- high values of d; also, if the thin shell curves are
ing component of the slress was about 90';'; of the correct a t small values of @, a drastic revision is
total, and all of the correction was made to this required in the form of those curves. The revisions
stress component, amounting to a n increase of shown on Fig. A-8 represent the best judgment of
approximately 16';;. This relatively minor con-ec- the authors on the basis of Lhe limited information
tion is indicated on Fig. A-8. available. IIowever, it is warned t h a t Lhese curves
In the case of the thin shell model (model "C-1"), are not necessarily correct and their only virlue
the calculaled circumferential slress in the shell may be that they are more conservative than Lhe
was low by a factor of 2.7 in relation to the meas- original curves.
ured value. l'he calculated value of Lhe mem- (b) 1,ongiturlinnl Shdl Strrss, m , : 'l'he t.equired
brane stress was about 20-25(';, low in relation to a corrections for Lhe longiludinal shell slress, u,,
nleasured value inch away in the shell, indicat- were very similar to those described above for a,,
Fig. A-10-Moment M,/(M/R,,,B) due to a circumferential
moment M
Fig. A-11-Moment M+/(M/R,,,o) due to a longitudinal m o m e n t M
(on longitudinal axis)
except t h a t no correction of the membrane stress inch away in both the nozzle and shell gave mem-
was considered warranted. T h e corrections to the brane stresses approximately 3OC,';,higher than the
bending components of the stress are shown on Fig. calculated value; also, simple inspection of the
A-10, amounting t o roughly lof;, for Model "R" original curves would indicate a possible too-rapid
and a factor of 2.72 for Model "C-1." convergence in the thin-shell region. Under this
A.3.3.3 L ONGITUDINAL (I N -P LANE ) MOMENT. circumstance, the membrane curves were adjusted
Consideration of corrections required to the curves upward a commensurate amount, a s indicated on
for longitudinal moment is complicated by the fact Fig. A-12. T h e remainder of the required correc-
that for the thin shell model, the maximum stresses tion was applied to the bending component.,
were off the longitudinal axis. Under the circum- which was adjusted upward by a factor of 5.2, a s
stances, it was decided t o provide two sets of indicated on Fig. A-11.
curves, one applying t o the longitudinal axis and ( b ) 1,ongitudinal Shell Stress, v,, on the Longitudinal
the other covering the maximum stresses. Ac- Axis: Similar corrections were required for the
tually, it would appear t h a t only the maximum longitudinal shell stress, except t h a t no correction
stresses are of interest, since the available data of the membrane curves were considered war-
(Figs. A-2 and A-3) indicate t h a t the stresses due to ranted. T h e increase in the bending component
internal pressure and longitudinal moment peak of the stress was approximately 66'/'(,in the case of
a t the same location and must be considered Model "R," and a factor of 6.75 in the case of
additive (at least in the case of the axial stress, Model "C-1," a s indicated in Fig. A-13.
u,, which is the critical stress). A detailed descrip- (c) Maximum Stresses: T h e only basis for esti-
tion of the corrections follows: mating the progressive divergence of the maximum
( a ) Circumferential Shell Stress, g,, on the Longi- stresses from the longitudinal axis is to assume t h a t
tudinal Axis: I n the case of Model "R," the re- the effect is similar t o t h a t indicated by the calcu-
quired correction was relatively modest, and was lated data under internal pressure (perhaps ad-
applied only to the bending component. This cor- justed to be consistent with Model C-1), which is
rection amounted to about 187;, a s shown on indicated graphically on Fig. A-14. As a corollary,
Fig. A-11. it was also assumed t h a t the maximum stresses due
In the case of Model "C-1," measured data I , / , to internal pressure and longitudinal moment have
Fig. A-1GCocation of maximum stress in cylinder under internal
Fig. A-12-Membrane force N+/(M/Rm2j3) due to a longitudinal pressure (Eringen's and Van Dyke's data, t/T = 0)
moment M
64 Slrcsses in Shells
F- B-
Fig. A-1SMoment M./(M/R,,,f3)due to a longitudinal moment M Fig. A-16-Moment Mt/(M/R,p) due to a longitudinal moment M
this procedure does not distinguish between the available for the edges of the attachment are those
values a t the edge of the attachment on the obtainable from a cross plot of the curves presented
longitudinal axis of the shell vs. the transverse axis in Reference 10; further, the latter data were for a
of the shell. A summary of the experimental re- value of a = 4 rather than 8, and were limited t o
sults in comparison with the calculated (as taken values of p no greater than 0.25. Under these cir-
from Table 3 of Reference 17, for Attachment 2) is cumstances, the comparisons of Tables A-3 and -4
shown in Table A-6. From this comparison, it will were made on the basis that Bijlaard's calculated
be noted that the agreement between theory and stresses, for the center of the attachment, apply
experiment was quite good on the transverse axis, a t the edge of the attachment on both the longi-
but that the theoretical results were conservative tudinal and transverse axes (even though the avail-
by a factor of, say 1.5-2.0, as applied to the stresses able evidence for a model well within the presumed
on the longitudinal axis. Prof. Cranch therefore limits of Bijlaard's theory indicated that the
suggested that, in the case of the. circumferential calculated stresses might be appreciably conserva-
stress, a, on the longitudinal axis, no "shift" in the tive as applied to the longitudinal axis).
stress from the center of the attachment to its edge The test results on the longitudinal axis of both
is necessary. However, the only calculated data Models "R" and "C-1" indicate that Bijlaard's
Table A-6-Summary of Calculated and Measured Stresses for Cornell Attachment No. 2a under Radial Load (Pull) of 17,700 Lb
(WRC Bull. No. 60, Table 3)
Calculated stresses, ksi Measuredb stresses, ksi
Membrane Bending Total Membrane Bending Total
Transverse axis
"(0 5.74 26.4 32.14 3.71 27.6 31.3
6.7 17.9 24.6 5.3 16.8 22.1
Longitudinal axis
UP 5.74 26.4 32.14 4.95 10.4 15.35
az 6.7 17.9 24.6 3.18 13.6 16.78
-
NOTES:
Model parameters: D,/T = 78; d i / D i = 0.126; t / T = 0.448; (d,/D,,)dD,/T = 1.14; -y = 39.0; p = 0.119.
Tabulated stresses a t edge of attachment were obtained by extrapolation of measured values from strain gages located
l'/,e in. away (outside the edge of weld fillet).
Stresses in Shells 65
Fig. A-17-Bending moment Md/P due to a radial load P Fig. A-18-Bending moment M,/P due to a radial load P
curves for axial load are appreciably conservative curves is considered feasible, and it can only be
as applied to the stresses on the longitudinal axis, warned that for large values of ( ~ , / D , ) ~ D , / T
as was the case for Cornell Attachment 2. How- say, above 2.0-the curves are probably signifi-
ever, as applied to the stresses on the transverse cantly in error (unconservative).
axis, they are slightly inadequate for thick shells Under these circumstances, two sets of curve;
(Model "R"),and greatly inadequate for thin 4
are shown: (1)Bijlaard's original curves, which are
shells (Model "C-1"); in the latter case, the calcu- considered adequate (or more than adequate) for
lated values were low by a factor of 2.5-3.0 for the stresses on the longitudinal axis, and (2) a sec-
u,( = u,) and about 4.5 for u,( = u,). Further- ond set of curves for application to the transverse
more, a plot of the test results would seem to indi- axis, which have been limited to "small" values of
cate a compression of the curves into a very narrow (d,/D,)dD,lT, as indicated in principle by Figs.
band, or (more likely) a "cross-over" of the curves. A-17 and A-18.
Under this circumstance, no "correction" to the
* Bijlaard's treatment of radial loading provided stress resultants at the edges of a rectangular loading surface.
However, experimental data indicated that some of these values might not be adequately conservative, Therefore,
in the interests of conservatism, he then recommended that the calculated stresses for the center of the loading
surface be applied at its edges, both on the longitudinal and transverse axes. However, as noted above, this
procedure does not allow for possible differences in the magnitude of the stresses on the two axes; also, it does not
make any distinction in terms of possible din'ererices in orientation of the maximum stresses on the two axes. In the
latter respect, ifoneconsiders the case of a ~iozzleattached to a Bat plate or a "small" nozzle on a cylinder, it should
be apparent that the axstress on the longitudinal axis is the equivalent of the a ( = @,)stress on the transverse axis,
both being radial with respect to the nozzle. As such, it can be anticipated that tfiese twostresses will be most affected
by the discontinuity between the nozzle and shell (or plate) and will have relatively high bending stresses as
compared to thestresses oriented9@'thereto(circumferential with respect to the nozzle). Ofsixexperimental models
currently available, this is true in every case. From Table A-6, it will be noted that the calculated stresses are
qualitatively consistent with the measured stresses on the transverse axis, but not consistent with those on the
longitudinal axis (neither with respect to the bending stress nor even the membrance stress). This was also true for
two other models having comparable diameter ratios, viz., ORNL-3 (Ref. 32) and Franklin Inst. model "EF" (Ref.
33). In these cases, the matter seems relatively unimportant, since the calculated stresses are appreciably
Slresses in Shells
conservative as applied to the longitudinal axis. Other recent data at larger diameter ratios show this same general
inconsistency, but in addition have disclosed cases where the calculated stresses are inadequate, such as for model
ORNL-I (Ref. 34), which had stresses as follows under a radial load (pull) of 300 Ibs.:
Outside surf.
Inside surf.
Membrane stress
Bending stress
It will be observed that if the "labels" of the calculated stresses were reversed, the qualitative consistency would be
much improved, and the two cases of"low" calculated stress would then be adequate. This was also found true for
the two other models of relatively large diameter ratio. In light of this, for this March 1979 Revision, the titles o n
the curves for radial load (Figs. IC- 1.2C- I, etc.) have been revised to reverse the orientation of the stresses for the
longitudinal axis. Whereas this will make the curves (calculated stresses) adequate or more than adequate for all
presently known cases ofshell stress on the longitudinal axis, it does not alter the possibility of inadequacy for very
thin shells and flexible nozzles, o r the fact that stresses in the nozzle can sometimes be considerably higher than in
the shell, particularly when there is little o r no reinforcement in the nozzle wall.
APPENDIX B-STRESS CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR STRESSES DUE TO
EXTERNAL LOADS
B.l Introduction and Terminology radius between the two sections of the bar, as illus-
Presently available analytical methods for trated in Fig. R-1. Heywood's curves conform to
stresses in nozzles, shells, etc., do not take into ac- the following formulas:
count the localized stresses in fillets and transitions. Tension cnse
The following data may prove useful in performing
a fatigue analysis where such effects must be con-
sidered. In presenting these data, the following
terminology will be used:
= thickness of thicker section of stepped
bar, in.
= thickness of thinner section of stepped Bending case
bar, in.
= fillet radius between two sections of bar,
or between nozzle and shell, in.
= inside diameter of nozzle, in.
= outside diameter of nozzle, in. (see Fig.
B-4)
For the case of a plate of "infinite" width (Nvery
= outside diameter of attached pipe, in.
large in relation to h), these formulas would re-
(see Fig. B-4) duce to:
= thickness of pipe, in.
= thickness of reinforced section of nozzle, 0.65
in. (see Fig. B-4) Tension (3)
;r'85
= thickness of vessel wall, in.
= angle of taper between two sections of
bar or nozzle, degrees (see Figs. R-3
and R-4)
Rending K, = 1 + --
=
to external nozzle loadings ("bend-
ing" curve on Fig. R-2; see para.
R.3.1)
stress concentration factor a t fillet of
I(,, = 1 + [.: ;] (5)
Shesses in Shells
68
RATIO OF FILLET RADIUS TO SHELL
OR NOZZLE THICKNESS (r/T, 2r/d,, or 2rlh) Fig. 0-3-Effect of tapered shoulder
a = sin-! [I - y]
(t' - t )
-
B.3 Application to External Loads on a Nozzle
8.3.1 Stresses at Fillet-Shell Juncture
T h e calculated stresses in the shell due t o a n
axial load or moment loading on a nozzle are as-
sumed to apply t o the juncture of the fillet and
shell, point A in Fig. R-4. These stresses have
been derived in terms of a membrane component
( N I T ) and a bending component ( 6 M / T 2 ) ,in the
~ ...~ - ....
* S i n c e l e s islnlln nre nvnil;il,le for nlrc.w c o n c c n l r a l i o ~f.tclors
~ in d ~ : t f l n
L h n i n h r 9 01 jdilleb, 11eyw00~1(Ilelerence 30, l ~ g 195) e rrco~nrncncledLllaL
two-dimensional plate data be used. I n general, i t is believed t h a t such data
nre slighlly consel-"alive in relalion t o three-din~enuio~ml clala. Fig. 0-4-Nozzle configuration
8.3.2 Stresses at Nozzle-Pipe Juncture
Fig. B-6-Structural attachment conf~guration
The stress concentration factor for an axial
load, or for a bending moment, a t the juncture of a
nozzle and its attached pipe (Point B in Fig. R-4) structural attachment to a shell, as shown in Fig,
may be obtained from Figs. 57 and 60 of Reference B-6, may be treated in the same way as for a noz-
29' and Fig. H-3 herein in terms of d,, d,, r, and 8. zle, as covered in para. R.3.1. Another location on
These factors should be applied to the stress in the attachment which may be critically stressed is
the pipe (thinner member) calculated from the point'C, a t the juncture of the fillet and the attach-
conventional P / A and Mc/I relationships. ment. The stresses a t this point may be calculated
8.3.3 Special Case of a Tapered Nozzle
by applying the appropriate factor from Fig. B-2
to the conventionally calculated P / A and M c / I
The following procedure should be used for a stresses in the bar or attachment. [NOTE: This
special case of a tapered nozzle a s shown in Fig. procedure can also be applied to a nozzle provided
B-5: t h a t the nozzle is relatively "rigid" (thick in rela-
( a ) Calculate the stress concentration factor tion t o its diameter). However, experimental
that would exist a t Point A if the nozzle were of data indicate that such treatment would not be
uniform diameter, d,. proper for relatively thin, flexible nozzles, which
( b ) Account for the taper by using the quantity have high bending stresses through the thickness of
(90 - 8) in place of e in the abscissa of Fig. 8-3. the nozzle a s differentiated from the beam action
(c) The stress a t the nozzle-pipe juncture, of a thick-walled nozzle.]
point R , should be calculated in the same manner a s
in para. B.3.2.
404 Fatigue Crack Growth of Low-Alloy Steels i n Light Water Reactor Environments: (1) Environmentally-Assisted Cracking of Ferritic Steels in Aqueous
Environments: An lnterpretive Review, by L. A. James. (2) Modeling of Fatigue Crack Growth Rate for Fenitic Steels in Light Water Reactor
Environments, by E. D. Eason. E. E. Nelson, and J. D. G~lman.(3) Technical Basisfora Revised Fatigue CrackGrowth Rate Referencecurvefor Ferritic
Steels in Light Water Reactor Environments, by E. D. Eason. E. E. Nelson, and J. D. Gilrnan, August 1995.
405 Effect of Heat Treatment on the Elevated Temperature Properties of a Pi/.Cr-1MO Submerged Arc Weldment, by C. D. Lundln and K. K. Khan. September
1995.
406 Proposed Rules to ASME Code, Section Vlll Division 1 for Determining Allowable Compressive Stresses for Cylinders, Cones, Spheres and Formed
Heads, by C. D. Mdler and K. Mokhtanan, November 1995.
407 Reports on Heat Treatment of Steels Used i n Boiler and Pressure Vessel Applications: (1) Carbon Migration i n Cr-Mo Weldments Effect on
Metallurgical Structure and Mechanical Properties, by C. D. Lundin, K. K. Khan and D. Yang. (2) ASME Post-Weld Heat Treating Practices: An
lnterpretive Report, by C. E. Spaeder, Jr. and W. D. Doty, December 1995.
408 Bolted Flange Assembly: Preliminary Elastic Interaction Data and Improved Bolt-up Procedures, by G. Blbel and R. Ezell, January 1996.
409 Fundamental Studies of the MetallurgicalCauses and Mitigation Reheat Cracking i n 1%Cr-VzMo and 2%Cr-1Mo Steels, by C. D. Lundin and K. K. Khan.
February 1996.
410 Evaluation of Design Criteria for Storage Tanks with Frangible Roof Joints, by D. Swensen, D. Fenton. Z. Lu. A. Ghori, and J. Baalman, Apr~l1996.
411 An Experimental Study of Causes and Repair of Cracking of 1 '/&r-'/zMo Steel Equipment, by C. 0 . Lund~n. P. LIU,C. Y. P. Q~ao,
G. Zhou. K. K. Khan and M.
Prager. May 1996.
412 Challenges and Solutions i n Repairwelding for Power and Process Plants-June 1996.
413 Development of Criteria for Assessment of Reactor Vessels With Low Upper Shelf Fracture Toughness, (1)Development of Criteria and Analysis Methods
and (2) Implementation of Evaluation Procedures in ASME Code Section XI, July 1996.
414 A New Design Criterion Based on Pressure Testing of Torispherical Heads, by A. Kalnms and M. D. Rana. August 1996.
415 Literature Survey and lnterpretive Study on Thermoplastic and Reinforced-Thermosetting-Resin Piping and Component Standards, by W. E. Short If,
G. F. Leon. G. E. 0. Widera and C. G. Ziu. September 1996.
416 Creep Crack Growth Behavior i n Weld MetalIBase MetallFusion Zone Regions in Chromium Molybdenum Steels, by R. H. Norris and A Saxena.
November 1996.
417 Design Guide t o Reduce Potential for Vibration Causes by Fluid Flow Inside Pipes-Review and Survey, by C. E. Lin. December 1996.
418 Constraint Effects on Fracture Behavior; Report No. 1-The Effect of Crack Depth (a) and Crack-Depth t o Width Ratio (a/W) On the Fracture
Toughness of A533-B Steel; Report No. 2- An Analytical Investigation of The Effect of Crack Depth (a) and Crack Depth t o Width (a/W) Ratio on the
Fracture Toughness of 533-6 Steel; Report No. 3-The Significance of Crack Depth (a) and Crack Depth to Width Ratio (alW) With Respect to the
Behavior of Very Large Specimens, by J. Smith and S. T. Rolfe. January 1997
419 Elevated Temperature Characterization of Flexible Graphite Sheet Materials for Bolted Flanged Joints, by FA. Derenne, L. Marchand and J. R. Payne.
February 1997.
420 lnterpretive Report o n Nondestructive Examination Techniques, Procedure for Piping and Heavy Section, by S. H. Bush, April 1997.
421 Welding Type 347 Stainless Steel-An lnterpretive Report, by R. David Thomas. Jr. and Robert W. Messier. Jr.. May 1997.
422 Fatigue of Welded Structures, by John M. Barsom and Robert S. Vecch~o.June 1997.
423 Evaluation of Seismic Response Data for Piping, by Gerry C. Slag~s,July 1997.
424 Bibliography of Welding Research Supplements Published i n the American Welding Society "Welding Journal From 1950 Through 1996 by Subject,
by Robert La Pomte. August 1997.
425 A Review of Methods for the Analysis of Burried Pressure Piping, by George Antaki. September 1997.
426 Differential Design and Construction Cost of Nuclear Power Plant Piping Systems as a Function of Seismic Intensity and Time Period of Construction,
by Timothy M. Adams and John D. Stevenson. November 1997.
427 Leakage and Emission Characteristics of Sheet Gaskets, by Michel Derenne. Luc Marchand and Fran~ois Deshales, December 1997.
428 Unmixed Zone i n Arc Welds: Significance on Corrosion Resistance, by C. D. Lundin, W. LIU,G. Zhou. C. Y. P. Qlao, January 1998.
429 3 0 Stress Criteria Guidelines for Application, by J. L. Hechmer and G. L. Hollinger. February 1998.
430 Review of Existing Fitness-for-service Criteria for Crack-like Flaws, by P. M. Scott, T. L. Anderson. D. A. Osage, G. M. Wilkowski, April 1998.
431 Summary of Gasket Steam Leakage Tests: Report No. 1: Gasket Steam Leakage Tests by Y . Birembaut. T. Ledauphin and Y . Morio; Report No. 2: Leak
Tests Conducted o n Graphite Gaskets by 0. S. Nau and M. D. Reddy and Report No. 3: Long Duration Air and Steam Screening Tests on Elastomeric
Sheet Gasket Materials by L. Marchand and M. Derenne. May 1998.
432 Fatigue Strength Reduction and Stress Concentration Factors for Welds in Pressure Vessels and Piping: Report No. 1: lnterpretive Review of Weld
Fatigue-Strength-Reduction and Stress-Concentration Factors, by C E. Jaske and Report No. 2: Fatigue-Strength-Reduction Factors for Welds
Based on NDE, by J. L. Hechmer: June 1998.
433 Fatigue of Butt-Welded Pipe and Effect of Testing Methods: Report No. 1: Fatigue of Butt-Welded Pipe, by R. J. Scavuzzo, T. S. Srivatsan and P. C. Lam
and Report 2: Effect of Testing Methods on Stress Intensification Factors, by E. C. Rodabaugh and R. J. Scavuuo, July 1998.
434 Design and lnservice Margins of Power Piping Systems: A Comparative Study of US., Canadian and European Codes 8 Standards, by G. A. Antak~,
August 1998.
435 Evaluation of Design Margins for Section VIII, Div. 1 and 2 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code: Report No. 1: Evaluation of Design Margins
for ASME Code Section VIII, Division 1, by E. Upitis and K. Mokhtarian; Report No. 2: Evaluation of Design Margins for ASME Code Section VIII.
Divisions 1 and 2-Phase 2 Studies, by E. Upitis and K. Mokhtarian, September 1998.
436 Evaluation of Small (rlR < 0.5) Branch Connections with Through-Run Moments. Report 1: Run Moment Fatigue Tests on Pipes with Small (dlD)
Branch Connections, D. H. Roarb: Report 2: Evaluation of Branch Connections with r1R Less than 0.5 Subjected t o Through-Run Moment Loadings.
E. C. Rodabaugh, E. A. Wa~s.P. Ellenberger, and S. E. Moore. October 1998.
437 Assessment, Sample Problems and Commentary on Design for Section Ill, Division 3 (NUPACK) of The ASME Boiler 8 Pressure Vessel Code, by
Timothy M. Adams, November 1998.
438 Intermetallic Phase Precipitation in Duplex Stainless Steels and Weld Metals: Metallurgy, Influence o n Properties, Welding and Testing Aspects, by
Leif Karlsson. January 1999.
Note--A Catalog listing the Bulletins is available on request or visit www.forengineers.org Listing cont~nuedon outside back cover
439 Use of LOWCarbon ll/.Cr-liNo Weld Metal for Fabrication and Repair of Cr-Mo Components: Report 1: Efficacy of L o w Carbon l%Cr-1/2Mo Weld
Metal for Repair Welding of Elevated Temperature Service Exposed Cr-Mo Components, Cari D. Lundin, Peng Liu. Gang Zhou and Kah!an K. Khan;
Report 2: Development of W-Nb-V Modmed Low Carbon Filler Metals for Fabrication and Repair of 1V.Cr-1/2Mo Steel Weldments, Ci?d D. Lundin
and Peng Liu. February 1999.
440 A Synthesis of the Fracture Aaessmerrt Methods ~ r o p o s e din the French RCC-MR Code for High Temperature, by D. Moulin. 8. Cmbay and L
Laian'nandrasana. April 1959.
441 Development of a Comprehensive Static Seismic Analysis Method for Piping Systems, by Timothy M. Adams and John D. Stevenson. May ' 3 9 .
442 Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFFJGasket Qualification. M. Derenne. L. Marchand, and J. R. Payne. June 1999.
443 External Pressure: Effect of Initial Imperfections and Temperature Limits. Report No. 1: The Effect of Initial Imperfections o n the Buck!ing of Cylinders
Subjected to External Pressure, Sy Ciu+r,ce D. Miller. Report No. 2: Design Limits for Elevated-Temperature Buckling, by Donald S. G:%n. Report
No. 3: Temperature Limits !or ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section Vlll Application of External Pressure Charts, by Donald S. Griffin, July
1999.
444 Buckling Criteria for Torispherical Heads Under lnternal Pressure, by Clarence D. Miller. August 1999.
445 Plastic Pipe: Burst and Fatigue Testing of W C and HDPE Pipe. Report No. 1: Bending Fatigue Tests on Polyvinylchloride (PVC) Pipe Joints, by R. J.
Scavuuo. M. Cakmak. T. S. %atsan acd M. Cavak. Report No. 2: On the Determination of Long-Term Hydrostatic Strength of Plastic Pipe, by G. E. 0.
Widera and L. Zhao. Report No. 3: Ratcheting and Fatigue Characteristics of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Pipe, by R. J. Scavuzzo. H. Chen, P.
Hu. P. C. Lam and T. S. Snv>-tsan.Septecber 1999.
446 Design and Repair of Buried Pipe, t y G e c w A. Antaki, November 1999.
447 Evaluation of Operating Margins for In-Service Pressure Equipment, Elmar Upitis and Kam Mokhtarian. December 1999.
448 Evaluation of Welded Attachments on Pipe and Elbows, E. C. Rodabaugh, E. A. Wais. G. B. Rawls, January 2000.
4-39 Guidelines for the Design and Installation o f Pump Piping Systems, Vincent A. Carucci and James R. Payne, February 2000.
450 NPS 4 Class 150 Boned Flanged Joints Subjected to Pressure and External Bending Loads, by Luc Marchand,Daniel Laviolene and Michel Cersrre. April 20CO
451 Internal Pressure Design of Isolated N o n k s in Cylindrical Vessels with d/D Up t o and Including 1.00, by E. C. Rodabaugh. Z. F. Sang. L. P. Xue. Y. J. Lm,
and G. E. 0 . Widera. May 2CCO.
452 Recommended Practices for Local Heating of Welds i n Pressure Vessels. Joseph W. McEnerney and Pingsha Dong. June 2000.
453 Minimum Weld Spacing Requirements for API Above Ground Storage Tanks, J. M. Lieb. K. Mokhtarian. L. R. Shockley and E. Upitis. July 2CCO.
454 A Literature Review on Characteristics of High Temperature Fenitic Cr-Mo Steels and Weldments. Carl D. Lundin. Peng Liu and Yan Cui. Axjust 2000.
455 Recent Progress i n Analysis of Welding Residual Stresses. Report No. 1: Modeling of Weld Residual Stresses and Distortions: Computational
Procedures and Applications. Report No. 2: A Fast Thermal Solution Procedure for Analyzing 3D Multi-Pass Welded Structures, Report No. 3: Finite
Element and Experimental Study of Residual Stresses i n a Multi-Pass Repair Weld, P. Dong. Z. Cao. J. K. Hong. J. Zhang, F. Brust. LV. Sell, and E. J.
McConald. September 2CCC.
456 Heat Exchanger Flow Characterization-HXFLOW Software: Theory Manual and Users Manual, by D. Mitra-Majumdar. K. K. Niyogi, a r c V. Ratehalli.
November 20CO.
457 Fracture Toughness Master Curve Development: Fracture Toughness of Ferritic Steels and ASTM Reference Temperature (Td,by W. A. 'ianDerSluys.
C. L. Hoffmann. K. K. Ymn. 2. E. K.llian. J. 3.Hall. December 2000.
458 Fracture Toughness Master Curve Development: Application of Master Curve Fracture Toughness Methodology for Ferritic Steels, by W. A.
VanCerSluys. C. L. Hoffmarn. 'N. L Ser.er, R. G. Lott. S. Rosinski. M. T. Kirk. S. Byrne, C. C. Kim, January 2001.
459 Fracture Toughness Master Curve Development: Strategies for RPV Assessment, by W. A. VanDerSluys. C. L. Hoffmann. W. L. Server. R. G. Lon. M. T.
Kkk, C. C. Kim. February 2CG:
4&4 High Temperature Cracking and Properties of Stainless Steel Flux-Cored Welds and Effects of Bismuth. Report 1: Investigation on High Temperature
Properties of Weld Metals of Stainless Steel Flux-Cored Wires and Guidelines, by The Japan Welding ~ n ~ i n e e r i nSociety.
g Report 2: Position
Statement on the Effect of Bismuth on the Elevated Temperature Properties of Flux Cored Stainless Steel Weldments (with Appendix on IIW Round
Robin: Bismuth in Stainless Steel FCW Welds, by J. C. M. Farrar. A. W. Marshall and 2. Zhang. April 2001.
461 Leak Testing 16-inch Class 300 Flange wrth External Moment, by G. B~bel,T. Fath, W. Palmer, R. Riedesel. T. Westlind, May 2001.
462 Commentary o n the Alternative Rules for Determining Allowable Compressive Stresses for Cylinders. Cones, Spheres and Formed Heads for Section
V111, Divisions 1 and 2, by C. D M~ller.Jure 2001.
463 Standardized Flexibility Factor Method and Piping Burst and Cyclic Moment Tests for Induction Bends and 6061-T6 and SS 304 Transition Joints.
Report 1: Standardized Method for Developing Flexibility Factors for Piping Components, by E. C. Rodabaugh and E. A. Wais. Report 2: Fatigue,
Moment Capacity and B u n t Tests of Induction Bends, by E. C. Rodabaugh and G. E. Woods. Report 3: Burst and Cyclic Moment Tests on Transition
Joints Between 6061-T6 and Type 3W Pipe, by G. E. Wwds, E. C. Rodabaugh and E. G. Reineke, July 2001.
464 Guidelines for Sizing of Vessels by Limit Analysis, by Arturs Kalnins. August 2001.
46!5 Technologies for the Evaluation of Non-Crack-Like Flaws in Pressurized Components- ErosionICorrosion, Pitting, Blisters. Shell Out-of-Roundness,
Weld Misalignment Bulges and Dents, ~y D. A. Osage. P. Krishnaswamy, D. R. Stephens, P. Scott. J . Janelle, R. Mohan, and G. M. Wiikowsiti. September
PG01.
466 Behavior of Bellows, by C. B x n t . IPJ. N o v c k r 2001.
467 Biaxial Thermo-Mechanical Fatigue R e s w n s e of SS-316 Structures, by S. Y. Zamnk. L. C. Firth. M. L. Renauld, and D. Davis. December 2CG:
468 Leak Testing of a Raised Face Weld Neck Flange, by G. Bibel. D. Weinberger, C. Syverson, and S. Dock:er, January 2002.
469 Crack-Starter Weld Bead D e w s i t i o n for ASTM E 208 DRop-Weight Testing, by Cari D. Lundin. Peng LIU. Songqing Wen. Ralph Edwards. ar,d Raymond
Bellamy. February 2002.
470 Recommendations for Design of Vessels for Elevated Temperature Service, by V. A. Carucci. R. C. Chao, and D. J. Stelling. April2002.
471 Development of Stress Intensity Factor Solutions for Surface and Embedded Cracks in API 579, by T. L. Anderson, G. Thorwald. D. J. Revelle. D. A.
Osage, J. L. Janelle, and Matthew E. Fuhrj. May 2002.
472 Using finite Element Analysis t o Determine Piping Elbow Bending Moment ( 8 3 Stress Indices, by V. C. Matzen, Y. Tan. June 2002.
473 External Bending Moments on Bolted Gasketed Joints. Part 1: The Effects of Bending Moments on Bolted Gasketed Joints, by Yves B~renbaut,Th~errj
Ledauph~n.Vincent Mas. H a k ~ mBcuzid. Michel Derenne, and Pascal Martelli-Garon. Part 2: Effect of Gasket Type on the Behavior of NPS 4 Class 150
Boned Joints Subjected to External Bending Loads, by Luc Marchand and Michel Derenne. July 2002