International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 78 (2001) 627635

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

Design of a steam-heated sterilizer based on nite element

method stress analysis
R.M. Natal Jorge*, A.A. Fernandes
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Industrial Management, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Rua Dr Roberto Frias,
4200-465 Porto, Portugal
Received 28 November 2000; revised 1 August 2001; accepted 31 August 2001

Abstract
A steam-heated sterilizer is a pressure vessel of rectangular cross section externally reinforced by members welded to the at surfaces of
the vessel. These members are pressure vessels too with rectangular cross section. The ASME code provides alternative rules (Division 2) for
the design of pressure vessels based on a Design By Analysis route. The stresses on the sterilizer were computed by the nite element method
followed by the calculation of the stress elds according to the classication established in the ASME code. Structural members with shell
intersections (as in the present case) present difculties due to problems of linearisation and categorisation. In the present work the shell stress
resultants were used instead of smoothed stresses. The operating conditions of the vessel involve cyclic application of loads requiring design
based on fatigue analysis. q 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Finite element; Vessel of non-circular cross section; Design by analysis

1. Introduction easily identied as bottom, middle or top, the problems of

Pressure vessel design has been historically based on
Design By Formula. Standard vessel congurations are
designed using a series of simple formulae and charts. In
addition to the Design By Formula route, many national
codes and standards for pressure vessel and boiler design,
also provide for a Design By Analysis (DBA) route, where
the admissibility of a design is checked, or proven, via a
detailed investigation of the structure's behaviour under the
external loads to be considered. DBA procedures do not
specify particular implementation tools. However, the most
widely used technique in contemporary pressure vessel design
is the nite element method (FEM), a powerful technique
allowing the detailed modelling of complex vessels [1].
All the DBA routes in the major codes and standards of
pressure equipment are based on the rules proposed in the
ASME pressure vessel and boiler code [2], which was formu-
lated in the late 1950's. All these routes lead to the same well-
known problems, especially the stress categorisation problem
(see for example Refs. [3,4]). In general, this does not present
a problem in cases where the analysis uses thin shells.
However, for the analysis of structural members with shell
intersections, where the calculated nodal stresses cannot be
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1351-22-508-1713; fax: 1351-22-508-1584.
E-mail address: rnatal@fe.up.pt (R.M. Natal Jorge).
0308-0161/01/$ - see front matter q 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0308-016 1(01)00078-3
linearisation and categorisation become more difcult.
In fact, when a structural member has shell intersections,
the nodal stress tensors, for example, the stress tensors of
bottom points, cannot be smoothed. In the present work the
use of nodal shell stress resultants are proposed as variables
to be smoothed before the procedures of linearisation. With
these smoothed nodal shell stress resultants for all the
elements, the shell stress resultants can be interpolated to
the Gauss points. In the Gauss points, the stress tensors can
be carried out to the top, middle and bottom of the shell.
Thus, these stress tensors must be extrapolated to the nodes
and no smoothing is made. Finally, for each node and at the
element level, the linearisation is computed based on
Kroenke's procedure [5].
2. Design by analysis
Most of the DBA guidelines given in the codes relate to
design based on elastic analysis this is the so-called
elastic route [6]. In this approach, based on the ASME
code [2], the designer is required to classify the calculated
stress into primary, secondary and peak categories and
apply specied allowable stress limits. The magnitudes of
the allowable values assigned to the various stress
categories reect the nature of their associated failure
mechanisms. Therefore it is essential that the categorisation
628 R.M. Natal Jorge, A.A. Fernandes / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 78 (2001) 627635
stress distribution
at Gauss points in
one element
a)
Fig. 1. Plane problems: unsmoothed (a) and smoothed stresses (b).
procedure is performed correctly. The designer is required
to decompose the elastic stress eld into these three
categories and apply the appropriate stress limits.
Stress categorisation is probably the most difcult aspect
of the DBA procedure and, paradoxically, the problem has
become more difcult as the stress analysis techniques have
improved. In structural members with shell intersections,
the problem caused by the difculty associated with the
smoothed stresses is even more complex.
2.1. Smoothed procedure
Analysis involving numerically integrated elements such
as isoparametric elements, have shown that the integration
points are the best stress sampling points. The nodes, which
are the most useful output locations for stresses, appear to be
the worst sampling points. Reasons for this phenomenon can
be found in Ref. [7]. So the most popular procedure consists
of calculating the nodal stresses (each component) by extra-
polation based on integration points. In this step, each
component has several nodal values, because they are obtained
at the element level (Fig. 1a). Taking into account these nodal
values, a single value can be obtained for each component,
by the application of some kind of average (Fig. 1b).
This procedure, very popular for plane stress and plane
strain situations, presents some problems when applied to
structural shells. In plane stress (or plane strain) elements
there is one single point through the thickness, so the nodal
element T
node m
bottom top
top
element L
node i
node j bottom node i node i bottom
Fig. 2. Shell elements denition of top and bottom side.
b)
average has no problem. However, in shell elements more
than one point through the thickness is present, usually
named: bottom, middle and top.
For example, at node i (Fig. 2) the stress tensor for
bottom, middle and top points can be dened. These stress
tensors are obtained from the element T, element L and
element R. For one single point, at node i, there will be
the contribution of each element (three in this example).
Obviously, in this case the stress tensors cannot be extra-
polated from the Gauss points to the nodes and then make an
average. The reason is simple: in element L and element R
at node i the bottom point, the middle point and the top point
are the same, but in the element T the bottom point, for
example, has nothing to do with the points from elements
L and R.
In the work being reported, the shell stress resultants are
used. In this case, for each element the shell stress resultants
in the Gauss point in the local referential system are
calculated. In the same manner working with the stress
components, the shell stress resultants are extrapolated to
the nodes (Fig. 3). This fact implies that, in general, for each
shell stress resultant (STR) the equilibrium equations are not
veried, since the extrapolation is independent from
element to element, i.e.:
X
n
DSTR STRi 0 1
i1
m T
R
L
j i k
element R
node k
 R.M. Natal Jorge, A.A. Fernandes / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 78 (2001) 627635 629

element T element T

N Txy M Tx
Q Ty Q Tx M Txy
element L element R element L element R
Q Rx M Txy
N Ty N T M Ty
L
N xy x
N Rxy M Rx
N Lx N Rx L
M Lxy M Rxy
Mx
N Ly Q xL Q Ry M Ly M Ry
Q Ly N Ry M Lxy M Rxy

Fig. 3. Shell stress resultants.

where n is the number of elements meeting at the node under shell stress resultants can be interpolated to the Gauss
consideration. points.
For each node, in order to verify the equilibrium From shell theory [9] and based on the shell stress resul-
equations it is proposed that the shell stress resultants should tants the stress components at a Gauss point are calculated at
be distributed among the elements meeting at the joint. any point through the thickness at a distance from the
These distributed shell stress resultants in each element middle point of t according to (see Fig. 4):
2 38 9
1 12t Nx >
6 e 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 7>
> >
6 e 7>
> >
>
8 9 6 7>
> Ny > >
6 1 12t 7>
> >
>
>
> s xx t >
> 60 0 0 2 0 0 0 7> >
> > 6 7>
> N
>
>
>
> >
> 6 e e3 7>
> xy >>
>
> s t >
> 6 7> >
> > 6 7> >
7>
< Mx >
yy
< = 60 1 12t =
0 0 0 2 0 0
txy t 66 e e3
7
7 4
>
> >
> 6 ! 7> My >
> > 6 7> >
>
> t t >
> 6 6t 2
3 7>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
xz >
> 60 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 7>
> >
>
: t t ; 6
> > e 3 2e 7> M xy >
6 7>
> >
>
yz 6 7>
! 7> >
>
6 >
> Q x >>
6 6t2 3 5> 7 >
4 >
: >
;
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Qy
e3 2e

are proportional to their relative original values. Inspired In Eq. (4), for the middle point t 0; for the top point t
by the idea of the moment-distribution method of analysis 1e=2 and for the bottom point t 2e=2: Subsequently the
of framed structures, the ratio of the shell stress resultant in three stress tensors are extrapolated at bottom, middle and
an element to the equilibrium equation can be called the top surfaces to the nodes.
distribution factor (DF) [8]. It follows that the DF for an
element is equal to the original value of shell stress resultant 2.2. Stress categorisation
divided by the sum of the original values of shell stress
resultant of the elements meeting at the joint, that is, As mentioned in Section 2.1 the three stress tensors are
carried out in the nodal local co-ordinates at every node,
uSTRi u specically:
DFi X
n 2
uSTRj u
j1
stress tensor with their components at bottom of the shell:
s ijb ;
where i refers to the element considered and n refers to the stress tensor with their components at middle of the shell:
elements meeting at the joint. The nal shell stress resul- s ijm ;
tants can now be obtained by stress tensor with their components at top of the shell:
s ijt :
STRi 2DSTR DFi 1 STRi 3
Based on these three stress tensors a stress function is
This procedure works like a smoothed shell stress resul- needed to calculate every stress component at any point
tant, where the original values are taken into account in the through the thickness. This distribution can be approxi-
same way as a distributor of rigidity. mated by a parabolic function (see Fig. 4):
Finally, with all the nodes in equilibrium, making use of
the same shape functions that are used to evaluate the 2 t b m 2
 s ijt 2 s ijb
displacement vector in any point inside an element, the s ij t s ij 1 s ij 2 2s ij t 1 t 1 s ijm 5
e2 e
630 R.M. Natal Jorge, A.A. Fernandes / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 78 (2001) 627635

stress (Pm); local primary membrane stress (PL); primary

top surface bending stress (Pb); secondary stress (Q); peak stress (F).
The membrane and bending components are then
categorised depending upon the location of the supporting
middle
surface
bottom line segment. In this work the stress categories taken into
surface account are:
supporting line
segment effective membrane stress:
PL s Imem 2 s III
mem
9

effective bending stress:

Fig. 4. Stress distribution through thickness.
Q s Iben 2 s III
ben
10
Following the work of Kroenke, at any node, each
component of the stress tensor can be decomposed into effective non-linear stress:
three subsets [5]:
F s Inln 2 s III
nln
11
stress tensor of membrane stresses s ijmem
: is the tensor
whose components, constant along the supporting line
segment, are equal to the average of the stresses along where s InIn ; s IInIn ; s III
nIn
; s Imem ; s IImem ; s III
mem
and s Iben ;
this supporting line segment; ben ben
s II ; s III are the eigenvalues of the stress tensors dened
stress tensor of bending stresses s ijben : is the tensor in Eqs. (6)(8), it corresponds to the description of the
whose components, varying linearly across the thickness principal stresses.
of the shell, are calculated based on the beam bending In agreement with the values of effective stresses calcu-
theory (assuming a rectangular cross section with unit lated by Eqs. (9)(11) and according to the ASME code the
width); following evaluation criteria were used:
stress tensor of non-linear stresses s ijnln : is the tensor
whose components are equal to: PL # 1:5Sm 12

PL 1 Q # 3Sm 13
s ijnln s ij 2 s ijmem 2 s ijben 6
According to these denitions, the stress tensors of PL 1 Q 1 F # S a 14
membrane and bending stresses as a function of the stress where Sm and Sa are the allowable stress intensities, for static
tensors s ijb s ijm and s ijt can be obtained: and fatigue evaluations.
1 Z1 e=2 1 t  In fatigue analysis if there are two or more types of stress
s ijmem s ij t dt s ij 1 s ijb 2 2s ijm 1 s ijm 7 cycle which produce signicant stresses, their cumulative
e 2 e=2 6
effect shall be evaluated. According to the ASME code, it is
6 Z1 e=2 s ijt 2 s ijb necessary to specify the number of times each type of stress
s ijben s ij tt dt 8 cycle will be repeated during the life of the vessel. In
e2 2 e=2 2
determining the number of the cycles for each stress cycle
It is important to note that the nodal membrane and nodal type, consideration shall be given to the superposition of
bending stresses can be calculated directly from expression cycles of various origins, which produce a total stress
(4). Obviously, in this case and for several components of difference range greater than the stress difference ranges
stresses tensor the non-linear term cannot be obtained, since of the individual cycles [2].
those stresses are constants, or depend linearly on t (it is the
case for s xx ; s yy and txy ).
3. Example: analysis of a steam sterilizer
2.3. Assessment criteria
In order to assess the proposed methodology, an analysis
According to the ASME code [2], one requirement for the of a steam-heated sterilizer is carried out. Based on the
acceptability of a design is that the calculated stress inten- classication of Wei, this kind of pressure vessel is not
sities shall not exceed specied allowable limits. These typical [10]. The steam-heated sterilizer that has been
limits depend of the stress category from which the stress studied has the geometry shown in Fig. 5. In this gure,
intensity is derived. The ASME code establishes the follow- only one eighth of the component is represented correspond-
ing classication of stresses: general primary membrane ing to the nite element model used. The sterilizer has
 R.M. Natal Jorge, A.A. Fernandes / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 78 (2001) 627635 631

steam
jacket

thk = 5 closure
2 collar
1

thk = 6

guide
thk = 5
thk = 6
Thicknesses:
- Chamber: 5 mm
- Steam jacket 1: 6 mm chamber
- Steam jacket 2: 5 mm
- Closure collar: 6 mm beam elements
- Guide: 25 mm (studs)

Fig. 5. Steam-heated sterilizer: geometry and nite element model.

four-steam jackets, which work as reinforcing members,
two-closure collars and two doors.
The doors have an ascending or descending vertical slid-
ing movement in two guides. These guides are bolted rigidly
to studs welded to the external steam jackets (see Fig. 6).
The operation of the sterilizer can be summarised in the
following way: the door is slid to the closed position;
pressure is introduced in the closure collars in order to
maintain sufcient pressure on the silicon gasket to ensure
a tight joint with the door and prevent leakage of steam. The
sterilizer is then subjected to internal pressure, maintaining
the pressure in the closure collars. The load combinations
indicated in Table 1 reect this operation procedure in detail
and were dened on the basis of service load spectra
supplied by the user, illustrated in Fig. 7 (for the chamber
only).
The calculation route can be summarised as follows:
evaluate by FEM for each load combination, the nodal
values on the guides due to the loads exerted by the door
on the guides;
combine these forces with the loads present in the body.
The guides were modelled with shell elements and the
studs with beam elements. Due to the diameter of these
studs (40 mm) the connection stud/steam jacket was
modelled through rigid elements.
The material elastic properties are: modulus of elasticity
E 210 GPa (at 208C), E 196 GPa (at 1378C) and Pois-
son's ratio n 0:3: The allowable stresses for static evalua-
tion are: Sm 208C 130 MPa; Sm 1378C 110 MPa:
The results presented in this paper were calculated when
the doors are closed. The static stress elds obtained
correspond to the critical load combination (10th combina-
tion see Table 1). The acceptance criteria are given by
expressions (12) and (13).
The sterilizer is subjected in service to both pressure and
temperature (as illustrated in Fig. 7) variations inducing

steam
Thicknesses: jacket
- Lateral bar: 12 mm
- Door: 6 mm

beam elements
(studs)

rigid
elements

guide

studs
lateral bar

Fig. 6. Steam-heated sterilizer: nite element model of the doors.

632 R.M. Natal Jorge, A.A. Fernandes / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 78 (2001) 627635

Table 1
Combinations of loads

Combination Pressure on steam Pressure on chamber (Pa) Global temperature (8C)

jackets and
closure collar (Pa)

1st Combination 1240,000 273,300 150

2nd Combination 1240,000 273,300 180
3rd Combination 1240,000 273,300 1121
4th Combination 1240,000 273,300 1137
5th Combination 1240,000 2100,000 150
6th Combination 1240,000 2100,000 180
7th Combination 1240,000 2100,000 1137
8th Combination 1240,000 1110,000 1137
9th Combination 1240,000 1220,000 1137
10th Combination 1240,000 1240,000 1137

cyclic loads requiring a fatigue analysis. The values of PL, Q
and F correspond to the Tresca criterion dened according
to Eqs. (9)(11). These values should be calculated for all
load combinations. The allowable fatigue stress should be in
accordance with criterion (14).
From the working cycles of the chamber, steam jacket
and closure collar ten combinations of pressure and
temperature were selected (see Table 1).
As each load combination has their maximum values,
these occur at different points. So, for each load
combination the maximum resultant stress can be
expressed by
S1 2 S3=2 PL 1 Q 1 F=2
The identied critical points and their positions are shown
in Fig. 8, for a static evaluation. Table 2 presents the values
of maximum resultant stress PL 1 Q=2 for each load
combination. As can be seen the 10th combination
corresponds to the most critical load factor. This is true
for the three components of the sterilizer: closure collar
(P1), chamber (P5) and steam jacket 1 (P9). The general
primary membrane stress intensities were not included in
Table 2 since their magnitudes are very low. The design of
the sterilizer is controlled by local primary membrane
stresses (PL) and secondary stresses (Q).
The local membrane stress intensities calculated satised
the evaluation criterion PL # 1:5Sm : The highest stress
intensity calculated (at point P9 for a service temperature
of 1378C), as shown in Table 2, satises the criterion PL 1
Q # 3Sm 2 62 MPa , 3Sm 3 110:
The fatigue strength of a pressure vessel is usually
15
governed by the fatigue strength of details, in particular
the stress concentration created by such details.
The sterilizer under evaluation is subjected in service to
load spectra illustrated in Fig. 7 for one working loading/
unloading cycle. The vessel is operated eight times per day,

2.4
Pressure xE5 [Pa]

1.9

1.4

0.9

0.4

-0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

-0.6

-1.1

200
Temperature [C]

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Fig. 7. Service load spectra for the chamber.

 R.M. Natal Jorge, A.A. Fernandes / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 78 (2001) 627635 633

Table 2
Maximum resultant stresses PL 1 Q=2 on steam-heated sterilizer (MPa)

Combination Closure collar Chamber Steam jacket 1

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

1st Combination 1 17 6 28 4 31 22 19 13 3
2nd Combination 1 17 6 28 4 31 22 19 25 31
3rd Combination 1 17 6 28 4 31 22 19 33 40
4th Combination 1 17 6 28 4 31 22 19 39 47
5th Combination 3 18 6 35 19 32 23 26 13 19
6th Combination 3 18 6 35 19 32 23 25 24 32
7th Combination 3 18 6 35 19 32 13 25 38 48
8th Combination 22 2 26 6 40 3 7 14 50 44
9th Combination 38 5 30 13 55 6 10 29 61 43
10th Combination 39 5 31 15 57 7 11 32 62 43

which gives 38400 cycles during the lifetime of the vessel
(15 years). Each operating cycle induces several stress
cycles at each point, which can be evaluated by means of
an adequate counting technique. In the present paper the
reservoir method was used [11]. The stress history for the
selected points is illustrated in Fig. 9.
Thus the specied number of times each type of stress
cycle of types 1, 2, 3 etc. is repeated during the life of the
vessel is n1, n2, n3 etc. respectively. Table 3 illustrates the
total number of service cycles (ni) for each stress range type
at the ten critical points (P1P10).
From the applicable ASME design fatigue curve the
maximum number of repetitions (Ni) which would be
allowable is calculated.
For each type of stress cycle the damage factors Ui were
calculated:
Ui ni =Ni
The cumulative damage factor U is derived:
X
U Ui 17
i
Table 3 summarises the calculations for all the critical
points. As can be seen the total damage is less than 1, which
means that the fatigue criterion is satised.
4. Conclusions
A methodology for stress categorisation in pressure
vessels analysis containing structural members with shell
intersections was proposed. This methodology is based on
smoothed shell stress resultants in contrast to the traditional
smoothed stresses. With this proposed procedure some of
the problems related to the traditional classication of bottom,
16 middle and top surfaces are avoided. The methodology was

P2
P4 P5
P1

P3 P7
P6

P8

P9

P10

Fig. 8. Position of the points with maximum stresses.

634 R.M. Natal Jorge, A.A. Fernandes / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 78 (2001) 627635

(S1-S3)/2

(S1-S3)/2
20
40
P1 16
30
12
20
8
10 4

0 0
P2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
time time
(S1-S3)/2

(S1-S3)/2
35 40
30 P3 35
25 30
25
20
20
15
15
10 10
5 5
P4
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
time time

(S1-S3)/2
(S1-S3)/2

70 40
60 P5 35
50 30
25
40
20
30
15
20 10
10 5
0
P6
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
time time
(S1-S3)/2

25
(S1-S3)/2

35
P7 30
20
25
15 20
10 15
10
5
5
P8
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
time time
(S1-S3)/2

(S1-S3)/2

70 50
60 P9 40
50
40 30
30 20
20
10
10
0
P10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
time time

Fig. 9. Stress history at the critical points.

 R.M. Natal Jorge, A.A. Fernandes / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 78 (2001) 627635 635

Table 3
Cumulative damage based on the graphs of Fig. 9
P
Localisation Stress range (Ds ) Number of cycles (n) Number of Damage U n=N Cumulative damage ( Ui)
cycles from
design fatigue
curve (N)

P1 40 1 38400 1 10 11 3:840 1027 6.528 10 26

21 5 38400 1 1011 1:920 1026
3 1 38400 1 1011 3:840 1027
2 10 38400 1 1011 3:840 1026
P2 18 2 38400 1 1011 7:680 1027 3:072 1026
15 5 38400 1 1011 1:920 1026
12 1 38400 1 1011 3:840 1027
P3 31 1 38400 1 1011 3:840 1027 6:144 1026
20 5 38400 1 1011 1:920 1026
1 10 38400 1 1011 3:840 1026
P4 35 2 38400 1 1011 7:680 1027 6:912 1026
22 5 38400 1 1011 1:920 1026
15 1 38400 1 1011 3:840 1027
2 10 38400 1 1011 3:840 1026
P5 19 1 38400 1 1011 3:840 1027 6:526 1026
36 5 38400 1 1011 1:920 1026
54 2 38400 1 1011 7:680 1027
2 9 38400 1 1011 3:840 1026
P6 36 1 38400 1 1011 3:840 1027 6:144 1026
15 5 38400 1 1011 1:920 1026
2 10 38400 1 1011 3:840 1026
P7 23 2 38400 1 1011 7:680 1027 3:072 1026
16 1 38400 1 1011 3:840 1027
4 5 38400 1 1011 1:920 1026
P8 26 2 38400 1 1011 7:680 1027 6:912 1026
5 5 38400 1 1011 1:920 1026
13 1 38400 1 1011 3:840 1027
3 10 38400 1 1011 3:840 1026
P9 63 1 38400 1 107 3:840 1023 3:846 1023
37 5 38400 1 1011 1:920 1026
2 10 38400 1 1011 3:840 1026
P10 43 1 38400 1 1011 3:840 1027 2:304 1026
41 5 38400 1 1011 1:920 1026

applied to the design of a real sterilizer. Static and fatigue
assessments were carried out.
Acknowledgements
The nancial support of the rm Jose dos Santos [6]
Monteiro, Lda through project `Esterilizador JSM 490/
2PD' is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Mackerle J. Finite elements in the analysis of pressure vessels and
piping, an addendum (19961998). Int J Pressure Vessels Piping
1999;76:46185.
[2] ASME-CODE, Section VIII Division 2, The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 1998.
[3] Roche RL. Practical procedure for stress classication. Int J Pressure
Vessels Piping 1989;37:2744.
[4] Hechmer JL, Hollinger GL. Considerations in the calculations of the
primary plus secondary stress intensity range for code stress classi-
cation. In: Seshadri R, editor. Codes and standards and applications
for design and analysis of pressure vessel and piping components, vol.
136. New York: ASME PVP, 1988.
[5] Kroenke WC. Classication of nite element stresses according to
ASME Section III stress categories. Proceedings of 94th ASME
Winter Annual Meeting, 1973.
Design-by-Analysis Manual, European Pressure Equipment Research
Council, European Commission, DG-JRC/IAM, Petten, The Nether-
lands, 1999.
[7] Hinton E, Campbell JS. Local and global smoothing of discontinuos
nite element functions using a least squares method. Int J Numer
Meth Engng 1974;8:46180.
[8] Ghali A, Neville AM. Foundations structural analysis. 3rd ed.
London: Chapman & Hall, 1989.
[9] Timoshenko SP, Woinowsky-Krieger S. Theory of plates and shells.
2nd ed. Singapore: McGraw-Hill, 1970.
[10] Wei E, Rauth M. FEM-integrated concept for the detailed proof of
fatigue strength of nozzle-to-vessel connections. Int J Pressure
Vessels Piping 2000;77:21525.
[11] BS 5500, Specication for unred fusion welded pressure vessels,
British Standard Institution, 1997.