Proceedings of the ASME 2013 Pressure Vessels & Piping Division Conference

PVP2013
July 14-18, 2013, Paris, France

PVP2013-97622

STRESS ANALYSIS OF PIPE SUPPORT ATTACHMENTS: A COMPARISON OF

ANALYTICAL METHODS AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS FOR CIRCULAR AND
NON-CIRCULAR ATTACHMENTS

Anindya Bhattacharya
Technical Head, Stress Analysis
CB&I, 40 East Bourne Terrace, London, W2 6LG,
United Kingdom.
Phone: +442070535668

ABSTRACT
4. Comparison of FEA, WRC 107, WRC297 and “Kellogg”
Despite the availability of special purpose FE codes with
methods w.r.t the following parameters:
post processing facilities as per rules of ASME SEC VIII
• Type of loading (Radial, Longitudinal, Circumferential)
Division 2, use of simple analytical methods like ring loading
applied in a “ stand-alone manner” is absence of pressure
around a circumference or more complex methods like
Welding Research council bulletins 107 and 297, will continue • D , t and d ratios
T T D
to be used in the industry for a significant period of time for
• Combined loading including pressure
stress analysis of pipe support attachments. The reasons are
• Different element types
few: not all engineering companies have such custom made
FE codes, lack of trained personnel to work with general
NOMENCLATURE
purpose FE codes, ease of implementation of the available
methods and their successful design history, cost and time ξ , ϕ - components in the ( ξ ,ϕ ) coordinate of the main
issues with FE analysis etc. In this paper these available shell
methods will be reviewed based on their theoretical r,R - mid surface radii of the branch pipe and main shell
background, their range of applicability w.r.t the typical design E,ν - Young’s modulus and Poisson ratio respectively
parameters and their comparison with FE analysis. More un - radial displacement
recent analytical methods based on mathematically accurate
space curves of intersections for circular attachments will also ρ0 - diameter ratio = d
D
be discussed. This study will include both circular as well as T - thickness of main shell
non-circular attachments. This paper will highlight the φ - Airy stress function
strengths and weaknesses of the conventionally used methods
p - internal pressure
especially with respect to their mathematical limitations to
make an analyst aware of the potential over conservatism and ρ ,θ ,z - global cylindrical coordinates in 3D space
under conservatism of these analytical methods. Finite
pξ , pϕ - surface force components in the directions
element analysis models will be discussed in detail
specifically in relation to elements used, element parameters, w - vertical displacement
boundary conditions and post processing. ET 3
H - flexural rigidity of shell =
INTRODUCTION 12( 1 − µ 2 )
Z - loading in vertical direction
In this paper, the subject matter has been structured in the
t - thickness of attached shell
following manner:
1. Discussion of the available theoretical methods, from the ET
K - foundations stiffness = 2
simplest to the advanced. R
2. Brief overview of basic shell mathematical model. x - direction of longitudinal axis of cylinder
3. Brief overview of available finite element options. S - section modulus of the trunnion pipe
A - area of cross section of trunnion pipe

1 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

 2. AVAILABLE THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO
M - resultant applied bending moment on trunnion
THE PROBLEM OF ANALYSING A CYLINDRICAL
P - load per unit of circumference (applied as a ring
SHELL WITH CYLINDRICAL OR NON-CYLINDRICAL
load)
ATTACHMENTS.
rt - radius of trunnion
F - force on trunnion 2.1 Approach 1:
β1 , β 2 - attachment parameters for rectangular attachments = This approach is popularly known as “Kellogg” method in
c1 c the piping industry. This approach has been so named as it
& 2 appeared for the first time in [4] and is based on ring loading
R R
around a circular cylinder.
c1 , c2 - half dimensions of the rectangle along
circumferential and meridional directions Governing differential equation [1]:
respectively For an axi-symmetric loading on a circular cylinder, the
∇ 2 - Laplacian Operator, ∇.∇ ( ) governing differential equation is the well known beam on
elastic foundation equation:
1. SHELL THEORIES:
d 4w
There are various shell theories and each one has its own H 4 + Kw = Z (1)
dx
protagonist. Any shell theory has to be evaluated within the
d 4 w ETw Z
postulates of Sanders-Koiter’s approach [12, 21] which can be + = (2)
summarised as follows: dx 4 HR 2 H
1. The equations can be written in general tensor form. 3( 1 − µ 2 ) 1.28
2. The deformations are described by six strain measures, Introducing β 4 = 2 2
, i.e. β = considering
RT RT
three of which are components of the usual membrane strain
µ = 0.3 .
tensor and the other three deviate from the components of the
geometrical curvature change tensor only by terms that are we therefore get
bilinear in the components of the curvature and membrane
strain tensor. d 4w Z
3. The stresses are described by six stress measures that satisfy 4
+ 4β 4 w = (3)
dx H
the equations of equilibrium without approximation.
4. The theory has a principle of virtual work that is exact for The solution of this differential equation and boundary
displacements obeying the Kirchoff hypothesis; in conjunction conditions are detailed in [1]
with approximate constitutive relations between the stress and Extending the above analysis to a case of bending of a
strain measures. Well-set boundary value problems can be cylindrical shell by a load uniformly distributed along a
formulated, and the usual minimum and reciprocal relations of circular section [1], we get:
structural mechanics hold good. P
Maximum Bending Moment = , where P= load per unit
5. The theory contains an exact static-geometric analogy. This 4β
analogy can be formulated by replacing the static quantities by length of circumference.
corresponding geometrical quantities in homogeneous
1.17 P R
equations of equilibrium and the resulting equations become Bending stress, σ bending = (4)
1.5
identical with the compatibility conditions. T
6. When applied to the symmetrical bending of shells of
revolution, the stress and strain measures agree with those P, can be defined in terms of a local radial load, Pr and local
generally used. They are consistent with those of the most moment, M r . This is necessary because P is a line load
simple curved beam theory. distributed around the circumference of the shell.
For the present purpose, we will discuss the issue of If a load Pr is divided by the attachment perimeter it becomes
cylindrical pipes with circular (referred to as trunnion) as well
Pr
as non-circular (referred to as pipe shoes) attachments. Hence for a nozzle of radius, rt . or a moment over section
there is no “puncture” in the header pipe. The mathematical 2πrt
problem of the main shell with cut-out is a boundary value Mr
modulus of the attachment becomes, .
problem of partial differential equation. It means that the πrt2
cylindrical shell equation, whose general solutions have many
Flexural stresses are added to membrane longitudinal and
unknown constants, is suitable on the shell surface with or
hoop stresses to get total stress = membrane stress in direction
without cut-out. In order to determine the unknown constants
i + flexural stresses in direction i computed by the expression
the boundary conditions have to be used.
in eq-(4)

2 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

To compute P, these were the steps followed:
Computation of loads in longitudinal and circumferential
directions by use of the following expressions:
• longitudinal force = (longitudinal force x moment
arm)/ πrt2
• circumferential force = (circumferential force x moment
arm)/ πrt2
• radial force = radial load/ 2πrt
• equivalent circumferential force = 2 x circ. force + 1.5 x
radial force
• equivalent longitudinal force = 1.5 x radial force +
longitudinal force
The above forces are used as P in eq-(4)
The reason behind the use of the factors 1.5 and 2.0 is
attributed to higher flexibilities in these directions.
The flexural stresses in longitudinal and circumferential
directions are then computed using these “equivalent” forces
and the membrane pressure stresses are then added to compute
the total stresses. Stress in the trunnion attachment is
F M
computed as + .
A S
2.1.1. The case of Pipe shoes:
Schematic arrangements for some pipe shoes are shown in
fig-(1). Dimension B stands for shoe/gusset width, G =
number of gussets, L = gusset spacing (this depends on the
design), S = number of spines, M = spine spacing, and A=
shoe length.
The approach taken for analysis of pipe shoes is similar to
that of trunnion type attachments. The computations of section
properties (few examples) are cited.
1. Pipe shoe with no gusset:
3
longitudinal moment of inertia = A
12
distance to centroid, longitudinally = A
2
moment of inertia, circumferential = A
12
distance to centroid = B
2
2. Pipe shoe with 4 gussets:
3
longitudinal moment of inertia = A + 5 BL2
12 9
distance to centroid = A
2
3
moment of inertia, circumferential = B
3
distance to centroid = B
2

3 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

 Fig-(2) [31, 25]

Bijlaard applied the radial force system, qn instead of

vertical force system, qz . When subjected to a radial force
system the resultants not only include moments, M xb or M yb
but also force, Fyb . This will be statically equivalent to
Fig-(1). Schematic design of some common pipe shoe types. external load Z involving force, Fzb , transverse bending
3. Saddle: moment, M xb and longitudinal bending moment, M yb . The

moment of inertia, longitudinal = A

3
+ BL
2 figure below shows the transverse bending moment, M xb case.
6 12
In fig-3(a), the linearly distributed force system, qz is
distance to centroid = A statically equivalent to the transverse bending moment, M xb
2
3 2
moment of inertia, circumferential = B + AB but in fig-3(b), the linearly distributed force system, qn is
6 2
statically equivalent to the transverse bending moment, M xb
distance to centroid = B
2 and force, Fy as in fig-3(d).
2.2 Approach 2: The WRC-107 approach based on
the work of Bijlaard [34, 26, 2]
Bijlaard derived a theoretical solution based on
Timoshenko equations [1, 26] for a cylindrical shell on end
supports under a force system, qn linearly distributed over a
ρ0
square region defined by ξ ≤ c , ϕ ≤ c , where c = in
2
the developed surface. In deriving the equations it has been
assumed that ε 0 = 0 (circumferential strain).
The force/moment system is shown in fig-(2) below

4 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

 Fig-(3) [25]
ϕ ϕ • Circumferential Moment ( taken from A.3.3.2 and Table
qz = qn cos ϕ = qn 0 cos ϕ , q y = qn sin ϕ = qn 0 sin ϕ (5) A-4 of WRC 107)
ϕ0 ϕ0
For the thin walled model, the measured circumferential
ϕ0 ϕ0 ϕ
M x = 2c ∫ q z Rc sin ϕ dϕ = 2c 2 R ∫ qn 0 cos ϕ sin ϕ d ϕ and longitudinal stresses were both higher than the computed
−ϕ 0 −ϕ0 ϕ0 values. Modifications were then done to Bijlaard's original
(6) work for both longitudinal and circumferential stresses for the
ϕ0 ϕ0 ϕ bending components (and for the circumferential stress, for the
Fy = 2c ∫ q y c d ϕ = 2c 2 ∫ qn 0 sin ϕ d ϕ (7) membrane component also) but for longitudinal stresses there
−ϕ 0 −ϕ 0 ϕ0
was minimal requirement for correction of the membrane
Bijlaard used Double Fourier Series to represent loads and component. Correction factor used was around 2.7 for bending
displacements. component of circumferential stress + 20-25% for membrane
component and correction factor of 2.72 was used for bending
The limitations of Bijlaard’s approach are the d ≤ 0.3
D component of longitudinal stress (no correction for membrane
and the usage of Double Fourier series method which may not component). It is stated in WRC-107 that the modified curves
show convergence for certain boundary conditions [32, 26]. may be more conservative than the original work.
The limitation of d is due to the use of radial force instead • Longitudinal Moment ( taken from A.3.3.2 and Table A-4
D
of WRC 107)
of vertical force. This results in significant error outside
For the thin walled model, the measured circumferential
aforementioned d limit. The stresses are computed in 8 and longitudinal stresses were both higher than the computed
D
specific locations around the intersection. The maximum values. Corrections were made to both the Membrane and
stresses need not be at these locations! Additionally stresses in Bending components. For the Longitudinal stress, no
Trunnion/Shoes cannot be computed. For rectangular correction was required for the Membrane component. Higher
attachments, the limitation is β1 & β2 < 0.5 . modification was required for membrane component (30%)
compared to bending component (18%) for circumferential
It is to be noted that WRC-107 is not only based on
stress. Correction factor used was 6.75 in bending component
Bijlaard’s theoretical work but also experimental works by
of longitudinal stress (no correction for membrane component)
Mehrson, Wichman and Hopper [34]. The bulletin shows a
comparison of the calculated and measured stresses for both • Radial Load ( taken from A.3.3.4 and Table A-6 of WRC-
thick walled models and thin walled models. Following were 107)
the main issues between the Experimental works and Results agreed well on the transverse axis but the
Bijlaard’s work for thin shells. theoretical results were conservative by factors as high as 2.0
on the longitudinal axis.

5 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

on the longitudinal axis. Results for transverse axis agreed Based on this line of reasoning in-order to extend the
dm Dm applicability of the thin shell theoretical solution for
well for cases that are restricted by ≤2 cylindrical shells with cut-out, Xue et al adopted Morley’s
Dm T equation [9], which has the same order of magnitude of
2.3 Approach 3: Post WRC-107 approaches – WRC-
297 and works of Morley, Simmonds and Hwang et
R ( )
accuracy as the general thin shell theory, i.e. O T , instead

al. [5, 33, 11, 16, 25] of Donnell’s. Morley’s equation is expressed in complex-
valued form by Simmonds [11] as follows:
Theory of thin elastic shells, in which T/R<<1 is
 4 2 ∂
2

 χ = P ( pξ , pϕ , p )
insignificant in magnitude is derived on the basis of Love-
 ∇ + ∇ − 4µ i 2
2
(11)
Kirchhoff assumptions. A generally accepted fact is this  ∂ξ 
( )
approach has an error of order of magnitude O T .
R where, χ and µ are the same as in eq-(10) and (9). The right
When a solution is derived by omitting some terms, which hand side of eq-(11) is a load function dependent on the
has order of magnitude larger than O T ( )
R
(such as surface force components acting on the shell.

( )
The cylindrical thin shell equations derived by
O T for shallow shell equations), the accuracy of the Goldenveizer, Morley, Simmonds and Timoshenko (which
R
was used by Bijlaard) have the same inherent error in order of
( )
solution is bound to be lower. The detailed analysis of the
above-mentioned concept can be found in well-known magnitude O T . The solution has the order of accuracy
R
literature and textbooks of thin shell theory [6].
The “exact” equations for thin elastic cylindrical shells are ( )
O T . WRC-297, which is based on Steele’s work on
R
very complicated. For a problem of cylindrical shell with cut- shallow shell equations covers a range of only
out [25], Donnell [8] presented an approximate equation
( )
r ≤ sin π < 0.5 .
(omitting terms of order of magnitude O ( R
T
)
) from
R 6
For detailed analysis of the approach taken by Xue et al
Flügge’s equation [13]. This equation is quite simple and can refer [17, 31].
be expressed in complex-valued displacement-stress function In essence, the approach taken is to use compatibility
form (Lekkerkerker [15] and Steele [3]) as follows: conditions enforced on the geometrically correct curve of
intersection as opposed to an assumed curve of intersection
 4 2 ∂ 
( )
2

 ∇ − 4 µ i χ = 0 (8) and using theories which are of order O T which may or

 ∂ξ 2
R
may not involve using different shell theories for intersecting
4 µ = 12 (1 −ν 2 )
2 R cylinders.
(9)
T To summarize, different cylindrical shell equations are
4µ 2 suitable to different ranges of the developed surface. Fig-(4)
χ = un + i φ (10) below shows the different ranges of developed surface [25].
ETR
where, un , is radial displacement and φ , Airy stress function.
Eq-(8) can be decomposed into two second-order partial
differential equations and is easy to solve in polar coordinate
system for the problem of cylindrical shell with cut-out [25].
However, as pointed out by Koiter, eq-(8) can only be applied
for shallow shells. Koiter [7] had written, “It has been noted
[9,14] that Donnell’s approximation is sometimes inaccurate”
and “the generalization of Donnell’s approximation is
applicable in the case of shallow shells in which the wave
length L of the deformation pattern on the middle surface is
always small compared with the minimum principal radius of
curvature R”. Based on fig-6.14 in Donnell’s book [10], the
applicable range of shallow shell equation for the problem of

R ( )
cylindrical shell with opening is only r ≤ sin π = 0.5 .
6
The edge effects of general cylindrical shells and shallow
shells mathematically differ.

6 Copyright © 2013 by ASME


Fig-(4) [25]
Donnel [10] showed that his shallow shell equations could
be suitable to the range of − π < ϕ < π i.e. ρ 0 < 0.5 . In
6 6
[15] Lekkerkerker showed that the shallow shell equations
could be applied to the range of ρ0 ≤ 0.25 . The different
applicable ranges adopted by different authors are dependant
on different allowable intrinsic errors.
3.0 DIFFICULTIES IN IMPLEMENTATION OF
ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS:
Analytical solutions (rather analytical solutions backed by
experimental findings like WRC 107/297 methods) are
extremely useful in addressing stress analysis issues of pipe
support attachments as they are available in almost all
commercial pipe stress codes and methods like “Kellogg
method” can easily be developed into spreadsheets. The
difficulty is of course the limited range of applicability of
these methods specially in relation to d ratio and for the
D determinant of Jacobian Matrix in the direction of thickness
Kellog method , its main drawback is its mathematical
oversimplification of a problem, an issue which is not
negligible when the predominant form of the loading is
Radial. More advanced approaches as explained in section 2.3
of this paper have solved the problem up to d =0.8, but
D
these methods are yet not available in commercial pipe stress
codes or as WRC bulletins and it will be a while before they
will be available as handy tools for engineering applications.
Such methods can be used to validate numerical analysis
7 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
methods like FEM as currently an engineer in an industry does
not have an easy tool to compare the FE results against some
published benchmarks for d >0.5. In other words, as long as
D
we do not have analytical tools which are easily
implementable and which will address the problems to be
analyzed without having significant restrictions on geometry
and loading conditions, FE analysis should be the preferred
tool for analysis. The objective of this paper is to make an
analyst aware of the potential over conservatism and under
conservatism in the available and widely used methods if an
analyst is constrained to use them.
4.0 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS APPROACH TO THE
PROBLEM
[33] provides an excellent discussion on the issues
involving conflicts between shell theory and finite element
analysis of shells. To briefly summarize them:
• Ill conditioning due to significantly different strain
energies between membrane and bending modes.
• Use of low degree polynomial trial functions in the
displacement finite element method generally leads to
overstiffness in the response to bending actions.
• Difficulty in deriving trial functions for in-extensional
bending.
Many authors [33, 18, 30] have recommended use of
hybrid elements. In this paper, however, we have used only
displacement based finite element method.
Finite elements available for shell analysis can be broadly
classified into the following groups:
1. Degenerated solid elements.
2. Elements based on basic shell mathematical model.
3. Elements based on combination of plate and membrane
elements.
For a detailed discussion on type-1, refer [19]. The main
feature of these elements is the number and variety of adhoc
assumptions made to accommodate the standard procedures of
finite element formulation. The variation of strain through
thickness isn’t linear. Assumptions regarding dependence of
can lead to violation of rigid body properties [19].
Type-2 elements are usually not available in commercial
FE codes. They suffer from rigid body motion problems [18].
The element S8R is ABAQUS is however close to these
elements as discussed in [18].
To explain the meaning of the term Basic Shell Mathematical
mode, we briefly describe the derivation of the governing shell
equations using the tensor approach which involves the
following steps [22]:
Fundamental assumption of the shell theory based on Love-
Kirchoff hypothesis and zero strain in the through thickness
direction.
Expressing the base vectors of a surface located “off middle
surface” i.e. a general surface in terms of the base vectors of
the middle surface (both covariant and contra-variant
versions).
• Expressing the metric tensor of a surface located “off
middle surface” in terms of the metric tensor (both
covariant and contra-variant versions) of the middle
surface.
• Expressing the rotation vector.
• Expressing the Cristoffel symbols and permutation
tensors (Levi-Cevita tensors) of the surface located “off
the middle surface” in terms of the corresponding tensors
of the middle surface.
• Expressing the strain tensors of a surface located “off
middle surface” in terms of the strain tensor of the middle
surface (both covariant and contra-variant versions).
Strain tensors are expressed as the difference between
metric tensors and curvature tensors in the deformed and
un-deformed states
• Writing expression for stress and moment resultants.
• Using appropriate constitutive relations.
In the Basic Shell Mathematical model version of Finite
Element implementation, the interpolation of the shell
geometry is accomplished using the Iso-parametric procedure.
Covariant and Contra-variant base vectors of the interpolated
surface are computed using the usual finite element
interpolation procedures and the First Fundamental form, the
Second Fundamental form and the Christoffel symbols are
then computed from these base vectors. In the Type-2
elements as described in [18], the normal vector is calculated
normal to the interpolated middle surface, although the normal
vectors at the nodal points are exactly normal to the middle
surface.
For a discussion on type-3 elements any standard text
book on FEM can be referred [19].
The FE code used for the analysis is ABAQUS ver. 6.9-1.
The ABAQUS element library [20] for shells is divided into
three categories consisting of general-purpose, thin, and thick
shell elements. Thin shell elements provide solutions to shell
problems that are adequately described by classical
(Kirchhoff) shell theory; thick shell elements yield solutions
for structures that are best modeled by shear flexible (Mindlin)
shell theory; and general purpose shell elements can provide
solutions to both thin and thick shell problems. All these
elements use bending strain measures that are approximations
of those of Koiter-Sanders version of shell theory [12].
For stress analysis, the following elements from
ABAQUS library have been used.
8 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
STRI3 - Small Strain Triangular Element with 3 nodes and
quadratic variation of rotation (accurate representation of plate
bending because of linear curvature variation) and analytical
implementation of Kirchoff constraint at locations (DKT or
Discrete Kirchoff element).
STRI65 - Small Strain Triangular Element with 6 nodes and
Kirchoff constraint imposed numerically at points.
S8R- 8-node reduced integration element for small strain
formulation. This element has similarity with the Basic Shell
mathematical model as described in [18], although they are
not the same, the main difference being the use of Mindlin
hypothesis. This element is susceptible to element distortion.
The Hexagonal element used is a 20-node reduced integration
element. The method of analysis is Linear Elastic following
the Elastic Stress Classification Route of [28].
The issue of classification of the FE computed stresses on
the lines of [28] has been dealt with in numerous papers and
will not be repeated here. In a nutshell, local membrane
stresses are designated as Pl , primary + secondary stresses as
Pl + Pb + Q and peak stresses as Pl + Pb + Q + F in line with
[28]. Primary stresses develop to maintain equilibrium with
external loads, secondary stresses to maintain compatibility of
deformation (global) and peak stresses to maintain
compatibility of local deformation. Pl stands for local
primary stress, Pb for primary bending stress, Q for
secondary stress and F for peak stress. Peak stresses are
significant only from the standpoint of fatigue failure.
FE convergence theorems are in L2 or H 1 norms which are
difficult to implement when the exact solution is not shown
and in this presentation no attempt has been made to evaluate
the convergence using these norms. For checking the
convergence of an FE model percentage change in stress is
considered from a model with very fine mesh to gradually
becoming cruder. Stresses are checked at Gauss points for
accuracy and un-averaged. For convergence, monotonic
behavior is checked with a maximum permissible variation in
stress taken as 5%.The mesh size around the intersection is
taken as 0.3 rt with progressive mesh grading away from it.
For continuum four elements have been used through the
thickness at and close to intersections. The objective of the FE
analysis wasn’t to catch the peak stresses which are used for
fatigue evaluation, because once the Pl + Pb + Q stresses are
computed, the fatigue stresses can easily be computed using
Fatigue Strength Reduction Factors (FSRF) [28]. The results
of the analysis can then be extended to compute
Pl + Pb + Q + F in a straightforward manner. [27] shows that
modeling of welds to properly simulate joint stiffness does not
have serious impact on the computed stresses and hence,
welds are not part of the models. FSRF can be avoided if
Dong’s method [28] is used. However, this requires special
post processing ability of the FE Code. If welds are modeled,
 Pl + Pb + Q can be evaluated at the weld toe directly by (even Table-1 (Contd)
though it is a singularity) linearization at the stress Loading Type
Radial Longitudinal Circumferential
classification line (SCL) as explained by Kalnins [29]. The Force force force

only issue with this procedure is the through thickness stress FEA shell element
8 6 3
component. (STRI3) Cylinder

To avoid end effect, the location of the trunnion has been FEA shell element
13 4 5
taken as 5D [24] i.e. five times the Outside Diameter of the (STRI3) Trunnion

Header Pipe with respect to the end of the header. The worst FEA shell element
9 6 3
aspect ratio around the intersection (HEX elements) was 6.0, (STRI65) Cylinder

average aspect ratio 2.0. One end of the header was fixed in all FEA shell element
13 4 5
six DOFs and the other end is fixed in five DOF’s. The DOF (STRI65) Trunnion

along the longitudinal axis of the header was kept free to FEA continuum
9 5 3
generate longitudinal pressure stress (for models where element Cylinder

pressure was applied). Linear and full integration elements FEA continuum
12 3 6
were not selected in the quadrilateral and brick versions to element Trunnion

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

guideline on modeling of Large Diameter Cylinder
intersections. Table-2

5.0 RESULTS 36 inch header, 30 inch trunnion, wall thickness = 9.52 mm for
both. Magnitude of Force = 10KN, length of trunnion = 100
The stresses shown in the tables below belong to the
mm, d = 0.84 , t = 1
Pb + Pl + Q category and are in N/mm2. Only maximum Von D T
Mises equivalent stress values are shown. For continuum Radial Longitudinal Circumferential
Loading Type
elements, stresses have been Linearized using [28] as a Force force force
guideline. For tables 1-5 the applied loadings are at the end of
WRC 107 Cylinder 45 2 12
the Trunnion which makes it a Shear Force + Bending
Moment at the Shell-Nozzle interface for the Longitudinal and
WRC 107 Trunnion NA NA NA
Circumferential Force applications.. Pressure is not a part of
the loadings in Tables 1-5. For WRC-107 and WRC-297
WRC 297 Cylinder 51 5 16
computations, code FE-107 has been used.
Table-1 WRC 297 Trunnion 56 4 16

30 inch header, 24 inch trunnion, wall thickness = 9.52 mm for Kellogg Cylinder 6 2 4
both. Magnitude of Force = 10KN, length of trunnion = 100
mm, d = 0.8 , t = 1 : Kellogg Trunnion 0.5 0.2 0.2
D T
Radial Longitudinal Circumferential FEA shell element
Loading Type 21 7 5
Force force force (S8R) Cylinder

FEA shell element

WRC 107 Cylinder 45 3 16 15 5 4
(S8R) Trunnion

FEA shell element

WRC 107 Trunnion NA NA NA 17 6 5
(STRI3) Cylinder

FEA shell element

WRC 297 Cylinder 50 6 22 11 4 3
(STRI3) Trunnion

FEA shell element

WRC 297 Trunnion 54 6 20 20 7 5
(STRI65) Cylinder

FEA shell element

Kellogg Cylinder 6 3 5 14 4 3
(STRI65) Trunnion

FEA continuum
Kellogg Trunnion 0.6 0.4 0.4 19 6 4
element Cylinder

FEA shell element FEA continuum

10 6 3 15 5 6
(S8R) Cylinder element Trunnion

FEA shell element

15 5 6
(S8R) Trunnion

9 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Table 3 Table 4 (Contd.)
36 inch header, 12 inch trunnion, and wall thickness = 9.52 Radial Longitudinal Circumferential
Loading Type
Force force force
mm for header; and 6.35 mm for trunnion. Magnitude of Force
WRC 297
= 10KN, length of trunnion =100 mm, d = 0.34 , Trunnion
90 13 44
D
t = 0.67 : Kellogg Cylinder 7 4 3
T
Radial Longitudinal Circumferential Kellogg Trunnion 1 1 1
Loading Type
Force force force
FEA shell element
WRC 107 Cylinder 48 10 31 19 10 6
(S8R) Cylinder

FEA shell element

WRC 107 Trunnion NA NA NA 20 9 7
(S8R) Trunnion

FEA shell element

WRC 297 Cylinder 54 30 41 17 8 5
(STRI3) Cylinder

FEA shell element

WRC 297 Trunnion 103 30 75 19 7 6
(STRI3) Trunnion

FEA shell element

Kellogg Cylinder 15 11 22 19 10 6
(STRI65) Cylinder

FEA shell element

Kellogg Trunnion 2 2 2 20 7 7
(STRI65) Trunnion

FEA shell element FEA continuum

46 16 29 17 11 6
(S8R) Cylinder element Cylinder

FEA shell element FEA continuum

48 16 31 19 8 6
(S8R) Trunnion element Trunnion

FEA shell element

42 14 26
(STRI3) Cylinder

FEA shell element

43 15 27 Table 5
(STRI3) Trunnion

FEA shell element

24 inch header, 8 inch trunnion, and wall thickness = 9.52 mm
45 16 28 for header and 8.18 mm for trunnion. Magnitude of Force =
(STRI65) Cylinder

FEA shell element 10KN, length of trunnion = 100 mm, d = 0.36 , t = 0.86 :
(STRI65) Trunnion
47 15 30 D T
FEA continuum Radial Longitudinal Circumferential
44 13 27 Loading Type
element Cylinder Force force force

FEA continuum WRC 107 Cylinder 47 21 53

46 14 29
element Trunnion

WRC 107 Trunnion NA NA NA

Table 4 WRC 297 Cylinder 69 31 77

24 inch header, 20 inch trunnion, and wall thickness = 9.52 WRC 297 Trunnion 74 34 78
mm for header and 6.35 mm for trunnion. Magnitude of Force
= 10KN, length of trunnion = 100 mm, d = 0.84 , Kellogg Cylinder 16 20 40
D
t = 0.67 : Kellogg Trunnion 2 4 4
T
Radial Longitudinal Circumferential FEA shell element
Loading Type 48 26 46
Force force force (S8R) Cylinder

FEA shell element

WRC 107 Cylinder 44 5 20 43 21 43
(S8R) Trunnion

WRC 107 FEA shell element

NA NA NA 44 22 40
Trunnion (STRI3) Cylinder

FEA shell element

WRC 297 Cylinder 44 7 23 38 19 36
(STRI3) Trunnion

10 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Table 5 (Contd) Table 6 (Contd)
24 inch header, 8 inch trunnion, and wall thickness = 9.52 mm

Torsional Moment
(Circumferential)
for header and 8.18 mm for trunnion. Magnitude of Force =

Circumferential
(Longitudinal)
Loading Type

Longitudinal
Radial Force

Shear Force

Shear Force
10KN, length of trunnion = 100 mm, d = 0.36 , t = 0.86 :
D T

moment

moment
Radial Longitudinal Circumferential
Loading Type
Force force force
FEA shell
FEA shell element element
44 22 40 47 6 10 20 106 361
(STRI65) Cylinder (STRI65)
Cylinder
FEA shell element
39 19 37 FEA shell
(STRI65) Trunnion
element
45 6 9 23 104 402
FEA continuum (STRI65)
46 24 44
element Cylinder Trunnion

FEA continuum FEA

41 19 43 continuum
element Trunnion 44 6 5 18 106 360
element
Cylinder

Table 6 is to reflect the effect of applying the Forces and FEA

moments at the Shell-Nozzle Interface as opposed to at the continuum
47 7 9 20 104 398
element
end of the Trunnion in Tables 1-5. Pressure is not a part of the Trunnion
Loading.
Table 6 For tables, 7-9, applied load in longitudinal, circumferential
36 inch header, 12 inch trunnion, wall thicknesses 9.52mm and radial directions = 10KN (applied together), pressure =
and 6.35mm for header and trunnion respectively. Loads 18.9Barg.
applied at shell nozzle interface, Moment=10KN-m and For the WRC-107 analysis, pressure loading has NOT been
Force=10KN. d = 0.34 , t = 0.67 added as a radial load at the trunnion attachment.
D T
Table 7
Torsional Moment
(Circumferential)

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

Circumferential
(Longitudinal)
Loading Type

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

Longitudinal
Radial Force

Shear Force

Shear Force

moment

moment

WRC 107 Cylinder 258

WRC 107 Trunnion NA

WRC 107
48 4 4 13 99 310
Cylinder Kellogg Cylinder 87

WRC 107 Kellogg Trunnion 1

NA NA NA NA NA NA
Trunnion
FEA shell element (S8R) Cylinder 121
WRC 297
54 4 4 13 153 413 FEA shell element (S8R) Trunnion 63
Cylinder

WRC 297 FEA shell element (STRI3) Cylinder 120

103 6 6 19 295 752
Trunnion
FEA shell element (STRI3) Trunnion 59
FEA shell
FEA shell element (STRI65) Cylinder 125
element (S8R) 46 6 10 21 108 363
Cylinder FEA shell element (STRI65) Trunnion 66
FEA shell FEA continuum element (Shell) Cylinder 126
element (S8R) 48 7 9 23 105 401
Trunnion FEA continuum element Trunnion 70
FEA shell
element
46 6 9 21 106 359
(STRI3)
Cylinder

FEA shell
element
46 7 8 24 103 403
(STRI3)
Trunnion

11 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Table 8
Table 10
36 inch header, 30 inch trunnion, wall thickness =9.52 mm for
36” pipe, wall thickness = 9.52 mm. Shoe design corresponds
both (results shown for maximum Pb + Pl + Q in MPa) to 3-gusset, A=450, B=500, shoe plate thickness = 10 mm, L =
WRC 107 Cylinder 307 350 mm (refer fig-1); magnitude of load = 40KN. Pressure is
WRC 107 Trunnion NA not applied. β1 = 0.56 , β 2 = 0.49
Kellogg Cylinder 100 Radial Longitudinal Circumferential
Loading Type
Force Force Force
Kellogg Trunnion 0.8
WRC 107 Cylinder 181 18 61
FEA shell element (S8R) Cylinder 146
Kellogg Cylinder 30 18 40
FEA shell element (S8R) Trunnion 75
Kellogg Shoe 2 9 3
FEA shell element (STRI3) Cylinder 143
FEA Shell element (S8R)
FEA shell element (STRI3) Trunnion 76 75 20 36
Cylinder
FEA shell element (STRI65) Cylinder 145 FEA Shell element (S8R) Shoe 77 30 32
FEA shell element (STRI65) Trunnion 76 FEA Shell element (STRI3)
82 18 35
Cylinder
FEA continuum element (Shell) Cylinder 148
FEA Shell element (STRI3)
FEA continuum element Trunnion 74 82 18 35
Shoe

FEA Shell element (STRI65)

Table 9 Cylinder
75 22 37

36 inch header, 12 inch trunnion, wall thickness = 9.52 mm for FEA Shell element (STRI65)
80 30 33
Shoe
header and 6.35 mm for Trunnion (results shown for
maximum Pb + Pl + Q in Mpa) FEA Continuum element
81 24 33
Cylinder
WRC 107 Cylinder 321 FEA Continuum element Shoe 78 35 32
WRC 107 Trunnion NA

Kellogg Cylinder 100 Table 11

Kellogg Trunnion 0.8 30” Pipe, wall thickness 9.52 mm, Shoe design corresponds to
FEA shell element (S8R) Cylinder 157 3 Gusset, A=450, B=500, Shoe plate thickness=10 mm, L=350
mm (refer fig-1), Magnitude of load=40KN. Pressure is not
FEA shell element (S8R) Trunnion 108
applied. β1 = 0.67 , β 2 = 0.60
FEA shell element (STRI3) Cylinder 155
Radial Longitudinal Circumferential
FEA shell element (STRI3) Trunnion 102 Loading Type
Force Force Force
FEA shell element (STRI65) Cylinder 159 WRC 107 Cylinder 173 21 63
FEA shell element (STRI65) Trunnion 98 Kellogg Cylinder 27 17 38
FEA continuum element (Shell) Cylinder 154 Kellogg Shoe 2 9 3
FEA continuum element Trunnion 103 FEA Shell element (S8R)
60 15 18
Cylinder

Results for Pipe Shoes: (Stresses at locations of FEA Shell element (S8R) Shoe 80 22 12
singularities have not been considered) FEA Shell element (STRI3)
62 14 18
Cylinder
Note: WRC-107 method has been used even though in most
cases β1 , β 2 are above the allowable limit. So far Pipe Shoes FEA Shell element (STRI3)
Shoe
75 22 13
are concerned, the typically used dimensions render them FEA Shell element (STRI65)
unsuitable for use of WRC-107. Despite this fact, the author in 60 14 20
Cylinder
his experience has seen its usage for computation of local FEA Shell element (STRI65)
stresses at Shoe Attachments and its use is mostly due to 82 22 14
Shoe
availability of this module in most common pipe stress FEA Continuum element
63 18 25
programmes. For the WRC 107 computation of Pipe Shoes, Cylinder
the geometry of the attachment has been considered as FEA Continuum element Shoe 82 20 16
Rectangular solid. Pipe Stress Program CAESAR II Version
5.2 has been used for this purpose. For Tables 10, 11 and 12,
2c1=500 mm and 2c2=450 mm.

12 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Table 12 Table 14 (results shown for maximum Pb + Pl + Q in MPa)
24” pipe, wall thickness = 9.52 mm. Shoe design corresponds 30” header, wall thickness = 9.52 mm
to 3-gusset, A=450, B=500, shoe plate thickness = 10 mm, L =
WRC 107 Cylinder 312
350 mm (refer fig-1); magnitude of load = 40KN. Pressure is
not applied. β1 = 0.84 , β 2 = 0.75 WRC 107 Shoe NA

Kellogg Cylinder 161

Radial Longitudinal Circumferential
Loading Type
Force Force Force Kellogg Shoe 12
WRC 107 Cylinder 174 23 65 FEA shell element (S8R) Cylinder 126
Kellogg Cylinder 24 15 34 FEA shell element (S8R) Shoe 115
Kellogg Shoe 2 9 3 FEA shell element (STRI3) Cylinder 131
FEA Shell element (S8R) FEA shell element (STRI3) Shoe 118
35 12 22
Cylinder
FEA shell element (STRI65) Cylinder 128
FEA Shell element (S8R) Shoe 73 22 10
FEA shell element (STRI65) Shoe 113
FEA Shell element (STRI3)
34 12 22 FEA continuum element (Shell) Cylinder 132
Cylinder

FEA Shell element (STRI3) FEA continuum element Shoe 119

50 22 10
Shoe

FEA Shell element (STRI65)

35 13 22 Table 15 (results shown for maximum Pb + Pl + Q in MPa)
Cylinder

FEA Shell element (STRI65) 24” header, wall thickness = 9.52 mm

53 17 10
Shoe
WRC 107 Cylinder 298
FEA Continuum element
39 15 24 WRC 107 Shoe NA
Cylinder

FEA Continuum element Shoe 57 21 13 Kellogg Cylinder 136

Kellogg Shoe 12
For Tables 13-15, applied load in longitudinal, circumferential FEA shell element (S8R) Cylinder 80
and radial directions = 40KN( applied together), pressure =
FEA shell element (S8R) Shoe 85
18.9 barg. Pressure has been applied but not as radial thrust
load. FEA shell element (STRI3) Cylinder 84

FEA shell element (STRI3) Shoe 89

Table 13 (results shown for maximum Pb + Pl + Q in MPa)
FEA shell element (STRI65) Cylinder 82
36” header, wall thickness = 9.52 mm FEA shell element (STRI65) Shoe 83
WRC 107 Cylinder 330 FEA continuum element (Shell) Cylinder 88
WRC 107 Shoe NA FEA continuum element Shoe 92
Kellogg Cylinder 186

Kellogg Shoe 12

FEA shell element (S8R) Cylinder 180

FEA shell element (S8R) Shoe 155

FEA shell element (STRI3) Cylinder 184

FEA shell element (STRI3) Shoe 156

FEA shell element (STRI65) Cylinder 182

FEA shell element (STRI65) Shoe 153

FEA continuum element (Shell) Cylinder 188

FEA continuum element Shoe 159

13 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

6.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND SCOPE FOR
FUTURE WORK
Tables 1,2,4 show that WRC 107 and WRC 297 results
show significant differences with respect to FE results for the
radial load case. This is because of the high d ratio and
D
radial as opposed to vertical load representation of the same in
WRC 107 as explained in section 2.2 of this paper. Tables 3, 5
and 6 show that the results are comparable (even for the
Radial load case) indicating the criticality of the d factor in
D
WRC 107/297 approaches. For the Kellogg Method, the
significant difference is for the radial load case. This is
because of the basis of the method being axi-symmetrical ring
loading which significantly deviates from the actual
mathematical model in the radial load situation. The Kellogg
method also underestimates the stresses in the Trunnion. This
is due to the use of simple beam theory as opposed to shell
theory and the non-consideration of the compatibility
requirement between the header pipe and the Trunnion in this
method. Kellogg method also in most (but not all) cases
predicts lower magnitude of stresses in the Longitudinal and
Circumferential Force applications. However the allowable
stresses in the Kellogg method as long as they are specified as
the [28] allowable for local primary stress, the error will not in
general make the analysis non-conservative except for the
Radial Load scenario. For Tables 7, 8 and 9 which are for the
combined load scenario, WRC 107 results show significantly
higher magnitudes of Pb + Pl + Q with respect to FEA. Even
though the Pressure loading has not been modeled as a Radial
loading for these Tables, which would have resulted in even
higher magnitudes of Pb + Pl + Q if the direction of this load
would have been in the same direction as the additive radial
load, but the simplistic way of computing pressure stresses
also (as in Tables 7, 8 and 9) induces higher stresses in the
WRC 107 type of analysis. Pressure induced loading at a
cylinder to cylinder interface with or without other external
loadings is complicated and WRC 107 analysis which
considers the loading on the cylindrical surface as a
rectangular loading cannot predict the stresses correctly and
will err on the conservative side for most cases. WRC 107
/297 analysis has shown lower magnitudes of Stress for Shear
Forces and Torsion moments (Table 6 where the loadings have
been applied at the Shell-Nozzle Interface) with respect to
FEA. However, these loadings, in general are not the
governing loads in piping applications. When using WRC-
107/297 modules of a Pipe Stress Program, an analyst should
review the program document to see how pressure is modeled
in these modules.
Results in tables 10, 11 and 12 again show that the pattern
of variance in results between FEA and WRC 107/297 is most
significant with respect to radial loads. The reason can still be
attributed to the d even though in case of the shoe
D
dimension “d” is strictly not applicable but the dimension of
14
the pipe shoe can be seen as analogous to this parameter.
Significant differences exist for the Circumferential loading
case also. For both Trunnion and Pipe Shoes, for some cases ,
specially for the Radial Load scenario, stresses in the
shoes/Trunnion elements exceed stresses in the cylinder
which clearly shows the risk of using the Kellogg method for
computing stresses in the Pipe support attachments. A point to
note is that, the method of computing stresses in the Pipe
supports cannot be technically stated as “Kellogg Method” as
[4] only discusses computation of local stresses in the
Cylinder. The context of using the term “ Kellogg method” for
the method of computing stresses in attachments is due the
fact that this computation based on elementary beam theory is
an essential feature ( in author’s experience) of the
spreadsheets which use the Kellogg method to compute Local
stresses in the Cylinder. Hence the caution is using elementary
beam theory analysis for computation of local stresses in
Attachments. Significant differences in results have not been
seen in Finite element approach using different element types.
This however should not be taken as a blanket statement as the
models had proper mesh grading with adequately small
element size and the element distortion control was well
within the recommended limits of the FE code. For improper
mesh grading, element size, significantly distorted elements
and improper integration methods, significant differences in
results can be seen between the elements, especially for
Triangular elements which suffer from geometric anisotropy.
The stress analyst should carefully study the theory manual of
the FE code which he/she should be using with respect to
applicability, element distortion and integration rules.
The present analysis has to be extended for different load
combinations with varying magnitudes of the individual load
vectors to quantify the degree of over or under conservatism
of the available analytical methods. The present analysis
mainly focuses on the stand alone effect of individual load
vectors (although Tables 7-9 as well as Tables 13-15 does
address combinations but more tests need to be done with
varying magnitudes of the individual load vectors) . Effect of
variance in mesh grading and element size should be checked
to assist an analyst in selection of the “best element” for these
applications, if an analyst so desires. In the present scope of
work, the use of proper mesh grading, element size and
integration rules have ironed out significant differences
between the individual elements. Hence, the take away
message for an analyst with respect to individual element
types is, as long as mesh grading , element size, distortion
control and integration rules are properly used, there are no
preferred elements , although the analyst should carefully read
the Theory manual of the FE code which he/she intends to use.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS:
1. Use of a particular shell theory requires an understanding of
the order of magnitude of error inherent in that theory and its
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
applicability vis-à-vis the problem to be analyzed specially
with reference to d and D ratios.
D T
2. Shell theories should be evaluated on the basis of Sander-
Koiter postulates.
3. The use of an axi-symmetric loading model (which in this
paper has been referenced to as “Kellogg method”) has been
historically the most popular method for analyzing both
cylindrical and non-cylindrical attachments.
4. WRC-107 method which is based on Timoshenko equations
( )
has the same error O T as Morley, Simmonds and
R
Goldenveizer equations. WRC-107 results may be more or
less conservative than FE results. Results are generally overly
conservative for d > 0.5 . The analysis results show that in
D
some cases but not all (generally computation as per Kellogg
method has shown lower magnitude of stresses with respect to
WRC 107 or FE analysis), Kellogg method significantly
underestimates the stresses in Trunnion and Pipe Shoes. Hence
it is recommended that this method should not be used and
hence should not be used for evaluating stresses in Pipe
supports. A point to note is, the method as at appears in [4]
addresses only the local stresses at the cylinder, so the
evaluation of stresses in attachments cannot technically be
addressed as “Kellogg method”, rather calculation based on
elementary beam theory. It is against this later which, the
author in his experience has seen as widely used in the
Industry as part of the spreadsheets based on “Kellogg
method” is what this caution is directed at.
5. If an analyst is constrained to use Kellogg method for
analysis of local stresses on the pipe at support locations, the
allowable stress should not be exceeded beyond the allowable
for local primary stresses as per [28].
6. WRC-297 method is based on shallow shell theory and the
order of magnitude in error is due to omission of some terms
which are of the order O ( T R) and has shown overly
conservative behavior, specially for the Trunnion stresses for
most of the cases analyzed. Use of WRC 297 for Pipe support
attachments is not recommended.
7. When comparing results between an analytical and FE
approach, it is best to check the model on a component by
component basis i.e. the model is loaded with only one
force/moment component in the absence of pressure. This
check will show stresses because of which components are
over/under represented in the final results. Since WRC-
107/297 does not have a provision for checking pressure
loading, simulating the same by a modified radial load (=
applied radial load + pressure times area) or superposing the
results with the usual membrane stresses in the header pipe
due to pressure generally makes the analysis over-
conservative. The modification of the radial load in a WRC-
15
107/297 based analysis is also not correct as the branch is not
pressurized for Pipe support applications where by “branch”
we mean the Trunnion.
8. Finite elements for shell analysis have different approaches
based on the theoretical considerations that form the basis of
their developments, with elements based on basic shell
mathematical model being least popular because of the
problem of addressing rigid body motion. Commercial FE
codes should be having Hybrid elements in the element library
for shell applications.
9. Degenerated solid elements have used adhoc assumptions
on shell theory to work within the constraint of finite element
formulation. Assumptions regarding the mathematical form of
dependence of the determinant of the Jacobian Matrix on the
thickness direction coordinate can lead to violation of rigid
body properties.
10. Not much difference has been found in results using 8-
node reduced integration shell element developed on the line
of Mindlin hypothesis, triangular elements based on discrete
Kirchoff constraints (imposed analytically or numerically) and
use of solid elements for circular attachments. Stresses at
locations of singularity have to be carefully addressed [29].
The pattern of results i.e. relative invariance with respect to
element types need not be always correct depending on the
D ratio, element distortion, element size and use of
T
alternate numerical integration rules. In general, as long as
thin shell theory is valid and reduced integration rule is used
for shear flexible elements, with proper mesh grading and
keeping the element size at the intersection region
significantly less than rt , type of element is usually not a
significant parameter. Stress Analyst should carefully review
the Technical Manual(s) of FE Code for the capabilities and
limitations of the available elements from the element library.
11. Analytical methods with d as high as 1.0 with ease of
D
implementation is required not only because the available
methods like WRC107/297 etc are inadequate for such
applications but also as a tool to properly benchmark the FE
results. Till such time, FE models will continue to be
benchmarked against WRC 107 type of analysis for similar
loading within the limits of the applicable geometry.
12. Additional tests need to be done for Pipe Shoes for varying
effects of D and combined loadings. In author’s opinion it
T
is futile to expect usability of WRC-107 for shoe attachments,
as based on typical dimensions of Pipe Shoes, these geometric
parameters will in most cases be not satisfied.
13. WRC 107 /297 analysis has shown lower magnitudes of
Stress for Shear Forces and Torsion moments (Table 6 where
the loadings have been applied at the Shell-Nozzle Interface)
with respect to FEA. However, these loadings, in general are
not the governing factors in piping applications.
Copyright © 2013 by ASME

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge Professor M.D.Xue of
Tsinghua University, Department of Engineering Mechanics
for providing some valuable suggestions and document
references and for answering some questions on her paper. The
author also wants to thank Dr.Subrata Saha of Reliance
Industries Ltd India, Mr. Suraj Kunder of Costain UK and ex-
colleague and friend Mr.Arijit Chatterjee for providing
valuable guideline and suggestions.
REFERENCES
[1] Timoshenko, S: 1940, Theory of plates and shells, MC-
Graw Hill, New York
[2] Bijlaard, P.P., 1955, “Stresses from Radial loads and
External moments in Cylindrical pressure vessels”,
Welding Journal, Miami, FL, US Vol. 34
[3] Steele, C.R and Steele, M.L.M 1983, “Stress analysis of
Nozzle in Cylindrical vessels with external Load,
ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 105
[4] M.W.Kellogg Company,2011,“Design of Piping
Systems”
[5] Mehrson, J.L, Mokhtarian, K., Ranjan, G.V and
Rodabaugh, E.C., 1984, “Local Stresses in Cylindrical
Shells due to External Loadings on Nozzle Supplement
to WRC bulletin 107”WRC Bulletin No. 297
[6] Goldenveizer A.L., 1961, Theory of Elastic Thin shells,
Pergamon, Oxford,
[7] Koiter, W.T, 1959. “A Consistent First Approximation
in the General Theory of Elastic Shells”, Proceedings of
the Symposium on the Theory of Thin Elastic Shells,
Delft, the Netherlands, W.T.Koiter ed., North-Holland,
Amsterdam.
[8] Donnell, L.H., 1933, “Stability of Thin Walled Tubes
under Torsion”, NACA Report No. 479
[9] Morley, L.S.D., 1959, “An Improvement on Donnell’s
Approximations for Thin walled Circular Cylinders”,
Q.J.Mech., Appl. Math., Vol. 12
[10] Donnell, L.H, 1976, Beams, Plates and Shells, Mc-
Graw -Hill, New York, Chapter 6
[11] Simmonds , J.G., 1966, A Set of Accurate Equations for
Circular Cylindrical Elastic Shells, “,Int. J. Solids
Structure., Vol. 2,
[12] Budiansky,B and Sanders , J.L, 1963, “ On the best first
First Order Linear Shell Theory”, Progress in Applied
Mechanics (The Prager Anniversary Volume),
Macmillan, London.
[13] Flugge, W.1967, Stresses in Shells, Springer, Berlin.
[14] Hoff, N.J., 1955, The accuracy of Donnell’s equations
J.Appl. Mech Vol. 22
[15] Lekkerkerker, J.G., 1972. The Determination of Elastic
Stresses near Cylinder-to-Cylinder Intersection. Nuclear
Eng. Des., Volume 20.
[16] Xue, M.D., Du, Q.H., Li, D.F. and Hwang, K.C., 2006.
Theoretical Stress Analysis of Intersecting Cylindrical
16
Shells Subjected to External Forces on Nozzle, ASME
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 128.
[17] Ming-De Xue, Qing-Hai Du, Keh-Chih Hwang, Zhi-
Hai Xiang, 2010, An analytical method for cylindrical
shells with nozzles due to internal pressure and external
loads – Part I•Theoretical foundation; ASME Journal
of Pressure Vessel Technology Vol 132
[18] Bathe, K.J.,Lee, P.S., 2005, Insight into finite element
shell discretizations by use of the ‘‘basic shell
mathematical model’’ Computers and Structures Vol. 83
[19] Mac Neal, R.H., Finite Elements their design and
performance, Marcel-Dekker, NY.
[20] Theory Manual ABAQUS, a product of Dassault
Systems, SA.
[21] Mollman, M, 1981, Introduction to the Theory of Thin
Shells, Wiley-Blackwell.
[22] Flugge, W., Tensor analysis and Continuum Mechanics,
Springer, Berlin.
[23] Chen., M.W.L.Y., Li, J.G., 2000, A two step approach of
Stress Classification and Primary Structure Method.
Trans ASME Vol. 122
[24] Xue,L.,Widera, G.E.O.,Sang, Zhifu., Feb. 2006,
Flexibility Factors for Branch Pipe Connections
subjected to in-plane and out of plane moments ,Journal
of Pressure Vessel Technology
[25] Private communication, Professor M.D.Xue of
Tsinghua University, People’s Republic of China.
[26] Bhattacharya A, 2012, A Comparison of Simple
Analytical Methods for evaluating local Stresses at Pipe
Supports with Finite Element Analysis results
NAFEMS UK Conference 2012.
[27] Bhattacharya A, 2011, A Finite Element based Study on
Stress Intensification Factors (SIF) for reinforced
Fabricated Tees NAFEMS World Congress Boston
2011
[28] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel code, Sec VIII Div2
(2007 Edition), ASME Publication
[29] Kalnins, A, 2008, Stress Classification Lines Straight
through Singularities ASME PVP Conference, Chicago,
ILL, USA
[30] Bathe, K.J., Chapelle, D., 2010, Finite Element
Analysis of Shells Fundamentals, Springer.
[31] Xue, M.D., Li, D.F., Hwang, K.C, 2005, A Thin Shell
Theoretical Solution for Two Intersecting Cylindrical
Shells Due to External Branch Pipe Moments ASME
Journal of PVT Vol. 127
[32] Wong, F.M.G, 1984, Stresses and Flexibilities for
Pressure Vessel Attachments. Dissertation thesis for
Master of Science in Nuclear Engineering.
[33] Morley, L.S.D, Morris, A.J.1978, Conflict between
Finite Elements and Shell Theory, Paper presented at
Second World Congress on Finite Element Methods,
Bournemouth, UK.
[34] Wichman, K.R., Hooper, A.G., Mehrson, J.L., Stresses
in Spherical Shells due to External Loadings, Welding
Research Council Bulletin No. 107.
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
[35] Koves, W., Mokhtarian, K., Rodabaugh, E., Widera, W.,
2006, Large Diameter Shell Intersections, Welding
Research Council Bulletin No. 497.

17 Copyright © 2013 by ASME