computers & Slruclwes Vol. 52, No. 3. pp. 387-395.

1994
Copyright C 1994 Elwier Science Ltd
Pergamon 00457949(94)EO162-U Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0045-7949/9457.00
+ 0.00

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS ON HORIZONTAL VESSELS

WITH SADDLE SUPPORTS
L. YANG, C. WEINBERGER and Y. T. SHAH
College of Engineering, Drexel University, 32nd and Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19104, U.S.A.

(Received 21 June 1993)

Abstract-Finite element analysis is performed to predict the stress distributions within a water-filled
horizontal vessel with hemispherical ends and two or three saddle supports. Computations are performed
for various values of design parameters. The wall thickness was varied from 0.5 to 70 mm; the vessel length
from 10 to 30 m; and the vessel radius from 0.5 to 2.0 m. The effects of the pressure and a third saddle
support are also investigated. The maximum tensile and shear stresses are compared with the predictions
of Zick’s analysis. Design correlations are obtained, based on the numerical results.

NOTATION The results gave a detailed distribution of displace-

A area ment and local stresses in the saddle supports area.
b width of saddle The results showed that the maximum tensile stress is
E Young’s modulus located near the horn of the saddle. But the effects of
g gravitational force design parameters were not investigated although the
H distance from saddle to end
effects of saddle locations were studied.
H, distance from saddle to seam
4 interpolation functions Once the required volume is set, the optimal shape
L length of vessel of the vessel can be described by the length-to-diam-
P transverse. loading per unit area eter ratio and either the diameter or the length.
Q total load per saddle Optimal shape can be defined here as that configur-
number of nodes of the element
i radius of vessel ation which will produce a design with minimum wall
r radial coordinate thickness or vessel material, consistent with maxi-
t thickness of shell mum tensile or shear stress for the material of
u displacement construction. In this work, the objective is to compute
w transverse displacement
coordinates the stress distribution within the vessel walls as a
X,Y,Z
function of pressure and the geometric variables of
Greek symbols vessel shape, wall thickness and saddle location. A
It1 By rotations of the normal to the undeformed middle finite element technique is used to determine the
surface stresses within the vessel walls. These computed
correction factor
e”
results are compared with experimental results ob-
circumferential coordinate
8’ nodal point rotations at point i tained previously [5]. The results are also used to
o normal stress evaluate the empirically-based design equations de-
bb principal stress veloped by Zick [l]. Based on the numerical results
r shear stress improved design correlations are obtained.
V Poisson’s ratio

1. INTRODUCTION
Horizontal pressure vessels are widely used in process
and power industries. For the most part these vessels
are designed using empirical correlations [I]. Many
researchers have done analytical and numerical inves-
tigations on the stress distributions within the press-
ure vessels. Duthie and Tooth [2] presented an
analytical shell solution using a Fourier expansion
technique while Stoneking and Sketch [3] performed
a two-dimensional finite element analysis. Widera et
al. [4] performed a three-dimensional finite element
analysis on the design of horizontal pressure
2. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
Finite element analysis is used to solve numerically
the governing equations for stress within the wall
material. The solutions provide a complete stress
distribution in the vessel. The vessel is considered as
a shell structure due to the thin wall thickness. A
sketch of the vessel is shown in Fig. 1. The wall
thickness is assumed constant everywhere. The ma-
terial is isotropic and the theory of elasticity is used
in the approach to the solution. The principle of
vessel. virtual displacements for the shell element in the .x,v

387
388 L. YANGeI ul.

fkf
R

c
z
e r

Fig. I. Sketch of a horizontal vessel with hemispherical ends.

plane is then obtained after assuming that the total /IVare the rotations of the normal to the undeformed
potential must be stationary [6]. Thus middle surface in the x-z and y-z planes, respect-
ively. For the finite element analysis we use

I 6iCrC,K dA
JA
+ 1 6yrC,y dA -
JA
1 6wp dA = 0,
JA w = f h,Wi, B,= f hi&, jJ = i: /r,e:, (3)
(1) r=l ,=I ,=1

where where hi are the interpolation functions and q is the

number of nodes of the element. 6: and 0.; are nodal
-aa, point rotations at point i.
--aw
ax Because the geometry of a pressure vessel with two

K= -2 ap
ay
a 8~._[
__”
ay
,y=

ax
ay B.”
aw
-gj+Px 1 supports is symmetric both to its vertical plane
parallel to the vessel axis and to its middle plane
perpendicular to this axis, only a quarter of the vessel
was considered as the computational domain. The
nondisplacement boundary conditions are employed
for the saddle support locations and symmetric con-
ditions are given along symmetry lines.
The first boundary condition, (BC I), expresses a
fixed location for the shell where the saddle meets the
shell:atH<z<H+b, -54”<Q<54”,r=R
Etk
c, = ___
2(1 +u) [ 1.
1 0
0 1
u, = llg = u, = 0. (4)

The stresses are obtained by the following equations
The coordinate system is shown in Fig. 2. In above
equations, p is the transverse loading to the wall per
unit area, t is the shell thickness, E is Young’s
modulus, w is the transverse displacement, and /IXand
The second boundary condition, (BC II) is applied to
the symmetry plane perpendicular to the z-axis and
expresses the absence of material shearing strain in
the r-z and 0-z planes and absence of displacement
in the z-direction: at z = L/2; r = R
au,laz = 0, at4,/az = 0, U, = 0. (5)
The third boundary condition, (BC III) is applied to
the intersection of the cylindrical part of the shell and
the symmetry plane passing through the z-axis and
expresses the absence of shearing strain in the r-0 and
z-8 planes and absence of displacement in the 8-
direction: at 0 = O”, 180”; r = R

au,/aO = 0, au,jae = 0, ug = 0. (6)

The transverse loading on the inside surface of the

vessel is simply the normal stress or pressure arising
from the hydrostatic head of fluid of density p
Fig. 2. Deformation assumptions in analysis of plate includ-
ing shear deformations. p =pgR(l -cosQ) at r = R. (7)
 Finite element analysis
Fig. 3. The node and mesh layout.
The ABAQUS [7] program was employed to solve
the above set of equations. The mesh layout on the
cylindrical surface is shown in Fig. 3(a). The S8R5
type of element which has eight nodes in one element
was used. The projection of node and element layout
of the hemispheres is shown in Fig. 3(b). Triangular
elements were used in the hemisphere region and the
element pattern might be different depending on the
number of nodal points in circumferential direction.
The S4R type of element which has four nodes in one
element was used for hemispheres. The material was
assumed elastic and the Poisson’s ratio, u, was se-
lected as 0.3 for carbon steel. The computations were
performed on an IBM 9121 computer. The typical
CPU time used for one complete run was about
300 sec.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
3.1. Convergence test
In order to determine proper grid size for conver-
gence, a grid dependency study was performed. The
calculations were performed for the following geome-
try: R=1.5m, L =20m, b=0.2m, A =0.75m,
t = 2 cm: which were used in the example by Zick [l].
The contact angle of saddle with the vessel was
assumed to be 108”. The vessel was full of liquid
water and the pressure was assumed to be ambient.
Figure 4 shows the maximum tensile and shear
Fig. 4. Location of strain gage mounted on the vessel.
of a horizontal vessel 389
stresses as a function grid sizes. The results show that
when the grid size on the cylindrical surface is 200
(lo,20 for r, 0), the maximum stresses level out. This
means that the calculated results will not depend on
the grid size when the grid size is above 200 and the
grid density is above 2/m. The grid size of 200 then
was selected for most of future computations. For the
range of parameters considered, the above grid was
found to be adequate.
3.2. Comparison of numerical predictions with exper-
imental data
In order to verify the validity of numerical ap-
proach, the calculated results were compared with the
experimental data under some typical conditions.
Zick and Carlson [5] measured the stresses in a long
horizontal storage tank containing liquid subjected to
certain strains produced by two saddle supports by
means of nondestructive tests using bonded resistance
wire strain gages. The dimensions were chosen as
follows: R =2.9m, L = 19.8m, b =0.3m, A = 0,
2.7 m and t = 2.5 cm.
Values of tensile stress were measured at the lo-
cations (point x, 0 = 85”) shown in Fig. 5. When
H, = 2.9 m, the saddles were 2.9 m from end seams,
the tensile stress at point x was 1.57 x 10’ Pa by
experiment. When H, = 0 m, the saddles were at end
seams, the tensile stress at point x was 0.92 x 10’ Pa.
The comparison of FEM results with these exper-
imental observations is shown in Table 1.
The predicted tensile stress at the specific point are
slightly higher than the experimental data. However,
they agree within 9%, which indicates that the pre-
sent FEM approach can predict the stress distri-
bution in the liquid vessel quite well.
3.3. Typical stress distributions
The geometric conditions given in Sec. 3.1 are
considered as the base case, namely, R = 1.5 m,
L =20m, b =0.2m, A =0.75m, t =2cm, and the
vessel full of liquid water. The contact angle of saddle
with the vessel was 108”. Figure 6 shows the defor-
390
0 50 100
Fig. 5. Illustration of sufficiency of grid size = 200.
mation of the pressure vessel under the loading of
water. The magnitude of deformation is exaggerated
for convenience. According to the figure, the maxi-
mum displacement occurs at the center of the vessel,
although the maximum stresses occur near the saddle
supports. Figure 7 shows the projected contours of
the von Mises equivalent stress on the vertical plane.
The equivalent von Mises stress is defined as fol-
lows [8]:
6, = (0; + ui)“‘,
where e. and (T,,are principal stresses. The maximum
value of the von Mises equivalent stress is found near
the horn of the saddle, the same location as predicted
by Widera et al. [4]. Another peak value of von Mises
equivalent stress is found at the top of the middle
plane of the vessel.
3.4. Effects of wall thickness on maximum stresses
In engineering design we are mainly concerned
with the maximum tensile and shear stresses within
the structure. Selections of structure dimensions and
material are based on these stresses. The system
should be designed such that the maximum stresses
are below the yield stress. Figures 8 and 9 illustrate
some typical results showing the decrease in maxi-
mum tensile stress, cr,,, and maximum shear stress,
T,,,,,~, with increasing wall thickness, t, based on the
FEM calculations. These maximum stresses can oc-
cur at any point within the tank walls but they
typically occur near the saddle locations. Figures 8
Table I, Comparison of FEM predictions with experimen-
tal data
Experiment FEM
6, (IO’Pa) 6, (IO’Pa) Difference
A = 2.9 m 1.57 1.69 1%
A =Om 0.92 1.01 9%
L. YANGet al.
D=3m
L=20m
Full of liquid
water
150 200 250
Grid Size
and 9 contain both values for the computed stresses
and curve fit equations. Again, the basis for these
calculations is a tank 3 m in diameter and 20 m long,
filled with liquid water. The wall thickness was varied
from 0.5 to 6 cm. These two figures indicate that both
maximum tensile and shear stresses are inversely
proportional to the wall thickness.
3.5. Effects of vessel length and radius on maximum
stresses
(8)
Figures 10 and 11 illustrate how vessel length
affects the maximum tensile and shear stresses. For a
fixed wall thickness of 2 cm and the tank diameter of
3 m, Fig. 10 shows that the maximum tensile stress
urnaxcalculated by the FEM increases almost linearly
with length of the vessel. In Fig. 11 the maximum
shear stress 7,,, is shown to vary as a second order
function of vessel length. For typical sets of values of
vessel radius and wall thickness, Figs 12 and I3
illustrate the behavior of the calculated maximum
tensile and shear stresses as a function of vessel
radius. The FEM results show that the maximum
Fig. 6. Deformation of the vessel under loading for the base
case (t = 2 cm, L = 20 m, R = 3 m).
 Finite element analysis of a horizontal vessel
Fig. 7. Contour of the von Mises equivalent stress for the
basecase(t=2cm,L=20m,R=3m).
tensile stress Q,,, linearly increases with the vessel
radius R, while the maximum shear stress rmax de-
pends on R’.
3.6. Comparison with the prediction of Zick analysis
Figures 8-13 also allow direct comparison of the
finite element results with the design equation predic-
tions of Zick. Zick [1] assumed that the vessel shell
acts as a beam over the two supports to analyze the
stresses induced in the shell by the supports. By using
Zick’s method of analysis the expressions for maxi-
mum tensile and shear stresses can be expressed as
KI QL
fJmax
= 4nRZt
where Q is the total load per saddle, L, R, and t are
the length, radius, and thickness of the vessel, respect-
ively. The empirical coefficients K, and K4 depend on
design conditions of the tank [l]. When R is relatively
small compared with L. the load per saddle Q could
be expressed as
Q = OSzR’pgL.
Equations (9) and (10) could be rewritten as follows:
K,pgL2
Qmax= yg--
-1.0 -0.5 0.0
Fig. 8. The maximum tensile stress as a function
391
KanRpi?L
%lax= (13)
21 .
According to eqns (12) and (13), o,,, is proportional
to the square of L, inversely proportional to t, and
independent of R. rmaxis proportional to L, R, and
inversely proportional to t. By using the same tank
dimensions as in the FEM analysis, one obtains stress
predictions which can be compared directly with
those of the FEM analysis. Subject to the assump-
tions of elastic and isotropic behavior, the FEM
analysis can be assumed accurate. Therefore, these
figures enable us to quantify the validity of the Zick
design correlations. Figure 8 shows that the Zick
correlation is accurate and Zick’s assertion that the
tensile stress crmaXat - ’ [eqn (15)] is quite good. How-
ever, Fig. 10 shows that the Zick assertion u,,,aL2
is not good, since the FEM analysis indicates that a
linear proportional relationship is more accurate, at
least for a tank length below 20 m. When L is between
20 and 28 m, t is between 5 and 70mm, and R is
between 1.1 and 1.4 m, the Zick predictions for tensile
(9) stress, u,,, , are within 25% of the computed values
(Figs 8, 10, and 12). However, as shown in Fig. 12,
urna. increases linearly with radius R, a dependence
(10) not shown by the Zick analysis. Over the same range
of geometric values outlined above, the Zick predic-
tions for maximum shear stress, rmax, are all much
lower than the computed results as shown in Figs 9,
11, and 13. For large R and L, the predicted r,,, is
about 30% of the correct value and this percentage
increases to about 80% as R decreases to 0.5 m and
L decreases to 10 m. Although one might expect that
this may lead to significant problems in design, the
(11) Zick analysis normally calls for design to withstand
maximum tensile stresses, and the resulting wall
thickness is sufficient to handle the maximum shear
stress computed by finite element analysis.
From Figs 8, 10, and 12 we can assume that the
(12)
maximum tensile stress is a linear function of RL/t,
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Mt [cm1)
of wall thickness for L = 20 m. R = 3 m.
392 L. YANG et al.

0 Zick

0 AM

-1 0 1

InOkm1 )
Fig. 9. The maximum shear stress as a function of wall thickness for L = 20 m, R = 3 m.

0 10 2; 3;
L(m)
Fig. 10. The maximum tensile stress as a function of vessel length for t = 2 cm, R = 3 m.

z “NIX= 0.133L
3

&f
*0
= 2

9
P

-
C
0 10 20

L (ni 1
Fig. 11. The maximum shear stress as a function of vessel length for I = 2 cm, R = 3 m.
 Finite element analysis of a horizontal vessel 393
4

o max = 0.34 + 1.4R

3-
c
2
0

b
z

0.5 1.0 1.5 2 I)

R(m)

Fig. 12. The maximum tensile stress as a function of vessel radius for t = 2 cm, L = 20 m.
4

3
h

a”
0 tick
IcO

d 2
@EM I
1

PE

1
t’
tc

0 -I-
0.5 1.0 1.5

R(m)

Fig. 13. The maximum shear stress as a function of vessel radius for t = 2 cm, L = 20 m.

0 IO 20 .

LR/t
Fig. 14. Maximum tensile stress as a function of LR/r.
394 L. YANG et a!.

element method) to predicted stress (Zick’s analysis)

by the symbol 9

(16)

The correlation factor can be derived as follows:

0, = 1230t/L2 + 16.7RIL (17)

I
P
@, = 36.3tlRL + 0.646. (18)

0: . Therefore, eqns (12) and (13) given by Zick can be

0 10 20 30 40 modified and this can be done by adding a correction
LR/t factor @ into the equations below.
For tensile stress
Fig. 15. Maximum shear stress as a function of LR/t.

(19)
then a scatter plot was obtained for a group of design
parameters (see Fig. 14) and in the parameter range
For shear stress
considered the maximum tensile stress could be ex-
pressed as

o,,, = (11.6 + 0.157RL/t)10S [Pa]. (14)

For the maximum shear stress we have (see Fig. 15)
t,, - (43.6 + 0.775RL/t)l@ [Pa]. (15)
The relative errors are 3% and 10% for u,, and t,, ,
respectively. The detailed results are given by Yang et
al. (91.
3.7. Modification of Zick’s analysis
One of the advantages of the Zick design method
is its simplicity and ease of application. In order to
retain this ease of use and still incorporate the results
of the present finite element analysis, it is appropriate
to apply certain correction factors to the Zick predic-
tive equations. Defining the ratio of true stress (finite
3.8. Egects of pressure on maximum stresses
Figure 16 shows the effects of the pressure inside
the horizontal vessel on the maximum stresses. The
dimensions used in the base case were considered.
According to the Zick analysis, the maximum longi-
tudinal tensile stress in the vessel is a linear function
of pressure and the maximum shear stress is indepen-
dent of pressure. However, the FEM results show
that the maximum tensile stress is almost constant
when pressure is small and it increases with pressure
more and more rapidly. When pressure is higher
than 1 bar the a,,,, predicted from FEM increases
at a faster rate than the one predicted from the
Zick analysis. The computed results also show that
TmaXpredicted from FEM is a weak function of
pressure.

- Zick ( tmsik )

p ( bar >
Fig. 16. Pressure effects on the maximum stresses.
 Finite element analysis of a horizontal vessel 395

vessel with hemispherical ends and two and three

Fig. 17. Contour of the von Mises equivalent stress for the
case with the third saddle support (I = 2 cm, L = 20 m,
R = 1Sm).
3.9. Effects of the third saddle support
If the third saddle support is added into the system
the stress distribution will be much different. The
Zick analysis does not include the effects of the
multiple saddle supports. In this paper the additional
saddle support is considered at the midsection of the
vessel. The boundary condition for the third support
is expressed as: at L/2-b/2 6 z <L/2, -54” Q
0<54’,r=R
u, = u,, = u2 = 0
while other boundary conditions are unchanged.
Figure 17 shows the projected contours of the von
Mises equivalent stress on the vertical plane. The
maximum value of the von Mises equivalent stress is
found near the horn of the third saddle. However, the
stresses on the other saddle are not reduced. Another
peak value of von Mises equivalent stress is found
also at the top of the middle plane of the vessel. The
saddle supports. The maximum equivalent stress is
found near the horn of the saddle. For the three
saddle support vessel, the maximum tensile stress
occurs near the central saddle. The maximum values
of both tensile and shear stresses in case of three
saddle supports are considerably higher than those
for two saddle supports. The three saddle support
design for a horizontal pressure vessel is therefore not
recommended. The parametric study shows that the
maximum tensile stress is inversely proportional to
the wall thickness t, and directly proportional to
length L and radius R of the vessel. The maximum
shear stress is inversely proportional to the wall
thickness. It also increases with increasing vessel
length and radius.
The computed results are compared with the pre-
dictions of Zick’s analysis. The Zick analysis does not
predict maximum shear stress accurately, although it
does predict maximum tensile stress within about
(21) 25% for wall thickness in the range of 5-70 mm,
length of 2&28 m, and radius of 1.2-l .5 m. For
shorter length and larger radius, the Zick analysis
significantly underpredicts the maximum tensile
stress.
Acknowledgemenf-The authors gratefully acknowledge the
support from the Cochrane Co., King of Prussia, PA.

maximum value of tensile stress is 8.37 x 10’ Pa,

which is 240% higher than the maximum tensile
stress for the two saddle support case. The maximum REFERENCES
value of shear stress is 2.13 x 10’ Pa, which is 95%
1. L. P. Zick, Stresses in large horizontal cylindrical
higher than the two saddle support case. Due to these
pressure vessels on two supports. The Welding Journals
results, the three saddle support design for a horizon- Research Supplement, September (1951).
tal pressure vessel is not recommended. 2. G. Duthie and A. S. Tooth, The analysis of a horizontal
The finite element method is well developed and a cylindrical vessel supported by saddle welded to the
very popular technique for the computer solution of vessel. The International Conference on Pressure Vessel
Technology, Part I, Design and Analysis. Tokyo, Japan,
complex problems in solid mechanics. With FEM
p. 25 (1977).
analysis we found out that the horizontal pressure 3. J. E. Stoneking and H. Sketch. The analysis of a large
vessel with two saddle supports at the ends does not horizontal saddle supported pressure vessel. ASME
act as a beam for most of the cases considered. Under Technical Paper, 77-PVP-18, New York, NY (1977).
the beam assumption, the Zick analysis can predict 4. G. E. 0. Widera, Z. F. Sang and R. Natarajan. On the
design of a horizontal pressure vessel. J. Pressure Vessel
the maximum tensile and shear stresses as a function Technol., Trans. ASME 110, 393 (1988).
of wall thickness quite well. But there are large 5. L. P. Zick and C. E. Carlson. Strain gage technique
differences between the results from two methods employed in studying propane tank stresses under ser-
when the length and diameter of vessel are varied. vice conditions. Steel. 86-88. April 12 (I 948).
6. K. J. Bathe, Finite Element Procedures in Engineering
Even so. the predictions from two methods are very
Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1982).
close under certain design conditions. When studying 7. ABAQUS User’s Manual, v 4.9, Hibbitt, Karlson &
the effects of design parameters, only one variable is Petersen Inc., Pawtucket, RI (1990).
changed while others are maintained constant. 8. F. P. Beer and E. R. Johnston. Design of beams and
shafts for strength. In Mechanics of Materials.
McGraw-Hill, New York (1981).
4. CONCLUSIONS 9. L. Yang, C. Weinberger and Y. T. Shah, Finite element
analysis on horizontal pressure vessels. Research report
The finite element method has been used to predict submitted to Cochrane Co., King of Prussia, PA
the stress distributions within a horizontal pressure (1993).