NozzlePRO 5.

September 25, 2003

www.paulin.com

Chapter 1 Section 3 When to Use NozzlePRO

Typical occasions when a finite element analysis of a NozzlePRO geometry is beneficial are listed below: 1) When the d/D ratio for a loaded nozzle is greater than 0.5 and WRC 107/297 is considered for use. 2) When the t/T ratio for a loaded nozzle is less than 1.0 and WRC 107/297 is considered for use. 3) When the nozzle is pad reinforced and WRC 107/297 is considered for use. 4) When the number of full range pressure cycles is greater than 7000 cycles and the nozzle is subject to external loads. 5) When the D/T ratio is greater than 100 and SIFs or flexibilities are needed for a pipe stress program. 6) When the D/T ratio is greater than 100 and a dynamic analysis including the nozzle is to be performed using a piping program. 7) When a large lug is used in a heavily cyclic service. 8) When pad-reinforced lugs, clips, or other supports are placed on the knuckle radius of a dished head. WRC 107 simplifications for pad reinforced rectangular lug attachments are fraught with potentially gross errors. 9) When seismic horizontal loads on vessel clips or box supports are to be evaluated. 10) Pad reinforced hillside nozzles subject to pressure and external loads. 11) Large run moments, but small branch moments in a piping system. 12) Overturning Moments on Skirts 13) Effect of Integral vs. Non-Integral Pad on Nozzle in Head Should be Studied 14) Different thermal expansion coefficients or temperatures between the header and branch. 15) Where loads on nozzles are high because of the assumption that the nozzle connection at the vessel is a rigid anchor. Few connections at vessels are rigid. Often only small rotations can significantly reduce the calculated moment and stress. Accurate flexibilities permit the actual moment on the vessel nozzle to be calculated and designed for. 16) Heat Transfer in An Axisymetric Model Geometry 17) When the effect of adding a radius to weld geometries on nozzles in heads should be investigated. 18) To verify FEA calculations. NozzlePRO4 allows nozzles in heads to be analyzed with shell, axisymetric, or brick finite elements. The analyst can run each model type and compare results to determine the stability and accuracy of the solution. 19) For saddle supported horizontal vessels with or without wear plates including tapered saddles with many design options. 20) To evaluate effects of axial or transverse loads due to internal sloshing, wind loads, seismic loads, or general external loads. Zicks methods do not consider axial or transverse loads. 21) Design of Pipe Shoes for self-weight, liquid weight, and external loads. Criticality of the application is a major consideration when deciding whether or not to run a finite element calculation. Hot hydrocarbon products are clearly more dangerous than ambient temperature water processes and should be approached with increased caution. Systems that do not cycle are less prone to failure than systems that cycle daily. Extreme design conditions can also make using less conservative, more accurate approaches practical. Large d/D, D/T intersections are difficult to analyze properly for a combination of pressure and external loads, and FEA results tend to give more consistent results over a broader range of problem parameters. Allowable loads on vessel nozzles give the piping engineer guidance when evaluating thermal loads on anchors. Higher earthquake load requirements can make conservative design assumptions costly. Caution should be excercised when low pressure-high temperature systems are evaluated as these lines tend to have high loads and large d/t ratios. It is absurd to use FEA on every system, and it is absurd not to use it at all.
Copyright (c) 2003 by Paulin Research Group

1.3.1

NozzlePRO 5.2

September 25, 2003

www.paulin.com

Chapter 1 Section 4 Sample Problems

Several examples illustrate. (Details for each example are included in a separate chapter at the end.)
Example Problem Description Cylindrical Junction (WRC 107) NonLoaded Small Branch Takeoff Nozzle Loads Due To FEA Flexibilities SIFs for Nozzles in Heads Straight vs. Lateral Small d/D WRC 107 Comparison Pad Reinforced Attachment Difference with FEA FEA Stress 270% Higher than WRC 107 FEA Stress 500% Lower than B31.3 FEA Loads 630% Lower than Rigid Analysis FEA Stress 7.7 Times Higher than Piping Program Default Lateral 1.34 Times Stronger Than Straight Nozzle InPlane Lateral 1.7 Times Stronger Than Straight Nozzle Outplane Lateral 2.2 Times Weaker Than Straight Nozzle for Pressure FEA different from WRC 107 by 3.7% FEA Stress 1.8-to-10.0 Times Higher than WRC 107

Process Feed Line: A process feed line to a vessel cycles about every 6 hours. In 20 years this is 29,200 cycles. The number of design cycles is greater than 7000, so the safety factor against failure is as low as it can get, (about 2.0 ref: Nureg/CR-3243 ORNL/Sub/82-22252/1). The engineer decided that a good stress calculation was important since the number of cycles was high. The d/D ratio was only 0.27, but the geometry was pad reinforced. WRC calculations were not intended for pad reinforced geometries, and this is reflected in the results when the FEA calculation is compared against WRC 107.
WRC 107 Stress at Junction: WRC 107 Stress at Pad Edge: FEA Maximum Stress 25,246 psi. 20,569 psi. 68,172 psi. 2.7 times higher than WRC 107

Gas Riser: The 400F 18 riser was only subject to 10 psig of internal pressure. Thermal moments produced less
than 10,000 psi of stress in the pipe except at an 8 takeoff that was valved and capped. The stress at this unloaded branch connection showed to be in excess of 55,000 psi. A finite element calculation of loads through the header showed that the actual stress was less than 9,000 psi. The line was not even close to being overstressed, there was no reason for redesign or rerouting of the pipe. B31 Piping Code Peak Stress: Actual Peak Stress > 55,000 psi. < 10,000 psi. Actual stress is 1/ 5th B31 Value

Nozzle Loads: Using rigid anchor assumptions, the conservatively estimated loads on the vessel nozzle were in excess of 344,844 ft. lb. When flexibilities were inserted at the nozzle, the moments due to the piping loads
dropped to 53,981 ft.lb., a

reduction of 6.3 times.

Stress Intensification Factors (SIFs): The piping attached to the top of the vacuum tower showed a
stress intensification at the attachment to the top of the vessel of 1.0 in the pipe stress program. The calculated stress was one third of the allowable due to moment caused by a large overhanging valve. The client wanted to know if a SIF of 1.0 was reasonable for a top head pipe connection. NozzlePRO calculates SIFs automatically, and for the top head nozzle geometry the inplane and outplane SIF was 7.7 which put the stress well over the allowable. A thicker nozzle (the quick fix) would reduce the stresses in the nozzle, but create higher stresses in the head. The loads needed to be reduced.

Allowable Loads and Pressure MAWP: The process engineer wanted to slope the process vent lines into the header to improve flow and reduce the potential backpressure buildup in the header. He didnt want to create a much weaker junction, however by using a connection at 45 degrees. He wanted to know which of the connections was stronger for bending moments the straight 90 degree intersection, the 45 lateral, or the hillside connection. The vent header was 24 x 0.375 wall, and the vent outlet was 16 x 0.375 wall. The results from NozzlePRO are shown below and confirm what is generally known about these intersections. The larger footprint
Copyright (c) 2003 by Paulin Research Group

1.4.1

NozzlePRO 5.2

September 25, 2003

www.paulin.com

of the lateral improves the moment carrying capacity, but cuts a larger hole in the header in the longitudinal direction increasing the hoop stress effect. The hillside in this d/D ratio performs essentially as well as the straight through intersection.
Straight Through InPlane Max Allowed Moment Outplane Max Allowed Moment Maximum Allowed Pressure Lateral (45) Hillside B31 Code

583,179 in.lb. 171,867 in.lb. 348 psi

786,243 in.lb. 304,402 in.lb. 160 psi

451,108 in.lb. 407,465 in.lb. 191,997 in.lb. 316,998 in.lb. 326 psi n/a

Good Comparisons with WRC 107: The engineers were concerned that some of the results from the FEA calculation were different from WRC 107 programs. When calculations are run that keep the limits of the WRC 107 approach in mind, the comparisons are much better. Leaving out pressure effects, (which are not included in WRC 107), using a small d/D, only a single moment loading, and a t/T ratio greater than 1.0, the comparisons between FEA and WRC 107 are much better:
Stress (psi) WRC 107 FEA tn=0.5 FEA tn=0.9 FEA tn=1.5

126,677 150,765 144,522 131,579

Rectangular Attachments (WRC 107): As might be expected, WRC 107 for a rectangular attachment that has essentially the same dimensions in the longitudinal direction as the 8 pipe above produces essentially the same stress. The FEA model shows higher stresses around the corners of the geometry where the stress is concentrated. The FEA model also shows the beneficial effect of pads and the gross errors that can occur when WRC 107 is used for pad type attachment geometries.
WRC 1071 6x8 Rectangle No Pad 6x8 Rectangle 1 Wide Pad 6x8 Rectangle 4 Wide Pad 6x8 Rectangle 6 Wide Pad 6x8 TriPlate Supt. 6 Wide Pad 6x8 Inverted Tee 6 Wide Pad
1 2

WRC 1072

FEA

131,341 73,146 19,280 12,724 12,724 12,724

131,341 47,430 47,430 47,430 47,430 146,626

181,357 83,582 75,550 57,923 56,826 123,127

WRC Pad simulation method by increasing bearing area WRC Pad simulation method by increasing vessel wall thickness

Inverted Tee (123,127)

Triple-Plate (56,826)

Box (6pad) (57,923)

Box (1pad) (83,582)

Copyright (c) 2003 by Paulin Research Group

1.4.2