Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Damle
Effect of Nozzle Junction
Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions India Private
Limited
2nd Floor, Duggal Plaza, PremNagar,
and Equipment Stiffness
Bibwewadi Road,
Pune 411037, India
on Absorption of Pipe
e-mail: Kedar.Damle@thyssenkrupp.com
Pratik S. Gharat
Thermal Loads
Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions India Private
As an industry norm, the nozzle local loads are considered to be local and are not consid-
Limited
ered in foundation design. Presently, this norm is under debate. One opinion is some per-
2nd Floor, Duggal Plaza, PremNagar,
cent of these loads are to be considered to be transferred to the foundation. The
Bibwewadi Road,
horizontal forces on the foundation are more critical than vertical forces. Attempt has
Pune 411037, India
been made to understand the system and create a model which will represent the system
e-mail: pratik.gharat@thyssenkrupp.com
to a good approximation. A mathematical model is developed to demonstrate the actual
system. It is a stiffness system consisting of equipment, nozzle junction, and connected
Rudolf Neufeld piping. The connected pipes are heated sequentially to generate nozzle loads in axial and
Department of Mechanical Engineering, out plane directions. Steady-state thermal loads are calculated for the given system stiff-
Fachhochschule Sudwestfalen ness. Governing parameters are identified and altered to note the effect. The governing
(University of Applied Science), parameters identified are equipment diameter (D), nozzle location on equipment (x), and
Meschede 59872, Germany nozzle diameter (d). The effect is studied for pressure range (20120 bar) and tempera-
ture (100400 C). The results of percentage loads transferred with respect to the govern-
Wilhelm Peters ing parameters are plotted. It is observed that nozzle loads in axial directions are
Department of Mechanical Engineering, transferred to the foundation almost 100%, whereas out plane loads are absorbed by the
Fachhochschule Sudwestfalen system to a greater extent. Further study is required to investigate combined effects of all
(University of Applied Science), such nozzle loads for single equipment. The results may be refined for different materials
Meschede 59872, Germany and effect of nozzle reinforcement. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4031719]
Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received August 27,
2014; final manuscript received September 15, 2015; published online November 19,
2015. Assoc. Editor: Allen C. Smith. Fig. 2 Pipe model in CAESER II
and lever arm of the nozzle. The deflection xV can be calculated Mathematical simplification is not possible to calculate this
with the formula stiffness.
The stiffness of the junction is influenced by the shell diameter,
length and thickness, and the nozzle diameter and thickness.
Fx3 Ratios like the shell diameter to the shell thickness or the shell
xV (1) diameter to the nozzle diameter are affecting the stiffness. The
3EI
geometry is very complicated and cannot be simplified. Therefore,
Therefore, the formula for the vessel stiffness is an finite element analysis (FEA) program, NOZZLE PRO [1] is
used to obtain the junction stiffness.
F 3EI
KVA 3 (2) NOZZLE PRO analysis. NOZZLE PRO is an FEA program to calculate
xV x
stresses and stiffness at vessel attachments, such as nozzles, sad-
where dles, pipe shoes, attachments, and skirts [26].
In our paper, we have used it to obtain the stiffness of the
p 4 nozzleshell junction.
I DO D4I (3) We used NOZZLE PRO v8.6, produced by the Paulin Research
64
Group, Houston, TX.
Axial Loads
NozzleShell Junction Stiffness. The stiffness of the Axial Pipe Stiffness and Geometry. For the study of the axial
nozzleshell junction is an important part of the whole stiffness. loads, only pipe 1 is heated to create a thermal force. To simplify
the calculation, the elbow is considered as a hinge. With these
simplifications, the deflection of the pipe is shown in Fig. 8. Here,
the vessel and nozzleshell junction are considered rigid.
The thermal expansion Dl1 is shown in Fig. 8. Because of the
stiffness of pipe 2, pipe 1 is not allowed to expand the whole
length Dl1 as shown in another schematic representation (Fig. 9).
After simplification, the final formula for the percentage of the Calculation of the Real Force. In reality, the vessel and
axial force transferred to foundation is nozzleshell junction are not rigid. This additional flexibility will
result in the reduction of final resultant force in the system.
FRA KVJ Individual stiffness considerations are as follows:
Percentage % (15)
FMax;A KVJ KPA Pipe stiffness: KPO is calculated based on the selected length
Junction stiffness: KJO is from NOZZLE PRO
Vessel stiffness: KV is ignored because it is much higher than
Out Plane Loads the junction stiffness (for springs in series, this is valid
approximation).
Out Plane Pipe Stiffness and Geometry. For the study of the
out plane loads, now pipe 2 (Fig. 5) is heated. The elbow is The thermal expansion Dl2 is a combination of junction deflec-
considered as a hinge and the deflection of the pipe is shown in tion dNO and pipe 1 dPO (Fig. 13)
Fig. 12. Here, the vessel and nozzleshell junction are considered
rigid.
The maximum load limit is known as per Table 1. The pipe Dl2 dPO dNO (24)
dimensions are to be selected such that the load generated will be
equal to this limit. The formula is similar to Eq. (4) The stiffness of the pipe and nozzleshell junction has different
units
Fmax;O KPO Dl2 (16)
N N mm
Fmax;O Calculated ! KPO ; Nozzle PRO ! KJO
KPO (17) mm deg
Dl2
Therefore, the unit of the junction stiffness must be transformed.
The deflection dNO is calculated by pipe 1 and the angle u
Dl2 a DT l2 (18)
dNO l1 tan u l1 u (25)
FRO
KTotal;O (28)
Dl2
With Eqs. (27) and (28), we are able to calculate the stiffness of The vessel and nozzle thickness are dependent on the pressure, tem-
whole system perature, and vessel/nozzle diameters. The thicknesses are selected
1 as the nearest next commercially available standard thicknesses.
KTotal;O (29) Table 2 displays considered scenario for axial as well as out
1 L1 2 p
plane condition.
KPO KJO 180
Results and Discussion
The real resultant force is calculated by
Axial Analysis
FRO KTotal;O Dl2 (30) Scenario: Temperature Effect on Percentage of Loads Trans-
ferred to Foundation
Geometric data
Percentage of the Out Plane Loads. Percentage of the out plane
loads transferred to foundation is the ratio between FRO and vessel: diameter, 2000 mm; length, 7000 mm; and thickness,
Fmax;O 1094 mm
Fig. 14 Percentage of loads transferred to the foundation for varied design temperature
(axial case)
Fig. 16 Percentage of loads transferred to the foundation for varied nozzle positions
(axial case)
Fig. 17 Percentage of loads transferred to the foundation for varied nozzle diameters
(axial case)
Figure 19 shows the variation in the percentage of loads Figure 20 shows the variation in percentage of loads as a func-
transferred to the foundation for change in vessel diameter as a tion of variation in nozzle position for different design pressures.
function of design pressure. The curves in this diagram are nearly overlapping and show no
Though the junction stiffness reduces with increase in diameter, effect of nozzle position. This is because vessel stiffness was not
the required thickness increases which leads to increase in the included in the calculation. Vessel stiffness being significantly
junction stiffness. higher than out plane junction stiffness has little effect on the stiff-
Figure 19 shows the significant effect of vessel diameter on per- ness of the system.
centage of loads transferred to the foundation.
Scenario: Nozzle Position Effect on Percentage of Loads Trans- Scenario: Nozzle Diameter Effect on Percentage of Loads
ferred to Foundation Transferred to Foundation.
Fig. 19 Percentage of loads transferred to the foundation for varied vessel diameters
(out plane case)
Figure 21 shows the variation in percentage of loads as effect vessel diameter (D)
of nozzle diameter for different design pressures. nozzle location on vessel (x)
As nozzle diameter increases, for the same D, the junction stiff-
The effect of these parameters is combined and represented in
ness reduces. The system becomes more flexible. This is reflected
Fig. 22. The diagram is created with a design temperature at
in Fig. 21.
300 C. For vessel with other design temperatures (200500 C),
Figure 21 clearly shows that the difference between the nozzle
there will be very nominal difference, as design temperature has
with 8 in. and 14 in. diameter is much higher than the difference
minimal effect, as evident earlier.
between the 24 in. and 42 in. diameter. The reason is that the max-
Appendix 2 provides details on development of this graph.
imum allowable forces are significantly different for 8 in. and
It is evident from the diagram that the system is highly rigid
14 in. Diameter, however, allowable loads are same for 24 in. and
and nearly most of the nozzle axial load is transferred to the foun-
42 in. diameters.
dation. Only vessels with a high ratio x/D and at low pressures are
Conclusions absorbing more thermal loads. Such situations are not common.
Axial Loading. From the scenarios described in the Results and Out Plane Loading. The influential parameters for the percent-
Discussion section, following influential parameters are identified age of loads in out plane case are as follows:
design pressure (P) design pressure (P)
Fig. 21 Percentage of loads transferred to the foundation for varied nozzle diameters
(out plane case)
design temperature (T) About CAESAR II. CAESAR II 2013 Version 2013 R1 (6.10) was
vessel diameter (D) provided by the Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis Solutions, Inc.,
nozzle diameter (d) Houston, TX.
Five cases each for axial and out plane condition are modeled
Appendix 2 provides details on development of this graph.
in CAESAR II. The model includes vessel, pipe1, and pipe 2. Tem-
Figure 23 shows the variation in percentage of loads as a func-
perature values are assigned to pipes as applicable. The junction
tion of ratio of vessel diameter and nozzle diameter for various
and vessel are considered rigid and loads are noted. Further the
design pressures.
junction stiffness is introduced and vessel rigidity is removed and
The percentage of loads is plotted on the vertical axis, while
final loads on foundation are calculated. Thus, percentages of
ratio of the vessel diameter to nozzle diameter is plotted on hori-
loads transferred on foundation are calculated as ratio of result in
zontal axis. Each curve corresponds to particular design pressure.
second case by first case.
The pressures vary from 10 bar to 120 bar. To create final diagram,
Tables 3 and 4 show comparison with values obtained from
the curves from Fig. 23 is changed to linear trend lines.
final graphs.
To account for the effect of temperature, two separate diagrams
are required, the first for temperature up to 300 C and the second
for temperatures above 300 C and 400 C. Axial. Table 3 shows that the results from Fig. 22 are always
Figure 24 shows the result for temperature up to 300 C, and higher than the results from CAESAR II. One reason is that the curves
Fig. 25 for temperature in the range above 300400 C. from the diagram are lifted up for 3% safety factor. The second rea-
son is the inexactness of the calculation for high flexible vessels.
Verification With Software CAESAR II
The results are verified and compared using CAESAR II model for Out Plane. The results for the percentage of loads from Fig. 24
both axial and out plane loads. are higher than the real results from CAESAR II. The results are not
exact because the curves in the final diagrams were simplified as Final Conclusion
straight line segments.
So the diagram includes a safety and can be followed to calcu- Axial. For almost all vessels, the maximum axial nozzle loads
late percentage of loads transferred to the foundation. must be considered for the vessel foundation calculation, espe-
cially for high-pressure vessels above 40 bar. For very flexible
vessels at low temperature, Fig. 22 can be used to evaluate the
transfer of axial loads.