Proceedings of the ASME 2014 Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference
PVP2014
EXTERNAL NOZZLE LOAD EVALUATION FOR
FILAMENT WOUND FRP CYLINDRICAL VESSELS
Dale W. DeCola, P.E.
Maverick Applied Science, Inc.
1915 24th Ave. E.
Palmetto, Florida 34221 USA
ddecola@mas-mss.com
ABSTRACT
The evaluation of external nozzle loading on filament
wound Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP) storage tanks and
pressure vessels can be a challenging task. While established
methods for metallic vessels exist, limited guidance is available
to account for the unique characteristics of FRP composite
materials and standard FRP fabrication practices. Anisotropic
material properties can have a significant effect on the
stress/strain distribution due to external nozzle loading. Typical
FRP nozzle installation practices introduce additional concerns,
including the potential for peeling or overstraining the nozzle
attachment overlays. In this paper, the effects of various
orthotropic material properties of cylindrical vessels with
external nozzle loading are explored using finite element
analysis and compared with existing methods established for
isotropic materials. Modifications to account for the effects of
filament wound FRP material properties are proposed. A
simplified FRP nozzle load evaluation procedure, along with
additional commentary, is presented to address some of the
special considerations regarding nozzle load evaluation for FRP
storage tanks and pressure vessels.
INTRODUCTION
Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP) storage tanks and pressure
vessels are becoming more common and trusted for corrosive
service in the power, chemical processing, and mining
industries. As FRP composites replace metallic materials of
construction for critical components of systems, the importance
of properly defining and evaluating FRP nozzle connections to
attached piping is growing. Currently, both ASME RTP-1 and
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section X [1,2] require
considerations of external loading on FRP nozzles, but neither
provides much guidance. As such, many FRP tank designers
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
July 20-24, 2014, Anaheim, California, USA
PVP2014-28439
Jeffrey D. Eisenman, P.E.
Maverick Applied Science, Inc.
1915 24th Ave. E.
Palmetto, Florida 34221 USA
jeisenman@mas-mss.com
proceed with the assumption of zero external loads on nozzles,
which can be an unrealistic assumption in most cases where
piping is attached.
To address these assumptions or when no allowable nozzle
loads are available, expansion joints are often implemented at
some or all nozzle connections to attached piping systems to
minimize potential loading on the nozzles. In many scenarios,
expansion joints may not be a preferred or possible solution
considering associated costs, maintenance requirements, spatial
constraints, or necessary revisions to the attached piping system
support configuration. Regardless, external loading on FRP
tank nozzles is a realistic design loading that deserves proper
evaluation. Otherwise, expansion joints can be an expensive
assumption or afterthought if FRP nozzles were not evaluated.
There are a number of existing methods for external nozzle
load evaluation; however, since many of these methods were
developed for metallic materials and construction practices,
including assumptions for isotropic material properties, many
FRP engineers are appropriately reluctant to apply these to FRP
tanks and vessels, which are typically anisotropic in nature.
Cylindrical filament wound FRP tanks and vessels typically
have increased strength and stiffness in the hoop
(circumferential) direction for pressure containment. This
increased directional stiffness affects stress/strain distribution
and magnitude when external nozzle loading is applied. With
typical FRP nozzle installation, new concerns arise for peeling
of the external nozzle installation laminate and strain in the
internal corrosion barrier laminate at the nozzle opening, which
are not concerns with metallic nozzles. Considering the time
and effort required for existing methods, along with the
uncertainty if these approaches are even suitable for FRP
typical construction and materials, it is understandable why
many FRP tank and vessel designers are reluctant to use these
resources to provide allowable nozzle loads.
1 Copyright 2014 by ASME
 To address some of these concerns unique to FRP tanks In general, each of these approaches presents curves for
and vessels, numerous geometries have been simulated with dimensionless factors that are dependent on the geometric
finite element analysis (FEA) to show the effects of orthotropic configuration, including diameter and thickness of the shell and
material properties on the stress magnitude and distribution due nozzle. The engineer can then calculate stress due to a defined
to external nozzle loads. FEA results are compared with applied loading or solve for maximum allowable nozzle loads.
existing methods, and a simplified, conservative approach for The engineer must consider the combined effects of multiple
nozzle load evaluation on FRP tanks is proposed based on the components of external nozzle loading in addition to stresses in
theoretical simulations performed. Additional commentary is the vessel due to pressure before any external loading.
also provided to help FRP tank and pressure vessel designers For many engineers, FEA is a preferred analysis method to
evaluate external nozzle loads for safe and reliable performance more accurately evaluate nozzle loads for particular
in corrosive environments. applications. A simple shell model may be sufficient to evaluate
nozzle stiffness, calculate stresses or strains, or include the
NOMENCLATURE effects of distance to discontinuities. In many cases, a basic
FEA may be a quicker solution in the design process as
CP Stress Factor for Radial Loading
compared with looking up numerous curve factors and
CMC Stress Factor for Circumferential Moment
interpolating for each iteration of thickness, for each nozzle on
CML Stress Factor for Longitudinal Moment
a tank or vessel, and for each component of loading.
D Shell Diameter
Ea Shell Axial (Longitudinal) Modulus of Elasticity
COMPONENTS OF NOZZLE LOADING
Eh Shell Hoop (Circumferential) Modulus of Elasticity
MC Circumferential Moment External nozzle loading from attached piping systems can
ML Longitudinal Moment be resolved into three force components and three moment
P Radial Load components at the nozzle to shell junction. Of these
Rm Shell Mean Radius components, the radial load, P, and circumferential and
T Shell Thickness at Nozzle Location longitudinal bending moments, MC and ML, typically generate
d Nozzle Diameter the most significant effects [3,4]. These loading directions and
fpeel Peel Force per Unit Length Around Nozzle exaggerated deformations are illustrated in Fig 1.
ro Nozzle Outer Radius
t Nozzle Thickness
Geometry Parameter per WRC 297 [3], (d/D)(D/T)1/2
P Stress in Shell due to Radial Load
MC Stress in Shell due to Circumferential Moment
ML Stress in Shell due to Longitudinal Moment

METHODS FOR NOZZLE LOAD EVALUATION

The topic of nozzle loading has been widely discussed and
explored for isotropic metallic materials. Existing guidelines
for the evaluation of external nozzle loading on metallic vessels
have gained acceptance, including Welding Research Council
(WRC) Bulletins 107 and 297 [3,4] and a simplified approach
presented in Bednars Pressure Vessel Handbook [5], which is
based on older WRC publications. In fact, some pipe stress
analysis software packages now have built-in modules to
conduct nozzle load analysis according to WRC 107 and 297.
There are also commercial software packages available to
simplify FEA for tee and nozzle intersection analysis. However,
since each of these methods were originally developed for
metallic materials and construction practices, they contain
inherent assumptions for isotropic material properties.
The European Standard EN 13121-3 for FRP vessels [6]
provides an approach for nozzle load evaluation based on WRC
publications; however, the anisotropy of filament wound FRP
materials is not directly addressed. Further, many engineers
accustomed to the ASME design standards are not familiar with
these references or may not be comfortable incorporating parts
from various references without better guidance. FIG. 1 NOZZLE LOADING DIRECTIONS

2 Copyright 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Maximum values of stress due to each loading component
independently may occur in either the axial or hoop direction,
but stresses in both directions are generated from each of the
components shown in Fig. 1. Significant hoop direction stresses
can be developed from longitudinal bending moments,
especially in the case of filament wound FRP vessels.
Combined stresses due to multiple components of external
nozzle loading in combination with pressure typically govern.
CHECK FOR PEELING
Along with an evaluation of stresses or strains in the shell
due to external nozzle loading, peel loading requires
consideration for FRP nozzles. Maximum allowable external
nozzle loads for FRP construction may be governed by peeling
of the attachment laminate rather than stresses or strains in the
shell. Typical nozzle installation includes an exterior structural
FRP overlay along with a thinner corrosion barrier replacement
laminate on the interior [1,2]. When subjected to external
nozzle loading, the exterior structural laminate could fail first
by peel, applying significant loading on the interior corrosion
barrier overlay and potentially leading to leaks or reduced
service life. Some nozzle installation methods are not subject to
peel, such as penetrating type nozzles and nozzles with internal
structural overlays designed to safely handle the required
loading. If the nozzle structural installation configuration could
peel, basic calculations can be used to check that the nozzle
loads are actually transferred to the shell.
Similar to nozzles with blind flanges subjected to internal
pressure loading, peel force per unit length around the nozzle
circumference can be checked for external loads. Equation (1)
below presents a simple formula to determine peel force per
unit length due to external nozzle loading for cylindrical
nozzles without gussets, which is based on developing an
equivalent force per unit length for the resultant externally
applied bending moment. Depending on the configuration of
the attached piping, forces developed due to pressure acting on
the inside area of the pipe may or may not need to be reacted at
the nozzle. In cases where the pressure force adds to external
nozzle loading, the pressure force can be added to the external
radial load (P) in Eq. (1):
1
2 methods. It should be noted that with the isotropic assumption
If peel loading exceeds the allowable criteria, it is
recommended that alternate nozzle attachment laminate
configurations be explored. Otherwise, the resulting strain in
the internal corrosion barrier overlay due to nozzle loading
should be evaluated as the next step before checking the shell.
CALCULATION OF STRESSES IN THE SHELL
Following considerations for the nozzle attachment
laminates, stresses/strains in the shell due to external nozzle
loading should be evaluated. While the WRC 107 and 297
approaches [3,4] present separate figures for a more detailed
division of membrane and bending stresses, the simplified
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
approach per Bednar [5] suggests that stresses due to external
loading can be reasonably estimated with one factor for each
loading component and direction being considered. For the
simplified procedure presented later in this paper, Eq. (2) - Eq.
(4) were initially assumed for the simplified relationships
between stresses, applied loading, and geometry. For applied
radial load (P), a directionally specific geometry factor (CP) is
used to predict stress due to loading (P) as a function of vessel
thickness (T) according to the general relationship:
2
The factor (Cp) is established as a function of size and
thickness of the nozzle and shell. Equation (2) can be extended
to both hoop direction and axial direction stresses by different
factors, although hoop direction stresses are typically most
important for combined stress considerations.
For moment loading, the nozzle radius (ro) is included in
the initial assumed relationship for applied circumferential
moment in Eq. (3) and for longitudinal moment in Eq. (4):
3
4
The simplified approach presented later in this paper was
developed by starting with the above assumed relationships and
adding different terms for geometry and material properties to
capture observed trends from the FEA. Equations for the
simplified stress evaluation method are presented following a
discussion of the material property comparison results.
SIMULATION OF FILAMENT WOUND SHELLS
In the FEA investigation, numerous vessel and nozzle
configurations were modeled with 2D shell elements using
Femap with NX Nastran. Geometries were first evaluated using
an isotropic assumption for hand lay-up (HLU) properties, with
an elastic modulus of 1.5 x 106 psi (10 GPa) and a Poissons
ratio of 0.25. While hand layup FRP is not truly isotropic and
typically has a lower shear modulus, this approach was selected
as a baseline comparison with existing nozzle load evaluation
and a constant Poissons ratio, stress due to external loading is
theoretically independent of elastic modulus.
Next, filament wound (FW) construction was simulated as
a 2D orthotropic material with axial modulus of 1.5x106 psi (10
GPa), hoop modulus of 3.0x106 psi (21 GPa), shear moduli of
0.4x106 psi (2.8 GPa), and a Poissons ratio of 0.15 to represent
a filament wound laminate optimized for pressure containment,
with a hoop modulus twice the axial modulus (Eh/Ea=2). As a
final comparison, hoop properties were increased to 4.5x106 psi
(31 GPa) while maintaining other properties previously defined
to simulate an FRP laminate heavily biased in the hoop
direction (Eh/Ea=3) as an upper boundary for shell anisotropy
with most FRP tank and vessel applications.
3 Copyright 2014 by ASME
 The selected FEA geometries included shell diameters
ranging from 6 ft to 16 ft (1.8 m - 4.9 m), nozzle diameters
ranging from 6 in to 48 in (150 mm - 1200 mm), and
thicknesses ranging from 0.25 in to 1 in (6.4 mm - 25 mm). A
summary of geometry is included in Annex A. The minimum
ratio of shell diameter to nozzle diameter was four (4), since
larger openings on smaller shells are significant structural
discontinuities that deserve proper attention with the specific
system configuration. The nozzle thickness was set equal to the
shell thickness (T/t=1) for the initial analyses. No local
reinforcement was modeled for the initial comparison in order
to preserve WRC assumptions and the defined Eh/Ea ratios,
since reinforcement is typically hand layup for filament wound
shells. Hand layup FRP properties were used for the nozzle. For
all geometries, the shell height was assumed to be the same as
the shell diameter, with the nozzle located at the center of the
height. An example of a typical FEA model is shown in Fig 2.
FIG. 2 FEA MODEL EXAMPLE
As illustrated in Fig. 2, translational constraints were
defined at the boundary curves on the shell. Loads were applied
to the central node of a rigid body (spider) element defined at
the end of the nozzle at centerline elevation. It should be noted
that the load application at the end of the nozzle for the FEA
model is intended to represent resolved external loading at the
nozzle to shell junction with the assumed FEA nozzle boundary
conditions. The nozzle projection length was held constant for
all geometries at 6 in (150 mm).
Loads were preliminarily estimated using an average of
WRC 107 and Bednar predictions [4,5] based on a 1500 psi
(10.3 MPa) allowable stress for each component, although the
magnitude of applied load is not significant since linear static
analyses were performed and since results are presented as
comparisons. The magnitude of applied loading and all
geometry were held constant for each of the material property
iterations for a direct comparison of the effects. Loading
components were independently evaluated in the FEA to
determine stresses due to each loading shown in Fig. 1.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
FEA RESULTS FOR MAXIMUM SHELL STRESS
FEA results for maximum hoop and axial stresses due to
the independent external loading components are illustrated in
Fig. 3 - Fig. 8. These graphs show a comparison between
isotropic (Eh/Ea=1) and orthotropic (Eh/Ea=2 and Eh/Ea=3)
material assumptions due to the same applied loading. Stresses
from the FEA are normalized to WRC 107 stresses [4], with the
FEA stress divided by the WRC 107 stress. Results are
displayed as percentages of WRC 107 results for comparison,
with 100% being equal to the maximum stress estimated using
the WRC 107 methods.
This presentation allows for a comparison between
isotropic and orthotropic FEA results and a comparison
between FEA and WRC 107. Normalized stresses are plotted
with respect to WRC 297 [3] geometry parameter on the
abscissa. The nozzle thickness was set equal to the shell
thickness for all included geometries, for T/t=1.
250%
Isotropic,Eh/Ea=1
Orthotropic,Eh/Ea=2
ML.h(FEA)/ML.h(WRC107) 200% Orthotropic,Eh/Ea=3
150%
100%
50%
0%
0 2 4 6 8
FIG. 3 COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM HOOP STRESS DUE TO
LONGITUDINAL MOMENT (ML), NORMALIZED TO WRC 107
Figure 3 shows the most significant effects of typical
filament wound properties on stress due to external longitudinal
moment loading. The FEA results for isotropic material
assumptions are reasonably consistent with WRC 107 results,
around 100%. However, hoop stresses due to longitudinal
moment loading with orthotropic properties are increased
significantly, in some cases by a factor of two or more. With
increased hoop stiffness, the hoop direction carries a larger
share of the external longitudinal moment bending as compared
with an isotropic assumption, resulting in significantly higher
hoop direction stresses. Maximum stress for longitudinal
moment loading with the existing methods is assumed to be
axial direction stress, which is not necessarily the case with
filament wound FRP vessels. Orthotropic effects are most
significant for lower values of and indicate a clear relation to
the ratio of hoop to axial modulus (Eh/Ea).
4 Copyright 2014 by ASME
 Effects on the maximum magnitude of stress are less
significant for the other stress directions and loading
components. As illustrated in Fig. 4 - Fig. 5, there is a small
increase associated with the effect of orthotropic properties for
maximum magnitude of hoop stress due to circumferential
moment loading and radial loading. The increase is negligible
for lower values, with a maximum increase around 10-15%
for higher values. Even though hoop stiffness has increased,
the hoop direction already carries a larger share of loading than
the axial direction due to circumferential moment and radial
load, partly due to the curvature of the vessel. These results
indicate that existing methods developed for isotropic materials
still have potential application to filament wound FRP tanks
and vessels with orthotropic shell properties, although most
FEA for circumferential moment loading indicated hoop
stresses higher than predicted using the WRC 107 methods, as
shown in Fig. 4.
140%
120%
MC.h(FEA)/MC.h(WRC107)
Hoop direction stresses will likely govern, since hoop
direction stresses due to external nozzle loading add to hoop
pressure stresses. For storage tanks and low-pressure vessels
with relatively low axial direction stresses, adequate axial
direction strength may be available for reasonable external
nozzle loading. However, in certain cases with filament wound
vessels optimized for pressure containment, axial direction
combined stresses, even if lower in magnitude, may govern
because of the lower directional allowable limit.
Fig. 6 - Fig. 8 illustrate the effects of orthotropic material
properties on the maximum magnitude of axial direction stress
due to external nozzle loading. There is a small decrease in
axial direction stress due to each component of external loading
associated with higher hoop stiffness. The difference between
isotropic and orthotropic material assumptions is small for
longitudinal moment loading and radial loading, but more
noticeable for circumferential loading. Part of this difference
has to do with the stress distribution around the nozzle
circumference as discussed in the next section, so the maximum
magnitude of stress is not the only aspect for a proper
comparison. However, in cases where axial direction stresses

govern because of a significantly lower axial direction

100% allowable limit, the results suggest that it may be justified to
account for the reduced axial direction stresses associated with
80%
increased hoop stiffness of filament wound FRP shells, as best
Isotropic,Eh/Ea=1 illustrated in Fig. 7.
60%
Orthotropic,Eh/Ea=2
40% Orthotropic,Eh/Ea=3
140%
20%
120%
ML.a(FEA)/ML.a(WRC107)

0%
100%
0 2 4 6 8

80%

FIG. 4 COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM HOOP STRESS DUE TO 60%

CIRCUMFERENTIAL MOMENT (MC), NORMALIZED TO WRC 107
40% Isotropic,Eh/Ea=1
Orthotropic,Eh/Ea=2
120% 20% Orthotropic,Eh/Ea=3
Isotropic,Eh/Ea=1
100% Orthotropic,Eh/Ea=2 0%
P.h(FEA)/P.h(WRC107)

0 2 4 6 8
Orthotropic,Eh/Ea=3
80%

60% FIG. 6 COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM AXIAL STRESS DUE TO

LONGITUDINAL MOMENT (ML), NORMALIZED TO WRC 107
40%

20%

0%
0 2 4 6 8

FIG. 5 COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM HOOP STRESS DUE TO

RADIAL LOAD (P), NORMALIZED TO WRC 107

5 Copyright 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 120% 250%

(ML.h(FEA)/ML.h (WRC107))*(Eh/Ea)0.5
Isotropic,Eh/Ea=1
100% Orthotropic,Eh/Ea=2
MC.a(FEA)/MC.a(WRC107)

200%
Orthotropic,Eh/Ea=3
80%
150%
60%
100%
40%
Isotropic,Eh/Ea=1
Orthotropic,Eh/Ea=2 50%
20%
Orthotropic,Eh/Ea=3
0% 0%
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8

FIG. 7 COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM AXIAL STRESS DUE TO FIG. 9 COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM HOOP STRESS DUE TO
CIRCUMFERENTIAL MOMENT (MC), NORMALIZED TO WRC 107 LONGITUDINAL MOMENT (ML), NORMALIZED TO WRC 107,
WITH PROPOSED MATERIAL PROPERTY CORRECTION

60% Using the effective modulus to account for the differences

Isotropic,Eh/Ea=1
in isotropic and orthotropic material properties provides a
50% Orthotropic,Eh/Ea=2 simple way to account for the effects when methods developed
P.a(FEA)/P.a(WRC107)

Orthotropic,Eh/Ea=3
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 2 4 6
FIG. 8 COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM AXIAL STRESS DUE TO
RADIAL LOAD (P), NORMALIZED TO WRC 107
To quantitatively utilize the results presented in the
previous figures, correction factors to account for the effects of
increased hoop stiffness with orthotropic materials were
explored. The results indicate it is most important to account
for the significant increase in hoop stress due to longitudinal
moment loading. Fig. 9 shows normalized hoop stress due to
longitudinal moment, similar to Fig. 3, but with FEA stresses
divided by (Eh/Ea)1/2. With significantly less difference between
isotropic and orthotropic results, Fig. 9 as compared with Fig. 3
suggests that the increase in maximum hoop stress due to
longitudinal moment with filament wound FRP construction as
compared with isotropic materials can be reasonably simplified
by multiplying isotropic stress by (Eh/Ea)1/2 in the nozzle load
evaluation. For a direct comparison, the ordinate in Fig. 9 is set
identical to Fig. 3 to show the advantage of this correction.
for isotropic materials are used for nozzle load evaluation. The
results indicate that including the effective modulus is
conservative for > 3, although it may not completely capture
all differences for smaller values. However, if hoop stress due
to external longitudinal moment can be calculated based on
isotropic assumptions, multiplying by (Eh/Ea)1/2 provides a
much better estimation as compared with ignoring these effects.
STRESS DISTRIBUTION AROUND THE NOZZLE
The previous results show a significant increase in
8 magnitudes of peak stress in the hoop direction due to
longitudinal moment loading, and a method to account for this
increase was proposed. At first glance, the results for other
directional stresses and directional loading appear to have no
significant effect when comparing magnitudes of peak stress.
However, it is important to note that the stress distribution
around the nozzle circumference is also affected with
orthotropic material properties.
Figure 10 shows a comparison of hoop stress distribution
due to an applied circumferential moment with isotropic
(Eh/Ea=1) and orthotropic (Eh/Ea=3) material assumptions. The
geometry shown is a 6 in (150 mm) nozzle on a 168 in (4300
mm) cylindrical vessel with all 0.5 in (13 mm) component
thicknesses. The applied load and legend stress scale is
identical for both FEA stress contours. Although the maximum
stress value for the orthotropic material assumption is slightly
lower in magnitude, a larger region of the shell around the
nozzle circumference is exposed to hoop direction stresses
worthy of consideration, which is an important difference to
consider before using the approaches presented in existing
methods for combining stresses due to external loading.

6 Copyright 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


0 0
90 90
FIG. 10 CIRCUMFERENTIAL MOMENT (MC) HOOP STRESS
DISTRIBUTION FOR Eh/Ea=1 (LEFT) AND Eh/Ea=3 (RIGHT)
The effect on load distribution is further illustrated in Fig.
11 with a comparison of stresses in the 0 to 90 region of the
nozzle circumference for the geometry and loading previously
described. Calculated hoop stresses from the FEA are divided
by the maximum stress value from the isotropic assumption so
that the curves for orthotropic materials show how much larger
stresses are around the nozzle circumference. For example, at a
location of about 22.5, stresses with an isotropic assumption
are only around 30% of the maximum value at 90. In
comparison, stresses for the orthotropic assumption with
Eh/Ea=3 is over 70% of the maximum value.
100%
MC.h/max(Eh/Ea=1)
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0 22.5 45 67.5
LocationonNozzle[deg]
FIG. 11 NORMALIZED HOOP STRESS DISTRIBUTIONS AROUND
NOZZLE DUE TO CIRCUMFERENTIAL MOMENT (MC)
This effect on stress distribution is most important when
combined loads are considered, since most actual nozzle
connections will experience multiple components of loading. In
general, the maximum value of stress due to circumferential
moment (MC) component alone occurs at the 90 point, while
maximum stress due to longitudinal moment (ML) alone occurs
at the 0 point. As mentioned in WRC 297 and further
discussed by Peng [7], the maximum stress due to combined
moment loading will not necessarily occur at the orthogonal
directions aligned with the vessel axis; maximum combined
stress is likely to occur at a location somewhere in between.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
For combined stresses in cylindrical vessels, a reasonable
assumption included in the WRC approaches [3,4] is to assume
that the maximum stress value due to P occurs uniformly
around the nozzle circumference. The WRC methods combine
stresses due to P plus MC, and P plus ML, to account for stresses
at the 0 and 90 points. For spherical vessels, it is appropriate
to use a resultant bending moment, since geometry is
axisymmetric about the nozzle centerline axis. As discussed by
Peng [7], this simplification is not completely applicable for
cylindrical vessels, since the shell curvature shifts the location
of peak combined stress due to equal magnitudes of MC and ML
towards the 90 point. Regardless, Peng [7] explains that a
resultant stress combination can be justified since the stress
distribution is narrower than the cosine/sine distribution, which
the FEA confirms for isotropic material assumptions as shown
with the sine curve in Fig. 11. However, the FEA results on the
opposite side of the sine curve in Fig. 11 suggest that this
justification does not necessarily apply to vessels constructed
from orthotropic materials like filament wound FRP.
Figure 12 shows the distribution of hoop stresses around
the nozzle circumference due to a combined moment loading
from the FEA of the cylindrical vessel geometry previously
discussed. The maximum combined stress occurs at different
points around the nozzle for the orthotropic materials as
compared with the isotropic materials. The maximum
magnitude of combined stress can also be around 50% greater
for Eh/Ea=3 as compared with isotropic materials (Eh/Ea=1).
3000
2500
MC.h +ML.h [psi]
2000
Eh/Ea=1
Eh/Ea=2 1500
Eh/Ea=3
sin(x) 1000 Eh/Ea=1
Eh/Ea=2
500 Eh/Ea=3
90
0
0 22.5 45 67.5 90
LocationonNozzle[deg]
FIG. 12 COMBINED HOOP STRESS DUE TO LONGITUDINAL (ML)
AND CIRCUMFERENTIAL (MC) MOMENT LOADING
These results suggest that the WRC combined stress
approach is not always appropriate for filament wound FRP.
The resultant stress equation discussed by Peng [7] may also
not be appropriate. One possible solution is to independently
calculate stresses due to each component and combine as if
they occurred at the same point. An alternative would be to
calculate maximum allowable nozzle loads for each component
of loading and then combine with a unity check summation of
actual load divided by the allowable load in that direction.
7 Copyright 2014 by ASME
 SIMPLIFIED APPROACH FOR NOZZLE EVALUATION 1.0
HoopstressduetoMC:
In addition to the geometric combinations previously MC.h =CMC.hMCro1T2
0.9
analyzed for comparison of isotropic and orthotropic properties =(0.13(roRm0.5T0.5)+0.95)MCro1T2
with T/t=1, a large number of other thickness combinations =MC T2 (0.95ro1 0.13Rm0.5T0.5)

CMC.h= MC.hMC1roT2
0.8
were simulated as part of this investigation. A variety of
additional geometries were analyzed, including thicker regions 0.7
around the nozzle opening to simulate local FRP reinforcement,
and different ratios of local shell thickness to nozzle thickness 0.6 y=0.13x+0.95
(0.66 T/t 4). In all, around 300 combinations were
0.5
analyzed. In an attempt to simplify a complex problem, all data
points for calculated stress factors were plotted and curves were 0.4
fit for conservative results based on all geometries and
properties considered. 0.3
Fig. 13 - Fig. 15 illustrate stress factors and relationships
used to develop a simplified approach for FRP nozzle load 0.2
evaluation. These are admittedly oversimplified solutions to a 0 1 2 3 4 5
complex problem, based solely on the numerical simulations roRm0.5T0.5
conducted using FEA, but are an important first step for the
FRP industry. The reduced equations presented as Eq. (5) - Eq. FIG. 14 SIMPLIFIED APPROACH STRESS FACTOR (CMC) FOR
(7) are intended to allow FRP tank designers to easily estimate HOOP STRESS DUE TO CIRCUMFERENTIAL MOMENT (MC)
stress due to applied external nozzle loading or to determine
safe maximum allowable load limits. Equation (7) includes the A simplified approach to determine hoop stress in the shell
material property correction (Eh/Ea)1/2 previously discussed. due to an applied circumferential moment is:
0.95 0.13
. .
6
2.0
HoopstressduetoP:
1.8 P.h =CP.hPT2
=(0.8(roRm0.5T0.5)0.95)PT2 1.4
1.6 =0.8Pro0.95Rm0.475T1.525 HoopstressduetoML:
ML.h =CML.hMLro1T2 (Eh/Ea)0.5
CP.h= P.hP1T2

1.4 1.2 =0.5(roRm0.5T1t0.5)0.8MLro1T2 (Eh/Ea)0.5

1.2 =0.5ML ro1.8Rm0.4T1.2t0.4(Eh/Ea)0.5
CML.h= ML.hML1roT2(Eh/Ea)0.5

1.0
1.0

0.8 0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4 y=0.8x0.95
0.2 0.4
0.0
y=0.5x0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 0.2
roRm0.5T0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
FIG. 13 SIMPLIFIED APPROACH STRESS FACTOR (CP) FOR HOOP
STRESS DUE TO RADIAL LOAD (P) roRm0.5T0.5(T/t)0.5 =roRm0.5T1t0.5

A simplified approach to determine hoop stress in the shell FIG. 15 SIMPLIFIED APPROACH STRESS FACTOR (CML) FOR HOOP
due to an applied radial load is: STRESS DUE TO LONGITUDINAL MOMENT (ML)
.
0.8 A simplified approach to determine hoop stress in the shell
. .
5
due to an applied longitudinal moment is:
Alternatively, Eq. (5) can be rearranged to solve for 0.5 . .
maximum allowable nozzle radial load based on a defined . . .
7

allowable or available stress limit.

8 Copyright 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY
The results of this investigation are intended to supplement
an RTP-1 Subpart 3A or BPVC Section X Method A design. In
these approaches, stresses/strains in the axial and hoop vessel
directions are independently checked for the defined allowable
stress or strain limits in each vessel direction. In certain cases,
detailed stress analysis based on Subpart 3B or Method B may
be warranted to provide a more accurate evaluation.
It is important to note that the accuracy of nozzle load
evaluation depends not only on estimation of stresses due to an
applied loading, but also on calculation of the design nozzle
loads. FRP tank nozzle connections can be an order of
magnitude more flexible than metallic vessels, which helps to
reduce the magnitude of applied loading. As discussed in WRC
297 [3], including reasonable tank stiffness values in the pipe
stress analysis of the attachment piping system can be crucial in
determining realistic nozzle loads. It is encouraged to consider
the effects of a range of stiffness values from minimum to
maximum possible scenarios so that external loads are not
underestimated. For example, local reinforcement and overlays
that increase stiffness should be considered in determining
appropriate stiffness values for realistic nozzle loads.
It is also necessary to consider combined loading effects.
Typically, pressure stresses/strains will govern shell thickness,
and for an optimized design, there may be little available
strength for external nozzle loading. It may be necessary to add
additional local reinforcement or increase the reinforcement
diameter to handle the required or estimated loading.
It should be noted that the FEA conducted does not include
pressure stiffening or fatigue considerations. For critical
applications, exploring these effects may be warranted. It
should also be noted that the existing methods [3,6] suggest that
stresses due to internal pressure and external loading can be
added for a combined loading verification, but a similar
combination may not apply when buckling due to vacuum /
external pressure is a concern since the external loading has the
tendency to increase the out-of-roundness of the shell.
All FEA conducted assumes a nozzle located at the center
of the tank height, sufficiently far away for discontinuities.
Proximity to discontinuities can have a significant effect on
both stress and stiffness for nozzle load evaluation.
Investigation into the effects of nozzle location is planned for
future research and development.
CONCLUSIONS
The FEA results from the investigation of filament wound
material FRP properties indicate that the existing WRC
approaches to nozzle load evaluation are good resources that
can be applied to FRP vessels, with certain additional
considerations. The increased hoop direction stiffness for
typical filament wound shells have the most influence on hoop
stress due to longitudinal moment loading. A possible
correction for this effect is to multiply isotropic hoop stress due
to longitudinal moment by (Eh/Ea)1/2 for hoop stress in
orthotropic filament wound FRP shells.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Orthotropic properties also influence the extent of stress
distribution. The location of maximum combined stress due to
multiple loading components can occur at a different location
around the nozzle circumference for anisotropic materials as
compared with isotropic assumptions, potentially invalidating
combined stress approach assumptions used for isotropic
materials. This effect can be considered by assuming that the
maximum stress due to each component of loading occurs
uniformly around the nozzle circumference, or alternatively, by
applying a unity check summation of each component of actual
loading divided by its allowable limit for combined loads.
A simplified approach has been presented based on FEA
simulations of various FRP vessel geometries. These simplified
equations are intended to be conservative and to capture typical
vessel and nozzle configurations. The distance from the nozzle
to discontinuities and peeling of the nozzle installation overlays
should also be considered when using these simplified
equations. The authors of this paper hope that this investigation
will encourage more FRP tank and vessel designers to include
external nozzle loading in their calculations or to provide
reasonable allowable loads at external connection points.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A special thanks is extended to Darryl Mikulec and the
engineering division at Maverick Applied Science, Inc. for their
continual support and encouragement to discuss and investigate
challenging issues related to FRP design. The authors of this
paper are grateful to work with other engineers in the FRP
industry who contribute to the advancement of FRP codes,
standards, and engineering methods. Lastly, the authors would
like to thank end-users who choose FRP piping and equipment
and insist on proper engineering and analysis.
REFERENCES
[1] ASME, 2011, Reinforced Thermoset Plastic Corrosion-
Resistant Equipment (RTP-1), American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York.
[2] ASME, 2011, Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Section X,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
[3] Mershon, J. L., Mokhtarian, K., Ranjan, G. V., and
Rodabaugh, E. C., 1987, Local Stresses in Cylindrical Shells
due to External Loadings on Nozzles, Bulletin 297, Welding
Research Council, New York.
[4] Wichman, K. R., Hopper, A. G., and Mershon, J. L., 2002,
Local Stresses in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells due to
External Loadings, Bulletin 107, Welding Research Council,
New York.
[5] Bednar, H., 1991, Pressure Vessel Design Handbook,
Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar.
[6] CEN, 2008, GRP Tanks and Vessels for Use Above Ground -
Part 3: Design, EN 13121-3, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels.
[7] Peng, L. C., 1988, Local Stresses in Vessels Notes on the
Application of WRC-107 and WRC-297, Journal of Pressure
Vessel Technology, Vol. 110, pp. 106-109.
9 Copyright 2014 by ASME
 ANNEX A

GEOMETRY USED IN FEA FOR EFFECTS OF ORTHOTROPIC MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Tank Dia Noz Dia Tank Thk Noz Thk Tank Ht Noz Ht
D/d T/t
D [in] d [in] T [in] t [in] [in] [in]
168 6 0.5 0.5 0.76 28 1 168 84
168 6 0.38 0.38 0.85 28 1 168 84
120 6 0.5 0.5 0.90 20 1 120 60
120 6 0.38 0.38 1.00 20 1 120 60
168 6 0.25 0.25 1.00 28 1 168 84
72 6 0.5 0.5 1.16 12 1 72 36
120 6 0.25 0.25 1.19 20 1 120 60
168 10 0.5 0.5 1.20 16.8 1 168 84
72 6 0.38 0.38 1.29 12 1 72 36
168 10 0.38 0.38 1.35 16.8 1 168 84
120 10 0.5 0.5 1.42 12 1 120 60
72 6 0.25 0.25 1.53 12 1 72 36
120 10 0.38 0.38 1.59 12 1 120 60
168 10 0.25 0.25 1.62 16.8 1 168 84
72 10 0.5 0.5 1.83 7.2 1 72 36
120 10 0.25 0.25 1.92 12 1 120 60
120 14 0.5 0.5 1.93 8.57 1 120 60
72 10 0.38 0.38 2.05 7.2 1 72 36
168 18 0.5 0.5 2.07 9.33 1 168 84
120 14 0.38 0.38 2.18 8.57 1 120 60
72 18 1 1 2.34 4 1 72 36
168 18 0.38 0.38 2.35 9.33 1 168 84
120 18 0.5 0.5 2.45 6.67 1 120 60
72 10 0.25 0.25 2.47 7.2 1 72 36
72 14 0.5 0.5 2.49 5.14 1 72 36
72 18 0.75 0.75 2.64 4 1 72 36
120 14 0.25 0.25 2.64 8.57 1 120 60
120 18 0.38 0.38 2.77 6.67 1 120 60
72 14 0.38 0.38 2.81 5.14 1 72 36
168 18 0.25 0.25 2.85 9.33 1 168 84
120 30 1 1 2.91 4 1 120 60
72 18 0.5 0.5 3.16 4 1 72 36
120 30 0.75 0.75 3.31 4 1 120 60
120 18 0.25 0.25 3.37 6.67 1 120 60
168 42 1 1 3.38 4 1 168 84
72 14 0.25 0.25 3.41 5.14 1 72 36
72 18 0.38 0.38 3.58 4 1 72 36
192 48 1 1 3.60 4 1 192 96
168 42 0.75 0.75 3.87 4 1 168 84
120 30 0.5 0.5 3.99 4 1 120 60
192 48 0.75 0.75 4.12 4 1 192 96
72 18 0.25 0.25 4.35 4 1 72 36
120 30 0.38 0.38 4.55 4 1 120 60
168 42 0.5 0.5 4.68 4 1 168 84
192 48 0.5 0.5 4.99 4 1 192 96
168 42 0.38 0.38 5.35 4 1 168 84
120 30 0.25 0.25 5.56 4 1 120 60
192 48 0.38 0.38 5.70 4 1 192 96
168 42 0.25 0.25 6.55 4 1 168 84
192 48 0.25 0.25 7.00 4 1 192 96

10 Copyright 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms