You are on page 1of 33

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure

Foreword
In August of 1965 the Welding Research Council published WRC Bulletin No. 107, "Local Stresses in Spherical and
Cylindrical Shells Due to External Loadings," by K. R. Wichman, A. G. Hopper and J. L. Mershon. That document provided
engineers with guidance for the evaluation oflocalized stresses in pressure vessel shells due to various extemalloads.
Less than 20 years later, in August of 1984, the Welding Research Council published Bulletin No. 297, "Local Stresses in
Cylindrical Shells Due to External Loadings on Nozzles-Supplement to WRC Bulletin No. 107," by J. L. Mershon, K.
Mokhtarian, G. V. Ranjan and E. C. Rodabaugh. This document provided important improvements to WRC Bulletin No. 107,
accounting for local stresses in the nozzle, as well as, the vessel. The basis for the curves in Bulletin No. 297 was the computer
code developed by Dr. C. R. Steele entitled, FAST2.
The work presented here provides the engineer with guidance for the evaluation of shell and nozzle stresses due to internal
pressure. Eqs. 1 through 4 are based on parametric studies performed with the computer code FAST2. The bulletin also
includes comparisons with other previously developed correlation equations and test data.
It is important that it be recognized that this bulletin does not present any rules for design, but it is rather intended to be an
aid in assessing the local structural integrity of the vessel. No attempt is made to educate or enlighten the individual on stress
categorization rules of Section III or Section VIII, Division 2 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. It is taken for
granted that the designer understands how, when and where to apply the categorization rules for calculating stresses in
accordance with the methods in this document.

G. E. o. Widera, PhD
Chairman of Committee on Reinforced
Openings and External Loadings of
the Pressure Vessel
Research Council
Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure

by: K. Mokhtarian, and J. S. Endicott

CONTENTS: to internal pressure. A number of papers have been


1.0 Nomenclature .....•....••............... 1 published on the subject proposing design formu-
2.0 Introduction ••...........•.••..•....•.... 1 las,8-13 but these formulas are generally limited to a
3.0 Procedure .........••.••.............•... 1
narrow range of parameters. Detailed stress analysis
4.0 Resu.lts •••••••...•..•.•••.•••••••.•.•••.. 4 of cylinder intersections is a complex and time consum-
ing problem. This Bulletin has been prepared to
5.0 Limitations ••••••...•....•...••....•.... 11
provide the designer with a simple and approximate
6.0 Comparison with Other Equations ..... 11
7.0 Comparison with Test Results method of calculating maximum stresses due to inter-
and Finite Element Results ............. 16 nal pressure at cylinder intersections. Formulas are
8.0 EX8IIlples ............................... 16
provided for calculating membrane and bending
9.0 References............................. 32 stresses in both the vessel and the nozzle.
For the design of cylinder intersections subjected to
internal pressure, the ASME Boiler and Pressure
1.0 Nomenclature Vessel Code and most other codes, have basically
relied on "area-replacement" rules. 2 These rules,
d = nozzle mean diameter based on replacing the cutout material in the pres-
D = vessel mean diameter sure boundary within certain limits, assure that the
P = internal pressure
average membrane stress in the vicinity of the open-
R = vessel mean radius
ing is approximately the same as the stress in the
s = Pd/2t un-perturbed shell. Such rules do not account for
S = PD/2T local membrane, bending stresses, and discontinuity
SCF
= stress concentration factor = stresses.
rr/(PD/2T) or rr/(Pd/2t) ASME Code Section III and Section VIII, Division
t = nozzle thickness
2, also contain rules for calculating "stress indices"
= thickness of insert plate or which, in effect, are stress concentration factors at
thickness of shell plus pad plate openings for fatigue analysis. But such indices are
= maximum stress (or stress provided for a number of specific geometries only and
intensity) value at the intersection are limited to a few points on the vessel. The methods
= stress (or stress intensity) on vessel of this Bulletin will allow a simple and fairly accurate
= stress (or stress intensity) calculation of stresses at cylinder intersections, for a
on nozzle wide range of geometric parameters. The results of
A (lambda) = d/ Ji5T this document are to be used for design guidance.
value from eq. )
- value from FAST 2 3.0 Procedure
% difference = ( value from FAST 2 100
The design formulas proposed in this Bulletin are
based on the results of a parametric study using the
FAST2 (Revision 3) computer program. The program
2.0 Introduction
is based on shallow thin shell theory, and was devel-
Cylinder-cylinder intersections are commonly en- oped for d/ D ratios of up to approximately 0.5. 1 The
countered as nozzles in pressure vessels or branches program results are quite accurate up to d /D ratios of
in piping. WRC Bulletins 1077 and 2976 provide about 0.35. Beyond this ratio, depending on the value
simple cookbook methods of calculating stresses at of other parameters, the accuracy of the program
such intersections due to external loadings. However, diminishes with increasing d/ D ratio. A discussion on
there is no widely used document providing for simple the accuracy of this program is being prepared. 14
calculation of stresses at cylindrical intersections due The set of data, on which the results are based,
consisted of 99 different FAST2 program models.
Tables 1a and 1b list the geometric parameters for
K. Mokhtarian and J. S. Endicott are Senior Engineers with Chicago these models. A wide range of parameters was cov-
Bridge & Iron Technical Services Company, in Oak Brook, IL.
Publication of this Bulletin was sponsored by the Committee on Rein- ered, without exceeding the limits of the program or
{~~ 9Penings and External Loadmgs of the Pressure Vessel Research
Council. introducing excessive errors in the final results. The

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 1


Table 1a: Model Geometries

Model D T d t Lambda

1 9.92 0.0833 0.47 0.025 0.52


2 99.60 0.4000 3.92 0.080 0.62
3 99.80 0.2000 3.96 0.040 0.89
4 99.00 1.0000 9.50 0.500 0.95
5 99.00 1.0000 9.80 0.200 0.99
6 99.00 1.0000 9.90 0.100 1.00
7 9.92 0.0833 0.95 0.050 1.05
8 9.92 0.0833 0.98 0.020 1.08
9 9.92 0.0833 0.99 0.010 1.09
10 98.67 1.3333 12.66 0.667 1.10

11 9.98 0.0200 0.49 0.005 1.11


12 98.67 1.3333 13.06 0.267 1.14
13 9.50 0.5000 2.70 0.300 1.24
14 99.60 0.4000 7.92 0.080 1.26
15 99.90 0.1000 3.98 0.020 1.26
16 980.00 20.0000 180.00 20.000 1.29
17 9.50 0.5000 2.85 0.150 1.31
18 9.50 0.5000 2.94 0.060 1.35
19 980.00 20.0000 190.00 10.000 1.36
20 980.00 20.0000 196.00 4.000 1.40

21 9.50 0.5000 3.20 0.800 1.47


22 9.50 0.5000 3.20 0.800 1.47
23 99.60 0.4000 9.80 0.200 1.55
24 9.50 0.5000 3.60 0.400 1.65
25 9.50 0.5000 3.80 0.200 1.74
26 9.50 0.5000 3.92 0.080 1.80
27 9.50 0.5000 4.00 1.000 1.84
28 99.00 1.0000 19.00 1.000 1.91
29 980.00 20.0000 270.00 30.000 1.93
30 99.00 1.0000 19.60 0.400 1.97

31 99.00 1.0000 19.80 0.200 1.99


32 980.00 20.0000 285.00 15.000 2.04
33 9.50 0.5000 4.50 0.500 2.06
34 9.92 0.0833 1.90 0.100 2.09
35 980.00 20.0000 294.00 6.000 2.10
36 9.92 0.0833 1.92 0.080 2.11
37 980.00 20.0000 297.00 3.000 2.12
38 9.92 0.0833 1.96 0.040 2.16
39 9.92 0.0833 1.98 0.020 2.18
40 9.50 0.5000 4.75 0.250 2.18

41 98.67 1.3333 25.34 1.333 2.21


42 9.98 0.0200 0.99 0.010 2.22
43 99.80 0.2000 9.96 0.040 2.23
44 9.50 0.5000 4.90 0.100 2.25
45 98.67 1.3333 26.00 0.667 2.27
46 98.67 1.3333 26.40 0.267 2.30
47 99.00 1.0000 24.50 0.500 2.46
48 980.00 20.0000 360.00 40.000 2.57
49 980.00 20.0000 380.00 20.000 2.71
50 98.67 1.3333 32.00 1.333 2.79

2 WRC Bulletin 368


Table 1b: Model Geometries

Model D T d t Lambda

51 980.00 20.0000 392.00 8.000 2.80


52 980.00 20.0000 396.00 4.000 2.83
53 98.67 1.3333 32.66 0.667 2.85
54 99.00 1.0000 28.50 1.500 2.86
55 98.67 1.3333 33.06 0.267 2.88
56 99.00 1.0000 29.40 0.600 2.95
57 99.00 1.0000 29.70 0.300 2.98
58 99.60 0.4000 19.60 0.400 3.10
59 9.92 0.0833 2.85 0.150 3.14
60 99.60 0.4000 19.80 0.200 3.14

61 99.90 0.1000 9.95 0.050 3.15


62 99.60 0.4000 19.92 0.080 3.16
63 99.90 0.1000 9.98 0.020 3.16
64 9.92 0.0833 2.90 0.100 3.19
65 980.00 20.0000 450.00 50.000 3.21
66 9.92 0.0833 2.94 0.060 3.23
67 9.92 0.0833 2.97 0.030 3.27
68 98.67 1.3333 38.00 2.000 3.31
69 98.67 1.3333 38.67 1.333 3.37
70 980.00 20.0000 475.00 25.000 3.39

71 98.67 1.3333 39.33 0.667 3.43


72 98.67 1.3333 39.73 0.267 3.46
73 980.00 20.0000 490.00 10.000 3.50
74 980.00 20.0000 495.00 5.000 3.54
75 99.00 1.0000 38.00 2.000 3.82
76 99.00 1.0000 39.20 0.800 3.94
77 99.00 1.0000 39.60 0.400 3.98
78 99.00 1.0000 39.80 0.200 4.00
79 9.92 0.0833 3.80 0.200 4.18
80 9.92 0.0833 3.92 0.080 4.31

81 9.92 0.0833 3.96 0.040 4.36


82 9.92 0.0833 3.98 0.020 4.38
83 9.98 0.0200 1.98 0.020 4.43
84 99.80 0.2000 19.90 0.100 4.45
85 99.80 0.2000 19.96 0.040 4.47
86 99.60 0.4000 28.92 0.080 4.58
87 99.60 0.4000 29.40 0.600 4.66
88 99.60 0.4000 29.60 0.400 4.69
89 99.60 0.4000 29.80 0.200 4.72
90 99.00 1.0000 47.50 2.500 4.77

91 99.00 1.0000 49.00 1.000 4.93


92 99.00 1.0000 49.50 0.500 4.98
93 9.92 0.0833 4.75 0.250 5.23
94 9.92 0.0833 4.90 0.100 5.39
95 9.92 0.0833 4.95 0.050 5.45
96 9.92 0.0833 4.97 0.025 5.47
97 99.90 0.1000 19.90 0.100 6.30
98 99.90 0.1000 19.95 0.050 6.31
99 99.90 0.1000 19.98 0.020 6.32

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 3


model geometries fall within the following range of best fit. These powers, the minimizing set of con-
parameters: stants, and the resulting standard deviations are:

0.523 < dl Ji5T < 6.32 Eq. (1)


PI
1.25
P2
-.25
Ps
-.75
P4
1.00
P"
- .25
P6
- .25
Eq. (2) 0.00 0.00 -1.50 1.25 -.50 0.50
19 < DIT < 999 Eq. (3) 0.25 0.00 -.50 0.00 -.25 0.50
Eq. (4) -0.50 0.00 -.75 -.50 0 -.25
4 < dlt < 999
ao al a2 Std. Dev.
0.039 < dID < 0.515 Eq. (1) 0.5315 -.06342 0.4372 4.7
Eq. (2) 1.0048 -.01427 0.8605 9.1
0.388 < SIs < 6.26 Eq. (3) 0.2728 -.04706 0.9551 5.2
Eq. (4) 0.3377 -.5272 1.4229 7.5
0.1 < tIT < 3.0
Eq. (1) provides the maximum membrane stress
The above range covers most of the practical cases intensity in the vessel
of cylinder intersections. Some of the models have Eq. (2) provides the maximum surface stress inten-
diameter to thickness ratios which violate the thin sity in the vessel
shell assumptions of the program; however, the calcu- Eq. (3) provides the maximum membrane stress
lated stresses are still fairly accurate and do not intensity in the nozzle
distort the data. The models have been made long Eq. (4) provides the maximum surface stress inten-
enough so that the effects of the boundary conditions sity in the nozzle
are negligible. 4.0 Results
Most codes which have rules for fatigue analysis,
have adopted the concept of stress intensity. Stress In order to illustrate the results, several graphs
intensity is defined as the maximum stress difference have been made showing the difference in percent
between any pair of principal stresses. Since some of versus lambda (A). The "% difference" is defined as
the maximum stresses occur off the cardinal axes and the difference between the maximum F AST2 stress
have shear stress associated with them, the principal and the stress from the equation being considered
divided by the maximum FAST2 stress, multiplied by
stress is a more meaningful criteria to use than radial
100. Each geometry is represented by a symbol drawn
and tangential shell stresses. Values reported in this
at the proper coordinates. The type of symbol used is
Bulletin are all based on stress intensity concept and
determined by the tIT ratio. That is, the range 0.1 <
the proposed design formulas provide the maximum
tIT < 3.0 is divided into 8 equal regions with a
value of stress intensity. (The words "stress" and
symbol for each region. For example, points for
"stress intensity" are used synonymously, from geometries with 0.1 < tIT < 0.463 are indicated by
hereon, in this Bulletin). symbol # 1. The use of lambda (A) as the abscissa is to
Since the nozzle behaves differently than the ves- spread the data out evenly and is arbitrary. Likewise,
sel, and the membrane solutions are different from the choice of tiT for the symbol is arbitrary and any
the bending solutions, four separate equations have other geometric parameter could have been used. A
been developed. Each equation has the following number of parameters were tried and no definite
form: patterns were detected.
vessel Figs. 1a-1d show the results of using Eqs. 1 thru 4,
respectively. As can be seen, the differences are
(Tv
d PD]
= [0:] [lift 2T
scattered rather randomly.
Fig. 1e indicates the difference between the maxi-
mum values of Eqs. 1 and 3 and the maximum
nozzle membrane stress of applicable FAST2 results. Fig. 1f
indicates the difference between the maximum value
D Pd]
<Tn = [0:] [fiT 2t of Eqs. 2 and 4 and the maximum surface stress of
applicable FAST2 results.
where As indicated by Figs. 1a-1d, the percentage errors
between the proposed equations and the F AST2 data
__ (D)PI (D)P2 (!...)P3 (D)P4 (D)P5 (!...)P6 are mostly limited to about 20%, except for a few
CT - ao + a l d T T + a2 d T T isolated points. This degree of accuracy is normally
acceptable for analysis of cylinder intersections. If
The powers Pi(i = 1, 2, ... 6) are allowed to take on Eqs. 1 thru 4 were reduced to only two equations,
values of 0.25 either side of the minimum combina- providing the value of maximum membrane and
tion while the coefficients a/J = 0, 1, 2) are calculated surface stress, regardless of locations, the percent
by minimizing the square of the error for each power differences will be those shown on Figs. le and 1f.
combination. The combination of powers that pro- These differences are somewhat higher than those of
duces the lowest standard deviation is taken to be the Figs. 1a-1d.

4 WRC Bulletin 368


1 (!) 2 • 3 + Y )( 5 ~ 6 ... 7 ~ 8 z
I I I I
30.00

25.00 -

U1 20.00 -
C"/:)
~
ex::
~
~
C/.) U1
C/.)
~
C/.)
aJ 15.00 -
~.
;:s L
~
~
LL.I
L + +
"
~ 10. 00 - .lit
C!)
~ -l x
~
CO)
(f')
e +
~
too. +
~
f)
UJ
> 5.00 - +
+
.. z e
+
A CD
. CD
A
A
.
-
;;.
~ :t
Ae

ill til
C!)

C!J • CD (!) .. CD
CD
e
.
~

~ UJ
• 0.00
z + +. e
e
" e
CD e CD d) t:t,t!J C!J
C!) C!J(!) C!J
CD
~
e
A
C"/:) U • CD
CD eCD s .. CD
~
e:
~
CO)
Z
UJ -5.00 -
~
.
C!)C!)
. CD
.. CD
CD
CDC!) .eC!)
CD
C!)
e
C!J
C!)
0: CD A CD
~
~ UJ
l.J.... +
S LL. -10.00 - z
~ ....-4
~
C/.) Cl
C/.)
t::
~ -15.00 -
~

-20.00
1 I
0.5 1!2 1!9 2.16 3!S ij.lo
"!7 5.1.\ 6.1 8.8
LRMBDR
Fig. 1a-Differences-Eq. 1 vs. FAST2 results
1 (!) 2 . 3 + ij x 5 • 6 ... 7 ~ e z
I I
32.S1

27.~3 -

21.S~ -

U1 16.~6 -
a::
~ z
U1 C!)
C!)
...
u... 10.97 - C!) C!)
a::
:::J
U1
5."S - z
++
., " C!)

e
e

C!)
C!)
C!)

" C!)
~
.,
CD

§
~
--I
en
W
> 0.00
+
+:r.

Z
••
e .....
mC!)m
CD
t!P
C!)
C!)
C!)
C!)

.
C!)

-
)( C!)
b::J C!)
~ ~
.o6. • C!)
• C!)

~
... + e +
IT
~.
C!) ~ C!)
~
C¢ W
• -5."9 - +
•+ C!) A "
II
~ U CD
Z + +
W -10.97 - CD
a: m
W
u... e
u... -16.~S - CD CD
..- A

CJ
:-..: -21. S~- •
.
"'27.~S - -
-32.S1
o.s 1.'2
I
1. S 2.IS 3.3
I
~.O
I
".7
I I , 8.8
s." S.l

LAMBDR
Fig. 1b-Differences-Eq. 2 vs. FAST2 results
1-_____~I----~I~----~I------t_----~I~----~I------L-.----~I------~.-----+-:

--:
CD

1
e e
-
f)

-
a:
o
fD
~
a:
-1

+
N
Q)

,... CD
N
.

co
+
f)

CD
f- •

X
::::P

+ f)
('I') _ N N
'--.

+
.. +
N
C\I

-.
e
~----~------r-----'------+----~~r-----'------r-----'r-----~----~~
o
o
I
o
o
I
0
0
I I
0 0 0
I I I I
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
N

o
o
o ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ o
~ ~
(I')
N 0 -I -I NI NI
I I

·S~lS·9W]W·llQN ·]IN]tl3=1::JIO I.
Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 7
1 (!) 2 .. 3 + ij x 5 0 6 ... 7 ~ 8 z
1 I I
30.00

25.00 - -
(f')
20.00 - C!)
a:::
I-
(f')
z
lL.. 15.00 - z
a: z C!I
::l
(J') CD
10.00 -
CD
-I C!)CD
;] N
0 • C!I
CD •
(J
Z 5.00 - + ..". )(
C!)
C!I
C!)
CD
ell

-
~ C!) A CD
~ (!) +CD CD (!)
C!)
~ + C!I+e!) C!)e e
( tI C!I .C!I
• •
..
~
~.
;1 0.00 m
~
~
I.J..J
W + .. .. . •C!) CD •
e CD


C!)

C!)
.. C!)
00
Z + • C!) C!)
I.J..J -5.00 - C!I
CD
a:::
LLJ CD
+
.. .. +CD CD
fIJ + C!)

..
CD CD
LL..
lL.. -10.00 -
+
IP CD • It

......
0
~ -15.00 -

-20.00
I 1
, , , I
0.5 1.2 1.9 2.IS 3.3 1.&.0 ".'7 5.~ S. 1 6.8

LAMBDA
Fig. 1ej-Differences-Eq. 4 VS. FAST2 results
a
20.00
1 C!) 2 • .3 + ij x
.5 • 6 • 7 ~ z
I .

15.00 -

+
10.00 -
CI)
"""
~
<n
a:::
(!)
+
" A
CI)
CI) I- A + (!)
+ ...
~
CI)
too.
<n 5.00 - • ... + ...• C!)
...
A

;:s ~~
~
CD
:J:
+
(!)
C!) • ... iI'
" C!I C!) C!) " C!I
"""
~
~
~
UJ
:£ 0.00 ..
2$
e
t!) \!I-
C!I
e AI

t!IJ
C!le C!) "
CD"t!) C!)

... C!) • C!) "e!)


e!)
...
(!)

C!I C!I
" ,,"
(!)
~
"""
too. x ~ e ... C!) (!)
~ a: C!I C!)
:J: -5.00 - ., "
(!)
C!) C!I

-
Q
t oo.
;:s
R.
~
-10.00 -
+ fIJ CD

"
~ • z
CI)
W
~ U z
~ z
~
(') UJ -15.00 - z
~ a: +
R. W
0- LL.
"tI u.. -20.00 -
~
~

CI)
CI)
Cl
~
~ ~ -25.00 - I-

-SO.OO 1 T
0.5 1.2 1!9 2!6 s!s ij!O i£!7
I
S.i£ 6.1 6.8

LRMBDR
Fig. 1e-Differences-max. of Eq. 1 & 3 vs. FAST2 results
~
0

1 en 2 A 3 + ij x 5 0 6 ... 7 x 8 z
I I I I I
SO.OO

50.00 -
U1
CJ
LJ..J lAO. 00 - I-

U1
a: 30.00 -
t-
U1
lL. CD
a:: 20.00 - C!)

:::J z e
~ U1 z C!)
z
Q X 10.00 - C!)
CD
C!) ..

--....
ta a: & CD
C!) C!) e
~ +,.. )( e(l
~
rt)
~
C!)
e+. e
e CD e
+ e eC!) CD •
;:s • 0.00
+
• (!)
m

C!)

c...;, LJ..J + +4 ". &
C!) • e
.C!)
4 &&
e
CD 4 C!)
"S
~ U CD CD e CD
+ (I#J +
Z
LJ..J -10.00- •
CD
• • +t!) C!) C!)
&
C!)C!)
C!I C!) CD • C!)
-
a:
UJ CD
U.
lL. -20.00 - I-
......
Cl

:-.: -30.00 -

-lAO.OO
I I I I I I I
0.5 1!2 1.9 2.S 3.3 y.o IA.7 5.IA 6.1 8.8

LRMBDR
Fig. 1f-Differences-max. of Eq. 2 & 4 vs. FAST2 results
The foll owing are the four proposed equations for the width of shell reinforcement (pad plate or insert
design: plate) is less than 1.65 ,mT or d 12, then the " T "
Maximum membrane stress intensity on vessel: value to be used for calculating stresses is to be the
th ickness of the shell . (This ignoring of the s hell
fJ, ~ [0 .5315 - 0.06342 (D Id) '" (D / T) - '" reinforcement may result in overly conservative esti-
j
mate of stresses in the shell, but unconservative
. (t/ T t ·75 + 0.4372 (D l d)(D IT t"(t l T) -''')
estimate of stresses in the nozzle neck.) If the width
. [(d l /Dt) x (PD I2T)) (1) of the shell reinforcement (pad plate 01' insert plate) is
equal to or greater than 1.65 ,mT and d 12, it can be
Maximum surface stress intensity on vessel assumed that the thickness of the reinforced portion
IT" ~ [1.0048 - 0.01427 (t 1T) - '5 of the shell would determine the state of stress at the
nozzle-to-shelljunction. In such a case, the "Tn value
+ 0.8605 (D Id)'" (D I T)-0 5 (tiT)" ] to be used in equations for calculating stresses shall
. [(d l/Dt) x (PDI2T)] (2)
be "T," (the t hickness of insert plate or shell thick-
ness plus pad plate thickness). It is generally assumed
Maximum membrane stress intensity on nozzle t hat discontinuity stresses due to t he penetration
have been reduced to negligible levels at a distance of
fJ" ~ [0.2728 - .04706 (D ld )o," (t 1T) -050 + 0.9551
1.65 ,mT or d 12, whichever is greater, from the
. (D IT to.25 (t IT )O'''') [(D I .j(Fh x (Pd / 2t)) (3) nozzle neck.
Maximum surface stress intensity on nozzle
6,0 Comparison with Other Equations
u" ~ [0.3377 - 0.5272 (D l d) -'" (t IT) - "
To show how the equations proposed in this Bulle-
+ 1.4229 (D ld t" (t IT) - " ][(D /JdT) x (Pd I2t») (4 ) tin compare with four other equations proposed in
other papers, plots are provided to indicate the maxi-
mum surface stress difference between each equation
5.0 Limitations
a nd FAST2 resu lts. For these comparisons, all 99
It is suggested that the use of design formu las data po in ts h ave been used, even though some of t he
proposed in this Bulletin be limited to the follow ing data fall outside of the range of geometric parameters
range of parameters: specified for these other equations. The four other
equations are from Ref. 2 and are shown below. (For
10 < D IT < 1000 the source of t hese equations and their range of
4 < d lt < 1000 applicability, see Ref. 2.)
0.1 < t i T < 3 SCF ~ 2.8(D /T)°"" (dl D)°367 (t/ T) -o.", (I',/t) -" " (5)

0.03 < dID < 0.5 SCF = 2.1 [A I(t IT)) H' (6 )

0.3 < S is < 6 SCF ~ maximum of:

.3 < d l /Dt < 6.5 [1 + 1.771. + (dID)' :2(tIT) "' ) Z


1 + (dID)"'(t IT )'"
The calculated stresses may not be accurate for
nozzles close to another penetration, vessel end , or and
any other disconti nuity. A separation distance of
approximately 2.5 ,mTbetween points of disconti nu - \1.67 [(d l D)(D IT)/(t IT») '" + 0.565 (dID» ) Z
(7)
ity wi ll be adequate to assure fairly accurate results." 0.67 [(dID)(DI T) /( t IT )]' 12 + 0.565 (t IT )
The results presented in this Bulletin are based on where
unreinforced cylinder intersections, with the nozzle
wall extending normal to the vessel, indefinitely on Z ~ 1 + [(t IT )/(d l D)] "'/ (D IT )
the outside only. The theory is not applicable to 2 + 2(dID)'I2(t IT )'" + 1.25 A
nozzles that project inside the vessel. The nozzle SCF = 1 + (dID)"'(t IT )'" (8)
shou ld have an axial length of not less than approxi-
mately 2.5 ,fri. For the resu lts of this analysis to be In Eq. 5, r , denotes the fillet l'adius at the nozzle to
applicable, the nozzle must be attached to the vessel shell attachment. For comparisons here, a value of
by a full penetration weld. I',lt ~ 1.0 has been assumed for all data points.
In case of reinforced openings, either by a th ick- Figs. 2a-2d show the percent difference between t he
ened insert or a pad added to the shell, a great deal of maximum stresses calculated by Eqs. 5 thru 8 and
judgement will have to be exercised in us ing the those obtained form the FAST2 data, for all 99
resu lts presented here. T he following is a rule of geometries. Please note that some of the data fall
thumb which has been used successfully and provides outside the range of applicability ofEqs. 5 thl'u 8. For
fairly accurate and generally conservative results. If example, most of t he data indicating the largest

Stresses in In.tersecting Cylinders Su.bjected to Pressure 11


~
~ 1 (!) 2 A 3 + ij )( 5 • 6 .,. 7 JIt 8 z
I I I I I I I I
110.00

CD
so.oo -
CD CD

20.00 - CD ~
Lf)
e

0 •
W 10.00 - ..
fIIlJA


CD
e "
en
a:: 0.00 .. " CD CD
m ID
~ e CD (!)
en + CD
++
~ A
u...
a:: -10.00 -
• C!)
CD CD CD
e

::::J
~~ (f)
+
a, X -20.00 - .. e ..
-
C!t
~ a: z + A
~
n)
~. +
;:s
~
~
I.U
U
a -30.00 -
+
.. CD
A
CD

CD
CD
CD
.. '"
Z z CD' CI'J
W
a::
-110.00 - )(
• CD
CD
X C!)
W ~ m
CD
u...
LL- -50.00 - z ..
..-
Cl
" C!) CD e

N -60.00 -
+
• G)

CD
..
CD
+ A

-70.00 -

-80.00
I I I I I I I I
O.S 1.2 1.9 2.6 S.3 ~.O 11.7 S.II 6.1 &.8
LAMBDA
Fig. 2a-Oifferences-Eq. 5 VS. FAST2 results
e
1&0.00
1 (!) 2 A 3 + ~ )(
.5 • 6 ...
.7 ~ z
~ . . I .

30.00 -

20.00 -
CD
(3
lLJ
rn
~
10.00 - CD
~
~ en CD
~ a:
S- f-- 0.00 e
en CD
e
~ + C!)

~
;,l
u... CD e
a: -10.00 - C!)
(\'I
0
~,
~
en
• A

• eCD CD
e

~ • + o CD
CD. ID

-
CD
f) >< -20.00 -
+ +. • e
a:
~,

;:s :!: :It •e


~ -SO.OO - +
• • C!)
;;J a

-
rn lJ..J e
z
~
&'
U
Z
+ C!) CD e"

••
(\'I'
0 lJ..J -1&0.00 - + ecfJ e
~ a: )(
A C!» eC\
R. W z C!»
0- u... ~
• C!)

'"t1
-
C!)
I.t... -50.00 - + e I-
~

z •• e C!) e
e
I» Cl + e
~
,. CD
~ ;-..: -60.00 -
+
+ .
•..
-70.00 -

-80.00
0.5 1!2 1!9 2!S S.'S
J
~.O 1& .'7
, I
5." 6.1 6.8

LAMBDR
......
Ca:I Fig. 2b-Differences-Eq. 6 vs. FAST2 results
.....
~

1 (!) 2 • 3 + ij x 5 ~ 6 ..- 7 ~ 8 z
I 1 ....L
20.00

10.00 -
r-
CD
(3
m
lLJ 0.00
..e m It r.I
CD ~(!)

(f)
a::
..
• e
C!J(!) C!)
(!)

t- -10.00 - (!)

.
.. (!) C!)
(f) CD

l.L.. (!)
a:: -20.00 -
C!)
" at
::J
en
"
~
Q
+
.. " CD (!)
at
X -30.00 -
b:I a: + • (!) CD
.....
~
..... ~ ~ "CD (!)
CD C!)
(1)
~.
~
~ lLJ
-"0.00 -
.. " CD
CD
CD C!I
CD
~
~ U
Z
UJ -50.00 -
+
.. \+ G
A
CD
(!)

CD

a: • + C!I
lLJ
lL. z
t+
.. .. .
C!)
C!) C!)
C!)

CD
u... -60.00 -
...... + CD
Cl
Z
,,; )( • ..
~ -70.00 - +
z +

-80.00
0.5
,
1.2
,
1.9 2.'6 3.3
I
ij.'O 1j.'7
,
S.ij B.l
I
6.8

LAMBDA
Fig. 2c-Differences-Eq. 7 VS. FAST2 results
1 CD 2 .& 3 + Yx 5 • 6 ... 7 :It 8 z
1 J _1
10.00
~

CD

CO
0.00
0
.. C!i
A
e CD (!)
(!)

OJ A
l.LJ & e
t/.) -10.00 - C!) me!)
I-
~

~en en +
CD e.,
CD e
~
en a: -20.00 - A C!) C!)
'N.
;OS
t- +
.. .,
(f')
..
&

~ CD Co!) ., (!)
~ u... -30.00-~
C!'I
(!) e!)
~
~
a: C!>(!)

0 ::l CD
~
~.
en
~ CD
CD CD
-
- X -"0.00 -
Q c::c
2:
+
..
GI
., CD
C!)
C!)
CD

..
~.

;OS e
R. CD
~

~ • -50.00 -
z t. +&
&
\+ A
(!) -
t/.)
l.LJ e!) C!) C!) C!)
~ U
• ..
&
~.
0
z
l.LJ
a:
-60.00 -
z
+

• x
. .. CD CD CD
+ C!)

" C!)
C!)
-
~
R.
e;-
IJ.J
u... ..
"tf
~
u...
.......
-70.00 -
z
+
+
.. CD

en CJ
en
~
~ ;-..: -80.00 -

-90.00 I
I
0.5 1.2 I! 9 2!6 s!s ".10 "!7 5\ 6.1 6.8
LAMBDR
Fig. 2d-Differences-Eq. 8 VS. FAST2 results

~
01
difference between Eq. 5 and F AST2 are for D IT > . 26 thru 31 merely indicate the degree of accuracy that
100, which is outside the range that is specified for can be expected, when arriving at maximum stresses
useofEq.5. at cylinder intersections by various means.
Since the four equations proposed by others and
shown here provide only maximum stress values, 8.0 Examples
their percent difference results (Figs. 2a-2d) should
be compared to Fig. 1f. Such comparison indicates The following examples have been included to
that the equations proposed here (Eqs. 1-4) have demonstrate the application of proposed equations.
much better correlation with FAST2 results than do They also provide a comparison of results obtained by
the equations developed by others. These proposed this method with the results obtained from a number
equations also cover a wider range of parameters than of other methods. Some suggestions are included on
allowables and how these results may be used for
the others.
Tables 2a and 2b list the values of % difference various Code calculations.
It should be pointed out that, for all the following
between SCF from Eqs. 1 thru 4 and FAST2 values.
Also listed are comparisons between the maximum examples, it has been assumed that the internal
membrane SCF (Eq. 1/3) and maximum surface SCF pressure is the only load applied to the intersections.
(Eq. 2/4) at the junction and FAST2 results. Please If piping loads or other mechanical loads are specified,
note that the maximum SCF at the junction is their effect will have to be included. Since no location
obtained by normalizing the maximum stress with or orientation is assigned to the stresses calculated by
PDI2T, regardless of location. (Values for Eqs. 3 and
these proposed equations, it will not be possible to
4 have been normalized with Pd/2t). Tables 2c and 2d accurately calculate the value of stress intensity due
list the values of % difference between SCF of Eqs. 5 to combined loads. It is possible, however, to calculate
thru 8 and FAST2 results. For reference, the % an upper bound on combined stresses by adding the
difference column for Eq. 2/4 has been repeated here. maximum stresses calculated due to internal pres-
sure to corresponding maximum stresses calculated
7.0 Comparison with Test Results and Finite due to other loadings. WRC Bulletin 297 6 provides
Element Results means of calculating membrane and surface stresses
in vessel and nozzle, due to piping loads. The absolute
Ref. 4 tabulates the available finite element analy- value of those stresses will have to be conservatively
sis results and test results for cylinder intersections. added to the corresponding stresses calculated for
To avoid duplication, the details of the references to pressure. Also, if thermal stresses are present, they
these results are not included here. The reader is will have to be included for those cases which require
referred to Ref. 4 for discussion of these available a limit on secondary stresses.
results. On pages 26 thru 31 the tables 1A thru 1C,
2A, 2B, 3 thru 8, and 27 of Ref. 4 have been duplicated E~ple No. l-Unreinforced Opening
with the values of stress concentration factor ob- GIven:
tained from the equations proposed in this ~aper D = 120 in. T = 0.5 in. d = 48 in. t = 0.5 in.
added. The column marked "SCF" is the value of
P = 120 psi MaterialA-516-70 joint efficiency = 1.0
stress concentration factor reported by the reference
for analysis or test results. The values in the column corrosion allowance = 0
"Eq. (2/4)" are the calculated maximum stress val- Parameters of Interest:
ues divided by PD/2T. The values for Eqs. 5 thru 8
have all been normalized by PDI2T. DIT = 240 d/t = 96 = 2.5
D/d dlJDT = 6.2
The tables provide an indication of how the maxi- Sis = 14400/5760 = 2.5 tIT =1
mum stress concentration factors for Eqs. 1-4 pro-
posed here and from Eqs. 5 thru 8 compare with the All the parameters fall within the limits of applicabil-
reported finite element or test results. The average ity of equations proposed here. Calculation of maxi-
ratio and standard deviations are provided as a mum stresses by use of the Eqs. 1 thru 4:
measure of data fit. It should be noted that the Membrane stress in vessel
geometric parameters for many of the models fall
O'u = [0.5315 - 0.06342 (2.5)1.25 (240t· 25(1)-O.75
outside of the range of applicability of the equations
~roposed here. However, all models have been kept to + 0.4372(2.5)(240)-·25(1)-·25][(48/ J120 x .5)
IndIcate the accuracy or inaccuracy of equations
proposed here over a wide range of parameters. The x 14,400] = 4.70 x 14,400 = 67,700 psi
accuracy of finite element results or test results Surface stress in vessel
cannot be easily ascertained. Stress gradients on
O'll = [1.0048 - .01427(1t 1.5
nozzle corners are quite steep and strain gages would
have to be located very accurately to pick up maxi- + 0.8605(2.5)1.25 (240)-·5(1}5]
mum value of stresses. Similarly, the finite element
mesh would have to be extremely fine to provide . [(48/ J120 x .5) x (14,400)]
accurate results. Comparisons of the Tables on pages = 7.22 x 14,400 = 104,000 psi

16 WRC Bulletin 368


Table 2a: Percent Differences Between Equations and FAST2 Values

Model Lambda Eq. (1 ) Eq. ( 2) Eq. (3) Eq.(4) Eq.(lj3) Eq.(2/4)

1 0.52 -3.18 -2.17 -4.04 2.37 -3.18 2.37


2 0.62 -9.66 14.47 -17.45 12.90 -15.21 12.90
3 0.89 -1.08 5.52 -16.16 15.00 -13.00 15.00
4 0.95 -0.45 1.58 3.50 -2.91 3.31 -2.91
5 0.99 4.69 4.73 3.15 6.35 3.15 6.35
6 1.00 -8.18 -9.62 -16.01 -9.37 -16.01 -9.37
7 1.05 -1.47 3.71 2.62 -3.87 1.26 -3.87
8 1.08 5.81 5.01 3.76 2.07 3.76 2.07
9 1.09 0.40 -5.06 -6.56 5.56 -6.56 5.56
10 1.10 -1.19 2.26 4.00 -3.23 4.00 -3.23

11 1.11 9.48 3.66 -2.11 5.29 -2.11 5.29


12 1.14 5.13 3.38 5.59 5.70 5.59 5.70
13 1.24 -3.67 -12.74 2.90 3.17 2.90 -2.76
14 1.26 8.66 -0.72 0.44 5.59 0.44 5.59
15 1.26 5.30 0.51 -14.71 16.38 -10.50 16.38
16 1.29 -4.80 -3.65 -0.84 -4.48 -0.84 -3.65
17 1.31 -3.94 -4.51 2.13 8.98 2.13 8.98
18 1.35 4.37 -11.55 12.90 -7.80 12.90 -7.80
19 1.36 -2.59 3.94 2.94 -2.83 2.94 -2.83
20 1.40 3.44 2.90 6.25 6.63 6.25 6.63

21 1.47 2.88 -15.96 -1.26 -12.00 -1.26 -15.96


22 1.47 2.88 -15.93 -1.26 -12.03 -1.26 -15.93
23 1.55 4.11 -3.67 6.60 -7.10 6.60 -7.10
24 1.65 -2.91 -4.19 -0.34 1.38 -0.34 -2.98
25 1.74 -6.44 1.88 -3.49 4.85 -3.49 4.85
26 1.80 -0.71 -4.16 6.36 19.93 6.36 19.93
27 1.84 7.83 -4.65 -0.24 -12.64 -0.24 -4.65
28 1.91 -5.01 -1.19 0.60 -2.07 -0.14 -1.79
29 1.93 -2.15 12.61 -1.44 -3.76 -1.44 12.61
30 1.97 0.29 5.56 2.42 -8.17 2.42 -8.17

31 1.99 5.16 -1.35 4.97 0.87 4.97 0.87


32 2.04 -3.54 6.04 0.71 -2.56 0.71 -2.56
33 2.06 -0.22 5.45 -1.41 1.45 -1.41 5.45
34 2.09 -6.30 -1.85 -1.00 -0.64 -3.23 -1.85
35 2.10 -2.28 4.95 -1.18 -1.73 -1.18 -1.73
36 2.11 -4.77 -6.21 1.37 -1.76 0.00 -1.76
37 2.12 5.50 0.23 8.77 5.87 8.77 5.87
38 2.16 0.19 1.49 3.03 -8.96 3.03 -8.96
39 2.18 3.89 -0.79 3.32 -3.32 3.32 -3.32
40 2.18 -6.38 8.93 -6.62 2.54 -6.62 2.54

41 2.21 -4.19 0.54 0.86 -0.62 0.86 -0.62


42 2.22 6.67 -7.14 9.47 -7.63 9.47 -7.63
43 2.23 11.12 -4.26 4.45 2.34 4.45 2.34
44 2.25 -5.44 1.29 -1.79 21.71 -1.79 21.71
45 2.27 -1.96 4.33 0.48 -7.44 0.48 -7.44
46 2.30 2.79 0.00 3.52 1.97 3.52 1.97
47 2.46 -1.18 2.17 1.19 -8.64 1.19 -8.64
48 2.57 4.10 29.16 0.94 -0.55 0.94 29.16
49 2.71 -1.87 6.57 0.17 2.17 0.17 2.17
50 2.79 -2.82 -1.60 0.77 1.45 0.77: 1.45

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 17


Table 2b: Percent Differences Between Equations and FAST2 Values

Model Lambda Eq. (1) Eq. (2) Eq.(3) Eq. (4 ) Eq. (1/3) Eq. (2/4)

51 2.80 -4.64 9.00 -5.38 -5.07 -5.38 -5.07


52 2.83 -1.30 3.16 -0.33 6.66 -0.33 6.66
53 2.85 -2.61 5.55 -1.86 -7.54 -1.86 -7.54
54 2.86 -4.02 3.48 -1.19 4.72 -3.65 3.48
55 2.88 1.00 1.39 1.48 1.95 1.48 1.95
56 2.95 -1.74 -1.24 0.44 -6.94 0.44 -6.94
57 2.98 -1.67 2.51 -1.81 -6.53 -1.81 -6.53
58 3.10 -4.29 -17.04 1.26 1.10 -1.45 -2.28
59 3.14 -3.61 8.18 -2.14 6.05 -3.61 8.18
60 3.14 1.11 -3.69 3.95 -9.98 3.95 -9.98

61 3.15 7.72 -10.12 12.14 -6.40 12.14 -6.40


62 3.16 5.72 -2.01 5.14 -2.36 5.14 -2.36
63 3.16 10.64 -3.34 6.02 3.73 6.02 3.73
64 3.19 -3.95 -7.82 -0.19 4.75 -2.81 -7.82
65 3.21 12.95 32.91 5.19 3.48 9.69 32.91
66 3.23 -1.56 -6.28 1.27 -4.30 1.27 -4.30
67 3.27 -2.03 4.10 -2.08 -9.00 -2.08 -9.00
68 3.31 -0.72 7.66 0.00 8.46 -0.72 7.66
69 3.37 -1.36 -2.20 0.18 3.40 0.18 3.40
70 3.39 1.36 10.41 0.39 8.28 0.39 10.41

71 3.43 -3.09 6.86 -4.14 -7.05 -4.14 -7.05


72 3.46 -0.50 3.19 -0.50 2.53 -0.50 2.53
73 3.50 -4.21 11.85 -7.10 -4.55 -7.10 -4.55
74 3.54 -5.27 6.23 -6.89 3.30 -6.89 3.30
75 3.82 1.38 12.45 -0.39 11.33 1.38 12.45
76 3.94 -0.78 -4.59 -0.59 -0.58 -0.59 -0.58
77 3.98 -3.87 7.94 -5.59 -7.99 -5.59 -7.99
78 4.00 -0.30 3.57 -0.61 0.43 -0.61 0.43
79 4.18 4.12 13.73 0.12 12.12 4.12 13.73
80 4.31 -0.42 -8.32 -0.42 3.91 -0.42 3.91

81 4.36 -2.68 5.55 -4.50 -7.96 -4.50 -7.96


82 4.38 -2.67 4.51 -3.56 -2.71 -3.56- -2.71
83 4.43 -3.11 -22.21 0.72 3.90 -1.87 0.39
84 4.45 1.64 -5.87 4.82 -8.96 4.82 -8.96
85 4.47 5.01 0.24 6.12 -1.84 6.12 -1.84
86 4.58 2.31 2.26 3.07 -2.69 3.07 -2.69
87 4.66 -4.90 -15.16 -4.76 10.90 -4.90 -15.16
88 4.69 -1.83 -16.42 -0.41 4.28 -1.83 2.20
89 4.72 -0.90 -0.89 -0.53 -8.86 -0.53 -8.86
90 4.77 9.88 17.08 2.54 17.40 9.88 17.08

91 4.93 1.76 -4.70 -1.42 7.19 1.76 7.19


92 4.98 -2.75 8.20 -7.06 -5.75 -7.06 -5.75
93 5.23 15.59 19.09 5.00 18.35 15.59 19.09
94 5.39 2.43 -6.47 -1.76 12.83 2.43 -2.03
95 5.45 0.00 3.63 -4.85 -2.97 -4.85 -2.97
96 5.47 -4.51 10.25 -7.84 -3.05 -7.84 -3.05
97 6.30 -1.80 -24.82 0.00 7.37 -1.80 3.94
98 6.31 1.85 -6.81 5.84 -6.27 5.84 -6.27
99 6.32 4.59 4.24 8.24 1.36 8.24 1.36

18 WRC Bulletin 368


Table 2c : Percent Differences Between
Equations and FAST2 Values
Model Lambda Eq.(2/4) Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq.(8)

1 0.52 2.37 -5.80 -24.76 -34.45 -30.16


2 0.62 12.90 -24.17 -34.92 -56.72 -51.90
3 0.89 15.00 -38.18 -44.32 -68.02 -61.45
4 0.95 -2.91 -4.45 -22.17 -32.96 -21.79
5 0.99 6.35 -23.22 -30.03 -59.16 -52.41
6 1.00 -9.37 -3.83 -4.77 -60.16 -53.54
7 1.05 -3.87 -2.02 -20.92 -26.83 -16.37
8 1.08 2.07 -28.64 -35.57 -58.65 -52.84
9 1.09 5.56 -16.77 -18.33 -62.21 -56.89
10 1.10 -3.23 -5.75 -21.76 -31.76 -23.34

11 1.11 5.29 -42.97 -48.45 -66.19 -61.47


12 1.14 5.70 -22.54 -28.06 -57.07 -51.80
13 1.24 -2.76 16.89 -3.77 -8.93 -3.31
14 1.26 5.59 -39.88 -43.34 -65.84 -62.30
15 1.26 16.38 -49.88 -52.65 -71.40 -68.38
16 1.29 -3.65 13.65 -11.35 -8.42 -1.90
17 1.31 8.98 -1.65 -11.50 -33.63 -29.36
18 1.35 -7.80 30.71 31.59 -34.96 -30.48
19 1.36 -2.83 -7.61 -21.23 -29.55 -24.80
20 1.40 6.63 -20.78 -24.43 -53.05 -49.91

21 1.47 -15.96 -1.47 -26.10 -27.57 -26.85


22 1.47 -15.93 -1.43 -26.07 -27.55 -26.83
23 1.55 -7.10 -32.40 -41.18 -45.57 -42.99
24 1.65 -2.98 19.93 -0.84 1.48 2.25
25 1.74 4.85 -8.48 -17.29 -27.31 -26.82
26 1.80 19.93 7.43 8.62 -34.35 -33.91
27 1.84 -4.65 7.74 -18.92 -26.55 -27.97
28 1.91 -1.79 8.49 -10.70 -2.28 -2.53
29 1.93 12.61 23.89 -2.77 0.00 -0.95
30 1.97 -8.17 -37.08 -42.07 -48.52 -48.89

31 1.99 0.87 -40.08 -40.04 -59.89 -60.25


32 2.04 -2.56 -3.54 -17.25 -13.31 -14.69
33 2.06 5.45 24.44 3.23 8.64 6.04
34 2.09 -1.85 4.33 -14.92 -4.67 -6.54
35 2.10 -1.73 -34.38 -37.03 -49.00 -50.04
36 2.11 -1.76 -0.13 -16.27 -6.61 -8.61
37 2.12 5.87 -20.45 -17.03 -50.23 -51.33
38 2.16 -8.96 -36.41 -41.98 -43.88 -45.29
39 2.18 -3.32 -45.68 -46.14 -60.00 -61.09
40 2.18 2.54 -11.35 -19.61 -21.14 -23.37

41 2.21 -0.62 7.17 -10.11 -1.09 -4.02


42 2.22 -7.63 -46.27 -50.93 -50.40 -51.92
43 2.23 2.34 -55.92 -55.11 -69.03 -70.02
44 2.25 21.71 -10.03 -8.72 -35.27 -37.37
45 2.27 -7.44 -31.70 -37.62 -38.56 -40.66
46 2.30 1.97 -39.19 -37.99 -56.77 -58.39
47 2.46 -8.64 -36.96 -41.76 -41.29 -44.18
48 2.57 29.16 33.49 5.21 0.00 -4.87
49 2.71 2.17 5.12 -9.43 0.72 -5.21
50 2.79 1.45 -0.97 -14.32 -2.45 -8.85

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 19


Table 2d: Percent Differences Between
Equations and FAST2 Values

Model Lambda Eq.(2/4) Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8)

51 2.80 -5.07 -38.69 -40.90 -42.78 -46.63


52 2.83 6.66 -36.55 -33.54 -50.56 -54.09
53 2.85 -7.54 -37.94 -41.57 -39.18 -43.53
54 2.86 3.48 3.42 -14.36 -4.84 -11.44
55 2.88 1.95 -43.41 -40.53 -55.65 -59.03
56 2.95 -6.94 -35.03 -39.81 -33.56 -38.74
57 2.98 -6.53 -50.10 -49.76 -55.20 -58.87
58 3.10 -2.28 -20.06 -29.72 -12.60 -20.32
59 3.14 8.18 4.11 -14.58 -7.35 -14.95
60 3.14 -9.98 -49.46 -51.71 -47.20 -52.05

61 3.15 -6.40 -56.40 -58.23 -52.87 -57.36


62 3.16 -2.36 -56.74 -53.91 -64.66 -68.00
63 3.16 3.73 -64.18 -61.75 -70.52 -73.36
64 3.19 -7.82 -10.00 -22.36 -8.07 -16.05
65 3.21 32.91 29.91 2.73 -11.76 -17.88
66 3.23 -4.30 -30.68 -36.37 -25.42 -32.24
67 3.27 -9.00 -51.81 -51.93 -52.80 -57.32
68 3.31 7.66 5.07 -11.33 -2.46 -10.70
69 3.37 3.40 -7.13 -17.60 -3.16 -11.88
70 3.39 10.41 9.12 -5.67 5.36 -3.33

71 3.43 -7.05 -42.38 -44.39 -39.18 -45.09


72 3.46 2.53 -46.44 -42.34 -54.33 -59.05
73 3.50 -4.55 -38.95 -40.95 -35.41 -41.55
74 3.54 3.30 -44.91 -42.10 -49.20 -54.36
75 3.82 12.45 3.44 -13.97 -10.79 -19.79
76 3.94 -0.58 -28.69 -33.65 -18.38 -27.64
77 3.98 -7.99 -52.48 -51.95 -48.18 -54.39
78 4.00 0.43 -52.15 -47.46 -56.31 -61.73
79 4.18 13.73 0.80 -16.95 -18.77 -27.76
80 4.3+ 3.91 -21.95 -28.04 -8.64 -19.97

81 4.36 -7.96 -51.83 -51.75 -43.47 -50.86


82 4.38 -2.71 -57.25 -53.50 -56.89 -62.73
83 4.43 0.39 -34.38 -39.45 -14.97 -26.88
84 4.45 -8.96 -59.07 -58.98 -49.27 -56.52
85 4.47 -1.84 -65.14 -61.06 -66.18 -71.09
86 4.58 -2.69 -61.54 -56.94 -62.36 -67.85
87 4.66 -15.16 -28.43 -36.69 -18.43 -29.66
88 4.69 2.20 -29.57 -34.59 -11.26 -23.80
89 4.72 -8.86 -56.61 -56.22 -45.88 -53.77
90 4.77 17.08 0.37 -16.25 -21.21 -30.37

91 4.93 7.19 -21.02 -26.27 -5.19 -17.79


92 4.98 -5.75 -51.80 -51.10 -40.01 -48.51
93 5.23 19.09 -1.61 -18.66 -29.45 -38.20
94 5.39 -2.03 -23.95 -29.65 -9.11 -21.97
95 5.45 -2.97 -49.07 -48.81 -32.91 -43.02
96 5.47 -3.05 -60.26 -56.62 -52.55 -60.01
97 6.30 3.94 -45.61 -47.35 -15.30 -30.59
98 6.31 -6.27 -66.23 -64.52 -49.67 -58.86
99 6.32 1.36 -71.13 -66.20 -66.30 -72.52

20 WRC Bulletin 368


Membrane stress in nozzle years. This approach uses an effective section consist-
<Tn = [0.2728 - 0.04706 (2.5)-25(1)-·6 ing of /iff' and Irl for calculating both membrane
stresses (average over the effective area) and bending
+ 0.9551 (240)-·26 (1).5] stresses (across the effective area). This will result in
calculated membrane and membrane plus bending
. [(120IJ48 X .5) X (5,760)] = 11.18 X 5,760 stresses of 48,140 psi and 99,940 psi, respectively.
= 64,380 psi The calculated value of membrane plus bending
stress by this method is closer to the value calculated
Surface stress in nozzle by equations proposed here (104,000 psi). The allow-
(Tn = [0.3377 - 0.5272 (2.5)-·50 (1)-.75 abIes used by CBI to limit these stresses have been
basic tabulated Code allowables for membrane and
+ 1.4229 (2.5)-·5 (1)-.25] 1% times this value for membrane plus bending
stresses. Using this criteria, also confirms the inade-
. [(120IJ48 X .5) X (5,760)] = 22.15 X 5,760
quacy of this intersection.
= 127,570 psi . To demonstrate the stress distribution at the junc-
tIon, as calculated by the FAST2 program, Figs. 3a
For A-~16-70 material, minimum specified yield
and 3b have been included. On Fig. 3a, "MR" indi-
strength lS 38,000 psi and minimum specified ulti-
cates the bending stress caused by an edge moment
mate strength is 70,000 psi. The calculated stresses
whose vector is tangent to the hole; "MTH" indicates
are obviously quite high for this material. The ASME bending stress caused by a moment whose vector is
Code Section VIII, Division 1, does not have a limit on radial to the hole; and "MRTH" indicates the shear
local stresses and secondary and peak stresses. The stress due to twisting moment. On Fig. 3b, "NR"
only requirement of that Code is that the area indicates the membrane stress due to radial force'
re~lacement rules (including compact reinforcing re-
"NTH" indicates the membrane stress due to circum:
qUIrements of Appendix 1-7) be satisfied. For this ferential force, and "NRTH" indicates the shear
particular case, the required area for reinforcement is stress due to in-plane shear force. On the vertical
19.8 square inches and the available area for reinforce- axis, the degrees around the circumference of the
ment is 5.01 square inches. This confirms that this nozzle, "0°" indicates the point along the meridional
intersection is not adequately reinforced and not axis of the vessel.
acceptable for Code construction.
Another simplified approach that has been pro- Example No.2-Reinforced Openings
posed for calculating membrane (average over effec- To meet area replacement rules, a reinforcing pad
tive area) and bending (across effective area cross can be added to Example 1. Assume a pad thickness of
section) stresses in vessels, at large penetrations, is 0.5 in. In order to allow for thickness of pad being
that of McBride and Jacobs. 5 That method assumes assumed as effective shell thickness for calculations
an effective section extending 1.0 /iff' along the proposed in this paper, the minimum width of the pad
~essel shell and 1.0 Jrl
along the nozzle, for calculat- should be equal to or greater than 1.65 J60X 1 =

lng membrane stresses due to pressure area. For 12.8 in. and dl2 = 24 in. Section VIII, Division 1,
calculating bending stresses, it assumes an effective allows a pad as wide as 24 in. to be considered
section extending 16T along vessel shell and 16t along effective for reinforcement [Paragraph UG-40 (a)
(1)]. The use of a 24 in. wide pad provides a total
the nozzle, to resist combination of in-plane and
reinforcement area of approximately 28.5 square in.,
out-of plane moments.
~hich is more.than the required area of 19.8 square
Membrane and membrane plus bending stresses, in
In. However, SInce the size of the opening exceeds the
the vessel, calculated by this method are 48,140 and
l~its of Paragraph UG-36 (b) (1), the compact
73,900 psi, respectively. These values are consider-
reInforcement rules of Appendix 1-7 will also have to
ably smaller than the stresses calculated by equations
be met. This requires that % of the reinforcement
~ro~osed here (67,700 psi and 104,000 psi). But, the
area be placed within an approximately 12 in. width
~lImts of effective sections in Ref. 5 are arbitrary and
of the pad. For this case, there is approximately 14.42
mtended for approximation of stresses over a wide
square in. of reinforcing material within the compact
range of parameters. The method of Ref. 5 is also reinforcing limits, which is more than the required
intended to provide an estimate of average primary
area of 13.21 square in. A 24 in. wide and 0.5 in. thick
membrane and primary bending stresses, and pro-
pad, therefore, meets the requirements of Section
posed allowables are those associated with primary VIII, Division 1, Code.
stresses. Whereas the stresses based on F AST2 pro- With such pad, the parameters, used for calculating
~am i~cl':lde the local membrane and secondary
stresses by use of equations proposed here, are:
discontInulty effects. These results can be classified
as local primary membrane and secondary bending D = 120 in. T = 1.0 in. d = 48 in.
stresses. t = 0.5 in P = 120 psi
An approach similar to that of Ref. 5 has been
successfully used by Chicago Bridge & Iron Company DIT = 120 dlt = 96 DId = 2.5 dlJiiT = 4.38
for design of large penetrations, over the past 25 SIs = 7,200/5,760 = 1.25 tIT = 0.5
Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 21
o EXRMPLE 'P RCJ BL EM ~1
(0
(Y')
-·----·--·----·-·-·1·-·-·-- ·-·--·-·-·-T-·-·--·-·----·-·-·-r·-·-·-·-·-·--·-·-·-·-·1-'-'-'--'--'-'-'-' I
I
I i i i i
II I
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
I I I I I
1 I i I

Lf)
I
i
1
i i i
I i i
I I I
i
i
I I . i
------_.-.-.-_.-. .-.--._.-----_._.-.-.-.-.t-
I
.--.-.---.-.--.;._-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-t--.-.-.-.-.--.-.-. .;.-.-.-----.-.-.-.-.-.,
(Y')
I I i I
i I I
I I i
i i i
I i
I i
I i
I j
I I
o I I I i I
r- .__._.__.__._.____L._. __.___._____.l_._._.__._.__.___._.L._.________._._.J._._._._._. ____._.__.1
C\J I i i i I
i i i I i
I i i I i
i i i i i
i j I f
i i i j
i i i i
. i i i
I. ,I iI
I I i
I
---.----.-.-.---t- I
.-----.--.--;.----.----.----.t--.-.-----.-- . i··------·-----·-·1I
I i i i j
i f I I i
i i i i ;
i i j j i
! i , I I
I i i i I
1 I I t i
i I j t I
i I I ! I
i I i i i
I __ _
_. _____.______.L I I I I
i ·-·-·---·-·f-·-·---·-·----·-·-·f-·-·-----·--·--·-·l·--·-.-.-----.-. ·1
i i I I i
en I
i
j
I I
j i
i i
i
w i
I
t
I
i l
I i i
i
w i
i
i i
I
I i
i
a: i
I
I i i
I
i
C) • i i I I i
I i
W~ .--.-.--.-.-.---.-. ··----·------·-·--·r·i .--.-.---.---;.----.-.----.--.-r---.-.------.--- ·,·-·----·-·-·-·----·--1
i l l
i i i
0- I t I I
I I j
i I j

I II -1-1-1
WW W
Ii
i (J) (f) (J) i
i (f) (f) (f) i
I WWlLJ I
i i i I »> I
o '--'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'r-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'--'+--'-'-'--·--·-·-·-·-r·-·-·-·--·--·-·-·-·-f-·-
::r: -,-,-,1
0)
i i i I a:I--::r: I
i i i i :La:1-- i en
i i i t:L L I E
i i i i '0
i i «I i Co
i i i i
i l l
j I
ElX ~ Ii
i I
._. __._._---_._._, -_._._._-_._._._._._;-. I I t t
j

.-.----.-.-.-.-.-t-.-.-.--.-.-.-.-.--.--;-.-.-.--.--.-.--_. . "--'--'-----'-'-'-'-'-"
I I I i i
i I i ' i
i ; I i i
i I i i i
I I i i i
i I i I I
j I i i i
I I I I i
i I I I t
I i i i I
! I I I 1

o. 17. 34. 51. 68.


BENDING STRESSES

22 WRC Bulletin 368


a
ill
EXAMPLE PRCJBLEM ~1
en '-'-'-'---,'---'--'---'-'-'-'1"-'-'-'--'-'-'-'-'-'--,'-'-'-'---'-'-'-'-' ,'---'-'-'-'-'-'---'-j
! I
I
1
I I I I
I I 1 I j
II 'I !I t
i
!
I
I i I
1
I
i
I
Ii i
I

Lf') I j i
I j ._._._._.j-. i
I __._. __._._. __ ._._.;._-_._._._._._._---j
I
0-1
en
._._._-_._._._.j-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-;--'--'-'-'-'
I 1 i i i
I .
j
i
Ii II i
!
i i I !
j I I !
I I i !
i j I
a I
I
1 I I
! ____.____.__IL ___.____._._._._J.i ______._._. ___._iI
I
r- -.--_.!-_._. ___._. __.___ ....;._._.
C\J ! I I I i
I
I
I
i i
I i
I
!I
i
I i
I i
! ;I i
!
i i i
I ! I
i
i
II
I
i i i
I Ii I!
-·-·-----·J·------·---·-·-·l·-·----- .-.---j-.-.----.-.-.-.---.,.--.-.-.-.-----.-.-./
i i ! I !
i
t I
i i
i Ii
i I I '
/ / i I
I I j I
i j I I
: l I I I
--.-.-.-.-.}-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-._+-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-'-'-'-r'-'-'-'-'--'-'-'--' j'-'--'-'-'-'-'-'-'--'-'I
I i / I i
Ul I ! ! I i
W i.
1
II i
: i
j
i
j

W I i i I I
0:
C).
1 : I I I
I I I i

w~ 1 I__ . .-.-.--.~.-.-----.-.--.--~.--
I /
._. __.__._._._j-_.
t __._._---_._._.;----_.
i i i .-_.-.- ----·-·-·1!
0-
I . i I I
II II II .....J.....J .....J
i
1
: Ii II UJUJ
VHf)
W
(J)
!
!
i I (J) (J) (/) I
I ! ! I WW UJ 1
! 1 1 I ::» ::> j
a __.__ .!-. ____._._. ____._.~.-.-.-.-.-.-_-.-.---.L.--.-.- ____._. __ ..1._ __._._.1
m I
I
i
! I i
i i
J:
I
i
I i i i a:1- :c i
1 1 I i i za: t- I
1 i i i Z Z I
I I i i . .
i
i
I
I
i
I
i
i
II I.
i i i i i 8(> + :
i
i I i I I I
._-_.--_._.__._._.;--_.-
j
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.~.-.---.-.-.-.---.-.~.-.-.-.--.-. ,-.-.-.-.~.-.-.-.--.-.-.-,-,-.-.~,-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-,_._.j
j t I I t j
I t i ' ! I
I j I I
,
i t
i
i
i
l
I
i I i i
i i i i
i i i i
i i i i
i i i
a ! I I

0.0 17. 34. 51 68. 85.


MEMBRRNE STRESS

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 23


All these parameters fall within the limits of appli- lated allowable of 17,500 psi (for Section VIII, Divi-
cability of the equations proposed here. The resulting sion 1) and the membrane plus bending stress exceeds
stresses are given by: the suggested 1% times that basic allowable. This is
further indication of the inadequacy of this detail.
Membrane O'u = 5.10 x 7,200 = 36,700 psi Adequate material has not been provided close enough
Surface O'u = 7.06 x 7,200 = 50,800 psi to the junction.
Membrane O'n = 6.81 x 5,760 = 39,200 psi
Example No.3
Surface O'n = 14.67 x 5,760 = 84,500 psi To further reduce the stresses of Example 2, the
As expected, the addition of pad plate has reduced the thickness of the 24 in. wide pad will be increased to 1
stresses at the junction to more reasonable values. in. The parameters for this case will be:
But these values are still rather high, indicating that, D = 120 in. T = 1.5 in Did = 2.5 diM = 3.58
even though Code requirements have been met, some
locally high stresses can be expected. Material SA516-70 Joint efficiency = 1.0
It is generally assumed that, for the method of Corrosion allowance = 0
analysis employed to develop the design equations
proposed here, membrane stresses are local primary DIT = 80 dlt = 96 DId = 2.5 diM = 3.58
and the surface stresses are primary plus secondary.
As such, the ASME Code allowables for membrane SIs = 4,800/5,760 = 0.83 tIT = .333
and surface stresses would be 1.5 times and 3 times All these parameters fall within the limits of applica-
the basic tabulated Code allowables. Using such bility of the equations proposed here. The use of Eqs.
limits for design, however, may result in significant 1 thru 4 results in the following stresses:
conservatism for certain cases. The membrane stresses
may include some secondary effects and, for vessels Membrane O'u = 5.33 x 4,800 = 25,600 psi
which are not subject to cyclic operation, a limit on Surface O'u = 6.85 x 4,800 = 32,800 psi
secondary stresses may not be needed. The only time
that self limiting secondary stresses may be of a Membrane O'n = 5.02 x 5,760 = 28,900 psi
concern is when such stresses are cyclic. Surface an = 10.78 x 5,760 = 62,100 psi
For a Section VIII, Division 1, vessel, the tabulated
stress allowable at ambient temperature for SA516-70 The calculated maximum membrane stress on the
material is 17,500 psi. This indicates that the limits vessel is within the Code allowable for local primary
suggested in the preceding paragraph cannot be met membrane of 1.5 x 17,500 = 26,250 psi (for Section
for this vessel. However, if the operation is known to VIII, Division 1). However, the maximum membrane
be non-cyclic (small number of cycles over the life of stress in the nozzle still exceeds this value. Likewise,
the structure), not having met these allowables may maximum surface stress on the vessel is within the
not necessarily be a problem. To assure that primary Code limit of 3 x 17,500 = 52,500, whereas the
bending stresses (needed to meet equilibrium at the maximum surface stress on the nozzle exceeds this
junction) are not excessive, such stresses shall be value. This indicates that not enough reinforcing has
checked by a method similar to that of Ref. 5. been provided on the nozzle side of the junction. If
The method will be used, with the exception that local membrane and secondary bending stresses in
effective sections along the vessel shell and nozzle will the nozzle are of concern, or if a more balanced design
be assumed as jiiT and Jri,
for both membrane and is desired, the nozzle wall thickness will have to be
bending stresses (as used by Chicago Bridge & Iron increased.
Company). The question that arises in this case is For comparison purposes, stresses based on method
whether JiiT should be based on the thickness of the of Ref. 5, with effective sections of JRt
and Jrl will
shell (0.5 in.) or the combined thickness of shell and also be calculated. Since the pad width of 24 in.
pad (1.0 in). exceeds the value of V60x 1.5 = 9.49 in. (and is not
Again, some engineering judgement will have to be less than dI2), the effective section along vessel shell
exercised. It is suggested that as long as the width of will be assumed as 9.49 in. from the outside of nozzle
the pad exceeds JiiTi,then the limit of effective neck. On that basis, the calculated stresses are:
section can be based on T j • In this case, the 24 in.
width of the pad considerably exceeds V60 x 1 = 7.75
Membrane = 15,400 psi
in.; therefore, the limit of effective area along the Membrane plus bending = 38,360 psi
vessel shell will be assumed as 7.75 in. from outside of
As expected, the calculated value of membrane stress
nozzle neck. The calculated stresses on this basis are:
is within the suggested allowable of 17,500 psi. The
Membrane = 24,560 psi membrane plus bending stress, however, is still more
than the desired value of 1.5 x 17,500. This, again,
Membrane plus bending = 56,540 psi
can be remedied by slightly increasing the thickness
The membrane stress exceeds the suggested tabu- of the nozzle neck. As a matter of fact, for keeping

24 WRC Bulletin 368


bending stresses (for method of Ref. 5) within limits, out that these maximum stress intensity factors do
the greatest benefit is gained by adding reinforcement not include all peak effects. The maximum peak
to the neck; since this will more significantly stiffen stresses, needed to perform fatigue analysis, usually
the shell for bending about a neutral axis which is depend on such factors as weld details, corner radius,
parallel to the shell surface. etc. The stress intensity values calculated here will
In all of the above examples, ASME Code Section have to be multiplied by appropriate fatigue strength
VIII, Division 1, has been discussed. Section VIII, reduction factors. The location and direction of stress
Division 2, and Section III Codes require a more intensities not being known, an accurate analysis is
complete analysis. For those sections of the ASME not possible. Only approximate and conservative esti-
Code, the stress intensities calculated by the method mates of peak stresses can be obtained by applying
proposed here would be helpful in calculating stresses the highest fatigue strength reduction factor for the
of various categories. However, it should be pointed intersection to the maximum surface stresses.

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 25


Table 1A: Finite Element Analyses, Unreinforced
Model DIT diD tiT SCF Eq. (2/4) Eq. ( 5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8)
UA 101.00 0.500 0.500 8.14 12.89 6.54 6.66 8.20 7.02
B 81.00 0.500 0.500 7.78 11.55 6.28 6.30 7.46 6.50
C 41.00 0.500 0.500 5.45 8.22 5.55 5.31 5.67 5.20
D 21.00 0.500 0.500 4.26 5.88 4.92 4.50 4.45 4.29
E 11.00 0.500 0.500 4.15 4.26 4.37 3.82 3.65 3.66
F 11.00 0.080 0.080 3.18 1.97 3.43 3.82 2.69 2.33
Ratio Ave. 1.267 0.986 0.964 0.962 0.879
Stand.Dev. 0.433 0.147 0.142 0.085 0.149

Table 1B: Finite Element Analyses, Standard Reinforcement


Model D/T dID tIT SCF Eq. (2/4) Eq. ( 5 ) Eq. ( 6 ) Eq. (7) Eq. (8)
SlA 101.00 0.538 4.340 2.38 3.61 3.26 2.34 1.53 1.36
B 81.00 0.543 4.010 2.50 3.45 3.24 2.32 1.56 1.40
C 41.00 0.564 3.140 2.75 3.04 3.19 2.25 1.66 1.55
D 21.00 0.593 2.450 2.95 2.72 3.16 2.21 1.81 1.73
E 11.00 0.629 1.920 3.06 2.47 3.15 2.19 2.01 1.93
F 41.00 0.375 2.560 2.72 2.60 2.96 2.03 1.70 1.64
G 21.00 0.399 1.980 2.83 2.38 2.97 2.02 1.84 1.81
H 11.00 0.429 1.520 2.95 2.21 2.99 2.03 2.03 2.01
I 41.00 0.202 1.880 2.58 2.23 2.66 1.74 1.70 1.79
J 21.00 0.220 1.430 2.67 2.10 2.70 1.76 1.81 1.95
K 11.00 0.244 1.080 2.80 2.00 2.77 1.82 1.98 2.10
L 41.00 0.112 1.380 2.50 2.10 2.41 1.51 1.69 1.93
M 21.00 0.125 1.030 2.59 2.01 2.49 1.57 1.88 2.05
N 11.00 0.138 0.724 2.89 1.94 2.63 1.67 2.19 2.16
Ratio Ave. 0.923 1.067 0.723 0.665 0.666
Stand Dev. 0.252 0.129 0.300 0.338 0.344

Table 1C: Finite Element Anal ses, Tapered Reinforcement


Model D/T diD tIT SCF Eq. (2 4 Eq. 5 Eq. 6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8)
P30A 101.00 0.348 3.190 2.57 3.08 3.13 2.20 1.78 1.63
B 41.00 0.364 2.130 2.84 2.71 3.15 2.20 2.01 1.93
C 21.00 0.381 1.600 2.89 2.47 3.16 2.19 2.14 2.12
D 11.00 0.402 1.230 2.92 2.28 3.17 2.19 2.26 2.27
E 11.00 0.121 0.533 2.96 1.99 2.56 1.82 2.37 2.26
Ratio Ave. 0.892 1.074 0.751 0.744 0.718
Stand Dev. 0.209 0.129 0.261 0.260 0.287

Table 2A: Finite Element Analyses


Model bIT dlO t/'l' seF Eq.(2/4) Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8)
U2TA 51.00 0.495 0.250 8.22 14.16 6.77 7.90 6.93 6.22
B 41.00 0.494 0.250 7.46 12.67 6.50 7.47 6.33 5.79
C 21.00 0.488 0.250 5.13 8.99 5.73 6.28 4.88 4.72
D 11.00 0.477 0.250 4.67 6.39 5.05 5.28 3.89 3.96
E 6.00 0.458 0.250 4.36 4.58 4.46 4.45 3.25 3.42
F 6.00 0.073 0.040 3.67 0.96 3.50 4.44 2.79 2.23
Ratio Ave. 1.309 0.978 1.091 0.830 0.782
Stand Dev. 0.614 0.116 0.138 0.182 0.238

26 WRC Bulletin 368


Table 2B: Finite Element Anal~ses
Model DIT diD tiT SCF Eq. (2/4) Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8)
S75E 11.00 0.597 1.562 3.29 2.56 3.24 2.36 2.32 2.24
F 41.00 0.361 2.000 2.95 2.74 3.10 2.26 2.11 2.04
I 41.00 0.191 1.448 2.77 2.31 2.77 1.93 1.98 2.12
L 41.00 0.104 1.052 2.62 2.16 2.50 1.67 1.90 2.15
350D 21.00 0.546 1.474 3.42 3.06 3.45 2.74 2.75 2.63
F 41.00 0.347 1.440 3.17 2.97 3.30 2.61 2.69 2.61
G 21.00 0.359 1.148 3.25 2.64 3.24 2.51 2.59 2.60
I 41.00 0.181 1.020 2.96 2.46 2.95 2.24 2.30 2.51
J 21.00 0.190 0.793 2.94 2.27 2.94 2.20 2.19 2.47
L 41.00 0.096 0.728 2.72 2.25 2.64 1.93 2.13 2.36
M 21.00 0.103 0.556 2.77 2.13 2.67 1.93 2.28 2.33
S25F 41.00 0.334 0.880 3.40 3.58 3.65 3.27 3.50 3.41
I 41.00 0.170 0.588 3.15 3.07 3.28 2.86 2.63 2.92
L 41.00 0.088 0.404 2.81 2.63 2.94 2.48 2.38 2.54
N 11.00 0.095 0.241 3.20 2.12 2.95 2.40 2.64 2.34
Ratio Ave. 0.855 1.003 0.775 0.798 0.821
Stand Dev. 0.173 0.041 0.240 0.216 0.198

Table 3 : Photoelastic Data


Model DIT diD tiT SCF Eq. (2/4) Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8)
C-1A 12.90 0.050 0.048 2.60 1.52 3.30 4.07 2.66 2.22
C-2A 13.10 0.129 0.133 2.94 3.17 3.69 3.93 2.64 2.57
C-3A 12.90 0.200 0.198 3.15 4.03 3.91 4.00 2.61 2.86
E-4 13.50 0.501 0.513 3.65 4.62 4.57 3.98 3.85 3.82
E-4B 13.20 0.500 0.503 3.65 4.64 4.32 3.99 3.84 3.81
E-4E 13.30 0.501 0.510 3.89 4.61 4.30 3.97 3.84 3.81
C-3C 6.50 0.183 0.091 3.40 2.07 4.03 4.76 2.75 2.60
C-5C 6.57 0.460 0.234 4.46 4.92 4.54 4.71 3.33 3.51
C-5H 13.10 0.567 1.380 2.85 2.73 3.50 2.56 2.59 2.51
E-1 13.20 0.289 0.514 3.52 2.94 3.73 3.00 2.73 2.95
E-7 13.40 0.289 0.513 3.51 2.97 3.73 3.02 2.74 2.96
E-2 12.90 0.288 0.490 3.05 3.02 3.76 3.05 2.73 2.96
E-3 13.00 0.288 0.496 3.43 3.00 3.75 3.04 2.73 2.96
F* 19.00 0.399 1.818 2.38 2.37 3.15 2.05 1.93 1.90
P-4A 12.40 0.460 0.935 3.00 2.70 3.71 2.76 2.88 2.87
P-40 12.40 0.492 1.327 3.23 2.52 3.50 2.40 2.44 2.39
WC-
2AY 60.40 0.117 0.239 2.99 5.63 4.04 4.10 2.59 3.05
2AQ 100.10 0.129 0.139 3.63 8.86 5.35 6.40 3.27 3.58
12D 13.20 0.160 0.547 2.96 2.12 2.92 2.16 2.36 2.43
1000 102.70 0.121 1.234 2.29 2.56 2.80 2.09 2.25 2.46
Ratio Ave. 1.086 1.193 1.082 0.882 0.903
Stand Dev. 0.429 0.121 0.286 0.154 0.138

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 27


Table 4: Photoelastic Data
Model DIT diD tiT SCF Eq.(2/4) Eq. (5) Eq. (6 ) Eq. (7) Eq. ( 8)
A 17.50 0.100 1.000 2.20 1.94 2.42 1.36 1.84 1.96
B 17.50 0.120 0.800 2.30 2.01 2.73 1.66 2.07 2.17
C 17.50 0.130 0.590 2.50 2.12 3.02 2.02 2.28 2.37
D 17.40 0.100 0.990 2.00 1.95 2.12 1.36 1.85 1.97
E 17.40 0.120 0.790 2.20 2.02 2.39 1.67 2.08 2.17
F 17.50 0.130 0.590 2.40 2.12 2.63 2.02 2.28 2.37
G 17.50 0.100 1.000 2.00 1.94 1.91 1.36 1.84 1.96
H 17.50 0.120 0.790 2.20 2.02 2.15 1.67 2.08 2.17
I 17.50 0.130 0.600 2.30 2.12 2.37 2.00 2.27 2.36
J 16.90 0.310 1.000 2.80 2.42 3.66 2.37 2.44 2.53
K 16.70 0.330 0.800 3.00 2.62 3.95 2.73 2.76 2.85
L 17.00 0.340 0.600 3.10 3.32 4.27 3.21 3.08 3.19
M 16.80 0.310 1.000 2.60 2.41 3.16 2.37 2.43 2.53
N 16.90 0.320 0.800 2.80 2.59 3.40 2.69 2.72 2.82
0 16.80 0.340 0.600 3.00 3.30 3.73 3.20 3.07 3.19
P 16.40 0.310 1.000 2.60 2.40 2.85 2.35 2.42 2.51
Q 16.40 0.320 0.800 2.80 2.57 3.07 2.67 2.70 2.81
U 16.40 0.330 0.610 3.00 3.14 3.31 3.11 2.99 3.11
R 17.20 0.490 1.000 3.10 3.04 4.34 2.99 3.15 3.07
S 17.30 0.500 0.800 3.40 3.53 4.60 3.39 3.56 3.47
T 17.40 0.510 0.600 3.60 4.67 4.97 3.95 4.03 3.92
U 17.20 0.490 1.000 3.00 3.04 3.78 2.99 3.15 3.07
V 17.30 0.500 0.790 3.20 3.57 4.04 3.41 3.58 3.49
W 17.30 0.510 0.600 3.40 4.65 4.33 3.95 4.02 3.92
X 16.80 0.480 1.000 2.90 2.98 3.39 2.95 3.09 3.03
Y 16.90 0.490 0.800 3.20 3.43 3.60 3.33 3.49 3.42
Z 16.70 0.500 0.600 3.40 4.50 3.87 3.88 3.92 3.84
Ratio Ave. 1.003 1.19 0.920 0.991 1.010
Stand Dev. 0.138 0.122 0.166 0.086 0.062

Table 5: strain Gage Data


Model DIT diD tiT SCF Eq. (2/4) Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. ( 8 )
F13 23.70 0.188 1.000 2.63 2.21 2.99 2.01 2.07 2.31
F*13 23.70 0.265 1.000 2.69 2.48 3.38 2.39 2.44 2.57
F20 15.70 0.284 1.040 2.80 2.27 3.° 25 2.18 2.26 2.37
2 19.00 0.315 1.200 2.03 2.39 3.47 2.25 2.30 2.36
6 19.00 0.327 1.430 3.10 2.33 3.04 2.10 2.10 2.14
8 19.00 0.106 0.572 2.73 2.10 3.09 1.89 2.27 2.31
9 19.00 0.098 0.361 2.73 2.21 3.98 2.28 2.46 2.41
11 19.00 0.058 0.094 2.69 2.33 3.98 3.44 2.61 2.31
M 19.00 0.600 2.000 3.00 2.83 3.04 2.40 2.16 2.06
F 19.00 0.400 1.400 2.60 2.55 3.00 2.34 2.35 2.33
I 19.00 0.400 1.400 2.70 2.55 3.00 2.34 2.35 2.33
R 19.00 0.635 0.687 5.10 5.19 4.67 4.22 4.58 4.33
ORNL1 99.00 0.500 0.500 13.30 12.77 8.29 6.62 8.13 6.97
ORNL3 49.00 0.114 0.840 2.50 2.34 4.15 2.05 2.09 2.44
ORNL4 49.00 0.125 0.320 3.50 4.40 5.39 3.47 2.50 2.95
Ratio Ave. 0.932 1.184 0.848 0.838 0.850
Stand Dev. 0.152 0.266 0.233 0.204 0.204

28 WRC Bulletin 368


Table 6: strain Gage
Model D/T diD
Data
tiT
,Proctor and strong )
SCF Eq. (2/4) Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8)
1-1 16.00 0.278 0.249 3.20 5.18 4.92 4.44 3.02 3.32
1-2 16.00 0.437 0.416 3.50 5.31 4.78 4.30 3.86 3.87
1-3 16.00 0.677 0.677 3.80 5.09 4.69 4.20 4.55 4.32
1-4 16.00 0.844 0.833 4.10 5.08 4.67 4.23 4.80 4.50
1-5 16.00 1.000 1.000 4.30 4.93 4.63 4.20 4.82 4.50
2-6 16.00 0.781 1.833 2.60 3.22 3.36 2.74 2.56 2.43
2-7 16.00 0.812 1.333 3.10 3.71 3.84 3.28 3.44 3.25
2-8 16.00 0.854 0.667 4.60 6.28 5.10 4.75 5.40 5.03
2-9 16.00 0.873 0.373 6.40 10.09 6.42 6.43 6.59 6.07
3-10 4.66 0.429 0.444 3.40 2.69 3.70 3.03 2.88 2.96
3-11 5.80 0.414 0.400 3.70 3.16 3.96 3.32 2.95 3.08
4-12 24.50 0.469 0.500 4.10 6.03 4.94 4.52 4.48 4.31
4-13 33.00 0.430 0.469 4.10 6.87 5.17 4.82 4.74 4.52
Ratio Ave. 1.310 1.202 1.073 1.056 1.024
Stand Dev. 0.406 0.145 0.148 0.135 0.095

Table 7: strain Gage Data


Model D/T diD tiT SCF Eq.(2/4) Eq. (5 ) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8)
ORNL2 99.00 1.000 1.000 9.00 12.27 6.46 6.62 9.90 8.22
2 24.70 1.000 1.000 4.20 6.13 5.02 4.68 5.62 5.11
5 19.00 1.000 1.000 5.40 5.38 4.79 4.38 5.11 4.72
1-5 16.00 1.000 1.000 4.30 4.93 4.64 4.20 4.82 4.50
A 29.60 1.000 1.000 4.45 6.71 5.19 4.90 6.01 5.40
B 29.60 1.000 1.000 4.36 6.71 5.19 4.90 6.01 5.40
C 10.90 1.000 1.000 4.08 4.13 4.32 3.82 4.28 4.06
D 10.90 1.000 1.000 4.17 4.13 4.32 3.82 4.28 4.06
E 5.00 1.000 1.000 4.21 3.08 3.75 3.14 3.57 3.40
F 5.00 1.000 1.000 4.03 3.08 3.75 3.14 3.57 3.40
Ratio Ave. 1.151 1.015 0.924 1.105 1.012
Stand Dev. 0.323 0.156 0.164 0.211 0.154

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 29


Table 8: Photoelastic Data
Model D/T diD tIT SCF Eq.(2/4) Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. ( 7) Eq. (8)
20 1.40 1.000 1.000 2.20 2.03 2.98 2.28 3.51 2.74
21 2.00 1.000 1.000 2.48 2.26 3.18 2.50 3.38 2.88
22 2.00 1.000 1.000 2.48 2.26 3.18 2.50 3.38 2.88
23 2.00 1.000 1.000 2.70 2.26 3.18 2.50 3.38 2.88
24 2.00 1.000 1.000 2.75 2.26 3.18 2.50 3.38 2.88
25 2.00 1.000 1.000 2.88 2.26 3.18 2.50 3.38 2.88
26 2.00 1.000 1.000 2.80 2.26 3.18 2.50 3.38 2.88
27 3.00 1.000 1.000 3.00 2.58 3.42 2.76 3.38 3.08
28 3.00 1.000 1.000 3.00 2.58 3.42 2.76 3.38 3.08
29 5.00 1.000 1.000 3.30 3.08 3.75 3.14 3.57 3.40
30 5.00 1.000 1.000 3.30 3.08 3.75 3.14 3.57 3.40
31 7.00 1.000 1.000 3.55 3.48 3.99 3.42 3.82 3.65
32 7.00 1.000 1.000 3.62 3.48 3.99 3.42 3.82 3.65
33 7.00 1.000 1.000 3.62 3.48 3.99 3.42 3.82 3.65
34 7.00 1.000 1.000 3.68 3.48 3.99 3.42 3.82 3.65
35 11.00 1.000 1.000 3.68 4.15 4.33 3.82 4.29 4.07
36 11.00 1.000 1.000 3.58 4.15 4.33 3.82 4.29 4.07
37 24.00 1.000 1.000 3.50 6.04 4.99 4.65 5.56 5.06
38 24.00 1.000 1.000 3.50 6.04 4.99 4.65 5.56 5.06
39 13.40 1.000 1.000 3.30 4.51 4.49 4.02 4.56 4.29
40 13.40 1.000 1.000 3.45 4.51 4.49 4.02 4.56 4.29
86 5.00 1.000 1.000 3.90 3.08 3.75 3.14 3.57 3.40
87 13.00 1.000 1.000 3.90 4.45 4.47 3.99 4.51 4.25
Ratio Ave. 1.034 1.194 1.006 1.223 1.109
Stand Dev. 0.265 0.118 0.133 0.287 0.178

30 WRC Bulletin 368


Table 27: strain Gage Data
Model DIT diD tiT SCF Eq. (2/4) Eq. ( 5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8)
A 21.00 0.310 0.375 3.50 5.02 4.61 4.09 3.38 3.54
B 17.00 0.127 0.500 2.54 2.16 2.86 2.15 2.36 2.41
C 17.00 0.127 0.500 2.98 2.16 2.86 2.15 2.36 2.41
D 19.00 0.315 1.200 3.02 2.39 2.92 2.25 2.30 2.36
E 19.00 0.327 1.430 3.10 2.33 2.77 2.10 2.10 2.14
F 19.00 0.058 0.094 2.74 2.33 4.14 3.43 2.61 2.31
G 23.70 0.188 1.000 2.55 2.21 2.70 2.01 2.07 2.31
H 23.70 0.188 1.000 2.61 2.21 2.70 2.01 2.07 2.31
I 15.70 0.284 1.040 2.35 2.27 2.87 2.18 2.26 2.37
J 31.40 0.118 0.700 2.31 2.24 2.74 2.04 2.17 2.41
K 31.40 0.410 1.100 2.95 3.25 3.64 3.03 3.23 3.12
L 31.40 0.456 1.590 2.95 3.07 3.29 2.66 2.66 2.54
M 31.40 0.456 1.590 2.56 3.07 3.29 2.66 2.66 2.54
N 31.40 0.436 2.200 1.91 2.71 2.86 2.21 1.95 1.87
0 31.40 0.566 1.620 2.61 3.48 3.54 2.94 2.96 2.76
P 31.40 0.646 1.640 2.68 3.78 3.70 3.12 3.16 2.92
Q 31.40 0.730 2.200 2.16 3.69 3.46 2.86 2.55 2.37
R 31.40 0.730 2.200 2.11 3.69 3.46 2.86 2.55 2.37
S 31.40 0.750 3.200 1.70 3.28 3.03 2.41 1.72 1.61
T 31.40 0.817 1.660 3.06 4.45 4.01 3.49 3.58 3.28
U 31.40 0.897 1.680 3.15 4.76 4.13 3.63 3.75 3.42
V 29.00 0.465 1.700 2.50 2.96 3.19 2.55 2.48 2.37
W 28.00 0.430 1.620 2.60 2.85 3.14 2.49 2.45 2.36
X 15.20 0.122 0.350 2.54 2.25 3.17 2.45 2.50 2.47
Y 15.20 0.122 0.350 2.58 2.25 3.17 2.45 2.50 2.47
Z 15.20 0.730 1.100 3.44 3.62 3.95 3.38 3.64 3.46
AA 15.20 0.730 1.100 3.55 3.62 3.95 3.38 3.64 3.46
BB 15.20 0.772 1.600 3.10 3.29 3.49 2.88 2.83 2.69
CC 15.20 0.772 1.600 3.04 3.29 3.49 2.88 2.83 2.69
DD 15.20 0.420 0.550 3.27 4.01 4.20 3.62 3.49 3.52
EE 100.00 0.219 2.190 1.80 2.74 2.75 2.10 2.06 2.00
FF 81.00 0.436 2.170 2.36 3.72 3.42 2.82 2.76 2.49
GG 70.00 0.622 2.170 2.49 4.50 3.79 3.25 3.19 2.83
HH 61.00 0.829 2.110 2.96 5.36 4.15 3.68 3.67 3.24
II 11.70 0.360 0.360 2.56 4.33 3.45 3.88 3.18 3.36
Note: Table number corresponds to Table 27 of Ref. 4.

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 31


9.0 References 8. Eringen, Naghdi, Mahmood, Thiel and Ariman, "Stress Concentra-
tions in Two Normally Intersecting Cylindrical Shells Subject to Internal
Pressure," Welding Research Council Bulletin No. 139, April 1969.
1. "Stress Analysis of Nozzles in Cylindrical Vessels with External 9. Rodabaugh, E. C. and Moore, S. E., "Stress Indices and Flexibility
Load," C. R. Steele and M. L. Steele, J. Press. Vessel Tech. Trans. ASME 105, Factors for Nozzles in Pressure Vessels and Piping," NUREG/CR-0778,
191-200, August 1983. June 1979.
2. "A Review of Area Replacement Rules for Pipe Connections in 10. Money, H. A., "Desi~g Flush Cylinder.to-Cylinder Intersections to
Pressure Vessels and Piping," E. C. Rodabaugh, WRC Bulletin No. 335, Withstand Pressure," ASME PaJM!r No. 69-PVP-17 (1968).
August, 1988. 11. Lewis, D. J. and Price, R. H., "A Shakedown Approach to the
3. "Design Criteria for the Spacing of Nozzles and Reinforced Openings Reinforcement of Flush Branches in Cylindrical Pressure Vessels Below the
in Cylindric8l Nuclear Pressure Vessels and Pipes," S. E. Moore and J. L. Creep Range," Central Electricity Generating Board, Berkeley Nuclear
Mershon (NUREG/CR-2308, ORNL-5809). Laboratories, RD/B/N2569, February 1974.
4. E. C. Rodabaugh and S. E. Moore, "Review of Elastic Stress and 12. Lind, N. C., "Approximate Stress-Concentration Analysis for Pressur-
F~~i~e-to-Failure Data for Branch Connections and Tees in Relation to ized Branch Pipe Connections," pp. 952-958 in 'Pressure Vessels and
ASME Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Pif.ing Systems," to be published. Piping: Design and Analysis,' 1972, Published by ASME, 345 E. 47th St.,
5. McBride, W. L. and Jacobs W. S. 'Design of Radial Nozzles in N.Y., N.Y.100l7.
Cylindrical Shells for Internal Pressure," Transactions ASME, J. Pressure 13. Decock, J., "Determination of Stress Concentration Factors and
Vessel Technology, Febru8.1J',}980. Fatigue Assessment of Flush and Extruded Nozzles in Welded Pressure
6. "Local Stresses in l.,'ylindrical Shells due to External Loadings on Vessels," Paper II-59, 2nd Int'1. Conf. on Pressure Vessel Technology, San
Nozzles" Revised WRC Bulletin 297, SeJltember, 1987. Antonio, TX, 1973.
7. "Local Stress in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells due to External 14. J. L. Mershon t "A compaI"isoD of FAST 2 Results with Test Data and
Loadings," WRC Bulletin 107, April 1972. Finite Element ResUlts," To Be Published.

32 WRC Bulletin 368