Local Stress Analysis

Chris Hinnant
Paulin Research Group
Houston TX
Houston,

Course Outline

Establishing the need for stress analysis

Brief review of ASME rules necessitating stress analysis
Tools for stress analysis
WRC vs
vs. FEA Stress comparison of solutions
solutions.
Fundamentals of ASME VIII-2 rules for stress analysis
Finite element analysis topics
Fi it element
Finite
l
t analysis
l i example
l

Sudden impact load during

transport resulted in
a severed nozzle.

Why Local Stress Analysis?

The ASME VIII rules mainly address pressure containment.

ASME VIII-1 and VIII-2 require that the user must consider all
loadings acting on the equipment (UG-22, etc).
However,, explicit
p
design
g equations
q
for external loadings
g on nozzles,,
clips, and lugs, and various supports are not provided.

An ASME Technology, LLC. research project is underway to provide explicit

design rules for the stress analysis of nozzles subject to external loads.

Certain constructions such as large diameter openings are not

comprehensively addressed.
To satisfy the ASME code requirements, we need a way to verify
that components not explicitly addressed by the ASME rules are
adequate for the intended service.

Typical Applications of
Stress Analysis

Piping loads on nozzles.

Combined loadings (pressure, temperature, etc)
Fatigue design
Loads on clips,
clips lugs
lugs, and supports
supports.
Thick walled expansion joints.
Pressure design of unique parts:

Large di
L
diameter
t openings
i
Rectangular nozzles and ducts
Closely spaced nozzles

Analysis
A
l i off startup/shutdown
/ h d
Thermal stresses and transients

Typical Applications of
Stress Analysis

Jacketed equipment
Skirt design thermal, transients, wind/seismic loads, etc.
Transport loads, hydro test conditions

Typical Applications of
Stress Analysis

Although not covered in this course, there are numerous

applications of FEA for piping systems.

Improved Stress Intensification Factors

Accurate flexibilities
Pipe supports (saddles, shoes, bends with staunchions)
Piping with D/T > 100
Lateral and hillside branches
Wye fittings
Flange design

Typical Applications of
Stress Analysis

Multiple
p adjacent
j
nozzles,, such as this flare tip.
p

Validation of New Designs

Photo courtesy of Dynamic Products Houston, TX

Stress analysis can be used to replace or compliment traditional validation

methods such as proof testing, strain gauges, etc.

ASME Rules Related to

Stress Analysis
y

In this section, well briefly cover some of the

pertinent ASME rules related to stress analysis.

ASME VIII-1

ASME VIII-1 does not directly address the use of stress analysis.
Users are directed to U-2(g) in most cases.
When stress analysis is used, the designer must still satisfy the
minimum requirements
q
of VIII-1 ((for instance thickness per
p UG-27).
)
Stress analysis can not be used to justify thinner parts than that
permitted by the mandatory rules of VIII-1.
When using stress analysis,
analysis the basic allowable stresses from VIII-1
VIII 1
should be used (i.e. those from Section II-D Tables 1A and 2A). Do
not use higher allowable stresses for VIII-2 from Section II-D Tables
5A and 5B.

Excerpts from ASME VIII-1

From the Foreword of ASME VIII-1

The Code is not a handbook you must apply engineering judgment.

The designer is responsible for understanding the limitations of the tools
theyy use dont fall prey
p y to the black box mentality.
y

Excerpts from ASME VIII-1

U-2(g) is an important part of VIII-1 and stress analysis work.

Requires that the designer consider cases where complete rules are not
given and ensure the design is as safe as if the rules had been
provided by VIII-1.

Excerpts from ASME VIII-1

UG-22 defines the loadings to be considered

Designers often overlook this, especially in cases where their software

doesnt not address the topic. A good example seismic loads on
horizontal vessels. There is no simple way to address this condition.

ASME VIII-2

Completely rewritten, with a greater focus on technology (especially

stress analysis)
Design margin reduced to 2.4 on UTS (increased allowable stress)
Permits a vessel to be designed
g
entirely
y using
g Part 5 ((e.g
g FEA)) and
need not satisfy minimum thickness equations of Part 4 (see code
rules for limitations).

This can offer substantial savings

g when the total equipment
q p
costs are
well in excess of the analytical expenses.

VIII-2 Part 5 has replaced the previous VIII-2 Appendix 4 and 5.

In manyy aspects,
p
, Part 5 is the same. However,, the rules have been
updated to better address technology used today (FEA).
Part 5 provides explicit rules for the stress analysis:

Stress categories and their associated limits are defined.

Requirements/recommendations for modeling are given.

Excerpts from ASME VIII- 2

Design by Analysis (Part 5) may be used in lieu of the design-byrules of Part 4.

If the temperature is such that the material properties are governed by time
dependent behavior (creep), the use of Part 5 is permitted, but only with
successful prior experience
experience.

ASME VIII-2, Part 5

VIII-2, Part 5 is rearranged to address potential failure mechanisms:

5.2 Plastic Collapse (ductile rupture, etc)

5.3 Local Failure (local fracture)
5.4 Buckling Failure
5.5 Cyclic Failure (fatigue and ratcheting)

New load cases combinations are similar to those given in ASCE.

Expanded fatigue design methods.
Guidance on stress linearization.

M
More
di
discussion
i on VIII
VIII-2
2P
Partt 5 tto come

ASME VIII-2, Part 5 $avings

As previously mentioned, VIII-2 allows you design vessels entirely

by FEA. This may offer substantial savings.
As a simple example of the potential savings, let us consider a basic
cylindrical shell constructed of SA-516 operating at 70 deg F.
The design pressure per Part 4.3.3 is 1,476 psig

ASME VIII-2, Part 5 Savings

Now, calculate the permitted pressure using Part 5 rules.

1,755 psig using the elastic stresses are easily calculated using hand methods.
1,705 psig estimate using limit analysis equations for cylinders.
1,699 psig estimated using burst equation for cylinders.

ASME VIII-2, Part 5 Savings

The previous slide estimated the plastic load by a semi-empirical method.

The elastic-plastic solution indicates the plastic load is reached at 4,320
psig, allowing a design pressure of 1,800 psig

ASME VIII-2, Part 5 Savings

Even for simple parts, like a cylindrical shell, Part 5 offers significant savings
especially
i ll if elastic-plastic
l ti l ti analysis
l i iis used.
d
For elastic results and lower bound limit analysis, savings is due to the difference in
failure theory (Eq. 4.3.3.1 uses Tresca whereas Part 5 relies on Von Mises).
Savings
g with the elastic p
plastic analysis
y is a combination of the Von Mises theory,
y, but
primarily the strain hardening characteristics of the material.
Savings may be realized by reducing material thickness. Reduced thickness has
indirect benefits such as the opportunity to eliminate PWHT, reduced fabrication
labor decreased inspection efforts
labor,
efforts, etc
etc.

Method

Theory

Analysis

Design Pressure

Savings

Part 4

Tresca

By Eq. 4.3.3.1

1,476 psig

Part 5

Von Mises

Elastic

1,755 psig

18.9%

Part 5

Von Mises

Lower Bound Limit

,
psig
p g
1,705

15.5%

Part 5

Von Mises

Elasitc-Plastic

1,800 psig

22%

Tools for Stress Analysis

Next, well highlight some of the more common

methods used for stress analysis today.

Tools for Stress Analysis

There are a varietyy of tools available:

Welding Research Council Bulletins

z

WRC-107, WRC-297, WRC-497, etc.

ASME Section III

III, Appendix Y
Y.
PD-5500, EN-13445, and other foreign codes.
API-650, Appendix P (Low wall tank nozzles)
Fi it Element
Finite
El
tA
Analysis
l i

WRC-107

A semi-empirical method for estimating stresses in the spherical and

cylindrical shells with loaded attachments.
First published in 1965, revised in 1979.
Experimental work included:

Solid cylinders in spherical shells.

Nozzles in spherical shells.
Square and rectangular solids on unperforated cylindrical shells.
Did not include nozzles on cylinders
cylinders.

Design charts for various geometric ratios are provided.

Loads are defined in local coordinate system at the nozzle-shell intersection
point.
Because the geometric range is somewhat limited, programmers must
interpolate or extrapolate beyond the intended bounds.
Despite
p some shortcomings,
g widely
y used for analysis
y of external loads on
nozzles, clips, and lugs.

WRC-107

An example of a WRC-107 calculation sheet and design charts:

WRC-107 Limitations

Some limitations include:

Pad reinforced nozzles are not directly addressed, can only be

approximated by an enlarged attachment diameter.
Laterals and hillside nozzles are not included in the scope.
Users should be cautious and avoid any cases where the geometric
limits of the method are exceeded.
Only considers stresses in the shell, nozzle is ignored.
Reports stresses at a finite number of locations (in-plane and out-ofplane positions). Maximum off-axis stresses may be missed.
Combined stress due to pressure and external loads is not effectively
addressed.
addressed

WRC 107 Limitations

WRC-107, paragraph 3.3.5 tells us that in the case of arbitrary

combined loading there is no assurance the maximum stress will
occur at one of the reported positions.

WRC-107 Limitations

Applicable geometric limits for spherical shells are:

WRC-107 Limitations

Applicable geometric limits for cylindrical shells are:

WRC 297

Estimates the stresses due to external loads acting on nozzles in

cylindrical shells.
Published in 1984
Based on thin shell theory
y and work by
y Steele.
Improved stress results in comparison to WRC 107.
Major improvement is that stresses in the nozzle neck, adjacent to
the intersection are evaluated
evaluated.
Expanded range of applicability over WRC 107.

Large D/T values

Improved solutions for small d/D values
values.

WRC 297 Limitations

WRC 297 shares many of the same limitations of WRC 107:

Stresses are only reported at the in-plane and out-of-plane locations.

No reliable method of combining pressure stresses and those calculated
with WRC 297.
Not intended for pad reinforced nozzles, laterals, or hillside nozzles.
Restricted to nozzles in cylindrical shells.
May give excessively conservative solutions when the nozzle neck is
thinner than the shell plate.

WRC-297 Limitations

Applicable geometric limits for nozzles on cylindrical shells are:

Other Non-WRC 107/297 Cases

Other situations where the WRC 107/297 methods

should not be used:
z
z
z
z
z

Attachments or nozzles on cones

Laterals, hillsides, or nozzles with internal projections
Nozzles near the edge or knuckle regions of heads
Attachments located on flat heads
Nozzles near rigid components (tubesheets, stiffeners, etc)

Summary of WRC 107 & 297

WRC 107/297 are OK as a screening tool for external loads only.

For external loads only (no pressure), if the stress exceeds 50% of the
allowable using these methods, use a better tool.

If the answer matters, use FEA.

But WRC 107/297 are successful, right?

The upcoming comparison with FEA will provide some insight.

Piping
p g analysis
y often over estimates the stiffness real loads are often
smaller than predicted.
z

FEA is being used more often today to determine the intersection stiffness,
so loads are becoming more accurate, requiring a better nozzle analysis.

Safety
S
f t margin
i is
i compromised.
i d
Failures occur, but source isnt identified.

WRC 497

WRC 497 gives a calculation procedure for determining stresses at nozzle

openings in cylinders with internal pressure and external nozzle loads.
Intended for larger openings (d/D>0.33)
Based on finite element analysis results.
Although it represents a significant improvement in nozzle stress
calculations, it has not received wide spread use.

WRC 497

Results are given in terms of shell membrane and bending stresses.

Can easily combine pressure stress and external load stress.
Unlike WRC 107/297, the maximum stress anywhere is reported.
Does not include pad reinforced nozzles
nozzles, laterals
laterals, or hillsides
hillsides.
No charts to interpolate/extrapolate.
Simple equations promote ease of use:

WRC 107/297 vs. FEA

Next, we will examine some comparisons

between WRC 107/297 and FEA

FEA vs WRC 107 & 297

Noting the limitations of WRC 107 & 297 so far, it is important to

examine the difference between FEA and WRC results.
Ideally, FEA represents the real answer
FEA does not suffer from g
geometric limitations any
y geometry
g
y can
be constructed and analyzed.
Simple FEA tools exist today that are just as easy to use as a WRC
calculator. Complexity
p
y and effort are no longer
g jjustifications for not
using FEA.
In the following slides
slides, we will examine the difference for axial
axial, inin
plane, and out-of-plane loadings on nozzles in cylindrical shells.

Nomenclature:
Pressure Vessel vs
vs. Piping

Occasionally, different nomenclature is used in piping and vessel

design for the same parts or directions:

In-plane : longitudinal direction

Out-of-plane : circumferential direction
Header : cylindrical shell
Branch : nozzle

FEA vs. WRC

Format of Comparisons

FEA and WRC 107/297 are compared on the basis of the calculated
Stress Intensification Factor (SIF).
The SIF is simply the ratio of stress to cause failure in a component
to the peak to cause failure in a girth butt weld:

For vessel
engineers

FEA vs. WRC Comparison

Axial Loads

For d/D < 0.50, WRC 107 is non-conservative.

For the entire range of d/D, WRC 297 is more conservative.

Stresses are under predicted by up to 200%.

Stresses are over predicted by 200% to 1500%.

These differences are expected for a wide range of D/T and d/t.

FEA vs. WRC Comparison

Axial Loads

FEA vs. WRC Comparison

In-Plane Bending Moments

For d/D < 0.70, WRC-107 is non-conservative.

For all d/D values, WRC-297 over predicts the stress.

Stress is under predicted by up to 250% for many cases.

For most all cases, the stress is over predicted by 200% to 300%.

These differences are expected for a wide range of D/T and d/t.

FEA vs. WRC Comparison

In-Plane Bending Moments

FEA vs. WRC Comparison

Out-of-Plane Bending Moments

For d/D < 0.70, WRC-107 is non-conservative.

For all d/D values, WRC-297 over predicts the stress.

Stress is under predicted by up to 200% in some cases.

For most all cases, the stress is over predicted by 200% to 500%.

These differences are expected for a wide range of D/T and d/t.

FEA vs. WRC Comparison

Out-of-Plane Bending Moments

FEA vs. WRC Comparison

Summary

WRC 107 is non-conservative in many cases examined here,

especially for d/D < 0.70.
WRC 297 over predicts the stress in all cases examined here. At
large d/D ratios, the difference may be significant.
Not all geometries examined here are necessarily within the bounds
of the WRC methods. However, the limitations are routinely over
looked because software offers extrapolated parameters.
These comparisons highlight why WRC 107 & 297 should be
replaced with FEA calculations on nozzles and branch connections.

Fundamentals of Stress Analysis

with ASME VIII-2

Next, well cover some of the background of

ASME VIII-2, applicable to stress analysis.

ASME VIII-2, Part 5

Rules for finite element analysis are given in ASME VIII-2, Part 5.
ASME VIII-2, Part 5 seeks to prevent the following failure modes:

5.2 Plastic Collapse (ductile rupture, etc)

5.3 Local Failure ((local fracture))
5.4 Buckling Failure
5.5 Cyclic Failure (fatigue and ratcheting)

For linear elastic stress analysis, the stresses are categorized based
on several requirements:
1.
2.

Character (sustained or self-relieving)

Location and extent

ASME Stress Categories

When performing stress analysis per ASME VIII-2, Part 5, we must

segregate stresses into one of three categories:
1.
Primary Stress
2.
Secondaryy Stress
3.
Peak Stress
The Hopper Diagram explains the location, source, and limits for
these stress categories
categories.

Hopper Diagram

Hopper Diagram

Hopper Diagram

Primary General Membrane

Pm - Explained

Pm is a membrane stress acting across the entire cross section

(global, not local). Examples include pressure stress or bending
stress across the entire vessel cross section.
Pm can be calculated by hand methods.
Often not evaluated by FEA. Routinely satisfied by ASME designby-rule equations such as: PD/2T F/A
M/Z
Guards against
g
g
gross collapse.
p
Pm is caused only by sustained loads.
Pm is not self limiting.

Once yield is reached

reached, only strain hardening of the
material will prevent collapse.

Original intent was to limit Pm to 2/3 of yield. Today, the limit is

represented by the basic allowable stress S
S.

Primary General Membrane

Pm - Examples

Stress due to pressure (PD/2T, PD/4T)

Bending moment across the section (M/Z)
Axial load across the section (F/A)

Primary General Membrane

Pm - Failures

An example of the failure mode addressed by primary general membrane

stress is shown here in the rupture of the stainless pipe.
Before the test, the stainless pipe and aluminum pipe were the same
diameter. The swelling is a result of stainless steels strong strain
hardening characteristic
characteristic.
Stainless Steel Pipe

Aluminum Pipe

Primary Local Membrane

PL - Explained

Average stress through the local wall thickness (not across entire
cross section)
Only caused by sustained/primary type loads.
Pm is naturallyy included in PL

Limited in the extent over which it may act:

PL is sum of general and local membrane

Must exceed 1.1S
1 1S and be contained within sqrt(R
sqrt(R*T)
T)

Original intent was to limit local membrane stresses to the yield

strength Sy. Evolved into a limit of 1.5*Sm.

An open item in the ASME committees is evaluating the

option to allow Sy in lieu of 1.5*Sm for some cases.

Primary Local Membrane

PL - Examples

Average stress through the thickness due to pressure at a nozzleshell junction is a local membrane stress.

Primary Local Membrane

PL - Failures

High local membrane stresses near nozzle openings combine with

secondary bending to produce ruptures.

Primary Local M+B

PL+Pb - Explained

The sum of membrane and bending must not

exceed
d th
the lilimitit strength
t
th off th
the section.
ti
This diagram relates the combined effects of
general primary membrane and primary
bending stress on a rectangular section.
The diagram assumes an elastic-perfectlyplastic material model.
Failure is expected when F/A reaches the
yield strength
strength.
Failure is expected when M/Z causes a
plastic hinge (1.5*Sy in rectangular section).
The Code intends that a margin of 2/3
against
i t gross collapse
ll
iis maintained.
i t i d
But, the margin may be less than desired for
some combinations of membrane and
bending stress.

Primary Local M+B

PL+Pb - Examples

Bending stress at the center of a flat head is a good example of primary

local bending stress.
Be careful with bending stress at the edges of fixed heads. The stress may
be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how the flat plate is
designed.
designed

Secondary Stress
PL+Pb+Q - Explained

Secondary stresses are the linearly varying component through the

thickness.
Secondary stresses are due to sustained and operating loads.
Self limiting
g stress. Strains exceeding
g yyield do not cause collapse.
p
Evaluated over the full range of stresses.
Secondary stress limits serve three purposes:
Prevent ratcheting and ensure shakedown to elastic action
action.
2.
Validate the elastic assumption of the ASME fatigue curves.
3.
Provide nominal protection against excessive local distortion.
Original intent is to limit to twice yield
yield. Evolved into PL+Pb+Q < 3*Sm
3 Sm
1
1.

Secondary Stress
PL+Pb+Q - Examples

The linearly varying stress through the thickness at a nozzle opening

is secondary stresses when caused by internal pressure.

Peak Stress
PL+Pb+Q+F - Explained

The peak stress is the increment added to the primary or secondary stress
due to a concentration or notch.
Maximum stress anywhere across the section.
May occur at a notch or in plain base metal (such as the surface of a
smooth
th kknuckle)
kl )
Only objectionable in the sense that repeated applications may
cause fatigue failure.
Peak stress limits are satisfied by fatigue analysis,
analysis or fatigue exemption
exemption.
In shell solutions and linearized stresses, the peak alternating stress is
related to the secondary stress range by the following relationship:

Peak Stress
PL+Pb+Q+F - Examples

An example of peak stress is the concentration at a weld toe

due to internal pressure.

Peak Stress
PL+Pb+Q+F - Failures

Examples of fatigue failure at welds:

Ratcheting and Shakedown

Ratcheting

Progressive incremental deformation or strain.

Requires the simultaneous presence of a constant membrane stress
with a cyclic strain controlled bending stress, otherwise ratcheting will
not occur.
General consensus is that ratcheting implies changes in gross
dimensions, not at a finite point. For example, progressive increase of
the vessel diameter.
diameter

Shakedown

Phenomenon that occurs when a structure experiences only elastic or

elastic-plastic action after the first few cycles.
cycles
Progressive incremental distortion does not occur.

Ratcheting and Shakedown

Ratcheting & shakedown requirements may be satisfied by:

Elastic stress analysis

z

Secondary stress range must be less than three times the average allowable
stress, or for some materials twice average yield strength for the range.

El ti l ti analysis
Elastic-plastic
l i
1.
2.
3
3.

There is no plasticity in the component.

The section of interest is elastic at the core.
There are no permanent changes in the overall dimensions of the
component.

Secondary Stress
Why a limit of twice yield?

The elastic limit of twice yield for secondary stresses has a unique
and important meaning.
If the linear elastic stresses are limited to the range of twice yield,
then ratcheting should not occur.

Although, some recent studies have shown this may not

be true in all cases.

In the following slides, well explore various responses to

combinations of steady membrane and cyclic bending stress.

Ratcheting and Shakedown

Responses to Cyclic Loading

In this case, the stress never exceeds the yield strength and the cyclic
response is wholly elastic. Loading an unloading will occur along the line
between Point 0 and Point A.

Ratcheting and Shakedown

Responses to Cyclic Loading

In this case, the stress exceeds the yield strength but does not exceed twice
the yield stress. As shown below, this is important since the cyclic response
will be purely elastic upon subsequent loading (between C and B).

Ratcheting and Shakedown

Responses to Cyclic Loading

If the elastic stress exceeds twice yield, then several responses are
possible. If the bending stress is high, but the membrane stress is small,
then shakedown to elastic action with alternating plasticity may occur.

Ratcheting and Shakedown

Responses to Cyclic Loading

If the elastic stress exceeds twice yield, with high membrane and high
bending stress, then ratcheting with two sided yielding may occur.
Notice how the hysteresis loop progresses along the strain axis, a classic
case of ratcheting.

Ratcheting and Shakedown

Responses to Cyclic Loading

If the elastic stress exceeds twice yield, with very high membrane stress
and cyclic bending stress, then ratcheting with single sided yielding may
occur.

Ratcheting and Shakedown

Bree Diagrams

Bree performed the original work to describe ratcheting phenomena.

Developed diagrams relating the ratio of membrane and bending
stress to cyclic response (shakedown or ratcheting).

Finite Element
Analysis
y
Topics
p

FEA - Methods of Analysis

Three common analysis techniques in ASME VIII-2:

Also have a choice of geometric behavior:

Linear elastic analysis

Limit load analysis
Elastic-plastic analysis
Small displacement theory
Large displacement theory

The choice of which method to use is ultimately a decision based on

the needs at hand. Some considerations:

Complexity of the component being evaluated

evaluated.
Type of loadings
Time available
Need for optimization
Level of experience

FEA - Methods of Analysis

Although several analytical methods exist for the various failure

mechanisms, only one need be satisfied to qualify the component.
This leads to some interesting questions

What if one method p

passes, while one fails?
May analytical methods be mixed (for instance elastic-plastic design for
primary loads and linear elastic design for fatigue).

Linear Elastic Analysis

Linear elastic analysis assumes a linear relationship between stress

and strain, for any magnitude of stress or strain.
Easiest of the three methods for common PVP components.
Is typically
yp
y more conservative than non-linear methods.
Requires that the stresses are classified into specific categories.

Categorization may be difficult for complex or arbitrary geometries.

Non-Linear Analysis Options

Two inelastic options are available in ASME VIII-2

Lower bound limit analysis

y
is for p
primary
y ((sustained)) loads only.
y

Lower bound limit analysis

Elastic-plastic analysis
A good alternative to nozzle reinforcement design and can offer
substantial savings with little analysis effort. Individual components may
be sized while the remainder of the vessel is designed by common
rules.
l

Elastic plastic analysis can be used for any load combination.

Can be used to highly optimize a design. Significant reductions in

minimum
i i
wallll thi
thickness
k
can b
be achieved.
hi
d 25% savings
i
iis routine.
ti

Lower Bound Limit Analysis

Represents an idealized lower bound estimate of the actual load to cause

plastic collapse in the structure.
Ensures that an unrestrained plastic deformation does not occur (i.e. a
plastic collapse state is not reached).
Si l example
Simple
l off a lower
l
bound
b
d limit
li it analysis
l i iis a b
bar with
ith an axial
i l ttensile
il
load applied. The lower bound collapse load is the load at which F/A = Sy.

Lower Bound Limit Analysis

ASME requires a margin of 2/3 against the lower bound limit load.

For design purposes

purposes, the yield strength for the elastic-perfectly
elastic perfectly plastic
material model is approximated as 1.5*S.

The permitted design load is achieved using the specified load case
combinations in VIII-2 (essentially multiply the loads by 1.5 and substitute 1.5Sm
for the yield stress in the FEA model).

Using 1.5S ensures that the limit of 2/3 on yield is achieved, but also considers
the safety factor of 2.4 on UTS to ensure that high yield-to-tensile ratio materials
are safely
f l employed
l
d iin th
the d
designs.
i

Additional non-limit load analyses are required to satisfy secondary loads.

Lower Bound Limit Analysis

Requirements for lower bound limit analysis

An elastic-perfectly plastic material model must be used.

Analysis may not include geometric nonlinearity (small displacement
theory must be used)
Only applied to primary loads, such as pressure and weight.
Thermal loads are not valid and should not be analyzed since they are
strain limited and the lower bound limit analysis is invalid.
Should not be used in cases where the geometry may become unstable
or weaken in the deformed state. Some cases not appropriate:
z
z
z

Compressive loads (external pressure, axial loads, etc)

Closing moments on elbows and bends
Out-of-plane loads on nozzles and intersections

Elastic-Plastic Analysis

Elastic-plastic analysis attempts to predict the actual collapse load of the

structure by taking into account the true stress-strain behavior of the
materials of construction.
There is no rigorous mathematical proof that elastic-plastic analysis can
predict the collapse load
load. In contrast
contrast, such proof does exist for the lower
bound limit analysis and limit load.

Elastic-Plastic Analysis

Elastic-plastic analysis is more complex than limit analysis, but does offer
some advantages:

Primary and secondary loads can be analyzed together.

Large displacement theory may be used.
Includes effects of strain hardening
hardening.

In ASME VIII-2, a safety factor of 2.4 against the collapse load is required
and included in the load combinations. This is consistent with the margin on
the UTS for Part 4 design-by-rules.
g y
ASME VIII-2 Part 3 defines the stress-strain curves to be used for elasticplastic analyses.

Why use Non-Linear Analysis?

Simplifies the code compliance and post-processing work since the

results are a Go or No-go solution.
Stress categorization is difficult to perform or invalid.

Reduces cost of construction

Non-linear analyses do not require that we classify primary

and secondary stresses.
Limits on PL and PL+Pb+Q need not be satisfied.
These more accurate analysis
Th
l i techniques
h i
allow
ll
you to reduce
d
the
h required
i d
thickness and carry larger loads, while maintaining a consistent design margin.

Fitness for Service

Reduce the conservatism of a linear elastic analysis and allow equipment to be

used longer, in more severe operating conditions, and sometime eliminate
repair/replacement cost.

Non-Linear Analysis
Some Important Points

You must still satisfy requirements for ratcheting, fatigue analysis,

and local strain limits.
Any design margins that are used should meet the intent of the
governing code of construction.

For instance, if you are designing a component for an VIII-1 vessel, you
should use a limit of 3.5 in the elastic-plastic methods instead of 2.4
given in the load case combination tables.

Small\Large Displacement

Small Displacement Theory

Assumes that no change in stiffness occurs as the components deform.

Acceptable for most FEA work in the PVP industry.
Most common method used.

Large Displacement Theory

Important when deformation affects the stiffness of the geometry.

The name is a misnomer. Large
g displacement
p
theory
y isnt used only
y
when the displacements are large. A more appropriate name is
Geometric Non-Linearity
Classic cases include deflection of flat plates (strengthen) and out-ofplane bending on some nozzles (weaken)
Should be considered when displacements approach 10% of the
structure size. This is intentionally vague since a comprehensive rule
can not be established each case is unique.
unique

Geometric Effects

The effect of small & large displacement theory on a flat head test is shown
below. Small displacement theory over predicts the displacement but under
predicts the stress in the attached shell.

Element Types

Commonly used elements type are 8 node quadratic shells, 8 node

quadratic axisymmetric, 8 & 20 node hexahedral solids
Axisymmetric and solid elements allow evaluation of thru thickness
distribution.

Stress Singularities

Occur at re-entrant corners of the model, changes in materials

properties, and at application site of some loads.
Strain energy is infinite at the singularity.
Increasing
g mesh density
y leads to increasing
g stress values.
Convergence can not be achieved.
In shell models, the stress at these points would normally be ignored
since the shell surfaces are inside the weld volume (recall we seek
stress results at the toe of the weld).
In axisymmetric and solid models, we can eliminate the influence of
the singularity by employing stress linearization techniques
techniques.

Stress Singularities
Some examples
Singularities at
Sharp Corner

No Singularity
at Inside Corner

Stress Classification Lines

For elastic analysis, the ASME code requires that we determine the
membrane, bending, and peak stresses to satisfy:

Pm Primary General Membrane Stress

PL+Pb Primary Local Membrane plus Bending Stress
PL+Pb+Q Secondary stress
PL+Pb+Q+F Peak stress

Unfortunately, in volumetric models (e.g. axisymmetric) the results

are only given in terms of raw stress components or total stress.
stress
Therefore, we need a way to convert raw stress results into shell-like
results (membrane and bending).
Th solution
The
l i is
i to linearize
li
i the
h stresses along
l
S
Stress Cl
Classification
ifi i
Lines (SCLs).
SCLs are also effective means of eliminating stress singularities.

Stress Classification Lines

A graphical demonstration of stress linearization along an SCL

Membrane
+ Bending
Membrane
M
b
Stress
Stres
ss

Raw Stress

B
Distance Thru Thickness

FEA Models Weld Treatment

For external loads on nozzles and attachments, the maximum stress

occurs along the weld toes.
Stresses should not be calculated within weld volume when using
shell elements since these elements are not capable of representing
the complex through thickness stress distributions.
Stresses should be calculated along the weld toe.
For fatigue
g design,
g , failures typically
yp
y originate
g
from the weld toe in full
penetration nozzle and attachment welds.
Fatigue failure due to cyclic internal pressure often occurs at inside
corner of nozzle opening.
p
g
WRC 429, WRC 335, and ASME VIII-2 provided similar guidance.

FEA Models Weld Treatment

When processing results for primary and secondary stresses, results

within the weld volume are always discarded.
The goal is achieve a discontinuity style solution with membrane
and bending stresses. These shell like behaviors are not defined
within the weld volume.

FEA Model Weld Treatment

An example of shell models using PRG software where stresses

inside the volume of the weld are discarded.
Similar results are available via PVElites connection to NozzlePRO.

FEA Model Weld Treatment

In shell models, tapered thickness elements can be used to replicate the

local stiffness of weld zones.
Defining the appropriate thickness and distribution around the thickness
requires experience.
PRG has
h d
developed
l
d proprietary
i t
methods
th d b
based
d on extensive
t
i lit
literature
t
reviews and experimental testing.

Applying Loads

Apply loads to the end of the nozzle along stiffened elements or rigid spars.
For resting support lugs, apply loads along
stiffener plate edges. In reality, the flat plates
will elastically deform and the load transfer
path is into the orthogonal plates
plates.

Loads on
stiffened ring

Not on Flat Plate

Apply loads on stiff edges

FEA Mesh Density

Use higher order elements when available (8 node quadratic shell

elements, etc).
As good practice, place at least 4 elements within sqrt(R*T) of an
opening.
Elements should be well shaped, corner angles near 90 degrees
when possible.
Structured meshing
g is often p
preferred when available.
The re-entrant corners of plate attachments will cause singularities.
Increasing mesh density at these locations will not lead to
convergence.
g

Stress Analysis Validation

Validation is critical in FEA work

Evaluate the mesh (density, quality, unmerged nodes)

Stress patterns should be smooth without abrupt changes
across element edges
Validate stresses in simple parts using manual calculations
Material properties
Thickness and other dimensions
Boundary conditions loads
Displaced shapes are reasonable and expected
Check reaction loads at boundary conditions
Use simple initial models to validate complex problems
Verify that the solution is converged
When the mesh density is increased to study convergence, the increase
should meaningful enough to provoke stress change.

Stress Analysis Validation

Improved mesh
& solution but
not converged

Dense Mesh &

Converged Solution

Bad Mesh &

Poor Solution

Finite Element
y
Demonstration
Analysis

Finite Element
Analysis Demonstration

Pressure design
g of an unreinforced nozzle using
g linear
elastic analysis:

Model without a weld included says allowable pressure is 260 psig.

Model with a
weld included says allowable pressure is 446 psig
psig.
Burst test says 1812 psig / 3.5 = 518 psig.

Thanks!
Questions?

Chris Hinnant
Paulin Research Group
Houston TX
Houston,