difference between Eq.
5 and FAST2 are for D/T > 26 thru 31 merely indicate the degree of accuracy that
100, which is outside the range that is specified for
useofEq. 5.
Since the four equations proposed by others and
shown here provide only maximum stress values,
their percent difference results (Figs. 2a-2d) should
be compared to Fig. lf. Such comparison indicates
that the equations proposed here (Eqs. 1-4) have
much better correlation with FAST2 results than do
the equations developed by others. These proposed
equations also cover a wider range of parameters than
the others.
Tables 2a and 2b list the values of % difference
between SCF from Eqs. 1 thru 4 and F AST2 values.
Also listed are comparisons between the maximum
membrane SCF (Eq. 113) and maximum surface SCF
(Eq. 214) at the junction and FAST2 results. Please
note that the maximum SCF at the junction is
obtained by normalizing the maximum stress with
PD/2T, regardless oflocation. (Values for Eqs. 3 and
4 have been normalized with Pd 12t). Tables 2c and 2d
list the values of% difference between SCF of Eqs. 5
thru 8 and F AST2 results. For reference, the %
difference column for Eq. 214 has been repeated here.
7.0 Comparison with Test Results and Finite
Element Results
Ref. 4 tabulates the available finite element analy-
sis results and test results for cylinder intersections.
To avoid duplication, the details of the references to
these results are not included here. The reader is
referred to Ref. 4 for discussion of these available
results. On pages 26 thru 31 the tables 1A thru 1C,
2A, 2B, 3 thru 8, and 27 of Ref. 4 have been duplicated
with the values of stress concentration factor, ob-
tained from the equations proposed in this paper
added. The column marked "SCF" is the value of
stress concentration factor reported by the reference
for analysis or test results. The values in the column
"Eq. (21 4)" are the calculated maximum stress val-
ues divided by PD I2T. The values for Eqs. 5 thru 8
have all been normalized by PDI2T.
The tables provide an indication of how the maxi-
mum stress concentration factors for Eqs. 1-4 pro-
posed here and from Eqs. 5 thru 8 compare with the
reported finite element or test results. The average
ratio and standard deviations are provided as a
measure of data fit. It should be noted that the
geometric parameters for many of the models fall
outside of the range of applicability of the equations
proposed here. However, all models have been kept to
indicate the accuracy or inaccuracy of equations
proposed here over a wide range of parameters. The
accuracy of finite element results or test results
cannot be easily ascertained. Stress gradients on
nozzle corners are quite steep and strain gages would
have to be located very accurately to pick up maxi-
mum value of stresses. Similarly, the finite element
mesh would have to be extremely fine to provide
accurate results. Comparisons of the Tables on pages
16 WRC Bulletin 368
can be expected, when arriving at maximum stresses
at cylinder intersections by various means.
8.0 Examples
The following examples have been included to
demonstrate the application of proposed equations.
They also provide a comparison of results obtained by
this method with the results obtained from a number
of other methods. Some suggestions are included on
allowables and how these results may be used for
various Code calculations.
It should be pointed out that, for all the following
examples, it has been assumed that the internal
pressure is the only load applied to the intersections.
If piping loads or other mechanical loads are specified,
their effect will have to be included. Since no location
or orientation is assigned to the stresses calculated by
these proposed equations, it will not be possible to
accurately calculate the value of stress intensity due
to combined loads. It is possible, however, to calculate
an upper bound on combined stresses by adding the
maximum stresses calculated due to internal pres-
sure to corresponding maximum stresses calculated
due to other loadings. WRC Bulletin 2976 provides
means of calculating membrane and surface stresses
in vessel and nozzle, due to piping loads. The absolute
value of those stresses will have to be conservatively
added to the corresponding stresses calculated for
pressure. Also, if thermal stresses are present, they
will have to be included for those cases which require
a limit on secondary stresses.
E~ple No. 1-Unreinforced Opening
Gtven:
D = 120 in. T = 0.5 in. d = 48 in. l = 0.5 in.
P = 120 psi MaterialA-516-70 joint efficiency= 1.0
corrosion allowance = 0
Parameters of Interest:
DIT = 240 dlt == 96 Did= 2.5 dl.,fi5T = 6.2
Sis = 1440015760 = 2.5 tiT= 1
All the parameters fall within the limits of applicabil-
ity of equations proposed here. Calculation of maxi-
mum stresses by use of the Eqs. 1 thru 4:
Membrane stress in vessel
a. = [0.5315 - 0.06342 (2.5)1. 26 (240)-· 25(1)-0.75
+ 0.4372(2.5)(240)- 25 (1)- 25][(481 V120 X .5)
X 14,400] = 4.70 X 14,400 = 67,700 psi
Surface stress in vessel
a.= [1.0048- .01427(1t 15
+ 0.8605(2.5) 125 (240)-·5(1)·5]
[(48IV120 X .5) X (14,400))
= 7.22 x 14,400 = 104,000 psi