FEA ANALYSIS OF

STATIONARY HEADER BOX

Job No - 1082

Item No - EA-001

Reference Drawing No - DHT-1082-01-002, Rev.B

Manufacturer Serial No - 1082-01

ASME Certification - ASME U Designator

National Board Registration - Yes

FEA Document No - FEA/2021/20, Rev 1

Sub-contractor - VENVEL THERMAL & MECHANICAL

DESIGNERS

Revision Control Page

Rev. Date Description Issued Checked Approved
By By by
R0 12/03/2021 Revision R0: First Issue BSJ VVP SGS
Revision R1:
a. Hydrotest case
R1 26/04/2021 revised for BSJ VVP SGS
Corroded
condition.
Contents
List of Figures
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Preamble
1.2 Assumptions
1.3 Design Data
1.4 Material of construction
1.5 Material Properties
2.0 Finite Element Model
2.1 Software Description
2.2 Modeling Data
2.3 Finite Element Mesh properties
3.0 Boundary Conditions
3.1 Restraining conditions
3.2 Applied Loads
3.3 Load Case Definition
4.0 Acceptance Criteria
4.1 Protection against Plastic Collapse
4.2 Elastic check for Protection against Ratcheting / Secondary stress
evaluation
4.3 Allowable Stress and Stress limits for Stress categorization
4.4 Acceptance Criteria for Hydrotest and Stress categorization
5.0 Results & Interpretation
5.1 Mechanical results
5.2 Stress Classification Line
5.3 Linearization of stresses
6.0 Mesh Sensitivity Check for FEA Validation
7.0 Global Reaction Check for Model Validation
8.0 Conclusion
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Preamble
The stress analysis of Header Box & Nozzle N1 & N2 is required under Design condition.
This report analyses and evaluates the mechanical stresses at Header Box, Nozzles, Nozzle
to shell junction, the stresses due to the discontinuities, Design Temperature, Internal
Pressure, external piping loads & dead weight using elastic stress analysis method of ASME
Sec.VIII Div.2 Part5. The following drawings are referred for the evaluation:
DHT-1082-01-002 Rev.B

1.2 Assumptions
The following are the assumptions which are considered for the Analysis:
1. It is assumed that the material behavior is linear elastic and changes in the shape &
orientation of the body are small.
2. All stress analysis problem have local radial gradient singularities near the re-entrant
corners in the domain. The stress there is theoretically infinite, but not in practice.
Mesh refinement does not helps.
3. The material of construction is assumed to be isotropic and homogenous.
4. Boundary conditions do not change from the point of load application to the final
deformed shape.
5. It is assumed that all loads are gradually applied to their full magnitude.

1.3 Design Data

The design data required for the analysis is as given below
: ASME Sec VIII Div. 1 Ed’ 2019+API
Design code:
661 7th Ed. 2013
Analysis code: : ASME Sec VIII Div. 2 Ed’ 2019, Class 2
Design Pressure for Header (Int.) : 0.355 MPa
Design Temperature (Int.) : 148.89 oC
Corrosion Allowance : 3.175 mm
Hydrotest Pressure : 0.45 MPa
Hydrotest Temperature : 48 oC
Corrosion Allowance (Hydrotest Case) : 3.175 mm
 COMPLIANCE CHECK TO MANDATORY APPENDIX-46
FE ANALYSIS SCOPE
a) N1, N2 NOZZLE OPENING REINFORCEMENT AREA VERIFIED TO SATISFY UG-39(c)(3) BY FINITE ELEMENT
ANALYSIS, FEA USED WITH ASME SEC. VIII DIV.-1 Ed 2019 ALLOWABLE STRESS TO DETERMINE THE ACCEPTABILITY OF
THE DESIGN.
b) APPLICABLE PIPING EXTERNAL LOADS FOR NOZZLE MARK N1, N2 VERIFIED BY FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.
FEA USED WITH ASME SEC. VIII DIV.-1 Ed 2019 TO VERIFY NOZZLE #SHELL JUNCTION, NOZZLE NECK & NOZZLE FLANGE,
AND ALLOWABLE STRESS TO DETERMINE THE ACCEPTABILITY OF THE DESIGN.
c) N1, N2 SWAGE NOZZLE FITTING THICKNESS DUE TO INTERNAL DESIGN PRESSURE VERIFIED BY FINITE
ELEMENT ANALYSIS. FEA USED WITH ASME SEC. VIII DIV.-1 Ed 2019 ALLOWABLE STRESS TO DETERMINE THE
ACCEPTABILITY OF THE DESIGN.
COMPLIANCE TO
CLAUSE NO DESCRIPTION APPLICABILITY CODE
REQUIREMENT
SCOPE
THIS APPENDIX IS APPLICABLE WHEN USING YES - TO ESTABLISH
APP 46-1 DIVISION 2 TO ESTABLISH THE THICKNESS AND NOZZLE EXTERNAL
OTHER DESIGN DETAILS OF A COMPONENT FOR A PIPING LOADS &
SECTION VIII, DIVISION 1 PRESSURE VESSEL. OTHER
REQUIREMENT
ALLOWABLE DESIGN STRESS AND OTHER
MATERIAL RULES (DESIGN BY ANALYSIS)
(1) THE ALLOWABLE TENSILE STRESS SHALL BE IN CONFIRMED -REFER
YES
ACCORDANCE WITH UG-23. MATERIAL EVOLUTION
APP 46-2 (b) TABLE
(2) THE WELD JOINT EFFICIENCY SHALL BE
ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FULL YES
CONFIRMED
RADIOGRAPHY REQUIREMENTS OF UW-11 AND UW-
12.
DESIGN BY ANALYSIS
THE DESIGN-BY-ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS IN
DIVISION 2, PART 5 MAY BE USED TO DESIGN THE
COMPONENTS FOR A DIVISION 1 PRESSURE VESSEL
PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET:
(a) DIVISION 2, PART 5 SHALL NOT BE USED IN LIEU WE DON’T HAVE
YES
OF THE DESIGN THICKNESS REQUIREMENTS OF DESIGN RULES FOR
APP 46-4
DIVISION 1 OR DIVISION 2, PART 4. OUR ANALYSIS SCOPE
(b) THE ALLOWABLE STRESS INCREASE OF ALLOWABLE STRESS
YES
UG-23(d) IS NOT PERMITTED. CONFIRMS TO ASME
SEC.II PART.D ED.2019
(c) ALL OF THE FAILURE MODES LISTED IN DIVISION ALL LOAD
YES
2, PART 5 SHALL BE CONSIDERED. COMBINATIONS
VERIFIED
(1) WHEN DEMONSTRATING PROTECTION AGAINST
NO USER SPECIFIED
PLASTIC COLLAPSE IN DIVISION 2, 5.2, THE LOAD CASE
COMBINATIONS OF DIVISION 2 SHALL BE CONSIDERED
COMBINATION – DONE
IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER COMBINATIONS DEFINED AS PER PART 5.
APP 46-4 (c) YES
BY THE USER. IN EVALUATING LOAD CASES
INVOLVING INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL SPECIFIED ANALYSIS CARRIED
DESIGN PRESSURE, P, ADDITIONAL CASES WITH P FOR 3 LOAD CASES.
EQUAL TO ZERO SHALL BE CONSIDERED.
46-4 (c) (1) (-a) WHEN APPLYING THE ELASTIC STRESS ANALYSIS ALLOWABLE STRESS AS
YES
METHOD IN DIVISION 2, 5.2.2, THE ALLOWABLE PER UG-23 (ASME SEC.II
STRESS, S, SHALL BE AS PER 46-2(A). PART.D ED.2019)
(-b) WHEN APPLYING THE LIMIT-LOAD ANALYSIS 1.5S CRITERIA USED FOR
METHOD IN DIVISION 2, 5.2.3, THE YIELD STRENGTH EVOLUTION &
DEFINING THE PLASTIC LIMIT SHALL EQUAL 1.5S, YES ALLOWABLE STRESS AS
PER UG-23 (ASME SEC.II
WHERE S SHALL BE AS PER 46-2(a).
PART.D ED.2019)
(-c) WHEN APPLYING THE ELASTIC–PLASTIC STRESS
ANALYSIS METHOD IN DIVISION 2, 5.2.4, IN
N.A N.A
CONJUNCTION WITH DIVISION 2, TABLE 5.5, Β SHALL
EQUAL 3.5.
(-d) EVALUATION OF THE TEST CONDITION IS NOT YES HOWEVER, AS PER CLIENT
REQUIRED [SEE 46-3(d)]. REQUIREMENT,
EVOLUTION FOR TEST
CONDITION IS
PERFORMED.
 DESCRIPTION APPLICABILITY COMPLIANCE TO CODE
CLAUSE NO
REQUIREMENT
PROTECTION AGAINST LOCAL FAILURE AS PER 5.3 N.A

46-4 (c) (2)

IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO EVALUATE PROTECTION THICKNESS AND
AGAINST LOCAL FAILURE (5.3), IF THE COMPONENT WELD DETAILS ARE
SECTION VIII NOT REQUIRED.
DESIGN IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 4 (E.G., CALCULATED AS
DIV 2, Part 5,
COMPONENT WALL THICKNESS AND WELD DETAIL PER ASME SEC.VIII
SECTION 5.3.1.1
PER 4.2). DIV.1 DESIGN
RULES
46-4 (c) (3) PROTECTION AGAINST COLLAPSE FROM BUCKLING N.A
IN DIVISION 2, 5.4
SECTION VIII NOT REQUIRED
DIV 2, Part 5, TO BE VERIFIED I COMPRESSIVE STRESS FIELD UNDER NO COMPRESSIVE
SECTION 5.4.1.1 APPLIED DESIGN LOADS. STRESS FIELD
PROTECTION AGAINST FAILURE FROM CYCLIC N.A NOT REQUIRED
46-4 (c) (4)
LOADING: RATCHETING [NO CYCLIC LOADS
MENTIONED BY
CLIENT]
PROTECTION AGAINST FAILURE FROM CYCLIC N.A NOT REQUIRED
46-4 (c) (5) LOADING: FATIGUE [NO CYCLIC LOADS
MENTIONED BY
CLIENT]

1.4 Material of construction

The following material of construction is used in analysis
Header Plates : SA 516 Gr.70N
Transition Nozzle (N1,N2) : SA 106 Gr.B
Nozzle Flange (N1,N2) : SA 105

1.5 Material Properties

The physical properties for various materials are listed below as per the material
specification. The following properties of materials as given in ASME Section II; part D are
input in the model.

Material : SA 516 Gr.70/ SA 106M Gr.B : SA 105M

: 195066.66 N/mm2 @ : 194066.66 N/mm2 @
Modulus of Elasticity
148.89oC 148.89oC
Poisson’s ratio : 0.3 : 0.3

Density : 7750 kg/m3 : 7750 kg/m3

Thermal Conductivity
: 55.94884 W/moC @ 148.89oC : 55.94884 W/moC @ 148.89oC
(k)

Co-efficient of
: 1.23956 e -05 oC-1 : 1.23956 e -05 oC-1
Thermal Expansion (a)

: SA 516 Gr.70/SA 106M

Material : SA 105M
Gr.B
 Modulus of Elasticity : 200773.33 N/mm2 @ 48oC : 199773.33 N/mm2 @ 48oC

Poisson’s ratio : 0.3 : 0.3

Density : 7750 kg/m3 : 7750 kg/m3

2.0 Finite Element Model

2.1 Software Description
The Solid model of the equipment is used for evaluation. The geometric modeling of
the equipment is done in Ansys Space Claim Software. All the necessary partitions & splits
are made. Partition and splits are made based on the meshing requirement, load application
and restraints.
The analysis software used is Ansys Version 2020 R1 from ANSYS Inc., USA. The
model generated is transferred to Ansys Mechanical, as a parasolid, for Analysis and further
process. Material Properties are defined in Ansys Engineering Data. The Meshing,
application of the load and boundary conditions are done in Ansys Mechanical. Ansys APDL
is used for solving the model and the results are view in Ansys Mechanical.

2.2 Modeling Data

The modeling data used is as listed below:
Header outside Dimensions : L1980 x H480 x W150(mm)
Header Top, Bottom Plate Thickness, : 12 mm
End Plate Thickness
Pass Partition Plate : 12 mm
Plugsheet / Tubesheet Plate Thickness : 25 mm

Nozzle N1
Flange : DN 200 x 12.7 Min. x Class 150 x WNRF
Nozzle : ID 193.7 x 12.7t
Nozzle N2
Flange : DN 150x10.97 Min. x Class 150 x WNRF
Nozzle : ID 146.36 x 10.97t
By considering the above-mentioned model of vessel is made. Refer figure 2.1 for
schematic view of the model.
Figure 2.1: Geometric Model
2.3 Finite Element Mesh properties
Solid185 elements are used for meshing the structure. SOLID185 is a first order 3-D 8-
node solid element that exhibits linear displacement behavior. The element is defined by
8 nodes having three degrees of freedom per node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z
directions. Discretization is carried out in structured way as shown in figure 2.2.
The detail of meshing for analysis with 3 elements across section is as given below:
Total number of elements in the part 1167524
Total number of nodes in the part 1386656

Overall mesh quality checks with their acceptable limits and achieved values are shown
below:
Quality Check Acceptable Value Achieved Valve
Aspect Ratio <5 2.54
Jacobin Ratio > 0.5 1.10
Skewness < 0.70 0.41
Element Quality > 0.1 0.95

Figure 2.2: Detail of Meshing

3.0 Boundary Conditions
3.1 Restraining conditions
Thermal boundary conditions – R1:
Header inner Temperature is considered as Design Temperature = 148.89 °C
Refer figure 3.1 for applied temperature.
Figure 3.1 : Thermal Boundary Condition
Mechanical boundary conditions –R2 :
For evaluating the stresses due to mechanical loads, the Nodes on the side plates,
Bottom Plate and Tubesheet Plate of the header are allowed for Planar movement. All other
degrees of Freedom are restrained. Refer figure 3.2 for applied restraint.
Figure 3.2 : Mechanical Boundary Condition : Restraint
3.2 Applied Loads for all cases
Thermal loading – T1:
To find out the temperature distribution, equivalent heat transfer coefficient outside of the
vessel is considered as 45 W/m2 oC at 22oC. Refer figure 3.3 for applied load.
Figure 3.3: Thermal Loading
 Mechanical Loading:
 Dead Load – L1:
The weight of the equipment is considered by applying the gravity in +Z direction.
Refer figure 3.4 for applied load.
Figure 3.4: Mechanical Load: Gravity

 Internal Pressure – L2:

Pressure is applied on inner surface of the header.
P = Header Internal Pressure = 0.355 MPa
Pressure Thrust due to header pressure is applied on Flange surface.
Pl = Л *P*di2 /4
P = Shell Pressure = 0.355 MPa
di = Inner diameter of Nozzle
 Nozzle Thrust
Pressure Internal
OD Thickness Thickness
Mark CA ID with CA Thrust, Pressure
mm mm with CA
N MPa
N1 219.1 12.7 3.175 200.05 9.53 11159 0.355
N2 168.3 10.97 3.175 152.71 7.80 6503 0.355
Refer figure 3.5 for applied load.

Figure 3.5: Applied Load: Internal Pressure + Nozzle Thrust

  Nozzle Load – L3:
The nozzle load is applied at nozzle plate interface and is as below:

These loads are applied as force at flange face as shown in figure 3.6. The Nozzle load is
applied as component with local co-ordinate system as a reference, which is defined
individually for all nozzles. Similarly, Moment is also applied at flange face. Refer figure 3.6
for applied load.

Figure 3.6: Applied Load: Nozzle Load

  Hydrotest Pressure – L4:
Hydrotest Pressure is applied on inner surface of the header.
Ph = Hydrotest Pressure = 0.45 MPa
Pressure Thrust due to header pressure is applied on Flange surface.
Pl = Л *P*di2 /4
P = Shell Pressure = 0.45 MPa
di = Inner diameter of Nozzle
Nozzle Thrust
Pressure Internal
OD Thickness Thickness
Mark CA ID with CA Thrust, Pressure
mm mm with CA
N MPa
N1 219.1 12.7 3.175 200.05 9.53 14145 0.45
N2 168.3 10.97 3.175 152.71 7.80 8242.1 0.45

Refer figure 3.7 for applied load.

Figure 3.7: Applied Load: Hydrotest Pressure + Nozzle Thrust
3.3 Load Case Definition
The load case definition considered for the evaluation of the stress is as listed below.
Load Case Thermal Load Mechanical Load
Load Case 1 (LC1) R1(Int)+T1 R2+L1+L2+L3
Load Case 2 (LC2) - R2+L1+L4

4.0 Acceptance Criteria

Of the three alternative analysis methods provided for evaluation protection against
plastic collapse, Elastic stress analysis method is used. The method states that “ Stresses
are computed using an elastic analysis , classified into categories, and limited to allowable
values that have been conservatively established such that the plastic collapse will not
occur”.
The acceptance criterion is as per ASME VIII, Div2, Ed 2019 Part 5 “ Design by Analysis
requirement” :
4.1 Protection against Plastic Collapse (According to Para 5.2.2 of Div. 2)
1. Equivalent stress derived from the average value across the thickness of a
section of the general primary membrane stresses (Pm) produced by internal
pressure and other loads but excluding geometrical discontinuities and all
secondary and peak stresses must be less than S; where S is the allowable
stress of material at design temperature.
2. Equivalent stress derived from the average value across the thickness of a
section of the Local Primary membrane stress (PL) produced by internal pressure
and other loads including geometrical discontinuities but excluding all secondary
and peak stresses must be less than SPL.
3. Equivalent stress derived from the average value across the thickness of a
section of Local primary membrane stress plus primary bending stress
proportional to distance from centric produced only by mechanical load (PL +
Pb) must be less than SPL. As per Para 5.2.2.4 of Div. 2, S PL value is taken as
larger of the quantities shown below,
(1) 1.5 times the allowable stress of material at corresponding temperature
(2) Sy for material, except above shall be used if room temperature ratio of
minimum yield strength to ultimate strength exceeds 0.7 or the value of S is
governed by time dependent properties.
4.2 Elastic check for Protection against Ratcheting / Secondary stress
evaluation

Equivalent stress derived from the highest value across the thickness of a section,
of the linearized local primary membrane stresses plus primary bending stresses plus
secondary stresses (PL+Pb+Q) produced by “load-controlled” as well as by “strain-
controlled” loads but excluding all peak stresses must be less than SPS; where SPS is
larger of the values below,
(1) Three times average value of tabulated S of material for highest and lowest
temperature during operational cycle
(2) Two times the average tabulated yield strength for highest and lowest
temperature during operational cycle, except (1) above shall be used if room
temperature ratio of min. specified yield strength to ultimate strength
exceeds 0.7 or the value of S is governed by time dependent properties.

4.3 Allowable Stresses & Stress Limits for Stress Categories

 Basic allowable stress, S, & Yield strength, S y, is taken as per Table 1A & Table
Y-1 of ASME Sec II Part D respectively.
 Stress limits are set as per Part 5 of ASME Sec VIII Div. 2.
Table 4.3.1: Basic Allowable Stresses & Yield strength at Design Temperature at 148.89˚C

Material Basic Allowable Stress, Yield Strength,

(MPa) (MPa)
SA 516 Gr.70 138 256.88
SA 105 138 243.2
SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52

Table 4.3.2: Stress categories

Stress category Stress Limit

General Primary Membrane stress Pm ≤ S

Local Primary Membrane stress PL ≤ SPL

Primary Membrane + Bending Stress PL+Pb ≤ SPL

Primary plus Secondary stress PL+Pb+Q ≤ SPS

 Table 4.3.3: Stress Limits
Min. Min.
(Min. YS
Material specified specified SPL SPS
/Min. UTS)
YS, (MPa) UTS, (MPa)

SA 516 Gr.70 260 485 0.54 Sy 2Sy

SA 105M 250 485 0.52 Sy 2Sy

SA 106M Gr.B 240 415 0.58 Sy 2Sy

4.4 Acceptance Criteria for Hydrotest Condition

The acceptability criteria for hydro test condition as per Clause 4.1.6.2 of ASME
VIII, Div2 is as given below.
1. A primary membrane stress intensity Pm shall not exceed 95% of yield strength
Sy at test temperature.
2. A primary membrane plus primary bending stress intensity Pm + Pb not to
exceed the applicable limits given below:
i. Pm + Pb  1.43 Sy if Pm  0.67 Sy or
ii. Pm + Pb  2.43 Sy – 1.5 Pm if 0.67 Sy  Pm  0.9Sy
Where Sy is the yield strength at test temperature
Stress Intensity Limits are considered as per Clause 4.1.6.2, ASME Section VIII, Div 2. It is
tabulated in table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Primary Membrane Stress Limits for Stress Material for Hydrotest
Stress category - SA 516 Gr.70 @ SA 105 @ 48C SA 106 Gr.B @
Limit
Pm 48C (MPa) (MPa) 48C (MPa)
Yield Strength 256.88 243.2 236.52
Primary Membrane
0.9 Sy 231.19 218.8 212.86
(Pm)
Primary Membrane
(Pm) + Primary 1.43 Sy 367.34 347.78 338.22
Bending (Pb)
For Pm  0.67 Sy
For 0.67 Sy  Pm  2.43Sy – Refer Stress Refer Stress Refer Stress
0.95 Sy) 1.5Pm Table Table Table
5.0 Results & Interpretation
As per the ASME code, the maximum distortion energy yield criterion shall be used to
establish the equivalent stress, the equivalent stress is equal to the von Mises
equivalent stress given by,
Se= e =  + ] / √
Where,  are the principal stresses.
Since the computer program used in the analysis directly gives the output of Von
Mises, all stress plots are given based on Von Mises Stress
All plotted results are in the following units
Temperature : °C
Stress : N/mm2
Displacement : mm

5.1 Load Case 1

The Load Case 1 evaluates the stresses due to Combine loading and those due to only
Mechanical Load.

Figure 5.1: Temperature Distribution for Thermal condition

Table 5.1: LC1: Summary of Peak Stress for Thermal + Mechanical Loading
The induced von mises stress for LC1 for header is 257.28 N/mm2. Fig. 5.2 shows the Von
mises stress plot for combine loading. The deformation plot for Header for Combine loading
is shown in figure 5.3. The maximum deformation observed is 3.62 mm. SCL plots are as in
figure 5.4.
Basic Allowable Allowable Induced
Stress & Yield Stress Equivalent Equivalent
Location Material Strength, MPa Category Stress Stress
S Sy (MPa) (MPa)

Nozzle N1

SCL-1 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb+Q ≤ 2Sy 473.04 53.71

SCL-2 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb+Q ≤ 2Sy 473.04 86.55

SCL-3 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb+Q ≤ 2Sy 473.04 79.11

SCL-4 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb+Q ≤ 2Sy 473.04 260.26

SCL-5 SA 516 Gr.70N 138 256.88 PL+Pb+Q ≤ 2Sy 513.76 165.24

Nozzle N2

SCL-6 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb+Q ≤ 2Sy 473.04 43.90

SCL-7 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb+Q ≤ 2Sy 473.04 60.69

SCL-8 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb+Q ≤ 2Sy 473.04 74.19

SCL-9 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb+Q ≤ 2Sy 473.04 77.66

SCL-10 SA 516 Gr.70N 138 256.88 PL+Pb+Q ≤ 2Sy 513.76 68.40

Figure 5.2: LC1: Von Mises Stress plot for Combine Loading
Figure 5.3: LC1: Deformation plot for Combine Loading
Figure 5.4: LC1: SCL Plots for Combine Loading
SCL1
SCL2
SCL3
SCL4
SCL5
SCL6
SCL7
SCL8
SCL9
SCL10
LC1: Summary of Peak Stress for Mechanical Loading
The induced von mises stress for LC1 for header is 252.99 N/mm2. Fig. 5.5 shows the Von
mises stress plot for mechanical loading. The deformation plot for Header for Mechanical
loading is shown in figure 5.6. The maximum deformation observed is 3.18 mm. SCL plots
are as in figure 5.7.

Table 5.2: LC1: Summary of Primary Membrane+Bending/Secondary equivalent

stress for Mechanical Loading
Basic Allowable Allowable Induced
Stress & Yield Stress Equivalent Equivalent
Location Material Strength, MPa Category Stress Stress
S Sy (MPa) (MPa)

Nozzle N1

SCL-1 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb ≤ Sy 236.52 39.66

SCL-2 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb ≤ Sy 236.52 43.98

SCL-3 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb ≤ Sy 236.52 78.25

SCL-4 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb ≤ Sy 236.52 112.39

SCL-5 SA 516 Gr.70N 138 256.88 PL+Pb ≤ Sy 256.88 98.38

Nozzle N2

SCL-6 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb ≤ Sy 236.52 36.79

SCL-7 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb ≤ Sy 236.52 42.62

SCL-8 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb ≤ Sy 236.52 67.00

SCL-9 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb ≤ Sy 236.52 70.64

SCL-10 SA 516 Gr.70N 138 256.88 PL+Pb ≤ Sy 256.88 49.31

Table 5.3: LC1: Summary of Primary Membrane+Bending/Secondary equivalent

stress for Mechanical Loading
Basic Allowable Allowable Induced
Stress & Yield Stress Equivalent Equivalent
Location Material Strength, MPa Category Stress Stress
S Sy (MPa) (MPa)

Nozzle N1

SCL-1 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb+Q ≤ 2Sy 473.04 50.41

SCL-2 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb+Q ≤ 2Sy 473.04 86.09

SCL-3 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb+Q ≤ 2Sy 473.04 79.00

SCL-4 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb+Q ≤ 2Sy 473.04 257.98

SCL-5 SA 516 Gr.70N 138 256.88 PL+Pb+Q ≤ 2Sy 513.76 164.13

Nozzle N2
 SCL-6 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb+Q ≤ 2Sy 473.04 45.21

SCL-7 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb+Q ≤ 2Sy 473.04 60.96

SCL-8 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb+Q ≤ 2Sy 473.04 73.73

SCL-9 SA 106 Gr.B 118 236.52 PL+Pb+Q ≤ 2Sy 473.04 76.99

SCL-10 SA 516 Gr.70N 138 256.88 PL+Pb+Q ≤ 2Sy 513.76 66.74

Figure 5.5: LC1: Von Mises Stress plot for Mechanical Loading
Figure 5.6: LC1: Deformation plot for Mechanical Loading
Figure 5.7: LC1: SCL Plots for Mechanical Loading
SCL1
SCL2
SCL3
SCL4
SCL5
SCL6
SCL7
SCL8
SCL9
SCL10
 5.2 Load Case 2
Table 5.4: LC2: Summary of Peak Stress for Hydrotest condition
The induced von mises stress for LC2 for header is 36.94 N/mm2. Fig. 5.8 shows the Von
mises stress plot for combine loading. The deformation plot for Header for Combine loading
is shown in figure 5.9. The maximum deformation observed is 0.061 mm. Since the peak
value of the induced stress is less than the allowable stress value, Nozzles is safe for the
given loading and linearization not required.
Basic allowable Allowable Equivalent
Location Material Stress
stress, Sm, Stress, stress,
Category
N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2
Any SA 106 Gr.B 236.52 0.9Sy 212.86 36.94

Figure 5.8: LC2: Von Mises Stress plot for Hydrotest Loading
Figure 5.9: LC2: Deformation plot for Hydrotest Condition
6.0 Mesh Sensitivity Check for FEA Validation
To evaluate the effect of mesh density on numerical results, nodal (averaged) solution is
compared against elemental (un-averaged) solution. Summary of equivalent stress for
nodal and elemental solutions for load case 1 (mechanical) are tabulated below.
Equivalent
Result Unit
Stress
Nodal Solution (Averaged stress) 299.94 MPa
Elemental Solution (un-averaged stress) 298.96 MPa
Error 0.326 %

Since, % error between averaged and un-averaged solution (comparing peak stresses) is
less than 5%, it can be concluded that mesh is saturated and there won’t be any effect of
increase in mesh density on results. Refer Figure 6.1 to 6.2 for equivalent stress plot for
nodal and elemental solutions.
Figure 6.1: Equivalent Stress Plot for Nodal Solution (Unit: MPa)

Figure 6.2: Equivalent Stress Plot for Elemental Solution (Unit: MPa)
7.0 Global Reaction Check for Model Validation
Global Reaction Check is used to validate the model and to check the equilibrium. Fixed
boundary condition is applied at the bottom Plate. Please refer to figure 7.1. Self-weight of
Header box is considered as gravity load in downward direction as shown in figure 7.2.

Figure 7.1: Fixed Boundary Condition

Figure 7.2: Gravity & Self Weight of Header

 Figure 7.3: Reactions at Boundary Condition

Total weight of Stationary header box (in ANSYS Workbench) = 2193.66 N (3808.14 kg)
Reaction Obtained = -3809.8 N
Reactions from ANSYS matches with Applied force. Hence equilibrium achieved.

8.0 Conclusion:
It is concluded that the stress evaluation is performed for the given thermal and structural
loading condition and that the stresses are meeting the requirements of Part5 of ASME
Section VIII, Div2 Ed 2019.
It is also concluded that the Header, Nozzle N1/N2 design will be safe for above
mentioned mechanical and thermal boundary conditions.