Kedar A.

Damle
Effect of Nozzle Junction
Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions India Private
Limited
2nd Floor, Duggal Plaza, PremNagar,
and Equipment Stiffness
Bibwewadi Road,
Pune 411037, India
on Absorption of Pipe
e-mail: Kedar.Damle@thyssenkrupp.com

Pratik S. Gharat
Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions India Private
Limited
2nd Floor, Duggal Plaza, PremNagar,
Bibwewadi Road,
Pune 411037, India
e-mail: pratik.gharat@thyssenkrupp.com
Rudolf Neufeld
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Fachhochschule Sudwestfalen
(University of Applied Science),
Meschede 59872, Germany
Wilhelm Peters
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Fachhochschule Sudwestfalen
(University of Applied Science),
Meschede 59872, Germany
Thermal Loads
As an industry norm, the nozzle local loads are considered to be local and are not consid-
ered in foundation design. Presently, this norm is under debate. One opinion is some per-
cent of these loads are to be considered to be transferred to the foundation. The
horizontal forces on the foundation are more critical than vertical forces. Attempt has
been made to understand the system and create a model which will represent the system
to a good approximation. A mathematical model is developed to demonstrate the actual
system. It is a stiffness system consisting of equipment, nozzle junction, and connected
piping. The connected pipes are heated sequentially to generate nozzle loads in axial and
out plane directions. Steady-state thermal loads are calculated for the given system stiff-
ness. Governing parameters are identified and altered to note the effect. The governing
parameters identified are equipment diameter (D), nozzle location on equipment (x), and
nozzle diameter (d). The effect is studied for pressure range (20120 bar) and tempera-
ture (100400  C). The results of percentage loads transferred with respect to the govern-
ing parameters are plotted. It is observed that nozzle loads in axial directions are
transferred to the foundation almost 100%, whereas out plane loads are absorbed by the
system to a greater extent. Further study is required to investigate combined effects of all
such nozzle loads for single equipment. The results may be refined for different materials
and effect of nozzle reinforcement. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4031719]

Introduction Force Directions

Static equipment is connected with other equipment, pumps, Figure 3 displays the directions of forces and moments acting
packages through nozzles, and piping. The interfaces are equip- on nozzle.
ment nozzles which are bolted or welded to the piping.
The equipment is located on the ground or at elevated locations
as per the process and plant layout requirements. The equipment
exerts gravity loads (operating weight), horizontal shear loads
(wind and seismic force), and moments on the foundation. The
foundations are designed for these loads. Additionally, the con-
nected piping exerts loads on the equipment at the nozzle loca-
tions. The load consists of sustained (weight of pipe and fluid),
thermal, and occasional loads (wind and seismic). The nozzle to
equipment junction is designed to address these loads.
This study is carried out to understand how much of these pipe
loads are transferred to the foundation and how much is absorbed
due to the system flexibility.

Nozzle Loads Calculation

To explain the background of the methods and calculations that
are made in this study, it is required to understand how the load
calculations of a pipe system are carried out. Figure 1 shows a
separated system of a plant, two pressure vessels connected with Fig. 1 Vesselpipe system
pipes which are suitable supported. For simplicity, the other pipes
which are connected with the vessels are not shown here.
The pipes with supports are analyzed for the design conditions.
The pipe end connection at the vessel is anchored and considered
rigid (Fig. 2). The end forces are kept within limits of nozzle load
table values (Table 1).
These limit values include sustained, thermal, and occasional
loads, but the highest contributor is thermal loads.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received August 27,
2014; final manuscript received September 15, 2015; published online November 19,
2015. Assoc. Editor: Allen C. Smith. Fig. 2 Pipe model in CAESER II

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright V

C 2016 by ASME APRIL 2016, Vol. 138 / 021601-1

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/19/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 5 Mathematical model

Table 1 Maximum allowable forces and moments on nozzles

Forces (N) Moments (Nm)

Nozzle size (in.) F VL VC MT ML MC

1/8 240 180 180 5.4 4.32 4.32

1/4 320 240 240 9.6 7.68 7.68
: : : : : : :
24 20,000 15,000 15,000 37,500 36,300 36,300
42 20,000 15,000 15,000 37,500 36,300 36,300
Fig. 3 Forces and moments on nozzles

In this paper, the emphasis is on the forces, therefore the

moments are not considered. The important forces are the hori-
zontal forces, i.e., axial and out plane (Fig. 4). They act as shear-
ing forces on the support and therefore are the most critical for the
foundation design.
In-plane forces act in gravity direction and therefore are not
critical. Hence, the in-plane forces are not further considered in
this study.
Solution
To simulate axial and out plane forces, a simple mathematical
model as shown in Fig. 5 is considered. The pipes 1 and 2 lengths
are suitably selected to ensure the forces (axial and out plane) gen-
erated are kept within limits of values in Table 1. The thickness
and diameter of the pipe are same as the connected nozzle
dimensions.
Problem Analysis
To demonstrate effect of thermal expansion, the system may be
considered as an assembly of stiffness. The equipment may be
replaced by a cantilever beam, and the nozzleshell junction as a
spring and piping as another spring. This system will be reviewed
for thermal expansion loads. In the cold system, no force arises.
When the pipe is heated, the pipe will expand and every spring
will be deflected as shown in Fig. 6. Thermal effect on shell length
is ignored for simplicity.
The resultant force which acts on the vessel support depends on
the stiffness (the vessel, the junction, and the pipe). The stiffness
depends on parameters, such as pressure, temperature, nozzle
location, vessel diameter, and nozzle diameter. These parameters
must be examined for the effects on stiffness and thus on the
resultant force.
Stiffness Determination
Vessel Stiffness. The vessel has a simple geometric form. For
simplicity, the vessel is considered as cylinder of uniform thick-
ness fixed at foundation (Fig. 7). The parameters for the vessel
stiffness are the modulus of elastic, the diameter, the thickness,

Fig. 4 Force directions

021601-2 / Vol. 138, APRIL 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/19/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 6 Schematic representation

and lever arm of the nozzle. The deflection xV can be calculated Mathematical simplification is not possible to calculate this
with the formula stiffness.
The stiffness of the junction is influenced by the shell diameter,
length and thickness, and the nozzle diameter and thickness.
Fx3 Ratios like the shell diameter to the shell thickness or the shell
xV (1) diameter to the nozzle diameter are affecting the stiffness. The
3EI
geometry is very complicated and cannot be simplified. Therefore,
Therefore, the formula for the vessel stiffness is an finite element analysis (FEA) program, NOZZLE PRO [1] is
used to obtain the junction stiffness.
F 3EI
KVA 3 (2) NOZZLE PRO analysis. NOZZLE PRO is an FEA program to calculate
xV x
stresses and stiffness at vessel attachments, such as nozzles, sad-
where dles, pipe shoes, attachments, and skirts [26].
In our paper, we have used it to obtain the stiffness of the
p 4  nozzleshell junction.
I DO  D4I (3) We used NOZZLE PRO v8.6, produced by the Paulin Research
64
Group, Houston, TX.

NozzleShell Junction Stiffness. The stiffness of the
nozzleshell junction is an important part of the whole stiffness.
Axial Loads
Axial Pipe Stiffness and Geometry. For the study of the axial
loads, only pipe 1 is heated to create a thermal force. To simplify
the calculation, the elbow is considered as a hinge. With these
simplifications, the deflection of the pipe is shown in Fig. 8. Here,
the vessel and nozzleshell junction are considered rigid.
The thermal expansion Dl1 is shown in Fig. 8. Because of the
stiffness of pipe 2, pipe 1 is not allowed to expand the whole
length Dl1 as shown in another schematic representation (Fig. 9).

Fig. 7 Deflection cantilever beam Fig. 8 Pipe deflection axial

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology APRIL 2016, Vol. 138 / 021601-3

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/19/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 10 Schematic representation of the axial deflection

Pipe 2 is bent and must therefore be calculated with the formula

Fig. 9 Schematic representation of the thermal deflection of for a cantilever beam
the pipe
3EI
KP2A (8)
Figure 9 shows that the whole thermal expansion is absorbed l32
by the two springs which represent the pipes. Therefore, the force
The two pipes act like two springs in series. Therefore, the for-
must be calculated with the combine stiffness KPA of both pipes.
Hence, the formula for the maximum allowable force is mula for the whole pipe stiffness is

FMax;A KPA  Dl1 (4) KP1A  KP2A

KPA (9)
KP1A KP2A
Dl1 a  l1  DT (5)
With this formula, the stiffness of pipe 2 KP2A is determined and
where FMax;A is known and equal to maximum nozzle load (Table used to calculate the length l2
1). The expansion Dl1 depends on the length l1 . The required r
pipe stiffness can be generated with various combinations of the 3 3EI
l2 (10)
length l1 and l2 . Therefore, it is necessary to assume one parame- KP2A
ter (l1 in this case). Now the axial pipe stiffness can be calculated
with the formula
Calculation of the Real Force. In reality, the vessel and
FMax;A nozzleshell junction are not rigid. As a result of this additional
KPA (6) flexibility in the system, the resultant force will be less than
Dl1
FMax;A .
In this system, the thermal expansion Dl1 is absorbed by the
Pipe Geometry. To obtain the length l2 , it is required to sepa- four springs of the system. The displayed system in Fig. 10 is sim-
rate the pipe stiffness KPA into two parts KP1A (for pipe 1) and ilar to the system in Fig. 8 but in this system, two stiffnesses are
KP2A (for pipe 2). Due to the thermal expansion, pipe 1 is under added. A schematic representation is shown in Fig. 11. Therefore,
compression. Therefore, the formula for the stiffness for part 1 is the final resultant force will be related to combined stiffness of the
whole system.
EA First, the stiffness of the vessel and nozzle shell junction must
KP1A (7)
l1 be computed. The unit of the axial vessel stiffness KVA and the

Fig. 11 Schematic representation of the thermal deflection with springs

021601-4 / Vol. 138, APRIL 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/19/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 axial nozzleshell junction stiffness KJA is N=mm. Therefore, where the maximum load Fmax;O is known and equal to the VC
they can be combined by the formula load in Table 1. Here, a pipe 2 length is assumed and pipe 1 length
is computed.
KVA  KJA
KVJ (11) Pipe Geometry. The maximum allowed force Fmax;O , the length
KVA KJA
l2 , and the stiffness of the pipe model KPO are known. From this,
The axial stiffness for the whole system is a combination of the pipe 2 stiffness is
stiffness of the vessel and nozzleshell junction KVJ and the pipe EA
KP2O (19)
stiffness KPA l2

KVJ  KPA The combined pipe stiffness is

KTotal;A (12)
KVJ KPA KP1O  KP2O
KPO (20)
With the total stiffness KTotal;A and the thermal expansion Dl1 , the KP1O KP2O
real force FRA which arises can be calculated as follows:
KP2O  KPO
KP1O (21)
FRA KTotal;A  Dl1 (13) KP2O  KPO

Now the length of pipe 1 could be calculated

Percentage of the Axial Loads. Percentage of the axial loads
transferred is the ratio between the real force FRA and the maxi- 3EI
mum force FMax;A , which shows percentage of load transferred to KP1O (22)
the foundation l31
r
3 3EI
FRA KTotal;A  Dl1 KTotal;A KVJ  KPA l1 (23)
(14) KP1O
FMax;A KPA  Dl1 KPA KPA KVJ KPA

After simplification, the final formula for the percentage of the Calculation of the Real Force. In reality, the vessel and
axial force transferred to foundation is nozzleshell junction are not rigid. This additional flexibility will
result in the reduction of final resultant force in the system.
FRA KVJ Individual stiffness considerations are as follows:
Percentage % (15)
FMax;A KVJ KPA  Pipe stiffness: KPO is calculated based on the selected length
 Junction stiffness: KJO is from NOZZLE PRO
 Vessel stiffness: KV is ignored because it is much higher than
Out Plane Loads the junction stiffness (for springs in series, this is valid
approximation).
Out Plane Pipe Stiffness and Geometry. For the study of the
out plane loads, now pipe 2 (Fig. 5) is heated. The elbow is The thermal expansion Dl2 is a combination of junction deflec-
considered as a hinge and the deflection of the pipe is shown in tion dNO  and pipe 1 dPO  (Fig. 13)
Fig. 12. Here, the vessel and nozzleshell junction are considered
rigid.
The maximum load limit is known as per Table 1. The pipe Dl2 dPO dNO (24)
dimensions are to be selected such that the load generated will be
equal to this limit. The formula is similar to Eq. (4) The stiffness of the pipe and nozzleshell junction has different
units
Fmax;O KPO  Dl2 (16)    
N N mm
Fmax;O Calculated ! KPO ; Nozzle PRO ! KJO
KPO (17) mm deg
Dl2
Therefore, the unit of the junction stiffness must be transformed.
The deflection dNO is calculated by pipe 1 and the angle u
Dl2 a  DT  l2 (18)
dNO l1  tan u l1  u (25)

Fig. 12 Pipe deflection out plane Fig. 13 Out plane deflection

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology APRIL 2016, Vol. 138 / 021601-5

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/19/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 2 Scenarios for parameter analysis

Scenarios 1. Design temperature 2. Vessel diameter 3. Nozzle position 4. Nozzle diameter

Pressure Change Change Change Change

Temperature Change Constant Constant Constant
Vessel diameter Constant Change Constant Constant
Vessel thickness Change Change Change Change
Nozzle position Constant Constant Change Constant
Nozzle diameter Constant Constant Constant Change
Nozzle thickness Change Change Change Change

The whole formula for the deflection Dl2 is FRO

Percentage % (31)
Fmax;O
FRO FRO  l1 2  p
Dl2 (26) Design Parameter Analysis. Following design parameters are
KPO KJO  180
varied and different scenarios are studied.
FRO 1
(27)
Dl2 1 l2  p
1
KPO KJO  180

The combine stiffness for the whole system is determined by

FRO
KTotal;O (28)
Dl2

With Eqs. (27) and (28), we are able to calculate the stiffness of The vessel and nozzle thickness are dependent on the pressure, tem-
whole system perature, and vessel/nozzle diameters. The thicknesses are selected
1 as the nearest next commercially available standard thicknesses.
KTotal;O (29) Table 2 displays considered scenario for axial as well as out
1 L1 2  p
plane condition.
KPO KJO  180
Results and Discussion
The real resultant force is calculated by
Axial Analysis
FRO KTotal;O  Dl2 (30) Scenario: Temperature Effect on Percentage of Loads Trans-
ferred to Foundation
Geometric data
Percentage of the Out Plane Loads. Percentage of the out plane
loads transferred to foundation is the ratio between FRO and vessel: diameter, 2000 mm; length, 7000 mm; and thickness,
Fmax;O 1094 mm

Fig. 14 Percentage of loads transferred to the foundation for varied design temperature
(axial case)

021601-6 / Vol. 138, APRIL 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/19/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 15 Percentage of loads transferred to the foundation for varied vessel diameters
(axial case)

nozzle: diameter, 24 in. and thickness, 930 mm design temperature: 300  C

design temperature: 100500  C
D, x, and d kept constant
Design pressure and temperature conditions are varied and per-
centage of load transferred is calculated. The results are plotted in
Fig. 14. Percentage of loads transferred to the foundation is plot-
ted on Y-axis versus design pressure on X-axis for each tempera-
ture case to analyze effect of design temperature. Though design
temperature significance seen below 40 bar pressure is marginal,
above 40 bar, design temperature has no effect and 100% loads
are transferred to foundation.
Similarly, other scenarios are represented here in graphical form.
Scenario: Vessel Diameter Effect on Percentage of Loads
Transferred to Foundation
Geometric data
vessel: diameter, 10005000 mm; length, 7000 mm; and thick-
ness, 6272 mm
nozzle: diameter, 24 in. and thickness, 934 mm
T, x, and d kept constant
Figure 15 shows the percentage of loads as a function of vessel
diameter. Each curve corresponds to specific vessel diameters
under consideration. The temperature is kept constant at 300 deg
(for this comparison).
The curve for the vessel diameter 1000 mm rises quickly till 60 bar
and further more slowly to 120 bar. The other curves show similar pat-
tern. The curve for the vessel with a diameter 1500 mm has a kink at
15 bar. The reason is that the increment of the vessel thickness, which
is rounded to a regular plate thickness, is very high at this point.
Similar to Fig. 14, Fig. 15 also shows discrimination between
low- and high-pressure vessels. Especially for the vessels with di-
ameter of 3000 mm, and greater, at high pressures (>40 bar), the
percentage of loads for the various diameters converge and all are
above 90%. Below 40 bar, there are some differentiations because
of the nozzleshell junction stiffness. For vessels with diameters
above 3000 mm, the combined stiffness for the vessel and the
nozzleshell junction is governed by the junction. The percentage

Fig. 16 Percentage of loads transferred to the foundation for varied nozzle positions
(axial case)

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology APRIL 2016, Vol. 138 / 021601-7

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/19/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 of loads for the vessel with the diameter of 1000 mm are quite dif-
ferent from the other. Here, the combined stiffness is ruled by the
vessel stiffness because vessel required thickness is less which
reduces the vessel stiffness below junction stiffness.
Scenario: Nozzle Position Effect on Percentage of Loads Trans-
ferred to Foundation
Geometric data
vessel: diameter, 2000 mm; length, 500018,000 mm; and thick-
ness, 10110 mm
nozzle: diameter, 24 in. and thickness, 934 mm
design temperature: 300  C
T, D, and d kept constant
Figure 16 shows the effect of nozzle position on the absorp-
tion of loads and percentage of loads transferred to the
foundation.
The stiffness for the short vessel is high making the system
rigid. Only in case of higher x values, the effect can be seen
(x 17,000 mm and above).
Scenario: Nozzle Diameter Effect on Percentage of Loads
Transferred to Foundation.
Geometric data
vessel: diameter, 2000 mm; length, 7000 mm; and thickness,
10110 mm
nozzle: diameter, 2001050 mm and thickness, 934 mm
design temperature: 300  C
T, D, and x kept constant
Figure 17 shows the behavior of the percentage of loads due to
the pressure for the different nozzle diameters.
The curves rise rapidly, like exponential curve, until the pres-
sure reaches 40 bar. Above 40 bar point, they are nearly flat.
The discrimination of the low (<40 bar) and high (>40 bar)
pressure vessels is also similar to Fig. 15. But in Fig. 17, the dis-
crimination is clearer than in the earlier figures.
The reason is that the curves are closely packed together and
maximum forces are proportional to increase in the nozzle diame-
ter. Therefore, the pipe stiffness and the maximum force change
in the same relation.
Fig. 17 Percentage of loads transferred to the foundation for varied nozzle diameters
(axial case)
021601-8 / Vol. 138, APRIL 2016
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/19/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
With higher diameters, the percentages of loads decrease,
except for the nozzle with diameter 42 in. This is because the
maximum forces for the diameter 24 in. and 42 in are same, as
shown in Table 1. For diameter 42 in., the stiffness increases, but
the maximum force is the same as that for diameter 24 in.
(20,000 N).
Out Plane Analysis
Scenario: Temperature Effect on Percentage of Loads Trans-
ferred to Foundation
Geometric data
vessel: diameter, 2000 mm; length, 7000 mm; and thickness,
10124 mm
nozzle: diameter, 600 mm and thickness, 930 mm
D, x, and d kept constant
Figure 18 shows the percentage of loads transferred to the foun-
dation as a function of design temperature. On the vertical axis,
the percentage of loads is plotted, and on the horizontal axis, the
design pressure is plotted.
The curves with the temperature from 100  C until 300  C rise
very slow and nearly linear. The curve with the temperature
400 deg is almost linear.
Below the temperature of 300  C, the stiffness of the vessel
and nozzleshell junction is low and thus percentage loads
transferred to the foundation is significantly low (<40%).
Above 300  C, the percentage of loads increases; as at that
temperature, material allowable stresses decrease significantly,
leading to higher thicknesses and thus increased junction
stiffness.
Scenario: Vessel Diameter Effect on Percentage of Loads
Transferred to Foundation
Geometric data
vessel: diameter, 10005000 mm; length, 7000 mm; and thick-
ness, 6272 mm
nozzle: diameter, 600 mm and thickness, 934 mm
design temperature: 300  C
T, x, and d kept constant
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 18 Percentage of loads transferred to the foundation for varied design temperature
(out plane case)

Figure 19 shows the variation in the percentage of loads
transferred to the foundation for change in vessel diameter as a
function of design pressure.
Though the junction stiffness reduces with increase in diameter,
the required thickness increases which leads to increase in the
junction stiffness.
Figure 19 shows the significant effect of vessel diameter on per-
centage of loads transferred to the foundation.
Scenario: Nozzle Position Effect on Percentage of Loads Trans-
ferred to Foundation
Figure 20 shows the variation in percentage of loads as a func-
tion of variation in nozzle position for different design pressures.
The curves in this diagram are nearly overlapping and show no
effect of nozzle position. This is because vessel stiffness was not
included in the calculation. Vessel stiffness being significantly
higher than out plane junction stiffness has little effect on the stiff-
ness of the system.
Scenario: Nozzle Diameter Effect on Percentage of Loads
Transferred to Foundation.

Geometric data Geometric data

vessel: diameter, 2000 mm; length, 500018,000 mm; and vessel: diameter, 2000 mm; length, 7000 mm; and thickness,
thickness, 10110 mm 10110 mm
nozzle: diameter, 600 mm and thickness, 934 mm nozzle: diameter, 2001050 mm and thickness, 958 mm
design temperature: 300  C design temperature: 300  C
T, D, and d kept constant T, D, and x kept constant

Fig. 19 Percentage of loads transferred to the foundation for varied vessel diameters
(out plane case)

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology APRIL 2016, Vol. 138 / 021601-9

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/19/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 20 Percentage of loads transferred to the foundation for varied nozzle positions (out
plane case)

Figure 21 shows the variation in percentage of loads as effect  vessel diameter (D)
of nozzle diameter for different design pressures.  nozzle location on vessel (x)
As nozzle diameter increases, for the same D, the junction stiff-
The effect of these parameters is combined and represented in
ness reduces. The system becomes more flexible. This is reflected
Fig. 22. The diagram is created with a design temperature at
in Fig. 21.
300  C. For vessel with other design temperatures (200500  C),
Figure 21 clearly shows that the difference between the nozzle
there will be very nominal difference, as design temperature has
with 8 in. and 14 in. diameter is much higher than the difference
minimal effect, as evident earlier.
between the 24 in. and 42 in. diameter. The reason is that the max-
Appendix 2 provides details on development of this graph.
imum allowable forces are significantly different for 8 in. and
It is evident from the diagram that the system is highly rigid
14 in. Diameter, however, allowable loads are same for 24 in. and
and nearly most of the nozzle axial load is transferred to the foun-
42 in. diameters.
dation. Only vessels with a high ratio x/D and at low pressures are
Conclusions absorbing more thermal loads. Such situations are not common.

Axial Loading. From the scenarios described in the Results and Out Plane Loading. The influential parameters for the percent-
Discussion section, following influential parameters are identified age of loads in out plane case are as follows:
 design pressure (P)  design pressure (P)

Fig. 21 Percentage of loads transferred to the foundation for varied nozzle diameters
(out plane case)

021601-10 / Vol. 138, APRIL 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/19/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 22 Final diagram for axial loads

Fig. 23 Percentage of loads due to D/d

 design temperature (T)
 vessel diameter (D)
 nozzle diameter (d)
Appendix 2 provides details on development of this graph.
Figure 23 shows the variation in percentage of loads as a func-
tion of ratio of vessel diameter and nozzle diameter for various
design pressures.
The percentage of loads is plotted on the vertical axis, while
ratio of the vessel diameter to nozzle diameter is plotted on hori-
zontal axis. Each curve corresponds to particular design pressure.
The pressures vary from 10 bar to 120 bar. To create final diagram,
the curves from Fig. 23 is changed to linear trend lines.
To account for the effect of temperature, two separate diagrams
are required, the first for temperature up to 300  C and the second
for temperatures above 300  C and 400  C.
Figure 24 shows the result for temperature up to 300  C, and
Fig. 25 for temperature in the range above 300400  C.
Verification With Software CAESAR II
The results are verified and compared using CAESAR II model for
both axial and out plane loads.
About CAESAR II. CAESAR II 2013 Version 2013 R1 (6.10) was
provided by the Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis Solutions, Inc.,
Houston, TX.
Five cases each for axial and out plane condition are modeled
in CAESAR II. The model includes vessel, pipe1, and pipe 2. Tem-
perature values are assigned to pipes as applicable. The junction
and vessel are considered rigid and loads are noted. Further the
junction stiffness is introduced and vessel rigidity is removed and
final loads on foundation are calculated. Thus, percentages of
loads transferred on foundation are calculated as ratio of result in
second case by first case.
Tables 3 and 4 show comparison with values obtained from
final graphs.
Axial. Table 3 shows that the results from Fig. 22 are always
higher than the results from CAESAR II. One reason is that the curves
from the diagram are lifted up for 3% safety factor. The second rea-
son is the inexactness of the calculation for high flexible vessels.
Out Plane. The results for the percentage of loads from Fig. 24
are higher than the real results from CAESAR II. The results are not

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology APRIL 2016, Vol. 138 / 021601-11

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/19/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 24 Final diagram for temperatures up to 300  Cout plane

Fig. 25 Final diagram for temperatures above 300  COut plane

exact because the curves in the final diagrams were simplified as
straight line segments.
So the diagram includes a safety and can be followed to calcu-
late percentage of loads transferred to the foundation.
Final Conclusion
Axial. For almost all vessels, the maximum axial nozzle loads
must be considered for the vessel foundation calculation, espe-
cially for high-pressure vessels above 40 bar. For very flexible
vessels at low temperature, Fig. 22 can be used to evaluate the
transfer of axial loads.

Table 3 Final solution reviewaxial

Table 4 Final solution reviewout plane
% of loads
% of loads
P Ratio Design CAESAR %
(bar) (L/D) temperature ( C) II Diagram difference P Ratio Design CAESAR Diagram %
(bar) (D/d) temperature ( C) II difference
20 7 300 83.74 92 9.86
30 2.5 300 99.15 100 0.86 20 1.7 300 4.84 8 65.29
30 6 300 95.33 98 2.8 20 8.3 300 22.61 23 1.72
40 3.5 500 99.75 100 0.25 30 3.3 300 9.28 17 83.19
60 3.5 300 99.71 100 0.29 60 10 300 63.19 82 29.77

021601-12 / Vol. 138, APRIL 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/19/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Out Plane. Out plane loads are absorbed by the system to a MC circumferential moment on the nozzle
greater extent than axial loads. Figures 24 and 25 provide guide- ML longitudinal moment on the nozzle
lines for evaluation of loads transferred to the foundation for ves- MT torsional moment on the nozzle
sels with various temperatures and pressures. Percentage of loads P design pressure
for vessels with design pressures between the values displayed T design temperature
can be obtained by interpolation. thk nozzle thickness
Based on these diagrams, effect of all process nozzle loads on Thk vessel thickness
foundation can be calculated easily for single equipment. Nozzle VC nozzle load in circumferential direction
orientation (#) consideration should be given for final summation. VL nozzle load in longitudinal direction
One representative case is explained below. x nozzle location on the vessel
design pressure, P: 14.5 bar xV deflection of the vessel
design temperature, T: 249 deg a temperature expansion coefficient
vessel diameter, D: 5200 mm Dl1 linear thermal expansion of pipe 1
Dl2 linear thermal expansion of pipe 2
DT temperature difference
Axial Loading dVJ axial deflection of the nozzleshell junction
dNO out plane deflection due to the nozzleshell junction
Nozzle d (in.) x # F FRA FRA*(sin #) FRA *(cos #) stiffness
dPO out plane deflection due to the pipe stiffness
N1 10 15,925 0 14,280 14,280 0 14,280 u angle of deflection due to the nozzleshell junction
N2 8 33,350 90 11,420 6852 6852 0 stiffness
N3 6 39,525 45 8570 5142 3636 3636
Total 10,488 17,916

Load in X-directionFRA*(sin #) Appendix 1

Load in Y-directionFRA*(cos #)
This appendix explains how graphs in Figs. 1421 are devel-
oped for each scenario.
Let us take example of Fig. 14, where effect of design tempera-
Out Plane Loading ture is studied for axial load case for percentage of loads trans-
ferred to the foundation. Design pressure is also varied in this
Nozzle d (in.) x # VL FRO FRO*(sin #) FRO*(cos #)
N1 10 15,925 0 10,710 2892 2892 0 scenario.
N2 8 33,350 90 8570 1972 0 1971 In the first case, design pressure is selected as 10 bar and design
N3 6 39,525 0 6420 1349 953 953 temperature as 100  C. Vessel diameter and nozzle diameters are
Total 3845 2924 constant. Based on the vessel, junction, and pipe stiffness, real
load generated in the system is calculated. This real load is com-
Load in X-directionFRO*(sin #) pared with max load as per Table 1 and percentage of load trans-
Load in Y-directionFRO*(cos #) ferred to the foundation is calculated. In this case, percentage of
Total loads in each direction: load is 91.2%. This point is plotted on the Y-axis. Similarly design
X-component 14,333 N and Y-component 20,840 N pressure is varied from 10 bar to 100 bar for each design tempera-
ture (100500  C) and these points are plotted on the Y-axis.
Curves are plotted for each design temperature case by connecting
Nomenclature these points.
A cross-sectional area of the pipe On similar lines, the other figures are developed.
d nozzle outside diameter
D vessel outside diameter
E elastic modulus
F nozzle load in axial direction Appendix 2
FMax;A maximal force axial This appendix describes methodology used for the development
FMax;O maximal force out plane of final graphs shown in Figs. 2224.
FRA real force axial
FRO real force out plane
I moment of inertia of pipe Axial Load Case. For the axial load case (Fig. 22), the influen-
KJA axial stiffness of the nozzleshell junction tial parameters are identified as
KJO out plane stiffness of the nozzleshell junction (a) vessel diameter (D)
KPA axial stiffness of the pipe model (b) nozzle position (x)
KPO out plane stiffness of the pipe model
KP1A axial stiffness of pipe 1 x and D are combined by taking x/D ratio. From all the scenarios,
KP2A axial stiffness of pipe 2 x/D is calculated and for each x/D, for certain pressure (P), per-
KP1O out plane stiffness of pipe 1 centage of load transferred to foundation is noted. These values
KP2O out plane stiffness of pipe 2 are plotted on Y-axis, against x/D values on X-axis for specific
KTotal;A combined stiffness of the vessel, nozzle shelljunction, pressure conditions. The points are enveloped by linear envelop.
and pipe axial This envelope ensures conservative estimate on percentage of
KTotal;O combined stiffness of the vessel, nozzle shelljunction, loads transferred to foundation and also helps to make the graph
and pipe out plane easy to use. To cover the effect of nozzle diameter and design
KVA axial stiffness of the vessel temperature, these graphs are further elevated to include 3%
KVJ axial stiffness of the vessel and nozzleshell junction safety margin.
L vessel length
l1 length of pipe 1 Out Plane Load Case. For the out plane load case
l2 length of pipe 2 (Figs. 2325), the influential parameters are identified as

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology APRIL 2016, Vol. 138 / 021601-13

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/19/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 (a) design temperature (T)
(b) vessel diameter (D)
(c) nozzle diameter (d)
To cater with above parameters, final graphs are generated for
D/d ratio. It is observed from Fig. 18 that the effect of design tem-
perature is substantial when it increases above 300  C. Hence, two
separate graphs are generated for design temperature up to 300  C
and above 300  C.
Percentage of loads are obtained for each D/d ratio from all the
cases of Figs. 1921 generated for varying vessel diameters and
these percentage of loads were plotted on Y-axis against each D/d
for separate design pressure.
These nonlinear graphs are converted into linear trend line (Fig.
23) and are raised by a safety constant of 3% at the first point at the
left side. Percentage of loads are back calculated from these linear
graph for values of D/d 1 and D/d 20 for each case of design
pressure. Now, we have two separate values of percentage of loads
for each ratio of D/d 1 and D/d 20 for each design pressure.
021601-14 / Vol. 138, APRIL 2016
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/19/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
For generation of final graphs, minimum value of percentage of
load is considered for D/d 1 and maximum value of percentage
of load is considered for D/d 20. This graph generated is a linear
one that ensures conservative estimate on percentage of loads trans-
ferred to foundation and also helps to make the graph easy to use.
References
[1] PRG, 2007, NOZZLE PRO Program Manual, Paulin Research Group, Houston,
TX.
[2] PRG, 2011, FE107: If You Can Run a WRC Analysis, You Can Run This FEA
Analysis, Paulin Research Group, Houston, TX, www.paulin.com/FE107.pdf
[3] Wichman, K. R., Hopper, A. G., and Mershon, J. L., 1979, WRC 107: Local
Stresses in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells Due to External Loadings on
Nozzles, Welding Research Council, New York.
[4] Mershon, J. L., Mokhtarian, K., Ranjan, G. V., and Rodabaugh, E. C., 1987,
Revised Bulletin 297: Local Stresses in Cylindrical Shells Due to External
Loadings on NozzlesSupplement to WRC No. 107, Welding Research Coun-
cil, New York.
[5] Integraph, 2012, CAESER II Users Guide, Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
[6] Stephen, P., and Timoshenko, S. W.-K., 1959, Theory of Plates and Shells,
McGraw-Hill, Singapore.
Transactions of the ASME