! PVP-Vol. 235, Design and Anal of Pressure Vessels, Piping, and Components ‘ASME 1292 LOCAL STRESSES IN PIPING AT INTEGRAL ATTACHMENTS B © BY FINITE ELEMENT METHOD ©. Basavaraju and S. R, Kalavar = Bechtel Corporation i Gaithersburg, Maryland : ©.¥. Chern $ Bechtel Corporation ‘San Francisco, California § 6 Total Projected Length of aastmct Rectanguler Attachment fn ; Clrcunferentiaa pirection (Projected” dinension ‘on outside jim the power generation industry integral gurface of the vessel or pipe) welded. attachments” "(iia) “are"often used to Total “Length of” Rectangular support piping systers. The local stresses £2 Attachnent in Longitudinal Direction “Be TH oeations'are conmoniy evaluated Using g, Outside” Diameter of Circuler ‘Ajlndrd's nethod per Welding Research counci? Trunnion attachment iuatin 1207 ‘approach. " Hhe finite element p, Outside Diameter” of Pipe or jpalvsis (FEA) “nethod is very ‘effective ana Cylindrical Vessel srg,gf te mest powerful tecle. However it isp, Mean Dianeter of Pipe or cylindrical costly, ‘tine consuning and is not converter Vested fo geply on a production basis.” onthe other Young's Modulus of Elasticity nanay the. Bijlaard's method is “reletivery Nonent of tnertie simple to use but has linitations interns oy 2 Length of Hodel shegbachment, and pipe ‘size (lee., randy i Longitudinal Moment Beale ne) oy TReRRiS PAPE: the FEA, using 3- ft Circunterential Moment bselig brick elenente\and'sneli elenenter vas Me Torsions! Korent BELLIERH to assess the conservetisn present in 7 Radial Load Bijleard’s) nethoa ‘and aise, to” evaiuace Radius of Etbow stresset when Bijiaard’s “method cannct be & Pipe or cylindrical vessel Wall applied due to the exceedance of Limits of 8 thickness Beek gehtineters, Extensive parametric y, Longitudinal shear studies utilizing FEA nethod covering various YE Cireunterential shear Pipe and attachment sizes vere undertaken, Attachnent Parameter! (8 = c/Dy for fhe results, presented as reduction factore to Square Attach), be applied to WRC-107 results, show that Local (8 = 0n875 do/Dy for circular stresses obtained "fron. “WRC-107 “Set Attachnent) gignificantiy “conservative. "Methods "ts (8: = Cj/Dpi 8-C,/D, for Rectangular evaluate attachnents on elbows and irregulse Attachment) Piped ettachsents are also addressed. “fhese 7 Vessel Paraneter (= D,/27) [asules are considered fo be or benesic tothe Poisson's Ratio industry at large in ‘evaluating neny practice! Bending Stress. Intensity Eltystions: here 'o “parameter exceeds the SS Membrane Stress Intensity Hits of Bijlaard's ‘method without actuel Angie recourse FEA method “for commonly fra Finite Eienent analysis encountered pipe sizes. FEN Finite Elenent Hodel ha Integral Welded Attachnent Nowewctarure aNrRoDUCTION a area of attachnent Integral welded attachments which induce ¢ Length of Square Attachment docel stresses in’ piping are often uses co 27support piping systems. Typically lugs, wrapper plates, trunnions, ete, attached to Pipe by welding or made integral part of the pipe by other fabrication methods are exanples Of integral attachments. ‘The local stresses in piping systens at IWAs are generaily evaluated by engineers in the industry (power, petrochemical, etc.) using Welding Research Council (WRC) ‘Bulletin #107 [1]. The results Of WRCW107 are based on the work performed by Prof. Bijlaard (2,3,44] in early 1950's. The approach’ of WRC-107 is relatively simple and convenient to use on a routine basis with certain limitations in terms of the pipe and attachment paraneters (Yt 6). on the other hand, the finite element analysis method is a’ very powerful and rigorous analysis method requiring computer solution and can be utilized to evaluate local stresses at IAs. The FEA method is relatively cumbersome, costly ‘and tine consuming for application on a routine basis to evaluate local stresses. However, ‘the FEA shod can be used as a benchmark or yardstick assess the degree of conservatism present Simpler methods such as WRC=107- ‘The results of comparison between WRC-107 nethod and FEA method are extremely useful in the initial design of IWAs or in’ the subsequent evaluation for acceptability of IWas experiencing load increases. The results and conclusions generated from this study are judged to be of benefit to the industry at. large in evaluating IWAs to comply with’ the reguirenents of industry codes such as ASME Section TIT [5], ANSI 31.7 [6], and ANST B31-1 7]. BACKGROUND Even though extensive finite elenent studies of local stresses at IWAs are not available in the literature, there are a few papers dealing with specific cases as noted here. Welding Research Council Bulletins 299 (8] presented the resulta based on four finite elenent nodels for very small nozzles (8 = 9.002 to 0.2) on very large vessels (Y= 200 to 20,000). Enera et al. (9) studied elbows with ‘lugs "subjected to “vertical lug loads utilizing ningteen finite elenent models. Basavanhally et al. [10] calculated ‘stress intensification factor for elbows mounted on stanchions based on three finite element. models. Raju [11] evaluated stress indices for use with 45 degree lateral connection based on FEA. Widera et al. {12} compared results fron FEA of pipe with circumferential lug subjected to shear load with results from Welding Research Council Bulletin #198 (13). All these studies showed that there is substantial conservatien present in Bijlaard's method which formed the basis for Bulletins WRC~107 and WRC-198. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE This study considerea thirty seven (37) finite elenent models covering conmonly encountered pipe sizes and attachment sizes and shapes with due recognition of the Limitations of ‘such paranetric studies t” cover all possible variations. in order + supplenent the finite element. “reculy available in the literature, this. study intentionally concentrated on smaller Y values and larger 6 values. This study included rectangular, square, circular trunnion, and tee shaped ‘attachment on straight pipe and circular trunnion attachments on elbows. The results of this study are applicable to cases where Y values are in the range of 3.5 <2 31,5. In ASME code cases [14], the prinary and primary plus secondary stress indices. for local ‘stress evaluation were represented for simplicity and convenience as outlined in WRe~ 198 [13] by conservatively fitted formulas utilizing several nondimensional curves of WRC~107 [1]. ‘Therefore the results trom ASME code cases ‘are naturally more conservative than WRC-107 results. It may be noted that this study did not compare the FEA results with the results of ASME code cases. this paper does not address the effect of attachnent welds. The peak stress indices (K) Gue to attachment welds are important in fatigue related calculations and hence the Ko indices suggested in code cases (14) may be applied to the results of this study in such evaluations. ‘The following are the objectives of this study. To make @ comparative assessnent the results from WRC-107 nethed wix FEA results. To provide guidelines for iocal stress evaluation with larger size IWAS (8°> 0.5) - 3+ To provide a comparison of results of “local stresses for IWAs- on straight pipe versus elbow. 4, To provide guidelines for iocal stress evaluation with odd shaped attachnents. ASSUMPTIONS a. The materials for pipe and attachnent are elastic, honogeneous, and isotropic. 2. The attachment is integral with the Pipe. Total strain compatibility is assuned between the pipe and attachment interfaces. [APPROACH The finite elenent analysis method vas employed to evaluate local stresses in pipin® at integral welded attachments. The gener: Purpose Finite Element Program, ANSYS Geveloped by Swanson Analysis” systens utilized to determine local stresses. Thefinite element models are described in the next section. In general, the contribution to jocal stresses ‘fron ‘radial load (P), longitudinal monent (M.), and circunferential nonent (Mc) as shown ‘in Fig. 1. is nore Significant than fron longitudinal shear load (y), circumferential shear load (V,), and tofsional moment (M;). Therefore,” ‘local stresses from three load cases (P, HM, & Me) only are addressed in this paper. It‘nay Se noted that the local stresses due to loadings. Wi, Vo & My not addressed in thie paper can be. determined from simple strength of materials formulas. FINITE ELEMENT MODELS A total of thirty seven (37) finite elenent models vere created az listed in Table 1, “Included in these models is a model of identical geometry as FEMIA, consisting of but coincident nodes for the of the pipe exterior surface and attechnent inner surface except for the region of one elenent width long the edge” of pipe/attachnent interface. The purpose is to Simulate in a simplistic manner the possible nonintegral behavior of the interior portion {evay from the edges) of the pipe/ettachment interface with larger attachnente, The pipe sites considered include 3", 4", 8%, 10", 12" 26", 18" § 24". The attachment ‘shapes include rectangular, square, circular trunnion ands tee shape. ' Two of the models included wel circular ‘trunnion attachments on 16" long Fadius elbow. Even though a cylindrical straight pipe is an axisymmetric structure, the presence of ‘an integral welded attachment ‘makes the composite structure nonaxisymmetric. Therefore, sinple 2-D axisymmetric models can not be used. Hence, detailed 3-D finite element nogeis vere built to represent the Pipe and IWA. “Taking advantage of geonetrical Symmetry and asymmetry of the loadings considered, twenty seven (27) of the models are quarter size, one (1) of half size, and Rine (9) of full size. x total of thirty-two (32) models used ANSYS STIF«5 3-D solid brick @lenent while 5 of the models used. ANSYS STIF63 elastic quadrilateral shell elenent to build the finite element models. ANSYS STIFED shell elenent was used whenever D,/? ratio is approximately 20 or larger. Fixed boundary conditions were used at the ends of the finite elenept models. Adequate lengths (2 > 2-5 (Rat)'* beyond the edges of welded attachnent Were included in the finite elenent models, Whenever 3-D solid brick elenents were used, there vere 2 to 3 elenente through the thickness of the pipe and attachnent. Fines ssh as used in critical regions of pipe and attachment interface and. coarser. Bech “in farther regions. A reasonable aspect ratio in the vicinity of 3 was maintained inthe critical regions. Plots of three typical finite elenent models are shoun in Figs. 2, 3, and 4. ANALYSIS, METHODOLOGY & RESULTS A linear elastic static anslysis was performed on the various finite element models Gescribed earlier with individually applied unit loads (P, M,, Mc) using ANSYS Finite elenent computer program. The ANSYS progres uses wave front solution procedure for the systen of simultaneous ‘linear equations developed fron the assembled finite elements, (app) = 0K) (vy where (‘app) = applied nodal force load vector (K] = Total stireness matrix {U) = Nodal displacenent vector ‘The FEA is based on the following properties for both the pipe and attachment naterisis, E = 27.9 x 10 psi, and p= 0.3. In general, the critical locations for maximum local stresses in the pipe or shell are at or near the edges of the ‘attachment. The ‘stresses atten: ‘apidly to nominal values within a distance of a few shell thicknesses. The stresses at the critical locations were linearized, i.e., separated into membrane, bending and peak components in accordance with ASME Section Iit rules [5] Using ANSYS post processor Post. A typical plot of the linearized stress intensities is displayed, as distance (DIST) along the thickness of the shell versus stress intensity (SI) in psi, in Fig. 5. The menbrane and Renbrane plus bending stress intensity thus obtained fron FEA were compared with’ those obtained fron WRc-107 (1 & 16) and. are Presented as factors (WRC-107 to FEA stress intensity ratio) in Tables 2, £4. For each finite elenent model, up to 4 WRC-167 (ME-210) evaluations (if applicable) vere nade based on 8 and Y parameters as noted in Table 1. ME-210 [26] is a Bechtel developed computer progren for determining local stresses in cylindrical shells based on WRC-107 data. ME-210 elso extrapolates WRC-107 results for larger attachnent sizes (i.e., when B > 0-5) associated with metheds (1) @ (2). In order to make a comparative evaluation gf FEA results and WRC-107 (ME-210) results, jocal stress intensities are determined using WRe-107" based on the following 4 methods depending on the attachment size as outlined below. “The ratios of stress intensities obtained fron WRC-107 and finite elenent. analysis are identified by (1), (2), (3) € (4) in Tables 2 thru 4. Method (1) uses actual Pipe and attachnent sizes. Methods (2) f° (3), applicable for larger attachment sizes, \use ctual pipe size but reduced attachnent size. Method (4), also applicable to. larger attachnent sizes, uses increased pipe (or Vessel) diameter but actual attachment cizec A brief description of these 4 methods is ac follows. Method (1): ‘This method uses actual attachnent size SSS SSSand ie applicable only whei 8 < 0.7 for square attachments a0, < 0.7 for circular attachments By & By < 0.5 for rectangular attachments Method (2): (Reduced Attachnent Approach) thie method uses artificially reduced attachnent size for rectangular attachments when both 8, & 8, > 0.5. The artificially reduced attactiment is the Jargest square attachment that can be inscribed in the rectangular attachnent such that 0.5 < 8 < 0.7. For large Fectangular attachnents with both By & By 20.7, this method uses artificially Feguced square attachment such that 8 = 0.7. For large rectangular attachnents with one of 8; or 8 2 0.5 (or 0.7), Feduced attachnent such that larger of 8, 8, = 0.5, i.e. method (3) shall be used. For large circular attachnents (8 > 0.5 and 4/02, 0-7), this method uses an artificially reduced attachment such that 4/0, = 0.7. For large circular attachments with 8 2 0.5 and d,/D, < 0.7, this Bethod uses actual attachment. For large square attachnents (8 > 0.7), this method uses an artificially reduced square attachment such that 8 = 0.7. For large square attachments with 0.5 < 8 < 0.7 this method uses actual attachnent size. Method (3): (Reduced Attachment Approach) For large square or circular attachnents with 8 "> 0-5, this method utilizes an artificially reduced attachment such that B= 0.5. For. large rectangular attachments with 8, & 8) > 0.5, this nethod utilizes an artiffeially reduced Square attachment of 8 = 0.5. for large rectangular attachments with either 5, oF 8; > 0.5, this method utilizes! an artificially reduced rectangular attachment such that the larger of 8; oF 8; = 0.5 leaving the other 8 as is. Method (4): approach) (Increased Vessel Diameter While the methods (2) & (3) described above artificially reduce the attachnent size for larger attachments, method (4) artificially increases vessel mean @ianeter leaving the attachment Ginensions in tact for WRC-107 purposes. For large square or circular attachments with B > 0.5, method (4) utilizes Increased vessel mean dianeter such that B= 0.5. For large rectangular attachments with B, and/or 6; > 0.5 method (4) utilizes increased vessel mean @ianeter such that larger of 8, or 8; = 0.5. IRREGULAR (TEE) SHAPED ATTACHMENTS ‘the results fron FEA for a tee shaped avtachnont on straight pipe are conpered with FEA revulte and WnC-lo? Posulte tree 4 other models, ranely a rectangular attachment. with Ueeivelent "achenta "et inertian tie) for “eee Shapes oa ‘aquare etcachnene with “equivalent tee hg eitce “Shes Matapes'” releanguice tEtacnabn containing onty the web portion of RestCtomay, Cand e'? cectanguter Rttachoent Streafiey onty ene lange portion ‘of eee depicted "in Fig. €. in Order to" obtain: the $iRecE"Ginensichs Se the vectangle based ot pooant Of inertia equivalency. the nowente of Thortla azoct gentselanl seed of tee shape are aqusted "to" the ‘corresponding ‘nonents of TREE. of°a Feceangular shapes riger'? thea Le" Shov “ine “coupafinss “oh "Finic alatent Fesulve’ tor the Five acdels, (hese ‘chares Tndleste “thats Ia. meiner aronieations for°l test"fnape aeeachnent t7e oieplabies "rom" Einte Vaianene vresulee Viewpoints” Ig)" approach "ie" lightly tnsebecrvaeive Yor natbrane component due te, aosehe"iouaing ‘and™An and ‘Gitoge approsched are too conservative for M, moment loading as ann bevasted fron Piges 7 "thee 2s In WRC-198_[13}, Ty, approximation was suggested for irregular “shaped attachnents. This study attenpted to verify this suggestion fron a finite element point of view. I,, approximation is conservative relative to FEA ‘nen WRC-107 results are based on artificially reduced attachment size to make 8 S'0.5. The same is true for web only and flange only approximations. Aj, approximation also. gives WRC-107 results which are conservative relative to FEA. I,, and web only approximations ere not acceptable for evaluating membrane stress intensity due to Me moment loading when increased vessel diameter approach is a: used to make larger of 8, and B, = 0.5 when actual B and B; > 0.5. ‘Therefore, I,,, approximation and use of wRC-107, is acétptable for tee shape attachnents, except for membrane component due £o Me moment loading with method (4). For other odd shaped attachments such as U and H Shapes, Ty approximation is also suggested to evaluate Yocal stresses based on WRC-107. ATTACHMENTS ON ELBOWS There are two models which consist of circular trunnion attachments on long radius elbows. There are two other models which are exactly the same except that the circular trunnion attachments are on straight pipe {nstead of on long radius elbow. Finite element analysis for P', M', and M' loadings Was performed on the above models and the Fesulting ratios of WRC-107 to FEA elbow Stress intensity were summarized in Table For WRC-107 purposes, the loads P', Hand M were resolved as shown in Fig. 13 and then th.resolved loads (P,V.,M.MoyM;) acting on straight pipe were used. Figs. 14/4 15° show the comparison of finite element results for elbow & straight pipe end WRC-207 results “jased on methods 1, 2, 3, or 4 designates as | RCLO?=1E, 2E, 3E, 4£ using resolved loadings. It should be noted fron Table 4 that WRC 107 results, obtained by considering vessel vhich is an elbow as a straight pipe and resolving the loads, are conservative relative to FEA results for elbow. For WRC-i07 purposes, either decreased attachnent size approach or increased vessel diameter approach is acceptable. Ancther important conclusion fron this study (as can be deduced from Figs. 14 & 15) is that FEA results for a straight pipe are in general higher then the FEA results for an elbow with the same attachment. only menbrane component due to P loading is marginally higher for elbow than straight pipe. The WRC- 107 results based on resolved loadings were all higher than FEA results for elbow. Judging fron the perspective of ‘local Stresses, Figs. 14 £ 15 indicate thet a dousle curvature shell such as an elbow is better then a single curvature shell such as a straight pipe (which is better than a flat plate) and is nore effective in transmitting the loads. "This doesnot mean that attachnents should be placed on elbows in Preference to straight pipe portion since jocel stress is only a portion of tota! stress and general piping stresses are usually higher for elbows due to stress intensification. In addition, there are other considerations such as obtaining the proper contour of the attachment to conforn to the elbow surface. Therefore, attachments on elbovs should be avoided a& much as possible Bar charts conparing the FEA results for straight pipe and elbow and WRC-10) reculte are shown in Figs. 14 and 25. The factors shown in Table 4 may be applied to WRewloy results for circular trunnion attachments on long radius elbows. These factors indicate the existence of substantial conservatiss in WRC-107 results, Even though this study included circular trunnion attachments on long redius elbove, consideration of equivalent straight pipe & resolved loadings and evaluation of local stresses based on WRC~107 for other attachnent shapes (such as square, rectangular and tee Shape attachnents) on long or short radius elbows is suggested. of course, there are no factors based on FEA available at the present tine to reduce WRC-107 stress results, LARGE ATTACHMENTS 180 DEGREES (CIRCUMFERENTIALLY EXTENDING There ere 4 models in this study that gonsidered rectangular attachments extending 380 degrees circunferentially and thres quarters to two pipe diameters longitudinally. The results fron finite element enalysis, 3 expressed as factors i.e. WRC-107 to FEA stress intensity ratio, are presented in Table 2. It may be noted that WRC-107 is not readily applicable to euch large 6 values. However, three cther alternative approaches ive,, methods (2), (3) & (4) of utilizing WRe= 107 Were investigated. WRC-107 results by these approaches are conservative relative to FEA results. Therefore, the factors from Table 2 can be applied to divide WRC-107 input loadings. The factors in Table 2 for large attachments extending 180 degrees circunferentially do include a correction term of 1.31 for menbrane plus bending stress intensity due te Me leading. This correction tern is obtained by comparison of finite element results of FEMIN and. an additional ‘model. to. account for possible nonintegral behavior of the interior Portion (away from the edges) of attachnent. This additional model is identical to FEMIA in terns of pipe size, attachment size and loading but the attachment ie integral with the pipe around the edge of attachment (one element wide) only and has coincident nodes in the interior portion of the attachment (i.e-, for the interface of the pipe outeide surface and attachnent. inner " surface) ‘The Gitferences between the results of these two Rodels were insignificant except for menbrane plus bending stress intensity due to Me Toading. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study represents an extensive effort to evaluate local stresses in pipe at ineegral Welded attachnents by finite element netnod. There were 37 models which were evaluated in this study. The models included a variety of Pipe sizes 3" to 24" diameter and attachsent Sizes ond shapes such as square, rectangular, circular trunnion and tee shape. Circular trunnion attachments on elbows were also included in this study. In general, WRC=107 results are conservative relative to FEA results. Where applicable, the results fron FEA were compared vith WRC-107 results and the conservetisn in WRC-107 is expressed as factors: WRC-107 to FEA stress intensity ratio for menbrane and menbrane plus bending components for three critical loadings, namely Fadial load (P); longitudinal moment (i)? circumferential monent (Mc) In order to take direct benefit of the results of this finite elenent study (without actual recourse to the finite ‘element enalysis), the input loadings (P, M & Me) co WRC~107 (Ite-210) ‘method may be reduged by the appropriate factors in Tables 2, 3 4 when applicable (3.5 < Y< 31.5) to determine local stresses. ‘Even ‘though this FEA study copsidered modulus of elasticity, £ = 27.9 % 10* psi and Poisson's ratio, w= 0.3 for pipe and attachnent materials, it may be noted thet the stress results from thie study are applicable to all ductile materials in the elastic range with w= 0.3-The conclusions from this study are ummarized below. Tor analier attachnents, 6 < 0.5, the “tppiicable “tactors’ thoin’ fh Table" may be applied eo" ehtai? input loadings: “Et generen WRecig) Fesuits are conservative except toc pesbrone component due tonhe peg seE Joading‘on attachments ehar Son nent thin “in "elrcunterenciat gireevery (843 0-5 § 847,.5 10) acne te onset Luge, the “aenbcane comoneytte ie-io7 Fesuite due es arom, of loading shouid be mu1tipifag Porent for’ snell aquare. attechustee™ 3 2,25) and ton oe naenes (8 gttachnents!on pipes vith GEE 3. in practice, Re Newt is YS ehcountered on such artacinnts, For larger attachnents, 3 > 0.5, intentionally reduced attachment’ 7h yeduced to 0.5) for WRC-107 purpose is acceptable." “wnc-aoP "esee joadings “may “be adjusted sins applicable factors in Tables 30°59 and 4 to reduce conservatice, Por larger attachments (i.e, 5 > Oi ROE MG ONISMOs TI ueawer act Feduced attachment and extrapelaces Tesults of WRC-107 corresponsing te 2 = 0:7 for square attachments any $o/0, = 0.7 tor circular attechnerts if jfcceptable. wRc-to7 dere joadings may “be adjusted using applicable factors fron Tables a." #4 to reduce conservation. For large attachnents extending 180 gegrees circunferentially, ape applicable factors shown in Tabie's may | be applied to WRC-107 “inpus loadings. For pipes with Y < 5, wre-ioz results with reducea’ “veacy thickness to force Y~ parsestee equal to 5 are conservative, For larger attachnents, increased vessel diameter approach’ to make at 0:8, for WRC=107" purposes “se” for agceptable for Pthe “toi towret To determine _nenbrane strgse intensity due to P loading when Ys 5 for rectangular attachments (8 > creat enextending 180 degrees circunferentialiy) To .tetermine menbrane stress intensity due to. M momene "fee Fectangular attachments "which {cf SEY marrow in “cireunterentint direction. “(8, $0.2 € OYE ony To. determine membrane stress intensity due to M: moment "far rectangular attachments “which £o% 2 ser eeMetTOY in circunterential direction. (8, <'0.2 6 byB, > hay To _fetermine nenbrane stress Antensity due to" Me moment Tees gireular’ trunnion attachments (£05 Table 2) with B> 0.5. 7+ FRE oda (tee) shaped attachnents, WRC-107 results using an equinenest Eectangular attachment ‘bhees ent serene NeFELa equivalency (f° approximation) is acceptable. } approximation is not acceptable whit the jaitreased “vessel dismeree approach’ is used to everecee The Ronent of inertia equivalency approach is also suggested for thet Shapes of attachnents such se n't'y shapes. Tee attachments on etbovs, treating the ‘attachnent to ‘be on steaigh? Pipe, resolution of the loading ort ore er ee iytRerio7 te genctalne Sonservative. The factors “snene ti? Table 4 nay be applied to Wnenee input loadings for circular trunnion, attachments on long radius eines FOF cases not listed in Table 4, it is suggested that the applicait factors for attachments on bersiere Pipe from Tables 2&3 be usea’ S. EZ. MerRre equrvatenns 2 inch = 2.540000 x 10% n 2 lb) = 4.448222, 1 pei = 6.894757 x 10° nya? ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS cistnthOrs wish to express their sincere rPPrSmttion te J-k. Sheny 8. Be tansie eee Bslatanee inne tay and 6. erin segms N the Eines 1 creating and/or checking sos ese wlan {unite elenent models, the aurea of FIED. £? Qerese their cracituae coe ee valuebie erg ig, critical review “and” many valuable suggestions.i weouransey gan Taare STP ane Sr. wveee em een Bas nenivee Bassa sa. wa aeae Sa araaie etre. noe a 08.3 Pan ese Peery Table 1: Finite Element 4 for WRC-107 (MEY odes an 210) 14 8 and Y Paranetersnee OER RATE SESE te nt 2 6 ne a one ce ofc ta "Teasing Yo estar tenn etacts 0 rte © ty BELO lonting an 35 Yond <5 A Hyd” 87 ung meted (4) © ty BU RO Re “Ldn fr narrow shear Lan pe attends a ated by # © BUR 0 Re “Leaing Yor aqure attachments Oh £0.28. TH Londing fe rot rary ensued an uch atten © raetors ter eieutartrarmion attach; 5.648 tare, ciroular trian, restengur atacaents respect ty 12 eters wan 35 © Vana <8 ieere fie tom oF Re Loning on wher Lp type attache (8 actors for Wear Lup pe Atacments ith gry > 6b 2.2 lee TT Some ety a tec Yor 8.7 «fe s 8. oh ttn for mnt ©) (4) of tie able crvesdig te 08 «ge 7 al ae 34Cylinre soar Externl Losdings on cylindrical shell Fig. 2 Fig. 4: FEM 6B = 16" L. R. Elbow x 12 Trunnion Fig. 2 : FEM 138 - 16" Pipe x 16" stanchion Pig. $+ Lineartaes (nax.) ntenatey plot = ron 128 Hiretntaren Ted hotest he SSP ae ty 6her eee new Kee te weeres fer os ary Pe te TE thnow ‘utsie radion of Pipe Garon | aSPECR, Pipe 5 ae eee Rel ee RRs oa Peet. ripe eee 1a Byles Coperion tor ane. snipe rps enn a REFERENCES. - 20. ne a2. a. as. as. 16. Wichman, K. R., Hopper, A, G., and Mershon, J. L., “Local Stresses in Spherical and cylindrical shells Due to External loadings," Welding Research Council Bulletin #107, Rev. 3, April 1972. Bijlaard, P. P., "stresses from Radial Loads and External Moments in cylindrical Pressure Vessels," Trans. ASME, Vol. 77, 1955, pp. 805-816. Bijiaard, P. P., "Stresses in spherical Vessels from Local Loads Transferred by @ Pipe," Welding Research Council Bulletin #50, Part 1, May 1959. Bijiaara, P. P., "Additional Data on Stresses’ in’ cylindrical shells. Under Local Loading," Welding Research Council Bulletin #50, Part 2, May 1959. "ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section 111, Nuclear Power Plant Components," ' anerican Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1963. "Code for Nuclear Power Piping,” USAS BD1.7-2969. ASME Code for Pressure Piping, “Power Piping," ANSI/ASHE 531.2 - 1983. Mershon, J. L., Mokhterian, K. G. Ve, and Rodabaugh, E. Ce, Stresses in Cylindrical shells Due to External Loadings on Nozzles ~ Supplenent to WRC Bulletin No. 107 ~ (Revision 1)," Welding Research Council Bulletin No. 297, Sept. 1987. Enera, T- K., and Rossov, §£. C., "Streises in Elbows Created by ‘Supporting Lug Load," ASME Paper No. 79-PVP-51, June 1979. Besavanhally, N. R., and Tonet, Ni, "A Study of Stress Distribution in Elbows Mounted on Stanchions," Paper No. F8/7, ‘Trans. of 7th International conference on Structural Mechanics In Reactor Technology (SHIRT), 1983, pp. 369-394. Raju, P. P., "3D Analysis of a 45 Degree Lateral connection with 4/D = 0.5, D/T = 40 Under Internal Pressure and In-Plane Monent Loading," ASME Paper No. 82-PVP~ 7. Widera, 6. E. 0, Kitz, G. 7., Verma, V. K., and Lan, 3! S., "Piping shear Lug stress Analysis,""' Paper No. F2/9, Trangactions of ‘the 4th International, Conference on structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMIRT) , 1977. Dodge, W. G., "Secondary Stress Indices for Integral’ structural Attachments to Straight Pipe," Welding Research Council Bulletin No. i98, Sept. 1974. "ASME Boiler and’ Pressure Vessel code cases," Nuclear Power Plant Components. N-i22"1, and N-391-2: July 24, 1989. N-318-4, and N-392-1: December 11, i989. ANSYS Engineering Analysis System User's Manual, for ANSYS Revision 4.4, May 1, 1989. Bechtel standard conputer Program, "Local Stresses in Cylindrical Shells ' Due to External Loading," ME-210, Version 5, December 15, 1982.eae pp-91-002. REY © (cnaxrapant ® ee REVIEWED BY? (a. San) PREPARED BY?TABLE OF CONTENTS ritle gable of Contents Notations 4.0 Introduction 2.0 References 3.0 General Notes for Application 4.0 Methodology 5.0 Conclusions Tables 1. WRC-107/FEA Stress Intensity Factors 2. wRe-107/FEA Stress Intensity Factor for rece. Attachments, Bz > 0+7+ 15 sch that doyae' Son” For large square attachments (8 > 0.7), this an artificially reduced square attachment such Method (3) For large square or circular attachments with 8 > 0.5, this method utilizes an artificially reduced attachment such that & = 0.5. For large rectangular attachments with B, & B,> 0.5, this method utilizes an artificially reduced square attachment of B = 0.5. For large rectangular attachments with either 8, or 8,> 0.5, this method utilizes an artificially reduced rectangular attachment such that the larger of 8; or 8, = 0.5 leaving the other 6 as is. Method (4 While methods (2) & (3) described above artificially reduce the attachnent size for larger attachments, method (4) artificially increases vessel mean diameter leaving the attachment dimensions intact for WRC-107 (ME-210) purposes. For large square or circular attachments with B> 0.5, this —— method (4) utilizes increased vessel mean diameter such that 551023: For large rectangular attachments, this method (4) utilizes increased vessel mean diameter such that larger of B; or By = 0.5. vi The following are the limitations or restrictions for using method (4). Method (4) should not be used to determine membrane stress intensity due to P-loading when ¥ <5 for rectangular attachments (8 > 0.7 and extending 180° circumferentially). Method (4) should not be used to determine membrane stress intensity due to M, & Mc Moment Loading for rectangular attachments which are very narrow in circunferential direction such as shear lugs (B, < 0.2 and 82/8; > 4.6). Method (4) should not be used for circular attachments to determine membrane stress intensity due to Mc Moment Loading (B > 0.5).dd_Shaped At! ° tac! bo For Tee shape attachments, WRC-107 (ME-210) results using an equivalent rectangular attachment based on moment of inertia equivalency are acceptable. Ie: approximation is not acceptable when the increased” vessel diameter approach mehtod (4) is used to evaluate membrane stress intensity due to M, moment loading. This approach is also suggested for other shapes of attachments such as H & U shapes, Consider attachment to be on equivalent straight pipe. Resolve loadings as shown below. Run ME-210 (WRC-107) using straight pipe and resolved loadings. R = Radius of Elbow "lye 1 () = My = outside radius of pipe SP Me 2 ve cos @ =_R_ spn AFH) , Ne He re? =P’ sine v= P’ cose M/s My LN he nice 7 sine \wy; = ng cose i h Ef Here, P, Vi, M, Mc, & Mr are the resolved loadings at the interface of the elbow and attachment. Factors from Table 3 may be applied to circular Trunnion attachments on L. R. elbows. For cases not listed in Table 3, it is suggested that the applicable factors for attachments on straight pipe from Tables 1 & 2 be used. In addition, general piping stresses shall be intensified using applicable elbow stress indices or stress intensification factor and combined with local stresses.5.0 CONCLUSIONS: The conclusions from the FEA study in Ref. #1 are summarized below: Where applicable, the results from FEA were compared with WRC-107 results and the conservatism in WRC-107 is expressed as factors: WRC-107/FEA stress intensity ratio for membrane and membrane plus bending components for three critical loadings, namely radial load (P); Longitudinal Moment (M,); & Circumferential Moment (M,). The FEA study concentrated on larger 8 parameter values and smaller Parameter values (3.5 $ $ 31.5)The models included in FEA Study of Ref. #1 consisted of a variety of pipe sizes 3" = 24" ¢ and attachment sizes and shapes such as square, rectangular, circular trunnion and tee shape. Circular trunnion attachments on elbows were also included in this study. The data is concisely presented only in 3 Tables (1, 2 & 3) essentially for application purposes in terms of usé with WRC-107 results. i. For smaller attachments, 6 < 0.5, factors shown on Table 1 may be applied to WRC-107 results. In general WRC-107 results are conservative except for membrane component due to M, moment loading on attachments that are very thin in circumferential direction (Bp < 0.5 & 82/8, 2 10) such as shear lugs. The membrane component of WRC-107 results due to Mc - moment loading if encountered should be multiplied by 1.3 for small square attachments (8 < 0.28) and for rectangular attachments on pipes with 3.5 <¥ < 5. 2. For larger attachments, 8 > 0.5, intentionally reduced attachment (8 reduced to 0.5) for WRC-107 purposes is acceptable. WRC-107 results may be adjusted using results in Tables 1, 2 and 3 to reduce conservatism. 3. For larger attachments (i.e., B > 0.7 or do/Dp > 0.7), use of the reduced attachment and extrapolated results of WRC-107 corresponding to B = 0.7 for square attachments and 4,/D, = 0.7 for circular attachments is acceptable. WRC-107 results may be adjusted using applicable factors from Tables 1 & 3 to reduce conservatism. For large attachments extending 180° circumferentially, the factors shown in Table 1 may be applied to WRC-107 results. 5. For pipes with Y< 5, WRC-107 results with reduced vessel thickness to force Y- parameter equal to 5 are conservative.For larger attachments, increased vessel diameter approach to make 8 = 0.5 for WRC-107 purposes is not acceptable for the following situations only: To determine membrane stress intensity due to P-loading when Y <5 for rectangular attachments (8 > 0.7 and extending 180° circumferentially). To determine membrane stress intensity due to M, moment for rectangular attachments which are very narrow in circumferential direction. (8; S 0.2 & 82/8; > 4.6) To determine membrane stress intensity due to M, moment for rect. attachments which are very narrow in circumferential direction. (8; < 0.2 & 82/B,> 4.6) To determine membrane stress intensity due to Mc Moment for circular trunnion attachments (See Table 1) with B> 0.5. For Odd (tee) shaped attachments, WRC-107 results using an equivalent rectangular attachment based on moment of inertia. equivalency (I,, approximation) is acceptable. Jeg, approximation is not acceptable when the increased vessel diameter approach is used to evaluate membrane stress intensity due to M, moment loading. WRC-107 results based on equivalent square attachment (area equivalency) are also conservative relative to FEA results. The moment of inertia equivalency approach is also suggested for other shapes of attachments such as H & UD shapes. For attachments on elbows, treating the attachment to be on straight pipe, resolution of the loading, and use ef WRC-107 is generally conservative for attachments on elbows. The factors shown in Table 3 may be applied to WRC-107 results for circular trunnion attachments on L.R. elbows. For cases not listed in Table 3, it is suggested that the applicable factors for attachments on straight pipe from Tables 1 & 2 be used.“ B> RMA SSENIHM SuoLOMs — I] ‘ABALLOIES3Y SINSMHOVLLY MTNONYLOIY ‘NOINNNL ETNOUID “BUNS ‘2's “HOVLLY NOINNNL UYINOUIO Hod SuOLOWS §—() “SINSINHOWLLY HONS NO G3LELNNOONT ATIYAUON LON S1 ONIGYOT SiH 870 5 9 HUM SININHOVLLY 3¥¥nOS YOY NIaVOT OW OL ang “XO o “1 AM GRION SW SINANHOWLAY 3dAL O17 WY3HS MOULYN HOS ONIOVOT ON OL ang Soo “) QoHLaM BNisn £0 2 1%%5 pua gs RBS Se Nau OMGVO] OL any mo “GUON SV SLNSNHOVLLY NOINNNUL tvINOUID Hod ONIaYOT OW OL and “po ‘SNOLLYNLIS ONIMOTIO 3HL YOd (1 * SHOLOVA) SALLVALISNOD LON ZOL-OUM anne) AOWLLY HONS NO C3¥S1NNOONS ATIVNON LON St ONIGYOT SH “INNHOWLLY 34kt 907 wvaHs (0 528901 2 eee (tt ATMMUNGU2NNOED) MOMMY HOH MOVOTO 30d INSNOMOD SAVIN So Sunn a ea ‘SBN ‘wnou| 08h omanawa locol sve ® PL0<8 Leo's} ove © ‘nowy loulese @ ‘30uv7 G16") so zo g0 (z's) or @ HOYLE (ort) art w 304v7) loos) 21's wl so>¢ oon OW wouy es 30) ™ ux, — conan é —105 Ma 0% < 1474 uum swowyoune och Bry seus 10) ex0}004 —{ } er one een oe ee ee _ a stesoloos {ses} eo tro oh it et ork () Cas fer2} sez ae eet wh ce) ore 09% ook ae re @) sore Sottte “te ore co COHLET En H a‘pesn 69 yous 205 °a °B > 0 04 Bupuodsanos oe sna 10 (r) 9 (6) spoxgeus 10) Bo}00) 01 ‘0 § 2a > £0104 . at ee on oe we o Sa} “er we ose we oor ne © w0<29| coe sz woz ist ore ose @ ae on on wt we we o 5 2a ae wt woz et coe coz C) £05 >s0 ee eek oot eon 99% ot w forme | “to! foro | “Ae ‘Dotto “oe Geaep CALCULATION SHEET 108 NO, ‘CALE. NO- REV.NO| SHEET NO. ‘ORIGINATOR DATE (CHECKED DATE Correction Factors For Swear Stresses: PAPeucane FACTOR Input Loaps Fe Metot us[Mezios [METS |-[etim nee mmce M. Ve My Sue “|e Mew (2>: | Medium — | SE ene ee] Menon (3): | GQ | nae ees eae les iF Mente (4)? : Ee oy dl 1 ‘|e ET 1S conseavarwe To USE FACTOR Feoniy. Je FoR cinculaR Awacumensts : = 4 oFoR SQvaee [Reergucuan mie 2m), 2 P [ere Ce ve =| Fe Larger or 24a) yt E B40. aS Vee © Care = MAK oF (Cac teeat on ©), ant Comin = MIN OF CeDachuat 2R (Crachiel MeTHeD (2) (@) = &) = meter (3): G) = Q = Mete> (4): Engine CEVECTRA TECHNOLOGIES INC. COOPER NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION File No, 0084—00217.F02.06 NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT CS-H18A _ NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT NODE @6 — | SHEAR LUG EVALUATION PER TI-094 | | GEOMETRY INPUT i Do 12.750 in Ro 6.375 in t 0.3750 in ' 6.188 in aut = 1.000 in La 0.875 in Sun Pipe, | 22 = 1,000 in bb 0.975 in Ax kai ‘) | a 26 (File Wels) Le = 0500 in no ee Lesa) = 025in ts = 0.500 in =<" | RAW | MATERIALS PROPERTIES | ' i sy 31000 psi | ay Sh = +5000 psi Se 15000 psi Sas 22500 psi NOMENCLATURE DIAGRAM LUG LOADS.ANO PIPE STRESSES (bs & os [ASMEEQUATION [Ege | £998 | €a9C | Eq 60 | Range” | Peak"? | Press Pinar [NOMENCLATURE ow | cave Levene tevp | sect | Meets | NA xa Uy I ol ol al oi Ol al | Sy of ol | @ 0 0 2 1350 ye09| 2074/24 tes) 21141 | (Mu = 506 | 603 | 778 793) 663 793 | MN of of of of o| oF imt al ° | ol ol 2 | | (Mba Zol oO} ol ol 0. ol [NOMENCLATURE | wz | auemvz | aun | omen | woe ones eet tbe) PIPE STRESS 623 | 4877 | 7024 | 7098 | 1573} 4250 |_ 2550 | MT(bar) = Greater of ( MT/ (LoL + (LeLa] , MT/[(08 + O.0S(LaLe Lea] } 4 24ss Disteeureo To 4 Laas : fe LS ORG) WHEEE i '4 Pipe CLAMP THICKNESS = 0,375" (WOTE’ LOADS I~ ¥.owees ont) LIMITATIONS Gamma=rit = 165 <50 oK Betat = Li/r 0.081 505 oK Beta2 = Lair = o.081 505 OK | Beta t x Beta 2 = a.007 $0075 oK i | ATTACHMENT PROPERTIES A= 4unt = 1.000 in (2k = 9) (Ly a= 0.167 in L2N = (aig (Ltr) = 0.167 in? © sion | a I I — a7 Fepared ByiDate | Po woe. | 1 of a Checked By/Data Tru Nev 44 | | i goe2.- 3454VECTRA TECHNOLOGIES INC. ject COOPER NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION File No. 0084~00217.F02.04 Sviner NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTAICT CS—HieA, t NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT NODE 88 SHEAR LUG EVALUATION PER TI-034 (con STRESS INDICES CT = 7.84 (Gamma) ~1.64] (Beta 1) (Beta 2) ((Nu) *1.54] = 1.0 CL = 0.51 [(Gamma) ~ 1,74) (Beta 1) (Beta 2)? [(Nu) ~4.74] = 1.0 CN = 0.76 [(Gamma) ~ 1.90] (Beta 1)? (Beta 2) [(Nu)*3.40} > 1.0 Nu = =[X1 cos(Thata) + Y1 sin(Theta) | ~ (1/A9) [XI sin(Theta) — ¥1 cos(Theta) [2 X1 = Xo + log (Beta 1) L Yi = Yo + log (Beta 2) index Ao | Theta *! Xo Yo | Xt M1 Nu Cor 221 40) 0.007005) = 1.08) 1.08) 7508 cL 2.0) 50] =045/-055/ —1.54) 1.64] apap oN. 161 40] =075)=060[ =1.84) =1.69/ 2.492] = 23 2 1.62 1.84 BT = (2g) CT e181 BL = (2/3)CL 1.082 é 1.207 LOCAL STRESSES SMU = ETOMVAL + (BLYMUZIL + (ENYMNNZIN + QH/2L)(La) + G22KLALb) + MT(bar) (Eqa1.9-1) SNL = (CTWAVAL + (CLYIMLAVZIL + (CNIMNAVZIN + Q1*/2(L1)(La) + Q2+IL2\(L) + MT(oan (Eq31.3-2) SPL = KL(SNL) 2 tiers (€q3.1.2-3) SNLIT = (CTYW*YAL + (CLIMML**YZIL + (CNIMNT/ZIN + Q1**/2(L1)(La) + Q2r*/SLZ)(Lb) + MT**(ban) (Eq313~4) ASME EQUATION [Eq 8 Eq. 98 Eg. 9C &q.90_| Range* | Peak** SMU [ses] 6205) toser 10788) I 1 [SNL | t 11170) SPL | [sara] | [SN I I I i [13388] ‘sion 2 | | Page 38 Prepared ByiDate | eo uholge | loo as Checked ByiDate | ItD_u Novdy IVECTRA TECHNOLOGIES INC. COOPER NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION File No. 0084—00217.F02.04 er NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT Cs-HisA t NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT NODE 8 4€AR LUG EVALUATION PER TI=034 (cont QDIFIED CODE EQUATIONS 2. (8) | PDo!st + MAYZ + SML 41787 1.0 Sy = 31000 psi. OK (€a9.1.3-5) | 2. (98) PmDo/at + (MA'+ MB)/Z + SML 15692 = 1.2 Sy 37200 psi_ OK (€99.1.9-8) | 2. (90) | PmDo/st + (MA’+MBY/Z + SML 2o1ss 1.5 Sy = 46500 psi_ OK (€49.1.3-8) 2. (90) PmDo/at + (MA' + MB)/Z + SML 20433 <2.0 Sy = 62000 psi OK (Eq3.1.3-6) | 2, (10) MCW + SPL2 21e7a sSa = 22500 psi (€q31.3-7) :0.() } OK PDojét + (MA'SMC)/Z+SML+SPLI2 98496 1.0 0.51. (1)'-7*8,8,7n*"* > 1.0 0.76 (7)""°8,8an?-4? > 1.0 1 1 =~, cos +, sin) ~ 2 Ox, sin - ¥, cos)? Xi = Xo + logsobs Yi = Yo + logsoB2 Load to 8 Xo Yo Thrust 222407. 0) ne Longitudinal ‘moment 20° 50° 045-055 Circumferential ‘moment 18 40° 075-060CASE N-318-4 ‘CASES OF ASME BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE Proval Date: Dacem: 11, 1989 ‘See Numeric index for expiration ‘and any reaffirmation dates. Case N-318-4 Procedure for Evaluation of the Design of Rectangular Cross Section Attachments on Class 2 or 3 Piping Section III, Division 1 Inquiry: What procedure may be used to evaluate the design of rectangular cross section welded attachments on Class 2 or Class 3 pipe under Section UI, Division 17 Reply: It is the opinion of the Committee that the Procedures listed below may be used to evaluate the design of rectangular cross section welded attachments on Class 2 or Class 3 pipe under Section IML, Division 1, 1.0 LIMITATIONS TO APPLICABILITY 11 The attachment is welded to the pipe by (a) a full penetration weld, (©) @ fillet or partial penetration weld along at least three sides of the attachment, or (6) a fillet or partial penetration weld along the ‘wo long sides of the attachment, where the length of the long side is at least three times the length of the short side 1.2 The attachment material and pipe material have essentially the same moduli of elasticity and coeffi cients of thermal expansion, 13 8, < 05, B < 05, and the product f, x p, < 0.075, where 8, and 8, are defined in 2.0. 14 The attachment is made on straight pipe, with the nearest edge of the attachment weld located at a minimum distance of Vt from any other weld or other discontinuity; r and ¢ are defined in 2.0. For multiple attachments located at a distance less than Vit to each other, the stress effects for each individ- ual attachment shall be superimposed, sa 15 DJt < 100, 2.0 DEFINITIONS (SEE ALSO FIG. 1.0) ‘mean pipe radius, in, ‘+= nominal pipe-wall thickness, in, Dj= outside diameter of pipe, in. yer i= Ly B=Lyr Ly and L, are defined in Fig. 1.0 L, = lesser of L; and 4 in. lesser of L; and & in. L,=lesser of L, and Ly, in. greater of L, and L, 7.64 (y)' B,B.n' > 1.0 0.51 (7) B,B2nt™ > 1.0 0.76 (y)!* B28. = 1.0 = (X, cos @ + Y, sin @) — 1/4, (x, Y, cos 0)? Xo + logs0B, Ni=Yo + logioB, Lose 4 6 x x Toot aap oo. 20° 0-045 -o55 (Circumferential 18 ar -075 -0.60 Br=(23)C, B, = (23)C, CB)Cy ALL, in? c= (43)L (LP 2uy= (43)(L,PLy ,=20 for as-welded full penetration welds and fillet or partial penetration welds welded on four sides By= K,=36 for fillet or partial penetration welds where the attachment is welded on two or three sides ‘M,= bending moment applied to the attachment as shown in Fig. 1.0, in-IbCASE (continued) N-318-4 ‘CASES OF ASME BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE Su = CWA, + CuMilEq, + CMid2e + OPLL, + Olt, +M, (2) Sa= KS) @ SEP = CUA, + CMa + CMa lly + OM DLL, + O"*RLL, + Het (4) (6) The following modified Code equations shall be satisfied: (2) NC-3652 Eq, (8) becomes: Bee aes, ass, Su = B, where B, = 0.5 and B, = 1.0 for straight pipe, (2) NC-3653.1 Eq. (9) becomes: +3, Mat hs FZ + Se S188, but not greater than 135, for Level A and B loadings ‘<2.255, but not greater than 185, for Level C loadings $3.05, but not greater than 2.08, for Level D loadings (3) NC-3653.2 Eq, (10) becomes: S, iM, Gye Seo Fea Bes, (4) NC-3653.2 Eq, (10a) becomes: Me Be 6 sas, 343 (5) NC-3653.2 Eq, (11) becomes: Boen(l) 8) +54 Bessy Sre where all terms except attachment stresses are de- fined in NC-3652. In Eq. (NC-11), S,, is the same as used in Eq. (NC-8), and S, is the same as used in Eq. (NC-10). (¢) In addition to the modified Code equati the following equations shall also be satisfied: S* < 205, o QM ALL, + ORL, +H es, 6 3.2 Analysis of Attachment welded to pipe with fillet or partial penetration welds: (a) The requirements of 3.1 shall be met. For at- tachments welded on two or three sides, the value of K, used in calculating 5,, shall be 3.6. (b) The following additional equations shall be sat- isfied. Wy + Me llag + My "MLag + 210,* + Of VAy + My*12,, < 25, (1) (Ay) + 4[Qs* +O," Nid + M21} <5, (8) 33 Analysis complying with the Case shall be in- cluded in the Design Report for the piping system. 40 This Case number shall be shown on the Data Report Form. NOTE: The potential for increased stress atthe attachment welds, which may occur as a result of diferential metal temperataey between the attachment and the run, should be considered i the design evalCASE N-392-1 CASES OF ASME BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE Apr val Date: December 11, 1989 ‘See Numerical Index for expiration ‘and any reaffirmation dates. Case N-392-1 Procedure for Evaluation of the Design of Hollow Circular Cross Section Welded Attachments on Classes 2 and 3 Piping Section III, Division 1 Inquiry: What procedure may be used to evaluate the design of hollow circular eross section welded attachments on Classes 2 and 3 pipe under Section UI, Division 1? Reply: It is the opinion of the Committee that the procedures listed below may be used to evaluate the design of hollow circular cross section welded attachments on Classes 2 and 3 pipe under Section II, Division 1, 1.0 LIMITATIONS OF APPLICABILITY 11 The attachment shall be welded to the pipe by 4 full penetration weld or a fillet weld along the entire outside diameter (see Fig. 1). 1.2 The attachment material and pipe material shall have essentially the same moduli of elast coefficients of thermal expansion. 1.3. The constants, defined in Section 2.0, fall within the following ranges: (a) 833 < y < 500 @)02<7<10 () 03 < B < 10, and (d) the axis of the attachment is perpendicular to the axis of the run pipe. 1.4 ‘The attachment shall be made on straight pipe with the nearest edge of the atachment wele toca at a minimum distance of VRT from any other weld or discontinuity (see Setion 20 for definiens of 8 and 7). For muliple attachments located at a dc tance {es than VAT to eachother, the sete tse for each individual atachment shall be sage posed. 2.0 NOMENCLATURE AND DEFINITIONS (See Fig. 2) Re in pipe outside radius, in. attachment outside radius, in, 7 = attachment inside radius, in. T= nominal run pipe wall thickness, in, ‘= nominal attachment wall thickness, in, Outside diameter of the run pipe, in. Outside diameter of the attachment, in. R= mean radius of run pipe, in. Ar= a (5 ~ 7) Zp Idr, D. 1/D, =A, (2y)"B"r” but not less than 1.0 ‘The equation for C shall be used to determine Cy, C., and Cyy based on the following table. Select the ‘maximum value of the pipe and the attachment equa- tions. Ce Pipe 03-10 ost @) 1 attachment 03-10 055) = 1.00 Pipe 0310 046 060 -008 a8s attichment 03-10 110 023 038 038 ee re) 03055 051 101 079 09 attachment 03.055 084 08 080 054 Pipe 2055-10 023 101 -062 089 attachment >055-1.0 046 085-028 054 Notes: (2) Replace fxtwith e130, () Replace #, with e-!=6,