Scribd
Upload
243 views6 pages

Nozzlepro 4: Paulin Research Group

The document provides comparisons between finite element analysis (FEA) results and standards like WRC 107 and B31.3 for nozzle geometries like cylindrical junctions, small branch takeoffs, and pad reinforced attachments, finding both higher and lower stresses than the standards depending on the geometry and loading conditions. It also lists areas where WRC 107 and WRC 297 are considered weak or of further concern, such as nozzles with d/D > 0.5, t/T < 1.0, or pad reinforcement, and provides an overview of stress calculations and allowables.

Uploaded by

rishit_a
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
243 views6 pages

Nozzlepro 4: Paulin Research Group

The document provides comparisons between finite element analysis (FEA) results and standards like WRC 107 and B31.3 for nozzle geometries like cylindrical junctions, small branch takeoffs, and pad reinforced attachments, finding both higher and lower stresses than the standards depending on the geometry and loading conditions. It also lists areas where WRC 107 and WRC 297 are considered weak or of further concern, such as nozzles with d/D > 0.5, t/T < 1.0, or pad reinforcement, and provides an overview of stress calculations and allowables.

Uploaded by

rishit_a
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Paulin Research Group

NozzlePRO 4
 
Paulin Research Group
11211 Richmond Avenue, Suite 109
Houston, Texas 77082
 
Tel: 281-920-9775 Fax: 281-920-9375
Example Problem Description Difference with FEA

Cylindrical Junction FEA Stress 270% Higher than WRC 107


(WRC 107)

NonLoaded Small FEA Stress 500% Lower than B31.3


Branch Takeoff

Nozzle Loads Due To FEA Loads 630% Lower than Rigid


FEA Flexibilities Analysis

SIF’s for Nozzles in FEA Stress 7.7 Times Higher than


Heads Piping Program Default

Straight vs. Lateral Lateral 1.34 Times Stronger Than


Straight Nozzle InPlane
Lateral 1.7 Times Stronger Than
Straight Nozzle Outplane
Small d/D WRC 107 FEA different from WRC 107 by 3.7%
Comparison

Pad Reinforced FEA Stress 1.8-to-10.0 Times Higher


Attachment than WRC 107
WRC calculations were not intended for pad reinforced geometries,
and this is reflected in the results when the FEA calculation is
compared against WRC 107.
 
WRC 107 Stress at Junction: 25,246 psi.
WRC 107 Stress at Pad Edge: 20,569 psi.
FEA Maximum Stress 68,172 psi. 2.7 times

higher than WRC 107


Using a small d/D, only a single moment loading, and a t/T ratio greater than
1.0, the comparisons between FEA and WRC 107 are much better:
 
Stress (psi)
WRC 107 126,677
FEA tn=0.5” 150,765
FEA tn=0.9” 144,522
FEA tn=1.5” 131,579
The following list summarizes areas where WRC 107 ad WRC 297 are
considered weak, or where further concern should be displayed:
a)      -  d/D > 0.5
b)      -  t/T < 1.0
c)      -  Pad reinforced nozzles
d)      - Hillsides or laterals
e)      -  Area replacement rules for pressure are barely satisfied and large D/T.
f)       -  Temperatures are approaching the creep regime.
g)      -  Cycles are greater than 5000.
h)      - Design and operating conditions are approximately the same.
i)       -  The load consists of high-pressure stresses and high loads.
j)       -  The Piping attached to the nozzle is long, flexible, and somewhat
unrestrained.
 
The following gives a brief discussion of the calculated stresses and allowables.
 
Primary (Sustained) Membrane Stresses: Pl < (1.5)(k)(Smh)
Primary Bending Stresses: Qb < (3.0)(Smh)
Secondary Stresses: Pl+Pb+Q < (3.0)(Smavg) < 2Sy
Peak (Fatigue, or Expansion) Stresses: Pl+Pb+Q+F < Sa < f (1.25(Sc+Sh)
< (C) N-0.2
 Pl -Local membrane stress due to weight and pressure – sustained, or primary
loads.
K-Occasional load factor. 1.0 – weight and pressure, 1.2 – occasional.
Smh-Hot allowable stress
Pl+Pb+Q -Secondary stress on inner and outer fibers
Smavg,,-The average of the material hot and cold allowables
Pl+Pb+Q+F -Peak stresses on the inner or outer fibers due to the “range” of
stresses. This stress will cause a fatigue crack to occur.
Sa -Allowable from the ASME Section VIII Division 2, Appendix 5 allowable
stress curve
Sc - Piping Code – Cold allowable stress.

You might also like