Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure

Foreword
In August of 1965 the Welding Research Council published WRC Bulletin No. 107, "Local Stresses in Spherical and
Cylindrical Shells Due to External Loadings," by K. R. Wichman, A. G. Hopper and J. L. Mershon. That document provided
engineers with guidance for the evaluation oflocalized stresses in pressure vessel shells due to various extemalloads.
Less than 20 years later, in August of 1984, the Welding Research Council published Bulletin No. 297, "Local Stresses in
Cylindrical Shells Due to External Loadings on Nozzles-Supplement to WRC Bulletin No. 107," by J. L. Mershon, K.
Mokhtarian, G. V. Ranjan and E. C. Rodabaugh. This document provided important improvements to WRC Bulletin No. 107,
accounting for local stresses in the nozzle, as well as, the vessel. The basis for the curves in Bulletin No. 297 was the computer
code developed by Dr. C. R. Steele entitled, FAST2.
The work presented here provides the engineer with guidance for the evaluation of shell and nozzle stresses due to internal
pressure. Eqs. 1 through 4 are based on parametric studies performed with the computer code FAST2. The bulletin also
includes comparisons with other previously developed correlation equations and test data.
It is important that it be recognized that this bulletin does not present any rules for design, but it is rather intended to be an
aid in assessing the local structural integrity of the vessel. No attempt is made to educate or enlighten the individual on stress
categorization rules of Section III or Section VIII, Division 2 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. It is taken for
granted that the designer understands how, when and where to apply the categorization rules for calculating stresses in
accordance with the methods in this document.

G. E. o. Widera, PhD
Chairman of Committee on Reinforced
Openings and External Loadings of
the Pressure Vessel
Research Council
Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure

by: K. Mokhtarian, and J. S. Endicott

CONTENTS: to internal pressure. A number of papers have been

1.0 Nomenclature .....•....••............... 1 published on the subject proposing design formu-
2.0 Introduction ••...........•.••..•....•.... 1 las,8-13 but these formulas are generally limited to a
3.0 Procedure .........••.••.............•... 1
narrow range of parameters. Detailed stress analysis
4.0 Resu.lts •••••••...•..•.•••.•••••••.•.•••.. 4 of cylinder intersections is a complex and time consum-
ing problem. This Bulletin has been prepared to
5.0 Limitations ••••••...•....•...••....•.... 11
provide the designer with a simple and approximate
6.0 Comparison with Other Equations ..... 11
7.0 Comparison with Test Results method of calculating maximum stresses due to inter-
and Finite Element Results ............. 16 nal pressure at cylinder intersections. Formulas are
8.0 EX8IIlples ............................... 16
provided for calculating membrane and bending
9.0 References............................. 32 stresses in both the vessel and the nozzle.
For the design of cylinder intersections subjected to
internal pressure, the ASME Boiler and Pressure
1.0 Nomenclature Vessel Code and most other codes, have basically
relied on "area-replacement" rules. 2 These rules,
d = nozzle mean diameter based on replacing the cutout material in the pres-
D = vessel mean diameter sure boundary within certain limits, assure that the
P = internal pressure
average membrane stress in the vicinity of the open-
R = vessel mean radius
ing is approximately the same as the stress in the
s = Pd/2t un-perturbed shell. Such rules do not account for
S = PD/2T local membrane, bending stresses, and discontinuity
SCF
= stress concentration factor = stresses.
rr/(PD/2T) or rr/(Pd/2t) ASME Code Section III and Section VIII, Division
t = nozzle thickness
2, also contain rules for calculating "stress indices"
= thickness of insert plate or which, in effect, are stress concentration factors at
thickness of shell plus pad plate openings for fatigue analysis. But such indices are
= maximum stress (or stress provided for a number of specific geometries only and
intensity) value at the intersection are limited to a few points on the vessel. The methods
= stress (or stress intensity) on vessel of this Bulletin will allow a simple and fairly accurate
= stress (or stress intensity) calculation of stresses at cylinder intersections, for a
on nozzle wide range of geometric parameters. The results of
A (lambda) = d/ Ji5T this document are to be used for design guidance.
value from eq. )
- value from FAST 2 3.0 Procedure
% difference = ( value from FAST 2 100
The design formulas proposed in this Bulletin are
based on the results of a parametric study using the
FAST2 (Revision 3) computer program. The program
2.0 Introduction
is based on shallow thin shell theory, and was devel-
Cylinder-cylinder intersections are commonly en- oped for d/ D ratios of up to approximately 0.5. 1 The
countered as nozzles in pressure vessels or branches program results are quite accurate up to d /D ratios of
in piping. WRC Bulletins 1077 and 2976 provide about 0.35. Beyond this ratio, depending on the value
simple cookbook methods of calculating stresses at of other parameters, the accuracy of the program
such intersections due to external loadings. However, diminishes with increasing d/ D ratio. A discussion on
there is no widely used document providing for simple the accuracy of this program is being prepared. 14
calculation of stresses at cylindrical intersections due The set of data, on which the results are based,
consisted of 99 different FAST2 program models.
Tables 1a and 1b list the geometric parameters for
K. Mokhtarian and J. S. Endicott are Senior Engineers with Chicago these models. A wide range of parameters was cov-
Bridge & Iron Technical Services Company, in Oak Brook, IL.
Publication of this Bulletin was sponsored by the Committee on Rein- ered, without exceeding the limits of the program or
{~~ 9Penings and External Loadmgs of the Pressure Vessel Research
Council. introducing excessive errors in the final results. The

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 1

 Table 1a: Model Geometries

Model D T d t Lambda

1 9.92 0.0833 0.47 0.025 0.52

2 99.60 0.4000 3.92 0.080 0.62
3 99.80 0.2000 3.96 0.040 0.89
4 99.00 1.0000 9.50 0.500 0.95
5 99.00 1.0000 9.80 0.200 0.99
6 99.00 1.0000 9.90 0.100 1.00
7 9.92 0.0833 0.95 0.050 1.05
8 9.92 0.0833 0.98 0.020 1.08
9 9.92 0.0833 0.99 0.010 1.09
10 98.67 1.3333 12.66 0.667 1.10

11 9.98 0.0200 0.49 0.005 1.11

12 98.67 1.3333 13.06 0.267 1.14
13 9.50 0.5000 2.70 0.300 1.24
14 99.60 0.4000 7.92 0.080 1.26
15 99.90 0.1000 3.98 0.020 1.26
16 980.00 20.0000 180.00 20.000 1.29
17 9.50 0.5000 2.85 0.150 1.31
18 9.50 0.5000 2.94 0.060 1.35
19 980.00 20.0000 190.00 10.000 1.36
20 980.00 20.0000 196.00 4.000 1.40

21 9.50 0.5000 3.20 0.800 1.47

22 9.50 0.5000 3.20 0.800 1.47
23 99.60 0.4000 9.80 0.200 1.55
24 9.50 0.5000 3.60 0.400 1.65
25 9.50 0.5000 3.80 0.200 1.74
26 9.50 0.5000 3.92 0.080 1.80
27 9.50 0.5000 4.00 1.000 1.84
28 99.00 1.0000 19.00 1.000 1.91
29 980.00 20.0000 270.00 30.000 1.93
30 99.00 1.0000 19.60 0.400 1.97

31 99.00 1.0000 19.80 0.200 1.99

32 980.00 20.0000 285.00 15.000 2.04
33 9.50 0.5000 4.50 0.500 2.06
34 9.92 0.0833 1.90 0.100 2.09
35 980.00 20.0000 294.00 6.000 2.10
36 9.92 0.0833 1.92 0.080 2.11
37 980.00 20.0000 297.00 3.000 2.12
38 9.92 0.0833 1.96 0.040 2.16
39 9.92 0.0833 1.98 0.020 2.18
40 9.50 0.5000 4.75 0.250 2.18

41 98.67 1.3333 25.34 1.333 2.21

42 9.98 0.0200 0.99 0.010 2.22
43 99.80 0.2000 9.96 0.040 2.23
44 9.50 0.5000 4.90 0.100 2.25
45 98.67 1.3333 26.00 0.667 2.27
46 98.67 1.3333 26.40 0.267 2.30
47 99.00 1.0000 24.50 0.500 2.46
48 980.00 20.0000 360.00 40.000 2.57
49 980.00 20.0000 380.00 20.000 2.71
50 98.67 1.3333 32.00 1.333 2.79

2 WRC Bulletin 368

 Table 1b: Model Geometries

Model D T d t Lambda

51 980.00 20.0000 392.00 8.000 2.80

52 980.00 20.0000 396.00 4.000 2.83
53 98.67 1.3333 32.66 0.667 2.85
54 99.00 1.0000 28.50 1.500 2.86
55 98.67 1.3333 33.06 0.267 2.88
56 99.00 1.0000 29.40 0.600 2.95
57 99.00 1.0000 29.70 0.300 2.98
58 99.60 0.4000 19.60 0.400 3.10
59 9.92 0.0833 2.85 0.150 3.14
60 99.60 0.4000 19.80 0.200 3.14

61 99.90 0.1000 9.95 0.050 3.15

62 99.60 0.4000 19.92 0.080 3.16
63 99.90 0.1000 9.98 0.020 3.16
64 9.92 0.0833 2.90 0.100 3.19
65 980.00 20.0000 450.00 50.000 3.21
66 9.92 0.0833 2.94 0.060 3.23
67 9.92 0.0833 2.97 0.030 3.27
68 98.67 1.3333 38.00 2.000 3.31
69 98.67 1.3333 38.67 1.333 3.37
70 980.00 20.0000 475.00 25.000 3.39

71 98.67 1.3333 39.33 0.667 3.43

72 98.67 1.3333 39.73 0.267 3.46
73 980.00 20.0000 490.00 10.000 3.50
74 980.00 20.0000 495.00 5.000 3.54
75 99.00 1.0000 38.00 2.000 3.82
76 99.00 1.0000 39.20 0.800 3.94
77 99.00 1.0000 39.60 0.400 3.98
78 99.00 1.0000 39.80 0.200 4.00
79 9.92 0.0833 3.80 0.200 4.18
80 9.92 0.0833 3.92 0.080 4.31

81 9.92 0.0833 3.96 0.040 4.36

82 9.92 0.0833 3.98 0.020 4.38
83 9.98 0.0200 1.98 0.020 4.43
84 99.80 0.2000 19.90 0.100 4.45
85 99.80 0.2000 19.96 0.040 4.47
86 99.60 0.4000 28.92 0.080 4.58
87 99.60 0.4000 29.40 0.600 4.66
88 99.60 0.4000 29.60 0.400 4.69
89 99.60 0.4000 29.80 0.200 4.72
90 99.00 1.0000 47.50 2.500 4.77

91 99.00 1.0000 49.00 1.000 4.93

92 99.00 1.0000 49.50 0.500 4.98
93 9.92 0.0833 4.75 0.250 5.23
94 9.92 0.0833 4.90 0.100 5.39
95 9.92 0.0833 4.95 0.050 5.45
96 9.92 0.0833 4.97 0.025 5.47
97 99.90 0.1000 19.90 0.100 6.30
98 99.90 0.1000 19.95 0.050 6.31
99 99.90 0.1000 19.98 0.020 6.32

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 3

model geometries fall within the following range of best fit. These powers, the minimizing set of con-
parameters: stants, and the resulting standard deviations are:

0.523 < dl Ji5T < 6.32 Eq. (1)

PI
1.25
P2
-.25
Ps
-.75
P4
1.00
P"
- .25
P6
- .25
Eq. (2) 0.00 0.00 -1.50 1.25 -.50 0.50
19 < DIT < 999 Eq. (3) 0.25 0.00 -.50 0.00 -.25 0.50
Eq. (4) -0.50 0.00 -.75 -.50 0 -.25
4 < dlt < 999
ao al a2 Std. Dev.
0.039 < dID < 0.515 Eq. (1) 0.5315 -.06342 0.4372 4.7
Eq. (2) 1.0048 -.01427 0.8605 9.1
0.388 < SIs < 6.26 Eq. (3) 0.2728 -.04706 0.9551 5.2
Eq. (4) 0.3377 -.5272 1.4229 7.5
0.1 < tIT < 3.0
Eq. (1) provides the maximum membrane stress
The above range covers most of the practical cases intensity in the vessel
of cylinder intersections. Some of the models have Eq. (2) provides the maximum surface stress inten-
diameter to thickness ratios which violate the thin sity in the vessel
shell assumptions of the program; however, the calcu- Eq. (3) provides the maximum membrane stress
lated stresses are still fairly accurate and do not intensity in the nozzle
distort the data. The models have been made long Eq. (4) provides the maximum surface stress inten-
enough so that the effects of the boundary conditions sity in the nozzle
are negligible. 4.0 Results
Most codes which have rules for fatigue analysis,
have adopted the concept of stress intensity. Stress In order to illustrate the results, several graphs
intensity is defined as the maximum stress difference have been made showing the difference in percent
between any pair of principal stresses. Since some of versus lambda (A). The "% difference" is defined as
the maximum stresses occur off the cardinal axes and the difference between the maximum F AST2 stress
have shear stress associated with them, the principal and the stress from the equation being considered
divided by the maximum FAST2 stress, multiplied by
stress is a more meaningful criteria to use than radial
100. Each geometry is represented by a symbol drawn
and tangential shell stresses. Values reported in this
at the proper coordinates. The type of symbol used is
Bulletin are all based on stress intensity concept and
determined by the tIT ratio. That is, the range 0.1 <
the proposed design formulas provide the maximum
tIT < 3.0 is divided into 8 equal regions with a
value of stress intensity. (The words "stress" and
symbol for each region. For example, points for
"stress intensity" are used synonymously, from geometries with 0.1 < tIT < 0.463 are indicated by
hereon, in this Bulletin). symbol # 1. The use of lambda (A) as the abscissa is to
Since the nozzle behaves differently than the ves- spread the data out evenly and is arbitrary. Likewise,
sel, and the membrane solutions are different from the choice of tiT for the symbol is arbitrary and any
the bending solutions, four separate equations have other geometric parameter could have been used. A
been developed. Each equation has the following number of parameters were tried and no definite
form: patterns were detected.
vessel Figs. 1a-1d show the results of using Eqs. 1 thru 4,
respectively. As can be seen, the differences are
(Tv
d PD]
= [0:] [lift 2T
scattered rather randomly.
Fig. 1e indicates the difference between the maxi-
mum values of Eqs. 1 and 3 and the maximum
nozzle membrane stress of applicable FAST2 results. Fig. 1f
indicates the difference between the maximum value
D Pd]
<Tn = [0:] [fiT 2t of Eqs. 2 and 4 and the maximum surface stress of
applicable FAST2 results.
where As indicated by Figs. 1a-1d, the percentage errors
between the proposed equations and the F AST2 data
__ (D)PI (D)P2 (!...)P3 (D)P4 (D)P5 (!...)P6 are mostly limited to about 20%, except for a few
CT - ao + a l d T T + a2 d T T isolated points. This degree of accuracy is normally
acceptable for analysis of cylinder intersections. If
The powers Pi(i = 1, 2, ... 6) are allowed to take on Eqs. 1 thru 4 were reduced to only two equations,
values of 0.25 either side of the minimum combina- providing the value of maximum membrane and
tion while the coefficients a/J = 0, 1, 2) are calculated surface stress, regardless of locations, the percent
by minimizing the square of the error for each power differences will be those shown on Figs. le and 1f.
combination. The combination of powers that pro- These differences are somewhat higher than those of
duces the lowest standard deviation is taken to be the Figs. 1a-1d.

4 WRC Bulletin 368

 1 (!) 2 • 3 + Y )( 5 ~ 6 ... 7 ~ 8 z
I I I I
30.00

25.00 -

U1 20.00 -
C"/:)
~
ex::
~
~
C/.) U1
C/.)
~
C/.)
aJ 15.00 -
~.
;:s L
~
~
LL.I
L + +
"
~ 10. 00 - .lit
C!)
~ -l x
~
CO)
(f')
e +
~
too. +
~
f)
UJ
> 5.00 - +
+
.. z e
+
A CD
. CD
A
A
.
-
;;.
~ :t
Ae

ill til
C!)

C!J • CD (!) .. CD
CD
e
.
~

~ UJ
• 0.00
z + +. e
e
" e
CD e CD d) t:t,t!J C!J
C!) C!J(!) C!J
CD
~
e
A
C"/:) U • CD
CD eCD s .. CD
~
e:
~
CO)
Z
UJ -5.00 -
~
.
C!)C!)
. CD
.. CD
CD
CDC!) .eC!)
CD
C!)
e
C!J
C!)
0: CD A CD
~
~ UJ
l.J.... +
S LL. -10.00 - z
~ ....-4
~
C/.) Cl
C/.)
t::
~ -15.00 -
~

-20.00
1 I
0.5 1!2 1!9 2.16 3!S ij.lo
"!7 5.1.\ 6.1 8.8
LRMBDR
Fig. 1a-Differences-Eq. 1 vs. FAST2 results
 1 (!) 2 . 3 + ij x 5 • 6 ... 7 ~ e z
I I
32.S1

27.~3 -

21.S~ -

U1 16.~6 -
a::
~ z
U1 C!)
C!)
...
u... 10.97 - C!) C!)
a::
:::J
U1
5."S - z
++
., " C!)

e
e

C!)
C!)
C!)

" C!)
~
.,
CD

§
~
--I
en
W
> 0.00
+
+:r.
•
Z
••
e .....
mC!)m
CD
t!P
C!)
C!)
C!)
C!)

.
C!)

-
)( C!)
b::J C!)
~ ~
.o6. • C!)
• C!)

~
... + e +
IT
~.
C!) ~ C!)
~
C¢ W
• -5."9 - +
•+ C!) A "
II
~ U CD
Z + +
W -10.97 - CD
a: m
W
u... e
u... -16.~S - CD CD
..- A

CJ
:-..: -21. S~- •
.
"'27.~S - -
-32.S1
o.s 1.'2
I
1. S 2.IS 3.3
I
~.O
I
".7
I I , 8.8
s." S.l

LAMBDR
Fig. 1b-Differences-Eq. 2 vs. FAST2 results
 1-_____~I----~I~----~I------t_----~I~----~I------L-.----~I------~.-----+-:

--:
CD

1
e e
-
f)

-
a:
o
fD
~
a:
-1

+
N
Q)

,... CD
N
.
•
co
+
f)

CD
f- •

X
::::P

+ f)
('I') _ N N
'--.

+
.. +
N
C\I

-.
e
~----~------r-----'------+----~~r-----'------r-----'r-----~----~~
o
o
I
o
o
I
0
0
I I
0 0 0
I I I I
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
N

o
o
o ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ o
~ ~
(I')
N 0 -I -I NI NI
I I

·S~lS·9W]W·llQN ·]IN]tl3=1::JIO I.
Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 7
 1 (!) 2 .. 3 + ij x 5 0 6 ... 7 ~ 8 z
1 I I
30.00

25.00 - -
(f')
20.00 - C!)
a:::
I-
(f')
z
lL.. 15.00 - z
a: z C!I
::l
(J') CD
10.00 -
CD
-I C!)CD
;] N
0 • C!I
CD •
(J
Z 5.00 - + ..". )(
C!)
C!I
C!)
CD
ell

-
~ C!) A CD
~ (!) +CD CD (!)
C!)
~ + C!I+e!) C!)e e
( tI C!I .C!I
• •
..
~
~.
;1 0.00 m
~
~
I.J..J
W + .. .. . •C!) CD •
e CD

•
C!)

C!)
.. C!)
00
Z + • C!) C!)
I.J..J -5.00 - C!I
CD
a:::
LLJ CD
+
.. .. +CD CD
fIJ + C!)

..
CD CD
LL..
lL.. -10.00 -
+
IP CD • It

......
0
~ -15.00 -

-20.00
I 1
, , , I
0.5 1.2 1.9 2.IS 3.3 1.&.0 ".'7 5.~ S. 1 6.8

LAMBDA
Fig. 1ej-Differences-Eq. 4 VS. FAST2 results
 a
20.00
1 C!) 2 • .3 + ij x
.5 • 6 • 7 ~ z
I .

15.00 -

+
10.00 -
CI)
"""
~
<n
a:::
(!)
+
" A
CI)
CI) I- A + (!)
+ ...
~
CI)
too.
<n 5.00 - • ... + ...• C!)
...
A

;:s ~~
~
CD
:J:
+
(!)
C!) • ... iI'
" C!I C!) C!) " C!I
"""
~
~
~
UJ
:£ 0.00 ..
2$
e
t!) \!I-
C!I
e AI

t!IJ
C!le C!) "
CD"t!) C!)

... C!) • C!) "e!)

e!)
...
(!)

C!I C!I
" ,,"
(!)
~
"""
too. x ~ e ... C!) (!)
~ a: C!I C!)
:J: -5.00 - ., "
(!)
C!) C!I

-
Q
t oo.
;:s
R.
~
-10.00 -
+ fIJ CD

"
~ • z
CI)
W
~ U z
~ z
~
(') UJ -15.00 - z
~ a: +
R. W
0- LL.
"tI u.. -20.00 -
~
~

CI)
CI)
Cl
~
~ ~ -25.00 - I-

-SO.OO 1 T
0.5 1.2 1!9 2!6 s!s ij!O i£!7
I
S.i£ 6.1 6.8

LRMBDR
Fig. 1e-Differences-max. of Eq. 1 & 3 vs. FAST2 results
 ~
0

1 en 2 A 3 + ij x 5 0 6 ... 7 x 8 z
I I I I I
SO.OO

50.00 -
U1
CJ
LJ..J lAO. 00 - I-

U1
a: 30.00 -
t-
U1
lL. CD
a:: 20.00 - C!)

:::J z e
~ U1 z C!)
z
Q X 10.00 - C!)
CD
C!) ..

--....
ta a: & CD
C!) C!) e
~ +,.. )( e(l
~
rt)
~
C!)
e+. e
e CD e
+ e eC!) CD •
;:s • 0.00
+
• (!)
m
•
C!)
•
c...;, LJ..J + +4 ". &
C!) • e
.C!)
4 &&
e
CD 4 C!)
"S
~ U CD CD e CD
+ (I#J +
Z
LJ..J -10.00- •
CD
• • +t!) C!) C!)
&
C!)C!)
C!I C!) CD • C!)
-
a:
UJ CD
U.
lL. -20.00 - I-
......
Cl

:-.: -30.00 -

-lAO.OO
I I I I I I I
0.5 1!2 1.9 2.S 3.3 y.o IA.7 5.IA 6.1 8.8

LRMBDR
Fig. 1f-Differences-max. of Eq. 2 & 4 vs. FAST2 results
 The foll owing are the four proposed equations for
design:
Maximum membrane stress intensity on vessel:
fJ, ~ [0 .5315 - 0.06342 (D Id) '" (D / T) - '"
. (t/ T t ·75 + 0.4372 (D l d)(D IT t"(t l T) -''')
. [(d l /Dt) x (PD I2T))
Maximum surface stress intensity on vessel
IT" ~ [1.0048 - 0.01427 (t 1T) - '5
+ 0.8605 (D Id)'" (D I T)-0 5 (tiT)" ]
. [(d l/Dt) x (PDI2T)]
Maximum membrane stress intensity on nozzle
fJ" ~ [0.2728 - .04706 (D ld )o," (t 1T) -050 + 0.9551
. (D IT to.25 (t IT )O'''') [(D I .j(Fh x (Pd / 2t))
Maximum surface stress intensity on nozzle
u" ~ [0.3377 - 0.5272 (D l d) -'" (t IT) - "
+ 1.4229 (D ld t" (t IT) - " ][(D /JdT) x (Pd I2t»)
5.0 Limitations
It is suggested that the use of design formu las
proposed in this Bulletin be limited to the follow ing
range of parameters:
10 < D IT < 1000
4 < d lt < 1000
0.1 < t i T < 3
0.03 < dID < 0.5
0.3 < S is < 6
.3 < d l /Dt < 6.5
The calculated stresses may not be accurate for
nozzles close to another penetration, vessel end , or
any other disconti nuity. A separation distance of
approximately 2.5 ,mTbetween points of disconti nu -
ity wi ll be adequate to assure fairly accurate results."
The results presented in this Bulletin are based on
unreinforced cylinder intersections, with the nozzle
wall extending normal to the vessel, indefinitely on
the outside only. The theory is not applicable to
nozzles that project inside the vessel. The nozzle
shou ld have an axial length of not less than approxi-
mately 2.5 ,fri. For the resu lts of this analysis to be
applicable, the nozzle must be attached to the vessel
by a full penetration weld.
In case of reinforced openings, either by a th ick-
ened insert or a pad added to the shell, a great deal of
judgement will have to be exercised in us ing the
resu lts presented here. T he following is a rule of
thumb which has been used successfully and provides
fairly accurate and generally conservative results. If
Stresses in In.tersecting Cylinders Su.bjected to Pressure
the width of shell reinforcement (pad plate or insert
plate) is less than 1.65 ,mT or d 12, then the " T "
value to be used for calculating stresses is to be the
th ickness of the shell . (This ignoring of the s hell
reinforcement may result in overly conservative esti-
j
mate of stresses in the shell, but unconservative
estimate of stresses in the nozzle neck.) If the width
(1) of the shell reinforcement (pad plate 01' insert plate) is
equal to or greater than 1.65 ,mT and d 12, it can be
assumed that the thickness of the reinforced portion
of the shell would determine the state of stress at the
nozzle-to-shelljunction. In such a case, the "Tn value
to be used in equations for calculating stresses shall
(2)
be "T," (the t hickness of insert plate or shell thick-
ness plus pad plate thickness). It is generally assumed
t hat discontinuity stresses due to t he penetration
have been reduced to negligible levels at a distance of
1.65 ,mT or d 12, whichever is greater, from the
(3) nozzle neck.
6,0 Comparison with Other Equations
To show how the equations proposed in this Bulle-
(4 ) tin compare with four other equations proposed in
other papers, plots are provided to indicate the maxi-
mum surface stress difference between each equation
a nd FAST2 resu lts. For these comparisons, all 99
data po in ts h ave been used, even though some of t he
data fall outside of the range of geometric parameters
specified for these other equations. The four other
equations are from Ref. 2 and are shown below. (For
the source of t hese equations and their range of
applicability, see Ref. 2.)
SCF ~ 2.8(D /T)°"" (dl D)°367 (t/ T) -o.", (I',/t) -" " (5)
SCF = 2.1 [A I(t IT)) H' (6 )
SCF ~ maximum of:
[1 + 1.771. + (dID)' :2(tIT) "' ) Z
1 + (dID)"'(t IT )'"
and
\1.67 [(d l D)(D IT)/(t IT») '" + 0.565 (dID» ) Z
(7)
0.67 [(dID)(DI T) /( t IT )]' 12 + 0.565 (t IT )
where
Z ~ 1 + [(t IT )/(d l D)] "'/ (D IT )
2 + 2(dID)'I2(t IT )'" + 1.25 A
SCF = 1 + (dID)"'(t IT )'" (8)
In Eq. 5, r , denotes the fillet l'adius at the nozzle to
shell attachment. For comparisons here, a value of
I',lt ~ 1.0 has been assumed for all data points.
Figs. 2a-2d show the percent difference between t he
maximum stresses calculated by Eqs. 5 thru 8 and
those obtained form the FAST2 data, for all 99
geometries. Please note that some of the data fall
outside the range of applicability ofEqs. 5 thl'u 8. For
example, most of t he data indicating the largest
11
~
~ 1 (!) 2 A 3 + ij )( 5 • 6 .,. 7 JIt 8 z
I I I I I I I I
110.00

CD
so.oo -
CD CD

20.00 - CD ~
Lf)
e
•
0 •
W 10.00 - ..
fIIlJA

•
CD
e "
en
a:: 0.00 .. " CD CD
m ID
~ e CD (!)
en + CD
++
~ A
u...
a:: -10.00 -
• C!)
CD CD CD
e

::::J
~~ (f)
+
a, X -20.00 - .. e ..
-
C!t
~ a: z + A
~
n)
~. +
;:s
~
~
I.U
U
a -30.00 -
+
.. CD
A
CD

CD
CD
CD
.. '"
Z z CD' CI'J
W
a::
-110.00 - )(
• CD
CD
X C!)
W ~ m
CD
u...
LL- -50.00 - z ..
..-
Cl
" C!) CD e

N -60.00 -
+
• G)
•
CD
..
CD
+ A
•
-70.00 -
•
-80.00
I I I I I I I I
O.S 1.2 1.9 2.6 S.3 ~.O 11.7 S.II 6.1 &.8
LAMBDA
Fig. 2a-Oifferences-Eq. 5 VS. FAST2 results
 e
1&0.00
1 (!) 2 A 3 + ~ )(
.5 • 6 ...
.7 ~ z
~ . . I .

30.00 -

20.00 -
CD
(3
lLJ
rn
~
10.00 - CD
~
~ en CD
~ a:
S- f-- 0.00 e
en CD
e
~ + C!)

~
;,l
u... CD e
a: -10.00 - C!)
(\'I
0
~,
~
en
• A

• eCD CD
e

~ • + o CD
CD. ID

-
CD
f) >< -20.00 -
+ +. • e
a:
~,

;:s :!: :It •e

~ -SO.OO - +
• • C!)
;;J a

-
rn lJ..J e
z
~
&'
U
Z
+ C!) CD e"
•
••
(\'I'
0 lJ..J -1&0.00 - + ecfJ e
~ a: )(
A C!» eC\
R. W z C!»
0- u... ~
• C!)
•
'"t1
-
C!)
I.t... -50.00 - + e I-
~
I»
z •• e C!) e
e
I» Cl + e
~
,. CD
~ ;-..: -60.00 -
+
+ .
•..
-70.00 -

-80.00
0.5 1!2 1!9 2!S S.'S
J
~.O 1& .'7
, I
5." 6.1 6.8

LAMBDR
......
Ca:I Fig. 2b-Differences-Eq. 6 vs. FAST2 results
.....
~

1 (!) 2 • 3 + ij x 5 ~ 6 ..- 7 ~ 8 z
I 1 ....L
20.00

10.00 -
r-
CD
(3
m
lLJ 0.00
..e m It r.I
CD ~(!)

(f)
a::
..
• e
C!J(!) C!)
(!)

t- -10.00 - (!)

.
.. (!) C!)
(f) CD

l.L.. (!)
a:: -20.00 -
C!)
" at
::J
en
"
~
Q
+
.. " CD (!)
at
X -30.00 -
b:I a: + • (!) CD
.....
~
..... ~ ~ "CD (!)
CD C!)
(1)
~.
~
~ lLJ
-"0.00 -
.. " CD
CD
CD C!I
CD
~
~ U
Z
UJ -50.00 -
+
.. \+ G
A
CD
(!)
•
CD

a: • + C!I
lLJ
lL. z
t+
.. .. .
C!)
C!) C!)
C!)

CD
u... -60.00 -
...... + CD
Cl
Z
,,; )( • ..
~ -70.00 - +
z +

-80.00
0.5
,
1.2
,
1.9 2.'6 3.3
I
ij.'O 1j.'7
,
S.ij B.l
I
6.8

LAMBDA
Fig. 2c-Differences-Eq. 7 VS. FAST2 results
 1 CD 2 .& 3 + Yx 5 • 6 ... 7 :It 8 z
1 J _1
10.00
~

CD

CO
0.00
0
.. C!i
A
e CD (!)
(!)

OJ A
l.LJ & e
t/.) -10.00 - C!) me!)
I-
~

~en en +
CD e.,
CD e
~
en a: -20.00 - A C!) C!)
'N.
;OS
t- +
.. .,
(f')
..
&

~ CD Co!) ., (!)
~ u... -30.00-~
C!'I
(!) e!)
~
~
a: C!>(!)

0 ::l CD
~
~.
en
~ CD
CD CD
-
- X -"0.00 -
Q c::c
2:
+
..
GI
., CD
C!)
C!)
CD

..
~.

;OS e
R. CD
~

~ • -50.00 -
z t. +&
&
\+ A
(!) -
t/.)
l.LJ e!) C!) C!) C!)
~ U
• ..
&
~.
0
z
l.LJ
a:
-60.00 -
z
+

• x
. .. CD CD CD
+ C!)

" C!)
C!)
-
~
R.
e;-
IJ.J
u... ..
"tf
~
u...
.......
-70.00 -
z
+
+
.. CD

en CJ
en
~
~ ;-..: -80.00 -

-90.00 I
I
0.5 1.2 I! 9 2!6 s!s ".10 "!7 5\ 6.1 6.8
LAMBDR
Fig. 2d-Differences-Eq. 8 VS. FAST2 results

~
01
difference between Eq. 5 and F AST2 are for D IT >
100, which is outside the range that is specified for
useofEq.5.
Since the four equations proposed by others and
shown here provide only maximum stress values,
their percent difference results (Figs. 2a-2d) should
be compared to Fig. 1f. Such comparison indicates
that the equations proposed here (Eqs. 1-4) have
much better correlation with FAST2 results than do
the equations developed by others. These proposed
equations also cover a wider range of parameters than
the others.
Tables 2a and 2b list the values of % difference
between SCF from Eqs. 1 thru 4 and FAST2 values.
Also listed are comparisons between the maximum
membrane SCF (Eq. 1/3) and maximum surface SCF
(Eq. 2/4) at the junction and FAST2 results. Please
note that the maximum SCF at the junction is
obtained by normalizing the maximum stress with
PDI2T, regardless of location. (Values for Eqs. 3 and
4 have been normalized with Pd/2t). Tables 2c and 2d
list the values of % difference between SCF of Eqs. 5
thru 8 and FAST2 results. For reference, the %
difference column for Eq. 2/4 has been repeated here.
7.0 Comparison with Test Results and Finite
Element Results
Ref. 4 tabulates the available finite element analy-
sis results and test results for cylinder intersections.
To avoid duplication, the details of the references to
these results are not included here. The reader is
referred to Ref. 4 for discussion of these available
results. On pages 26 thru 31 the tables 1A thru 1C,
2A, 2B, 3 thru 8, and 27 of Ref. 4 have been duplicated
with the values of stress concentration factor ob-
tained from the equations proposed in this ~aper
added. The column marked "SCF" is the value of
stress concentration factor reported by the reference
for analysis or test results. The values in the column
"Eq. (2/4)" are the calculated maximum stress val-
ues divided by PD/2T. The values for Eqs. 5 thru 8
have all been normalized by PDI2T.
The tables provide an indication of how the maxi-
mum stress concentration factors for Eqs. 1-4 pro-
posed here and from Eqs. 5 thru 8 compare with the
reported finite element or test results. The average
ratio and standard deviations are provided as a
measure of data fit. It should be noted that the
geometric parameters for many of the models fall
outside of the range of applicability of the equations
~roposed here. However, all models have been kept to
IndIcate the accuracy or inaccuracy of equations
proposed here over a wide range of parameters. The
accuracy of finite element results or test results
cannot be easily ascertained. Stress gradients on
nozzle corners are quite steep and strain gages would
have to be located very accurately to pick up maxi-
mum value of stresses. Similarly, the finite element
mesh would have to be extremely fine to provide
accurate results. Comparisons of the Tables on pages
16 WRC Bulletin 368
. 26 thru 31 merely indicate the degree of accuracy that
can be expected, when arriving at maximum stresses
at cylinder intersections by various means.
8.0 Examples
The following examples have been included to
demonstrate the application of proposed equations.
They also provide a comparison of results obtained by
this method with the results obtained from a number
of other methods. Some suggestions are included on
allowables and how these results may be used for
various Code calculations.
It should be pointed out that, for all the following
examples, it has been assumed that the internal
pressure is the only load applied to the intersections.
If piping loads or other mechanical loads are specified,
their effect will have to be included. Since no location
or orientation is assigned to the stresses calculated by
these proposed equations, it will not be possible to
accurately calculate the value of stress intensity due
to combined loads. It is possible, however, to calculate
an upper bound on combined stresses by adding the
maximum stresses calculated due to internal pres-
sure to corresponding maximum stresses calculated
due to other loadings. WRC Bulletin 297 6 provides
means of calculating membrane and surface stresses
in vessel and nozzle, due to piping loads. The absolute
value of those stresses will have to be conservatively
added to the corresponding stresses calculated for
pressure. Also, if thermal stresses are present, they
will have to be included for those cases which require
a limit on secondary stresses.
E~ple No. l-Unreinforced Opening
GIven:
D = 120 in. T = 0.5 in. d = 48 in. t = 0.5 in.
P = 120 psi MaterialA-516-70 joint efficiency = 1.0
corrosion allowance = 0
Parameters of Interest:
DIT = 240 d/t = 96 = 2.5
D/d dlJDT = 6.2
Sis = 14400/5760 = 2.5 tIT =1
All the parameters fall within the limits of applicabil-
ity of equations proposed here. Calculation of maxi-
mum stresses by use of the Eqs. 1 thru 4:
Membrane stress in vessel
O'u = [0.5315 - 0.06342 (2.5)1.25 (240t· 25(1)-O.75
+ 0.4372(2.5)(240)-·25(1)-·25][(48/ J120 x .5)
x 14,400] = 4.70 x 14,400 = 67,700 psi
Surface stress in vessel
O'll = [1.0048 - .01427(1t 1.5
+ 0.8605(2.5)1.25 (240)-·5(1}5]
. [(48/ J120 x .5) x (14,400)]
= 7.22 x 14,400 = 104,000 psi
 Table 2a: Percent Differences Between Equations and FAST2 Values

Model Lambda Eq. (1 ) Eq. ( 2) Eq. (3) Eq.(4) Eq.(lj3) Eq.(2/4)

1 0.52 -3.18 -2.17 -4.04 2.37 -3.18 2.37

2 0.62 -9.66 14.47 -17.45 12.90 -15.21 12.90
3 0.89 -1.08 5.52 -16.16 15.00 -13.00 15.00
4 0.95 -0.45 1.58 3.50 -2.91 3.31 -2.91
5 0.99 4.69 4.73 3.15 6.35 3.15 6.35
6 1.00 -8.18 -9.62 -16.01 -9.37 -16.01 -9.37
7 1.05 -1.47 3.71 2.62 -3.87 1.26 -3.87
8 1.08 5.81 5.01 3.76 2.07 3.76 2.07
9 1.09 0.40 -5.06 -6.56 5.56 -6.56 5.56
10 1.10 -1.19 2.26 4.00 -3.23 4.00 -3.23

11 1.11 9.48 3.66 -2.11 5.29 -2.11 5.29

12 1.14 5.13 3.38 5.59 5.70 5.59 5.70
13 1.24 -3.67 -12.74 2.90 3.17 2.90 -2.76
14 1.26 8.66 -0.72 0.44 5.59 0.44 5.59
15 1.26 5.30 0.51 -14.71 16.38 -10.50 16.38
16 1.29 -4.80 -3.65 -0.84 -4.48 -0.84 -3.65
17 1.31 -3.94 -4.51 2.13 8.98 2.13 8.98
18 1.35 4.37 -11.55 12.90 -7.80 12.90 -7.80
19 1.36 -2.59 3.94 2.94 -2.83 2.94 -2.83
20 1.40 3.44 2.90 6.25 6.63 6.25 6.63

21 1.47 2.88 -15.96 -1.26 -12.00 -1.26 -15.96

22 1.47 2.88 -15.93 -1.26 -12.03 -1.26 -15.93
23 1.55 4.11 -3.67 6.60 -7.10 6.60 -7.10
24 1.65 -2.91 -4.19 -0.34 1.38 -0.34 -2.98
25 1.74 -6.44 1.88 -3.49 4.85 -3.49 4.85
26 1.80 -0.71 -4.16 6.36 19.93 6.36 19.93
27 1.84 7.83 -4.65 -0.24 -12.64 -0.24 -4.65
28 1.91 -5.01 -1.19 0.60 -2.07 -0.14 -1.79
29 1.93 -2.15 12.61 -1.44 -3.76 -1.44 12.61
30 1.97 0.29 5.56 2.42 -8.17 2.42 -8.17

31 1.99 5.16 -1.35 4.97 0.87 4.97 0.87

32 2.04 -3.54 6.04 0.71 -2.56 0.71 -2.56
33 2.06 -0.22 5.45 -1.41 1.45 -1.41 5.45
34 2.09 -6.30 -1.85 -1.00 -0.64 -3.23 -1.85
35 2.10 -2.28 4.95 -1.18 -1.73 -1.18 -1.73
36 2.11 -4.77 -6.21 1.37 -1.76 0.00 -1.76
37 2.12 5.50 0.23 8.77 5.87 8.77 5.87
38 2.16 0.19 1.49 3.03 -8.96 3.03 -8.96
39 2.18 3.89 -0.79 3.32 -3.32 3.32 -3.32
40 2.18 -6.38 8.93 -6.62 2.54 -6.62 2.54

41 2.21 -4.19 0.54 0.86 -0.62 0.86 -0.62

42 2.22 6.67 -7.14 9.47 -7.63 9.47 -7.63
43 2.23 11.12 -4.26 4.45 2.34 4.45 2.34
44 2.25 -5.44 1.29 -1.79 21.71 -1.79 21.71
45 2.27 -1.96 4.33 0.48 -7.44 0.48 -7.44
46 2.30 2.79 0.00 3.52 1.97 3.52 1.97
47 2.46 -1.18 2.17 1.19 -8.64 1.19 -8.64
48 2.57 4.10 29.16 0.94 -0.55 0.94 29.16
49 2.71 -1.87 6.57 0.17 2.17 0.17 2.17
50 2.79 -2.82 -1.60 0.77 1.45 0.77: 1.45

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 17

 Table 2b: Percent Differences Between Equations and FAST2 Values

Model Lambda Eq. (1) Eq. (2) Eq.(3) Eq. (4 ) Eq. (1/3) Eq. (2/4)

51 2.80 -4.64 9.00 -5.38 -5.07 -5.38 -5.07

52 2.83 -1.30 3.16 -0.33 6.66 -0.33 6.66
53 2.85 -2.61 5.55 -1.86 -7.54 -1.86 -7.54
54 2.86 -4.02 3.48 -1.19 4.72 -3.65 3.48
55 2.88 1.00 1.39 1.48 1.95 1.48 1.95
56 2.95 -1.74 -1.24 0.44 -6.94 0.44 -6.94
57 2.98 -1.67 2.51 -1.81 -6.53 -1.81 -6.53
58 3.10 -4.29 -17.04 1.26 1.10 -1.45 -2.28
59 3.14 -3.61 8.18 -2.14 6.05 -3.61 8.18
60 3.14 1.11 -3.69 3.95 -9.98 3.95 -9.98

61 3.15 7.72 -10.12 12.14 -6.40 12.14 -6.40

62 3.16 5.72 -2.01 5.14 -2.36 5.14 -2.36
63 3.16 10.64 -3.34 6.02 3.73 6.02 3.73
64 3.19 -3.95 -7.82 -0.19 4.75 -2.81 -7.82
65 3.21 12.95 32.91 5.19 3.48 9.69 32.91
66 3.23 -1.56 -6.28 1.27 -4.30 1.27 -4.30
67 3.27 -2.03 4.10 -2.08 -9.00 -2.08 -9.00
68 3.31 -0.72 7.66 0.00 8.46 -0.72 7.66
69 3.37 -1.36 -2.20 0.18 3.40 0.18 3.40
70 3.39 1.36 10.41 0.39 8.28 0.39 10.41

71 3.43 -3.09 6.86 -4.14 -7.05 -4.14 -7.05

72 3.46 -0.50 3.19 -0.50 2.53 -0.50 2.53
73 3.50 -4.21 11.85 -7.10 -4.55 -7.10 -4.55
74 3.54 -5.27 6.23 -6.89 3.30 -6.89 3.30
75 3.82 1.38 12.45 -0.39 11.33 1.38 12.45
76 3.94 -0.78 -4.59 -0.59 -0.58 -0.59 -0.58
77 3.98 -3.87 7.94 -5.59 -7.99 -5.59 -7.99
78 4.00 -0.30 3.57 -0.61 0.43 -0.61 0.43
79 4.18 4.12 13.73 0.12 12.12 4.12 13.73
80 4.31 -0.42 -8.32 -0.42 3.91 -0.42 3.91

81 4.36 -2.68 5.55 -4.50 -7.96 -4.50 -7.96

82 4.38 -2.67 4.51 -3.56 -2.71 -3.56- -2.71
83 4.43 -3.11 -22.21 0.72 3.90 -1.87 0.39
84 4.45 1.64 -5.87 4.82 -8.96 4.82 -8.96
85 4.47 5.01 0.24 6.12 -1.84 6.12 -1.84
86 4.58 2.31 2.26 3.07 -2.69 3.07 -2.69
87 4.66 -4.90 -15.16 -4.76 10.90 -4.90 -15.16
88 4.69 -1.83 -16.42 -0.41 4.28 -1.83 2.20
89 4.72 -0.90 -0.89 -0.53 -8.86 -0.53 -8.86
90 4.77 9.88 17.08 2.54 17.40 9.88 17.08

91 4.93 1.76 -4.70 -1.42 7.19 1.76 7.19

92 4.98 -2.75 8.20 -7.06 -5.75 -7.06 -5.75
93 5.23 15.59 19.09 5.00 18.35 15.59 19.09
94 5.39 2.43 -6.47 -1.76 12.83 2.43 -2.03
95 5.45 0.00 3.63 -4.85 -2.97 -4.85 -2.97
96 5.47 -4.51 10.25 -7.84 -3.05 -7.84 -3.05
97 6.30 -1.80 -24.82 0.00 7.37 -1.80 3.94
98 6.31 1.85 -6.81 5.84 -6.27 5.84 -6.27
99 6.32 4.59 4.24 8.24 1.36 8.24 1.36

18 WRC Bulletin 368

 Table 2c : Percent Differences Between
Equations and FAST2 Values
Model Lambda Eq.(2/4) Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq.(8)

1 0.52 2.37 -5.80 -24.76 -34.45 -30.16

2 0.62 12.90 -24.17 -34.92 -56.72 -51.90
3 0.89 15.00 -38.18 -44.32 -68.02 -61.45
4 0.95 -2.91 -4.45 -22.17 -32.96 -21.79
5 0.99 6.35 -23.22 -30.03 -59.16 -52.41
6 1.00 -9.37 -3.83 -4.77 -60.16 -53.54
7 1.05 -3.87 -2.02 -20.92 -26.83 -16.37
8 1.08 2.07 -28.64 -35.57 -58.65 -52.84
9 1.09 5.56 -16.77 -18.33 -62.21 -56.89
10 1.10 -3.23 -5.75 -21.76 -31.76 -23.34

11 1.11 5.29 -42.97 -48.45 -66.19 -61.47

12 1.14 5.70 -22.54 -28.06 -57.07 -51.80
13 1.24 -2.76 16.89 -3.77 -8.93 -3.31
14 1.26 5.59 -39.88 -43.34 -65.84 -62.30
15 1.26 16.38 -49.88 -52.65 -71.40 -68.38
16 1.29 -3.65 13.65 -11.35 -8.42 -1.90
17 1.31 8.98 -1.65 -11.50 -33.63 -29.36
18 1.35 -7.80 30.71 31.59 -34.96 -30.48
19 1.36 -2.83 -7.61 -21.23 -29.55 -24.80
20 1.40 6.63 -20.78 -24.43 -53.05 -49.91

21 1.47 -15.96 -1.47 -26.10 -27.57 -26.85

22 1.47 -15.93 -1.43 -26.07 -27.55 -26.83
23 1.55 -7.10 -32.40 -41.18 -45.57 -42.99
24 1.65 -2.98 19.93 -0.84 1.48 2.25
25 1.74 4.85 -8.48 -17.29 -27.31 -26.82
26 1.80 19.93 7.43 8.62 -34.35 -33.91
27 1.84 -4.65 7.74 -18.92 -26.55 -27.97
28 1.91 -1.79 8.49 -10.70 -2.28 -2.53
29 1.93 12.61 23.89 -2.77 0.00 -0.95
30 1.97 -8.17 -37.08 -42.07 -48.52 -48.89

31 1.99 0.87 -40.08 -40.04 -59.89 -60.25

32 2.04 -2.56 -3.54 -17.25 -13.31 -14.69
33 2.06 5.45 24.44 3.23 8.64 6.04
34 2.09 -1.85 4.33 -14.92 -4.67 -6.54
35 2.10 -1.73 -34.38 -37.03 -49.00 -50.04
36 2.11 -1.76 -0.13 -16.27 -6.61 -8.61
37 2.12 5.87 -20.45 -17.03 -50.23 -51.33
38 2.16 -8.96 -36.41 -41.98 -43.88 -45.29
39 2.18 -3.32 -45.68 -46.14 -60.00 -61.09
40 2.18 2.54 -11.35 -19.61 -21.14 -23.37

41 2.21 -0.62 7.17 -10.11 -1.09 -4.02

42 2.22 -7.63 -46.27 -50.93 -50.40 -51.92
43 2.23 2.34 -55.92 -55.11 -69.03 -70.02
44 2.25 21.71 -10.03 -8.72 -35.27 -37.37
45 2.27 -7.44 -31.70 -37.62 -38.56 -40.66
46 2.30 1.97 -39.19 -37.99 -56.77 -58.39
47 2.46 -8.64 -36.96 -41.76 -41.29 -44.18
48 2.57 29.16 33.49 5.21 0.00 -4.87
49 2.71 2.17 5.12 -9.43 0.72 -5.21
50 2.79 1.45 -0.97 -14.32 -2.45 -8.85

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 19

 Table 2d: Percent Differences Between
Equations and FAST2 Values

Model Lambda Eq.(2/4) Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8)

51 2.80 -5.07 -38.69 -40.90 -42.78 -46.63

52 2.83 6.66 -36.55 -33.54 -50.56 -54.09
53 2.85 -7.54 -37.94 -41.57 -39.18 -43.53
54 2.86 3.48 3.42 -14.36 -4.84 -11.44
55 2.88 1.95 -43.41 -40.53 -55.65 -59.03
56 2.95 -6.94 -35.03 -39.81 -33.56 -38.74
57 2.98 -6.53 -50.10 -49.76 -55.20 -58.87
58 3.10 -2.28 -20.06 -29.72 -12.60 -20.32
59 3.14 8.18 4.11 -14.58 -7.35 -14.95
60 3.14 -9.98 -49.46 -51.71 -47.20 -52.05

61 3.15 -6.40 -56.40 -58.23 -52.87 -57.36

62 3.16 -2.36 -56.74 -53.91 -64.66 -68.00
63 3.16 3.73 -64.18 -61.75 -70.52 -73.36
64 3.19 -7.82 -10.00 -22.36 -8.07 -16.05
65 3.21 32.91 29.91 2.73 -11.76 -17.88
66 3.23 -4.30 -30.68 -36.37 -25.42 -32.24
67 3.27 -9.00 -51.81 -51.93 -52.80 -57.32
68 3.31 7.66 5.07 -11.33 -2.46 -10.70
69 3.37 3.40 -7.13 -17.60 -3.16 -11.88
70 3.39 10.41 9.12 -5.67 5.36 -3.33

71 3.43 -7.05 -42.38 -44.39 -39.18 -45.09

72 3.46 2.53 -46.44 -42.34 -54.33 -59.05
73 3.50 -4.55 -38.95 -40.95 -35.41 -41.55
74 3.54 3.30 -44.91 -42.10 -49.20 -54.36
75 3.82 12.45 3.44 -13.97 -10.79 -19.79
76 3.94 -0.58 -28.69 -33.65 -18.38 -27.64
77 3.98 -7.99 -52.48 -51.95 -48.18 -54.39
78 4.00 0.43 -52.15 -47.46 -56.31 -61.73
79 4.18 13.73 0.80 -16.95 -18.77 -27.76
80 4.3+ 3.91 -21.95 -28.04 -8.64 -19.97

81 4.36 -7.96 -51.83 -51.75 -43.47 -50.86

82 4.38 -2.71 -57.25 -53.50 -56.89 -62.73
83 4.43 0.39 -34.38 -39.45 -14.97 -26.88
84 4.45 -8.96 -59.07 -58.98 -49.27 -56.52
85 4.47 -1.84 -65.14 -61.06 -66.18 -71.09
86 4.58 -2.69 -61.54 -56.94 -62.36 -67.85
87 4.66 -15.16 -28.43 -36.69 -18.43 -29.66
88 4.69 2.20 -29.57 -34.59 -11.26 -23.80
89 4.72 -8.86 -56.61 -56.22 -45.88 -53.77
90 4.77 17.08 0.37 -16.25 -21.21 -30.37

91 4.93 7.19 -21.02 -26.27 -5.19 -17.79

92 4.98 -5.75 -51.80 -51.10 -40.01 -48.51
93 5.23 19.09 -1.61 -18.66 -29.45 -38.20
94 5.39 -2.03 -23.95 -29.65 -9.11 -21.97
95 5.45 -2.97 -49.07 -48.81 -32.91 -43.02
96 5.47 -3.05 -60.26 -56.62 -52.55 -60.01
97 6.30 3.94 -45.61 -47.35 -15.30 -30.59
98 6.31 -6.27 -66.23 -64.52 -49.67 -58.86
99 6.32 1.36 -71.13 -66.20 -66.30 -72.52

20 WRC Bulletin 368

Membrane stress in nozzle
<Tn = [0.2728 - 0.04706 (2.5)-25(1)-·6
+ 0.9551 (240)-·26 (1).5]
. [(120IJ48 X .5) X (5,760)] = 11.18
= 64,380 psi
Surface stress in nozzle
(Tn = [0.3377 - 0.5272 (2.5)-·50 (1)-.75
+ 1.4229 (2.5)-·5 (1)-.25]
. [(120IJ48 X .5) X (5,760)] = 22.15
= 127,570 psi
For A-~16-70 material, minimum specified yield
strength lS 38,000 psi and minimum specified ulti-
mate strength is 70,000 psi. The calculated stresses
are obviously quite high for this material. The ASME
Code Section VIII, Division 1, does not have a limit on
local stresses and secondary and peak stresses. The
only requirement of that Code is that the area
re~lacement rules (including compact reinforcing re-
qUIrements of Appendix 1-7) be satisfied. For this
particular case, the required area for reinforcement is
19.8 square inches and the available area for reinforce-
ment is 5.01 square inches. This confirms that this
intersection is not adequately reinforced and not
acceptable for Code construction.
Another simplified approach that has been pro-
posed for calculating membrane (average over effec-
tive area) and bending (across effective area cross
section) stresses in vessels, at large penetrations, is
that of McBride and Jacobs. 5 That method assumes
an effective section extending 1.0 /iff' along the
~essel shell and 1.0 Jrl
along the nozzle, for calculat-
years. This approach uses an effective section consist-
ing of /iff' and Irl for calculating both membrane
stresses (average over the effective area) and bending
stresses (across the effective area). This will result in
calculated membrane and membrane plus bending
X 5,760 stresses of 48,140 psi and 99,940 psi, respectively.
The calculated value of membrane plus bending
stress by this method is closer to the value calculated
by equations proposed here (104,000 psi). The allow-
abIes used by CBI to limit these stresses have been
basic tabulated Code allowables for membrane and
1% times this value for membrane plus bending
stresses. Using this criteria, also confirms the inade-
X 5,760
quacy of this intersection.
. To demonstrate the stress distribution at the junc-
tIon, as calculated by the FAST2 program, Figs. 3a
and 3b have been included. On Fig. 3a, "MR" indi-
cates the bending stress caused by an edge moment
whose vector is tangent to the hole; "MTH" indicates
bending stress caused by a moment whose vector is
radial to the hole; and "MRTH" indicates the shear
stress due to twisting moment. On Fig. 3b, "NR"
indicates the membrane stress due to radial force'
"NTH" indicates the membrane stress due to circum:
ferential force, and "NRTH" indicates the shear
stress due to in-plane shear force. On the vertical
axis, the degrees around the circumference of the
nozzle, "0°" indicates the point along the meridional
axis of the vessel.
Example No.2-Reinforced Openings
To meet area replacement rules, a reinforcing pad
can be added to Example 1. Assume a pad thickness of
0.5 in. In order to allow for thickness of pad being
assumed as effective shell thickness for calculations
proposed in this paper, the minimum width of the pad
should be equal to or greater than 1.65 J60X 1 =

lng membrane stresses due to pressure area. For
calculating bending stresses, it assumes an effective
section extending 16T along vessel shell and 16t along
the nozzle, to resist combination of in-plane and
out-of plane moments.
Membrane and membrane plus bending stresses, in
the vessel, calculated by this method are 48,140 and
73,900 psi, respectively. These values are consider-
ably smaller than the stresses calculated by equations
~ro~osed here (67,700 psi and 104,000 psi). But, the
~lImts of effective sections in Ref. 5 are arbitrary and
mtended for approximation of stresses over a wide
range of parameters. The method of Ref. 5 is also
intended to provide an estimate of average primary
membrane and primary bending stresses, and pro-
posed allowables are those associated with primary
stresses. Whereas the stresses based on F AST2 pro-
~am i~cl':lde the local membrane and secondary
discontInulty effects. These results can be classified
as local primary membrane and secondary bending
stresses.
An approach similar to that of Ref. 5 has been
successfully used by Chicago Bridge & Iron Company
for design of large penetrations, over the past 25
Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure
12.8 in. and dl2 = 24 in. Section VIII, Division 1,
allows a pad as wide as 24 in. to be considered
effective for reinforcement [Paragraph UG-40 (a)
(1)]. The use of a 24 in. wide pad provides a total
reinforcement area of approximately 28.5 square in.,
~hich is more.than the required area of 19.8 square
In. However, SInce the size of the opening exceeds the
l~its of Paragraph UG-36 (b) (1), the compact
reInforcement rules of Appendix 1-7 will also have to
be met. This requires that % of the reinforcement
area be placed within an approximately 12 in. width
of the pad. For this case, there is approximately 14.42
square in. of reinforcing material within the compact
reinforcing limits, which is more than the required
area of 13.21 square in. A 24 in. wide and 0.5 in. thick
pad, therefore, meets the requirements of Section
VIII, Division 1, Code.
With such pad, the parameters, used for calculating
stresses by use of equations proposed here, are:
D = 120 in. T = 1.0 in. d = 48 in.
t = 0.5 in P = 120 psi
DIT = 120 dlt = 96 DId = 2.5 dlJiiT = 4.38
SIs = 7,200/5,760 = 1.25 tIT = 0.5
21
 o EXRMPLE 'P RCJ BL EM ~1
(0
(Y')
-·----·--·----·-·-·1·-·-·-- ·-·--·-·-·-T-·-·--·-·----·-·-·-r·-·-·-·-·-·--·-·-·-·-·1-'-'-'--'--'-'-'-' I
I
I i i i i
II I
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
I I I I I
1 I i I

Lf)
I
i
1
i i i
I i i
I I I
i
i
I I . i
------_.-.-.-_.-. .-.--._.-----_._.-.-.-.-.t-
I
.--.-.---.-.--.;._-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-t--.-.-.-.-.--.-.-. .;.-.-.-----.-.-.-.-.-.,
(Y')
I I i I
i I I
I I i
i i i
I i
I i
I i
I j
I I
o I I I i I
r- .__._.__.__._.____L._. __.___._____.l_._._.__._.__.___._.L._.________._._.J._._._._._. ____._.__.1
C\J I i i i I
i i i I i
I i i I i
i i i i i
i j I f
i i i j
i i i i
. i i i
I. ,I iI
I I i
I
---.----.-.-.---t- I
.-----.--.--;.----.----.----.t--.-.-----.-- . i··------·-----·-·1I
I i i i j
i f I I i
i i i i ;
i i j j i
! i , I I
I i i i I
1 I I t i
i I j t I
i I I ! I
i I i i i
I __ _
_. _____.______.L I I I I
i ·-·-·---·-·f-·-·---·-·----·-·-·f-·-·-----·--·--·-·l·--·-.-.-----.-. ·1
i i I I i
en I
i
j
I I
j i
i i
i
w i
I
t
I
i l
I i i
i
w i
i
i i
I
I i
i
a: i
I
I i i
I
i
C) • i i I I i
I i
W~ .--.-.--.-.-.---.-. ··----·------·-·--·r·i .--.-.---.---;.----.-.----.--.-r---.-.------.--- ·,·-·----·-·-·-·----·--1
i l l
i i i
0- I t I I
I I j
i I j

I II -1-1-1
WW W
Ii
i (J) (f) (J) i
i (f) (f) (f) i
I WWlLJ I
i i i I »> I
o '--'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'r-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'--'+--'-'-'--·--·-·-·-·-r·-·-·-·--·--·-·-·-·-f-·-
::r: -,-,-,1
0)
i i i I a:I--::r: I
i i i i :La:1-- i en
i i i t:L L I E
i i i i '0
i i «I i Co
i i i i
i l l
j I
ElX ~ Ii
i I
._. __._._---_._._, -_._._._-_._._._._._;-. I I t t
j

.-.----.-.-.-.-.-t-.-.-.--.-.-.-.-.--.--;-.-.-.--.--.-.--_. . "--'--'-----'-'-'-'-'-"
I I I i i
i I i ' i
i ; I i i
i I i i i
I I i i i
i I i I I
j I i i i
I I I I i
i I I I t
I i i i I
! I I I 1

o. 17. 34. 51. 68.

BENDING STRESSES

22 WRC Bulletin 368

 a
ill
EXAMPLE PRCJBLEM ~1
en '-'-'-'---,'---'--'---'-'-'-'1"-'-'-'--'-'-'-'-'-'--,'-'-'-'---'-'-'-'-' ,'---'-'-'-'-'-'---'-j
! I
I
1
I I I I
I I 1 I j
II 'I !I t
i
!
I
I i I
1
I
i
I
Ii i
I

Lf') I j i
I j ._._._._.j-. i
I __._. __._._. __ ._._.;._-_._._._._._._---j
I
0-1
en
._._._-_._._._.j-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-;--'--'-'-'-'
I 1 i i i
I .
j
i
Ii II i
!
i i I !
j I I !
I I i !
i j I
a I
I
1 I I
! ____.____.__IL ___.____._._._._J.i ______._._. ___._iI
I
r- -.--_.!-_._. ___._. __.___ ....;._._.
C\J ! I I I i
I
I
I
i i
I i
I
!I
i
I i
I i
! ;I i
!
i i i
I ! I
i
i
II
I
i i i
I Ii I!
-·-·-----·J·------·---·-·-·l·-·----- .-.---j-.-.----.-.-.-.---.,.--.-.-.-.-----.-.-./
i i ! I !
i
t I
i i
i Ii
i I I '
/ / i I
I I j I
i j I I
: l I I I
--.-.-.-.-.}-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-._+-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-'-'-'-r'-'-'-'-'--'-'-'--' j'-'--'-'-'-'-'-'-'--'-'I
I i / I i
Ul I ! ! I i
W i.
1
II i
: i
j
i
j

W I i i I I
0:
C).
1 : I I I
I I I i

w~ 1 I__ . .-.-.--.~.-.-----.-.--.--~.--
I /
._. __.__._._._j-_.
t __._._---_._._.;----_.
i i i .-_.-.- ----·-·-·1!
0-
I . i I I
II II II .....J.....J .....J
i
1
: Ii II UJUJ
VHf)
W
(J)
!
!
i I (J) (J) (/) I
I ! ! I WW UJ 1
! 1 1 I ::» ::> j
a __.__ .!-. ____._._. ____._.~.-.-.-.-.-.-_-.-.---.L.--.-.- ____._. __ ..1._ __._._.1
m I
I
i
! I i
i i
J:
I
i
I i i i a:1- :c i
1 1 I i i za: t- I
1 i i i Z Z I
I I i i . .
i
i
I
I
i
I
i
i
II I.
i i i i i 8(> + :
i
i I i I I I
._-_.--_._.__._._.;--_.-
j
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.~.-.---.-.-.-.---.-.~.-.-.-.--.-. ,-.-.-.-.~.-.-.-.--.-.-.-,-,-.-.~,-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-,_._.j
j t I I t j
I t i ' ! I
I j I I
,
i t
i
i
i
l
I
i I i i
i i i i
i i i i
i i i i
i i i
a ! I I

0.0 17. 34. 51 68. 85.

MEMBRRNE STRESS

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 23

 All these parameters fall within the limits of appli-
cability of the equations proposed here. The resulting
stresses are given by:
Membrane O'u = 5.10 x 7,200 = 36,700 psi
Surface O'u = 7.06 x 7,200 = 50,800 psi
Membrane O'n = 6.81 x 5,760 = 39,200 psi
Surface O'n = 14.67 x 5,760 = 84,500 psi
As expected, the addition of pad plate has reduced the
stresses at the junction to more reasonable values.
But these values are still rather high, indicating that,
even though Code requirements have been met, some
locally high stresses can be expected.
It is generally assumed that, for the method of
analysis employed to develop the design equations
proposed here, membrane stresses are local primary
and the surface stresses are primary plus secondary.
As such, the ASME Code allowables for membrane
and surface stresses would be 1.5 times and 3 times
the basic tabulated Code allowables. Using such
limits for design, however, may result in significant
conservatism for certain cases. The membrane stresses
may include some secondary effects and, for vessels
which are not subject to cyclic operation, a limit on
secondary stresses may not be needed. The only time
that self limiting secondary stresses may be of a
concern is when such stresses are cyclic.
For a Section VIII, Division 1, vessel, the tabulated
stress allowable at ambient temperature for SA516-70
material is 17,500 psi. This indicates that the limits
suggested in the preceding paragraph cannot be met
for this vessel. However, if the operation is known to
be non-cyclic (small number of cycles over the life of
the structure), not having met these allowables may
not necessarily be a problem. To assure that primary
bending stresses (needed to meet equilibrium at the
junction) are not excessive, such stresses shall be
checked by a method similar to that of Ref. 5.
The method will be used, with the exception that
effective sections along the vessel shell and nozzle will
be assumed as jiiT and Jri,
for both membrane and
bending stresses (as used by Chicago Bridge & Iron
Company). The question that arises in this case is
whether JiiT should be based on the thickness of the
shell (0.5 in.) or the combined thickness of shell and
pad (1.0 in).
Again, some engineering judgement will have to be
exercised. It is suggested that as long as the width of
the pad exceeds JiiTi,then the limit of effective
section can be based on T j • In this case, the 24 in.
width of the pad considerably exceeds V60 x 1 = 7.75
in.; therefore, the limit of effective area along the
vessel shell will be assumed as 7.75 in. from outside of
nozzle neck. The calculated stresses on this basis are:
Membrane = 24,560 psi
Membrane plus bending = 56,540 psi
The membrane stress exceeds the suggested tabu-
24 WRC Bulletin 368
lated allowable of 17,500 psi (for Section VIII, Divi-
sion 1) and the membrane plus bending stress exceeds
the suggested 1% times that basic allowable. This is
further indication of the inadequacy of this detail.
Adequate material has not been provided close enough
to the junction.
Example No.3
To further reduce the stresses of Example 2, the
thickness of the 24 in. wide pad will be increased to 1
in. The parameters for this case will be:
D = 120 in. T = 1.5 in Did = 2.5 diM = 3.58
Material SA516-70 Joint efficiency = 1.0
Corrosion allowance = 0
DIT = 80 dlt = 96 DId = 2.5 diM = 3.58
SIs = 4,800/5,760 = 0.83 tIT = .333
All these parameters fall within the limits of applica-
bility of the equations proposed here. The use of Eqs.
1 thru 4 results in the following stresses:
Membrane O'u = 5.33 x 4,800 = 25,600 psi
Surface O'u = 6.85 x 4,800 = 32,800 psi
Membrane O'n = 5.02 x 5,760 = 28,900 psi
Surface an = 10.78 x 5,760 = 62,100 psi
The calculated maximum membrane stress on the
vessel is within the Code allowable for local primary
membrane of 1.5 x 17,500 = 26,250 psi (for Section
VIII, Division 1). However, the maximum membrane
stress in the nozzle still exceeds this value. Likewise,
maximum surface stress on the vessel is within the
Code limit of 3 x 17,500 = 52,500, whereas the
maximum surface stress on the nozzle exceeds this
value. This indicates that not enough reinforcing has
been provided on the nozzle side of the junction. If
local membrane and secondary bending stresses in
the nozzle are of concern, or if a more balanced design
is desired, the nozzle wall thickness will have to be
increased.
For comparison purposes, stresses based on method
of Ref. 5, with effective sections of JRt
and Jrl will
also be calculated. Since the pad width of 24 in.
exceeds the value of V60x 1.5 = 9.49 in. (and is not
less than dI2), the effective section along vessel shell
will be assumed as 9.49 in. from the outside of nozzle
neck. On that basis, the calculated stresses are:
Membrane = 15,400 psi
Membrane plus bending = 38,360 psi
As expected, the calculated value of membrane stress
is within the suggested allowable of 17,500 psi. The
membrane plus bending stress, however, is still more
than the desired value of 1.5 x 17,500. This, again,
can be remedied by slightly increasing the thickness
of the nozzle neck. As a matter of fact, for keeping
bending stresses (for method of Ref. 5) within limits,
the greatest benefit is gained by adding reinforcement
to the neck; since this will more significantly stiffen
the shell for bending about a neutral axis which is
parallel to the shell surface.
In all of the above examples, ASME Code Section
VIII, Division 1, has been discussed. Section VIII,
Division 2, and Section III Codes require a more
complete analysis. For those sections of the ASME
Code, the stress intensities calculated by the method
proposed here would be helpful in calculating stresses
of various categories. However, it should be pointed
Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure
out that these maximum stress intensity factors do
not include all peak effects. The maximum peak
stresses, needed to perform fatigue analysis, usually
depend on such factors as weld details, corner radius,
etc. The stress intensity values calculated here will
have to be multiplied by appropriate fatigue strength
reduction factors. The location and direction of stress
intensities not being known, an accurate analysis is
not possible. Only approximate and conservative esti-
mates of peak stresses can be obtained by applying
the highest fatigue strength reduction factor for the
intersection to the maximum surface stresses.
25
Table 1A: Finite Element Analyses, Unreinforced
Model DIT diD tiT SCF Eq. (2/4) Eq. ( 5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8)
UA 101.00 0.500 0.500 8.14 12.89 6.54 6.66 8.20 7.02
B 81.00 0.500 0.500 7.78 11.55 6.28 6.30 7.46 6.50
C 41.00 0.500 0.500 5.45 8.22 5.55 5.31 5.67 5.20
D 21.00 0.500 0.500 4.26 5.88 4.92 4.50 4.45 4.29
E 11.00 0.500 0.500 4.15 4.26 4.37 3.82 3.65 3.66
F 11.00 0.080 0.080 3.18 1.97 3.43 3.82 2.69 2.33
Ratio Ave. 1.267 0.986 0.964 0.962 0.879
Stand.Dev. 0.433 0.147 0.142 0.085 0.149

Table 1B: Finite Element Analyses, Standard Reinforcement

Model D/T dID tIT SCF Eq. (2/4) Eq. ( 5 ) Eq. ( 6 ) Eq. (7) Eq. (8)
SlA 101.00 0.538 4.340 2.38 3.61 3.26 2.34 1.53 1.36
B 81.00 0.543 4.010 2.50 3.45 3.24 2.32 1.56 1.40
C 41.00 0.564 3.140 2.75 3.04 3.19 2.25 1.66 1.55
D 21.00 0.593 2.450 2.95 2.72 3.16 2.21 1.81 1.73
E 11.00 0.629 1.920 3.06 2.47 3.15 2.19 2.01 1.93
F 41.00 0.375 2.560 2.72 2.60 2.96 2.03 1.70 1.64
G 21.00 0.399 1.980 2.83 2.38 2.97 2.02 1.84 1.81
H 11.00 0.429 1.520 2.95 2.21 2.99 2.03 2.03 2.01
I 41.00 0.202 1.880 2.58 2.23 2.66 1.74 1.70 1.79
J 21.00 0.220 1.430 2.67 2.10 2.70 1.76 1.81 1.95
K 11.00 0.244 1.080 2.80 2.00 2.77 1.82 1.98 2.10
L 41.00 0.112 1.380 2.50 2.10 2.41 1.51 1.69 1.93
M 21.00 0.125 1.030 2.59 2.01 2.49 1.57 1.88 2.05
N 11.00 0.138 0.724 2.89 1.94 2.63 1.67 2.19 2.16
Ratio Ave. 0.923 1.067 0.723 0.665 0.666
Stand Dev. 0.252 0.129 0.300 0.338 0.344

Table 1C: Finite Element Anal ses, Tapered Reinforcement

Model D/T diD tIT SCF Eq. (2 4 Eq. 5 Eq. 6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8)
P30A 101.00 0.348 3.190 2.57 3.08 3.13 2.20 1.78 1.63
B 41.00 0.364 2.130 2.84 2.71 3.15 2.20 2.01 1.93
C 21.00 0.381 1.600 2.89 2.47 3.16 2.19 2.14 2.12
D 11.00 0.402 1.230 2.92 2.28 3.17 2.19 2.26 2.27
E 11.00 0.121 0.533 2.96 1.99 2.56 1.82 2.37 2.26
Ratio Ave. 0.892 1.074 0.751 0.744 0.718
Stand Dev. 0.209 0.129 0.261 0.260 0.287

Table 2A: Finite Element Analyses

Model bIT dlO t/'l' seF Eq.(2/4) Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8)
U2TA 51.00 0.495 0.250 8.22 14.16 6.77 7.90 6.93 6.22
B 41.00 0.494 0.250 7.46 12.67 6.50 7.47 6.33 5.79
C 21.00 0.488 0.250 5.13 8.99 5.73 6.28 4.88 4.72
D 11.00 0.477 0.250 4.67 6.39 5.05 5.28 3.89 3.96
E 6.00 0.458 0.250 4.36 4.58 4.46 4.45 3.25 3.42
F 6.00 0.073 0.040 3.67 0.96 3.50 4.44 2.79 2.23
Ratio Ave. 1.309 0.978 1.091 0.830 0.782
Stand Dev. 0.614 0.116 0.138 0.182 0.238

26 WRC Bulletin 368

Table 2B: Finite Element Anal~ses
Model DIT diD tiT SCF Eq. (2/4) Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8)
S75E 11.00 0.597 1.562 3.29 2.56 3.24 2.36 2.32 2.24
F 41.00 0.361 2.000 2.95 2.74 3.10 2.26 2.11 2.04
I 41.00 0.191 1.448 2.77 2.31 2.77 1.93 1.98 2.12
L 41.00 0.104 1.052 2.62 2.16 2.50 1.67 1.90 2.15
350D 21.00 0.546 1.474 3.42 3.06 3.45 2.74 2.75 2.63
F 41.00 0.347 1.440 3.17 2.97 3.30 2.61 2.69 2.61
G 21.00 0.359 1.148 3.25 2.64 3.24 2.51 2.59 2.60
I 41.00 0.181 1.020 2.96 2.46 2.95 2.24 2.30 2.51
J 21.00 0.190 0.793 2.94 2.27 2.94 2.20 2.19 2.47
L 41.00 0.096 0.728 2.72 2.25 2.64 1.93 2.13 2.36
M 21.00 0.103 0.556 2.77 2.13 2.67 1.93 2.28 2.33
S25F 41.00 0.334 0.880 3.40 3.58 3.65 3.27 3.50 3.41
I 41.00 0.170 0.588 3.15 3.07 3.28 2.86 2.63 2.92
L 41.00 0.088 0.404 2.81 2.63 2.94 2.48 2.38 2.54
N 11.00 0.095 0.241 3.20 2.12 2.95 2.40 2.64 2.34
Ratio Ave. 0.855 1.003 0.775 0.798 0.821
Stand Dev. 0.173 0.041 0.240 0.216 0.198

Table 3 : Photoelastic Data

Model DIT diD tiT SCF Eq. (2/4) Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8)
C-1A 12.90 0.050 0.048 2.60 1.52 3.30 4.07 2.66 2.22
C-2A 13.10 0.129 0.133 2.94 3.17 3.69 3.93 2.64 2.57
C-3A 12.90 0.200 0.198 3.15 4.03 3.91 4.00 2.61 2.86
E-4 13.50 0.501 0.513 3.65 4.62 4.57 3.98 3.85 3.82
E-4B 13.20 0.500 0.503 3.65 4.64 4.32 3.99 3.84 3.81
E-4E 13.30 0.501 0.510 3.89 4.61 4.30 3.97 3.84 3.81
C-3C 6.50 0.183 0.091 3.40 2.07 4.03 4.76 2.75 2.60
C-5C 6.57 0.460 0.234 4.46 4.92 4.54 4.71 3.33 3.51
C-5H 13.10 0.567 1.380 2.85 2.73 3.50 2.56 2.59 2.51
E-1 13.20 0.289 0.514 3.52 2.94 3.73 3.00 2.73 2.95
E-7 13.40 0.289 0.513 3.51 2.97 3.73 3.02 2.74 2.96
E-2 12.90 0.288 0.490 3.05 3.02 3.76 3.05 2.73 2.96
E-3 13.00 0.288 0.496 3.43 3.00 3.75 3.04 2.73 2.96
F* 19.00 0.399 1.818 2.38 2.37 3.15 2.05 1.93 1.90
P-4A 12.40 0.460 0.935 3.00 2.70 3.71 2.76 2.88 2.87
P-40 12.40 0.492 1.327 3.23 2.52 3.50 2.40 2.44 2.39
WC-
2AY 60.40 0.117 0.239 2.99 5.63 4.04 4.10 2.59 3.05
2AQ 100.10 0.129 0.139 3.63 8.86 5.35 6.40 3.27 3.58
12D 13.20 0.160 0.547 2.96 2.12 2.92 2.16 2.36 2.43
1000 102.70 0.121 1.234 2.29 2.56 2.80 2.09 2.25 2.46
Ratio Ave. 1.086 1.193 1.082 0.882 0.903
Stand Dev. 0.429 0.121 0.286 0.154 0.138

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 27

Table 4: Photoelastic Data
Model DIT diD tiT SCF Eq.(2/4) Eq. (5) Eq. (6 ) Eq. (7) Eq. ( 8)
A 17.50 0.100 1.000 2.20 1.94 2.42 1.36 1.84 1.96
B 17.50 0.120 0.800 2.30 2.01 2.73 1.66 2.07 2.17
C 17.50 0.130 0.590 2.50 2.12 3.02 2.02 2.28 2.37
D 17.40 0.100 0.990 2.00 1.95 2.12 1.36 1.85 1.97
E 17.40 0.120 0.790 2.20 2.02 2.39 1.67 2.08 2.17
F 17.50 0.130 0.590 2.40 2.12 2.63 2.02 2.28 2.37
G 17.50 0.100 1.000 2.00 1.94 1.91 1.36 1.84 1.96
H 17.50 0.120 0.790 2.20 2.02 2.15 1.67 2.08 2.17
I 17.50 0.130 0.600 2.30 2.12 2.37 2.00 2.27 2.36
J 16.90 0.310 1.000 2.80 2.42 3.66 2.37 2.44 2.53
K 16.70 0.330 0.800 3.00 2.62 3.95 2.73 2.76 2.85
L 17.00 0.340 0.600 3.10 3.32 4.27 3.21 3.08 3.19
M 16.80 0.310 1.000 2.60 2.41 3.16 2.37 2.43 2.53
N 16.90 0.320 0.800 2.80 2.59 3.40 2.69 2.72 2.82
0 16.80 0.340 0.600 3.00 3.30 3.73 3.20 3.07 3.19
P 16.40 0.310 1.000 2.60 2.40 2.85 2.35 2.42 2.51
Q 16.40 0.320 0.800 2.80 2.57 3.07 2.67 2.70 2.81
U 16.40 0.330 0.610 3.00 3.14 3.31 3.11 2.99 3.11
R 17.20 0.490 1.000 3.10 3.04 4.34 2.99 3.15 3.07
S 17.30 0.500 0.800 3.40 3.53 4.60 3.39 3.56 3.47
T 17.40 0.510 0.600 3.60 4.67 4.97 3.95 4.03 3.92
U 17.20 0.490 1.000 3.00 3.04 3.78 2.99 3.15 3.07
V 17.30 0.500 0.790 3.20 3.57 4.04 3.41 3.58 3.49
W 17.30 0.510 0.600 3.40 4.65 4.33 3.95 4.02 3.92
X 16.80 0.480 1.000 2.90 2.98 3.39 2.95 3.09 3.03
Y 16.90 0.490 0.800 3.20 3.43 3.60 3.33 3.49 3.42
Z 16.70 0.500 0.600 3.40 4.50 3.87 3.88 3.92 3.84
Ratio Ave. 1.003 1.19 0.920 0.991 1.010
Stand Dev. 0.138 0.122 0.166 0.086 0.062

Table 5: strain Gage Data

Model DIT diD tiT SCF Eq. (2/4) Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. ( 8 )
F13 23.70 0.188 1.000 2.63 2.21 2.99 2.01 2.07 2.31
F*13 23.70 0.265 1.000 2.69 2.48 3.38 2.39 2.44 2.57
F20 15.70 0.284 1.040 2.80 2.27 3.° 25 2.18 2.26 2.37
2 19.00 0.315 1.200 2.03 2.39 3.47 2.25 2.30 2.36
6 19.00 0.327 1.430 3.10 2.33 3.04 2.10 2.10 2.14
8 19.00 0.106 0.572 2.73 2.10 3.09 1.89 2.27 2.31
9 19.00 0.098 0.361 2.73 2.21 3.98 2.28 2.46 2.41
11 19.00 0.058 0.094 2.69 2.33 3.98 3.44 2.61 2.31
M 19.00 0.600 2.000 3.00 2.83 3.04 2.40 2.16 2.06
F 19.00 0.400 1.400 2.60 2.55 3.00 2.34 2.35 2.33
I 19.00 0.400 1.400 2.70 2.55 3.00 2.34 2.35 2.33
R 19.00 0.635 0.687 5.10 5.19 4.67 4.22 4.58 4.33
ORNL1 99.00 0.500 0.500 13.30 12.77 8.29 6.62 8.13 6.97
ORNL3 49.00 0.114 0.840 2.50 2.34 4.15 2.05 2.09 2.44
ORNL4 49.00 0.125 0.320 3.50 4.40 5.39 3.47 2.50 2.95
Ratio Ave. 0.932 1.184 0.848 0.838 0.850
Stand Dev. 0.152 0.266 0.233 0.204 0.204

28 WRC Bulletin 368

Table 6: strain Gage
Model D/T diD
Data
tiT
,Proctor and strong )
SCF Eq. (2/4) Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8)
1-1 16.00 0.278 0.249 3.20 5.18 4.92 4.44 3.02 3.32
1-2 16.00 0.437 0.416 3.50 5.31 4.78 4.30 3.86 3.87
1-3 16.00 0.677 0.677 3.80 5.09 4.69 4.20 4.55 4.32
1-4 16.00 0.844 0.833 4.10 5.08 4.67 4.23 4.80 4.50
1-5 16.00 1.000 1.000 4.30 4.93 4.63 4.20 4.82 4.50
2-6 16.00 0.781 1.833 2.60 3.22 3.36 2.74 2.56 2.43
2-7 16.00 0.812 1.333 3.10 3.71 3.84 3.28 3.44 3.25
2-8 16.00 0.854 0.667 4.60 6.28 5.10 4.75 5.40 5.03
2-9 16.00 0.873 0.373 6.40 10.09 6.42 6.43 6.59 6.07
3-10 4.66 0.429 0.444 3.40 2.69 3.70 3.03 2.88 2.96
3-11 5.80 0.414 0.400 3.70 3.16 3.96 3.32 2.95 3.08
4-12 24.50 0.469 0.500 4.10 6.03 4.94 4.52 4.48 4.31
4-13 33.00 0.430 0.469 4.10 6.87 5.17 4.82 4.74 4.52
Ratio Ave. 1.310 1.202 1.073 1.056 1.024
Stand Dev. 0.406 0.145 0.148 0.135 0.095

Table 7: strain Gage Data

Model D/T diD tiT SCF Eq.(2/4) Eq. (5 ) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8)
ORNL2 99.00 1.000 1.000 9.00 12.27 6.46 6.62 9.90 8.22
2 24.70 1.000 1.000 4.20 6.13 5.02 4.68 5.62 5.11
5 19.00 1.000 1.000 5.40 5.38 4.79 4.38 5.11 4.72
1-5 16.00 1.000 1.000 4.30 4.93 4.64 4.20 4.82 4.50
A 29.60 1.000 1.000 4.45 6.71 5.19 4.90 6.01 5.40
B 29.60 1.000 1.000 4.36 6.71 5.19 4.90 6.01 5.40
C 10.90 1.000 1.000 4.08 4.13 4.32 3.82 4.28 4.06
D 10.90 1.000 1.000 4.17 4.13 4.32 3.82 4.28 4.06
E 5.00 1.000 1.000 4.21 3.08 3.75 3.14 3.57 3.40
F 5.00 1.000 1.000 4.03 3.08 3.75 3.14 3.57 3.40
Ratio Ave. 1.151 1.015 0.924 1.105 1.012
Stand Dev. 0.323 0.156 0.164 0.211 0.154

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 29

Table 8: Photoelastic Data
Model D/T diD tIT SCF Eq.(2/4) Eq. (5) Eq. (6) Eq. ( 7) Eq. (8)
20 1.40 1.000 1.000 2.20 2.03 2.98 2.28 3.51 2.74
21 2.00 1.000 1.000 2.48 2.26 3.18 2.50 3.38 2.88
22 2.00 1.000 1.000 2.48 2.26 3.18 2.50 3.38 2.88
23 2.00 1.000 1.000 2.70 2.26 3.18 2.50 3.38 2.88
24 2.00 1.000 1.000 2.75 2.26 3.18 2.50 3.38 2.88
25 2.00 1.000 1.000 2.88 2.26 3.18 2.50 3.38 2.88
26 2.00 1.000 1.000 2.80 2.26 3.18 2.50 3.38 2.88
27 3.00 1.000 1.000 3.00 2.58 3.42 2.76 3.38 3.08
28 3.00 1.000 1.000 3.00 2.58 3.42 2.76 3.38 3.08
29 5.00 1.000 1.000 3.30 3.08 3.75 3.14 3.57 3.40
30 5.00 1.000 1.000 3.30 3.08 3.75 3.14 3.57 3.40
31 7.00 1.000 1.000 3.55 3.48 3.99 3.42 3.82 3.65
32 7.00 1.000 1.000 3.62 3.48 3.99 3.42 3.82 3.65
33 7.00 1.000 1.000 3.62 3.48 3.99 3.42 3.82 3.65
34 7.00 1.000 1.000 3.68 3.48 3.99 3.42 3.82 3.65
35 11.00 1.000 1.000 3.68 4.15 4.33 3.82 4.29 4.07
36 11.00 1.000 1.000 3.58 4.15 4.33 3.82 4.29 4.07
37 24.00 1.000 1.000 3.50 6.04 4.99 4.65 5.56 5.06
38 24.00 1.000 1.000 3.50 6.04 4.99 4.65 5.56 5.06
39 13.40 1.000 1.000 3.30 4.51 4.49 4.02 4.56 4.29
40 13.40 1.000 1.000 3.45 4.51 4.49 4.02 4.56 4.29
86 5.00 1.000 1.000 3.90 3.08 3.75 3.14 3.57 3.40
87 13.00 1.000 1.000 3.90 4.45 4.47 3.99 4.51 4.25
Ratio Ave. 1.034 1.194 1.006 1.223 1.109
Stand Dev. 0.265 0.118 0.133 0.287 0.178

30 WRC Bulletin 368

Table 27: strain Gage Data
Model DIT diD tiT SCF Eq. (2/4) Eq. ( 5) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8)
A 21.00 0.310 0.375 3.50 5.02 4.61 4.09 3.38 3.54
B 17.00 0.127 0.500 2.54 2.16 2.86 2.15 2.36 2.41
C 17.00 0.127 0.500 2.98 2.16 2.86 2.15 2.36 2.41
D 19.00 0.315 1.200 3.02 2.39 2.92 2.25 2.30 2.36
E 19.00 0.327 1.430 3.10 2.33 2.77 2.10 2.10 2.14
F 19.00 0.058 0.094 2.74 2.33 4.14 3.43 2.61 2.31
G 23.70 0.188 1.000 2.55 2.21 2.70 2.01 2.07 2.31
H 23.70 0.188 1.000 2.61 2.21 2.70 2.01 2.07 2.31
I 15.70 0.284 1.040 2.35 2.27 2.87 2.18 2.26 2.37
J 31.40 0.118 0.700 2.31 2.24 2.74 2.04 2.17 2.41
K 31.40 0.410 1.100 2.95 3.25 3.64 3.03 3.23 3.12
L 31.40 0.456 1.590 2.95 3.07 3.29 2.66 2.66 2.54
M 31.40 0.456 1.590 2.56 3.07 3.29 2.66 2.66 2.54
N 31.40 0.436 2.200 1.91 2.71 2.86 2.21 1.95 1.87
0 31.40 0.566 1.620 2.61 3.48 3.54 2.94 2.96 2.76
P 31.40 0.646 1.640 2.68 3.78 3.70 3.12 3.16 2.92
Q 31.40 0.730 2.200 2.16 3.69 3.46 2.86 2.55 2.37
R 31.40 0.730 2.200 2.11 3.69 3.46 2.86 2.55 2.37
S 31.40 0.750 3.200 1.70 3.28 3.03 2.41 1.72 1.61
T 31.40 0.817 1.660 3.06 4.45 4.01 3.49 3.58 3.28
U 31.40 0.897 1.680 3.15 4.76 4.13 3.63 3.75 3.42
V 29.00 0.465 1.700 2.50 2.96 3.19 2.55 2.48 2.37
W 28.00 0.430 1.620 2.60 2.85 3.14 2.49 2.45 2.36
X 15.20 0.122 0.350 2.54 2.25 3.17 2.45 2.50 2.47
Y 15.20 0.122 0.350 2.58 2.25 3.17 2.45 2.50 2.47
Z 15.20 0.730 1.100 3.44 3.62 3.95 3.38 3.64 3.46
AA 15.20 0.730 1.100 3.55 3.62 3.95 3.38 3.64 3.46
BB 15.20 0.772 1.600 3.10 3.29 3.49 2.88 2.83 2.69
CC 15.20 0.772 1.600 3.04 3.29 3.49 2.88 2.83 2.69
DD 15.20 0.420 0.550 3.27 4.01 4.20 3.62 3.49 3.52
EE 100.00 0.219 2.190 1.80 2.74 2.75 2.10 2.06 2.00
FF 81.00 0.436 2.170 2.36 3.72 3.42 2.82 2.76 2.49
GG 70.00 0.622 2.170 2.49 4.50 3.79 3.25 3.19 2.83
HH 61.00 0.829 2.110 2.96 5.36 4.15 3.68 3.67 3.24
II 11.70 0.360 0.360 2.56 4.33 3.45 3.88 3.18 3.36
Note: Table number corresponds to Table 27 of Ref. 4.

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 31

9.0 References
1. "Stress Analysis of Nozzles in Cylindrical Vessels with External
Load," C. R. Steele and M. L. Steele, J. Press. Vessel Tech. Trans. ASME 105,
191-200, August 1983.
2. "A Review of Area Replacement Rules for Pipe Connections in
Pressure Vessels and Piping," E. C. Rodabaugh, WRC Bulletin No. 335,
August, 1988.
3. "Design Criteria for the Spacing of Nozzles and Reinforced Openings
in Cylindric8l Nuclear Pressure Vessels and Pipes," S. E. Moore and J. L.
Mershon (NUREG/CR-2308, ORNL-5809).
4. E. C. Rodabaugh and S. E. Moore, "Review of Elastic Stress and
F~~i~e-to-Failure Data for Branch Connections and Tees in Relation to
ASME Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Pif.ing Systems," to be published.
5. McBride, W. L. and Jacobs W. S. 'Design of Radial Nozzles in
Cylindrical Shells for Internal Pressure," Transactions ASME, J. Pressure
Vessel Technology, Febru8.1J',}980.
6. "Local Stresses in l.,'ylindrical Shells due to External Loadings on
Nozzles" Revised WRC Bulletin 297, SeJltember, 1987.
7. "Local Stress in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells due to External
Loadings," WRC Bulletin 107, April 1972.
32 WRC Bulletin 368
8. Eringen, Naghdi, Mahmood, Thiel and Ariman, "Stress Concentra-
tions in Two Normally Intersecting Cylindrical Shells Subject to Internal
Pressure," Welding Research Council Bulletin No. 139, April 1969.
9. Rodabaugh, E. C. and Moore, S. E., "Stress Indices and Flexibility
Factors for Nozzles in Pressure Vessels and Piping," NUREG/CR-0778,
June 1979.
10. Money, H. A., "Desi~g Flush Cylinder.to-Cylinder Intersections to
Withstand Pressure," ASME PaJM!r No. 69-PVP-17 (1968).
11. Lewis, D. J. and Price, R. H., "A Shakedown Approach to the
Reinforcement of Flush Branches in Cylindrical Pressure Vessels Below the
Creep Range," Central Electricity Generating Board, Berkeley Nuclear
Laboratories, RD/B/N2569, February 1974.
12. Lind, N. C., "Approximate Stress-Concentration Analysis for Pressur-
ized Branch Pipe Connections," pp. 952-958 in 'Pressure Vessels and
Piping: Design and Analysis,' 1972, Published by ASME, 345 E. 47th St.,
N.Y., N.Y.100l7.
13. Decock, J., "Determination of Stress Concentration Factors and
Fatigue Assessment of Flush and Extruded Nozzles in Welded Pressure
Vessels," Paper II-59, 2nd Int'1. Conf. on Pressure Vessel Technology, San
Antonio, TX, 1973.
14. J. L. Mershon t "A compaI"isoD of FAST 2 Results with Test Data and
Finite Element ResUlts," To Be Published.