shell juncture ring is restrained by the plate bending moment and 2 Extrapolation can be used to predict the membrane-plus-
by the axial load in the shell and these are on adjacent sides. bending stresses, if the FE modeling is less than ideal.
When evaluation of fatigue is necessary in transition elements,
two conditions occur where membrane and bending stresses are
required. The first is when the finite element 共FE兲 grid refinement
is not sufficient for total stress and a stress concentration factor
共SCF兲 must be applied. In such a case, the membrane-plus-
bending stress must be computed at the nearest location for which
a reasonable bending plane exists. Such a location is expected to
be at the juncture of the structural element and the transition ele-
ment. The second is when the P⫹Q limit is not met at the
structural-transition element juncture and a penalty factor, K e ,
must be applied. This K e is applied to the fatigue location in the
transition element.
Guideline 5: Local Locations for Assessment. The global
location is established at a discontinuity juncture; the local loca-
tion addresses the orientation for the SCL/SCP due to a disconti-
nuity or blend radius. The interaction analysis may have modeled
the blend radii as an approximate tapered cylinder. The boundary
stresses could be readily calculated and there are equations for
calculating stresses along the length of the tapered cylinder, thus,
approximating the blend radius. Using FEA, blend radii are nor-
mally included in the model, making it difficult to define the local
location. For this and similar cases, the following criteria should
be applied for establishing locations and orientations for the SCL
or SCP. The guidelines are presented in six criteria; these criteria
are presented in Table 1 in their order of importance.
There may be geometry and load combinations where criteria 4,
5, and 6 cannot be met in the region of interest. For this condition,
criteria 3 controls. Deviations from these criteria are acceptable if
the FE grid or software limitations cause the deviations. However,
if the SCL 共or SCP兲 is not perpendicular to the midline, the choice
of local location or orientation is probably invalid.
The analyst should avoid orienting an SCL or SCP just to cap-
ture an unimportant maximum stress, especially surface stresses.
The nozzle geometries 共Examples 4, 5, and 6兲 address multiple
issues in establishing the global and local placement of the SCL.
Each of these three geometries presents a different aspect for as-
sessing FEA results. However, taken as a group, the following
conclusions are valid. The major findings, from the nozzle studies
are:
1 Unless robust post-processing software is available, care in
establishing the FEA grid is necessary for determining both the
global and local locations 共e.g., at ring boundaries兲 for the con-
trolling SCL.
Table 1 Criteria for local locations
1 Apply locations only in structural elements, not in transition elements.
According to the Phase 1 PVRC Report 共PVRC 1991兲, Code safety mar-
gins cover such an approach, since that was the prevalent approach prior
to FEA methods.
2 Orient the SCL/SCP perpendicular to the stress flow 共contour lines for
significant components兲. Sometimes, this may be too difficult to be
applied.
3 Orient the SCL/SCP perpendicular to the midline of the geometry.
This is normally considered to match Step 2.
4 Hoop and meridional component stress distribution should be linear
except for SCF 共notch兲 effects and thermal peak stresses. If this is not
met, a previous step has been violated.
5 The through-thickness stress distribution 共the normal component of
stress parallel to the direction of the SCL兲 should be linear, with the
surface stresses equal to the boundary stress, e.g., compressive surface
stress equal to pressure. When the SCL is not perpendicular to the
surface, this requirement may not be met.
6 The through-thickness, shear stress distribution should be parabolic
and the stresses should be low relative to the normal hoop and
meridional stresses. When the SCL is not perpendicular to the surface,
either 共the distribution or the magnitude兲 requirement may be difficult to
attain.
108 Õ Vol. 122, FEBRUARY 2000
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
3 Complex geometries require significant effort to establish the
nozzle-to-shell ring-boundaries.
4 Validity checks are important in defining the transition ele-
ment boundaries as well as establishing the SCL orientation.
Guideline 6: Linearized Stress Definition. Section III of the
Code has wording for the linearized stress. One of the recommen-
dations presented in the WRC Bulletin 429 共PVRC, 1998兲 is to
modify the current wording to the following:
‘‘Linearized stresses 共membrane-plus-bending兲 are stresses
represented by linear distributions which develop the same
net forces and moments on a section as the total stress
distribution.’’
Guideline 7: Calculating Membrane and Bending Stresses.
The membrane and bending stresses are calculated from the com-
ponent stresses, not principal stresses.
Linearized stresses are based on internal forces and moments,
for explicitly computing membrane (p/a) and bending (6m/t 2 )
stresses; they are not obtained by arbitrarily fitting some straight
line through the stress distribution 共stress versus distance兲 curve
for each component of stress. The appropriate steps are presented
in Table 2.
Local nonlinearity caused by notches 共stress concentration兲 and
by nonlinear through-thickness thermal gradients are acceptable to
include in the classification process; i.e., they do not invalidate the
linear requirements of the local SCL location.
Guideline 8: Calculating Principal Stresses, Stress Intensi-
ties, and Ranges.
1 Principal stresses are calculated using linearized component
stresses. Principal stresses are computed at the points of interest
共usually the ends of the SCL兲, based on component ( ␴ i j ) mem-
brane and bending stresses. All six component stresses are used
for calculating membrane principal stresses. For bending, only
two component stresses are used 共Fig. 2兲;
共a兲 Bending only on faces 2 and 3, involving only ␴ 22 and ␴ 33 .
共b兲 No bending on face 1.
共c兲 No bending for any shear stress. Torsional shear stress may
need special treatment, since it is not a ‘‘bending stress.’’ Linear-
ization equations differ from those of other components.
2 Compute stress differences and stress intensities.
Table 2 Procedure for linearized stresses
1 Map/interpolate FE stresses on the SCL 共or plane兲; see Fig. 1. Note:
␴ i j from FEA or other methods are mapped or interpolated onto
‘‘sample points’’ or ‘‘stress sample cube’’ along the SCL. These are the
‘‘total’’ component stresses used in the linearization process:
共a兲 use enough points to accurately predict the load distribution;
共b兲 all six component stresses are included 共for 3D cases兲;
共c兲 the component stresses are oriented relative to the SCL.
2 Develop the load distribution through the thickness 共see Fig. 2兲. Each
stress point represents a cube which produces a load on each face,
producing load distributions for each component stress along the SCL.
3 Integrate each load distribution to obtain the total load 共p兲 and the
area it represents.
4 Calculate the average 共membrane兲 stress for each component stress
using the simple equation (p/a).
5 Subtract the membrane stress from the total stress, point-by-point.
共a兲 This only needs to be done for the two normal component stresses
that are perpendicular to the SCL 共faces 2 and 3 in Fig. 2, nominally,
the hoop and meridional component stresses兲.
共b兲 This produces a moment-stress distribution.
6 Develop the moment-load distribution through the thickness.
7 Integrate the moment-load distribution to obtain the moment on the
cross section.
8 Calculate the bending stress by a simple equation 共M /Z or 6m/t 2 兲.
Transactions of the ASME