Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Course Outline
Establishing the need for stress analysis Brief review of ASME rules necessitating stress analysis Tools for stress analysis WRC vs FEA Stress comparison of solutions vs. solutions. Fundamentals of ASME VIII-2 rules for stress analysis Finite element analysis topics Finite l Fi it element analysis example t l i l
Certain constructions such as large diameter openings are not comprehensively addressed. To satisfy the ASME code requirements, we need a way to verify that components not explicitly addressed by the ASME rules are adequate for the intended service.
Stress analysis can be used to replace or compliment traditional validation methods such as proof testing, strain gauges, etc.
In this section, well briefly cover some of the pertinent ASME rules related to stress analysis.
ASME VIII-1
ASME VIII-1 does not directly address the use of stress analysis. Users are directed to U-2(g) in most cases. When stress analysis is used, the designer must still satisfy the minimum requirements of VIII-1 (for instance thickness per UG-27). q ( p ) Stress analysis can not be used to justify thinner parts than that permitted by the mandatory rules of VIII-1. When using stress analysis, the basic allowable stresses from VIII-1 analysis VIII 1 should be used (i.e. those from Section II-D Tables 1A and 2A). Do not use higher allowable stresses for VIII-2 from Section II-D Tables 5A and 5B.
ASME VIII-2
Completely rewritten, with a greater focus on technology (especially stress analysis) Design margin reduced to 2.4 on UTS (increased allowable stress) Permits a vessel to be designed entirely using Part 5 ( g FEA) and g y g (e.g ) need not satisfy minimum thickness equations of Part 4 (see code rules for limitations).
This can offer substantial savings when the total equipment costs are g q p well in excess of the analytical expenses.
VIII-2 Part 5 has replaced the previous VIII-2 Appendix 4 and 5. In many aspects, Part 5 is the same. However, the rules have been y p , , updated to better address technology used today (FEA). Part 5 provides explicit rules for the stress analysis:
Stress categories and their associated limits are defined. Requirements/recommendations for modeling are given.
New load cases combinations are similar to those given in ASCE. Expanded fatigue design methods. Guidance on stress linearization. More di M discussion on VIII 2 P t 5 t come i VIII-2 Part to
Design Pressure 1,476 psig 1,755 psig , p g 1,705 psig 1,800 psig
Savings
Next, well highlight some of the more common methods used for stress analysis today.
ASME Section III Appendix Y III, Y. PD-5500, EN-13445, and other foreign codes. API-650, Appendix P (Low wall tank nozzles) Finite El Fi it Element A l i t Analysis
WRC-107
A semi-empirical method for estimating stresses in the spherical and cylindrical shells with loaded attachments. First published in 1965, revised in 1979. Experimental work included:
Solid cylinders in spherical shells. Nozzles in spherical shells. Square and rectangular solids on unperforated cylindrical shells. Did not include nozzles on cylinders cylinders.
Design charts for various geometric ratios are provided. Loads are defined in local coordinate system at the nozzle-shell intersection point. Because the geometric range is somewhat limited, programmers must interpolate or extrapolate beyond the intended bounds. Despite some shortcomings, widely used for analysis of external loads on p g y y nozzles, clips, and lugs.
WRC-107
An example of a WRC-107 calculation sheet and design charts:
WRC-107 Limitations
Some limitations include:
Pad reinforced nozzles are not directly addressed, can only be approximated by an enlarged attachment diameter. Laterals and hillside nozzles are not included in the scope. Users should be cautious and avoid any cases where the geometric limits of the method are exceeded. Only considers stresses in the shell, nozzle is ignored. Reports stresses at a finite number of locations (in-plane and out-ofplane positions). Maximum off-axis stresses may be missed. Combined stress due to pressure and external loads is not effectively addressed. addressed
WRC-107 Limitations
Applicable geometric limits for spherical shells are:
WRC-107 Limitations
Applicable geometric limits for cylindrical shells are:
WRC 297
Estimates the stresses due to external loads acting on nozzles in cylindrical shells. Published in 1984 Based on thin shell theory and work by Steele. y y Improved stress results in comparison to WRC 107. Major improvement is that stresses in the nozzle neck, adjacent to the intersection are evaluated evaluated. Expanded range of applicability over WRC 107.
Large D/T values Improved solutions for small d/D values values.
WRC-297 Limitations
Applicable geometric limits for nozzles on cylindrical shells are:
If the answer matters, use FEA. But WRC 107/297 are successful, right?
The upcoming comparison with FEA will provide some insight. Piping analysis often over estimates the stiffness real loads are often p g y smaller than predicted.
FEA is being used more often today to determine the intersection stiffness, so loads are becoming more accurate, requiring a better nozzle analysis.
WRC 497
WRC 497 gives a calculation procedure for determining stresses at nozzle openings in cylinders with internal pressure and external nozzle loads. Intended for larger openings (d/D>0.33) Based on finite element analysis results. Although it represents a significant improvement in nozzle stress calculations, it has not received wide spread use.
WRC 497
Results are given in terms of shell membrane and bending stresses. Can easily combine pressure stress and external load stress. Unlike WRC 107/297, the maximum stress anywhere is reported. Does not include pad reinforced nozzles laterals or hillsides nozzles, laterals, hillsides. No charts to interpolate/extrapolate. Simple equations promote ease of use:
Next, we will examine some comparisons between WRC 107/297 and FEA
These differences are expected for a wide range of D/T and d/t.
These differences are expected for a wide range of D/T and d/t.
These differences are expected for a wide range of D/T and d/t.
Next, well cover some of the background of ASME VIII-2, applicable to stress analysis.
For linear elastic stress analysis, the stresses are categorized based on several requirements:
1. 2.
Hopper Diagram
Hopper Diagram
Hopper Diagram
Original intent was to limit Pm to 2/3 of yield. Today, the limit is represented by the basic allowable stress S. S
Original intent was to limit local membrane stresses to the yield strength Sy. Evolved into a limit of 1.5*Sm.
An open item in the ASME committees is evaluating the option to allow Sy in lieu of 1.5*Sm for some cases.
Shakedown
Phenomenon that occurs when a structure experiences only elastic or elastic-plastic action after the first few cycles. cycles Progressive incremental distortion does not occur.
Elastic-plastic El ti l ti analysis l i
1. 2. 3. 3
There is no plasticity in the component. The section of interest is elastic at the core. There are no permanent changes in the overall dimensions of the component.
In the following slides, well explore various responses to combinations of steady membrane and cyclic bending stress.
The choice of which method to use is ultimately a decision based on the needs at hand. Some considerations:
Complexity of the component being evaluated evaluated. Type of loadings Time available Need for optimization Level of experience
For design purposes the yield strength for the elastic-perfectly plastic purposes, elastic perfectly material model is approximated as 1.5*S.
Using 1.5S ensures that the limit of 2/3 on yield is achieved, but also considers the safety factor of 2.4 on UTS to ensure that high yield-to-tensile ratio materials are safely employed i th d i f l l d in the designs.
Elastic-Plastic Analysis
Elastic-plastic analysis attempts to predict the actual collapse load of the structure by taking into account the true stress-strain behavior of the materials of construction. There is no rigorous mathematical proof that elastic-plastic analysis can predict the collapse load In contrast such proof does exist for the lower load. contrast, bound limit analysis and limit load.
Elastic-Plastic Analysis
Elastic-plastic analysis is more complex than limit analysis, but does offer some advantages:
Primary and secondary loads can be analyzed together. Large displacement theory may be used. Includes effects of strain hardening hardening.
In ASME VIII-2, a safety factor of 2.4 against the collapse load is required and included in the load combinations. This is consistent with the margin on the UTS for Part 4 design-by-rules. g y ASME VIII-2 Part 3 defines the stress-strain curves to be used for elasticplastic analyses.
Small\Large Displacement
Small Displacement Theory
Assumes that no change in stiffness occurs as the components deform. Acceptable for most FEA work in the PVP industry. Most common method used.
Geometric Effects
The effect of small & large displacement theory on a flat head test is shown below. Small displacement theory over predicts the displacement but under predicts the stress in the attached shell.
Element Types
Commonly used elements type are 8 node quadratic shells, 8 node quadratic axisymmetric, 8 & 20 node hexahedral solids Axisymmetric and solid elements allow evaluation of thru thickness distribution.
Stress Singularities
Occur at re-entrant corners of the model, changes in materials properties, and at application site of some loads. Strain energy is infinite at the singularity. Increasing mesh density leads to increasing stress values. g y g Convergence can not be achieved. In shell models, the stress at these points would normally be ignored since the shell surfaces are inside the weld volume (recall we seek stress results at the toe of the weld). In axisymmetric and solid models, we can eliminate the influence of the singularity by employing stress linearization techniques techniques.
Unfortunately, in volumetric models (e.g. axisymmetric) the results are only given in terms of raw stress components or total stress. stress Therefore, we need a way to convert raw stress results into shell-like results (membrane and bending). The l i i Th solution is to linearize the stresses along S li i h l Stress Cl Classification ifi i Lines (SCLs). SCLs are also effective means of eliminating stress singularities.
B A
Raw Stress
A
Distance Thru Thickness
Applying Loads
Apply loads to the end of the nozzle along stiffened elements or rigid spars. For resting support lugs, apply loads along stiffener plate edges. In reality, the flat plates will elastically deform and the load transfer path is into the orthogonal plates plates.
Thanks! Questions?