651

APPLIED MECHANICS GROUP

A STUDY OF NOZZLES IN PRESSURE VESSELS

UNDER PRESSURE FATIGUE LOADING
By J. Spence, B.Sc., M.Eng., C.Eng., M.I.Mech.E.*,
and W. B. Carlson, B.Sc., D.Sc., C.Eng., F.1.Mech.E.j.

Nozzles in cylindrical vessels have been of special interest to designers for some time and have offered a field
of activity for many research workers. This paper presents some static and fatigue tests on five designs of full
size pressure vessel nozzles manufactured in two materials. Supporting and other published work is reviewed
showing that on the basis of the same maximum stress mild steel vessels give the same fatigue life as low alloy
vessels. When compared on the basis of current codes it is shown that mild steel vessels may have five to ten
times the fatigue life of low alloy vessels unless special precautions are taken.

INTRODUCTION from Mn-Cr-Mo-V plate were denoted D1, D2, D3 and

OVERTHE PAST DECADE there has been an increase in the
number of low alloy steel pressure vessels fabricated.
Moreover many design codes are now allowing design
stresses tied to the value of the yield point or proof stress.
An investigation on Mteen full size steel nozzles in five
cylindrical vessels, whose static mess patterns were
measured and which were subsequently pressure fatigued
to destruction at about ambient temperature, may there-
fore be of interest.
One of the objects of the investigation was to assess the
relative merits of five designs of large bore connection in
thick cylindrical vessels. Each design was tested in tripli-
cate in one vessel, four of the vessels being manufactured
from Mn-Cr-MeV plate steel and one from mild steel.
Supporting work carried out on small model steel
vessels and on rotating bending Wohler type fatigue
specimens is included. Other published work on pressure
fatigue testing of vessels is reviewed.
EXPERIMENTAL VESSELS
Fig. 1 shows the layout of each test vessel and Figs 2-6
give details of the nozzle shapes. The vessels manufactured
The MS.of this paper was received at the Institution on 5th June
I967 and accepted for publication on 16th November 1967.
* Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow, C I , formerly Research and Development Division,
Babcock and Wilcow (Operations) Ltd, Renfrew.
t Research and Development Division, Babcock and Wilcox (Opera-
tions) Ltd, Renfrew.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1967-68 Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016
+
D4 and that from mild steel, M1. Each vessel contained
three identical mild steel nozzles, the type of nozzle detail
varying from vessel to vessel as follows:
Vessel D1-Mn-Cr-Ma-V drum with 3 identical
push-outs attached to mild steel nozzles, Fig. 2.
Vessel D2-Mn-Cr-Mo-V drum with 3 identical
mild steel set-in nozzles, Fig. 3.
Vessel D3-Mn-Cr-Mo-V drum with 3 identical
mild steel set-on nozzles, Fig. 4.
Vessel D4-Mn-Cr-Mo-V drum with 3 identical
mild steel through-welded nozzles with external
Mn-Cr-Mo-V reinforcing pad, Fig. 5 .
Vessel M1-Mild steel drum with 3 identical mild
steel push-out nozzles, thicker and slightly different in
shape from those in vessel D1 above, Fig. 6.
Representative chemical analyses of the plates are given in
Table 1.
Each vessel consisted of a 30 in inside diameter cylinder
(19 in thick in the alloy vessels and 1 3in thick in the mild
steel vessel) by 4 ft 0 in long closed at the ends by tori-
spherical drumheads 2 in thick, access being provided by a
manway in one drumhead on each vessel. The forged and
machined nozzles were 6% in bore x 3 in thick except the
nozzles in vessel M1 which were l& in thick. Vessels D1,
D2, D3 and M1 had no added compensation, but in
vessel D4 external plate type reinforcement of Mn-Cr-
Mo-V steel was added to give 100 per cent compensation
V Oiaz
~ Pt I N~ 31
658 J. SPENCE AND W. B. CARLSON

Fig. 1. Details of test vessels

LONGITUDINAL SECTION CI RCUMFER ENTl A L SECTION

I Stress in ton/in2 at 2500 lb/in2 gauge

1 Nozzle 1 I Nozzle 2 I Nozzle 3 i Mean

Location 1 Circumferential* I Meridional I Circumferential IMeridionall Circumferential 1 Meridionall 1
Circumferential Meridional

3
4
30.0

16.5
27.0
0.8
7.2
1-4
1
1______-
1
30.1

16~6
28-8
1
(-0.4
__
4.6

7.2 14.3
29.7 1 1.7
:::: 1
28.6
1.8

7.1

1.2

I 1
-
6 I 276

10.4 ~
3.6

5.4 1 253

10.4
25.1

9.7 1
3.4

5.0 1
26.1

10.1 1 3.4

5.3

10.8 1 8.2 I
I
8.3 6.3 1 11.4 I 9.6 I 10.1 1 ~

8.0
~~

* Circumferential is with respect to the nozzle or shell as the case may be.
Numbers in parentheses refer to gauge locations diametrically opposite.
Fig. 2. Strain gauge locations at push out nozzle on vessel DI
Proc Instn Mech Engrr I96748 Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016 Vol I82 Pt I No 31
 I

Stress in ton/inz a t 2500 Ib/in2 gauge

Nozzle 1 Nozzle 2 Nozzle 3 Mean
Location

2
1
I
26.1
27-4
1I 3.8
1.1 1
31.3
30-5
II 4.9
1.4
1I
Circumferential Meridional Circumferential Meridional Circumferential Meridional Circumferential Meridional

1 27.0
27.1
1I 3.6
3.4 I
28.2
28.3
I
I
4.1
2.0
~-
3 24.5 2.1 23.7 - 20.1 - 22.8 2.1
4 29.1 3.0 26-2 1.1 26.7 0.8 27.4 1.6
5 24.3 3.4 29.9 5.9 22.5 - 25.5 4.7
6 11.6 7.4 1 10.7 6.3 11.3 6.8
7 8.8 9.6 6.2 9.6 9.3 5.0
-
8 4.9 I 1.4 4.3 1 5 3 3.2 I 0.9 4.1 1.2

~ ~~ ~ ~~

Fig. 3. Strain gauge locations at set-in nozzle on vessel 0 2

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016

660 J. SPENCE AND W. B. CARLSON
t
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1967-68
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016
Vol182 Pt I No 3
 I Stress in ton/in2 at 2500 lb/in2 gauge

Location
I1 Nozzle 1
1
Nozzle 2
1
i Nozzle 3
I
Circumferential Meridional Circumferential Meridional I Circumferential Meridional Circumferential Meridional
Mean
1

1 1
2
3
4
1
I
29.2
21.6
29.2
I
I
4.6
10.0
4.7
1
I
33.2
16.6
29.3
_____-_
i
1
-
7.0

5.1 1
29.9
21.4
31.1 I
4.5
17.5
5-7
j
~

I
30.8
19.9
29.9
I
I
4.6
11.4

5.1
~

1 1 1
5
6 1 28.0

4-1 1 6.8

2.5 I 28.4

3.0 1
7.4

0.9 1
27.9

1.4 1 6.6

0.0 1 28.2

2.9 1
7.0

1.2

8 3.2
--
4.3 3.2 1 5.0 ~ 2.8 4.5 3.0 I 4.6
1
9
10
3.8

7.2
1-3

7-2
3.4

7.2 1-16j 2.8 3.9

7.6
3.0
7.0
3.7

7.4 1 2.4
7.1

12 I 4.2 4.6 4.7 12.0-

Fig. 5. Strain gauge locations at through welded nozzle on vessel 0 4

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016

 I Stress in ton/in2 at 2500 Ib/inz gauge

$
Location
Nozzle 1 I Nozzle 2
1
1
Nozzle 3
Circumferential Meridionall Circumferential Meridional Circumferential (Meridional Circumferential Meridional
1
i Mean
1 4
1

2 1 28.6
30.3 1 5.3
2.6 I 29.9
31-1 ~
5.4
5.1
29,7
29.5
1 ~
5.9
3.4 30.4
w

5
6
30.7

29.3
8.2
11 3.9

3.7
4.6
1 28.8

28.7
8.2
1.8

5.7
3.7
31.7

26.4
6.2
4.5
I 30.4

28.2 1 3.4

4.2
3.8

10 1 10.3 1 5.7 i 9.3 1 8.7 1 9.1 5.0 I 9.6

Fig. 6. Strain gauge locations at push out nozzle on vessel MI

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016

 A STUDY OF NOZZLES I N PRESSURE VESSELS UNDER PRESSURE FATIGUE LOADING 663

.I 1 1 1
Table I . Chemical analyses

Material . . _
C
_ _
Si
_
I M n I
~ _ _
S
_ _ _
P
_ ~
Ni 1 Cr Sn
Mn-C-Mo-V drums 0.16 0.10 1.42 0.031 0.018 < 0.15 I 0.38
M.S. drum . .I 0.19 I 0.10 I 0.57 1 0.053 1 0.034 I < 0.15 I < 0.15 1 0.04 I < 0.15 I - 1 0.02

M.S. nozzles . .1 0.19 I 0.10 I 0.74 ~ 0.031 I 0.027 I < 0.15 1 < 0.15 I 0.02 I < 0.15 I - I 0.03

Table 2. Dimensiunal details

Vessel Material Internal Thickness Internal Thickness T/D

diameter of shell, diameter of nozzle,
of shell, Tin of nozzle, t in
Din d in
D1,D2, D3 and D 4 Mn-Cr-Mo-V 30 13 63 4 0.054
MI . . . M.S. I 30 I 1% I 63 1 l-& I 0.065 I 0.162 I 2.5 1 0.225

i.e. the cross-sectional area of material removed to provide
the opening was replaced as reinforcement, distributed in
this case in the shell, the nozzle and the external plate
(B.S. 1113 : 1951-the current code when the nozzles
were designed). Vessel and nozzle dimensions together
with parameters of interest are given in Table 2.
The alloy steel vessels were stress relieved for 2+ h at
675°C and the mild steel vessel for 3 h at 600-650°C.
Measurements of out-of-circularity were taken at several
sections in each vessel by a special gauge which has been
described elsewhere (I)*, the difference between maxi-
mum and minimum diameters not exceeding 1 per cent.
The bending stresses associated with the out-of-circularity
were calculated assuming an unpierced vessel, but the
values were so low that they have not been considered
here.
TESTING
Testing was in two parts, an initial strain gauge test
designed to measure the general stress pattern in the
nozzles and confirm the expected stress levels, followed by
a hydraulic pressure fatigue test.
Static testing
A total of 312 electric resistance strain gauges were
attached to the five vessels in the nozzle areas as shown in
Figs 2 to 6. Teddington gauges having a 12.5 mm gauge
length x 4 mm width and a 200 Q nominal resistance were
used in the form of right angle pairs. A temperature
compensating gauge mounted on a thin piece of plate
material was used with every active gauge. These plates
were placed adjacent to their corresponding active gauges
and attached in such a way that no strain was transmitted
to the compensating gauges. Transformer oil was used as
the pressurizing fluid to obviate difficulties of water-
proofing. All gauges were connected to switching units
* References are given in the Appendix.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1967-68
and .during testing were switched in turn to a strain
recorder.
Pressure was raised in increments to a maximum test
pressure of 2900 Ib/in2 gauge, strain gauge readings being
taken at each stage.
Fatigue testing
Hydraulic fatigue testing was carried out with a pressure
cycle of zero to 2500 lb/in2 gauge, at a rate of approxi-
mately 12 c/min. I n the alloy steel vessels most of the
testing was carried out at 70°C although the early cycles
were applied at ambient temperature. It was not considered
that the difference between these two temperatures would
materially affect the fatigue life of the vessels. The mild
steel vessel was tested at ambient temperature throughout.
The fatigue testing equipment was a Werner and
Phleiderer unit consisting of a 3-throw hydraulic pump,
higher and lower limit pressure accumulators and a servo-
mechanism controlling the pressure supplied to the vessel
under test.
I n the case of alloy steel vessels testing was continued
until one of the three nozzles failed, so that each result
gave in fact the minimum life of three. In the case of the
mild steel vessel, when failure occurred the nozzle in
question was removed, the vessel patched, and testing
resumed until results had been obtained for all three
nozzles. Failure was considered to have occurred when a
crack had propagated through the wall of the vessel or
nozzle causing leakage.
Following a nozzle failure in any vessel, a magnetic
crack detection survey was conducted on the three nozzles
for signs of other cracking. Only in one case was a crack
found other than the one causing failure, namely, in
nozzle No. 2 of vessel M1 where a crack was detected
diametrically across the nozzle from the failure crack,
i.e. at an identical position in the same nozzle. It was
presumed that all the failure cracks had propagated
through the thickness in a small number of cycles.
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016 VO!182 Pt I No 31
664 J. SPENCE AND W. B. CARLSON

Metallurgical examinations were made of the failure

surfaces after testing.
RESULTS
The majority of the strain/pressure graphs were linear
but a few exhibited non-linearity, notably in vessels D4
and M I where the material in the highest stressed region
was mild steel. Strainlpressure graphs are shown in
Fig. 7 for two of the locations showing non-linearity. At
pressures denoting the onset of non-linearity the stresses
were at least equal to, and usually slightly greater than,
that required by the von Mises yield criterion to predict
onset of yield for the mild steel. At similar high stress
regions in alloy material the stresses were not high enough
to predict yield by the normal yield criteria.
From the slope of the strain pressure graphs, stresses
were calculated using a value of Young’s modulus of
13 400 ton/in2 and Poisson’s ratio of 0-3. A11 stresses or
stress ranges, as the case may be, at 2500 lb/in2 gauge are
tabulated in the tables associated with Figs 2 to 6, along-
side the respective gauge locations, and the stress distribu- PRESSURE-lb/in2 gauge
tions at 2500 lb/in2 gauge are given in Fig. 8. The values
plotted are average values for the three nozzles. No Fig, 7. Typical strain-pressure plots for gauges showing
account was taken of the effect of pressure on the strain non-linearity
gauge readings.
Table 3 summarizes the results of the fatigue testing
and includes the maximum stress range measured on each ally similar D1. Because of different thicknesses a direct
vessel together with the stress concentration factors based comparison cannot be made. It is doubtful if the chamfer
on the mean diameter circumferential stress in the plain on thc crotch of M1 has any significant effect since it
shell. I n no case was there any metallurgical evidence of would tend to reduce rather than increase the stress. The
defects having initiated the fractures, all failures being in values in MI are considered above suspicion since all
regions of high stress. The failures are shown in Figs 9 to gauges in the high stressed region were replaced and a
14. The failure in vessel D4 was at the edge of the rein- second set of gauges accurately reproduced the original
forcement, Figs 12 and 13, where the stress is not ac- readings.
curately known. The maximum measured stress at the
crotch of the vessel D4 has been quoted in the results Relevant results from other tests
although it is probably slightly less than the stress at the The authors’ company has a history of fatigue testing on
failure origin. It will be observed that the stress concentra- various types of component and a few are included as
tion factor (SCF) in vessel M1 is greater than in the nomin- they are relevant to the present subject.

Table 3. Full size vessels, static and dynamic results

II
Vessel Basic shell stress Maximum elastic SCF Number of cycles
at 2500 lb/in2 gauge
in lb/ina
stress range in
Ib/ina I to failure

‘
Experimental Leckie-Penny From Fig. 18
(average of 3)
D1 24400 68 300 2.8 117 085*

1 24400 68 300 2.8 2.7 2.9 I12 776*

D2
D3 ‘ I 24400 I 72800 3.0 108 336*
D4 1 24400 70 600 2.9 138 235*

1- 113 816

I
20 600 70 100 3.4 2.6 2.9 201 138

I I
1 301 141

* Lowest of three.
Proc Instn Mech Engm 1967-68 Vd 182 P t I No 31
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016
 A STUDY OF NOZZLES IN PRESSURE VESSELS UNDER PRESSURE FATIGUE LOADING 665

30
N 25
._
-2 20
1

I
v,
15
2
cr
10
I-
* 5
0

+ Inside rneridional.
d Outside meridional.
Inside circumferential.
o Outside circumferential.
Fig. 8. Stress distributions at 2500 Iblin2 gauge
Proc Znstn Mech Engrs 3967-68 Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016 Yo1 182 Pt 1 No 31
*+
666
( i ) Torispherical drumhead
A Stress analysis and fatiguetest was carried out on a
4 ft 14 in i/d 57 in inside
torispherical drumhead. The inside knuckle
Fig. 10. Fracture at the nozzle in vessel 0 2
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1967-68
J. SPENCE AND W. B. CARLSON
Fig. 9. Fracture at the nozzle in vessel DI
3 in and the material was mild steel. This test was carried
out because a similar head had seen long service in America
1 in thick (2) and the small knuckle radius gave rise to a higher than
was usual stress concentration factor. The maximum measured
SCF was approximately 7-25 and the maximum measured
stress range at 336 lb/in2 gauge (on the inside of the
knuckle in the meridional direction) was 60 000 lb/in2.
The head was subjected to a pressure test of 576 lbjin"
gauge for one cycle and thereafter cycled between zero
and 336 lb/in2gauge at 16 c/min until, after 184 000 cycles,
failure occurred at the knuckli, Fig. 15.
(ii) Model drumhead tests
At the same time as the present nozzle tests a number of
small-scale plain torispherical drumheads were pressure
fatigue tested at room temperature. Five steels were
tested :
Mild steel
C-Mn plate steel rolled and tempered before pressing.
Mn-Mo plate steel rolled and tempered before
pressing.
Mn-Cr-Mo-V plate steel rolled and tempered before
pressing.
Mo-B plate steel as received.
Although the tests were on a small scale, normal
manufacturing procedure was followed as far as possible
and all models were stress relieved after pressing and weld-
ing of the heads to the shells. All heads were made using
the same die and the stress concentration factor for each
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016 Vol I82 Pt I No 31
 A STUDY OF NOZZLES IN PRESSURE VESSELS UNDER PRESSURE FATIGUE LOADING 667

Fig. 11. Fracture at the nozzle in vessel 0 3

Fig. 12. Fracture at the nozzle in vessel 0 4

Proc Iiastn Mech Engrs 1967-68 Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016 Vol182 Pt I No 31
668 J. SPENCE AND W. B. CARLSON
Fig. 13. Fracture at the nozzle in vessel 0 4
head was about 1.8. Three heads were given a static over-
pressure test to 3050 Ib/in2 gauge and fatigue tested from
0-2000 lb/in2 gauge. Ten were statically overpressure
tested to 5000 lb/in2 gauge and fatigue tested at 0-4000
lb/in2gauge. Although only the mild steel and the Mn-Cr-
Mo-V steel results are strictly relevant here, all of the
results are given in Table 4 for interest. All failures
occurred from the inside surface of the knuckle in the
circumferential direction consistent with the known
maximum stress region and direction.
(iii) Rotating bending tests
Plain and U-notch specimens of mild, 1818 stainless,
Mn-Cr-Mo-V and Cu-Ni-52 Mo steels were machned
from $ in thick plate and fatigue tested a t 20°C and 350°C
using rotating bending machines of the cantilever type.
350°C was chosen to correspond approximately to the
Fig. 14. Fracture at the nozzle in vessel M I
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1947-68
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016
service temperature for boiler drums. The U-notched
specimens had a theoretical elastic SCF of 1.78 based on
the nominal bending stress. The nominal stress for either
type is referred to d or d, in Fig. 16. All the results are
included in Fig. 16 since several interesting trends can
be observed, although only the mild steel and Mn-Cr-
Mo-V steel results at 20°C will be referred to in later
discussion. Between eight and twenty specimens were
used for each S-N curve and scatter was not excessive,
little difference being noted in scatter between the dif-
ferent steels. Similar small scale results on eight steels
have been presented by Wellinger and Kussmaul (3) but
have not been considered here.
The amount of information published on small-scale
specimen fatigue tests is enormous but in this paper
attention is restricted to fatigue tests on pressure vessels
under internal pulsating pressure loading.
Testing of pressure vessels has been carried out at
Southwest Research Institute on full size vessels and at
Ecole Polytechnique on model vessels, under the auspices
of the Pressure Vessel Research Committee and reported
among others by Kooistra et al. (4) ( 5 ) (6) arid by Welter
and Dubuc (7). In Britain the British Welding Research
Association (B.W.R.A.) carried out extensive fatigue
testing mainly on nozzle configurations and these have
been reported by Lane and Rose (8) and Taylor (9). Work
is available in Europe reported by Soete (IO), Hierman
and Stockman (11) and Stockman (12)~although some-
times the test conditions were variable and the stress
ranges unknown. Unpublished work from Germany on
model cylindrical vessels with nozzles has enlarged the
European contribution.
The authors' results and as many of the above as are
relevant have been plotted in Fig. 17 as semi-stress range
against number of cycles to failure. The results in refer-
ence (12)cover a large number of tests in mild steel using
set-on nozzles in cylinders but have been omitted for the
sake of clarity. They cover the same scatter band as that
shown by all the other mild steel results in Fig. 17. A
proposed design curve for fatigue, taken from the A.S.M.E.
code for Nuclear Vessels, has been added. Since the basis
of comparison of multi-axial fatigue tests is a matter for
discussion (13) the results have been simply plotted as
Vol182 Pt I No 31
 A STUDY OF NOZZLES IN PRESSURE VESSELS UNDER PRESSURE FATIGUE LOADING 669

Fig. 15. Torispherical drumhead failure

functions of the maximum stress. No attempt has been
made to correlate the results with curves derived from
simpler data (14)(15) but enough information has been
included to allow anyone interested to do so. Table 5
summarizes approximate material data. A few liberties
have been taken with some of the data to allow it to be used
and individual points from some authors may be slightly
misplaced due to the difficulty of allocating accurate peak
stress ranges, particularly in model vessels. However, the
errors involved are not likely to affect the general picture.
The results given in Fig. 17 relate to nozzles (often
Proc h s t n Mech Engrs 1967-68 Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016
*
flush) in cylinders, except some of the B.W.R.A. work (9)
which utilized spherical vessels with circular holes, and the
authors’ drumheads. It would have been possible to
include fatigue results on other types of geometry and
loading as Ruiz and Bickell(16) have done, but these have
not been considered adductive to the following discussion.
The complications of comparing results from such dif-
ferent sources are many, but qualifying remarks will be
kept to a minimum to ensure clarity even at the expense
of completeness. The surface condition, physical size
and/or stress gradient would need to be considered for a
Vol I82 Pt I No 31
670 1. SPENCE AND W. B. CARLSON

Table 4
(a) Model drumhead fatigue tests.
I I

1
I

Material Ref. No. Basic shell stress, Maximum stress, I NO. of cycles
Ib/ina range to failure
lb/ina
Mild steel. . 1* 18 000 36 000 2.0 414 000
669 000
2f 19 000 36 000 1.9
3 36 000 57 400 1.6 63 400
4 36 000 53 800 1.5 57 300

C-Mn steel 1* 19 000 34 300 1.8 1 462000

42 500
2
3
36 000
35 500
58 000
64 000
1.6
1.8 1 38900
Mn-Mo steel . 1
j 36 500
36000 1 58 500
53800
1.6
1.5 I 71 100
85200
' 1
I
I
Mn-Cr-Mo-V steel 1 36 000 I 57 400 1a6 72 300
.I 2 36 000 1 64 500 I 1.8 38600
Mo-B steel . 1 35 500
36 000
53 200
57 800
I 1.5
1.6 I 84 300
65900

* Pressurized at 3050 lb/inz gauge and fatigued at 2000 Ib/in2 gauge. Remainder pressurized at 5000 Ib/in2 gauge and fatigued at 4000 lb/ina
gauge.
(b) Model drumhead, chemical composition.
- ~ -
Material
_______
Mild steel . .
C-Mn steel .
Mn-Mo steel .
Mn-Cr-Mo-V steel .
Mo-B steel .
I

Table 5. Material properties for collected results

1
Source Material U.T.S., Yield, Elongation , Reduction
I lb/inz lb/inz per cent of area,
I I per cent
I --
1 -
B.andW. . I M.S. 1 60 500 38 000 36
~~ ~

B.W.R.A. (8) (9)

' I M.S.
Supertough
Mn-Cr-hlo-V
~
-
91 000
114 000
38700
66000
93 000
1I 24
18 6
___ ~

, - - ~ _ _
S.M.R.I. (6) and Ecole Polytechnique (7)

-
I
I
A.201
A.302
T-1
I

I
55000
95 500
113600
35 300
77 000
103 600 20
- ~
60
_ _
64

-
German (unpublished). , . ~

~
St.35
Cu-Ni-60Mo
--I-
1 74500
89000 -1 37 000
56 500 1 38
25
-
63
56
-
. . 1
Belgian (10) M.S. vessel
nozzles , 64000
58 600
43 000
36 000
i
36
36 -

Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1967-68 Vol I82 Pt 1 No 3I

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016
 671
A STUDY OF NOZZLES IN PRESSURE VESSELS UNDER PRESSURE FATIGUE LOADING

80 000

70 000

N 60000
._
\
-
n
I
2 50000
4
LL

In
Vl

40000
v)
-
5
In
_1 30000
<
-
z
5z
20 000

10 000

Fig. 16. Rotating-bending fatigue tests; M.S., Mn-Cr-Mo-V, Cu-Ni-52 Mo, S.S.

detailed comparison. The T-1 model vessels had the nozzle
crotch ground and polished and the SCF used was a mean
value of the measurements reported. In the authors' model
tests and in the German unpublished work the stresses
were calculated. All other stresses were obtained by strain
gauge techniques although it is not certain that the maxi-
mum stress was measured in every case. This is particularly
so in the Belgian results where some oblique and offset
nozzles were used. In a nozzle of type C (60" obliquity)
for instance it would be difficult to ensure that the maxi-
mum stress was being measured.
DISCUSSION
Stress levels
For the purpose of the present investigation the stress
ranges quoted in Table 3 have been extrapolated slightly
from the measured values as shown in Fig. 8. Reliable
theories are not yet available to predict values for nozzles
in cylinders and accordingly the subject has occupied
many experimental researchers (17)-(21). Approximate
methods of calculation have been available (21) for some
time and Rose (22) suggested that the theories readily
available for nozzles in spheres (23) (24) could be used
directly as a measure of the stress levels at nozzles in
cylinders, although the maximum stress in the two cases
might be at different locations. This has become usual
practice for want of something better and is included in
the British code for nuclear vessels. It is perhaps worth
Proc Instn Meeh Engrs 1967-68 Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016
bearing in mind the limitations of many theoretical shell-
centreline methods, though not all (25), when dealing with
a sudden change in geometry as in the case of nozzles.
To obtain a check on Rose's suggestion the available
literature has been studied. No general trends common to
all the results are apparent except rather obvious ones
which help little. However, by restricting the study to
nozzles of identical shape, with the maximum stress at the
same location, tested by one organization, reported in a
similar fashion and therefore directly comparable, it was
possible to present the results and sketch in a graph
similar in form to the theoretical type used by Leckie and
Penny (24). Flush constant thickness nozzles under in-
ternal pressure tested by B.W.R.A. over the past ten years
or so were used and are shown in Fig. 18, together with a
theoretical line produced by Eringen et al. (26). The
experiments cover a fair range of variables from tjT = 0.2
to 2.3, rjR = 0.2 to 1.0, R j T = 7.7 to 50 and Fig. 18 has
been found convenient as a guide when checking SCFs
for nozzles in cylinders. The Leckie-Penny curves for
flush nozzles in spheres have been superimposed for
comparison.
It can be seen that treating the cylinder as a sphere is a
fair approximation although at low values of ( r / R ) 1 / R / T
it underestimates the SCF (as expected, 2.0 compared with
2-5) and at high values it could overesumate the SCF,
especially for thick nozzles, tlT > 0.5.
The experimental points refer to the crotch on the longi-
tudinal axis of the cylinder. Theoretical predictions (26)
Vol182 Pt 1 No 31
672 J. SPENCE AND W. B. CARLSON

Large number o f
mtld steel t e s t s

N - cycles
Fig. 17. Comparison of pressure vessel fatigue results

Fig. 18. Comparison of theoretical SCFs for spheres with experimental SCFs for cylinders
Proz Instn Mech Engrs 1967-68 Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016
Vol 182 Pt I No-31
 A STUDY OF NOZZLES IN PRESSURE VESSELS UNDER PRESSURE FATIGUE LOADING
have indicated that for large nozzles the maximum stress
may not occur at this point. Consequently at high r/R
4 R I T values if rlR is large it may be considered wise to
continue to use the spherical values. Events are changing
rapidly in this field and it may well be that proper curves
for the cylinder case will become available in the near
future.
Values of calculated SCF have been added to Table 3
for both the Leckie-Penny sphere type calculation and
the present empirical approach. It can be seen that the
empirical values are marginally better.
Fatigue considerations
It is noticeable that vessel D4 had a slightly higher fatigue
life than vessels D1, D2 and D3. This may have been partly
due to the fact that the material in the highest stress region
was mild steel and partly due to the failure being at the
outer periphery of the reinforcement where conditions
were unknown. In Fig. 17 it can be seen that the present
full size and model tests form two groups and unex-
pectedly the models are the lower. Interesting as they are
in themselves the results can be treated with the remainder
of the results in Fig. 17 which summarizes the majority
of the known work in the Western hemisphere on fatigue
testing of vessels both model and full size.
It need hardly be pointed out that the alloy steels
showed little or no better fatigue behaviour than the mild
steel vessels either on the models or the full size. With the
possible exception of the T-1 model vessels the improve-
ments were marginal. This type of conclusion has been
made often on small scale specimens and Signes et al. (27)
have put forward a tentative explanation applicable to
small scale fillet welded specimens. They suggested that
fatigue cracking initiates from small defects at the weld
material and that the magnitude of the stress concentration
associated with the acuity of the defects explains the
similarity in measured fatigue strengths of welded
materials of different static strengths. It is doubtful if this
explanation could directly apply to the vessels considered
here since in many cases the fatigue crack did not com-
mence at the weld material. For the present purpose it is
sufficient to note that there was little improvement of alloy
over mild steel in the fatigue of vessels, rather than to
provide a rational explanation of the phenomenon. An
interesting fact immediately apparent is that the ASME
design code curve for carbon and low alloy steels more or
less provides a lower limit for all the experimental results.
Fig. 17, however, does not reveal all the implications of
the above remarks. Present practice allows higher design
stresses for high yield material with an overriding factor
on the ultimate tensile strength; the permissible design
strength being Proof Stress/l.5 or UTS/2.35, whichever
is the smaller. The actual factor will depend upon the
particular code in question. Fig. 19 is a replot of Fig. 17 on
the basis of Semi-stress range/DesignStress wherethe design
stress has been taken as the lesser of the above conditions
as obtained from Table 5. The idea is not new (3), but is
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1967-68 Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016
673
useful, since Fig. 19 shows that when vessels are designed
on the above basic design stress criteria, the high yield
vessels give lower lives than mild steel vessels. For ex-
ample, at a semi-stress range of twice the design stress
(i.e. a SCF of about 4) the T-1 full size vessel survived
about 4000 cycles compared with the A.201 vessels which
could be expected to last 60 000 cycles. At most stress
levels there seems to be a factor of between 5 and 10 on the
numbers of cycles for mild steel as compared with alloy
steels, depending on the source of thejnformation. The
only case which does not follow this pattern is the American
model vessels which show that the T-1 results are a few
times better than mild steel, but it is known that the T-1
models were ground and polished.
Codes which recognize this position demand a proper
stress and fatigue analysis. Particularly good in this respect
is the ASME section I11 which gives a detailed method of
analysis and B.S. 3915 which also calls for a fatigue analy-
sis. B.S. 1515 makes tentative recommendations and may
be sufficient in some applications. Where codes do not
require a detailed stress analysis (e.g. use area replacement
with consequent high SCFs) or a fatigue analysis, the
fatigue life of an alloy vessel may be significantly lower than
its mild steel counterpart under the same service conditions
unless special precautions are taken.
The concept of shakedown (28) has been proposed as a
design criterion, With current design stress levels of 2/3
yield stress this requires a semi-stress range factor of
approximately 1.5 (see discussion to reference (28)). It
can be seen that designing on shakedown (or some fraction
thereof) would not distinguish between steels of different
yield values. Shakedown design may well safeguard against
incremental collapse and low cycle fatigue, but in the case
of alloy steels does not automatically provide a safeguard
against fatigue in the 5000-10 000 cycle region.
At reasonable stress levels most results for even the
high yield materials gave more than 10 000 cycles. This
seems hopeful from an operational point of view since
many plants will receive less than 7000 cycles (one per day
for 20 years) during their lifetime, but it should be remem-
bered that all of the tests discussed were relatively short
term where corrosion had little effect. Over 20 years
corrosion would considerably affect the fatigue life. Any
reduction of the lives indicated in Fig. 19, bearing in
mind the unforeseen operational variations that can occur
in plant, could well bring designs into a danger region.
Offsetting these effects is the influence of temperature.
For a fair range of temperature above ambient and below
the creep range, the fatigue life would be expected to be
better than at ambient, but this is not certain for alloys
without experimentation, see Fig. 16. It has been sug-
gested that the initial overpressure test experienced by
most pressure vessels may have some bearing on the subse-
quent fatigue behaviour. Taylor (29) showed that the
effect was not very significant, at least for the number of
cycles and stress levels used in his tests. There are obvious
limits to any such procedure and, in addition, side effects
such as change in ductility would need to be considered.
Val 182 Pt 1 No 31
674 J. SPENCE AND W. B. CARLSON

3.25
MODELS FULL SIZE

3 00 ?4 A 2 0 1

2 75
B.W.RA. I
A
MnCr Mo V
Supertough
Mild steel

m i l d steel t e s t s
Drumheads
Present H MnCrMoV
results
fB M i l d steel
2 50 B Mild steel
Notched
} rotating
bending
(Drumhead)

Ln

225 Belgian
k-
m
z
2
2
.a
w
w
200

z
4
oz 1.75
Ln
m
W
(L
I-
m
2
W
I50
l.n

I25
.ommon p e r m
,tress l e v e l

I00 r
nun if B.W.R.A.
tee1

0 75

0 50
lo3 104 lo5 I06
NUMBER OF C Y C L E S

Fig. 19, Code based comparison of pressure vessel fatigue results

The conclusions reached from the above remarks rein-
force those made by Wellinger (30) after testing small-
scale specimens. He summarized as follows: 'The design
safety factor (German) must be corrected and adjusted
to suit steels with high yield strengths'. Similarly Payvar
and Vasarhelyi (31) after limited testing on small scale
specimens of ten steels concluded: 'Increased caution is
advisable in the use of low alloy high strength and high
strength heat-treated steels'.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of both static and dynamic tests there is little
to choose between the nozzle design of vessels D1, D2,
D3 and D4. Nozzle D4 with 100 per cent reinforcement in
the form of an external plate showed no marked improve-
ment over the others. In fact a region of high stress is
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1967-68 Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016
probably introduced a t the edge of the reinforcement,
see reference (8).
The stress level in a nozzle in a cylinder can be satisfac-
torily approximated from the theories available for nozzles
in spheres but a closer approximation may be obtained for
flush nozzles by using Fig. 18 of this paper.
There is approximate numerical agreement between the
fatigue performance of the full size vessels with nozzles
and rotating bending tests on U-notch specimens. Agree-
ment between model tests on drumheads a'nd the rotating
bending specimens is not good, probably due to change
.in shape of the model drumheads.
The present results are in agreement with international
fatigue results, all of which indicate that on a straight
comparison of normal workshop fabricated vessels low
dloy steels show little improvement over mild steel.
Vol I82 Pt I NO 31
 A STUDY OF NOZZLES IN PRESSURE VESSELS UNDER PRESSURE FATIGUE LOADING
When vessels are designed to codes where the design
stress is proportional to the yield point but a fatigue
analysis is not required, the expected fatigue life of an
alloy vessel may be significantly lower than that of its
mild steel counterpart under the same service conditions,
unless special precautions are taken.
All the experimental fatigue results reported herein lie
above the design curve for fatigue taken from Section I11
of the A.S.M.E. code for nuclear vessels.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the management of Babcock
and Wilcox (Operations) Ltd for permission to publish
this paper. The work of many colleagues in the Babcock
and Wilcox Research Station is gratefully acknowledged.
APPENDIX
REFERENCES
W. B. and MCKEAN,J. D.
(I) CARLSON, ‘Cylindrical pressure
vessels: stress systems in plain cylindrical shells and in
plain and pierced drumheads’, Proc. Instn mech. Engrs
1955 169,269.
(2) SCHOESSOW, R. and BROOKS, T. E. ‘Analysis of experimental
data regarding certain design features of pressure
vessels’, Trans. Am. SOL.mech. Engrs 1950 72, 367.
(3) WELLINGER, K. and KUSSMAUL, K. ‘Strength properties of
steels subject to overelastic stresses’, Mitteilungen der
V.G.B. Heft 92, 1964 (October).
(4) KOOISTRA,L. F. ‘Effect of plastic fatigue on pressure
vessel materials and design’, Welding Jl Res. suppL 1957
36 (3), 120.
(5) KOOISTRA, L. F., LANGE, E. A. and PICKETT, A. G. ‘Full
size pressure vessel testing and its application to design’,
Am. SOC. Mech. Engrs Paper 63-WA-293.
(6) KOOISTRA,L. F. and LEMCOE, M. M. ‘Low cycle fatigue
research on full scale pressure vessels’, Welding JZ Res.
suppl. 1962 41 (2), 297.
(7)WELTER,G. and DUBUC, J. ‘Fatigue resistance of simulated
nozzles in model pressure vessels of T-1 st#, ibid., 368.
(8) LANE, P. H. R. and ROSE,R. T. ‘Comparative performance
of pressure vessel nozzles under pulsating pressure’,
Symp. Pressure vessel research towards better design, Proc.
Instn mech. Engrs 1961 (Paper 4), 67.
(9) TAYLOR, T. E. Private communication. Also ‘Low cycle
fatigue behaviour of low alloy steel pressure vessels’, Brit.
Weld. Jl 1967 14 (12), 641.
(10)SOETE,W. et al. ‘Pressure vessel research in Belgium’,
Symp. Pressure vessel research towards better design, Proc.
Instn mech. Engrs 1961 (Paper 5), 82.
(11) HIERMAN, J. and STOCKMAN, G. ‘Essais sur tubulures
inclin6es’, Revue de la Soudure No. 1 1964 (January), 47.
(12) STOCKMAN, G. ‘Le dimensionnement du rtinforcement des
ouvertures’, Centre de Recherches SaentXques et
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1967158
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016
675
Techniques de 1’Industrie des Fabrications Metalliques,
Bruxelles. Part I, 1964, Part 11, 1965.
(13) LIBERTINY, G. Z. ‘Short-life fatigue under combined
stresses’,Jl Srrain Analysis 1967 2 (No. l), 91.
(14) MANSON,S. S. ‘Fatigue: A complex subject-some simple
approximations’, Experi. Mech. 1965 5 (No. 7), 19A.
(15) LANGER, B. F. ‘Design of pressure vessels for low-cycle
fatigue’, Am. SOC.Mech. Engrs Paper 61-WA-18.
(16)RUIZ, C. and BICKELL,M. B. ‘Recent trends in pressure
vessel design’, Commonwealth Welding Conference at
B.W.R.A. 1965.
(17)ANON. ‘Experimental and analytical determinations of the
stress systems in a welded pressure vessel’, British Weld-
ing Research Association, London 1951.
(IS)WATERS, E. O., HARDENBERGH, D. E., TAYLOR, C. E., LIND,
N. C., SCHWEIKER,J. W., WILLIAMS,F. S. G. and
AULER, E. P. ‘Welding Research Council Bulletin’
1959 (June, No. 51).
(19) MERSHON,J. K. ‘P.V.R.C. research on reinforcements of
openings in pressure vessels’, ibid. 1962 (May, No. 77).
(20) HARDENBERGH, D. E., ZAMRIK,S. Y. and EDMONDSON, A. J.
‘Experimental investigation of stress in nozzles in
cylindrical pressure vessels’, ibid. 1963 (July, No. 89).
(21) WELLS, A. R., LANE,P. H. R. and ROSE, R. T. ‘Stress
analysis of nozzles in cylindrical pressure vessels’, Symp.
Pressure vessel research towards better design, Proc. Instn
Mech. Engrs 1961 (Paper 2), 17.
(22) ROSE, R. T. ‘New design method for pressure vessel
nozzles’, Engineer, Lond. 1962 (20th July).
(23) ROSE,R. T. and THOMSON, J. M. T. ‘Calculated stress con-
centration factors for nozzles in spherical vessels’, Symp.
Pressure vessel research towards better design, Proc. Instn
mech. Engrs 1961 (Paper l), 1.
(24) LECKIE, F.A.and PENNY, R. K. ‘Stress concentration factors ‘
at nozzle intersections in pressure vessels’, W.R.C.
Bulletin No. 90 1963.
(25) O’CONNELL,J. M. and CHUBB,E.J. ‘An improved method
of calculating stresses at the intersection of a cylindrical
nozzle and a spherical vessel’, Proc. Instn mech. Engrs
1963-64 178 (Pt 3J), 224.
(26) ERIGEN, A. C.,NAGHDI,A. K. and THIEL, C. C. ‘State of
stress in a circular cylindrical shell with a circular hole’,
W.R.C. Bulletin No. 102,1965.
(27) SIGNBS,E. G. et d. ‘Investigation of the factors affecting the
fatigue strength of welded high strength steels’, Brit.
Weld. yl 1967 (March) 14 (No. 3), 108.
(28) LECKIE, F. A. and PAYNE, D. J. ‘Some observations on the
design of spherical pressure vessels with flush cylindrical
nozzles’, Proc. Instn mech. Engrs 1965 180 (Pt l), 66.
(29) TAYLOR, T. E. ‘Effect of test pressure on the fatigue perfor-
mance of mild steel cylindrical pressure vessels containing
nozzles’, Brit. Weld.JI 1967 (March) 14 (No. 3), 117.
(30) WBLLINGER, K. ‘The significance of high yield steels in
boiler construction’, Mitt. der V.G.B.Heft 91 Aug. 1964.
(31) PAWAR,K. and VASARHELYI, D. D. ‘Fatigue tests of struc-
tural steels and weldments in notched specimens’, Weld.
Res. Suppl. 1966 (April), 161.
Vol182 Pt 1 No 31
676

Communications
Mr C. M. White, B.Sc., C.Eng., M.1.Mech.E.-The
warning of the potentially reduced fatigue life of low alloy
steel vessels compared with mild steel vessels designed to
the same code is indeed timely. It highlights the necessity
of checking against this mode of failure and the possible
need to reduce stress concentrations by even more atten-
tion to the design of details. The somewhat increased
numbers of cycles to failure, Table 3, and more particularly
the transference of the point of failure, Fig. 12, for vessel
D4 when compared to the other alloy steel vessels give
some indication that fatigue life can be increased by giving
further attention to the local shape and disposition of
nozzle reinforcements.
The experimental results back up this warning in a
forceful manner, but it seems unfortunate that some shade
of doubt must be cast upon the absolute value of these
results because the alloy steel vessels were so constructed
that there was mild steel, or welds between mild steel and
alloy steel at or near the points of maximum stress
concentration.
The collected vessel fatigue results, Fig. 17, provide a
valuable justificationfor using the ASME I11 criteria as the
basis of a fatigue analysis. They also emphasize the con-
servatism of the B.S. 1515 criteria for determining
whether fatigue analysis is required, and underline the
overdesign which could result if the B.S. 1515 criteria
were to be used as a basis for determining vessel scantlings
nozzles in cylindrical vessels according to the following
equation :
[1+ 1.77(d/D)do/T
+ ( d / D ) 2 / d s p [l+(T/D)/%‘/sISl
]
K = Max. of )
1+(d/D)Z/(s,/S)dqS
either 1 [1 . 6 7 v ’ ~ d ~ T0565(d/D)]
+
I x [l+(T/D)/dsISl
0.67d~d~+0.565(d/D)/(s/s)
where d is the internal diameter of branch pipe; D the
internal diameter of main pipe; r = 4 2 ; R = 012;
t the branch pipe wall thickness; T the main vessel wall
thickness; s = d/2t, the nominal stress in branch pipe;
S = D/2T, the nominal stress in main vessel (cylindrical);
and S = D / 4 T is the nominal stress in main vessel
(spherical).
Calculated results were compared to a variety of nozzle
results and these were assessed in an ASME paper at their
Winter meeting (November 1967). A series of curves from
the above equation are shown for a given set of parameters,
Fig. 20. Perhaps the authors would like to comment on the
above.
Another point is that it would be very interesting to
hear more’%bout the ‘unpublished German work’, men-
tioned by the authors. Were these SCFs based on measure-
ments at the inside surface of the vessel or were they

----
-particularly for those sections of vessels which do not extrapolations from measurements taken from the outside
contain openings, supports or other major discontinuities. surface? If the latter is the case, what order of accuracy
are we to expect from these data ?
20 I { I
Mr E.Hay, M.Sc., B.Sc., C.Eng., M.1.Mech.E.-The D II T A
s/S=l.O
authors point out in the discussion section of their paper
that the Leckie-Penny values they quote are for nozzles in I /r- Inn I
spherical vessels. The recommended use of such results, by
approximation, to nozzles in cylindrical vessels is however
rather disturbing even though this approach has been
fostered by B.S. 3915. When dealing with stress concentra-
tions due to pressure alone, the above assumption may be
reasonably acceptable. However, when a nozzle in a cylin-
drical vesselisbeing analysed for fatigueperformance under
actual operating conditions, the effects of external loads, as
well as the thermal stresses in the system, may well make
the errors that we are condoning tip the balance for a failure
as opposed to a no-failure system. An improved method of
stress concentration assessment was put forward in 1967 dlo
by Professor Lind of Waterloo University for flush Fk. 20
Proc Inrrn Mech Engrs 1967-68 Voli82 P I i No 3i
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016
 A STUDY O F NOZZLES IN PRESSURE VESSELS UNDER PRESSURE FATIGUE LOADING
Finally, a point related to the results put forward by
the authors. These are very useful only as applied to the
parameters tested. Would it not be possible to interrelate
the area replacement factor (say 0.6,0*8,0.9 and 1.0) to the
fatigue life or the SCF of the nozzle ? This approach, in
future publications, may give a better guide to the designer
for any of his new applications.
Mr K. D. Clare, M.Sc., C.Eng., M.1.Mech.E.-In the
discussion section of their paper the authors have pre-
sented a well reasoned argument in favour of the generally
accepted approach that the stress levels at nozzles in
cylinders can be approximated from theory for nozzles in
spheres. This is probably somewhat pessimistic for a fairly
wide range of practical nozzles and it is worth considering
the influence of the different dimensional parameters on
the nozzle stress levels.
For the cylinder/cylinder intersection Money (40) has
shown that an empirical expression,
log SCF = 0.2042 log p z ( T/t)’+O.3979
F*. 22
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 196768 Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016
677
correlates to within f10 per cent a large number of
measured stress concentration factors. Here p is the
parameter r / R d r T which indicates the specific size of
opening in the vessel. It may be noted that the expression
gives the SCF in terms of a single group and may therefore
be drawn as a single line on a sheet of graph paper. The
expression may be written in the form
SCF = 2.5 [p0’408(T/t)0’408]
The Leckie and Payne(34) curves for stress concentration
at flush nozzles in spheres may also be plotted on a log-log
scale in terms of a single group p2( T/t)llz,Fig. 21, and a
single line may be drawn through all the points plotted
which cover values of p from 0-4 to 4.0 and (Tit) from
1.0 to 4.0. The expression given by this line which again
correlates all the results to within f10 per cent is
SCF = 3.3 [pov56(T/f)o’14]
From these last two empirical expressions it is possible
to obtain an idea of how the two parameters p and ( T / t )
Vol I82 Pt I No 31
678
affect the stress levels at nozzles. In particular the expres-
sions indicate the different influence of the shell to nozzle
thickness ratio in the two cases. It is clear that more
advantage may be gained by thickening the nozzle in a
cylinder than by thickening the nozzle in a sphere.
This advantageous influence of nozzle thickening on
cylinders is such that it should not be overlooked merely
for the sake of having a single rule for both spheres and
cylinders. This is perhaps brought out more clearly by
Fig. 22, which is similar to the authors’ Fig. 18, but
compares the Leckie and Payne results with the Money
expression.
It is interesting to note that if a similar exercise is carried
out comparing limit pressures of spherical and cylindrical
vessels with flush nozzles it is again apparent that increas-
ing nozzle thickness increases strength more rapidly in
cylindrical vessels than in spherical vessels.
Mr D. K. Common (London)-In my view more
should be made of the differences in behaviour between
the three types of nozzles tested-M1, D4 and the Group
D1, D2, D3-the latter arc all sufficiently similar in
design and appearance to be considered as one type.
Considering the behaviour of these three types in the
context of the question ‘How does one design a nozzle for
optimum fatigue performance in an alloy steel vessel?’
various aspects mentioned by the authors assume some-
what different significance. For instance there can hardly
be any doubt that nozzle D4 failed as the result of over-
compensation (this is confirmed incidentally by the
circumferential nature of the fracture-in every other case
this was radial). Even in spite of this, D4 gave a slightly
higher fatigue life than Group D1, D2, D3 and one cannot
help feeling that a significantly higher fatigue life would
have been achieved had less (or perhaps nil) compensation
been provided with a mild steel set-through nozzle of this
type. Some extension of the work to confirm this would
appear to me to be highly desirable to identify quite
unequivocally what the optimum design practice would
be.
I should also like to comment on the fact that the stress
concentration observed in nozzle M1 was significantly in
excess of theoretical predictions and also higher than that
observed on the alloy steel vessels. Surely this confirms
what many of us believe, i.e. that observed values of SCF
are largely a function of macroscopic material behaviour
under local yielding conditions/strain gauge size and
location and that ‘abnormally’ large values measured on a
structure should be considered more as evidence of
healthy stress redistribution taking place rather than as
potential points of weakness.
Mr H. Crowther (Renfrew, Scotland)-The authors
state the current Code was B.S. 1113:1951 when the
fifteen nozzles were designed and it would appear that in
Fig. 3 a detail for set-in nozzle is shown which would not
be recommended by this Code. B.S. 1113:1958 shows, in
Fig. 35b, a set-in nozzle which has been successfully used
Proc Instn Mech Erigrs 1967-68
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016
COMMUNICATIONS
by some of the pressure vessel fabricators, e.g. the root
face should not be greater than 7% in to conform to the
optimum preparation for efficient welding methods instead
of Q in as shown in Fig. 3 of the paper.
Fig. 10 of the paper indicates the point of fracture
initiation and it would appear that the failure did not
originate at this very substantial artificial notch.
I n the conclusions, the authors state that on the basis of
both static and dynamic tests, there is little to choose
between the nozzle design of vessels Dl, D2, D3 and D4,
and they also state that certain special precautions should
be taken when vessels are designed to Codes where the
design stress is proportional to the yield point.
But the trend in nozzle detail design at present is to
be more sophisticated and rational rather than the area-
for-area arbitrary reinforcement method allowed for in
B.S. 1113:1958 and the latest draft of this Code, i.e.
Users Specifications, may require a fatigue analysis check
to be allowed for in the detailed examination of the stress
system on the lines given in ASME III or B.S.3915
(which is mandatory for Nuclear Vessels), and the set-on
nozzle is the latest fashion with varying reasons given in the
Specifications for the necessity of its use. Figs 23 and 24
show typical examples.
Document I.S.O. 66/30384 states:
(a) Area replacement methods. are not adequate for
advanced pressure vessels.
(6) B.S. 3915 protruding nozzles offer economies in
material.
(c) Simplified versions of B.S. 3915 design charts for
protruding nozzles are proposed for the 13.0. Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Codes, enabling rapid determina-
tion of economic reinforcement configurations.
Fig. 24
Vo1182 Pt 1 No 31
 A STUDY O F NOZZLES IN PRESSURE VESSELS UNDER PRESSURE FATIGUE LOADING
In a fatigue test recently carried out on a set-in small
bore nozzle array the joint required the following fatigue
cycles before failure occurred.
200 000 cycles at 0 -design pressure- O+ 200 000
cycles at 0 - 1.5 x design pressure -0 +approximately
100 000 cycles at 0-3 x design pressure-0. Even then
the failure did not originate at the artificial notch in the
bore of the nozzle but at the crotch corner, i.e. the
recognized highest stressed point.
It is also most interesting to compare the authors’ con-
clusions against some of the earlier statements on preferred
nozzle designs, e.g. ‘The set-in protruding thick nozzle
was found to have the longest life’. Paper No. 5 Sympo-
sium on Pressure Vessels research towards better design.
Proc. Imtn Mech. Engineers 1961.
It can be shown that the minimum stress concentration
for a hole in a cylinder may be obtained when the hole is
an ellipse with axes ratio 1:2 and the minor axis of the
elliptical opening is perpendicular to the hoop direction.
Accordingly, elliptical shaped nozzles might be stresswise
ideal and desirable for a cylindrical pressure vessel. But
the manufacture of such a nozzle presents an economic
problem, since there has to be a change of cross-section
from an ellipse to a circle for the supply pipe connection.
However, such a nozzle has been invented by Hiltscher,
(Swedish) Patent Application No. 9134/63 and may be
in the form of an unsymmetrical push out in the vessel
wall or a separately formed unsymmetrical nozzle to be
welded into the elliptical hole in the vessel wall. Other
methods may be used such as machining a thick wall vessel
to achieve the same stress pattern.
‘The set-on branch might sometimes offer advantages
in fabrication, provided the plate had been checked very
carefully for laminations. Also the protruding nozzle
constituted a highly efficient reinforcement.’ (Paper No. 2
Symposium 1961 in the replies to the discussion.)
‘The findings after investigations for control rod nozzles
in nuclear pressure vessels showed protruding type as
final choice.’ (Penetrations Reinforcements studies in 1963
by The Levivier Company, France).
Studies on composite vessels of the multilayer types
all indicate that manufacturers are using set-through
type nozzles as there appears at present to be no practical
alternative.
I welcome the trend in the paper wherein the designer
is encouraged to observe more fully the principle that
every design in all its parts must be judged individually,
and more particularly where alloy steels are to be used.
This paper should help to discourage attempts to intro-
duce into the conventional Boiler Codes simplification of
calculations which tend to arbitrarily bias the designer’s
judgement towards a solution which may not be the best on
purely engineering grounds.
Mr E. Procter, C.Eng., M.1.Mech.E.-Future designs
of pressure vessel attachments, operating below the creep
range, are likely to be based on shakedown and/or limit
analysis methods. The determination of first yield pressure
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 196748
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016
679
of the component is important if maximum advantage is
to be gained from such methods.
Theoretical analysts have generally adopted the Tresca
criterion for first yield, e.g. limit analysis by Dr Gill (32)
and shakedown analysis by Professor Leckie (33). In the
correspondence to reference (34), Mr Spence showed that
calculated values of shakedown factors are higher when
the von Mises instead of the Tresca criterion is used in
Professor Leckie’s theory. These higher values have since
been supported by experiments (35) which immediately
implies that the use of Tresca would result in unnecessarily
conservative designs. The authors, in their paper, have
implied that the von Mises criterion is also conservative.
In view of this, some of my own observations may be of
interest.
During the investigations into shakedown behaviour of
cylinder to sphere attachments (35) similar observations
were noted to those of the authors, is. the onset of non-
linearity of the strain/pressure graphs usually appeared to
be slightly higher than that required by the von Mises
yield criterion. It was considered, however, that such small
volumes of material are involved with first yield that the
surrounding elastic material retains control of the region
during the immediate pressure increase. Thus, so far as can
be determined from an experimental plot, strain behaviour
appears to remain linear. When making comparisons of
this type it is, of course, important to use the correct value
of uni-axial yield stress for the materials. In this case
tensile specimens were machined from material taken from
the ends of the nozzle forgings and from the shell plate
cut-outs after the basic manufacturing procedures had
been completed, i.e. machining, rolling, etc. The specimen
material was also subjected to the same heat treatment as
the completed vessel.
The experimentally determined shakedown pressures
were almost twice the von Mises first yield pressure and
approximately 2.2 times the Tresca first yield pressure.
Since shakedown would not be expected beyond twice
first yield pressure the Tresca criterion is clearly too
conservative. Evidence suggests that the Von Mises
criterion is, at least, approximately correct and conse-
quently I would like to urge the theoretical analysts to
follow experimental practice and use Von Mises rather
than Tresca.
Mr J. F. Poynor, B.Sc.(Eng.), C.Eng., F.1.Mech.E.-
Fig. 18 is of particular interest to those designing nozzles
in cylindrical vessels. Use of the cylinder/sphere theory is
sometimes limited to r / R = 3 for cylindrical vessels, and I
would be interested to know how many of the experi-
mental points in Fig. 18 came within the range of, say,
r / R = 0.75 to 1.0 which is relevant to both the design of
vessels and piping systems. Would the authors have any
reservations in the use of Fig. 18 for these large diameter
cylinder junctions irrespective of the value of (r/R)dm.
I would like to develop the authors’ views concerning
fatigue implications of the area replacement method for
Vo1182 Pt 1 No 31
680
alloy steel vessels. This method of nozzle design has been
used successfully for many years, and continues to be used
with the increased design stresses now permitted by most
Codes. In addition to the high yield materials tested by the
authors, quenched and tempered materials are becoming
of increasing interest.
The cumulative result of increased code stresses and
the use of high yield material is design stresses much
higher than those used several years ago for carbon steels.
Local stresses will also increase, resulting in the fatigue
implications shown in the paper, and more attention must
be given to the SCFs permitted at nozzles if fatigue is to
be assessed. This requires the designer to know the SCF he
is permitting, but use of the area replacement method does
not itself give a known SCF; the method can result in
SCFs ranging up to about 4.0. The SCF should therefore
be known, in addition to meeting area requirements, if
fatigue could be a mode of failure. It is evident that this
procedure would be simplified by the use of a nozzle
reinforcement method which is based on a known SCF
constant for all nozzles satisfying the method.
Mr G. T. Gray, B.Sc. (Glasgow).-Full size workshop
fabricated vessels are not often included in cyclic pressure
testing programmes. The present excellent contribution
to the literature is all the more useful because careful
experimental work has been supplemented by a valuable
review of available data. One hopes that this paper may
squash any lingering notions that fatigue strength is
related to yield strength.
A comparison of the full scale results with the experience
of Manson (14) may be interesting. He found a simple
relationship between cycles to failure and total strain
range for small uniaxial specimens cycled between con-
stant strain limits. Ultimate strength and reduction of area
at fracture in a uni-axial tensile test were the only material
__ - __
- -I-,
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1967-68 Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016
COMMUNICATIONS
properties required to complete the correlation. The upper
and lower curves in Fig. 25 are predictions of fatigue life
on this basis, for the extremes of material tested by the
authors. The curve for Fortiweld material has been
partially interpolated. Experimental values plotted are
taken from the authors’ paper and reference (9).
Fig. 25 shows that fatigue life seems to be independent
even of the other sacred design criterion, ultimate strength.
The small improvement which Manson expects from a
material with an increased ultimate strength is not
reflected in the experimental results. There are exceptions
which may reveal the cause. The three ground and
polished examples clearly stand out from their fellows
even on a logarithmic plot. The three examples incorporat-
ing a ground radiused crotch may also have benefited.
This kind of behaviour is well known in the field of
welded structures and has been attributed (27) to the
presence of very small sharp defects in regions of high
strain. These defects produce local strains of sufficient
magnitude to reduce all materials to the same level of
fatigue life/strain range. (Fig. 25 shows that this happens
at 2 per cent strain range.) The authors doubt whether this
mechanism applies here but it is known that fine fatigue
cracks can be generated prematurely in the surface layer
of as-received plate even in the absence of welds (e.g.
reference (36)). It is possible then that removal of this
layer, including polishing to avoid further notches, may
allow the material to develop its maximum fatigue
strength.
Anyone doubting the significance of surface effects in
such thick sections should refer to Wellinger (reference
(37) which is the same as (30)), who reports ‘fine net-like
surface cracks’ on a boiler drum wall, which were propa-
gated under low stresses in a short service period.
Polishing is hardly a practical solution to the problem, but,
in any case, surface layer effects may develop in service.
v MN-CR-Mo-V
1-1
L
10’
CYCLES TO FAILURE
Fig. 25
Vo1182 Pt 1 No 31
 A STUDY OF NOZZLES IN PRESSURE VESSELS UNDER PRESSURE FATIGUE LOADING
Fig. 26
Wellinger also draws attention to the problem of cracking
in the protective magnetite layer which forms on boiler
drums in service. Reference (38) also describes fatigue
failures due to cracking of surface oxide films.
To conclude, there seems to be no valid reason for
increasing the allowable fatigue strength for a material
which has an increased yield or ultimate strength. The
surface layer of the component seems to be responsible.
Other ‘fringe’ effects such as temperature, corrosion and
cycling speed have not been considered and may be
equally significant.
Mr H. A. Money, C.Eng., M.1.Mech.E.-Reference
(5) of the paper refers to work carried out by Pickett and
Grigory (39) which contradicts the present authors’ work
on two points. First, Pickett and Grigory show that local
deviations from the round, of about 2 per cent, can increase
membrane stresses by up to 100 per cent whereas the
present authors state that up to 1 per cent out of roundness
produces negligible increase in stress. Does the act of
welding on a nozzle locally distort a vessel and contribute
to the scatter of maximum stress found between nominally
identical attachments ?
Second, Pickett and Grigory found fatigue cracks quite
Proc Instn Mech Ewrs 1967-68
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016
681
early in the life of their vessels with failure frequently
occurring after twice the cycles to crack initiation. The
present authors conclude that failure occurred quickly
after crack initiation, perhaps they would care to comment
upon this.
The curves of Fig. 18 relating SCF to r / R v ‘ m a r e very
irregular. If a cross plot of t/T against SCF for a fixed
value of r / R d W is made it will be found to have a very
irregular shape so that interpolation between the curves
is difficult. If the SCF is plotted against (T/T)~T/Ra
much better distribution is achieved, the vast majority of
points falling within 10 per cent of the mean line, Fig. 26.
The predicted SCF for Spence’s vessels by this method
are 2.85 for vessels Dl-D4 and very similar for M1. The
measured stress from M1 is outside the scatter band but as
neither of the other two methods of predicting SCF
mentioned in the paper suggests a value as high as this, the
result remains an enigma.
The ability to predict SCF is important in fatigue work
as the calculation of expected life usually gravitates to
locating the maximum stress in the structure on an S-N
curve and reading off the life. As most of the vessels of the
type considered in this paper are designed for high
temperatures, I hope that Dr Carlson will consider
extending his test work to vessels at high temperature.
Vo1182 Pt I No 31
682
Authors’ Reply
M r J. Spence and D r W. B. Carlson-In reply to
Mr White’s comments on the shade of doubt cast by
having mild steel nozzles in alloy vessels, we would point
out that it seems likely that in vessels D1 and D3, and
possibly in D2 as well, the mild steel would have little
effect due to its physical position relative to the maximum
stress position. In addition the small difference in life
between alloy and mild steel anyway makes it seem
unimportant. The basic idea of having a more ductile
material in the region of high stress is good (28) but is
hardly fulfilled by using mild steel nozzles; it may,
however, be exploited in a better way in advanced future
designs. Mr White emphasizes the conservatism of the
B.S. 1515 criterion for determining whether a fatigue
analysis is required. For all cases that we have checked one
might even say it is grossly over-conservative.
Mr Hay refers to Professor Lind’s excellent engineering
approach to the problem of nozzle in cylinder stressing
which can be found in reference (41). This work was not
available when the paper was drafted and, as was pointed
out, events are changing rapidly. The business of using
nozzle in sphere results to predict nozzle in cylinder
stresses has, of course, to be treated with care. In the
paper only pressure loading was being considered. The
analysis of cylinder/cylinder connections under external
loads is complicated, and under realistic thermal loading
results are as yet non-existent. Lind’s formulae and Fig. 20
(taken from reference (41)) are also for pressure loading.
Unfortunately the bulk of Fig. 20 refers to very unlikely
nozzle configurations, e.g. with s/S = 1.0, T / t = l/(d/D),
i.e. for dlD = 0.2, T / t = 5.0 and smaller d / D refer to
higher T / t . This is the unfortunate thing about some
presentations; they do not easily show the physical limits
of the problem. Similar remarks apply to the other two
figures in reference (41).One with s/S = 2.0 is even more
restricted and one with sjS = 0-5 is better.
A detailed comparison of Lind’s results with Eringen’s
latest work has been made (42) for r/R -$ and < agreement.
Table 6. Stress concentration factors
Geometry I Source
Proc Insrn Mech Engrs 1967-68 Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016
r I R d v T < 1.1 and the qualitative trends and magni-
tudes were quite similar. Comparisons of Professor Lind’s
work with any other source such as Fig. 18 or Figs 22 and
26, do not lead to any positive conclusions for r / R d m
< 1.5. At higher values, however, Lind’s results tend to be
higher than any of the others shown by Table 6 .
I n the German unpublished work the stresses were
calculated using Fig. 18 as pointed out in the paper. The
accuracy is relatively unimportant for the present purpose.
It is the similarity between the fatigue behaviour of mild
steel and the Cu-Ni steel on Fig. 17 and their separation
in Fig. 19 that is the important point. We cannot agree
with Mr Hay that the results (fatigue) are only useful as
applied to the parameters tested and we are not convinced
as to the usefulness of the area replacement factor. It is
necessary to specify the distribution of the reinforcement
carefully. The lee-way allowed by putting arbitrary limits
to the reinforcement can give rise to large variations in
SCF and fatigue life.
Mr Clare has produced two expressions for the SCFs at
nozzles in spheres and nozzles in cylinders which will be
very useful to designers and has brought out well that
more advantage is to be gained by thickening the nozzle in
a cylinder than by thickening the nozzle in a sphere. This
was also apparent in Fig. 18 and brought out in the dis-
cussion under ‘Stress levels’ but the paper urges care with
large r / R ratios since it is known that the maximum stress
may not be at the crotch. Unfortunately most experimental
results (and Lind’s theory) even at large r / R refer to the
crotch. It would be interesting to know if any of the
results covered by Mr Money’s survey referred to a
position other than the crotch. Mr Clare’s Fig. 22 showing
the two expressions for SCF is interesting although surely
the Leckie-Penny results for T / t = 1.0 have been mis-
placed from their original publication (24). A comparison
of the empirical results in Fig. 18 with Fig. 22 for
cylinder/cylinder connections shows remarkably good
While we agree with Mr Common that the failure in
nozzle D4 points to over-compensation, we think it
unlikely that any nozzle of like proportions having a
degree of compensation intermediate between D4 and D1,
D2 and D3 would show greatly enhanced fatigue resist-
ance. With nozzles of these proportions it is now known
that the fatigue performance characteristic is likely to be
similar in the range of area-for-area compensation from
100 per cent down to 40 per cent, assuming that the com-
pensation is principally in the nozzle. This conclusion
would hold for soundly constructed nozzles, whether
Yo1 182 Pt I No 31
 A STUDY OF NOZZLES I N PRESSURE VESSELS UNDER PRESSURE FATIGUE LOADING
through-welded or not. The accredited area-for-area
compensation in nozzles D1, D2 and D3 is of the order of
between 30 per cent and 60 per cent, depending on the
code used. That in D4 ranges from 100 per cent to 150
per cent, again depending on the code used.
Like Mr Common, one of the authors believes that the
yield properties of the material, acting in small areas of
high stress concentration, can have an effect on the
observed allegedly elastic SCF of a component. It is a
suggestion which is hard for the stress analyst to swallow,
but it could undoubtedly benefit from a bit of painstaking
pure research.
Mr Crowther has summarized well present trends and
code practice. The remark in the paper about B.S. 1113-
1951 refers particularly to nozzle D4. The point of the
conclusion on the similarity of nozzles D1, D2, D3 and
D4 is that the simplest one may as well be used. On the
point about preferred nozzle designs we would point out
that it is not too difficult to find seemingly conflicting
statements. One needs to be careful. Soete’s work was on
small 2 in diameter nozzles in 11 in diameter vessels and
what is actually said in the conclusions is ‘The scatter is
so large that it is difficult to conclude with certainty as to
the superiority of one type of nozzle over another. It
seems probable, however, that type D (set-in protruding
thick nozzle) is better. . .’. Fairly well known advantages
are to be had if protruding nozzles can be used but no
protruding nozzles were tested here. Mr Crowther’s
remarks on elliptical opening nozzles may be of interest
to some people. Some results of Dr Hiltscher’s work can
be found in reference (43), a private report of the Swedish
state power board.
Mr Procter’s contribution is interesting and we agree
that it would be helpful in general to use the von Mises
criterion of yielding. The conservativeness of the von
Mises criterion in the present case, Fig. 7, was not great
and might be considered marginal. It is obviously depen-
dent on the constraint of the system. Comparison of the
onset of non-linearity with any yield criterion on small
nozzles would be expected to give more conservative
results than on large nozzles if onset of linearity is used as a
basis. It is interesting that shakedown tests have also shown
this feature. However, experimental shakedown results
need to be treated with caution in this context since norm-
ally it is progressive plasticity that one is preventing rather
than reversed yielding as described by Findlay and
Spence (44). Reverse yielding is difficult to observe and
measured shakedown factors can be expected to be at
least marginally higher than theoretical ones for this
reason. There is also the complication of true material
behaviour as distinct from idealized.
Mr Poyner asked about large r/R values. Only two of the
results in Fig. 18 refer to r/R > 0.75. A reservation in the
use of the results and indeed in the use of any empirical
relationship is the one already stated about the location
of the maximum stress. Perllaps it is still advisable to use
the nozzle in sphere values for large r / R values. We en-
dorse Mr Poyner’s remarks regarding the necessity of
Proc Insrn Mech Engrs 196768
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016
683
knowing the maximum stress even with codes which do
not specify or require an SCF if fatigue is a possible mode
of failure.
We would like to thank Mr Gray for his comparisons
with Manson’s work. Comparisons on a basis of reference
(15) would yield similar results. We are also grateful to
Mr Gray for his lucid comments on the factors which
contribute to the similarity of observed fatigue perform-
ance in alloy and mild steel vessels, and particularly for his
extension of Signes’ ideas (27)on weld defects to surface
effects in the parent material. However, caution is advised
at high strain ranges. Where the strain range is greater
than twice the yield or proof strain the similarity in fatigue
performance may not be so strong.
In answer to Mr Money, we would point out that the
effect of out-of-roundness in a cylindrical shell is not
simply related to the percentage out-of-roundness.
Reference (I) shows typical variations with associated
stresses and discusses the matter in some detail. It
emphasizes that to do justice to out-of-circularity a radial
gauge is required and indicates that the increase in stress
depends on the radius to thickness of the shell, on the
ratio of the deviation to the shell thickness and also on
whether the out-of-roundness is local or general. Neverthe-
less, the statement in the present paper needs amplifica-
tion. Measurements of out-of-circularity were made at a
number of stations in the test vessels and the greatest
difference between maximum and minimum diameters
was not greater than 1 per cent. The associated bending
stresses were calculated but the values local to the actual
nozzle positions were so low that it was decided to ignore
them. The Engineering Sciences Data Unit have this
particular problem in their programme of work and will be
considering it shortly.
The crack propagation time is not known for the present
vessels. They were not examined at intermediate times
but only after a failure occurred. In vessels D1 to D4 no
cracks were found in the other nozzles after the first one
failed. In the case of the mild steel vessel, where tests
continued until all three nozzles failed, nozzle No. 2 failed
first at 113 816 cycles. At that stage there was no sign of
cracking in the other two nozzles. Nozzle No. 1 failed at
201 138 cycles and there was no sign of cracking in No. 3.
It was presumed that the cracks had propagated in a small
number of cycles. Conceivably it is possible that crack
propagation in No. 1 occupied nearly 50 per cent of the
life and in No. 3 about 30 per cent. On a logarithmic plot
the difference hardly shows. Taylor (9) quotes propagation
times varying from 2 per cent to 64 per cent of the vessel
life. The length of time occupied by crack propagation is
not easily related to vessel or stress parameters even using
a fracture mechanics approach (45). Anyone contemplating
fatigue work in the future could perhaps make crack
propagation measurements. Recent advances in non-
destructive testing make this relatively simple to do.
Mr Money remarks that a cross-plot of Fig. 18 is very
irregular but comparisons with his results as presented
herein by Mr Clare are in good agreement as is the result
Val I82 Pt I No 31
684
of 2.85 quoted for the present vessels compared with 2.9
from Fig. 18. Fig. 27 shows cross-plots of stress concen-
tration factor for fixed values of r / R d r T . Bearing in
mind that the lines depicting Money’s results have an
associated scatter of f10 per cent the agreement is
remarkably good. Lind’s results have not been included in
Fig. 27 to avoid confusion. At low rIRd/RIT they would
be in approximate agreement (perhaps rather more than
10 per cent difference) and at large r / R d z / T they would
be high. The second value in Table 6 may be easily
compared. The accuracy suggested by Professor Lind for
his own results was f 2 0 per cent. The reason for such
scatter is at least in part due to the fact that r / R d r T is
not such a useful parameter for cylinders as it is for
spheres (42). Indeed even in the case of the sphere it is not
so good if the stresses in the nozzle are considered.
Fig. 26 is very useful for design particularly in the form
of the equation given by Mr Clare. Yet there may be dis-
advantages. Usually R/T is more or less fixed and the
nozzle thickness or opening size is adjusted to suit the
design. One cannot easily see the effect of juggling with
the opening size and the nozzle thickness particularly if
one wishes to extrapolate to the extreme value of t / T = 0.
It must not be thought that Fig. 18 for cylinder/cylinder
connections is being defended against logical improve-
ments. It is merely an empirical stop gap measure which
still has its usefulness, as have the other empirical relations
suggested. Events are changing rapidly as pointed out in
the paper and soon theoretical curves may be generally
available. The following references may be consulted:
(41) and (44, (44H53)-
-Money (Clare)
+ Spence and Carlson
@ Eringen (theory t / T = O )
Proc Inrtn Mech Engrs 1967-68 Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 25, 2016
AUTHORS’ REPLY
Although the determination of the stress is an important
step in determining the life of a vessel, it seems a pity that
the bulk of the discussion has been occupied by what is in
a sense a subsidiary part of the paper. It is to be hoped that
the implication of Figs 19 and 25 and the remarks on
fatigue have been sufficiently explicit to be of use to
pressure vessel designers.
REFERENCES
(32) GILL,S. S. ‘Limit pressure for a flush cylindrical nozzle in a
spherical pressure vessel’, Int. J . mech. Sci. 1964 6, 105.
(33) LECKIE, F. A. ‘Shakedown pressures for flush cylinder-
sphere intersections’,J. mech. Engng Sci. 1965 7 (No. 4),
367.
(34)LECKIB, F. A. and PAYNE,D. J. ‘Some observations on the
design of spherical pressure vessels with flush cylindrical
nozzles’, Proc. Instn mech. Engrs 1965-66 180 (Pt 1)
(No. 20).
(35) PROCTER, E. and FLINDERS, R. F. ‘Shakedown investigations
on partial penetration welded nozzlcs in a spherical
shell’, Nuc. Engng and Design 1968 7 (No. 7).
(36) TETELMAN, A.S.and MCEVILY,A. J. ‘Fracture of Structural
Materials’, 1967, 356 (Wiley).
(37) WELLINGER,K. Die Bedeutung von Stahlen mit Hoherer
Streckgrenze in Kesselbau. Mitt. der V.G.B. Heft 92.
October 1964.
(38) COFFIN,L. F. Trans. A.S.M. 1963 56,339.
(39) PICKETT,A. G. and GRIGORY, S . C. ‘Studies of the fatigue
strength of pressure vessels’, South West Research
Institute Report 1228-1-29 (Pt 1) and 1228-1-36 (Pt 2).
(40)MONEY, H. A. ‘The design of flush cylinder/cylinder
intersections to withstand pressure’ (to be published by
A.S.M.E.’,
(41)LIND,N.C. “Approximate stress-concentration analysis for
pressurized branch-pipe connections’, A.S.M.E. Paper
NO. 67-WA/PVP-7.
(42)RODABAUGH, E. C.,ATTERBURY, T. J., CLOUD,R. L. and
WITT. F. 1. ‘Evaluation of exoerimental and theoretical
data on ridial nozzles in pressGre vessels’. Private report
T.1.D.-24342, United States Atomic Energy Commis-
sion, 1968.
(43)HILTSCHER, R. ‘Utveckling av Forbattrad stuts for cylin-
driska tryckkari’, Swedish State Power Board Report
No. L-206 Stockholm, 1963.
(a) FINDLAY, G. E. and SPENCE,J. ‘Applying the shakedown
concept to pressure vessel design’, The Engineer, 12th
July 1968.
(45) GRAHAM,M. ‘A comparison of fatigue test results with
theory’, Student Project Thesis, Strathclyde University,
1968.
(46) HANSBERRY, J. W. and JONES, N. ‘A theoretical study of the
elastic behaviour of two normally intersecting cylindrical
shells’, Brown Univ. Report No. NSF-GK. 1268/1,
April 1968.
(47) WITMAN, W. R., HOPPER, A. G. and MERSHON,J. L.
Local stresses in soherical and cvlindrical shells due to
external loadings’, W.R.C. Bull. No. 107, 1965.
(48) STONE,R. M. and HOCHSCHILD, S . ‘The effect of nozzle
spacing on the pressure stresses at the intersection of
cylindrical nozzles and shells’, Trans. A.S.M.E. 1967
Series A 89, No. 3, 360.
( ~ ~ ) - E R I N G EA.N ,C. and SUHUBI,E. S. ‘Stress distribution at
two normally intersecting shells’, NUC Structural Engng,
2, No. 3, 253.
(50) BIJLAARD, P. P., DOHRMAN, R. J. and WANG,I. C. ‘Stresses
in junction of nozzle to cylinder pressure for equal
diameter of vessel and nozzle’, NUC Engng and Deskn
1967 5,349.
(51)LEKKERKER, J. A. ‘Stress concentration around circular
holes in cylindrical shells’, Proc. App. mech. C0n.f. 1964
Munich.
(52) VANDYKE,P. ‘Stresses about a circular hole in a cylindrical
shell’, A.I.A.A. JZ 1965 3 (9).
(53) REIDELBACH, W. ‘The state of stress at the perpendicular
intersection of two right circular tubes’, Ingenieur-
Archb. 30 (9, 293.
Vol I82 Pt 1 No 31