WRC - The Welding Research Council brings together science and engineering specialists in

developing the solutions to problems in welding and pressure vessel technology. They exchange
knowledge, share perspectives, and execute R and D activities. As needed, the Council organizes
and manages cooperative programs.

MPC A Council of the WRC, the Metal Properties Council is dedicated to providing industry
with the best technology and the best data that can be obtained on the properties of materials to
help meet todays most advanced concepts in design and service, life assessment, fitness-for-
service, and reliability and safety.

PVRC A Council of the WRC, the goal of the Pressure Vessel Research Council is to
encourage, promote and conduct research in the field of pressure vessels and related pressure
equipment technologies, including evaluation of materials, design, fabrication, inspection and
testing.

For more information, see www.forengineers.org

WRC Bulletins contain final reports from projects sponsored by the Welding Research Council, important
papers presented before engineering societies and other reports of current interest.

No warranty of any kind expressed or implied, respecting of data, analyses, graphs or any other
information provided in this publication is made by the Welding Research Council, and the use of any
such information is at the users sole risk.

All rights are reserved and no part of this publication may be reproduced, downloaded, disseminated, or
otherwise transferred in any form or by any means, including photocopying, without the express written
consent of WRC.

Copyright 1991 The Welding Research Council.

All rights, including translations, are reserved by WRC.
Printed in the United States of America.

ISSN 0043-2326
Library of Congress Catalog Number: 85-647116

Welding Research Council

20600 Chagrin Blvd.
Suite 1200
Shaker Heights, OH 44122
www.forengineers.org
Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure

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

G. E. 0. Widera, PhD
Chairman of Committee on Reinforced
Openings and External Loadings of
the Pressure Vessel
Research Council

i
 Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure
by: K. Mokhtarian, and J. S. Endicott
CONTENTS:
1.0 Nomenclature ........................... 1
2.0 Introduction ........................... 1
3.0 Procedure .............................. 1
4.0 Results .......................... 4
5.0 Limitations .......................... 11
6.0 Comparison with Other Equations ... 11
7.0 Comparison with Test Results
and Finite Element Results ............ 16
8.0 Examples ............................ 16
9.0 References ............................ 32
1.0 Nomenclature
d = nozzle mean diameter
D = vessel mean diameter
P = internal pressure
R = vessel mean radius
s = Pdl2t
S = PDI2T
SCF
= stress concentration factor = stresses.
ai(PDI2T) or ai(Pdl2t)
t = nozzle thickness
= thickness of insert plate or
thickness of shell plus pad plate
=maximum stress (or stress
intensity) value at the intersection
= stress (or stress intensity) on vessel
= stress (or stress intensity)
on nozzle
A. (lambda) = dI Ji5T
value from eq. )
- value from FAST 2
% difference = ( value from FAST 2 100
2.0 Introduction
Cylinder-cylinder intersections are commonly en-
countered as nozzles in pressure vessels or branches
in piping. WRC Bulletins 1077 and 297 6 provide
simple cookbook methods of calculating stresses at
such intersections due to external loadings. However,
there is no widely used document providing for simple
calculation of stresses at cylindrical intersections due
K. Mokhtarian and J. S. Endicott are Senior Engineers with Chicago
Bridge & Iron Technical Services Company, in Oak Brook, IL.
Publication of this Bulletin was sponsored by the Committee on Rein-
forced Openings and External Loadmgs of the Pressure Vessel Research
Council.
Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure
to internal pressure. A number of papers have been
published on the subject proposing design formu-
las, S-la but these formulas are generally limited to a
narrow range of parameters. Detailed stress analysis
of cylinder intersections is a complex and time consum-
ing problem. This Bulletin has been prepared to
provide the designer with a simple and approximate
method of calculating maximum stresses due to inter-
nal pressure at cylinder intersections. Formulas are
provided for calculating membrane and bending
stresses in both the vessel and the nozzle.
For the design of cylinder intersections subjected to
internal pressure, the ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code and most other codes, have basically
relied on "area-replacement" rules. 2 These rules,
based on replacing the cutout material in the pres-
sure boundary within certain limits, assure that the
average membrane stress in the vicinity of the open-
ing is approximately the same as the stress in the
un-perturbed shell. Such rules do not account for
local membrane, bending stresses, and discontinuity
ASME Code Section III and Section VIII, Division
2, also contain rules for calculating "stress indices"
which, in effect, are stress concentration factors at
openings for fatigue analysis. But such indices are
provided for a number of specific geometries only and
are limited to a few points on the vessel. The methods
of this Bulletin will allow a simple and fairly accurate
calculation of stresses at cylinder intersections, for a
wide range of geometric parameters. The results of
this document are to be used for design guidance.
3.0 Procedure
The design formulas proposed in this Bulletin are
based on the results of a parametric study using the
FAST2 (Revision 3) computer program. The program
is based on shallow thin shell theory, and was devel-
oped for diD ratios of up to approximately 0.5. 1 The
program results are quite accurate up to dID ratios of
about 0.35. Beyond this ratio, depending on the value
of other parameters, the accuracy of the program
diminishes with increasing dID ratio. A discussion on
the accuracy of this program is being prepared. 14
The set of data, on which the results are based,
consisted of 99 different F AST2 program models.
Tables la and lb list the geometric parameters for
these models. A wide range of parameters was cov-
ered, without exceeding the limits of the program or
introducing excessive errors in the final results. The
1
 Table 1a: Model Geometries

Model D T d t Lambda
1 9.92 0.0833 0.47 0.025 0.52
2 99.60 0.4000 3.92 0.080 0.62
3 99.80 0.2000 3.96 0.040 0.89
4 99.00 1. 0000 9.50 0.500 0.95
5 99.00 1.0000 9.80 0.200 0.99
6 99.00 1. 0000 9.90 0.100 1.00
7 9.92 0.0833 0.95 0.050 1. 05
8 9.92 0.0833 0.98 0.020 1.08
9 9.92 0.0833 0.99 0.010 1.09
10 98.67 1.3333 12.66 0.667 1.10

11 9.98 0.0200 0.49 0.005 1.11

12 98.67 1.3333 13.06 0.267 1.14
13 9.50 0.5000 2.70 0.300 1. 24
14 99.60 0.4000 7.92 0.080 1. 26
15 99.90 0.1000 3.98 0.020 1. 26
16 980.00 20.0000 180.00 20.000 1. 29
17 9.50 0.5000 2.85 0.150 1. 31
18 9.50 0.5000 2.94 0.060 1. 35
19 980.00 20.0000 190.00 10.000 1. 36
20 980.00 20.0000 196.00 4.000 1.40

21 9.50 0.5000 3.20 0.800 1.47

22 9.50 0.5000 3.20 0.800 1.47
23 99.60 0.4000 9.80 0.200 1. 55
24 9.50 0.5000 3.60 0.400 1.65
25 9.50 0.5000 3.80 0.200 1. 74
26 9.50 0.5000 3.92 0.080 1.80
27 9.50 0.5000 4.00 1.000 1.84
28 99.00 1.0000 19.00 1.000 1.91
29 980.00 20.0000 270.00 30.000 1.93
30 99.00 1. 0000 19.60 0.400 1. 97

31 99.00 1.0000 19.80 0.200 1. 99

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

41 98.67 1.3333 25.34 1.333 2.21

42 9.98 0.0200 0.99 0.010 2.22
43 99.80 0.2000 9.96 0.040 2.23
44 9.50 0.5000 4.90 0.100 2.25
45 98.67 1.3333 26.00 0.667 2.27
46 98.67 1.3333 26.40 0.267 2.30
47 99.00 1.0000 24.50 0.500 2.46
48 980.00 20.0000 360.00 40.000 2.57
49 980.00 20.0000 380.00 20.000 2.71
50 98.67 1.3333 32.00 1. 333 2.79

2 WRC Bulletin 368

 Table lb: Model Geometries

Model D T d t Lambda

51 980.00 20.0000 392.00 8.000 2.80

52 980.00 20.0000 396.00 4.000 2.83
53 98.67 1.3333 32.66 0.667 2.85
54 99.00 1. 0000 28.50 1.500 2.86
55 98.67 1.3333 33.06 0.267 2.88
56 99.00 1.0000 29.40 0.600 2.95
57 99.00 1.0000 29.70 0.300 2.98
58 99.60 0.4000 19.60 0.400 3.10
59 9.92 0.0833 2.85 0.150 3.14
60 99.60 0.4000 19.80 0.200 3.14

61 99.90 0.1000 9.95 0.050 3.15

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

71 98.67 1.3333 39.33 0.667 3.43

72 98.67 1.3333 39.73 0.267 3.46
73 980.00 20.0000 490.00 10.000 3.50
74 980.00 20.0000 495.00 5.000 3.54
75 99.00 1.0000 38.00 2.000 3.82
76 99.00 1. 0000 39.20 0.800 3.94
77 99.00 1. 0000 39.60 0.400 3.98
78 99.00 1.0000 39.80 0.200 4.00
79 9.92 0.0833 3.80 0.200 4.18
80 9.92 0.0833 3.92 0.080 4.31

81 9.92 0.0833 3.96 0.040 4.36

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

91 99.00 1. 0000 49.00 1. 000 4.93

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

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 3

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

0.523 < di/DT < 6.32 P1 P, p3 P4 P. P.

Eq.(l) 1.25 -.25 -.75 1.00 -.25 -.25
Eq. (2) 0.00 0.00 -1.50 1.25 -.50 0.50
19 < DIT < 999 Eq. (3) 0.25 0.00 -.50 0.00 -.25 0.50
Eq. (4) -0.50 0.00 -.75 -.50 0 -.25
4 < dlt < 999
a0 a1 a, Std. Dev.
0.039 < diD < 0.515 Eq. (1) 0.5315 -.06342 0.4372 4.7
Eq. (2) 1.0048 -.01427 0.8605 9.1
0.388 < Sis < 6.26 Eq. (3) 0.2728 -.04706 0.9551 5.2
Eq. (4) 0.3377 -.5272 1.4229 7.5
0.1 < tiT < 3.0
Eq. (1) provides the maximum membrane stress
The above range covers most of the practical cases intensity in the vessel
of cylinder intersections. Some of the models have Eq. (2) provides the maximum surface stress inten-
diameter to thickness ratios which violate the thin sity in the vessel
shell assumptions of the program; however, the calcu- Eq. (3) provides the maximum membrane stress
lated stresses are still fairly accurate and do not intensity in the nozzle
distort the data. The models have been made long Eq. (4) provides the maximum surface stress inten-
enough so that the effects of the boundary conditions sity in the nozzle
are negligible. 4.0 Results
Most codes which have rules for fatigue analysis,
have adopted the concept of stress intensity. Stress In order to illustrate the results, several graphs
intensity is defined as the maximum stress difference have been made showing the difference in percent
between any pair of principal stresses. Since some of versus lambda (A). The "% difference" is defined as
the maximum stresses occur off the cardinal axes and the difference between the maximum F AST2 stress
and the stress from the equation being considered
have shear stress associated with them, the principal
divided by the maximum FAST2 stress, multiplied by
stress is a more meaningful criteria to use than radial
100. Each geometry is represented by a symbol drawn
and tangential shell stresses. Values reported in this
at the proper coordinates. The type of symbol used is
Bulletin are all based on stress intensity concept and
determined by the tIT ratio. That is, the range 0.1 <
the proposed design formulas provide the maximum
tiT < 3.0 is divided into 8 equal regions with a
value of stress intensity. (The words "stress" and symbol for each region. For example, points for
"stress intensity" are used synonymously, from geometries with 0.1 < tiT < 0.463 are indicated by
hereon, in this Bulletin). symbol # 1. The use of lambda (A) as the abscissa is to
Since the nozzle behaves differently than the ves- spread the data out evenly and is arbitrary. Likewise,
sel, and the membrane solutions are different from the choice of tiT for the symbol is arbitrary and any
the bending solutions, four separate equations have other geometric parameter could have been used. A
been developed. Each equation has the following number of parameters were tried and no definite
form: patterns were detected.
vessel Figs. la-1d show the results of using Eqs. 1 thru 4,
respectively. As can be seen, the differences are
rrv
d PD]
= [a] [/DtT
scattered rather randomly.
2 Fig. 1e indicates the difference between the maxi-
mum values of Eqs. 1 and 3 and the maximum
nozzle membrane stress of applicable F AST2 results. Fig. 1f
indicates the difference between the maximum value
rr.
D Pd]
= [a] [/dT 2t of Eqs. 2 and 4 and the maximum surface stress of
applicable F AST2 results.
As indicated by Figs. 1a-1d, the percentage errors
where between the proposed equations and the F AST2 data
are mostly limited to about 20%, except for a few
_ = ao
CJ
(D)P' (!!_)~'
+a, d T
(!_)P'
T +a d
(!!_)P' (!!_)P'
2 T
(!___)~'
T isolated points. This degree of accuracy is normally
acceptable for analysis of cylinder intersections. If
The powers P;(i = 1, 2, ... 6) are allowed to take on Eqs. 1 thru 4 were reduced to only two equations,
values of 0.25 either side of the minimum combina- providing the value of maximum membrane and
tion while the coefficient!:! a/J = 0, 1, 2) are calculated surface stress, regardless of locations, the percent
by minimizing the square of the error for each power differences will be those shown on Figs. 1e and lf.
combination. The combination of powers that pro- These differences are somewhat higher than those of
duces the lowest standard deviation is taken to be the Figs. 1a-1d.

4 WRC Bulletin 368

i-----~L-----J-----~------~----~------4-----~------J_----~------4-:

...
 1------L------L-----~-----L------L-----~----~------L-----~----~------~----~~

..
--:w

. J IDa

e e
cr
0
CD
e L
ID
a:
_j
- ..,.
IT'I

ID El
+
N
m

El -~
N

+ +

.. ..
l.f) e m
-~

X
e
+
e
+
(T)
-. N

+
+
(\J

-
N

+-----.-,----~,----r-1----Tr---~,~--~~k~~,----~,-----T,-----~,----r-,----~~
~ ~ w ~ ~ w ~ m
m
0) ~ m ~ m m
~
o
0
m
~
m ~ m ~

N ~ w 0 0 w ~ N
~ ~ ~ m
'" N N 0
I
-
I
-
I
N
I
N
I I

s~1s.::~~ns1s3A "3JN3~3.:l.::IIO I.
6 WRC Bulletin 368
 1------J------~-----J~----~-----J------~-----J~------~-----~----~-~
U)

.. ..

1
e e
El -":
1/)

f)

y
e

El
II
1-r-:~
f)

4 4
Ele
El

} El ~--~
~

CI
D
(I)
~

t.
fO a:
El _j
~"'!

+
El
+4 ..
.. 9
'"
N
CD f) e

~r
e
IK
r-- -~
N

+
E)
a

.r
co + El
+ e 0
EJ
1t
~

IJ')
.. .. 9 i-":
e
f)
X
::J' +

. .

f
+ e El
~
::J
e N Ul
~--~
(T)
. I(
+
~
C\J
'-+ I-

C\1
++ +
N
(/)

Lt.;
>
C'l

e N
&
LU
... In
I
I I r I
0
I
0
I
0
I
0
I
0
0
Ul
Q)
(.)
0 0 0 c

- -
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 ~
c:i &0 c:i
0 0 0
c:i .,; c:i .,; c:i Q)
:;::
N 1/) 0 10 C\1 C\1 Cll
I I I I I I iS
~
c,
"SHlS"9W~W"lZON ~JN)H]~~ro I. u:::

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 7

 1------L-----~----~-----L----~------~----~----~-----L-----4-~
ID

.
--:
U)

-~It)

e
e

e El
8 I-":
::!1'
El

'II
.. El
..
8
0

El
j. ~~
::!1'

CI
0
(D

0 ~
EJ CI
EJ a
a El
_J
19 ~-~
e
. .
en

N
0
ee
+
El
+ .
OJ fl,
El a 8
0 e a
.c e
r--
El
-"!
N
e

...
El
(0

e
+
El II . 8
...
..
E>
Ln
El
. . e
0
. ~'"!
El
e
a
X El
:::l' +

+ e
.. . . a
e
jg
::I
N X rh
en 0 I-"! ~
~ + .+ C\1
tn

C\1 N
+ + + <(
u.
u;
>
'

E)
&
N

T I T l I
tl

I I
c
I
Ill
0 !
Ql
C)
0 c 0 0 0
c
0 0 c
0 0 c 0 0 c 0 0 0 0
~
0
en
&0
N
0
N
&0 ...0 0
II)
0
0
0
Ul
I -0 I -
&0
I
0
N
I
(I)
!E
0
"0
I
sldlS . .:lldnslzoN "3JN3ld3.:l.:IIO l. dl
u:::

8 WRC Bulletin 368

 ~----~------L-----~-----+------L-----J-----~------L-----J------+-~
ID

" "
f-. -
CD

e
-~
Ill

El

e
e
e
ee

e
e
El
e
El a:
0
(IJ
:L:
a:
_j
-"!
en
+
N
CD

-~
N

..
co
+

Ln

X
:3'

+ e.
N

. N
+
c-
w
C\1
0
N
K ~
+-----~,----~,r-----,~----~~L-r-,----r-,----r-,----~,----~,----+-0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0
(\1 ~ 0 ~I -I -I N
I
N
l
Cl')
I

"SH1S"8W3W"XtJW 3JN3~3.:1.:1IO I.

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 9

 t------~-----L----~~----~-----L----~~----~-----L----~~----4-:

1--:
co

8
El

El
E)

El
!-"':
-J..
9
El :::JI'

El
El e

E)
E)
t El
E) ~--~
:::JI'

a:
0
OJ
::E
a:
El _j
e El
E)
El
i-"! ('l
E)

N
E) +

4
+El 4

(0 fS
aa
e e Ele
t< El
r-
e ~--~
N

. f)
e

El
(0
e
~ +
E) ..

..
e
& e El
ll) e 4 i-11!
E)
e
X
0 ~
e :::1
rn
::::f' + ~
(\J
e 1-
(/)

+
N
e
4

X
4
9 <(
u..
El
~--~ ui
(1")

~ +
.+
>
'<!"
ciS

N
N
+ + + (\J

&
L.U
0
e> N
~
E
_... ... II)

~
I 1 I I I I I 1 c:i Q)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c:
0
~
ci
co
ci
II)
0
:::JI'
c:i
('l
ci
N
ci
0
ci - ci
I
ci
N

'
ci
('l
I
ci
:::JI'
I
~
0
l
~

cil
s~3 stHS dHns xuw 3JN3H3d.:liO I. [[

10 WRC Bulletin 368

 The following are the four proposed equations for
design:
Maximum membrane stress intensity on vessel:
au== [0.5315 - 0.06342 (Did)l.Zo (DITt 25
. (tiT)- 75 + 0.4372 (Did)(DIT)- 25 (tiT)- 25 ]
. [(di-/Dt) X (PDI2T)]
Maximum surface stress intensity on vessel
au == [1.0048 - 0.01427 (tiT)- 15
+ 0.8605 CDid)l.25 (DIT)- 05 (tiT) 05]
. [(dl .ji)i) X (PDI2T)]
Maximum membrane stress intensity on nozzle
an == [0.2728 - .04 706 (Did) 0"25 (tiT)- 050 + 0.9551
. (DIT)-0.25 (tiT)o.oo][(DI..jdT) X (Pdl2t)]
Maximum surface stress intensity on nozzle
an == [0.3377 - 0.5272 (Did)- 50 (tiT)- 15
+ 1.4229 (Did)-50 (tiT)- 25 ][(DI .j(iT) X (Pdl2t)]
5.0 Limitations
It is suggested that the use of design formulas
proposed in this Bulletin be limited to the following
range of parameters:
10 < DIT < 1000
4 < d/t < 1000
0.1 <tiT< 3
0.03 <diD < 0.5
0.3 <Sis< 6
.3 < dl .ji5i < 6.5
The calculated stresses may not be accurate for
nozzles close to another penetration, vessel end, or
any other discontinuity. A separation distance of
approximately 2.5 JiiT
between points of discontinu-
ity will be adequate to assure fairly accurate results. 3
The results presented in this Bulletin are based on
unreinforced cylinder intersections, with the nozzle
wall extending normal to the vessel, indefinitely on
the outside only. The theory is not applicable to
nozzles that project inside the vessel. The nozzle
should have an axial length of not less than approxi-
mately 2.5 .jrl. For the results of this analysis to be
applicable, the nozzle must be attached to the vessel
by a full penetration weld.
In case of reinforced openings, either by a thick-
ened insert or a pad added to the shell, a great deal of
judgement will have to be exercised in using the
results presented here. The following is a rule of
thumb which has been used successfully and provides
fairly accurate and generally conservative results. If
Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure
the width of shell reinforcement (pad plate or insert
plate) is less than 1.65 JiiT
or dl2, then the "T"
value to be used for calculating stresses is to be the
thickness of the shell. (This ignoring of the shell
reinforcement may result in overly conservative esti-
mate of stresses in the shell, but unconservative
estimate of stresses in the nozzle neck.) If the width
(1) of the shell reinforcement (pad plate or insert plate) is
equal to or greater than 1.65 JRT
and dl2, it can be
assumed that the thickness of the reinforced portion
of the shell would determine the state of stress at the
nozzle-to-shell junction. In such a case, the "T" value
to be used in equations for calculating stresses shall
be "T;" (the thickness of insert plate or shell thick-
(2)
ness plus pad plate thickness). It is generally assumed
that discontinuity stresses due to the penetration
have been reduced to negligible levels at a distance of
1.65 /iff or dl2, whichever is greater, from the
(3) nozzle neck .
6.0 Comparison with Other Equations
To show how the equations proposed in this Bulle-
(4) tin compare with four other equations proposed in
other papers, plots are provided to indicate the maxi-
mum surface stress difference between each equation
and FAST2 results. For these comparisons, all 99
data points have been used, even though some of the
data fall outside of the range of geometric parameters
specified for these other equations. The four other
equations are from Ref. 2 and are shown below. (For
the source of these equations and their range of
applicability, see Ref. 2.)
SCF == 2.8(DIT)o.lsz (diD)oss7 (tiTto.asz (r2 /t)-.l4s (5 )
SCF = 2.1 [}..l(tiT)]l 12 (6)
SCF == maximum of:
[1 + 1. 77A + (dl D)atz(tiT)112] z
1 + (diD)!I2(tiT)312
and
{1.67 [(diD)(DIT)I(tiT)] 112 + 0.565 (diD)/ Z
0.67 [(diD)(DIT)I(tiT)] 112 + 0.565 (tiT)
7
( )
where
Z == 1 + [(tiT)I(diD)]I 12 I(DIT)
+ 1.25 X
2 + 2(dl D) 312 (tiT) 112
SCF = + (diD)vz(tiT)at2 (8)
1
In Eq. 5, r 2 denotes the fillet radius at the nozzle to
shell attachment. For comparisons here, a value of
r 2 1t = 1.0 has been assumed for all data points.
Figs. 2a-2d show the percent difference between the
maximum stresses calculated by Eqs. 5 thru 8 and
those obtained form the F AST2 data, for all 99
geometries. Please note that some of the data fall
outside the range of applicability of Eqs. 5 thru 8. For
example, most of the data indicating the largest
11
 I CD
co

.. ..

e ~"':

e
"'

e
e

i ffJ

. a
e

8

e
..
r-"":
~

.1
0
1--
~

cr:
0
fD
IE)
::E
IE)
E) a a:
__.J
IE)
a
a El ~
(I')
..,
e
N
E)
a
.. 11 +

to f) e
f) El
e e&e
t(
a
,.... t-"!
e N

w
.. e
e
E)
e
lEI
e
El
.. I" +

lEI a
lEI

Ul lEI . 4 4
r-~

X
"::1'
e ' 1 f)

+
e
. .. :If!:::1
+ El
. El
X N
~
(T) lEI

.. +
. + K
r-~
C\1
1-
+ U)
~
~ + Li:
N ui
N
>
Lt>

cT
E) N UJ
1/) I
I l I "" I I I I I I I 0
rn
Q)
0
g g g g g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
c:i 0 c:i c:i
0
c:i c:i c:i 0 0 0CQ ,...c:i a ==
Q)

c:i ~ OJ
~ Cl) N N
I
(I')
I I "' I I I I i5
~
C\1
0,
s- C:J3 stJlS"..:ItJnsxt:Jw "3JN3H3..:1.:1IO I. u:::

12 WRC Bulletin 368

 ~----~------~----~----~------~----~----~------~-----L----~------L-----4-m
U)

1--:w

lEI
e i-"':
e ..,
9

El
El

9
eEl
lEI I-":
;3'
El
c
ee
4

e
lEI ) ~--~
El ;3'

9 a:
D
CD
~
ee a::
Ele
a 9
_j

N
El
e

e
e
..
e
...
e
+ +
~--~
(f)

Q) e e
e e E>a
e f)
K e
....... ..... ~
N

,
f)

w eEl
... e
.. + +

l
E)

IJ)
E)

.
a
..... ~---~
E)
e
8
X
"3 +
e
+ e 4
.l!l
"S
(Y) El
' + ..
. +
X
I(
N
!-"'! ~
~
(J)

.. +
+
+ +
en
<(
LL.
N N u;
>
CD
&
w
E)
.,.
N
.., I
(J)
I I I I I I I I I I 0 2l<::
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ~
0 0
0
~
0 0 0 Cl
~
Cl
~ 0

0
~
0
I')
c:i
N
c:i
0
c:i
c:i
....
I
0
"'
I
c:i
I')
I
0
~
I
..,
0
I
c:i
II)
I
ci
,....
I
0
CD
I
.m
0
I
.0
C\1

g~3 stJlS . .:ItJnsxljw 3JN3H3.:1.:1IO I. cil

u::

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 13

 i------L-----,~----~-----L----~~----~-----L----~L-----J------+-~
c.o

e e
E) -~
11'1
E)

EJ
EJ

e
E) e f.-"':
E)
~
e
4
e
...
e

EJ
E)

f-~ ,
e
E) a:
D
OJ
EJ
::
a El a:
E)
a E) ...J
a El
I-"!
..,
N
e
e e
.. .. + . +
<D EJ
a
El
E)
e e EJ

r
K
r- -. U)

w
. e
e

.... E)
e e
.. + . +

J
FP
0
1./)
E)
e
. 4
f-~
e E)
EJ
X
::l' +
B

+ .. ee
X N
.!!l
"5
en
In
...
- . N
2!
I
+ +
I(
~
. +
+ i+
N
en
<(
u..
N ui
>

e N
"'&
LlJ
II( 11'1
en
I
I r I I I I T T 0 Q)
()
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 ~
.
c
N
c 0
0
-
c
I
c:i
N
I
c:i
trl
I
c:i
~
I
c:i
111
I
c:i
(D
I
c:i
,....
I
c:i
CD
I
Q)
ll=
i5
~
C\1
cil
L"l'J3 st~lS".:Itlnsxttw .3JN3ti3.:1.:HO I. u::

14 WRC Bulletin 368

 ~----~----~----~~----~----~----~-----L----~------~----t-11)
CD

8 8
~"':
It)

El
El

E) ,...
El
El
El

E)
r- . ,.
. El
e
El

e
0
E) El r- .
El ~

El cr:
0
[I)
~
El
El
El
E) cr:
El _j
a IT)
El
El ...,
t-

N
0
eEl
..
E)

.. + .. +
El
tO e
e 9 B
El
EJ G
t< El
...... t-
CD
e N
e
+
w a
El
....
e e
.. +
afJ
. +

J . ..
El e
(JJ
IJ) r-.
II
El
El
X
:::r +
e
+ .. Elf) 1!l:J
(1') "e X N
t- .
N
"'
~
. + + JJC . C\1

. +
+ ++
N
t-
CJ)
<(
u..
N ui
>
co
E) N
o-
LU

"'I
1,() I
I I I I I I I 0 "'
(])
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CJ c
0 0 0 CJ CJ 0 0 0 0 CJ CJ ~
C>
0 0 0 0(I') ci ci ci 0
.....
ci ci (])
!!::
0 N ~ Ill ID II) (J)
I I I I I I I I Cl
I
"'C
C\1

9. tL3 st~lS".:JHnsx~w ":3JN:3tl:3d.:IIO I. Ol

u::
Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 15
difference between Eq. 5 and FAST2 are for D/T >
100, which is outside the range that is specified for
useofEq. 5.
Since the four equations proposed by others and
shown here provide only maximum stress values,
their percent difference results (Figs. 2a-2d) should
be compared to Fig. lf. Such comparison indicates
that the equations proposed here (Eqs. 1-4) have
much better correlation with FAST2 results than do
the equations developed by others. These proposed
equations also cover a wider range of parameters than
the others.
Tables 2a and 2b list the values of % difference
between SCF from Eqs. 1 thru 4 and F AST2 values.
Also listed are comparisons between the maximum
membrane SCF (Eq. 113) and maximum surface SCF
(Eq. 214) at the junction and FAST2 results. Please
note that the maximum SCF at the junction is
obtained by normalizing the maximum stress with
PD/2T, regardless oflocation. (Values for Eqs. 3 and
4 have been normalized with Pd 12t). Tables 2c and 2d
list the values of% difference between SCF of Eqs. 5
thru 8 and F AST2 results. For reference, the %
difference column for Eq. 214 has been repeated here.
7.0 Comparison with Test Results and Finite
Element Results
Ref. 4 tabulates the available finite element analy-
sis results and test results for cylinder intersections.
To avoid duplication, the details of the references to
these results are not included here. The reader is
referred to Ref. 4 for discussion of these available
results. On pages 26 thru 31 the tables 1A thru 1C,
2A, 2B, 3 thru 8, and 27 of Ref. 4 have been duplicated
with the values of stress concentration factor, ob-
tained from the equations proposed in this paper
added. The column marked "SCF" is the value of
stress concentration factor reported by the reference
for analysis or test results. The values in the column
"Eq. (21 4)" are the calculated maximum stress val-
ues divided by PD I2T. The values for Eqs. 5 thru 8
have all been normalized by PDI2T.
The tables provide an indication of how the maxi-
mum stress concentration factors for Eqs. 1-4 pro-
posed here and from Eqs. 5 thru 8 compare with the
reported finite element or test results. The average
ratio and standard deviations are provided as a
measure of data fit. It should be noted that the
geometric parameters for many of the models fall
outside of the range of applicability of the equations
proposed here. However, all models have been kept to
indicate the accuracy or inaccuracy of equations
proposed here over a wide range of parameters. The
accuracy of finite element results or test results
cannot be easily ascertained. Stress gradients on
nozzle corners are quite steep and strain gages would
have to be located very accurately to pick up maxi-
mum value of stresses. Similarly, the finite element
mesh would have to be extremely fine to provide
accurate results. Comparisons of the Tables on pages
16 WRC Bulletin 368
26 thru 31 merely indicate the degree of accuracy that
can be expected, when arriving at maximum stresses
at cylinder intersections by various means.
8.0 Examples
The following examples have been included to
demonstrate the application of proposed equations.
They also provide a comparison of results obtained by
this method with the results obtained from a number
of other methods. Some suggestions are included on
allowables and how these results may be used for
various Code calculations.
It should be pointed out that, for all the following
examples, it has been assumed that the internal
pressure is the only load applied to the intersections.
If piping loads or other mechanical loads are specified,
their effect will have to be included. Since no location
or orientation is assigned to the stresses calculated by
these proposed equations, it will not be possible to
accurately calculate the value of stress intensity due
to combined loads. It is possible, however, to calculate
an upper bound on combined stresses by adding the
maximum stresses calculated due to internal pres-
sure to corresponding maximum stresses calculated
due to other loadings. WRC Bulletin 2976 provides
means of calculating membrane and surface stresses
in vessel and nozzle, due to piping loads. The absolute
value of those stresses will have to be conservatively
added to the corresponding stresses calculated for
pressure. Also, if thermal stresses are present, they
will have to be included for those cases which require
a limit on secondary stresses.
E~ple No. 1-Unreinforced Opening
Gtven:
D = 120 in. T = 0.5 in. d = 48 in. l = 0.5 in.
P = 120 psi MaterialA-516-70 joint efficiency= 1.0
corrosion allowance = 0
Parameters of Interest:
DIT = 240 dlt == 96 Did= 2.5 dl.,fi5T = 6.2
Sis = 1440015760 = 2.5 tiT= 1
All the parameters fall within the limits of applicabil-
ity of equations proposed here. Calculation of maxi-
mum stresses by use of the Eqs. 1 thru 4:
Membrane stress in vessel
a. = [0.5315 - 0.06342 (2.5)1. 26 (240)- 25(1)-0.75
+ 0.4372(2.5)(240)- 25 (1)- 25][(481 V120 X .5)
X 14,400] = 4.70 X 14,400 = 67,700 psi
Surface stress in vessel
a.= [1.0048- .01427(1t 15
+ 0.8605(2.5) 125 (240)-5(1)5]
[(48IV120 X .5) X (14,400))
= 7.22 x 14,400 = 104,000 psi
 Table 2a: Percent Differences Between Equations and FAST2 Values

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

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

2 0.62 -9.66 14.47 -17.45 12.90 -15.21 12.90
3 0.89 -1.08 5.52 -16.16 15.00 -13.00 15.00
4 0.95 -0.45 1.58 3.50 -2.91 3.31 -2.91
5 0.99 4.69 4.73 3.15 6.35 3.15 6.35
6 1. 00 -8.18 -9.62 -16.01 -9.37 -16.01 -9.37
7 1. 05 -1.47 3.71 2.62 -3.87 1. 26 -3.87
8 1.08 5.81 5.01 3.76 2.07 3.76 2.07
9 1. 09 0.40 -5.06 -6.56 5.56 -6.56 5.56
10 1.10 -1.19 2.26 4.00 -3.23 4.00 -3.23

11 1.11 9.48 3.66 -2.11 5.29 -2.11 5.29

12 1.14 5.13 3.38 5.59 5.70 5.59 5.70
13 1. 24 -3.67 -12.74 2.90 3.17 2.90 -2.76
14 1. 26 8.66 -0.72 0.44 5.59 0.44 5.59
15 1.26 5.30 0.51 -14.71 16.38 -10.50 16.38
16 1. 29 -4.80 -3.65 -0.84 -4.48 -0.84 -3.65
17 1. 31 -3.94 -4.51 2.13 8.98 2.13 8.98
18 1. 35 4.37 -11.55 12.90 -7.80 12.90 -7.80
19 1. 36 -2.59 3.94 2.94 -2.83 2.94 -2.83
20 1.40 3.44 2.90 6.25 6.63 6.25 6.63

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

22 1. 47 2.88 -15.93 -1.26 -12.03 -1.26 -15.93
23 1. 55 4.11 -3.67 6.60 -7.10 6.60 -7.10
24 1.65 -2.91 -4.19 -0.34 1. 38 -0.34 -2.98
25 1. 74 -6.44 1. 88 -3.49 4.85 -3.49 4.85
26 1. 80 -0.71 -4.16 6.36 19.93 6.36 19.93
27 1. 84 7.83 -4.65 -0.24 -12.64 -0.24 -4.65
28 1. 91 -5.01 -1.19 0.60 -2.07 -0.14 -1.79
29 1.93 -2.15 12.61 -1.44 -3.76 -1.44 12.61
30 1. 97 0.29 5.56 2.42 -8.17 2.42 -8.17

31 1. 99 5.16 -1.35 4.97 0.87 4.97 0.87

32 2.04 -3.54 6.04 0.71 -2.56 0.71 -2.56
33 2.06 -0.22 5.45 -1.41 1.45 -1.41 5.45
34 2.09 -6.30 -1.85 -1.00 -0.64 -3.23 -1.85
35 2.10 -2.28 4.95 -1.18 -1.73 -1.18 -1.73
36 2.11 -4.77 -6.21 1.37 -1.76 0.00 -1.76
37 2.12 5.50 0.23 8.77 5.87 8.77 5.87
38 2.16 0.19 1. 49 3.03 -8.96 3.03 -8.96
39 2.18 3.89 -0.79 3.32 -3.32 3.32 -3.32
40 2.18 -6.38 8.93 -6.62 2.54 -6.62 2.54

41 2.21 -4.19 0.54 0.86 -0.62 0.86 -0.62

42 2.22 6.67 -7.14 9.47 -7.63 9.47 -7.63
43 2.23 11.12 -4.26 4.45 2.34 4.45 2.34
44 2.25 -5.44 1. 29 -1.79 21.71 -1.79 21.71
45 2.27 -1.96 4.33 0.48 -7.44 0.48 -7.44
46 2.30 2.79 0.00 3.52 1.97 3.52 1. 97
47 2.46 -1.18 2.17 1.19 -8.64 1.19 -.8. 64
48 2.57 4.10 29.16 0.94 -0.55 0.94 29.16
49 2.71 -1.87 6.57 0.17 2.17 0.17 2.17
50 2.79 -2.82 -1.60 0.77 1.45 0. 77, 1. 45

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 17

 Table 2b: Percent Differences Between Equations and FAST2 Values

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

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

52 2.83 -1.30 3.16 -0.33 6.66 -0.33 6.66
53 2.85 -2.61 5.55 -1.86 -7.54 -1.86 -7.54
54 2.86 -4.02 3.48 -1.19 4.72 -3.65 3.48
55 2.88 1. 00 1. 39 1. 48 1.95 1. 48 1.95
56 2.95 -1.74 -1.24 0.44 -6.94 0.44 -6.94
57 2.98 -1.67 2.51 -1.81 -6.53 -1.81 -6.53
58 3.10 -4.29 -17.04 1. 26 1.10 -1.45 -2.28
59 3.14 -3.61 8.18 -2.14 6.05 -3.61 8.18
60 3.14 1.11 -3.69 3.95 -9.98 3.95 -9.98

61 3.15 7.72 -10.12 12.14 -6.40 12.14 -6.40

62 3.16 5.72 -2.01 5.14 -2.36 5.14 -2.36
63 3.16 10.64 -3.34 6.02 3.73 6.02 3.73
64 3.19 -3.95 -7.82 -0.19 4.75 -2.81 -7.82
65 3.21 12.95 32.91 5.19 3.48 9.69 32.91
66 3.23 -1.56 -6.28 1. 27 -4.30 1. 27 -4.30
67 3.27 -2.03 4.10 -2.08 -9.00 -2.08 -9.00
68 3.31 -0.72 7.66 0.00 8.46 -0.72 7.66
69 3.37 -1.36 -2.20 0.18 3.40 0.18 3.40
70 3.39 1. 36 10.41 0.39 8.28 0.39 10.41

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

72 3.46 -0.50 3.19 -0.50 2.53 -0.50 2.53
73 3.50 -4.21 11.85 -7.10 -4.55 -7.10 -4.55
74 3.54 -5.27 6.23 -6.89 3.30 -6.89 3.30
75 3.82 1. 38 12.45 -0.39 11.33 1.38 12.45
76 3.94 -0.78 -4.59 -0.59 -0.58 -0.59 -0.58
77 3.98 -3.87 7.94 -5.59 -7.99 -5.59 -7.99
78 4.00 -0.30 3.57 -0.61 0.43 -0.61 0.43
79 4.18 4.12 13.73 0.12 12.12 4.12 13.73
80 4.31 -0.42 -8.32 -0.42 3.91 -0.42 3.91

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

82 4.38 -2.67 4.51 -3.56 -2.71 -3.56 -2.71
83 4.43 -3.11 -22.21 0.72 3.90 -1.87 0.39
84 4.45 1. 64 -5.87 4.82 -8.96 4.82 -8.96
85 4.47 5.01 0.24 6.12 -1.84 6.12 -1.84
86 4.58 2.31 2.26 3.07 -2.69 3.07 -2.69
87 4.66 -4.90 -15.16 -4.76 10.90 -4.90 -15.16
88 4.69 -1.83 -16.42 -0.41 4.28 -1.83 2.20
89 4.72 -0.90 -0.89 -0.53 -8.86 -0.53 -8.86
90 4.77 9.88 17.08 2.54 17.40 9.88 17.08

91 4.93 1.76 -4.70 -1.42 7.19 1. 76 7.19

92 4.98 -2.75 8.20 -7.06 -5.75 -7.06 -5.75
93 5.23 15.59 19.09 5.00 18.35 15.59 19.09
94 5.39 2.43 -6.47 -1.76 12.83 2.43 -2.03
95 5.45 0.00 3.63 -4.85 -2.97 -4.85 -2.97
96 5.47 -4.51 10.25 -7.84 -3.05 -7.84 -3.05
97 6.30 -1.80 -24.82 0.00 7.37 -1.80 3.94
98 6.31 1. 85 -6.81 5.84 -6.27 5.84 -6.27
99 6.32 4.59 4.24 8.24 1. 36 8.24 1. 36

18 WRC Bulletin 368

 Table 2c: Percent Differences Between
Equations and FAST2 Values

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

1 0.52 2.37 -5.80 -24.76 -34.45 -30.16

2 0.62 12.90 -24.17 -34.92 -56.72 -51.90
3 0.89 15.00 -38.18 -44.32 -68.02 -61.45
4 0.95 -2.91 -4.45 -22.17 -32.96 -21.79
5 0.99 6.35 -23.22 -30.03 -59.16 -52.41
6 1. 00 -9.37 -3.83 -4.77 -60.16 -53.54
7 1. 05 -3.87 -2.02 -20.92 -26.83 -16.37
8 1. 08 2.07 -28.64 -35.57 -58.65 -52.84
9 1. 09 5.56 -16.77 -18.33 -62.21 -56.89
10 1.10 -3.23 -5.75 -21.76 -31.76 -23.34

11 1.11 5.29 -42.97 -48.45 -66.19 -61.4 7

12 1.14 5.70 -22.54 -28.06 -57.07 -51.80
13 1. 24 -2.76 16.89 -3.77 -8.93 -3.31
14 1. 26 5.59 -39.88 -43.34 -65.84 -62.30
15 1.26 16.38 -49.88 -52.65 -71.40 -68.38
16 1. 29 -3.65 13.65 -11.35 -8.42 -1.90
17 1. 31 8.98 -1.65 -11.50 -33.63 -29.36
18 1. 35 -7.80 30.71 31.59 -34.96 -30.48
19 1. 36 -2.83 -7.61 -21.23 -29.55 -24.80
20 1. 40 6.63 -20.78 -24.43 -53.05 -49.91

21 1. 47 -15.96 -1.47 -26.10 -27.57 -26.85

22 1.47 -15.93 -1.43 -26.07 -27.55 -26.83
23 1.55 -7.10 -32.40 -41.18 -45.57 -42.99
24 1.65 -2.98 19.93 -0.84 1.48 2.25
25 1. 74 4.85 -8.48 -17.29 -27.31 -26.82
26 1. 80 19.93 7.43 8.62 -34.35 -33.91
27 1. 84 -4.65 7.74 -18.92 -26.55 -27.97
28 1. 91 -1.79 8.49 -10.70 -2.28 -2.53
29 1.93 12.61 23.89 -2.77 0.00 -0.95
30 1. 97 -8.17 -37.08 -42.07 -48.52 -48.89

31 1.99 0.87 -40.08 -40.04 -59.89 -60.25

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

41 2.21 -0.62 7.17 -10.11 -1.09 -4.02

42 2.22 -7.63 -46.27 -50.93 -50.40 -51.92
43 2.23 2.34 -55.92 -55.11 -69.03 -70.02
44 2.25 21.71 -10.03 -8.72 -35.27 -37.37
45 2.27 -7.44 -31.70 -37.62 -38.56 -40.66
46 2.30 1. 97 -39.19 -37.99 -56.77 -58.39
47 2.46 -8.64 -36.96 -41.76 -41.29 -44.18
48 2.57 29.16 33.49 5.21 o.oo -4.87
49 2.71 2.17 5.12 -9.43 0.72 -5.21
50 2.79 1. 45 -0.97 -14.32 -2.45 -8.85

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 19

 Table 2d: Percent Differences Between
Equations and FAST2 Values

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

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

52 2.83 6.66 -36.55 -33.54 -50.56 -54.09
53 2.85 -7.54 -37.94 -41.57 -39.18 -43.53
54 2.86 3.48 3.42 -14.36 -4.84 -11.44
55 2.88 1. 95 -43.41 -40.53 -55.65 -59.03
56 2.95 -6.94 -35.03 -39.81 -33.56 -38.74
57 2.98 -6.53 -50.10 -49.76 -55.20 -58.87
58 3.10 -2.28 -20.06 -29.72 -12.60 -20.32
59 3.14 8.18 4.11 -14.58 -7.35 -14.95
60 3.14 -9.98 -49.46 -51.71 -47.20 -52.05

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

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

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

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

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

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

91 4.93 7.19 -21.02 -26.27 -5.19 -17.79

92 4.98 -5.75 -51.80 -51.10 -40.01 -48.51
93 5.23 19.09 -1.61 -18.66 -29.45 -38.20
94 5.39 -2.03 -23.95 -29.65 -9.11 -21.97
95 5.45 -2.97 -49.07 -48.81 -32.91 -43.02
96 5.47 -3.05 -60.26 -56.62 -52.55 -60.01
97 6.30 3.94 -45.61 -47.35 -15.30 -30.59
98 6.31 -6.27 -66.23 -64.52 -49.67 -58.86
99 6.32 1. 36 -71.13 -66.20 -66.30 -72.52

20 WRC Bulletin 368

Membrane stress in nozzle
an = [0.2728 - 0.04 706 (2.5) (1)-25 5 ing of JiiT and
+ 0.9551 (240)- 25 (1)- 5]
[(120/ J48 X .5) X (5, 760)] = 11.18 X 5, 760
= 64,380 psi
Surface stress in nozzle
an = [0.3377 - 0.5272 (2.5)-50 (1)-.75
+ 1.4229 (2.5)-5 (1)- 25]
'((120/J48 X .5) X (5,760)] = 22.15 X 5,760
= 127,570 psi
For A-~16-70 material, minimum specified yield
strength IS 38,000 psi and minimum specified ulti-
mate strength is 70,000 psi. The calculated stresses
are obviously quite high for this material. The ASME
Code Section VIII, Division 1, does not have a limit on
local stresses and secondary and peak stresses. The
only requirement of that Code is that the area
re~lacement rules (including compact reinforcing re-
qUirements of Appendix 1-7) be satisfied. For this
particular case, the required area for reinforcement is
19.8 square inches and the available area for reinforce-
ment is 5.01 square inches. This confirms that this
intersection is not adequately reinforced and not
acceptable for Code construction.
Another simplified approach that has been pro-
posed for calculating membrane (average over effec-
tive area) and bending (across effective area cross
section) stresses in vessels, at large penetrations, is
that of McBride and Jacobs. 5 That method assumes
an effective section extending 1.0 ..jiiT along the
vessel shell and 1.0 ..frl along the nozzle, for calculat-
ing membrane stresses due to pressure area. For
calculating bending stresses, it assumes an effective
section extending 16T along vessel shell and 16t along
the nozzle, to resist combination of in-plane and
out-of plane moments.
Membrane and membrane plus bending stresses, in
the vessel, calculated by this method are 48 140 and
73,900 psi, respectively. These values are ~onsider
ably smaller than the stresses calculated by equations
proposed here (67,700 psi and 104,000 psi). But, the
~imits of effective sections in Ref. 5 are arbitrary and
mtended for approximation of stresses over a wide
range of parameters. The method of Ref. 5 is also
intended to provide an estimate of average primary
membrane and primary bending stresses, and pro-
posed allowables are those associated with primary
stresses. Whereas the stresses based on FAST2 pro-
gram include the local membrane and secondary
discontinuity effects. These results can be classified
as local primary membrane and secondary bending
stresses.
An approach similar to that of Ref. 5 has been
successfully used by Chicago Bridge & Iron Company
for design of large penetrations, over the past 25
Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure
years. This approach uses an effective section consist-
/rl
for calculating both membrane
stresses (average over the effective area) and bending
stresses (across the effective area). This will result in
calculated membrane and membrane plus bending
stresses of 48,140 psi and 99,940 psi, respectively.
The calculated value of membrane plus bending
stress by this method is closer to the value calculated
by equations proposed here (104,000 psi). The allow-
abies used by CBI to limit these stresses have been
basic tabulated Code allowables for membrane and
1 Y2 times this value for membrane plus bending
stresses. Using this criteria, also confirms the inade-
quacy of this intersection.
. To demonstrate the stress distribution at the junc-
tion, as calculated by the F AST2 program, Figs. 3a
and 3b have been included. On Fig. 3a, "MR" indi-
cates the bending stress caused by an edge moment
whose vector is tangent to the hole; "MTH" indicates
bending stress caused by a moment whose vector is
radial to the hole; and "MRTH" indicates the shear
stress due to twisting moment. On Fig. 3b, "NR"
indicates the membrane stress due to radial force
"NTH" indicates the membrane stress due to circum~
ferential force, and "NRTH" indicates the shear
stress due to in-plane shear force. On the vertical
axis, the degrees around the circumference of the
nozzle, "Oo" indicates the point along the meridional
axis of the vessel.
Example No. 2-Reinforced Openings
To meet area replacement rules, a reinforcing pad
can be added to Example 1. Assume a pad thickness of
0.5 in. In order to allow for thickness of pad being
assumed as effective shell thickness for calculations
proposed in this paper, the minimum width of the pad
should be equal to or greater than 1.65 J60 x 1 =
12.8 in. and d/2 = 24 in. Section VIII, Division 1,
allows a pad as wide as 24 in. to be considered
effective for reinforcement [Paragraph UG-40 (a)
(1)]. The use of a 24 in. wide pad provides a total
reinforcement area of approximately 28.5 square in.,
which is more than the required area of 19.8 square
in. However, since the size of the opening exceeds the
l~its of Paragraph UG-36 (b) (1), the compact
remforcement rules of Appendix 1-7 will also have to
be met. This requires that % of the reinforcement
area be placed within an approximately 12 in. width
of the pad. For this case, there is approximately 14.42
square in. of reinforcing material within the compact
reinforcing limits, which is more than the required
area of 13.21 square in. A 24 in. wide and 0.5 in. thick
pad, therefore, meets the requirements of Section
VIII, Division 1, Code.
With such pad, the parameters, used for calculating
stresses by use of equations proposed here, are:
D = 120 in. T = 1.0 in. d = 48 in.
t = 0.5 in P = 120 psi
D/T = 120 d/t = 96 Did= 2.5 d!/DT = 4.38
Sis= 7,20015,760 = 1.25 tiT= 0.5
21
 0
(D
EXAMPLE----PROBLEM :j:j:
--~------------r-----
1
----- -~ ----------
en I
i I
I i
i i
i i
i i
i I
I i
i I
i i
i i
i i i
------------!- ---------i------------j----------
en i i
i
I
i

0
r-
C\J

I
I
Ln i i
C\J i i
----------1------------j----------
C\J i i
i I
:L i
i
i
i
::J I i
i
u I i
I

a:::
~--<o
. I
i
i
i
i
i
i I i !
Uco ------------L--- ------j------------L-----------..1.----------
i i i i
i i i i
(f) i i ! i
i I i
w i
i
I
i
i
i
w i i
i
i
a::: i
i i
i
i
<...:)' i I i
wzg I i
i i
------------~ ----------;------------j----------
I

o.-. I i
i
i
i
_.J _.J _.J
ww w
U1 U1 U1
U1 U1 U1
ww w
>> >
0
(])

EJX(J

22 WRC Bulletin 368

 0
<D
EXRMPLE PROBLEM ttl
------r-------------r-------------;-----------
(T1
I I
I i
I I
i I
i i
I I
I i
i i
I 1
i I i I
...... I I
--------;-------------;------
I
----r------------;------------1
i
I i i i I
i . I i i
i i I
Ii li :i
I :
0
,..._
.
I .
i
!
iI !
(\J
----r------------i------------r------------+----- -------1
i
I
I
: :
:I
! :
j
i . j I
i
I
I
:I :I
I
I
I I I I
I
lJ) I : I ! I
(\J I
------------;---
I I
-------r-------------;------
: I
----r-------------;------------1
l
(\J
1 1
L:
i
i
i
!
:
1 i
ii Ii
i I i i
::J I I I I
u I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
a: i
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
.......... 0 I I I I
i I i I i i
Uro ------L-----------J------------\----------- ------------.i
I I I I I
I I I I I
(f) I I I I i
I I i i I
w I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
w I I I
a:::
(_') .
I
t
I
i
I
I
i
I

w~ I J

--------r-------------1------
. I
----~-----------~------------!
0---< i I i i i
I . I I I
I I I I
l I I I
1 I l _j_j _j :

:
I i
!
I
! ~~ ~
I WW W
!
I
I I I 1 >> > I
0 ----L-----------.1------------L-----------J._ ----1
m :I :i :
I
I
I
I
a:t-- I
lI
i i 1 i 1 za: t- 1
i . I I I Z Z 1
I I I I I I
I i i i i i
I I I i I
I
I
i
I
i i
I
i
1
E)(> +
i I I ; I
Ln i I I I I 1
------------;--- -------;-------------;------ ----r-------------;- -----------1
::r I I I I I I
I I . I
I I
i !
I
I
i
I
I
I
0 I

0.0 17. 34. 51 68. 85.

MEMBRANE STRESS

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 23

 All these parameters fall within the limits of appli-
cability of the equations proposed here. The resulting
stresses are given by:
Membrane uv = 5.10 x 7,200 = 36,700 psi
Surface uv = 7.06 x 7,200 = 50,800 psi
Membrane un = 6.81 X 5, 760 = 39,200 psi
Surface un = 14.67 X 5, 760 = 84,500 psi
As expected, the addition of pad plate has reduced the
stresses at the junction to more reasonable values.
But these values are still rather high, indicating that,
even though Code requirements have been met, some
locally high stresses can be expected.
It is generally assumed that, for the method of
analysis employed to develop the design equations
proposed here, membrane stresses are local primary
and the surface stresses are primary plus secondary.
As such, the ASME Code allowables for membrane
and surface stresses would be 1.5 times and 3 times
the basic tabulated Code allowables. Using such
limits for design, however, may result in significant
conservatism for certain cases. The membrane stresses
may include some secondary effects and, for vessels
which are not subject to cyclic operation, a limit on
secondary stresses may not be needed. The only time
that self limiting secondary stresses may be of a
concern is when such stresses are cyclic.
For a Section VIII, Division 1, vessel, the tabulated
stress allowable at ambient temperature for SA516-70
material is 17,500 psi. This indicates that the limits
suggested in the preceding paragraph cannot be met
for this vessel. However, if the operation is known to
be non-cyclic (small number of cycles over the life of
the structure), not having met these allowables may
not necessarily be a problem. To assure that primary
bending stresses (needed to meet equilibrium at the
junction) are not excessive, such stresses shall be
checked by a method similar to that of Ref. 5.
The method will be used, with the exception that
effective sections along the vessel shell and nozzle will
be assumed as ..jRT and {rt, for both membrane and
bending stresses (as used by Chicago Bridge & Iron
Company). The question that arises in this case is
whether ,fiiT should be based on the thickness of the
shell (0.5 in.) or the combined thickness of shell and
pad (1.0 in).
Again, some engineering judgement will have to be
exercised. It is suggested that as long as the width of
the pad exceeds ,fifi';, then the limit of effective
section can be based on T;. In this case, the 24 in.
width of the pad considerably exceeds J6o x 1 = 7. 75
in.; therefore, the limit of effective area along the
vessel shell will be assumed as 7. 75 in. from outside of
nozzle neck. The calculated stresses on this basis are:
Membrane = 24,560 psi
Membrane plus bending = 56,540 psi
The membrane stress exceeds the suggested tabu-
24 WRC Bulletin 368
lated allowable of 17,500 psi (for Section VIII, Divi-
sion 1) and the membrane plus bending stress exceeds
the suggested 1% times that basic allowable. This is
further indication of the inadequacy of this detail.
Adequate material has not been provided close enough
to the junction.
Example No. 3
To further reduce the stresses of Example 2, the
thickness of the 24 in. wide pad will be increased to 1
in. The parameters for this case will be:
D = 120 in. T = 1.5 in Did= 2.5 d![i5T = 3.58
Material SA516-70 Joint efficiency= 1.0
Corrosion allowance = 0
DIT = 80 d/t = 96 Did= 2.5 d![i5T = 3.58
Sis= 4,800/5,760 = 0.83 tiT= .333
All these parameters fall within the limits of applica-
bility of the equations proposed here. The use of Eqs.
1 thru 4 results in the following stresses:
Membrane u" = 5.33 x 4,800 = 25,600 psi
Surface uv = 6.85 X 4,800 = 32,800 psi
Membrane un = 5.02 X 5,760 = 28,900 psi
Surface un = 10.78 X 5, 760 = 62,100 psi
The calculated maximum membrane stress on the
vessel is within the Code allowable for local primary
membrane of 1.5 x 17,500 = 26,250 psi (for Section
VIII, Division 1). However, the maximum membrane
stress in the nozzle still exceeds this value. Likewise,
maximum surface stress on the vessel is within the
Code limit of 3 x 17,500 = 52,500, whereas the
maximum surface stress on the nozzle exceeds this
value. This indicates that not enough reinforcing has
been provided on the nozzle side of the junction. If
local membrane and secondary bending stresses in
the nozzle are of concern, or if a more balanced design
is desired, the nozzle wall thickness will have to be
increased.
For comparison purposes, stresses based on method
of Ref. 5, with effective sections of /iii
and {rt will
also be calculated. Since the pad width of 24 in.
exceeds the value of J60x1.5 = 9.49 in. (and is not
less than d/2), the effective section along vessel shell
will be assumed as 9.49 in. from the outside of nozzle
neck. On that basis, the calculated stresses are:
Membrane = 15,400 psi
Membrane plus bending = 38,360 psi
As expected, the calculated value of membrane stress
is within the suggested allowable of 17,500 psi. The
membrane plus bending stress, however, is still more
than the desired value of 1.5 x 17,500. This, again,
can be remedied by slightly increasing the thickness
of the nozzle neck. As a matter of fact, for keeping
bending stresses (for method of Ref. 5) within limits,
the greatest benefit is gained by adding reinforcement
to the neck; since this will more significantly stiffen
the shell for bending about a neutral axis which is
parallel to the shell surface.
In all of the above examples, ASME Code Section
VIII, Division 1, has been discussed. Section VIII,
Division 2, and Section III Codes require a more
complete analysis. For those sections of the ASME
Code, the stress intensities calculated by the method
proposed here would be helpful in calculating stresses
of various categories. However, it should be pointed
Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure
out that these maximum stress intensity factors do
not include all peak effects. The maximum peak
stresses, needed to perform fatigue analysis, usually
depend on such factors as weld details, comer radius,
etc. The stress intensity values calculated here will
have to be multiplied by appropriate fatigue strength
reduction factors. The location and direction of stress
intensities not being known, an accurate analysis is
not possible. Only approximate and conservative esti-
mates of peak stresses can be obtained by applying
the highest fatigue strength reduction factor for the
intersection to the maximum surface stresses.
25
Table lA: Finite Element Analxses, Unreinforced
Model D/T d/D t/T SCF Eq.(2/4) Eq. ( 5) Eq. ( 6) Eq. ( 7) Eq. ( 8)
UA 101.00 0.500 0.500 8.14 12.89 6.54 6.66 8.20 7.02
B 81.00 0.500 0.500 7.78 11.55 6.28 6.30 7.46 6.50
c 41.00 0.500 0.500 5.45 8.22 5.55 5.31 5.67 5.20
D 21.00 0.500 0.500 4.26 5.88 4.92 4.50 4.45 4.29
E 11.00 0.500 0.500 4.15 4.26 4.37 3.82 3.65 3.66
F 11.00 0.080 0.080 3.18 1.97 3.43 3.82 2.69 2.33
Ratio Ave. 1. 267 0.986 0.964 0.962 0.879
Stand.Dev. 0.433 0.147 0.142 0.085 0.149

Table lB: Finite Element Analyses, standard Reinforcement

Model b/T d/D t/T scF
Eq. ( 2/4) Eq. ( 5) Eq. ( 6) Eq. ( 7) Eq. ( 8)
SlA 101.00 0.538 4.340 2.38 3.61 3.26 2.34 1. 53 1. 36
B 81.00 0.543 4.010 2.50 3.45 3.24 2.32 1.56 1.40
c 41.00 0.564 3.140 2.75 3.04 3.19 2.25 1.66 1.55
D 21.00 0.593 2.450 2.95 2.72 3.16 2.21 1. 81 1. 73
E 11.00 0.629 1.920 3.06 2.47 3.15 2.19 2.01 1. 93
F 41.00 0.375 2.560 2.72 2.60 2.96 2.03 1. 70 1. 64
G 21.00 0.399 1.980 2.83 2.38 2.97 2.02 1.84 1. 81
H 11.00 0.429 1.520 2.95 2.21 2.99 2.03 2.03 2.01
I 41.00 0.202 1.880 2.58 2.23 2.66 1. 74 1. 70 1. 79
J 21.00 0.220 1. 430 2.67 2.10 2.70 1. 76 1. 81 1.95
K 11.00 0.244 1.080 2.80 2.00 2.77 1. 82 1.98 2.10
L 41.00 0.112 1. 380 2.50 2.10 2.41 1. 51 1.69 1.93
M 21.00 0.125 1.030 2.59 2.01 2.49 1. 57 1. 88 2.05
N 11.00 0.138 0.724 2.89 1. 94 2.63 1. 67 2.19 2.16
Ratio Ave. 0.923 1.067 0.723 0.665 0.666
Stand Dev. 0.252 0.129 0.300 0.338 0.344

able lC: Finite Element Anal ses,

Model D/T d/D t/T SCF Eq. ( 7) Eq. ( 8)
PJOA 101.00 0.348 3.190 2.57 1. 78 1. 63
B 41.00 0.364 2.130 2.84 2.01 1.93
c 21.00 0.381 1.600 2.89 2.14 2.12
D 11.00 0.402 1.230 2.92 2.28 2.26 2.27
E 11.00 0.121 0.533 2.96 1.99 2.37 2.26
Ratio Ave. 0.892 0.744 0.718
stand Dev. 0.209 0.129 0.260 0.287

Table 2A: Finite Element Analyses

Model b/T d/0 t/'1' SCF Eq. ( 2/4) Eq. ( 5) Eq. ( 6) Eq. ( 7) Eq. ( 8)
U2TA 51.00 0.495 0.250 8.22 14.16 6.77 7.90 6.93 6.22
B 41.00 0.494 0.250 7.46 12.67 6.50 7.47 6.33 5.79
c 21.00 0.488 0.250 5.13 8.99 5.73 6.28 4.88 4.72
D 11.00 0.477 0.250 4.67 6.39 5.05 5.28 3.89 3.96
E 6.00 0.458 0.250 4.36 4.58 4.46 4.45 3.25 3.42
F 6.00 0.073 0.040 3.67 0.96 3.50 4.44 2.79 2.23
Ratio Ave. 1.309 0.978 1.091 0.830 0.782
stand Dev. 0.614 0.116 0.138 0.182 0.238

26 WRC Bulletin 368

Table 2B: Finite Element Anal~ses
Model D/T d/D t/T SCF Eq. ( 2/4) Eq. ( 5) Eq. ( 6) Eq. ( 7) Eq. ( 8)
S75E 11.00 0.597 1.562 3.29 2.56 3.24 2.36 2.32 2.24
F 41.00 0.361 2.000 2.95 2.74 3.10 2.26 2.11 2.04
I 41.00 0.191 1. 448 2.77 2.31 2.77 1. 93 1. 98 2.12
L 41.00 0.104 1. 052 2.62 2.16 2.50 1. 67 1. 90 2.15
S50D 21.00 0.546 1.474 3.42 3.06 3.45 2.74 2.75 2.63
F 41.00 0.347 1. 440 3.17 2.97 3.30 2.61 2.69 2.61
G 21.00 0.359 1.148 3.25 2.64 3.24 2.51 2.59 2.60
I 41.00 0.181 1.020 2.96 2.46 2.95 2.24 2.30 2.51
J 21.00 0.190 0.793 2.94 2.27 2.94 2.20 2.19 2.47
L 41.00 0.096 0.728 2.72 2.25 2.64 1.93 2.13 2.36
M 21.00 0.103 0.556 2.77 2.13 2.67 1.93 2.28 2.33
S25F 41.00 0.334 0.880 3.40 3.58 3.65 3.27 3.50 3.41
I 41.00 0.170 0.588 3.15 3.07 3.28 2.86 2.63 2.92
L 41.00 0.088 0.404 2.81 2.63 2.94 2.48 2.38 2.54
N 11.00 0.095 0.241 3.20 2.12 2.95 2.40 2.64 2.34
Ratio Ave. 0.855 1.003 0.775 0.798 0.821
Stand Dev. 0.173 0.041 0.240 0.216 0.198

Table 3: Photoelastic Data

Model D/T d/D t/T SCF Eq. ( 2/4) Eq. ( 5) Eq. ( 6) Eq. ( 7) Eq. ( 8)
C-lA 12.90 0.050 0.048 2.60 1.52 3.30 4.07 2.66 2.22
C-2A 13.10 0.129 0.133 2.94 3.17 3.69 3.93 2.64 2.57
C-3A 12.90 0.200 0.198 3.15 4.03 3.91 4.00 2.61 2.86
E-4 13.50 0.501 0.513 3.65 4.62 4.57 3.98 3.85 3.82
E-4B 13.20 0.500 0.503 3.65 4.64 4.32 3.99 3.84 3.81
E-4E 13.30 0.501 0.510 3.89 4.61 4.30 3.97 3.84 3.81
C-3C 6.50 0.183 0.091 3.40 2.07 4.03 4.76 2.75 2.60
C-5C 6.57 0.460 0.234 4.46 4.92 4.54 4.71 3.33 3.51
C-5H 13.10 0.567 1.380 2.85 2.73 3.50 2.56 2.59 2.51
E-1 13.20 0.289 0.514 3.52 2.94 3.73 3.00 2.73 2.95
E-7 13.40 0.289 0.513 3.51 2.97 3.73 3.02 2.74 2.96
E-2 12.90 0.288 0.490 3.05 3.02 3.76 3.05 2.73 2.96
E-3 13.00 0.288 0.496 3.43 3.00 3.75 3.04 2.73 2.96
F* 19.00 0.399 1.818 2.38 2.37 3.15 2.05 1. 93 1.90
P-4A 12.40 0.460 0.935 3.00 2.70 3.71 2.76 2.88 2.87
P-40 12.40 0.492 1. 327 3.23 2. 52 3.50 2.40 2.44 2.39
we-
2AY 60.40 0.117 0.239 2.99 5.63 4.04 4.10 2.59 3.05
2AQ 100.10 0.129 0.139 3.63 8.86 5.35 6.40 3.27 3.58
12D 13.20 0.160 0.547 2.96 2.12 2.92 2.16 2.36 2.43
1000 102.70 0.121 1.234 2.29 2.56 2.80 2.09 2.25 2.46
Ratio Ave. 1.086 1.193 1.082 0.882 0.903
Stand Dev. 0.429 0.121 0.286 0.154 0.138

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 27

Table 4: Photoelastic Data
Model D/T d/D t/T SCF Eq.(2/4) Eq. ( 5) Eq. ( 6) Eq. ( 7) Eq. ( 8)
A 17.50 0.100 1.000 2.20 1.94 2.42 1. 36 1.84 1. 96
B 17.50 0.120 0.800 2.30 2.01 2.73 1.66 2.07 2.17
c 17.50 0.130 0.590 2.50 2.12 3.02 2.02 2.28 2.37
D 17.40 0.100 0.990 2.00 1.95 2.12 1. 36 1. 85 1. 97
E 17.40 0.120 0.790 2.20 2.02 2.39 1.67 2.08 2.17
F 17.5fl 0.130 0.590 2.40 2.12 2.63 2.02 2.28 2.37
G 17.50 0.100 1.000 2.00 1.94 1.91 1. 36 1. 84 1.96
H 17.50 0.120 0.790 2.20 2.02 2.15 1. 67 2.08 2.17
I 17.50 0.130 0.600 2.30 2.12 2.37 2.00 2.27 2.36
J 16.90 0.310 1.000 2.80 2.42 3.66 2.37 2.44 2.53
K 16.70 0.330 0.800 3.00 2.62 3.95 2.73 2.76 2.85
L 17.00 0.340 0.600 3.10 3.32 4.27 3.21 3.08 3.19
M 16.80 0.310 1.000 2.60 2.41 3.16 2.37 2.43 2.53
N 16.90 0.320 0.800 2.80 2.59 3.40 2.69 2.72 2.82
0 16.80 0.340 0.600 3.00 3.30 3.73 3.20 3.07 3.19
p 16.40 0.310 1.000 2.60 2.40 2.85 2.35 2.42 2.51
Q 16.40 0.320 0.800 2.80 2.57 3.07 2.67 2.70 2.81
u 16.40 0.330 0.610 3.00 3.14 3.31 3.11 2.99 3.11
R 17.20 0.490 1.000 3.10 3.04 4.34 2.99 3.15 3.07
s 17.30 0.500 0.800 3.40 3.53 4.60 3.39 3.56 3.47
T 17.40 0.510 0.600 3.60 4.67 4.97 3.95 4.03 3.92
u 17.20 0.490 1. 000 3.00 3.04 3.78 2.99 3.15 3.07
v 17.30 0.500 0.790 3.20 3.57 4.04 3.41 3.58 3.49
w 17.30 0.510 0.600 3.40 4.65 4.33 3.95 4.02 3.92
X 16.80 0.480 1.000 2.90 2.98 3.39 2.95 3.09 3.03
y 16.90 0.490 0.800 3.20 3.43 3.60 3.33 3.49 3.42
z 16.70 0.500 0.600 3.40 4.50 3.87 3.88 3.92 3.84
Ratio Ave. 1.003 1.19 0.920 0.991 1.010
Stand Dev. 0.138 0.122 0.166 0.086 0.062

Table 5: Strain Gage Data

Model D/T d/D t/T SCF Eq.(2/4) Eq. ( 5) Eq. ( 6) Eq. ( 7) Eq. ( 8)
F13 23.70 0.188 1.000 2.63 2.21 2.99 2.01 2.07 2.31
F*13 23.70 0.265 1.000 2.69 2.48 3.38 2.39 2.44 2.57
F20 15.70 0.284 1.040 2.80 2.27 3.25 2.18 2.26 2.37
2 19.00 0.315 1.200 2.03 2.39 3.47 2.25 2.30 2.36
6 19.00 0.327 1. 430 3.10 2.33 3.04 2.10 2.10 2.14
8 19.00 0.106 0.572 2.73 2.10 3.09 1.89 2.27 2.31
9 19.00 0.098 0.361 2.73 2.21 3.98 2.28 2.46 2.41
11 19.00 0.058 0.094 2.69 2.33 3.98 3.44 2.61 2.31
M 19.00 0.600 2.000 3.00 2.83 3.04 2.40 2.16 2.06
F 19.00 0.400 1.400 2.60 2.55 3.00 2.34 2.35 2.33
I 19.00 0.400 1.400 2.70 2.55 3.00 2.34 2.35 2.33
R 19.00 0.635 0.687 5.10 5.19 4.67 4.22 4.58 4.33
ORNL1 99.00 0.500 0.500 13.30 12.77 8.29 6.62 8.13 6.97
ORNL3 49.00 0.114 0.840 2.50 2.34 4.15 2.05 2.09 2.44
ORNL4 49.00 0.125 0.320 3.50 4.40 5.39 3.47 2.50 2.95
Ratio Ave. 0.932 1.184 0.848 0.838 0.850
Stand Dev. 0.152 0.266 0.233 0.204 0.204

28 WRC Bulletin 368

Table 6: Strain Gage Data { Proctor and Strong )
Model D/T d/D t/T SCF Eq. ( 2/4) Eq.(5) Eq. ( 6) Eq.(7) Eq. ( 8)
1-1 16.00 0.278 0.249 3.20 5.18 4.92 4.44 3.02 3.32
1-2 16.00 0.437 0.416 3.50 5.31 4.78 4.30 3.86 3.87
1-3 16.00 0.677 0.677 3.80 5.09 4.69 4.20 4.55 4.32
1-4 16.00 0.844 0.833 4.10 5.08 4.67 4.23 4.80 4.50
1-5 16.00 1.000 1. 000 4.30 4.93 4.63 4.20 4.82 4.50
2-6 16.00 0.781 1.833 2.60 3.22 3.36 2.74 2.56 2.43
2-7 16.00 0.812 1.333 3.10 3.71 3.84 3.28 3.44 3.25
2-8 16.00 0.854 0.667 4.60 6.28 5.10 4.75 5.40 5.03
2-9 16.00 0.873 0.373 6.40 10.09 6.42 6.43 6.59 6.07
3-10 4.66 0.429 0.444 3.40 2.69 3.70 3.03 2.88 2.96
3-11 5.80 0.414 0.400 3.70 3.16 3.96 3.32 2.95 3.08
4-12 24.50 0.469 0.500 4.10 6.03 4.94 4.52 4.48 4.31
4-13 33.00 0.430 0.469 4.10 6.87 5.17 4.82 4.74 4.52
Ratio Ave. 1.310 1. 202 1. 073 1.056 1. 024
stand Dev. 0.406 0.145 0.148 0.135 0.095

Table 7: strain Gage Data

Model D/T d/D t/T SCF Eq. ( 2/4) Eq. ( 5) Eq. ( 6) Eq. ( 7) Eq. ( 8)
ORNL2 99.00 1.000 1.000 9.00 12.27 6.46 6.62 9.90 8.22
2 24.70 1.000 1.000 4.20 6.13 5.02 4.68 5.62 5.11
5 19.00 1.000 1.000 5.40 5.38 4.79 4.38 5.11 4.72
1-5 16.00 1.000 1.000 4.30 4.93 4.64 4.20 4.82 4.50
A 29.60 1.000 1.000 4.45 6.71 5.19 4.90 6.01 5.40
B 29.60 1.000 1.000 4.36 6.71 5.19 4.90 6.01 5.40
c 10.90 1.000 1.000 4.08 4.13 4.32 3.82 4.28 4.06
D 10.90 1.000 1. 000 4.17 4.13 4.32 3.82 4.28 4.06
E 5.00 1.000 1.000 4.21 3.08 3.75 3.14 3.57 3.40
F 5.00 1.000 1.000 4.03 3.08 3.75 3.14 3.57 3.40
Ratio Ave. 1.151 1.015 0.924 1.105 1.012
stand Dev. 0.323 0.156 0.164 0.211 0.154

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 29

Table 8: Photoelastic Data
Model D/T d/D t/T SCF Eq.(2/4) Eq. ( 5) Eq. ( 6) Eq. ( 7) Eq. ( 8)
20 1.40 1.000 1.000 2.20 2.03 2.98 2.28 3.51 2.74
21 2.00 1.000 1.000 2.48 2.26 3.18 2.50 3.38 2.88
22 2.00 1.000 1.000 2.48 2.26 3.18 2.50 3.38 2.88
23 2.00 1.000 1.000 2.70 2.26 3.18 2.50 3.38 2.88
24 2.00 1.000 1.000 2.75 2.26 3.18 2.50 3.38 2.88
25 2.00 1.000 1. 000 2 .88 2.26 3.18 2.50 3.38 2.88
26 2.00 1.000 1. 000 2.80 2.26 3.18 2.50 3.38 2.88
27 3.00 1.000 1.000 3.00 2.58 3.42 2.76 3.38 3.08
28 3.00 1.000 1.000 3.00 2.58 3.42 2.76 3.38 3.08
29 5.00 1.000 1.000 3.30 3.08 3.75 3.14 3.57 3.40
30 5.00 1.000 1.000 3.30 3.08 3.75 3.14 3.57 3.40
31 7.00 1.000 1.000 3.55 3.48 3.99 3.42 3.82 3.65
32 7.00 1.000 1.000 3.62 3.48 3.99 3.42 3.82 3.65
33 7.00 1. 000 1.000 3.62 3.48 3.99 3.42 3.82 3.65
34 7.00 1.000 1.000 3.68 3.48 3.99 3.42 3.82 3.65
35 11.00 1. 000 1.000 3.68 4.15 4.33 3.82 4.29 4.07
36 11.00 1.000 1.000 3.58 4.15 4.33 3.82 4.29 4.07
37 24.00 1.000 1.000 3.50 6.04 4.99 4.65 5.56 5.06
38 24.00 1.000 1.000 3.50 6.04 4.99 4.65 5.56 5.06
39 13.40 1.000 1.000 3.30 4.51 4.49 4.02 4.56 4.29
40 13.40 1.000 1.000 3.45 4.51 4.49 4.02 4.56 4.29
86 5.00 1.000 1.000 3.90 3.08 3.75 3.14 3.57 3.40
87 13.00 1.000 1.000 3.90 4.45 4.47 3.99 4.51 4.25
Ratio Ave. 1.034 1.194 1.006 1. 223 1.109
stand Dev. 0.265 0.118 0.133 0.287 0.178

30 WRC Bulletin 368

 Table 27: strain Gase Data
Model D/T d/D t/T SCF Eq. ( 2/4) Eq. ( 5) Eq. ( 6) Eq.(7) Eq. ( 8)
A 21.00 0.310 0.375 3.50 5.02 4.61 4.09 3.38 3.54
B 17.00 0.127 0.500 2.54 2.16 2.86 2.15 2.36 2.41
c 17.00 0.127 0.500 2.98 2.16 2.86 2.15 2.36 2.41
D 19.00 0.315 1.200 3.02 2.39 2.92 2.25 2.30 2.36
E 19.00 0.327 1. 430 3.10 2.33 2.77 2.10 2.10 2.14
F 19.00 0.058 0.094 2.74 2.33 4.14 3.43 2.61 2.31
G 23.70 0.188 1.000 2.55 2.21 2.70 2.01 2.07 2.31
H 23.70 0.188 1.000 2.61 2.21 2.70 2.01 2.07 2.31
I 15.70 0.284 1.040 2.35 2.27 2.87 2.18 2.26 2.37
J 31.40 0.118 0.700 2.31 2.24 2.74 2.04 2.17 2.41
K 31.40 0.410 1.100 2.95 3.25 3.64 3.03 3.23 3.12
L 31.40 0.456 1.590 2.95 3.07 3.29 2.66 2.66 2.54
M 31.40 0.456 1. 590 2.56 3.07 3.29 2.66 2.66 2.54
N 31.40 0.436 2.200 1.91 2.71 2.86 2.21 1. 95 1.87
0 31.40 0.566 1.620 2.61 3.48 3.54 2.94 2.96 2.76
p 31.40 0.646 1.640 2.68 3.78 3.70 3.12 3.16 2.92
Q 31.40 0.730 2.200 2.16 3.69 3.46 2.86 2.55 2.37
R 31.40 0.730 2.200 2.11 3.69 3.46 2.86 2.55 2.37
s 31.40 0.750 3.200 1. 70 3.28 3.03 2.41 1. 72 1.61
T 31.40 0.817 1. 660 3.06 4.45 4.01 3.49 3.58 3.28
u 31.40 0.897 1. 680 3.15 4.76 4.13 3.63 3.75 3.42
v 29.00 0.465 1.700 2.50 2.96 3.19 2.55 2.48 2.37
w 28.00 0.430 1.620 2.60 2.85 3.14 2.49 2.45 2.36
X 15.20 0.122 0.350 2.54 2.25 3.17 2.45 2.50 2.47
y 15.20 0.122 0.350 2.58 2.25 3.17 2.45 2.50 2.47
z 15.20 0.730 1.100 3.44 3.62 3.95 3.38 3.64 3.46
AA 15.20 0.730 1.100 3.55 3.62 3.95 3. 38. 3.64 3.46
BB 15.20 0.772 1. 600 3.10 3.29 3.49 2.88 2.83 2.69
cc 15.20 0.772 1.600 3.04 3.29 3.49 2.88 2.83 2.69
DO 15.20 0.420 0.550 3.27 4.01 4.20 3.62 3.49 3.52
EE 100.00 0.219 2.190 l . 80 2.74 2.75 2.10 2.06 2.00
FF 81.00 0.436 2.170 2.36 3.72 3.42 2.82 2.76 2.49
GG 70.00 0.622 2.170 2.49 4.50 3.79 3.25 3.19 2.83
HH 61.00 0.829 2.110 2.96 5.36 4.15 3.68 3.67 3.24
II 11.70 0.360 0.360 2.56 4.33 3.45 3.88 3.18 3.36
Note: Table number corresponds to Table 27 of Ref. 4.

Stresses in Intersecting Cylinders Subjected to Pressure 31

9.0 References
1. "Stress Analysis of Nozzles in Cylindrical Vessels with External
Load," C. R. Steele and M. L. Steele,J. Press. Vessel Tech. Trans. ASME 105,
191-200, August 1983.
2. "A Review of Area Replacement Rules for Pipe Connections in
Pressure Vessels and Piping," E. C. Rodabaugh, WRC Bulletin No. 335,
August, 1988.
3. "Design Criteria for the Spacing of Nozzles and Reinforced Openings
in Cylindrical Nuclear Pressure Vessels and Pipes," S. E. Moore and J. L.
Mershon (NUREG/CR-2308, ORNL-5809).
4. E. C. Rodabaugh and S. E. Moore, "Review of Elastic Stress and
Fatigue-to-Failure Data for Branch Connections and Tees in Relation to
ASME Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Pif,ing Systems," to be_published.
5. McBride, W. L. and Jacobs W. S. 'Design of Radial Nozzles in
Cylindrical Shells for Internal Pressure," Transactions ASME, J. Pressure
Vessel Technology, February, 1980.
6. "Local Stresses in L;ylindrical Shells due to External Loadings on
Nozzles" Revised WRC Bulletin 297, September, 1987.
7. "Local Stress in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells due to External
Loadings," WRC Bulletin 107, April1972.
32 WRC Bulletin 368
8. Eringen, Naghdi, Mahmood, Thiel and Ariman, "Stress Concentra-
tions in Two Normally Intersecting Cylindrical Shells Subject to Internal
Pressure," Welding Research Council Bulletin No. 139, April1969.
9. Rodabaugh, E. C. and Moore, S. E., "Stress Indices and Flexibility
Factors for Nozzles in Pressure Vessels and Piping," NUREG/CR-0778,
June 1979.
10. Money, H. A., "Designing Flush Cylinder-to-Cylinder Intersections to
Withstand Pressure," ASME Paper No. 69-PVP-17 (1968).
11. Lewis, D. J. and Price, R. H., "A Shakedown Approach to the
Reinforcement of Flush Branches in Cylindrical Pressure Vessels Below the
Creep Range," Central Electricity Generating Board, Berkeley Nuclear
Laboratories, RD/B/N2569, February 1974.
12. Lind, N. C., "Approximate Stress-Concentration Analysis for Pressur-
ized Branch Pipe Connections," pp. 952-958 in 'Pressure Vessels and
Piping: Design and Analysis,' 1972, Published by ASME, 345 E. 47th St.,
N.Y., N.Y. 10017.
13. Decock, J., "Determination of Stress Concentration Factors and
Fatigue Assessment of Flush and Extruded Nozzles in Welded Pressure
Vessels,'' Paper 11-59, 2nd Int'l. Conf. on Pressure Vessel Technology, San
Antonio, TX, 1973.
14. J. L. Mershon, "A comparison of FAST 2 Results with Test Data and
Finite Element Results,'' To Be Published.