Proceedings of the ASME 2011 Pressure Vessels & Piping Division Conference
PVP2011
ESTABLISHING ALLOWABLE NOZZLE LOADS
William Koves
Consultant, Ambitech Engineering Corp.
Downers Grove, IL, USA
Richard Cullotta
Ambitech Engineering Corp.
Downers Grove, IL, USA
ABSTRACT
Every engineering project involving the design of
pressure equipment, including pressure vessels, heat exchangers
and the interconnecting piping requires that the interface loads
between the equipment and piping be established for the
pressure vessel nozzle design and the limitations on piping end
reactions. The vessel or exchanger designer needs to know the
external applied loads on nozzles and the piping designer needs
to know the limiting end reactions on any connected equipment.
However, the final loads are not known until the piping design
is completed. This requires a very good estimate of the piping
end loads prior to completing the vessel or piping design. The
challenge is to develop a method of determining the optimum
set of design loads prior to design. If the design loads are too
low, the piping design may become too costly or impractical. If
the design loads are too high the vessel nozzle designs will
require unnecessary reinforcement and increased cost.
The problem of the stresses at a nozzle to vessel
intersection due to internal pressure and external forces and
moments is one of the most complex problems in pressure
vessel design. The problem has been studied extensively;
however each study has its own limitations. Numerous
analytical and numerical simulations have been performed
providing guidance with associated limitations. The objective is
to establish allowable nozzle load tables for the piping designer
and the vessel designer. The loads and load combinations must
be based on a technically accepted methodology and applicable
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
July 17-21, 2011, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
PVP2011-57100
Elmar Upitis
Ambitech Engineering Corp.
Downers Grove, IL, USA
Omar Latif
Ambitech Engineering Corp.
Downers Grove, IL, USA
to all nozzle sizes, pressure classes, schedules and vessel
diameters and thicknesses and reinforcement designs within the
scope of the tables. The internal design pressure must also be
included along with the 3 forces and 3 moments that may be
acting on the nozzle and the nozzle load tables must be
adaptable to all materials of construction. The Tables must also
be applicable for vessel heads. This paper presents the issues,
including the limitations of some of the existing industry
approaches, presents an approach to the problem, utilizing
systematic Finite Element Analysis (FEA) methods and presents
the results in the form of tables of allowable nozzle loads.
INTRODUCTION
The first step in addressing the problem of establishing
allowable nozzle loads is to define the objectives. The nozzle
loads from the allowable nozzle load table should be acceptable
for typical vessel construction without significant reinforcement
in addition to minimum Code requirements, except that the
small nozzles that would not require a pad for pressure may
require a pad for external loads. The loads should be of a
magnitude that they can be accommodated by typical piping
layouts and that the loads are proportioned to include typical
moments, axial and shear forces. As the allowable nozzle loads
increase, the piping costs decrease, since piping flexibility
(length) may be reduced. However, at some point the higher
allowable moments will cause increasing vessel cost due to
reinforcing requirements. The perfect solution is one that
1 Copyright 2011 by ASME
 minimizes the cost of the project (vessels and piping plus
supports).
There is an infinite combination of loads that will
satisfy a given stress criteria. The variables are: pressure, P,
vessel diameter, D, nozzle diameter, d, vessel thickness, T,
nozzle thickness, t, reinforcing pad thickness, tp, reinforcement
design (e.g. integral), and material allowable stresses. The
applied loads may be the result of primary (e.g., weight) loads
or displacement controlled (e.g., piping restrained thermal
growth) loads each consisting of 6 quantities, three forces and
three moments. The applied loads may also result in a
combination of primary and secondary stresses. There will be
multiple sets of allowable loads for each different combination
of the variables listed. There are also several methods of
computing stresses at the nozzle junction. The boundary
conditions assumed by the piping designer can also significantly
affect the piping end reaction loads. The appropriate allowable
stress values to use and how to handle reinforcing pads are
other issues that are not consistently applied in the industry.
REVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICE
Many tables are based on nozzle size and rating only
without any limitations on the vessel and some tables apply to
more than one pressure rating. Some methods indicate that
primary loads may be up to 1/3 of the total and other methods
say nothing. The allowable loads and moments vary
significantly from company to company. Many current methods
do not address the following issues:
They do not provide the basis of the nozzle load tables,
except for a few specific instances where FEA was
applied.
Various materials of construction.
The effect of design temperature. (Some nozzle load
tables state room temperature or 100 F).
The effect of internal pressure.
Limitations on vessel diameter and/or thickness.
Limitations on the type of the vessel head.
Location of the applied loads. (Some nozzle load
tables do state that the nozzle loads are applied at the
vessel shell).
Proportioning of the nozzle loads, moments and
shears.
The original basis of the majority of Tables used in the
industry was probably WRC 107 [1]. Most tables follow a
simple Lbs/in basis for the loads as a function of nozzle size.
The general forms of the simple equations are:
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Force = constant x Nozzle Diameter (1)
Moment = constant x (Nozzle Diameter)^2 (2)
We have not seen a documented technical basis for
proportioning the loads and shears, relative to the moments. In
conclusion, the existing load tables vary significantly and there
is a need for a documented consistent approach. There is a
concern for large diameter thin wall vessels, especially if
primary loads become significant.
A PRACTICAL APPROACH
The objective is to produce a set of allowable nozzle
load tables that has a documented basis and is a function of
Pressure Class, since this is the format that the industry is
familiar with. The problem is how to produce allowable nozzle
load tables with the large number of independent variables
involved. The first step was to establish a practical load set
where the moments and forces are in a fixed proportion to one
another. Observing that the B31 piping Codes SIFs (Stress
Intensification Factors) for in-plane and out-of-plane loading
differ by a factor of approximately 0.75, the allowable
circumferential force and moment was assumed to be 0.75 times
the longitudinal force and moment. However, based on results
from the WRC (Welding Research Council) Bulletins, [2], [3],
[4], the ratio for the Class 150 vessels was reduced to 2/3 for
the Load Table development. A nozzle connection can take a
high torsion load and the torsion was established as 1.25 times
the longitudinal moment. The forces scale with diameter, and
the moments with diameter squared as shown by equations (1)
and (2).
The materials of construction are assumed to be killed
carbon steel: SA 516 Gr. 70 for the vessel shell and SA 106 Gr.
B, and SA 105 for the nozzle neck at a design temperature of
650F. The allowable loads for materials other than killed carbon
steel at 650F may be obtained by a simple allowable stress
ratio.
The objective is to arrive at allowable nozzle loads that
minimize the cost of the project. If the loads are too low the
piping cost will increase to allow more flexibility, if the loads
are too high the vessel cost will increase due to added
reinforcement required at the nozzles. The goal is to provide
nozzle loads that will not require significant increased
reinforcement other than a nozzle schedule greater than
Schedule 40.
Geometry requirements to establish a bound on the
loads for the infinite combinations of diameters and thicknesses
were established by first examining the correlations from the
WRC Bulletins and from the general trends, establish bounding
conditions. WRC Bulletin 497 provides parametric correlations
for external loads on cylinder to cylinder connections and WRC
2 Copyright 2011 by ASME
 Bulletin 368 provides parametric correlations for the effect of
internal pressure on cylinder to cylinder connections. Figure 1
shows the effect of pressure on the maximum effective (von
Mises) stress in an 8 NPS Sch. 40 nozzle connection when the
vessel wall thickness is the minimum required for pressure.

Figure 2

The conclusion is that for a larger d/D ratio the

Figure 1
For the larger diameter vessel, the greater the design
pressure, if the vessel wall thickness is the minimum required
for pressure design and a full thickness reinforcing pad is used,
the lower the effective stress due to pressure. This implies that,
for this vessel, if allowable moments are established for the
minimum pressure of the pressure class, it should be
conservative for all pressures in the pressure class. However,
there are exceptions and depending on diameter and pressure
range the higher pressure or an intermediate pressure could
govern. Geometries with large nozzle to vessel diameter ratios
are a possible exception. In general both the lowest and highest
pressures for a pressure class were checked. The smaller
diameter vessel, with the correspondingly smaller thickness,
resulted in higher stress for a given pressure. Thickness was
determined to be a critical variable.
allowable moment is less, for fixed values of d/t and D/T. When
internal pressure governs design then the diameter to thickness
ratios are approximately constant. When the D/T ratio is
increased, corresponding to a lower design pressure, the
allowable moment decreases.
The plot in Figure 3 is Allowable Moment vs. Vessel
inside Diameter (D) for a fixed nozzle diameter and schedule
for two different pressures based on WRC 497. The plot
assumes that the vessel thickness is calculated based on the
minimum required for pressure and a full thickness reinforcing
pad is provided. The plot at vessel diameters greater than about
72 inches is beyond the applicable limits of the parametric
correlation in WRC 497 since the d/D ratio is less than 1/3 for
the larger vessel diameters, however the trends are evident. The
smaller diameters and thicknesses result in a smaller allowable
moment even though the diameter to thickness ratio is constant
based on pressure. Higher vessel design pressures result in
greater vessel thickness and higher allowable moments.

The number of variables may be reduced by assuming

that the vessel wall thickness is the minimum required for
internal pressure and the nozzle size and schedule is selected,
which establishes both a D/T and d/t ratio. Figure 2 shows the
effect of diameter ratio, d/D, on the allowable moment when
pressure, D/T and d/t are fixed. The Moment Index is a factor
representing a proportional set of orthogonal moments acting on
a nozzle. The actual in-plane moment (1000 in-lbs) for a given
nozzle is obtained from multiplying the Moment Index by 0.785
t d2, where t and d are the nozzle thickness and mean diameter
respectively. The other moments and forces are in the same
proportion as shown in Tables 1A or 1B.

3 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Figure 3
The above comparisons indicate that if the vessel is
sized for the lowest pressure of its class and a high d/D
diameter ratio for a fixed nozzle size and schedule, the load set
should be conservative for other thicknesses, diameters and
pressures. This methodology is a good general approach to the
problem, however, it was necessary to check other extreme
conditions to assure that a conservative load set was computed
and each pressure class had a different set of issues.
The Class 150 nozzle loads provided a special
challenge since the vessel thickness is typically not controlled
by pressure. Many practical applications will be for vessels with
relatively low pressure where the Code pressure-temperature
required thickness calculations do not govern the wall thickness
of the vessel. The thickness will be based on practical
considerations and company practice. Therefore, an additional
assumption on geometry is required. This is why Class 150
Tables were developed for two assumed thicknesses. The Class
300 Table is also based on an assumed minimum thickness.
The final loads were arrived at by factoring up/down
the external load set until the local membrane and membrane
plus bending stresses are within 90-95% of the allowable stress
limits and within the allowable ASME B16.5 flange joint limits.
This is an iterative trial and error process for each set of
conditions and each nozzle size. FEA analyses were performed
for all parameters for the NPS 2, 6, 12, 18 and 24 inch sizes and
forces and moments for intermediate sizes obtained by
interpolation from equations (1) and (2) where the constants are
derived from each specific FEA analysis.
ALLOWABLE STRESS LIMITS
Several sources were referenced for establishing
criteria for the allowable load limits; ASME Section VIII
Division 1, ASME Section VIII Division 2, and the applicable
Welding Research Council (WRC) Bulletins. The nozzle load
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Tables are intended for ASME Section VIII Division 1
construction, however it is unlikely that a Class 2500 vessel
would be built to Division 1. Division 1 provides limits for
general primary membrane stress and primary membrane plus
bending stress. Local secondary bending stresses in Division 1
are addressed by the construction details and not analysis
requirements except for some specific heat exchanger and cone-
cylinder junction details. Therefore the Design Code, Section
VIII Division 1, does not provide specific local stress limits
applicable to nozzle locations and it is the responsibility of the
designer/manufacturer. Division 2, paragraph 5.6 and Table 5.6,
does provide specific allowable stress limits applicable to FEA
analysis of nozzle connections. In general primary local
membrane stresses are limited to 1.5S and membrane plus
bending stresses are limited to 3S where S is the applicable
Code allowable stress. Division 2 also limits local membrane
stress in the nozzle reinforcing zone due to restrained
displacement to the 1.5S limit. The Division 2 allowable stress
limits were used as the criteria to establish the allowable nozzle
loads for the worst case geometry and pressure for each
pressure class. The allowable external loads for flanges were
also limited by the ASME Section III, NB 3658.3 equation for
each nozzle size and ASME B16.5 Flange Class. Integral and
pad reinforcement design was based on Division 1
requirements, based on design by formula. There is a problem
when the internal pressure only condition is close to or exceeds
the allowable stress limits. The allowable external loads would
be essentially zero. The problem is the result of applying
conservative design by analysis criteria to nozzle designs based
on design by formula, with the maximum possible pressure and
the use of the lower Division 1 allowable stress values. In order
to address the problem, provide practical loads and use an
allowable stress criterion that would provide an acceptable
design, guidance from WRC Bulletins 297 and 497 were
applied.
Reference [7] demonstrates by burst test analysis that
elastic FEA produces very conservative results for pressure
design when the Division 2 criterion is applied. Mershon, et.al.,
reference [2], also discuss the conservatism in the Primary plus
Secondary Stress limits for nozzles in WRC Bulletin 297. WRC
Bulletin 497, reference [4], provides an increased allowable
local membrane stress limit for nozzles. For typical geometries
this increase may be approximated from equation (23) in
reference 4 as a factor of 1.25. The technical issue is that the
elastically computed local membrane and bending stresses are
concentrated local to the nozzle and decay rapidly away from
the junction. Small amounts of plasticity will redistribute the
local stresses, with relatively small strains, and for non-cyclic
applications there will be a large margin on cycles. This is also
approximately the twice yield limit. This is the basis for
allowing a 25% increase in allowable primary plus secondary
membrane plus bending stress limits for specific cases as
provided under note (1) below. This evaluation is based on total
operating loads (forces and moments) that are assumed to be a
4 Copyright 2011 by ASME
 minimum of 50% Primary. Note that this paper is not addressing
or recommending changes in the allowable stress criteria for
nozzles and is only using the stress limits to develop practical
bounding loads.
The design Code is ASME Section VIII Division 1 and the
allowable stress limits used for the determination of allowable
nozzle loads are:
The vessel wall thickness is based on Division 1
design equation for pressure design. Therefore the
Primary Membrane Stress limits are met.
Primary Local Membrane stress at the nozzle to shell
junction <= 1.5S. S = Division 1 allowable stress.
The Primary plus Secondary Membrane plus Bending
Stress at the nozzle to shell junction <= (3Sps). Sps =
average of the ambient and design temperature
Division 1 allowable stress values. See Note 1 below.
The combined nominal Stress Intensity in the nozzle
neck due to all primary loads <= S. Note that the
supplemental requirement in paragraph 5.6 of Section
VIII Division 2 was also checked and did not govern.
Note 1: The stresses due to Primary loads plus restrained free
end displacement may exceed the 3Sps limit by up to 25%, for
typical low-cycle applications, based on the fatigue life at the
small increase in strain and the fact that the stress limit would
be close to twice yield. See also the discussions in WRC
Bulletins 297 and 497.
DEVELOPING ALLOWABLE LOADS
The allowable loads are based on the methodology for
establishing the critical geometry discussed above and the
assumptions described below and are applicable to the pressure
classes, nozzle sizes, and vessel thicknesses within the scope of
the tables.
The approach is to perform elastic Finite Element
Analysis (FEA) of a series of pressures, and geometries that
represent the Worst Case for each nozzle size and pressure
class. The method of selecting the governing parameters for a
given nozzle varies with pressure class and was discussed
above. The only practical way to make the extensive number of
FEA analyses required to develop comprehensive allowable
nozzle load tables was to use a commercial FEA program with
automatic mesh generation. Nozzle/Pro, Ref. [8], using 3-D
shell elements was selected. Ideally the software would have
been based on 3-D solid elements with a non-linear plastic
analysis capability; however this was the best practical option.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
The computed stresses are categorized in accordance
with the Section VIII Division 2 requirements for Primary
membrane, Local Membrane, Membrane plus Bending Stresses
and compared with the allowable stresses discussed above. The
FEA model is a 3-D model of the nozzle and vessel with an
insert plate for reinforcement using shell elements. Nozzle/Pro
does not have automatic mesh generation for a separate
reinforcing pad. The FEA mesh convergence was validated by
increasing the mesh resolution and model geometry limits with
insignificant change in the FEA results. The FEA models follow
the geometry guidelines in WRC 497. 3-D FEA analyses using
solid elements and the FEPipe software [13] were performed on
select examples of integral (thick wall) nozzle designs to
compare with the shell model results and discussed in the
validation section below.
The FEA software shell model treats the reinforcing
pad as an integral insert plate with reinforcement local to the
nozzle junction. The reinforcing pad thickness was based on the
same thickness as the shell with a pad width based on the
ASME Section VIII, Division 1, UG-40 reinforcement limits.
However, the FEA analysis in this study was not based on the
total pad plus vessel thickness, it was based on a thinner
effective pad thickness that represents the bending stiffness of a
separate pad and vessel shell, but is conservative for local
membrane stress. When the local membrane stresses govern the
maximum loads, an additional FEA analysis was performed
using full thickness. The effective vessel shell plus pad
combined thickness is given by the following equation:
te = (T2.5 + tp2.5)0.4 (3)
NPS 2 nozzles are assumed to be Schedule 40
minimum and unreinforced in accordance with Section VIII
Division 1 minimum requirements. Two nozzle load tables were
developed for Class 150 nozzles, one for inch and one for 3/8
inch minimum vessel thickness to avoid excessive conservatism
(See Tables 1A and 1B). Corrosion allowance is not included.
The nozzle reinforcement may be pad, insert plate, integral
reinforcement or a combination. It is assumed that Integral
reinforcement would only be used when the vessel thickness
exceeds 1.25, however this is not a general requirement. High
local bending stresses result when integral nozzle construction
is used and the vessel shell is relatively thin. The tables were
developed for vessel diameter to thickness ratios (D/T) up to
320; however this is also not a general limitation. The final
vessel and nozzle design details are the responsibility of the
vessel engineer.
The nozzle loads provided in the tables provided are
based on the pressure class and thickness limitations specified
for each Table. The materials of construction are assumed to be
Carbon Steels (SA-516 Gr. 70, SA-106 Gr. B, SA-105 and
similar) at a design temperature not greater than 650F. Nozzle
reinforcement is assumed except for NPS 2. Tables 1A and 1B
5 Copyright 2011 by ASME
 contain allowable nozzle loads for vessels with a Class 150
pressure rating. Other materials, temperatures and vessel
thicknesses are addressed by extrapolation as discussed in the
following section. Loads exceeding the specified values require
individual special analysis.
EXTRAPOLATING THE TABLES
The Class 150 Tables are based on specified minimum
thicknesses. There are applications for vessels with thinner wall,
especially when the corrosion allowance is significant. If, for a
given applied externally applied load set, the local reaction
running forces and moments acting on the vessel shell remain
the same, the local membrane stress would be inversely
proportional to the thickness (Stress = Running
Load/Thickness) and the local bending stress inversely
proportional to the thickness squared (Stress = 6*Running
Moment/Thickness^2). If the resulting stresses are pure primary
stresses, this assumption would be true, and it should be
conservative for an actual structure where the resulting stresses
are both load and displacement controlled. It is assumed that the
following equation applies for thicknesses less than inch:
M(T) = M(1/4) x (T/0.25)2 (4)
Where:
M(T) = Allowable nozzle load (force or moment) for vessel of
thickness T
M(1/4) = Allowable nozzle l (force or moment) for vessel of
thickness from Table 1A
T = Vessel thickness
Validation of the above equation was confirmed by
performing FEA runs on a variety of geometries using applied
loads from the above equation when the applied pressure is less
than the maximum allowed by the ratio (T/0.25)2.
The other extrapolation issue is the application of the
Table to materials other than Carbon Steel up to 650F. The
allowable loads for materials other than SA-516 Gr. 70 vessels
with SA-106 Gr. B or SA 105 nozzle necks, or materials at
temperatures greater than 650F, may be obtained by multiplying
the values in the applicable Table by the lowest ratio of the
ASME Section VIII Division 1 allowable stress for the
specified material at design temperature divided by 18,800 psi
for the vessel and 17,100 psi for the nozzle neck. The ratio shall
not exceed the value of 1.0. Note that for materials with lower
modulus of elasticity, such as aluminum, the local deformation
at the nozzle location will exceed that of a carbon steel vessel.
VALIDATION
In addition to running independent elastic FEA runs to
check the loads on practical examples, a comparison with
examples where plastic analysis was employed was also used.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Seipp [9] performed plastic analysis on a very conservative
example with elastic follow-up from a long run of a larger pipe
on a smaller nozzle and showed the loads may have
characteristics of both primary and secondary loads. The nozzle
load Table was applied to that example and elastic FEA
performed assuming all of the loads are primary and the
computed stress was less than 60% of the allowable. The plastic
analysis nozzle limit load correlations by Wu, [11], were also
compared with the Allowable nozzle loads and the design
margin was a factor of 5 to 10 or more. However, pressure was
not included in [11]. The effect of pressure was studied by
Palusamy, [12], and reviewing the effect of pressure, the
conclusion is that the Allowable Table Loads are conservative.
The ultimate goal was to provide nozzle load tables for
the complete range of pressure classes, including Class 2500,
for completeness, even though it is not likely that a Class 2500
vessel would be built to Division 1. However, the geometries
covered by the nozzle load tables cover a wide range and the
high pressure class integral nozzles are in a diameter to
thickness range where shell model results may be questioned.
Since all cases studied consider the maximum allowed pressure,
the worst case diameter to thickness ratio for the highest
pressure class vessels would be less than 10. Several 3-D elastic
FEA solid element models were run using FEPipe, [13], to
compare with the high pressure class (CL 1500 and CL 2500)
nozzle loads developed using the shell model approach.
Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the heavy wall shell element
FEA and solid element FEA models respectively. The models
were loaded with the same nozzle loads as developed with the
shell model. The results showed significant differences in the
maximum membrane plus bending stresses due to pressure for
the shell and solid element models. However, the SCLs (Stress
Classification Lines) were different for the shell and solid
models. Note that the small rectangles in Figure 5 represent the
through-thickness nodes for the SCLs of interest. These SCLs
of interest are the areas in the model where the maximum
membrane, maximum bending, or maximum membrane plus
bending occur. The solid element models picked up the high
pressure stresses at the inside corner, which are not in the shell
element models. A comparison along equivalent SCLs is
anticipated to be better. However, the maximum stresses due to
external loads only (no pressure) were comparable between
models and the shell model was in general more conservative.
Since internal pressure governs the design of these nozzles, the
actual computed membrane plus bending stresses from the 3-D
solid element FEA models due to external loads alone were a
very small fraction of the allowable stress limits. The same is
true for the shell model stresses. Although the 3-D Solid
element models could not provide validation of the shell models
for the high pressure classes, the nozzle loads have very little
effect on the total stresses in the high pressure classes, and are
reasonable in magnitude. However, we recommend that the
6 Copyright 2011 by ASME
 stresses for the higher pressure classification nozzles should be
validated by use of the 3-D FEA solid elements models.
A 3-D solid element FEA model of a Class 300 vessel
with a reinforcing pad was also developed. The primary local
membrane plus bending and secondary membrane plus bending
stresses were within 10% of the shell model results using the
effective pad thickness.
NOMENCLATURE
P = Internal Pressure
D = Vessel Diameter
d = Nozzle Diameter
T = Vessel Thickness
t = Nozzle Thickness
tp = Reinforcing Pad Thickness
te = Effective Combined Shell Plus Pad Thickness
S = Section VIII Division 1 Allowable Stress
Mi = External Moment about Axis i
Fi = External Force Acting along Axis i
Axis x = Centerline of Nozzle directed radial out
Axis y = Centerline of Vessel directed up
Axis z = Direction x cross y (Right Hand rule)
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
Allowable nozzle load tables for shells and heads have
been developed that include the six coincident load
components, conservative geometry and the maximum effect of
pressure. Guidance is provided to extend the tables to other
thicknesses and materials. Future work may include adjustments
for the proportioning of piping loads, use of higher strength
materials and the use of plastic analysis to achieve more
optimum limits.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the
management of Ambitech Engineering Corp. for their support of
the work.
REFERENCES
[1] Wichman, K.R., Hopper, A.G., Mershon, J. L., Local
Stresses in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells due to External
Loadings. Welding Research Council Bulletin 107, March
1979.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[2] Mershon, J. L., Mokhtarian, K., Ranjan, G. V., and
Rodabaugh, E. C., Local Stresses in Cylindrical Shells Due to
External Loadings on Nozzles-Supplement to WRC Bulletin
No. 107, Welding Research Council Bulletin 297, August 1984
[3] Mokhtarian, K., Endicott, J.S., Stresses in Intersecting
Cylinders subjected to Pressure, Welding Research Council
Bulletin 368, November 1991.
[4] Koves, W., Mokhtarian, K., Rodabaugh, E., Widera,
G.E.O., Wei, Z., Large Diameter Ratio Shell Intersections,
Welding Research Council Bulletin 497, December 2004.
[5] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII,
Division 1, 2010, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
[6] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII,
Division 2, 2010, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
[7] Koves, W.J., Sanger, R., Evaluation of Pressure Design
Criteria for Nozzles, Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 2, July 1996
ASME Design and Analysis, Ed. A. Chaaban,
[8] Nozzle/Pro V8.0, Paulin Research Group
[9] Seipp, T.G., George, S.V.P., Morrison, S.W., Classification
Issues of Nozzle Loads, PVP2005-71535, Proceedings of
PVP2005, July 17-21, 2005, Denver, CO
[10] Hechmer, J.L., and Hollinger, G.L., 3D Stress Criteria
Guidelines for Applications, WRC Bulletin 429, February 1998,
Welding Research Council, New York, NY
[11] Wu, B.H., Sang, Z.F., Widera, G.E.O, Plastic Analysis for
Cylindrical Vessels under In-Plane Moment on Nozzle, Journal
of Pressure Vessel Technology
[12] Palusamy, S., Influence of External Loads on Pressure-
Carrying Capacity of Outlet Connections, ASME Transaction
Paper 72-PVP-8.
[13] FEPipe V6.0, Paulin Research Group
7 Copyright 2011 by ASME
 NOZZLE ALLOWABLE LOAD TABLES

Table 1A Table 2
Class 150 Nozzle Loads Class 300 Nozzle Loads
Vessels with Thickness >= 0.25 Vessels with Thickness >= 0.375

Load(Lbs) Moments (Ft-Lbs) Load(Lbs) Moments (Ft-Lbs)

Axial Long Circ Long Circ Torsion Axial Long Circ Long Circ Torsion
NPS Fx Fy Fz Mz My Mx NPS Fx Fy Fz Mz My Mx
2 670 670 500 340 220 420 2 1,030 1,030 770 500 370 620
3 1,030 1,030 770 890 590 1,110 3 1,320 1,320 990 1,040 780 1,300
4 1,160 1,160 870 1,370 910 1,720 4 1,600 1,600 1,200 1,700 1,280 2,130
6 1,430 1,430 1,070 2,140 1,430 2,680 6 2,180 2,180 1,630 3,170 2,380 3,960
8 1,510 1,510 1,130 3,290 2,190 4,110 8 2,270 2,270 1,700 5,210 3,900 6,510
10 1,600 1,600 1,200 4,320 2,880 5,400 10 2,360 2,360 1,770 7,470 5,600 9,330
12 1,680 1,680 1,260 5,040 3,360 6,300 12 2,450 2,450 1,840 9,790 7,340 12,240
14 1,790 1,790 1,350 6,240 4,160 7,800 14 2,980 2,980 2,240 12,150 9,110 15,190
16 1,910 1,910 1,430 7,340 4,900 9,180 16 3,510 3,510 2,640 14,330 10,750 17,910
18 2,020 2,020 1,520 8,270 5,510 10,340 18 4,050 4,050 3,030 16,190 12,140 20,230
20 1,930 1,930 1,450 9,010 6,010 11,260 20 4,900 4,900 3,670 19,430 14,570 24,290
22 1,840 1,840 1,380 9,440 6,300 11,800 22 5,750 5,750 4,310 22,850 17,140 28,560
24 1,740 1,740 1,310 9,500 6,340 11,880 24 6,600 6,600 4,950 26,400 19,800 33,000

Table 1B
Class 150 Nozzle Loads Tables are based on carbon steels (SA-516 Gr. 70, SA-106
Gr. B, SA-105 and similar) at a design temperature not greater
Vessels with Thickness >= 0.375 than 650F and reinforced nozzles, except NPS 2. Thickness
limits are exclusive of corrosion allowance.
Load(Lbs) Moments (Ft-Lbs)
Axial Long Circ Long Circ Torsion
NPS Fx Fy Fz Mz My Mx
2 980 980 740 490 330 610
3 1,130 1,130 850 980 650 1,220
4 1,290 1,290 970 1,510 1,010 1,890
6 1,600 1,600 1,200 2,390 1,600 2,990
8 1,740 1,740 1,300 3,730 2,490 4,670
10 1,880 1,880 1,410 5,020 3,340 6,270
12 2,020 2,020 1,510 6,050 4,030 7,560
14 2,240 2,240 1,680 7,710 5,140 9,640
16 2,470 2,470 1,850 9,390 6,260 11,740
18 2,700 2,700 2,020 11,030 7,350 13,790
20 3,190 3,190 2,390 14,360 9,570 17,950
22 3,690 3,690 2,770 18,270 12,180 22,840
24 4,180 4,180 3,140 22,810 15,210 28,510

8 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Figure 4
Finite Element Shell Model
Figure 5
Finite Element Solid Model

9 Copyright 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/02/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use