Proceedings of the ASME 2018

Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference

PVP2018
July 15-20, 2018, Prague, Czech Republic

PVP2018-84582

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PRESSURE AREA METHOD OF NOZZLE COMPENSATION IN ASME

SECTION VIII DIVISION 2 AND PD 5500 FOR RESTRICTIONS IN NOZZLE DIMENSIONS

Shyam Gopalakrishnan Ameya Mathkar

Lloyd's Register Asia Lloyd's Register Asia
63-64, Kalpataru Square, Kondivita Lane, 63-64, Kalpataru Square, Kondivita Lane,
Chakala, Andheri, Maharashtra, Mumbai – 400059, India Chakala, Andheri, Maharashtra, Mumbai – 400059, India
Email: shyam.gopalakrishnan@lr.org Email: ameya.mathkar@lr.org
Phone: +91-22-42603146 Phone: +91-22-42603144

ABSTRACT In comparison to certain restrictions in PD 5500[5] there

appears to be no restriction on the physical dimensions of the
Clause 4.5 of ASME Section VIII Division 2[1] provides rules nozzle or shell in ASME Section VIII Division 2[1], as long as
for compensation of openings in cylindrical shells having the required area AT is obtained and the stresses are within
fitted nozzles. allowable limits.

The rules provided in Clause 4.5.5 of ASME Section VIII
Division 2[1] are based on pressure-area method which is
based on ensuring that the reactive force provided by the
vessel material is greater than or equal to the load from the
pressure.
It is therefore possible that all of the required area AT is
obtained either from the nozzle or from the shell. While both
these alternatives would be acceptable in ASME Section VIII
Division 2[1] design, the actual stresses at the shell/nozzle
junction may vary considerably.

Clause 3.5.4 of PD 5500[5] provides rules for compensation of The work reported in this paper – a comparative study of
opening and nozzle connections. pressure area method of nozzle compensation in ASME
Section VIII Division 2[1] and PD 5500[5] for restrictions in
Clause 3.5.4.3 provides requirements for the design of isolated nozzle dimensions was undertaken to compare the results
openings and nozzle connections in the form of design obtained from both the Codes and is an extension of work
procedure. Clause 3.5.4.4 provides requirements for groups of carried out and published as PVP2015-45564.
openings and the procedure allows the checking of chosen
geometry.
NOMENCLATURE AND ABBREVIATIONS
Clause 3.5.4.9 of PD 5500[5] provides rules for compensation
of openings by pressure-area method to those geometries d Inside diameter of the nozzle
which confirms to the geometric limitations specified therein. Di Inside diameter of the shell
This method has extensive satisfactory use in European Code MAWP Maximum allowable working pressure
of practice and has been adopted in BS EN 13445-3 also. AT Total area within the limits of reinforcement
t nominal thickness of the vessel wall
The key element in applying the pressure area method is to tn nominal thickness of the nozzle wall
determine the dimensions of the reinforcing zone, i.e., the Pmax1 Maximum allowable pressure in the nozzle.
length of the shell, height of the nozzle and reinforcing pad
dimensions (if reinforcing pad is provided), that resist the
applied pressure.

1 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/10/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 INTRODUCTION was coming from the nozzle, it may not be the most ideal
situation. On the other hand, providing all required area from
Pressure vessel and piping Codes have used the area the shell by using a thickened insert would not be easy in
replacement concept for at least 80 years. This concept, fabrication. It was decided to impose the restrictions for nozzle
described in Clause UG-37 of ASME Section VIII dimensions given in Code [5] in Code [1] and compare the
Division 1[2] requires that the metal cut out by an opening be results.
replaced by reinforcement within a prescribed zone around the
opening. The concept is relatively simple and the vast majority A typical configuration is shown in Figure 1 below.
of vessels and piping with openings conforming to this
concept have given satisfactory service. At present, we have a
substantial amount of accumulated information which
indicates a degree of conservatism in area replacement
method.

E.C. Rodabaugh [3] studied the concept of area replacement

and concluded that in some applications, it could be overly
conservative. He recommended alternate rules which were
appearing as Clause 1-9 of Appendix 1 in the Code [2] till
2015 Edition. Application of these rules was however
restricted to many conditions that were specified in
Clause 1-9.

Subsequently, Clause 1-10 was added in ASME Section VIII

Division 1[2] which proposed an alternate pressure – area
method for calculation of compensation and could be used in
lieu of the rules in UG-37 and Clause 1-7. However, the
method of Appendix 1-10 is removed from Edition 2017 of
Code [2]. WRC bulletin 529[4] discusses an updated and
improved pressure-area method which is incorporated
in Code [1].
A pressure area method is also used in European Codes such
as PD 5500[5].
FIGURE 1 – TYPICAL NOZZLE ON CYLINDRICAL SHELL
ASSUMPTIONS
As such there may be infinite combinations of nozzle-shell
geometries and pressure. It was therefore necessary to make
some assumptions to make the combinations finite.
Corrosion Allowance

A study of PD 5500[5] indicated that there is a limit to the Corrosion allowance was taken as 0 mm.
maximum thickness of the nozzle that could be fitted
designated by means of a maximum branch to body thickness Shell Material
ratio, thereby limiting the amount of area that could contribute
to AT. However, there appears no such restriction with Shell material was assumed plate of SA 516-70. It could also
reference to the maximum thickness of the nozzle that could be a forging of equivalent material.
be fitted in Code [1].
Shell length was sufficient to provide the required width of
A study was undertaken to determine the effect of restriction reinforcement by the rules of Clause 4.5.5.
in the proportions of the nozzle and shell to have optimum
distribution of stresses. Shell Sizes

Shell sizes 1000 mm inside diameter was considered as a

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM sample case. Shell thickness of 25mm was assumed constant
for all calculations.
For those pressure vessel constructed to Code [5] provides a
restriction on the thickness used in design calculation of Nozzle Material
nozzle to shell. The branch nozzle to shell thickness ratio
permitted varies from a value of 1.0 to a maximum of 2.0. As forged nozzles are common in such vessels, nozzle
material selected was SA 266 Grade 2 which is a commonly
Most pressure vessels constructed to Code [1] comprise thick used carbon steel material for forgings for pressure vessel
cylindrical shells or formed heads with nozzles of varying components.
sizes. For reasons of economy or ease of manufacture, the
shells normally have a thickness adequate for applied pressure
while the nozzle which may be a heavy and large forging,
provided most (if not all) the required compensating area to
meet Code requirements. It was felt that if all required area
2 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/10/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Nozzle Sizes
Nozzle size and thickness combinations were selected such
that the geometry meets requirements of Figure3.5-31 of
PD-5500[5].
Weld Material
Weld material was assumed to have properties same as that of
the materials joined. The size of the fillets was calculated in
accordance with Detail 3 Joint Type 7 of Table 4.2.10 of
Code [1] and rounded off to the nearest integer, not exceeding
9 mm.
All the nozzles are also checked as per Code [1] for
reinforcement check. Similar observation was seen like that of
Code [5] the reinforcement was inadequate for the MAWP
considered.
Based on the reinforcement calculation per Code [1], pressure
Pmax1 was obtained which is the maximum allowable
working pressure for which reinforcement is just sufficient.
Maximum permissible pressure per PD 5500[5] and MAWP
per Code [1] was compared.

Applied Pressure

Only internal pressure was applied on the nozzle-shell

geometry.
Maximum Allowable Working Pressure (MAWP):- is the
maximum gage pressure permissible at the top of a completed
vessel in its normal operating position at the designated
coincident temperature for that pressure. This pressure is the
least of the values for the internal pressure to be determined by
the rules of Code [1], [2] for any of the pressure boundary
parts, considering static head thereon, using nominal
thicknesses exclusive of allowances for corrosion and
considering the effects of any combination of loadings
specified in the User’s Design Specification at the designated
coincident temperature. It is the basis for the pressure setting
of the pressure-relieving devices protecting the vessel.

Forces and Moments

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Externally applied forces and moments were considered nil.

PROCEDURE

The shell diameter of 1000mm was considered for comparison

study. The nozzle sizes are considered in multiples of 0.1
times diameter of the shell. Total 9 sizes of nozzles are
considered. Based on inside diameter of nozzle and shell, the
nozzle thickness were selected such that the ratio of nozzle
thickness to shell thickness versus inside diameter of nozzle to
inside diameter of shell meets the graph shown in
Figure3.5-31 of PD 5500[5]. Refer Figure 2 below showing
plot of thickness ratio to diameter ratio for various nozzles to
shell combinations. The dimensional details of shell and
nozzles are indicated in Table-1.

Based on the shell diameter of 1000mm and thickness of

25mm, MAWP of vessel was calculated as per 4.3.3 of
Code [1]. Using this MAWP initially, the nozzle
reinforcement check using pressure area method as per
PD 5500[5] is carried out for all the nozzle sizes selected.
It was observed that reinforcement area is insufficient for
nozzles with larger diameters. Hence additional iterations were
taken for reinforcement calculations of those nozzles to
calculate the maximum permissible pressure as per
PD 5500[5] for which the available reinforcement is just
sufficient.
Considering the same geometric restriction in nozzle
thicknesses in Code [2] and Code [5], the Figure 3 provides a
plot of MAWP obtained from both the Codes. From Figure 3,
it is observed that the maximum allowable working pressures
are almost identical up to a ratio of nozzle to shell diameter
equal to 0.4. Above the ratio of 0.4, it could be observed that
there is significant difference in MAWP of Code [2] and
Code [5]. Table-2 provides the data used for plotting Figure 3.

3 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/10/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 CONCLUSIONS Table -1: Dimensional detail of shell and nozzles

Study of the effect of restricted nozzle geometries in ASME Shell Shell Nozzle Nozzle Ratio of Ratio of
Section VIII Division 2 similar to that of PD 5500 reveals the inside thickness inside thickness nozzle nozzle
following: diameter (t) diameter (tn) diameter thickness
(Di) (d) to vessel to vessel
1. PD 5500 does not permit the nozzle thickness to be diameter thickness
more than double the thickness of connecting shell (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) d/Di tn/t
thickness. When the nozzle thickness is double the 1000 25 100 50 0.1 2
thickness of the shell, the MAWP obtained from 1000 25 200 50 0.2 2
PD 5500 is marginally higher than the MAWP from
1000 25 300 50 0.3 2
ASME Section VIII Division 2. The MAWP is
governed by that of the shell and not by that of the 1000 25 400 45 0.4 1.8
nozzle. 1000 25 500 40 0.5 1.6
1000 25 600 35 0.6 1.4
2. Moreover up to a ratio of inside diameters of nozzle 1000 25 700 30 0.7 1.2
to shell equal to 0.4 there is no significant change in
the MAWP obtained from both the Codes. Beyond 1000 25 800 25 0.8 1
the ratio of 0.4 the MAWP governing is that of the 1000 25 900 25 0.9 1
nozzle and not that of the shell.

3. As the ratio of inside diameters of nozzle to shell Table -2: MAWP obtained from PD 5500 and
increases from 0.4 towards 1.0 (i.e., the thickness of ASME Sec VIII Div 2
the nozzle approaches to the thickness of the shell), it
is noted that there is a significant difference in the Ratio of MAWP MAWP
MAWP obtained from both the Codes. nozzle PD5500 ASME
diameter Sec VIII
4. For ratio of inside diameter of nozzle to shell equal to to vessel Div 2
diameter
0.4 and above, it could be inferred that ASME
Section VIII Division 2 has a level of conservatism d/Di (MPa) (MPa)
built in to the Code. 0.1 8.53 8.47
0.2 8.53 8.47
0.3 8.53 8.47
REFERENCES 0.4 8.05 8.11
0.5 6.74 6.11
[1] Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels, Section VIII 0.6 5.62 4.68
Division 2 Alternative Rules: 2017, The American Society of 0.7 4.67 3.63
Mechanical Engineers.
0.8 3.85 2.88
[2] Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels, Section VIII 0.9 3.58 2.78
Division 1: 2017, The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers.

[3] E.C. Rodabaugh, 1988, “A review of Area Replacement

Rules for Pipe Connections in Pressure Vessels and Piping”,
WRC Bulletin 335

[4] Z. Cao, L. Bildy, D.A. Osage and J.C. Sowinski, 2010,

“Development of Design Rules for Nozzles in Pressure
Vessels for the ASME B&PV Code, Section VIII, Division 2,
WRC Bulletin 529.

[5] Specification for Unfired Fusion Welded Pressure Vessels,

PD 5500: 2018, the British Standards Institution, UK

4 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/10/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use