Feature Report

Benefiting from Nozzle

Flexibility in Piping Design
The inclusion of nozzle flexibility (directional spring rate) in pipe-stress analysis results
in more realistic piping reactions on pressure-vessel nozzles, whereby it will be easier
to meet the limited nozzle-load capacity of the nozzles. It will surely contribute to a
cost-effective design that ensures structural integrity demands
Walther Stikvoort
Consultant

P
iping systems are charac-
teristic of every process
plant. Piping systems
connect various process
equipment items, such as pres-
sure vessels, pumps, compressors,
turbines, heat exchangers and so
on. It is common practice that a
formal pipe-stress analysis is per-
formed for critical piping systems.
The pipe-stress analysis performed
should comply with the required
design code or standard. This FIGURE 1. Shown here are the directions with significant nozzle flexibilities
analysis not only requires assessing
the stresses in the piping system that the pipe-stress engineer has ing on the boundary conditions used
against the allowable stresses, but considered the terminal point to the in the analysis of the piping system.
also assessing the piping reactions equipment infinitely rigid rather than While a pressure vessel can be
that the piping system exerts on the as an element with finite flexibility in considered relatively stiff, it is not
connecting equipment. The prob- his or her pipe stress analysis. infinitely rigid at the nozzles. Com-
lem that arises here often focuses The assumption of a rigid connec- pletely constraining the model of the
on the assessment of the piping tion for most pressure vessels in the piping system where it connects to
reactions, which in many cases low- or moderate-pressure regime is the pressure vessel will result in ex-
should adhere to company specifi- very conservative and will not lead to ternal nozzle loads that may be an
cations. The reason why the piping realistic piping reactions. Hence, the order-of-magnitude higher than re-
reactions exceed the permissible magnitude of the nozzle loads from ality. The solution can be found by
values according to the company the piping-system stress analysis inclusion of nozzle flexibility into the
specification often lies in the fact may be overly conservative, depend- pipe-stress analysis. The pressure-
vessel engineer can provide values
for the stiffness of the pressure ves-
TABLE 1. VESSEL DATA OF PAD REINFORCED NOZZLE IN CYLINDRICAL SHELL
sel at the nozzles locations for the
HORIZONTAL VESSEL & FLUSH NOZZLE DATA piping stress analyst to use. This in-
Design pressure: Design temperature:
Corrosion allowance: 0 mm Pressure Class: 300 clusion will produce more accurate
Rated pressure: 4.38
1.9 MPa (19 bars) 200°C
MPa (43.8 bars)
loads at the nozzles. Most systems
would have the piping forces and
Outside diameter cylin- Nozzle size:
drical shell: Wall thickness shell: NPS 6 in. (NB 500)
Nozzle thickness: 12.7 moments increased by two or three
mm (nominal): 11.11 times when the connections are con-
2,000 mm 20 mm Outside nozzle diameter:
mm net
508 mm sidered rigid, as compared with that
Width of repad: Nozzle stand-out: Length of cylindrical shell: calculated with flexible connections.
Thickness of repad:
180 mm
20 mm
250 mm 3,556 mm Among the six degrees of freedom
at a vessel connection, the flex-
Nozzle location: mid- Shell and repad ma-
Nozzle material: A 106 Gr. B
Flange material: A 105 ibilities in the directions of the two
way shell terial: A 515 Gr. 60 bending moments (Mx and Mz) and

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHEMENGONLINE.COM AUGUST 2024 33

 TABLE 2. RESULTS OF STIFFNESSES AS PER NUMERICAL ANALYSES reflect the ability of the nozzle to ro-
Source NozzlePRO FE/Pipe PV Elite tate and displace. To better define
Axial stiffness (FY), N/mm 258,639 256,172 256,861 the loading on the equipment nozzles
Inplane rotational stiffness (MZ), it becomes apparent that the nozzle
681,249,216 678,000,000 677,132,608
Nmm/deg stiffness would need to be included in
Outplane rotational stiffness (MX), the piping flexibility analysis.
221,089,008 220,000,000 219,810,432
Nmm/deg The stiffness of the nozzle heavily in-
Torsional rotational stiffness (MY), fluences the stresses in the piping sys-
14,649,185,280 13,200,000,000 13,951,570,944
Nmm/deg tem and also the forces and moments
acting on the nozzle itself. Defining the
TABLE 3. RESULTS OF STIFFNESSES AS PER ANALYTICAL METHODS nozzle as a fixed endpoint for the pip-
Source WRC 297 PD 5500 Annex G
ing can be unnecessarily conservative
or can also render non-conservative
Axial stiffness (FY), N/mm 2,135,594 Rigid
results for piping stresses.
Inplane rotational stiffness (MZ), Nmm/deg 14,014,902,000 Rigid The nozzle stiffness and stress
Outplane rotational stiffness (MX), Nmm/deg 232,960,000 Rigid results using different calculation
Torsional rotational stiffness (MY), Nmm/deg Not applicable Not applicable methods, such as WRC-297 [1],
PD 5500 Annex G [2], and finite el-
TABLE 4. OVERVIEW OF PIPING REACTIONS FOR SITUATIONS #1AND #2 ement analysis (FEA), are quite di-
verse. The analysis results for FEA
SITUATION #1
gives the most reliable and realistic
Node Load Case FX, N FY, N FZ, N MX, Nm MY, Nm MZ, Nm
results compared to the other meth-
1/Vert.Noz ods. However, FEA can increase the
1 (OPE) 157 –476 –427 –883 833 70 time and cost parameters associ-
2 (SUS) 148 –1164 –17 34 275 –870 ated with the normal design process.
3 (EXP) 8 708 –410 –917 558 940
However, due to mostly psychologi-
cal concerns, the inclusion of vessel
MAX 157/L1 –1,164/L2 –427/L1 –917/L3 833/L1 940/L3
flexibility in the piping analysis is still
SITUATION #1 not universal. Some vessel engineers
Node Load Case FX, N FY, N FZ, N MX, Nm MY, Nm MZ, Nm worry that the inclusion of shell flex-
2/Horiz.Noz ibility will ultimately result in a stiffer
1 (OPE) –157 –3124 427 696 -459 –4,308
piping system that might cause
damage to the vessel. This is partly
2 (SUS) –146 –2417 17 –2 131 –3,308
true, but it mostly has an adverse ef-
3 (EXP) –8 –708 410 698 –590 –1,000 fect on the quality of the plant.
MAX –157/L1 –3124/L1 427/L1 698/L3 -590/L3 –4,308/L1 Procedures for calculating stiffness
coefficients, taken from Refs. 1 and
SITUATION #2 2, are described in Refs. 3 and 4.
Node Load Case FX, N FY, N FZ, N MX, Nm MY, Nm MZ, Nm
Nozzle flexibilities
1/Vert.Noz Consider an example of a vessel
1 (OPE) 556 –1,105 –221 80 1,276 –851 with a pad-reinforced nozzle in the
2 (SUS) 478 –1,553 99 547 751 –1,368 cylindrical shell. The data for such
3 (EXP) 78 448 –320 –467 525 517 a vessel are presented in Table 1.
The nozzle flexibilities for the pres-
MAX 556/L1 –1,553/L2 –320/L3 547/L2 1,276/L1 –1,368/L2
sure vessel according to Table 1 are
SITUATION #2
shown in Table 2.
Node Load Case FX, N FY, N FZ, N MX, Nm MY, Nm MZ, Nm Table 2 shows that the nozzle
2/Horiz.Noz flexibilities calculated with different
1 (OPE) –556 –2,495 221 595 224 –1,619 software programs are almost the
2 (SUS) –478 –2,048 –99 10 575 –1,373
same. All of these software pro-
grams are based on numerical FEA.
3 (EXP) –78 –448 320 585 –352 –247
Furthermore, the nozzle flexibilities
MAX –556/L1 –2,495/L1 320/L3 595/L1 575/L2 –1,619/L1 have also been calculated in accor-
dance with WRC 297 and PD 5500
the direct axial force (Fy) are con- Vessel-piping interface flexibility Annex G, as included in the pipe
sidered significant (Figure 1). Flex- As mentioned before, equipment stress analysis software package
ibilities of torsion and direct shear nozzles are normally modeled as CAESAR II. The results of this exer-
directions are generally ignored and rigid piping junctions, which result in cise are shown in Table 3. Note that,
considered rigid. nozzle loads that do not adequately for both methods, extrapolation of
34 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHEMENGONLINE.COM AUGUST 2024
FIGURE 2. This diagram shows the vessel-piping configuration for the ex-
ample discussed in the text

the curves is required. However, extrapolation will lead

to a stiffer intersection.
The nozzle flexibilities computed with NozzlePRO,
FE/Pipe and PV Elite differ significantly from those
computed with CAESAR II according to WRC 297 and
PD 5500 Annex G.
We demonstrate the effect of nozzle flexibility using
a piping configuration in which the piping connects to
a nozzle in the middle of a curved head of a vertical
pressure vessel on the one hand and to the cylindrical
shell of a horizontal pressure vessel on the other. It is
important to mention that the configuration is not aimed
at a stress-wise optimal result, but is randomly chosen
to show the effects of nozzle flexibility.

An example
For the configuration shown in Figure 2, the piping reac-
tions were determined with the CAESAR II Pipe Stress
Program. This concerns an NPS 6-in. (NB 150) sched-
ule 40 pipe with Class 150 connection flanges on the
vessels. Both pressure vessels have an outside diam-
eter of 1,000 mm and a wall thickness of 10 mm. The
system is designed for an internal pressure of 7 bars
(0.7 MPa) and a temperature of 350°C. Nozzle 1 (top
nozzle) is located in the middle of the top head of the
vertical vessel and Nozzle 2 (lowest nozzle) is located
in the middle of the cylindrical shell of the horizontal
vessel with a length of 4,000 mm between the tangent
lines. The horizontal shell rests on two saddles of which
the right saddle is a fixed point and the left saddle is a
sliding point. The distance between the symmetrically
placed saddles is 3,000 mm. The vertical pressure ves-
sel is supported by a skirt and attached to a concrete
foundation by means of anchor bolts. The contents of
the pipe system contain a gaseous mixture with a fluid
density of 0 kg/m3. Insulation of the piping has been
omitted. Two situations have been analyzed:
Situation #1. Without taking the nozzle flexibility into
account for the two nozzle connections, which means
that the connection points are assumed to be com-
pletely rigid.

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHEMENGONLINE.COM For details visit adlinks.chemengonline.com/86466-12

 TABLE 5. OVERVIEW DIRECTIONAL SPRING RATE (NOZZLE FLEXIBILITY) Case 3 (EXP): L3 = L1 – L2
Nozzle 1 on top of head Where:
Ref. 3 (Flexible OPE = operating load case
Calculated with FE/Pipe finite
Method
element method (FEM)
nozzle neck approach) calcu- SUS = sustained load case
lated manually
EXP = expansion load case
Axial translational stiffness, N/mm 161,250 145,588 W = Dead weight (pipe weight, insu-
Rotational bending stiffness, Nm/deg 18,195 25,000 lation weight, refractory weight, clad-
Nozzle 2 on cylindrical shell ding weight, fluid weight, rigid weight
Method FE/Pipe (FEM)
T1 = Thermal Set 1 (Temperature #1)
P1 = Pressure set 1 (Pressure #1)
Axial transitional stiffness, N/mm 36,556
L3 = L1– L2 (a combination case that
Longitudinal bending stiffness, Nm/deg 18,999 combines the displacements, forces,
Circumferential bending stiffness, Nm/deg 6,301 and stresses)
Table 4 gives an overview of the
Situation #2. The nozzle flexibility in Situation #1. Nozzle 1 and Nozzle 2 results of the calculations for the pip-
the CAESAR II run has been taken without nozzle flexibility (rigid) ing reactions for Situations #1 and
into account for both Nozzle 1 and Situation #2. Nozzle 1 and Nozzle 2 #2. It should be noted that the shear
Nozzle 2. Flexibility of both nozzles both with nozzle flexibility forces are normally left out of consid-
have been computed with the nu- Note that nozzle flexibility is synony- eration, since they have a minor ef-
merical FE/Pipe software package. mous with directional spring rate. fect on the stress levels in the vicinity
The results of the CAESAR II pipe The following is extracted from of the nozzle intersection.
stress analysis are shown in Table 4. the CAESAR II Pipe Stress Analysis Table 5 gives a summary of direc-
Software: tional spring rate (nozzle flexibility) for
Results of piping reactions Load case definition key Nozzle 1 on top of the head, and for
To summarize, the following situa- Case 1 (OPE): W + T1 + P1 Nozzle 2 on the cylindrical shell.
tions are distinguished: Case 2 (SUS): W + P1

TABLE 6. OVERVIEW OF PIPING REACTIONS & LOAD RATIOS FOR SITUATIONS #1AND #2
SITUATION #1 (RIGID NOZZLE)
M=(MX2+MZ2)0.5, MT=My,
Node Load Case ΦP ΦB ΦI F=FY, N Mx, Nm MZ, Nm
Nm Nm
1 (OPE) 0.3730 0.2075 0.5829 –476 886 –883 833 70

Nozzle 1 on top of head 2 (SUS) 0.3730 0.2040 0.5800 –1,164 871 34 275 –870

3 (EXP) 0.3730 0.3075 0.6793 708 1,313 –917 558 940

SITUATION #1 (RIGID NOZZLE)
MT=MX, ML=My, MC=MZ,
Node Load Case ΦP ΦB ΦI F=FX, N
Nm Nm Nm
1 (OPE) 0.4849 1.9843 2.0332 –157 696 –459 –4,308

Nozzle 2 on shell 2 (SUS) 0.4849 1.5221 1.5850 –146 –2 131 –3,308

3 (EXP) 0.4849 0.4760 0.6496 –8 698 –590 –1,000

SITUATION #2 (FLEXIBLE NOZZLE)

M=(MX2+MZ2)0.5, MT=My,
Node Load Case ΦP ΦB ΦI F=FY, N Mx, Nm MZ, Nm
Nm Nm
1 (OPE) 0.3730 0.2003 0.5788 –1,105 855 80 1,276 –851

Nozzle 1 on top of head 2 (SUS) 0.3730 0.3450 0.7226 –1,553 1,473 547 751 –1,368

3 (EXP) 0.3730 0.1633 0.5357 448 697 –467 525 517

SITUATION #2 (FLEXIBLE NOZZLE)
MT=MX, ML=My, MC=MZ,
Node Load Case ΦP ΦB ΦI F=FX, N
Nm Nm Nm
1 (OPE) 0.4849 0.7463 0.8696 –556 595 224 –1,619

Nozzle 2 on shell 2 (SUS) 0.4849 0.6428 0.7818 –478 10 575 –1,373

3 (EXP) 0.4849 0.1350 0.4624 –78 585 –352 –247

36 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHEMENGONLINE.COM AUGUST 2024

 TABLE 7. INFLUENCE OF NOZZLE higher flange class (class 300) must piping forces and moments applied
FLEXIBILITY ON NATURAL FREQUENCY
be chosen. to connecting equipment are not ex-
Lowest model natural frequencies computed cessive. Excessive piping loads may
by CAESAR II
Evaluation methodologies hinder the proper functionality of the
Situation #1 Situation #2 It should be recognized that the main equipment. The function of main-
purpose of piping-stress analysis is taining system operability requires
5.385 Hz (first mode) 4.299 Hz (first mode) to ensure the structural integrity of the investigation of the interface ef-
the piping and to maintain the op- fects with connecting equipment. It
11.783 Hz (2nd mode) 7.283 Hz (2nd mode)
erability of the system. The latter is therefore quite crucial to evaluate
15.612 Hz (3rd mode) 10.203 Hz (3rd mode) function is mainly to ensure that the the acceptability of the loads exerted

Assessment interface between

vessel and piping
As another exercise, we perform the
nozzle-load analysis for the same
two situations as above according to P R OV E N H 2 P E R F O R M A N C E.
EN 13445-3, using VES - Software.
The software combines the effects of
simultaneously acting pressure, axial
R E VO LU T I O N A RY D E S I G N.
load and bending moment where the
following conditions must be met:
E X T R AO R D I N A RY R E S U LT S.
|ΦP| ≤ 1.0 (Individual load ratio)
|ΦB| ≤ 1.0 (Individual load ratio)
|ΦI| ≤ 1.0 (Load interaction ratio) ˘
Note that the load ratios for shear FREE JET® GEN 3™ DELIVERS LESS NO X
loads have been ignored because
the effect is negligible.
WITH LOWER COST.
The results of the calculations are
Extraordinary happens when Zeeco and
presented in Table 6.
The load ratios marked in red ex- ExxonMobil combine forces to develop
ceed the permitted unity ratios (1.0) a new burner that puts industry on the
according to EN 13445-3 [5]. This
means that the nozzle load calculated path to net zero. The ZEECO® FREE JET
with CAESAR II for the nozzle on the Gen 3 uses proven technology and an
horizontal pressure vessel is too high.
innovative square burner design plus a
It turns out that if we perform a
calculation in accordance with both staged fuel approach to deliver remarkable
WRC 107 [6] and WRC 297 [1] to performance improvements, even with
evaluate the stresses for Nozzle 2,
assuming that the intersection of the tight burner spacing, across a range of
nozzles is completely rigid, then the fuels. Achieve next-gen ultra-low NOx
nozzle loads are even not permis-
emissions even when firing 100% H2.
sible. However, when the flexibility
of the nozzle is taken into account, it
appears that for Nozzle 2 the nozzle
loads according to EN 13445-3 are
amply permissible. This also applies
if the nozzle loads are evaluated ac-
cording to WRC 297 and FE/Pipe
(FEA). We can therefore conclude
that the results where the nozzle is
considered flexible are more favor- Learn more at www.zeeco.com/gen3 ZEECO INC. +1 (918) 258-8551 | [email protected]
able in terms of nozzle loading. An BURNERS | FLARES | THERMAL OXIDIZERS | VAPOR CONTROL | RENTALS | AFTERMARKET
evaluation of the flange loads ac- © 2024 Zeeco Inc. All rights reserved.

cording to different methods resulted

in overloaded flanges class 150 for
both situations, which means that a For details visit adlinks.chemengonline.com/86466-13

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHEMENGONLINE.COM AUGUST 2024 37

 by the piping on the nozzle flanges F = FX Using the value for M determined
and the local stresses in the vicinity MT = MX above, Equation (1) gives:
of the nozzle-vessel intersection. The ML = MY (longitudinal moment) Peq = 16 × 4,332,383/π194.63 + 0 +
detailed evaluations are as follows, MC = MZ (circumferential moment) 0.7 = 3.694 MPa
using the nomenclature defined here: The following are flange rating This is much greater than the pres-
Nomenclature: evaluation methods for flanges con- sure rating of 0.84 MPa.
DBC = bolt circle diameter forming to ASME B16.5 and ASME Equation (2) is evaluation of Peq ac-
F = axial tensile force on flange B16.47 subjected to external loads, cording to Paragraph 4.3 Chapter D
FM = moment factor (according Table using data from Table 5. 0701 (Rules for pressure vessels):
UG-44-1) To evaluate the maximum flange
G = diameter of effective gasket load for Nozzle 2 on the cylindrical
reaction shell Situation #1 (rigid nozzle),
KV = “Koves” factor (according para-
graph 2 of D 0701) is moment cor- M = (MC2 + ML2)1/2 = (4,3082 +
rection factor 4592)1/2 = (2)
M = bending moment on flange 4,332.383 Nm = 4,332,383 Nmm
PD = design pressure Using the value for M determined
Peq = equivalent pressure (for check- F is a compressive force, so can be above, Equation (2) gives:
ing against flange rating) entered at a value of 0 N. Peq = 16 × 4,332,383/(π194.62 ×
PR = pressure rating = 0.84 MPa 241.3 × 2.7) + 0 + 0.7 = 1.5943 MPa
The following applies to Nozzle 1 Equation (1) is the Kellogg method for This is also greater than the pressure
on top head of Figure 2: determining the equivalent pressure: rating of 0.84 MPa.
F = FY
M = (MX2 + MZ2)1/2 Another method for determining Peq
MT = MY (torsional moment) is the UG-44 ASME VIII-1 method,
The following applies to Nozzle 2 on given by Equation (3):
cylindrical shell of Figure 2: (1)

For details visit adlinks.chemengonline.com/86466-14

38 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHEMENGONLINE.COM AUGUST 2024
 shapes describe the tendency of a significant response to the source
the structure to vibrate when sub- of excitation, only modes with lower
jected to dynamic loading. Natural frequencies are calculated for the
frequencies and mode shapes of a analysis. Assigning nozzle flexibil-
(3) structure are determined by modal ity influences the dynamic behavior
analysis. They are computed start- of the pipework. For the system in
Using the value for M determined ing from the mode with the lowest question, the differences in natural
above, the left side of the inequality frequency. The lowest natural fre- frequencies are relatively small (Table
of Equation (3) gives: quency is called the fundamental 7). If the nozzle flexibility is taken into
Peq = 16 × 4,332,383/(π194.63) + 0 natural frequency. Since only the account, this leads to a lower natu-
+ 0.7 = 3.694 MPa, which is greater modes with lower frequencies get ral frequency of the pipework, which
that the expression on the right of
the inequality:
(1 + 1.2)0.84 = 1.848 MPa.
In fact, it is important to note that
none of the conditions are met for
the most heavily loaded nozzle flange
(Nozzle 2, Situation #1)! However,
when we enter the bending moment
that applies to Situation #2, it ap-
pears that the flange load according
to UG-44 can be tolerated for the
class 150 flange, because Equation
(1) in this case is:
M = (MX2 + MZ2)1/2 = (1,6192 +
2242)1/2 =
1,634.423 Nm = 1,634,423 Nmm
In this case, the left side of the in-
equality of Equation (3) gives:
Peq = 16 × 1,634,423/(π194.63) + 0
+ 0.7 = 1.8296 MPa
which is less than the right side of
the inequality of Equation (3),
(1 + 1.2)0.84 =1.848 MPa.

Comment
If the evaluation according to the
above methodologies fails, there
is an option to evaluate the flange
connection according to ASME
BPVC Section VIII - Division 1; Ap-
pendix 2 [7] in which the external
loads are converted into an equiv-
alent pressure and added to the
design pressure that must be suc-
cessively entered in the flange cal-
culation. For the relevant NPS 6-in.
Class 150 flange, this means that
the flange complies. Such a check
was also carried out in accordance
with EN 13445-3; clause 11 and
it was found that the flange rating
was satisfactory.

Natural frequency
Natural frequency and mode shapes
are dynamic properties of the struc-
ture. They are controlled by the
mass and stiffness of the system.
The natural frequency and mode
For details visit adlinks.chemengonline.com/86466-15

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHEMENGONLINE.COM AUGUST 2024 39

 3. Schwarz, Martin M., Flexibility Analysis of the Vessel - Piping
can be seen as a general trend in flange with the equipment in particular Interface, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping,
81, pp. 181–189, 2004.
piping systems. Furthermore, the can be avoided. Anyway, inclusion of 4. E. Weiss, W. and Joost, H., Local and global flexibility of nozzle-
magnitude of the system stresses the nozzle flexibility shows a decreas- to-vessel intersections under local loads as boundary conditions
for piping system design, International Journal of Pressure Ves-
and the stress distribution are influ- ing trend in the magnitude of nozzle sels and Piping, 73, pp. 241–247, 1997.
enced by considering the flexibility of loads. Overall, it is plausible that in- 5. EN 13445-3:2021: "Unfired Pressure Vessels Design.”
the nozzle. The intensity of the sys- corporating nozzle flexibility into the 7. WRC 107 “Local Stresses In Spherical And Cylindrical Shells Due
To External Loadings”— Wichman, K.R., Hopper, A.G. and
tem stresses decreases if the nozzle pipe-stress analysis provides benefits Mershon, J.L., Bulletin Circular by Welding Research Council,
Inc.,1965.
flexibility is taken into account in the with respect to lower exerted loads
8. ASME BPVC-VIII-1 : July 1, 2023 ; Section VIII — Rules for
pipe stress analysis. on pressure-vessel nozzles, more Construction of Pressure Vessels, Division 1.
realistic system stresses and stress
Concluding remarks distribution without compromising the
From this study, it can be concluded structural integrity. n Author
that for relatively thin pressure ves- Edited by Gerald Ondrey Walther Stikvoort (stikvoort@
sels, it is very attractive to take the ziggo.nl) is a renowned authority in
the field of mechanical and struc-
nozzle flexibility into account in the Acknowledgement tural integrity of static pressure
pipe-stress analysis. This not only The author is grateful to Mamdouh equipment. He has more than 50
results in more realistic nozzle loads Abdel Alim for performing the CAE- years of experience in pressure
vessel and piping design and has
compared to when the piping-vessel SAR II pipe stress analyzes together developed numerous technical
interface is considered completely with the constructive consultations, standards and practices to im-
prove the asset integrity of leading
rigid, but can also lead to advan- and Farzad Gardaneh for running the operating companies. He is the author of numerous
tages for the piping layout (narrower FE/Pipe and WRC 297 analyses. peer-reviewed international journal articles in the field of
footprint). In addition, you prevent the mechanical and structural integrity. During his career he
was regularly active in developing and teaching courses
pressure-vessel nozzle from requiring References and training to mechanical engineers in his area of ex-
additional reinforcement on top of that 1. WRC 297 “Local Stresses In Cylindrical Shells Due To External pertise and he was a member of various expertise com-
Loadings On Nozzles”— Supplement to WRC Bulletin No.
required for internal pressure. Another 107 (Revision I); Mershon, J. L., Mokhtarian, K., Ranjan, G.V. mittees. He is currently active as a consultant on static
and Rodabaugh, E. C., Bulletin Circular by Welding Research pressure equipment integrity for the engineering com-
advantage is that in many cases a Council, Inc., 1984. munity on request.
higher flange rating of the connecting 2. PD 5500:2021+A2:2022, “Specification for Unfired Pressure
CIC-10307 halfp page ad.qxd 3/25/07 6:19 PM Page 1
Vessels.”

PLASTIC CONTROL VALVES FOR

ALL YOUR CORROSIVE APPLICATIONS
Collins plastic control valves are
highly responsive control valves
designed for use with corrosive
media and/or corrosive atmos-
pheres.
Collins valves feature all-plastic
construction with bodies in PVDF,
PP, PVC and Halar in various body
styles from 1/2" - 2" with Globe,
Angle or Corner configurations and
many trim sizes and materials.
Valves may be furnished without
positioner for ON-OFF applications.
Call for more information on our
plastic control valves.

P.O. Box 938 • Angleton, TX 77516

Tel. (979) 849-8266 • www.collinsinst.com

For details visit adlinks.chemengonline.com/86466-16

40 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHEMENGONLINE.COM AUGUST 2024