International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 86 (2009) 273–279

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

A comparative study of usefulness for pad reinforcement in cylindrical vessels

under external load on nozzle
J. Fang*, Q.H. Tang, Z.F. Sang
College of Mechanical and Power Engineering, Nanjing University of Technology, No. 5 Xin Mo Fan Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210009, P.R. China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The main purpose of this paper is to perform a comparative study of strength behavior for cylindrical
Received 26 October 2007 shell intersections with and without pad reinforcement under out-of-plane moment loading on nozzle.
Received in revised form Three pairs of full-scale test vessels with different d/D ratios were designed and fabricated for testing and
23 July 2008
analysis. A three-dimensional nonlinear finite element numerical analysis was also performed. The
Accepted 18 September 2008
maximum elastic stress for each vessel under per unit moment on nozzle is provided. The plastic limit
moment on nozzle is obtained by load–displacement and load–strain curves for each test vessel. The
Keywords:
results indicate that the effect of pad reinforcement on decreasing maximum elastic stress and increasing
Elastic stress
Plastic limit load plastic limit load is obviously effective. The study results will serve as the available data for under-
Strain measurement standing the usefulness of pad reinforcements and as the basis for developing an advanced design
Displacement measurement method by limit analysis for pad-reinforced cylindrical vessels under external loads on nozzle.
Finite element analysis Crown Copyright Ó 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction analysis on pad-reinforced nozzles in pressure vessel heads using

A pad type reinforcement structure is considered as an important
local reinforcement method in pressure vessels and piping connec-
tions because of its simple form, convenient manufacture, low cost,
and rich application experience. As a result, it is widely used for
applications with low and medium pressure, especially those with
small fluctuations in pressure and temperature. However, designers
and researchers sometimes suspect the usefulness of pad
reinforcement.
The studies concerning pad reinforcement structure in pressure
vessels and piping system have been reported in many literatures.
Soliman and Gill [1] made a theoretical elastic analysis on stresses
due to a moment applied to a pad-reinforced nozzle in a spherical
pressure vessel and compared it with experiment results. Chao and
Wu [2] investigated the stress distribution at welded-pad-rein-
forced nozzles in ellipsoidal pressure vessel heads when an internal
pressure loading is considered based on thin shell theory and dis-
cussed the effects of the size of the pad and the thickness of the
nozzle on the stress concentration. In the early time, most of the
study was limited on theoretical analysis and experiment method
[3–6]. With the development of finite element method (FEM), the
numerical simulation technology was used more and more exten-
sively in the stress investigation. Kumar and Singh [7] made an
FEM and the results showed excellent agreement with experimental
data from the literature. Guilet and Helms [8] presented several
different finite element techniques which were used to calculate the
effects of reinforcing pads on the shell stresses. Rodabangh [9]
provided a valuable and comprehensive report on area replacement
rules for pipe connections in pressure vessels and piping. Xue et al.
[10] made a comparison of the limit and burst pressures for vessels
under internal pressure with and without pad reinforcement.
However, available experimental data for pad-reinforced vessels
under external load on nozzle are very limited [11,12].
In this paper, a comparative study of mechanical behavior for
cylindrical vessels with and without pad reinforcement under out-
of-plane moment loading on nozzle was performed. Three pairs of
full-scale model vessels with different d/D ratios were designed and
fabricated for testing and numerical analyzing. The study results
indicate that the effect of pad reinforcement on increasing strength
behavior is obvious. The results also will serve as the available data
for proving the usefulness of pad reinforcement in pressure vessels
and pipe connection under external loads on nozzle.
2. Descriptions of model vessels
2.1. Construction and dimension

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ86 25 83587309. Three pairs of full-scale model vessels with a normal nozzle and
E-mail address: fjian04@sina.com (J. Fang). a different d/D ratio were designed and fabricated for the

0308-0161/$ – see front matter Crown Copyright Ó 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2008.09.010
274 J. Fang et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 86 (2009) 273–279

Nomenclature Su ultimate strength of materials

Sy yield strength of materials
Di inside diameter of cylindrical vessel d5 elongation
D mean diameter of cylindrical vessel ak impact toughness
L length of cylindrical vessel s Engineering stress from tensile test
T wall thickness of cylindrical vessel 3 Engineering strain from tensile test
L1 half-length of vessel S true stress
d mean diameter of nozzle e true strain
d* nominal diameter of nozzle d displacement
d0 outside diameter of nozzle sq circumferential stress
T1 thickness of reinforcement pad smax maximum stress
d1 diameter of pad Mo out-of-plane moment on nozzle
l length of nozzle MoL out-of-plane limit moment
t thickness of nozzle MToL out-of-plane limit moment by test
E Young’s modulus of materials MFE
oL out-of-plane limit moment by finite element analysis
m Poisson’s ratio of materials Zb section modulus of nozzle, Zb ¼ pd2t/2

experimental study and analysis. In each of the three pairs, one

vessel would be with a standard pad, the other without a pad. Every
vessel consisted of a cylinder, nozzle, flanges for fixing, loading lugs,
etc. Details of the construction and dimension for the model vessels
are shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1.

2.2. Materials and properties

The materials of the cylinder, reinforcement pad and the nozzle

are Q235-A (low carbon steel, similar to A36-77) and 20# (low carbon
steel, similar to A106-80 GrA) respectively. The actual chemical
composition and mechanical properties are given in Table 2.
Fig. 2 illustrates a typical example of true stress–strain curves
for the materials. Fig. 1. Structure of model vessel 1. flange for fixing; 2. cylinder; 3. nozzle; 4. loading
lugs; 5. cap; 6. pad.

2.3. Weld structure of the model vessels

A single V-groove butt joint as shown in Fig. 3(a) was used for
longitudinal welds. A single bevel groove fillet weld as shown in
Fig. 3(b) and (c) was used for nozzle–cylinder corner joint and for
the reinforced one. Tungsten–inert-gas arc welding and manual
electric arc welding were employed in the welds for root and
deposit respectively.
3. Experiments
3.1. Experimental technique and procedure
The electrical resistance strain and displacement measurement
methods were used during the test to obtain elastic stresses and limit
loads of the structures under out-of-plane moment on the nozzle.

Table 1
Dimension of model vessels.

No. Di (mm) L (mm) L1 (mm) T (mm) d1 (mm) T1 (mm) da (mm) d0 (mm) l (mm) t (mm) d/D t/Ta D/Ta
J1 500 1000 500 8 80 89 1000 3 0.169 0.375 63.5
J1P 500 1000 500 8 160 8 80 89 1000 3 0.169 0.25 42.3
J2 500 1000 500 8 125 133 1000 4 0.253 0.5 63.5
J2P 500 1000 500 8 250 8 125 133 1000 4 0.253 0.333 42.3
J3 500 1000 500 8 200 219 1000 5 0.421 0.625 63.5
J3P 500 1000 500 8 400 8 200 219 1000 5 0.421 0.417 42.3
a
For vessels No. J1P, J2P, J3P (with pad), it is assumed that the effective vessel wall thickness is Teff ¼ T þ T1/2 ¼ 8 þ 4 ¼ 12 mm.

Table 2
Chemical composition and mechanical properties.

Parts Materials Chemical composition (%) Tensile test Impact test

C Si Mn P S Su (MPa) Sy (MPa) d5 (%) E (GPa) m Notch type Test Temp ( C) ak (J/cm2)

Cylinder pad Q235-A 0.19 0.22 0.51 0.029 0.010 426 313 35.4 201 0.3 V Ambient 23
26
24
Nozzle 20# 0.19 0.27 0.46 0.019 0.017 481 302 30.9 212 0.3 V Ambient 149
146
154
 J. Fang et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 86 (2009) 273–279 275

Fig. 2. Typical true stress–strain curves for materials Q235-A and 20# (at ambient
temperature).

3.1.1. Strain measurement

Strains at the intersection area of the cylinders (and pads) and
nozzles were measured using 15% large strain gauges (two element
results). Strain gauges were installed in the axial direction on the
outside surface of the nozzle, and the circumferential direction on
the outside and inside surfaces of the cylinder (including pad).
Detailed location of strain gauges for model vessel J3P is typically
indicated in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Locations of strain gauges for vessel J3P.
versus displacement plots in the elastic and plastic regions. Totally
four displacement sensors were installed at different locations
along the nozzle length by rigid frames on the base plate as seen in
reference [13].

3.1.2. Displacement measurement 3.1.3. Loading and data acquisition

Displacements of typical points on the nozzle were measured The loading system consisted of applying a force at the end of
using displacement sensors to obtain load (out-of-plane moment) the nozzle by a hydraulic jack. One end of the vessels is stiffly fixed

50°

70° ± 5°
6

R2 2
2

2
2

50°
15°

R2 2
2

Fig. 3. Details of the welds (dimensions in mm): (a) V-groove butt joint; (b) nozzle–cylinder corner joint; (c) nozzle–cylinder corner joint for the reinforced vessels.
276 J. Fang et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 86 (2009) 273–279

Fig. 5. Configuration of test vessel J2 during the test: (a) side view; (b) top view.

Table 3
The maximum elastic stress from test.

Vessel No. J1 J1P J2 J2P J3 J3P

Load Mo (kN m) 2.047 2.047 3.59 3.59 4.60 4.60
Stress sq sq sq sq sq sq
Stress value smax (MPa) 242.2 195.9 282.0 112.6 189.7 74.9

Location of maximum stress

Stress per unit moment (MPa) 118.3 95.7 78.5 31.3 41.2 16.2
Rate of stress reduction (%) 19.1 60.1 60.6

Fig. 6. Plastic limit loads for vessel No. J1: (a) For displacement sensor No. 1; (b) For strain measuring point No. 1.

on a steel base plate (vessels were clamped at one end only).

A loading frame with sufficient stiffness is used so that any change
in the reaction of the measuring and loading devices during loading
does not produce any extraneous displacement. A tensile-press
force sensor is used to measure the forces applied. Fig. 5 shows
a configuration of test vessel J2 during the test. From the figure, it is
seen that an obvious transverse deformation of the nozzle was
produced under out-of-plane moment on nozzle.
The data acquisition system consisted of two subsystems which
were force, displacement collection system and strain collection
system, respectively. The systems not only recorded data auto-
matically, but also integrated and managed the recorded data, as
well as feeding back all necessary information.

3.2. Experimental results

3.2.1. Maximum elastic stress by experiment

The maximum elastic stress for the test vessels under out-of-
plane moment on nozzle is listed in Table 3.
From Table 3, it is seen that the maximum stress for every vessel
is circumferential stress sq, and it is located at a junction area of Fig. 7. Finite element mesh of model vessel J2P.
 J. Fang et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 86 (2009) 273–279 277

Table 4
The maximum elastic stress from FEA.

Vessel No. J1 J1P J2 J2P J3 J3P

Load Mo (kN m) 2.047 2.047 3.59 3.59 4.60 4.60
Stress sq sq sq sq sq sq
Stress value smax (MPa) 289.7 207.7 311.9 126.4 226.7 112.1

Location of maximum
stress

Stress per unit moment 141.5 101.4 86.8 35.2 49.3 24.3
(MPa)
Rate of stress reduction 28.3 59.4 50.7
(%)

Fig. 8. A typical FEA load–displacement curve and corresponding plastic limit load for
vessel J2P.
nozzle and cylinder for the model vessels without pad. For the
model vessels with pad, the maximum stress is transformed to
the connection area of pad and cylinder. Also it is seen that the
maximum elastic stress for the test vessels under unit load
(moment) is decreased obviously for structures with pad
reinforcement.
3.2.2. Plastic limit load
The definition of experimental plastic limit load is shown with
reference to Fig. 6(a) and (b), which illustrates typical load versus
displacement plot of the measurement point on the nozzle or load
versus strain graph of the critical gauge located near the junction of
the cylinder and nozzle.
In the figures, MToL is the plastic limit load (moment) defined by
the ASME Pressure Vessel and Bioler Code [14], i.e. the double
elastic-slope method. More precisely, this load is referred to as the
twice-elastic-slope plastic load.
Fig. 9. A typical FEA load–strain curve and corresponding plastic limit load for vessel J3.
4. Finite element numerical analysis
4.1. Analysis models
A static nonlinear finite element numerical simulation of the
test vessels has been performed using ANSYS code [15]. Three-
dimensional isoparametric solid elements defined by eight nodal
points were used to generate the FEM mesh of the cylinder, pad,
nozzle and welds. Due to the non-symmetry of the loading, the
whole test vessel was modeled. Fig. 7 shows the finite element
mesh of model vessel J2P.
4.2. Boundary condition and loading
The boundary condition used in the finite element analysis is all
the same as experiment: one end of the cylinder is fixed, while the
other end is free.

Table 5
Summary and comparison of maximum elastic stress.

Vessel No. d/D D/Teff t/Teff Load Mo (kN m) Maximum stress smax (MPa) Stress per unit load (MPa/kN m) Stress ratio (smax/(Mo/Zb))

By test By FEA By test By FEA By test By FEA By Ref. [9]

J1 0.169 63.5 0.375 2.047 242.2 289.2 118.3 141.5 2.06 2.47 4.61
J1P 0.169 42.3 0.25 2.047 195.9 207.7 95.7 101.4 1.67 1.77 2.34
J2 0.253 63.5 0.5 3.59 282.0 311.9 78.5 86.8 4.10 4.54 7.49
J2P 0.253 42.3 0.333 3.59 112.6 126.4 31.3 35.2 1.63 1.83 3.80
J3 0.421 63.5 0.625 4.60 189.7 226.7 41.2 49.3 7.41 8.85 12.10
J3P 0.421 42.3 0.417 4.60 74.9 112.1 16.2 24.3 2.92 4.37 6.17
278 J. Fang et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 86 (2009) 273–279

Table 6 Table 8
Plastic limit load from experiment (kN m). Summary and comparison of plastic limit moment.

Vessel No. Measuring point No. Average Rate of increase (%) Vessel No. Plastic limit moment MoL (kN m)

No. 1 No. 6 No. 11 No. 16 By experimenta MToL By FEAa MToL By Ref. [9] b

By load–strain plots By displacement By strain By displacement By strain

J1 4.75 5.02 4.91 4.12 4.70 38.9
J1 4.53 4.70 4.72 5.03 5.08
J1P 6.98 6.70 6.12 6.35 6.53
J1P 7.70 6.53 7.80 7.39 11.58
J2 12.23 11.56 10.03 10.66 11.12 55.5
J2 11.10 11.12 10.31 10.36 9.71
J2P 16.95 15.89 16.25 20.97 17.52
J2P 19.13 17.52 21.41 19.98 21.90
J3 23.42 21.86 21.92 22.35 22.39 54.3
J3 21.39 22.39 24.60 21.97 22.82
J3P 33.84 33.25 35.17 35.95 34.55
J3P 34.13 34.55 35.35 34.10 51.26
Vessel No. Displacement sensor No. Average Rate of increase (%) a
In the table, the values of plastic limit moment are average from different
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 measuring points for the each test vessel.
b
By load–displacement plots For vessels No. J1P, J2P, J3P (with pad), it is assumed that vessel wall thickness T is
J1 4.83 4.65 4.42 4.21 4.53 69.9 replaced by Teff (see Table 1).
J1P 7.86 7.69 7.73 7.52 7.70
J2 12.06 10.44 11.65 10.26 11.10 72.3
J2P 20.18 – 20.25 16.97 19.13 the experiment (i.e. at the location where strain gauge No. 16 on the
J3 22.62 21.02 22.71 19.21 21.39 59.5 cylinder was installed).
J3P 33.78 34.13 34.78 33.84 34.13

5. Summary and comparison

For correlating the results of the finite element simulations with
those of the experiments, the analogous materials to those of the Table 5 provides a summary and comparison of the maximum
test vessels were used (see Table 2 and Fig. 2). elastic stress per unit moment load on nozzle and elastic stress
A multi-linear elastic–plastic material model was described by ratio for the six test vessels including results from experiment and
nine points from the true stress–strain curves of the materials (see finite element analysis as well as available solution.
Fig. 2). Yielding is based on the von Mises yield criterion. A large Considering Table 5, it can be observed that stress due to
deflection theory was used during the simulation. The incremental per unit moment on nozzle is decreased while stress ratio [smax/
loading steps coincide with those of the experiment. (Mo/Zb)] is increased with the increase of d/D ratio for 3 pairs of
test vessels. As compared to stress of test vessels without pad,
4.3. Analysis results those of vessels with pad are reduced obviously whether they are
from experiment, finite element analysis or equation (27) in
4.3.1. Maximum elastic stress by FEA reference [9]. It is indicated that the effect of pad reinforcement on
Analysis results of the maximum elastic stress for six model decreasing local stress concentration of vessel-nozzle and pipe
vessels are listed in Table 4. connection areas under static out-of-plane load is useful
significantly.
4.3.2. Plastic limit load by FEA Tables 6 and 7 give a summary of the plastic limit moment on
4.3.2.1. By load–displacement curves. Fig. 8 gives a typical demon- the nozzle for the test vessels by experiment and FEA respectively.
stration of the load–displacement curve for vessel J2P at the location From Tables 6 and 7, it is seen that the results of plastic limit
of displacement sensor No. 1 on the nozzle and corresponding moment from load–displacement curves are consistent with those
plastic limit moment of the nozzles, again obtained by the twice- from load–strain plots whether by experimental or finite element
elastic slope technique. analysis methods. Also it is seen that the effect of pad reinforce-
ment on increasing plastic limit load of shell intersection is
4.3.2.2. By load–strain curves. Fig. 9 gives a typical example of the evident.
load–maximum strain curve for vessel J3 at the location as that of Reference [9] provided empirical formula equation (50) that
gives the magnitude of the plastic limit moment under out-of-
plane moment load, MoL. Using the average of values from all
Table 7 measuring points and displacement sensors, a summary and
Plastic limit load from FEA (kN m). comparison of the plastic limit moment by experiment and FEA as
Vessel No. Measuring point No. Average Rate of increase (%) well as equation (50) in reference [9] for the test vessels are given in
Table 8.
No. 1 No. 6 No. 11 No. 16
Table 8 shows that a good agreement exists between experi-
By load–strain plots
J1 5.08 4.96 5.02 5.06 5.03 50.9
mental limit moments (including displacement and strain
J1P 7.45 7.32 7.45 7.35 7.39 measuring methods), finite element results and those from equa-
J2 10.26 10.78 10.04 10.16 10.36 92.8 tion (50) in reference [9], particularly for model vessels J1, J2, J3
J2P 20.03 19.76 20.03 20.11 19.98 (without pad reinforcement).
J3 22.01 21.98 22.03 21.86 21.97 55.2
J3P 34.30 34.16 34.30 33.64 34.10

Vessel No. Displacement sensor No. Average Rate of increase (%) 6. Conclusions

No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4

Three pairs of full-scale model vessels with different d/D ratios
By load–displacement plots
(for each pair, one without pad, the other with a standard pad) are
J1 4.54 4.78 4.92 4.65 4.72 65.2
J1P 7.36 7.51 7.82 8.52 7.80 comparatively studied by experiment and three-dimensional
J2 9.47 9.85 10.22 11.69 10.31 107.6 nonlinear finite element analysis under out-of-plane moment on
J2P 19.78 21.51 21.96 22.37 21.41 nozzle. The results obtained from the study trend toward to
J3 23.91 24.15 24.73 25.62 24.60 43.6 establish the usefulness of pad reinforcement in pressure vessels
J3P 35.98 34.62 35.35 35.46 35.35
and pipe connections.
 J. Fang et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 86 (2009) 273–279
Results from this research indicate that the maximum elastic
stress and stress ratio are obviously reduced by pad reinforce-
ment. Generally, the rate of reduction is 20–60% from test and 28–
59% from FEA depends upon the structure and dimension of the
vessels for example d/D ratio. For the vessels with pad, another
important phenomenon is the maximum elastic stress is trans-
ferred from nozzle–cylinder intersection area to pad–cylinder
weld edge.
The results also indicate that the plastic limit load of nozzle in
cylindrical vessels is obviously increased by pad reinforcement.
Generally, the rate of increase is about 40–70% from test, larger than
40% from FEA.
The conclusion can be given from the results that pad rein-
forcement structures are useful under static external load on
nozzle. However, the significance of the high local stress in the
intersection area in relation to fatigue failure under cyclic moment
on nozzle has not been conducted in this study.
Acknowledgement
The partial support of the pressure vessel research council and in
particular its subcommittee on shell intersections, W. Koves
(Chairman), is gratefully acknowledged. Also, the authors are grateful to
Messrs. E. Radabaugh and G. Hollinger for their constructive comments.
References
[1] Soliman SF, Gill SS. Stresses due to a moment applied to a pad reinforced
nozzle in a spherical pressure vesseldA theoretical analysis and experimental
investigation. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping
1979;7(2):133–61.
279
[2] Chao YJ, Wu BC. Stress concentration factors at welded-pad reinforced nozzle
in ellipsoidal vessel heads due to internal pressure. International Journal of
Pressure Vessels and Piping 1987;120:123–9.
[3] Molntyre H, Ashton JN, Gill SS. Limit analysis of a pad reinforced flush nozzle
in a spherical pressure vessel. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences
1977;19(7):399–412.
[4] Hugties JF, Kitching R. Pad-reinforced cylindrical shell loaded radially through
a plate bracket attachment. Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design
1980;15(1):1–14.
[5] Oikawa T, Oka T. A new technique for approximating the stress in pad-type
nozzles attached to a spherical shell. ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Tech-
nology 1987;109. 188–192.
[6] Guo YZ, Zeng ZJ, Yang HG. Reliability analysis of the reinforcement of a large
opening in a pressure vessel. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and
Piping 1994;57:85–9.
[7] Kumar V, Singh AV. Analysis of pad-reinforced nozzles in pressure vessel
heads. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 1989;180:
81–6.
[8] Guilet Michael W, Helms Jack E. Comparison of different methodologies for
stress analysis of reinforcing pads. International Journal of Pressure Vessels
and Piping 2003;459:75–9.
[9] Rodabaugh EC. A review of area replacement rules for pipe connections in
pressure vessels and piping. Welding Research Council Bulletin 1988;335. New
York.
[10] Xue L, Widera GEO, Sang ZF. Influence of pad reinforcement on the limit and
burst pressures of a cylinder–cylinder intersection. ASME Journal of Pressure
Vessel Technology 2003;125(2):182–7.
[11] Sang ZF, Li L, Zhou YJ, Widera GEO. Effect of gap between pad and vessel for
moment loading on nozzle. ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
1999;121(2):225–31.
[12] Sang ZF, Li L, Qian HL, Widera GEO. Effect of geometric gap between cylinder
and reinforcement pad on local stresses (axial thrust load on nozzle). Inter-
national Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 1997;71(2):113–20.
[13] Sang ZF, Wang HF, Xue LP, Widera GEO. Plastic limit loads of pad reinforced
cylindrical vessels under out-of-plane moment of nozzle. ASME Journal of
Pressure Vessel Technology 2006;128(2):49–56.
[14] ASME Boiler and pressure vessel code, Section III and VIII-1, VIII-2. New York:
American Society of Mechanical Engineering; 2004.
[15] Swanson Analysis System Inc. ANSYS Engineering analysis system user’s
manual.