See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245364766

Considerations in the Design and Analysis of an ASME Section VIII, Div. 2

Reactor Support Skirt

Article  in  Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology · May 2007

DOI: 10.1115/1.2722301

CITATIONS READS
3 1,178

2 authors:

Dennis Keith Williams Trevor Seipp

DR. DENNIS K. WILLIAMS, P.E. 28 PUBLICATIONS   123 CITATIONS   
44 PUBLICATIONS   104 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Piping Supports & Restraints View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dennis Keith Williams on 08 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Dennis K. Williams
Sharoden Engineering Consultants, P.A.,
P.O. Box 1336,
1153 Willow Oaks Trail,
Matthews, NC 28106-1336
e-mail: DennisKW@sharoden.com
Trevor G. Seipp
Becht Engineering Canada Ltd.,
110-259 Midpark Way, S.E.,
Calgary, AB, T2X 1M2, Canada
e-mail: seippt@asme.org
Considerations in the Design
and Analysis of an ASME Section
VIII, Div. 2 Reactor Support Skirt
This paper describes the considerations employed in the finite element analysis of a
relatively “short” support skirt on a hydrocarbon reactor vessel. The analysis is accom-
plished in accordance with ASME B&PV Code, Section VIII, Division 2 alternate rules in
conjunction with the guidelines outlined in WRC Bulletin 429. This provides a sound
basis for the classification of the calculated stress intensities. The support skirt is capable
of sustaining the deadweight load in addition to resisting the effects of thermal displace-
ments, wind loadings, overturning moments from external piping loads on the attached
hydrocarbon reactor vessel, and friction between the skirt base plate and concrete foun-
dation. The displacement and thermal boundary conditions are well defined and dis-
cussed in detail. The effects of multiple scenarios for the displacement boundary condi-
tions are examined. The skirt design also employs a hot-box arrangement whereby the
primary mode of heat transfer is by radiation. A discussion of the two-part analysis is
included and details the interaction between the heat transfer analysis and the subse-
quent structural analysis. The heat transfer finite element analysis is utilized to determine
the temperatures throughout the bottom of the vessel shell and head, as well as the
integrally attached support skirt. Of prime importance during the analysis is the axial
thermal gradient present in the skirt from the base plate up to and slightly beyond the
skirt-to-shell junction. While the geometry of the subject vessel and skirt is best described
as axisymmetric, the imposed loadings are a mixture of axisymmetric and non-
axisymmetric. This combination lends itself to the judicious selection and utilization of
the harmonic finite element and properly chosen Fourier series representation of the
applied loads. Comparison of the thermally induced axial stress gradient results from the
FEA to those obtained by the closed form beam-on-elastic-foundation are also tendered
and discussed. Finally, recommendations are included for the design and analysis of
critical support skirts for large, heavy-wall vessels. 关DOI: 10.1115/1.2722301兴

Introduction
Antalffy et al. 关1兴, Baxter 关2兴, Ramos et al. 关3兴, and Taagepera
and Kreiner 关4兴 have discussed the finite element analysis of skirt-
to-shell junctions for various different configurations, especially
coke drums. However, these analyses have tended to focus on the
design of the skirt-to-shell junction or the skirt itself, with only
minor consideration given to the modeling techniques in the finite
element analysis. As well, these other papers have not addressed
externally induced loads, such as those from wind or piping.
This discussion explores most of the typical loads encountered
during the design of a short support skirt. Although the focus is on
short support skirts, it is relevant to skirts of any length. The
development of the temperature profile is examined with specific
attention paid to the boundary conditions and the handling of ra-
diation heat transfer. The effect of different ambient conditions is
also examined. In contrast to the earlier efforts of Bergman 关5兴,
the analysis here directly calculates the temperature profile.
The development of the stress profile is divided into two parts.
In the first, the applied loads are axisymmetric. In the second, the
applied loads are non-axisymmetric. In both discussions, special
consideration is given to the friction boundary condition on the
underside of the base ring. For completeness, some of the results
of the finite element analysis are compared to the solution ob-
tained from beam-on-elastic-foundation closed form calculations.
Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received January 30,
2006; final manuscript received February 19, 2007. Review conducted by David Raj.
Paper presented at the 2003 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
共PVP2003兲, Cleveland, Ohio, July 20–24, 2003.
Geometry
The relevant parts for the analysis are the entire skirt, including
the base ring, the compression ring, the skirt-to-shell junction, the
bottom head of the vessel, and a length of the cylindrical portion
of the pressure vessel. Each of these portions is a shell of revolu-
tion. Thus, every portion could be modeled axisymmetrically.
Non-axisymmetric items, such as anchor bolt chairs, are ignored,
as their contribution in this analysis is negligible.
For the hydrocarbon reactor in question, an axisymmetric finite
element model is employed. For the thermal analysis, purely axi-
symmetric thermal elements are used. A picture of the axisymmet-
ric finite element model showing the thermal boundary conditions
is shown in Fig. 1. An important detail to note is that the insula-
tion is modeled directly, rather than using equivalent convective
heat transfer coefficients directly on the steel parts. This is a
change from the techniques of Antalffy 关1兴 and Baxter 关2兴. How-
ever, upon closer inspection of the area directly below the hot box,
where the insulation thicknesses overlap, it becomes apparent that
the only way to avoid improper thermal boundary conditions in
this critical region is to model the insulation directly.
The structural analysis does not include the insulation. It is
simply turned off for this stage/phase of the analysis. For reasons
to be discussed later, the elements used for the structural analysis
were not purely axisymmetric. Rather, they are axisymmetric el-
ements with the capability of accepting non-axisymmetric loads.
Two final notes about the finite element model must be made.
First, all the elements employed are of the eight-node variety.
More specifically, they have quadratic shape functions for the de-
grees of freedom. Given the currently available computing power,
any speed penalty for these quadratic elements is negligible. Fur-

316 / Vol. 129, MAY 2007 Copyright © 2007 by ASME Transactions of the ASME
 Table 1 Summary of the boundary conditions found in Fig. 1.

Convective heat transfer

Boundary coefficient hc Temperature
number 共W / m2 K and 共BTU/ ft2 ° F兲兲 共°C and 共°F兲兲

1 5107 共900兲 440 共824兲

2 Radiation 共e = 0.8 and 0.7兲 N/A
3 3.58 共0.63兲 Ambient
4 Ambient Ambient

insulation is attached. One vital issue regarding the radiation heat

Fig. 1 Geometry and thermal boundary conditions
thermore, they provide much improved resolution compared to
their linear counterparts. It is the authors’ firm conviction that
these higher order elements be used, unless they are unavailable
or improper for the prescribed analysis.
The second final note is a description of the mesh that is used.
As a minimum, four 共4兲 elements are used in the through-
thickness direction. In the region of the skirt-to-shell junction, the
mesh is much more refined. Eighteen elements are prescribed
around the fillet radius in this region. The element aspect ratio
targets unity, meaning square elements, but never exceeds four
共4兲. This results in 6535 elements and 20,566 nodes for the ther-
mal analysis, and less for the structural analysis 共due to the lack of
insulation elements兲. Grid convergence is confirmed by increasing
the mesh density and comparing the two solutions. Other tech-
niques available to perform this task include energy methods, such
as strain energy error, or comparison between the nodal and ele-
ment solution.
transfer must be addressed. In most finite element analysis soft-
ware, it is necessary to input temperatures as absolute tempera-
tures 共Kelvin or degrees Rankin兲 when dealing with radiation.
Direct use of other temperature scales 共degrees Celsius or degrees
Fahrenheit兲 will result in the radiation heat transfer being calcu-
lated incorrectly.
In region 3, the inside of the skirt, a bulk temperature equal to
the ambient temperature is assumed. Since the skirt is relatively
short, this region is essentially an enclosed space. As such, a natu-
ral convection, convective heat transfer coefficient of
3.58 W / m2 K 共0.63 BTU/ ft2 ° F兲 is assigned.
In region 4, the outside of the vessel, the boundary conditions
are the ambient conditions. In order to fully envelope the design,
the extrema of the ambient conditions need to be analyzed. For
the purposes of this analysis, those extrema are a cold winter
night, with a design case wind: T = −42° C 共−43.6° F兲 and
hc = 20 W / m2 K 共3.52 BTU/ ft2 ° F兲, and a hot summer day with
no wind 共natural convection only兲: T = 37.78° C 共100° F兲 and
hc = 3.58 W / m2 K 共0.63 BTU/ ft2 ° F兲. Table 1 summarizes all the
thermal boundary conditions.
The results of the two thermal analyses are shown in Figs. 2
and 3 for the winter and summer cases, respectively. The general

Thermal Analysis
Temperature dependent material properties are obtained from
ASME Section II, Part D 关6兴. SA336 Gr. F22V material is used for
the pressure vessel and top portion of the skirt. SA516 Gr. 70
material is prescribed for the bottom portion of the skirt, base
ring, and compression ring. The mineral wool insulation and ce-
mentitious fire proofing, temperature dependent material proper-
ties are input as well.
The boundary conditions may be divided into four 共4兲 regions
as shown in Fig. 1. In region 1, a convective heat transfer bound-
ary condition is applied, with a temperature equal to the design
temperature of 440° C 共824° F兲 and a prescribed convective heat
transfer coefficient of 5107 W / m2 K 共900 BTU/ ft2 ° F兲, as speci-
fied in the User’s Design Specification 共UDS兲.
In region 2, the hot box, heat is transferred primarily by radia-
tion. Earlier work on this subject has simulated the radiation heat
transfer using an equivalent conduction model. However, due to
increased computing power and improvements in the finite ele-
ment analysis software, this simplifying assumption is not neces-
sary. As such, radiation in the hot box is modeled using the radia-
tion matrix method. After careful deliberation, an emissivity value
共e兲 of 0.8 is chosen for the outside wall of the pressure vessel and
the inside wall of the skirt. A lower emissivity value 共e兲 of 0.7 is
chosen for the plate at the bottom of the hot box, to which the Fig. 2 Temperature „°C… results for the winter case

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology MAY 2007, Vol. 129 / 317


Fig. 3 Temperature „°C… results for the summer case
temperature profile is quite similar for both cases. As expected,
however, the temperatures in the skirt for the winter case are
generally lower than those for the summer case.
Base Ring Displacement Boundary Conditions
The only location where the base ring, and hence the entire
model, interacts with the surroundings is the underside of the base
ring. There, the base ring is restrained in the vertical direction by
the support; in the case of this reactor, a concrete plinth. Both
thermal analyses show that the temperature of the base ring is
higher than the ambient temperature. Assuming that the support is
at the ambient temperature and has a coefficient of thermal expan-
sion equivalent to the skirt material, the base ring would grow,
thermally, relative to the support. Conversely, assuming that the
support has a lower coefficient of thermal expansion, typical for
concrete, the base ring would also grow, thermally, relative to the
support. Therefore, it is likely appropriate to assume that the base
ring will attempt to move relative to its support.
This relative motion means that friction will be present. In the
case of analyzing this skirt, it is not appropriate to specify a single
value for the coefficient of friction. The reason for this is that any
coefficient less than infinity 共rigidly fixed兲 may provide some re-
lief to the thermal stresses. This case is in opposition to typical
engineering problems in which friction penalizes the design be-
cause it is non-zero. Because of this fundamental difference, a
single value of the coefficient of friction is inappropriate for this
case. In the analysis, the coefficient of friction ␮s is ranged be-
tween 0.5 and 1.0. In order to determine the sensitivity of the
design of the skirt to varying values of ␮s, it is increased incre-
mentally until one or more of the structural criteria are violated.
After performing this sensitivity analysis, it is determined that a
maximum coefficient of friction of 2.0 would still allow the struc-
tural analysis to pass. Furthermore, it is determined that a value of
2.0 was in excess of what might occur in service, so applying
friction is acceptable. As a note, friction is applied as a uniform
force on the underside of the base ring equal to the maximum total
vertical load multiplied by the coefficient of friction.
318 / Vol. 129, MAY 2007
The foregoing discussion assumes, however, that there is suffi-
cient clearance between the anchor bolts and the holes in the base
ring. For the reactor in question, the bolt holes are oversized in-
stead of slotted. The anchor bolts are 1-1 / 2 in. in diameter while
the bolt holes were 2 in. in diameter. A chair-type arrangement is
utilized in which a washer with an inside diameter measuring
1-5 / 8 in. is welded into place after the reactor is erected in the
field. Careful examination of the tolerance stack-up between the
reactor fabricator and the construction site indicates that there is
sufficient clearance. For instances in which there are insufficient
clearances, it is recommended that the base ring be modeled as
fixed in the radial direction, along the mean bolt-circle. The reac-
tion forces created by this fixity are loads that must be resisted by
shear in the anchor bolts. Then, the anchor bolt shear stress must
be both calculated and compared to the allowable shear stress for
the anchor bolt material. The surrounding material, such as con-
crete or grouting, must also be evaluated.
Harmonic Elements and Fourier Series Loads
As stated previously, the support skirt and partial vessel in-
cluded in the mathematical model is an axisymmetric structure.
The axisymmetric nature of the subject problem, however, is
strictly confined to the geometry. The design loads are a combi-
nation of both axisymmetric and asymmetric 共i.e., non-
axisymmetric兲 forces, moments, and equivalent pressures 共eventu-
ally resolved into applied nodal forces兲. The mathematical model
utilizes the cylindrical coordinate system with the standard defi-
nitions of the global X-axis representing the radial direction r, the
global Y-axis representing the axial or longitudinal direction z,
and the global Z-axis representing the circumferential or hoop
direction ␪. Utilizing these definitions, the axisymmetric geometry
may be modeled by a plane 共X , Y兲 finite element representation.
Employing the said axisymmetric model significantly reduces the
model creation time, the analysis time, and the post-processing
review effort when compared to that of an equivalent three-
dimensional model.
Specialized elements that permit non-axisymmetric loads to be
applied to an axisymmetric model geometry are called harmonic
elements. This name is derived from the mathematical expression
for the load description that takes the form of a series formulation
of harmonic functions, better known as a Fourier series. The Fou-
rier series representation of a given load becomes a function of the
circumferential location 共␪兲 and, in general, appears as follows
F共␪兲 = A0 + A1 cos共␪兲 + B1 sin共␪兲 + A2 cos共2␪兲 + B2 sin共2␪兲 + ¯
+ An cos共n␪兲 + Bn sin共n␪兲 共1兲
The structural portion of the analysis that incorporates the axi-
symmetric loads is straightforward. The axisymmetric loads in-
clude the effects from thermal displacements, internal pressure,
and deadweight of the reactor. For the thermal loads, the tempera-
ture profile calculated in the thermal analysis is input as a body
load boundary condition. The internal pressure is applied as a
uniform pressure along the wetted surfaces of the reactor pressure
vessel. As well, the pressure thrust is applied as a uniform pres-
sure acting upwards along the top through-thickness portion of the
model. The deadweight is, likewise, applied as a uniform pressure,
acting downwards. Since the pressure thrust and the deadweight
act on the same location, they are added algebraically and applied
only once. In general, the loads, which may be solely axisymmet-
ric, include radial forces 共or displacements兲, axial forces 共or dis-
placements兲, torsion imposed by circumferential forces 共or cir-
cumferential displacements兲, and circumferential moments 共or
circumferential rotations兲. For example, the total force in the axial
direction F 共i.e., the global Y-direction兲, may be computed as
follows
冕
2␲
F= 共force per unit length兲共incremental length兲 共2兲
0
Transactions of the ASME
 Now making the appropriate substitutions into Eq. 共2兲 above
and noting that FY is for the entire circumference of 2␲ radians,
we obtain the following

冕
2␲
F= 共FY/2␲R兲Rd␪ = FY 共3兲
0

Likewise, the total applied moment M due to an applied cir-

cumferential force FZ 共i.e., about the global Y-axis兲, may be com-
puted as follows

冕
2␲
M= 共force/unit length兲共lever arm兲共incr. length兲 共4兲
0

Making the appropriate substitutions into Eq. 共4兲 above and

noting that FZ is for the entire circumference of 2␲ radians, we
obtain the following

冕
2␲
M= 共FZ/2␲R兲RRd␪ = RFZ 共5兲
0

The previous equations numbered 共2兲 through 共5兲 represent the

values of forces and moments that are utilized in an axisymmetric
loading and therefore, the A0 term in the Fourier series given in
Eq. 共1兲. In most cases, including the present, the loadings created
by the design wind loading and the externally applied piping loads
onto the vessel nozzles result in significant bending loads for
which the skirt must be designed. It is these non-axisymmetric
bending loads that must be incorporated into the analysis without
distorting the resulting load distribution around the circumference.
Herein lies the need for the harmonic element and the utilization
of the Fourier series load representation. In the paragraphs
that follow, a couple of examples are given that demonstrate the
implementation of the Fourier coefficients in the subject series
representation.
For the resulting bending of the vessel cross section due to
wind and/or externally applied piping loads, the vertical force
distribution on the vessel cross section 共at the point of evaluation兲
is represented by the following
F = FY cos ␪ 共6兲
Note that because the applied forces are a function of an even
function, i.e., cos共␪兲, the maximum value occurs at ␪ = 0 radians.
Furthermore, because the desired loading is a bending moment
and not a force, the net applied force must be zero, which is found
as
Fig. 4 Thermal stress intensity „Pa… in the skirt-to-shell junc-
tion region for the winter thermal case
cal, not rectangular. To obtain a uniform lateral loading in the
rectangular coordinate system, the load representation is as
follows
F = FX cos ␪ − FZ sin ␪ 共9兲
As before, FX is the total force in the radial direction, while FZ
is the total force in the circumferential direction. For the resulting
load to be uniform, FX must be equal in magnitude to FZ. In this
case, the value for FX in Eq. 共9兲 is the A1 term of the Fourier
series shown in Eq. 共1兲 while the value for −FZ in Eq. 共9兲 is the
B1 term. Each component of the Fourier series, which is defined
by a Fourier constant multiplier, must be run in the finite element
analysis as a separate load case. The summation shown in Eq. 共9兲
is realized by combining the appropriate load cases. Using the
aforementioned technique, the non-axisymmetric frictional forces

冕
2␲
may be implemented with the Fourier series shown in Eq. 共1兲. As
shown by Kreysig 关7兴, a Fourier series can represent any function
F= 共FY cos ␪/2␲R兲Rd␪ = 0 共7兲
that can be written.
0

Quite simply then, the value for FY in Eq. 共6兲 is the A1 term of
the Fourier series shown in Eq. 共1兲. The moment that results from
the application of the vertical harmonic force distribution given by
Eq. 共6兲 is then represented by the following
Stress Evaluation
The stress analysis is conducted in accordance with the ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 2 rules
关8兴. Because of the non-axisymmetric mechanical loads, the

冕
2␲
M= 共FY cos ␪/2␲R兲共R cos ␪兲Rd␪ = FYR/2 共8兲
0
The final non-axisymmetric loading that is addressed is the
simulation of the friction between the base ring and the concrete
foundation. The frictional force is taken in the usual manner as the
product of the vessel deadweight plus the other downward acting
loads multiplied by the static coefficient of friction. The resulting
force is then represented as a uniformly distributed lateral load FX
in the rectangular coordinate system. This non-axisymmetric load
represents the next step in the complexity of Fourier series simu-
lation due to the fact that it is the summation of two terms: one
even function plus one odd function. Because the model geometry
is axisymmetric, the implied nodal coordinate system is cylindri-
stresses are evaluated at a minimum of four locations around the
circumference 共␪ = 0°, 90°, 180°, and 270°兲 instead of the single
location inherent with a pure axisymmetric analysis.
The thermal stresses resulting from the temperature distribution
shown in Fig. 2 共winter case兲 are shown in Fig. 4. An exaggerated
deformed-shape plot due to the associated thermal displacements
is shown in Fig. 5. Utilizing the thermal boundary conditions and
analysis techniques previously described, the maximum stress in-
tensity is calculated to be 33,650 psi 共232 MPa兲 and located on
the inside surface of the skirt support at the junction with the
transition ring. This location is at the skirt-to-shell junction. The
maximum stress intensity on the outside surface of the skirt is
calculated to be approximately 70% of that found on the inside
surface of the skirt, as shown in Fig. 4. Note that these calculated

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology MAY 2007, Vol. 129 / 319


Fig. 5 Thermal stress intensity „Pa… in the skirt-to-shell junc-
tion region for the summer thermal case
thermal stresses are independent of the coefficient of friction, be-
cause the deadweight load of the reactor is not included.
The thermal stresses resulting from the temperature distribution
shown in Fig. 3 共summer case兲 are shown in Fig. 6. These stresses
are approximately 25% lower than the winter case.
For this reactor skirt, the thermal stress results seem to indicate
that the winter case governs. The deadweight of the vessel is
6.23⫻ 106 N 共1,402,000 lbf兲. The total wind overturning moment
and the piping overturning moment is 10.31⫻ 106 N m
Fig. 6 Thermal displacement plot. The displacement is exag-
gerated 10 times
320 / Vol. 129, MAY 2007
Fig. 7 Thermal-plus-mechanical stress intensity „Pa…
共7,601,000 ft lbf兲. The following results use a coefficient of fric-
tion equal to 1.0. The thermal-plus-mechanical stresses resulting
from these loads are shown in Fig. 7. Using the harmonic ele-
ments and boundary conditions previously described, the peak
stress intensity is calculated to be 95,725 psi 共660 MPa兲 and lo-
cated on the inside surface of the vessel at the transition between
the shell and the head at a circumferential location 共␪兲 equal to 0°.
This location is different from the thermal-only load due to the
internal pressure stresses. The maximum stress intensity in the
skirt is calculated to be 40,900 psi 共282 MPa兲.
The computed stress intensities are decomposed in accordance
with the techniques outlined by Hechmer and Hollinger 关9兴. Three
stress classification lines 共SCLs兲 are formed and are located at the
skirt-to-shell juncture; at the skirt-to-base ring juncture; and
through-the-thickness in the transition ring at the most severe tan-
gential bending. These lines are identified as SCL 1, 2, and 3,
respectively, as shown in Fig. 8.
Table 2 summarizes the results of the linearized stress intensity
calculations.
Fig. 8 Stress classification line locations
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 2 Summary of linearized stress intensity results
PL PL limit P+Q P + Q limit
SCL 1 110.5 MPa 228.3 MPa 292.7 MPa 456.6 MPa
16,026 psi 33,112 psi 42,453 psi 66,224 psi
SCL 2 94.5 MPa 206.8 MPa 246.3 MPa 413.6 MPa
13,706 psi 30,000 psi 35,723 psi 60,000 psi
SCL 3 126.7 MPa 228.3 MPa 315.7 MPa 456.6 MPa
18,376 psi 33,112 psi 45,788 psi 66,224 psi
Verification: Beam on an Elastic Foundation
Based upon the results given in the previous section, the ther-
mally induced stresses contribute the major portion of the total
computed mechanical plus thermal stresses. Following good engi-
neering practice, the calculated thermal stresses should be verified
by an independent method. The chosen method for verification of
the support skirt thermal stresses is the beam on an elastic foun-
dation technique that was established early in the twentieth cen-
tury and further advanced by others, as given by Harvey 关10兴 and
by Boresi and Schmidt 关11兴. To minimize fatigue failure in this
type of skirt support, attachment methods must avoid high stress
concentrations and minimize the thermal stresses by reducing the
temperature gradients along the length of the skirt, as stated by
Heggs 关12兴. The relatively short length of this skirt is of concern
to the user, necessitating an additional verification check of the
finite element analysis.
An upper bound estimate of the thermal stresses in the subject
skirt is given by the beam on an elastic foundation method, as-
suming a linear axial thermal gradient in the cylindrical skirt. A
summary of the underlying assumptions and associated formulas
are given by Harvey 关10兴. The reactor pressure vessel is apprecia-
bly thicker than that of the skirt. Effectively, the skirt must absorb
the entire rotation created by the thermal gradient because the
vessel portion of the junction is much stiffer than the relatively
thin skirt. The resulting bending moment prediction, based upon
the previous assumptions, appears as follows
k ␣r
M0 = 共Tv − Ts兲 共10兲
4␤2 b
where M 0 is the maximum moment; k is the equivalent spring rate
of the skirt; ␤ is the damping coefficient associated with the ex-
ponential solution of the beam on an elastic foundation equation
and has a value of 0.1157 per in.; ␣ is the coefficient of linear
thermal expansion; r is the inside radius of the skirt; and Tv and Ts
are the temperatures of the vessel and skirt foundation, respec-
tively. The short skirt length of 38-3/16 in. produced an M 0 of
approximately 19,890 in. lb/ in. The maximum bending stress was
predicted by Eq. 共11兲 to be approximately 48,900 psi, an over-
prediction of 15% of the P + Q stress intensity for SCL 1, as cal-
culated by the FEA
6M 0
␴max = 共11兲
h2
where ␴max is the maximum bending stress and h is the skirt
thickness of 1-9 / 16 in. Using the non-linear temperature assump-
tion regarding the axial thermal gradient in the cylindrical skirt as
proposed by Wolosewick 关13兴, produces a similar estimate of the
maximum bending stress of 49,500 psi. Because the skirt is rela-
tively short, the linear predictions afforded by Harvey 关10兴 are
considered by the authors to be a more appropriate verification of
the finite element analysis results.
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Summary and Conclusions
The considerations employed in the finite element analysis of a
relatively short support skirt for a hydrocarbon reactor vessel are
described in this paper. The analysis is in accordance with ASME
B&PV Code, Section VIII, Division 2 alternate rules 关8兴 in con-
junction with the guidelines outlined in WRC Bulletin 429 关9兴.
The support skirt is capable of sustaining an approximate 700 ton
deadweight load in addition to resisting the effects of thermal
displacements, wind loadings, overturning moments from external
piping loads on the attached hydrocarbon reactor vessel, and fric-
tion between the skirt base plate and concrete foundation. The
displacement and thermal boundary conditions are well defined
and are discussed in detail, while the effects of the numerous
scenarios for the displacement boundary conditions are high-
lighted. In addition, the hot-box design, wherein the primary mode
of heat transfer is through radiation, uses the direct radiation ma-
trix method for heat transfer.
A discussion of the two-part analysis includes the interaction
between the heat transfer analysis and the subsequent structural
analysis. The heat transfer FEA is utilized to determine the tem-
peratures throughout the bottom of the vessel shell and head as
well as the integrally attached support skirt. Of prime importance
during the analysis is the axial thermal gradient present in the skirt
from the base plate up to and slightly beyond the skirt-to-vessel
juncture. The selection of an appropriate verification method for
the description of the thermal gradient validates the significant
contribution by the thermal loads to the combined mechanical
plus thermally induced stress field in the support skirt. While the
geometry of the subject vessel and skirt was best described as
axisymmetric, the imposed loadings are a blend of axisymmetric
and non-axisymmetric loadings. This combination lends itself to
the utilization of the harmonic finite element and properly chosen
Fourier series representation of the applied loads. Comparisons of
the thermally induced axial stress gradient results from the FEA to
those obtained by the beam-on-elastic-foundation method are
found to be within 15% of one another.
The recommendations derived from the analysis of critical sup-
port skirts for large, heavy-wall vessels are threefold. First, when-
ever possible, the use of a direct radiation methodology for calcu-
lation of the skirt-to-vessel junction temperature profile is
appropriate and warranted. This allows a consistent finite element
geometric model to be employed in both the heat transfer and
structural portions of the analysis. Second, the verification of the
thermal stresses in the skirt-to-shell juncture should be conducted
using the proven beam-on-elastic-foundation method. This quick
check should produce an upper-bound estimate for the values ex-
pected from a more detailed FEA. Third, as shown previously by
others, the key to creating a successful support skirt design is in
the minimization of the axial thermal gradient between the rela-
tively hot skirt-to-shell juncture and the relatively cold skirt base
ring and foundation.
Nomenclature
An ⫽ Fourier constant for cosine function
Bn ⫽ Fourier constant for sine function
BOEF ⫽ beam-on-elastic-foundation
E ⫽ Young’s modulus of elasticity
F ⫽ total load representation
FEA ⫽ finite element analysis
FX ⫽ total force in global X direction
FY ⫽ total force in global Y direction
FZ ⫽ total force in global Z direction
M ⫽ total applied moment
M0 ⫽ maximum bending moment in BOEF analysis
Sm ⫽ ASME design stress intensity
TS ⫽ temperature of skirt
TV ⫽ temperature of reactor vessel shell
b ⫽ skirt length
MAY 2007, Vol. 129 / 321
 e ⫽ emissivity for Adverse Environments in Petroleum and Power Equipment, ASME, New
York.
h ⫽ skirt thickness 关4兴 Taagepera, J., and Kreiner, J., 2001, “Alternative Coke Drum Skirt Designs,”
hc ⫽ convection heat transfer coefficient PVP Vol. 430, Pressure Vessel and Piping Design and Analysis—2001, ASME,
k ⫽ foundation spring constant for BOEF, Eh / r2 New York.
n ⫽ integer counter or multiplier 关5兴 Bergman, D. J., 1963, “Temperature Gradients in Skirt Supports of Hot Ves-
r ⫽ skirt inside radius sels,” ASME J. Eng. Ind., 85.
关6兴 ASME, 2001, ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section II, Part D,
␣ ⫽ coefficient of linear thermal expansion ASME, New York.
␤ ⫽ damping coefficient in BOEF, 1.285/ 共rh兲0.5 关7兴 Kreysig, E., 1972, Advanced Engineering Mathematics, 3rd ed., John Wiley
␴max ⫽ maximum bending stress from BOEF analysis and Sons, New York.
␪ ⫽ circumferential angle 关8兴 ASME, 2001, ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 2,
ASME, New York.
关9兴 Hechmer, J. L., and Hollinger, G. L., 1998, 3D Stress Criteria Guidelines for
References Application, WRC Bulletin 429, Welding Research Council, New York.
关1兴 Antalffy, L. P., Bardia, K. L., Baxter, J. E., Malek, D. W., and Taagepera, J., 关10兴 Harvey, J. F., 1985, Theory and Design of Pressure Vessels, Van Nostrand
1995, “Analyses of Alternate Skirt Attachments to Coke Drums,” PVP Vol. Reinhold Company, New York.
315, Fitness-for-Service and Decisions for Petroleum and Chemical Equip- 关11兴 Boresi, A. P., and Schmidt, R. J., 2003, Advanced Mechanics of Materials, 6th
ment, ASME, New York. ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York.
关2兴 Baxter, J. E., 1997, “Design Optimization of Coke Drum Support Skirt,” PVP 关12兴 Heggs, P. J., 1971, “Design of Thermal Distribution in a Reactor Vessel Wall
Vol. 359, Fitness for Adverse Environments in Petroleum and Power Equip- Resulting in Acceptable Thermal Stresses,” ASME Paper No. 71-WA/HT-23,
ment, ASME, New York. ASME, New York.
关3兴 Ramos, A., Rios, C. C., Vargas, J., Tahara, T., and Hasegawa, T., 1997, “Me- 关13兴 Wolosewick, F. E., 1951, “Supports for Vertical Pressure Vessels,” Petroleum
chanical Integrity Evaluation of Delayed Coke Drums,” PVP Vol. 359, Fitness Refiner, 30共12兲, Houston, TX.

322 / Vol. 129, MAY 2007 Transactions of the ASME

View publication stats