model geometries fall within the following range of best fit.

These powers, the minimizing set of con-

parameters: stants, and the resulting standard deviations are:

0.523 < di/DT < 6.32 P1 P, p3 P4 P. P.

Eq.(l) 1.25 -.25 -.75 1.00 -.25 -.25
Eq. (2) 0.00 0.00 -1.50 1.25 -.50 0.50
19 < DIT < 999 Eq. (3) 0.25 0.00 -.50 0.00 -.25 0.50
Eq. (4) -0.50 0.00 -.75 -.50 0 -.25
4 < dlt < 999
a0 a1 a, Std. Dev.
0.039 < diD < 0.515 Eq. (1) 0.5315 -.06342 0.4372 4.7
Eq. (2) 1.0048 -.01427 0.8605 9.1
0.388 < Sis < 6.26 Eq. (3) 0.2728 -.04706 0.9551 5.2
Eq. (4) 0.3377 -.5272 1.4229 7.5
0.1 < tiT < 3.0
Eq. (1) provides the maximum membrane stress
The above range covers most of the practical cases intensity in the vessel
of cylinder intersections. Some of the models have Eq. (2) provides the maximum surface stress inten-
diameter to thickness ratios which violate the thin sity in the vessel
shell assumptions of the program; however, the calcu- Eq. (3) provides the maximum membrane stress
lated stresses are still fairly accurate and do not intensity in the nozzle
distort the data. The models have been made long Eq. (4) provides the maximum surface stress inten-
enough so that the effects of the boundary conditions sity in the nozzle
are negligible. 4.0 Results
Most codes which have rules for fatigue analysis,
have adopted the concept of stress intensity. Stress In order to illustrate the results, several graphs
intensity is defined as the maximum stress difference have been made showing the difference in percent
between any pair of principal stresses. Since some of versus lambda (A). The "% difference" is defined as
the maximum stresses occur off the cardinal axes and the difference between the maximum F AST2 stress
and the stress from the equation being considered
have shear stress associated with them, the principal
divided by the maximum FAST2 stress, multiplied by
stress is a more meaningful criteria to use than radial
100. Each geometry is represented by a symbol drawn
and tangential shell stresses. Values reported in this
at the proper coordinates. The type of symbol used is
Bulletin are all based on stress intensity concept and
determined by the tIT ratio. That is, the range 0.1 <
the proposed design formulas provide the maximum
tiT < 3.0 is divided into 8 equal regions with a
value of stress intensity. (The words "stress" and symbol for each region. For example, points for
"stress intensity" are used synonymously, from geometries with 0.1 < tiT < 0.463 are indicated by
hereon, in this Bulletin). symbol # 1. The use of lambda (A) as the abscissa is to
Since the nozzle behaves differently than the ves- spread the data out evenly and is arbitrary. Likewise,
sel, and the membrane solutions are different from the choice of tiT for the symbol is arbitrary and any
the bending solutions, four separate equations have other geometric parameter could have been used. A
been developed. Each equation has the following number of parameters were tried and no definite
form: patterns were detected.
vessel Figs. la-1d show the results of using Eqs. 1 thru 4,
respectively. As can be seen, the differences are
rrv
d PD]
= [a] [/DtT
scattered rather randomly.
2 Fig. 1e indicates the difference between the maxi-
mum values of Eqs. 1 and 3 and the maximum
nozzle membrane stress of applicable F AST2 results. Fig. 1f
indicates the difference between the maximum value
rr.
D Pd]
= [a] [/dT 2t of Eqs. 2 and 4 and the maximum surface stress of
applicable F AST2 results.
As indicated by Figs. 1a-1d, the percentage errors
where between the proposed equations and the F AST2 data
are mostly limited to about 20%, except for a few
_ = ao
CJ
(D)P' (!!_)~'•
+a, d T
(!_)P'
T +a d
(!!_)P' (!!_)P'
2 T
(!___)~'•
T isolated points. This degree of accuracy is normally
acceptable for analysis of cylinder intersections. If
The powers P;(i = 1, 2, ... 6) are allowed to take on Eqs. 1 thru 4 were reduced to only two equations,
values of 0.25 either side of the minimum combina- providing the value of maximum membrane and
tion while the coefficient!:! a/J = 0, 1, 2) are calculated surface stress, regardless of locations, the percent
by minimizing the square of the error for each power differences will be those shown on Figs. 1e and lf.
combination. The combination of powers that pro- These differences are somewhat higher than those of
duces the lowest standard deviation is taken to be the Figs. 1a-1d.

4 WRC Bulletin 368