A study is presented which compares nozzle thickness requirements based ASME Section VIII, Division 2, Parts 4 and 5[1]. Specifically, the simplified geometry of a set-in, radial nozzle without inward projection or repad is considered. The comparative technique considers a design pressure at the capacity of the shell and identifies the minimum nozzle thickness that satisfies applicable stress limits. For Part 4, the methodology of 4.5.5 is used. For Part 5, the elastic method in 5.2.2 is used. The study employs these techniques for R/t geometries of 20 to 180 and d/D ratios of 0.01 to 0.3. The comparison indicates elastic analysis Part 5 methods can improve the design from that of Part 4 over some, but not all, configurations within the study’s scope. The bounds of where the elastic analysis Part 5 methods benefit are identified. In the process of the study’s effort, numerous responses are identified and compared between design methodologies. The comparison is one of needed nozzle thickness for similar geometries. Behavior responses are shown from the range of configurations in the large simulation set created by the Part 5 method. For the Part 4 response, charts are shown that identify the required nozzle thickness based on the varying reinforcing limit logic employed in that method.

This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.