CAU Express 2013 1

Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
CAESAR I I
Improvements in Modeling and
Evaluating Branch Connections
Intergraph 2013
Cur r ent B31.3 Appendi x D
Tee flexibility is set to
1.0 no flexibility!
Typically, the in-plane
stress intensification
factor (SIF or i) is less
than the out-plane SIF:
i

=
S
4
, i
o
+
1
4
,
A note on reduced
tees
CAU Express 2013 2
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
I nt r oduc t i on
The SIFs and flexibility factors in use today were
developed over 60 years ago.
ASME commissioned a project (ST-LLC 07-02)
to review, update and harmonize these values
across all B31 piping codes.
One of the more interesting changes is the
treatment of pipe intersections where a value for
tee flexibility is greater than the current 1.0.
Taking credit for this tee flexibility may reduce
calculated expansion stresses and equipment
loads.
Intergraph 2013
I nt r oduc t i on
The ASME 07-02 project was awarded to Tony
Paulin of Paulin Research Group (the original
author of CAESAR II

and developer of
NozzlePRO, FE/Pipe and PCL-Gold)
This session will review the study results
regarding the tee model that will, eventually, be
included in B31J and then referenced by the
B31 codes.
CAU Express 2013 3
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
I nt r oduc t i on
In the absence of more directly applicable
data
ASME 07-02 project provides more directly
applicable datanow
Intergraph 2013
A Ver y Br i ef Hi st or y
Late 40s: A.R.C. Markl of Tube Turns leads the
effort to develop geometry-based multipliers for
component flexibility and stress
Fatigue Tests of Piping Components
Trans. ASME, Vol. 74, 1952, pp. 287-303
Limited number of tests on 4 size on size tees
1981: R.W. Schneider (formerly of Bonney
Forge) notifies ASME of the unconservative SIF
for reduced outlet tees
CAU Express 2013 4
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
A Ver y Br i ef Hi st or y
1987: In response to Schneiders conclusions,
E.C. Rodabaugh authors WRC Bulletin 329
(Dec. 1987) Accuracy of Stress Intensification
Factors for Branch Connections
Confirms Schneiders observation
Finds other shortcomings to the use of SIFs and
flexibility factors
2007: A.W. Paulin starts an ASME project to
realign stress intensification factors between the
Code Books (ASME ST-LLC 07-02).
Intergraph 2013
Anot her Look at Appendi x D
CAU Express 2013 5
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
The ASME 07-02 Ter ms
Run k
Branch k
Run &
Branch
SIFs
Intergraph 2013
The ASME 07-02 Tee Par amet er s
CAU Express 2013 6
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
Compar i ng t he Wel di ng Tee
Par amet er s
Note that the new tee references the branch size
B31.3
Run Pipe: r
2
, T-bar
Crotch: r
x
, T
c
ASME 07-02
Run Pipe: R, T
Branch Pipe: r, t
Crotch: r
x
, T
c
B31.3
WLT
ASME 07-02
WLT
Intergraph 2013
Wel di ng Tee Ter ms
Term Equation
Run In-plane Flexibility Factor, k
ir
0.18 (R/T)
0.91
(d/D)
5
Run Out-of-plane Flexibility Factor, k
or
1
Run Torsional Flexibility Factor, k
tr
0.08 (R/T)
0.91
(d/D)
5.7
Branch In-plane Flexibility Factor, k
ib
(1.91(d/D) 4.32(d/D)
2
+2.7(d/D)
3
) (R/T)
0.77
(d/D)
0.47
(t/T)
Branch Out-of-plane Flexibility Factor, k
ob
(0.34(d/D) 0.49(d/D)
2
+0.18(d/D)
3
) (R/T)
1.46
(t/T)
Branch Torsional Flexibility Factor, k
tb
(1.08(d/D) 2.44(d/D)
2
+1.52(d/D)
3
) (R/T)
0.77
(d/D)
1.61
(t/T)
Run SIF In-plane, i
ir
0.98 (R/T)
0.35
(d/D)
0.72
(t/T)
-0.52
Run SIF Out-of-plane, i
or
0.61 (R/T)
0.29
(d/D)
1.95
(t/T)
-0.53
Run SIF Torsional, i
tr
0.34 (R/T)
2/3
(d/D)(t/T)
-0.5
Branch SIF In-plane, i
ib
0.33 (R/T)
2/3
(d/D)
0.18
(t/T)
-0.7
Branch SIF Out-of-plane, i
ob
0.42 (R/T)
2/3
(d/D)
0.37
(t/T)
0.37
Branch SIF Torsional, i
tb
0.42 (R/T)
2/3
(d/D)
1.1
(t/T)
1.1
CAU Express 2013 7
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
Compar i ng t he Wel di ng Tee
Equat i ons
Flexibility and SIF equations are improved
B31.3
No flexibility provided (k=1)
Overall, a single in-plane SIF and single out-plane SIF is used
for both the header and branch
SIF is a function of only header thickness and header radius
ASME 07-02
Flexibilities for header and branch are specified
Separate SIFs are provided for header and branch
SIFs are given for in-plane, out-plane and torsion
Intergraph 2013
Compar i ng a 10x 14 St andar d
Wal l Br anc h UFT
14
CAU Express 2013 8
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
Appl yi ng t he New Fl ex i bi l i t i es
Intergraph 2013
Wher e Di d al l t hese Equat i ons
Come Fr om?
Fatigue tests
PRG collected existing test data, including
Original Markl work
EPRI-funded work (Rodabaugh& Wais)
WRC 436 work (Ellenberger, Rodabaugh, Moore & Wais)
PRG ran their own Markl (fatigue) tests
Numerical analysis
PRG developed FEA models for these and other
piping components
The equations for flexibility and stress
intensification factors were developed by
correlating data from thousands of models
CAU Express 2013 9
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
What s Wr ong w i t h What We
Have Now ?
B31 Appendix D has been in use for many years
and has produced safe piping systems
Fortunately, the current inaccuracies have little
impact in systems with low cycles
Unfortunately, ignoring intersection flexibility has
inflated strain-based loads on equipment leading
to more expensive layout and support solutions
The biggest issues:
The d to D ratio (reduced outlets)
The ii / io reversal (termed silly in WRC 329)
Centerline-to-wall phantom branch flexibility
Intergraph 2013
WRC 329 I dent i f i es Sever al
Pr obl ems w i t h Ex i st i ng Codes
Welding Research Council Bulletin 329
Accuracy of Stress Intensification Factors for
Branch Connections by E.C. Rodabaugh
p.9 using i =1.0 for M
t
on full size outlet branch connections
can lead to inaccuracies far greater than the Mob inconsistency.
p.12 We would rate the relative complexity of i-factors for pipe,
elbows and branch connections by the ratios of 1:5:500.
[readers] will not find any simple answers in this report.
p.13 Extruded outlets are somewhat related to ANSI B16.9 tees
in that extruded outlets, like B16.9 tees, may vary significantly
between manufacturers.
CAU Express 2013 10
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
WRC 329 I dent i f i es Sever al
Pr obl ems w i t h Ex i st i ng Codes
p.21 [B31.3 i
tb
=1] is nonconservative by a factor of 2.7 and
might be nonconservative by a factor of 12 or more.
p. 22 For run moments on branch connections with small r/R,
both intuition and Ref. 26 data indicate that the B31.3
relationship i
i
=0.75i
o
+0.25 is at best, reversed in relative
magnitude of i
ir
and i
or
, and in effect, [the] Code requirements
are obviously silly.
p.28 The M
ob
tests indicate that there is a peak somewhere
around 0.75. [d/D=0.75]
p.29 .. we do not necessarily achieve greater accuracy in Code
evaluations by using more accurate i-factors unless more
accurate k-factors are also used.
Intergraph 2013
WRC 329 I dent i f i es Sever al
Pr obl ems w i t h Ex i st i ng Codes
p.32-33 delete the use of i
i
=0.75i
o
+0.25 for branch
connections/tees, [it] gives the wrong relative magnitude for
M
or
versus M
ir
, [and] it underestimates the difference between
M
ob
and M
ib
for r/R between about 0.3 and 0.95 and perhaps
over-estimates the difference for r/R below 0.2 and for r/R =
1.0.
p.33 For branch connections with r
2
(outer fillet radius) provided,
use i
ib
/2.
p.37 [limits on the inside radius of the branch connection are]
dropped because moment fatigue tests and theory indicate that
the inside corner radius is not a critical consideration. for
external loads (not pressure cycling)
CAU Express 2013 11
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
Addr essi ng t he WRC 329 Fi ndi ngs
The new flexibility and stress intensification
factors set in ASME 07-02 resolve many of the
problems listed here
But lets return to one:
p.29 .. we do not necessarily achieve greater
accuracy in Code evaluations by using more accurate
i-factors unless more accurate k-factors are also
used.
Intergraph 2013
ASME 07-02 Fl ex i bi l i t y Fac t or s
Using the term flexibility factor for tees
Bends have long used a similar term a bend with an
arc length of L and a flexibility factor of x will rotate
the same amount with a given moment as a straight
pipe of length x
*
L
A tee with a flexibility factor of y will provide the
same flexibility as adding a straight pipe of length
y
*
OD
With this reference, you can start to predict the
effects of this change
CAU Express 2013 12
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
Appl yi ng Tee Fl ex i bi l i t y
Current B31 tee:
Three pipe elements
framing into a single
node.
Flexibility Factor=1
SIFs applied at centerline
intersection
Intergraph 2013
Appl yi ng Tee Fl ex i bi l i t y
Current Section III (nuclear) tee:
Node added where
branch pipe meets run
wall two nodes are
rigidly connected.
B
A
Flexibility: applied at B.
Stress:
If d/D>.5, moments
and stresses
calculated at A
If d/D <.5, moments &
stresses are calculated
at B
CAU Express 2013 13
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
Appl yi ng Tee Fl ex i bi l i t y
ASME 07-02 tee:
Node added where
branch pipe meets run
wall B. A to B is a
stiff connection.
B
A
Flexibility: applied at B
and both sides of A.
Stress:
If d/D>.5, moments
and stresses
calculated at A
If d/D <.5, moments &
stresses are calculated
at A & B
: represents a CAESAR II
Node/CNode pair with stiffness
0
Intergraph 2013
Usi ng ASME 07-02 Tee Fl ex i bi l i t y
A few examples
CAU Express 2013 14
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
27
Once you have an estimate for the flexibility factors (k-factor),
you dont even have to use them in an analysis, just decide as a
designer if that many extra diameters of pipe will affect the
solution:
Is 131 inches of flexibility length
going to change the loads on the
pump nozzle at 40?
Yes
Intergraph 2013
28
If that same tee is placed in
this system, is that same 131
inches of flexibility length
going to change the loads on
the pump nozzle at 40?
Probably not so much.
CAU Express 2013 15
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
With current tee flexibilities (=1), there is no difference between an
unreinforced fabricated tee and a pad reinforced fabricated tee. But
wouldnt you expect the padded tee to be stiffer?
Yes
Intergraph 2013
1978 Schneider
Overview of the
Structural Design of
Piping Systems not
everything gets better
Adding flexibility
shifts the load
from the run pipe
to the branch pipe
No Flex Flex
CAU Express 2013 16
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
Rodabaughin 1987 gave the following Example in WRC 329 Fig. 15:
Without considering the branch connection flexibility of
the 12x30 fabricated tee at point 15 the out-of-plane (Z)
bending moment at point 15 is 372,000 in.lb. Including
the branch connection flexibility reduces the bending
moment to 41,832 in.lb., a reduction of 8.8. (880%)
Intergraph 2013
A more complicated (3 anchor)
system Heater Piping
When flexibility is added at one
location, displacement in the
vicinity of that intersection
increases and moments are
redistributed in the piping
system causing some loads to
go up while others go down
CAU Express 2013 17
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
Pl ac i ng t hese i s & k s i n a
CAESAR I I Model
B31.3 Appendix S provides stress analysis
examples
Example 3 shows an overstressed tee on a
meter station. High expansion stress range is
caused by the temperature changes on the two
legs
Operating Case 1
Operating Case 2
Tee Branchis 24%over
the allowed limit.
Intergraph 2013
Pl ac i ng t hese i s & k s i n a
CAESAR I I Model
Original left side tee (24x24 std wall):
10
40
20
30
CAU Express 2013 18
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
Pl ac i ng t hese i s & k s i n a
CAESAR I I Model
Updated (ASME 07-02) tee:
Extra node pairs to provide flexibilities
SIFs at appropriate nodes
10
41
20
31
23
24
22
21
*
*
*
*
*
SIFs
Provides
Node/CNode
pair
Intergraph 2013
Pl ac i ng t hese i s & k s i n a
CAESAR I I Model
Added restraints:
1
2
3
1
2
3
Stiffness based
on ASME 07-02
flexibilities
Run in-plane bending k=2.8439, stiffness applied (between 20-21 & 20-22) =2K*(pi/180);
K=(EI)/(k*D-mean)=8.528E8 in-lbf
2K*(pi/180)=2.977E7 in-lbf/degree == this is RY between 20-21
(the conversion of flexibility factor to stiffness is specified in ASME 07-02 Appendix D)
CAU Express 2013 19
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
Pl ac i ng t hese i s & k s i n a
CAESAR I I Model
Added SIFs:
Branch
at Run
center
Branch
at Run
wall
Run
(left)
Run
(right)
Link
to pdf
Node 22 is not on a tee so no
component plane is defined.
With 22-41 in Z, CAESAR II will
set the plane in Y-Z. So SIF(o),
here, is in Y and that is the tees
in-plane direction.
Intergraph 2013
Resul t s Revi ew
The added tee flexibility has reduced the
expansion stress range. The updated SIFs are
applied as well:
Maximum stress range is 24% above the
stress range limit (at entering tee at left)
Maximum stress range is 52% of the
stress range limit (at upper right tee)
Standard B31.3 is & ks ASME 07-02 is & ks
CAU Express 2013 20
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
Wow ! t hat s Tedi ous &
Pr one t o Er r or
Isnt that tedious?
ICAS & PRG will soon release a new package
FEA Tools which will automatically update all B31
tees with the ASME 07-02 stiffness and SIF values.
This program will also include an FEA processor to
provide exact terms for your specific intersections.
Create regular
model
Update data set with
ASME 07-02 terms
Analyze updated
data set
JOB-0702.C2 JOB.C2
FEA Tools CAESAR II CAESAR II
Intergraph 2013
A Not e on B16.9 Tees
In defining i & k for welding tees Codes
reference tees in accordance with ASME B16.9
B16.9 does little in defining required tee
geometry
Markl test tees were much thicker than todays
tees
The FEA processor of FEA Tools offers a choice
between light, medium & heavy contoured tees
CAU Express 2013 21
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
When I s Thi s Si gni f i c ant ?
High cycle service leaves little room for large
errors
Increased branch flexibility can be quite useful in
reducing response to thermal strain
J ust like (vessel) nozzle flexibility, these tee
flexibilities may reduce calculated operating loads on
equipment
This is more directly applicable data as
referenced in 319.3.6 Flexibility and Stress
Intensification Factors
Intergraph 2013
When I s Thi s Si gni f i c ant ?
These Code improvements give us a model that
provides a more realistic system response and
less opportunity to blunder beyond limits.
CAU Express 2013 22
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
How Wi l l ASME 07-02 be
I nt r oduc ed?
The project results will be incorporated in ASME
B31J for reference by all B31 Code books.
The B31J changes are currently under review by
the B31 Mechanical Design Committee
Proposed Title:
Stress Intensification
and Flexibility
Factors for Metallic
Piping Components
Intergraph 2013
I mpr ovement s i n Model i ng and
Eval uat i ng Br anc h Connec t i ons
Acknowledgement
Much of the information used here was originally
collected by Tony Paulin of PRG the author of
ASME 07-02
CAU Express 2013 23
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
I mpr ovement s i n Model i ng and
Eval uat i ng Br anc h Connec t i ons
Questions? Comments?
Intergraph 2013
I mpr ovement s i n Model i ng and
Eval uat i ng Br anc h Connec t i ons
CAU Express 2013 24
Branch Connections
David Diehl
Intergraph 2013
Why only circle the iorvalues, why not iobalso?
>>>this relates to the obviously sillycomment Ev made in WRC 329 on p.22. You can see the huge difference in the i-
factors. This was because Markl only tested size on size, and realizing that the run SIFs even for his tees were lower than
the branch SIFs he decided to leave out special development for them. As a result, for small d/D intersection app D uses
the size-on-size ii and io, when for io its obviously silly. Its funny how many people dont realize that theyre artificially
penalizing their run pipes when they add small bore branch connections to their models. And WRC 329 states, the piping
analyst should use his judgment(ref. below).
For the B31.3 (2008) table, why are the branch values different from the run values (branch equation used)?
>>>>This is the effective section modulus that confused SIF development even in the Code. (CAESAR has a correction for
the B31.1 foul up made in the 90s). This is all described in WRC 329. This would be a good bulletin to take on the
flight. When d/D <1 the branch uses the effective section modulus, which is essentially multiplying by t/T, making sure
(i)(t/T) >1. So the branch reali-factors are (i)(t/T). Ev recognized this could be a problem in 1961, but this was Markls
correction to in Code Case 51 to address the d/D<1 problem. 07-02 corrects this and puts lower bound limits on t/T. You
can imagine, since for pressure d/t =D/T, when d/D gets small, t/T can get very small too. If D/T is still large, the high stress
is in the run pipe
The notebelow the slide states that the effective section modulus is no longer used, there is nothing in this slide that
reflects that right? One would have to go to the Code and see that Zeff has been removed?
>>>The 07-02 equations are based on M/Z x SIF, or PD/4T X SIF, or F/A x SIF, which is the nominal stress in the thing
being analyzed times the SIF for that thing. We address that with the 07-02 modification in FEATools by removing the
intersection description so that CAESAR uses the nominal stress in the straight pipe.