COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE 31
This equation tends to be very conservative. However, there are
a number of warning statements within the Code regarding limits to applicability. One such warning is for near-straight sawtooth runs. In addition, the equation provides no indication of the end reactions, which would need to be considered in any case for load-sensitive equipment.
17.8.3
When Computer Stress Analysis Is Typically
Used
The Code does not indicate when computer stress analysis is
required. It is difficult to generalize when a particular piping flexibility problem should be analyzed by computer methods since this depends on the type of service, actual piping layout and size, and severity of temperature. However, there are quite a few guidelines in use by various organizations that indicate which types of lines should be evaluated by computer in a project. These tend to require that lines at higher combinations of size and temperature or larger lines that are attached to load-sensitive equipment be computer analyzed. One set of recommended criteria is provided below. (1) In the case of general piping systems; computer analysis is according to the following line size/flexibility temperature criteria: (a) All DN (NPS 2) and larger lines with a design differential temperature over 260C (500F). (b) All DN 100 (NPS 4) and larger lines with a design differential temperature exceeding 205C (400F). (c) All DN 200 (NPS 8) and larger lines with a design differential temperature exceeding 150C (300F). (d) All DN 300 (NPS 12) and larger lines with a design differential temperature exceeding 90C (200F). (e) All DN 500 (NPS 20) and larger lines at any temperature. (2) Computer analyze all DN 75 (NPS 3) and larger lines connected to rotating equipment. (3) Computer analyze all DN 100 (NPS 4) and larger lines connected to air fin heat exchangers. (3) Computer analyze all DN 1 (NPS 6) and larger lines connected to tankage. (4) Computer analyze double-wall piping with a design temperature differential between the inner and outer pipe greater than 20C (40F). Again it is emphasized that the intent of the above criteria is to identify in principle only typical lines that should be considered at least initially for detailed stress analysis. Obviously, the final decision as to whether or not a computer analysis should be performed should depend on the complexity of the specific piping layout under investigation and the sensitivity of equipment to piping loads. Just because a line may pass some exemption from computer stress analysis does not mean that it is exempt from other forms of formal analysis, nor that it will always pass the Code criteria if analyzed in detail. What it is intended to be is a screen that separates the more trouble-free types of systems from those that are more subject to overload or overstress. The lines exempted from computer stress analysis are considered to be more likely to be properly laid out with sufficient flexibility by the designer.
17.8.4
Stress Intensification Factors
Stress intensification factors are used to relate the stress in a
component to the stress in nominal thickness straight pipe. As dis-
cussed in the prior section, the analysis is based on nominal pipe
dimensions, so the calculated stress would be the stress in straight pipe unless some adjustment is made. The stress can be higher in components such as branch connections. Stress intensification factors that relate the stress in components to that in butt-welded pipe have been developed from Markl fatigue testing of piping components. These generally follow the procedures developed by A.R.C. Markl [1]. As mentioned previously, Markl developed a fatigue curve for butt-welded pipe. These were based on displacement-controlled fatigue testing, bending the pipe in a cantilever bending mode. Figure 17.8.1 shows a Markl type fatigue test machine. Using a butt-welded pipe fatigue curve had several practical advantages. One is that the methodology was being developed for butt-welded pipe, and the stress analyst typically does not know where the welds will be in the as-constructed system. Using a butt-welded pipe fatigue curve as the baseline fatigue curve provides that butt welds could be anywhere in the system. Furthermore, from a testing standpoint, appropriate fatigue curves could not be readily developed for straight pipe without welds in a cantilever bending mode, since the failure will occur at the point of fixity, where effects of the method of anchoring the pipe could significantly affect results. The stress intensification factors were developed from component fatigue testing. The stress intensification factor is the nominal stress from the butt-welded pipe fatigue curve at the number of cycles to failure in the component test, divided by the nominal stress in the component. The nominal stress in the component is the range of bending moment at the point of failure divided by the section modulus of matching pipe with nominal wall thickness. In a flexibility analysis, it is precisely this nominal stress that is calculated. When the nominal stress is multiplied by the stress intensification factor, and then compared to the fatigue curve for butt-welded pipe, one can determine the appropriate number of cycles to failure of the component. Different stress intensification factors are provided in ASME B31.3 for in-plane and out-plane loads. The direction of these moments are illustrated in Fig. 17.8.2. One of the commonly unknown aspects of piping flexibility analysis per the ASME B31 Codes is that in piping stress analysis, the calculated stress range due to bending loads is about one-half of the peak stress range. This is because the stress concentration factor for typical as-welded pipe butt welds is two. Since the stresses are compared to a butt welded pipe fatigue curve, one-half of the actual peak stresses are calculated. Thus, the theoretical stress, for example, in an elbow due to bending loads is two times what is calculated in a piping flexibility analysis following Code procedures. This is not significant when performing standard design calculations since the Code procedures are consistent. However, it can be very significant when trying to do a more detailed analysis, for example, in a fitness-for-service assessment. One example occurs in the design of high-pressure piping to Chapter IX. This chapter requires a detailed fatigue analysis, using polished bar-type fatigue curves (rather than butt-welded pipe fatigue curves). When calculating stresses due to piping thermal expansion via a flexibility analysis, these calculated stresses must be multiplied by a factor of two to arrive at the actual stress range. This should not be confused with the difference between stress range and stress amplitude, which is an additional consideration. Another commonly misunderstood item is where the peak stresses are in an elbow. With in-plane bending (see Fig. 17.8.2