PRGi K

PRGiK™v1.
PAULIN RESEARCH GROUP
PRGiK™ User Manual

PRGiK™ v1.1* User Manual
 2013 – Paulin Research Group

11211 Richmond Avenue • Suite 109
Houston, TX 77082
Phone +1 281.920.9775 • Fax +1 281-920-9739
www.paulin.com
* - PRGiK™ is part of PRG’s FEATools™

FEATools™ is a collection of individual FEA-based programs developed by Paulin Research Group
For the purposes of tracking and support, the version number used for FEATools™
Is the version number of the PRGiK Translator program incorporated into FEATools™
Table of Contents
Chapter 1
Introduction to the PRGiK™ Calculation Tool .............................. 1
Chapter 2
Detailed PRGiK™ Discussion ....................................................... 6
Chapter 3
PRGiK™ Examples .................................................................... 17
Chapter 4
Recommended use of k-factors ................................................. 34
Chapter 5
Stress Intensification Inconsistencies in WRC 329 .................... 36
Chapter 6
Reference Data .......................................................................... 38
1
Chapter
F E A T O O L S ™ U S E R MA N U A L
Introduction to the
PRGiK™ Calculation Tool
This chapter will provide the user with a brief
overview of what the PRGiK™ calculation tool does
and when it should be applied.
T he PRGiK™ calculation spreadsheet computes stresses, i-factors and k-

factors for branch connections using Code and correlation methods for
comparison. The spreadsheet is intended to be part of the pipe stress
analysts toolbox and should be available in important situations that can be
identified by stress magnitude and cycles.
Generally, some additional evaluation beyond the current (2012) B31.3 piping
code is required when:
1) 0.5 < d/D < 1.

2) N > 5000 and f = 1; or N > 2200 and f = 1.2.
3) D/T > 50
4) Rotating equipment is present
5) The operating temperature is greater than 250F
6) SE > 0.5SA.
© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 1

The PRGiK spreadsheet should be used:
1) To check Code branch connection SIFs against more applicable i-factor

data per 319.3.6. B31.3 Appendix D Notes state that the Appendix D SIFs
are to be used in the absence of more applicable data. If more applicable
data is available the user is obligated to use it certainly in situations where
it will impact the design or safety of the system. Several of those situations
are listed below:
a. When pressure contributes to the fatigue damage of the piping
system. (Pressure cycling must be evaluated per 301.10, and is
included in Equations P17 in Appendix P, and when present
likely does add in some way to the fatigue damage from
thermal cycling.)
b. When torsional cyclic loads act on branch connection legs and
d/D > 0.5. Paragraph 319.4.4 states that it = 1 in the absence of
more applicable data. More applicable data is available in WRC
329, EPRI 110996, and ASME ST-LLC 07-02 and shows that it can
be much greater than 1. PRGiK can be used to evaluate the
condition where it>1 if the pipe stress program being used
makes this assumption.
c. When run pipe i-factors for small d/D branch connections
control the pipe design. (These i-factors can easily be off by
more than four times.)
d. When 0.5 < d/D < 1.0, B31.3 Appendix D Table D-300 Note 11
states that out-of-plane i-factor for unreinforced, pad
reinforced, or integrally reinforced (olet) branch connections
may be NOT conservative, and that selection of the appropriate
SIF is the designers responsibility. More applicable data is
available in B31.1, WRC 329, EPRI 110996, EPRI 110755, or
ASME ST-LLC 07-02. The PRGiK stress calculation will also
incorporate this more applicable data in a Code stress
calculation.
2) When more than one stress component is high. How the high stress
components are combined can significantly affect the stress result. The
lower and upper bounds can be found from either of:
Slower = MAX( |Spmax|, |Saxmax|, |Sinmax|, |Soutmax|, |Stmax| ) <or>
Supper = |Spmax|+|Saxmax|+|Sinmax|+|Soutmax|+|Stmax|
When these numbers are significantly different, the user should

determine if the combination method used in the Code calculation is
appropriate for the loading condition.

3) When the pipe stress program of choice does not permit for pressure i-
factors or pressure stress components to be a part of the equation 17
Code stress calculation for fatigue for pressure cycling at a branch
connection. (In this case the user must find some alternative approach to
evaluate Paragraph 301.10.)
4) When the pipe stress program of choice does not permit entry of torsional
i-factors greater than 1 as part of the equation 17 Code stress calculation
for fatigue for torsional loads on branch connections.
The PRGiK spreadsheet should be used when:
1) High stresses at a branch connection indicate that a system may be

overstressed.
2) Pressure and torsional loads exist at a branch connection in a cyclic
system. Some B31 piping codes do not adequately address these
conditions.
3) The number of operating cycles for the system is greater than 5000 cycles
when f = 1, or is greater than 2200 cycles if f = 1.2, where f is the cyclic
reduction factor.
4) The D/T ratio for the piping system is larger than 40 and the temperature
is greater than 250F and the number of cycles is greater than those
indicated in note 3 above.
5) The pipe stress program user is concerned that a branch connection in the
piping system may not have suitable i-factors computed by Appendix D
correlations.

How to Use:
Activate the PRGiK program from the main FEATools Start dialog (shown
above on the left). The main PRGiK application (shown above on the right)
should appear.
Fill in, as a minimum, the first four data items as shown below:
Then press the Compute/Update I,k and K button:

SIF and k-factor results will be generated for a number of correlations as

shown below.
To compute stresses and compare to allowables and mean failure curves,

press the “Pipe Stress Evaluation” button:
The user can see stress and cycle values compared to allowables or mean
failure curves.
More detailed examples are shown in later sections.

2
Chapter
Detailed PRGiK™
Discussion
This chapter will provide the user with a detailed
technical discussion of the PRGiK calculation tool
T he PRGiK calculation spreadsheet computes i-factors and k-factors for

branch connections using a selected set of equations so that the results
can be compared and more applicable data selected per B31.3 319.3.6.
The tool also allows the i-factors to be used in a stress and allowable
calculations so that different stress equations and i-factor applications can be
evaluated and so that different allowable and failure mechanisms can be
compared.
Some individual uses of the PRGik Tool are listed below:
1) Verification of the i-factors provided by the Code of choice. It is known

that for certain geometries and branch connections particular Code
guidelines can be non-conservative. The PRGiK spreadsheet provides i-
factors from six different methods of calculation. When five of the
methods agree and one method is different, it is likely that the one
method that is different is errant.
2) Evaluation of k-factor magnitudes for branch connections. When the pipe
attached to branch connections are short, the affect of the branch
connection flexibility factors can have a large affect on secondary
calculated forces and moments. The WRC 329 Fig. 15 example shows an
800% reduction in bending moment at a branch connection when
flexibilities were used for that particular piping configuration. The WRC
329 example demonstrates a moment reduction due to the selective
location of the branch connection in the model. (k-factors don’t only have
large effects when the pipe is short.) Changes on the order of 800% are

not typical although the system shown in WRC 329 is not exceptional.
Guidelines for use of k-factors for system evaluation are provided in
Section 2.0.
3) Calculate B31 Stress SE using equation from Appendix P including a
separation of axial, pressure and torsional SIFs. There are numerous ways
to combine the up to five stress components that describe the stress state
in a pipe. When stresses cycle and are relatively high, it is important to
make the proper combination of stresses for comparison against the
allowable to be sure the desired Code separation from failure is
maintained.
4) Determine if given loads and cycles would likely cause a fatigue failure.
Mean failure lines for several criteria are presented. Plotted results
include the failure lines, the actual number of cycles and the calculated
stress so that separation between failure and stress can be estimated.
Each of the methods identified in the spreadsheet either provide i-factors or

maximum membrane and bending stresses on the surface. Where only
maximum membrane and bending stresses are available, the method of EPRI
110996 (Wais/Rodabaugh) is used to develop the stress intensification factor.
The initial i-k screen is shown on the following page:

Figure 1 – Main PRGiK Input Screen.
Only the branch and run pipe diameters and wall thicknesses need to be input.
(First four items in the upper left corner of the form. All other entries will be
defaulted.)
To produce a calculation or recalculation of the stress and flexibility factors

when any of the inputs are changed press the Calculate/Update Button:
A typical output PRGiK panel is shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 – Typical PRGiK Output Panel
The branch connection types used in the calculation are defined in Figure 3
below.
A discussion of how the PRGiK results for the main screen might be used is
provided in a later chapter of this manual.

Applicable Notes:
1) Section III NB and NC equations are based on the worst case SIF for any direction.
Generally this is the out-of-plane direction, and so the out-of-plane SIF is reported
for the in-plane and torsional directions and so in some cases the Section III NB
and NC in-plane and out-plane SIFs can be artificially higher than those from the
other methods and should likely be ignored.
2) ST LLC 07-02, EPRI 110996 and 110755 SIFs are based on finite element regressed
surfaces, adjusted to match fatigue test data. The first public use of this approach
was described by Wais and Rodabaugh in EPRI 110996. WRC 497 gives the sum of
membrane and bending stresses on the surface of the geometry in a manner
similar to that used in EPRI 110996. The SIF determination method used in EPRI
110996 is then used to find the SIF from the regressed finite element data in WRC
497.
3) When the background is shown in red, at least one of the equation parameters is
outside of recommended limits.
4) Wais model boundary condition lengths used in EPRI 110996 and EPRI 110755 are
generally shorter than Widera models in WRC 497 and so for larger D/T branch
connections some interaction of the boundary condition occurs, resulting in lower
flexibility and SIF factors for Wais.
5) SIF factors are adjusted when effective section modulii are used as part of the
Code B31 stress evaluation so that SIFs given are equal to (Stress)(Z/M); where M
is the moment in the branch or run, and Z is the section modulus of the branch or
run. Mb and Zb are always used together, and Mr and Zr are always used together.
6) As recommended in WRC 329 and echoed by the finite element results in EPRI
110996, WRC 497 and ST-LLC 07-02, for the run pipe, the in-plane stress
intensification factor is higher than the out-of-plane stress intensification factor.
This is a reversal of the trend observed for in-plane and out-of-plane loads
through the branch pipe, and is a reversal of the in-plane and out-of-plane SIFs for
the run pipe in the B31.3 Code.
Typical example uses are shown below with discussions and comparisons.

The Pipe Stress Evaluation button permits the user to enter loads and/or stresses
for probability of failure, safety factor and comparisons with allowables and mean
failure curves. This capability is intended to let the user know when they are close
to the allowables, and when they are far removed from allowables so that the
actual magnitude of the SIF or calculated load is not that critical a part of design.
This capability helps the designer know when to use “more applicable data”.

Welding tee per ASME B16.9

Sketch 2.1 – WLT
Reinforced fabricated tee

Sketch 2.2 – RFT
Fabricated tee
Sketch 2.3 - UFT
Extruded outlet
Sketch 2.4 - EXT
Welded-in contour insert

Sketch 2.5 - SWP
Integrally reinforced branch

welded-on fittings
Sketch 2.6 – OLET
Figure 3 – Branch Connection Types

Once the SIFs and k-factors have been computed, stresses may be evaluated
by pressing the “Pipe Stress Evaluation” button:
A version of the following screen appears: (Different versions might appear,

although each has essentially the same data. The PRGiK spreadsheet might be
called in a variety of ways, and the differences result in slight changes in how
the data is arranged on the form.)
Each area (Letter) is explained on the following page.

Each major item on the screen is identified with a letter:
A. Input and control. Entries in this section let the user test variations and
see the instantaneous affect they have on the stress, allowable or
predicted cycles to failure.
B. Load Screen. Entries in section B are used to provide load components
from the case under study for the stress evaluation.
C. Stresses computed for each load or for the load combinations are plotted
in this area and compared to a variety of allowables. The “C” Endurance
Curve Window screen defaults as disconnected and is toggled on and off.
D. Stress/Allowable Plot Control. Log-log plots can be deceiving. Various
options for displaying the stress and allowables can be selected to look at
the calculated values. In particular, the user may zoom in on the stress
and allowable and switch to linear representations to get a clearer idea of
the relationship between the stress and the various allowables.
E. Selected tabular results are available for use and review.
F. Various collective manipulation options are available to help make clearing
joint text cells, or resetting parameters easier. The analyst that often uses
this screen to compute stresses should explore this option to ease the
repeated calculation effort.
G. Various stress combination options. When combining the stresses there
are several interpretations when multiple i-factors are used. Several of the
options are available so that the user can see if there is much of a
difference in the stress between the options.

“Options” Panel
The options panel permits quick clearing and entry of commonly used loads
and i-factors and it permits the user to enter stresses directly. By default,
forces, i-factors and pipe properties are entered and the program computes
stresses, allowables, probabilities, damage factors, etc. In some situations,
the user would rather enter the stresses directly and have the downstream
properties calculated directly. The “Expose Stress” button should be pushed
for this option. When the user pushes the “Expose Stress” button, the
stresses may be input, and loads will be back calculated based on the given i-
factor and pipe cross section properties.
Stress Combination Panel
Pressure, axial, inplane, outplane and torsional stresses can be combined in

several common ways. The radio buttons in this panel let the user step
throught the various options so that the accuracy of the selected approach
can be reviewed in important instances. Of more importance in future
analyses will be how the run loads combine with branch loads to possibly
increase stresses at branch connections. Recent work suggests that the signs
of the loads can affect this combination. Future updates to this screen will
help the user evaluate these conditions. The intention here is to help the user
understand how individual stress components are combined to form the final
stress component that’s used by the Code.


3
Chapter
PRGiK™ Examples
This chapter will present a collection of examples of
the use of the PRGiK calculation tool.
A number of typical examples are given in this chapter. Each example

provides the problem description, output from PRGiK and a discussion of
how the results might be used.

Example #1:
Problem: A piping system contains a fabricated 8x12 intersection with a

schedule 20 wall thickness. The calculated stress is 91% of the
B31.3 allowable of 42,250psi. Since the Appendix D Note 11
warns of a non-conservatism in the Code i-factor, would a more
applicable value cause the system to show that the branch
connection is overstressed?
Note 11 of 2010 B31.3 Appendix D is shown below.
Branch Connection: 12 x 8 Schedule 20. UFT Sketch 2.3
Input:
There are six correlation equations for unreinforced fabricated tees (Sketch
2.3) in the PRGiK spreadsheet. For this branch connection, the results from the
six correlation equations are given below:

The out-of-plane stress intensification factor for thru-branch loading referred

to in Note 11 is given for each of the methods in the PRGiK spreadsheet in the
table below:
Table 1-1 iob stress intensification factors for 8x12 Schedule 20 fabricated tee.
Method i-factor Fact/B31

ST-LLC 07-02 11.486 1.492
B31.3 7.694 1.000
NC 3673.2 10.19 1.324
DNV RP C203 11.859 1.541
EPRI/TR 110996 13.41 1.743
WRC 497 9.377 1.219
Given that each alternative method indicates that the B31 method is low, it
seems likely that, in accordance with Note 11, stresses computed using the
B31.3 i-factors from the 2010 (and earlier) Appendix D will be non-
conservative by between 1.22 to 1.74 times. If the directional component
causing the stress to be 91% of the allowable is ONLY the out-of-plane
moment, then the increase will certainly cause the intersection to be
overstressed according to the Code.
If some of the 91% is due to other stresses at the intersection, then the
increase in the out-of-plane moment might not be enough to cause a Code
failure at the intersection. The user must evaluate each component of the
stress to determine if the increase in the out-of-plane i-factor will cause the
branch to be overstressed.

Example #2:
Problem: If the stress distribution for the problem in Example 1 is given

below. Will a 1.7 times increase in the out-of-plane stress
intensification factor cause the intersection to be overstressed?
If the ST-LLC 07-02 out-of-plane i-factor is used, the Sout stress would increase
from 27433 to 27433x11.486/7.694 = 40,930 psi. The bending stress is the
square root of the sum of the squares of the in-plane and out-of-plane
stresses, and so:
( 179682 + 409302)0.5 = 44,700 psi.
44,700 > 42250 psi, and so the increase in the out-of-plane stress
intensification factor will cause this intersection to exceed the Code allowable
stress.

Example #3:
Problem: E. Rodabaugh in WRC 329 reviewed the i-factor calculations and

noted that a number of inconsistencies existed in the then-
current B31.3 piping code. The B31.3 Appendix D Table D-300
Note 11 only addressed the out-of-plane SIF problem. Are
there any other issues identified in WRC 329 that might change
the stress evaluation for loads through the branch at this
intersection?
Section 6.0 in this document details a number of the points made in WRC 329
regarding i-factor errors.
The inplane stress intensification factor for the branch connection is compared
in Table 1-3 below, and it can be seen that what is more applicable data shows
the in-plane SIF to be about one half of the B31.3 value.
Table 1-3 iib

ST-LLC 07-02 3.922 0.651
B31.3 6.021 1.000
NC 3673.2 10.193 1.693
DNV RP C203 2.819 0.468
TR 110996 4.176 0.694
WRC 497 3.317 0.550
The NC 3673.2 comparison to B31.3 is inappropriate since Section III NC uses

the largest of the i-factors for ii, io and it, and so it is expected, when the io SIF
is large, the ii and it SIFs will equally be large for Section III NC calculations, and
similarly overly-conservative.
The DNV, EPRI/Wais/110996, WRC 497 and STLLC07-02 methods all agree that
the i-factor for the in-plane branch stress intensification factor for this branch
connection should be between 3 and 4 and not 6. Adjust the in-plane stress
calculation using the lower i-factor.

Using 3.922 instead of 6.021 for the in-plane branch i-factor:
17968 x 3.922 / 6.021 = 11,704 psi.
Recomputing the bending stress:
Sb = ( 11,7042 + 409302)0.5 = 42,570 psi.
The total stress at the intersection is computed using Eq. 17 from B31.3 and so
the total stress will be:
48,224 psi > 42250 psi.
The in-plane stress was too high, and the out-of-plane stress was too low, but
the final result was still an overstressed branch connection.

Example #4:
Problem: For the 12x8 Sch 20 branch connection the piping was rerouted
due to stresses on the run. The result from that calculation is
shown below. Does the pipe really need to be rerouted?
One of the inconsidtencies noted in WRC 329 is for the out-of-plane i-factor
for loads through the run pipe. For the 8x12 Sch 20 intersection evaluated in
this problem, the values of ior for the different methods are given in Table 1-2
below:
Table 1-2 ior for 8x12 Sch 20 Fabricated Branch Connection

ST-LLC 07-02 1.0 0.13
B31.3 7.695 1.00
NC 3673.2 4.582 0.59
DNV RP C203 -
TR 110996 1.0 0.13
WRC 497 -
The value for NC 3673.2 is known to be conservative because it is the largest of

the i-values at the junction, and so it is likely that the most realistic values of ior
for the 8x12 intersection is much closer to 1.0 than 7.7.
This suggests that in the B31.3 Code might be overestimating stress in the run
pipe due to an out-of-plane moment by 7.7 times. All i-factors are defined
with respect to a girth butt weld. An i-factor = 1.0 is with respect to the stress
at a girth butt weld and not the stress in a plain pipe removed from welds.
Many of the ior factors calculated by FEA for smaller d/D ratios are less than 1
since the high nominal stress is on the side of the pipe 90 degrees removed
from the branch connection. The high stress location for the ior stress is
shown in the figure below with the red star. EPRI TR 110996 and ST-LLC 07-02
agree that the out-of-plane i-factor for the run for this intersection is equal to
one. The WRC 329 comment made regarding this stress component is
included next to the figure below.

WRC 329, p.22.
For the run the torsional SIF is at least 2.68 times greater than what’s used in
B31.3, while the ior SIF used for B31.3 is probably about 7.7 times too high,
and the iir is probably about 6.02 / 3.56 = 1.69 times too high. The adjusted
stress calculation would be:

Sin (Adjusted) = 21344 x 3.5595 / 6.021 = 12,618 psi.
Sout (Adjusted) = 83243 x 1 / 7.695 = 10817 psi.
Sb = (Sin2 + Sout2)0.5 = (126182 + 108172)0.5 = 16620 psi.
|Sa| + Sb = 8652 + 16620 = 25,272 psi << 41002 psi.
The stresses in the run side were grossly overestimated since the run-side out-
of-plane i-factor for B31.3 is only based on size-on-size branch connections.
The pipe did not need to be rerouted due to stresses in this tee. The stress in
the run side elements were 61% off the allowable, and not 230% of the
allowable.

Example #5:
Problem: The PRGiK table for the 8x12 Sch 20 fabricated branch
connection includes k-factors for several of the references, but
the k-factors for B31 are blank – why is that? Does that have
any impact on the piping analysis?
The kob factors for branch connections in the PRGiK tables are a multiplier on
the diameter. For branch side flexibility factors, the k-factors multiply the
branch pipe nominal diameter, and for the run side flexibility factors, the k-
factors multiply the run pipe nominal diameter. The B31 Appendices for SIFs
and k-factors give k-factors equal to 1.0 for all branch connections. ASME
Section III NB3200 gives k-factors for fabricated tees when d/D < 0.5 and
methods for installing those k-factors.
The most important priority given by WRC 329 in the recommendation section
is that for the B31 Codes, that the meaningless k-factor of 1 should be deleted.
The note from WRC 329 is provided in part below:
Since WRC 329 was written, E.Rodabaugh, E.Wais, Widera, PRG, and others
have produced k-factor equations for branch connections. PRGiK compares
the most common ones. For the 8x20 Sch 20 branch connection, the kob
flexibility factor is given in the table below.
Table 1-4 kob

Method k-factor
ST-LLC 07-02 33.2
B31.3 -
NC 3673.2 29.96
DNV RP C203 38.60
TR 110996 28.60
WRC 497 37.7

The out-of-plane flexibility factor for this branch connection is almost at least
30, and so at the surface of the branch connection, a point rotational stiffness
that is as flexible as the rotational equivalent of 30 diameters of branch pipe
should be present in the piping system.
The analyst must look at the piping configuration and decide if 30 extra
diameters of bending flexibility applied as a point rotational spring at the
intersection of the branch centerline and run surface will further reduce the
loads on the branch connection. Including flexibilities at branch connections
provides more accurate flexibility models of the piping system.
Pressing the “k – Per Elbow Basis” button: converts the k-

factors to a “per elbow” basis, and gives the user a sense of how many elbows
concentrated at the branch-run surface intersection, would be needed to
simulate the intersection flexibility.
Pressing the “k-per elbow basis” button gives the following k-factors for the
8x12 Sch 20 tee.
For the kob flexibility, omitting the local flexibility factor would be equivalent
to leaving out the extra flexibility of 1.3 bends.

Example #6:
Problem: Using the output for the 8x12 Schedule 20 tee, what
conclusions can be drawn for the intersection?
The PRGiK table for the 8x12 Schedule 20 tee is shown below. Conclusions
drawn from this result are included in the table below.

Conclusions:
Factor B31.3 Evaluation Discussion

Underpredicts B31.3 stress intensifcation factor for iob underpredicts
iob
stress 1.4 times stress by 1.4 times.
Overpredicts stress B31.3 stress intensification factor for ior likely
ior
2 to 7 times overpredicts stress by 2 to 7 times
Overpredicts stress B31.3 stress intensification factor likely overpredicts
iib
by 1.7 times stress by 1.7 times
Local flexibility is The schedule 20 branch connection provides local
equal to 1.3 elbows flexibility equal to approximately 30 equivalent diameters
kob
of branch pipe. This is the equivalence of adding an
elbow at the branch connection.
Underpredicts B31.3 stress intensification factor likely underpredicts
iit
stress by 2 times stress by 2 times.
- The Bildy membrane factor is 1 for this branch
connection, suggesting that the elastic calculation for
pressure and external loads is reasonable. The Koves
Cv membrane factor is 0.8459 for this branch connection
suggesting that the elastic calculation may be
conservative for pressure and possibly also for external
loads.
The t/T ratio is 1. Even though this is a reduced branch
t/T connection, the i-factors for both the run and the branch
are the same for B31.3, regardless of the d/D ratio.
D/T=50. This is a point where high external loads may
D/T cause local failures of geometries and is the point where
elastic analysis tends to be increasingly conservative.
d/D=0.67 is the point where B31.3 Table D-300 Note 11
warns that the B31.3 iob may be nonconservative. Most
d/D
other references show that this nonconservatism is on
the order of 1.4.
kib and kob from Section III are out-of-range for this
branch connection.
These flexibility factors are all close to 1. The run-side
kor/kir/ktr pipe does not gain any flexibility due to presence of this
branch connection.
Widera and ST-LLC 07-02 kob factors are 37 and 33
respectively. Wais(EPRI 110996) is 28.6. This is
consistent with what is known about the boundary
condition lengths used by each methods. Where the
kob
attached boundary condition lengths are less than D1.4T-
0.4, it is expected that they will begin to have an affect
on calculated i-factors and k-factors. Shorter lengths will
reduce k and i-factors.

EXAMPLE #7:
Problem: Small bore branch connections on a relatively low pressure gas

pipeline, D=24”, T=0.25”, are experiencing cracking problems. A
detailed evaluation of the fatigue life of the branch connection
is to be performed in accordance with B31.3. The branch pipe is
welded directly to the run pipe and is a 2” x Schedule 160 pipe.
(2.375 x 0.344)
For the run pipe, B31.3 gives an:
out-of-plane i-factor of 0.9/(h2/3) = 0.9(R/T)2/3.
R=(24-0.25)/2 = 23.75/2 = 11.875.
Appendix P is the only section of B31.3 that explicitly includes pressure with
applied external loads to compute fatigue, and so the equations P17a and
P17b will be evaluated to include the pressure stress as recommended in
P319.4.4(a). In the definition of Fa = axial force, the axial force due to internal
pressure is to be included. The resulting nominal stress is found from F/A,
which for pressure in a pipe cross section is equal to PD/(4T). The stress S a is
found from ia x (F/A) or for the pressure part of the longitudinal stress will be ia
x (PD/4T).
In the definition for ia, ia is equal to io for components besides elbows and
straight pipe. For the run pipe in the example problem, io =
(0.9)(11.875/0.25)2/3 = 11.804. The design pressure for the pipeline is 175
psig.
The cyclic pressure stress according to Appendix P is (ia)(F/A) = (ia)(PD/4T) =

(io)(PD/4T) = (11.804)((175)(24)/[(4)(0.25)]) = 49,577 psi. If the allowable
thermal stress is 1.25(Sc+Sh) = 50,000 psi. The pressure stress component at a
2” branch in a 24” line is the limiting stress and no external loads would be
permitted.

The PRGiK spreadsheet uses existing correlations and so does not produce an
i-factor for pressure. The FESIF program that is also a part of FEATools can be
used to generate i-factors due to pressure. Two FESIF calculations are
required. One analysis is performed to obtain the i-factors for branch side
loads, and the other analysis is performed to obtain the i-factors for run side
loads.
The input for FESIF is shown below:

The output from FESIF is shown below:
The shell FEA analysis suggest that all the i-factors for pressure in this thick,
small connection are 1.0.
NozzlePRO lets the user transform the shell model into a brick (volumetric –
thru-thickness) model.

The maximum linearized stresses (for only the two element through the
thickness model is given below)
The nominal hoop stress is 175 x 24 / (2 x 0.25) = 8400 psi.
The nominal longitudinal stress is 8400 / 2 = 4200 psi.
From EPRI 110996, for use with external loads, (and failure at the edges of the
fillets), the i-factor for use with pressure would be: ip = C2K2/2; where K2 = 1
when weld lengths are not entered and C2 is computed using the shell type
membrane and bending stress. C2 = 12,012 / 4200 = 2.86. ip = C2/2 = 1.43.
For a finer mesh (5 nodes through the thickness of the non-compatible shaped 11
noded, reduced integration brick element), the maximum linearized stresses are
essentially the same as those above, confirming this result. This would lead us to
believe that the ip should be 1.43 for pressure and not 11.804. The pressure stress
in this case would be expected to be off by 11.804/1.43 = 8.25 times.

4
Chapter
Recommended use of
k-factors
T here are two common uses of k-factors for piping system analysis. These
are discussed in detail in this chapter.
1. Comparative – Qualitative:
The analyst computes the k-factor and then based on a qualitative evaluation
of the piping system decides whether an analysis that does not include k-
factors gives an adequate representation of the piping system. When k-
factors are close to 1 and the piping attached to the branch connection is
relatively long and flexible, then the k-factors will likely have little effect on
the calculated forces, moments and stresses. When the k-factors are >> 1
and/or the pipe attached to the branch connection is relatively short – or
otherwise not-flexible because of the support in the area, then the k-factors
may have a large effect. Also when branch connection branches or runs are
at the end of long runs of cantilevered pipe, and the maximum moment
occurs at the branch connection due to support in the vicinity of the branch
connection large differences in the calculated moments can occur. The
example in WRC 329 Fig. 15 is of this type and shows an 800% reduction in the
out-of-plane bending stress at the branch connection in the example.
2. Evaluative – Quantitative:
The k-factors can be used in every situation to produce a more accurate

stiffness model of any branch connection. Local stiffnesses for all three
moment loading directions for both the run and the branch are generated and
included in a beam model of the piping system. When the attached pipe is
short and the loads applied are secondary and strain limited, moments can be
reduced by an order of magnitude. Generally reductions are not by an order
of magnitude but rather some moments increase while others decrease.

Displacements in parts of the system generally increase due to the added

flexibility in the piping system. The inclusion of k-factors in piping systems can
also be important when rotating equipment is included in the piping system.
Equipment is often placed close together to reduce the unit footprint. In this
case the excessive use of loops to reduce loads on rotating equipment can be
expensive in terms of pipe, added steel, and the time it takes to reroute the
pipe, both in man-hours and scheduling. Including the local stiffness of
branch connections can be equivalent to adding one or more bends at the
branch connection, where bends are equivalent to concentrating many extra
diameters of pipe at a single point in the piping system.
Comparative Use of Flexibility Factors.
Forces and moments are particularly important when rotating equipment is

located in the vicinity of the branch connection or when the integrity of the
piping system is critical and/or the stresses are relatively high. If there is no
rotating equipment, and the system does not cycle, and the thermal stresses
are low (25% of the allowable), and there are no other significant loads to
evaluate, it is seldom worth the effort to include local flexibilities at branch
connections. When any of these conditions are not true, then including local
branch connections can provide a more accurate analysis.

5
Chapter
Stress Intensification
Inconsistencies in
WRC 329
M ost of the recommendations made by E. Rodabaugh in WRC 329 have an

influence on the use of SIFs and k-factors in the piping codes and were
incorporated in the notes or guidance included in the ST-LLC 07-02.
Excerpts taken from WRC 329 are given below. The page number listed is from
WRC 329. A full reading of WRC 329 may be required. Comments by PRG are
provided in braces {}.
In the forward to WRC 329 written by Sam Moore, Mr. Moore writes: “[Mr.
Rodabaugh] … identified a large number of problems with the different code’s
usage of branch connection SIFs in their design procedures.”
p.9 “… using i = 1.0 for Mt 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.12 “…pad or saddle reinforced branch connections may share the M ob

inconsistency with other types of branch connections.”
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.”
p.19 “… if a single, nonparametric exponent is to be used for (R/T) … this is a

potent source of inaccuracy. … if a more accurate (R/T) exponent is 1.0 then
the extrapolation would give if = 25, instead of 11.6.”

p.19 “ [C’2bo] … suggests that the t/T variable for r/R between 0.5 and 0.95 is
not very significant, and the Code assumption that /M is independent of t is
not too bad.”
p.21 “[B31.3 itb=1] may be nonconservative by a factor of 2.7 … and may 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 ii = 0.75io + 0.25 is at
best, reversed in relative magnitude of iir and ior, … and in effect, [the] Code
requirements are obviously silly.”
p.24 “The available fatigue test data are inadequate to even guess at the
general accuracy of Code i-factors for run moments or how they vary with R/T,
r/R, t/T, r/rp or some other parameters.”
p.24” .. values[for] Mtr indicate that the B31.3 SIF i=1.00 for Mtr is perhaps
unconservative even for r/R < 0.5.”
p.27 “[using ib=0.9/h2/3 instead of 1.5(R/T)2/3(d/D)1/2(t/T)(r/rp)] could result in

unnecessary changes.”
p.28 “The Mob tests indicate that there is a peak somewhere around 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.”
p.32-33 “… delete the use of ii = 0.75io + 0.25 for branch connections tees, …
[it] gives the wrong relative magnitude for Mor versus Mir, [and] it
underestimates the difference between Mob and Mib 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 r2 provided, use iib/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.”

6
Chapter
Reference Data

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved

39

40

41

42
Index
To Be Provided – Intentionally left out of this version of the user manual

43

PRGi K

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PRGi K

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PRGiK™v1.

PAULIN RESEARCH GROUP

PRGiK™ User Manual

 2013 – Paulin Research Group

* - PRGiK™ is part of PRG’s FEATools™

T he PRGiK™ calculation spreadsheet computes stresses, i-factors and k-

1) 0.5 < d/D < 1.

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 1

The PRGiK spreadsheet should be used:

1) To check Code branch connection SIFs against more applicable i-factor

When these numbers are significantly different, the user should

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 2

The PRGiK spreadsheet should be used when:

1) High stresses at a branch connection indicate that a system may be

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 3

Then press the Compute/Update I,k and K button:

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 4

SIF and k-factor results will be generated for a number of correlations as

To compute stresses and compare to allowables and mean failure curves,

More detailed examples are shown in later sections.

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 5

T he PRGiK calculation spreadsheet computes i-factors and k-factors for

Some individual uses of the PRGik Tool are listed below:

1) Verification of the i-factors provided by the Code of choice. It is known

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 6

Each of the methods identified in the spreadsheet either provide i-factors or

The initial i-k screen is shown on the following page:

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 7

Figure 1 – Main PRGiK Input Screen.

To produce a calculation or recalculation of the stress and flexibility factors

A typical output PRGiK panel is shown in Figure 2 below.

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 8

Figure 2 – Typical PRGiK Output Panel

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 9

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 10

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 11

Welding tee per ASME B16.9

Reinforced fabricated tee

Welded-in contour insert

Integrally reinforced branch

Figure 3 – Branch Connection Types

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 12

A version of the following screen appears: (Different versions might appear,

Each area (Letter) is explained on the following page.

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 13

Each major item on the screen is identified with a letter:

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 14

Stress Combination Panel

Pressure, axial, inplane, outplane and torsional stresses can be combined in

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 15

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 16

A number of typical examples are given in this chapter. Each example

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 17

Problem: A piping system contains a fabricated 8x12 intersection with a

Note 11 of 2010 B31.3 Appendix D is shown below.

Branch Connection: 12 x 8 Schedule 20. UFT Sketch 2.3

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 18

The out-of-plane stress intensification factor for thru-branch loading referred

Method i-factor Fact/B31

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 19

Problem: If the stress distribution for the problem in Example 1 is given

( 179682 + 409302)0.5 = 44,700 psi.

© Paulin Research Group – 2013 All Rights Reserved 20