Proceedings of PVP2005

2005 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Proceedings of PVP2005

Division Conference
2005 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division
July 17-21, 2005, Denver, ColoradoConference
USA
July 17-21, 2005, Denver, Colorado USA

PVP2005-71014
PVP2005-71014

A 12 MM/S RMS SCREENING VIBRATION VELOCITY FOR PIPES USING ANSI-OM3

STANDARD AND REGULATORY DESIGN RULES

Caillaud Sébastien Pons Yannick

EDF R&D, Dept. of Analysis in Mech. and Acoustics EDF R&D, Dept. of Analysis in Mech. and Acoustics
Clamart, France Clamart, France

Moussou Pierre Gaudin Michaël

LAMSID, UMR CNRS EDF 2832 Electricité de France, Basic Design Dept.
Clamart, France Villeurbanne, France

ABSTRACT NOMENCLATURE
ASME ANSI-OM3 standard is dedicated to the assessment α dimensional coefficient equal to 13.4 mm/s/MPa
of piping vibrations for nuclear power plants. It provides an µ ratio concentrated mass / total mass of the pipe
allowable zero-to-peak velocity, which is derived from a σ, S stress
stress/velocity relationship, where corrections factors (C1, C2K2, C0 rms-to-peak factor
C3, C4 and C5) and an allowable stress σal are introduced. In the C1 correction factor standing for the effect of concentrated
ANSI-OM3 standard, the C4 correction factor depends on the mass
pipe layout and on its boundary conditions, and is calculated for C2K2 global stress intensification coefficient as defined in
a few cases. In a former work, it was proposed to extend this Boiling and Pressure Vessels design codes or in RCC-M
factor to a larger number of pipe setups. Besides, the correction C3 correction factor for added mass effects of pipe contents
factor C1, which stands for the effect of concentrated mass, is and insulation
established on a given set-up: a clamped-clamped straight pipe C4 correction factor depending on the pipe layout and on its
span on its first vibrating mode. C1 is then supposed to be boundary condition
conservative on any piping layout. Finally, allowable velocities d displacement
derived from the ANSI-OM3 stress/velocity relationship may be D outer diameter of the pipe
very conservative. One way to reduce this conservatism is to f frequency
introduce regulatory design rules. For a larger set of pipe i intensification factor
geometries, a new set of C1 and C4 correction factors are I area moment of inertia
computed using weight and pressure designs. Using these L length
numerical results, allowable velocities can be calculated. Then, M moment
we propose here to check if a screening vibration velocity of p static pressure inside the pipe
12 mm/s rms is fulfilled. For the 181 geometries on 3708, t thickness
which do not meet the criterion, a seismic design checking is V vibration velocity
applied. Finally, by this way, 99.7% of the tested geometries,
which are supposed to be acceptable with respect to static and
seismic designs, display allowable velocities above 12 mm/s INTRODUCTION
rms and the minimum allowable vibration velocity is 11.2 Following French RCC-M design code [1], piping systems
mm/s. This screening vibration velocity of 12 mm/s commonly of nuclear power plants (NPP) are designed with respect to
used for vibration monitoring of piping systems in EDF nuclear weight, pressure, thermal and seismic considerations. RCC-M
power plants is then supported. does not stipulate any rules to prevent piping systems vibrations
in operating conditions. The only mandatory specification
concerns vibration monitoring of piping systems. ASME ANSI-

1 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 OM3 standard [2], which proposes a stress/velocity
relationship, may be used for such a task. This relationship is a
linear function between maximum vibration velocity of the pipe
and maximum stress in the material of the pipe. It reads:
α C1C 4 0.8σ al
Vallow =
C3 C2 K 2
where the parameters have been converted here in the
international unit system:
0.8σal stress endurance limit with a safety margin [MPa],
α dimensional coefficient equal to 13.4 mm/s/MPa,
C1 correction factor standing for the effect of concentrated
mass. ANSI-OM3 provides C1 on the first mode of a
clamped straight pipe with a centered concentrated mass
(Fig. 1). C1 depends on the ratio µ of the concentrated
mass and of the total mass of the pipe including the fluid,
C2K2 global stress intensification coefficient as defined in
Boiling and Pressure Vessels design codes or in RCC-M,
C3 correction factor for added mass effects of pipe contents
and insulation,
C4 correction factor depending on the pipe layout and on its
boundary conditions. ANSI-OM3 provides values on a
few cases, which are supposed to be conservative for
standard geometries:
- 1.0 for straight span,
- 0.74 for a fixed-equal leg Z-bend pipe,
- 0.83 for a fixed-equal leg U-bend pipe.
The value of 0.7 is supposed to be conservative for any
layout in OM-SG code [3]. The main interest of the
stress/velocity relationship of Eq. (1) is that C4 is
independent of the order of the modes for straight pipes,
which is not the case for more complex layouts [4].
One notes that a new coefficient C5 has been introduced in
the 1990 edition of the OM-SG code [3] and takes into account
off-resonance forced vibration.
Nevertheless, an analysis [4] realized on a larger set of pipe
setups and depending on the order of the modes has shown that
the C4 correction factor may be much lower than 0.7. A similar
analysis can be made on the C1 correction factor, which is
strongly dependent on the pipe layout and on the order of the
modes. It can be shown as for instance in Fig. 1 for straight and
L-bend pipes, that C1 is usually higher because the ANSI-OM3
setup (1st mode of a clamped straight pipe with a centered mass)
used to calculate C1 is shown to be approximately conservative.
Finally, the first objective of this paper is to enhance the set
of pipe arrangements and to increase the range of the analyzed
modes for the estimation of C1 and C4. In order to decrease the
conservatism of these coefficients, we propose here to use static
design rules for piping systems, such as pressure and weight.
The estimation of C1 and C4 factors is then achieved on more
realistic piping systems. The second objective of this paper is to
determine if the screening vibration velocity of 12 mm/s rms ,
which is commonly used for vibration monitoring of piping
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
systems in EDF NPP, is available. For the pipe setups, which
display allowable vibration velocities below this threshold, we
propose in addition to check if they comply with seismic design.
(1)
Figure 1: examples of C1 for several geometries and modes
COMPUTATIONAL ALGORITHM FOR C1 AND C4
Hypothesis
The method is based on the following hypothesis:
(1) C1 and C4 factors are independent. In that case, C4 can be
calculated with no concentrated mass. This hypothesis is in
agreement with ANSI-OM3 [2; 3], where correction factors
are independently estimated.
(2) No heavy concentrated mass is supported on vertical parts,
on elbows or on straight parts between two elbows. This
hypothesis is in agreement with the way of designing piping
systems, where heavy concentrated mass are usually close to
supports.
(3) Allowable stress for static design is taken to
σallowable = 60 MPa for stainless steel and maximum stress
for flexion σSL checks Eq. (2) from RCC-M [1]:
pD max(M f )
σ SL = + 0.75i ≤ σ allowable (2)
4t Z
where Mf is the maximum bending moment in one direction
and Z = 2 I / D.
Here, no stress intensification is taken into account.
Therefore, RCC-M [1] gives 0.75i = 1. The value
σallowable = 60 MPa, which corresponds to a lower value than
the allowable stress of the material, gives margins for
thermal and seismic designs.
(4) As in ANSI-OM3 standard [2], the maximum bending stress
and maximum transverse displacement are used for the
computation of C4.
2 Copyright © 2005 by ASME
 (5) The ratio µ of the concentrated mass and of the total mass of
g
the pipe is in the range 0 to µmax. If no upper limit is defined
Lp
for µ, the value of the concentrated mass may be non- Lp
realistic in comparison with the mass of valves (here, µmax is L
equal to 10) L
(6) Flexibility of elbows is corrected following RCC-M formula horizontal vertical
[1].
Figure 4: orientation
(7) C1 depends on the position of the concentrated mass, which
corresponds here to the node of maximum flexural vibration.
This approach is used to simplify the algorithm and to
reduce computation time.
Definition of the pipe
Description of the algorithm • geometry
The proposed algorithm is given in Fig. 5 and explained • orientation, symmetry
below. A numerical example is also given in the annex at the • boundary conditions
end of the paper. The general term “dynamic computation” is • parameters
used here to define the numerical resolution of the eigenvalue
problem.
A pipe is defined by:
Dynamic computation with fluid / with no mass (µ = 0)
(a) its geometry (straight, L-bend, U-bend, Z-bend, 3D)
(Fig. 2), ⇒ modal frequency : f on
(b) its total isometric length Ltotal and its ratio Lp / L for ⇒ node of maximum transverse modal displacement Non
geometries with at least one elbow (L-bend, Z-bend, U- n
⇒ maximum modal displacement of the pipe d max
bend, 3D). Lp and L are isometric lengths of straight parts
of pipes, ⇒ maximum modal stress of the pipe σ max
n

(c) its boundary conditions: free, clamped, pinned, guided,

(d) its symmetry (Fig. 3),
(e) its orientation with respect to gravity vector (Fig. 4), n
d max
(f) the materials of the pipe and the fluid, α C4 n = 2π f on C3
(g) the diameter and thickness of the pipe, the radius of σ max
n

curvature of the elbows.

Static computation with fluid
L
with no mass (µ = 0) with unit mass (µ = 1) in Non
⇒ maximum stress σo ⇒ maximum stress σ1
L Lp Lp
L

L
straight σ limit − σ o
L-bend U-bend µ= and µ ≤ µ max
σ1 − σ o
L
Lp
Lp
Lp Dynamic computation with fluid / with mass µ in Non
L
L
⇒ modal frequency f µn
Z-bend 3D
Figure 2: standard geometries
n f µn
C1 =
f on
L Lp Loop on the modes n
Lp Lp
L L Figure 5: computational algorithm for C1 and C4
symmetrical asymmetrical
Figure 3: symmetry

3 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 First of all, a dynamic computation of the system with fluid APPLICATION FOR THE ESTIMATION OF C1 AND C4
and with no concentrated mass (µ = 0) (Fig. 5) gives:
(1) the modal frequency of the mode of order n: f on , for Implementation of the algorithm
The above algorithm of Fig. 5 has been implemented in the
computation of C1n and C4n , finite-elements free software Code_Aster [6], which is
(2) the node of maximum modal transverse displacement Non, developed by EDF R&D. This general algorithm has been
where the concentrated mass will be placed for the static inserted in a loop where the ratio Lp / L between the lengths of
and dynamic computations when µ > 0, the pipe is varied in order to increase the number of geometries
n n
(3) the maximum modal transverse displacement d max , which taken into account. Therefore, modal correction factors C1 and
is used to calculate C4n , n
C4 are calculated as a function of Lp / L.
(4) the maximum bending modal stress σ max
n
, which is used to Pipes are modeled using Euler beam elements as required
by the ANSI-OM3 standard. A sensitivity analysis to the mesh
calculate C4n , n
density has been made by observing its influence on C1 and
(5) C4n factor is then calculated for the mode of order n n
C4 . Then, 30 elements are used for straight pipes, 60 for L-
(Fig. 5) using Eq. (3):
bend pipes and 90 for Z-bend, U-bend and 3D pipes; elbows are
n meshed using 10 elements.
d max
αC4 n = 2πf on C3 (3)
σ max
n

Data
The data used here are identical to that of [4] (Table 1).
where the added mass correction factor C3 is used because the
The correction factors are calculated for the first four out-of-
previous dynamic computation is realized with fluid.
plane and in-plane modes of L-bend, Z-bend and U-bend pipes
The next computations (Fig. 5) are realized using a loop on
and for the eight first modes of 3D pipes.
the modes, which are divided into in-plane and out-of-plane
modes for 2D geometries (L-bend, Z-bend, U-bend). For each Table 1: numerical data
mode of order n, the static computations of the pipe with no
concentrated mass (µ = 0) and with a unit concentrated mass Young’s modulus E = 2.1011 N/m2
(µ = 1) placed in the node Non provide the maximum stresses, Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.3
respectively σo and σ1, for the determination of the coefficient µ Pipe density ρs = 7800 kg/m3
associated to an acceptable stress for weight design σlimit using Fluid density ρf = 1000 kg/m3
Eq. (4). The static stress is a linear function of µ, which reads: Allowable stress for static design σallowable = 60 MPa
Maximum coefficient µ µmax = 10
σ limit − σ o Outer diameter D = 300 mm
µ= (4) Thickness (schedule close to 10) t = 5 mm
σ1 − σ o
Radius of curvature of elbows Rc = 1,5 D
Isometric lengths L = 3 m (straight)
where σlimit is estimated using the following equation: L = 6 m (L-bend)
L = 9 m (Z-bend U-bend 3D)
pD
σ limit = σ allowable − (5)
4t

and the pressure p may be approximated by the schedule of the Sensitivity analysis
pipe: p (in bars) ≈ schedule. A sensitivity analysis of C4 with respect to the ratios
A dynamic computation with a concentrated mass thickness/diameter (t / D), radius of curvature/diameter (Rc / D)
Mconcentrated = µ (Mpipe + Mfluid) gives the modal frequency f µn , and radius of curvature/isometric length (Rc / L) has been done
in [4]. This first analysis has shown that C4 does not depend on
n
which allows calculating C1 defined by [1] as the ratio of these ratios. In addition, the influence of the ratio t / D on C1 is
frequencies with concentrated mass f µn and with no one f on : shown to be negligible in [5], which is mostly due to Eq. (5)
where the stress limit is reduced by the stress-induced pressure.
In a future work, it should be interesting to evaluate the
n f µn influence of the pipe length on the results in order to complete
C1 = (6)
f on this sensitivity analysis.

4 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 rms
120
steel. The histogram of Vallow is given in Fig. 6. The minimum
rms
12 mm/s of Vallow is 6.9 mm/s, which corresponds to C1C4 = 0.146, and
100
the mean value is 25.4 mm/s. 181 setups over the 3708
computed ones (i.e. 5%), display allowable velocities lower
80
than 12 mm/s rms, which is a screening vibration velocity for
monitoring of piping systems in EDF.
number of samples

60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40
Vrms
−1
(mm.s )
allow
rms
Figure 6: histogram of Vallow before seismic design checking
Results
For each setup (geometry, boundary conditions, orientation,
symmetry), the coefficients C1, C4 and the product C1C4 are
calculated varying 80 times the ratio Lp / L in the range 0.1 to
10. For example, the results of the clamped-clamped horizontal
symmetrical Z-bend pipe are presented in Fig. 9 for its first
three out-of-plane and in-plane modes. For this particular case,
the minimum of the product C1C4, which is 0.309 (Table 3), is
obtained for Lp / L ≈ 4.2 for the second in-plane mode. This
minimum is not obtained when C1 and C4 are separately
minimum, which shows that the ANSI-OM3 approach is over-
conservative.
The minimum of the product C1C4 for each tested geometry
(straight, L-bend, Z-bend, U-bend, 3D) are presented in Table 3.
A comparison with C4 factors calculated in [4] has been made to
validate the results obtained here. The minimum of C1C4 is
finally 0.30 for straight pipes, 0.146 for L-bend pipes, 0.148 for
Z-bend pipes, 0.219 for U-bend pipes and 0.295 for 3D pipes.
Minimum values of C1C4 can be associated to minimum
allowable vibration velocities of pipes using Eq. (1), which is
modified in:
Discussion
It is difficult to display any particular correlation between
pipe setups and minimums of C1C4, which do not depend on
boundary conditions, on mode shapes (in-plane or out-of-
plane), on orientations (vertical or horizontal) and on
symmetries (symmetrical or asymmetrical). One observation is
that C1C4 is quite low for 2D geometries and higher for 1D and
3D geometries. For one setup, the minimum of C1C4 is also
50 60 generally reached on the lowest modes.
In the analysis [4], where C4 was calculated on a large
number of setups, the minimum of C4 was found to be 0.34 and
using ANSI-OM3 [2], the minimum of C1 may be estimated to
be 0.2 making µ = µmax = 10. The computation of the product
C1C4 here on a large number of pipe setups realistic with
respect to static design allows to increase by a factor of two the
minimum value of C1C4: here min(C1C4) = 0.146 and before
using [2, 4], min(C1C4) = 0.34x0.2 = 0.07.
A large range of standard pipe setups has been tested here.
Although, more boundary conditions of pipes could be tested,
we assume that most of the configurations encountered in real
piping networks are covered.
The computed C1C4 correction factors for each type of
geometries may be directly used for the calculation of allowable
velocities using Eq. (7).
Although the minimum allowable vibration velocities of
pipes are also increased by two following Table 3 in comparison
with [4], 5% of the 3708 geometries computed here remain
below the screening vibration velocity of 12 mm/s (Fig. 6).
Three types of geometries are concerned: 89 L-bend; 33 U-bend
and 59 Z-bend pipes. We propose here to check if those 5% of
pipe setups comply with seismic design.
SEISMIC DESIGN CHECKING

rms αC1C4 0.8σ al Checking method

Vallow = (7) A piping system is acceptable with respect to seismic
C0 C3 C 2 K 2
design if Eq. (8) is verified for each analyzed pipe section. This
criterion is derived from RCC-M code [1] for pipes of class #2
rms
where Vallow is the rms value of the vibration velocity of the level C required in exceptional situation. It reads:
pipe and C0 is a rms-to-peak factor taken to 3.5 for pipe
vibrations. PD M + MB
Sa = + 0,75 i A ≤ 1,8 S h (8)
Therefore, allowable vibration velocities for all the setups 4t Z
computed here can be derived from the products C1C4 using
conservative correction factors such as C3 = 1.75 and where:
C2K2 = 4.2 [1], and σal = 114 MPa at 1011 cycles for stainless

5 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Sa: combined pressure/gravity/seismic induced equivalent
stress,
Sh : stress limit and is equal to 108 Mpa,
0,75i: stress intensification factor and remains equal to 1 as
previously,
MA: quadratic combination of bending and torsion moments
induced by gravity,
MB: quadratic combination of bending and torsion moments
induced by inertial seismic effects. MB is calculated by a
seismic Response Spectrum Modal Analysis.
We suppose no differential motion between supports. The
reduced damping is equal to 5%. The pseudo-acceleration
oscillator spectrum of Fig. 7 is applied in the two horizontal
directions and the one of Fig. 8 in the vertical one. These
oscillator spectra are supposed to be conservative for French
NPP. The modal basis is truncated to 33 Hz with a static
correction. The total seismic response is derived from the
quadratic combination of responses in each direction.
Results and discussion
Only 12 pipe setups of the 181 checked ones, which
display allowable vibration velocities below 12 mm/s rms,
comply with seismic design. These 12 setups are all clamped-
pinned horizontal symmetric U-bend pipes. Seismic design
checking allows discarding 94% of the setups, which display
allowable velocities below the threshold of 12 mm/s.
The minimum allowable vibration velocity of these 12 pipe
setups is 11.2 mm/s. Finally, the minimum allowable velocity of
the 3708 pipe setups remains very close to the screening
vibration velocity.
In Table 3, min(C1C4) correction factors after seismic
design checking are indicated between brackets for the
concerned geometries. One notes that these factors equal to
0.253 correspond to an allowable vibration velocity of 12 mm/s
rms (except for the clamped-pinned horizontal symmetric U-
bend pipe: min(C1C4) = 0.235) because we did not check all the
3708 setups to seismic design.

CONCLUSION
10 A method is proposed to calculate more realistic correction
factors C1 and C4 for ANSI-OM3 stress/velocity relationship. C1
and C4 correction factors are calculated for several modes on a
large number of pipe setups, which are acceptable with respect
pseudo-acceleration (g)

1 to static design.
For each type of geometry (straight, L-bend, U-bend, Z-
bend or 3D), orientation (vertical or horizontal) and symmetry
(symmetrical or asymmetrical), it is possible to derive from the
0,1 calculated C1 and C4, minimum allowable rms vibration
velocities of pipes.
This first analysis, which is based on static design
considerations, increases allowable vibration velocities for
0,01 piping systems because the correction factors C1 and C4 are
0,1 1 10 100 calculated simultaneously on more realistic pipe setups.
frequency (Hz) Nevertheless, 95% of the tested pipe setups display allowable
Figure 7: pseudo-acceleration oscillator spectrum in the horizontal vibration velocities above the screening vibration velocity of 12
directions mm/s rms used for vibration monitoring in EDF NPP.
1 In addition, a seismic design checking is realized on pipe
setups, which display allowable vibration velocities below 12
mm/s rms. This second analysis finally shows that most of these
configurations do not comply with seismic design. Finally, the
pseudo-acceleration (g)

12 mm/s rms criterion and EDF industrial feedback, where no

failure has been observed on main pipes, are supported by this
0,1 numerical analysis, where 99.7% of acceptable layouts
according to regulatory design rules display allowable velocities
above this threshold and where the minimum value is 11.2
mm/s.
Moreover, one notes that the use of ANSI-OM3 standard
remains quite conservative because vibration responses of
nuclear piping systems are usually multi-modal. Therefore,
0,01
0,1 1 10 100
allowable velocities derived here from the minimum of C1C4 on
frequency (Hz) any mode range appear to be conservative. As the response of
Figure 8: pseudo-acceleration oscillator spectrum in the vertical pipes is usually multi-modal, it may be interesting in a future
direction work to combine C1C4 modal correction factors.

6 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 REFERENCES
[1] AFCEN, 2000, RCC-M- Règles de Conception et de
Construction des Matériels Mécaniques des îlots nucléaires
REP. AFCEN, Paris-La Défense, France.
[2] ANSI/ASME OM3 Code, 1982, Requirements for
preoperational and initial start-up vibration testing of nuclear
power plant piping systems, ASME, New-York, USA.
[3] ASME OM-S/G Code, 1990, Standards and guides for
operation and maintenance of nuclear power plants, ASME,
New-York, USA.
[4] Baratte, C., Téphany, F. Payan, F., 1998, “An analysis of the
ASME ANSI-OM3 standard: calculation of the correction
factors for any piping layout at any mode range”, Proc. Pressure
Vessels and Piping Conference, Dallas, ASME, N.Y., PVP-Vol.
366, pp. 265-277.
[5] Caillaud, S., Briand, D., Moussou, P., Gaudin, M., 2003,
“Correction factors for ASME ANSI-OM3 stress/velocity
relationship with respect to static design”, Proc. 17th Structural
Mechanics in Reactor Tech., paper #F281, Praha, Czech Rep.
[6] www.code_aster.org

ANNEX: NUMERICAL EXAMPLE

The proposed algorithm given in Fig. 5 is here numerically
illustrated on the particular case of the clamped-clamped
horizontal symmetric Z-bend pipe (Fig. 9). Numerical values
are given for the ratio Lp / L = 0.73 and are estimated in Table 2
for each step of the algorithm of Fig. 5.

Table 2: numerical example

Definition of the pipe
• geometry: Z-bend
• orientation and symmetry: horizontal, symmetric
• boundary conditions: clamped-clamped
• parameters: see Table 1 and Lp / L = 0.73
Dynamic computation with fluid / with no mass (µ = 0)
In-plane mode Out-of-plane mode
n 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
f on (Hz) 12.10 64.58 72.48 105.9 13.05 19.80 74.63 79.90
Non x(m) 3.75 1.98 4.60 1.55 2.85 3.75 1.90 1.72
Non y(m) 2.41 0 2.41 0 0 2.41 0 0
n
α C4 10.94 24.55 13.86 13.55 12.60 17.54 14.45 15.60
Static computation with fluid
µ 0.45 0.59 0.59 0.72 0.45 0.45 0.61 0.66
Dynamic computation with fluid / with mass µ in Non
f µn (Hz) 41.33 66.68 93.19 8.87 16.63 51.49 77.50 41.33
n
C1 0.75 0.64 0.92 0.88 0.68 0.84 0.69 0.97

7 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 IN−PLANE MODES OUT−OF−PLANE MODES
2 2
1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
C4

C4
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 mode 1 0.6
0.4 mode 2 0.4
0.2 mode 3 0.2
0 0
0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10
L /L L /L
p p

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
C1

C1

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10
Lp/L Lp/L

1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2

1 1

0.8 0.8
C1.C4

C1.C4

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10
L /L L /L
p p

L
Lp
L

Figure 9: C1, C4 and C1C4 correction factors for a clamped-clamped horizontal symmetric Z-bend pipe

8 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 3: min(C1C4) factor for straight, L-bend, Z-bend, U-bend and 3D pipes – values after seismic design checking are
indicated between brackets

STRAIGHT Z-BEND
min(C1C4)
Configuration Orientation min(C1C4) Configuration Symmetry Orientation
In-plane Out-of-plane
clamped-free vertical 1.32 clamped-clamped symmetric vertical 0.286 0.526
horizontal 0.79 horizontal 0.309 0.607
pinned-pinned vertical 1.32 asymmetric vertical 0.243 (0.253) 0.222 (0.253)
horizontal 0.59 horizontal 0.301 0.447
clamped-pinned vertical 0.98 clamped-pinned symmetric vertical 0.230 (0.253) 0.681
horizontal 0.36 horizontal 0.148 (0.253) 0.540
clamped-clamped vertical 0.98 asymmetric vertical 0.216 (0.253) 0.412
horizontal 0.30 horizontal 0.314 0.517
clamped-guided vertical 1.00 clamped-guided symmetric vertical 0.348 0.501
horizontal 0.64 horizontal 0.318 0.500
asymmetric vertical 0.229 (0.253) 0.286
horizontal 0.353 0.477

L-BEND U-BEND
min(C1C4) min(C1C4)
Configuration Orientation Configuration Symmetry Orientation
In-plane Out-of-plane In-plane Out-of-plane
clamped- vertical 0.232 (0.253) 0.154 (0.253) clamped-clamped symmetric vertical 0.312 0.478
clamped horizontal 0.305 0.344 horizontal 0.342 0.561
clamped- vertical 0.271 0.203 (0.253) asymmetric vertical 0.304 0.247 (0.253)
pinned horizontal 0.438 0.438 horizontal 0.314 0.529
clamped- vertical 0.278 0.557 clamped-pinned symmetric vertical 0.219 (0.253) 0.660
guided horizontal 0.146 0.387 horizontal 0.235 (0.235) 0.704
clamped-free vertical 0.288 0.672 asymmetric vertical 0.316 0.652
horizontal 0.288 0.517 horizontal 0.425 0.744
clamped-guided symmetric vertical 0.315 0.415
horizontal 0.334 0.588
asymmetric vertical 0.315 0.248 (0.253)
3D horizontal 0.443 0.578

Configuration Symmetry Orientation min(C1C4)

clamped-clamped symmetric vertical 0.350
horizontal 0.350
asymmetric vertical 0.296
horizontal 0.341
clamped-pinned symmetric vertical 0.295
horizontal 0.338
asymmetric vertical 0.295
horizontal 0.365
clamped-guided symmetric vertical 0.369
horizontal 0.428
asymmetric vertical 0.303
horizontal 0.384

9 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use