Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2015 Reegan C et al.

, 2015

ISSN 2278 – 0149 www.ijmerr.com

Vol. 4, No. 2, April 2015
© 2015 IJMERR. All Rights Reserved

Research Paper

PRODUCT ANALYSIS AND STRESS ANALYSIS OF

PROCESS PIPING ROUTING BY USING CAESAR II

Reegan C1*, R Tamizh Selvan2, T T M Kannan1, R Baskaran1 and P Vijaya Kumar1

*Corresponding Author: Reegan C,  cr.reegan@gmail.com

Product analysis has become more important with respect to material savings, quality of design,
safety and legislation. Welding is by far the most important technique for fabrication of both
industrial and non-industrial products. The quality of the product depends on the type and standard
of manufacturing process selected. The quality of weldement is decided by the welding procedure
specification/parameters, namely, thickness, melting point, thermal conductivity, bead, thermal
expansion of the material, welding technique, type of power supply and polarity. The pipe routing
was modeled by using CAESAR II software. For stress analyzing purpose the static condition
such as sustained, operating and expansion condition were selected. The welding parameters
are selected for Shielded Metal Arc welding and allowable stress for the application is calculated
using internationally recognized software tool, namely, CAESAR II. The weld specimen is tested
in Universal Testing Machine for the Tensile strength. The analysis is made with respect to
ASME B 31.3. The results obtained using the software tool CAESAR II and from the testing of
the weldment are compared.

Keywords: Product Analysis, Quality, CAESAR-II, Stress Analysis, Routing

INTRODUCTION constructed; and piping materials and section

Piping stress analysis is a discipline which is properties commensurate with the intended
highly interrelated with piping layout and service, temperatures, pressures, and
support design. The layout of the piping anticipated loadings.If necessary, layout
system should be performed with the solutions should be iterated until a satisfactory
requirements of piping stress and pipe balance between stresses and layout
supports in mind i.e., sufficient flexibility for efficiency is achieved. Once the piping layout
thermal expansion; proper pipe routing so that is finalized, the piping support system must be
simple and economical pipe supports can be determined. Possible support locations and
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, PRIST University, Thajavur-613 403, India.
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering,Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Engineering college,Thajavur-613 403, India.

154
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2015
types must be iterated until all stress
requirements are satisfied and other piping
allowable. Don. Moran. (2001) – Rentech
Boiler System. In this paper, piping design
and analysis software provides convenience
and confidence. ASME 31.1 and BS
806(1993) power piping codes were analyzed
as static stress analysis and mass moment of
inertia calculation.Tisseling .A.S (2002)
University of Dundec – UK. In this thesis, the
transient phenomenon in liquid filled pipe was
presented and cavitations, structural dynamics
and fluid – structure interaction (FSI) were
analyzed. The development of adequate
mathematical models and their validation by
physical experiments was surveyed.M.G.
Kirkwood and D.G. Moffat (2003) – University
of Liverpool. In this paper, the result obtained
from the finite element computer program for
equal diameter branch pipe intersections are
compared with the 250 mm welded branch
junctions. It covers the requirement of the
design and manufacture of components for
pipe hangers, sliders and supports. Insulated
steel pipes of size 15 mm to 160 mm used for
the fluid temperature range -200C to + 4700C.
R. Viswanathan (2003) Electric Power
Research Institute. In this paper, Aging of
power plants and competitive pressure to
operate and maintain (O&M) the plants were
assessed. A piping system carrying high
pressure steam at 5300C have been focused.
However the damage mechanism of the
pressure parts in fossil power plant boiler
describes the life management.Paulo M.S.T
and A.A. Fesrnades (2003) University de-
pardo, Portugal. This project was focused on
155
Reegan C et al., 2015
fracture and fatigue problems. Failure analysis
was applied to structural connections. Stress
analysis using finite element methods, material
testing and electron microscopy have been
used. P.Chellapandi (2004) Indira Gandhi
Centre for Atomic Research – Kalpackam.
The stress and strain concentrations
developed at the joints of the pressure vessels
and piping at high temperature due to mis-
match in the creep properties was estimated.
Material for thermal power plant piping – 2.25
Cr 1 Mo SS316LN.
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
• The static stress analyzing on pipe process
is very difficult such as sustained condition,
operating condition and expansion
condition at high pressure.
• Difficult to find torsional and bending stress
in high pressure steam flowing through the
pipe.
• Difficult to analyze the quality of pipe during
high pressure steam passing through the
pipe lines.
SOLUTION METHODOLOGY
A Segment of main stream flow line is taken
for analysis and the stress developed in the
steam flow line is analyzed using CAESAR II.
Then the product analysis is done by testing
of a weldment, fabricated as per welding
procedure specification, to find out the yield
strength. Then the various stress values arrived
are compared with each other. The code
stress should be less than the allowable stress
and the allowable stress should be the less
than the yield strength.
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2015 Reegan C et al., 2015

The following flow chart shows our approach:
A segment of Main steam line routing
Analysis using CAESAR II
representation. CAESAR II’s auxiliary modules
evaluate attached equipment, vessels and
restraints. Displaced shapes and other
program results are easily reviewed
graphically. Technically Comprehensive &
Flexible CAESAR II includes more options and
more technical capabilities than any
competitive software, and you can tailor the
program to fit your exact needs.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fabrication of weldment The input parameters for analysis are furnished
in the Table 1.

Table 1: Input Parameters

for CAESAR II Analysis
Testing of weldment
Pipe Material SA 53 G r B

Cladding 22 SWG Aluminium

Insulation Material LRB

Comparison of result
Wall Thickness 6 mm
SIMULATION AND MODELLING Insulation Thickness 100 mm
CAESAR II is a complete pipe stress analysis
Working Pressure 2900 K Pa
software program that allows quick and
accurate analysis of piping systems subjected Temperature 2500 C
to weight, pressure, thermal, seismic and
other static and dynamic loads. It can analyze Figure 1: Pipe Routing

piping systems of any size or complexity.

CAESAR II is unique, incorporating calculation
methods and analysis options not found in any
other program. Whether you are designing a
new system or trouble-shooting an existing
one, CAESAR II produces results that
completely describe the system behavior
based on guidelines and design limits from
accepted industry standards. With CAESAR
II, you can do more in less time and with less
chance of error. Output reports can be
generated to show any data for any load case.
CAESAR II provides four modes of graphics

156
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2015 Reegan C et al., 2015

Stress Analysis as Per Code ASME 31.3 @Node 700

Piping Code : B 31.3 Bending Stress : 72923.4
CODE STRESS : LOADCASE 4 @Node 650
CHECK PASSED (SUS) W+P1+H
Torsion Stress : 15813.3
Highest Stresses : (K Pa)
@Node 500
Code Stress Ratio (%) : 67.5 @ Node 650
Hoop Stress : 33350.0
Code Stress : 88923.5
@Node 198
Allowable:131676.0
3D Max Intensity : 88954.6
Axial Stress : 16248.4
@Node 650

Table 2: Stress Analysis of High pressure Pipe line

Node Bending Torsion SIF SIF Code Allowable

Stress Stress In Out Stress Stress Pipe Code
K Pa K Pa Plane Plane K Pa K Pa

100 11961.3 453.3 1.000 1.000 27394.8 131676.0 B31.3

198 11806.0 -453.3 1.000 1.000 27277.3 131676.0 B31.3

198 18988.6 453.3 1.610 1.342 34459.9 131676.0 B31.3

199 17292.3 -644.4 1.610 1.342 32944.0 131676.0 B31.3

199 17292.3 644.4 1.610 1.342 32944.0 131676.0 B31.3

200 13793.4 -463.7 1.610 1.342 29793.5 131676.0 B31.3

200 8582.2 463.7 1.000 1.000 24582.3 131676.0 B31.3

298 443.6 -463.7 1.000 1.000 16443.6 131676.0 B31.3

298 632.8 463.7 1.610 1.342 16632.9 131676.0 B31.3

299 3449.4 -199.3 1.610 1.342 19169.0 131676.0 B31.3

299 3449.4 199.3 1.610 1.342 19169.0 131676.0 B31.3

300 4750.2 176.2 1.610 1.342 20317.6 131676.0 B31.3

300 2993.1 -176.2 1.000 1.000 18560.5 131676.0 B31.3

350 4912.8 176.2 1.000 1.000 19994.0 131676.0 B31.3

350 4912.8 -176.2 1.000 1.000 19994.0 131676.0 B31.3

398 6705.7 176.2 1.000 1.000 21349.1 131676.0 B31.3

157
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2015 Reegan C et al., 2015

Table 2 (Cont.)

Node Bending Torsion SIF SIF Code Allowable

Stress Stress In Out Stress Stress Pipe Code
K Pa K Pa Plane Plane K Pa K Pa

398 10791.2 -176.2 1.610 1.342 25434.5 131676.0 B31.3

399 15088.2 10.7 1.610 1.342 30119.9 131676.0 B31.3

399 15088.2 -10.7 1.610 1.342 30119.9 131676.0 B31.3

400 25305.7 -155.3 1.610 1.342 41305.8 131676.0 B31.3

400 15720.4 155.3 1.000 1.000 31720.5 131676.0 B31.3

450 30103.3 -155.3 1.000 1.000 46103.4 131676.0 B31.3

450 30103.3 155.3 1.000 1.000 46103.4 131676.0 B31.3

498 27420.1 -155.3 1.000 1.000 43420.2 131676.0 B31.3

498 36801.3 155.3 1.610 1.342 52801.4 131676.0 B31.3

499 29740.1 -10405.7 1.610 1.342 45736.4 131676.0 B31.3

499 29740.1 10405.7 1.610 1.342 45736.4 131676.0 B31.3

500 5673.9 -15813.3 1.610 1.342 21657.1 131676.0 B31.3

500 4163.6 15813.3 1.000 1.000 20146.8 131676.0 B31.3

598 1236.9 -15813.3 1.000 1.000 17220.1 131676.0 B31.3

598 1807.2 15813.3 1.610 1.342 17790.4 131676.0 B31.3

599 32223.7 -10651.8 1.610 1.342 48230.1 131676.0 B31.3

599 32223.7 10651.8 1.610 1.342 48230.1 131676.0 B31.3

600 44462.8 1175.7 1.610 1.342 60462.9 131676.0 B31.3

600 33137.7 -1175.7 1.000 1.000 49137.8 131676.0 B31.3

650 72923.4 1175.7 1.000 1.000 88923.5 131676.0 B31.3

650 72923.4 -1175.7 1.000 1.000 88923.5 131676.0 B31.3

698 889.4 1175.7 1.000 1.000 16889.5 131676.0 B31.3

698 1279.3 -1175.7 1.610 1.342 17279.4 131676.0 B31.3

699 4220.6 573.1 1.610 1.342 20421.8 131676.0 B31.3

699 4220.6 -573.1 1.610 1.342 20421.8 131676.0 B31.3

158
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2015 Reegan C et al., 2015

Table 2 (Cont.)

Node Bending Torsion SIF SIF Code Allowable

Stress Stress In Out Stress Stress Pipe Code
K Pa K Pa Plane Plane K Pa K Pa

700 4923.2 -370.9 1.610 1.342 21171.6 131676.0 B31.3

700 3327.1 370.9 1.000 1.000 19575.5 131676.0 B31.3

798 2802.3 -370.9 1.000 1.000 18771.4 131676.0 B31.3

798 4389.1 370.9 1.610 1.342 20358.2 131676.0 B31.3

799 4531.5 133.1 1.610 1.342 20488.7 131676.0 B31.3

799 4531.5 -133.1 1.610 1.342 20488.7 131676.0 B31.3

800 4643.7 521.4 1.610 1.342 20626.9 131676.0 B31.3

800 2904.4 -521.4 1.000 1.000 18887.6 131676.0 B31.3

898 1352.2 521.4 1.000 1.000 17335.4 131676.0 B31.3

898 1822.5 -521.4 1.610 1.342 17805.7 131676.0 B31.3

899 527.3 838.8 1.610 1.342 16495.5 131676.0 B31.3

899 527.3 -838.8 1.610 1.342 16495.5 131676.0 B31.3

900 1715.7 628.6 1.610 1.342 17676.1 131676.0 B31.3

900 1258.3 -628.6 1.000 1.000 17218.6 131676.0 B31.3

998 4842.6 628.6 1.000 1.000 20803.0 131676.0 B31.3

998 7786.1 -628.6 1.610 1.342 23746.5 131676.0 B31.3

999 9231.0 602.0 1.610 1.342 25045.0 131676.0 B31.3

999 9231.0 -602.0 1.610 1.342 25045.0 131676.0 B31.3

1000 9878.0 228.4 1.610 1.342 25618.7 131676.0 B31.3

1000 6174.0 -228.4 1.000 1.000 21914.7 131676.0 B31.3

1098 5059.6 228.4 1.000 1.000 20535.0 131676.0 B31.3

1098 6854.4 -228.4 1.610 1.342 22329.8 131676.0 B31.3

1099 8991.8 -1567.8 1.610 1.342 21595.7 131676.0 B31.3

1099 5991.8 1567.8 1.610 1.342 21595.7 131676.0 B31.3

1100 7313.6 -2407.8 1.610 1.342 23290.9 131676.0 B31.3

159
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2015 Reegan C et al., 2015

Table 2 (Cont.)

Node Bending Torsion SIF SIF Code Allowable

Stress Stress In Out Stress Stress Pipe Code
K Pa K Pa Plane Plane K Pa K Pa

1100 4546.7 2407.8 1.000 1.000 20523.9 131676.0 B31.3

1198 22497.9 -2407.8 1.000 1.000 38475.1 131676.0 B31.3

1198 30182.5 2407.8 1.610 1.342 46159.7 131676.0 B31.3

1199 21121.1 -10322.2 1.610 1.342 37113.3 131676.0 B31.3

1199 21121.1 10322.2 1.610 1.342 37113.3 131676.0 B31.3

1200 655.2 -13552.5 1.610 1.342 16655.3 131676.0 B31.3

1200 412.4 13552.5 1.000 1.000 16412.5 131676.0 B31.3

1300 13680.5 -13552.5 1.000 1.000 29680.6 131676.0 B31.3

CONCLUSION 3. The maximum theoretical and practical

The modeling of process piping routing was values were compared as follows.
developed by using CAESAR II Software and 4. Since the sustained and expansion stress
the theoretical values were compared with values are less than the allowable stress
tensile test. The model has been analyzed with
values as per ASME 31.1.
CAESAR II and the three types of load
conditions such as operating condition, The process pipe routing was accepted.
sustained condition and expansion were
Type of stress Stress in K Pa
analyzed. The design safety of piping system
was optimized with respect to ASME 31.3 Maximum code stress 88,923.5

standards. In operating condition, the Maximum allowable stress 1,31,676

displacement, stress and code compliance
Tensile strength of weldement 4,87,000
reports were analyzed as per code ASME
B31.3 and its values were tabulated.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. In sustained condition, the displacement,
stress and code compliance reports as per 1. Asnawi Lubis (2005), University of
ASME B31.3 were analyzed and its values Strathelyde, Scotland, UK.
were tabulated. 2. Chellapandi P (2004), Indira Gandhi
2. In expansion condition, the displacement, Centre for Atomic Research –
stress and code compliance reports as per Kalpackam and S C Chetal.
ASME B31.3 were analyzed and its values 3. Don Moran (2001), Rentech Boiler
were tabulated. System.

160
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2015 Reegan C et al., 2015

5. Kirkwood M G and Moffat D G (2003) – University de-pardo, Portugal.

University of Liverpool
8. Tissseling A A (2002), University of
6. Miguel A Rodriguez (2004), Tora Centre Dundec – UK.
of Research, Mexico.
9. Viswanathan R (2003), Electric Power
7. Paulo M S T and Fesrnades A A (2003), Research Institute.

161