Stress Analysis Notes

ENGINEERING SOFTWARE
PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS

SEMINAR NOTES
Notice: Unless otherwise noted herein, the information contained in these course notes is
proprietary and may not be translated or duplicated in whole or in part without the expressed
written consent of COADE Engineering Software, 12777 Jones Rd., Suite 480, Houston,
Texas 77070.
Copyright {c} 1985 - 1998 COADE, Inc.

1
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
Section 1
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction to Pipe Stress Analysis ........................................................................ 1

1.1 Theory and Development of Pipe Stress Requirements ........................................... 8
1.1.1 Basic Stress Concepts ............................................................................... 8-14
1.1.2 3-D State of Stress in the Pipe Wall ....................................................... 14-15
1.1.3 Failure Theories ........................................................................................... 16
1.1.4 Maximum Stress Intensity Criterion ..................................................... 18-19
1.2 Fatigue Failure ....................................................................................................... 20
1.2.1 Fatigue Basics .............................................................................................. 20
1.2.2 Fatigue Curves ............................................................................................. 22
1.2.3 Effect of Fatigue on Piping ..................................................................... 24-25
1.2.4 Cyclic Reduction Factor ............................................................................... 25
1.2.5 Effect of Sustained Loads on Fatigue Strength .......................................... 26
1.3 Stress Intensification Factors ............................................................................ 28-33
1.4 Welding Research Council Bulletin 330 ................................................................. 34
1.5 Code Compliance ..................................................................................................... 43
1.5.1 Primary vs. Secondary Loads ................................................................. 43-45
1.5.2 Code Stress Equations ............................................................................ 45-46
1.5.3 B31.1 Power Piping ..................................................................................... 46
1.5.4 B31.3 Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refmery Piping .............................. 47
1.5.5 ASME Section III, Subsections NC & ND (Nuclear Class 2 & 3) .......... 49-50
1.5.6 B31.4 Fuel Gas Piping ................................................................................. 51
1.5.7 B31.8 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Code ............................. 52
1.5.8 Canadian Z183/Z184 Oil/Gas Pipeline Systems ......................................... 54
1.5.9 RCC-M C ...................................................................................................... 55
1.5.10 Stoomwezen ................................................................................................. 56
1.5.11 Special Considerations of Code Compliance ........................................... 56-59
1.5.12 Evaluation of Multiple Expansion Range Cases ......................................... 59
1.0 Introduction to Pipe Stress Analysis

In order to properly design a piping system, the engineer must understand both a system's
behavior under potentialloadings, as weIl as the regulatory requirements imposed upon it
by the governing codes.
A system's behavior can be quantified through the aggregate values of numerous physical
parameters, such as accelerations, velocities, displacements, internaI forces and moments,
stresses, and external reactions developed under applied loads. Allowable values for each
of the se parameters are set after review of the appropriate failure criteria for the system.
System response and failure criteria are dependent on the type of loadings, which can be
classified by various distinctions, such as primary vs. secondary, sustained vs. occasional,
or static vs. dynamic.
The ASME/ANSI B31 piping codes are the result of approximately 8 decades ofwork by the
American Society ofMechanical Engineers and the American National Standards Institute
(formerly American Standards Association) aimed at the codification ofdesign and engineer-
ing standards for piping systems. The B31 pressure piping codes (and their successors, such
as the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Section III nuclearpiping codes) prescribe minimum
design, materials, fabrication, assembly, erection, test, and inspection requirements for
piping systems intended for use in power, petrochemical/refinery, fuel gas, gas transmission,
and nuclear applications.
Due to the extensive calculations required during the analysis of a piping system, this field
of engineering provides a natural application for computerized calculations, especially
during the last two to three decades. The proliferation of easy-to-use pipe stress software
has had a two-fold effect: first, it has taken pipe stress analysis out ofthe hands ofthe highly-
paid specialists and made it accessible to the engineering generalist, but likewise it has made
everyone, even those with inadequate piping backgrounds, capable of turning out official-
looking results.
The intention ofthis course is to provide the appropriate background for engineers entering
the world of pipe stress analysis. The course concentrates on the design requirements
(particularly from a stress analysis point ofview) of the codes, as weIl as the techniques to
be applied in order to satisfy those requirements. Although the course is taught using the
CAESAR II Pipe Stress Analysis Software, the skills learned here are directly applicable
to any means of pipe stress analysis, whether the engineer uses a competing software
program or even manual calculational methods.
Why do we Perform Pipe Stress Analysis?
There are a number ofreasons for performing stress analysis on a piping system. A few of
these foIlow:
1 In order to keep stresses in the pipe and fittings within code allowable levels.
2 - In order to keep nozzle loadings on attached equipment within allowables of

manufacturers or recognized standards (NEMA SM23, API 610, API 617, etc.).
1-1
3 In order to keep vessel stresses at piping connections within ASME Section VIII
allowable levels.
4 - In order to calculate design loads for sizing supports and restraints.
5 In order to determine piping displacements for interference checks.
6 - In order to solve dynamic problems in piping, such as those due to mechanical

vibration, acoustic vibration, fluid hammer, pulsation, transient flow, and relief
valve discharge.
7 - In order to help optimize piping design.
Typical Pipe Stress Documentation
Documentation typically associated with stress analysis problems consists of the stress
isometric, the stress analysis input echo, and the stress analysis results output. Examples
ofthese documents are shown in Figures 1-1 through 1-5 on subsequent pages.
The stress isometric (Figure 1-1) is a sketch, drawn in an isometric coordinate system, which
gives the viewer a rough 3-D idea of the piping system. The stress isometric often
summarizes the piping design data, as gathered from other documents, such as the line list,
piping specification, piping drawing, Appendix A (Figure 1-2) of the applicable piping code,
etc. Design data typically required in order to do pipe stress analysis consists of pipe
materials and sizes; operating parameters, such as temperature, pressure, and fluid
contents; code stress allowables; and loading parameters, such as insulation weight,
external equipment movements, and wind and earthquake criteria.
Points of interest on the stress isometric are identified by node points. Node points are
required at any location where it is necessary to provide information to, or obtain information
from, the pipe stress software. Typically, node points are located as required in order to:
1 define geometry (system start, end, direction changes, intersection, etc.)
2 - note changes in operating conditions (system start, isolation or pressure reduc-

tion valves, etc.)
3 define element stiffness parameters (changes in pipe cross section or material,

rigid elements, or expansion joints)
4 - designate boundary conditions (restraints and imposed displacements)
5 specify mass points (for refinement of dynamic model)
6 - note loading conditions (insulation weight, imposed forces, response spectra,

earthquake g-factors, wind exposure, snow, etc.)
7 - retrieve information from the stress analysis (stresses at piping mid spans,
displacements at wall penetrations, etc.)
1-2
The input echo (Figure 1-3) provides more detailed information on the system, and is meant
to be used by the engineer in conjunction with the stress isometric.
The analysis output provides results, such as displacements, internal forces and moments,
stresses, and restraint loadings at each node point of the pipe, acting under the specified
loading conditions. CAESAR II provides results in either graphic or text format; Figures
1-4 and 1-5 present stress and dis placement results graphically. The output also provides
a code check calculation for the appropriate piping code, from which the analyst can
determine which locations are over stressed.
SSEMl
Haterial A186 Gr.B
SH @ 788 deg. = 16.588 psi
SC @ 78 deg. = 28.888 psi
tUI
t = 788 deg. F. Flue Gas
tower-:'~[
P = 125 psi
Dia = 28" Std.Wall
Insul = 2" Calciul!I Silicate
,~~.y.. SUpport ...... rD_
~3S
~..~145
j;
COl!lputed therl!lal expansion of the vessel is
17.268E-6 in/in/deg.F. at a telllp of 828 deg.F.
Exchanger
Node 188 is 28.88 ft. above vessel skirt 0
'i
Disp. @ 188 = (828-7B)deg.F(17.268E-6)in/in/deg*
A
Z X
(28.88)(12)ft.in/rt. = 3.121 in.
Disp. D 128 = (B28-78) (17.268E-6)(28.88+6.5-15)(12)
= 1.8 in.
Figure 1-1
1-3
0
0
~
t.:.:I
ANSI/ASME 831.3-1984 ROmON ASME CODJ! FOI. PIUlSSUIUI PlPINO ASMJ! COD! fOI. 'IU!SSUIUI'IPINO A
TABLEA·I CHEMICAL PLANT AND PBTROLBUM Rl!FlNBIlY 'IPINO CIIEMICAL PLANT AND PBfR.OLEUM lEFINI!IlY.IPINO ."
.....
'"0
(!)
00 TABLE A-1 (CONT'OI TAlLE A-1 (CONT'O)
BASIC ALLOWABLE STRESSES IN TENSION FOR METALS lU BASIC ALLOWABLE mESSES DI TENSION FOR METAl UJ.
Nurilers ln '-thKes Rtftr to Notes ,., ~ A TMIes; Specifications AIt ASTM Uilleu DIIIIIwIIt lIIdItaIId ,....., ln l'IntIthtsa Refer ta Notes ,., AppetIdII A T.... 5pIcIfIcaIIons Art AS
........... __ , bI ID._ lIoUI T---.., en
~
fil
-- ,-
.. - -..
fil
-
Mio. lIto.
s,oc.
.... .... T-. 5111S. !MY$.
...
T_
m ~
CorMo SIooIICooI'41
(5J CrIN W bI IOJOO 2DII JIIO 4IID 5l1li 650 1110
'" JAIIIO
e.
'<
...... lIId T.... ICooI·., .....
fil
fil
1101 UJ.
(!)
• 'À ... AU' B 11111 I-z• oo JO 20.0 20.0 20.1 S
.....
icI
-ZO} u l:I
AU.
A".
B
.,,,
(51)m)
oz.
oo ,S 20.0 ZO.O zo.o zo.o 11.9 lU 17.0 lU 1J.O 10.11 U U •.S
~
~
1
JI:>.
,.
~
icI A"
A 100
A lJJ
Al]f
A!6t
•
8
F,.
C~)~1
151
!SJI
C51)
1571
.......
<J
-50
-20
oo lS 20 .. 20.0 ZO.O zo.o 11.9 17.1 11 .. lU IJ.O 10Aj U il •.S U
Z
0
S-
fil
~ A]81 SPl .n csu

U., -zo
~
API Sl 1
• (57) -20
1
l'V l'lÀ .•• Al" ca, 1-20
oo
... .,} 20•• 20.0 20.0
1
(el À ••• AI" 1 D ca' -2.
Oz. ... ••
.lPlSL
",.1
511:1
SP2
lUI
V42
C!ll ISS'
C511 -20 60 .,
02 20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
10.01
zo.o
... "..
.••••
S..,
b"In.''''' A]8' V.. ('U 61 zo.' It.7 lU 17.1 lU lU
... APl5L 5..,

S..,
x..
VCO
"Il C"'
c'Il
... ., 21.0 Il.0 au II·aI
..
(el -2' M 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0
...
" J01
c,. .. In.thIdI) A JO, 5PJ C'1r - M 50 ZU zo.J 1'.' lIA IY.' lU 16.D
A.71 1571 C6" ..0 65 )5 lU ZU lU zo.o lU lU 17.0 lM 9.D 6.5 '.5 U
:s} UAI
"'16&1'.65 1lC4' 1'"
A 'l'Gr. 65 "611
11.J 11. UA U U
"Sl.Gr. et ""Z C571 C6" -20 65 S. 11.7 zo.' 20.0 11.' 173 11.0 1... 0.0
'"
..
A 'J.Gr. 6S A 671 C05
ca' I~' zz.o 1···

... .
MÀ ... AllO 1 E 52 ZU 2Z.0
(t) IIPl5L 5.., lISl 1511 C551 oZ. 52 ZU n.o 22.0 22.01
h'U'.llIIckl Alli 5PJ YS. 1511 5' ZU 22•• lU 22.0
ct)
CAESAR II VERS 3.18 JOBNAME:SSEM1 DEC 10, 1992 3:05 am Page 1

PIPE DATA
From 100 To 105 DY= 3.500 ft.
PIPE
Dia= 20.000 in. Wall= .375 in. Insul= 2.000 in.
GENERAL
T1= 700 F P1= 125.0000 lb./sq.in. Mat= (l)LOW CARBON STEEL
E= 27,900,000 lb./sq.in. v = .292 Density= .2899 lb./eu.in.
RIGID Weight= 3,290.00 lb.
DISPLACEMENTS
Node 100 DX= .000 in. DY= 3.121 in. DZ= .000 in. RX= .000
RY= .000 RZ= .000
ALLOWABLE STRESSES
B31.3 (1990) Se= 20,000 lb./sq.in. Sh1= 16,500 lb./sq.in.
From 105 To 110 DY= 3.000 ft.

BEND at "TO" end
Radius= 30.000 in. (LONG) Bend Angle= 90.000 Angle/Node @1= 45.00 109
Angle/Node @2= .00 108
From 110 To 115 DX= 12.000 ft.

BEND at "TO" end
From 115 To 120 DY= -15.000 ft.

DISPLACEMENTS
Node 120 DX= FREE DY= 1.800 in. DZ= FREE RX= FREE RY= FREE
RZ= FREE
From 120 To 125 DY= -3.000 ft.
BEND at "TO" end
From 125 To 130 DX= 35.000 ft.

RESTRAINTS
Node 130 +Y
From 130 To 135 DX= 35.000 ft.

RESTRAINTS
Node 135 +Y
From 135 To 140 DX= 35.000 ft.
RESTRAINTS
Node 140 +Y
From 140 To 145 DX= 20.000 ft.

BEND at "TO" end
From 145 To 150 DY= -12.000 ft.

RESTRAINTS
Node 150 ANC
Figure 1-3
1-5
CASE 3 (EXP)D3=D1-D2 FILE:SSEI11 DEC 4.1992 12:4?am

QUIT
nODES
OURSTR
I1AXSTR
BHDlltG
TORS
AXIAL
STRESS
S'inBOL
BI'IDUIG
TORS
AXIAL
STRESS
COLOR
BI'IDItIG
TORS
AXIAL
STRESS
"~'"
~"
1'I0DE= 123 OUERSTRESSED l'IODES ~,
Figure 1-4
CASE 1 (OPEJW+DIS+T1+P1 F1LE:SSEnl DEC 4.1992 12:49am RESET

QUIT
l'IODES
DEFU
SPECFY
I1AGnIF
GROW
COLORS
ORIGI'IL
BLArtK
Iml:'I}"
HRDCP'i
ItODE= 125 I1AX. DISPS. X
Figure 1-5
1-6
What are these Stresses?
The stresses calculated are not necessarily real stresses (such as could be measured by a
strain gauge, for example), but are rather "code" stresses. Code stress calculations are based
upon specific equations, which are the result of8 decades of compromise and simplification.
The calculations reflect:
1 Inclusion or exclusion ofpiping loads, based upon convenience of calculation or

selected failure. In fact the result may not even represent an absolute stress
value, but rather a RANGE of values.
2 Loading type - these are segregated, and analyzed separately, as though they
occur in isolation, even though they actually are present simultaneously.
3 - Magnification, due to local fitting configuration, which may in reality reflect a

decrease in fatigue strength, rather than an increase in actual stress.
4 - Code committee tradition - every code is a result of a different set of concerns

and compromises, and therefore may appear to be on a different branch of the
evolutionary ladder. Because of this, every code gives different results when
calculating stresses.
A summary of significant dates in the history of the development of the piping codes is
presented below:
1915 Power Piping Society provides the first national code for pressure piping.
1926 The American Standards Association initiates project B31 to govern
pressure piping.
1955 Markl publishes his paper ''Piping Flexibility Analysis", introducing
piping analysis methods based on the "stress range".
1957 First computerized analysis ofpiping systems.
1968 Congress enacts the Natural Pipeline Safety Act, establishing CFR 192,
which will in time replace B31.8 for gas pipeline transportation.
1969 Introduction of ANSI B31.7 code for Nuclear power plant piping.
1971 Introduction of ASME Section III for Nuclear power plant piping.
1974 Winter Addenda B31.1 moves away from the separation ofbending and
torsional moment terms in the stress calculations and alters the intensi-
fication factor for moments on the branch leg of intersections.
1978 ANSI B31.7 is withdrawn.
1987 Welding Research Council Bulletin 330 recommends changes to the
B31.1, B31.3, and ASME III Class 2 and 3 piping codes.
1-7
1.1 Theory and Development of Pipe Stress Requirements

1.1.1 Basic Stress Concepts
Normal stresses: Normal stresses are those acting in a direction normal to the face of the
crystal structure ofthe material, and may he either tensile or compressive in nature. (In fact,
normal stresses in piping tend more to tension due the predominant nature of internal
pressure as a load case.) Normal stresses may be applied in more than one direction, and
may develop from a numher of different types of loads. For a piping system, these are
discussed below:
Longitudinal stress: Longitudinal, or axial, stress is the normal stress acting parallel to
the longitudinal axis ofthe pipe. This may he caused by an internal force acting axially within
the pipe:
- - -.....- FAX
Figure 1-6
SL = Fax/ Am
Where:
SL = longitudinal stress, psi
Fax = internaI axial force acting on cross-section, lb
Am = metal cross-sectional area of pipe, in2
= 1t(do2 - di 2 ) / 4
= 1t dm t
do = outer diameter, in
di = inner diameter, in
dm = mean diameter, = (do + di) / 2
1-8
A specifie instance of longitudinal stress is that due to internaI pressure:
Figure 1-7
SL = PAil Am
Where:
P = design pressure, psig
Ai = internaI area of pipe, in2
= 1t di 2 1 4
Replacing the terms for the internaI and metal areas of the pipe, the previous equation may
be written as:
For convenience, the longitudinal pressure stress is often conservatively approximated as:
SL = P do 1 4 t
Another component of axial normal stress is bending stress. Bending stress is zero at the
neutral axis of the pipe and varies linearly across the cross-section from the maximum
compressive outer fiberto the maximum tensile outer fiber. Calculatingthe stress as linearly
proportion al to the distance from the neutral axis:
Variation in Bending Stress Thru

Cross Section
Max compressive stress

1/2 max compressive stress
Neutral Axis
M Zero bending stress
1/2 max tension stress
Max tension stress
Figure 1-8
1-9
Where:
Mb = bending moment acting on cross-section, in-lb
c = distance ofpoint ofinterest from neutral axis of cross-section, in

l = moment ofinertia of cross-section, in 4
Maximum bending stress occurs where c is greatest - where it is equal to the outer radius:
Smax =
Where:
Ro = outer radius of pipe, in
Z = section modulus of pipe, in3

= 1/Ro
Summing aH components oflongitudinal normal stress:

SL = Fax / Am + P do / 4 t + Mb / Z
Hoop stress: There are other normal stresses present in the pipe, applied in directions
orthogonal to the axial direction. One ofthese stresses, caused by internaI pressure, is called
hoop stress. This stress acts in a direction parallel to the pipe circumference.
Figure 1- 9
The magnitude of the hoop stress varies through the pipe wall and can be calculated by
Lame's equation as:
SR = P (ri 2 + ri 2 ro2 / r 2) / (ro2 - q2)
1-10
Where:
SR = hoop stress due to pressure, psi
ri = inner radius of pipe, in
ra = outer radius of pipe, in
r = radial position where stress is being considere d, in
The hoop stress can he conservatively approximated for thin-wall cylinders, by assuming
that the pressure force, applied over an arbitrary length of pipe, l CF = P di 1), is resisted
uniformly by the pipe wall over that same arbitrary length (Am = 2 t 1), or:
SH = P di 1/ 2 t 1, or:
SR = P di / 2 t, or conservatively:
Radial stress: Radial stress is the third normal stress present in the pipe wall. It acts in
the third orthogonal direction, parallel to the pipe radius. Radial stress, which is caused by
internal pressure, varies between a stress equal to the internal pressure at the pipe's inner
surface and a stress equal to atmospheric pressure at the pipe's external surface. Assuming
that there is no external pressure, radial stress may be calculated as:
= -p
Figure 1-10
Where:
SR = radial stress due to pressure, psi
Note that radial stress is zero at the outer radius of the pipe, where the bending stresses are
maximized. For this reason, this stress componenthas traditionally been ignored during the
stress calculations.
Shear stresses: Shear stresses are applied in a direction parallel to the face of the plane
of the crystal structure of the material, and tend to cause adjacent planes of the crystal to
1-11
slip against each other. Shear stresses may be caused by more than one type of applied load.
For example, shear stress may be caused by shear forces acting on the cross-section:
Shear Distribution
Profile
-----~)
----------~= j
---------- ~ V
/MAX
~IN=O
Figure 1-11
'tmax = VQ/Am
Where:
'tmax = maximum shear stress, psi
v = shear force, lb
Q = shear form factor, dimensionless (1.333 for solid circular section)
These shear stresses are distributed such that they are maximum at the neutral axis ofthe
pipe and zero at the maximum distance from the neutral axis. Since this is the opposite of
the case with bending stresses, and since these stresses are usually small, shear stresses due
to forces are traditionally neglected during pipe stress analysis.
Shear stresses may also be caused by torsionalloads:
Figure 1·12
'tmax =
1-12
Where:
MT = internaI torsion al moment acting on cross-section, in-lb
c = distance of point ofinterest from torsional center (intersection ofneutral axes)

of cross-section, in
R = torsional resistance of cross-section, in4
= 2I
Maximum torsional stress occurs where c is maximized - at the outer radius:

'tmax =
Summing the individual components of the shear stress, the maximum shear stress acting
on the pipe cross-section is:
'tmax = v Q / Am + MT / 2 Z
Example Stress Calculations:
As noted above, a number of the stress components described above have been neglected for
convenience during calculation ofpipe stresses. Most V.S. piping codes require stresses to
be calculated using some form of the following equations:
Longitudinal stress: SL = Mb / Z + Fax / Am + P do / 4 t
Shear stress: =
Hoop stress: =
Calculations are illustrated for a 6-inch nominal diameter, standard wall pipe (assuming the
piping loads are known):
Cross sectional
properties: Piping loads:
da = 6.625 in Bending moment (Mb) = 4247 ft-lb
di = 6.065 in Axial force (Fax) = 33488 lb
t = 0.280 in Pressure (P) = 600 psi
Z = 8.496 in3 Torsional Moment (MT) = 8495 ft-lb
Am = 5.5813 in2
1-13
Longitudinal stress:
SL = 4247 x 12/8.496 + 33488/5.5813 + 600 x 6.625/4 (0.280)
= 15547 psi
Shear stress:
'[ = 8495 x 12/2 (8.496) = 5999 psi
Hoop stress:
SR = 600 x 6.625/2 (0.280) = 7098 psi
1.1.2 3-D State of Stress in the Pipe Wall
During operation, pipes are subject to aIl ofthese types of stresses. Examining a small cube
ofmetal from the most highly stressed point of the pipe wall, the stresses are distributed as
so:
S4 :
'
SR
....
{SH
SL
SH S
R
Figure 1-13
There are an infinite number oforientations in which this cube could have been selected, each
with a different combination of normal and shear stresses on the faces. For example, there
is one orientation of the orthogonal stress axes for which one normal stress is maximized,
and another for which one normal stress is minimized - in both cases all shear stress
components are zero. In orientations in which the shear stress is zero, the resulting normal
components of the stress are termed the principal stresses. For 3-dimensional analyses,
there are three of them, and they are designated as SI (the maximum), S2, and S3 (the
minimum). Note that regardless of the orientation of the stress axes, the sum of the
orthogonal stress components is always equal, i.e:
SL + SR + SR = SI + S2 + S3
The converse ofthese orientations is that in which the shear stress component is maximized
(there is also an orientation in which the shear stress is minimized, but this is ignored since
the magnitudes of the minimum and maximum shear stresses are the same); this is
appropriately called the orientation of maximum shear stress. The maximum shear stress
1-14
in a three dimensional state of stress is equal to one-halfofthe difference between the largest
and smallest of the principle stresses (SI and S3).
The values of the principal and maximum shear stress can be determined through the use
of a Mohr's circle. The Mohr's circle analysis can be simplified by neglecting the radial stress
component, therefore considering a less complex (i.e., 2-dimensional) state of stress. A
Mohr's circle can be developed by plotting the normal vs. shear stresses for the two known
orientations (i.e., the longitudinal stress vs. the shear and the hoop stress vs. the shear), and
constructing a circle through the two points. The infinite combinations of normal and shear
stresses around the circle represent the stress combinations present in the infinite number
of possible orientations of the local stress axes.
A differential element at the outer radius of the pipe (where the bending and torsional
stresses are maximized and the radial normal and force-induced shear stresses are usually
zero) is subject to 2-dimensional plane stress, and thus the principal stress terms can be
computed from the following Mohr's circle:
TMAX
T
S2 S,
'" /
S
-T
TMAX
T
Figure 1-14
The center ofthe circle is at (SL + SR) / 2 and the radius is equal to [[(SL - SR) / 2]2 + 't2 ]1/2.
Therefore, the principal stresses, SI and S2, are equal to the centerofthe circle, plus or minus
the radius, respectively. The principal stresses are calculated as:
SI = (SL + SR) /2 + [ [(SL - SR) / 2]2 + 't2 ]1/2 and
S2 = (SL + SR) / 2 - [ [(SL - SR) / 2]2 + 't2 ]1/2
As noted above, the maximum shear stress present in any orientation is equal to (SI - S2) / 2,
or:
'tmax = [(SL - SR)2 + 4 't2 ]1/2

2
1-15
1.1.3 Failure Theories
To be useful, calculated stresses must he compared to material allowables. Material

allowable stresses are related to strengths as determined by material uniaxial tensile tests,
therefore calculated stresses must also be related to the uniaxial tensile test. This
relationship can he developed by looking at available failure theories.
crYield
Strain
Tensile Test Results
Unixial Tensile Tensile Test

Test Machine Specimen
Figure 1-15
There are three generally accepted failure theories which may he used to predict the onset
of yielding in a material:
1 - OCTAHEDRAL SHEAR, or VON MISES THEORY
2 - MAXIMUM SHEAR, or TRESCA THEORY
3 - MAXIMUM STRESS or RANKINE THEORY
These theories relate failure in an arbitrary three dimensional stress state in a material to
failure in a the stress state found in a uniaxial tensile test specimen, since it is that test that
is most commonly used to determine the allowable strength of commonly used materials.
Failure of a uniaxial tensile test specimen is deemed to occur when plastic deformation
occurs; i.e., when the specimen yields.
1-16
COADE Pipe 8tress Analysis 8eminar Notes
The three failure theories state:
Octahedral 8hear - Von Mises Theory:
"Failure occurs when the octahedral shear stress in a body is equal to the octahedral
shear stress at yield in a uniaxial tension test."
The octahedral shear stress is calculated as:

'tact = 1/3 [ (SI - 82)2 + (82 - 83)2 + (83 - 8 1)2 ]112
In a uniaxial tensile test specimen at the point ofyield:

81 = 8Yield; 82 = 83 = 0
Therefore the octahedral shear stress in a uniaxial tensile test specimen at failure is
calculated as:
'tact = 1/3 [ (8Yield - 0)2 + (0 - 0)2 + (0 - 8Yield)2 ]1/2
= 2 112 X 8Yield / 3
Therefore, under the Von Mises theory:
Plastic deformation occurs in a 3-dimensional stress state whenever the

octahedral shear exceeds 2 1/2 x 8Yield / 3.
Maximum 8hear 8tress - Tresca Theory:
"Failure occurs when the maximum shear stress in a body is equal to the maximum
shear stress at yield in a uniaxial tension test."
The maximum shear stress is calculated as:

'tmax =
In a uniaxial tensile test specimen at the point ofyield:
81 = 8Yield; 82 = 83 = 0
80:
'tmax = (SYield - 0) / 2 = 8Yield / 2
Therefore, under the Tresca theory:

maximum shear stress exceeds 8Yield / 2.
1-17
Maximum Stress - Rankine Theory
"Failure occurs when the maximum tensile stress in a body is equal to the maximum
tensile stress at yield in a uniaxial tension test."
The maximum tensile stress is the largest, positive principal stress, SI. (By definition, SI
is always the largest of the principal stresses.)
In a uniaxial tensile test specimen at the point of yield:

SI = SYield; S2 = S3 = 0
Therefore, under the Rankine theory:

maximum principal stress exceeds SYield.
1.1.4 Maximum Stress Intensity Criterion
Mostofthe CUITent piping codes use a slight modification ofthe maximum shear stress theory
for flexibility related failures. Repeating, the maximum shear stress theory predicts that
failure occurs when the maximum shear stress in a body equals SYield/2, the maxim um shear
stress existing at failure during the uni axial tensile test. Recapping, the maximum shear
stress in a body is given by:
'(max = (81 - S3) / 2
For the differential element at the outer surface of the pipe, the principal stresses were
computed earlier as:
SI = (SL + SR) / 2 + [ [(SL - SR) / 2]2 + '(2 ]1/2
As seen previously, the maximum shear stress theory states that during the uniaxial tensile
test the maximum shear stress at failure is equal to one-half of the yield stress, so the
following requirement is necessary:
tmax = [(SL - SR)2 + 4 1 2 ]112
<
2 2
Multiplying both sides arbitrarily by two saves the time required to do two mathematical
operations, without changing this relationship. Multiplying by two creates the stress
intensity, which is an artificial parameter defined sim ply as twice the maximum shear stress.
Therefore the Maximum Stress Intensity criterion, as adopted by most piping codes, dictates
the following requirement:
[(SL - SR)2 + 4 '(2 ]1/2 < SYield
1-18
Note that when calculating only the varying stresses for fatigue evaluation purposes (as
discussed in the following section), the pressure components drop out of the equation. If an
allowable stress based u pon a suitable factor ofsafety is used, the Maximum Stress In tensity
criterion yields an expression very similar to that specified by the B31.3 code:
[ Sb2 + 4 S~ ] 1/2 < SA
Where:
Sb = longitudinal normal stress due to bending, psi
St = shear stress due to torsion, psi
SA = allowable stress for loading case, psi
Example Stress Intensity Calculations:
Calculation of stress intensity may be illustrated by returning to our 6-inch nominal

diameter, standard wall pipe for which longitudinal, shear, and hoop stresses were
calculated. Reviewing the results ofthose calculations:
Longitudinal stress: SL = 15547 psi
Shear stress: = 5999 psi
Hoop stress: = 7098 psi
Assuming that the yield stress of the pipe material is 30,000 psi at temperature, and a factor
of safety of 2/3 is to be used, the following calculations must he made:
[(SL - SH)2 + 41:2 ]112 < 2/3 x SYield, or:
[(15547 - 7098)2 + 4 x 5999 2 ]1/2 < 2/3 x 30000, or:
14674 < 20000
The 14674 psi is the calculated stress intensity in the pipe wall, while the 20000 is the
allowable stress intensity for the material at the specified temperature. In this case, the pipe
would appear to be safely loaded under these conditions.
1-19
1.2 Fatigue Failure

The fail ure modes discussed above were sufficient to de scribe catastrophic failure based upon
one time loadings. However, piping and vessels were also found to suffer from sudden failure
following years of successful service. The proposed explanation for this phenomenon was
fatigue failure ofthe material, resulting from propagation of cracks on the material crystal
structure level due to repeated cyclic loading.
1.2.1 Fatigue Basics
Steels and other metals are made up of organized patterns ofmolecules, known as crystal
structures. However, these patterns are not maintained throughout the steel producing an
ideal homogenous material, but are found in microscopic isolated island-like are as called a
grains.
Inside each grain the pattern ofmolecules is preserved. From one grain boundary to the next
the molecular pattern is the same, but the orientation differs. As a result, grain boundaries
are high energy borders. Plastic deformation begins within a grain that is both subject to
a high stress and oriented such that the stress causes a slippage between adjacent layers in
the same pattern. The incremental slippages (called dislocations) cause local cold-working.
On the first application of the stress, dislocations will move through many of the grains that
are in the local area ofhigh stress. As the stress is repeated, more dislocations will move
through their respective grains. Dislocation movement is impeded by the grain boundaries,
so after multiple stress applications, the dislocations tend to accumulate at grain boundaries,
and eventually becoming so dense that the grains "lock up", causing a loss of ductility and
thus preventing further dislocation movement. Subsequent applications of the stress cause
the grain to tear, forming cracks. Repeated stress applications cause the cracks to grow.
U nless abated, the cracks propagate with additional stress applications until sufficient cross
sectional strength is lost to cause catastrophic failure ofthe material. Figure 1-16 illustrates
this process.
1-20
••
Molecular pattern
in unstressed grain
.....-
Slipping of one molecular
surface over another after
§§§§§§§§ ~ocati'"
first application of stress
~_ Slipping of a second
molecular surface after a -+ §§§§§§§§ Slip'
second application of
'\ stress
Dislocations beginning
to interact and tangle
.~ After many repeated applications of

stress the dislocations are
~
completelytangled and the grain is
'Iocked".
With another application of the

stress, the grain "tears' and a
fatigue crack is initiated.
Figure 1-16
One Cycl e
TEST LOADING CURVE
Tensile Test
Specimen
Figure 1-17
1-21
One important consideration is the fact that fatigue cracks usually are initiated at a free
surface. Corrosive attack on a material often produces pitting ofmetal surfaces. The pits
act as notches and produce a reduction in fatigue strength. In those specifie cases when
corrosive attack occurs simultaneously with fatigue loading, a pronounced reduction in
fatigue properties results which is greater than that produced by prior corrosion of the
surface. When corrosion and fatigue occur simultaneously, the chemical attack greatly
accelerates the rate at which fatigue cracks propagate.
U nfortunately, fatigue failures can occur even when the stress in a material is below the yield
stress. This is because localized stress concentrations can cause plastic deformation in a
relatively few grains des pite the fact that the stress over a gross area ofthe section may be
far below the material yield stress. If the section is subjected to a sufficient number of stress
cycles, cracks can initiate in highly stressed grains and then propagate throughout the
material, ultimately resulting in a fatigue failure of the section as a whole.
The fatigue capacity of a material can be estimated through the application of cyclic
extensive/compressive displacement loads with a uni axial test machine, as shown in Figure
1-17.
SampIe results for typical ferrous material (with a yield stress of5 7,000 psi) are shown below:
Applied Cyclic Cycles ta

Stress (psi) Fa il ure
300,000 23
200,000 90
100,000 550
50,000 6,700
30,000 38,000
20,000 100,000
1.2.2 Fatigue Curves
A plot of the cyclic stress capacity of a material is called a fatigue (or endurance) curve. These
curves are generated through multiple cyclic tests at different stress levels. The number of
cycles to failure usually increases as the applied cyclic stress decreases, often until a
threshold stress (known as the endurance limit) is reached below which no fatigue failure
occurs, regardless ofthe number of applied cycles. The endurance limit (for those metals that
possess one) is usually quantified as the value orthe cyclic stress level which may be applied
for at least 108 cycles without failure. Typical ratios of the endurance limit to the ultimate
tensile strength of various materials are 0.5 for cast and wrought steels; about 0.35 for
several nonferrous metals such as nickel, copper and magnesium; and 0.2 to 0.3 for rough
or corroded steel surfaces (depending on the degree of stress intensification).
An endurance curve for carbon and low alloy steels, taken from the ASME Section VIII
Division 2 Pressure Vessel Code is shown in Figure 1-18.
1-22
tO'I:"""------r-----T""""-----r-----T""""-----.,
NOTH:
1" E- . . . . . . .
131
IZI T_5-11O.1
_ ""_ _ _ _ _ . _ ..... _ _
U1S 1II-1151to1. -..--of __
w
Cl
:::>
1-
:::i
c...
~
(f)
(f)
w
1-
cr:
(f)
U
:::i
U
>-
U
FIG. 5-110.1 DESIGN FAnGUE CURVES FOR CARIION, Law ALLOY, SERIES ~IOC, HM ALLOY STEELS AllO HIGH
TENSILE S1ULS FDII TEMPERATURES NOT EXCEEDING 7UO'F
Figure 1-18
Note that according to the fatigue curve, the material doesn't fail upon initialloading, despite
enormously high stresses that appear to be weIl above the ultimate tensile stress oftypical
carbon and low alloy steels. The reasons for this are:
1 The highly stressed areas under fatigue loading are normally very localized.
Catastrophic failure under one-time loading will normally occur only when the
gross cross-section is overloaded.
2 Fatigue curves are usually generated through cyclic application of displacement,

rather than force, loading. Displacement loads are "self-limiting". If a pipe is
overloaded with an imposed displacement, plastic stresses will develop, deform-
ing the pipe to its displaced position. At that point there will be no further
tendency for displacements to occur, and therefore no continuation ofthe load,
or further deformation leading to catastrophic failure. In the case of an applied
force (which is not a self-limiting load), deformation of the pipe does not cause
the force to subside, so deformation continues until failure.
3 The stress shown in a fatigue curve is a calculated stress, based upon the
assumption that Hooke's law is applicable throughout the range of applied
loading; i.e., S = E E, where:
E = modulus of elasticity ofmaterial, psi
E = strain in material, in/in
1-23
In reality, once the material begins to yield, stress is no longer proportional to

the induced strain, and actually is much lower than that calculated.
1.2.3 Effect of Fatigue on Piping
A. R. C. Markl investigated the phenomenon offatigue failure ofpiping during the 1940's and
1950's, and published his results in papers such as "Piping Flexibility Analysis", published
in 1955. He tested a number of configurations (straight pipe, and various fittings, such as
pipe elbow, miter bend, unreinforced fabricated tee, welding tee, etc.) by using cyclic
displacements to apply alternating bending stresses. Plotting the cycles to failure for each
applied displacement, he found that the results of his experiments followed the form of
fatigue curves.
~
~
1
16"
(TYP,
41"
(TYP)
~IL-,......_ _ _ _ _.....
~ Girth butt weld

f
1
-a- Range of imposed displacements to
impose complete stress reversaI.
~t--...,IL.Ô.-J-I____- -.....I -a- displacements _....:.....-----.l~R

RangeOfinPlaneL~ /
~ • angeo f ou tpane
1
displacements
...&...~ _ _ _ _ _ _...J -a displacements ~_

~~ Range of outplane
....... Range of inplane /
• displacements
ml!- {(-'------.... -a. . . Range of inPlane/

displacement~
7'
· ......... Range of outplane
"'Placements
Figure 1-19
If an initially applied displacement load causes the pipe to yield, it results in plastic
deformation, producing a pre-stress in the system, which must be overcome by subsequent
stress applications, resulting in lower absolute stresses during later load cycles. Because of
the system "relaxation", the initial values of the thermal stress are allowed to exceed the
material yield stress, with the aim being that the system "self-spring" during the first few
cycles and then settle into purely elastic cycling. This "self-springing" is also called Elastic
Shakedown. As shown in Figure 1-20, the maximum stress range may be set to 2SYieid (or
more accurately, the sum of the hot and the cold yield stresses) in order to ensure eventual
elastic cycling.
1-24
2Sy~~~"".r-----------------
2Sy
-Sy~--------~--~~~~----~~--------~--
-2Sy~-----------------------------
Stress Time~
Figure 1-20
Based upon this consideration, the initial limitation for expansion stress design was set to
the sum ofthe hot and the cold yield stresses - the maximum stress range which ensured
that the piping system eventually cycled fully within the elastic stress range. Incorporating
a factor of safety, this resulted in the following criterion:
SE <= F (SYe + Syh)
Where:
SE = expansion stress range, psi
F = factor of safety, dimensionless
SYe = material yield stress at cold (installed) temperature, psi
Syh = material yield stress at hot (operating) temperature, psi
1.2.4 Cyclic Reduction Factor
At sorne point, in the vicini ty of 7,000 cycles, the (SYe + SYh)limita tion intersects the fatigue
curve for carbon and low alloy steel. The allowable stress range must therefore be reduced
to fit the fatigue curve for cyclic applications with 7,000 cycles or more:
SE <= F f(SYe + Syh)
1-25
Where:
f = cyclic reduction factor, as shown in the accompanying table
CYCLIC REDUCTION FACTOR TABLE
Cycles N Factor f
1 7,000 1.0
7,001 14,000 0.9
14,001 22,000 0.8
22,001 45,000 0.7
45,001 100,000 0.6
100,001 200,000 0.5
200,001 700,000 0.4
700,001 2,000,000 0.3
1.2.5 Effect of Sustained Loads on Fatigue Strength
In almost an cases the material fatigue curves are generated using a completely alternating
stress; i.e., the average stress component is zero. Research has shown that the magnitude
of the mean stress can have an effect on the endurance strength of a material, the trend of
which is shown below:
cr",
..
~
~ ,~
::..•
;~
'j ~
CIl ~ ~ Sa from endurance
,5
d =< ûS./ curve for completely
..
·c
!
~ alternating stress
Ci For Design
crllll < 17'IIIIZ < crllt, <0"4 4 Tensile
1 1
cr Yield Mean Stress cr Yield
t0 5 10' 107 Axis
C~cles 10 foilure
(b)
Figure 1-21
1-26
Note that as the mean stress increases the maximum permissible absolute stress (Sa + Sm)
increases, while the permissible alternating stress decreases. The relationship between the
allowable alternating stress and the average stress is described by the Soderberg line, which
correlates fairly weIl wi th test data for ductile materials. The equation for the Soderberg line
is:
SaCAllowed) = SaCfor R=-1) xCI - Sm/SYield)
Where:
R = Smin / Smax
Sa = (Smax - Smin) / 2
Sm = (Smax + Smin) / 2
Note that during the development of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III
rules and procedures for analysis ofnuclear piping, the Special Committee to Review Code
Stress Basis concluded that the required adjustments to a strain-controIled fatigue data
curve based on zero mean stress, occur only for a large number of cycles Ci.e. N > 50,000 -
100,000) cycles for carbon and low-alloy steels, and are insignificant for 18-8 stainless steels
and nickel-chrome-iron aIloys. Since these materials constitute the majority of the piping
materials in use, and since most cyclic loading events comprise much fewer than 50,000
cycles, the effects of mean stress on fatigue life are negligible for piping materials with
ultimate strengths below 100,000 psi. For materials with an ultimate strength equal to or
greater than 100,000 psi, such as high strength bolting, mean stress can have a considerable
effect on fatigue strength and should he considered when performing a fatigue analysis.
For a piping application, the implication of the Soderberg line on the fatigue allowable is
implemented in a conservative manner. The sustained stress Ci.e., weigh t, pressure, etc.) can
be considered to be the mean component of the stress range after system relaxation, and as
such is used to reduce the allowable stress range:
SE <= F f(SYe + Syh - Ssus)
1-27
1.3 Stress Intensification Factors

As noted previously, Markl's fatigue tests generated endurance curves for various fitting
configurations, such as straight pipe, butt welded pipe, elbows, miters, welding tees,
unreinforced and reinforced fabricated tees, mostly using 4" nominal diameter, size-on-size
fittings. Markl noticed that the fatigue failures occurred not in the middle ofhis test spans,
but primarily in the vicinity ofthe fittings, and in those cases, they also occurred at lower
stress/cycle combinations than for the straight pipe alone.
Earlier theoretical work pointed to a possible explanation. It had been shown that elbows
tend to ovalize du ring bending, bringingthe outerfibers closerto the neutral axis ofthe pipe,
thus reducing the moment of inertia (increasing flexibility) and the section modulus
(increasing developed stress).
Ovalization
of Bend
Section
Figure 1·22
The stress intensifica tion factors (the ratio of actual ben ding stress to the calculated ben ding
stress for a moment applied to the nominal section) for elbows was known to be:
10 = 0.75/ h2/3
li = 0.9/ h 2/3
Where:
10 = out-of-plane intensification factor
li = in-plane intensification factor
h = flexibility characteristic
= t R/r2
t = pipe wall thickness, in
R = bend radius of elbow, in
r = mean radius of pipe, in
1-28
Markl found this to correlate fairly weIl wi th his test data and so adopted it. Tests on mitered
bends correlated weIl with those for smooth bends, providing an equivalent bend radius R
was used in the above equation for h. Markl's estimates of equivalent bend radius are shown
below:
Re = r(l + 0.5 sIr cot D) (for closely spaced miters)
Re = r(l + cot D) 1 2 (for widely spaced miters)
Where:
Re = equivalent bend radius, in
s = miter spacing at the centerline, in
D = one-half of angle between cuts
Markl found that the unreinforced fabricated tees could be modeled using the same formula
as that for single (widely spaced) miter bends could be use d, if a half angle of 45 degrees was
used. This produces a flexibility characteristic of:
h = tir
For butt welded tees (such as ANSI B16.9 welding tees) Markl again adapted the bend
equations, this time computing an equivalent radius (Re) and an equivalent thickness (te).
Markl's equation for weI ding tees was:
h = c ( te Re 1 r 2 )
Where:
c = ratio of tee-to-pipe section modulii, dimensionless
= (tJt)3/2 (Markl's recommendation)
te = equivalent pipe wall thickness, in
= 1.60t (Markl's recommendation)
Re = equivalent bend radius, in
= 1.35r (Markl's recommendation)
Inserting these values into the expression for h yields:

h = 4.4 tIr
This is precisely the expression used today for ANSI B16.9 welding tees.
1-29
For reinforced fabricated tees, Markl used the expression he had previously used for welding
tees, with different equivalent wall thickness and bend radius:
h = c ( te Re / r 2 )
Where:
c = (teft)3/2 (Markl's recommendation)
te = t + tp
tp = thickness of reinforcing pad or saddle, in
Re = r
The following tables compare the stress intensification factors suggested by Markl's test
results versus the values calculated with his equations (results are for 4" nominal diameter,
standard schedule pipe):
Bend in-plane (in

tR/r 2 Test Calculated
0.062 4.49 5.7428

0.210 2.17 2.5476
0.129 4.38 3.5238
0.320 2.02 1.9238
0.319 2.10 1. 9286
0.316 1.90 1.9381
0.328 1. 70 1.8904
0.331 1.53 1.8809
0.324 1.36 1.9095
0.332 1.28 1.8762
0.328 1.46 1.8904
1-30
Unreinforced tee (io):

tir Test Calculated
0.0390 Il.04 10.84

0.0455 6.12 7.06
0.0947 2.95 4.33
0.1111 2.34 2.89
Reinforced tee:
in-plane (i;) out-plane (io)
tpad Test Calculated Test Calculated
0.12 2.21 2.63 2.43 3.17
0.237 1. 78 1. 74 1.83 1.98
0.5 1.10 1.14 1.08 1.18
These fonnulas for intensification factors were adopted (and expanded) by the piping codes.
Specifie fonnulas and/or fittings recognized by the individual ASME/ANSI B31 codes are
usually shown in Appendix D ofthose codes (see Figure 1-23).
1-31
APPENDIX D
FLEXIBILITY AND STRESS INTENSIFICATION
FACfORS
TABLE 0-1'
FLEXIBIUTY FACTOR t AND STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTOR 1
_ _ Ion
r..... l _ 121. D)I

la)
DoKrillllon
fini"'"
fortor
k
0Ut~_
i.
1.......
;,
FledIllillJ
thoozurlstk
k
w~."'G .._ or plpt _ 1.6~ 0.75 O.,

-;m
TR, ~r2
CHotts 121. (C)-(711
" Jill' -;;;- fUlfS:,,7- --.. OOod
,-_Id __ .J!
.--
O., coti sf
Ill) 1.52 O.' .~_.!J".J,
J < '2 Cl + bit " ~ "li' ,,:1./1 2 r,' --y Z
CII_ (2). 1.). (5), m)
- '--2-
---
Si_ ""'' '
Ji ~ '2 (1
bond ..
+ \In"
CHotts 121. 1.'. (7))
..w..,. .!,g
,,'/1,.
M
Ir'''
~
Jil"
~.f
2 li
lb) O., :w.. i. + 4.~

~~.
W.ldlng lot .... ASIII E lit
81U_ Ir''' r,
'. ~ ~0t..
Tc. :i!: 1.5 T
IN.... 121. 141. (6). Ill). (Ul)
~:r'2
. '.
I.~
tbt
Remforttd fabnc.t~ tn
wrth pad .or !.adtllt
[Note' 121. 1.1. IBI. (12). Ill):
~
JiJi~
~f" + ~-;. If + ",i)'"
f 1) ~
~~2
T' .,
Tt'
Pad s.ddIe'
te) Urninforced f.ltricated Ue o.• ~l()+ '" F

lb) IN.m 1Zl. I~). IIZl. mll Ii''' r,
lb) Exuvdod _1... too "Ith o., ~I~ + \.Ii (1,+-r.) -i

'It
~ 0.0506 hW 12 '2
Tt < l..5T
{Notn (2), loC}, Cl})]
(b) Wtlded~ln contour InSfrt o.• •.• 1.

wllII
r. '2:: 'tWL
T(~l.sr
"'' r,
(ffote1 en (4), i1l). (131]
(0) IIrIr1ch _Id·•• IiItlno 0.9

IIn........ ...,torc;ocll Ir'''
INo... (2). «l. I~). 1121)
StmI
Flaibllty IlIlIn,ifiutioo
Factor k F_; INoto Illl
Bult -.eIdi!d joint. Nducer, or _t'Id neck fI"\1e 1.0
D " " b _ ...on lWtgo 1.2
Cel FI'" wtIdH jOint, or socttt M'!d ftarlge or fittlng Note (14)
lb) Up )oint """"" (wlth ASME B16.9 Iap j,nt .tub) Lb

Tht'tAdfod pipe joint, Or U.rudfd flallQf Z.l
C_ _ _ S""I~ ~I ... or ComIPtld ......... d bond [Not. no» B
Figure 1-23
1-32
Subsequent research has demonstrated that Markl's formulas, having been based on a
limited numher configurations (significantly having omitted reduced outlet tees) and
disregarding any need to intensify torsional stress, are inaccurate in some respects.
The major problem with reduced intersections tees lies in the out-of-plane bending moment
on the header. Stresses due to these moments can never he predicted from the extrapolation
of size-on-size tests. Figure 1-24 below illustrates the origin of this problem.
Mob Area of high

Mob
bending .............
stresses
Size-on-size Reduced Intersection
Figure 1-24
Errors due to these moments can be non-conservative by as much as a factor oftwo or three.
Furthermore, when the rlR ratio is very small, the branch connection has little impact on the
header, so use oflarge stress intensification factors for the header can produce unreasonably
large calculated stresses.
R.W. Schneider ofBonney Forge pointed out this inconsistency for reduced branch connec-
tions. His paper on the subject states that the highest stress intensification factors occur
when the ratio ofthe branch to headerradiiis about 0.7, at which point the nonconservativism
(versus Markl's formulas) is on the order oftwo.
i from Markl
- 1.0
0.7 1.0
r/R
Ratio of Actual i to Markl's i vs
Ratio of 8ranch to Header Radius
Figure 1-25
1-33
1.4 Welding Research Council Bulletin 330

The Wei ding Research Council's Bulletin 330, "Accuracy of Code Stress Intensification
Factors for Branch Connections" documented a major attempt to re-assess the existing code
requirements for the intensification of stresses at tees and other branch connections. The
difficulty ofthis task was summed up in the bulletin by author E. C. Rodabaugh, who stated:
''We would rate the relative complexity ofi-factors for pipe, elbows and branch connections
by the ratios 1 :5:500. These comments on relative complexity, we think, are relevant at this
point because at least sorne readers will be looking for simple answers to what they perceive
to be a simple subject. They will not find any simple answers in this report."
Summarizing the findings ofWRC 330 in order ofincreasing importance:
1) The following note should be added wi th regard to branch connection flexibilities:
"In piping system analyses, it may be assumed that the flexibilityis represented
byarigidjointatthebranch-to-runcenterlinesjuncture. However, the Code user
should be aware that this assumption can be inaccurate and should consider the
use of a more appropriate flexibility representation."
2) ASME 2/3 and B31.1 users can use the ''Branch Connection" expressions for
unreinforcedfabricated tees wheneverrlR< 0.5. (Markl's formulas specified that
the same stress intensification factor be used on both the branch and header legs
of a tee, regardless of relative sizes. The codes noted above permit the reduction
ofthe stress intensification factor at the branch for relative diameters. CAESAR fi
automatically considers the effects ofreduced intersections on the stress inten-
sification factors for these codes unless directed otherwise by the user through
the setup file.)
3) B31.1 erred when including the calculations for branch connection stress
intensification factors; instead they should have included the calculations as
they appeared in ASME III. (Further clarification of this note is given in note
10 herein.)
4) B31.3 should include the stress intensification factors for branch connections as
per ASME III. (B31.3 uses Markl's original formulas, thus specifying the same
stress intensification factor for both the branch and header of a tee, regardless
of relative sizes.)
5) B31.3 should intensify the torsional moment at branch connections, with the
torsional intensification factor estimated as: it = (rlR)i o.
6) B31.3 should eliminate the use of ii = 0.75io + 0.25 for branch connections and
tees. It can give the wrong relative magnitude for header moments, and may
underestimate the difference between Mo and Mi for rlR ratios between 0.3 and
0.95, and perhaps over-estimates the difference for rlR ratios below 0.2 and for
rlR = 1.0.
1-34
7) B31.3 and B31.1 should add restrictions to the stress intensification factor tables
indicating that they are valid for RIT < 50.
8) The codes should add notes that indicate that the stress intensification factors
are developed from tests and/or theories based on headers being straight pipe
with about two or more diameters length of pipe on either side of the branch.
9) The codes should also add notes to indicate that for branch connections/tees the
stress intensification factors are only applicable where the axis ofthe branch pipe
is within 5 degrees ofnormal to the surface of the header pipe.
10) The stress intensification factors for unreinforced fabricated tees, weldolets, and
sweepolets should be changed to:
For (rlR) < 0.9:

lb = 1.5(RIT)2/3 (rlR)1/2 (r/rp ), with ib(tIT) > 1.5
For (rlR) = 1.0:

0.9 (RIT)2/3 (r/rp ), with ib(tIT) > 1.0
And:
Ir = 0.8 (RIT)2/3 (rlR), with ir > 2.1
Where:
lb = intensification factor for branch (to be linearly interpolated for rlR ratios
hetween 0.9 and 1.0)
R = mean radius ofheader pipe, in
T = thickness ofheader pipe, in
r = mean radius ofbranch pipe, in
rp = outer radius ofbranch pipe, in
t = thickness ofbranch pipe, in
Ir = intensification factor for run (header) pipe
Additionally, if a radius of curvature r2 is provided at the connection, which is not less than
the larger of t/2, (Tb'+Y)/2, or T/2, then the calculated values of ib and ir may be divided by
2.0, but with the restriction that ib>1.5 and ir >1.5.
Also, where reduced outlets are discussed, branch ends should he checked using Z = p (r2)t
and i(tIT) in place ofi, with i(tIT) > 1.0.
1-35
Il) There was not sufficient data available onreinforcedfabricated tees for Rodabaugh
to make any definitive recommendations regarding them. Rodabaugh does
however suggest that the normal usage whereby the width of the pad is taken
to be at least equal to the radius ofthe nozzle should be observed even though
not explicitly directed by the code.
12) For t/T ratios of about one or more, stresses tend to be higher in the header, and
are fairly independent ofthe wall thickness ofthe nozzle. As the tlI' ratio gets
much smaller than one, the largest stresses shift to the branch. (This finding
originally came out of the research for WRC 297.)
Comparisons ofWRC 330's proposaIs for stress intensification factors for various types of
tees, versus B31.3 calculated values are shown on the following pages.
1-36
NO INTERSECTION RADIUS
"831.3" VS. 'WRC 330' UNREINFORCED, FA8RICATED TEE STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTORCOMPARISON
HEADER BRANCH WRC --B31.3--- WRC --B31.3--- i oh

NOM SCH
iob
~
330 b i ib iOb 330 b ioh 1 330 h 330 h
1 40. 40. 2.433 2.874 2.433 .853 1.081 2.433 .959 1.125
1 48. 1 48. 4.184 2.769 3.359 ..m .822 2. tHe 2.769 3.359 1.319 1.6""
2 48. 2 40. 3.359 2.769 3.359 .B24 1.010 2.986 2.769 3.359 .927 1.125
J 40. 1 414. 3.479 2.860 3.488 .822 1.011 2.111 2.86B 3.488 1.362 l.b57
l 40. 2 414. 4.769 2.860 3.488 .U8 .738 2.111 2.868 3.481 1.362 1.657
J 43. 3 40. 3.4811 2.868 3.488 .822 1.881 3.893 2.86" 3.4811 .925 1.125
4 40. 1 48. 3.416 3.169 3.892 .928 1.139 2.11111 3.169 3.891 1.5119 1.953
4 40. Z 40. 4.682 3.169 3.892 .677 .831 2.lem 3.169 3.an 1.5B9 1.853
4 40. 3 4B, 5.694 3.169 3.892 .557 .684 2.665 3.169 3.892 1.189 1.468
4 49. 4 414. 3.B92 3.169 3.892 .814 l.0U 3.46m 3.169 3.a92 .916 1.125
5 40. 1 48. 3.348 3.441 4.255 1.1128 1.271 2.nll 3.441 ".255 1.639 2.826
S 48. 2 48. 4.589 3.Hl 4.255 .758 .927 2.1111 3.441 4.255 1.639 2.826
~ 411!. 3 411. 5.5BII 3.441 4.255 .617 .763 2.342 3.441 4.255 1.478 1.817
5 40. 4 48. 6.359 3.441 4.255 .54J .669 3.14B 3.441 4.255 I.H2 1.488
5 411!. 5 48. 4.255 3.44J 4.255 .889 Lltllll 3,783 3.441 4.255 .91B 1.125
6 49. 2 48. 4.477 3.655 4.540 .816 !.lm 2.m 3.655 4.548 1.741 2.162
b 411!. :) 48. 5.444 3.655 4.548 .671 .834 2.11111 3.655 4.548 1. 741 2.162
6 411!. 4 U. 6.282 3.655 4.541 .589 .732 2.711 3.655 4.548 1.348 1.674
6 40. 5 411. 6.919 3.b55 4.541 .528 .656 3.374 3.655 4.540 1.883 1.346
6 4\J. 6 48. 4.548 3.655 4.541 .885 1.81l@ 4.836 3.655 4.541 .986 1.125
S 48. :) 4f.1. 5.187 3.961 4.949 .764 .954 2.111 3.961 4.949 1.886 2.356
a 48. .. 48. 5.918 3.961 4.949 .671 .837 2.258 3.961 4.949 1.754 2.191
B 411!. 5 411. 6.592 3.961 4.949 .681 .751 2.811 3.961 4.949 1.410 J.76J
e 49. b 4@. 7.218 3.9bl 4.949 .549 .686 3.361 3.961 4.949 I.PS 1.472
B 48. B 411. 4.94'1 3.961 4.949 .BU 1.811! 4.399 3.961 4.949 .911 1.125
19 48. .. 411. 5.642 4.213 5.284 .747 .936 2.111 4.zn 5.284 2.@86 2.516
III! 4B. S 48. 6.294 4.213 5.284 .669 .839 2.399 4.213 5.284 1.756 2.282
18 48. b 48. 6.884 4.213 5.284 .612 .768 2.871 4.213 5.28" 1.468 l.a41
lB 48. 8 411. 7.875 4.213 5.284 .535 .671 3.755 4.213 5.284 1.122 1.407
19 48. 18 n. l 5.284 4.213 5.284 .797 1.l!ea 4.697 ~.213 5.284 .997 1.125
12 48. 5 48. 6.834 4.392 5.523 .728 .915 2.118 4.392 5.523 2.882 2.b18
12 48. h 4B. b.bBB 4.392 5.523 .666 .837 2.523 4.392 5.523 1.741 2.189
12 41. B 48. 7.549 4.392 5.523 .592 .732 3.312 4.392 5.523 1.338 1.673
12 48. 18 48. 8.443 ·40592 5.513 .52@ .654 4.138 4.392 5.523 1.1163 1.337
12 48. 12 48. 5.523 4.392 5.523 .795 1.all'! 4.919 4.392 5.523 .895 1.125
14 48. b 48. 6.383 4.458 5.599 .697 .877 2.328 4.458 5.599 1.911 2.405
14 4B. 8 48. 7.382 4.45B 5.599 .689 .767 3.847 4.45B 5.599 1.468 1.839
14 4B. 10 48. B.IM 4.458 5.599 .545 .686 3.811 4.458 5.599 1. Ib8 1.469
14 49. 12 48. 8.569 4.4Se 5.599 .5J9 .653 4.538 4.4511 5.5'19 .982 1.236
14 4B. 14 48. 5.599 4.4511 5.599 .795 U188 . 4.977 4.458 5.599 .894 1.125
1-37
"B31.3" VS. 'WRC 330" UNREINFORCED, FABRICATED TEE STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTOR COMPARISON
HEADER 8RANCH WRC -·831.3··· WRC ···831 .3···

i ib iob i ih ioh
NOM SCH 330 b i ib iOb 330 b 330 b 330 h i ih ioh 330 h 330 h
16 40. 8 40. 6.825 4.446 5.595 .651 .928 2.664 4.446 5.595 I.6b9 2.1011
16 48. I@ 48. 7.633 4.446 5.595 .583 .733 3.332 4.446 5.595 1.334 1.b79
lb 4". 12 48. 8.322 4.446 5.595 .534 .672 3.961 4.446 5.595 1.123 1. 413
16 4@, 14 40. 8.723 4.446 5.595 .510 .641 4.352 4.446 5.595 1.822 1.286
lb 48. lb 48. 5.595 4.446 5.595 .795 1.098 4.973 4.446 5.595 .894 1.125
18 4~. 18 40. 7.281 4.449 5.598 .618 .777 : 2.964 4.449 5.598 1.5&1 1.889
18 48. 12 40. 7.B50 4.4~9 5.598 .567 .713 : 3.523 4.449 5.598 1. 263 1.589
18 48. 14 48. 8.229 4.449 5.598 .541 .6811 3.871 4.449 5.598 1. 1-49 1.446
lB 40. lb 40. 8.797 4.449 5.598 .586 .636 '4.423 4.449 5.598 1. "lib 1.2116
18 48. 18 40. 5.598 4.449 5.598 .795 1. 80~ l 4.976 4.449 5.598 1 .894 1.125
20 40. 12 40. 7.711 4.681 5.BBI .597 .752 3.281 4.601 5.m 1.483 1.m
20 48. 14 40. 8.882 4.681 5.a61 .56Q .718 3.604 4.601 5.BiH 1. 277 !.b10
20 4". 16 4~. 8.640 4.681 5.B01 .532 .671 4.1lB 4.681 5.a81 1.117 1.4&9
2" 48. 18 4~. 9.165 4.681 5.881 .592 ,633 4.633 4.601 5.BIH .'193 1.252
20 48. 20 40. 5.801 4.601 5.8@1 .793 Lel8 5.156 4.601 5.801 .B92 1.125
24 48. 16 48. 8.076 4.707 5.943 .583 .736 3.512 4.797 5.943: \,:)48 l.h92
24 40. 18 40. 8.566 4.707 5.943 .549 .694 3.951 4.787 5.943 l 1.191 1.504
24 4@. 20 40. 9.@37 4.m 5.943 .521 .658 4.391 4.7@7 5.943 i !.lm Lm
24 40, 24 40. 5.943 4.707 5.943 .79'l. 1.009 ; 5.282 4.707 5.'143 .B'11 I.! 25
30 48. 24 4~. 9.782 5.140 6.520 .530 .672 4.619 5.140 6.52(1 i
i
1.113 1.411
39 48. 3" 40, 6.528 5.140 6.520 .788 1.800 5.796 5.140 6.520 i .887 1.125
32 41Ll. 24 4~. 10.394 5.670 7.227 .546 .,m ' 4.783 5.6lB 7.227· 1.186 1.511
32 49. 36 40. 10.134 5.670 7.227 .560 .713 6.801 S.670 7.227 .945 1.204
32 40. 32 40. 7.227 5.m 7. '227, .785 I.m 6.424 5.670 7.227 .883 1.125
14 40. 30 4~. 11.763 5.899 7.5321 .501 .640 5.879 5.899 7.532 1.083 1.281
34 411. 32 411. !lU17 5.899 7.532. .572 .733 6.293 5.899 7.532 .937 1.197
34 48. 34 40. 7.532 5.899 7.532! .783 1.89B 6.695 5.899 7.532 .B81 1.125
~
.56 48. 30 -4B. 11.210 5.788 7.384 j .51l! .m 5.446 5.788 7.384;1 U63 1.35a
36 41l. 32 49. 11.599 5.788 7. 384: • 49'1 .637 5.830 S.7B8 7.3B4· .993 1.266
36 48. 34 48. 9.902 5.788 7.384, .585 .746 6.283 S.788 7.384 .933 1.198
36 48. 36 48. 7.384 5.788 7.384 .784 1.888 6.563 5.788 7.384 .8B2 1.125
42 48. 30 40. 11.5(18 b.UB 8.208 ; .713 5.lbB 6.480 B.280 1.238 1.587
42 48, 32 U. 11.9(17 b.400 8.208 ; .537 .089 5.533 6.4110 8.280 ! .157 1.482
42 40. 34 48. 12.231 6.488 8.20~ : .521 .6&8 5.a86 6.40& 8.m 1.087 1.393
42 4@. 36 40. 12.633 b.m 8.2@0 ; .507 .649 6.228 6.489 S.2U 1 1.828 1.316
42 40. 42 40. 8.209 b.480 8.209 .780 1.BS8 7.289 6.480 B.2BILl 1 .878 1.125
1-38
"831.3" VS 'WRC 330" WELDOLET STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTOR COMPARISON
HEADER BRAN CH WRC ..·931.3..- WRC ---B31 ,3--- i Oh

i ib iOb i ih
NOM SCH , 330 b i ib iOb 330 b 330 b 330 h i ih i oh 330 h 330 h
A0. 40. 1 2.433 1.097 1.897 .~51 .451 2.162 1.Il97 l.097 .588 .518
'1 40. 1.516 1.516 .371 .371 2.1110 1.516 1.516 .722 .722
2 48. , ::: 1 ;:::: 1.516 1.516 .451 .451 2.986 1.516 1.516 .588 • SilS
3 48. 411. 3.363 1. 570 1.570 .467 .467 1 2.1110 1.57@ 1.578 .748 .748
3 48. 2 4B. 4.769 1. 578 1.570 .329 .329 1 2.11l0 1.570 1.571 .748 .748
3 48. 3 411. 3.483 1.5711 1.570 .451 .451 i 3.093 1. SHI 1.571 .508 .588
1
4 48. 1 40. 1
1
3.366 1.756 1.756 .522 .522 2.110 1,756 1.75b .83b .B3b
4 411. '1 411. 1 4.682 1. 756 1.756 .375 .375 i 2.18e 1. m 1. 756 .836 .836
4 48. 3 40. 1 5.694 1.756 1.756 .308 .308: 2.665 1.756 1. 756 .659 .659
4 41l. 4 40. !.?Sb 1.756 .451 ~5t 1 3.m_~ ._1!756_~_~~m8 .588
5 48. 1 411. I
l :. :9:
1
.::r • .) __, 1.920 1.920 .579 .579 2.188 l.·m I.ni .914 .914
S 4@, '1 411. 1 4.589 1. 920 1.928 .418 .418 2.11'" 1.92i! 1. 928 .914 .914
5 48. 3 411. i 5.580 1.928 1.920 .344 .344 2.342 1. Ç7~ I.cm .820 .B20
5 4@. -4 411. [ 6.358 1. 920 1.920 .302 .382 3.11411 Lm 1. 928 .632
5 411. 5 411. : 4.255 L92@ 1.920 .451 .451 3.783 t.m 1.920 .528 .588
il 40. 2 40. 4.47i 2.848 2.048 .458 .458 2.108 2.848 2.1148 .'m .975
6 ~8. 3 40. ,5.444 2.048 2.848 .376 .376 2.101l 2.848 2.1148 .975 .975
6 4@. 4 40. • 6.2112 2.B48 2.048 .3311 .331 2.711 2.148 2.848 .755 .755
6 4@. 5 40. 6.919 2.848 2.848 .296 .296 ! 3.374 2.848 2.1148 .687 .607
6 40. 6 411. 4.540 2.048 2.1148 .451 .451 '4.@3b 2.148 2,848 .5118 .5118
8 40. 3 48. ,5,187 2.233 2.233 .4311 .430 i 2.1811 2.233 2.233 !.IIb3 t.m
8 40. 4 40. ! 5.910 2.233 2.233 .378 .378 ' 2.258 2.233 .989 ,989
8 40. 5 4iJ. 6.592 2.233 2.233 .339 .339 \ 2.811 2.233 2.233 .794 .794
Il 40. b 48. 7.210 2,233 2.233 .318 .318 3.361 2.233 2.233 .664 .664
.., ,.,.,..,.
B 40. S 40. 4.'149 2.233 2.233 .451 .451 ~.399 2.233 L.J..0·~1 .598 .58B
10 40. 4 U. 5.642 2.384 2.384 .422 .422 2.lBB 2.384 2.384 1.135 L 135
10 40. S 48. 6.294 2.384 2.384 .379 .379 2.399 2.384 2.384 .994 .994
10 4~. il 40. 6.884 2.384 2.384 .346 .346 i 2.8711 2.394 2.384 .831 .831
10 40. B 411. 7.S75 2.384 2.384 .303 .303 ! 3.755 2.394 2.384 .635 .635
!~ 40. III U. 5.284 2.384 2.384 .m .451 ! 4.697 2.384 2.384 .588 .588
12 40. S 40. 6.034 2.492 2.492 .~13 .413 \2.lH! 2.492 2.492 1.181 1.181
12 40. (, 4@. 6.6@0 2.492 2.492 .378 .378 i2.523 2.492 2.492 .987 .987
12 40. 8 40. 7. 54'? 2.492 2.492 .3311 .338 '3.m 2.492 2.492 .755 .152
12 41l. III 41l. 8.443 2.492 2.492 ;! '9~
.~ .J .295 4.138 2.492 2.492 .b~3 .603
12 40. 12 411. 2.492 2.492 1 .451 .451 4.9119 2.492 2.492 •sile ,588
14 40. 6 40. UB3 2.526 2.526 \ .396 .396 2.328 2.526 2.526 1.885 1.885
14
14
40.
n.
8 40.
10 40.
7.3112
8.1bb
2.526
2.526
2.526
2.526 l
i .346
.309
.346
.319
3.847
3.811
2.526
2.526
2.526
2.526
.829
.663
.829
.663
14 40. 12 40. S.569 2.526 2.526 1 .295 .295 4.5311 2.526 2.526 .558 .558
14 40. 14 40. 5.599 2.526 2.526 1 .451 .451 4.917 2.526 2.526 .588 .508
1-39
t:l.Q INTERSECTION RADIUS

"831.3" VS 'WRC 330" WELDOLET STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTOR COMPARISON
HEADER 8RANCH WRC ·-831.3..·

i ib
WRC -831.3..· i oh
NOM SCH
iob
~
330 b i ib iob 330 b 330 b 330 h i ih i oh 330 h 330 h
1& 48. 8 48. 6.825 2.524 2.524 .3711 .371 2.664 2.524 2.524 .947 .947
16 48. 11 4a. 7.633 2.524 2.524 .331 .331 3.332 2.524 2.524 .758 .759
16 48. 12 48. 8.322 2.524 2.524 .383 .313 3.961 2.524 2.524 .637 .637
16 4@. 14 48. 9.723 2.524 2.524 .289 .289 4.352 2.524 2.524 .5B8 .588
16 48. lb 48. 1 5.595 2.524 2.524 .451 .451 4.973 2.524 2.524 .509 .519
i
• 1
19 48. 10 ,II. l 7.2111 2.526 2.52l, .351 .351 2.9/,4 2.526 2.526 .952 .852
18 40. 12 4". ; 7.858 2.526 2.526 .322 .322 3.523 2.526 2.526 .717 .717
18 4B. 14 i1 8.229
48. 2.526 2.526 .387 .387 3.871 2.526 2.526 .6S3 .653
18 41. 16 46.! 8.797 2.~m 2.526 .287 .287 4.423 2.526 2.521: .571 .571
lB 40. 18 411.! 5.598 2.526 2.526 .451 .451 4.976 2.526 2.526 .588 .588
28 48. 12 48. 7.71l 2.617 2.617 .339 .339 3.28B 2.617 2.617 .798 .;98
20 41. 14 n. 8.182 2.617 2.617 .324 .324 3.6114 2.617 2.617 .726 .726
20 4!1. 16 48. 8.648 2.617 2.617 .383 .31113 4.118 2.617 2.617 .635 .635
21 40. 18 411. 1 9.165 2.617 2.617 .286 .286 4.633 2.617 2.617 .565 •SilS
28 48. 28 4&. i 5.811 2.617 2.617 .451 .451 5.156 2.617 2.617 .518 .5&8
24 48. 16 40.' 8.176 2.681 2.681 .332 .332 3.512 2.681 2.6Bl .763 .763
24 48. 18 48. 8.566 2.681 2.681 .313 .313 3.951 2.681 2.681 .679 .679
24 48. 2" 40 •. 9.137 2.691 2.691 .297 .297 4.397 2.681 2.681 .618 .619
24 40. 24 48. 5.943 2.6Bl 2.681 .451 .451 5.282 2.681 2.681 .568 .5@8
l
1
i
33 U. 24 48.; 9.782 2.942 2.942 .383 .383 4.619 2.942 2.942 .6l] .637
38 48. 38 40., 6.528 2.942 2.942 .451 .451 5.796 2.942 2.942 .51B .508
32 40. 24 40. 10.3114 3.261 3.261 .314 .314 4.783 3.261 3.261 .692 .682
32 48. 31 40. 1@.134 3.261 3.261 .322 .322 6.881 3.261 3.261 .543 .543
32 43. 32 4111. 7.227 3.261 3.261 .451 .m 6.424 3.261 3.261 .518 .58a
34 40. 3" 40. 11. 763 3.:m 3.398 .289 .289 5.879 3.398 3.3118 .578 .578
34 48. 32 40. 18.317 3.39!l 3.:m .329 .329 6.293 3.398 3.399 .540 .549
34 40. 34 40. ! 7.532 3.398 3.398 .451 .451 6.695 3.398 3.398 .sIB .508
,
36 40. 30 40. ; Il.218 3.331 3.331 .297 .297 5.446 3.331 3.331 .612 .612
36 48. 32 40. 1 II. 599 3.:)31 3.331 .287 .287 5.8311 3.331 3.331 .571 .571
56 40. 34 41!1. 1 9.962 3.331 3.331 .336 .336 6.283 3.331 3.331 .:)37 .537
36 40. 36 40, i
7.384 3.:331 3.331 .451 .451 ·
1
6.563 3.331 3.331 .sltS .508
42 48. 38 48. 1 11.588 3.699 3.6119 .321 .321 1 5.168 3.699 3.699 .716 .716
42 40. 32 40. 1 11. 9117 3.699 3.699 .311 .311 i 5.533 3.699 3.699 .669 .669
42 4~. 34 4@.! 12.28! 3.699 3.699 .381 .3U i 5.886 3.699 3.&99 .628 .628
42 48. 36 40. 12.633 3.6119 3.699 .293 .293 6.228 3.699 3.b99 .594 .594
42 48. 42 48. 1 8.2111 3.699 3.699 .451 .451 1.289 3.699 3.&99 .5"8 .516
"
1-40
"831.3" VS 'WRC 330" SWEPOLET STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTOR COMPARISON
HEADER 8RANCH WRC -·831.3··· WRC -.. 831.3..· ioh

i ib iob i ih
NOM SCH
330 b i ib iob 330 b 330 b 330 h i ih ioh 330 h 330 h
1 48. 1 48. 2.43;> .929 .986 .382 .372 2.1b2 .929 .9ib .43i .419
2 48. 48. 4.884 1.188 1.251 .291 .316 2.188 1.188 1.251 .566 .596
2 48. 2 48. 3.359 1.188 1.251 .354 .372 2.986 1.188 1.251 .398 .419
3 48. 48. 2.618 1.222 1.296 .467 .495 2.188 1.222 1.296 .582 .617
5 48. 2 48. 4.155 1.222 1.296 .294 .312 2.188 1.222 1.296 .582 .617
3 48. 3 40. 1 3. 480 1. 222 1. 296 .551 .372 3.893 1.222 1.296 .395 .419
,
4 48. 1 48. 2.563 1.337 1.450 .522 .566 2.188 1.337 1.458 .637 .698
" 48. 2 48. 4.868 1.337 1.450 .329 .356 2.188 1.337 1.4SB .637 .6911
4 48. 3 41. 5••m 1.337 1.458 .235 .255 2.665 1.337 1.45" .582 .544
48'1 3.sn
-4 48. I •.n? 1.458 .;m .372 3.461 1.337 1.450 .386 .419
4
5 4t1. 1 48. ! 2.483 1.439 1.585 .579 .638 2. IIi 1.439 1.585 .685 .755
5 48. 2 41. i 3.940 1.439 1.585 .365 .4112 ! 2.1811 1.439 1.585 .685 .755
5 48. 3 411. , 5.588 1.439 1.585 .258 .284 i 2.342 1.439 1.585 .614 .677
5 48. 4 41. ~ 6.358 1.439 1.585 .226 .249 3.848 1.439 1.585 .473 .521
5 40. 5 48. : 4.255 1.439 1.585 .338 .372 3.783 1.439 1.585 .380 .419
il 4@. 2 40. 3.738 1.518 1.691 .416 .452 2.111 1.518 Lm .723 .805
il 48. 3 40. 5.444 1.518 1.691 .279 .311 2.108 1.518 1.691 .723 .885
b 40. ., 41. ; 6.282 • 1.518 Lm .245 .273 2.711 1.518 1.691 .568 .624
ô 48. :; 48. i 6.919 1.518 1.691 .219 .244 3.374 1.518 1.691 .458 .581
ô 4~. 6 48. ! 4.540 l.m 1.691 .334 .372 4.036 1.518 1.691 .376 .419
a 48. 3 48. , 5.187 1.632 1.843 .315 .355 2.1'8 1.632 1.843 .i77 .878
8 4m.
B 48.
4
5
.,8.
48.
! 5.910
6.592
1.632
1.632
1.843
1.843
.276
.248
.312
.290
2.258
2.B18
1.632
1. 632
1.843
1.843
.723
.581
.816
.656
a 4m. 6 48.! 7.218 1.632 1.843 .226 .256 3.361 1.632 1.843 .486 .548
3 40. 8 48. 4.949 1.632 1.843 .330 .372 4.399 1.632 1.843 .371 .419
10 48. 4 48. 5.M2 1.726 1.968 .3@b .349 2.188 1.726 1.968 .822 .937
10 48. 5 48. 6.294 1.726 1.968 .274 .313 2.399 1.726 1. 968 .719 .828
18 48. b 411.! 6.884 1.726 1. 96B .251 .286 2.87i 1.726 L968 .681 .6B6
1
10 48. 8 48.! 7.875 1.726 1. 968 .219 .258 3.7:15 1.726 1.9b8 .468 .524
10 48. UI 411'1 5.284 1.726 1.968 .~27 .372 4.697 1.726 1. 968 .367 .419
12 48. 5 48.\ 6.834 1.793 2.857 .297 .341 2.m 1.793 2.1157 .850 .975
12 48. b 48. 1 6.688 1.793 2.857 .272 .312 2.523 1.793 2.i57 .719 .815
12 48. 8 41. 7.549 1.193 2.857 .237 .272 3.382 1.793 2.1157 .543 .623
12 48. 111 48. Ii 8.443 1.793 2.857 1 .212 .244 4.138 1.793 2.857 .434 .498
12 48. 12 48. 5.523 1.793 2.857 .325 .372 4.989 1.793 2.857 .365 .419
14 4I!. 6 48. i 6.3S3 1.814 2.885 .2B4 .327 2.328 1.814 2.085 .779 .896
14 40. Il 48. 7.382 1.814 2.885 .248 .286 3.847 1.814 2.885 .595 .684
14 40. 18 48. 8.166 1.814 2.885 .222 .255 3.811 1.814 2."85 .476 .547
14 40. 12 48. 8.569 1.814 2.885 .212 .243 . 4.530 1.814 2.885 .480 .46"
14 41. 14 4B. 5.599 1.S14 2.085 .314 .372 1 4.977 1.B14 2.885 .364 .419
1-41
"831.3" VS 'WRC 330" SWEEPOLET STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTOR COMPARISON
HEADER 9RANCH WRC -931.3--- WRC --931.3--- ioh

i ib iob i ih
NOM SCH
330 b i ib iob 330 b 330 b 330 h i ih ioh 330 h 330 h
!6 40. 8 48, 6.825 1.813 2.884 .2116 .385 2.664 1.813 2.884 .680 .782
16 48. 18 411. 7.633 l.813 2.IS4 .231 .273 3.:m 1.813 2.884 .544 .625
16 48. 12 48. 8.322 1.813 2.884 .218 .258 3.961 l.813 2.884 .458 .526
16 411. 1-4 48. 8.723 1.813 2.184 .288 .239 4.352 1.813 2.884 .417 .479
16 48. 16 48.! 5.595 1.813 2. B84 .324 .372 4.973 1.813 2.884 .364 .419
18 48. 18 48.: ;.2111 1.814 2.885 .252 .291 2.964 1.814 2.885 .612 .704
18 4f1. 12 41. i
7.858 1.814 2.085 .231 .266 3.:i23 1. 81~ 2.885 .515 .592
18 48. J.C 4".
1 8.229 1.814 2.885 .2211 .253 3.871 1.814 2.1185 .469 .539
lB 4f1. 16 41. i 8.797 1.814 1.@8S .286 .zn 4.423 1.814 2.085 .418 .471
18 40. 18 48., 5.:5'18 1.814 2.885 .324 .372 4.976 1.814 2.885 .364 .419
28 48. 12 48. 7.711 1.878 2.168 .243 .28S 3.288 1.878 2.168 .570 .659
28 48. 14 48. 8.882 1.878 2.168 .231 .267 3.614 1.878 2.163 .519 .599
2S 48. 16 4e. a.bU 1.878 2.160 .216 .251 4.118 1.878 2.163 .454 .525
28 48. lB 48. 9.165 1.878 2.160 .284 .236 4.633 1.870 2.1b' .404 .466
1
28 48, 28 49.! 5.881 1.B78 2.160 .322 .372 5.156 1.878 2.168 .363 .419
24 48. lb 48. i 8.176 1. 9t8 2.213 .236 .214 3.512 t.918 2.213 .544 .633
24 48. 18 4111.! 8.566 1.918 2.213 .223 .258 3.951 1. 918 2.213 .483 .560
24 48. 2e 48.: 9.1137 1. 918 2.213 .211 .245 4.:591 1.911 2.213 .434 .503'
24 40. 24 U.! 5.943 1.918 2.213 .321 .372 5.282 1.910 2.213 .362 .419
38 4!11. 24 48,' 9.71l2 2.m 2.428 .213 .25111 4.619 2.971 2.428 .448 .526
38 48. 30 41l. 6.528 2.1m 2.428 .318 .372 5.796 2.171 2.428 .357 .419
32 4i1. 24 41l. UI.394 2.269 2.692 .218 .259 4.783 2.269 2.692 .474 .563
32 48. 3111 48. 18.134 2.269 2.692 .224 .266 6.811 2.269 2.692 .378 .449
32 48. 32 48. t 7.227 2.269 2.692 .314 .:512 6.424 2.269 2.692 .353 .419
1
34 48. 30 48.! 11.763 2.354 2.885 .28M .238 5.879 2.354 2.B!5 .4r18 .477
34 48. 32 48.1 10.317 2.354 2.885 .228 .272 6.293 2.354 2.885 .374 .446
34 48. 34 48.! 7.532 2.354 2.885 .315 .572 6.695 2.354 2.B85 .352 .419
1
J
36 48. 30 48. f 11. 218 2.312 2.751 .2116 .245 15.446 2.312 2.750 .425 .585
3b 48. 32 48. 1 Il. 599 2.312 2.758 .199 .237 5.838 2.312 2.756 .397 .472
36 40. 34 48. i 9.982 2.312 2.751 .234. .279 6.213 2.312 2.750 .373 .443
3b 4f1. 36 48.1 7.384 2.312 2.750 8~;) 3· .372 6.563 2.312 2.751 .352 .419
42 48. 3B 48., 11. 588 2.548 3.054 .221 .265 1 5.168 2.548 3.854 .492 .591
42 40. 32 48. 11. 987 2.548 3.854 .213 .256 i 5.533 2.548 3.1154 .459 .552
42 48. 34 48. 1 12.281 2.540 3.854 .287 .249 l
5.886 2.548 3.854 .432 .519
42 48. 3& 48. i 12.633 2.541 3.854 .2S1 .242 1 6.228 2.548 3.854 .418 .4911
42 48. 42 4@. f 8.28@ 2.540 3.854 .310 .:m l 7.289 2.548 3.854 .349 .419
1-42
1.5 Code Compliance

1.5.1 Primary vs. Secondary Loads
Markl's investigation of the fatigue problem, following the earlier recognition of the
maximum stress theory offailure, led to identification of the basic problem in the design of
piping systems. Not one, but two different criteria must be satisfied, one for primary loads,
which may lead to single application catastrophic failure, and one for cyclic, dis placement-
driven loads that may lead to fatigue failure (especially in the vicinity offittings and other
discontinuities) after repeated applications. The main characteristics ofthese two different
types of loads are described below:
Primary Load Characteristics:

1 - Primary loads are usually force driven (gravity, pressure, spring forces, relief
valve, fluid hammer, etc.).
2 - Primary loads are not self-limiting. Once plastic deformation begins it continues
unabated until force equilibrium is achieved (through change of the external
boundary conditions or through material strain hardening), or until failure of
the cross section results.
3 - Primary loads are typically not cyclic in nature (and those that are, such as
pulsation or pressure variation, show characteristics of both primary and
secondary loads).
4 - Allowable limits for primary stresses are related, through failure modes such as
those advanced by the Von Mises, Tresca, or Rankine theories, to the material
yield stress (i.e. the point where plastic deformation begins), the ultimate
strength, or, for sustained loads only, to time-dependent stress rupture proper-
ties (such as creep characteristics).
5 - Excessive primary load causes gross plastic deformation and rupture. Failure
may occur with a single application ofthe load. Note that failures that occur due
to single load applications usually involve pressure (hoop stress) design failures
and are not directly addressed by CAESAR n or by the flexibility stress
requirements ofthe codes. Such pressure design requirements are encompassed
in the minimum wall thickness requirements discussed in detail in separate
sections of the codes.
Secondary Load Characteristics:

1 - Secondary loads are usually displacement driven (thermal expansion, imposed
anchor movements, settlement, vibration, etc.).
2 - Secondary loads are aImost always self-limiting, i.e. the loads tend to dissipate
as the system deforms through yielding or deflection.
3 - Secondary loads are typically cyclic in nature (except settlement).
1-43
4 Allowable limits for secondary stresses are based upon cyclic and fatigue failure
modes, and are therefore limited based upon requirements for elastic cycling
after shakedown and the material fatigue curve.
5 A single application of the load never produces failure. Rather catastrophic

failure can occur after some (usually high) number of applications of the load.
Therefore, even if a system has been running successfully for many years, it is
no evidence that the system has been properly designed for secondary loads.)
Several examples should help illustrate:
Primary Stress Failure: Springs were improperly sized to support the weight of the valve
operator on a system. When the line was fùled for hydrotest, everything (stresses and
displacements) appeared fme, since the pipe could support the moment imbalance at
ambient temperature. However, heating up the fluid (and pipe) during startup, the valve
sagged and the guardrail was crushed in less than 30 minutes due to the decrease in strength
at the operating temperature.
Steps ta failure:
1 Weight loads were improperly accounted for. (The primary stresses were tao
high.)
2 At operating tempe rature there was a resulting drop in material strength.
3 Gross deformation began almost immediately and continued until force equilib-
rium was achieved (the spring bottoming out).
Secondary Stress Failure:
After 12 years of successful operation, inspection of the inside surface of a vessel revealed
fatigue cracks in the vicinity of a piping nozzle connection. A subsequent analysis showed
that a temperature increase in the adjacent vessel and piping system (alongwith a relocation
of pipe restraints for the new operating conditions) made several years ago caused the
stresses to exceed the expansion allowables. Even though the calculated stress range at the
1-44
junction was weil over 470,000 psi, thejunction survived several years hecause of the self-
relieving nature of the thermalload, and the fact that the system cycled fewer than a dozen
times over the two year period.
Steps to failure:
1 Thermal allowables were exceeded by mistake.
2 After about a dozen applications of the excessive load, cracks formed on the
highly stressed inside surface of the vessel at the junction with the nozzle.
Therefore, code compliance requires that the piping system be checked for both types of
loading - primary and secondary. The basic steps involved in doing code compliance are
outlined below:
1 Compute the primary stresses, i.e. the stresses due to the sustained primary
loads, usually weight and pressure, and those due to the occasional primary
loads, such as earthquake, wind, fluid hammer, etc.
2 Compute the range of the varying stress, i.e. the expansion stress range.
3 Compare the primary stresses to their allowables, which is based on a factor of

safety times the hot yield stress.
4 - Compare the expansion stress range to its allowable, which is a factor of safety
times a value varying with the number of cycles such that it fits the material
fatigue curve (adjusted for mean stress), but never exceeds the sum of the hot
and cold yield stresses.
Note that due to the shakedown effect, and the fact that the primary and secondary stresses
have different failure criteria, these two load types are reviewed in isolation. Therefore, it
should he stressed that, as far as most codes are concerned, there is no such thing as
"operating stress".
1.5.2 Code Stress Equations
The piping code stress equations are a direct outgrowth of the theoretical and investigative
work discussed above, with specific limitations established by Markl in his 1955 paper. The
stress equations were quite similar throughout the piping codes (i.e., between B31.1 and
B31.3) until the winter of 1974, when the power codes, having observed that Markl was
incorrect in neglecting intensification of the torsional moment in a manner analogous to the
bending component, combined the bending and torsional stress terms, thus intensifying
torsion.
It should be noted that the piping codes exactly calculate the stress intensity (twice the
maximum shear stress) only for the expansion stress, since this load case contains no hoop
or radial components, and thus becomes an easy calculation. Including hoop and radial
stresses (present in sustained loadings only) in the stress intensity calculation makes the
1-45
calculation much more difficult. When considering the hoop and radial stresses, it is no
longer clear which of the principal stresses is the largest and which is the smallest.
Additionally, the subtraction of Sl-S3 does not produce a simple expression for the stress
intensity. As it turns out, the inclusion of the pressure term can be simplified by adding only
the longitudinal component of the pressure stress directly to the stress intensity produced
by moment loadings only. This provides an equally easy-to-use equation and sacrifices little
as far as accuracy is concerned.
The explicit stress requirements for the piping codes addressed by CAESAR II follow below.
Note that most codes allow Pdi2 / (d0 2 - di 2 ) to be used in place ofPdo / 4t.
1.5.3 831.1 Power Piping
The B31.1 code requires that the engineer calculate sustained, expansion, and occasional
stresses, exactly as defmed below:
Sustained:
0.75i MA P do
+
z 4t
Where:
Ssus, SI = sustained stress, psi
1 = intensification factor (single factor for aIl types of moments), as per

Appendix D ofB31.1 Code (note that 0.75i may not be less than 1.0)
MA = resultant moment due to sustained (primary) loads, in-lb
= [Mx2 + My2 + M z 2 ]1/2
Sh = basic allowable material stress at the hot (operating) temperature, as per

Appendix A ofB31.1 Code. Sh is roughly defined as the minimum of:
1) 1/4 of the ultimate tensile strength of the material at operating

temperature;
2) 1/4 of the ultimate tensile strength of the material at room

temperature;
3) 5/8 ofthe yield strength ofthe material at operating temperature

(90% of the yield stress for austenitic stainless steels);
4) 5/8 ofthe yield strength of the material at room temperature (90%

of the yield stress for austenitic stainless steels); and
5) 100% of the average stress for a 0.01 % creep rate per 1000 hours.
1-46
Expansion:
iMc
z
Where:
SE = expansion stress range, psi
Mc = resultant range ofmoments due to expansion (secondary) loads, in-lb
SA = Allowable expansion stress, psi
Sc = basic allowable material stress at the cold (installation) temperature, as per

Appendix A ofB3!.1 Code.
Occasional:
0.75i MA 0.75iMB Pdo
Soce = + +
z z 4t
Where:
Soce = occasional stresses, psi
MB = resultant moment due to occasionalloads, in-lb
k = occasionalload factor
= 1.2 for loads occurring less than 1% of the time
= 1.15 for loads occurring less than 10% of the time
1.5.4 831.3 Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping
Sustained:
B31.3 does not provide an explicit equation for sustained stress calculations, but only
requires that the engineer compute the longitudinal stresses in the pipe due to weight and
pressure, and then ensure that these do not exceed Sh. This is most commonly interpreted
to mean:
Fax
+ +
z 4t
1-47
Where:
Fax = axial force due to sustained (primary) loads, lb
Mi = in-plane bending moment due to sustained (primary) loads, in-lb
Mo = out-plane bending moment due to sustained (primary) loads, in-lb
li> 10 = in-plane, out-plane intensification factors, as per Appendix D ofB31.3 Code
Sh = basic allowable material stress at the hot (operating) temperature, as per

Appendix A of B31.3 Code. Sh is defined as the minimum of:
1) 1/3 of the ultimate tensile strength of the material at operating tempera-

ture;
2) 1/3 ofthe ultimate tensile strength of the material at room temperature;
3) 2/3 of the yield strength of the material at operating temperature (90%

of the yield stress for austenitic stainless steels);
4) 2/3 ofthe yield strength ofthe material at room temperature (90% of the
yield stress for austenitic stainless steels);
5) 100% of the average stress for a 0.01% creep rate per 1000 hours;
6) 67% of the average stress for rupture after 100,000 hours; and
7) 80% of the minimum stress for rupture after 100,000 hours.
Expansion:
[(ii Mi)2 + Cio Mo)2 + 4MT2]1/2
z
Where:
Mi = range of in-plane bending moments due to expansion (secondary) loads, in-lb
Mo = range of out-of-plane ben ding moment due to expansion (secondary) loads, in-
lb
MT = range oftorsional moment due to expansion (secondary) loads, in-lb
Sc = basic allowable material stress at the cold (installation) temperature, as per

Appendix A ofB31.3 Code.
1-48
Occasionsl:
The equation for calculating occasional stresses is undefined by B31.3, which simply states
that the sum of the longitudinal stresses due to sustained and occasionalloads shall not
exceed 1.33Sh. The default interpretation ofthis requirement is to calculate the sustained
and occasional stresses independently (as per the equation given for sustained stresses
above) and then to add them absolutely.
Note the differences between these two codes:
1 - B31.I intensifies torsion, while B31.3 doesn't.
2 - B31.3 calculation methods are undefined for sustained and occasionalload cases,
while they are explicit for B31.1.
3 - In its most common interpretation, B31.3 neglects torsion in the sustained case,
while B31.I includes it.
4 - B31.I neglects all forces, while in the default interpretation, B31.3 includes Fax
in the sustained case.
5 - Allowable stresses are different for each code.
6 - Stress increase for occasionalloads are different for each code.
Note that both codes additionally cite a conservative value of SA, f(1.25S c + O.25Sh), which
may be used instead ofthe more liberal allowable off(1.25Sc + 1.25Sh - SI). This is a carry
over from pre-computer days, when sustained stress calculations were rarely done, so SI was
not known explicitly, and conservatively estimated to be at its maximum allowable level of
Sh.
Specific requirements of other common codes are shown below as weIl.
1.5.5 ASME Section III, Subsections NC & ND (Nuclear Class 2 & 3)
Sustained:
Ssus = BI Slp + B2 Mal Z < 1.5 Sh
Where:
Bl,B2 = primary stress indices for the particular product under investigation
Slp = longitudinal pressure stress = P di2 / (d0 2 - di2 ), psi

Ma = resultant moment on the cross-section due to sustained (primary) loads
= rMx2 + M~ + Mz2]112, in-lb
Sh = basic aIlowable material stress at the hot (operating) temperature, as per

ASME III Code. Sh is roughly defined as the minimum of:
1-49
1) 1/3 of the ultimate tensile strength ofthe material at operating tempera-

ture;
2) 1/3 of the ultimate tensile strengthofthe material at room temperature;
3) 2/3 of the yield strength of the material at operating temperature (90%

of the yield stress for austenitic stainless steels);
4) 2/3 of the yield strength of the material at room temperature (90% of the
yield stress for austenitic stainless steels);
5) 100% of the average stress for a 0.01% creep rate per 100 hours;
6) 60% of the average stress for rupture after 100,000 hours; and
7) 80% of the minimum stress for rupture after 100,000 hours.
Expansion:
SE = i Mc / Z < f( 1.25 Sc + 0.25 Sh ) + Sh - SL
Where:
Mc = resultant range of moments on the cross-section due to variations in loading
(usually due to thermal effects)
= [M~ + M; + Mz2]1I2, in-lb
SL = Slp + 0.75 i Ma / Z (where 0.75 i >= 1.0)
Occasional:
The occasional stress equations are:
For Service Level C (Emergency):

Socc = BI x Slpmax + B2 (Ma + Mb) / Z < 1.8 Sh <= 1.5 Sy
For Service Level D (Upset):

Socc = BI x Slpmax + B2 (Ma + Mb) / Z < 2.4 Sh
Where:
Slpmax = pressure stress due to the peak pressure, psi
Mb = resultant moment on the cross-section due to occasional (primary) loads
= [Mx2 + M; + M z2]1/2, in-lb
Sy = yield stress ofmaterial at temperature, psi
1-50
1.5.6 831.4 Fuel Gas Piping
The B31.4 piping code requires that the engineer calculate and check the sustained,
expansion, and operating stress.
Sustained:
SL = Slp + Sb < 0.75 x 0.72 x SYield
Where:
Slp = the longitudinal pressure stress, psi
Sb = bending stress due to sustained loads, psi
Expansion:
Se = (Sb2 + 4 St2 )1/2 < 0.72 SYield
Where:
Sb = range ofbending stress due to varying loads, psi
St = range of torsional stress due to varying loads, psi
= Mt /2Z
SYield = specified minimum yield stress ofmaterial, psi.
Operating:
Sope = FIE a dT - v SH 1 + Se + SL( 1-F ) < 0.9 SYield
Where:
F = % of pipe axial restraint (long buried pipelines are considered to be fully axially
restrained, i.e. F = 1; while pipelines above ground on slide plates are not axially
restrained, i.e. F = 0
E = modulus of elasticity ofpipe material, psi
a = thermal expansion coefficient of pipe material, in/in/oF
dT = temperature change of pipe from ambient, oF
v = Poisson's ratio
1-51
SR = hoop stress, psi
= Pdo / 2t.
Occasional:
Soee = Slp + Sb < 0.75 * 0.72 * SYield * k
Where:
= longitudinal pressure stress
= resultant moment due to occasionalloads
= occasionalload factor
1.5.7 831.8 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Code
Like the B31A code, the B31.8 piping code requires that the engineer calculate and check
the sustained, expansion, and operating stress.
Sustained:
SL = Slp + Sb < .75 S x F x T
Where:
Slp = longitudinal stress due to pressure, psi
Sb = bending stress due to sustained loads, psi
St = torsional stress due to sustained loads, psi
S = specified minimum yield strength of pipe material, psi
F = Construction Type
1-52
Factor F
A Wasteland, Deserts, Mountains, Grazing Land, 0.72
Farmland, Sparsely populated areas and Offshore.
B Fringe areas around cities, Industrial areas, 0.60
Ranch or Country Estates.
C Suburban Housing Developments, 0.50
Shopping Centers, Residential Areas.
D Multi-Story Buildings are prevalent, Traffic 0.40
is heavy and where there may be numerous
other utilities underground.
T Temperature Derating Factor T Pipe Temperature deg. F.
1.0 250 or l ess

0.967 300
0.933 350
0.9 400
0.867 450
Expansion:
Se = (Sb 2 + 4 St2 )1/2 < 0.72 S
Where:
Sb = bending stress due to varying loads, psi
St = range of torsional stress due to varying loads, psi
Operating:
Sope = Se + SL < S
Where:
terms are as defined previously.
Occasional:
Socc = SI + Se < 0.75 * SYield * F * T * K
Where:
K = occasionalload factor
all others as defined previously
1-53
1.5.8 Canadian Z1831Z184 Oil/Gas Pipeline Systems
Sustained:
SL = 0.5 * Shoop + SB ~ S *F * L *J *T
Where:
Shoop = hoop stress
= Pd/2tn
= resultant bending stress
SB = specified minimum yield strength
F = design factor
L = location factor
J = joint factor
T = temperature derating factor
Expansion:
SE = (Sb2 + 4St2 )112 ~ 0.72 *S *T
Where:
Sb = resultant bending stress
= iMb/ Z
St = torsional stress
= Mt/ 2Z
Occasional:
Socc = Fax / A + 0.5 * Shoop + SB ~ S *F *L *J *T *K
Where:
Fax = axial force due to sustained and occasionalloads
A = cross sectional area of the pipe
SB = resultant bending stress due to sustained and occasionalloads
K = occasionalload factor
1-54
1.5.9 RCC-M C
Sustained:
SL = Pdo /4tn+O.75*i*MA/Z$;Sh
Where:
p = design pressure
do = outside diameter of pipe
tn = nominal wall thickness
1 = stress intensification factor
MA = resultant moment
= (Mx2 + M; + Mz2 )112
Z = section modulus
Sh = material allowable at design temperature
Expansion:
SE = i Mc / Z $; f(1.25S e + .25Sh ) + Sh - SL
Where:
Mc = range of resultant moments due to expansion loads
Sc = material allowable at room temperature
Occasional:
Sace = P max do / 4tn + 0.75 * i * (MA + MB ) / Z $; 1.2 * Sh
Where:
P max = maximum pressure occurring
MB = resultant moment due ta occasionalloads
1-55
1.5.10 Stoomwezen
Sustained:
SL = P (De - d ) / 4d + 0.75 * i * MA / Z<f
Where:
p = design pressure
De = outside diameter
d = formula wall thickness
1 = stress intensification factor
MA = resultant moment
Z = section modulus
f = sustained allowahle, the minimum offive equations (see code for details)
Expansion:
SE = i * MB / Z < fe
Where:
MB = resultant moment due to expansion loads
fe = expansion allowahle, the minimum oftwo equations (see code for details)
Occasional:
Socc = SL + 0.75 * i * (MA + MB) / Z < 1.2f
Where:
MB = resultant moment due to occasionalloads
1.5.11 Special Considerations of Code Compliance
1 Many of the non-power codes separate the in-plane and the out-of-plane stress
intensification factors (and do not intensify torsion). For the power codes the
SIF's can he computed for in-plane, out-of-plane, and torsional moments using
SIF = 0.9/ h 2/ 3 . For the petrochemical and other non-power codes:
1-56
Bends: la = 0.75/h2/3 li = 0.9/h2/3

Miters: la = 0.9/h2/3 1·1 = 0.9/h2/3
Welding tees: la = 0.9/h2/3 li = 0.75i o + 0.25
Reinforced tees: la = 0.9/h2/3 li = 0.75i o + 0.25
Unreinforced tees: la = 0.9/h2/3 li = 0.75i o + 0.25
2 - The power codes do not recognize the extruded weI ding tee, the sweepolet, or the
weldolet. The non-power codes do, and if any ofthese fittings are used in a power
application, the engineer must consider the validity ofusing the stress intensi-
fication factors from the chemical codes.
3 The power codes explicitly define the equation to use for the sustained stresses.
The non-power codes do not. The non-power codes do however tell the user to
compute the longitudinal stresses due to sustained loads, and B31.3 Interpre-
tation 4-10 issued May 8, 1985 instructed the user to include the axial force term
in this longitudinal stress. The power codes explicitly omit this axial force term
from the definition of the sustained stress calculation.
4 - Power codes do not include pressure stiffening effects on bends, while the
petrochemical and related codes do.
5 Note that the power codes use the term 0.75i in the sustained stress equation,
while the non-power codes historically have not. In Interpretation 1-34 issued
February 23,1981 the B31.3 code permitted its us ers to employ the 0.75 i stress
intensification term for sustained and occasionalloads. (CAESAR II provides
this as an option.) In Interpretation 6-03 issued December 14, 1987, the B31.3
code permitted its users to ignore the stress intensification term for sustained
loads. It is recommended that this latest interpretation be ignored and that i or
0.75i be used as the stress intensification factor for sustained and occasional
loads.
6 - Power codes provide special formulas for reduced branch connections. Nuclear
and fossil codes have not come together otl. their interpretations as ofthis time,
however. These rules come into effect whenever the branch diameter is less than
0.5 times the header diameter.
7 - Class 1 piping rules also allow flexibility coefficients to be computed and inserted
into reduced branch intersections in order to consider the flexibili ty ofthe branch
relative to the header. No other piping code at this time includes this as an
option.
8 B31. 3 was the first piping code to instruct the user to rem ove corrosion allowance
from the section modulus before making sustained and occasional stress
calculations. Other piping codes simply warned of the deleterious effect of
corrosion when joined with cyclic loadings. Arguments are that B31.3 is
1-57
instilling a false sense of security when dealing with corrosion in this manner,
im plying that B31.3 is leading the user to believe that he is properly considering
the effects of corrosion. Other arguments state that B31.3 considers corrosion
in the wrong stress calculation, and that if anything it should have been
incorporated into the expansion stress calculation.
9 Some ofthe pi ping codes incl ude longitudinal weldjoint efficiency factors in their
allowable stress tables. In the majority of the codes where these factors are
included, the codes also instruct the user to divide the allowable stress by the
joint efficiency before using the table value for flexibility calculations, thus
increasing the allowable stress. Note that post-1980 B31.3 codes DO NOT
include the longitudinal weld joint efficiencies in the stress tables.
10 - The piping codes are unanimously silent on the point ofBourdon pressure effects.
If included, the pressure will cause some distortion of the piping system. If
excluded there will be no displacements due to pressure.
Il - European piping codes for the most part are formulated differently than the D.S.
codes. The Europeans use an effective stress calculation and compare the results
directly to an allowable without emphasizing the concern for fatigue. The
Swedish piping code does have a provision that allows its users to employ the
ASME B31.1-1977 code providing the Swedish allowables are used.
12 - Almost all piping codes allow the exact expression for pressure stress to be used
in place ofPdJ4t in the sustained stress calculations. The exact pressure stress
value is:
13 - Most piping codes also allow the use of a increased section modulus for the stress
calculations at the branch end of a reduced intersection. The reduced section
modulus is calculated as:
z =Cp) Cr2) te
Where:
r = mean radius of the branch, in
lesser of tnh or i tnb, in
tnh = nominal wall thickness of header, in
tnb = nominal wall thickness ofbranch, in
14 - Note that the B31.3 and related piping codes do not intensify the torsional stress
term in the expansion or sustained stress equations, while the power codes do.
This is considered an oversight on the part of the code as Markl's tests clearly
indicate that the torsional moment should he intensified. This was con:firmed
by the research documented in WRC 330.
1-58
15 - Stress indices are used in ASME Section III, Class 1, 2 and 3 piping codes. There
are three different indices:
B Related to gross plastic deformation (sustained stress intensifica-

tion factor).
C Gives the magnitude of the primary plus secondary stress range

(elastic shakedown stress intensification factor).
K When used with C, gives the magnitude of the primary plus

secondary plus peak stress range (C*K is the fatigue stress
intensification factor).
There are three subscripts used with the stress indices:
1 Used for pressure loadings
2 Used for moment loadings
3 Thermal gradient loadings
As a rule ofthumb, 2i =C2 * K2, where i is the stress intensification factor for the
B31 codes (as discussed above).
16 - In almost aIl cases, the cold modulus of elasticity and nominal dimensions are to
be used in the flexibility analysis of piping systems. Using the cold modulus
produces larger, and therefore more conservative stresses. BS 806 and ASME
Class 1 codes have provisions for using material properties in the hot condi tion.
NEMA SM23 also provides for using the hot modulus of elastici ty for evaluating
loads on turbine nozzles.
1.5.12 Evaluation of Multiple Expansion Range Cases
It is often the cases that the tempe rature ofthe piping system is not constant throughout the
operating cycle, or there is potentially more than one operating cycle (i.e., pump A on, pump
Bon, both pumps on, both pumps oro.
In these cases it is common to find that the tempe rature rises on sorne occasion to a maximum
value, say Te; then, as events occur during the normal course of operation the temperature
varies between Te and other lower temperature states, say Tl, T2, ... , Tn. In these cases the
piping codes have provided a simplified method by which the cumulative damage due to the
various thermal cycles may be evaluated by converting reduced thermal expansion cycles
into equivalent full temperature cycles. The user will find that cumulative damage rules
usually become important only either the number ofthermal variations is large, or when the
magnitude of the temperature variation is a large percentage of the maximum design
temperature expected. The following rules should be followed when evaluating systems with
multiple temperature variation cycles:
1-59
• Te should be selected as the highes t operating tem perature of the pi ping system,
even if the startup cycle does not go directly to this temperature.
• The expansion allowable stress should be based on Te, i.e. SA should be calculated
from Sh for temperature Te.
• The range dTe is determined as the difference between Te and the ambient
temperature. Ne should be estimated as the total number oftimes during the life
of the unit that the temperature will be expected to vary from ambient to Te.
• The temperature ranges between Te and each of the other reduced temperature
states should be calculated, i.e.:
dTn =
• The number of cycles associated with each operating mode should be estimated
as:
Temperature change dTl occur Nl times,
Temperature change dT2 occur N2 times, ... ,
Temperature change dTn occurs Nn times
• The total number of equivalent full temperature cycles that these partial cycles
represent can be calculated as:
• The cyclic reduction factor f should be selected based upon the number of
equivalent cycles, N, while other components of SA and SE should be based upon
tempe rature Te.
Example:
A particular process line varies in temperature as the quality of the catalyst

varies. The particulars of the operation are outlined below:
Ambient = 700 F
Startup goes to 5600 F
It is estimated that the maximum temperature ever required will be 650 0 F and
the minimum temperature required during operation will be 430 oF. The
temperature will fluctuate between 560 0 F and 650 0 F perhaps 10 times per day,
and between 560 0 F and 450 0 F perhaps 5 times per day. The design life ofthe unit
1-60
is 12 years, and it is estimated that the unit will be shut down at least once each
month for maintenance.
• Te should be selected as the highest operating temperature ofthe piping system.

In this case, it is equal to 650 0 F.
• The range dTe is determined as the difference between 650 0 and the ambient
temperature of70 0 F, so dTe = 580 0 F. The estimate of Ne, the total number of
times that the temperature will be expected to vary through this range is:
Ne = 1 shutdown/month X 12 months/yr X 12 yr = 144

• The temperature ranges between Te and each ofthe other reduced temperature
states are:
• The number of cycles associated with each operating mode are:
NI = 10 times/day X 365 days/yr x 12 yr = 43800
N2 = 5 times/day x 365 days/yr x 12 yr = 21900
• The total number of equivalent full temperature cycles is:
N = 144 + (90/580)5 x 43800 + (200/580)5 x 21900 = 255
• The cyclic reduction factor fis selected based upon 255 cycles, so f =1. 0 (for fewer
than 7000 cycles). As noted, the material allowable stresses SA and Sh are based
upon 650 0 F, and the expansion stress, SE, is calculated for the system operating
at 650 0 F.
Warning: These cumulative damage rules don't fully address those cases where
one part of the piping system stays at Te while another part ofthe piping system
undergoes a temperature fluctuation. In these cases it is common to simply
analyze each case separately. The ASME Section III, Subsection NB (Nuclear
Class 1 Piping) Code provides rules which may he followed should the user be
concerned about the cumulative damage where different parts of the piping
system cycle through different temperature states. The requirements are
described below:
Cumulative Damage: If there are two or more types of stress cycles which produce
significant stresses, their cumulative effect shan be evaluated as stipulated in Steps 1
through 6 below:
1 Designate the specified number oftimes each type of stress cycle oftypes 1,2,3,
... , n, will be repeated during the life of the component as nI, n2, ng, ... , nn,
respectively. In determining nI> n2, ng ... , nn consideration shall be given to the
1-61
superposition of cycles of various origins which produce the greatest total

alternating stress range. For example, if one type of stress cycle produces 1000
cycles of a stress variation from zero to +60,000 psi and another type of stress
cycle produces 10,000 cycles ofa stress variation from zero to -50,000 psi, the two
cycles to be considered are shown below:
(a) Cycle type 1: nl=1000; and Sa1tl=(60000+50000)/2
(b) Cycle type 2, n2=9000; and Salt2=(50000+0)/2
2 - For each type of stress cycle, determine the alternating stress intensity Salt,
which for our application is one half of the range between the expansion stress
cycles (as shown above). These alternating stress intensities are designated as
Saltl , Sa1t2, ... , Saltn.
3 - On the applicable design fatigue curve fmd the permissible number of cycles for
each Salt computed. These are designated as NI, N2, ... , N n.
4 - For each stress cycle calculate the usage factors VI, V2, ... , Vn, where VI = nl/
NI, V2 = n21N2, ... , V n = nnlNn·
5 Calculate the cumulative usage factor V as V = VI + V2 + ... + Vn.
6 - The cumulative usage factor shall not exceed 1.0.
1-62
2
Section 2
Table of Contents
2.0 Piping Design For Loading Types ............................................................................. 1

2.1 Designing For Sustained Loads - Pressure ............................................................ 2
2.1.1 Minimum Wall Thickness Requirements ...................................................... 2
2.1.2 Pressure Design ofElbows and Miters .......................................................... 4
2.1.3 Pressure Design of Flanges and Blanks ........................................................ 5
2.1.4 Pressure Design of Branch Connections ....................................................... 6
2.1.5 Restraint ofUnbalanced Expansion Joint Pressure Loads ....................... 8-9
2.2 Designing For Sustained Loads - Weight ............................................................. 10
2.2.1 Calculation ofWeight Stresses .................................................................... 10
2.2.2 Use of Standard Weight Spans .................................................................... 13
2.2.3 Consideration of Nozzle Loads .................................................................... 19
2.3 Designing For Expansion Loads ............................................................................. 22
2.3.1 Magnitude of Thermal Load ........................................................................ 22
2.3.2 Guided Cantilever Method .......................................................................... 24
2.3.3 Refining the Model Through the Use ofRestraint Stiffnesses ................... 26
2.3.4 Use of Expansion Loops ............................................................................... 27
2.3.5 Simplified Expansion Stress Check ........................................................ 29-30
2.3.6 Stress Reduction through Use of Expansion Joints .................................... 30
2.3.7 Expansion Stress - Other Solutions ..................................................... 33-33
2.4 Ranger Design ....................................................................................................... 34
2.4.1 Variable Spring Ranger Design Basics ....................................................... 35
2.4.2 Load Variation ............................................................................................. 37
2.4.3 Ranger Selection Table ............................................................................... 37
2.4.4 Ranger Design Process - Restrained Weight, Free Thermal, and More .. 39
2.4.5 Restraint Placement Using Distance to First Rigid Criteria ..................... 40
2.4.6 Notes on Ranger Design .............................................................................. 43
2.4.7 CAESAR II Ranger Design Control and Options .................................. 45-49
2.5 Designing For Occasion al Loads (Static Equivalent of Dynamic Loads) ............... 50
2.5.1 Wind Loading ............................................................................................... 50
2.5.2 Earthquake Loading ............................................................................... 54-56
2.5.3 Quickly Applied Loads ................................................................................. 56
2.0 Piping Design For Loading Types
As described in Section 1.0, the pipe stress analyst is concerned with two types ofloads-
primary and secondary. Not only are the causes and the failure modes ofthese two loading
types quite different, but not surprisingly, the solutions to these two types ofloading are
usually different as weIl. In fact, the solution to a problem caused by one of the loading types
often causes a problem with the other loading type. Therefore, a compromise must often be
reached in order to find the solution to these two types ofloading.
Note that primary loads are usually classified further, according to their duration ofloading.
Those primary loads which are nearly always present throughout operation are called
sustained loads, while those which occur less frequently are called occasionalloads. The
methods ofresisting these two types ofloads are similar, with the main difference beingfound
in the use of a higher allowable stress for occasionalloads (as seen in Section 1).
2-1
2.1 Designing For Sustained Loads - Pressure

AlI piping systems must be designed to withstand sustained loadings. Sustained loads are
classified as those caused by mechanical forces which are present throughout the normal
operation of the piping system. Therefore the se loads:
• Are force driven, as opposed to displacement driven, and
• Are present for relatively extended periods of time, as opposed to those which
change dynamically.
Typical sustained loads consist of:
• Pressure -loads due to operating (or design) pressure,
• Weight - uniform loads due to the weight ofthe pipe, fluid, and insulation, and
concentrated loads due to the weight of in-line components (such as valves,
flanges, etc.), and
• Spring hanger pre-Ioads and other applied forces.
2.1.1 Minimum Wall Thickness Requirements
Since hoop pressure stresses are approximately twice as large as longitudinal pressure
stresses, pipe wall thicknesses are initially sized for hoop stresses. Because ofthis, pressure
design of components is usually done far before, and therefore in isolation, from the pipe
stress analysis phase of piping design. Because of this, pipe stress software such as
CAESAR II does not normally handle this part ofthe design effort. A discussion of pressure
design of components is included here for the sake of completeness, and is based upon an
amalgam of the requirements of various codes. Note that pressure design of piping
components must be done according to the requirements of the user's specifie
code, not to the rules described here!
Because the pipe wall is sized for the large hoop stress, this usually provides sufficient margin
between the allowable stress and the longitudinal pressure stress to accommodate the
weight stresses. The requirement for the minimum pipe component wall thickness is:
tm = t +c
Where:
tm = minimum wall thickness, in
t = minimum wall thickness required for pressure, in
c = sum of allowances for thread or groove depth, corrosion, erosion, and

manufacturer's tolerance, in
2-2
For thin wall (t < D/6), straight pipe under internaI pressure, t may normally he calculated,
through various approximations of Lame's equation, as:
t = PD 1 2(SE + PY), or:
t = PD 1 2SE, or:
t = (D/2) x (1 - [(SE - P) 1 (SE + P)]1/2), or:
t = P (Di + 2c) 1 [2(SE - P(l-Y)]
Where:
P = design pressure, psig
D = outside diameter, in
Di = inside diameter, in
S = basic allowable stress at design temperature, psi
E = casting or longitudinal weld quality factor (typically ranges from 0.8 to

1.0)
y = material coefficient, with a value (depending upon the specific code

requirements) to he interpolated from:
Temperature. oF
Material <=900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 >1250
Ferriti c 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

Austenitic 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7
Nickel All oys 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7
Other ductil e 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Cast iron O.
Requirements for pressure design of other piping components are described in the following
sections. (For B31.3 y = 0.0, for B3l.l y =.4. The CAESAR II check uses 0.4 for ail codes
except B3l.3, where y = 0.0.)
2-3
2.1.2 Pressure Design of Elbows and Miters
When using elbows, the minimum wall thickness after bending shall not fall below that
calculated for straight pipe.
For mitered elbows, the maximum allowable pressure is calculated differently depending on
whether the angle of the miter cut is less than or greater than 22.5°.
For 0 < 22.5 0 , the allowable maximum pressure is the lesser of:
Pm = [SE(T - C)/r2] X [(T - c) 1 (T - c + 0.643 tan 0 (r2(T-c»1/2)]

or:
For 0 >= 22.5 0 , the allowable maximum pressure is:

Pm = [SE(T - C)/r2] x [(T - c) 1 (T - c + 1.25 tan 0 (r2(T-c»I/2)]
Where:
Pm = maximum allowable internaI pressure for miter, psig
T = minimum pipe wall thickness, in
r2 = mean pipe radius, in
RI = effective radius of miter bend (defined as the shortest distance from pipe
center line to the intersection of the planes of adjacent miter joints - see
Figure 2-1), in
o = angle of miter cut (see Figure 2-1), degrees
I - - H - - - R,,------i
Figure 2-1
2-4
2.1.3 Pressure Design of Flanges and Blanks
Pressure design offlanges is a complex task, requiring consideration ofthe configuration and
materials of the flange, bolts, and gasket. Potential causes of failure are bending stresses
in the flange, localized stress concentrations in the hub, yielding of the bolts, or unloading
of the gasket, causing leakage. Design offlanges is covered in detail in Section VIn of the
ASME Boiler an Pressure Vessel Code; however, due to the complexity, it is rarely done by
the pipe stress engineer. Instead, the most common piping codes endorse the use offlanges
conforming to recognized standards such as ANSI B16.5 "Pipe Flanges and Flanged
Fittings". This standard designates standard pressure classes of flanges, which are
recognized by the codes to be acceptable for the following combinations of pressure and
temperature:
Design Pressures (psig) for Flange Pressure Classes

Pressure Class
Temperature. oF 150 300 400 600 900 1500
100 275 720 960 1440 2160 3600
150 255 710 945 1420 2130 3550
200 240 700 930 1400 2100 3500
250 225 690 920 1380 2070 3450
300 210 680 910 1365 2050 3415
350 195 675 900 1350 2025 3375
400 180 665 890 1330 2000 3330
450 165 650 870 1305 1955 3255
500 150 625 835 1250 1875 3125
550 140 590 790 1180 1775 2955
600 130 555 740 1110 1660 2770
650 120 515 690 1030 1550 2580
700 110 470 635 940 1410 2350
750 100 425 575 850 1275 2125
800 92 365 490 730 1100 1830
850 82 300 400 600 900 1500
900 70 225 280 445 670 1115
950 55 155 220 310 465 770
1000 40 85 160 170 255 430
2-5
A more detailed discussion of flange analysis, with specific regard to determination of

leakage under load, is provided in Section 3 of these seminar notes.
Blanks are designed based upon formulas for the calculation ofbending stresses for plates
under pressure loading. The minimum thickness for a blank is calculated as:
tm = dg [3P / 16SE]1/2 + C
Where:
dg = inside diameter of gasket for raised or flat face flanges, or gasket pitch
diameter for ring joint and fully retained gasketed flanges, in
2.1.4 Pressure Design of Branch Connections
A pipe having a branch connection is weakened by the opening that is cut in it, so it may be
necessary to provide reinforcement to replace the metal removed from the wall thickness at
the opening. A typical fabricated tee is shown in Figure 2-2.
Limitlof
1 Nominollhickn...
M-_MiI__I I=__ -i-______ --:J~~t=-"-----..... --r--
pipe 1
ornozzr.
Thicknes:ll. measured
specification
.1
i
- - - - - - - - - t Pipe ------
Figure 2-2
For fabricated tees, with the angle between branch and header of at least 450, the area
required to replace the area of the opening is calculated as:
2-6
Where:
Al = area required to be replaced, in2
th = pressure design thickness ofheader pipe, in
dl = effective length of pipe wall removed from header at intersection, in
~ = sm aller angle between axes ofbranch and run, degrees
This required area must he exceeded by the total available reinforcement area, or:
Where:
A2 = area resulting from excess thickness ofheader pipe, in2
d2 = half-width of reinforcement zone, in
= (Tb - c) + (Th - c) + dl/2, but not less than dl
Th = minimum wall thickness ofheader, in
Tb = minimum wall thickness of branch, in
Ag = area resulting from excess thickness ofbranch pipe, in2
L4 = height ofreinforcement zone outside ofheader, in
= lesser of 2.5(Th - c) or 2.5(Tb - c) + Tr
tb = pressure design thickness ofbranch pipe, in
Tr = minimum thickness ofreinforcing ring or saddle, if any, in
~ = area ofwelds and reinforcement provided for the intersection within the area
of reinforcement as defined as a parallelogram extending a distance of d2 on
either side of the centerline of the branch, and from the inner wall of the
header pipe to a distance ofL4 along the axis of the branch, measured from
the outside of the header pipe.
2-7
2.1.5 Restraint of Unbalanced Expansion Joint Pressure Loads
Pressure usually only creates stress in the pipe, rather than loadings on supports/restraints,
because pressure loads are neutralized at the cross-section by the tension in the pipe wall.
One exception to this is when the pipe is not continuous from anchor to anchor, such that
tension is not present in the pipe wall at aIl locations of the system. (Note that a second
exception occurs when the Bourdon effects of pressure are considered. The Bourdon effect
is due to the axial extension of pipes either under high pressure or in long runs, causing
displacements which must be absorbed by the piping system. Since this is a displacement
load, it is a secondary load, and therefore is not considered here.)
Tension in the pipe wall is not continuous when there are expansion joints or slip joints
present in the system. These types of components are too flexible in the axial direction to
transmit the pressure force, therefore the unbalanced pressure load must be handled by
either tie rods or external pipe restraints. The unbalanced pressure load is calculated as:
Fp = P Ae
Where:
Fp = Pressure force, lb
P = Design pressure, psig
Ae = Effective area of expansion joint
De = Effective diameter of expansion joint, in
= internaI diameter of pipe + depth of one corrugation, in
When using restraints to absorb the unbalanced pressure load, it is recommended that
guides be located on the adjacent pipe runs in order to reduce the danger ofbuckling. The
Expansion Joint Manufacturers Association recommends that the first guide be placed a
distance no further than 4 pipe diameters from the expansion joint, with the second guide
placed no further than 14 pipe diameters from the first.
Figure 2-3 shows some typical piping layouts using expansion joints.
2-8
COf\DE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
* O=Pipe 0.0.
~-+--Vertical Support
/,f-----~- ....
/Pipe
~
Expans~_11
Anchor Joint --; C
Anchor ""
1st Guide Ail Other Guides
'-----~E
Figure 2-3
More information on the use ofexpansion joints is foundin Section 2.3.6 and Section 3 ofthese
seminar notes.
2-9
2.2 Designing For Sustained Loads - Weight

2.2.1 Calculation of Weight Stresses
Stresses due to weight loads acting on a supported pipe can be estimated through the use
ofbeam theory. The simplest method of estimating pipe stresses due to weight is to first
consider the pipe as being a continuous run, with supports located at constant intervals (this
is a somewhat accurate model ofpiping traveling horizontally, mounted on racks, and with
a minimum ofin-line components):
5 l l l L
~e ·1· e--+-e~
Figure 2-4
Elementary beam theory can be used to determine stresses in a member due to loading on
that member. Normally the member considered is one-dimensional, homogenous with
respect to cross-sectional and material parameters, and restrained in a number of degrees-
of-freedom atone or bothends. This model can only be usedifthe effects examined are limited
totwo adjacent support points and the straightrunofpipebetweenthose support points. The
question is what beam stress equation should be used?
Bearn theory states that ifboth support points are pinned (free to rotate):
w
JJHHHHHBB BBUBBB!!.
Figure 2-5
The maximum moment in the beam is in the center of the span, and has a value of:
M max = w1 2/8
where:
Mmax = maximum moment in the beam, in-lb
w = uniform weight of pipe, fluid, insulation, etc., lb/in
l = length of beam, in
2-10
Ifboth ends are fixed, or rigid (restrained against rotation):
~ 11/1II1Il!!!!Il III I!! 11111 Il ~

Figure 2-6
The maximum moment is at the ends ofthe span, and has a value of:
Mma = w1 2/12
Which formula is more appropriate? Examining a typical pipe support detail:
Figure 2-7
The clamp/pin/rod hardware allows rotation of the pipe, therefore simulating a pinned
connection. However, if an spans are of identicallength and loading, the reaction of the
adjacent pipe span prevents rotation at the support, therefore simulating a fixed connection.
The true condition is somewhere in between, so a compromise approximation is reached:
Mmax = w1 2/10
with the location of the maxim um moment being somewhere between the ends and the center
(i.e., anywhere) on the span.
2-11
Ofcourse, there sometimes are concentrated loads (valves, flanges, etc.)in the pi ping system.
The effect ofthese on the pipe stresses can he estimated as weil. For pinned connections:
lOI
LS.
a
"!"
C*J
b----j
h
1 .. e .1
Figure 2-8
The maximum moment is located at the point ofloading, and has a value of:
Mmax = Pab!l
Where:
a = longer portion of span, in
b = shorter portion of span, in
For fixed connections:
..-t-I----- a -----t---
~I--------e------~
Figure 2-9
The maximum moment is located at the end nearer to the load, and has a value of:
Mmax = pa2b!l2
In either case (or actually some case in between), the additional stress (MIZ) due to
concentrated loads should be added to the stress from the uniform load in order to determine
the total stress in the pipe. Or, examining the formulas above, it is evident that, as the
shorter portion of the span (b) approaches zero length, the moment, and therefore the stress,
approach zero as weIl. This points to an important rule of design - if supports are placed
as near as possible to concentrated loads, the effect ofthese loads from a stress point ofview
may be neglected. (They must still be considered for the support loads, of course.)
2-12
2.2.2 Use of Standard Weight Spans

Implementation ofthe preceding analysis provides a simple way to design for weight loading.
The engineer may first support all concentrated loads in the system as closely as possible,
reducing the stresses due to those loads to near zero. Next, converting the formula
Mmax = w1 2/10 into its corollary:
LalI = (10 Z SalI / w)1/2
Where:
LalI = allowable pipe span for weight loading, in
Z = section modulus of pipe, in3
SalI = approximate allowable stress ofpiping material for weight stresses (Sh, less
pressure stresses, divided by intensification factor, for example), psi
If the piping system is then supported, such that no straight span exceeds Lall, the engineer
can be sure that allowable weight stresses are not exceeded in the system, and no analysis
per se need be done.
In order to save even the brief time required to calculate LaU, the Manufacturer
Standardization Society of the Valve and Fitting Industry has calculated allowable
piping spans for various piping configurations, and published them in their standard MSS
SP-69 (Figure 2-10). They have calculated the maximum allowable piping weight spans
based upon the following criteria:
1 the pipe is assumed to have standard wall, with insulation,
2 the maximum moment is calculated as Mmax =wI 2/10,
3 - no concentrated loads are present,
4 - there are no changes of direction in the spans, which are assumed to run in the
horizontal plane,
5 - the maximum allowable stress is assumed to be 1500 psi, combined bending and
shear,
6 - maximum deflection of the span under load is limited to 0.1", and
7 - stress intensification factors of components are not considered.
Due to the low allowable stress value used, there is sufficient factor of safety that this
standard span may he applied to a wide range of piping configurations.
If the engineer supports a piping system such that no span in the system exceeds the
standard spans listed in the table, it is virtually certain that the system is adequately
supported for weight loading. However, it is rare that a piping system has no concentrated
2-13
loads, consists of only horizontal runs with minimal changes in direction, etc. Therefore,
standard practice dictates that standard spans be applied subject to the following four
caveats:
1 Supports should be located as close as possible to concentrated weights. The

theoretically best location for a support is directly on the concentrated load;
however, this is usually impractical.
2 A developed length of 3/4 of the standard span or less should be used when the
piping run changes direction in the horizontal direction, in order to minimize
eccentric moments. The theoretically best location for a support is on an elbow;
however, this is not recommended due to the bend stiffening and increased local
stresses associated with attachments on a bend.
2-14
o
~....
TABLE 3. MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL PIPE HANGER AND SUPPORT SPACING
3:
~
'"d
'"C
1 2 J 4 7 8 (1)
5 6 CJ 10 Il
NOMINAL PIPE STD WT STEEL PIPE COPPERTUBE psrlRoru r:n
~
FIRE OUCTILE CAST ASBESTOS FIBERGLASS
OR WATER VAI'OR WATER VAPOR PRO· ..ON IRON GLASS PLASTIC RJ:IN·
CEMENT 00
TUBESIZE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE TECTION PAESSlIRE SOIL FORCED 00
ft m ft m ft m ft m
~
800j-
1/4 7 2.1 8 2.4 5 I.S 5 I.S ::lé!
or-
~ooj-
.~t.I 0°
zZO
......
...
~
r-
~OD
l'I~
en ..,
1'10
:IIIr-
"'~
triO
:IIIr- j....
:~
J/8 7 2.1 8 2.4 5 I.S 6 1.8 zO~
1/2 7 2.1 8 2.4 5 I.S 6 1.8 tri
1'1--
Q~~ l''~;:' ~ §~ ~i ~6
."lE
00
r:n
1":11:1
5°9 goi '"III
=;; 8~
ooj:!
0-
J/4 7 2.1 9 2.7 5 I.S 7 2.1 g;.a oz- (1)
1 7 2.1 9 2.7 6 1.8 8 2.4 as z:z:- 300jiC

...
. ::1:
", ~ . ::1:>
1ft
a:
>
za:
->
!",X
!è!;::
'"III!C
"'>
Zl"
~~
s.I:S
i~ X l'IX
~
...
1ft
1 1/4 7 2.1 9 2.7 7 2.1 9 2.7 Z
'" "'z
>c -z
~
III",
j
III'"
-tri >:: >:: !ii
>
ooj..,
c>
Oc
z_ >
~
1 1/2 9 2.7 12 J.7 8 2.4 .10 3.0 ~~ "'n "'n zg Z
~z ~z ~ 'i:!:l
l' Q
2 10 3.0 ut
\J 4.0 8 2.4 II 3.4
~
ra ra c >
t\:) 21/2 Il J.4 14 4.3 9 2.7 13 4.0 °"t'I )III
~
)III c)III
.....
1
01
3 12 3.7 15 4.6 10 3.0 14 4.J
ooj
:z:
1ft
2:
~I
00
>!i
~~
tri
)III
rA
)III
1=
°1:lE
tri
)III
rA ~
rA
'"
10
."
00
;
:11:1
>"t'I >"t'I
~
~ J 1/2 13 4.0 16 4.9 Il 3.4 15 4.6 )III
.....• ~ "'0 ... 0 $q

{3
~g
4 14 4.3 17 5.2 12 3.7 16 4.9 n2: > i
~
Q ::1: tri Z
~
!C
5 16 4.9 19 5.8 13 4.0 18 5.5
r- ~e
~
c
~
1
6 17 5.2 21 6.4 14 4.3 20 6.1 :!l ~S; a~
trlz Q 0 ~
8 19 5.8 4.9 23 7.0 j!g ~~ OC') ~ ~ CI
24 7.3 16
~
10 22 6.1 26 7.9 18 5.5 25 7.6
'"III
Si Si!!3 "1113
g
i :1 i~ i
12 23 7.0 30 9.1 19 5.8 28 8.5 r::~ a~ '"rA '""II
i ~:s
)III )III
~ i
14 25 7.6 32 9.8
2:;g ai!
2: tri
!C
~
~
16 27 8.2 35 10.7
18 28 8.5 37 11.3
~
>g;
~Q
ilia
>'"
~a i ~ 0
C'2:)
~
20 30 9.1 39 Il.9 1110
~
~ "'2 "'2:
24 32 9.8 42 12.8 ~n ~n >
QG ~
30 33 10.1 44 13.4
~
Qa !'>
. NOTE: (1) FOR SPACING SUPPORTS INCORl'ORATING TYPE 40 SHIELDS, SEE TABLE S.
(2) OOB NOT APPLY WHERE SPAN CALCULATIONS ARE MADE OR WHERE THERE ARE CONCENTRATED LOADS BE1WEEN SUPfORTS SUCH
AS FLANGB, VALVES, SPECIALTIES, ETC., OR CHANGES IN DIRECTION REQUiRING ADDmONAL SUPI'ORTS.
~
3 - The standard span doesn't applyon risers, since no moment (and thus no stress)
develops regardless of the riser length. The number and location of supports
should be determined by the location and strength of building steel. However,
it is preferable to locate supports above the center ofgravity oflong risers in order
to prevent toppling.
4 - Support locations should be selected as close to building steel as possible in order

to simplify support configuration.
The steps involved in supporting a piping system for sustained loads can he illustrated with
an exam pIe. In Figure 2-11, the system consists of a 12" diameter, standard schedule steel
pipe filled wi th water, wi th a design pressure of 150 psi, and a design tem perature of 3500 F,
which runs hetween two equipment nozzles.
The engineer first must determine the standard span for the system. For 12" diameter, water
filled pipe, the standard span is shown in MSS SP-69 to he 23 feet. For changes of direction,
3/4 of this span is 17 feet-4 inches.
Next, the engineer locates supports. The first concern is to locate them near concentrated
loads - supports should he located as close as possible to the two valves (for example, near
node points 20 and 70). The first ofthese is optional, depending on whether the nozzle at
node point 10 is assumed to act as an anchor, and whether it is desirable to minimize the
nozzle loads on the equipment.
The next concern is the placement of supports on the riser. Assume that the capacity of the
building steel dictates that the weight of the riser be split hetween two supports. It is
recommended that one ofthese be placed above the center ofgravity ofthe riser (for example,
15 feet below the top of the riser).
Now supports can be located elsewhere in the system, starting at the nozzle at node point
10. A support was located near node point 20 earlier; we now want to locate the next one
downstream within the standard span. It is evident that pipe changes direction within 23
feet, so the developed length to the next support should be maintained as less than 17 feet-
4 inches. The next run ofpipe accommodates a full 23 foot run, so two supports can be located
between node points 30 and 40. The line of action ofthe supports on the riser provide support
to the end of the horizontal 30-40 run, so no additional support is required at node point 40.
Support locations can he continued to he selected in this manner until alilocations meet the
selection criteria; one solution is shown in the Figure 2-12.
Once completed, what does this accomplish? By using the standard span criteria, the
engineer can assume that the maximum stress in the piping system due to weight loading
does not exceed 1500 psi. Therefore, substituting this value for the weight component ofthe
stress equation:
Ssus = PA/Am + 1500 = 150(113.1)/14.58 + 1500 = 2664 psi < 20,000 psi
2-16
12" DIA - STD SCH PIPE

MAT'L - A106 GR B
FLUID - WATER
PRESSURE - 150 P~
TEMP - 350 DEGREES F
ELBOWS - LONG RADIUS
INSULATION - 2" CS
VALVES - 150# GATE VALVES (WT =826#)
NOZZLES (ANCHOR POINTS) @1 0 & 90
Sc = 20,000 PSI
Sh = 20,000 PSI
THERMAL CYCLES <7000
Figure 2-11
12" DIA - STD SCH PIPE

MAT'L - A106 GR B
FLUID - WATER
PRESSURE - 150 PSI
TEMP - 350 DEGREES F
ELBOWS - LONG RADIUS
INSULATION - 2" CS
VALVES - 150# GATE VALVES (WT=826#)
NOZZLES (ANCHOR POINTS) @10 & 90
Sc = 20,000 PSI
Sh = 20,000 PSI
THERMAL CYCLES <7000
PROPOSED
HANGER
LOCATION
Figure 2-12
2-17
Piping sag is not a problem, since dis placement is limited to 0.1 inches.
Therefore the engineer has demonstrated that this piping system meets the
sustained stress criteria, without having to do any actual "work".
This can be confirmed by actually doing an analysis of the supported system. The results
in Figure 2-13 show that the maximum sustained stress actually calculated for the
configuration shown in Figure 2-12 by CAESAR n is 2418 psi, showing that the shortcut
analysis is reasonably accurate, yet conservative. The CAESAR n analysis also shows a
maximum vertical dis placement under weight of 0.0046", which is also conservative.
LICENSED TO: TETRACOM SERVICES 10/1 13269 Ver 3.18 PAGE:1

CAESAR II DISPLACEMENT REPORT FILE:SUPT01
CASE 2 (SUS) W+P1 DATE:NOV 4.1992
- - - - -Transl ati ons (in. ) - - -------Rotations(deg. ) - -
NODE DX DY OZ RX RY RZ
10 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000
20 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000
22 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0010 .0000 -.0017
28 .0000 -.0040 .0000 .0024 .0000 -.0044
29 .0000 -.0046 .0000 .0034 -.0001 -.0031
30 .0001 -.0039 .0000 .0052 -.0002 -.0024
34 .0005 .0000 .0000 -.0065 -.0003 -.0022
36 .0024 .0000 .0000 .0075 -.0004 -.0015
38 .0034 -.0012 .0000 .0004 -.0004 -.0012
39 .0034 -.0008 -.0002 .0030 -.0005 -.0011
40 .0032 -.0005 -.0009 .0027 -.0005 -.0010
44 .0009 .0000 -.0067 .0013 -.0005 -.0007
46 -.0014 .0000 -.0073 -.0012 -.0005 -.0004
48 -.0024 -.0005 -.0012 -.0032 -.0004 -.0003
49 -.0024 -.0009 -.0004 -.0041 -.0004 -.0002
50 -.0023 -.0016 .0000 -.0017 -.0004 -.0002
55 -.0015 .0000 .0000 -.0010 -.0004 -.0001
60 -.0006 -.0024 .0000 .0042 -.0003 .0000
70 -.0005 -.0010 .0000 .0042 -.0003 .0000
72 -.0004 .0000 .0000 .0029 -.0003 .0000
78 -.0001 -.0001 .0000 -.0003 -.0002 .0000
79 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0007 -.0001 .0003
80 .0000 .0001 .0000 .0004 .0000 -.0010
85 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0004 .0000 -.0012
90 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000
2-18
LICENSED TO: TETRACOM SERVICES 10# 13269 Ver 3.18 PAGE: 10

CAESAR II STRESS SUMMARY FILE:SUPT01
CASE 2 (SUS) W+P1 DATE:NOV 4,1992
*****CODE STRESS CHECK PASSED
PIPING CODE: B31.3 (1990)
HIGHEST STRESSES: (lb./sq.in.)
CODE STRESS %: 2418. @NODE 34 ALLOWABLE: 20000.
BENDING STRESS: 1255. @NODE 34
TORSIONAL STRESS: 54. @NODE 22
AXIAL STRESS: 1300. @NODE 46
3D MAX INTENSITY: 2631. @NODE 22
Figure 2-13
A further implication of this approach is that in order to eliminate a stress or deflection

problem due to weight loadings, the best solution is usually to reduce the unsupported span
of the piping- i.e., add more supports.
2.2.3 Consideration of Nozzle Loads
The previous discussion has primarily concerned the effect of supports on system stresses.
The engineer is also interested in determining loads on supports and nozzles, in order to
select the appropriate support hardware, to check the overloading of equipment, or to
calculate vessel stresses.
Areview of the restraint loads shows that the hanger loads are on the order of2000 to 3000
pounds. These loads would be used as an upper limitfor the selection ofthe support hardware
- for example, the rods, clamps, brackets, supporting steel, etc. must be capable ofresisting
these loads at a minimum.
A review of the weight load (Y-force) on the nozzle at node point 10 (see Figure 2-14) shows
a relatively small load, of only 237 pounds, which should be acceptable for most types of
equipment. However, closer inspection shows that the sign is positive, indicating that the
piping system is pushing up on the support, rather than down. This seems unnatural for a
gravity load, and in fact is due to the unbalanced elbow at node point 30 pivoting about the
hanger at node point 22. Therefore, even though the nozzle load is low, this is not an
optimally supported system.
2-19
LlCENSED TO: TETRACOM SERVICES lOf! 13269 Ver 3.18 PAGE: 5

CAESAR II RESTRAINT REPORT FILE:SUPT01
Forces(lb. ) --- Moments(ft.lb.)
NODE FX FY Fl MX MY Ml TYPE
10 O. 237. -l. 397. -3. -100. Rigid ANC
22 O. -2024. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
34 O. -2300. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
36 O. -2190. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
44 O. -3014. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
46 O. -3054. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
55 O. -1606. O. O. o. O. Rigid +Y
72 O. -2044. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
85 O. -803. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
90 O. -604. l. 3l. -3. ll10. Rigid ANC
Figure 2-14
The system support can probably be improved by moving the hanger a bit closer to the elbow
to reduce pivoting - but how close is enough? Figure 2-15 shows the restraint loads for a
configuration with the restraint at node point 22 moved 2'·0 closer to the elbow (i.e., 3'·0 from
the end of the valve). The sign is now correct (indicating a reasonably balanced system), but
the load on the nozzle is now 495 pounds, larger than before. It is not certain that this is an
improvement.
LlCENSED TO: TETRACOM SERVICES lOf! 13269 Ver 3.18 PAGE: 1

CAESAR II RESTRAINT REPORT FILE:SUPT01
- - - - Forces(lb. ) ---- - - Moments (ft. lb. ) - -
NODE FX FY Fl MX MY Ml TYPE
10 O. -495. -l. 239. 4. 17l. Rigid ANC
22 O. -1348. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
34 O. -2224. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
36 O. -2219. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
44 O. -3005. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
46 O. -3055. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
55 O. -1606. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
72 O. -2045. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
85 O. -804. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
90 O. -603. l. 30. 5. ll09. Rigid ANC
Figure 2-15
2·20
However, this exercise demonstrates that support and nozzle loads may be
tailored by adjusting the locations of the supports. The best location for the hanger
may be estimated by interpolating between the two results, in order to minimize the load
acting on the nozzle. This shows that the best (where ''best'' is defined as minimizing Y-
direction weight force on the nozzle at node point 10) location for the hanger is:
d = 1.0 - (3.0 - 1.0) x 2 x (237) / (-495 - 237) = 1.648 ft = 1'-7-3/4"

Where:
d = distance ofhanger from valve, ft
Analyzed Case #1
/
237# Location ( 1" - 7 - 3/4" )
Distance of Support
--+-----+--......::.;0:--+------1 from Valve, Feet
3.0
/
Interpolation Une
-495#
'1
Analyzed Case #1
Figure 2-16
Tuning nozzle loads may also be done by varying the support loads, rather than the support
locations. This is done by refusing to allow the system weigh t to settle on its own, but rather
by forcing weight unbalance at certain support locations. In this way, ifthe support at node
point 22 is underloaded, the system is less likely to push up on the support. For example,
if the support at node point 22 only takes -1725 pounds, the shortfall will be split up between
the nozzle at node point 10 and the support at node point 32, with the bulk ofthe shortfall
going to the nozzle, which is doser. This shortfall, of approximately -300 pounds, will reduce
the upward load at node point 10 by approximately 225 pounds (with the support at node
point 34 being reduced by the remaining 75 pounds), down to approximately zero pounds.
(Proof of this is left to the reader.)
The load at selected supports can be forced to be unbalanced through the use ofpre-Ioaded
springs (i.e., the loads are set to something other than the naturally distributed weight load),
thus influencing the resulting loads on the nozzles. This is most easily done by releasing
degrees-of-freedom at anchor points during the restrained weight phase ofhanger design,
as discussed in Section 2.4 of these seminar notes.
2-21
2.3 Designing For Expansion Loads

Note: It must always he remembered that the engineer must consider the RANGE
of expansion stresses (between the cold and hot conditions of the pipe, for
example) when considering expansion loadings. The absolute stress value is not
a particularly meaningful parameter when discussing expansion stresses, due to
the shakedown (self-springing) effect.
2.3.1 Magnitude of Thermal Load
A piping system, when heating up, normally tries to expand against its restraints, resulting
in internaI forces, moments and stresses:
Figure 2-17
The axial force generated in the above configuration can be estimated to be the axial force
required to compress the pipe back to its originallength after it has been allowed to grow
freely. Its free growth is:
Figure 2-18
A = cd
Where:
A = thermal axial extension ofunrestrained pipe, in
ex = linear thermal expansion of material from ambient to operating tempera

ture, in/in
1 = length of pipe, in
2-22
The axial force required to compress that growth is:
1~1 .. p
e----.l-I
Figure 2-19
~ = Pli AE
Where:
~ = axial compression of pipe under load, in
P = compressive load on pipe, lb
A = cross-sectional area of pipe, in 2
Equating the deltas, the axial force can be estimated as:
00 = PlIAE, or: P = AEa.
Considering a rather benign operation - a 12-inch diameter, standard wall pipe (A = 14.58
square inches, E = 29E6 psi) operating at 3500 F (a. = 1.88E-3 in/in) - the axialload is
calculated as:
P = 14.58 x 29E6 x 1.88E-3 = 800,000 pounds

From the point ofview ofmost piping codes, there is no stress, since no moment is produced
in the axial run (although the codes do state that the possibility of buckling must be
considered); however, this is not a good design.
An alternate is no restraint at one end, allowing the pipe to grow unimpeded; therefore no
load develops. However this is not good design either, since the pipe must normally attach
to sorne relatively fixed piece of equipment, and cannot usually be floating in space.
What is the solution to this problem? It is necessary to have sorne restraint on the system,
but too much may cause excessive forces, moments, and stresses. Looking at the examples
above, allowing no movement produces a force of about 800,000 pounds. Allowing 100% of
the pipe's desired free movement causes no force. Interpolating, ifwe could devise a means
by which the piping system remained intact, yet allowed 99.8% of the pipe's desired free
movement, the developed force would be approximately:
(1.0 - 0.998) x 800,000 = 1600 pounds
This is a much more manageable situation.
2-23
2.3.2 Guided Cantilever Method
One proposed means of allowing nearly all of the pipe's free movement (while still holding
the system together) is to provide adjacent, perpendicular legs to absorb the thermal growth
through bending, as shown in Figure 2-20.
1 10 '-0 1
\
12" cp STD
Les @350·F 1 10'-0
~
Cold Hot
Figure 2-20
Each leg can he modeled as a guided cantilever. According to beam theory:
,i = Pl3 / 12EI = cd
M = P1I2
--r"""=- P
~ = PI ...... 3 / 12EI = ex 1
= PI / 2
Figure 2-21
2-24
Solving for P: P =12EI d /13

Solving for M: M = 6EI d /12
Solving for SE: SE = 6EI d /12Z = 6ER d /12
Where:
l = moment ofinertia of pipe cross-section, in'

1 = length of leg absorbing thermal growth, in
Z = section modulus of pipe cross-section, in3
I/R
R = outer radius of pipe, in
Note that the calculated expansion stress range SE is independent of the wall thickness of
the pipe (on a system-wide basis). Therefore, increasing (or decreasing) the pipe wall is
usually not an adequate solution to an expansion stress problem. This equation also points
out that the stress range decreases with the square of the length of the absorbing leg, so the
longer the leg absorbing the displacement, the lower the stress range.
For the configuration shown in Figure 2-20:
d = 1.88E-3 x (10 x 12) = 0.23"

SE = 6 x 29E6 x 6.375 x 0.23 / (10 x 12)2 = 17,700 psi
An expansion stress range of 17,700 psi is normally not a problem, however it must he
rememhered that this equation did not take into account the stress intensification factor
(SIF) at the elbow at the top of the leg. Considering an in-plane stress intensification factor
for a long radius hend oftypical SIF value of2.8, this would result in a stress range of about
49,600 psi, which is probably excessive for typicallow carbon steel applications. (Note that
this value is actually conservative, since the guided cantilever model does not take into
account the fact that thejunction ofthe two legs will rotate some under the load, and further
neglects the additional flexibility of the elbow.)
Against what do we compare the 49,600 psi stress range? We compare it against SA, which
is:
SA = f[1.25 (Sc + SH) - Sil, or, conservatively:

= f(1.25 Sc + 0.25SH)
For a typicallow carbon steel (A106 Grade B, for instance) and a typical piping code (B31.3,
for instance), Sc and SH are both 20,000 psi, giving a conservative value for SA of30,000 psi
(the non-conservative value of SA cannot he calculated without knowing the sustained stress
S} at the point of interest).
The expansion stress range can he approximated for any run of pipe using the guided
cantilever equation shown above, as long as the displacements to be absorbed are known.
2-25
2.3.3 Refining the Madel Through the Use of Restraint Stiffnesses
What if the calculated expansion stress range is too high? How can we reduce it?
Consider the initial example, with the pipe fully anchored at its ends. What would happen
in reallife? The restraints would probably bend sorne under the enormous load, allowing
sorne piping expansion, which would then reduce the internalload (since expansion loads are
selflimiting). What happens if the bending of a support - i.e., its flexibility - is explicitly
considered in the analysis? (Normally a pipe stress program by default considers a restraint
to be "infinitely rigid". For exam pIe, CAESAR n's default restraint stiffness is in the range
of1E12 pounds per inch.)
If the restraint actually has a lateral stiffness of 10,000 pounds per inch (instead of1E12),
the thermal growth is partially absorbed by the pipe and partially absorbed by the restraint:
due to due to
- - - t._. t::. pipe leg support
t::. = PL~3/12EI + P/10000

P = t::./(L~3/12EI + 1/10000)
M =
t::. L/2(L~3/12EI + 1110000)
SE = t::. L/2(L~3/12EI + 1/1 oooo)/Z
)
Lateral Stiffness
of Support = 10000 lb/in
Figure 2-22
For a 12" diameter standard wall pipe, the calculation is as follows:
1 = 279.3 in4 Z = 43.8 in3
SE = 0.23 x 120/ [2(1203 / (12 x 29E6 x 279.3) + 1110000) x 43.8]
= 2675 psi
2-26
This significantly reduces the stress range (from the previous value of 17,700 psi) - not
through any actual modification, but simply through a refinement of the model. From this
we can gain two insights:
1 - It is sometimes a good idea to provide actual restraint (and nozzle) stiffnesses in

the model- the doser to reality the model becomes, the more accurate are the
results. Refinement of the model may save the cost ofmodifying piping systems
which initially appear to be over stressed.
2 - If a system really is over stressed, a potential fix may be the introduction of

flexibility at the restraints, either by removing restraint or by providing less than
infinitely-rigid restraints (or gaps).
Restraint stiffnesses may he calculated through any means and then entered by hand, or
simulated in the piping model through the use ofstructural or pipingelements. Vessel nozzle
stiffnesses may be calculated manually using Welding Research Council Bulletin 297 or
sorne equivalent. Modeling ofrestraints using CAESAR II's structural modeler and use of
WRC Bulletin 297 are discussed in Section 3 of these course notes.
Note that it is best not to selectively enter flexibilities for some restraints and not
for others. This willresult in the inaccurate distribution ofloads, resultingin non-
conservative results.
2.3.4 Use of Expansion Loops

In the event that model refinement is not sufficient to solve the problem (i.e., there is a real
problem, and notjust one on paper), something must be done. Re-examining the equation
for the guided cantilever model:
It is evident that the stress analyst cannot easily change the terms 6, E, R, or delta. This
leaves only l, the length of the leg absorbing the thermal growth. This can be done through
the addition of an expansion loop. In this case, the thermal growth is partially absorbed by
each of the legs running orthogonally to the thermal growth:
Ll = P(120)3/ 12EI + P(240)3 / 12EI
= P (1203 + 2403) / 12EI
P = 12EI Ll / (1203 + 2403)
SE = 6ER LlI / (1203 + 2403)
2-27
/'>,
/'>,
=
=
P(120)~3/12EI + P(240)~3/12EI
P(120~3 + 240~3)/12EI
1 10'-0
~10'-O i 10'-0
~
Figure 2-23
The expansion stress range in each ofthe legs is linearly proportional to the length ofthat
leg, so:
SEl = 6 x 29E6 x 6.375 x 0.23 x 240/ (1203 + 2403 )
= 3937 psi
SE2 = 6 x 29E6 x 6.375 x 0.23 x 120/ (1203 + 2403 )
= 1918 psi
The stress range calculated in the longer leg is only 3937 psi (note that the maximum
expansion stress is found in the longest leg resisting the displacement), compared to 17,700
psi without the loop. Generically, the stress range in a legj, due to thermal expansion in a
direction perpendicular to that of leg j, is:
Where:
SEj = stress range in a legj Oegj must be orthogonal to the direction of the thermal
growth to be absorbed), psi
lj = length of leg j, in
li = length ofleg i (where leg i represents each leg helping to absorb the thermal
growth; normally, aIl legs running orthogonally to the thermal growth), in
Therefore, the calculated stress range should always decrease if expansion loops are added
in any direction perpendicular to a direction of thermal growth, since the denominator in the
expression for the expansion stress will increase.
2-28
2.3.5 Simplified Expansion Stress Check
The concept that addition ofexpansion loops reduces the expansion stress range in a system
is recognized by the B31.3 code (and others). This is codified in the requirement that
expansion analysis need not be explicitly done for a system meeting the following conditions:
1 - the system is all of the same size, material, etc.,
2 - the system has no branches, and consists of only a single run between two
anchors,
3 - there are no intermediate restraint points (note that hangers are traditionally
excluded from consideration as restraints), and
4 - D y / (L - U)2 < 0.03
Where:
D = pipe outer diameter, inches
y = resultant thermal growth to he absorhed, inches
L = totallength of piping, feet
U = straight line distance between anchors, feet
The term (L - U) represents the amount of extra pipe (i.e.,loops) in the system. Examination
of this equation reveals that, after factoring through constants, it is simply a form of the
guided cantilever stress equation:
This simplified check can be illustrated by applying it to the system shown in Figure 2-12.
It is clear that this system meets the first three criteria - the system is aIl of the same size,
material, etc.; the system has no branches, and consists of only a single run between two
anchors; and there are no intermediate restraint points except hangers. For the fourth
requirement:
D = 12.75 in
y = [«(11+12)x12x1.88E-3)2+(50x12x1.88E-3)2+«45+33)x12x1.88E- 3)2]1/2
x-growth y-growth z-growth
= 2.154 in
L = 11 + 45 + 50 + 33 + 12 = 151 ft
Dy / (L - U)2 = 12.75 x 2.154/ (151- 95.46)2 = 0.0089 < 0.03
2-29
Therefore the system illustrated in Figure 2-12 need not he explicitly analyzed for expansion
stresses.
How accurate is this simplified expansion stress check? Based upon the ratio of 0.0089 to
0.03 = .2968, one can infer that this system is stressed to approximately 29.68% of its
allowable stress. Assuming a low carbon steel of type A106 Grade B or similar and fewer
than 7,000 expected cycles, the allowable stress ofthe system at 3500 F can be conservatively
estimated as:
f(1.25 Sc + 0.25SH) = 1.0(1.25 x 20,000 + 0.25 x 20,000) = 30,000 psi
This would imply that the maximum expansion stress in the system is somewhere in the
range of:
SEmax = 0.2968 x 30,000 = 8903 psi
Figure 2-24 shows the actual maximum expansion stress found in this system through an
actual CAESAR II stress analysis - 9051 psi (within 1 %), which demonstrates the accuracy
(at least for this particular case) ofthis simplified method.
LICENSED TO: TETRACOM SERVICES ID# 13269 Ver 3.18 PAGE: 10

CAESAR II STRESS SUMMARY FILE:SUPT01
CASE 3 (EXP) D3(EXP)=D1-D2 DATE:NOV 4,1992
**** CODE STRESS CHECK PASSED

PIPING CODE: B31.3 (1990)
HIGHEST STRESSES: (lb./sq.in.)
CODE STRESS %: 90S!. @NODE 48 ALLOWABLE: 48681.

BENDING STRESS: 90S!. @NODE 48
TORSIONAL STRESS: 90. @NODE 50
AXIAL STRESS: 330. @NODE 46
3D MAX INTENSITY: 9252. @NODE 48
Figure 2-24
2.3.6 Stress Reduction through Use of Expansion Joints
In extreme cases, expansion joints may be added to a system in order to increase flexibility
when there is insufficient room for a loop. Expansion joints resemble bellows and provide
very flexible pipe legs within very short leg lengths.
2-30
Pipe
,-
\ 1
\) Corrugations
expand and
8ellows contract
Figure 2-25
Use of expansion joints is usually a last resort solution since expansion joints present
maintenance problems due to their fatigue failure mode. (lt should he noted that expansion
joints may on occasion actually offer an economical solution in extreme cases, such as when
the alternative is expansion loops ofvery large diameter pipe ofexpensive material such as
alloy or stainless steel.) Expansion joints also present problems due to the fact that they
cannot transmit tension through their wall. This problem is discussed in Section 2.1.5.
Since the failure mode of expansion joints is fatigue, the relative expansion displacements
hetween the start and end ofthe expansion joint must be checked against the manufacturer's
allowables. Note that the allowables provided will not he absolute values, but will be based
upon a specifie number of cyclic applications. The manufacturer must always provide a
fatigue curve or sorne other type of adjustment factor in order to determine the allowable
displacementforadifferentnumberofcycles. Forexample,amanufacturermayrequirethat
the allowables be divided by a factor based upon the numher of load cycles:
Cycles Factor
1 0.49
200 0.56
1000 0.81
3000 1.00
15000 1.38
If the manufacturer provides allowable displacements in the axial, bending, and lateral
directions, aIl three movements should be evaluated using a linear interaction formula:
}Cact ~act 1ract

+ + <= 1.0
2-31
Where:
Xact = actual axial dis placement of expansion joint, in
eact = actual bending angle of expansion joint, degrees
Yact = actuallateral displacement of expansion joint, in
Xall = allowable axial dis placement of expansion joint, in
Sall = allowable bending angle of expansion joint, degrees
YaIl = allowable lateral displacement of expansion joint, in
Ablorption 01 Axial M_enl Absorption 01 Laierai Movemenl AbIorption 01 Anguler Ralalion AbIorption 01 Multl-DilKtiona1
(Rnu"ant) Lateral Deflection
Figure 2-26
In the event that the manufacturer only provides allowable axial movements, the other two
displacements may he converted to equivalent axial displacements. In that case, the
following requirement must be met:
Xact + 0.00872665 De act + 3 DYact / 1 <= Xall
Where:
D = equivalent internal diameter of expansion joint, in
= distance from inner edge of convolution to outer edge of convolution on

opposite side of expansion joint
1 = flexible length of expansion joint, in
Expansion joints are especially weak in torsion, so this type ofloading should be kept to a
minimum.
Means of modeling various expansion joint configurations is discussed in Section 3 of this

document.
2-32
2.3.7 Expansion Stress - Other Solutions
Often expansion stress problems are due to the use offittings with large stress intensification
factors (SIF). In these cases, it may be possible to upgrade fittings to those with lower SIF
values. For example, miters can be upgraded to bends, which can be further upgraded to
bends with longer radii of curvature. Unreinforced fabricated tees can be upgraded to
reinforced fabricated tees, which can be further upgraded to welding tees. Threaded pipe or
socket weld connections may be upgraded to butt welds. SIFs are discussed in more detail
in Section 1.3 ofthese seminar notes.
Modification ofthe restraint configuration may also solve expansion problems. For exam pIe,
in most cases, removing restraints increases flexibility, decreasing expansion loads. Limit
stops may be used to allow some movement, thus reducing internaI generation of expansion
loads. Strategically placed restraints can be used to force thermal growth from areas ofhigh
stress to are as of lower stress.
2-33
2.4 Hanger Design

As seen in Section 2.2, as more restraint is provided to a piping system, weight stresses
decrease. Conversely, Section 2.3 demonstrated that as restraint is remoyed from a system,
expansion stresses decrease. This contradiction must be resolved through some type of
compromise.
Likewise, in systems supported only with rigid supports, it is possible that the pipe might
lift off of some supports and lock up against others once it thermally expands. This is
demonstrated through a review of the restraint loads during the operating load case for the
system shown in Figure 2-12, which shows that the pipe lifted off of the supports at node
points 36, 44, and 72 (rendering them inactive) and had a partiallock up at node point 55,
overloading the support.
LICENSED TO: TETRACOM SERVICES IDfl 13269 Ver 3.18 PAGE: 7

CAESAR II RESTRAINT REPORT FI LE: SUPT01
CASE 1 (OPE) W+T1+P1 DATE:NOV 4,1992
--- Forces(lb.) -- Moments(ft.lb.)
NODE FX FY FZ MX MY MZ TYPE
10 -22. 1074. 505. 676. -4700. 325. Rigid ANC
22 O. -3023. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
34 O. -253I. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
36 O. O. O. o. O. O. Rigid +Y
44 O. O. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
46 O. -4940. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
55 O. -6238. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
72 O. O. O. O. O. O. Rigid +Y
85 O. -1143. O. O. o. O. Rigid +Y
90 22. -602. -505. -18I. -5200. 1103. Rigid ANC
Figure 2-27
It would be preferable if the pipe could move to its new position and, at the same time, onto
its supports; or even, if the support could move with the pipe. One solution is a weight and
pulley assembly:
Figure 2-28
2-34
The drawback to this is that the assembly is bulky, and requires restraint design for twice
the pipe load.
The mechanical implementation of this concept is the constant spring, or constant effort
support (Figure 2-29). This support has an internal pivot arm attached to a spring; as the
pipe moves up or down, the moment arm about the pivot and the spring force vary inversely,
creating a constant moment about the pivot, and therefore a constant force acting against
the pipe weight. The drawback of constant springs is that they are often too expensive for
the application; therefore they are usually used only when pipe movements are very large.
Figure 2-29
2.4.1 Variable Spring Hanger Design Basics
A less expensive alternative is a variable spring hanger, in which the spring load varies
somewhat as the pipe moves. From the analysis of the system shown in Figure 2-12 it was
evident that some change in the support loads as the pipe goes from the cold to the hot
condition is tolerable from a stress point ofview. The trick is to design the system with an
acceptable load range.
A variable spring hanger (Figure 2-30), pre-set to some load, provides support throughout
the range ofpipe movement; as noted above, there is some change in load as the pipe moves
from cold to hot position. As the pipe moves up, the load plate on the spring moves up,
allowing the spring to decompress, thus decreasing the load which the spring puts on the
pipe. As the pipe moves down, the load plate on the spring also moves down, further
compressing the spring, and thus increasing the load of the spring on the pipe.
2-35
Figure 2-30
The objectives of spring hanger design are to choose a spring which:
1 will provide the weight support load necessary to balance the pi ping system after
the pipe has moved from its cold (installed to its hot (operating) position,
2 permits the total movement ofthe pipe from its cold to hot position, and
3 does not cause an excessive expansion stress range in the pipe as the spring load
ranges from its cold to hot load.
Since the variable spring hanger load changes as the pipe moves from its cold to its hot
position, and one objective of hanger design is usually to provide the weight support load
necessary to balance the piping system in its hot position, it is necessary to install the spring
with an unbalanced "cold load". This unbalanced load can be determined by:
CL = HL + k L1 th
Where:
CL = cold load (unbalanced installation load of spring), lb
HL = hot load (desired target load to support balanced weight at spring location),
lb
k = spring constant of variable spring use d, lb/in
il th = travel, or expected thermal movement of pipe at spring location, going from

installation to operating, where up is positive, in
2-36
2.4.2 Load Variation
Under certain circumstances, specifications may recommend that the relative load change
be minimized, by limiting the Load Variation to aval ue such as 10% or 25%. Load Variation
is defined as:
Var = 1 HL - CL 1 / HL = 1 k Ll th 1 / HL
Where:
Var = Load Variation (ratio of 0.0 to 1.0)
Since the hot load and thermal movement are dictated by the piping system configuration,
the variability of an individual spring can be controlled only by varying the spring rate. Most
manufacturers provide springs with three (or more) different spring rates per load size,
recommended for short-range (0 to 1/2 inch), mid-range (0.5 to 1 inch), long-range (1 to 2 inch)
displacements. Since all springs in a given load size support the same range ofloads over
their total travel, the spring rate (and therefore the variation) of a long range spring is
typically one-half ofthat of a mid-range spring, which in turn is one-halfthat of a short range
spring.
The use of a spring load variation criteria is normally a holdover from an earlier era, when
it was used as justification for not including spring stiffnesses in expansion loading cases.
If the spring stiffnesses are included in the analysis (as is normally the case with
CAESAR II), load variation criteria may probably be considered to be an unduly restrictive
requirement.
2.4.3 Hanger Selection Table
Springs are selected from a table such as that shown in Figure 2-31. This table shows the
load capacities within the workingranges of each spring size, and the spring constants of the
short-, mid-, and long-range spring series for each ofthe sizes. Knowing the hotload, thermal
movement, and variability requirement, the process in selecting a spring from the table is:
1 - Calculate the maximum permissible spring rate as:
k max = Var HL / 1 Ll th 1
2 - Determine the spring load size by finding the hot load in one ofthe columns of
the hanger selection table.
3 - For that size spring, select the spring series with a spring rate less than or equal
to that calculated above.
4 - Calculate the cold load (from CL = HL + k Ll th) and verify that the cold load also
falls within the working range ofthe spring.
5 - Ifthis is not the case, then try again with a different spring series of the same
size, or a spring of an adjacent size.
2-37
This process may he illustrated by an example. Assume that the target hot load of a spring
is computed as 613 pounds, the computed expected travel from cold to hot positions at that
point is 1.5 inches up, the load variation limitation is 20%, and the spring manufacturer
provides the selection table shown in Figure 2-31:
1 - The maximum permissible spring rate is:
k max = 0.20 x 613 / 1 1.5 1 = 82 lb/in
2 - The hot load of 613 pounds is within the range of spring load size 7 (with a
recommended range from 392 to 672 pounds), as shown in the selection table.
Therefore, a spring of this size is a preliminary candidate for selection.
3 - Looking at the bottom three lines of the column for size 7 shows that the only
springwith a stiffness helow the permissible springrate is the long-range spring,
with a stiffness of 56 lb/in.
4 - For this spring, the Cold Load would be:
CL = 613 + 56 x 1.5 = 697 lb
This load is outside of the recommended range ofthe spring (but does fall within
the total range of336 to 728 pounds, which should really only be used in extreme
circumstances). Therefore, the size 7 spring should not be used.
5 - It is now necessary to go through the calculation again, trying another spring.

The hot load of 613 pounds also fans within the range of a size 8 spring
(recommended range from 525 to 900 pounds), making this size also a candidate
for selection. Looking at the spring rates for the size 8 spring, again only a long-
range spring has a stiffness (75 lb/in) below the permissible rate.
The Cold Load calculation is:
CL = 613 + 75 x 1.5 = 726 lb

This load is within the recommended range of the spring; therefore a long-range,
size 8 spring pre-set to a Cold Load of 726 pounds must be specified.
2-38
..........
wMdng _ _ 1iH ...
---..,In.
Ag.
• ....
fig. fig.
12 0 1 2 3 4 Il
• 7
• " 10
" 12 13 14 15 1. 17 1• 1. 20 21 22 fig.
a .... ....•
fig.
43
44
48
83 81 lOS 141
118 841011 147
118 .114 153
l i t 252 336 450 lIDO 780 1020 1350 1800 2400 3240 4IiOO
197 283 350 489 1!2!5 813 1083 14015 1875 2500 3375 4888
208 273 384 488 S!iO 845 110S 1483 l11!iO 2IlOO 31510 4875
:::
S!iOO
7990
8322
886S
1OS10 14'00 18750 25005
11053 14888 19631 28017
11496 15275 203'3 27089
0 0 0
48 71 91 118 1511 213 284 378 501 875 878 1148 151. 2025 2700 31545 5083 6750 8t67 1111C1B 15883 21094 28131
0 0 0 50 74 96 123 185 221 54 392 525 700 1110 1190 1575 2100 2800 37110 5250 1000 8320 12380 111450 21675 211173 V. 1011 1
52 7888 127 110 228 305 40S 544 ~ 1M3 1233 1831 2175 2900 3915 S438 7250 9SS2 12823 17038 226S6 30215
54 7'11 101 131 178 238 315 420 583 750 1/75 1275 1888 2250 3000 4050 5825 7500 l1li85 13265 17825 23438 31258
:: ,_
sa 81 lOS 138 182 244 3211 434 581 77S 100811318 1744 2325 3100 4185 5813 7750 10317 13108 18213 24219 322118
-
1 ".. v. sa 84 108 140 188 252 338 448 IlOO 800 1040 1380 1800 2400 3200 4320 eooo l1OOO IOSS0 14150 18800 25000 33340 1011 1 2
50 87 111 144 1114 2eO 347 482 819 825 1073 1403 18511 2475 3300 4455 8188 101182 18388 25781 343112
- :=
81 88 115 149 288 357 478 838 850 1105 1445 1913 2550 3400 4580 lI37S 11315 lS035 1l1li75 2eII3 35424
;r: 1_
= 858 675 1138 '

83 112 118 153 1 _ 2825 3500 4725 11583 11847 15477 20583 27344
2 1 \1085 115 122 158 '2
87 .7 125 182 217
et 100 128 1811
12 2114 378
278 3118
291 138t 518
675
~
1170 1530 2025 2700
1203 1573 zoel 2775 :: 48eO 8750
4885 l1li38
2991399 532 713 950 1235 11115 2138 2850 3800 5130 7125 ::
118110 15e20 21150 28125 37508
12312 1113e2 21738 281108 38549
12845 18805 22325 211888 385111
'1(0 11011 3
,....
= 12977 17247 22e13 304et 4CMI33
71 102 132 171 3071410 548 731 975 1288 111S11 21114 2825 3900 5285 7313 1/750
~
3 '1(073 105 135 175 315420 5110 750 1000 1300 1700 2250 3000 4000 5400 7500 10000 13310 171110 23IiOO 31250 41875 1 2 4
74 108 138 178 323 431 574 719 1025 1333 1743 230S 3075 4100 55315 7888 10250 13842 1.,32 24088 32031 42717
78 110 142 184 247 331 441 5Il8 1B8 1050 13115 1785 2383 3150 4200 SII10 7875 10500 13975 18575 24e75 32813 43759
4 2 1
78 113 146 1811
80 Il. 1411 1SC1
82 118 152 197 j284
84 121 155 201
88 123 159 208
~
~
,_ 1:
339 452 802 aoe 1075 1311B 1828 2419 322S 4300 5805 11083
347482 B16 825 1100 1430 1670 2475
354 473 830 844 1125 1483 1913 2531
4400 5IMO B250
4500 11075 8438
3821.483 844 883 1150 1485 1956 2588 3450 4800 8210 81125
37014114 IISII 881 1175 1988 2844 3525 4700 8345 8813
10750
11000
11250
11500
11750
14307 111017
14840 1lI4II0
==
33!iIN 44801
34375 45843
141172 111802 28438 3151sa 48885
15305 20345 Z7025 3I5IICI8 47112e
1S1137 20787 27513 387111 4l1li88
114 21011 5
5 21011 114 118128 lez 210 282
,_
3781 seM 872 900 1200 '5110 2040 2700 3IlOO 4900 84110 9000
.,88 12000 151170 21230 28200 37500 50010 11o'l 3 Il
=
811 129 1116 214 388 515 688 1118 1225 15113 20113 2758 3875 4900 11815 12250 111302 21872 28788 38281 51052
-111 131 1118 2111 3114 525 700 SCIa 1250 1825 2125 2813 3750 5000 8750 8375 12500 Il1t13S 22115 29C!75 3lIOII3 52094
.. 113 134 172 223 402 536 714 966 1275 1868 21l1li 2l18li 3825 5100 688S 11S113 12750 ll111t17 22567 2l1li83 38844 53136
_ 95 137 176 228 l30e 410548 728 875 1300 2210 21125 3900 5200 7020 9750 13000 17300 23000 305SO 40825 54178 1'1(0 31011 7
8pItng _ _ - lb. pel' ln.
30 42 54 70 114128 188 224 300 400 520 880 900 1200 1600 21110 3000 4000 5320 7080 Il4OO 12500 18670
15 21 27 35 47 63 84 112 150 200 260 340 450 800 800 1080 1500 2000 2880 3540 4100 tl250 6335
7 10 13 17 23 31 42 56 75 100 130 170 225 300 400 540 750 1000 1330 1710 2350 3125 4167
Figure 2-31
2.4.4 Hanger Design Process - Restrained Weight, Free Thermal, and More
The procedures described above assume that the hot load and thermal movement required
for spring selection are already known. How does the engineer calculate the hot loads and
thermal movements? The procedure for the entire hanger design process is as follows:
1 - Pick out support locations using standard span criteria, and do a weight
analysis, assuming that there are rigid Y-restraints at each location. This
analysis is called the "restrained-weight" analysis. The weight loads distributed
to each of the restraint during this analysis are used as the hot loads during
spring selection.
2 - Next, remove the restraints from the support locations, and do a thermal
expansion analysis. This analysis is called the "free-thermal" analysis. The
thermal movements at each of the support locations are used as the thermal
travels for selecting the springs. (Note that due to the technical effects of possible
non-linear effects in the system, CAESAR II performs not a true "free-thermal"
load case, but rather a load case called "operating for hanger travel", which
includes the effects of thermalloads, weight loads, and the spring hot loads
calculated in the restrained weight case. Since the piping weight loads and the
spring hot loads essentially cancel each other out, this effectively results in a
thermal only load case, but with non linear effects considered.)
2-39
3 - Using the hot loads calculated from the restrained-weight case and the travels
calculated from the free-thermal case, select a spring for each location from the
spring selection table as described above. Use the spring constant to determine
the required cold load (pre-set hanger load) for installation.
4 - Alter the model to reflect the presence ofthe springs by adding ares traint at each
support location with a stiffness equal to the spring constant ofthe spring, and
by adding the pre-set spring load (cold load) as a force active during the sustained
load case. Then re-analyze allload cases in order to get the effects ofhaving the
actual springs present.
The four steps ofthis procedure (except the locating of the supports) are done automatically
by CAESAR II whenever the user designates a hanger (i.e., a candidate for spring hanger
design) in a piping system
2.4.5 Restraint Placement Using Distance ta First Rigid Criteria
If the above procedure is followed exactly, it is likely that almost all support locations will
show some vertical movement, and will therefore require springs. For economic reasons, it
is best to try to limit the number of springs by using rigid supports at locations with small
movements.
How can this be done? The analyst can potentially impose zero movement at points where
it is safe from an expansion stress point ofview; ifthere is no vertical pipe run between points
of zero growth, all supports along that run should have zero growth as well. For example:
-r---~i~n:1
) Position ) Down
Four Supports Three Supports
with Uplift with No Uplift
Figure 2-32
The question is where can rigid restraints be placed without causing expansion problems?
If the expansion displacement is known at a given point, the minimum distance to the first
rigid restraint can be calculated using the guided cantilever stress formula:
S = 6ERA /1 2 , so:
Imin = (6ERd / SaU)1/2
2-40
Where:
lmin = minimum distance to the first rigid restraint from a point ofknown vertical
dis placement, in
SalI = an approximate allowable expansion stress value, based upon SR, Sc, f, any
intensification factors present, and the generallevel of expansion stresses
present in the system prior to addition of the rigid restraint (often a nominal
value such as 10,000 psi is used), psi
This can be illustrated by an example. In the system depicted in Figure 2-12, there are eight
hanger locations. If the procedure described in Section 2.4.4 is followed to the letter, there
will certainly be thermal growth at aIl ofthese locations, so eight springs will be selected.
In order to reduce this numher, sorne engineers impose a rigid displacement criteria - for
example, if the displacement at the hanger location is less than sorne value (such as 0.1
inches), they will select a rigid rod rather than a spring. (Note that this procedure is not fool-
proof, since using rigid rods at locations such as the tops of risers or near equipment nozzles
may cause lock-up or lift-off despite having "free-thermal" displacements ofless than 0.1
inches; therefore application of a procedure such as this must he reviewed carefully.) The
reader can confirm that re-running this problem with a rigid displacement criteria of 0.1
inches actually leads to a reduction in springs used, with only five selected.
The engineer can do better than that by pre-selecting potential hanger candidates through
the use of the distance-to-first-rigid criteria. AlI of the vertical thermal growth in this
problem is generated by the riser between node points 40 and 50; we can calculate that
growth as:
il = 50 x 12 x 1.88E-3 = 1.13 in
The engineer can direct part of this growth upward, to be absorbed by the horizontal portion
between node points 10 and 40, and the rest ofit downward to be absorbed by the horizontal
portion between node points 50 and 90, by requiring a rigid restraint at one ofthe hanger
locations on the riser. Which ofthese two hangers is a better candidate for a rigid support?
Since the expansion stress is inversely proportion al to the square of the lengths of the
resisting legs, it is logical to direct the greater part of the thermal growth upward, since a
quick check reveals that the spans from node point lOto 40 are longer than the spans between
node points 50 and 90. Therefore, the hanger at node point 46 should be selected as the rigid
support, and the other one (at node point 44) must be a spring. This will force a thermal
displacement of(35 /50) x 1.13 = 0.79 inches upward, and a displacement of(15 / 50) x 1.13
= 0.34 inches downward.
Looking at the portion of the system from node point 10 to 40, one first considers the hanger
located at node point 36. A rigid support may be placed here if the span from node point 36
to 40 is long enough to absorb the displacement of 0.79 inches, or, if the distance from node
point 36 to 40 is greater than the calculated distance to the first rigid, which is (using SalI
= 10,000 psi):
lmin = (6ER il / SaIl )1/2= (6 x 29E6 x 6.375 x 0.79 / 10,000)1/2
= 296 in = 24'-8
2-41
The distance between node points 36 and 40 is only 13 feet, which exceeds the calculated
distance to the first rigid, so the support at node point 36 must he a spring. Looking at the
next support point, at node point 34, the distance from the riser is 36 feet, exceeding the
allowable distance to the first rigid. This indicates that a rigid support may be placed at node
point 34 without causing undue expansion problems. Next, since the pipe is being restrained
vertically at node point 34, there are no imposed displacements at the nozzle at node point
10, and there are no risers hetween node points 10 and 34, alilocations between the nozzle
and the restraint will also have no vertical thermal growth. This me ans that a rigid support,
rather than a spring, may be used at node point 22 as weIl.
The lower part ofthe piping system must absorb only 0.34 inches. The minimum distance
to the first rigid required to absorb this dis placement is:
lmin = 6ER il / Sall)1/2 = (6 x 29E6 x 6.375 x 0.34/10,000)1/2
= 194 in = 16'-2
The distance between the riser and the hanger location at node point 55 is 11'-4, which is
wi thin the minimum distance to the first rigid. Therefore, the support at this location should
he a spring. The distance from the riser to the support at node point 72 is 25 feet, which
exceeds the minimum distance criteria, and may therefore he a rigid support. This rigid
support holds the pipe to a zero vertical displacement, which when considered with the
anchor at node point 90, and the lack ofrisers in-hetween, means that the hanger at node
point 85 may also be a rigid support.
By pre-declaring these supports to he rigid supports, the engineer limits the number of
possible spring hanger candidates in this case to a maximum ofthree, a savings on hardware
heyond that achieved though use of the rigid rod displacement criteria method. It should be
noted that declaring that a support to he a rigid support does not mean that it must be
constructed as a two-way restraint; ifthere is no net uplift force, it may be built as a simple
rodhanger.
2-42
DISTANCE TO
20'-0
RIGID----r~
\.\~l>. >-
\.\~Cl
16'-2~
DISTANCE TO FIRST RIGID
Figure 2-33
2.4.6 Notes on Hanger Design
1 - In the event that a system which carries a fluid with a specific gravity less than
1.0 is to be hydro tested, the springs will generally have to remain pinned during
the hydro test. The hanger hardware (clamps, rods, etc.) and supporting
structure will have to he selected and/or designed to withstand the hydro test
loads, which will normally he the controlling design loads for these supports.
2 - When specifying the spring hanger's Hot and Cold Loads, the anticipated weight
of additional hardware should be added to the loads calculated by CAESAR II,
especially if it is expected to he significant (such as in the case of large stock
clamps or a trapeze assembly made of structural steel). The spring must also
support the hardware, and if this is not considered when specifying the spring
parameters, the piping weight loading will he unbalanced by the weight of the
hardware.
3 - Horizontal movement at hanger locations must he considered when designing a

support in order to assure that the pipe does not move 80 far that i t falls off of the
support. Additionally, support manufacturers typically limit the range of a
hanger rod's arc in to values such as 60, where the arc can be calculated as:
Arc = Tan-! (horizontal movement / rod length)
2-43
In cases where the horizontal movement is especially large, it may be advisable

to install the support in an offset position to minimize the deviation of the line
of support action from vertical in both the cold and hot positions.
4 - In systems where installation is difficult due to flange fit-up problems caused by

unbalanced cold loads, it may be preferable to adjust the springs in the field to
carry the hot load once the system has been started up. In cases where nozzle
operating loads are not critical, and fit-up problems are more of a concem,
CAESAR II can provide Cold Load Design, where the weight loads are balanced
in the cold, rather than the hot, condition.
5 CAESAR II provides the option of calculating both the "theoretical" and the
"actual" cold loads for springs. The theoretical cold load is the load to which the
spring should be preset prior to installation (usually this is done at the factory,
and the springis pinned tokeepitat this value). This is the load which the spring
will exert on the piping system in the cold condition, as long as there is no vertical
displacement ofthe system at this location. Since the cold load is almost always
unbalanced vs. the piping weight load, there will be a net load on the system at
this location in the cold condition. Ifthis net load is large, or the piping system
is very flexible, the system may displace under the load, leading to extension or
compression ofthe spring, and a corresponding change in the load plate reading.
The new readingofthe spring load is what CAESAR II calculates as the "actual"
cold load. Or more simply, the "theoretical" cold load is the cold load to be specified
in the factory order of the spring, while the "actual" cold load is an approximation
ofthe reading ofthe spring load after pulling the pins upon initial installation.
The actual installed load case is important if the springs are to be adjusted or
checked in the cold condition, or if the spring's cold load is being set in position,
rather than at the factory.
6 - Excessive use of spring hangers may create a dynamically unstable (low natural
frequency) system due to lack of restraint stiffness. These systems have
essentially no horizontal support, and typically small vertical stiffnesses resist-
ing movement in the Y direction. Note that constant effort spring supports have
no dynamic effect on a piping system.
7 - Selected hanger locations may actually hold the pipe down during the restrained
weight case due to unbalanced parts ofthe system pivoting about other supports.
CAESAR II flags these with a warning during the analysis and reports them as
zero load constant effort supports in the hanger table during output. When this
occurs, the offending supports should be removed, or the support locations in the
vicinity should be reconsidered.
8 - There are special provisions to consider when cold spring and hanger design exist
in the same job. Cold spring should be omitted from the restrained weight case,
and included in the operating load case for hanger travel. The actual installed
load case should be run with the cold spring in order to determine the installed
hanger settings in the presence of cold spring. It is the user's responsibility to
verify that the displacements during the actual installed case are still within the
manufacturer's recommended load range. Problems usually only arise when
2-44
there is significant cold spring in a vertical run of pipe in the vicinity of one or
more spring hangers.
9 - In a liquid filled line, the springs may he installed when the system is empty. In
this case it is necessary to ignore the "actual" cold load, and in some cases it may
be preferable to adjust the springs in the field to carry the cold load once the
system has been filled.
2.4.7 CAESAR Il Hanger Design Control and Options
CAESAR II provides a number ofuser specified options for controlling its automatic hanger
design. The control options may, for the most part, be applied to the system globally, or at
specific locations. These options are fully descrihed in the CAESAR II U ser's Manual, but
are discussed to some extent here:
Actual cold load calculation - This is described in more detail above. The user should
specify Yes, if:
1 - The spring installation load is to he adjusted with the pipe resting on the spring
and free to move vertically otherwise (i.e. there isn't a steel strap around the
spring base and the load flange, preventing movement of the load flange when
the spring is adjusted in the cold position).
2 - The piping adjacent to the spring is very flexible and/or the stiffness ofthe spring
is very high.
3 - Fluid fùled systems are installed and set empty, and the user wishes to know the
empty installation load.
Use short range springs - CAESAR II's hanger design algorithm first tries to select for
an application a short range spring, followed by a mid-range, and then a long range, spring.
On some construction sites short range springs are considered specialty items, and are only
used where available spring installation clearance is small and where travel from cold to hot
is small. In these cases, the user may instruct the design algorithm to bypass consideration
of short range springs (and start with mid-range springs frrst) unless space limitations
require it.
Allowable Load Variation - As noted above, this is computed as:
Var = 1 CL - HL 1 / HL = 1 k A th 1 / HL
The maximum possible load variation inherent in recommended ranges of the spring tables
approaches 100% when the Hot Load is less than the Cold Load, and is approximately 50%
when the Hot Load is greater than the Cold Load. Typical values for the permissible load
variation range from 10% to 25%. A constant support may he forced at a location by
specifying a minuscule load variation requirement at that location.
Rigid Support Displacement Criteria - Where feasible, rigid supports are considered
preferable to springs supports, for reasons of economy (purchase, installation, and mainte-
2-45
nance) and vibration prevention. Therefore, if a rigid support can be chosen instead of a
spring at a location, the engineer will usually want this to occur.
One definition of a spring support is: "a restraint that supports a given load through some
thermal travel". If the thermal travel is zero, or very small, then it is hypothesized that a
rigid support can he used in place of the spring. This is indeed true providing that the
surrounding pipe is relatively flexible as compared to the rigid rod.
The extent to which rigid supports are chosen can be controlled by this criteria. At any
support location where the vertical displacement calculated during the operating load case
for hanger travel is less than the specified Rigid Support Displacement Criteria, a rigid rod
will be selected and used in subsequent load cases.
Note that this may not be desired at spring locations in the vicinity ofpumps or other rotating
equipment or on risers, since this may result in high nozzle loads or thermallockup/liftoff
of the support. It is best ifthis criteria is used in conjunction with some pre-design of support
locations, such as that discussed in Section 2.4.5 of these seminar notes.
Free AnchorslRestraints - Often a major objective ofhanger design is the minimization

of equipment nozzle loads due to weight. This is done by forcing an unbalanced hot load
(usually an overload) at the hanger location nearest to the equipment nozzle. This
unbalanced force pulls on the nozzle, thus relieving it of some of the weight that would
normally fall on it under a natural distribution - ideally, the hanger would be sufficiently
unbalanced to make the load on the equipment nozzle as close to zero as possible. In an
attempt to force this unbalance, anchors at equipment nozzles are often ''freed" during the
restrained weight case, forcing all of its weight to the hot load of the nearest support.
This technique should be used sparingly in those configurations where no hangers are
located within three pipe diameters or so in a horizontal direction from the nozzle being
released. It is also recommended that care be taken when releasing more than just the Y-
direction force at a anchor/restraint, as release of additional degrees-of-freedom may cause
gross angular and vertical displacements, resulting in unrealistic hanger design loads.
Manufacturer's Tables - This entry is used to designate the manufacturer of the springs
(and thus the hanger table) to he used, as weIl as certain design criteria relating to selection
of the hangers within this table. The selection criteria include:
1 - use of maximum (vs. recommended) load range,
2 - centering of the spring in the table, and
3 - cold load (vs. hot load) design.
Most hanger vendors provide hanger tables with two ranges defined: 1) a restricted, or
recommended load range, and 2) a maximum allowed load range. In order to provide margin
against analytical uncertainties, it is best to use the recommended range. The maximum
allowed load range may be used in certain situations, such as to permit the use of variable
support hangers instead of the more expensive constant effort support, or when an already-
owned spring is to be used over a new one.
2-46
In cases where the expected analytical uncertaintyis especially high, maximum margin may
he provided by selecting the spring which most closely centers the loads in the hanger table.
Cold load design balances the weight loads in the cold, rather than the hot, condition. This
may he desired in those systems where installation is difficult due to flange fit-up problems
caused by unbalanced cold loads, and where nozzle operating loads are not critical.
Available Space - In certain cases, the distance between the top ofthe pipe and the steel
overhead; or between the bottom of the pipe and the foundation or platform below, govern
the type (and number) of springs which may he used at a specific location. This value may
be specified at individual hanger locations for use in spring selection. Figure 2-34 defines
the available space as used in the CAESAR II spring design.
Available clearance
for hanger. (Input
positive number
for hanger available
space.)
Available clearance
for cano (Input
negative number for
Cab available space.)
--1;.- j
Figure 2-34
The available space option together with the "number of springs allowed" option lets the user
design multiple spring support systems.
2-47
Number of Allowed Springs - Ifthere is physicaUy more than one spring can at a given
hanger location, that numher may be specified here. Likewise, the maximum number of
springs that the user will permit may be specified (in the event that CAESAR II has to split
the load in order to meet space criteria). In the case of multiple springs, CAESAR II will
split the load evenly among aU springs.
User Defined Operating Load - In some piping configurations the program selected
operating (or hot) load on the spring doesn't unload the equipment nozzle sufficiently to
satisfy manufacturers aUowables. In these situations the user can force a hot load (higher
or lower), overriding the program calculated value in an attempt to tune weight distribution
and bring the equipment loads within the allowables. The user's entry in this case should
normaUy be a variation of the value initially proposed by the program spring selection
algorithm. Before adjusting the operating load the user should determine if a preferable
course of action is freeing the problem nozzle during the restrained weight case (as discussed
above).
Old Hanger Redesign - In cases where part of a piping system is redesigned, it is

preferable that the hanger design algorithm re-select the existing springs in the system
wherever possible. Where they can be re-used, new load ranges may he identified for them,
and only a readjustment ofthe load flange in the field may be required. Where the existing
springs can't be used, new ones will be recommended. The Old Ranger Redesign capability
allows the user to do this.
Multiple Load Case Spring Hanger Design - This option is useful whenever the piping
system has multiple thermal states that are sufficiently different such that the results from
each thermal state should he considered when doing the spring hanger design. Figure 2-35
illustrates this idea:
Figure 2-35
2-48
The hanger at "A" should he designed with the main pump running, and the hanger at "B"
should be designed with the backup pump running. Once the springs are designed for their
respective thermal cases they are inserted into the piping system and the various operating
conditions run to check for stress or equipment overloads.
The options available in CAESAR II for combining data from the various design load cases
are shown below:
1 Design per thermalload case 1
2 - Design per thermalload case 2
3 - Design per thermalload case 3
4 - Design for maximum operating load
5 Design for maximum travel
6 - Design for average load and average travel
7 - Design for maximum load and maximum travel
2-49
2.5 Designing For Occasional Loads (Static Equivalent of Dynamic

Loads)
As noted earlier, piping systems must he designed to withstand primary and secondary
loadings. Sustained loads were discussed as beingthe most common types ofprimary loads.
There are additional requirements for the evaluation of occasionalloads, or primary loads
which are present for short time durations, typically 1% to 10% of the total operating time.
Failure criteria are typically the same for occasionalloads as for sustained loads, except that
creep failure is not a concern for occasionalloads. Because of this, the allowable levels for
the absolute sum of sustained and occasional stresses are the same as those for sustained
loads, but increased by a factor (typically 15% to 33%). For example, looking at the B31.1
equation for occasional stresses:
Slp + 0.75 i Ma/Z + 0.75 i MlIZ < k Sh
Where:
Slp = longitudinal pressure stress, psi
l = stress intensification factor
Ma = resultant moment on cross-section due to sustained loads, in-lb
Z = section modulus of pipe cross-section, in3
Mb = resultant moment on cross-section due to occasionalloads, in-lb
k = occasional stress factor
= 1.2 for loads present less than 1% of time
= 1.15 for loads present less than 10% oftime
Sh = Basic allowable stress in hot condition
Typical of these types ofloads are wind loads, earthquake loads, and quickly applied loads
(reliefvalve, fluidhammer, etc.). These are dynamic (meaningthat they change as afunction
of time) loads, and are therefore discussed in greater detail in Sections 4 and 5 of these
seminar notes. However, the easiest (but less accurate), and therefore most common means
of analyzing dynamic loads is usually to model them as static (meaning that they are
constant throughout time) loads, with the magnitude increased to reflect the dynamic load
amplification.
2.5.1 Wind Loading
Wind loading is caused by the loss ofmomentum of the wind striking the projected area of
the pi ping system. The static linear force per foot generated by a steady-state, constant speed
wind load can be calculated as:
f = P eq * S * D sine
2-50
Where:
f = "pseudo static" wind force per length of pipe, lb/ft
P eq = equivalent wind pressure, psi
= V2 /2g
= densi ty of air, Ibm/ft3
= 0.0748Ibm/ft3 at 29.92 in Hg and 700 F
v = design velocity ofwind (usually the 100-year maximum wind speed), ft/sec
g = gravitational constant, 32.2 ft/sec 2
S = shape factor (or drag coefficient), based upon Reynolds number ofwind and
shape of structure; this typically varies between 0.5 and 0.7, with a value of
0.65 characteristic ofpiping elements, dimensionless
D = pipe diameter (including insulation), ft
e = angle oforientation between pipe and wind, where 0 0 represents the pipe axis
parallel to the wind direction
Since this represents the force associated with a steady-state flow of air, the calculated value
is often increased by a gusting factor in the range of 1.0 to 1.3 to account for dynamic effects.
The linear force per foot, f, is calculated for each end of the element and the average taken.
The average is assumed to apply as a uniform staticload over the entire length ofthe element.
ASCE #7 (formerly ANSI A58.1) modifies this concept slightly to consider facility impor-
tance, proximity of hurricanes, etc. Its formula for wind load is:
f = 0.00256 Kz (1 V)2 Gt Cd D sin

Where:
Kz = Exposure coefficient, based upon height above ground level and congestion
oflocal terrain (varies from 0.12 for 0-15 feet height in city environment to
2.41 for 500 feet height in wide open terrain), dimensionless
I = importance factor, based upon importance of structure and proximity to

hurricane coast (varies from 0.95 for non-essential facility over 100 miles
from a hurricane to 1.11 for essential facility on the hurricane coast),
dimensionless
v = basicwindspeedCexcludingfrom theaverageabnormallyhigh windloading

events such as hurricanes or tornadoes), from ANSI A58.1 map (rangingfrom
70 to 110), milhr
2-51
~ = gusting factor, based upon height above ground level and congestion oflocal
terrain (varies from 1.0 for 500 feet height in wide open terrain to 2.36 for 0-
15 feet height in city environment), dimensionless
CAESAR II's ASCE #7 wind input screen requests a number ofparameters, from which the
coefficients of the equation above are determined.
ASCE #7 provides a map of basic wind speeds in the Continental United States. The
following is a crude summary of the map:
Region Basic Wind Speed

California 70 mph
Other West Coast Areas 80 mph
Rocky Mountains 70 mph
Great Plains 80 mph
Non-Coastal Eastern U. S. 70 mph
Gulf Coast 100 mph
Florida - Carolinas 100 mph
Mi ami 110 mph
New England Coastal Areas 90 mph
ASCE #7 adjusts the importance factor according to the site's Distance from Hurricane
Ocean line. This typically translates into the distance from the east coast or the Gulf of
Mexico in the Continental U .S. Ifthe plant site is greater than 100 miles from either the east
or the gulfcoasts, then a value of 100 miles should be used (no credit may he taken for any
plant site greater than 100 miles from any ofthese hurricane prone areas).
The importance factor is further influenced by the Structural Classification, where the
options are:
CateQor.v Description
1 Everything except the options below

II Primary occupancy (greater than 100 people>
III Essential facilities. i.e. hospitals
IV Failure represents low hazard
The exposure coefficient and gusting factor are influenced by the terrain's Wind Exposure
type, where the options are:
1 - Large city center

2 - Urban and suburban
3 - Open Terrain
4 - Flat coastal areas
2-52
Wind is a static, horizontal uniform load. Itmay act in any direction, and as such the engineer
has several items to consider:
1 How many directions should be analyzed for sensitivity to wind?
2 - Should both positive and negative directions be evaluated?
3 - Should sorne skewed direction be evaluated?
4 - Do nonlinear supports (i.e. horizontal guides with gaps) and/or friction affect the
wind load?
5 - Should the wind act on the piping system in the cold or hot condition?
The logic diagram shown in Figure 2-36 should serve as a guideline when setting up and
analyzing wind load cases to satisfy piping code requirements. (Note: The load cases shown
here only contain the basic analysis components. Other items such as imposed displace-
ments, concentrated loads, etc. may need to he added to the load cases shown above for the
user's particular job.)
DOES THE PIPING SYSTEM
l
CONTAIN FRICTION, YES
1-D RESTRAINTS, AND/OR
GUIDES WITH GAPS?
NO~
IS THE MOST SENSITIVE RUN: JOB1
WIND DIRECTION 1 (OPE) T+P+W
OBVIOUS?
YES~
RUN: JOB1
l
RUN: JOB1
NO
2
3
4
(SUS) P+W
(OPE) T + P + W + WIND1
(OCC) D3 - Di
5 (EXP) Di - D2
6 (OCC) S4+S2
1 (OPE) T+P+W 1 (OPE) T+P+W
2 (SUS) P+W 2 (SUS) P+W
3 (OCC) WIND 3 (OCC) WINDX JOB2 *
4 (EXP) Di - D2 4 (EXP) Di - D2 1 (OPE) T+P+W
5 (OCC) S2+S3 5 (OCC) S2+S3 2 (SUS) P+W
3 (OPE) T + P + W + WIND 2
4 (EXP) D3 - Di
JOB2 5 (OCC) S4+S2
(SUS) P+W
2 (OCC) WINDZ
3 (OCC) Si +S2
*REPEAT THIS LOAD SET FOR ALL OTHER WIND DIRECTIONS (BOTH + AND -) OF CONCERN
Figure 2-36
For nonlinear systems an additional algebraic case may be required to extract the occasional
bending moments from the operating hending moments. In perfectly linear systems an
occasionalload case can he run alone, with this used for the stress component due to the
2-53
occasionalload. With nonlinear systems, the effect the occasionalload has on the system is
linked to the effect of the operating loads on the system. The algebraic load cases shown in
Figure 2-36 permits these two effects to be separated.
2.5.2 Earthquake Loading
Earthquakes may be analyzed using either dynamic or static methods. Dynamicearthquake

analyses, which will be covered in depth later, are not discussed here.
Static earthquake loads are determined and applied in a manner very similar to static wind
loads. The static loading magnitude is considered to be in direct proportion to the element's
weight. Earthquake load magnitudes are given in terms of the gravitational acceleration
constant, i.e. g's. If an earthquake is modeled as having a 0.5g load in the X direction, then
a force equal to one-half of the system's weight is applied to the pipe uniformly in the X
direction.
Earthquake static load cases are set up and determined exactly as they are for wind
occasional loads, i.e. by considering the same load case, non linearity, and directional
sensitivity logic. In some cases the client specifies the magnitude of the earthquake loading
in g's and the direction(s). In others, the analysis is left to the sole discretion of the engineer.
It is not unusual to see only X or X-y components ofan earthquake. It is not uncommon to
see Y only components, or X, Y and Z simultaneous components.
When not provided by the client, there are a number of sources for obtaining the seismic g-
factors:
Response spectrum: If seismic response spectra are available for the piping system, then,
given the natural frequency of the lowest mode of vibration of a piping system, the analyst
can find a corresponding acceleration from one of the curves. Ifthis acceleration lies on the
right side of the peak, this acceleration may be conservatively used an overall g-factor. For
more information on seismic response spectra, refer to Sections 4 and 5 of these seminar
notes.
Building code: Building codes provide ways to calculate seismic g-factors, based upon
earthquake potential, structure type, and structure fundamental frequency. For example,
the Uniform Building Code and the BOCA Basic/National Building Code calculates:
g = ZKCT
Where:
g = static equivalent g-factor to use for seismic design, multiples of gravity
Z = seismic coefficient based on earthquake zone, equal to 0.0 for Zone 0, 0.25 or
Zone 1, 0.5 for Zone 2, and 1.0 for Zone 3
K = structure type constant, ranging from 0.67 to 3.0, dimensionless
C = 0.051T 1/3 , but not greater than 0.1
T = fundamental period (inverse of frequency) of structure, sec
2-54
ASCE #7: This standard calculates seismic g-factors in a manner similar to those of the
building codes, based upon earthquake potential, structure importance, structure type,
structure fundamental frequency, and soil parameters. The requirement is:
v = ZIKCSW
Where:
v = totallateral force or shear at the base, lb
Z = seismic zone coefficient:
Seismic Zone Coefficient, Z

4 1
3 3/4
2 3/8
1 3/16
0 1/8
I = occupancy importance factor:
Category Description 1
1 Everything except the options below 1.0

II Primary occupancy - > 100 people 1. 25
III Essential facilities, i . e. hospitals 1.5
IV Failure represents low hazard NIA
K = structure type constant from Table 24 of ANSI A58.1, ranging from 0.67 to
2.5 (use K=2.0 for structures other than buildings)
C = 1/(15 Tl/2), not greater than 0.12

T = fundamental period (inverse of frequency) of structure, sec
S = soil type coefficient from Table 25 ofANSI A58.1, ranging from 1. 0 to 1.5 (note
that the product ofC and S neednot exceed the value 0.14, so this value should
he used as a conservative maximum).
W = total dead load

The "g'" factor can be found be dividing both sides ofthis equation by W, so:
g = V/W=ZIKCS
2-55
For piping, the generic equation for the maximum g-factor is:
g = Z (1.0) (2.0) (0.14)
and, for the various values of Z:
Seismic Zone Product g-load

4 (1)(1)(2)(0.14) 0.28
3 (3/4)(1)(2)(0.14) 0.21
2 (3/8)(1)(2)(0.14) 0.105
1 (3/16)(1)(2)(0.14) 0.0525
o (1/8)(1)(2)(0.14) 0.035
2.5.3 Quickly Applied Loads
Loads that are applied near-instantaneously, and then remain constant for a reasonable
duration oftime, such as fluid hammer and relief valve loads, effectively are applied with a
DynamicLoadFactor(dynamicmultiplier)betweenO.Oand2.0. Thisisevidentbyassuming
the worst case - no damping and instantaneous application of a constant force - and
performing a time history analysis of the dynamic equation:
M x(t) + K x(t) = F(t)

Equating energies (where the kinetic energy added to the mass is Fx( t), while the crumpling
energy of the spring is Kx(t)2/2):
Fx(t) = Kx(t)2/2, or Kx(t) = 2 F(t)
The term Kx(t) represents internally induced forces/moments within the system. The DLF
is the ratio of the induced forces to the applied forces, or K x( t)max / F( t), which in this case
has its maximum value of2.0. It is often highly conservative to apply twice the calculated
force as a static load, but this is still often done. As the load ram p-u p time (such as the opening
time of a relief valve) increases, or the load duration decreases (such as fluid hammer in a
short piping leg), the DLF will decrease as well. In order to take advantage of the "true"
(reduced) DLF, it is necessary to perform a dynamic analysis, such as a time history analysis
or a response spectrum analysis. In lieu of a dynamic analysis, the user can only estimate
a DLF, estimate the applied load, and apply a concentrated static force equal to the DLF
times the applied load to the piping system.
Fluid Hammer: It is not always so easy to calculate the applied loads. One method of
estimating fluid hammer loads is described in Crocker & King's Piping Handbook as:
F = P c dv A /144g
2-56
Where:
F = fluid hammer force (exclusive ofDLF), lb
p = density offluid, Ibm/ft3
= 62.4 for water
= 0.0003 for saturated steam at atmospheric pressure
= 1.85 for superheated steam at 10000 F and 1500 psig
c = speed of sound in a fluid, ft/sec
= for liquid: 12 [g Ef / (1 + D Ef / tEp)]
= approximately 3000-4000 ft/sec for water in typical pipe sizes
= for gas: (kgRT) 1/2
= approximately 2000-2500 ft/sec for steam in typical pipe sizes
g = acceleration gravity, ft/sec 2
Ef = bulk modulus of fluid, psi
= approximately 300,000 psi for water and other fluids
D = inside diameter of pipe, in
t = wall thickness ofpipe, in
Ep = modulus of elasticity of pipe material, psi
k = ratio of specifie heats for gas, dimensionless
= 1.3 for steam, 1.24 for ethylene, 1.27 for natural gas
R = gas constant, ft-Ib/lbm-oR
= 85 for steam, 55.1 for ethylene, 79.1 for natural gas
T = temperature of gas, oR
dv = change in fluid velocity causing fluid hammer, ft/sec
A = internaI area of pipe, in2
Relief valves: Relief valves are used in piping to provide an outlet on those occasions when
pressure builds up beyond that desired for safe operation. When the pressure setting is
2-57
reached, the valve opens, allowing sufficient fluid to escape from the piping system to lower
the pressure. This discharge initiates ajetforce, which must be resisted by the piping system.
Valve opening time and duration of the jet load affect the dynamic response of the system,
thus affecting the developed loads.
Reliefvalve jet loads are normally provided by the valve manufacturer. Ifthis is not the case,
the loads can he estimated by a thorough thermodynamic analysis. This methodis discussed
in detail in Section 5 of these course notes.
In lieu of thermodynamic and dynamic analyses, the B31.1 code provides a means of
estimating the discharge force (as an equivalent static force) of a relief valve venting steam
to atmosphere. The force is estimated as such:
F = DLF (M V 1 g + P A)
Where:
F = static equivalent discharge force, lb
DLF = dynamic load factor (as calculated helow), dimensionless
M = mass flow rate from valve x 1.11 (factor of safety), Ibm/sec
V = fluid exit velocity, ft/sec
= [(2gJ)(ho - a) 1 (2b - 1)]1/2
J = conversion constant, 778.16 ft-Ib/Btu
ho = stagnation enthalpy ofsteam, Btu/lbm
a,b =. steam constants as per following table:
Steam conditi on a (Btu/lbm) b (dimensionless)

Wet, <90% quality 291 11
Saturated, >90% quality 823 4.33

Superheated 831 4.33
g = gravitational constant = 32.2 ft/sec 2
P = static pressure at discharge, psig
= [M (b - 1) 1 A b ][ 2J (ho - a)/g(2b - 1) ]1/2 - Pa
2-58
A = internaI area of dis charge pipe, in2
Pa = atmospheric pressure = 14.7 psi
M, V, P, A
token at this
F location
--
W =Weight of
entire assembly
Figure 2-37
The dynamic load factor (DLF) is used to account for the increased load caused by the sudden
application of the dis charge force. (Note that DLFs are discussed in great detail in Sections
4 and 5 ofthese seminar notes.) For the purposes ofthis estimate, the DLF varies between
1.1 and 2.0, depending upon the rigidity of the valve installation and the opening time ofthe
valve. If the piping system is relatively rigidly restrained, the DLF can he calculated by
fin ding the natural period ofvibration ofthe valve installation, treating it as a single degree-
of-freedom oscillator:
T = 0.1846 [ W H3 / g E 1]112
Where:
T = natural period of vibration, sec
W = weight of relief valve installation, lb
H = distance, run pipe to center of outlet pipe (see Figure 2-36), in
g = gravitational constant = 386.4 in/sec2
1 = moment ofinertia ofinlet pipe, in4
Next, the ratio of the valve opening time, to, to the fundamental period of vibration of the
valve installation, T, should be found. This ratio is then used to determine the DLF from the
chart in Figure 2-37. (Note that in the event that the opening time is not known, a
conservative value of 2.0 for the DLF should be used.)
2-59
2.2
2.0
1.8
\
\
u... ~
c5 1.6
\
1.4
\
1.2
r--- r-
l'- i'-
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10 20
Ratia af volve apening time ta periad af

vibration toiT
Figure 2-38
2-60

Stress Analysis Notes

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

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

Stress Analysis Notes

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ENGINEERING SOFTWARE

PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS

Copyright {c} 1985 - 1998 COADE, Inc.

1.0 Introduction to Pipe Stress Analysis ........................................................................ 1

1.0 Introduction to Pipe Stress Analysis

Why do we Perform Pipe Stress Analysis?

2 - In order to keep nozzle loadings on attached equipment within allowables of

4 - In order to calculate design loads for sizing supports and restraints.

5 In order to determine piping displacements for interference checks.

6 - In order to solve dynamic problems in piping, such as those due to mechanical

7 - In order to help optimize piping design.

Typical Pipe Stress Documentation

1 define geometry (system start, end, direction changes, intersection, etc.)

2 - note changes in operating conditions (system start, isolation or pressure reduc-

3 define element stiffness parameters (changes in pipe cross section or material,

4 - designate boundary conditions (restraints and imposed displacements)

5 specify mass points (for refinement of dynamic model)

6 - note loading conditions (insulation weight, imposed forces, response spectra,

,~~.y.. SUpport ...... rD_

~ A]81 SPl .n csu

... APl5L 5..,

A.71 1571 C6" ..0 65 )5 lU ZU lU zo.o lU lU 17.0 lM 9.D 6.5 '.5 U

ca' I~' zz.o 1···

CAESAR II VERS 3.18 JOBNAME:SSEM1 DEC 10, 1992 3:05 am Page 1

From 105 To 110 DY= 3.000 ft.

From 110 To 115 DX= 12.000 ft.

From 115 To 120 DY= -15.000 ft.

From 125 To 130 DX= 35.000 ft.

From 130 To 135 DX= 35.000 ft.

From 140 To 145 DX= 20.000 ft.

From 145 To 150 DY= -12.000 ft.

CASE 3 (EXP)D3=D1-D2 FILE:SSEI11 DEC 4.1992 12:4?am

CASE 1 (OPEJW+DIS+T1+P1 F1LE:SSEnl DEC 4.1992 12:49am RESET

ItODE= 125 I1AX. DISPS. X

What are these Stresses?

1 Inclusion or exclusion ofpiping loads, based upon convenience of calculation or

3 - Magnification, due to local fitting configuration, which may in reality reflect a

4 - Code committee tradition - every code is a result of a different set of concerns

1.1 Theory and Development of Pipe Stress Requirements

Fax = internaI axial force acting on cross-section, lb

Am = metal cross-sectional area of pipe, in2

dm = mean diameter, = (do + di) / 2

A specifie instance of longitudinal stress is that due to internaI pressure:

Ai = internaI area of pipe, in2

Variation in Bending Stress Thru

Max compressive stress

c = distance ofpoint ofinterest from neutral axis of cross-section, in

Z = section modulus of pipe, in3

Summing aH components oflongitudinal normal stress:

ri = inner radius of pipe, in

ra = outer radius of pipe, in

r = radial position where stress is being considere d, in

Q = shear form factor, dimensionless (1.333 for solid circular section)

Shear stresses may also be caused by torsionalloads:

c = distance of point ofinterest from torsional center (intersection ofneutral axes)

R = torsional resistance of cross-section, in4

Maximum torsional stress occurs where c is maximized - at the outer radius:

di = 6.065 in Axial force (Fax) = 33488 lb

t = 0.280 in Pressure (P) = 600 psi

Z = 8.496 in3 Torsional Moment (MT) = 8495 ft-lb

1.1.2 3-D State of Stress in the Pipe Wall

S2 = (SL + SR) / 2 - [ [(SL - SR) / 2]2 + 't2 ]1/2

'tmax = [(SL - SR)2 + 4 't2 ]1/2

1.1.3 Failure Theories