20 16

The Alternate Sustained Case in CAESAR II

Richard Ay, P.E. - ICAS
Introduction
This is a NONLINEAR Restraint Issue

• If a piping system’s support configuration does not change when loads

are applied, there is no change in load distribution and no model
adjustments are required

• This issue directly applies only to B31.3…

…but the method described here is “more rigorous” and may be

applied to other piping codes
CAESAR II Philosophy Prior to CAESAR II 2016

• Sustained stress evaluation is based on the “installed” position

– A typical example would use a load case of W+P1
– The assumption is that any redistribution of these loads causing any
disengagement of that support are a part of the expansion stress range
– If liftoff causes yield, the pipe will return to the support
– Some opinions say this is OK for small liftoff but may not be safe (or reliable)
for larger liftoff
• Where the allowable displacement stress range is based on the
longitudinal stress due to sustained loads (eqn. (1b)), CAESAR II always
uses the largest SL if more than one sustained load case is specified
(e.g., W+P1, W+P2, WNC).
– This is conservative
– By default, the program uses the smallest Sh as the SL evaluation.
CAESAR II Philosophy Prior to CAESAR II 2016

• The allowable expansion stress range is based on the change in

strain between any operating state and the installed state.
– For example: Given W, T1, P1
• L1: W+T1+P1 (OPE)
• L2: W+P1 (SUS)
• L3: L1-L2 (EXP)
– This is a literal interpretation of B31.3 para. 319.2.3(b) 1

• This range calculation works for linear and nonlinear systems

– L3: T1 (EXP) would be appropriate only for linear systems
• The CAESAR II approach clearly segregates force-based loads (L2
above) and strain-based loads (L3 above)
A Changing Piping Code

• B31.3 evaluation is (slowly) moving from a slide rule approach to an

analytical (read: computer) approach
– From graphs and tables to equations
– Referencing nonlinear conditions in piping systems
• Paragraph 319.2.3 1
– While “lift off” is specifically mentioned, there are other boundary conditions that can
change state
– Any change in boundary conditions can lead to changes in sustained load distribution
• Appendix S – Piping System Stress Analysis Examples 2
– Paragraph S302 Example 2: Anticipated Sustained Conditions Considering Pipe Lift-off
• B31.3 – 2012 Appendix P – Alternative Rules for Evaluating Stress Range 3
– Removed in the 2014 Edition …
– … in exchange for a change to paragraph 302.3.5(d)
Shorthand Terms Used Here

• Load case and stress categories:

– OPE: operating
– SUS: sustained
– EXP: expansion
– OCC: occasional
• Equations / parameters
– (1b): the “liberal allowable stress range” found in B31.3 302.3.5(d) 4
– SL: Stress due to sustained loads – maximum from all support configurations
• New CAESAR II load cases:
– Alt-SUS: alternate sustained stress
– Alt-OCC: alternate occasional stress
B31.3 – 2014 paragraph 302.3.5
B31.3-2014 Paragraph 302.3.5(d)

• What does it say? 4

– SL used in (1b) can come from any expected support configuration

– The maximum stress due to sustained loads from every support configuration
sets the SL in (1b)
– This approach is conservative
– …but the source of SL in (1b) can vary from one node to the next
• What it fails to say:
– Supports – using CAESAR II terms, most people think of +Y (e.g., Appendix S)
– But all nonlinear conditions may affect the sustained load distribution
• CAESAR II always uses the largest SL in (1b); the Alt-SUS cases just
provide more SL’s from which to choose
A Few Examples – B31.3 Appendix S Example 2

Not used for

By duplicating the layout this exercise
(+1000), the sustained
stresses with and without
the +Y can be available in
the same analysis
B31.3 Appendix S Example 2 – (1b) Hand Calculation

5 X

SA drops by 22% at the

upper elbow!
 B31.3 Appendix S Example 2 – Alt-SUS

Use the support

configuration
from Load Case 1
for a sustained
The largest SL will be stress calculation
used in setting the
allowable expansion
stress range
B31.3 Appendix S Example 2 – Alt-SUS

6 X

(1a):
SA=f(1.25Sc+0.25Sh)

(1b):
SA=f[1.25(Sc+Sh)-SL]
1.25*Sc+0.25*Sh=
(1.25)137.892+(0.25)127.178=204.160
A More Complex Example

• This model is more involved. There

are three branches running to
pumps, but two of the branches are
hot and one is cold. The spared
branch can vary.
• Each branch includes a +Y (resting
support) as well as a horizontal (X)
guide with a gap on the vertical leg
of the branch.
Manifold with Spared Pump

• In this system, two of the pumps are

on and one of the pumps is off.
• When a branch leg is hot, the pipe
lifts off of the +Y, and closes the X
gap.
• When a branch leg is cold, the pipe
sits on the +Y, and does not close
the X gap.
Manifold with Spared Pump

• There are 4 operating cases:

1. Operating case with all legs hot (for
spring hanger design)
2. Pump A leg & Pump B leg hot; Pump
C leg cold
3. Pump A leg & Pump C leg hot;
Pump B leg cold
4. Pump B leg & Pump C leg hot; Pump
A leg cold
• Cases 2 through 4 represent real
conditions (states) of the piping
system. Each of these conditions
will have a corresponding sustained
stress distribution
Manifold with Spared Pump

• Operating Case 2, A & B hot; C cold:

– Legs to pumps A & B
• The +Y’s at nodes 95 and 1095 lift off
• The X gaps at nodes 105 and 1105 close
– Leg to pump C
• The pipe sits on the +Y at node 2095
• The X gap at node 2105 does not close
Manifold with Spared Pump

• Operating Case 3, A & C hot; B cold:

– Legs to pumps A & C
• The +Y’s at nodes 95 and 2095 lift off
• The X gaps at nodes 105 and 2105 close.
– Leg to pump B
• The pipe sits on the +Y at node 1095.
• The X gap at node 1105 does not close.
Manifold with Spared Pump

• Operating Case 4, B & C hot; A cold:

– Legs to pumps B & C
• The +Y’s at nodes 1095 and 2095 lift off
• The X gaps at nodes 1105 and 2105 close
– Leg to pump A
• The pipe sits on the +Y at node 95
• The X gap at node 105 does not close.
Manifold with Spared Pump

• If considering all support conditions, then separate sustained analyses

should be evaluated using the respective (operating) support
configuration
• For this simple system, these sustained states can be addressed
manually, by copying the model (3 times) and setting the restraint
states manually
• This is effectively a manual linearization of the system, for each state,
achieved by modifying the model input
• The system as a whole cannot be linearized in this manner, since each
operating condition results in a different set of active boundary
conditions
Linearized Model for Pump C Off

• For the case where Pump C is off, copy

the model and manually modify as
follows:
– The +Y’s that lift off at 95 and 1095 are
removed
– Remaining +Y’s become Y’s
– The gaps at 105 and 1105 are set to zero
– The gapped X restraint at 2105 is removed
Linearized Model for Pump B Off

• For the case where Pump B is off, copy

the model and manually modify as
follows:
– The +Y’s that lift off at 95 and 2095 are
removed
– Remaining +Y’s become Y’s
– The gaps at 105 and 2105 are set to zero
– The gapped X restraint at 1105 is removed
Linearized Model for Pump A Off

• For the case where Pump A is off, copy

the model and manually modify as
follows:
– The +Y’s that lift off at 1095 and 2095 are
removed
– Remaining +Y’s become Y’s
– The gaps at 1105 and 2105 are set to zero
– The gapped X restraint at 105 is removed
Linearized Model Summary

• The previous three systems represent specific “linear” states of the

piping system
• For more complex systems (1000+ elements, hundreds of non-linear
boundary conditions, tens of load cases), the final state of the non-
linear boundary conditions cannot be easily managed
• Manual system modification is either impossible or inaccurate
• CAESAR II 2016 automates the evaluation of these multiple sustained
conditions in a new load case denoted as “alternate sustained”
Alt-SUS Implementation in CAESAR II
Nonlinear Boundary Conditions and a Linear Stiffness Matrix

• The program calculates the equilibrium position of every node using a

linear stiffness matrix for each load set (e.g., operating loads).
• Where nonlinear boundary conditions exist, CAESAR II will assume a
linear stiffness. For example, a linear representation of a +Y restraint
can have a rigid Y stiffness in [K] if the pipe wants to move down but
no added Y stiffness in [K] if the pipe wants to move up.
• Iteration between possible linear conditions continues until a linear
stiffness matrix responds properly. This is what we call convergence.
Position of
Load vector, [F]=[K][X] every node
e.g. W+T1+P1 (the solution)

The linear system stiffness

matrix which replicates
nonlinear boundary conditions
What We Do in CAESAR II

• Let [F] represent the operating loads on the system.

• Find a linear [K] which responds properly considering all nonlinear
boundary conditions in [F]=[K][X].
• [X] is the operating position of every node in the piping system.

• Using the same (converged) stiffness matrix [K] representing the

operating support configuration; solve for position using the sustained
loads [F], as in:
Sustained position
Sustained load [F]=[K][X] of every node
vector, e.g. W+P1 (the solution)

Converged (linear) stiffness

matrix based on the operating
boundary conditions
B31.3 Appendix S Example 2

• This reuse of the stiffness matrix is controlled in the Load Case Editor

– L1: [W+T1+P1] = [KL1][XL1]

– L2: [W+P1] = [KL1][XL2]
– L3: [W+T2+P1] = [KL3][XL3]
– L4: [W+P1] = [KL4][XL4]
– L5: [XL5] = [XL1]-[XL3]
The CAESAR II 2016 Load Case Template

• The new Load Case Editor (using the load case template LOAD.TPL)
will recommend an Alt-SUS case after each operating case.
• This Alt-SUS case will reuse the stiffness matrix of the previous load
case.
• The source of the stiffness matrix is stated in the load case definition.
• This may develop several sustained stress (SL) analyses each based on
the related operating support configuration.
• Each of these SL calculations will be compared to basic allowable stress
- Sh. You can associate the proper Sh with each SL calculated.
• CAESAR II uses the maximum calculated SL in the (1b) equation for SA:
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 𝑓𝑓[1.25 𝑆𝑆𝑐𝑐 + 𝑆𝑆ℎ − 𝑆𝑆𝐿𝐿 ]
Referencing the Three Operating Cases in MANIFOLD

– Each of these three

operating cases has a
different set of active
boundary conditions
L5 & L6 L7 & L8 L9 & L10
– Therefore, each of these
three operating cases has
a different converged [K]
– The same set of sustained
loads may yield three sets
of SL.
Friction in the Alt-SUS Approach

• Friction is nonlinear condition that also affects the sustained load

distribution
• The operating state will set the nature of the friction response
– The pipe can “stick” if the sliding load is less than mu*N
– The pipe will “slip” if the sliding load is greater than mu*N
• The test, here, will use two operating states (D1 & D2) to show both
stick and slip
• The Alt-SUS load will be an end force (F1) in both cases
• End forces will then be analyzed again where stick and slip is modeled
directly – one that “sticks” by using a snubber and a second that slips
(by excluding the snubber from the load case)
• The Alt-SUS stresses should be similar to the snubber/no snubber
results
Friction Test - The Model

• D1 & D2 at node 10 will be the two operating cases to develop “stick”

& “slip”
– Both load sets have Y displacement (0.1 in.) to generate the “sliding load” on
the Z restraint at 20
– D1 has large Z displacement (1 in.) to load the Z restraint; mu*N will be
greater than the “sliding load” and pipe will “stick” at 20
– D2 has a small Z displacement (0.01 in.) to load the Z restraint; mu*N will be
less than the “sliding load” and the pipe will “slip” at 20
• A Z restraint at node 20 has friction defined (mu=1.0)
• A Y force at node 30 will load the cantilever for the Alt-SUS comparison
Friction Test – Boundary Conditions & Loads
Friction Test – The Load Cases

• L1: large lateral deflection @ 10 (D1) has friction restrain Y motion at 20

• L2: load @ 30 (F1) should show restrained Y movement at 20
• L3: small lateral deflection @ 10 (D2) is insufficient to prevent slide at 20
• L4: load @ 30 (F1) should show unrestrained Y movement at 20
• L5: Replicate F1 response in L2
using a Y snubber at 20
• L6: Replicate F1 response in L4
by excluding the snubber
Friction Test - Results

• CAESAR II does not publish

structural results for the
Alt-SUS cases – only stresses
are available
• In this simple system only
stress at node will be used
• Note the match between
the load cases:
– L2 & L5: stick
– L4 & L6: slip
Output for Alt-SUS

• Load cases identified as Alt-SUS (or Alt-OCC) use a set of linear

boundary conditions that replicate the nonlinear restraint status of the
previous load case.

Load Load Stress

Comment
Case Components Type
Converges on a linear set of boundary conditions, [K],
L1 W+T1+P1 (OPE) that match the nonlinear support definitions, using
these load components
L2 W+P1 (Alt-SUS) Uses the previous [K] with current load components
L3 W+P1 (SUS) Converges on a linear set of boundary conditions…
…
Output for Alt-SUS

• The purpose of the Alt-SUS case is to collect the most severe SL for the
SA calculation in (1b)
• These “Alt-” stresses (Alt-SUS & Alt-OCC) are produced from a mis-
matched set of system boundary conditions and loads
• So, these “Alt-” stresses calculations do not relate to a valid structural
state
• CAESAR II does not present output for structural response (i.e.,
displacements and loads) for these “Alt-” stress calculations
• CAESAR II will only display output for stresses for the Alt-SUS &
Alt-OCC analyses
How Does Alt-SUS Compare with “Hot Sustained”
What is “Hot Sustained” Stress

• Note: Hot Sustained, Alt-SUS & Alt-OCC are CAESAR II terms. They
are not “Code” terms
• CAESAR II has always evaluated sustained stresses based on
installation condition
• Some systems would fail the sustained stress case using the installed
support configuration but pass if the thermal strain was considered.
– CAESAR II will use the basic allowed stress in the operating condition, this may
be a very low value for the cold state of the piping system
• Load case manipulation can produce estimates of the sustained stress
in the operating position
What is “Hot Sustained” Stress

• (Operating - strain) simulates the sustained stress in the operating

position
– See CAESAR II 2016 User Guide pp. 896-897
– Also, ASME PVP2006-ICPVT11-93100 “Longitudinal Stress Due to Sustained
Loads in a Nonlinear World”, David Diehl, July 2006
• For example, in a nonlinear model with W, T1 & P1
– L1: W+T1+P1 (OPE) : recommended operating case
– L2: W+P1 (SUS) : recommended sustained case
– L3: T1 (EXP) : thermal strain
“Hot Sustained”
– L4: L1-L3 (SUS) : (operating – strain) = sustained
case
– L5: L1-L2 (EXP) : recommended expansion case
• This approach does not handle friction well since the normal load in
the thermal strain case does not include deadweight
Alt-SUS vs. Hot Sustained

• The “Alternate Sustained” methodology inherently considers the

converged state of all non-linear boundary conditions – including
friction
• The “Hot Sustained” methodology applies thermal strain to the model,
without consideration of other operating loads (such as weight)
• The final state of the model boundary conditions could be different
between the two methods – especially if friction is modeled
• For simpler models (such as S302), both methodologies yield the same
results
• However the “Alternate Sustained” method is recommended over the
“Hot Sustained method (since the non-linear state of all boundary
conditions is determined based on actual operating states)
Alt-OCC
Alt-OCC

• Occasional stresses are similar to sustained stresses in that they both

are force-based and they are both evaluated based on yield limits
• Although not referenced in B31.3, calculating occasional stresses
based on the operating support configuration may be useful
• Either Alt-SUS or Alt-OCC may be specified in the load case set to
re-use the previous linear approximation of the nonlinear restraint
response
• That said, applying the “Hot Sustained” approach to collecting
occasional stresses appears to be more correct. The piping code
provides no guidance here
“Hot Sustained” Approach Applied to Occasional Stresses

• Given nonlinear restraints and loads W, T1, P1 & WIN1

– L1: W+T1+P1 (OPE) : operating case
– L2: W+P1 (Alt-SUS) : sustained stresses – in operation
– L3: W+P1 (SUS) : sustained stresses - installed
– L4: W+T1+P1+WIN1 (OPE) : operating state with “positive” wind vector
– L5: W+T1+P1-WIN1 (OPE) : operating state with “negative” wind vector
– L6: L1-L3 (EXP) : expansion stress range
– L7: L4-L1 (OCC) : extract positive wind stress – occasional (+)
– L8: L5-L1 (OCC) : extract negative wind stress – occasional (-)
– L9: L2,L3 (MAX) : find maximum sustained stress (opinion)
– L10: L9+L7 (OCC) : evaluate sustained plus occasional (+) stress
– L11: L9+L8 (OCC) : evaluate sustained plus occasional (-) stress
Using Alt-OCC (Same Conditions)
– L1: W+T1+P1 (OPE)
– L2: W+P1 (Alt-SUS)
– L3: W+P1 (SUS)
– L4: W+T1+P1+WIN1 (OPE)
– L5: W+P1 (Alt-SUS)
– L6: W+T1+P1+WIN1 (OPE)
– L7: WIN1 (Alt-OCC)
– L8: W+T1+P1-WIN1 (OPE)
– L9: W+P1 (Alt-SUS)
– L10: W+T1+P1-WIN1 (OPE)
– L11: -WIN1 (Alt-OCC)
– L12: L1-L3 (EXP)
– L13: L5+L7 (OCC)
– L14: L9+L11 (OCC)
: operating case
: sustained stresses – in operation
: sustained stresses - installed
: operating state with “positive” wind vector
: sustained stress with “positive” wind vector
: operating state with “positive” wind vector
: occasional stress with “positive” wind vector
: operating state with “negative” wind vector
: sustained stress with “negative” wind vector
: operating state with “negative” wind vector
: occasional stress with “negative” wind vector
: expansion stress range
: evaluate sustained plus occasional stress (+)
: evaluate sustained plus occasional stress (-)
Miscellaneous Points
Should Alt-SUS be Used to Set the Expansion Stress Range?

• In CAESAR II, the expansion stress range is calculated as the difference

between any two “states” of the piping system
– Typically this range is operating minus installed:

• In this example, should L1-L2 (Operating minus Alt-SUS) be

considered as an expansion stress range?
No, Do not Consider Operating minus Alt-SUS

• B31.3-2014 is quite clear on this matter

• Paragraph 319.2.3(b) states:
– While stresses resulting from displacement strains diminish with time …, the
algebraic difference between strains in the extreme displacement condition
and the original (as-installed) condition (or any anticipated condition with a
greater differential effect) remains substantially constant during any one cycle
of operation. This difference in strains produces a corresponding stress
differential, the displacement stress range, that is used as the criterion in the
design of piping for flexibility. In evaluating systems where supports may be
active in some conditions and not others (e.g., pipes lifting off supports), this
difference in strains may be influenced by the changing distribution of
sustained load. In such cases, the displacement strain range is based on the
algebraic difference between the calculated positions of the pipe that define
the range. In addition to the displacement strain, each calculated position
shall include the sustained loads present in the condition under evaluation. …
Managing Output

• You may wish to add a MAX SUS load case to summarize reporting or
collect all SUS cases in a Code Compliance Report
Using Alt-SUS and Alt-OCC in the Same Load Set

• If you wish both Alt-SUS and Alt-OCC for the same load case you must
repeat the load case
• For example*, using W, T1, P1, U1 (static g load for seismic)
– L1: W+T1+P1 (OPE) : operating case
– L2: W+P1 (Alt-SUS) : sustained stresses – in operation
– L3: W+P1 (SUS) : sustained stresses - installed
– L4: W+T1+P1+U1 (OPE) : operating state with “positive” g load vector
– L5: W+P1 (Alt-SUS) : sustained stress – in seismic operation
– L6: W+T1+P1+U1 (OPE) : repeated “seismic operation”
– L7: U1 (Alt-OCC) : occasional stress – in seismic operation
– L8: …

* This is just one way to approach nonlinear action in occasional load evaluation
Using Alt-SUS and Alt-OCC in the Same Load Set

• Rather than building the operating-plus-occasional load case twice to

get Alt-SUS and Alt-OCC, consider:

SUS collection in red,

OCC collection in blue
Adjusting the Limit in Evaluating Sustained Stress

• Those additional sustained stresses may have differing limits (Sh), this
selection is made in the Load Case Editor
Templates that Create “Recommended Load Cases”

• Templates are stored in \SYSTEM

• Selection registered in the configuration file
Template Status Expansion Stress Ranges Alt-SUS
Load_Basic Original default (pre-2014) Installed to each Operating N/A
Load_EXP Most recent default All combinations * N/A
Load New default (2016) All combinations * B31.3 only
Load_ALT Shipped with 2016 version All combinations * Most Codes

* Includes expansion ranges between various operating conditions in addition

to installed to each operating position.
Closing
Conclusions

– B31.3-2014 changed the definition of SL in equation (1b) – the more-

comprehensive formula for the allowable expansion stress range
– CAESAR II’s “Alternate Sustained” load case (Alt-SUS) easily
accommodates the new rule regarding SL in a single analysis
– The “Alternate Sustained” load case as implemented in CAESAR II 2016
(v.8.00) yields the same results as manually adjusting the non-linear
boundary conditions
– The “Alternate Sustained” load case is easier and less error prone than
manually adjusting the non-linear boundary conditions
– The “Alternate Sustained” load cases can address multiple support
configurations of the piping system, automatically, in the same run
Conclusions

– The “Alternate Sustained” load case addresses the variation of all non-
linear boundary conditions on a load case by load case basis
– The “Alternate Sustained” load case as implemented in CAESAR II 2016
(v.8.00) provides the maximum value of sustained stress, SL, considering
all support conditions in accordance with B31.3 equation (1b)
Closing

• Double-booking may occur, that is, a stress component may appear in

both the sustained and the expansion stress range (this B31.3 rule is not
structurally correct)
• You may not need to analyze EVERYTHING – please use engineering
judgment to eliminate trivial cases
• Other references available at http://icas.intergraph.com/cii2016:
– “What’s New in CAESAR II 2016”, Mitch Sklar, October 2016
– “Alternate Sustained Case”, Richard Ay, November 2015
– “Load Case Editor”, Mandeep Singh, January 2016
Questions?
20 16
Thank you