APPLYING THE ASME CODES:

PLANT PIPING AND PRESSURE VESSELS

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 James A. Wingate is a practicing Mechanical Engineer and technical author. After graduation (BSME, 1964 & MSME, 1965,
both from Clemson University) he served 6 years in the U.S. Air Force as a development engineering officer in tactical missile
weapons systems. Since then he has performed various M.E. roles in heavy industry and in engineering design/construction firms.
More than half of his 4+ decades of practice have been as an independent consultant to those activities, as well as in forensic
analysis and as a legal expert-witness in capital loss litigations involving failures in piping/hydraulic systems and pressure vessels.
He is a long-time member of the ASME and has been very active in its Professional Development series of Continuing Education
program courses, concentrating in the ASME Piping Codes and the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes, B31.1, B31.3, etc. He has
been a registered Professional Engineer for more than 30 years. He and his family reside in the Greenville, South Carolina area.
Jim’s main leisure-time activity is fine woodworking, building scratch reproductions of antique furniture museum pieces from the
Colonial period in America.
His first book (Mister MechMentor Volume I), also published by the ASME, serves as an information source and problems-
solution guide for novice and recently begun Mechanical Engineers starting work in process industries, utilities plant design, and
in engineering/construction firms. Its emphasis is on those topics most often required on the job of junior engineers in those
environments: basic hydraulics, environmental control (HVAC), and pipe flow systems of various types. Utility systems engineering
concepts involving those topics are explained in a personal down-to-earth manner in Volume I, with an emphasis on “lessons
learned” and the design of safe and conservative utilities systems. This book, (Mister MechMentor Volume II) places emphasis on
the ASME Code applications of piping systems for boilers and pressure vessels and for heavy industrial process and utilities
engineering. Pipe stress analysis and Code application issues dominate this volume, which deals mostly with stress/strain and
mechanics of materials design-and-analysis topics, and, therefore, Volume II is aimed more at the mid- and senior-level engineers
and technical managers consistent with those types of advanced responsibility. However, Volume II retains the same friendly and
personal communication approach used in Volume I. Both volumes are intended to help fill the voids in modern on-the-job personal
training and technical assistance that have resulted in many firms from corporate staff down-sizing and out-sourcing policies;
hence, the “MechMentor” book titles and the fatherly conversational styles in which they are written.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 APPLYING THE ASME CODES:
PLANT PIPING AND PRESSURE VESSELS

By

James A. Wingate

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 © 2007 by ASME Press, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016

All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Except as permitted under the United States
Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any
means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS WORK HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY THE AMERICAN SOCI-
ETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS FROM SOURCES BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE. HOWEVER,
NEITHER ASME NOR ITS AUTHORS OR EDITORS GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR COM-
PLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION PUBLISHED IN THIS WORK. NEITHER ASME NOR ITS
AUTHORS AND EDITORS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DAM-
AGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS INFORMATION. THE WORK IS PUBLISHED WITH
THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ASME AND ITS AUTHORS AND EDITORS ARE SUPPLYING
INFORMATION BUT ARE NOT ATTEMPTING TO RENDER ENGINEERING OR OTHER PROFES-
SIONAL SERVICES. IF SUCH ENGINEERING OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARE REQUIRED,
THE ASSISTANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL SHOULD BE SOUGHT.

ASME shall not be responsible for statements or opinions advanced in papers or . . . printed in publications
(B7.1.3). Statement from the Bylaws.

For authorization to photocopy material for internal or personal use under those circumstances not falling
within the fair use provisions of the Copyright Act, contact the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, tel: 978-750-8400, www.copyright.com.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Wingate, James A.
Applying the ASME codes: plant piping and pressure vessels / James A. Wingate.
p. cm.
Includes index.
ISBN 978-0-7918-0255-7
1. Mechanical engineering. 2. Mechanical engineering—Standards. 3. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers. I. Title.
TJ145.W47 2007
621—dc22
2007010224

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


VOLUME TWO
Applying the ASME Codes: Plant Piping and
Pressure Vessels
Preface
Foreword
Chapter 1: ASME B31.3 Process Piping Stress
Analysis Requirements 1 multidimensional geometry.
Complete listing, definition, and description of the equations
dictated for pipe stress analysis code compliance; pipe wall
thickness, flange pressure/temperature rating, thermal expan-
sion restraint—anchor displacement strain, cyclic fatigue,
sustained and occasional longitudinal loads, correlation of
design loads with failure mode and method of analysis, con-
densed correlation table; allowable excursions above opera-
tional design temperature and pressure.
Chapter 2: Bellows-Type Pipe Expansion Joints:
Pressure Thrust and Other Pitfalls 9
Physical illustrations of the various types, how they work,
how they must be carefully applied and installed, and why
they fail when this is not done; illustrated example, require-
ments for safe use.
Chapter 3: Supports Determine Loads on Piping,
Connecting Equipment, the Level of Pipe Stress, and
Load Reactions on Supporting Structure 17
Piping contractors, piping design and plant engineers, struc-
tural engineers, and all designers for piping and support
structure MUST have a good working understanding of this
material, for safety’s sake! This topic is covered in great
detail, designed for self-study, and you don’t have to be a
pipe stress analyst to understand and apply these principles.
Chapter 4: Spring Constants of Elastic Shapes
in Contact 61
Mostly for pipe support design and pipe stress analysis, mod-
els of elastic structural shapes in compression, tension, canti-
levered beam in bending, sphere on flat plate, cylindrical
rod between flat plates, pure torsion.
Chapter 5: Pipe Flange Leakage and Stress 67
A complete primer, with types of flanges, their pressure–
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
CONTENTS
temperature ratings, allowable stresses, leakage vs. stress
loadings, pipe code requirements, ring-type gasket criteria,
illustrations, actual flange detail dimensions, examples and
calculations.
Chapter 6: Thermal Restraint Stress 105
vii
ix Internal and external restraint of thermal expansion and con-
traction will induce mechanical stresses and can lead to fa-
tigue stress cracking of various object shapes, single- and
Chapter 7: The Types and Amounts of Mechanical
Stresses to Be Expected in Common Utility
Piping Systems 117
What the everyday mechanical engineer needs to understand
about piping stresses and strains to interface intelligently
with piping professionals; uses basics of elasticity and
Mohr’s Circle to demonstrate how a common steel piping
system responds to the typical loadings it receives in practice.
Chapter 8: Pressure (Hydro-) Tests 133
Codes, vessel test requirements, safety considerations, and
tips.
Chapter 9: Issues and Codes Concerning Piping and Vessel
Overpressure Protection and Safety 139
Guidance on sizing and selecting pressure relief and safety
relief devices, application tips, relationships to ASME B&
PV CODES Section VIII Division 1 and the API 520-21
standards, and working data sheets for recording the flowrate/
pressure calculations and device sizing criteria.
Chapter 10: Jacketed Piping Issues 181
Identification and explanation of some of the unique, nasty
problems that plague these miserable (jacketed) piping ar-
rangements. They can be done safely, but you better know
how! Based on first-hand knowledge of real-life system fail-
ures with big-bucks damage consequences.
Selected References 199
Index 201
 vi • Contents

VOLUME ONE: (PUBLISHED SEPARATELY) VOLUME ONE involves more entry-level and less specialized
professional information than does VOLUME TWO. VOL-
UME ONE is more basic, and is intended primarily for the
VOLUME ONE’s topics cover these main areas of mechanical engineering novitiate, to keep him or her out of trouble on that
engineering practice: first important job. Its contents were collected as a predecessor
and companion piece to VOLUME TWO.
• HYDRAULICS OF PIPE FLOW
• INDUSTRIAL HVAC SPECIALTIES
• UTILITY SYSTEMS
• CHILLED WATER LOOPS, OVERALL SYSTEM DE-
SIGN, AND CONTROL

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Mister MechMentor is a collection of technical chapters, pub-
lished in two separately bound volumes, written in a friendly,
first-person style, meant to help people solve certain mechanical
engineering problems.
Its title reflects its intent, which is to augment the reader’s
necessary training in the way a caring mentor might. It explains
“why” as well as “how,” with the goal of helping the novitiate
learn certain potentially dangerous lessons in physics and engi-
neering design application, safely and convincingly, without
subjecting him or her to the suffering and embarrassment of
learning the hard way.
It seems that life’s (and engineering’s) most important
lessons are learned by making painful mistakes; the author
insists that it is far better to learn from the past mistakes of
others than to repeat the mistakes himself. Whenever actual
examples of such cases are helpful, they are included in a frank
and colorful way most will appreciate.
Although its primary readership is intended to be mainly
younger people who have yet to gain certain vital engineering
experiences, and who do not have access to a senior “flesh and
blood” on-the-job mentor, the more seasoned engineer may
also find it helpful as a quick refresher and source of organized
solutions to the ubiquitous problems it embraces. Code refer-
ences are especially valuable.
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
PREFACE
Primarily involving mechanical process and utility piping
design and analysis, fluids handling (pumping and flow con-
trol), real-world hydraulic transients, and useful solutions of
mechanical stress and strain problems often related to these
systems, the book’s selected topics are commonly encountered
on the job by folks who work in these engineering fields:
1. Engineering design/construction firms;
2. Contract engineers and designer/technicians;
3. Architect/engineer/planner/consulting firms;
4. Mechanical contracting firms: process, facility, utility,
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC),
and plumbing;
5. Environmental firms especially involved with mechani-
cal equipment and piping;
6. Forensic loss consultants;
7. Staff engineers in plant projects, both direct engineering
and management, and in utilities, maintenance, safety,
and environmental departmental duties, and especially
the chemical/manufacturing process hazardous opera-
tions (HAZOPS) team members.
vii
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Because this is my book, and because it pretends a claim,
however modest, on mentorhood, then I suppose I am duty-
bound to offer you my own points of view on our chosen
profession, engineering, and that is what I will try to do
here. Of course, my opinions are just that—opinions. Every-
one has them. It remains the prerogative, in fact the profes-
sional duty of each of us to strive toward finding his or her
own personal truths.
Any personal guidelines that I share here for your consider-
ation are necessarily taken from my personal experience. Fall-
ing personally and quite remarkably short of genius, I have had
to master the important lessons of my profession and my life
as most folks do; by learning from my own mistakes, when
unavoidable, and from the mistakes of others, whenever possi-
ble. I sincerely hope that all your learning experiences will be
of the latter kind, and that your pilgrimage will be more worthy
than was my own.
I like to make simplifying assumptions as much as the
next guy does, and my point of view in design will always be
conservative, but not ridiculously so. Rather, my degree of
conservatism in any technical matter is always assigned in
sensible proportion to the particular consequential dangers
which might accrue if I made errors of judgment or calculation.
Knowing where to draw the line with yourself is the key.
That knowledge will come with practice and observation and
experience. You were not born knowing where the line should
be drawn; none of us were. But you were born with a head
full of common sense and valuable human intuition, and a heart
full of the inner voice of conscience. Use all of these gifts
without hesitation or apology. Weave them into the framework
of your professional practice and of your life as well, and the
rest will come with time.
I try to be efficient and productive, to create refined systems
without putting too fine a point on things, and will avoid gilding
lilies and reinventing wheels as best I can. I strive for maximum
simplicity and understandability in the things I design, because
it seems to me that these are the source springs of elegance.
They are without question two of safety’s necessary ingredients.
If I find that I cannot in plain language explain my design
precisely, completely, and clearly enough for its operational
physical principles, means of control, range of safe operation,
design intent, natural physical limitations, expected service life,
and requirements for proper safe operation and maintenance to
be thoroughly understandable by its intended owners, builders,
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
FOREWORD
operators and maintainers, and especially by myself, then I go
back and simplify the design to the point at which it will be
100% understood. If I have to, I will make those changes on
my own time and expense. I will never be rich, and don’t care;
however, I will sleep well at night.
As experienced technicians and professionals, we know
what we know, and what we can do, and we are expected
and paid to do “good engineering” within our range of actual
competence. And indeed, we do try our best to be clever and
innovative and thrifty and thorough and sophisticated and brave
and true-blue and all those other neat things we want our
employers and clients to think of us. And being human, many
times we are tempted to stretch just a bit beyond, to take a
little chance, maybe to want to brag a little, or bite off a tad
more than we can comfortably chew. You know the drill. Our
nature makes us want to promote ourselves, to continually
market our abilities, to advertise our strengths both real and
imagined, and by all means to hide our weaknesses and fears
at all times, all the while exuding cool self-confidence, and
maybe even a general aura of salty seaworthiness. All of which
is perfectly natural. Perfectly human.
But we have taken upon ourselves the professional respon-
sibility to do a certain kind of work, ostensibly one which
greatly benefits mankind but which, if not done properly, has
the potential to do great harm instead. And because of that, we
must act professionally, responsibly, at all times in our work.
Even when to do so would seem contrary to our own personal
advancement. We must not try to practice outside the bound-
aries of our own limitations, all by our intellectual selves alone.
No. To grow our abilities safely, we need to take our first steps
on strange new ground with someone else present, someone
who knows the ropes, to check us and guide us and keep us
as well as our potential benefactors-née-victims safe from our
fledgling efforts. We must swallow our human vanity and ask
for help when we need it. And trust me, the oldest and best of
us need help much more frequently than you are led to imagine.
Those who blissfully ignore their personal limitations and
press on into unknown territory alone, without first achieving
a truly satisfactory upgrading in knowledge sufficient to the
undertaking, are truly dangerous to themselves and the public
whom they are charged with serving.
Every true profession recognizes this principle. Prac-
titioners of education, law, medicine, those who serve us in the
military, the guardians of public health and safety, and all the
ix
 x • Foreword
rest; all know this, whether or not it receives much public
mention.
The key word here is “alone.” Do not hesitate to ask for
guidance when you sense it is needed. Do not allow yourself
to be forced into giving snap explanations or making hasty
decisions, thinking that, if you do not you may damage your
reputation. Far from it! It has been my life experience that
really bad screw-ups do not happen unless the opportunity to
prevent them falls upon every weak link in the project’s entire
chain of production.
Each organization involved in that chain will have one de
facto decision-maker; sometimes, that person will be you. Don’t
you become a weak link due to fear of speaking out, or shyness
about asking questions which you fear might seem “stupid” to
the others. When it is your turn to act, when the problem has
rolled up to your workstation and you see that a problem exists
in the project and that sooner or later there will be trouble if
someone doesn’t do something to fix it, then by all means,
blow the whistle on it! It is your professional responsibility to
do so. And, yes, it might cause some “big guy” to look bad
somewhere in the chain, and he might cause you trouble and
try to get you taken off the project, or even fired.
Well friend, that is just an inevitable human experience.
It is a test of your mettle. Sooner or later, it is going to happen
to you on the job. When it does, do what you know is right,
and stick to your guns. And if you in fact turn out to be correct
but lose the argument anyway, if the organization knows you
are right but fails to support you or spits you out, whatever the
reason, then FINE! It simply proves that they themselves are
seriously flawed and not worthy of employing professionals.
You shouldn’t be working there anyway. Move on to another
place where people are willing to act professionally and will
invariably do the right thing on principle!
What is a professional engineer? I say he or she is an
engineer who possesses necessary minimum levels of profes-
sional judgment consistent with adequate computational ability,
plus an adequate base of scientific and technical knowledge
gained through accredited formal education, plus the ability to
master complicated abstract procedures, plus common sense
practicality plus emotional maturity plus a well-developed sense
of duty and responsibility, plus the ability and willingness al-
ways to continue the personal learning and improvement pro-
cess, not only to teach himself or herself through continual
self-study aimed at professional growth but also to seek out
the wisdom and valuable experience of those who have proven
to have it.
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
At present, engineering lacks the grueling internship so
justifiably prized and touted by the medical profession. As
fledglings we are given typically nowhere near the kind of
scrutiny that lawyers invest in their new hires. And we surely
don’t give our people the kind of gutsy, realistic, no-punches-
pulled training that the professional military must receive in
order to do their job with even a prayer of personal survival!
No, the “onus” of self-policing is definitely sitting squarely
upon our own shoulders. And that is where it should be anyway,
if we are to be truly worthy of professional status. We have to
make it our own final responsibility to know exactly where our
own personal limits of competence end, and where the vast sea
of unknowns, our remaining uncertainties, begins. And believe
you me, we all have limits, great bunches and gobs of
uncertainty.
After all, are we not merely human? The more we poor
creatures see and experience and learn, the more we realize the
true depths of our own ignorance and human frailty. Its just
that the professional keeps on trying to improve the situation,
realizing his quest is finally beyond human endeavor and can
never truly end, right up until his day of death.
And truly, the quest needs to come ahead of personal
aggrandizement. The best professionals, the best engineers, the
best people of all walks of life whom I have been privileged
to know during a lifetime of practice, have been those who
frankly admit their limitations, appearances be damned! They
most certainly do not refrain from asking questions or begging
assistance when they face something that frightens them, way
down inside. They will put the actual welfare of others ahead
of their own personal ambition every time.
Finally, I am compelled to give you my honest appraisal
of engineering. It is my long-term opinion that this profession
demands more actual brain sweat and more acceptance of tangi-
ble responsibility, yet repays one’s effort with proportionately
less money and with more grinding of teeth during the late-
night hours, than any other job that I know. The single important
exception is the professional soldier, who must add real mortal
danger to the list of professional living conditions, and gets
less in return for his tangible sacrifices than do all other men.
I think you have to enjoy this work for its own sake, and
have a fair share of intellectual curiosity and the impetus to
continually seek more insight into the workings of the universe,
for engineering to make sense as a career. And on those terms,
I think it does.
 CHAPTER

1
ASME B31.3
PROCESS PIPING STRESS
ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS

ASME Code for Pressure Piping governs the materials, permis-
sible stresses, design, fabrication, construction, testing, fatigue
life and operation of non-nuclear pressure piping systems in
the United States. This means B31 covers just about everything
in piping except the plumbing and site/civil items (which are
sanitary waste, storm drains, and potable water piping).
The two most commonly encountered codes are the B31.1
Power Piping and B31.3 Process Piping Codes. B31.1 is used
for power generation plants, and B31.3, which borrows heavily
from B31.1, covers industrial and related applications. B31.3
thus has the wider application, but the two codes are very
similar in philosophy and many details.
As far as I am concerned, there is only one way to learn
these codes well enough to practice them responsibly, and that
is to read the code books, then take the ASME Continuing
Education seminars on B31.1 and B31.3, then read the code
books once again, and finally apprentice to a senior Code piping
engineer for as long as it takes. This is quite an overall invest-
ment of money and labor, as it darn well should be, for safe-
ty’s sake.
The stress-analysis part is all done by computer. To make
correct modeling and input for the stress programs, you must
understand the codes fully and also the finer details of piping
system construction, supports, and standard practices.
To aid some younger engineers for whose training I was
once responsible, I compiled seminar notes including those on
B31.3 herein. I hope they are of value to you, either as a means
of sparking interest in professional piping and pressure vessel
engineering, or preparing for self-study. They show the means
for determining permissible loads and stresses per the Code
(at the time of writing); the determination of actual loads and
stresses is done by the engineer for comparison to obtain ASME
Code Compliance for the design.
If you work, or plan to work, in areas of piping responsibil-
ity, I simply cannot recommend highly enough the ASME’s
own continuing-education seminars on the B31 series. They
beat heck out of any university training in applicability, concen-
tration, and effectiveness, and are the ultimate authority on
piping questions. If you take the B31.3 seminar, or just want
to read the codebook for self-study, I think you will appreciate
the following notes.
ASME PROCESS PIPING CODE B31.3
EXCERPTS AND SEMINAR NOTES
(1997–2001)
B31.3 PIPE WALL THICKNESS FOR
CONTAINMENT OF INTERNAL FLUID
STATIC PRESSURE:
One of the four equivalent hoop stress formulas for straight
pipe and matching ASME/ANSI B16.9 butt-weld fittings; found
in paragraph 304.1.2 of B31.3 as Equation 3(a), with the correc-
tions added for mill pipe wall underthickness tolerance (12-
1/2%) and the total combined corrosion + erosion + groove
depth allowances, per Code rules.
PD
tm = +c
(2)(SE + PY)[1.000 − (12.5%/100%)]
which reduces to {Ref. B31.3 para. 304.1.2; page 19 of
1999_A00 Edition}

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 2 • Chapter 1

PD Flange Class (ASME/ANSI Rating) Value of PR, psig

tm = +c
(1.75)(SE + PY) 150 115
300 300
400 400
Note: Good for thin-wall pipe only, defined as tm < (D/6).
600 600
For heavier wall pipe use B31.3 Chapter IX (high-pres-
900 900
sure piping).
1,500 1,500
tm = minimum required pipe wall thickness, to be selected from 2,500 2,500
standard available commercial pipe wall schedules. Select the
first standard nominal thickness equal to or greater than the EXAMPLE #1: ASTM A-182 (1-1/4% Cr, 1/2% Mo) F-11
calculated value of tm (in.) Class 2 Forged Alloy Steel, in an ASME/ANSI B16.5 CLASS
P = internal fluid design pressure (the maximum expected 2500 construction, oper.@ 550°F.
sustained operation) (psig) S1 = 0.909 (Sh) = 0.909 (21.3 ksi @ 550°F, Table A-1 of
D = actual pipe outside diameter, as tabulated in the commercial B31.3 Code)
standards (in.) = 19,362 psi allowable stress;
S = allowable material operating stress per Table A-1 for design Pt = (19,362 psi)(2,500 class)/8,750
temperature (psi) = 5,532 psig operating fluid pressure capacity.
E = pipe or fitting quality factor, found in Table A-1B (di-
mensionless) EXAMPLE #2: ASTM A-126 grade 20 gray cast iron, CLASS
Y = dimensionless coefficient, found in Table 304.1.1 (varies 150, oper.@ 100°F.
w/material and temperature) S1 = 0.909 (Sh) = 0.909 (2.0 ksi @ 100°F, Table A-1)
c = total depth of wall metal lost to corrosion + erosion + = 1,818 psi allowable stress;
mechanical groove (in.) Pt = (1,818 psi)(115)/8,750
= < 24 psig operating fluid pressure capacity!! (non-
(This ends the internal pressure − pipe wall thickness calcu- shock duty, etc.)
lation procedure.)
(This ends the flange pressure rating determination
procedure.)

RATED FLUID PRESSURE CAPABILITY OF

FLANGES CONSTRUCTED TO ASME/ANSI B31.3 CYCLIC FATIGUE PIPE STRESS
STANDARD B16.5: ANALYSIS STRESSES DUE TO THERMAL
EXPANSION RESTRAINT AND ANCHOR-
SUPPORT DISPLACEMENT STRAIN:
B31.3 Table 326.1 page 56 calls out ASME/ANSI Standard
B16.5 “Flanges” pressure/temperature ratings.
The first half of the job is calculating the allowable stress
range, SA, per Equations (1)–(3). The second half is calculating
(S1)(PR) (0.6)(Sh) the displacement stress range, SE, Equations (4) – (6). By
Pt = where S1 = = 0.909 (Sh)
8,750 (0.66) definition, failure will be secondary, fatigue crack creation at
a point of stress concentration or metal flaw, with loss of fluid
containment (as opposed to primary first-time single-loading
Pt = sustained internal fluid pressure containment capacity of gross deformation wrecking leading to rupture).
the flange operating at the specified design operating tempera-
ture (psig) Allowable Stress Range SA Equations and
S1 = function of basic allowable stress for the flange material Procedure:
taken from B31.3 Table A-1, at temperatures up to but not over
600°F; for higher operating temps, S1 must be taken directly (1.a) SA = f (1.25 Sc + 0.25 Sh),
from B16.5 ANNEX D. or [B31.3 para. 302.3.5.(d)(1a), page 18]
Sh = basic allowable stress for the flange material, B31.3 Table
A-1; for Flange Rating, good only at temperature ≤ 600°F as (1.b) SA = f [1.25 (Sc + Sh) − SL.
explained above. [B31.3 para. 302.3.5.(d)(1b), page 18]
PR = numerically this is the ASME/ANSI component pressure
rating, except for the lightest duty (150-lb) flange, as listed in SA = Allowable stress range for cyclic expansions and support
the following table: displacements (psi).

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 ASME B31.3 PROCESS PIPING STRESS ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS • 3

(1.a) applies to the whole piping system. It is too conserva- NE = number of actual full-stress-range thermal expansion load
tive, if computer analysis used. cycles to be survived.
(1.b) allows the computed values of Longitudinal Stresses Ni = number of partial-displacement loading cycles in load case
SL in each component due to sustained loadings to be examined, i; i = 1, 2, 3, . . . n.
with “credit” applied to the “cyclic stress range budget” for Si = corresponding (expansion or displacement) stress range
any “unused portion of the allowable sustained stress budget.” for load case i. (psi)
Because we use the computer programs for analysis, automati- n = number of distinct load case i’s identified by the engineer
cally calculating SL for each component node, then it makes and included in calculations.
good sense to use (1.b).
f = Stress Range Reduction Factor calculated from Eq. (2) So much for SA equations; now for SE equations.
below. Its max value = 1.00.
SL = Longitudinal Stress at a node point due to sustained load- Displacement Stress Range SE Equations and
ing (psi) Procedure:
Sc = Cold Allowable Stress for the pipe material, per B31.3
Appendix A (Table A.1) (psi)
(4.) SE = [(Sb)2 + 4(St)2]1/2
Sh = Hot Allowable Stress for the pipe material, per B31.3
[Ref. B31.3 para. 319.4.4.(a)(17), p. 39]
Appendix A (Table A.1) (psi)
SE = the Displacement Stress Range, which is the calculated
(2.) f = (6.0)(N−0.2) ≤ 1.00 range of stress a piping system will experience when subjected
[B31.3 para. 302.3.5.(d)(1c), page 18] to thermal expansion or contraction. Stresses due to pressure
and weight are not included in it. Note the displacement stress
N = equivalent number of full-stress-range loading cycles to range for cyclic thermal expansion from minimum pipe metal
which the system is to be subjected (as used in design work) operating temperature (where Sc applies, usually the ambient
or is calculated to have actually been subjected already (in installation temp.) to maximum pipe metal operating tempera-
remaining life analysis work.) An optional designer’s table can ture (where Sh applies, usually the hot design operating tempera-
be used to obtain f for more approximate situations. ture.) In cryogenic systems, the reverse is true; Sc applies to
[Ref. B31.3 Table 302.3.5, page 18.] the coldest operating temperature and Sh applies to the ambient
installation temperature in calculating the stress range (psi)
Number of Full-Range Sb = calculated Resultant Longitudinal Bending Stress Range
(Expansion and Displacement) for the full thermal expansion (or contraction) cycle as calcu-
Cycles N Value of f lated below (psi)
7,000 and less 1.00 St = calculated Torsional Stress Range for the full thermal
Over 7,000–14,000 0.9 expansion (or contraction) cycle as calculated below (psi)
Over 14,000–22,000 0.8
Over 22,000–45,000 0.7 [(iiMi)2 + (ioMo)2]1/2
(5.a) Sb =
Over 45,000–100,000 0.6 Z
Over 100,000–200,000 0.5 [Ref. B31.3 para. 319.4.4.(b)(18), p. 39]
Over 200,000–700,000 0.4
Over 700,000–2,000,000 0.3 Mt
(5.b) St = [Ref. B31.3, para. 319.4.4.(a)(17), p. 39]
2Z
B31.3 is intended for neither monster displacement − low
cycle plastic-range whanging, nor micro-tiny displacement
− high cycle vibratory buzzing. Mi and Mo = calculated in-plane and out-of-plane bending
moments, respectively, generated in the piping at the nodal
n point in question by the thermal expansion or contraction cycle.
(3). N = NE + Σ (Ni)(Si/SE)5 = {in.-lbs}
i=1 ii and io = in-plane and out-of-plane stress intensification fac-
NE + (N1)(S1/SE)5 + (N2)(S2/SE)5 + . . . + (Nn)(Sn/SE)5 tors, respectively, as numerically calculated by the formulae
(Ref. B31.3 para. 302.3.5.(d)(1d), p. 18) specified in B31.3, Appendix D for the specific applicable
piping component and geometry at this node. {dimensionless}
Mt = calculated torsional moment generated in the piping at the
SE = Displacement stress range per B31.3, as calculated be- nodal point in question by the thermal expansion or contraction
low. (psi) cycle. {in.-lb}

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 4 • Chapter 1
Z = regular section modulus for the nodal point in question,
per the usual formula for thin-walled cylinder cross-section,
except in the case of reduced outlet branches or reducing
tees. For the regular section, Z = (π/32 Do)(Do4 − Di4) as usual.
For the reducing outlet tees, the code paragraph 319.4.4(c)
requires us to use the Effective Section Modulus Ze, which
is defined by Ze = π(r2)2TS. The term (r2) is the mean radius
of the branch pipe, and TS is the effective branch wall thickness,
i.e., lesser of the header wall thickness and the product of the
in-plane stress intensification factor times the actual branch
pipe wall thickness. (in.3)
Finally, to meet the criterion requirement for B31.3 expan-
sion stress compliance, we have to make the numerical com-
parison to show that for all points in the piping system,
(6.) SE ≤ SA.
(This ends the cyclic fatigue stress analysis procedure.)
B31.3 SUSTAINED LONGITUDINAL
STRESSES**
**{At present, B31.3 contains no separate suggested formulas
for how to calculate SL. The following comes from the equiva-
lent passage of B31.1, which is standard practice; B31.3 is
considering adopting it formally. The S.I.F.’s for MLb are B31.1
and conservative.}
In addition to hoop stress from internal pressure, which is
a sustained and not self-limiting stress, the other so-called Pri-
mary Stress in pipe work is the stress generated by sustained
bending and torsional loadings, and because of the vector direc-
tion in which it acts is called the longitudinal stress, symbol
SL. It results from gravity plus the longitudinal component of
stress from internal fluid pressure; bending stresses usually
dominate the longitudinal pressure component and any torsional
stress which gravity might generate.
Its vector is perpendicular in direction to the circumferen-
tial hoop stress caused by internal pressure. If a pipe is seam-
welded, then hoop stress causes a bulge and splits the pipe
along the seam line, whereas the longitudinal crack from bow-
ing bends and twisting is roughly perpendicular to the long
seam. SL is compared to the hot allowable stress Sh taken from
Table A-1 for B31.3 compliance.
By definition, failure from SL will always be primary in
nature, a first-time single-loading gross deformation, a distor-
tional wrecking leading to physical rupture. The same is true
for failures from excessive fluid pressure.
{Ref. B31.1 para. 104.8.1.(11a),(11b)}
PD [(MLb)2 + (MLt)2]1/2
SL = + ≤ Sh
4(tn − c) Z compliance.
where
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
MLb = [(0.75 ii MLi)2 + (0.75 io MLo)2]1/2
with the understanding that the quantity [0.75 i] is never
used as less than 1.00 numerically; if ii or io is less than
1.333, then use [0.75 i Δ
= 1.00].
MLi and MLo = sustained in-plane and out-of-plane bending
moments, respectively, generated in the piping at the nodal
point in question by gravity. {in.-lb}
ii and io = in-plane and out-of-plane stress intensification fac-
tors, respectively, as numerically calculated by the formulae
specified in B31.3, Appendix D for the specific applicable
piping component and geometry at this node. {dimensionless}
MLb = resultant sustained bending moment. {in.-lb}
MLt = sustained resultant torsional moment generated in the
piping at the nodal point in question by gravity. {in.-lb}
Z = section modulus (or effective modulus for reducing tees)
as already defined in the fatigue analysis section. {in.3}
(tn − c) = nominal pipe wall thickness (with no mill under
tolerance subtracted) but minus the total depth of wall metal
lost to {corrosion + erosion + mechanical groove}. {in.}
(other terms are as previously defined)
(This ends the sustained longitudinal stress analysis
procedure.)
B31.3 OCCASIONAL LOAD STRESSES
Some loads appear only occasionally, but are sufficient in effect
to cause the primary failure mode (gross rupture), same as in
sustained loadings, if the forces are large enough. In other
words, insofar as the ASME B31.3 piping code is concerned,
occasional loads are not self-limiting but cause gross failure
on a real-time basis, the same as sustained pressure and weight
forces. Occasional forces are thus differentiated from the cycli-
cal fatigue loadings. The usual examples of occasional loads
are wind (aerodynamic drag) forces, and inertial earthquake
forces (forcing/resisting loads come in via the contacting
supports.)
For example, if the wind were constant forever, acting on
the pipe for 24 hours × 365.25 days per year, instead of being
an occasional event, and if it always blew at 70 knots or some
other significant velocity, and if always came from exactly the
same direction, then the wind would join gravity as a cause of
sustained stresses, and could be analyzed in a perfectly analo-
gous way to SL. In fact, the wind would then be nothing more
than a vector component of a combined omnipresent weight-
wind force (normal gravity being the other vector component.)
SOL is the term for occasional load stresses, and because
they are indistinguishable in effect from the longitudinal SL
stresses caused by sustained load forces, the Code adds the two
together for comparison to the hot allowable stress Sh taken
from Table A-1 of the B31.3 Code, times a factor, for B31.3
{Ref. B31.3 para. 302.3.6, p. 18}
 ASME B31.3 PROCESS PIPING STRESS ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS • 5
[(MOb)2 + (MOt)2]1/2
SOL = SL + ≤ 1.33 Sh
Z of a range of cyclical stress variations at some point of maxi-
where
MOb = [(0.75 ii MOi)2 + (0.75 io MOo)2]1/2
once again with the understanding that the quantity [0.75
i] is never used as less than 1.00 numerically.
SOL = the B31.3 Occasional Stress at a node point due to some
causative agent. (psi)
MOi and MOo = occasional in-plane and out-of-plane bending
moments, respectively, generated in the piping at the nodal
point in question by some causative agent. (in.-lb)
MOb = resultant occasional bending moment. (in.-lb)
MOt = resultant occasional torsional moment generated in the
piping at the nodal point in question by some causative agent.
(in.-lb)
(other terms are as previously defined)
(This ends the occasional stress analysis procedure.)
CORRELATION OF B31.3 DESIGN LOADS
WITH FAILURE MODE and RESULTING
METHOD OF STRESS ANALYSIS
The stress–strain related failure mode of the piping system will
occur in one of only two distinct ways, as far as the ASME
Code for Process Piping B31.3 is concerned. (These definitions
are not official code terminology, but are most definitely the
intent and must be understood clearly.)
ALL <B31.3> PIPE FAILURES ARE DUE TO either . . .
1. Primary failure: gross deformation, a real-time wreck-
ing at the time of load application, a catastrophic collapse easy
to see and understand, such as due to loss of previously existing
dead weight supports (accident) or lack of adequate dead weight
support in the first place (engineering error, will fail upon
hydrotest). The motive cause of the primary stress/strain pipe
failure will be some combination of sustained internal fluid
pressure forces, sustained weight forces due to the earth’s
gravity, and any additional occasional external forces, with
separate energy sources of their own (wind, earthquakes, etc.).
The loads are continuous, and if the piping system is too weak
to limit stress at all points to below yield at temperature, then
resulting stresses build rapidly without limit and the stress
reaches the ultimate value for the material; it ruptures plasti-
cally, right then and there!
or
2. Secondary failure: fluid leaking or blowing out of a
fatigue crack, a small breach in the pipe wall which has resulted
from a sort of progressive micro-plastic-ratcheting strain situa-
tion, and has propagated finally to the point of loss of fluid
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
containment. It is by definition due to the repeated occurrence
mum intensity (i.e., a stress raiser) over some predictable
(generally delayed or longish-term) period of time. In the great
majority of cases, the stress is created either by restraint of
otherwise free thermal expansion and contraction, plus any
rapid thermal transients in time, plus thermal gradients in the
piping, plus cyclical pipe strains due to pipe terminal anchor dis-
placements.
Once in a while a system may be subjected to unplanned
cyclical fatigue causative agents. Mechanical vibration trans-
mitted through supports or generated internally by fluctuating
fluid dynamical forces, by static pressure pulsations, and any
other small-displacement-but-non-negligible strains are exam-
ples. These are evaluated in the same way as anchor displace-
ment cycles; determine stress range resulting from strain range,
figure how many cycles will occur, and stir into the overall
mix of fatigue-causers to obtain overall SE. Compare result
to SA.
Typical stress fatigue cycles-to-failure for B31.3 piping
systems are from as few as 7,000 to as many as 2,000,000
equivalent full stress cycles over the intended design lifetime
of the piping system’s operation.
The load conditions causing Secondary Failures (fatigue)
are by Code definition SELF-LIMITING. The two main groups
of causative conditions are:
1. Cyclic mechanical strains imposed by external forces
on the piping, such as cyclical anchor motions
2. Restraint of otherwise free thermal expansion and
contraction
As for secondary loads of the cyclic mechanical strain
variety and the cyclic or occasional external force type, the
stresses these loadings create stop growing in magnitude when
the displacement strains which cause them have all run their
full course. A stress due to support displacement will be no
greater than its proportional strain, as long as it remains below
the material’s yield point at the applicable temperature. So we
rely on a stopping of the application of the causative force
short of causing pipe stress to exceed the yield point to make
these types of secondary causative forces self-limiting. If yield
stress is exceeded directly, upon application of the displacement
strain, then by definition, the system has failed in a primary
manner. Overstrain, irreversible deformation, gross rupture,
will have resulted. Otherwise, only local microdamage is done
at one or more points of intensified stress, which will eventually
lead to formation of a fatigue crack type of failure, given enough
cyclic repetitions of the displacements.
As for secondary loads due to thermal changes, the situation
is sort of reversed; if the thermal motion (expansion or contrac-
tion due to heating or cooling of the pipe material) is unre-
strained by supports, anchors, guides or equipment connections,
then there is no permanent stress created in the first place. The
 6 • Chapter 1

thermal time-transient and spatial gradient stresses disappear Table 1-1 LOADING/FAILURE MODE CORRELATION
when the metal reaches uniform temperature throughout. And Load Type Failure Method of
once a thermal ΔT has been accomplished, an unrestrained Mode Analysis
metal expansion/contraction ceases, leaving the pipe longer or
Static Sustained Primary − Compare to Sh
shorter for sure, but unchanged in stress condition.
pressure* gross rupture from Table A-1 of
However, if pipe restraints restrict the amount of thermal
the B31.3 Code
growth, or are rigid enough to keep the thermal motion from
Water Occasional Primary − Add to SL, com-
taking place at all, then stresses are created. They can temporar-
hammer gross rupture pare to 1.33 Sh
ily exceed the yield point locally (at stress-raiser locations) by
means of local plastic straining; a permanent microdeformation, Liquid Occasional Primary − Add to SL, com-
just enough to drop the bulk material back into the elastic slugging gross rupture pare to 1.33 Sh
region, will take place. The local yielding limits the overall Steam Occasional Primary − Add to SL, com-
system stress to below yield. While being just as self-limiting hammer gross rupture pare to 1.33 Sh
as in the case of unrestrained expansion, however, the temporary Safety valve Occasional Primary − Add to SL, com-
stress variations in the constrained system lead to eventual blow gross rupture pare to 1.33 Sh
fatigue cracking. Weight Sustained Primary − Compare to Sh
Some of the loads and stresses B31.3 encompasses are forces** gross rupture from Table A-1 of
shown in Table 1-1. (Please see @ right.) the B31.3 Code
Thermal Cyclic Secondary − Compare SE to SA
expansion fatigue crack
ALLOWANCES FOR OCCASIONAL Thermal Cyclic Secondary − Compare SE to SA
EXCURSIONS ABOVE THE DESIGN transients fatigue crack
TEMPERATURE/PRESSURE CONDITION FOR
Thermal Cyclic Secondary − Compare SE to SA
METALLIC PIPING gradients fatigue crack
One piping system may have several applicable sets of design Thermal Cyclic Secondary − Compare SE to SA
bowing fatigue crack
operating conditions, severe in different ways. One set might
determine the pipe wall thickness, while another determines Wind Occasional Primary − Add to SL, com-
the flange temperature-pressure rating, etc. gross rupture pare to 1.33 Sh
Once set, the design conditions can be exceeded safely for Earthquake Occasional Primary − Add to SL, com-
short terms of operation of the system, according to these (inertial gross rupture pare to 1.33 Sh
B31.3/302.2.4 rules: forces)
Earthquake Cyclic Secondary − Compare SE to SA
1. If there shall be fewer than 1,000 full pressure-tempera-
(anchor fatigue crack
ture cycles in the allowable lifetime of the plant, the design displacements)
pressure and/or temperature can be exceeded for short time
Vibration*** Cyclic Secondary − Compare SE to SA
periods under these rules; otherwise the excursion values (which
fatigue crack
are assumed more severe than the otherwise “design” condition
of P&T) must be used for system design (even though the *Calculate the required minimum pipe wall thickness based on Sh.
excursions are only short term events, lasting a few hours at **Include all the weight components hanging on the pipeline; the fluid contents,
a time.) wall lining, the pipe wall material itself, insulation, lagging, jacket, tracing,
snow and ice accumulation, installed equipment such as valves, strainers,
2. . . . it is permissible to exceed the [ANSI/ASME] pressure flanges, blinds, etc.
rating [of a flange or component] or the allowable stress for ***Transmitted through structure via supports, induced by fluid flow fluctua-
pressure design [which is our old friend Sh, of course] [for the tions, etc.
pipe wall thickness] at the temperature of the increased condi-
tion by not more than
a. 33%, for no more than 10 hours at any one time and no Education handout by Glynn Woods (his 1997 notebook, pp.
more than 100 hours per year; or 28–33). It requires careful study and application.
b. 20%, for no more than 50 hours at any one time and The salient point of the procedure is that at no time is it
no more than 500 hours per year. ever permissible to reach the yield stress of the material at
3. The timed limits of operation at the excursion condi- temperature for any type of sustained or occasional primary
tions shall be calculated by the use-fraction sum rule, which is: load stress, as already defined herein (one that causes pressure
hoop stress or longitudinal bending stress or torsional shear,
Σ [(ti)/(tri)] ≤ 1.00 and which is by its very nature NOT SELF-LIMITING). The
bases for numerical analysis are the maximum principal stress
For a full definition of terms and a good example illustrating failure theory and the empirical data for creep strength (time-
how this formula is used, refer to the ASME B31.3 Continued to-rupture tests at elevated temperature.)

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 ASME B31.3 PROCESS PIPING STRESS ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS • 7

THIS SECTION HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER
ON CALCULATING EXPANSION STRESSES, FATIGUE
LIFE OF THE SYSTEM, SA OR SE!! It only places time and
magnitude limits on operational excursions above the system
design and Code stress analysis design values for pressure/
temperature.
When using these rules, do not fail to reduce the allowable
strength Sh for austenitic stainless systems containing flanges,
or other systems having Sh based on 90% of yield, as explained
by Glynn’s notes. It would be simpler and safer (in Wingate’s
opinion only!!) to just use the Table A-1, Sh all the way, but
to not allow P-T excursions for the austenitic stainless steels.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
 CHAPTER

BELLOWS-TYPE PIPE EXPANSION JOINTS:

PRESSURE THRUST AND OTHER PITFALLS

One topic of frequent concern is pitfalls in the use of bellows-
type inline expansion joints to control thermal expansion of a
pipeline as it either heats up or cools down from the ambient
to the operating temperature. The chief pitfall is failure to
account for pressure thrust, which is created by regular
bellows joints and transmitted to piping restraints and ter-
minal connections.
See Figure 2-1 for pictorial illustrations of regular manu-
factured bellows joints.
We will briefly cover what bellows joints are, what they
do, how they are intended to work, and how to avoid the serious
pitfalls associated with careless usage of them.
Bellows joints are tubular metal conduits (usually made of
austenitic stainless steel) with thin-walled toroidal convolutes,
which greatly reduce the axial stiffness of the conduit. They
incorporate pipe stub ends, with or without flanges, for install-
ing into runs of line piping. They have precisely engineered
dimensions. The dimensions are controlled to trade off axial
stiffness and pipe-axial strain compliance versus a design fa-
tigue life for a specified number of thermal cycles, while
maintaining complete integrity of fluid pressure containment.
Bellows are intended to control the pipe stresses and strains
caused by the natural thermal expansion of the pipe material
as it changes (rises or falls) from the ambient temperature to
the steady system operating temperature during startup, and in
the reverse direction during shutdown.
Primary consideration for bellows usage is controlling pipe
axial stresses and strains by expansion of the bellows’ convo-
lutes (stretching out lengthwise) when the cooling-down pipe
tries to shrink, and bellows contraction (compression to a
shorter length) when the heating-up pipe tries to lengthen. The
change in bellows length is met with relatively little resisting
force because of the inherent flexibility of the thin-walled toroi-
dal convolutes. The flexibility is expressed as a spring constant
over the applicable range of axial compression for the specific
bellows configuration.
In addition, bellows can absorb a very limited amount of
lateral bending, which is defined as deformation of the conduit
into an elbow shape. Lastly, bellows joints have essentially
zero capacity to absorb torsional strains, rotations about the
pipe axis in the plane of the pipe cross section. Great care
must be taken to avoid exposure of the bellows to excessive
lateral bending motions and to any torsion; this is accom-
plished by correctly-designed pipe guides, anchors, supports
and restraints.
PITFALL #1: FATIGUE FAILURE
A bellows is a thin-walled pressure vessel subjected to large
pressure transients and significant tensile/compressive metal
strains. It cannot live forever, and is expected eventually to
rupture at the natural end of its fatigue life. All capacity to
contain fluids will be lost, and repairs are not possible because
the convolute material has suffered ultimate stress; it is then
worn out and worthless.
To avoid fatigue rupture, scheduled replacement must be
done. The old expansion joint must be replaced with a new
unit before the old material cracks open. Therefore, you must
be able to specify the number of thermal expansion and
pressurization cycles, as well as the range of temperatures
and pressures in those cycles which it will have to withstand.
The factory engineer who designs the bellows joint and
manufactures it must have this data in order to work out
the detailed design dimensions of the bellows unit.
PITFALL #2: UNPLANNED FAILURE
Premature failure of the bellows may come from internal or
external erosion/corrosion, from excessive strains permitted by

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 10 • Chapter 2

FIGURE 2-1: Regular Type of Bellows Joints

No Pressure Compensation: Exerts Pressure Thrust on Piping
Reprinted with permission.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


inadequate piping support-restraint-anchor-guide provisions,
from process upsets (temperature/pressure excursions) and from
accidental mechanical damage.
Internal erosion, and external corrosion hidden from view
by insulation and lagging, are common culprits, and require
frequent maintenance inspection for prevention. Inspection
provisions therefore must be pre-planned.
Inadequate pipe support-restraint-anchor-guide pro-
visions are engineering errors. They are avoided by use of
qualified pipe stress, pipe support, and interfacing structure
engineers for the piping system and support design. Accurate
process temperature/pressure/cycle conditions must be known
by the pipe stress engineer.
System operators are responsible for informing the re-
sponsible piping system engineer (through channels, of
course) if thermal/pressure excursions occur, and the magni-
tudes and frequencies of the excursions must be recorded and
faithfully reported to that engineer, so that appropriate analysis
can be made and corrective actions taken.
PITFALL #3: FAILURE TO PROVIDE
ADEQUATE RESTRAINT AGAINST BELLOWS-
GENERATED PRESSURE THRUST FORCES
Bellows expand lengthwise when internally pressurized. Be-
cause they lack stiffness, the bellows joints would be pulled
apart by huge unbalanced pressure thrust forces, being stretched
past the point where the thin metal tears and the bellows rupture,
releasing the internal fluid pressure. The thrust forces are equal,
opposite pairs, acting at the pressure centroid (exact axial center
of the pipe cross section.) The force magnitude numerically
equals the cross-sectional area of one convolute (using the
maximum inside diameter of one convolute for the area calcula-
tion) multiplied by the fluid pressure.
To illustrate, find the unbalanced thrust for a bellows joint
installed in a 10-inch pipe containing fluid at 150 psig. We
will assume the bellows convolute max inside diameter (ID)
is 16.00 inches.
F = (π)[(16.00)2/4](150) = 30,160 Lbf.
To prevent self-destruction, rigid tie rods are fitted parallel
to the pipe axis outside regular bellows-type expansion joints.
The tie rods protrude through holes bored in the terminal flanges
of the expansion joint assembly, and are fitted with threaded
stop nuts on both sides of both flanges to serve as rigid stops
to axial motion (see Figure 2-1). The stop nuts are manually
set into position to control total axial extension and compression
strains in the bellows convolutes. Setup notes specifying the
plus-and-minus travel are placed on the piping drawings to
guide the piping contractor in setting the locations of the stop
nuts during initial construction of the pipeline.
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
BELLOWS-TYPE EXPANSION JOINTS • 11
Now for the pitfall: the tie rods cannot absorb the pressure
thrust UNLESS the expansion joint’s end flanges are in firm
contact with the outer pair of stop nuts.
However, in order to do its job of absorbing the axial
thermal expansion of the piping, which of course is rigidly
connected to the free ends of the expansion joint assembly, the
bellows MUST be compressed by the axial pipe thermal
growth, which by definition pushes the joint’s flanges out of
contact with the outer pair of stop nuts. In order for bellows
compression to take place, the two pipe ends farthest from
the expansion joint (see Figure 2-2) therefore must be rigidly
restrained and immobile, taking the whole pressure thrust
force without moving.
So standard uncompensated-bellows type expansion
joints cannot eliminate the unbalanced pressure thrust
forces** from the piping system.
The tie rods serve ONLY to prevent unstopped linear
expansion due to internal fluid pressure from stretching
the expansion joint past the point of material failure. The
tie rods cannot absorb pressure thrust unless all stop nuts
are jammed up tight, or locked down tight, on the joint
flanges, thus preventing all bellows motion and in the pro-
cess destroying its capability to absorb thermal motion of
the piping.
Therefore, when regular uncompensated bellows joints
are used, the pipe ends must be rigidly restrained by sepa-
rate structure external to the piping, so that the bellows
will be forced to compress by the amount of the pipeline’s
axial thermal growth. This external structure must be able
to absorb all of the pressure thrust safely.
**{However, a regular bellows joint with tie rods does not
lose its lateral flexibility when the tie rod stop nuts are locked
down completely. So, if the expansion joint application calls
only for absorption of lateral pipe motions, which are those
transverse to the bellows and piping flow axis, then regular tie-
rodded bellows joints can be used locked down, and no pressure
thrust will be transmitted to the free piping. One must not forget
that all capability to absorb pipe thermal axial extension (by
compression of the bellows] is lost in this special case).
In the illustrative example calculation above, 30,160 lb
force of pressure thrust would be exerted by the bellows joint
on both connecting ends of the pipeline, acting axially away
from the center point of the joint assembly and toward the
connecting ends. The two external restraints each would have
to resist the thrust with 30,160 lb acting in the opposite direction,
axially toward the center point of the bellows joint assembly.
Figure 2-2 gives this a simple illustration.
Sometimes, bellows joints are necessary in a system but
the plant layout prohibits the installation of restraining structure
adequately rigid to absorb the pressure thrust without deflection.
When this happens, unbalanced pressure thrust must not be
allowed to be generated in the first place. But we have just
seen that regular bellows joints always create unbalanced pres-
sure thrust!
 12 • Chapter 2

FIGURE 2-2: Regular Bellows Pressure Thrust

Note: for clarity, the necessary pipeline gravity supports and wind/earthquake restraints are not shown.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


In such cases, there is only one solution: namely, to use
a specially engineered pressure-compensating expansion
joint, of which there are two distinct types, as depicted in
Figure 2-3.
These joints incorporate a special extra bellows, which
serves no purpose other than to generate a pair of exactly equal-
magnitude opposite-direction forces counteracting the main bel-
lows thrust. These devices permit total internal absorption of
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
BELLOWS-TYPE EXPANSION JOINTS • 13
the pipe axial thermal expansion while generating ZERO pres-
sure thrust forces external to the expansion joint itself. These
joints work as advertised, but are expensive and may present
an extra maintenance burden to keep working properly. Like
any type of bellows joint, they require careful design and instal-
lation, with accurate pipe stress analysis and proper pipe sup-
port design.
 14 • Chapter 2

FIGURE 2-3(A): Pressure Compensating Bellow Joints

Flow Stream Changes Direction 90 - Degrees

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 BELLOWS-TYPE EXPANSION JOINTS • 15

FIGURE 2-3(B): Pressure Compensating Bellow Joints

Flow Stream Goes Straight Thru Joint

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS ON PIPING,
CONNECTING EQUIPMENT, THE LEVEL
OF PIPE STRESS, AND LOAD REACTIONS
ON SUPPORTING STRUCTURE
Many times one must route piping in a very certain way, in
order to fit the pipe into the only space available for it. And
according to Murphy’s law, when this happens, the number of
structural support points available for the piping will also be
limited, and their strength (i.e., lack of it!) will also be a prob-
lem. The poor mechanical engineer is then faced with the deli-
cate balance between providing adequate support design, for
controlling pipe stress within Code limits, and adequate control
of pipe support reaction forces, so as not to warp the building
structures which must resist them.
This is a very common occurrence in the life of a mechani-
cal process and big utility piping engineer, and early on he
learns a thing or two about solving it. I hope the following
discussion and examples will be of great help to you, when
you also encounter it.
I am going to give you a sneak preview of the correct
approach to its solution now, to whet your interest:
The TYPES of pipe supports are very important, because
in conjunction with their location as well as the piping geometric
configuration and thermal motion, they:
• DETERMINE THE LOADS ON THE PIPING AND
ITS CONNECTING EQUIPMENT,
• THE LEVEL OF PIPE STRESS,
• AND THE LOAD REACTIONS ON SUPPORTING
STRUCTURE.
ILLUSTRATION BY TYPICAL EXAMPLE
Taken from real life, the example we will study is reproduced
as an isometric sketch in Figure 3-1. I shall give a verbal
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
CHAPTER
3
description of the system next, to augment the information on
the isometric.
Description of Piping System
The piping in question is seam-welded low carbon steel (black
steel) carrying secondary loop hot water at 210°F operating
temperature and at a maximum 150 psig design pressure. This
material has an allowable cold stress of 20,000 psi, but the
welded seam construction reduces the pipe cold allowable stress
to only 17,000 psi. At 210°F design temperature, the hot allow-
able stress is the same as the cold allowable stress.
It is 12-in. pipe size, with standard wall thickness,
branching from a 16-inch header connection (Node 120). It
runs north 6 ft, drops 27 feet 8 in., runs south 3 ft 4 in., turn
west and runs 14 ft 10 in. From there (Node 40) it drops straight
down to a terminal connection at a Heat Exchanger (HX) flange,
which is modeled as the terminal anchor point (Node 5). The
pipe size reduces down from 12-in. to 10-in. at the H/X
flange connection.
The pipe is full of water. It is insulated with 3 in. thickness
of calcium silicate. All pipe joints are butt welded. All changes
in direction are via standard butt-welded long-radius 90 degree
elbows. The flanges at Node 5 and at the Strainer (Nodes 20,
30) are ANSI Class 150 forged carbon steel raised face weld
neck type. The valve connecting flanges (@ Node 60) are same
class, but are slip-on types. Weights are shown.
The design code for the piping system is the ASME B31.3
Process Piping Code.
Now for the critical part: the supports!
17
 18 • Chapter 3

FIGURE 3-1: Piping Stress Analysis Examples Isometric Sketch

Note: A simple hand-drawn isometric is usually sufficient for the record, and can be made quickly on a standard isometric sketch pad sheet. Usually a landscape-
style layout on an 11 × 17 inch sheet is best for clarity and detail. It is very important that an accurately dimensioned and clearly-marked node map in isometric
form be made to accompany the computerized stress analysis, and if your software does not generate the sketch as part of your input then you must create one
by hand (or via CADD if you prefer). File the isometric drawing in its final form, reflecting the adopted piping geometry and all of its support locations and types.
Dimensions should be shown on the isometric, but it is neither necessary nor feasible to make the isometric drawing to scale. It must be filed with the record
hardcopy of the computer stress analysis output and any necessary side calculations you may have made to prove ASME code-worthiness of the design. Invariably
it will be needed when the construction actual locations and pipe support detail designs and specifications are made.

AVAILABLE PIPE SUPPORT POINTS
In the real-world system this example was based on, there were
only three available intermediate support points between the
terminal points, which are Node 5, the H/X connecting flange,
and Node 120, the header branch connecting point. The interme-
diate support points, as depicted on the isometric sketch, were:
1. Node 50—3 in. east of the horizontal weld point of
elbow Node 40;
2. Node 80—at center of the short horizontal north-south
run between the elbow Nodes 70 and 90;
3. Node 100—7 feet below the top end of the 27 foot 8
inch riser (or downcomer, whichever way you choose
to look at it.)

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN CANDIDATES
Four different support scheme examples were analyzed for this
piping configuration, as given below. Each example has its
own pipe stress analysis and B31.3 code compliance report,
with example number identified by header notes on each sheet
of computer output.
Each analysis has the same format. The support condi-
tions are the only differences among the four computer
runs, as can be seen by comparing the “INPUT DATA
ECHO” sections of each report.
First analysis in each report shows the cold-only gravity
plus sustained internal and external loads part of the ASME
B31.3 Sustained Loading Case, marked LOAD CASE NO.
1,WT/PRS.
The “ANCHOR AND SUPPORT FORCES (ACTING ON
SUPPORT)” nodal table, “MEMBER FORCE (ACTING ON
PIPE) AND STRESS” nodal table, and NODAL DISPLACE-
MENTS table of output are printed out for the sustained (gravity
plus sustained external plus internal pressure forces on “cold”
pipe) loading case (see Table 3-1).
Second analysis in each report shows the ASME B31.3
Thermal Expansion Loading Case, marked LOAD CASE NO.
2, THERML.
The ANCHOR AND SUPPORT FORCES (ACTING ON
SUPPORT) nodal table, “MEMBER FORCE (ACTING ON
PIPE) AND STRESS” nodal table, and NODAL DISPLACE-
MENTS table of output are printed out for the thermal expan-
sion case (thermal stresses and strains of weightless pipe).
No occasional load cases apply to the four examples: no
earthquake, wind, snow, or other types of occasional loadings
take place.
Third analysis in each report shows the non-Code combi-
nation of thermal plus weight loads, marked LOAD CASE NO.
3, THL + WT. It contains the same 3 nodal results tables as
the first two load cases. This is the so-called “actual operating
condition” we normally think of, that is sustained operation,
without transients, in the hot operating temperature state.
While Load Case No. 3 THL + WT has no meaning under
the ASME B31.3 Code, it is the condition under which we
design and evaluate the steady-state support load reactions and
the steady-state pipe strains (as indicated by the nodal displace-
ments table.) It is this case which we summarize for anchor
and support reactions of all four support scheme examples at
the end of our Topical section.
The final analysis in each report gives the nodal compari-
son summary of calculated stresses versus allowable stresses
required for B31.3 Code (Pipe Stress) Compliance. Note that
the “SUSTAINED” and “OCCASIONAL” calculated stress
tables are identical, because there are no occasional loads in-
cluded in the examples we are studying.
Further guidance will be given regarding the stress analysis
and computer reports as we go along.
Now, let’s examine the four separate pipe support schemes:
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 19
Pipe Stress Example No. 1:
Ten pages of stress program output. See pages 24–33.
Node 50 support = single variable spring;
Node 80 support = pair variable springs;
Node 100 support = simple vertical support, rigid against down-
ward forces but free to let pipe move upward unrestrained.
{The isometric sketch depicts this scheme.}
Pipe Stress Example No. 2:
Nine pages of stress program output. See pages 34–42.
Node 50 support = single variable spring, optimized to minimize
load on H/X flange;
Node 80 support = pair variable springs,optimized to minimize
load on H/X flange;
Node 100 support = rigid vertical restraint support; rigid against
all vertical forces upward and downward; no freedom for verti-
cal pipe motion.
{The isometric sketch also depicts this scheme.}
Pipe Stress Example No. 3:
Nine pages of stress program output. See pages 43–51.
Nodes 50, 80, and 100 supports = simple vertical supports,
rigid against downward forces but free to let pipe move upward
unrestrained. (Not depicted.)
Pipe Stress Example No. 4:
Nine pages of stress program output. See pages 52–60.
Nodes 50, 80 and 100 supports = rigid vertical restraint sup-
ports; rigid against all vertical forces upward and downward;
no freedom for vertical pipe motion {also not depicted}.
Note: in all four examples, Nodes 5 and 120 are rigidly re-
strained in all 12 potential degrees of freedom (no translation
or rotation in either direction about any axis, which is the
true definition of an anchor point.)
Nodes 50, 80, and 100 are unrestrained in the horizontal
plane and about all rotational axes in all four examples.
From this point forward, whenever we quote numerical
results, we are referring to the SUMMARY OF PIPE REAC-
TIONS ON SUPPORTS & END CONNECTIONS table, which
is Table 3-1 on page 23. As explained previously, that summary
comes from LOAD CASE NO. 3, THL + WT, specifically the
 20 • Chapter 3
ANCHOR AND SUPPORT FORCES (ACTING ON SUP-
PORT) nodal table for each of the four support schemes.
DISCUSSION, SUPPORT SCHEME #1
This is the second-best preferred support approach. The springs
allow their nodal attachment points, 50 and 80, to move under
the impetus of thermal expansion as the pipe metal temp rises
from initial 70°F startup temp to the final sustained 210°F
operating temp. In the stress program printout with header Pipe
Stress:: Example No. 1: page 8 of 10 we find these values
of vertical displacement DY, in.
Node DY
50 + 0.08″ (Node Point 50 moves upward; the spring force
decreases by the amount 0.08 in. × 1200 lb/in. = 96 lb, but
still exerts an upward vertical support force of 2,416 lb at Node
50, as shown on the SPRING HANGER SELECTION TABLE
on the same page.
Node DY
80 − 0.21″ (moves downward; the combined spring force ex-
erted vertically upward on Node 80 by the pair of spring hangers
increases by the amount 0.21 in. × 2 springs × 300 lb/in. =
126 lb, making the support force = 2 × 803 = 1,607 lb at
Node 80.
Also in the stress program printout with header Pipe
Stress: Example No. 1: page 6 of 10 we find this value of
vertical fixed (rigid) support reaction force, pounds:
Node FY
100 − 7,425 lb (acts downward on the building support steel.)
This is not an excessive load for industrial plant pipe rack
framing steel (LOAD CASE NO. 3, THL + WT).
Pipe Reaction on Terminal Equipment
The Summary, Table 3-1, taken from the same section of the
report, shows a vertical load of −1,105 lb (downward on the
heat exchanger) at Node 5 for this support scheme, and a
negligible 172 lb horizontal load there. The moments impressed
on the H/X flange are also shown: 3,258 ft-lb. about the vertical
axis, and 1,397 net ft-lb. in the vector resultant vertical plane.
While these pipe reaction forces and moments would present
no stress difficulty to a rugged shell and tube TEMA heat
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
exchanger having a 10-in. ANSI flange, they might cause prob-
lems for a weaker piece of equipment, such as a centrifugal
pump. The loads might exceed the pump manufacturer’s pub-
lished permissible nozzle forces and moments, which are se-
lected to avoid excessive casing deflection, impeller-to-casing
impact, bearing wear, seal damage, etc. which can result when
excessive pipe loads warp the pump connection nozzles. One
should always check this out for safety’s sake. Excessive pipe
loads can and do cause pump mechanical failure!!
We can minimize these pipe loads on terminal equipment
by judicious selection of the spring constants of those hangers
at Nodes 50 and 80. The pipe stress program makes it easy;
all one has to do is to include the command ANCHOR,REL
in the input keyword string for Node 5, and the computer
will do the necessary trial & error calcs for sizing the springs
appropriately. And that is exactly what we see happening in
Example No. 2 below.
DISCUSSION, SUPPORT SCHEME #2
This computer-optimized version of Scheme #1 differs only in
the spring cold and hot settings employed by the hanger supports
at Nodes 50 and 80.
• At Node 50, the spring constant for Scheme #1 was
1,200 lb/in. (Grinnell Figure 82 Size 13 spring hanger),
and for Scheme #2 the spring constant and Grinnell unit
size (13) remain the same. However, in Scheme #1 the
cold-set and (hot) operating loads are 2,509 and 2,416
pounds, respectively. In Scheme #2, by requesting the
program to optimize the springs, we find the loadings
are changed to 3,171 and 3,076 lb, respectively.
• In similar fashion at Node 80, we find the same pair of
springs, namely, two Grinnell Figure 82 Size 8 spring
hangers having 300 lb/in. spring constants in both
Schemes #1 and #2. But the loadings are changed from
739 lb cold and 803 lb hot per spring in Scheme #1 to
694 and 757 lb, respectively, in the optimized con-
figuration.
Pipe Reaction on Terminal Equipment
The Summary of Pipe Reactions shows that for Scheme #2 the
vertical load has been reduced from the original −1,105 lb
(downward on the heat exchanger) at Node 5 to only −500 lb,
and no change in the negligible 173-lb, horizontal load there.
The moments impressed on the H/X flange are also reduced
as shown: 3,258 ft-lb about the vertical axis is reduced to 2,904
ft-lb, and the 1,397 net ft-lb moment in the vector resultant
vertical plane remains essentially unchanged at 1,394 net ft-
lb. These were the expected results, and are about the best

one can obtain under the given circumstances. There are
only two other changes one might potentially consider:
• Weld a pipe support trunnion plate onto the elbow at
Node 40 and move the single spring there from its current
Node 50 location. This would let us support the pipe
such that the spring force’s line of action is superimposed
on the pipe’s vertical centerline below Node 40, and
should reduce the moment reactions at Node 5 as a result.
Of course, additional support structure would have to
be made available above the new support point, adding
to cost.
• Use a constant effort spring instead of a variable spring
hanger. At Node 50, a constant support would enable
no practical improvement over a variable spring, but in
conjunction with a Node 40 elbow trunnion as above, it
might afford a very slight but negligible load reduction.
It would certainly not be cost-effective.
In the stress program printout Pipe Stress:: Example No.
2:: page 6 of 9, we find this value of vertical fixed (rigid)
support reaction force, pounds:
Node FY
100 − 7,460 lb (acts downward on the building support
steel.) In Example #1, the value was −7,425 lb, so optimization
of the spring settings had very little effect on the remaining
rigid support at Node 100.
In both of these schemes, the loads on the header-to-
branch connection at Node 120 are about equal. The vertical
force runs about 4,800 lb and the moment about the vertical
axis, that is, a horizontal plane, runs a little less than 27,000
ft-lb. It is important to note that in the actual piping system,
these forces and moments at Node 120 are internal to the pipe,
even though the stress model calls that node an anchor. No
physical support structure exists at Node 120; anchor refers
only to the degree of restraint at the node, not what creates the
restraint. Internal resisting pipe stress resulting from the branch
weld connection of 12-in. pipe to the 16-in. header pipe, and
not external force and moment reactions from a piece of support
steel, are what create the nodal restraint at Node 120.
Here is what the tabulated anchor reactions at Node 120
mean:
Moment ≅ 27,000 ft-lb. × 12 = 324,000 in-lb.
Section Modulus S of 16-in. standard wall pipe ≅ 70.3 in.3
For conservative simplicity assume stress intensification factor
≅ 2.0 for the as-built branch connection on the header pipe;
16-in. Header Pipe Stress at Node 120 due to bending moment =
= (Moment × SIF ÷ Section Modulus “S”)
≅ (324,000 in.-lb x 2.0 ÷ 70.3 in.3)
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 21
≅ 9,200 psi bending stress.
vs. allowable material stress = 17,000 psi
Just offhand, this stress level should not be a problem for
the header pipe, although only a stress analysis which models
all of the 16-in. header and all of its loads and support conditions
will tell for sure.
But for purposes of qualifying the 12-inch branch pipe
stress wise, the restraint condition at Node 120 is certainly OK.
Why? Because the ASME B31.3 Code Compliance Reports
for both Schemes #1 and #2 show that “ALL STRESSES ARE
WITHIN THE CODE ALLOWABLE.”
NOTE THAT THE PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS DOES
NOT SPEAK TO THE STRESSES IN THE PIPE SUP-
PORT LUGS, BRACES, ANGLES, PLATES, BEAM
CLAMPS, HANGER RODS, TRUNNIONS, CLEVISES,
ETC., ETC., ETC., OR IN THE SUPPORTING STEEL
FRAME WHICH HOLDS UP THE PIPE SUPPORTS. IT
DOES GIVE THE ENGINEER VERY ACCURATE LOAD
REACTIONS AT THE SUPPORT NODAL POINTS, TO
USE IN A SEPARATE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF
THE PIPING SUPPORT COMPONENTS.
DISCUSSION, SUPPORT SCHEME #3
This scheme, simple vertical supports only, (fixed at bottom,
free to rise at top) is unacceptable because thermal motion
would cause the pipe to lift off the support points at Nodes 50
and 100. The pipe would rise off these supports, and the single
remaining intermediate support at Node 80 would have to bear
any sustained reaction not borne by Nodes 5 and 120. We see
that the result would be:
Node FY
5 −2,927 lb (downward on H/X)
80 −15,856 lb (downward on support)
120 11,059 lb (upward on header)
Even with these large reactions, the pipe stresses are still within
B31.3 code allowable. But the design itself is unacceptable,
because if the support structure at Node 80 were to break, then
the pipe would have no intermediate support whatever, and
you should expect immediate gross failure of the whole piping
system in that event. There would be no redundancy, no fail-
safe. One cannot assume that the lifted-off Nodal points 50 and
100, bearing zero sustained load, would acceptably support the
whole system if support Node 80 failed. Only an actual analysis
of that condition, including the dynamic forces of the falling
pipe, would tell for sure. I would bet that B31.3 allowables
would be exceeded, wouldn’t you? In any case, we cannot
permit this situation to exist.
 22 • Chapter 3

So, what if we rigidly restrain the piping at Nodes 50, 80 dard-wall 12-in. pipe size ! That’s a pretty big pipe when you
and 100, both vertically up and vertically down? Voila! Exam- really think about it!!
ple No. 4!! Now, I grant you that even this nightmarish pipe support
scheme is adequate from a pure pipe-stress point of view.
After all, the B31.3 internal pressure, sustained, occasional and
DISCUSSION, SUPPORT SCHEME #4 thermal expansion stresses are all within the code allowables
for all the Nodes in Example No.4, just as they were for the
Well, what happens is bad! We obtain this set of reactions: other three examples. But it is totally unacceptable from the
(pounds force and foot-pounds moment): standpoint of good engineering practice. The reactions are
just too large!
Node F vert. M vert. M horiz. This may be a good point to interject one last thought: our
5 −41,913 27,893 12,200 simple examples included no earthquake loads. If we had to
50 +42,540 0 0 design lateral supports to restrain 0.3 or 0.4 gs of earthquake
80 −33,955 0 0 side sway force, we would have to be concerned with trading
100 +21,610 0 0 off horizontal gaps between pipe and lateral restraints, to allow
120 +3,972 24,345 1,755 adequate horizontal-direction thermal growth, and lateral rigid-
ity to avoid overstress due to the occasional earthquake loads.
Did you expect such a result from restraining vertical ther- This can get very hairy, and so I left it out of our examples on
mal growth of a pipeline that operates at only 210°F? The purpose. (The examples’ pipe routing geometry are based on
magnitude is due to the action of the pent-up thermal strains a large hydronic system which went into a microelectronics
acting on a lot of pipe cross-sectional area! 14.58 in.2 for stan- plant in Ireland, which is an earthquake zone zero site. A good
zone, indeed!)

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 23
SUMMARY OF PIPE REACTIONS ON SUPPORTS AND END CONNECTIONS
Table 3-1

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 24 • Chapter 3

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 25

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 26 • Chapter 3

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 27

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 28 • Chapter 3

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 29

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 30 • Chapter 3

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 31

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 32 • Chapter 3

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 33

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 34 • Chapter 3

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 35

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 36 • Chapter 3

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 37

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 38 • Chapter 3

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 39

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 40 • Chapter 3

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 41

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 42 • Chapter 3

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 43

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 44 • Chapter 3

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 45

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 46 • Chapter 3

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 47

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 48 • Chapter 3

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 49

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 50 • Chapter 3

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 51

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 52 • Chapter 3

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 53

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 54 • Chapter 3

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 55

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 56 • Chapter 3

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 57

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 58 • Chapter 3

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SUPPORTS DETERMINE LOADS • 59

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 60 • Chapter 3

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


SPRING CONSTANTS
OF ELASTIC SHAPES IN CONTACT
The next little group of equations is a time-saver I collected
some years ago.
My original purpose pertained to computerized pipe stress
analysis, and was to facilitate a quick but relatively accurate
estimate of an elastic spring constant to input for each of a few
common configurations of steel shapes used as pipe supports.
The computed stress and nodal deflection results thus ob-
tained were, and still are, more realistic than those made by
assuming infinite rigidity of all hard support types such as pipe
shoes, slide guides, clevis hanger rods, posts, base-plates, pipe
rolls, etc.
I still use them for that purpose. I have also found them
useful in making quick estimates of reaction forces or relative
deflections of objects in static elastic contact with each other.
I later updated them with Page and Table Number refer-
ences to the Sixth Edition of Roark’s Formulas for Stress &
Strain (Warren C. Young, McGraw-Hill, 1989). You can use
Roark’s tables of formulae with my simple method, to easily
create your own table of additional elastic shape spring con-
stants if you wish. Following are the technique and an exam-
ple problem.
TECHNIQUE
A. Define numerically, as needed, the pertinent geometric char-
acteristics of the pipe support shape (e.g., its length, diameter,
cross-sectional area and moment of inertia if called for by the
deflection formula in part C below.)
B. Obtain the material elastic constants for the shape. (Please
refer to Figure 4-1 and Table 4-1 at end of chapter.)
C. From Roark’s (or other suitable tables of published stress-
strain equations) obtain the formula for elastic deflection y of
the shape in the assumed direction of load force vector.
D. Using that formula, assume a convenient numerical value
of load force “P” to act on the shape, and then calculate the
shape’s resulting deflection y.
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
CHAPTER
4
E. Make a quick check of the maximum stress in the shape
resulting from “P.” The formula for stress will accompany the
formula for y vs. P in Roark’s Table. The stress under P must
be less than the published yield strength (or proportional limit)
for the material, to ensure that elastic strain behavior is main-
tained. Remember, the whole point is to find a support shape
that will behave in a nice, linear springy manner. If the stress
is too high, just choose a smaller convenient value for P and
calculate a new corresponding value for y that does fall within
the elastic strain range.
F. The quotient (P ÷ y) is the spring constant we seek. It is to
be used in the usual manner,
i.e., Force = (P/y) × Deflection.
Symbolic Example
Using symbols to derive the spring constant equation for a
simple pipe support member in pure compression or
pure tension.
Definition of Terms
L = support length, in.
A = cross sectional area of support, in.2
P = applied axial force, Lbf
y = deflection thru which P moves, in.
E = Modulus of Elasticity, Lbf/in.2
From definitions of elastic stress and strain, Stress σ = P ÷ A;
Strain ε = y ÷ L; and modulus of elasticity E = σ ÷ ε; we obtain
the formula for elastic deflection, or axial displacement if you
prefer, from
σ = P/A = Ε ε = (Ε)(y/L);
solving y we get y = (PL ÷ ΑΕ);
So the spring constant = (P/y) = (ΑΕ ÷ L)
61
 62 • Chapter 4

Numerical illustration: assume we use a welded steel plate Obtain I from Roark’s, 6th edition., Table 1, page 62.
on edge, 4 in. length along axis of compression, cross section Note: additional beam deflection formulae in Table 3, page
0.5 in. thick by 6 in. width: 100 of Roark’s, 6th ed.)
L = support length = 4 in. 3. Pipe support member = (steel) sphere (i.e., ball bearing)
A = cross section area = 0.5 in. × 6 in. = 3 in.2 resting on flat (steel) plate (D = diameter of sphere.)
E = for carbon steel, 29.5 x 106 Lbf/in.2
3
Now let P = 10,000 Lbf applied axially, perpendicular to the deflection (y) = 1.55 √(P2/E2D)
3 in.2 cross section;
We calculate compression y = (PL ÷ ΑΕ) = (10,000)(4) ÷ spring constant = (P/y)
(3.0)(29.5 x 106) = 0.000452 in.; therefore y = compressive
deflection of the plate along its 4 in. length = 0.000452 in.,
rounded off to six decimal places. where
We can now calculate the spring constant for the plate
simply by taking the ratio (P/y) which yields (10,000/0.000452) Esphere = Eplate = E = Modulus of Elasticity, Lbf/in.2
= 22,123,894 pounds force per inch, or by substituting directly
into the expression we derived for pure tension/compression
members, ν = Poisson’s Ratio for the material, with the value 0.30 used
in this formula (dimensionless)
(P/y) = (ΑΕ ÷ L) = (3)(29,500,000)/(4) = 22,125,000 Lbf/in.2, For materials with Poisson’s Ratio being other than 0.30,
which of course is the same result only without round off error. which is the ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes’ value
for steel, obtain the expression for y in terms of the Poisson’s
We should also check for strain being within the elastic Ratio ν from Roark’s, 6th edition., Table 33, page 650.
range, by verifying that the stress is below the proportional
4. Pipe support member = (steel) cylinder (i.e., round rod)
limit-yield point. The compressive stress in the support member
resting between flat (steel) plates (D = diameter of sphere
would be simply the load 10,000 lb divided by cross section
and L = cylinder length in contact with plates)
3.00 in.2, or 3,333 psi, which is well below the yield stress, so
we are definitely okay with this approximation.
deflection (y) = 4P(1 − ν2)/πLE [(1/3) + Ln(2D/b)]
Next I shall list expressions enabling you to calculate five
different common pipe support shape spring constants, intro-
where
ducing new terms where required.
b = 2.15 √(PD/LE)

COLLECTED EQUATIONS FOR FINDING

SPRING CONSTANT (P/y): spring constant = (P/y)

1. Simple pipe support member in pure compression or

pure tension loading (as derived and illustrated previously): where
deflection (y) = PL/AE Ecylinder = Eplate = E = modulus of elasticity, Lbf/in.2

spring constant (P/y) = AE/L

ν = Poisson’s ratio for the material, with the value 0.30 to
be used.
2. Simple pipe support member as cantilevered beam in
For materials with Poisson’s ratio being other than 0.30,
pure bending, point-loaded at one end of beam and fixed
which is the ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes’ value
at other end (L = beam length.)
for steel, obtain the expression for y in terms of parameters b,
CE and the Poisson’s Ratio ν from Roark’s, 6th edition, Table
deflection (y) = PL3/3EI
33, Item 2, page 651.
5. Pipe support member in pure torsion (K = torsional
spring constant (P/y) = 3EI/L3
stiffness constant for the geometric cross section obtained
from Roark’s, 6th edition, Table 20, page 348, or Table 21,
where page 366, in.4; L = length of member, in., perpendicular to
I = cross sectional moment of inertia, in.4 plane of Torque T, foot-lbf/degree, θ = angular twist deflec-

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SPRING CONSTANTS OF ELASTIC SHAPES IN CONTACT • 63

tion of member, degrees, and G = shear modulus of the

material in lbf/in.2 units.

spring constant = (T/θ) =

= πKG/(2160 L), ft-Lbf/Degree

Note: 2,160 = (360°/2π radians) × 12 in./ft.)

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 64 • Chapter 4

Figure 4-1: Tensile Stress/Stain, A-36 Mild Steel

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SPRING CONSTANTS OF ELASTIC SHAPES IN CONTACT • 65
Table 4-1 ELASTIC CONSTANTS OF METALS
(Mostly from tests of R.W. Vose)

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

PIPE FLANGE LEAKAGE AND STRESS
Except in small pipe sizes, usually smaller than 2-1/2 in. NPS,
which may have threaded screw connections, and low-end water
piping, which may be joined by grooved flexible or split-ring
devices, true mechanical pressure piping is joined to pieces of
equipment by means of gasketed, bolted engineered flanges.
For example, we have pumps, compressors, pressure ves-
sels and valve bodies, all made with integral flanges in a special
series of standard size-strength-bolting patterns, such as the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ASME Standard
B16.5 and the American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard
Std-605 patterns. To form a suitably strong and pressure-tight
joint that will not leak the fluid contents, the pipe end mating
with the equipment flange must have a companion flange
attached to it, which matches the specification and mates with
the pattern of the equipment flange. Steel bolts compress a
special gasket between the machined faces of the flanges, and
the gasket blocks fluid flow under pressure. There are many
types of gaskets, for the many different pressure–temperature–
chemical exposure environments they are intended to withstand.
And as long as the design pressure–temperature rating specified
in the applicable Flange Standard is not exceeded, and the whole
flange assembly is properly installed, the bolted flange–gasket
sandwich joint will not leak or break.
It is important that all persons affected by the use of flanged
joints be aware that the integrity of the joint is adversely affected
by external pipe-stress loads, such as bending moments, which
always exist to some degree. The engineer must factor in such
loads, and may have to reduce actual fluid-pressure loading
accordingly, or go to a higher pressure-rating flange for the
desired fluid max pressure, so that the flanged joint in toto will
not be overstressed.
Along these same lines, the flange gasket must be rigid
enough to allow a mechanically strong flange-to-flange joint
assembly, yet it must be compressively stressed adequately to
deform around the corners of the face ring and into the micro-
scopic leakage paths in the flange faces, else fluid will be lost
from the joint.
Too much compression may rupture the gasket mechani-
cally, of course, which destroys its functionality. So, the gasket
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
CHAPTER
5
manufacturer’s minimum specified seating stress must always
be applied to the gasket ring when the flange bolts are tightened
down for system operation, but no greatly excessive bolt forces
should be used in the gasket seating and compression.
Of course, the high-strength steel bolts themselves must
be considered, especially the amount of measured torque to be
applied by the mechanic, pipe fitter or millwright when he
makes up the joint. The amount of torque is determined by the
manufacturer for the given type of gasket and the number, type
and size of flange bolts specified for the intended duty. The
resulting bolt stress in planned system operation will then usu-
ally be quite high, sometimes not very far from the bolt materi-
al’s rupture point. The reason is to assure that the combination
of fluid pressure and pipe loads acting on the flange joint will
not be able to cause any tensile strain in the bolts beyond the
pre-strained condition achieved with finely calibrated torque
wrench during installation of the joint. Any additional bolt
strain could let the flange faces separate and the gasket could
then blow out.
Because this decrees prestressing past yield strength, the
flange bolts should only be used once. When the joint is taken
down for maintenance or whatever, a fresh new gasket and set
of nuts and bolts are to be reinstalled.
The pipe-end companion flanges are cast, forged, or ma-
chined in steel or iron, or sometimes fabricated of stainless
steel or some special steel alloy.
Cast iron flanges (gray cast material) are so brittle as to
be unacceptably weak, and should not be used unless flange
failure is actually not a problem or is even desired. (If you run
across such an application in practice, please write to me so
that I can include your case in the “believe it or not” section
of the Appendix!)
Ductile or malleable iron, and other special iron alloy
flanges which are not so brittle but which also cannot be welded,
have female pipe threads cut into their hub bores for attachment
to male pipe threads on the end of the pipe being flanged. The
steel and weldable ferrous alloy flanges are welded to the
prepared pipe ends, and the actual weldments are governed by
Code: in the United States you must comply with ASME Boiler
67
 68 • Chapter 5
Code, Pressure Vessel Codes, B31 Pressure Piping Codes or
Nuclear Agency requirements as applicable to the particular
piece of piping and equipment.
The phase engineer is responsible for seeing to it that all
applicable Code requirements, including maximum permissible
pressures and temperatures, are met during the pertinent phase
of the project, whether it be during planning, budgeting, system
design, procurement, construction, startup, or, especially, dur-
ing the lifetime operation of the pressure joint.
Flange leakage can cause a major catastrophe such as envi-
ronmental poisoning, fire, or even a vapor cloud explosion
which can destroy an entire plant. Therefore, any and all phases
of pipe and vessel flange engineering must be treated with
complete competence and with the greatest amount of sober
respect always.
HOW TO DO IT: VIA COMPUTER
Thanks to modern computerized pipe stress programs, bolted
pipe flanges are relatively easy to analyze.
First, in the trial & error mode of initial design you make
the initial assumptions of flange type (weld neck, slip-on, stub-
lap, etc.) and Class (150-lb, 300-lb, 2500-lb, etc.).
Then you (by inputting all the necessary correct data into
the pipe stress program) can easily make the computer program
calculate the various stresses in the flange, bolts and hub which
accrue to contained fluid pressure as well as all the combined
additional external loads on the system (gravity, appurtenance
weights, earthquake or wind loads, thermal expansion, etc.)
And what’s even better, you can easily predict whether
those loads and stresses might cause the flange to leak fluid
under pressure. I will demonstrate the rudiments of the tech-
nique later in this chapter.
HOW TO DO IT: WITHOUT COMPUTER
Yes, it is possible to do this task without a computer, but you
would probably hate it. I have attached the information you
would need for hand calculation of the flange part, namely,
the ASME Section VIII Division 1 Appendix 2: RULES
FOR BOLTED FLANGE CONNECTIONS WITH RING
TYPE GASKETS (pp. 83–103). I strongly recommend your
reading it for background information, even if you do not plan
to do your own calculations. It will surely lead you to a superior
understanding of the design, analysis and vital safety issues
involved.
Of course, you are on your own for calculating the piping
part of the problem if you have no pipe stress computer pro-
gram, to account for external loads to add to the fluid pressure
forces, but that is a topic for another day. From here on in
this chapter, we will concentrate on the computer application
techniques, but I am sure you will find it much easier to absorb
if you read the ASME Appendix 2 material first. Please do so.
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
EXAMPLE TO ILLUSTRATE HOW TO DO IT:
VIA COMPUTER OF COURSE
The precise details will differ slightly depending on the particu-
lar pipe stress program you use, but adaption of the following
techniques to your program, based on my illustrated utilization
of L.C. Peng’s SIMFLEX.S software should pose no great
problems to you.
EXAMPLE PROBLEM WITH COMPUTER
For an example problem, I set up the simple system shown on
the TOPIC #17 Stress Isometric, Figure 5-1. Please refer to
the isometric sheet and its notes for a complete description
of the example (see TOPIC #17: FLANGE STRESS AND
LEAKAGE EXAMPLE COMPUTER SOLUTION (pages
75–80 hardcopy of output.)
Let us refer hereafter to pp. 75–80 simply as “the output.”
As usual, three basic load cases were run, each ending with a
“FLANGE OPERATING STRESS SUMMARY”:
Load Case No. 1 = “WT/PRS” = weight plus internal fluid
pressure at ambient temperature (i.e., 70°F); flange summary on
page 3 of the output. It pertains to the ASME B31.3 “Sustained
Loads” analysis requirements. The actual system sees this load-
ing if fully pressurized, but at ambient temperature, only.
Load Case No. 2 = “THERML” = thermal expansion of weight-
less system at normal (hot) operating temperature (500°F);
flange summary on page 4. This is the load case required for
ASME B31.3 (Thermal) Expansion analysis requirements. The
actual system never sees this loading because gravity cannot be
“turned off,” but besides satisfying the Code’s cyclic expansion
fatigue stress & strain calculation requirements, it allows super-
position into Load Case No. 3, which is not a “Code Case” but
is highly useful unto itself.
Load Case No. 3 = “THL+WT” = thermal expansion plus
combined weight plus internal pressure at normal (hot) op-
erating temperature (500°F); flange summary on page 5, high-
lighted in color. This is the one we are interested in. Although
not required by the Code, it gives us a good approximation of
the actual stresses and strains, forces and displacements which
will exist when the fully loaded, pressurized piping system
sustains operation in the hot condition with gravity present.
(This is usually referred to by piping engineers as the “normal”
or “hot operation case,” as we shall see.)
Concentrating on the “THL+WT” flange summary on page
5 of the output, we see a wealth of information, which we shall
interpret and use for deciding if the flange is or is not over-
loaded, and whether it will or will not leak.
Before we do that, it is worth noting that the flange is a
connecting component in the sense that it is not just a piece
of mill-run pipe but is a forged fabrication that is connected
 PIPE FLANGE LEAKAGE AND STRESS • 69

Sketch of Example Problem, Flange Leakage and Stress

Figure 5-1:

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 70 • Chapter 5
(by ASME B31.3 Code butt weld) to the nozzle, which is just
a piece of pipe. Our example uses 8-inch pipe.
If you take the time to examine the “CHEMICAL PLANT
PIPING CODE COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS—B31.3” begin-
ning on page 5, you will see two columns of internal pressure
numbers for each nodal element of the piping: “DESIGN—
225” (psig), which is just an echo of what we chose to input
as the piped fluid internal operating pressure, and “ALLOW—
969” (psig), which is what the program obtained by applying
Equation 3 of B31.3 Paragraph 304.1, which defines the official
Code-allowable operating pressure for that particular pipe under
the stated (input) conditions.
That does NOT imply that the flange is good for operation
at 969 psig and 500°F; it means that the nozzle pipe, i.e.,
A-106 Schedule 40 mill-run seamless pipe with 12.5% wall
thickness undertolerance and 0.065 in. of corrosion allowance
off the wall thickness, operating continuously at 500°F, IS good
for 969 psig. We have yet to determine what the flange is good
for; the B31.3 “Compliance” report covers only the pipe, not
the flange. To determine what the flange is good for requires
us to master a whole set of other equations, namely those in
ASME Section VIII Division 1 Appendix 2: RULES FOR
BOLTED FLANGE CONNECTIONS WITH RING TYPE
GASKETS. And that is what our pipe stress program did for
us; now we can interpret its results.
EXAMPLE PROBLEM WITH COMPUTER,
CONTINUED: HOW TO INTERPRET THE
OUTPUT’S FLANGE OPERATING STRESS
SUMMARY:
The SIMFLEX.S pipe stress program actually calculates four
separate stresses in each flange, in Lbf/in2 units; these are the
last four columns in the flange summary. They are:
(1.a) column header: “L. STRS IN-HUB PSI”
(1.b) symbol used in the formulas: “SH”
(1.c) = “Longitudinal Stress in Hub”
(1.d) On the “THL + WT” flange summary on page 5 of the
output, we see the values
Node 30 = 10,581 psi;
Node 35 = 11,895 psi
(2.a) column header: “R. STRS IN-FLG PSI”
(2.b) symbol used in the formulas: “SR”
(2.c) = “Radial Stress in Flange”
(2.d) On the “THL + WT” flange summary on page 5 of the
output, we see the values
Node 30 = 9,373 psi;
Node 35 = 10,714 psi.
(3.a) column header: “T. STRS IN-FLG PSI”
(3.b) symbol used in the formulas: “ST”
(3.c) = “Tangential Stress in Flange”
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
(3.d) On the “THL + WT” flange summary on page 5 of the
output, we see the values
Node 30 = 3,721 psi;
Node 35 = 4,254 psi
(4.a) column header: “BOLT STRESS PSI”
(4.b) symbol used in the formulas: “SA” (cold); “SB” (hot)
(4.c) = “Tensile Stress in Flange Bolts”
(4.d) On the “THL + WT” flange summary on page 5 of the
output, we see the values
Node 30 = 18,292 psi
Node 35 = 20,910 psi
These stresses are calculated by the SIMFLEX.S program in
the following manner:
• First Step: program finds the internal axial force and
bending moment “in the steel” at the flange location node
as part of the load case flexibility analysis. For example,
see the “THL + WT” load case, output page 4, for Node
30 on the pipe segment “WNF” beginning at Node 25
and ending at Node 30; it shows the axial force on the
pipe steel (“Fx”) = 2,951 lb, and the bending moment
(“Mz”) = 921 ft-lb. For Node 35 on the pipe segment
“WNF” beginning at Node 30 and ending at Node 35;
it shows the axial force on the pipe steel (“Fx”) = 2,951
lb, and the bending moment (“Mz”) = 1653 ft-lb.
(Only the absolute value or magnitude of the tabulated
force or moment is important; the local direction given
by the + or − sign in the output does not matter.)
• Second Step: program uses a formula that converts the
piping loads FX and MZ into an “equivalent pressure”
Peq. The formula is:
Peq = (4Fx/πG2) + (192Mz/πG3)
where
Peq = equivalent pressure due to pipe loading, psi units
Fx = axial force acting at flange, lb
Mz = bending moment acting at flange, foot-pound units (the
192 converts it to in.-lb for you.)
G = diameter of the gasket load reaction circle, in. (from Para-
graph 2-3, Appendix 2, pp. 332-333 of the 1998 ASME Section
VIII Div.1 Code, as of July 1, 2000 addendum, included in this
Topic for your use.) The SIMFLEX.S program automatically
calculates it and shows it as “LOAD DIA. IN” output in the
flange summary. In our example, an 8-inch RFWN 150# Flange,
G = 9.90 in.
Continuing the sample calculations for our two flange
nodes, using this formula we obtain:
@Node 30,
Peq = [(4)(2951 Lb.) ÷ (π)(9.90 in.)2] +
[(192)(921 Ft.-Lb.) ÷ (π)(9.90 in.)3] =
= 96 Lb./in.2

@Node 35,
Peq = [(4)(2951 Lb.) ÷ (π)(9.90 in.)2] +
[(192)(1653 Ft.-Lb.) ÷ (π)(9.90 in.)3] =
= 141 Lb./in.2
• Third Step: Program adds Peq to the system design
pressure. The result is found in the column called “TO-
TAL PRESS PSI” in the output flange summary:
Peq + Pdesign = PTOTAL
PTOTAL is the fictitious pressure which, acting alone, would
reproduce the flange operating stresses which actually result
from the combination of internal fluid pressure and external
piping loads in the normal hot operating condition.
This value of pressure is what the program uses as its self-
input into the pertinent ASME Code rules (equations) of Sect.
VIII Div. 1 Appendix 2 to calculate the flange stresses. If you
are interested in trying the Appendix 2 calculations by hand,
here are some things to note:
a. The gasket seating stress is not calculated separately,
since it is considered and taken care of in the published flange
class pressure-temperature rating.
b. For consistency with piping practice, using the terminol-
ogy found in the equations of Appendix 2, the longitudinal hub
stress in a welding neck flange is revised as:
SH = (f)(Mo)/(L)(g1)2 (B) + (P)(B)/4(g0)
The first term is the Section VIII stress and the second term
is the longitudinal pressure stress.
c. In actual calculations by SIMFLEX, the gasket types
and Appendix 2 Gasket Factors “m” are:
1. Flange Class 300 or lower: compressed asbestos 1/16
in. thick, gasket factor m = 2.75
2. Flange Class 300 and 600: corrugated metal jacketed,
asbestos filled - iron, gasket factor m = 3.0
3. Flange Class 900 and higher: spiral-wound metal, asbes-
tos filled-stainless, gasket factor m = 3.0
According to Mr. Peng, the gasket type appears to have only
a slight effect on the flange operating stress.
The result of applying these equations is the set of values
“L. STRS IN-HUB PSI” = “SH,” “R. STRS IN-FLG PSI” = “SR,”
“T. STRS IN-FLG PSI” = “ST” and “BOLT STRESS PSI” =
“SA” (cold); “SB” (hot), which we have already discussed
and tabulated numerically above for Nodes 30 and 35, our
illustrative example flanges.
• Fourth Step: is up to you, to interpret the flange stresses
and compare them, as well as the equivalent total pres-
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
PIPE FLANGE LEAKAGE AND STRESS • 71
sure, to certain “allowables” as a guideline, and then to
apply your engineering judgment as to selection of flange
class for final system construction. If the calculated
stresses and total pressure are higher than their “allow-
able” values, then you go to the next higher class and
recalculate accordingly.
Here are the relationships defining each of the “allowables”
for several common types of flange, plus the actual comparisons
for our illustrative example.
ALLOWABLE FLANGE STRESSES
In each type of flange, the following terminology applies:
Sc = ASME B31 Code cold allowable stress for the mate-
rial of construction.
Sh = ASME B31 Code hot allowable stress for the mate-
rial of construction.
Sf = (Sc, Sh) for the flange metal.
Sn =(Sc, Sh) for the nozzle neck (pipe wall) metal.
Note: use the allowable stress that goes with the applicable
temperature condition of piping system operation: for our
example, for cold (ambient) operation considering the nozzle
pipe material, the value of Sn is the B31.3 Code ambient
temp. allowable stress Sc found in B31.3 Appendix A for
Grade B ASTM A106 seamless carbon steel pipe mate-
rial, namely, 20.0 ksi (20,000 psi.) For hot normal operation
of the nozzle pipe, Sn equals Sh at 500°F, which is 18.9 ksi
(18,900 psi).
For the assumed flange steel in our example, which is
ASTM A234 Grade WPB forged carbon steel, we find the
same pair of values in Appendix A:
Sf = Sc = 20.0 ksi cold and = Sh = 18.9 ksi hot, respectively.
It is just as important to specify the flange ASTM number
and grade as it is the pipe material ASTM number and grade,
because Code-allowable stresses vary widely.
Welding Neck Flange Allowable Mechanical
Stresses
See Appendix 2, Fig. 2-4, Sketches 6, 6a, 6b.
Long. Hub SH ≤ either (1.5 × Sf), or
≤ (2.5 × Sn), whichever is smaller.
Radial Flg. SR ≤ Sf
Tangential Flg. ST ≤ Sf
(SH + SR) ÷ 2 ≤ Sf
(SH + ST) ÷ 2 ≤ Sf
except SH < Sf for cast iron ;; typical.
 72 • Chapter 5
PTOTAL ≤ Pt, where Pt is the pressure rating of the flange
constructed under ASME/ANSI B16.5 standard rules. For your
convenience, the B16.5 formula and pressure rating determina-
tion procedure are summarized on a separate sheet and included
in this chapter. The B16.5 formula is used to calculate the
maximum acceptable fluid pressure for maintaining flange leak-
proof integrity, and all we have to do is compare PTOTAL to Pt
for a go–no go decision we can make. This “equivalent total
pressure” concept augments and complements the pure mechan-
ical stress analysis for our decision upon correct flange class.
Since our example problem flanges are the raised face
weld neck type (i.e., RFWN), let’s go ahead with the numerical
illustration of the example now. Then we shall list the allowable
mechanical stress formulas for other types of flanges.
RFWN-type Flange Longitudinal Hub Stress Check:
From the output flange stress summary:
Calculated Node 30 flange, Hot:
SH = 10,581 psi calculated;
Vs. allowable stress formula;
Since Sh = 18.9 ksi hot for the flange steel and the pipe steel
in our example, we use:
SH ≤ (1.5 × Sf) ≤ (1.5 × 18,900 psi)
≤ 28,350 psi allowable;
Go–No Go Comparison:
Since for the flange represented by stress iso Node 30 the
calculated 10,581 psi << the allowable 28,350 psi, the longitudi-
nal hub stress in this CLASS 150 flange is clearly acceptable
under the stated operating condition of 225 psig internal fluid
pressure at 500°F.
RFWN-type Flange Radial Stress Check:
From the output flange stress summary:
Calculated Node 30 flange, Hot:
SR = 9,373 psi calculated by program;
Calculated Node 35 flange, Hot:
SR = 10,714 psi calculated by program.
Vs. allowable stress formula:
SR ≤ Sf ≤ 18,900 psi allowable;
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Go–No Go Comparison
Since the calculated 9,373 psi at Node 30 and 10,714 psi at
Node 35 are both < the allowable 18,900 psi, the radial stress
in this CLASS 150 flange is clearly acceptable under the stated
operating condition of 225 psig internal fluid pressure at 500°F.
RFWN-type Flange Tangential Stress Check:
From the output flange stress summary:
Calculated Node 30 flange, Hot:
ST = 3,721 psi calculated by program;
Calculated Node 35 flange, Hot:
ST = 4,254 psi calculated by program.
Vs. allowable stress formula:
ST ≤ Sf ≤ 18,900 psi allowable;
Go–No Go Comparison
Since the calculated 3,721 psi at Node 30 and 4,254 psi at
Node 35 are both << the allowable 18,900 psi, the tangential
stress in this CLASS 150 flange is clearly acceptable under the
stated operating condition of 225 psig internal fluid pressure
at 500°F.
RFWN-type Flange Combinatorial Stresses Checks:
First Combo Allowable stress formula:
(SH + SR) ÷ 2 ≤ Sf;
Node 30 = (10,581 + 9,373)/2 = 9,977 psi;
9,977 < 18,900, so Node 30 flange OK
Node 35 = (11,895 + 10,714)/2 = 11,305 psi
11,305 < 18,900, so Node 35 flange OK
Second Combo Allowable stress formula:
(SH + ST) ÷ 2 ≤ Sf
Node 30 = (10,581 + 3,721)/2 = 7,151 psi;
7,151 < 18,900, so Node 30 flange okay
Node 35 = (11,895 + 4,254)/2 = 8,075 psi
8,075 < 18,900, so Node 35 flange okay.

All-types Flange ANSI B16.5 Rated Pressure @ Hot
Operation Check:
This is the “PTOTAL ≤ Pt” criterion:
From the output flange stress summary, the computed values
of PTOTAL are:
Calculated Node 30 flange, Hot:
PTOTAL = 321 psi calculated by program;
Calculated Node 35 flange, Hot:
PTOTAL = 366 psi calculated by program.
By the ASME/ANSI B16.5 Standard formula (see attached rule
sheet) we hand-calculate Pt as follows:
Pt = (0.909)(Sh)(PR) /(8750)
= (0.909)(18,900 psi)(115 psi)/(8750)
= 225.8 psi ≅ 226 psi.
So our comparison yields:
For Flange @ Node 30:
Calculated PTOTAL = 321 psi >>
Allowable Pt = 226 psi
For Flange @ Node 35:
Calculated PTOTAL = 366 psi >>
Allowable Pt = 226 psi
So by this criterion, the flange stress is excessive, and we can
expect leakage when the system is up at normal operating
temperature, design fluid internal pressure and calculated
external piping loads: gravity, constrained thermal expan-
sion, excessive bending moments due to poor support loca-
tions or types or both, etc. etc.
Wait a minute here! All of those allowable mechanical
stress criteria comparisons indicated that we clearly have
no stress problems! Which conclusion is correct? What are
we to do now?
Glad you asked! That question brings us to the main
underlying lesson I wanted to convey in this chapter, and
that is:
“A gasketed bolting flange does not have to be stressed
beyond the Code-permissible stress limit in order to leak.
At subyield stresses well below “allowable,” the deformation
strains which accompany the actual operating stresses may
be sufficient to cause the flange to lose its fluid containment
ability. Even when not overstressed, the gasket can spring
a leak due to excessive elastic deformation strains in the
flange metal.
Just great, huh ? Wonderful. So what are we supposed to
do? Do we simply use the “PTOTAL ≤ Pt” criterion to decide
which flange rating to apply? That is in fact exactly what I
personally do. I am a conservative kind of guy, after all.
However, it is up to you! You may elect to do otherwise, to
take a little chance, take a little risk to save a little construction
money on flange weight. Eh?
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
PIPE FLANGE LEAKAGE AND STRESS • 73
I don’t consider the risk worth it, obviously. Once a system
is up and running, if a flange is spraying the system fluid all
over the place, a quick shutdown is in order! That could mean
very big money in lost production in any plant. And replacing it
is tough; blocking off and draining, cutting away the inadequate
flange, and welding a new heavier one in (the weld may have
to be radiographed in situ!), all these factors add up potentially
to really big bucks, paid for by you in one way or another!
No, sir. In my book, the sane thing to do is install a known
adequate flange in the very beginning.
In our example problem, my first response would be to
check out the same type flange except in the next highest ANSI
Class (300) instead of the originally assumed Class 150. We
would thus obtain:
Pt = (0.909)(Sh)(PR)/ (8750) =
= (0.909)(18,900 psi)(300 psi)/(8,750) =
= 589 psi.
Since 589 psi exceeds the computer-calculated PTOTAL val-
ues of 321 and 366 psi for the example flanges at nodes 30
and 35, I would insist upon changing the design to Class 300.
Now for some other flange types.
Slip-on and Socket Weld Flange Allowable
Mechanical Stresses
To review see Appendix 2, Fig. 2-4, Sketches 7, 8, 8a, 9:
Long. Hub SH ≤ either (1.5 × Sf), or
≤ (1.5 × Sn), whichever is smaller.
Radial Flg. SR ≤ Sf
Tangential Flg. ST ≤ Sf
(SH + SR) ÷ 2 ≤ Sf
(SH + ST) ÷ 2 ≤ Sf
Also for these types:Shear carried by the welds due to bolt
tensile stress shall be < (0.8 × Sn).
Finally,
PTOTAL ≤ P1
Lap-joint Flanges with Flared Stub Ends such as
ASA and MSS Type: Allowable Mechanical Stresses
To review see Appendix 2, Fig. 2-4, Sketches 1, 1a,:
Longitudinal SH ≤ 1.5 × Sf
Radial Flg. SR ≤ Sf
Tangential Flg. ST ≤ Sf
(SH + SR) ÷ 2 ≤ Sf
(SH + ST) ÷ 2 ≤ Sf
 74 • Chapter 5

Also for these types: Cold bolt stress used for gasket seating must be less than
Shear in the lap due to bolt tensile stress shall be < (0.8 × Sn). the Code-allowable stress for that bolt material at the
cold temperature.
Finally,
PTOTAL ≤ P1 Hot bolt stress created by the normal operating condition
of the system must be less than the Code-allowable stress
for that bolt material at the hot operating temperature.
Flange Bolt Allowable Stresses

To review see App. 2, Paragraph 2-5 equations.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPE FLANGE LEAKAGE AND STRESS • 75

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 76 • Chapter 5

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPE FLANGE LEAKAGE AND STRESS • 77

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 78 • Chapter 5

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPE FLANGE LEAKAGE AND STRESS • 79

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 80 • Chapter 5

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPE FLANGE LEAKAGE AND STRESS • 81

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 82 • Chapter 5

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPE FLANGE LEAKAGE AND STRESS • 83

Author’s Note: This page and the twenty pages that follow it are reprinted here for your convenience, courtesy of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
As shown by the headings, they were taken from the 1998 Version of the ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE SECTION VIII Division 1, “RULES FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF PRESSURE VESSELS,” specifically from the mandatory APPENDIX 2 to the Section VIII Div. 1 Code body. This is of course an international
code, and before strict application to a current or new design you must check the latest published version of it for any changes from the 1998 Version reproduced herin.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 84 • Chapter 5

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPE FLANGE LEAKAGE AND STRESS • 85

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 86 • Chapter 5

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPE FLANGE LEAKAGE AND STRESS • 87

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 88 • Chapter 5

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPE FLANGE LEAKAGE AND STRESS • 89

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 90 • Chapter 5

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPE FLANGE LEAKAGE AND STRESS • 91

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 92 • Chapter 5

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPE FLANGE LEAKAGE AND STRESS • 93

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 94 • Chapter 5

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPE FLANGE LEAKAGE AND STRESS • 95

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 96 • Chapter 5

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPE FLANGE LEAKAGE AND STRESS • 97

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 98 • Chapter 5

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPE FLANGE LEAKAGE AND STRESS • 99

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 100 • Chapter 5

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPE FLANGE LEAKAGE AND STRESS • 101

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 102 • Chapter 5

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPE FLANGE LEAKAGE AND STRESS • 103

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 104 • Chapter 5

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


THERMAL RESTRAINT STRESS
Some stress analysis problems involve superposition of stresses
from different types of loading, or combination of stresses in
different planes using Mohr’s circle, or simply the calculation
of transient stresses that arise from physically restraining a
body while its temperature changes. This is especially true
when fatigue life analysis is required.
Now I am fully aware that the really cool way to analyze
such things is to use finite element analysis. However, you may
not have the time or budget for that, but still need a good
answer. Whatever the case, good approximations can be made
by hand calculation, and the thermal restraint part is not all
that difficult.
As you recall from school, the basic idea is to calculate
the thermal growth an unrestrained body would undergo, in
changing from one temperature to another. Next, determine the
limiting effect of full or partial constraint of that expansion by
some rigid or elastic structure. The stresses, which we visualize
as being created by the imaginary process of forcing the thermal
strains to reverse, by the full or a selected partial amount, are
then calculated by normal means (the usual equations from
strength of materials.)
The textbooks usually offer a simple example, such as
axial tension in a bar that tries to cool down when restrained
at its ends, or axial compression when the bar tries to heat up
while structurally restrained at its ends. These one-dimensional
bar problems are very easy to solve by hand, but real-life
examples may involve a little more geometric complexity than
that. Hence, the following little collection of additional geomet-
ric cases may be useful to you.
By the way, depending on the particular formula, you will
find two different symbols used for Poisson’s ratio:
μ = v = Poisson’s Ratio (use 0.3 for steel)
Likewise two different symbols for thermal expansion coeffi-
cient appear:
α = γ = thermal exp. coeff.
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
CHAPTER
6
These symbols are used interchangeably, although rarely in the
same textbook. It is good to check on a syllabus of terminology
before using a formula, right?
RULES FOR APPLICABILITY
1. External constraints prohibit or restrict thermal growth,
causing thermal stresses in solid objects. Calculate ther-
mal expansion/contraction stresses by first calculating
the size and shape of the object at its new temperature
(Τ + ΔΤ) when its growth or shrinkage is not constrained
in any way. Then calculate the stresses which would be
produced in the object if we were to mechanically force
it back to its original (@ temp. Τ) size and shape. These
are the stresses due to external restraint of thermal
expansion. The thermal strains that go with these
stresses are the same magnitude but opposite direction
(algebraic sign) as the net unconstrained thermal move-
ments (dimensional changes) the body would make in
going from uniform temperature Τ to (Τ + ΔΤ).
2. Unconstrained solid bodies upon being cooled or heated
can still generate thermal stresses because of incompati-
ble expansions or contractions between different parts
of the body, or from uneven heating and cooling which
create a similar effect. Thermal transients during heat
transfer can be visualized readily, since different-thick-
ness parts of a body heat up or cool down at different
rates depending on relative mass and geometry factors.
These transient strains naturally result in the accompa-
nying stresses, which wouldn’t be there if the body were
shaped such that all parts of it could shrink or grow at
the same volumetric rate. So be sure you recognize the
differences between true thermal equilibrium, in which
the stresses relax to a minimum stress condition, and
thermal transients, during the heat transfer process,
which easily exceed the equilibrated minimum stresses.
Thermal transients often create cyclical stresses which
result in unplanned-for fatigue cracking and mechanical
105
 106 • Chapter 6
failure. Stress concentrations are to be avoided when a
part’s temperature must cycle. This means the shape
should change only smoothly and gradually, never radi-
cally or abruptly.
3. In all cases, our simplified equations consider the prop-
erties constant over the temperature change range, ho-
mogeneous and isotropic. This includes density,
modulus of elasticity, coefficient of thermal expansion,
shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio as well as initial
residual stress.
4. ΔΤ is assumed positive. If negative, the stresses are of
the opposite kind and strains in the opposite direction.
5. Compressive stresses do not reach the point of causing
the object to buckle. If instability of the shape is likely,
solutions must be modified accordingly. (But not in this
book.) (Consider finite element analysis if the design
is important and you think it will buckle.)
6. Stress remains in the elastic region below yield stress,
throughout the temperature range being studied.
7. Temperature is not high enough to permit material creep,
or low enough to cause loss of its malleable properties.
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
No melting, no sagging like taffy, no cryogenic
fracturing.
SOME COMMONLY ENCOUNTERED
GEOMETRIC EXAMPLES
The next few pages of this chapter give worked-out examples
of about eight different solid-body geometries often encoun-
tered in these types of analyses (see Figures 6-1 to 6-8). You
will see that they are not difficult, and I assure you they can
be very useful in practice. Best of all, you can use the procedures
illustrated there in deriving corresponding answers for just
about any catalogued solid shape you are likely to encounter
on the job. The only limit is your patience and mathematical
ability, because as the shapes become more complex the solu-
tions become more tedious. (So what is new?! We would be
surprised, even deeply disappointed if such were not the case,
wouldn’t we my friends?)
 THERMAL RESTRAINT STRESS • 107

Figure 6-1 Thermal Stress Due to Internal Restraint Within the Solid Body

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 108 • Chapter 6

Figure 6-2 Thermal Stress in Element at Radial Distance “r” from Center of Circular Disk, Sudden ΔT Rise
in Plug Volume of Radius “a” at Center

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 THERMAL RESTRAINT STRESS • 109

Figure 6-3 Thermal Stress in Element at Radial Distance “r” from Center of Circular Disk, ΔT between Uniformly
Heated Circumference and Center

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 110 • Chapter 6

Figure 6-4 Thermal Stress Due to External Restraint: Single Dimension Restraint of Ends of Bar of Uniform
Cross-Section

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 THERMAL RESTRAINT STRESS • 111

Figure 6-5 Thermal Stress Due to External Restraint: Complete Two-Dimensional Circumferential Edge Re-
straint of Flat Plate of Uniform Cross-Section

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 112 • Chapter 6

Figure 6-6 Thermal Stress Due to External Restraint: Complete Three-Dimensional Outer Surface Restraint of
Solid Bodies and Flat Plates of Uniform Cross-Section

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 THERMAL RESTRAINT STRESS • 113

Figure 6-7 Rectangular Bar with Linear Temperature Gradient Perpendicular to Bar’s Length Axis: Curvature
of Unrestrained Bars, and Thermal Stress Due to External Restraint

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 114 • Chapter 6

Figure 6-7 (continued)

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 THERMAL RESTRAINT STRESS • 115

Figure 6-8 Flat Plate, Any Plane Shape, with Linear Temperature Gradient Between Hot and Cold Faces:
Curvature of Unrestrained Circular Plate and Thermal Stress in Plate of Arbitrary Shape Due to Edges Being
Moment-Clamped All Around by External Restraint

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 116 • Chapter 6

Figure 6-8 (continued)

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


THE TYPES AND AMOUNTS
OF MECHANICAL STRESSES
TO BE EXPECTED IN COMMON
UTILITY PIPING SYSTEMS
“Pipe stress” is sort of a discipline of its own. It is traditionally
done by a small group of experts who tend to themselves. This
is bad, because “pipe stress” interfaces with many key issues
of design and safety. While certainly not everyone needs to
develop proficiency in actually doing pipe stress analysis, or
to gain a working familiarity with the various governing Codes,
such as the ASME B31-series of Pressure Piping Codes, the
ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Sections, the various
API Codes or even the civil engineering waterworks standards,
it is a good idea for all mechanical engineers to have a “feel”
for what happens in typical piping, stress-wise. For those who
choose to work in mechanical contractor companies, design-
consulting engineering offices, A/E firms, power generation
corporations, or any process-type of industry worldwide, it is
especially important to not be totally unfamiliar with the sub-
ject. One should know enough about the subject to recognize
a potential pipe stress problem with some level of confidence,
and hence when to seek expert guidance in its regard.
In creating this book, I thought about this issue and how
best to handle it. My goal is to convey appreciation for the
subject on the technical level of an average workaday mechani-
cal engineer, without undertaking the deep, specialized and
lengthy process of trying to proffer expertise in the actual
business of pipe stress analysis. Indeed, if one wishes that
capability, a great deal of training, practice, and experience are
necessary and simply cannot be avoided; and that is beyond
the limited scope of this book of guidance for novitiates in
mechanical engineering.
Then it dawned on me that in the beginning of my own
career, all I had for a basis of understanding in any piping
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
CHAPTER
7
subject was the usual collection of undergraduate courses in
engineering mechanics.
The college courses dealing with mechanics of solids men-
tioned piping only in passing, but certainly not in enough depth
to convey understanding or gut feeling for the subject. If stress
in a pipe was mentioned, the pipe was loaded as a beam of
some sort, or as a truss member, was analyzed in the usual
manner of static load beams and trusses, and that was it.
Fluid-mechanical courses simply viewed pipes as rigid
external conduits, to set the stage for the internal fluid-flow
hydraulics work, with discussion of “stresses” limited to a
qualitative descriptor for forces in the fluid boundary layer,
not in the pipe walls, and with no mention of “strains” being
made whatsoever!
So, I decided to begin this topic assuming the only tools
we have available are those courses in mechanics, which I am
certain you have also studied in detail, namely first courses in
Statics, Dynamics, Fluid Mechanics and elementary Strength
of Materials.
Taken from that point of view, my task was clarified enor-
mously. What I needed was to create a simple static pipe-
loading example, easily visualized and understandable, and to
use Mohr’s Circle to analyze the combined stresses at work in
the pipe material. And so, here we go (see Figure 7-1).
Let’s assume a 6-in. welded carbon steel pipe as shown
in Figure 7-1. Let it be Schedule 40 wall thickness, and assume
it is carrying water at 200°F and 80 psig. According to ASME
B31.3 Appendix A-1, seamless grade A-106 carbon steel pipe
material has an allowable stress of 20,000 psi at this tempera-
ture. Also, let the insulation be calcium silicate, 3 in. thick.
117
 118 • Chapter 7
Figure 7-1: Piping Isometric
We will make a wall thickness allowance of 0.06 in. for
future corrosion, and would assume a mill undertolerance of
12.5% on the wall thickness (inner diameter increased beyond
nominal value). We will need to know these quantitative factors
when calculating pipe stress due to internal fluid pressure.
The pipe terminal ends are the nodes numbered #10 and
#80. We assume these are rigidly anchored against translation
and rotation in all six possible degrees of freedom.
One intermediate support is provided, at node #40. It is a
rigid vertical “stop”; it will prevent vertical translation, both
up and down, but will permit unhindered horizontal motion
and rotation about all three axes. (Our coordinate system is
orthogonal X-Y-Z, with “plus Y” being vertical upward. The
right-hand rule always governs the algebraic signs of the vec-
tor quantities.)
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Find the stress in the pipe wall at terminal end node #10.
Normal Mechanics Procedure
If this piping was a rigid body at room temperature, we would
take Figure 7-1 and convert it to a freebody diagram by replac-
ing the anchor symbols at nodes #10 and #80 with triaxial
forces and moments, which would be acting on the cross-section
normal to the pipe’s longitudinal axis (which lies parallel to
the X-axis at nodes #10 and #80.)
We would add the weight vectors representing the com-
bined weight of pipe steel, water and insulation to the freebody
 TYPES AND AMOUNTS OF MECHANICAL STRESSES • 119
diagram, and then write the equations of static equilibrium for
the rigid body and find the reactions at nodes #10 and #80.
At node #10, the object of our analysis, we would find a
vertical reaction component of the support acting upward on
the pipe cross section, which we might label “Fy.” We would
also find a horizontal component “Fz.” We would also find
some moment reactions at the node. No need to delineate them
here, just be aware for now that they exist.
All these reactions of the anchor support on pipe node #10
are the result of gravity, dead weight, as we have assumed the
problem. It would be a pretty good approximation of reality,
but only an approximation. It may interest you to make the
rigid freebody analysis yourself, and compare your results to
the table of accurate results presented below.
In reality, the piping is flexible, not rigid. It deflects under
load. This fact alone creates bending, which shows up as addi-
tional moments on the pipe cross section and as an axial reaction
“Fx” at node #10.
Also, in reality, the pipe undergoes a temperature change
(rise) of 130°F (initially stalled at 70°F, operated at 200°F).
This makes the pipe steel attempt thermal expansion, but the
pipe support and end anchors restrain this expansion. The ther-
mal restraint creates additional stress in the pipe, which shows
up as additional force and moment reactions.
So a rigid-body room-temperature analysis will not find
all of the support and anchor reactions on the piping, and will
yield only an approximation of the actual stresses. To make the
calculation accurate, the piping must be considered as flexible.
Using the principles of elasticity, an accurate stress analysis
can be done.
There are plenty of computer programs available which
make the elastic analysis easy, including the pipe stress analysis
programs themselves. I used my own such program to do just
that (Peng’s SIMFLEX.S from the 1990 era, a classic and
still-powerful DOS-based application. “What the hell is DOS”
you ask? Ask your grandmother; we don’t have time to go
into that right now.) The results are as follows, following the
coordinate system of Figure 7-1.
Reactions on Pipe Node #10
Please refer to Figure 7-2 for a pictorial diagram of these
forces, moments and the resulting “pipe stresses.” Again, these
are the forces acting on the pipe cross section.
Reaction Table Calculated By SIMFLEX.S
Fx = (+) 116 pounds
due to weight, flexure = 5
due to thermal restraint = 111
net sum = 5 + 111 = 116
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fy = (+) 757 pounds
due to weight, flexure = 291
due to thermal restraint = 466
net sum = 291 + 466 = 757
Fz = (+) 343 pounds
due to weight, flexure = 3
due to thermal restraint = 340
net sum = 3 + 340 = 343
Mx = (+) 758 ft-lb
due to weight, flexure = 69
due to thermal restraint = 689
net sum = 69 + 689 = 758
My = (-) 936 ft-lb
due to weight, flexure = 9
due to thermal restraint = (−)945
net sum = 9 + (−945) = (−)936
Mz = (+) 2003 ft-lb
due to weight, flexure = 758*
due to thermal restraint = 1245**
net sum = 758 + 1245 = 2003***
*From Pipe Stress Analysis Computer Output Node 10, LOAD
CASE NO. 1, WT/PRS, MEMBER FORCE, SIMFLEX output
page 2 of 6, attached at end of this chapter.
**From Pipe Stress Analysis Computer Output Node 10, LOAD
CASE NO. 2, THERML, MEMBER FORCE, SIMFLEX output
page 3 of 6, attached at end of this chapter.
***From Pipe Stress Analysis Computer Output Node 10,
LOAD CASE NO. 3, THL+WT, MEMBER FORCE, SIM-
FLEX output page 4 of 6, attached at end of this chapter.
DISCUSSION OF LOADS VS. STRESSES
Figure 7-2 shows the conventions of pipe loads (Fx, Fy, Fz,
Mx, My, Mz) and their point of application, which is at the
centroid of the pipe cross section at Node #10, on the axial
centerline.
Figure 7-2 also shows the conventions of pipe stresses
(σL, σC, τ) and their point of application, which is on the
outside surface of the pipe at Node #10. The salient points to
recognize are:
a. The actual stress condition is an extremely local phe-
nomenon. It varies continually throughout the pipe, radially
and longitudinally and circumferentially. The question “What
is the stress in the pipe?”, without specifying the precise point
of location and the sense and type of stress, is meaningless.
b. The representative maximum tensile-compressive
stresses “at a pipe node,” which is another way of saying “at
any specific given point along the pipe longitudinal axis,” are on
the outer surface of the pipe. They are expressed in cylindrical
 120 • Chapter 7

Figure 7-2: Freebody at Node 10

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 TYPES AND AMOUNTS OF MECHANICAL STRESSES • 121
coordinates and are two-dimensional: longitudinal stresses,
σL, which act along the pipe longitudinal centerline or “flow”
axis, and circumferential stresses, σC, which are the “hoop”
stresses which would tend to split the pipe open along a longitu-
dinal seam.
c. In a thin-walled pipe, which is one having a diameter
10 or more times greater than its radial wall thickness, the
radial stress is generally negligible in magnitude, and is safely
ignored in practice.
d. The maximum shear stress τ, likewise occurs in the
cylindrical surface element on the pipe outside diameter (O.D.),
and tends to deform the “square” element into a “diamond”
shape. We treat the pipe surface stress element and its algebraic
sign conventions in exactly the same way typical Mohr’s Circle
analyses are treated in general mechanics of materials
coursework.
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN VARIOUS LOADS
AND THE STRESSES IN PIPES
1. Longitudinal Stresses: σL
The longitudinal stresses act parallel to the flow axis of the
pipe, in the direction normal to the cross-sectional area of the
pipe. In other words, they act perpendicularly upon the circular
annular ring of pipe material seen in an end view of the pipe.
The net longitudinal stress is the algebraic sum of several
individual longitudinal component tensile and/or compressive
stresses being superimposed. The component stresses arise from
the following loads and forces:
a. Longitudinal component of internal pressure acting on
the pipe end area, based on pipe outside diameter;
stress = (P × D)/(4t)
P = 80 psi
D = 6.625 in.
t = pipe radial wall thickness with corrosion allowance and
mill under-tolerance removed
= (0.875 × 0.280 in.) − 0.06 in. = 0.185 in.
stress (1.a) = (80)(6.625)/(4)(0.185) = 716 psi.
The deformation due to this load is axial tensile strain; the pipe
is stretched lengthways. The stress component algebraic sign
is (+) since it is tensile (tension.) Compressive stress by conven-
tion is (−).
b. Longitudinal component of stress resulting from anchor
reaction Fx of Figure 7-2, which comes from flexure under
static weight of the pipe steel, liquid contents, insulation and
lagging, added algebraically to the axial force generated by
thermal restraint of the piping by the end anchors, which are
at nodes #10 & #80;
stress = F/A
Fx = 116 Lbf
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
A = (π)(OD2 − ID2)/4
= (π)(6.6252 − 6.2552)/4 = 3.74 sq in.
stress (1.b) = (−)(116/3.74) = (−)31 psi.
The deformation due to this load is axial compressive strain,
so the sign of the stress is negative (−).
c. Bending stress resulting from anchor node moments My
and Mz, which come from the same motive causes as the
reaction Fx of 1.b above.
stress = M/Z
M = √(My2 + Mz2) =
√[(936)2 + (2,003)2] = 2211 Ft-Lbf
Z = section modulus for 6 in. sch. 40 pipe
(look up in pipe data tables) = 8.50 in.3
stress (1.c) = (2,211 Ft-Lbf)(12 in./ft)/8.50 in.3 = 3,121 psi.
The deformation due to this load is lateral bending, producing
axial tensile strain on one side of a neutral axis and equal but
opposite axial compressive strain on the other. The stress is
proportional to radial distance from the neutral axis (pipe center-
line), numerically zero at the neutral axis, and maximum at the
outer surface, where radius = (1/2) × pipe outer diameter. The
pipe is bent into the shape of an archer’s bow by these moments.
Since we are interested in the maximum value of the overall
net stress, we will consider the (+) component, the tensile stress,
for addition to our composite at node #10.
NOTE: if there were any additional axial loads acting on
the pipe at node #10, such as water hammer forces or relief valve
thrusts, the resulting longitudinal stress components would join
those discussed above. Likewise if there were any additional
bending moments, say due to wind loads or earthquake g-
forces, their resulting longitudinal stress components would
also join those discussed above.
∴ NET LONGITUDINAL STRESS σL =
= 1.a + 1.b + 1.c = (+716 − 31 + 3121) psi =
= (+) 3,806 psi (tensile).
2. Circumferential Stresses: σC
If the pipe was made by rolling a plate around a circular rod
mandrel, it will have a straight lengthwise weld seam showing
on the surface to join the two plate edges together. The seam
runs parallel to the pipe centerline flow axis. The circumferen-
tial stresses act perpendicular to the seam.
If the pipe receives more internal pressure than it can
withstand, it will bulge or swell (local increase in diameter,
like a “snake swallowing a rat”) and the seam will come open.
Circumferential stress is sometimes called the “hoop stress.”
If you imagine the rolled plate being not welded, but instead
being held together at the edges by tight circular metal hoops,
then the circumferential stress would stretch the hoops in ten-
sion. Given enough pressure to cause the circumferential load,
 122 • Chapter 7
the hoop would swell in diameter until it snapped at the weakest
point of cross section. Hence the term “hoop stress.”
The circumferential pipe stress is caused by the component
of internal pressure acting on the pipe side area, where the
thru-center cross section is a rectangle having the same length
as the pipe and a width equal to the pipe’s diameter. The stress
thus created is tension, and thus has the (+) algebraic sign.
stress = (P × D)/(2t) =
= (80)(6.625)/(2)(0.185) = 1,432 psi.
Note that the hoop stress, due to internal fluid pressure, is
always exactly twice the longitudinal stress component due to
internal pressure, per (1.a) above. Compare the two equations
(1.a) and (2.) to see this.
3. Shear Stress: τ
The shear stress acts on the pipe cross section to create an
angular distortion, i.e. a “twisting” of the pipe’s cylindrical
surface. The square element shown in Figure 7-2 is warped
into a “diamond” parallelogram shape by the shear strain.
a. The primary agent causing shear at node #10 is the
moment about the pipe axis, Mx on Figure 7-2. This is of
course a torsional, not a bending, moment at node #10, Figure
7-1. The direction of the shear strain in our example problem
by the usual sign convention is algebraically positive. It and
all the other stress vectors are therefore positive in our example,
and are shown in the correct directions by convention on Figure
7-2.
stress = (T × p)/(J)
T = Mx = 758 ft-lbf
p = radius of pipe at point of interest = 3.3125 in.
J = polar moment of inertia for the pipe cross section = (π/
2)(outer radius4 − inner radius4) in.4;
For 6-in. sch. 40 pipe,
J = (π/2)(3.31254 − 3.03254) = 56.285 in.4
stress (3.a) = (758 × 12)(3.3125)/(56.285) = 535 psi.
(Important note: at node #40, the moment Mz is the torsional
moment, since at that node the pipe axis runs in the Z-direction.
The moment about the pipe longitudinal axis is always the
torsional moment, creating twisting or shear strain, and the
two orthogonal moments to it create tensile or compressive
strains due to bending in the pipe.)
b. In addition, the two reactions Fy and Fz on Figure 7-2
make algebraically positive additive contributions to the shear.
stress = (V)/(A)
V = √(Fy2 + Fz2) =
√[(757)2 + (343)2] = 670 lbf.
A = cross-sectional area for 6-in. sch. 40 pipe
= (π)(OD2 − ID2)/4
= (π)(6.6252 − 6.2552)/4 = 3.74 in.2
stress (3.b) = (670)/(3.74) = 179 psi
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
∴ NET SHEAR STRESS τ = 3.a + 3.b = (535 + 179) psi =
714 psi
4. Net State of “Maximum” Stress at Pipe Node #10
Thus far, with only one exception, we have done nothing more
than perform a typical academic stress analysis of a piece of
steel cylinder, anchored to separate rigid structure at its ends,
subject to the forces of gravity and thermal expansion restraint.
We have used the manual calculation* methods we all learned
in our Strength of Materials class in school.
(*As a shortcut, I pulled the thermal expansion forces and
moments out of a computer pipe stress program, but I could
have done the equivalent calcs by hand manipulation of the
simultaneous statics and linear elastic stress-strain equations,
albeit in a very tedious way. I warned you in the outset that I
am a typical lazy engineer! Since I used the program, I also
let it find the gravity loads, and obtained flexible-pipe as op-
posed to rigid-body results as an extra, but basically negligible,
bonus. The fact remains that we could obtain essentially all
these same results strictly by doing hand calculations using
schoolroom methods. If we wanted to, which we don’t.)
The one exception mentioned above, is the set of stress
components which arise from the internal pressure. Those are
peculiar to pipes and pressure vessels, and would not arise if
our example involved, say, a handrail instead of a pressure pipe.
The fact that I had to show the hand calculations for hoop
and longitudinal pressure stresses is an artifact of the pipe stress
program. Since the pipe stress codes are concerned with hoop
and longitudinal pressure stresses only insofar as obtaining
adequate design thickness of the pipe wall, the pipe stress
programs (correctly) do not account for them in their Sustained,
Thermal Expansion, Occasional, Combined and Code-Compli-
ance Load case analyses. These pipe code calculations do not
mix stresses in the circumferential direction with the longitudi-
nal restraint and bending moment stresses, and thus do not
obtain a “grand total absolute max net stress number.” Indeed,
the codes recognize that such a number is meaningless in pres-
sure-containment vessel and piping work. This is a point I
doubt you learned in school: Without a theory of failure well
defined, a “stress” value is a useless number.
That is a major difference between a pipe stress calculation,
which is very much “codified,” and a regular mechanical
strength of materials calculation of the same physical object.
The Pipe Code Stresses are specialized in focus, have very
special meanings, and are not to be confused with the result
one obtains by regular statics/elasticity theory methods, whether
using manual or computerized finite-element program computa-
tional tools.
To finish up with our “non-Code” stress analysis, I offer
you Figure 7-3. It contains Mohr’s Circle for the plane stresses
we have calculated. Figure 7-4 is a “freebie” I have included
for you, so you don’t have to waste time looking up Mohr’s
 TYPES AND AMOUNTS OF MECHANICAL STRESSES • 123

Figure 7-3: Combined Plane Stresses for Example of Figure 7-2 with Mohr’s Circle

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 124 • Chapter 7

Figure 7-4: Mohr’s Circle Refresher Sheet for Plane Stress

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 TYPES AND AMOUNTS OF MECHANICAL STRESSES • 125

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 126 • Chapter 7
Circle in your Strength of Materials text if you have, by any
chance, gotten a little rusty on the subject.
To summarize the results of stress superposition found
from Mohr’s Circle:
• Circle radius = maximum in-plane shear stress at Node
#10 = 1,385 psi.
• Maximum principal stress = 4,004 psi, in tension.
• Minimum principal stress = 1,234 psi, also in tension.
• Absolute maximum shear stress at Node #10 = (1/2) ×
maximum principal stress at Node #10 = (4004/2) =
2,002 psi.
What Do These Figures Mean to You?
Well, I suppose you might say, “According to my handbook,
the forged carbon steel seamless pipe material SA-106 Grade
B at 200°F has a minimum tensile ultimate strength of 60,000
psi, and a minimum tensile yield strength of 35,000 psi. At
node #10 we found a maximum tensile stress of 4,004 psi from
Mohr’s Circle. So it depends on how you design.
If you design for strength, we are only loading the pipe to
4004/60000 × 100% or 6.67% of the value at which it would
break. If you design for holding its shape permanently, to stay
within the elastic region of the material, then we would stay
at less than the yield stress, so we are loading it to 4,004/
35,000 × 100% or 11.44% of the point at which it undergo a
permanent deformation.”
Okay. Nobody would argue too much with that. In our
occasional opportunities to do stress calculations as workaday
mechanical engineers we usually are only thinking of one state
of stress, at one instant of time, in a steel fabrication used for
only one purpose and loaded only as we have assumed it.
Refinements such as thermal or vibratory cyclic load fatigue,
relative anchor displacements during earthquakes, bending
stresses brought on by prolonged exposure to strong wind loads,
etc. don’t enter into handrail designs, corrosion is prevented
by a heavy globber of paint somehow, and thermal creep is
not a problem.
No, sir! We usually are just trying to make sure the welded
steel contraption (i.e., handrail) will take the weights we put
on it, and not break or bend so much it looks bad and gets us
fired. Aren’t we, my friend? And we can think that way, in the
case of our example pipe and its loadings, without getting into
trouble this time. Any way you look at it, the stresses are too
low to worry about.
Another way you might choose to look at the stress results
would be to say, “According to my training in mechanics of
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
materials and mechanical design, black or low carbon steel as
forged pipe and plate material is both ductile and tough. When
loaded to failure, it always fails in shear. In other words, I
subscribe to the maximum shear (Tresca Stress) failure theory
for mild steel.
We know from tri-axial stress theory that the maximum
two dimensional or plane shear stress in the object is exactly
one-half of the maximum principal plane tensile stress, when
the tensile stresses at the point in question all have the same
algebraic sign at all angular orientations of the elemental plane
(i.e., when all points on Mohr’s Circle occur on the same side
of the vertical shear axis, hence are either all in tension or all
in compression as in our example problem). So to be sure of
avoiding stress failure we must keep the absolute maximum
shear stress below 50% of the maximum allowable tensile yield
strength at all times.
Now if this were your answer, I would recognize you as
a pretty sharp fellow, and would maybe tend to treat you with
higher regard in the future. (Maybe. Or maybe not. My best
friends tell me I am old, crusty, cranky, and unpleasant by
nature, and not likely to bestow kudos whether earned or other-
wise. Others tell me worse.)
Anyway, good for you! For you would be thinking more
the way the pipe code and pressure vessel code experts, with
all of their experience and testing data and book-smarts, think.
You would be choosing a different value of allowable stress,
namely 50% of the yield strength, since the published yield
strength for the material is by definition the maximum tensile
stress it can bear without permanent plastic deformation.
For the mild carbon steel, you would choose 0.50 × 35,000
psi yield = 17,500 psi as your maximum allowable shear stress.
By that standard, our example is loaded to a factor of 2002/
17500 × 100% = 11.44% of the maximum allowable value. It
is no accident that this mirrors the 11.44% we obtained above,
when we used the maximum tensile yield stress as our criterion
for estimating suitability of the pipe to take the load. The
reasoning behind the various failure theory models becomes a
bit subtle for my ancient comprehensive skills, but I do believe
those Code boys know what they are talking about. And you
had better believe them, too, if you know what’s good for
yah!
The final batch of info I have included in this chapter for
your perusal is the little six-page copy of the pipe stress report
for our example problem. If you take the time to study it, you
will see that questions like “What’s the pipe stress?” and “Is
the stress in the pipe too high?” are loaded, to the extreme,
and deserve quiet, thoughtful answers.
 TYPES AND AMOUNTS OF MECHANICAL STRESSES • 127

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 128 • Chapter 7

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 TYPES AND AMOUNTS OF MECHANICAL STRESSES • 129

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 130 • Chapter 7

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 TYPES AND AMOUNTS OF MECHANICAL STRESSES • 131

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 132 • Chapter 7

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 CHAPTER

8
PRESSURE (HYDRO-) TESTS

After construction, but before initial startup of mechanical pip-
ing systems, process vessels and storage tanks, the building
construction and industrial safety and health codes nearly al-
ways require some sort of physical-integrity testing to be per-
formed, witnessed, and passed. The test purpose is quite simple;
to show that the vessel will hold the intended operational pres-
sure without deforming excessively and without losing fluid
containment. Any material, design, and construction flaws that
might cause physical breakage of the vessel under pressure, or
which might permit leakage, are thus detected under controlled
conditions, and can be corrected and retested if necessary. This
procedure is commonly called “hydrotesting,” but the prefix
“hydro-” implies “water” or “liquid,” and that can be mis-
leading. Pressure tests may not involve liquids at all, and that
fact is a main reason for discussing pressure testing in this book.
(The systems excepted from pressure testing regulations
are both small and innocuous, posing no significant health or
safety hazards. That does not exempt them from common-sense
leak-testing before startup, or sanitary testing per health and
plumbing codes, etc., of course. So don’t insulate anything
before at least doing a good leak-test on it! Thermal insulation
is as brutally expensive the second time around as the first,
and can cost the culprit his job as well!)
The various pressure-test regimens are typically well-de-
fined in the applicable construction codebooks, and are gov-
erned under the auspices of state and local regulations. These
regulations in turn are ultimately based upon legally adopted
professional codes, which have historically been compiled from
a mixture of scientific principles, engineering knowledge and
experimentation, common sense and real-world experience.
It is the referenced professional code which spells out
the actual procedures, technical details, and quantitative plus
qualitative results required of the testing.
Some good examples of applicable professional code re-
quirements are contained in the “hydrotest” paragraphs of (1)
the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Codes, such as the
ASME Section VIII Division 1 rules for design and construc-
tion of unfired pressure vessels, and (2) the ANSI/ASME B-
31 series of pressure piping codes. Also, (3) the API Standards
(primarily 500 & 600-series documents) cover bulk petrochem-
ical storage tank design, construction and safety, and their
pressure testing procedures. In absence of other criteria, the
API Standards bear scrutiny for testing tanks not covered by
the ASME rules.
As project engineer, you really should give careful reading
to the supporting material in the Code as well as the basic
“test” paragraphs. It will help tremendously in obtaining a
thorough understanding of what the tests mean and what to be
on the lookout for, as engineer and as user too.
The ASME Section VIII Division 1 rules for design and
construction of unfired pressure vessels contain these para-
graphs bearing on hydrotesting in some important way:
INSPECTION AND TESTS
UG-90 General
UG-91 The Inspector
UG-92 Access for Inspector
UG-93 Inspection of Materials
UG-94 Marking on Materials
UG-95 Examination of Surfaces During Fabrication
UG-96 Dimensional Check of Component Parts
UG-97 Inspection During Fabrication
UG-98 Maximum Allowable Working Pressure
UG-99 Standard Hydrostatic Test
UG-100 Pneumatic Test
UG-101 Proof Tests To Establish Maximum Allowable
Working Pressure
UG-102 Test Gauges
UG-103 Nondestructive Testing
MARKING AND REPORTS

133

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 134 • Chapter 8

UG-115 General 344.2 Visual Examination

UG-116 Required Marking 344.2.1 Definition
UG-117 Certificates of Authorization And Code Symbol 344.2.2 Method
Stamps
344.3 Magnetic Particle Examination
UG-118 Methods of Marking
344.4 Liquid Penetrant Examination
UG-119 Nameplates
344.5 Radiographic Examination
UG-120 Data Reports
344.6 Ultrasonic Examination
Similarly, in the ASME B-31.3 Code for Process Piping we 344.7 In-Process Examination
find these sections of information important to testing:
345 TESTING
340 INSPECTION 345.1 Required Leak Test
340.1 General 345.2 General Requirements for Leak Tests
340.2 Responsibility for Inspection 345.2.1 Limitations on Pressure
340.3 Rights of the Owner’s Inspector (a) Stress Exceeding Yield Strength
340.4 Qualifications of the Owner’s Inspector (b) Test Fluid Expansion
341 EXAMINATION (c) Preliminary Pneumatic Test
341.1 General 345.2.2 Other Test Requirements
341.2 Responsibility for Examination (a) Examination for Leaks
341.3 Examination Requirements (b) Heat Treatment
341.3.1 General (c) Low Test Temperature
341.3.2 Acceptance Criteria 345.2.3 Special Provisions for Testing
341.3.3 Defective Components and Workmanship (a) Piping Subassemblies
341.3.4 Progressive Sampling for Examination (b) Flanged Joints
341.4 Extent of Required Examination (c) Closure Welds
341.4.1 Examination Normally Required 345.2.4 Externally Pressured Piping
341.4.2 Examination—Category D Fluid Service 345.2.5 Jacketed Piping
341.4.3 Examination—Severe Cyclic Conditions 345.2.6 Repairs or Additions After Leak Testing
341.5 Supplementary Examination 345.2.7 Test Records
341.5.1 Spot Radiography 345.3 Preparation for Leak Test
(a) Longitudinal Welds 345.3.1 Joints Exposed
(b) Circumferential Butt Welds and Other Welds 345.3.2 Temporary Supports
(c) Progressive Sampling for Examination 345.3.3 Piping with Expansion Joints
(d) Welds to Be Examined 345.3.4 Limits of Tested Piping
341.5.2 Hardness Tests
345.4 Hydrostatic Leak Test
342 EXAMINATION PERSONNEL
345.4.1 Test Fluid
343 EXAMINATION PROCEDURES
345.4.2 Test Pressure
344 TYPES OF EXAMINATION
345.4.3 Hydrostatic Test of Piping With Vessels as a
344.1 General System

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


345.5 Pneumatic Leak Test
345.5.1 Precautions
345.5.2 Pressure Relief Device
345.5.3 Test Fluid
345.5.4 Test Pressure
345.5.5 Procedure
345.6 Hydrostatic—Pneumatic Leak Test
345.7 Initial Service Leak Test
345.7.1 Test Fluid
345.7.2 Procedure
345.7.3 Examination for Leaks
345.8 Sensitive Leak Test
345.9 Alternative Leak Test
345.9.1 Examination of Welds
345.9.2 Flexibility Analysis
345.9.3 Test Method
346 RECORDS
How shall we satisfactorily demonstrate that the pipe and vessel
construction has the necessary structural integrity for safe sus-
tained operation under the physical conditions intended in its
design, and prove that it is also free from leakage?
Essentially, it boils down to subjecting the whole volume
of the closed piping system or pressure vessel to a specific
amount of constant internal fluid pressure, for a specific contin-
uous period of time. The fluid is pressurized up to the specified
value of psig by an outside source, such as a pump or gas
compressor, and the system is kept tightly closed by leak-proof
isolation valves, stub-end caps, blind flanges, etc. The pressure-
time history is carefully measured and recorded.
If during the specified time span the hydrotest pressure is
sustained within specified limits, without dropping below the
allowable threshold pressure and without detectable leakage
of the contained fluid, and assuming all other specific test
requirements are met, then the system is judged to have passed
the test. Final preparations can then be made for putting the
system in service: installing thermal insulation, lagging, safety
relief valves, and so forth. So far, so good.
Now here’s the rub.
The exact methodology for testing depends on the system’s
intended service usage, and therefore upon the governing regu-
lations. Some codes permit a choice among alternative test
methods, including using compressed air or some inert gas,
instead of water or some other liquid, as the compressed
fluid medium.
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
PRESSURE (HYDRO-) TESTS • 135
It may be that, in some cases, one must choose the pneu-
matic pressure method, because of sheer magnitude of the vol-
ume of the vessel and piping, or unavailability of suitable
sources or quantities of water, or problems with containment
of potential water spills, or concerns about introducing corro-
sion or contamination into the vessel and piping along with the
liquid test media, etc., etc.
These can be real and overriding concerns, for sure, and
sometimes you have no real choice other than using compressed
gas for the testing. Fortunately, when choices of test method
are permitted, especially in major industrial applications, the
Owner usually makes the decision, using his own established
plant standards of practice as stipulated in the corporate insur-
ance requirements.
However, in less technically structured applications such
as public and governmental works, commercial and institutional
projects, the Owner may lack scientific and engineering sophis-
tication, and having no set standards of his own may leave it
up to you to recommend the best test method. If the applicable
regulations allow a choice between hydraulic (compressed liq-
uid) and pneumatic (compressed gas) hydrotesting, you face a
tough decision.
The Owner, Construction Manager, General Contractor,
Subcontractors, or even your own Project Manager(s) may wish
to use a short-duration, relatively simple and clean compressed
air pressure test, and probably will furnish some really convinc-
ing practical arguments involving construction cost-avoidance
and schedule-saving to support that wish.
What to do?
In my opinion, unless the facts behind the arguments
in favor of pneumatic testing are absolutely inescapable and
overwhelming, the Engineer should always choose the liquid
hydrotest. A pneumatic hydrotest should only be used when,
for some darn good set of reasons, there is no other reason-
able choice. Here’s why:
• Gases are markedly compressible, but liquids are only
barely so. Think in terms of mechanical work and energy;
to raise a closed-end cylinder initially filled with air to
a high final pressure, a piston would have to be forced to
move a significant distance. To raise the same cylindrical
volume of water to the same high pressure, the piston
stroke would be tiny in comparison.
• So the work of compression, being the integral of force
with respect to distance, is much greater for the air. The
mechanical engineer’s most powerful tool and weapon,
namely, the first law of thermodynamics, tells us that
the compressed air contains one heck of a lot of stored
energy. To illustrate this point, study the following stored
energy figures for a moment:
In a vessel or piping volume = 50 gallons
Stored Pressure (psig) vs Stored Energy (ft-lbf)
 136 • Chapter 8
Liquid Water Gaseous Nitrogen
10 psig 1 ft-lbf 2,795 ft-lbf
100 psig 22 ft-lbf 101,016 ft-lbf
1000 psig 1,525 ft-lbf 251,675 ft-lbf
In a vessel or pipe volume = 500 gallons
Stored Pressure (psig) vs Stored Energy (ft-lbf)
Liquid Water Gaseous Nitrogen
10 psig 9 ft-lbf 27,950 ft-lbf
100 psig 223 ft-lbf 1,010,160 ft-lbf
1000 psig 15,250 ft-lbf 2,516,750 ft-lbf
Most people will be surprised by these figures; maybe not
so much by the relative difference between liquids and gases,
but by the startlingly large absolute magnitude of energy stored
in the compressed gas. The potential effects of accidentally
releasing that energy are probably not intuitive to many folks.
The choice of fluid media makes a whopping difference
in safety concerns. Consider the consequences of actually dis-
covering a flaw in construction while under hydrotest pressure:
• If the test fluid is water, the most likely event would be
for a crack to open, allowing a jet of water to spray out.
True, the water jet could cause injury but the odds would be
pretty long against it. The jet would not have much physical
volume, because during decompression, the actual volumetric
expansion of a liquid is quite small.
Also, if the pipe joint or vessel crack had any size to it, the
liquid decompression would be over pretty quickly. (Actually, if
the breach had enough flow area to qualify as a visible “hole”
rather than a microscopic flaw, depressurization would be over
in the time it takes a sonic wave to cross the vessel, and return,
at its characteristic velocity, which is on the order of 4,900 feet
per second, about 4 times faster than in air.
If the vessel’s max dimension is 8 feet, then the depressur-
ization wave travels a total of 16 feet at the local sonic velocity
of the water, and the total fluid expansion is over in about (16/
4,900) = 0.003 seconds.
Consequently, according to Newton’s dynamic laws, there
is simply not enough impulse force applied to the jet (because
the time of contact between the expanding front of liquid and
the ejected jet is very tiny) for the jet to attain much momentum.
We will arrive at the same conclusion by applying energy
principles via the first law. Although water is heavy, bulk
expansion of a liquid state dictates that the water ejecta volume,
hence ejected mass of the escaping jet, is small. The paucity
of potential energy stored in the compressed liquid precludes
that mass from reaching damaging velocity.
So, we are justified in having no fear around a liquid
hydrotest, as long as anyone very near the pressure wears safety
goggles. A squirt in the eye would be about the worst thing to
be feared.
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
• But compressed air undergoes a much larger and more
violent expansion, accelerating metal fragments in an
explosive and lethal manner, precisely as does a bomb
or a gun.
Remember the 500-gallon storage tank of nitrogen gas
pumped up to 100 psig? With its stored 1.01 million foot-
pounds of stored fluid energy? Well, please note that a .44
magnum pistol bullet has a kinetic energy of about 1,275 foot-
pounds at the pistol’s muzzle, a quantity which results in gross
overkill when dissipated inside a human, but represents only
about a thousandth of the potential death lurking in that measly
500-gallon vessel.
And another thing: we can see tiny jets of escaping liquid
from a distance, but we cannot see the gas at all. At one time
folks used to wet the hydrotested system with bubble bath soap,
to help detect loss of containment. It may still be done that way.
Would you like to stand close enough to a leaking tank of
highly compressed air to actually see tiny bubbles form in the
soap film? What if the leak is not at a mechanical joint, but
emanates from a tiny crack in the vessel’s wall? Would you
stand there and watch the crack propagate under the extreme
pressure of the test? Or would you run? And if you ran, how
fast? And how far? And in what direction?
Some things to beware.
For any type of hydrotest, one must install temporary closure
of all openings in the pressure-containing system. For example,
open pipe ends are usually closed for testing by inline isolation
valves and blind flanges. Vessel nozzle openings are closed
with bolted blind flanges; smaller ones may have threaded
pipe nipples or couplings and caps for temporary closure. The
pressure class used in construction (the maximum pressure
rating at the specified operating temperature) of valves, flanges
and pipe fittings is determined by the piping-vessel design
engineer, as are the actual materials (by ASTM Specification)
from which they are constructed.
We all know that cast iron and carbon steel are both strong
materials. However, carbon steel and its alloys are vastly supe-
rior to cast iron as a material for construction of pressure-
containing devices. Ductility is the reason; where carbon steel is
extremely tough and resilient, and very forgiving in its structural
properties, the much-inferior grey cast iron is too brittle for
safety’s sake in pressure systems.
Give a cheap grey cast iron nipple, cap or blind flange a
good, healthy rap with a steel hammer, and it will probably
shatter into pieces. However, give the same healthy rap to its
forged carbon steel counterpart, and the steel nipple or flange
would simply issue a bell-like tone, and make your hammer-
hand tingle a bit (or tingle a lot, if you didn’t manage to hit
the sweet spot).
Now if the cast iron blind flange is on a vessel containing
static, pressurized liquid, the pieces of broken cast iron will
drop to the floor, and probably cause no harm unless the vessel
is huge and the test pressure is gosh-awful.

However: under hydrotest pressure from compressed air
or other gases, those same pieces of cast iron become massive,
deadly high-velocity ballistic objects; that is, shrapnel.
Note: Since same pipe-size 125# and 150# ANSI forged
steel and cast iron flanges have the same outside diameters and
bolt hole patterns, potentially mistakes could easily be made
in the field assembly of the test setup.
CONCLUSIONS
Compressed gases are extremely dangerous, especially
when their container’s integrity is unknown! Which is al-
ways the case, by definition, with a new, untested vessel or
piping system!
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
PRESSURE (HYDRO-) TESTS • 137
Therefore, pneumatic pressure testing should always
be recognized as the hazard it is, and considered in light
of the potential loss of lives and property it puts at risk. If
it must be done, the pneumatic test must be thoroughly
engineered and conducted with the utmost of care to reduce
the danger as much as possible. No brittle materials shall
be permitted in the test, especially cheap grey cast iron
flanges or pipe fittings.
The whole pressure test area and surroundings, out to
some calculated safe radius from the pressurized test vessel,
should be considered a likely blast/fragmentation zone,
must be selected as such, considering fire safety, and should
be evacuated of human occupancy for the duration of all
testing.
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
 CHAPTER

9
ISSUES AND CODES CONCERNING
PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE
PROTECTION AND SAFETY

SOME OF THE IMPORTANT TOPICS ARE and Installation of Pressure-Relieving Systems in Refin-
SAFETY/RELIEF VALVES, RUPTURE DISKS, eries, Part I_Design and Part II_Installation.
GUIDELINES FOR SIZING THESE DEVICES API 2000, “Venting Atmospheric and Low-Pressure
AND CALCULATING THE HYDRAULICS OF Storage Tanks (Non-refrigerated and Refrigerated.)
RELIEF FLOWRATES 7. National Fire Protection Assoc. (NFPA)
NFPA-30, “National Fire Codes” Flammable and Com-
Some of the present and past applicable Codes for calculating bustible Liquids Code.
pressure relief fluid mass flowrates from vessels immersed in 8. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety &
flames of external fire, for preventing piping and pressure vessel Health Administration (OSHA)
overpressure via mechanical relief devices such as liquid pres- OSHA 1910.106, “Flammable and Combustible
sure relief valves, vapor pressure safety (pop-open action) Liquids.”
valves, rupture disks, low pressure relief vents, and the like,
include: The Codes and Standards listed are well written and largely
self-explanatory. Their authors knew better than to make them
too academic in nature or too vague or cerebral, because their
1. Fossil Fuel-fired Boiler Code:
subject matter has great bearing on plant safety. These are
ASME Section I, Division 1 Codes we all want to be easy to understand and safe to apply
(not discussed in this chapter) for most technical folks, including all mechanical and chemi-
2. Unfired Pressure Vessels Code: cal engineers.
ASME Section VIII, Division 1 So if you encounter a project involving storage tank, pres-
par. UG-125 thru UG-137. sure vessel or piping safety relief engineering, requiring your
3. Power Plant Piping Code: participation, then you had better acquire, read and understand
ASME Pressure Piping Code B31.1 their applicable parts. They are too voluminous to permit re-
par. 101.2, 122.6 printing here, and are updated regularly anyway. Go now, post-
4. Chemical Plant and Refinery Piping: haste, and get the latest versions for your working library.
ASME Pressure Piping Code B31.3 As for this humble book, there are several neat related
par. 301.2, 322.6, F322.6 topics we want to expand a bit, with the usual goals of achieving
5. (Hydrocarbon) Transportation Pipelines: clarity and conservatism, where experience has indicated the
ASME Piping Systems Code B31.4 need therefore, plus avoiding the invention of wheels and doing
par. 401.2, 422.6 more work than personally necessary. These expanded topics
6. American Petroleum Institute (API) include:
API 521, “Guide for Pressure-Relieving and Depressur-
izing Systems, Recommended Practice 521”; • A short discussion regarding the things that usually need
API RP 520, “Recommended Practice for the Design consideration when you are making a calculation of relief

139

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 140 • Chapter 9
fluid flowrates for safety device sizing. Included: a set
of blank self-instructive checklist-form data sheets to
help you in this task (pp. 151–165).
• A very nice article (pp. 168–173) by Mr. R.A. Crozier,
engineer at DuPont, comparing the various code ap-
proaches to fire-sizing relief valves, courtesy of Chemi-
cal Engineering Magazine (1985.)
• A sample calculation of a fire-sizing vessel relief example
problem, based on the NFPA - OSHA - API 2000 heat
gain procedures (pp. 175–179).
• Figures 9-1 thru 9-4, pp. 141–144. A short but sweet
“how-to” paper by the CONSOLIDATED Safety/Relief
Valve Company on finding the reaction forces acting
on a safety valve when it is discharging gases, vapors
or steam. This is necessary for ASME Piping Codes pipe
stress analysis compliance. Also, it is handy for designing
thrust blocks and relief valve pipe supports!
• A similar sample calculation by myself for finding reac-
tion forces from liquid relief flows (Figure 9-5, pp.
145–147).
• Finally, an approach to satisfying ASME Boiler & Pres-
sure Vessels Code, Section VIII Division 1, “Rules for
Construction of Pressure Vessels” UG-127(3)(b)(4). This
may help if you have to design a series installation of
Rupture Disk + Relief Valve (Figure 9-6, p. 148).
CALCULATION OF RELIEF FLUID
FLOWRATES FOR DEVICE SIZING
The basics:
Pipes and Vessels must contain MAXIMUM flowing pres-
sures at COINCIDENT MAX operating temperature without
deforming, breaking, leaking or shaking!
And since we are not made out of money, in fact we are
darn close to going bust most of the time, there is a limit to
how robust our pipes and vessels can be made. This means
that each vessel must have a MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE
WORKING PRESSURE (MAWP) in its anticipated working
range of temperature, extreme high to extreme low, beyond
which pressure limit the applicable piping or vessel CODE
deems operation unsafe.
Accidents happen. Fires break out and turn our placid
storage tanks into huge pressure cookers. Pumps fail and pumps
run away; valves fail to the wrong position; electrical power
is lost; flow regulators run away, and human operators make
every mistake in the book, plus a few new ones nobody ever
heard of before.
Therefore we must install failsafe devices (safety/relief
valves, engineered rupture disks, emergency vents) to relieve
internal pressure if for whatever reason the upset event over-
pressure tries to climb above the vessel’s MAWP, else our
vessel may explode. Not good; not good at all.
Pipes and Vessels can contain solids, gases, liquids+vapors,
a mixture of these, or a vacuum. Handling solids and slurries
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
is a whole other science, which we are not going to broach here.
Handling vacuums is also a separate topic, although breaking
vacuums in a vessel is a good trick to know, and we will
mention it in passing where it fits the discussion. (See the
Jacketed Piping Topic elsewhere in this book for a discussion
of vessel crushing due to external pressure.)
That leaves us with pipes and vessels as fluid state mass
containers. In order to do engineering safety relief studies of
pipes and vessels, we have to know a good many definite facts,
not the least of which is a precise thermophysical description
of the process system containing the vessel and the vessel’s
contained fluids!
THEREFORE, We need an accurate P&ID of the system
(Piping & Instrumentation Diagram, or Process & Instrumenta-
tion Diagram, take your pick, they are the same thing). In
addition, we need mass flow balance data for the various fluid
streams, and for those pieces of equipment affecting flowrates,
temps and pressures, we need pipe sizes and approximate
geometry, pump curves, specific control valve sizes, types
and actual Cv vs. % open range data, heater capacities (nor-
mal & runaway, especially for steam-powered heaters), etc.
We need to have the list of contained fluid constituents
by chemical molecular identity.
We need to know the mass fraction of each constituent
in the mixture.
We need to know the pressures and temperatures inside
the vessel at the emergency upset condition, so that we can
figure out the phases of each constituent.
We need a good cross sectional elevation view drawing
of the vessel and its mechanical contents and appurtenances
inside (tubes, trays, grids, screens, instrument transducers,
gauges, heat exchanger bundles, etc., and nozzles outside: inlet
pipes, outlet pipes, vents, drains, manways, agitator mixer
mounting nozzles, pressure relief devices, etc.)
From all of the above we can calculate each constituent’s
specific gravity, and hence guess pretty accurately at its physi-
cal location inside the vessel. This gives us the physical map
we need for understanding the patterns of flow inside the vessel
when the rupture disk ruptures or the relief valve blows, in all
potential cases of process flowing conditions which may apply.
This in turn tells us what type of safety relief device we need
to apply.
In other words, we need to select vapor-relief safety valves
(*pop action) operating at 21% above MAWP inlet overpressure
when the fluid at the vessel top-mounted safety valve inlet is
a fire-generated vapor such as steam.
But when the fluid is a cool liquid such as water, needing
relief when a feed pump control valve runs wild, then we need
to select a vessel bottom-mounted liquid relief valve (*propor-
tional action) operating at 10% above MAWP inlet ov-
erpressure.
The two devices are different animals altogether, and even
if the two relief flowrates were equivalent (they never are) the
different type devices may or may not be interchangeable.
This sounds like a lot of work. It is. [Cont. p. 147.]
 PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE • 141

FIGURE 9-1: Safety Relief Valve Thrust Reaction Forces Due to Discharge of Gases and Vapors. Force direction
opposite to relief flow vector (Consolidated Valve Company)

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 142 • Chapter 9

FIGURE 9-2: Reaction Forces Charts for Temperature Correction and Outlet Correction (Consolidated Valve
Company)

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE • 143

FIGURE 9-3: Reaction Forces Due to Valve Discharge (Steam Service) (Consolidated Valve Company)

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 144 • Chapter 9

FIGURE 9-4: Reaction Forces Computation Formulas (Consolidated Valve Company)

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE • 145

FIGURE 9-5: Standard Derivation of Liquid Jet Thrust

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 146 • Chapter 9

FIGURE 9-5 (continued)

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


FIGURE 9-5 (continued)
[continued from p. 140]
This also sounds pretty complicated and detailed. It is.
This doesn’t sound too easy. It isn’t.
HOWEVER, thus armed, we are prepared to begin a
safety relief analysis of our vessel.
Next, in order to select appropriate pressure relief devices
to protect the vessel, we must figure out a list of things can go
wrong, including accidents, errors, failures, process upsets,
fires, storms, and the like. We must identify each possible bad
thing with a realistic probability of happening to us, decide
whether or not to try to protect against it, cull the list down to
“keepers,” and go from there. Those that we do not try to
prevent, we write off as an act of God and let what will hap-
pen, happen.
NOTE: Tornadoes, tsunamis, typhoons, floods, hurricanes,
terrorist bombings, direct runaway truck hits and airplane
crashes, asteroid strikes, thermonuclear war and the end of time
are examples of things in the non-nuclear industries that most
folks write off as acts of God. No point in trying to negate
their effects with safety valves or rupture disks. Note also,
however, that the stupid acts of people making errors and mis-
takes in design, operation and maintenance activities, are very
much omnipresent; they can and must be considered in any
safety relief study!
NOTE: At least in the non-nuclear industries, we usually
only consider “single failure modes,” and do not size relief
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE • 147
devices for “simultaneous unrelated failures.” This is a bit
subtle; let’s use a couple of examples to clarify.
An example of two simultaneous unrelated failures is: (1)
A vessel’s electrically actuated electronically operated nitrogen
pad regulator valve fails wide open, subjecting the vessel to
full nitrogen source pressure if allowed to persist. We assume
the nitrogen feed pipe contains no safety relief valve of its own,
downstream of the regulator, and that the vessel primary relief
device will be forced to handle this situation. The vessel MAWP
may be lower than the nitrogen source pressure. If so, we have
a problem! (2) During this time, the vessel’s self-pilot actuated
pneumatically operated steam feed regulator valve, not con-
nected in any way to the nitrogen pad regulator, also fails wide
open, subjecting the vessel to uncontrolled internal heating.
This may generate more internal pressure of boiled-off vapor
than the MAWP can allow. Another bad problem. (RESULT:)
We must consider both potential failures, but only one at a
time. The first case results in the need for a vessel safety valve
to pop open at the MAWP, and to relieve a mixture of nitrogen
gas and vessel headspace vapor, at the relief flowrate which
you must calculate. The second case calls for a safety valve
to open at the MAWP and relieve another flowrate of heat-
generated process fluid vapor; you must also calculate the
boiled-off vapor quantity. Then you must determine the relief
requirement resulting in the largest capacity relief device. This,
the larger of the two calculated mass flowrates, would be the
 148 • Chapter 9

FIGURE 9-6: Sketch of Rupture Disk/Tell-Tale/Safety Relief Valve Assembly for ASME Section VIII Div.
1 Vessel. Please refer to page 150 for discussion of this.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


mass flowrate sizing basis for the relief device. Also, in the
process, you would calculate the chemical constituency, pres-
sure, temperature, specific gravity and other pertinent thermo-
physical values (k, R, m and state points of the relief fluids),
which must be identified to size the relief devices properly.
An example of two simultaneous failures which WOULD
have to be considered RELATED and ADDITIVE is: A vessel’s
nitrogen pad regulator valve and its steam feed regulator valve
are both electric-motor actuated and electronically controlled,
by the same programmable logic-type multichannel setpoint
controller (PLC.) Both valves’ actuators are designed to fail
by spring action into the wide-open valve position. One fine
day that PLC undergoes a sudden and complete failure; maybe
its power supply dies a natural death and it has no backup.
Maybe some control-room yahoo spills his coffee onto its moth-
erboard while its cover is off. Or maybe a rat gets into it and
gnaws through a circuit board. Whatever. The PLC fails to
work, and both valves go wide open simultaneously.
Granted, it would take some ultra-lousy E&I engineering
design to set the stage for this scenario, but the world is no
stranger to lousy engineering and such a thing could come to
pass. If it does, the vessel’s relief device will have to handle
the concomitant sum of both flows, wild nitrogen feed plus
boiled-off heat generated vapor. It would be your job to calcu-
late the flow details (good luck, Doctor Einstein!) (Actually,
the thing to do is earmark this vessel for a system safety upgrade,
to separate the controls for the two regulators so that one device
failure cannot force both valves to go wide open. Good luck,
Mr. Project Engineer.)
To aid you in constructing your decision matrix and making
the host of calculations required to get to the relief device sizing
point, I have stuck a bunch of blank, self-instructive checklist-
form data calc sheets which will help you in this task. They
are located on pp. 151–165.
Wow! Now we have reached the stage of deciding the
type(s), size(s), desired feature details and the pertinent vessel
nozzle location(s) for the devices you will select for your safety
relief system. Congratulations! All you have to do now is write
the whole thing up in a recoverable fashion for your file, and run
the computer programs of your favorite Safety Relief Device
Vendor to select and size the devices.
By the way, get Mr. Vendor to run the selection programs
independently, and provide his results to compare with your
own. A good competent technical check of the myriad thermo-
chemical and thermophysical calculations you had to make
should also be obtained and verified. (Most plant safety review
boards will insist on these or similar steps, and probably more.)
FIRE-SIZING RELIEF VALVES ARTICLE
This nicely written article by Mr. Crozier, which begins on p.
167, is quite good. If you end up doing HAZOPS, plant vessel
pressure safety review work, you will have to plunge into the
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE • 149
fire-sizing procedures. The standards mandated by Management
for use will vary from plant to plant, and you may end up
having to use several seemingly conflicting ones; for example,
NFPA-30 standard procedures for one group of vessels, but
API-520 for certain others.
Fire-sizing almost always creates the governing relief con-
dition for sizing safety relief valves/rupture disks. (But not
always, so be careful. You still have to check out the require-
ments accruing to other potential causes of overpressure.)
Anyway, Mr. Crozier’s comparison study of the API-520
fire sizing procedure versus the OSHA/NFPA-30/API-2000 cri-
teria will help answer most of the questions you are likely to
encounter in your calculating work. I can’t do it any better than
he did, so read his paper!
SAMPLE CALCULATION OF FIRE-SIZING A
PRESSURE VESSEL RELIEF REQUIREMENT
USING NFPA-30/API 2000/OSHA STANDARD
DATA FOR HEAT FLUX FROM FLAMES
Let’s work a simple fire-sizing example problem (see the results
on pages 174–179). I used the applicable checklist data-calc
sheets.
Our example vessel is a horizontal cylindrical vessel with
ASME F&D (flanged and dished) heads, mounted up around
5–10 feet above ground on a steel platform. It is 4 feet in OD,
its straight tangent length (cylindrical shell plus straight weld-
flange portions of the heads) is 10 feet long, and it is filled
with the process liquid.
The vessel is bare, stainless steel, not sprinklered, and is
not in a particularly well-drained area of the plant. So our “F-
factor” is 1.00 as defined by NFPA, et al. We assume that it
is totally enveloped in flames for a good while, so 100% of its
wetted surface area receives the fire-sizing heat flux.
We will assume for simplicity of demonstration that the
process liquid is pure water. There is a trace of light solvent
floating on top, but it is soon gone, and not great enough to
taint the pure-water thermophysics we assume in our example.
We will also assume that the vessel is U-stamped, and that
the stamp data and National Board Registry data mirror that
found on the vessel’s design shop drawing: Normal operating
pressure 80 psig at 70°F, with design MAWP = 100 psig, also
at 70°F. This vessel was hydrotested successfully at 150 psig
per ASME Section VIII Div. 1 requirements, and so stamped.
We wish to check the size of its existing safety relief valve,
which happens to be a Farris Type 2600. That’s good; we have
an old copy of Farris’s safety valve software to check the
selection by. Saves work!
Our assumptions are straight ASME VIII-1 Code for single
relief device fire sized, setpoint at the MAWP (100 psig here)
and sized to pass the relief flow load at 21% overpressure.
Hence, our vessel pressure underneath the safety valve inlet
will be = (1.21 × MAWP setpoint + 14.7) PSIA, = 1.21 × 100
 150 • Chapter 9
+ 14.7 = 135.7 PSIA. My old steam table says that at saturation
pressure of about 135.7 PSIA, steam temperature is about
350.5°F, and the latent heat of evaporation hfg is about 870.3
BTU/Lbm.
So here is what is happening: our plant is on fire, the vessel
is swallowed in flames, and its liquid water contents are boiling
inside. It has a safety valve blowing pure steam, entering the
valve at a saturated thermal equilibrium condition of 135.7
psia, 350.5°F.
We wish to know:
a. How much relief steam, Lbm/hr.
b. Required Safety Valve size: Body size and orifice size.
Refer to pp. 174–179 for the solution.
RUPTURE DISK IN SERIES WITH SAFETY
RELIEF VALVE: TELL-TALE SPOOLPIECE
MUST SEPARATE THEM PER ASME B&PV
CODE
Refer to Figure 9-6, page 148 for sketch.
IT CAN BE VERY DESIRABLE to install a rupture disk in
series combination with a safety relief valve. The pressure
vessel contents may be corrosive, making it more economical
to place a corrosion-resistant rupture disk in wet contact with
the pressurized fluid than it would be to manufacture the safety
relief valve out of equivalent material. Or, the fluid contents
may tend to cause a buildup of CRUD (a technical term meaning
exactly what you think it means) under the relief valve seat inlet
to prevent the relief valve from opening properly when needed.
However, it’s not quite a simple design task, because rup-
ture disks fail soon and often in most types of service, needing
cyclical maintenance replacement. They can “seep” under pres-
sure, letting small amounts of fluid bypass the disk, defeating
the very purpose of their installation.
ASME recognizes this dilemma, and mandates a solution
for it. The details are up to the engineer’s judgment and are his
personal design responsibility. The applicable Code reference is
the latest version of the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessels
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Code, Section VIII Division 1, “Rules for Construction of
Pressure Vessels”, Para. UG-127(3)(b)(4).
The gist of that solution is to separate the inlet of the
safety/relief valve from the discharge of the rupture disk holder
by a piping spool piece, which contains some means to signal
the operator and warn him of any leakage past the rupture disk.
Figure 9-6 is the schematic of one such spool piece arrange-
ment. I used it on some jobs once. It may not work in your
application. Use it at your own peril. (Of course that goes for
any author-generated designs shown in any chapter of this
book. Only an idiot copies blindly the work of another blind
idiot !!)
Care must be taken to select proper materials throughout,
to size the RD (rupture disk) and SRV (safety relief valve) for
the amount of backpressure which will be generated, and allow
sufficient pipe gradient for drainage of liquid to a safe receptor.
Also, an automated or fancier seal-water makeup valve arrange-
ment may be desired in some cases.
It may seem silly to mention the last point, namely selec-
tion of non-corrosive internal components for the tell-tale
pressure switch. Negligence to use gold or platinum contacts
in place of copper inside sensory instruments subject to corro-
sive-to-copper vapor and liquid has caused the accidental
deaths of a number of innocent people working in chemical
plants. Pay attention to absolutely all details when specifying
such systems. Where is the corrosive material? What materials
can we use to prevent loss of function? Where are the “safe”
boundaries where corrosion cannot occur in the physical
system?
AUTHOR’S NOTE: SAFETY/RELIEF DEVICE
SIZING CHECKLISTS
The 16 pages that follow, pp. 151–165, comprise the set of blank
checklist-form data calculation sheets mentioned on page 149.
I developed them personally, and have used them “on the
job” many times for record file calculations.
You have my permission to copy or scan these sheets for
your own use.
 PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE • 151

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 152 • Chapter 9

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE • 153

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 154 • Chapter 9

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE • 155

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 156 • Chapter 9

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE • 157

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 158 • Chapter 9

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE • 159

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 160 • Chapter 9

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE • 161

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 162 • Chapter 9

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE • 163

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 164 • Chapter 9

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE • 165

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 166 • Chapter 9

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE • 167

AUTHOR’S NOTE: FIRE SIZING SAFETY/

RELIEF VALUES

The 6 pages that follow, pp. 168–173, are a copy of an excellent

article published in the magazine CHEMICAL ENGI-
NEERING in the October 28, 1985 issue. Mr. R.A. Crozier
was its author; at the time he was a project engineer with
DuPont in Wilmington, Delaware. I love the useful way in
which this article is written.
It is based on sound principles and referred to current codes
in place during the mid-1980s. It would be a good idea, as
always with any published code, to obtain and check a copy
of the latest edition of the code before applying it to new work.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 168 • Chapter 9

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE • 169

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 170 • Chapter 9

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE • 171

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 172 • Chapter 9

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE • 173

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 174 • Chapter 9

AUTHOR’S NOTE: FIRE SIZING SAFETY/ It uses the blank data sheet format introduced earlier. Please
RELIEF VALVES ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE note that all codes are subject to periodic revision, and new work
PROBLEM should always be done in accordance with the latest editions.

The 5 pages that follow, pp. 175–179, are a sample calculation

showing the sizing of a hypothetical liquid storage vessel’s
relief valve based on exposure of the vessel to external fire.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE • 175

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 176 • Chapter 9

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE • 177

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 178 • Chapter 9

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 PIPING AND VESSEL OVERPRESSURE • 179

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

JACKETED PIPING ISSUES
General Info
The term “jacketed piping” refers to a pair of pressure pipes,
consisting of a smaller diameter pipe nested coaxially inside a
larger diameter pipe. The larger, outer pipe is called the
“jacket” and the smaller, inner pipe is called the “core” (see
Figure 10-1).
The “core fluid” is the hot material being transported in
the particular process. An example would be molten plastic or
polymer being pumped to extrusion dies to make fibers or
bulk chips.
The “jacket fluid” serves as thermal insulation, and typi-
cally is supplied to the jacket as saturated vapor of one of the
commercially produced heat transfer oils, such as one of the
DowTherms. A typical hot oil vapor jacket fluid temperature
would be 550°F (290°C.) Pressures are typically moderate,
depending on specific fluids used and the process temperature
requirements. Although the active jacket fluid is normally in
the vapor state, it may be pumped through as a liquid. A hot
oil boiler system generates the vapor from pumped conden-
sate return.
The jacket pipe OD is heavily covered with an appropriate
thermal insulation having a protective top cover of some sort.
Heat transfer oil is not the only jacket fluid you may
encounter. Sometimes moderate pressure steam may be used
in pipe (and heated mixing vessel) jackets. The normal steam
system rules must be followed, including startup blowdown
means, supervisory controls, and especially liquid condensate
trap system collection and return system design. Because of
the danger inherent in steam system design, actual design of
steam-jacketed piping should only be attempted by experienced
engineers, and requires careful analysis of pipe stress and hy-
draulics, especially to avoid accidental steam hammer. We will
look into this in more depth as a subtopic.
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Both pipes maintain the same axial centerline. They are held
in position by rigid steel spacers, located periodically on centers
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
CHAPTER
10
along the common axial centerline. These spacers create an
annular ring of empty space between the ID of the Jacket Pipe
and the OD of the Core Pipe. This annular space carries the
jacket fluid under pressure when the system is in operation.
The core fluid is pumped through the inner pipe, of course.
The spacers are usually made by welding three-bladed steel
plate–fin arrangements equally spaced at 120° intervals around
the circumference of the core OD. Sometimes four plate fins,
located 90° apart, are used (see Figure 10-1). The plate fins
are oriented radially to the core OD, with the spacer plates
always oriented edge-on, to allow the jacket fluid to flow
through with minimal resistance.
The spacers may be welded to the jacket ID or to the core
OD; care is taken to make these welds clean, and the weldments
are designed to minimize local stress-raising effects. Although
not universal nomenclature, these spacers are often referred to
as “spiders.”
Jacketed piping construction, if done properly, is difficult
and demanding. Such pipeline elements as tees, branches, line
strainers, flowmeter elements, and feed-throughs for ther-
mowells and gauges present special design and fabrication
problems.
Typically, the core pipe will be designed with long radius
elbows and bends, sized for the process flow requirements. The
jacket is then welded in place in half-sections, using the “spi-
der” spacers to maintain axial alignment relative to the core.
The jacket pipe is sized so that the annulus can carry the desired
flowrate of heat transfer fluid, and it will be at least one, and
often two pipe sizes larger than the core. Typically the jacket
turns will be short radius elbows.
Note that each section of jacketed piping terminates with
a heavy ANSI Flange at each end of the spool piece. Special
flange configurations are used. For example, the flange may
be a slip-on type, double welded to the core as usual, and the
jacket may (or may not) be tapered at its ends to a somewhat
smaller OD/ID, and is then butt-welded to the back face of the
flange. Nipples are branch-welded onto the jackets near the
flanges, to act as jacket fluid inlet and outlet nozzles. The nipple
pipe sizes may be quite small relative to the jacket pipe size.
181
 182 • Chapter 10

FIGURE 10-1 Typical Cross Sections of Jacketed Pipe

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Finally, after the jacket sections are all welded into place
around the core, the actual pipe supports are installed and
hydrotesting is accomplished per Code (ASME B31.3). It is
not unusual to see a lot of variable spring hangers among the
supports, and directional guides are critical for displacement
and stress control.
It is important to note that the pipe supports that attach to
plant structure actually support the jacket directly, but the core
only indirectly. The actual core pipe support is provided by
the jacket pipe via direct contact through the spiders. This
is crucial to recognize for Code pipe stress purposes. If you,
as the piping engineer, do not demand that the specific quantity,
configuration and exact locations of each and every one of the
spiders be documented as-built, for the pipe stress analyst to
use in his modeling, then the pipe stress analysis will be at
best a guess, and as such will be essentially worthless.
Stress-wise, jacketed piping is somewhat crude, and pres-
ents a considerably more complex design problem for the me-
chanical piping engineer than single pipes.
• They are more rigid than congruent sections of jacket
pipe alone would be, due to the nature of their twin-
shell construction.
• They are quite heavy, which exacerbates gravity support
design difficulties.
• In addition to difficulty due to their constructional rigid-
ity, they are even more prone to severe thermal expansion
stress problems than single pipes, being usually very stiff
because of being composed of short runs of pipe. As
such they have little natural flexibility.
• They impose large loads, forces and moments, on anchors
and terminally connected equipment such as pumps, dies
and vessels. (It is not uncommon to mount the pumps
on guided slides, to allow them to move freely as the
jacketed piping expands and contracts thermally.)
The problems just described are pretty well known in the
process plant piping community. But there are a few other
problems, a bit more technical and insidious, that in real life
can create havoc with jacketed piping. Those are the problems
we want to discuss here.
The first of them concerns wall thickness of the core pipe.
THE CORE PIPE WALL THICKNESS PROBLEM
Normal single pipes are exposed to the atmosphere, and are
filled internally with a fluid under a gauge pressure, which
must be either positive (as when conducting a pumped liquid
or steam or compressed gas), negative (as when serving as a
vacuum line or air compressor inlet pipe), or zero (at atmo-
spheric pressure inside as well as outside.) Internal pressure
tends to cause tensile hoop stress in the pipe wall, causing it
to swell and burst.
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
JACKETED PIPING ISSUES • 183
Of course, single pipes can be exposed to abnormal condi-
tions. They can be surrounded externally by matter at higher
than atmospheric pressure. Buried soil pipe, underwater oceanic
piping and pipe coils inside pressure vessels are examples of
externally pressurized piping. The external pressure creates
compressive stresses which tend to crush the pipe wall. So in
pipes such as these, you need to calculate the minimum wall
thickness required to withstand the maximum possible differen-
tial pressure, inside-out as well as outside-in. The thicker of the
two calculated wall schedules is then selected for construction.
Core pipes in jacketed pipe systems thus fall under this
“abnormal” condition.
• Core pipe minimum allowable wall thickness is first
calculated using the differential pressure based on maxi-
mum allowable working pressure applied internally,
while the pipe wall metal is held at the maximum working
fluid temperature, combined with full vacuum applied
externally to the core (maximum allowable fluid pressure
in core, full vacuum in jacket).
• Next, core pipe minimum allowable wall thickness is
calculated using the differential pressure based on maxi-
mum allowable working pressure applied externally, with
the pipe wall metal still held at the maximum working
fluid temperature, combined with full vacuum applied
internally to the core (full vacuum in core, maximum
allowable fluid pressure in jacket).
• This procedure yields two different values for minimum
required wall thickness. Select the larger of the two for
determining construction requirements of the core pipe.
Example Calculation of Core Pipe Wall Thickness:
To best illustrate the potential pitfalls of jacketed piping design,
we will use an example that magnifies the pitfalls. However,
this example is in no way unrealistic. Similar systems exist in
the real world this very day.
Core Pipe Details:
**Nominal core pipe size: 12-in. diameter.
O.D. = 12.75 in.
**Core pipe material: A-312 type TP 316-L stainless steel.
allowable working stress @ 420°F per ASME B31.3 Code
Table A-1 = 15.28 ksi.
**Core fluid: hot melt organic vapors.
**Core corrosion allowance: 0.06 in.
**Pipe service duty: off-gas vent to recovery vessel.
**Max core internal pressure: 10 psig.
**@ max core fluid working temp: 420°F.
Jacket Pipe Details:
**Nominal jacket pipe size: 16-in. diameter.
O.D. = 16.00 in.
**Jacket pipe material: A −106B carbon steel.
 184 • Chapter 10
allowable working stress @ 422°F per ASME B31.3 Code
Table A-1 = 19.76 ksi.
**Jacket fluid: 300 psig saturated steam.
**Jacket corrosion allowance: 0.06 in.
**Max jacket internal pressure: 315 psia.
**@ max jacket fluid working temp: 422°F.
• Find Core Pipe Wall Thickness “tm” based on Internal
Pressure acting on Core Pipe: use ASME B31.3 Code,
Equation 3(a) of Paragraph 304.1.2: {Also see pages
1–2 of this book.}
tm = [PD/(2)(SE + PY)] + c
before making allowance for mill undertolerance of wall
thickness, or
tm = [PD/(1.75)(SE+PY)] + c
if 12.5% undertolerance is assumed.
P = 10 psig max internal gauge pressure −
(− 14.7) psig full vacuum in jacket =
= 24.7 psi
D = 12.75 in.
S = 15.28 ksi × 1000 = 15,280 psi
E = 1.00 (seamless pipe)
Y = 0.4 (Table 304.1.1)
c = 0.06 in. corrosion allowance
Plug in these values, and obtain
tm ≡ 0.0103 + 0.06 ≡ 0.0703 in. after 12.5% mill undertoler-
ance is allowed. Schedule 5S pipe is the minimum available
commercial pipe thickness, and equals 0.156 inches in the 12
in. pipe size, according to the dimensional tables for commercial
steel pipe. Allowing for undertolerance of 12.5%, the Sch. 5S
pipe wall in new condition could be as thin as (1 − 0.125) ×
(0.156 in.) = 0.1365 in.; since 0.1365 in. ≥ 0.0703 in., pipe
wall thickness of Schedule 5S would be adequate for the core
pipe considering only the internal pressure.
• Find Core Pipe Wall Thickness “tm” based on External
Pressure acting on Core Pipe: use ASME B31.3
Code Requirements.
B31.3 Paragraph 304.1.3 tells us how to calculate for external
pressure. It refers us to two other ASME Codes, from which
we must dig out the appropriate data and equations: these are
**ASME Section VIII Div. 1, Paragraph UG-28(c)(1).
This is the unfired pressure vessel portion of the ASME
boiler code.
**ASME Section II Part D, Subpart 3, Figures G and
HA-4. This is from the Materials: Properties portion of the
ASME boiler code. {Note: in the July 1, 2003 Addendum
to Sect. II Part D, Figure G (generic, all materials) is found
on page 682 and Figure HA-4 (specific, type 316-L austenitic
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
stainless steel) is found on Page 689. Reprints of these
two figures are included on pp. 185–186 herein for your
convenience; in this book they are named Figures 10-2 and
10-3.}
Step #1: make a first guess at the ratio of pipe outside diameter
“D0” to the finally selected wall thickness “t”. My guess would
be schedule 80S pipe, which has t = .50 inches for D0 = 12.75;
so D ÷ t ≅ 12.75/0.50 ≅ 25.5
Step #2: look at Figure G on the (D0/t) = 25 curve, and select
a minimum value of Pipe Length to Diameter ratio (L/D0) above
which the value of “Factor A” does not decrease (i.e., above
where the plot of (D0/τ) remains perpendicular to the plot axis
of “Factor A”.) Use this value of (L/D0) to read “Factor A”. I
read this point as (L/D0) ≥ 10.0, with a corresponding constant
value of “Factor A” = 0.0018.
{This procedure assures that a conservative value of wall thick-
ness will be selected.}
Step #3: enter Figure HA-4 @ “Factor A” = 0.0018, use
420°F as the metal temperature parameter and read “Factor
B” ≅ 6,900.
Step #4: Use equation Pa = 4B/[3(D0/t)] to calculate Pa, which is
the ASME Pressure Vessel Code-maximum-allowable external
pressure for all runs of pipe which are longer than (L/D0) ≥
10.0. {Note: the calculated max allowable external pressure
will thus be conservative for shorter runs of un-reinforced pipe.}
So Pa = (4)(6900) ÷ (3)(25) = 368 psig.
Step #5: Compare this result to the design requirement “Maxi-
mum design value of jacket pipe internal (differential) pressure
= 315 psig @ max jacket fluid working temp = 422°F.
Since the calculated value of 368 psig for the ASME Code
max allowable external pressure is > 315 psig design re-
quirement for the external differential pressure acting on
the Core in our example problem, we conclude that Sched-
ule 80S is acceptable for the Core pipe wall thickness.
Discussion of Results
In this example, the core pipe wall thickness must be selected
on the external pressure crushing criteria. Schedule 80S is the
proper selection. I will leave it as a practice exercise for you
to check my calculations in stating:
**If the core pipe wall thickness had been selected using
internal pressure (hoop stress) criteria, that is, Schedule 5S,
0.156 inches, the pipe would have been crushed by the steam
pressure in the jacket. The max allowable external steam jacket
pressure for Schedule 5S pipe would be about 23 psig.
**Schedule 40S (0.375 in.) wall thickness WOULD NOT
be acceptable, because its maximum allowable external pressure
 JACKETED PIPING ISSUES • 185

FIGURE 10-2 Figure G from ASME BOILER CODE Section II Part D, Subpart 3 (July 1, 2003 Addendum)

would be 245 psig steam, too much less than the required 300
psig saturated steam pressure.
THE JACKET STEAM HAMMER PROBLEM
The reason I selected a large diameter core pipe in conjunction
with relatively high pressure steam in the jacket annulus was
to illustrate the important fact, now to be revealed, that steam
hammer cannot be neglected in jacketed pipe design.
The effect of increased core pipe diameter is to magnify
the crushing force on the core cylinder (the P × A force) relative
to the resisting metal volume comprising the core pipe. The
ratios (L/D) and (D/τ) are analogous to “slenderness ratio” in
a compressed column problem: the higher the ratios, the more
susceptible to buckling is the column, and the more susceptible
to crushing is the core pipe cylinder under external fluid pres-
sure. Cylinder crushing is a stability phenomenon, just as is
buckling of a slender column. A threshold of elastic response
is passed in both cases, and drastic catastrophic plastic failure is
the result in both cases. (I strongly recommend to the interested
reader all of Chapter 8, “Buckling of Vessels Under External
Pressure,” in Prof. John E. Harvey’s terrific reference text,
Theory and Design of Pressure Vessels, Van Nostrand-Rein-
hold, Second Edition, 1991, New York. It is immensely valuable
to the design engineer.)
The effect of increased jacket pipe steam pressure is to
exacerbate the destructive effect of a steam hammer event, if

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 186 • Chapter 10

FIGURE 10-3 Figure HA-4 from ASME BOILER CODE Section II Part D, Subpart 3 (July 1, 2003 Addendum)

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


one is triggered in the jacket. I have personally examined
and testified to the results of such events. I can tell you with
absolute certainty that peak overpressures resulting from
steam hammer events in pipe jackets, carrying considerably
lower steam saturation pressure than we used in our previ-
ous example problem, can exceed and have exceeded
1,000 psig.
Yes. One thousand psig.
It should now be obvious to you that in our example prob-
lem, we could not expect our 12-inch core pipe to survive a
full-fledged steam hammer event. Our core pipe is constructed
of the greatest commercially available wall thickness for austen-
itic stainless steel pipe, Schedule 80S, t = 0.500 inches, and
we have already found that its maximum safe external pressure
differential is only 368 psig. How in the world could we expect
it to withstand 1000 psig or more?
The answer of course is that we could not expect survival.
Try plugging in about 1,300 psig for max required jacket op-
erating pressure into the Code Pa evaluation procedure above,
and see what you get for required core pipe wall thickness.
Then imagine trying to get seamless pipe fabricated in that
thickness to a 12.75 in. outside diameter, and paying the bill
for it. Not to mention the matching bends and fittings!
Clearly it is not feasible to design the core pipe wall to
survive jacket pipe steam hammer in anything approaching
normal circumstances! Submarine warfare, maybe, or nuclear
processes perhaps, but not in commercial manufacturing
plant duty.
Then what must you do if you are unfortunate enough to
become involved in engineering or constructing a steam jack-
eted pipeline in large diameters?
Well, I will tell you. You may wish to start with a thorough
review of chapter 1 in Volume One of this book, water hammer/
steam hammer dynamics. But, for sure, you will have to design
a failsafe supervised steam startup–timed condensate blowdown
system as well as failsafe steam condensate trap(s) and liquid
condensate return systems. You will have to design the piping
runs to slope a lot, always toward the drains, such that all points
in the jacket always drain completely, by gravity, with no
inverted P-traps or flat places in the line which can let conden-
sate build up.
You will have to catch the drained condensate in mud-leg
reservoirs of adequate volume such that steam trap selection
can approach normal sizing criteria. You will have to train all
hands involved in proper operation of these systems, and then
pray that they don’t skip, or skimp on, the “frequent steam trap
maintenance” programs that are necessary to keep those steam
jackets full of nothing but dry steam at all times.
So much for core pipe wall thickness calculations.
The next problem we should recognize concerns the high
temperatures, pipe stiffnesses, and effects of dissimilar metal
expansion rates, and the resulting thermal fatigue failures which
can happen.
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
JACKETED PIPING ISSUES • 187
THE DISSIMILAR METAL THERMAL FATIGUE
STRESS PROBLEM
Usually, jacketed pipe systems feature jacket and core pipes
fabricated of the same material; both may be low-carbon steel
such as A106 or A53, or both may be stainless steel of the
same type, such as 304–316 austenitic. And this is good.
What is very bad is when the jacket and core pipes are
different metals. As in our previous example, in which we
stipulated an A106 carbon steel jacket with a 316-L stainless
steel core. Of course we picked the dissimilar pipe metals to
illustrate the pitfall. But, once again, such things actually get
built and indeed exist in operation this very day. So pay careful
attention to what we are about to study, please!
Here’s what happens. First, bear in mind that jacketed
piping sections are fabricated with stiff ANSI welded flanges
at both ends of each spool-piece. The core is welded to the
flanges, and so is the jacket. This means that the jacket pipe
end cannot move relative to the core pipe end, or vice-versa.
The two pipes are rigidly joined together by the flanges to
which the ends are welded. You may wish to refer to the
jacketed piping schematic once more to appreciate this fact.
When dissimilar pipe materials are used, they will have
different rates of thermal expansion. At room temperature, the
jacket and core will be of the same length. The pipe with the
greater coefficient of thermal expansion will try to grow to a
greater length, when the system is heated up to the operating
condition. But they will be forced to end up at the same hot
length, because of the rigid end restraint imposed by the
flange weldments.
This means that the pipe with the greater thermal coeffi-
cient will end up being compressed axially, while the other
pipe will be axially stretched. In other words, each pipe will
have a physical strain relative to the free length the pipe would
have attained if its thermal growth had not been restrained.
These strains are accompanied by stresses that may or may not
reach the materials’ yield points.
In our example problem, the 12-in. stainless core pipe tries
to grow at a rate of about 4 in. per 100 ft of room-temperature
length. But the 16-in. carbon steel jacket only wishes to grow
at a rate slightly less than 3 in. per hundred feet. So in our
example, growth of the system stretches the jacket pipe and
compresses the core.
Is this a problem? The answer often is “yes.” It depends
on the magnitudes of the stresses, upon the material’s fatigue
strength characteristics, and the number of thermal cycles to
which the system is exposed.
For each numerical range of stress magnitudes encountered
by the particular pipe material, there is a corresponding number
of thermal “cold-to-hot-back-to-cold” cycles, which will result
in formation of fatigue cracks, which will over time propagate
clean through the pipe wall. Thus containment is lost. The pipe
leaks under pressure; it is failed; it has broken.
 188 • Chapter 10
In general, the nearer the elastic stress to the tensile yield
point, the fewer cycles it takes to cause this failure. If the yield
stress is exceeded, what happens on any given cycle is that the
points of strain corresponding to tensile or compressive stress
above the material’s yield strength will relax locally, due to
plastic deformation at the maximum stress points after the
maximum temperature has been reached. When this occurs,
fatigue failure will occur rather quickly; only a relative few
thermal cycles will be needed to crack the pipe wall.
Remember, ASME B31.3 prohibits stressing pipe to the
yield point, and is normally intended to yield a leak-free
working lifetime of at least 7,000 full thermal cycles for the
piping system.
Now for the insidious part. The leaks will usually occur
at the flange weldment ends, where the local stress raisers
normally exist. The stress intensification factor for a slip-on
flange properly installed by a Code-worthy welder is at least
1.2, and sloppy welds will be worse than this. So we expect
the first leaks to occur at the flange-to-pipe welds.
Now if the jacket-to-flange weld cracks, in our example
problem, 300 psig steam will blow out into the room. This is
bad, of course, and very dangerous, but at least it is detectable.
But a crack in the core pipe weld will cause the 300 psig
steam to blow into the core pipe, and the leak at first will
be physically undetected. The condition will persist until
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
something in the core system blows up, necessitating emer-
gency shutdown of the system, and hopefully not involving
death or personal injury. Once this has happened, if you
had a hand in it, you will no longer enjoy being an engineer.
So do your best to avoid letting one of these bastard systems
get built in the first place. Get your boss to read this chapter
before approving the project.
If you can’t do that, then be very careful in your participa-
tion and make absolutely no technical errors.
And if you can’t do that, then either beg off the project, or
go find another job where they are not bent on self-destruction.
• Illustrate Core Pipe Wall Cracking based on the condi-
tions of the previous example problem: Use the intent
of the ASME B31.3 Code to make these calculations:
You will next encounter an example of engineering analysis. It
is all typed out for your casual perusal and reading convenience,
except for the first page, which remains in the original hand-
drawn sketch format (for MY convenience, wise guy! See Fig-
ure 10-4a–j). You can use this example for guide purposes, but
remember, the complete pipe stress analysis includes multitudes
of additional task requirements, of which this is only one. I
have given it to you mainly to illustrate how bad the problem
of differential expansion of dissimilar materials can be.
 JACKETED PIPING ISSUES • 189

FIGURE 10-4 Example Problem Illustration (Core Fatigue Sheet “a”)

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 190 • Chapter 10

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 JACKETED PIPING ISSUES • 191

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 192 • Chapter 10

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 JACKETED PIPING ISSUES • 193

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 194 • Chapter 10

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 JACKETED PIPING ISSUES • 195

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 196 • Chapter 10

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 JACKETED PIPING ISSUES • 197

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 198 • Chapter 10

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SELECTED REFERENCES
ANSI Forged Steel Flanges, Taylor Forge Bulletin 691–881, GW
Taylor Forge Canada Ltd., Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8N
3H8, 1981.
Antaki, G.A. Operation, Maintenance and Repair of Plant Piping
Systems, Course Notes ASME Professional Development, Febru-
ary 7–10, 2000, Atlanta, Georgia; American Society of Mechani-
cal Engineers Int’l., New York.
Antaki, G.A. Piping and Pipeline Engineering, 1st ed., Marcel Dek-
ker, New York, 2003.
ASHRAE Guide Fundamentals Volume, American Society of Heat-
ing, Refrigerating & Air Conditioning Engineers, New
York, 1989.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section VIII-Div. 1, Rules
for Construction of Pressure Vessels—1998 Edition. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers Int’l., New York.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section II—Materials—Part
D—Properties—2001, ed., American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Int’l., New York.
ASME Code for Pressure Piping B31.3—Process Piping—1999 ed.,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Int’l., New York.
ASME Code for Pressure Piping B31.1—Power Piping—1998 Edition.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Int’l., New York.
Becht, C. IV. Process Piping: The Complete Guide to ASME B31.3,
2nd ed., ASME Press, New York, 2004.
Bulletin 201, August 1980 & Catalog 326-B, December 2003, Flash
Tanks and Stream Trapping. Armstrong International Machines
Works—Steam Specialty Products, 816 Maple St., Three Riv-
ers, Missouri.
Chiller Water System Design—Options and Applications, Trane Com-
pany Commercial Systems Group, Pub. CWS-CLC-3-192,
3600 Pammel Creek Rd., La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601.
Condensed Hydraulic Data, Cameron Pump Division, Ingersoll-Rand
Corp., Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.
Design YS—Converging Flow, 3-way Control, Valve Flow Character-
istics, Catalog #10, Fisher Controls International, Marshall-
town, Iowa, 1989.
Flash Steam, Armstrong Machine Works—Steam Specialty Prod-
ucts, Three Rivers, Michigan, 1976.
Flow of Fluids Through Valves, Fittings and Pipe; Technical Paper
No. 410, Crane Company Engineering Division, New York,
1991.
Grinnell Pipe Hangers, Catalog PH-90, Grinnell Corp., ITT Grin-
nell Pipe Hanger Division, Exeter, New Hampshire.
Haupt, R.W.; Flenner, P.D.; Nance, A.D. ASME B31.1 Power Piping
Seminar, Course Notes, ASME Professional Development, April
8–12, 2002, Charleston, South Carolina. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Int’l., New York.
Haupt, R.W. ASME B31.3 Process Piping Seminar, Course Notes
Vol. II; Woods, G.; ASME B31.3 Process Piping Seminar, Course
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Notes Vol. I; ASME Professional Development, July 15–18,
1997, Greenville, South Carolina; American Society of Mechan-
ical Engineers Int’l., New York.
Harvey, J.F. Theory and Design of Pressure Vessels, 2nd ed., Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1991.
Hibbeler, R.C. Mechanics of Materials, 4th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey, 2000.
ITT Fluid Transfer Division, Fluid Handling Training & Educa-
tion Department, ITT Bell & Gossett, Morton Grove, Illinois.
a. Pump and System Curve Data for Centrifugal Pump Selection
and Application, 1967;
b. Primary Secondary Pumping Adaptations to Existing Sys-
tems, 1966;
c. Carolson, G.F., Hydronic Systems Analysis & Evaluation,
ASHRAE Journal Reprint, 1968–1969;
d. Cooling Tower Pumping and Piping, 1968;
e. Variable Speed/Variable Volume Pumping Fundamentals,
1985;
f. Carlson, G.F., Central Plant Chilled Water Systems—
Pumping and Flow Balance, ASHRAE Journal Reprint, Feb-
ruary 1972;
g. Primary Secondary Pumping Application Manual, ITT
Bell & Gossett, Morton Grove, Illinois, 1968.
Keenan, J.H.; Keyes, F.G. Thermodynamic Properties of Steam, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, 1962.
King, R.C.; Crocker, S. Piping Handbook, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill
Inc., New York, 1973.
Mathematical Tables. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, Table of
Integrals, 11th ed., Chemical Rubber Publishing Company,
Cleveland, Ohio, 1959.
Moody, F.J. How to Predict Thermal Hydraulic Loads on Pressure
Vessels and Piping. Course Notes, ASME Professional Develop-
ment, November 2–3, 1998, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; American
Society of Mechanical Engineers Int’l., New York.
Moody, F.J. Introduction to Unsteady Thermofluid Mechanics, Wiley
Interscience, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1990.
Piping Design and Engineering, 5th ed., (1991 printing), ITT Grinnell
Corp., ITT-Grinnell Industrial Piping, Inc.
Senior Flexonics—Pathway, O.E.M. descriptive data, Metallic Bel-
lows Expansion Joints, 2400 Longhorn Industrial Drive, New
Braunfels, Texas 78130.
SIMFLEX.S, Program Manual V3.0, Pipe Stress Analysis, Peng Engi-
neering, Liang-Chuan Peng, P.O. Box 801167, Houston, Texas
77280-1167.
Steam, Its Generation and Use, 40th ed., Babcock & Wilcox Power
Generation Group, Barberton, Ohio, 1992.
Steam Conservation Guidelines for Condensate Drainage, Armstrong
Machine Works—Steam Specialty Products, Three Rivers,
Michigan, 1976.
199
 200 • References
Steam Utilization, Spirax Sarco, Inc., Allentown, Pennsylvania, 1991.
Thomas, L.C. Heat Transfer—Professional Version, 1st ed., Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1993.
Thorley, A.R.D. Fluid Transients in Pipeline Systems, 2nd ed., ASME
Press, New York, 2004.
Tube Turns. Welding Fittings and Flanges, Catalog 411, Tube Turns
Div. of Chemetron Corp., 2900 W. Broadway, Louisville, Ken-
tucky, 1977.
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
TK Solver Release 4, UTS Software, Universal Technical Systems,
Rockford, Illinois. Web site www.uts.com.
Van Wylen, G.J.; Sonntag, R.E. Fundamentals of Classical Thermo-
dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1965.
Wylie, E. Benjamin; and Streeter, V.L. Fluid Transients, corrected
ed., FEB Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1983.
Young, W.C. Roark’s Formulas for Stress and Strain, 6th ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1989.
 INDEX

A Bubble bath soap, 136

(A) fire-sizing vessel relief example problem, 140 Buckling of a slender column, 185
A-36 mild steel, 64
Accidents, 140 C
Act of God, 147 C, 2
Allowable stress, 2, 4, 17, 71, 72, 74, 117, 126 Cast iron flanges, 67
Allowable stress range, 2 Checklist-form data calc sheets, 149
Allowable stress range, SA, 2 Circumferential stresses, 121
Alternative Leak Test, 135 Closure welds, 134
Annular space, 181 Code compliance analysis, 70
(ANSI)/ASME Standard, 67 Cold allowable stress, 3
ANSI forged steel flanges, 104 Combined plane stresses, 123
API-520, 149 Concrete thrust block, 147
API 521, 139 Consolidated Safety/Relief Valve Company, 140
API 2000, 139, 149 Constant effort spring, 21
API-520 fire sizing procedure, 149 Containment, 2, 5, 9, 73, 122, 133, 135, 136, 187
ASME B & PV Code Sec. VIII Div. 1 UG-127(3)(b)(4), 148 Control valve sizes, 140
ASME B31.3 Appendix A-1, 117 Convolute, 9, 11
ASME B-31.3 Code for Process Piping, 134 Core, 181, 183, 184, 185, 187
ASME Piping Systems Code B31.4, 139 Core fatigue, 189
ASME Pressure Piping Code B31.1, 139 Core pipe wall thickness problem, 183
ASME Pressure Piping Code B31.3, 139 Corrosion + erosion + mechanical groove (in.), 2
ASME Section I, Division 1, 139 Creep strength, 6
ASME Section II Part D, 184 Cross sections of jacketed pipe, 182
ASME Section VIII Division 1, 68, 70, 133 Crud build-up, 150
Cv vs. % open range data, 140
ASME Section VIII, Division 1, 133
Cyclic expansions, 2
ASME/ANSI component pressure rating, 2
Cyclic fatigue stress analysis, 4
Austenitic stainless steels, 7
Cylinder crushing, 185
Avoiding stress failure, 126
D
B Data sheets, 140
B16.5, 2, 67, 72, 73 Decision matrix, 149
B31.1 Power Piping, 1 Depressurization, 136
B31.3 Appendix A (Table A.1), 3 Design fatigue life, 9
B31.3 Process Piping Codes, 1 Diameter of the gasket load reaction circle, 70
Backpressure, 150 Discharging gases, vapors or steam, 140
Bastard systems, 188 Displacement stress range, SE, 2
Bellows, 9, 11, 13 Displacement stress range,3
Bellows joints, 9, 11 Dissimilar metal thermal fatigue stress problem, 187
Bellows pressure thrust, 12 Dissimilar pipe materials, 187
Bellows rupture, 11 Documented as-built, 183
Blast/fragmentation zone, 137 Dowtherms, 181
Blind flanges, 135, 136 Drastic catastrophic plastic failure, 185
Brittle, 67, 136, 137 Ductile or malleable iron, 67

201

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 202 •

E Integral flanges, 67
E, 1, 2 Internal fluid design pressure, 2
Earthquake, 5, 12, 19, 22, 68, 121, 126 Internal pressure, 2, 4, 19, 22, 67, 121, 122, 140, 147, 183, 184
Earthquake loads, 22
Effective section modulus Ze, 4 J
Elastic constants of metals, 65 Jacket, 6, 71, 181, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188
Elastic spring constant, 61 Jacket fluid, 181, 184
Elastic structure, 105 Jacket steam hammer problem, 185
Equivalent pressure due to pipe loading, 70 Jacketed piping, 134, 140, 181, 183, 187
Examination requirements, 134
Excessive elastic deformation, 73 L
Externally pressured piping, 134 Lateral bending, 9, 121
Lateral flexibility, 11
F Leak Test, 134
F, 3 Leakage past the rupture disk, 150
Failsafe devices, 140 Liquid decompression, 136
Failure mode of the piping system, 5 Liquid jet thrust, 145
Failure theory, 6, 126 Liquid penetrant examination, 134
Fatigue crack, 2, 5, 6, 105, 189 fig. Load Case No. 1, 68
Fatigue life analysis, 105 Load Case No. 2, 68
F-factor, 149 Load Case No. 3, 19, 68
Finite element, 105, 106 Loading/failure mode correlation, 6
Fire-sizing heat flux, 149 Local stress raisers, 188
Fire-sizing relief valves, 140 Longitudinal stress, 3, 4, 70, 121
Fire-sizing safety relief values, 167 Longitudinal stresses, 121
Flange class, 2 Lousy engineering, 149
Flange gasket, 67
Flange weldments, 187 M
Flanged joints, 134 Mi, 3
Fluid constituents, 140 Mlb, 4
Fluid streams, 140 Mli, 4
Formation of fatigue cracks, 187 Mlo, 4
Full-stress-range loading cycles, 3 Mo, 3
Full vacuum, 183, 194 Mob, 5
Moi, 5
G Moo, 5
Gasket, 67, 71, 73, 74 Mot, 5
Glynn Woods, 6 Mt, 3
Grey cast iron, 136, 137 Magnetic particle examination, 134
Gross failure, 4, 21 Mass flow balance, 140
Maximum allowable tensile yield strength, 126
H Maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP), 133, 140
HAZOPS, vii, 149 Maximum stress, 122
Heat transfer oils, 181 Mill undertolerance, 4, 118, 184
Heat treatment, 134 Minimum required wall thickness, 183
Hoop stress, 1, 4, 6, 121, 122, 183, 184 Mister MechMentor, vii
Human operators, 140 Mixture, 133, 140, 147
Hydrostatic Leak Test, 134 Mohr’s circle refresher sheet, 124
Hydrotesting, 133, 135, 183 Mohr’s circle, 105
Mr. Vendor, 149
I
Ii, 3 N
Impact load factor, 147 N, 3, 5
Inertial earthquake forces, 4 N E, 3
Initial Service Leak Test, 135 N i, 3
In-line pressure balanced expansion joint, 15 National Board Registry data, 149
Inline expansion joints to, 9 National Fire Protection Assoc. (NFPA), 139
In-plane, 3, 4, 5, 126 NFPA-30 standard procedures, 149
In-process examination, 134 NFPA-30, 139, 149

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 • 203

Nitrogen pad regulator, 147, 149 Reaction forces computation formulas, 144
Nodal point, 3, 4, 5, Reaction forces due to valve discharge (steam service), 143
Non-corrosive internal components, 150 Related and additive, 149
Nozzle pipe, 70, 71 Relax locally, due to plastic deformation, 188
Number of distinct load case i’s, 3 Relief device sizing, 149
Number of partial-displacement loading cycles, 3 Relief flowrates, 139
Relief valve pipe supports, 140
O Resultant sustained bending moment, 4
Occasional, 19 RFWN, 70, 72
Occasional excursions, 6 Rigid end restraint, 187
Occasional load stresses, 4 Rigid vertical restraint support, 19
Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), 139 Rigidity, 22, 61, 183
OSHA, 139, 140, 149 Rigidly anchored, 118
OSHA/NFPA-30/API-2000 criteria, 149 Ring type gaskets, 68, 70
Outlet reaction correction for molecular weight, 142 Roark’s formulas for stress & strain, 61
Out-of-plane bending moments, 3, 4, 5 Rupture disk + relief valve, 140
Rupture disk holder, 150
P Rupture disk/tell-tale/safety relief valve assembly, 148
P, 2 Rupture disks, 139
PR, 2
P t, 2 S
P&ID, 140 S, 1
Peak overpressures, 187 S1, 2
Peq, 70, 71 SA, 2, 6
Phase engineer, 68, 140 Sb, 3
Phases, 68 Sc, 3, 71
Pipe flange, 67 Sc, 3, 71
Pipe gradient for drainage, 150 SE, 3, 5, 6
Pipe reactions on supports & end connections, 19 Sf, 71, 72, 73
Pipe stress, 117 Sh hot allowable stress, 3
Pipe stress analysis report, 24 Sh, 2, 3, 6, 7, 71
Pipe supports, 17, 61, 183 SL, 3, 4, 6
Piping & Instrumentation Diagram, 140 Si, 3
Piping spool piece, 150 Sn, 71
Pitfalls of jacketed piping design, 183 SOL, 4, 5
Plane stress element, 124 St, 3
Pneumatic Leak Test, 135 Safety device sizing, 140
Pneumatic Test, 133, 134 Safety relief valve thrust reaction forces due to discharge of gases
Poisson’s ratio, 62, 105 and vapors, 141
Pressure balanced elbows, 14 Safety/relief valve, 139, 140, 150, 174
Pressure relief device, 135 Sample calculation of reaction force, 144
Pressure tests, 133 Seal-water makeup valve, 150
Pressure thrust, 9, 11, 13 Secondary failure: fluid leaking, 5
Pressure-compensating expansion joint, 13 Section modulus, 4, 121
Pressure temperature cycles, 6 Self-limiting, 5, 6
Prestressing, 67 Self-limiting stress, 4
Primary failure: gross deformation, 5 Sensitive Leak Test, 135
Primary failure mode, 4 Shear stress, 121, 122, 126
Primary stress, 4 Shock forces for thrust block design, 146
Process & instrumentation diagram, 140 Shock load, 147
Prof. John E. Harvey’s text (pressure vessels), 185 Shrapnel, 137
Professional codes, 133 Side sway force, 22
Proof tests, 133 Simple vertical support, 19, 21
Propagate, 5, 136, 187 Simultaneous unrelated failures, 147
Pump curves, 140 Single failure modes, 147
Slip-on flange, 188
R Spacers, 181
Radiographic examination, 134 Spiders, 181, 183
Reaction forces, 17, 20, 61, 140 Spot radiography, 134

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 204 •

Spring constant, 9, 20, 61, 62 THL+WT, 68, 119

Spring hanger selection table, 20 Threshold of elastic response, 185
Stability phenomenon, 185 Thrust blocks, 140
Standard Hydrostatic Test, 133 Tie rods, 11
Steady blowdown forces, 147 Torsion, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 62, 122
Steady blowdown state, 146 Torsional loadings, 4
Steam feed regulator, 149 Transient stresses, 105
Steam hammer events in pipe jackets, 187 Tresca stress, 126
Steam hammer, 181, 185, 187
Stiffness, 9, 11, 62, 187 U
Stop nuts, 11 Ultrasonic examination, 134
Stress concentrations, 106 Unbalanced pressure thrust forces, 11
Stress intensification factors, 3, 4 Uncompensated-bellows, 11
Stress Isometric, 68 U-stamped, 149
Stress raiser, 5 User’s cookbook, 125
Stress range reduction factor, 3
Support displacements, 2 V
Support types, 61 Vapor cloud explosion, 68
Sustained, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 19, 21, 22, 135 Variable spring, 19, 21,183
Sustained bending, 4 Vessel overpressure protection and safety 139

T W
Tm, 2, 184 Welding neck flange, 71
Table A-1, 2 Welds to be examined, 134
Table A-1B, 2 Wind (aerodynamic drag) forces, 4
Table 304.1.1, 2, 184 WT/PRS, 19, 68, 119
Temperature correction curve, 142
Temporary closure, 136 Y
Temporary supports, 134 Y, 2
Terminal equipment, 20 Yield point, 5, 6, 62, 187, 188
Test fluid expansion, 134 Yield strength, 61, 67, 126, 188
Theory and design of pressure vessels, 185 Yield stress, 5, 62, 73, 106, 126, 188
Theory of failure, 122
Thermal expansion coefficient, 105 Z
Thermal restraint, 119, 121 Z, 4
THERML, 19, 68, 119
Thin-walled toroidal convolutes, 9

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use