0% found this document useful (1 vote)
157 views463 pagesPipe Stress Analysis SEMINAR COADE
Pipe-Stress-Analysis-SEMINAR-COADE
Uploaded by
Ignacio Moratinos CastañedaCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (1 vote)
157 views463 pagesPipe Stress Analysis SEMINAR COADE
Pipe-Stress-Analysis-SEMINAR-COADE
Uploaded by
Ignacio Moratinos CastañedaCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 463
SECTION 1
-Peeescecesqoteccccccce
ooe@eenne een
#
Ae ¢
1.0
1a
ooce@ @ @ 0418889 @
12
ne)
°
°
° 13
e 14
1.5
°
°
°
o
°
&
°
°
e
e
°
°
Q
°
e
°
2
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
Section 1
Table of Contents
Introduction to Pipe Stress Analysis
‘Theory and Development of Pipe Stress Requirements
1.1.1 Basic Stress Concepts
LL2_ 3-D State of Stress in the Pipe Wall..
1.1.3 Failure Theories...
1.1.4 Maximum Stress Intensity Criterion
Fatigue Failure
1.2.1 Fatigue Basics.
1.2.2 Fatigue Curves.
1.2.3 Effect of Fatigue on Piping
1.2.4 Cyclic Reduction Factor ..
1.2.5 Effect of Systained Loads on Fatigue Strength ..
Stress Intensification Factors
Welding Research Council Bulletin 380
Code Compliance ..
1.5.1. Primary vs. Secondary Loads
1.5.2 Code Stress Equations
1.5.8 BB11 Power Piping
1.5.4 B81.3 Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping
1.5.5 ASME Section III, Subsections NC & ND (Nuclear Class 2 & 3)
1.5.6 B314 Puel Gas Piping...
1.5.7 BS1.8 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Code
1.5.8- Canadian 2183/2184 Oil/Gas Pipeline Systems ...
15.9 RCOMC..
1.5.10 Stoomwezen .. -
1.5.11 Special Considerations of Code Compliance...
1.5.12 Evaluation of Multiple Expansion Range Cases 8
‘@ 9
o
°
a
o
o
e
°
9
9
eoeeecooceecceeeseereevece
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
1.0 Introduction to Pipe Stress Analysis
In order to properly design a piping system, the engineer must understand both a system's
behavior under potential loadings, as well as the regulatory requirements imposed upon it
by the governing codes.
A system's behavior can be quantified through the aggregate values of numerous physical
parameters, such as accelerations, velocities, displacements, internal forces and moments,
stresses, and external reactions developed under applied loads. Allowable values for each
of these parameters are set after review of the appropriate failure criteria for the system.
System response and failure criteria are dependent on the type of loadings, which can be
classified by various distinctions, such as primary vs. secondary, sustained vs. occasional,
or static vs. dynamic.
‘The ASME/ANSI B31 piping codes are the result of approximately 8 decades of work by the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the American National Standards Institute
(formerly American Standards Association) aimed at the codification of design and engineer-
ing standards for piping systems. The B31 pressure piping codes (and their successors, such
asthe ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Section [lI nuclear piping codes) prescribe minimum
design, materials, fabrication, assembly, erection, test, and inspection requirements for
piping systems intended for use in power, petrochemical/refinery, fuel gas, gas transmission,
and nuclear applications.
Due to the extensive calculations required during the analysis of a piping system, this field
of engineering provides a natural application for computerized calculations, especially
during the last two to three decades. The proliferation of easy-to-use pipe stress software
has hada two-fold effect: first, ithas taken pipe stress analysis out of the hands ofthe highly-
paid specialists and made it accessible tothe engineering generalist, butlikewiseithas made
everyone, even those with inadequate piping backgrounds, capable of turning out official-
looking results.
‘The intention of this course is to provide the appropriate background for engineers entering
the world of pipe stress analysis. The course concentrates on the design requirements
(particularly from a stress analysis point of view) of the codes, as well as the techniques to
be applied in order to satisfy those requirements. Although the course is taught using the
CAESAR TI Pipe Stress Analysis Software, the skills learned here are directly applicable
to any means of pipe stress analysis, whether the engineer uses a competing software
program or even manual calculational methods.
Why do we Perform Pipe Stress Analysis?
There are a number of reasons for performing stress analysis on a piping system. A few of
these follow: '
1 - In order to keep stresses in the pipe and fittings within code allowable levels.
2 - In order to keep nozzle loadings on attached equipment within allowables of
manufacturers or recognized standards (NEMA SM23, API 610, API 617, etc.). COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
Inorder to keep vessel stresses at piping connections within ASME Section VII
allowable levels.
o
»
In order to caleulate design loads for sizing supports and restraints.
In order to determine piping displacements for interference checks,
a
In order to solve dynamic problems in piping, such as those due to mechanical
vibration, acoustic vibration, fluidhammer, pulsation, transient flow, and relief
valve discharge.
o
’
7 ~~ Inorder to help optimize piping design.
Typical Pipe Stress Documentation
Documentation typically associated with stress analysis problems consists of the stress
isometric, the stress analysis input echo, and the stress analysis results output. Examples
of these documents are shown in Figures 1-1 through 1-8 on subsequent pages.
‘The stress isometric(Figure 1-1)is asketch, drawn in an isometric coordinate system, which
gives the viewer a rough 3-D idea of the piping system. The stress isometric often
summarizes the piping design data, as gathered from other documents, such as the line list,
piping specification, piping drawing, Appendix A (Figure 1-2) of the applicable piping code,
etc. Design data typically required in order to do-pipe stress analysis consists of pipe
materials and sizes; operating parameters, such as temperature, pressure, and fluid
contents; code stress allowables; and loading parameters, such as insulation weight,
external equipment movements, and wind and earthquake criteria.
Points of interest on the stress isometric are identified by node points. Node points are
required at any location where it is necessary to provide information to, or obtain information
from, the pipe stress software. Typically, node points are located as required in order to:
1 - define geometry (system start, end, direction changes, intersection, etc.)
2 - note changes in operating conditions (system start, isolation or pressure reduc-
tion valves, etc.)
3 - dofine element stiffness parameters (changes in pipe cross section or material,
rigid elements, or expansion joints)
4 + designate boundary conditions (restraints and imposed displacements)
5 + specify mass points (for refinement of dynamic model)
6 + note loading conditions (insulation weight, imposed forces, response spectra,
earthquake g-factors, wind exposure, snow, etc.)
7 - retrieve information from the stress analysis (stresses at piping mid spans,
displacements at wall penetrations, atc.)
aeeccoekoes
C3o5eoce Hoe en ec eee
6
o
0
6
e
e SOCe@@@ G8 57086980:
x
caseeeoeoerese
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
‘The input echo (Figure 1-3) provides more detailed information on the system, and is meant
to be used by the engineer in conjunction with the stress isometric.
‘The analysis output provides results, such as displacements, internal forces and moments,
stresses, and restraint loadings at each node point of the pipe, acting under the specified
loading conditions. CAESAR IZ provides results in either graphic or text format; Figures
1-4 and 1-5 present stress and displacement results graphically, The output also provides
a code check calculation for the appropriate piping code, ‘from which the analyst can
determine which locations are over stressed.
SsEni
oN
a
Computed thernal expansion of the vessel is a5
17.26BE-6 in/in/dag-F. at a temp of 828 dos.
Exchanger
Kode 108 is 26.88 ft. above vessel skirt
Diep. @ 282 = (820-78)dey.F(17 2688-6) in/ in/doge
(20.00) (izsrt. inet. = 3.121 in
X Diep. @ 128 = (828-78)(17.260E-G>(28.08+6.5-15)(12)
24.8 in,
Figure 1-1 co oee er ogeeceeeeeeesroeecrxre00
i Oo )
u
2 yy
| 3
= 4 x
4 none « so eo E 2 a
Ok
4 a ee Pew mm now UE
z \ om mw
a ”
g soa
| een
3 a a
Doom s 3
200 eee —,
a BY My Boepreayads famed ¥ pure 20 spe mH ay KaraTEIN 4 EargNY, PRI MRO THN FLISY MY BanIEND Res STV SPIO my LOY OF IY FEY mG
@] —Manvornemaiw sence suomnoTl ave {0 SWON ws WMA HT sascvts SNOT OVE
‘tae YSN oe “alos evn ”
exau neouire mnie: aw nv ova crate enna noronzee any sri OMT tvawet
, ‘nist Hensorad val 9000 IY ‘on tannerat vou nao ne onoa nec amewser
COADE Pipe @eeoeoeeeeeeeocvree en
oeeeccvceeeecdg
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
CAESAR I1 VERS 3.18 JOBNANE:SSEM1 DEC 10, 1992 3:05 am
PIPE DATA
From 100 Te 105 bY= 3.800 ft.
PIPE
Dia= 20.000 in. Walt= .375 fn. Insul= 2.000 in.
GENERAL
Tim 700 F Pl= 125.0000 Ib./sq.in, Mat~ (1)LOW CARBON STEEL
E= 27,900,000 Ib./sq.in. v= .282 Density .2899 1D./cu.in.
RIGID Weight 3,290.00 1b,
DESPLACEMENTS
Node 100 X= .000 in. Y= 3.121 tn. OZ .000 in, RX -000
Ry= .000 RZ» .000
ALLOWABLE STRESSES
831.3 (1990) Se= 20,000 1b. /sq.in. Sh 16,500 1b./sq.in.
From 105 To 110 DY= 3.000 ft.
BEND at “To” end
Radius= 30,000 in. (LONG) Bend Angle 90.000 Angle/Node @1= 45.00 109
Angle/Node @2= .00 108
From 110 To 128 Dk= 12.000 ft.
BEND at “TO™ ena
Radius 30.000 in. (LONG) Bend Angle= 90.000 Angte/Node @l= 45.00 114
Angle/Node @2~ .00 113
From 115. To 120 DY= -18.000 ft.
DISPLACEMENTS
Node 120 DX» FREE DY= 1.800 in. DZ FREE RX= FREE RY™ FREE
RZ FREE
From 120 To 225 DY= -3.000 ft.
BEND at *70” end
Radius= 30,000 in. (LONG) Bend Angie= 90.000 Angle/Node @l~ 45.00 124
Angle/Node @2= .0G 123
From 125. To 130 x= 35.000 ft.
RESTRAINTS,
Node 130 +¥
From 130 To 135 OX= 35.000 ft.
RESTRAINTS.
Node 135 +¥
From 135 To 140 D¥m 35.000 ft.
RESTRAINTS
Node 140 +7
From 140 To 145 D¥= 20.000 Ft.
BEND at “To” end .
Radtus= 30.000 in. (LONG) Bend Angle= 90.000 Angle/Node @i~ 45.00 144
Angle/Node @2= .09 143 ‘
From 145 To 150 DY= -12.900 ft.
RESTRAINTS
Rode 150 ANC
Figure 1-8 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
cose 3 CEXP)OGHDL-D2 | FILE:SSIML EC 4.1992 12:47am
quir
ropes
cvssTa
xs
rove
muss
exrRL,
STRESS
‘simaot
Brin
axa
mb
mans.
Axia
STRESS
ODEs 123 (UERSTRESSED MODES .
Figure 1-4
CASE 1 COPEW-DIS-TL-PL FILE:SSEN2 DEC 4,952 12:49am. RESET
ur
peri
SPECrY
agate
ono
tan
HRDCEY
woe 25 ax, ises. x
Figure 1-5
16
os ee 0 eda
o
‘
wooo ee
,
ollo we oc rv e crc bee oeee COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
What are these Stresses?
‘The stresses calculated are not necessarily real stresses (such as could be measured by a
strain gauge, forexample), but are rather “code” stresses. Code stress calculations are based
‘upon specific equations, which are the result of 8 decades of compromise and simplification.
‘The calculations reflect:
1:
Inclusion or exclusion of piping loads, based upon convenience of calculation or
selected fa‘iure. In fact the result may not even represent an absolute stress
value, but rather a RANGE of values.
‘Loading type — these are segregated, and analyzed separately, as though they
occur in isolation, even though they actually are present simultaneously.
Magnification, due to local fitting configuration, which may in reality reflect a
decrease in fatigue strength, rather than an increase in actual stress.
Code committee tradition — every code is a result of a different set of concerns
and compromises, and therefore may appear to be on a different branch of the
evolutionary ladder. Because of this, every code gives different results when
calculating stresses.
A summary of significant dates in the history of the development of the piping codes is
presented below:
1815 - Power Piping Society provides the first national code for pressure piping.
1926 - ‘The American Standards Association initiates project B31 to govern
pressure piping.
1955 - Markl publishes his paper “Piping Flexibility Analysis”, introducing
piping analysis methods based on the “stress range”.
1957 - First computerized analysis of piping systems.
1968 - Congress enacts the Natural Pipeline Safety Act, establishing CFR 192,
which will in time replace B31.8 for gas pipeline transportation.
1969 Introduction of ANSI B31.7 code for Nuclear power plant piping.
1971 - Introduction of ASME Section III for Nuclear power plant piping.
1974 - Winter Addenda B31.1 moves away from the separation of bending and
torsional moment terms in the stress calculations and alters the intensi-
fication factor for moments on the branch leg of intersections.
1978 ANSI B31.7 is withdrawn,
1987 - — Welding Research Council Bulletin 330 recommends changes to the
B81.1, B31.3, and ASME Ili Class 2 and 3 piping codes. COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
1.1 Theory and Development of Pipe Stress Requirements
1.1.1 Basic Stress Concepts
Normal stresses: Normal stresses are those acting in a direction normal to the face of the
crystal structure of the material, and may be either tensile or compressive in nature. (In fact,
normal stresses in piping tend more to tension due the predominant nature of internal
pressure as a load case.) Normal stresses may be applied in more than one direction, and
may develop from a number of different types of loads. For a piping system, these are
discussed, below:
Longitudinal stress: Longitudinal, or axial, stress is the normal stress acting parallel to
thelongitudinal axis ofthe pipe. Thismay becaused by an internal force acting axially within
the pipe:
Figure 1.6
Suo= Fax/Am
Where
Sz = longitudinal stress, psi
Fay = internal axial force acting on cross-section, Ib
Am = metal cross-sectional area of pipe, in?
= dg? - aj2)/4
= Ragt
d, = outer diameter, in
d, = inner diameter, in
dm = mean diameter, = (dy + d))/2
18
Pecenscaee
Teoxreenooaretbsaoaag
oC
oo @eeoecocoecee @ GG @oeosoovaeeeeascrcsee @eorvroevend0
yee eecceeecog
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
A specific instance of longitudinal stress is that due to internal pressure:
SL
Internal Pressure
SL
Figure 1-7
SL = PA/Am
Where:
P = design pressure, psig
A; = internal area of pipe, in?
= nd2/4 <
Replacing the terms for the internal and metal areas of the pipe, the previous equation may
be written as:
SL P dj? / (2 - 42), or:
S
1
Pal /4dut
For convenience , the longitudinal pressure stress is often conservatively approximated as:
S, = Pdj/4t
Another component of axial normal stress is bending stress. Bending stress is zero at the
neutral axis of the pipe and varies linearly across the cross-section from the maximum
compressive outer fiber tothe maximum tensile outer fiber. Calculating the stress aslinearly
proportional to the distance from the neutral axis:
Variation in Bending Stress Thru
Cross Section
Max compressive stress
1/2 mox compressive stress
Neutral Axis
Zero bending stress
1/2 mex tension siress
Mcx tension stress
Figure 1-8
& COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes o
. °
SL = Mye/I
Where: .
Mp = bending moment acting on cross-section, in-Ib ©
© = distance of point of interest from neutral axis of cross-section, in °
I = moment of inertia of cross-section, in¢ o
=n (dod = &j4)/ 64 e
°
Maximum bending stress occurs where cis greatest — where itis equal to the outer radius: °
Smox = MpRo/I = My/Z
°
Where: °
Ry = outer radius of pipe, in Qc
Z = section modulus of pipe, ind e
= I/R o
Summing all components of longitudinal normal stress: _?
Sto= Fax/Am+Pdo/4t+Mp/Z e
e
Hoop stress: There are other normal stresses present in the pipe, applied in directions
orthogonal to the axial direction. One of these stresses, caused by internal pressure, is called e
hoop stress. This stress acts in a direction parallel to the pipe circumference. ee
8, ==] e
iD, :
BY
8
3,244 o-
o 7
Figure 1-9 e
‘The magnitude of the hoop stress varies through the pipe wall and can be calculated by an
‘Lame’s equation as: e
Sq = P(g 2 +12 152 /12)/(r92 - 112) °
°
e
da
° °
2.
2.
oF COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
‘Where:
Si = hoop stress due to pressure, psi
= inner radius of pipe, in
To = outer radius of pipe, in
1 = radial position where stress is being considered, in
‘The hoop stress can be conservatively approximated for thin-wall cylinders, by assuming
that the pressure force, applied over an arbitrary length of pipe, 1 (F = P dj )), is resisted
uniformly by the pipe wall over that same arbitrary length (Am, = 2t 1), or:
Sa = Pdl/2tl, or:
Su = Pdj/2t, or conservatively:
esse e@esoxeeec eae
y Sq = Pd/2t
Radial stress: Radial stress is the third normal stress present in the pipe wall. It acts in
the third orthogonal direction, parallel to the pipe radius. Radial stress, which is caused by
internal pressure, varies between a stress ‘equal to the internal pressure at the pipe’s inner
surface and a stress equal to atmospheric pressure at the pipe’s external surface. Assuming
that there is no external pressure, radial stress may be calculated as:
Figure 1-10
SR o= Pre -rj2 162/22) /(r2- 172)
Where:
Sr = radial stress due to pressure, psi ‘
Note that radial stress is zero at the outer radius of the pipe, where the bending stresses are
maximized. For this reason, this stress component has traditionally ‘been ignored during the
stress calculations,
Shear stresses: Shear stresses are applied in a direction parallel to the face of the plane
of the crystal structure of the material, and tond to cause adjacent planes of the crystal to
.
e
e
e
e
e
e
°
.
&
°o
9
e
e
e
o
9
e
e
° ‘COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
slipagainst each other. Shear stresses may be caused by more than one type of applied load.
For example, shear stress may be caused by shear forces acting on the cross-section:
Shear Oistribution
Profile
Teo
Figure 1-11
tmx = VQ/Am
%max = maximum shear stress, psi
V_= shear force, Ib
Q = shear form factor, dimensionless (1.333 for solid circular section)
‘These shear stresses are distributed such that they are maximum at the neutral axis of the
pipe and zero at the maximum distance from the neutral aris. Since this is the opposite of
the case with bending stresses, and since these stresses are usually small, shearstresses due
to forces are traditionally neglected during pipe stress analysis.
Shear stresses may also be caused by torsional loads:
oe
Dewees cecVeect ree eee wee ees rsoaeersoae eoeeoeevereeeaosceee coe een 8
oO
&
S
°
°
°
°
°
°
.
.
e
9
My = internal torsional moment acting on cross-section, in-Ib
¢ = distance of point of interest from torsional center (intersection of neutral axes)
of cross-section, in y
R= torsional resistance of cross-section, int
= 21
= pldat- 48/32
Maximum torsional stress occurs where c is maximized — at the outer radius:
Tmax = MpRo/21 = Mr/2Z
‘Summing the individual components of the shear stress, the maximum shear stress acting
on the pipe cross-section is:
tmx = VQ/An+My/2Z
Example Stress Calculations:
As noted above, a number of the stress components described above have been neglected for
convenience during calculation of pipe stresses. Most U.S. piping codes require stresses to
be calculated using some form of the following equations:
Longitudinal stress: S, = = My /Z+ Fax/Am+Pdo/4t
Shear stress: tT = Mp/2Zv
Hoop stress: Se = Pa/2t
Calculations are illustrated for a 6-inch nominal diameter, standard wall pipe (assuming the
piping loads are known):
Cross sectional
properties: Piping loads:
dy = 6.625 in Bending moment (Mp) = 4247 ft-lb
qd - 6.065 in Axial force (Fjx) = 33488 Ib ‘
t = 0.280in Pressure (P) = 600psi_ |
Zz . 8.496 in? Torsional Moment (Mz) = = 8495 ft-lb
Am = 6.5813 in?
113 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
Longitudinal stress:
Sp = 4247 x 12/8.496 + 33488/5.5813 + 600 x 6.625/4 (0.280)
= 18647 psi
Shear stress:
T = 8495 x 12/2 (8.496) = 5999 psi
‘Hoop stress:
Sq = 600 x 6.625 /2 (0.280) = 7098 psi
1.1.2 3-D State of Stress in the Pipe Wall
During operation, pipes are subject to al of these types of stresses. Examining a small cube
of metal from the most highly stressed point of the pipe wall, the stresses are distributed as
50:
Figure 1-13
‘There are an infinite number oforientations in which this cube could have been selected, each.
with a different combination of normal and shear stresses on the faces. For example, there
is one orientation of the orthogonal stress axes for which one normal stress is maximized,
and another for which one normal stress is minimized — in both cases all shear stress
components are zero. In orientations in which the shear stress is zero, the resulting normal
components of the stress are termed the principal stresses. For 3-dimensional analyses,
there are three of them, and they are designated as S; (the maximum), Sp, and Ss (the
minimum). Note that regardless of the orientation of the stress axes, the sum of the
orthogonal stress components is always equal, ie:
Sp +Sq+Sp=S; +S: +S;
‘The converse of these orientations is that in which the shear stress component is maximized
(there is also an orientation in which the shear stress is minimized, but this is ignored since
the magnitudes of the minimum and maximum shear stresses are the same); this is
appropriately called the orientation of maximum shear stress. The maximum shear stress poe ee cceee sc ogee eee rere sores envree een
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
ina three dimensional state of stress is equal toone-halfof the difference between the largest
and smallest of the principle stresses (S; and Sg).
‘The values of the principal and maximum shear stress can be determined through the use
ofa Mobr’s circle. The Mohr's circle analysis can be simplified by neglecting the radial stress
component, therefore considering a less complex (i.e., 2-dimensional) state of stress. A
‘Mohr’s circle can be developed by plotting the normal vs. shear stresses for the two known
orientations (1., the longitudinal stressvs, the shear and the hoop stress vs, the shear), and
constructing a circle through the two points. The infinite combinations of normal and shear
stresses around the circle represent the stress combinations present in the infinite number
of possible orientations of the local stress axes.
A differential element at the outer radius of the pipe (where the bending and torsional
‘stresses are maximized and the radial normal and force-induced shear stresses are usually
zero) is subject to 2-dimensional plane stress, and thus the principal stress terms can be
computed from the following Mohr’s circle:
Figure 1-14
‘The center of the circle is at (Sy, + Sy)/2 and the radius is equal to [ (Sp - Sy)/ 212 + T2309,
‘Therefore, the principal stresses, S; and Sq, are equal to the center of the circle, plus orminus
the radius, respectively. The principal stresses are calculated as:
S. = Gy +Sx)/2+((Sp-Sq)/ 2] +2 2 and
“Se = GL +Sp)/2-((S_-Sw/ 22+ 22
As noted above, the maximum shear stress present in any orientation is equal to(S1 - S2)/2,
or:
i
umax = (Gr - SH)? +42 2
2 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
1.1.3 Failure Theories
To be useful, calculated stresses must be compared to material allowables. Material
allowable stresses are related to strengths as determined by material uniaxial tensile tests,
therefore calculated stresses must also be related to the uniaxial tensile test. This
relationship can be developed by looking at available failure theories.
Failure of
crass section
ja Stress,
©
ovtel
4 Strain
Tensite Test Resutts
unigtal Tensile Tensile Test
Test machine Speciaen
Figure 1-15
‘There are three generally accepted failure theories which may be used to predict the onset
of yielding in a material:
1 - GCTAHEDRAL SHEAR, or VON MISES THEORY
2 - MAXIMUM SHEAR, or TRESCA THEORY
3 - MAXIMUM STRESS or RANKINE THEORY
These theories relate failure in an arbitrary three dimensional stress state in a material to
failure in a the stress state found in a uniaxial tensile test specimen, since it is that test that
is most commonly used to determine the allowable strength of commonly used materials.
Failure of a uniaxial tensile test specimen is deemed to occur when plastic deformation
occurs; i.e., when the specimen yields.
Coeeccoteveevcece
yO @ @ ec o
o
e
e
®
a
8
°
e
e
Oo
o
“
°
°
e
e
e
e
e
eo
e
9
o
°
e
9
9
9
Qe
°
eo
9
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
‘The three failure theories state:
Octahedral Shear - Von Mises Theory:
“Failure occurs when the octahedral shear stress in a body is equal to the octahedral.
shear stress at yield in a uniaxial tension test.”
‘The octahedral shear stress is caloulated as:
oct = VB [ (Sy - Sp)? + (Sp - Sg}? + (Sg - Sp)? V2
In a uniaxial tensile test specimen at the point of yield:
Si = Syiag Sg=S3=0
‘Therefore the octahedral shear stress in a uniaxial tensile test specimen at failure is
calculated as:
3 Zot = WS [ (Syieta = O08 + (0 - 0)2 + (O- Syieta)? 2?
= 22x Syiga/3
Therefore, under the Von Mises theory:
Plastic deformation occurs in a 3-dimensional stress state whenever the
octahedral shear exceeds 21/2 x Syieig / 3.
Maximum Shear Stress - Tresca Theory:
“Failure occurs when the maximum shear stress in a body is equal to the maximum.
shear stress at yield in a uniaxial tension test.”
‘The maximum shear stress is calculated as:
tmx = (81> S3}/2
Tn a uniaxial tensile test specimen at the point of yield:
Si = Syiea, Sp2=S3=0
So:
max = — Site 00/2 = Syieia/2 \
‘Therefore, under the Tresca theory:
Plastic deformation occurs in a 3-dimensional stress state whenever the
maximum shear stress exceeds Syjeia /2. COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
Maximum Stress - Rankine Theory
“Failure occurs when the maximum tensile stress in a body is equal to the maximum
tensile stress at yield in a uniaxial tension test.”
The maximum tensile stress is the largest, positive principal stress, S;. (By definition, S,
is always the largest of the principal stresses.)
Ina uniaxial tensile test specimen at the point of yield:
S1.= Syieia; S2=S3=0
Therefore, under the Rankine theory:
Plastic deformation occurs in a 3-dimensional stress state whenever the
maximum priacipal stress exceeds Syieta.
1.1.4 Maximum Stress Intensity Criterion
‘Mostof the current piping codes use aslight miodification ofthe maximum shearstress theory
for flexibility related failures. Repeating, the maximum shear stress theory predicts that
failure occurs when the maximum shear stressin a body equals Syigig/2, the maximum shear
stress existing at failure during the uniaxial tensile test. Recapping, the maximum shear
stress in a body is given by:
Tmax = (Si -Sa)/2
For the differential element at the outer surface of the pipe, the principal stresses were
computed earlier as:
Si = (Sp+Sp)/2+((Sp-Sp/ 22+ 22
So(or Ss) = (Su + Sw)/2-( (Sp -Sy)/ 222 + 2
‘As seen previously, the maximum shear stress theory states that during the uniaxial tensile
test the maximum shear stress at failure is equal to one-half of the yield stress, so the
following requirement is necessary:
tmax = ((Sp- Sy)? + 4 72] < Syiata
2 2
‘Multiplying both sides arbitrarily by two saves the time required to do two mathematical
operations, without changing this relationship. Multiplying by two creates the stress
intensity, whichis an artificial parameter defined simply as twice the maximum shear stress,
‘Therefore the Maximum Stress Intensity criterion, as adopted by most piping cades, dictates
the following requirement:
(Sz - Sy)? +4242 < Srila
eee eccee &o
oe5eeceo &
oO
e
e
e e@eeoeeevneveeseooroe een 57e8008 8
cpeeecceeecag
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
Note that when calculating only the varying stresses for fatigue evaluation purposes (as
discussed in the following section), the pressure components drop out of the equation. Ifan
allowable stress based upon a suitable factor of safety is used, the Maximum Stress Intensity
criterion yields an expression very similar to that specified by the B31.3 code:
[S,2+45,2]12 < Sy
‘Where:
Sp = longitudinal normal stress due to bending, psi
S, = shear stress due to torsion, psi
Sq = allowable stress for loading case, psi
Example Stress Intensity Calculations:
Calculation of stress intensity may be illustrated by returning to our 6-inch nominal
diameter, standard wall pipe for which longitudinal, shear, and hoop stresses were
calculated. Reviewing the results of those calculations:
Longitudinal stress: S. = = :1547 psi
Shear stress: t = 5999 psi
Hoop stress: Sa = 7098 psi
Assuming that the yield stress of the pipe material is 30,000 psi at temperature, and a factor
of safety of 2/3 is to be used, the following calculations must be made:
USL Sw? +4122 < 2/3 x Syjaia, or:
((15547 - 7098)2 + 4 x 59992 J¥2 < 2/8 x 30000, or:
14674 < 20000
‘The 14674 psi is the calculated stress intensity in the pipe wall, while the 20000 is the
allowable stress intensity for the material at the specified temperature. In this case, the pipe
would appear to be safely loaded under these conditions. COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
1.2 Fatigue Failure
‘The failure modes discussed above were sufficient to describe catastrophic failure based upon
one time loadings. However, piping and vessels were also found to suffer from sudden failure
following years of successful service. The proposed explanation for this phenomenon was
fatigue failure of the material, resulting from propagation of cracks on the material crystal
structure level due to repeated cyclic loading.
2.1 Fatigue Basics
Steels and other metals are made up of organized patterns of molecules, known as crystal
structures. However, these patterns are not maintained throughout the steel producing an
ideal homogenous material, but are found in microscopic isoiated island-like areas called a
grains,
Inside each grain the pattern of molecules is preserved. From one grain boundary tothe next
the molecular pattern is the same, but the orientation differs. As a result, grain boundaries
are high energy borders. Plastic deformation begins within a grain that is both subject to
a high stress and oriented such that the stress causes a slippage between adjacent layers in
the same pattern. The incremental slippages (called dislocations) cause local cold-working.
On the first application of the stress, dislocations will move through many of the grains that
are in the local area of high stress. As the stress is repeated, more dislocations will move
through their respective grains. Dislocation movement is impeded by the grain boundaries,
so after multiple stress applications, the dislocations tend to accumulate at grain boundaries,
and eventually becoming so dense that the grains “lock up”, causing a loss of ductility and
thus preventing further dislocation movement. Subsequent applications of the stress cause
the grain to tear, forming cracks, Repeated stress applications cause the cracks to grow.
Unless abated, the cracks propagate with additional stress applications until sufficient cross
sectional strength is lost to cause catastrophic failure ofthe material. Figure 1-16 illustrates
this process.
a
i
, i
ceeceecadeneseceee rcs aenc
op eee COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
Molecuar parem
inunsttessed grain
—
a3 ‘Siping of one molecular
ELEY surface over another after
fist appcabon of tose
‘\ sino seed
Siglo
second appbcation of
=
Dislocations beginning
to internet and tangle
Atter many repedted applications of
sass the dislocations are
‘completely tangled and the gran is
‘locked’
With another application of the
stress, he rain “tears” and a
fatigue cracks inisated,
Figure 1-16
eeoeaeeeeoeveveenosee e@eococeeec sd
[ }
"Dislocation
Slit
Jest Stress Level
Tension
\
Tine
o
9 .
e
e
° vara Bein
9
6 Figure 1-17
.
e
° 1-21
eo
‘One Cycte
TEST LOADING CURVE COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
One important consideration is the fact that fatigue cracks usually are initiated at a free
surface, Corrosive attack on a material often produces pitting of metal surfaces. The pits
act as notches and produce a reduction in fatigue strength. In those specific cases when
corrosive attack occurs simultaneously with fatigue loading, a pronounced reduction in
fatigue properties results which is greater than that produced by prior corrosion of the
surface. When corrosion and fatigue occur simultaneously, the chemical attack greatly
accelerates the rate at which fatigue cracks propagate.
Unfortunately, fatigue failures can occur even when the stressin a material is below the yield
stress. This is because localized stress concentrations can cause plastic deformation in a
relativelly few grains despite the fact that the stress over a gross area of the section may be
farbelow the material yield stress. Ifthe section is subjected to a sufficient number of stress
cycles, cracks can initiate in highly stressed grains and then propagate throughout the
material, ultimately resulting in a fatigue failure of the section as a whole,
The fatigue capacity of a material can be estimated through the application of cyclic
extensive/compressive displacement loads with a uniaxial test machine, as shown in Figure
117,
Sample results for typical ferrous material (with a yield stress of 57,000 psi) are shown below:
Applied Cycitc Cycles to
Stress (psi) Failure
300.000 23
200.000 90
100,000 350
50,000 6,700
30,000 38,000
20,000 109.000
.2.2 Fatigue Curves
Aplot of the cyclic stress capacity of a material is called a fatigue (or endurance) curve. These
curves are generated through multiple cyclic tests at different stress levels. The number of
cycles to failure usually increases as the applied cyclic stress decreases, often until a
threshold stress (known as the endurance limit) is reached below which no fatigue failure
occurs, regardless of the number of applied cycles. The endurance limit (for thosemetals that,
possess one) is usually quantified as the value of the cyclic stress level which may be applied
for at least 108 cycles without failure. Typical ratios of the endurance limit to the ultimate
tensile strength of various materials are 0.5 for cast and wrought steels; about 0.35 for
several nonferrous metals such as nickel, copper and magnesium; and 0.2 to 0.3 for rough
or corroded steel surfaces (depending on the degree of stress intensification).
An endurance curve for carbon and low alloy steels, taken from the ASME Section VIII
Division 2 Pressure Vessel Code is shown in Figure 1-18.
onBee0093
@oos e686
Oo
ceoee coc G @
Yoeeec eoeeeeeoerece en r57e ee osc eee aE
G@ioeeeocceeece
¢YCUC STRESS AMPLITUDE
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
cyous 7
Figure 1-18
Note that according to the fatigue curve, the material doesn’t fail upon initial loading, despite
enormously high stresses that appear to be well above the ultimate tensile stress of typical
carbon and low alloy steels. The reasons for this are:
1
The highly stressed areas under fatigue loading ‘are normally very localized.
Catastrophic failure under one-time loading will normally occur only when the
gross cross-section is overloaded.
Fatigue curves are usually generated through cyclic application of displacement,
rather than force, loading. Displacement loads are “self-limiting”. If a pipe is
overloaded with an imposed displacement, plastic stresses will develop, deform-
ing the pipe to its displaced position. At that point there will be no further
tendency for displacements to occur, and therefore no continuation of the load,
or further deformation leading to catastrophic failure. In the case of an applied
force (which is not a self- limiting load), deformation of the pipe does not cause
the force to subside, so deformation continues until failure.
‘The stress shown in a fatigue curve is a calculated stress, based upon the
assumption that Hooke’s law is applicable throughout the range of applied
loading; i.e., S = E ¢ , where:
E = modulus of elasticity of material, psi
e = strain in material, infin
1-23 oa TEES eae aaa TE
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Semiziar Notes
In reality, once the material begins to yield, stress is no longer proportional to
the induced strain, and actually is much lower than that calculated.
1.2.3 Effect of Fatigue on Piping
A.R.C. Markl investigated the phenomenon of fatigue failure ofpiping during the 1940's and
1950's, and published his results in papers such as “Piping Flexibility Analysis”, published
in 1955, He tested a number of configurations (straight pipe, and various fittings, such as
pipe elbow, miter bend, unreinforced fabricated tee, welding tee, etc.) by using cyclic
displacements to apply alternating bending stresses. Plotting the cycles to failure for each
applied displacement, he found that the results of his experiments followed the form of
fatigue curves.
16 .
TYP) ay [
YF) Range of imposed displacements to
——— impose complete stress reversal
'S itn butt wold L
[lS [Siemens sarge tae
displacements
fms inplane
displacements Range of outpiane
as lave l displacements.
/~Rangs of inplana,
a ennesmanty ge ota
Figure 1-19
If an initially applied displacement load causes the pipe to yield, it results in plastic
deformation, producing a pre-stress in the system, which must be overcome by subsequent
stress applications, resulting in lower absolute stresses during later load cycles. Because of
the system “relaxation”, the initial values of the thermal stress are allowed to exceed the
material yield stress, with the aim being that the system “self-spring” during the first few
eyeles and then settle into purely elastic cycling This “self-springing” is also called Elastic
Shakedown, As shown in Figure 1-20, the maximum stress range may be set to 2S Yield (or
more accurately, the sum of the hot and the cold yield stresses) in order to ensure eventual
elastic cycling.
:
y
a
°
e
e
@
9
°o
e
e
e
fooeeescsca ee O80
oeseeoeveeveee
Se oO
8
°
e
°
9
e
e
e
e
°
°
Oyo @ ee ceoeeecono
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
py:
2sy
Elastic Shakedown’
(Relaxation)
Time—>
Figure 1-20
Based upon this consideration, the initial limitation for expansion stress design was set to
the sum of the hot and the cold yield stresses — the maximum stress range which ensured
that the piping system eventually cycled fully within the elastic stress range. Incorporating
a factor of safety, this resulted in the following criterion:
Sp <= F(Syc+ Syn)
Where:
Sg = expansion stress range, psi
F = factor of safety, dimensionless
Syc = material yield stress at cold (installed) temperature, psi
Syq = material yield stress at hot (operating) temperature, psi
1.2.4 Cyclic Reduction Factor
Atsome point, in the vicinity of 7,000 cycles, the (Sye + Syp) limitation intersects the fatigue
carve for carbon and low alloy steel. The allowable stress range must therefore be reduced
to fit the fatigue curve for cyclic applications with 7,000 cycles or more: \
Sp <= F £(Syc + Syn)
1-25 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
Where:
f= cyclic reduction factor, as shown in the accompanying table
CYCLIG REDUCTION FACTOR TABLE
cycles N Factor f
a to: 7,000 1.0
‘ 7001 = 14,000 0.3
14.001 + 22,900 0.8
22,001 + 45,000 07
45.001 —- 100,000 0.8
100,001 == ~—-200,000 0.5
200.001 = ~—- 700,000 0.4
700,001 - 2,000,000 0.3
1.2.5 Effect of Sustained Loads on Fatigue Strength
In almost all cases the material fatigue curves are generated using a completely alternating
stress; i.e., the average stress component is zero. Research has shown that the magnitude
of the mean stress can have an effect on the endurance strength of a material, the trend of
which is shown below:
me
ay,
“Ye
ajay Tay Sey
Auarnating s1e38 24
1 ‘at
eles tlre
a
‘oF
1-26
eeeccoeecas "@@emoo0@eeeo se e008
5
eeveccesecogeeoeee
i
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes _/
Note that as the mean stress increases the maximum permissible absolute stress (S, +S.)
increases, while the permissible alternating stress decreases. The relationship between the
allowable alternating stress and the average stress is described by the Soderberg line, which
ates fairly well with test data for ductilematerials. The equation for the Soderberg line
is:
S,(Allowed) = S,(for R=-1) x 1- Sp/Syieia )
Where:
R= Smin/Smax
SB. = max Smin)/2
Sm = (Smnax+ Smin)/2
Note that during the development of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III
rules and procedures for analysis of nuclear piping, the Special Committee to Review Code
Stress Basis concluded that the required adjustments to a strain-controlled fatigue data
curve based on zero mean stress, occur only for a large mumber of cycles (i.e. N > 50,000 «
100,000) cycles for carbon and low-alloy steels, and are insignificant for 18-8 stainless steels
and nickel-chrome-iron alloys. Since these materials constitute the majority of the piping
materials in use, and since most cyclic loading events comprise much fewer than 50,000
cycles, the effects of mean stress on fatigue life are negligible for piping materials with
ultimate strengths below 100,000 psi. For materials with an ultimate strength equal to or
greater than 100,000 psi, such as high strength bolting, mean stress can have a considerable
effect on fatigue strength and should be considered when performing a fatigue analysis.
For a piping application, the implication of the Soderberg line on the fatigue allowable is
implementedin aconservativemanner. Thesustained stress (Le., weight, pressure, ete, can
be considered to be the mean component of the stress range after system relaxation, and as
such is used to reduce the allowable stress range:
Sp <= Ff(Sy, + Syy- Ssus)
127 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
1.3 Stress Intensification Factors
As noted previously, Mark’s fatigue tests generated endurance curves for various fitting
configurations, such as straight pipe, butt welded pipe, elbows, mitars, welding. tees,
unreinforced and reinforced fabricated tees, mostly using 4” nominal diameter, size-on-size
fittings. Markl noticed that the fatigue failures occurred not in the middle ofhis test spans,
but primarily in the vicinity of the fittings, and in those cases, they also occurred at lower
stress/cycle combinations than for the straight pipe alone.
Earlier theoretical work pointed to a possible explanation. It had been shown that elbows
tend to ovalize during bending, bringing the outer fibers closer to the neutral axis of the pipe,
thus reducing the moment of inertia (increasing flexibility) and the section modulus
(increasing developed stress).
Ovelization
of Bend
Figure 1-22
‘The stress intensification factors (the ratio of actual bending stress to the calculated bending
stress for a moment applied to the nominal section) for elbows was known to be:
is =
y=
Where:
ib =
ios
he
tos
R=
ros
0.75 / bes
0.9 / hs
out-of-plane intensification factor
in-plane intensification factor —
flexibility characteristic
tR/rt
pipe wall thickness, in
bend radius of elbow, in
mean radius of pipe, in
j
eoeeccheeececn
oe COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes i
Markl found this to correlate fairly well with his test data and so adoptedit. Tests on mitered
bends correlated well with those for smooth bends, providing an equivalent bend radius R
was used in the above equation forh. Markl's estimates of equivalent bend radius are shown
below:
Re = r(1 +0. s/r cot D) (for closely spaced miters)
Ro = r(1+cotD)/2 (for widely spaced miters)
Where:
Re = equivalent bend radius, in
s = miter spacing at the centerline, in
D = one-half of angle between cuts
‘Mari found that the unreinforced fabricated tees could be modeled using the same formula
as that for single (widely spaced) miter bonds could be used, fa half angle of 45 degrees was,
used. This produces a flexibility characteristic of,
ho = tfr
@oo@e ee oce80e930
For butt welded tees (such as ANSI B16.9 welding tees) Markl again adapted the bend
equations, this time computing an equivalent radius (R,) and an equivalent thickness (te).
‘Markl’s equation for welding tees was:
hoo = c(tyRe/r2)
Where:
" ¢ = ratio of tee-to-pipe section modulii, dimensionless
= (te/t)32 (Markl’s recommendation)
ty = equivalent pipe wall thickness, in
= 1.60t (Markl’s recommendation)
Re = equivalent bend radius, in
= 1.35r (Markl’s recommendation)
Inserting these values into the expression for h yields: i
ho = 44t/r
‘This is precisely the expression used today for ANSI B16.9 welding tees.
e
e
e
e
e
°
°
e
e
rel
9
Qo
e
e
e
8
68
e
e
e
1-29 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes :
For reinforced fabricated tees, Markl used the expression he had previously used for welding
tees, with different equivalent wall thickness and bend radius:
o( te Ry/r2)
(t/t) (Markl’s recommendation)
te = ttty
thickness of reinforcing pad or saddle, in
Ree
‘The following tables compare the stress intensification factors suggested by Mark's test
results versus the values calculated with his equations (results are for 4" nominal diameter,
standard schedule pipe):
Bend in-plane (15)
trie Test Calculated
0.062 4.49 5.7428
0.210 2.17 2.5476
9.129 4.38 3.5238
0.320 2,02 1.9238
0.319 2.10 1.9286
0,316 1.90 1.9381
0,328 1.70 1.8904
0.331 1.53 1.8809
0.324 1.36 1,909
0.332 1.28 1.8762
0.328 1.46 1.8904
Lod
1-80
{
eeerocsr,eeccae
e
e
e
°
e
+
°
°
e
e
°
o
°
e
e
e
2. e
°
°
°
°
° Unreinforced tee (4):
tir Test Catcutated
°
0.0390 11.06 10.84
°
0.0455 6.12 7.06
e
0.0947 2.98 4.33
°
o.nat 2.34 2.89
°
°
. Reinforced tee:
« 3 in-plane (if) out-plane (io)
~ tpad Test Ceiculated Test calcutated
0.12 2.21 2.63 2.43 3.17
0.237 178 17 1.83 1.98
0.8 110 i. 1.08 1.18
‘These formulas for intensification factors were adopted (and expanded) by the piping codes.
Specific formulas and/or fittings recognized by the individual ASME/ANSI B31 codes are
usually shown in Appendix D of those codes (see Figure 1-23). SPS a Pee re MRM ca a
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes é
25
APPENDIX D
FLEXIBILITY AND STRESS INTENSIFICATION
FACTORS
ume on
PLERILITY Faron e AND STRESS TEMEOTEATION ACTER
Tees” Bealame tow Curent
rate 7 a ne
‘ama of Fe 4 Ex.
tuymemiemiy 3h weet £
‘Sitar eed mm SEED igre
ct a.
Me
[2
2
cf
i
ten a a tee a?
#
M 4
ahh
eee =
eee Seg
ae gee 7
a Ta.
Hee, OBOE =
— BRET smcromet
eerie ee. wort to . =
eit 1 a
po eto to ty 2 mwa
a AE A et , .
er et ot nn fe ' B
rma nee a ert onan ose 8 a
es
a
3
°
°
e
°
>
y
e
e
e
“.
e
e
e
e
©
%
oO
e
°
e
°
°
°
e
e
° Le
eeeoeeeveseee occ e ee soe oOo
peeecceeecog
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
Subsequent research has demonstrated that Markl’s formulas, having been based on a
limited number configurations (significantly having omitted reduced outlet tees) and
disregarding any need to intensify torsional stress, are inaccurate in some respects.
‘The major problem with reduced intersections tees lies in the out-of-plane bending moment
on the header. Stresses due to these moments can never be predicted from the extrapolation
of size-on-size tests. Figure 1-24 below illustrates the origin of this problem.
Mob ‘Aroa ot high
Mob
bending
sresees SS
Size-on-size Recuced Intersection
Figure 1-24
Errors due to these moments can be non-conservative by as much as a factor of two or three.
Furthermore, when the r/R ratiois very small, the branch connection haslittle impact on the
header, so use of large stress intensification factors for the header can produce unreasonably
large calculated stresses.
R.W. Schneider of Bonney Forge pointed out this ineonsistency for reduced branch connec-
tions. His paper on the subject states that the highest stress intensification factors occur
when theratio of the branch to header radii is about 0.7, at which point the nonconservativism
(versus Mark's formulas) is on the order of two.
a7 10 \
fk \
Ratio of Actual i to Markl's i vs
Ratio of Branch to Header Radius
Figure 1-25 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes i
1.4 Welding Research Council Bulletin 330
‘The Welding Research Council’s Bulletin 330, “Accuracy of Code Stress Intensification
Factors for Branch Connections” documented a major attempt to re-asseés the existing code
requirements for the intensification of stresses at tees and other branch connections. The
difficulty of this task was summed upin the bulletin by author E. C. Rodabaugh, whostated:
“We would rate the relative complexity of i-factors for pipe, elbows and branch connections
by the ratios 1:5:500, These comments on relative complexity, we think, are relevant at this
point because at least some readers will be looking for simple answers to what they perceive
to be a simple subject. They will not find any simple answers in this report.”
Summarizing the findings of WRC 830 in order of increasing importance:
D
2)
3d
4)
5)
6)
‘The following note should be added with regard tobranch connection flexibilities:
“in piping system analyses, it maybe assumed that the flexibility is represented
by arigidjoint et the branch-to-runcenterlines juncture. However, the Code user
should be aware that this assumption can be inaccurate and should consider the
use of a more appropriate flexbility representation.”
ASME 2/3 and B31.1 users can use the “Branch Connection” expressions for
unrein forced fabricated tees whenever r/R < 0.5.(Mark’s formulas specified that
the same stress intensification factorbe used onboth the branch and header legs
ofa tee, regardless of relative sizes, The codes noted above permit the reduction
ofthe stress intensification factor at the branch forrelative diameters. CAESAR IT
automatically considers the effects of reduced intersections on the stress inten-
sification factors for these codes unless directed otherwise by the user through
the setup file.)
B31.1 erred when including the calculations for branch connection stress
intensification factors; instead they should have included the calculations as
they appeared in ASME II]. (Further clarification of this note is given in note
10 herein.)
81.3 should include the stress intensification factors for branch connections as
per ASME II, (B31.3 uses Mark's original formulas, thus specifying the same
stress intensification factor for both the branch and header of a tee, regardless
of relative sizes.)
B31.3 should intensify the torsional moment at branch connections, with the
torsional intensification factor estimated as: i; = (/R)io.
B31.3 should eliminate the use of ij = 0.75i, + 0.25 for branch connections and
tees. It can give the wrong relative magnitude for header moments, and may
underestimate the difference between M, and Mj for r/R ratios between 0.3 and
0.95, and perhaps over-estimates the difference for r/R ratios below 0.2 and for
oR = 1.0. Q
8
°
.
e
o
oe
e
e
°
8
8
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
*
@
°
.
°
°
oS
%.
e
°
°
Q
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes ‘
2)
8)
9)
10)
For (r/R)
ib
For (r/R)
B31,3 andB31.1 should add restrictions to the stress intensification factor tables
indicating that they are valid for R/T’ < 50.
‘The codes should add notes that indicate that the stress intensification factors
are developed from tests and/or theories based on headers being straight pipe
with about two or more diameters length of pipe on either side of the branch.
The codes should also add notes to indicate that for branch connections/tees the
stress intensification factors are only applicable where the axis of the branch pipe
is within 5 degrees of normal to the surface of the header pipe.
‘The stress intensification factors for unreinforced fabricated tees, weldolets, and
sweepolets should be changed to:
< 0.9:
= 1.5CRV/T)29 (1/R)V2 (r/rp}, with ip(t/T) > 1.5,
= 0.9 (R/T (rirp), with in(V/T) > 1.0
= 0.8 GVT}2S (IR), with i, > 2.1
intensification factor for branch (to be linearly interpolated for r/R ratios
between 0.9 and 1.0)
R= mean radius of header pipe, in
'T = thickness of header pipe, in
Additional
= mean radius of branch pipe, in
= outer radius of branch pipe, in
= thickness of branch pipe, in
= intensification factor for run (header) pipe
\
ly, if a radius of curvature rps provided at the connection, which is not less than
the larger of /2, (T'+¥)/2, or T/2, then the calculated values of iy and iy may be divided by
2.0, but with the restriction that ip>1.5 and i>1.5.
Also, where reduced outlets are discussed, branch ends should be checked using Z = p(r2)t
and i(t/T) in place of i, with i(V/T) > 1.0. COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes :
eoeso:2
11) ‘There wasnot sufficient data available on reinforced fabricated tees for Rodabaugh
to make any definitive recommendations regarding them. Rodabaugh does
however suggest that the normal usage whereby the width of the pad is taken
to be at least equal to the radius of the nozale should be observed even though
not explicitly directed by the code.
12) Fort/P ratios of abouit one or more, stresses tend to be higher in the header, and
are fairly independent of the wall thickness of the nozale. As the UT ratio gets
much smaller than one, the largest stresses shift to the branch. (This finding
originally came out of the research for WRC 297.)
oO
‘
Comparisons of WRC 330's proposals for stress intensification factors for various types of
tees, versus B31.3 calculated values are shown on the following pages.
osc raeecaoe
136
e
e
e
°
°
na
e
e
t
3
o
°
e
Q
o
°
«
e GOADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
NQ INTERSECTION RADIUS
"B31.3" VS. “WRC 830" UNREINFORCED, FABRICATED TEE STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTORCOMPARISON:
HEADER BRANCH «RO B93 wae 621
ip hop i lon
nom SH 005i tn” tn Hy By
te faa nan 24 87 LDs
2 1 we | knee 28 2.788 13d 1.488
2a 2 we LR Le . (7.25
oat sae nae 2.868 121.687
2a. | ree 2888 2688 532 1.657
Bae | 3488 22368 2.868 15s
1 3168 Je) | 188
2 s.t89 Kies hae | ise less
3 ss Sy s.em2 | nner ne
4 Bee sue hor | tle 102s
se 42s | 1638 2.026
Sap 4.255 | 1637 2.026
Sal 4.255 | 1aTe 1.807
34d) 4.255 | 1052 Lae
BHC 4255 |e 1.185
2 3.655 3.685
z 3455 3.888
4 5.885)
5 3.855
‘ 5.55 i 3.685
3.988 i
Bal 9 | are 887
59 90R 75 | 2ane 3b
1486 | STH 981
Bee] 4.379 3.965
ve ae culos daw on
\
|
|
we fF
eo 5 6.208 MT 20 | uss ae | 2.5 4.218
eb E:8B LS 78 | 12 7a | Dama 4.218
we 8 28 AE S200 | TS wt | LIES 4.213
HEM 1 60, 508k 4283 $288 | TOT Le | 4.897 4.203
6.00 325,525
6.488 LID SRE
M85 | ta LE
hb OT .5S 4.392
1 7@ 4.80 Soa | sera | SD A.392
432 35 | 52 Ene 42
ame S.5y | 78 4.985 4392
5.090 | 68.747 | 0e7 es8S.5RP | TSE 1.858
wes 68 | S.atrase Sugar | rats 1.469
CHS 653 | 45M 4.58 5.599 | FD 1.288
vs amet gat gee sige | case 1.125
ae
a
5.598
59
i
|
oe ee occeeeocoeeeeoeereereoearcce ee ore eead
& coy °
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes i °
°
NO INTERSECTION RADIUS °
*831.2" VS, ‘WAC 320" UNREINFORCED, FABRICATED T2E STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTOR COMPARISON
e
veaoen mania iw WE Waa
Now : wi. °
> lee Sp Ont fan
16 sss 5.505 | il AUB LAE Me 5.595 °
6 kas soe fl 8 | I kus 5595
ue as 5.388 | 3M lane [3 MA 5.98 °
a, cass signs {Tse leat | 4382S S95
8. Cag tan |e uae Faas nae es °
1a me, at 5.598 | 618 4g 5.58 °
an cag 5.598 | 587 sae 5.588
ae ag ss0 flame ane 599} name Le
aw. wo ae | far cae tv les 3
28 Ae, {a7 Smet Ee hes 1.789 °
at 1 se sae Fat 1.68 :
ne ‘st sume: nT 1ae9 Oe
aa ‘set Ran os 1.0
ae ao sae 821.025
a 8, : 5.965 (Me 38 TT SSS Le
nae 5965 Lae S951 CWT 83 yaa
Mat Sas ls lea Ca GW SG) Lert ~
aa. EMS 2 NOM 2m TF 8m i
we grt ssid SR SME Lath
5.78 5.48 Sze) 87125
TT: bt 8H
TITAS 1.208
7207; AS16128
@eereeevnen
e¢eo00eec ae
eee
4
o
| COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes i
NOINTERSECTION RADIUS
“B31.3" VS “WRC 330° WELDOLET STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTOR COMPARISON
NEADER BRANCH wR =
ron sey ly te
blak 2a keer LT
pera | ate sa
pa a [sa 16
pt 238 usm ise
pa 2 Ane 1S 37D
rae GF 3 170
RE 2H
&
SE
8,
3 ce
‘ ‘an
: Se
i ana
: it let
wa
. -
O Me
wag, 12 98, Lasse 52h. 2.528
ee at, | Euame sz) 2.82%
0 @@e@ecceeeccesereeereeeeeeeoceet 002098080 d COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes : °
°
NQ INTERSECTION RADIUS :
"891.3" VS “WRC 330" WELDOLET STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTOR COMPARISON
HEAOER BRANCH WAG. 3 : e
wi ona en
NOM scH ah ao aie ion
By ie toe Tg By at, tm teh Bo, °
aa a | oazs zee not Poste ae [a sae 2.528 ANT
18 ae 7.633 2528 25M BL YS 25 250 158 eo
ls 4, Bsn 25h 250 HOT] Stu) 2.508 2.52 287
Is at. 723 252 28H 29 fis 2874 2578 sat °
wa 555 158 254 Hat | A973 2500 ge 338 °
a TM 256 256 sir gee za zsey | ase ast
8, 7851 2.516 2.08 waz f 5.21 nsw | our e
%, ame 25% 25 sue f Sant 2sth | ass Lass
ras RPT 15% He ver) ary aste | cs ism °
(9a, sv 2am 2.828 val | 4.9% zsh | se “sea
°
a ner js we | saa 2 aan | rere
48. zou fsa ae | Same Bal? Tut | rea e
4. 267 | MS as | ne 2617 HIT | RS aS QO
8 a8. aay | 2m me Pam nate Lair | ames oss ~e
6, 28i7 | ASL ASE SSG 2.47 2ST ORR
I f i e
: | § i
Hoa tw) Gan aan | st 3.512 asst | ts Tes e
Hom 18 BS Zag tT 3.751 Bal 1a? a7?
aa 8887 oa 137 Bagl 5 vale seta _e
Wo a ees 2688 | ASL Sam eat | SBR 588
i i e
!
! j e
3a, amr one nae | sas | kin 2982 87837
3848, aoa ane. 22 | cast cast | Same 2982 (88308 e
22 Mt, rece Szbk zt | Si ad | tres Sa2ek azn | terse e
2A naive St S26 | sez car | amt Sze Lt fo
3248, ead StL 2h | ast Lf bead S260 S21 | See see e
Hom 1176 3.388 | ze za | aarp sases ave pare a7
Hoa asi 1386 [sey laze fags ssa Sam | oe ose on
wo nS 138 fat fogs S308 sane | se Sve WA
wa uae sat Ls | ara | sane 33st Yaz ae
3a a, M8 REL MSL | 287 | $8 5.55 Loom sit
Hoa 9.962 3,551 See | 428 ISH GL } 37537
wom TORS OSE YA ash Poses SSE a ae S00
i i
a Lg 3.499 2a Rt | sus sane name} mle THs
aR 197 3.499 PS SL | sass dane oer ate tat
ea hast aa aL | Saas | fi cae
anak, a0 MST | 6.228 he
aw, 3.599 fat ast | 7.289 je Se
of @ ee coo we ec GS ®
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
e
°
NQINTERSECTION RADIUS
@ "831.5" VS “WRC 330” SWEPOLET STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTOR COMPARISON
© neaDeR emancH WRC masts wee aang ion
° Nom SCH amo, ilk 0, ih th wo,
mn aM A386 2h HS a
°
z 1 4.004 {108 1.251 es
e 2 SSL 1.25) nai | owe las
e rms nee zzz 1.286 | 467 me | se a
Ba 2 400 m2 126 | ums | ie la
e sm 3 Sage 1.222 12K | FHL nme | os las
Oo fm 2.583 16h) SR oe vase | 637.098
42 se LAS | LRP 38 fase | 67 lene
Oo fms 5.0 iase | 25 cs tase | saz coe
FF 282 tase | 3H fast | i386 ca09
Ow 1 nage tase 888 | see ise | aes 255
5 2 Las Les | saz | rises aes 1755
$ 3 LSP 1.5058 250 cae, 1585 | ca ca77
54 Ls Uses js 28 1.585 “32
Bm re 1.585 at
15d Lesh MAS?
Se L6H, SH
LS Las | 52S
Le hea 22
LO 168 | SH WE
hot 723 BRS.
fet. eR A7t
j 458 aD
san | 378 ate
Las a8
Yes fs .atb
Les 7 658156
1082 LB | BIS 385
12 MET |B?
882 LG | 8 ae
1B IF
| :
‘ 17% 188 Lge | 822
5 Le 88d Leb | 78
4 Li 98 1.968 cabs
a 111068 19g | ub
1" 17% 1.068 tive | 387
5 10 ash aT5
a 175 7815
: Ls {5 cas
8 1.988 Lae
AB LIS 138 uP \
wa 6 et | ame aes
wae Laie SHS a8
ue om 188 46 SAT
wan 1.18 1H 488 .
won 1a va a9
ee
ib NQ INTERSECTION RADIUS
"831.3" VS "WRC 330” SWEEPOLET STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTOR COMPARISON
HEADER
NOM
a
a
4
®
8,
4.
a
4
a,
8,
2.
a
2.
a
we
rs
ae
8,
8.
Bs
ip
veo
2.084
1a
2.084
2.084
2,488
2.428
208
2692
2.892
2a
2.405
239
2.865
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
ae ae
80 330»
Teh 35
int lms
ina 28
id Be
Sut
2 rT
"Bi tsb
es
fee
wa at
28
lr
‘a
56
mn
mt
8
1
ta
BS
3
28
su
co
29
22
“7
wae
220 5
2.664
3382
3.951
4.382
amy
2968
B83
3.81
4435
eae
3.288
3.604
18
4.835
5.158
3502
1.951
. A387
5.282
sue
5.55
5.086
| 6.208
1129
ans
tin
Lats
181s
181d
Lay
1.8
Lau
Lae
Las
Lat
1a
178
tere
1.878
‘are
are
Lae
Laie
‘me
Love
1
49
133
9
Ri
a7
Abe
oH?
235
ATE
AG
ar
“3
52
2319
me
ste oY
eeoaseveeeenonoree e028 88 0 ©
oeeecceeessnd
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes . :
1.5 Code Compliance
1.5.1. Primary vs. Secondary Loads
‘Markl’s investigation of the fatigue problem, following the earlier recognition of the
maximum stress theory of failure, led to identification of the basic problem in the design of
piping systems. Not one, but two different criteria must be satisfied, one for primary loads,
which may lead to single application catastrophic failure, and one for cyclic, displacement-
driven loads that may lead to fatigue failure (especially in the vicinity of fittings and other
discontinuities) after repeated applications. The main characteristics of these two different
types of loads are described below:
Primary Load Characteristics:
1 - Primary loads are usually force driven (gravity, pressure, spring forces, relief
valve, fluid hammer, etc.),
2 + Primary loads arenot self-limiting. Once plastic deformation begins it continues
unabated until force equilibrium is achieved (through change of the external
‘boundary conditions or through material strain hardening), or until failure of
the cross section results.
3+ Primary loads are typically not cyclic in-nature (and those that are, such as
pulsation or pressure variation, show characteristics of both primary and
secondary loads).
4 + Allowable limits for primary stresses are related, through failure modes such as
those advanced by the Von Mises, Tresca, or Rankine theories, to the material
yield stress (ie. the point where plastic deformation begins), the ultimate
strength, or, for sustained loads only, to time-dependent stress rupture proper-
ties (such as creep characteristics).
5 - Excessive primary load causes gross plastic deformation and rupture. Failure
may occur with a single application of the load. Note that failures that occur due
tosingle load applications usually involve pressure (hoop stress) design failures
and are not directly addressed by CAESAR UI or by the flexibility stress
requirements ofthe codes. Such pressure design requirements are encompassed
in the minimum wall thickness requirements discussed in detail in separate
sections of the codes.
Secondary Load Characteristics:
1 + Secondasy loads are usually displacement driven (thermal expansion, iniposed
anchor movements, settlement, vibration, etc.).
2 - Secondary loads are almost always self limiting, i.e. the loads tend to dissipate
as the system deforms through yielding or deflection.
3 - Secondary loads are typically cyclic in nature (except settlement).
143 me RETEST EET TT
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
4 + Allowable limits for secondary stresses are based upon cyclic and fatigue failure
modes, and are therefore limited based upon requirements for elastic cycling
after shakedown and the material fatigue curve.
3 - A single application of the load never produces failure. Rather catastrophic
failure can occur after some (usually high) number of applications of the load.
‘Therefore, even ifa system has been running successfully for many years, it is
no evidence that the system has been properly designed for secondary loads.)
Several examples should help illustrate:
Primary Stress Failure: Springs were improperly sized to support the weight of the valve
operator on a system. When the line was filled for hydrotest, everything (stresses and
displacements) appeared fine, since the pipe could support the moment imbalance at
ambient temperature. However, heating up the fluid (and pipe) during startup, the valve
sagged and the guardrail was crushed in jess than 30 minutes due to the decrease in strength
at the operating temperature.
‘Steps to failure:
1 - Weight loads were improperly accounted for. (The primary stresses were too
high.)
2 - At operating temperature there was a resulting drop in material strength.
8 - Gross deformation began almost immediately and continued until force equilib-
rium was achieved (the spring bottoming out).
Secondary Stress Failure:
After 12 years of successful operation, inspection of the inside surface of a vessel revealed
fatigue cracks in the vicinity of a piping nozzle connection. A subsequent analysis showed
that atemperature increase in the adjacent vessel and piping system (along with a relocation
of pipe restraints for the new operating conditions) made several years ago caused the
stresses to exceed the expansion allowables, Even though the calculated stress range at the
D
Qeeceode8 2880
coeeccHKs eoeoeeoesnee
a
oo
a COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
junction was well over 470,000 psi, the junction survived several years because of the self-
relieving nature of the thermal load, and the fact that the system cycled fewer than a dozen
times over the two year period.
Steps to failure:
1 - Thermal allowables were exceeded by mistake.
2 - After about a dozen applications of the excessive load, cracks formed on the
highly stressed inside surface of the vessel at the junction with the nozzle.
‘Therefore, code compliance requires that the piping system be checked for both types of
loading — primary and secondary. The basic steps involved in doing code compliance are
outlined below:
1 - Compute the primary stresses, i.e. the stresses due to the sustained pri
loads, usually weight and pressure, and those due to the occasional primary
loads, such as earthquake, wind, fluid hammer, etc.
Compute the renge of the varying stress, i.e. the expansion stress range,
3 - Compare the primary stresses to their allowables, which is based on a factor of
safety times the hot yield stress.
4 - Compare the expansion stress range to its allowable, which is a factor of safety
times a value varying with the number of cycles such that it fits the material
fatigue curve (adjusted for mean stress), but never exceeds the sum of the hot
and cold yield stresses.
Note that due to the shakedown effect, and the fact that the ‘primary and secondary stresses
have different failure criteria, these two load types are reviewed in isolation. Therefore, it
should be stressed that, as far as most codes are concerned, there is no such thing as
“operating stress”.
1.5.2 Code Stress Equations
neeeeecereesoceee ore rece
‘The piping code stress equations are a direct outgrowth of the theoretical and investigative
work discussed above, with specific limitations established by Marid in his 1955 paper. The
stress equations were quite similar throughout the piping codes (i.e., between BS1.1 and
B31.3) until the winter of 1974, when the power codes, having observed that Markl was
incorrect in neglecting intensification of the torsional moment in a manner analogous to the
bending component, combined the bending and torsional stress terms, thus intensifyi
torsion.
It should be noted that the piping codes exactly calculate the stress intensity (twice the
maximum shear stress) only for the expansion stress, since this load case contains no hoop
or radial components, and thus becomes an easy calculation. Including hoop and radial
stresses (present in sustained loadings only) in the stress intensity calculation makes the
145
e@eeeocceeece COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
4
calculation much more difficult. When considering the hoop and radial stresses, it is no
longer clear which of the principal stresses is the largest and which is the smallest.
‘Additionally, the subtraction of $1-S3 does not produce a simple expression for the stress
intensity. As it turns out, the inclusion of the pressure term can be simplified by adding only
the longitudinal component of the pressure stress directly to the stress intensity produced
by moment loadings only. This provides an equally easy-to-use equation and sacrifices little
as accuracy is concerned.
The explicit stress requirements for the piping codes addressed by CAESAR IZ follow below.
Note that most codes allow Pdj2 / (do? - di2) to be used in place of Pdo/ 4t.
5.3 B31.1 Power Piping
Tae B31.1 code requires thatthe engineer celelate sustained, expansion, and occasional
stresses, exactly as defined below:
Sustained:
0.751 Ma Pda
Sag=Si= ——— * <=Sp
Zz 4t
Where:
Ssus,S, = sustained stress, psi
i = intensification factor (single factor for all types of moments), as per
Appendix D of B31.1 Code (note that 0.751 may not be less than 1.0)
. Mg = resultant moment due to sustained (primary) loads, in-lb
= (M2 + My? + M,? 12
Sa = basicallowable material stress at the hot (operating) temperature, as per
Appendix A of B31.1 Code. Sq is roughly defined as the minimum of.
1) ‘V4 of the ultimate tensile strength of the material at operating
temperature;
2) ‘1/4 of the ultimate tensile streagth of the material at room
temperature;
3) 5/8 of the yield strength of the material at operating temperature
(90% of the yield stress for austenitic stainless steels);
4) 5/Softhe yield strength of the material atroom temperature (0%
of the yield stress for austenitic stainless steels); and
5) 100% of the average stress for a 0.01% creep rate per 1000 hours.
145
eoao
)
e
°
oe
3
e
e
°
9
3
e
e
e
°
.
e
e
e
3
°
°
e
e
°
3
a.
e
e
° COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
Mc
<= Sq = £(.25S_ + 1.258p - S)
Zz
Sg = expansion stress range, psi
Mg = resultant range of moments due to expansion (secondary) loads, in-Ib
(M2 + My? + M2 722
Sa = Allowable expansion stress, psi
Se = basic allowable material stress at the cold (installation) temperature, as per
Appendix A of B31.1 Code.
Occasional:
0.751 Ma 0.751 Mp. Pd
Seco = + + = 1.0)
Occasional:
‘The occasional stress equations are:
For Service Level C (Emergency):
Soce = Bi x Stpmax + Ba (Ma + My) /Z < 1.8 Sp <= L5 Sy
For Service Level D (Upset):
Soce = Br x Sipmax + Ba (Ma + Mp)/Z< 24 Sy
Where:
Sipmax = Pressure stress due to the peak pressure, psi
My resultant moment on the cross-section due to occasional (primary) loads
(Mg +M,2 + M212, intb
Sy = yield stress of material at temperature, psi
eo
’
@
8
°°
e
e
eo
3
8
e
e
e
Neo eesces
e
o
°°
2
e
e
e COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
Sustained:
Se =
‘Where:
S =
Ss =
Syiela =
Operating:
e
°
°
e
°
e
e
°
°
a
e
e
e
e
e
°
e
e
e
8 ‘Where:
Foe
o
e
e E =
e aos
Q aT =
o vor
e
e
e
o
1.5.6 B31.4 Fuel Gas Piping
The B814 piping code requires that the engineer calculate and check the sustained,
expansion, and operating stress.
Sip + Sp < 0.75 x 0.72 x Syne
the longitudinal pressure stress, psi
Paye/(dg2-d2)
Sy = bending stress due to sustained loads, psi
Expansion:
(Sp? + 4 SP 12 < 0.72 Syiela
range of bending stress due to varying loads, psi
iMy/Z
range of torsional stress due to varying loads, psi
Me/ 2%
specified minimum yield stress of material, psi.
Sope =F | Ea dT-v Sy 1 +8, + S1(L-F)<0.9 Syeta
% of pipe axial restraint (long buried pipelines are considered to be fully axially
restrained, ie. F= 1; while pipelines above ground on slide plates are not axially
restrained, ie. P= 0
modulus of elasticity of pipe material, psi
thermal expansion coefficient of pipe material, inin/*
temperature change of pipe from ambient, °F
Poisson's ratio
1-51 SS REST fala SW ace cama RN
COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Q
Siz = hoop stress, psi
= Pdo/2t
Occasional:
Soce = Sip + Sp <0.75 * 0.72 * Syicia *k
Where: \
Sip = longitudinal pressure stress
Sy = resultant moment due to occasional loads
k = occasional toad factor
1.5.7 B31.8 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Code
Like the B31.4 code, the B38 piping code requires that the engineer calculate and check
the sustained, expansion, and operating stress.
Sustained:
Si =
Where:
Sip =
Sip+Sp< T5SxFxT
longitudinal stress due to pressure, psi
Pd /(dg2- d:2)
bending stress due to sustained loads, psi
torsional stress due to sustained loads, psi
specified minimum yield strength of pipe material, psi
Construction Type
Q ee
eeoeoevoeeoeeeoos ee occa e COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes
Factor F
A - Wasteland, Deserts, Mountains, Grezing Land, 0.72
Farmland, Sparsely populated areas and Offshore.
B - Fringe areas around cities, Industrial areas, 0.60
Ranch or Country Estates.
© - Suburban Housing Developments, 0.50
Shopping Centers, Residential Areas.
D + hultt-Story Bulldings ere prevalent, Traffic 0.40
is heavy and where there may be numerous
other utilities underground.
T = Temperature Derating Factor T Pipe Temperature deg. F-
eeoeveveerereenvnr°0e ee coe ee Oo 8
OO
1.0 280 or Tess
0.967 300
0.933 350
0.9 400
0.867 450
Expansion:
Se = (Sd2+4S2)12 < 0.728
Where:
Sp = bending stress due to varying loads, psi
S, = range of torsional stress due to varying loads, psi
Operating:
Sope = Se + SL
