Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90316

RATIONAL STRESS LIMITS AND LOAD FACTORS FOR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES IN PIPELINE APPLICATIONS PART II LIMIT-STATE LOAD FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
Bisen Lin, Ph.D., P.E. Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Houston, TX, USA Bisen.Lin@stress.com Richard C. Biel, P.E. Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Houston, TX, USA Richard.Biel@stress.com

ABSTRACT In this paper, a load factor for use in a limit-load analysis of a pipeline and its components is established. The load factor is based on the ASME pipeline Codes design margin for the service and location of the installation [1, 2]. These Codes are recognized by 49 CRF192 [3]. A load factor for internal pressure loads can be derived analytically based on the equations of determining design pressure and wall thickness in the ASME B31 piping Codes. Once the load factor is established, the limit-load methodology may be used in a Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of pipelines and related components. Two application examples are presented showing analyses done with Abaqus [4], a commercial, general purpose FEA software package. The first example calculates the design pressure of an X65 pipe given the pipe dimensions (outer diameter and wall thickness). Second example deals with the recertification of a Y-connector. This paper is not intended to revise or replace any provision of ASME B31.4 and/or B31.8 [1, 2]. Instead, it provides a limit-load approach for assessment with same design margin as the ASME B31 Codes for use in a detailed FEA of pipelines and the associated components. INTRODUCTION Internal pressure ratings and pipeline wall thickness design calculations in the ASME B31 Codes [1, 2] for pipelines are based on the maximum principal stress theory of failure. Internal design pressure is obtained using Barlows equation,

which assumes a constant hoop stress through the wall thickness and is valid for relatively thin-walled pipe. Nowadays, pipeline industry is moving towards high capacity and higher pressures. This requires increase in wall thickness. When a thick-walled pipe is considered, Barlows equation is no longer an accurate approximation, instead, Lames solutions of a thick-walled cylinder may be needed or a rigorous FEA is required to calculate the stresses precisely. Current pipeline Codes do not provide a detailed FEA approach for their components, but refer to the ASME B&PV Code, Section VIII, Division 2 (Division 2) [5] through CFR Title 49 Part 192 [3]. When a design by analysis approach according to Division 2 is used to analyze a pipeline, question to be asked is what is the appropriate stress limit for an linear elastic analysis and what are the load factors for an limit-load analysis and elasticplastic analysis. One way to establish a single-value stress limit for a linear elastic analysis can be found in the accompanying paper presented in IPC-2010 [6]. This paper attempts to answer the second question: What is the load factor for a limit-load analysis of a pipeline. Such a load factor should have the same equivalent design margin as that provided in the ASME B31 piping Codes [1, 2]. For a pipeline and its components, such as valves, buckle arrestors, flanges, Y-connector, etc., it may be necessary to establish a pressure rating or make a structural integrity assessment that uses a rigorous approach such as FEA. In this paper, a single-value load factor for internal pressure, which can be used in a limit-load FEA, based on von Mises yield criterion, is established analytically. Load factors for other loadings can be established using the same approach as in ASCE-7-10 [7] and ASME PTB-1-2009 [8]. ASCE 7-10 uses both allowable

Copyright 2012 by ASME

stress design (ASD) and strength design (Load and Resistance Factor Design, or LRFD). The load factors provided in ASCE 7-10 were established using probability analysis and reliabilities inherent in the design practices that were surveyed. Division 2 adopted the LRFD methodology as presented in ASCE 7 into the limit-load analysis and elastic-plastic analysis.

m _ eq =

3 FS y Y +1

(2)

Setting Sy / m_eq = FL the pressure load factor for a limitload analysis can be written as
FL = Y +1 3F

(3)

NOMENCLATURE

P
F FL
Sy Su

internal design gage pressure, psig design factor as in ASME B31.4 and B31.8 load factor for pressure, limit-load analysis specified minimum yield stress, ksi specified minimum ultimate tensile stress, ksi nominal wall thickness, inch outside diameter of pipe, inch inside diameter of pipe, inch diameter ratio von Mises equivalent membrane stress, or equivalent stress , psi

For a thin-walled pipe, i.e. Y = 1, equation (3) becomes

FL = 1.15 F

(4)

t Do
Di
Y = Do Di

Using F = 0.72, the value of FL = 1.60. For comparison, Division 2, 2010 edition [5] uses 1.5 for pressure and dead loads in a limit-load analysis (Table 5.4 in [5]). For different design factors, as defined in ASME B31.4 and B31.9, the value of FL can be similarly derived. Load factors for other types of loads and load case combinations can be derived using the same methodology as provided in ASCE 7-10 [7] and ASME PTB-1-2009 [8]. The derivations of load factors and combinations for loads other than pressure are not considered in this paper.

m _ eq

THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT The internal pressure rating and the pipe wall thickness design calculations in the ASME B31 Codes [1, 2] for pressure piping are based on the maximum principal stress theory of failure. Internal design pressure is written as
P = FS y 2t Do

ANALYSIS APPROACH AND PROCEDURE A limit-load analysis has the following features: The material model is elastic-perfectly plastic with a specified yield stress. Small displacement theory (i.e. linear geometry) is used. Equilibrium is satisfied in the original undeformed configuration.

(1)

Equation (1) is used to calculate the design internal pressure P, for pipeline wall thickness t. Current pipeline Codes [1, 2] do not provide for a numerical analysis approach for the analysis of pipeline components and leaves the detailed analysis of piping components to the designer. When a limit-load analysis approach together with small displacement theory and elastic-perfectly plastic material model is used for plastic collapse calculation, a single-value load factor for pressure is needed. Furthermore, such a load factor should have same equivalent design factor as that used in B31 pipeline Code [1, 2], i.e. equivalent to the F in equation (1). A procedure of correlating the design factor (based on maximum principal stress) in the pipeline Codes to the von Mises-type equivalent design factor were developed in [6]. For close-end condition, von Mises equivalent membrane stress is found to be [reference 6 and any text on elasticity]

ASME B31 piping Codes exclusively use the material yield strength together with a design factor (F) in the design pressure/wall thickness calculation and do not provided a design factor on the specified minimum ultimate tensile strength. Therefore, the material yield strength is used as the specified yield stress in the limit-load analysis presented in this paper. It should be noted that in Division 2 the specified yield stress in a limit-load analysis is defined as
Sy 1.5S VIII 2 = 1.5 min 1.5 Su 2.4

(5)

in which SVIII-2 is the Division 2 allowable stress value for general primary membrane stress. 1.5 is the design factor on

Copyright 2012 by ASME

specified minimum yield strength value and 2.4 is the design factor on specified minimum ultimate tensile strength value. A detailed procedure for a limit-load analysis is as follows: Step-1. Use equation (2) to determine the pressure load factor for a given pipe based on von Mises yield criterion. Step-2. Develop a finite element model together with elastic-perfectly plastic material model and small displacement theory. Yield stress for a limit-load analysis is taken to be the material yield strength. Step-3. Apply factored pressure and relevant pressure end load, as well as other applicable loads with related load factors to the model using the Division 2 load definitions. Step-4. Run the required load cases and determine the limit pressure as well as limits for other loads. The limit load is the load that causes overall structural material instability. This load is indicated by the inability to achieve an equilibrium solution for a small increase in load (i.e. the solution will not converge) [5]. A load-displacement curve will demonstrate the progress of the structural response. In order to illustrate how the limit-load analysis approach works, two case studies will be presented in the next section.

elements with full integration formulation. Five elements across the wall thickness are used. A limit-load analysis with elastic-perfectly plastic material model and linear geometry (small displacement) theory is performed to calculate the limit pressure. The limit pressure is indicated by the inability to achieve an equilibrium solution for a small increase in pressure. In this exercise, internal pressure is set to be 10,000 psig for the one analysis step with linear ramp-up. This indicates that, for instance, Step Time = 0.6 means internal pressure = 6,000 psi. Figure 2 shows the displacement contour plots at the internal pressure P = 6,000 psi. Displacement magnitude, radial displacement (U1), and axial displacement (U2) are shown. The radial displacement contour clearly shows a gradient from ID to OD although the difference is small, U1 = 0.0169 in at ID and 0.0161 at OD, for a thin-walled pipe. Axial displacement exhibits a variation from fixed end to the end with pressure end load, ranges from 0 in to 0.0168 in. The von Mises equivalent stress contour for the same pressure (6,000 psi) is shown in Figure 3. Stress varies from 63.9 ksi at ID to 55.6 ksi at OD due to the radial dependence on the hoop and radial stresses as found by the Lame solution of a cylinder under internal or external pressure. The plot of pressure versus displacement is shown in Figure 4. The analysis stops at Step Time = 0.6529. The collapse pressure based on a limit-load analysis is then found to be 6,529 psi. Together with the design factor of FL = 1.68, the design pressure is calculated to be 3,886 psi based on a limitload analysis and von Mises yield criterion. For comparison, the design pressure is found to be 3,900 psi according to ASME B31.4 and B31.8, which use the maximum principal stress criterion and Barlow equation. This verifies that the limit-load analysis approach with the equivalent design factor FL as derived in equation (2) has the same design margin as the B31 Codes. Therefore, the equivalent design factor FL obtained in this paper with the well-known limit-load analysis methodology can be used in the design calculations of the pipeline and associated components.

CASE STUDIES I. Design Pressure of an API 5L Grade X65 Pipe In the first simple example, design pressure calculation of an API 5L Grade X65 line pipe [9] is considered. The 18-inch outside diameter (OD) 0.75-inch wall thickness (T) pipe is made of Grade X65 material with yield strength of 65 ksi. The design factor F is equal to 0.72 based on the maximum principal stress criterion according to B31.4 [1]. When the von Mises yield criterion is used, the pressure load factor is then found to be FL = 1.68 according to equation (2). A simple axisymmetric finite element (FE) model is constructed using Abaqus/CAE version 6.11-1 [4] and is shown in Figure 1. Material property includes: Youngs modulus E = 30,000 ksi and Poissons ratio v = 0.3. Yield stress for a limitload analysis is taken to be yield strength of the material, i.e. 65 ksi for the Grade X65 pipe. The FE mesh, loads and boundary condition are also illustrated in Figure 1. One end of the pipe section is restrained in the axial direction (i.e. U2 = 0). Closedend internal pressure P is applied. The entire FE model is built with CAX4 elements that are 4-node bilinear axisymmetric

II. Re-Certification of Y-Connectors In this example, a 36-inch Y-connector with complex geometry is evaluated through a 3-D finite element shell model using a limit-load analysis approach to re-certify that the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) is 800 psig.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

The Y-connectors were fabricated and used in a pipeline by a client company in the early 1960s. These fittings were constructed using a 30-degree elbow, three pipe branches, and reinforcing ribs as shown in Figure 5. The detailed design philosophy and safety factors for these fittings are currently not known. These fittings have been in service at a MAOP of 800 psig without incident since installation. CFR Title 49 now governs the design practice of the fittings such as these. The client company would like to determine the compliance of the fittings according to CFR Title 49 and perform an assessment regarding the suitability of the fittings for continued services. Material of the Y-connector assembly, including elbow, three running pipes, as well as the reinforcing ribs, is Grade X52 steel. Material properties are Youngs modulus E = 30,000 ksi and Poissons ratio v = 0.3. Yield stress for a limit-load analysis is taken to be yield strength of the material, i.e. 52 ksi for the Grade X52 pipe. Figure 5 shows the Abaqus 3D shell model of the Yconnector. Pipe-1 runs straight through Pipe-2. Pipe-3 is a 30degree branch connected to Pipe-1 and Pipe-2 with a 0.966-inch thick elbow and 2.0-inch thick reinforcing ribs. Different colors represent sections with different wall thickness as indicated in the figure. A sufficient length of each one of the three straight pipes 1, 2, and 3 is modeled to avoid any boundary effects. The wall thickness for each of the different segments is shown. The wall thickness for each of the three machined transition sections is taken to be the average value of the wall thickness of the two connected pipe segments. The outside diameter of all three pipe branches is 36 inch. The design factor F is equal to 0.72 based on the maximum principal stress criterion according to B31.8 [2] for a gas pipeline. For a 36-inch OD pipe and wall thickness shown in Figure 5, the pressure load factor for a limit-load analysis is then found to be FL = 1.65 according to equation (2). Loads and boundary condition are also illustrated in Figure 5. The free end of Pipe-1 is fixed in the pipe axial and circumferential directions. Pressure end loads are applied at the free ends of Pipe-2 and Pipe-3. Internal pressure is applied on the inside surface of the entire assembly. The entire model is built using 3D shell elements, S4, a 4node general-purpose shell element with finite membrane strains and fully integration formulation. There are about 43,000 elements in the model. The finite element mesh of the Yconnector model is shown in Figure 6. A limit-load analysis with elastic-perfectly plastic material model and linear geometry (small displacement) theory is performed to calculate the limit-load pressure for the Yconnector. In this example, internal pressure is set to be 5,000 psig for the one analysis step with linear ramp-up. This

indicates that, for instance, Step Time = 0.25 means internal pressure = 1,250 psig. Figure 7 shows the contour plots of displacement magnitude of the Y-connector at P = 1,250 psig (i.e. Step Time = 0.25). The maximum displacement of ~3 inch occurs at the intersection of the three pipe branches. This is the critical location of the Y-connector, where the failure occurs first when the Y-connector is subjected to the internal pressure. Figure 8 shows the contour plots of von Mises equivalent stress for the same pressure of 1,250 psig. Maximum stress occurs at the same location where maximum displacement occurs, that is the intersection of the three pipe branches. It is noted that the maximum stress shown in Figure 8 is 65.7 ksi which is over the yield stress (52 ksi), the highest stress set in this Abaqus analysis. This is solely due to the Abaqus result display issue. In Abaqus, stress is an element-based variable and is calculated at element integration points. The stress contour plots are the nodal value, which is extrapolated from the stresses at element integration points and hence can be higher than the limiting value of 52 ksi in this example. The highest maximum stress over all element integration points is validated to be 52 ksi, which is correct for a limit-load analysis with elastic-perfectly plastic stress-strain curve. Figure 9 shows the contour plots of the equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) for the same internal pressure of 1,250 psig that occurs at the same location. Figure 10 shows the plot of pressure versus displacement at the location of maximum displacement. The analysis stops at Step Time = 0.275. The collapse pressure based on a limitload analysis is then found to be 1,375 psig. Together with a design factor of FL = 1.65, the design pressure is then calculated to be 833 psig based on the limit-load analysis. That calculated pressure is higher than the original design MAOP of 800 psig. This certified that a MAOP of 800 psig is acceptable and the 36 inch Y-connectors are fitted for continued service.

CONCLUSIONS In this paper, an attempt to find the equivalent load factor, FL, of a limit-load analysis approach with von Mises yield criterion is discussed. The load factor, FL, has the same design margin as the design factor, F, as used in the ASME piping Codes, B31.4 and B31.8. Load factors and combinations for other loads can be derived using the same approach as in ASCE-7-10 [7] and ASME PTB-1-2009 [8]. These other loads are not presented in this paper. A general procedure of performing a limit-load analysis of pipelines and their components are presented. Two applications

Copyright 2012 by ASME

examples are presented to validate and demonstrate the usage of the proposed load factor FL. This paper is not intended to revise or replace any provision of ASME B31 piping Codes. Instead, it provides a rational load factor to be used in a limit-load analysis to assist pipeline engineers in the assessment of a detailed FEA analysis of pipelines and their components.

Mechanical Engineers, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016. [9]. API Spec 5L, Specification for Line Pipe, 2007 edition, American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005-4070 [10]. Alexander, C.R., Limit State Design Based on Experimental Methods for High Pressure Subsea Pipeline Design, Proceedings of IPC 2010 (Paper No. IPC2010-31526), the 8th International Pipeline Conference, September 27 October 1, 2010, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank two client companies, Chris Alexander, Ph.D., P.E. [10], and Ron Scrivner of Stress Engineering Services, Inc. for providing the examples used in the case studies. REFERENCES [1] ASME B31.4-2009, Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids, ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31, 2009 edition, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016. [2] ASME B31.8-2010, Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems, ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31, 2010 edition, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016. [3] Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 192, Transportation of natural and other gas by pipeline: minimum Federal safety standards, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-0001. [4] Dassault Systmes, ABAQUS Users Manual, ABAQUS Standard Version 6.11-1, Providence, RI, 2011. [5] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII Division 2, Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels, Alternative Rules, 2010 edition with 2011 addenda, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016. [6]. Lin, B. and Biel, R.C., Rational Stress Limits and Load Factors for Finite Element Analyses in Pipeline Applications Part I Linear Elastic Stress Limit Development, Proceedings of IPC 2010 (Paper No. IPC2010-31132), the 8th International Pipeline Conference, September 27 October 1, 2010, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. [7] ASCE 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, 2010 edition, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191. [8] ASME Section VIII, Division 2, Criteria and Commentary, PTB-1-2009, The American Society of

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Pressure End Load

OD = 18 inch T = 0.75 inch API 5L X65 Line Pipe E = 30,000 ksi v = 0.3 Sy = 65 ksi

Internal Pressure

Boundary Condition: Axial Displacement U2 = 0

Figure 1. Geometry and Mesh of X65 Pipe FE Model

Copyright 2012 by ASME

inch

inch

Radial Displacement: U1

Displacement Magnitude

inch

Axial Displacement: U2

Deformation Scale Factor = 1

Figure 2. Displacement Contours of X65 Pipe at P = 6,000 psi

Copyright 2012 by ASME

psi

Figure 3. von Mises Equivalent Stress Contours of X65 Pipe at P = 6,000 psi

Copyright 2012 by ASME

7,000 6,000 5,000 Pressure (psi)

Limit P = 6,529 psi

P = 3,886 psi for FL = 1.68 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 Displacement (inch)
Figure 4. Plot of Internal Pressure versus Displacement for the X65 Pipe

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Pipe-3 0.500

Fixed in the pipe axial and hoop directions

Pressure end load

Pipe-1 0.500

Pipe-2 0.412 Machined Transition 0.6875

Internal Pressure

Wall Thickness: inch

Ribs 2.0

0.875

Elbow 0.966

Machined Transition 0.7955

0.625

Machined Transition 0.706

1.0

Figure 5. 3D Shell FEA Model of the Y-Connector

10

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Total of ~ 43,000 elements Element Type: S4 (a 4-node general-purpose 3D shell element with finite membrane strain and fully integration)

Figure 6. FEA Mesh of the Y-Connector

11

Copyright 2012 by ASME

inch

inch

Figure 7. Displacement Contour of the Y-Connector, Internal Pressure = 1250 psi, (the lower figure had the ribs removed for clarity)

12

Copyright 2012 by ASME

psi

psi

Figure 8. von Mises Equivalent Stress Contour of the Y-Connector, Internal Pressure = 1250 psi (the lower figure had the ribs removed for clarity)

13

Copyright 2012 by ASME

inch/inch

inch/inch

Figure 9. Equivalent Plastic Strain Contour of the Y-Connector, Internal Pressure = 1250 psi

14

Copyright 2012 by ASME

1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 Pressure (psi) 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Displacement (inch)
Figure 10. Plot of Internal Pressure versus Displacement for the Y-Connector

Limit P = 1,376 psi

P = 833 psi for FL = 1.65

15

Copyright 2012 by ASME