ASME_Ch38_p001-018.

qxd

10/3/09

1:17 PM

Page 1

CHAPTER

38
STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTORS, STRESS INDICES, AND FLEXIBILITY FACTORS
Everett C. Rodabaugh
38.1 INTRODUCTION 38.2 TERMINOLOGY AND SYMBOLS

Piping systems tend to be rather complex structures that include straight pipe and a variety of complex components, such as elbows and tees. A typical piping system might include 50 or so components along with many intervening lengths of straight pipe. Each of the components is subjected to a complex set of loadings. The evaluation of any component by the detailed analysis methods prescribed in NB-3200 would be an onerous task. As indicated by Tables NB/NC/ND-3132-1, many piping components are standardized. For example, elbows and tees are included in ANSI B16.9, Factory Made Wrought Steel ButtWelding Fittings. The complexity of analyses of piping components and the standard aspect of piping components has led to use of stress intensication factors (also called i-factors) in addition to stress indices and exibility factors for evaluations of piping systems. The intent of i-factors and stress indices is to provide for a simple yet reasonably accurate and conservative evaluation of compliance with Code stress limits. Piping components (e.g., elbows and branch connections) may have directional dependent responses. The concept (except as discussed in Section 38.11) is to use the maximum directional dependent i-factor or stress index as a multiplier of resultant moments. Flexibility factors are involved in piping system analyses. Inaccurate exibility factors may lead to grossly incorrect calculations of stresses. In general, a conservative exibility factor cannot be dened; the goal is to establish and use reasonably accurate exibility factors. In this chapter, the general concepts behind the development of i-factors, stress indices, and exibility factors are briey discussed with references to details of developments. In Section 38.8, an example of a relatively simple piping system with loads is given; the piping system output analysis is used to illustrate how i-factors and stress indices are used to check Code compliance andfor a branch connectionto illustrate the quantitative signicance of exibility factors. The ASME Piping Codes are discussed in Sections 38.9, 38.10, and 38.11.

As used herein, the word Code is ref. [1]. Portions of the Code are identied as they appear in the Code; for example, Table NC-3611.2(e)-1 and NB-3228.5. Equations from the Code are identied by a B (for Class 1 piping) and a C (for Class 2 or 3 piping); the number that follows the letter is the specic equation number from the Code. The elements of the Code equations are dened as follows: B1, B2 primary stress indices: B1 for pressure and B2 for moment C1, C2, C3, C 3 primary-plus-secondary stress indices: C1 for pressure, C2 for moment, and C 3 and C3 for thermal gradients Do outside diameter of pipe (for branch connections, the run pipe) do outside diameter of branch pipe E modulus of elasticity f number of cycles dependent factor, ranging from 1.0 for 7,000 or fewer cycles to 0.5 for 100,000 or more cycles (see Table NC3611.2(e)-1) h tRb> r2; elbow characteristic i stress intensication factor I moment of inertia of pipe or elbow (Ir, Ib for run, branch-of-branch connections) K1, K2, K3 peak stress indices: K1 for pressure, K2 for moment, and K3 for thermal gradients Ke factor used for Sn 7 3Sm (see NB-3228.5) k exibility factor Nf test cycles to failure; see equation (38.1) Nd1 design cycles for Class 1 piping Nd2,3 design cycles for Classes 2 or 3 piping 2 2 (1/2) Mj [M 2 = resultant moment: xj + M yj + M zj] j A, B, or C for MA, MB, and MC. The subscripts x, y, and z denote an orthogonal set of three moments.

ASME_Ch38_p001-018.qxd

10/3/09

1:17 PM

Page 2

2 Chapter 38

MA resultant moment from weight and other sustained loads MB resultant moment from nonreversing dynamic loads MC range of resultant moment from thermal expansion Mi resultant moment as dened in NB-3650 Nf test cycles to failure, through-wall crack; see equation (38.1) P internal pressure r mean radius of pipe or elbow r2 radius at outside juncture between run pipe and branch pipe or nozzle Rb bend radius of elbow Sta test elasticequivalent stress amplitude (halfrange); see equation (38.1) and Fig. 38.1 SOL calculated stress by equation (C8) STE calculated stress by equation (C11)

SA allowable stress range f(1.25Sc 0.25Sh); see equation (C1) in NC-3611.2 Sc basic material allowable stress at minimum temperature Sh basic material allowable stress at temperature consistent with loading under consideration Sm basic material allowable stress intensity Sn calculated stress by equation (B10) Sp calculated stress by equation (B11) Salt calculated stress by equation (B14) T wall-thickness of run-pipe of branch connections t wall-thickness of pipe or elbow Z section modulus of pipe or elbow (Zr and Zb for run and branch-of-branch connections) Symbols not included in the preceding list are dened where used in the text.

FIG. 38.1

MARKL-TYPE FATIGUE TESTS AND ILLUSTRATION OF LIMIT LOAD CRITERION

ASME_Ch38_p001-018.qxd

10/3/09

1:17 PM

Page 3

COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE 3

38.3

STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTORS

Stress intensication factors (i-factors) were introduced into ASA B31.11955, Code for Pressure Piping. The i-factors are based on cyclic moment (displacement-controlled) fatigue tests by Markl (see refs. [2] and [4]) and also by Markl and George (see ref. [3]) and are used for Code Classes 2 and 3 piping. For the discussion in this chapter, NC-3650 (for Class 2) and ND-3650 (for Class 3) are identical. Markl [2][4] tests were run on components made of A106 Grade B material and included the following: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) elbows and miters; straight pipe with a girth Fillet weld; straight pipe; straight pipe with a girth butt weld; ANSI B16.9 tees, with outlet size equal to the run size; and unreinforced branch connections, with outlet size equal to the run size.

are more appropriate than those derived from four-point bending tests.

38.3.2

Design Margins

The nominal design margin can be deduced from equation (C11) with MA P 0. STE = iM C> Z (Sh + SA) (38.2)

Markl [2] introduced the following equation: i = 245,000/(StaN 0.2 f ) (38.1)

The force, F, was obtained from a preliminary force versus the displacement test as indicated in Fig. 38.1. As noted, the displacement used in some of the subsequent fatigue tests was in the plasticresponse region. This application is consistent with the use of elastic pipingsystem analyses; in effect, it may be viewed as a strain control rather than a stress controlthat is, fatigue is a function of the strain amplitude or range. The constant of 245,000 (psi for Sta in psi) was used by Markl for his tests on carbon steel components. Later tests on austenitic stainless steel components by Heald [5] indicate that this constant is about right for such materials. The constant is not necessarily appropriate for materials with a signicantly different modulus of elasticity, as for aluminum components with E ' 1e7 psi, for example. Available test data indicates that the constant of 245,000 in equation (38.1) is about 245,000 times the modulus of elastic ratiothat is, the constant is about 82,000, which emphasizes the strain control rather than stress control of equation (38.1). Design margins for materials with E signicantly less than 3e7 psi are discussed in Section 38.3.2.

Figure 38.2 is a plot of stress range versus cycles. In equation (38.1), Sta is an amplitude; in equation (38.2), MC is a range. This 2:1 ratio of range to amplitude is a key aspect of basic design margins. Figure 38.2 is for A106 Grade B materialthe material used in Markl tests. It is apparent in Fig. 38.2 that the design margin varies as a function of cycles: at N 10, the basic design margin on stress is 8.24, whereas from N 7,000 to 100,000, the design margin on stress is about 2 and then decreases to about 1.2. For other materials with about the same modulus of elasticity, the basic design margins would be different: for example, for A106 Grade A material, Sc Sh 12 ksi, and the margins would be 15/12 times those indicated in Fig. 38.2. For A106 Grade C material, on the other hand, the margins would be 15/17.5 times those indicated in Fig. 38.2. To further discuss margins, we look at the complete equation (C11): STE = PDo> (4t) + 0.75iM A> Z + iM C> Z 6 (Sh + SA) (C11)

38.3.1

Girth Butt Welds

Markl, on the premise that a girth butt weld may exist anywhere in piping systems, opted to make i 1.000 for a girth butt weld using Fleetweld No. 5 stick electrodes. (They were smooth on neither the inside nor the outside surface.) Markl also tested plain straight pipe by using a forged transition piece; he obtained i 0.64. In principle, if a girth butt weld is ush inside and out-side and there is no metallurgical notch, i could be as small as 0.5. Scavuzzo [6] presents the results of Markl-type tests on girth butt welds by using four-point bending instead of the cantilever bending used by Markl [2][4] and Heald [5]. Scavuzzo, for very low cycles to failure, obtained i-factors signicantly less than 1.00for example, i 0.3 for Nf 249, but for Nf 144,000, Scavuzzo obtained I 1.02. Rodabaugh [7], using elasticplastic theory, showed that for tests at low Nf (signicant amount of plastic response), four-point bending will result in lower i-factors for girth butt welds. Rodabaugh [7] suggested that for use with elastic pipingsystem analyses, i-factors derived from cantilever testing

In equation (C11), 0.75i shall not be taken to be less than 1.00. Markls tests were run with essentially zero internal pressure. Heald [5] ran tests with a constant PDo (4t) 5100 psi, with no apparent effect on the results. However, if the pressure cycles in phase with the moments, the PDo /(4t) term provides a reasonable allowance for the combined pressure and moment cycles. It should be noted that equation (C11) is not an evaluation of the adequacy of pressure design; it is covered by NC-3640. Markls tests involved a minor amount of weight loadingthat is, 0.75i MA/Z was not zero. Healds tests involved a bit more weight loading. These minor values of 0.75i MA/Z had no effect on the results. Indeed, available data suggest that values of 0.75i MA/Z (noncyclic) up to approximately 10 ksi would have no effect on the fatigue life. Thus the inclusion of the 0.75i MA/Z term provides conservatism relative to equation (38.1). Some nonferrous materials are permitted by the Code for Class 3 piping. For 6061-T6 aluminum material, with E ~1e7 psi, available data indicate that the constant in equation (38.1) is about (1/3)245,000. For 6061-T6, as welded, Sc 6.0 ksi; Sh (400F) 3.5 ksi; Sh SA 11.875 ksi as compared to 37.5 ksi for A106 Grade B material. Because the allowable stress for 6061-T6, as welded, is less than (1/3) of that for A106 Grade B, the design margins for 6061-T6, as welded, would be expected to be not less then indicated in Fig. 38.2. Other nonferrous materials have not been reviewed from this standpoint. However, to the extent that allowable stresses are reduced in proportion to the reduction in E, margins indicated in Fig. 38.2 would be expected.

38.3.3

Code Guidance for i-Factors

Figure NC-3673.2(b)-1 gives i-factors for 15 types of components. These i-factors are applicable for Do /t up to 100.

ASME_Ch38_p001-018.qxd

10/3/09

1:17 PM

Page 4

4 Chapter 38

FIG. 38.2

DESIGN MARGINS FOR SA106 GRADE B: Sc = Sh = 15 KSI

Many of the i-factors are identical to those suggested by Markl [4]. However, in the 55 yr. since, additions and changes have been made; the description of branch connection has been added, for example. These additions and changes are part of an ongoing process by the Code Working Group on Piping Design. Minichielo [8] details a procedure for experimental determination of i-factors for components not covered by the Code (e.g., a branch connection in an elbow).

NC-3673.2 includes the following relationship: i = C 2K 2> 2

but not less than 1.00

(38.3)

Equation (38.3), for moment loading, ties NC-3650 (Class 2 piping) with NB-3650 (Class 1 piping).

ASME_Ch38_p001-018.qxd

10/3/09

1:17 PM

Page 5

COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE 5

The most relevant basis for equation (38.3) is a combination of elbow tests and elbow theory, along with the denition that i 1.00 for a typical girth butt weld. Fatigue tests of elbows with in-plane moments resulted in failures at the location and direction indicated by elbow theory. The failures were remote from the welds; thus K2 1.00. By elbow theory for an in-plane moment C2 ' 1.8> h(2>3) for h 6 ' 0.5 (38.4)

In the early editions of ASME Section III, piping was not covered. Stress indices for pressure, moment, and thermal gradient loads were introduced in ANSI B31.7-1969. (ANSI B31.7 was transferred to ASME Section III in 1971.) C1 and K1 are used in equations (B10) and (B11): Sn = C1(PDo> 2t) + moment term + thermal gradient term (B10) Sp = C1K 1(PDo> 2t) + moment term + thermal gradient terms (B11)

From equations (38.3) and (38.4), i = 1.8> h(2/3)> 2 = 0.9> h(2>3) (38.5)

Equation (38.5) agrees with that shown in Figure NC-3673.2(b)-1 for welding elbow or pipe bend. For Markls typical girth butt welds, it is reasonable to assume that K2 2. Then equation (38.3) gives i 1.0; in agreement with Figure NC-3673.2(b)-1 for girth butt weld.

For branch connections, Do is the outside diameter of the run pipe and t is the wall-thickness of the run pipe. As a simple alternative to the 16 stress indices in Table NB3338.2(c)-1, the following equation was developed for branch connections in piping systems: C1K 1 = 2.8(D> T)0.182(d> D)0.367(T> t)0.382(t> r2)0.148 (38.6)

38.3.4

EPRI Reports

One of the reviews mentioned in the foregoing paragraph led to a series of reports under the sponsorship of a group of electric utility owners through the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). At the present, these reports are proprietary; however, the articles prepared by Wais (see refs. [9][19]) are open-literature publications, abstracting eleven of the EPRI reports, and analogous open-literature publications may be available in the future. These articles include data on stress indices, exibility factors, and i-factors.

38.4

C AND K STRESS INDICES

C and K indices are used for Class 1 piping in equations (B10) and (B11). They are analogous to i-factors in that they provide the basis for fatigue evaluations and are (as for i-factors) subject to ongoing reviews. Table NB-3681(a)-1 provides C and K stress indices for commonly used piping system components; these are applicable for Do /t up to 100.

in which C1 is not to be less than 1.2thus, because K1 2, C1K1 will not be less than 2.4; D is the mean diameter; T is for the run pipe; d is the mean diameter; and t is for the branch pipe or nozzle. (The basis for this equation is given by Rodabaugh [22].) Equation (38.6) is limited to d/D 6 0.5; and the general limitation, D/T 6 100. Also, to use equation (38.6) as it is applied to the conguration shown in sketch (d) of Fig. NB-3338.2(a)-2, the external Fillet radius, r2, must not be less than the larger of 0.5t and 0.5T. We now discuss comparisons between equation (38.6) and Table NB-3338.2(c)-1. Table NB-3338.2(c)-1 is limited to D/T from 10 to 100, d/D 6 0.5. The third limit can be written in the following form: (d> D)3(D> T)(T> r2)> (t> T)40.5 6 1.5 NB-3338.2 generally requires that r2 must not be less than the larger of 0.5t and 0.5Tthat is, the same minimums that are included in the basis for equation (38.6). With these minimum values of r2, Table NB-3338.2(c)-1 is more restricted in coverage than equation (38.6). Within the range of mutual coverage, C1K1 ranges from about 2.4 to 3.9 versus the S 3.3 in Table NB-3338.2(c)-1. In the extended coverage of equation (38.6), C1K1 can be quite a bit higher than 3.3; for example, for D/T 100, d/D t/T 0.5, t/r2 1.00, and C1K1 6.54. In early editions of ASME Section III, the range of primaryplus-secondary stress was limited to 3Sm. When piping was introduced into ASME Section III, the recognition that the range of primary-plus-secondary stress could exceed 3Sm and still have adequate fatigue life led to NB-3228.5, Simplied ElasticPlastic Analysis. To implement NB-3228.5, it is necessary to divide the total stress in to primary-plus-secondary stress and the peak stress portion of the total stress. Table NB-3681(a)-1 does that by C1 primary-plus-secondary stress index and C1K1 total stress index. Table NB-3681(a)-1 gives 15 sets of C1 and K1 for various components. One of these sets, for branch connection, was discussed previously. The basis for indices for welds and wall-thickness transitions is given by Rodabaugh in ref. [23], and the basis for the rather complex set of C1 and K1 for reducers is given by

38.4.1

C1 and K1 Stress Indices for Internal Pressure Loading

The term stress indices was introduced in the rst (1963) edition of ASME Section III. Although it took several editions and addenda to get the denition complete, the denition now in NB3338.2 is essentially: The term stress index is dened as the ratio of the stress components st, sn, and sr to the computed membrane stress in the vessel, s. s = P(Di + T )> (4T ) for nozzles in spherical vessels or heads s = P(Di + T )> (2T ) for nozzles in cylindrical vessels where P service pressure Di inside diameter of vessel T wall-thickness of vessel The stress indices shown in Table NB-3338.2(c)-1 an extensive series of internal pressure tests of nozzle in vessels. This data is summarized and discussed by Mershon in refs. [20] and [21].

ASME_Ch38_p001-018.qxd

10/3/09

1:17 PM

Page 6

6 Chapter 38

Rodabaugh as well in ref. [24]. The following paragraphs provide a brief discussion of two components covered by neither ref. [23] nor ref. [24]. 38.4.1.1 Elbows The following equation for C1 is from shell theory for maximum stress caused by internal pressure (ignoring the end effects of whatever might be welded to the ends of the elbows). C1 = (2Rb - r)>32(Rb - r)4: K 1 = 1.0

shown in Table NB-3681(a)-1 for various components. At present, equation (38.3) does not always hold. However, its applicability is the subject of continuing work by the ASME Working Group on Piping Design.

38.4.3

Stress Indices for Thermal Gradient Loadings

The origin of the preceding equation lies with a paper published by Lorenz in 1910. Because of end effects, the maximum stress tends to occur about midway between the ends. The surface of an elbow is considered to be smooth enough so that K1 1.0 is appropriate. 38.4.1.2 Butt-Welding Tees C1 = 1.5: K 1 = 4.0

Although piping system analyses quantify the moments used in the Code equations, heat-transfer analyses or some approximation thereof is needed to quantify the thermal gradients. Such analyses start with assumed uid-ow rates, uid properties, and piping material properties. C3 and K3 are used in equations (B10) and (B11) as follows: Sn pressure term moment term C3Eab|aaTa abTb| indicates absolute values (B10) Sn = pressure term moment term K 3E a T1 > (2(1 - v)) + K 2C3E ab aaTa - abTb + Ea T2 > (1 - v) (B11) C 3 is used in equation (B13) as follows: pressure term + moment term + C 3E ab aaTa - abTb (B13)

Butt-welding tees made to the requirements of ANSI B16.9 are available for d/D ranging from about 0.5 to 1.00. Unfortunately, ANSI B16.9 controls only center-to-end dimensions, end diameters, and minimum wall-thickness not less than the nominal thickness of the designated run pipe. The requirement in ANSI B16.9 that the pressure capacity of the tee must not be less than the pressure capacity of the designated run pipe can be met by a rather nominal increase in wall-thickness over the nominal thickness of the run pipe. In forged tees, the transition between branch and run portions consists of a fairly large radius, with wall-thickness changing smoothly between branch and run portions. B16.9 tees, however, may be machined from a forged block of material, for which a potential then exists for sharp corners at the run to branch intersection. This uncertainty regarding what constitutes a B16.9 tee, along with sparse data on the stresses in B16.9 tees from internal pressure, has led to the selection of C1 1.5 and K1 4.0, which is probably very conservative for most B16.9 tees, particularly those with d/D 6 1.00. ASNI B16.9 reducers pose a similar problem that has been addressed by specifying C1 and C2 in terms of the reducers dimensional parametersthe cone angle, for instance. Although it is possible, no attempt has yet been made to do something similar for B16.9 tees.

The symbols used in equations (B10), (B11), and (B13) are dened in NB-3653.1 and NB-3653.2. The temperatures Ta, Tb, T1, and T2 are quantied by a heat-transfer analysis. With respect to T1 and T2, see Fig. NB-3653.2(b)-1. The basis for several of the thermal gradient stress indices is given by Rodabaugh [23]. For example: Component Girth butt weld NB-4250 transition 1:3 slope transition C3 0.60 1.0 + 0.03(Do> t) 0.35(t max > t) + 0.25 C'3 0.50 1.0 0.60

38.4.2

C2 and K2 Stress Indices for Moment Loading

C2 and K2 are used in equations (B10) and (B11) as follows: Sn pressure term C2Mi /Z thermal gradient term (B10) Sp pressure term K2C2Mi /Z thermal gradient term (B11) As indicated in Section 38.3.3 (and worth repeating here), NC3673.2 includes the relationship expressed in equation (38.3) as follows: i = C2K 2> 2 but not less than 1.00

This equation, for moment loading, serves to correlate NC-3650 (Class 2 piping) with NB-3650 (Class 1 piping). Thus, because of Markl [2][4] tests and, later, Markl-type tests conducted by others, a relatively good basis exists for the 15 sets of C2 and K2

Reference [23] gives the results of elastic stress analyses of the foregoing components, all of which are axisymmetric. The results were then bounded by the simple equations or values tabulated above. C3 represents the primary plus secondary stresses; C'3 represents membrane stresses. Conceptually, the NB-4250 transition is between pipe and a component such as a valve or pump nozzle, and the 1:3 transition is between two pipes of different wall-thicknesses (tmax is the thicker of the two pipes). K3 indices are largely the same as the K2 indices discussed in Section 38.4.2. The major problem in evaluating thermal stresses lies in estimating at the design stage what will happen to the piping system in service. Class 2 and 3 piping do not include explicit rules for evaluating stresses caused by thermal gradients. However, NC3111(g) (General Design, Loading Criteria, Loading Conditions) indicates that temperature effects shall be considered. If at the design stage a designer of Class 2 or 3 piping anticipates that signicant stresses caused by thermal gradients might occur, he or she might use the Class 1 piping procedure for considering the effect of those stresses. 38.4.3.1 Basis for C3 and C 3 Branch Connections One component not covered by ref. [23] is the branch connection. To illustrate

ASME_Ch38_p001-018.qxd

10/3/09

1:17 PM

Page 7

COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE 7

the simple bounding basis of the C3 and C' 3 indices, the following explains the basis for the C3 1.8 and C'3 1.0. For the branch pipe considered as a thin-wall cylindrical shell rigidly restrained at one end (the run pipe is assumed to be the rigid restraint) and for a differential thermal expansion, R|aTa abTb /, between the branch pipe and the run pipe at their juncture, the following two equations must be satised: V> (2 bl2) + M> ( bl) = 0 V> (2 bl3) + M(2 bl2) = R aaTa - abTb where V shear force per unit length at branch piperun pipe juncture M moment per unit length at branch piperun pipe juncture b Et3[12(1 y2)]: l [3(1 y2)]0.25/(Rt)0.5, E modulus of elasticity of branch pipe material v Poissons ratio R radius of branch pipe, t wall thickness of branch pipe aa(b) coefcient of thermal expansion of branchrun pipe material Ta(b) temperature of branchrun pipe Solution of equations (38.7) and (38.8) leads to the following equation: M = - 2R aaTa - abTb bl2 (38.9) (38.7) (38.8)

margin of 20 (on cycles) controls for low values of Nd1, whereas the margin of 2 (on stress) controls for high values of Nd1. In either case, Nd1 is the number of allowable design cycles. The low values of Nd1 generally cannot be used directly because Sn / 3Sm 7 1.00. Consider, for example, the as-welded girth butt weld in a SA106 Grade B (Sm 20 ksi) pipe for which C2 1.00, K2 1.8. For Nd1 1,000, Salt 83 ksi from the second line of Table I.9-1. From equation (B14) with Ke 1.00, Sn = 2Salt> K 2 = 2 * 83> 1.8 = 92.2 ksi (range) But Sn /3Sm 92.2/60 1.537; thus Ke 1 2[(Sn /3Sm) 1] 2.074. Appropriate values of Ke have been under investigation for several years. In the future, it is possible that different values of Ke will be in the Code. Recalculating Salt gives the following: Salt = K eSp> 2 = 2.074 * 92.2 * 1.8> 2 = 172 ksi (amplitude) From the second line of Table I.9-1, for Salt 172 ksi; Nd1 (adjusted for Ke) about 150 design cycles. A comparable number of design cycles for Class 2 or 3 piping can be obtained from equation (38.1). We assume that the cycle is caused by moment loads. With that assumption, and also because i 1.00, STE Sn 92.2 ksi range. With a margin of 2 on stress, Nd2,3 = (245> 92.2)5 = 132 design cycles For this particular example, Class 1 150 design cycles, Class 2 or 3 132 design cycles. Rodabaugh [26] gives broad-scope comparisons between the fatigue analyses of Class 1 and Class 2 or 3 piping. Comparisons are given for both carbon steel and austenitic steel materials. As in the preceding example, there are parameters in which Nd1 and Nd2,3 are close to each other, but there are other parameters in which the differences are appreciable. For Class 1 piping, it is not necessary to use the values of Ke given in the Code. If these values are not used, a plastic analysis must be made. For Class 2 or 3 piping, the equivalent of Ke is inherent in the fatigue tests results that are characterized by equation (38.1). Conditions under which Ke is used involve low estimates of the number of cycles that will be applied to the piping system during its postulated life. At the high end of the cycles spectrum, it may be noted that equation (38.1) has no endurance strengththat is, a stress level below which the number of cycles is innite. In Table I-9-1 (line 2), the implicit design-basis endurance strength is 12.5 ksi. (Work is underway to extend Fig. I-9-1 to higher than 106 cycles.) All three classes of piping use a linear cumulative-damage hypothesis to sum up the fatigue damage from cycles of different stress ranges. The major problem consists of anticipating at the design stage what will happen to the piping system in service. Fatigue damage has occurred in nuclear power plant piping because of vibration and thermal striping. These types of cycle loadings have not been routinely evaluated in the design stage. However, even if all signicant cycle loadings were anticipated in the design stage, the

The axial bending stress, Sab, is 6M/t 2. For y = 0.3, bl2 = (Et2/R) 0.1513, Sab 1.816E|aaTa abTb|. The 1.816, rounded to 1.8, is C3 for branch connections. The hoop membrane stress, Shm, is given by Shm = E * hoop strain = 1.000E aaTa - abTb Thus C 3 = 1.0.

38.5

FATIGUE EVALUATIONS: CLASS 2 OR 3 PIPING AND CLASS 1 PIPING

Equation (C11) is for fatigue evaluation of Class 2 or 3 piping. The limit, Sh + SA, is a function of the number of anticipated cycles through the f-factor. Nominal design margins are discussed in Section 38.3.2. Code compliance is either a yes or no answer: if the calculated stress by equation (C11) is less than Sh SA, then the answer is yes; otherwise it is no. Equations (B10), (B11), and (B14) are for fatigue evaluation of Class 1 piping. For Code compliance, the allowable number of cycles, per Appendix I of ref. [1], must be less than the postulated number of cycles. The basis for Class 1 piping fatigue evaluations consists of strain-controlled fatigue tests on polished bars, the results of which are included in the ASME Criteria Document [25]. The design curves in Figs. I-9.1, I-9.2, and I-9.3 were derived from the cycles-to-failure data by incorporating a nominal margin of 2 on stress or 20 on cycleswhichever is more conservative. The

ASME_Ch38_p001-018.qxd

10/3/09

1:17 PM

Page 8

8 Chapter 38

problem of environmental effects may still exist. Markls tests (and Markl-type tests by others) all have been run over short time periods with air or tap water inside the specimens. Analogously, the polished bar tests that form the basis of Class 1 piping system fatigue analyses have also been run over short time periods in an air environment. Thus the Code fatigue analysis procedure should be considered a check of as-built adequacy and may need to be supplemented by in-service inspections.

which follows, given by Larson [28] based on shell theory and von Mises yield criteria. (3> 4)3(PD> 2tSy)42 + 3M b> (D 2tSy)42 + 33.464M t> (pD 2tSy)42 = 1.0 (38.10)

where

38.6

B-STRESS INDICES

B-stress indices are used for both Class 1 and Class 2 or 3 piping. Table NB-3681(a)-1 (Class 1 piping) and Fig. NC-3673.2(b)1 (Class 2 or 3 piping) provide B-stress indices for Do / t up to 50. The components covered by Table NB-3681(a)-1 and Fig. NC3673.2(b)-1 are not all the same; but to the extent that the components are the same, the B-stress indices are essentially the same. For components with two ends of the same nominal size (See 38.8.6 for branch connections), B-stress indices are used in equation (B9) and equations (C8) and (C9) as follows: B1PDo> (2t) + B2M i> Z 6 1.5 Sm B1PDo> (2t) + B2M A> Z 6 1.5Sh (B9) (C8)

P internal pressure D pipe mean diameter t pipe wall-thickness Sy pipe material yield strength Mb bending moment Mt torsional moment Equation (B9) gives limits in terms of Sm; Sm /Sy varies with material and temperature. Thus the margins between Code-allowable moments and equation (38.10) vary with material and temperature. The lowest margin occurs for Mt, with P Mb 0. For (C8) Sm 1.35Sy (austenitic material at around 6501F). The margin is M(limit) /M(allowable) 0.86. About the highest margin is for Mb, with PDo /(2t) Sm # Mt 0; (SA106 Grade B material at 100F); Sm 20 ksi, Sy 35 ksi: the margin is M(limit)M(allowable) 1.94. These margins of about 0.861.94 are for the equation (B9) limit of 1.5Sm. Margins for straight pipe tend to be the lowest for any of the components covered by the Code. Because elbows with high h behave like straight pipe. The margins are also low for such elbows. If margins for the design conditions are not to be less than, say, 1.5, a possible Code change would be to place a lower bound on B2 of 2.0.

B1PDo> (2t) + B2(M A + M B)> Z 6 lesser of 1.8Sh and 1.5Sy (C9) where Sy material yield strength The limits shown for equations (B9) and (C8) are for design conditions; the limit shown for equation (C9) is for Levels A and B Service. The resultant moments Mi, MA, and MB are nonreversing; examples are weight, steady-state relief-valve thrust, and any load that the Code characterizes as nonreversing. The foregoing equations are intended to prevent gross plastic deformation caused by such nonreversing loads as weight. A conceptual example is shown in Fig. 38.1. As the load F increases, the displacement rst increases elastically, then it is in the plastic region. The goal is to limit the plastic response sufciently so that elastic analyses of piping systems remains reasonably valid. The criterion adopted for this purpose is from II-1430. The title of II-1430 (Criterion of Collapse Load) is a bit misleading; as indicated in Fig. 38.1, a piping component usually does not collapse at the load FL. A more appropriate termat least for piping to use in the title is Limit Load. The basis for most of the B-stress indices is given by Rodabaugh in ref. [27]. All of the B-stress indices are based on the concept and criterion discussed in the preceding paragraphs. The following sections discuss three aspects of B-stress indices.

38.6.2

Elbows
B1 = - 0.1 + 0.4h but not B2 = 1.3> h(2>3) but not 6 0 nor 7 0.5 6 1.0

38.6.1

Straight Pipe
B1 = 0.5 and B2 = 1.0

Test data indicate that for Do /t > 50, the mode of plastic failure may be buckling rather than a limit load as noted in Fig. 38.1; thus B-stress indices are limited in application to pipe with Do /t 6 50. Also for Do /t 6 50, test data indicate the limit moments agree reasonably well with the theoretical equation,

There is a signicant amount of test data on limit loads of elbows that is abstracted and discussed in ref. [27]. The controlling condition is for an in-plane, closing moment. For an elbow with small h to undergo signicant plastic deformation, the maximum elastic stress, Smax / Z 1.95/h(2/3) (which is mainly a through-wall bending stress), can be exceeded by a through-wall plastic factor of 1.5. Thus B2 (1.95/1.5)/h(2/3) 1.3/h(2/3). The statement but not 6 1.0 arises from the nature of the equation for Smax. The equation is valid for h ~0.5. For larger h, the underlying theory indicates that Smax 1.00/Zthat is, the same as for straight pipe. For an elbow, B1 0.1 0.4h but not 6 0 and 0.5. Test data for elbows with small h show that internal pressure increases the limit moment. Thus B1 could in principle be negative for such elbows. Reference [27] and the Code did not go quite that far: B1 where is not to be taken as less than zero. The upper bound on B1 of 0.5 returns to the aspect that, for large h, elbows behave like straight pipe. Advances in the power of personal computers have made feasible the use of elastic-plastic, nite-element-analysis for parametric studies. Taboul[29] and Matzen [30,31] have published studies of B2-Indices for elbows. This work may lead to Code revisions of B-stress indices for elbows.

ASME_Ch38_p001-018.qxd

10/3/09

1:17 PM

Page 9

COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE 9

38.6.3

Seismic Analyses

Before 1994, the Code did not dene nonreversing loads and reversing dynamic loads. The limit on equation (B9) for Level D was the smaller of 3Sm and 2Sy. These limits were based on the hypothesis that earthquakes give loads on piping that are not equivalent to those caused by such sustained loads as weight. The long, complex history leading to the Code changes made in 1994 is given by Jaquay [32]. This work was later supplemented by a Japanese Joint Research Proprietary Report, Simulation of Test #37 and Parametric Study, in May 1999. The crux of the 1994 change for Class 1 piping consisted of increasing the stress limits on equation (B9) for Service Level D from the pre-1994 of smaller of 3.0Sm and 2.0Sy to the post-1994 of 4.5Sm. Moreover, the pre-1994 limits did not distinguish between reversing and nonreversing dynamic loads. The post1994 limits apply to stress due to weight and inertial loading due to reversing dynamic loads in combination with the Level D coincident pressure. That the 1994 Code changes are still being reviewed by the Code is an indication of the complexity of the Code evaluation procedure for earthquake resistance of piping systems. Underlying this complexity is the estimate of what sort of earthquake should be considered at the design stage.

E modulus of elasticity of elbow material I moment of inertia of elbow cross section, usually taken to be the same as for the attached pipes Equations (38.11ac) are based on theory in which the end effects are negligible. If, for example, a ange were attached to either one or both ends of the elbow, a correction should be made. [See Code Fig. NC-3673.2(b)-1, note (1).] That the correction should be made is signicant because using a exibility factor higher than the actual one is not necessarily conservative for all of the piping system analysis results. A conservative exibility factor cannot be dened; the goal is to establish and use best estimate exibility factors, which is discussed in Section 38.8.7. Other exibilities, such as that indicated in NB-3686.5, can be included in piping system analyses by using a point spring conceptsee Section 38.8.6 for an example. Before about 1960, the loadings usually considered in piping system analysis consisted of restraint of thermal expansion, weight, and wind loadings. The purpose of the analyses was to quantify moments for Code stress evaluations and to check the adequacy of supports and hangers as well as to check loads on such equipment as pumps and compressors. Since about 1960, however, dynamic loadings, such as those from earthquake and waterhammer, are often included in piping system analysis. However, the i-factors, stress indices, and exibility factors are the same as those discussed earlier in this chapter.

38.7

PIPING SYSTEM ANALYSES AND FLEXIBILITY FACTORS

The moments used in Code equations are quantied by use of a piping system analyses. The early history of piping system analyses is discussed by Markl [33], including 124 references. Some of the early work dates back to 1911: for example, the article by Th. von Karman on stresses and exibility of curved pipe. At the present, piping system analyses are usually made with one of the several now-existing proprietary piping system analysis computer programs. These analyses use beam-element models. The exibility (or stiffnessthe reciprocal of exibility) of elements, such as elbows and curved pipe, are routinely included in the analyses. For elbows and curved pipe, k = 1.65> h k = 1.00 for in-plane and out-of-plane moments for torsional moments (38.11a) (38.11b)

38.8
38.8.1

EXAMPLES
Example Piping System

The relationships between the three moments and three forces with the three rotations and three displacements can be represented by a 6 6 matrix. This rather complex matrix for elbows is part of the piping system analysis computer programs. For the very simple case of an in-plane moment (Mi) constant, no other moment or force ui = k iM iRba> (EI) where Ki 1.65/h(2/3) ui in-plane rotation of one end of the elbow with respect to the other end of the elbow Mi in-plane moment; constant through arc angle, a Rb bend radius of elbow a arc angle of elbow in radiansfor example, a p/2 for a 90 deg. elbow (38.11c)

The example piping system is shown in Fig. 38.3. The system, although simple, serves to illustrate aspects of the use of exibility factors in piping system analyses and the use of i-factors and stress indices in the subsequent checks of Code compliance. The material is assumed to be SA106 Grade B. For this material, at temperatures up to 370F, Sc Sh 17.1 ksi; Sm 20 ksi. Also assumed is that the temperature of the piping system rises from 70F to 370F, after which it returns to 70F, and that the internal pressure rises from 0 to 100 psi and then returns to 0in phase with the temperature change. (This cycle is assumed to occur 1,000 times during the design life of the piping system.) In addition, the temperature change is assumed to be slow enough so that no signicant thermal gradients occur. Finally, it is assumed that there are no dynamic loads. The stress range from pressure is given by PDo/(2t) 100Do/(2t): 3,200 psi for the NPS 24, 0.375 in. wall pipe, and 1,180 psi for the NPS 6, 0.280 in. wall pipe. In the piping system analysis for weight, it is assumed that the pipes are lled with water and insulated so that the weight per in. of length is 24 lb./in. for the NPS 24 pipe and 2.7 lb./in. for the NPS 6 pipe. Elbow factors are listed as follows:

Analyses are made for the following two assumptions concerning nozzle exibility: (1) no nozzle exibility, and

ASME_Ch38_p001-018.qxd

10/3/09

1:17 PM

Page 10

10 Chapter 38

FIG. 38.3

EXAMPLE PIPING SYSTEM

(2) having nozzle exibility modeled as a point spring (as prescribed in NB-3686.5). k o = 0.1(Do> T) 3(T> t)(do> Do)4
1.5 (1>2)

k o = 23.2

k i = 5.81

k i = 0.2(Do> T)1.53(T> t)(do> Do)4(1>2)(t> T)

(t> T)

(38.12) (38.13)

For this example, in which do/D 0.276, the torsional exibility, as a point spring, is close to 0; that exibility was used in the evaluations of with nozzle exibility.

38.8.2

Moments

The basis for equations (38.12) and (38.13) is given in ref. [22]. For this example, Do 24 in., T 0.375 in., do 6.625 in., and t 0.280 in. With the dimensions in these two equations:

For the example piping system shown in Fig. 38.3 and for the conditions indicated in Section 38.8.1, the moments are shown in Table 38.1. Examples of details of the stress calculations are given in Sections 38.8.338.8.6.

ASME_Ch38_p001-018.qxd

10/3/09

1:17 PM

Page 11

COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE 11

38.8.3

Code Equations

Equations (C8), and (B9) are checks of sustained load capacity; (C11) is a fatigue check for Class 2 or 3 piping; and (B10), (B11), and (B14)in conjunction with the S-N data in Appendix I of ref. [1]represent the fatigue check for Class 1 piping. The examples that, for simplicity, do not involve MB or thermal gradients are considered to be in both design conditions and Service Level A; they are evaluated by (except for branch connections, see Table 38.2) the following equations: SOL = B1PDo> (2t) + B2M A> Z 6 1.5Sh SB9 = B1PDo> (2t) + B2M i> Z 6 1.5Sm Salt = K eSp> 2 Sp = K 1C1PDo> (2t) + K 2C2M i> Z Sn = C1PDo> (2t) + C2M i> Z 6 3Sm (C8) (C11) (B9) (B10) (B11) (B14)

Equation (C8) is used in this example rather than (C9) because of its lower limit for design conditions. Values of MA and MC are summarized in Table 38.1. For the example assumptions, Mi in equation (B9) is equal to MA, and Mi in equations (B10) and (B11) is equal to MC. For the assumed material (SA106 Grade B) and temperatures, Sh = Sc = 17,000 psi for Class 2 and 3 piping Sh + SA = Sc + f(1.25Sc + 0.25h) = 42,750 psi for Class 2 and 3 piping, f 1.00 for 1,000 cycles Sm = 29,000 psi for up to 370F for Class 1 piping

STE = PDo> (4t) + 0.75iM A> Z + iM C> Z 6 (Sh + SA)

38.8.4

Girth Butt Welds

Girth butt welds are at nodes 10, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80, and all seven locations should be checked. Table 38.1 summarizes the

ASME_Ch38_p001-018.qxd

10/3/09

1:17 PM

Page 12

12 Chapter 38

results for Class 2 or 3 piping. For girth butt welds, B1 0.5, B2 1.0, 0.75i 1.0 (its lower bound), and i 1.0. Node 50(a) is used in the following equations as a specic example: SOL = 0.5 * 3,200 + 1.0 * 4,820 * 12> 162 = 1,960 psi STE = 0.5 * 3,200 + 1.0 * 4,820 * 12> 162 + 1.0 * 486,000 * 12> 162 = 38,000 psi (C8) (C11)

Because Sn is less than 3Sm ( 60,000 psi at 370F), Ke 1.0, and Salt = 1.00 * 68,600> 2 = 34,300 psi (B14)

Because 1,960 psi is less than 1.5Sh 25,650 psi, and 38,000 psi is less than (Sh SA) 42,750 psi, the girth butt weld at Node 50 is acceptable as Class 2 or 3 piping. For Class 1 as-welded girth butt welds, B1 0.5, B2 1.0, C1 1.0, K1 1.2, C2 1.0, K2 1.8. SB9 = 0.5 * 3,200 + 1.0 * 4,820 * 12> 162 = 1,960 Sn = 1.0 * 3,200 + 1.0 * 486,000 * 12> 162 = 39,200 psi (B10) Sp = 1.2 * 1.0 * 3,200 + 1.8 * 1.00 * 486,000 * 12> 162 = 68,600 psi (B11) (B9)

[The division by 2 in equation (B14) converts stress range to stress amplitude as used in Table I-9-1 of ref. [1].] From Table I-9-1 (line 2) and the interpolation equation in Table I-9-1, Nd1 14,000 cycles. Because Nd1 is greater than the postulated 1,000 cycles, the girth butt weld at Node 50(a) is acceptable as Class 1 piping. An appropriate comparison with Class 2 or 3 piping is obtained by using STE /2 for Sta in equation (38.1). Nf = (245,000 * 2> 38,000)5 = 5357,000 cycles to failure With a margin of 2 on stress, Nd2,3 = 357,000> 32 = 11,000 design cycles Thus, for Node 50[a], Nd1 14,000 cycles agrees quite well with Nd2,3 11,000 cycles. Refer to the discussion presented in Section 38.5.

Because 1,960 psi is less than 1.5Sm, equation (B9) is met. The next step is to see if the fatigue requirement is met.

ASME_Ch38_p001-018.qxd

10/3/09

1:17 PM

Page 13

COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE 13

38.8.5

Elbows

Ends of elbows are at nodes 30, 40, 60, and 70, and these four locations should at least be checked. (In unusual piping systems, the maximum stress may be somewhere between the two ends.) Table 38.1 summarizes the results for Class 2 or 3 piping. Node 30(a) is used as in the following as a specic example: For the NPS 24,0.375 in. wall, Rb 36 in. bend radius elbow. i = 0.9/h(2>3) i = 4.27 For this elbow, B1 0.1 + 0.4h 0.00 (its lower bound) and B2 1.3/h(2/3) 6.17. SOL = 0.0 * 3,200 + 6.17 * 2,140 * 12> 162 = 980 psi + 4.27 * 74,000 * 12> 162 = 25,500 psi STE = 0.5 * 3,200 + 0.75 * 4.27 * 2,140 * 12> 162 (C8) (C11)

Code evaluation of a branch connection is more complex than for girth butt welds or elbows. Among other aspects, the evaluations involve two pipes: the run pipe and the branch pipe or nozzle, with different radii and wall-thickness. There are two i-factorsir and iband two sets of B2, C2, and K2. The 2001 Edition of Ref. [1], 2002 Addenda, made signicant changes to indices and i-factors for branch connections: For Class 1 piping, C2b and B2b were reduced by a factor of 2. For Class 2 or 3 piping, ib and B2b were reduced by factor of 2 for r/R up to 0.5, and coverage was extended up to r/R 1.00. These changes are based on refs. [34,35] and constitute another example of the continuing review of the subject of this Chapter by code committees. The i-factors and stress indices are summarized in Table 38.2. and will be used for the examples in the paragraphs that follow. For Class 2 or 3 piping, the branch end and two run ends are evaluated separately. For Class 1 piping, Mb and Mr must be calculated as indicated in NB-3683.1(d) and Fig. NB-3683.1 (d)-1. 38.8.6.1 Class 2 or 3 Piping: Check of Run Ends (Node 20) Both run ends should be checked. Node 20(a) will be used in the following as a specic example, in which the moments at both run ends are essentially identical. This is because the ratio of the moment of inertia of the NPS 24 run pipe to the NPS 6 branch pipe; 1,943/28.1 69. From Table 38.1, MA 6,200 ft. lb. and MC 19,700 ft. lb. For factors, see Table 38.2. SOL = 0.5 * 3,200 + 1.65 * 6,200 * 12> 164 = 2,350 psi + 2.143 * 19,700 * 12> 164 = 5,420 psi (C8) (C11)

h = 0.375 * 36> 11.81252 = 0.09675

Because 980 psi is less than 1.5Sh 25,650 psi, and 25,500 psi is less than (Sh + SA) 42,750 psi, the elbow end at Node 30(a) is acceptable as Class 2 or 3 piping. For Class 1 piping: B1 = 0.00 C1 = 9.25 B2 = 6.17 C1 = 1.244

K 1 = K 2 = 1.00 (B9)

SB9 = 0.0 * 3,200 + 6.17 * 2,140 * 12> 162 = 980

Sn = 1.244 * 3,200 + 9.25 * 74,000 * 12> 162 = 54,700 psi (B10) * 74,000 * 12> 162 = 54,700 psi (B11)

STE = 0.5 * 3,200 + 0.75 * 2.143 * 6,200 * 12> 164

Sp = 1.0 * 1.244 * 3,200 + 1.0 * 9.25

Because 980 psi is less than 1.5Sm, equation (B9) is met. The next step is to see if the fatigue requirement is met. Because Sn is less than 3Sm ( 60,000 at 370F psi), Ke 1.0, and Salt = 1.0 * 54,700> 2 = 27,300 psi (B14)

Because 2,300 psi is less than 1.5Sh 25,650 psi, and 5,420 psi is less than (Sh + SA) 42,750 psi, the branch connection check of run ends is acceptable as Class 2 or 3 piping. 38.8.6.2 Class 2 or 3 Piping: Check of Branch End (Node 25) See Tables 38.1 and 38.2. For Node 25(a) (no nozzle exibility): SOL = 0.5 * 1,180 + 2.77 * 3 * 12> 8.85 = 600 psi STE = 0.5 * 1,180 + 0.75 * 5.54 * 3 * 12> 8.85 + 5.54 * 14,200 * 12> 8.85 = 107,000 psi (C8) (C11)

From Table I-9-1 (line 2) and the interpolation equation in Table I-9.1, Nd1 30,000 cycles. Because Nd1 is greater than the postulated 1,000 cycles, the elbow end at Node 30(a) is acceptable as Class 1 piping. For comparison with Class 2 or 3 piping, Nd2,3 = (490,000> 25,500)5> 32 = 82,000 design cycles Thus for this example, Nd1 30,000 cycles does not agree very well with Nd2,3 82,000 cycles. Refer to the discussion presented in Section 38.5.

For Node 25(b) (with nozzle exibility): SOL = 0.5 * 1,180 + 2.77 * 6 * 12> 8.85 = 610 psi STE = 0.5 * 1,180 + 0.75 * 5.54 * 6 * 12> 8.85 + 5.54 * 2,560 * 12> 8.85 = 19,900 psi (C8) (C11)

38.8.6

Branch Connection

The nozzle is at Node 25, modeled as a point spring in the piping system analyses. The moments at Node 25 are shown in Table 38.1.

The inclusion of nozzle exibility in the piping system analysis turns an unacceptable system [STE 107,000 psi (Sh SA) 42,750 psi] into an acceptable system (STE 19,900 psi 42,750 psi).

ASME_Ch38_p001-018.qxd

10/3/09

1:17 PM

Page 14

14 Chapter 38

38.8.6.3 Class 1 Piping For Class 1 piping, Mb and Mr are calculated as indicated in NB-3683.1(d) and Fig. NB-3683.1(d)-1. For this example, the run moments do not change sign; thus Mr 0. For Node 25(a) (no nozzle exibility): Sn = 2.18 * 3,200 + 5.54 * 14,200 * 12> 8.85 = 114,000 psi (B10) Because Sn 3Sm 60000 psi at 370F without nozzle exibility, the system is not acceptable. However, we continue the example to look at Nd1 and Nd2,3. K e = 1 + 23(Sn> 3Sm) - 14 = 1 + 23(114,000> 60,000) - 14

(3) The branch connection, with assumed no nozzle exibility, is not Code-compliant for Class 1 or Class 2 or 3 piping [1]. (4) The branch connection, with nozzle exibility, is Codecompliant for Class 1 (Nd1 1,000) and for Class 2 or 3 piping (STE of branch and run checks 42,750 psi.) [1].

38.9

ASME B31.1[36] AND B31.3[37] PIPING CODES

Sp = 2.0 * 2.18 * 3,200 + 1.00 * 5.54 * 14,200 * 12> 8.85 Salt = 2.80 * 121,000> 2 = 169,000 psi Nd2,3 = (490,000> 107,000)5> 32 = 63 design cycles For Node 25(b) (with nozzle exibility): Sn = 2.18 * 3,200 + 5.54 * 2,560 * 12> 8.85 = 26,200 psi Sp = 2.0 * 2.18 * 3,200 + 1.00 * 5.54 * 2,560 * 12> 8.85 = 33,200 psi (B11) (B10) Nd1 = 160 design cycles and (B11) = 121,000 psi

= 2.80 (see NB - 3228.5)

Stress intensication factors in B31.1 and B31.3 are identical or similar to those in NC-3600 of ref. [1] for Class 2 or 3 piping. The preceding comments concerning stress intensication factors for Class 2 or 3 piping are usually applicable to B31.1 and B31.3. B31.1 and B31.3 do not use B-stress indices. In B31.1, the equivalent of B2 is 0.75i. See discussion in 38.11 regarding how B31.3 addresses sustained loads. Thus the preceding comments concerning Class 2 or 3 piping are usually applicable to refs. [36][37]. In particular, comments concerning the ongoing nature of Code reviews of stress intensication factors and exibility factors are also applicable to the ASME Piping Codes. The reviews of ASME Piping Codes start with the B31 Mechanical Design Technical Committee. Stress intensication factors are covered in Appendix D of B31.1 and B31.3. Appendix D is analogous to Fig. NC-3673.2(b)-2 of ref. [1]; however, Appendix D of B31.1 is not the same as Appendix D of B31.3. Analogies between Class 2 or 3 piping and between B31.1 and B31.3 are discussed in Sections 38.10 and 38.11.

38.10

ASME B31.1: POWER PIPING[36]

Because Sn is less than 3Sm (60,000 psi), Ke 1.0, and Salt = 1.00 * 33200> 2 = 16600 psi d2,3 = (490,000> 19,900)5> 32 = 283,000 design cycles Thus the branch connection, without inclusion of nozzle exibility in the piping system analyses, is unacceptable for Class 1 piping. The inclusion of nozzle exibility turns an unacceptable system [Sn 3Sm] into an acceptable system with allowable design cycles Nd1 196000 as compared to the postulated 1,000 cycles. Nd1 = 196,000 cycles and

Allowable stresses in B31.1 are not the same as for Class 2 or 3 piping. For example, for A106-Grade B at temperatures up to 650F, the allowable stress is 15 ksi for B31.1; 17.1 ksi for Class 2 or 3 piping. Allowable stresses for Class 2 or 3 piping are limited to temperatures such that creep is negligible. In B31.1, allowable stresses are given for temperatures in the creep range. For example, for A106-Grade B, the allowable stress in B31.1 at 800F is 10.8 ksi. Equation (11) of B31.1 is SL = PDo> (4t n) + 0.75iM A> Z 6 1.0Sh (B31.111)

38.8.7

Best Estimate of Flexibility Factors

Table 38.1 shows that best estimate ko 23.2 and ki 5.81 reduced MC at Node 25 from 14,200 to 2,560 ft. lb. However, for other Nodes, inclusion of the nozzle exibility sometimes increased rather than decreased the moments. Although trivial in this example for maximum calculated stresses, the example serves to illustrate that conservative exibility factors cannot be dened. Thus the goal should be to use best estimate exibility factors.

The preceding equation is for sustained loads and is conceptually the equivalent of equation (C8) for Levels A and B. Equation (12) of B31.1 is SOL = PDO> (4t n) + 0.75iM A> Z + 0.75iM B> Z 6 kSh (B31.112) where MA resultant moment from weight and other sustained loads MB resultant moment from occasional loads Do, tn and Z pipe (run pipe or branch pipe for reducing branch connections and tees) k 1.15 for occasional loads acting for no more than 8 hr at any one time and no more than 800 hr/year

38.8.8

Summary of Examples

(1) The piping system is Code compliant with respect to equation (C8) for Class 2 or 3 piping and with respect to equation (B9) for Class 1 piping [1]. This is not cycle-dependent. (2) The girth butt welds and elbows are Code-compliant for Class 1 (Nd1 1,000) and Class 2 or 3 piping (STE 42,750 psi) [1].

ASME_Ch38_p001-018.qxd

10/3/09

1:17 PM

Page 15

COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE 15

k 1.2 for occasional loads acting no more than 1 hr at any one time and no more than 80 hr/year The preceding equation is also conceptually the equivalent of equation (C8), but for loads that might be in Level D under ref. [1], e.g., an occasional load caused by an earthquake. Both equations (B31.111) and (B31.112), as indicated by the use of resultant moment, are checks of the adequacy to sustain loads without gross plastic distortion. Equation (13) of B31.1 is SE = iM C> Z 6 SA + f(Sh - SL) where MC range of resultant moment from thermal expansion Conceptually, equation (B31.1-13) is the equivalent of equation (C11). As indicated by range of resultant moment, this is a check of fatigue adequacy. The rules of B31.1 lead to the conclusion that the example piping system is not acceptable without nozzle exibility; and is acceptable with nozzle exibility. In the interest of brevity, the rather extensive details are not included herein. (B31.113)

Mt torsional moment Z section modulus As indicated by equation (1b) of B31.3, when Sh is greater than SL, SA> f31.25(Sc + Sh) - SL4 (B31.31b)

For checking the branch end of reducing branch connections, based on equations (B31.319 and 20):
2 0.5 SE = {3(i iM i)2 + (i oM o)24> Z 2 e + (M t> Zb) }

(B31.3Y)

Ze = pr Ts:Ts = lesser of T, i it For the example UFT branch connection of Fig. 38.3, T 0.375 inch, ii t 6.98 0.280 1.95 inch; thus Ts 0.375 inch and Ze 11.86 in3. Zb section modulus of branch pipe B31.3 does not cover such a component as a branch connection in B31.1. Thus the only available comparable component in B31.3 is the unreinforced fabricated tee (UFT). For UFT, h T/R; io 0.9/h(2/3); and ii 0.75io 0.25. The lower bound on both io and ii is 1.00. For B31.3: check of run endsno nozzle exibility (Node 20): M x = M i = 16,801 ft. lb. (see Fig. 38.3 for moment directions) M y = M o = 1,310 ft. lb. M z = M t = 10,234 ft. lb. Both run ends should be checked. In this example, the moments at both run ends are essentially identical. This is caused by the ratio of the moment of inertia of the NPS 24 run pipe to the NPS 6 branch pipe: 1,943/28.1 69. SE = {3(8.98 * 1,310)2 + (6.98 * 16,801)2 + 10,23424}0.5 = 12> 162 = 8,760 psi (B31.3-X) Because SE 8760 psi SA 54000 psi, SE is acceptable. For B31.3: check of branch endno nozzle exibility (Node 25). (B31.1-11) M x = M t = 245 ft. lb. (see Fig. 38.3 for moment directions) M y = M i = 156 ft. lb. M z = M o = 14,196 ft lb. SE = {3(6.98 * 156)2 + (8.98 * 14,196)24> 11.862 + (245> 8.50)2}0.5 * 12 = 129,000 psi (B31.3-Y)

38.11

ASME B31.3: PROCESS PIPING[37]

Allowable stresses in B31.3 are not the same as for Class 2 or 3 piping. For example, for A106-Grade B at temperatures up to 400F, the allowable stress is 20 ksi for B31.1; 17.1 ksi for Class 2 or 3 piping. Allowable stresses for Class 2 or 3 piping are limited to temperatures such that creep is negligible. In B31.3, allowable stresses are given for temperatures in the creep range. For example, for A106-Grade B, the allowable stress in B31.3 at 1000F is 2.5 ksi. The load capacity check of B31.3 is described in paragraph 302.3.6 as follows: Details of B31.3 checks to determine whether the example piping system is or is not acceptable are shown in the following paragraphs. SA 1.2[1.25(Sc Sh) SL]: Sc Sh 20000 psi SL is calculated by the B31.1 equation,

There is no equation for SLthat is, analogous to equation (B31.111). The following question arises: If ii and/or io is greater than 1.00, in what way (if any) does the value of ii or io affect the calculation of SL? The fatigue check of B31.3 is specied (for other than checking the branch end of reducing-branch connections) by equations B31.317 and 18). These two equations can be combined to give
0.5 SE = 3(i iM i)2 + (i oM o)2 + M 2 t 4 > Z 6 SA

Because SE 129000 psi SA 58000 psi, SE is not acceptable For B31.3: check of run endswith nozzle exibility (Node 20). M x = M i = 13,832 ft. lb (see Fig. 38.3 for moment directions) M y = M o = 913 ft. lb. M z = M t = 2,719 ft. lb. Both run ends should be checked. In this example, the moments at both run ends are essentially identical. This is caused by the

(B31.3X)

where ii in-plane stress intensication factor io out-of-plane stress intensication factor Mi in-plane bending moment Mo out-of-plane bending moment

ASME_Ch38_p001-018.qxd

10/3/09

1:17 PM

Page 16

16 Chapter 38

ratio of the moment of inertia of the NPS 24 run pipe to the NPS 6 branch pipe: 1,943/28.1 69. SE = 3(8.98 * 913)2 + (6.98 * 13,832)2 + 2,719240.5 * 12> 162 = 7,180 psi (B31.3-X) Because SE 7180 psi SA 54000 psi, SE is acceptable. For B31.3: check of branch endwith nozzle exibility (Node 25). M x = M t = 248 ft. lb. (see Fig. 38.3 for moment directions) M y = M i = 117 ft. lb. M Z = M O = 2,550 ft. lb. SE = {3(6.98 * 117)2 + (8.98 * 2,550)24> 11.862 + (248> 8.50)2}0.5 * 12 = 23,200 psi (B31.3-Y)

11. Wais, E. A., et al., Stress Intensication Factors and Flexibility Modeling for Concentric and Eccentric Reducers, PVP-Vol. 383, Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes and Standards, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1999. 12. Wais, E. A., et al., Stress Indices for Straight Pipe with Trunnion Attachments, PVP-Vol. 399, Design and Analysis of Pressure Vessels and Piping, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2000. 13. Wais, E. A., et al., Stress Indices for Elbows with Trunnion Attachments, PVP-Vol. 399, Design and Analysis of Pressure Vessels and Piping, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2000. 14. Wais, E. A., et al., Investigation of Unreinforced Branch Connections on Elbows, PVP-Vol. 399, Design and Analysis of Pressure Vessels and Piping, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2000. 15. Wais, E. A., et al., Stress Intensication Factors and Flexibility Factors of Pad Reinforced Branch Connections, PVP-Vol. 399, Design and Analysis of Pressure Vessels and Piping, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2000. 16. Wais, E. A., et al., Directional Stress Intensication Factors for 90 Degree Elbows, PVP-Vol. 399, Design and Analysis of Pressure Vessels and Piping, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2000. 17. Wais, E. A., et al., Stress Indices for Circumferential Fillet Welded and Socket Welded Joints, PVP-Vol. 440, Design and Analysis of Piping, Vessels and Components, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2002. 18. Wais, E. A., et al., Investigation of Torsional Stress Intensication Factors and Stress Indices for Girth Butt Welds in Straight Pipe, PVP-Vol. 440, Design and Analysis of Piping, Vessels and Components, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2002. 19. Wais, E. A., et al., Investigation of Stress Indices and Directional Loading of Eccentric Reducers, PVP-Vol. 469, Design and Analysis of Pressure Vessels and Piping,, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2003. 20. Mershon, J. L., PVRC Research on Reinforcement of Openings in Pressure Vessels, Welding Research Council Bulletin No. 77, May 1962. 21. Mershon, J. L., Interpretive Report on Oblique Nozzle Connections in Pressure Vessel Heads and Shells Under Internal Pressure Loading, Welding Research Council Bulletin 153, August 1970. 22. Rodabaugh, E. C. and Moore, S. E., Stress Indices and Flexibility Factors for Nozzles in Pressure Vessels and Piping, NUREG / CR0778, June 1979. 23. Rodabaugh, E. C. and Moore, S. E., Stress Indices for Girth Welded Joints, Including Radial Weld-Shrinkage, Mismatch and Tapered-wall Transitions, NUREG CR 0371. September 1978. 24. Rodabaugh, E. C. and Moore, S.E., Stress Indices and Flexibility Factors for Concentric Reducers, Welding Research Council Bulletin 285, July 1983. 25. Criteria of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for Design by Analysis in Sections III and VIII, Division 2, Published by American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1969. 26. Rodabaugh, E. C., Comparisons of ASME Code Fatigue Evaluation Methods for Nuclear Class 1 Piping with Class 2 or 3 Piping, NUREGCR/3243, June 1983. 27. Rodabaugh, E. C. and Moore, S. E., Evaluation of the Plastic Characteristics of Piping Products in Relation to ASME Code Criteria, NUREG/CR-0261, July 1978.

Because SE 23100 psi SA 58000 psi, SE is acceptable. The example piping system, without nozzle exibility, is not acceptable by Code[1], Class 1: Code[1], Classes 2/3: B31.1[36]: B31.3[37]. The example piping system, with nozzle exibility, is acceptable by all four of the Codes. Acceptable refers only to conformance with the stress limits of the four Codes. That B31.1 and B31.3 may not be consistent with one another is mainly related to branch connections. As noted on several occasions in this chapter, the review of i-factors and their uses is ongoing. With respect to B31.1 and B31.3, the reviews start with the B31 Mechanical Design Technical Committee.

38.12

REFERENCES

1. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components, 2007 Edition; The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 2. Markl, A. R. C., Fatigue Tests of Welding Elbows and Comparable Double-Mitre Bends, Trans. ASME, Vol. 69, No. 8, 1947. 3. Markl, A. R. C. and George, H. H. Fatigue Tests on Flanged Assemblies, Trans. ASME, Vol. 72, 1950. 4. Markl, A. R. C., Fatigue Tests of Piping Components, Trans. ASME, Vol. 74, No. 3, 1952. 5. Heald, J. D. and Kiss, E., Low Cycle Fatigue of Nuclear Pipe Components, ASME J. of Pressure Vessel Technology, August 1974. 6. Scavuzzo, R. J., Srivatsan, T. S. and Lam, P. C., Fatigue of Buttwelded Pipe, Welding Research Council Bulletin 433, July 1998. 7. Rodabaugh, E. C. and Scavuzzo, R. J., Effect of Testing Methods on Stress Intensication Factors, Welding Research Council Bulletin 433, July 1998. 8. Minichiello, J. C. and Rodabaugh, E. C., Development of Stress Intensication Factors, PVP-Vol. 313-2. ASME. 1995. 9. Wais, E. A., et al., Stress Intensication Factors and Flexibility Factors for Unreinforced Branch Connections, PVP-Vol. 383, Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes and Standards, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1999. 10. Wais, E. A., et al., Evaluation of Stress Intensication Factors for Circumferential Fillet Welded or Socket Welded Joints, PVP-Vol. 383, Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes and Standards, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1999.

ASME_Ch38_p001-018.qxd

10/3/09

1:17 PM

Page 17

COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE 17

28. Larson, L. D., Stokey, W. F. and Panarelli, J. E., Limit Analysis of a Thin-Walled Tube Under Internal Pressure, Bending Moment, Axial Force and Torsion, ASME Trans., J of Applied Mechanics, Sept. 1974. 29. Touboul, F. and Acker, D., Excessive Deformation and Failure of Straight parts and Elbows, Proceedings of SMiRT 11, Paper E02/2, Tokyo, Japan, August 1991. 30. Matzen, V. C. and Tan, Y., Using Finite Element Analysis to Determine Piping Elbow Bending Moment (B2) Stress Indices, Welding Research Council Bulletin 472, June 2002. 31. Matzen, V. C. and Yuan, X., The B2 Stress Index as a Function of Internal Pressure, Bend Angle, Loading Type and Material, Proceedings of SMiRT 17, Paper F-02-1, Prague, Czech Republic , August 2003.

32. Jaquay, K., Seismic Analysis of Piping, NUREG/CR-5361, June 1998. 33. Markl, A. R. C., Piping-Flexibility Analysis, Trans. ASME, Vol. 77, 1955. 34. Rodabaugh, E. C., Accuracy of Stress Intensication Factors for Branch Connections, Welding Research Council Bulletin 329, December 1987. 35. Rodabaugh, E. C., Stress Indices, Pressure Design, and Stress Intensication Factors for Laterals in Piping, Welding Research Council Bulletin 360, January 1991. 36. ASME B31.1-2004 with 2006 Addenda, Power Piping, ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 37. ASME B31.3-2004 Process Piping, ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

ASME_Ch38_p001-018.qxd

10/3/09

1:17 PM

Page 18