10/04/2013

FLEXIBILITY FACTOR - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis

You are not logged in. [Log In]

Home Page Forums Analysis Solutions CAESAR II FLEXIBILITY FACTOR
Register User

Forum List

Calendar

Active Topics

Topic Options
FLEXIBILITY FACTOR

Who's Online
#1211 - 08/06/03 03:06 AM

Anindya
Member
Registered:
09/14/02
Posts: 58
Loc: India

FAQ

31.3 gives separate SIF values for in plane and

outplane bending.But the same Flexibility factor for
both.Now the flexibility factor is used to modify the
flexibility coefficients in the flexibility matrix which is
inverted to get the stiffness matrix.

0 registered (), 7
Guests and 1 Spider
online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod,
Mod

April
Su M Tu W Th F Sa

My observations are :
This modified stiffness matix is used to compute the
system forces and moments.That means the flexibility
effects ( ovalization) of the bend are already taken
care of ( maybe in a tacit way )in computation of the
element loads.Now the computed stresses are further
increased by the intensification factors which are due
to bend ovalization and there the inplane and outplane
effects are separate.So 31.3 really takes care of this
bend problem in a very conservative way.
Why then no separate flexibility facor is not used for
the two planes ?

9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30
Forum Stats
9049 Members
13 Forums
11422 Topics
51933 Posts
Max Online: 57 @

12/06/09 11:14 AM

31.3 does not address the circumferential bending

stresses at the bend which are mostly higher than
longitudinal bending stresses and constitute the main
stress component.
The code committee must be having a strong rationale
for not looking into these aspects.
I would highly appreciate if somebody from the stress
community answers these questions which are long
standing mystery for me.
A.Bhattacharya
Stress Analyst
Bechtel corporation
_________________________
Anindya Bhattacharya
Top

Re: FLEXIBILITY FACTOR

#1212 - 08/06/03 08:50 AM

KR
SRINIVASAN As per ASME B31.3, code case SIF need not be
65.57.255.42/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1211

1/5

10/04/2013

FLEXIBILITY FACTOR - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis

Member
Registered:
07/13/03
Posts: 18
Loc: Singapore

considered for sustained and occasional stresses.(

i.e. SIF=1 same as staight pipe) and only for
expansion stresses it shall be considred. Caesar has
got an option to include or exclude SIF for sustained
and occasional stresses. For the blast case in
offshore platforms, which is an occasional stress
case, we ignore SIF for occasion stress.I am also
looking for the reason why ASME code 31.3 allows to
ignore SIF for sustained and occasional stresses but
not for expansion stresses.
_________________________
K. R. SRINIVASAN

Top

Re: FLEXIBILITY FACTOR

#1213 - 08/07/03 02:48 AM

Anindya
Member
Registered:
09/14/02
Posts: 58
Loc: India

Your reply did not touch the questions for which I was
looking for an answer.
Anyway, I will try to answer your question on non use
of SIF in SUS and OCC cases.
The reason being , B31.3 stress analysis is a direct
outcome of Markl's work, which were based on fatigue
tests.Since there is no fatigue action in SUS and OCC
cases SIF effect is not considered.
A.BHATTACHARYA
STRESS ANALYST
BECHTEL CORPORATION
_________________________
Anindya Bhattacharya

Top

Re: FLEXIBILITY FACTOR

John
Breen

#1214 - 08/07/03 12:27 PM

Hello all,

Member
Registered:
03/09/00
Posts: 482
Loc:
Pittsburgh,
PA (& Texas)

Ah, Anindya, you ARE a thinker.

This is a very good question and one that deserves
better than a short (appropriate for this forum)
answer. Interestingly, Markl (and his compeers on the
flexibility committee) based the formulation of the
flexibility factor on a simplification of the 1945 work
published (in the ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics)
by L. Beskin.
It would be truly worth your trouble to find (and place
in your reference library) a copy of the Fifth Edition of

65.57.255.42/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1211

2/5

10/04/2013

FLEXIBILITY FACTOR - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis

the Piping Handbook, by Sabin Crocker and Reno C.

King (the subsequent issues of the Piping Handbook
are excellent but some old historical information was
replaced (to keep the "page count" practical) by data
more useful to the modern piping engineer). Chapter 4
of the Fifth Edition was written/edited by John E.
Brock and it includes many of the answers to your
questions. The 1955 Flexibility Committee report to the
ASA (sic) B31.1 Code for Pressure Piping is included as
an appendix. The answer to your primary question will
be found in Brock's presentation as supplemented by
his references.
I suspect that your comment about the Code
Committee "....not looking into these aspects...", was
purposely provocative in a hope that it would evoke a
response from one of us olde gray (or balding (or both
in my case)) types. However, I can assure you that
there is little in the way of "interesting" issues that
have not been "looked into" over the 68 years that the
ASME Code for Pressure Piping has been in existence
(if you ever have a chance to attend an Mechanical
Design Committee meeting, do it - you will be
entertained). Generally, you can expect that if there
are no explicit Code rules for addressing a specific
issue, then historically that issue has not caused
failures in piping systems.
Other good questions regarding flexibility factors might
be:
1. Since the ovalization carries beyond the girth butt
weld of a B16.8 elbow ("end effects"), why do we "turn
FF's on" (and "off") at the weld?
2. Why do Tees have a FF of 1.0 assigned (we all
know that they are more flexible).
3. Simple ovalization (and increased flexibility) happens
only when a moment is applied exactly perpendicular to
the plane of the elbow - if there is any torsional
moment the long and short axes of the ovalization vary
as you "travel" through the elbow (similar to rifling in a
gun barrel) so, how (on what axis) do you apply the FF
to 3 dimensional piping systems with 3 dimensional
loadings?
Hmmmmmmm.
There are other interesting questions.
Of course, the Code Committees are charged with
developing rules that are relatively simplified and based
upon beam theory. It is recognized that there are
limits on what you can do with beam theory and the
Code allows you to apply a more appropriate level of
rigor to unique issues that would benefit from it.
65.57.255.42/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1211

3/5

10/04/2013

FLEXIBILITY FACTOR - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis

This was going to be a short posting - what

happened?
All the above is only my opionion and does not reflect
the opinion of any Code Committe or of ASME.
Best regards, John.
_________________________
John Breen
Top

Re: FLEXIBILITY FACTOR

#1215 - 08/07/03 09:43 PM

Anindya
John,
Member
Registered:
09/14/02
Posts: 58
Loc: India

Kindly accept my heartfelt thanks for the reply. I

would look into the 5 th edition of the Piping Handbook
to get the answers.
By the way, can you refer some library ( or some other
source) wherefrom I can buy this 1945 paper that you
have referred ?
I would also appreciate , if you can give me references
of some recent papers in this field of query.
Best regards
A.Bhattacharya
Stress Analyst
Bechtel Corporation
_________________________
Anindya Bhattacharya

Top

Re: FLEXIBILITY FACTOR [Re:

#34027 - 03/31/10 02:12 PM

Anindya]

Ferex
Member
Registered:
11/29/07
Posts: 70
Loc: Italia

I use this old post to ask a question on a subject

which was extensively dealt within the past, I did
search but I didn't find answer (however I had deeper
understanding):
where does the K flexibility factor comes in the
calculations?
I know it comes during the calculation of forces and
moments, in the stiffness matrix I think but I tried to
do some check, maybe I did something wrong and now
I am searching confirmations...

65.57.255.42/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1211

4/5

10/04/2013

FLEXIBILITY FACTOR - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis

How I have evidence of this K usage besides the fact

that moment and forces are sensibly less?
My trial was two pipes anchored at one end and
connected in one case through a bend and in the
other case without bend.
Many thanks
Top

Re: FLEXIBILITY FACTOR [Re: Ferex] #34029 - 03/31/10 03:41 PM

Dave
Diehl
Member
Registered:
12/14/99
Posts: 1230
Loc:
Houston, TX,
USA

Check out page 18 of the October 2002 issue of

Mechanical Engineering News. Those documents are
available under Support on our web site.
_________________________
Dave Diehl

Top

Previous Topic

Index Next Topic

Moderator: Dave Diehl, Richard

Hop to:
Ay

CAESAR II

Privacy statement Board Rules Mark all read

GooG_v2_copy_copy_copy

Go
Contact Us Home Page Top

Generated in 0.082 seconds in which 0.044 seconds were spent on a total of 15 queries. Zlib compression disabled.
Powered by UBB.threads 7.5.6

65.57.255.42/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1211

5/5