Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Coade Piping Stress Analysis Seminar-1

    Загружено:

    asif rahim
    32 просмотров66 страниц
    coade piping

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    coade piping

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    32 просмотров66 страниц

    Coade Piping Stress Analysis Seminar-1

    Загружено:

    asif rahim
    coade piping

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 66
    SECTION 1 1.0 11 12 13 14 15 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Section 1 Table of Contents Introduction to Pipe Stress Analysis ‘Theory and Development of Pipe Stress Requirements 1.1.1 Basic Stress Concepts 1.1.2 3D State of Stress in the Pipe Wall 1.1.3 Failure Theories : 1.1.4 Maximum Stress Intensity Criterion Fatigue Failure .. 1.2.1 Fatigue Basics 1.2.2 Fatigue Curves. 1.2.3. Effect of Fatigue on Piping 1.2.4 Cyclic Reduction Factor . 1.2.5 Effect of Sustained Loads on Fatigue Strength .. ‘Stress Intensification Factors Welding Research Council Bulletin 330 .. Cade Compliance 1.5.1 Primary vs. Secondary Loads 1.5.2 Code Stress Equations 1.5.3. B31.1 Power Piping 1.5.4 B91.3 Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping 1.5.5 ASME Section III, Subsections NC & ND (Nuclear Class 2 & 3) 1.5.6 B31.4 Fuel Gas Piping 1.5.7 B81.8 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Code 1.5.8 Canadian Z183/Z184 Oil/Gas Pipeline Systems .. 15.9 RCCMC. 1.5.10 Stoomwezen cen 1.5.11 Special Considerations of Code Compliance. 1.5.12 Evaluation of Multiple Expansion Range Cases COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 4.0 Introduction to Pipe Stress Analysis In order to properly design a piping system, the engineer must understand both a system’s behavior under potential loadings, as well as the regulatory requirements imposed upon it by the governing codes. ‘A system’s behavior can be quantified through the aggregate values of numerous physical parameters, such as accelerations, velocities, displacements, internal forces and moments, stresses, and external reactions developed under applied loads. Allowable values for each of these parameters are set after review of the appropriate failure criteria for the system. System response and failure criteria are dependent on the type of loadings, which can be classified by various distinctions, such as primary vs. secondary, sustained vs. occasional, or static vs. dynamic. ‘The ASME/ANSI B31 piping codes are the result of approximately 8 decades of work by the ‘American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the American National Standards Institute (Gormerly American Standards Association) aimed at the codification of design and engineer- ing standards for piping systems. The B31 pressure piping codes (and their successors, such as the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Section III nuclear piping codes) prescribe minimum design, materials, fabrication, assembly, erection, test, and inspection requirements for piping systems intended for use in power, petrochemical/refinery, fuel gas, gas transmission, and nuclear applications. Due to the extensive calculations required during the analysis of a piping system, this field of engineering provides a natural application for computerized calculations, especially during the last two to three decades. The proliferation of easy-to-use pipe stress software has hada two-fold effect: first, ithas taken pipe stress analysis out of the hands of the highly- paid specialists andmadeit accessible to the engineering generalist, but likewise ithas made everyone, even those with inadequate piping backgrounds, capable of turning out official- looking results. ‘The intention of this course is to provide the appropriate background for engineers entering the world of pipe stress analysis. The course concentrates on the design requirements (particularly from a stress analysis point of view) of the codes, as well as the techniques to be applied in order to satisfy those requirements. Although the course is taught using the CAESAR II Pipe Stress Analysis Software, the skills learned here are directly applicable to any means of pipe stress analysis, whether the engineer uses a competing software program or even manual calculational methods. Why do we Perform Pipe Stress Analysis? ‘There are a number of reasons for performing stress analysis on a piping system. A few of these follow: 1 - Inorder to keep stresses in the pipe and fittings within code allowable levels. 2 - In order to keep nozzle loadings on attached equipment within allowables of manufacturers or recognized standards (NEMA SM23, API 610, API 617, etc.). 14 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 3 - Imorder to keep vessel stresses at piping connections within ASME Section VIII allowable levels. 4 Imorder to calculate design loads for sizing supports and restraints. 5 - Inorder to determine piping displacements for interference checks. 6 - Inorder to solve dynamic problems in piping, such as those due to mechanical vibration, acoustic vibration, fluid hammer, pulsation, transient flow, and relief valve discharge. 7 - Inorder to help optimize piping design. Typical Pipe Stress Documentation Documentation typically associated with stress analysis problems consists of the stress isometric, the stress analysis input echo, and the stress analysis results output. Examples of these documents are shown in Figures 1-1 through 1-5 on subsequent pages. ‘The stress isometric (Figure 1-1)is a sketch, drawn in an isometri¢ ¢oordinate system, which gives the viewer a rough 3-D idea of the piping system. The stress isometric often summarizes the piping design data, as gathered from other documents, such as the line list, piping specification, piping drawing, Appendix A (Figure 1-2) of the applicable piping code, ete. Design data typically required in order to do pipe stress analysis consists of pipe materials and sizes; operating parameters, such as temperature, pressure, and fluid contents; code stress allowables; and loading parameters, such as insplation weight, external equipment movements, and wind and earthquake criteria. Points of interest on the stress isometric are identified by node points. Node points are required at any location where itis necessary to provide information to,or obtain information from, the pipe stress software. Typically, node points are located as required in order to: 1 - define geometry (system start, end, direction changes, intersection, etc.) 2 - note changes in operating conditions (system start, isolation or pressure reduc- tion valves, ete.) 5 3 - define element stiffiness parameters (changes in pipe cross section or material, rigid elements, or expansion joints) 4 designate boundary conditions (restraints and imposed displacements) 5 - specify mass points (for refinement of dynamic model) 6 - note loading conditions (insulation weight, imposed forces, response spectra, earthquake g-factors, wind exposure, snow, etc.) 7 - retrieve information from the stress analysis (stresses at piping mid spans, displacements at wall penetrations, etc.) 12 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes ‘The input echo (Figure 1-3) provides more detailed information on the system, and is meant to be used by the engineer in conjunction with the stress isometric. ‘The analysis output provides results, such as displacements, internal forces and moments, stresses, and restraint loadings at each node point of the pipe, acting under the specified loading conditions. CAESAR II provides results in either graphic or text format; Figures 1-4 and 1-5 present stress and displacement results graphically. The output also provides a code check calculation for the appropriate piping code, from which the analyst can determine which locations are over stressed. Computed thermal expansion of the vessel is aN 17.2686-6 in/in/deg.F. at a tenp of 828 deg.F. es Exchange Node 188 is 28.88 ft. above vessel skirt Disp. @ 180 = (828-70)dey.P (17 2688-6) in/in/deg* (28.08) AZ). inte. = 3.421 in. X Disp. @ 128 = (828-78) (17 2686-6) (28 .88-6,5-15)612) Figure 1-1 13 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes ree pom awe sae22a3 5 a2 Rate GEOR a 2 F Seager Tay ee ne pee OH RGR ‘aN Yor oma w faenais aTMOTIV VE pvt aaa nnmiowsad oNY ake WotR y ‘oniaa Arse WOd GOD OEY mame Soe me oo ‘Foe Ha MSY 8 NS om YY Dy HN Hm {a San Ws mL MazeeLe HMC DH uno C3 ona Awana namowsd ONY LXV VOHRA ‘Data Funisaed wos nooo ony Figure 1-2 14 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes CAESAR II VERS 3.18 JOBNAME:SSEM1 DEC 10, 1992 3:05 am Page 1 PIPE DATA From 100 To 105 D PIPE Dia= 20.000 in. Wall= 375 in, Insul= 2.000 in. GENERAL, Ti= 700 F _Pl= 125.0000 1b./sq.in, Mat= (1)LOW CARBON STEEL E= 27,900,000 1b./sq.in. v= .292 Density= .2899 Ib. /cu. in. RIGID Weight= 3,290.00 1b DISPLACEMENTS, Node 100 DX= .000 in. DY= 3.121 in. DZ= -000 in. RK= 000 RY= .000 _RZ= .000 ALLOWABLE STRESSES B31.3 (1990) Se 20,000 1b./sq-in. Shim 16,500 1b./s 3.500 ft. From 105 To 110 DY= 3,000 ft. BEND at “TO” end Radius= 30.000 in. (LONG) Bend Angle= 90.000 Angie/Node @1~ 45.00 109 Angle/Node @2= .00 108 From 110 To 115 D) BEND at “TO” end Radius= 30.000 in. (LONG) Bend Angle= 90.000 Ang Angle/Node @2= .00 113 (= 12,000 Ft, Node @l= 45.00 114 From 115 To 120 DY= -15.000 ft. DISPLACENENTS Node 120 DX= FREE DY= 1.800 in. DZ= FREE RX= FREE Y= FREE RZ= FREE From 120 To 125 DY= -3.000 ft. BEND at “TO” end Radius= 30.000 in. (LONG) Bend Angle 90.000 Angle/Node @2= .00 123 @1= 45.00 124 From 125 To 130 Ox= 35.000 ft. RESTRAINTS Node 130 +Y From 130 To 135 D¥= 35.000 ft. RESTRAINTS Node 135 +Y Fron 135 To 140 OX= 35.000 ft. RESTRAINTS. Node 140 +Y Fron 140 To 145 Ox= 20,000 ft. BEND at “TO” end Radius= 30.000 in. (LONG) Bend Angie= 90.000 Angle/Node @1= 45.00 144 Angle/Node @2= -00 143 From 145 To 180 DY= -12.000 ft. RESTRAINTS Node 150 ANC Figure 1-3 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes cast 3 GxPmmSeDL-be | FILE:SSIML BEC 41992 12:47 ome aan aa, ‘Stes simoot, eon exra, STRESS coon pone mas AXIAL, ‘STRESS - nope= 123 Figure 1-4 CASE 4 COREDDIS-TL+P1 FILE:SSEML_ DEC 4,1992 2:49am RESET wir noves = pert SPECFY RGM onieu. MODE= 325 hax. DISPS. x Figure 1-5 16 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes What are these Stresses? ‘The stresses calculated are not necessarily real stresses (such as could be measured by a strain gauge, for example), but are rather “code” stresses. Code stress calculations are based upon specific equations, which are the result of 8 decades of compromise and simplification. ‘The calculations reflect: lo Inclusion or exclusion of piping loads, based upon convenience of calculation or selected failure. In fact the result may not even represent an absolute stress value, but rather a RANGE of values. Loading type — these are segregated, and analyzed separately, as though they occur in isolation, even though they actually are present simultaneously. Magnification, due to locel fitting configuration, which may in reality reflect a decrease in fatigue strength, rather than an increase in actual stress. Code committee tradition — every code is a result of a different set of concerns and compromises, and therefore may appear to be on a different branch of the evolutionary ladder. Because of this, every code gives different results when calculating stresses. A summary of significant dates in the history of the development of the piping codes is presented below: 1915 - — Power Piping Society provides the first national code for pressure piping. 1926 - The American Standards Association initiates project B31 to govern pressure piping. ae Markl publishes his paper “Piping Flexibility Analysis”, introducing piping analysis methods based on the “stress range”. 1957 - First computerized analysis of piping systems. 1968 - Congress enacts the Natural Pipeline Safety Act, establishing CFR 192, which will in time replace B31.8 for gas pipeline transportation. 1969 - Introduction of ANSI B31.7 code for Nuclear power plant piping. 1971 - _ Introduction of ASME Section III for Nuclear power plant piping. 1974 - Winter Addenda B31.1 moves away from the separation of bending and torsional moment terms in the stress calculations and alters the intensi- fication factor for moments on the branch leg of intersections. 1978 - ANSI B81.7 is withdrawn. 1987 - Welding Research Council Bulletin 330 recommends changes to the B31.1, B31.3, and ASME III Class 2 and 3 piping codes. 17 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 1.1 Theory and Development of Pipe Stress Requirements 1.1.1 Basic Stress Concepts Normal stresses: Normal stresses are those acting in a direction normal to the face of the crystal structure of the material, and may be either tensile or compressive in nature. (Infact, normal stresses in piping tend more to tension due the predominant nature of internal pressure as a load case.) Normal stresses may be applied in more than one direction, and may develop from a number of different types of loads. For a piping system, these are discussed below: Longitudinal stress: Longitudinal, or axial, stress is the normal stress acting parallel to the longitudinal axis of the pipe. This maybe caused by an internal foree acting axially within the pipe: Figure 1-6 Su = Fax/Am ‘Where: Sz = longitudinal stress, psi Fax = internal axial force acting on cross-section, Ib Am = metal cross-sectional area of pipe, in? = m(g2- d2)/ 4 Rant d, = outer diameter, in 4 = inner diameter, in dq = mean diameter, = (dy + d))/2 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes A specific instance of longitudinal stress is that due to internal pressure: SL Intemal Pressure SL Figure 1-7 SL = PA/An Where: P = design pressure, psig A; = internal area of pipe, in? = ra2/4 Replacing the terms for the internal and metal areas of the pipe, the previous equation may be written as: Sp = Pdi2/(do2 - d:2), or: Sp = Pd?/4dqt For convenience , the longitudinal pressure stress is often conservatively approximated as: Sp = Pd,/4t Another component of axial normal stress is bending stress. Bending stress is zero at the neutral axis of the pipe and varies linearly across the cross-section from the maximum compressive outer fiber tothe maximum tensile outer fiber. Calculating the stress as linearly proportional to the distance from the neutral axis: Variation in Bending Stress Thru Cross Section Max compressive siress /2 mpressive stress Neutro!_Axis 72 max comp) Zero bending siress 1/2 max tension stress Mox tension siress Figure 1-8 19 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 2 & “ Mp c/I = bending moment acting on cross-section, in-Ib ¢ = distance of point of interest from neutral axis of cross-section, in I = moment of inertia of cross-section, iné = n(dot-di4) /64 ‘Maximum bending stress occurs where cis greatest — where itis equal to the outer radius: See Me Rel ne Where: R, = outer radius of pipe, in Z = section modulus of pipe, in3 = I/Ry ‘Summing all components of longitudinal normal stress: SL = Far/Am+Pdo/4t+ Mp/Z Hoop stress: There are other normal stresses present in the pipe, applied in directions orthogonal to the axial direction. One of these stresses, caused by internal pressure, is called hoop stress. This stress acts in a direction parallel to the pipe circumference. Figure 1-9 ‘The magnitude of the hoop stress varies through the pipe wall and can be calculated by Lame’s equation as: Su = P24 r2ro2/22)/(ro2 - 172) 1-10 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Where: Su = hoop stress due to pressure, psi r= inner radius of pipe, in T) = outer radius of pipe, in r = radial position where stress is being considered, in ‘The hoop stress can be conservatively approximated for thin-wall cylinders, by assuming that the pressure force, applied over an arbitrary length of pipe, 1 (F = P dj I), is resisted uniformly by the pipe wall over thet same arbitrary length (Am = 2), or: Sq = Pdl/2tlor: Sq = Pd)/2t, or conservatively: Sq = Pd/2t Radial stress: Radial stress is the third normal stress present in the pipe wall. It acts in the third orthogonal direction, parallel to the pipe radius. Radial stress, which is caused by internal pressure, varies between a stress equal to the internal pressure at the pipe’s inner surface and a stress equal to atmospheric pressure at the pipe’s external surface. Assuming that there is no external pressure, radial stress may be calculated as: =o > Ni Pr a as Figure 1-10 Sp o= Pit r2ro2/r2)/(e,2-12) Where: Sp = radial stress due to pressure, psi Note that radial stress is zero at the outer radius of the pipe, where the bending stresses are maximized. For this reason, this stress component has traditionally been ignored during the stress calculations. Shear stresses: Shear stresses are applied in a direction parallel to the face of the plane of the crystal structure of the material, and tend to cause adjacent planes of the crystal to COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes slip against each other. Shear stresses may be caused by more than one type of applied load. For example, shear stress may be caused by shear forces acting on the cross-section: Shear Distribution Profile Tmax = VQ/Am Where: max = maximum shear stress, psi = shear force, Ib Q = shear form factor, dimensionless (1.333 for solid circular section) ‘These shear stresses are distributed such that they are maximum at the neutral azis of the pipe and zero at the maximum distance from the neutral axis. Since this is the opposite of the case with bending stresses, and since these stresses are usually small, shear stresses due to forces are traditionally neglected during pipe stress analysis. Shear stresses may also be caused by torsional loads: 1.12 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Mr = internal torsional moment acting on cross-section, in-lb ¢ = distance of point of interest from torsional center (intersection of neutral axes) of cross-section, in R= torsional resistance of cross-section, int = 21 = pldos-di4)/32 Maximum torsional stress occurs where c is maximized —at the outer radius: max = Mp Ro/2I = Mp/2Z Summing the individual components of the shear stress, the maximum shear stress acting on the pipe cross-section is: Tmax = VQ/Ag+Mr/2Z Example Stress Calculations: Asnoted above, a number of the stress components described above have been neglected for convenience during calculation of pipe stresses. Most U.S. piping codes require stresses to be calculated using some form of the following equations: Longitudinal stress: Sp 9 = = My/Z+Fax/Am+Pdo/4t Shear stress: t = My/2z Hoop stress: Su = Pd/2t Calculations are illustrated for a 6-inch nominal diameter, standard wall pipe (assuming the piping loads are known): Cross sectional properties: Piping loads: a = 6.625in Bending moment (My) 4247 ft-lb a = — 6.065in Axial force (Fx) = 83488 Ib =) 1 0280in Pressure (P) = 600 psi Z = 8.496 in’ Torsional Moment (My) = 8495 ft-lb Am = 5.5813 in? 1-18 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Longitudinal stress: SL = 4247 x 12/8.496 + 33488/5.5813 + 600 x 6.625/4 (0.280) 0 " 15547 psi Shear stress: 8495 x 12/2 (8.496) = 5999 psi 1 Hoop stress: Su = 600 x 6.625 /2 (0.280) = 7098 psi 1.1.2 3-D State of Stress in the Pipe Wall During operation, pipes are subject to all of these types of stresses. Examining a small cube of metal from the most highly stressed point of the pipe wall, the stresses are distributed as 50: Figure 1-13 There are an infinite number of orientations in which this cube could have been selected, each with a different combination of normal and shear stresses on the faces. For example, there is one orientation of the orthogonal stress axes for which one normal stress is maximized, and another for which one normal stress is minimized — in both cases all shear stress components are zero. In orientations in which the shear stress is zero, the resulting normal components of the stress are termed the principal stresses. For 3-dimensional analyses, there are three of them, and they are designated as S; (the maximum), Sg, and S3 (the minimum). Note that regardless of the orientation of the stress axes, the sum of the orthogonal stress components is always equal, i.e: Sy + Sy + Sp = Si +S: +83 ‘The converse of these orientations is that in which the shear stress component is maximized (there is also an orientation in which the shear stress is minimized, but this is ignored since the magnitudes of the minimum and maximum shear stresses are the same); this is appropriately called the orientation of maximum shear stress. The maximum shear stress 114 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes ina three dimensional state of stress is equal toone-halfof the difference between the largest and smallest of the principle stresses (S; and Ss). ‘The values of the principal and maximum shear stress can be determined through the use ofaMohr's circle. The Mohr’s circle analysis can be simplified by neglecting the radial stress component, therefore considering a less complex (i.e., 2-dimensional) state of stress. A “Mohr's circle can be developed by plotting the normal vs. shear stresses for the two known orientations (Le., the longitudinal stress vs. the shear and the hoop stress vs. the shear), and constructing a circle through the two points. The infinite combinations of normal and shear stresses around the circle represent the stress combinations present in the infinite number of possible orientations of the local stress axes. A differential element at the outer radius of the pipe (where the bending and torsional stresses are maximized and the radial normal and force-induced shear stresses are usually zero) is subject to 2-dimensional plane stress, and thus the principal stress terms can be computed from the following Mohr's circle: Figure 1-14 ‘The center of the circle is at (Sy, + Sq)/2 and the radius is equal to { (Sy, - Sq)/ 2 + 72}. ‘Therefore, the principal stresses, S and Sz, are equal tothe center ofthe circle, plus orminus the radius, respectively. The principal stresses are calculated as: S = (G_+Sw)/2+(0SL-Sw)/2P +2 22 and Se (SL + Sq)/2-((S, - SH) /22 +2 22 As noted above, the maximum shear stress present in any orientation is equal to (Sy - S2)/2, or: umax = [(S_-Sw2 +42 ]2 2 115 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 1.1.3 Failure Theories To be useful, calculated stresses must be compared to material allowables. Material allowable stresses are related to strengths as determined by material uniaxial tensile tests, therefore calculated stresses must also be related to the uniaxial tensile test. This relationship can be developed by looking at available failure theories. Fetiure of cross section Serain Tensile Test Results rrixiay TenstTe Tensite Test sere Rachine Speeinen Figure 1-15 ‘There are three generally accepted failure theories which may be used to predict the onset of yielding in a material: 1 - OCTAHEDRAL SHEAR, or VON MISES THEORY 2 - MAXIMUM SHEAR, or TRESCA THEORY 3 - MAXIMUM STRESS or RANKINE THEORY, ‘These theories relate failure in an arbitrary three dimensional stress state in a material to failure in a the stress state found in a uniaxial tensile test specimen, since it is that test that is most commonly used to determine the allowable strength of commonly used materials. Failure of a uniaxial tensile test specimen is deemed to occur when plastic deformation occurs; i.e., when the specimen yields. 1:16 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes ‘The three failure theories state: Octahedral Shear - Von Mises Theory: “Failure occurs when the octahedral shear stress in a body is equal to the octahedral shear stress at yield in a uniaxial tension test.” ‘The octahedral shear stress is calculated as: oct = 1/3 [ (Sy - Sq)? + (Sz - Sg)? + (Sg - Sy)? 12 In a uniaxial tensile test specimen at the point of yield: S: = Sys: So=S3=0 ‘Therefore the octahedral shear stress in a uniaxial tensile test specimen at failure is calculated as: ‘V3 [ (Syieia - 0)? + (0 - 0)? + (0 - Syieta)? 142 oct 212 x Svea /3 Therefore, under the Von Mises theory: | Plastic deformation occurs in a 3-dimensional stress state whenever the octahedral shear exceeds 22 x Syieia/ 3. Maximum Shear Stress - Tresca Theory: “Pailure occurs when the maximum shear stress in a body is equal to the maximum. shear stress at yield in a uniaxial tension test.” ‘The maximum shear stress is calculated as: Tmax = (Si-S3)/2 In a uniazial tensile test specimen at the point of yield: Si = Sy S2=S3=0 So: tmx = Gyiela- 0)/2 = Syieia/2 ‘Therefore, under the Tresca theory: Plastic deformation occurs in a 3-dimensional stress state whenever the maximum shear stress exceeds Syjeiq /2. 147 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Maximum Stress - Rankine Theory “Failure occurs when the maximum tensile stress in a body is equal to the maximum tensile stress at yield in a uniaxial tension test.” ‘The maximum tensile stress is the largest, positive principal stress, Sy. (By definition, S; is always the largest of the principal stresses.) In a uniaxial tensile test specimen at the point of yield: $1 = Syieas S2=S3=0 ‘Therefore, under the Rankine theory: Plastic deformation occurs in a 3-dimensional stress state whenever the maximum principal stress exceeds Syjeia. 1.1.4 Maximum Stress Intensity Criterion ‘Most of the current piping codes use aslight modification ofthe maximum shearstress theory for flexibility related failures. Repeating, the maximum shear stress theory predicts that failure occurs when the maximum shear stress in a body equals Syje1q/2, the maximum shear stress existing at failure during the uniaxial tensile test. Recapping, the maximum shear stress in a body is given by: Tmax = (Sy - S3)/2 For the differential element, at the outer surface of the pipe, the principal stresses were computed earlier as: Si = (Sy +Sw)/2+(US,-Sw)/2P +2 2 Se(orS3) = (St + Su)/2-[ (Sp -Sg)/22 +212 As seen previously, the maximum shear stress theory states that during the uniaxial tensile test the maximum shear stress at failure is equal to one-half of the yield stress, so the following requirement is necessary: tmax= [(SL-Sy?+ 472 22 < S¥iela 2 2 Multiplying both sides arbitrarily by two saves the time required to do two mathematical operations, without changing this relationship. Multiplying by two creates the stress intensity, which is an artificial parameter defined simply as twice the maximum shear stress. Therefore the Maximum Stress Intensity criterion, as adopted by most piping codes, dictates, the following requirement: (Sy -Sp2+4 212 < Syieia 1-18 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Note that when calculating only the varying stresses for fatigue evaluation purposes (as discussed in the following section), the pressure components drop out of the equation. Han allowable stress based upon a suitable factor of safety is used, the Maximum Stress Intensity criterion yields an expression very similar to that specified by the B31.3 code: [Sp2+482]12 < Sa Where: S, = longitudinal normal stress due to bending, psi S_ = shear stress due to torsion, psi Sa = allowable stress for loading case, psi Example Stress Intensity Calculations: Calculation of stress intensity may be illustrated by returning to our 6-inch nominal diameter, standard wall pipe for which longitudinal, shear, and hoop stresses were calculated. Reviewing the results of those calculations: Longitudinal stress: S, = «15547 psi Shear stress: + = 5999 psi Hoop stress: Sp = 7098 psi Assuming that the yield stress of the pipe material is 30,000 psi at temperature, and a factor of safety of 2/3 is to be used, the following calculations must be made: (Sy -Sp2 +4222 < 2/3 x Syiela or: {(15547 - 7098)2 + 4. x 59992 )U2 < 2/3 x 30000, or: 14674 < 20000 ‘The 14674 psi is the calculated stress intensity in the pipe wall, while the 20000 is the allowable stress intensity for the material at the specified temperature. In this case, the pipe would appear to be safely loaded under these conditions. 1-19 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 1.2 Fatigue Failure ‘The failure modes discussed above were sufficient to describe catastrophic failure based upon one time loadings. However, piping and vessels were also found to suffer from sudden failure following years of successful service. The proposed explanation for this phenomenon was fatigue failure of the material, resulting from propagation of cracks on the material crystal structure level due to repeated cyclic loading 1.2.1 Fatigue Basics Steels and other metals are made up of organized patterns of molecules, known as crystal structures. However, these patterns are not maintained throughout the steel producing an ideal homogenous material, but are found in microscopic isolated island-like areas called a grains. Inside each grain the pattern ofmolecules is preserved. From one grain boundary to thenext the molecular pattern is the same, but the orientation differs. As a result, grain boundaries are high energy borders. Plastic deformation begins within a grain that is both subject to a high stress and oriented such that the stress causes a slippage between adjacent layers in the same pattern. The incremental slippages (called dislocations) cause local cold-working. On the first application of the stress, dislocations will move through many of the grains that are in the local area of high stress. As the stress is repeated, more dislocations will move through their respective grains. Dislocation movement is impeded by the grain boundaries, soafter multiple stress applications, the dislocations tend toaccumulate at grain boundaries, and eventually becoming so dense that the grains “lock up”, causing a loss of ductility and thus preventing further dislocation movement. Subsequent applications of the stress cause the grain to tear, forming cracks. Repeated stress applications cause the cracks to grow. Unless abated, the cracks propagate with additional stress applications until sufficient cross sectional strength is lost to cause catastrophic failure of the material. Figure 1-16illustrates this process. 1-20 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Molecular pattem inunstressed grain oe <— ‘Sipping of one molecular ‘surface over another after frst application ef stress “Dislocation Slipping of a second a molecular surface after a ‘second application ot sess Dislocations beginning ‘After many repeated applications of ‘tress the dislocations are ‘completely tangled and the grains. “ecked" ‘With ancther appication of the stress, the grain "lears' and a fatigue creck iiated Figure 1-16 Test Stress Level Tension Tine One Cycle TEST LOADING CURVE untaxTal Tensite Tenstle Test. Test Machine Specimen Figure 1-17 1-21 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes ‘One important consideration is the fact that fatigue cracks usually are initiated at a free surface. Corrosive attack on a material often produces pitting of metal surfaces. The pits act as notches and produce a reduction in fatigue strength. In those specific cases when corrosive attack occurs simultaneously with fatigue loading, a pronounced reduction in fatigue properties results which is greater than that produced by prior corrosion of the surface. When corrosion and fatigue occur simultaneously, the chemical attack greatly accelerates the rate at which fatigue cracks propagate Unfortunately, fatigue failures can occur even when the stressin amaterial is below the yield stress. This is because localized stress concentrations can cause plastic deformation in a relatively few grains despite the fact that the stress over a gross area of the section may be far below the material yield stress. Ifthe section is subjected toa sufficient number of stress cycles, cracks can initiate in highly stressed grains and then propagate throughout the material, ultimately resulting in a fatigue failure of the section as a whole ‘The fatigue capacity of a material can be estimated through the application of cyclic extensive/compressive displacement loads with a uniaxial test machine, as shown in Figure 1-17. Sample results for typical ferrous material (witha yield stress of 57,000 psi) are shown below: Applied Cyclic cycles to Stress (psi) Fatlure 300,000 23 200.000 90 100,000 550 50,000 6,700 30,000 38,000 20,000 100,000, 1.2.2 Fatigue Curves Aplotof the cyclicstress capacity ofa material is called a fatigue (orendurance)curve, These curves are generated through multiple cyclic tests at different stress levels. The number of cycles to failure usually increases as the applied cyclic stress decreases, often until a threshold stress (known as the endurance limit) is reached below which no fatigue failure occurs, regardless of the number of applied cycles. The endurance limit (for those metals that possess one) is usually quantified as the value of the cyclie stress level which may be applied for at least 108 cycles without failure. Typical ratios of the endurance limit to the ultimate tensile strength of various materials are 0.5 for cast and wrought steels; about 0.35 for several nonferrous metals such as nickel, copper and magnesium; and 0.2 to 0.3 for rough or corroded steel surfaces (depending on the degree of stress intensification). An endurance curve for carbon and low alloy steels, taken from the ASME Section VII Division 2 Pressure Vessel Code is shown in Figure 1-18. 1-22 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes CYCUC STRESS AMPLITUDE pose pt onal = - * cycles - “ Figure 1-18 Note that according to the fatigue curve, thematerial doesn’t fail upon initialloading, despite ‘enormously high stresses that appear to be well above the ultimate tensile stress of typical carbon and low alloy steels. The reasons for this are: ‘The highly stressed areas under fatigue loading are normally very localized Catastrophic failure under one-time loading will normally occur only when the gross cross-section is overloaded. Fatigue curves are usually generated through cyclic application of displacement, rather than force, loading. Displacement loads are “self-limiting”. If a pipe is overloaded with an imposed displacement, plastic stresses will develop, deform- ing the pipe to its displaced position. At that point there will be no further tendency for displacements to occur, and therefore no continuation of the load, or further deformation leading to catastrophic failure. In the case of an applied force (which is not a self- limiting load), deformation of the pipe does not cause the force to subside, so deformation continues until failure. ‘The stress shown in a fatigue curve is a calculated stress, based upon the assumption that Hooke’s law is applicable throughout the range of applied loading; i.e., $= Ee, where: E = _ modulus of elasticity of material, psi € = __ strain in material, infin 1-23 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes In reality, once the material begins to yield, stress is no longer proportional to the induced strain, and actually is much lower than that calculated. 1.2.3 Effect of Fatigue on Piping A.R.C. Markl investigated the phenomenon of fatigue failure of piping during the 1940's and 1950's, and published his results in papers such as “Piping Flexibility Analysis”, published in 1955. He tested a number of configurations (straight pipe, and various fittings, such as pipe elbow, miter bend, unreinforced fabricated tee, welding tee, ete.) by using cyclic displacements to apply alternating bending stresses. Plotting the cycles to failure for each applied displacement, he found that the results of his experimenis followed the form of fatigue curves. FI ar i vr) Range of imposed displacements to ——— impose complete stres reverea S Ginn butt wold L Range of inplane AO Ser | displacements ‘Range of outplane ug Gsplacements Range ofinplane DU Gsplacements ange of cuplane YP) | isplacements , PH Range of inplane, = Sipucone ange toute L displacements Figure 1-19 If an initially applied displacement load causes the pipe to yield, it results in plastic deformation, producing a pre-stress in the system, which must be overcome by subsequent stress applications, resulting in lower absolute stresses during later load cycles. Because of the system “relaxation”, the initial values of the thermal stress are allowed to exceed the material yield stress, with the aim being that the system “self-spring” during the first few cycles and then settle into purely elastic cycling. This “self-springing” is also called Elastic Shakedown. As shown in Figure 1-20, the maximum stress range may be set to 2SYjeld (or more accurately, the sum of the hot and the cold yield stresses) in order to ensure eventual elastic cycling. 1.24 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes asy sy asy Elastic Shakedown (Relaxation) -28y Stress| Figure 1-20 Based upon this consideration, the initial limitation for expansion stress design was set to the sum of the hot and the cold yield stresses — the maximum stress range which ensured ‘that the piping system eventually cycled fully within the elastic stress range. Incorporating a factor of safety, this resulted in the following criterion: Sp <= F (Sye + Syn) Where: Sg = expansion stress range, psi F = factor of safety, dimensionless Sye = material yield stress at cold (installed) temperature, psi Syn material yield stress at hot (operating) temperature, psi 1.2.4 Cyclic Reduction Factor At some point, in the vicinity of 7,000 cycles, the (Sy, + Sy,) limitation intersects the fatigue curve for carbon and low alloy steel. The allowable stress range must therefore be reduced to fit the fatigue curve for cyclic applications with 7,000 cycles or more: Sg <= F £(Sye + Syn) 1:25 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Where: f= cyclic reduction factor, as shown in the accompanying table CYCLIC REDUCTION FACTOR TABLE cycles N Factor f | a 7,000 1.0 7,001 = 14,000 14,001 ~~ 22,000 22,001 =~ 48.000 45,001 100.000 0.6 100.001 = ~—200,000 0.5 200,001 = - ~—-700,000 700,001 2,000,000 0.3 1.2.5 Effect of Sustained Loads on Fatigue Strength In almost all cases the material fatigue curves are generated using a completely alternating stress; i., the average stress componentis zero. Research has shown that the magnitude of the mean stress can have an effect on the endurance strength of a material, the trend of which is shown below: 4| i oe om Sa tom endurance 7 " curve for complatoly q Say. -sternating stress = « For Desig my 50,000 - 100,000) cycles for carbon and low-alloy steels, and are insignificant for 18-8 stainless steels and nickel-chrome-iron alloys. Since these materials constitute the majority of the piping materials in use, and since most cyclic loading events comprise much fewer than 50,000 cycles, the effects of mean stress on fatigue life are negligible for piping materials with ultimate strengths below 100,000 psi. For materials with an ultimate strength equal to or greater than 100,000 psi, such as high strength bolting, mean stress can have aconsiderable effect on fatigue strength and should be considered when performing a fatigue analysis. For a piping application, the implication of the Soderberg line on the fatigue allowable is implementedin a conservative manner. Thesustained stress (ie., weight, pressure, etc. )can be considered to be the mean component of the stress range after system relaxation, and as such is used to reduce the allowable stress range: Sp <= Ff (Syc + Syn - Seus) 1-27 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 1.3 Stress Intensification Factors ‘As noted previously, Markl’s fatigue tests generated endurance curves for various fitting configurations, such as straight pipe, butt welded pipe, elbows, miters, welding tees, unreinforced and reinforced fabricated tees, mostly using 4” nominal diameter, size-on-size fittings. Marld noticed that the fatigue failures occurred not in the middle of his test spans, but primarily in the vicinity of the fittings, and in those cases, they also occurred at lower stress/cycle combinations than for the straight pipe alone. Earlier theoretical work pointed to a possible explanation. It had been shown that elbows tendo ovalize during bending, bringing the outer fibers closer to the neutral axis of the pipe, thus reducing the moment of inertia (increasing flexibility) and the section modulus (increasing developed stress). Ovalization of Bend =1 Se A) | Section Figure 1-22 |The stress intensification factors (the ratio ofactual bending stress to the calculated bending| |stress for a moment applied to the nominal section) for elbows was known to be: ip = 0.75/28 i = 09/28 Where: ig = out-of-plane intensification factor ij = im-plane intensification factor h = flexibility characteristic = tR/r? pipe wall thickness, in R= bend radius of elbow, in r = mean radius of pipe, in 1.28 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Markl found this to correlate fairly well with his test data and so adoptedit, Tests on mitered bends correlated well with those for smooth bends, providing an equivalent bend radius R was used in the above equation forh. Markl’s estimates of equivalent bend radius are shown below: Re R, = r(1+cotD)/2 (for widely spaced miters) " r(1 + 0.5 s/r cot D) (for closely spaced miters) Where: R, = equivalent bend radius, in 5s = miter spacing at the centerline, in D = one-halfof angle between cuts Markl found that the unreinforced fabricated tees could be modeled using the same formula as that for single (widely spaced) miter bends could be used, if half angle of 45 degrees was used. This produces a flexibility characteristic of: bh = tr For butt welded tees (such as ANSI B16,9 welding tees) Markl again adapted the bend equations, this time computing an equivalent radius (R,) and an equivalent thickness (t.). Mark!’s equation for welding tees was: ho = ¢(tyRe/r2) Where: ¢ = ratio of tee-to-pipe section modulii, dimensionless = (tet) (Markl’s recommendation) te = equivalent pipe wall thickness, in = 1.60t (Markl’s recommendation) R, = equivalent bend radius, in = 1.35r (Mark's recommendation) Inserting these values into the expression for h yields: h = 44t/r ‘This is precisely the expression used today for ANSI B16.9 welding tees. 1.29 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes For reinforced fabricated tees, Markl used the expression he had previously used for welding tees, with h Where: c= te = t = Ry = different equivalent wall thickness and bend radius: C( te Ry /r2) (te/t)82 (Markl’s recommendation) tttp thickness of reinforcing pad or saddle, in r ‘The following tables compare the stress intensification factors suggested by Markl’s test results versus the values calculated with his equations (results are for 4" nominal diameter, standard schedule pipe): Bend in-plane (14) tri Test Calculated 0.062 4.49 5.7428 0.210 2.17 2.5476 0.129 4.38 3.5238 0.320 2.02 1.9238 0.319 2.10 1.9286 0.316 1.90 1.9381 0.328 1.70 1.8904 0.331 1.53 1.8809 0.324 1.36 1.9095 0.332 1.28 1.8762 0.328 1.46 1.8904 1-30 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Unreinforced tee (10): tie Test catcutatead | 0.0390 11.04 10.86 0.0455 6.12 7.06 0.0947 2.98 4.33 oan 2.34 2.89 Reinforced tee: in-plane (i) out-plane (19) tpad Test Calculated Test Calculated 0.12 2.21 2.63 2.43 3.17 0.237 1.78 1.74 1.83 1.98 O85 1.10 14 1.08 1.18 ‘These formulas for intensification factors were adopted (and expanded) by the piping codes. Specific formulas and/or fittings recognized by the individual ASME/ANSI B31 codes are usually shown in Appendix D of those codes (see Figure 1-23). 1-31 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes APPENDIX D FLEXIBILITY AND STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTORS perp Ae . ut : Wa 7 a wes ee semen os ~~) ot a ee pe er oe ees : Figure 1-23 1-32 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Subsequent research has demonstrated that Markl’s formulas, having been based on a limited number configurations (significantly having omitted reduced outlet tees) and disregarding any need to intensify torsional stress, are inaccurate in some respects. ‘The major problem with reduced intersections tees lies in the out-of-plane bending moment on the header. Stresses due to these moments can never be predicted from the extrapolation of size-on-size tests. Figure 1-24 below illustrates the origin of this problem. Mob ‘Area of high bending Mob stresses. Size-on-size Reduced intersection Figure 1-24 Errors due to these moments can be non-conservative by as much as a factor of two or three. Furthermore, when the r/R ratiois very small, the branch connection has little impact on the header, so use of large stress intensification factors for the header can produce unreasonably large calculated stresses. R.W. Schneider of Bonney Forge pointed out this inconsistency for reduced branch connec- tions. His paper on the subject states that the highest stress intensification factors occur when theratio ofthe branch to header radiiis about 0.7, at which point the nonconservativism, (versus Mark!'s formulas) is on the order of two. — 2 work 07 10 r/R Ratio of Actual i to Markl’s i vs Ratio of Brcnch to Header Rodius Figure 1-25 1-38 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 1.4 Welding Research Council Bulletin 330 ‘The Welding Research Council's Bulletin 330, “Accuracy of Code Stress Intensification Factors for Branch Connections” documented a major attempt to re-assess the existing code requirements for the intensification of stresses at tees and other branch connections. The difficulty of this task was summed upin the bulletin by author E. C. Rodabaugh, who stated: “We would rate the relative complexity of i-factors for pipe, elbows and branch connections by the ratios 1:5:500. These comments on relative complexity, we think, arerelevant at this point because at least some readers will be looking for simple answers to what they perceive tobe a simple subject. They will not find any simple answers in this report.” Summarizing the findings of WRC 330 in order of increasing importance: 1) Thefollowingnote shouldbe added with regard tobranch connection flexibilities: “In piping system analyses, it may be assumed that the flexibility is represented by arigid joint at the branch-to-runcenterlinesjuncture. However, the Code user should be aware that this assumption can be inaccurate and should consider the use of a more appropriate flexibility representation.” 2) ASME 2/3 and B31.1 users can use the “Branch Connection” expressions for ‘unreinforced fabricated tees whenever r/R <0.5.(Markl’s formulas specified that the same stress intensification factorbe used on both the branch and header legs of a tee, regardless of relative sizes. The codes noted above permit the reduction ofthe stress intensification factor at the branch forrelative diameters. CAESAR IL automatically considers the effects of reduced intersections on the stress inten- sification factors for these codes unless directed otherwise by the user through the setup file.) 3) B81.1 erred when including the calculations for branch connection stress intensification factors; instead they should have included the calculations as they appeared in ASME II. (Further clarification of this note is given in note 10 herein.) 4) B31.3should include the stress intensification factors for branch connections as per ASME III. (B31.3 uses Markl's original formulas, thus specifying the same stress intensification factor for both the branch and header of a tee, regardless of relative sizes.) 5) —_ B81.3 should intensify the torsional moment at branch connections, with the torsional intensification factor estimated as: ig = (x/R)ig. 6) — B81.3 should eliminate the use of ij = 0.75ig + 0.25 for branch connections and tees. It can give the wrong relative magnitude for header moments, and may underestimate the difference between M, and M, for r/R ratios between 0.3 and 0.95, and perhaps over-estimates the difference for r/R ratios below 0.2 and for r/R = 1.0. 1-34 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 7) B81.3andB31.1 should add restrictions to the stress intensification factor tables indicating that they are valid for R/T < 50. 8) The codes should add notes that indicate that the stress intensification factors are developed from tests and/or theories based on headers being straight pipe with about two or more diameters length of pipe on either side of the branch. 9) The codes should also add notes to indicate that for branch connections/tees the stress intensification factors are only applicable where the axis of the branch pipe is within 5 degrees of normal to the surface of the header pipe. 10) Thestressintensification factors for unreinforced fabricated tees, weldolets, and sweepolets should be changed to: For (r/R) < 0. ip = LB(R/T)28 (W/R)L? (rir), with iy(/T) > 1.5 For (r/R) = 1.0: ih = 0.9 (R/T)28 (rrp), with ip(t/T) > 1.0 ip = 0.8 (VT)?S (WR), with i > 2.1 intensification factor for branch (to be linearly interpolated for1/R ratios between 0.9 and 1.0) R= mean radius of header pipe, in T = thickness of header pipe, in mean radius of branch pipe, in Tp» = _ outer radius of branch pipe, in t = thickness of branch pipe, in ip = intensification factor for run (header) pipe Additionally, if a radius of curvature rp is provided at the connection, which is not less than the larger of /2, (T)’+Y)/2, or 1/2, then the calculated values of iy and ir may be divided by 2.0, but with the restriction that jp>1.5 and i>1.5. Also, where reduced outlets are discussed, branch ends should be checked using Z = p(r2)t and i(t/T) in place of i, with i(t/T) > 1.0. 1-35 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 11) Therewasnotsufficient data available on reinforced fabricated tees forRodabaugh. to make any definitive recommendations regarding them. Rodabaugh does however suggest that the normal usage whereby the width of the pad is taken tobe at least equal to the radius of the nozzle should be observed even though not explicitly directed by the code. 12) For t/T ratios of about one or more, stresses tend to be higher in the header, and are fairly independent of the wall thickness of the nozzle. As the t/T ratio gets much smaller than one, the largest stresses shift to the branch. (This finding originally came out of the research for WRC 297.) Comparisons of WRC 330’s proposals for stress intensification factors for various types of tees, versus BSL. calculated values are shown on the following pages. 1-36 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes NO INTERSECTION RADIUS *831.3" VS. “WRC 330" UNREINFORCED, FABRICATED TEE STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTORCOMPARISON HEADER BRANCH WAC 8819. mone Nom SCH soy lat =, ia ee ee) 1.088 2.078 2 rae. | 4.008 sasse | ere .a22 2.769 2 ae | se ss | em 08 2.1689 3 14 | ame gt 3.40 | 922 7.068 3.488 3 2 4.9 7.860 34a | a8 2RkE 3.400 3 3a 3m 2.888 Ste | 977 26h 3.488 ee 1 | sae SUF wie as | nae sat Ba ee er men ‘oy la | zane Stee a2 aa 3a] sat ue ‘er lat | 2s Ser ar em oom | rave Say See | lee cam | Gast See Save 5 bo mB ja 4.255 | 8 5 2m se 3am 25 | 788 3 38 558 LA 4285 | aN7 5 8 aoe at ns far 5 5% Sea 4.255 | 09 6 2H AAT SES HO tb 6 3 Sb 3.855 4.5 art 4 aa 5.655 4.58 | 589 8 5 Ba55 45a) 528 4 aa 3455 SN | CaaS S187 3.961009 | 8 3961 HF 6882 3.961 4.988 [ora sa ae | awe ae SM2 4213 5.28 | HT 6.2 4,213 5.286 | 489 gat. Suz | Laz 185 4013 5.28 | 535 5 $2 ADS 5.28 | 787 604.392 6.608 4.392 je ae Bas 432 5.534.392 {6.383 4458 17.382 4488 B1db 4.850 8.558 4.450 5.597 4.480 1.37 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes NQ INTERSECTION RADIUS *B31.2° VS. WRC 330” UNREINFORCED, FABRICATED TEE STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTOR COMPARISON READER BRANCH WRG 813 i 201 oot yan wee ene ee elt ste lh Bay By nih ey By HO Wea 9a BaD hes 5.595 | 4s a8) 2.108 ee 1 Ta sisss | ‘ses 1 Lat 169 wee sass | 54 Me Las Bm 5.595 as 1285 6% es | 5 sas nis we sme | sis sae 5578 | 1.809 wo 2 se | 38 cae 5.598 | 158 u 4 5.390 | set Aas 5.598 | 1g @ % 5.598 | ab se 5.598 | 1.2ee 8 8 5.578 | 75 4g 5.598 | 118 a 2 son | sor 7st | san att Le ae ou Sob | 1582 WTI 804.6 Coe 6 Scab (832 aT 4118. 182 8 Sabi 26S ASS EL 1282 7 Sree | rey same S158 AL 1s uM i 5.5 58TH AW 5.035 ct um 1B ss) love est am §98 | 19 uw sats | 1821 css) aT mo ww | 5.045 72 S247 5.5.88 x we. | ama 5.148 SSO a at Seg 6.58) US TATE we | sm Se 8 se eT 1.125 samt He sem 1.186 8H 5.518 a] sere 7.207 STO sam 7S son ‘as 1125 00 ee Las 1.281 sen om TL? 5.009 785 fa 11 um wR 5.788 sk 58 78 % 5.788 lee las7 5788 x 5.788 ‘sas les 5.788 % 768 [8 c.tee 5.768 | sa ans | sue 6.400 aa i 188 | 5.555 6st Game 8.280 6821 © slam 6.408 ec2ee | 1387 ae cme sme 8.208.788 ccs 1-38 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes NO INTERSECTION RADIUS. "831.3" VS "WRC 230" WELDOLET STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTOR COMPARISON. HeAOER GRINCH WC Bt we co ey Of s bo aa [24s Ler ar af same ie 72 pa [S37 116 st 3 1a. | 3.365 pm ore joe x saa | sae am 1 | ea 2a | aa 3am. | 5.070 am baa 5.0 58 i 5a i 58 L 54 2a tase | 2492 1.18 na 242 2A92 | 987 hue za | aa | “ns gan olan | page | lait Las aan nem |! nat | eae i “ Loses asm zm | m asa! ais sat u Tm onam ae |e “aus 2st lath eis 25% 26 | 35 sz | sas L467 4 Seo 28th 2b | TS 2.5% | 558558 “ nim 7am ze | las ast zo |. we 1-39 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes NO INTERSECTION RADIUS "31.3" VS "WRC 320” WELDOLET STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTOR COMPARISON, Heaven Now % 6 4% 1 ib 18 a 8 a a BRANGH WAG: son > 8a, | 6.825 wae, | 7.653 2 am 4 8.723, 6 5.595 @ 7.70 2 7.898 1 ams 6 3797 8 2 m7 16 8 ” te a0. 1 a8. 8.566 8. 4 8. 2 En 3 2 2.524 2528 2.528 2.58 2 2.9% 2b 2508 2.506 238 2.617 2.617 2.617 2417 2.A17 2.68 2.68 2.88 2.68 2 2. 5 524 2 2 2, 524 54 2.528 828 ase 2528 2 2 526 61 617 617 26? 2, 617 2.68 2.681 2.68 2.681 fh =, Fy ss BBL 2 biz a3 3 “aT \ ast | | | mses | 619 ASL ASE | 5.7% ou 32 1m [ast 51 28.289 | sme 29 fASL a5 ! a i 287 | 28 } 131 ja wm pau at ae ee hist 140 eo ® 2.524 2.52 2.504 2.5 2.58 2.56 2.526 2.528 2.526 2.516 2617 2.817 2617 2.617 26? np zoe | 347 258 | 758 2528 | 163? 2504 2.528 2.8% 2.828 2826 | 1488 252 258 2042 294 3.26 S28 3281 St 30 Mt 3.099 3.099 5.499 5.899 5a? j oh Bh aT 178 287 882 nM 183 “sm 1588 78 7 1535 1585 oe om 819 619 588 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes NO INTERSECTION RADIUS "B31." VS “WRC 330" SWEPOLET STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTOR COMPARISON HEADER ORANCH WRC ~8313~ ip icp RO oe Nom SH aay flab BD By zo, Soy ra tm | : sa” wt ae al 2a cm we} zum ruse t2nt | seh 2m 2 tse Tea] aloe rae ast | ce las ve) aT Lae | ame. 3m 2 im isa | hae | ise la? sm 3 joo ime | ces las 4 1 js sb | Dime S188 sa 2 jose lash 1488 sm 3 "338 Last sm t iu le 2450 say ama! nas ses | aes 795 5% 2 was la | hase rss | a8 1755 53 | cae ‘ase nase uses la eT Ba 4 jm Lae haw ss 13 laa 5m 8 Pome mrt 1a? Ls aR IP em o2 wats sms “ons sat “eat mS i ‘st out “us sa 3 sae 7. a4 82 ims i fa 5 Mea “se ase aa 8 na va le aa 8 62 tm Tae ‘ in | ma 5 un oni 6 A726 68 686 ‘ ine ila ime uae me jo las nam s a0 as ne ce las 12 8 { «HS 825, naw ee na tus lav wa 6 pues |e ger | ase en ats | 168 285 | me 786 f 1.814 2.885 Haw des ila las ta 2.085 Ra oR 2s 225 seat 205 Moa te Res flat lm daa nal 2a8 ‘ns 1-41 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes NO INTERSECTION RADIUS "831.3" VS “WAC 330" SWEEPOLET STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTOR COMPARISON WEADER NOM 6 8 16 1 1b 8 a 2 2 2 2 3 Ba 3 4 % % % % 2 2 2 2 a a a, a a. 2. a, a ®. 8. 8. 8, a a a. 2, 2 48 BRANCH m 3 m 3 R # wae 390 6.825 75 8.122 ans 5.595 1m 858 3.29 8.797 5.598 nt 5.185 5,881 8.076 8.588 9.007 505 me 11.588 1,907 12.285 8.208 a3 Ky tow Lats Lats Leis a Lent Lan 18 nan halt nat 1.878 2.188 Lak 2.188 1am 2.158 Lame 2.168 1878 2.168 1 2.213 188 2.215 La 2.213 1.98 2.213 2071 2.498 2a7 2.428 2.692 2m 2.685 2s 2.885 be 2p 2b BI 2 + 1-42 le an 320 im jen a 1.813 2.088 2B 181s 2.48t 28 1-813 LBP 1.813 172 1813 0 Lau 26 Bit 1288 au 12 bie om 181 2.085 788 1.67 2.168 1287 1am 2.188 8 1-878 2.168 Bb 1a7e 2.188 sw 17h 7.468 2.25 2.013 2.03 22S 288 37 258 1m UE 20 i i ot | Ast ‘me | sme nan 248 vam | Ares nur 2.42 ea bss 2312 265 | See 2.5K ee [ss Zou ‘25 | Sees 25m ne | km nt com | nz 250 a8 37 “8 578 3353 set ca 1352 AOS 237 od 32 49 459 452 hme am ne 9 29 125 48 9 $38 1588 a9 1583 48 29 an ary 9 2 2 airy 9 5 582 319 oe COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 1.5 Code Compliance 1.5.1. Primary vs. Secondary Loads Mark's investigation of the fatigue problem, following the earlier recognition of the maximum stress theory of failure, led to identification of the basic problem in the design of piping systems. Not one, but two different criteria must be satisfied, one for primary loads, which may lead to single application catastrophic failure, and one for cyclic, displacement- driven loads that may lead to fatigue failure (especially in the vicinity of fittings and other discontinuities) after repeated applications. The main characteristics of these two different types of loads are described below: Primary Load Characteristics: 1 * o Primary loads are usually force driven (gravity, pressure, spring forces, relief vaive, fluid hammer, ete.). Primary loads are not self-limiting. Once plastic deformation begins it continues unabated until force equilibrium is achieved (through change of the external ‘boundary conditions or through material strain hardening), or until failure of the cross section results. Primary loads are typically not cyclic in nature (and those that are, such as pulsation or pressure variation, show characteristics of both primary and secondary loads). Allowable limits for primary stresses are related, through failure modes such as those advanced by the Von Mises, Tresca, or Rankine theories, to the material yield stress (i.e. the point where plastic deformation begins), the ultimate strength, or, for sustained loads only, to time-dependent stress rupture proper- ties (such as creep characteristics). Excessive primary load causes gross plastic deformation and rupture. Failure may occur with a single application of the load. Note that failures that occur due tosingle load applications usually involve pressure (hoop stress) design failures and are not directly addressed by CAESAR II or by the flexibility stress requirements ofthe codes. Such pressure design requirements areencompassed in the minimum wall thickness requirements discussed in detail in separate sections of the codes. Secondary Load Characteristics: 1 ‘Secondary loads are usually displacement driven (thermal expansion, imposed anchor movements, settlement, vibration, etc.). Secondary loads are almost always self-limiting, i.e. the loads tend to dissipate as the system deforms through yielding or deflection. Secondary loads are typically cyclic in nature (except settlement). 143 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 4 - Allowable limits for secondary stresses are based upon cyclic and fatigue failure modes, and are therefore limited based upon requirements for elastic cycling after shakedown and the material fatigue curve. 5 - Acsingle application of the load never produces failure. Rather catastrophic failure can occur after some (usually high) number of applications of the load. Therefore, even if'a system has been running successfully for many years, it is no evidence that the system has been properly designed for secondary loads.) Several examples should help illustrate: Primary Stress Failure: Springs were improperly sized to support the weightof the valve operator on a system. When the line was filled for hydrotest, everything (stresses and displacements) appeared fine, since the pipe could support the moment imbalance at ambient temperature. However, heating up the fluid (and pipe) during startup, the valve sagged and the guardrail was crushed in less than 30 minutes due to the decreasein strength at the operating temperature. Steps to failure: 1 - Weight loads were improperly accounted for. (The primary stresses were too high.) 2 - Atoperating temperature there was a resulting drop in material strength. 3. + Gross deformation began almost immediately and continued until force equilib- rium was achieved (the spring bottoming out). Secondary Stress Failure: After 12 years of successful operation, inspection of the inside surface of a vessel revealed fatigue cracks in the vicinity of a piping nozzle connection. A subsequent analysis showed that a temperature increase in the adjacent vessel and piping system (along with arelocation of pipe restraints for the new operating conditions) made several years ago caused the stresses to exceed the expansion allowables. Even though the calculated stress range at the 144 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes junction was well over 470,000 psi, the junction survived several years because of the self- relieving nature of the thermal load, and the fact that the system cycled fewer than a dozen times over the two year period. Steps to failure: 1 - Thermal allowables were exceeded by mistake. 2 - After about a dozen applications of the excessive load, cracks formed on the highly stressed inside surface of the vessel at the junction with the nozzle. Therefore, code compliance requires that the piping system be checked for both types of Joading — primary and secondary. The basic steps involved in doing code compliance are outlined below: 1 - Compute the primary stresses, i.e. the stresses due to the sustained primary loads, usually weight and pressure, and those due to the occasional primary loads, such as earthquake, wind, fluid hammer, etc. 2 - Compute the range of the varying stress, i.e. the expansion stress range. 3 - Compare the primary stresses to their allowables, which is based on a factor of safety times the hot yield stress. 4 - Compare the expansion stress range to its allowable, which is a factor of safety times a value varying with the number of cycles such that it fits the material fatigue curve (adjusted for mean stress), but never exceeds the sum of the hot and cold yield stresses. Note that due to the shakedown effect, and the fact that the primary and secondary stresses have different failure criteria, these two load types are reviewed in isolation. Therefore, it should be stressed that, as far as most codes are concerned, there is no such thing as “operating stress”. 1.5.2 Code Stress Equations ‘The piping code stress equations are a direct outgrowth of the theoretical and investigative work discussed above, with specific limitations established by Markl in his 1955 paper. The stress equations were quite similar throughout the piping codes (i.e., between B31.1 and 331.3) until the winter of 1974, when the power codes, having observed that Markl was incorrect in neglecting intensification of the torsional moment in a manner analogous to the bending component, combined the bending and torsional stress terms, thus intensifying ‘torsion. It should be noted that the piping codes exactly calculate the stress intensity (twice the maximum shear stress) only for the expansion stress, since this load case contains no hoop or radial components, and thus becomes an easy calculation. Including hoop and radial stresses (Present in sustained loadings only) in the stress intensity calculation makes the 145 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes calculation much more difficult. When considering the hoop and radial stresses, it is no longer clear which of the principal stresses is the largest and which is the smallest. Additionally, the subtraction of S1-S3 does not produce a simple expression for the stress intensity. Asit turns out, the inclusion of the pressure term can be simplified by adding only the longitudinal component of the pressure stress directly to the stress intensity produced. by moment loadings only. This provides an equally easy-to-use equation and sacrifices little as far as accuracy is concerned. ‘The explicit stress requirements for the piping codes addressed by CAESAR II follow below. ‘Note that most codes allow Pdj2 / (do2 - dj2) to be used in place of Pdo / 4t. 1.5.3 B31.1 Power Piping ‘The B31.1 code requires that the engineer calculate sustained, expansion, and occasional stresses, exactly as defined below: Sustained: Seas = S1= Where: Sh = 0.751 Ma, Pa, + <=Sh 4t sustained stress, psi intensification factor (single factor for all types of moments), as per Appendix D of B31.1 Code (note that 0.75i may not be less than 1.0) resultant moment due to sustained (primary) loads, in-Ib (UM,2 + My? + M,2 12 basicallowable material stress at the hot (operating) temperature, as per Appendix A of B31.1 Code. S), is roughly defined as the minimum of: nD 2) 3) 4 5) 1/4 of the ultimate tensile strength of the material at operating temperature; ‘V4 of the ultimate tensile strength of the material at room temperature; 5/8 of the yield strength of the material at operating temperature (90% of the yield stress for austenitic stainless steels); 5/8 of the yield strength of the material atroom temperature (90% of the yield stress for austenitic stainless steels); and 100% of the average stress for a 0.01% creep rate per 1000 hours. 146 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Expansion: iMc Sp = <2 Sq=f(L25S, + 1.258, -S)) Z Where: Sg = expansion stress range, psi Mo = resultant range of moments due to expansion (secondary) loads, in-lb = [M24 My? +M,2 12 Sq = Allowable expansion stress, psi S_ = basic allowable material stress at the cold (installation) temperature, as per Appendix A of B31.1 Code. Occasional: O.751M, 0.75iMp = Pd, Sec = —— + + <=k Sy Z Zz 4t ‘Where: Soce = occasional stresses, psi Mg = resultant moment due to occasional loads, in-Ib = [M2+M2+M,2}12 k = occasional load factor = 12 for loads occurring less than 1% of the time = 1.15 for loads occurring less than 10% of the time 4.5.4 B31.3 Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping Sustained: BS1.3 does not provide an explicit equation for sustained stress calculations, but only requires that the engineer compute the longitudinal stresses in the pipe due to weight and pressure, and then ensure that these donot exceed Sh. This is most commonly interpreted to mean: Fax [G; Mj)? + G, Mp)2}U2 Pdy Sede idee erat + ee aaeaeaee An Z 4t 147 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Where: Fax = axial force due to sustained (primary) loads, Ib M, = in-plane bending moment due to sustained (primary) loads, in-Ib My = out-plane bending moment due to sustained (primary) loads, in-Ib ii, ig = in-plane, out-plane intensification factors, as per Appendix D of B31.3 Code Sj = basic allowable material stress at the hot (operating) temperature, as per Appendix A of B31.3 Code. Sj is defined as the minimum of: 1) —_-V8of the ultimate tensile strength of the material at operating tempera- ture; 2) U8 of the ultimate tensile strength of the material at room temperature; 3) 2/8 of the yield strength of the material at operating temperature (90% of the yield stress for austenitic stainless steels); 4) 2/8 ofthe yield strength of the material at room temperature (90% of the yield stress for austenitic stainless steels); 5) 100% of the average stress for a 0.01% creep rate per 1000 hours; 6) 67% of the average stress for rupture after 100,000 hours; and 7) 80% of the minimum stress for rupture after 100,000 hours. Expansion: [Gy My)? + (ip My)? + 4Mq2]12 Sp= J ee Sy = £ (1.258, + 1.258, -S) Zz Where: M, = range of in-plane bending moments due to expansion (secondary) loads, in-Ib M, = range of out-of-plane bending moment due to expansion (secondary) loads, in- Ib My = range of torsional moment due to expansion (secondary) loads, in-Ib Se = basic allowable material stress at the cold (installation) temperature, as per Appendix A of B31.3 Code. 1-48 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Occasional: ‘The equation for calculating occasional stresses is undefined by B31.3, which simply states that the sum of the longitudinal stresses due to sustained and occasional loads shall not exceed 1.39Sh. The default interpretation of this requirement is to calculate the sustained and occasional stresses independently (as per the equation given for sustained stresses above) and then to add them absolutely. Note the differences between these two codes: 1 - B81.1 intensifies torsion, while B31.3 doesn’t. 2 - B31.8calculation methods are undefined for sustained and occasionalload cases, while they are explicit for B31.1. 3 - _Inits most common interpretation, B31.3 neglects torsion in the sustained case, while B31.1 includes it, 4 - BGl.1neglects all forces, while in the default interpretation, B31.3 includes Fax in the sustained case. 5 - Allowable stresses are different for each code. 6 - Stress increase for occasional loads are different for each code. Note that both codes additionally cite a conservative value of SA, f(1.25Sc + 0.25Sh), which may be used instead of the more liberal allowable of f(1.25S¢ + 1.258h - SI). This is a carry over from pre-computer days, when sustained stress calculations were rarely done, oS] was not known explicitly, and conservatively estimated to be at its maximum allowable level of Sh. Specific requirements of other common codes are shown below as well. 1.5.5 ASME Section Ill, Subsections NC & ND (Nuclear Class 2 & 3) Sustained: Ssus = BiSlp+B2Ma/Z < 1.5Sh Where: B1,B2 = primary stress indices for the particular product under investigation Sip = longitudinal pressure stress = P di2 /(do2 - di2), psi Ma resultant moment on the cross-section due to sustained (primary) loads [M2 + M2 + M,2112, in-tb Sy = basicallowable material stress at the hot (operating) temperature, as per ASME Ill Code. Sy is roughly defined as the minimum of: 1-49 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 1) V/8of the ultimate tensile strength of the material at operating tempera- ture: 2) -V/8 of the ultimate tensile strength of the material at room temperature; 3) 2/8 of the yield strength of the material at operating temperature (90% of the yield stress for austenitic stainless steels); 4) 2/8 of the yield strength of the material at room temperature (90% of the yield stress for austenitic stainless steels); 5) 100% of the average stress for a 0.01% creep rate per 100 hours; 6) 60% of the average stress for rupture after 100,000 hours; and 7) 80% of the minimum stress for rupture after 100,000 hours. Expansion: Sp = iM./Z < £( 1.25 S,+ 0.25 S,)+Sh-S, Where: Me resultant range of moments on the cross-section due to variations in loading (usually due to thermal effects) = (M2+M,2+M,2112, int SL = Sip +0.75iM,/Z (where 0.75 i >= 1.0) Occasional: ‘The occasional stress equations are: For Service Level C (Emergency): Soce = Bi X Sipmax + Bz (Ma + My) /Z < 1.8 Sy <= 1.5 Sy For Service Level D (Upset: Scce = B1 x Sipmax + Bz (Mg +My) /Z < 2.4 Sy Where: Sipmax = Pressure stress due to the peak pressure, psi My resultant moment on the cross-section due to occasional (primary) loads, = IM? + My? +M,2712, intb Sy = yield stress of material at temperature, psi COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 1.5.6 B31.4 Fuel Gas Piping ‘The B314 piping code requires that the engineer calculate and check the sustained, expansion, and operating stress. Sustained: SL = Sip+ 8, < 0.75 x0.72xSyina Where: Sip = the longitudinal pressure stress, psi = Pdi2/(d,2 - dj) Sp = bending stress due to sustained loads, psi Expansion: Se = (Se2+4S2)12 < 0.72 Sica Sp = range of bending stress due to varying loads, psi = iMp/Z S_ = range of torsional stress due to varying loads, psi = Me/2% 1g = Specified minimum yield stress of material, psi. Operating: Sope =F | Ea dT -v Sq | +S. + Sp 1-F)< 0.9 Syieta Where: F = %ofpipe axial restraint (long buried pipelines are considered to be fully axially restrained, i.e. F= 1; while pipelines above ground onslide plates are not axially restrained, ie. F=0 E = modulus of elasticity of pipe material, psi a = thermal expansion coefficient of pipe material, in/in/°F aT = temperature change of pipe from ambient, °F v= Poisson's ratio 151 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Sq = hoop stress, psi Bote Occasional: Soce = Sip + Sp <0.75*0.72* Syieta * Where: Sip = _ longitudinal pressure stress S, = _ resultant moment due to occasional loads k = _ occasional load factor 1.5.7 B31.8 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Code Like the B81.4 code, the B31.8 piping code requires that the engineer calculate and check the sustained, expansion, and operating stress. Sustained: Sp = Sjp+Sp< .75SxFxT ‘Where: Sip = longitudinal stress due to pressure, psi = Pd?2/(d,2- 42) Sp = bending stress due to sustained loads, psi S, = torsional stress due to sustained loads, psi S = specified minimum yield strength of pipe material, psi F = Construction Type 1-52 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Factor F A + Wasteland, Deserts, Mountains, Grazing Land. 0.72 Farmland, Sparsely populated areas and Offshore. B - Fringe ateas around cities, Industrial areas, 0.60 Ranch or Country Estates. C + Suburban Housing Developments, 0.50 Shopping Centers, Residential Areas. D + Multi-Story Bufldings are prevalent, Traffic 0.40 is heavy and where there may be numerous other utilities underground. T= Temperature Derating Factor T Pipe Temperature deg. F- 1.0 250 or less 0.967 300 0.933 350 0.9 400 0.867 450 Expansion: S. = (Sb?+482)2 < 0.728 Where: S_ = bending stress due to varying loads, psi S, = range of torsional stress due to varying loads, psi Operatin; Sope = Se + Si<8 Where: terms are as defined previously. Occasional: Soco= Si+Se <0.75*Syiaa *F*T*K Where: K = occasional load factor all others as defined previously 1-53 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 1.5.8 Canadian Z183/Z184 Oil/Gas Pipeline Systems Sustained: SL = 0.5*Shoop+SpsS*F*L*d*T ‘Where: Shoop= hoop stress = Pata = resultant bending stress Sg = specified minimum yield strength F = design factor L = location factor J = joint factor T = temperature derating factor Expansion: Sp = (S,2+482)12<0.72*S*T Where: Sp = resultant bending stress iMy/Z Se torsional stress My / 2 Occasional: Socc= Fax /A+0.5 * Shoop + Sp s S*F*L*5*T*K Fax = axial force due to sustained and occasional loads A. = cross sectional area of the pipe Sg = resultant bending stress due to sustained and occasional loads K = occasional load factor 1-54 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 1.5.9 RCC-MC Sustained: Sp, = Pdo/4ty +0.75 *i*Ma/Z

    Вам также может понравиться