Transactions of the 17th International Conference on Paper # F01-6

Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 17)

Prague, Czech Republic, August 17 –22, 2003

Correction Factors for ASME ANSI-OM3 Stress/Velocity Relationship With

Respect to Static Design
Sébastien Caillaud1), Didier Briand2), Pierre Moussou1), Michaël Gaudin3)
1)
Electricité de France Research & Development, Department of Analysis in Mechanics and Acoustics, France
2)
Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan, Department of Mechanics and Technology, France
3)
Electricité de France, Basic Design Department, France

ABSTRACT

ASME ANSI-OM3 stress/velocity relationship may be used for vibration monitoring of piping systems. This
relationship, which links the maximum vibration velocity of the pipe to the maximum stress in the material of the
pipe, uses non-dimensional coefficients such as C1, which compensates for concentrated mass effects and C4, which
depends on the geometry of the pipe and its boundary conditions. These coefficients are evaluated for the first mode
of vibration. ANSI-OM3 code proposes C4 values for few standard pipe setups and C1 values only for a straight fixed
pipe with a centered concentrated mass, which is supposed to be conservative. It can be shown that C1 and C4
correction factors depend on more parameters such as pipe geometry, the order of the modes, the position of the
concentrated mass... Moreover, the use of static design, as in the French RCC-M guide, allows defining a set of
acceptable standard pipe setups for the estimation of these correction factors. Therefore, we propose here to extend
the set of parameters of more realistic pipe setups for computation of C1 and C4. An algorithm is then proposed and
implemented using the mechanical finite-elements software Code_Aster for straight, L-bend, Z-bend, U-bend, 3D-
bend pipes with a large set of boundary conditions to derive C1 and C4 correction factors on several modes. The
application of the proposed method to 54 standard pipe setups allows getting minimum values of the product C1C4.

KEY WORDS: ANSI-OM3, vibration monitoring, stress, vibration velocity, fatigue, piping system, static design.

INTRODUCTION

French RCC-M [1] design code does not stipulate any rules to prevent piping systems from vibrations in normal
conditions. Piping systems are designed with respect to static (weight and pressure), thermic and seismic
considerations. The only mandatory specification concerns vibration monitoring of piping systems. ASME ANSI-
OM3 code [2], which proposes a stress/velocity relationship, may be used for such a task. This relationship is a linear
function between maximum vibration velocity of the pipe and maximum stress in the material of the pipe. ANSI-OM3
[2] provides the following stress/velocity relationship:

αC1C 4 0.8σ al (1)

Vallow =
C3 C 2 K 2

where the parameters have been converted in the international unit system:
Vallow allowable zero to peak vibration velocity of the pipe [mm/s],
0.8σal stress endurance limit for piping material including a safety margin [MPa],
α 13.4 mm/s/MPa,
C1 correction factor to compensate for the effect of concentrated mass. ANSI-OM3 provides C1 on the
first mode of a fixed straight pipe with a centered concentrated mass. C1 depends on the ratio µ
between the concentrated mass and the total mass of the pipe including the fluid,
C2K2 stress intensification factors as defined in Boiling and Pressure Vessels design codes,
C3 correction factor for added mass effects of pipe contents and insulation,
C4 correction factor depending on the geometry of the pipe and its boundary conditions. ANSI-OM3
provides values, which are supposed to be conservative for standard geometries:
- 1.0 for straight span,
- 0.74 for a fixed-equal leg Z-bend pipe,
- 0.83 for a fixed-equal leg U-bend pipe.
The value of 0.7 is supposed to be conservative for any geometries.
One notes that a new coefficient C5 has been introduced in the 1990 edition of the OM-SG code [3] and takes
into account off-resonance forced vibration.

1
 Nevertheless, an analysis [4] realized on a larger set of pipe setups and depending on the order of the modes has
shown that C4 correction factor may be much lower than 0.7. A similar analysis can be made on C1 correction factor,
which is strongly dependent on the pipe geometry and on the order of the modes. It can be shown on particular
standard pipe setups that C1 is usually higher because the ANSI-OM3 setup used to calculate C1 is shown to be
conservative (first mode of a fixed straight pipe with a centered mass). Finally, it may be interesting to enhance the set
of standard pipe setups and to increase the range of the analyzed modes. Moreover, we propose here to use static
design rules for piping systems, such as pressure and weight, in order to achieve a more realistic analysis.
The objective of the present paper is then to compute C1 and C4 coefficients on a large number of standard pipe
setups acceptable with respect to static design. The method is based on the definition on an algorithm, which has been
implemented in the finite elements software Code_Aster.

COMPUTATIONAL ALGORITHM

Hypothesis
The method is based on the following hypothesis:
1) C1 and C4 factors are independent. In that case, C4 can be calculated with no concentrated mass. This hypothesis is
in agreement with ANSI-OM3, where correction factors are estimated independently.
2) no heavy concentrated mass is supported on vertical pipes, on elbows or on straight pipes between two elbows.
This hypothesis is in agreement with the way of designing piping systems, where heavy concentrated mass are
usually close to supports.
3) allowable stress for static design is taken to σallowable = 60 MPa (stainless steel) and maximum stress for flexion σSL
checks Eq. (2) from RCC-M [1]:

pD max(M f )
σSL = + 0.75i ≤ σ allowable (2)
4t Z

where p is the static pressure inside the pipe, D the outer diameter of the pipe, t its thickness, i an intensification
factor, Mf the maximum moment for flexion in one direction, Z = 2 I / D, I area moment of inertia.
Here, no stress intensification is taken into account. Therefore, RCC-M [1] gives 0.75i = 1.
The value σallowable = 60 MPa, which corresponds to a lower value than the allowable stress of the material, gives
margins for thermic and seismic designs.
4) following ANSI-OM3 standard, the maximum flexural stress and maximum transverse displacement are used for
the computation of C4.
5) the ratio µ between the concentrated mass and the total mass of the pipe is in the range 0 to µmax. If no upper limit is
defined for µ, the value of the concentrated mass may be non-realistic in comparison with the mass of valves.
6) flexibility of the elbows is corrected following RCC-M formula [1].
7) C1 depends on the position of the concentrated mass, which corresponds here to the node of maximum flexural
vibration. This approach is used to simplify the algorithm and to reduce computation time.

Description of the algorithm

The proposed algorithm is given Fig. 1 on which every unknown term is explained further. The general term “dynamic
computation” is used here to define the numerical resolution of the eigenvalue problem.
• A pipe is defined by:
its geometry:
L
L

Lp Lp
Lp
Lp
Lp
L L L L L

straight L-bend Z-bend U-bend 3D

its total isometric length Ltotal and its ratio Lp / L for geometries with at least one elbow (L-bend, Z-bend, U-
bend, 3D). Lp and L are isometric lengths of straight parts of pipes.
its symmetry:

L Lp
Lp Lp
L or L

symmetrical asymmetrical

2
 its boundary conditions: free, pinned, guided, clamped,
Definition of the pipe
• geometry
• orientation
• boundary conditions
• parameters

Dynamic computation with fluid / with no mass (µ = 0)

⇒ modal frequency : f on
⇒ node of maximum transverse modal displacement Non
⇒ maximum modal displacement of the pipe d nmax
⇒ maximum modal stress of the pipe σ nmax
n d nmax
αC 4 = 2πf on C3
σ nmax

Static computation with fluid / with no Static computation with fluid / with unit
mass (µ = 0) mass (µ = 1) in Non
⇒ maximum stress σo ⇒ maximum stress σ1

σ limit − σ o
µ= and µ ≤ µ max
σ1 − σ o

Dynamic computation with fluid / with mass µ in Non

⇒ modal frequency f µn

n f µn
C1 =
f on
Loop on the modes n

Fig. 1: General algorithm for computation of C1 and C4 for a given pipe setup
r
its orientation with respect to gravity vector g :

g Lp
n
f µ
or L

horizontal vertical

the materials of the pipe and the fluid,

the diameter and thickness of the pipe, the radius of curvature of the elbows.
• First of all, a dynamic computation of the system with fluid and with no concentrated mass (µ = 0) (Fig. 1) gives:
the modal frequency of the mode of order n: f on , for computation of C1n and C n4 .
the node of maximum modal transverse displacement Non, where the concentrated mass will be placed for the
static and dynamic computations when µ > 0.
the maximum modal transverse displacement d nmax , which is used to calculate C n4 .

3
 the maximum modal stress of flexion σ nmax , which is used to calculate C n4 .

• C n4 factor is then calculated for the mode of order n (Fig. 1) using Eq. (3):

n d nmax (3)
αC 4 = 2πf on C3
σ nmax

where added mass correction factor C3 is used because the previous dynamic computation is realized with fluid inside
the pipe.
• The next computations (Fig. 1) are realized using a loop on the modes, which are divided into in-plane and out-of-
plane modes for 2D geometries (L-bend, Z-bend, U-bend). For each mode of order n:
The static computations of the pipe with no concentrated mass (µ = 0) and with a unit concentrated mass
(µ = 1) placed in Non provide the maximum stresses, respectively σo and σ1, for the determination of the
coefficient µ associated to an acceptable stress for weight design σlimit using Eq. (4). It can be easily shown that
static stress is a linear function of µ.

σ limit − σ o (4)
µ=
σ1 − σ o

σlimit is estimated using Eq. (1):

pD (5)
σ limit = σ allowable −
4t

where the pressure p may be approximated by the schedule SCH of the pipe: p (in bars) ≈ SCH.
A dynamic computation with a concentrated mass Mconcentrated = µ (Mpipe + Mfluid) gives the modal frequency
n
f µn , which allows calculating C1 defined by [1] as:

n f µn (6)
C1 = n
f o

APPLICATION
Implementation of the algorithm
The above algorithm of Fig. 1 has been implemented in the finite-elements free software Code_Aster, which is
developed by EDF R&D. This general algorithm has been inserted in a loop where the ratio Lp / L between the lengths
of the pipe is varied in order to take into account a large number of geometries. Therefore, modal correction factors
n n
C1 and C 4 are calculated as a function of Lp / L.
Pipes are meshed using Euler beam elements to be in accordance with ANSI-OM3. A sensibility analysis of mesh
n n
density has been made by observing its influence on C1 and C 4 . Then, 30 elements are used for straight pipes, 60
for L-bend pipes and 90 for Z-bend, U-bend and 3D pipes; elbows are meshed using 10 elements.

Data
The data used here are identical to that of [4]. The correction factors are calculated for the first four out-of-plane
and in-plane modes of L-bend, Z-bend and U-bend pipes and for the eight first modes of 3D pipes.
For the materials: Young’s modulus: E = 2.1011 N/m2
Poisson’s ratio: ν = 0.3
Pipe density: ρs = 7800 kg/m3
Fluid density: ρf = 1000 kg/m3
Allowable stress for static design: σallowable = 60 MPa
Maximum coefficient µ: µmax = 10
For the geometry: Outer diameter: D = 300 mm
Thickness: t = 5 mm (schedule close to 10)
Radius of curvature for the elbows: Rc = 1,5 D
Isometric length: L = 3 m (straight); 6 m (L-bend); 9 m (Z-bend, U-bend, 3D)

4
Sensibility analysis
A sensibility analysis of C4 with respect to the ratios thickness / diameter (t / D), radius of curvature / diameter
(Rc / D) and radius of curvature / isometrical length (Rc / L) has been done in [4]. This first analysis has shown that C4
does not depend on these ratios. In addition, the influence of the ratio t / D on C1 is analyzed here. The method
described before is applied on a clamped-clamped horizontal L-bend pipe. The inner pressure is linked to the ratio
t / D through the schedule of the pipe: p (in bars) ≈ SCH. The setup of reference (t = 5 mm / D = 300 mm), which
corresponds to a schedule of approximately 10, is compared to other configurations of constant diameter
D = 323.8 mm and variable thickness as displayed in Table 1. This analysis finally shows that C1 does not depend on
the ratio t / D.

Table 1: sensibility analysis of C1 with respect to t / D

D t in-plane out-of-plane
(mm) (mm) schedule mode n C1 mode n C1
300 5 10 1 0.3303 1 0.3312
2 0.5492 2 0.6967
3 0.7451 3 0.6195
4 0.7529 4 0.9680
323.8 4.57 10 1 0.3488 1 0.3516
2 0.5479 2 0.7165
3 0.7778 3 0.5980
4 0.7951 4 0.9350
323.8 10.31 40 1 0.3299 1 0.3365
2 0.5067 2 0.7041
3 0.7631 3 0.7283
4 0.7680 4 0.9911
323.8 17.48 80 1 0.3290 1 0.3453
2 0.5112 2 0.7025
3 0.7632 3 0.7296
4 0.7360 4 0.9605
323.8 33.32 160 1 0.3216 1 0.3380
2 0.5185 2 0.7016
3 0.7436 3 0.7343
4 0.7460 4 0.9304

Results
For each setup (geometry, boundary conditions, orientation, symmetry), the coefficients C1, C4 and the product
C1C4 are calculated varying 80 times the ratio Lp / L in the range 0.1 to 10. The results of the clamped-clamped
horizontal symmetrical Z-bend pipe are presented Fig. 3 for its first three out-of-plane and in-plane modes. For this
particular case, the minimum of the product C1C4, which is 0.31 (Table 2), is reached for Lp / L ≈ 4.2 on the second
in-plane mode. This minimum is not reached when C1 and C4 are minimum separately, which shows that the proposed
approach is less conservative than ANSI-OM3 where conservatisms are finally accumulated.
The minimum of the product C1C4 for each tested geometry (straight, L-bend, Z-bend, U-bend, 3D) are presented
in Table 2. A comparison with C4 factors calculated in [4] has been made to validate the results obtained here. The
minimum of C1C4 for all setups is finally 0.15 for L-bend, U-bend and Z-bend pipes.
Minimum values of C1C4 can be associated to minimum allowable vibration velocities of pipes using Eq. (1),
which is modified in:

αC1C 4 0.8σ al (7)

rms
Vallow =
C0 C3 C 2 K 2

rms
where Vallow is the rms value of the vibration velocity of the pipe in [mm/s] and C0 is a rms-to-peak factor usually
taken to 3.5 for stationary pipe vibration.
Therefore, allowable vibration velocities for all the setups computed here can be derived from the products C1C4
using conservative correction factors such as C3 = 1.75 and C2K2 = 4.2 [1], and σal = 114 MPa at 1011 cycles for
rms rms
stainless steel. The histogram of Vallow is given Fig. 2. The minimum of Vallow is 6.9 mm/s, which corresponds to
C1C4 = 0.15, and the mean value is 25.1 mm/s. Approximately 200 setups over the 3700 ones computed (i.e. 5%),
display allowable velocities lower than 12 mm/s rms, which is a common threshold for vibration monitoring of piping
systems.

5
 Table 2: results for straight, L-bend, Z-bend, U-bend and 3D pipes
Straight Z-bend
Configuration Orientation min(C1C4) min(C1C4)
clamped-free vertical 1.32 Configuration Symmetry Orientation In- Out-of-
horizontal 0.79 plane plane
pinned-pinned vertical 1.32 clamped-clamped symmetric vertical 0.28 0.53
horizontal 0.59 horizontal 0.31 0.61
clamped-pinned vertical 0.98 asymmetric vertical 0.24 0.22
horizontal 0.36 horizontal 0.30 0.45
clamped-clamped vertical 0.98 clamped-pinned symmetric vertical 0.23 0.68
horizontal 0.30 horizontal 0.15 0.54
clamped-guided vertical 1.00 asymmetric vertical 0.21 0.41
horizontal 0.64 horizontal 0.31 0.52
clamped-guided symmetric vertical 0.34 0.50
horizontal 0.32 0.50
asymmetric vertical 0.23 0.29
L-bend horizontal 0.35 0.48
min(C1C4)
Configuration Orientation In-plane Out-of-plane U-bend
clamped- vertical 0.23 0.15 min(C1C4)
clamped horizontal 0.30 0.34
clamped-pinned vertical 0.27 0.20 Configuration Symmetry Orientation In- Out-of-
horizontal 0.43 0.44 plane plane
clamped-guided vertical 0.28 0.56 clamped-clamped symmetric vertical 0.31 0.48
horizontal 0.15 0.39 horizontal 0.34 0.56
clamped-free vertical 0.29 0.67 asymmetric vertical 0.30 0.25
horizontal 0.23 0.51 horizontal 0.31 0.53
clamped-pinned symmetric vertical 0.31 0.48
horizontal 0.34 0.56
3D asymmetric vertical 0.30 0.25
Configuration Symmetry Orientation min(C1C4) horizontal 0.31 0.53
clamped- symmetric vertical 0.35 clamped-guided symmetric vertical 0.31 0.41
clamped horizontal 0.35 horizontal 0.33 0.59
asymmetric vertical 0.29 asymmetric vertical 0.31 0.25
horizontal 0.34 horizontal 0.44 0.57
clamped-pinned symmetric vertical 0.29
horizontal 0.34
asymmetric vertical 0.29
horizontal 0.36
clamped-guided symmetric vertical 0.34
horizontal 0.42
asymmetric vertical 0.30
horizontal 0.38

120

100
number of samples

80

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Vrms (mm.s−1)
allow
rms
Fig. 2: histogram of Vallow

6
Discussion
It is difficult to display any particular correlation between pipe setups and minimums of C1C4, which do not
depend on boundary conditions, on mode shapes (in-plane or out-of-plane), on orientations (vertical or horizontal) and
on symmetries (symmetrical or asymmetrical). We can only say that C1C4 is quite low for 2D geometries and higher
for 1D and 3D geometries. For one setup, the minimum of C1C4 is generally reached on the lowest modes.
In the analysis [4], where C4 was calculated on a large number of setups, minimum of C4 was found of 0.34 and
using ANSI-OM3 [2], minimum of C1 may be estimated taking µ = µmax = 10: C1(10) = 0.2. Then, the computation of
the product C1C4 here on a large number of pipe setups realistic with respect to static design allows to increase by a
factor of two the minimum value of C1C4: here min(C1C4) = 0.15 and before [2, 4] min(C1C4) = 0.34x0.2 = 0.07.
A large range of standard pipe setups has been tested here. Although, more boundary conditions of pipes can be
tested, we assume that most of the configurations encountered in real piping networks are covered.
Although the minimum allowable vibration velocities of pipes are also increased by two, 5% of the 3700
geometries computed here remain beyond the threshold of 12 mm/s (Fig. 2), which is commonly used for vibration
monitoring of piping systems. One future work may be to check if the 5% setups beyond this threshold are realistic
with respect to seismic design. Moreover, one notes that the use of ANSI-OM3 standard remain quite conservative
because vibration responses of nuclear piping systems are usually multi-modal. Therefore, allowable velocities
derived here, using Eq. (7), from the minimum of C1C4 on any mode range appear to be conservative. As the response
of pipes is multi-modal, it may be interesting in a future work to combine C1C4 modal correction factors.
The computed C1C4 correction factors for each type of geometries may be directly used for the calculation of
allowable velocities. For instance, for a vertical symmetric U-bend pipe, the allowable rms velocity is approximately
equal to 14 mm/s.

CONCLUSION

A method is proposed to calculate more realistic correction factors C1 and C4 for ANSI-OM3 stress/velocity
relationship. C1 and C4 correction factors are calculated for several modes on a large set of pipe setups, which are
acceptable with respect to static design.
For each type of geometry (straight, L-bend, U-bend, Z-bend or 3D), orientation (vertical or horizontal) and
symmetry (symmetrical or asymmetrical), it is possible to derive from the calculated C1 and C4, minimum allowable
rms vibration velocities of pipes.
This approach increases allowable vibration velocities for piping systems because the proposed correction factors
are calculated on pipe setups which are more realistic. Most of tested pipe setups have allowable vibration velocities
over the threshold of 12 mm/s rms, which is commonly used in vibration monitoring of piping systems. It may be
interested to check if the geometries, which have allowable rms velocities beyond 12 mm/s, are realistic with respect to
seismic design. It may be a logical carry-over of the present work. Moreover, as the response of piping systems is
usually multi-modal, a combination of C1C4 modal correction factors may be an other way to increase allowable
vibration velocities.

REFERENCES

1. RCC-M- Règles de Conception et de Construction des Matériels Mécaniques des îlots nucléaires REP. AFCEN,
Paris La Défense, France, 2000.
2. ANSI/ASME OM3 Code, Requirements for preoperational and initial start-up vibration testing of nuclear power
plant piping systems, ASME, New-York, USA, 1982.
3. ASME OM-S/G, Standards and guides for operation and maintenance of nuclear power plants, ASME, New-York,
USA, 1990.
4. Baratte, C., Téphany, F. Payan, F., An analysis of the ASME ANSI-OM3 standard: calculation of the correction
factors for any piping layout at any mode range, Proc. Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, PVP-Vol. 366, pp.
265-277, Dallas, USA, 1998.

7
 IN−PLAN MODES OUT−OF−PLAN MODES
2 2
1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
C4

C4
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 mode 1 0.4
mode 2
0.2 mode 3 0.2
0 0
0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10
L /L L /L
p p

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
C1

C1

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10
L /L L /L
p p

1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2

1 1

0.8 0.8
C1.C4

C1.C4

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10
L /L L /L
p p

Fig. 3: C1, C4 and C1C4 correction factors for a clamped-clamped horizontal symmetric Z-bend pipe