Table 10.

Finite element analysis data from Reference r 261 on run moments

(branch moments shown for comparison)

c ~
(a) c (b)
2r
~1ode l R/T r/R t/T tn/T r/rp rz/tn
Mor H.Lr Mtr Mob Hi.b Mtb
UA 50.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.990 1.00 1. 10 4.62 4.35 16.6 7.00 1. 39
B 40.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.998 1.00 1.09 4.54 4.18 15. 1 6.54 1.32
c 20.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.976 1.00 1. 05 4.09 3.53 10.8 5.17 1. 2 5
D 10.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.955 1.00 1.04 3.60 3.41 5.77 3.28 1. 39
E 5.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.917 1.00 1.03 3. 1 7 2.79 3.50 2.64 1. 43
F' 5.5 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.917 6.25 1.04 3. 11 2.12 l. 27 1.36 1.02

SlA 50.5 0.5 0.5 4.34 0.861 0.500 1.04 2.19 2.98 11. 1 2.19 1. 16
B 40.5 0.5 0.5 4.01 0.843 0.500 1.04 2.23 2.87 9.84 2.09 1.16
c 20.5 o.s 0.5 3. 14 0.780 0.500 1.04 2.25 2.43 5.64 1. 51 1. 17
D 10.5 0.5 0.5 2.45 0.705 0.500 1.04 2.07 2. 11 2.81 1.42 1 • 16
E 5.5 0.5 0.5 1. 92 0.623 0.500 1. 03 2.07 1. 70 1. 56 1. 49 1. 1 3
F 20.5 0.32 0.32 2.56 0.732 0.500 1.04 2.36 2.01 2.56 1.22 1.06
G 10.5 0.32 0.32 1.98 0.649 0.500 1.04 2.23 1. 92 1. 43 l. 37 1.07
H 5.5 0.32 0.32 l. 52 0.563 0.500 1.03 2.08 1.68 1.39 1. 37 LOS
I 20.5 0.16 0.16 1. 88 0.646 0.500 1. OS 2.49 1.81 1.22 1. 2 3 1.02
J 10.5 0.16 0.16 1.43 0.555 0.500 1.04 2.38 l. 78 1.26 1.25 1.02
K 5.5 0.16 0.16 1. 08 0.468 0.500 1.02 2,33 1. 64 1.33 1. 32 1.03
L 20.5 0.08 0.08 1.38 0.551 o.soo 1.06 2.52 1.76 1.18 1.22 1.01
H 10.5 0.08 0.08 1. 03 0.459 0.500 1. 04 2.61 l. 7 5 1. 18 1. 21 1. 01
N 5.5 0,08 0.08 0.72 0.391 0.500 1.03 2.63 1.68 1 • 21 1.20 1.02

E'30A 50.5 0.32 0.32 3. 19 0.808 0.500 1.03 2.24 2.30 3.73 1. 19 1.08
B 20.5 0.32 0.32 2.13 0.743 0.500 1.04 2.39 2.13 1.84 1,24 1.08
c 10.5 0.32 0.32 1. 60 0.695 0.500 1. 03 2.27 1.97 1.39 1.32 1.07
D 5.5 0.32 0.32 1.23 0.659 0.500 1.03 2.05 1. 7 3 1.33 1.35 1.05
E 5.5 0.08 0.08 0.533 0.556 0.938 1. 03 2.68 1. 72 1. 19 1. 20 1. 01

(a) c #

2r
= a/ (H/Z r )
(b) Czb = o/(M/Zb)

can be written as 4.5 Combination of Moments

i9liu = 3.75[(t/T)/(r/R)] 112 (r/rP).
Now, as an upper bound to i9/i11 the ratio (t/T)/(r/R) is
not likely to exceed 5, r/R is not permitted to exceed
0.5 and r/rp cannot exceed 1.0. Accordingly,
(ig/ill)max = 3.75 X 5 X 0.5 112 X 1.0 = 13.
This means that use of Eq. (9) instead of Eq. (11)
might result in an overestimate of i-factors for check-
ing run ends by a factor of up to 13.
To bound possible underestimates, (t/T)(r/R) is not
likely to be less than 1.0 and r/rp is not likely to be less
than 0.5. Then i 9/i 11 will be less than 1.0 if r/R is less
than (1/1.875) 2 = 0.284. However, even for R!T = 50
the maximum underestimate is by a factor of 1.544 and
this factor decreases to 1.50 at r/R = 0.213 because
both i 9 and i 11 are equal to their lower bounds.
Accordingly, the effect of including Eq. (11) in
ANSI B31.1 for "Branch connections" will almost al-
ways be to reduce the conservatism in checking the run
ends.
Up to now, we have been discussing the accuracy of
i-factors for individual moments. In piping systems, a
branch connection will be subjected to the nine mo-
ments indicated in Fig. 3. Let us suppose that we could
determine accurate SIFs for each of the three individ-
ual branch moments, balanced by one end of the run
pipe. Then we might estimate the combined fatigue-
effective stress by:
SE =[i()M() + i,M, + itMtl/Zb (32)
or by
SE -- [('LaM o)2
+ ('M)2
ti i + ('1t M t )2]1/2/Z b (33)
Equation (32) is an upper bound because it assumes
that the maximum fatigue stress due to each of the
three moments occurs at the same point on the branch
connection and lies in the same direction so as to add
algebraically. However, we know that fatigue usually
initiates near the longitudinal plane for M 1b, but near
the transverse plane for Mob· Equation (33) has a theo-
retical foundation for straight pipe but for branch

Stress Intensification Factors 25

 Table 11. Finite element and strain gage data on run moments
(branch moments shown for comparison)

C ' (a) c ~ (b)

Ref.
Hodel Hethod R/T r/R t/T
no.

25 ORNL-1 F. E. 49.5 0.49 0.50 2.7 5.7 13.0 37.2 10.9 5. 1

S.G. 2.3 3.8 10.0 35.3 10.0 12.5
ORNL-2 F.E. 49.5 1. 00 1. 00 5.9 10.1 37.5 17.8 15.2 37.5
S.G. 4.5 14.9 24.2 15.8 11.0 31.3
ORNL-3 F.E. 24.5 0.111 0.84 1• 1 2.5 5.6 7.3 5.6 0.6
S.G. 1.2 3.2 2.5 5.0 3.7 1.7
ORNL-4 F.E. 24.5 0.125 0.32 1. 0 3.1 5.1 7.6 7.2 1.0
S.G. 1.3 4.0 5.0 8.5 6.1 1.5

23 1 S.G. 20.7 1.00 1.00 3.68 8.03 6.8oc 9.33 12.14 1o. 4 9
2 s.G. 12.4 1.00 1.00 2.58 5.35 5 .18c 6.65 8.14 7.38
3 S.G. 7.6 1. 00 1. 00 1.68 3.48 3.55 4.14 4.48 4.36
4 S.G. 5.7 1.00 1. 00 1. 72 2.87 3.20 3.53 3.92 4.53

(a) a/(M/Z ) for M a/(M/22 ) for H

r or and Mir r tr
(b)

(c) Maximum and minimum principal stresses have same signs, except for these two cases:
a
max
= 6.68, a i
mn
= -6.80 ; a
max
-5.18, a i = 0.23
mn

connections it only represents a judgmental evalua-
tion of the effect of the three combined moments.
ANSI B31.1 and the ASME Code both combine
stresses by:
SE = i[~ + MJ + A(;?jl 12/Z
To the extent that i = max(i 0 , ii, i1), which is generally
the intent, and for branch connections where io ii and i 1
are different, then Eq. (34) would be more conserva-
tive than Eq. (33). Both ANSI B31.1 and the ASME
Code also use Eq. (34) for run moments. Calculated
values of S E for both the branch end and the run ends
must be less than the Code allowable stress.
Fig. 14 illustrates a problem in evaluating combined
moments. Figs. 14(a) and 14(c) show the combination
of moments for which we have i/s for branch moments.
However, there is an infinity of possible run moments
between (a) and (c) which will balance the branch
moment and which might occur in piping systems, one
of which is shown as (b). Fig. 14(b) is of particular
interest because 297 20 and Fujimoto 21 analyses are
based on these run end conditions.
If a fatigue test were run with the end conditions
shown in Fig. 14(b), would the resulting ir be different
from (a) or (c)? We do not have any such tests, but
would speculate that if r/R is less than about%, the
difference would be small. However, for r/R = 1.0
there might be a difference in that ir for Fig. 14(b)
would be less than for (a) or (c). It is the latter that we
have i/s for; hence, in this sense our i/s may represent
upper bounds.
Figs. 14(d) and (e) illustrate other possible moment
combinations. Fig. 14(e) is the pure run moment case
for which we do have some data as discussed in Section
4.4.
Fig. 14(d) illustrates the more complex case; the
(34)
ASME Code Class 1 method of separating these into
branch moments and run moments is shown. The total
calculated stress is then obtained by adding the stress-
es due to the branch moments to those due to the run
moments. ASME Code for class 2/3 piping and ANSI
Codes follow a conceptually different procedure in
that each of the three ends is checked separately.
Comparisons between these two conceptual methods
is discussed in detail in Ref. 27 so we will not discuss it
further except to note that:
1. The conceptual difference is significant only for
the type of moment combinations illustrated by
Fig. 14(d).
2. For a narrow range of branch connection parame-
ters and moments, the ASME Code Class 1 meth-
od is more conservative by a factor of up to two.
3. Neither conceptual method can be demonstrated
to be accurate or even relatively more accurate.
4.6 Branch Connection Description Inconsistencies
In the quest for more accurate i-factors, a desirable
Code characteristic is that for a given configuration of
branch connection the Code should give the same i-
factors. However, note the following:
The ASME Code, Class 2/3 piping, for a UFT gives:

26 WRC Bulletin 329

 Table 12. Run moments, maximum stresses

Table 10 max. Table 11 max.

c2;' ASME c2;' ASME

2 2i, Eq. (11) 2i,
Hodel max. X Eq. (ll) Class 1' Model max. 2 X Class 1'
Eq. (4) Eq. (4)
(a) Eq. (30) (b) Eq • (30)

UA 4.62 5.46 24.6 5.36 25-1 6.5 t 5.28 24.3 5.31

B 4.54 4.72 21.2 5.08 5.0 t 5.28 24.3 5.31
c 4.09 3.00 13.5 4.28 25-2 18.8 t (10.8) 24.3 (5.34)
D 3.60 3.00* 8.6 3.62 14.9 (10.8) 24.3 (5.34)
E 3.17 3.00* 5.6 3.08 25-3 2.8 t 3.00* 15.2 2. 70
F 3. 11 3.00* 5.6 3.08 3.2 3.00* 15.2 2. 70
25-4 3.1 3 .00* 15.2 3.54
S1A 2.98 t 5.46 24.6 3.13 4.0 3.00* 15.2 3.54
B 2.87 t 4.72 21.2 3.02
c 2.43 t 3.00 13.5 2.71 23-1 8.03 (6.03) 13.6 (4.29)
D 2. 11 t 3.00* 8.6 2.65* 23-2 5.35 (4.29) 9.7 (3.78)
E 2.07 3.00* 5.6 2.65* 23-3 3.48 (3. 09) 7.0 (3. 34)
F 2.36 3.00* 13.5 2.65* 23-4 2.87 (2.55) 5.7 (3.11)
G 2.23 3.00* 8.6 2.65*
H 2.08 3.00* 5.6 2.65*
I 2.49 3.00* 13.5 2.65*
J 2.38 3.00* 8.6 2.65*
K 2.33 3.00* 5.6 2.65*
L 2.52 3.00* 13.5 2.65*
a 2.61 3,00* 8.6 2.65*
N 2.63 3.00* 5.6 2.65*

P30A 2.30 t 3.50 24.6 3.02

B 2.39 3.00* 13.5 2.67
c 2.27 3.00* 8.6 2.65*
D 2.05 3.00* 5.6 2.65*
E 2.68 3.00* 5.6 2.65*

(a) From Table 10, maximum of c 2 ' for Mar• Mir' Mtr' Maximum is either from Mir or Mtr; where from
Mtr' value is followed by a 10 t".
(b) From table 11, maximum of c 2; for Mar' Mir or 1/2 of c 2; for Mtr" Maximum is either from Mir or
Htr; where from Htr' value Is followed by a "t",

i(t/T) = [0.9(RITf 1 ~ (tiT), for checking branch (35)

r/R =tiT
i = 0.9(RIT) 213 , for checking run ends (36) Equation 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(35) 1.22 2.44 3.66 4.89 6.11
The ASME Code, Class 213 piping, for a "Branch con- (37) 2.1 3.61 6.62 10.2 14.3
nection," gives: (36) 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2
(38) 2.1 2.17 3.26 4.34 5.43
ib = 3.0(RIT) 213 (riR) 112 (tiT) (r/r p)
;;::: 2.1 mimimum (37) We have discussed the relative accuracy of these SIF
equations elsewhere; our point here is that for geomet-
ir = 0.8(RIT) 213 (riR) rically identical branch connections the Code gives
different i-factors. A code user, not recognizing that a
;;::: 2.1 minimum (38)
UFT with rIR up to 0.5 is also covered by "Branch
We have written Eqs. (35)-(38) so that they are direct- connection," might do something unnecessary such as
ly comparable with respect to calculation of S e; i.e., adding a pad or changing the piping system. The Code
Eqs. (35) and (37) would be used with Zb Eqs. (36) and would be improved in this respect by adding a foot-
(38) would be used with Zr. We have written Eqs. (37) note, tied to UFT's, saying that for riR ~ 0.5, UFT's
and (38) for r 2-not-provided [see Table 1, footnote can alternatively be evalauted as "Branch connec-
6(h)] so that Fig. 2(d) is geometrically identical to a tions."
UFT. The i-factors for i(tiT) for Eq. (35)] for RIT = As indicated in Table 1, ANSI B31.3 incorporates a
50, riR =tiT, and rlrp = 0.99, are: commendable effort to distinguish between different

Stress Intensification Factors 27


(a) Fatigue Test Moments
-10
(b) Some A.n~tl.ysee
-10
0 _ __,__ _
10 (c) Fatigue Teat Moments
-10
-1Q _ _ L 20-
-10
(d) Branch and Run Combination
+ -10_1_
0 ANSI B16.9 tees or Sweepolets. There is a fairly sub-
(e) Pure Run Moments
10 -10
Fig. 14-lllustration of combinations of branch and run moments
types of branch connections. This, in the long run, will
provide improved Code guidance for adequate but not
over-costly piping systems. However, there is an in-
consistency between UFT's and the "Branch welded-
on fitting (integrally reinforced)" which merits some
discussion.
First, footnote 7 tied to "Welded-on" reads: "The
designer must be satisfied that this fabrication has a
pressure rating equivalent to straight pipe." Now,
there isn't anything simple about reducing-outlet
branch connections so we ask the question: Which
straight pipe, the run or the branch? We think the
intent is the run pipe so that question could be an-
swered by inserting the word "run" before pipe in the
footnote. The question then arises as to how the de-
signer meets the requirement of footnote 7. Presum-
ably, the intent is that the designer orders fittings
from a manufacturer with a designated wall thickness
(e.g., Sched. 40) with, perhaps, a requirement in his
purchase order that the fitting must have a pressure
rating equivalent to the desired schedule run pipe.
There appears to be a couple of ways the manufac-
turer could assure himself and his customers that his
fittings, when properly welded into designated run
pipe, would have a pressure rating equivalent to the
run pipe:
1. Run burst tests.
2. Show compliance with paragraph 304.3 of B31.3,
using designated wall thickness rather than cal-
culated by Eq. (2) of B31.3.
Now the potential inconsistency arises because UFT's
28
(unreinforced fabricated tees), if they are to meet
B:31.3, must be reinforced as required by paragraph
304.~3 of B3 U~ for the design pressure. We think that
most UFT's will meet both burst tests and paragraph
:304.3 for the designated wall thicknesses. We note that
Table l(f) indicates an angle like On in Fig. 2(c), but
with no control of that angle; i.e., it could be zero. We
Moments
presume this omission of a control on 0, is intentional;
i.e., it covers fittings such as indicated by Figs. 2(a)
and (b) as well as (c). Our point is that, without a
control on 0,, it may also include UFT's Fig. 2(d).
Noting in Table 1 the differences in h, B31.3 indicates
that for geometrically identical branch connections,
we might have SIFs that differ by a factor of (3.3) 2/:l =
2.2.
4.7 ANSI B16.9 Tees, Sweepolets (Bonney Forge Trade
name)
10 In order to keep this report from becoming even
more complex than it is, we have not given data on
stantial amount of data on B16.9 tees. Data are avail-
able for r!R = 1.0 and for r/R = "'-'0.5; but nothing in
between. Accordingly, we do not know if there is a
peak in the SIF for Mob as suggested by Figs. 6, 7 and 8.
At present, plans are being made to fatigue test some 4
x 3, std. wt. ANSI B16.9 tees with Mob loadings. These
tees have an r/R ratio of 0.77 and should give some
indication as to whether a peak does exist.
Sweepolets in sizes 12 x 6 and 14 x 10, both standard
weight, have been fatigue tested with both Mob and
M,b loadings. The r/R ratio of these two sizes is 0.51
and 0.76, respectively. The Mob tests indicate that
there is a peak somewhere around 0.75. The Mib tests
agree with the general relationship (see Figs. 6-10)
that the it for M;b is much lower than for Mob and there
is no significant peak as a function of r/R.
4.8 Stress Limit, Sx
As indicated by Eq. (12), having calculated SE the
Code then provides a limit; SE.::::: Sx. The stress limit is
an important part of assessing the significance of the
accuracy of i-factors. The Codes prescribe the stress
limit, Sx, as:
where
f = cycle dependent factor ranging from 1.0 for
7000 cycles to 0.5 for >100,000 cycles
Sc = allowable stress at cold temperature in cycle
sh = allowable stress at hot temperature in cycle
Ss = sum of longitudinal stresses due to pressure,
weight and other sustained loads.
The significance of the stress limit is discussed in de-
tail in Ref. 27. For the purpose of this report, we make
the following observations;
(1) For materials like ASTM A106 Grade B carbon
steel at temperatures up to about 600 °F, with
S, and S11 from the ASME Code or from B31.1,
there is a margin between failure and Code a!-
WRC Bulletin 329
 lowable moments that ranges from about 8 for
100 cycles of moments to about 2 for 7000 or
more of moments. Many piping
do not undergo more than 100 cycles of full
moment range; hence, for those an un-
derestimate of S E by up to a factor of 8 would
not necessarily imply failure.
(2) Observations in (I) are also applicable to aus-
tenitic stainless steel materials like ASTM 312
Type 304 or Type 316.
(3) Observations (1) and (2) are predicated on the
assumption that environmental effects are no
worse than the room temperature/water inside
environment of the fatigue tests.
(4) Branch connections made of materials with val-
ues of and sh that are higher than those for
ASTM A106 Grade Bare not necessarily better
in low cycle fatigue strength than A106 Grade B;
hence, the margins indicated in (1) may be re-
duced.
(5) ANSI B31.3 uses a margin of 3 on ultimate ten-
sile strength (UTS) in establishing allowable
stresses, Sc and Sh. The ASME Code and B31.1
use a margin of 4. For some materials/tempera-
tures; this means that the margins in (1) would
be decreased by a factor of 3/4.
(6) For temperatures in the creep range, allowable
stresses decrease because Sh in Eq. (39) de-
creases. However, it is not apparent that this
decrease reflects the actual decrease in low cycle
fatigue strength at temperatures involving
creep-fatigue.
(7) The above observations are based on the hy-
pothesis that only cyclic moments included in
theSE evaluation cause fatigue failures. Equa-
tion (39) provides some allowance for cyclic
pressures through the term S,, but none for cy-
clic thermal gradients. Fatigue failures due to
vibration of small piping sometimes occur but
vibration is seldom included in routine Code
evaluations of s£.
4.9 Flexibility Factors
In discussing the calculation of S E and the accuracy
of i-factors, we have been making an implicit assump-
tion that the moments shown in Fig. 3, which come
from a piping system analysis, are accurate. However,
present Code guidance for flexibility of branch con-
nections can be very inaccurate. If the Code guidance
is followed, there can be inaccuracies in the calculated
moments and, thus, in S E, that may be greater than
that due to any of the inaccuracies in i-factors we have
discussed.
Table 1 shows flexibility factors, k, of "1" for all
branch connections. We do not know what this means
and no one that we have talked to does know. Many
people interpret k = 1 to mean that the juncture of the
line representing the run pipe with the line represent-
ing the branch pipe is to be considered as rigid. In the
preceding paragraph, where we indicated that the
Code guidance can be very inaccurate, we are referring
Stress Intensification Factors
to the rigid-juncture interpretation of the Code guid-
ance.
For 1 piping, the ASME Code some guid·
ance for flexibility of branch connection with r/R ~
0.5, R/T ~ 50. This is shown herein as Fig. 15. This
provides a definition of k's that can be readily used in
piping system analysis computer programs. It should
be noted that these k's have a lower bound of zero;
hence, footnote 1 in Table 1 is not applicable.
The significance of k depends upon the specifics of
the piping system. Qualitatively, if k is small com-
pared to the length (in d-units) of the piping system,
including the effect of elbows and their k-factors, then
the inclusion of k for branch connections will have only
minor effects on the calculated moments. Conversely,
of course, if k is large compared to the piping system
length, then inclusion of k for branch connections will
have major effects. The largest effect will be to greatly
reduce the magnitude of the calculated moments act-
ing on the branch connection.
To illustrate the potential significance of k's for
branch connections, we use the equation in Fig. 15 to
calculate k for Mx3 ( = Mob) for a branch connection
with Do= 30 in., d 0 = 12.75 in., T = t = tn = 0.375 in.:
kob = 0.1(80)1.5(0.425) 112 X 1.00 = 46.6
Reference 28 includes examples of the effect of branch
connection k's on calculated moments in the piping
system shown to scale in Fig. 15. In this particular
example, using the rigid -joint interpretation that k =1
rather than k = 46.6 leads to overestimating Mob by a
factor of about 9!
Of course, this example was selected to illustrate a
rather extreme k-effect. In most piping systems, the
effect would be much less than a factor of 9. Neverthe-
less, it illustrates our main point; we do not necessarily
achieve greater accuracy in Code evaluations by using
more accurate i-factors unless more accurate k-factors
are also used.
The example used above can be continued to illus-
trate what is wrong with using inaccurate k's. Refer-
ence 28 happened to calculate moments for the piping
system shown in Fig. 15 for a temperature increase
from 76° F to 500° F, carbon steel material. Fork = 0
(essentially equivalent to the rigid-juncture interpre-
tation of Code guidance), the calculated Mob is 368,000
in.-lb. The value of SE is then:
SE = i(M/Zb) = [0.9/(T/R) 21:l]M/Zb
= 10.4(368,000/45.1) = 84.9 ksi
This is well above the Code allowable stress Sx for
carbon steel (e.g., A106 Grade B, for which Sx = 37.5
ksi at most). However, if the piping system analysis
had been done using the more accurate k = 47, then
S E = 84.9/9 = 9.4 ksi,
and the branch connection is Code-acceptable because
SE < Sx.
Let us follow the designer who believes that the
29
 ND-3686.5 Branch Connections [n Straight Pipe.
(Foi branch connections in straight pipe meeting the
dimensional limitations of NB-3338.) The load dis-
placement relationships may be obtained by modeling
the branch connections in the piping system analysis

(NB-3672) as shown in (a) through ~d) below. (See

Fig. ND-3686.5-1.) Element of negligible length
with local flexibility for
(a) The values of k are given below.
Mx 3 and Mz 3 such that cf>
ForMx3: ecron the element Is equal
to kMdl£1.
k ,.. 0.1 (D IT, )U[(T, It" )(dID))"" (T'6 /T,)

For Mz 3:'

k ... 0.2(D!T,)l(T,It.)(d!D)J"" (T' 6 /T,)

where
M=Mx3or Mzl• as defined in NB-3683.l(d) Rigid juncture
D= run pipe outside diameter, in.
d=branch pipe outside diameter, in.
lb=moment of inertia of branch pipe, in! (to be
calc:;ulated using d and T' b) FIG. NB-3686.5-1 BRANCH CONNECTIONS
E=modulus of elasticity, psi IN STRAIGHT PIPE
T,=run pipe wall thickness, in.
4> =rotation in direction of moment, rad
(b) For branch connections per Fig. NB-3643.3(a)-1 240 11
sketches (a) and (b): ;---.r' }-
1
r. • r. if Lt > 0.5[(2r1 + T6 )T.J""
• T'• if L1 < 0.5[(2r1 + T6 r ~
ri'" -·
/,on x0.375" !' I I

{c) For branch connections per Fig. NB-3643.3(a)-l

sketch (c):
12.75 11 X 0. 375 11
120 11 -__-:,J)
t,. ""T'• + (¥-l)y if 0 s 30 deg.
Example: See text
• T'• + 0.385L 1 if 0 > 30 deg. _:t
\ '"

{d) For branch connections per Fig. NB-3643.3(a)-1

sketch (d):
.f,•T',.=T,
Fig. 15-Fiexibility factors, definitions and equations from ASME Code for Class 1 piping, and example

Code guidance is good and that k = 1 for branch
means: assume a rigid juncture. He is faced with the
dilemma of changing the piping system in Fig. 15 so it
does meet the Code. He might consider changing the
piping such as sketched in dashed lines in Fig. 15. This
would be very expensive, so the designer might look at
the possibility of using a pad reinforcement. By using a
pad thickness of 1.5T, he can reduce the SIF to 4.14;
his calculated S E is then 33.8 ksi and this might meet
Code Sx limits. Let us suppose that it does and ask
what the designer has accomplished by using a pad.
First, since this piping system is assumed to go up to a
temperature of 500° F, the pad may cause high ther-
mal gradient stresses in the 30 in. pipe and thereby
reduce its reliability. Has he improved the fatigue
strength for the cyclic moment, Mob?
We do not know much about the flexibility of a pad
reinforced branch but, since a pad is usually welded to
the run pipe at its inner and outer peripheries, the
flexibility might be estimated by using the equation in
Fig. 15 for Mob, but using 2.5T instead ofT. This would
give a flexibility factor of:
kp (for M 0 b) e=: 46.6/(2.5) 2 = 7.5.
Now, from Ref. 28 data, fork of 8, it appears that the
moments would be overestimated by a factor of
around 3 rather than a factor of 9 for k = 47. This
means that the pad would cause the moments to in-
crease by a factor of about 9/3 = 3. Assuming that the
i-factors for UFT and pad reinforced branch indicate

30 WRC Bulletin 329

at least their relative fatigue strength then the UFT to
pad ratio is 10.4/4.14 = 2.5. However, since the mo-
ment increased by a factor of 3, the addition of the pad
has decreased the fatigue resistance of the branch
connection.
4.10 The Mob Inconsistency
In the preceding, we have attempted to describe the
complexity of trying to evaluate the fatigue strength of
reducing outlet branch connections subjected to nine
moment loadings. Hopefully, that attempt serves to
bring the Mob inconsistency into perspective.
Looking at Figs. (6), (7) and (8), it would appear that
there is no Mob inconsistency. But instead the Code i-
factor equations do not reflect the complex relation-
ship between r/R and stresses. The remaining ques-
tion is: Do fatigue tests reflect the trends shown in
Figs. (6), (7) and (8)?
To answer that question direclty, we would need a
series of fatigue tests on, for example, UFT's with r/R
the only variable. We do not have any such series of
fatigue tests. In their absence, we must assume a para-
metric relationship between ir and what we guess to be
the significant parameters; e.g., R/T r/T and r/rp.
Table 13 summarizes relevant fatigue test data; rel-
evant meaning a series of tests including r/R == 1.00
and one or more tests with r/R less than 1.00. The data
is plotted in Fig. 16.
Looking first at UFT's in Fig. 16, we note that prior
to the WFI tests, we had one point on the r/R-curve;
i.e., Markl's test included in Table 2. Combining this
with the WFI tests, using the parameter (R/T) 21:l (t/
T), gives the 3 points shown in Fig. 16. These show
directly that the Code i = 0.9(R/T) 2/:l for OFT's is
unconservative for r/R = 0.8 and suggests that there is
a peak somewhere in the range of r/R between 0.5 and
1.0.
The Extruded outlets from Table 6 indicate a possi-
ble peak at around r/R = 0.5. To remind us of the
limits of our knowledge, we have also shown Extruded
outlets from Table 3.
The remaining points in Fig. 16 are for branch con-
nections which we think are intended to be covered by
Table 1, sketch (f). It can be seen that the B31.3 Code
equation, i = [0.9/(3.3) 21:J](R/T) 21:l is unconservative
for every point except the 4 x 4 sizes tests.
One of the main initiators of the Mob inconsistency
was the comparison between the 12 x 6 and 4 x 4 sizes
in Table 13, Group D. The 6 x 4 point in Group D is
inconsistent with theory which, as indicated in Figs.
(6), (7) and (8), indicate a peak at r/R ""0.7.
First, comparing Groups D and E, it shoud be noted
that Group E specimens were fabricated by different
welders and test as-welded with a deliberate intent to
represent typical field conditions. Differences in weld
details could fully explain the differences shown in
Fig. 16. However, the 8 x 8 size in Group E appears
anomalous in comparison to what would be expected

Table 13. Datu Lcscd for Fig .16; all for M0 b

Fig. 16 if
Nominal . a
Type iden. and r/R R/T t/T r/rp l.f
size (R/T) 2 /3(t/T)
group iden.

UFT •A 8
12
X
X
6
10
0.764
0.839
12.9
16.5
0.870
0.973
0.958
0.966
5.84
8.34 2
1.22
1. 32
4 X 4 1.00 8.99 l. 00 0.947 2. 71 2 0.63

Extruded X 16 X 4 0.285 7.26 0.230 0.947 1. 235 l. 42

Table 6 B 8 X 4 0.537 5.50 0.330 0.947 1.48 4 1.44
6 X 4 0.703 5.39 0.422 0.947 1. 6 5 3 l. 27
4 X 4 0.943 4.71 0.494 0.947 1.49 4 1.07

Extruded X' 20 X 6 0.326 9.5 0.432 0.935 1.2 0.62

Table 3 c 20 X 12 0.635 9.5 0.687 0.946 2.5 0.81

Weld on {:, 12 X 6 0.513 16.5 0.747 O.G75 3.78 6 0.78

Table 3 D 6 X 4 0.672 11.3 0.846 0.627 2.203 0.52
4 X 4 1. 00 8.99 1. 00 o. 71 1. 69 7 0.39

Weld on 0 8 X 3 0.396 12.9 o. 671 o. 773 3.20 2 0.87

Table 5 E 8 X 4 0.513 12.9 0.736 0.812 3.49 2 0.86
8 X 5 0.639 12.9 0.801 0.801 4.2o2 0.95
8 X 6 0.764 12.9 0.870 0.832 4. 73 3 0.99
8 X 8 1. 00 12.9 1. 00 0.852 5.19 3 0.94

asuperscript is number of fatigue tests if more than one.

Stress Intensification Factors 31

 5.1 General Recommendations
B should delete the meaningless "1" in the column
1,
(2) The ASME Code (Class 2/3) and B31.1 should
A e UFT
o. B I( Extruded, Table 6
1
C 1( Extruded, Table 3
- D A lleld on, Table 3
E 0 \leld on, Table 5
(3) B31.1 should correct the i-factors for "Branch
(4) B31.3 should include i-factors for "Branch con-
Fig. 16-Relevant data on the Mob inconsistency
(5) B31.3 should, in some manner, eliminate the-in-
from theory or from other fatigue tests. We would have
expected the 8 x 8 size ir/[(R/T)2 13 (t/T)] to be around
0.5.
In any event, the available data indicates that the
B31.3 equation in Table l(f) is significantly unconser-
vative for reducing outlet Weld Ons and may be un-
conservative even for full outlet Weld Ons. However,
the unconservatism appears to be by a factor of not
more than about two. In relation to other inaccuracies
we have mentioned (e.g., use of rigid-joint flexibility
assumption and the B31.3 use of i = 1.00 for torsional
moments), the unconservatism of a factor of two is not
particularly significant.
5.0 Recommendations and Summary
Considering the complexity of the branch connec-
tion problem and the sparsity of information for most
parts of the problem, the Codes have done a good job
of providing simple design guidance. However, as ad-
ditional information becomes available, such as that
abstracted in this report, the Code committees may
wish to review and perhaps revise their design guid-
ance to more accurately reflect present information.
To assist Code committees in such a review and possi-
ble revisions, we have prepared a series of recommen-
dations. These are listed in what we consider to be an
appropriate order of priority. These recommenda-
tions, in effect, summarize the contents of this report.
32 WRC Bulletin 329
(1) The ASME Code (Class 2/3), B:n.J and B31.3
headed "Flexibility Factor, k" for branch connec-
tions or tees. A note should be added, tied to
branch connections/tees, such as;
"In piping system analyses, it may be assumed
that the flexibility is represented by a rigid
joint at the branch-to-run centerlines juncture.
However, the Code user should be aware that
this assumption can be inaccurate and should
consider the use of a more appropriate flexibil-
ity representation."
(See discussion in Section 4.9)
add a note to indicate that "Branch connection"
is an acceptable alternative for unreinforced fab-
ricated tees with r/R ~ 0.5; or delete the descrip-
tion of unreinforced fabricated tees. [See discus-
sion in Section 4.6 and Recommendation (10d).]
connection" to be the same as in the ASME Code
(Class 2/3), including the footnote in (2) above.
[See also Recommendation (10).]
nection" to be the same as in the ASME Code
(Class 2/3), including the footnote of (2) above.
(The main purpose of this is to provide realistic
guidance for evaluating the runs of branch con-
nections, see discussion in Section 4.4.)
dication that i = 1.0 for torsional moments ap-
plied to branch connections. One way to do this
would be to adopt the resultant moment, single i-
factor approach of ASME and B31.1. However,
this would introduce significant over-conserva-
tism for small r/R. An alternative which might be
used is:
(a) Revise B31.3 Eq. (17) to
SE = [S~ + (itS/)] 112 (40)
(b) Revise definition of S 1 to:
8 1 = MJZx (41)
(c) Define i1 as:
(42)
Footnote 1, i ~ 1.0, is applicable
(d) Define Zx as Zb for checking branch end, Zr
for checking run ends.
This could introduce some underestimates, but
these would be much less than using the present i
= 1.00 and generally would be more accurate.
(See discussion in Section 4.3.)
(6) B31.3 should consider deleting the use of ii =
(0.75i 0 + 0.25) for branch connections/tees; i.e.,
change to show the same factor as is presently
done in (f) of Table 1. The main reason for this
 suggestion is for evaluating run ends, where
B31.3 gives the wrong relative magnitude for Mur
versus Mir· Also it underestimates the difference
between Mob and Mb for r/R between about 0.3
and 0.95 and perhaps over-estimates the differ-
ence for r/R below 0.2 and for r/R = 1.0 [See
discussion in Section 4.4 and Recommendation
(12).]
(7) B31.1 and B31.3: Add a restriction to the Code i-
factor tables that indicates they are valid for R!T
~ 50. (See discussion in 4.2.1 on validity of R/T
extrapolations.)
(8) All Three Codes: Add a note for branch connec-
tions saying that i-factors are based on tests and/
or theories in which the branch connection is in
straight pipe with about two or more diameters of
run pipe on each side of the branch. The effect of
closely spaced branch connections may require
special consideration. This represents the cau-
tion now in footnote 6(c); see Table 1 herein. Also
see Recommendation (10), in which the footnote
is shortened.
(9) All Three Codes: Add a note for branch connec-
tions/tees saying that i-factors are only applica-
ble where the axis of the branch pipe is normal to
within 5° of the surface of the run pipe. This
represents footnote 6(b); see Table 1 herein. The
i-factors do not cover laterals or hillside branch
connections.
(10) Changes in the present ASME Code, Subsection
NC, for "Branch connection." This recommenda-
tion consists of four interrelated portions. They
are presented here and then discussed in Section
5.2.
(lOa) Change the stress intensification factor equa-
tions to:
ib = 1.5(R/T) 213 (r/R) 112 (r/rp);
ib(t/T) ~ 1.5 for (r/R) ~ 0.9,
ib = 0.9(R/T) 213 (r/rp);
ib(t/T) ~ 1.0 for (r/R) = 1.0,
ir = 0.8 (R/T) 213 (r/R); 2.1 minimum
where
lb = is to be used for checking the branch end and
linear interpolation is to be used for (r/R) be-
tween 0.9 and 1.0;
ir = is to be used for checking the run ends.
(lOb) Change footnote (6), in its entirety, to:
"If a radius r 2 is provided that is not less than
the larger of Tb/2, (t~ + Y)/2 [Fig. NC-3673-
2(b)-2 sketch (c)] or Tr/2, then the calculated
values of ib and ir may be divided by 2.0 but
with ib ~ 1.5 and ir ~ 1.5.
(Terminology is that of the ASME Code.)
(lOc) Change those portions of the Codes dealing with
reduced outlets to say
"For checking branch ends, use Z = 1rr2t and i(t/
Stress I ntensi[ication Factors
T) in place of i with i(t/T) ~ 1.0."
(lOd) Delete the "Unreinforced fabricated tee" from
Code Fig. NC-3673.2(b)-L
(11) Recommendations in (10) are deemed to be
equally applicable to ASME Code Subsection
ND (Class 3 piping) and to ANSI B31.1
(12) Changes to B31.~3 Analogous to Recommendation
(10)
Recommendation (5) would bring the B31
treatment of torsional moments into better ac-
cord with available data and also preserve the
B31.3 approach of keeping separate i's for M 0 , Mi
and M 1• Recommendation (6) suggested deletion
of ii = (0.75 ip + 0.25) because it is incorrect for
evaluating run moments.
In keeping with the B31.3 approach, consider-
ation might be given to a set of six SIFs: iob, iib, itb,
ior iir and tr· The fatigue test data indicate that iib
can be significantly less than iob and B31.3 may
wish to incorporate that difference into their
SIFs.
Figs. 9 and 10, in conjunction with available
Mib tests, suggests'the equation
iib = 0.6(R/T) 213 [1 + 0.5(r/R) 3](r/rp),
but not greater than iob (46)
For branch connections with r 2 provided, use
iib/2.
Table 14 summarizes available Mib fatigue test
data, previously given in Tables 2, 3, and 5. Cal-
culated values of iib(t!T) by Eq. (46) are shown.
Calculated values of ib(t/T) are also shown so
that the advantage in using separate iob and iib
can be seen for the test models. In general, for r/R
between about 0.5 and 0.9, iib ~ 0.6 iob· At r/R =
1.0 and for r/R < 0.16, iib = iob· These iobliib ratios
agree reasonably well with data directly from fa-
(43) tigue tests where both ir for Mob and M;b are
available. But the ratios are less than might be
inferred by comparing Fig. 6 and Fig. 9.
If B31.3 were to follow Recommendation (10),
(44)
then Table l(c) and (f) should be removed; i.e.,
(45) Eqs. (43)-(46) are intended to apply to both
UFT's and Weld Ons.
(13) In Fig. NC/ND-3683 2(b)-2 of the ASME Code,
delete the note:
"If L1 equals or exceeds 0.5 vrr:rb then r ~ can
be taken as the radius to the center of Tb."
(See discussion at end of Section 4.1.)
Detailed implementation of the above recommen-
dations would require considerable additional work.
Nomenclature and consistency with existing Code text
would vary with each specific Code. Appendix A is a
detailed implementation of the recommendations spe-
cifically for NC-3600 of ASME Code Section III. Anal-
ogous changes for ND-3600 would be appropriate.
5.2 Discussion of Recommendation (10)
No change is intended for ir. We have simply rewrit-
33
 Table 14. Mib comparisons, fatigue test and Eq. (46)

Source 1i b t/T
table Hodel R/T r/R t/T i ib t /T ib t/T
r/rp if (a) (b)
number f

UFT
2 4 X 4 8.99 1. 00 l.OO 0.947 2.34 3.68 1. 57 3.68
2 4 X 4 10.6 1.00 1.00 0.955 2.95 4. 15 1.41 4.15
2 4 X 4 22.0 1. 00 1. 00 0.978 6.12 6.91 1.13 6. 91
2 4 X 4 41.8 1. 00 l.OO 0.988 11.0 10.7 0.97 10.7
3 6 X 6 12.0 1.00 1. 00 0.960 3.62 4.53 l. 25 4.53
3 20 X 4 41.4 0. 19 7 1.00 0.942 2.67 6.79 2.54 7. 51
3 20 X 8 24.6 0.375 0.50 0.974 2. 7 5 2.54 o. 92 3.78
3 20 X 14 24.6 0.702 0.60 0.983 3.47 3.51 1. 01 6.27
3 20 X 20 41.4 1.00 l.Oa 0.988 6.90 10.6 1.54 10.6
5 8 X 6 12.9 a.764 a.87a a.958 l. 85 3.36 I. 82 6.01

Weld On
3 4 X 4 8.99 1. oa 1. oa o. 6 3 1.75 2.45 1.40 2. 45
3 4 X 4 8.99 1. 00 1. 00 0.79 1.!36 3.07 1.65 3.07
3 12 X 6 16.5 0.513 o. 7 4 7 0.675 1.28 2.09 1.64 3.51
3 8 X 4 12.9 0.513 a. 7 36 0.79 0.81 2.05 2.53 3.44

Insert
3 14 X 6 18.2 0.466 0.747 0.83 0.98 1. 35 1. 38 2.20
3 12 X 8 16.5 a. 6 71 a.859 a.82 1.52 l. 58 1.04 2.80
3 8 X 4 12.9 a.513 a.736 o. 775 1. oa 1.00 1.aa 1.69
5 12 X 6 16.5 a.513 a.747 0.86a 1.32 1. 33 1. at 2.24
5 12 X 8 16.5 o. 6 71 0.859 a.82a 1.31 1. 58 1. 21 2.80
5 12 X 8 16.5 0.671 a.859 a.874 1.53 1.68 1.10 2.99

(a) Calculated by Eq. ( 46); Inserts have rz provided.

(b) Calculated by Eqs. ( 43) or (44); Inserts have rz provided.

ten the equation to cover the probably more common
case of r 2-not-provided. Equations (43) for ib does not
have the (t/T) factor but that is not really a change
because of (lOc). Note in this respect that the present
rather complex instructions for reducing outlets leads
to exactly the same SEas our recommended note: "For
checking branch ends, use i(t/T) in place as i and Z =
Zb." By taking the (t/T) out of Eq. (43), this instruc-
tion applied to all branch connections/tees.
The change in the equation for ib is intended to:
(a) Provide a single ib, conceptually the maximum of
i0 b, i;b, i1b, for use with the resultant branch mo-
ment. This is a continuation of present practice,
but the ASME might wish to consider adopting
the B31.3 concept of different i-factors; see Rec-
ommendation (12).
(b) Provide an ib that covers the relatively high i-
factors for Mob in the r/R range between about 0.5
and 1.0.
(c) Reduce the over-conservatism in ib to the extent
deemed prudent from available fatigue test data.
Table 15 summarizes available Mob fatigue test
data, previously given in Tables 2, 3 and 5. Calculated
values of ib(t/T) by Eqs. (43) or (44) are shown. The
right-most column shows the ratio of i6(t/T)/ir. Con-
sidering the scatter encountered in fatigue tests, we
consider the correlation to be adequate. In particular,
the proposed ib adequately solves the Mob inconsisten-
cy. Note that the 8 x 6 and 12 x 10 UFT's are encom-
passed by ib, and the 12 x 6 Weld On is brought into
reasonable consistency with the 4 x 4 Weld Ons. Also
note that an appropriate credit is given for an outer
fillet radius, rz; i.e., for the 20 x 6 and 20 x 12 Extruded
outlets and all Inserts.
While ib provides a good fit to the fatigue test data,
it seems to pose an anomaly with respect to calculated
stresses. Assuming that (R/T) 213 is an accurate param-
eter, then the ib equation (for r/rp = 1) appears as
shown in Fig. 8. If Kzb =La, then we would expect it to
be below the theoretical curve by a factor of 2.0. But

34 WRC Bulletin 329

 Table 15. Mob comparisons, fatigue test and Eqs. (43) or (44)

Source ib t/T
table Hodel R/T r/R t/T ib t/T
r/rp if (a)
number f

UFT
2 4 X 4 8.99 1.00 1.00 0.947 2.71 3.68 1. 36
3 20 X 12 9.5 0.635 0.687 0.946 3.9 3.48 0.89
5 8 X 6 12.89 0.764 0.870 0.958 5.84 6.01 1. 03
5 12 X 10 16.5 0.839 0.973 0.966 8.34 8.37 1.00

Weld On
3 4 X 4 8.99 1.00 1.00 0.63 1. 65 2.45 1. 49
3 4 X 4 8.99 1.00 1.00 0.79 1. 72 3.07 1. 79
3 6 X 4 11.33 0.672 0.846 0.63 2.20 3.31 1.50
3 6 X 4 11.33 0.672 0.846 0.63 1. 87 3.31 1.77
3 12 X 6 16.5 0.513 0.747 0.675 3.78 3.51 0.93
5 8 X 3 12.89 0.396 0.671 0.773 3.20 2.69 0.84
5 8 X 4 12.89 0.513 0.736 0.812 3.49 3.53 1.02
5 8 X 4 12.89 0.513 0.736 0.853 3.45 3.71 1. 07
5 8 X 5 12.89 0.639 0.801 0.801 4.20 4.23 1.01
5 8 X 6 12.89 0.764 0.870 0.832 4.73 5.22 1.10
5 8 X 6 12.89 0.764 0.870 0.868 3.95 5.44 1.38
5 8 X 8 12.89 1.00 1.00 0.852 5.19 4.22 0.81

Extruded
6 4 X 4 4.71 0.943 0.494 0.947 1.49 1. 60 1.07
6 6 X 4 5.39 0.703 0.422 0.947 1.65 1. 55 0.94
6 8 X 4 5.50 0.539 0.330 0.947 1.48 1.sob 1.01
6 16 X 4 7.26 0.285 0.230 0.947 1.23 1. sob 1. 22
3 20 X 6 9.5 0.326 0.432 0.935 1.2 1.50b,c 1. 25
3 20 X 12 9.5 0.635 0.687 0.946 2.5 1. 74c 0.70

Insertc
3 14 X 6 18.2 0.466 0.747 0.83 2.64 2.20 0.83
3 12 X 8 16.5 o. 671 0.859 0.82 2.18 2.80 1.29
3 8 X 4 12.9 0.513 0.736 0.775 1.89 1.69 0.89
5 12 X 6 16.5 0.513 0.747 0.819 2.25 2.13 0.95
5 12 X 6 16.5 0.513 0.747 0.860 2.44 2.24 0.92
5 12 X 8 16.5 0.671 0.859 0.820 2.75 2.80 1.02
5 12 X 8 16.5 0.671 0.859 0.800 2.25 2.74 1.22
5 12 X 8 16.5 0.671 0.859 0.874 2.41 2.99 1. 24

(a) Calculated by Eqs. (43) or (44) as modified by recommendations (lOb)

and (lOc); linear interpolation on 4 x 4 Extruded.
(b) == lower bound of 1. 5.
(c) = r2 provided.

Stress Intensification Factors 35