What in the World is Sustained Stress Anyway?

By Thomas J. Van Laan, PE President/CEO of COADE, Inc. Houston, TX Stating the Problem: Since the beginning of time, up until relatively recently, all pipe stress calculations have been done assuming a linear world. The implication of this is, if no boundary conditions change during the operation of the pipe, one assumed that all applied loads act against the same model, so therefore they can be analyzed against the same model, in isolation of each other, and either evaluated separately or superimposed upon each other, as necessary (this is the same as the Cold Sustained analysis). Therefore there were no problems, nor arguments among pipe stress analysts regarding how sustained stress calculations need be done (although this is not really the case). However, a few years back, somebody noticed that the real world isnt linear -- or what really happened is that pipe stress programs began to give non-linear capabilities, so somebody started to notice that piping models werent always linear. For somewhat obvious reasons, this caused the greatest concern when supports that were previously considered to be weight-bearing lifted off in the operating case, but in reality, this is an equal concern for all non-linear restraints (gaps, friction, one-way restraints, bi-linears, etc.) which change state during operation. The question is how does one calculate sustained stress during the various operating states of the piping system, since the weight loads may act against a different set of boundary conditions during different operating conditions? Traditional Solution vs. COADEs Solution: One traditional solution has been to remove from the model any restraints designated as weight supports that lift off during any operating case and then reanalyze the Cold Sustained case. It is easy to misapply this method, as typically only +Y supports are removed, but almost never horizontal gapped restraints (which may open during the operating case but, when closed, may have a significant effect on the distribution of the weight loads) or other non-linear restraints. COADE does not believe that this is the correct way to analyze the weight loads. Since 1984, we have provided the Cold Sustained case (W+P1) as the basics for the sustained calculation. Our arguments were (1) as seen in the first paragraph, this is how the calculation has traditionally been done, and (2) this is sustained stress, isnt it there should only be one any redistribution of sustained stresses due to operating displacements should, as one code (the French petrochemical code CODETI) explicitly states, be treated as secondary, or expansion, effects. As boundary condition changes during operation became more of a concern, we decided to look into this issue more carefully. About 7-8 years ago, we came upon a solution that we believe is correct. And whats more, its defensible it doesnt suffer from a lot of the problems that the Traditional Solution (removing restraints and rerunning the Cold Sustained) will be shown to suffer from. This solution was described as building a Hot Sustained load case:

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5

W+T1+P1+D1 (OPE) T1 +D1 (EXP) W+P1 (SUS) L1-L3 (EXP) L1-L2 (SUS)

In the above set of load cases, L3 represents the Cold Sustained, L4 represents the Expansion case (the stress range between the two extremes of operating and installed), and L5 represents the Hot Sustained. (L2 represents a potentially fictitious load case where the piping system grows thermally prior to weight being applied.) We expect that load cases L3 and L5 most likely envelope any of the sustained stress distributions that may occur during the boundary condition changes due to changes in the operating state. Theory: Our Solution is based upon two statements that we challenge anybody to dispute: 1) The distribution of forces, moments, and stresses in a system is a direct reflection of the displaced shape of the system under that load. 2) The sum of the Sustained response and the Expansion response (in terms of forces and moments and most importantly displaced shape) at any given time must be exactly equal to the Operating response. So once we know the displaced shape of the system in the Operating state, all we have to do is subtract the displaced shape of the system due to the Expansion loads from that Operating shape, and voila we will have the Sustained displaced shape, from which we can calculate the Sustained forces, moments, and stresses. The only problem with this is that there are potentially an infinite number of combinations of Expansion and Sustained displaced shapes that might make up this Operating displaced shape. The question then, is which one is correct? It is our belief that the load cases shown above most likely match the Expansion/Sustained distribution exactly (first in the installed case and then in the Operating case) if not, the n certainly they envelope the actual distribution. The L3 (SUS) and L4 (EXP) results sum to the L1 (OPE) results these results represent a scenario where the pipe weight is applied first, and then the pipe expands to the operating position from that condition. The L5 (SUS) and L2 (EXP) results also sum to the L1 (OPE) results but these results represent the possible scenario that the pipe expands thermally from its neutral position first, and then the weight is applied, causing it to sag back to its operating position. Now most likely, scenario 1 above (weight applied first, then thermal expansion) is the correct order of loading, but that isnt what is really important. What we are trying to decide is what is the implication of the thermal expansion growing from a fully weight loaded system, and then again, what is the impact of the system sagging under weight from its fully expanded position. Consider an example: Two medical technicians are carrying a 250-pound patient in a stretcher, holding the ends of the stretcher roughly three feet above the ground it is very likely that the stretcher is sagging in the middle. What is the displaced shape of the stretcher due to weight vs. displacement (lifting it up). We can model this in these two ways:

1) Cold Sustained the stretcher was lying on the ground when the patient got onto it. The displaced shape at installation (continuously supported, so there are no real weight stresses) is calculated:
"Cold Sustained" 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Displacements

Then imposed displacements are applied (lifting the ends of the stretcher 3 feet), taking us to the operating state.
"Operating"
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Displacement

The Expansion Case is the difference between these two shapes (and thus will look virtually the same as the Operating shape) -- so the Sustained Case and the Expansion Case will always add up to the Operating Case.

2) Hot Sustained the stretcher had imposed displacements by lifting its ends 3 feet high (resulting in a nearly horizontal shape) and then the patient gets on it, causing it to sag from that original displaced position. Lifting the stretcher
"Pre-Weight Thermal" 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Displacements

and then the patient gets on:

"Operating"
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Displacement

In this case the Sustained response is the difference from the original displaced position and the fina l operating (sagged from the original) position. So the Hot Sustained in this case would look like:
"Hot Sustained"
0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40 Displacements

Now, in order to estimate the distribution of the Expansion vs. Sustained stresses, do I have to know exactly when the patient got on the stretcher? N because the exact timing is o, irrelevant what is important is the effect. In other words, I would be willing to make two bets here: (1) the patient got on the stretcher BEFORE the medical technicians lifted it (i.e., case #1) and (2) the actual distribution of the stresses is best represented by case #2! That is the same principle behind COADEs Hot Sustained solution. Oh, and now, lets complicate things a little further lets say that somebody, after seeing that the stretcher is sagging 35 inches under the weight of the patient, shoves a stool underneath that reduces the sag from 35 inches to only 22 inches.

"Operating with Stool"

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Displacements

The stool would serve as an active support. Does that mean that all of the weight stress goes away simply because we no longer have a lift-off problem? COADEs concept of Hot Sustained says that the weight stresses can be calculated by subtracting Operating with Stool shape from the Pre-weight Thermal case. The traditional method of handling nonlinear supports in for the weight case (including active supports and removing inactive supports but ignoring displaced condition in the operating case) would show virtually no weight stresses since there would be anchors at the ends and a support in the middle. The Traditional displaced shape wo uld be:

"Traditional Sustained with Stool"

5 3.75 2.5 1.25 0 -1.25 -2.5 -3.75 -5 Displacements

It is clear that in this case, the Weight and Thermal cases do NOT sum to the Operating Case! Example: In the provided example , I have modeled a system with 3 +Y supports (at nodes 45, 70, and 95) and 10 different operating temperatures (ranging from 70 to 1100 degrees F). I have also provided displacements at the +Y restraints which permit me to remove them from the Sustained load case to simulate the Traditional Method described above (Displacement Vector D1 removes the supports at 45 and 95, Displacement Vector D2 removes the support at node 70). I have run a number of load cases here, to represent the Sustained response as the system temperature increases from 70 degrees through 1100 degrees, over the course of which first two and then the third support lifts off. The most interesting temperatures are around 196.7 degrees and around 1091.3 degrees, where supports 45-95 and support 70 lift off, respectively (T3 and T4 are a hair to either side of 196.7 degrees, while T7 and T8 are a hair to either side of 1091.3 degrees). Using COADEs Hot Sustained concept, I demonstrate that the Sustained plus Expansion results add up to the Operating results in all cases (as we all agree they should, right?). However, if we use the Traditional Method described above, we would assume that the Sustained response is the same as the Cold Sustained (L10) up to 196.7 degrees (L1 through L3), is the Cold Sustained with supports 45-95 removed (L11) between 196.7 and 1091.3 degrees (L4-L7), and the Cold Sustained with supports 45-95 and 70 removed (L12)

above 1091.3 degrees (L8 and L9). I can show that these results do not add up, regardless of which Expansion case one combines these results with:

110 F COADE Sus COADE Exp Traditional Sus Exp #1 Exp #2 COADE Sus + Exp Trad Sus + Exp #1 Trad Sus + Exp #2 Ope

L31 L13 L10 L13 L22

L1

Node 35 -0.2436 0.2954 -0.0367 0.2954 0.0885 0.0518 0.2587 0.0518 0.0518

Node 40 -0.2758 0.2954 -0.0167 0.2954 0.0363 0.0196 0.2787 0.0196 0.0196

Node 45 -0.2954 0.2954 0 0.2954 0 0 0.2954 0 0

Node 50 -0.3118 0.2954 0.0002 0.2954 -0.0166 -0.0164 0.2956 -0.0164 -0.0164

Node 55 -0.3188 0.2954 -0.0045 0.2954 -0.0189 -0.0234 0.2909 -0.0234 -0.0234

Node 60 -0.3148 0.2954 -0.0065 0.2954 -0.0128 -0.0194 0.2889 -0.0193 -0.0193

Node 65 -0.3036 0.2954 -0.0037 0.2954 -0.0045 -0.0082 0.2917 -0.0082 -0.0082

Node 70 -0.2954 0.2954 0 0.2954 0 0 0.2954 0 0

Match ?? Match

150 F COADE Sus COADE Exp Traditional Sus Exp #1 Exp #2 COADE Sus + Exp Trad Sus + Exp #1 Trad Sus + Exp #2 Ope

L32 L14 L10 L14 L23

L2

Node 35 -0.4573 0.6005 -0.0367 0.6005 0.1798 0.1432 0.5638 0.1431 0.1431

Node 40 -0.5433 0.6005 -0.0167 0.6005 0.0738 0.0572 0.5838 0.0571 0.0571

Node 45 -0.6005 0.6005 0 0.6005 0 0 0.6005 0 0

Node 50 -0.634 0.6005 0.0002 0.6005 -0.0337 -0.0335 0.6007 -0.0335 -0.0335

Node 55 -0.6434 0.6005 -0.0045 0.6005 -0.0383 -0.0429 0.596 -0.0428 -0.0429

Node 60 -0.633 0.6005 -0.0065 0.6005 -0.0261 -0.0325 0.594 -0.0326 -0.0326

Node 65 -0.6134 0.6005 -0.0037 0.6005 -0.0092 -0.0129 0.5968 -0.0129 -0.0129

Node 70 -0.6005 0.6005 0 0.6005 0 0 0.6005 0 0

Match ?? Match

196.68 F COADE Sus COADE Exp Traditional Sus Exp #1 Exp #2 COADE Sus + Exp Trad Sus + Exp #1 Trad Sus + Exp #2 Ope

L33 L15 L10 L15 L24

L3

Node 35 -0.7152 0.9686 -0.0367 0.9686 0.29 0.2534 0.9319 0.2533 0.2534

Node 40 -0.8662 0.9686 -0.0167 0.9686 0.1191 0.1024 0.9519 0.1024 0.1024

Node 45 -0.9686 0.9686 0 0.9686 0 0 0.9686 0 0

Node 50 -1.0228 0.9686 0.0002 0.9686 -0.0544 -0.0542 0.9688 -0.0542 -0.0542

Node 55 -1.035 0.9686 -0.0045 0.9686 -0.0618 -0.0664 0.9641 -0.0663 -0.0664

Node 60 -1.0172 0.9686 -0.0065 0.9686 -0.0421 -0.0486 0.9621 -0.0486 -0.0486

Node 65 -0.9871 0.9686 -0.0037 0.9686 -0.0149 -0.0185 0.9649 -0.0186 -0.0186

Node 70 -0.9686 0.9686 0 0.9686 0 0 0.9686 0 0

Match ?? Match

196.7 F COADE Sus COADE Exp Traditional Sus Exp #1 Exp #2 COADE Sus + Exp Trad Sus + Exp #1 Trad Sus + Exp #2

L34 L16 L11 L16 L25

Node 35 -0.7153 0.9688 -0.3105 0.9688 0.2901 0.2535 0.6583 -0.0204

Node 40 -0.8663 0.9688 -0.3332 0.9688 0.1191 0.1025 0.6356 -0.2141

Node 45 -0.9687 0.9688 -0.3174 0.9688 0 1E-04 0.6514 -0.3174

Node 50 -1.0229 0.9688 -0.2669 0.9688 -0.0544 -0.0541 0.7019 -0.3213

Node 55 -1.0351 0.9688 -0.1916 0.9688 -0.0618 -0.0663 0.7772 -0.2534

Node 60 -1.0173 0.9688 -0.1068 0.9688 -0.0421 -0.0485 0.862 -0.1489

Node 65 -0.9873 0.9688 -0.0339 0.9688 -0.0149 -0.0185 0.9349 -0.0488

Node 70 -0.9688 0.9688 0 0.9688 0 0 0.9688 0

Match ?? ??

Ope

L4

0.2534

0.1024

-0.0542

-0.0664

-0.0486

-0.0186

500 F COADE Sus COADE Exp Traditional Sus Exp #1 Exp #2 COADE Sus + Exp Trad Sus + Exp #1 Trad Sus + Exp #2 Ope

L35 L17 L11 L17 L26

L5

Node 35 -1.8243 3.6223 -0.3105 3.6223 1.8347 1.798 3.3118 1.5242 1.7981

Node 40 -2.3267 3.6223 -0.3332 3.6223 1.3123 1.2956 3.2891 0.9791 1.2956

Node 45 -2.753 3.6223 -0.3174 3.6223 0.8693 0.8693 3.3049 0.5519 0.8693

Node 50 -3.0938 3.6223 -0.2669 3.6223 0.5283 0.5285 3.3554 0.2614 0.5285

Node 55 -3.3458 3.6223 -0.1916 3.6223 0.2811 0.2765 3.4307 0.0895 0.2765

Node 60 -3.5114 3.6223 -0.1068 3.6223 0.1174 0.1109 3.5155 0.0106 0.1109

Node 65 -3.5989 3.6223 -0.0339 3.6223 0.0271 0.0234 3.5884 -0.0068 0.0234

Node 70 -3.6223 3.6223 0 3.6223 0 0 3.6223 0 0

Match ?? ??

800 F COADE Sus COADE Exp Traditional Sus Exp #1 Exp #2 COADE Sus + Exp Trad Sus + Exp #1 Trad Sus + Exp #2 Ope

L36 L18 L11 L18 L27

L6

Node 35 -3.111 6.7014 -0.3105 6.7014 3.627 3.5904 6.3909 3.3165 3.5904

Node 40 -4.0213 6.7014 -0.3332 6.7014 2.6967 2.6801 6.3682 2.3635 2.6801

Node 45 -4.8233 6.7014 -0.3174 6.7014 1.8781 1.8781 6.384 1.5607 1.8781

Node 50 -5.4967 6.7014 -0.2669 6.7014 1.2045 1.2047 6.4345 0.9376 1.2047

Node 55 -6.0269 6.7014 -0.1916 6.7014 0.679 0.6745 6.5098 0.4874 0.6745

Node 60 -6.4054 6.7014 -0.1068 6.7014 0.3025 0.296 6.5946 0.1957 0.296

Node 65 -6.6292 6.7014 -0.0339 6.7014 0.0758 0.0722 6.6675 0.0419 0.0721

Node 70 -6.7014 6.7014 0 6.7014 0 0 6.7014 0 0

Match ?? ??

1091.28 F COADE Sus COADE Exp Traditional Sus Exp #1 Exp #2 COADE Sus + Exp Trad Sus + Exp #1 Trad Sus + Exp #2 Ope

L37 L19 L11 L19 L28

L7

Node 35 -4.4629 9.9363 -0.3105 9.9363 5.5101 5.4734 9.6258 5.1996 5.4734

Node 40 -5.8017 9.9363 -0.3332 9.9363 4.1513 4.1346 9.6031 3.8181 4.1346

Node 45 -6.9985 9.9363 -0.3174 9.9363 2.9379 2.9378 9.6189 2.6205 2.9379

Node 50 -8.0212 9.9363 -0.2669 9.9363 1.9149 1.9151 9.6694 1.648 1.9151

Node 55 -8.8439 9.9363 -0.1916 9.9363 1.0971 1.0924 9.7447 0.9055 1.0925

Node 60 -9.446 9.9363 -0.1068 9.9363 0.4969 0.4903 9.8295 0.3901 0.4904

Node 65 -9.813 9.9363 -0.0339 9.9363 0.127 0.1233 9.9024 0.0931 0.1233

Node 70 -9.9363 9.9363 0 9.9363 0 0 9.9363 0 0

Match ?? ??

1091.31 F COADE Sus COADE Exp Traditional Sus Exp #1 Exp #2 COADE Sus + Exp Trad Sus + Exp #1 Trad Sus + Exp #2 Ope

L38 L20 L12 L20 L29

L8

Node 35 -4.463 9.9367 -4.463 9.9367 5.5103 5.4737 5.4737 1.0473 5.4737

Node 40 -5.8018 9.9367 -5.8018 9.9367 4.1516 4.1349 4.1349 -1.6502 4.1349

Node 45 -6.9987 9.9367 -6.9987 9.9367 2.9381 2.938 2.938 -4.0606 2.9381

Node 50 -8.0214 9.9367 -8.0214 9.9367 1.9151 1.9153 1.9153 -6.1063 1.91153

Node 55 -8.8441 9.9367 -8.8441 9.9367 1.0972 1.0926 1.0926 -7.7469 1.0926

Node 60 -9.4462 9.9367 -9.4462 9.9367 0.497 0.4905 0.4905 -8.9492 0.4905

Node 65 -9.8133 9.9367 -9.8133 9.9367 0.1271 0.1234 0.1234 -9.6862 0.1234

Node 70 -9.9366 9.9367 -9.9366 9.9367 0.0001 1E-04 1E-04 -9.9365 0.0001

Match Match ??

1100 F COADE Sus COADE Exp Traditional Sus Exp #1 Exp #2 COADE Sus + Exp Trad Sus + Exp #1 Trad Sus + Exp #2 Ope

L39 L21 L12 L21 L30

L9

Node 35 -4.463 10.0363 -4.463 10.0363 5.6099 5.5733 5.5733 1.1469 5.5733

Node 40 -5.8018 10.0363 -5.8018 10.0363 4.2511 4.2345 4.2345 -1.5507 4.2344

Node 45 -6.9987 10.0363 -6.9987 10.0363 3.0377 3.0376 3.0376 -3.961 3.0377

Node 50 -8.0214 10.0363 -8.0214 10.0363 2.0147 2.0149 2.0149 -6.0067 2.0149

Node 55 -8.8441 10.0363 -8.8441 10.0363 1.1968 1.1922 1.1922 -7.6473 1.1922

Node 60 -9.4462 10.0363 -9.4462 10.0363 0.5966 0.5901 0.5901 -8.8496 0.5901

Node 65 -9.8133 10.0363 -9.8133 10.0363 0.2267 0.223 0.223 -9.5866 0.223

Node 70 -9.9366 10.0363 -9.9366 10.0363 0.0997 0.0997 0.0997 -9.8369 0.0997

Match Match ??

One more point works in favor of the COADE method here there should be continuity in the Sustained stress as the temperature creeps up by each tenth of a degree. Below is a plot of the calculated sustained stress using COADEs Hot Sustained vs. the Traditional Method. COADEs method shows a continuous curve as one would expect as the temperature moves up an imperceptible amount, whereas the Traditional Method shows a step function with massive jumps at temperature points where the pipe goes from not able to slide a sheet of paper under it to just able to slide a sheet of paper under it. Which response seems more realistic?
Maximum Sustained Stress vs. Temperature
35000 30000 25000 Stress 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 1 76 151 226 301 376 451 526 601 676 751 826 901 976 Temp COADE Method Traditional Method

Does it make any sense that we would consider it to be a problem when there is lift-off of support 70 in Load Case L38 (SUS), where the maximum stress is 31564 psi, but not with the basically equivalent stress condition (but without lift off) in Load Case L37 (SUS), where the maximum stress only 31563 psi?