Pipe Stress Analysis Different

Tools, Different Results

John C. Oliva, PhD

Engineering Analyst
Hemlock Semiconductor Corporation
Hemlock, Michigan
Presented at the 2014 ANSYS Regional Conference, Chicago, May 23, 2014
1

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

A Little Background on HSC:

Delivering the highest-quality polysilicon for

semiconductor and solar wafer manufacturing.
www.hscpoly.com
2

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

The Computational Engineering Group:

Specializing in structural and fluids based mechanical
simulations.

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Presentation Overview
Pipe stress analysis programs are in wide use to
evaluate the structural integrity of piping systems.
If a system is modeled side-by-side using one of
those tools and with a general purpose finite
element tool like ANSYS, different results are
obtained.
This presentation will seek to explain why those
differences occur.
Illustrative examples will be used to demonstrate
the differences.

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Pipe Stress Analysis Programs

Example Programs:
CAEPIPE by SST Systems
Caesar II by Integraph Corporation
SIMFLEX by Peng Engineering
AutoPIPE by Bentley Systems
Many others
Most pipe analysis programs are simplified finite
element solvers that represent piping components as
beam elements.
Such application specific softwares are developed for the
sole purpose of evaluating pipe configurations per
specific pipe design codes.

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Example 1:

All pipe in this example is 4, schedule 40

Corner 90 bend is a flangeless long radius elbow
Pipe is fabricated from generic carbon steel

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Calculating Stresses at the Fixed End:

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Calculating Stresses at the Fixed End:

At the worst case point on the pipe surface, these stresses add together:

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Calculating stresses immediately before

the elbow:

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Stresses Within the Elbow:

Calculating the stress within the pipe elbow is not

straight forward as it acts like a stress riser.
All that can be said with certainty is that the
stresses will be higher in the elbow than on either
of its ends.
10

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

ANSYS Model Results:

Image shows calculated stresses along

inside surface of the piping, sectioned down
its midplane.

11

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

ANSYS Model Results:

Max stress at pipe end equals 37,800
psi

This is in close agreement to that

calculated by hand, which was
37,646 psiless than 1% discrepancy.
Max stress in elbow is found
to be 138,940 psi.
This would equate to a stress
multiplier of 3.7, which is
reasonable.

12

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Pipe Stress Analysis Model:

Note the indicated node numbering.

13

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Pipe Stress Analysis Calculated Results:

NODE

Bending
Stress
lb./sq.in.

Torsion
Stress
lb./sq.in.

SIF
In Plane

SIF
Out
Plane

Code Stress
lb./sq.in.

10
18

0
35464.4

0
0

1
1

1
1

0
35464.4

18

69238.8

1.952

1.627

69238.8

19

71815.6

1.952

1.627

72038.4

19

71815.6

1.952

1.627

72038.4

20
20
30

72882.9
37331
37331

0
0
0

1.952
1
1

1.627
1
1

73198
37646
37646

Stress at fixed end of 37,646 psi is exactly that which was calculated
analytically, which was noted to be less than 1% off from the ANSYS
estimate.
14

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Pipe Stress Analysis Calculated Results:

20

19

18

NODE

Bending
Stress
lb./sq.in.

Torsion
Stress
lb./sq.in.

SIF
In Plane

SIF
Out
Plane

Code Stress
lb./sq.in.

10
18

0
35464.4

0
0

1
1

1
1

0
35464.4

18

69238.8

1.952

1.627

69238.8

19

71815.6

1.952

1.627

72038.4

19

71815.6

1.952

1.627

72038.4

20
20
30

72882.9
37331
37331

0
0
0

1.952
1
1

1.627
1
1

73198
37646
37646

Stress within the elbow is calculated to be 73,198 psi.

Recall, ANSYS calculated the stress at this same point to be 138,940 psi.
15

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

The Differences Lie in the SIF:

In solid mechanics, a stress concentration factor (often denoted as k) is
used to estimate the maximum theoretical stress in a given geometry.

Stress Intensification Factors (SIFs) are established to predict a stress value

that accounts for both static and fatigue loading in accordance with
compliance to a particular piping code. (In the example, ASME B31.3 was
used.)
Analogously, ANSYS calculated the maximum theoretical stress in the
elbow, the pipe stress analysis program calculated the code stress for that
loading.

16

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

A critical point that is subtly incorporated

into the ASME piping code is the
following:
One of the less well known aspects of piping flexibility
analysis per the ASME B31 Codes is that in piping stress
analysis, the calculated stress range due to bending loads is
about one-half of the peak stress range. This is because the
stress concentration factor for typical as-welded pipe butt
welds is two. Since the stresses are compared to a buttwelded pipe fatigue curve, one-half of the actual peak stresses
is calculated. Thus, the theoretical stress, for example, in an
elbow due to bending loads is two times what is calculated in a
piping flexibility analysis following Code procedures. This is
not significant when performing standard design calculations,
because the Code procedures are self-consistent. However, it
can be very significant when trying to do a more detailed
analysis, for example, in a fitness-for-service assessment. 1
1

Process Piping - The Complete Guide to ASME B31.3, Third Edition, by Charles Becht IV,
Copyright 2009, ASME Press, Page 81
17

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Back to the Results at the 90 Elbow:

ANSYS stress = 138,940 psi
Pipe stress analysis = 73,198 psi
Per the note on the previous slide, maximum theoretical stress is two
times that determined by code procedures, thus:

2 x Pipe Stress Analysis should equal ANSYS

2 x 73,198 psi = 146,396 psi (compare to ANSYS value of 138,940 psi)

The two stress estimates are thus ~5% off from one another.

18

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

In Other Words:
One can compare stresses from a pipe design
program directly to code allowable values.
OR
In most cases, one can calculate the maximum
stresses with a general purpose finite element tool
(like ANSYS), divide those results by two, and
compare those to code allowable values.

19

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

A final note as to how the pipe analyzer

calculated the SIF in the example:
Per Appendix D of the ASME piping code:

SIF reported by pipe designer was 1.952

20

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Example 2:
When using SIFs blindly can get you into trouble.

Consider the Appendix D entry for a branch weld on fitting.

21

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Example 2:

A footnote indicates that this SIF relationship may become non-conservative if

the branch line diameter (d) to main line diameter (D) connected by the weldo-let exceeds a ratio of 0.5.

Thus, the SIF relationship is not applicable if the d/D ratio is within the range:
0.5 < d/D < 1.0
22

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Two models run, each in a pipe design

program and in ANSYS:

d/D requirement is satisfied

23

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

d/D requirement is violated

ANSYS Confidential

Model Results:
2 inch / 10 inch Joint 8 inch / 10 inch Joint
d/D ratio
0.2
0.8
Pipe Analysis Program
64,605 psi
1,850 psi
ANSYS
85,393 psi
5,042 psi
Pipe Analysis to ANSYS ratio
1.32
2.73
If ANSYS results are assumed to be accurate, then when the d/D ratio
requirement is met, the piping analysis program overestimates the
stressa conservative approach.
(Recall that the maximum theoretical stress divided by 2 should equal
the code stress, so here the true code stress might be approximately
42,697 psi.)

24

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Model Results:
2 inch / 10 inch Joint 8 inch / 10 inch Joint
d/D ratio
0.2
0.8
Pipe Analysis Program
64,605 psi
1,850 psi
ANSYS
85,393 psi
5,042 psi
Pipe Analysis to ANSYS ratio
1.32
2.73

When the d/D rule is violated, then the pipe stress analysis program
reports a stress lower than what may actually be present.
True code stress 5,042 psi / 2 = 2,521 psi.
The pipe stress analysis tool reported a value that may be 25% too low.
25

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Concluding Recommendations:
Those interpreting the output of any simulations need to understand the
distinction between pipe code stresses and theoretical maximum
stresses.

The SIF relationships provided in Appendix D of the ASME code must be

strictly applied only to those geometries for which they were developed.
Ignoring any of the limits of their applicability can result in unsafe and
misleading system evaluations.
Appendix D SIFs should not be extrapolated to geometries that only
resemble the specified configurations in the code. In cases where a
component is not explicitly accounted for in the code, SIFs must be
developed for the specific case using either experimental methods, or
finite element modeling.

26

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential

Questions? Discussion?

Contact:

e-mail: John.Oliva@hscpoly.com
On Twitter: @Oliva_JC

27

2014 ANSYS, Inc.

June 3, 2014

ANSYS Confidential