Stress Indices for Straight Pipe with Trunnion Attachments

R I A L

N
LICE

SED

M AT E

WARNING: Please read the Export Control and License Agreement on the back cover before removing the Wrapping Material.

Technical Report

Stress Indices for Straight Pipe with Trunnion Attachments
TR-110162

Final Report October 1998

Prepared for EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, California 94304 EPRI Project Manager R. G. Carter S. R. Gosselin, P.E.

Box 23205. Incorporated ORDERING INFORMATION Requests for copies of this report should be directed to the EPRI Distribution Center. Inc. INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Inc. NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM: (A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER. PROCESS. Pleasant Hill. OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS. EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS REPORT OR ANY INFORMATION. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute. INC. . Copyright © 1998 Electric Power Research Institute. (EPRI). 207 Coggins Drive. OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT. INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW. POWERING PROGRESS is a service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute. PROCESS. APPARATUS. EPRI. OR (B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. NEITHER EPRI. ANY MEMBER OF EPRI. CA 94523. (925) 934-4212. METHOD. APPARATUS.O. ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT Wais and Associates.DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE. OR (III) THAT THIS REPORT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE. P. All rights reserved. Inc. ANY COSPONSOR. (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION. METHOD. OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT.

CITATIONS This report was prepared by: Wais and Associates. Suite 300 Norcross. Palo Alto. EPRI. Incorporated 3845 Holcomb Bridge Road. iii . The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner: Stress Indices for Straight Pipe with Trunnion Attachments. TR-110162. Wais This report describes research sponsored by EPRI. CA: 1998. Georgia 30092 Principal Investigator: Edward A.

To provide modifications to Code Cases 391 and 392 for improved evaluation of trunnions on straight pipe. K2. Equations and parameter limitations were derived for the determination of flexibility factors. Available data on studies. It also provides flexibility equations for a more accurate evaluation of these configurations. and 3 pipe. Background Fatigue is a significant consideration in the design and engineering of piping systems. and the results were compared to existing data. experiments. for straight pipe with trunnions (or hollow circular cross-section welded attachments). and C in Code Cases 391 and 392 were modified as a result of this research and analysis. ASME Code Cases 391 and 392 provide procedures for evaluating the design of trunnion attachments on Classes 1. Objectives • • To derive expressions for B2. B. The present values of Ao.REPORT SUMMARY This report provides equations based on experimental and test data for determining B and C stress indices and the flexibility factor. k. Tests and analyses were performed on representative models. C2. The ASME Section III Code uses factors such as C2 and K2 indices to account for fatigue effects produced by reversing loads and the k flexibility factors for evaluation of piping configurations. Approach A review of the present approach for evaluation of trunnions on pipe in accordance with the Code provided an understanding of the conservatism in determining the fatigue factors. The report contains explicit modifications to ASME Code Cases 391 and 392 for qualification of trunnions on pipe. 2. v . and k factors for trunnions on straight pipe. and testing were collected and reviewed.

reactor vessels. the test program in Section 3. Accurate methods of engineering for fatigue are important for cost-effective design. root cause failures. TR-110162 Interest Categories Piping. and the evaluation of remaining fatigue life of plant designs. the analysis of other test data in Section 4. and internals vi .and moderate-energy line break locations and snubber testing. the comparison to Code Case results in Section 5. EPRI Perspective Design for fatigue is a major concern for any power or process facility.Results The report summarizes: the available literature in Section 2. The work being conducted under EPRI’s stress intensification factor (SIF) optimization program continues to establish the technical justification to all for reductions in current Code stress indices. Examples include reductions in both the inspection scope of postulated high. the finite element analysis (FEA) investigation of flexibility in Section 6. These reductions and associated reductions in design stresses can provide a basis to reduce the scope of on-going pressure boundary component testing and inspection programs for operating nuclear power plants. and the results of the investigation of straight pipe with trunnion attachments in Section 7.

In some cases. Generally. however. and the results of new testing are included. trunnions are used on straight pipe as supports. SIFs and stress indices are used in the qualification of piping components to ensure that they have an adequate fatigue life under cyclic loading. The report also reviews existing data and methodologies used for qualification of trunnions. This report presents the results of an investigation of the stress indices and flexibility factors for trunnions on straight pipe subject to bending and twisting moments. Finally. They are also used for qualification of other loading conditions. Modified expressions for stress indices are defined. they are also used as anchors. such as trunnions. flexibility factors are presented for accurately modeling the behavior of a trunnion in a piping system. The qualification of trunnions is a major concern in the design and qualification of many piping systems. stress indices are used in lieu of SIFs. vii .EPRI Licensed Material ABSTRACT This report was prepared under the auspices of the EPRI project on stress intensification factor (SIF) optimization. The information presented in this report should significantly improve the qualification of trunnions on straight pipe.

Incorporated for their assistance in preparing this report.EPRI Licensed Material ACKNOWLEDGMENTS EPRI expresses appreciation to Edward A. Wais. Rodabaugh of Wais and Associates. ix . Royce M. and Everett C. Reinecke.

.......................... 2-5 3 TEST PROGRAM ................................................. 3-7 B Indices—From Test Data................................................................................................................... 6-1 xi ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-4 C Indices—Class 1 Approach .................. 2-1 Nomenclature ....................... 4-3 5 COMPARISON OF TEST DATA TO CODE CASE RESULTS............................................................. 3-1 Analysis of Test Data ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Methodology .... 3-1 Purpose . 4-1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 ASME Section III and B31............................................................................... 1-1 2 BACKGROUND......... 5-1 B Indices ..................................................................................................................................................................EPRI Licensed Material CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 4-1 Analysis of Results......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 Loadings in Other Directions. 4-1 References ................................................................................................................................................................................... 5-2 6 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS (FEA) INVESTIGATION OF FLEXIBILITY OF TRUNNIONS ON STRAIGHT PIPE ........................................................................ 2-3 Review of References... 5-1 C Indices............... 5-1 Purpose .............. 3-4 C Indices—Markl Approach ......................................... 3-8 4 ANALYSIS OF OTHER TEST DATA FOR B INDICES ..............................1 Power Piping Code Approach ..............................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................. PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATION OF THE DESIGN OF HOLLOW CIRCULAR CROSS SECTION WELDED ATTACHMENTS ON CLASS 1 PIPING....................................................................................... 6-2 FEA Results.................B-1 C TEST DATA AND RESULTS ... 6-5 Comparison to Test Data .............................. 8-1 A CASE N-391-2.... PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATION OF THE DESIGN OF HOLLOW CIRCULAR CROSS SECTION WELDED ATTACHMENTS ON CLASSES 2 AND 3 PIPING............................................ AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS.......................................................................................... DIVISION 1..... NEW YORK ...................... NEW YORK.......C-1 xii ............. DIVISION 1.......................................................................................................................................................................................... SECTION III.............A-1 B CASE N-392-3................................... 7-1 8 REFERENCES ............................................. 6-13 7 CONCLUSIONS ............................ 6-1 Finite Element Analysis.............................................................................. 6-1 Discussion ................................................. .................................................................................................................. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS...EPRI Licensed Material General ................................................................................................................ SECTION III....................................

...................................................................................... 6-2 Figure 6-2 FEA Model......................................................................................... 6-3 Figure 6-3 Typical FEA Model .....................................................................EPRI Licensed Material LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 Trunnion/Pipe Connection .................................................. 6-4 xiii .............................................................................................................. 3-9 Figure 6-1 Trunnion-Pipe Modeling ......................................................................... 2-1 Figure 3-1 Test Configuration ......................... 3-2 Figure 3-2 Limit Load Definition ..............................................................

........................................................................................ Average CUF = 1.................................................... 3-6 Table 3-3 Trunnion/Pipe—Class 1 CUF Evaluation Using Code Case Indices. 6-5 Table 6-2 Summary of Rotations for Point 6—One End of Pipe Fixed ................................................................................................................. 4-2 Table 4-2 JSSC Out-of-Plane Bending Tests (WRC Bulletin 256-Table 4)...................................................EPRI Licensed Material LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 Summary of Test Results.................................. 3-8 Table 3-5 Trunnion/Pipe—Experimental Evaluation of BL' .......................................................................................... 6-9 Table 6-5 In-Plane Bending of the Trunnion—Average of Boundary Conditions ......................................... 6-12 xv ................... 6-8 Table 6-4 Bending of the Trunnion—Both Ends Fixed ........................................... 3-7 Table 3-4 Trunnion/Pipe—Class 1 CUF Evaluation..........................0 ........ 6-11 Table 6-7 Torsion of the Trunnion—Average of Boundary Conditions............. 6-10 Table 6-6 Out-of-Plane Bending of the Trunnion—Average of Boundary Conditions ........... 3-10 Table 4-1 Gibstein In-Plane Bending Tests (WRC Bulletin 256-Table 2). 3-4 Table 3-2 Comparison of CL to CL'.. 6-6 Table 6-3 Bending of the Trunnion—One Pipe End Fixed................... 4-3 Table 6-1 FEA Models .......................................

Section 3 of this report presents the results of fatigue tests on trunnions on straight pipe. Section 4 provides an analysis of test data for use in determining B indices. They are also referred to as “hollow circular cross-section attachments. As such. however. as required. 2. Develop an updated approach to evaluate the trunnion/pipe configuration using the test data and analysis. Other references are also discussed. Perform tests.4]. SIFs are not used explicitly for design of trunnion/pipe configurations.” Trunnions on straight pipe are very similar to unreinforced branch connections. and one for Classes 2 and 3 piping [1. Stress concentration occurs at or near the intersection of the trunnion and pipe similar to branch connections. The background of the Code Cases is provided. SIFs are used to ensure that piping has an adequate fatigue life under cyclic loading. The test results are used to derive experimentally based expressions for the various indices. The general approach followed in this report is: 1.EPRI Licensed Material 1 INTRODUCTION This report was prepared under the auspices of the EPRI project RP-3921 on stress intensification factor (SIF) optimization. 4. conducted under the auspices of the EPRI research project. Review the present approach used for evaluation in accordance with the ASME Code. The approach for Section III is in terms of two Code Cases. Trunnions are used on pipe as pipe supports. the approach is the same.3. The difference is that there is no opening in the “run” pipe. one for Class 1 piping. Section 2 of this report summarizes the present Code approaches to addressing trunnions on pipe [1.2]. Section 5 provides a comparison 1-1 . they are among the most complex of piping components for evaluation. Perform a literature search on the applicable references. This report specifically investigates the fatigue behavior of trunnions welded on straight pipe with full penetration welds. and analyze the results. 3.

These conclusions provide new understanding of the behavior of trunnions and allows the user to more accurately evaluate trunnions on straight pipe. Section 7 of this report summarizes the conclusions of the research effort. The flexibility of this assembly is covered in Section 6. 1-2 .EPRI Licensed Material Introduction of test data to evaluation methods as presented in Code Case N-391-2 [3].

ri2) ZT = IT/ro Ip = π(Ro4 . in.Ri4)/4 IT = π/4(ro4 . in. in.EPRI Licensed Material 2 BACKGROUND Nomenclature Figure 2-1 shows the configuration and applied moments for evaluation of stress indices for straight pipe with trunnion attachments. ri = trunnion inside radius.ri4) Am = π/2 (ro2 . do = outside diameter of the trunnion. t = nominal trunnion wall thickness. Run Pipe ML Q2 MT MN Q1 W Trunnion Figure 2-1 Trunnion/Pipe Connection Ro = run pipe outside radius. AT = π (ro2 . inch (in.ri2) Jm = lesser of π ro2T or ZT δ = test displacement amplitude 2-1 . in. D = Do -T d = do -t Do = outside diameter of the run pipe. in. in. The nomenclature includes terminology used in the body of this report and the associated appendices. T = nominal run pipe wall thickness. in. Rm = mean radius of run pipe.) ro = trunnion outside radius.

5(CT).) CT = 1. MT = torsional moment applied to the trunnion. but not less than 1.5(CN). n3 are specified in Code Cases N-391 or N-392 (See Appendix A or B.55<β<1.0 BL= 0. n2. lb. pounds per square inch (psi)/°F Salt = stress amplitude (psi) W**. φz = rotations about the x.0.0 k = test specimen stiffness F = test k * test δ L = length from test load point to outside diameter (OD) of specimen (in. ML**.0.5 from the edge of the attachment. but not less than 1.55 CT = CN for β = 1. α.-lbs. W = thrust load applied to the trunnion. but not less than 1. as shown in Figure 2-1. MN = bending moment applied to the trunnion. but not less than 1.) Q2 = shear load applied to the trunnion. in. as shown in Figure 2-1.-lbs. y. in. Q2**.) ML = bending moment applied to the trunnion.0 BT = 0.EPRI Licensed Material Background γ = Ro/T φij = rotation at point i with respect to point j φx. as shown in Figure 2-1. lb.] n1. times the mean coefficient of thermal expansion.-lbs. °F Eα = modulus of elasticity. Q1**. degrees Fahrenheit (°F) Tw = average temperature of that portion of the pipe under the attachment and within a distance of (RT)0.5(CW).0 BT' = values of BT based on limit load test data Ke = plasticity factor used in fatigue analysis KT = 1.0 BN = 0. CT should be linearly interpolated for 0. as shown in Figure 2-1.8 for full penetration welds TT = average temperature of that portion of the trunnion within a distance of 2t from the surface of the pipe. as shown in Figure 2-1.5(CL). both at room temperature. E. MN**. as shown in Figure 2-1.0 CL' = values of CL based on fatigue test data BW = 0.7854*(d/2)2*t] Mb = 10000*[. inch-pounds (in. in. or z axis τ = t/T β = do/Do C = Ao (2γ)n1 βn2 τn3. Q1 = shear load applied to the trunnion. pound (lb. [These moments and loads are determined at the surface of the pipe. and MT** are absolute values of maximum loads occurring simultaneously under all service loading conditions 2-2 .0 for β ≤ 0. φy.) N = test cycles to failure M = F*L Ma = 10000*[.-lbs.7854*(D/2)2*T] Mc = range of resultant moments due to thermal expansion. but not less than 1. but not less than 1.

4]. The approach used to address the effects of the various mechanical loads (W. Thus. The original basis for considering the effects of the W.4]. and MN loads was the correlation equations given by Potvin [6]. are silent in regards to specific methodologies for qualification of trunnion/pipe configurations [1. 2-4) ** ** ** (Eq. These Code Cases are included in Appendix A and Appendix B for reference. Rodabaugh discusses the background of N-391 and N-392 and is summarized herein [5]. MN. and CN of the Code Cases [1.3. 2-3 . The stresses calculated by these equations are used in the qualification in modified standard Code equations by the two Code Cases. Q2. However. and MT) is discussed below. ML. N-391 requires the calculation of various stresses: SMT = BWW/AT + BNMN/ZT + BLML/ZT + Q1/Am + Q2/Am +BTMT/Jm SNT = CWW/AT + CNMN/ZT + CLML/ZT + Q1/Am + Q2/Am + CTMTJm + 1. except that the 1. they corresponded to the C indices of NB-3600 or CW. 2-1) (Eq. 2-3) N-392 has similar expressions. These correlation equations were considered to correspond to the maximum primary-plus-secondary stresses (PL + Pb + Q). Section III has two Code Cases (N-391 for Class 1 piping and N-392 for Classes 2 and 3 piping) that address the evaluation of the design of trunnion attachments on straight pipe [3. Q1.2]. ML. For simplicity. It should be noted that the original objective in developing these Code Cases was to provide a simplified and conservative methodology.1. CL.7EαTT -TW term in Equation 2-2 is not included. 2-2) (Eq.EPRI Licensed Material Background ASME Section III and B31.7EαTT -TW SPT = KT(SNT) SNT = CWW**/AT + CNMN /ZT + CLML /ZT + Q1**/Am + Q2**/Am + CTMT**/Jm (Eq. This report focuses on the B and C indices. Section III and ANSI B31.1 Power Piping Code Approach The body of the present Codes. this report will refer to both of these Code Cases as the “Code Case” when discussing common items.

and τ = t/T. The range of β was extended based on comparison with the equations derived by Wordsworth [9].0 for β= do/Do ≤ 0.0. This is considered reasonable for small trunnions (small do/Do) but is probably very conservative for large trunnions (for example. the value of CT was taken as 1. data were not available regarding shear loads and torsional moments (Q1. (See Appendix A or Appendix B. At the time the Code Cases were prepared. CL. NB-3600. Engineering judgment was used in the evaluation of their effects.55 and equal to CN for β = 1. Based on this information. the stress intensity (twice the shear stress) is Q/Am.33. β = do/Do. The Code Cases take the B indices as one-half the C indices. 2-4 . except that the run pipe has an opening in it. due to MN) [11]. For the shear loads (Q1 and Q2). The B indices that are in the Code Cases correspond to those of ASME Section III. n2. The approach used to evaluate the effects of MT was based on comparisons to data on branch connections [10]. The change at β = 0. Q2. Branch connections are similar to trunnions. however. The applicable range of γ and τ was extended based on Welding Research Council (WRC) Bulletin 198 and WRC Bulletin 297 [7.8]. For do/Do = 1.) The range of the applicable parameters in the Code Cases for CW. it is stated that the Code Case B indices are conservative by “a factor of at least 1. Rodabaugh provides a basis for extending that to γ = Ro/T ≥ 4. test data indicates that the maximum stress intensity is about the same as for out-of-plane bending (for example. and CN has been extended beyond that of Potvin [6].55 corresponds to Potvin’s data.12]. size-on-size). For branch connections with small do/Do. and n3 are constants that vary depending upon the loading direction. This change was made in Code Case N-392 but not in N-391.0 [5]. Linear interpolation is used in between. Ao.0. where Am is one-half the cross-sectional area of the trunnion-pipe 2 2 interface (where the load is taken) assumed to be π(ro -ri )/2. This was based on a comparison with Wordsworth [9]. this extension is valid for N-391.5” [5. Potvin originally suggested a limit on γ = Ro/T ≥ 8.EPRI Licensed Material Background The form of the Code Case expression for the C indices is: C = Ao(2γ)n1βn2τn3 (Eq. Based upon data in Rodabaugh and Kurobane. and MT ). 2-5) where the parameters are defined by γ = Ro/T.11. the stress intensity is about Mt/Jm. n1. The B indices are based upon limit load (or moment) analysis or test.

there are other references that provide additional information. The linear addition of stresses is generally very conservative. Melworm. the linear addition of stresses is very conservative.EPRI Licensed Material Background The approach followed by the Code Case is to calculate the stresses due to the trunnion mechanical loads (W. It assumes that all the stresses are maximum at the same point.0. 2-5 . Hankinson. ML. Detailed finite element analysis yielded a cumulative usage factor less than 1. Review of References In addition to the references discussed in the preceding section.19. The stresses are added linearly and then compared to the specific limits dependent upon the piping class and the specific requirement. Sadd. Slagis.16]. including a discussion regarding jurisdictional boundaries [14. and Hankinson provide general discussions of the subject. Gray. Q2. Gray provides such an example [19]. Q1. a cumulative usage factor greater than 6 was calculated.18. MN. and Basavaraju provide additional information regarding finite element analysis of various configurations and load applications [17.20]. Using this approach.15. As discussed earlier. and MT) and the thermal stresses (if Class 1 piping) and add them to the stresses in the pipe due to loads in the pipe.

3-1 . Incorporated. These tests would provide data that could be used to investigate the design approach suggested by Code Cases N-391 or N-392. this report will refer to both of these Code Cases as the “Code Case” when discussing common items. The test specimens were labeled A. The welds at the interface of the trunnion and pipe were normal full penetration in an as-welded condition. of Decatur. Figure 3-1 indicates the test configuration. B. Georgia.EPRI Licensed Material 3 TEST PROGRAM Purpose The purpose of this test program was to obtain some specific data that corresponded to the test methodology followed by Markl [13]. For simplicity. C. The test specimens consisted of 8-inch NPS Schedule 20 A53-B pipe with a 4-inch Schedule 40 A53-B trunnion. and D. Methodology Design Of Test Specimens Four specimens were manufactured by Wilson Welding Service.

torsional moment.000 in.000 pounds axial force and 20. the desired amplitude and frequency. The maximum actuator displacement is 6 inches. This unit is designed to accommodate either uniaxial or multiaxial testing. A computerized control panel provides local. 20 Pipe Flange Base Figure 3-1 Test Configuration Testing Program The testing was performed at The Ohio State University. and actuator. precise operations of the cross head. Built in loading programs include sinusoidal and triangular waves with the user being able to select. The loading pattern applied to an attached sample is controlled by programmable servovalves.EPRI Licensed Material Test Program Cover Plate Load Point 4" NPS Sch. Load frame capacities are 55.-lb. within machine limits. hydraulic grips. The fatigue tests were performed on an MTS Systems Corporation Series 319 dynamically rated Axial/Torsional Load Frame. The actual 3-2 . 40 Pipe 16" Load Direction 18-11/16" Flanges L ~ 46" (Varies for Test Specimen) 63" 8" NPS Sch.

Actuator displacement was designated the test control variable. in software. In these tests. The test data.3 Hertz (Hz)– 0. a plot of load vs. This resulted in virtually identical cycles of actuator displacement being recorded throughout the duration of each test.EPRI Licensed Material Test Program displacement of the actuator is measured by a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT).21]. The measured distance (L) which is dependent on the installation is included in the test data. The output of either the load cell or the LVDT can be selected for closed loop control of the actuator displacement time history. the signals from the load and displacement transducers were sampled 30 times per second. By combining the load and displacement time histories. a test control and data collection system adapted to the requirements of each experimental program. electronic load cell manufactured by the Lebow Instrument Company. The load deflection curve was used to determine the stiffness of each specimen and the load applied to the specimen by a given amount of displacement. results and other information are provided in Appendix C. and the time histories of each were plotted on the computer screen in real time so that the progress of the test could be readily monitored. the number of cycles of applied load is recorded by a digital counter and displayed on the MTS console.000 lb. capacity. Both load and actuator displacement were recorded using a computer program written at OSU. Any of these presentations of the test data could be printed while the test was still in progress. The tests were displacement-controlled cantilever bending tests. In the LabVIEW application developed for the fatigue tests. The output of this load cell was monitored continuously throughout the duration of each test. LabVIEW is a graphical language developed by National Instruments that allows the user to design. Figure 3-1 shows the load application point and direction of loading. This. During a test. was done in real time so that changes in the response of the test specimen could be identified while the specimen was still undergoing loading. 5. The tests followed the standard approach corresponding to Markl type tests [13.5 Hz. Each specimen was first tested to determine the load deflection curve for that particular specimen. Note that the distance from the load point to the surface of the pipe (~46 inches) varies slightly for each test specimen. tension-compression. 3-3 . The selection of displacement as the control parameter meant that actuator movement was used by the MTS system for the feedback in the closed loop controls. the load was sinusoidal at frequencies ranging from 0. The load resulting from the imposition of the specified displacement was measured with a fatigue-rated. too. The load deflection curves were determined for loading in both positive and negative loading directions (down and 1 LabVIEW is a trademark of National Instruments Corporation. displacement at any load cycle desired could be constructed. specifically for that purpose. in LabVIEW™1.

(Note that the Code uses the terms B2.700 2. the purpose of analysis is to be able to express the results in terms of SIFs (or i-factors). F1 lbs.90 0. C2.50 3.) C Indices—Markl Approach As discussed earlier.21 70935 3.50 46. ZT is based on nominal dimensions for the trunnion. and K2.21 84099 3.21 67022 Notes: (1) F = δ * k.EPRI Licensed Material Test Program up). C2.606 A B C D 1.3 M N it3 in. -0.21 70664 3./in.656 2. The cycles to failure were counted to determine the fatigue life. Table 3-1 Summary of Test Results TEST δ in.80 1741 1732 1702 1841 1828 1559 1532 1473 46. the focus will be on B2. and the Code Case uses subscripts that indicate direction of loading.-lbs. (3) The value of it is calculated from it = 245.866 2. Test Results Summary Table 3-1 provides a summary of the test results. Cycles to Failure 500 1. the focus will be on B2 and C2. and K2. C2 indices. Hence. for this type of loading condition. (2) Refer to Figure 3-1 for location of L. L2 in. B2 indices.125 45. it is believed that the Code Case specification that K2 = 1. etc. Failure was detected when through-wall cracks formed and water leaked though the cracks. As the applicable Code Cases do not use SIFs in the qualification of trunnion/pipe configurations.0625 45.2 Analysis of Test Data There are several methods available to analyze the data. Because the welds were full penetration welds. Each specimen was then fatigue-tested by cycling the deflection in both directions of loading by a controlled amount. The first 3-4 .05 0. There are two methods that can be used to evaluate the results. In general.000 N /S. k lbs.90 0. and/or K2 indices. C2 will be covered first. where N = cycles to failure and S = M/ZT. ZT in.280 934 1. the tests that were performed as a part of this investigation were fatigue tests.8 is reasonable.839 2.

In N-392.2].2 (Eq. The second is the Class 1 fatigue approach used in Class 1 analysis per NB-3600 [1]. Q2/A.000 N-0.21]. (neglecting the shear stress term. This is used as the definition of the SIF (i factor) and is used in the design for fatigue for B31. The C2 indices. the following equation is provided: SE = iMc/Z + SPT/2 and also: SPT = KT SNT (Eq. The fatigue tests on the trunnion/pipe configurations followed the Markl approach [13. Section NC-3672. 3-4) (Eq. The Code cases differ in that they use C indices (and other indices) in the evaluation of fatigue instead of SIFs [3. are related to the SIFs. which is about 1 percent (%) of the bending stress): SNT = CLML/ZT Therefore: SPT = KT CLML/ZT and: SE = iMc/Z + KT CLML/(2ZT ) (Eq. which is used in the Code Cases [1].EPRI Licensed Material Test Program will be referred to as the Markl approach.4]. 3-6) (Eq. 3-2) This expression will be used to evaluate the value of C2. Markl used the following expression for Grade B carbon steel: iS = 245.2 provides the following equation: i = C2K2/2 (Eq.1 piping and ASME Section III Classes 2 and 3 piping [1. The C indices correspond to primary-plus-secondary stresses. 3-5) 3-5 . 3-3) For this application. The approach follows that developed in Rawls [22]. The Markl approach will be investigated first. 3-7) (Eq. which are applicable to moment loading in piping. 3-1) where S is the nominal stress in the component and N is the number of cycles when through-wall cracks occur and water leaks.

EPRI Licensed Material Test Program

Substituting Equation 3-2 into Equation 3-7 with K2 = KT yields: SE = (KT/2) C2M/Z + (KT/2) CLML/ZT (Eq. 3-8)

SE in Equation 3-8 is equivalent to the iS term in Equation 3-1. Substituting and rearranging yields: CL = {245,000 N-0.2(2/KT) - C2 M/Z} ZT/M (Eq. 3-9)

As this CL is derived from fatigue tests, to distinguish it from the CL from the Code Case, it now will be called CL'. Additionally, because C2 = 1.0 for straight pipe, Equation 3-9 becomes:
-0.2 CL' = {245,000 N (2/KT) - M/Z} ZT/M

(Eq. 3-10)

CL' is a fatigue-based value that can be compared to the value of CL calculated from the Code Case. Table 3-2 provides this comparison.
Table 3-2 Comparison of CL to CL'

TEST

ZT in.3

Z in.3

M in.-lbs.

N Cycles to Failure 500 1,280 934 1,866

CL1

K22

CL'3

CL/CL'

A B C D

3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21

13.39 13.39 13.39 13.39

84099 70935 70664 67022

3.77 3.77 3.77 3.77

1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

2.76 2.71 2.91 2.65

1.37 1.39 1.30 1.42

Average = 1.37
Notes: 1. From CC N-392, CL = 3.77 for the pipe, 3.12 for the attachment, where the parameters for CL are Ro/T=7.25, do/Do=.522, and t/T=0.948. 2. K2 = 1.8 for full penetration welds. 3. Calculated using Equation 3-10.

Based on this evaluation, it is apparent that the value of CL calculated in accordance with the Code Case is conservative by about 30%.

3-6

EPRI Licensed Material Test Program

C Indices—Class 1 Approach
The second method of evaluating the data follow the fatigue evaluation approach used for Class 1 analysis (NB-3600). Table 3-3 provides a summary of a fatigue analysis of the data using the values for the various stress indices calculated in accordance with the Code Case.
Table 3-3 Trunnion/Pipe—Class 1 CUF Evaluation Using Code Case Indices

Case A B C D

M kips 84.099 70.935 70.664 67.022

SNT ksi 197.5 166.6 166.0 157.4

C2 Mi/Z ksi 12.6 10.6 10.6 10.0

Sn ksi 210.1 177.2 176.5 167.4

3Sm ksi 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0

Ke 5.00 4.91 4.88 4.58

SPT ksi 355.6 299.9 298.8 283.4

SP ksi 361.9 305.2 304.0 288.4

Salt N N ksi Allowable Failure 904.6 96 500 748.9 142 1280 742.6 144 934 660.6 184 1866 Average =

CUF 5.20 9.03 6.47 10.16 7.71

Ï

Notes:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

C2 (pipe) = 1.0 1.0 K2 (pipe) = 1.8 KT (trun) = CL(trun) = 3.77 Z (pipe) = 13.39 in. 3 ZT(trun) = 3.21 in. 3 SNT = CLMT/ZT, where the moment is the range. Sn = C2 Mi /Z + SNT SPT = KT SNT SP = K2C2Do/2IMi + SPT Calculations are based on nominal dimensions. Ke is the fractor for elastic-plastic analysis defined in NB-3228.5, Reference 1. Salt = Sp Ke/2

Í

The test cumulative usage factor, or CUF, is based on an allowable number of cycles from the expression: Nallowable = (8,664,000/(Salt-21,645))2 (Eq. 3-11) [26]

This expression does not include the factors of safety of 2 on stress and 20 on cycles that are part of the Section III Class 1, Appendix I, S-N design curves [1]. If these were included, the calculated CUF would be much greater. The value of Sm used was 20 kips per square inch (ksi) as specified by the Code. As indicated in Table 3-3, the CUF for the tests is, on the average, 7.99 versus a Code requirement of 1.0. This indicates that the Code is very conservative. Contributors to the conservatism could be the value of the indices and/or the value of Ke. If the Code approach to Ke is changed in the future, the values of CL based on the Class 1 would need to be reviewed. Table 3-4 presents the results of a fatigue analysis in which the value of CL was varied until the average CUF = 1.00. The corresponding value of CL was 2.36. The ratio of CL 3-7

EPRI Licensed Material Test Program

(Code Case)/CL(Test) = 3.77/2.36 = 1.597, which indicates the Code Case is conservative by about 60%.
Table 3-4 Trunnion/Pipe—Class 1 CUF Evaluation, Average CUF = 1.0

Case A B C D

M kips 84.099 70.935 70.664 67.022

S NT ksi 123.7 104.3 103.9 98.5

C2 Mi/Z ksi 12.6 10.6 10.6 10.0

Sn ksi 136.2 114.9 114.5 108.6

3Sm ksi 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0

Ke 3.54 2.83 2.82 2.62

SPT ksi 222.6 187.7 187.0 177.4

SP ksi 228.9 193.0 192.3 182.4

Salt N N ksi Allowable Failure 405.2 510 500 273.2 1186 1280 270.7 1209 934 238.8 1590 1866 Average =

CUF 0.98 1.08 0.77 1.17 1.00

Ï

Notes:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

C2 (pipe) = 1.0 K2 (pipe) = 1.0 1.8 KT (trun) = CL(trun) = 2.36 Z (pipe) = 13.39 in. 3 ZT(trun) = 3.21 in. 3 SNT = CLMT/ZT, where the moment is the range. Sn = C2 Mi/Z + SNT SPT = KT SNT S P = K2C2Do/2IMi + SPT Calculations are based on nominal dimensions. Ke is the fractor for elastic-plastic analysis defined in NB-3228.5, Reference 1. S alt = Sp Ke/2

Í

In this case, the value of Ke varies from 2.62 to 3.54, which reduces the potential of contribution to the overall conservatism.

B Indices—From Test Data
The Code Cases specify that the value of the B indices be taken as one-half the value of the C indices, but not less than 1.0. It is worthwhile to determine if the data obtained in this study can be used for evaluating these indices. The ASME Code uses limits on the primary stress intensity to limit gross plastic deformation of piping [1]. The Code has specific limits that it applies to stresses calculated using B-indices. The basic equations of the Code are modified to include the effects of the trunnions in the Code case. (Refer to Equation 2-1; the terms in Equation 2-1 can be neglected except for the term with BL because of the loading.) Therefore the equation reduces to: SMT = BL ML/ZL (Eq. 3-12)

Using SY as the allowable stress and solving for ML (the limit moment) yields:

3-8

assuming linear behavior. This is explained in Article II-1000. a load-deflection curve must be developed. Linear Action Limit Load Load Hypothetical Data Twice Deflection Assuming Linear Action Deflection Figure 3-2 Limit Load Definition 3-9 . 3-15) To determine the limit moment (or limit load) experimentally. and it is shown in Figure 3-2 [1]. 3-14) As this value of BL is based on test data. 3-13) (Eq. Hence: BL' = SYZT/ ML (Eq. The limit moment is defined as when the deflection is equal to twice that predicted.EPRI Licensed Material Test Program ML = SYZT/BL Or rearranging: BL = SYZT/ ML (Eq. it now will be referred to as BL' to distinguish it from the value of BL calculated from the Code case. Section II-1430 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.

08 2.24 1.75 1. This would be a lower limit because the deflection was not allowed to go to twice that based on elastic behavior.89 2700 2650 Average for all specimens. This maximum load will be used to investigate the value of B L'.08 1.5000 2182 2409 1.3 Average for specimen A = 146. (See Appendix C for curves.05 1./in. As such.78 1.22 0.07 1.066 3.215 63.3 122.05 1.13 1. 46. 2469 2650 (2) M=F*L in.728 3.3 Average for specimen D = 1. It indicates that the values of BL (on the average) are only conservative by about 4%.80 1.88 0.86 1.28 1.79 1.67 1.89 (7) (6)/(5) (8) FLIM-EST (9) BL = SyZ/M Using (8) 1.215 63.3 116.92 1.57 1.15 2.01 1.57 2.86 1.89 1. The first phase of the tests involved determining the stiffness of the test specimen.36 1.14 1.692 3.66 1.04 2850 2750 1. the data that was taken during the initial phase of the testing can be used to obtain an estimate of the limit moments.215 63. it will underpredict BL'. As can be seen. this force is less than the limit moment. Column 7 is the ratio of BL/BL'. (3) Z in. both loading directions = Ï Ï Note that the value of SY is based on the material certification data provided by the test specimen manufacturer.85 0. However.EPRI Licensed Material Test Program The tests performed for this report were directed toward obtaining fatigue data rather than limit moment data.67 1.215 63.39 1.17 1.65 (10) (6)/(9) 113.-lb.215 63.89 1.19 1. Table 3-5 Trunnion/Pipe—Experimental Evaluation of BL' COLUMN LOADING (1) Fmax lbs.215 63.89 2450 2500 D POSITIVE NEGATIVE 1890 1766 45.281 3. As noted earlier. 3 TEST m lb.0.97 1.16 B POSITIVE NEGATIVE 1797 1495 45. Column 6 lists the value of BL calculated from the Code Case.89 3500 2400 C POSITIVE NEGATIVE 1752 1473 46.76 1.89 1.61 1.5000 45.13 1.480 3.) The loads in these tests were taken slightly into the plastic region.0625 46.3 Average for specimen B = 91.58 1.02 0.0625 (4) Sy ksi SPECIMEN DIRECTION A POSITIVE NEGATIVE (5) (6) BL = SyZ/M BL = CL/2 (N-392) 1.48 1. Table 3-5 shows the calculation of BL' based on the maximum force used in determining the load deflection curve.3 Average for specimen C = 99. 3-10 .215 63.647 3.215 63.5000 3224 2560 1. the maximum loads can be used to estimate the limit moment.610 3.85 1.73 1.512 3.90 0.09 1.1250 46. this ratio is very close to 1.69 1. Thus BL' can be estimated for both directions of loading.55 1.22 2.5000 45. Column 5 lists the values of BL' predicted.05 1.89 1.06 1. That was determined by obtaining a load-deflection curve. hence.1250 1984 2117 1.3 97.22 1.12 1. 1836 1566 L in.3 109. A review of the curves in Appendix C shows that the specimens were loaded in both the positive and negative direction.95 1.

.41. the ratio of B L (Code)/BL(Test) (see Column 7) would increase to 2. If SY was based on Sm from the Code. where SY = 3/2 Sm = 3/2 (20) = 30 ksi. 3-11 . This is believed to be a reasonable assumption. the values of the limit moments were estimated from the load-deflection curves.EPRI Licensed Material Test Program It should be noted that if SY was based on Sm from the Code. assuming that they would continue to follow the shape of the curves beyond the point where the loading was stopped.19. It can be seen that the ratio is 1. The results will be discussed in the next section. Column 8 lists the estimated limit moments (FLIM-EST). Columns 9 lists the associated value of BL'. In order to obtain more insight into the actual value of BL'. In other words. it was assumed that there would be no sudden change in the behavior. Column 10 lists the ratio of BL/BL'. the ratio of BL (Code)/BL(Test) (see Column 10) would increase to 2. This was performed by extrapolating the load-deflection curves.14 on the average.

24. the data could be helpful in this investigation. and Tubular Joints for in-plane bending tests [23. Toprac.24. It could correspond to rupture. Table 4-1 lists the data from Gibstein. cracking. The “moment at maximum load” is listed.5 times the corresponding C index. In general. there is additional test data available that could be used to investigate this area further. and the “moment at maximum load. It is likely that the definition of “maximum load” does not exactly correspond to the Code definition of “collapse load. Toprac. The yield strengths are also listed (for the pipe). the exact definition of maximum load is not clear for all the test data.EPRI Licensed Material 4 ANALYSIS OF OTHER TEST DATA FOR B INDICES Introduction The Code Case specifies that the various B indices be calculated as 0. using available test data. An estimate was made. However. the yield strength for the trunnion is very similar. This is covered in this chapter. References The original data to be investigated is from Gibstein. The dimensional data is provided. The data includes dimensions.” As pointed out in WRC Bulletin-256. deforming beyond some limit. yield strengths.23. and the Study on Tubular Joints Used for Marine Structures (hereafter Tubular Joints) and is summarized in WRC Bulletin-256 [11. the Code definition of collapse load is that load when the actual deflection is twice that predicted.25]. that provided some insight into the values of B indices.25]. or the maximum load corresponding to the ultimate strength of a tensile strength test.” As discussed earlier. The column labeled BL' is calculated using Equation 3-15: BL' = SYZT/ML 4-1 . As indicated earlier. assuming elastic behavior. the tests performed under this program were not directed toward determination of the maximum collapse load that could lead to evaluating the B indices. Even though the definitions may be different.

52 0.000 1.82 0.6 101.5 298.644 2.979 BL'/CL 0.1 219.34 .2 26.220 0.0 10.5 298.64 .300 t in.0 16.423 0.03 .81 .4 10.276 0.222 0. 298.131 0.19 1.03 .33 .1 30.92 2.0 30.3 48 2.7 41 Mt Kg/m 215 640 340 1520 620 1840 CC N-392 BL' CL (SYZT/ML) 0. 8.0 16.03 .17 1.7 139.231 Toprac In-Plane Bending Tests (WRC Bulletin 256-Table 3) D in.298 10.4 45 3.73 0.055 7.1 219.65 4.989 1.5 43.1 219.57 1.03 .342 9.860 1.03 .0 37.715 3.46 .5 t Sy mm.1 219.05 .279 0.5 40.601 3.2 T/D .227.67 0.06 d/D .000 1.65 T in.51 8.2 17. 8.33 .8 T mm.0 12.909 1.235 0.219 0.1 219.905 1.3 30. The average value of BL'/ CL is 0.887 2.1 219.64 .02 .6 12.67 2.00 1.0 16.8 89.03 .03 .231 0.18 1.2 108.06 .630 0.000 BL'/CL 0.40 1.3 6.211 0.5 41.61 0.118 5.65 .3 10.0 37. Kg/mm2 5.03 .6 139.343 6.5 219.0 7.1 165.61 0.64 .34 .732 2.809 6. 164.0 456.0 Mt Kg/m 1420 2080 2580 840 1810 1460 1190 2630 3560 5500 2630 6000 9000 5450 8000 8730 4130 10000 16400 BL' CC N-392 CL (SYZT/ML) 0.038 4.23 T/D .96 0.710 0.644 1.737 3.04 .231 0.0 5.74 0.EPRI Licensed Material Analysis of Other Test Data for B Indices Table 4-1 Gibstein In-Plane Bending Tests (WRC Bulletin 256-Table 2) D mm.973 0.0 43.6 101.917 1.1 298.5 4.846 4.485 0.00 1.3 60.5 16.0 41.284 The next column.2 Mt in.684 3.313 5.25 1.5 139.279 0.35 2.7 76.1 30.3 7.127 0.81 .44 .280 BL'/CL 0.229 0.8 177.222 2.1 16.000 1.245 0.22 0.01 .712 1. 10.5 166. 4-2 . 4.6 101.8 177.187 0.5 8. 645000 560000 136000 772000 1070000 CC N-392 BL' CL (SYZT/ML) 0. 0.294 0.835 3.66 8.03 . 0.710 2.9 7.268 0. The last column lists the ratio of BL'/CL.5 219.195 0.65 .36 t/T 0.0 30.00 1.5 219.207 JSSC In-Plane Bending Tests (WRC Bulletin 256-Table 4) D mm.4 4.6 71.06 .1 30.0 8.702 2.81 t/T 0.142 5.00 t/T 1.20 .241 0.236 0.5 43.3 10.46 .0 17.796 3.1 219.66 8.05 .03 .65 d in.19 .8 t Sy mm.53 0.4 45 4.0 6.36 .0 7.04 2.1 298.323 0.04 .755 2.650 8.9 316.228 0.0 T mm. 42.000 1.819 6.0 30.24 0.4 4.9 48 4.03 .7 4.0 18. labeled CL.0 d mm.03 .0 6.702 0.7 139.8 12. 101.01 .8 4.87 1.264 0.0 31.814 3.000 1.0 17.57 1. The average value is 0.66 8.6 101.2 7.800 2. Kg/mm2 3.6 101.36 .04 .7 177.079 2.309 0.0 8.263 0.7 193.300 5.04 .194 0.1 219.84 1.31 0.5 298.02 .0 40.2 5.46 .953 3.185 0.5 32.01 d/D .1 d mm.64 0.03 d/D 1.00 1.-lbs.323 0.098 10.207.245 0.241 0.301 2.937 2.9 8.229 10.9 456.701 2.5 298.65 .279 0.84 0.0 32.0 10.03 .01 .5 32.000 0.226 0.2 71.0 16.210 0.46 T/D . Table 4-2 lists similar data from for out-of-plane bending [25].46 .5 316.46 .3 8.796 3.600 1.279 0.4 16.7 193.66 8.300 Sy ksi 41.625 0.7 193.26 .0 18.1 219.180 0.2 48.0 16.04 .65 4.51 8. lists the values of the stress indices calculated using Code Case N-392.2 108.3 32.0 41 4.

7 4. 4.0 the ratio is 0. The experimental data suggests that this is conservative.64 1.29 BL'/CN 0.0).EPRI Licensed Material Analysis of Other Test Data for B Indices Table 4-2 JSSC Out-of-Plane Bending Tests (WRC Bulletin 256-Table 4) D mm.441 . Tables 4-1 and 4-2 indicate the B indices determined experimentally from Gibstein.625 1.1 165. 42.0139 .362 BL' CC N-392 CN t/T (SYZT/ML) 0. the average value of B L'/ CL is 0.0105 d/D .8 89.191 .84 0. it is 0.3 48 2.000 2.4 4.19 0.401 7.0. the Code Case specifies that the B indices be calculated as 0.095 20.4 45 3.029 10.644 1. Kg/mm2 3. the average value is 0. for t/T> 1.0286 .183 0.0 41 4.5 139.227 for all tests. which are greater than the limit of applicability of N-392.979 5. Analysis of Results As discuss earlier.0 T mm.5 4.196 0.5 166.249 The data contains values of t/T.25].0270 .36 1.200 0. 164.5 316.0 d mm.4 45 4.2 times the value of the C indices calculated using the Code Case [23.7 41 Mt Kg/m 185 405 225 675 360 680 T/D .204 0.702 0.3 60.08 0.209 0.9 316.199. 4-3 . For t/T ≤ 1.0.4 4.000 4.0105 . and Tubular Joints are about 0. Toprac. For out-of-plane bending. where t/T > 1.458 . tend to be smaller than for t/T ≤ 1.925 9. which is t/T ≤ 1.260 .0.5 times the C indices.195 .0.207 (t/T ≤ 1.9 48 4.0139 .9 456.0 456.561 22. The values of BL'/CL.8 4. For in-plane bending.248.24.7 76.970 4.8 t Sy mm.

the value of the B indices is about 0. B Indices The tests performed as a part of this study were not specifically focused on the type of testing required to provide data for experimental determination of the B indices. Two methods were used to evaluate this conservatism. For the method referred to as the “CL Indices—Class 1 Approach.3 times the new C index would correspond to the test data. The data was sufficient to demonstrate that the Code Case was conservative. C Indices The analysis of the test data developed as a part of this study indicated that the values of the stress indices calculated by the Code Case are conservative.EPRI Licensed Material 5 COMPARISON OF TEST DATA TO CODE CASE RESULTS Purpose The purpose of this section is to summarize the test results and compare them to those calculated by using the Code Case.4. This was for both in-plane and out-of-plane bending of the trunnion.37.” CL(Code Case)/CL(test) = 1. Analysis of the data indicated that the present Code Case is conservative.5 times the C index. The method referred to herein as the “CL Indices— Markl Approach” yields a value of CL(Code Case)/CL(test) = 1.21 times the value of the C index from the Code Case. If the C indices are to be reduced by a factor of 1. Based on the experimental data. 5-1 .55. The present version of the Code Case specifies that the B indices be taken as 0. a value of the B index of 0. Additional experimental data was available.

As the indices for other loading conditions.EPRI Licensed Material Comparison of Test Data to Code Case Results Loadings in Other Directions The tests performed for this investigation were for in-plane bending of the trunnion. it is reasonable to assume that the same degree of conservatism exists for these indices. given in the Code Case. 5-2 . This assumption is verified by the analysis of the B indices for out-of-plane and in-plane moments. were based on the same theoretical approach (finite element analysis). which indicated the same degree of conservatism.

This is important because trunnion-pipe configurations are often used as anchors in piping systems. (Eq. the rotation is given by φ = 1/GJ ∫oL M dx = 1. The flexibility of the trunnion connection will be investigated. the various components are modeled as one-dimensional beam elements. For a torsional moment. For bending of a straight pipe of length L. In order to accurately represent the load displacement (flexibility) action of the components. 6-1) where M is the bending moment. φ.EPRI Licensed Material 6 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS (FEA) INVESTIGATION OF FLEXIBILITY OF TRUNNIONS ON STRAIGHT PIPE General This section discusses the flexibility of the trunnion-pipe configuration. flexibility factors are used. is in the same direction as the applied moment. The rotation. φ. the rotation of one end. Discussion In piping analysis. with respect to the other is L φ= 1/EI ∫o M dx (Eq. or trunnions. 6-2) 6-1 . For configurations such as branch connections. the flexibility or rotation is due to local deformations in the area of intersection.3/EI ∫oL MT dx where MT is the torsional moment.

Normally. straight sections of pipe (or trunnion) approximately equal to 2 diameters are used in the 6-2 . Beam Run Pipe B (Point Spring) Trunnion Rigid Link Beam A Beam Figure 6-1 Trunnion-Pipe Modeling It is convenient to define the flexibility of the point spring by φ = k M do/EIt (Eq. A rigid link is used to connect point A to point B. a point spring is used to represent the local flexibility of the connection. A rigid link is an element with infinite stiffness. Finite Element Analysis The general layout for the FEA models is shown in Figure 6-2. Then k is equivalent to the number of trunnion diameters that would be added to represent the local flexibility. This will be discussed in more detail later. The flexibility factor for the spring will be calculated by k =(φfea . This is similar to the standard model for branch connections. Figure 6-1 indicates one possible model. which includes the local flexibility of the connection. At point B. the deflections (including rotations) are the same at both ends of the link. 6-3) where It is the section modulus of the trunnion.φb)/(Mdo/It) (Eq.EPRI Licensed Material Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Investigation of Flexibility of Trunnions on Straight Pipe There are several possible ways to model the trunnion/pipe connection. 6-4) where φfea is the rotation from the finite element analysis (FEA) and φb is the rotation from the beam model.

6 L2 5 4 3 2 1 L1 L1 Figure 6-2 FEA Model 2 COSMOS/M is a registered trademark of Structural Research and Analysis Corporation.000 elements. The ends of the pipe and trunnion sections are connected to rigid links. COSMOS/M®2 version 1.EPRI Licensed Material Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Investigation of Flexibility of Trunnions on Straight Pipe models.75 from Structural Research and Analysis Corporation was used. which usually consisted of approximately 7. Shell elements were used in the models. A typical model is shown in Figure 6-3. 6-3 .

6-4 . It is important to recognize that in evaluating flexibility factors. As an example. The first was where one end of the model (point 1) was fixed. The 22 models are listed in Table 6-1. For evaluation of the flexibility of the configuration. and the loads were applied at the end of the trunnion (point 6). As an example. there is no “conservative” value that would be applicable for all piping layouts. both ends of the pipe (points 1 and 3) were fixed. The significance of the boundary conditions will be determined. As a result of this. Table 6-1 includes the moments used in the FEA. G = 12E6. The flexibility factors are based on the average of the results. two sets of boundary conditions were used in the evaluation. along with the dimensions. This will. The cases listed are representative of actual usage. Other pertinent data is also included in Table 6-1.28. it is not expected that a very small trunnion would be used on a large pipe (small d/D). a high value might mean that the loads are lower in other components in a piping system than the “true” values. the loads were applied at the end of the trunnion (point 6) and the free end of the pipe (point 3).EPRI Licensed Material Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Investigation of Flexibility of Trunnions on Straight Pipe Figure 6-3 Typical FEA Model The material properties used in the analyses are E = 30E6. Consequently the “best” value to use is the one that is most representative of the actual value. and the other end (point 3) was free. which are based on a nominal 10 ksi stress in the pipe or trunnion. several loading conditions were used. This is complicated because the flexibility is a function of the end conditions at the ends of the straight pipe. of course. and µ = 0. In the second case. be a function of the layout. The local rotation at the juncture of the pipe and the trunnion is somewhat dependent on the boundary conditions at the ends of the pipe (points 1 and 3).

375 0.00 10.237 0.850 0.200 0.0 20.0 19.50 19. y-.0 19.0 30.667 9.500 0.50 19.50 5.50 14.4 88.6 23. φy.50 19.50 19.0 14.8 168.1 20.500 0.0 34.0 49.50 8.850 0.0 30.50 5.625 12.667 9.50 19.0 72. The x-axis is along the centerline of the trunnion.200 0.200 0.00 10.500 0.500 0.0 34.75 10.500 0.0 29.0 30.50 14. See Figure 6-3 for definition of L1 and L2.0 9.500 9.5 33.50 19.50 4.0 50.0 49.0 33. Ma and Mb.850 0.500 1.0 29.0 29.000 7. These represent.353 0.8 168.50 0.300 0.4 38.375 0.00 7.217 4.50 14.500 0.) 0.50 TS1 TS2 TS3 TS4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 0.500 9.500 9.0 19.) 15.0 50.500 9.250 0.5 34.50 10.667 9.333 0.50 19.333 0.973 1.00 10.0 74.170 0.5 18.4 118.667 9.0 49.375 0.125 8.0 24.0 50.) 8.200 0. The moments.500 0.0 20.72 0.0 10.71 0.5 61.750 7.750 0.4 37.333 0.0 20.50 14. 2.0 33.500 9.0 74.50 19.0 50.85 0.0 15.750 0.00 10.50 8.50 19.0 15.50 19.00 10.EPRI Licensed Material Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Investigation of Flexibility of Trunnions on Straight Pipe Table 6-1 FEA Models Model Do (in.650 4.85 0.2 160.00 10.0 30.100 0.00 10.50 14.0 20.49 0.667 9.0 49. assuming an approximate section modulus of p x mean radius 2 x thickness.500 0.) 0.0 30.4 118.000 1.6 53. and z-axes.700 0. the rotations around the x-.50 19.167 0.0 49.7 245.50 19.00 10.7 279.50 19.0 30.333 0. and the z-axis is perpendicular to x and y.263 10.50 14.50 14.50 19.00 T (in.200 0.0 50.0 19.84 0.0 29.50 19.0 25.283 0.13 14.700 0.0 20.500 0.50 19.425 0.1 91.0 10.632 0.365 0.7 L1 (in.0 25.667 7. 6-5 .0 49.850 1.800 9.500 0.584 0.0 29.75 10.4 118.0 19.) 8.50 5.567 0.0 25.933 4.7 151.0 30.500 9.0 20.0 30.0 10.4 67.0 50.75 0.5 17.00 10.0 20.0 19.00 7.85 0.00 10.50 8.13 13.375 12.333 0.500 0.0 9.00 7.6 8.0 29.-lbs.800 9.47 0.0 19.750 0.1 19.375 9.0 0.0 NOTES: 1.800 9.2 7.00 10.750 0.0 29.4 118.500 1.50 8.00 10.0 50.263 4.50 t (in.50 8.0 74.350 8.850 0.750 0.2 10. respectively.50 0.250 8.50 5.0 49.75 5.0 18.750 0.48 0.50 8.750 0.0 29.34 0.200 8.50 14.50 19.333 0.500 1.850 1.-lbs.500 6.237 0.50 14.667 9.19 13.200 do (in.75 0.0 74.500 0.75 12.3 279.50 19.833 7.800 9.0 15.850 0. FEA Results Table 6-2 lists the rotations at the indicated points for the specific load cases.850 1.50 14.3 279.50 19.50 14.375 0.) 4.522 0.7 111.000 1.843 0.50 19.200 0.0 74.800 7.13 13.375 12. and φz.8 168.50 0. Table 6-2 and the following tables refer to φx.50 14.) (in.150 0.156 4.800 d (in.83 18.500 0.0 19.250 0.750 0.50 14.82 0.330 4.50 5.81 0.0 28.340 do/Do t/T Do/T do/t D (in.3 168.333 0. The results are discussed in the following sections.0 29.843 0.50 14.8 118.0 20.) 19.00 7.00 10.0 19.00 10.850 0.800 9. the y-axis is along the centerline of the pipe.0 19.0 24.160 D/T d/D d/t Ma Mb (in. These rotations were taken directly from the FEA output and can be considered the rotation with respect to a fixed point.075 4.0 24.500 0. are based on a nominal stress of 10 ksi in the pipe or trunnion.900 7.8 168.82 0.000 1.850 0.51 0.) 33827 33827 309169 481195 44301 149517 217652 79521 268385 390689 30580 103206 150238 57014 192422 280110 18857 63644 92646 36191 122145 177807 137721 451036 451036 451036 354411 354411 354411 354411 354411 354411 244637 244637 244637 244637 244637 244637 150859 150859 150859 150859 150859 150859 Ip (in4) 57.8 168.3 7.0 50.50 14.0 33.00 10. The values of k are independent of Ma or Mb.0 49.700 34.75 12.250 0.00 7.500 0.50 14.375 12.7 4.750 0.73 0.00 10.500 0.50 14.385 10.0 9.8 13.00 10.594 0.948 0.0 14.4 74.750 0.750 7.0 14.0 29.0 50.50 19.7 44.) 4.1 18.75 0.00 7.50 L2 (in.4 118.0 30.0 49.500 0.0 It (in4) 7.

74E-03 1.32E-03 1.33E-03 1.53E-03 1. 2.08E-03 2.11E-03 2.74E-03 1.75E-03 1.34E-02 1.78E-03 2.66E-03 4.25E-03 7.15E-03 4.04E-03 1.03E-03 8.36E-03 1.73E-03 Notes: 1.11E-03 5.32E-03 1.33E-03 1.74E-03 1.36E-03 9. This is seen by reviewing models T1–T18. where the pipe is the same size and the size of the trunnion is changed.89E-03 3.04E-03 2.99E-03 3.34E-03 1.59E-03 5. is given by φ6 = φ6-5 + φ5-4 + φ4-2 +φ2-1 (Eq.68E-02 9.17E-02 1. The rotation at the end of the trunnion (point 6).91E-03 3.64E-03 3.32E-03 1. a point spring is used to represent the local flexibility of the connection. At that juncture.36E-03 1.16E-03 4.35E-03 1.36E-03 1.70E-03 5.34E-03 1.88E-03 3.93E-03 3.33E-03 1.05E-03 1.76E-03 2.32E-03 Torsion Moment on Pipe 6 fY 2.82E-03 4.34E-03 3.06E-03 2.EPRI Licensed Material Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Investigation of Flexibility of Trunnions on Straight Pipe Table 6-2 Summary of Rotations for Point 6—One End of Pipe Fixed Case Model TS1 TS2 TS3 TS4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 In-Plane Moment on Trunnion 1 fZ 6.55E-03 1.03E-03 1.33E-03 1.11E-02 5.74E-03 1.57E-03 3.04E-03 1.35E-03 5.35E-03 1.97E-03 8.12E-03 6.61E-03 6.05E-03 1.59E-03 3.11E-02 2.55E-03 6.87E-03 3.95E-03 1.96E-03 In-Plane Moment on Pipe 4 fZ 1.16E-02 2.25E-02 1. A rigid link is included in the model from the centerline of the run pipe to its surface.76E-03 1.95E-02 Torsion Moment on Trunnion 3 fX 3.65E-03 3.32E-03 1.77E-03 1.75E-03 1.46E-03 3. Loads on the pipe were applied at point 3 (Figure 6-2). The model depicted in Figure 6-2 will be used as the basis of evaluating the FEA results for loads on the trunnion.32E-03 Out-of-Plane Moment on Pipe 5 fX 1.76E-03 1.37E-03 1.96E-03 3.55E-03 1.36E-02 1.36E-03 1.73E-03 1.73E-03 1.47E-03 3.26E-02 1. 6-5) 6-6 .81E-03 3.34E-03 1.34E-03 1. Figure 6-2 shows the model to be used as the basis of the evaluation of the flexibility of the trunnion.38E-03 1.89E-03 8.77E-03 1.33E-03 1.34E-03 2. with respect to the fixed point 1.44E-03 4.47E-03 7.57E-03 Out-of-Plane Moment on Trunnion 2 fY 1.36E-03 1.44E-03 4.36E-03 1.99E-03 5. Loads on the trunnion were applied at point 6 (Figure 6-2).34E-03 1.33E-03 1.37E-03 1.35E-03 1.33E-03 1.57E-03 3.84E-03 3.87E-03 9.36E-03 1.54E-03 3.78E-03 1.79E-03 1.48E-03 4.31E-02 1.44E-03 3. Table 6-2 indicates that the trunnion does not affect the rotations of the pipe for loads applied at the end of the pipe.36E-03 1.36E-03 1.42E-02 1.34E-03 1.29E-03 3.04E-03 1.33E-03 1.52E-03 6.77E-03 2.36E-03 1.79E-03 1.76E-03 1.34E-03 1.78E-03 1.34E-03 1.04E-03 1.

the values are larger with a maximum of about 27.φ2-1] For torsion of the trunnion.EPRI Licensed Material Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Investigation of Flexibility of Trunnions on Straight Pipe where φi-j is the rotation of point “i” with respect to point “j. and rearranging yields: k = 1/(Mdo/(EIt)) [φfea .09. 6-9) (Eq. Equation 6-7 is replaced by: φ2-1 = 1. Equation 6-7 is replaced by: φ2-1 = ML1/(8EIp) For out-of-plane moments.3 ML1/(2EIp) (Eq. 6-7 . When fixed at both of the pipe ends. 6-6) For out-of-plane bending of the trunnion because the segment of the beam model from point 1 to point 2 is in torsion. 6-11) Table 6-3 lists the values of k for in-plane bending.φ6-5 .24. For out-of-plane bending. out-of-plane bending. for in-plane moments or torsion on the trunnion. For torsion. Equation 6-7 is replaced by φ2-1 = 1. 6-7) (Eq. Equation 6-6 is replaced by: φ6-5 = 1. fixed at one pipe end (point 1) and fixed at both ends (points 1 and 3).” and φ6 is the rotation of the end of the trunnion (see Figure 6-2). the values are smaller with a range of 0.3 ML2/(EIt) (Eq. and torsion for the case with only one end fixed.3 ML1/(EIp) (Eq.φ4-2 . the values of k range from 1.43 to 1. For in-plane bending. 6-10) As discussed earlier. the FEA was performed with two sets of boundary conditions. 6-12) (Eq. Note that for in-plane bending: φ6-5 = ML2/(EIt) φ5-4 = k Mdo/(EIt) point spring (from Equation 6-3) φ4-2 = 0 (because this is the rotation over a rigid link) φ2-1 = ML1/(EIp) Replacing φ6 with φfea. 6-8) (Eq.79 to 6.

29 7.44E-03 2.0 14.09 6.44E-03 0.720 2.81E-03 4.59E-03 1.58 3.47E-03 9.500 0.16E-02 27.87E-03 9.850 0.42E-02 16.650 3.12E-03 3.30 1.79 9.91E-03 1.0 19.0 33.483 0.11E-02 13.88E-03 0.1 19.435 2.55E-03 6.5 33.39 1.89E-03 9.03E-03 8.29E-03 3.54E-03 0.5 17.0 49.52E-03 5.0 49.03 3.82E-03 4.0 19.453 2.87E-03 0.500 0.957 3.66E-03 3.36E-02 14.78E-03 0.760 3.19 5.0 29.95E-03 8.0 9.0 29.30 1.25E-02 15.00 1.61E-03 4.0 19.0 9.28 1.805 0.36E-03 7.02 3.11E-03 5.0 24.77E-03 0.04E-03 0.43 3.04 4.0 29.96E-03 1.44E-03 2.821 0.839 0.34E-03 0.750 0.68 2.509 0.109 3.0 29.15E-03 4.712 3.47 5.32 4.34E-03 2.0 49.764 2.80 6.0 29.11E-02 12.711 0.0 29.99E-03 3.13 8.99E-03 0.0 49.46 3.25E-03 10.89E-03 0.0 49. The values are very close to the condition with only one end of the pipe fixed.70E-03 2. 6-8 .64E-03 3.46E-03 1.154 3.55 3.79 3.0 19.0 9.85 4.01 4.10 1.678 2.0 18.066 3.57E-03 0.0 33.36 4.44 5.0 28.26E-02 14.482 2.44 4.92 6.761 3.821 0.750 0.15 6.0 d/D 0.344 0.35E-03 4.0 29.0 24.67 1.31E-02 16.636 2.833 d/t 18.735 0.52 Out-of-Plane Moment on Trunnion k φY 1.739 3.06E-03 0.16E-03 3.850 0.724 0.00 2.96E-03 1.11E-03 0.12 7. Tables 6-5 through 6-7 include a comparison of the results for the two sets of boundary conditions.95E-02 23.34 1.84E-03 2.47E-03 0.750 0.59E-03 4.0 49.48E-03 3.93E-03 1.08E-03 0.490 0.0 49.26 8.0 In-Plane Moment on Trunnion k φZ 6.236 Table 6-4 lists the values of k for the condition with both ends fixed.0 14.0 29.48 Torsion Moment on Trunnion k φX 3.47 5.0 19.72 9.474 0.53E-03 8.73 5.72 4.0 49.500 0.678 3.032 3.65E-03 2.52 5.0 49.0 14.EPRI Licensed Material Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Investigation of Flexibility of Trunnions on Straight Pipe Table 6-3 Bending of the Trunnion—One Pipe End Fixed Model TS1 TS2 TS3 TS4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 D/T 33.029 3.850 0.57E-03 1.0 29.68E-02 19.76E-03 0.0 24.807 3.17E-02 27. The variations are within the analysis methodology tolerance.429 2.0 19.97E-03 5.0 19.98 9.45 8.0 19.57E-03 5.

EPRI Licensed Material Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Investigation of Flexibility of Trunnions on Straight Pipe

Table 6-4 Bending of the Trunnion—Both Ends Fixed
In-Plane Moment on Trunnion k φZ 5.53E-03 4.43 4.56E-03 3.57 2.78E-03 2.68 3.80E-03 3.98 3.30E-03 1.78 2.82E-03 1.99 2.69E-03 1.98 4.38E-03 3.03 4.06E-03 3.44 3.95E-03 3.44 3.68E-03 2.42 3.14E-03 2.52 2.96E-03 2.45 5.07E-03 4.18 4.65E-03 4.42 4.45E-03 4.29 4.33E-03 3.43 3.66E-03 3.34 3.38E-03 3.12 6.26E-03 6.08 5.56E-03 5.89 5.22E-03 5.54 Out-of-Plane Moment on Trunnion k φY 1.50E-02 17.67 9.20E-03 10.12 7.05E-03 8.33 1.04E-02 12.50 5.50E-03 4.79 5.73E-03 5.72 5.42E-03 5.26 8.16E-03 7.98 9.19E-03 9.70 8.90E-03 9.13 7.92E-03 8.44 8.10E-03 9.29 7.41E-03 8.27 1.24E-02 14.29 1.35E-02 16.08 1.35E-02 15.94 1.30E-02 16.00 1.21E-02 15.39 1.05E-02 12.99 2.14E-02 27.67 2.09E-02 27.27 1.86E-02 23.67 Torsion Moment on Trunnion k φX 3.62E-03 0.71 2.98E-03 0.43 1.72E-03 0.77 1.99E-03 1.05 2.97E-03 0.44 2.28E-03 0.65 2.17E-03 0.73 3.28E-03 0.65 2.68E-03 0.98 2.62E-03 1.10 2.93E-03 0.46 2.28E-03 0.69 2.17E-03 0.78 3.20E-03 0.68 2.66E-03 1.05 2.61E-03 1.19 2.92E-03 0.49 2.28E-03 0.73 2.17E-03 0.82 3.17E-03 0.75 2.66E-03 1.13 2.62E-03 1.28

Model TS1 TS2 TS3 TS4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18

D/T 33.5 33.0 33.0 33.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 49.0

d/D 0.509 0.344 0.839 0.821 0.500 0.750 0.850 0.474 0.711 0.805 0.500 0.750 0.850 0.483 0.724 0.821 0.500 0.750 0.850 0.490 0.735 0.833

d/t 18.0 18.0 28.5 17.1 19.0 19.0 19.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 24.0 24.0 24.0

6-9

EPRI Licensed Material Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Investigation of Flexibility of Trunnions on Straight Pipe

Table 6-5 In-Plane Bending of the Trunnion—Average of Boundary Conditions
1 End Fixed k Note (1) 4.85 3.58 2.72 4.03 1.79 2.02 2.01 3.04 3.47 3.46 2.43 2.55 2.47 4.19 4.44 4.32 3.44 3.36 3.15 6.09 5.92 5.52 2 Ends Fixed k Note (1) 4.43 3.57 2.68 3.98 1.78 1.99 1.98 3.03 3.44 3.44 2.42 2.52 2.45 4.18 4.42 4.29 3.43 3.34 3.12 6.08 5.89 5.54 Average = Maximum = Minimum = STD=

Model TS1 TS2 TS3 TS4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18

D/T 33.5 33.0 33.0 33.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 49.0

d/D 0.509 0.344 0.839 0.821 0.500 0.750 0.850 0.474 0.711 0.805 0.500 0.750 0.850 0.483 0.724 0.821 0.500 0.750 0.850 0.490 0.735 0.833

d/t 18.0 18.0 28.5 17.1 19.0 19.0 19.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 24.0 24.0 24.0

Notes: 1. k based on finite element analysis (FEA) 2. k based on regression Equation 6-13

% Diff -8.5 -0.2 -1.6 -1.1 -0.5 -1.1 -1.3 -0.4 -0.7 -0.6 -0.4 -0.9 -1.1 -0.3 -0.6 -0.6 -0.3 -0.7 -0.9 -0.2 -0.4 0.4 -1.0 0.4 -8.5 1.73

Average k Note (1) 4.64 3.58 2.70 4.01 1.79 2.01 2.00 3.04 3.46 3.45 2.42 2.54 2.46 4.18 4.43 4.30 3.44 3.35 3.14 6.08 5.91 5.53

R EQ Note (2) 4.16 3.99 2.96 4.36 1.86 1.90 1.91 3.26 3.34 3.37 2.38 2.44 2.46 4.13 4.23 4.26 3.25 3.32 3.35 5.58 5.71 5.75 Average = Maximum = Minimum = STD=

% Diff -10.3 11.5 9.8 8.8 3.8 -5.3 -4.1 7.4 -3.3 -2.5 -1.7 -3.8 -0.2 -1.2 -4.5 -1.0 -5.6 -0.9 6.7 -8.4 -3.4 4.0 -0.2 11.5 -10.3 6.00

6-10

EPRI Licensed Material Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Investigation of Flexibility of Trunnions on Straight Pipe

Table 6-6 Out-of-Plane Bending of the Trunnion—Average of Boundary Conditions
1 End Fixed Model TS1 TS2 TS3 TS4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 D/T 33.5 33.0 33.0 33.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 d/D 0.509 0.344 0.839 0.821 0.500 0.750 0.850 0.474 0.711 0.805 0.500 0.750 0.850 0.483 0.724 0.821 0.500 0.750 0.850 0.490 0.735 0.833 d/t 18.0 18.0 28.5 17.1 19.0 19.0 19.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 k Note (1) 19.79 10.12 8.34 12.52 4.80 5.73 5.26 7.98 9.72 9.13 8.45 9.29 8.28 14.30 16.10 14.67 16.00 15.39 13.00 27.68 27.30 23.48 2 Ends Fixed k Note (1) 17.67 10.12 8.33 12.50 4.79 5.72 5.26 7.98 9.70 9.13 8.44 9.29 8.27 14.29 16.08 15.94 16.00 15.39 12.99 27.67 27.27 23.67 Average = Maximum = Minimum = STD= % Diff -10.7 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 8.6 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.8 -0.1 8.6 -10.7 3.01

Average k Note (1) 18.73 10.12 8.34 12.51 4.80 5.73 5.26 7.98 9.71 9.13 8.44 9.29 8.27 14.29 16.09 15.31 16.00 15.39 12.99 27.67 27.28 23.58

w/o factor R EQ Note (2) 14.99 14.08 10.82 15.81 5.03 5.22 5.28 8.77 9.10 9.20 8.01 8.31 8.40 13.79 14.30 14.47 14.27 14.80 14.97 24.32 25.23 25.51 Average = Maximum = Minimum = STD=

w/ factor R EQ % Diff Note(3) % Diff -19.9 15.4 -17.5 39.1 12.3 21.8 29.8 10.4 24.6 26.4 15.5 23.6 4.9 5.1 7.0 -8.9 5.3 -6.8 0.4 5.0 -5.2 9.9 8.8 10.2 -6.3 9.5 -2.4 0.8 9.1 -0.7 -5.1 8.2 -2.9 -10.5 8.5 -8.1 1.6 8.0 -3.6 -3.5 14.0 -2.3 -11.1 14.9 -7.5 -5.5 14.1 -7.7 -10.8 14.7 -8.3 -3.8 15.3 -0.7 15.2 14.3 9.8 -12.1 24.9 -10.1 -7.5 26.3 -3.7 8.2 24.8 5.0 1.4 Average = 0.6 39.1 Maximum = 24.6 -19.9 Minimum = -17.5 14.87 STD= 11.30

Notes: 1. k based on FEA 2. k based on regression Equation 6-14 3. k based on regression Equation 6-15

6-11

1 1.3 0.821 0.2% with the maximum abut 11.7 1.EPRI Licensed Material Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Investigation of Flexibility of Trunnions on Straight Pipe Table 6-7 Torsion of the Trunnion—Average of Boundary Conditions 1 End Fixed k Note (1) 0.4 Minimum = -7.0 2.84 9.0 49.74 0.49 0.3 1.65 0.96 1.850 0.3 STD= 3.0%.74 1.0 14.6 0.68 0.474 0.0 19.500 0.72 0.63 It is assumed that the average of the two conditions is representative of actual applications.77 1.05 0.03 1.17 0.76 (r2 = 0.03 0.68 0.0 9.500 0.0 19.07 0.68 1.735 0.805 0.0 49.9 0.81 0.1 19.0 19.0 49.4 0.68 1.48 -0.11 1.0 0.1 0.850 0.0 29.10 0.6 0.10 -2.4 1.0 24.13 1.0 18.74 1.42 -2. k based on regression Equation 6-16 % Diff -6.9 1.0 19. 6-13) The average difference between Equation 6-13 and the FEA results is 0.0 0.821 0.71 0.15 0.68 -0.65 0.0 Notes: 1.3 Maximum = 9.8 2.6 0.44 0.5 17.0 19.7 0.97) (Eq.28 Average = Maximum = Minimum = STD= Model TS1 TS2 TS3 TS4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 D/T 33.0 29.77 0.1 3.43 0.46 5.344 0.058 (d/t)-0. 6-12 .1 0.0 d/D 0.76 1.0 14.509 0.97 1.3 3.750 0.45 -1.8 0.98 1.2 Average = -0.750 0.04 1.12 7.750 0.850 0.73 0.0 29.5 2.833 d/t 18.64 0.0 29.7 -6.0 29.81 0.04 0. k based on FEA 2.78 0.24 -1.5 1.48 0.0 49.72 -0.44 0.0 19.0 19.7 1.01 -2.24 2 Ends Fixed k Note (1) 0.0 29.46 0.8 0.0 49.0 19.711 0.8 0.0 49.76 0.77 1.0 29.0 49.0 49.45 0.82 0.724 0.5 2.351 (d/D)0.0 49. The standard deviation of the percentage difference was 6.9 1.96 Average k Note (1) 0.05 1.6 1.8 2.95 -1.0 29.34 (D/T)1. Tables 6-5 through 6-7 list the average values of k and also provide a comparison to equations developed from regression analysis for the specific loading conditions on the trunnion: In-plane bending: k = 0.9 0.71 0.63 -3.19 0.08 0.0 9.43 0.7 1.72 0.500 0.0 33.68 1.0 9.64 0.72 0.48 0.0 33.9 1.63 -1.5 33.3 0.07 -0.76 -0.4 1.8 2.72 0.0 29.76 0.65 0.1 0.26 R EQ Note (2) % Diff 0.0 24.43 0.12 1.7 1.0 28.82 0.0 24.15 -1.0 3.0 14.6 1.45 0.2 0.75 1.2 0.0 0.7 0.5%.73 -1.68 -7.73 0.490 0.839 0.65 0.483 0.67 -1.43 0.3 0.69 0.

Considering that the calculation does not include the flexibility of the 6-13 . In order to reduce the difference between the correlation equation and the FEA results.34 to 0. with the maximum about 39. d/D from 0. Loads and deflections at the load point for in-plane bending were recorded and are included in Appendix C.86 (d/D)-0. The calculations yielded reasonable results.61 (r2 = 0. Torsion: k= 0.2%. with the maximum about 24.998 (d/t)-0. The standard deviation of the percentage difference was 14. 6-14) The average difference between Equation 6-14 and the FEA results is 1. The standard deviation of the percentage difference was 11.95) (Eq. a factor was added to account for the effects of d/D for out-of-plane bending.” The closer to 1. Comparison to Test Data While the tests discussed in Chapter 3 were not specifically for determining flexibility factors.56 (D/T)0. Using an average trunnion length of 46 inches and other dimensions from Figure 3-1 and Equation 6-13 (for in-plane bending). trial calculations were performed to determine the reasonableness of the results.85. Out-of-plane bending: k= 0. In order to determine the applicability of the various equations over the various ranges of parameters.46 inches. The standard deviation of the percentage difference was 3.0. 6-15) The average difference between Equation 6-15 and the FEA results is 0.54 inches.EPRI Licensed Material Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Investigation of Flexibility of Trunnions on Straight Pipe The parameter r2 is a standard statistical measure of “goodness of fit. In the FEA. hence. the calculated deflection was 0. they can be used to evaluate one of the equations derived above.75 (r2 = 0.4%.6%. It is not possible to analyze all possible combinations of these parameters.3%. with the maximum abut 9.6%.45) (D/T)1.75 (r2 = 0. The average deflection of the four tests at a load of 1.1%.321 (1. This resulted in the following expression for out-of-plane bending: k= 0.85 (d/D)0. and d/t from 9 to 49.47(d/D)-(d/D)2.6%.92) (Eq.75 (d/D)0. the range of the parameters used to develop Equations 6-13 through 6-16 were: D/T from 19 to 49.14 (d/t)-0.09 (d/t)-0.4%. This represents a slight improvement over Equation 6-14.99) (Eq. was 0. the more accurate the curve fit is.21 (D/T)1.9%. these parameter ranges will be used as limits in the applicability of the equations. 6-16) The average difference between Equation 6-16 and the FEA results is 0.000 lbs.

EPRI Licensed Material Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Investigation of Flexibility of Trunnions on Straight Pipe testing frame or bolted connections—and also that Equation 6-13 is based on the average of the two cases with different conditions—this is considered as verification of the methodology. 6-14 .

321 (1. the flexibility is the same as for the run pipe without a trunnion. and BT) are defined as 0. 7-1 .75 (d/D)0.998 (d/t)-0. 3.33.86 (d/D)-0.0 instead of 8.61 (Eq. The flexibility factors of the point spring are given by: In-plane bending: k = 0.351 (d/D)0. For Code Case N-391. CL.EPRI Licensed Material 7 CONCLUSIONS The conclusions arrived at from the analyses and tests discussed in this report are enumerated below: 1.75 Torsion: k= 0. BN. 2. 6-13) For through-run moments. At this location. 5. BL. 4.47(d/D)-(d/D)2. The flexibility model should be based on Figure 6-1.0. CN. the lower limit on γ = Ro/T can be taken as 4.45) (D/T)1.14 (d/t)-0. 6-16) (Eq.3 times the corresponding C index (CW. The basic approach used by Code Cases N-391 and N-392 can be used in the design and qualification of trunnions on pipe.4. in which it is assumed that there is a rigid link from the centerline of the pipe to its outer surface where the trunnion is connected. it is assumed that a point spring exists. and CT) but not less than 1.058 (d/t)-0. 6-15) (Eq. The values of the B indices (BW.34 (D/T)1. A more accurate evaluation of trunnions or hollow circular cross section welded on pipe can be made if the tables in Code Cases N-392 and N-392 are modified such that the present values of Ao are reduced by a factor of 1.56 (D/T)0.76 Out-of-plane bending: k= 0.

EPRI Licensed Material Conclusions The applicability of these equations is limited to the following range of parameters: D/T: from 19.0 to 49.0 The approach suggested should allow for a more accurate evaluation of trunnions on straight pipe.0 to 49.85 d/t: from 9.0 d/D: from 0.34 to 0. 7-2 .

. Case N-392-3. and Rodabaugh. June 1979..V. 10.” Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal. R. “Background of ASME Code Cases N-391 and N-392 Trunnions of Straight Pipe. E. New York. 9. Mokhtarian. 287-299. Dodge. Ranjan. Section III. L. April 1991. Cambridge.” Welding Research Council Bulletin 198. and Smedley. Kuang. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. “Local Stresses in Cylindrical Shells due to External Loadings on Nozzles-Supplement to WRC Bulletin No. G.. and Moore.C. B31. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. “Stress Indices and Flexibility Factors for Nozzles in Pressure Vessels and Piping.C. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Attachment to ASME Code Committee. 107. pp. W. Division 1. E. K.. “Secondary Stress Indices for Integral Structural Attachments to Straight Pipe. S. A. E. “Stress Concentration in Tubular Joints..L. 3.1.. 11.C. E.” NUREG/CR-0778. New York. Case N-391-2.P.G.C.G.D. Rodabaugh.EPRI Licensed Material 8 REFERENCES 1... American National Standards Institute (ANSI). “Stress Indices at Lug Supports on Piping Systems. Section III.. Working Group on Piping Design (WGPD) meeting minutes. Leick. and Kablich.. Power Piping.” Welding Research Council Bulletin Number 256. August 1984. S. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.” September 1990. 8-1 . Dodge.. 4. Procedure for Evaluation of the design of Hollow Circular Cross Section Welded Attachments on Class 1 Piping. Stress Concentrations of Unstiffened Tubular Joints.C. J. 1978. “Review of Data Relevant to the Design of Tubular Joints in Fixed Offshore Platforms. Procedure for Evaluation of the design of Hollow Circular Cross Section Welded Attachments on Classes 2 and 3 Piping. 2.E. New York.G.B. W. European Offshore Steels Research Seminar... G. August 1977. J. September 1974.. A.E. J. New York. Potvin.” Welding Research Council Bulletin 297. 7.. 8. and Moore. Section III. Nuclear Power Plant Components. Wordsworth. Division 1. 6. Rodabaugh. Mershon. 5. Rodabaugh.” and Rodabaugh. January 1980.C.. Code for Pressure Piping. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. E.

Y. R. Division 2. A. 1992. and Avent. 1992. Slagis.A.R.” PVP-Vol. Criteria of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for Design by Analysis in Sections III and VIII. R. Rawls. 1951.76. D. “Fatigue Tests of Piping Components.R..F. May 21. “An Investigation of Welded Steel Pipe Connections. 1991. ASME. Makino.. Hankinson. Hankinson. B.” International Institute of Welding. 237-2. G. and Mitsui. M. “Re-analysis of Ultimate Strength Data for Truss Connections in Circular Hollow Sections. May 1982. October 1966.4. New York.. (JSSC). 15. 14. The Static Strength of T-Joints Subjected to In-Plane Bending. XV-461-80. 76-137. “Commentary on the 1987 Section III Attachment Rules.. R. Y.B.” Welding Research Council Bulletin 71. (in Japanese). March 1972. 20. 237-2. 19. 218. 1989. August 1961. and Rodabaugh. 169. Basavaraju. and Weiler. ASME. and Tang. “Design Guidance for Integral Welded Attachments. D. Toprac. 235. S. 21..Y. 22. C. “Stress Analysis and Stress Index Development for a Trunnion Pipe Support. G. “Local Stresses in Piping at Integral Attachments by Finite Element Method.” PVP Vol.A.F. Wais. and Comparison of Circular Trunnion Attachments to Piping... R. and Roarty. A. June 1994. C.F.. M. E.. E. 16. ASME.. Study on Tubular Joints Used for Marine Structures.” Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology. and Chern. Markl.H. Kalavar. Y. Gibstein. “Finite Element Analysis of Piping Trunnions for Fatigue Loadings. “A Review. 25. 7. Welding Research Supplement.” ASME paper no. Y. Gray. “Evaluation of the Capacity of Welded Attachments to Elbows as compared to the Methodology of ASME Code Case N-318. ASME.A.. C. 8-2 ... Stout.A. Rodabaugh.” PVP-Vol. H. 17. Melworm.. IIW Doc.” PVP-Vol.. 13.. 24.” Welding Research Council Bulletin N-392. 1969.. 51-PET-21. 18. Analysis and Design. Discussion.R. American Society of Mechanical Engineers..C. Van Duyne.EPRI Licensed Material References 12. M. “Developing Stress Intensification Factors: (1) Standardized Method for Developing Stress Intensification Factors for Piping Components.C. Kurobane. 1992. 1987. E. 120. I.K.. The Society of Steel Construction of Japan.” PVP Vol. Det Norske Veritas Report No. ASME. and Berman. ASME. R. 26. Sadd.A. 23.” PVP-Vol. Welded Attachments to Tubes—Experimentation.

DIVISION 1. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. SECTION III. PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATION OF THE DESIGN OF HOLLOW CIRCULAR CROSS SECTION WELDED ATTACHMENTS ON CLASS 1 PIPING. A-1 .EPRI Licensed Material A CASE N-391-2. NEW YORK.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Reprinted with the permission of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers from ASME BPVC. Division 1. Section XI .1998 Edition. Section III. Procedure for Evaluation of the design of Hollow Circular Cross Section Welded Attachments on Class 1 Piping.EPRI Licensed Material Case N-391-2. New York. A-2 .

New York. A-3 . Reprinted with the permission of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers from ASME BPVC.EPRI Licensed Material Case N-391-2. Division 1. Section XI . American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Section III. Procedure for Evaluation of the design of Hollow Circular Cross Section Welded Attachments on Class 1 Piping.1998 Edition.

1998 Edition. Division 1. A-4 . Section III. New York. Section XI .EPRI Licensed Material Case N-391-2. Reprinted with the permission of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers from ASME BPVC. Procedure for Evaluation of the design of Hollow Circular Cross Section Welded Attachments on Class 1 Piping. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Section III.1998 Edition. A-5 . Reprinted with the permission of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers from ASME BPVC. Procedure for Evaluation of the design of Hollow Circular Cross Section Welded Attachments on Class 1 Piping.EPRI Licensed Material Case N-391-2. New York. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Division 1. Section XI .

PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATION OF THE DESIGN OF HOLLOW CIRCULAR CROSS SECTION WELDED ATTACHMENTS ON CLASSES 2 AND 3 PIPING. SECTION III. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. NEW YORK B-1 . DIVISION 1.EPRI Licensed Material B CASE N-392-3.

Division 1. B-2 . Procedure for Evaluation of the design of Hollow Circular Cross Section Welded Attachments on Classes 2 and 3 Piping. New York Reprinted with the permission of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers from ASME BPVC. Section XI .EPRI Licensed Material Case N-392-3.1998 Edition. Section III. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Section XI . Division 1. Procedure for Evaluation of the design of Hollow Circular Cross Section Welded Attachments on Classes 2 and 3 Piping. New York Reprinted with the permission of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers from ASME BPVC. B-3 . Section III.EPRI Licensed Material Case N-392-3. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.1998 Edition.

Division 1. Procedure for Evaluation of the design of Hollow Circular Cross Section Welded Attachments on Classes 2 and 3 Piping. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. New York Reprinted with the permission of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers from ASME BPVC. Section XI . B-4 . Section III.1998 Edition.EPRI Licensed Material Case N-392-3.

Procedure for Evaluation of the design of Hollow Circular Cross Section Welded Attachments on Classes 2 and 3 Piping. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Section III. Section XI . B-5 . Division 1.1998 Edition.EPRI Licensed Material Case N-392-3. New York Reprinted with the permission of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers from ASME BPVC.

EPRI Licensed Material C TEST DATA AND RESULTS C-1 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-2 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-3 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-4 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-5 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-6 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-7 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-8 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-9 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-10 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-11 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-12 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-13 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-14 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-15 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-16 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-17 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-18 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-19 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-20 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-21 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-22 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-23 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-24 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-25 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-26 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-27 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-28 .

EPRI Licensed Material Test Data and Results C-29 .

.

com • www. the company provides a wide range of innovative products and services to more than 1000 energyrelated organizations in 40 countries. and society. No waiver. EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES NEITHER EPRI.855. About EPRI EPRI creates science and technology solutions for the global energy and energy services industry. and (III) a consultant to your company or related entities. (EPRI).S. This shrink-wrap license agreement is subordinate to the terms of the Master Utility License Agreement between most U. their customers. EPRI. 7. 2. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE REMOVING THE WRAPPING MATERIAL.S. Export Control regulations as restricted from export outside the United States. You and your company acknowledge that it is still the obligation of you and your company to make your own assessment of the applicable U.3774 • 650. INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. resident is permitted access under applicable U. OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS. 6. OR (B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. Now known simply as EPRI.313. and you agree not to export or re-export this package or any related technical data in any form without the appropriate United States and foreign government approvals. APPARATUS. Any EPRI member utility that does not have a Master Utility License Agreement may get one on request. (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION. rights or licenses in respect of this package. California 94304 • PO Box 10412. copyrights. METHOD. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute. Palo Alto. INTEGRATION You have read and understand this agreement.ANY COSPONSOR. variation or different terms of this agreement will be enforceable against EPRI unless EPRI gives its prior written consent. California 94303 • USA 800.WARNING: This Document contains information classified under U. Inc. 1. lease.S. translate or modify this package.S. COPYRIGHT This package. Program: Nuclear Power TR-110162 © 1998 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). CHOICE OF LAW This agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to transactions taking place entirely in California between California residents. Upon any termination you may destroy this package. if the consultant has entered into a contract agreeing not to disclose the package outside of its organization or to use the package for its own benefit or the benefit of any party other than your company. for the benefit of any third party or for any purpose other than as specified above unless such use is with the prior written permission of EPRI. license. or foreign export laws or regulations. For further information regarding your obligations. EPRI. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.You may not. Although EPRI may make available on a case by case basis an informal assessment of the applicable U. trade secrets. disclose or give this package to any person or organization. BY OPENING THIS SEALED PACKAGE YOU ARE AGREEING TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. and foreign export laws and regulations is being undertaken by you and your company. complete and exclusive agreement between you and EPRI concerning its subject matter. export classification for specific EPRI Intellectual Property. in whole or in part. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute. EXPORT The laws and regulations of the United States restrict the export and re-export of any portion of this package.You agree to take all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure or use of this package.epri. Inc. U. You and your company understand and acknowledge your obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use of EPRI Intellectual Property hereunder that may be in violation of applicable U. please see the information contained below in the section titled “Export Control Restrictions.You may terminate them at any time by destroying this package. in any form. EPRI member utilities and EPRI. EPRI has the right to terminate the license and this agreement immediately if you fail to comply with any term or condition of this agreement. (II) its subsidiaries or other related entities. 3. Special restrictions apply to access by anyone that is not a United States citizen or a Permanent United States resident. Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America EPRI • 3412 Hillview Avenue. NOR ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM: (A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER. PROMPTLY RETURN THE UNOPENED PACKAGE TO EPRI AND THE PURCHASE PRICE WILL BE REFUNDED. RESTRICTIONS You may not rent. EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS PACKAGE OR ANY INFORMATION. or use the information contained in this package. All rights reserved. or prepare any derivative work based on this package.APPARATUS. PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE.ANY MEMBER OF EPRI. Inc. signed by an officer of EPRI. export classification and ensure compliance accordingly. trademarks or any other intellectual property. including the information contained in it.TERM AND TERMINATION This license and this agreement are effective until terminated. and acknowledge that it is the final. electric utilities established the Electric Power Research Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit research consortium for the benefit of utility members.S. this agreement does not grant you any right to patents. but all obligations of nondisclosure will remain in effect. GRANT OF LICENSE EPRI grants you the nonexclusive and nontransferable right during the term of this agreement to use this package only for your own benefit and the benefit of your organization.” SINGLE USER LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE. This includes an obligation to ensure that any individual receiving access hereunder who is not a U. 5.This means that the following may use this package: (I) your company (at any site owned or operated by your company). you and your company acknowledge that this assessment is solely for informational purposes and not for reliance purposes. 4. INC.com .S. Palo Alto. Export Control Restrictions Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted with the specific understanding and requirement that responsibility for ensuring full compliance with all applicable U. trade names. OR (III) THAT THIS PACKAGE IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER’S CIRCUMSTANCE. Electrify the World 8. and foreign export laws and regulations. PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE. Except as specified above.S. without the prior written permission of EPRI.S.2121 • askepri@epri. INCLUDING ANY PARTY’S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. is either licensed to EPRI or owned by EPRI and is protected by United States and international copyright laws. In the event you are uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully obtain access to this EPRI Intellectual Property. you acknowledge that it is your obligation to consult with your company’s legal counsel to determine whether this access is lawful. citizen or permanent U. You are under an obligation to ensure that you have a legal right to obtain access to this information and to ensure that you obtain an export license prior to any re-export of this information.S.S. EPRI’s multidisciplinary team of scientists and engineers draws on a worldwide network of technical and business expertise to help solve today’s toughest energy and environmental problems. reproduce. superseding any prior related understanding or agreement. METHOD.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful