## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

6, May 2009

**Determination of maximum span between pipe supports using maximum bending stress theory.
**

Dr. D.P. Vakharia1, Mohd. Farooq A2

1

S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat – 395 007, Gujarat, India Email: dpvakharia@yahoo.com 2 S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat – 395 007, Gujarat, India Email: mohdfarooqansari@gmail.com

Abstract:- Straight cross-country pipelines are supported throughout the length of pipeline on different forms of supports at more or less regular spans. Maximizing the distance between supports will minimize the number of supports required, which in turn reduce the total cost of erecting these pipe supports. ASME has suggested the standards for support span, but the bending stress considered in its calculation is very low (15.9 Mpa). There are other references also who have listed the maximum support span. In this paper equations for calculating the maximum span using maximum bending stress are given. Safety of the design is checked using maximum deflection. A sample problem is considered for evaluation and the results thus obtained are compared with standards like ASME B31.1, U S Army Engineer’s Manual and other references. The problem is also modeled in ANSYS and analyzed for deflection. A method of optimizing the distance between supports using ANSYS© optimization technique is also discussed. Index Terms—Introduction, Procedure for calculation of maximum span, Sample calculation & results, Comparative analysis, Computer analysis, Optimization, Conclusion.

(b) & (c). Fig. 1, shows the picture of a pipeline supported on two supports. A. Need Of Pipe Support The layout and design of piping and its supporting elements shall be directed toward preventing the following: (a) Piping stresses. (b) Leakage at joints.

Figure 1. Straight pipe resting on two supports

I.

INTRODUCTION

The cross-country pipelines are mainly supported on metal pipelines. The material is usually alloy metal, which is chosen based on the fluid to be transported. These pipelines are supported on different forms of supports viz, Metal in RCC supports, Metal frame supports, Small Trusses, etc. If the distance between the supports is maximized, the number of supports required throughout the length of pipeline will reduce. Thus, reducing the total cost of erection. Supports for piping must be spaced with respect to three considerations: [1]. a) Ability to place a support at some desired location. b) Keeping sag in the line within limits that will permit drainage. c) Avoiding excessive bending stresses from the uniform and concentrated loads between supports. This paper is based on determining the maximum distance between supports with respect to considerations

(c) Excessive thrusts and moments on connected equipment (such as pumps and turbines). (d) Excessive stresses in the supporting (or restraining) elements. (e) Resonance with imposed or fluid-induced vibrations. (f) Excessive interference with thermal expansion and contraction in piping which is otherwise adequately flexible. (g) Unintentional disengagement of piping from its supports. (h) Excessive piping sag in piping requiring drainage slope; (i) Excessive distortion or sag of piping (e.g., thermoplastics) subject to creep under conditions of repeated thermal cycling. (j) Excessive heat flow, exposing supporting elements to temperature extremes outside their design limits. II. PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM SPAN

Design formulas for calculating bending stress and deflection between supports are derived from the usual beam formulas, which depend upon the method of support and the type of loading.

46

© 2009 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

No. it will not carry any concentrated load. A. 47 © 2009 ACADEMY PUBLISHER .64 N/m Total weight = 1367. Vol.d2) Hence weight of pipe can be calculated as.0 meters. SAMPLE CALCULATION & RESULTS 5wL4 + 8wc L3 in meter [1].0624 wL2 + 0. [2].1248 wc L) D in N/m2 [1].02466(D-t)t [5] C. Note : Schedule 20 is the nearest schedule for this thickness and according to thumb rule. wp = 0. schedule of pipe can be decided which will give inner diameter of pipe.16 N/m [5].3239 m [2] P = 20 bar S b = 34. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS L .3 OR The thickness of the pipe can be directly accessed from [2].0369 x 10-4 m 4 Modulus of Elasticity = 195122 MPa Substituting the above values in the maximum bending stress equation: (Since the pipe is not considered to carry flanges. the minimum number of supports required is calculated by the procedure described in the paper. deflection comes out to be 12. weight of pipe Thickness of pipe can be calculated as : t= PxD [4]. Pressure in pipe is 20 bar at atmospheric temperature using the procedure described above. y= 384 EI (2) Where. Annular cross-sectional area of pipe = Maximum Span between supports is calculated as 11.1 MPa) [4] Therefore. Corrosion and other allowances are subtracted from this thickness. π 4 (D2 .53 MPa (30% of S a = 115.d2) x density of pipe material (4) OR The weight of Stainless Steel pipe can be directly calculated as . With the above values. 1. Weight of stainless steel pipe is calculated 641. which is schedule 30. d = 0.89 mm. D = 0.3071 m [2]. It can be seen that for the sample pipeline of 15 km length. 2( S a E + PY ) Hence. the next schedule of pipe is finally selected. w = uniformly distributed weight of pipeline in N/m w c = concentrated weight on pipeline in N L = Span length in m D = Outside diameter of pipe in m d = Inside diameter of pipe in m E = Modulus of elasticity of pipe in N/m2 I = Moment of Inertia of pipe in m4 Note : Maximum bending stress of the pipe can be taken as 30% of allowable stress.SHORT PAPER International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering. Table 1 shows a comparative analysis of the span shown in different tables marked in references. hence 2nd element of equation is eliminated) (3) Where. Let us calculate the maximum support span for transporting water through a seamless stainless steel pipe (ASTM A 312 TP 316 L) of 300 NPS through a distance of 15 km. 1364. Hence number of supports required for 15 km pipeline is approx. Calculation of weight of fluid Weight of fluid = Sb= (0. III. thickness of pipe comes out to be 6 mm. Calculation of total weight Total weight = weight of pipe (wp) + weight of fluid (wf) B. P = Pressure of the fluid in pipe in N/m2 S a = Allowable stress in pipe in N/m2 E = Quality Factor from ASME B 31. Now from this thickness. 6. which is rounded back to 11. Schedule 30 gives a thickness of 8. which is less than also safe in deflection. Weight of water = 726. Hence the calculated span is 600 π 4 (D2 .3 Y = Coefficient of material from ASME B 31. May 2009 Maximum Bending stress.38 meters. (1) I π 4 d2 x density of fluid in N/m (5) Maximum Deflection.8 N/m Moment of inertia = 1. IV.382 mm. using equation (3).

The calculated value of the span is used to model the problem and the deflection of the pipe is evaluated. 12.1 Figure 4. It shows that a maximum deflection of 20.25 10.0 11. Figure 2. of supports required for a pipeline across 15 km 1 2 3 4 5 [Fig. May 2009 TABLE 1 COMPARATIVE VALUES OF SPAN Values of Maximum Span for SS pipe 300 NPS filled with water (meters) 7. 3 shows the model of the problem considered. 4 shows the deflection of pipe under uniformly distributed loading on ANSYS screen. Vol. But in any case the value of deflection remains less than 25 mm i. The model is constrained at the end so that the end does not move under application of force.0 9. 6.e. 48 © 2009 ACADEMY PUBLISHER ..799 mm takes place. References No. 3. The sample problem considered in the previous section is modeled in ANSYS.0 Sr. Support span table from ASME B 31. No.e. Both analytical and computational results say that the results obtained in the previous section are safe. 2] [6] [7] [8] Calculated 2143 1622 1500 1500 1364 Fig. 1.. Deflected model of pipeline on ANSYS screen V. Length of pipeline/600. The total weight of the dead load plus weight of the working fluid is applied at the centre. 5 shows the result from ANSYS analysis. which is a little higher than what was calculated (i.SHORT PAPER International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering.89 mm). No. COMPUTER ANALYSIS Fig. Model of the problem on ANSYS screen Fig.0 10. Fig.

Prentice –Hall Inc. The software using its first – order method of optimization will try to achieve that maximum value while keeping the values of the design variables within the limits. ASME. Figure 5. a comparative study of cost is required before changing the schedule of pipe. Washington. [5] The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (1995). thickness of pipe) is raised. [4] The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (1995).. Vol. Department of Army. ASME. 1.e. Liquid Process Piping.19 – 2000 Edition. Pipe size details. The pipeline may be subjected to loads in addition to the loads considered. London. May 28 – June 10. DC 20314-1000. Hence. U S Army corps of Engineers. Piping Handbook. Proceedings of World Geothermal Congress. Manuals: [7] Engineering Manual. pp 46. Process Piping. 744-745 [2] Louis Gary Lamit. pg. small pipelines may become over stressed if personnel walked on the pipeline or the weight of valves and/or flanges could over stress the pipe. ASME B36. VI. fourth edition. pp 19.0. The design variables for optimization will be bending stress and deflection and the objective variable will be the span of supports. Design of supports need to consider local stresses due to horizontal and vertical components of thermal and earthquake forces.. New York. Process Piping. No. 14-19 Standards: [3] The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (1995). 6. This will increase the cost of material but at the same time reduce the cost of erecting supports. 2000. Kwik – Smart Solutions. CONCLUSION Through this paper we tried to maximize the distance between supports keeping the values of stresses and deflection within safe limits. New York.1 – 2001 Edition. For example. It is seen from section IV that the number of supports required is reduced from 2143 to 1364.SHORT PAPER International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering.3 – 2000 Edition. The results of the analysis are stored and taken as reference for optimization. VII. Limits for the design variables are defined and the objective variable will be given a value of highest order. . The spans would need to be reduced to allow for this. Results obtained from ANSYS analysis REFERENCES Books: [1] Sabin Crocker. Japan. New York. 1981. Kyushu – Tohoku. 49 © 2009 ACADEMY PUBLISHER . Power Piping. Determination of optimal pipe support span for geothermal pipelines. Piping Systems: Drafting & Design. pp 182. distance between the supports can be optimized. The cost of erection can further be reduced if the schedule of pipe (i. New York. McGraw Hill. OPTIMIZATION Using the optimization technique of ANSYS version 10. The aim is to reduce the number of supports to reduce the total cost of erection. [8] Binder Group. ASME B31. First the pipeline with the calculated maximum span is modeled in the software and the analysis is done to find the stresses and deflection. pg. ASME. May 2009 A saving of approx 780 supports will have a great effect on the total cost of erection. ASME B31. Conference proceedings: [6] Kevin Koorey.

- CAESAR II
- Bending Stress
- Pipe Support Spans
- Pipe Stress Analysis Per ASME B31.3
- Load Calculation Sheet at Expansion Loops
- Pipe Support Spacings
- Pipe Support Design Guidelines
- Piping vibration assessment
- Slug Flow Analysis
- Pipe Supports Catalog
- Chapter 5 98
- Piping stress analysis
- Pipe-Supports.pdf
- 12 Allowable Pipe Span Formulas and Tables
- Piping
- Pipe Support Criteria for ASME B31.3 Metallic Piping
- Natural Gas Pipe Line Procedure
- Dynamic Analysis of Water Hammer Loads
- Piping Support Design - SAIPEM
- Kannampan Pipe Stress-001
- pipe stress.pdf
- ( Uploadity.com ) Pipe Hanger Design
- Piping Support and Flexibility
- Sp3d User Guide
- Slug Flow Analysis
- Equipment and Piping Layout
- Piping- Introduction to Pipe Stress Analysis
- Allowable Pipe Spans Loads
- DNV RP D101 October 2008
- 50262011-37347055-Autopipe-Training-Outline

Skip carousel

- As NZS 2032-2006 Installation of PVC Pipe Systems
- City Standard Construction Specifications
- 50812_1930-1934
- As 2885.1-2007 Pipelines - Gas and Liquid Petroleum Design and Construction
- As ISO 7.2-2008 Pipe Threads Where Pressure-tight Joints Are Made on the Threads Verification by Means of Lim
- As 1769-1975 Welded Stainless Steel Tubes for Plumbing Applications
- As 4176.2-2010 Multilayer Pipes for Pressure Applications Multilayer Piping Systems for Hot and Cold Water Pl
- April 2012 Issue
- As NZS 4441-2008 Oriented PVC (PVC-O) Pipes for Pressure Applications
- As 1855-2008 Methods for the Determination of Transverse Tensile Properties of Round Steel Pipe
- As 681.3-2008 Elastomeric Seals - Material Requirements for Pipe Joint Seals Used in Water and Drainage Appli
- As 2698.2-2000 Plastics Pipes and Fittings for Irrigation and Rural Applications Polyethylene Rural Pipe
- As 2360.1.4-1993 Measurement of Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits Pressure Differential Methods - Measurement Usi
- Water Distribution Manual
- Pipeline Extension from Wellhead to Hand Pumps in Villages
- As 4041-2006 Pressure Piping
- An Overview of Bore Well Motor Pump Installation and Lifting Machine
- March 2013
- Pipeline Extension from Wellhead to Hand Pumps in Villages
- 53585_1935-1939
- As 4553-2008 Gas Space Heating Appliances
- As 2452.1-2004 Non-Destructive Testing - Determination of Thickness Determination of Wall Thickness of Pipe b
- As ISO 6993.2-2007 Buried High-impact Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC-HI) Piping Systems for the Supply of Gaseous
- As NZS 3690-2009 Installation of ABS Pipe Systems
- As 4728-2005 Electric Resistance Welded Steel Pipe for Pressure Purposes
- As 1741-1991 Vitrified Clay Pipes and Fittings With Flexible Joints - Sewer Quality
- As ISO 6993.1-2007 Buried High-impact Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC-HI) Piping Systems for the Supply of Gaseous
- Untitled
- As NZS 1254-2010 PVC-U Pipes and Fittings for Stormwater and Surface Water Applications
- As NZS 2642.1-2007 Polybutylene (PB) Plumbing Pipe Systems Polybutylene (PB) Pipe Extrusion Compounds

Skip carousel

- Design of handling system for heavy rocket motor segments
- As 5100.6-2004 Bridge Design Steel and Composite Construction
- The Mechanical Properties of WoodIncluding a Discussion of the Factors Affecting the MechanicalProperties, and Methods of Timber Testing by Record, Samuel J.
- As NZS 4063.1-2010 Characterization of Structural Timber Test Methods
- Design and Comparison of Steel Roof Truss with Tubular Section (using SP
- Dynamic Analysis of RCC Chimney- a review
- Chassis Frame Torsional Stiffness Analysis
- As NZS 1301.431rp-2006 Methods of Test for Pulp and Paper Taber Bending Resistance of Paper and Paperboard
- Stress Analysis of High Speed Single Helical Gear by Changing Design Parameter Using FEA Approach
- As NZS 4357.2-2006 Structural Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) Determination of Structural Properties - Test Met
- Structural Behaviour of Bubble Deck Slabs and Its Application
- Experimental behaviour on study of sandwich beams
- Design and Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Shells
- Design and Analysis of 50 Tonne Crane Hook for optimization
- Weight Optimization of Composite Beams by Finite Element Method
- Design Analysis of Crankshaft by Equivalent Beam Method
- As 1012.8.2-2000 Methods of Testing Concrete Method of Making and Curing Concrete - - Flexure Test Specimens
- Experimental Investigation of Precast Horizontal Wall Panel Connection using Reinforcement by Push Off Test
- Novel Technique of Sodium Silicate in Healing of Concrete
- UT Dallas Syllabus for mech7v80.501.11s taught by Harun Khan (hrk102020)
- Retrofitting of RCC Beam in Flexure by External Cabling Method
- Flexural Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Beams with Different Mineral Admixtures as Cement Replacements
- tmp145D
- Design Tables for Simply Supported Beams with Rolled Steel I Sections
- tmpB4A0
- Design Guidelines for Strengthening of RC Structures Using FRP Materials - State of Art Review
- Structural Behaviour of Bubble Deck Slabs and its Application
- tmp705.tmp
- Factors Affecting on Residual Stresses & Springback in Sheet Metal Bending
- As 5100.5-2004 Bridge Design Concrete

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulClose Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Pipe Support will be available on

Loading