722 views

Uploaded by 86tejas

FRP Analysis in Caesar-II

- BS 7159 (1989) Design and Construction of Glass Reinforced Plastics (GRP) Piping Systems for Individual Plants or Sites
- FRP Pipe Stress Calculation Sheet_Edition 18-July-15
- Design Envelope for GRP Pipe as per ISO 14692
- Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
- Caesar II Technical Reference Guide
- Nozzle Pro
- 2014-12-05_WI-PFX-GRP-0001
- Stress Analysis of GRP GRE FRP Piping System Using Caesar II
- 2013-3200-1R-0101 Rev 0 Piping Stress Analysis Report CALC-001-CL Approval
- Expansion Joint in CAESAR
- Pipe Stress Analysis Information for Frp
- RPS FRP Piping Stress Analysis
- Grp Piping Manual
- Dynaflow - GRE Piping - March 26 2009
- Frp Piping Design Manual - Sep-06
- Dynamic-module-of-CAESAR-II.pdf
- GRE-guide to Iso 14692
- 58.99.08.1606_i_specification for Piping Flexibilty Analysis
- Quick Guide to ISO-14692
- CAESAR II Expansion Joints

You are on page 1of 22

Underlying Theory

The behavior of steel and other homogeneous materials has been long understood, permitting

their widespread use as construction materials. The development of the piping and pressure

vessel codes (Reference 1) in the early part of this century led to the confidence in their use in

piping applications. The work of Markl and others in the 1940s and 1950s was responsible for

the formalization of todays pipe stress methods, leading to an ensuing diversification of piping

codes on an industry by industry basis. The advent of the digital computer, and with it the

appearance of the first pipe stress analysis software (Reference 2), further increased the

confidence with which steel pipe could be used in critical applications. The 1980s saw the wide

spread proliferation of the microcomputer, with associated pipe stress analysis software, which

in conjunction with training, technical support, and available literature, has brought stress

analysis capability to almost all engineers. In short, an accumulated experience of close to 100

years, in conjunction with ever improving technology has led to the utmost confidence on the

part of todays engineers when specifying, designing, and analyzing steel, or other metallic,

pipe.

For fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) and other composite piping materials, the situation is not

the same. Fiberglass reinforced plastic was developed only as recently as the 1950s, and did

not come into wide spread use until a decade later (Reference 3). There is not a large base of

stress analysis experience, although not from a lack of commitment on the part of FRP vendors.

Most vendors conduct extensive stress testing on their components, including hydrostatic and

cyclic pressure, uni-axial tensile and compressive, bending, and combined loading tests. The

problem is due to the traditional difficulty associated with, and lack of understanding of, stress

analysis of heterogeneous materials. First, the behavior and failure modes of these materials

are highly complex and not fully understood, leading to inexact analytical methods and a general

lack of agreement on the best course of action to follow. This lack of agreement has slowed the

simplification and standardization of the analytical methods into universally recognized codes

BS 7159 Code Design and Construction of Glass Reinforced Plastics Piping (GRP) Systems for

Individual Plants or Sites and UKOOA Specification and Recommended Practice for the Use of

GRP Piping Offshore being notable exceptions. Second, the heterogeneous, orthotropic

behavior of FRP and other composite materials has hindered the use of the pipe stress analysis

algorithms developed for homogeneous, isotropic materials associated with crystalline

structures. A lack of generally accepted analytical procedures has contributed to a general

reluctance to use FRP piping for critical applications.

Stress analysis of FRP components must be viewed on many levels. These levels, or scales,

have been called Micro-Mini-Macro levels, with analysis proceeding along the levels according

to the "MMM" principle (Reference 4).

929

Technical Discussions

Micro-Level Analysis

Stress analysis on the "Micro" level refers to the detailed evaluation of the individual materials

and boundary mechanisms comprising the composite material. In general, FRP pipe is

manufactured from laminates, which are constructed from elongated fibers of a commercial

grade of glass, E-glass, which are coated with a coupling agent or sizing prior to being

embedded in a thermosetting plastic material, typically epoxy or polyester resin.

This means, on the micro scale, that an analytical model must be created which simulates the

interface between these elements. Because the number and orientation of fibers is unknown at

any given location in a FRP sample, the simplest representation of the micro-model is that of a

single fiber, extending the length of the sample, embedded in a square profile of matrix.

Micro Level GRP Sample -- Single Fiber Embedded in Square Profile of Matrix

1. the glass fiber

2. the coupling agent or sizing layer normally of such microscopic proportion that it may be

ignored

3. the plastic matrix

It must be considered that these material parameters might vary for an individual material based

upon tensile, compressive, or shear applications of the imposed stresses, and typical values

vary significantly between the fiber and matrix (Reference 5):

Young's Modulus Ultimate Strength

tensile (MPa)

tensile (MPa)

m/m/C

1.5 x 103

5.0 x 10-6

Plastic

Matrix

.07 x 103

7.0 x 10-6

Material

2.75 x 103

The following failure modes of the composite must be similarly evaluated to:

930

Technical Discussions

Because of uncertainties about the degree to which the fiber has been coated with the coupling

agent and about the nature of some of these failure modes, this evaluation is typically reduced

to:

You can evaluate stresses in the individual components through finite element analysis of the

strain continuity and equilibrium equations, based upon the assumption that there is a good

bond between the fiber and matrix, resulting in compatible strains between the two. For normal

stresses applied parallel to the glass fiber:

ef = em = saf / Ef = sam / Em

saf = sam Ef / Em

Where:

ef = Strain in the Fiber

e = Strain in the Matrix

saf = Normal Stress Parallel to Fiber, in the Fiber

Ef = Modulus of Elasticity of the Fiber

sam = Axial Normal Stress Parallel to Fiber, in the Matrix

Em = Modulus of Elasticity of the Matrix

Due to the large ratio of the modulus of elasticity of the fiber to that of the matrix, it is apparent

that nearly all of the axial normal stress in the fiber-matrix composite is carried by the fiber.

Exact values are (Reference 6):

saf = sL / [f + (1-f)Em/Ef]

sam = sL / [fEf/Em + (1-f)]

Where:

sL = nominal longitudinal stress across composite

f = glass content by volume

931

Technical Discussions

The continuity equations for the glass-matrix composite seem less complex for normal stresses

perpendicular to the fibers, because the weak point of the material seems to be limited by the

glass-free cross-section, shown below:

For this reason, it would appear that the strength of the composite would be equal to that of the

matrix for stresses in this direction. In fact, its strength is less than that of the matrix due to

stress intensification in the matrix caused by the irregular stress distribution in the vicinity of the

stiffer glass. Because the elongation over distance D1 must be equal to that over the longer

distance D2, the strain, and thus the stress at location D1 must exceed that at D2 by the ratio

D2/D1. Maximum intensified transverse normal stresses in the composite are:

Where:

sb = intensified normal stress transverse to the fiber, in the composite

s = nominal transverse normal stress across composite

nm = Poisson's ratio of the matrix

Because of the Poisson effect, this stress produces an additional s'am equal to the

following:

s'am = Vm sb

932

Technical Discussions

Shear stress can be allocated to the individual components again through the use of continuity

equations. It would appear that the stiffer glass would resist the bulk of the shear stresses.

However, unless the fibers are infinitely long, all shears must eventually pass through the matrix

in order to get from fiber to fiber. Shear stress between fiber and matrix can be estimated as

Where:

tab = intensified shear stress in composite

T = nominal shear stress across composite

Gm = shear modulus of elasticity in matrix

Gf = shear modulus of elasticity in fiber

Determination of the stresses in the fiber-matrix interface is more complex. The bonding agent

has an inappreciable thickness, and thus has an indeterminate stiffness for consideration in the

continuity equations. Also, the interface behaves significantly differently in shear, tension, and

compression, showing virtually no effects from the latter. The state of the stress in the interface

is best solved by omitting its contribution from the continuity equations, and simply considering

that it carries all stresses that must be transferred from fiber to matrix.

After the stresses have been apportioned, they must be evaluated against appropriate failure

criteria. The behavior of homogeneous, isotropic materials such as glass and plastic resin,

under a state of multiple stresses is better understood. Failure criterion for isotropic material

reduces the combined normal and shear stresses (sa, sb, sc, tab, tac, tbc) to a single stress, an

equivalent stress, that can be compared to the tensile stress present at failure in a material

under uniaxial loading, that is, the ultimate tensile stress, S ult.

Different theories, and different equivalent stress functions f(sa, sb, sc, tab, tac, tbc) have been

proposed, with possibly the most widely accepted being the Huber-von Mises-Hencky criterion,

which states that failure will occur when the equivalent stress reaches a critical value the

ultimate strength of the material:

seq = {1/2 [(sa - sb)2 + (sb - sc)2+ (sc - sa)2 + 6(tab2+ tac2+ tbc2)} Sult

This theory does not fully cover all failure modes of the fiber in that it omits reference to direction

of stress, that is, tensile versus compressive. The fibers, being relatively long and thin,

predominantly demonstrate buckling as their failure mode when loaded in compression.

933

Technical Discussions

The equivalent stress failure criterion has been corroborated, with slightly non-conservative

results, by testing. Little is known about the failure mode of the adhesive interface, although

empirical evidence points to a failure criterion which is more of a linear relationship between the

normal and the square of the shear stresses. Failure testing of a composite material loaded only

in transverse normal and shear stresses are shown in the following figure. The kink in the curve

shows the transition from the matrix to the interface as the failure point.

Mini-Level Analysis

Although feasible in concept, micro level analysis is not feasible in practice. This is due to the

uncertainty of the arrangement of the glass in the composite the thousands of fibers that might

be randomly distributed, semi-randomly oriented, although primarily in a parallel pattern, and of

randomly varying lengths. This condition indicates that a sample can truly be evaluated only on

a statistical basis, thus rendering detailed finite element analysis inappropriate.

For mini-level analysis, a laminate layer is considered to act as a continuous hence the common

reference to this method as the "continuum" method, material, with material properties and

failure modes estimated by integrating them over the assumed cross-sectional distribution,

which is, averaging. The assumption regarding the distribution of the fibers can have a marked

effect on the determination of the material parameters. Two of the most commonly postulated

934

Technical Discussions

distributions are the square and the hexagonal, with the latter generally considered as being a

better representation of randomly distributed fibers.

The stress-strain relationships, for those sections evaluated as continua, can be written as:

eaa = saa/EL - (VL/EL)sbb - (VL/EL)scc

ebb = -(VL/EL)saa + sbb/ET - (VT/ET)scc

ecc = -(VL/EL)saa - (VT/ET)sbb + scc/ET

eab = tab / 2 GL

ebc = tbc / 2 GT

eac = tac / 2 GL

Where:

eij = strain along direction i on face j

sij, tab = stress (normal, shear) along direction i on face j

EL = modulus of elasticity of laminate layer in longitudinal direction

VL = Poissons ratio of laminate layer in longitudinal direction

ET = modulus of elasticity of laminate layer in transverse direction

VT = Poissons ratio of laminate layer in transverse direction

GL = shear modulus of elasticity of laminate layer in longitudinal direction

GT = shear modulus of elasticity of laminate layer in transverse direction

These relationships require that four modules of elasticity, EL, ET, GL, and GT, and two Poissons

ratios, VL and V, be evaluated for the continuum. Extensive research (References 4 - 10) has

been done to estimate these parameters. There is general consensus that the longitudinal terms

can be explicitly calculated; for cases where the fibers are significantly stiffer than the matrix,

they are:

EL = EF f + EM(1 - f)

GL = GM + f/ [ 1 / (GF - GM) + (1 - f) / (2GM)]

VL = VFf + VM(1 - f)

You cannot calculate parameters in the transverse direction. You can only calculate the upper

and lower bounds. Correlations with empirical results have yielded approximations (Reference 5

and 6):

ET = [EM(1+0.85f2) / {(1-VM2)[(1-f)1.25 + f(EM/EF)/(1-VM2)]}

GT = GM (1 + 0.6f) / [(1 - f)1.25 + f (GM/GF)]

VT = VL (EL / ET)

Use of these parameters permits the development of the homogeneous material models that

facilitate the calculation of longitudinal and transverse stresses acting on a laminate layer. The

resulting stresses can be allocated to the individual fibers and matrix using relationships

developed during the micro analysis.

935

Technical Discussions

Macro-Level Analysis

Where Mini-level analysis provides the means of evaluation of individual laminate layers,

Macro-level analysis provides the means of evaluating components made up of multiple

laminate layers. It is based upon the assumption that not only the composite behaves as a

continuum, but that the series of laminate layers acts as a homogeneous material with

properties estimated based on the properties of the layer and the winding angle, and that finally,

failure criteria are functions of the level of equivalent stress.

Laminate properties may be estimated by summing the layer properties (adjusted for winding

angle) over all layers. For example

Where:

ExLAM = Longitudinal modulus of elasticity of laminate

tLAM = thickness of laminate

Ek = Longitudinal modulus of elasticity of laminate layer k

Cjk = transformation matrix orienting axes of layer k to transverse laminate axis

tk = thickness of laminate layer k

After composite properties are determined, the component stiffness parameters can be

determined as though it were made of homogeneous material that is, based on component

cross-sectional and composite material properties.

Normal and shear stresses can be determined from 1) forces and moments acting on the

cross-sections, and 2) the cross-sectional properties themselves. These relationships can be

written as:

saa = Faa / Aaa Mba / Sba Mca / Sca

sbb = Fbb / Abb Mab / Sab Mcb / Scb

scc = Fcc / Acc Mac / Sac Mbc / Sbc

tab = Fab / Aab Mbb / Rab

936

Technical Discussions

tac = Fac / Aac Mcc / Rac

tba = Fba / Aba Maa / Rba

tbc = Fbc / Abc Mcc / Rbc

tca = Fca / Aca Maa / Rca

tcb = Fcb / Acb Mbb / Rcb

Where:

sij = normal stress along axis i on face j

Fij = force acting along axis i on face j

Aij = area resisting force along axis i on face j

Mij = moment acting about axis i on face j

Sij = section modulus about axis i on face j

tij = shear stress along axis i on face j

Rij = torsional resistivity about axis i on face j

Using the relationships developed under macro, mini, and micro analysis, these stresses can be

resolved back into local stresses within the laminate layer, and from there, back into stresses

within the fiber and the matrix. From these, the failure criteria of those microscopic components,

and hence, the component as a whole, can be checked.

The macro-level analysis described above is the basis for the preeminent FRP piping codes in

use today, including Code BS 7159 (Design and Construction of Glass Reinforced Plastics

Piping Systems for Individual Plants or Sites) and the UKOOA Specification and Recommended

Practice for the Use of GRP Piping Offshore.

BS 7159

BS 7159 uses methods and formulas familiar to the world of steel piping stress analysis in order

to calculate stresses on the cross-section, with the assumption that FRP components have

material parameters based on continuum evaluation or test. All coincident loads, such as

thermal, weight, pressure, and axial extension due to pressure need be evaluated

simultaneously. Failure is based on the equivalent stress calculation method. Because one

normal stress (radial stress) is traditionally considered to be negligible in typical piping

configurations, this calculation reduces to the greater of (except when axial stresses are

compressive):

(when axial stress is greater than hoop)

(when hoop stress is greater than axial)

A slight difficulty arises when evaluating the calculated stress against an allowable, due to the

orthotropic nature of the FRP piping normally the laminate is designed in such a way to make

the pipe much stronger in the hoop, than in the longitudinal, direction, providing more than one

allowable stress. This difficulty is resolved by defining the allowable in terms of a design

strained, rather than stress, in effect adjusting the stress allowable in proportion to the strength

937

Technical Discussions

in each direction. In other words, the allowable stresses for the two equivalent stresses above

would be (ed ELAMX) and (ed ELAMH) respectively. In lieu of test data, system design strain is

selected from Tables 4.3 and 4.4 of the Code, based on expected chemical and temperature

conditions.

Actual stress equations as enumerated by BS 7159 display below:

1. Combined stress straights and bends:

sC = (sf 2+ 4sS2)0.5

ed ELAM

or

sC = (sX2 + 4sS2)0.5 ed ELAM

Where:

ELAM = modulus of elasticity of the laminate; in CAESAR II, the first equation uses the

modulus for the hoop direction and in the second equation, the modulus for the longitudinal

direction is used.

sC = combined stress

s = circumferential stress

= sP + sB

sS = torsional stress

= MS(Di + 2td) / 4I

sX = longitudinal stress

= sXP + sXB

sP = circumferential pressure stress

= mP(Di + td) / 2 td

sB = circumferential bending stress

= [(Di + 2td) / 2I] [(Mi SIFi)2 + Mo SIFo)2] 0.5 for bends, = 0 for straights

MS = torsional moment on cross-section

Di = internal pipe diameter

td = design thickness of reference laminate

I = moment of inertia of pipe

m = pressure stress multiplier of component

P = internal pressure

Mi = in-plane bending moment on cross-section

SIFi= circumferential stress intensification factor for in-plane moment

M = out-plane bending moment on cross-section

SIFo = circumferential stress intensification factor for out-plane moment

sXP = longitudinal pressure stress

= P(Di + td) / 4 td

938

Technical Discussions

sXB = longitudinal bending stress

= [(Di + 2td) / 2I] [(Mi SIFxi)2 + Mo SIFxo)2]0.5

SIFxi = longitudinal stress intensification factor for in-plane moment

SIFxo = longitudinal stress intensification factor for out-plane moment

2. Combined stress branch connections:

sCB = ((sP + sbB)2 + 4sSB2)0.5 ed ELAM

Where:

sCB = branch combined stress

sP = circumferential pressure stress

= mP(Di + tM) / 2 tM

sbB = non-directional bending stress

= [(Di + 2td) / 2I] [(Mi SIFBi)2 + Mo SIFBo)2]0.5

sSB = branch torsional stress

= MS(Di + 2td) / 4I

tM = thickness of the reference laminate at the main run

SIFBi = branch stress intensification factor for in-plane moment

SIFBo = branch stress intensification factor for out-plane moment

3. When longitudinal stress is negative (net compressive):

s - Vx sx e ELAM

Where:

Vx = Poissons ratio giving strain in longitudinal direction caused by stress in circumferential

direction

e = design strain in circumferential direction

ELAM= modulus of elasticity in circumferential direction

939

Technical Discussions

BS 7159 also dictates the means of calculating flexibility and stress intensification (k- and i-)

factors for bend and tee components, for use during the flexibility analysis.

940

Technical Discussions

BS 7159 imposes a number of limitations on its use, the most notable being: the limitation of a

system to a design pressure of 10 bar, the restriction to the use of designated design laminates,

and the limited applicability of the k- and i- factor calculations to pipe bends (that is, mean wall

thickness around the intrados must be 1.75 times the nominal thickness or less).

This code appears to be more sophisticated, yet easy to use. We recommend that its calculation

techniques be applied even to FRP systems outside its explicit scope, with the following

recommendations:

Pressure stiffening of bends should be based on actual design pressure, rather than

allowable design strain.

Design strain should be based on manufacturers test and experience data wherever

possible (with consideration for expected operating conditions).

Fitting k- and i- factors should be based on manufacturers test or analytic data, if available.

UKOOA

The UKOOA Specification is similar in many respects to the BS 7159 Code, except that it

simplifies the calculation requirements in exchange for imposing more limitations and more

conservatism on the piping operating conditions.

941

Technical Discussions

Rather than explicitly calculating a combined stress, the specification defines an idealized

envelope of combinations of axial and hoop stresses that cause the equivalent stress to reach

failure. This curve represents the plot of:

(sx / sx-all)2 + (shoop / shoop-all)2 - [sx shoop / (sx-all shoop-all)] 1.0

Where:

sx-all = allowable stress, axial

shoop-all = allowable stress, hoop

The specification conservatively limits you to that part of the curve falling under the line between

sx-all (also known as sa(0:1)) and the intersection point on the curve where shoop is twice sx-(a

natural condition for a pipe loaded only with pressure), as shown in the following figure.

An implicit modification to this requirement is the fact that pressure stresses are given a factor of

safety (typically equal to 2/3) while other loads are not. This gives an explicit requirement of:

Pdes f1 f2 f3 LTHP

Where:

Pdes = allowable design pressure

f1 = factor of safety for 97.5% lower confidence limit, usually 0.85

f2 = system factor of safety, usually 0.67

f3 = ratio of residual allowable, after mechanical loads

= 1 - (2 sab) / (r f1 LTHS)

sab = axial bending stress due to mechanical loads

r = sa(0:1)/sa(2:1)

sa(0:1) = long term axial tensile strength in absence of pressure load

sa(2:1) = long term axial tensile strength under only pressure loading

LTHS = long term hydrostatic strength (hoop stress allowable)

LTHP = long term hydrostatic pressure allowable

942

Technical Discussions

This has been implemented in the CAESAR II pipe stress analysis software as:

Code Stress

sab (f2 /r) + PDm / (4t)

Code Allowable

Where:

P = design pressure

D = pipe mean diameter

t = pipe wall thickness

K and i-factors for bends are to be taken from the BS 7159 Code, while no such factors are to

be used for tees.

The UKOOA Specification is limited in that shear stresses are ignored in the evaluation process;

no consideration is given to conditions where axial stresses are compressive; and most required

calculations are not explicitly detailed.

943

Technical Discussions

Practical Applications

CAESAR II has had the ability to model orthotropic materials such as FRP almost since its

inception. It also can specifically handle the requirements of the BS 7159 Code, the UKOOA

Specification, and more recently ISO 14692. FRP material parameters corresponding to those of

many vendors lines are provided with CAESAR II. You can pre-select these parameters to be

the default values whenever FRP piping is used. Other options, as to whether the BS 7159

pressure stiffening requirements should be carried out using design strain or actual strain can be

set in CAESAR IIs configuration module as well.

944

Technical Discussions

945

Technical Discussions

Selecting material 20 Plastic (FRP) activates CAESAR IIs orthotropic material model and

brings in the appropriate material parameters from the pre-selected materials. The orthotropic

material model is indicated by the changing of two fields from their previous isotropic values:

Elastic Modulus (C) changes to Elastic Modulus/axial and Poisson's Ratio changes to

Ea/Eh*Vh/a. These changes are necessary because orthotropic models require more material

parameters than do isotropic. For example, there is no longer a single modulus of elasticity for

the material, but now two: axial and hoop. There is no longer a single Poissons ratio, but again

two: Vh/a (Poissons ratio relating strain in the axial direction due to stress-induced strain in the

hoop direction) and Va/h (Poissons ratio relating strain in the hoop direction due to

stress-induced strain in the axial direction). Also, unlike isotropic materials, the shear modulus

does not follow the relationship G = 1 / E (1-V), so that value must be explicitly input.

To minimize input, a few of these parameters can be combined due to their use in the program.

Generally, the only time that the modulus of elasticity in the hoop direction or the Poissons

ratios is used during flexibility analysis is when calculating piping elongation due to pressure

(note that the modulus of elasticity in the hoop direction is used when determining certain stress

allowables for the BS 7159 code):

dx = (sx / Ea - Va/h * shoop / Eh) L

Where:

dx

946

Technical Discussions

sx

Va/h

strain in the hoop direction

Eh

This equation can be rearranged, to require only a single new parameter, as:

dx = (sx - Va/h shoop * (Ea / Eh )) * L / Ea

In theory, that single parameter, Vh/a is identical to (Ea / Eh * Va/h) giving: dx = (sx Vh/ashoop) * L / Ea

The shear modulus of the material is required in ordered to develop the stiffness matrix. In

CAESAR II, this value, expressed as a ratio of the axial modulus of elasticity, is brought in from

the pre-selected material, or can be changed on a problem-wise basis using the Special

Execution Parameter (see "Special Execution Parameters" on page 287) dialog box

accessed by the Environment menu from the piping spreadsheet (see figure). This dialog box

also shows the coefficient of thermal expansion (extracted from the vendor file or user entered)

for the material, as well as the default laminate type, as defined by the BS 7159 Code:

Type 1 All chopped strand mat (CSM) construction with an internal and an external

surface tissue reinforced layer.

Type 2 Chopped strand mat (CSM) and woven roving (WR) construction with an internal

and an external surface tissue reinforced layer.

Type 3 Chopped strand mat (CSM) and multi-filament roving construction with an internal

and an external surface tissue reinforced layer.

The latter is used during the calculation of flexibility and stress intensification factors for piping

bends.

You can enter bend and tee information by using the auxiliary spreadsheets.

947

Technical Discussions

You can also change bend radius and laminate type data on a bend by bend basis, as

shown in the corresponding figure.

Specify BS 7159 fabricated and molded tee types by defining CAESAR II tee types 1 and 3

respectively at intersection points. CAESAR II automatically calculates the appropriate flexibility

and stress intensification factors for these fittings as per code requirements.

Enter the required code data on the Allowables auxiliary spreadsheet. The program provides

fields for both codes, number 27 BS 7159 and number 28 UKOOA. After selecting BS 7159,

CAESAR II provides fields for entry of the following code parameters:

SH1 through SH9 = Longitudinal Design Stress = ed ELAMX

Kn1 through Kn9 = Cyclic Reduction Factor (as per BS 7159 paragraph 4.3.4)

Eh/Ea = Ratio of Hoop Modulus of Elasticity to Axial Modulus of Elasticity

K = Temperature Differential Multiplier (as per BS 7159 paragraph 7.2.1)

948

Technical Discussions

After selecting UKOOA, CAESAR II provides fields for entry of the following code parameters:

SH1 through SH9 = hoop design stress = f 1 * LTHS

R1 through R9 = ratio r = (sa(0:1) / sa(2:1))

f2 = system factor of safety (defaults to 0.67 if omitted)

K = temperature differential multiplier (same as BS 7159)

These parameters need only be entered a single time, unless they change at some point in the

system.

Performing the analysis is simpler than the system modeling. <Product> evaluates the operating

parameters and automatically builds the appropriate load cases. In this case, three are built:

Operating includes pipe and fluid weight, temperature, equipment displacements, and

pressure. This case is used to determine maximum code stress/strain, operational

equipment nozzle and restraint loads, hot displacements, and so forth.

Cold (same as above, except excluding temperature and equipment movements). This case

is used to determine cold equipment nozzle and restraint loads.

Expansion (cyclic stress range between the cold and hot case). This case may be used to

evaluate fatigue criteria as per paragraph 4.3.4 of the BS 7159 Code.

After analyzing the response of the system under these loads, CAESAR II displays a menu of

possible output reports. Reports may be designated by selecting a combination of load case and

results type (displacements, restraint loads, element forces and moments, and stresses). From

the stress report, you can determine at a glance whether the system passed or failed the stress

criteria.

949

Technical Discussions

For UKOOA, the piping is considered to be within allowable limits when the operating stress falls

within the idealized stress envelope this is illustrated by the shaded area in the following figure.

Conclusion

A pipe stress analysis program with worldwide acceptance is now available for evaluation of

FRP piping systems as per the requirements of the most sophisticated FRP piping codes. This

means that access to the same analytical methods and tools enjoyed by engineers using steel

pipe is available to users of FRP piping design.

References

1. Cross, Wilbur, An Authorized History of the ASME Boiler an Pressure Vessel Code, ASME,

1990

2. Olson, J. and Cramer, R., "Pipe Flexibility Analysis Using IBM 705 Computer Pro\-gram

MEC 21, Mare Island Report 277-59," 1959

3. Fiberglass Pipe Handbook, Composites Institute of the Society of the Plastics Indus\-try,

1989

4. Hashin, Z., "Analysis of Composite Materials a Survey," Journal of Applied Mechanics, Sept.

1983

5. Greaves, G., "Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic Pipe Design," Ciba-Geigy Pipe Systems

6. Puck, A. and Schneider, W., "On Failure Mechanisms and Failure Criteria of

Filament-Wound Glass-Fibre/Resin Composites," Plastics and Polymers, Feb. 1969

7. Hashin, Z., "The Elastic Moduli of Heterogeneous Materials," Journal of Applied Mechanics,

March 1962

8. Hashin, Z. and Rosen, B. Walter, "The Elastic Moduli of Fibre Reinforced Materials," Journal

of Applied Mechanics, June 1964

9. Whitney, J. M. and Riley, M. B., "Elastic Properties of Fiber Reinforced Composite

Materials," AIAA Journal, Sept. 1966

10. Walpole, L. J., "Elastic Behavior of Composite Materials: Theoretical Foundations,"

Advances in Applied Mechanics, Volume 21, Academic Press, 1989

11. BS 7159: 1989 British Standard Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Glass

Reinforced Plastics GRP Piping Systems for Individual Plants or Sites.

12. UK Offshore Operators Association Specification and Recommended Practice for the Use of

GRP Piping Offshore., 1994

950

- BS 7159 (1989) Design and Construction of Glass Reinforced Plastics (GRP) Piping Systems for Individual Plants or SitesUploaded byGregory Simmon
- FRP Pipe Stress Calculation Sheet_Edition 18-July-15Uploaded byPrashant Agrawal
- Design Envelope for GRP Pipe as per ISO 14692Uploaded byAshitava Sen
- Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdfUploaded byPrashant Agrawal
- Caesar II Technical Reference GuideUploaded byRichard Koehler
- Nozzle ProUploaded bygoodspeed_ph
- 2014-12-05_WI-PFX-GRP-0001Uploaded byhariharanoilgas
- Stress Analysis of GRP GRE FRP Piping System Using Caesar IIUploaded byiaft
- 2013-3200-1R-0101 Rev 0 Piping Stress Analysis Report CALC-001-CL ApprovalUploaded bylenghiemckt07
- Expansion Joint in CAESARUploaded bykaruna346
- Pipe Stress Analysis Information for FrpUploaded bychemy5
- RPS FRP Piping Stress AnalysisUploaded byNavab Khan
- Grp Piping ManualUploaded bysomphong.bkk5576
- Dynaflow - GRE Piping - March 26 2009Uploaded bysammar_10
- Frp Piping Design Manual - Sep-06Uploaded bySabir Nasim
- Dynamic-module-of-CAESAR-II.pdfUploaded byPrashant Agrawal
- GRE-guide to Iso 14692Uploaded byAHMEDMALAHY
- 58.99.08.1606_i_specification for Piping Flexibilty AnalysisUploaded byBrijendra Singh
- Quick Guide to ISO-14692Uploaded bymaninventor
- CAESAR II Expansion JointsUploaded bykamal_md
- Stress Analysis report Fire Water Line GREUploaded byRICHARD NIXON
- 14692-3Uploaded byA.Subin Das
- Grp Piping ManualUploaded byFaruk Atalar
- Tutorial - IsO 14692 FRPUploaded byadamaso09
- Ameron Calculation Manual for Bondstand GRE Pipe SystemsUploaded bygbuckley9630
- design calculationUploaded byBrandon Allen
- Thrust Block and Anchor BlockUploaded bywikoboy
- CAESAR II - Pipe Stress AnalysisUploaded bymedy_flare
- GRP Tank CalculatorUploaded byjohnbots
- C-30 Guide to Ceaser 2Uploaded bySaúl Mendoza

- Expansion Loop 4Uploaded byreach_arindom
- Adalaj Home DrawUploaded by86tejas
- Home loan versus loan against propertyUploaded by86tejas
- Starting Your Business Checklist PDFUploaded byMoon Petal
- Swavalamban Yojana Operational GuidelinesUploaded byKamal Soni
- Valid Documents ListUploaded bykumarvizayin
- Instrument ModelUploaded by86tejas
- Restraint summary extendedUploaded by86tejas
- materials-09-00298Uploaded byFederico Siojrin
- RulesUploaded by86tejas
- WRENCH AbbreviationUploaded by86tejas
- List of Codes and StandardsUploaded by86tejas
- Pipe Support CatalogUploaded by86tejas
- Valve.pdfUploaded by86tejas
- 264476491-MSS-sp-69.pdfUploaded by86tejas
- SRV Inlet Nozzle Momment CheckUploaded by86tejas
- Progressive User Directory 07.04.2017Uploaded by86tejas
- Load on Nozzle Column junction.xlsxUploaded by86tejas
- Cast Steel Valves - Bonney ForgeUploaded byPetar Jankovic
- Forged Steel Valves - Bonney ForgeUploaded byPetar Jankovic
- Expansion LoopUploaded byAtique Shaikh
- Upgrade to ubantu from windows XPUploaded by86tejas

- CBR Test Procedure Determination of California Bearing Ratio for Road DesignUploaded bySab Ri
- FRP MaterialsUploaded byBabu Sundararaman
- Determination of Volume Fraction of Coir Fiber, Chicken Feather and Egg Shell Powder in an Epoxy based Hybrid Composite for Maximum Tensile StrengthUploaded byIJRASETPublications
- Prestressed concrete: first developments in italyUploaded bycags15
- 02 TATA GursonUploaded byfirewalker868
- Pull-out Test SimulationUploaded byAaqib Ali
- Column ShorteningUploaded byKhaled Ali Aladwar
- HILTI Volume 2 - Anchor Fastening Technical GuideUploaded byMike Junior
- Experimental Investigations on Seismic Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column JointsUploaded byEka Suprianto
- Stress Calculation for Aluminium PlateUploaded byJacques Ontal
- ASTM B188-2002 Tubos de CobreUploaded bylinealmen
- AbstractUploaded bySupreeth Premkumar
- Surarak_2011_02Thesis.pdfUploaded bykiller_pro
- Capone a Final ProposalUploaded byMelissa Aina Mohd Yusof
- Hopper Inserts for Improved Solids FlowUploaded byknsaravana
- ATE-30207024Uploaded byTanu Rd
- 07 Bathurst Recent ResearchUploaded bykunalji_jain
- an Application of the Analytic Network Process in Multiple Criteria Material SelectionUploaded byM. Nishom, S.Kom
- fatigue failure of welded jointsUploaded byShahazad Shaik
- Introduction-to-Manufacturing-Process-and-Material.pdfUploaded byABA
- Turbine Pelton DesignUploaded bysilingga
- SX013a en EU Example Fin Plate Beam to Column Flange ConnectionUploaded byferasalkam
- High-RiseUploaded byEdward Albert Mendoza Bañaga
- Tanks Design RecommendationsUploaded byAlex Gigena
- Rep12-07 NCAT Fatigue CrackingUploaded bymolina3085
- Rockfall TestUploaded byAlexis Vargas
- Practical Application of Failure Criteria in Determinating Safe Mud Weight Windows in Drilling OperationsUploaded byMiitoxD
- Toward a Consistent Design of Structural ConcreteUploaded byStanislav Chirila
- [27] Kutay Orakcal & John W. Wallace. Flexural Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Walls - Experimental Verification. ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL, 2006Uploaded byRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- MS-264 Change Y Jul 06Uploaded byMike Fiorentino