- Thick Cylinder PDF
- 1-s2.0-S0301679X17304255-main
- Ductile Folding
- Shear Junctions
- Analytical Solution of WBS Problem Using Camclay Model Charlez
- A Plasticity and Anisotropic Damage Model For
- 2011 Assignment One With FEMLab Instruction
- Evaluating the Integrity of Plain Dents
- Plasticity
- Borisov 484
- V3I3_IJERTV3IS031963 (2).pdf
- Computational DamageMechanics: Application toMetal Forming Simulation
- Mechanical Lecture A
- Geomorphology principals.
- DESMORAT.2006.7
- Analysis of a Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall
- Cutting Mechanics and Analytical Modelling (Orthogonal and Oblique Machining)by a. P. Markopoulos
- Dynamic Riser Analysis
- 223314spring 2001
- Shakedown and limit load of pipe bends with local wall thinning under combined internal pressure and cyclic in-plane bending moment.pdf
- ijie_25_981
- Tamagnini_Ciantia_IACMAG2014
- 2XRAY
- Structural Crashworthiness and Failure
- Ground Improvement With Stone Columns - Methods of Calculating Settlement Improvement Factor (2014)
- Doc
- Damage Accumulation and Fracture Initiation Xue
- Mechanics of solid
- 2 Axial
- Validation of Simple Shear Tests for Parameter Ide
- Engineering and Material Standard.pdf
- Decommissioning Inspection and Repair of 5000 MT Ammonia Storage Tank.pdf
- 802694_ch16
- Piping Handbook
- Moke up-Sec IX.pdf
- 802700_ch38.pdf
- Mock up guide.pdf
- 802700_ch26.pdf
- Valve
- toc_f
- Lloyd s Register Sec VIII Div 1 Edition 2015 Key Changes
- 299359452-Bolt-Tightening.docx
- API 510 Basics.pdf
- Diary 1900 to 2078
- 802717_ch69.pdf
- 802717_ch46.pdf
- 802717_ch47.pdf
- 802694_ch2.pdf
- 802694_ch4.pdf
- 802717_ch69
- 802694_ch9.pdf
- 802694_ch4.pdf
- 802694_ch8.pdf
- 802717_ch43.pdf
- 802694_ch19.pdf
- 802700_app.pdf
- 802700_ch27.pdf
- 802700_ch28.pdf
- 802717_ch44
- 802694_ch10.pdf

qxd 5/20/09 9:33 AM Page 707

CHAPTER

38

STRESS INTENSIFICATION

FACTORS, STRESS INDICES,

AND FLEXIBILITY FACTORS

Everett C. Rodabaugh

**38.1 INTRODUCTION 38.2 TERMINOLOGY AND SYMBOLS
**

Piping systems tend to be rather complex structures that As used herein, the word Code is ref. [1]. Portions of the Code

include straight pipe and a variety of complex components, such are identified as they appear in the Code; for example, Table

as elbows and tees. A typical piping system might include 50 or NC-3611.2(e)-1 and NB-3228.5. Equations from the Code are

so components along with many intervening lengths of straight identified by a “B” (for Class 1 piping) and a “C” (for Class 2 or 3

pipe. Each of the components is subjected to a complex set of piping); the number that follows the letter is the specific equation

loadings. The evaluation of any component by the detailed analy- number from the Code. The elements of the Code equations are

sis methods prescribed in NB-3200 would be an onerous task. defined as follows:

As indicated by Tables NB/NC/ND-3132-1, many piping com-

ponents are “standardized.” For example, elbows and tees are B1, B2 primary stress indices: B1 for pressure and B2

included in ANSI B16.9, Factory Made Wrought Steel Butt- for moment

Welding Fittings. C1, C2, C3, C3 primary-plus-secondary stress indices: C1 for

The complexity of analyses of piping components and the pressure, C2 for moment, and C3 and C3 for

“standard” aspect of piping components has led to use of stress thermal gradients

intensification factors (also called i-factors) in addition to stress Do outside diameter of pipe (for branch connec-

indices and flexibility factors for evaluations of piping systems. tions, the run pipe)

The intent of i-factors and stress indices is to provide for a simple do outside diameter of branch pipe

yet reasonably accurate and conservative evaluation of compli- E modulus of elasticity

ance with Code stress limits. Piping components (e.g., elbows and f number of cycles dependent factor, ranging

branch connections) may have directional dependent responses. from 1.0 for 7,000 or fewer cycles to 0.5 for

The concept (except as discussed in Section 38.11) is to use the 100,000 or more cycles (see Table NC-

maximum directional dependent i-factor or stress index as a mul- 3611.2(e)-1)

tiplier of resultant moments. h tRb> r2; elbow characteristic

Flexibility factors are involved in piping system analyses. i stress intensification factor

Inaccurate flexibility factors may lead to grossly incorrect calcula- I moment of inertia of pipe or elbow (Ir, Ib for

tions of stresses. In general, a “conservative” flexibility factor run, branch-of-branch connections)

cannot be defined; the goal is to establish and use reasonably K1, K2, K3 peak stress indices: K1 for pressure, K2 for

accurate flexibility factors. moment, and K3 for thermal gradients

In this chapter, the general concepts behind the development of Ke factor used for Sn 7 3Sm (see NB-3228.5)

i-factors, stress indices, and flexibility factors are briefly discussed k flexibility factor

with references to details of developments. In Section 38.8, an Nf test cycles to failure; see equation (38.1)

example of a relatively simple piping system with loads is given; Nd1 design cycles for Class 1 piping

the piping system output analysis is used to illustrate how i-factors Nd2,3 design cycles for Classes 2 or 3 piping

and stress indices are used to check Code compliance and—for a Mj [M 2xj + M 2yj + M 2zj](1/2) = resultant moment:

branch connection—to illustrate the quantitative significance of j A, B, or C for MA, MB, and MC. The sub-

flexibility factors. The ASME Piping Codes are discussed in scripts x, y, and z denote an orthogonal set of

Sections 38.9, 38.10, and 38.11. three moments.

qxd 5/20/09 9:33 AM Page 708 708 • Chapter 38 MA resultant moment from weight and other sus. see equation (38. see Sn calculated stress by equation (B10) equation (38.1) Sp calculated stress by equation (B11) P internal pressure Salt calculated stress by equation (B14) r mean radius of pipe or elbow T wall-thickness of run-pipe of branch connec- r2 radius at outside juncture between run pipe tions and branch pipe or nozzle t wall-thickness of pipe or elbow Rb bend radius of elbow Z section modulus of pipe or elbow (Zr and Zb Sta test elastic–equivalent stress amplitude (half. SA allowable stress range f(1.2 MB resultant moment from nonreversing dynamic Sc basic material allowable stress at minimum loads temperature MC range of resultant moment from thermal Sh basic material allowable stress at temperature expansion consistent with loading under consideration Mi resultant moment as defined in NB-3650 Sm basic material allowable stress intensity Nf test cycles to failure.1) and Fig.1 MARKL-TYPE FATIGUE TESTS AND ILLUSTRATION OF LIMIT LOAD CRITERION . tained loads see equation (C1) in NC-3611.25Sc 0.25Sh). FIG. 38. 38. for run and branch-of-branch connections) range).1 SOL calculated stress by equation (C8) Symbols not included in the preceding list are defined where STE calculated stress by equation (C11) used in the text.ASME_Ch38_p707-724. through-wall crack.

24.2 would be expected.2. 3. The constant is not necessarily apparent effect on the results.5 times The force. with outlet size equal to margin on stress is 8. with no is about right for such materials.3. Scavuzzo. It example. To further discuss margins. However. Fig.1) be 15/12 times those indicated in Fig. STE = iM C>Z … (Sh + SA) (38. is less than (1/3) of that for A106 Grade B. Heald’s tests involved a bit more margins for materials with E significantly less than 3e7 psi are weight loading. This application is consistent with the use of elastic piping–system analyses.00—for example. i could be welded.000 (psi for Sta in psi) was used by Markl In equation (C11).5 ksi for A106 he obtained i 0. fatigue is a function of the strain amplitude or range. [3]) and are The nominal design margin can be deduced from equation used for Code Classes 2 and 3 piping.2. as welded. Rodabaugh [7].1) is about “smooth” on neither the inside nor the outside surface. the design as small as 0.0 ksi.2 f ) (38.3 for Nf 249. and the margins would i = 245. As noted.000 for a girth butt 3 piping.ASME_Ch38_p707-724.2. Sh (400F) also tested “plain straight pipe” by using a forged transition piece. available data suggest that values of 0. This (2) straight pipe with a girth Fillet weld.3. opted to make i 1. 38.000 should be noted that equation (C11) is not an evaluation of the in equation (38. Figure 38.75i MA/Z (noncyclic) up to approximately 10 ksi would have no effect 38. was obtained from a preliminary force versus the those indicated in Fig. if the pressure cycles in appropriate for materials with a significantly different modulus of phase with the moments. whereas from N 7. with outlet size equal to the run size.2) Markl [2]–[4] tests were run on components made of A106 Grade B material and included the following: Figure 38. Code for Pressure Piping. For other materials with about the same modulus of elasticity. Sc 6. would be expected to be not less Scavuzzo [6] presents the results of Markl-type tests on girth then indicated in Fig. These i-factors are applicable for Do /t up to 100. These minor values of 0. 0. 38. In principle. chapter.1) is about 245.000/(StaN 0. (They were available data indicate that the constant in equation (38. For the discussion in this (C11) with MA P 0.1).000. For A106 Grade C material.75i MA/Z had no effect discussed in Section 38.qxd 5/20/09 9:33 AM Page 709 COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 709 38. Markl. Stress intensification factors (i-factors) were introduced into ASA B31. on the other hand. i-factors derived from cantilever testing nents.2. 2:1 ratio of range to amplitude is a key aspect of basic design (3) straight pipe.3 STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTORS are more appropriate than those derived from four-point bending tests.75iM A>Z + iM C>Z 6 (Sh + SA) (C11) strain control rather than a stress control—that is. ratio—that is. For 6061-T6 aluminum material. . Indeed. with E ~1e7 psi. i 0. which emphasizes the Markl’s tests involved a minor amount of weight loading—that strain control rather than stress control of equation (38. four-point bending will result in lower i-factors for 38.00. It is apparent in Fig.2 is a plot of stress range versus cycles. (C11): response region. Available test data indicates that the constant of 245. Thus the inclusion of the 0. the basic design (6) unreinforced branch connections.75i MA/Z was not zero. design margin on stress is about 2 and then decreases to about 1. Sc Sh 12 ksi.1. Design is.000 times the modulus of elastic adequacy of pressure design. The constant of 245. 38.875 ksi as compared to 37. as for aluminum components with E ' 1e7 psi. margins. we look at the complete equation ment used in some of the subsequent fatigue tests was in the plastic. using elastic–plastic theory. 38. NC-3650 (for Class 2) and ND-3650 (for Class 3) are identical. Scavuzzo obtained i 1.75i MA/Z term pro- vides conservatism relative to equation (38. F. Sta is an amplitude. on the results. for very standpoint. for A106 Grade A material.1). stainless steel components by Heald [5] indicate that this constant Heald [5] ran tests with a constant PDo (4t) 5100 psi. the the run size.2(b)-1 gives i-factors for 15 types of compo- piping–system analyses. In equation (1) elbows and miters. for his tests on carbon steel components. margins indicated in 1. obtained i-factors significantly less than reduced in proportion to the reduction in E. in equation (38.2 that the design mar- (5) ANSI B16. 5 stick electrodes.5 ksi.1–1955. the displace.02.3.2 is for A106 Grade B material—the material (4) straight pipe with a girth butt weld.000.75i shall not be taken to be less than 1. Sh SA 11. on the premise that a girth butt weld may exist any- Some nonferrous materials are permitted by the Code for Class where in piping systems. 38. it is covered by NC-3640. Rodabaugh [7] suggested that for use with elastic Figure NC-3673. displacement test as indicated in Fig. it may be viewed as a STE = PDo>(4t) + 0. but for Nf 144. showed that for tests at low Nf (significant amount of plas- tic response).1). butt welds by using four-point bending instead of the cantilever Other nonferrous materials have not been reviewed from this bending used by Markl [2]–[4] and Heald [5]. (38. 38.3. and gin varies as a function of cycles: at N 10. Later tests on austenitic Markl’s tests were run with essentially zero internal pressure.3 Code Guidance for i-Factors girth butt welds.1 Girth Butt Welds on the fatigue life.2 Design Margins refs. to the extent that allowable stresses are low cycles to failure. the margins would be 15/17. the constant is about 82. For 6061-T6. However. Because the allowable stress for 6061-T6.000.000 to 100. weld using Fleetweld No.2. Markl [2] introduced the following equation: the basic design margins would be different: for example.2).) Markl (1/3)245. in effect. The i-factors are based on cyclic moment (displacement-controlled) fatigue tests by Markl (see 38. MC is a range. as welded. used in Markl tests. 0. if a girth butt weld is “flush” Grade B material.64. as inside and out-side and there is no metallurgical notch.9 tees.000. margins for 6061-T6.5. for allowance for the combined pressure and moment cycles. [2] and [4]) and also by Markl and George (see ref. the PDo /(4t) term provides a reasonable elasticity.

. Minichielo [8] details a procedure for experimental determina- tion of i-factors for components not covered by the Code (e.3). for moment loading. in the 55 yr.qxd 5/20/09 9:33 AM Page 710 710 • Chapter 38 FIG. 38. However. since. for example.ASME_Ch38_p707-724.2 includes the following relationship: [4].3) process by the Code Working Group on Piping Design..00 (38. with NB-3650 (Class 1 piping). additions and changes have been made. ties NC-3650 (Class 2 piping) branch connection in an elbow).2 DESIGN MARGINS FOR SA106 GRADE B: Sc = Sh = 15 KSI Many of the i-factors are identical to those suggested by Markl NC-3673. a Equation (38. the description of “branch connection” has been added. These additions and changes are part of an ongoing i = C2K 2>2 but not less than 1.g.

(The basis for this equation is given by Rodabaugh [22].3) is a combination of In the early editions of ASME Section III. Table NB-3681(a)-1 does that by C1 Di inside diameter of vessel primary-plus-secondary stress index and C1K1 total stress index.2(c)-1. Then equation (38. They are analogous to i-factors in that they provide the basis for fatigue evaluations and are (as for i-factors) subject to ongoing reviews.2(c)-1.2(b)-1 for girth butt weld.2(c)-1. because K1 2. s. the Equation (38. and t is for the branch pipe or noz- utility owners through the Electric Power Research Institute zle.7 was in-plane moments resulted in failures at the location and direction transferred to ASME Section III in 1971. the range of primary- the vessel.4 EPRI Reports in which C1 is not to be less than 1.6) and Table NB-3338.148 (38. The failures were remote from the C1 and K1 are used in equations (B10) and (B11): welds. these reports are proprietary. [9]–[19]) are open-literature tion.3) gives i 1. The third limit can be written in the C and K indices are used for Class 1 piping in equations (B10) following form: and (B11). sn.2 is essentially: extended coverage of equation (38.4) (B10) From equations (38. to use equation (38. and sr to the computed membrane stress in In early editions of ASME Section III. must not be less than the larger of 0.5.182(d>D)0. thus K2 1. At the present.6). NB-3338. edition of ASME Section III. in agree- ment with Figure NC-3673.5t These articles include data on stress indices.ASME_Ch38_p707-724. and thermal gradient 1. D/T 6 100. Sp = C1K 1(PDo>2t) + moment term + thermal gradient terms (B11) i = 1.5. for D/T 100. C1K 1 = 2. C1K1 can be quite a bit higher than 3. C1K1 One of the reviews mentioned in the foregoing paragraph led to will not be less than 2.8>h(2>3) for h 6 ' 0. One of these sets. We now discuss comparisons between equation (38. Also.00 for a “typical” girth butt weld.2—thus.5T—that is. for “branch connection.9>h(2>3) (38.6) is limited to d/D 6 0. basis for the rather complex set of C1 and K1 for reducers is given . the gous open-literature publications may be available in the future.qxd 5/20/09 9:33 AM Page 711 COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 711 The most relevant basis for equation (38.2 generally requires that r2 must not be less than the larger of 0.0. the same minimums that are 38. and C1K1 6.3.) indicated by elbow theory.5.3 in Table NB-3338. T wall-thickness of vessel Table NB-3681(a)-1 gives 15 sets of C1 and K1 for various components.5 indices for commonly used piping system components. and 0.) (EPRI). When piping was intro- duced into ASME Section III. along with the definition that i ered.2(c)-1 is limited to D/T 38.4.2(a)-2.6) as it is applied to publications. d/D 6 0. Stress indices for pressure. piping was not cov- elbow tests and elbow theory.3. With these minimum Pressure Loading values of r2. Do is the outside diameter of the run pipe and t is the wall-thickness of the run pipe. plus-secondary stress was limited to 3Sm.5 6 1. external Fillet radius. “Simplified Elastic–Plastic Analysis. D is the mean diameter.3) and (38.7-1969. By elbow theory for an in-plane moment Sn = C1(PDo>2t) + moment term + thermal gradient term C2 ' 1.1 C1 and K1 Stress Indices for Internal included in the basis for equation (38. these are applicable for Do /t up to 100.8(D>T)0.” NB-3338. T is for the run a series of reports under the sponsorship of a group of electric pipe.5. Table NB-3338.5) For branch connections. Equation (38.2(c)-1 an extensive discussed previously.5) agrees with that shown in Figure NC-3673.4). Table NB-3338. and i-factors.382(t>r2)0. flexibility factors.00. (ANSI B31. it is reasonable to connections in piping systems: assume that K2 2. NB-3338.8>h(2/3)>2 = 0. the recognition that the range of s = P(Di + T )>(4T ) for nozzles in spherical vessels or heads primary-plus-secondary stress could exceed 3Sm and still have ade- s = P(Di + T )>(2T ) for nozzles in cylindrical vessels quate fatigue life led to NB-3228. d/D t/T 0.6).” was The stress indices shown in Table NB-3338.5t and 0.5 (38. it is necessary to divide the where total stress in to primary-plus-secondary stress and the peak stress P service pressure portion of the total stress. [20] and [21]. t/r2 1. and the summarized and discussed by Mershon in refs. the following equation was developed for branch For Markl’s “typical” girth butt welds.54.4 to 3. The term stress index is defined as the ratio of the stress com.00.5. d is the mean diameter.9 versus the S 3.367(T>t)0.6) 38.4 C AND K STRESS INDICES from 10 to 100. The basis for indices for welds and wall- series of internal pressure tests of nozzle in vessels. for example.4. moment. Fatigue tests of elbows with loads were introduced in ANSI B31. however. r2. In the NB-3338.2(b)-1 As a simple alternative to the 16 stress indices in Table for “welding elbow or pipe bend.6). the definition now in 2.2(c)-1 is more restricted in coverage The term stress indices was introduced in the first (1963) than equation (38. C1K1 ranges from about and addenda to get the definition complete.” To implement NB-3228. and the general limita- articles prepared by Wais (see refs. This data is thickness transitions is given by Rodabaugh in ref.5T. and analo- the configuration shown in sketch (d) of Fig. [23]. Although it took several editions Within the range of mutual coverage. Table NB-3681(a)-1 provides C and K stress (d>D)3(D>T)(T>r2)>(t>T)40. ponents st. abstracting eleven of the EPRI reports.

no attempt has yet been made to do something simi.9 are available for d/D ranging from about 0. NC.2 C2 and K2 Stress Indices for Moment Loading thicker of the two pipes). defined in NB-3653.9 tees. The results ASNI B16. The basis for several of the thermal gradient stress indices is In forged tees. Tb.60 pressure. To illustrate . The following paragraphs shown in Table NB-3681(a)-1 for various components. With nominal increase in wall-thickness over the nominal thickness of respect to T1 and T2. it is possible.4.1 Elbows The following equation for C1 is from shell the- ory for maximum stress caused by internal pressure (ignoring the 38. all of which are axisymmetric.00. pressure term + moment term + C ¿3E ab ƒ aaTa . The requirement in ANSI B16. This uncertainty regarding what constitutes a B16.3. for which a potential then exists for sharp corners at the run to branch inter. because of Markl [2]–[4] tests and. and minimum wall-thickness not less than the nominal thick- ness of the designated run pipe.3) does not always hold.4. end diame. However. Girth butt weld 0.4. equation (38.0. (B11). C3 represents the primary plus secondary stresses. and piping lished by Lorenz in 1910.5: K 1 = 4.5 and K1 4.35(t max >t) + 0.2 includes the relationship expressed in equation (38.0 is appropriate.00.v) (B11) C¿3 is used in equation (B13) as follows: Butt-welding tees made to the requirements of ANSI B16.00 nificant stresses caused by thermal gradients might occur. C'3 rep- dimensional parameters—the cone angle.2(b)-1. B16.3 (and worth repeating here). see Fig. Conceptually.0 + 0.9 tees.5 to 1.50 section.1. and (B13) are that the pressure capacity of the tee must not be less than the pres. sure capacity of the designated run pipe can be met by a rather T1. Thus. which is probably very conservative for most B16. Loading Criteria.ASME_Ch38_p707-724. At pre- provide a brief discussion of two components covered by neither sent. component such as a valve or pump nozzle.qxd 5/20/09 9:33 AM Page 712 712 • Chapter 38 by Rodabaugh as well in ref. however.r)>32(Rb . [23] nor ref. the maximum material properties.4. Markl-type tests conducted by oth. its applica- ref.9 tees from internal 1:3 slope transition 0. Because of end effects.60 0. Loading Conditions) follows: indicates that “temperature effects” shall be considered. for moment loading. If at the design stage a designer of Class 2 or 3 piping anticipates that sig- i = C2K 2>2 but not less than 1.0 the Code equations.v)) C1 = 1.r)4: K 1 = 1.4. bility is the subject of continuing work by the ASME Working Group on Piping Design.25 0.2. serves to correlate NC-3650 effect of those stresses. Component C3 C'3 may be machined from a forged block of material. However. 38. heat-transfer analyses or some approximation thereof is needed to quantify the thermal gradients. [24]. with wall-thickness changing smoothly between branch and run portions.3 Stress Indices for Thermal Gradient end effects of whatever might be welded to the ends of the elbows). the run pipe. he or she might use the Class 1 piping procedure for considering the This equation. evaluating stresses caused by thermal gradients. NB-4250 transition 1.2 Butt-Welding Tees Sn = pressure term moment term K 3E a ƒ ¢T1 ƒ >(2(1 . Unfortunately. for instance. NB-3653. Sn pressure term moment term C3Eab|aaTa abTb| Á ƒ indicates absolute values (B10) 38. the NB-4250 transition is between pipe and a lar for B16. (Class 2 piping) with NB-3650 (Class 1 piping). the transition between branch and run portions given by Rodabaugh [23].0 along with sparse data on the stresses in B16. [24].abTb ƒ (B13) ters.9 tee.0 + K 2C3E ab ƒ aaTa .9 The symbols used in equations (B10). has led to the selection of C1 1.4.3.9 reducers pose a similar problem that has been were then bounded by the simple equations or values tabulated addressed by specifying C1 and C2 in terms of the reducers’ above. particularly Reference [23] gives the results of elastic stress analyses of the those with d/D 6 1. fluid properties.abTb ƒ + Ea ƒ ¢T2 ƒ >(1 .1.9 controls only center-to-end dimensions. Sn pressure term C2Mi /Z thermal gradient term (B10) The major problem in evaluating thermal stresses lies in esti- Sp pressure term K2C2Mi /Z thermal gradient term (B11) mating at the design stage what will happen to the piping system in service.1 Basis for C3 and C3 Branch Connections One compo- ers. stress tends to occur about midway between the ends. Loadings Although piping system analyses quantify the moments used in C1 = (2Rb . Class 2 and 3 piping do not include explicit rules for As indicated in Section 38.03(Do>t) 1. [23] is the branch connection. a relatively good basis exists for the 15 sets of C2 and K2 nent not covered by ref.1 and NB-3653. Such analyses The origin of the preceding equation lies with a paper pub. K3 indices are largely the same as the K2 C2 and K2 are used in equations (B10) and (B11) as follows: indices discussed in Section 38. foregoing components. and the 1:3 transition is between two pipes of different wall-thicknesses (tmax is the 38. and T2 are quantified by a heat-transfer analysis. 38. For example: consists of a fairly large radius. later. NC- 3673.2.3) as 3111(g) (General Design. start with assumed fluid-flow rates. Although resents membrane stresses.9 tees. ANSI B16. The surface C3 and K3 are used in equations (B10) and (B11) as follows: of an elbow is considered to be smooth enough so that K1 1. The temperatures Ta.

the .816E|aaTa abTb|. However. the following margin of 20 (on cycles) controls for low values of Nd1. Class 2 (Et2/R) 0. From equation (B14) with Ke 1. the implicit design-basis “endurance answer is yes. is C3 for branch connections. With a margin of 2 on stress. a stress level below which the number of cycles is infinite. For Code compliance. whereas explains the basis for the C3 1.000.0.abTb ƒ Nd2.074 * 92. I-9.00. otherwise it is no. for example.1).qxd 5/20/09 9:34 AM Page 713 COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 713 the simple bounding basis of the C3 and C'3 indices. rounded or 3 132 design cycles. it is possible that different values of Ke juncture will be in the Code.8>2 = 172 ksi (amplitude) R radius of branch pipe.7) and (38.9-1. For y = 0. stress ranges. girth butt weld in a SA106 Grade B (Sm 20 ksi) pipe for which the following two equations must be satisfied: C2 1. the margin of 2 (on stress) controls for high values of Nd1.ASME_Ch38_p707-724.) Class 1 piping. strength” is 12. it may cycles through the f-factor.2/60 1.00.00.537. is a function of the number of anticipated its postulated life.3.000E ƒ aaTa .2 ksi range. The has occurred in nuclear power plant piping because of vibration design curves in Figs.25/(Rt)0. V>(2bl2) + M>(bl) = 0 (38. Nominal design margins are discussed be noted that equation (38. the allowable number of All three classes of piping use a linear cumulative-damage cycles.2 * 1.abTb ƒ bl2 (38. With that assumption. E modulus of elasticity of branch pipe material v Poisson’s ratio Salt = K eSp>2 = 2. M = -2R ƒ aaTa . Nd1 aa(b) coefficient of thermal expansion of branch–run pipe (adjusted for Ke) about 150 design cycles. and (B14) are for fatigue evaluation of higher than 106 cycles.816. At the high end of the cycles’ spectrum. For Class 2 or 3 piping.1).2. (Work is underway to extend Fig.8) leads to the following caused by moment loads. between the branch pipe and the run pipe at their juncture. K2 1.3. there are parameters in which Nd1 and Shm = E * hoop strain = 1. Salt 83 ksi from the sec- ond line of Table I. Code compliance is either a yes or no answer: if is.00. M moment per unit length at branch pipe–run pipe juncture Recalculating Salt gives the following: b Et3[12(1 y2)]: l [3(1 y2)]0. Thus C ¿3 = 1. it is not necessary to use the values of Ke given in the Code. Rodabaugh [26] gives broad-scope comparisons between the The hoop membrane stress. Class 1 150 design cycles.2)5 = 132 design cycles The axial bending stress. Shm.8) But Sn /3Sm 92. If these values are not used.5. must be less than the postulated hypothesis to sum up the fatigue damage from cycles of different number of cycles. Consider.074. material A comparable number of design cycles for Class 2 or 3 piping Ta(b) temperature of branch–run pipe can be obtained from equation (38. OR 3 PIPING AND CLASS 1 PIPING Conditions under which Ke is used involve low estimates of the Equation (C11) is for fatigue evaluation of Class 2 or 3 piping. In For the branch pipe considered as a thin-wall cylindrical shell either case.5 FATIGUE EVALUATIONS: CLASS 2 tion (38.1513. Comparisons are given for both carbon steel and austenitic steel materials. is given by fatigue analyses of Class 1 and Class 2 or 3 piping. STE Sn 92.9) Nd2.9-1.7) Sn = 2Salt>K 2 = 2 * 83>1.abTb ƒ (38. [1].3 are close to each other. for Salt 172 ksi. I-9. As in the preceding example. In the future. Fatigue damage which are included in the ASME Criteria Document [25].0. and I-9. Sab. The 1.8 and C'3 1. t wall thickness of branch pipe From the second line of Table I. R|aTa– because Sn /3Sm 1. Nd1 is the number of allowable design cycles. is 6M/t 2. (B11).8. I-9-1 to Equations (B10).5 ksi.2 ksi (range) V>(2bl3) + M(2bl2) = R ƒ aaTa . For Class 1 piping. number of cycles that will be applied to the piping system during The limit. In the calculated stress by equation (C11) is less than Sh SA. bl2 = For this particular example. The nificant cycle loadings were anticipated in the design stage. thus Ke 1 2[(Sn /3Sm) 1] where 2. per Appendix I of ref. For Nd1 1. We assume that the cycle is Solution of equations (38. a plastic analysis must be made. to 1.3 were derived from the and thermal striping. the results of what will happen to the piping system in service.1) has no “endurance strength”—that in Section 38.8. and also because equation: i 1. Sab 1. even if all sig- stress or 20 on cycles—whichever is more conservative. the “as-welded” abTb |.8 = 92. the equivalent of Ke is inherent in the fatigue tests results that are characterized by equa- 38.1. then the Table I-9-1 (line 2). These types of cycle loadings have not been cycles-to-failure data by incorporating a nominal margin of 2 on routinely evaluated in the design stage. Sh + SA.3 = (245>92. but there are other parameters in which the differences are appreciable. rigidly restrained at one end (the run pipe is assumed to be the The low values of Nd1 generally cannot be used directly rigid restraint) and for a differential thermal expansion.2. The basis for Class 1 piping fatigue evaluations consists of The major problem consists of anticipating at the design stage strain-controlled fatigue tests on polished bars. Appropriate values of Ke have been under investigation for sev- V shear force per unit length at branch pipe–run pipe eral years.

B-stress indices are used in equa. Reference [27] and the Code did not go quite that far: B1 where is not B1 = 0.3/h(2/3).0 to be taken as less than zero.5Sh (C8) able) 1.1. [27]. As the load F increases. Thus the margins between Code-allowable For components with two ends of the same nominal size (See moments and equation (38. Mt torsional moment 3673.0. the same as for straight pipe. Because elbows with where high h behave like straight pipe.1. Sm /Sy varies with nents are the same.6 B-STRESS INDICES D pipe mean diameter B-stress indices are used for both Class 1 and Class 2 or 3 pip. Test data for 38. The statement “but Rodabaugh in ref. small h to undergo significant plastic deformation.31] have published studies Do /t 6 50.86. A more appropriate term—at least for pip.5 and B2 = 1. NC. The lowest margin occurs for Mt. finite-element-analysis for paramet- thus B-stress indices are limited in application to pipe with ric studies.95/h(2/3) (which is mainly a through-wall ing to use in the title is “Limit Load. 38.95/1.5 deformation caused by such nonreversing loads as weight. a possible Code change would be to place a The limits shown for equations (B9) and (C8) are for design lower bound on B2 of 2. For larger h. MA.6.4h but not 0 and 0.6 for branch connections). the underlying theory The following sections discuss three aspects of B-stress indices. where P internal pressure 38. Smax /Z 1. with PDo /(2t) Sm . and MB are “nonrevers- ing”. steady-state relief-valve thrust.0.0” arises from the nature of the equation for Smax. . The controlling of II-1430 (Criterion of Collapse Load) is a bit misleading. Mt 0.1 0. (SA106 Grade B material at 100F). B1 0.0 (38.3>h(2>3) but not 61. conditions. Thus B2 (1. 38.8Sh and 1. The margins are also low for such elbows.4h but not 6 0 nor 70.5. 38. then it is in the plastic region.” bending stress). elbows behave like straight pipe. Sm 20 ksi.5Sy (C9) limit of 1. the polished bar tests that form the basis of Class 1 piping system fatigue analyses have also been run over short time periods in an (3>4)3(PD>2tSy)42 + 3M b>(D 2tSy)42 air environment. Sy 35 ksi: the margin is M(limit)M(allow- B1PDo>(2t) + B2M A>Z 6 1. Also for Do /t 6 50. [27]. B2 = 1. the limit shown for equation (C9) is for Levels A and B Service.35Sy (austenitic material at around 6501F).8. Thus B1 could in principle be negative for such elbows.1 + 0. A con- ceptual example is shown in Fig.5 Sm (B9) Mb.1 Straight Pipe elbows with small h show that internal pressure increases the limit moment. with P Mb 0.10) supplemented by in-service inspections. The title elbows that is abstracted and discussed in ref. elastic stress. the B-stress indices are essentially the same. ble the use of elastic-plastic. For an elbow with indicated in Fig.5. say. The goal is to limit the plastic response sufficiently so that elastic analyses of piping systems remains reasonably valid. The foregoing equations are intended to prevent gross plastic B1 = . About the highest margin is for B1PDo>(2t) + B2M i>Z 6 1.10) vary with material and tempera- 38. For (C8) tion (B9) and equations (C8) and (C9) as follows: Sm 1. The the concept and criterion discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Thus the Code fatigue analysis procedure should be considered a check of as-built adequacy and may need to be + 33. material and temperature. Sy pipe material yield strength 1 (Class 2 or 3 piping) provide B-stress indices for Do /t up to 50.ASME_Ch38_p707-724. can be exceeded by a through-wall plastic factor The basis for most of the B-stress indices is given by of 1. examples are weight. closing moment. t pipe wall-thickness ing. Test data indicate that for Do /t > 50.6.5Sm. For an elbow. as condition is for an in-plane.2 Elbows any load that the Code characterizes as nonreversing. The margin is M(limit)/M(allowable) 0. equation is valid for h ~0.2(b)-1 are not all the same. Table NB-3681(a)-1 (Class 1 piping) and Fig. If margins for the design conditions are not to be Sy material yield strength less than.0 the displacement first increases elastically.5. The resultant moments Mi.464M t>(pD 2tSy)42 = 1. test data indicate the limit of B2-Indices for elbows.94.94 are for the equation (B9) B1PDo>(2t) + B2(M A + M B)>Z 6 lesser of 1. NC-3673. ture. These margins of about 0.1.00/Z—that is. given by Larson [28] based on shell theory and (and Markl-type tests by others) all have been run over short time von Mises yield criteria.86–1. The upper bound on B1 of 0. the mode of plastic failure Advances in the power of personal computers have made feasi- may be “buckling” rather than a limit load as noted in Fig. the maximum lapse” at the load FL. All of the B-stress indices are based on not 1. Taboul[29] and Matzen [30. 1.5.5)/h(2/3) 1. and 38. Margins for straight pipe tend to be the lowest for any of the components covered by the Code.5 returns to the aspect that.2(b). indicates that Smax 1. for large h. periods with air or tap water inside the specimens.qxd 5/20/09 9:34 AM Page 714 714 • Chapter 38 problem of environmental effects may still exist. Mb bending moment The components covered by Table NB-3681(a)-1 and Fig. but to the extent that the compo. B-stress indices for elbows. This work may lead to Code revisions of moments agree reasonably well with the theoretical equation. a piping component usually does not “col. There is a significant amount of test data on limit loads of The criterion adopted for this purpose is from II-1430. Equation (B9) gives limits in terms of Sm. Analogously. Markl’s tests which follows.

” in May 1999. using a flexibility factor higher than the actual one is not neces- The crux of the 1994 change for Class 1 piping consisted of sarily conservative for all of the piping system analysis results. for the NPS 6 pipe.180 psi for the NPS 6. The system. a correction should be made. wall pipe. stress indices. it is assumed The relationships between the three moments and three forces that there are no dynamic loads.5Sm.7 PIPING SYSTEM ANALYSES the same as those discussed earlier in this chapter. The early history of piping system analy- ses is discussed by Markl [33]. for the NPS 24 pipe and 2.280 in. in NB-3686. 0.” system analysis consisted of restraint of thermal expansion.11a) phase with the temperature change. at temperatures up to 370F. For elbows and curved pipe. which is dis- of 4. after which it returns to 70F. complex history leading to the Code changes made in either one or both ends of the elbow. Other flexibilities. elbow (1) no nozzle flexibility. NC-3673. In the piping system analysis for weight. note (1). the Code did not define nonreversing loads and I moment of inertia of elbow cross section. adequacy of supports and hangers as well as to check loads on Underlying this complexity is the estimate of what sort of earth. effects are negligible.) In k = 1. can be included in piping system analyses by using 1994 limits apply to “stress due to weight and inertial loading due a “point spring” concept—see Section 38.7.000 times during the design life of the piping system. piping system analyses are usually made with ty factors in piping system analyses and the use of i-factors and one of the several now-existing proprietary piping system analysis stress indices in the subsequent checks of Code compliance. such equipment as pumps and compressors. The purpose of the analyses was to Code is an indication of the complexity of the Code evaluation quantify moments for Code stress evaluations and to check the procedure for earthquake resistance of piping systems. and part of the piping system analysis computer programs. and that the internal pressure rises from 0 to 100 psi and then returns to 0—in k = 1.11a–c) are based on theory in which the end equivalent to those caused by such sustained loads as weight. The stress range from pressure is given by PDo/(2t) ed by a 6 6 matrix.8 EXAMPLES piping system analyses. These limits were based on the hypothesis that earthquakes give loads on piping that are not Equations (38. and .8. including 124 references. Sm 20 ksi./in. although simple. The post.8. the article by Th. a flange were attached to The long. Since about 1960. constant through arc angle. for example.5. and flexibility factors are 38. ui = k iM iRba>(EI) (38. of length is 24 lb.ASME_Ch38_p707-724. 1.6.11c) Elbow factors are listed as follows: where Ki 1. such as those from earthquake and waterhammer. al.200 psi for the NPS 24. the temperature change is assumed to be slow enough so that no significant thermal gradients occur.1 ksi. quake should be considered at the design stage. the pre-1994 limits did not distinguish cussed in Section 38.7 lb.qxd 5/20/09 9:34 AM Page 715 COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 715 38.65>h for in-plane and out-of-plane moments (38.] by a Japanese Joint Research Proprietary Report. “Simulation of That the correction “should be made” is significant because Test #37 and Parametric Study. usually taken to reversing dynamic loads.3.11b) addition. are routinely included in Also assumed is that the temperature of the piping system rises the analyses.0Sy to the post-1994 establish and use “best estimate” flexibility factors. The limit on equation (B9) for Level D be the same as for the attached pipes was the smaller of 3Sm and 2Sy. the i-factors.00 for torsional moments (38. the loadings usually considered in piping cident pressure.1 Example Piping System the early work dates back to 1911: for example. however. (This cycle is assumed to occur 1.0Sm and 2. For this materi- The flexibility (or stiffness—the reciprocal of flexibility) of ele. Some of 38. computer programs. These analyses use beam-element models.8. The example piping system is shown in Fig. Sc Sh 17.6 for an example.65/h(2/3) ui in-plane rotation of one end of the elbow with respect to the other end of the elbow Mi in-plane moment. This rather complex matrix for elbows is 100Do/(2t): 3. The material is assumed to be SA106 Grade B. ments. A increasing the stress limits on equation (B9) for Service Level D “conservative” flexibility factor cannot be defined. such as that indicated between reversing and nonreversing dynamic loads. serves to illustrate aspects of the use of flexibili- At the present. with the three rotations and three displacements can be represent. and wind loadings. wall pipe. However. Finally.375 in. from 70F to 370F. 1994 is given by Jaquay [32]. a p/2 for a 90 deg. von Karman on stresses and flexibility of curved pipe. it is assumed that the no other moment or force pipes are filled with water and insulated so that the weight per in. dynamic loadings. If. For the very simple case of an in-plane moment (Mi) constant. AND FLEXIBILITY FACTORS The moments used in Code equations are quantified by use of a 38.2(b)-1. such as elbows and curved pipe./in. Before about 1960. a Analyses are made for the following two assumptions concern- Rb bend radius of elbow ing nozzle flexibility: a arc angle of elbow in radians—for example. That the 1994 Code changes are still being reviewed by the weight. Moreover. the goal is to from the pre-1994 of smaller of 3. to reversing dynamic loads in combination with the Level D coin. This work was later supplemented [See Code Fig.3 Seismic Analyses E modulus of elasticity of elbow material Before 1994. are often included in piping system analysis. 0. 38.

8.5).1(Do>T) 3(T>t)(do>Do)4 1. the torsional flexibili- k o = 0.375 in.1. conditions indicated in Section 38.280 in. Do 24 in. that flexibility was used in the (t>T) (38.8.8..12) evaluations of “with nozzle flexibility.2 k i = 5. 38.1. . With the dimensions in these two equations: given in Sections 38.3 EXAMPLE PIPING SYSTEM (2) having nozzle flexibility modeled as a “point spring” (as k o = 23.625 in.qxd 5/20/09 9:34 AM Page 716 716 • Chapter 38 FIG.13) is given in ref.2 Moments For the example piping system shown in Fig.12) and (38. and Table 38. For this example.276.6.2(Do>T) 3(T>t)(do>Do)4(1>2)(t>T) (38. the moments are shown in For this example.3 and for the The basis for equations (38.3–38.13) 38. T 0.” k i = 0.. 38. as a point spring. in which do/D 0.81 prescribed in NB-3686. is close to 0. Examples of details of the stress calculations are t 0. do 6.8.5 (1>2) ty.ASME_Ch38_p707-724.. [22].

8. (B11). 60. gradients are considered to be in both “design conditions” and “Service Level A”. For the example assumptions. do not involve MB or thermal For the assumed material (SA106 Grade B) and temperatures.000 psi STE = PDo>(4t) + 0.75iM A>Z + iM C>Z 6 (Sh + SA) for up to 370°F (C11) for Class 1 piping SB9 = B1PDo>(2t) + B2M i>Z 6 1.00 for 1. for simplicity.5Sm (B9) Sn = C1PDo>(2t) + C2M i>Z 6 3Sm (B10) Sp = K 1C1PDo>(2t) + K 2C2M i>Z 38. are summarized in Table 38. of its lower limit for “design conditions.ASME_Ch38_p707-724. The examples that.750 psi for Class 2 and 3 piping.1 summarizes the .1. (B11) is equal to MC. and Mi in equations (B10) and ref.5Sh (C8) Sm = 29. Mi in and (B14)—in conjunction with the S-N data in Appendix I of equation (B9) is equal to MA. [1]—represent the fatigue check for Class 1 piping. and Salt = K eSp>2 (B14) all seven locations should be checked. 70.” Values of MA and MC (C11) is a fatigue check for Class 2 or 3 piping.2) the following equations: Sh + SA = Sc + f(1.000 cycles SOL = B1PDo>(2t) + B2M A>Z 6 1. 30.8. Table 38. see Table 38. they are evaluated by (except for branch con.25h) = 42. 50. f 1.25Sc + 0. and (B9) are checks of sustained load capacity.qxd 5/20/09 9:34 AM Page 717 COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 717 38. and (B10).000 psi for Class 2 and 3 piping nections. Sh = Sc = 17.3 Code Equations Equation (C8) is used in this example rather than (C9) because Equations (C8). 40. and 80.4 Girth Butt Welds (B11) Girth butt welds are at nodes 10.

3 11.5. Section 38. the girth butt weld at Node 50(a) is psi is less than (Sh SA) 42. B1 0. by using STE /2 for Sta in equation (38.5Sm.000)5 = 5357.qxd 5/20/09 9:35 AM Page 718 718 • Chapter 38 results for Class 2 or 3 piping. C1 1. The with Nd2. and 38. [1].5 * 3.0 * 4. Nd1 14. C2 1.00 * 68. K2 1.0 * 486. An appropriate comparison with Class 2 or 3 piping is obtained For Class 1 “as-welded” girth butt welds.000 cycles to failure SB9 = 0. Node 50(a) and is used in the following equations as a specific example: Salt = 1.000 * 2>38.960 psi is less than 1.200 + 1.820 * 12>162 = 1.1).200 + 1.5.000 * 12>162 = 38.000 design cycles * 12>162 = 68.0.000 postulated 1.000>32 = 11.8 * 1. the girth butt weld at Node acceptable as Class 1 piping. . Ke 1. B1 0.00 * 486.0 * 3.0.600 psi (B11) Thus.0 (its lower bound).ASME_Ch38_p707-724. B2 1.0 * 486. For girth butt welds.5 * 3.650 psi.200 + 1.000 Nd2.000 cycles.960 psi is less than 1.600>2 = 34. Refer to the discussion presented in next step is to see if the fatigue requirement is met. 50 is acceptable as Class 2 or 3 piping.3 = 357. (B10) Sp = 1.960 psi (C8) STE = 0. for Node 50[a].2.0 * 4.000 * 12>162 = 39.8.000 psi at 370°F). Because Sn is less than 3Sm ( 60.] From Table I-9-1 (line 2) and the interpolation equation in Table I-9-1. equation (B9) is met.5.0.0 * 4.5Sh 25.0. B2 1.5 * 3.000 cycles.0.0 * 3.200 + 1. Because Nd1 is greater than the Because 1. Nd1 14. Nf = (245.820 * 12>162 = 1. and i 1.750 psi.200 psi With a margin of 2 on stress. K1 1.820 * 12>162 [The division by 2 in equation (B14) converts stress range to + 1.300 psi (B14) SOL = 0.2 * 1.960 (B9) Sn = 1.75i 1.000 cycles.200 + 1.000 psi (C11) stress amplitude as used in Table I-9-1 of ref. 0.0.000 cycles agrees quite well Because 1.

see Table 38. and 38.00 For factors. Ke 1. and coverage was extended up to r/R 1. [34.5 * 3.500 psi 38. C2. equation (B9) is met. 1.750 psi. i = 4. and 70.85 = 600 psi (C8) Table I-9.350 psi (C8) Sn = 1.200 ft. Node 20(a) will be used in the acceptable as Class 2 or 3 piping.180 + 0.17 * 2. MA 6.85 postulated 1. wall. NB-3683.420 psi Because 980 psi is less than 1. tions involve two pipes: the run pipe and the branch pipe or nozzle.3 = (490. the branch end and two run ends are STE = 0. There are two i-factors—ir Table 38.25 K 1 = K 2 = 1.000 * 12>162 = 54.17.1 69. Salt = 1.81252 = 0.17 C1 = 1.140 * 12>162 = 980 (B9) SOL = 0.375 in. and K2. Refer to the discussion presented STE = 0.0 * 54.54 * 3 * 12>8.25 * 74. i = 0.200 + 6. SB9 = 0.200 + 1.75 * 4.200 + 9.54 * 14.5.200 * 12>8.85 = 107.500 psi (C11) Because 980 psi is less than 1.650 psi. ib and B2b were reduced by factor of h = 0.85 = 19.750 psi). lb.200 * 12>164 (B10) + 2.1.5 * 1.0.85 in Section 38.375 * 36>11. SOL = 0.8.2 Class 2 or 3 Piping: Check of Branch End (Node 25) See Tables 38. the elbow end at Node 30(a) is Both run ends should be checked. the evalua- locations should at least be checked.5 * 1.8.54 * 6 * 12>8.85 = 610 psi (C8) Thus for this example.3 82.000 cycles. Mb and Mr must be cal- culated as indicated in NB-3683.5Sh 25. the elbow end at Node 30(a) is accept- able as Class 1 piping.140 * 12>162 = 980 psi (C8) For Class 2 or 3 piping.qxd 5/20/09 9:36 AM Page 719 COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 719 38.180 + 2. run ends is acceptable as Class 2 or 3 piping.75 * 2.700>2 = 27.143 * 6. The moments at Node 25 are shown in 42. 60.750 psi. + 4. and 5. bend radius elbow. [1]. Nd1 30. For Node 25(b) (with nozzle flexibility): Nd2.000 cycles.650 psi.0 * 3.5 * 3.750 psi] into an acceptable system (STE 19.1 + 0.140 * 12>162 evaluated separately. + 5.09675 2 for r/R up to 0.420 psi (C11) Sp = 1. For Class 1 piping.0 * 3. 40.244 * 3.25 * 74.75 * 5.00 (its lower bound) and code committees. B2 1.6 Branch Connection The inclusion of nozzle flexibility in the piping system analysis The nozzle is at Node 25.143 * 19.300 psi (B14) For Node 25(a) (no nozzle flexibility): From Table I-9-1 (line 2) and the interpolation equation in SOL = 0.700 psi (B11) Because 2.000 * 12>162 = 54.300 psi is less than 1. Because Sn is less than 3Sm ( 60. modeled as a “point spring” in the turns an unacceptable system [STE 107. The i-factors and stress indices are summarized in Table 38.000 psi (C11) For comparison with Class 2 or 3 piping.000 at 370°F psi). following as a specific example.200 + 1.2. The is less than (Sh + SA) 42.700 * 12>164 = 5.700 ft.1(d) and Fig.000 psi (Sh SA) piping system analyses.0 * 9.3/h(2/3) 6.244 From Table 38.200 + 6.244 * 3.000 cycles does not agree very well with Nd2.6.180 + 2. Node 30(a) is used as in the following as a specific example: The 2001 Edition of Ref.943/28.5 * 1.1 (d)-1.200 + 0. changes to indices and i-factors for branch connections: For Class 1 piping.200 + 0.5.77 * 3 * 12>8. and these four for girth butt welds or elbows.1 summarizes the results for Class 2 or 3 piping.700 psi STE = 0.65 * 6.) with different radii and wall-thickness.75 * 5.000 design cycles SOL = 0.5Sm. lb.900 psi (C11) 38. (In unusual piping systems.2. .560 * 12>8.ASME_Ch38_p707-724.35] and constitute another example of the continuing review of the subject of this Chapter by For this elbow. and ib—and two sets of B2.6.27 * 2.54 * 2.1 Class 2 or 3 Piping: Check of Run Ends (Node 20) is less than (Sh + SA) 42.1.5Sh 25.0.900 psi Table 38. in which the moments at both run For Class 1 piping: ends are essentially identical. C2b and B2b were reduced by a factor of 2.1 and 38. and will be used for the examples in the paragraphs that follow.77 * 6 * 12>8.27 * 74.1.00.00 B2 = 6.000 * 12>162 = 25. Among other aspects.5 * 3. made significant For the NPS 24. and MC 19. 2002 Addenda.5 Elbows Code evaluation of a branch connection is more complex than Ends of elbows are at nodes 30.0 * 1.9/h(2>3) For Class 2 or 3 piping.500)5>32 = 82. and 25. Rb 36 in.8.000 cycles.4h 0. Because Nd1 is greater than the STE = 0.8. B1 0. the branch connection check of next step is to see if the fatigue requirement is met.180 + 0.5 * 1. + 5. B1 = 0. Nd1 30.200 * 12>164 = 2.27 These changes are based on refs. the maximum stress may be somewhere between the two ends.2.000>25.17 * 2. C1 = 9. 42. This is because the ratio of the moment of inertia of the NPS 24 run pipe to the NPS 6 branch pipe.

thus Mr 0.560 * 12>8.000 psi tors are also applicable to the ASME Piping Codes. the run moments do not change sign.9 ASME B31. Do.11 regarding how = 2.1 and B31.3 = (490. In B31. In B31. is unacceptable for Class 1 SL = PDo>(4t n) + 0.1 at 800F is 10.1–12) for maximum calculated stresses.1.54 * 14. for A106-Grade B at temperatures up to 650F.8.1 is bility in the piping system analyses.81 Equation (12) of B31.3.00 * 5.18 * 3.3 are identical example to look at Nd1 and Nd2. (4) The branch connection.18 * 3.200 + 1.000)5>32 = 63 design cycles Technical Committee.0 * 2. Equation (11) of B31.1–11) cycles Nd1 196000 as compared to the postulated 1.3. (B11) Stress intensification factors are covered in Appendix D of B31.1.900)5>32 = 283.85 = 33. (3) The branch connection.15 for occasional loads acting for no more (2) The girth butt welds and elbows are Code-compliant for Class 1 than 8 hr at any one time and no more than 800 (Nd1 1. lated as indicated in NB-3683. however.11. Although trivial in this example (B31. Nd1 = 196. This is not cycle-dependent. Sn = 2.54 * 14.14 for Class 2 or 3 piping are usually applicable to B31.1 shows that “best estimate” ko 23. for other Nodes. In particular.1 ksi for Class 2 Salt = 1.6. The inclusion of nozzle flexibility turns an unacceptable system [Sn 3Sm] into an acceptable system with allowable design (B31.2(b)-2 For Node 25(b) (with nozzle flexibility): of ref.3.200 * 12>8. MA resultant moment from weight and other sustained 38.qxd 5/20/09 9:36 AM Page 720 720 • Chapter 38 38.1[36] AND B31. and Allowable stresses in B31.8 Summary of Examples loads MB resultant moment from occasional loads (1) The piping system is Code compliant with respect to equa.1 is reduced MC at Node 25 from 14.750 psi. For example.200 to 2.1 and = 26.1 are not the same as for Class 2 or 3 piping. However.000 psi).1 and B31. Appendix D of B31.75iM A>Z 6 1.0 * 2.18 * 3.0. without inclusion of nozzle flexi.000) and Class 2 or 3 piping (STE 42.000) and for Class 2 or 3 piping (STE of branch and run checks 42. [36]- [37].560 * 12>8.000 cycles. For is not Code-compliant for Class 1 or Class 2 or 3 piping [1].1 and B31.ASME_Ch38_p707-724. For example.1.000>60. Sn = 2. the allowable stress in B31. Thus the where goal should be to use “best estimate” flexibility factors. hr/year .200 * 12>8.000>107. inclusion of the nozzle flexibility sometimes increased SOL = PDO>(4t n) + 0.1 is not the same as Appendix D of B31.) [1]. B31. this example.000) . NC-3673.000 psi Code reviews of stress intensification factors and flexibility fac- Salt = 2.10 and 38.85 Analogies between Class 2 or 3 piping and between B31.3 = (490.75i.000 design cycles peratures such that creep is negligible. allowable stresses are given for temperatures in the creep range. See discussion in 38.3 Class 1 Piping For Class 1 piping.14 equivalent of B2 is 0.18 * 3.85 concerning Class 2 or 3 piping are usually applicable to refs.8 ksi. the example serves to illustrate that “conservative” flexibility factors cannot be defined.1: POWER PIPING[36] Because Sn is less than 3Sm (60.75iM A>Z + 0. the = 1 + 23(114. is Code- For Node 25(a) (no nozzle flexibility): compliant for Class 1 (Nd1 1.3 do not use B-stress indices. or similar to those in NC-3600 of ref.200 psi (B10) B31.3.3 addresses sustained loads.000>2 = 169. branch connections and tees) tion (B9) for Class 1 piping [1]. Table 38. Thus the preceding comments Sp = 2.1(d)-1. Mb and Mr are calcu. Sp = 2. However.560 ft.00 * 33200>2 = 16600 psi or 3 piping.200 psi (B11) 38. The preceding comments concerning stress intensification factors K e = 1 + 23(Sn>3Sm) .8. 17.1(d) and Fig.80 (see NB .85 = 114.200 + 5.1 and B31. with assumed no nozzle flexibility.3228. comments concerning the ongoing nature of = 121.75iM B>Z 6 kSh rather than decreased the moments. Appendix D is analogous to Fig. with nozzle flexibility. lb.200 + 5. NB-3683.7 Best Estimate of Flexibility Factors tually the equivalent of equation (C8) for Levels A and B. we continue the Stress intensification factors in B31.8. for A106-Grade B.3[37] PIPING Because Sn 3Sm 60000 psi at 370°F without nozzle flexi- CODES bility. tn and Z pipe (run pipe or branch pipe for reducing tion (C8) for Class 2 or 3 piping and with respect to equa.3 are discussed in Sections 38.0Sh piping. Thus the branch connection.000 psi (B10) 38. the system is not acceptable.80 * 121.2 and ki 5.10 ASME B31.200 + 1.750 psi) [1].5) B31.54 * 2.000 cycles and Allowable stresses for Class 2 or 3 piping are limited to tem- d2. [1]. the allowable stress is 15 ksi for B31. Ke 1. k 1.000>19.54 * 2. The preceding equation is for “sustained loads” and is concep- 38.00 * 5. The reviews Nd1 = 160 design cycles and of ASME Piping Codes start with the B31 Mechanical Design Nd2. [1] for Class 2 or 3 piping.

For B31.3: check of run ends—with nozzle flexibility (Node 20). For example. (see Fig.2 for occasional loads acting no more than 1 hr Mt torsional moment at any one time and no more than 80 hr/year Z section modulus The preceding equation is also conceptually the equivalent of As indicated by equation (1b) of B31. the moments peratures such that creep is negligible. T MC range of resultant moment from thermal expansion 0.5 * 12 = 129. e.98 * 16.” this is a Zb section modulus of branch pipe check of fatigue adequacy. the allowable stress is 20 ksi for B31.95 inch.3.5>Z 6 SA (B31.5 ksi.719 ft.3–1b) Both equations (B31. SE = 3(i iM i)2 + (i oM o)2 + M 2t 40.3: check of run ends—no nozzle flexibility (Node 20): 38.3: PROCESS PIPING[37] M x = M i = 16.1–13) SE = {3(i iM i)2 + (i oM o)24>Z 2e + (M t>Zb)2}0. 38. 17. (B31. the B31. or 3 piping. (see Fig.98 * 1.1 equation. 400F.6 as follows: Details of B31. but for loads that might be in Level D under ref. analogous to equation M y = M i = 156 ft.3 checks to determine whether the example pip.196)24>11. (B31.3: check of branch end—no nozzle flexibility (Node 25). equation (B31. B31. As indicated by “range of resultant moment. for A106-Grade B at temperatures up to M y = M o = 1. lb.375 inch.3–Y) 2 Ze = pr Ts:Ts = lesser of T.1 is based on equations (B31. Because SE 8760 psi SA 54000 psi. the moments Mo out-of-plane bending moment at both run ends are essentially identical.801 ft. as indicated by the use of “resultant moment.3.3–X) M x = M i = 13. SA>f31.00. an occasional load caused by an earthquake. for ratio of the moment of inertia of the NPS 24 run pipe to the NPS A106-Grade B.50)2}0.1 ksi for Class 2 M z = M t = 10. These two equations can be combined to give Because SE 129000 psi SA 58000 psi.1 69.3 does not cover such a component as a branch connection ing system is not acceptable without nozzle flexibility.3 for moment directions) Allowable stresses in B31.25(Sc Sh) SL]: Sc Sh 20000 psi For B31.3.3-X) graphs. The lower bound on both io and ii is 1.3 are not the same as for Class 2 or 3 piping.00. lb. 38. For example.ASME_Ch38_p707-724.310)2 + (6. SA 1. In this example.3–19 and 20): SE = iM C>Z 6 SA + f(Sh .3 at 1000F is 2. i it where For the example UFT branch connection of Fig.” are checks of the adequacy to sustain loads without gross plastic distortion. + 10.9/h(2/3).3 is the unreinforced fabricated tee (UFT). io out-of-plane stress intensification factor Mi in-plane bending moment Both run ends should be checked. In the interest of brevity. 6 branch pipe: 1. in what way (if any) does the value of ii or io affect the calculation of SL? SE = {3(6. allowable stresses at both run ends are essentially identical.3 for moment directions) where M y = M o = 913 ft. ii in-plane stress intensification factor M z = M t = 2.1–11) and (B31. This is caused by the are given for temperatures in the creep range. than 1.1-13) is the equivalent of equation and Ze 11.1–12).000 psi (B31.3.801)2 ing system is or is not acceptable are shown in the following para. In this example.280 1. SL is calculated by the B31. (B31. the allowable stress in B31. 38. Allowable stresses for Class 2 or 3 piping are limited to tem- Both run ends should be checked.25. thus Ts 0. lb.86 in3.234 ft. (C11). lb.1-11) M x = M t = 245 ft. In B31. equation (C8).3–17 and 18). For UFT. and ii 0.2[1.98 0. lb. T/R.98 * 156)2 + (8. SE is acceptable. The load capacity check of B31. The following question arises: If ii and/or io is greater M z = M o = 14.5 (B31.SL) (B31.g.1.375 inch Conceptually. lb (see Fig. when Sh is greater than SL. ii t 6.qxd 5/20/09 9:37 AM Page 721 COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 721 k 1. lb.1 lead to the conclusion that the example pip. Equation (13) of B31.832 ft.23424}0. h rather extensive details are not included herein.943/28.196 ft lb.3 for moment directions) There is no equation for SL—that is.SL4 [1].. 38.3-Y) the branch end of reducing-branch connections) by equations B31. lb.11 ASME B31.760 psi (B31. io 0.75io 0.3 is specified (for other than checking + (245>8. This is caused by the . SE = {3(8.25(Sc + Sh) .3 is described in paragraph 302. SE is not acceptable For B31.98 * 14. Thus the only available comparable component in acceptable with nozzle flexibility.1. and is in B31. The rules of B31. For checking the branch end of reducing branch connections.862 The fatigue check of B31.310 ft.1–11).5 * 12>162 = 8.

Factors and Stress Indices for Girth Butt Welds in Straight Pipe”. C. June 1983.. L. 440. “Investigation of Stress Indices and Directional Loading of Eccentric Reducers”. E. Vol. P.. Modeling for Concentric and Eccentric Reducers”. of Pressure Vessel Technology. Division 2”. September 1978. July 1998. lb. 8. H. E. NUREG CR 0371. A. J. Attachments”. The example piping system. without nozzle flexibility. 22. 10. Rodabaugh.832)2 + 2. August 1974. 23.3[37]... 383. “Stress Indices and Flexibility 433. Mechanical Engineers. 8. 1950. acceptable by all four of the Codes.862 15. No. 7. 25. E. Vessels and Components. July 1998.. “Stress Intensification Factors and Flexibility 6 branch pipe: 1. “Fatigue Tests of Welding Elbows and Comparable Pressure Vessels”. 1962. E. C.. A. 2003. Welding Research Council Bulletin 433.. Published by American 9. and Moore..3: check of branch end—with nozzle flexibility (Node 13. “Evaluation of the Plastic 383. S. Section III. 1947. For B31. lb. No.. Methods for Nuclear Class 1 Piping with Class 2 or 3 Piping”. A. “Investigation of Unreinforced Branch Connections on Elbows”. “Comparisons of ASME Code Fatigue Evaluation Society of Mechanical Engineers.98 * 117)2 + (8. Mershon. Wais. J.1 and B31.. 2000. and Lam. ASME. S. M y = M i = 117 ft. May Double-Mitre Bends”. . “Stress Indices and Flexibility 5. E. NUREG/CR- Components”.1[36]: Degree Elbows”. July 1983. and Rodabaugh.98 * 13. Wais. J. 399. Design and Analysis of is mainly related to branch connections. Design and Analysis 1. Wais. Joints. Loading”.3. Scavuzzo. “Stress Intensification Factors and Flexibility Society of Mechanical Engineers. Rodabaugh. E. Design and Analysis of Pressure Vessels and Piping.943/28. Classes 2/3: B31. et al.719240. 440.. 74.550)24>11. 399. et al. E. Rodabaugh. A. Design and Analysis of Pressure Vessels M Z = M O = 2. is Vessels and Piping.. Rodabaugh.. the review of i-factors and their uses is ongo. C. ASME. E. A. 14. and Kiss.. D. 1952. PVP-Vol. Factors for Unreinforced Branch Connections”. Srivatsan. C. with nozzle flexibility. 0778. The American 26.. J. Because SE 23100 psi SA 58000 psi. Vessels and Components.550 ft. “Development of Stress Intensification Factors”. Including Radial Weld-Shrinkage.. ASME. E. “Low Cycle Fatigue of Nuclear Pipe Factors for Nozzles in Pressure Vessels and Piping”. Wais.. A.. A. Class 1: Code[1]. C. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. June 1979. 399. Acceptable refers only to 2000. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.. 38. The American SE = 3(8. Minichiello. et al. As noted on several occa. Engineers. C. PVP-Vol.98 * 913)2 + (6. et al. Welding Research Council Bulletin 24.. is not 16. T. E. The American Characteristics of Piping Products in Relation to ASME Code Society of Mechanical Engineers. E. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. S. NUREG/CR-0261. and George. Because SE 7180 psi SA 54000 psi. 399. PVP-Vol.. SE is acceptable.. C. ing. Wais. 12. SE = {3(6. “Stress Intensification Factors and Flexibility + (248>8. and Scavuzzo. C. August 1970. 1999. 1999. 2000. The American Society of Mechanical for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components.5 * 12 = 23. PVP-Vol. and Moore. et al. et al. PVP-Vol. E. 72. July 1978. “Directional Stress Intensification Factors for 90 acceptable by Code[1].. Rodabaugh. C. 6.. 3. (see Fig. “Fatigue of Butt. PVP-Vol. Vol. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. et al.. Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes and Standards. Rules of Pressure Vessels and Piping.3 may not be consistent with one another and Socket Welded Joints”.. Factors for Concentric Reducers. R. “Stress Indices for Circumferential Fillet Welded That B31. “Fatigue Tests of Piping Components”. Trans. E. “Stress Indices for Girth Welded welded Pipe”. and Piping. Rodabaugh. 2002. C. Wais. E. SE is acceptable.. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Wais. R. E. R. 1995. ASME. E. NUREGCR/3243. “Evaluation of Stress Intensification Factors for Circumferential Fillet Welded or Socket Welded Joints”. Markl. 383. M x = M t = 248 ft. L. H. and Moore. Welding Research Council Bulletin 285.. the reviews start with the 18. “PVRC Research on Reinforcement of Openings in 2. PVP-Vol. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes and Standards. 27.E.180 psi (B31. Wais. Heald. 38. “Criteria of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for Design by Analysis in Sections III and VIII.. Markl. Design and Analysis of Pressure Vessels and Piping. Markl. PVP-Vol. 1999. 399. 2007 Edition. E... E. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Wais.ASME_Ch38_p707-724.3-Y) Factors of Pad Reinforced Branch Connections”. conformance with the stress limits of the four Codes. S. “Stress Indices for Straight Pipe with Trunnion * 12>162 = 7. 2002. Wais. Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes and Standards.200 psi (B31.3 for moment directions) 2000. and Moore. C. et al. A.3-X) Attachments”. A. Design and Analysis of Piping. The American Society of sions in this chapter. “Stress Indices for Elbows with Trunnion 25). “Investigation of Torsional Stress Intensification B31 Mechanical Design Technical Committee. 69. Trans. A. Design and Analysis of Pressure B31. 77. The example piping system. PVP-Vol. Division 1. J.50)2}0. Mismatch and Tapered-wall Transitions”. With respect to B31. J.12 REFERENCES 19. R.1 69.. “Fatigue Tests on Flanged 21. 313-2. Design and Analysis of Pressure Vessels and Piping. PVP-Vol. 2000.. Vol. Trans. 469. E. et al. in Pressure Vessel Heads and Shells Under Internal Pressure 4. E. et al. A.1 and B31.5 Society of Mechanical Engineers. 20. 17. R. Welding Research Council Bulletin No. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. lb. “Effect of Testing Methods on Stress Intensification Factors”. PVP-Vol. A. 1969. ASME J. C. Wais. Welding Research Council Bulletin 153. S. Piping. A.98 * 2. et al. E. “Interpretive Report on Oblique Nozzle Connections Assemblies”.. E. Criteria”. 3.. PVP-Vol. A.qxd 5/20/09 9:37 AM Page 722 722 • Chapter 38 ratio of the moment of inertia of the NPS 24 run pipe to the NPS 11. Mershon...

V. Axial 33. August 1991. Bending Moment.3-2004 “Process Piping”. “Excessive Deformation and Failure of Connections”. C. Thin-Walled Tube Under Internal Pressure. Larson.. Loading Type and Material”. X. “The B2 Stress Index as a Function of Engineers. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. K. Tokyo. June 1998. C. “Power Piping”. C. F. ASME B31. ASME Code for Pressure August 2003.. A. and Tan. Trans. ASME Trans. “Seismic Analysis of Piping”.. B31. L. “Limit Analysis of a 32. December 1987. 77. Bend Angle. Welding Research Council Bulletin 329. J of Applied Mechanics. Japan. B31. Straight parts and Elbows”. Y. R. “Accuracy of Stress Intensification Factors for Branch 29.. D. E. E. C. Matzen. June 2002. and Stress Intensification Factors for Laterals in Piping”. Paper E02/2.. ASME. Pressure Design. F. E. Stokey. “Using Finite Element Analysis to Council Bulletin 360.. Proceedings of SMiRT 17. and Acker. 1955.. “Stress Indices. J. Sept. January 1991. ASME Code for Pressure Piping. . Force and Torsion”. Prague. Markl. Touboul. “Piping-Flexibility Analysis”. Jaquay. Piping. Matzen. 37. C.. Proceedings of SMiRT 11. and Yuan. Czech Republic . 35. Welding Research 30. 34. V. ASME B31.ASME_Ch38_p707-724. D. Paper F-02-1. Determine Piping Elbow Bending Moment (B2) Stress Indices”. W.. 36. NUREG/CR-5361.1-2004 with 2006 Addenda. and Panarelli. Rodabaugh. The American Society of Mechanical 31. 1974. Welding Research Council Bulletin 472. Vol. Internal Pressure.. Rodabaugh.qxd 5/20/09 9:37 AM Page 723 COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 723 28.

- Thick Cylinder PDFUploaded bypiolel
- 1-s2.0-S0301679X17304255-mainUploaded byJay Srivastava
- Ductile FoldingUploaded byCraig Mawson
- Shear JunctionsUploaded byPaco
- Analytical Solution of WBS Problem Using Camclay Model CharlezUploaded byrajarajan_n
- A Plasticity and Anisotropic Damage Model ForUploaded byAref Abadel
- 2011 Assignment One With FEMLab InstructionUploaded bymartins314
- Evaluating the Integrity of Plain DentsUploaded bygykatai
- PlasticityUploaded bykhudhayer1970
- Borisov 484Uploaded byzugabere
- V3I3_IJERTV3IS031963 (2).pdfUploaded byAditya
- Computational DamageMechanics: Application toMetal Forming SimulationUploaded bySample Son
- Mechanical Lecture AUploaded byTzarDavid
- Geomorphology principals.Uploaded byFábio Silva
- DESMORAT.2006.7Uploaded byrahil_sang
- Analysis of a Reinforced Concrete Shear WallUploaded byJeremy Yip
- Cutting Mechanics and Analytical Modelling (Orthogonal and Oblique Machining)by a. P. MarkopoulosUploaded bypptmnlt
- Dynamic Riser AnalysisUploaded byJulo Desmazures
- 223314spring 2001Uploaded bycombatps1
- Shakedown and limit load of pipe bends with local wall thinning under combined internal pressure and cyclic in-plane bending moment.pdfUploaded byMohammed Eljammal
- ijie_25_981Uploaded byNagarjun Singh
- Tamagnini_Ciantia_IACMAG2014Uploaded byRed Orange
- 2XRAYUploaded byAhmet Malik Aşgın
- Structural Crashworthiness and FailureUploaded bytt3340
- Ground Improvement With Stone Columns - Methods of Calculating Settlement Improvement Factor (2014)Uploaded byIsabela Dellalibera Piccinini
- DocUploaded bySri Datta Kiran Kuchibhatla
- Damage Accumulation and Fracture Initiation XueUploaded bymeriem nouira
- Mechanics of solidUploaded bypatrik710
- 2 AxialUploaded byMujtaba Rizvi
- Validation of Simple Shear Tests for Parameter IdeUploaded byNguyễn Văn Thường

- Engineering and Material Standard.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007
- Decommissioning Inspection and Repair of 5000 MT Ammonia Storage Tank.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007
- 802694_ch16Uploaded bymvjayaram007
- Piping HandbookUploaded bymvjayaram007
- Moke up-Sec IX.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007
- 802700_ch38.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007
- Mock up guide.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007
- 802700_ch26.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007
- ValveUploaded bymvjayaram007
- toc_fUploaded bymvjayaram007
- Lloyd s Register Sec VIII Div 1 Edition 2015 Key ChangesUploaded bymvjayaram007
- 299359452-Bolt-Tightening.docxUploaded bymvjayaram007
- API 510 Basics.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007
- Diary 1900 to 2078Uploaded bymvjayaram007
- 802717_ch69.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007
- 802717_ch46.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007
- 802717_ch47.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007
- 802694_ch2.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007
- 802694_ch4.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007
- 802717_ch69Uploaded bymvjayaram007
- 802694_ch9.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007
- 802694_ch4.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007
- 802694_ch8.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007
- 802717_ch43.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007
- 802694_ch19.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007
- 802700_app.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007
- 802700_ch27.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007
- 802700_ch28.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007
- 802717_ch44Uploaded bymvjayaram007
- 802694_ch10.pdfUploaded bymvjayaram007