COVER STORY

Stress analysis makes for a

solid pipe system design.
Software can help

A
fter the piping and instru-
mentation diagram (P&ID) of
a process design has been
completed, the next step is
stress analysis of the piping network.
In past years, engineering or operating
companies had staffs of layout and
stress designers. Today, both these
functions might be in the hands of the
individual engineer. Either way, a solid
understanding of pipe stress, and how
to handle it, will lead to better plant de-
sign and more reliable operation.
Engineers may perform pipe stress
analyses on a daily or occasional basis,
or review the pipe stress analysis of
others. Whatever their role, most of
these individuals have only a basic un-
derstanding of the topic. And many FIGURE 2. Thermal expansion affects the modeling of pipe joints such as this bend.
may be unaware of the software tools Actual support points (directly under A; at C) produce spurious results. The modeler
that can automate many of the analyti- can substitute a square bend, or a rigid support at E to complete the modeling work,
cal steps (Box, p. 92). then specify the actual component afterwards

When to analyze
One of the most difficult decisions plant
personnel face is whether or not to ana-
lyze an existing or new piping system.
It is often hard to assess the point at
which a piping system should be field-
routed or when a full analytical solu-
tion is required. Although there are no
simple answers to these questions, here
are some conditions under which pip-
ing analysis is advisable:
Piping is attached to load-sensitive
equipment or is carrying Category M
Michael Bussler,
Algor, Inc.,
and Tony Paulin,
Paulin Research Group
fluids (hazardous chemicals, as defined
by ASME B31.3 rules), and the design
temperature is > 250F
The pressure exceeds the maximum
pressure for an ANSI Class 2500 B16.5
fitting
The system temperature is > 400F
The system carries gas that has
cooled to a liquid state
The product of the pipe outside diam-
eter (in in.) times the pressure (in psi)
is 1,157
The system pressure is > 3,000 psi
The system uses Glass Reinforced
Epoxy (GRE) pipe
The piping connects to rotating
equipment
The system uses one or more expan-
sion joints
Most piping codes, and perhaps 90c
of all pipe stress analyses, involve three
principal loading types: (1) sustained
loads, such as pressure and weight; (2)
expansion loads (i.e., from thermal con-
ditions); and (3) occasional loads, such
as from wind and earthquakes.
Other types of loads include those
caused by transient fluids, ice and
snow, ship or platform pitch and roll,
explosion loadings, pressure loads,
frost heave, fault movement, fluid
sloshing and through-wall thermal ef-
fects. These can all be analyzed, but are
typically reserved for more experienced
pipe-stress analysts.
In general, an analysis involves sat-
isfying code requirements for stress in
the pipe, and manufacturers' require-

8 4 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1997

ROBUST SYSTEMS
ments for loads on equip-
ment, flanges, vessel noz-
zles and the like. Basic
code compliance involves
running a computer pro-
gram to compute a stress,
and making sure that it is
less than a code calculated
allowable, i.e.,
Calculated Stress < Al-
lowable Stress
Stresses in a piping sys-
tem are calculated by the
following general-purpose
P = design pressure, psig
D = pipe diameter, in.
t = pipe thickness, in.
i = Stress Intensification Factor (
taken from the piping code for the ap-
plicable geometry, i.e., bends or tees)
M = square root of the sum of the
squares of the three moments acting at
any point in the piping system. Sus-
tained expansion or occasional loads
can cause the moment
Z = section modulus of the pipe [ap-
proximated by rr(r2)t; (r) is the midsur-
face radius of the pipe]
If pressure and weight cause the cal-
culated bending moments (M), the al-
lowable stress is Sh, where Sh is the hot
allowable stress from the applicable
piping code. If the calculated bending
moments are due to thermal expansion,
the allowable stress is f i 1.25(Sc + Sh) -
Si), where:
f = cyclic reduction factor (approxi-
mated by 6N-0-2) and N = the number of
full-range thermal loading cycles
Sc = the cold allowable stress from
the piping code
Sh = the hot allowable stress from the
piping code
Sl = the weight and pressure stress in
the piping system at the point under
study
If the calculated bending moments
are due to pressure, weight, wind or
earthquake loads, the allowable stress is
equal to k(Sh), where k is a value given
by the piping code. For example,
BLOCK BY BLOCK WITH FEA
F inite element analysis (FEA) is a
method for testing how a part, product
or system will behave under real-world
conditions. FEA software performs the
analysis by breaking a system down into
tiny blocks called finite elements. For ex-
ample, the grid on the pipe in Figure 9
shows the breakdown of evaporator pip-
ing into finite elements.
FEA software tests how the pipe will
en-dure heat, tensile or other types of
stress that occur during normal operation
by applying mathematical computations,
based on engineering theory, to each of
the finite elements. Once the software has
performed all of the computations, it pro-
vides numerical data and creates a color
diagram of the stress, such as Figure 1,
which shows the amount of stress in the
different areas of the pipe. Red represents
high stress and dark blue represents low
stress. Similarly, FEA software tests the
fluids within a piping system to predict
how chemicals of various viscosities will
behave in the real world. O by nation, are:
in ASME B31.3, a common piping code
reference, k = 1.33.
The above equations are simplifica-
tions of the actual rules given in the
piping codes, and serve to illustrate the
intent of the stress-evaluation proce-
dure. When performing or reviewing a
stress analysis, an engineer should
check each of the following allowables
to be sure of compliance:
Sustained (weight and
pressure) loads to
prevent the system from
collapsing or from experi-
encing excessive distortion (
stress < Sh)
Expansion (thermal)
load To avoid fatigue
failure, when cracks form,
grow and then fail cata-
strophically (stress < f[1.25(
Sc + Shl - SI)
Occasional (wind and
earthquake) loads to
prevent the system from
collapsing or from experi-
encing excessive distortion (
stress < 1.33Sh)
Markl's landmark paper,
"Piping Flexibility Analysis," [1] estab-
lishes most of these rules. It covers a
number of the assumptions used in the
formulation of the code rules that are
not found in any of the code documents
themselves, and is an excellent basic
reference on the subject.
Now, address pressure factors Most
piping system designs start well before
the plant or unit is laid out. The
operator and the engineering design
firm agree on a piping specification to
govern the basic pressure and material
design of the piping system. Piping
specifications are primarily designed to
ensure that the piping system will
withstand the expected pressure and is
suited for the intended process. Piping
specifications are typically written
around an applicable piping code. The
most common piping codes, arranged
United States (ASME):
B31.1 - Power
B31.3 - Petrochemical
B31.4 - Oil and Slurry Pipelines
B31.5 - Refrigeration
B31.8 - Gas Pipelines
B31.9 - Building Services Piping
Section III -Nuclear Piping: NB (Class
1); NC (Class 2); ND (Class 3)
Canada:
Z183 - Canadian Oil Pipelines
Z184 - Canadian Gas Pipelines (
Continues)
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING / JUNE1997 8 5
 COVER STORY

satisfied well before any stress analysis

(Chapter 2, Part 5) is performed. How-
ever, analysts should not assume that a
safe pipe-flexibility analysis means a
TABLE 1.
Adapted from
safe pressure analysis.
ASME B16.5, this Piping flexibility (or stress) analysis
table provides tests pressure to a small extent but is
guidance on primarily concerned with weight, ther-
the allowable mal and occasional loads. Most pipe
pressure rating stress programs do not satisfy these
for flanges and
Part 2 requirements, since the pro-
fittings based on
metal type ( grams are primarily based on a differ-
material group), ent part: Chapter 2, Part 5.
temperature A novice analyst might incorrectly
and size assume that a piping system satisfies
B31.3 allowables for thermal weight
TABLE 1. PRESSURE-TEMPERATURE RATINGS and pressure because a pipe stress pro-
FOR CLASS 150 PIPING gram indicates that B31.3 is satisfied.
Material For shop- or field-fabricated intersec-
Orbup No. 1.2. 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.4 2.7 tions, engineers must design these for
Carbon steels Alloy steels Austenitic steels pressure in addition to performing the
C-1/2Mo Type 304 Type 321 Type 310 piping flexibility analyses.
Temp., F pressure, psig This situation arises most often when
-20 to a plant makes minor modifications to
100 290 235 265 275 275 260
existing pipe work. The plant engineer
200 260 215 260 235 235 230
responsible for the modification
500 170 170 170 170 170 170
accepts the design of the tie-ins based
750 95 95 95 95 95 95
only on a flexibility analysis, without
1,000 20 20 20 20 20 20
checking Part 2 pressure requirements.
This is a significant mis-take. The most
dangerous problems occur when the
FIGURE 5. A stress
analysis of a plastic
pipes being connected have large
piping network shows diameters with small wall thickness, or
displacements at where the branch pipe centerline is not
elbows and the ends of 90 deg to the run pipe. The engineer
runs. Typically, such should perform simple hand
networks are
constrained with
calculations to ensure that the Part 2
anchors at both ends requirements are met.
to limit thermal and
pressure expansion Software speeds analysis
Piping analysis software is available in
a range of capabilities, from completing
simple drawings to performing complex
flow and stress studies (Table 2). Tech-
niques such as finite element analysis
have proven useful. The software can
save engineer's time and effort on the
system's analysis.
Among the software's analytic capa-
bilities are: static and dynamic analysis
to calculate displacement or support re-
Europe: (or American National Standards Insti- actions; loads caused by time-depen-
BS806 British Power Piping tute, ANSI) B31.3, Chemical Plant and dent phenomena such as water ham-
FDBR German Power Piping Petroleum Refinery Piping. mer; code compliance; nonlinear
Other relevant standards include the Chapter 2, Part 2 of B31.3 gives the reactions; and the integration of struc-
National Electrical Mfrs. Assn. SM 23; minimum requirements for pressure in tural components in the piping design.
Standards of the Tubular Exchanger piping components. Piping specifica- Once engineers decide to perform for-
Mfrs. Assn.; and Bulletins of the Amer- tions are designed around these Chap- mal stress calculations, they should re-
ican Petroleum Institute (API). The ter 2, Part 2 pressure requirements. alize that they will spend much of their
most widely used piping code is ASME Typically, the guide's requirements are

86 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1997

 TABLE 2. READING PIPE STRESS PROGRAM OUTPUT REPORTS
Output Discussion: The three most common types of reports printed from pipe
stress program are shown above. The deflection report shows the displacements
of the system in the selected light-handed cartesian coordinate system. Y or Z is
typically vertical, and the other axes are selected by the analyst to ease the input
of data. The forces and moments on restraints show the loads the piping exerts on ing piping boundary conditions
supports. The stress report shows how close the system stresses are to the applica- Ignoring or oversimplifying pipe
ble Code allowable. shoes, guides, anchors and trunnion
Load : Dead Weight + Pressure 1 + Thermal 1 supports
System Deflections Using program algorithms without
Point Displacements/in. Rotations/degree questioning underlying assumptions,
Name X Y Z X Y Z such as spring hanger design
5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 To reduce errors, the pipe stress pro-
8 0.000 0.001 0.013 -0.001 0.003 0.005 gram user should follow these guide-
10a 0.000 0.001 0.013 -0.001 0.003 0.005 lines:
10b 0.039 -0.016 -0.001 0.152 0.210 0.118 List and check the input. Don't as-
15 0.039 -0.016 -0.001 0.152 0.210 0.118 sume the input is correct just because
Deflection: the program does not report fatal er-
rors. The first time that you list and
1) Verity displacements in the vicinity of all supports, particularly around supports
with friction and gaps, and directional characteristics, i.e., +Y supports.
check an input, and don't find an error
2) Check large horizontal displacements and be sure that they are in the correct di-
is when you can stop checking inputs
rection and of approximately the right magnitude. for errors
Don't just review code stresses in
Forces and Moments acting on Restraints
the output report. Look at printed
Point Forces/lb Moments/in.-lb displacements (one of the factors lead-
Name X Y Z X Y Z
ing to the stress determination), mak-
5 -418 3233 -2,909 -21,459 19,609 32,937 ing sure that they are reasonable, and
40 0 -6,075 0 0 0 0 that the system is deflecting in an ex-
75 -222 435 2,736 -30,408 -26,186 4,824 pected manner. Frictionless supports
Force on Restraints: will occasionally allow for ridiculous
1) Make sure that loads on terminal points are reasonable: horizontal movements
a) Will the support carry this much load without failing? Check restraint reports closely.
b) Will the support deflect under load, distributing the load somewhere else? Make sure that excessive loads do not
c) Is the support "rigid," or does it have a realistic stiffness? exist at steel support locations. Where
2) Check large horizontal loads and be sure that steel supports will carry large large loads exist, decide if friction
loads. should be considered in the analysis, or
3) At locations of large loads, make sure that the inclusion of friction will not signifi- if an error in the input is causing the
cantly alter the solution. loads. A close review of displacement
System Stresses (ASME B31.1) and restraint load reports often reveals
In- Out- areas of the model that are incorrect
Point Plane Plane Section Stresses/ Check loads on all rotating
Name SIF SIF Modulus psi Longitu. Princ. Code Allow. equipment nozzles. To verify these,
5 1.00 1.00 22.03 1,401 1,589 2,248 3,164 43,75(.: use the manufacturers' guidelines, or
8 1.00 1.00 22.03 1,401 1,389 2,143 2,670 43,750, industry accepted guidelines
8 6.25 1,401 7,267 7,360 12,831 43,750 Check displacements and rota-
6.25 22.03
tions at expansion joint ends. Make
System Stresses:
sure these displacements do not exceed
1) Check the stresses at terminal points. There, the stress intensification
manufacturers' limits for the number of
are 1.0. If a terminal point is another pipe or a vessel the SIF will not be 1.0.
2) If stresses are close to allowables, be sure that other safety concerns are design cycles
a) Does the system cycle more than 7,000 times in its life? Review the graphic results
b) Is the system heavily corroded? closely. Look at displaced shapes to be
c) Is the system temperature greater than 700`F. f sure that they make sense. Make sure
d) Is the D/T for the system greater than that high stresses occur in the correct
80? e) Is there any possibility of dynamic places.
loading due to fluids? Most stress-analysis programs fol-
time inputting data or adjusting com- active graphical capabilities so that low an easily manipulated, trial-and-
puter models of the piping system. En- users can verify that the physical rep- error procedure. Usually, engineers
gineers often rush to meet a deadline or resentation matches the input data, it need only make a few iterations to ad-
bring a quick end to the tedious task of will not identify all user errors. The just supports or design springs so that
inputting data. Errors made during most common types of errors made are: stresses are within allowables.
input account for a majority of analysis Omitting data about weight of insu-
problems. Often the software will pro- lation, valves and operators Linking to rotating equipment
duce results even if the engineer has ncorrectly entering data about how Usually the most difficult work for the
input inaccurate data. pipes intersect stress analyst is meeting the require-
Although software usually has inter- Oversimplifying or incorrectly enter- ments of rotating equipment and end

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING / JUNE1997 8 7


FIGURE 6. (above) The effects of water
hammer can be seen In the bend and
displacement of this field pipe
connections. Pumps, turbines and com-
pressors are very sensitive to loads
from attached pipe, and a single appli-
cation of an overload on a pump or tur-
bine can result in leaking seals, failed
shafts, excessive wear and vibration. A
pipe having only a 4,000-psi stress (
bending stress, not fluid pressure) can
easily overload a pump nozzle.
To ensure compliance with rotating-
equipment or end-connection codes,
refer to NEMA SM23 (for steam tur-
bines), API 610 (for pumps), and API
617 (for compressors). Each of these
documents gives allowable loads for dif-
ferent sizes of piping inlets and outlets.
Most computer programs include these
equipment specifications as part of
their standard evaluation procedures.
In addition, some manufacturers of ro-
tating equipment provide their own
guidelines or use a multiplier of NEMA
88 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1997
FIGURE 7. A calculation of water
hammer's pressure wave shows Its
amplitude and duration
RULES OF THUMB FOR
PIPE DESIGNERS
Steel pipe is very forgiving. At a
low number of cycles it will almost
never fail due to thermal expan-
sion. Plastic pipe is certainly not as
forgiving as steel pipe, so exercise
extra care
Rotating equipment and expan-
sion joints are not forgiving at all!
When there is little room for error,
contact the experts
Only about 10% of the piping
analyses require an expert's re-
view. Competent chemical or me-
chanical engineers can handle the
remaining 90% as long as they
exercise care and prudence in the
use of the computer results and
designs
COVER STORY
or API values. Use the manufacturer's
information whenever it is available.
It is more difficult to find a line rout-
ing or support configuration that will
satisfy rotating-equipment allowables
as the temperature increases. Most ro-
tating equipment codes have two types
of allowables:
Individual nozzle limits provide
standards for each individual product
nozzle on the rotating equipment. For
example, the inlet to a pump may have
an axial allowable of 2,000 lb, while the
outlet has an axial allowable load of 1,
750 lb. Another approach to this
analysis is to evaluate the suction side
of the pump independently from the
discharge side.
Resolved load limits ensure that
forces and moments on the product noz-
zles do not act in combination to create
excessive cumulative loads or moments
on the equipment casing or base. The
analyst must resolve all loads acting on
all product nozzles attached to the
equipment about a single point on the
equipment body.
There are limits to the resolution of
these loads. Since pipe analysts do not
typically study inlet and outlet piping
systems together, they must remember
that loads from both lines must satisfy
most equipment requirements. For ex-
ample, use suction loads and discharge
loads to evaluate resolved load limits
for pumps.
When adjusting supports in the
vicinity of rotating equipment it is im-
portant to remember that:
1. Supports should not require con-
struction or installation tolerances be-
yond the capability of the shop or field.
Do not add supports where steel is not
readily accessible. Avoid moment re-
straints, and translational restraints
requiring precisely set gaps
2. Properly designed, horizontal loads
should not cause deflection in the
attached steel, which negates the sup-
port's usefulness. Steel constructions
designed to keep piping loads away
from rotating equipment will transfer
the load back to the rotating equipment
if excessive deflection occurs. The pipe
stress analyst must determine a tolera-
ble amount of deflection of the steel
construction
3. Evaluate the effect of friction at
supports on large lines, or on highly

loaded supports. Where friction is un-
desirable, the designer might use poly-
meric friction plates or metal sliding
plates to reduce friction. Some analysts
always use friction in their analyses;
others never use it
4. Take the millwright's practices into
account when designing springs,
stanchions, and other supports near ro-
tating equipment. Some spring designs
produce unbalanced loads on equip-
ment when the system is in a cold con-
dition. Millwrights may improperly ad-
just or locate these springs in the cold
condition so that the system is perfectly
balanced. Typically, the designer did not
intend for the balance to occur in the
cold condition
Meeting at the end points
If a piping system does not attach to ro-
tating equipment, it probably connects to
a pressure vessel, a heat exchanger, or
another piping system. In these cases, a
stress increase will occur at the end or
terminal point in the system. There, a
geometric discontinuity exists due to the
intersection of two cylindrical shapes
meeting to form an opening.
While some analytical software takes
these terminal points into account; oth-
ers do not, so the designer should exer-
cise care. Stresses at terminal points are
often the governing forces in a de-sign.
Some software programs use standards
from the Welding Research Council (
WRC) Bulletins 107 or 297 to determine
the terminal point stresses. Analysts
whose software doesn't per-form either
of these calculations can use the WRC
standards to manually compute stress at
terminal points.
WRC 107 and 297 methods for stress
and stiffness at nozzle connections are
based on simplified deformation theo-
ries, adjusted by tests and experience.
Because of their ready availability in
many computer programs, these meth-
ods have been used for wide varieties of
geometries, well outside of their origi-
nal intended scope. Users should be
cautious using them when the d/D ratio
is greater than 0.5, or when the t/T ratio
is one or less. In general, the WRC
documents will be conservative for
stress, although possibly by hundreds of
percent.
WRC 297 is the only WRC document
that predicts stiffnesses of nozzles in
A CAUTIONARY CHECKLIST FOR SOURCES OF PIPE FAILURES
1) The majority of catastrophic failures are due primarily to operational failures and
have little to do with pipe stress analysis
2) Most catastrophic failures are due to a sequence of unfortunate events, which, if oc-
curring individually, would have not caused a major failure
3) The most common consequences of a poorly executed piping system analysis are:
a) Local overstressed areas in the piping system (usually has no further implications
or decrease in system safety)
b) Supports that will be lifted off, or springs that are outside of their intended oper-
ating range (also causing little real decrease in system safety)
c) Poorly functioning rotating equipment, resulting in leaking seals, alignment prob-
lems and other equipment difficulties (this situation tends to be the most common and
most expensive result of a poorly executed pipe stress analysis)
d) Leaking flanges
e) Failed pipe (rare)
4) Most catastrophic failures are due to a leak of dangerous material. Leaks commonly
occur where:
a) Process conditions are not properly evaluated and controlled
b) Thermal or pressure cycling of the system is not properly evaluated or analyzed (
the system has major load changes more than 7,000 times during its life)
c) Welding procedures and material selection are applied improperly, e.g., high-
hardness welds in sour gas service
d) Incorrect pre- or post-weld heat treatment that creates brittle or chemically weak
welds
e) Corrosion is not adequately controlled
f) Workmanship on welded or FRP joints is poor
g) Large-diameter flanges are placed at locations in the system where there are high
bending moments
h) Bolted joints exist where the bolts are 1.5 in. or smaller and might be overtight-
ened, or where they are 1.75 in. or larger and might be undertightened
j) Erosion occurs at changes in direction
k) The piping system has an improper design and contains an expansion joint I)
High-temperature piping loads are not properly supported
m) Fluid loads are not properly evaluated and vibration occurs
n) Improperly balanced rotating equipment produces high-frequency vibration at
stress-intensified components, such as small temperature or pressure takeoffs or
blinded valves
o) Rapid changes in temperature are not evaluated at discontinuities
During the design phase, the following situations should be monitored closely,
and the following practices maintained:
1) D/T (pipe diameter divided by its thickness) greater than 100. Piping systems in this
D/T range are very thin and may perform more like thin-walled pressure vessels than
piping systems. Some piping code rules are not well suited for piping systems in this
D/T range and extra caution is warranted
2) If the highest design pressure is negative (vacuum), extra caution should be taken
so that a buckling situation, not evaluated by most pipe stress programs, is avoided
3) Solve dynamic problems quickly. A vibrating system can easily undergo millions of
cycles in hours or days. Failures in overstressed dynamic systems can occur very
rapidly
4) Review old design drawings before making modifications to a piping system. Initial
angular offsets at hanger locations, cold spring, or initial restraint-gap settings can be
overlooked and not properly reinstalled after work has been completed
5) Look carefully for corroded areas, cracks or poor workmanship during maintenance
opportunities. It may be the leak from a small crack that sets off a chain reaction that
results in catastrophic failure, fire or loss of life
6) Consult experts when any decision is at all questionable. Developing a good work-
ing relationship with a local pipe-stress expert can be invaluable for finding practical,
cost-effective, safe solutions to most plant piping problems
7) If there is a question about why a result from a pipe stress program looks a certain
way, make sure to ask the question and get an answer. Piping program vendors can
often yield useful tips and insights O
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING / JUNE1997 8 9
 COVER STORY

TABLE 3. NOZZLE LOADINGS FROM ROTATING EQUIPMENT

Pumps and other devices put a stress (moment) on the interface between the device and piping.
The following table, based on API Standard 610 (Table 2), provides stress estimates based on nozzle
flange diameters
Nozzle flange nominal size, in.
Force/moment 2 4 6 10 16
top nozzle
FX 160 320 560 1,200 1,900
FY 200 400 700 1,500 2,300
FZ 130 260 460 1,000 1,500
FR 290 570 1,010 2,200 3,300
Each side nozzle
FX 160 320 560 1,200 1,900
FY 130 260 460 1,000 1,500
FZ 200 400 700 1,500 2,300
FR 290 570 1,010 2,200 3,300
Each end nozzle
FX 200 400 700 1,500 2,300
FY 130 260 460 1,000 1,500
FZ 160 320 560 1,200 1,900
FR 290 570 1,010 2,200 3,300
Each nozzle
MX 340 980 1,700 3,700 5,400
MY 260 740 1,300 2,800 4,000
MZ 170 500 870 1,800 2,700
MR 460 1,330 2,310 5,000 7,200
F = force, in Ibr; M = moment, in ft-Ibr; R= resultant. X, Y and Z refer to the orientation of a nozzle;
Z is into or out of a nozzle; X is perpendicular to Z but in the same horizontal plane; and Y is in the
vertical plane. FR is the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual forces.
The "each nozzle" category refers to bending moments on a nozzle; These are not dependent on
nozzle location, i.e., top or side. (Data from API Standard 610, Table 2, p. 10.)

cylinders. WRC 297 can be nonconserv-
ative for stiffness. Some computer im-
plementations of WRC 297 may predict
stiffness values hundreds of percent too
low. The worst errors occur for out-of-
plane stiffnesses, and when the para-
meter (d/D)v(D/T) is greater than one.
The WRC 297 user is encouraged to
verify stiffnesses generated by compar-
ing them to a finite element result, or to
predictions given in ASME Sec. III
NB3685.7.
Piping systems are attached to ves-
sels either by welding or by flanges.
Pipe designers use welding throughout
an entire piping system when leaks
cannot be tolerated under any circum-
stances. When small leakage can be tol-
erated, most pipe designers use flange
joints because maintenance is easier.
Most flanged joints are as strong as
the attached pipe. A good software pro-
gram will enable the user to describe
the properties of these attachments in
cases where the joints are not as strong
as the pipe. Some of these exceptions
are systems that have:
Fiberglass-reinforced plastic flanges
Soft gaskets made with synthetic fiber
Ring-type joints at flanges or at connections of pipe to
Flange components made of cast iron thicker components, such as bends and
Larger (>12 in.) flanges (which are tees. Many of these failures occur be-
notoriously susceptible to leakage cause of incorrect support or because of
caused by external moments) improper joint makeup. Others occur
Flanges should be located in the pip- because engineers do not properly eval-
ing system at points of small bending uate water-hammer events. Many
moments, when possible. ASME B16.5 manufacturers are developing their
gives pressure and temperature ratings own solutions to these problems as
for flanges of various materials. It is more and more plastic systems are
not uncommon to see bending mo- being used.
ments and axial forces converted to
equivalent pressure and a comparison What fluids can do
to B16.5 made. This comparison pro- Most pipe stress analysts are only con-
vides a safety factor of approximately cerned with a fluid's temperature and
five to eight. its specific gravity. These analysts usu-
ally leave issues like flow velocities,
How plastic pipe differs valve closure rates, pump trips, chemi-
The use of plastic piping systems is in- cal decompositions or resonant acoustic
creasing because of declining prices vibrations to the specialist, who is
and improved corrosion resistance. called in only when an extraordinary
Plastic piping systems differ from other problem is discovered.
systems when pressure or temperature As new software becomes available,
is a concern. Plastic systems often ex- the pipe stress analyst is becoming
pand as much or more due to pressure more involved in transient as well as
instead of temperature. Piping analysts steady-state fluid-flow problems.
should not assume that knowledge of Newer fluid programs use the 3D struc-
steel piping systems transfers to a plas- tural mesh of the piping system to con-
tic system. struct a 1D mesh of the fluid system.
Plastic piping systems fail most often Before the software's advent, the

9 0 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1997

process engineer usually
performed the fluid cal-
culations. The mechani-
cal engineer (pipe stress
analyst) was rarely con-
cerned with flowrates or
pressure drops, since
most piping systems are
not sensitive to the
slight pressure drops caused by the ad-
dition of an expansion loop or extra
pipe and bends. Now, piping engineers
can involve themselves in the varieties
of fluid problems because they have
tools that will minimize the time
needed.
Pipe stress engineers should be most
concerned when fluid pressure pro-
duces mechanical loads on the piping
systems. This classical situation can
happen when:
A valve opens or closes quickly
Two-phase flow occurs
Notable flow oscillations exist
There are long liquid lines
There is piping in and around com-
pressors and pressure-relieving devices
Spring hangers hot and cold
Spring hangers are important in piping
systems because they support the
weight of hot piping as it thermally ex-
pands. If a rigid support is used in place
of a spring hanger, it will exert a force
back on the pipe, creating a stress on
the pipe or a load on an equipment noz-
zle when the pipe expands.
Because the spring hanger is flexible,
it moves with the pipe as it expands.
The spring load will change slightly
from this movement, but this load
change will not be detrimental to the
piping system, and creates signifi-
cantly less load than a rigid support.
Although a design with spring hang-
ers may be accurate on paper, improper
installation can defeat its usefulness. It
is not at all unusual to walk through a
facility noticing springs that are not
carrying loads or that are bottomed out.
Piping engineers need to provide spe-
cific instructions with any field-ad-
justed equipment, such as a load flange
or a turnbuckle on a spring support.
Engineers often misapply constant-
effort springs and place an excess num-
ber of these springs where they are not
needed. They often make these mis-
takes when they are concerned about
temperature, and thus support the pip-
ing system over a large part of its
length using springs.
In these cases, engineers don't realize
that once a line turns in the horizontal
direction, considerable flexibility is
gained by each pipe run between sup-
ports. There is a point in a horizontal
run of pipe where entering horizontal
runs will absorb any entry or exit verti-
cal thermal expansion. Intermediate lo-
cations simply do not require springs.
Even though springs are designed to
carry weight through a specified dis-
tance, the proper use of springs imme-
diately adjacent to equipment nozzles
solves many rotating equipment prob-
lems. In this case, the spring carries the
specified weight exactly, even though
there is little movement in the support.
Rigid supports around hot rotating
equipment if not properly in-stalled
can cause significant problems. The
designer should exercise considerable
caution when analyzing and designing
these installations.
If a designer fails to incorporate sup-
ports with axial or horizontal stops for
hot piping systems, the pipes may
sometimes move slowly around on the
pipe rack, contacting other pipes or
steel. Between two fixed anchors, most
piping systems have a location where
zero thermal movements occur in one
or more directions. Engineers should
place supports at these thermal nodes in
the computer model to provide fixed
stability to the system and to prevent
the piping from moving.
For a hot pipe that cycles, it is best to
install guides and limit stops wherever
possible. Use long pipe shoes or other
supports wherever excessive axial dis-
placement is expected. (It is very em-
barrassing to have a 12-in. pipe shoe
slide off a steel support!)
Cold spring is the practice of pur-
posely fabricating certain sections of
piping to be either too short or too long.
Cold spring will never improve a piping
system's response to thermal stress (for
B31 code applications), but it can re-
duce operating loads on rotating equip-
ment, and can reduce creep problems
caused by hot stresses.
Some operating companies do not
permit cold spring to be used in a pip-
ing system design. Cold spring can
overload equipment in the cold condi-
tion and engineers can easily forget
about it years later when they make
modifications. In general, it is best to
leave cold spring out of a piping system
calculation unless nozzle or support
loads cannot be reduced any other way.
Nozzle stiffness is the degree of flexi-
bility at terminal points in vessels and
heat exchangers. It permits reduced
piping loads at these locations because
of an inherent flexibility in the shell of
the vessel or heat exchanger. It can also
significantly affect force and moment
distributions in large-diameter, thin-
walled systems or in short, stiff sys-
tems that have no inherent flexibility.
Users employing nozzle stiffnesses to
reduce end-connection loadings should
be aware that some implementations
can produce inaccurate results, compa-
rable to the situation described on p.
90. If engineers use nozzle stiffness to
produce a significant change in final re-
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING / JUNE1997 91
COVER STORY

suits, they should lar program op- References

compare the stiffness PIPE STRESS PROGRAMS FOR tions used, cor- 1. Mark]. A. C., et al., "Piping Flexibility Analy-
values to an alterna- THE CPI rosion may not be sis," in Pressure Vessel and Piping Design:
Write in the Reader Service number Collected Papers 19271959 (Am. Soc. of Me-
tive source. The most removed, may be chanical Engineers, New York), 1972.
card for more information 2. Process Piping, ASME B31.31996 Edition,
readily available infor- removed from an American National Standard (Am. Soc. of
mation on nozzle flexi- ADLPipe Research Engineers, Inc. sustained Mechanical Engineers, New York), 1996.
bilities comes from: Yorba Linda, Calif. 201 stress cases only, 3. British Standard Spec. for Design and Con-
struction of Ferrous Piping Installations for
WRC 297, NB3685.7, AutoPipe Rebis, Inc. operating cases Connection with Land Boilers, BS 806:1994. (
British Standards Inst., London) 1994.
and some Imite-ele- Walnut Creek, Calif. 202 only, thermal 4. Centrifugal Pumps for Petroluem, Heavy-Duty
ment analysis pro- CAEPipe SST Systems, Inc. cases only, or Chemical, and Gas Industry Services, API
610, 8th ed., Aug. 1995, (American Petroleum
grams. San Jose, Calif 203 from any Inst., Washington, D.C.), 1995.
Expansion joints are Caesar II Coade Engineering combination of 5. Steam Turbines for Mechanical Drive Service,
NEMA Standards Pub. No. SM 23, (National
flexible portions of a Software, Houston, Tex 204 the load cases. It Electrical Mfrs. Assn., Rosslyn, Va.
piping system for re- PipePlus Algor, Inc. is a wise user who 6. Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings,
ASME/ANSI B16.51988, ASME, New York.
ducing loads or ab- questions the 7. Mershon, J. L., Mokhtarian, K., Ranjan, G. V.,
Pittsburgh, Pa. 205 and Rodabaugh, E. C., "Local Stresses in
sorbing thermal ex- application of Cylindrical Shells Due to External Loadings
TriFlex AAA Technologies and
pansion. Engineers can corrosion in a on Nozzles," Supplement to WRC Bulletin No.
Specialties Co., Houston, Tex. 206 107 (Welding Research Council, New York),
design expansion particular soft- Aug. 1984.
ware program. It 8. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
joints ,in a variety of -10 is the prophet Other Structrues, ANSI/ASCE 793, and
ASCE Standard (Am. Soc. of Civil Engineers,
ways and can change New York).
their function to take lateral or axial who knows what to do with the answer. 9. Oil Pipeline Systems, CAN3-Z183-M86, a Na-
High temperature in piping implies tional Standard of Canada (Canadian Stan-
loads. Expansion joints are often the dards Assn., Ontario, Canada).
most critical part of a piping system. systems that operate in the creep range 10. Wichman, K. R., Hopper, A. G., and
for the material. Material creep in- Mershon, J. L., "Local Stresses in Spherical
Extra care should be taken when and Cylindrical Shells due to External
using expansion joints in impor- volves a complicated nonlinear interac- Loadings," in Pressure Vessels and Piping:
tion between temperature, stress and Design and Analysis, (ASME, New York).
tant piping applications. Most ex- 11. Burgreen, D., Design Methods for Power
pansion joint manufacturers are very time. High-temperature rules for pip- Plant Structures, (Arcturus Publishers, Cherry
ing and pressure vessels are based on Hill, N.J.).
helpful when it comes to providing de- 12. "Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power
sign guidance and recommendations only the simplest of material laws. Plant Components, Div. 1, Subsec. NB: Class 1
Creep phenomena usually become Components," in ASME Boiler & Pressure
for use of their products. Vessel Code (ASME, New York), 1992.
significant at about 750F for steel and
its alloys. High-temperature piping Authors
Hot rusty
should be well supported and well con-
The effects of corrosion and high tem- trolled. Springs should be used care-
perature on pipe stress analysis is fully, and travel stops provided to limit
among the least quantitatively under- excessive displacement. Michael Bussler, P.E., is the
stood of all stress related effects. Tests founder and president of
Many high-pressure pipe spools are Algor, Inc. (150 Beta Dr.,
on piping fittings usually are done on delivered in thicknesses that vary con- Pittsburgh, PA 15238; Tel:
essentially noncorroded fittings. The 412-967-2700), an interna-
siderably from the nominal specified. tional company providing a
effect of corrosion on fatigue varies This altered thickness affects the total broad range of technology-
widely and may be significant. There is based products and services to
weight of the system which is not in- the engineering community.
no quantitative way to evaluate these Under Mr. Bussler's leader-
cluded properly in a spring hanger de- ship, Algor has made 17 major
effects today. sign. The spring then pushes too much engineering software innova-
When a system is subject to intensely or too little on the pipe resulting in tions, including the first PC-based software for fi-
corrosive conditions, and undergoes a nite element analysis. Mr. Bussler was named
creep concentrations at critical bending Entrepreneur of the Year by Ernst & Young, a
management consulting company.
significant number (several thousand) sections. Supports on high-tempera-
of thermal or pressure loading cycles, Anthony W. Paulin is presi-
tures piping systems should be de- dent of Paulin Research Group (
extreme caution should be used in the signed very carefully. 25211 Grogans Mill Rd., Ste.
design. If a particular pipe material and 315, The Woodlands, TX
Piping stress analysis can be a com- 77380; Phone: 281-363-3790),
chemical medium has not been plicated, dangerous business, and and coauthor of the finite-ele-
previously used, metallurgical study of ment program, FE/Pipe. He
should be approached with great cau- currently serves on the B31
the interaction of corrosion and fatigue Mechanical Design Code Com-
tion. Like any other technology, piping mittee of ASME. In 1984, he
for the particular combination of fluid stress analysis software is only as good co-founded Coade Engineering
and medium may be warranted. Software, Inc., and is the orig-
as the person who uses it. While the inal author of the Caesar II pipe stress program.
In most pipe stress programs today programs perform calculations and give Previous work includes positions at Brown &
the corrosion allowance specified is re- guidelines, engineers must apply Root Inc., G. H. Bettis Co. and Scientific Inter-
moved uniformly from the wall thick- comp, Inc. Paulin is the recipient of the 1991 Her-
common sense and judgement when bert Allen Award for Outstanding Technical
Achievement, presented by the South Texas
ness of the pipe before stress calcula- using these tools. ASME Chapter. His B.S.M.E. degree was earned
tions are made. Depending on the at Texas A&M University, and he is a certified
Edited by Nicholas Basta Professional Engineer in Texas.
piping code employed and the particu-
9 2 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1997