C459/042/93 Nonlinear effects in piping system analysis GH POWELL, PhD Department of Structural Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, USA O ASHRAF, MS. Eng ering Design Automation, Berkeley, California, USA SYNOPSIS When we perform a code compliance analysis of a piping systom, we usually assume that the piping and its supports are linear and elastic. Since the pipe may actually yield, and since the supports may not be linear, why is it that we can use linear structural analysis methods? Do we need to use nonlinear analysis? If so how do ‘we do it? This paper provides a broad overview of the concepts 1, THE BASIC PROCESS When a piping system is checked for structural integrity, the essential goals are to ensure that (a) the pipe does not fail by plastic collapse, (b) it does not fail in fatigue under thermal eycling, and (¢) it does not exert excessive forces on its supports or on any vessels, ete. to which it is attached. ‘This is usually done by performing a structural analysis of the system, to obtain calculated values for the pipe strosses, support forces, ete. These are then compared with allowable values from a design code or a manufacturer's specification. ‘Most computer programs for piping analysis perform a finite element analysis of the piping system, with elements which model piping components (e.., straight pipe, elbows, tees), anchors, supports, valves, ete. From the results of the analysis we get axial forces, shear forces, bending moments and torsional moments at several points along the pipe, caused by gravity, thermal expansion and other loads. We then use design code formulas to obtain the calculated stresses and corresponding allowable stresses. We also get support reactions for design of the pipe support. ‘The most commonly used piping codes in the U.S. are ASME B31.1, and B91.3. [1,2]. Although the formulas these codes vary somewhat, they are all based on similar concepts. In particular, they all include (a) a formula to check the stresses due to sustained loads, to guard against plastic collapse, and (b) a formula to check the stress range duo to thermal expansion, to guard against fatigue failure. For our examples we will use the B31.1 code. In this article we consider only gravity (a sustained load), internal pressure (also a sustained load) and thermal expansion. We do not include wind, seismic or other loadings, (€459/042 © IMechE 1903 2, DOES THE PIPE REMAIN LINEAR? If-we add up the code allowable stresses for combined gravity, pressure and thermal expansion loads, the total can exceed the yield stress of the pipe material ‘That is, the code does not necessarily require that the pipe remain elastic. We first examine whether it is, necessary to account for yield of the pipe in the analysis. In B31.1 there are two basic allowable stresses, namely the hot allowable, S , and the cold allowable, 5, Essentially, the allowable value is the smaller of (a) one quarter of the ultimate stress (i.e, a factor of safety of 4 for rupture) and (b) two thirds of the yield stress (ie, a factor of safety of 1.6 for yield), For the examples in this article we assume S. = 15000 psi, which is a typical value for carbon steel. We assume that there is no significant strength loss at operating temperature, so that Sy is also 15000 psi, We also assume, unrealistically, that the allowable stress is governed by yield, so that the yield stress, Sy, is 22500 si. In fact, the allowable stress would probably be governed by the ultimate strength, and S, would more likely be about 35000 psi. Hence, when yielding of the Pipe is allowed in the following examples, the analyses are conservative. The B31.1 stresses that are of concern here are as follows. 1. Calculated longitudinal stress due to combined pressure and gravity loads = S,, Allowable stress = Sj = 15000 psi, 2. Calculated longitudinal stress range due to thermal cycling (expansion stress) = S,, Allowable stress = $= 1.258, + 0.255, 13assuming a modest number of lifetime thermal cycles (less if the number is large). For our case ‘this is 1,58, = 22500 psi since Sy = Sp. IFS, is less than Sq, the unused stress can be added to ‘Sq That is, S, can be increased to 1.58, + (Sq - §). ‘This means that under combined pressure, gravity and thermal loads the allowable longitudinal stress can be as high as 2.6Sy = 37500 psi, which is well in excess of the assumed yield stross of 22500 psi. Does this mean that. ‘we must perform a nonlinear analysis which accounts for yield? ‘The answer is no. This is because the goal is not to calculate the actual stresses, but to ensure a safe design. In effect the code says that if we obtain the calculated stresses using a linear analysis, and if we design the piping system so that theso stresses are less than the allowable stresses, then the design has adequate factors of safety for both plastic collapse and fatigue. The calculated stresses are not actual values, but nominal values which can be used for design. To clarify this, consider the simple pipe configuration shown in Figure 1, The dimensions and loads are chosen so that the design just satisfies the code requirements for longitudinal stress under sustained and thermal loads. Hence, the calculated and allowable stresses exceed yield at some points. We will consider only longitudinal stresses, but it may be noted that the hoop stresses due to internal pressure is approximately ‘70% of the maximum allowable. 20:0" 20-0" = 20-0" Pipe is 6.625 inch outside diameter, 0.28 inch wall thie Pipe weight is 18.5 Ib, Total gravity Tad is $8.73 Ib/f. ‘This valuc is chosen to give a maximum stress of 15000 ps ‘Temperature change is O54 degrees F ‘This value is chosen to give a maximum stress of 22500 ps For simplicity, strong miter bends are assumed rather than elbows ‘Young's modules for pipe stel = 27000 ps. ‘Thermal expansion coeMcient = 0.000068 in/in/degreeF. For inelastic analysis, yield stress = 22500 ps (se text Strain hardening ratio = 02% (-e, hardening modulus 56 psi) FIGURE 1. EXAMPLE 1 The pipe has been analyzed in two ways, the first assuming linear behavior (by the AutoPIPE program (a) and the second allowing for nonlinear yield (by the PIPLIN program [4)). These two programs are intended for different types of application, and they are not completely consistent with each other. For example, PIPLIN is coneerned with inelastic behavior of pipelines, “4 and caleulates stresses at the midthickness of the pipe ‘wall, whereas AutoPIPE is concerned with design of piping systems, and calculates maximum stresses at ‘the outer surface of the pipe. Hence, the results do not match exactly even when the pipe is still elastic. However, the results aro close to each other, Selected results from the two analyses are shown in Figure 2, > Deflced shape under ‘avi toad aloe. Defieced spe un ‘ermal na lone Gravity and thermal loads reinforce each other at eitcal points A and B. AutoPIPE results (elastic pipe) ‘Anchor Tending ‘Longitudinal ——“Defl.—_-Support Stress at (psi) at BB Forceat =‘ Mmat AB Gx) Cab) Aas 30200 0.961580 Pec 15000, 7000 P+GeT 29500 37500 117-1380 01000 Tv soo 27300 PIPLIN results (inclustc pipe) Loading ‘Longitudinal ——‘Defl.—-Suppart Anchor Stress-at(ps) at BB Forceat Maret AB xy Cab) Abn PrG Top 14500 1200 0.96 Bt -3000 10100 P+GsT Top 26000-14900 150-1060 197000 Bot -14100 26700 P+G* Top 12800 121001281940 000 Bot 8001400 TT. 27000 Bot 149000 “End of Cyele 1 FIGURE 2. RESULTS FOR EXAM 1 The critical points for checking the stresses are points A and B. The AutoPIPE results show that the caloulated stresses at these points are equal to the allowable stresses. Note that the unused stress, (Si- S,), at point B is added to the allowable thermal stress range of 1.58, The calculated stresses under combined pressure (P), gravity (G) and thermal (T) load exceed the 22500 psi yield stress at both A and B. The table also shows the calculated deflection at B, the load on ‘the support at C, and the moment on the anchor at A. In the PIPLIN analysis, the pipe yields as the thermal load is added. Hence there are several differences from the AutoPIPE rosults, Some of the differences are as follows. © IMechE 1998 C45q/0421. The PIPLIN deflection under P+G+T loud (1.50 inches) is larger than the AutoPIPE deflection (1.17 inches). Also, the deflection under P+G at the end of the thermal eycle (1.28 inches) fs larger than the elastic P4G deflection (0.96 inches). 2. Tho pipe tends to lift off the center support when the T load is applied, and the support must apply a downwards force to the pipe. The PIPLIN force (1060 Ibs) is less than the AutoP IPE, force (1980 Ibs), because ‘the pipe yields, For the same reason, when the T load is removed the PIPLIN foreo (1940 Ths) is larger than the AutoPIPE force (1580 Ibs). 3, The PIPLIN stresses under P+G-+T loads are smaller than the AutoPIPE stresses. This is expected, since the AutoPIPE stresses are well above yield. Note, however, that the PIPLIN stresses are also significantly above the ‘yield stress of 22500 psi (26000 psi at A and 26700 psi at B, both in tension). Since a very small strain hardening ratio was assumed for the analysis, such large stresses may not seem to be possible unless the strains are extremely large. The reason for the large values is that PIPLIN uses the von Mises yield theory. Because of the internal pressure there is a hoop tension stress in the pipe. Hence, the pipe wall is in a state of biaxial stress, and the yield stress in axial tension is larger than the uniaxial yield stress. This is illustrated in the Figure 3. The maximum strain calculated in the PIPLIN analysis was 1.25% at B. Hoop Stress Hoop sess ds to intemal pressure, “Longiuinal strength in compeeslon it deceated, Longitudinal strength in tension is incrased Longitudinal Stress Yon Miss elipee fice mar il FIGURE & EFFECT OF HOOP STRESS ON LONGITUDINAL STRENGTE In spite of these differences, the design based on the AutoPIPE analysis is sound, for the following reasons. 1. The pipe does not collapse, 2. The pipe yields only in the first thermal eycle, when the T load is first applied. When the T load is removed the pipe does not re-yield, but remains elastic, That is, the pipe shakes down to elastic behavior in the first eycle, and remains clastic for all later cycles. The AutoPIPE and PIPLIN thermal stress ranges are thus lose to each other (14600 psi vs 14900 psi at A, 27300 psi vs 27000 psi at B). (©459/042 6 IMechE 1993 3. The moments on the anchors are closely similar from both analyses (AutoPIPE maximum 203000 Ib.in. vs PIPLIN 197000 Tb.in.) The main point is that if the pipe shakes down to elastic behavior, then (a) it will not collapse, and (b) the thermal stress range will be the same whether or not the pipe yields. The code allowable stresses, and the design procedure based on linear analysis, ensure that this is the case. Also, if the amount of yield is small, the support and anchor forees will be close to the values from a linoar analysis. 2.1, What is the factor of safety? ‘The analysis of the preceding section showed that the pipe is safe under design operating loads, but gave no indication of the factor of safety. For example, by how much can we increase the gravity loads before the pipe collapses? This question can be explored using PIPLIN, by applying pressure plus progressively larger gravity loads, then cycling the thermal load. If the pipe continues to yield in each thermal eyele, it ultimately collapses Gf it does not fail first in fatigue). One such analysis, using pressure plus twice the gravity load, showed that the pipe shook down to elastic behavior after 3 thermal cycles, indicating a gravity factor of safety of at least 2. Remember, also, that the PIPLIN analyses have assumed a low yield strength, and hence are conservative, Yield vs. creep In these analyses we considered yield but not high- temperature creep. Yield and creep are both inelastic effects, which change the distribution of forces and stresses in the pipe. Their causes are different, but their effects are similar. The code allowable stresses are chosen to control creep as well as yield, and although it is stretching things a bit, we ean conclude that it is reasonable to assume that the pipe is linear and elastic for the purposes of analysis, 3. DO THE SUPPORTS REMAIN LINEAR? So far we have considered only the pipe, and concluded that it is reasonable to use a linear analysis model. Next we ask whether it is reasonable to use a linear analysis model for the pipe supports. The results in Figure 2 show that when the thermal expansion load is applied the support at C exerts a downwards force on the pipe. That is, the pipe wants to lift off this support. If the support is designed to provide a downwards force, the analysis model is correct. However, if the support is a vertical stop which ean provide only an upwards force, the pipe lifts off. Such a support is nonlinear, The next example 18considers the effect of this nonlinearity, and whether it should be ineluded in the analysis model. Tho pipe configuration in Figure 4 has the same goomotry and loads as that in Figure 1. However, the center support is now a stop which restrains only downward movement of the pipe. wae reat a Deft shape under paviy laa Deleted shape under ‘eral dnt ‘herald lon ie bosupme AutoPIPE results (elastic pip, support allowed cit of) Looding Lengitudinal~—~“Def. Support Anchor Stress at (ps) at B_Forcoat Moment A BG) Cm 2Agn Pee 18000 10200 0.96 PiGeT — 19400 28600 0080 225000 T 440018100 PIPLIN results Gncastc pip, support allowed tit of Leading Longitudinal —‘Defl—‘Support Anchor Stress at (ps) at B_ Force at Moment eee cae Om AD P+G Top 14500 1200-086 1520 000 Bot -3000 10100 P+G+T Top 17800 14100 005-0 114000 Bot 7700 26000 PsG* Top 14500 3800097 1850 9000 Bot -3200 9200 T To 17900 End of Gyele 1 FIGURE 4, RESULTS FOR EXAMPLE 1, SUPPORT LIFTOFF ‘The support is modeled as a stiff spring element. If a linear spring is assumed, the support restrains both ‘upward and downward movement of the pipe, and the analysis results are those shown in Figure 2. If a nonlinear spring is used, allowing lift-off, the analysis results are as shown in Figure 4. For these analyses the center support is nonlinear in AutoPIPE, and the support and pipe are both nonlinear in PIPLIN. Some ‘ey points are as follows 1. For P+G loads the results are the same as in Figure 2, for both AutoPIPE and PIPLIN. This is simply because the support is active for these loads 16 2, For P+G+T loads the pipe lifts off the center support (by 2.47 inches in AutoPIPE, 2.49 inches in PIPLIN). As a result there is less restraint of thermal expansion, and the calculated stresses are less than in Figure 2, For example, the AutoPIPE thermal stress range at B is 18400 psi in Figure 4 vs 27800 psi in Figure 2. 3, The maximum moments on the anchors are reduced (maximum 125000 lb.in, in Figure 4 vs 201000 Ib.in. in Figure 2). This is also a consequence of the reduced restraint, 4, The pipe yields when the T load is first applied However, the amount of yield is small, and the AutoPIPE and PIPLIN results are very similar. This example shows that there are advantages in allowing for nonlinear behavior of the supports, since the calculated thermal stress range is reduced. Bul Did we analyze this example correctl; [In the preceding example the stresses due to the sustained loads were calculated with the center support in place. It can be argued, however, that since the pipe sponds most ofits life in the hot condition, then the sustained load stresses should be calculated for this condition. This would mean that the P+G stress calculation should assume that there is no center support, Presumably the support should also be omitted for the thermal stress calculation. That is, the center support could simply be ignored. The results for this analysis are not shown, but can be summarized as follows. 1. The pipe is overstressed for P+G loads (27200 psi stress at A vs 15000 psi with the support present) Hence, the design must be revised. This is not really necessary, however, since the support is actually present and prevents collapse of the pipe. 2. The calculated thermal stress range is less than before, because of the reduced restraint (7800 psi at B ‘vs 18400 psi in Figure 4). Since the support is actually present, the 18400 psi value is more realistic, and the 7800 psi value is too low. In the opinion of the authors, therefore, it is not correct to ignore the support. Instead, both the ‘upwards support and the downwards restraint should be accounted for in the analysis. In general this requires that the nonlinearity of the support be taken into account. There may, however, be other complications, as considered in the next section, © IMechE 1998 459/042‘8.2_Cut Short and other complications ‘Suppose that the pipe is not fabricated accurately, and that instead of point C boing exaetly 8 feet above point A it is only 7 feet 9.5 inches (ie, 2.5 inches low), Suppose also that the support at C is at the correct level, and that the pipe is forved into place. An analysis ‘will show that this requires an upwards support force at C of 1380 Ibs Gif we assume the pipe is weightless at this point). When the P+G loads are added this force increases by 1580 Ibs (see Figure 2), to a total of 2960 Ibs. When the T load is added the force changes by 2060 Ths downwards, to give a net value of zero, Hence, although the support provides no downwards restraint, the pipe does not lift off. The thermal stress range at B is thus the value in Figure 2 (27800 psi) rather than the value in Figure 4 (18400 psi). Similar behavior can result ifthe pipe is deliberately cut short by the amount of thermal expansion, or by part of this amount, and if the pipe is forced into place. This might be done to prevent the pipe from lifting off the support, and hence make it less vulnerable to lateral loads from wind or earthquake The key point is that we may not know precisely what the support forces are. It is still true that support nonlinearity should be taken into account when it is present, but the designer must be careful to account for fabrication and construction effects. A simple structural analysis assumes, in effect, that the pipe is constructed in a zero gravity environment, and the loads are then applied. Reality is rather different. SUPPORTS WITH FRICTION In the configuration used for the preceding examples the pipe tended to lift off the center support under the thermal load. Figure 6 shows a similar configuration, but now the pipe tends to slide on the center support. This support is nonlinear because it develops friction resistance, Ifthe horizontal force on the support is small ‘here is no slip and the support is stiff. Ifthe horizontal force exceeds the friction resistance there is sip and the support is more flexible, The friction resistance is equal to the bearing force multiplied by the coefficient of friction, and hence it changes if the beating force changes (in this example, however, the bearing force is constant). Compared to an analysis in whieh there is no slip (Le, 4 stiff support in the horizontal direction), the effect of allowing for frictional slip is to decrease the resistance to thermal expansion, and hence to decrease the calculated thermal stress range. Compared to an analysis in which friction is ignored (.e., no horizontal support), the effect of including friction is to increase the calculated stress range. .C459/042 © IMechE 1963, + Pipe can side on suppor. Friction ‘efilen =O) Propnties ad oading setame a angle, ‘keep that only eastic pe comsderd FIGURE 8. EXANPLE 2 Example 2 has been analyzed using AutoPIPE. For P+G loads the pipe is slightly overstressed (maximum, stress = 15200 psi). We will ignore this, since we are concerned only with the effect of friction on the thermal stress range. Figure 6 shows the calculated thermal stress ranges for four different analyses, namely (1) zero friction coefficient (linear analysis), (2) no horizontal deflection at C (linear); (3) slip with a friction coefficient of 0.5 (nonlinear), and (4) slip with 4 friction coefficient of 1.0 (nonlinear). The figure also shows the horizontal deflections at the friction support (ie, the amount of frictional slip) and the horizontal support forces, aa, (> io it empere + ote 0 fective ee eS, Oe AutoPIPE results (last pipe, nonlinear support) Friction Max Thermal Stress Deflection SigprtFene Coeficent Range at B Giparc Gre) are Support at © (pa Go @ a 7800 sas ° No sip 27200 0 020 as, 12000 ‘ise a0 10 1000 250 FIGURE 6, EFFECT OF TEMPRATURE INCREASE FOR EXAMPLE 2 Consider the first three of these analyses first. The reason for the fourth is considered later. As shown in Figure 6, the final deflections (and also the bending ‘moments, stresses, etc.) can be obtained by adding two cases, namely Case (a) with the temperature change and no horizontal support force, and Case (b) with the 7horizontal support force and no temperature change. For analysis with no friction the deflected shape is Case (a) only. This analysis has the least amount of restraint and the lowest thermal stress range. For the analysis ‘with a rigid horizontal support the deflected shape is a combination of Case (a) and Case (b), such that the deflection at C is zero, This analysis has the most restraint and the largest stress range The analysis with frictional slip is botwoon these two extremes. Assuming that the coefficient of friction (0.5) is accurate, the (nonlinear) analysis with frictional slip gives the most accurate stress range for the heat-up part of the thermal cycle. Here again, however, there are complications that must be considered. Whon the temperature is increased, the friction opposes the outward movement of the pipe, and hence the friction force acts inward. This is what the analysis predicts. When the temperature is decreased, the friction opposes the inward movement of the pipe, and hence the friction force acts outward. That is, in a thermal cycle the friction forces change direction, as shown in Figure 7. Computer programs with friction support options Gncluding AutoPIPE) usvally analyze only the temperature increase part of the eyele, and assume that the friction forces return to zero when the temperature is decreased back to ambient. This s sometimes referred to as conservative friction, since it ignores the fact that energy is lost when friction forces are cycled. This type of analysis calculates the stress range during the first heat-up cycle, which is not necessarily the true thermal stress range. Deflection when temperature is increased for first time (oad = P+G+ 7), Horizontal Friction Force Frictional slip Horizontal Deflection Initial 4G fe Deflection when temperature is decreased for frst time (load =P'+ Gat end of eyele 1). FIGURE 7. FRICTION FORCES AT SUPPORT C DURING. FIRST THERMAL CYCLE Figure 8 shows the deflected shape of the pipe at the ‘end of the first full thermal cycle, when the temperature has been reduced to ambient. As shown in this figure, the final deflections (and also the bending moments, stresses, etc.) can once again be obtained by adding two 8 cases. Case (a) is for temperature only, with no horizontal support fores. Since the final temperature is ambient there are no thermal deflections or stresses for this case, Case (b) is for the friction force only, acting outward. The deflections and stresses for this case are the opposite of those for Case (b) of Figure 6. ‘The true thermal range is the range from the deflected shape in Figure 6 to the deflected shape in Figure 8, ‘The stress range is therefore the sum of the stresses for: (1) Case (a) in Figure 6, (2) Case (b) in Figure 6, and (3) Case (b) in Figure 8. This is the same as the ‘sum of the stresses for: (1) Case (a) in Figure 6 and (2) twice Case (b) in Figure 6. It is also the same as the conservative friction stress range using a coefficient of friction of 1.0 rather than 0.5. This is the reason why the results for this case are given in Figure 6, The calculated stress range (the true range) is 18000 psi, compared with the conservative friction range of only 12900 psi, and the rigid support range of 27800 psi. i J, LOS or, senate FIGURE 8. EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE DECREASE ‘TO AMBIENT FOR EXAMPLE 2 ‘This example shows that there are advantages to allowing for frictional slip, but that it may not be correct to perform a conservative friction analysis. To obtain the correct stress range with such an analysis we must double the friction coefficient, 4.1, Still another complication Unfortunately, doubling the friction coefficient will not always work. Suppose that the center support in Example 2 is modified by adding a horizontal stop, so that after a friction slip of 2.5 inches the stop is engaged and further horizontal deflection is prevented. The stop can be modeled as a nonlinear spring as in ‘Example 1, except that the spring has an initial gap of 2.5 inches. At the end of the heat-up half cycle, an analysis will show that there is an inward horizontal force of 810 Ibs from friction and an additional 810 Ibs from the stop, for a total of 1620 Ibs. At the end of the cool- down half eycle there is an outward force of 810 Tbs from frietion only. The correct thermal stress range would then be calculated as 28100 psi. If this same © IMechE 1993 459/042system is analyzed assuming conservative friction with a friction coefficient of 1.0, the calculated deflection is 2.5 inches (see Figure 6), and the stop is not engaged. ‘The calculated stress range is thus 18000 psi, as before, rather than 23100 psi. That is, a conservative friction analysis with a doubled friction coefficient may not give the correct stress range. 5. HOW IS NONLINEAR ANALYSIS DONE? A program such as AutoPIPE assumes that the pipe is, elastic, but allows for nonlinear stop and friction supports. The program basically performs only linear analysis, and solves the nonlinear problem by an iterative (successive trials) procedure. For a stop support a tangent stiffness strategy is used. ‘As shown in Figure 9a, the (tangent) stiffness of a stop is either zero or a large value. Essentially, the program guesses which stiffness to use for each stop, and performs a linear analysis. If the guess is correct for all, stop supports (i.e, if those with zero stiffness finish up with gaps, and those with large stiffnesses finish up in bearing), the analysis is correct. If not, the program. makes new guesses based on the analysis results, and repeats the analysis. Usually the correct guesses are made after a few iterations. The solution can flip-flop between two sets of incorrect guesses, especially if some of the supports have small bearing forces or gaps that, are nearly closed. The program must be clever enough to account for this Serpoe Fore ro Sire "| | Seater, ai er, | A abes L- Eh Bn {emi Ey sf eogmcee seine? (@) Stop Support Of ee a=" ERs rag yeni eeieateen aren re Noize ce Settee aefort —(O emimes (©) Friction Support, FIGURE9 SOLUTION STRATEGYFORNONLINEARSUPPORTS, (CA69/042 6 IMechE 1993 For a friction support an iterative secant stiffness strategy is used. The secant stiffness is the ratio of support foree to support deformation, where the ‘support force is the friction force and the deformation is the amount of frietion slip. Steps 1 through 6 in Figure 9b show how the secant stiffness is assigned for each iteration. If the correct secant stiffnesses are assigned to all friction supports, then in the next iteration the correct result is obtained, and the secant stiffness does not change. The solution iterates on the secant stifinesses, starting with an initial guess, It is hot necessary to get exact convergence, since the friction coefficient is not precisely known, Hence, an accuracy tolerance is specified, and the solution is assumed to have converged when the friction force is ‘within the tolerance. The program must also recognize supports at which there is no slip, and the foree is less than the slip value, 6, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: Piping systems can behave nonlinearly, because of yield and creep of the pipe, and because of nonlinear behavior of the supports. We do not need to account for pipe nonlinearity in a structural analysis, because the design procedure ensures that the pipe shakes down to elastic behavior after one, or at most a few, thermal cycles. However, to calculate the stresses accurately we may need to account for support nonlinearity, Piping analysis programs such as AutoPIPE provide us with nonlinear support options. As the examples in this paper indicate, however, we must use these options carefully if we are to obtain meaningful results. Nonlinear makes it possible for us to analyze more realistic models, and to do better engineering, However, it also requires that we have a better ‘understanding of structural behavior. 7. REFERENCES ASME BS1.1 - Power Piping, 1992 Edition 2 ASME B313 - Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping, 1990 Edition 8 Engineering Design Automation, Inc: AutoPIPE Pipe Stress Analysis and Design Program, User Reference, Berkeley, CA., March 1993, 4° SSD Engineering Consultants, Ine,, PIPLIN-PC: Stress and Deformation analysis of Pipelines, User Reference and Theoretical Manual, Berkeley, CA 1991. 5 MARKL, ARC, Piping Flexibility Analysi ‘Transactions of the ASME, Feb. 1955, 127-149. »