You are on page 1of 130

Design & Analysis



A Short Course

University of Strathclyde

Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Strathdyde
lasgow, Scotland, UK
Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

Table of Contents


2.1.1 Allowable stresses 2 1
2.1.2 Plasticity 2*4
2.2.1 Pressure stress 2.7
2.2.2 Torsion stress 2!lO
2.2.3 Bending stress 2.12
2.2.4 Combined stress 2.13
2.2.5 Component flexibility 2 14
2.3.1 Limit loads 2.17
2.3.2 Shakedown & ratchetting . 2 20
2.4 FATIGUE - i-FACTORS Z 2.22
4.2.1 Energy Methods ""!"."."""!!!! 4!4
4.2.2 Matrix Displacement & Finite Element Methods 48
4.4.1 Is Code flexibility analysis conservative? 4^35
4.4.2 Does flexibility analysis represent real behaviour? 4^38
Tabl&of Contents


5.1.1 In-plane bending of a pipe bend - von-Karman's analysis 5.1
5.1.2 Behaviour of piping elbows 5.5
5.2.1 BS806 5.10
5.2.2 ANSI B31.1 5.14
5.2.3 ANSI B31.3 5.16
5.2.4 ASME III Class 1 5.17
5.3.1 ANSI B31 i-factors & ASME III C-factors 5.20
5.3.2 ASME III B-factors 5.24
5.3.3 Summary 5.26


Design & Analysis of Piping Systems . -


The tradition of pipework design has a long and established history, but has undergone a
significant change in the past few decades. The increasing public need for structural safety,
together with the additional requirement of economy has required the development and
adoption of new design methods and associated analytical tools, for the most part based
on computer methods. Indeed most piping design and analysis is done today using computer
pipe stress analysis packages. Thus this course is primarily concerned with piping stress
analysis rather than problems of detailed design. The reason for this is straightforward:
for a 'safe' piping system design it is necessary to avoid any overstressing of the piping
components which may lead to structural failure or overloading ofthe connected equipment.
It has become common practice to design and fabricate pipework to some particular design
code or specification: design by analysis and associated criteria for pipework has been in
existence since the issue of the American National Standards Institute ANSI B31.1 Code
for Power Piping - most national codes have followed this approach since then. Thus the
common basis for 'safe' piping design is analysis.

In the writer's experience piping design and analysis has become rather routine: either
some standard design procedure is adopted, which may avoid analysis altogether, or the
whole design assessment is handed over to some prescribed analysis package. In the latter,
if the design criteria are not met then the pipework designer may use his experience to
adjust the design ifthis is possible. In either case it may be argued that the routine nature
of the design process leads to a lack of understanding as to what we are calculating. This
problem exists in all areas of the piping industry and is evident when design requirements
are specified without a basic understanding of the background to the code. It is fortunate
that the people who devised the code rules, and apparently the pipe itself, understand so
that the design procedure works. However it is equally wrong to presume that the loads
and stresses we are calculating are exact when in fact we are only calculating certain
theoretical results required by the design procedure in a way which the code allows and
expects. The code procedure does make an attempt to develop a conservative estimate; but
as we shall see sometimes this is in error.

The aim ofthis course then is to provide the necessary background to the design and analysis
sections of the various codes in the hope of producing a better educated and aware piping
designer. Traditional manual methods of calculation are not covered; it is felt that the
designer who is using such techniques possibly has no need for a course like this - the
problem is with the piping designer who adopts computer assisted methods! To start with
we will go back to fundamentals:


Loads on piping systems are many and varied, but fortunately from the point of view of
the writer of a design code can be broadly grouped according to their effect:

• internal (and external) pressure,

• dead weight effects of piping together with insulation and contained fluid,


• thermal expansion and possibly through wall thermal gradients, and /

• dynamic loadings for example due to wind, earthquake or blast loadings.

At their most basic level the various design codes and associated standards aim to provide
protection against two kinds of failure;

Firstly, recognizing that pipework is principally a means by which fluids or gases may be
transported between different plant items there must be some basic protection against a
catastrophic or "burst' type failure. This is usually provided by requiring, as an absolute
minimum: the use of standard fittings for which prototypes have been demonstrated to
meet a simple pressure burst test, that certain fabricated branch connections meet
established reinforcement rules, that the pipe wall is thick enough to prevent pressure
bursting, and the stresses arising from other sustained or occasional loads to which the
system will be subjected are kept within certain limits.

The last requirement is necessary since the basic code procedure to protect against bursting
is rather simple: in terms of stress analysis the averaged, or 'membrane', calculated stress
due to pressure must be kept below some fraction ofyield on the argument that this prevents
gross plastic yielding through the pipe wall and thus obviates bursting. The sustained
stresses must then be limited also to keep to the spirit of this requirement. However it
must also be recognized that failure of the pipe wall can also occur through mechanisms
other than gross yielding, for example creep damage at elevated temperature. This must
also be taken into account.

Secondly thermal expansion between different plant items will induce internal stress and
deformation in the pipe and end reactions on connecting equipment. Piping systems should
then have sufficient flexibility so that these stresses, deformations and forces are limited.
It seems fairly obvious that distortion and end reactions should be limited to avoid leakage
or service failure at joints or in connected equipment. But it is not clear how or why the
stress levels should be limited. Operating stresses due to thermal expansion will be cyclic
and there is then the need to protect against potential failure due to the repeated application
of stress. The design procedures should thus provide some protection against material
fatigue cracking, a leak type failure. The pioneering ANSI B31.1 provided this protection
against fatigue in a rather obscure manner, through the concept of a stress intensification
factor. However it must also be recognized that other failure mechanisms due to cyclic
stress are possible; in particular that of excessive repeated deformation due to ratchetting.
The design requirement in this case is that of shakedown; BS806 is based upon design for

With very few exceptions, given a minimum pipe wall thickness, the basis for piping design
is a flexibility analysis for thermal expansion and sustained loads. This allows forces, in
particular bending moments, to be evaluated on each component and resultant stresses to
be calculated and compared to code allowables. Again it must be emphasised that we are
not calculating real loadings. In the process of carrying out a flexibility analysis the analyst
must make certain assumptions concerning the modelling of restraints, supports, anchors
and nozzles. In the evaluation of expansion loads it is generally assumed conservative to ■
assume an infinite stiffness for anchor points; experience has demonstrated that this
assumption is acceptable and does provide a margin of safety. But our restraints are not

[: 1.2

: Design: & Analysis of PipingSystems :

rigid, so we are not calculating real loads. It must also be remembered that this assumption
is only conservative for static loads; for dynamic analysis it artificially increases the fun
damental frequency of the system. Similarly, assumptions as to the direction and stiffness
of supports and hangers are also usually less than realistic, and there is less evidence that
the usual assumptions are conservative. This will be discussed further in the course.

If we recognize that we are not representing the actual piping system behaviour and that
the calculated loads and stresses are not realistic, why should we respect the design codes?
Simply, because we have done quite well with them in the past! The problem is that many
people who use the piping design codes and analysis packages may believe that the numbers
being generated are representative of real pipe behaviour. While this may be expected in
many other areas of engineering design and stress analysis, it should not be for piping.

Perhaps what this course is trying to achieve is an educated and sceptical piping designer
as an additional margin of safety.


Following the present lecture, the course is broadly divided into six summary lectures over
two days:

The first day deals with the fundamental ideas of piping system design and analysis:

Lecture 2: Basic concepts, such as material allowables, behaviour of pipes under various
loading conditions and design criteria - limit loads, shakedown and fatigue - are recalled.

Lecture 3: The requirements of a representative sample of piping Codes, BS806 ANSI

B31.1 & B31.1 and ASME III & VIII are summarised

Lecture 4: This covers basic concepts of static piping flexibility analysis, the basic analysis
■ assumptions which are made and the methods of analysis which are usually employed
together with a sample computer analysis and a discussion of the reliability of solution.

The second day covers the background to the design codes and the design procedures for
specific components:

Lecture 5: This covers the mechanical behaviour of piping elbows, the main source of
flexibility in design, covering the state of current knowledge and stress analysis together
with an attempt at a rational explanation of their treatment in the Codes.

Lecture 6: (DrDMoffat, Department ofMechanical Engineering, University ofLiverpool):

The difficult and sometimes mysterious behaviour of branch connections are introduced
here for the strong of heart.



Included in the course notes are a collection ofresearch papers (and other documents) which
the authors consider essential background reading. Some will be examined during the
course. The following handbooks should also be in the library of responsible piping

MW Kellog & Co.: "Design of Piping Systems" 2nd Ed, Wiley, 1965

S Kannappan: "Introduction to Pipe Stress Analysis" Wiley, 1986

PR Smith & TJ van-Laan: "Piping & Pipe Support Systems", McGraw-Hill, 1987

Design &■ Analysis of Piping. Systems"


The aim of this Lecture is to summarize several basic concepts from mechanics which are
employed in the various Codes and which will be used in the following lectures. Following
a brief review of basis of a design stress and the mechanics of pipe behaviour underload,
important concepts from the theory ofplasticity - the limit load and the so-called shakedown
load - will be defined. We will also briefly summarise some basic concepts from fatigue
which form the basis of the stress intensification factor which is used in the US Codes.



l.lAllowable stresses

Allowable stresses as specified in the various codes are generally given in terms of certain
characteristic material properties and are typically classified as being either time inde
pendent or time dependent.
' Time independent allowables are related either to the (initial) yield stress or the tensile
. strength as measured in a simple tensile test, Figure 1. The yield stress is the elastic limit,
that is stresses below this value are proportional to strain and when the stresses are
removed there is no permanent distortion of the tensile specimen.


Figure 1: Tensile test in a ductile material

2.1 ifK
The elastic limit is often difficult to determine, especially for ductile materials as shown
in Figure 1, and instead the so-called 0.2% proof stress may be used. The tensile strength
is the highest stress which the specimen can accommodate without failure, Figure 1. Care
is often needed in defining a suitable stress value since at strain levels close to failure the
specimen is either necking or suffering damage so that the simple definition of stress as
load over area needs to be modified.

As we will see later in Lecture 3, ANSI B31.1 uses allowables Sc and Sh which are the
smallest of 1/4 the tensile strength or 5/8 of the yield strength whereas B31.3 uses 1/3 the
tensile strength and 2/3 (and as high as 0.9 for austenitic stainless steels) the yield strength.
BS806 uses a factor of 0.9 or 0.8 on the 0.2% proof stress. However BS806 and ANSI B31.3
(but significantly not ANSI B31.1 and related ASME codes) both also use time dependent
allowables at higher temperatures:

The time dependent allowable is usually related to the creep rupture strength at high
temperature. At temperatures above about 1/3 of the melting temperature most metals
will exhibit creep - that is in a standard tensile test, if the load is kept constant the specimen
will continue to deform with time, as shown in Figure 2.


Figure 2: Standard creep curve

Under constant load the rate of creep strain will decrease initially to a steady state and
later will increase rapidly until the specimen ultimately fails due to creep rupture. These
three phases of creep are usually termed primary, secondary and tertiary. The important
point here is that if creep is present the specimen will fail at most stress levels, but as the
stress level decreases the time to rupture will decrease. Results from many creep tests at
the same temperature but at different (initial) stress levels can be cross plotted as creep
rupture curves giving time to rupture for a given initial stress, Figure 3. However such
Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

jross plots invariably give rise to a high degree of scatter and it is more appropriate to
define scatter bands for a specified rupture time and to use the minimum and average
stresses from this band.

log a,



Jog t R

I Time to rupture

2B H 16 «Q

Log^iime in hoofi

Stress rupture data for S'imonic 80. \, log-iog plot.

Figure 3: Creep rupture curves

ANSI B31.3 thus uses an allowable which is the smaller of the time independent and the
time dependent allowable stress. The time dependent allowable stress is then the smallest
, of 67% of the average stress to cause creep rupture in 100,000 hr, 80% the minimum stress
to cause rupture in 100,000 hr or 100% of the stress to give 0.01% creep rate per hour (that
is, the rate of deformation must also be kept within bounds). BS806 uses a factor of 0.9 on
the mean stress to cause rupture in the design life at the design temperature (or the
minimum stress for sustained loads).

For cyclic loading there is of course another 'time dependent' allowable - related to the
fatigue life. We will leave discussion of this aspect until later since it is the basis of the
oncept of a stress intensification factor.


2.1.2 Plasticity

We have briefly described the fundamental idea of plasticity in the above, deriving the
concept of initial yield, the elastic limit, from a simple tensile test. The concept of plasticity
is not simply that beyond yield the stress and strain are no longer proportional and exhibit
hardening (equal increments of stress give progressively greater increments of plastic
strain) but also the behaviour on unloading. A material is elastic if there is no permanent
deformation (residual strain) on unloading; rubbers are elastic, but the stress and strain
are not proportional (nonlinear), Figure 4.




Figure 4: Nonlinear elasticity

In a material exhibiting plastic behaviour, if a tensile specimen is loaded beyond yield,

unloaded and subsequently reloaded it remains more or less linear elastic up to the previous
highest stress which was reached, Figure 5.

Hence we must be careful to denote the elastic limit as initial yield only.
For engineeringpurposes, althoughit is possible to develop a tensile (uniaxial) stress-strain
relation, usually called nonlinear hardening, to describe the tensile curve one of two sim
plifications is more usually adopted - either bilinear hardening or the hypothetical perfect
plasticity, Figure 6. Perfect plasticity is important in the definition of possible failure
mechanisms for components, in particular it is the basis for the development of a limit load.

Design & Analysis of Piling Systems


Permanent deformation

Figure 5: Plasticity - behaviour on unloading



Figure 6: Models of material behaviour


An engineering description of general plastic behaviour is quite complex: as well as initial

yield it is necessary to develop a suitable multiaxial yield criterion. That is, in a material ]
subject to multiaxial stress, what combinations of stress cause yield to occur ? The simplest
is the maximum principal stress criterion which assumes that yield occurs when the largest «n
principal stress component reaches the experimentally determined yield in tension. j
Although this is largely unrealistic, it is used in some parts of the design codes since it is
simple. The two criteria most found in practice are the Tresca criterion and the von-Mises **
criterion. 1
In the Tresca it is assumed that the value of the maximum principal shear stress governs «i
yield, in the latter it is assumed that it is the value of the root mean square of the principal j
shears. If a!,a2,a3 are the principal stresses, then the principal shears are defined as

G>2 — G3 CT3 —CTi

and the maximum principal shear is

According to the Tresca criterion, yield under multiaxial stress occurs when the maximum
principal shear reaches a critical value. Assuming a uniaxial stress field this implies the

where oy is yield in tension (obtained from tensile tests). The Tresca criterion is inherent
in most of the piping Codes, as we will see. Sometimes the stress intensity, S = 2tmix is used,
so that the Tresca criterion is simply S =Gy. ,

The Tresca and von Mises criteria are shown plotted against some typical biaxial tests in
Figure 7.

Although the von Mises criterion is more accurate, the Tresca criterion is generally con
servative and is thus preferred in design. It is also essentially easier to use when applied
to specific stress sytems.

This of course is only part of the problem; the Tresca and von-Mises criteria are only used
for initial yield - we still face the problem of describing multiaxial plastic behaviour beyond
yield, and for subsequent yield. Thankfully such problems need not be addressed in design.

Design & Analysisof Piping Systems

Figure 7: Multiaxial yield criteria


It is worthwhile at this stage recalling some basic features of the mechanics of pipe
behaviour under pressure, bending and torsion. These will feature in later discussions of
the Codes:

2.2.1 Pressure stress

With reference to Figure 8, it is well known from elementary strength of materials texts,
that the pressure stresses in a long thin pipe under internal pressure are given by

Hoop (circumferential or transverse) stress: <** = 7"

Axial (longitudinal) stress:

where p is internal pressure, r mean radius and t wall thickness. The longitudinal stress
assumes that remotely the pressure gives rise to an axial force (such as with closed ends).

. 2.7.


Figure 8: Pressure stress in thin cylinder

As a simple rule in establishing the thickness of a pipe which must carry a given volume
of fluid at a given pressure (so that and p are prescribed) the maximum stress, a+ in this
case, should be less than the design stress, f,


In fact most Codes are not quite as simple as this:

For a thick pressurised cylinder, Figure 9, Lame's equations give the internal and external
surface hoop stresses as

°*L~ D2-d2


where d is the internal diameter, D the external diameter (D = d + It).

Design & Analysis of Piping: Systems

Figure 9: Pressure stress in thick cylinder

There is also a radial stress such that ar = -p at d, and or = 0 at D (and an axial stress can
be developed as above). The maximum hoop stress is at the inside.

In order to establish the pipe thickness these relations, simplified for thin to moderately
thick pipes, are used together with a Tresca combined stress such that the stress intensity
($ = Tm«x) is limited by the design stress, S </:

The maximum stress intensity occurs at the inside surface

c__, 2pD2

The right hand side may be written as


D2-d2 2 - +1

which can be approximated as

■• ■■
^D/t)« 1, since the second term is negligible. Hence for thin to moderate thickness, the


stress limit is

which may be rearranged as


It is this form which is adopted in BS806 and ANSI B31 (with additional e, or E & Y factors
on design stress and pressure - additional factors of safety, or otherwise, depending on
material or pipe manufacture).

It is to be noted that a Tresca criterion for multiaxial stress is used in the development of
these formulae. *
It may be shown that the maximum hoop stress at the inside can be written as

can be similarly simplified for moderately thick pipes as

which also appears in BS806 and ANSI B31

Without going into too much detail, the longitudinal (axial) stress may be derived as

which is not simplified further.

2.2.2 Torsion stress

The shear stress in a (thick) cylinder under torsion, Mt, Figure 10, can be found from
elementary texts as

M,D M,(d + 2t)


Design & Analysis1 of Piping Systems :


r Figure 10: Torsion stress

For thin tubes this may be simplified to


where r is mean radius, or as

v 2Z

where Z = A t, with A the enclosed area of the pipe centre line (A = wr2), the section modulus.


2.2.3 Bending stress

Engineer's Theory of Bending, or more correctly Euler's Theory of Bending, makes two
simplifying assumptions which capture the essential behaviour of long slender straight or
(solid) curved beams under bending:

• Plane sections remain plane during bending

• The cross section of the beam does not deform during bending

With these assumptions only longitudinal (axial) stress and strain are induced due to
bending. For a long straight pipe under a bending moment M, Figure 11, the longitudinal

stress is given for thin pipes as


while for thick pipes at the outside



or £r


Figure 11: Bending stress

• 2.12 •
Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

Jnder combined bending M{ and Mo, Figure 12, the maximum stress at the outside of a
thick pipe is


Figure 12: Combined bending

2.2.4 Combined stress

A pipe subject to bending moments (in plane and out ofplane), internal pressure and torsion
can result in a fairly complex (but tractable) stress system. The bending gives rise to
.ongitudinal stress, pressure to hoop (transverse) and longitudinal stress and the torsion
to shear stress.

Either of the normal stresses (transverse or longitudinal), denoted by a, must be combined

with the shear stress, x so that the maximum shear can be evaluated

(for example using a classical Mohr circle, Figure 13).


Shear stress

Figure 13: Evaluation of combined stress using Mohr circle

It is this maximum shear which must be limited by the design stress in the piping Codes;
again a Tresca criterion is adopted

vmax — V

or, in terms of combined stress

where the design stress may be derived from yield or proof stress, or tensile strength etc.

Most piping Codes will take as the normal stress the largest of the hoop or longitudinal
stress. Strictly this is an approximation for combined loads, but apparently sufficient for
design. (Most piping analysis software could evaluate combined stress more accurately if
the Codes allowed).

2.2.5 Component flexibility

Unfortunately some important piping components cannot be directly modelled in this way
using simple beam bending theory. In particular a pipe bend is more flexible than an
equivalent curved beam since the cross section does ovalise, Figure 14. ,

Design ■& Analysis of Piping Systems

vcn-Karman Effect

In-plane benaing

Undeformed Deformed

Out of plane bending

Figure 14: Deformation of a pipe bend

This is known as the von-Karman effect - the ovalisation of the cross section leads to
increased flexibility and induces higher, and more complex, longitudinal and hoop stresses.
The additional flexibility of a curved pipe is takeninto account in the Codes using a flexibility
'xctor which is derived from more complex shell analysis. This, and other aspects of the
behaviour of pipe bends, will be examined in more detail in Lecture 5. Of course the stress
levels must also be modified and a stress intensification factor is introduced to factor the
maximum stress to basic beam (bending) stress. Other components also need some special
treatment, such as mitres, branches and expansion joints.

The flexibility factor for a pipe bend is necessary because, as we will see in Lecture 4, the
piping system is being analysed using beam bending theory. The concept of a flexibility
factor is not as simple as it may at first seem; we will examine this later in Lecture 5. The
Codes adopt a fairly simple approach: the essential behaviour of a pipe bend can be described
using a single parameter - the pipe bend parameter or pipe factor. This is usually defined
as, Figure 15,

.■/here R is the bend radius.


Figure 15: Gemetry of a pipe bend

BS806 provides a chart, Figure 16, for the value of the flexibility factor in terms of the pipe

O.OI Q02 0.03 0.05 0.! Q2 0.3 0.5 I 2 3 4 5 10

0.04 0.4

Pipe factor A
Figure 16: BS806 Flexibility factor

2.16 ■ -
Design & Analysis:of PipingSystems :
The ANSI/ASME Codes use a different notation, usually denoting the pipe factor by h, and
have a simple formula for the flexibility factor, k,

K — .

■ Stresses are also modified using a stress intensification factor, usually denoted by i, either
from a chart as in BS806, or from a simple formula, as in ANSI B31.1

r . 0.9

In fact, as will be discussed in Lecture 5, this is rather misleading since in the ANSI Codes
it represents a design factor rather than the true stress in the component.

ANSI B31.3 (and BS806) uses different stress factors (sometimes called i-factors) for in-
plane, ii} and out-of-plane bending, i0 ; then the maximum stress for combined bending in
" a pipe bend is usually taken from the above as


There are essentially three distinct design concepts used in the various piping Codes - the

concepts of a limit load and that of shakedown for cyclic load and fatigue. These concepts
appear either directly in the formulation of the design rules themselves, or in the choice of
various stress multiplication factors for various components. Here the plastic design con

r cepts will be developed:

2.3.1 Limit loads

If some suitable elastic-plastic stress strain relation is specified, such as nonlinear

hardening, itis quite possible to analyse the behaviour ofeven the most complex engineering
component (in particular if finite element techniques are used). However the nonlinear, or
even the bilinear, hardening rules are somewhat unrealistic since they contain no mech
anism of failure - the stress can increase indefinitely, it merely causes larger plastic strain

and distortions. A simple plastic failure mechanism -plastic collapse - is however provided
by the simple perfect plasticity model: stresses above yield are not possible. If a component
is assumed to be made of a perfectly plastic material then it is generally not possible to
continue increasing the load - a limit must be reached when no more stress can be
accommodated and the component collapses. The maximum load which the component can



take is then called the limit load. Limit loads have been calculated for many engineering ,-
components and pressure vessel & piping components; an example is shown in Figure 17
for a nozzle in a cylinder under internal pressure(1).


Figure 17: Example of nozzle limit load

The limit load can thus be used as an indication of gross plastic deformation, and design
should ensure loads significantly less than the theoretical limit load. If the component is
subject to multiple loads then the combination of loads which cause collapse are called a
limit surface:

An important example of a limit surface is given by a simple beam under tension and
bending, which can serve as an elementary model of the bending of a shell wall under
pressure (and other sustained loads). The appropriate limit surface is easily evaluated and
is shown on an interaction diagram, Figure 18.

This interaction diagram can be interpreted in terms of membrane stress and bending stress
and is then replotted as in Figure 19. This diagram provides a simple interpretation of the
ASME Sec.III design by analysis criteria, as shown.

As we will see, limit loads form the basis for design of Class 1 piping in the ASME codes.

(1) - RL Cloud & EC Rodabaugh: Approximate analysis of the plastic limit pressure in nozzles in cylindrica|
shells. Trans ASME, Journ Engng for Power, 171-176, 1968
Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

Shell wa I

Direct Sensing



Figure 18: Interaction diagram for beam in bending & tension


A °r





o 2/3

Figure 19: ASME Design by analysis criteria for primary stress

2.3.2 Shakedown & ratchetting

The concept of a limit load is important when limiting the stresses obtained from sustained 1
loads such as pressure (and deadweight) - the so-called primary stresses. However another
possible failure mechanism associated with the plasticity of components is more significant
in the case of thermal loads (the so-called secondary stresses). Such stresses are usually '
cyclic in nature. If we recall that an important aspect of material plasticity is the behaviour
on unloading, we should realise that cyclic loading can be quite complex. Again our
description of component behaviour for cyclic loads is mostly limited to the assumption of
perfect plasticity. Two concepts are important - that of shakedown and that of ratenetting
(which is what happens if a condition of shakedown is not achieved). In general for cyclic
loading we design for shakedown in order to avoid ratchetting which can lead to incremental

2.20 1
J or cyclic loading shakedown is the condition that after the first cycle ofload, the component
behaviour is purely elastic; some plastic strain does take place in the first cycle but not in
the second or subsequent cycles. The highest load for which we can assure shakedown is
called the shakedown load. This is shown in Figure 20 which represents a load against
(maximum) strain plot for a hypothetical pressurised (or mechanically loaded) component


Shakedown load

shakedown shakedown
load load

Residual strain Ratchetting

Figure 20: Shakedown load

IttfTt^ °btainef,then in each Cycle there is additional plastic strain accu

mulated -tlus behaviour is called ratchetting and should be avoided in design. (It is possible
Jw £ ?«»d of T^T t "f^
the cycle °Tto* zero
it is reduced ****- *thisZem'pla8tic
behaviour is****** doesaverse
known as ^ke
S £??? ^ ^ &tigUe g0VemS the design)- Shakedown loads have also
for nozzles) mEny lmpOrtant engineering components (as in BS5500 Appendix G

Shakedown is the basis for the ASME design rules for secondary stress and directly gives
nse to the well known 3Sm limit (which is equivalent to 2a,). An elementary justification
for this is given in Figure 21. The aim is to keep the elastically calculated stress range to
lfcXwn, * d ttenSUre shakedown=the »ubt»e point about this is the elasticity
calculated stress range - these are fictitious stresses and would not be obtained in practice^
but allow the use of elastically calculated stress as a basis for design



V y £. C R _ U y

Eeo <

ao <2a

Figure 21:ASME Shakedown (secondary stress) criterion

We will see that shakedown considerations have been important in the development of
BS806 and ASME Sec.III Class 1 piping rules.


We have already discussed the principal failure mechanisms which the design codes
attempt to avoid - bursting due to primary stresses and ratchetting due to (cyclic) secondary
stress Another failure mechanism is also dominant - under cyclic load the possibility of
local structural failure due to low cycle fatigue cracking. Low cycle fatigue requires a dif
ferent treatment from the more well established high cycle fatigue which is associated with
rotating equipment; in this case it is the familiar endurance limit which is of significance
in design. Low cycle fatigue is governed by the pea* stress in the component which may be
expected to be in the plastic range. In this case a fatigue life should be specified and design
based upon keeping stress levels below the minimum cyclic stress range required to cause
fatigue in a standard fatigue specimen with a prescribed number of cycles to failure. This
information may be obtained from standard S-N curves, as shown in Figure 22, where the 1
alternating stress SA is usually one half the peak stress.

"2 22 -
Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

log AS
. L- Alternating stress
AS[ —a

Endurance limit

No. cycles to failure

22: Fatigue S-N Diagram

Standard S-N curves assume a constant amplitude, while in practice the stress range may
be expected to vary during the service life. This is dealt with in design by defining use
fraction sums or fatigue damage sums according to the well known Miner's Rule, which
has proven with experience to be acceptable for design purposes.
It is fatigue which is the basis of the stress intensification factors which appear throughout
the US ANSI B31.1 and ASME Sec.III Class 2 & 3 piping rules. Stress intensification
factors for pipework components were introduced in the pioneering paper by ARC Markl
in l7O^

r aS^/aS^1^*1011 faCt°rS (SIF °r i-factors) were first introduced into the ASA (now
[ ANbi/ASME) Code for pressure piping in 1955. These factors were based almost entirely
°?f^fr?fl fatiffUe t6StS by a sma11 team ofTube Turns Co' engineers under the direction
P ofARC Markl, HH George and EC Rodabaugh; they represent the fatigue strength ofpiping
t components relative to the fatigue strength of a typical girth butt weld in a straight pipe
Fewer than 500 full sized components were tested by the Markl team; these components -
welding elbows, mitre bends, reducers, flanged connections and various types of branch
connections - were nearly all 4 inch IPS (NPS) standard weight (4.5in O.D and 0 237in
nominal wall thickness, A106 Grade B material) from the stocks of one supplier. The
[ experimental results for these components were compared to analytical results and
extrapolated to-provide SIF's for a range of geometries ! In fact it has recently been 'dis-


covered' that these extrapolations may not be conservative, particularly for branch con- f
nections. Unfortunately little additional testing has been performed since Markl's tests,
and a new programme has been initiated by ASME.

In the Markl tests, specimens were usually bolted at one end and subject to a fatigue test "1
through loads at the Tree' end in which the displacements were measured; the specimens
were pressurised with water and subject to cycles of load - failure was considered to have
occurred when leakage from a through wall crack was observed. The tests were thus j
essentially ones with 'controlled displacement'. Displacement was converted to an equiv
alent elastic stress and stress amplitude was plotted against number of cycles to failure. «■«
Test data conformed reasonably to the relationship, I

where S is the nominal cyclic stress and N is the number of stress reversals to failure; C
is a material constant (245,000 for carbon steel ASTM A-106 Grade B). An S-N curve for ( 1
the base test on a butt welded straight pipe, where

is shown in Figure 23.

A Controlled

Girth butt weld

4" Standard Wjiqhf Ptoe:
• Wtthvcnc-1! bccfcinq rm;s

o No bac'*i.--q nnqs


Figure 23: Markl's base test on butt welded pipe 1

The stress intensification factor i was thus introduced; it was derived for each component -i
using the following procedure: Figure 24 shows the results from a nominal test on a 90deg j
piping elbow subject to a cyclically applied in-plane end displacement. The cyclic strain

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

isplacement range caused stress to exceed yield in nearly all tests (and was in fact a
necessary element). An equivalent elastic load/stress range, SA, could then be derived - this
is of course fictitious.

load range

Displacement 5

Cyclic displacement

Figure 24: Markl's fatigue tests

^he elastic stress range could then be used to derive an S-N curve, Figure 25 for the
component, which could be plotted together with that for the nominal butt welded straight
pipe. The i-factor is then obtained as

i =

The i-factor thus compares the fatigue strength of the component to that of a (similar)
welded straight pipe as the stress which gives a fatigue failure in the same number of


log S,


Reference test

Component test

log Nf

Figure 25: Derivation of i-factor

Commercial straight pipe without a girth butt weld was also tested as well as polished
bars, but the results were not accurate. Thus it was decided to use the fatigue life of a girth
butt weld as a reference point for all data. Hence an i-factor of 1.0 means that a component
has a fatigue life equivalent to that of a girth butt weld in a straight pipe and it is these
results on which the ANSI codes are based.

It is thus important to emphasis that the i-factors which appear in some Codes are based
on a prediction of fatigue stresses for use with a matching fatigue design curve.

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems


The various codes necessarily contain all the information required in the design including
material specifications, acceptable dimensional standards, rules for the basic pressure
design and rules for the evaluation and limitation of internal stresses as well as end
reactions and movements due to thermal expansion, external forces and pressure, rules for
manufacture (fabrication, assembly and erection) and rules for examination, inspection
and testing. Once the various flexibility analyses are available, the results are applied to
most codes in a selective manner. Here we will briefly summarise the design rules given
in several familiar codes: BS806, ANSI/ASME B31.3, B31.1 and ASME Section III, Sub
section NB. A study of the different approaches to design used in these Codes form a useful
background to piping design and analysis.


The loadings requiring consideration in this Code are sustained loadings (pressure and
deadweight), flexural (thermal expansion) stress and bending stresses caused by external
loads. (BS806 makes no provision for occasional loads such as earthquake, wind etc.; in
practice analysis is carried out using ANSI/ASME B31.1 (Enquiry Case 806/2)). The stress
levels must be calculated for all the various operating conditions both 'cold' and 'hot'.

BS806 is an elegant Code, being fairly straightforward. The principle section of interest
here is Section 4: Design:

A general background to the purpose of the Code is given in Section 4.1 where it is stated
that"... piping installations shall be designed ... to withstand the design pressure at the
design temperature sustained, where relevant, for the design lifetime ...". Interestingly
that "... this section also covers the assessment of stresses arising from the thermal
expansion and deadweight loading of piping systems ..." appears as an added Note.

The following Sections 4.2-4.9 mostly deal with basic pressure design ofvarious components
- straights, bends, branches (and joints and valves). In most cases this is straightforward
being a calculation of minimum thickness:

._ PD
3 2fe+p



p - design pressure v

D - mean outside diameter


f-design stress |

e - a factor «i

The derivation of this formula was discussed in Lecture 2.

This formula is used for straights and bends, but is modified for mitre bends and branches )
with additional factors. The background to mitre bends will not be discussed in this course
but can be found in the commentary by Battle et al(1). Branches will be discussed in Lecture q
6. I
The design stress is outlined in Appendix B of the Code, derived from one of the following: <m

Rn, - the tensile strength at room temperature

Re - the yield (or proof) stress at room temperature

R^t) - the yield stress at temperature T

Siu - the mean stress required to produce rupture in time t at temperature T i

depending on the material and temperature. Essentially the time independent design stress «i
is given as the lower of J

15 Or
JE~~ 1 e
°r -ioc

for temperatures up to 50degC, substituting R^ for temperatures above 150degC with

linear interpolation between in the intermediate range. If specified elevated temperature
values are not available then those for similar materials may be used, except that an(
additional factor of safety, replacing 1.5 by 1.6 should be adopted. For austenitic steels, the
enhanced ductility at elevated temperature allows reduced factors of safety, replacing 1.5
(or 1.6) in the above by 1.35 (or 1.45) and 2.35 by 2.5. Finally the time dependent design
stress is specified as

Once the basic component thicknesses have been evaluated, the pipe run needs to be j
assessed for expansion and deadweight: rules for the calculation and limitation of system
stresses are given in Section 4.11. Flexibility: "j

(1) - K Battle et alThe design ofmitred bends - a background to BS806.1975 ammendmentNo.3. Proc IMechE
Conf on "Pipework Design & Operation", p9, Vol.C22, 1985

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

BS806 is remarkably clear in its aims with regard to flexibility (Section 4.11.1). "... the
pipes shall be arranged so that the system is sufficiently flexible to ensure that the end
reactions, under any operating conditions either hot or cold ... do not exceed ... maximum
values ..." which have been agreed between purchaser and manufacturer (say through
design of attached vessels). "... the pipes shall also be sufficiently flexible to absorb the
whole of its own expansion and that of the connecting equipment without exceeding the...
maximum permitted stresses specified in Section.4.11.2. "... where practicable, the
requisite flexibility shall be provided in the layout of the pipes ...".

There is some subtlety in the above: by inference the connecting equipment are treated as
(rigid) anchors since it should be demonstrated that the whole thermal expansion (modified
by deadweight) be absorbed. This is achieved through flexibility of the pipe layout, but at
the expense ofstress intensification, whose magnitude should be limited. That conventional
flexibility analysis also allows for the expansion of the connecting equipment is a subject
of debate.

It is then stated that"... a flexibility analysis shall be carried out if there is any doubt as
to the ability of the system to satisfy the specified requirements ...". Circumstances where
there is no doubt in this respect have never been clear to the writer in the context of
responsible engineering practice. Requirements for calculating the flexibility are then
listed. Two points are of interest:

Firstly it is required that"... linear and rotational behaviour of connecting equipment shall
be taken into account...". It is not clear to the writer to what extent this requirement is
followed in practice; as will be discussed in Lecture 4 the intent of such a modelling
assumption is clear in that the inclusion oflinear and rotational behaviour can significantly
affect system flexibility and stress levels.

Secondly, it is required that"... flexibility and stress intensification factors for bends and
branches shall be utilised..." and refers to BS806 Figures 4.11.1(1) - 4.11.1(8) (see Lectures
5 & 6). It is not clear here if the Code values have to be used, or if alternative improved
factors can be utilised.

Finally, Sections 4.11.2, 4.11.3 specify the maximum permitted stresses and the method
of calculation of stress levels:

Design is based on the limitation ofan 'equivalent combined stress' from either for straights
and bends,

or for branches,



F - the greater of the transverse stress fT and the longitudinal stress fL being thef
sum of the relevant maximum stresses for pressure and bending,

fB - the (maximum) torsional stress

fB - the transverse pressure stress at a branch junction plus the non-directional

bending stress,

fsB - the torsional stress at the branch,

q - a relaxation factor for hot stress evaluation

For example for straights and bends the pressure stresses are evaluated as,

Jt It

f ~
4t(d + t)

and the bending stress for straights is

while for bends


d - mean inside diameter

t - mean thickness
r - mean radius of pipe
I - second moment of area
p - design pressure
M4 - maximum in-plane moment
Mo - maximum out of plane moment «~

and FrJFTb,FIilFLo are in plane and out of plane stress intensification factors for bends as I
specified in charts.

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

Additional complex formulae are included for mitre bends but are not discussed here.
Branches will be discussed further in Lecture 6.

In general (for straights and smooth bends with modifications for mitres and branches) the
bending stresses are derived from simple beam bending theory for combined load (in and
out ofplane bending and torsion) with factors to account for the elbows (smooth and mitred)
and branches. The effect of loads other than bending and torsion are not considered. It is
to be noted that the maximum pressure and bending stresses are added, and that these
are derived on the basis of an equivalent stress also based on the summation of maximum
stresses. These maxima would not be expected to occur at the same location, so the 'actual'
stress is not being calculated, rather a 'worst case' is derived. Moreover in the calculation
of stress range, it is the range of bending moment from cold to hot condition which must
be used; indeed this calculation can be quite tedious; the words ofAppendix F are significant

" ... the calculation of bending moments and the identification of maxima ... becomes a
lengthy operation.... it is expected that where such systems are required to be analysed
recourse will have to be made to a computer analysis using a program developed to comply
with this standard ..."!!

Three different limits are specified for maximum stress range , maximum hot stress,
if applicable, and sustained stress. The allowables are based on selected material failure
stresses for both the hot and cold conditions and applied to selected loadings - pressure,
thermal expansion, deadweight and cold pull. If applicable the hot stress limits are applied
to all loadings; the stress range limits apply only to pressure and thermal expansion, the
sustained stress limits only to pressure and deadweight. The following permitted stress
levels are given:

(a) Maximum stress range is the lower of

(1) H times the proof stress at room temperature plus H times the proof stress at
design temperature

(2) H times the proof stress at room temperature plus the average stress to rupture
in the design life at the design temperature

where H=0.9 (except for some branch geometries where H=1.0)

(b) Maximum hot stress is the average stress to rupture if (2) above is used

(c) Sustained stress is the lower of 0.8 times the proof stress or the creep rupture
stress (time dependent allowable), with modifications for branches.

Simplifying, except at elevated temperature, the stress range for pressure and thermal
expansion must be limited to 80% of twice yield (recall the shakedown criteria of Lecture
2) and the sustained stress for pressure and deadweight to 80% of yield. At elevated
temperature the creep rupture strength should be taken into account.



Like BS806, ANSI B31.3 Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping Code is fairly
straightforward. It covers pipework in petroleum refineries, chemical plants and natural «
gas plants among others. The loadings considered are pressure, deadweight and thermal j
expansion as well as wind and earthquake loadings at various service levels. The Section
which will be examined here is Chapter II: Design which consists of several parts, in par- -»
ticular: J
• Part 1: Conditions and Criteria which covers Design Conditions {Paragraph 301) «*
and Design Criteria {Paragraph 302). j

• Part 2: Pressure Design of Piping Components which covers, in Paragraph 304 the m,
basic pressure design and calculation ofcomponent minimum thickness for straights, ]
bends, branches etc.

• Part 5: Expansion, Flexibility and Support which covers in particular in Paragraph( J

319 the evaluation of expansion and flexibility stresses.

These will be discussed further below: ]

Paragraph 301 covers the design conditions, defining the temperatures, pressures and
loadings applicable to the design of piping systems. Of particular interest is Paragraph j
301.8 which, like BS806, requires that"... the effects of movements of piping supports,
anchors and connected equipment shall be taken into account ... these movements may
result from the flexibility and/or thermal expansion of equipment, supports or anchors ...". j
Again the extent to which this is done in practice, with the consequent effect on calculated
stresses (as discussed later in Lecture 4 with various assumptions of conservatism) is not «i
clear. J
Paragraph 302 lists the general design criteria, specifically allowable stress levels in 302.3: „
Allowable stresses and other stress limits for metallic piping. With the exception of bolting ]
materials, cast and malleable iron, the basis for the design stress is the lowest of:

1/3 the minimum tensile strength at room temperature J

1/3 the tensile strength at temperature «

2/3 the yield at room temperature

2/3 the yield at temperature "1

100% the average stress for creep rate of 0.01% per lOOOhr

67% the average stress for rupture in 100,000hr ^ I

80% minimum stress for rupture in 100,000hr ~

Again for austenitics, enhanced ductility allows the factor on yield at temperature to rise I
to 90%. For structural grade materials the design stress is reduced further by a factor of
0.92. ]

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

The limits for calculated stresses are then prescribed in Paragraph 302.3.5:

• Pressure stresses are limited through a minimum wall thickness using the appro
priate design stress

• Longitudinal stress, SL, for pressure, deadweight and other sustained loadings shall
not exceed Sj,

• Stress Range, SE, for displacement stress (thermal expansion etc) shall not exceed
the allowable, SA, where


This limit is modified if Sh > SL.

In the above,

Sc = basic allowable stress at minimum (cold) temperature

Sh = basic allowable stress at maximum (hot) temperature

f= stress range reduction factor

The stress range reduction factor is related to the design philosophy of B31.3 - that of yield
(or creep rupture) limited design for pressure and deadweight, and fatigue design for
expansion stresses, as we will see.

Pressure design requirements for various components are given in Paragraph 304. Similar
to BS806, the pressure stress is limited through a minimum wall thickness (with corrosion
allowance) - the pressure design thickness for a straight pipe is

I 2(SE+PY)

P where

S - design stress
r E - quality factor (tabulated in Code)
*• P - pressure

p although the simpler and more obvious form



may also be used (or indeed Lame's equations, Lecture 2). The factor Y is tabulated
depending on material, geometry and temperature varying from 0.4 to 0.7 over a tem
perature range for ferritic and austenitic steels (it is discussed in Lecture 2).

The minimum thickness for pipe bends is taken to be the same as for straights, while
additional rules are given for mitre bends and branches.


The evaluation of longitudinal stress for sustained loads, and stress range, SE, for thermal
expansion is developed in Part 5, in particular Paragraph 319 which provides "... concepts,
data and methods for determining the requirements for flexibility in a metallic piping
system..." These requirements are that"... the computed stress range shall not exceed the
allowable stress range ..., that reaction forces ... shall not be detrimental to ... connected
equipment...". The aim of the design rules is that"... piping systems shall have sufficient
flexibility to prevent thermal expansion ... from causing ... failure of piping ... leakage, or
... detrimental stresses or distortion ...".

Various terms are defined in Paragraphs 319.2: Concepts and Paragraph 319.3: Properties
for Flexibility Analysis. The most interesting is Paragraph 319.3.6: Flexibility and Stress
Intensification Factors:"... in the absence of more directly applicable data, the flexibility
factor k and stress intensification factor shown in Appendix D, shall be used in flexibility
calculations ...". That is, apparently unlike BS806, better values may be used if available
(and they are!).

Paragraph 319.4 covers analysis methods. Formal flexibility analysis can be avoided underC
certain conditions, otherwise can be carried out using "... simplified, approximate or
comprehensive ..." methods; more of this in Lecture 4. The flexibility analysis provides
in-plane, Mj, .and out-of-plane, Mo, moments which are used to evaluate the "... computed
displacement stress range, SE ..."

where Sb is the bending stress

and St is the torsional stress

where Mt is the torsional moment, Z the section modulus of the pipe cross section and ij, io
the in-plane and out-of-plane stress intensification factors for elbows, mitres etc. Again
branches are treated slightly differently.

The stress combination is similar to BS806. However the most interesting feature is that
the evaluation of longitudinal stress for sustained loads is not detailed. Only bending
moments are used in the stress calculations.

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems


The Power Piping Code B3.1.1 is similar to B31.3 in the use of i-factors etc, but does not
use combined stress or time dependent allowables but more specific rules are given for
sustained (and occasional) loads:

The loadings requiring consideration in this Code are sustained loadings (pressure and
weight), occasional loadings (wind and earthquake when applicable), vibration and thermal

Stresses due to sustained loadings:

PD0 Q.75iMA
~4/~~+ Z " ' *

Stresses due to occasional loadings:

. 0J5iMB ^ , „

Stresses range due to expansion loadings:


where, in the above,

P = design pressure
Do = outside pipe diameter
tn = nominal wall thickness
Z = section modulus
i = stress intensification factor for component
MA = section bending moment due to sustained loads
MB = section bending moment due to occasional loads
Me = range of bending moments due to thermal expansion
SL = calculated sustained stress
k = occasional load operating factor
f = stress range reduction factor for cyclic conditions

together with the allowables

Sh = basic material allowable at maximum temperature

SA = allowable stress range for expansion stress


Sc = basic material allowable for minimum (cold) temperature


The Code allowables are derived from selected material failure stresses depending on thef
temperature (Lecture 2). The main point again, as in BS806 and B31.3, is that the design
stresses used are essentially based on simple beam bending stresses alone, with modification
factors for certain components (such as pipe bends, mitres, branches etc); the basis for these
modifications will be examined in Lectures 5 and 6. There is no combination of stresses for
different sectional loading, and no consideration of stress other than longitudinal stress !
For bends, no distinction is made between in-plane and out-of-plane moments (the same
stress intensification factors are used).


Finally it is instructive to examine the rules developed from the ASME III nuclear design
Code, as this represents a fairly significant departure in philosophy from the conventional
US B31 approach. As will be seen later, the philosophy is similar to BS806 in design intent. ^ • j
The ASME nuclear design by analysis code provides different design rules for what it calls
Class 1 and Class 2 and 3 components. The rules for Class 2 are essentially modifications
(based on the approach used for Class 1 components) to those of ANSI/ASME B31.1 and
most Class 3 components are treated as Class 2 for design purposes. The rules for Class 1
components are a special modification of the ASME design by analysis philosophy for
pipework. This philosophy separates component stresses into two types - primary and
secondary. Primary stresses arise from pressure or sustained loading and can directly lead -
to catastrophic or burst type loading; secondary stresses arise from thermal and many ]
other loadings and can lead to ratchetting, distortion or fatigue failure. A specific procedure
is laid down in the ASME Code, with different limits for primary and secondary stresses -i
(since they are dealing with different failure mechanisms) requiring the calculation ofstress |
intensities, which are related to maximum principal shear stress, for each stress category.
This procedure has been modified for piping to account for the traditional techniques of "1
flexibility analysis. The stress rules which must be satisfied are:

Primary stress intensity:


Primary plus secondary stress intensity:



Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

P = design pressure
Po = range of service pressure
t = nominal wall thickness
I = second moment of area (moment of inertia)
Ta,Tb = range of average temperature for gross structural discontinuity
aab = coefficients of thermal expansion at gross structural discontinuity
Eab = average modulus of elasticity at gross structural discontinuity
Mj = section bending moment or range (for secondary rule)
BltB2 = primary component stress indices
C1,C2,C3 = secondary component stress indices

with allowables

Sm = allowable for primary stress

k = factor for load service levels

with additional rules if the latter rule is not met for all load cases at a gross structural
discontinuity. Rules for separate fatigue design are also specified.

The stress indices are specified for each component (elbow, branch etc) and, it must be noted
at this stage, are essentially different from those of the related ANSI B31.1 being based
on an entirely different design philosophy (ANSI B31.1 being based on fatigue, ASME Sec
III NB being based on maximum elastic stress or limit stress). Again only longitudinal
bending stresses are considered, even though the main ASME rules do allow for more
complex calculated stress. It will become clear later that here special modification to the
design by analysis rules has been made for the information which can be obtained from
conventional piping flexibility analysis !

\- ' >* \ OVERVIEW OF PIPING QbDESt:;;^i;;/:-;


Design & Analysis of Piping Systems .


It is the purpose of this Lecture to describe the basis offlexibility analysis of piping systems
for static loads. To the experienced pipework designer this may seem rather routine;
however in almost all such analyses several simplifying assumptions are introduced. These
assumptions not only make the analysis more straightforward, but also have a significant
effect on the treatment of many piping components, such as bends and branches, both in
analysis and in design.

Following a brief summary of the need for a flexibility analysis, the mechanical basis of
the various simplifying assumptions are described. The two most common analysis pro
cedures are then described - one based on the use of energy methods of structural analysis
and the other based on matrix displacement or finite element techniques. Following this
modern computer analysis of piping systems is discussed.


To begin with, it is worthwhile reminding ourselves of the need for flexibility in a pipework

For the most part in this lecture we will be dealing with the analysis of piping expansion
stresses. Traditionally stress analysis for other loads, in particular sustained stresses such
as deadweight, could be quite adequately carried out using manual methods and the
emphasis was on support design. The problem was with the calculation of thermal
expansion stresses and, as we shall see later, many ingenious techniques were developed
to allow this calculation. However, the availability of computer based structural analysis
rendered this analysis rather straightforward and also allowed analysis for sustained
stress. Although we will describe here the basis for such structural analysis, we will spe
cifically only look at the flexibility analysis for thermal expansion, without going into any
detail on the inclusion of sustained stress in the analysis.

So, why is flexibility analysis necessary ? It is to be recalled that a good design aims at
keeping the pipe stresses and end reactions within certain specified allowables. As pipework
undergoes a temperature rise, thermal strains are induced according to the well known

If the ends of the pipe are restrained then a thermal stress is induced, giving rise to end
reactions on the restraints. As an example of a stiff system, Figure 1, the force developed
in a lOin. sch 40 carbon steel pipe A53 Grade B subjected to 200degF from an installation
temperature of 70degF is 273,9081b !

Flexible piping

Figure 1: Thermal expansion of a stiff system

In order to reduce these end reactions (and internal pipe stresses) it is necessary to introduce
some flexibility into the system to absorb the thermal expansion strain. Basically this is
achieved through changes in direction ofthe pipe run either using expansion loops or simply
by re-routing (or by using expansion or other joints), Figure 2.

All design codes have recognised this need and specifically require the reduction ofthermal
expansion stresses, although they differ as to the mechanical basis for the design stress,
as we will see later. Codes also differ on the need for flexibility analysis. For example BS806
specifies that:

"... a flexibility analysis is required if there is any doubt as to the ability of the system to
satisfy the specified requirements..."

This helpful statement is similar to early versions of B31.1 (1942):

"... formal calculation shall be required only where reasonable doubt exists as to the
adequate flexibility of the system..."

The current version of B31.1 specifies a flexibility analysis unless certain conditions are

"... it shall be the designer's responsibility to perform an analysis unless the system meets
one of the following... all systems not meeting the above criteria or where reasonable doubt
exists as to the adequate flexibility of the system, shall be analysed by simplified, 1
approximate or comprehensive methods of analysis ..."

4.2 •
Design & Analysis of Piping Systems



Expansion joint


Figure 2: Flexible piping systems


The basic design philosophy is to calculate stresses in each component and compare these^
and anchor reactions to given allowables for given materials and temperatures. The stress
levels in each component are derived from the forces and bending moments calculated to
be acting on it from the flexibility analysis according to procedures specified in the Code.

To meet this need a whole piping design and analysis industry has developed. Many piping
analysis packages are available, varying in degrees of sophistication, ranging from the well
established mainframe/mini computer based systems to the newer pc based systems. While
the different packages have different capabilities, such as CADD, bills of materials data
bases etc., most will aim to do the basic flexibility and sustained load calculations with a
code assessment. In this respect they are all similar, adopting one of two related structural
analysis techniques. Essentially for the purposes of a force analysis, a complex piping
system is considered as an assembly of simple beams. The piping system is then treated
as a framework in order to calculate the forces on each component. Once the forces on each
component are found engineer's theory of bending is used to calculate direct and bending
stresses. f


How do we do the flexibility analysis ? In principle any convenient structural analysis

method for space frames may be used - the Theorem of Minimum Potential Energy,
Castigliano's Theorem, the Unit Load Method, the Matrix Displacement or Force Methods
and so on. Here we will look at two specific methods, on which most commercial piping
analysis packages are usually based:

• Classical energy methods

• Matrix displacement, or finite element, methods

The aim is to clarify certain important similarities and differences between the two tech

4.2.1 Energy Methods '


Consider the simple planar piping elbow shown in Figure 3 consisting of two straight pipes
of lengths Lx and L2 attached to a 90deg pipe bend of radius R. The elbow is fixed at one
end, A, as shown and can have applied in-plane deflections 8x,8y and rotation yg. «



Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

Figure 3: Example piping system

To analyse this we assume linear elastic material behaviour and use an energy method to
evaluate the in-plane forces Fx , Fy and ^ at B.

For simplicity, assuming only bending to be significant (this is a reasonable assumption

here), the strain energy is given by

where M(s) is the in-plane bending moment acting at some point along the elbow axis and
s represents a measure of distance along the pipe axis.


This expression for strain energy requires some modification for the pipe bend; since it is (
more flexible its strain energy is higher than would be expected from simple engineer's
theory of bending. This additional strain energy is given by the flexibility factor defined
in Lecture 2. If we introduce the flexibility factor as the ratio of the end rotation of the bend
to that of an equivalent straight pipe, then the strain energy due to bending of the bend
should be multiplied by the flexibility factor.

With reference to Figure 3, the strain energy can be written as,

where u, v and 0 measure distance along the straights and angle around the bend I

In the straight pipe of length Ll we have,

whereas in the straight of length L2,


and in the bend

M =- I

We may then use Castigliano's theorem (or indeed Unit Load) to relate the forces and

S 5 y
"~dF, y dFy '' dM,

If all the appropriate substitutions, integrations and differentiations are carried through
then the following relation is obtained in matrix form

where we have defined, in matrix notation

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

and where the 3x3 symmetric flexibility matrix [K] = (l/EI){Ky} is given by:

Thus ifthe thermal expansion displacements are given at end B then the resulting reactions
can be found by solving the above matrix equation. Then by equilibrium the forces acting
on each component (straight, bend or straight) can be evaluated.

The above method can be easily extended to deal with any number ofbranches and anchors
and to include thermal strains and even deadweight. It is in fact the basis of the well known
General Analytical Method of the MW Kellogg Co. It was first derived in full by HV
Wallstrom, DB Rossheim, ARC Markl and E Slezak in 1941; this paper is generally
considered to be the first comprehensive treatment of the flexibility analysis of a piping
system and indeed is still valuable for piping engineers. This approach was later formulated
for computer solution by JE Brock in 1952, although as in most of Brock's work, it is fairly
hard going.

Historically specialised simplified techniques were developed to analyse, or simply size,

piping systems. Indeed some of the very simple methods are still used today, such as the
guided cantilever method and in particular the ANSI criteria for need for analysis:

DY <0.03

where D is the nominal pipe size, Y the resultant of (thermal and anchor) movements, L
the developed (total) length and U the distance between anchors, assuming no more than
two anchors.


To a certain extent tabulated solutions such as the Kellog expansion loop formulae or ITTf
Grinnell's Piping Design and Engineering charts are still valuable in appropriate cir
cumstances; for example a complete worked example using the Grinnell charts is given in
Problem 5.7 of Smith and van Laan's book.

However most of the manual solution methods which were developed in the years from
1920 to 1956 have largely disappeared. They were mostly routine procedures developed
using charts and tables which could be easily documented and checked; nevertheless they
were based upon the simple but sound mechanical principles described above. Worth
mentioning are: Flex-Anal Charts ("Design of Piping for Flexibility with Flex-Anal Charts"
by A Wert & S Smith, Blaw-Knox Co. 1940), the Grapho-Analytical Method ("Methods of
making piping flexibility Analyses" in "Heating, Piping & Air-Conditioning", 1946 - an
example is given in Chap 12 of E Holmes textbook), SpielvogaVs (Elastic Centre) Method
("Piping Stress Calculations Simplified" SW Spielvogal, published by the author, 1951)
and the General Analytical Method ("Design ofPiping Systems" MW Kellogg Co. 1956,1964)
among numerous others. The professional computer oriented piping designer/analyst would!
do well to re-examine some of these techniques.

4.2.2 Matrix Displacement & Finite Element Methods

Many major piping analysis packages have changed over to a finite element formulation
since it offers several advantages; the main advantage however lies in future procedures
for piping analysis - these are discussed later.

The formulation which we will give here is not a true finite element formulation since we
will avoid a discussion of the main feature of the finite element method - displacement
interpolation. Instead we are more properly describing the matrix displacement method
for structures. For beam structures the two formulations - finite element or matrix dis
placement - give identical results. Finite element theory goes further. I

In the present case the piping elbow of Figure 3 is modelled using three simple elements -
two straight pipe elements and one curved pipe element. Each of these elements has a node
at each end, as shown in Figure 4. Each straight pipe element has a node in common with
the curved pipe element; the complete piping elbow thus has four nodes as shown.

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems



Figure 4: Finite element model of example system

The basis of the finite element method is that the behaviour of each element is entirely
given in terms of the displacments and forces at its nodes. Thus if some element is ter
minated by nodes i and j then it is possible to write a global element stiffness matrix in the
partitioned form

KJ Kji
F: A.

where the displacements and forces at node i are denoted by,

F =(F- F M )

in the global coordinate system (x,y).

The global element stiffness matrix may be derived using several different techniques, such
as an energy method or unit load. In the finite element method displacement interpolation
is used: the displacment within the element is interpolated in terms of the displacements
at the nodes. In the theory ofcontinuous beams using Euler's Theory the deformed geometry

is completely described in terms ofthe displacement from the beam axis, v(x), which is related
to the bending moment at any point on the axis, Figure 5 for a straight pipe, by the familiar

d2v _ M{x)
dx2~ El


Figure 5: Displacement interpolation of a continous beam

The displacement v(x) may then be conveniently represented by a cubic polynomial

The coefficients a,b,c and d can be directly related to the nodal displacements. Finally the
inverse form ofCastigliano's Theorem can be used to derive the preceding relations between
nodal forces and displacements.

The stiffness matrix for straight or curved beams is normally given in terms of a local
coordinate system, Figure 6, which is the same for all components of the same material and

Design ^Analysis of Piping Systems


Global coordinate system

Figure 6: Global & Local pipe coordinate systems

be related global element

— rxi7*

tranformation ™*i* at node i. Transformation matrices are

i tStraight and cur7ed P^6 are &™in ^e Paper by
. Agam m the case ofthe curved pipe a flexibility factor has been
used in the energy expressions in a manner similar to the above.
The basic procedure is then as follows:

• The system geometry is specified: number of nodes and elements, location of each
node and which nodes are attached to which elements. Section properties (thickness,
radius, bend radius etc) and material properties are also specified.
• The local element stiffness matrix is formed for each element, Mowed by the
appropriate transformation matrices. These are combined as in the above to form
the global element stiffness matrix.

The next stage is to assemble eachglobal element stiffness matrix as developed above {
into a global stiffness matrix for the complete structure - the piping elbow in this
case. This is done by requiring that at nodes common to two elements the dis-
placements for each element at that common node are the same and also by requiring
that the nodal forces from each element at that node are in equilibrium with each
other (and any externally applied loads). The assembly process leads to the global
stiffness relation,

where in the present example A contains the twelve nodal displacements and F I
contains the twelve possible nodal forces.

• The boundary conditions are specified. Usually the anchors are fixed, as at Node 1 I
in the present example.

• Finally any applied forces or moments are specified; in the present example forces { I
are specified at Node 4.

• There results a matrix equation for the unknown nodal displacements, which may |
be solved using the usual matrix reduction techniques.

• Given the nodal displacements for each element the element stiffness matrix can be |
used to evaluate the nodal forces and moments for each component.

• Then using Code specified stress indices or factors, and engineer's theory ofbending, |
the appropriate component stresses may be found and compared to the Code allow
ables. ""I

This method of analysis, in the form of the matrix displacement method using stiffness
matrices, first seems to have been suggested by LH Chen in 1959. It is now possible to «
contrast the general analytical method with the finite element method. For beam structures |
both should yield identical results since both are wholly based on applications of energy
methods to engineer's theory of bending. However the general analytical method solves for ( *j
the unknown anchor reactions while the finite element method solves for the unknown j
nodal displacements. Obviously there can be a much greater number ofnodes than anchors
in a piping system so that the finite element method leads to larger equations with more "1
unknowns. So why is it to be preferred ? Simply, it is a more general technique which can J
be easily (!) extended to different analysis types (for example dynamic) and, as we shall
see, to include different element types. In particular special ovalising pipe bend elements, |
which are more general and which avoid the need for simplified flexibility factors, can be
formulated and included in the same solution procedure. ^

The reader should appreciate that the procedure for flexibility analysis described above is
quite straightforward. Even for a complex three dimensional system the same procedure
is used. In addition to straights and bends, it is also necessary to include tees, hangers,
supports etc. These are simply modelled using either simple spring or bar elements (as in «
the case of hangers and supports), rigid elements (as for valves) or as three noded rigid )
connections (as for tees, but some flexibility can be included). Appropriate local element y
Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

stiffness matrices and transformation matrices are formed and the whole problem
assembled. Boundary conditions are specified. Piping forces, such as thermal expansion,
deadweight etc, are transformed to element nodal forces using equilibrium considerations
and so on. The basic mechanics involved in this is really very simple, requiring no advanced
concepts. In fact computer coding ofthe basic procedure: formation (from an element library)
of element stiffness matrices, formation of transformation matrices and global element
stiffness matrices, assembly, application of boundary conditions and forces and solution
for unkown nodal displacements and finally element forces and stresses is very simple.
Commercial piping analysis software use no more complex procedures. The main program
design relates to problem specification (pre-processing) and post-processing to various


Computer technology has had no less of an influence on piping analysis than elsewhere.
Indeed piping stress analysis was one ofthe very first non-military engineering applications
to be programmed for the new digital computers in the early Fifties ("The solution of pipe
expansion problems by punched card machines" by LH Johnson ASME Paper 53-F-23) and
represented some of the first commercially available engineering software outside the
proprietory IBM business database applications. Particular mention is given to the MW
Kellogg Piping Program, 1955, the Blaw-Knox/AD Little program, 1956 and the MEC-21,
Marc Island Naval Shipyard program, 1959. During the 1970's many familiar commercial
piping analysis programs were developed for mainframe computers which are still in use
today - PSA5, PIPESTRESS, ADLPIPE, DYNAFLEX and so on. These programs largely
developed as special purpose software separate from the main stream of finite element
software as they offered an understanding ofpiping Code peculiarities providing a complete
design, analysis and Code assessment. The analysis could of course also be done (with
essentially the same results) using conventional commercial finite element software which
includes curved pipe elements (that is with flexibility factors), such as ANSYS (which in
fact includes a special piping pre and post processing module), NASTRAN and several
others. Finite element software has usually been more versatile and efficient using state
of the art analysis and graphics techniques. In order to compete most specialised pipework
software has had to include more specialised piping specific pre and post processing - at
the risk of much protest, it is fair to say that most of this is purely cosmetic. To develop a
(static) piping analysis program it is only necessary to adapt well documented public domain
finite element matrix handling and solution algorithms to include straight pipe elements,
curved beam elements, three noded branch elements and a variety of spring and beam
elements for supports, hangers, valves etc, the stiffness matrices for which are readily
available. The evidence for this can be seen in the large amount of software appearing for
personal computers !

It is common now for many routine piping analysis and design to be made using PC based
software. There are several of these available, the most common being CAESAR, PSA5
CAEPIPE, SUPERPIPE, AUTOPIPE and about a dozen more.

It is useful to look at an example:


The software system which will be used here is CAEPIPE from SST Systems, Sunnyvale^
California. CAEPIPE, as well as being a fairly complete static and dynamic piping analysis
system which can handle a wide variety of worldwide Codes, is a useful system to learn
and demonstrate piping analysis and design (a full feature static demo version, with limited
problem size is available). The problem to be examined here is taken from the user's manual.

The sample problem is shown in Figure 7.

6" Std pipe

Carbon steel

Calcium Silicate insulation. 2" Ihk

200 psi. 6C0 F

Contents specific gravity = 0.3


50 Specified displacement : Y = 0.5"

Figure 7: Sample piping system

This system consists of a simple three branch three dimensional system with a common,
junction supported by a single hanger with three anchors, which are assumed rigid. There
is one standard long radius bend, one non standard 18" bend and a valve. The main run is
6" standard pipe, with one branch of 8" Sch 80 pipe; there is 2" thick Calcium Silicate
insulation. The material is carbon steel. The fluid contents is at 200psi at 600degF, with
a specific gravity of 0.8. A specified displacement at one anchor of 0.5" is also specified.
Wind loading is specified. Finally the system is to be assessed to B31.3.

The CAEPIPE system will run on the most basic IBM compatible PC, preferably with a
hard disc and is fairly simple to use, having an excellent user interface which uses a series
of input screens. Instant graphics are also included. The input screens and graphics can
be navigated using the PC keyboard function keys, cursor keys and numeric keypad; the
(Eac] key is used to toggle between graphics and input screen while the numeric keypad can
be used to move the model and zoom. Sufficient information is given on screen to follow
this without a manual; much use is made of the !S9 key combinations.


Design & Analysis ofPiping Systems

Once CAEPIPE has started the user is presented with the Main Menu:

Version 3.25

F2 - Analyze
F3 - Output
F4 - Directory
F5 - Databases
F6 - Setup


Alt X - Exit


This gives various options, but here the function key ® is used to generate a new model, (
which gives an input screen to specify the problem title and select various options. In this
case the title "Sample problem" can be used.



Sample Problem_

Piping layout
F2 - Piping code = B31.1
F3 - Reference temperature = 70 (F) <3^

F4 - Options
F5 - Q A block
Alt X - Exit

From most screens use : Alt U for units menu

Alt P for graphics menu
Esc for graphics screen


Design & Analysis ofPiping Systems

The piping code is selected using the @D key, then 2D to select B31.3. Then (fio) is used to
return to the Title Screen.

Piping Code

Fl - ANSI/ASME B31.1 (1986) Alt Fl - RCC-M (1985)

F2 - USAS B31.]L (1967) Alt F2 - Swedish (1978)

F3 - ANSI/ASME B31.3 (1987) Alt F3 - STOOMWEZEN (1978)

F4 - ANSI/ASME B31.4 (1986) Alt F4 - Norwegian (1983)

F5 - ANSI/ASME B31.8 (1982) Alt F5 - BS 806 (1986)

F6 - ASME Section III (1980)

F7 - ASME Section III (1986)

FIO - Return



At this stage the model needs to be developed. This is done on the main Layout Screen, /
which is entered using the r~>*

Number of elements = 0 # 1 Units :

From _ To Type DX DY DZ

Material =

Nominal OD = Schedule = OD = Thickness =

Corrosion allowance = Mill tolerance (1i) =

Insulation type = Insulation density = Insulation thk =

Pressure = Temperature = 70

Specific gravity = Additional weight Wind load(y/n) =

Fl-Help F2-Material F3-Supports F4-SIF F5-Loads F6-Cmass F9-Flange Alt O-Other

Enter Alt M-Modify(l) Alt D-Delete F7-Previous Alt J-Go to

Alt E-Edit Alt A-Modify{*) Alt S-Split F8-Next FlO-Return


Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

Before proceeding it is necessary to select the material to be used: form the Layout Screen
use ED to access the Material Properties screen.

Number of materials = 0 Material Properties Units :

Mat. number = _ Description : Type =

Density = Nu = Joint factor = Tensile str =

Temp E Alfa Allow.str Yield str Rupt.str

«—' Enter

Alt M-Modify

Alt D-Delete





4.19 : ..

In CAEPIPE a material database for B31.3 can be used; this is selected using the (fi) key. {
The cursor keys select the material. Here the first material, Carbon steel, Carbon < 0.3%,
is highlighted and may be selected using the [Enter] key.

Name : B313
Material Database

Carbon steel, Carbon <= 0.3 %

Use Carbon steel, Carbon > 0.3 %

cursor keys, Carbon Molybdenum steel


PgUp, PgDn, Low chrome moly steel

Home and End Intermediate Chrome Moly Steel

to select Austenitic Stainless steel

material. Straight Chromium Steel

25% Chrome, 20% Ni (Type 310)

<—' Retrieve F10 - Return



Design & Analysis ofPiping Systems

(Other material databases are available and can be specified at the Main Menu). The
material properties are retrieved:


Number of materials = 0 Material Properties Units :

r Mat. number = _ Descriptiori : Carbon steel, Carbon <= 0.3 % Type = CS

Density = 0.2841 Nu = 0.292 Joint factor =1.00 Tensile str = 60000

Temp E Alfa Allow.str Yield str Rupt.str

r 70
20000 «—1 Enter
300 27.40E+6 6.600E-6 20000
400 27.00E+6 6.820E-6 20000 Alt M-Modify
500 26.40E+6 7.020E-6 18900
600 25.70E+6 7.230E-6 17300 Alt D-Delete
700 24.80E+6 7.440E-6 16500
800 23.40E+6 7.650E-6 10800 Fl-Database
900 18.50E+6 7.840E-6 6500
1000 15.40E+6 7.970E-6 2500 F7-Previous
1100 13.00E+6 8.120E-6 1000



This material properties table will be denoted Mat. number 1; using the cursor keys (
highlight this field and type 1 and press [Enter]; finally press (fw) to return to the Layout
screen shown above.

The Layout screen is used to specify the beginning and end nodes (From and To) of the
elements (at the outset this is shown as element #1 at the centre ofthe top line of the screen)
and the distance of From node to the To node with respect to the chosen coordinate system
in terms of distances DX, DY and DZ. If the To node is a bend this may be specified, with
an optional bend radius for non standard components. For this component the material
(Mat. Num 1 in this case), the pipe size, insulation, pressure, contents specific gravity and
temperature are specified. These input fields can be navigated using the cursor keys (or
Tab keys).

Nodes are labelled as in Figure 7; in fact only 8 nodes are required to build the model in
this example - numbered from 10 thro 80. It is assumed that node 10 is at the origin of the
coordinate system at one anchor; the orientation of the coordinate system is as shown - this
is entirely arbitrary. The From and To nodes should be filled in in the Layout screen. At {
node 20 there is a standard bend; in the Type field, type B for a bend. The distance from '~
node 10 to node 20 is DX=9ft, DY=0, DZ=0. Units are in American standard by default,
and ft-in are taken care of automatically; they can be immediately changed to SI using the
(Ah)(u) key combination. Using the cursor keys skip to the Material field, input 1 for material,
then below to the section properties field, input 6 for the nominal OD and std for schedule;
the actual OD and thickness are automatically derived. The rest of the fields are input in
a similar manner and shown below:


Number of elements = 7 # 1 Units :

From 10 To 20 Type fiend DX 9'0" DY DZ

Bend radius
Node at
angle =
Bend thickness = Miter cuts =
Node at angle =

Material = 1 Carbon steel, Carbon <= 0.3 % 1

Nominal OD = 8 Schedule = 80 OD = 8.625 Thickness = 0.500

Corrosion allowance = 0.000 Mill tolerance (%) = 0.0

Insulation type = CS Insulation density =11.0 Insulation thk = 2.000

Pressure 200 Temperature = 600

Specific gravity = 0.800 Additional weight = Wind load(y/n)

Fl-Help F2-Material F3-Supports F4-SIF F5-Loads F6-Cmass F9-Flange Alt O-Other

«—' Enter Alt M-Modify(l) Alt D-Delete F7-Previous

J-Go to 1
Alt E-Edit Alt A-Modify(*) Alt S-Split

4.22 . •

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems -

Pressing the 0 key inputs the first element to the database. The element number changes
to #2 and the From field changes to node 20; the To node automatically changes to 30 based
on past history; a different node number can be used. The screens for element no.2 to
element no.7 are shown:


Number of elements = 7 # 2 Units :

From 20 To 30 Type __ DX DY DZ 6'0"

Cut short

Material = 1 Carbon steel, Carbon <= 0.3 %

Nominal OD = 8 Schedule = 80 OD = 8.625 Thickness = 0.500

Corrosion allowance = 0.000 Mill tolerance <%) =0.0

Insulation type = CS Insulation density =11.0 Insulation thk = 2.000

Pressure = 200 Temperature = 600

Specific gravity = 0.800 Additional weight = Wind load(y/n) = y

Fl-Help F2-Material F3-Supports F4-SIF F5-Loads F6-Cmass F9-Flange Alt O-Other

Enter Alt M-Modify(l) Alt D-Delete F7-Previous Alt J-Go to

Alt E-Edit Alt A-Modify(*) Alt S-Split F8-Next FlO-Return



Number of elements = 7 # 3 Units :

From 30 To 40 Type fiend DX DY DZ 6'0"

Bend radius = 18.000 Bend thickness Miter cuts

Node at angle =
Node at angle =

Material = 1 : Carbon steel, Carbon <= 0.3 %


Nominal OD = 8 Schedule = 80 OD = 8.625 Thickness = 0.500

Corrosion allowance = 0.000 Mill tolerance (%) = 0.0

Insulation type = CS Insulation density =11.0 Insulation thk = 2.000

Pressure = 200 Temperature = 600

Specific gravity = 0.800 Additional weight = Wind load(y/n) = y

F9-Flange Alt O-Other

Fl-Help F2-Material F3-Supports F4-SIF F5-Loads F6-Cmass

«-J Enter" Alt M-Modify(l) Alt D-Delete F7-Previous Alt J-Go to

Alt E-Edit Alt A-Modify(*) Alt S-Split F8-Next FlO-Return


Number of elements = 7 # 4 Units :

DX DY -6'0' DZ
From 40 To 50 Type _

Cut short =

Material Carbon steel, Carbon <= 0.3 %

Schedule = 80 OD = 8.625 Thickness = 0.500

Nominal OD = 8

Corrosion allowance = 0.000 Mill tolerance (%) = 0.0

Insulation type = CS Insulation density =11.0 Insulation thk = 2.000

Pressure = 200 Temperature = 600

Specific gravity = 0.800 Additional weight Wind load(y/n)

F3-Supports F4-SIF F5-Loads F6-Cmass F9-Flange Alt O-Other

Fl-Help F2-Material

Enter Alt M-Modify(l) Alt D-Delete F7-Previous Alt J-Go to

Alt A-Modify{*) Alt S-Split F8-Next FlO-Return

Alt E-Edit


Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

Number of elements = 7 # 5 Units

From 30 To 60 Type _ DX 6'0" DY DZ

Cut short =

Material : Carbon steel, Carbon <= 0.3 %

Nominal OD " Schedule = STD OD = 6.625 Thickness = 0.280

Corrosion allowance = 0.000 Mill tolerance (%) =0.0

Insulation type = CS Insulation density =11.0 Insulation thk = 2.000

Pressure = 200 Temperature = 600

Specific gravity = 0.800 Additional weight = Wind load(y/n)

Fl-Help F2-Material F3-Supports F4-SIF F5-Loads F6-Cmass F9-Flange Alt O-Other

Enter' Alt M-Modify(l) Alt D-Delete F7-Previous Alt J-Go to

Alt E-Edit Alt A-Modify(*) Alt S-Split F8-Next FlO-Return

Number of elements = 7 # 6 Units :

From 60 To 70 Type DX 2'0" DY DZ

Weight =200
Alt L-Library
Thickness X = 3.00 Insulation weight X = 1.75
Add. Weight = 50 Offsets : DX = 0.000 DY = 18.000 DZ = 0.000

Material = 1 Carbon steel, Carbon <= 0.3 %

Nominal OD = 6 Schedule = STD OD = 6.625 Thickness = 0.280

Corrosion allowance = 0.000 Mill tolerance (%) =0.0

Insulation type = CS Insulation density =11.0 Insulation thk = 2.000

Pressure = 200 Temperature = 600

Specific gravity = 0.800 Additional weight Wind load(y/n) = y

Fl-Help F2-Material F3-Supports F4-SIF F5-Loads F6-Cmass F9-Flange Alt O-Other

«-> Enter Alt M-Modify(l) Alt D-Delete F7-Previous Alt J-Go to

Alt E-Edit Alt A-Modify(*) Alt S-Split F8-Next FlO-Return


Number of elements = 7 # 7 Units :

To 80 Type _ DX 6'0" DY DZ
From 70

Cut short

Material = 1 Carbon steel, Carbon <= 0.3 %

Nominal OD Schedule = STD OD = 6.625 Thickness = 0.280

Corrosion allowance = 0.000 Mill tolerance (%) = 0.0

Insulation type = CS Insulation density =11.0 Insulation thk = 2.000

Pressure = 200 Temperature = 600

Specific gravity = 0.800 Additional weight Wind load(y/n)

F6-Cmass F9-Flange Alt O-Other

Fl-Help F2-Material F3-Supports F4-SIF F5-Loads

<—I Enter' Alt M-Modify(l) Alt D-Delete F7-Previous Alt J-Go to

Alt E-Edit Alt A-Modify(*) Alt S-Split F8-Next FlO-Return

Toggling graphics using the (US key shows the current state of the model:
Samp1e prob1em

Design & Analysis ofPiping Systems

The supports may now be input by moving to the Supports screen, (F3),



Fl - Restraints
F2 - Skewed restraints
F3 - Guides
F4 - Hangers
F5 - Nozzles
F6 - Limit stops
F7 - Snubbers
F10 - Return

. 4,27

then selecting §3 for restraints.


Restraint SAMPLE
Number of restraints = 3

Node number 10

Translational stiffness (lb/inch)


Rotational stiffness R (in-lb/deg)


Releases (y/n) n n n n n n

Fl - Anchor Note : Stiffness = R for a rigid restraint

<—' Enter Alt M - Modify Alt D - Delete

F7 - Previous F8 - Next F10 - Return


Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

An anchor is specified using the (H) key so that all stiffnesses are shwon as rigid (R). In the
Node Number field, specify node 10 and 0 will input the anchor. In a similar manner the
restraints at nodes 50 and 80 are specified.

Press (fio) to return to the Supports screen and press © for hangers,

Number of hangers = 1


Node Number Load

Number of hangers Variation

Fl - Hanger type : Grinnell F2 - Mid range

F3 - User defined hangers F4 - Options

«—i Enter Alt M - Modify Alt D - Delete

F7 - Previous F8 - Next FIO - Return


followed by ® to design the hanger:


Hanger Types

Fl - Grinnell Alt Fl - Fee & Mason

F2 - Basic Engineers Alt F2 - Flexider (30-60-120) C^S

F3 - Bergen-Paterson Alt F3 - Flexider (50-100-200)

F4 - Borrello Alt F4 - Lisega

F5 - Carpenter & Paterson Alt F5 - Nordon

F6 - Constant Support Alt F6 - NPS Industries

F7 - Corner & Lada Alt F7 - Power Piping

F8 - Elcen Alt F8 - Piping Tech & Products

Alt F9 - SSG

F10 - Return


Design & Analysis ofPiping Systems

Specify 30 for the node number and 0 to input a standard hanger. Press (go) three times
to return to the Layout screen, then gs) for the Loads menu,



Fl - Forces & moments

F2 - Specified displacements

F3 - Seismic

F4 - Wind

F10 - Return


followed by (f2) for specified displacements:

Specifying 50 for Node Number and 0.5 for Y displacement. Press @w) several times to
return to the Layout screen.

Number of displacements = 1

Specified Displacements

Node X displacement Y displacement Z displacement

(inch) (inch) (inch)

10 0.5000

X rotation Y rotation Z rotation

(deg) (deg) (deg)

1 Enter Alt M - Modify Alt D - Delete

Previous F8 - Next F10 - Return

F7 -


Design. & Analysis of Piping Systems

At this stage the sample problem has been completely specified. The graphics screen is as
shown below:

Sample problem





Use the gw) key to return to the Main Menu and press © to analyse the model; this isf
done quite rapidly for this simple problem. Then press © to Output the results. Select the
load case, for example Q for sustained, then ® for a Code Check:


ANSI/ASME B31.3 (1987) Code Compliance

Press. Sust : 302.3 .5(c) Occ : 302.3.6 (a) Exp : 302.3. 5(d)
1 o (psig)
Design SL SH SL/ SL+SO 1.33SH SL+SO/ SE SA SE/
e d
m e Allow. (psi) (psi) SH (psi) (psi) 1.33SH (psi) (psi) SA

1417 17300 0.08 28209 29325 0.96

1 10 200
20A 2103 912 17300 0.05 24441 29325 0.83

937 17300 0.05 42558 29325 1.45

1 20A 200
17300 0.06 30621 29325 1.04
20B 2103 1003

957 17300 0.06 17531 29325 0.60

2 20B 200
1742 17300 0.10 48741 29325 1.66
30 2103

30 200 1731 17300 0.10 43815 29325 1.49

40A 2103 886 17300 0.05 14109 29325 0.48

200 888 17300 0.05 16843 29325 0.57

3 40A
0.06 9415 29325 0.32
40B 2103 1087 17300

Ti PgUp PgDn Home End Fl-Sorted stresses Alt P-Plot stresses F10 - Return



Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

Various other options are available.

The reader should appreciate that this is a relatively simple exercise; more complex
problems only require more input effort. The solution phase, which in this example takes
a few minutes, is simply based upon the principles discussed above. The software may look
complex (although not so bad with CAEPIPE), but the mechanics are simple. However
complex the software, the basic analysis engine and Code check are essentially the same
- the rest is cosmetics. CAEPIPE does the job efficiently, with a well designed user interface.
More sophisticated software, such as CAESAR, will do essentially the same, but enhances
the graphics and ties in to CAD systems; additionally CAESAR will perform a detailed
analysis ofspecific components (bends and tees) using finite element shell analysis amongst
many other enhancements. However, the basic flexibility analysis and Code check remains
the same as CAEPIPE.


It is quite common practice for piping designers not to think too much about flexibility
analysis. The sophistication of present software systems make the analysis and Code
assessment straightforward and apparently unambiguous. If the software system predicts
component stresses which do not satisfy Code allowables, then the designer simply reroutes
the pipe, if possible - adding flexibility or removing restraint as required. Simply the design
process for piping is established and evidently reliable - it seems to work since there is not
an abundance of piping failures. It is often claimed that this approach to piping design -
flexibility analysis, accepted modelling assumptions (beam behaviour with factors, rigid
anchors, simple hangers and supports and so on) is probably conservative. The designer
and analyst should in fact not believe this claim any more than he should believe that the
results of the analysis are representative of actual pipe behaviour. Two examples should
suffice to make this point further:

4.4.1 Is Code flexibility analysis conservative?

Consider the piping system shown in Figure 8, consisting of a seven bend branchless piping
system subject to a uniform temperature loading of 200degC.





3868 = 100°C

see S308
R = 1000 mm
r= 150 mm
t= 15 mm
E = 191.0 N/mm2 38
v = 0.292
cxr = 11.48£T - 6°C~I 88


Figure 8: Example piping system

It is anchored at both ends, denoted points 1 and 6, and has rigid translation supports at
points 2,3,4 & 5. The object is to obtain the displacement and maximum stresses at the
mid sections of all seven bends.

This example was first analysed using CAEPIPE to B31.1, using conventional flexibility
analysis. The aim is to compare the results of this analysis to a more detailed finite element
analysis which uses special ovalising pipe bend elements(1) which give more accurate and
realistic pipe bend deformations and stresses without the use offlexibility or stress factors;
these will be discussed further in Lecture 5. These elements have been included as user
defined elements in the ANSYS finite element system. However, as will become clearer
also in Lecture 5, the stresses calculated in B31.1 (and B31.3) are not the actual elastic
stresses in the system where stress factors are used - the stress factors are for Code purposes
(1) - D Mackenzie & JT Boyle: Analyses of piping elbows using two new elbow elements. ASME Pressure
Vessel & Piping Conference, Nashville, 1990
Design & Analysis ofPiping Systems « .

only. In fact for bends, the B31 stresses correspond to about half the elastic stresses. Since
CAEPEPE does not allow stress factors to be altered, the ANSYS piping module was used
with corrected factors to allow the calculation ofelastic stresses (in fact the Clark & Reissner
formulae to be discussed in Lecture 5).

A comparison of calculated displacments at the middle of all seven bends is given below
where Analysis 1 uses flexibility factors and Analysis 2 is the more detailed analysis:
Bend Analysis 1 Analysis 2
UX(mm) UY(mm) UZ (mm) UX(mm) UY(mm) UZ (mm)
A 9.161 -9.493 -0.613 9.151 -9.54 -0.647
B 15.016 -4.646 2.620 15.034 -4.672 2.694
C -1.405 5.579 -5.270 -1.396 5.516 -5.161
D -10.863 -5.112 -0.517 -10.530 -5.162 -0.521
E 6.323 -11.374 -1.193 6.650 -11.533 -1.206
F 27.224 -1.695 -18.840 28.176 -1.831 -19.089
G 10.473 8.587 -9.430 11.028 8.593 -9.774

The maximum stresses, at the middle of the bends is

Analysis atmu (N/mm2) % Difference

Bend A 1 23.6
2 20.7 +14.0%
BendB 1 18.9
2 10.5 +80.0%
BendC 1 53.3
2 35.5 +50.1%
BendD 1 65.4
2 53.1 +23.2%
BendE 1 36.8
2 17.7 +7.9%
BendF 1 35.3
2 39.8 -11.3%
BendG 1 45.1
2 18.0 +150.5%

It can be seen that the displacements compare favourably. However the stress comparisons
are more interesting:

• In the most highly stressed bends, C, D & G, the conventional flexibility analysis is
not just conservative, but clearly over conservative.

• In bend F the conventional flexibility analysis is not conservative.


In fact studies of this sort are very rare, even though it is possible to obtain more detailed^
analysis with current finite element analysis software(2). One obvious conclusion to be made
here is that one possible means of overcoming problems in satisfying the Code allowables
could be to perform more detailed analysis; alternatively, this could make the stresses

4.4.2 Does flexibility analysis represent real behaviour?

A simple answer - probably not!

One ofthe points being made in this course is that many simplifications and approximations
are made in piping flexibility analysis, such as the use of beam theory, simple flexibility
and stress factors, simplification of anchor, support and hanger behaviour and so on. More
discussion of inherent simplifications will be given in the next two Lectures where the real
behaviour of elbows, the main source of flexibility, and branches, will be examined. There £
have been very few studies of the effect of these simplifications. Nevertheless a significant
study was undertaken by Carmichael & Edwards(3):

Carmichael and Edwards took a notional pipe run and examined the effect of modifying
several of the conventional modelling assumptions. Two are particularly interesting:

• With the assumption of free rotation at the anchors, rather than a complete fixing,
the piping deflection did not alter greatly. The predicted maximum stresses were
significantly greater in most of the run with the rigid anchors (as expected) but also
demonstrated that this assumption was unconservative in one part of the run.

• It conventional piping analysis hangers are assumed to be simple (linear) springs.

Carmichael & Edwards looked at the effect of hanger lateral stiffness. Again the
predicted deflections were similar with and without lateral stiffness, while the
maximum showed great variation - in particulr that the conventional assumption
of no lateral stiffness was particularly unconservative!
r■ f
One implication of these observations is that if in practice the piping system deflections
are monitored to verify the analysis reliability, then any problems will not be apparent.
Further, conventional assumptions are demonstrated to give unconservative results! The
reader is left to ponder the implications.

(2) - D Mackenzie, T Comlekci & JT Boyle: Comparison of flexibility and finite element analysis of example
piping systems. Proc 11th Int Conf on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Tokyo, 1991
(3) - GDT Carmichael & G Edwards: Some observations on the analysis of high temperature steam piping j
systems. Proc Inst Mech Engnrs, Vol.193, 149-158, 1979
Design & Analysis of Piping Systems



The simplest, and often most ecomomical, means of obtaining flexibility in a piping system
is to introduce sufficient smooth bends to absorb the thermal expansion (for large diameter
pipes smooth bends can be replaced by mitre bends). We have already mentioned that
smooth bends are more flexible than an equivalent beam, and thus that in conventional
flexibility calculations an additional factor must be introduced. In addition, this extra
flexibility is accompanied by higher stresses than would be expected from simple bending
theory. The analysis and design of bends thus becomes one of the important tasks of a
piping engineer. In this lecture we aim to examine how these additional factors may be
found for smooth pipe bends and how they are used in the various design Codes. In particular
we will see that the Codes use a very simplified approach, even though our current
knowledge on the mechanical behaviour of pipe bends is considerably more advanced.

5.1.1 In-plane bending of a pipe bend - von-Karman's analysis

To begin with we will look at the problem of the elastic behaviour of a smooth pipe bend
subject to in-plane bending and introduce the initial solution of this problem which v/as
given by von-Karman(I) in 1911:

Von-Karman recognised that a curved pipe under in-plane bending would undergo
flattening Covalisation') of the cross section, an effect which could normally be ignored for
straight pipes, and developed a relatively simple stress analysis for this problem which
relied on several assumptions:

(a) As the pipe bends, plane sections remain plane (as in simple engineer's theory of
bending) and the deformations would be small.

(b) Each cross section of the pipe would have the same degree of ovalisation (the pure
bending assumption).

(c) The ovalisation deformation in the cross section would be inextensible (that is the
length of the circumference of the pipe would not change).

(d) The pipe is of long radius - that is the bend radius R is much larger than the tube
radius, r.

The deformation of the cross section, and the pipe geometry, are shown in Figure 1.

ie Formanderung dunnwandiger Rohre, insbesondere federnder Ausgleichs-


Figure 1: Deformation of a pipe bend in pure bending

It may be described mathematically using a radial, w, and tangential, v, displacement;

however the assumption of inextensibility provides a simple relation between v and w.
Von-Karman assumed that the radial displacement could be represented well by a trig
onometric series,

w = a2 cos 2<|> + a4 cos 4$ + a6 cos 6ty...

which is simplified to an even cosine series due to symmetry of deformation of the cross
section. The coefficients a2, a4, etc are unknowns to be determined. Von-Karman chose an
energy method to find these coefficients: specifically he used the theorem of minimum
potential energy which states that,

Amongst all the possible deformed shapes which a structure can assume under a speciftc
loading, that which minimises total potential energy will be the one which occurs.

Thus the coefficients a2, a4, etc must minimise potential energy. The analysis then proceeds
by formulating the total potential energy in terms of the strain energy of the deformation

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems ^ \ - »

of the cross section, U, and the work done by the bending moment, M, in changing the
curvature of the centre line as represented by the change in subtented angle of the end
planes of the pipe, the 'end rotation*, y, (as in simple engineer's theory of bending):

Tl = U-My

Finally some simple mathematical analysis is done to find the values of coefficients which
provide the minimum.

Von-Karman did a simple analysis with only a single term in the series expansion for w,

W =

The analysis is not given in detail here but can be readily found in the literature(2>.

A flexibility factort k, as the ratio of end rotation of the pipe bend to that of an equivalent
straight pipe (same material, cross section and load, but with equivalent length) was defined
with the result that,


where the pipe bend parameter or pipe factor, is defined as


The variation of the flexibility factor with the pipe bend parameter is given in Figure 2.

Circumferential (hoop) and longitudinal stresses are induced in the cross section and these
may be calculated as

— = v[k cos <j> - ks cos3 <|>] ± - ksX cos 2$

°e 3
— = [k cos <|> - ks cos <|>] ± - v&j

where the positive sign refers to the outside surface, k is the flexibility factor as before and

' 12X2+1

(2) - RKitching: Smooth and mitred pipe bends. Chap 7, "The Stress AnalysisofPressure Vessels and Pressure
Vessel Components" Ed SS Gill, Pergamon, 1970


Figure 2: Von Karman's Flexibility Factor

2 - —



Figure 3: Von Karman's stress distributions

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

The nominal bending stress in a straight pipe under bending is,

a. =

These stress distributions are plotted in Figure 3 for the case X = 0.5, v = 0.3.

There are three immediate points to notice about the results:

(a) Flexibility and stresses (factored with nominal stress) depend only upon the pipe bend
parameter. This is a result of the long radius assumption. In fact if this assumption was
not made, then they would also be found to depend upon a second parameter, the radius
ratio, being the ratio of bend radius to cross sectional radius,

(b) As the pipe bend parameter decreases the flexibility factor increases; thus as a pipe
becomes thinner its flexibility will increase, or as it increases in diameter.

(c) The longitudinal bending stress has increased, but its maximum is no longer at the
positions expected by simple bending, being closer to the intrados, or extrados. Further,
the hoop circumferential stress, mainly bending, is larger( this stress is negligible for simple
bending) and occurs at the intrados. The maximum stress can be intensified by up to three
or four times over the maximum longitudinal stress predicted by simple bending theory.

5.1.2 Behaviour of piping elbows

The preceding von-Karman analysis is based upon several simplifying assumptions.

Naturally many extensions and alternatives to this theory have appeared in the past
seventy years, together with a large amount of experimental evidence. Principally the
von-Karman analysis as found to be sufficient only for pipe bends with pipe bend parameters
larger than 0.5. The most significant alternative analysis was carried out by Clark &
Reissner(3) in 1951 (as part of Clark's doctoral dissertation at MIT). Using Reissner's shell
theory and analytical methods Clark reproduced von-Karman's results using trigonometric
series, but also gave an 'asymptotic' solution for small values of the pipe bend parameter:

(*3)" RA.0181* & E Reissner: Bending of curved tubes. In "Advances in Applied Mechanics" Vol 2 o93
Academic Press, 1951 ' H '


c+ 1.892 0.480 '

which as we will see has formed the basis for the ANSI B31 design Codes.

It is difficult to provide a complete review here, but several milestones should be pointed

(i) In 1952 extensive research was carried out at Imperial College into the behaviour of
pipe bends under a variety of loading conditions. Gross and Ford(4X5> found by experiment
that three terms in the von-Karman series were sufficient for most practical pipe bends,
and further Gross removed the assumption of inextensibility which was found to have a
minor effect on stress (the so-called 'Gross correction'). Turner and Ford(6) in 1957 gave a
fairly extensive review of the various analytical methods for pipe bends and provided a
detailed numerical analysis of the problem using shell theory (this was later updated by
Blomfield(7) in 1971) which later formed the basis for BS806 design curves for pipe bends. (
An attempt was also by Smith(8) in 1967, extending an earlier analysis by Vigness in 1943,
to look at the problem of out ofplane bending. These analyses were not particularly suc
cessful since the pure bending assumption is not very good in this case, and some exper
imentally determined adjustments had to be made. Nevertheless these analyses for out of
plane bending form the basis of BS806.

(ii) Rodabaugh and George(9) in 1957 addressed the problem of internal pressure in a pipe
bend subject to bending. Making similar assumptions to von-Karman they evaluated the
work done by the applied pressure in changing the cross sectional area ofthe pipe and then
followed the standard energy analysis. The flexibility factors are modified according to,

k =k

Thus as the pressure increases, the flexibility decreases, depending upon the exact (
geometry. These results are in fact used in the ANSI B31.3 and ASME codes, but are not
very realistic - we will discuss this further below. The problem is that the deformations are
no longer small, and a much more complex analysis should be used, as was pointed out by

(4) - N Gross: Experiments on short radius pipe bends. Proc IMechE, Vol.IB, p465, 1952

(5) - N Gross & H Ford: The flexibility of short radius pipe bends. Proc IMechE, Vol.IB, p480, 1952

(6) - CE Turner & H Ford: Examination of the theories for calculating the stresses in pipe bends subject to
in-plane bending. Proc IMechE, Vol.171, p513, 1957

(7) - JA Blomfield & CE Turner: Theory of thin elastic shells applied to pipe bends subject to bending and
internal pressure. J Strain Anal, Vol.7, p285, 1972

(8) - RT Smith: Theoretical analysis of the stresses in pipe bends subjected to out of plane bending. J Mech
EngSci, Vol.9, pll5, 1967

(9) - EC Rodabaugh & HH George: Effect of internal pressure on flexibility and stress intensification factors
of curved pipes or welding elbows. Trans ASME, Vol.79, p939, 1957 <


Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

Crandall and Dahl(10> in a 1956 extension to Clark and Reissner's work. It is only fairly
recently that a correct pure bending analysis for a curved tube has been given by Boyle &
Spence(11), although the results are inconclusive.

(iii) With the advent of modern computing technology the pure bending problem could be
analysed to any degree of exactness; there is a large literature on this problem using either
the energy approach of von-Karman or the thin shell method of Reissner using modern
numerical techniques, finite differences and of course finite elements. The first finite
element analysis of a piping elbow seems to have been done by Natarajan and Blomfield(12)
at Imperial as part of Natarajan's doctoral thesis in 1971; an extensive set of analyses were
carried out at ORNL<13) in the middle seventies. Indeed in 1974 Hibbitt<14) formulated and
implemented a special pipe bend element for the MARC finite element program for West-
inghouse; numerous other such pipe bend elements have been formulated and these
probably represent the future ofpiping analysis. Studies undertaken at Strathclyde suggest
that a relatively simple elbow element(15), which has been coded as a user element for the
ANSYS finite element program, gives results comparable to more detailed analysis.

(iv) For in-plane bending the most difficult assumption to remove was that of pure bending
and plane sections remain plane. In practice a pipe bend will have attached straights, or
even more severe, flanges. In either of these cases it cannot be assumed that every cross
section of the bend will ovalise in the same manner. For example, the attached straights
will suffer some ovalisation themselves and will restrict the ovalisation of the bend. This
will reduce the flexibility of the bend and alter the stress distribution, usually reducing
the maximum stresses. How severe this is depends upon the geometry of the bend. Several
analyses were given for the end effects problem. A numerical analysis was given by Kal-
nins(16) in 1969, but detailed results were not available until the work ofThomson & Spence
(see later) who extended the classical von-Karman energy analysis and by Whatham(17) in
1978 who carried out a detailed numerical analysis and parameter survey of the shell
equations. We will look at this aspect later; however most of these analyses did not include
internal pressure (Thomson & Spence did include this in a manner similar to Rodabaugh
and George) and were mostly restricted to in-plane bending.

(10) - SH Crandall & MC Dahl: The influence ofpressure on the bending ofcurved tubes. Proc 9th Int Congress
of Applied Mechanics, ASME, 1956

(11) - JT Boyle & J Spence: The nonlinear analysis of pressurised pipe bends. Proc 3rd Int Conf on Pressure
Vessel Technology, Tokyo, 1977

(12) - R Natarajan & JA Blomfield: Stress analysis of curved pipes with end constraints. Comp & Struct,
Vol.5, pl87, 1975

(13) - EC Rodabaugh, SE Moore & SK Iskander: End effects on elbows subject to moment loading ORNL
Rep 2913-0, 1977 (ASME Special Publ No.h00213,1982)

(14) - HD Hibbit: Special structural elements for piping analysis. ASME Special Publ "Pressure Vessels &
Piping: Analysis & Computers" ASME, 1974

(15) - D Mackenzie & JT Boyle: Analyses of piping elbows using two new elbow finite elements. In "Design
and Analysis of Piping and Components - 1990" Ed QN Truong et al, ASME PVP Vol.188, 1990
(16) -A Kalnins: Stress analysis of curved tubes. Proc 1st Int Conf on Pressure Vessel Technology, Delft

(17) - JF Whatham: In-plane bending of flanged pipe elbows. Proc Metal Struc. Conf, Perth, Australia (1978)

5.7. •

The paper by Thomson & Spence provides a detailed summary of the extension of the s
von-Karman energy analysis to the problem of in-plane bending of a smooth pipe bend with
tangent straights and gives graphs and formulae for modified flexibility and stress factors.

The paper by Rodabaugh and Moore also summarises new results for pipe bends, but puts
them in the context of the ASME Code and provides the background to the ASME Code

The reader could use any of these results to provide more realistic design factors ifnecessary.
A fuller discussion, in the context of the Codes, will be given in Section 5.2.

In fact developments in computer and finite element technology make it quite easy to
perform a detailed analysis of any geometry of piping elbow:

A finite element model for a 90deg elbow is shown in Figure 4, loaded under an in-plane
force. Stress contours for outside surface circumferential and longitudinal stress dis
tributions are shown in Figures 5 & 6 respectively. The complete analysis, from geometry <
modelling to mesh generation and solution, using the ANSYS program on a laptop computer
takes no more than fifteen minutes; on a workstation in a few minutes.

AUC 26 1991


SB i
ZU =1
*XF =2.261


Figure 4: Finite element model of piping elbow


Design & Analysis ofPiping; Systems



DMX =0.869378
SMN =-2383
SMX =3808

XU =1

*VF =1
•ZF =29.S74
9 =-2228
C =-803.06
E =612.136
G =2032
I =3433

Figure 5: Outside surface circumferential stress contours



DMX =0.069378
SMN =-4478
SMX =8049
XU =1
VV =1
ZU =1


►VF =1.165
»ZF =29.S74

4Wf ?

t 15!
,' fwMX \ * i =1783
i' 3^
4i *

U 1
\ v\v .\^«S

\> A,S.
J >N


Figure 6: Outside surface longitudinal stress distribution


The current state of the art in our knowledge of the behaviour of pipe bends is rather'
curious: on the one hand it is very easy now to carry out a detailed finite element analysis
ofthe linear elastic behaviour ofany pipe bend. On the other hand, useful design information
has not been forthcoming, particularly for out-of-plane bending and for internal pressure.
This should be possible for the former, but, perhaps surprisingly, a detailed analysis for
internal pressure is extremely difficult. The reason for this is the so-called Haigh Effect.
Any pipe, straight or curved, subject to interal pressure departs significantly from simple
engineer's theory if the pipe cross section is not circular (say induced by manufacture). The
size of this effect depends upon the geometry and loading, but can intensify membrane
stresses by a factor of six! The problem is that the deformation of the pipe cross section can
no longer be assumed to be small, and subsequently the analysis is much more complex
and nonlinear (although of course still amenable to finite element analysis). In a pipe bend,
even if the cross section is initially circular, any applied bending will ovalise the cross
section, and if pressure is present the Haigh effect will be important. The main result is
that the coupling of bending and pressure in a pipe bend is nonlinear. While the applied
moment tends to flatten the cross section of the bend, the internal pressure tries to work ^
against this - it tries to open up the bend (the Bourdon Effect). Very little information on
this effect is available apart from the crude Rodabaugh and George analysis. Not only is
the stress distribution significantly altered, but also the flexibility is reduced. This
reduction is recognised in some design codes. When this is coupled with end effects, the
behaviour of pressurised pipe bends becomes very complex - so far too complex to warrent
inclusion in the design Codes


We will now look at how these results have been assimilated into the various Codes, choosing
here four examples. We will see that really only the simplest results have been used, having
been incorporated into the various Codes some twenty to thirty years ago, even though
more accurate results are available:

5.2.1 BS806

The background to the design philosophy of BS806 is well documented in the paper by PL
Popplewell and J Hammill. The main aim of the Code is to achieve shakedown for the basic
pressure and bending stresses and to keep the mean hot, if applicable, and sustained
stresses below yield and less than the creep rupture stress for the given material at design «
temperature in the design life. The sustained and hot stresses thus must lead to the )
possibility of creep rupture and should not cause yielding. Shakedown is achieved by
essentially limiting the elastically calculated stress range to twice yield (with a 'safety' -»
factor, and modifications for branches), although the actual allowable which is applied may J
also be modified to the creep rupture strength for the mean stress.

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

These limits are applied on the basis of elastic stresses (the elastic stress for a given load
condition is not limited, rather the elastic stress range):

For a straight pipe a hoop (transverse) and longitudinal stress are specified for internal

JL -

which are the familiar engineer's theory for thin pressurised tubes in the Code notation
(see Lecture 2); the transverse stress has been modified to include the average of the radial
stress through the thickness.

These same equations are also used for pressure stresses in a bend, although they are not
strictly correct they are conservative and easier to use.

For a straight pipe only a longitudinal stress is induced,

which again is simple engineer's theory of bending to give the maximum elastic stress at
the outside of the pipe under combined in plane and out of plane bending.

For a smooth bend both hoop (transverse) and longitudinal stress are induced,

which are modifications to simple maximum elastic bending stresses, evaluated at the mid
section of the pipe. The stress intensification factors are given in figures 4.11.1 in the Code,
which are reproduced here for reference in Figures 7-10. These factors are based on the
maximum stresses derived in CE Turner & H Ford (1957) for in plane bending and by RT
Smith (1967) for out of plane. The flexibility factor prescribed in the Code for a smooth
bend is also derived from these studies.


ILU /? ■ radius of bend

;—i—.'-i-: ... See also

r m ~~r. \:r\:: \ m • i :jz

jferH??tmi|:ti;hbk t-.o

OOl 0.0 2 0.C3 C05 01 02 0.3 0.5

0.04 0.4
Pipe factor

Figure 7: BS806 In-plane transverse stress factor


f A -i 1
1 * i i

1 ! 1 r fl ■ r idiui of bend

i ■ t
■^ See dl so Fiq.4.ll.|(o)
4 = ■ ■ i -i—i—'-\

LU -i A-C
k3 2 ■4—


t I i I i
1 i 1 •
1 ' ' i 11 • • >t !!'

5 OS -




-p 1

i \ < ' i ; 1 i
? . , „! i !
0 01 002 003 005 01 020305 I 10


Figure 8: BS806 In-plane longitudinal stress factor

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems ■




001 QO2O.O3 00S Ol 0.2 0.3 0.5 2 3 4 5 10
0.04 0.4
Pipe factor

Figure 9: BS806 Out-of-plane transverse stress factor

=1 r _J

X = .
t i . . ^ShS V: ■ i i | • lit' 1 /-'
! 1 lil.
i ! 1; i > i 1
P ■ radius of b<»nd
10 fvl-l 1 i i in . ■ ii i

See also Fiq4. II. 1(9)

o :p
, 1 2 -H ....

ii 2 " i

hi h-irrf-
• i •
A- 6 j- 7™

I'll . :]' ' i nli i i 1 rtrrr Mil «'i: i
- 0

1 1 1
0.5 Ox

-——h—i—1 i ! ' , 1 : -n
■ ■ ! '
:|! " 1I '! ' i! 'l.|■ ■ ■ , ! 1

: ' ; ■ 1 • i • i i i i 1 • 1 ! i i., ., I ■

1 ' 1 • | 1 i ! j :. • i : : 1 ! 1 i:i- i i
1 ! ;
0.01 Q02 Q03 0.C5 O.I 0.2 0.3 0-5 I 2 3 4 5 10
0.04 0.4
Pipe factor ^

Figure 10: BS806 Out-of-plnae longitudinal stress factor


It is evident that the Code charts and formulae are based upon numerous simplifying^
assumptions, with an attempt to make the procedure conservative. Thus the effects of J
pressure and bending in a smooth bend are not coupled; pure bending theory with end
effects ignored for both in plane and out ofplane bending have been used to obtain maximum «
elastic stresses which are then summed as in a straight pipe. The charts provided for j
flexibility and stress intensification are quite detailed: Popplewell & Hammill give some
relevant background,"... it was finally decided that all known confirmed information should «i
be included for the guidance ofthe designer...". In fact the work ofTurner & Ford has been 1
considerably superseded, while that of Smith is probably not representative of real pipe
behaviour. There is an argument for simple results, as in the formulae used in the T
ASME/ANSI codes to follow, which are expected to be conservative from experience. The >
BS806 charts are not simple and for consistency should perhaps be replaced with simpler
formulae based on more recent results as discussed above.

Finally, no specific mention has been given here for mitre bends. However an excellent
description of the background to the design formulae for mitres is given in the paper by . ^
Battle et al<18).

5.2.2 ANSI B31.1

As discussed in the above, the ANSI B31.1 Code has been based upon the concept of simple
bending theory with stress intensification factors for specific components which have been
derived from fatigue data. The fatigue tests of Markl have been used as a basis for the
ANSI/ASME stress factors. We must be very careful in interpreting the derived stress
intensification factor in the light of the manner in which it is used in the ANSI Codes (but
thankfully avoided in BS806):

From the flexibility analysis, an elastic bending stress in an equivalent straight pipe is
calculated. For an elbow, this simple bending stress is multiplied by the i-factor, but the
resulting 'stress1 is not the maximum elastic stress in the elbow, it is the stress which would,
cause fatigue failure in an equivalent straight pipe with a girth butt weld in a specified
number of cycles (that is, specified in the stress allowables). In fact the i-factor produces
stress values which are about one-half the actual maximum elastic stress (this is pointed
out very clearly in the Codes which use this result, particularly in cases where exper
imentally determined i-factors are not available). In fact, as we will see, the i-factors in the
ANSI codes (and ASME Sec.III Class 2 & 3) are obtained by comparing the theoretical
elastic stresses as obtained from the Clark & Reissner analysis with the experimental

The Codes notwithstanding, the i-factors do give us some indication of the fatigue strength
of piping elbows and are perhaps best viewed in this light.

(18) - K Battle et al: The design of mitred bends - a background to BS806.1975 ammendment No.3. Proc
IMechE Conf "Pipework Design & Operation", p9, Vol.C22, 1985


Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

Bearing this in mind, the Code is then rather curious: for example the limit provided to
protect against gross plastic deformation (which may lead to catastrophic burst type failure)
for sustained loads (pressure, deadweight etc.) is,

where Sh is the allowable at operating temperature. Note well: this introduces the bending
stress due to sustained loads multiplied by the i-factor for fatigue ! A similar limit holds
for occasional loads,

taking into the bending moment due to occasional loads MB, where the factor k is equal to
1.15 for 10% of the time, and 1.2 for 1% of the time. The factor of 0.75i on the bending
stresses is related to a limit load - this is discussed in the ASME Sec.III code later.

The limit on expansion stresses is intended to protect against fatigue, and thus properly
uses the i-factors,

where Mc is the range of resultant moments between the hot and cold conditions, required
for the fatigue assessment in this case. This limit is often confusing since it introduces the
sustained stress in the allowable; it may be written in the form,

+ Q.15MA)

where Sc is the allowable stress at minimum (cold) temperature. The factor f is a stress
reduction factor for cyclic conditions required since real S-N curves are not being applied.

ANSI B31.1 supplies i-factors for a range of components: these have been based on the
original Markl tests, modified by comparison with theoretical and experimental elastic
results, on updated tests - occasionally the only available results, say some elastic tests,
have been simply modified in the spirit of Markl to obtain a fictitious i-factor ! We are
concerned here with smooth elbows:

For smooth elbows the flexibility factors are obtained from Clark & Reissner's asymptotic
solutions while the i-factors are developed from Markl's tests with the results 'molded' to
the form of the Clark & Reissner maximum stress factors. In fact the i-factor is roughly
one half the maximum elastic stress: from Clark & Reissner

A/f 1.89

whereas from B31.1,

This is perhaps not surprising - the full Markl test data infers that there was a factor of
two between the fatigue data on girth butt welded tubes and the polished bar specimens !

Separate stresses are not distinguished - the maximum stress component is used; separate
i-factors are provided for in-plane and out of plane loading (in the ASME III Nuclear Code
for Class 2 piping factors are also modified for internal pressure according to the Rodabaugh
& George solution) and also for bends with flanges (although the results are very suspect).
Again the factors used in the Code are very crude in comparison with present knowledge/
In the case of smooth elbows these are based on approximate solutions to the pure bending
problem, with no load coupling and inadequate and limited solutions for out of plane loads
and for flanged bends. The Code has an air of authority - this is misleading.

5.2.3 ANSI B31.3

The ANSI B31.3 Chemical Plant & Petroleum Refinery Piping Code is based on similar
design concepts to B31.1 using i-factors derived from Markl's tests. In the case of elbows
it differs from B31.1 in two respects:

• Whereas B31.1 uses the same stress intensification factor for both in-plane and
out-of-plane loading, B31.3 allows the use of a reduced factor for out-of-plane:

. 0.9

■ _a75

although there is a footnote to the effect that the higher value for in-plane may be
used for both cases "... if desired ..."!

In B31.3 it is stated that"... in large diameter thin-wall elbows and bends, pressure
can significantly affect the magnitudes ofk andi...". Ifthis is the case then corrected
values of flexibility and stress intensification factors should be used (although it is
not mandatory). The correction factor for flexibility is such that,

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems


and for stress intensification


Thus while the flexibility is reduced by this pressure correction, so also is the stress.
B31.1 does not use this correction.

Why B31.3 should provide a lower i-factor for out-of-plane bending, which can be ignored
"... if desired..." is rather curious, since both are derived from the Markl tests. As mentioned
in Sec.5.1.2 the treatment of out-of-plane bending through the use of flexibility and stress
factors is rather approximate. A theoretical analysis, as done by Vigness and Smith (used
in BS806) of the hypothetical case of pure out of plane bending, would imply that a single
factor independent of the bend angle, would not be appropriate (and hence the need for
Smith to adjust the results in comparison with experiments). Thus it should be understood
that the reduced factor used in B31.1 for out-of-plane loading is only valid for the geometries
tested by Markl.

The pressure correction derives from the Rodabaugh and George analysis (Sec.5.1.2). For
90deg elbows under pure in plane bending with long attached straights (such that end
effects can be ignored) where the bending stresses predominate, then the Rodabaugh &
George results are reasonable. Otherwise they may be wholly unrepresentative of actual
flexibility and stress in the bend.

The writer has always treated the pressure correction in B31.3 with considerable appre
hension. It is commonly used to reduce stresses, and thereby satisfy Code requirements.
Kannappan(19> quotes this as a virtue "... this information was used to reduce the stress in
piping in real case analyses. Two large diameter long steam lines were built to supply
saturated steam to heavy water plants at Ontario Hydro's Bruce Nuclear Power Devel
opment. In preliminary analysis, the equations of flexibility and stress intensification
factors in Power Code B31.1 were used. In further analysis ... the pressure reduction
equations were used... and the piping was qualified...". It is debatable whether the reduced
stress was noticed by the steam lines! To this writer's knowledge, the accuracy of the
pressure reduction effect in real systems has never been tested.

5.2.4 ASME III Class 1

The ASME Pressure Vessel & Boiler Code Section III for Nuclear Vessels treats piping in
three Classes. Class 2 & 3 have design rules based upon ANSI B31.1 (in fact B31.7 which

(19) - S Kannappan: Introduction to Pipe Stress Analysis. Wiley, 1986 p72


has been superseded) with modifications for allowables and other specific areas. The rules »
for Class 1 piping are novel, being based upon an application of the pioneering 'design by
analysis' concept, but modified in para NB3600 to account for conventional piping analysis
practice - namely flexibility analysis using simple beam theory. Rather curiously the
background to the Class 1 piping rules is mysterious, even though it has been extensively
documented0205. There is an extensive literature discussing these rules, appearing yearly
and mostly confusing. The idea to bear in mind with the Class 1 rules is that design is
based on the avoidance of gross plastic deformation and collapse through primary (sus
tained - pressure modified for deadweight) loads, with a shakedown criterion for secondary
(thermal expansion loads); most commentaries on the Code view it in the light of the
primarily fatigue based ANSI B31.1 Code (the ASME III Class 1 rules do have fatigue
protection in the form of limited damage sums for peak stress).

The basis for the ASME Code Section III Class 1 rules is the concept of stress indices, as
summarised in Lecture 3,


The so-called B-, C- and K-indices are derived from a consideration ofthe dominant failure
mechanisms for primary and secondary stress.

Stress indices were introduced into the ASME Code in its first edition in 1963 for nozzles
in pressure vessels. These were derived from a series of photoelastic and strain quage
tests; the maximum stress was written in the form,


where I was the 'stress index'. This concept was broadened for Class 1 nuclear piping with
the addition of the B-, C- and K- indices where each was related to a different failure

(20) - SE Moore & EC Rodabaugh: Background for the ASME Nuclear Code simplified method for bounding
primary loads in piping systems. ASME PVP-Vol.50,1981

DF Landers: Application of ASME Criteria to piping design. Chap.6.2 In "Pressure Vessels & Piping Design
- a Decade of Progress 1970-1980" ASME, 1980

DF Landers: "Piping Design per ASME Section III" Technical Seminars Inc, 1982 \

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

B : resistence to gross plastic deformation (limit load concepts)

C : primary plus secondary elastic stress (range)
K: peak (highly localised) stress

These indices were identified with a particular type of load by subscripts: 1 for pressure,
2 for bending moments and 3 for thermal gradients.

The B-indices have been derived from a consideration of limit loads: this is fairly obvious
for pressure loading. The B2 factor for elbows was originally derived on the basis of some
limited test data, and was given by 0.75C2 for many years until new test data showed that
it was overly conservative, being subsequently changed to 0.67C2 (the 0.75 remains in the
ANSI B31.1 rules, but for a slightly different reason). The reasoning behind this limit is
simple: the test data indicated that plastic collapse did not occur until the stresses were
about 1.5 times the maximum elastic stress (essentially C2). Thus, recalling Lecture 2, it
would be safe to allow the bending stresses in this case to increase to yield - whereas the
pressure stresses should remain below 2/3 of yield. Then since the primary allowable S
is approximately 2/3 of yield, m

C <

that is,


and hence B2 should be equated with 0.67C2.

The C-mdices give the maximum elastic stress since the criterion used in the primary plus
secondary limit is that of shakedown, and the moments used correspond to the range of
loading. A correlation between the i-factors and the C- and K-factors is given by,

which may be used to calculate i-factors. The factor of two is equivalent to changing the
fatigue reference to plain straight pipe rather than a butt welded pipe. Again the flexibility
and stress factors are derived from Clark & Reissner as given above and thus have the
same limitations as discussed for B31.1. However Code Case N-319 provides alternative
more accurate factors taking into account end effects for in plane and out of plane bending-
the background to this is given in the paper by Rodabaugh & Moore.

It is quite important to realise that, although the basis for the ASME Class 1 piping rules (
is sound, indeed following the ASME design by analysis philosophy, the development of
the rules based on limit load concepts is very approximate. A detailed discussion of the
choice of limit loads is available in WRC Bulletin No.254 by EC Rodabaugh(21). The reason
for this is not clear - WRC Bulletin No.254 is not very helpful. The problem is that B-factors
based on experimental limit loads factored for maximum elastic bending stress are used,
based upon simple bending tests on elbows fixed at one end with the load applied at the
other: it is assumed that pressure has no effect on the limit load, an assumption which is
demonstrably false (although it is argued that pressure should increase the limit load,
again from limited experimental evidence alone).


The above discussion has been in places quite critical of the Codes, in particular the US^- "I
Codes. It is fair to say that the ASME Code committee concerned with B31.1 (and B31.3)
are currently reviewing possible alterations to the Code. A panel discussion on this problem
was presented at the 1988 ASME Presssure Vessel & Piping Conference in Pittsburgh. In J
particular there have been several 'early warnings' about a serious lack of conservatism
in the Code, specifically for outlet branch connections, and significant over conservatism «
for occasional loads. It appears that this Code will retain the concept of i-factors with the J
main design basis being fatigue (rather than move over to a complete rewrite in the design
by analysis form of ASME III NB3600 which uses plastic design concepts of limit load and «*
shakedown in addition to fatigue) but is requesting additional testing and analysis to J
provide more accurate and realistic i-factors for specific components. This programme of
analysis and testing is currently underway. Also some of the criticisms of the flexibility "I
and stress factors in ASME III & VIII have been addressed, but arguably not completely, J
in Code Case N-319.

Nevertheless various researchers have suggested modifications to the current rules, and
it is worthwhile summarising some of these developments further here. ,

5.3.1 ANSI B31 i-factors & ASME III C-factors

The ANSI B31.1/3 i-factors (and the related ASME III & VIII C-factors) have served piping
analysis and design fairly well over the years and there has not been an overwhelming j
demand for changes. The reason is fairly simple: on the one hand the design approach using
these factors has proven adequate, while on the other the factors are remarkably valid for -
a wide range of common pipelines. J

(21) - EC Rodabaugh: Interpretive report on limit analysis and plastic behaviour of piping products. WRC
Bull. No.254,1980 I

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems -

For example, Nataranjan(22), carried out a study of the reliability of flexibility and stress
factors for 90deg piping elbows, with long attached straights under in-plane bending. The
two tables given below show comparisons between a detailed finite element analysis of
short and long radius elbows and the Code formulae for flexibility (k) and stress factors

X 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5

k 33 16.5 8.25 3.3

Short 32.0 16.4 9.4 6.9
Long 30.6 15.7 8.1 3.35

X 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5

c2 14.4 9.05 5.70 3.1

Short 14.5 8.85 5.73 3.3
Long 17.48 11.51 6.6 3.14

It can be seen that the Code stress factors are representative ofthe more detailed analysis
but underestimating by about 17% for long radius bends. The flexibility factors are also
well represented, although the Code formula can underestimate flexibility for higher values
of the pipe factor by 50%. These would seem to be acceptable to most designers.
However problems with the i- and C-factors arise in less simple geometries:
Fujimoto and Soh(23) examined 90deg elbows with long attached straights (and unreinforced
fabricated tees) subjected to both in-plane and out-of plane bending. The components
investigated specifically had large diameter ratios, Dlt > 100. A comparison ofCode formulae
for flexibility factor, k, and stress index, C2 for long and short radius bends compared to
detailed finite element analysis is shown in Figures 11 & 12 respectively.

^;?J!atTar^n^alyjisA°^flexibiHties and stress intensification factors in 90 degree bends with end

Vd 188,1990 Slgn yS1S ° iping and ComP°nents - 1990" Ed QN Truong et al, ASMEI PVP
fn^n"X^UJim0t0,.& J S,°h: FlexibiIifcy factors and stress indices forpiping components with D/T > 100 subiected
to m-plane or out-of-plane moments. Trans ASME Vol.110, Jourh Press Vess Techn, 374-386,11^§UDjectea

gr^Q formula, i 55 y.n 5. FORMULA ,165
Tvoc iFE.'JI ' Ki/i ^ n< FE.W

T 9 31 2M

_3_, i ■ roi ViTEQ'-n-- 311 6 •O9iis:ii'6''": :i

MiTER(m:4ll 11^ 2-3OJ ' MlTERIm:4l| O — — •O9lll3.33tiOw2.2l
MITER imsail ° !o.9lll3.35t.bi2.21
1.0 1.0


0.6 0.6
0.05 0.1 0.2 0.01 0.05 O.I 0.2

(c) Flexibility factors for M, (d) FloxibllMy factors for /fa

Figure 11: Ratio ofFE & ASME flexibility factors

FE.M FORMULA 1 95 .„„»,
LINES) a 0

ELSOWIworili ° '0.638 0.077

ELBOW(longi| V '0.730 0.120

MlTERC":3l! & -3-3.7* s 0 051

MlTFBImi4li 0 I -4-1100 l MITERlm=4: a -4-JO.692 0.0 2 7

MlTERIms3J o -3-|0.677 0.0 3 7


(b) Stress indices lor Mo

(a) Stress indices for M{

Figure 12: Ratio ofFE & ASME stress indices

xt can be seen that the Code formulae overestimate stress by about 40% for lower values
of the pipe factor, resulting in a substantial overdesign. Modifications to the Code formulae
were suggested for in-plane (i) and out-of-plane (o) loading as follows

. 1.65 1.65


1.95 1.95
*\ 2/3

where the modification factors a, (3 take the form

except for the out-of-plane stress factor

where the constants a,b and c are tabulated for each load condition for long and short radius
bends. (The factors may also be multiplied by the factor for pressure reduction as necessary)
A far more dramatic problem with these factors has been given by Glickstein & Schmitz(24)
who analysed back to back elbow configurations such as shown in Figure 13.

Fixed End

Figure 13: Back to back elbow geometry

£$ : ^ Glickstein & LM Schmitz: Stress factors associated with closely spaced thin-walled elbows In
Piping Components Analysis" ASMEPVP-Vol.218, 1991 c u«wa. *u

5.23 :

Some geometries "... exhibit negligible flexibility ..." compared to the Code values. Inf
addition the Code stress factors "... do not provide a set of consistent results and cannot be "1
used as a valid design method for predicting stresses in multi-closely spaced elbows ..."! J

5.3.2 ASME III B-factors

Perhaps the most troublesome aspect of ASME III & VIII are the B-factors which relate to
limit load concepts. Indeed the basis for the current factors are really inadequate. Recent
background work carried out for the French nuclear codes has suggested a more consistent

The limit load for a straight pipe in bending is given by the formula,

where t is the pipe wall thickness, r is the mean radius and oy is the yield stress for perfect
plasticity. The load for initial yield on the other hand is given by,

The ratio of these is,

Hence the limit moment for a thin straight pipe in bending is only 30% above that for first
yield and in design it is better therefore to limit the stresses to below yield.

An approximate analysis for the limit load of a pipe bend under pure in-plane bending was
derived by Spence & Findlay(25); here the ratio of limit moment to the limit moment for a
straight pipe was calculated approximately as,

- = 0.8A,3'5

for values of the pipe bend parameter less than 1.0; the detailed results are shown in Figure

(25) - J Spence & GE Findlay: Limit loads for pipe bends under in plane bending. Proc 2nd Int Conf on
Pressure Vessel Technology, San Antonio, 1976

Hv:>:r.™-£; Design/& Analysis^

J a a a Experiment
ight pipe value.


74: Spence & Findlay's pipe bend limit loads

Thus the theoretical limit load for a pipe bend is less than that of a straight pipe (as should
be expected). However this analysis assumes pure bending: this implies that the whole
bend will reach yield at collapse. In practice end effects will be important here - an analysis
was given by Chan and Boyle(26), but the results were inconclusive - and there will be a
difference between opening and closing moments. No theoretical limit loads are available
for out of plane loading, or for internal pressure.

Modified B2 factors are given in Code Case N319; again these have been widely criticised.
Touboul et al(27), based on the Spence & Findlay results and an examination of the French
CEA programme of elbow collapse tests have proposed that the modified formula

where a is the bend angle. An additional factor for pressure was given, based on the
Rodabaugh & George results discussed above. Also they suggested that the allowable be
taken as

= min(l.45,, 0.635J

*"** ** end constraints'


in terms of the yield stress, Sy and ultimate stress, Su. For unpressurised elbows this leads
to a much lower allowable bending moment as compared to the recommendations of Code
Case N319. When compared to ASME NB 3680, the allowable moment is higher for small
angle bends, lower for larger angle bends. For pressurised bends, the allowable moment is
considerably increased since, as discussed in Section 5.1.2, the Bourdon effect resists the
moment! A comparison is given in Figure 15 The significance of these results should be
carefully considered by the reader.

Toubouletal Vj Toubouletal
M op=2/3Sy

X = 0 IS
X = 0 3

10 CC N319

NB 3660
CC N319

05 NB 3680

30° 60° 90' 120° ISO' 180'

30° 60° 90° 120° ISO0 180*

Figure 15: Allowable bending loads

5.3.3 Summary

It should be clear that it would be a fairly easy matter to incorporate modified flexibility
and stress factors into the Codes; indeed this process has already been initiated in the
ASME III Nuclear Code for Class 1 piping and ,as discussed above, it is likely that there
will be a complete update of the ANSI codes i-factors in the near future. The question
remains as to if, and when, BS806 will be modified. In any case it should be clear that
considerable skepticism is necessary of the present Codes, and the reader should be careful
of accepting the results of flexibility analysis as being precise.

The way forward in the long term, however, is clear. Conventional beam type flexibility
analysis for static loads will probably be replaced by more detailed analysis using special
purpose pipe elements. This would avoid the need for separate flexibility and stress factors.
Such an approach is possible now, although it is still moderately expensive, yet a detailed
analysis ofa complete system should be possible in minutes on a super-workstation. Further (.
reductions in the price perfromance ratio of modern computers should make this probable.

Design & Analysis ofPiping Systems -

A suitable design approach is also available in the form of the ASME design by analysis
route. Some problems remain to be addressed if this approach is used (in particular the
treatment ofbranches) but do not represent a reason for not pursuing this. The only question
is how long it will take.









Design & Analysis of Piping Systems



Branch pipe, or nozzle intersections in piping systems are generally recognised as com
ponents that require careful attention if they are to operate satisfactorily when loaded in
service. The primary load is ofcourse internal pressure, but in addition branch intersections
are required to withstand a complex set of moments and forces transmitted via the three
connected pipe limbs, as a result of deadweight, thermal expansion, seismic loading etc.
The overall stressing situation is a complex one and has resulted in a great deal ofliterature
being published on the various aspects of the problem. For example Moore et al. published
a useful review in 1982(1> which contains a list of 158 references on the subject.

Rodabaugh, the ASME code writer, has commented in a recent report(2) that, "We would
rate the relative complexity of stress intensification factors for plain pipes, elbows and
branch connections by the ratios 1:5:500." While we might dispute the ratios quoted,
Rodabaugh's comment serves to emphasise the difficulties involved in arriving at acceptable
design procedures for branch connections. Factors that influence branch design include
manufacturing procedure (welded, forged, extruded), reinforcement, weld details, load
interaction, thermal stress, fatigue, shakedown, collapse, fracture etc. This presentation
will make no pretence at covering the above, but will concentrate on explaining some of
the background to the BS 806 design rules for branch junctions, while at the same time
drawing attention to some of the limitations in the code rules. Much of what is said will
be based on the unpublished notes produced by Carmichael et al(3) in connection with the
work of the PVE/-/5 working party on the topic, and the use of these notes is gratefully
acknowledged (see also Popplewell and Hamil(4)). Brief mention will also be made herein
of ASME III design procedures for branch junctions and tees.


The BS 806 mean diameter formulae for determining design thickness of straight pipe has
already been presented, i.e.

(1) - Moore, S.E., Greenstreet, W.L. and Mershon, J.L., "The Design of Nozzles and Openings in Pressure
^^^SS^ Ia982 Plng: °eSign Technol°^ " A Deca*e of Progress, ed. zSfd m™
eiT^ IntensiflCati°n FactOrS for Branch Connections", Draft Welding
DeSign *nd Assessment of Branch Connections", BSI PVE/-/5 Specialist

^! ^SF 806: Ferrous Pipes for and i




where f is the design stress and e is a factor depending on pipe quality. (Note: The second
equation references are the relevant BS 806 code equation numbers).

For combined bending, torsion and pressure loading, the combined stress fc is given by

4/* (3) (28)

where F is the greater of fT or fL. The transverse (hoop) stress is,

fT = EL+0.5p (4)<29)f

the longitudinal (axial) stress is

/, = 4t(d
^+ t) +^m^Mf
+ M; (5) (32)+ (33)

and the torsional shear stress is

MM 4-7t\
(6) (35)


The BS 806 terminology for thickness and diameter is shown in Figure 1. Based on the
bores of the main and branch pipes the design formulae for the thicknesses are,

Minimum main thickness

tml 2fex-p

and the minimum branch thickness


Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

The terms f and e are as for plain pipe, and the term x is the code "weakening factor". The
source of this factor x is as follows:

d, D,

Figure 1: BS806 Notation

In 1968 Money(5) at CEGB Berkeley conducted a parametric survey of all the experimental
internal pressure SCF data he could find for branch pipes and nozzles in pressure vessels'
He presented the data as in Figure 2 and from this deduced the relationship

SCF = 2.5(Z)


H'A"' "Designing Flush CyHnder-to-Cylinder Intersections to Withstand Pressure", Proc. ASME,

:;iHlBEHAOTQ §llli;|liflllilfli









Figure 2: Original Money data

Adjusting eqn.(9) to a design format gives



Following Money's report, additional data came to light from tests on steel vessels at
Babcock and Wilcox, and CEGB Berkeley, which suggested that eqn.(lO) underestimated
SCFs for branch junctions with d2/d1 > 0.7. Hence an adjusted Money relationship was
proposed as follows

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

= 2.5(Z)
which gave the design equation



The Money and adjusted

j Money SCF relationships are presented in BS 806, Fig 4 8 5 2 (1)
Si X™eSCFiSde^^

200 400 600800'


Figure 3: BS806 Figure


At this stage the term J is introduced, where it can be shown that J is defined as

Peak Stress
Design Stress

Values of J were chosen to be 2.5 for d^dx < 0.3 and 2.2 for d^dj > 0.3. These values were
arrived at on a shakedown basis and were intended to give a 20% margin over pressure
stress to allow for external load stresses. Combining eqns.(9)-(13) with the stated limits
for J can be shown, after some manipulation, to give the following expressions for the
Weakening Factor x for branches with proportional thickening, i.e,

Weakening Factor x


0.3 <-*£ 0.7


where fx is the allowable design stress for the main pipe.

Curves representing the above expressions for the weakening factor x are presented in BS
806 Fig. (Figure 4 herein). The additional curves for dj^ = 0.2 and 0.1 are based
on SCF data derived by Leckie and Penny(6) using shell analysis techniques. Note that for
cases where d/di < 0.3, the code states that the x factor need only be used to thicken the
main, an x factor of 1.0 being used for the branch.

BS 806 also presents a design procedure, again based on the Money SCF relationships, for
cases ofnon-proportional thickening, i.e. where the thickness ofthe main is predetermined.
The basis for this is not presented herein but can be found in Carmichael et al. (reference


(6) - Leckie, F. and Penny, R.K., Welding Research Council, Bulletin, No. 90, 1963.


Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

-± aoove 0.3 and up to O 7
between O.I and 0 2
0.2 dnd 3.3 to
be obtained 2y nn e -pabove07 and up to 1.16


Figure 4: BS806 Figure

iTJ^Tl^s °n branch junctions it has been shown that the location

lml (15)
Figure 5 compares eqn.(15) with the Belgian data of Decock(7) where it can be seen that the
line defining eqn.(15) approximately distinguishes between crotch corner and weld fatigue

BS 806 0986)
• o CRjj: Fatigue Test Results oo

• Failure at Crotch Corner

o Failure at Toe of Weld
(Transverse Section)


• o


L ett

__L_ __L_
05 06 0.7 08 0.9
O2 03 04

Figure 5: CRIF Fatigue test data (Decock 1975) and BS806 (1986)
Relationship between tIT and dID

(7) - J Decock: Determination of stress concentration factors and fatigue assessment of flush and extruded
nozzles in welded pressure vessels. Proc 2nd Int Conf on Pressure Vessel Technology, Part II, ASME, 821-835,

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems


A simple in-plane piping system is indicated in Figure 6. Due to pressure, deadweight

thermal expansion effects etc. moments are transmitted to the branch junction which will
cause stresses that are additional to the pressure stresses.

Figure 6: Typical piping network

Figure 7: BS806 Figure


In the general 3D case, using a piping flexibiHty analysis, as discussed earlier, a set of 9
moments can be specified, 3 each, in the x, y and z planes, for each of the three connecting
limbs. Fig. of BS 806 (Figure 7 herein) illustrates the situation, and shows that
each limb has an in-plane, an out-of-plane and a twisting moment.

In 1952 Markl(8) conducted fatigue tests on a series of equal-diameter welded branch

junctions, loaded by in-plane and out-of-plane bending on either branch or main (run) pipes,
using the "cantilever model" shown in Figure 8. From the tests he developed expressions
for fatigue stress intensification factors - symbol i. Comparison with work by Markl and J
others on straight pipes and elbows showed that reasonable values for stress concentration
factors (SCFs) could be deduced from Markl's fatigue i-values by simply multiplying by a
factor of 2. Markl found that, not surprisingly, the i-values were higher for branch moment
loadingthanrunmoment loading. The BS 806 SCF curves for moment loadingFig.4.11.1(6)
(Figure 9 herein) are based on Markl's i-values for branch moments multiplied by 2.0. The
SCFs are plotted against the pipe factor X, which is defined in Figure 9 for welded, reinforced
and forged branchjunctions. [Note: the source ofthe statement, "Based on equal bore branch
flexibility factor = 1" in this figure is unknown!] ^


In-plane .5 ;





Figure 8: Markl bending fatigue tests

- Markl, A.R.C., "Fatigue Tests on Piping Components", Trans. ASME, 1952 287-303

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems


Stress levels under combined loading must be determined for all combinations of pressure
and moment loads to ensure that the stress criteria ofSection 4.11.2 are met. For branches,
the BS 806 equation for combining pressure and moment loads is similar to that for straight
pipes (eqn.(3) herein) but with SCFs introduced. The combined stress fCB is thus given by

(16) (36)

where fB is the sum of the direct stresses due to p, Mj and Mo (i.e. assumed to act at the
same location) as follows:

PWi + O

The SCF m in eqn.(17) is given by

18 (i8)(38)

for small branches (i.e. r^ and tjtx < 0.3) or can be obtained from the Money curves in

The Bj and Bo stress factors are obtained from Fig.4.11.1(6) (Figure 9 herein).

The shear stress fSB in eqn.(17) is simply the non-intensified plain pipe torsion stress as
given in eqn.(6) herein, i.e. it is assumed that the SCF for torsional loading is 1.0. More
will be said about this!


1. The hot stress relaxation factor q has been omitted from eqn.(16) above for simplicity,
but should of course be included in practice.

2. Eqn.(16) above should be applied to each of the 3 limbs of the branch junction in turn
to determine the maximum combined stress.

3. The second moment of area I has the conventional definition when used with the
main pipe, but in order to allow for the fact that the stress factors in Figure 9 herein
are based on equal-diameter junctions, an adjusted I value is used for branch
calculations (see Section


In-plane curve -075 » — tQ

\ \
■*• Cut-ot-pldne curve • Li
\ A

\l \ X based on equal bore branch flexibility factor ■!


\ • I i
N • i ■ 1
o 7
\ ;"
% 6
* 5


-H ;i I;;,
I ^


0.01 QO2QO3 QOS 0.1 Q2 Q3 0 2 3 4 5

Pipe factor \

f I *>l.33f,
i i

Forged tee meeting

Limiting crotch dimensions


9: BS806 Figure 4.11.1(6)

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems


The ASME III procedure is based on the so-called "Cantilever model" as explained below
It can be readily shown that the 9 moments associated with a branch junction are not
independent, and can be reduced to 6 independent moments using equilibrium arguments
lne 6 moments are usually represented using the cantilever model shown in Figure 10
herein. The ASME III design procedure is as follows:


Moment Vectors




Figure 10: Moment load categories

First the reinforced thicknesses of the branch junction pipes are determined using the
well-established area-replacement" procedure. A check on Primary Stresses is then carried
out, whuch is essentially aimed at ensuring that the junction does not plastically collapse
The relevant equation in ASME III is

PD. M.

,where Mb and M, are the resultant branch pipe and run pipe moments given by,

+Mtb2 (20)

and M^Mj +Myr2 +Mt/ (21)

Blt B2b and B2r are the Primary Stress Indices defined, for pressure or bending, by

Plane pipe collapse load

~J-allowable load ( '
and Sm is the design stress.

Next a check on combined Primary and Secondary stressing is carried out. This is to ensure
that combined load stress levels due to, a) nominal pressure and moment loads, and b)
discontinuity effects at the branch junction, are within acceptable limits. Again a linear
interaction rule is used, i.e. stresses due to all loads are considered to act at the same
location, as follows:

pn r fm \ ( m Yi
-M U 3S_ (23)1-

where the C1} C2b and C2r Secondary Stress Indices are

0.182/ . NO.367/^
\0.367 \0.382/,
/ t N0.382 / t N0.148

r - i 4 —11 —
*7 S u: :


^=1.151^ I 2 1.5 (26)

The various parameters in the above are illustrated in Figure 11 herein.

Finally, a fatigue check is conducted to allow for the local effects of welds etc. Again a
linear interaction rule is used, with the addition, to eqn.(23) above, ofthe peak stress indices
K,, K2b and K2r. The equation is

:J^W p
where K, = 2.0, K2b = 1.0 and K2r = 1.75. j

Note that, for simplicity, the ASME III thermal stress terms have not been included in the
above expressions. Sp is the allowable fatigue stress range. ]


Branch Pip«

11: ASME III Notation


The significance of the flexibility of pipe bends in piping systems has already been
emphasised. In BS 806, it is assumed that there is no additional flexibility introduced into
the piping system due to branch junctions. However ASME III*9* now includes a limited
rocedure for including branch junction flexibility: Of the 6 moment categories of Figure
10 it has been decided that the additional flexibilities due to moment categories M^, M^,
MCT and Myb are sufficiently small to be ignored. The definition of Flexibility Factor KQ used
for pipe bends, i.e.

Rotation between bend ends (28)

Rotation between ends of straight pipe of same length as bend

is not applicable to branch junctions and a different definition has to be used. This is
explained using ASME III Fig.NB-3686.5-1 (Figure 12 herein).

(9) - ASME III - Division 1, Subsection-NB, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1985 Addenda.

Point spring-Element of
negligible length.
Rotation across element

Rigid length

igid juncture

A. A.S :. IE Method

Figure 12: ASME III Flexibility

The additional flexibility is assumed to be concentrated at a "Point Spring" located at the

branch/main junction. The rotational stiffness of this spring is such that the rotation at
the spring is


where the Flexibility Factor kB is now defined as


The length Le is a fictitious equivalent branch limb length due to junction flexibility. This
definition of K9 is helpful in that its effect is easily envisaged. For example a KQ of 6 say,
means that the extra flexibility due to the branch is equivalent to an additional fictitious
length of branch pipe = 6d.

Design & Analysis of Piping Systems

The parametrix expressions given in ASME III are:

For moment Mxb,


■'[r. (31)

and for moment Mzb>


Note however that the ASME III procediire is limited to branches with d/D < 0.5. More
will be said on this topic.

; ^.behawqto^ P3"