WORK INSTRUCTION

Expansion Joint Modelling in CAESAR II

PREPARED BY: Chan Wei Wen

ENPANSION JOINT (EJ) MODELLING IN CAESAR II
1.0 Brief Introduction
A lack of flexibility in a piping system to absorb piping thermal displacement will commonly lead to
high stress concentration at pipe fittings or high piping loads acting on equipment nozzles. Generally,
stress engineers should always try to revisit the piping design by incorporating more flexibility in the
piping system through the introduction of bends and loops prior resorting to the installation of EJ.
Obviously, high production cost and strict installation requirement are the main reasons to avoid EJ
during engineering design stage. However, in some cases where EJ is unavoidable, for instance a tight
space which does not allow complex piping routing, an EJ must then be carefully designed. In this work
instruction, a stress model (under piping code ASME B31.3) has been developed using CAESAR II to
demonstrate how introduction of EJ could resolve the high piping loads acting on an equipment
nozzle. Similar methodology could be applied in other cases that require an EJ.

2.0 Methodology
2.1 Identify location of high stress concentration or high equipment nozzle loads.
Firstly, model the as-designed piping system in CAESAR II and perform an ordinary stress check as per
applicable piping code. Failure on the EXP stresses and nozzle loads usually indicates a lack of flexibility
in the piping system, which could be resolved by incorporating bends or loops in the piping system or
by installing an EJ. In this case, we will be solely looking at the latter option (installation of EJ).

2.2 Identify potential location for the installation of EJ.

The purpose of an EJ is to grant flexibility to a piping system by absorbing the piping displacement due
to thermal expansion/contraction. By allowing such pipe movement, the EXP stresses or nozzle loads,
whichever applicable could be controlled within a satisfactory range. Hence, bearing this in mind, the
EJ should be located somewhere along the piping system, within which certain degree of pipe
movement would be able to resolve the piping overstressed issue. For instance, in this working
example (refer Figure 1), the two anchor points are restricting the longitudinal and lateral movement
of the piping system, therefore are experiencing high piping loads. By installing an EJ at the proposed
location, the piping system will be given the freedom to move during thermal expansion/contraction.
Hence, we should anticipate a significant reduction in the piping loads.

Figure 1: Proposed EJ Location

2.3 Evaluate the effectiveness of an EJ at the proposed location.
Insert two new nodes at the proposed location to model a zero length EJ with approximately zero
stiffness. Figure 2 below shows the CAESAR II inputs in the working example. Do note that the stiffness
value shall be inserted as a sufficiently small value instead of zero to enable the calculation in CAESAR
II. No input is required for the “Effective ID” as we are not interested at the pressure thrust at current
stage. Apart from that, do make sure that both upstream and downstream of this zero length EJ are
well supported. Add pipe support if necessary.

The idea of modelling this zero length EJ is to enable pipe movement at the point of interest as if the
pipe can move freely with no restriction (similar with a free-end pipe). Through this method, we could
understand how the piping system would react with an EJ being installed at the proposed location. We
should observe a reduction in EXP stresses or nozzle loads in the piping system in conjuction with the
pipe movement produced at the zero length EJ. If the proposed EJ location couldn’t achieve the
desired outcome, repeat the same procedure at another potential location.

Figure 2: Zero Length EJ

2.4 Modelling of EJ based on anticipated pipe movement.

Extract the pipe displacements from CAESAR II output and quantify them as per following:

o Axial displacement

Summation of the pipe axial/longitudinal movement (absolute value) at those two nodes that
make up the zero length EJ. Generally, the displacement values will tell whether a
compression or an extension is expected on the EJ. In the working example, the axial
displacement shall be in the Z-axis.

o Lateral displacement

The maximum resultant lateral movement (absolute value) between those two nodes that
make up the zero length EJ. Firstly, calculate the resultant lateral movement at individual
 node. With reference to the working example, it will be a resultant of lateral movements in
the X & Y-axis. Then, compare the resultant values among the two nodes and select the
maximum.

o Angular displacement

2 times the maximum angular movement (in degree) along the tranverse axes of the pipe
between those two nodes that make up the zero length EJ. Referring to the working example,
the tranverse axes are X & Y-axis.

Next, identify the required number of convolutions of the EJ by referring to any EJ catalogue from
reputed manufacturer. In the working example, we are referring to Senior Flexonics Pathway (SFP)
Metal Bellow Catalogue. As a common practice, it is advisable to consider a safety factor on top of the
quantified pipe displacements. However, there is no rule of thumb on how much margin we should
consider as the safety factor. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the design/stress engineer to
determine the safety factor based on client’s requirement (if any) or own engineering judgement. We
are considering a safety factor of 3 (three) in the working example.

As per working example, the following design parameters are to be considered:

 Axial movement : 6mm

 Lateral movement : 3.3mm
 Angular movement : 0.1
 Design Pressure : 7kg/cm2g (equivalent to 6.87barg)

With reference to SFP Metal Bellow Catalogue (refer Figure 3), 8 (eight) convolutions are required for a
single expansion joint to meet the design requirements. The anticipated length of the EJ is around
400mm.

THIS SPACE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

 Figure 3: SFP Metal Bellow Catalogue - EJ Specification

Moving on, in CAESAR II, remove the zero length EJ and create an element with 400mm length ( refer
Figure 4). Select this element and activate the EJ Modeller in CAESAR II.

Figure 4: Element for EJ Modelling

An EJ database should pop out and prompt us to select the EJ criteria based on our design
requirement (refer Figure 5). Then, place the EJ at the desired end of element. Let CAESAR II adjust the
stiffness values based on our piping design temperature when prompted to do so (refer Figure 6). At
the end of the exercise, the EJ Modeller will produce a summary of the EJ to be created in the stress
model (refer Figure 7). Once confirmed, click “build”. Figure 8 shows the successfully modelled EJ in
the working example. The stiffness values populated in the CAESAR II input should tally with the EJ
Modeller summary. As explained in CAESAR II Users Guide > Piping Input > Component Information >
Expansion Joint > Bellows Stiffness Properties, the bending stiffness should be left blank by the EJ
Modeller and that shall be calculated automatically by CAESAR II during the analysis.

Figure 5: EJ Modeller - EJ Database

Figure 6: EJ Modeller – EJ Placement and Stiffness Adjustment

 Figure 7: EJ Modeller - Summary

Figure 8: Single Untied EJ Modelling Completed

2.5 Run the analysis

Run the analysis to calculate the actual response of the piping system with the modelled EJ. Bear in
mind that now we have included the different stiffness values and effective ID (effective inner
diameter) as part of the EJ input, the stress model will consider the effect of spring force and pressure
thrust on the piping system during calculation. Between the spring force and pressure thrust, the
latter is something that demands serious attention from the designer/stress engineer. Obvious impact
of pressure thrust on a piping system is high support load (high piping load acting on guide, stopper &
anchor). Else, if there is no suitable pipe support to absorb the pressure thrust, it would translate into
primary stress in the piping system and high piping loads acting on the nearest fixed point.
The common way of handling this pressure thrust is to carefully design the pipe support configuration
to ensure that proper anchoring and guiding are provided to resist the pressure thrust. However this
may not be feasible in all cases. For instance, as demonstrated in the working example, we are looking
at a short piping with both ends connected to separate equipments. Any anchoring along the piping
would create separate stress issue on top of what we have been trying to resolve. In this particular
case, the stress calculation has justified that the piping system will experience high primary stresses
due to the pressure thrust in the absence of separate anchoring and guiding ( refer Figure 9). Besides
that, the nozzle loads will be way beyond the allowable limits as well.

Figure 9: Predicted Failure due to EJ Pressure Thrust

As part of the troubleshooting exercise, we will now switch the type of EJ. In lieu of an untied EJ, we
shall select a tied EJ. A tied EJ is similar to the untied one, except the overall length is restrained by tie
rods designed to contain pressure thrust. Just for information, a tied EJ is usually designed for lateral
offset/movement only so that the tie rods can remain fully engaged and loaded with the pressure
thrust force. Any sort of compression on the tied EJ will disengage the tie rods, and hence the pressure
thrust force being transferred into the piping system subsequently.

In fact, we can already presume that a tied EJ will not be suitable as it is designed for lateral
movement only (our design requirement includes axial movement). Nevertheless, we will still proceed
with the modeling of the tied EJ as part of the verification exercise.

Figure 10 below shows the stress distribution of the piping system with a tied EJ. Clearly, the tied EJ
has managed to reduce the primary stresses in the piping system significantly. It seems like the tie
rods on the EJ have done the required magic. However, this is not totally true. During operating cases,
equipment nozzles are still experiencing unacceptably high piping loads.
 Figure 10: Stress Distribution of the Piping Sytem with Tied EJ

Upon investigation, it has been proven that the piping axial movements due to thermal
expansion/contraction will not be absorbed by the tied EJ. Instead, they will be resisted by the
equipment nozzles (which are acting as anchors). Because of this, the equipment nozzles will still
experience high piping loads attributed to the piping thermal movement, while the pressure thrust
forces are contained by the tie rods.

Apart from that, there is one interesting side topic regarding the tied EJ model in CAESAR II, which is
worth being brought up for your attention here in this document.

CAESAR II models a tied EJ on the basis that no axial movement shall be allowed in the bellow as a tied
EJ is designed to absorb lateral movement only. To achieve this, a bi-directional limit stop is used along
the axial direction on the rigid element that represents the tie-rods. This prevents any sort of
compression or extension in the bellow. However, this is not totally true on how a tied EJ works. Based
on the information shared by SFP (credit to Bill Farrell, Project Engineer from SFP), the tie rods are
meant to contain the pressure thrust forces and to limit the the extension of bellow only. They do not
prevent compression in the bellow. Piping thermal movement may generate huge forces greater than
pressure thrust forces, which end up compressing the tied EJ and hence disengage the tie rods. Taking
this concern into consideration, in CAESAR II, the bi-directional limit stop could be replaced with a uni-
directional one as shown in Figure 11 below. However, this method should be used with care by the
designer/stress engineer as it has not been evidently proven. On top of all, though the CAESAR II
default model does not truly reflect how a tied EJ should respond, it could be producing more
conservative result in a stress analysis afterall.
 Figure 11: CAESAR II Default Model of a Tied EJ Versus the Modified Version

Judging from the current situation we are in, we need to tackle the axial movement and pressure
thrust at the same time. So, if we could neither absorb the pressure thrust with pipe supports, nor
contain it with tie rods while accepting compression in the bellow, is there a way to eliminate the
pressure thrust then? The answer is yes, thanks to the engineering advancement in EJ. There is indeed
a type of EJ which produces no pressure thrust force in the piping system on the main anchors, while
accepting axial compression & extension, lateral and angular movements. It is called the Pressure
Balanced EJ (PBEJ).

Due to the sophisticated nature of a PBEJ, it is always custom made to fit the client’s requirement.
Minimal details could be found in any manufacturer catalogue. In view of this, the designer/stress
engineer should approach an EJ manufacturer (capable of producing this PBEJ), feed him with the
design requirement and retrieve the necessary PBEJ parameters in order to model the PBEJ in the
stress model. Basically, the approach in CAESAR II is to model the PBEJ as a single untied EJ with 0
(zero) effective ID so as to eliminate the pressure thrust. To do so, we would need at least the
following information:

 Equivalent Axial Stiffness

 Equivalent Transverse/Lateral Stiffness
 Equivalent Bending Stiffness
 Overall length

For the working example, as advised by SFP, the PBEJ should exhibit the following properties:

 Equivalent Axial Stiffness : 2025 N/mm

 Equivalent Transverse/Lateral Stiffness : 38872 N/mm
 Equivalent Bending Stiffness : 1005 Nm/deg
 Overall length : 838 mm
 Figure 12: Inline Pressure Balance Expansion Joint (PBEJ)

Figure 12 above shows revised stress model with the inline PBEJ. The bending stiffness shall be
multiplied by 4 (four) in a finite length EJ model as required in CAESAR II Users Guide > Piping Input >
Component Information > Expansion Joint > Bellows Stiffness Properties. The torsional stiffness which
is left blank will be automatically substituted with CAESAR II default value during the calculation.
Effective ID will be 0 (zero) considering no pressure thrust forces exerted into the piping system.

As a result, the piping loads acting on the equipment nozzles are now within the allowable limits. The
stresses are all within the code allowables as well. In case a PBEJ with lower stiffness values is required
to pass the stress analysis, seek further advice from the EJ manufacturer. It can usually be achieved by
increasing the number of convolutions in the bellow.

3.0 Reference
1. Senior Flexonics Pathway Metal Bellows Catalogue
2. CAESAR II Users Guide
3. CAESAR II File – CN001 (WITHOUT EJ)
4. CAESAR II File – CN001 UNTIED EJ
5. CAESAR II File – CN001 TIED EJ
6. CAESAR II File – CN001 INLINE PBEJ