STUDY OF VIBRATION INDUCED FAILURES IN

SMALL BORE PIPING SYSTEMS AND VALIDATION

OF ENERGY INSTITUITE GUIDELINES
A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by

K.DEEBAK 312215114045

MANOJ.S 312215114052

NAMRATHA.G 312215114056

in partial fulfillment for the award of degree of

of

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING

in

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
SSN ENGINEERING COLLEGE, CHENNAI -603110.

ANNA UNIVERSITY : CHENNAI 600 025

APRIL 2018
ANNA UNIVERSITY : CHENNAI 600 025
 BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this project report “STUDY OF VIBRATION INDUCED

FAILURES IN SMAAL BORE PIPING SYSTEMS AND VALIDATION OF
ENERGY INSTITUITE GUIDELINES” is the bonafide work of “ K.DEEBAK,
MANOJ.S, NAMRATHA.G” who carried out the project work under my
supervision.

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

Dr. V.E ANNAMALAI MRS. R.RAJESWARI

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR

Mechanical Engineering Mechanical Engineering

SSN College Of Engineering, SSN College Of Engineering,

OMR, Kalavakkam- 603110. OMR, Kalavakkam- 603110.

SUBMITTED FOR THE VIVA VOCE EXAM HELD ON: ___________

INTERNAL EXAMINER EXTERNAL EXAMINER

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We are grateful to our Principal Dr. S. Salivahanan for providing us a

constructive environment for carrying out our project.

We sincerely thank our Head of the Department, Dr. V. E. Annamalai for giving
us permission to carry out our Design and Fabrication Project .

We would like to express our gratitude to our guide Mrs. R.RAJESWARI for her
valuable guidance and support throughout the period of this project work.

We would also like to thank our project co-ordinators Dr.K.S.JAYAKUMAR and

Dr.A.K.LAKSHMINARAYAN for their valuable suggestions in carrying out the
project work
 ABSTRACT

Process piping systems have traditionally been designed on the basis of static
analysis with little or no attention paid to vibration induced failures. This is
primarily because most piping design codes do not address the issue of vibration in
a meaningful way. This results in piping vibration being considered on a relative
basis. As a proactive approach, changes ought to be made in the design phase of
various small bore configurations. To contain the likelihood of failure <0.7, as
suggested by the energy institute guideline, five redesign options have been
presented in this project.

(i) Changes in branch length

(ii) Changes in fitting type
(iii) Changes in parent pipe schedule
(iv) Changes in small bore branch diameter
(v) Changes in number and size of valves
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE
TITLE
NO. NO.

ABSTRACT

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF SYMBOLS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROCESS PIPING

1.2 THE BASICS OF PIPING SYSTEM

1.3 BASICS OF PIPING VIBRATION

1.4 TYPES OF RESPONSES TO EXCITATION

1.4.1 TONAL EXCITATION-RESONANT

1.4.2 TONAL EXCITATION-FORCED

1.4.3 BROADBAND EXCITATION

 1.5 COMMON CAUSES OF PIPING VIBRATION

1.5.1 FLOW INDUCED TURBULENCE

1.5.2 MECHANICAL EXCITATION

1.6 RISKS AND CONSEQUENCES

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 EI GUIDELINE STUDY

2.1.1 LIKELIHOOD OF FAILURE

2.1.2 CONFIGURATIONS AS PER THE GUIDELINES

2.2 CALCULATION OF SCORE

2.3 CONCEPTUALIZATION OF SCORES

2.3.1 LENGTH OF BRANCH

2.3.2 NUMBER OF VALVES

2.3.3 PARENT PIPE SCHEDULE

2.3.4 DIAMETER OF SMALL BORE CONNECTION

2.3.5 TYPE OF FITTING

2.3.6 CHOSEN CONFIGURATIONS FOR STUDY

 2.4 DEVELOPMENT OF ALLOWABLE LENGTH TABLE

3 LITERATURE SURVEY

3.1 FATIGUE OF CANTILEVERED PIPE FITTINGS SUBJECTED

TO VIBRATION

3.2 ACOUSTICALLY INDUCED STRUCTURAL FATIGUE OF

PIPING SYSTEM

3.3 VIBRATION-INDUCED FATIGUE FAILURE OF AN IMPULSE

LINE

3.4 PRACTICAL, SYSTEMATIC AND STRUCTURED

APPROACHED TO PIPING VIBRATION ASSESSMENT

3.5 INVESTIGATION OF FATIGUE-INDUCED SOCKET-WELDED

JOINT FAILURES SMALL BORE PIPING CONNECTIONS

3.6 ACOUSTIC FATIGUE EVALUATION OF BRANCH

CONNECTIONS

3.7 INTEGRITY EVALUATION OF SMALL BORE

CONNECTIONS

4 EXPERIMENTATION

4.1 SIF FROM ASME B31.3

4.1.1 TEE JOINT

4.1.2 WELDOLET

4.2 SIF FROM CAESAR SOFTWARE

 4.3 ANSYS STRESS ANALYSIS

5 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

5.1 TEE JOINT

5.2 WELDOLET

5.3 HC-01 COMMON PRODUCT PIPING SPECIFICATION

5.3.1 LOF RESULTS (HC-01)

5.3.2 ALLOWABLE LENGTH TABLE (HC-01)

5.4 HC-02 COMMON PRODUCT PIPING SPECIFICATION

5.4.1 LOF RESULTS (HC-02)

5.4.2 ALLOWABLE LENGTH TABLE (HC-02)

6 CONCLUSION

7 REFERENCES

8 APPENDIX

LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
NO
Table 2.1 Score for length of branch

Table 2.2 Score for number of valves

Table 2.3 Score for parent pipe schedule

Table 2.4 Score for diameter of small bore connection

Table 4.1 Formula for tee joint

Table 4.2 Formula for weldolet

Table 4.3 SIF value of tee joint and weldolet from Caesar
software

LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
NO
Figure 1.1 Small bore connection standards

Figure 1.2 General arrangement of small bore branch

connections

Figure 1.3 Description of vibration using a simple spring mass

system

Figure 1.4 Distribution of kinetic energy to the turbulence

generated by flow in a tee

Figure 2.1 Methodology flowchart

Figure 2.2 SBC geometry types as per EI guidelines

Figure 2.3 Likelihood of failure

Figure 2.4 Fitting types

Figure 2.5 Cantilever, type-1

Figure 2.6 Branch emerging from and merging with the main
pipe, type-2

Figure 4.1 Schematic of welded tee

Figure 4.2 Schematic of weldolet

Figure 4.3 SIF value of tee joint and weldolet from Caesar
software

LIST OF SYMBOLS, ABBREVIATIONS AND NOMENCLATURE

SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers

AVIFF Avoidance of Vibration Induced Fatigue Failure

EI Energy Institute

SBF Small Bore Fittings

LOF Likelihood Of Failure

SBC Small Bore Connections

SIF Stress Intensification Factor

HC Hydrocarbons

k Stiffness (m)

m Mass (Kg)

ω Natural frequency (Hz)

ii In-plane SIF

i0 Out-plane SIF

k Flexibility factor

h Flexibility characteristic

Τ Thickness of pipe

r2 Main radius of pipe

CHAPTER 1
 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROCESS PIPING

Piping systems and their component parts, that are not building services or power
piping systems, and that may be installed in petroleum refineries, chemical,
pharmaceutical, textile, paper, semiconductor, cryogenic plants, and related
processing plant terminals. ASME B31.3 is a Code that contains standard
requirements for process piping systems.

1.2 THE BASICS OF PIPING SYSTEM

A piping system is an assembly of pipe, fittings, valves, and specialty components.

All piping systems are engineered to transport a fluid or gas safely and reliably
from one piece of equipment to another. Piping is divided into two main
categories:

• Small bore lines

• Large bore lines

Small bore branch connections are typically those systems whose branch diameters
are less than or equal to 2”, as per industrial guidelines those piping systems with
the ratio of the branch nominal diameter to the main pipe nominal diameter less
than 10% fall under the small bore category, excluding connections having a ratio
greater than 25% (Fig 1.1).
Fig 1.1 Small bore connection standards

The general arrangement of a small bore branch connection includes the main pipe
line, small bore branch connection (fitting) and the small bore piping (Fig1.2). The
Energy Institute AVIFF Guideline developed in the year 2008 for the avoidance of
vibration induced fatigue failures has a wide scope and addresses various piping
issues. In this report we will be focusing on the failure of small bore branch
connections and the corrective actions that are to be taken at various stages of plant
design and operation. This reduces the risk of vibration at an early stage by
redesigning or supporting the configuration.

Fig 1.2 General arrangement of small bore branch connections

OVERVIEW OF PIPING VIBRATION

1.3. BASICS OF PIPING VIBRATION

Vibration is oscillatory motion about a mean position. Consider a simple spring

mass system as shown in the Figure 2.1.

Fig 1.3 Description of vibration using a simple spring mass system

When the mass is pulled down and released, the spring extends, then contracts and
continues to oscillate over a period of time. The resulting frequency of oscillation
is known as the natural frequency of the system, and is controlled by the system
mass and stiffness i.e.

f n=
1
2π √ k
m

Where,

k- Stiffness of the spring

m-Mass
f n- Natural frequency

Anny structural system, such as a pipe, will exhibit a series of natural frequencies
which depend upon the distribution of mass and the stiffness of the system. The
mass and stiffness distribution are influenced by pipe diameter, material properties,
wall thickness, location of lumped masses (valves) and pipe support sand also fluid
density(liquid versus gas) it should be notes that the supports designed for static
conditions will act differently under dynamic conditions.

Each natural frequency has a unique deflection shape associated with it, which is
called the mode shape which has location s of zero motion (nodes) and maximum
motion (antinodes). The response of a pipework to an applied excitation is
dependent upon the relationship between the frequency of excitation and the
system’s natural frequencies and the location of the excitation relative to the nodes
and antinodes of the respective mode shapes.

1.4. TYPES OF RESPONSES TO EXCITATION

Excitation can either be tonal i.e. the energy is input at discrete frequencies or
broadband i.e. the energy is input at a wide frequency range. There are several
different type of responses that can exist depending upon how the excitation
frequencies match the system’s frequency.

1.4.1 Tonal excitation-resonant

If the frequency of excitation matches a natural frequency then a resonant

condition is said to exist. In this situation, all the excitation energy is available to
‘drive’ the natural frequency, and only a small amount of excitation at a natural
frequency is required to generate substantial levels of vibration, if the system
damping is low. To avoid vibration due to tonal excitation, where there is
interaction between the excitation and response, the excitation frequency should
not be within ± 20 % of the systems natural frequency.

1.4.2 Tonal excitation-forced

If the frequency of excitation does not match the natural frequency, then the
vibration will still be present at the natural frequency, although at much lower
levels than for the resonant case. This is known as forced vibration and can only
lead to high levels of vibration if the excitation energy levels are high, relative to
the stiffness of the system.

1.4.3 Broadband excitation

If the excitation is broadband then there is a probability that some energy will be
input at the systems natural frequencies. Generally, response levels are lower than
for the purely resonant vibration case described above because the excitation
energy is spread over a wide frequency range. Vibration generated in the pipework
may lead to high cyclic fatigue of components (such as small bore connections) or,
in extreme cases, to failure at welds in the mainline.

1.5. COMMON CAUSES OF PIPING VIBRATION

1.5.1 Flow induced turbulence

Turbulence will exist in most piping systems that exist in practice. In straight pipes
it is developed at the turbulent boundary layer of the pipe wall, the severity of
which depends on the flow regime given by the Reynolds number. However, for
most cases experienced in practice the dominant sources of turbulence are major
flow discontinuities in the system. Typical examples are process equipment,
partially closed valves, short radius or mitred bends, tees or reducer.

This in turn generates potentially high levels of broadband kinetic energy local to
the turbulent source (Figure 2.2). Although the energy is distributed across a wide
frequency range, the majority of the excitation is concentrated at low frequency
(typically below 100Hz); the lower the frequency, the higher the level of excitation
from turbulence (Figure 2.3). This leads to excitation of the low frequency
vibration modes of the pipe work, in many cases causing visible motion of the pipe
and in some cases the pipe supports.

Fluid velocity profile Kinetic Energy

Fig 1.4 Distribution of kinetic energy to the turbulence generated by flow in a tee

1.5.2. Mechanical excitation

Most of the problems of this nature encountered have been associated with
reciprocating /positive displacement compressors and pumps. In such machines,
the dynamic forces directly load the pipework connected to the machine or cause
vibration of the support structure which in turn results in the excitation of the
pipework supported from the structure. Normally, high levels of vibration and
failures occur only where the pipework system has a natural frequency at a
multiple of the running speed of the machine.

1.6. RISKS AND CONSEQUENCES

The consequences of a vibration-induced failure can be catastrophic. A small crack

will release process fluids causing safety risks (explosion, fire, or toxic chemicals),
environmental risk to the nearby area, and production downtime. In recent cases,
SBC failures have been responsible for the shutdown of a pipeline and production
facilities for weeks. Given the risk of these piping failures, owners must take an
active role in avoiding them.
 CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY

EI guideline study

Calculation of LOF

Conceptualization of scores

Development of Allowable length table

Fig 2.1 Methodology flowchart

2.1 EI GUIDELINE STUDY

Prepared under the Energy Institute managed by Joint industry project which was
setup to permit financial sponsorship by Oil and Gas industry operators, this
guideline offers practices to minimize the risk of vibration induced failure of
process piping.

The Guideline provides a staged approach.

Initially, a qualitative approach is undertaken (i) to identify potential excitation

mechanisms that may exist in a system and (ii) to perform a risk assessment to
prioritize the subsequent measures, followed by a quantitative assessment to
address the high risk areas by determination of likelihood of failure.

2.1.1 Likelihood of Failure

The likelihood of failure is a scoring factor that is calculated for the purpose of
screening piping systems for their robustness. It is neither an absolute probability
of failure nor and absolute measure of failure, it is developed based on certain
simplified configurations into which the site systems can be accommodated for
further study.

2.1.2 Configurations as per the guidelines

Type 1- cantilever

Type 2- continuous (same main line)

Type 3- continuous (with intermediate supports)

Type 4- continuous (between mainlines with no intermediate support

 Fig 2.2 SBC geometry types as per EI Guidelines

2.2 CALCULATION OF SCORE

The EI Guidelines factors in the following parameters for LOF

 Type of fitting
 Overall length of the branch
 Size and Number of valves
 Parent pipe schedule
 SBC Minimum diameter
Fig 2.3 Likelihood of Failure

( S 1+S 2+ S 3+ S 4+ S 5)
Likelihood of failure =
5

S1-Fitting score

S2- Length of Branch

S3- Number of Valves

S4- Parent Pipe Schedule

 S5- Diameter of Small Bore Connection

2.3 CONCEPTUALIZATION OF SCORES

2.3.1 Length of Branch

The length of the connection is one of the key parameters that determine the
fundamental natural frequency. A longer unsupported branch results in lower
natural frequencies and hence greater likelihood of failure. Length is measured
from the main pipe wall to the end of the branch assembly.

TB 2.1 Score for length of branch

2.3.2 Number of Valves

This is the element of likelihood of failure associated with the unsupported mass.
Higher mass results in lower natural frequencies and hence greater likelihood of
failure.
TB 2.2 Score for number of valves

2.3.3 Parent Pipe Schedule

This is the pipe schedule (or wall thickness) of the parent pipe at the connection.
Thin walled main pipe is at higher likelihood of failure than the heavier schedules,
as its lower stiffness results in low natural frequencies and high levels of stress at
the joint between the small bore branch and the main pipe.

TB 2.3 Score for Parent Pipe Schedule

2.3.4 Diameter of Small Bore Connection

As the diameter of the small bore fitting increases the natural frequency will also
increase and hence likelihood of failure will be reduced.
TB2.4 Score for Diameter of Small Bore Connection

The scores mentioned above strictly adhere to the relationship between natural
frequency, stiffness and mass, as in Equation 2.1

f n=
1
2π √ k
m¿
Eq 2.1

2.3.5 Type of Fitting

By considering the susceptibility to fatigue, stress intensity factor, and natural
frequencies of the fittings, the score for the fitting have been characterized. Fittings
with higher natural frequencies, low stress intensity factors have low susceptibility
to failure.

Fig 2.4 Fitting types

 2.3.6 Chosen configurations for study

Fig 2.5 Cantilever, type-1

Fig 2.6 Branch emerging from and merging with the main pipe, type-2

2.4 DEVELOPMENT OF ALLOWABLE LENGTH TABLE

In order to contain the value of LOF<0.7 at the design phase the engineer can alter
the type of fitting, diameter of the small bore, length of the branch, parent pipe
schedule or the number of valves. Often, alterations in the number of valves lie
beyond the scope of the designer as they fall under the umbrella of process
requirements; changes to the parent pipe schedule and fitting type are avoided to
maintain an economic design. Under the purview of the designer lies the length of
the branch and hence this project aims at developing a practice to check the large
number of small bore lines in a plant for safety by containing the branch length to
a maximum allowable value.
 CHAPTER 3

LITERATURE SURVEY

3.1 Fatigue of cantilevered pipe fittings subjected to vibration – M.Hamblin et al

Vibration fatigue failures in piping systems often occur at cantilevered small-bore

fittings (SBF) such as pressure tappings and drain valves. Piping vibration has
often been assessed by measuring vibration displacement or velocity. However, in
the case of straight cantilevered fittings with a concentrated mass, a better method
exists. This paper presents a simple robust method of calculating vibration induced
stress for cantilevered fittings at both the fitting branch neck and the main pipe.

3.2 Acoustically Induced Structural Fatigue of Piping System –

F. L. Eisinger and J. T. Francis
Piping systems handling high-pressure and high-velocity steam and various
process and hydrocarbon gases through a pressure-reducing device can produce
severe acoustic vibration and metal fatigue in the system. It has been previously
shown that the acoustic fatigue of the piping system is governed by the relationship
between fluid pressure drop and downstream Mach number, and the dimensionless
pipe diameter/wall thickness geometry parameter. In this paper, the devised
relationship is extended to cover acoustic fatigue considerations of medium and
smaller-diameter piping systems.

3.3 Vibration-Induced Fatigue Failure of an Impulse Line-

 K.R.AL-Asmi , A.C.Seibi
This paper presents a case study dealing with the operational failure of an impulse
line used to connect a tapping in a crude oil pipeline header to a pressure
transmitter in an oil field booster station. The 3/8 in diameter stainless steel tubing
failed where it entered a Swagelok connection to the pressure transmitter. The
investigation was complicated due to the non-availability of information pertinent
to the field conditions and the operational urgency to isolate the case of failure. A
combination of scanning electron fractography and finite element structural
analysis showed that the failure was caused by high-cycle fatigue resulting from
the transverse vibration of the tubing. Remedial measures were suggested to reduce
the amplitude of the vibration.

3.4 practical, systematic and structured approach to piping

vibration assessment – Narein Sukhaih et al.

The main aim of this paper is to present a systematic and structured approach to
piping vibration assessment and control. Piping vibration assessment is a complex
subject, since there are no general analytical methods for dealing with vibration
problems. It was noted that most existing vibrating piping systems had poor or
degraded support arrangements. This approach therefore focuses mainly on
vibration control through assessing and improving the supporting systems.
Vibration theory has not been covered in any detail. A simplified procedure is
presented for the Integrity custodian to determine when a simple assessment may
be carried out and when specialist/consultant services are required. The assessment
techniques are based on simplifying assumptions, good rules of thumb and
available literature and current practices. A typical case study is used to illustrate
 the use and the flexibility of the above approach. A standard sheet is proposed to
record and document the assessment and recommendations.

3.1 Investigation of fatigue-induced socket-welded joint failures for small-bore

piping systems - Daniel N. Hopkins, Daniel J. Benac
Nuclear power plants typically experience two or three high-cycle fatigue failures
of stainless steel socketwelded connections in small bore piping during each plant-
year of operation. This paper discusses fatigue-induced failure in socket-welded
joints and the strategy Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric) has
implemented in response to these failures. High-cycle fatigue is invisible to proven
commercial nondestructive evaluation (NDE) methods during crack initiation and
the initial phases of crack growth. Under a constant applied stress, cracks grow at
accelerating rates, which means cracks extend from a detectable size to a through-
wall crack in a relatively short time. When fatigue cracks grow large enough to be
visible to. TU Electric has determined that an inspection program designed to
detect a crack prior to the component leaking would involve frequent inspections at
a given location and that the cost of the inspection program would far exceed the
benefits of avoiding a leak. Instead, TU Electric locates these cracks by visually
monitoring for leaks. Field experience with fatigue-induced cracks in socket-
welded joints has confirmed that visual monitoring does detect cracks in a timely
manner, that these cracks do not result in catastrophic failures, and that the plant
can be safely shut down in spite of a leaking socket-welded joint in a small bore
pipe.

3.2 Acoustic Fatigue Evaluation of Branch Connections –

Dan Lin, Ajay Prakash, Philip Diwakar and Bertito David
 High acoustic energy is known to cause vibrations in pipes, and in some severe
cases acoustic induced vibration can lead to fatigue failure at branch connections
with high stress concentration. Industry guidelines suggest using mitigation
measures such as fabricated full wrap-around reinforcement pad (re-pad) or
Sweepolet fittings at branch connections. Effectiveness of these mitigation
measures is evaluated via a finite element analysis of four types of branch
connections; (i) Sockolet, (ii) ) year Sockolet with 2″ wide partial re-pad, (iii)
Sockolet with full wrap-around re-pad, and (iv) Sweepolet. Four distinct acoustic
frequency ranges (1/3 octave bands) with associated sound pressure levels are used
as the excitation source. Maximum stress levels in the main header pipe at the
branch tie-in are monitored to assess the potential for vibration damage. Of the
four branch connections, Sockolet with full wrap-around re-pad is found to be least
susceptible to damage, followed by the Sweepolet. Unreinforced Sockolet is most
susceptible to damage, and the Sockolet with partial re-pad is only marginally
better.

3.3 “Integrity Evaluation of Small Bore Connections”

SBCs are highly susceptible to problems due to their geometry and mass. Even
very low and acceptable amplitude vibration on the main process piping can cause
the branch connections to vibrate excessively and break due to fatigue failure. This
is due to the local resonance of the SBC. At certain frequencies, base vibration can
be amplified by 20 to 30 times, causing branch connections to fail.
 CHAPTER 4

EXPERIMENTATION

The scores of various pipe fittings in Energy Institute guidelines were cross
verified using the following:

1. SIF (stress intensification factor) calculated by using ASME B31.3 process piping
specifications for fittings under study.
2. SIF value obtained from CAESAR software.
3. Stress for selected fittings using ANSYS software.

STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTOR:

Stress intensification factor is a multiplier on nominal stress for typically bend and
intersection components so that the effect of geometry and welding can be
considered in a beam analysis. It is the basis of most stress analysis of piping
systems.

4.1 SIF (STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTOR) FROM ASME B31.3:

Pipe geometry:

HEADER: 4″ standard thickness

Branch: 2″ standard thickness

4.1.1 Tee joint:

Fig 4.1 Schematic of welded tee

Header SIF:

Stress
Intensification

Description Flexibility Factor(SIF) Flexibility

factor in out characteristic

k plane plane H
ii i0

Welding tee
1 3 1 0.9 ₸
i o+ 3.1 r
4 4 2
2
h 3

TB 4.1 Formula for tee joint

Run/Header Outside Diameter = 114.300 mm
Branch Outside Diameter        = 60.325 mm

Run/Header Thickness   = 6.020 mm

Branch Thickness                 = 3.912 mm

6.020
Flexibility characteristic, h = 3.1* 54.14 = 0.34469

0.9 0.9
Out plane SIF, i0 = 2 = 2 = 1.8306
h 3
0.34469 3

3 1 3 1
In plane SIF, ii = 4 io+ 4 = 4 (1.8306)+ 4 = 1.623

4.1.2 Weldolet:

Fig 4.2 Schematic of weldolet

Header SIF:

Stress
Intensification

Description Flexibility Factor(SIF) Flexibility

factor in out characteristic

k plane plane H
ii i0

Weldolet 1 0.9 0.9 ₸

2 2 3.3 r
2
h 3
h 3

TB 4.2 Formula for weldolet

    

Run/Header Outside Diameter =      114.300 mm

     Branch Outside Diameter        =       60.325 mm
     Run/Header Thickness   =        6.020 mm
     Branch Thickness                 =        3.912 mm
       

6.020
Flexibility characteristic, h = 3.3* 54.14 = 0.3669

0.9 0.9
In plane SIF, ii = 2
3
= 2 = 1.7560
h 0.3669 3
 0.9 0.9
Out plane SIF, i0 = 2 = 2 = 1.7560
h 3
0.3669 3

4.2 SIF from CAESAR software

Fig 4.3 SIF value of tee joint and weldolet from Caesar software

4.3 ANSYS STRESS ANALYSIS:

 Tee joint and weldolet were modeled using SOLIDWORKS software.

 CFD Fluent was performed with ANSYS software. The assumptions were as
follows:
 Flow - turbulent.
m
 Inlet Velocity - 3 s .

 Pressure – constant throughout the flow.

 Results: Velocity and Pressure contours.
 Based on the Fluent flow results structural analysis was performed for tee joint
and weldolet fittings. The assumptions for structural analysis were as follows:
 One end of the header was fixed.
 Axial movement along the longitudinal axis was permitted for the other
end of the header.
 Internal pressure - 20 Mpa (inner walls of the pipe).
 Results: total deformation and Von-Mises (equivalent) stress.
 CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

5.1 TEE JOINT:

 5.2 WELDOLET

The stress developed in a tee joint (99 MPa) is less compares to that of a weldolet
(1490 MPa) for the same conditions of pressure and temperature. This is in line
with the results posed by the empirical formulae of B31.1, thus validating the
scores in EI guidelines for further study.

CHAPTER 6
 CONCLUSION
 Owing to the risk of vibration induced failures associated with small bore
branch connections and their wide presence in process plants, this study has
presented a non-cumbersome method to check all branch connections for
failure at the design phase with the help of EI Guidelines.
 For benefit of doubt the scores presented in the guidelines were validated
using stress intensification factors calculated through B31.3 (process piping
codes).
 Stress analysis was performed on two sample fittings (tee joint and weldolet)
to ensure the stresses were in line with the guideline scores using ANSYS
software.
 The Likelihood of Failure (LOF) was calculated for all possible small bore
configurations in HC-01 and HC-05 (commonly used process piping
specifications).
 The allowable length table was derived from the calculated LOF values. The
table allows users to scrutinize a large number of small bore branch
configurations in plants with ease and also prevents failures due to vibration.
 CHAPTER 7

REFERENCES

1. Fatigue of cantilevered pipe fittings subjected to vibration –

M.Hamblin et al
2. Acoustically Induced Structural Fatigue of Piping System – F. L. Eisinger
and J. T. Francis.
3. Vibration-Induced Fatigue Failure of an Impulse Line- K.R.AL-Asmi ,
A.C.Seibi.
4. A practical, systematic and structured approach to piping vibration
assessment – Narein Sukhaih et al.
5. Investigation of fatigue-induced socket-welded joint failures for small-bore
piping systems - Daniel N. Hopkins, Daniel J. Benac.
6. Acoustic Fatigue Evaluation of Branch Connections – Dan Lin, Ajay
Prakash, Philip Diwakar and Bertito David.
7. ASME B31.3 Process Piping Specifications.
8. Guidelines for Vibration Induced Fatigue failures in Process Pipework.
 CHAPTER 8
APPENDIX

MATERIA DENSIT MODULUS THERMAL SPECIFIC TENSILE THERMAL

L Y OF EXPANSION HEAT STRENGTH COEFFICIEN
(kg/m^3) ELASTICIT COEFFICIEN CAPACIT (MPa) T
Y T Y (W/mK)
(GPa) (C^-1) (J/KgK)
Steel 7872 201 11.7 x 10^-6 486 565 50.9

Iron 7874 170 12 x 10^-6 460 275(ferrite) 79.5

620(martensit
e)