June 2000 COADE Mechanical Engineering News

" If you are designing pipe columns neither CAESAR II, nor length segments—similar to the Near/Mid/Far node sequence
the B31.1 and B31.3 codes are very helpful. This phenomena normally built around bends. (The final number of elements, N,
can and does occur in jacketed piping systems where the core will satisfy the relationship: N < 3*pi*BendRadius/Lb<2.4*N.)
and jacket pipes experience different temperatures. Be
AWARE OF THIS SITUATION!
" Adult supervision OF ANY COMPUTERIZED SOLUTION
IS ALWAYS NECESSARY! Experience and judgment are
a prerequisite to successful use of any CAE tool.
" When modeled correctly and used within the norms of expected
beam element behavior in systems where bending loads are
the predominant issues of concern, beam element models
have been quite successfully used in combination with ASME
Code factors. The knowledgeable analyst can extend the use Figure 1
of beam element models into higher D/T ratio piping system
analysis by addressing localized concerns. We have received requests from a few users who are not happy with
the number of restraints around the bend. The problem is the bend
restraints may not be close enough to eliminate bending around the
Undocumented CAESAR II Gems node—bending which would not be possible in a proper bearing/
(by: Dave Diehl) foundation model. Again, CAESAR II is modeling the continuous
soil support by a series of point supports; if they are not close
A couple of months ago I was building a CAESAR II buried piping enough, an unrealistic bending moment develops (see Figure 2).
model. I defined the soil data and defined which sections were The obvious work-around is to break the bend “by hand” into a
buried and clicked on “bury the system.” Once the program listed series of bends and let CAESAR II add the additional bend restraints
“Model conversion complete,” I realized an input error and, instead to each of these segments. This is not easy. You have to have a
of clicking on either the “OK” or “Cancel” buttons at the bottom of good handle on analytical geometry to set the tangent intersection
the window, I clicked on the Close (X) button at the top right corner points for this series of small angle bends.
of the window. The restraints were not added and control was
returned to the Underground Pipe Generator but I was surprised to
find that the model now had all the extra soil model nodes. Right
away I remembered a previous user request…

Soil provides continuous support along the pipe. CAESAR II has

no continuous support model. Instead, for buried pipe, CAESAR II
adds a series of regular point supports along the line. However,
there are two soil effects to consider—soil friction which loads the
pipe axially and soil bearing which loads the pipe in the lateral
direction (see Figure 1). The buried pipe modeler addresses both
the axial and transverse soil conditions by the density of point
supports added to the line. A good bearing soil model (near Figure 2
changes in direction or at tees and such) requires many point
supports while the axial soil model is adequately addressed with Well, here I am looking at a job that now has a whole lot more nodes
only a few supports. The CAESAR II documentation refers to around the bend. The modeler even maintained the bend designation
these areas as Zone 1 and Zone 3 respectively. Zone 1 support through these back-to-back “partial” bends so each node is a change
spacing is set by foundation theory with four nodes (three elements) in direction with a bend. All I need to do is to continue in the buried
equally spaced through this bearing zone, L b . pipe modeler and bury this modified model once again. My node
Lb = 0.65 ⋅ π ⋅ (4 ⋅ E ⋅ I ) 0.25 K is the translational stiffness of the density is automatically increased without me or CAESAR II doing
trK tr
anything more.
soil. Zone 3 node/restraint spacing is simply 100*OD. Zone 2 node
spacing starts at 1.5 times Zone 1 lengths at the Zone 1 end and So, if you are running large radius (50*OD) bends (or any other
progresses linearly to 50*OD at the Zone 3 end by adding two radius for that matter) through the buried pipe modeler, you can add
intermediate lengths. In addition, CAESAR II will add 1 or more a node at the start and end of each bend and “bury” only the bends
nodes through the bend breaking the bend into two or more equal (by specifying a soil model number for these segments) on the first

23
COADE Mechanical Engineering News
pass and return to the soil modeler. Now with a denser node, pack
around these bends, and bury the entire system to complete the
model.
The second “gem” just came up last month at a trade show in
Germany—ACHEMA 2000. A rather large user (in CAESAR II
work, not in personal stature) asked if we could add a feature in the
program to relate their many isometric drawings to their respective
CAESAR II analyses. I saw this as a legitimate and important
request but outside the scope of our program. My initial response
reflected my point of view—I said user discipline was the best
answer. Organizing data in individual folders and controlling job
names was the immediate solution to the user’s dilemma. He
persisted. He is responsible for more than a dozen CAESAR II
installations and the piping analyses may span several drawings. It
would be difficult for him to control naming conventions and any
mistakes would result in lost time in their correction.
Rising to the cause (or bait), I tried another approach. While he was
standing there I typed a string in the input title page, saved the job,
and then used Windows Explorer to find that string. It worked! I
typed 12345 in the title page and saved the job. When I went out to
Windows Explorer, I right-clicked on the folder I wanted to search,
clicked on Find, and in the “Containing text” field typed in 12345.
Sure enough, Windows Explorer listed my CAESAR II input file.
While not the elegant “programmed” solution he was asking for, the
user now has a method of searching all CAESAR II jobs in a folder
or directory for key words or phrases such as line number or
equipment ID. This approach is readily available to all who use the
title page in annotating their analyses.
WRC 107: Elastic Analysis vs.
Fatigue Analysis
(by: Mandeep Singh & Tom Van Laan)
This article aims to clarify the use of the Welding Research Council
Bulletin 107 to perform Elastic and/or Fatigue analysis on vessel-
attachment junctions. The topic is complex and the user is advised
to refer to the WRC Bulletin 107, ASME Section VIII Div. 2
paragraphs: AD-160, AD-560, App. 4 and App. 5, before using
this software.
The Welding Research Council (WRC) Bulletin 107 is implemented
in COADE’s CAESAR II , CodeCalc, and PVElite programs. In
the rest of this article, these programs will be collectively referred to
as the “software” unless otherwise noted.
In many cases it is necessary to check loadings on nozzles and
attachments at the shell junction. As a result of these loadings, local
stresses are induced at the intersection of the components. These
loads can be determined from a pipe stress program such as
24
June 2000
CAESAR II or PVElite in the case of lug supports. Stress
classifications for these loads are Primary, Secondary, and Peak.
Primary stress is necessary to satisfy the equilibrium conditions
with the external imposed loading such as P*A and M/Z. It may
also be called load-controlled stress (ASME Code Case N-47-28).
They are not self-limiting in nature and can cause ductile rupture or
a complete loss of load carrying capacity due to the plastic collapse
of the structure upon single application of load (ASME). Secondary
stress is developed as result of imposed strain. Secondary stress is a
global self-limiting stress. The examples include some bending
stresses and the stress due to thermal expansion; however, Peak
stress is a localized self-limiting stress. It causes no objectionable
distortion but it may be a possible source of fatigue failure.
Depending upon the type of loading, the design should be checked
for these stresses.
Section AD-160 of the ASME VIII Div 2 Code provides the
guidelines indicating when a fatigue analysis is required and when
an elastic analysis will suffice. One of the conditions for materials
with minimum tensile strength not exceeding 80 ksi is that the total
number of expected cycles does not exceed 1000. The expected
cycles include full-range pressure cycles, operating cycles, effective
number of changes in metal temperatures between two adjacent
points in the pressure vessel and temperature cycles. (The user
should refer to Section AD-160 for complete list of guidelines.) In
an elastic analysis, the primary and secondary stresses are taken into
account and the effect of peak stress is neglected. For fatigue
analysis all the stress categories are evaluated in a combined manner.
Peak stress is computed by applying both the stress concentration
factors and Pressure Stress Indices, defined in the following
paragraph.
Peak stress intensities resulting from internal pressure are needed
for performing fatigue analysis. They can be computed using the
Section AD-560 “Alternative Rules for Nozzle Design” instead of
Article 4-6 (“Stresses in openings for fatigue analysis”) when all the
conditions of AD-560.1 through AD-560.6 are met. This alternative
method is implemented in the software. With this method, a base
stress value is multiplied by certain factors to get the intensified
stress at different locations in the shell. These factors are known as
Pressure Stress Indices and are given in the Table AD-560.7.
Pressure Stress Indices, sometimes referred as Pressure Stress
Concentration factors, are only applied to the internal pressure
stress.
Stress Concentration Factors Kn and Kb factors are used to compute
the highest peak stress due to external piping loads. Peak stresses
are usually localized at discontinuities such as fillets and transitions.
The membrane and bending stresses are modified using the Stress
Concentration Factors Kn and Kb respectively. The program uses
the fillet radius between the Vessel and the Nozzle to estimate the
Kn and Kb values using WRC 107 Appendix B equations (3) and
(4).