ASME_Ch17_p01-68.

qxd

8/19/08

5:16 PM

Page 31

COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE 31

This equation tends to be very conservative. However, there are

a number of warning statements within the Code regarding limits
to applicability. One such warning is for near-straight sawtooth
runs. In addition, the equation provides no indication of the end
reactions, which would need to be considered in any case for
load-sensitive equipment.

17.8.3

When Computer Stress Analysis Is Typically

Used

The Code does not indicate when computer stress analysis is

required. It is difficult to generalize when a particular piping flexibility problem should be analyzed by computer methods since this
depends on the type of service, actual piping layout and size, and
severity of temperature. However, there are quite a few guidelines
in use by various organizations that indicate which types of lines
should be evaluated by computer in a project. These tend to
require that lines at higher combinations of size and temperature
or larger lines that are attached to load-sensitive equipment be
computer analyzed. One set of recommended criteria is provided
below.
(1) In the case of general piping systems; computer analysis is
according to the following line size/flexibility temperature
criteria:
(a) All DN (NPS 2) and larger lines with a design differential temperature over 260C (500F).
(b) All DN 100 (NPS 4) and larger lines with a design
differential temperature exceeding 205C (400F).
(c) All DN 200 (NPS 8) and larger lines with a design
differential temperature exceeding 150C (300F).
(d) All DN 300 (NPS 12) and larger lines with a design
differential temperature exceeding 90C (200F).
(e) All DN 500 (NPS 20) and larger lines at any temperature.
(2) Computer analyze all DN 75 (NPS 3) and larger lines connected to rotating equipment.
(3) Computer analyze all DN 100 (NPS 4) and larger lines connected to air fin heat exchangers.
(3) Computer analyze all DN 1 (NPS 6) and larger lines connected to tankage.
(4) Computer analyze double-wall piping with a design temperature differential between the inner and outer pipe
greater than 20C (40F).
Again it is emphasized that the intent of the above criteria is to
identify in principle only typical lines that should be considered at
least initially for detailed stress analysis. Obviously, the final
decision as to whether or not a computer analysis should be
performed should depend on the complexity of the specific piping
layout under investigation and the sensitivity of equipment to
piping loads.
Just because a line may pass some exemption from computer
stress analysis does not mean that it is exempt from other forms of
formal analysis, nor that it will always pass the Code criteria if
analyzed in detail. What it is intended to be is a screen that separates the more trouble-free types of systems from those that are
more subject to overload or overstress. The lines exempted from
computer stress analysis are considered to be more likely to be
properly laid out with sufficient flexibility by the designer.

17.8.4

Stress Intensification Factors

Stress intensification factors are used to relate the stress in a

component to the stress in nominal thickness straight pipe. As dis-

cussed in the prior section, the analysis is based on nominal pipe

dimensions, so the calculated stress would be the stress in straight
pipe unless some adjustment is made. The stress can be higher in
components such as branch connections.
Stress intensification factors that relate the stress in components to that in butt-welded pipe have been developed from
Markl fatigue testing of piping components. These generally
follow the procedures developed by A.R.C. Markl [1].
As mentioned previously, Markl developed a fatigue curve for
butt-welded pipe. These were based on displacement-controlled
fatigue testing, bending the pipe in a cantilever bending mode.
Figure 17.8.1 shows a Markl type fatigue test machine. Using a
butt-welded pipe fatigue curve had several practical advantages.
One is that the methodology was being developed for butt-welded
pipe, and the stress analyst typically does not know where the
welds will be in the as-constructed system. Using a butt-welded
pipe fatigue curve as the baseline fatigue curve provides that butt
welds could be anywhere in the system. Furthermore, from a testing standpoint, appropriate fatigue curves could not be readily
developed for straight pipe without welds in a cantilever bending
mode, since the failure will occur at the point of fixity, where
effects of the method of anchoring the pipe could significantly
affect results.
The stress intensification factors were developed from component fatigue testing. The stress intensification factor is the nominal stress from the butt-welded pipe fatigue curve at the number
of cycles to failure in the component test, divided by the nominal
stress in the component. The nominal stress in the component is
the range of bending moment at the point of failure divided by the
section modulus of matching pipe with nominal wall thickness. In
a flexibility analysis, it is precisely this nominal stress that is
calculated. When the nominal stress is multiplied by the stress
intensification factor, and then compared to the fatigue curve for
butt-welded pipe, one can determine the appropriate number of
cycles to failure of the component.
Different stress intensification factors are provided in ASME
B31.3 for in-plane and out-plane loads. The direction of these
moments are illustrated in Fig. 17.8.2.
One of the commonly unknown aspects of piping flexibility
analysis per the ASME B31 Codes is that in piping stress analysis, the calculated stress range due to bending loads is about
one-half of the peak stress range. This is because the stress concentration factor for typical as-welded pipe butt welds is two.
Since the stresses are compared to a butt welded pipe fatigue
curve, one-half of the actual peak stresses are calculated. Thus,
the theoretical stress, for example, in an elbow due to bending
loads is two times what is calculated in a piping flexibility
analysis following Code procedures. This is not significant
when performing standard design calculations since the Code
procedures are consistent. However, it can be very significant
when trying to do a more detailed analysis, for example, in a
fitness-for-service assessment.
One example occurs in the design of high-pressure piping to
Chapter IX. This chapter requires a detailed fatigue analysis, using
polished bar-type fatigue curves (rather than butt-welded pipe
fatigue curves). When calculating stresses due to piping thermal
expansion via a flexibility analysis, these calculated stresses must
be multiplied by a factor of two to arrive at the actual stress range.
This should not be confused with the difference between stress
range and stress amplitude, which is an additional consideration.
Another commonly misunderstood item is where the peak
stresses are in an elbow. With in-plane bending (see Fig. 17.8.2