GRI-00/0192.07 GRI GUIDE FOR LOCATING AND USING PIPELINE INDUSTRY RESEARCH SECTION 7 FITTINGS AND COMPONENTS Prepared by J. Kiefner Kiefner and Associates Inc. 893 High Street, Suite L Worthington, Ohio 43085 for GAS RESEARCH INSTITUTE 1700 S. Mt. Prospect Road Des Plaines, Illinois 60018 GRI Project Manager Keith Leewis Pipeline Program March 2001Fittings and Components FITTINGS AND COMPONENTS Scope This section of the Handbook discusses pipeline fittings and components, Fittings and components are used to join, branch, cap, change the direction of, or change the size of straight runs of pipe. Because of their geometric configurations, components usually experience higher stress levels than adjacent pipes. This makes them potentially more susceptible to failures if the higher stresses are not accounted for in their design, or in the layout of the piping system. Consequently, the engineering community determined in the early years of piping system design that fittings and components should be studied to better define the local stresses due to internal pressure and applied bending moments, the flexibility characteristics which affect both the stresses in the component and the overall distribution of loadings within a piping system, and how details of component design and fabrication influence performance. This chapter focuses on the research associated with the evaluation of pipe fitting and component performance from early periods using experimentation and classical mechanics to ‘more recent efforts involving finite element methods. In the context of this discussion, pipe fittings are limited to bends, branches, and flanges. While other types of fittings such as reducers, caps, and wyes are important components, the bulk of fitting research has focused on bend and branch design. The terms “fittings” and “components” are often used interchangeably. In the context of this discussion, “fittings” refers to forged one-piece elements that are installed in-line, primarily butt-welding elbows and tees, while “components” covers both fittings and fabrications that perform essentially the same function as fittings. The category of bends includes forged elbows, fabricated (mitered) bends, induction bends, and cold field bends. Field bends and induction bends are distinct from standardized bend fittings in that they are custom or made-to-order items formed from and integrally with initially straight tangent pipe. Though sometimes regarded as “pipe”, they serve the same purpose as an elbow, namely to change the direction of the run pipe. Like the standard bend, their shape alters the magnitude and distribution of stresses due to applied loadings compared to straight pipe. Unlike standard forged fittings, considerations associated with pipemaking uniquely affect the properties of the final product. Those properties may differ greatly from those of the adjacent72 Fittings and Components pipe. For practical purposes, induction bends and field bends comprise special cases of in-line components which share some elements of “pipe” as well as fitings. ‘This discussion categorizes branches as either “integrally reinforced” or “fabricated”. Integrally reinforced branches include forged tees and extruded outlets. Extruded outlets are similar to induction bends in bridging the definition of pipe versus fitting in that they are made from straight pipe. Fabricated branches include unreinforced junctions of straight pipe, reinforced branches incorporating welded-on pads, saddles, or sleeves, and branches made using weld-on or weld-in manufactured outlets. Examples of manufactured outlets include “Weld-o-lets” (a proprietary name) and other similar “o-let” components. The weld-on fittings are often referred to as “integrally reinforced” because usually no additional reinforcement of the opening is necessary because of their heavy wall. However, clearly they are nonintegral to the run pipe, so in the context of this report they are considered a subgroup of a fabricated branch. The weld-in branch is normally contoured like a welding tee and inserted in an opening cut in the pipe. Its performance approaches that of a welding tee, While the integrally reinforced branches are usable only in new construction or modification of a line that is out of service, other branch styles may be used in those situations as well as for hot-taps in operating pipelines. ‘The category of flanges includes welding neck types, slip-on types, and those that are integrally formed at the end of a fitting such as a bend or branch. Methods of attachment to pipe for all components include full-penetration welds with butt-welding components, fillet welds on certain non-integral reinforcing elements and slip-on or socket-type components, threading, or grooving. Threaded or grooved attachments will not be discussed, the majority of attachments being welded. Literally hundreds of papers have been published describing the results of theoretical, numerical, and experimental investigations into various aspects of the pressure integrity and fatigue performance of bends and branches, so it is impossible and probably unnecessary to attempt to review and describe the collective body of work in its entirety. Instead, attention will be given to seminal theoretical papers that laid the groundwork for present concepts, reports on tests or experiments that demonstrated important aspects of fitting performance, survey reports which summarize progress and findings, and selected recent efforts that point to important revisions or refinements to earlier efforts. Discussion is organized in terms of design and73 Fittings and Components performance considerations by fitting type for (1) internal pressure and pressure pulsation, and (2) cyclic bending loads and flexure. ‘The focus will be on applications important to the oil and gas pipeline industry and on studies sponsored by the pipeline industry, though findings from research in other industries will be covered to the extent that they may be relevant to pipeline applications. Hence, many issues that have presented important challenges to piping engineers in other industries, such as the detailed theoretical analysis of Class 1 nuclear piping design, the performance of stainless steel or nonferrous components, or the behavior of fittings at high temperatures, to name just a few, will not be covered in significant detail. The 83 references cited in this section thus represent a small fraction of the cumulative body of work on fittings and components. Research on Fittings and Components ‘The evaluation of pipe fittings dates back to the turn of the century when theoreticians ‘began to apply classical mechanics methods to investigate the distribution of stresses in ideal shells due to internal pressure or applied moments. Also, the empirical principles employed in the design of nozzles and flanges in boilers that were developed early in the century were initially carried over directly to the design of branches and flanges, respectively, in pressurized pipe. Substantial and rapid progress in understanding the behavior of fittings, in developing reliable design rules, and in the standardization of manufactured components was achieved between 1945 and 1965, Refinement and optimization continues today, often by numerical techniques (finite element analysis), although it is important to distinguish between empirical and theoretical results as they apply to piping. Numerous organizations and individuals have contributed to the vast body of research underlying our present understanding of fittings and components, so only a few are listed to give some idea of the breadth of interests. Funding for research has been provided by fitting and equipment manufacturers (Tube Turns, Taylor Forge & Pipe, Bonney Forge); large plant engineering firms (M. W. Kellogg, Babcock & Wilcox, Westinghouse Electric); government agencies (the U. S. Navy, NASA, the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission); various groups sponsored by the fossil and nuclear power industries and the gas and oil refining and transportation industries (the Electric Power Research Institute, the Pressure Vessel Research14 Fittings and Components Council of the Welding Research Council, the Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas Association); and foreign counterparts (the British Welding Research Association, the British Ship Research Association). Organizations whose facilities and staff have been involved in carrying out research on fittings and components have included manufacturing and engineering firms such as those mentioned above; universities (Pennsylvania State University, University of Waterloo, University of Ilinois, Hinois Institute of Technology, University of Manchester); government R&D facilities (the Naval Research Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory); and independent R&D organizations (Battelle Memorial Institute, Southwest Research Institute). Of course the ideas and understanding are the contribution of individuals, who can be identified by authorship of the reports referred to herein or as named in their bibliographies. Research on most aspects of pipe fittings and components is a rather mature field. However, fitting and component behavior continues to be studied using traditional simplified empirical methods, and sometimes, more recently using detailed finite element methods on a case-by-case (and usually proprietary) basis. Situations where finite element analysis (FEA) has Proven useful include the development of flexibility factors for components that fall outside the range of components for which factors have been accepted and that are too large or too expensive to be extensively tested at a reasonable cost, or optimization of a mass-produced component in order to achieve unit cost savings. Other research continues including an effort to verify the application of present piping flexibility-fatigue design concepts which were developed originally using Grade B and X52 pipe and matching components, to higher X-grade materials; extension of the flexibility-fatigue concepts to low-cycle fatigue; consideration of specific wall thickness requirements for pressure design of elbows; development of a standard specification for induction bends; establishing the acceptability of minor wrinkle deformations in pipeline bends; and the publication of standard methods for proof testing fittings, components, and joints, and developing stress intensification and flexibility factors. However, successful worldwide operation of fittings and components in piping and pipeline systems gives testimony to the overall adequacy of the treatment of fittings in the piping design codes and component standards as they have evolved in current use.75 Fittings and Components Internal Pressure and Pressure Pulsation Standards Intemnal pressure is the primary loading and governs the basic design of both buried Pipelines and above-ground piping systems, though consideration for external loads and Alexibility remain essential factors in establishing layouts for above-ground piping. It has Sencrally been the rule that fittings should not constitute the weakest part of the piping system ‘fom the standpoint of pressure integrity. Standards for manufactured components such as forged butt welding tees and elbows (ASME B16.9 and MSS SP-75) rely on performance language rather than dimensional specifications to achieve satisfactory intemal pressure capacity when used with “matching” or “designated” pipe. The standards require proof testing of a sample representative of the finished product to bursting at a pressure at least equal to 105 percent of a failure pressure computed as 2S1/D, where Sis the actual tensile strength of the fitting, and s and D are the nominal dimensions of the matching or designated pipe. The proof testis intended to apply to similarly proportioned fittings from one-half to twice the size tested. The value of Sis determined either by cutting out and testing material from a representative fiting, or from plate Coupons that remain attached to the fitting as it undergoes forging and heat treatment. Periodic retesting is not mandated by B16.9, which applies only to Grade B-equivalent material, though some manufacturers retest routinely. Testing at the rate of one per lot or heat is required by SP- 75 in cognizance of the unique and variable characteristics of the high-strength materials it addresses. Both standards require that fittings be able to withstand a hydrostatic pressure test in the field without failure, leakage, or impairment of its serviceability (excessive deformation or ‘gross through-wall yielding). ‘The applicable ASME B16 and ISO committees are still working on draft standards for induction bends. Induction bends are not “cookie-cutter” components to the extent that fittings are. They are greatly affected by the fabricator’s skill in selecting initial materials and in consistently controlling the heat treatment of the bend from piece to piece. Draft standards Presently specify minimum wall thickness design to account for the theoretical stress distribution ina curved pipe. Performance is to be assured by control of process essential variables to a Qualified range, material propertics tests made on a sampling basis per heat, and nondestructive ‘examination of the finished product. No hydrostatic test is required.16 Fittings and Components Proof testing of fabricated components and field bends is usually performed in-line with the pipeline and so is limited to yielding in the carrier pipe. Consequently, design rules which require minimum thicknesses and other dimensions, along with workmanship quality standards, have evolved to assure that the finished component will safely tolerate the intended service and test pressures. Elbows A concise summary and bibliography of theoretical and experimental studies of piping elbows is given by Rodabaugh, Dufly, and Atterbury in a 1969 report to the A.G.A. NG-18 Committee.” Lorenz® showed that the circumferential (hoop) stress due to internal pressure is greater than for straight pipe on the inside of a bend, and less than for straight pipe on the outside ofa bend. Assuming a uniform wall thickness, the hoop stress is increased by a factor (the “Lorenz factor”) of 1.25 in the inside arc (intrados) of a standard short-radius elbow, and is decreased by a factor of 0.875 on the outside arc (extrados) of the bend. As the ratio of bend radius to pipe radius (R/r) increases, both factors converge toward 1. If the bend subtends a small angle as is the case with field bends, the “Lorenz effect” is reduced by restraint from the tangent pipe.” It happens that the forging process for forming elbows from straight pipe can result in an increased wall thickness on the intrados and decreased wall thickness on the extrados. The thickening and thinning tends to compensate for the distribution of elastic hoop stresses arising from the curved pipe geometry. Bending stresses are also present along the crown due to a discontinuity in the membrane stress solution for the toroidal segment™, and due to any initial ovality of the pipe section, though these bending stresses do not appear to affect the pressure integrity of the elbow. Excessive ovality can affect the elbow flexibility. Rodabaugh examined the results of initial yield and burst tests conducted on elbows and bends by Gross" and others, finding good agreement between experimental and theoretical results up to initial gross yielding. He also concluded that gross yielding through the wall during a hydrostatic test should be considered an impairment of serviceability. From the burst tests, Rodabaugh found it impossible to reliably calculate the burst pressure of a bend. Burst pressures calculated using (Lorenz’s) elastic stresses often underpredicted the actual burst strength of short-radius, thick-walled elbows which failed at only slightly lower pressures than those computed for straight pipe of the same diameter, wall, and material. This was attributed to theTI Fittings and Components fact that elbows yield locally (much as pipe with a corrosion defect) redistributing stresses in the Process. He also found that large thin-walled, long-radius bends tended to burst at a pressure more closely approximated as that for straight pipe divided by the Lorenz factor. While no explanation for this was offered, one could speculate that such fittings cannot redistribute stresses over a large enough area to alter the stress distribution required by their basic geometry to equilibrate loads. In evaluating the fitting standards in effect up to 1969, Rodabaugh concluded that performance language based on proof testing to a burst pressure atleast equal to that computed for matching straight pipe, and withstanding a field hydrotest to 100 percent of SMYS in the attached pipe without impairment, was desirable and adequate. He also evaluated whether minimum wall dimensions (as per Lorenz’s solution) should be specified, concluding that it would be redundant to the performance requirements and possibly overly restrictive. He also suggested that a mechanism be established to verify compliance to performance requirements. ‘The forging process involves heating, straining, quenching, and possibly heat treatment, So material properties in the finished product will differ from initial properties and will vary significantly throughout the component. It was shown in several studies by Williams for PRC“? that high-strength fittings may exhibit large variation in local strength, toughness, or transition ‘temperature properties throughout the component and that these properties could be infetior to the matching pipe. A purchaser should carefully consider whether a manufacturer can consistently achieve the desired qualities in the finished product. Induetion Bends Relatively few reports on induction bends were found in the literature. Williams” examined the quality and properties of five 24-inch to 42-inch induction bends fabricated from cold-expanded pipe in a study for PRC. It was determined that significant alteration to the mechanical properties of the original material occurs, resulting in most cases in a reduction of Yield strength and an increase in transition temperature, The degradation of properties was ‘greatest in the unbent tangent arms. The degradation is not surprising considering that the initial Pipe was cold-expanded. Significant irregularities in wall thickness and diameter, and ripples, ware observed as well. In contrast to Williams’ observations, two limited studies of d-inch and 6-inch Grade B induction bends showed improved mechanical properties from the bending78 Fiutings and Components process." Final bend properties are influenced by initial chemistry, induction heating temperature and duration, travel speed, quench rate, tempering time and temperature, and. magnitude of deformation. Consistent bend quality will depend on the fabricator’s ability to maintain these factors over time. Other papers written by manufacturers demonstrating their capabilities were found.""" ‘While probably little better than sales brochures, they do generally describe the metallurgical aspects of the process and demonstrate that induction bends can be successfully manufactured with adequate or even outstanding mechanical strength and toughness properties in the finished material. Rodabaugh’s findings imply that ideally the bend would be manufactured so as to exhibit either enhanced material strength or greater wall thickness in the finished product in proportion to the Lorenz factor for the given bend geometry. The proposed B16 induction bend draft standard bases its pressure rating on this requirement, though it may be unnecessary in practice, If the ratio of bend radius to pipe radius (R/t) equals 5, the Lorenz factor is only 1.125. Hence an induction bend with R/r25 and no attendant thickening in the intrados or enhancement of material properties will have a pressure capacity equal to or better than equivalent pipe having a 12.5-percent wall undertolerance. This matches a common minimum requirement for some pipe. Provided the bend is of long radius, the material in the finished product meets the minimum strength requirements for the adjacent straight pipe, and the wall thickness in the crotch and tangents is at least equal to that of the adjacent pipe, then the bend’s performance should at least match the expected performance of adjacent pipe, though perhaps not the performance of the actual adjacent pipe. This was demonstrated by the burst tests reported in References 10 and 14. ‘There, the fittings failed in the tangents about at a minimum pressure one would expect for matching pipe, but at less than the pressure that would have been required in the proof test required by B16.9 or SP-75. Cold Field Bends ‘The requirement that the strength or wall thickness be increased to compensate for the Lorenz factor is unnecessary with cold field bends because they usually subtend small bend angles over short arc lengths such that they are effectively reinforced by the straight tangents. ‘Satisfactory performance of cold field bends in the field appears to validate this position,19 Fittings and Components although cold bends are often made using heavier wall pipe to avoid introduction of wrinkles. Present regulations in the U.S. state that bends must have a “smooth contour” which is often interpreted in practice to prohibit even mild ripples. ‘The formation of mild ripples and wrinkles on the intrados of the bend becomes increasingly likely as the pipe Dt and actual yield strength increases. A study for the PRC? attempted to better understand how the geometry, material properties, and bending technique interact to produce wrinkles, in response to field reports that pipe coated with fusion-bonded epoxy (FBE) was particularly susceptible to wrinkle formation. It was thought that residual stresses from the coating application, which involves heating, may play a role. From a practical standpoint, it is likely that little can be done by a user to make pipe less susceptible to wrinkling, and avoidance of wrinkles by trial and error still governs bending practices in the field. Several studies'"*?” have indicated that mild ripples are not a concer for normal pressure integrity, as well as pressure cycles and cyclic bending loads within limits. However, the extent of investigation by testing or analysis was found by the ASME B31.8 Committee to be inadequate for developing acceptance rules when it considered this issue in 1998. In fact, there is not yet a consensus on what constitutes an acceptable mild ripple as opposed to an unacceptable wrinkle. Interest continues in showing that mild ripples can be safely tolerated. Relief on zero- tolerance of ripples could yield savings in construction costs through less wasted pipe and less restrictive alignment profiles. Fabricated Bends Fabricated or mitered bends are no longer permitted in construction of new pipelines that operate at stress levels greater than 30 percent of SMYS. Even without this restriction, they have become obsolete because they cost more to fabricate than a factory bend or a cold field bend, and they impede passage of in-line inspection tools. Nevertheless, miter (or mitre) bends remain in service in some older systems and can be found in power and process piping as well, especially large-diameter, low-pressure piping, As with plain elbows, Rodabaugh™ reviewed available data on miter joints for PVRC, including theoretical solutions» and experimental results™*”” in order to determine a miter angle below which the joint could be treated as fit-up of a girth weld rather than as a miter. His recommendation was more restrictive, for pipe with D/t>70, than the 3 degrees (total included710 Fittings and Components angle) allowed by ASME B31.8. He also recommended that miters be limited to operating pressures less than 100 psig and nonflammable, incompressible fluid contents except for vent lines to the atmosphere. Miters will inevitably disappear from pipeline usage for cost and operations reasons, so it is probably unnecessary to act on these recommendations. Bends with Defects ‘Very limited information was found on the pressure integrity of bends that contain defects. Two theoretical treatments were developed by Erdogan, et al" for the aerospace industry. Forged butt-welding elbows containing crack-like surface defects of various sizes and orientations were pressure tested by Reynolds™ and Schulze, et al°”. PRC sponsored a study in which four elbows were tested, 2 containing artificial metal loss defects and 2 affected by actual corrosion in service.” These studies appear to indicate that bends or elbows containing corrosion could be safely evaluated using existing methods for evaluating axial flaws in straight pipe, e.g., per ASTM STP 536, ot ASME B31G. However, the data base is quite sparse and includes no induction bends or high-strength fittings. Branches Tt was already well understood by the tum of the century that an opening in a flat plate under unidirectional loading experiences increased stresses around and near the opening. This served as the starting point for virtually all subsequent treatments of openings in pressure vessels, and later, pipes. The concept of locally reinforcing the opening in such manner as to replace the metal removed for the opening was well-established by the late 1930's, though researchers struggled well into the 1960's to understand the effect of reinforcement contour and distribution on the distribution and magnitude of stresses. Extensive experiments were conducted involving photoelastic models and strain-gaged full-sized steel vessels, These findings led directly to present-day contoured nozzle designs for critical vessel applications. Some of the key documents describing these advancements are listed as References 33 through 38 for purposes of recognizing the individual contributors and to serve as a resource. Few of the advancements in this area have transferred to branch design in pipe, for several reasons. One reason is that nozzles tend to be small relative to the vessel diameter, so much of the experimental data or theoretical assumptions do not apply where the branch is ‘greater than half the header diameter. Another reason may be that optimization of the nozzleTAL Fittings and Components 100 Subjected to In-Plane and Out-of-Plane Moment", Press. Ves. & Piping Conf., New Orleans (June 23-26, 1988). Fowler, J. R., Samman, M. M., and Al-Sannaa, M. S., "High-Pressure Pipe Design", PR- 201-9202, A.G.A. PRC (1993). Fowler, J. R., and Alexander, C. R., “Design Guidelines for High-Strength Pipe Fittings", PR-201-9320, A.G.A. PRC (1994).7-31 s1etsieg TEST TRS TR] — TT me emma em ‘eum “avenne)| peau sme tono| x x a ser | vow [mmbonronp=L or me seousou SIRS MTOM] — TT a | x st oma mE] poy pT suey a ey es sa aT 7 eee fee (eeeee tac men tapana sso Sa 7 x nul x} x wera ony A a ‘f femsens ste arteo] “out ponent fensoducs a a "N79 ade ome se ocean saa] aT sxarg APL aa ran ome ’ x x] x Season ot 2a sas ae 21 ae ST a TTA — w | x x] ox | ws tcc dey Toma i ‘amperes Ra a x x | se x |x | corres | Kendo | ea eer] "OR BNeEOR| mg puede omy ace a en Z bir tny pera oa x x x me} x x} x voy | mr-wodasron Jevnprs nada eee a a anal x x x » | x x} ox | tat | voy | cer-veiersron T x x x w | x x| x vow | st-wsdeuston x x x w |x x| x vey el 7 x x x | « |x x| x vane | ar TOTET AG x x " 61 sa 7 : ' ee seas one, x x wa FES maar ey Tian a x foo fox fox fxl «x | oa | vow | e-winsron “ay na] wraye Aree amg ‘paren ‘iar si Coma | stra | sony |omousdea| ema |nonont amen! $9 | ssamoqannes seem | yeas | “Aer | pong | wa | in| pose | Buemedg ‘seopsminog paw ui7-32 RT EEES SH ih WE “par1ar9 wrk seyno pony peony sang 0) HEMI HENNY x x ” x] ox | 6a | oun | ismwaoun, oa WE Teas % x x x x tr x x 561 rae x x 1" x x | x | et | vow | soc virusron . Te aceasta |W x x ft x] ox | oe eat, TeUPVED WoT oa x x ra x x |x | ae | oaven PaaS | = 1 weet | x we a ee [SRT SGN Be NOG] WE st 61 Eecerteaeg mend emg eH | SE SR TT PHD FO TRIS SG] — TE «px {oe pe ex va a «fo» | pe x « va eran : q x » po Lx «px ae x [ox ton «|» ln xe fe { « |e fa | x xf | aw | ome x | x x x [ox | we fw trp ens SaraeTE TEER ar x |x le |x x [x [om | vow Paton pmo er saree eT at ‘Aon pms rer x fx |e fx x] ox | wa | vow sor uuatna aa TERNS : Seaoael ogee) ata x |x | a wor | vow emmsiene| masa] asmmannanconcrasn| a ar oy a mang | O20 | eer | ngrent |oenna| ea |eneommre |= | ren wert | Sur [wt | “wat "ava | [ase |" mn | amcay | ENG iojeawo; pus TUN7-33 510 ees TE SarRT ESSN ee ee ee auto : 1 SRT ESE x oz en ee = ial * x oe Air [|-DN “Sa Wargepey) prangayy ot SPF : foe femeenvsie suse] pentagon ie i i. x] x 6 ey suey duped je eeGeuy 3 * ooo aceae | x |x fw | x xox | wm | vow | pees 7 x fox fw x| x vov | aster tton TTI sa wate — |"roamaN'94] __ pmapompmaserdo ig x |x |x fw | x x] ox | as | vor | epsemosnn | taser cons] waxige te ns wens |11-DN 01 woday ‘sed Tara} SRST x | «x [x fw |e |e lel x ‘a'viment| starrpasooteas eee Sa Treo Ts suapsaua aun Aaa ——Ty eee eae eg x| x SAT x | x | « [ow | x | « [etx ‘oomnipnea eee ee ely x] ox | esa fotmginn | ears ta z Sein i were " i x « | ox | ow x] ox | om | oavsn | austen gore sn a TSI) AE mum egal po Sana vomes ama x |x fw x |x | wea | ome | er-emecoun x | « |x | w |x x] x | on | oma x ee ce x |x | em | oma @ tee | any | O2me | tea | rupee [senndsa| sna sme empeaea| eoy ag Samoa | Semon | Sot | comms | atea’ | at fy [in| Tesmn | aeegs | MERON mal ‘wopDoRNED pa STeH we7-4 stp yefeg eae ean See oat ec eee ote oe namietiee a0 a x x 4 u x ¥66t OWAd 26E BND NNG UA ‘Burda 105 sxoroe4 voneayysuary|] pe : SS Ee : : : al 7 2 IM soa ans 20 = = x i = ame a “tapriodling TAD] TauRsarti pa voc Bardia) — oF : wet = = Oe lew lak eve see see rnin aver | SS ee ete ee ae uae x x had fe bad fe _o suuor pedals ‘penton 301 x [aa ae oa al a ‘ipo oma er sa x |x fox [x | x] x | on eeeaan pn ees og vest x |x |x fxw foo xf ox | ase ETE Cpsmmeit| Seon | Came | tea | gps |seder evanog ins ‘ram samen | Sram | woes | “Aa” [na7236 Fittings and Components Reference 1 Rodabaugh, E. C., Duffy, A. R., and Atterbury, T. J., “The Internal Pressure Capacity of Butt Welding Elbows”, NG-18 Report 22, American Gas Association, 63 pages (September 18, 1969) . ‘Theoretical solutions for curved pipe and physical tests on forged bends and butt welding elbows performed by fitting manufacturers or other researchers addressing pressure capacity were reviewed in detail. Fourteen references are cited. The study examined the theoretical distribution of elastic stresses in ideal curved pipe, the actual distribution of strains in as- manufactured bends, the stiffening effects of tangent bends), the pressure-yield characteristics, and burst strengths. The contemporary fitting standards and pipeline codes were reviewed and suggestions made to improve assurance of adequate performance of bends in use. Rodabaugh concluded that elastic membrane stresses and the pressure that causes localized through-wall yielding can be calculated with adequate accuracy using Lorenz's theoretical solution provided the bend subtends an angle greater than an attenuation angle based on shell theory. Where the bend subtends a narrower angle, the estimated yield pressure will be conservative, The burst pressure of a bend cannot be reliably predicted on the basis of elastic stresses, but where the elbow is thin-walled and subtends an angle much larger than the attenuation angle, the actual burst pressure approaches that obtained from calculated elastic stresses, Tr was recommended that the design of bends and elbows be governed by performance criteria rather than specific dimensional or material property criteria. Specifically, the component specifications, ASME/USAS (now ASME/ANSI) B16.9, and MSS SP-48 and SP-63 (superseded by SP-75), should state that elbows be designed to withstand a field hydrostatic test to 100 percent of SMYS in the mating (“designated”) pipe without failure, leakage, yielding through the wall, or impairment of serviceability, and that the component be designed so that actual burst is at least equal to the calculated burst pressure of the designated pipe. Additional recommendations were made for revisions to the contemporary version of ASME (USAS) B31.8 to remove Janguage that could be interpreted to impose unrealistic requirements. Most of Rodabaugh’s recommendations appear to have been adopted by the various standards in their present forms. pipe on narrow angle bends (e.g 12 degree731 Fittings and Components Reference 2 Lorenz, H., “Theorie der Rohrenfedermanometer” (1910) (not reviewed herein). Reference 3 Kalnins, S., “Analysis of Curved thin-Walled Shells of Revolution”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 6, 4 pages (1968). Reference 4 Clark, Gilroy, and Reissner, “Stresses and Deformations of Toroidal Shells of Elliptical Cross Section”, Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 74, 11 pages (1952) References 2, 3, and 4 made significant contributions to the understanding of the behavior of curved pipe under internal pressure. Lorenz developed a theory for the distribution of membrane stresses due to pressure in a pressure gage Bourdon tube in 1910, of which curved pipe of circular cross section is a special simplified case. Lorenz showed that the elastic circumferential (hoop) membrane stress is greater on the inside of the bend (intrados), and less on the outside of the bend (extrados), relative to straight pipe of the same wall thickness. On the inside of the bend, the hoop stress is calculated as, = Pr[Ra-2 t| Rid oy where ris the pipe radius (D/2),t is the pipe wall, and R is the radius of the bend at the neutral axis. On the outside of the bend, the hoop stress is calculated as _ Pr nea] Det For a standard elbow with a ratio of bend radius to pipe radius (R/t) of 3, the Lorenz factor is 1.25 on the intrados, and 0.875 on the extrados. For a very long-radius bend as might be the case With ficld bends or induction bends in line pipe, the Lorenz factors on both the inside and outside of the bend converge toward a value of 1. Lorenz’s basic results have been validated by numerous pressure tests on elbows, though they do not include end effects of the straight pipe tangents at each end of the elbow, which tend to reduce the effect of pipe curvature in the bend7-38 Fittings and Components within a decay or attenuation length. In 1968 Kalnins was able to precisely evaluate these effects ina shell of revolution which is rotationally symmetric about a curve using a special computer program which solves a system of partial differential equations derived from shell theory. Lorenz’s solution also did not describe the local discontinuity bending stresses that arise at the neutral meridian which were determined theoretically by Clark, Gilroy, and Reissner, nor the bending stresses due to rerounding of the elliptical cross section of as-manufactured elbows. For the latter no general solution exists though approximations from straight pipe were deemed sufficiently accurate, Reference 5 Gross, N., “Experiments on Short Radius Pipe Bends”, Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs., Vol. 1B, 24 pages (1952). Gross was one of many researchers who conducted tests on pipe bends in order to compare their strengths and flexibility characteristics under various loading conditions. Bends ‘were nominally 6.625 inch in diameter with 0.255 to 0.323 inch walls, of seamless or welded construction. Materials were carbon steel similar in strength and chemistry to AS3 Grade B or SL Grade B. The bend radius was 9 inches, so R/=3 approximately. The membrane and bending siress distributions throughout the elbows subjected to intemal pressure and to applied bending loads were determined using an array of strain gages on the inside and outside of the elbows. Reference 6 Williams, D. N., “Examination of the Properties of a Quenched-and-Tempered Fitting”, NG-18 Report No. 114, American Gas Association, 24 pages (April 17, 1978). Reference 7 Williams, D. N., “Examination of the Properties of a Y65 Quenched-and-Tempered Fitting”, NG-18 Report No. 118, American Gas Association, 21 pages (March 23, 1979). Reference 8 Williams, D. N., “Evaluation of the Properties of High-Strength Large Diameter Pipeline Fittings”, NG-18 Report No. 123, American Gas Association, 42 pages (May 8, 1981).7239 Fittings and Components Detailed measurements of dimensions and material properties were made on several large pipeline fittings. Reference 6 studied a 30-inch OD x 0.625-inch WT size-on-size straight tee with 60 ksi minimum strength (Y60 grade). Reference 7 studied a 24-inch OD x 0.500-inch WT size-on-size straight tee with 65 ksi minimum strength (Y65 grade). Reference 8 studied a 30- inch OD size-on-size Y60 straight tee and a 30-inch 45-degree Y52 elbow. Some of the results from References 6 and 7 are summarized in Reference 8. Each fitting was found to exhibit large variation in strength and toughness properties depending on both position and orientation in the component. Impact properties were affected by the initial rolling direction of the plate material used to form the fitting. The fittings in References 6 and 7 were supplied in the quenched and tempered condition. Coupons were tested both as-received and stress-relieved. The stress relief had little effect on strength, but increased the toughness transition temperature, The fittings in Reference 8 were supplied in the normalized condition and exhibited more uniform properties than the quenched and tempered fittings. In some cases, measured properties did not fall within the range of values reported by the ‘manufacturer, and were less than specified minimum levels in a few tests. Also, extensive weld repairs in excess of what was allowed by MSS SP-75 were discovered in one tee, and extensive surface grinding to repair mechanical damage was discovered in the elbow. Reference 9 Williams, D.N., “Evaluation of the Properties of Induction Hot Bends Fabricated from High-Strength Cold-Expanded Pipe”, NG-18 Report No. 142, American Gas Association, 86 pages. Detailed measurements of dimensions and material properties were made on five induction bends (two 30-inch OD, X65; one 24-inch OD, X52; one 24-inch OD, X60; and one 42-inch OD, X70). Material properties from the starting pipe were also measured. All five exhibited significant changes in strength levels from the initial pipe as a result of the bending process. In all cases but one, yield strength decreased in both the bend and the unbent tangents and was less than the minimum specified in several tests. The transition temperature was increased in the unbent section in all but one case, but went either way in the bend. Cyclical variations in wall thickness and diameter, and ripples were observed in one of the bends.7-40 Fittings and Components Williams concluded that it cannot be assumed that all pipes in a specific lot of pipes will respond identically to the induction bend process. Minor pipe-to-pipe variations in chemistry can significantly affect the outcome, Differences in temperature, travel speed, and quench rate inevitably occur around the pipe circumference at any point in the bend which then affect properties around the circumference. Perliaps most important is the need to carefully control. ‘these factors throughout the bend forming process, which can take up to an hour, and from bend to bend and shift to shift. In two cases, adverse effects on the dimensions and properties were blamed by the bend fabricator on malfimctions in the process temperature control during bending. However, the imperfections observed in the final product are not easily identified during manufacture, and there is no reason to believe that any of the bends could not have found their way into service. Reference 10 Rodabaugh, E. C., and Woods, G. E., "Fatigue, Moment Capacity and Burst Tests of ) Induction Bends", unpublished reports to two bend manufacturers, 35 pages (July 1992); and 43 pages (April 2000). This citation refers to two separate reports, having the same authors and titles, describing the results of tests conducted for two separate bend manufacturers, in which the performance of their induction bends were compared to Standard B16.9 forged elbows. The reports are ‘unpublished. The test specimens used in both test programs were 1.5D bends (R/r=3) made from NPS 40 and 6 NPS 40 A106 Grade B seamless pipe having initial wall thicknesses about 5 percent heavier than specification. The wall thickness through the intrados was increased 10 percent in one manufacturer's specimens and over 70 percent in the specimens from the second ‘manufacturer. The wall thickness through the extrados was decreased by 7 to 13 percent from the initial wall in all the specimens. Yield and tensile strengths were increased through the induction bend compared with the unbent pipe in all specimens, ‘The induction bends performed better in all regards than the forged elbows tested in these studies or as reported on in prior work. ‘This was attributed to the increased wall thickness and ‘material strength at the intrados of the bends. The performance of the bends was generally consistent with theoretical relationships when adjustments were made for actual wall thickness7-41 Fittings and Components and material strength. However, none of the burst test specimens, including the forged elbows, met the minimum proof test pressure specified in B16.9, though the induction bends failed in the straight tangent legs, not the bend itself. The results are representative of small diameter Grade B bends produced by two manufacturers, and cannot necessarily be extrapolated to large diameter bends made from high-strength pipe produced by other manufacturers. Reference 11 Hashamoto, T., Sawamura, T., Komizo, Y., Nakate, H., and Nakatsuka, Y., “High Strength Bent Pipe for Arctic Use”, Paper 15, NG-18/HLP Joint Technical Meeting on Line Pipe Research, Columbus, OH, 24 pages (September 20-21, 1984). Reference 12 Aoki, N,, Fuji-i, T., Miyamoto, H.,and Hidaka, Y.., “High-Tensile HF-ERW Pipe Bends for Arctic Use”, ASME Pipeline Engineering Symposium, 10" Energy-Sources Technology Conference, Dallas, PD-Vol. 6, 6 pages (1987). Reference 13, Graf, MK., Hillenbrand, H. G., and Niedethoff, K. A., “Production of Large Diameter Linepipe and Bends for the World’s First Long-Range Pipeline in Grade X80”, Paper 5, Proc. & Symposium on Line Pipe Research, A.G.A. PRC, Houston, 14 pages (September 26-29, 1993). Reference 14 Kondo, J., Nagae, M., Ume, K., and Hirano, O., “The State of the Art of High Strength Induction Bent Pipe”, Paper 6, Proc. 8 Symposium on Line Pipe Research, A.G.A. PRC, Houston, 14 pages (September 26-29, 1993). References 11 through 14 describe the metallurgical processes involved in forming induction bends, and describes the finished product in terms of mechanical properties and material chemistry. The papers demonstrate the manufacturers’ abilities to produce a finished component that is compatible with high-strength, high-toughness line pipe. Considering the sources of information, the reports should be regarded as little more than sales brochures, but they do indicate that induction bends can be produced with desirable properties.7-42 Fittings and Components Only Reference 14 gives the results of an actual performance test. The nominal dimensions were 24-inch OD * 0.500-inch WT with a SD radius, though the actual wall dimension in the crotch of the bend was not reported, The Lorenz factor for this geometry would be around 1.05. The bend was designated as X60. The reported yield and tensile strengths of material in the intrados was 64.5 ksi and 83.2 ksi, respectively, and in the tangent arm 65.0 ksi and 76.9 ksi, respectively. The fitting would have yielded at a pressure corresponding to a stress of 61.4 ksi (64.5/1.05) in straight pipe, so it would have withstood a high-pressure field hydrostatic test without gross deformation. The fitting failed in the tangent at a pressure of 3,278 psig, about what one would expect for 24-inch OD x 0.500-inch WT pipe meeting the minimum requirement of SL X60. Although this was 11 percent less than the pressure that would have been required in a proof test in a B16.9 or SP-75 standard component, it certainly demonstrated adequate performance of the finished product. Reference 15 Williams, D. N., “Investigation of Field Bending Problems in Line Pipe”, Paper 16, NG- I8/HLP Joint Technical Meeting on Line Pipe Research, American Gas Association, Columbus, OH, 24 pages (September 20-21, 1984). Field reports indicated increased susceptibility to formation of wrinkles during cold bending of pipe coated with fusion-bonded epoxy. Materials tests and wrinkling tests were performed on numerous samples of 8-inch NPS « 0.172-inch WT X42, 12-inch NPS x 0.203- inch WT X42, 12-inch NPS x 0.250-inch WT X52, and 24-inch OD x 0.375-inch WT X52. Discontinuous yielding versus progressive strain hardening was ruled out as a factor. Residual stresses introduced by the coating process, which involves heating, were considered a potential contributor to the problem. No specific evaluation of the effect of wrinkles on pipe integrity was made. Reference 16 Murray, N. W., and Bilston, P., “Rational Acceptance Limits for Field Bends in Oil or Gas Pipelines”, Paper V-2, Proc. CANMET Intl. Conf. on Pipeline Reliability, Calgary, 13 pages (June 2-5, 1992),7-43 Fittings and Components ‘Modes of deformation that can occur during field bending are reviewed, including ovalization, wall thickness variation, wrinkling or rippling, nonuniform bend radius (kinking). Variation in mechanical properties and residual stresses will also occur. Fairly simple analyses were used to suggest some limits on deformation. The adverse effect of wrinkling on coating integrity is recognized, but no specific evaluation of the effect of wrinkles on pipe integrity was made. Reference 17 Bilston, P, and Murray, N. W., “Evaluation of Factors Affecting Field Bending, Characteristics of Line Pipe”, Paper 6, PRC/EPRG 9" Biennial Joint Technical Meeting on Line Pipe Research, Houston, 17 pages (May 11-14, 1993). Reference 18 Bilston, P, and Murray, N. W., “The Role of Cold Field Bending in Pipeline Construction”, Paper 27, Proc. & Symposium on Line Pipe Research, A.G.A. PRC, Houston, 19 pages (September 26-29, 1993). These two papers describe the same body of work. Elastic buckling theory was used to predict a buckle wavelength. Actual buckle wavelength was somewhat less due to friction from contact against the bending die. A prototype buckle waveform was modeled from experiments in order to develop post-buckling analyses. This led to relationships between strain, bend shortening, and buckle height, and relationships between maximum buckle height and die radius and residual angle which agreed reasonably well with limited tests. Tests were made on 3.5-inch and 16-inch OD pipe. A bend on 16-inch OD x 0.25-inch WT X42 pipe containing mild ripples 0.21 inch high was pressurized to a stress level of 115 percent of SMYS. Strain in the wrinkled area was only 0.4 percent. The pipe burst at 140 percent of SMYS in an area remote from the wrinkles. The results of this work evidently led to acceptance of mild ripples up to 50 percent of the wall thickness in the Australian pipeline code. Reference 19 Olson, R., Clark, T., and Odom, T., “Evaluation of the Structural Integrity of Cold Field- Bent Line Pipe”, Paper 6, Proc. EPRG/PRC 10* Biennial Joint Technical Meeting on Line Pipe Research, Cambridge, 13 pages (April 18-21 1995).7-44 Fittings and Components Reference 20 Olson, R., Clark, T., and Odom, T., “Evaluation of the Structural Integrity of Cold Field- Bent Line Pipe”, Paper 33, Proc. 9" Symposium on Pipeline Research, Houston, 20 ‘pages (September 30 1996). This PRCI-sponsored program was undertaken to establish criteria for bends containing, ripples that assure that they will withstand a hydrostatic test in the field to 115 percent of SMYS, daily pressure variations of 10 percent of SMYS, and altemating longitudinal stresses due to seasonal temperature changes. Tests were conducted to apply unrealistically large loadings on bends containing wrinkles that would probably be rejected. Survival would demonstrate that less severe deformations under less severe loadings could be safely tolerated. The first paper describes only the test program, while the second paper covers the tests in an identical manner and also addresses analytical efforts. The reproduction of photographs of test specimens is superior in the first paper. ‘One test specimen was a 30-inch OD * 0.300-inch WT X70 pipe with one large wrinkle 1.5 times the wall, and several smaller ripples. The second specimen was 36-inch OD x 0.385- inch WT X65 pipe with ripples of similar magnitude to the first specimen. Both were coated with FBE. The first specimen was hydrotested to 100 percent of SMYS, then subjected to cyclic 4- point bending to high longitudinal stress levels until fatigue cracking developed through the wall in the circumferential direction. The second specimen was hydrotested to 108 percent of SMYS, then subjected to cyclic 4-point bending to high longitudinal stress levels. While it grew fatigue cracks in the girth welds, it did not develop a fatigue failure in the ripples. The analytical model developed by Bilston in References 17 and 18 was applied to develop estimates of the cyclic strain levels which agreed well with strain gage readings. These ‘were then used in a strain-life analysis which did not do a particularly good job of predicting the observed fatigue life except to qualitatively indicate that fatigue life would be expected to decrease with increasing wrinkle severity. Reference 21 Kiefer, J. F., and Alexander, C. R., Addendum to API Publication 1156, “Effects of ‘Smooth and Rock Dents on Liquid Petroleum Pipelines, Phase 2” (to be published).7-45 Fittings and Components Three samples of 36-inch OD x 0.281-inch WT X52 line pipe were cold bent without a mandrel to create intentional wrinkles of 1.7, 3.7, and 6.9 percent of the OD in depth. The internal pressure was cycled to produce a range of hoop stress between 12 and 84 percent of SMYS. The 6.9-percent wrinkle failed by fatigue in 1,086 cycles, the 3.7-percent wrinkle failed in2,791 cyéles, and the 1.7-percent wrinkle survived 44,541 cycles without failure or cracking, ‘No attempt was made to derive an effective SIF or i-factor in terms of present Code allowables. Reference 22 Rodabaugh, E. C., “Review of Data on Mitre Joints in Piping to Establish Maximum Aolasty for Fabrication of Girth Butt Welds”, WRC Bulletin 208, 22 pages (August. ‘The purpose of this study was to define a miter angle below which the joint can be considered equivalent to a girth butt weld for purposes of fit up rather than as a miter. Secondary objectives were to review the validity of ASME Code equations for the stress intensification factors used in flexibility analyses, and to review data on stresses in miters due to intemal pressure, on which the Code gives no guidance. Both theoretical solutions and experimental data are reviewed from 23 references, ¢.g., References 23 through 27 herein, ‘Stress concentration effects under intemal pressure were determined theoretically and experimentally to increase with D/t and miter angle. Concentration factors of 1.5 to 8.7 on the nominal pressure hoop stress were determined experimentally in some configurations. Fatigue- effective stress concentration factors from pressure-fatigue tests were determined to be between 2.5 and 4.25 in relation to the strain-controlled fatigue behavior of polished round bars. Stress concentration effects under moment loading were determined theoretically and experimentally to increase with ratio of miter spacing to pipe radius, and with miter angle. The Code flexibility and stress intensification factors were deemed adequate. Rodabaugh recommended a maximum “fit-up” angle of not more than 9(U)” in degrees (per side of the joint, or double this value as an included angle), where r=D/2 nominally. For pipe with D/>70, this is more restrictive than ASME B31.8 which permits fit-up angles of 3 degrees. He also recommended limitations on the use of miter bends (in ASME B31.1) to situations where the pressure is less than 100 psig, the fluid is nonflammable and incompressible except in vents746 Fittings and Components to the atmosphere, the number of lifetime full-pressure cycles is Jess than 7,000, the included miter angle is less than 45 degrees, and full penetration welds are used. These suggestions are also more restrictive than the requirements in ASME B31.8. Reference 23 Green, A. E., and Emmerson, W. C., “Stresses in a Pipe with a Discontinuous Bend”, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, Vol. 9, 14 pages (1961). Reference 24 Murthy, M. V. V.., “Stresses at the Intersection of Two Cylindrical Shells of Equal Diameter”, Jnt. J. Solid Structures, Vol. 5, 14 pages (1969). Reference 25 Bond, M. P., and Kitching, R., “Multi-Mitred and Single-Mitred Bends Subject to Internal Pressure”, Int. J. Mech. Sci., vol. 13, 18 pages (1971). Reference 26 Lane, P. H. R., and Rose, R. T., “Experiments on Fabricated Pipe Bends”, Brit. Welding J. Sune 1961). Reference 27 Macfarlane, D. S., “Fatigue Strength of Gusseted Pipe Bends”, Brit. Welding J. December 1960). References 23 through 27 are discussed in Reference 22, but are listed for recognition of their contribution. Green and Emmerson developed simplified theoretical estimates for the stresses due to internal pressure in miter bends. Murthy and Bond and Kitching developed successive refinements, Bond and Kitching’s theory was found to be in agreement with test results reported by Bond and Kitching, Lane and Rose, and Macfarlane in most cases, but it gave unconservative results in some others. The results of Green and Emmerson were always conservative.TAI Fittings and Components Reference 28 Delale, F., and Erdogan, F., “The Crack Problem in a Specially Orthotropic Shell with Double Curvature”, Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 18, 15 pages (1983). Reference 29 Joseph, P. F., and Erdogan, General Loading Conditions 1987). “Plates and Shells Containing a Surface Crack Under ”, NASA Contractor Report CR-178328, 381 pages (July “The first report gives factors on the crack-tip stress intensity of a surface flaw in a shallow toroidal shell with unequal curvatures, derived from a transverse shear theory. The second document derives the crack-tip stress intensity of a surface flaw by adapting the line- spring model to the shell curvature. They are of interest in that they offer solutions applicabie to pressurized bends containing a crack or corrosion defect. Both documents are theoretical in nature, Results are compared to theoretical solutions for other geometries such as straight cylinders. Accounting for the double curvature results in a modification of the bulging factor ‘compared to that for straight pipe derived by Folias. The bulging factor is reduced in the intrados, though the membrane stress due to pressure is greater. The bulging factor is increased in the extrados, though the membrane stress there is lower. These are the result of the degree of restraint produced by the shell curvatures. The changes are on the order of 5 percent for typical elbow geometries. Reference 30 Reynolds, M. B., “Failure Behavior of Flawed Carbon Steel Pipes and Fittings”, General Electric Report GEAP-10236, Prepared for US Atomic Energy Commission, Contract AT(04-3)-189, Project Agreement 37, 28 pages (October 1970). Reynolds tested A106 Grade B pipe and matching elbow and tee fittings containing various artificial defects. Pipe sizes ranged from 4 NPS to 12 NPS. Tees and elbows were all 6 ‘NPS 80. An unflawed elbow and tee were pressurized to failure to establish a baseline. Slit-like flaws of various lengths, depths, and orientations were introduced in pipe, elbow and tee specimens, Pipes with axial flaws were pressurized to failure, while those with circumferential flaws were loaded in bending to failure. Elbows were pressure tested with longitudinal flaws on7-48 Fittings and Components the extrados and on the crown (mean bend radius), and with circumferential flaws centered on. the crown. The defects located on the intrados of the bend had the largest adverse effect. Tees ‘were pressure tested with axial flaws located at the “hillside” position, and either axially or transversely in the crotch. The burst pressures of the tees were unaffected by the transverse defects at the crotch, but were affected by the other two defect arrangements. Reference 31 Schulze, H. D., Togler, G., and Bodman, E., “Fracture Mechanics Analysis on the Initiation and Propagation of Circumferential and Longitudinal Cracks in Straight Pipe and Bends”, Nuc. Engrg. and Design 58, 13 pages (1980). Tests were carried out on 2.5-inch OD 0.138-inch WT pipe and bends fabricated from a low-alloy structural steel (0.16 C, 0.69 Mn, and 0.31 Mo) with measured yield and tensile strengths of 48 and 71 ksi, respectively. Some of the pipes were special internally-finned types, but several bends were of normal configuration with R/m3. Bends with slit-like longitudinal defects of various length and depth located on the outside arc (extrados) of the bend were pressurized to failure. Some tests superimposed a bending load producing a stress of 46 ksi. Tests were conducted at room temperature and at 500 F. The bending load appeared to have no influence on the failure pressure. It was concluded that existing theories for longitudinal flaws in straight pipe could be applied to defects in elbows, provided the defect position and bend ‘geometry are accounted for in determining the hoop stress. Reference 32 Bubenik, T., and Rosenfeld, M. J., “Assessing the Strength of Corroded Elbows”, NG-18 ‘Report 206, American Gas Association, 31 pages (May 1993). ‘This study for the PRC was undertaken to evaluate whether criteria for evaluating corrosion in straight pipe could be applied to bends. The theoretical results from Erdogan, et al %) and the test results reported by Reynolds™ were reviewed. Four elbows with flaws were pressure tested. Two were 12-inch Grade B elbows with machined metal-loss defects, one on the intrados and the other on the extrados. The other two elbows were removed from pipeline service because they contained corrosion. One was a 4-inch elbow with a short defect 70 percent of the7-49 Fittings and Components wall in depth, located on its crown. The other was 6-inch elbow with a long defect 34 percent of the wall in depth, located on the intrados. ‘The burst strengths of these and Reynolds flawed elbows were evaluated using ASME B31G with the standard straight-pipe bulging factor, with or without Lorenz’s stress factor, and considering failure at the flow stress and at the material ultimate strength (actual, not specified minimum). Those made using the Lorenz stress factor (which could be 1 or less for some defect locations) and the actual ultimate strength rather than the flow stress gave the best predictions with least scatter, though 2 of 10 results were unconservative by up to 10 percent. But, it was also shown that simply using the flow stress and no Lorenz factor was conservative. Thus, it appears that ASME B31G could be safely applied to corrosion in a bend. Reference 33 Waters, E. O., “Reinforcement of Openings in Pressure Vessels”, Weld. J. Res. Supplement, 12 pages (June 1958). This report provides a concise summary of theoretical and experimental research and development in the design of nozzles in pressure vessels and pipe, focusing on developments since 1930. Waters specifically recognized and discussed the unique aspects of openings in pipelines as compared to those in pressure vessels, and discusses the studies at Battelle and Tube ‘Tums funded by A.G.A. Reference 34 WRC Bulletin 51, June 1959,46 pages, containing: Waters, E. O., “Theoretical Stresses Near a Circular Opening in a Flat Plate Reinforced with a Cylindrical Outlet”; ‘Hardenburgh, D. E., “Stresses in Contoured Openings of Pressure Vessels”; and Taylor, C.E., Lind, N. C., and Schweiker, J. W., “A Three-Dimensional Photoelastic Study of Stresses Around Reinforced Outlets in Pressure Vessels”. Reference 35 Mershon, J. L., “PVRC Research on Reinforcement of Openings in Pressure Vessels”, ‘WRC Bulletin 77, 54 pages (May 1962).7-30 Fittings and Components Reference 36 Hardenburgh, D. E., Zamrik, S. Y., and Edmondson, A. J, “Experimental Investigation of Stresses in Nozzles in Cylindrical Pressure Vessels”, WRC Bulletin 89, 35 pages (July 1963). Reference 37 WRC Bulletin 113, April 1966, 70 pages, containing: Taylor, C. E., and Lind, N. C., “Photoelastic Study of the Stresses Near Openings in Pressure Vessels”; Leven, M. M., Photoelastic Determination of the Stresses in Reinforced Openings in Pressure Vessels”; and Mershon, J. L., “Preliminary Evaluation of PVRC Photoelastic Test Data on Reinforced Openings in Pressure Vessels”. Reference 38 Rodabaugh, E. C., Atterbury, T. I., Cloud, R. L., and Witt, F. J., “Evaluation of Experimental and Theoretical Data on Radial Nozzles in Pressure Vessels”, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, TID-24342, 585 pages (March 31, 1966). References 34 through 37 are key papers in the development of current understanding of how the contour and distribution of reinforcement affects the magnitude and distribution of stresses in the vicinity of openings in vessels. Rodabaugh, in Reference 38, provides a detailed history, discussion, and evaluation of theoretical developments and compares results from theory to experimental data. Reference 39 Del Buono, A. J., Visset, P. L., and Williams, F. S. G., “Design of Hot Tap Connections in High Pressure Pipe Lines", ASME 53-PET-31, 1953, 22 pages, and Petr. Engr., Vol. 26, No. 2 (1954). This study clearly explained the shortcomings of design rules for openings in pressure vessels in meeting the needs for high-pressure pipelines. The results of tests on full scale model vessels conducted by Taylor Forge were described. The authors recommended specific design details for branch connections in pipelines, namely increased wall thickness in the run (giving a lower operating stress), use of contoured forged tees or full-encirclement reinforcement, increased thickness in the branch, proper proportioning of the cover fillet at the base of the branch connection, tapering of the reinforcement edges to avoid excessive weld size and to7-51 Fittings and Components control stress concentrations, and avoidance of cracks, unfused areas, and sharp comers (at the fillet toes) in the weld. The rules for branch design in the present edition of ASME B31.8 reflect all of these recommendations. Reference 40 Markl, A. R. C., George, H. H., and Rodabaugh, E. C., “Pressure-Pulsation Tests of Branch Connections to Large-Diameter Pipe”, 4.G.4. Gas Supply, Transmission and Storage Conference, Pittsburgh, 19 pages (May 9-10, 1955). Reference 41 Markl, A. R. C., George, H. H., and Rodabaugh, E. C., “Why Branch Connections Fail”, Pipe Line Ind., 7 pages (July 1955). Reference 41 is a condensed version of Reference 40. Reported are the results of pressure pulsation tests on 9 styles of branch connection. The test specimens were 22-inch OD x 0.312- inch WT DSAW X52 run pipe with a 10-inch branch, as well as several models scaled to 12.75- inch OD x 0.188-inch OD A106 run pipe. The pressure was cycled to produce a hoop stress fluctuating between 50 and 90 percent of SMYS. Tests were run on (A) plain capped pipe as a baseline, (B) an unreinforced branch, (C) an ordinary saddle, (D) a full-encirclement sleeve, (E) an encirclement sleeve plus saddle, (F) an encirclement saddle with side seams, (G) an encirclement saddle with seams on the crotch and back, (H) an encirclement saddle with bolted side flanges, (J) an encirclement tee, and (K) a forged butt-welding tee. Three to five specimens of each type were tested. The result were ranked in order of demonstrated performance, normalized to the performance of a saddie-reinforced tee (Type C) because it was the design all of the other branch designs were intended to improve upon. Results were reasonably consistent for a given type of construction. Failures attributed to welding quality were eliminated by repairing the weld and continuing the tests. Thus the results were governed by basic geometry. Ranking given by the authors were, by type and life factor: Type A, 5 to 15; Type K, 6 to 8; Types G and E, 6 to 15; Types H, F, and D, 0.7 to 7; Type C, 0.7 to 1.4; Type J, 0.09 to 2.5; and Type B, 0.06 to 0.08. The poor performance of the encirclement tee (J) was unexpected.7-52 Fittings and Components Reference 42 Rodabaugh, E. C., and George, H. H., “Design and Strength of Welded Pipe Line Branch Consetions, Proc. ASCE, J. of the Pipeline Div., Vol. 83, No. PL1, 32 pages (March General loadings on the branch, Code design rules, and field failures of branches are discussed. Results are reported in detail from numerous tests performed at Tube Tums and by others on static and cyclic pressure loading, and static and cyclic external loads on branches. Pressure pulsation tests were performed by the authors on 24-inch OD x 0.500-inch WT header pipe with 4-inch, 8-inch, or 12-inch extruded outlets (Type L, as extension of the nomenclature from References 40 and 41), and with the same size fabricated branches with saddle reinforcement (Type C) and circular pad reinforcement (Type M). The cyclic pressure performance ranges of Types L and M branches were 6 to 10 and 0.5 to 1.7, respectively. The additional Type C branches fell in the same range as the earlier series of tests. Cyclic bending load tests were performed on branches having a various forms of reinforcement, including with the run thickened, the branch thickened, saddle, circular pad in ifferent thicknesses, and triform ribs. Stress intensification factors ranging between 1.1 and 4 were developed in accordance with Mark!'s fatigue S-N failure law, iS=245,000/N®? (refer to Markl paper, Reference 61). It was concluded on the basis of the test data and field experience that branch connections with integral reinforcement, large intersection radii, gradual changes in wall thickness, and preferential thickening in highly stressed areas were preferred. Where branches had to be of the fabricated type, full-encirclement reinforcement was recommended for sovere service conditions, while saddles or pads were acceptable for moderate service. It was also ‘emphasized that quality of fabrication in terms of fit-up and especially welding could affect performance of a fabrication. Reference 43 Atterbury, T. J., Beall, L. G., McClure, G. M., VerNooy, B., and Battisto, S., “Experimental Stress Analysis of Several Full-Opening Reinforced Branch Connections”, Special Report to NG-11 Branch Comnection Program, American Gas Association (Wevember 30, 1958).7-53 Fittings and Components Eight styles of fabricated reinforced 16-inch size-on-size tees (except one 8-inch branch) -- were studied to determine stresses under the action of intemal pressure or transverse bending load on the branch. Pressure pulsation tests were conducted to determine pressure fatigue performance. The run pipe was 16-inch OD x 5/16-inch WT API SL X52 pipe. The fabricated tee styles suitable for hot-tapping included a cast steel split tee, a full encirclement saddle, a forged split tee, 2 weld-o-let on thick-walled split sleeve, a weld-o-let on thin-walled split sleeve, a 16- inch saddle, and an 8-inch saddle. Results were then compared to those from a forged butt welding straight tee, which represents the preferred branch form though it cannot be used for hot- tapping. Stress intensification factors (SIFs) under internal pressure or extemal load were derived from strain gage measurements. For internal pressure, the forged butt welding tee had the lowest SIF, followed closely by the split forged tee and the cast steel tee. These three also exhibited the lowest SIFs due to transverse bending load applied at the branch hot tap flange. The others exhibited SIFs 2 to 3 times greater. Those with thinner branch walls also did not redistribute or shed stresses very well after initially yielding. ‘The pressure pulsation tests cycled the run pipe between 50 and 90 percent of SMYS. The butt welding fitting exhibited 4 to 40 times longer pressure pulsation fatigue life than the fabricated branches. In general, the fatigue failures occurred at the points of maximum static pressure strain, It was also determined that fabrication weld quality significantly affected fatigue performance as well, but welding was eliminated as a factor by making weld repairs and continuing with the tests. It was concluded that those fittings with smoothly contoured openings and no fillets around the opening gave the superior performance. Also, it was observed that the fillet welds at ‘the ends of the sleeves were potential fatigue concerns. Finally, those fittings having thicker ‘branch walls had lower SIFs under transverse bending loads than those with thinner walls. Reference 44 Atterbury, T. J., McClure, G. M., Roos, C. HL, and Grover, H. J., “Branch Connections, Report 2: Survey of Research”, A.G.A. NG-11 Report, American Gas Association, 78 pages (January 1959).7-54 Fittings and Components Results from work to date sponsored by A.G.A. and others, some previously unpublished, were compiled in tables giving the type of design, authors, dimensions and materials, loading, performance, and location of failure. In general, it was found that one of three high-stress locations limited the pressure or load carrying capabilities. These were: the inside surface at the crotch adjacent to the cutout, the outside surface of the run pipe on the side of the connection, and in the fillet around the end of full-encirclements if they are pressure-retaining. Reference 45, Atterbury, T. J., Vagins, M., and MeClure, G. M., “Branch Connections-Development of Rules for Design”, Projects NG-11 and NG-22 Summary Report, American Gas Association (January 30, 1961). ‘The program described in this report studied the effects of various combinations of header, branch, and pad dimensions on the membrane and bending stresses in the fabricated assembly due to intemal pressure. The area-replacement principle of branch design handed down from boiler design rules for nozzles in the early part of the century were originally developed for small values of branch to header diameters (4/D), where the stresses near the opening are primarily membrane in nature. It had already been established that where d/D>1/2 in thin-walled Pipes, local bending stresses can become quite large. Also, it was not possible to determine the effects of the various dimensional parameters on these stresses. Therefore, several unreinforced branches and various styles of reinforced branches were evaluated using strain gages, with the objective of developing design rules that more effectively reduced stress levels in the fabrication than the area replacement approach to branch design. Reinforcement techniques included circular pads, stacked pads where the second pad is, smaller in diameter than the base pad, and a pad-on-sleeve arrangement. These latter two are not ‘commonly seen in service. The study led to a proposal for revisions to the branch connection design rules in ASME B31.8 which were somewhat more complex than the standard area replacement technique. These more exact rules were never adopted by the Code.755 Fittings and Components Reference 46 Vagins, M., Atterbury, T. J., and McClure, G. M., “The Analysis of Spacing Requirements for Multiple Openings Composed of Welded Branch Connections”, American Gas Association (April 20, 1962). Strain gage data from fabricated branches tested for A.G.A. in 1959 and 1960 were used to develop spacing criteria for headers with multiple openings, such as pulsation bottles or other manifold arrangements. The data showed that the intensified stresses decay with distance from the opening. It was assumed that the header between branches in close proximity will be subject to stress levels that are a simple summation of the overlapping stress fields of the individual ‘branches. The rules for design of multiple openings in effect in the contemporary edition of ASME B31.8 were evaluated in light of the results of the study and determined to be generally safe or conservative, These rules remain in effect in the present day edition of the Code. Reference 47 Atterbury, T. J., Rodabaugh, E. C., Vagins, M., and McClure, G. M., “Development of Rules for Design of Pipeline Branch Connections”, Project NG-11 Summary Report, American Gas Association (January 10, 1963). This report summarizes findings from A.G.A.-sponsored investigations of branch connection design going back to 1954. Many of the findings were reported in several of the foregoing documents. These research programs have influenced the Code to the extent that ASME B318 and B31.4 both recognize the potential for high stresses in large branches in thin- walled pipe and address that concern by imposing special limitations or requirements on fabrication details for large openings in pipe operating at high stress levels that do not appear in the design rules for plant and process piping. Reference 48 Rodabaugh, E. C., Duffy, A. R., and Atterbury, T. J., “Fabricated Branch Connections in ‘High Yield Strength Run Pipe”, NG-18 Report No. 23, American Gas Association (March 13, 1970). The rules in ASME B31.8, which allow pad or saddle reinforcement where d/D<1/2 were evaluated in terms of their applicability to branches fabricated in X-60 or stronger pipe. Two hydrostatic test failures in X60 pipelines at pad-reinforced branches, as well as results from7-56 Fiings and Components ‘experiments on branches, were considered. Rodabaugh concluded that due to the stress concentration at the side of the saddle or pad and the possible notch sensitivity of high-strength ‘materials available at that time, the pad or saddle reinforced branch may not have the safety margin on pressure that was intended (roughly 80 percent of the computed burst strength of the plain pipe). A test program designed to explore the issue further was outlined. Reference 49 Rodabaugh, E. C., “Review of Service Experience and Test Data on Openings in Pressure Vessels with Non-Integral Reinforcement”, WRC Bulletin 166, 26 pages (October 1971) . As the title suggests, Rodabaugh provides a comprehensive review of service failures and test data (from PVRC, A.G.A., and others) pertaining to fabricated openings in pressure vessels and branches in piping and gas transmission pipelines. He addressed both cyclic pressure and ‘extemal loading performance. Numerous photographs of test and service failure specimens are presented. It is shown that both cyclic pressure and cyclic moment loading behaviors conform to ‘Mark's fatigue S-N law derived for fittings and components. Rodabaugh concludes that satisfactory performance under cyclic conditions cannot be related solely to burst strength alone (.e., area replacement) and the overall satisfactory performance of the majority of fabrications indicates that they undergo few large pressure cycles. He observes that problems are most offen associated with the fillet welds, with initial fit-up and weld deposit contour as contributing factors. Reference 50 Rodabaugh, E. C., “A Review of Area Replacement Rules for Pipe Connections in Pressure Vessels and Piping”, WRC Bulletin 335, 57 pages (August 1988). ‘Rodabaugh provides yet another comprehensive examination of the service and test experience of branches in pipe, this time in the context of evaluating the adequacy of branch design rules in the ASME B31 piping design codes, ASME vessel design rules, and tee fitting design requirements. Portions of the work that are more applicable to pipe connections to vessels ‘would be relevant to reciprocating compressor pulsation bottles,751 Fittings and Components Reference 51 Horsley, D., Nippard, F. E., and Pick, R. J., “Finite Element Investigation of the NPS 36 Western Alberta Mainline Rupture at the James River Interchange”, * Sympasion on Pipeline Research, Houston, 8 pages (September 30, 1996). A detailed finite element stress analysis was performed of a fabricated branch connection that failed in service. The branch design was a 24-inch branch on a 36-inch * 0.406-inch X52 pipe reinforced by a full-encirclement saddle, operating at 782 psig. The branch apparently failed due to aweld defect. However, there were aggravating factors including a bending load caused by settlement, and poor fit-up between the saddle and run pipe. The effects of these factors on local stresses at the welding defect were evaluated. It was concluded that an epoxy grout should bbe used in the clearance under the saddle to immobilize the junction between the branch and run pipes. These findings were verified in full-scale tests. Reference 52 Bodman, E. and Fuhlrott, H., “Investigations of Critical Crack Geometries in Pipes”, 5* Intl. Conf, on Struct. Mech. in Reactor Tech. (SMIRT 6), 10 pages (1980). Reference 53, Schulze, H. D., Brenner, U., and Fublrott, H., “Application of Fracture Mechanics for Safety Assessments of Cracked Pipes”, 12 pages (1984). References 52 and 53 describe a variety of loading tests on austenitic and ferritic pipe and forged butt-welding tees containing artificial crack-like defects in various orientations. The tees were matched to 2.375-inch OD x 0.0787 inch WT pipe equivalent to Type 321 stainless steel. ‘Surface defects were given four orientations on the tees: longitudinal in the crotch, transverse in the crotch, aligned with the branch on the side of the tee, and angled at 45 degrees on the side of the tee. The tees were subjected to various combinations of intemal pressure and applied bending load, but only the tees with axial defects in the crotch were subjected to pressure only. It was concluded that the failure pressures of the tees were within the scatter of data for straight pipe. The authors concluded that they could be adequately evaluated using existing methods, specifically that of Kiefner and Maxey, ASTM STP 536, 1973.758 Fittings and Components Reference 54 WRC Bulletin 347, September 1989, 25 pages, containing: Schroeder, J., "Welded Tee Connections of Pipes Exposed to Slowly Increasing Internal Pressure"; and Schroeder, J., "Flawed Pipes and Branch Connections Exposed to Pressure Pulses and Shock Waves". The first paper compiles burst test data for various types of pipe connections, mostly obtained from the foregoing references, and attempts to correlate the burst strength relative to plain pipe in terms of the ratio of branch to run wall thicknesses (YT) and branch to run diameters (WD). It was shown that the burst strength of connections normalized to plain pipe will tend to decrease from 0.95 or 1 to around 0.8 as A/D increases above 0.5. Normalized strength increased with VT but only in the high-d/D range. The second paper studied the effects of rapid pressurization on both straight pipes and branches. Pipe specimens were 12.75-inch OD x 0.375- inch WT A106 Grade B. Flawed and unflawed pipe specimens were subjected to gradual pressure to bursting. The tests were then repeated under shockwave conditions (pressure rise of 2,000 psig in 15 milliseconds), while the strain history was recorded. The tests were then repeated on unreinforced branch connections. Reference 55 Rodabaugh, E. C., “Background of ANSI B16.5 Pressure-Temperature Ratings”, 37% Midyear Meeting, API Division of Refining, New York, 37 pages (May 11, 1972). A concise history of flange design is given. The rationale behind the pressure and temperature ratings of present standard flanges is explained. Rodabaugh explains how and why B16.5 flanges differ from ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code flanges, as well as why certain Class 150 and 300 flanges are more prone to leakage. Key references important to the development of flange design are also cited, including several of the ones listed below. Reference 56 Waters, E. O., and Taylor, J. H., “The Strength of Pipe Flanges”, Trans. ASME, Vol. 49, No. 12, 19 pages (1927).759 Fittings and Components Reference 57 Waters, E. O., Wesstrom, D. B., Rossheim, D. B., and Williams, F. S. G., “Formulas for ‘Stresses in Bolted Flanged Connections”, Trans. ASME, 11 pages (1937). Reference 58 Labrow, S., “Design of Flanged Joints”, Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs., Vol. 156, 8 pages (1947). Reference 59 Wesstrom, D. B., and Bergh, S. E., “Effect of Internal Pressure on Stresses and Strains in Bolted-Flanged Connections”, Trans. ASME, 15 pages (July 1951). Reference 60 Lake, G. F., and Boyd, G., “Design of Bolted, Flanged Joints of Pressure Vessels”, Proc. Inst. Mech, Engrs., Vol. 171, 40 pages (1957). The above are a few of several key references in the development of design and analysis of bolted flanges for pressure containment in pressure vessels and piping. Papers by Waters and Wesstrom report results of tests performed by them or others, while the other papers are mainly analytical. Reference 61 Markl, A. R. C., “Piping-Flexibility Analysis”, Paper No. 53-A-51, Trans. ASME, 23 pages (Feb. 1955). Markl discusses the historical development of the flexibility factors and stress intensification factors for individual styles of fittings. He summarizes the approximate assumptions leading to the various degrees of accuracy of various pipe framework analysis techniques, including mathematical matrix-based methods solved using “memory-endowed electronic ... computing devices”. He recognizes that inelastic action and relaxation in the hot condition will occur, and rationalizes the effects of self-springing and cold-springing on shakedown of the piping system to elastic action. Markl then derives the allowable stress levels for thermal expansion (or any displacement-induced) stress range found in ASME B31.1 and B313 (and soon to be retumed to B31.8), specifically S,=f{(1.25S,+0.50S,), where S, and S, are7-60 Fittings and Components the allowable material stresses in the cold and hot conditions, and fis a fatigue strength reduction factor inversely related to the number of anticipated cycles, f6/N"?, He then quantifies the range of factors of safety from both theoretical and experimental standpoints. Finally, he develops a simple screening criterion under which no analysis is deemed necessary. This is probably the single most important paper written on the subject of design and analysis of unrestrained piping systems. Its relevance is undiminished by time in describing the simplified design process embodied in piping codes in effect today, and should be required reading for anyone who claims to be a piping stress analyst or piping designer. At one time, the concepts clearly discussed by Markl were well understood by practicing piping engineers. However, the implicit assumptions have been forgotten and the engineering judgement required of the designer has been lost, even as automated push-button piping analysis and design processes (typically developed by programmers and software developers who do not understand the subject of piping design) have improved the designer’s ability to estimate stresses. That this is the case is probably responsible for widespread misinterpretation of the intent of the ASME Code for Pressure Piping. Reference 62 The M. W. Kellogg Company, Design of Piping Systems, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 384 pages (1941 and 1956). Reference 63 Grinnell Corporation, Piping Design and Engineering, 7* Ed., 320 pages (1995). References 62 and 63 provide information useful to conducting a piping flexibility analysis. The Kellogg book is more of a technical primer, while the Grinnell book is primarily tables and charts. In the Kellogg book, Chapter I discusses the strength and failure mechanisms that the designer must consider including plastic collapse, creep, fracture, and fatigue, Chapter 2 describes the design assumptions and simplifications embodied in the ASME piping code rules and allowable stresses, most of which remain in place today. Chapter 3 reviews the effects of fitting design details on fitting flexibility and stress intensification. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 discuss flexibility analysis by a simplified method, by the general analytical method, and by mode!761 Fittings and Components testing, respectively. Chapter 7 discusses expansion joints. Chapter 8 discusses purposes and designs of various types of supports, restraints, and braces. Chapter 9 addresses vibration contol. Several appendices provide data or mathematical derivations. In light of the ready availability of piping analysis computer programs, Chapters 4 through 6 are somewhat dated, however the other chapters are still highly relevant, ‘The Grinnell book compiles data on pipe materials, pipe fittings, valves, threads, and the like. The most valuable features are the piping expansion tables which giving maximum bending and torsional stresses, and reaction forces and moments due to thermal expansion for numerous planar and three-dimensional piping layouts commonly found in plant facilities. These can be used to obtain results that are equally valid to those obtained from piping analysis computer programs (which is not to say that they are numerically equivalent, nor more nor less conservative), within the limits of uncertainty inherent in any flexibility analysis and in the Code criteria, Reference 64 Markl, A. R. C., “Fatigue Tests of Piping Components, Paper 51-PET-21, Trans. ASME, 17 pages (1952). This paper summarizes bending fatigue tests performed on a wide variety of pipe specimens and fittings including: polished round-bar specimens machined from Grade B pipe, plain straight pipe, straight pipe containing a girth butt weld, short- and long-radius elbows, fabricated miter bends, forged welding tees, unreinforced branches, pad-reinforced branches, welding neck flanges, slip-on flanges, and socket-welded flanges. Directional components were tested both in-plane and out-of-plane, Mark found that within a scatter band, the S-N curves of each type of component lay essentially parallel to the round-bar S-N curve except that generally no endurance limit was observed. When plotted on log-log paper, entire body of data was essentially parallel and could be reasonably approximated by the formula iS=245,000 N-, He determined that the least stress intensification in practice corresponded to straight pipe joined by a girth butt weld. In order to avoid having the location of a butt weld control the piping design, Markl used it as the normalizing basis, assigning it a value of 1 and adjusting the constant accordingly. Thus, for all7-62 Fittings and Components other components, “i” is the relative fatigue-effective stress intensification of a component above that of a girth butt weld, which itself has been found to represent an implicit factor of 2. Interestingly, Marki’s formula can be reduced to a single-load failure law by substituting N=1/4 and i=0.5 to get S=6.5%10" psi, which elastically calculated is equivalent to a strain of 2 percent, a fairly conservative estimate. Mark found that the SIFs could be related to the same geometric characteristic as the flexibility factor, such that the fatigue performance of entire families of components could be generalized. Moreover, the greater the flexibility, the greater was the stress-intensification factor. Reference 65 Rodabaugh, E. C., "Standardized Method for Developing Stress Intensification Factors for Piping Components", WRC Bulletin 392, 11 pages (June 1994). ‘Neither the ASME B31 Code for Pressure Piping, nor Section III of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, both of which specify stress intensification factors, give guidance on how such factor should be established. WRC 392 proposes a specific protocol intended to assure that experimental procedures and interpretations of i-factors derived for nonstandard components for Which the standard values may not be accurate are consistent with existing SIFs and allowable stresses. Background on the development and use of i-factors is given. ‘The four basic steps to developing a valid SIF are as follows. A preliminary load- deflection curve is generated. Cyclic bending tests with controlled displacement are performed on multiple specimens. The intent is to produce failure in a reasonable number of cycles, which means a certain amount of plastic deformation will take place. Hence, moments should be extrapolated linearly from the elastic portion of the load-deflection curve. Failure is defined at the number of cycles at which a through-wall crack is detected. The SIF is calculated from 5=245,000(SN™). Reference 66 Rodabaugh, E. C., and Atterbury, T. J, “Flexibility and Stress Intensification Factors of Piping Components with Moment Loading”, Project PR-3-39, American Gas Association (October 21, 1966).7-63 Fittings and Components Rodabaugh presents an exhaustive review and evaluation of recent (at that time) experimental and theoretical information concerning the flexibility and stress intensification characteristics of fittings subject to bending loads. He also provides an introduction to the concept and use of flexibility (&) and stress intensification (i) factors for readers unfamiliar with the subject. The & and i factors were developed to evaluate piping layout in steam power and refinery piping that undergoes large temperature changes, While large temperature variations typically do not occur in most gas piping facilities with the exception of the regeneration cycle on desiccant dehydrators, they are equally applicable to other kinds of displacement-induced loadings. These include fit-up misalignment; structural movements such as support or foundation settlement or offshore platform movements; and vibration in compressor stations. The k factor is the moment rotation that occurs in a component normalized to the rotation in straight matching pipe. The i factor is derived from fatigue performance tests of representative fittings (“Mark tests”), normalized to the performance of straight pipe with a girth butt weld. The point is made that elastic stress intensification factors derived by theoretical analysis are roughly twice the / factors derived by fatigue testing. Subtle but significant influences on the k and i factors are discussed, including end effects of tangent pipe or flanges, stiffening effects of internal pressure, and dimensional variation in Markl-test specimens, ‘Recommendations are given for revisions to the factors in the contemporary edition of ASME B31.8. The most important of these are to incorporate factors to account for the pressure- stiffening effect in thin-walled elbows, and to restrict the i given for B16.9 tees to those with a crotch radius larger than one-eight of the branch or outlet diameter. These revisions are found in the present-day code. Some other recommendations regarding refinement of k for tees, as well as refinements directed toward less-common details do not appear to have been adopted in ASME B318 or the other B31 piping codes. Reference 67 Rodabaugh, E. C., and George, H. H., “Effect of Intemal Pressure on Flexibility and ‘Stress-Intensification Factors of Curved Pipe or Welding Elbows”, Paper No. 56-SA-50, ‘Trans. ASME, 10 pages (1957). Starting with Beskin’s more accurate solution for bends, the authors derived modifications to the available flexibility factors to account for the stiffening effect of intemal7-64 Fittings and Components pressure. This effect is not important in heavy-walled elbows such as those used in steam piping, but is significant in large thin-walled bends. The results are compared to tests on 30-inch OD x 0.500-inch WT elbows having a nominal bend radius of 45 inches, attached to 30-inch OD X52 pipe. Strain gages were used to measure stresses in and around the bend. Reference 68 Kitching, R. and Bond, M. P., “Flexibility and Stress Factors for Mitred Bends Under In- Plane Bending”, int. J. Mech. Sci, Vol. 12, 9 pages (1970). Extensive tests and computer analysis based on shell theory were conducted in order to refine the factors. (Mitered bends are used in British gas-cooled reactor facilities.) Good agreement was found between the computer models and flexibility factors determined from the tests. Theoretical stress concentration factors, divided by two to adjust for Markl’s normalizing basis, were in good agreement with i-factors derived from bending-moment fatigue tests. However, the overall discrepancy between the existing Code equations and test data was not large, so the improvements appear to be incremental. Reference 69 Rodabaugh, E. C., “Accuracy of Stress Intensification Factors for Branch Connections”, WRC Bulletin 329, 44 pages (December 1987). ‘The general background of SIFs and flexibility of branch connections leads into detailed and rather complicated discussion of certain unresolved issues in then (and still) present Code ules. One important problem is the “M,, Inconsistency” wherein certain tests indicated that the Code equations could be unconservative for out-of-plane moments applied to the branch. One clement of the inconsistency lies in the resultant bending stress, and whether the section modulus ‘was intended to be that of the run or the branch. Another is that there is apparently a peak in actual SIFs in the intermediate size range 0.5100. Also, the Code should state that the effect of closely spaced branches (within two run diameters clearance) requires special consideration. Of significance is the recommendation that i=, instead of i=(3/4)i,+1/4. Reference 70 Woods, G. E., and Rodabaugh, E. C., “WFI/PVRC Moment Fatigue Tests on 4x3 ANSI B16.9 Tees”, WRC Bulletin 346, 8 pages (August 1989). Out-of- plane bending moment fatigue tests were performed on ANSI B16.9 43 reducing tees having four different geometries in the transverse section. The results found that there is no peak at d/D=0.75 in the effective i-factor for such tees, in contrast to what has been observed with fabricated branches. It was concluded that the minimum crotch radius and thickness requirements in the Code were necessary but possibly not sufficient to assure uniform conservative behavior. Reference 71 Atterbury, T. J, McClure, G.M., and Rodabaugh, B. C., “Fatigue of Welded Branch ‘Connections Subject to Cyclic Bending Loads”, ASME Paper No. 64-PET-38, 8 pages (1964). Fatigue failures at the nozzle-to-shell joint in compressor pulsation bottles, due to vibration, led to this PRC-sponsored study of the behavior of branch connections under cyclic loadings. Four types of branches were studied: pad reinforced, saddle reinforced, unreinforced drawn (extruded) outlets with the shell thickness the same as in the pad or saddle reinforced ‘examples, and reinforced drawn outlets with the shell thickness the same as the sum of the pad and shell thicknesses. ‘The headers were 16-inch OD * 0.500-inch WT X42, except that the reinforced drawn outlets used a 1-inch wall thickness, The branches were 6-inch NPS Schedule 40 seamless Grade B pipe. Cyclic loading was applied by an eccentric mass driven by a variable speed motor.7-66 Fittings and Components Stresses were monitored by strain gages. Nominal stresses were between 2 and 5 ksi. The dynamic tests were cartied out to 10” cycles. All experiments were carried out with 800 psig internal pressure producing a circumferential stress in the header of 30 percent of SMYS. Failures generally occurred adjacent to weldments. In the pad reinforced specimens, the failures occurred at the toe of the branch attachment weld. In the saddle reinforced specimens, failures occurred in any of several locations: at the toe of the saddle-to-header weld, in the branch at the toe of the saddle-to-branch weld, in the saddle at the base of the saddle-to-branch weld, or in the branch at the toe of the branch-to-header weld. In the unreinforced drawn outlet, the failures occurred on the header side at the toe of the branch attachment weld. In the reinforced drawn outlet, the failures occurred on the branch side at the toe of the branch attachment weld. ‘The authors concluded that the reinforced drawn outlet had the best performance, followed by the pad reinforced branch, the saddle reinforced branch, and the unreinforced drawn outlet last. However, this reviewer concluded that the reinforced drawn outlets and saddle reinforced branches had comparable performance. Moreover, the narrow stress range of 3 to 6 ksi from 10” down to 5x10° cycles indicates high sensitivity to stresses in each of the designs, Specimens of the pad reinforced branches which received post-weld stress relief heat treatment experienced roughly a half-order of magnitude improvement in fatigue life. Specimens of the pad reinforced branches which had the fillet welds ground to a smooth contour at the toes experienced a full order of magnitude improvement in fatigue life, essentially to an equivalent level of performance achieved by the reinforced drawn outlet. Reference 72 Fondriest, F. F., Atterbury, T. J., and McClure, G. M., “Study of Effects of Cyclic Bending Loads on Performance of Branch Connections”, NG-11 Report, American Gas Association (May 2, 1960). Pad-reinforced fabricated riser connections at the compressor discharge suction bottles ‘were studied using strain gages to determine local stress levels in such assemblies during ‘operation. Bottles were tested in one station that had experienced no problems and in another station that had experienced leaks due to fatigue at the riser flanges and branch connections. In one station, both long and short riser designs were tested on the same compressor unit. Strains due to fit-up, static pressure, and operation were recorded. It was determined that stresses due to1-67 Fittings and Components fit-up and static pressure could be up to 10 to 30 ksi, while dynamic stresses were approximately one-tenth of these levels. Also, fit-up stresses were greatly reduced by first bolting in the loose flanges to the compressor, and then welding them to the risers, as opposed to welding the flanges to the risers and then bolting the completed units to the compressor. ‘The in-situ data were then used to design a test fixture consisting of 16-inch OD x 0.500- inch WT X42 header with two 6-inch NPS x 0.250-inch WT Grade B risers. The fixture could induce longitudinal bending, longitudinal rotation, or transverse rotation to the header by application of a static displacement-induced load at the riser flanges. A vibrational load was introduced at the header using a variable speed rotating eccentric mass, and the assembly was pressurized with water to 800 psig. Fatigue S-N curves out to 10” cycles at mean stress levels of 10, 15, and 20 ksi were developed. Failure typically occurred in the crotch of the branch at the toe of the attachment weld. When a riser failed, the header was cut in half and mated to a new half and the testing continued. In the in-situ tests, when 2 fatigue crack developed leading to failure, the failing riser began shedding dynamic loads to the other risers. In the bench tests, no significant difference in fatigue performance was observed between the three static mean stress. This was attributed to early yielding at the weld toe, Reference 73 Markl, A. R. C., “Fatigue Tests on Flanged Assemblies”, Trans. ASME, 10 pages (1950). Markl’s well-established test protocol of cyclical reversed bending was applied to several styles of flange installed on 4-inch Grade B pipe. Flange styles included: slip-on, with undersized and oversized fillet welds at the hub and face; slip-on, with only a hub or face weld; socket- ‘welding, with both inner and outer fillet welds; socket-welding, with only outer fillet welds; threaded; lap-joint; ring (hubless); and welding neck. Leakage through the gasket generally did not occur except in the lap-joint flange, indicating that the flanges were stiff enough for their rated pressure with even large bending loads applied. The vast majority of flanges developed circumferential cracks at the toes of fillet,7-68 Fittings and Components ‘welds (if applicable). The welding neck flanges failed at the welded attachment, The threaded flange failed by persistent leakage through the threads, Overall, the welding neck flange performed as well as straight pipe with a butt weld, eaming a SIF equal to 1.00. The double-welded socket welding flange eamed i=1.15, the double- welded slip-on or ring flanges eamed i=1.25, the single welded (at the hub) slip-on or socket ‘welding flanges eared i=1.30, the lap-joint flanges earned i=1.60, and the threaded flanges. eamed i=2.30. Reference 74 Bijlaard, P. P., "Stresses from Local Loadings in Cylindrical Pressure Vessels", Trans. ASME, 12 pages (August 1955). Reference 75 Bijlaard, P. P., "Stresses from Radial Loads and External Moments in Cylindrical Pressure Vessels", Welding Research Supplement, 12 pages (December 1955). In Reference 74, Bijlaard describes a theoretical solution for the local stresses and deflections in a cylindrical shell due to applied forces and moments. His solution assumes that the forces or moments are averaged over a rigid rectangular attachment, and that the shell remains intact (.¢., no cut-out as for a nozzle). Elements of this solution for individual load components, and for spherical shells as well, were developed in several prior WRC Bulletins. Reference 75 presents results from Reference 74 reduced to curves that could be readily used by a design engineer to determine angular rotation, and for local membrane and bending stress produced by a radial force, and an in-plane or out-of-plane moment applied to a rigid attachment. It is applicable to the evaluation of loads applied to a structural attachment such as a lug or stanchion welded onto a pipe or pipeline. Reference 76 Wichman, K. R., Hopper, A. G., and Mershon, J. L., “Local Stresses in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells Due to Extemal Loadings”, WRC Bulletin 107 (August 1965, Revised March 1979),7-69 Fittings and Components Reference 77 Mershon, J. L., Mokhtarian, K., Ranjan, G. V., and Rodabaugh, E. C., “Local Stresses in Cylindrical Shells Due to External Loadings on Nozzles — Supplement to WRC Bulletin No. 107 (Revision 1)", Revised WRC Bulletin 297, 88 pages (September 1987). WRC 107 presents a "cook book" approach to calculating the local shell stresses due to applied forces or moments in all three axes. The design curves are based on Bijlaard’s analysis. WRC 297 is a refinement of WRC 107 specifically applicable to cylindrical nozzles on cylindrical shells based on a thin shell analysis by Steele, Stresses at the nozzle juncture not specifically addressed by WRC 107 are covered, along with larger D/T and better detail curves for small d/D. An appendix presents correlating results from finite element analyses. Users should be sure to use the September 1987 Revision 1, which corrects errors in the initial August 1984 edition. References 76 and 77 are both applicable to the evaluation of external loads applied through the branch connection on a pipe or pipeline. Reference 78 Powell, G. H., Clough, R. W., and Gantayat, A. N,, "Stress Analysis of B16.9 Tees by the Finite Element Method: A Progress Report”, 71-PVP-40, ASME Press. Ves, & Piping Conf., San Francisco, 9 pages (May 10-12, 1971). This paper describes progress toward development of a generic tee analysis program that would automatically generate a finite element mesh of a tee from minimal user input. The basic ‘modeling considerations of element formulation, geometry definition, mesh generation, and output in interpretable form are discussed. The problems associated with each of these issues ‘were enormous given the primitive state of FEA software at that time. The automatic mesh ‘generation and color stress contour plots taken for granted today simply did not exist. Good comparison was obtained between calculated stresses and test results on a 126 Schedule 40 reducing tee under internal pressure and in-plane bending on the branch. Reference 79 ‘Natarajan, R., and Mirza, S., "Effect of Thickness Variation on Stress Analysis of Piping Elbows Under Internal Pressure”, Comp. & Struct., Vol. 18, No. 5, 12 pages (1984).7-10 Fittings and Components Reference 80 Natarajan, R., and Mirza, §., "Effect of Internal Pressure on Flexibility Factors in Pipe Elbows with End Constraints", J, Press. Ves. Tech., Trans. ASME No. 107, 4 pages 1985). The first paper examined the effects of wall thickening on the intrados with equivalent wall thinning on the extrados on stresses in an elbow subject to intemal pressure or pressure plus bending. The second paper studied the effects of end constraints on the flexibility factors in pipe elbows subject to intemal pressure. The numerically-derived stresses were in good agreement with experimental strain gage data from inside and outside surfaces. However, the presentation of results is flawed by not separating membrane from bending components, and by expressing results in terms of a stress factor that is defined only in an extemal reference. ‘Natarajan concluded in the first study that wall thickness variations had no effect on the location or magnitude of maximum stresses, which occur as circumferential bending stresses on the crown. The second paper demonstrated that in the presence of end constraints, pressure further reduces the flexibility of elbows, by up to 50 percent in thin-walled elbows. This is consistent with the findings by Rodabaugh and George®”. A similar trend was observed for elbows with smaller included angles; however, the reduction for thin-walled materials is only about 25 percent. None of the findings could be regarded as entirely novel with respect to the prior theoretical or experimental work of others. Reference 81 Fujimoto, T., and Soh, T., "Flexibility Factors and Stress Indices for Piping Components with D/>100 Subjected to In-Plane and Out-of-Plane Moment", Press. Ves. & Piping Congf., New Orleans (June 23-26, 1988). The concem addressed by this work was the recognition that the stress intensification factors and flexibility factors in ASME B31.3 were derived mainly from heavy-walled piping, but that thin-walled components are often used in chemical plants with low temperature operations. A series of experiments and finite element analyses were conducted in order to determine whether the factors were unconservative for the thin-walled components, or if the rules specified for the nuclear industry in ASME Section II, NB-3600 would be more appropriate.7 Futings and Components One shortcoming of the paper is that the word "code" is used interchangeably for ASME B31.3, which uses stress intensification factors, and NB-3600, which uses stress indices. Stress indices differ from SIFs in that they represent stress factors to be used with the theoretical design approach used uniquely with nuclear piping. The author’s lack of clarity results in confusing conclusions. The authors also failed to show a direct and understandable comparison of the code-calculated values as compared to the values derived from finite element analyses. Despite these shortcomings a reasonable level of accuracy was achieved in terms of comparing experimental and analytical results. It was observed that where D/t>100, the flexibility factors for miter bends were higher than those calculated by ASME B31.3, and in comparison with NB- 3600, the calculated SIFs and flexibility factors for unreinforced fabricated tees were higher and lower, respectively. Miter bends and size-on-size unreinforced fabricated branch connections are not commonly used in pipeline facilities. Reference 82 Fowler, J. R., Samman, M. M., and Al-Sannaa, M. S., "High-Pressure Pipe Design", PR- 201-9202, A.G.A. PRC (1993). Reference 83 Fowler, J. R., and Alexander, C. R., "Design Guidelines for High-Strength Pipe Fittings", PR-201-9320, A.G.A. PRC (1994). ‘The American Gas Association funded work to evaluate whether the SIFs in the ASME piping codes are unconservative for large diameter fittings with thin walls, implying that Markl’s work may have been extrapolated beyond its applicability. In addition to concems relating to SIPs, discussion in the report also addressed the methods by which fittings are qualified relative to one another according to the governing standard, MSS SP-75, Although some burst tests were performed, the bulk of the research involved finite element analysis (FEA) using ABAQUS clastic thin shell elements. Reference 82 analyzed size-on-size tees, elbows and concentric reducers having diameters from 16 to 36 inches, while Reference 83 was an extension of the previous work looking at fittings with diameters ranging from 4 inches to 12 inches. The latter also included reducing tees in the analysis.7-12 Fisings and Components ‘The authors found that flexibility factors derived from the FEAs were generally in good agreement with those used in the Code. They also determined that the peak stress factors estimated by the FEAs were consistently greater than the Code SIFs, sometimes by a factor of 2. From this they concluded that the Code SIFs are unconservative, by as much as a factor of 2. ‘The analytical work appears to be technically correct, but it is important for readers to understand that the authors’ interpretation of the peak stress concentration factor (SCF) derived by a theoretical or numerical analysis (which the authors refer to as “stress intensification factors”) is not equivalent to the SIF as used in the Code, The Code SIFs are fatigue-effective factors based on actual performance, normalized to the fatigue-effective performance of straight Pipe containing a girth butt weld. The girth butt weld is assigned an SIF of 1 but represents an effective built-in factor widely regarded as at least 1.5 and nominally equal to 2. This normalizing basis is embedded in the Code SIFs and implicitly accounted for in the Code allowable stresses. Markl himself remarked on this in his papers", and it has been pointed out subsequently by Rodabaugh™ and others™ in documents that the authors even listed in their bibliography. ‘The ASME B31 Mechanical Design Technical Committee reviewed the subject work and concluded that the authors’ FEA results represented peak stresses (SCFs), not SIFs. The also concluded that the factor of 2 difference was consistent with the authors’ interpretation of the meaning of SIFs. If the authors’ numerical SCFs are divided by 2, they fall within the range of scatter typically observed for experimentally derived SIFs. WRC Bulletin 392 presents a standardized method for developing SIFs on a consistent basis with the Code. Use of the authors’ findings as they interpreted them, while unnecessary, would lead only to a more conservative design so the only harm would be economical. Despite the difference in interpretation discussed above, the paper correctly points out that the design basis for fittings is inadequate to establish acceptable fatigue performance (as has been pointed out by others, see for example Reference 49), and perhaps even pressure performance over the full size range manufactured. In particular, the authors recommend that fitting purchasers audit the design acceptability of the fittings and burst tests that are performed on the respective fittings. In terms of pressure containment, fitting purchasers are encouraged to require that the crotch thickness in elbows be at least 1.25 times that of the adjoining pipesTB Fittings and Components (tress in the crotch region are 125 percent of the nominal stress in the elbow), and that the crotch thickness in tees be at least 1.5t and that the crotch radius be no less than d/8. (This suggestion for tees is already a Code requirement to use the SIF for butt welding tees instead of the higher SIF for outlets.) While these are valuable suggestions, they create a need to measure dimensions that are not presently standardized, In order to use these suggestions, one would have to ‘incorporate them into a purchase specification, along with acceptable tolerances and contingencies for noncompliance,