See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320637053

Nozzle Load Considerations and Misconceptions Introduced by Piping Support

Friction

Conference Paper · July 2017

DOI: 10.1115/PVP2017-65970

CITATIONS READS
0 173

2 authors, including:

Dennis Keith Williams

DR. DENNIS K. WILLIAMS, P.E.
44 PUBLICATIONS   104 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Piping Supports & Restraints View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dennis Keith Williams on 18 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2017 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
PVP2017
July 16-20, 2017, Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA

PVP2017-65970

NOZZLE LOAD CONSIDERATIONS AND MISCONCEPTIONS INTRODUCED BY PIPING SUPPORT

FRICTION

Bikramjit Singh Antaal

Dennis K. Williams
LISEGA INC
370 E. Dumplin Valley Rd.
Kodak, TN, 37764 USA
Tel: 865-940-5200
Email: Bikram.Antaal@us.lisega.com
Email: Dennis.Williams@us.lisega.com

ABSTRACT
This paper discusses the prescribed requirements contained
within the various ASME B31 Piping Codes and ASME B&PV
Code, Section III that specifically address the need to recognize
the restraint introduced by piping support friction. In addition,
the requirement for the design of sliding supports (pipe shoes)
and brackets to resist the forces due to friction in addition to the
loads induced by bearing is also reviewed and discussed. As
part of the required piping analysis, the questions surrounding
the inclusion of the maximum coefficients of static friction and
the impact of these often excessively large values on equipment
nozzle loadings is reviewed in considerable detail, especially in
light of the qualitative guidelines contained within WRC
Bulletin 449. Included in the discussions of the considerations
associated with the assumed restraint provided by support
friction is the mathematical treatment of extrema (i.e., maxima
and minima) with respect to calculated nozzle loads based upon
the analyst’s choice of the largest published coefficients of static
friction. Example problems taken from the authors’ decades of
experience in the field are reviewed in light of the time
dependent heat up and cooldown rates for the piping systems
discussed herein. In most cases, the analyses show that not only
is it highly improbable that the choice of only maximum values
of coefficients of friction at each support will exist, but rather it
is impossible that this often abusive practice by the unsuspecting
analyst for the “worst case” frictional coefficients to exist
simultaneously in a piping installation. Finally,
recommendations for the considerations of the potential restraint
induced by piping support friction in the rigorous piping
analyses are tendered.
Keywords: ASME B31 Piping Codes, ASME Section III,
Subsection NF, friction, pipe supports, nozzle loads
NOMENCLATURE
D Outside diameter of pipe (in.)
E Young’s modulus of elasticity (psi)
F Friction force (lbf)
Fk Kinetic frictional force (lbf)
Fs Maximum static frictional force (lbf)
L Length of leg available to absorb thermal expansion (ft)
l Length between guides of the expansion loop (ft)
N Normal force to surface (lbf)
S Calculated thermal stress range (psi)
W Weight of the pipe (lbf)
Δ Thermal displacement to be absorbed (in.)
θk Inclined plane angle for kinetic coeff. of friction (degree)
θs Inclined plane angle for static coeff. of friction (degree)
µk Kinetic coefficient of friction (dimensionless)
µs Static coefficient of friction (dimensionless)
INTRODUCTION
Piping supports and restraints are an integral part of all
engineered piping systems. As a minimum, supports and
restraints are provided to carry the deadweight of the pipe, the
fluid medium, the weight of in-line valves, and the attached
insulation. In addition, the supports and restraints ‘system’
serves to direct the thermally and dynamically induced piping
displacements (in a judicious manner) in and around critical
equipment nozzle connections. During the heating and cooling
cycles associated with the thermal power plant piping system,
thermal displacements (expansion when going from cold to hot
or contraction when going from hot to cold) create relative
movements between the attached piping supports and restraints
and the rigid supporting structure upon which the supports and
restraints (herein after simply referred to as the “supports”) bear.

1 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Due to friction that develops between the pipe support and its
supporting structure upon which it bears, a non-conservative and
retarding force is induced in the opposing direction to that
generated by the associated thermal displacement of the pipe.
This opposing force may retard the free thermal growth of the
piping system, possibly imposing significantly higher loads on
anchors, limit stops, guides, and connecting equipment than
those calculated loads in an assumed, completely frictionless
system of the analyst generated math model.
The force attributed to friction (if any) on a piping system
depends on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the
type and location of the supports, the number of supports, the
materials of construction, and the bearing surface upon which
the supports rest. The location of supports should not interfere
with the progressive thermal expansion of the pipe either during
heat up or cool down of the piping system. Additionally, it is
well understood by piping stress analysts that during the design
of piping systems that are subjected to both thermal and seismic
loads, competing design objectives are ever present by the two
aforementioned types of loadings that must be mediated. This is
to say that to adequately control the thermal stress range, which
ultimately affects the fatigue life of the piping system, the piping
should maintain sufficient flexibility to allow the system to
displace freely in the axial direction. In contrast, for seismic
loads, the piping should (in general) be much more rigid so as to
avoid having low fundamental frequencies in the range where
the peak accelerations could cause unwanted and excessive
displacements. Associated with excessive displacements are
generally high stresses, which may in fact, create permanent
changes in the piping geometry that are certainly intolerable for
continued safe and efficient plant operation.
A good piping design should strike a perfect balance
between the thermal flexibility and seismic rigidity by using
sufficient supports and restraints at judiciously selected locations
and a geometric layout that is conducive to directing thermal
displacements. For example, according to Peng [1], in cases
when the piping system is subjected to vibratory or dynamic
loads, friction can help stabilize the system by absorbing and
dissipating some of the imparted energy, thereby reducing
piping stresses and equipment nozzle loads. Peng [1] went on
further to state that there is no rule of thumb as to whether it is
non-conservative to ignore the effects of friction during the
piping analysis. Bakre et al. [2] demonstrated through analytical
and experimental studies that support friction helps in reducing
the dynamic response of a piping system due to ground
excitations over a broad range of frequencies. Further work on
the seismic response of piping systems by taking into account
the friction between the piping support and its associated support
structure was studied extensively by Suzuki et al. [3]. Kolontis
[4] also demonstrated the additive nature of frictional forces
during thermal expansion and contraction cycles of a pipeline
transporting hot fluids.
FRICTION: AN INDUCED FORCE
Boresi and Schmidt [5] define a frictional force as the shear
force that acts tangent to the surface of contact between two
bodies. This force opposes sliding motion between the subject
2 Copyright © 2017 ASME
bodies. An important concept is also pointed out by the same
authors, which is that the force of static friction is a maximum
when the two bodies in contact are just ready to slip relative to
each other. The maximum force of friction increases as the
normal force between the bodies increase. Furthermore, the
frictional force that exists when two contacting bodies are about
to slide relative to one another is generally larger than the
frictional force when the bodies actually are sliding relative to
one another. Finally, one concept that is of utmost importance
in the analysis of friction in a piping system is that if two bodies
in contact are not sliding relative to each other, the frictional
force between the bodies need not always be equal to the
maximum static frictional force.
Friction is non-linear, path dependent, and a time varying
force. Friction coefficients take on two distinct forms in terms
of whether or not a sufficient force has been developed to
overcome what is termed the static frictional force. Assuming
that a force normal to the bearing surfaces exist, the maximum
static frictional force Fs is defined to be proportional to the
product of the applied normal force N and the associated
coefficient of static friction s. In other words, the static
frictional force is an induced force and may be calculated as
shown below in Eq. (1).
= (1)
As observed by Boresi and Schmidt [5], because the
maximum force of static friction is not usually equal to the
frictional force while the bodies are sliding relative to one
another, in most problems (including that of this paper), the
piping stress analyst needs to know and consider a second
coefficient of friction known as the coefficient of kinetic (or
sliding) friction, k. Analogous to Eq. (1), while the force
associated with kinetic friction, Fk, is also proportional to the
product of the normal force N, and the associated coefficient of
kinetic friction, k, we have the relationship as shown below in
Eq. (2).
= (2)
The frictional force, whether static or sliding, only exists if
there is a displacement of the pipe (in the case at hand, due to
thermal growth going from cold to hot) and impending sliding
between the pipe support and its associated support structure.
The coefficient of friction, i.e., either s or k between the two
bearing surfaces is dependent on the nature of materials in
contact with each other. In practice, these coefficients may also
depend upon the condition of the surface, for example whether
there is some form of corrosion between the two surfaces and
the maintenance of surfaces in contact over a period of time.
The magnitude of these coefficients of friction may vary from
very small values as low as 0.01 to values in excess of 0.50 in
the piping support world. Selected values for a combination of
surfaces are given in Table 1 for both static and kinetic
coefficients of friction and allow the reader a quick comparison
of the relative differences between the two types of friction.
 Mokha et al. [7] found from testing on Teflon™ bearing
surfaces that friction increases with increasing velocity up to a
certain value of velocity beyond which it remains constant.
Furthermore, the authors [7] concluded that friction drops with
increasing pressure with a rate of reduction that is strongly
dependent on velocity. Based upon their empirical results,
Mokha et al. [7] concluded that friction stabilizes at a value of
bearing pressure between 5,000 and 6,500 psi. Substantial
differences between the breakaway (or static) coefficient of
friction and sliding (or kinetic) coefficient of friction were
observed. In general, the breakaway value was found to be two
to four times larger than the sliding value. Following the subject
testing, Constantinou et al. [8] (being the same researchers as in
reference [7]), developed a mathematical model of the frictional
behavior of Teflon™ slide bearings for those conditions
consistent with the base isolation of a structure during a seismic
event. The calibration of the authors’ model [8] was based upon
extensive experimental data that were presented in an
accompanying paper [7]. The model was capable of accounting
for the following variables:
(1) Unidirectional and multidirectional motion at the
Teflon-steel interface;
(2) Velocity and pressure dependence of the coefficient of
sliding friction; and
(3) Breakaway (or static) friction effects.
The Constantinou et al. [8] model was characterized by four
parameters. These parameters included the minimum and
maximum values of the sliding coefficient of friction (k), the
ratio of breakaway to sliding coefficients of friction at initiation
of sliding, and a parameter that described the variation of the
sliding coefficient of friction with velocity. So it is clear from
the aforementioned published data that the treatment of friction
in a piping system must be undertaken with some due
consideration of the relative differences between the static
coefficient of friction and the smaller, but more applicable
kinetic coefficient of friction.
TABLE 1
Coefficients of Dry Static & Kinetic Friction for Various
Bearing Surfaces ([5], [6])
Surfaces in Contact µs µk
PTFE on PTFE 0.12 – 0.15 0.05 – 0.10
PTFE on Stainless Steel 0.10 0.03 – 0.13
Steel on Steel (new) 0.20 0.03
Steel on Steel 0.20 – 0.74 0.03 – 0.57
Graphite on Steel 0.10 < 0.10
Steel on Concrete 0.57 – 0.70 n/a
Steel on Ice 0.04 0.01
ASME SECTION III, DIVISION 1, SUBSECTION NF
REQUIREMENTS REGARDING FRICTION
Subparagraph NF-3124(a) [19] clearly states, “Rolling and
sliding supports shall permit free movement of the piping or
3 Copyright © 2017 ASME
component, or the piping or component shall be designed to
include the imposed load and frictional resistance of these types
of supports; their dimensions shall provide for the designed
movement of the supported piping or component.”
Subparagraph NF-3124(b) [19] further states, “Sliding supports
(or shoes) and brackets shall be designed to accommodate the
forces caused by friction in addition to the loads imposed by
bearing. The dimensions of the support shall provide for the
design movement of the supported piping or component.
Material and lubricants used in sliding supports shall be suitable
for the environment of the metal at the point of sliding contact
and shall be specified in the Design Documents.” Therefore, in
at least two specific instances, Subsection NF [19] requires that
frictional effects either be considered in the design of sliding
supports and that the piping be capable of withstanding the
subject retarding forces or the sliding support ensure free
movement of the piping to which it is attached.
For the sake of comparison with other National consensus
Codes and Standards within the ASME family, a review of one
additional Code is presented to judge any similarities in design
philosophy as related to the effects of friction. Antaal et al.
previously presented the friction considerations [20] required by
ASME B31.3 [9]. Paragraph 319.1.1 entitled “Piping Flexibility
– Basic Requirements” of ASME B31.3 [9] maintains that
piping systems shall have sufficient flexibility to prevent
thermal expansion or contraction or movements of piping
supports and terminals from causing:
(a) Failure of piping or supports from overstress or fatigue
(b) Leakage at joints
(c) Detrimental stresses or distortion in piping and valves
or in connected equipment (pumps and turbines, for
example), resulting from excessive thrusts and moments in
the piping.
ASME B31.3 [9], paragraph 319.4.3 further requires that,
“In calculating the flexibility of a piping system between anchor
points, the system shall be treated as a whole. The significance
of all parts of the line and of all restraints introduced for the
purpose of reducing moments and forces on equipment or small
branch lines, and also the restraint introduced by support
friction, shall be recognized.” In addition, paragraph 321.2.1(b)
[9] states, “to protect terminal equipment or other (weaker)
portions of the system, restraints (such as anchors and guides)
shall be provided where necessary to control movement or to
direct expansion into those portions of the system which are
designed to absorb them. In addition to the other thermal forces
and moments, the effects of friction in other supports of the
system shall be considered in the design of such anchors and
guides.” Therefore, in at least two specific instances, B31.3
requires that frictional effects be “recognized” and “considered”
in the design of any applicable piping system. In any event,
while the qualitative requirement is present to consider the
effects of friction, there is no prescribed method or additional
restrictions on the analyst as how to account for said effects of
friction.
WRC BULLETIN 449, PUMP PIPING SYSTEMS
The WRC Bulletin 449 [10] provides detailed guidelines for
dealing with excessive friction in piping systems, especially
those that include large diameter piping with heavy valves and
for the pump piping systems. The large diameter piping can
have very high frictional loads as both the static and kinetic
friction forces are proportional to the applied normal force,
which for horizontal piping is the weight carried by the
respective support. In comparison, pump piping systems
become very sensitive to small increases in the external piping
loads.
The authors of the subject Bulletin [10] urge that the piping
stress and flexibility analyses be executed properly.
Furthermore, the Bulletin [10] states that the analyst do the
piping flexibility calculations for the majority of pump piping
installations to assure an accurate assessment of the loads
transmitted to the pump nozzles. The analyst is urged to
carefully review these calculations during the design phase to
verify that the operating reactions resulting from weight, thermal
expansion, and friction effects do not exceed the specified
allowable nozzle loads. Within these referenced sections of
WRC 449 there is no guidance given to ascertain the difference
in the overall effects of considering the coefficient of static
friction versus utilizing the coefficient of kinetic friction. The
authors [10] do emphasize that during the piping flexibility
modeling efforts that nozzle load limits must be satisfied for
applicable combinations of:
(1) thermal, dead weight, friction loads, and for
(2) any specified seismic, fluid hammer (shock) and
settlement loads.
Finally the use of directional restraints, guides, or stops to direct
excessive thermal or friction loads away from pump nozzles is
recommended by the authors [10].
From a very practical standpoint, WRC Bulletin 449 [10]
points out that in order to minimize frictional effects at resting
supports, PTFE or other low friction type bearing plates may be
used. This approach may be especially appropriate for larger
diameter piping or at supports carrying heavy loads such as at
valves or long vertical runs. Low friction bearing plates are not
necessary where analysis shows acceptable friction forces. Once
again, however, “acceptable” frictional forces are not
specifically detailed within the subject guidelines [10].
Lastly, the Bulletin [10] emphasizes the need to address the
lifting of pipe from its support under [cold] operating conditions.
The additional friction force at a support bearing additional
weight of the piping system due to uplifting of the pipe at a
nearby support should be considered and evaluated.
Baniotopoulos [11] and later, Baniotopoulos et al. [12] carried
out a detail study on unilateral contact conditions (uplifting of
pipe from its saddle). In the latter publication [12], the authors
first considered the unilateral contact problem assuming that the
friction forces were known. In fact, the friction factors and the
resulting frictional forces are seldom, if ever, known in the field
unless the support system is instrumented as if in a test scenario.
Nevertheless, WRC Bulletin 449 [10] and the majority of
4 Copyright © 2017 ASME
references citied within this section agree that friction should be
utilized to increase the load on the supports and the restraints
where uplifting may be expected during operation. In addition,
the references are also in agreement that any reduction in the
loads due to friction, for example in a vibration or seismic
analysis, should be ignored from the standpoint of assuming that
there will be benefit gained from its assumed existence.
TREATMENT OF PIPE SUPPORT FRICTION WITH
EXAMPLES OF SIMPLE GEOMETRIES
The purpose of this paper is to develop a simple, robust and
easy to use FEA procedure for calculating loads due to pipe-
support friction. There are two main approaches to introduce
and hence solve the piping support friction problem that
historically, have been discussed in the literature. The first
approach requires inserting a calculated stiffness at the support
locations where the friction is considered to be significant and
that must be overcome by the thermal displacement of the
attached pipe. The second approach requires the application of a
force opposite in direction to the thermal displacement at the
support locations of interest. A commercially available piping
stress FEA code [13] uses the former approach (i.e., the
inclusion of a pseudo-stiffness) based upon the methodology
described in the literature by Sobieszczanski [14]. Frictional
forces by nature are non-linear and the resulting displacement at
a point in a piping system where friction must be considered
may be thought of in terms of a discontinuous step function.
The subject friction problem is much easier to solve by
breaking down the non-linear problem into a simpler linear
problem as demonstrated by Reddy et al. [15]. In the
aforementioned paper, the non-linear nature of pipe support
friction is methodically undertaken by converting it into a linear
problem and executing a series of analyses employing another
commercially available general purpose FEA code [16]. The
application of an opposing frictional force to the thermal
displacement is employed in the current effort described herein.
Furthermore, in the current effort, only static analyses were
conducted on the piping geometries discussed below as the
authors are in agreement that friction can and should be ignored
in dynamic analyses.
FIG. 1 FIRST GEOMETRY (Z-BEND)
Three simple piping systems (geometries), a Z-bend, an
equal leg L-bend, and a 2-D expansion loop are considered as
examples to study the effect of restraint induced due to piping
support friction. The three geometries used along with location standpoint, as it is very difficult to completely restrain rotational
of their supports (frictional supports, guides, and anchors) are movement at a point. It may be noted that the rotational
shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Additionally, two flexibility of the selected piping geometries is not considered
nominal pipe sizes, a small bore, four inch standard wall significant for the purposes of addressing support friction and
thickness and a large bore, twelve inch standard wall thickness furthermore, is not discussed in this paper.
are considered for each of the three geometries. Finally, two
operating temperatures, 300°F and a fairly harsh temperature of
650°F are considered for the aforementioned piping geometries
and pipe sizes to observe the effects of piping-support friction.
Before studying the effect of pipe support friction, the three
geometries were analyzed to determine the thermal expansion
stresses. Stresses in geometries 1 and 2 (i.e., the Z-bend and the
equal leg L-bend, respectively) were calculated employing the FIG. 2 SECOND GEOMETRY (L-BEND)
guided cantilever formula [17] as given by Eq. (3). Stresses in
geometry 3 (i.e., the 2-D expansion loop) were calculated using After modeling each of the piping configurations shown in
the M. W. Kellogg method [17] as given by Eq. (4) and utilizing Figures 1, 2, and 3, inclusive, the analysis was carried out in
the M. W. Kellogg expansion loop nomogram for the design of four distinct steps. First, a static deadweight analysis was
stress loops. While the relationship shown in Eq. (4) requires carried out to determine the vertical force, W (weight) at each
the use of charts based upon various geometric parameters, there deadweight support of the respective piping system. The
were other similar methods of the same vintage proposed by deadweight analysis includes the self-weight of the pipe and its
competing organizations such as the Tube Turns Charts 2, 3, and contents, which was taken to be water (liquid). The calculated
4 published in reference [18] that allowed the piping designer to downward vertical force at each node (support) was multiplied
achieve virtually the same desired stress range. Stress analyses by the assumed coefficient of friction, µs to obtain the induced
for all three geometries were completed utilizing a commercially frictional force at a particular support location as given by Eq.
available FEA code [16]. The results of the stress analyses, per (1).
se, are not presented herein. The purpose of the stress analyses
was to ensure that the calculated deadweight and thermal
expansion stresses in the three piping systems were well below
the ASME B31.3 [9] allowable stresses.

∆
= (3)

∆
= (4)

The first piping system consisting of a four inch standard

wall thickness pipe (NPS 4, STD) was modeled using a FIG. 3 THIRD GEOMETRY (2-D EXPANSION LOOP)
commercially available FEA code [16]. PIPE16 and PIPE18
elements of the FEA code [16] were employed to model the Second, a thermal analysis was performed for the two
straight pipe portion and the elbows, respectively. The element operating temperatures of 300°F and 650°F (as two load steps).
types are the typical three-dimensional beam elements that are The results of the thermal analyses were then reviewed to
specific to right circular cylinders, while the elbow element is a ascertain the directions of movement of the pipe at each support.
modified “pipe element” with additional flexibility The reference (ambient) temperature was chosen to be 70°F in
characteristics. The supports and restraints (supports with the thermal analysis, consistent with the authors’ experience in
friction as required, guides, and anchors) were modeled using the discipline. For the chosen geometric configurations
appropriate displacement boundary conditions. The supports discussed herein, prediction of the thermal displacements were
with friction (as required) were modeled using restraints in the almost a straight forward academic exercise, this most probably
vertical direction (piping system restrained against displacement is not true for more complex geometric piping configurations
in the downward vertical direction) at the nodes representing the operating at a multitude of temperatures.
respective pipe-to-support interface. Guides were modeled to
restrain movement of the pipe in the lateral direction and TABLE 2
anchors (at the termination points) were modeled to restrain the Geometry 1 Anchor Reactions NPS 4
system against displacement in three orthogonal translations and Reaction at Anchors in Axial (Z) Direction (lbf)
three rotational directions. The supports in the FEA model were µ 0.00 0.16 0.30 0.40
assumed to be rigid (having infinite stiffness). Likewise, the 300°F -13.1 -91.1 -159.3 -208.0
anchors were modeled as true anchors. It may be noted that in 650°F -33.3 -111.2 -179.4 -228.1
practice, true anchors are very rare, from a practical design

5 Copyright © 2017 ASME

 A third analysis was conducted in which the frictional increment. The second, third, and fourth steps consist of 100°F
forces calculated in the first step were applied to the piping temperature increments over a period of two hours, each with
system in the proper (i.e., predominantly axial) direction to the final step consisting of a 50°F increment over period of one
oppose the thermal displacement, as observed in the second step hour, thereby ramping up to the final temperature representing
of the analyses. These frictional forces were applied in addition the maximum operating temperature of 650°F.
to the thermal body loads on each piping configuration.
700
TABLE 3
Geometry 1 Anchor Reactions NPS 12 600
Reaction at Anchors in Axial (Z) Direction (lbf)
µ 0.00 0.16 0.30 0.40 500
300°F -356 -825 -1236 -1529

Temperature (°F )
650°F -901 -1370 -1781 -2074 400

Finally, the results from the first and the third analyses 300

were combined (by algebraic summation) and the combined

results were post-processed to obtain the pertinent reactions at
200

the anchors (which could be assumed to be rigid equipment

100
nozzles or termination points) due to thermal and frictional
forces. What should be an obvious point to piping analysts is 0
that the application of the calculated frictional force should 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
never push the pipe backwards under any circumstances, i.e., the Time (hour)
frictional force is always an “induced force” arising from the
FIG. 4 HEAT-UP RATE OF 50°F PER HOUR
impending displacement of the piping support with respect to the
ultimate supporting structure. The frictional force, regardless of A combination of piping system layouts and pipe sizes
whether it is assumed to be that due to breakaway (i.e., static) or resulted in a total of six piping configurations being investigated
sliding (i.e., kinetic) can only resist the pipe from moving, but in the present study. The displacements (and subsequently the
can never move the pipe. Furthermore, internal pressure was not support velocities) with respect to the fixed bearing surfaces at
used in the analysis but could be easily incorporated in the first each of the respective support locations were calculated at the
step of the procedure should analysts need to do so for any end of each of the previously defined temperature increments.
reason. The three piping geometric configurations were each modeled
The methodology for addressing the effects of the employing two different pipe sizes of NPS 4 and NPS 12,
frictional forces at support locations of interest may sound resulting in the total of six piping geometries.
tedious, especially for calculating the vertical force at each
support in a large system, multiplying the respective bearing
load (force) by the respective coefficient of friction, and then
introducing the product of the coefficient of friction times the
bearing load as an opposing force into the thermal analysis, but
in reality, all of these steps can be easily accomplished by using
the *GET command of the chosen FEA code [16]. In other
cases, the same post-processing result may be achieved through
some easily applied computing routines of similar computational
tools. Similarly, the procedure is repeated for various
combinations of geometries, pipe sizes, temperatures and
different values of µs or µk.

PIPE SUPPORT VELOCITIES DURING HEAT UP

The aforementioned three piping geometries as shown in
Figures 1, 2, and 3 were further analyzed to simulate the heat-up
cycle of a typical thermal piping system by subjecting the
system to a heat-up rate of 50°F per hour. The analysis was
carried out in five steps starting at the assumed ambient
temperature of 70°F.
Figure 4 shows the linear heat-up ramp of 50°F per hour to FIG. 5 INCLINED PLANE KINETIC COF FBD
which the piping geometries were subjected. The first step
consists of heating the pipe from 70°F to 200°F over a period of
2.6 hours, i.e., enforcing a 130°F T over the 2.6 hour time

6 Copyright © 2017 ASME

CALCULATING KINETIC (SLIDING) COEFFICIENT OF
FRICTION - INCLINED PLANE METHOD
The force of friction always acts in the direction opposite
to the direction of motion of a rigid body. If an externally
applied force is just equal to the force of the static friction, then
the pipe or shoe is on the verge of slipping, and the coefficient
of friction involved is called the coefficient of static friction, s.
If an externally applied force is equal to the force of the kinetic
friction, Fk as shown in Fig. 5, then the pipe or shoe slides at a
constant velocity, and the coefficient of friction involved is
called the coefficient of kinetic friction, k.
During heat up and cool down of thermal piping systems,
the pipe at each support location will move and slide at a
constant velocity, however large or small that velocity may be.
Because of the aforementioned constant velocity movement of
the pipe, the inclined plane method was used to assess and
calculate the coefficient of kinetic friction, k between the steel
pipe supports and the steel bearing surface. This effort was
accomplished by setting up a friction measurement test
apparatus at the LISEGA Inc. fabrication facilities located in
Kodak, TN, USA. The inclined plane test apparatus, as shown
in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, had the capability of changing the angle of
inclination by fractions of a degree. A digital protractor was
used to measure the angle of inclination of the sloped plane
throughout its travel. A carbon steel pipe shoe, an NPS 4
standard wall thickness pipe made from ASTM A-106 Gr. B,
and a carbon steel plate were utilized as the bearing surfaces in
contact to complete the friction measurement.
FIG. 6 INCLINED PLANE FRICTION APPARATUS
Utilizing the inclined plane method in the present case, the
tangent of the angle at which the pipe shoe or pipe slides down
the steel plate bearing surface at constant velocity provides the
coefficient of kinetic friction between the two respective bearing
surfaces. Three sets of experiments were conducted to measure
the inclined plane angle associated with the coefficient of static
friction, θs, and the angle associated with coefficient of kinetic
friction, θk, utilizing three different configurations of surfaces in
contact. The first set consisted of the carbon steel pipe shoe
(without pipe) on the carbon steel inclined plane; the second set
7 Copyright © 2017 ASME
consisted of the carbon steel pipe shoe with a three foot length
of pipe on the carbon steel inclined plane; and finally, the third
set of measurements consisted of the carbon steel pipe bearing
on the carbon steel inclined plane. The methodology as
described in reference [21] was utilized to collect the
experimental data for all three configurations. The average
values of θs and θk from all three sets are shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4
Angle of Inclined Plane (deg.)
Shoe on plate Shoe and pipe on plate Pipe on plate
θs θk θs θk θs θk
15.4 9.1 15.1 8.7 16.2 11.5
The coefficients of static and kinetic friction can be calculated
utilizing Eq. (5) and Eq. (6), respectively. The calculated
coefficients of static and kinetic friction are presented in Table
5. The magnitude of the coefficient of kinetic friction, µk is
found to be 60% - 67% of the coefficient of the static friction, µs.
s = tan(s) (5)
k = tan(k) (6)
TABLE 5
Coefficients of Static and Kinetic Friction
Shoe on plate Shoe and pipe on plate Pipe on plate
µs µk µs µk µs µk
0.26 0.16 0.26 0.16 0.33 0.21
STATIC VERSUS KINETIC COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION
Because both the ASME B&PV Code, Section III,
Division 1, Subsection NF [19] and the ASME B31.3 Process
Piping Codes [9] require that the frictional effects be considered
and recognized by the support designer and the piping stress
analysts, the question then becomes which of the two
aforementioned coefficients of friction and which value should
be utilized in a given analysis. Based upon the review of the
current authors’ experience, most analysts who do incorporate
some form of coefficient of friction in an analysis are most often
drawn to choosing the dry static coefficient of friction. Again,
based upon experience, the rationale for doing so is most often
justified by the thinking that the largest value will yield the most
conservative results, especially in and around critical rotating
equipment nozzles where often times the allowable piping loads
tend toward zero (as pointed out by WRC Bulletin 449 [10]).
Without arguing that point, that approach is almost guaranteed
to fail to simulate the installed condition of the piping system of
interest because no two supports and restraints would most
likely have the same static coefficient if tested.
A more realistic approach is one that would attempt to
utilize the kinetic coefficient of friction, especially in and around
critical rotating equipment nozzles. The basis for this discussion
and methodology stems from the fact that as the piping system
begins to heat up to operating temperature, the maximum static
coefficient of friction is reached during the transition from the
impending movement or sliding to the sliding of the bearing a poorly maintained piping system, respectively. The
surfaces proper. In other words, the temperature at which experimentally measured value of coefficient of kinetic friction
sliding would actually be anticipated to begin in heating up from equal to 0.16 and coefficient of static friction equal to 0.26
70°F would be, in fact, at a temperature as low as 100°F. The (which is very close to the commonly used coefficient of friction
axial force necessary to prohibit movement of a pipe during of 0.30) are of the most interest to the piping stress analyst.
thermal expansion is most often a magnitude times greater than Tables 2 and 3 summarize the results for the first pipe geometry
that of the induced frictional restraining force. For instance, a as shown in Fig. 1. Tables 2 and 3 show the reactions in the
pipe shoe that is attached to the expanding pipe of interest, axial direction (Z-direction) at the anchors for the NPS 4 and
assuming a water-filled NPS 4 standard wall thickness carbon NPS 12 models, respectively. The second column in both tables
steel pipe, utilizing span lengths of 20 ft, the “equivalent” axial gives the reaction load without friction. As the coefficient of the
force at 300°F is predicted to be in excess of 144,000 lbf friction increases, the reactions at the anchors increase
compared to a frictional restraining force of only 100 lbf at significantly for both of the selected temperatures.
breakaway. In comparison, once the pipe begins to slide, the
frictional restraining force is on the order of no more than 15 to TABLE 6
20 lbf. During thermal expansion, the pipe must first reach the Geometry 2 Anchor Reactions NPS 4
breakaway point (i.e., where µs is indeed a maximum, but at a Reaction at Anchors in Axial (X) Direction (lbf)
much lower temperature than the design or operating µ 0.00 0.16 0.30 0.40
temperature) and then for the remainder of the heat-up period of 300°F -33.2 -171.7 -293.0 -379.6
time is subject to the sliding frictional effects, not the static 650°F -84.0 -222.6 -343.8 -430.4
frictional effects. The end result is that the equipment nozzle
loadings are more apt to be representative of the effects of µk
rather than µs. In cases where the piping designer and the TABLE 7
Geometry 2 Anchor Reactions NPS 12
analyst need to ensure a maximum margin of safety or operating
margin, then for the critical supports that may be subjected to Reaction at Anchors in Axial (X) Direction (lbf)
µ 0.00 0.16 0.30 0.40
varying environmental conditions affecting the friction between
300°F -901.5 -1733.8 -2462.1 -2982.3
the bearing surfaces, obviously the clear, but more expensive
650°F -2278.9 -3111.3 -3839.5 -4359.8
choice, would be the selection of low coefficient of friction
bearing surfaces (i.e., Teflon™ and graphite as shown in Table
1). Tables 6 and 7 highlight the reactions at the anchors for
Geometry 2, whereas Tables 7 and 8 present the results for
Geometry 3 for the same conditions as previously discussed for
Geometry 1. Furthermore, the results for Geometry 2 and
Geometry 3 strengthen the argument of the realization of
increased loads on anchors due to the increase in friction at pipe-
support interfaces and the need for a more reasonable approach
in simulating the effects of friction at critical support locations.

TABLE 8
Geometry 3 Anchor Reactions NPS 4
Reaction at Anchors in Axial (Z) Direction (lbf)
µ 0.00 0.16 0.30 0.40
300°F 13.5 116.5 206.6 271.0
650°F 34.3 137.3 227.4 291.7

TABLE 9
Geometry 3 Anchor Reactions NPS 12
Reaction at Anchors in Axial (Z) Direction (lbf)
FIG. 7 INCLINED PLANE FRICTION APPARATUS µ 0.00 0.16 0.30 0.40
300°F 301.2 899.4 1422.8 1796.7
RESULTS OF THE ANALYSES 650°F 761.4 1359.7 1883.1 2257.0

A number of finite element analyses were carried out for
the three different geometries; two pipe sizes, two temperatures,
and four different values of the coefficient of friction. Values
for µs (or µk as the case may be) of 0.00, 0.16, 0.30, and 0.40
were used to simulate the conditions of frictionless,
experimentally measured kinetic coefficient of friction,
generally accepted coefficient of steel to steel static friction, and
A number of finite element analyses were conducted for
the three different geometries, two pipe sizes, and a heat-up
from an assumed ambient temperature of 70°F to a maximum
operating temperature of 650°F at a typical heat-up rate of
50°F/hour. Different values for the coefficient of friction
varying from no friction to µ=0.30 were incorporated into the
analyses to study the effect of friction on the velocities of pipe at

8 Copyright © 2017 ASME

the particular support location. The finite element analyses were
carried out considering different combinations of the
aforementioned variables resulting in the following observations
being made.
(1) Pipe size does not affect the velocities of the supports
as the displacement is a function of coefficient of
thermal expansion, which in turn is a function of the
pipe material and the temperature of the pipe.
(2) The introduction of friction does not affect the support
velocities as the thermal forces during expansion and
contraction cycles overpower any dissipative frictional
forces.
(3) The farther the support is away from a point of fixity,
the larger the velocity of the support. The supports
close to the nozzles move slowly relative to other
supports in the piping system. The reduction of
frictional forces at these supports should be of greater
interest.
Figure 8 depicts the displacement versus time plot of
various supports from the three geometries consolidated into a
single graph. The slopes of the various curves represent the
velocity of the particular pipe support. It is clear from the
displacement versus the time plots that the supports closer to the
point of fixity (nozzle, anchors, etc.) move slower as compared
to the supports away from the anchors. Furthermore, the
velocity of a particular support from the start of heat up to the
end of heat up is fairly linear over a wide range of temperature,
e.g. from 70°F to 650°F for the cases presented.
There is one additional, often overlooked, fact regarding
the consideration of friction in support design that must be
brought to the forefront. Often times, pipe straps are employed
in longer runs of piping in an attempt to ‘guide’ the thermal
movement of the piping. In a properly designed strap, the bend
radius of the strap is sufficiently larger than the outside pipe
diameter (including any outside diameter tolerance as specified
either by standards or material specifications). While ASME
B&PV Code, Section III, Division 1, Subsection NF [19] more
than implies that certain defined types of supports “shall be
designed to accommodate the forces caused by friction in
addition to the loads imposed by bearing,” what is definitely
implied is that there exists an associated bearing area over which
the frictional forces may act. In the case of pipe strap-to-pipe
interfaces, for the previously defined ‘properly designed’ strap,
the contact interface becomes, at best, a line. This line contact
can be considered an infinitesimal area that approaches zero in
most cases (i.e., as the length of the line in contact with the pipe
approaches zero, so does the interfacial bearing area).
Ultimately, this infinitesimally small contact area implies that
the shear stress created by any piping movement that is retarded
by friction increases without bound, which cannot be physically
correct. Therefore, supports and restraints where friction must
be considered by the Code [19] should or must have some
clearly definable contact or bearing area.
The results of the analyses of the three geometries showed
that the increase in the loads on anchors (and therefore, on
equipment nozzles and connections) or limit stops due to friction
9 Copyright © 2017 ASME
are very significant and cannot be ignored. The effect is greater
for the large diameter pipe as discussed in WRC Bulletin 449
[10] and as shown by the results of the NPS 12 diameter models.
FIG. 8 VELOCITY OF VARIOUS PIPE SUPPORTS
DURING HEAT-UP TO 650°F
CONCLUSIONS
Loads due to friction are transient loads and are only active
either when the pipe support slides or when sliding is pending
and the static coefficient is at its maximum value. The opposing
frictional force is a retarding force and can never move the pipe;
it can only oppose the movement of the pipe.
Equipment nozzles in general and especially critical
rotating equipment (i.e., pumps, compressors, turbines, etc.)
should be protected from reaction loads due to excessive
friction, in addition to thermally induced loads, by carefully
locating anchors and guides. Friction should always be treated
as the non-conservative energy it creates, i.e., no credit should
be taken in an analysis especially if the induced frictional forces
help in reducing dynamic loads on nozzle connections, anchors,
or guides.
The piping system should be analyzed with and without
friction to understand the behavior of friction on the system.
Large diameter pipes can induce high frictional forces at the
pipe-support interface and may result in failure of the directional
anchors if the breakaway forces become overwhelming. Slides
with PTFE or graphite bonded to steel bearing plates and other
friction reducing components must be considered in piping
systems generating excessive frictional forces. Proper
maintenance of friction reducing components should be carried
out and the composite supports must be kept free of dirt, debris,
and corrosion. The variation (increase with time) of both the
static and the kinetic coefficients of friction (µs and µk) should
also be minimized through the enforcement of a periodic
inspection and maintenance schedule.
Restraints such as anchors, directional stops, guides, etc.,
are almost always treated as rigid elements in the commercially
available FEA codes. The additional restraint and associated
loads introduced due to pipe-support friction should also be
considered while designing the aforementioned restraints.
In modeling the effects of friction between the bearing
surfaces of a pipe support and the ultimate supporting structure,
a more realistic approach than what is commonly employed by
many analysts is one that would attempt to utilize the kinetic
coefficient of friction, µk, in place of the static coefficient of
friction, µs. This technique becomes especially important in and
around critical rotating equipment nozzles. The basis for this
discussion and methodology stems from the fact that as the
piping system begins to heat up to operating temperature, the
maximum static coefficient of friction is reached during the
transition from the impending sliding of the pipe support at a
much lower temperature than that of the design temperature, in
general. The point in the thermal cycle when the coefficient of
friction is a maximum is not typically coincident with the point
in time when the maximum operating or design temperature is
reached. The calculation of the combined piping loads on a
nozzle would be better to include the effects of the coefficient of
friction that exists immediately prior to reaching the maximum
temperature and that which is coincident with the maximum
temperature in the thermal cycle, which is considered to be µk.
Additionally, empirical testing clearly shows that the coefficient
of kinetic (or sliding) friction is only 60% - 67% of that for the
coefficient of static friction.
Finally, in the design of certain supports and restraints, to
accommodate the forces caused by friction in addition to the
loads imposed by bearing, what is definitely implied is that there
exists an associated bearing area over which the frictional forces
may act. In the case of pipe strap-to-pipe interfaces, this line
contact can be considered an infinitesimal area that approaches
zero. Ultimately, this infinitesimally small contact area implies
that the shear stress created by any piping movement that is
retarded by friction increases without bound, which cannot be
physically correct. Therefore, supports and restraints where
friction must be considered by the Code [19] should or must
have some clearly definable contact or bearing area.
REFERENCES
[1] Peng, L., 1989, "Treatment of Support Friction in Pipe
Stress Analysis," Design and Analysis of Piping and
Components, PVP Vol. 169, ASME, New York, pp. 143-148.
[2] Bakre, S. V., Jangid, R. S., and Reddy, G. R., 2007,
"Response of Piping System on Friction Support to Bi-
Directional Excitation," Nuclear Engineering and Design, 237,
Elsevier Science Ltd., London, pp. 124-136.
[3] Suzuki, K., Watanabe, T., Mitsumori, T., Shimizu, N.,
Kobayashi, H., and Ogawa, N., 1995, "Experimental Studies on
Seismic Response Systems with Friction – Part 1: Large-Scale
Shaking Table Vibration Test," J. Pressure Vessel Technology”,
117, ASME, New York, pp. 245-249.
[4] Kolonits, F., 2000, "The Crawling Cat - Ratcheting of
Supports in Piping Systems,” International Journal of Pressure
10
View publication stats
Vessels and Piping, 77, Elsevier Science Ltd., London, pp. 297-
301.
[5] Boresi, A. P. and Schmidt, R. J., 2000, Engineering
Mechanics-Statics, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA.
[6] Bowden, F. P. and Tabor, D., 2001, The Friction and
Lubrication of Solids, Oxford University Press, New York.
[7] Mokha, A. S., Constantinou, M. C.,and Reinhorn, A. M.,
1990, “Teflon Bearing in Base Isolation I: Testing,” Journal
Structural Engineering, ASCE 116 (2), pp. 438–454.
[8] Constantinou, M. C., Mokha, A. S., Reinhorn, A. M., 1990,
“Teflon Bearing in Base Isolation II: Modeling,” Journal
Structural Engineering, ASCE 116 (2), pp. 455–474.
[9] ASME, 2006, ASME B31.3, “Process Piping,” American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, USA.
[10] Carucci, V. A. and Payne, J. A., 2000, WRC Bulletin 449,
Guidelines for the Design and Installation of Pump Piping
Systems, Welding Research Council, Inc., New York, USA.
[11] Baniotopoulos, C. C., 1996, "Saddle-Supported Pipelines:
Influence of Unilateral Support and Thickness on the Stress
State,” International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 67,
Elsevier Science Ltd., London, pp. 55-64.
[12] Baniotopoulos, C. C., Panagiotopoulos, P. D., 1997,
"Stress Distribution Along Above-Ground Pipelines on a
Frictional Supporting System,” Computers and Structures, 64,
Elsevier Science Ltd., London, pp. 783-789.
[13] Intergraph, Corp., 2011, CAESAR II, Release 5.30
Technical Reference Manual, Houston, TX.
[14] Sobieszczanski J., 1972, "Inclusion of a Support Friction
into a Computerized Solution of a Self-compensating Pipeline,"
J Engng Ind (Trans ASME), pp. 797-802.
[15] Reddy, G. R., Suzuki, K., Watanabe, T., and Mahajan, S.
C., 1999, "Linearization Techniques for Seismic Analysis of
Piping System on Friction Support," J. Pressure Vessel
Technology”, 121, ASME, New York, pp. 103-108.
[16] ANSYS, Inc., 2007, Release 11.0 Documentation for
ANSYS, Canonsburg, PA.
[17] Kannappan, S., 1986, Introduction to Pipe Stress Analysis,
Wiley-Inter-science, New York, USA, Chap. 1-3.
[18] Tube Turns Division, 1979, Piping Engineering, Tube
Turns Division of Allegheny Ludlum Industries, Louisville, KY.
[19] ASME, 2015 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,
Section III, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility
Components, Division 1, Subsection NF, Supports, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
[20] Antaal, B. S., Williams, D. K., and Hari, Y., 2012,
"Considerations of the Restraint Introduced by Piping Support
Friction in a Comprehensive ASME B31.3 Analysis,” PVP2012-
78658, ASME Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference, Toronto,
ON, July 15-19, 2012, ASME, New York.
[21] Halliday, D. and Resnick, R., 1978, Physics, Parts I and II
Combined, Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA,
p. 101.
Copyright © 2017 ASME