BACK

Charles Becht IV
Becht Engineering Co., Inc., 22 Church Street, P.O. Box 300, Liberty Corner, NJ 07938 e-mail: chuck@becht.com

New Piping Flexibility Rules in ASME B31.3, Appendix P

Alternative rules for performing exibility analysis were added, as Appendix P, in ASME B31.3, the Process Piping Code, 2004 edition. These rules are considered to be more comprehensive than before; they were designed around computer exibility analysis. To determine stress range, the difference in stress states, considering all loads, is computed. This paper describes the new rules, their intent, and provides several example piping stress analyses, comparing the results of an analysis using the Appendix P rules with that using the rules in the base Code. DOI: 10.1115/1.2140289 Keywords: ASME B31.3, Appendix P, piping exibility, piping stress analysis

David W. Diehl
COADE Inc., 12777 Jones Road, Suite 480, Houston, TX 77070-4674 e-mail: ddiehl@coade.com

Background
The overall intent of the Appendix is to provide alternative exibility analysis evaluation procedures, that are technically consistent in terms of criteria with the rules in the base ASME B31.3, Process Piping Code 1, hereafter referred to as the Code, but provide for evaluating operating conditions with all loads rather than thermal stress in isolation of other loads. The reason for this approach is that there can be an interaction between the various loads e.g. weight, pressure, thermal expansion that can be lost when considering one load separate from the others. This is particularly true when there are nonlinear effects, such as the liftoff of supports, and restraints with gaps that permit some movement. The desirability of providing these new, alternative rules comes from two issues: Current computer analysis programs can easily evaluate the combined loads accurately. When the exibility analysis rules were originally written for the Code, these calculations were done by hand and the rules had to be simple. Current computer analysis programs permit consideration of nonlinear effects, which create substantial difculties in interpretation and evaluation of results, using rules in the base Code.

ment, to limit ratchet. Appendix P accomplishes these same checks using operating load cases. Note that sustained stress limits are not addressed in Appendix P and are in addition to the rules in the appendix. The stress range is calculated as the difference in stress between various operating conditions. Thus, if a support is lifted off in one condition and not another, that effect contributes to the stress range. Calculating the stress range based on combined loads is a more precise and comprehensive method of evaluating stress range. The stress range is limited to SoA, the maximum permissible operating stress range. This is the same as the presently permitted displacement stress range SA, except that SL is not subtracted. In addition, the maximum operating stress is limited to SoA, to preserve the aforementioned ratchet check. SoA = 1.25 f Sc + Sh 1 where f is the stress range factor, SoA allowable operating stress, Sc allowable stress at the metal temperature at the cold end of the operating cycle, and Sh allowable stress at the metal temperature at the hot end of the operating cycle

Flexibility Analysis
Complex systems involving multiple conditions of operation, with supports responding in different manners, can be rigorously evaluated using the new Appendix P, whereas signicant expertise and judgment in interpretation of the results are required to otherwise evaluate such systems. It should be noted that additional stresses that may be caused by support liftoff are included in the stress range as it adds to the stress variation and fatigue and are also considered in the sustained stress check. In following Appendix P, more combinations of loads are likely to be considered. In this manner, the most critical load cases can be easily identied. However, this work is done by the computer, so that it should not signicantly increase the effort required by the analyst other than making sure that the appropriate load combinations are included in the assessment. The rules in Appendix P also include stress due to axial loads in the exibility analysis. These stresses are sometimes signicant, and there is a warning statement in the Code paragraph 319.2.3 d that they should be included when signicant. In Appendix P, they are always included, so their effect is included in case it is signicant. Note that this change also is consistent with the use of computer analysis. Prior to computer analysis, inclusion of these axial loads would have been problematic, and really pointless extra work in most cases, since it is generally not a signicant effect. With computer analysis, its inclusion is essentially effortless to the analyst. One of the problems in including stress due to axial loads is determination of what stress intensication factor SIF to use. Transactions of the ASME

The new rules are not anticipated to provide signicantly different results, from the standpoint of passing or failing piping systems, than the existing rules. The intent is to provide a more comprehensive, general approach.

Stress Limit
The displacement stress limits in the Code limit the range of stresses, that is, the difference in stress between two conditions. This is done in Appendix P by taking the difference between operating stress states. In addition, the maximum operating stress state is also limited in Appendix P to limit the combination of stress range and sustained stress. The intent of the Code rules is to limit the stress range to twice the yield strength or yield plus hot relaxation strength in the creep regime both reduced by a further safety factor. This stress limit is set so that the piping system will shake down to elastic action after the initial cycles of operation. Furthermore, the stress range is limited to protect against fatigue damage. There is also a limit on the maximum combined stress, sustained plus displaceContributed by the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received July 19, 2005; nal manuscript received October 13, 2005. Review conducted by G. E. Otto Widera. Paper presented at the 2005 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference PVP2005, July 17, 2005July 21, 2005, Denver, Colorado, USA.

84 / Vol. 128, FEBRUARY 2006

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Downloaded 01 Nov 2007 to 67.108.135.98. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright, see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Table 1 Load case denitions for examples 1 and 2 Base Code Expansion Stress Range Load Sets Description Load Componentsa 1 Strain range between installation and operating positions W + T1 + P1-W 2 Strain range between installation and cold shutdown positions W + T2-W 3 Strain range between operating and cold shutdown positions W + T1 + P1-W + T2 Appendix P Alternative Operating Stress and Expansion Stress Range Load Sets Load Components Description 1 Operating position W + T1 + P1 2 Cold shutdown position W + T2 3 W Installed position includes uid weight 4 Strain range between installation and operating positions W + T1 + P1-W 5 Strain range between installation and cold shutdown positions W + T2-W 6 Strain range between operating and cold shutdown positions W + T1 + P1-W + T2
a W = weight, T = thermal expansion, P = pressure. For systems with linear boundary conditions e.g., Example 1. Base Code loads could be replaced with: 1 T1, 2 T2, 3 T1-T2.

Based on committee judgment, except for elbows, the user is directed to use the out-plane SIF for the component, in the absence of more applicable information. This is the higher of the two SIFs that are provided in Appendix D of the Code 1. It is saying, considering a tee, that the effect of axial load in the branch is the same as bending, using the higher of in-plane and out-plane SIFs. For elbows, again based on judgment, no SIF is used. This is because axial load on one side is bending on the other end of the elbow, so that the effect of axial load on fatigue should already be considered. Note also that it is the bending that causes the ovalization, which causes the increase in stress in elbows. Together with the change in rules, the denition of severe cyclic service is addressed so that it is consistent with Appendix P. Furthermore, the paragraph on cold spring and support loads is made into a verbal description of the procedure. Also, cold spring considerations are tuned up. The base Code allows credit for only 2 / 3 of a cold spring in calculating initial installation and operating loads on equipment as the exact cutshort or longcannot be assured. Furthermore, the equation indicates that the modulus of elasticity of the metal at operating temperature may be used in calculating equipment loads. In Appendix P, the uncertainty in achieving specied cold spring is extended to include an overzealous cut. Appendix P requires examination of two-thirds of design cold spring and four-thirds of design cold spring. It also explicitly states that the modulus of elasticity at the temperature of the operating condition may be used in calculating equipment loads. The equation for calculating stress is revised to the following, to include stress due to axial loads: S = Sa + Sb2 + 4St2 2

nents. A p is the cross sectional area of the pipe, and S = SE or Som. Both the maximum operating stress range SE and the maximum operating stress Som are limited to SoA. The limitation on maximum operating stress was included to address concerns regarding ratchet. The same as in the base Code rules for evaluating displacement stresses, the nominal wall thickness is used without allowances i.e., corrosion, erosion, and mechanical and mill tolerances in the stress calculation.

Examples
Three example cases are included. Results from the existing rules in the base Code, and based on an evaluation per the new Appendix P, are provided. Take particular note of the load cases considered in the Appendix P evaluation. Table 1 provides the load case denitions, Table 2 provides the allowable stresses, and Table 3 provides detailed information for the rst two examples. The rst is a sample problem included in Appendix S of the 2004 edition of the Code. It is a simple problem. Figure 1 shows the system, and the results of the two assessments are provided in Table 4. To compute the allowable stress for the base Code, the sustained stress SL must be known. The Code does not address what stress intensication factor or stress index to use in this calculation; 0.75i was used in the calculations provided in this paper. The results of the calculations for the existing rules and Appendix P are similar. In terms of percent of allowable, the results are within a few percent.
Table 3 General information for examples 1 and 2 16 in. 0.375 in. A 106B 0.063 in. 1.0SG 5 in. 11 lbf/ cu.ft. Operating State 1 temp1= 500 F press1= 500 psi Operating State 2 temp2= 30 F press= 0 psi Installed State tempambient= 70 F press= 0 psi Corroded Section Properties for sustained & occasional stress Axs= 15.38 in.2 Z= 59.16 in.3 Uncorroded Section Properties for expansion and operating stress Axs= 18.41 in.2 Z= 70.26 in.3 OD= wall= mat l= corr.= content dens.= insul. thick.= insul. dens.=

where Sa is the stress due to axial force= iaFa / A p, Fa axial force, including that due to internal pressure, and ia axial force stress intensication factor. In the absence of more applicable data, ia = 1.0 for elbows and ia = io from Appendix D for other compoTable 2 Allowable stresses for examples 1 and 2 Base Code Sc 1 20,000 2 20,000 3 20,000 Appendix P Alternative Sc 1 20,000 2 20,000 3 20,000 4 20,000 5 20,000 6 20,000
a b

Sh 18,900 20,000 18,900 Sh 18,900 20,000 20,000 18,900 20,000 18,900

SA 1ba 48,625-SL 50,000-SL 48,625-SL SOAb 48,625 50,000 50,000 48,625 50,000 48,625

SA = f 1.25Sc + Sh SL; here, f = 1 SOA = f 1.25Sc + Sh; here, f = 1

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

FEBRUARY 2006, Vol. 128 / 85

Downloaded 01 Nov 2007 to 67.108.135.98. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright, see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 2 Lift off model

Fig. 1 Simple code compliant model

The second sample problem is shown in Fig. 2. It is a case where the piping lifts off a support when the system heats up. A rst question with respect to the existing rules is what SL to use when determining the allowable displacement stress range. The example uses the most severe value of SL at each point, considering both the sustained stresses when the piping system is in the cold condition and the sustained stresses when the piping system is in the hot condition, without the center-span support. Note that the loss of a support is dramatic, but shifts in sustained stresses occur in systems even without the pipe lifting off of supports.

The results for the second sample problem are provided in Table 5. In this case, in terms of percent of allowable, the difference is about 12%, with the base Code more conservative. If the analyst had used the sustained stress in the installed condition, as is commonly done, the results using the base Code approach would have been less conservative by 14%. The third case is a vacuum-jacketed pipe. The problem and results are described in Table 6. Since the existing rules do notconsider stresses due to axial loads in the displacement stress calculation, there is a dramatic difference between the results from those rules and those of Appendix P. This is because, in a doublewall piping system, when one pipe runs hotter than the other, they

Table 4 Sample calculations force in lbf., moment in ft-lbf, stress in psi Midpoint of lower bend 29 Intermediate Values: i = 2.620; in-plane stress intensication factor SL = 9,914 using P*Ain + Fax / Axs+ 0.75iMb/ Z, based on cold loads with uid weight Base Code Load Set 1 2 3 Appendix P Alternative Load Set Fa w/o P 1 10,405 2 3,348 3 3,866 4 6,538 5 518 6 7,056 Mb 41,160 3,262 44,421 P*Ain 91,327 0 0 91,327 0 91,327 Fa total 80,923 3,348 3,866 84,789 518 84,271 Sa 4,396 182 210 4,606 28 4,578 Mb 51,513 7,092 10,354 41,160 3,262 44,421 Sb = SE 18,420 1,460 19,880 Sb 23,053 3,174 4,634 18,420 1,460 19,880 SOM = Sa + Sb 27,450 3,356 4,844 23,026 1,488 24,458 27,450 SA 38,711 40,086 38,711 SOA 48,625 50,000 50,000 48,625 50,000 48,625

Midpoint of upper bend 39 Intermediate Values: i = 2.620 SL = 6.007 Base Code Load Set 1 2 3 Appendix P Alternative Load Set Fa w/o P 1 8,146 2 1,090 3 1,608 4 6,538 5 518 6 7,056 Mb 52,427 4,154 56,581 P*Ain 91,327 0 0 91,327 0 91,327 Fa total 83,181 1,090 1,608 84,789 518 84,271 Sa 4,519 59 87 4,606 28 4,578 Mb 52,243 4,339 184 52,427 4,154 56,581 Sb = SE 23,462 1,859 25,321 Sb 23,380 1,942 82 23,462 1,859 25,321 SOM = Sa + Sb 27,899 2,001 170 28,068 1,887 29,899 29,899 SA 42,618 43,993 42,618 SOA 48,625 50,000 50,000 48,625 50,000 48,625

86 / Vol. 128, FEBRUARY 2006

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 01 Nov 2007 to 67.108.135.98. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright, see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Table 5 Sample calculations force in lbf., moment in ft-lbf, stress in psi Midpoint of lower bend 19 Intermediate Values: i = 2.620 SL = 9.914 installed SL = 14,000 at T1 SL = 9,914 at T2 SLmax = 14,000 Base Code Load Set 1 2 3 Appendix P Alternative Load Set Fa w/o P 1 9,687 2 3,348 3 3,866 4 5,821 5 518 6 6,339 Midpoint of upper bend 24 Intermediate Values: i = 2.620 SL = 6,007 installed SL = 15,251 at T1 SL = 6,007 at T2 SLmax = 15,251 Base Code Load Set 1 2 3 Appendix P Alternative Load Set Fa w/o P 1 7,429 2 1,090 3 1,608 4 5,821 5 518 6 6,339 Mb 47,941 4,154 52,096 P*Ain 91,327 0 0 91,327 0 91,327 Fa total 83,898 1,090 1,608 85,506 518 84,988 Sa 4,558 59 87 4,645 28 4,617 Mb 47,757 4,339 184 47,941 4,154 52,096 Sb = SE 21,455 1,859 23,314 Sb 21,372 1,942 82 21,455 1,859 23,314 SOM = Sa + Sb 25,930 2,001 170 26,100 1,887 27,931 27,931 SA 33,374 34,749 33,374 SOA 48,625 50,000 50,000 48,625 50,000 48,625 Mb 39,142 3,262 42,403 P*Ain 91,327 0 0 91,327 0 91,327 Fa total 81,640 3,348 3,866 85,506 518 84,988 Sa 4,435 182 210 4,645 28 4,617 Mb 49,496 7,092 10,354 39,142 3,262 42,403 Sb = SE 17,517 1,460 18,977 Sb 22,150 3,174 4,634 17,517 1,460 18,977 SOM = Sa + Sb 26,586 3,356 4,844 22,162 1,488 23,594 26,586 SA 34,625 36,000 34,625 SOA 48,625 50,000 50,000 48,625 50,000 48,625

Midspan support 35 Intermediate Values: i = 1.000 SL = 11,657 installed SL = 15,296 at T1 SL = 11,657 at T2 SLmax = 15,296 Base Code Load Set 1 2 3 Appendix P Alternative Load Set Fa w/o P 1 5,572 2 321 3 735 4 4,836 5 414 6 5,250 Mb 49,108 4,986 54,094 P*Ain 91,327 0 0 91,327 0 91,327 Fa total 85,755 321 735 86,491 414 86,077 Sa 4,659 17 40 4,699 22 4,676 Mb 21,171 32,923 27,937 49,108 4,986 54,094 Sb = SE 21,977 2,231 24,208 Sb 3,616 5,623 4,771 8,387 852 9,239 SOM = Sa + Sb 8,275 5,640 4,811 13,086 874 13,915 13,915 SA 33,329 34,704 33,329 SOA 48,625 50,000 50,000 48,625 50,000 48,625

exert axial forces on each other to force displacement compatibility. Although the existing Code provides a cautionary statement to address this, Appendix P directly includes the effect in the calculations. The case shown has a colder inner pipe made of stainless Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

steel combined with a hotter pipe made of carbon steel. Because stainless steel has a higher coefcient of thermal expansion than carbon steel, if both pipes were carbon steel the calculated stresses would be higher. FEBRUARY 2006, Vol. 128 / 87

Downloaded 01 Nov 2007 to 67.108.135.98. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright, see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Table 6 Hot oil jacket over acid line: 4 in. STD SS core, temp 350 F, pressure 400 psi; 6 in. STD carbon steel jacket, temp 500 F, and pressure 200 psi Input Data:a Core: ODc4.5 in. Jacket: ODj6.625 in. Pipe Metal Area A c

wtc0.237 in. Scc20,000 psi wtj0.28 in. Scj20,000 psi

Tc350 F Pc400 psi TcTc 70 F Shc19,350 psi c9.53 106 1 / F Ec2.83 107 psi Tj500 F Pj200 psi TjTj 70 F Shj18,900 psi j7.02 106 1 / F Ej2.95 107 psi A j ODj2 ODj 2 wtj2 4

2 ODc ODc 2 wtc2 4

Thermal Thrust Load F A c E c A j E j j T j c T c A c F c + A j E j F = 20,353 lbf

Pressure Thrust Ainc

Core is in tension, jacket is in compression ODc 2 wtc2 4 Ainj

2 ODj 2 wtj2 ODc 4

ThrustPc Ainc + Pj Ainj Apportioned Pressure Thrust Thrustc Ac Ec Thrust Ac Ec + Aj Ej

Thrust= 7689 lbf Thrustj Aj Ej Thrust Ac Ec + Aj Ej

Thrustj = 4975 lbf Thrustc = 2714 lbf Stress Calculations Using only axial stress, ignoring any bending Sb0 psi St0 psi Expansion Stress SE= 0 psi SESb2 + 4 St2 Operating Stress Sac Thrustc + F Ac Saj Thrustj F Aj

SomcSac + Sb2 + 4 St2 Somc7267 psi SoAc1.25Scc + Shc SoAc49,188 psi Somc SoAc

Sac = 7267 psi

SomjSaj + Sb2 + 4 St2 Somj2755 psi SoAj1.25Scj + Shj SoAj48,625 psi Somj SoAj

Saj = 2755 psi

Subscripts c and j are used to denote core and jacket, respectively.

Conclusion
New, alternative rules for evaluating stresses due to displacement conditions e.g., thermal expansion are provided in Appendix P of the 2004 edition of ASME B31.3. They provide a more comprehensive assessment than the existing rules and are intended for use with computer analysis. As commercial exibility analysis programs are updated to apply the new rules, they will generally become easier to apply than existing rules, particularly when considering piping systems with complex, nonlinear behavior.

Mb P S Sa Sb Sc

SE Sh SL SoA Som St T wt Z

Nomenclature
Ain Ap E f Fa ia inside cross sectional area of pipe or jacket annulus cross sectional area of the pipe modulus of elasticity stress range factor axial force, including that due to internal pressure axial force stress intensication factor. In the absence of more applicable data, ia = 1.0 for elbows and ia = io from Appendix D of 1 for other components. io out-plane stress intensication factor

resultant bending moment internal pressure calculated combined stress, SE or Som stress due to axial force= iaFa / A p stress due to bending moment allowable stress at the metal temperature at the cold end of the operating cycle maximum operating stress range allowable stress at the metal temperature at the hot end of the operating cycle sum of longitudinal stress due to sustained loads allowable operating stress maximum operating stress stress due to torsional moment pipe metal temperature wall thickness of pipe section modulus coefcient of thermal expansion of pipe material

References
1 ASME, 2004, ASME B31.3, Process Piping Code, ASME, New York.

88 / Vol. 128, FEBRUARY 2006

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 01 Nov 2007 to 67.108.135.98. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright, see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm