1.

How to Close a Loop in CAEPIPE

Tip of the Month January 2002
The following question comes up frequently: How do I close a loop?
It is simple in CAEPIPE. Please look at the example below. Note that CAEPIPE does not allow you to
enter any offsets for a node that has been previously defined (node 175 in this example, row 13 in the
second figure below).

2. Dynamic Analysis Cut-off Frequency

Tip of the Month Febuary 2002
Question: How do you estimate rigid-mode cut-off frequency?
Reply: The rigid-mode cut-off is sort of a traditional number or rule of thumb. When we started doing
response spectrum analysis in the late 1960s, we used about 15 hz. (or 0.067 sec. period - I was a Civil
Engineer then), it evolved to 20 hz. (or 0.05 sec. period), to 30 hz. in the 1970s (I was now a Mechanical
Engineer), and some now use 60 hz. Personally, I don't think anything above 30 hz. is very meaningful.
The 60 hz. is intended to cover high frequency building filtered shock-type loads in nuclear plants, but
current nuclear facilities have very rigid structures and piping systems are very rigidly attached. I
personally don't think the piping can respond very much and the stresses would then be relatively small.
Author: Mr. Ron Haupt, P. E., of Pressure Piping Engineering (www.ppea.net) is a member of several
piping code committees (B31, B31.1, B31.3, BPTCS, and others). He consults with us in the capacity of
Nuclear QA Manager.

3. How to Use the Slope Command

Tip of the Month March 2002
The Slope feature was newly added in CAEPIPE v5.1. It is available under the Edit menu in the Layout
screen.
The main function is to calculate automatically the offsets for a sloping element (that is not aligned along
one of the major global axes). When a pipe slopes (or is routed at an angle) either in plane or out of it, it
becomes necessary to calculate the offsets (DX, DY and DZ) using those faithful sine and cosine functions.
But, therein lies the problem. Sometimes, it can get tricky and time-consuming.
But, not to worry. CAEPIPE's Slope feature will simplify the task. Let us see a few examples:

Example 1: A 20 degree line in the XZ plane, 10 feet long.

Method 1: Calculate the offsets DX = 10 cosine (20) = 9.4 (ft.), DZ = 10 sine (20) = 3.42 (ft.). Simple!
Method 2: Find direction cosines (DCs) for the line (vector). Direction cosines are simply cosines of the
angles the vector makes with the global X, Y and Z axes. In this case, A=20 (X), B=90 (Y), C=70 (Z)
deg. Cosines of these angles are: Xcomp=0.94, Ycomp=0, Zcomp=0.342.
Now, position the cursor on the sloping element row, right-click on DX/DY/DZ. Enter these numbers into
the Xcomp, Ycomp and the Zcomp fields of the Slope dialog box that opens up and type the length, 10 ft.
Press Enter. CAEPIPE will calculate the respective offsets using the DCs you input.
Once you have got the slope right, follow this pipe with other elements down the line by inputting different
lengths while you retain the same direction cosines.

Example 2: A 40 degree line in the X(-Y) plane.

Method 2: Find direction cosines, if the line is at 40 deg. to X-axis in X(-Y) plane, it makes 50 deg. with
the (-Y) axis. So, the DCs are: cos(40) = 0.766, cos(50) = 0.643, So, Xcomp = 0.766, Ycomp = 0.643,
Zcomp = 0.0. Type these DCs and a length into the Slope dialog. Press Enter.

4.Proposed changes to Allowables in ANSI B31.1 (Power Piping

code) and ASME Section III
Commentary by Ron Haupt - ANSI B31 Committee member
Recently the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) has passed Code Cases to change the allowable
stress bases for some of the "design by rule" codes (Section I and Section VIII, Division 1) from the lesser
of 1/4 of the tensile strengths or 2/3 of the yield strengths at temperature to 1/3.5 of the tensile strengths or
2/3 of the yield strengths at temperature. Both B31.1 and Section III, Subsections NC and ND are
considering conforming to the BPVC changes. There has been considerable discussion about the effect of
these changes on piping design, with considerable misunderstanding as well. The following comments are
offered to help in understanding the real effects of the proposed change.
Note, the change only reduces the factor of safety against the material tensile strengths, not yield strengths.
The proposed change for piping, then, will reduce the pipe wall thickness a bit. This reduction will
primarily affect piping designed for lower pressures and temperatures, e.g., below 600-F. Piping failures
due to internal pressure (burst) correlate best with material tensile strengths.
Regarding cyclic effects, since the 1950s, based on shakedown concepts, B31.1 has limited piping stress
ranges due to thermal expansion (and other fatigue producing loads) to something less than 2 S(y).
According to Markl [1], S(A) + S(L), which he equates to 1.25 (S(c) + S(h)) in the rules proposed for
B31.1 - 1955 edition, "utilize at most 78 percent of the available stress range S(av)", S(av) being equal to 2
S(y) which was "considered the maximum stress range ... to which a system could be subjected without
producing flow [yielding] at either limit," i.e., a piping system subjected to 100 percent shakedown. [Note:
the scope of the B31.1 - 1955 edition included all pressure piping, i.e., the present B31.1, B31.3, etc.
However, the pipeline codes have never embraced shakedown concepts because the pipeline grade
materials were, until recently, not adequately tough.].
In the 1980s, the allowable stress basis for B31.1 (and BPVC SC I, SC III Class 2/3, and SC VIII Div.1, all)
changed from the lesser of 1/4 tensile or 5/8 of yield to the lesser of 1/4 tensile or 2/3 of yield. This
increased maximum S(A) + S(L) values in some cases, but did not exceed "78 percent of the available
stress range" for those materials which were controlled by tensile stresses or 83 percent of the available
stress range for those materials which were controlled by yield stresses, (1.25)(2)(5/8) = 1.56/2 = 0.78 vs.
(1.25)(2)(2/3) = 1.67/2 = 0.83.
For the allowable stress basis change proposed now, for seamless Grade B carbon steel operating at
ambient temperatures, the current change will increase the maximum possible S(A) + S(L) value from
37,500 psi to 42,800 psi, but this is still a good deal less than (0.78)(2)S(y) = (0.78)(2)(35,000) = 54,600
psi. For seamless Type 304 stainless steel at operating ambient temperatures, the current change will
increase the maximum possible S(A) + S(L) value from 47,000 psi to 50,000 psi. This, on the other hand, is

equal to but not greater than (0.83)(2)S(y) = (0.83)(2)(30,000) = 50,000 psi. [Note: Obviously the S(A)
values available for thermal expansion (and other fatigue producing loads) will be less than the maximum
possible S(A) + S(L) values because of the existence of the S(L) term, either on the right side of the
thermal expansion (fatigue) equation (13) in B31.1 or on the left side of the equation (11) in NC/ND3653.2. This S(L) requirement in the fatigue equation could be discussed in future comments, if there is
enough response interest.].
Thus, while affecting the wall thickness required for pressure design, the proposed change cannot ever
increase allowable stress ranges above the traditional 2 S(y) limit, which is the current basis for shakedown
concepts in ASME B31.1 and SC III NC/ND-3600.
Reference: [1] A.R.C. Markl, "Piping-Flexibility Analysis", American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Paper 53-A-51
Author: Mr. Ron Haupt, P. E., of Pressure Piping Engineering (www.ppea.net) is a member of several
piping code committees (B31, B31.1, B31.3, BPTCS, and others). He consults with us in the capacity of
Nuclear QA Manager.

5.Stress Intensification Factors

Commentary by Ron Haupt - ANSI B31 Committee member
A B31 (B31.1, B31.3, B31.4, B31.5, B31.8, B31.9, B31.11) stress intensification factor (SIF) is an
empirically derived parameter that allows the designer to estimate the fatigue performance of a piping
component or joint. The concept of the parameter was developed in the late 1940s and early 1950s and was
incorporated into B31.1 - 1955, which had separate chapters for different piping applications which
eventually were published as B31.1, B31.3, B31.4, etc. The original background discussion of SIFs was
published in ASME Paper 53-A-51, "Piping-Flexibility Analysis" by A.R.C. Markl. (This paper is highly
recommended reading for any serious student of piping design.) In the 1955 B31.1 document, SIFs were
tabularized in Chapter 6, but subsequent separate publication of the B31 books (B31.1, B31.3, B31.4, etc.)
have in many cases resulted in different SIFs for the same piping components and joints. However, there is
absolutely no justification for having different SIFs for different applications. The differences are from a
lack of communication between the ASME committees responsible for the development of the B31 books.
The SIF (i) parameter was and still is determined through testing by applying a reversing displacement to,
i.e., developing an alternating stress in, an assembly of piping elements containing the piping component or
joint under consideration. The reversing displacement is applied to the assembly until a fatigue failure
occurs fatigue failure being defined as crack initiation and propagation through the wall such that a leak
occurs in the pressure boundary in or near the piping component or joint under consideration. The process
is repeated by applying various reversing displacements to similar assemblies, developing an alternating
stress/number of cycles to failure curve for the piping component or joint. The resulting curve is compared
to a reference curve to determine the SIF. The reference curve is the failure curve for an as-welded
circumferential butt weld, where the SIF for the butt weld is assigned a value of unity (i = 1.0).

But, the actual stress in an as-welded circumferential butt weld in nominal pipe intuitively and logically
must be greater than the actual stress in the same size nominal pipe without a weld. However, the B31

"intensified" bending stress at a butt weld is equal to the SIF (i = 1.0) times the nominal stress (M/Z) at the
butt weld. Thus, at a butt weld the B31 "intensified" stress is equal to the calculated nominal stress. This
has caused and continues to cause considerable confusion in pressure component design, especially
amongst serious analytic types who often claim that B31 "intensified" stresses are wrong, i.e., too low,
when compared to actual or theoretical stresses. B31 acknowledges that B31 "intensified" stresses (iM/Z)
are less than actual or theoretical stresses. However, in this case, what is not understood is that the B31
allowable fatigue (flexibility) stresses are correspondingly low when compared to the allowable fatigue
stresses for components when actual or theoretical stresses are evaluated the factor of safety in a B31
fatigue analysis is comparable to the factor of safety in an actual or theoretical analysis.
When actual or theoretical fatigue stresses are evaluated in nuclear Class 1 piping services, stress indices
(not SIFs) are used. Stress indices are theoretically developed parameters that are (like SIFs) a measure of
the fatigue performance of a nuclear Class 1 piping component or joint. In this case, however, fatigue
failure is defined merely as crack initiation in the piping component or joint (as opposed to through-wall
crack propagation). As noted above, the allowable fatigue stresses for nuclear Class 1 services are
correspondingly higher than B31 allowable fatigue (flexibility) stresses.
What the B31 designer must remember is that he/she is calculating an "intensified" (or "effective") stress,
not an actual or theoretical stress.
But why, in a time approaching an analytic utopia, is the B31 designer still using these "ancient" SIFs? The
answer is simple. B31 SIFs are simple to determine and apply (simplified methods are necessary to gain the
widest possible application and there's a lot of pipe to design). B31 SIFs are consistent with the technology
of the piping industry (we are typically not building watches). Determining actual or theoretical stresses is
usually more expensive and complicated (compare a nuclear Class 1 piping analysis with a B31.1 analysis
or, if you're not conversant with things nuclear, compare a Section VIII, Division 2 analysis to Section VIII,
Division 1 analysis, it's the same difference). And perhaps the best reason for using B31 SIFs is that the
piping industry has almost 50 years of validating experience with them (most of the SIFs proposed by
Markl are still accurate within the context of good engineering practice and good engineering is more than
a worthwhile commodity).
Author: Mr. Ron Haupt, P. E., of Pressure Piping Engineering (www.ppea.net) is a member of several
piping code committees (B31, B31.1, B31.3, BPTCS, and others). He consults with us in the capacity of
Nuclear QA Manager.

6. SA Hand Calculations Don't Match CAEPIPE's

Tip of the Month Febuary 2006
User Question: Regarding calculation of the allowable stress SA in B31.1. For node 5420, SL = 3499 psi
and SA = 1 * [1.25* (17114 psi + 16998 psi) 3499 psi] = 39141 psi, different from the value 39266 psi
shown in the Caepipe results. Same thing happens for node 5240. See results screens. In the case of node
5350 however, value shown in Caepipe results match with hand calculations. Please explain the
differences.
Reply: The nodes 5420 and 5240 and others like them in your model tmay display a different value for SA
(under Sorted Stresses) from what you hand calculate because these nodes are tee junctions; three elements

make up a tee. As such, there are three separate values for SL/SH and SE/SA for the common node such as
5240 and 5420. In the Sorted Stresses results, CAEPIPE always displays the numbers from that element (of
the tee) for which the ratio (SL/SH or SE/SA) is the maximum.
CAEPIPE reports element 1's ratio under SL/SH, but reports element 3's ratio under SE/SA because each
element has the max. corresponding ratio.

When you examine the numbers for the different elements, you will see that SE/SA for node 5420 for
example has the max. SE/SA ratio (0.96) at element 3 compared to elements 1 and 2 of the tee.
Sample Calculations for node 5420: SA = f * (1.25 * (SC + SH) - SL) (equation used when you select the
"Use Liberal Allowable Stresses" option in Layout), (SC = 17114 psi, f=1.0):
Element 1: 5410B - 5420 at node 5420, SL = 3499 (psi), SH = 16998 (psi), SE = 17066 (psi) and SA =
39141 (psi), SL/SH=0.21, SE/SA=0.44
Element 2: 5420 - 5430 at node 5420, SL = 2180 (psi), SH = 16998 (psi), SE = 23914 (psi) and SA =
40460 (psi), SL/SH=0.13, SE/SA=0.59

Element 3: 6800A - 5420 at node 5420, SL = 3374 (psi), SH = 16998 (psi), SE = 37881 (psi) and SA =
39266 (psi), SL/SH=0.20, SE/SA=0.96

From the above, you can see that the maximum Sustained stress ratio SL/SH is for element # 1 (0.21).
The maximum Expansion stress ratio SE/SA is for element # 3 (0.96), different from the element (#1)
with the max. SL/SH. Both have the common node 5420.
So, your SA calculation should be:
For node 5420, SL = 3374 psi (for element # 3) and SA = 1 * [1.25* (17114 + 16998) 3374 psi] = 39266
psi, as reported by CAEPIPE. The same procedure applies to Occasional stress ratios too.