×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Pipe Support Friction Factors
3

Pipe Support Friction Factors

Pipe Support Friction Factors

(OP)
Just wanted to bring this old one up again.
Friction Factors for pipe supports where a pipe shoe sits on steelwork. Nearly everyone uses a friction factor of 0.3 for steel to steel contact. How can this be correct for pipe systems running along pipe racks or outside where we all know that maintenance is not what it used to be. The general friction factors for steel to steel are for static friction are around 0.72 to 0.74 and for sliding friction the values are quoted as 0.57. So I ask what is the justification of using 0.3 for pipe stress analysis ? Does the pipesupport "know" it is a pipe support therefore the maximum frictional load cannot be greater than 0.3 times the perpendicular load ? No is the answer so come on the Pipe Stress guys out there make a justification for using 0.3 in your pipe stress analysis when before movement occurs a load of 0.72 times the perpendicular load needs to be achieved and to keep the pipe moving a loading of 0.57 times the perpendicular load needs to be maintained?

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

Not that I am necessarily disputing what you are saying, but do you have a reference for your values of 0.72-0.74 for static coefficient and 0.57 for dynamic coefficient?

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

Because it's been done relatively seccessfully for what I'd guess is well more than 200 years and has certainly become accepted as a nearly universal practice by millions of engineers, IMO essentially OVERRULES the internet's opinion.

I hate Windowz 8!!!!

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

(OP)
Good Technical conclusion there BigInch. Also do not think it's been used for 200 years!!! - bit of an over-exageration there!!! Test data is the normal way to determine engineering values not guess work!!!!

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

Some things are not entirely concluded by mathematics. I can't tell you the number of times that I selected a pipe wall thickness of 0.25", just because I knew 0.100034 was not a sufficient result, even though the mathematics proved it was.

What are you saying. So nothing before it apppeared on the internet is valid?
They invented a rail running locomotive in 1712, 302 years ago. I think it did not take them 102 more years to develop the concept of steel on steel friction factors.

I hate Windowz 8!!!!

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

Make that 1802. I'd hate to diverge to arguing about when a rail running locomotove was invented and the time it took to reach 0.3

I hate Windowz 8!!!!

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

(OP)
Let's not get too carried away here. Yes maths can say you need a 0.10000000034" pipe thickness but you use some form of logic and select a more applicable thickness. And no the internet does not make everything before invalid.

My question is still the same friction tests , whether now or a few hundred years ago (if conducted correctly), would show the friction factors applicable so why do pipe stress engineers not utilise the relevant data.

Your rail running locomotive would not have rail to wheel friction factors as low as 0.3.

Your logic of "it's been used by millions of engineers" is not really a valid answer. The simple question is since friction factors have been proven to be 0.57 (sliding) and 0.74 (static) where is the engineering justification in using 0.3 ?

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

If you look at the results posted, the high values come from clean dry steel with no oxide layer. Point me to a pipe support that is like that after about a week on a plant, never mind a year or two and then I might accept your point. I suspect it is also why many pipe supports end up being a point load on a bar rather than a flat surface which can either corrode together or could have a high FF.

As BI says, clearly this has become a universal practice based on many decades of plant design and I haven't seen many piping systems collapse due to incorrect use of the FF.

what you maybe need to do is see what the impact is between 0.3 and 0.5. The lower FF will probably end up with larger movements at the elbows due to longer lengths moving, but run the numbers and see which is the more conservative. You might be surprised....

My motto: Learn something new every day

Also: There's usually a good reason why everyone does it that way

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

(OP)
LittleInch,
Some sanity back. Yes I agree supports become corroded and "self-welding" due to corrosive environments can occur so Friction Factors could be greater. If the supports are well maintained and "greased" then 0.3 would probably be valid. However in the real world they are not. I worked for a world renowned chemical company who insisted on friction factor for steel/steel to be taken as 0.5 as a minimum after extensive testing over years. They found that friction factors could increase to around 0.8. My original query was to question to validity of using friction factors as low as 0.3!!!

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

As I said, 0.3 is not necessarily less worse than a higher FF. Maybe some sensitivity runs need to take place to see if it actually has any impact or not.

My motto: Learn something new every day

Also: There's usually a good reason why everyone does it that way

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

(OP)
A 0.3 friction factor is less worse for the design of the support and you cannot argue against that fact!!! The pipe stress engineers normally provide the loadings to the support guys do they not?

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

I worry about the pipe not the support so much. This is where you could get two different worst cases...

My motto: Learn something new every day

Also: There's usually a good reason why everyone does it that way

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

(OP)
if the pipe support is not designed for the correct frictional load then yes I would be worried about the pipe not being supported when the support fails!!!

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

Most of the time 0.3 is fine. If you know that it will be higher, use the higher.

I hate Windowz 8!!!!

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

2
I will object to your statement

Quote (DSB123)

A 0.3 friction factor is less worse for the design of the support and you cannot argue against that fact!!!
This might not always be the case.

My approach to friction is that where it helps you, it is best to assume that it isn't there. And where it hinders you or indeed makes things worse, then it is best to assume a high value. In this approach, it is best to bracket the range of possible solutions to determine whether or not the friction is helpful or hindering. (I can provide good examples of both, BTW). In various designs, that not only include piping, I have designed assuming a friction coefficient of 0.0 all the way up to 2.0.

One of the interesting aspects of friction testing is that the coefficient is often a function of the contact pressure. This is published for low-friction materials, but such testing is often not performed for "regular" materials.

Another aspect to be considered for design of process piping is that these pipes vibrate, shake, rattle and roll. A short time after the initial heat-up or cool-down, it is quite likely that the frictional forces have vanished. I understand that the frictional forces can impart substantial lateral loads on the supporting structural steel, both at each individual support, as well at at special supports such as guides and directional anchors. However, after the vibration "relaxes" the friction forces, the loads generally decay to almost nothing.

I suspect that even if the 0.3 coefficient of friction for steel-on-steel is low based on testing, from a practical perspective it has demonstrated itself to be adequate for design purposes. It could very well be that we are relying on the Code design margins and eroding the ultimate factor of safety (note that anyone who has read anything that I have published know that I don't use that phrase lightly, and I use it in a very specific sense). But, until I can be pointed to an actual failure in process piping where the root cause has been an underestimation of the coefficient of friction, I will stick to experience.

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

(OP)
TGS4,
Can you explain in engineering terms how you beleive a vertical load times a low friction coefficient to give a lateral load on a pipe support is worse than the same vertical loading times a higher friction coefficient to give a larger lateral load on a pipe support to substantiate your objection to what I stated. If you have a pipe sat on a support how can you justify using a friction factor of 0.0 unless you are designing the support for a specific deflection of the pipe (in which you do not consider friction loading as it is deflection governed)

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

I think TGS4 has the correct approach. If you have an unlimited run version of whatever software you are using, you can easily run a "low friction" and a "high friction" case, and pick the case that governs. If they both "pass" ( "pass" meaning more than just Code Compliance Check - meaning acceptable loads plus acceptable displacements plus acceptable stresses and all the rest of it) then the friction coefficient really doesn't matter much to anyone other than the structural guy(s) - who may be one and the same as the stress guy(s). I also think that you will find a lot of cases where friction serves to reduce displacements at points of interest, which will have the effect of lowering expansion case / bending stresses so that, often, assuming zero friction yields the most conservative design.

In short, there's more to stress engineering than running the software. As DSB123 suggests, the stress analyst needs to put intelligent thought into the data input and be prepared to back up the assumptions made; whereas as TGS4 suggests, it's good practice to look at ranges or envelopes and run a few scenarios in order to arrive at a design that is not uber-sensitive to the assumed friction factor.

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

(OP)
SNORGY,
Agree with your synopsis. That is what I was trying to get at but many pipe stress engineers just bang in the 0.3 as a routine not looking at whether or what effect any variation higher or lower friction factors have on the results. And generally they never look at the systems without friction!!! A standard 0.3 is applied to all supports. As you say a sensitivity analysis approach is required to cover all bases. But I presume you agree that an individual support must be designed for the maximum frictional loading not the minimum as TGS4 was intimating by criticising my statement?

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

DSB123,

I think what was being talked about was the effect on the pipe, after all you are in the pipelines, piping and fluid mechanics forum not the pipe support forum... We tend to be more concerned about the pipe and assume the structural guys add quite a bit onto the loads given to them. Many supports also have multiple pipes, not all of which are going to be providing loads at the same time in the same direction and in my experience are designed and built quite big and strong.

Apart from individual pipe supports badly supported on sand, I've not heard of supports bending or collapsing because of extra sideways load, but there are many examples of pipes being damaged due to expansion and this is where a low friction factor can provide the largest deflection, movement and stress.

I agree that there should be some sensitivities run to determine what impact different FFs have.

My motto: Learn something new every day

Also: There's usually a good reason why everyone does it that way

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

Mine is perhaps kind of a stupid question, but isn't design support "friction" really what the specific application designer wants it to be? It seems that if I wanted to have a very low and most dependable friction coefficient between a pipe and support, I would perhaps put a roller or bracketed (above and below) roller on top of same, or instead provide a slick e.g PTFE (teflon) pad or other slide bearing etc. On the other hand, if I wanted quite high and dependable axial friction, I might put e.g. a rubber pad between the pipe and saddle, and also strap the pipe firmly down to same.

That being said and on the other hand, I would think however that (while there indeed would be exceptions) with a great many process piping applications (unless great thermal variations, pressures/velocitie or long lengths etc. are involved), due to the high modulus and low thermal expansion coefficient of steel and other common parameters it might make very little practical difference to the pipe or support what "coefficient of friction" were assumed, and indeed just "steel-on-steel" might work reasonably well, and for quite a while.

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

(OP)
rconner,
you have switched to a different track here. The discussion is about steel to steel friction not the selection of an interface to provide you with a particular value of friction. Try not to muddy the water on a particular discussion and open another thread if you want to discuss "selection of interfaces to provide particular friction factors".

LittleInch,
I have worked on plants, on pipe trenches in particular, where "T" post supports have failed laterally where there have been no lateral restraints on the pipes supported. Granted the failure has been a combination of some corrosion but the loading causing failure was lateral friction loading. That is why the Company owning the assets stipulated a minimum friction factor of 0.5 for the design of supports.

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

If T supports had a lateral friction coefficient of 0.5 the support would never sway to the side more than the pipe. As long as the pipe was designed properly, expansion to the side minimized to acceptable values, the pipe would hold the T support in place now wouldn't they.

Learn from the mistakes of others. You don't have time to make them all yourself.

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

(OP)
BigInch,
The lines I mention did not have the lateral expansion minimised!!!! The original premise was to allow the lines to "snake" to accommodate the longitudinal expansion. Not a good idea but that was the designer at the time's idea. So no the pipe would not hold the T post in position in that case.

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

DSB, You clearly have reasons to believe that "the loading causing failure was lateral friction loading", but I have difficulties with that. Any support which was designed so slender deserved to fail, but if the pipes actually moved laterally, I wonder if the structural designer actually allowed the weight to be further away from the centre?? Or it was designed with two pipes and only one was there or had fluid in it. Too many potential failure modes to pin it on fiction force. Going from 0.3 to 0.5 would only add 1.66 to your force - surely that was within the safety factor on the structural design of the T piece?

My motto: Learn something new every day

Also: There's usually a good reason why everyone does it that way

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

(OP)
LittleInch,
Who said the friction factor went from 0.3 to 0.5? Who knows what the friction factor was as friction factors are pure guesswork anyway. My point is that the basis of design must be robust enough to accommodate variations in parameters. Using a friction factor of 0.3 for the design of pipe supports subject to pipe movement is questionable in view of the possible friction factor variation.

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

DSB,

You implied it went from 0.3 to 0.5, but design for a T support is much more affected by the weight and position of the pipe on the support than the friction force. I accept that the design should be robust, but equally taking a higher FF than would exist can limit the movement being calculated in other locations and then could lead to pipes falling off or limit stops being incorrecty sized.

0.3 would seem to fall between the two for me and just because one support failed, the impact of increasing the FF on the pipe also needs to be considered, not just the support.

My motto: Learn something new every day

Also: There's usually a good reason why everyone does it that way

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

(OP)
LittleInch,
Nowhere in my post regarging the failure of the T-post did I mention or imply any friction factor values. I was just providing an example of where friction was a contibutor to the failure. Nowhere in the postings has anyone provided a sound engineering basis for using 0.3 universally as a friction factor. Responses such as "well it's been used for years" or "It's universally accepted" does not provide a robust "sound" basis IMHO. You might as well stick your hand in a container with various friction factor values and pull one out and use that one as the friction factor (but how do you defend that?).

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

"I was just providing an example of where friction was a contibutor to the failure"

And you know this how? Friction would give you torsion; did the T-post rotate prior to falling over? Most likely the mechanism that allows pipe shoes to work well is a layer of mill scale and/or rust acting as a friction reducing agent. Who cares? Hundreds of thousands of years of pipe history has proven that steel shoe-on-steel pipe rack works well. So something not described in your calculations is happening. So what? If it works well, it works well. Period.

The aerodynamic calculations available up to the 1970's [1990's?] proved that a bumblebee was aerodynamically incapeable of flight, say nothing of achieving a hover. It doesn't matter that we can't adequately explain it if there is proven history that it works.

And yes, it bothers me that I'm not smart enough to be able to calculate it; but I can accept "It Works".

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

DSB123 - I have reviewed again what you wrote. Solely for the design of the support (whether it is the slender T-post in a latter example or a pipe rack), at a location where there is not a restraint, such as a guide or directional anchor, indeed a higher coefficient of friction will generate a higher lateral load in the direction of movement (or impending movement). And, in a pipe rack situation, where there are hundreds of pipes, you could argue that the difference between a μ of 0.3 and 0.5 could add up to be a big number. You could indeed argue that IF you assume that the direction of movement (or impending movement) is all simultaneously in the same direction and that there is no feedback between any movement of the structural steel and the pipe.

I have long argued (much to the chagrin of my structural engineering colleagues) that, rather than the structural steel holding up the pipes in a pipe rack, it is actually that the pipes hold up the steel.

Try this out for a thought experiment:

All of your pipe supports are perfectly frictionless. You have a long hot pipe in a pipe rack. The total thermal expansion exceeds a specified amount (typically 4-6 inches), and therefore a thermal expansion loop is required. The load on the directional anchors on either side of the expansion loop it determined solely by the loop loads. Every other pipe support on that horizontal steel member is frictionless and therefore does not add (or subtract) from the total load. OK - that's situation #1.

Situation #2 - same basic layout, but in this case there is friction - you can choose the coefficient. Now the total load at the direction anchor is the sum of the loop loads PLUS the friction loads on the pipe supports from the DA up to the start of the loop. You would be correct to say that the higher the coefficient of friction, the higher the total DA force. HOWEVER, all of the other pipes that are on that horizontal structural member ALSO have the same coefficient of friction that you assumed for supports on the first line. Given that the structural steel is going to translate (small, but the stiffness of structural steel is never infinite), the weight*coefficient for ALL of the other pipes is going to resist the movement of the steel. Without doing the proper interaction evaluation, you cannot know a priori that a higher coefficient of friction is better or worse.

Second example of where the selection of a particular coefficient of friction can help or hinder you:

Imagine a very hot pressure vessel, on a short support skirt. The base ring of the vessel has anchor bolts anchoring it to the concrete foundation. When I run the calculations using a high coefficient of friction (2.0 for example, indicating that it is "sticky"), then the radial expansion of the base ring and hence the bottom of the skirt is restricted. This, in turn, results in higher stresses at the skirt-to-shell junction. However, if I assume frictionless (or at least a low coefficient of friction, corresponding to low-friction slide plates), then the resulting stresses in the skirt-to-shell junction are less. However, now with the base ring free to expand thermally, now it is bearing on the anchor bolts, putting them into a shear load - something that they generally are not designed for.

I have seen problems in the skirt-to-shell junction of such short skirt vessels. And, I have seen identical vessels completely shear off their anchor bolts due to the thermal expansion of the base ring.

Unless I design for a range of values or I purposely select materials that have predictable values, I won't know which failure mode might govern.

Make sense? In my second example, friction hurts the skirt-to-shell junction, but helps the anchor bolt shear. Because of multiple failure modes in multiple failure locations, it is completely inadequate to simply choose a value. Rather a range of values needs to be evaluated to capture ALL of the potential failure modes.

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

The "big" engineering companies use 0.1 x 0.3 W for refinery type pipe racks loaded with pipe. Reasoning is that all pipe friction forces do not act in the same direction and most wind up canceling themselves out. They use the 10%f factor for safety in case they don't act that way. Actual value used for f makes little difference in that situation. Vertical loads are 20 psf across the rack. Isolated pipes, or extra heavy pipes and anchors at expansion loops are treated separately. What's the justification for that, other than 100+ years of experience.

Learn from the mistakes of others. You don't have time to make them all yourself.

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

(OP)
Duwe6,
How do you know friction would produce torsion? Not if the pipe was directly above the post it would not!!! Did I say it was offsett - no - you should not read what you want to read but read exactly what is there. What the hell has a bumblebee's flight got to do with the topic? Nothing!!!
You say "Hundreds of thousands of years of pipe history has proven that steel shoe-on-steel pipe rack works well". I suppose you have a "photo" to prove this statement - oh forgot no cameras hundreds of thousands of years ago but then come to think of it I doubt there were any pipes at that time let alone pipe shoes!!! Facts are important and your statements are not fact.

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

surely he means man-years, ie. not 1 guy working since the days of the pyraminds

Learn from the mistakes of others. You don't have time to make them all yourself.

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

(OP)
BigInch,
That's not what the statement says. Accuracy in statements is paramount if misunderstanding is to be avoided!!!

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

I can see past that. Not too big a stretch there.

Learn from the mistakes of others. You don't have time to make them all yourself.

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

Don't know - some of the pipe stress engineers I've worked with look like they've been working since the days of the pharaohs.... winky smile

My motto: Learn something new every day

Also: There's usually a good reason why everyone does it that way

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

"you have a "photo" to prove this statement. . ."

Obviously no photo's taken off-site. How 'bout we get a leetle more rigiorus:

At the close of 2013 the US Energy Information Administration "EIA" found that there were 143 operating refineries in the United States. Of those, I have worked in 10, and have been close enough to see the detailed layout of the piping and equipment of 19 more. Of these, 100% used both tee-shoes and steel pipe directly onto the pipe rack crossbeams. Thus it is more than an educated guess that over 90% of the remaining refineries follow suite giving us over 100 locations using these supports. The oldest unit I have been in was built before the 1930's [Baway NJ, and the newest one I built; GOHDS unit Commerce City refinery CO [which had sections that were pre-WWII]. The weighted average seems to come out at 50-years, but lets drop that guesstimate by 20%, giving 40-years of 'Continued Good Service'. Multiply that by the reduced total of 100 refineries, and you get 4500-unit years of proper performence of steel-on-steel sliding supports. So if there are ONLY 230 steel-on-steel supports in each ENTIRE refinery, counting all of each refieery's half-dozen to dozen-&-a-half units, that gives a grand total of 920,000 years of pipe support experience.

after these calc's, I am revising my "tens of thousands" to well over 1-million support-years of experience

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

(OP)
Duwe6,
Let's end this as I bow down to your undoubtedly greater expertise as I have neve built a refinery on my own before "and the newest one I built; GOHDS unit Commerce City refinery". It has always taken a few hundred more people. Well done!!!!

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

Good reference kacarrol, excellent paper - I had only heard of Peng periferally, not his accomplishments. Thank you.

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

(OP)
Whoa,
Even Peng uses a friction factor of 0.3 in Figure 4 and a friction factor of 0.4 in Figure 1. So even Mr Peng seems to suggest in this brief paper that friction factors vary!!!! End of debate I think!!!!

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

I think that you will find significant agreement between what I have written above and LC Peng's paper. (Perhaps in the far distant past I have read his work and simply absorbed it into my engineering philosophy smile ).

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

(OP)
Agree TGS4 but as you can see there are those amongst us that think friction factor is 0.3 NOT 0.4 or 0.5 etc but must be 0.3 always!!!!

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

Or effectively 0.1

Learn from the mistakes of others. You don't have time to make them all yourself.

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

(OP)
With PTFE of course!!! otherwise in your dreams!!!

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

Actually, if you read LC Peng's paper, he also states that in some instances, a zero-friction case may be the governing case (particularly around rotating equipment or other nozzle-load sensitive equipment).

I have always agreed that a range of coefficients must be examined. And a single value, whether it is 0.3 or 0.72 does not encompass the true understanding of how friction effects piping systems.

RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors

(OP)
TGS4,
I agree TGS4, I always run an analysis with friction and one without to ensure worst cases are covered. Perhaps we should all use the effective value of 0.1 proposed by BigInch then we would not require any low-friction (PTFE/PTFE or PTFE/SS) supports anymore!!! (Only joking )
Friction modelling is only guesswork at the best of times. My original point/question was to get a feeling of what others use for the friction factor but it seems most just "fit the blinkers" and use 0.3!!!

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources