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?
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
RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors
Here are a few References:-
http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/frictionco...
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&...
http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-frictioncoeff...
So how can the pipe stress guys legitimately use 0.3 is my question?
RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors
I hate Windowz 8!!!!
RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors
RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors
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
I hate Windowz 8!!!!
RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors
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
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
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
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
RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors
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
RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors
I hate Windowz 8!!!!
RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Learn from the mistakes of others. You don't have time to make them all yourself.
RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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:
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
Learn from the mistakes of others. You don't have time to make them all yourself.
RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors
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
Learn from the mistakes of others. You don't have time to make them all yourself.
RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors
That's not what the statement says. Accuracy in statements is paramount if misunderstanding is to be avoided!!!
RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors
Learn from the mistakes of others. You don't have time to make them all yourself.
RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors
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
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
http://www.pipestress.com/papers/Friction.pdf
RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors
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
RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors
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
RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors
RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors
Learn from the mistakes of others. You don't have time to make them all yourself.
RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors
RE: Pipe Support Friction Factors
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
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!!!