×
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

Approach to ASME B31.1/B31.3 code stress calculations

Approach to ASME B31.1/B31.3 code stress calculations

Approach to ASME B31.1/B31.3 code stress calculations

(OP)
Typical pipe stress load cases commonly used for ASME B31.1/B31.3 code stress calculations seem mathematically inconsistent for nonlinear analyses (+Y supports, gaps, friction), relying on linear algebraic subtractions when dealing with nonlinear (NL) load cases. Superposition doesn’t apply in NL analysis.

Let’s take a basic example assuming P1 is only used for axial pressure stress calculation and generates no reactions (W = Weight load, T1 = Thermal load):

L1 = W+P1+T1 (Operating)
L2 = W+P1 (Sustained)
L3 = L1-L2 (Expansion)

This commonly used approach to B31.1/B31.3 code compliance cases (also recommended by the Caesar II folks and probably the other pipe stress software vendors too) seems to mix apples with watermelons, at least partially. In NL analysis, the W+P1 component of L1 would have different displacements, reactions and stresses than the W+P1 in L2. Subtracting the “ambient” W+P1 in L2 from the “hot” operating case as shown in L3, is different than subtracting the W+P1 component of L1 from the operating case. Consideration of, and subtraction of only 1 sustained case would seem to result in incomplete displacement stress range considerations, as well as incomplete sustained stress evaluation.

We’re told, with justification, that in NL analysis we can’t simply run a T1 case by itself for the expansion/displacement stress case. If it’s important to capture the range of T1 by subtracting L1-L2 rather than simply running T1 by itself, then using ONLY the ambient W+P1 would similarly seem to be inadequate.

I recognize that B31.3 Appendix P alternate method is an attempt to deal with some related inconsistencies, but that’s a separate issue from what I’m trying to flesh out. My primary concern is the issue of when and whether it’s acceptable and justifiable to use linear algebraic subtractions between nonlinear load cases for code compliance.

For sustained stress cases to be handled consistently and accurately, in principle wouldn’t you need to take each and every operating case and then use path dependent load sequencing to subtract the Thermal load? That would necessitate one or more ambient sustained cases as well as a sustained case from each operating case. For example, run W+P1+T1 case and then sequence the subtraction of T1 using NL sequenced analysis, not algebraic, in order to obtain each “operating sustained case" for lack of a better term. The result of that procedure would be different than the results from W+P1 in L2 above, and very different than (W+P1+T1) minus (T1) using algebraic. If you used NL load sequencing to generate those sustained cases, then I suppose you could justify linear algebraic subtractions of operating case minus sustained case as shown in L3 in order to determine expansion/displacement stress, although you'd have multiple sustained cases.

Things become more complicated with multiple thermal cases, especially in cases where standby lines become operational into a piping network which has already displaced due to weight and thermal loads.. those newly operational lines do not start from an ambient system.

I haven’t heard or read any discussions about these seemingly questionable assumptions in current approaches to calculating code stresses. Everyone seems to be doing pretty much the same thing.

RE: Approach to ASME B31.1/B31.3 code stress calculations

For that reason Autopipe dont do subtrations for analysis cases, to avoid this problem.

Autopipe solve each case separate for linear and nonlinear case.

I know this dont answer your question but at least you will that other software take care this issue.

Regards



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