Dear Sirs, In which cease we need to switch on the liberal allowable

stress in CII ? What is the advantage for that one?

Top


#16794 - 03/23/08 06:25 AM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: b.lingarajan]
MoverZ
Member

Registered:
11/22/06
Posts: 1118
Loc: Hants, UK
You should read the ASME B31.3 code. This is a fundamental question
which is fully explained there.

Top


#16803 - 03/24/08 08:54 AM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: MoverZ]
John C. Luf

Member

Registered:
03/25/02
Posts: 1110
Loc: U.S.A.
the use of the word "liberal" I take exception to... that word is not
defined in the code nor used by B31.3 it is simply another allowable
value which takes into account the actual affect of Sl loads in the
system...
_________________________
Best Regards,

John C. Luf

Top


#17023 - 04/02/08 11:44 PM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: b.lingarajan]
Omdo
Member

Registered:
03/19/08
Posts: 31
Loc: Indonesia
Originally Posted By: b.lingarajan
Dear Sirs,
In which cease we need to switch on the liberal allowable stress in CII ?
What is the advantage for that one?


you should read the explanation from Breen here:
http://www.coade.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000057.html

Top


#17059 - 04/04/08 12:21 AM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: Omdo]
Sam Manik

Member

Registered:
04/02/08
Posts: 215
Loc: Jakarta,
Indonesia
Dear Lingrajan,

I think the advantage is we will have higher allowable. We can see it in
ASME B 31.3 Code.

Assume we have two simple "different" models, one takes SAL and
other takes SA as their allowable. Then they have "same" stress ratio in
many nodes case EXP. The model using SA insteaf of SAL as allowable
will has better flexibility. And may be (my own opinion) will have more
longer fatigue life.

In code I find no word for "liberal" they still say for both as Allowable
displacement stress range SA. Caesar may just need to make them
different as SA and SAL since different in formula. Sorry if you already
know about it


Edited by Samsul P. Manik (04/04/08 12:26 AM)
_________________________
Many thanks & regards,
Sam Manik

Top


#17068 - 04/04/08 08:36 AM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: Sam Manik]
John Breen

Member

Registered:
03/09/00
Posts: 482
Loc: Pittsburgh,
PA (& Texas)
Originally Posted By: Samsul P. Manik
Dear Lingrajan,

The model using SA instead of SAL as allowable will has better
flexibility. And may be (my own opinion) will have more longer fatigue
life.


Well, no.
_________________________
John Breen

Top


#17069 - 04/04/08 08:47 AM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: John Breen]
John C. Luf

Member

Registered:
03/25/02
Posts: 1110
Loc: U.S.A.
Let me see if I have the hypothesis correct.

Two Identical Piping Models.
One Analyzed with SA
One Analyzed with SAL

THE SA MODEL has greater fatigue life???? Based on what????? The
piping cares not whether SA or SAL is in effect.
_________________________
Best Regards,

John C. Luf

Top


#17095 - 04/06/08 07:59 PM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: John C. Luf]
Sam Manik

Member

Registered:
04/02/08
Posts: 215
Loc: Jakarta,
Indonesia
Dear Luf,Breen,

I think you miss my overall assumtions:

Assume we have:
-Two simple "DIFFERENT" models.
-Model I takes SAL and Model II takes SA as their allowable.
-The two models have "SAME" stress ratio in many nodes case EXP.

Of course the model II using SA will has better flexibility insteaf of
model I using SAL as allowable. But may be will need more pipe
material which will increase the cost.

For ASME B31.3 the failure mechanism for secondary load
(temperature) is fatigue. For primary (W, P) is yielding.
_________________________
Many thanks & regards,
Sam Manik

Top


#17096 - 04/06/08 09:17 PM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: Sam Manik]
Omdo
Member

Registered:
03/19/08
Posts: 31
Loc: Indonesia
Originally Posted By: Samsul P. Manik
Dear Lingrajan,

The model using SA insteaf of SAL as allowable will has better flexibility.
And may be (my own opinion) will have more longer fatigue life.


correct me if I'm wrong, there's nothing to do with pipe flexibility
whether you want to use SA or SAL formula, the pipe still stay the same
when using SA or SAL . It's all about material, isn't it?
but if you mean, "better flexibility" is less conservative
approach/calculation when using SAL formula instead of SA one, then I
agree


Edited by Omdo (04/06/08 09:20 PM)
Top


#17098 - 04/06/08 11:41 PM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: Omdo]
Sam Manik

Member

Registered:
04/02/08
Posts: 215
Loc: Jakarta,
Indonesia
Dear Omdo,

Assume model I have ratio 99.9% (pass)in load case case EXP using
SAL as allowable.

Still in model I, but the ratio 100.1 % (fail) if we use SA as allowable.

Let say we or our client in order to have 99.9% in ratio does't want to
use SAL instead of SA as allowable. Then we create model II such as
doing rerouting to have 99.9% in ratio.

I think model II has better flexibility. But may need more pipe which
increase the cost.

Note:
Some of us may will select 80% as higher ratio for load cases EXP.


Edited by Samsul P. Manik (04/06/08 11:43 PM)
_________________________
Many thanks & regards,
Sam Manik

Top


#17099 - 04/06/08 11:41 PM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: Omdo]
Sam Manik

Member

Registered:
04/02/08
Posts: 215
Loc: Jakarta,
Indonesia
Dear Omdo,

Assume model I have ratio 99.9% (pass)in load case case EXP using
SAL as allowable.

Still in model I, but the ratio 100.1 % (fail) if we use SA as allowable.

Let say we or our client in order to have 99.9% in ratio does't want to
use SAL instead of SA as allowable. Then we create model II such as
doing rerouting to have 99.9% in ratio.

I think model II has better flexibility. But may need more pipe which
increase the cost.

Note:
Some of us may will select 80% as higher ratio for load cases EXP.
_________________________
Many thanks & regards,
Sam Manik

Top


#17102 - 04/07/08 03:42 AM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: Sam Manik]
Omdo
Member

Registered:
03/19/08
Posts: 31
Loc: Indonesia
SA is function(Sycold+Syhot) = 1.5SC+1.5SH,
for safety reason it becomes (1.25SC+1.25SH) Mean Stress
Mean stress usually is sustain loads, as per code is 1.0 SH
Hence,
SA=1.25SC+0.25SH

while
SAL ~ (1.25SC+1.25SH) SL

as we know SL is always < SH (in order to meet ANSI B31.3 chapter II
para 302.3.5), which means SAL will provide bigger allowable stress
than SA.

then again, SA or SAL cares not to pipe flexibility because two of them
are the approach to limit the Expansion Stress.

In my experience, they are used as tools for engineering judgment, eg;
if the sustained stresses were calculated as 80 or 90 percent of Sh, I
usually not to take SAL in my calculation or my design will be more
conservative

Regards

Top


#17178 - 04/09/08 08:01 AM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: Sam Manik]
Dylan
Member

Registered:
09/23/07
Posts: 99
Loc: Indonesia
Dear Mr.Samsul,
Php Code:
[/php]The model using SA insteaf of SAL as allowable will
has better flexibility. And may be (my own opinion) will
have more longer fatigue life.[php]


I want to know the reason why you said SAL will have longer fatigue
life??
The pipe will remain the same no matter you use SA or SAL, it has
nothing to do with fatigue life.

I think paper of Markl, about "Piping Flexibility" was a good basic for
this discussion or book of Piping Stress Calculation simplified by
Spielvogle.

Thank you

Top


#17191 - 04/09/08 11:02 PM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: Dylan]
Sam Manik

Member

Registered:
04/02/08
Posts: 215
Loc: Jakarta,
Indonesia
Dear Dylan,

Please don't take the conclusions before overall assumption complete:
Assume we have:

1. Two simple "DIFFERENT" models. So this not talking about the model
stay the same like Omdo said but compasrison two diferent models.
2. Model I takes SAL and Model II takes SA as their allowable.
3. The both models have "SAME" stress ratio in many nodes case EXP.

Model II which using SA will have better flexibility insteaf of model I
using SAL as allowable (assumtion no. 3 shall be fulfill at first). But
model II may will need more pipe in order to make its ratio let say the
same with model I.

When I said that Model II better in flexibility and will have more longer
fatigue life is only my own opinion. My opinion based on that fatigue is
failure mechanism in EXP case.

I also agree with Omdo:
better flexibility is less conservative approach/calculation when using
SAL formula instead of SA one.

I think I mean the same by making comparison of the two models.
_________________________
Many thanks & regards,
Sam Manik

Top


#17198 - 04/10/08 08:58 AM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: Sam Manik]
bom
Member

Registered:
06/23/07
Posts: 285
Loc: Manila,
Philippines


I realy dont know what your trying to do..... is that liberal you said is
less conservative well.....
_________________________
BOM

Top


#17206 - 04/10/08 08:50 PM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: bom]
Sam Manik

Member

Registered:
04/02/08
Posts: 215
Loc: Jakarta,
Indonesia
Dear bom,

Using SA is more conservative approach rather than using SAL.


Edited by Samsul P. Manik (04/10/08 09:18 PM)
_________________________
Many thanks & regards,
Sam Manik

Top


#17462 - 04/21/08 01:54 PM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: Sam Manik]
Dylan
Member

Registered:
09/23/07
Posts: 99
Loc: Indonesia
Dear Mr. Samsul P.Manik,

Your Examples is only right to show about how to make a piping system
flexibel but there is no further explanation from you and your example
here why is SA more conservative....
If true SA more conservative so why CAESAR II use SAL as Default here
not SA (Altough that will be back to engineer judgement for better
analysis).
Sl here is included in SAL equation is in purpose to prevent from
thermal Ratcheting that will lead to incremental plastic deformation. For
more detailed about it you can see at Goodman papers and David
Burgreen Books, and many2 discussion about it on Thermal Expansion
Stress Thread and Problem to have more than one sustained case
Thread if you use the Search function.....
Thanks


Best Regards

Tengku Syahdilan

Top


#17464 - 04/21/08 03:25 PM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: Dylan]
CraigB
Member

Registered:
05/16/06
Posts: 376
Loc: Denver, CO
Let me explain this one more time, slowly.

A106B, or any other piping material, doesn't give a rat's ass what your
Code says the allowable stress is. It's going to, on average, have the
same failure properties whether your Code assigns it an allowable
stress of 12 ksi, or 20 ksi, or 24 ksi, or 36 ksi, or 3,000,000 ksi. (Of
course, if your design Code assigns it the latter allowable, you're going
to experience a lot of failures!)

So, since the real-life failure behavior of a large sample of A 106B pipe
is going to have the same limits,

THE LOWER YOUR ALLOWABLE STRESS FOR A PARTICULAR DESIGN
CASE THE MORE CONSERVATIVE THE DESIGN IS!!!!!!!

That wasn't too tough, now, was it?


Edited by CraigB (04/21/08 03:26 PM)
_________________________
CraigB

Top


#17465 - 04/21/08 03:36 PM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: CraigB]
Dave Diehl


Member

Registered:
12/14/99
Posts: 1412
Loc: Houston, TX,
USA
The term Liberal in Liberal Allowable Stress - as presented in CAESAR
II - is misunderstood or even, may I say, misapplied. A better
definition would be "Complicated" Allowable Stress versus the "Easy"
Allowable Stress.

If I hand you a slide rule and ask you to check the expansion stress of a
piping system, you'll use use the "Easy" limit every time.
_________________________
Dave Diehl


Top


#17470 - 04/22/08 02:02 AM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: Sam Manik]
anindya
stress
Member

Registered:
04/12/04
Posts: 493
Loc: London, UK
Currently some web based training is going on from Paulin Research
group which is FREE. The technical content is too good and one gets to
learn from none other than Tony Paulin and Chris Hinnat and in my
humble opinion attending these courses are must to properly
understand the code rules. Many of the code related questions in the
forum will have their answers in the different modules of these
webinars.


Another excellent and must read document is NUREG CR3243.
Regards


Edited by anindya stress (04/22/08 02:03 AM)
_________________________
anindya

Top


#17472 - 04/22/08 03:03 AM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: Dylan]
Omdo
Member

Registered:
03/19/08
Posts: 31
Loc: Indonesia
Originally Posted By: Dylan

but there is no further explanation from you and your example here
why is SA more conservative....
If true SA more conservative so why CAESAR II use SAL as Default here
not SA (Altough that will be back to engineer judgement for better
analysis).
Sl here is included in SAL equation is in purpose to prevent from
thermal Ratcheting that will lead to incremental plastic deformation.


SAL as default in Caesar II?
ah c'mon.. don't you have to tick on special execution parameter, the
liberal allowable stress item?

SA use SH as Mean Stress & SAL use SL as mean stress (which usually
resulting SA<SAL). the lower the code stress the longer life of pipe from
fatigue failure is

just read sustained loads effect on fatigue in any kind of mechanical
book, no need heavy read on it

Top


#17510 - 04/22/08 07:54 PM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: Omdo]
John Breen

Member

Registered:
03/09/00
Posts: 482
Loc: Pittsburgh,
PA (& Texas)

SA use SH as Mean Stress & SAL use SL as mean stress (which usually
resulting SA


I am sorry, can you expand upon that? Mean stress?? This is B31 is it
not?

John
_________________________
John Breen

Top


#17521 - 04/23/08 04:35 AM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: Omdo]
Dylan
Member

Registered:
09/23/07
Posts: 99
Loc: Indonesia
DEar Omdo,

I think what Sir Craig and Dave explain above has made everything
clear.
And about SAL as default, well you can check and read at C2quick
document. and in my opinion, CAESAR give this SAL as default just to
make it the easy way to calculate expansion stress, but all the decision
to use SAL or SA will back to us, don't you think so?

Top


#33960 - 03/28/10 08:00 AM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: anindya stress]
Duong
Member

Registered:
09/22/09
Posts: 19
Loc: VN
Dear everyone,
Regarding to above discussion, if i use material ASTM API 5L GrB, i
have Sc=138 MPa
Sh=138 Mpa

refer to ASME B31.3 chapter II para 302.3.5, SA=f(1.25Sc+0.25Sh)
with f=1, allowable stress for expansion is
Se

when i model Caesar II, the result for expansion is not same with 207
Mpa
(result: allowable 302 or 297 or 310 depend on thermal case cheking)

I think there are somethings need to change in caesar II to meet the
allowable stress for expansion is 207 Mpa but i don't know where to
change this.I hase opened "configuration setup" but i didn't see the one
related to Se

Please advice me to do this.
Thanks

Top


#33962 - 03/28/10 06:49 PM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: Duong]
Richard Ay

Member

Registered:
12/13/99
Posts: 5131
Loc: Houston,
Texas, USA
By default CAESAR II uses the "other" equation for the Expansion
Stress Allowable:

Se = f(1.25Sc + 1.25Sh - Sl)

You're seeing different allowables through out your system because Sl
is varying. If you don't want to use the above equation, uncheck the
"liberal allowable" item on the "Special Execution Options" dialog.

This is the whole point of this thread.
_________________________
Regards,
Richard Ay
Intergraph CAS


Top


#33973 - 03/29/10 03:03 AM Re: liberal allowable stress [Re: Richard Ay]
Duong
Member

Registered:
09/22/09
Posts: 19
Thank you
It worked well.

Loc: VN
Top