International Conference on researches in Science and Engineering

28 July 2016, Istanbul University, Turkey

Determine the optimal span between pipe supports

for thin walled piping systems

Akbar Daneshvar Ghalelar*, Sadjad Ranjbaran

1. Nargan Engineers & Constructors, Tehran, Iran, e-mail : a.daneshvar@nargan.com

2. Sazeh Consultants Engineering & Construction, Tehran, Iran. e-mail: s.ranjbaran@sazeh.co.ir

Abstract
This paper studies the allowable span between pipe supports for thin walled piping
systems. The maximum stresses in many thin walled piping systems are the local stress at
the pipe supports. These stresses are caused by saddles or other structural discontinuities
that cause pipe ovalization. ASME has suggested the value for support span, but the
bending stress considered in its calculation is very low (15.9 Mpa). The finite element
analysis is performed using a shell model with distributed gravity and design pressure
loading. Parametric studies on global and local stress are performed to determine the
effect of the pipe diameter to thickness ratio (D/t).
Some correlations for calculating the maximum span using maximum bending stress are
suggested for thin walled piping. Safety of the design is checked using maximum
deflection and buckling. A sample problem is considered for evaluation and the results
are compared with standards like ASME B31.1 and AWWA.
In this paper, the distance between the support values are determined using linear
methods. These methods are based on beam elements. So that the deflection, bending and
local stresses are within the allowable range. FEA methods and its results were compared
with the results of the presented methods.

Key words: deflection, bending stress, local stress, pipe support span, thin walled pipe, FEA

1. Introduction
This paper was developed from an analysis of a large diameter thin wall piping system that is
supported on saddle type supports. The evaluation includes both stress analysis and a review
of the applicability of current design codes. The stress analysis shows that ovalization of the
pipe cross-section contributed to large stress intensity for both global and local stresses. The
ovalization was determined to be an effect of the large diameter to wall thickness ratio (D/t).
The values of D/t ratio for the flare piping were greater than 100.
Comparison of current design codes such as ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code [1], and
ASME B31.1 [2] demonstrate that these codes were generally limited to D/t ratios of less than
100. However, the ASME B&PV Code provides the most comprehensive treatment for local
stress evaluation. The AWWA Code was reviewed, since it is applicable to large D/t ratios.
 International Conference on researches in Science and Engineering
28 July 2016, Istanbul University, Turkey

The AWWA M11 Manual provides a methodology for calculating localized stress at saddle
type supports. AWWA also states that the stress intensity is practically independent of the
width of the saddle support. The saddle width is Dimension b in Figure (2).
Three different aspects of analyzing piping with large diameter to wall thickness ratio are
evaluated [4]. The data presented is for D/t ratio between 50 and 400. All the analyses were
performed for piping on saddle supports. The following areas were evaluated:
• The effect of evalization on the global bending stress in the piping as compared to
beam theory.
• The effect of ovalization on the local stress at a saddle type support, including the
methodology for classification and calculation of the local stress.
• The effect of saddle support design parameter on local stress

2. Procedure for calculation of maximum span

In the design of free spans of pipe, it may be desirable to determine the theoretical deflection
in order to judge flexibility or ascertain that the deflection does not exceed a desirable upper
limit. Freely supported pipe sometime must be laid so that it will drain fully and contain no
pockets between supports. The allowable deflection or sag between supports must be found to
determine the necessary grads.
In any given case, the deflection is influenced by condition of installation. The pipe may be
single span or may be continuous over several supports. The ends may act as the weight of
insulation or other uniform load. Concentrates loads such as valves, other appurtenances or
fittings may be present between supports.
The maximum theoretical can be determined using:
(5wL4 + 8wc L3 ) (1)
y= , ( m)
384 EI

Design formulas for calculating bending stress between supports are derived from the usual
beam formulas, which depend upon the method of support and the type of loading [1].
Maximum Bending stress:
(0.0624 wL2 + 0.1248wc L) D (2)
Sb = , (N / m2 )
I

Where,
D = Outside diameter of pipe in (m)
d = Inside diameter of pipe in (m)
E = Modulus of elasticity of pipe in (N/m2)
I = Moment of Inertia of pipe in (m4)
L = Span length in (m)
W = uniformly distributed weight of pipeline in (N/m)
Wc = concentrated weight on pipeline in (N)
Maximum bending stress of pipe can be taken as 30% of allowable stress. [4]
 International Conference on researches in Science and Engineering
28 July 2016, Istanbul University, Turkey

Sb = 41.36 MPa (30% of 137.87 MPa)

3. Localized stress
Saddle supports caused high local stresses both longitudinally and circumferentially in un-
stiffened, comparatively thin wall pipe at the tips and edges of the supports. Stresses vary
with the load, the diameter wall thickness ratio, and the edges of contact with the pipe.
Because saddle supports cause critical points of stress in the metal adjacent to the saddle
edges, it is frequently more economical to increase the wall thickness of the pipe when it is
overstressed than to provide stiffening ring.
The ability of steel pipe to resist saddle loads has sometimes been greatly. According to one
report, the maximum value of the localized stresses in a pipe has been greatly underestimated
by designers. The same report states that the maximum value of the localized stresses in a
pipe that file the saddle well probably does not exceed that given by the following formula:
P R (3)
S L = k 2 Ln( )
t t

Where:
k = 0.02 – 0.00012(A-90), Where A is in degrees
P = Total Saddle Reaction (N)
R = Pipe Radius (mm)
SL = Localized Stress (Mpa)
t = Pipe Wall Thickness (mm)

The maximum saddle reaction a pipe can stand is about twice the value of “P” (Eq.3) when SL
equals the yield point of the steel used. Equation (3) does not account for temperature
stresses. Certain other stress must be added to the localized stress to determine the total stress.
For the local stress the maximum accepted limit of the stress 'SL' is considered to be 1.5 Sh.
With the assumption that the pressure takes up half of the allowable stress, the maximum
local stress remains 1.0Sh.
The contact length between the supporting beam and pipe determines the pad thickness and
the maximum load on the support. Any changes in pipe span and / or pad thickness should be
made or corrected for after a local stress calculation. The responsibility for changes shall be
with the design organization.

4. Calculation & results

Let us calculate the maximum support by assuming limit the deflection of pipe and using the
equation (1), the distance between support for the pipe line 40 to 80 inches and a thickness of
12.7mm constant is calculated. Table (1) shows the results of limiting the deflection of pipe
when the pipe is empty and water-filled show.
Using equation (2) bending stresses in the pipe for distances between supports obtained from
the equation (1), respectively. Also using equation (3) local stresses at the support location
calculated in Table (1) are shown.
 International Conference on researches in Science and Engineering
28 July 2016, Istanbul University, Turkey

Table 1: Pipe Span For Deflection Limited

Only Pipe Pipe + Content
NPS Thk
D/t Span Sb SL Span Sb SL
(in) (mm)
(m) (Mpa) (Mpa) (m) (Mpa) (Mpa)

40 12.7 80 22.5 32.7 51.9 16.4 36.7 132.9

42 12.7 84 23.1 33.5 56.6 16.7 37.3 149.1
44 12.7 88 23.6 34.3 61.5 16.9 38.0 166.3
46 12.7 92 24.1 35.1 66.6 17.2 38.6 184.6
48 12.7 96 24.7 35.9 71.8 17.4 39.2 204.1
50 12.7 100 25.2 36.7 77.2 17.6 39.8 224.7
52 12.7 104 25.7 37.4 82.7 17.8 40.4 246.5
54 12.7 108 26.2 38.1 88.4 18.1 41.0 269.5
56 12.7 112 26.7 38.8 94.3 18.3 41.6 293.6
58 12.7 116 27.1 39.5 100.3 18.5 42.2 319.0
60 12.7 120 27.6 40.2 106.5 18.6 42.7 345.7
62 12.7 124 28.1 40.9 112.8 18.8 43.3 373.6
64 12.7 128 28.5 41.6 119.2 19.0 43.9 402.7
68 12.7 136 29.4 42.9 132.6 19.4 45.0 464.9
72 12.7 144 30.3 44.1 146.5 19.7 46.0 532.5
80 12.7 160 31.9 46.5 176.0 20.3 48.1 683.8

When the distance between supports for empty pipe, pipe deflection is calculated assuming a
limit to the size of 62 inches and ratio D/t =124 values for the bending stress is less than the
maximum allowed. From 64 to 80 inch and by increasing the ratio of D/t from 128 to 160, the
values of bending stress is exceeded.
Also, local stresses are calculated for obtained span with limited deflection for empty pipe.
According to the results, it is observed for empty pipe up to 68 inches and ratio D/t=136 local
stress values is less than the maximum allowed. But this value for 72 and 80 inch larger than
allowed exceed.
The bending and local stresses for pipe full of water in Table (1) shown, that using equation
(2) and (3) are obtained.
 International Conference on researches in Science and Engineering
28 July 2016, Istanbul University, Turkey

Figure 1: Bending Stress (Mpa)

Figure (1) represents the bending stress for D/t from 80 to 160 shows for pipe full of water.
Can be seen from size 56 inches above by increasing ratio of D/t value the bending stress
exceeds than the maximum allowed.

Figure 2: Local Stress (Mpa)

 International Conference on researches in Science and Engineering
28 July 2016, Istanbul University, Turkey

Figure (2) represents the local stress for D/t from 80 to 160 shows for pipe full of water. Can
be seen from size 42 inches above by increasing ratio of D/t from 84 to 160, value the local
stress exceeds than the maximum allowed. Though the distance between the supports are
calculated based on the maximum deflection. Load in support of increased local stress and the
deformation occurs at the support connection.

Figure 3: Span Coefficient

Other methods for determining the distance between the supports, limiting the bending the
local stresses. Figure (3) represents a coefficient curve to reduce the span between supports
for limiting the bending and local stress shows. For pipe full of water, the effect of local stress
on reducing the distance between the supports is greater than the bending stress.
To determine the distance between supports three methods can be used simultaneously.
• Limited by deflection
• Limited by bending stress
• Limited by local stress

In order to increase reliability and safety, the minimum distance obtained from the three
methods is selected.
In Table (2) of the above three methods to determine the distance between the support, for
pipe diameters from 40 to 80 inches have been performed assuming a constant thickness.
According to the results recorded in Table (2) can be seen for empty pipe up to 62 inch
limited by deflection, the minimum distance is obtained. By increasing diameter of the pipe
and the rate of D/t from size 64 inch on, limiting local stress method determines the minimum
distance between the supports.
 International Conference on researches in Science and Engineering
28 July 2016, Istanbul University, Turkey

The pipe is filled with water from above three methods for pipe diameter of 40 inch or more
and a thickness of 12.7 mm only method of limiting local stress, the minimum distance
between the supports determined.

Table 2: Allowable Pipe Span

Only Pipe Pipe + Content

Diameter Thickness
D/t Maximum Span Maximum Span
(in) k(mm)
(m) (m)

40 12.7 80 22.5 * 14.4 ~

42 12.7 84 23.1 * 13.0 ~
44 12.7 88 23.6 * 11.9 ~
46 12.7 92 24.1 * 10.9 ~
48 12.7 96 24.7 * 10.0 ~
50 12.7 100 25.2 * 9.2 ~
52 12.7 104 25.7 * 8.5 ~
54 12.7 108 26.2 * 7.9 ~
56 12.7 112 26.7 * 7.3 ~
58 12.7 116 27.1 * 6.8 ~
60 12.7 120 27.6 * 6.4 ~
62 12.7 124 28.1 * 6.0 ~
64 12.7 128 28.3 ~ 5.6 ~
68 12.7 136 26.3 ~ 4.9 ~
72 12.7 144 24.5 ~ 4.4 ~
80 12.7 160 21.6 ~ 3.5 ~
*Limited by Deflection - ^Limited by bending stress
~ Limited by local stress

According to Table (2) can be seen by increasing the ratio of D/t distance between the
supports is greatly reduced. By reducing the distance between the support system is stable,
safe and will be optimized. But in some cases, reduce the excessive distance between the
support increased construction costs and shall be executed.
Using methods such as FEA, appropriate design support, engineering experience and reduce
local stress and optimizes the distance between the supports and will be reduce costs. The
sample problem considered in the previous section is modeled in FEA software. The
calculated value of the span is used to model the problem and the deflection of the pipe is
evaluated. The model is constrained at the end so that the end does not move under
application of force. The total weight of the dead load plus weight of the working fluid is
applied uniformly.
 International Conference on researches in Science and Engineering
28 July 2016, Istanbul University, Turkey

5. Finite Element Analysis

The sample problem considered in the previous section is modeled in FEA software. The
calculated value of the span is used to model the problem and the deflection of the pipe is
evaluated. The model is constrained at the end so that the end does not move under
application of force. The total weight of the dead load plus weight of the working fluid is
applied uniformly. Table (3) shows the FEA method assumed data.

Table 3: FEA Method assumed data

Pipe Description A 106 Gr.B Young’s Modulus 203390 Mpa

Pipe Diameter 60 inch Support Contact Length 500mm

Pipe Wall Thickness 12.7 mm Support Wear Pad Thickness 12.7mm

Pipe Density 7850 Kg/m3 Gas Density 1.28 Kg/m3

Allowable Stress 137.9 Mpa Max Mid-Span Deflection 10mm

Figure 4: Deflection
 International Conference on researches in Science and Engineering
28 July 2016, Istanbul University, Turkey

Figure 5: Local Stress @ Support Location

Figures (4) and (5) represent a deflection and local stresses at the junction of the pipe.
According to the results of FEA observed by the method of optimizing the distance between
the supports, local and bending stresses are within permissible limits. Well as the value of
deflection is less than maximum value.

6. Comparative Analysis
Table (4) shows a comparative analysis of the span shown in different methods. It can be seen
that for the sample pipeline of 15 km length, the minimum number of supports required is
calculated by the procedure described in the paper.

Table 4: Comparative Values of Span

References Values of Maximum Span for CS pipe No. of supports required for a
(m) pipeline across 15km

Maximum Deflection 27.6 m 544

Maximum Bending Stress 40.2 m 374

Maximum Local Stress 17.3 m 867

Finite Element Analysis 22m 682

 International Conference on researches in Science and Engineering
28 July 2016, Istanbul University, Turkey

Through this paper we tried to optimize the distance between supports keeping the values of
stresses and deflection within safe limits. The aim is to reduce the number of supports to
reduce the total cost of erection. A saving of supports will have a great effect on the total cost
of erection. The cost of erection can further be reduced if the schedule of pipe (i.e., thickness
of pipe) is raised. This will increase the cost of material but at the same time reduce the cost
of erecting supports. Hence, a comparative study of cost is required before changing the
schedule of pipe.

7. Conclusion
Thin-walled pipe is widely used in low pressure systems. In the towns water supply systems,
utility systems, refinery and petrochemical applications, pipe lines such as the flare lines. The
proposed method can reduce the cost of design, construction and execution effectively. Using
these methods we will get a system with high safety and low cost.
Another benefit of choosing a suitable distance between the supports, reduce stress caused by
earthquakes and wind. Stresses due to earthquake contain a sustained stress component.
Reducing the pipeline spans around a point with high earthquake stress will lower these
stresses.
The distance between the guides is calculated for the bare pipe taking into consideration the
effect of the wind and the local stress induced in the pipe wall by the restraint. Increasing the
stiffener around pipe can reduce local bending stress and increase the distance between the
supports. In this case, the number of supporters required is reduced. A method of optimizing
the distance between supports using stiffener and FEA optimization technique is also
discussed.

8. Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Nargan Engineers and Constructors Company. The authors
appreciate Mr. Amirkhizi and Mr. Faraji, who are supporting the research and development of
science and engineering.

References
[1] ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, 2007 Edition
[2] ASME B31.1, 2010, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, N.Y.
[3] Sabin Crocker. Piping Handbook, fourth edition, McGraw Hill, New York, pg. 744-745.
[4] Roark, R.J. and Young W.C. (1975). Formulas for Stress and Strain, Fifth Edition. McGraw-Hill,
New York. pp 89 - 116