0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)

4 vizualizări11 paginiMay 04, 2020

264919870-Wrc-329-1987-Accuracy-of-Stress-Intensification-Factors-for-Branch-Connections-part3 (1).pdf

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)

4 vizualizări11 pagini264919870-Wrc-329-1987-Accuracy-of-Stress-Intensification-Factors-for-Branch-Connections-part3 (1).pdf

© All Rights Reserved

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 11

(branch moments shown for comparison)

c ~

(a) c (b)

2r

~1ode l R/T r/R t/T tn/T r/rp rz/tn

Mor H.Lr Mtr Mob Hi.b Mtb

UA 50.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.990 1.00 1. 10 4.62 4.35 16.6 7.00 1. 39

B 40.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.998 1.00 1.09 4.54 4.18 15. 1 6.54 1.32

c 20.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.976 1.00 1. 05 4.09 3.53 10.8 5.17 1. 2 5

D 10.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.955 1.00 1.04 3.60 3.41 5.77 3.28 1. 39

E 5.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.917 1.00 1.03 3. 1 7 2.79 3.50 2.64 1. 43

F' 5.5 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.917 6.25 1.04 3. 11 2.12 l. 27 1.36 1.02

SlA 50.5 0.5 0.5 4.34 0.861 0.500 1.04 2.19 2.98 11. 1 2.19 1. 16

B 40.5 0.5 0.5 4.01 0.843 0.500 1.04 2.23 2.87 9.84 2.09 1.16

c 20.5 o.s 0.5 3. 14 0.780 0.500 1.04 2.25 2.43 5.64 1. 51 1. 17

D 10.5 0.5 0.5 2.45 0.705 0.500 1.04 2.07 2. 11 2.81 1.42 1 • 16

E 5.5 0.5 0.5 1. 92 0.623 0.500 1. 03 2.07 1. 70 1. 56 1. 49 1. 1 3

F 20.5 0.32 0.32 2.56 0.732 0.500 1.04 2.36 2.01 2.56 1.22 1.06

G 10.5 0.32 0.32 1.98 0.649 0.500 1.04 2.23 1. 92 1. 43 l. 37 1.07

H 5.5 0.32 0.32 l. 52 0.563 0.500 1.03 2.08 1.68 1.39 1. 37 LOS

I 20.5 0.16 0.16 1. 88 0.646 0.500 1. OS 2.49 1.81 1.22 1. 2 3 1.02

J 10.5 0.16 0.16 1.43 0.555 0.500 1.04 2.38 l. 78 1.26 1.25 1.02

K 5.5 0.16 0.16 1. 08 0.468 0.500 1.02 2,33 1. 64 1.33 1. 32 1.03

L 20.5 0.08 0.08 1.38 0.551 o.soo 1.06 2.52 1.76 1.18 1.22 1.01

H 10.5 0.08 0.08 1. 03 0.459 0.500 1. 04 2.61 l. 7 5 1. 18 1. 21 1. 01

N 5.5 0,08 0.08 0.72 0.391 0.500 1.03 2.63 1.68 1 • 21 1.20 1.02

E'30A 50.5 0.32 0.32 3. 19 0.808 0.500 1.03 2.24 2.30 3.73 1. 19 1.08

B 20.5 0.32 0.32 2.13 0.743 0.500 1.04 2.39 2.13 1.84 1,24 1.08

c 10.5 0.32 0.32 1. 60 0.695 0.500 1. 03 2.27 1.97 1.39 1.32 1.07

D 5.5 0.32 0.32 1.23 0.659 0.500 1.03 2.05 1. 7 3 1.33 1.35 1.05

E 5.5 0.08 0.08 0.533 0.556 0.938 1. 03 2.68 1. 72 1. 19 1. 20 1. 01

(a) c #

2r

= a/ (H/Z r )

(b) Czb = o/(M/Zb)

Up to now, we have been discussing the accuracy of

i9liu = 3.75[(t/T)/(r/R)] 112 (r/rP).

i-factors for individual moments. In piping systems, a

Now, as an upper bound to i9/i11 the ratio (t/T)/(r/R) is branch connection will be subjected to the nine mo-

not likely to exceed 5, r/R is not permitted to exceed ments indicated in Fig. 3. Let us suppose that we could

0.5 and r/rp cannot exceed 1.0. Accordingly, determine accurate SIFs for each of the three individ-

ual branch moments, balanced by one end of the run

(ig/ill)max = 3.75 X 5 X 0.5 112 X 1.0 = 13. pipe. Then we might estimate the combined fatigue-

This means that use of Eq. (9) instead of Eq. (11) effective stress by:

might result in an overestimate of i-factors for check- SE =[i()M() + i,M, + itMtl/Zb (32)

ing run ends by a factor of up to 13.

To bound possible underestimates, (t/T)(r/R) is not or by

likely to be less than 1.0 and r/rp is not likely to be less SE -- [('LaM o)2

than 0.5. Then i 9/i 11 will be less than 1.0 if r/R is less

+ ('M)2

ti i + ('1t M t )2]1/2/Z b (33)

than (1/1.875) 2 = 0.284. However, even for R!T = 50 Equation (32) is an upper bound because it assumes

the maximum underestimate is by a factor of 1.544 and that the maximum fatigue stress due to each of the

this factor decreases to 1.50 at r/R = 0.213 because three moments occurs at the same point on the branch

both i 9 and i 11 are equal to their lower bounds. connection and lies in the same direction so as to add

Accordingly, the effect of including Eq. (11) in algebraically. However, we know that fatigue usually

ANSI B31.1 for "Branch connections" will almost al- initiates near the longitudinal plane for M 1b, but near

ways be to reduce the conservatism in checking the run the transverse plane for Mob· Equation (33) has a theo-

ends. retical foundation for straight pipe but for branch

Table 11. Finite element and strain gage data on run moments

(branch moments shown for comparison)

Ref.

Hodel Hethod R/T r/R t/T

no.

S.G. 2.3 3.8 10.0 35.3 10.0 12.5

ORNL-2 F.E. 49.5 1. 00 1. 00 5.9 10.1 37.5 17.8 15.2 37.5

S.G. 4.5 14.9 24.2 15.8 11.0 31.3

ORNL-3 F.E. 24.5 0.111 0.84 1• 1 2.5 5.6 7.3 5.6 0.6

S.G. 1.2 3.2 2.5 5.0 3.7 1.7

ORNL-4 F.E. 24.5 0.125 0.32 1. 0 3.1 5.1 7.6 7.2 1.0

S.G. 1.3 4.0 5.0 8.5 6.1 1.5

23 1 S.G. 20.7 1.00 1.00 3.68 8.03 6.8oc 9.33 12.14 1o. 4 9

2 s.G. 12.4 1.00 1.00 2.58 5.35 5 .18c 6.65 8.14 7.38

3 S.G. 7.6 1. 00 1. 00 1.68 3.48 3.55 4.14 4.48 4.36

4 S.G. 5.7 1.00 1. 00 1. 72 2.87 3.20 3.53 3.92 4.53

r or and Mir r tr

(b)

(c) Maximum and minimum principal stresses have same signs, except for these two cases:

a

max

= 6.68, a i

mn

= -6.80 ; a

max

-5.18, a i = 0.23

mn

connections it only represents a judgmental evalua- Figs. 14(d) and (e) illustrate other possible moment

tion of the effect of the three combined moments. combinations. Fig. 14(e) is the pure run moment case

ANSI B31.1 and the ASME Code both combine for which we do have some data as discussed in Section

stresses by: 4.4.

Fig. 14(d) illustrates the more complex case; the

SE = i[~ + MJ + A(;?jl 12/Z (34)

ASME Code Class 1 method of separating these into

To the extent that i = max(i 0 , ii, i1), which is generally branch moments and run moments is shown. The total

the intent, and for branch connections where io ii and i 1 calculated stress is then obtained by adding the stress-

are different, then Eq. (34) would be more conserva- es due to the branch moments to those due to the run

tive than Eq. (33). Both ANSI B31.1 and the ASME moments. ASME Code for class 2/3 piping and ANSI

Code also use Eq. (34) for run moments. Calculated Codes follow a conceptually different procedure in

values of S E for both the branch end and the run ends that each of the three ends is checked separately.

must be less than the Code allowable stress. Comparisons between these two conceptual methods

Fig. 14 illustrates a problem in evaluating combined is discussed in detail in Ref. 27 so we will not discuss it

moments. Figs. 14(a) and 14(c) show the combination further except to note that:

of moments for which we have i/s for branch moments. 1. The conceptual difference is significant only for

However, there is an infinity of possible run moments the type of moment combinations illustrated by

between (a) and (c) which will balance the branch Fig. 14(d).

moment and which might occur in piping systems, one 2. For a narrow range of branch connection parame-

of which is shown as (b). Fig. 14(b) is of particular ters and moments, the ASME Code Class 1 meth-

interest because 297 20 and Fujimoto 21 analyses are od is more conservative by a factor of up to two.

based on these run end conditions. 3. Neither conceptual method can be demonstrated

If a fatigue test were run with the end conditions to be accurate or even relatively more accurate.

shown in Fig. 14(b), would the resulting ir be different

from (a) or (c)? We do not have any such tests, but 4.6 Branch Connection Description Inconsistencies

would speculate that if r/R is less than about%, the In the quest for more accurate i-factors, a desirable

difference would be small. However, for r/R = 1.0 Code characteristic is that for a given configuration of

there might be a difference in that ir for Fig. 14(b) branch connection the Code should give the same i-

would be less than for (a) or (c). It is the latter that we factors. However, note the following:

have i/s for; hence, in this sense our i/s may represent

upper bounds. The ASME Code, Class 2/3 piping, for a UFT gives:

Table 12. Run moments, maximum stresses

2 2i, Eq. (11) 2i,

Hodel max. X Eq. (ll) Class 1' Model max. 2 X Class 1'

Eq. (4) Eq. (4)

(a) Eq. (30) (b) Eq • (30)

B 4.54 4.72 21.2 5.08 5.0 t 5.28 24.3 5.31

c 4.09 3.00 13.5 4.28 25-2 18.8 t (10.8) 24.3 (5.34)

D 3.60 3.00* 8.6 3.62 14.9 (10.8) 24.3 (5.34)

E 3.17 3.00* 5.6 3.08 25-3 2.8 t 3.00* 15.2 2. 70

F 3. 11 3.00* 5.6 3.08 3.2 3.00* 15.2 2. 70

25-4 3.1 3 .00* 15.2 3.54

S1A 2.98 t 5.46 24.6 3.13 4.0 3.00* 15.2 3.54

B 2.87 t 4.72 21.2 3.02

c 2.43 t 3.00 13.5 2.71 23-1 8.03 (6.03) 13.6 (4.29)

D 2. 11 t 3.00* 8.6 2.65* 23-2 5.35 (4.29) 9.7 (3.78)

E 2.07 3.00* 5.6 2.65* 23-3 3.48 (3. 09) 7.0 (3. 34)

F 2.36 3.00* 13.5 2.65* 23-4 2.87 (2.55) 5.7 (3.11)

G 2.23 3.00* 8.6 2.65*

H 2.08 3.00* 5.6 2.65*

I 2.49 3.00* 13.5 2.65*

J 2.38 3.00* 8.6 2.65*

K 2.33 3.00* 5.6 2.65*

L 2.52 3.00* 13.5 2.65*

a 2.61 3,00* 8.6 2.65*

N 2.63 3.00* 5.6 2.65*

B 2.39 3.00* 13.5 2.67

c 2.27 3.00* 8.6 2.65*

D 2.05 3.00* 5.6 2.65*

E 2.68 3.00* 5.6 2.65*

(a) From Table 10, maximum of c 2 ' for Mar• Mir' Mtr' Maximum is either from Mir or Mtr; where from

Mtr' value is followed by a 10 t".

(b) From table 11, maximum of c 2; for Mar' Mir or 1/2 of c 2; for Mtr" Maximum is either from Mir or

Htr; where from Htr' value Is followed by a "t",

r/R =tiT

i = 0.9(RIT) 213 , for checking run ends (36) Equation 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

(35) 1.22 2.44 3.66 4.89 6.11

The ASME Code, Class 213 piping, for a "Branch con- (37) 2.1 3.61 6.62 10.2 14.3

nection," gives: (36) 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2

(38) 2.1 2.17 3.26 4.34 5.43

ib = 3.0(RIT) 213 (riR) 112 (tiT) (r/r p)

;;::: 2.1 mimimum (37) We have discussed the relative accuracy of these SIF

equations elsewhere; our point here is that for geomet-

ir = 0.8(RIT) 213 (riR) rically identical branch connections the Code gives

different i-factors. A code user, not recognizing that a

;;::: 2.1 minimum (38)

UFT with rIR up to 0.5 is also covered by "Branch

We have written Eqs. (35)-(38) so that they are direct- connection," might do something unnecessary such as

ly comparable with respect to calculation of S e; i.e., adding a pad or changing the piping system. The Code

Eqs. (35) and (37) would be used with Zb Eqs. (36) and would be improved in this respect by adding a foot-

(38) would be used with Zr. We have written Eqs. (37) note, tied to UFT's, saying that for riR ~ 0.5, UFT's

and (38) for r 2-not-provided [see Table 1, footnote can alternatively be evalauted as "Branch connec-

6(h)] so that Fig. 2(d) is geometrically identical to a tions."

UFT. The i-factors for i(tiT) for Eq. (35)] for RIT = As indicated in Table 1, ANSI B31.3 incorporates a

50, riR =tiT, and rlrp = 0.99, are: commendable effort to distinguish between different

(unreinforced fabricated tees), if they are to meet

B:31.3, must be reinforced as required by paragraph

(a) Fatigue Test Moments 304.~3 of B3 U~ for the design pressure. We think that

most UFT's will meet both burst tests and paragraph

:304.3 for the designated wall thicknesses. We note that

-10 Table l(f) indicates an angle like On in Fig. 2(c), but

with no control of that angle; i.e., it could be zero. We

(b) Some A.n~tl.ysee Moments

presume this omission of a control on 0, is intentional;

i.e., it covers fittings such as indicated by Figs. 2(a)

-10 and (b) as well as (c). Our point is that, without a

control on 0,, it may also include UFT's Fig. 2(d).

0 _ __,__ _

10 (c) Fatigue Teat Moments Noting in Table 1 the differences in h, B31.3 indicates

that for geometrically identical branch connections,

-10 we might have SIFs that differ by a factor of (3.3) 2/:l =

-1Q _ _ L 20-

-10

(d) Branch and Run Combination

2.2.

4.7 ANSI B16.9 Tees, Sweepolets (Bonney Forge Trade

name)

+ -10_1_ 10 In order to keep this report from becoming even

more complex than it is, we have not given data on

0 ANSI B16.9 tees or Sweepolets. There is a fairly sub-

stantial amount of data on B16.9 tees. Data are avail-

(e) Pure Run Moments able for r!R = 1.0 and for r/R = "'-'0.5; but nothing in

10 -10

between. Accordingly, we do not know if there is a

Fig. 14-lllustration of combinations of branch and run moments peak in the SIF for Mob as suggested by Figs. 6, 7 and 8.

At present, plans are being made to fatigue test some 4

x 3, std. wt. ANSI B16.9 tees with Mob loadings. These

tees have an r/R ratio of 0.77 and should give some

indication as to whether a peak does exist.

types of branch connections. This, in the long run, will Sweepolets in sizes 12 x 6 and 14 x 10, both standard

provide improved Code guidance for adequate but not weight, have been fatigue tested with both Mob and

over-costly piping systems. However, there is an in- M,b loadings. The r/R ratio of these two sizes is 0.51

consistency between UFT's and the "Branch welded- and 0.76, respectively. The Mob tests indicate that

on fitting (integrally reinforced)" which merits some there is a peak somewhere around 0.75. The Mib tests

discussion. agree with the general relationship (see Figs. 6-10)

First, footnote 7 tied to "Welded-on" reads: "The that the it for M;b is much lower than for Mob and there

designer must be satisfied that this fabrication has a is no significant peak as a function of r/R.

pressure rating equivalent to straight pipe." Now,

there isn't anything simple about reducing-outlet 4.8 Stress Limit, Sx

branch connections so we ask the question: Which As indicated by Eq. (12), having calculated SE the

straight pipe, the run or the branch? We think the Code then provides a limit; SE.::::: Sx. The stress limit is

intent is the run pipe so that question could be an- an important part of assessing the significance of the

swered by inserting the word "run" before pipe in the accuracy of i-factors. The Codes prescribe the stress

footnote. The question then arises as to how the de- limit, Sx, as:

signer meets the requirement of footnote 7. Presum-

ably, the intent is that the designer orders fittings

from a manufacturer with a designated wall thickness where

(e.g., Sched. 40) with, perhaps, a requirement in his f = cycle dependent factor ranging from 1.0 for

purchase order that the fitting must have a pressure 7000 cycles to 0.5 for >100,000 cycles

rating equivalent to the desired schedule run pipe. Sc = allowable stress at cold temperature in cycle

There appears to be a couple of ways the manufac- sh = allowable stress at hot temperature in cycle

turer could assure himself and his customers that his Ss = sum of longitudinal stresses due to pressure,

fittings, when properly welded into designated run weight and other sustained loads.

pipe, would have a pressure rating equivalent to the

The significance of the stress limit is discussed in de-

run pipe:

tail in Ref. 27. For the purpose of this report, we make

1. Run burst tests. the following observations;

2. Show compliance with paragraph 304.3 of B31.3,

(1) For materials like ASTM A106 Grade B carbon

using designated wall thickness rather than cal-

steel at temperatures up to about 600 °F, with

culated by Eq. (2) of B31.3.

S, and S11 from the ASME Code or from B31.1,

Now the potential inconsistency arises because UFT's there is a margin between failure and Code a!-

lowable moments that ranges from about 8 for to the rigid-juncture interpretation of the Code guid-

100 cycles of moments to about 2 for 7000 or ance.

more of moments. Many piping For 1 piping, the ASME Code some guid·

do not undergo more than 100 cycles of full ance for flexibility of branch connection with r/R ~

moment range; hence, for those an un- 0.5, R/T ~ 50. This is shown herein as Fig. 15. This

derestimate of S E by up to a factor of 8 would provides a definition of k's that can be readily used in

not necessarily imply failure. piping system analysis computer programs. It should

(2) Observations in (I) are also applicable to aus- be noted that these k's have a lower bound of zero;

tenitic stainless steel materials like ASTM 312 hence, footnote 1 in Table 1 is not applicable.

Type 304 or Type 316. The significance of k depends upon the specifics of

(3) Observations (1) and (2) are predicated on the the piping system. Qualitatively, if k is small com-

assumption that environmental effects are no pared to the length (in d-units) of the piping system,

worse than the room temperature/water inside including the effect of elbows and their k-factors, then

environment of the fatigue tests. the inclusion of k for branch connections will have only

(4) Branch connections made of materials with val- minor effects on the calculated moments. Conversely,

ues of and sh that are higher than those for of course, if k is large compared to the piping system

ASTM A106 Grade Bare not necessarily better length, then inclusion of k for branch connections will

in low cycle fatigue strength than A106 Grade B; have major effects. The largest effect will be to greatly

hence, the margins indicated in (1) may be re- reduce the magnitude of the calculated moments act-

duced. ing on the branch connection.

(5) ANSI B31.3 uses a margin of 3 on ultimate ten- To illustrate the potential significance of k's for

sile strength (UTS) in establishing allowable branch connections, we use the equation in Fig. 15 to

stresses, Sc and Sh. The ASME Code and B31.1 calculate k for Mx3 ( = Mob) for a branch connection

use a margin of 4. For some materials/tempera- with Do= 30 in., d 0 = 12.75 in., T = t = tn = 0.375 in.:

tures; this means that the margins in (1) would

be decreased by a factor of 3/4.

kob = 0.1(80)1.5(0.425) 112 X 1.00 = 46.6

(6) For temperatures in the creep range, allowable Reference 28 includes examples of the effect of branch

stresses decrease because Sh in Eq. (39) de- connection k's on calculated moments in the piping

creases. However, it is not apparent that this system shown to scale in Fig. 15. In this particular

decrease reflects the actual decrease in low cycle example, using the rigid -joint interpretation that k =1

fatigue strength at temperatures involving rather than k = 46.6 leads to overestimating Mob by a

creep-fatigue. factor of about 9!

(7) The above observations are based on the hy- Of course, this example was selected to illustrate a

pothesis that only cyclic moments included in rather extreme k-effect. In most piping systems, the

theSE evaluation cause fatigue failures. Equa- effect would be much less than a factor of 9. Neverthe-

tion (39) provides some allowance for cyclic less, it illustrates our main point; we do not necessarily

pressures through the term S,, but none for cy- achieve greater accuracy in Code evaluations by using

clic thermal gradients. Fatigue failures due to more accurate i-factors unless more accurate k-factors

vibration of small piping sometimes occur but are also used.

vibration is seldom included in routine Code The example used above can be continued to illus-

evaluations of s£. trate what is wrong with using inaccurate k's. Refer-

4.9 Flexibility Factors ence 28 happened to calculate moments for the piping

In discussing the calculation of S E and the accuracy system shown in Fig. 15 for a temperature increase

of i-factors, we have been making an implicit assump- from 76° F to 500° F, carbon steel material. Fork = 0

tion that the moments shown in Fig. 3, which come (essentially equivalent to the rigid-juncture interpre-

from a piping system analysis, are accurate. However, tation of Code guidance), the calculated Mob is 368,000

present Code guidance for flexibility of branch con- in.-lb. The value of SE is then:

nections can be very inaccurate. If the Code guidance

is followed, there can be inaccuracies in the calculated SE = i(M/Zb) = [0.9/(T/R) 21:l]M/Zb

moments and, thus, in S E, that may be greater than = 10.4(368,000/45.1) = 84.9 ksi

that due to any of the inaccuracies in i-factors we have

discussed. This is well above the Code allowable stress Sx for

Table 1 shows flexibility factors, k, of "1" for all carbon steel (e.g., A106 Grade B, for which Sx = 37.5

branch connections. We do not know what this means ksi at most). However, if the piping system analysis

and no one that we have talked to does know. Many had been done using the more accurate k = 47, then

people interpret k = 1 to mean that the juncture of the S E = 84.9/9 = 9.4 ksi,

line representing the run pipe with the line represent-

ing the branch pipe is to be considered as rigid. In the and the branch connection is Code-acceptable because

preceding paragraph, where we indicated that the SE < Sx.

Code guidance can be very inaccurate, we are referring Let us follow the designer who believes that the

ND-3686.5 Branch Connections [n Straight Pipe.

(Foi branch connections in straight pipe meeting the

dimensional limitations of NB-3338.) The load dis-

placement relationships may be obtained by modeling

the branch connections in the piping system analysis

Fig. ND-3686.5-1.) Element of negligible length

with local flexibility for

(a) The values of k are given below.

Mx 3 and Mz 3 such that cf>

ForMx3: ecron the element Is equal

to kMdl£1.

k ,.. 0.1 (D IT, )U[(T, It" )(dID))"" (T'6 /T,)

For Mz 3:'

where

M=Mx3or Mzl• as defined in NB-3683.l(d) Rigid juncture

D= run pipe outside diameter, in.

d=branch pipe outside diameter, in.

lb=moment of inertia of branch pipe, in! (to be

calc:;ulated using d and T' b) FIG. NB-3686.5-1 BRANCH CONNECTIONS

E=modulus of elasticity, psi IN STRAIGHT PIPE

T,=run pipe wall thickness, in.

4> =rotation in direction of moment, rad

(b) For branch connections per Fig. NB-3643.3(a)-1 240 11

sketches (a) and (b): ;---.r' }-

1

r. • r. if Lt > 0.5[(2r1 + T6 )T.J""

• T'• if L1 < 0.5[(2r1 + T6 r ~

ri'" -·

/,on x0.375" !' I I

sketch (c):

12.75 11 X 0. 375 11

120 11 -__-:,J)

t,. ""T'• + (¥-l)y if 0 s 30 deg.

Example: See text

• T'• + 0.385L 1 if 0 > 30 deg. _:t

\ '"

sketch (d):

.f,•T',.=T,

Fig. 15-Fiexibility factors, definitions and equations from ASME Code for Class 1 piping, and example

Code guidance is good and that k = 1 for branch strength for the cyclic moment, Mob?

means: assume a rigid juncture. He is faced with the We do not know much about the flexibility of a pad

dilemma of changing the piping system in Fig. 15 so it reinforced branch but, since a pad is usually welded to

does meet the Code. He might consider changing the the run pipe at its inner and outer peripheries, the

piping such as sketched in dashed lines in Fig. 15. This flexibility might be estimated by using the equation in

would be very expensive, so the designer might look at Fig. 15 for Mob, but using 2.5T instead ofT. This would

the possibility of using a pad reinforcement. By using a give a flexibility factor of:

pad thickness of 1.5T, he can reduce the SIF to 4.14; kp (for M 0 b) e=: 46.6/(2.5) 2 = 7.5.

his calculated S E is then 33.8 ksi and this might meet

Code Sx limits. Let us suppose that it does and ask Now, from Ref. 28 data, fork of 8, it appears that the

what the designer has accomplished by using a pad. moments would be overestimated by a factor of

First, since this piping system is assumed to go up to a around 3 rather than a factor of 9 for k = 47. This

temperature of 500° F, the pad may cause high ther- means that the pad would cause the moments to in-

mal gradient stresses in the 30 in. pipe and thereby crease by a factor of about 9/3 = 3. Assuming that the

reduce its reliability. Has he improved the fatigue i-factors for UFT and pad reinforced branch indicate

at least their relative fatigue strength then the UFT to to the WFI tests, we had one point on the r/R-curve;

pad ratio is 10.4/4.14 = 2.5. However, since the mo- i.e., Markl's test included in Table 2. Combining this

ment increased by a factor of 3, the addition of the pad with the WFI tests, using the parameter (R/T) 21:l (t/

has decreased the fatigue resistance of the branch T), gives the 3 points shown in Fig. 16. These show

connection. directly that the Code i = 0.9(R/T) 2/:l for OFT's is

unconservative for r/R = 0.8 and suggests that there is

4.10 The Mob Inconsistency a peak somewhere in the range of r/R between 0.5 and

In the preceding, we have attempted to describe the 1.0.

complexity of trying to evaluate the fatigue strength of The Extruded outlets from Table 6 indicate a possi-

reducing outlet branch connections subjected to nine ble peak at around r/R = 0.5. To remind us of the

moment loadings. Hopefully, that attempt serves to limits of our knowledge, we have also shown Extruded

bring the Mob inconsistency into perspective. outlets from Table 3.

Looking at Figs. (6), (7) and (8), it would appear that The remaining points in Fig. 16 are for branch con-

there is no Mob inconsistency. But instead the Code i- nections which we think are intended to be covered by

factor equations do not reflect the complex relation- Table 1, sketch (f). It can be seen that the B31.3 Code

ship between r/R and stresses. The remaining ques- equation, i = [0.9/(3.3) 21:J](R/T) 21:l is unconservative

tion is: Do fatigue tests reflect the trends shown in for every point except the 4 x 4 sizes tests.

Figs. (6), (7) and (8)? One of the main initiators of the Mob inconsistency

To answer that question direclty, we would need a was the comparison between the 12 x 6 and 4 x 4 sizes

series of fatigue tests on, for example, UFT's with r/R in Table 13, Group D. The 6 x 4 point in Group D is

the only variable. We do not have any such series of inconsistent with theory which, as indicated in Figs.

fatigue tests. In their absence, we must assume a para- (6), (7) and (8), indicate a peak at r/R ""0.7.

metric relationship between ir and what we guess to be First, comparing Groups D and E, it shoud be noted

the significant parameters; e.g., R/T r/T and r/rp. that Group E specimens were fabricated by different

Table 13 summarizes relevant fatigue test data; rel- welders and test as-welded with a deliberate intent to

evant meaning a series of tests including r/R == 1.00 represent typical field conditions. Differences in weld

and one or more tests with r/R less than 1.00. The data details could fully explain the differences shown in

is plotted in Fig. 16. Fig. 16. However, the 8 x 8 size in Group E appears

Looking first at UFT's in Fig. 16, we note that prior anomalous in comparison to what would be expected

Fig. 16 if

Nominal . a

Type iden. and r/R R/T t/T r/rp l.f

size (R/T) 2 /3(t/T)

group iden.

UFT •A 8

12

X

X

6

10

0.764

0.839

12.9

16.5

0.870

0.973

0.958

0.966

5.84

8.34 2

1.22

1. 32

4 X 4 1.00 8.99 l. 00 0.947 2. 71 2 0.63

Table 6 B 8 X 4 0.537 5.50 0.330 0.947 1.48 4 1.44

6 X 4 0.703 5.39 0.422 0.947 1. 6 5 3 l. 27

4 X 4 0.943 4.71 0.494 0.947 1.49 4 1.07

Table 3 c 20 X 12 0.635 9.5 0.687 0.946 2.5 0.81

Table 3 D 6 X 4 0.672 11.3 0.846 0.627 2.203 0.52

4 X 4 1. 00 8.99 1. 00 o. 71 1. 69 7 0.39

Table 5 E 8 X 4 0.513 12.9 0.736 0.812 3.49 2 0.86

8 X 5 0.639 12.9 0.801 0.801 4.2o2 0.95

8 X 6 0.764 12.9 0.870 0.832 4. 73 3 0.99

8 X 8 1. 00 12.9 1. 00 0.852 5.19 3 0.94

5.1 General Recommendations

(1) The ASME Code (Class 2/3), B:n.J and B31.3

B should delete the meaningless "1" in the column

headed "Flexibility Factor, k" for branch connec-

tions or tees. A note should be added, tied to

branch connections/tees, such as;

"In piping system analyses, it may be assumed

that the flexibility is represented by a rigid

1,

joint at the branch-to-run centerlines juncture.

However, the Code user should be aware that

this assumption can be inaccurate and should

consider the use of a more appropriate flexibil-

ity representation."

(See discussion in Section 4.9)

(2) The ASME Code (Class 2/3) and B31.1 should

A e UFT

add a note to indicate that "Branch connection"

o. B I( Extruded, Table 6

1

C 1( Extruded, Table 3

is an acceptable alternative for unreinforced fab-

- D A lleld on, Table 3 ricated tees with r/R ~ 0.5; or delete the descrip-

E 0 \leld on, Table 5 tion of unreinforced fabricated tees. [See discus-

sion in Section 4.6 and Recommendation (10d).]

(3) B31.1 should correct the i-factors for "Branch

connection" to be the same as in the ASME Code

(Class 2/3), including the footnote in (2) above.

[See also Recommendation (10).]

(4) B31.3 should include i-factors for "Branch con-

nection" to be the same as in the ASME Code

Fig. 16-Relevant data on the Mob inconsistency

(Class 2/3), including the footnote of (2) above.

(The main purpose of this is to provide realistic

guidance for evaluating the runs of branch con-

nections, see discussion in Section 4.4.)

(5) B31.3 should, in some manner, eliminate the-in-

from theory or from other fatigue tests. We would have

dication that i = 1.0 for torsional moments ap-

expected the 8 x 8 size ir/[(R/T)2 13 (t/T)] to be around

plied to branch connections. One way to do this

0.5.

would be to adopt the resultant moment, single i-

In any event, the available data indicates that the

factor approach of ASME and B31.1. However,

B31.3 equation in Table l(f) is significantly unconser-

this would introduce significant over-conserva-

vative for reducing outlet Weld Ons and may be un-

tism for small r/R. An alternative which might be

conservative even for full outlet Weld Ons. However,

used is:

the unconservatism appears to be by a factor of not

more than about two. In relation to other inaccuracies (a) Revise B31.3 Eq. (17) to

we have mentioned (e.g., use of rigid-joint flexibility

SE = [S~ + (itS/)] 112 (40)

assumption and the B31.3 use of i = 1.00 for torsional

moments), the unconservatism of a factor of two is not (b) Revise definition of S 1 to:

particularly significant.

8 1 = MJZx (41)

5.0 Recommendations and Summary (c) Define i1 as:

Considering the complexity of the branch connec- (42)

tion problem and the sparsity of information for most

parts of the problem, the Codes have done a good job Footnote 1, i ~ 1.0, is applicable

of providing simple design guidance. However, as ad- (d) Define Zx as Zb for checking branch end, Zr

ditional information becomes available, such as that for checking run ends.

abstracted in this report, the Code committees may This could introduce some underestimates, but

wish to review and perhaps revise their design guid- these would be much less than using the present i

ance to more accurately reflect present information. = 1.00 and generally would be more accurate.

To assist Code committees in such a review and possi- (See discussion in Section 4.3.)

ble revisions, we have prepared a series of recommen- (6) B31.3 should consider deleting the use of ii =

dations. These are listed in what we consider to be an (0.75i 0 + 0.25) for branch connections/tees; i.e.,

appropriate order of priority. These recommenda- change to show the same factor as is presently

tions, in effect, summarize the contents of this report. done in (f) of Table 1. The main reason for this

suggestion is for evaluating run ends, where T) in place of i with i(t/T) ~ 1.0."

B31.3 gives the wrong relative magnitude for Mur (lOd) Delete the "Unreinforced fabricated tee" from

versus Mir· Also it underestimates the difference Code Fig. NC-3673.2(b)-L

between Mob and Mb for r/R between about 0.3 (11) Recommendations in (10) are deemed to be

and 0.95 and perhaps over-estimates the differ- equally applicable to ASME Code Subsection

ence for r/R below 0.2 and for r/R = 1.0 [See ND (Class 3 piping) and to ANSI B31.1

discussion in Section 4.4 and Recommendation (12) Changes to B31.~3 Analogous to Recommendation

(12).] (10)

(7) B31.1 and B31.3: Add a restriction to the Code i-

factor tables that indicates they are valid for R!T Recommendation (5) would bring the B31

~ 50. (See discussion in 4.2.1 on validity of R/T

treatment of torsional moments into better ac-

extrapolations.) cord with available data and also preserve the

(8) All Three Codes: Add a note for branch connec- B31.3 approach of keeping separate i's for M 0 , Mi

tions saying that i-factors are based on tests and/ and M 1• Recommendation (6) suggested deletion

or theories in which the branch connection is in of ii = (0.75 ip + 0.25) because it is incorrect for

straight pipe with about two or more diameters of evaluating run moments.

run pipe on each side of the branch. The effect of In keeping with the B31.3 approach, consider-

closely spaced branch connections may require ation might be given to a set of six SIFs: iob, iib, itb,

special consideration. This represents the cau- ior iir and tr· The fatigue test data indicate that iib

tion now in footnote 6(c); see Table 1 herein. Also can be significantly less than iob and B31.3 may

see Recommendation (10), in which the footnote wish to incorporate that difference into their

is shortened. SIFs.

(9) All Three Codes: Add a note for branch connec-

Figs. 9 and 10, in conjunction with available

Mib tests, suggests'the equation

tions/tees saying that i-factors are only applica-

ble where the axis of the branch pipe is normal to iib = 0.6(R/T) 213 [1 + 0.5(r/R) 3](r/rp),

within 5° of the surface of the run pipe. This

represents footnote 6(b); see Table 1 herein. The but not greater than iob (46)

i-factors do not cover laterals or hillside branch For branch connections with r 2 provided, use

connections. iib/2.

(10) Changes in the present ASME Code, Subsection Table 14 summarizes available Mib fatigue test

NC, for "Branch connection." This recommenda- data, previously given in Tables 2, 3, and 5. Cal-

tion consists of four interrelated portions. They culated values of iib(t!T) by Eq. (46) are shown.

are presented here and then discussed in Section Calculated values of ib(t/T) are also shown so

5.2. that the advantage in using separate iob and iib

(lOa) Change the stress intensification factor equa- can be seen for the test models. In general, for r/R

tions to: between about 0.5 and 0.9, iib ~ 0.6 iob· At r/R =

1.0 and for r/R < 0.16, iib = iob· These iobliib ratios

ib = 1.5(R/T) 213 (r/R) 112 (r/rp);

agree reasonably well with data directly from fa-

ib(t/T) ~ 1.5 for (r/R) ~ 0.9, (43) tigue tests where both ir for Mob and M;b are

available. But the ratios are less than might be

ib = 0.9(R/T) 213 (r/rp); inferred by comparing Fig. 6 and Fig. 9.

If B31.3 were to follow Recommendation (10),

ib(t/T) ~ 1.0 for (r/R) = 1.0, (44)

then Table l(c) and (f) should be removed; i.e.,

ir = 0.8 (R/T) 213 (r/R); 2.1 minimum (45) Eqs. (43)-(46) are intended to apply to both

where UFT's and Weld Ons.

lb = is to be used for checking the branch end and (13) In Fig. NC/ND-3683 2(b)-2 of the ASME Code,

linear interpolation is to be used for (r/R) be- delete the note:

tween 0.9 and 1.0; "If L1 equals or exceeds 0.5 vrr:rb then r ~ can

ir = is to be used for checking the run ends. be taken as the radius to the center of Tb."

(lOb) Change footnote (6), in its entirety, to: (See discussion at end of Section 4.1.)

"If a radius r 2 is provided that is not less than Detailed implementation of the above recommen-

the larger of Tb/2, (t~ + Y)/2 [Fig. NC-3673- dations would require considerable additional work.

2(b)-2 sketch (c)] or Tr/2, then the calculated Nomenclature and consistency with existing Code text

values of ib and ir may be divided by 2.0 but would vary with each specific Code. Appendix A is a

with ib ~ 1.5 and ir ~ 1.5. detailed implementation of the recommendations spe-

(Terminology is that of the ASME Code.) cifically for NC-3600 of ASME Code Section III. Anal-

(lOc) Change those portions of the Codes dealing with ogous changes for ND-3600 would be appropriate.

reduced outlets to say

5.2 Discussion of Recommendation (10)

"For checking branch ends, use Z = 1rr2t and i(t/ No change is intended for ir. We have simply rewrit-

Table 14. Mib comparisons, fatigue test and Eq. (46)

Source 1i b t/T

table Hodel R/T r/R t/T i ib t /T ib t/T

r/rp if (a) (b)

number f

UFT

2 4 X 4 8.99 1. 00 l.OO 0.947 2.34 3.68 1. 57 3.68

2 4 X 4 10.6 1.00 1.00 0.955 2.95 4. 15 1.41 4.15

2 4 X 4 22.0 1. 00 1. 00 0.978 6.12 6.91 1.13 6. 91

2 4 X 4 41.8 1. 00 l.OO 0.988 11.0 10.7 0.97 10.7

3 6 X 6 12.0 1.00 1. 00 0.960 3.62 4.53 l. 25 4.53

3 20 X 4 41.4 0. 19 7 1.00 0.942 2.67 6.79 2.54 7. 51

3 20 X 8 24.6 0.375 0.50 0.974 2. 7 5 2.54 o. 92 3.78

3 20 X 14 24.6 0.702 0.60 0.983 3.47 3.51 1. 01 6.27

3 20 X 20 41.4 1.00 l.Oa 0.988 6.90 10.6 1.54 10.6

5 8 X 6 12.9 a.764 a.87a a.958 l. 85 3.36 I. 82 6.01

Weld On

3 4 X 4 8.99 1. oa 1. oa o. 6 3 1.75 2.45 1.40 2. 45

3 4 X 4 8.99 1. 00 1. 00 0.79 1.!36 3.07 1.65 3.07

3 12 X 6 16.5 0.513 o. 7 4 7 0.675 1.28 2.09 1.64 3.51

3 8 X 4 12.9 0.513 a. 7 36 0.79 0.81 2.05 2.53 3.44

Insert

3 14 X 6 18.2 0.466 0.747 0.83 0.98 1. 35 1. 38 2.20

3 12 X 8 16.5 a. 6 71 a.859 a.82 1.52 l. 58 1.04 2.80

3 8 X 4 12.9 a.513 a.736 o. 775 1. oa 1.00 1.aa 1.69

5 12 X 6 16.5 a.513 a.747 0.86a 1.32 1. 33 1. at 2.24

5 12 X 8 16.5 o. 6 71 0.859 a.82a 1.31 1. 58 1. 21 2.80

5 12 X 8 16.5 0.671 a.859 a.874 1.53 1.68 1.10 2.99

ten the equation to cover the probably more common deemed prudent from available fatigue test data.

case of r 2-not-provided. Equations (43) for ib does not

Table 15 summarizes available Mob fatigue test

have the (t/T) factor but that is not really a change

data, previously given in Tables 2, 3 and 5. Calculated

because of (lOc). Note in this respect that the present

values of ib(t/T) by Eqs. (43) or (44) are shown. The

rather complex instructions for reducing outlets leads

right-most column shows the ratio of i6(t/T)/ir. Con-

to exactly the same SEas our recommended note: "For

sidering the scatter encountered in fatigue tests, we

checking branch ends, use i(t/T) in place as i and Z =

consider the correlation to be adequate. In particular,

Zb." By taking the (t/T) out of Eq. (43), this instruc-

the proposed ib adequately solves the Mob inconsisten-

tion applied to all branch connections/tees.

cy. Note that the 8 x 6 and 12 x 10 UFT's are encom-

The change in the equation for ib is intended to:

passed by ib, and the 12 x 6 Weld On is brought into

(a) Provide a single ib, conceptually the maximum of reasonable consistency with the 4 x 4 Weld Ons. Also

i0 b, i;b, i1b, for use with the resultant branch mo- note that an appropriate credit is given for an outer

ment. This is a continuation of present practice, fillet radius, rz; i.e., for the 20 x 6 and 20 x 12 Extruded

but the ASME might wish to consider adopting outlets and all Inserts.

the B31.3 concept of different i-factors; see Rec- While ib provides a good fit to the fatigue test data,

ommendation (12). it seems to pose an anomaly with respect to calculated

(b) Provide an ib that covers the relatively high i- stresses. Assuming that (R/T) 213 is an accurate param-

factors for Mob in the r/R range between about 0.5 eter, then the ib equation (for r/rp = 1) appears as

and 1.0. shown in Fig. 8. If Kzb =La, then we would expect it to

(c) Reduce the over-conservatism in ib to the extent be below the theoretical curve by a factor of 2.0. But

Table 15. Mob comparisons, fatigue test and Eqs. (43) or (44)

Source ib t/T

table Hodel R/T r/R t/T ib t/T

r/rp if (a)

number f

UFT

2 4 X 4 8.99 1.00 1.00 0.947 2.71 3.68 1. 36

3 20 X 12 9.5 0.635 0.687 0.946 3.9 3.48 0.89

5 8 X 6 12.89 0.764 0.870 0.958 5.84 6.01 1. 03

5 12 X 10 16.5 0.839 0.973 0.966 8.34 8.37 1.00

Weld On

3 4 X 4 8.99 1.00 1.00 0.63 1. 65 2.45 1. 49

3 4 X 4 8.99 1.00 1.00 0.79 1. 72 3.07 1. 79

3 6 X 4 11.33 0.672 0.846 0.63 2.20 3.31 1.50

3 6 X 4 11.33 0.672 0.846 0.63 1. 87 3.31 1.77

3 12 X 6 16.5 0.513 0.747 0.675 3.78 3.51 0.93

5 8 X 3 12.89 0.396 0.671 0.773 3.20 2.69 0.84

5 8 X 4 12.89 0.513 0.736 0.812 3.49 3.53 1.02

5 8 X 4 12.89 0.513 0.736 0.853 3.45 3.71 1. 07

5 8 X 5 12.89 0.639 0.801 0.801 4.20 4.23 1.01

5 8 X 6 12.89 0.764 0.870 0.832 4.73 5.22 1.10

5 8 X 6 12.89 0.764 0.870 0.868 3.95 5.44 1.38

5 8 X 8 12.89 1.00 1.00 0.852 5.19 4.22 0.81

Extruded

6 4 X 4 4.71 0.943 0.494 0.947 1.49 1. 60 1.07

6 6 X 4 5.39 0.703 0.422 0.947 1.65 1. 55 0.94

6 8 X 4 5.50 0.539 0.330 0.947 1.48 1.sob 1.01

6 16 X 4 7.26 0.285 0.230 0.947 1.23 1. sob 1. 22

3 20 X 6 9.5 0.326 0.432 0.935 1.2 1.50b,c 1. 25

3 20 X 12 9.5 0.635 0.687 0.946 2.5 1. 74c 0.70

Insertc

3 14 X 6 18.2 0.466 0.747 0.83 2.64 2.20 0.83

3 12 X 8 16.5 o. 671 0.859 0.82 2.18 2.80 1.29

3 8 X 4 12.9 0.513 0.736 0.775 1.89 1.69 0.89

5 12 X 6 16.5 0.513 0.747 0.819 2.25 2.13 0.95

5 12 X 6 16.5 0.513 0.747 0.860 2.44 2.24 0.92

5 12 X 8 16.5 0.671 0.859 0.820 2.75 2.80 1.02

5 12 X 8 16.5 0.671 0.859 0.800 2.25 2.74 1.22

5 12 X 8 16.5 0.671 0.859 0.874 2.41 2.99 1. 24

and (lOc); linear interpolation on 4 x 4 Extruded.

(b) == lower bound of 1. 5.

(c) = r2 provided.

## Mult mai mult decât documente.

Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.

Anulați oricând.