116 vistas

Cargado por Engineering Mechanics

fafa

- BD 90/05
- Wrc 329-1987 Accuracy of Stress Intensification Factors for Branch Connections_part4
- Wrc Buletin 297
- Formula b31 3
- ANSYS - Fatigue Analysis - Simulation - Confluence
- Notch Chapter 7
- BS5400 - 10
- IRJET-Fatigue Life of Tube and Header of Evaporator
- Masonry design for Lateral load
- saly ala muhamad wa al muhamad
- Confined concrete Stress strain
- ARMA05-819_Dynamic Simulation of Percussion Drilling_GangHan2
- Introduction to Fatigue
- KEY-FEATURES-v2_tcm155-203506.pdf
- A Comparison of Different Design Codes on Fatigue Life Assessment Methods
- v7i1
- BPUT_ME_Syllabus_123_new.pdf
- i y 3515411552
- Analysis and Design of Tractor Rear Axle Using Finite Element Method__52881
- Fatigue of Materials (MME 507)14

Está en la página 1de 11

(branch moments shown for comparison)

c

~1ode

R/T

UA

B

c

D

E

F'

SlA

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

J

K

L

H

N

r/R

t/T

tn/T

r/rp

rz/tn

(a)

2r

(b)

Mor

H.Lr

Mtr

Mob

Hi.b

Mtb

50.5

40.5

20.5

10.5

5.5

5.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.08

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.08

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.08

0.990

0.998

0.976

0.955

0.917

0.917

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

6.25

1. 10

1.09

1. 05

1.04

1.03

1.04

4.62

4.54

4.09

3.60

3. 1 7

3. 11

4.35

4.18

3.53

3.41

2.79

2.12

16.6

15. 1

10.8

5.77

3.50

l. 27

7.00

6.54

5.17

3.28

2.64

1.36

1. 39

1.32

1. 2 5

1. 39

1. 43

1.02

50.5

40.5

20.5

10.5

5.5

20.5

10.5

5.5

20.5

10.5

5.5

20.5

10.5

5.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.32

0.32

0.32

0.16

0.16

0.16

0.08

0.08

0,08

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.32

0.32

0.32

0.16

0.16

0.16

0.08

0.08

0.08

4.34

4.01

3. 14

2.45

1. 92

2.56

1.98

l. 52

1. 88

1.43

1. 08

1.38

1. 03

0.72

0.861

0.843

0.780

0.705

0.623

0.732

0.649

0.563

0.646

0.555

0.468

0.551

0.459

0.391

0.500

0.500

0.500

0.500

0.500

0.500

0.500

0.500

0.500

0.500

0.500

2.19

2.23

2.25

2.07

2.07

2.36

2.23

2.08

2.49

2.38

2,33

2.52

2.61

2.63

2.98

2.87

2.43

2. 11

1. 70

2.01

1. 92

1.68

1.81

l. 78

1. 64

1.76

1.68

11. 1

9.84

5.64

2.81

1. 56

2.56

1. 43

1.39

1.22

1.26

1.33

1.18

1. 18

1 21

2.19

2.09

1. 51

1.42

1. 49

1.22

l. 37

1. 37

1. 2 3

1.25

1. 32

1.22

1. 21

1.20

1. 16

1.16

1. 17

1 16

1. 1 3

1.06

1.07

0.500

0.500

1.04

1.04

1.04

1.04

1. 03

1.04

1.04

1.03

1. OS

1.04

1.02

1.06

1. 04

1.03

50.5

20.5

10.5

5.5

5.5

0.32

0.32

0.32

0.32

0.08

0.32

0.32

0.32

0.32

0.08

3. 19

2.13

1. 60

1.23

0.533

0.808

0.743

0.695

0.659

0.556

0.500

0.500

0.500

0.500

0.938

1.03

1.04

1. 03

1.03

1. 03

2.24

2.39

2.27

2.05

2.68

2.30

2.13

1.97

1. 7 3

1. 72

3.73

1.84

1.39

1.33

1. 19

1. 19

1,24

1.32

1.35

1. 20

1.08

1.08

1.07

1.05

1. 01

E'30A

B

c

D

E

(a)

(b)

Czb

2r

o.s

o.soo

l. 7 5

LOS

1.02

1.02

1.03

1.01

1. 01

1.02

a/ (H/Z r )

= o/(M/Zb)

can be written as

i9liu

not likely to exceed 5, r/R is not permitted to exceed

0.5 and r/rp cannot exceed 1.0. Accordingly,

(ig/ill)max = 3.75 X 5 X 0.5 112 X 1.0 = 13.

might result in an overestimate of i-factors for checking run ends by a factor of up to 13.

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

likely to be less than 1.0 and r/rp is not likely to be less

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

than (1/1.875) 2 = 0.284. However, even for R!T = 50

the maximum underestimate is by a factor of 1.544 and

this factor decreases to 1.50 at r/R = 0.213 because

both i 9 and i 11 are equal to their lower bounds.

Accordingly, the effect of including Eq. (11) in

ANSI B31.1 for "Branch connections" will almost always be to reduce the conservatism in checking the run

ends.

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

branch connection will be subjected to the nine moments indicated in Fig. 3. Let us suppose that we could

determine accurate SIFs for each of the three individual branch moments, balanced by one end of the run

pipe. Then we might estimate the combined fatigueeffective stress by:

SE =[i()M() + i,M,

+ itMtl/Zb

(32)

or by

SE -- [('LaM o)2

+ ('M)2

ti i

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

(33)

that the maximum fatigue stress due to each of the

three moments occurs at the same point on the branch

connection and lies in the same direction so as to add

algebraically. However, we know that fatigue usually

initiates near the longitudinal plane for M 1b, but near

the transverse plane for Mob Equation (33) has a theoretical foundation for straight pipe but for branch

25

Table 11.

Ref.

no.

25

(branch moments shown for comparison)

C '

Hodel

Hethod

R/T

ORNL-1

F. E.

49.5

0.49

0.50

49.5

1. 00

1. 00

24.5

0.111

0.84

24.5

0.125

0.32

r/R

F.E.

S.G.

ORNL-3

F.E.

1 1

1.2

S.G.

ORNL-4

F.E.

1. 0

1.3

S.G.

23

(a)

S.G.

s.G.

3

4

S.G.

S.G.

20.7

12.4

7.6

5.7

1.00

1.00

1. 00

1.00

3.68

2.58

1.68

1. 72

1.00

1.00

1. 00

1. 00

(b)

13.0

10.0

37.5

24.2

5.6

2.5

5.1

5.0

6.8oc

5 .18c

3.55

3.20

8.03

5.35

3.48

2.87

37.2

35.3

17.8

15.8

7.3

5.0

7.6

8.5

9.33

6.65

4.14

3.53

10.9

10.0

15.2

11.0

5.6

3.7

7.2

6.1

5. 1

12.5

37.5

31.3

0.6

1.7

12.14

8.14

4.48

3.92

1o. 4 9

1.0

1.5

7.38

4.36

4.53

a/(M/22 ) for H

a/(M/Z ) for M

or and Mir

5.7

3.8

10.1

14.9

2.5

3.2

3.1

4.0

2.7

2.3

5.9

4.5

S.G.

ORNL-2

(a)

t/T

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

connections it only represents a judgmental evaluation of the effect of the three combined moments.

ANSI B31.1 and the ASME Code both combine

stresses by:

SE = i[~

+ MJ + A(;?jl 12/Z

(34)

the intent, and for branch connections where io ii and i 1

are different, then Eq. (34) would be more conservative than Eq. (33). Both ANSI B31.1 and the ASME

Code also use Eq. (34) for run moments. Calculated

values of S E for both the branch end and the run ends

must be less than the Code allowable stress.

Fig. 14 illustrates a problem in evaluating combined

moments. Figs. 14(a) and 14(c) show the combination

of moments for which we have i/s for branch moments.

However, there is an infinity of possible run moments

between (a) and (c) which will balance the branch

moment and which might occur in piping systems, one

of which is shown as (b). Fig. 14(b) is of particular

interest because 297 20 and Fujimoto 21 analyses are

based on these run end conditions.

If a fatigue test were run with the end conditions

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

from (a) or (c)? We do not have any such tests, but

would speculate that if r/R is less than about%, the

difference would be small. However, for r/R = 1.0

there might be a difference in that ir for Fig. 14(b)

would be less than for (a) or (c). It is the latter that we

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

upper bounds.

26

-5.18, a i = 0.23

mn

combinations. Fig. 14(e) is the pure run moment case

for which we do have some data as discussed in Section

4.4.

ASME Code Class 1 method of separating these into

branch moments and run moments is shown. The total

calculated stress is then obtained by adding the stresses due to the branch moments to those due to the run

moments. ASME Code for class 2/3 piping and ANSI

Codes follow a conceptually different procedure in

that each of the three ends is checked separately.

Comparisons between these two conceptual methods

is discussed in detail in Ref. 27 so we will not discuss it

further except to note that:

1. The conceptual difference is significant only for

Fig. 14(d).

2. For a narrow range of branch connection parameters and moments, the ASME Code Class 1 method is more conservative by a factor of up to two.

3. Neither conceptual method can be demonstrated

to be accurate or even relatively more accurate.

4.6 Branch Connection Description Inconsistencies

Code characteristic is that for a given configuration of

branch connection the Code should give the same ifactors. However, note the following:

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

Table 12.

Table 10

Hodel

UA

c2;'

max.

(a)

Eq. (ll)

max.

Table 11

2i,

Eq. (4)

ASME

Class 1'

Eq. (30)

4.62

4.54

4.09

3.60

3.17

3. 11

5.46

4.72

3.00

3.00*

3.00*

3.00*

24.6

21.2

13.5

8.6

5.6

5.6

5.36

5.08

4.28

3.62

3.08

3.08

2.98 t

2.87 t

2.43 t

2. 11

E

F

G

H

I

2.07

2.36

2.23

2.08

2.49

2.38

2.33

2.52

2.61

2.63

5.46

4.72

3.00

3.00*

3.00*

3.00*

3.00*

3.00*

3.00*

3.00*

3.00*

3.00*

3,00*

3.00*

24.6

21.2

13.5

8.6

5.6

13.5

8.6

5.6

13.5

8.6

5.6

13.5

8.6

5.6

3.13

3.02

2.71

2.65*

2.65*

2.65*

2.65*

2.65*

2.65*

2.65*

2.65*

2.65*

2.65*

2.65*

3.50

3.00*

3.00*

3.00*

3.00*

24.6

13.5

8.6

5.6

5.6

3.02

2.67

2.65*

2.65*

2.65*

c

D

E

F

Model

c2;'

max.

(b)

25-1

25-2

25-3

25-4

S1A

B

J

K

a

N

P30A

2.30

2.39

2.27

2.05

2.68

c

D

E

Mtr' value is followed by a 10 t".

(b)

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

i(t/T)

= 0.9(RIT) 213 , for checking run ends

(36)

;;::: 2.1 mimimum

(37)

;;::: 2.1 minimum

Eq. (11)

(38)

We have written Eqs. (35)-(38) so that they are directly comparable with respect to calculation of S e; i.e.,

Eqs. (35) and (37) would be used with Zb Eqs. (36) and

(38) would be used with Zr. We have written Eqs. (37)

and (38) for r 2-not-provided [see Table 1, footnote

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

UFT. The i-factors for i(tiT) for Eq. (35)] for RIT =

50, riR =tiT, and rlrp = 0.99, are:

2i,

Eq. (4)

ASME

Class 1'

Eq (30)

5.28

5.28

(10.8)

(10.8)

3.00*

3.00*

3 .00*

3.00*

24.3

24.3

24.3

24.3

15.2

15.2

15.2

15.2

5.31

5.31

(5.34)

(5.34)

2. 70

2. 70

3.54

3.54

8.03

5.35

3.48

2.87

(6.03)

(4.29)

(3. 09)

(2.55)

13.6

9.7

7.0

5.7

(4.29)

(3.78)

(3. 34)

(3.11)

c 2;

for Mtr"

(35)

The ASME Code, Class 213 piping, for a "Branch connection," gives:

ib

6.5 t

5.0 t

18.8 t

14.9

2.8 t

3.2

3.1

4.0

23-1

23-2

23-3

23-4

(a)

max.

r/R =tiT

Equation

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

(35)

(37)

(36)

(38)

1.22

2.1

12.2

2.1

2.44

3.61

12.2

2.17

3.66

6.62

12.2

3.26

4.89

10.2

12.2

4.34

6.11

14.3

12.2

5.43

equations elsewhere; our point here is that for geometrically identical branch connections the Code gives

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

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

connection," might do something unnecessary such as

adding a pad or changing the piping system. The Code

would be improved in this respect by adding a footnote, tied to UFT's, saying that for riR ~ 0.5, UFT's

can alternatively be evalauted as "Branch connections."

As indicated in Table 1, ANSI B31.3 incorporates a

commendable effort to distinguish between different

27

(a)

(b)

Some

B:31.3, must be reinforced as required by paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noting in Table 1 the differences in h, B31.3 indicates

that for geometrically identical branch connections,

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

2.2.

-10

A.n~tl.ysee

Moments

-10

0 _

__,__ _

10

-10

-1Q _ _

20-

name)

-10

-10_1_

10

(e)

10

-10

provide improved Code guidance for adequate but not

over-costly piping systems. However, there is an inconsistency between UFT's and the "Branch weldedon fitting (integrally reinforced)" which merits some

discussion.

First, footnote 7 tied to "Welded-on" reads: "The

designer must be satisfied that this fabrication has a

pressure rating equivalent to straight pipe." Now,

there isn't anything simple about reducing-outlet

branch connections so we ask the question: Which

straight pipe, the run or the branch? We think the

intent is the run pipe so that question could be answered by inserting the word "run" before pipe in the

footnote. The question then arises as to how the designer meets the requirement of footnote 7. Presumably, the intent is that the designer orders fittings

from a manufacturer with a designated wall thickness

(e.g., Sched. 40) with, perhaps, a requirement in his

purchase order that the fitting must have a pressure

rating equivalent to the desired schedule run pipe.

There appears to be a couple of ways the manufacturer could assure himself and his customers that his

fittings, when properly welded into designated run

pipe, would have a pressure rating equivalent to the

run pipe:

1. Run burst tests.

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

using designated wall thickness rather than calculated by Eq. (2) of B31.3.

Now the potential inconsistency arises because UFT's

28

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

ANSI B16.9 tees or Sweepolets. There is a fairly substantial amount of data on B16.9 tees. Data are available for r!R = 1.0 and for r/R = "'-'0.5; but nothing in

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

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.

Sweepolets in sizes 12 x 6 and 14 x 10, both standard

weight, have been fatigue tested with both Mob and

M,b loadings. The r/R ratio of these two sizes is 0.51

and 0.76, respectively. The Mob tests indicate that

there is a peak somewhere around 0.75. The Mib tests

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

that the it for M;b is much lower than for Mob and there

is no significant peak as a function of r/R.

4.8 Stress Limit, Sx

Code then provides a limit; SE.::::: Sx. The stress limit is

an important part of assessing the significance of the

accuracy of i-factors. The Codes prescribe the stress

limit, Sx, as:

where

Sc = allowable stress at cold temperature in cycle

sh = allowable stress at hot temperature in cycle

Ss = sum of longitudinal stresses due to pressure,

weight and other sustained loads.

The significance of the stress limit is discussed in detail in Ref. 27. For the purpose of this report, we make

the following observations;

(1) For materials like ASTM A106 Grade B carbon

steel at temperatures up to about 600 F, with

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

there is a margin between failure and Code a!-

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

100 cycles of moments to about 2 for 7000 or

more

of moments. Many piping

do not undergo more than 100 cycles of full

moment range; hence, for those

an underestimate of S E by up to a factor of 8 would

not necessarily imply failure.

Observations in (I) are also applicable to austenitic stainless steel materials like ASTM 312

Type 304 or Type 316.

Observations (1) and (2) are predicated on the

assumption that environmental effects are no

worse than the room temperature/water inside

environment of the fatigue tests.

Branch connections made of materials with values of

and sh that are higher than those for

ASTM A106 Grade Bare not necessarily better

in low cycle fatigue strength than A106 Grade B;

hence, the margins indicated in (1) may be reduced.

ANSI B31.3 uses a margin of 3 on ultimate tensile strength (UTS) in establishing allowable

stresses, Sc and Sh. The ASME Code and B31.1

use a margin of 4. For some materials/temperatures; this means that the margins in (1) would

be decreased by a factor of 3/4.

For temperatures in the creep range, allowable

stresses decrease because Sh in Eq. (39) decreases. However, it is not apparent that this

decrease reflects the actual decrease in low cycle

fatigue strength at temperatures involving

creep-fatigue.

The above observations are based on the hypothesis that only cyclic moments included in

theSE evaluation cause fatigue failures. Equation (39) provides some allowance for cyclic

pressures through the term S,, but none for cyclic thermal gradients. Fatigue failures due to

vibration of small piping sometimes occur but

vibration is seldom included in routine Code

evaluations of s.

of i-factors, we have been making an implicit assumption that the moments shown in Fig. 3, which come

from a piping system analysis, are accurate. However,

present Code guidance for flexibility of branch connections can be very inaccurate. If the Code guidance

is followed, there can be inaccuracies in the calculated

moments and, thus, in S E, that may be greater than

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

discussed.

Table 1 shows flexibility factors, k, of "1" for all

branch connections. We do not know what this means

and no one that we have talked to does know. Many

people interpret k = 1 to mean that the juncture of the

line representing the run pipe with the line representing the branch pipe is to be considered as rigid. In the

preceding paragraph, where we indicated that the

Code guidance can be very inaccurate, we are referring

For

1 piping, the ASME Code

some guid

ance for flexibility of branch connection with r/R ~

0.5, R/T ~ 50. This is shown herein as Fig. 15. This

provides a definition of k's that can be readily used in

piping system analysis computer programs. It should

be noted that these k's have a lower bound of zero;

hence, footnote 1 in Table 1 is not applicable.

The significance of k depends upon the specifics of

the piping system. Qualitatively, if k is small compared to the length (in d-units) of the piping system,

including the effect of elbows and their k-factors, then

the inclusion of k for branch connections will have only

minor effects on the calculated moments. Conversely,

of course, if k is large compared to the piping system

length, then inclusion of k for branch connections will

have major effects. The largest effect will be to greatly

reduce the magnitude of the calculated moments acting on the branch connection.

To illustrate the potential significance of k's for

branch connections, we use the equation in Fig. 15 to

calculate k for Mx3 ( = Mob) for a branch connection

with Do= 30 in., d 0 = 12.75 in., T = t = tn = 0.375 in.:

0.1(80)1.5(0.425) 112 X 1.00

kob =

= 46.6

connection k's on calculated moments in the piping

system shown to scale in Fig. 15. In this particular

example, using the rigid -joint interpretation that k =1

rather than k = 46.6 leads to overestimating Mob by a

factor of about 9!

Of course, this example was selected to illustrate a

rather extreme k-effect. In most piping systems, the

effect would be much less than a factor of 9. Nevertheless, it illustrates our main point; we do not necessarily

achieve greater accuracy in Code evaluations by using

more accurate i-factors unless more accurate k-factors

are also used.

The example used above can be continued to illustrate what is wrong with using inaccurate k's. Reference 28 happened to calculate moments for the piping

system shown in Fig. 15 for a temperature increase

from 76 F to 500 F, carbon steel material. Fork = 0

(essentially equivalent to the rigid-juncture interpretation of Code guidance), the calculated Mob is 368,000

in.-lb. The value of SE is then:

This is well above the Code allowable stress Sx for

carbon steel (e.g., A106 Grade B, for which Sx = 37.5

ksi at most). However, if the piping system analysis

had been done using the more accurate k = 47, then

S E = 84.9/9

= 9.4 ksi,

SE < Sx.

Let us follow the designer who believes that the

29

(Foi branch connections in straight pipe meeting the

dimensional limitations of NB-3338.) The load displacement relationships may be obtained by modeling

the branch connections in the piping system analysis

(NB-3672) as shown in (a) through

Fig. ND-3686.5-1.)

(a) The values of k are given below.

ForMx3:

~d)

below. (See

Element of negligible length

with local flexibility for

Mx 3 and Mz 3 such that cf>

ecron the element Is equal

to kMdl1.

For Mz 3:'

k ... 0.2(D!T,)l(T,It.)(d!D)J"" (T' 6 /T,)

where

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)

E=modulus of elasticity, psi

T,=run pipe wall thickness, in.

4> =rotation in direction of moment, rad

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

sketches (a) and (b):

r.

r.

Rigid juncture

IN STRAIGHT PIPE

240 11

;---.r'

}-

if

T'

Lt

if

L1

< 0.5[(2r1 + T6

ri'" -

/,on x0.375"

sketch (c):

+ (-l)y if 0 s 30 deg.

T' + 0.385L 1 if 0 > 30 deg.

t,. ""T'

!'

12.75 11

I I

-__-:,J)

0. 375 11

120 11

Example:

See text

_:t

\

'"

sketch (d):

.f,T',.=T,

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

means: assume a rigid juncture. He is faced with the

dilemma of changing the piping system in Fig. 15 so it

does meet the Code. He might consider changing the

piping such as sketched in dashed lines in Fig. 15. This

would be very expensive, so the designer might look at

the possibility of using a pad reinforcement. By using a

pad thickness of 1.5T, he can reduce the SIF to 4.14;

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

Code Sx limits. Let us suppose that it does and ask

what the designer has accomplished by using a pad.

First, since this piping system is assumed to go up to a

temperature of 500 F, the pad may cause high thermal gradient stresses in the 30 in. pipe and thereby

reduce its reliability. Has he improved the fatigue

30

We do not know much about the flexibility of a pad

reinforced branch but, since a pad is usually welded to

the run pipe at its inner and outer peripheries, the

flexibility might be estimated by using the equation in

Fig. 15 for Mob, but using 2.5T instead ofT. This would

give a flexibility factor of:

kp (for M 0 b)

e=:

46.6/(2.5) 2 = 7.5.

moments would be overestimated by a factor of

around 3 rather than a factor of 9 for k = 47. This

means that the pad would cause the moments to increase by a factor of about 9/3 = 3. Assuming that the

i-factors for UFT and pad reinforced branch indicate

pad ratio is 10.4/4.14 = 2.5. However, since the moment increased by a factor of 3, the addition of the pad

has decreased the fatigue resistance of the branch

connection.

4.10 The

Mob

Inconsistency

complexity of trying to evaluate the fatigue strength of

reducing outlet branch connections subjected to nine

moment loadings. Hopefully, that attempt serves to

bring the Mob inconsistency into perspective.

Looking at Figs. (6), (7) and (8), it would appear that

there is no Mob inconsistency. But instead the Code ifactor equations do not reflect the complex relationship between r/R and stresses. The remaining question is: Do fatigue tests reflect the trends shown in

Figs. (6), (7) and (8)?

To answer that question direclty, we would need a

series of fatigue tests on, for example, UFT's with r/R

the only variable. We do not have any such series of

fatigue tests. In their absence, we must assume a parametric relationship between ir and what we guess to be

the significant parameters; e.g., R/T r/T and r/rp.

Table 13 summarizes relevant fatigue test data; relevant meaning a series of tests including r/R == 1.00

and one or more tests with r/R less than 1.00. The data

is plotted in Fig. 16.

Looking first at UFT's in Fig. 16, we note that prior

i.e., Markl's test included in Table 2. Combining this

with the WFI tests, using the parameter (R/T) 21:l (t/

T), gives the 3 points shown in Fig. 16. These show

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

a peak somewhere in the range of r/R between 0.5 and

1.0.

The Extruded outlets from Table 6 indicate a possible peak at around r/R = 0.5. To remind us of the

limits of our knowledge, we have also shown Extruded

outlets from Table 3.

The remaining points in Fig. 16 are for branch connections which we think are intended to be covered by

Table 1, sketch (f). It can be seen that the B31.3 Code

equation, i = [0.9/(3.3) 21:J](R/T) 21:l is unconservative

for every point except the 4 x 4 sizes tests.

One of the main initiators of the Mob inconsistency

was the comparison between the 12 x 6 and 4 x 4 sizes

in Table 13, Group D. The 6 x 4 point in Group D is

inconsistent with theory which, as indicated in Figs.

(6), (7) and (8), indicate a peak at r/R ""0.7.

First, comparing Groups D and E, it shoud be noted

that Group E specimens were fabricated by different

welders and test as-welded with a deliberate intent to

represent typical field conditions. Differences in weld

details could fully explain the differences shown in

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

anomalous in comparison to what would be expected

Type

Fig. 16

iden. and

group iden.

UFT

Extruded

Table 6

Extruded

Table 3

Weld on

Table 3

Weld on

Table 5

X

B

X'

c

{:,

0

E

Nominal

size

8

12

4

16

8

6

4

20

20

12

6

4

8

8

8

8

8

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

r/R

R/T

t/T

6

10

4

0.764

0.839

1.00

12.9

16.5

8.99

4

4

4

4

0.285

0.537

0.703

0.943

6

12

. a

if

r/rp

l.f

0.870

0.973

l. 00

0.958

0.966

0.947

5.84

8.34 2

2. 71 2

1.22

1. 32

0.63

7.26

5.50

5.39

4.71

0.230

0.330

0.422

0.494

0.947

0.947

0.947

0.947

1. 235

1.48 4

1. 6 5 3

1.49 4

l. 42

1.44

l. 27

1.07

0.326

0.635

9.5

9.5

0.432

0.687

0.935

0.946

1.2

2.5

0.62

0.81

6

4

4

0.513

0.672

1. 00

16.5

11.3

8.99

0.747

0.846

1. 00

O.G75

0.627

o. 71

3.78 6

2.203

1. 69 7

0.78

0.52

0.39

3

4

5

6

8

0.396

0.513

0.639

0.764

1. 00

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

12.9

o. 671

0.736

0.801

0.870

1. 00

o. 773

0.812

0.801

0.832

0.852

3.20 2

3.49 2

4.2o2

4. 73 3

5.19 3

0.87

0.86

0.95

0.99

0.94

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

31

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

headed "Flexibility Factor, k" for branch connections or tees. A note should be added, tied to

branch connections/tees, such as;

that the flexibility is represented by a rigid

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 flexibility representation."

1,

o.

UFT

B I( Extruded, Table 6

1

C 1( Extruded, Table 3

E

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

0.5.

In any event, the available data indicates that the

B31.3 equation in Table l(f) is significantly unconservative for reducing outlet Weld Ons and may be unconservative even for full outlet Weld Ons. However,

the unconservatism appears to be by a factor of not

more than about two. In relation to other inaccuracies

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

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

moments), the unconservatism of a factor of two is not

particularly significant.

5.0 Recommendations and Summary

(40)

8 1 = MJZx

(41)

Considering the complexity of the branch connection problem and the sparsity of information for most

parts of the problem, the Codes have done a good job

of providing simple design guidance. However, as additional information becomes available, such as that

abstracted in this report, the Code committees may

wish to review and perhaps revise their design guidance to more accurately reflect present information.

To assist Code committees in such a review and possible revisions, we have prepared a series of recommendations. These are listed in what we consider to be an

appropriate order of priority. These recommendations, in effect, summarize the contents of this report.

32

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

add a note to indicate that "Branch connection"

is an acceptable alternative for unreinforced fabricated tees with r/R ~ 0.5; or delete the description of unreinforced fabricated tees. [See discussion 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 connection" to be the same as in the ASME Code

(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 connections, see discussion in Section 4.4.)

(5) B31.3 should, in some manner, eliminate the-indication that i = 1.0 for torsional moments applied to branch connections. One way to do this

would be to adopt the resultant moment, single ifactor approach of ASME and B31.1. However,

this would introduce significant over-conservatism for small r/R. An alternative which might be

used is:

(42)

Footnote 1, i ~ 1.0, is applicable

(d) Define Zx as Zb for checking branch end, Zr

for checking run ends.

This could introduce some underestimates, but

these would be much less than using the present i

= 1.00 and generally would be more accurate.

(See discussion in Section 4.3.)

(6) B31.3 should consider deleting the use of ii =

(0.75i 0 + 0.25) for branch connections/tees; i.e.,

change to show the same factor as is presently

done in (f) of Table 1. The main reason for this

B31.3 gives the wrong relative magnitude for Mur

versus Mir Also it underestimates the difference

between Mob and Mb for r/R between about 0.3

and 0.95 and perhaps over-estimates the difference for r/R below 0.2 and for r/R = 1.0 [See

discussion in Section 4.4 and Recommendation

(12).]

(7) B31.1 and B31.3: Add a restriction to the Code ifactor tables that indicates they are valid for R!T

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

extrapolations.)

(8) All Three Codes: Add a note for branch connections saying that i-factors are based on tests and/

or theories in which the branch connection is in

straight pipe with about two or more diameters of

run pipe on each side of the branch. The effect of

closely spaced branch connections may require

special consideration. This represents the caution now in footnote 6(c); see Table 1 herein. Also

see Recommendation (10), in which the footnote

is shortened.

(9) All Three Codes: Add a note for branch connections/tees saying that i-factors are only applicable where the axis of the branch pipe is normal to

within 5 of the surface of the run pipe. This

represents footnote 6(b); see Table 1 herein. The

i-factors do not cover laterals or hillside branch

connections.

(10) Changes in the present ASME Code, Subsection

NC, for "Branch connection." This recommendation consists of four interrelated portions. They

are presented here and then discussed in Section

5.2.

(lOa) Change the stress intensification factor equations to:

ib(t/T)

ib

1.5

for (r/R)

0.9,

(43)

for (r/R)

= 1.0,

(44)

ib(t/T)

ir

1.0

2.1 minimum

(45)

where

linear interpolation is to be used for (r/R) between 0.9 and 1.0;

ir = is to be used for checking the run ends.

(lOb) Change footnote (6), in its entirety, to:

"If a radius r 2 is provided that is not less than

the larger of Tb/2, (t~ + Y)/2 [Fig. NC-36732(b)-2 sketch (c)] or Tr/2, then the calculated

values of ib and ir may be divided by 2.0 but

with ib ~ 1.5 and ir ~ 1.5.

(Terminology is that of the ASME Code.)

(lOc) Change those portions of the Codes dealing with

reduced outlets to say

lb

(lOd) Delete the "Unreinforced fabricated tee" from

Code Fig. NC-3673.2(b)-L

(11) Recommendations in (10) are deemed to be

equally applicable to ASME Code Subsection

ND (Class 3 piping) and to ANSI B31.1

(12) Changes to B31.~3 Analogous to Recommendation

(10)

Recommendation (5) would bring the B31

treatment of torsional moments into better accord with available data and also preserve the

B31.3 approach of keeping separate i's for M 0 , Mi

and M 1 Recommendation (6) suggested deletion

of ii = (0.75 ip + 0.25) because it is incorrect for

evaluating run moments.

In keeping with the B31.3 approach, consideration might be given to a set of six SIFs: iob, iib, itb,

ior iir and tr The fatigue test data indicate that iib

can be significantly less than iob and B31.3 may

wish to incorporate that difference into their

SIFs.

Figs. 9 and 10, in conjunction with available

Mib tests, suggests'the equation

iib =

0.6(R/T) 213 [1

+ 0.5(r/R) 3](r/rp),

(46)

For branch connections with r 2 provided, use

iib/2.

Table 14 summarizes available Mib fatigue test

data, previously given in Tables 2, 3, and 5. Calculated values of iib(t!T) by Eq. (46) are shown.

Calculated values of ib(t/T) are also shown so

that the advantage in using separate iob and iib

can be seen for the test models. In general, for r/R

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

agree reasonably well with data directly from fatigue tests where both ir for Mob and M;b are

available. But the ratios are less than might be

inferred by comparing Fig. 6 and Fig. 9.

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

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

Eqs. (43)-(46) are intended to apply to both

UFT's and Weld Ons.

(13) In Fig. NC/ND-3683 2(b)-2 of the ASME Code,

delete the note:

"If L1 equals or exceeds 0.5 vrr:rb then r ~ can

be taken as the radius to the center of Tb."

(See discussion at end of Section 4.1.)

Detailed implementation of the above recommendations would require considerable additional work.

Nomenclature and consistency with existing Code text

would vary with each specific Code. Appendix A is a

detailed implementation of the recommendations specifically for NC-3600 of ASME Code Section III. Analogous changes for ND-3600 would be appropriate.

5.2 Discussion of Recommendation (10)

33

Table 14.

Source

table

number

Hodel

R/T

r/R

t/T

r/rp

i ib t /T

(a)

if

1i b t/T

f

ib t/T

(b)

UFT

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

5

4

4

4

4

6

20

20

20

20

8

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

4

4

4

4

6

4

8

14

20

6

8.99

10.6

22.0

41.8

12.0

41.4

24.6

24.6

41.4

12.9

1. 00

1.00

0.50

0.60

l.Oa

a.87a

0.947

0.955

0.978

0.988

0.960

0.942

0.974

0.983

0.988

a.958

2.34

2.95

6.12

11.0

3.62

2.67

2. 7 5

3.47

6.90

l. 85

3.68

4. 15

6.91

10.7

4.53

6.79

2.54

3.51

10.6

3.36

o. 6 3

0.79

0.675

0.79

1.75

1.!36

1.28

0.81

0.83

a.82

o. 775

0.86a

a.82a

a.874

0.98

1.52

1. oa

1.32

1.31

1.53

1. 00

l.OO

1.00

1. 00

1. 00

1.00

0. 19 7

0.375

0.702

1.00

a.764

1.00

1. 00

1. oa

1. 00

l.OO

I. 82

3.68

4.15

6. 91

10.7

4.53

7. 51

3.78

6.27

10.6

6.01

2.45

3.07

2.09

2.05

1.40

1.65

1.64

2.53

2. 45

3.07

3.51

3.44

1. 35

l. 58

1. 38

1.04

1.aa

1. at

1. 21

1.10

2.20

2.80

1.69

2.24

2.80

2.99

1. 57

1.41

1.13

0.97

l. 25

2.54

o. 92

1. 01

1.54

Weld On

3

3

3

3

4

4

12

8

4

6

4

X

X

8.99

8.99

16.5

12.9

0.513

0.513

1. oa

1. 00

o. 7 4 7

a. 7 36

18.2

16.5

12.9

16.5

16.5

16.5

0.466

a. 6 71

a.513

a.513

o. 6 71

0.671

0.747

a.859

a.736

a.747

0.859

a.859

Insert

14

3

3

5

12

8

12

12

12

5

5

X

X

X

6

8

4

6

8

8

rz

(a)

(b)

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

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

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

rather complex instructions for reducing outlets leads

to exactly the same SEas our recommended note: "For

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

Zb." By taking the (t/T) out of Eq. (43), this instruction applied to all branch connections/tees.

The change in the equation for ib is intended to:

(a) Provide a single ib, conceptually the maximum of

i0 b, i;b, i1b, for use with the resultant branch moment. This is a continuation of present practice,

but the ASME might wish to consider adopting

the B31.3 concept of different i-factors; see Recommendation (12).

(b) Provide an ib that covers the relatively high ifactors for Mob in the r/R range between about 0.5

and 1.0.

(c) Reduce the over-conservatism in ib to the extent

34

1.00

1. 33

1. 58

1.68

provided.

rz

provided.

Table 15 summarizes available Mob fatigue test

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

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

right-most column shows the ratio of i6(t/T)/ir. Considering the scatter encountered in fatigue tests, we

consider the correlation to be adequate. In particular,

the proposed ib adequately solves the Mob inconsistency. Note that the 8 x 6 and 12 x 10 UFT's are encompassed by ib, and the 12 x 6 Weld On is brought into

reasonable consistency with the 4 x 4 Weld Ons. Also

note that an appropriate credit is given for an outer

fillet radius, rz; i.e., for the 20 x 6 and 20 x 12 Extruded

outlets and all Inserts.

While ib provides a good fit to the fatigue test data,

it seems to pose an anomaly with respect to calculated

stresses. Assuming that (R/T) 213 is an accurate parameter, then the ib equation (for r/rp = 1) appears as

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

be below the theoretical curve by a factor of 2.0. But

Table 15.

Source

table

number

Hodel

R/T

r/R

t/T

r/rp

if

ib t/T

(a)

ib t/T

UFT

2

3

5

5

4

20

8

12

X

X

X

X

4

12

6

10

8.99

9.5

12.89

16.5

1.00

0.635

0.764

0.839

1.00

0.687

0.870

0.973

0.947

0.946

0.958

0.966

2.71

3.9

5.84

8.34

3.68

3.48

6.01

8.37

1. 36

0.89

1. 03

1.00

8.99

8.99

11.33

11.33

16.5

12.89

12.89

12.89

12.89

12.89

12.89

12.89

1.00

1.00

0.672

0.672

0.513

0.396

0.513

0.513

0.639

0.764

0.764

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.846

0.846

0.747

0.671

0.736

0.736

0.801

0.870

0.870

1.00

0.63

0.79

0.63

0.63

0.675

0.773

0.812

0.853

0.801

0.832

0.868

0.852

1. 65

1. 72

2.20

1. 87

3.78

3.20

3.49

3.45

4.20

4.73

3.95

5.19

2.45

3.07

3.31

3.31

3.51

2.69

3.53

3.71

4.23

5.22

5.44

4.22

1. 49

1. 79

1.50

1.77

0.93

0.84

1.02

1. 07

1.01

1.10

1.38

0.81

4.71

5.39

5.50

7.26

9.5

9.5

0.943

0.703

0.539

0.285

0.326

0.635

0.494

0.422

0.330

0.230

0.432

0.687

0.947

0.947

0.947

0.947

0.935

0.946

1.49

1.65

1.48

1.23

1.2

2.5

1. 60

1. 55

1.sob

1. sob

1.50b,c

1. 74c

1.07

0.94

1.01

1. 22

1. 25

0.70

0.466

o. 671

0.513

0.513

0.513

0.671

0.671

0.671

0.747

0.859

0.736

0.747

0.747

0.859

0.859

0.859

0.83

0.82

0.775

0.819

0.860

0.820

0.800

0.874

2.64

2.18

1.89

2.25

2.44

2.75

2.25

2.41

2.20

2.80

1.69

2.13

2.24

2.80

2.74

2.99

0.83

1.29

0.89

0.95

0.92

1.02

1.22

1. 24

Weld On

3

3

3

3

3

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

4

4

6

6

12

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

4

4

4

4

6

3

4

4

5

6

6

8

Extruded

4

6

8

16

20

20

6

6

6

6

3

3

X

X

X

X

X

4

4

4

4

6

12

Insertc

14

12

8

12

12

12

12

12

3

3

3

5

5

5

5

5

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

6

8

4

6

6

8

8

8

18.2

16.5

12.9

16.5

16.5

16.5

16.5

16.5

(a)

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

(b)

==

lower bound of 1. 5.

(c)

r2 provided.

35

- BD 90/05Cargado porferasalkam
- Wrc 329-1987 Accuracy of Stress Intensification Factors for Branch Connections_part4Cargado porEngineering Mechanics
- Wrc Buletin 297Cargado porSofia Rodrigues
- Formula b31 3Cargado poraman131
- ANSYS - Fatigue Analysis - Simulation - ConfluenceCargado porAnush Jk
- Notch Chapter 7Cargado pormre2006
- BS5400 - 10Cargado porMhd Thr
- IRJET-Fatigue Life of Tube and Header of EvaporatorCargado porIRJET Journal
- Masonry design for Lateral loadCargado porMeganathan Mega
- saly ala muhamad wa al muhamadCargado porSaad Al Hely
- Confined concrete Stress strainCargado porRoscii Rulez
- ARMA05-819_Dynamic Simulation of Percussion Drilling_GangHan2Cargado porSiva Prasad
- Introduction to FatigueCargado porVictor Rizal Filosofi
- KEY-FEATURES-v2_tcm155-203506.pdfCargado porMuhammad Ghufran Khan
- A Comparison of Different Design Codes on Fatigue Life Assessment MethodsCargado porkhaireddin
- v7i1Cargado porOscar Wong Chong
- BPUT_ME_Syllabus_123_new.pdfCargado porkdsahoo
- i y 3515411552Cargado porAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Analysis and Design of Tractor Rear Axle Using Finite Element Method__52881Cargado porZulfadzli Ridzuan
- Fatigue of Materials (MME 507)14Cargado porKarthik Honnappa Surya
- Hardened ConcreteCargado porEng Aidaruos Abdi Matan
- Technical FeasibiltyCargado porHemant Kanuga
- johnson2[1]Cargado porJulio Tovar
- TRISPIRAL XT39 (3) (1)Cargado porCerón Niño Santiago
- InTech-Design Manufacturing and Testing of Polymer Composite Multi Leaf Spring for Light Passenger Automobiles a ReviewCargado porPatel Harsh
- 1-s2.0-S1877705811003870-mainCargado porWilliam Dasler
- Otc 21179Cargado poryusuf2mail
- Analisis Mastil 24m (a36)Cargado porSara Diaz
- Part1 Study 4 1Cargado porHarshvardhan Mishra

- Storage Tank DesignCargado porronavanessa
- des_pidCargado porEngineering Mechanics
- Reference Tank 6Cargado porEngineering Mechanics
- Clamping MechanismCargado porEngineering Mechanics
- PRESSURE VESSELCargado porYonjon Subha
- Shell & Head- Scrubber MBF-2606Cargado porEngineering Mechanics
- Pipe Flow DesignCargado porEngineering Mechanics
- Outokumpu Duplex Stainless Steel Data SheetCargado porÖzlem Karataş
- DS-Duplex-2205Cargado porGigin Bakr
- Base PlateCargado porEngineering Mechanics
- ReviewCargado porEngineering Mechanics
- New Microsoft Word DocumentCargado porEngineering Mechanics
- Norma Ul - 142Cargado porsaulofernando
- Air Cooler - DesignCargado porkarthipetro
- Fall Design Report Team19Cargado porEngineering Mechanics
- Example Galvanic DesignCargado porJoel Guiao
- DD2071_v4Cargado porEngineering Mechanics
- wjmsvol10no02paper05Cargado porEngineering Mechanics
- ENG_2013052316374604Cargado porEngineering Mechanics
- 7-8_Kurki_kulowe_Zawgaz_ENGCargado porEngineering Mechanics
- TBHR-PAC10AEC-C31-001 REV 02 Process Calculation for HP SeparatorCargado porEngineering Mechanics
- 14-04027 PDC Rev1Cargado porEngineering Mechanics
- P14-04027-MDBI REV1Cargado porEngineering Mechanics
- P14-04027-EPS rev.1Cargado porEngineering Mechanics
- Indian Explosive Rules 2008Cargado porsham7523
- AMM.465-466.401Cargado porEngineering Mechanics
- 1.pdfCargado porEngineering Mechanics
- Reskem Industrial Water Treatment EquipmentCargado porEngineering Mechanics

- 3-22 Estimating Soil Fines ContentsCargado pornuufleming
- Mechanics of Materials Solutions CH05Cargado porArishChoy
- QP MScCargado porShantha Kumar G C
- 1Cargado porjasekan.dc
- Topic 3 - Flexible Pavement Stress AnalysisCargado porWelly Pradipta bin Maryulis
- EQ india.pdfCargado porNarendra Adapa
- compression-member (1).pdfCargado porSanjeevJadhav
- Soil NailingCargado porVishweshwaran M
- REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION.pdfCargado poragus sugianto
- 2029 Extending Direct Strength Design to Cold-Formed Steel Beams With HolesCargado porkhamis
- Lecture7 PressureVessel Combined LoadingCargado porHarold Valle Reyes
- Pile Bearing CapacityCargado porGema Putra Pratama
- Ch1 Beams BendingCargado porSre Vinod
- cam-clayCargado porProbal Som
- Unit 10 ( TORSION )Cargado porZara Nabilah
- Seismic+ReportCargado porkiruba
- Bottom Trunnion(-) 45m_with Shear Plate Extension (0 Deg)Cargado pornallay1705
- Ce6306 Strength of Materials Lecture NotesCargado porRakeshkumarceg
- 1-An Experimental Investigation on Contact Compression Lap Splice in Circular ColumnsCargado porsokamantyyahoo.com.ph
- Dynamic Interaction of Machine FoundationsCargado porSayed Elaraby
- 19_glossary_acknowledge_references.pdfCargado porPoh T Kho
- 2008 7-0Time Effects IntroductionCargado porMarcos Arbiza
- [Elearnica] -Effect_of_relative_density_on_the_dynamic_compressive_behavior_of_carbon_na.pdfCargado porelmira
- Column With Biaxial MomentCargado porvibishnan
- SoilTestReport_11611Bandra Terminus1Cargado porShashankSingh
- AutofretageCargado porpeterpan_01
- NCh2369-2003 (English April 25 2005)LDSCargado porPamela Garcia
- NR-310305-Design of Machine ElementsCargado porSrinivasa Rao G
- Lecture 1 Stresses and StrainsCargado porsamurai7_77
- Failure Analysis of a Bolt in High Pressure Steam TurbineCargado porRia Mustika