See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320836848

A methodology for flexibility analysis of process piping

Article  in  ARCHIVE Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part E Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering 1989-1996 (vols · November
2017
DOI: 10.1177/0954408917738963

CITATIONS

6 authors, including:

Sohaib Z Khan Kamran A. Khan

National University of Sciences and Technology Khalifa University
30 PUBLICATIONS   135 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   260 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Minimizing Voids and Process Induced Defects in Liquid Composite Moulding View project

Finite Element Modelling of Manufacturing Processes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sohaib Z Khan on 23 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original article

Proc IMechE Part E:

J Process Mechanical Engineering
A methodology for flexibility analysis 0(0) 1–11
! IMechE 2017

of process piping Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0954408917738963
journals.sagepub.com/home/jpme

Umer Zahid1, Sohaib Z Khan1,2, Muhammad A Khan3,

Hassan J Bukhari1, Imran Ahmed1 and Kamran A Khan4

Abstract
Design of piping system requires a systematic consideration of various factors as addressed by the codes and standards.
This research paper aims to provide a method for flexibility analysis of a selected area of process piping at an industrial
plant. Analysis is done for the purpose of accommodating a spare heat exchanger in the process layout. The analysis
follows a systematic procedure, with preparation of a tentative model of the system on CAESAR II software followed by
insertion of different pipe supports. The selection and location of these supports is based on the results obtained from
displacement, stress, reaction and equipment nozzle analysis of the piping system. The design is in accordance with ASME
B31.3, which is the standard code for process piping. The proposed method can be adapted for piping configuration of
any industrial plant. With the provision of a systematic procedure, the method ensures time saving and efficient flexibility
analysis of any piping system.

Keywords
Flexibility analysis, process piping, CAESAR

Date received: 20 October 2016; accepted: 17 September 2017

Introduction 3. Maximum allowable forces and moments that the

A piping system is crucial to any process plant hence it
needs to be designed with precision and care. The effi-
ciency of a plant highly depends on its ability to trans-
port fluid through the pipes to equipments functioning
collectively. A piping system, owing to its crucial role
of fluid transport, requires a systematic analysis by
various engineering methods prior to its construction.1
Piping system is needed to be supported to prevent
failure due to various loading conditions (self-weight,
operating pressure, and temperature).2,3
The main concern for designing any process plant is
safety of personnel involved. Design of piping systems
complying the codes, standards, or recommended prac-
tices ensures safety along with standardization of
required items.4 Flexibility analysis is concerned with
the ability of pipe to change its length and deform
elastically. Piping system must be flexible enough to
cater for excessive thermal expansion or movement of
support or pipe end points, thus preventing failure of
pipe and support structure due to excessive stress.5 The
considerations deciding the minimum permissible flexi-
bility in a piping system are as follows:
1. Displacements existing within the piping system.
2. Maximum allowable limit of stress range in
the system.
piping system can impose on the connected
equipment.
4. Maximum allowable load that can be applied on
the supporting structure.
In this paper, a systematic procedure is developed
for determining and enhancing the flexibility of pro-
cess piping. Flexibility analysis will be carried out
under design operating conditions occurring in the
system. For this purpose, CAESAR-II software will
also be used. It works by creating a piping system
model, using simple beam elements, and defining the
loading condition imposed on the system. With this
1
Department of Engineering Sciences, PN Engineering College,
National University of Sciences and Technology, Karachi, Pakistan
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Islamic
University of Madinah, Madinah, Saudi Arabia
3
School of Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing, Cranfield
University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, UK
4
Khalifa University of Science and Technology (KUST), Abu Dhabi, UAE
Corresponding author:
Sohaib Z Khan, Department of Engineering Sciences, PN Engineering
College, National University of Sciences and Technology, Karachi
75350, Pakistan.
Emails: szkhan@iu.edu.sa; sohaib.khan@pnec.nust.edu.pk
2 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)
input, CAESAR II produces results in the form of
displacements, reactions, and stresses throughout the
system. Most importantly, these results are compared
with the limits specified by recognized codes and
standards.
Deciding about the supports location is very
important in flexibility analysis because any wrong
location of support may lead to failure of a whole
system.5,6 In this paper, the focus is mainly on the
selection and placement of piping support. For this
purpose, first the maximum permissible span calcula-
tion is carried out by considering all loading condi-
tions through the use of equations (1) and (2).
Support locations and types are then inserted and
adjusted until all flexibility (displacement, stress, reac-
tion, and nozzle) requirements are satisfied.
Material and methods
Majority of the previous research is observed to be
based wholly on either the software or analytical
approach.7 Most of the conservative approaches
developed before the advent of the computational
tools and resources relied extensively on manual cal-
culation and analysis procedures, as demonstrated in
a research study related to the importance of pipeline
stresses with particular emphasis on the allowable
limits of stresses encountered.8 During the pioneering
stages of pipe flexibility methodology development, a
comprehensive set of working principles and design
practices for piping flexibility analysis were outlined
in a paper for the purpose of consolidating the rele-
vant literature available.9 In order to further improve
and extend the available structural analysis design
methods, a systematic procedure was developed for
a simple coplanar system without resorting to the
use of complex matrix equation and its use indicated
by several working illustrative examples.10 For an
inelastic piping system, occurrence of local strains
introduces complication in analysis through finite
element tools. In this respect, various set of simplified
methods for design evaluation are generally preferred
in order to review the piping systems subjected to the
particular strain type.11 Previously, commercial pro-
grams designed for flexibility analysis were too com-
plex and time consuming. Owing to this underlying
issue, a simplified flexibility analysis program based
on stiffness method was developed which could also
be used to accurately evaluate the flexibility of piping
components such as elbows.12 Despite the rapid
advancement in computer-based tools developed for
pipe design and flexibility analysis, occurrence of
minor to major issues relating to computational
sequence and use of relevant design principles is inev-
itable. For this purpose, several general rules were
outlined in order to cross check the technical validity
of computational results.13 In order to effectively
model the flexible pipe sections, two modeling tech-
niques were proposed for evaluating the
displacements and stresses. Incorporation of thick
tube modeling with the existing analytical technique
was done for developing a particular model method-
ology. This was further compared with a finite elem-
ent based approach for investigating the degree of
agreement in results achieved.14 Branch connections
design of larger diameter and lower pressure piping
through ASME B31.3 design code often leads to inef-
ficient piping loads distribution, owing to the lack of
consideration of inherent flexibility of branch compo-
nent. A hybrid approach was proposed, which incorp-
orates both the stress intensification factor (SIF) of
code and flexibility factor calculated from finite elem-
ent modeling methods.15 In an attempt to further
optimize the iterative procedure involved in piping
design and analysis, an integration of knowledge
based systems derived from stress engineer relevant
experience with the commercial pipe stress software
in use was proposed. This would lead to significant
saving of computational time and efficient decision
making with regards to various piping and pipeline
configurations.16 Transportation of gases at consider-
ably higher temperature range requires the systematic
analysis and evaluation of various design constraints
and parameters. These were covered and described in
detail in a research study focusing upon the code com-
pliance of pipeline systems for a specific project
related to hydrogen gas production.17 In order to
determine the thermal stress distribution in a heat
exchanger pipe, a computational analysis based on
ANSYS thermal design module, SOLID 90 was con-
ducted to initially obtain the temperature field distri-
bution from which the corresponding thermal stresses
were calculated through elasticity method.18 Recent
research work on the pipe flexibility analysis includes
optimization studies as conducted in a particular case
for the purpose of reducing the expansion loop dimen-
sions and subsequent saving of additional rest sup-
ports through the use of ASME B31.3 design code
and CAESAR II software tool.19 In the late 1940s
and early 1950s period, a set of research studies con-
ducted by ARC Markl on pipe flexibility analysis
principles are still considered an authority on the
overall design subject. However, due to the emergence
of complex piping systems and design constraints, use
of FEA and other computational tools have become
necessary. In this regard, PCS – Pipe Calculation
System, a flexibility analysis program built specifically
for Abaqus software was developed for subsequent
use during advanced finite element analysis applica-
tion.20 Occasionally, modification of design equations
relating to the flexibility analysis becomes essential
due to specialized applications, as indicated in a par-
ticular study involving the tie-in points of the piping
systems under ambient and operational temperature
conditions.21 It is noted that adoption of an entirely
software or theoretical approach may lead to either
over conservative or under conservative results from
the analysis.22 For instance, in determining the
Zahid et al.
displacements existing within the piping network, the
span equation derived accounts only for the dead-
weight of the pipe.23 There is a lack of systematic
analysis accounting for both the theoretical and soft-
ware approach.24–27 This paper attempts to highlight
a procedure of flexibility analysis, which will lead to
improved results and clear understanding of different
constraints involved in the flexibility analysis of
piping system. After modeling the whole system on
CAESAR II software, displacement analysis was
first done to determine the maximum support span
and restraint locations. The maximum span calcula-
tion is carried out by considering all loading condi-
tions. The stress analysis was done with the software,
yielding two stress distribution diagrams for primary
and secondary stresses respectively. After that, the
system is checked for the reaction forces acting at
the supports, and finally the connecting equipment
nozzles are checked to ensure their integrity in the
structure, thereby verifying the complete design of
the system. Each of the four components of flexibility
analysis has a crucial role in determining the consid-
erations for a safe piping system design.
The analysis is done keeping in view the basic
loading conditions existing in the piping system i.e.,
temperature, pressure and weight. The analysis covers
the displacements, stresses, reaction loads, and con-
nected equipment loads existing in the system.
A few of the important results for a test model are
supported and validated by analytical solutions wher-
ever possible. The design considerations associated
with flexibility and stress analysis will be covered,
keeping in view the piping layout, the recommended
piping standards and the isometric drawings provided
by the process industry.
Figure 1. Schematic of heat exchanger divided into nine parts.
3
Theory/Calculation
Design specifications of the model
The first step in carrying out the flexibility analysis
was to model the entire heat exchanger layout in
CAESAR II software. This was accomplished by
using the isometrics and third angle projection draw-
ings of different components of the heat exchanger
layout. The heat exchanger in consideration is of
shell and tube type. It is required to heat the Acetic
Acid fluid in the tube side under normal operation.
The heat exchanger uses high pressure steam on the
shell inlet side as the heating medium. The shell outlet
side pipe contains the condensed water resulting from
this heat transfer process. Figure 1 is the isometric
drawing of heat exchanger obtained from the soft-
ware. The drawing serves to divide the exchanger
unit into nine distinct parts.
Table 1 summarizes the design operating condi-
tions existing in various parts of heat exchanger unit.
Material specifications of the model
Table 2 summarizes the material specifications of pipe
material for the piping networks and heat exchanger
shell.
Displacement analysis
The data for maximum allowable displacements in
three directions was provided by the industry and
summarized in Table 3.
The maximum allowable displacements are
based on the client regulation, which is considered
as an additional design constraint apart from the
4 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)

Table 1. Design operating conditions of the system. 5WL4 þ 8Wc L3 pd2 ð2  vÞ

Y¼ þ þ do ða
TÞ ð2Þ
384EI 4tE
Design Design
temperature pressure
No. Piping ( C) (kPa) The weight component of the above equation is
derived by considering the weight of fluid, pipe, and
1 Pump G1-604 B inlet 170 420 insulation as a uniformly distributed weight compo-
2 Pump G1-604 A inlet 170 420 nent. The concentrated loads in a piping system are
3 Outlet piping extension 170 420 due to the presence of flanges and valves in several
4 Inlet piping extension 170 420 places. The pressure component is derived by evaluat-
5 Inlet piping to the 170 420 ing diametric strain caused due to internal pressure in
heat exchanger Y direction. The last part of the equation takes
6 Outlet piping to the 170 420 account of the effect of temperature on the pipe diam-
heat exchanger eter in Y direction as well.
7 Shell outlet piping 75 700
8 Shell inlet piping 250 4000 Following data of inlet process piping was used:
9 Heat exchanger Shell 224 2500 Wc 373.762 N (weight of two flanges)
W 3772.6N/12.355 m ¼ 305.35 N/m
Y 0.0005 m
E 1.8485  1011Pa30
I ðd4o  d4 Þ=64 ¼ 6:7658  106 m4
Table 2. Material specification of the heat exchanger system.
a
T 0.002550 m/m30
No. Component of heat exchanger Material v 0.292
d 0.168275 m
1 Pump G1-604 B inlet ASTM A312-TP316L
do 0.1750822 m
2 Pump G1-604 A inlet ASTM A312-TP316L p 420,000 Pa (design pressure)
3 Outlet piping extension ASTM A312-TP316L t 0.0034036 m
4 Inlet piping extension ASTM A312-TP316L
5 Inlet piping to the ASTM A312-TP316L
heat exchanger Stress analysis
6 Outlet piping to ASTM A312-TP316L
the heat exchanger For most piping systems, two major types of stresses
7 Shell outlet piping ASTM A106 B
are encountered. These are classified as primary and
secondary stresses. Primary stresses are generated by
8 Shell inlet piping ASTM A106 B
imposed loadings necessary to satisfy the equilibrium
9 Heat exchanger shell ASTM A516-60
of internal and external forces and moments. The sec-
ondary stresses in a piping system are associated with
cyclic conditions such as temperature increase or
decrease, as the plant starts up or shut down.
Table 3. Maximum allowable displacements as per industry
requirement. Primary stress criteria. In ASME B31.3 code,31 there are
two major criteria for primary stresses:
Displacement X-Dir. Y-Dir Z-Dir

Allowable Value 5––8 mm 0.5 mm 5––8 mm
restrictions imposed by the ASME B31.3 design code.
(A similar indication of following client regulation is
observed in a research study mentioned in Shehadeh
et al.19.) It was decided to first calculate the support
span for inlet piping to heat exchanger. The span sup-
port calculation was subsequently done for other
piping layouts with consideration to weight, design
temperature, and pressure. Deflection in y direction
for span support was derived and subsequently
divided into three parts, as shown in the following
equations28,29
1. Hoop stresses due to internal pressure shall be con-
sidered safe when the wall thickness of the piping
component, including any reinforcement, shall not
be less than that calculated in accordance with the
following equation30
PD
tm ¼ ð3Þ
2ðSew þ PYÞ
2. The sum of the longitudinal stresses due to pres-
sure, weight, and other sustained loadings SL must
be less than Sh, hot allowable stress for a hot oper-
ating system

Y ¼ Yweight þ Ypressure þ Ytemperature ð1Þ SL 4Sh ð4Þ

Zahid et al.
Secondary stress criteria. In ASME B31.3 code, one
major criterion exists for secondary stresses30
SE 4SA
SA serves as a stress limit for stresses that are repeti-
tive and cyclic. SA is the allowable stress to be com-
pared to the calculated displacement stress range, SE.
Both SA and SE are secondary stresses. SE is the range
of (secondary) stress a piping system will experience
subjected to thermal expansion or contraction. The
temperature range for this condition is the total
expansion range from minimum to maximum for
hot operating systems and from maximum to min-
imum for cryogenic or cold pipe.32
Reaction analysis
ASME B31.3 code does not provide clear cut equa-
tions and conventions for evaluating maximum reac-
tions for complex systems like multi-anchor piping
systems or two anchor systems with intermediate
Table 4. Support span length for all piping configuration.
Support span
No. Component of heat exchanger length (m)
1 Pump G1-604 B inlet 1.10
2 Pump G1-604 A inlet 1.10
3 Outlet piping extension 1.10
4 Inlet piping extension 0.90
5 Inlet piping to the heat exchanger 1.68
6 Outlet piping to the heat exchanger 1.53
7 Shell outlet piping 2.66
8 Shell inlet piping 1.66
Figure 2. Model configuration and the values of some of the highest displacements.
5
restraints. However, it provides an equation for cal-
culating the estimated instantaneous maximum reac-
tion force or moment, applicable only to a two anchor
ð5Þ piping system without intermediate restraints. The
equation is as follows
R½1  2c=3Em
Rm ¼ ð6Þ
Ea
c is the intentional deformation of piping during assem-
bly to produce a desired initial displacement and stress.
This equation is not applicable for the considered
system, because of two main reasons:
1. The piping system addressed by the code equation
is a simple one. For multi anchor piping systems
and for two-anchor systems with intermediate
restraints, the above equation is not applicable.
Each case must be studied to estimate location,
nature, and extent of local overstrain, and its
effect on stress distribution and reactions.
2. The reactions calculated only takes account of the
temperature effect while the effect of pressure and
weight forces is not considered.
Our focus and scope of reaction analysis will be
limited only to the determination of zero magnitude
reaction supports and their subsequent deletion from
the final design of the model. This will ensure that
most optimum and economical piping support
layout is resulted from the proposed methodology of
the flexibility analysis.
Nozzle analysis
Nozzles are one of the most sensitive and critical com-
ponents of a piping system, since they serve to connect
the equipment with adjoining pipe network. In case of
6 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)

nozzle failure, entire design of piping system needs to
be reconsidered.5 In our heat exchanger system, there
are total of six nozzles—four located at the heat
exchanger shell region and two at the pump side
region. The exact location of these nozzles can be
seen in Figure 1. A set of allowable loads for nozzle
in the form of forces and moments is usually provided
by the equipment designer in the isometrics or third
angle projection drawings. Comparison of the actual
forces and moments imposed by the adjacent piping
system on the nozzles with the allowable limits is done
to check for nozzle integrity as shown in Table 7.
Result and discussion
Displacement analysis
After substituting the input parameter values for inlet
process piping in equation (2), the value of L for
which the deflection in y direction, given by

Figure 3. Location and type of supports and restraints.

Figure 4. Displacement bar chart for x, y, and z directions.

Zahid et al. 7

equation (2) equals to approximately 0.5 mm is at proper locations in the software model, keeping in
L ¼ 1.68 m. The values of L obtained for other view the span length derived previously. The static
piping layouts are summarized in Table 4. For analysis of model was done and displacements in x
restricting the x and z displacements to the mentioned and z directions were observed at various locations.
allowable limits in Table 3, Y supports were provided The model configuration and the values of some of
the highest displacements obtained are shown in
Figure 2.
Figure 3 shows the location and type of supports
Table 5. Comparison of actual and minimum required and restraints used for restricting the displacements in
thickness. all three directions. The wire frame representation is
tm tactual
used here in order to show the hidden supports along
No. Component of heat exchanger (mm) (mm) the pipe length.
The results obtained from the displacement ana-
1 Pump G1-604 B inlet 0.34 7.11 lysis for all three directions are summarized by the
2 Pump G1-604 A inlet 0.34 7.11 displacement bar charts shown in Figure 4. From
3 Outlet piping extension 0.327 3.40 the figure, it can be observed that displacements are
4 Inlet piping extension 0.327 3.40 within the allowable range.
5 Inlet piping to the heat exchanger 0.327 3.40 Owing to the uniform nature of the weight loadings
6 Outlet piping to the heat exchanger 0.327 3.40 present in the system, a mathematical formulation,
7 Shell outlet piping 0.482 10.98 which takes account of other loading conditions pre-
sent, i.e. temperature and pressure was developed for
8 Shell inlet piping 1.024 5.54
calculating the optimum value of span length. The rest

Figure 5. Stress percentage distribution diagram for longitudinal stress.

Figure 6. Stress percentage distribution diagram for displacement stress range.

8 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)
supports ( þ Y supports) were inserted at each length
of span calculated in order to restrict the downward
displacements to the recommended value. Similar pro-
cedure was considered undesirable to implement for
restricting displacements in x and z direction, since it
would lead to the utilization of complex mathematical
principles and overuse of supports, rendering the
objective of attaining simplified and efficient analyt-
ical procedure as useless. For this purpose, applica-
tion of CAESAR-II software was utilized to
specifically locate and pinpoint the positions in
which the x and z displacements were occurring
above the recommended range as dictated by the
client. Guide supports and limit stop supports were
subsequently used at or near the highlighted node
locations to limit the piping displacements in the
Figure 7. Support locations where magnitude of reaction force is zero.
Figure 8. Final configuration.
lateral and axial direction respectively. Anchor sup-
port and a set of supports limiting lateral movement
were specifically placed at the heat exchanger region
for the provision of structural integrity and ensuring
necessary flexibility for countering thermal loads.
Stress analysis
Code compliance results for wall thickness. The actual wall
thickness tactual (pipe schedule) is then compared
with the respective minimum thickness value tm calcu-
lated by equation (3). The results are summarized in
Table 5.
From Table 5, it can be observed that tactual is
greater than tm. Therefore, the heat exchanger
system passes the first criterion for primary stress.
Zahid et al. 9

Actual
Code compliance results for longitudinal stresses. The stress

21
116
0
0
0
5
analysis module was run on the heat exchanger soft-
ware model so far constructed at the end of dis-

inlet pipe nozzle

Pump G1- 604B
placement analysis (Figure 3). Stress percentage

Allowable 
distribution diagram in Figure 5 for longitudinal
stress with respect to hot allowable stress was

4671
4671
4671
1898
1898
1898
obtained. The highest stress percentage location is
also highlighted. From Figure 5, it can be seen that
stresses are well under limits with highest stress

Actual
percentage of 30.28%. Highest values of longitudinal

158
856
0
0
0
79
and hot allowable stress occurring at node 2751 were
recorded as 34,073.86 kPa and 112,522.4 kPa, respect-

inlet pipe nozzle

Pump G1- 604A
ively. The results obtained for this particular case

Allowable 
implies that the system is safe against imposed
loadings of weight and pressure which leads to the

4671
4671
4671
1898
1898
1898
development of primary stresses. The higher stress
occurring region is the heat exchanger shell because
it has the highest pressure and weight loads in the
system.

1587
801
7227
409
3440
777
Actual
Code compliance results for secondary stresses. From the
software analysis, the stress percentage distribution

Outlet process
diagram in Figure 6 for displacement stress range

Allowable 
pipe nozzle
with respect to allowable stress range was obtained.
The highest stress percentage location is also high-

18000
18000
18000
14000
14000
14000
lighted. From Figure 6, it can be seen that thermal
stresses are well under limits with the highest stress
percentage of 45.87%. Highest values of displacement

1666
180
218
992
353
521
stress range and allowable stress range occurring at Actual
node 1600 were recorded as 126,035.8 kPa and
274,762.3 kPa, respectively. The obtained results
affirm the system safety against temperature and
Inlet process

Allowable
pipe nozzle

cyclic loadings which lead to the development of sec-

ondary stresses in the system. The region of highest
20,000
20,000
20,000
16,000
16,000
16,000
stress is the shell inlet pipe because among the piping,
it has the highest temperature in the system.
Based on the above results, it can be concluded that
Actual

the heat exchanger system has passed the stress ana-

280
235
531
172
29
110

lysis check as directed by ASME B31.3 code.

Reaction analysis
Allowable
pipe nozzle
Table 7. Summary of allowable and actual nozzle loads.

Shell inlet

There is a possibility that reaction forces of zero mag-

1000
1000
1000
200
200
200

nitude may occur in some places, due to lifting up of

the pipe, rendering the rest- supports use less. In that
case, either those supports should be removed for eco-
nomic considerations or adjustments of nearby sup-
1827
121
113
53
910
30
Actual

ports made to account for efficient load distribution.

Allowable
Shell outlet
pipe nozzle

Table 6. Type and number of supports.

Support Quantity
5000
5000
5000
3000
3000
3000

þY support 21
Limit stops 6
Forces and

Y support 6
moments

Ma (Nm)
Mb (Nm)
Mc (Nm)

Guide 16
Fb (N)
Fa (N)

Fc (N)

Anchor 1
10
Figure 7 shows the support locations where the reac-
tion force was found to be zero.
After removal and readjustment of some supports,
all the zero reaction force supports were removed
from the model and the configuration shown
in Figure 8 was obtained. The total number of
supporting elements amount to around 50. The
objective of this particular analysis is to remove
the extra and unnecessary supports for ensuring eco-
nomic consideration. The total number of final sup-
ports utilized in the model configuration are
summarized in Table 6.
Nozzle analysis
The results are obtained for the heat exchanger model
constructed after the reaction analysis. They are based
on the design conditions provided for the system. The
load limits are based on the local coordinate system
ABC,33 where:
A is the pipe/nozzle axis, B is the major equipment
axis (the longitudinal direction of a vessel, or the
pump shaft direction), and C is the other perpendicu-
lar direction.
Table 7 summarizes the allowable and actual
values of forces and moments occurring at the
nozzle locations.
From the above table, it can be observed that the
forces and moments on the nozzles are under the
stated allowable limits. Therefore, all nozzles have
passed the criteria of allowable loads set by the equip-
ment designer. It is pertinent to mention here that the
allowable equipment loads of the heat exchanger and
pumps are based on API 660 and API 610 design
standards, respectively.
Conclusion
In this paper, a systematic procedure is developed for
determining and enhancing the flexibility of process
piping. Apart from adopting the contemporary prin-
ciples in pipe engineering, the procedure also utilizes
the extensive application of CAESAR II software for
pipe stress analysis. Using these tools, the design con-
siderations relating to displacements, stresses, reac-
tions, and equipment nozzle loads present in the
system are addressed, keeping in view the constraints
of ASME B31.3 code for process piping. Each of the
four components of flexibility analysis has distinct
allowable limit criteria and is made to link systemat-
ically with each other. The novelty of the proposed
methodology will ensure systematic analysis of piping
system and will also lead to the saving of time during
pipe stress analysis activity. The future work may
include conducting of flexibility analysis of a pipe
line system using similar concepts and approach as
mentioned in this article.
Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
1. Sharma P, Tiwari M and Sharma K. Design and ana-
lysis of a process plant piping system. Int J Curr Eng
Technol 2014; Special Issue: 31–39.
2. Chien DCH, Douglas PL and Penlidis A. A method for
flexibility analysis of continuous processing plants. Can
J Chem Eng 1991; 69: 58–66.
3. Ibrahim RA. Overview of mechanics of pipes conveying
fluids - Part 1: Fundamental studies. J Press Vess
Technol 2010; 132: 034001–034001–32.
4. Bhende G and Tembhare G. Stress intensification and
flexibility in pipe stress analysis. Int J Modern Eng Res
2013; 3: 1324–1329.
5. Li GQ, Hua B, Liu BL, et al. Study for flexibility ana-
lysis method in heat exchangers network. In Tsatsaronis
G (ed.) The second biennial European joint conference on
engineering systems design and analysis 1994, volume 1.
New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
1994, pp. 79–86.
6. Koves WJ. Process piping design: A century of pro-
gress. J Press Vess Technol 2000; 122: 325–328.
7. Sitandung YB and Bandriyana B. Analysis of pipe stress
using CAESAR II code. In: Proceedings of the 8 National
Seminar on Technology and Safety of Nuclear Power
Plants and Nuclear Facilities, Indonesia, 2002: 415.
8. Rossheim DB and Markl ARC. The significance of, and
suggested limits for, the stress in pipe lines due to the
combined effects of pressure and expansion. Trans
ASME 1940; 443–460.
9. Markl ARC. Piping-flexibility analysis. Trans ASME
1995; 127–149.
10. Owens RH. An elementary development of piping flexi-
bility analysis with illustrative example. J Am Soc Naval
Engrs 1960; 72: 159–170.
11. Boyle J and Spence J. Inelastic analysis methods for
piping systems. Nucl Eng Des 1980; 57: 369–390.
12. Natarajan R. A simplified pipe flexibility analysis
program - Stiffness method. Comput Struct 1986; 22:
299–305.
13. Peng LC. The art of checking pipe stress computer pro-
grams. In: Design and analysis of piping and components,
1989.
14. Harte A and McNamara J. Modeling procedures
for the stress analysis of flexible pipe cross sections.
J Offshore Mech Arctic Eng 1993; 115: 46–51.
15. Robleto RA. Reduction in stresses shown in piping pro-
grams in large diameter pipe branch connections by
applying flexibilities computed by shell finite element
analysis. In: ASME/JSME pressure vessels and piping
conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 2004.
16. Alvarado M, Rodrı́guez-Toral MA, Rosas A, et al.
Decision-making on pipe stress analysis enabled by
 Zahid et al.
knowledge-based systems. Knowledge Inform Syst 2007;
12: 255–278.
17. Kumar A, Mishra R, Kurian TA, et al. Flexibility ana-
lysis of pipe lines of bunsen section of iodine-sulfur
thermochemical process. In: Transactions, SMiRT 21
2011, India, 2011.
18. Li F, Liu Y and Xing J. Thermal analysis and stress
analysis of the heat-exchange pipe based on ANSYS.
In: Fourth international conference on information and
computing, Thailand, 2011.
19. Shehadeh B, Ranganathan SI and Abed FH.
Optimization of piping expansion loops using ASME
B31.3. Proc IMechE, Part E: J Process Mechanical
Engineering 2014; 230: 56–64.
20. de C e Sousa CEA. Piping flexibility analysis and the
development of PCS - Pipe Calculation System for
abaqus. In: SIMULA community conference,
Germany, 2015.
21. Choudhury BN. Flexibility analysis of piping systems
with discontinuities in displacement. In: Proceedings of
the ASME pressure vessels and piping conference,
Canada, 2016.
22. Bhave SU. Calculation methodologies for the design of
piping systems. Int J Eng Res Gen Sci 2014; 2: 596–603.
23. Vakharia DP and Farooq MA. Determination of max-
imum span between pipe supports using maximum
bending stress theory. Int J Recent Trends Eng 2009;
1: 46–49.
24. Schwarz MM. Flexibility analysis of the vessel-piping
interface. Int J Press Vess Piping 2004; 81: 181–189.
25. Sheremetov L, Batyrshin I, Chi M, et al. Knowledge-
based collaborative engineering of pipe networks in the
upstream and downstream petroleum industry. Comput
Ind 2008; 59: 936–948.
26. Smith E. The effect of pipe bends on the elastic flexibil-
ity of a piping system. Int J Press Vess Piping 1991; 45:
121–129.
27. Weiss E and Joost H. Local and global flexibility of
nozzle-to-vessel-intersections under local loads as
boundary conditions for piping system design. Int J
Press Vess Piping 1997; 73: 241–247.
28. Beer FP, Johnston ER and DeWolf JT. Mechanics of
materials. New York: McGraw Hill, 2001.
29. Hearn EJ. Mechanics of materials. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann, 1985.
30. ASME Code B31.3-2006. Process piping.
31. Becht C and Diehl DW. New piping flexibility rules in
ASME B31.3, Appendix P. J Press Vess Technol 2005;
128: 84–88.
32. Woods GE and Baguley RB. Practical guide to ASME
B31.3 process piping. ASME.
33. Intergraph. CAESAR II 2013 R1 user guide.
Appendix
Notation
a linear expansion coefficient (m/m C)
View publication stats
11
c cold spring factor varying from zero for
no cold spring to 1.0 for 100% cold
spring
d inner diameter (m)
do outer diameter (m)
D inner diameter (m)
e quality factor from Table A-1A9 or
A-1B of ASME B31.3 code
E modulus of elasticity of pipe (N/m2)
Ea reference modulus of elasticity at 21 C
(Pa)
Em modulus of elasticity at maximum or
minimum temperature (Pa)
I moment of inertia of pipe (m4)
L span length (m)
p internal design pressure inside the pipe
(N/m2)
P internal pressure inside the pipe (N/m2)
R range of reaction forces or moments
(derived from flexibility analysis) (N)
Rm estimated instantaneous maximum
reaction force or moment at maximum
or minimum temperature (N)
S allowable stress value for material from
Table A-1 of ASME B31.3 code (Pa)
SA allowable stress range (Pa)
SE displacement stress range (Pa)
Sh hot allowable stress for the material in
the hot operating condition, which
would be the design temperature for
elevated temperature service or ambient
for cold or cryogenic service, Pa from
Table A-1 of ASME B31.3 code
SL longitudinal stress due to sustained
loads such as pressure and weight (Pa)
t thickness of circular cross section (m)
T temperature  C
v Poisson’s ratio for the material
tm minimum allowable wall thickness (m)
w weld joint strength reduction factor per
Para. 302.3.5 of ASME B31.3 code
W uniformly distributed weight of piping
(N/m)
Wc concentrated weight on piping (N)
Y coefficient from Table 304.1.1, valid for
t 5 D=6 and for materials shown, of
ASME B31.3 code