Technical Discussions

TSO=Torsional Stress, Outside

Pipe Stress Analysis of FRP Piping

Underlying Theory
The behavior of steel and other homogeneous materials has been long understood, permitting
their widespread use as construction materials. The development of the piping and pressure
vessel codes (Reference 1) in the early part of this century led to the confidence in their use in
piping applications. The work of Markl and others in the 1940s and 1950s was responsible for
the formalization of todays pipe stress methods, leading to an ensuing diversification of piping
codes on an industry by industry basis. The advent of the digital computer, and with it the
appearance of the first pipe stress analysis software (Reference 2), further increased the
confidence with which steel pipe could be used in critical applications. The 1980s saw the wide
spread proliferation of the microcomputer, with associated pipe stress analysis software, which
in conjunction with training, technical support, and available literature, has brought stress
analysis capability to almost all engineers. In short, an accumulated experience of close to 100
years, in conjunction with ever improving technology has led to the utmost confidence on the
part of todays engineers when specifying, designing, and analyzing steel, or other metallic,
pipe.
For fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) and other composite piping materials, the situation is not
the same. Fiberglass reinforced plastic was developed only as recently as the 1950s, and did
not come into wide spread use until a decade later (Reference 3). There is not a large base of
stress analysis experience, although not from a lack of commitment on the part of FRP vendors.
Most vendors conduct extensive stress testing on their components, including hydrostatic and
cyclic pressure, uni-axial tensile and compressive, bending, and combined loading tests. The
problem is due to the traditional difficulty associated with, and lack of understanding of, stress
analysis of heterogeneous materials. First, the behavior and failure modes of these materials
are highly complex and not fully understood, leading to inexact analytical methods and a general
lack of agreement on the best course of action to follow. This lack of agreement has slowed the
simplification and standardization of the analytical methods into universally recognized codes
BS 7159 Code Design and Construction of Glass Reinforced Plastics Piping (GRP) Systems for
Individual Plants or Sites and UKOOA Specification and Recommended Practice for the Use of
GRP Piping Offshore being notable exceptions. Second, the heterogeneous, orthotropic
behavior of FRP and other composite materials has hindered the use of the pipe stress analysis
algorithms developed for homogeneous, isotropic materials associated with crystalline
structures. A lack of generally accepted analytical procedures has contributed to a general
reluctance to use FRP piping for critical applications.
Stress analysis of FRP components must be viewed on many levels. These levels, or scales,
have been called Micro-Mini-Macro levels, with analysis proceeding along the levels according
to the "MMM" principle (Reference 4).

CAESAR II User's Guide

929

Technical Discussions

Micro-Level Analysis
Stress analysis on the "Micro" level refers to the detailed evaluation of the individual materials
and boundary mechanisms comprising the composite material. In general, FRP pipe is
manufactured from laminates, which are constructed from elongated fibers of a commercial
grade of glass, E-glass, which are coated with a coupling agent or sizing prior to being
embedded in a thermosetting plastic material, typically epoxy or polyester resin.
This means, on the micro scale, that an analytical model must be created which simulates the
interface between these elements. Because the number and orientation of fibers is unknown at
any given location in a FRP sample, the simplest representation of the micro-model is that of a
single fiber, extending the length of the sample, embedded in a square profile of matrix.

Micro Level GRP Sample -- Single Fiber Embedded in Square Profile of Matrix

Evaluation of this model requires use of the material parameters of:

1. the glass fiber
2. the coupling agent or sizing layer normally of such microscopic proportion that it may be
ignored
3. the plastic matrix
It must be considered that these material parameters might vary for an individual material based
upon tensile, compressive, or shear applications of the imposed stresses, and typical values
vary significantly between the fiber and matrix (Reference 5):
Young's Modulus Ultimate Strength

Coefficient of Thermal Expansion

tensile (MPa)

tensile (MPa)

m/m/C

Glass Fiber 72.5 x103

1.5 x 103

5.0 x 10-6

Plastic
Matrix

.07 x 103

7.0 x 10-6

Material

2.75 x 103

The following failure modes of the composite must be similarly evaluated to:

930

failure of the fiber

failure of the coupling agent layer

failure of the matrix

CAESAR II User's Guide

Technical Discussions

failure of the fiber-coupling agent bond

failure of the coupling agent-matrix bond

Because of uncertainties about the degree to which the fiber has been coated with the coupling
agent and about the nature of some of these failure modes, this evaluation is typically reduced
to:

failure of the fiber

failure of the matrix

failure of the fiber-matrix interface

You can evaluate stresses in the individual components through finite element analysis of the
strain continuity and equilibrium equations, based upon the assumption that there is a good
bond between the fiber and matrix, resulting in compatible strains between the two. For normal
stresses applied parallel to the glass fiber:
ef = em = saf / Ef = sam / Em
saf = sam Ef / Em
Where:
ef = Strain in the Fiber
e = Strain in the Matrix
saf = Normal Stress Parallel to Fiber, in the Fiber
Ef = Modulus of Elasticity of the Fiber
sam = Axial Normal Stress Parallel to Fiber, in the Matrix
Em = Modulus of Elasticity of the Matrix
Due to the large ratio of the modulus of elasticity of the fiber to that of the matrix, it is apparent
that nearly all of the axial normal stress in the fiber-matrix composite is carried by the fiber.
Exact values are (Reference 6):
saf = sL / [f + (1-f)Em/Ef]
sam = sL / [fEf/Em + (1-f)]
Where:
sL = nominal longitudinal stress across composite
f = glass content by volume

CAESAR II User's Guide

931

Technical Discussions
The continuity equations for the glass-matrix composite seem less complex for normal stresses
perpendicular to the fibers, because the weak point of the material seems to be limited by the
glass-free cross-section, shown below:

Stress Intensification in Matrix Cross-Section

For this reason, it would appear that the strength of the composite would be equal to that of the
matrix for stresses in this direction. In fact, its strength is less than that of the matrix due to
stress intensification in the matrix caused by the irregular stress distribution in the vicinity of the
stiffer glass. Because the elongation over distance D1 must be equal to that over the longer
distance D2, the strain, and thus the stress at location D1 must exceed that at D2 by the ratio
D2/D1. Maximum intensified transverse normal stresses in the composite are:

Where:
sb = intensified normal stress transverse to the fiber, in the composite
s = nominal transverse normal stress across composite
nm = Poisson's ratio of the matrix
Because of the Poisson effect, this stress produces an additional s'am equal to the
following:
s'am = Vm sb

932

CAESAR II User's Guide

Technical Discussions
Shear stress can be allocated to the individual components again through the use of continuity
equations. It would appear that the stiffer glass would resist the bulk of the shear stresses.
However, unless the fibers are infinitely long, all shears must eventually pass through the matrix
in order to get from fiber to fiber. Shear stress between fiber and matrix can be estimated as

Where:
tab = intensified shear stress in composite
T = nominal shear stress across composite
Gm = shear modulus of elasticity in matrix
Gf = shear modulus of elasticity in fiber
Determination of the stresses in the fiber-matrix interface is more complex. The bonding agent
has an inappreciable thickness, and thus has an indeterminate stiffness for consideration in the
continuity equations. Also, the interface behaves significantly differently in shear, tension, and
compression, showing virtually no effects from the latter. The state of the stress in the interface
is best solved by omitting its contribution from the continuity equations, and simply considering
that it carries all stresses that must be transferred from fiber to matrix.
After the stresses have been apportioned, they must be evaluated against appropriate failure
criteria. The behavior of homogeneous, isotropic materials such as glass and plastic resin,
under a state of multiple stresses is better understood. Failure criterion for isotropic material
reduces the combined normal and shear stresses (sa, sb, sc, tab, tac, tbc) to a single stress, an
equivalent stress, that can be compared to the tensile stress present at failure in a material
under uniaxial loading, that is, the ultimate tensile stress, S ult.
Different theories, and different equivalent stress functions f(sa, sb, sc, tab, tac, tbc) have been
proposed, with possibly the most widely accepted being the Huber-von Mises-Hencky criterion,
which states that failure will occur when the equivalent stress reaches a critical value the
ultimate strength of the material:
seq = {1/2 [(sa - sb)2 + (sb - sc)2+ (sc - sa)2 + 6(tab2+ tac2+ tbc2)} Sult
This theory does not fully cover all failure modes of the fiber in that it omits reference to direction
of stress, that is, tensile versus compressive. The fibers, being relatively long and thin,
predominantly demonstrate buckling as their failure mode when loaded in compression.

CAESAR II User's Guide

933

Technical Discussions
The equivalent stress failure criterion has been corroborated, with slightly non-conservative
results, by testing. Little is known about the failure mode of the adhesive interface, although
empirical evidence points to a failure criterion which is more of a linear relationship between the
normal and the square of the shear stresses. Failure testing of a composite material loaded only
in transverse normal and shear stresses are shown in the following figure. The kink in the curve
shows the transition from the matrix to the interface as the failure point.

Mini-Level Analysis

Mini-Level Analysis Fiber Distribution Models

Although feasible in concept, micro level analysis is not feasible in practice. This is due to the
uncertainty of the arrangement of the glass in the composite the thousands of fibers that might
be randomly distributed, semi-randomly oriented, although primarily in a parallel pattern, and of
randomly varying lengths. This condition indicates that a sample can truly be evaluated only on
a statistical basis, thus rendering detailed finite element analysis inappropriate.
For mini-level analysis, a laminate layer is considered to act as a continuous hence the common
reference to this method as the "continuum" method, material, with material properties and
failure modes estimated by integrating them over the assumed cross-sectional distribution,
which is, averaging. The assumption regarding the distribution of the fibers can have a marked
effect on the determination of the material parameters. Two of the most commonly postulated

934

CAESAR II User's Guide

Technical Discussions
distributions are the square and the hexagonal, with the latter generally considered as being a
better representation of randomly distributed fibers.
The stress-strain relationships, for those sections evaluated as continua, can be written as:
eaa = saa/EL - (VL/EL)sbb - (VL/EL)scc
ebb = -(VL/EL)saa + sbb/ET - (VT/ET)scc
ecc = -(VL/EL)saa - (VT/ET)sbb + scc/ET
eab = tab / 2 GL
ebc = tbc / 2 GT
eac = tac / 2 GL
Where:
eij = strain along direction i on face j
sij, tab = stress (normal, shear) along direction i on face j
EL = modulus of elasticity of laminate layer in longitudinal direction
VL = Poissons ratio of laminate layer in longitudinal direction
ET = modulus of elasticity of laminate layer in transverse direction
VT = Poissons ratio of laminate layer in transverse direction
GL = shear modulus of elasticity of laminate layer in longitudinal direction
GT = shear modulus of elasticity of laminate layer in transverse direction
These relationships require that four modules of elasticity, EL, ET, GL, and GT, and two Poissons
ratios, VL and V, be evaluated for the continuum. Extensive research (References 4 - 10) has
been done to estimate these parameters. There is general consensus that the longitudinal terms
can be explicitly calculated; for cases where the fibers are significantly stiffer than the matrix,
they are:
EL = EF f + EM(1 - f)
GL = GM + f/ [ 1 / (GF - GM) + (1 - f) / (2GM)]
VL = VFf + VM(1 - f)
You cannot calculate parameters in the transverse direction. You can only calculate the upper
and lower bounds. Correlations with empirical results have yielded approximations (Reference 5
and 6):
ET = [EM(1+0.85f2) / {(1-VM2)[(1-f)1.25 + f(EM/EF)/(1-VM2)]}
GT = GM (1 + 0.6f) / [(1 - f)1.25 + f (GM/GF)]
VT = VL (EL / ET)
Use of these parameters permits the development of the homogeneous material models that
facilitate the calculation of longitudinal and transverse stresses acting on a laminate layer. The
resulting stresses can be allocated to the individual fibers and matrix using relationships
developed during the micro analysis.

CAESAR II User's Guide

935

Technical Discussions

Macro-Level Analysis

Macro to Micros Stress Conversion

Where Mini-level analysis provides the means of evaluation of individual laminate layers,
Macro-level analysis provides the means of evaluating components made up of multiple
laminate layers. It is based upon the assumption that not only the composite behaves as a
continuum, but that the series of laminate layers acts as a homogeneous material with
properties estimated based on the properties of the layer and the winding angle, and that finally,
failure criteria are functions of the level of equivalent stress.
Laminate properties may be estimated by summing the layer properties (adjusted for winding
angle) over all layers. For example

Where:
ExLAM = Longitudinal modulus of elasticity of laminate
tLAM = thickness of laminate
Ek = Longitudinal modulus of elasticity of laminate layer k

Cik = transformation matrix orienting axes of layer k to longitudinal laminate axis

Cjk = transformation matrix orienting axes of layer k to transverse laminate axis
tk = thickness of laminate layer k

After composite properties are determined, the component stiffness parameters can be
determined as though it were made of homogeneous material that is, based on component
cross-sectional and composite material properties.
Normal and shear stresses can be determined from 1) forces and moments acting on the
cross-sections, and 2) the cross-sectional properties themselves. These relationships can be
written as:
saa = Faa / Aaa Mba / Sba Mca / Sca
sbb = Fbb / Abb Mab / Sab Mcb / Scb
scc = Fcc / Acc Mac / Sac Mbc / Sbc
tab = Fab / Aab Mbb / Rab

936

CAESAR II User's Guide

Technical Discussions
tac = Fac / Aac Mcc / Rac
tba = Fba / Aba Maa / Rba
tbc = Fbc / Abc Mcc / Rbc
tca = Fca / Aca Maa / Rca
tcb = Fcb / Acb Mbb / Rcb
Where:
sij = normal stress along axis i on face j
Fij = force acting along axis i on face j
Aij = area resisting force along axis i on face j
Mij = moment acting about axis i on face j
Sij = section modulus about axis i on face j
tij = shear stress along axis i on face j
Rij = torsional resistivity about axis i on face j
Using the relationships developed under macro, mini, and micro analysis, these stresses can be
resolved back into local stresses within the laminate layer, and from there, back into stresses
within the fiber and the matrix. From these, the failure criteria of those microscopic components,
and hence, the component as a whole, can be checked.

Implementation of Macro-Level Analysis for Piping Systems

The macro-level analysis described above is the basis for the preeminent FRP piping codes in
use today, including Code BS 7159 (Design and Construction of Glass Reinforced Plastics
Piping Systems for Individual Plants or Sites) and the UKOOA Specification and Recommended
Practice for the Use of GRP Piping Offshore.

BS 7159
BS 7159 uses methods and formulas familiar to the world of steel piping stress analysis in order
to calculate stresses on the cross-section, with the assumption that FRP components have
material parameters based on continuum evaluation or test. All coincident loads, such as
thermal, weight, pressure, and axial extension due to pressure need be evaluated
simultaneously. Failure is based on the equivalent stress calculation method. Because one
normal stress (radial stress) is traditionally considered to be negligible in typical piping
configurations, this calculation reduces to the greater of (except when axial stresses are
compressive):
(when axial stress is greater than hoop)
(when hoop stress is greater than axial)
A slight difficulty arises when evaluating the calculated stress against an allowable, due to the
orthotropic nature of the FRP piping normally the laminate is designed in such a way to make
the pipe much stronger in the hoop, than in the longitudinal, direction, providing more than one
allowable stress. This difficulty is resolved by defining the allowable in terms of a design
strained, rather than stress, in effect adjusting the stress allowable in proportion to the strength

CAESAR II User's Guide

937

Technical Discussions
in each direction. In other words, the allowable stresses for the two equivalent stresses above
would be (ed ELAMX) and (ed ELAMH) respectively. In lieu of test data, system design strain is
selected from Tables 4.3 and 4.4 of the Code, based on expected chemical and temperature
conditions.
Actual stress equations as enumerated by BS 7159 display below:
1. Combined stress straights and bends:
sC = (sf 2+ 4sS2)0.5

ed ELAM

or
sC = (sX2 + 4sS2)0.5 ed ELAM
Where:
ELAM = modulus of elasticity of the laminate; in CAESAR II, the first equation uses the
modulus for the hoop direction and in the second equation, the modulus for the longitudinal
direction is used.
sC = combined stress
s = circumferential stress
= sP + sB
sS = torsional stress
= MS(Di + 2td) / 4I
sX = longitudinal stress
= sXP + sXB
sP = circumferential pressure stress
= mP(Di + td) / 2 td
sB = circumferential bending stress
= [(Di + 2td) / 2I] [(Mi SIFi)2 + Mo SIFo)2] 0.5 for bends, = 0 for straights
MS = torsional moment on cross-section
Di = internal pipe diameter
td = design thickness of reference laminate
I = moment of inertia of pipe
m = pressure stress multiplier of component
P = internal pressure
Mi = in-plane bending moment on cross-section
SIFi= circumferential stress intensification factor for in-plane moment
M = out-plane bending moment on cross-section
SIFo = circumferential stress intensification factor for out-plane moment
sXP = longitudinal pressure stress
= P(Di + td) / 4 td

938

CAESAR II User's Guide

Technical Discussions
sXB = longitudinal bending stress
= [(Di + 2td) / 2I] [(Mi SIFxi)2 + Mo SIFxo)2]0.5
SIFxi = longitudinal stress intensification factor for in-plane moment
SIFxo = longitudinal stress intensification factor for out-plane moment
2. Combined stress branch connections:
sCB = ((sP + sbB)2 + 4sSB2)0.5 ed ELAM
Where:
sCB = branch combined stress
sP = circumferential pressure stress
= mP(Di + tM) / 2 tM
sbB = non-directional bending stress
= [(Di + 2td) / 2I] [(Mi SIFBi)2 + Mo SIFBo)2]0.5
sSB = branch torsional stress
= MS(Di + 2td) / 4I
tM = thickness of the reference laminate at the main run
SIFBi = branch stress intensification factor for in-plane moment
SIFBo = branch stress intensification factor for out-plane moment
3. When longitudinal stress is negative (net compressive):
s - Vx sx e ELAM
Where:
Vx = Poissons ratio giving strain in longitudinal direction caused by stress in circumferential
direction
e = design strain in circumferential direction
ELAM= modulus of elasticity in circumferential direction

CAESAR II User's Guide

939

Technical Discussions
BS 7159 also dictates the means of calculating flexibility and stress intensification (k- and i-)
factors for bend and tee components, for use during the flexibility analysis.

940

CAESAR II User's Guide

Technical Discussions
BS 7159 imposes a number of limitations on its use, the most notable being: the limitation of a
system to a design pressure of 10 bar, the restriction to the use of designated design laminates,
and the limited applicability of the k- and i- factor calculations to pipe bends (that is, mean wall
thickness around the intrados must be 1.75 times the nominal thickness or less).

This code appears to be more sophisticated, yet easy to use. We recommend that its calculation
techniques be applied even to FRP systems outside its explicit scope, with the following
recommendations:

Pressure stiffening of bends should be based on actual design pressure, rather than
allowable design strain.

Design strain should be based on manufacturers test and experience data wherever
possible (with consideration for expected operating conditions).

Fitting k- and i- factors should be based on manufacturers test or analytic data, if available.

UKOOA
The UKOOA Specification is similar in many respects to the BS 7159 Code, except that it
simplifies the calculation requirements in exchange for imposing more limitations and more
conservatism on the piping operating conditions.

CAESAR II User's Guide

941

Technical Discussions
Rather than explicitly calculating a combined stress, the specification defines an idealized
envelope of combinations of axial and hoop stresses that cause the equivalent stress to reach
failure. This curve represents the plot of:
(sx / sx-all)2 + (shoop / shoop-all)2 - [sx shoop / (sx-all shoop-all)] 1.0
Where:
sx-all = allowable stress, axial
shoop-all = allowable stress, hoop
The specification conservatively limits you to that part of the curve falling under the line between
sx-all (also known as sa(0:1)) and the intersection point on the curve where shoop is twice sx-(a
natural condition for a pipe loaded only with pressure), as shown in the following figure.

An implicit modification to this requirement is the fact that pressure stresses are given a factor of
safety (typically equal to 2/3) while other loads are not. This gives an explicit requirement of:
Pdes f1 f2 f3 LTHP
Where:
Pdes = allowable design pressure
f1 = factor of safety for 97.5% lower confidence limit, usually 0.85
f2 = system factor of safety, usually 0.67
f3 = ratio of residual allowable, after mechanical loads
= 1 - (2 sab) / (r f1 LTHS)
sab = axial bending stress due to mechanical loads
r = sa(0:1)/sa(2:1)
sa(0:1) = long term axial tensile strength in absence of pressure load
sa(2:1) = long term axial tensile strength under only pressure loading
LTHS = long term hydrostatic strength (hoop stress allowable)
LTHP = long term hydrostatic pressure allowable

942

CAESAR II User's Guide

Technical Discussions
This has been implemented in the CAESAR II pipe stress analysis software as:
Code Stress
sab (f2 /r) + PDm / (4t)

Code Allowable

(f1 f2 LTHS) / 2.0

Where:
P = design pressure
D = pipe mean diameter
t = pipe wall thickness
K and i-factors for bends are to be taken from the BS 7159 Code, while no such factors are to
be used for tees.
The UKOOA Specification is limited in that shear stresses are ignored in the evaluation process;
no consideration is given to conditions where axial stresses are compressive; and most required
calculations are not explicitly detailed.

CAESAR II User's Guide

943

Technical Discussions

FRP Analysis Using CAESAR II

Practical Applications
CAESAR II has had the ability to model orthotropic materials such as FRP almost since its
inception. It also can specifically handle the requirements of the BS 7159 Code, the UKOOA
Specification, and more recently ISO 14692. FRP material parameters corresponding to those of
many vendors lines are provided with CAESAR II. You can pre-select these parameters to be
the default values whenever FRP piping is used. Other options, as to whether the BS 7159
pressure stiffening requirements should be carried out using design strain or actual strain can be
set in CAESAR IIs configuration module as well.

944

CAESAR II User's Guide

Technical Discussions

CAESAR II User's Guide

945

Technical Discussions
Selecting material 20 Plastic (FRP) activates CAESAR IIs orthotropic material model and
brings in the appropriate material parameters from the pre-selected materials. The orthotropic
material model is indicated by the changing of two fields from their previous isotropic values:
Elastic Modulus (C) changes to Elastic Modulus/axial and Poisson's Ratio changes to
Ea/Eh*Vh/a. These changes are necessary because orthotropic models require more material
parameters than do isotropic. For example, there is no longer a single modulus of elasticity for
the material, but now two: axial and hoop. There is no longer a single Poissons ratio, but again
two: Vh/a (Poissons ratio relating strain in the axial direction due to stress-induced strain in the
hoop direction) and Va/h (Poissons ratio relating strain in the hoop direction due to
stress-induced strain in the axial direction). Also, unlike isotropic materials, the shear modulus
does not follow the relationship G = 1 / E (1-V), so that value must be explicitly input.

To minimize input, a few of these parameters can be combined due to their use in the program.
Generally, the only time that the modulus of elasticity in the hoop direction or the Poissons
ratios is used during flexibility analysis is when calculating piping elongation due to pressure
(note that the modulus of elasticity in the hoop direction is used when determining certain stress
allowables for the BS 7159 code):
dx = (sx / Ea - Va/h * shoop / Eh) L
Where:
dx

946

= extension of piping element due to pressure

CAESAR II User's Guide

Technical Discussions
sx

= longitudinal pressure stress in the piping element

= modulus of elasticity in the axial direction

Va/h

= Poissons ratio relating strain in the axial direction due to stress-induced

strain in the hoop direction

shoop = hoop pressure stress in the piping element

Eh

= modulus of elasticity in the hoop direction

= length of piping element

This equation can be rearranged, to require only a single new parameter, as:
dx = (sx - Va/h shoop * (Ea / Eh )) * L / Ea
In theory, that single parameter, Vh/a is identical to (Ea / Eh * Va/h) giving: dx = (sx Vh/ashoop) * L / Ea
The shear modulus of the material is required in ordered to develop the stiffness matrix. In
CAESAR II, this value, expressed as a ratio of the axial modulus of elasticity, is brought in from
the pre-selected material, or can be changed on a problem-wise basis using the Special
Execution Parameter (see "Special Execution Parameters" on page 287) dialog box
accessed by the Environment menu from the piping spreadsheet (see figure). This dialog box
also shows the coefficient of thermal expansion (extracted from the vendor file or user entered)
for the material, as well as the default laminate type, as defined by the BS 7159 Code:

Type 1 All chopped strand mat (CSM) construction with an internal and an external
surface tissue reinforced layer.

Type 2 Chopped strand mat (CSM) and woven roving (WR) construction with an internal
and an external surface tissue reinforced layer.

Type 3 Chopped strand mat (CSM) and multi-filament roving construction with an internal
and an external surface tissue reinforced layer.

The latter is used during the calculation of flexibility and stress intensification factors for piping
bends.
You can enter bend and tee information by using the auxiliary spreadsheets.

CAESAR II User's Guide

947

Technical Discussions
You can also change bend radius and laminate type data on a bend by bend basis, as
shown in the corresponding figure.

Specify BS 7159 fabricated and molded tee types by defining CAESAR II tee types 1 and 3
respectively at intersection points. CAESAR II automatically calculates the appropriate flexibility
and stress intensification factors for these fittings as per code requirements.
Enter the required code data on the Allowables auxiliary spreadsheet. The program provides
fields for both codes, number 27 BS 7159 and number 28 UKOOA. After selecting BS 7159,
CAESAR II provides fields for entry of the following code parameters:
SH1 through SH9 = Longitudinal Design Stress = ed ELAMX
Kn1 through Kn9 = Cyclic Reduction Factor (as per BS 7159 paragraph 4.3.4)
Eh/Ea = Ratio of Hoop Modulus of Elasticity to Axial Modulus of Elasticity
K = Temperature Differential Multiplier (as per BS 7159 paragraph 7.2.1)

948

CAESAR II User's Guide

Technical Discussions
After selecting UKOOA, CAESAR II provides fields for entry of the following code parameters:
SH1 through SH9 = hoop design stress = f 1 * LTHS
R1 through R9 = ratio r = (sa(0:1) / sa(2:1))
f2 = system factor of safety (defaults to 0.67 if omitted)
K = temperature differential multiplier (same as BS 7159)
These parameters need only be entered a single time, unless they change at some point in the
system.

Performing the analysis is simpler than the system modeling. <Product> evaluates the operating
parameters and automatically builds the appropriate load cases. In this case, three are built:

Operating includes pipe and fluid weight, temperature, equipment displacements, and
pressure. This case is used to determine maximum code stress/strain, operational
equipment nozzle and restraint loads, hot displacements, and so forth.

Cold (same as above, except excluding temperature and equipment movements). This case
is used to determine cold equipment nozzle and restraint loads.

Expansion (cyclic stress range between the cold and hot case). This case may be used to
evaluate fatigue criteria as per paragraph 4.3.4 of the BS 7159 Code.

After analyzing the response of the system under these loads, CAESAR II displays a menu of
possible output reports. Reports may be designated by selecting a combination of load case and
results type (displacements, restraint loads, element forces and moments, and stresses). From
the stress report, you can determine at a glance whether the system passed or failed the stress
criteria.

CAESAR II User's Guide

949

Technical Discussions
For UKOOA, the piping is considered to be within allowable limits when the operating stress falls
within the idealized stress envelope this is illustrated by the shaded area in the following figure.

Conclusion
A pipe stress analysis program with worldwide acceptance is now available for evaluation of
FRP piping systems as per the requirements of the most sophisticated FRP piping codes. This
means that access to the same analytical methods and tools enjoyed by engineers using steel
pipe is available to users of FRP piping design.

References
1. Cross, Wilbur, An Authorized History of the ASME Boiler an Pressure Vessel Code, ASME,
1990
2. Olson, J. and Cramer, R., "Pipe Flexibility Analysis Using IBM 705 Computer Pro\-gram
MEC 21, Mare Island Report 277-59," 1959
3. Fiberglass Pipe Handbook, Composites Institute of the Society of the Plastics Indus\-try,
1989
4. Hashin, Z., "Analysis of Composite Materials a Survey," Journal of Applied Mechanics, Sept.
1983
5. Greaves, G., "Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic Pipe Design," Ciba-Geigy Pipe Systems
6. Puck, A. and Schneider, W., "On Failure Mechanisms and Failure Criteria of
Filament-Wound Glass-Fibre/Resin Composites," Plastics and Polymers, Feb. 1969
7. Hashin, Z., "The Elastic Moduli of Heterogeneous Materials," Journal of Applied Mechanics,
March 1962
8. Hashin, Z. and Rosen, B. Walter, "The Elastic Moduli of Fibre Reinforced Materials," Journal
of Applied Mechanics, June 1964
9. Whitney, J. M. and Riley, M. B., "Elastic Properties of Fiber Reinforced Composite
Materials," AIAA Journal, Sept. 1966
10. Walpole, L. J., "Elastic Behavior of Composite Materials: Theoretical Foundations,"
Advances in Applied Mechanics, Volume 21, Academic Press, 1989
11. BS 7159: 1989 British Standard Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Glass
Reinforced Plastics GRP Piping Systems for Individual Plants or Sites.
12. UK Offshore Operators Association Specification and Recommended Practice for the Use of
GRP Piping Offshore., 1994

950

CAESAR II User's Guide