Proceedings of the ASME 2014 Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference

PVP2014
July 20-24, 2014, Anaheim, California, USA

PVP2014-28267

Sustained Stress Indices (SSI) in the B31.3 2010 Edition

Charles Becht V Tony Paulin Don Edwards

Becht Engineering Inc. Paulin Research Group ConocoPhillips Company
PO Box 300 (22 Church Street) 11211 Richmond Avenue Suite 109 PRC117GB
Liberty Corner, NJ Houston, TX 77082 Bartlesville, OK 74004
Tel: 908-394-1268 Tel: 281-920-9775 Email: Don.R.Edwards@CoP.com
Email: CB5@becht.com Email: tony@paulin.com

Mark Stonehouse William Santiago Lock Charles Becht IV

Becht Engineering Canada Ltd. Paulin Research Group Becht Engineering Inc.
110-259 Midpark Way, S.E. 11211 Richmond Avenue Suite 109 PO Box 300 (22 Church Street)
Calgary, AB CANADA Houston, TX 77082 Liberty Corner, NJ
Tel: 403-668-8675 Tel: 281-920-9775 Tel: 908-394-1205
Fax: 403-256-3520 Email: willy@paulin.com Email: Chuck@becht.com
Email: mstonehouse@becht.com

ABSTRACT
The 2010 version of B31.3 introduced sustained
stress indices (SSI’s) in paragraph 320. Using methods
in references [1],[2],[3],[4],[5], and [11], a test procedure
was developed to evaluate these SSI’s for standard
metallic piping components. The test procedure has
been incorporated into draft versions of B31J so that the
sustained stress index can be produced at the same
time stress intensification or flexibility factor tests are
performed for a particular component. This paper
describes the sustained stress index and the B31J test
procedure used to determine the SSI.
INTRODUCTION
Prior to 2010, B31.3 instructed the Code user to
compute the stress due to sustained loads, SL, without
providing an explicit equation for the calculation [17]. In
2010, B31.3 provided equations 23a thru 23d for
computation of SL. These equations require the use of a
sustained stress index (SSI). In lieu of more applicable
data the sustained stress index recommended in the
2010 version of B31.3 is a constant multiplied by the
stress intensification factor for in-plane and out-plane
bending loads (ii, io), and is equal to 1.0 for axial and
torsional loads.
In [1], Rodabaugh and Moore describe the simpified
lower bound limit analysis basis used for primary load
evaluation of piping systems in ASME Section III.
B31.1 has for many years used the factor 0.75i with
the nominal pipe bending stress when evaluating SL for
bends and other components. This B31.1 calculated
sustained stress is compared to an allowable stress
based on the smallest of several properties, e.g., yield
stress, tensile stress and certain creep properties. For
the purpose of this discussion the sustained load
allowable stress for the B31.1 and B31.3 piping Codes
will be taken as 2/3 Sy. A simplified B31.1 sustained
stress evaluation can then be described using the
inequality: 0.75iM/Z < 2/3Sy.
Rodabaugh and Moore [1] discussed how this
evaluation, and the primary load analysis for piping
systems in ASME Section III NB, NC and ND is
essentially a lower bound limit analysis of the piping
system component. The SSI for B31.3 will be
established to provide essentially the same lower bound
limit.
NOMENCLATURE
de = elastic specimen displacement calculated from
de = Fm / Ee.
D = mean diameter of pipe
Dnom = nominal diameter of pipe
dn = displacement at the measurement point
calculated from the elastic model of the test
assembly used to find the elastic constant G

1 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 dm = test displacement measurement Ze = effective section modulus
ds = total specimen displacement calculated from
Equation (4) LIMIT LOAD – STRAIGHT PIPE
d = displacement increment used to develop plastic The M2 or collapse moment for straight pipe
portion of the load-deflection diagram between D/T of 10 and 100 can be found per Refs
[1],[11] within approximately 10% by using Eq. 1.
Ee = elastic slope of load-displacement diagram (see
Fig. 4 and Eq. (8)) M 2  D2TS y Eq. 1
Fm = test force measurement Eq. 1 can be correlated to the B31 Code maximum
Fn = nominal load applied to elastic beam model of allowable moment by first dividing both sides by the
the test assembly used to find elastic constant section modulus.
G D 2T
F2 = measured force corresponding to moment M2 Z Eq. 2
4
F = force increment used to develop plastic portion
M2 4S y
of the load-deflection diagram  Eq. 3
G = linear constant relating applied load to Z 
measured displacement for the test assembly The allowable moment (Mallow) when pressure is zero
found from a beam elastic analysis of the test and assuming zero axial force can be approximated as
assembly piping system model shown in Eq. (4).
i = stress intensification factor M allow 2S y
Ia = axial sustained stress index  S h or Eq. 4
Z 3
Ii = in-plane sustained stress index Substituting Eq. (2) into Eq. (4) and using 2/3 Sy
Io = out-of-plane sustained stress index results in.
It = torsional sustained stress index M allow  0.523D2TS y
L = for thru-run components, the distance from the Eq. 5
centerline of the component to the point where
displacements are measured; for branch Dividing Eq. (3) by Eq. (4) gives the ratio of the
connections, distance from centerline of collapse moment to the allowable moment, shown to be
specimen to point where displacements are about 2 as follows.
measured when d/D>0.5 and distance from M2 43
surface of the branch connection to the point   1.91  2 Eq. 6
where displacements are measured M allow  2
Lmin = minimum length of nominal pipe attached to the
tested specimen LIMIT LOAD - ELBOWS
Mm = moment found from Mm = L x Fm The same comparison made above for straight pipe
can be made for elbows. The Stress due to the
Mt = elastic moment capacity of straight pipe = D2 T
Sustained Loads’ evaluation in the B31.1 Code is
Sy.
established by the following inequality.
M2 = twice-elastic slope “collapse moment”, defined
PD 0.75iM
as the moment at the component centerline   Sh Eq. 7
producing a measurement point displacement 4t Z
ds =2Fm/Ee. (See Figs. 7 and 8.) The term 0.75 is not significant for straight pipe since
P = internal pressure 0.75i must be greater than or equal to 1, and 1.0xSSI
T = thickness of pipe (1.0*I) for straight pipe is already at the minimum value
SSI = sustained Stress Index (See B31.3 para 320.2.) of 1.0. The term 0.75i becomes significant for elbows
when i for the elbow is greater than 1.33.
Sh = allowable stress at the anticipated operating
When P=0, for low carbon steel elbows, with h<1.5,
temperature for the condition
and for in-plane applied moments, the collapse, or
SL = stress due to Sustained Loads twice-elastic-slope (M2) moment for bends can be
Sy = minimum Specified Yield Stress estimated from the Rodabaugh Equation 15 – Reference
Z = section modulus of the elbow, matching pipe for [2].
tees and other components

2 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 1 .5 A collapse factor defined as the ratio of the collapse
M2  S y Zh 2 / 3  0.833S y Zh 2 / 3 moment of the component over the collapse moment for
1 .8 Eq. 8 straight pipe is shown in Table 1 & plotted in Figure 1 for
 0.6h 2 / 3 D 2TS y different D/T ratios.
0.35
In Eq. (8), the term (1.8/h2/3)(M/Z) represents a ASME B31.1
circumferential bending stress whose maximum occurs 0.3
Findley

Collapse Factor
at each sidewall of the bend due to an in-plane bending 0.25 Gupta
moment (M) acting uniformly on the bend cross section.
A lower bound allowable collapse stress for the bend 0.2
can be approximated by limiting the sidewall 0.15
circumferential stress to 1.5Sy recognizing that strain
0.1
hardening and the needed formation of a third hinge is
not considered. 0.05
Findley – Reference [16] – gives a similar relation for 0
the in-plane collapse moment for elbows. 0 20 40 60 80 100
D/T ratio (in/in)
M 2  0.8h0.6 D2TS y Eq. 9 Figure 1: Bend In-Plane Collapse Factor

Gupta – Reference [13] – also gives an equation to Table 1: Bend Collapse Factors
predict the twice-elastic-slope moment for elbows
Equation Factor
intended to improve on the Findley [16] and Rodabaugh
[2] methods. ASME Rodabaugh [2] 0.6h2/3
Findley 0.8h0.6
D 2TS y
M2  Gupta {1+0.2/[h1.313]}-1
0.2 Eq. 10
1 1.028  0.095( Bend _ radius / Pipe _ radius) Bend collapse tests reported by Rodabaugh in
h
Reference [2] are given in Table 2 below. This table
Gupta’s equation can be simplified for long radius
contains the ratios of the tested twice-elastic-slope
bends by assuming a bend radius of 1.5Dnom so that the
moments to the calculated limit moments. The limit
bend radius divided by the pipe radius in Eq. (10) is
moment calculation estimates are less than the test limit
about 3. The bend flexibility characteristic, h, can be
moment when the values are less than 1, and the
simplified as follows (h=TR/r2):
calculated limit moments are greater than the test limit
1
TR T R D moment when the values are greater than 1. The most
h 2   2  x3 Eq. 11 accurate estimate of the test moment is given by Gupta.
r r r T 
Combining Eq. (11) with (10) while factoring in the Table 2: Bend In-Plane Closing Moment Collapse
long radius bend results in Gupta’s simplified equation Tests from Reference [2] Table 4.
for the twice elastic slope moment for in-plane loading Roda 
D  T  R  B2  Gupta  Findley
on bends:
6.345 0.28 9 3.68  0.956  0.744  0.509 
1
M2  D 2TS y 6.193 0.43 9 2.67  0.885  0.681  0.481 
0.2 Eq. 12
1  1.313 6.345 0.28 6 4.28  0.699  0.592  0.394 
h
6.345 0.28 9 3.68  0.997  0.775  0.530 
Gupta states that “[The equations above are] highly
simplified limit-load formulas expressed in terms relative 6.345 0.28 9 3.68  1.094  0.851  0.582 
to the limit-load behavior of straight pipe.” The following 6.345 0.28 6 4.82  0.740  0.627  0.417 
basic restrictions apply to the limit-load solutions:
6.193 0.43 9 2.67  1.040  0.801  0.565 
 Material strain-hardening is ignored.
 The effects of finite deformations are ignored. 6.345 0.28 6 4.82  0.863  0.730  0.486 
This may be conservative when axial loads can 6.193 0.43 6 3.5  0.735  0.567  0.390 
stabilize the structure, or non-conservative if 19.5 0.47 30 5.2  1.264  1.109  0.732 
buckling should occur.
 Dynamic, time-dependent effects are ignored. Average  0.927  0.748  0.509 
STDEV  0.179  0.157  0.103 

3 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Note: (1) Other Properties (Lambda/Sy/Matl) listed in D/T Factor
1.2
10 1.035

Collapse Reduction
Table 3 1.1
20 1.02
30 1.005 1

Factor
The allowable moments from ASME Section III and 40 0.99 0.9
B31.3 for each of the test bends in Table 2 are shown in 50 0.975
0.8
75 0.9375
Table 3 ratios with the test collapse moments based on 100 0.9 0.7
the twice-elastic-slope method. The ASME Section III 120 0.87 0.6
allowable moment is approximately one-half of the test 150 0.825 0 50 100 150 200
collapse moment, while the B31.3 allowable moment is 200 0.75 D/T (in/in)
1/1.57 = 63% of the test collapse moment. Omitting the Figure 2: Straight Pipe Collapse Strength
0.75 constant from the B31.3 evaluation gives an Adjustment as a Function of D/T – Reference [11]
allowable moment closer to the ASME Section III
allowable moment. This same approximate relation is shown in Section
If the B31.3 SSI used in B31.3 Eq. 23b for elbows is III Subsection NC Note (3) of Table NC-3673.2(b)-1 for
defaulted to 0.75i, and the Stress due to Sustained each component using B2.
Loads, SL, is limited in accordance with B31.3
302.3.5(c), considering only yield stress, then the B31.3 SUSTAINED STRESS INDEX THEORY
ratio of the collapse moment to the allowed moment is The development of the sustained stress index (SSI)
1.57. If the B31.3 SSI for elbows is 1.0i instead of 0.75i, in the proposed Appendix F of B31J follows the margin
the ratio of the collapse moment to the allowed moment consistent definition in Tan and Matsen – Reference
is 2.11. The ratio of the collapse moment to the [15]. Characteristics of the approach, related to the
allowable moment in Section III is estimated in Table 3 collapse strength of straight pipe, are described below:
to be 2.02, therefore, it appears that SSI = 1.0i is the
a) Use SSI=1 (I=1) for straight pipe or straight pipe
more nearly correct solution if the same margin is
with girth butt welds. This usage provides the
desired for elbows as for straight pipe.
same limit used in the current B31 Code for
straight pipe and gives a safety factor of about 2
Table 3 – Ratio of the twice Elastic Slope Test based on the twice-elastic-slope moment criteria
Moment to the Code Allowable Moments for Test for tests on straight pipe up to a D/T of 100.
Data in Reference [2]. b) The stress due to sustained loads found from
ASME  B31.3  B31.3 the B31.3 Equation (23a) is a measure of the
D  Lambda  Sy  Matl  III  (0.75i)  (1.0i)  collapse strength of the component with respect
6.345  0.25038  50  C  1.952  1.595  2.126  to the collapse strength of straight pipe. In
accordance with B31.3 302.3.5(c) the stress
6.193  0.40549  38  C  2.065  1.608  2.144  computed in the B31.3 Equation (23a) is limited
6.345  0.16692  40  C  2.520  1.962  2.616  to Sh, which is shown in Eqs. (1-6) to be
approximately equal to the collapse strength of
6.345  0.25038  38  S  1.873  1.458  1.944  straight pipe multiplied by a safety factor. The
6.345  0.25038  38  S  1.706  1.328  1.770  maximum allowable moment for straight pipe
6.345  0.16692  36  S  2.382  1.854  2.472  found using this method should be
approximately equal to half of M2, or half of the
6.193  0.40549  35  S  1.757  1.368  1.824  moment from a twice-elastic-slope test of the
6.345  0.16692  46  C  2.043  1.590  2.12  corresponding pipe. Rodabaugh in [2] shows
6.193  0.27033  35  C  2.549  1.984  2.645  that a similar criteria is used for bends and
branch connections in the Section III NC/ND
19.5  0.14895  36  S  1.357  1.056  1.408  Codes, where β in the Rodabaugh [2] Equation
Average Separation from  (2) is 1.0.
2.021  1.580  2.107
Reported Collapse Moment  This approach for the stress index evaluation is
STDEV  0.380  0.295  0.393  described in Reference [13] where the recommended
stress index is given as the collapse load of the pipe
Note: (1) Other properties (T/R/B2) listed in Table 2 divided by the collapse load of the component.

Equation 1 from Reference [11] provides a more D 2TS y

I component  Eq. 13
comprehensive analysis of the collapse moment for pipe M 2 _ component
and includes the function shown in Figure 2, based on
D/T ratio for straight pipe.

4 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 SUSTAINED STRESS INDEX AS CURRENTLY Component i-factor Constant
IMPLEMENTED BY CODE Fabricated Tee Branch 0.3331
The B31.3 2010 recommended SSI factors are given Side
in B31.3 para. 320.2 and, in lieu of more applicable data, Fabricated Tee Run Side 0.571
instruct the user to multiply the i-factor of a component
Welding Tee Branch Side 0.796
by a constant, and be no lower than a value of 1.0. Table
4 below shows the constants recommended in 320.2. Welding Tee Run Side 0.995
Note: (1) for d/D<0.5 (See Notes 2 & 3 for Table 6
below)
Table 4 – B31.3 Values for the SSI in lieu of more
applicable data
Component i-factor SSI for Fa and Using Table 5, more applicable SSIs for B31.3 can
Constant in Mt Loads from be defined in Table 5A:
B31.3 para. B31.3 para.
320.2 for Mi and 320.2 Table 5A – SSIs for B31.3 320.2
Mo Loads Component B31.3 I Index
Elbow 0.75 1.0 Elbow 0.963i
Fabricated Tee 0.75 a
1.0 Fabricated Tee Branch
Branch Sidea Side (d/D<0.5)(See Note 0.333i
Fabricated Tee 0.75 1.0 (a) for Table 4.)
Run Side Fabricated Tee Run Side 0.57i
Welding Tee 0.75 1.0 Welding Tee Branch Side 0.796i
Branch Side Welding Tee Run Side 0.995i
Welding Tee 0.75 1.0
Run Side Table 6 – i-factor Constant Comparison between
Note: (a) For B31.3 the reduced branch section B31.3 and Section III Values from Table 5
modulus is used and so the i-factor constant is also i-factor i-factor SSI
influenced by the effective section Modulus Ze. This Constant Constant B31.3
effect can be approximated as shown in WRC 329 [18] Section III B31.3 320.2
by multiplying the i-factor by t/T. In this case the i- Component4
Mi, Mo, 320.2 Mt
factor “constant” for Mi & Mo will be multiplied by t/T for and Mt Mi and Mo Loads
reduced branch connections. loads. Loads
Elbow 0.963 0.75 1.0
Fabricated Tee 0.75 or
PROPOSED B31.3 SSI FROM ASME III 0.3331 1.0
Branch Side 2,3 (t/T)0.75i
The SSI definition used in the 2010 B31.3 para. Fabricated Tee
320.2 for in-plane and out-of-plane moments is the 0.571 0.75 1.0
Run Side
product of a constant and the stress intensification factor
Welding Tee
from the B31.3 Appendix D. 0.796 0.75 1.0
Branch Side
If the ASME Section III piping code and the B31.3
Welding Tee Run
piping code intend to prevent excessive displacement or 0.995 0.75 1.0
Side
collapse, estimates of SSI values can be found from
ASME Section III B2 indices so that equivalent moment Note: (1) for d/D<0.5
limits are provided in B31.3 when the SSI is used with (2) for B31.3 the reduced branch section
the B31.3 Stress due to Sustained Loads equation. modulus is used and so the i-factor constant is also
Algebraic manipulation of the Section III B2 indices must influence by the effective section modulus Ze. This
be performed since the ASME Section III and B31 effect can be approximated as shown in WRC 329 by
Codes do not use the same stress basis. Table 5 gives multiplying the i-factor by t/T. In this case, the i-factor
the i-factor constants from this Section III derivation Constant for Mi and Mo will be multiplied by t/T for
based on lower bound limit load estimates. reduced branch connections.
(3) Note that the SL evaluation description in
Table 5 – i-factor Constants Developed from ASME B31.3 para.320.2 points the user to B31.3 para.319.4.4
Section III Subsections NB, NC and ND B2 Indices for the section modulus calculation, and in B31.3 para.
319.4.4, Ze is described for the branch side stress
Component i-factor Constant
calculation for reduced branch connections.
Elbow 0.963

5 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 (4) B31.3 should caution designers that local
circumferential support may be required for straight pipe
or other components when D/T > 50 and that it is the
responsibility of the designer to verify that SSI’s are
applicable when D/T > 50.

It is thought, and indirectly confirmed by pressure

testing, that large i-factors for thin components are
unrealistic since small amounts of plastic deformation
can result in a redistribution of load from bending to
membrane, and to other parts of the geometry. In this
case, and particularly for branch connections where local
stresses will not cause buckling, it is believed that a
more appropriate value for the SSI is i0.3 instead of 0.75
i. An evaluation of the unreinforced intersection data
from NUREG/CR-5856 for in-plane moment loads
supports this contention for unreinforced branch
Figure 4: In-plane Collapse Moment Correlation
connections as seen in Figure 4 where (i0.23)(M/Z) is
compared to the nominal stress found using M2 from the
test. (When t/T>1, t/T i0.23 is used.) Figure 3 shows a Local design details at support locations and the D/T
similar comparison for out-of-plane loads on ratio are the main considerations to be evaluated when
unreinforced branch connections. deciding if more applicable data is needed for SSIs.
Since SSIs also influence the evaluation of occasional
loads, it seems reasonable to determine when SSIs of
1.0 can safely be used and when more applicable data
should be used for SSI values in a particular piping
system.

B31J SSI TEST PROCEDURE

Much of the test data on branch connections was

Figure 3: Out-of-plane Collapse Moment Correlation
performed in low D/T ranges and, as pointed out by
Rodabaugh[3], was not conducted using a uniform
criteria. The twice-elastic-slope method described in
the draft B31J document provides a uniform test criteria
already used by a number of investigators including
Matzen [6,15] to establish allowable primary loads on
piping system components.
There may be geometric configurations where the
twice-elastic-slope method should not be used, or should
be used only carefully. The approach developed for
B31J piping components has specimen length criteria
intended to eliminate or effectively minimize the adverse
effect of test geometry.
The procedure defined in the draft B31J document
may be used to produce sustained stress indices Ii or Io
for the geometries in Figures 5a and 5b, and Figure 6
below.

6 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Lmin  0.5 D 1.4T 0.4 Eq. 14

In some instances the length of the attached straight

pipe can influence the measured sustained stress index.
The length guidelines given here are intended to limit
this effect to less than 10%.
Prescribed forces are applied in specified
increments during the test until one of the following
occurs:
(a) Branch Connection Specimen (b) Thru-Run Specimen (i) di > 2 fi/Ee Eq. 15
Figure 5 – Standard Sustained Stress Index Setup
(ii)At any point where the applied force or
displacement does not vary with time and the
current recorded measured force (fi) is 15% smaller
than any previously recorded measured force.
(iii)During or after the load increment is applied a
locally damaged area appears on the pipe or the
specimen that would compromise the pressure
integrity of the component. Local wall dimples or
small washboard undulations are not considered
locally damaged areas.
(iv) Mm > 1.2 D2TSy Eq. 16

Figure 6 – Bend Sustained Stress Index Setup Guidelines are provided for cases where the
specimen limit load is pressure sensitive. This can occur
with mechanical and some explosion bonded joints.
Two types of collapse mechanisms are identified in
the B31.J draft: When the load capacity test is completed
(a) those where load carrying capacity drops successfully, the sustained stress index is calculated
significantly as M2 is approached, or where loss of fluid from:
containment capacity is imminent, or significant flow
Mt
restrictions occur as M2 is approached. (This type of
collapse mechanism would be expected at a flanged
I i or I o  Eq. 17
M2
joint, bimetallic joint, ball joint, explosion bonded joint, or
other coupling, or where buckling occurred.) The sustained stress index Ii, or Io cannot be less
(b) those where load capacity is constant or slightly than 1.
increasing as M2 is approached, and where loss of fluid A ten page commentary is provided with the draft
containment capacity is not imminent and significant flow B31J document. The commentary includes a theoretical
restrictions do not occur due to the load M2, nor are discussion of the basis for the lower bound limit analysis
expected to occur should the displacement at M2 be of Rodabaugh, Larsen and Moore, gives test data and
doubled. (This type of collapse mechanism would be develops the relationships between Section III B indices
expected at a welded branch connection, elbow, straight and the B31.3 SSI.
pipe, etc.)
It is recognized by the draft standard that when
collapse mechanism (a) applies, the simplified analyses
in an elastic beam analysis may not provide a sufficient
safety margin, and additional safeguarding is
recommended.
Minimum and maximum test lengths are established
to validate the test. These are based on the local
flexibility of the component and the flexibility of the
attached pipe. The minimum allowed pipe length is
given by:

7 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Bulletin 433, Welding Research Council, New York,
N.Y., 1998
6. Matzen, V.C., Yuan, X., “The B2 Stress Index as a
Function of Internal Pressure, Bend Angle, Loading
Type and Material,” Trans of the 17th Int. Conf. on
Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SmiRT
17) Prague, Czech Republic, August 17-22, 2003.
7. B.H. Wu, Z.F. Sang, G.E.O. Widera, “Plastic
Analysis for Cylindrical Vessels under In-plane
Moment on Nozzle”.
8. ”Welding Research Council Bulletin 254”, “J.C.
Gerdeen “A Critical Evaluation of Plastic Behavior
Data and a Unified Definition of Plastic Loads for
Pressure Components”, E.C.
Rodabaugh,“Interpretive Report on Limit Analysis
and Plastic Behavior of Piping Products”, W.J.
O’Donnell, “Interpretive Report on Limit Analysis of
Flat Circular Plates”.
Figure 7 – Load-Displacement Diagram from Test (Ref 9. A.M. Gresnigt, S.A. Karamanos, ”Local Buckling
[7] Fig. 7(b)] Strength and Deformation capacity of Pipes,”
Proceedings of the nineteenth (2009) International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Osaka,
japan, June 21-26, 2009.
10. K. Ogawa, M. Yamanari, Y. Makino, Y. Kurobane,
“Buckling and Post-Buckling Behavior of Complete
Tubular Trusses under Cyclic Loading.”, OTC 5439,
Houston, Texas, 1987.
11. S.Hauch, B. Yong,”Bending Moment Capacity of
Figure 8 – Load-Displacement Diagram at ds = 2de Limit Pipes”, Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering,
July 11-16, 1999.
12. F.Touboul, M.B. Jdidia, D.Acker, “Design Rules for
REFERENCES
Piping: Plastic Stability of Straight Parts Under Level
1. S.E.Moore, E.C.Rodabaugh, “Background for the D Loadings”, PVP Conference – 22-26, July 1989.
ASME Nuclear Code Simplified Method for 13. S.K. Gupta, V.Bhasin, K.K.Vaze, A.K.Ghosh, H.S.
Bounding Primary Loads in Piping Systems” Kushwaha, “General Limit Load and B2 Stress Index
2. S.E.Moore, E.C. Rodabaugh, “Evaluation of the Equation for Pipe Bends Under In Plane Bending”,
Plastic Characteristics of Piping Products in Relation Transactions, SMiRT 19, Toronto, August 2007.
to ASME Code Criteria”, NUREG/CR-0261, July, 14. S.E. Moore, E.C. Rodabaugh, “Background for
1978. Changes in the 1981 Edition of the ASME Nuclear
3. E.C.Rodabaugh, R.C.Gwaltney, S.E. Moore, Power Plant Components Code for Controlling
“Review of ASME Code Criteria for Control of Primary Loads in Piping Systems”, Journal of
Primary Loads on Nuclear Piping System Branch Pressure Vessel Technology, November 1982, Vol.
Connections and Recommendations for Additional 104.
Development Work”, NUREG/CR-5358; ORNL/TM- 15. Y.Tan, “Experimental and Nonlinear FEA
11572RM, Published: November 1993. Investigation of Elbow Leading to a New Definition of
4. Gerdeen,J.C., E.C.Rodabaugh, “A Critical the B2 Stress Index”, with V.C. Matzen, Civil Eng.
Evaluation of Plastic Behavior Data and A Unified Dept, North Carolina State University, 2001.
Definition of Plastic Loads for Pressure 16. J.Spence, G.E. Findley, “Limit Load for Pipe Bends
Components”, and “Interpretive Report on Limit Under In-Plane Bending”, Proc.,2nd International
Analysis and Plastic Behavior of Piping Products”, Conference on Pressure Vessel Technology, San
WRC Bulletin 254, Welding Research Council, New Antonio, Texas pp. 393-399.
York, N.Y., 1979 17. Edwards, D.R., “2010 Edition of B31.3 Process
5. Scavuzzo, R.J., Srivatsan, T.S., Lam, P.C., Piping Code: A First Equation for Stress Due to
Rodabaugh, E.C., “Fatigue of Butt-Weld Pipe,” WRC Sustained Loads”, ASME 2010 Pressure Vessels

8 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 and Piping Conference: Volume 3,Bellevue,
Wshington, USA, July 18-22, 2010, pp 287-294.
18. Rodabaugh, E.C., “Accuracy of Stress Intensification
Factors for Branch Connections,” WRC Bulletin 329,
Welding Research Council, New York, N.Y., 1987

9 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms