New Piping Flexibility Rules in ASME B31.3, Appendix P

2005 ◽  
Vol 128 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Becht ◽  
David W. Diehl
Keyword(s):  
Stress Range ◽  
Flexibility Analysis ◽  
Process Piping ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Stress States ◽  
Stress Analyses

Alternative rules for performing flexibility analysis were added, as Appendix P, in ASME B31.3, the Process Piping Code, 2004 edition. These rules are considered to be more comprehensive than before; they were designed around computer flexibility analysis. To determine stress range, the difference in stress states, considering all loads, is computed. This paper describes the new rules, their intent, and provides several example piping stress analyses, comparing the results of an analysis using the Appendix P rules with that using the rules in the base Code.

New Piping Flexibility Rules in ASME B31.3, Appendix P

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Becht ◽  
David W. Diehl
Keyword(s):  
Stress Range ◽  
Flexibility Analysis ◽  
Process Piping ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Stress States ◽  
Stress Analyses

Alternative rules for performing flexibility analysis were added, as Appendix P, in ASME B31.3, the Process Piping Code, 2004 edition. These rules are considered to be more comprehensive; they were designed around computer flexibility analysis. To compute stress range, the difference in stress states, considering all loads, is computed. This paper describes the new rules, their intent, and provides several example piping stress analyses, comparing the results of an analysis using the Appendix P rules with that using the rules in the base Code.

Measurements of Residual Stress in the Layers of Thin Film Micro-Gas Sensors

2000 ◽  
Vol 657 ◽  
Author(s):  
Youngman Kim ◽  
Sung-Ho Choo
Keyword(s):  
Thin Film ◽  
Mechanical Properties ◽  
Residual Stress ◽  
Gas Sensor ◽  
Gas Sensors ◽  
Micro Gas Sensor ◽  
Thin Film Layer ◽  
Film Layer ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Stress States

ABSTRACTThe mechanical properties of thin film materials are known to be different from those of bulk materials, which are generally overlooked in practice. The difference in mechanical properties can be misleading in the estimation of residual stress states in micro-gas sensors with multi-layer structures during manufacturing and in service.In this study the residual stress of each film layer in a micro-gas sensor was measured according to the five difference sets of film stacking structure used for the sensor. The Pt thin film layer was found to have the highest tensile residual stress, which may affect the reliability of the micro-gas sensor. For the Pt layer the changes in residual stress were measured as a function of processing variables and thermal cycling.

Process Piping: The Complete Guide to ASME B31.3, Fourth Edition

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Becht, IV
Keyword(s):  
Pipe Wall ◽  
Background Information ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Expansion Joints ◽  
Analysis And Design ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Flexibility Analysis ◽  
Process Piping ◽  
Expert Commentary ◽  
Welding Processes

Fully updated for the 2020 Edition of the ASME B31.3 Code, this fourth edition provides background information, historical perspective, and expert commentary on the ASME B31.3 Code requirements for process piping design and construction. It provides the most complete coverage of the Code that is available today and is packed with additional information useful to those responsible for the design and mechanical integrity of process piping. The author and the primary contributor to the fourth edition, Don Frikken are a long-serving members, and Prior Chairmen, of the ASME B31.3, Process Piping Code committee. Dr. Becht explains the principal intentions of the Code, covering the content of each of the Code's chapters. Book inserts cover special topics such as calculation of refractory lined pipe wall temperature, spring design, design for vibration, welding processes, bonding processes and expansion joint pressure thrust. Appendices in the book include useful information for pressure design and flexibility analysis as well as guidelines for computer flexibility analysis and design of piping systems with expansion joints. From the new designer wanting to known how to size a pipe wall thickness or design a spring to the expert piping engineer wanting to understand some nuance or intent of the code, everyone whose career involves process piping will find this to be a valuable reference.

Computer Based Process Piping Stress Analysis: ASME B31.3 Appendix S — Example S2

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don R. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Stress Analysis ◽  
Operating Temperature ◽  
Stress Range ◽  
Explicit Equation ◽  
The Past ◽  
Process Piping ◽  
Piping Systems ◽  
Sustained Loads ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Temperature And Pressure

The American Standards Association (ASA) B31.3-1959 Petroleum Refinery Piping Code [1] grew out of an ASA document that addressed all manner of fluid conveying piping systems. ASA B31.3 was created long before widespread engineering use of computer “mainframes” or even before the inception of piping stress analysis software. Also as B31.3 continued to pass thru standards organizations from ASA, ANSI, to ASME, the B31.3 Process Piping Code [2] (hereafter referred to as the “Code”) has remained ambiguous over the past few decades in several areas. The displacement stress range, SE, has always been explicitly defined by both verbiage and equation. Yet, the sustained condition(s) stress, SL, is mentioned not with an explicit equation but with a statement that the sustained stress shall be limited by the allowable stress at the corresponding operating temperature, Sh. Also one might infer from the vague verbiage in the Code that there is only one sustained condition; this would also be an incorrect inference. Also, assumptions would then have to be made as to which supports are allowed to be included in a sustained analysis based on whether the piping “lifts-off” any of the pipe supports during the corresponding operating condition. This paper describes the subtle yet possibly radical concepts that are included in the (recently approved for inclusion into) ASME B31.3-2006 Appendix S Example S2. This paper discusses: • when and in what manner the most severe set of operating temperature and pressure is to be used; • the concept of “sustained condition” and multiple “anticipated” sustained conditions; • determining the support scenario(s) for each anticipated sustained condition; • establishing the most severe sustained condition to evaluate and determine the stress due to sustained loads, SL; • utilizing an equation with sustained stress indices to evaluate SL; • establishing the least severe sustained condition and its effect in determining the largest displacement stress range, SE.

Investigation of the effect of stress states on hydro-mechanical behaviors of reservoir rock under fluid injection

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qi Li ◽  
Miao He ◽  
Michael Kühn ◽  
Xiaying Li ◽  
Liang Xu
Keyword(s):  
Stress State ◽  
Mechanical Behavior ◽  
Triaxial Compression ◽  
Reservoir Rock ◽  
Fluid Injection ◽  
Differential Stress ◽  
Mechanical Coupling ◽  
Injection Process ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Stress States

<p>Injecting fluid into the formation is an effective solution for improving the permeability and production of a target reservoir. The evaluation of economy and safety of injection process is a challenging issue faced in reservoir engineering [1-2]. As known, the relative magnitude and direction of the principal stresses significantly influence the hydro-mechanical behavior of reservoir rock during fluid injection. However, due to the limitations of current testing techniques, it is still difficult to comprehensively conduct laboratory injection tests under various stress conditions, e.g. triaxial extension stress states [3]. To this end, a series of numerical simulations were carried out on reservoir rock to study the hydro-mechanical changes under different stress states during fluid injection. In this modelling, the saturated rock is first loaded to the target stress state under drainage conditions, and then the stress state is maintained and water is injected from the top end to simulate the reservoir injection process. Particular attention is paid to the difference in hydro-mechanical changes under triaxial compression and extension stresses. This includes the difference of the pore pressure propagation, mean effective stress, volumetric strain, and stress-induced permeability. The numerical results demonstrate that the differential stress will significantly affect the hydro-mechanical behavior of target rock, but the degree of influence is different under the two triaxial stress states. The hydro-mechanical changes caused by the triaxial compression stress states are generally greater than that of extension, but the difference decreases with increasing differential stress, indicating that the increase of the differential stress will weaken the impact of the stress state on the hydro-mechanical response. This study can deepen our understanding of the stress-induced hydro-mechanical coupling process in reservoir injection engineering.</p><p>Keywords: Reservoir injection; Subsurface flow; Hydro-mechanical coupling; Stress state; Triaxial experiment modelling</p><p>[1] Li, X., Lei, X. & Li, Q. 2016. Injection-induced fracturing process in a tight sandstone under different saturation conditions. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75, 1466, http://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6265-2</p><p>[2] Yang, D., Li, Q. & Zhang, L. 2016. Propagation of pore pressure diffusion waves in saturated dual-porosity media (II). Journal of Applied Physics, 119, 154901, http://doi.org/10.1063/1.4946832</p><p>[3] Xu, L., Li, Q., Myers, M., Tan, Y., He, M., Umeobi, H.I. & Li, X. 2021. The effects of porosity and permeability changes on simulated supercritical CO<sub>2</sub> migration front in tight glutenite under different effective confining pressures from 1.5 MPa to 21.5 MPa. Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, http://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.2043</p>

ASME B31.3 Appendices P and S: Compensating for Shortcomings

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don R. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Stress Analysis ◽  
Stress Range ◽  
Analysis Software ◽  
Process Piping ◽  
Computer Based

The 2004 edition of ASME B31.3 Process Piping Code [1] introduced both Appendix P and Appendix S Example 1; Examples 2 and 3 were included in the 2006 edition. Appendix P is to illustrate a nearly computer stress analysis basis by defining alternative rules for displacement stress range evaluation, and Appendix S contains examples describing how to satisfy the requirements of B31.3 when performing computer based stress analysis. As is possible with any extensive addition to any code, these first offerings contained shortcomings either explicitly or by lack of clarity. This paper discusses some of these issues, provides workarounds when using today’s commercially available piping stress analysis software, and proposes revisions to both Appendices for the 2010 edition of the B31.3 Process Piping Code.

2010 Edition of B31.3 Process Piping Code: A First Equation for Stress Due to Sustained Loads

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don R. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Operating Temperature ◽  
Allowable Stress ◽  
Stress Range ◽  
Explicit Equation ◽  
Process Piping ◽  
Sustained Loads ◽  
History Of ◽  
First Time

For the first time in the history of the ASA [1], ANSI/ASME, ASME/ANSI, to the 2008 edition of ASME B31.3 Process Piping Code (hereafter referred to as “the Code”) [2], an equation for the Stress Due To Sustained Loads, SL, has been introduced into the Code. From its inception to the current edition, the Code has remained ambiguous in several areas. Even though the displacement stress range, SE, has been explicitly defined by both text and equation, the stress due to sustained loads, SL, is mentioned not with an explicit equation but with a statement that SL shall be limited by the allowable stress at the corresponding operating temperature, Sh. This paper describes the equation in detail and the background, the events, and the effort involved that led to the insertion of this equation into the Code.

Zero-Stress States of Arteries

1988 ◽  
Vol 110 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Q. Liu ◽  
Y. C. Fung
Keyword(s):  
Stress State ◽  
Normal Condition ◽  
Cylindrical Tube ◽  
Arterial Tree ◽  
Open Sector ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Stress States

The no-load configuration of a living organ is, in general, not the zero-stress state. The difference can be revealed by cutting up an unloaded organ to such an extent that the stress becomes zero in the tissue everywhere. For the aorta, it is shown that the configuration of the zero-stress state differs considerably from being a cylindrical tube. It is, in fact, an open sector with opening angles varying along the arterial tree. This article presents data on the zero-stress state in the arteries of the rat in normal condition.

Critical Analysis of the New High Cycle Fatigue Assessment Procedure From ASME B31.3—Appendix W

2021 ◽  
Vol 143 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikola Jaćimović ◽  
Sondre Luca Helgesen
Keyword(s):  
High Cycle Fatigue ◽  
Design Procedure ◽  
Piping System ◽  
Assessment Procedure ◽  
Stress Range ◽  
Cycle Fatigue ◽  
Fatigue Design ◽  
Process Piping ◽  
Piping Systems ◽  
Fatigue Evaluation

Abstract ASME B31.3, the leading process piping system design code, has included in its 2018 edition a new procedure for evaluation of high cycle fatigue in process piping systems. As stated in the Appendix W of ASME B31.3-2018, this new procedure is applicable to any load resulting in the stress range in excess of 20.7 MPa (3.0 ksi) and with the total number of cycles exceeding 100,000. However, this new procedure is based on the stress range calculation typical to ASME B31 codes which underestimates the realistic expansion stress range by a factor of ∼2. While the allowable stress range used typically for fatigue evaluation of piping systems is adjusted to take into consideration this fact, the new fatigue design curves seem not to take it into account. Moreover, the applicability of the new design procedure (i.e., welded joint fatigue design curves) to the components which tend to fail away from the bends is questionable. Two examples are presented at the end of the paper in order to substantiate the indicated inconsistencies in the verification philosophy.

Method for Selecting Stress States for Use in an NB-3200 Fatigue Analysis

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas L. Meikle V ◽  
E. Lyles Cranford ◽  
Mark A. Gray
Keyword(s):  
Time History ◽  
Stress Range ◽  
Total Stress ◽  
Secondary Stress ◽  
Transient Stress ◽  
Automated Method ◽  
Relative Minimum ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Time Histories ◽  
Stress States

In ASME Code Section III NB-3222.4 fatigue evaluations, selecting stress states to determine the stress cycles according to Section NB-3216.2, Varying Principal Stress Direction, can become a challenging and complex task if the transient stress conditions are the result of multiple independent time varying stressors. This paper will describe an automated method that identifies the relative minimum and maximum stress states in a component’s transient stress time history and fulfills the criteria of NB-3216.2 and NB-3222.4. Utilization of the method described ensures that all meaningful stress states are identified in each transient’s stress time history. The method is very effective in identifying the maximum total stress range that can occur between any real or postulated transient stress time histories. In addition, the method ensures that the maximum primary plus secondary stress range is also identified, even if it is out of phase with the total stress maxima and minima. The method includes a process to determine if a primary plus secondary stress relative minimum or maximum should be considered in addition to those stress states identified in the total stress time history. The method is suitable for use in design analysis applications as well as in on-line stress and fatigue monitoring.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document