Comparison of ASME B31.1 Sustained Load Stresses to Corresponding Tresca Stresses
Conventional United States designs of high energy piping (HEP) systems use the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B31.1 Power Piping Code. The analytical methodology in this code is based on linear elastic beam theory. The ASME B31.1-2010 Power Piping Code (Code) [1] recommends Equation 15 to calculate the piping stress due to sustained loads. Many practitioners believe that the sustained load stress (SL) results using Equation 15 are not significantly less than using a Tresca methodology for the same set of forces and moments. This paper provides a comparison of the ASME B31.1 SL stresses to the corresponding Tresca stresses in parent material, based on empirical HEP system stress analyses. The results of three piping system evaluations are considered, including examples of longitudinal stress lower than the circumferential stress and examples where the longitudinal stress is greater than the circumferential stress. This study considers the elastic primary stresses on the outside surface of the pipe, prior to any creep redistribution. At locations where the longitudinal stress is greater than the circumferential stress, the SL stress is nearly the same as the elastic Tresca stress. At locations where the longitudinal stress is considerably less than the circumferential stress, the SL stress is considerably less than the elastic Tresca stress. This conclusion is due to the fact that the SL stress is primarily governed by longitudinal loading. The paper also considers inelastic primary stresses, after complete creep redistribution. For piping materials operating in the creep regime, the axial and circumferential pressure stresses are eventually redistributed and are maximum at the outer surface of the pipe. After several years of operation, the Code SL stresses and elastic Tresca stresses are significantly less than the inelastic Tresca stresses. Consequently, the use of SL stresses and elastic Tresca stresses for estimating component inelastic primary stresses would be nonconservative.