SECTION 1 -Peeescecesqoteccccccce ooe@eenne een # Ae¢ 1.0 1a ooce@ @ @ 0418889 @ 12 ne) ° ° ° 13 e 14 1.5 ° ° ° o ° & ° ° e e ° ° Q ° e ° 2 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Section 1 Table of Contents Introduction to Pipe Stress Analysis ‘Theory and Development of Pipe Stress Requirements 1.1.1 Basic Stress Concepts LL2_ 3-D State of Stress in the Pipe Wall.. 1.1.3 Failure Theories... 1.1.4 Maximum Stress Intensity Criterion Fatigue Failure 1.2.1 Fatigue Basics. 1.2.2 Fatigue Curves. 1.2.3 Effect of Fatigue on Piping 1.2.4 Cyclic Reduction Factor .. 1.2.5 Effect of Systained Loads on Fatigue Strength .. Stress Intensification Factors Welding Research Council Bulletin 380 Code Compliance .. 1.5.1. Primary vs. Secondary Loads 1.5.2 Code Stress Equations 1.5.8 BB11 Power Piping 1.5.4 B81.3 Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping 1.5.5 ASME Section III, Subsections NC & ND (Nuclear Class 2 & 3) 1.5.6 B314 Puel Gas Piping... 1.5.7 BS1.8 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Code 1.5.8- Canadian 2183/2184 Oil/Gas Pipeline Systems ... 15.9 RCOMC.. 1.5.10 Stoomwezen .. - 1.5.11 Special Considerations of Code Compliance... 1.5.12 Evaluation of Multiple Expansion Range Cases8 ‘@ 9 o ° a o o e ° 9 9 eoeeecooceecceeeseereevece COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 1.0 Introduction to Pipe Stress Analysis In order to properly design a piping system, the engineer must understand both a system's behavior under potential loadings, as well as the regulatory requirements imposed upon it by the governing codes. A system's behavior can be quantified through the aggregate values of numerous physical parameters, such as accelerations, velocities, displacements, internal forces and moments, stresses, and external reactions developed under applied loads. Allowable values for each of these parameters are set after review of the appropriate failure criteria for the system. System response and failure criteria are dependent on the type of loadings, which can be classified by various distinctions, such as primary vs. secondary, sustained vs. occasional, or static vs. dynamic. ‘The ASME/ANSI B31 piping codes are the result of approximately 8 decades of work by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the American National Standards Institute (formerly American Standards Association) aimed at the codification of design and engineer- ing standards for piping systems. The B31 pressure piping codes (and their successors, such asthe ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Section [lI nuclear piping codes) prescribe minimum design, materials, fabrication, assembly, erection, test, and inspection requirements for piping systems intended for use in power, petrochemical/refinery, fuel gas, gas transmission, and nuclear applications. Due to the extensive calculations required during the analysis of a piping system, this field of engineering provides a natural application for computerized calculations, especially during the last two to three decades. The proliferation of easy-to-use pipe stress software has hada two-fold effect: first, ithas taken pipe stress analysis out of the hands ofthe highly- paid specialists and made it accessible tothe engineering generalist, butlikewiseithas made everyone, even those with inadequate piping backgrounds, capable of turning out official- looking results. ‘The intention of this course is to provide the appropriate background for engineers entering the world of pipe stress analysis. The course concentrates on the design requirements (particularly from a stress analysis point of view) of the codes, as well as the techniques to be applied in order to satisfy those requirements. Although the course is taught using the CAESAR TI Pipe Stress Analysis Software, the skills learned here are directly applicable to any means of pipe stress analysis, whether the engineer uses a competing software program or even manual calculational methods. Why do we Perform Pipe Stress Analysis? There are a number of reasons for performing stress analysis on a piping system. A few of these follow: ' 1 - In order to keep stresses in the pipe and fittings within code allowable levels. 2 - In order to keep nozzle loadings on attached equipment within allowables of manufacturers or recognized standards (NEMA SM23, API 610, API 617, etc.).COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Inorder to keep vessel stresses at piping connections within ASME Section VII allowable levels. o » In order to caleulate design loads for sizing supports and restraints. In order to determine piping displacements for interference checks, a In order to solve dynamic problems in piping, such as those due to mechanical vibration, acoustic vibration, fluidhammer, pulsation, transient flow, and relief valve discharge. o ’ 7 ~~ Inorder to help optimize piping design. Typical Pipe Stress Documentation Documentation typically associated with stress analysis problems consists of the stress isometric, the stress analysis input echo, and the stress analysis results output. Examples of these documents are shown in Figures 1-1 through 1-8 on subsequent pages. ‘The stress isometric(Figure 1-1)is asketch, drawn in an isometric coordinate system, which gives the viewer a rough 3-D idea of the piping system. The stress isometric often summarizes the piping design data, as gathered from other documents, such as the line list, piping specification, piping drawing, Appendix A (Figure 1-2) of the applicable piping code, etc. Design data typically required in order to do-pipe stress analysis consists of pipe materials and sizes; operating parameters, such as temperature, pressure, and fluid contents; code stress allowables; and loading parameters, such as insulation weight, external equipment movements, and wind and earthquake criteria. Points of interest on the stress isometric are identified by node points. Node points are required at any location where it is necessary to provide information to, or obtain information from, the pipe stress software. Typically, node points are located as required in order to: 1 - define geometry (system start, end, direction changes, intersection, etc.) 2 - note changes in operating conditions (system start, isolation or pressure reduc- tion valves, etc.) 3 - dofine element stiffness parameters (changes in pipe cross section or material, rigid elements, or expansion joints) 4 + designate boundary conditions (restraints and imposed displacements) 5 + specify mass points (for refinement of dynamic model) 6 + note loading conditions (insulation weight, imposed forces, response spectra, earthquake g-factors, wind exposure, snow, etc.) 7 - retrieve information from the stress analysis (stresses at piping mid spans, displacements at wall penetrations, atc.) aeeccoekoes C3o5eoce Hoe en ec eee 6 o 0 6 e eSOCe@@@ G8 57086980: x caseeeoeoerese COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes ‘The input echo (Figure 1-3) provides more detailed information on the system, and is meant to be used by the engineer in conjunction with the stress isometric. ‘The analysis output provides results, such as displacements, internal forces and moments, stresses, and restraint loadings at each node point of the pipe, acting under the specified loading conditions. CAESAR IZ provides results in either graphic or text format; Figures 1-4 and 1-5 present stress and displacement results graphically, The output also provides a code check calculation for the appropriate piping code, ‘from which the analyst can determine which locations are over stressed. SsEni oN a Computed thernal expansion of the vessel is a5 17.26BE-6 in/in/dag-F. at a temp of 828 dos. Exchanger Kode 108 is 26.88 ft. above vessel skirt Diep. @ 282 = (820-78)dey.F(17 2688-6) in/ in/doge (20.00) (izsrt. inet. = 3.121 in X Diep. @ 128 = (828-78)(17.260E-G>(28.08+6.5-15)(12) 24.8 in, Figure 1-1co oee er ogeeceeeeeeesroeecrxre00 i Oo ) u 2 yy | 3 = 4 x 4 none « so eo E 2 a Ok 4 a ee Pew mm now UE z \ om mw a ” g soa | een 3 a a Doom s 3 200 eee —, a BY My Boepreayads famed ¥ pure 20 spe mH ay KaraTEIN 4 EargNY, PRI MRO THN FLISY MY BanIEND Res STV SPIO my LOY OF IY FEY mG @] —Manvornemaiw sence suomnoTl ave {0 SWON ws WMA HT sascvts SNOT OVE ‘tae YSN oe “alos evn ” exau neouire mnie: aw nv ova crate enna noronzee any sri OMT tvawet , ‘nist Hensorad val 9000 IY ‘on tannerat vou nao ne onoa nec amewser COADE Pipe@eeoeoeeeeeeeocvree en oeeeccvceeeecdg COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes CAESAR I1 VERS 3.18 JOBNANE:SSEM1 DEC 10, 1992 3:05 am PIPE DATA From 100 Te 105 bY= 3.800 ft. PIPE Dia= 20.000 in. Walt= .375 fn. Insul= 2.000 in. GENERAL Tim 700 F Pl= 125.0000 Ib./sq.in, Mat~ (1)LOW CARBON STEEL E= 27,900,000 Ib./sq.in. v= .282 Density .2899 1D./cu.in. RIGID Weight 3,290.00 1b, DESPLACEMENTS Node 100 X= .000 in. Y= 3.121 tn. OZ .000 in, RX -000 Ry= .000 RZ» .000 ALLOWABLE STRESSES 831.3 (1990) Se= 20,000 1b. /sq.in. Sh 16,500 1b./sq.in. From 105 To 110 DY= 3.000 ft. BEND at “To” end Radius= 30,000 in. (LONG) Bend Angle 90.000 Angle/Node @1= 45.00 109 Angle/Node @2= .00 108 From 110 To 128 Dk= 12.000 ft. BEND at “TO™ ena Radius 30.000 in. (LONG) Bend Angle= 90.000 Angte/Node @l= 45.00 114 Angle/Node @2~ .00 113 From 115. To 120 DY= -18.000 ft. DISPLACEMENTS Node 120 DX» FREE DY= 1.800 in. DZ FREE RX= FREE RY™ FREE RZ FREE From 120 To 225 DY= -3.000 ft. BEND at *70” end Radius= 30,000 in. (LONG) Bend Angie= 90.000 Angle/Node @l~ 45.00 124 Angle/Node @2= .0G 123 From 125. To 130 x= 35.000 ft. RESTRAINTS, Node 130 +¥ From 130 To 135 OX= 35.000 ft. RESTRAINTS. Node 135 +¥ From 135 To 140 D¥m 35.000 ft. RESTRAINTS Node 140 +7 From 140 To 145 D¥= 20.000 Ft. BEND at “To” end . Radtus= 30.000 in. (LONG) Bend Angle= 90.000 Angle/Node @i~ 45.00 144 Angle/Node @2= .09 143 ‘ From 145 To 150 DY= -12.900 ft. RESTRAINTS Rode 150 ANC Figure 1-8COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes cose 3 CEXP)OGHDL-D2 | FILE:SSIML EC 4.1992 12:47am quir ropes cvssTa xs rove muss exrRL, STRESS ‘simaot Brin axa mb mans. Axia STRESS ODEs 123 (UERSTRESSED MODES . Figure 1-4 CASE 1 COPEW-DIS-TL-PL FILE:SSEN2 DEC 4,952 12:49am. RESET ur peri SPECrY agate ono tan HRDCEY woe 25 ax, ises. x Figure 1-5 16 os ee 0 eda o ‘ wooo ee , ollo we oc rv e crc bee oeeeCOADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes What are these Stresses? ‘The stresses calculated are not necessarily real stresses (such as could be measured by a strain gauge, forexample), but are rather “code” stresses. Code stress calculations are based ‘upon specific equations, which are the result of 8 decades of compromise and simplification. ‘The calculations reflect: 1: Inclusion or exclusion of piping loads, based upon convenience of calculation or selected fa‘iure. In fact the result may not even represent an absolute stress value, but rather a RANGE of values. ‘Loading type — these are segregated, and analyzed separately, as though they occur in isolation, even though they actually are present simultaneously. Magnification, due to local fitting configuration, which may in reality reflect a decrease in fatigue strength, rather than an increase in actual stress. Code committee tradition — every code is a result of a different set of concerns and compromises, and therefore may appear to be on a different branch of the evolutionary ladder. Because of this, every code gives different results when calculating stresses. A summary of significant dates in the history of the development of the piping codes is presented below: 1815 - Power Piping Society provides the first national code for pressure piping. 1926 - ‘The American Standards Association initiates project B31 to govern pressure piping. 1955 - Markl publishes his paper “Piping Flexibility Analysis”, introducing piping analysis methods based on the “stress range”. 1957 - First computerized analysis of piping systems. 1968 - Congress enacts the Natural Pipeline Safety Act, establishing CFR 192, which will in time replace B31.8 for gas pipeline transportation. 1969 Introduction of ANSI B31.7 code for Nuclear power plant piping. 1971 - Introduction of ASME Section III for Nuclear power plant piping. 1974 - Winter Addenda B31.1 moves away from the separation of bending and torsional moment terms in the stress calculations and alters the intensi- fication factor for moments on the branch leg of intersections. 1978 ANSI B31.7 is withdrawn, 1987 - — Welding Research Council Bulletin 330 recommends changes to the B81.1, B31.3, and ASME Ili Class 2 and 3 piping codes.COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 1.1 Theory and Development of Pipe Stress Requirements 1.1.1 Basic Stress Concepts Normal stresses: Normal stresses are those acting in a direction normal to the face of the crystal structure of the material, and may be either tensile or compressive in nature. (In fact, normal stresses in piping tend more to tension due the predominant nature of internal pressure as a load case.) Normal stresses may be applied in more than one direction, and may develop from a number of different types of loads. For a piping system, these are discussed, below: Longitudinal stress: Longitudinal, or axial, stress is the normal stress acting parallel to thelongitudinal axis ofthe pipe. Thismay becaused by an internal force acting axially within the pipe: Figure 1.6 Suo= Fax/Am Where Sz = longitudinal stress, psi Fay = internal axial force acting on cross-section, Ib Am = metal cross-sectional area of pipe, in? = dg? - aj2)/4 = Ragt d, = outer diameter, in d, = inner diameter, in dm = mean diameter, = (dy + d))/2 18 Pecenscaee Teoxreenooaretbsaoaag oC oo @eeoecocoecee @ GG@oeosoovaeeeeascrcsee @eorvroevend0 yee eecceeecog COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes A specific instance of longitudinal stress is that due to internal pressure: SL Internal Pressure SL Figure 1-7 SL = PA/Am Where: P = design pressure, psig A; = internal area of pipe, in? = nd2/4 < Replacing the terms for the internal and metal areas of the pipe, the previous equation may be written as: SL P dj? / (2 - 42), or: S 1 Pal /4dut For convenience , the longitudinal pressure stress is often conservatively approximated as: S, = Pdj/4t Another component of axial normal stress is bending stress. Bending stress is zero at the neutral axis of the pipe and varies linearly across the cross-section from the maximum compressive outer fiber tothe maximum tensile outer fiber. Calculating the stress aslinearly proportional to the distance from the neutral axis: Variation in Bending Stress Thru Cross Section Max compressive stress 1/2 mox compressive stress Neutral Axis Zero bending stress 1/2 mex tension siress Mcx tension stress Figure 1-8 &COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes o . ° SL = Mye/I Where: . Mp = bending moment acting on cross-section, in-Ib © © = distance of point of interest from neutral axis of cross-section, in ° I = moment of inertia of cross-section, in¢ o =n (dod = &j4)/ 64 e ° Maximum bending stress occurs where cis greatest — where itis equal to the outer radius: ° Smox = MpRo/I = My/Z ° Where: ° Ry = outer radius of pipe, in Qc Z = section modulus of pipe, ind e = I/R o Summing all components of longitudinal normal stress: _? Sto= Fax/Am+Pdo/4t+Mp/Z e e Hoop stress: There are other normal stresses present in the pipe, applied in directions orthogonal to the axial direction. One of these stresses, caused by internal pressure, is called e hoop stress. This stress acts in a direction parallel to the pipe circumference. ee 8, ==] e iD, : BY 8 3,244 o- o 7 Figure 1-9 e ‘The magnitude of the hoop stress varies through the pipe wall and can be calculated by an ‘Lame’s equation as: e Sq = P(g 2 +12 152 /12)/(r92 - 112) ° ° e da ° ° 2. 2. oFCOADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes ‘Where: Si = hoop stress due to pressure, psi = inner radius of pipe, in To = outer radius of pipe, in 1 = radial position where stress is being considered, in ‘The hoop stress can be conservatively approximated for thin-wall cylinders, by assuming that the pressure force, applied over an arbitrary length of pipe, 1 (F = P dj )), is resisted uniformly by the pipe wall over that same arbitrary length (Am, = 2t 1), or: Sa = Pdl/2tl, or: Su = Pdj/2t, or conservatively: esse e@esoxeeec eae y Sq = Pd/2t Radial stress: Radial stress is the third normal stress present in the pipe wall. It acts in the third orthogonal direction, parallel to the pipe radius. Radial stress, which is caused by internal pressure, varies between a stress ‘equal to the internal pressure at the pipe’s inner surface and a stress equal to atmospheric pressure at the pipe’s external surface. Assuming that there is no external pressure, radial stress may be calculated as: Figure 1-10 SR o= Pre -rj2 162/22) /(r2- 172) Where: Sr = radial stress due to pressure, psi ‘ Note that radial stress is zero at the outer radius of the pipe, where the bending stresses are maximized. For this reason, this stress component has traditionally ‘been ignored during the stress calculations, Shear stresses: Shear stresses are applied in a direction parallel to the face of the plane of the crystal structure of the material, and tond to cause adjacent planes of the crystal to . e e e e e e ° . & °o 9 e e e o 9 e e °‘COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes slipagainst each other. Shear stresses may be caused by more than one type of applied load. For example, shear stress may be caused by shear forces acting on the cross-section: Shear Oistribution Profile Teo Figure 1-11 tmx = VQ/Am %max = maximum shear stress, psi V_= shear force, Ib Q = shear form factor, dimensionless (1.333 for solid circular section) ‘These shear stresses are distributed such that they are maximum at the neutral axis of the pipe and zero at the maximum distance from the neutral aris. Since this is the opposite of the case with bending stresses, and since these stresses are usually small, shearstresses due to forces are traditionally neglected during pipe stress analysis. Shear stresses may also be caused by torsional loads: oe Dewees cecVeect ree eee wee ees rsoaeersoaeeoeeoeevereeeaosceee coe een 8 oO & S ° ° ° ° ° ° . . e 9 My = internal torsional moment acting on cross-section, in-Ib ¢ = distance of point of interest from torsional center (intersection of neutral axes) of cross-section, in y R= torsional resistance of cross-section, int = 21 = pldat- 48/32 Maximum torsional stress occurs where c is maximized — at the outer radius: Tmax = MpRo/21 = Mr/2Z ‘Summing the individual components of the shear stress, the maximum shear stress acting on the pipe cross-section is: tmx = VQ/An+My/2Z Example Stress Calculations: As noted above, a number of the stress components described above have been neglected for convenience during calculation of pipe stresses. Most U.S. piping codes require stresses to be calculated using some form of the following equations: Longitudinal stress: S, = = My /Z+ Fax/Am+Pdo/4t Shear stress: tT = Mp/2Zv Hoop stress: Se = Pa/2t Calculations are illustrated for a 6-inch nominal diameter, standard wall pipe (assuming the piping loads are known): Cross sectional properties: Piping loads: dy = 6.625 in Bending moment (Mp) = 4247 ft-lb qd - 6.065 in Axial force (Fjx) = 33488 Ib ‘ t = 0.280in Pressure (P) = 600psi_ | Zz . 8.496 in? Torsional Moment (Mz) = = 8495 ft-lb Am = 6.5813 in? 113COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Longitudinal stress: Sp = 4247 x 12/8.496 + 33488/5.5813 + 600 x 6.625/4 (0.280) = 18647 psi Shear stress: T = 8495 x 12/2 (8.496) = 5999 psi ‘Hoop stress: Sq = 600 x 6.625 /2 (0.280) = 7098 psi 1.1.2 3-D State of Stress in the Pipe Wall During operation, pipes are subject to al of these types of stresses. Examining a small cube of metal from the most highly stressed point of the pipe wall, the stresses are distributed as 50: Figure 1-13 ‘There are an infinite number oforientations in which this cube could have been selected, each. with a different combination of normal and shear stresses on the faces. For example, there is one orientation of the orthogonal stress axes for which one normal stress is maximized, and another for which one normal stress is minimized — in both cases all shear stress components are zero. In orientations in which the shear stress is zero, the resulting normal components of the stress are termed the principal stresses. For 3-dimensional analyses, there are three of them, and they are designated as S; (the maximum), Sp, and Ss (the minimum). Note that regardless of the orientation of the stress axes, the sum of the orthogonal stress components is always equal, ie: Sp +Sq+Sp=S; +S: +S; ‘The converse of these orientations is that in which the shear stress component is maximized (there is also an orientation in which the shear stress is minimized, but this is ignored since the magnitudes of the minimum and maximum shear stresses are the same); this is appropriately called the orientation of maximum shear stress. The maximum shear stresspoe ee cceee sc ogee eee rere sores envree een COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes ina three dimensional state of stress is equal toone-halfof the difference between the largest and smallest of the principle stresses (S; and Sg). ‘The values of the principal and maximum shear stress can be determined through the use ofa Mobr’s circle. The Mohr's circle analysis can be simplified by neglecting the radial stress component, therefore considering a less complex (i.e., 2-dimensional) state of stress. A ‘Mohr’s circle can be developed by plotting the normal vs. shear stresses for the two known orientations (1., the longitudinal stressvs, the shear and the hoop stress vs, the shear), and constructing a circle through the two points. The infinite combinations of normal and shear stresses around the circle represent the stress combinations present in the infinite number of possible orientations of the local stress axes. A differential element at the outer radius of the pipe (where the bending and torsional ‘stresses are maximized and the radial normal and force-induced shear stresses are usually zero) is subject to 2-dimensional plane stress, and thus the principal stress terms can be computed from the following Mohr’s circle: Figure 1-14 ‘The center of the circle is at (Sy, + Sy)/2 and the radius is equal to [ (Sp - Sy)/ 212 + T2309, ‘Therefore, the principal stresses, S; and Sq, are equal to the center of the circle, plus orminus the radius, respectively. The principal stresses are calculated as: S. = Gy +Sx)/2+((Sp-Sq)/ 2] +2 2 and “Se = GL +Sp)/2-((S_-Sw/ 22+ 22 As noted above, the maximum shear stress present in any orientation is equal to(S1 - S2)/2, or: i umax = (Gr - SH)? +42 2 2COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 1.1.3 Failure Theories To be useful, calculated stresses must be compared to material allowables. Material allowable stresses are related to strengths as determined by material uniaxial tensile tests, therefore calculated stresses must also be related to the uniaxial tensile test. This relationship can be developed by looking at available failure theories. Failure of crass section ja Stress, © ovtel 4 Strain Tensite Test Resutts unigtal Tensile Tensile Test Test machine Speciaen Figure 1-15 ‘There are three generally accepted failure theories which may be used to predict the onset of yielding in a material: 1 - GCTAHEDRAL SHEAR, or VON MISES THEORY 2 - MAXIMUM SHEAR, or TRESCA THEORY 3 - MAXIMUM STRESS or RANKINE THEORY These theories relate failure in an arbitrary three dimensional stress state in a material to failure in a the stress state found in a uniaxial tensile test specimen, since it is that test that is most commonly used to determine the allowable strength of commonly used materials. Failure of a uniaxial tensile test specimen is deemed to occur when plastic deformation occurs; i.e., when the specimen yields. Coeeccoteveevcece yO @ @ eco o e e ® a 8 ° e e Oo o “ ° ° e e e e e eo e 9 o ° e 9 9 9 Qe ° eo 9 COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes ‘The three failure theories state: Octahedral Shear - Von Mises Theory: “Failure occurs when the octahedral shear stress in a body is equal to the octahedral. shear stress at yield in a uniaxial tension test.” ‘The octahedral shear stress is caloulated as: oct = VB [ (Sy - Sp)? + (Sp - Sg}? + (Sg - Sp)? V2 In a uniaxial tensile test specimen at the point of yield: Si = Syiag Sg=S3=0 ‘Therefore the octahedral shear stress in a uniaxial tensile test specimen at failure is calculated as: 3 Zot = WS [ (Syieta = O08 + (0 - 0)2 + (O- Syieta)? 2? = 22x Syiga/3 Therefore, under the Von Mises theory: Plastic deformation occurs in a 3-dimensional stress state whenever the octahedral shear exceeds 21/2 x Syieig / 3. Maximum Shear Stress - Tresca Theory: “Failure occurs when the maximum shear stress in a body is equal to the maximum. shear stress at yield in a uniaxial tension test.” ‘The maximum shear stress is calculated as: tmx = (81> S3}/2 Tn a uniaxial tensile test specimen at the point of yield: Si = Syiea, Sp2=S3=0 So: max = — Site 00/2 = Syieia/2 \ ‘Therefore, under the Tresca theory: Plastic deformation occurs in a 3-dimensional stress state whenever the maximum shear stress exceeds Syjeia /2.COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Maximum Stress - Rankine Theory “Failure occurs when the maximum tensile stress in a body is equal to the maximum tensile stress at yield in a uniaxial tension test.” The maximum tensile stress is the largest, positive principal stress, S;. (By definition, S, is always the largest of the principal stresses.) Ina uniaxial tensile test specimen at the point of yield: S1.= Syieia; S2=S3=0 Therefore, under the Rankine theory: Plastic deformation occurs in a 3-dimensional stress state whenever the maximum priacipal stress exceeds Syieta. 1.1.4 Maximum Stress Intensity Criterion ‘Mostof the current piping codes use aslight miodification ofthe maximum shearstress theory for flexibility related failures. Repeating, the maximum shear stress theory predicts that failure occurs when the maximum shear stressin a body equals Syigig/2, the maximum shear stress existing at failure during the uniaxial tensile test. Recapping, the maximum shear stress in a body is given by: Tmax = (Si -Sa)/2 For the differential element at the outer surface of the pipe, the principal stresses were computed earlier as: Si = (Sp+Sp)/2+((Sp-Sp/ 22+ 22 So(or Ss) = (Su + Sw)/2-( (Sp -Sy)/ 222 + 2 ‘As seen previously, the maximum shear stress theory states that during the uniaxial tensile test the maximum shear stress at failure is equal to one-half of the yield stress, so the following requirement is necessary: tmax = ((Sp- Sy)? + 4 72] < Syiata 2 2 ‘Multiplying both sides arbitrarily by two saves the time required to do two mathematical operations, without changing this relationship. Multiplying by two creates the stress intensity, whichis an artificial parameter defined simply as twice the maximum shear stress, ‘Therefore the Maximum Stress Intensity criterion, as adopted by most piping cades, dictates the following requirement: (Sz - Sy)? +4242 < Srila eee eccee &o oe5eeceo & oO e e ee@eeoeeevneveeseooroe een 57e8008 8 cpeeecceeecag COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Note that when calculating only the varying stresses for fatigue evaluation purposes (as discussed in the following section), the pressure components drop out of the equation. Ifan allowable stress based upon a suitable factor of safety is used, the Maximum Stress Intensity criterion yields an expression very similar to that specified by the B31.3 code: [S,2+45,2]12 < Sy ‘Where: Sp = longitudinal normal stress due to bending, psi S, = shear stress due to torsion, psi Sq = allowable stress for loading case, psi Example Stress Intensity Calculations: Calculation of stress intensity may be illustrated by returning to our 6-inch nominal diameter, standard wall pipe for which longitudinal, shear, and hoop stresses were calculated. Reviewing the results of those calculations: Longitudinal stress: S. = = :1547 psi Shear stress: t = 5999 psi Hoop stress: Sa = 7098 psi Assuming that the yield stress of the pipe material is 30,000 psi at temperature, and a factor of safety of 2/3 is to be used, the following calculations must be made: USL Sw? +4122 < 2/3 x Syjaia, or: ((15547 - 7098)2 + 4 x 59992 J¥2 < 2/8 x 30000, or: 14674 < 20000 ‘The 14674 psi is the calculated stress intensity in the pipe wall, while the 20000 is the allowable stress intensity for the material at the specified temperature. In this case, the pipe would appear to be safely loaded under these conditions.COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 1.2 Fatigue Failure ‘The failure modes discussed above were sufficient to describe catastrophic failure based upon one time loadings. However, piping and vessels were also found to suffer from sudden failure following years of successful service. The proposed explanation for this phenomenon was fatigue failure of the material, resulting from propagation of cracks on the material crystal structure level due to repeated cyclic loading. 2.1 Fatigue Basics Steels and other metals are made up of organized patterns of molecules, known as crystal structures. However, these patterns are not maintained throughout the steel producing an ideal homogenous material, but are found in microscopic isoiated island-like areas called a grains, Inside each grain the pattern of molecules is preserved. From one grain boundary tothe next the molecular pattern is the same, but the orientation differs. As a result, grain boundaries are high energy borders. Plastic deformation begins within a grain that is both subject to a high stress and oriented such that the stress causes a slippage between adjacent layers in the same pattern. The incremental slippages (called dislocations) cause local cold-working. On the first application of the stress, dislocations will move through many of the grains that are in the local area of high stress. As the stress is repeated, more dislocations will move through their respective grains. Dislocation movement is impeded by the grain boundaries, so after multiple stress applications, the dislocations tend to accumulate at grain boundaries, and eventually becoming so dense that the grains “lock up”, causing a loss of ductility and thus preventing further dislocation movement. Subsequent applications of the stress cause the grain to tear, forming cracks, Repeated stress applications cause the cracks to grow. Unless abated, the cracks propagate with additional stress applications until sufficient cross sectional strength is lost to cause catastrophic failure ofthe material. Figure 1-16 illustrates this process. a i , i ceeceecadeneseceee rcs aenc op eeeCOADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Molecuar parem inunsttessed grain — a3 ‘Siping of one molecular ELEY surface over another after fist appcabon of tose ‘\ sino seed Siglo second appbcation of = Dislocations beginning to internet and tangle Atter many repedted applications of sass the dislocations are ‘completely tangled and the gran is ‘locked’ With another application of the stress, he rain “tears” and a fatigue cracks inisated, Figure 1-16 eeoeaeeeeoeveveenosee e@eococeeec sd [ } "Dislocation Slit Jest Stress Level Tension \ Tine o 9 . e e ° vara Bein 9 6 Figure 1-17 . e ° 1-21 eo ‘One Cycte TEST LOADING CURVECOADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes One important consideration is the fact that fatigue cracks usually are initiated at a free surface, Corrosive attack on a material often produces pitting of metal surfaces. The pits act as notches and produce a reduction in fatigue strength. In those specific cases when corrosive attack occurs simultaneously with fatigue loading, a pronounced reduction in fatigue properties results which is greater than that produced by prior corrosion of the surface. When corrosion and fatigue occur simultaneously, the chemical attack greatly accelerates the rate at which fatigue cracks propagate. Unfortunately, fatigue failures can occur even when the stressin a material is below the yield stress. This is because localized stress concentrations can cause plastic deformation in a relativelly few grains despite the fact that the stress over a gross area of the section may be farbelow the material yield stress. Ifthe section is subjected to a sufficient number of stress cycles, cracks can initiate in highly stressed grains and then propagate throughout the material, ultimately resulting in a fatigue failure of the section as a whole, The fatigue capacity of a material can be estimated through the application of cyclic extensive/compressive displacement loads with a uniaxial test machine, as shown in Figure 117, Sample results for typical ferrous material (with a yield stress of 57,000 psi) are shown below: Applied Cycitc Cycles to Stress (psi) Failure 300.000 23 200.000 90 100,000 350 50,000 6,700 30,000 38,000 20,000 109.000 .2.2 Fatigue Curves Aplot of the cyclic stress capacity of a material is called a fatigue (or endurance) curve. These curves are generated through multiple cyclic tests at different stress levels. The number of cycles to failure usually increases as the applied cyclic stress decreases, often until a threshold stress (known as the endurance limit) is reached below which no fatigue failure occurs, regardless of the number of applied cycles. The endurance limit (for thosemetals that, possess one) is usually quantified as the value of the cyclic stress level which may be applied for at least 108 cycles without failure. Typical ratios of the endurance limit to the ultimate tensile strength of various materials are 0.5 for cast and wrought steels; about 0.35 for several nonferrous metals such as nickel, copper and magnesium; and 0.2 to 0.3 for rough or corroded steel surfaces (depending on the degree of stress intensification). An endurance curve for carbon and low alloy steels, taken from the ASME Section VIII Division 2 Pressure Vessel Code is shown in Figure 1-18. onBee0093 @oos e686 Oo ceoee coc G @ Yoeeeceoeeeeeoerece en r57e ee osc eee aE G@ioeeeocceeece ¢YCUC STRESS AMPLITUDE COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes cyous 7 Figure 1-18 Note that according to the fatigue curve, the material doesn’t fail upon initial loading, despite enormously high stresses that appear to be well above the ultimate tensile stress of typical carbon and low alloy steels. The reasons for this are: 1 The highly stressed areas under fatigue loading ‘are normally very localized. Catastrophic failure under one-time loading will normally occur only when the gross cross-section is overloaded. Fatigue curves are usually generated through cyclic application of displacement, rather than force, loading. Displacement loads are “self-limiting”. If a pipe is overloaded with an imposed displacement, plastic stresses will develop, deform- ing the pipe to its displaced position. At that point there will be no further tendency for displacements to occur, and therefore no continuation of the load, or further deformation leading to catastrophic failure. In the case of an applied force (which is not a self- limiting load), deformation of the pipe does not cause the force to subside, so deformation continues until failure. ‘The stress shown in a fatigue curve is a calculated stress, based upon the assumption that Hooke’s law is applicable throughout the range of applied loading; i.e., S = E ¢ , where: E = modulus of elasticity of material, psi e = strain in material, infin 1-23oa TEES eae aaa TE COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Semiziar Notes In reality, once the material begins to yield, stress is no longer proportional to the induced strain, and actually is much lower than that calculated. 1.2.3 Effect of Fatigue on Piping A.R.C. Markl investigated the phenomenon of fatigue failure ofpiping during the 1940's and 1950's, and published his results in papers such as “Piping Flexibility Analysis”, published in 1955, He tested a number of configurations (straight pipe, and various fittings, such as pipe elbow, miter bend, unreinforced fabricated tee, welding tee, etc.) by using cyclic displacements to apply alternating bending stresses. Plotting the cycles to failure for each applied displacement, he found that the results of his experiments followed the form of fatigue curves. 16 . TYP) ay [ YF) Range of imposed displacements to ——— impose complete stress reversal 'S itn butt wold L [lS [Siemens sarge tae displacements fms inplane displacements Range of outpiane as lave l displacements. /~Rangs of inplana, a ennesmanty ge ota Figure 1-19 If an initially applied displacement load causes the pipe to yield, it results in plastic deformation, producing a pre-stress in the system, which must be overcome by subsequent stress applications, resulting in lower absolute stresses during later load cycles. Because of the system “relaxation”, the initial values of the thermal stress are allowed to exceed the material yield stress, with the aim being that the system “self-spring” during the first few eyeles and then settle into purely elastic cycling This “self-springing” is also called Elastic Shakedown, As shown in Figure 1-20, the maximum stress range may be set to 2S Yield (or more accurately, the sum of the hot and the cold yield stresses) in order to ensure eventual elastic cycling. : y a ° e e @ 9 °o e e e fooeeescsca ee O80 oeseeoeveeveee SeoO 8 ° e ° 9 e e e e ° ° Oyo @ ee ceoeeecono COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes py: 2sy Elastic Shakedown’ (Relaxation) Time—> Figure 1-20 Based upon this consideration, the initial limitation for expansion stress design was set to the sum of the hot and the cold yield stresses — the maximum stress range which ensured that the piping system eventually cycled fully within the elastic stress range. Incorporating a factor of safety, this resulted in the following criterion: Sp <= F(Syc+ Syn) Where: Sg = expansion stress range, psi F = factor of safety, dimensionless Syc = material yield stress at cold (installed) temperature, psi Syq = material yield stress at hot (operating) temperature, psi 1.2.4 Cyclic Reduction Factor Atsome point, in the vicinity of 7,000 cycles, the (Sye + Syp) limitation intersects the fatigue carve for carbon and low alloy steel. The allowable stress range must therefore be reduced to fit the fatigue curve for cyclic applications with 7,000 cycles or more: \ Sp <= F £(Syc + Syn) 1-25COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Where: f= cyclic reduction factor, as shown in the accompanying table CYCLIG REDUCTION FACTOR TABLE cycles N Factor f a to: 7,000 1.0 ‘ 7001 = 14,000 0.3 14.001 + 22,900 0.8 22,001 + 45,000 07 45.001 —- 100,000 0.8 100,001 == ~—-200,000 0.5 200.001 = ~—- 700,000 0.4 700,001 - 2,000,000 0.3 1.2.5 Effect of Sustained Loads on Fatigue Strength In almost all cases the material fatigue curves are generated using a completely alternating stress; i.e., the average stress component is zero. Research has shown that the magnitude of the mean stress can have an effect on the endurance strength of a material, the trend of which is shown below: me ay, “Ye ajay Tay Sey Auarnating s1e38 24 1 ‘at eles tlre a ‘oF 1-26 eeeccoeecas"@@emoo0@eeeo se e008 5 eeveccesecogeeoeee i COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes _/ Note that as the mean stress increases the maximum permissible absolute stress (S, +S.) increases, while the permissible alternating stress decreases. The relationship between the allowable alternating stress and the average stress is described by the Soderberg line, which ates fairly well with test data for ductilematerials. The equation for the Soderberg line is: S,(Allowed) = S,(for R=-1) x 1- Sp/Syieia ) Where: R= Smin/Smax SB. = max Smin)/2 Sm = (Smnax+ Smin)/2 Note that during the development of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III rules and procedures for analysis of nuclear piping, the Special Committee to Review Code Stress Basis concluded that the required adjustments to a strain-controlled fatigue data curve based on zero mean stress, occur only for a large mumber of cycles (i.e. N > 50,000 « 100,000) cycles for carbon and low-alloy steels, and are insignificant for 18-8 stainless steels and nickel-chrome-iron alloys. Since these materials constitute the majority of the piping materials in use, and since most cyclic loading events comprise much fewer than 50,000 cycles, the effects of mean stress on fatigue life are negligible for piping materials with ultimate strengths below 100,000 psi. For materials with an ultimate strength equal to or greater than 100,000 psi, such as high strength bolting, mean stress can have a considerable effect on fatigue strength and should be considered when performing a fatigue analysis. For a piping application, the implication of the Soderberg line on the fatigue allowable is implementedin aconservativemanner. Thesustained stress (Le., weight, pressure, ete, can be considered to be the mean component of the stress range after system relaxation, and as such is used to reduce the allowable stress range: Sp <= Ff(Sy, + Syy- Ssus) 127COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes 1.3 Stress Intensification Factors As noted previously, Mark’s fatigue tests generated endurance curves for various fitting configurations, such as straight pipe, butt welded pipe, elbows, mitars, welding. tees, unreinforced and reinforced fabricated tees, mostly using 4” nominal diameter, size-on-size fittings. Markl noticed that the fatigue failures occurred not in the middle ofhis test spans, but primarily in the vicinity of the fittings, and in those cases, they also occurred at lower stress/cycle combinations than for the straight pipe alone. Earlier theoretical work pointed to a possible explanation. It had been shown that elbows tend to ovalize during bending, bringing the outer fibers closer to the neutral axis of the pipe, thus reducing the moment of inertia (increasing flexibility) and the section modulus (increasing developed stress). Ovelization of Bend Figure 1-22 ‘The stress intensification factors (the ratio of actual bending stress to the calculated bending stress for a moment applied to the nominal section) for elbows was known to be: is = y= Where: ib = ios he tos R= ros 0.75 / bes 0.9 / hs out-of-plane intensification factor in-plane intensification factor — flexibility characteristic tR/rt pipe wall thickness, in bend radius of elbow, in mean radius of pipe, in j eoeeccheeececn oeCOADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes i Markl found this to correlate fairly well with his test data and so adoptedit. Tests on mitered bends correlated well with those for smooth bends, providing an equivalent bend radius R was used in the above equation forh. Markl's estimates of equivalent bend radius are shown below: Re = r(1 +0. s/r cot D) (for closely spaced miters) Ro = r(1+cotD)/2 (for widely spaced miters) Where: Re = equivalent bend radius, in s = miter spacing at the centerline, in D = one-half of angle between cuts ‘Mari found that the unreinforced fabricated tees could be modeled using the same formula as that for single (widely spaced) miter bonds could be used, fa half angle of 45 degrees was, used. This produces a flexibility characteristic of, ho = tfr @oo@e ee oce80e930 For butt welded tees (such as ANSI B16.9 welding tees) Markl again adapted the bend equations, this time computing an equivalent radius (R,) and an equivalent thickness (te). ‘Markl’s equation for welding tees was: hoo = c(tyRe/r2) Where: " ¢ = ratio of tee-to-pipe section modulii, dimensionless = (te/t)32 (Markl’s recommendation) ty = equivalent pipe wall thickness, in = 1.60t (Markl’s recommendation) Re = equivalent bend radius, in = 1.35r (Markl’s recommendation) Inserting these values into the expression for h yields: i ho = 44t/r ‘This is precisely the expression used today for ANSI B16.9 welding tees. e e e e e ° ° e e rel 9 Qo e e e 8 68 e e e 1-29COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes : For reinforced fabricated tees, Markl used the expression he had previously used for welding tees, with different equivalent wall thickness and bend radius: o( te Ry/r2) (t/t) (Markl’s recommendation) te = ttty thickness of reinforcing pad or saddle, in Ree ‘The following tables compare the stress intensification factors suggested by Mark's test results versus the values calculated with his equations (results are for 4" nominal diameter, standard schedule pipe): Bend in-plane (15) trie Test Calculated 0.062 4.49 5.7428 0.210 2.17 2.5476 9.129 4.38 3.5238 0.320 2,02 1.9238 0.319 2.10 1.9286 0,316 1.90 1.9381 0,328 1.70 1.8904 0.331 1.53 1.8809 0.324 1.36 1,909 0.332 1.28 1.8762 0.328 1.46 1.8904 Lod 1-80 { eeerocsr,eeccae e e e ° e + ° ° e e ° o ° e e e 2.e ° ° ° ° ° Unreinforced tee (4): tir Test Catcutated ° 0.0390 11.06 10.84 ° 0.0455 6.12 7.06 e 0.0947 2.98 4.33 ° o.nat 2.34 2.89 ° ° . Reinforced tee: « 3 in-plane (if) out-plane (io) ~ tpad Test Ceiculated Test calcutated 0.12 2.21 2.63 2.43 3.17 0.237 178 17 1.83 1.98 0.8 110 i. 1.08 1.18 ‘These formulas for intensification factors were adopted (and expanded) by the piping codes. Specific formulas and/or fittings recognized by the individual ASME/ANSI B31 codes are usually shown in Appendix D of those codes (see Figure 1-23).SPS a Pee re MRM ca a COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes é 25 APPENDIX D FLEXIBILITY AND STRESS INTENSIFICATION FACTORS ume on PLERILITY Faron e AND STRESS TEMEOTEATION ACTER Tees” Bealame tow Curent rate 7 a ne ‘ama of Fe 4 Ex. tuymemiemiy 3h weet £ ‘Sitar eed mm SEED igre ct a. Me [2 2 cf i ten a a tee a? # M 4 ahh eee = eee Seg ae gee 7 a Ta. Hee, OBOE = — BRET smcromet eerie ee. wort to . = eit 1 a po eto to ty 2 mwa a AE A et , . er et ot nn fe ' B rma nee a ert onan ose 8 a es a 3 ° ° e ° > y e e e “. e e e e © % oO e ° e ° ° ° e e °Le eeeoeeeveseee occ e ee soe oOo peeecceeecog COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes Subsequent research has demonstrated that Markl’s formulas, having been based on a limited number configurations (significantly having omitted reduced outlet tees) and disregarding any need to intensify torsional stress, are inaccurate in some respects. ‘The major problem with reduced intersections tees lies in the out-of-plane bending moment on the header. Stresses due to these moments can never be predicted from the extrapolation of size-on-size tests. Figure 1-24 below illustrates the origin of this problem. Mob ‘Aroa ot high Mob bending sresees SS Size-on-size Recuced Intersection Figure 1-24 Errors due to these moments can be non-conservative by as much as a factor of two or three. Furthermore, when the r/R ratiois very small, the branch connection haslittle impact on the header, so use of large stress intensification factors for the header can produce unreasonably large calculated stresses. R.W. Schneider of Bonney Forge pointed out this ineonsistency for reduced branch connec- tions. His paper on the subject states that the highest stress intensification factors occur when theratio of the branch to header radii is about 0.7, at which point the nonconservativism (versus Mark's formulas) is on the order of two. a7 10 \ fk \ Ratio of Actual i to Markl's i vs Ratio of Branch to Header Radius Figure 1-25COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes i 1.4 Welding Research Council Bulletin 330 ‘The Welding Research Council’s Bulletin 330, “Accuracy of Code Stress Intensification Factors for Branch Connections” documented a major attempt to re-asseés the existing code requirements for the intensification of stresses at tees and other branch connections. The difficulty of this task was summed upin the bulletin by author E. C. Rodabaugh, whostated: “We would rate the relative complexity of i-factors for pipe, elbows and branch connections by the ratios 1:5:500, These comments on relative complexity, we think, are relevant at this point because at least some readers will be looking for simple answers to what they perceive to be a simple subject. They will not find any simple answers in this report.” Summarizing the findings of WRC 830 in order of increasing importance: D 2) 3d 4) 5) 6) ‘The following note should be added with regard tobranch connection flexibilities: “in piping system analyses, it maybe assumed that the flexibility is represented by arigidjoint et the branch-to-runcenterlines juncture. However, the Code user should be aware that this assumption can be inaccurate and should consider the use of a more appropriate flexbility representation.” ASME 2/3 and B31.1 users can use the “Branch Connection” expressions for unrein forced fabricated tees whenever r/R < 0.5.(Mark’s formulas specified that the same stress intensification factorbe used onboth the branch and header legs ofa tee, regardless of relative sizes, The codes noted above permit the reduction ofthe stress intensification factor at the branch forrelative diameters. CAESAR IT automatically considers the effects of reduced intersections on the stress inten- sification factors for these codes unless directed otherwise by the user through the setup file.) B31.1 erred when including the calculations for branch connection stress intensification factors; instead they should have included the calculations as they appeared in ASME II]. (Further clarification of this note is given in note 10 herein.) 81.3 should include the stress intensification factors for branch connections as per ASME II, (B31.3 uses Mark's original formulas, thus specifying the same stress intensification factor for both the branch and header of a tee, regardless of relative sizes.) B31.3 should intensify the torsional moment at branch connections, with the torsional intensification factor estimated as: i; = (/R)io. B31.3 should eliminate the use of ij = 0.75i, + 0.25 for branch connections and tees. It can give the wrong relative magnitude for header moments, and may underestimate the difference between M, and Mj for r/R ratios between 0.3 and 0.95, and perhaps over-estimates the difference for r/R ratios below 0.2 and for oR = 1.0.Q 8 ° . e o oe e e ° 8 8 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° * @ ° . ° ° oS %. e ° ° Q COADE Pipe Stress Analysis Seminar Notes ‘ 2) 8) 9) 10) For (r/R) ib For (r/R) B31,3 andB31.1 should add restrictions to the stress intensification factor tables indicating that they are valid for R/T’ < 50. ‘The codes should add notes that indicate that the stress intensification factors are developed from tests and/or theories based on headers being straight pipe with about two or more diameters length of pipe on either side of the branch. The codes should also add notes to indicate that for branch connections/tees the stress intensification factors are only applicable where the axis of the branch pipe is within 5 degrees of normal to the surface of the header pipe. ‘The stress intensification factors for unreinforced fabricated tees, weldolets, and sweepolets should be changed to: < 0.9: = 1.5CRV/T)29 (1/R)V2 (r/rp}, with ip(t/T) > 1.5, = 0.9 (R/T (rirp), with in(V/T) > 1.0 = 0.8 GVT}2S (IR), with i, > 2.1 intensification factor for branch (to be linearly interpolated for r/R ratios between 0.9 and 1.0) R= mean radius of header pipe, in 'T = thickness of header pipe, in Additional = mean radius of branch pipe, in = outer radius of branch pipe, in = thickness of branch pipe, in = intensification factor for run (header) pipe \ ly, if a radius of curvature rps provided at the connection, which is not less than the larger of /2, (T'+¥)/2, or T/2, then the calculated values of iy and iy may be divided by 2.0, but with the restriction that ip>1.5 and i>1.5. Also, where reduced outlets are discussed, branch ends should be checked using Z = p(r2)t and i(t/T) in place of i, with i(V/T) > 1.0.