See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267613339

Considerations of the Restraint Introduced by Piping Support Friction in a

Comprehensive ASME B31.3 Analysis

Conference Paper · July 2012

DOI: 10.1115/PVP2012-78658

CITATION READS
1 690

3 authors, including:

Yogeshwar Hari Dennis Keith Williams

University of North Carolina at Charlotte DR. DENNIS K. WILLIAMS, P.E.
58 PUBLICATIONS   1,390 CITATIONS    43 PUBLICATIONS   93 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Piping Supports & Restraints View project

Photoemission and inverse-photoemission studies of Bi 2 Y 3 ( Y=S, Se, Te) semiconductors View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dennis Keith Williams on 08 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of ASME 2012 Pressure Vessels & Piping Division Conference
PVP2012
July 15-19, 2012, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA

PVP2012-78658

CONSIDERATIONS OF THE RESTRAINT INTRODUCED BY PIPING SUPPORT FRICTION IN A

COMPREHENSIVE ASME B31.3 ANALYSIS

Bikramjit Singh Antaal

AMEC Natural Resources Ltd.
8500 Macleod Trail SE
Calgary, AB T2H2N1 CANADA
Tel: 587-717-1832
Email: bikramjit.antaal@amec.com

Yogeshwar Hari
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
9201 University City Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28223-0001 USA
Email: hari@uncc.edu

Dennis K. Williams
Sharoden Engineering Consultants, P.A
P.O. Box 77346
Charlotte, NC 28271 USA
Tel: 704-591-3995
Email: DennisKW@sharoden.com

ABSTRACT condition to occur. Recommendations for the proper treatment

This paper discusses the prescribed requirements contained
within the ASME B31.3 Process Piping Code that specifically
address the need to recognize the restraint introduced by piping
support friction. The requirement for the design of sliding
supports (pipe shoes) and brackets to resist the forces due to
friction in addition to the loads induced by bearing is also
reviewed and discussed. Questions surrounding the inclusion of
the effects of utilizing the maximum coefficients of static
friction and the impact of these values on equipment nozzle
loadings are explored in light of the qualitative guidelines
contained within WRC Bulletin 449. The restraint provided by
support friction is approached through the mathematical
treatment of extrema with respect to calculated nozzle loads.
The calculated nozzle loads then become based upon the
analyst’s choice of the largest referenced coefficients of static
friction (in most cases) between the two interfacing materials
under consideration. It is highly improbable that the choice of
the maximum coefficients of friction at each support will exist,
but rather, it is physically impossible for this “worst case”
of the potential restraint induced by piping support friction in a
Code piping analysis are tendered.
Keywords: B31.3, friction, pipe supports, nozzle loads
NOMENCLATURE
D Outside diameter of pipe (in.)
E Young’s modulus of elasticity (psi)
F Friction force (lbf)
Fk Kinetic frictional force (lbf)
Fs Maximum static frictional force (lbf)
L Length of leg available to absorb thermal expansion (ft)
l Length between guides of the expansion loop (ft)
N Normal force to surface (lbf)
S Calculated thermal stress range (psi)
W Weight of the pipe (lbf)
Δ Thermal displacement to be absorbed (in.)
µk Kinetic coefficient of friction (dimensionless)
µs Static coefficient of friction (dimensionless)

1 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

INTRODUCTION
Piping supports and restraints are an integral part of all
engineered piping systems. Supports and restraints are provided
to carry the deadweight of the pipe, the fluid medium, any inline
valves, and the attached insulation, as a minimum. In addition,
the supports and restraints “system” serves to direct the
thermally and dynamically induced piping displacements in a
judicious manner in and around critical equipment nozzle
connections. During the heating and cooling cycles associated
with the plant piping system, thermal displacements (expansion
when going from cold to hot or contraction when going from hot
to cold) create relative movements between the attached piping
supports and restraints and the ultimate supporting structure
upon which the supports and restraints (herein after simply
referred to as the “supports”) bear. Due to friction that develops
between the pipe support and its supporting structure upon
which it bears, a non-conservative and retarding force is induced
in the opposing direction to that generated by the associated
thermal displacement of the pipe. This opposing force may
restrict the free thermal growth of the piping system, possibly
imposing significantly higher loads on anchors, limit stops,
guides, and connecting equipment than that those calculated
loads in an assumed, completely, frictionless system.
The force attributed to friction on a piping system depends
on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the type
and location of the supports, the number of supports, the
materials of construction, and the bearing surface upon which
the supports rest. The location of supports should not interfere
with the intended thermal expansion of the pipe. Additionally, it
is well understood by piping stress analysts that during the
design of piping systems that are subjected to both thermal and
seismic loads, competing design objectives created by the two
types of loadings must be mediated. This is to say that to
adequately control the thermal stress range, which ultimately
affects the fatigue life of the piping system, the piping should
maintain sufficient flexibility to allow the system to displace
freely in the axial direction. In contrast, for seismic loads, the
piping should (in general) be much more rigid so as to avoid
having low natural frequencies in the range where the peak
accelerations could cause unwanted and excessive
displacements. Associated with excessive displacements are
generally high stresses, which may in fact create permanent
changes in geometry that are certainly intolerable for future
plant operation.
A good piping design should strike a perfect balance
between the thermal flexibility and seismic rigidity by using
sufficient supports and restraints at judiciously selected locations
and a geometric layout that is conducive to thermal
displacements. For example, according to Peng [1], in cases
when the piping system is subjected to vibratory or dynamic
loads, friction can help stabilize the system by absorbing and
dissipating a part of the imparted energy, thereby reducing
piping stresses and equipment nozzle loads. Peng [1] went on
further to state that there is no rule of thumb as to whether it is
non-conservative to ignore the effects of friction during the
piping analysis. Bakre et al. [2] demonstrated through analytical
and experimental studies that support friction helps in reducing
the dynamic response of a piping system due to ground
2 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
excitations over a broad range of frequencies. Further work on
the seismic response of piping systems by taking into account
the friction between the piping support and its associated support
structure was studied extensively by Suzuki et al. [3]. Kolontis
[4] also demonstrated the additive nature of frictional forces
during thermal expansion and contraction cycles of a pipeline
transporting hot fluids.
FRICTION: AN INDUCED FORCE
Boresi and Schmidt [5] define a frictional force as the shear
force that acts tangent to the surface of contact between two
bodies. This force opposes sliding motion between the subject
bodies. An important concept is also pointed out by the same
authors, which is that the force of static friction is a maximum
when the two bodies in contact are just ready to slip relative to
each other. The maximum force of friction increases as the
normal force between the bodies increase. Furthermore, the
frictional force that exists when two contacting bodies are about
to slide relative to one another is generally larger than the
frictional force when the bodies actually are sliding relative to
one another. Finally, one concept that is of utmost importance
in the analysis of friction in a piping system is that if two bodies
in contact are not sliding relative to each other, the frictional
force between the bodies need not always be equal to the
maximum static frictional force.
Friction is non-linear, path dependent and a time varying
force. Friction coefficients take on two distinct forms in terms
of whether or not a sufficient force has been developed to
overcome what is termed the static frictional force. Assuming
that a force normal to the bearing surfaces exist, the maximum
static frictional force Fs is defined to be proportional to the
product of the applied normal force N and the associated
coefficient of static friction s. In other words, the static
frictional force is an induced force and may be calculated as
shown below in eq. (1).
(1)
As observed by Boresi and Schmidt [5], because the
maximum force of static friction is not usually equal to the
frictional force while the bodies are sliding relative to one
another, in most problems (including that of this paper), the
piping stress analyst needs to know and consider a second
coefficient of friction known as the coefficient of kinetic (or
sliding) friction k. Analogous to eq. (1), while the force
associated with kinetic friction Fk is also proportional to the
product of the normal force N and the associated coefficient of
kinetic friction k, we have the relationship as shown below in
eq. (2).
(2)
The frictional force, whether static or sliding, only exists if
there is a displacement of the pipe (in the case at hand, due to
thermal growth going from cold to hot) and impending sliding
between the pipe support and its associated support structure.
The coefficient of friction, i.e., either s or k between the two
bearing surfaces is dependent on the nature of materials in
contact with each other. In practice, these coefficients may also
depend upon the condition of the surface, for example whether
there is some form of corrosion between the two surfaces and
the maintenance of surfaces in contact over a period of time.
The magnitude of these coefficients of friction may vary from
very small values as low as 0.01 to values in excess of 0.50 in
the piping support world. Selected values for a combination of
surfaces are given in Table 1 for both static and kinetic
coefficients of friction and allow the reader a quick comparison
of the relative differences between the two types of friction.
TABLE 1
COEFFICIENTS OF DRY STATIC & KINETIC FRICTION FOR
VARIOUS BEARING SURFACES ([5], [6])
Surfaces in Contact µs µk
PTFE on PTFE 0.12 – 0.15 0.05 – 0.10
PTFE on Stainless Steel 0.10 0.03 – 0.13
Steel on Steel (new) 0.20 0.03
Steel on Steel 0.20 – 0.74 0.03 – 0.57
Graphite on Steel 0.10 < 0.10
Steel on Concrete 0.57 – 0.70 n/a
Steel on Ice 0.04 0.01
Mokha et al. [7] found from testing on Teflon bearing
surfaces that friction increases with increasing velocity up to a
certain value of velocity beyond which it remains constant.
Furthermore, the authors [7] concluded that friction drops with
increasing pressure with a rate of reduction that is strongly
dependent on velocity. Based upon their empirical results,
Mokha et al. [7] concluded that friction stabilizes at a value of
bearing pressure between 5,000 and 6,500 psi. Substantial
differences between the breakaway (or static) coefficient of
friction and sliding (or kinetic) coefficient of friction were
observed. In general, the breakaway value was found to be two
to four times larger than the sliding value. Following the subject
testing, Constantinou et al. [8] (being the same researchers as in
reference [7]), developed a mathematical model of the frictional
behavior of Teflon slide bearings for those conditions consistent
with the base isolation of a structure during a seismic event. The
calibration of the authors’ model [8] was based upon extensive
experimental data that were presented in an accompanying paper
[7]. The model was capable of accounting for the following
variables:
(1) Unidirectional and multidirectional motion at the
Teflon-steel interface;
(2) Velocity and pressure dependence of the coefficient of
sliding friction; and
(3) Breakaway (or static) friction effects.
The Constantinou et al. [8] model was characterized by four
parameters. These parameters included the minimum and
maximum values of the sliding coefficient of friction (k), the
ratio of breakaway to sliding coefficients of friction at initiation
of sliding, and a parameter that described the variation of the
sliding coefficient of friction with velocity. So it is clear from
the aforementioned published data that the treatment of friction
3 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
in a piping system must be undertaken with some due
consideration of the relative differences between the static
coefficient of friction and the smaller, but more applicable
kinetic coefficient of friction.
ASME B31.3 REQUIREMENTS REGARDING FRICTION
Paragraph 319.1.1 entitled “Piping Flexibility – Basic
Requirements” of ASME B31.3 [9] maintains that piping
systems shall have sufficient flexibility to prevent thermal
expansion or contraction or movements of piping supports and
terminals from causing:
(a) Failure of piping or supports from overstress or fatigue
(b) Leakage at joints
(c) Detrimental stresses or distortion in piping and valves
or in connected equipment (pumps and turbines, for
example), resulting from excessive thrusts and moments in
the piping.
ASME B31.3 [9], paragraph 319.4.3 further requires that,
“in calculating the flexibility of a piping system between anchor
points, the system shall be treated as a whole. The significance
of all parts of the line and of all restraints introduced for the
purpose of reducing moments and forces on equipment or small
branch lines, and also the restraint introduced by support
friction, shall be recognized.” In addition, paragraph 321.2.1(b)
states, “to protect terminal equipment or other (weaker) portions
of the system, restraints (such as anchors and guides) shall be
provided where necessary to control movement or to direct
expansion into those portions of the system which are designed
to absorb them. In addition to the other thermal forces and
moments, the effects of friction in other supports of the system
shall be considered in the design of such anchors and guides.”
Therefore, in at least two specific instances, B31.3 requires that
frictional effects be “recognized” and “considered” in the design
of any applicable piping system.
WRC BULLETIN 449, PUMP PIPING SYSTEMS
The WRC Bulletin 449 [10] provides detailed guidelines for
dealing with excessive friction in piping systems, especially
those that include large diameter piping with heavy valves and
for the pump piping systems. The large diameter piping can
have very high frictional loads as both the static and kinetic
friction forces are proportional to the applied normal force,
which for horizontal piping is the weight carried by the
respective support. In comparison, pump piping systems
become very sensitive to small increases in the external piping
loads.
The authors of the subject Bulletin [10] urge that the piping
stress and flexibility analyses be executed properly.
Furthermore, the Bulletin states that the analyst do the piping
flexibility calculations for the majority of pump piping
installations to assure an accurate assessment of the loads
transmitted to the pump nozzles. The analyst is urged to
carefully review these calculations during the design phase to
verify that the operating reactions resulting from weight, thermal
expansion, and friction effects do not exceed the specified
allowable nozzle loads. Within these referenced sections of
WRC 429 there is no guidance given to ascertain the difference
in the overall effects of considering the coefficient of static
friction versus utilizing the coefficient of kinetic friction. The
authors [6] do emphasize that during the piping flexibility
modeling efforts that nozzle load limits must be satisfied for
applicable combinations of:
(1) thermal, dead weight, friction loads, and for
(2) any specified seismic, fluid hammer (shock) and
settlement loads.
Finally the use of directional restraints, guides or stops to direct
excessive thermal or friction loads away from pump nozzles is
recommended by the authors [10].
From a very practical standpoint, WRC Bulletin 449
recognizes that in order to minimize frictional effects at resting
supports, PTFE or other low friction type bearing plates may be
used. This approach may be especially appropriate for larger
diameter piping or at supports carrying heavy loads such as at
valves or long vertical runs. Low friction bearing plates are not
necessary where analysis shows acceptable friction forces. Once
again, however, “acceptable” frictional forces are not
specifically detailed within the subject guidelines [10].
Lastly, the Bulletin [10] emphasizes the need to address the
lifting of pipe from its support under [cold] operating conditions.
The additional friction force at a support bearing additional
weight of the piping system due to uplifting of the pipe at a
nearby support should be considered and evaluated.
Baniotopoulos [11] and later, Baniotopoulos et al. [12] carried
out a detail study on unilateral contact conditions (uplifting of
pipe from its saddle). In the latter publication [12], the authors
first considered the unilateral contact problem assuming that the
friction forces were known. In fact, the friction factors and the
resulting frictional forces are seldom, if ever, known in the field
unless the support system is instrumented as if in a test scenario.
Nevertheless, WRC Bulletin 449 [10] and majority of references
citied within this section agree that friction should be utilized to
increase the load on the supports and the restraints where
uplifting may be expected during operation. In addition, the
references are also in agreement that any reduction in the loads
due to friction, for example in a vibration or seismic analysis,
should be ignored from the standpoint of assuming that there
will be benefit gained from its assumed existence.
TREATMENT OF PIPE SUPPORT FRICTION WITH
EXAMPLES OF SIMPLE GEOMETRIES
The purpose of this paper is to develop a simple, robust and
easy to use FEA procedure for calculating loads due to pipe-
support friction. There are two main approaches to introduce
and hence solve the piping support friction problem that
historically, have been discussed in the literature. The first
approach requires inserting a calculated stiffness at the support
locations where the friction is considered to be significant and
that must be overcome by the thermal displacement of the
attached pipe. The second approach requires the application of a
force opposite in direction to the thermal displacement at the
4 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
support locations of interest. A commercially available piping
stress FEA code [13] uses the former approach (i.e., the
inclusion of a pseudo-stiffness) based upon the methodology
described in the literature by Sobieszczanski [14]. Frictional
forces by nature are non-linear and the resulting displacement at
a point in a piping system where friction must be considered
may be thought of in terms of a discontinuous step function.
The subject friction problem is much easier to solve by
breaking down the non-linear problem into a simpler linear
problem as demonstrated by Reddy et al. [15]. In this paper, the
non-linear nature of pipe support friction is methodically
undertaken by converting it into a linear problem and executing
a series of analyses employing another commercially available
general purpose FEA code [16]. The application of an opposing
frictional force to the thermal displacement is employed in the
current effort described herein. Furthermore, in the current
effort, only static analyses were conducted on the piping
geometries discussed below as the authors are in agreement that
friction can and should be ignored in dynamic analyses.
FIG. 1 FIRST GEOMETRY (Z-BEND)
Three simple piping systems (geometries), a Z-bend, an
equal leg L-bend, and a 2-D expansion loop are considered as
examples to study the effect of restraint induced due to piping
support friction. The three geometries used along with location
of their supports (frictional supports, guides and anchors) are
shown in Fig. 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Additionally, two
nominal pipe sizes, a small bore, four inch standard wall
thickness and a large bore, twelve inch standard wall thickness
are considered for each of the three geometries. Finally, two
operating temperatures, 300°F and a fairly harsh temperature of
650°F are considered for the aforementioned piping geometries
and pipe sizes to observe the effects of piping-support friction.
Before studying the effect of pipe support friction, the three
geometries were analyzed to determine the thermal expansion
stresses. Stresses in geometries 1 and 2 (i.e., the Z-bend and the
equal leg L-bend, respectively) were calculated employing the
guided cantilever formula [17] as given by eq. (3). Stresses in
geometry 3 (i.e., the 2-D expansion loop) were calculated using
the M. W. Kellogg method [17] as given by eq. (4) and utilizing
the M. W. Kellogg expansion loop nomograph for the design of
stress loops. While the relationship shown in eq. (4) requires the
use of charts based upon various geometric parameters, there
were other similar methods of the same vintage proposed by
competing organizations such as the Tube Turns Charts 2, 3, and
4 published in reference [18] that allowed the piping designer to
achieve virtually the same desired stress range. Stress analyses
for all three geometries was completed utilizing a commercially frictional force at a particular support location as given by eq.
available FEA code [16]. The results of the stress analyses, per (1).
se, are not presented herein. The purpose of the stress analyses
was to ensure that the calculated deadweight and thermal
expansion stresses in three the piping systems were well below
the ASME B31.3 [9] allowable stresses.

∆
(3)

∆
(4)

The first piping system consisted of a four inch standard

wall thickness pipe (NPS 4, STD) was modeled using a
commercially available FEA code [16]. PIPE16 and PIPE18
elements of the FEA code [16] were employed to model the
straight pipe portion and the elbows, respectively. The element
types are the typical three-dimensional beam elements that are
specific to right circular cylinders, while the elbow element is a
modified “pipe element” with additional flexibility
characteristics. The supports and restraints (supports with
friction as required, guides and anchors) were modeled using
appropriate displacement boundary conditions. The supports
with friction (as required) were modeled using restraints in
vertical direction (piping system restrained against displacement
in downward vertical direction) at the nodes representing the
respective pipe-to-support interface. Guides were modeled to
restrain movement of the pipe in the lateral direction and
anchors (at the termination points) were modeled to restrain the
system against displacement in three orthogonal translations and
three rotational directions. The supports in the FEA model were
assumed to be rigid (having infinite stiffness). Likewise, the
anchors were modeled as true anchors. It may be noted that in
practice, true anchors are very rare, from a practical design
standpoint, as it is very difficult to completely restrain rotational
movement at a point. It may be noted that the rotational
flexibility of the selected piping geometries is not considered
significant for the purposes of addressing support friction and
furthermore, is not discussed in this paper.
FIG. 3 THIRD GEOMETRY (2-D EXPANSION LOOP)
Second, a thermal analysis was performed for the two
operating temperatures of 300°F and 650°F (as two load steps).
The results of the thermal analyses were then reviewed to
ascertain the directions of movement of the pipe at each support.
The reference (ambient) temperature was chosen to be 70°F in
the thermal analysis, consistent with the authors’ experience in
the discipline. While for the chosen geometric configurations
discussed herein, prediction of the thermal displacements were
almost a straight forward academic exercise, this most probably
is not true for more complex geometric piping configurations
operating at a multitude of temperatures.
TABLE 2
GEOMETRY 1 ANCHOR REACTIONS NPS 4
Reaction at Anchors in Axial (Z- Direction) (lbf)
µ 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4
300°F -13.1 -110.6 -159.3 -208.0
650°F -33.3 -130.7 -179.4 -228.1
A third analysis was conducted in which the frictional
forces calculated in first step were applied to the piping system
in the proper (i.e., predominantly axial) direction to oppose the
thermal displacement, as observed in second step of the
analyses. These frictional forces were applied in addition to the
thermal body loads on each piping configuration.

TABLE 3
GEOMETRY 1 ANCHOR REACTIONS NPS 12
Reaction at Anchors in Axial (Z- Direction) (lbf)
µ 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4
300°F -356 -943 -1236 -1529
FIG. 2 SECOND GEOMETRY (L-BEND) 650°F -901 -1487 -1781 -2074

After modeling each of the piping configurations shown in
Fig. 1, 2, and 3, inclusive, the analysis was carried out in four
distinct steps. First, a static deadweight analysis was carried out
to determine the vertical force, W (weight) at each deadweight
support of the respective piping system. The deadweight
analysis includes the self weight of the pipe and its contents,
which was taken to be water (liquid). The calculated downward
vertical force at each node (support) was multiplied by the
assumed coefficient of friction, µs to obtain the induced
Finally, the results from the first and the third analyses
were combined (by algebraic summation) and the combined
results were post-processed to obtain the pertinent reactions at
the anchors (which could be assumed to be rigid equipment
nozzles or termination points) due to thermal and frictional
forces. What should be an obvious point to the piping analysts
is that the application of the calculated frictional force should
never push the pipe backwards under any circumstances, i.e., the
frictional force is always “induced force” arising from the
impending displacement of the piping support with respect to the

5 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

ultimate supporting structure. The frictional force, regardless of
whether it is assumed to be that due to breakaway (i.e., static) or
sliding (i.e., kinetic) can only resist the pipe from moving, but
can never move the pipe. Furthermore, internal pressure was not
used in the analysis but could be easily incorporated in the first
step of the procedure should the analysts need to do so for any
reason.
The methodology for addressing the effects of the
frictional forces at support locations of interest may sound
tedious, especially for calculating the vertical force at each
support in a large system, multiplying the respective bearing
load (force) by the respective coefficient of friction, and then
introducing the product of the coefficient of friction times the
bearing load as an opposing force into the thermal analysis, but
in reality, all of these steps can be easily accomplished by using
the *GET command of the chosen FEA code [16]. In other
cases, the same post-processing result may be achieved through
some easily applied computing routines of similar computational
tools. Similarly, the procedure is repeated for various
combinations of geometries, pipe sizes, temperatures and
different values of µs or µk.
STATIC VERSUS KINETIC COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION
Because the ASME B31.3 Process Piping Code [9]
requires that the fictional effects be considered and recognized
by the piping stress analysts, the question then becomes which
of the two aforementioned coefficients of friction and which
value should be utilized in a given analysis. Based upon the
review of the current authors’ experience, most analysts who do
incorporate some form of coefficient of friction in an analysis
are most often drawn to utilization of the dry static coefficient of
friction. Again, based upon experience, the rationale for doing
so is most often justified by the thinking that the largest value
will yield the most conservative results, especially in and around
critical rotating equipment nozzles where often times the
allowable piping loads tend toward zero (as pointed out by WRC
Bulletin 449 [10]). Without arguing that point, that approach is
almost guaranteed to fail to simulate the installed condition of
the piping system of interest because no two supports and
restraints would most likely have the same static coefficient if
tested.
A more realistic approach is one that would attempt to
utilize the kinetic coefficient of friction, especially in and around
critical rotating equipment nozzles. The basis for this discussion
and methodology stems from the fact that as the piping system
begins to heat up to operating temperature, the maximum static
coefficient of friction is reached during the transition from the
impending movement or sliding to the sliding of the bearing
surfaces proper. In other words, the temperature at which
sliding would actually be anticipated to begin in heating up from
70°F would be, in fact, at a temperature as low as 100°F. The
axial force necessary to prohibit movement of a pipe during
thermal expansion is most often times a magnitude greater than
that of the induced frictional restraining force. For instance, for
a pipe shoe that is attached to the expanding pipe of interest,
assuming a water-filled NPS 4 standard wall thickness carbon
steel pipe, utilizing span lengths of 20 ft, the “equivalent” axial
force at 300°F is predicted to be in excess of 144,000 lbf
6 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
compared against a frictional restraining force of only 100 lbf at
breakaway. In comparison, once the pipe begins to slide, the
frictional restraining force is on the order of no more than 15 to
20 lbf. During thermal expansion, the pipe must first reach the
breakaway point (i.e., where µs is indeed a maximum, but at a
much lower temperature than the design or operating
temperature) and then for the remainder of the heat-up period of
time is subject to the sliding frictional effects, not the static
frictional effects. The end result is that the equipment nozzle
loadings are more apt to be representative of the effects of µk
rather than µs. In cases where the piping designer and the
analyst need to ensure a maximum margin of safety or operating
margin, then for the critical supports that may be subjected to
varying environmental conditions effecting the friction between
the bearing surfaces, obviously the clear, but more expensive
choice, would be the selection of low coefficient of friction
bearing surfaces (i.e., Teflon and graphite as shown in Table 1).
RESULTS OF THE ANALYSES
A number of finite element analyses were carried out for
the three different geometries, two pipe sizes, two temperatures,
and four different values of the coefficient of friction. Values
for µs (or µk as the case may be) of 0.0, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 were
used to simulate the conditions of frictionless, newly installed
piping system, generally accepted steel to steel friction, and a
poorly maintained piping system, respectively. Tables 2 and 3
summarize the results for the first pipe geometry as shown in
Fig. 1. Tables 2 and 3 show the reactions in the axial direction
(Z-direction) at the anchors for the NPS 4 and NPS 12 models,
respectively. The second column in both tables gives the
reaction load without friction. As the coefficient of the friction
increases, the reactions at the anchors increase significantly for
both of the selected temperatures. Figures 4 through 6,
inclusive, show contour plots of the reaction forces at the
anchors in the axial direction for geometries 1, 2, and 3,
respectively. The contour plots are shown for the twelve inch
standard schedule pipe size at 650°F and generally accepted
steel to steel static coefficient of friction of 0.3. Obviously had
the kinetic coefficient of friction been utilized, the frictional
restraint contribution to these reactions would have been
significantly less than shown in the subject contours.
TABLE 4
GEOMETRY 2 ANCHOR REACTIONS NPS 4
Reaction at Anchors in Axial (X) Direction (lbs.)
µ 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4
300°F -33.2 -206.4 -293.0 -379.6
650°F -84.0 -257.2 -343.8 -430.4
TABLE 5
GEOMETRY 2 ANCHOR REACTIONS NPS 12
Reaction at Anchors in Axial (X) Direction (lbs.)
µ 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4
300°F -901.5 -1941.9 -2462.1 -2982.3
650°F -2278.9 -3319.3 -3839.5 -4359.8
Tables 4 and 5 highlight the reactions at the anchors for
geometry 2, whereas tables 6 and 7 present the results for
geometry 3 for the same conditions as previously discussed for The results of the analyses of the three geometries showed
geometry 1. Furthermore, the results for geometry 2 and that the increase in the loads on anchors (and therefore, on
geometry 3 strengthen the argument of the realization of equipment nozzles and connections) or limit stops due to friction
increased loads on anchors due to the increase in friction at pipe- are very significant and cannot be ignored. The effect is greater
support interfaces and the need for a more reasonable approach for the large diameter pipe as discussed in WRC bulletin 449
in simulating the effects of friction at critical support locations. [10] and as shown by the results of the twelve inch nominal pipe
diameter models.
TABLE 6
GEOMETRY 3 ANCHOR REACTIONS NPS 4
Reaction at Anchors in Axial (Z) Direction (lbs.)
µ 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4
300°F 13.5 142.3 206.6 271.0
650°F 34.3 163.0 227.4 291.7

TABLE 7
GEOMETRY 3 ANCHOR REACTIONS NPS 12
Reaction at Anchors in Axial (Z) Direction (lbs.)
µ 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4
300°F 301.2 1049.0 1422.8 1796.7
650°F 761.4 1509.2 1883.1 2257.0

FIG. 6 ANCHOR REACTIONS GEO. 3 NPS 12 µ=0.3 650°F

FIG. 4 ANCHOR REACTIONS GEO. 1 NPS 12 µ=0.3 650°F
FIG. 5 ANCHOR REACTIONS GEO. 2 NPS 12 µ=0.3 650°F
CONCLUSIONS
Loads due to friction are transient loads and are only active
either when the pipe support slides or when sliding is pending
and the static coefficient is at its maximum value. The opposing
frictional force is a retarding force and can never move the pipe;
it can only oppose the movement of the pipe.
Equipment nozzles in general and especially critical
rotating equipment (i.e., pumps, compressors, turbines, etc.)
should be protected from reaction loads due to excessive
friction, in addition to thermally induced loads, by carefully
locating anchors and guides. Friction should always be treated
as the non-conservative energy it creates, i.e., no credit should
be taken in an analysis especially if the induced frictional forces
help in reducing dynamic loads on nozzle connections, anchors,
or guides.
The piping system should be analyzed with and without
friction to understand the behavior of friction on the system.
Large diameter pipes can induce high frictional forces at the
pipe-support interface and may result in failure of the directional
anchors if the breakaway forces become overwhelming. Slides
with PTFE or graphite bonded to steel bearing plates and other
friction reducing components must be considered in piping
systems generating excessive frictional forces. Proper
maintenance of friction reducing components should be carried
out and the composite supports must be kept free of dirt, debris
and corrosion. The variation (increase with time) of both the
static and the kinetic coefficients of friction µs and µk should
also be minimized through the enforcement of a periodic
inspection and maintenance schedule.
Restraints such as anchors, directional stops, guides, etc.,
are almost always treated as rigid elements in the commercially

7 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

available FEA codes. The additional restraint and associated
loads introduced due to pipe-support friction should also be
considered while designing the aforementioned restraints.
Finally, in modeling the effects of friction between the
bearing surfaces of a pipe support and the ultimate supporting
structure, a more realistic approach than is commonly employed
by many analysts is one that would attempt to utilize the kinetic
coefficient of friction, µk in place of the static coefficient of
friction, µs. This technique becomes especially important in and
around critical rotating equipment nozzles. The basis for this
discussion and methodology stems from the fact that as the
piping system begins to heat up to operating temperature, the
maximum static coefficient of friction is reached during the
transition from the impending sliding of the pipe support at a
much lower temperature than that of the design temperature, in
general. The point in the thermal cycle when the coefficient of
friction is a maximum is not in general coincident with the point
in time when the maximum operating or design temperature is
reached. The calculation of the combined piping loads on a
nozzle would be better to include the effects of the coefficient of
friction that exists immediately prior to reaching the maximum
temperature and that which is coincident with the maximum
temperature in the thermal cycle, which is considered to be µk.
REFERENCES
[1] Peng, L., 1989, "Treatment of Support Friction in Pipe
Stress Analysis," Design and Analysis of Piping and
Components, PVP Vol. 169, ASME, New York, pp. 143-148.
[2] Bakre, S. V., Jangid, R. S., and Reddy, G. R., 2007,
"Response of Piping System on Friction Support to Bi-
Directional Excitation," Nuclear Engineering and Design, 237,
Elsevier Science Ltd., London, pp. 124-136.
[3] Suzuki, K., Watanabe, T., Mitsumori, T., Shimizu, N.,
Kobayashi, H., and Ogawa, N., 1995, "Experimental Studies on
Seismic Response Systems with Friction – Part 1: Large-Scale
Shaking Table Vibration Test," J. Pressure Vessel Technology”,
117, ASME, New York, pp. 245-249.
[4] Kolonits, F., 2000, "The Crawling Cat - Ratcheting of
Supports in Piping Systems,” International Journal of Pressure
8 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
View publication stats
Vessels and Piping, 77, Elsevier Science Ltd., London, pp. 297-
301.
[5] Boresi, A. P. and Schmidt, R. J., 2000, Engineering
Mechanics-Statics, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA.
[6] Bowden, F. P. and Tabor, D., 2001, The Friction and
Lubrication of Solids, Oxford University Press, New York.
[7] Mokha, A. S., Constantinou, M. C.,and Reinhorn, A. M.,
1990, “Teflon Bearing in Base Isolation I: Testing,” Journal
Structural Engineering, ASCE 116 (2), pp. 438–454.
[8] Constantinou, M. C., Mokha, A. S., Reinhorn, A. M., 1990,
“Teflon Bearing in Base Isolation II: Modeling,” Journal
Structural Engineering, ASCE 116 (2), pp. 455–474.
[9] ASME, 2006, ASME B31.3, “Process Piping,” American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, USA.
[10] Carucci, V. A. and Payne, J. A., 2000, WRC Bulletin 449,
Guidelines for the Design and Installation of Pump Piping
Systems, Welding Research Council, Inc., New York, USA.
[11] Baniotopoulos, C. C., 1996, "Saddle-Supported Pipelines:
Influence of Unilateral Support and Thickness on the Stress
State,” International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 67,
Elsevier Science Ltd., London, pp. 55-64.
[12] Baniotopoulos, C. C., Panagiotopoulos, P. D., 1997,
"Stress Distribution Along Above-Ground Pipelines on a
Frictional Supporting System,” Computers and Structures, 64,
Elsevier Science Ltd., London, pp. 783-789.
[13] Intergraph, Corp., 2011, CAESAR II, Release 5.30
Technical Reference Manual, Houston, TX.
[14] Sobieszczanski J., 1972, "Inclusion of a Support Friction
into a Computerized Solution of a Self-compensating Pipeline,"
J Engng Ind (Trans ASME), pp. 797-802.
[15] Reddy, G. R., Suzuki, K., Watanabe, T., and Mahajan, S.
C., 1999, "Linearization Techniques for Seismic Analysis of
Piping System on Friction Support," J. Pressure Vessel
Technology”, 121, ASME, New York, pp. 103-108.
[16] ANSYS, Inc., 2007, Release 11.0 Documentation for
ANSYS, Canonsburg, PA.
[17] Kannappan, S., 1986, Introduction to Pipe Stress Analysis,
Wiley-Inter-science, New York, USA, Chap. 1-3.
[18] Tube Turns Division, 1979, Piping Engineering, Tube
Turns Division of Allegheny Ludlum Industries, Louisville, KY.