ASME B31.

3 2020 changes
with commentaries
Introduction
This article summarises the main changes in ASME B31.3 2020 edition with
supplementary notes to explain the rationale behind the changes with
references which can be used for suggested further reading.

1 – Flexibility and Stress Intensification Factors (paras. 319 & 320)

The most significant change w.r.t stress analysis of piping systems is the deletion of
Appendix D and referring the users to B31J for determination of SIF and Flexibility
factors. This is explained in detail as below-

1a. Run and Branch flexibility factors – B31.3 SIFs referred to branch SIFs, and
same SIFs were used for header pipes. This was, in many cases, overly
conservative for headers. Now B31.3 addresses header and branch SIFs / flexibility
factors separately.

Commentary

B31J is the result of various published works, some of which are can be found in-

1. The B2 stress index as a function of internal pressure, bend angle,

loading type and material by V.C.Matzen and Xi Yuan, SMiRT 17, August
2003
2. Burst Tests of B16.9 Welding Tees, PVP 2014-28265, Tony Paulin,
Charles Becht
3. Experimental evaluation of the Markl fatigue methods and ASME stress
intensification factors PVP2008-61871, Tony Paulin, Chris Hinnant
A paper which addresses the issue of run and branch SIFs is- A Finite Element
based study on Stress Intensification factors (SIF) for Reinforced Fabricated Tees by
A.Bhattacharya, NAFEMS 2011, Boston

2 – High Pressure Fluid Service Pressure Design (para. K302.3.2)

In ASME B31.3 2020, the basis for allowable stresses has been changed to be at
par with ASME B&PV code SEC III. As an example, for the Grade B Carbon steel
materials allowable stress was 23.3 Ksi in 2018 edition and in 2020 edition its 28.0
Ksi.

Commentary

The original development of Chapter IX used the Nadai equation and

through-thickness yield as a basis for establishing a margin against burst. Since
then, research has shown that there is a stronger correlation between burst and the
flow stress equation that is based on the average of yield and UTS. This work
formed the basis of the 2013 changes to ASME VIII Division 3. In the 2014 edition of
B31.3, the requirement for hydrotest was set at 1.25, to be consistent with ASME VIII
Division 3. Hydrotest conditions are a design criteria used in ASME VIII Division 3 to
check for through-thickness yield under test conditions.

The new static pressure design criteria for Chapter IX piping can be summarized as:

1. Margin against burst using a flow stress equation based on the average of yield
and UTS

2. Margin against through-thickness yielding based on Nadai equation and a basic

hydrotest pressure of 1.25 times design pressure
 ASME B31.3 2020 changes with
commentaries .pdf
FREE DOWNLOAD

3. High-pressure piping in fatigue analysis (paras. K302.3, K304.8)

The higher emphasis is on use of Fracture mechanics based approaches and S-N
curve type approach can only be used if failure by “leak before burst” situation can
be successfully demonstrated.

Commentary

a – The concept behind leak –before-burst

In a piping or pressure vessel system, with a crack going in the wall, there can be
two possibilities

1. Crack may gradually extend and penetrate the wall, causing a leak before sudden
brittle fracture can occur

2. Sudden brittle fracture can occur prior to the pipe leaking.

Since a brittle fracture in a pipe may involve the explosive release of the pipe
contents, a leak is by far preferable. Also, a leak is easily detected from pressure
drop or from the escape of pipe contents.

A crack in a piping may grow in size due to the influence of the cyclic loading
associated with pressure changes, or due to hostile chemical attack on the material.
A crack usually starts from a surface flaw and extends in a plane normal to the
maximum stress in the pipe wall as shown in Figure 1. Early in its progress, the
crack will often grow with the surface length 2c continuing to be approximately twice
the depth a, so that c~a .

If no brittle fracture occurs, the growth will proceed in a pattern similar to that as
shown in Figure 1, resulting in a through-wall crack with surface length 2c that is
approximately equal to twice the thickness, 2t as in the figure. However, the sudden
brittle fracture will occur before the crack penetrates the wall unless the material has
sufficient fracture toughness to support a through-wall crack of at least this size, i.e.
 Figure 1-Crack in wall of a pipe (Ref #1)

Cc ≥t Equation 1

Such a through-wall crack may be analysed as a central crack in a plate as shown in

Figure 1.Since the plate is wide compared with crack length, F=1, with Cc, being the
crack length a, and the maximum stress σt is S. Making these substitutions into
K=FS√πa Equation 2

and substituting K1c for K, solving for Cc we get

Cc= 1/π (K1c/σt )^2 Equation 3

Hence Cc may be calculated and compared with the thickness to determine whether
the leak before break condition is met

b – Fatigue analysis

Fatigue analysis (required for all Chapter IX piping systems) may be performed in
accordance with the BPV Code, Section VIII, Division 2 or Division 3. While Division
2’s fatigue analysis involves using a standard S/N curve to determine the design
fatigue life, Division 3 also allows an S/N curve approach, but only if it can be shown
that the piping component will fail in a leak-before-burst mode, or otherwise, a more
rigorous fracture mechanics evaluation is required. The design fatigue curves in both
Divisions 2 and 3 were derived from strain-controlled push-pull tests with zero mean
stress on polished unnotched specimens in dry air. However, the Division 3 S/N
analysis contains several requirements that are not included in Division 2, such as
surface finish and mean stress corrections.

It is this non-conservatism in Division 2 as compared with Division 3 and since

Chapter IX is intended to parallel Division 3 (High Pressure Vessels) wherever
possible, the new approach has been introduced. Consideration of the issue of plane
strain in high thickness piping which increases the area over which stress singularity
effects of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) works (plane strain condition
increases local yield stress) is an advantage of Fracture mechanics based approach.

4 – Unlisted Valves (para. 307)

For unlisted valves, users can no longer determine pressure-temperature ratings in

accordance with ASME B16.34.

Commentary
Reference to the pressure-temperature rating method in B16.34 cannot be
appropriately made without requiring that the dimensional requirements of B16.34
also be met. The basis for this change is to simplify the requirement in paragraph
307.1.2, in that unlisted valves shall be in accordance with paragraph 302.2.3. As
Paragraph 302.2.3 already states that pressure-temperature ratings shall be
established per the requirements of paragraph 304, which is in line with paragraph
306.1.2 regarding unlisted fittings, and paragraph 308.1.2 regarding unlisted flanges.
For each of these cases, only paragraph 302.2.3 is referenced.

Other ASME B31.3 2020 changes

5 – PWHT (para. 330.1, 331.1)

For preheat and PWHT, in addition to the main body of the code, B31P rules can
also be used.

6 – Impact testing and Weld qualification (paras. 323.2.2, 323.3.1)

For weld qualification, Impact testing is required for weld metal for design minimum
temperature colder than -18C, unless filler material specification involves testing at
or colder than design minimum temperature.

References

1. Mechanical behaviour of materials- Norman Dowling, 4th Edition, Pearson

2. https://becht.com/becht-blog/entry/asme-b31-3-process-piping-substantive-changes-
in-the-2020-edition/

https://emveedoenergy.com/engineering-services/b31-3-2020-changes/