See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270488881

Optimization of piping expansion loops using

ASME B31.3
Article in ARCHIVE Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part E Journal of Process Mechanical
Engineering 1989-1996 (vols January 2014
Impact Factor: 0.77 DOI: 10.1177/0954408914532808

READS

137

3 authors, including:
Shivakumar Ranganathan

Farid Abed

Rowan University

American University of Sharjah

26 PUBLICATIONS 465 CITATIONS

61 PUBLICATIONS 470 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Farid Abed

Retrieved on: 17 May 2016

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical

Engineers, Part E: Journal of Process
Mechanical
Engineering
http://pie.sagepub.com/

Optimization of piping expansion loops using ASME B31.3

Bahaa Shehadeh, Shivakumar I Ranganathan and Farid H Abed
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part E: Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering published
online 23 May 2014
DOI: 10.1177/0954408914532808
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://pie.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/23/0954408914532808

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Additional services and information for Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part E: Journal of Process Mechanical
Engineering can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://pie.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://pie.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://pie.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/23/0954408914532808.refs.html

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 23, 2014

What is This?

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on May 23, 2014

XML Template (2014)

[5.5.201410:03am]
//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/PIEJ/Vol00000/140018/APPFile/SG-PIEJ140018.3d

(PIE)

[19]
[PREPRINTER stage]

Original Article

Optimization of piping expansion loops

using ASME B31.3

Proc IMechE Part E:

J Process Mechanical Engineering
0(0) 19
! IMechE 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0954408914532808
uk.sagepub.com/jpme

Bahaa Shehadeh1, Shivakumar I Ranganathan1 and

Farid H Abed2

Abstract
Piping is the main transportation method for fluids from one location to another within an industrial plant. Design and
routing of piping is heavily influenced by the stresses generated due to thermal effects and high pressure of the operating
fluid. In particular, pressurized fluids create critical loads on the supports and elbows of the pipe which increases the
overall stresses in the piping. Moreover, long pipes operating under high temperature gradients tend to expand significantly. Therefore, designers and engineers usually provide an expansion loop in order to relieve the pipe from the critical
stresses. However, expansion loops require extra space, supports, elbows, bends, additional steel structure that could
adversely affect the operating cost. It is therefore necessary to optimize the geometry, the number of expansion loops,
and the supports. Reducing the number of loops in one single system or reducing the length of the loop itself is always
favored as long as stresses are within safe limits. Usually, the commercial software (PipeData) is used in the industry to
get the dimensions of the expansion loop. However, this software is mostly based on empirical models that rely on past
experience rather than engineering fundamentals. Accordingly, this paper conducts an optimization analysis concerning
the expansion loop dimensions and the number of supports without compromising on the safety of piping. The design
approach is conducted as per the guidelines of ASME B31.3 (Process Piping) code and uses the commercial software
(CAESAR II) for stress calculations. A full comparison for the expansion loop dimension is conducted between the
empirical approach and the optimization analysis using ASME B31.3 for one of the existing oilfield projects. Results
indicate that optimization reduces the dimensions and the number of expansion loops as well as the total number of
supports. This results in significant savings in the piping cost without any compromise on the safety.
Keywords
Expansion loop, thermal stresses, CAESAR II, PipeData, ASME B31.3
Date received: 7 November 2013; accepted: 2 April 2014

Introduction
The major purpose of piping stress analysis is to
ensure the safe operation of a piping system for the
applied external loads. It is important to ensure safety
against failure of the piping and in-line equipment as
well as to protect anchor, support structures, and terminal equipment from overstress, all without wastage
of material.
One of the major hurdles that engineers in any
plant or a piping project encounter is the thermal
expansion of pipes. Basically, due to high temperature
of uid being transported from one point to another,
and due to the dierence of ambient temperature of
the surrounding, the steel pipe expands. This addition
of length creates high loads and moments on the xed
points (points with zero displacement) resulting in
high stresses. Usually, these xed points are the nozzles of the equipment or the anchors. Moreover,
elbows of the pipe encounter the maximum expansion
displacement due to space availability. The design of

the any system must be rst simulated, analyzed, and

subsequently approved by client to ensure the safety
of piping and routing. All designs must be compliant
with the process piping code (ASME B31.3).

Background
Expansion loops
Oil and gas piping sector is considered as one of
the most crucial systems due to the high stresses
1

Department of Mechanical Engineering, American University of

Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE
2
Department of Civil Engineering, American University of Sharjah,
Sharjah, UAE
Corresponding author:
Shivakumar I Ranganathan, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah
26666, UAE.
Email: sranganathan@aus.edu

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on May 23, 2014

XML Template (2014)

[5.5.201410:03am]
//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/PIEJ/Vol00000/140018/APPFile/SG-PIEJ140018.3d

(PIE)

[19]
[PREPRINTER stage]

Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)

encountered in the pipes. Theses stresses are created

because of the high pressure and temperature of the
operating uids. Fonseca et al.1 conducted a numerical thermal analysis on the elbows of a piping system
sustaining a high temperature and expansion. For
instance, crude oil and water injected are operated
under 85 C and a pressure of at least 10 MPa.
Therefore, these loads cause a huge force and
moment at the nodal interconnection of the pipe
and as well at the elbows. Most importantly,
Fonseca 1 identify the expansion in the steel pipes as
the major issue in piping design. Zaras 2 investigated
the use of structural steel in critical piping lines under
high stresses. They developed a nite element algorithm to solve the coupled thermo-mechanical problem at high temperatures. Results indicate that
thermal expansion in such piping systems is signicant
and constraints on the thermal expansion resulted in
very high stresses. One possible approach to alleviate
the high stresses would be to accommodate thermal
expansion by changing the routing of the piping
system by using Z loops, expansion joints, expansion
loops, and hangers. Z loops and expansion loops rely
mainly on changing the routing system, whereas
expansion joints and hangers use springs to reduce
the loads at the elbows of the pipes. Typically, hangers accommodate expansion along a vertical line only.
Expansion joints can accommodate for all the axial
expansion, but requires special ttings and a lot of
supports. However, such options are restricted by a
high price range and thus expansion loops turn out to
be the best alternative to accommodate for the thermal expansion (see Figure 1). Geometrical parameters
of the expansion loop (that include the width (w),
length (L), the number of supports (S), and the
number of loops (N)) can be optimized to accommodate all the thermal expansion while keeping the stresses below a threshold value.

Finite element analysis for piping

Piping technologies are in general complex systems
that operate at high pressure and temperatures. One
of the objectives here is to determine the state of stress

in the piping and to ensure that it is with allowable

limits. Due to the complexity of the problem, simplied analytical approaches are seldom useful for the
safe design of such systems. Numerical techniques
such as the nite element analysis oer an attractive
alternative to the analytical approaches, especially
due to the availability of specialized commercial software in the industry. According to Mackerle,3 piping
analysis should include various parameters such as
thermal loads, static and dynamics loads, and plastic
analysis. The complexity rises due to the combination
of these loads which can be easily taken into account
within the framework of nite element techniques.
The nite element software CAESAR II 4 is one of
the main software that is used to evaluate the piping
stress analysis and piping exibility. Basically, in this
approach, the pipe is modeled as several elements connected at common nodal points. The loads are then
applied as appropriate and the boundary conditions
are imposed to solve the boundary value problems.
Schwarz 5 and Weiss and Joost 6 provide a discussion
on the appropriate boundary conditions. The resulting discretized equations take the general form
[K]{x} {f}, where [K] is the global stiness matrix,
{x} is the displacement vector, and {f} is global load
vector. Once the displacement eld is determined,
stress can be computed and the locations of stress
hot stops can be readily identied.

ASME B31.3
ASME B31.3 7 is the code for pressure piping. It
denes the pipe as a hollow tubular bar that is
designed for transferring uids and gases from one
location to another. The B31.3 states several requirements for the satisfactory design piping in the industrial sector and the main segment is stress in piping.
The following are considered as the basic requirements for any design in the piping system for an oil
and gas project:
1. Design pressure must be always less than the most
severe case that requires largest thickness and
highest component rating.
2. Some pipes may encounter external and internal
pressure, thus both must be taken in
consideration.
3. All additional sources of pressure must be
considered.
4. The minimum design temperature is the lowest
component temperature expected in service.
5. In externally insulated piping, the design temperature shall be the uid temperature.

Stresses in piping
Figure 1. Expansion loop.

The internal pressure in the pipe and the boundary

constraints generates axial, circumferential, and

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on May 23, 2014

XML Template (2014)

[5.5.201410:03am]
//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/PIEJ/Vol00000/140018/APPFile/SG-PIEJ140018.3d

(PIE)

[19]
[PREPRINTER stage]

Shehadeh et al.

radial stresses. If the equivalent stress due to the

above stresses exceeds a critical value, this could
result in the failure of the piping. This could typically
occur at the connected equipment or ttings such as
nozzles, hangers, supports, and pumps. In the next
section, a methodology is proposed to optimize the
expansion loop while keeping the stresses below the
allowable limit.

Sustained case: Effect of pressure and weight

This case studies the eect of pressure (internal and
external) and weight (pipe and uid) on the resulting
internal stresses. The requirement here is to ensure
that the code stress (SE) remains always lower than
the allowable stress (SA) under any circumstances for
safe operation. The code stress, SE is dened as
follows
q
1
SE S2b 4S2t

Mt
2Z

In the above, Sa is the stress due to axial load. ASME

B31.3 states that the code stress, SE should not exceed
the value of the allowable stress SA, dened by the
following equation
SA f1:25Sc 0:25Sh Sh 4 SL

 T E  " E   
T

where
sT stress due to temperature expansion
E Youngs modulus
" strain
a temperature expansion coecient

T temperature dierence

SAT

Here, Mt is the torsional moment. The longitudinal

stress (SL) is dened as follows
q
SL Sb jSa j2 4S2t

Thermal expansion case: Effect of temperature. The

objective of this case is to study the thermal expansion of pipe due to high temperature gradients
encountered by the operating uid. Consequently,
constraints on thermal expansion result in internal
stresses. Thermal stresses are represented by the following equation

where Ii represents the in-plane stress intensication

factor, Io is the out-plane stress intensication factor,
Z is the section modulus of pipe, Mi is in-plane bending moment, and Mo is the out-plane bending
moment. The term St in equation (1) represents the
torsional stress and dened as
St

According to ASME B31.3, the allowable stress

takes the following form in the thermal expansion
case

where Sb is the bending stress

Sh
Eff

where E weld joint eciency.

The safe operation of piping can be aected by two

major factors: (1) the applied loads and geometry; (2)
the pipe material used. ASME B31.3 has categorized
and specied the allowable stresses in tables based on
material and the operating temperature range.

Sb

5b

where Sh is the basic allowable stress at maximum

metal temperature (hot condition), Sc is the basic
allowable stress at minimum metal temperature
(cold condition), and f is the stress range factor.
However, since the sustained case is not concerned
with temperature range
SA

Design methodology
Allowable stress

q
Ii Mi 2  Io Mo 2

SA f1:25Sc Sh  SL  Sh 5 SL




1:25
f
 Sc Sh  SE 
Eff

Stress ratio
In order to determine the location in the piping
with critical stresses, the stress ratio which is dened
as percentage ratio of the code stress to the
allowable stress of the material is computed as
follows

R%

q
S2b 4S2t

SE
 100
 100
f1:25Sc 0:25Sh
SA

And when Sh > SL

R%

5a

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on May 23, 2014

q
S2b 4S2t

SE
 100
 100
f1:25Sc Sh  SL
SA
10

XML Template (2014)

[5.5.201410:03am]
//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/PIEJ/Vol00000/140018/APPFile/SG-PIEJ140018.3d

(PIE)

[19]
[PREPRINTER stage]

Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)

The same is applied for the thermal expansion case,

where stress ratio is dened as follows

R%

T
E    dt
 100
 100
f1:25=EffSc Sh  SL 
SAT

11

The concept of stress ratio is widely used in the

industry to determine the acceptable range of stress
within the piping system.

Software
PipeData. PipeData8 is a program that establishes
standards and provides the necessary information
for piping design. It has a professional version that
is easy to use and provides useful information
required for the design of pipes, piping parts, anges,
valves, and design data. Basically, the dimensions of
all piping equipment are estimated based on empirical
models. The program is used in this project for calculation of the initial expansion loop dimensions. This is
the approach that is normally used in the industry and
it results in overdesigning of the components.
CAESAR II. This software evaluates the stresses in
piping systems in accordance with ASME B31.3 and
based on nite element analysis. It provides users the
exibility to optimize the system parameters in order
to minimize the total cost of piping.

Experimental setup
Design input
The project under consideration is located in UAE and
is being implemented by the Abu Dhabi Company for
Onshore Oil Operations. The total pipe length is 600 m
and the purpose is to transport liquid butane under the
input conditions described in Table 1. The input for

Table 1. Design input.

Diameter
Length
Thickness
Fluid temperature
Ambient temperature
Pressure
Fluid density
Corrosion
Insulation
Pipe material
Pipe density
Elastic modulus

609.6 mm
600,000 mm
9.525 mm
85  C
21  C
1.96 MPa
1050 kg/m3
0
N/A
ASTM 672 C60
7830 kg/m3
202 GPa

initial dimensions of expansion loops was obtained

using the PipeData software. Typically, PipeData
over designs the loop and one of the objectives of
this study is to demonstrate this fact.

PipeData output
The design input is used to obtain the dimensions, in
which those results are optimized and compared at the
end of this paper. Basically, PipeData accounts for
temperature of the uids, ambient temperature, and
the length of the designed pipe. Subsequently, the
dimensions we obtained for the length of the loop L
is 9255 and 9255 mm for the width W as well.

Load cases
Load cases include the hydro test, operational case,
sustained and expansion case, and are described in the
subsections to follow. It is possible to have higher
stresses in some cases when compared to the operational loads. It is therefore necessary to test all possible load cases in order to ensure a safe design.
Hydro test case. This case accounts for weight of pipe
and uid pressure. Hydro test is a case that is designed
to test the pipe under the self-weight. In addition, in
this case the pipe is lled with water and exposed to a
pressure that is 1.5 times the operational pressure.
Failure in this test is expected to be in the Y supports since the loads are in gravitational direction and
is typically due to the lack of supports in long pipes.
Thus, stress ratio and the loads on friction support are
investigated in this case.
Operational case. The operating case takes into account
the actual loads on the piping including the ones for the
attached equipment, anchors, supports, guides, or limit
stops. Temperature, weight of pipe along with uid
density and pressure loads is combined to mimic the
real life scenario. In this case, temperature is the main
factor since it creates the expansion in the pipe length.
Sustained case. Sustained case stresses are due to the
axial loads, bending moment, and internal pressure.
Sustained case eliminates thermal eects and focuses
on the loads of pressure, pipe density, insulation
weight, and uid density. Failure in this case indicates
the lack of sucient number of supports to take the
Y load (the same as in hydro case). Also, ASME
B31.3 states that the allowable stress in this case
equals two-thirds of the hydro case. Therefore, failure
in this case directly implies failure in the corresponding hydro case since pressure is higher.
Expansion case. This case is designed specically to
study the thermal expansion of the pipe under the
temperature eect. Failure typically occurs due to
high stresses at the xed points (zero displacements).

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on May 23, 2014

XML Template (2014)

[5.5.201410:03am]
//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/PIEJ/Vol00000/140018/APPFile/SG-PIEJ140018.3d

[19]
[PREPRINTER stage]

(PIE)

Shehadeh et al.

This is an important test case, since the expansion

loop has to accommodate the expansion of the pipe
in the axial direction without exceeding the regulations of the client.

Effect of reducing length, width, and number of supports in

the loop (LWS). This is similar to the previous test
case. However, the number of supports is reduced.
For each loop one support is removed and combined.

Client regulations

Effect of reducing length, width, number of the supports, and

number of the loops (LWSN). This group has the
same trials of (LWS). However, the number of
loops is reduced.

Client regulations can be viewed as an additional

safety constraint to the piping design. The following
are the main regulations:
1. Stress ratio: Maximum stress ratio must not
exceed 80%.
2. Space regulation: One loop is necessary for every
140 m of piping length.
3. Lateral displacement: The maximum gap allowed
in the sustained case is restricted to be below 7 mm.
4. Axial displacement: The maximum expansion in
the operational case is 50 mm.
5. Space regulation: Loops can be in vertical direction only.

Optimization steps
After obtaining the initial dimensions, the system is
modeled in CAESAR for subsequent stress analysis.
The dimension of the expansion loop is then reduced
individually and in combination in order to optimize
the design to meet the client regulations as well as
ASME B31.3. The following trials are set up to
assist the optimization:
Effect of reducing length of the loop (L). The loop length is
independently varied between 2000 and 8000 mm
keeping all other parameters xed (see Table 2).
Effect of reducing width of the loop (W). The loop width is
independently varied between 2000 and 8000 mm
keeping all other parameters xed (see Table 3).

Results
Initial system results
The primary results are the reference since the input is
taken from PipeData. Table 4 presents the highest
stresses generated by the original model.
The loads are calculated by CAESAR software.
As presented in Table 5, the loads are expected to
be in the Y direction due to weight (gravitational
force) and in the X direction due to the thermal
expansion. Those loads must be as low as possible
in order to minimize the stress ratio. The locations
of nodes 140, 510, and 740 are illustrated in
Figure 2.

Optimization results
Effect of reducing length of the loop (L). In this trial, length
of the leg is reduced from 8000 to 2000 mm, while
width, number of supports, and number loops
remain the same. In this case, the system fails when
the length L is below 3500 mm (in terms of stress ratio
exceeding the clients regulation). The stress ratio in
both cases (sustained and expansion) is shown in
Figure 3. As expected, the curve for the sustained
case is horizontal, whereas the expansion case

Table 4. Stress ratio.

Effect of reducing length and width of the loop (LW). In

this study, the length and width of the loop is varied
simultaneously. It involves all possible combinations
of L and W mentioned in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2. Reduce length trials.

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Trial 6 Trial 7
L (mm) 8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

Stresses (kPa)

Load cases

Node
No.

Calculated
(max)

Allowable
(as per code)

Max.
stress
ratio
(%)

Hydro test
Sustained
Expansion

740
740
140

80,888.1
67,057.5
63,873.1

220,629.0
134,965.4
206,110.3

36.7
49.7
31.0

Table 5. Maximum loads in the system.

Loads (N)

Table 3. Reduce width trials.

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Trial 6 Trial 7
W (mm) 8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

Load cases

Node
no.

Fx

Fy

Fz

Sustained
Operating
Hydro test

740
510
740

0
29,492
0

70,064
98,307
67,804

0
0
0

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on May 23, 2014

XML Template (2014)

[5.5.201410:03am]
//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/PIEJ/Vol00000/140018/APPFile/SG-PIEJ140018.3d

(PIE)

[19]
[PREPRINTER stage]

Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)

Figure 4. Effect of loop length on the maximum displacement

(loop width is fixed at 9255 mm).
Figure 2. Locations of nodes 140, 510, and 740 on the pipe.

Figure 5. Effect of loop width on the stress ratio (loop length

is fixed at 9255 mm).
Figure 3. Effect of loop length on the stress ratio (loop width
is fixed at 9255 mm).

experiences a negative slope with increasing length.

This is because, longer the leg the exibility is more
and thus the stress is less. However, in sustained case
the maximum stress ratio does not really change since
maximum stress is achieved at 60%.
As the leg length reduces, the displacements in
sustained case (gravitational direction) decrease
from 3.2 mm at L 8000 mm to 1.7 mm at
L 3000 mm (see Figure 4). This is due to the
elbows located at each of the loop. As the length
decreases, the weight and pressure is lower and
hence the nodal displacement in the downward direction is lower. Further, the displacement in operating
case (axial direction) also decreases from 48.5 mm at
L 8000 mm to 46.5 mm at L 3000 mm. This is
because, as the length decreases, there is less exibility for the elbow points to move axially along the
pipe. As per the client regulations, the maximum

stress ratio must not exceed 80%. Based on this

trial, the limiting length corresponding to the limiting stress ratio is 3500 mm. Although this is the case,
the preferred length is 4000 mm due to manufacturing constraints and other uncertainties.
Effect of reducing width of the Loop (W). In this trial,
width of the leg is reduced from 8000 to 2000 mm,
while length, number of supports, and number loops
remain the same. Figure 5 shows the stress ratio in
both cases sustained and expanded. As seen from the
plot, the stress ratio is almost horizontal for both
these cases (unlike the change in length). This is interpreted by the support at the elbow. The width of the
loop is parallel to the pipe, and any expansion of the
width would be in the direction of the pipe itself.
Thus, as long as the elbows are well supported, expansion case cannot be aected much while reducing W.

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on May 23, 2014

XML Template (2014)

[5.5.201410:03am]
//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/PIEJ/Vol00000/140018/APPFile/SG-PIEJ140018.3d

(PIE)

[19]
[PREPRINTER stage]

Shehadeh et al.

Figure 6. Effect of loop width on the maximum displacement

(loop length is fixed at 9255 mm).

Figure 8. Effect of loop length and width on the maximum

displacement (results are presented only for the case in which
the loop length is fixed at 4000 mm).

Although decreasing W has shown a reduction in

stress ratio as per Figure 7, the optimal selection is
toward the smallest width since the main aim of the
paper is to minimize the length and material of the
pipe as much as possible without sacricing the stress
ratio. Thus, the optimal result was selected based on
the minimum width available (W 2000 mm).
Finally, we conclude from Figures 7 and 8 that
L 4000 and W 2000 mm is the best combination
that could be achieved without exceeding clients
regulations.

Figure 7. Effect of loop length and width on the stress ratio.

Moreover, decreasing the width of the loop results in

lower vertical displacement in sustained case (see
Figure 6). This is due to the weight of the pipe that
results from the loop itself. Therefore, we can conclude that the loop can have a width of 2000 mm without exceeding 80% stress ratio.
Effect of reducing length and width of the loop (L and W). As
observed from the previous two trials, this trial utilizes the combination of reducing W along with reducing L. The optimal combination of the trial is the
L 4000 and W 2000. With these dimensions, all
the design requirements are met and the material
used is minimal. Figures 7 and 8 show the stress
ratio and the displacement as a function of the
width for both the sustained and expansion case. In
these plots, the length is xed at 4000 mm.

Effect of reducing length, width, and number of the supports

(LWS). As observed from the previous trial,
L 4000 mm and W 2000 mm has been seen as the
best combination of all others. Therefore, in this trial
the ultimate trial is used and optimized by removing
one support from each loop.
Figure 9 shows how the stress ratio in expansion
case gets reduced while reducing the width of the leg
from 8000 to 2000 mm.
The maximum stress ratio decreases signicantly
by reducing the leg of the loop. This is happening
because the support at the elbow is removed and the
longer the leg of the loop the more expansion is
released in the gravitational direction resulting in
high stresses at the elbows. Subsequently, the shorter
the leg the less loads encountered. Final results show
that L 4000 mm and W 2000 mm can achieve the
anticipated optimization in this combination.
Effect of reducing length, width, number of the supports, and
number of the Loops (LWSN). All of the trials have
shown failure in either the stress ratio or displacement. This failure is happening due to the extra
expansion happening at the elbows of the remaining
expansion loops. The removed loop has left its job

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on May 23, 2014

XML Template (2014)

[5.5.201410:03am]
//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/PIEJ/Vol00000/140018/APPFile/SG-PIEJ140018.3d

(PIE)

[19]
[PREPRINTER stage]

Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)

Table 6. Comparison of initial and optimized designs.
Initial

Optimized

L 9255 mm
W 9255 mm
Extra elbow support
Max. stress ratio 31%
(expansion case)
Max. displacement
3.6 mm (sustained case)

L 4000 mm
W 2000 mm
Elbow support removed
Max. stress ratio 75.4%
(expansion case)
Max. displacement
0.9 mm
(sustained case)
Max. displacement
47.6 mm
(operation case)

Max. displacement
48.8 mm (operation case)

Figure 9. Effect of loop length, width, and supports on the

stress ratio (results are presented only for the case in which
the loop length is fixed at 4000 mm).

Table 7. Cost saving.

Length (2 legs)
Width
Sum

Original
(mm)

Final
(mm)

Difference
(mm)

9255
9255

4000
2000

10,510
7255
17,765

suer high stresses. Also, even if some combinations

have resulted in acceptable range of stress ratio, displacement is over clients regulations.
In conclusion, reducing number of loops
is not applicable at all since it is failing to all
regulations.

Optimized design
The initial and the optimized design have the following dimensions and results.
Figure 10 illustrates the initial and the optimized
system dimensions.

Cost savings

Figure 10. Initial design (above) and optimized layout

(below).

(portion of the pipe) to the other neighbor loops.

Thus, each loop sustains more length of pipe
and thus more expansion in the axial direction
which resulted in failure as shown previously.
Therefore, removing a whole loop makes the system

Cost savings of the system is determined by the

amount of pipe material removed by optimization
process. Also, elbow supports that have been removed
by the optimization are included in the saving calculations. Table 6 presents the amount of pipe material
removed by the whole system between ultimate and
original systems.
Therefore, for each loop the saving is around
17.765 m of pipe material (see Table 7). The cost of
ASTM 672 C60 (24 in.) is approximately US$400 per
meter as indicated in the material specication. Thus,
the cost saving of pipe material for each loop is
17.765  400 US$7106.00. Also, each elbow support
costs US$200 for the 24 in. line. Thus, total saving of
each loop is: 200 7106 US$7306.00, and the total
saving for the whole piping (consisting of four loops)
is US$29,224.00.

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on May 23, 2014

XML Template (2014)

[5.5.201410:03am]
//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/PIEJ/Vol00000/140018/APPFile/SG-PIEJ140018.3d

(PIE)

[19]
[PREPRINTER stage]

Shehadeh et al.

9
References

Conclusion
It is a common practice in the industry to determine
the dimensions of the expansion loop using empirical
means or by using commercial programs that have no
engineering backgrounds. In general, such an
approach leads to the over designing of the system.
In order to save material costs, it is desirable to optimize the dimensions of the expansion loop using physics based models. A systematic parametric study was
conducted to optimize the dimensions of the expansion loop in accordance with ASME B31.3.
Additional constraints that stem from specic client
requirements were also considered in the optimization
process. Results indicate that the optimized design
signicantly saves the amount of material as well as
the number of supports used in the piping system,
thus resulting in direct cost savings without compromising on the safety.
Funding
This research received no specic grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-prot sectors.

1. Fonseca EM, de Melo FJMQ and Oliveira CD.

Trigonometric function used to formulate a multinodal finite tubular element. Mech Res Commun 2007;
34: 5462.
2. Zaras J. Analysis of an industrial piping installation
under buckling propagation. Thin-Walled Struct 2008;
46: 855859.
3. Mackerle J. Finite elements in the analysis of pressure
vessels and piping, an addendum: A bibliography (2001
2004). Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 2005; 82: 571592.
4. Intergraph CAESAR II is a comprehensive and standard program for Pipe Stress Analysis used worldwide,
Version 2.
5. Schwarz MM. Flexibility analysis of the vessel-piping
interface. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 2004; 81: 181189.
6. Weiss E and Joost H. Local and global flexibility of
nozzle-to-vessel-intersections under local loads as boundary conditions for piping system design. Int J Pressure
Vessels Piping 1997; 73: 241247.
7. Becht C. Process piping: the complete guide to ASME
B31. 3. 3rd edition, ASME Press: NY.
8. PipeData-Pro software for piping designers and engineers, Version 9.0.

Conflict of interest
None declared.

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com by guest on May 23, 2014