Modeling Thin-Walled Pipe

Intergraph CAS
Loren Brown

For purposes of CAESAR II modeling, thin-walled pipe is defined as that which has a diameter to
wall thickness ratio greater than 100. This restriction on D/t comes from the B31.1 and B31.3
piping codes because they do not have computations for stress intensification factors above
this threshold, largely because the testing that was done by Markl had this same limitation. If
you surpass a D/t ratio of 100 in CAESAR II the program will give a warning regarding this as
follows:

CAESAR II will continue to use the code formulations for SIFs when a D/t ratio is greater than
100, but no one knows if these relations are still valid, hence the warning.
CAESAR II is a pipe flexibility analysis software package and as with all such packages, there are
limitations which should not be exceeded. This thin-wall limitation is one such problem
because once the solution begins to be dominated by buckling, the validity of the flexibility
analysis assumptions decrease. CAESAR II and other such flexibility analysis programs do not
compute buckling because it is a localized effect caused by imperfections in manufacture,
uneven corrosion, pitting, or other defects. CAESAR II considers the pipe to be homogeneous in
cross-section with an even wall thickness everywhere. So the analyst is encouraged to consider
buckling separately from the CAESAR II analysis for such systems.
Another problem with very thin-walled pipe is local deformation in the region of restraint.
When significant local deformation is likely at restraint locations, the load distribution will no
longer follow expectations as with homogeneous cross-sections and standard flexibility analysis
results should not be relied on.
Many analysts will still use CAESAR II to estimate loading and stress, but will be careful to
separately look at local stresses and deformation at restraint locations as well as consideration
of buckling. If the analyst thinks that these localized effects are minor then in such cases
CAESAR II may be a useful tool to at least subjectively qualify the piping. In such cases it is
common to use a lowered allowable stress than what is allowed by the piping code in use.

As with any tool, CAESAR II can be used inappropriately and such use can have dangerous
consequences. It is up to the analyst to make these determinations. For any piping that will
have significant localized deformation, it is strongly suggested that any load distribution and
stress analysis use a full finite element software package that considers such localized effects.