302

Escoe: Piping and Pipeline Assessment Guide

Residual Heat Transfer Through Pipe Shoes

Heat transfer through plate surfaces is simpler than more complex surfaces
because they can be handled with one-dimensional equations that are simple
to apply. Based on Figure 5-26, we consider the heat balance down through
the shoe as follows:

2 1

Heat conducted through

Heat loss by convection from
5
shoe to base plate
shoe to outside air

Writing in equation form, we have for one-dimensional steady state flow:

kmAm

1 2 5 h A (Dt)
Dt
L

Eq. 5-57

o p

For the conduction process, Dt 5 ti 2 tp

For the convection process, Dt 5 tp 2 to
Substituting these into Eq. 5-57, we have

1 t 2L t 2 5 h A (t

kmAm

o p p

2 to)

t1

L
P

tp
Width
Figure 5-26. Heat transfer through pipe shoe.

Piping Support Systems for Process Plants

303

Solving for tp, we have

tp 5

kmAmti 1 hoApLto
, 8F
(kmAm 1 hoApL)

Eq. 5-58

where Am 5 (P 3 length of shoe) 3 2, in.2

Ap 5 base width 3 length of shoe, in.2
ho 5 free convection coefficient for shoe to air, Btu/hr-ft-8F
K 5 thermal conductivity of shoe material, Btu/hr-ft-8F
L 5 shoe height, in.
Like the analysis for cylinders, the free convection coefficient (ho)
can be substituted with a forced convection coefficient. However, most
pipe shoes are normally protected by enough equipment and structures
to prevent direct wind from blowing continuously on the shoe for any
length of time. Of course, this depends on each individual case.
Figures 5-27a and 5-27b show thermal gradients for various simple
pipe support configurations.

90F
113F

to = 90F

15
132F
508F
803F
803F
ti = 900F

888F
858F

Figure 5-27a. Thermal gradients through a pipe clamp, clevis, and supporting rod.

304

Escoe: Piping and Pipeline Assessment Guide

900

Insulation

ti = 900F = Process fluid temperature

1

800
ti

700

t F

600

22

500

400

44
5

300

66

200

2
Typ
5

10
L [inches]

15

3
7 6543 2
L

Figure 5-27b. Thermal gradient through pipe clamp support.

Example 5-3: Heat Transfer Through a Pipe Shoe

A 12 in. process header shown in Figure 5-26 is supported by a shoe 14 in.
long. The process fluid is at 7508F, and it is desired to determine the temperature of the bottom of the shoe base plate where Teflon is mounted to
accommodate pipe movement. The Teflon cannot withstand temperature at
or greater than 4008F. Referring to Figure 5-28 and using Eq. 5-58, we have
5 Calcium silicate
insulation

12 SCH 40

to = 90F
ti = 750F

L = 10 in.

P = 0.35 in.

Base width
= 8 in.
Figure 5-28. Pipe supported on a shoe with temperatures shown.

Piping Support Systems for Process Plants

tp 5

305

kmAmti 1 hoApLto
, 8F
(kmAm 1 hoApL)

where ho 5 3.0 Btu/hr-ft2-8F for carbon steel in still air

km 5 26.0 Btu/hr-ft-8F, thermal conductivity of pipe material
L 5 10.0 in.
Am 5 (0.375)(14) 5 5.25 in.2
Ap 5 (8.0)(14) 5 112 in.2
to 5 908F
in.
Btu
112 in.
10
ft (750)8F 1 3.0
ft 1 2 ft (90)8F
1 5.25
2
1
2
144 in.
hr-ft -8F 144 in.
12
Btu
5.22 in.
Btu
112 in.
10.0
3(26.0) hr-ft -8F 1 144 in. 2 ft 1 (3.0) hr-ft -8F 1 114 in. 2 ft 1 12 2 ft4

(26.0)
tp 5

Btu
hr-ft-8F

tp 5 306.3038F
Thus, the Teflon under the base plate is adequately protected. The amount
of heat loss through the shoe base plate is
q 5 hoAp (tp 2 to)
Btu
q 5 (3.0)
hr-ft2-8F
Btu
q 5 504.706
hr

112 in.2
144 in.2

2 ft (306.303 2 90) 8F
2

Example 5-4: Emergency Constant Spring Replacement

The author was called out in the middle of the night when it was discovered that a constant spring hanger had bottomed out and become a
rigid hanger on a hot superheated steam line. The engineering contractor
representative discovered that the existing spring that bottomed out was
designed only for 1.5 in. of travel, whereas 3.5 in. of travel is necessary,
according to the pipe stress computer runs. The design temperature was
9008C, and the operating temperature was 7808C. The contractor placed
a chain to support the pipe temporarily with operational monitoring.
There were few options, and a chain support acting like a come-along
could only be tolerated for a short time. Constant springs have a long

306

Escoe: Piping and Pipeline Assessment Guide

delivery time half way around the world, so the option taken was to visit
the junk yard and try to find a constant spring close to the required
design.
The required spring was for a 1254 kg load on the super steam header.
A constant spring was found in the junk yard rated for 1889 kg load
with the same travel, 3.5 in. This spring and the one being replaced were
the classical offset-slider crank mechanism design described previously,
designed and fabricated by the same spring vendor. The spring was a
size 28 shown in the spring table in Figure 5-29, rated for 4445 lbf
(1889 kg).
When the spring was installed, its supporting force should have been
in balance with the portion of the piping weight at which it was rated.
The spring was preset to the cold position at the specified load. The
spring had a turnbuckle, thus allowing for normal piping elevation
adjustments. In our case, the actual piping load differed from the
calculated load. The spring manufacturer claimed that an adjustment of
15 to 20% of the specified load could be made by turning the load adjustment bolt. Each division on the adjustment scale equals 5% of the rated
load, according to the spring manufacturers technical bulletin (catalog).
Referring to Figure 5-30, we see the adjustment bolt setting has eight
graduations.
Turning the bolt clockwise decreases the load 5% for each graduation; hence, four graduations represent a 20% decrease in the load.
Similarly for a counterclockwise turn of the adjustment bolt, the load
setting is increased. Thus, the load of 1889 kg reduced by 20%
becomes
1889 kg(0.8) 5 1511.2 kg
The acquired spring is adjusted by locking the spring assembly in the
cold position and adjusting the load nut to match the required loading.
The required loading is 20% over the operating load of the former spring.
Since this load is 1254 kg, the adjusted load is
1254 3 1.2 5 1504.8 kg or 1505 kg
The 1505 kg is close enough to the 1511 kg reduction.
The load adjustment scale on the spring housing had ten graduations
for the total adjustment range, as shown in Figure 5-31.
This is not to be confused with the scale on the load adjustment bolt.
This scale indicates the amount of spring travel. Normally the actual is
less than the total available travel to account for excursions. To translate
the process temperatures and load requirements on the spring scale, we

307

Piping Support Systems for Process Plants

NOTE: The minimum

load is the load for the
preceding size

Constant Support Size Selection Table

Hgr.
Size

4000
4100
4200
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

Total Travel (Inches)

Maximum Rated Load in Pounds For Each Size

212

312

412

512

90
130
175
235
325
445
600
755
905
1090
1310
1465
1620
1810
2000
2240
2475
2770
3060
3400
3735
4120
4500
4950
5400
5940
6480

75
100
140
190
260
360
485
605
725
875
1045
1175
1295
1450
1605
1790
1980
2215
2445
2720
2990
3295
3500
3650
4320
4755
5185
5710
6230
6845
7645
8660
9480
10515
11700

60
85
115
160
215
295
405
505
605
725
875
980
1080
1210
1335
1495
1655
1850
2045
2265
2490
2745
3000
3300
3600
3960
4320
4755
5190
5705
6380
7215
7895
8770
9640
10700
11760
13055
14350
15985
17615
19310
21000
22180
24000

55
70
100
135
185
255
345
435
520
625
750
840
925
1035
1145
1280
1415
1585
1750
1940
2130
2350
2575
2830
3085
3395
3710
4075
4445
4890
5465
6180
6760
7510
8265
9160
10060
11180
12305
13700
15095
16545
18000
19140
20280
21700
23250

21 2

31 2

45
65
85
120
165
225
305
380
455
545
655
735
810
905
1005
1120
1240
1385
1530
1670
1870
2060
2250
2475
2700
2970
3240
3565
3890
4280
4780
5405
5915
6575
7225
8020
8820
9790
10760
11985
13205
14480
15750
16740
17725
19050
20370
22325
24290
26200
28115
30590
33065
35900
4

40
55
60
105
145
200
270
335
405
485
585
650
720
805
890
995
1100
1230
1365
1510
1660
1830
2000
2200
2400
2640
2880
3170
3460
3805
4250
4810
5265
5845
6425
7130
7840
8700
9565
10650
11740
12875
14005
14880
15750
16925
18100
19845
21590
23290
24990
27195
29400
31920
4 1 2

35
50
70
95
130
180
245
305
365
435
525
585
650
725
805
900
990
1110
1225
1360
1495
1650
1800
1980
2160
2375
2595
2855
3115
3425
3825
4330
4740
5260
5775
6415
7055
7835
8610
9585
10565
11580
12600
13390
14175
15235
16295
17860
19425
20960
22490
24475
26460
28745
5

35
45
65
85
120
160
220
275
330
395
475
535
590
660
730
815
900
1010
1115
1240
1360
1500
1640
1600
1965
2160
2355
2595
2830
3110
3475
3935
4305
4780
5250
5830
6415
7120
7830
8725
9610
10530
11455
12170
12885
13850
14815
16240
17660
19055
20450
22250
24045
26120
51 2

30
40
60
80
110
150
205
255
305
365
440
490
540
605
670
750
825
925
1020
1135
1245
1375
1500
1650
1800
1980
2160
2380
2595
2855
3190
3600
3945
4380
4815
5345
5880
6530
7175
7995
8810
9655
10500
11160
11825
12705
13585
14890
16190
17465
18740
20395
22050
23940
6

612

235
280
335
405
450
500
560
620
690
765
855
945
1050
1150
1270
1385
1525
1665
1830
1995
2195
2395
2635
2945
3330
3640
4045
4450
4940
5430
6030
6625
7375
8125
8910
9690
10300
10910
11725
12535
13740
14945
16125
17300
18830
20360
22110
612

25
35
50
70
95
130
175
215
260
310
375
420
465
520
575
640
710
790
875
975
1070
1180
1285
1415
1545
1700
1855
2040
2225
2445
2735
3090
3380
3750
4130
4585
5040
5595
6150
6850
7545
8275
9000
9565
10135
10890
11640
12755
13870
14970
16065
17490
18910
20530
7

712

205
245
290
350
390
435
485
535
600
660
740
815
905
995
1100
1200
1320
1440
1585
1730
1905
2075
2285
2555
2885
3150
3500
3845
4220
4600
5170
5745
6390
7040
7720
8400
8925
9450
10160
10870
11910
12960
13980
15005
16320
17640
19145
712

20
30
45
60
80
110
150
190
230
275
330
365
405
455
500
560
620
695
765
850
935
1030
1125
1240
1350
1485
1620
1785
1945
2140
2395
2705
2950
3285
3610
4010
4410
4895
5380
5990
6605
7240
7875
8370
8860
9525
10185
11160
12140
13100
14060
15300
16540
17955
8

Figure 5-29. Spring support manufacturers load table.

812

912

180
215
255
310
345
385
430
475
530
585
655
720
800
880
970
1050
1165
1270
1400
1525
1680
1830
2015
2250
2545
2780
3095
3405
3775
4150
4605
5060
5640
6215
6815
7415
7875
8335
8960
9585
10510
11435
12330
13230
14390
15550
16885
812

20
30
40
55
70
100
135
170
205
245
290
325
350
405
445
500
550
615
685
755
830
915
1000
1100
1200
1320
1440
1585
1730
1905
2125
2405
2630
2920
3210
3565
3920
4350
4785
5330
5870
6435
7005
7445
7885
8470
9050
9925
10795
11645
12495
13600
14700
15960
9

160
190
230
275
310
345
385
425
475
525
585
650
720
790
870
950
1045
1140
1255
1370
1505
1645
1805
2020
2285
2500
2775
3050
3385
3720
4130
4545
5060
5575
6115
6650
7070
7485
8045
8600
9520
10260
11065
11870
12935
14000
15180
912

308

Escoe: Piping and Pipeline Assessment Guide

3.5 Total travel
Operating range

S
1

Hot

10

Cold
Travel pointer

= Amount of extra travel to prevent spring bottoming out

Figure 5-30. Spring travel scale on side of spring.

made the following calculations to see if the spring had enough travel to
operate safely.
The 9008C represents 3.5 in. of total travel on the spring. This temperature is the very maximum that could be expected in an excursion. Thus
for the operating case, which had a process temperature of 7808C, the
travel incurred for this case is
9008C
7808C
Q x 5 3.033 in.
5
x
3.5 in.
Load adjustment nut
Side walls of
spring (Typ)

Load adjustment scale

Each mark from zero is
a 5% adjustment
Figure 5-31. Elevation viewlooking into the face of the spring.

Piping Support Systems for Process Plants

309

On each side of the scale, there are 3.033/2 5 1.5165 in. Thus, the number
of graduations on the spring scale on the housing is

1 2 5 0.857
3.0
3.5

number of graduations 5 (1.0 2 0.857)(10 graduations)

5 1.429 graduations on scale
D 5 the amount of extra travel to prevent the spring from bottoming out
Thus,
D5

1.429
5 0.71 graduation
2

This represents the number of graduations on the spring scale between

each side of the operating range and the design, or overall travel. Now
the process temperature at the time of installation is 7508C. We calculate
the difference between the installed position and the operating condition
(d). Thus, we have
9008C
7508C
5
Q x 5 3.033 in.
x
3.5 in.

d5

3.033 in.
5 1.5165 in.
2

Now,

1 2
3.0
3.5

5 0.857 Q D 5

1.5165 in.
5 0.758 in.
2

The number of graduations on the scale is

(1.0 2 0.857)(10 graduations) 5 1.429 graduations difference
between 3.0 in. of travel and
3.5 in. of travel
Thus, the total adjustment for the installed temperature of 7808C is

d 1 D 5 1.51650 1 0.7580 5 2.27 in. (Actual adjustment)

310

Escoe: Piping and Pipeline Assessment Guide

Now we know the spring has enough travel at the desired load to
operate safely. The spring was set and placed in use where it operated
for ten months before the new spring arrived to replace it. The author
monitored the spring during the entire period, and it performed very
well. If a replacement spring had not been found in surplus, then the
other alternatives would have been to shut down for months, which the
plant management found unacceptable, or to fabricate a spring hanger
from scratch.

Example 5-5: Pipe Header Simple Support

Problem: A 30 in. f crude oil header is simply supported with the pipe
resting on the steel. A company procedure calls for saddle-type supports
with pads for piping 30 in. NPS (nominal pipe size) and larger. In case
saddle pipe support cannot be installed, the line shall be analyzed for
localized stresses. The question was: is the pipe resting on the steel
overstressed? If it is overstressed, why has it not failed, as it has been in
operation for thirteen years?
Solution: If the company procedure specifies a saddle support for lines
30 in. and larger, then this standard must be adhered to. Regarding its
stress state, the pipe resting on the steel at a point is not a contact stress.
Contact stresses are called Hertz stresses and are to applied solid bodies
(e.g., meshing gears or ball bearings). They are not used for hollow
surfaces (e.g., pipes or vessels). One classic example of this is the Zick
analysis of horizontal drums supported on two saddlescontact stresses
are not considered in the analysis.
In the case of the pipe resting on a steel support, the situation is like a
ring. The cross section of the pipe resting on a solid surface represents a
bulkhead or supporting ring in a pipe, supported at the bottom and
carrying a total load (W) transferred by tangential shear (v) distributed
as is shown in Roark Table 9.2 Case 20 [Reference 6]. The Roark model
used in Case 20 is called a tangential shear, where the vertical reaction
at the pipe support is applied to counter the pipes weight, which
includes the metal weight and content. The support reaction causes
shear to flow around the pipe wall to replicate the pipe behaving like a
beam. Rings are very common in structural design. This case is shown
in Figure 5-32.
The Roark Table 9.2 Case 20 gives a bending moment due to the shear
stress caused by the weight of the pipe and the internal fluid. This bending

Piping Support Systems for Process Plants

311

A
V
x

W
Figure 5-32. Roark Table 9.2 Case 20.

moment acts through the wall of the pipe. Being a bending moment, it has
compression and tensile components through the cross section of the pipe.
The internal pressure stress acts only in tension. Thus, when the pressure
stress is combined with the shear bending moment stress, one side of the
wall is added and the other side of the wall is subtracted from the tensile
pressure stress. The sign convention on the shear bending moment is not
relative, as the stress will be one value on each respective surface (we add
tensile stresses and add and subtract tensile and compressive stresses).
This is shown in Figure 5-33.
When solving for the shear bending moment (I), the Roark Table 9.2
Case 20, the resisting cross section acts in the plane of the paper. The effective width of this cross section is determined as shown in Figure 5-34.
Shear acts at a 458 angle; thus, the resisting cross section would be 458
diagonal lines drawn from the point of reaction to the axis of the pipe. As
seen in Figure 5-34, the effective length is 2Ro. Typically, the effective

Pressure tensile load

Pipe wall
Shear bending stress

Figure 5-33. Hoop stress and shear moment bending stress in the pipe wall.

312

Escoe: Piping and Pipeline Assessment Guide

Pipe

2Ro
C

Ro

45

Reaction force
Figure 5-34. The effective length of pipe resisting the shear moment bending stress.

length of the cross section would be minimum of 2Ro or 40tnom, where

tnom is the nominal pipe wall thickness. The bending stress induced by
the shear bending moment is calculated as follows:
be 5 MAX[40tnom, 2Ro], see Figure 5-34
S5

(be)t2nom
6

Eq. 5-59
Eq. 5-60

where S 5 section modulus of the pipe, in.3

tnom 5 pipe nominal wall thickness, in.
This formula is derived from the relationship
bd 3
12
I
bd 2
5
, for a rectangular cross-sectional area
S5
5
C
d
6
2
where I 5 moment of inertia, in.4
In our case be 5 30 in., as 40tnom 5 40(1.358) in. 5 54.32 in. Thus, the
shear moment bending stress is

s5

Mshear
s

Eq. 5-61

The bending moments vary around the circumference of the pipe. Shown
in Figure 5-35 is the bending moment distribution for the pipe loaded
with water.

Piping Support Systems for Process Plants

0

313

Figure 5-35. The shear bending moment across a pipe resting on a simple support.

The maximum bending moment occurs at 105.328 from the top point of
the pipe. We loaded the pipe with crude oil using a specific gravity of 0.825
for the operational case. It was assumed that the pipe would not be operating
at full pressure loaded with water. Combining the internal pressure stress
and the shear moment bending stress for values of the angle from 08 to 1808,
we have the following combined stresses for pipe loaded with crude oil:
Combined stresses for pipe loaded with crude oil
Angle x

0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180

Total Stress on Inner Wall, psi

Total Stress on Outer Wall, psi

16,924.6
17,194.2
17,960.3
19,908.7
20,417.2
21,676.8
22,617.8
22,989.8
22,580.6
21,244.7
18,923.6
15,661.2
11,607.7

14,452.1
14,182.4
13,416.3
12,278.0
10,959.5
9,699.9
8,758.8
8,366.8
8,796.0
10,132.0
12,453.0
15,715.5
19,769.0

The Section Modulus Conjecture: The criteria mentioned earlier concerning the effective area resisting the bending moment induced by shear in
supporting the pipe has been a source of conjecture for many years. In the
solution of a ring loaded in shear and inducting a moment into the plane of
the pipe, the three-dimensional section resisting the bending moment is not
considered because the ring is a two-dimensional problem. In Figure 5-34
the effective length of the cross section resisting the bending moment

314

Escoe: Piping and Pipeline Assessment Guide

induced by the shear is shown as 2Ro. The effective cross section is the
maximum of 40tnom or 2Ro; however, in structural applications, the minimum value of 40tnom or 2Ro is often applied. In mechanical application,
where we have internal pressure combined with the weight and thermal
loads, the stresses can be significantly highsometimes several times
the ultimate strength of the pipe material. However, in reality, these pipes
resting on simple supports do not fail, meaning that there is a fallacy in the
equationsthe theory does not match reality.
One author that addresses this phenomenon is Bednar [Reference 7],
where in his brilliant work he discusses this problem on page 170. Bednar
states that, to utilize the derived equation for the bending moment and
bring the resulting stresses in the shell in agreement with actual measured
stresses, we use what he describes as a fictitious resisting width of shell
plate that is the smaller of 4Ro or L/2, where Ro is the shell radius and L
is the length between supports. Of course, Bednar is discussing horizontal
vessels supported on saddles, whereas here we are discussing continuous
piping, like a continuous beam. Bednars Figure 6.5 on page 168 is the
same ring solution we use from Roark, but they are derived from different
sources.
Another author, Troitsky [Reference 8] uses the same solution for the
ring where the shear induces a bending moment from the load at the
point of contact with the pipe support, with one exception. He is working
with conveyor tube structures supported by ring girders. Troitsky uses the
resisting section on pages 1219 with the following expression:
c 5 1.56rt 1 b

Eq. 5-62

Where r is the cylinder radius, t is the cylinder thickness, b is the width

of the ring girder, and c is the effective width resisting the shear-induced
bending moment.
Based on these criteria, we use the following to compute the effective
width to obtain the section modulus, as follows:
beff 5 be 1 1.56R(tnom 2 CA)

Eq. 5-63

where R 5 mean radius, CA 5 corrosion allowance, and be is defined in

Eq. 5-59. Thus, Eq. 5-60 becomes
beff 1t2nom2
S5
6

Eq. 5-64

Now the stress criterion must be considered. In this case the pipe is
subjected to primary and secondary stress. Thus, the maximum stress

Piping Support Systems for Process Plants

315

intensity smax is based on the primary or local membrane stresses plus

primary bending stress plus the secondary stress (Pm or PL 1 Pb 1 Q),
using the nomenclature of the ASME Section VIII Division 2
Appendix 4. The value of smax cannot exceed 3Sm, where all stresses
may be computed under operating conditions. The following criterion
must be met:
3Sm # 2(SMYS)
The value of 3Sm is defined as three times the average of the tabulated
Sm values for the highest and lowest temperatures during the operation
cycle. In the computation of the maximum primary-plus-secondary
stress intensity range, it may be required to consider the superposition of
cycles of various conditions that produce a total range greater than the
range of any individual cycle. The value of 3Sm may vary with each
cycle, or combination of cycles, being considered since the maximum
temperatures may be different in each case. Thus, care must be used to
ensure the applicable value of 3Sm for each cycle, and combination of
cycles, is not exceeded except as permitted by ASME Section VIII
Division 2 Appendix 4 Paragraph 4-136.4. This requirement is seldom
required in piping systems, unless different services are used in the pipe
with differing temperatures and pressures.
Since the pipe considered is operational, we can use the API 579
Fitness-for-Service recommended practice for the allowable stress, which
is 20,000(1.2) 5 24,000 psi from Figure B.1 of the API 579. For this case,
the pipe wall thickness is large enough to accommodate the stress levels.
The output of the computer run for the angular position of 105.238, the
point of maximum bending moment, is as follows.
Looking at Figure 5-36, we find the stresses in the 30 in. pipe are
acceptable because, as mentioned previously, this is the angular position of
maximum bending moment induced by the shear. However, if we take
another pipe with a thinner wall, the stress magnitudes will differ. Consider
a 24 in. line load with the same crude oil at the same facility. The pipe has
a 3/80 wall and is seamless, making the tnom, less mill tolerance, 0.328 in.
The results are as follows for the maximum bending moment at the same
angular position of 105.238.
We will now consider a 240 f pipe with a nominal wall thickness of
0.328 in. resting on a solid surface like we did for the 300 f pipe. The same
methodology is used and the results are shown in Figures 5-37a and b.
The reader will notice that the outside wall is in compression and the
inside wall is in tension because of the bending moment. Thus, only part of
the wall is of significant stress, not the entire wall of the pipe. This being

316

Escoe: Piping and Pipeline Assessment Guide

Rules Sheet
Rules
if or(x , 0, x 2 p . 1E-10) then caution 5 Ang_Err else caution 5 _
call get_tab(matnum, matl, G, E, nu)
if ring 5 thin then call get_tn_con(I, A, R, F, E, G; alpha, beta)
if ring 5 thick then call get_tk_con(h, R, F, nu; alpha, beta)
k2 5 1 2 alpha
k1 5 k2 1 beta
call case(W, R, I, x, k1, k2; v, LTM, LTN, LTV, M, N, V, MA, MC, NA, VA, DH, DV,
delL, case)
plot 5 given(plot, plot, y)
if and(solved(), plot ,. n) then call genplot(W)
Di 5 Do 2 2 tnom
Do
Ro 5
2
Di
Ri 5
2
p
Am 5
? Do2 2 Di2
4

3 43

Wreaction 5 Am?L?12?0.283 1

3 4 4 ? 3Di 4 ? r ?L?12
p

be 5 MAX(40 tnom, 2 Ro)

beff 5 be 1 1.56? R?(tnom 2 CA)
beff?tnom2
6
M
s5
S
P
Do
sp 5
?
Ej
2 ?tnom
S5

3 4 33

4 2 0.44

sinner 5 sp 2 s
souter 5 sp 1 s
sallow 5 3.0 Sm
If 3 Sm , 2 SMYS then OK 5 acceptable
If 3 Sm . 2 SMYS then OK 5 unaccpetable
Figure 5-36a. Equation sheet for 30 in. f pipe.

Piping Support Systems for Process Plants

317

Variables Sheet
Input

Name

17

Output

case
plot

CASE_20
y

caution
matnum

matl

Steel - A.S.T.M.
A7-61T
2.9E7
0.27

Unit

Table 9.2: Roarks Formulas

Formulas for Circular Rings
Reference Number
Generate plots? n 5 no
(Default 5 yes)
Caution Message
Material Number (See
Material Table)
Material name

thin
7107.502
1943

E
nu
ring
W
I

11.813

27.83
1.087E7

A
G

in.2
psi

in.

105.23

Comment

psi
lbf
in.4
in.

DH
DV
v
alpha

1.2938739E-4
22.4236034E-4
184.791
0.500310

in.
in.
lbf/in.

beta

2.670776

x
N
V
M

22450.334
3.129E-2
215247.877

deg
lbf
lbf
lbf-in.

NA
VA
MA
MC
delL

1696.791
0
24.143
13358.654
22.0957714E-4

lbf
lbf
lbf-in.
lbf-in.
in.

Youngs Modulus
Poissons Ratio
thick or thin: thick/thin ring
Applied total load
Area moment of inertia of
X-section
Mean radius of centroid of
X-section
Shape Factor of X-section
THIN RINGS:
Area of X-section
Shear Modulus of elasticity
THICK RINGS:
Distance from Centroidal Axis
to Neutral Axis
Change in horizontal diameter
Change in vertical diameter
Tangential shear
Hoop-stress Deformation
Factor
Radial Shear Deformation
Factor
AT SECTION:
Angular Position
Internal Force
Radial Shear
Internal moment
AT A:
Internal Force
Radial Shear
Moment
Moment at C
Increase in LOWER radius
LOAD TERMS:

Figure 5-36b. Variable sheet showing results and answers for 30 in. f pipe.

318
Input

30
1.358
3.1416
50
.03

1400
1

Escoe: Piping and Pipeline Assessment Guide

Name

Output

Unit

LTM
LTN
LTV
k1
k2
Di
Do
tnom
Ro
Ri
p
Wreaction

10065.9581776
22004.5965509
1637.2296434
3.170466
0.499690
27.284

lbf-in.
lbf
lbf
Simplifying constants

15
13.642

in.
in.
in.
in.
in.

31272.705042

lbs

L
r
be

54.32

in.

18.616281

in.3

2819.061411

psi

Am
P
Ej
s inner

122.195158

in.2
psi

15722.978937

psi

sp
s outer

14903.917526
14084.856114

psi
psi

beff
CA
s allow

60.568195

20000

Sm

35000

SMYS
OK

ft

60000

Comment

psi

psi

Inside diameter of pipe

Outside diameter of pipe
Nominal pipe wall thickness
Outside radius of pipe
Inside radius of pipe
Metal area of pipe x-section
Combined of metal weight
plus water
Length between pipe supports
Density of fluid, lbs/in.3
Effective length of pipe wall
resisting bending due to
shear
Section modulus of resisting
pipe section to shear
moment
Bending stress due to shear
moment
Cross sectional area of pipe
Internal pressure
Weld joint efficiency
Total stress in inner shell
2 pressure 1 shear
bending
Internal pressure stress
Total stress in outer shell
2 pressure 1 shear
bending
Allowable stress of pipe
material at temperature
Allowable stress for primary
and secondary
Specified Minimum Yield
Strength of pipe material

acceptable

Figure 5-36b. contd.

the case, the high stress does not exist through the wall of the pipe, thus
avoiding plastic deformation.
As mentioned previously, there are hundreds of pipes resting on flat solid
surfaces that do not fail or exhibit plastic deformation. The 30 in. f pipe
mentioned was checked for cracks and deformation, and neither existed. The

Piping Support Systems for Process Plants

Rules
if or(x , 0, x 2 p . 1E-10) then caution 5 Ang_Err else caution 5 2
call get_tab(matnum, matl, G, E, nu)
if ring 5 thin then call get_tn_con(I, A, R, F, E, G; alpha, beta)
if ring 5 thick then call get_tk_con(h, R, F, nu; alpha, beta)
k2 5 1 2 alpha
k1 5 k2 1 beta
call case(W, R, I, x, k1, k2; v, LTM, LTN, LTV, M, N, V, MA, MC, NA, VA, DH, DV,
delL, case)
plot 5 given(plot, plot, y)
if and(solved(), plot ,. n) then call genplot(W)
Di 5 Do 2 2 tnom
D
Ro 5 o
2
Di
Ri 5
2
p
Am 5
? Do2 2 Di2
4

3 43

Wreaction 5 Am?L?12?0.283 1

3 43 4

p
? Di2 ? r ?L?12
4

be 5 MAX(40 tnom, 2 Ro)

beff 5 be 1 1.56? R?(tnom 2 CA)
beff?tnom2
6
M
s5
S
P
Do
sp 5
?
Ej
2?tnom

S5

3 4 33

4 2 0.44

s inner 5 sp 2 s
s outer 5 sp 1 s
s allow 5 3.0 Sm
If 3 Sm , 2 SMYS then OK 5 acceptable
If 3 Sm . 2 SMYS then OK 5 unaccpetable
Figure 5-37a. Equation sheet for 24 in. f pipe.

319

320

Escoe: Piping and Pipeline Assessment Guide

Variables sheet
Input

17

Name

Output

case
plot

CASE_20
y

caution
matnum

matl

Steel-A.S.T.M.
A7-61T
2.9E7
0.27

Unit

Table 9.2: Roarks Formulas

Formulas for Circular Rings
Reference Number
Generate plots? n 5 no
(Default 5 yes)
Caution Message
Material Number (See
Material Table)
Material name

thin
7107.502
1943

E
nu
ring
W
I

11.813

27.83
1.087E7

A
G

in.2
psi

in.

105.23

Comment

psi
lbf
in.4
in.

DH
DV
v
alpha

1.2938739E-4
22.4236034E-4
184.791
0.500310

in.
in.
lbf/in.

beta

2.670776

x
N
V
M

22450.334
3.129E-2
215247.877

deg
lbf
lbf
lbf-in.

NA
VA
MA
MC
delL

1696.791
0
24.143
13358.654
22.0957714E-4

lbf
lbf
lbf-in.
lbf-in.
in.

Youngs Modulus
Poissons Ratio
thick or thin: thick/thin ring
Applied total load
Area moment of inertia of
X-section
Mean radius of centroid of
X-section
Shape Factor of X-section
THIN RINGS:
Area of X-section
Shear Modulus of elasticity
THICK RINGS:
Distance from Centroidal Axis
to Neutral Axis
Change in horizontal diameter
Change in vertical diameter
Tangential shear
Hoop-stress Deformation
Factor
Radial Shear Deformation
Factor
AT SECTION:
Angular Position
Internal Force
Radial Shear
Internal moment
AT A:
Internal Force
Radial Shear
Moment
Moment at C
Increase in LOWER radius
LOAD TERMS:

Figure 5-37b. Variable sheet for 24 in. f pipe.

pipe has been in service for 13 years and has seen all possible operation
cycles. The same is true for the 24 in. f pipe and many others. It is concluded that this methodology adequately predicts the behavior of a pipe resting on a simple support, or flat surface. However, many companies consider

Piping Support Systems for Process Plants

Input

24
.328
3.1416
30
.03

550
1

Name

Output

Unit

LTM
LTN
LTV
k1
k2
Di
Do
tnom
Ro
Ri
p
Wreaction

10065.9581776
22004.5965509
1637.2296434
3.170466
0.499690
23.344

lbf-in.
lbf
lbf

12
11.672
7107.502462

lbs

L
r
be

24

in.

0.485396

in.3

231413.258210

psi

Am
P
Ej
s inner

24.392689

in.2
psi

51315.209430

psi

sp
s outer

19901.951220
211511.306991

psi
psi

beff
CA
sallow

27.070730

20000

Sm

35000

SMYS
OK

Comment

Simplifying constants
in.
in.
in.
in.
in.

ft

60000

321

psi

psi

Inside diameter of pipe

Outside diameter of pipe
Nominal pipe wall thickness
Outside radius of pipe
Inside radius of pipe
Metal area of pipe x-section
Combined of metal weight
plus water
Length between pipe supports
Density of fluid, lbs/in.3
Effective length of pipe wall
resisting bending due to
shear
Section modulus of resisting
pipe section to shear
moment
Bending stress due to shear
moment
Cross sectional area of pipe
Internal pressure
Weld joint efficiency
Total stress in inner shell
2 pressure 1 shear
bending
Internal pressure stress
Total stress in outer shell
2 pressure 1 shear
bending
Allowable stress of pipe
material at temperature
Allowable stress for primary
and secondary
Specified Minimum Yield
Strength of pipe material

acceptable

Figure 5-37b. contd.

it good engineering practice to place pipes 30 in. f and larger on saddle supports. It is also noted that, for large diameter thin cylinders resting on the
ground in stock yards and construction sites, angle beams 908 to one another
are tack welded to the inside surface to prevent excessive ovaling.
In conclusion, a saddle support is required for the pipe if constructed new.

322

Escoe: Piping and Pipeline Assessment Guide

Note: The internal pressure stress was computed from the following formula, which is developed from Eq. 2-13(a), where Y 5 0.4 and D 5 Ro /2:
t5

PRo
sEW 1 0.4P

where W 5 1 for temperature less than 9508F, as in this case.

Solving for the stress we have the following:

s5

P
E

Do
2 0.4
2t

where Do 5 outside diameter

Ro 5 outside radius

References
1. A. Keith Escoe, Mechanical Design of Process Systems, Vol. 1,
2nd edition, 1994, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, pp. 8183.
2. A. Keith Escoe, Mechanical Design of Process Systems, Vol. 1,
2nd edition, 1994, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, pp. 132135.
3. J. P. Holman, Heat Transfer, 7th edition, 1990, McGraw Publishing
Company, New York, pp. 335, 338.
4. Nicholas P. Cheremisinoff, Heat Transfer Pocket Handbook, 1984,
Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, p. 106.
5. Alan E. Chapman, Heat Transfer, 3rd edition, 1974, Macmillan
Publishing Company, New York.
6. Warren C. Young and Richard G. Budynas, Roarks Formulas
for Stress and Strain, 7th edition, 2002, McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company, New York.
7. Henry H. Bednar, Pressure Vessel Design Handbook, 2nd edition,
1986, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
8. M. S. Troitsky, Tubular Steel Structures, Theory and Design, 2nd edition,
1990, The James Lincoln Arc Welding Foundation.