t .

-TRAL F ^Ci1_L^'
ORNL-TM-4929

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY LIBRARY

°9 70
3 i4M5b 00232fl3 M

Stress Indices for ANSI Standard B16.11

Socket-Welding Fittings

E. C. Rodabaugh
S. E. Moore
 Printed in the United States of America. Available from
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161
Price: Printed Copy $5.45; Microfiche $2.25

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States
Government. Neither the United States nor the Energy Research and Development
Administration, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors,
subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or
assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents
that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.

~
 ORNL-TM-lj-929
UC-79, -79H, -79k

Contract No. W-7U05-eng-26

Reactor Division

STRESS INDICES FOR ANSI STANDARD Bl6.ll

SOCKET-WELDING FITTINGS

E. C. Rodabaugh
Battelle-Columbus Laboratories

S. E. Moore
Oak Ridge National Laboratory

AUGUST 1975

Subcontract No. 29I3

for
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY LIBRARY

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 3783O
operated by 3 44Stj Q023EA3 i|
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION
for the
U.S. ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
 Ill

CONTENTS

Page

FOREWORD v

ABSTRACT 1
1. INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose and Scope 1
Nomenclature 5
2. ANSI Bl6.ll STANDARD DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS 7
3. DIMENSIONS OF SOME Bl6.11 FITTINGS 10
k. PRESSURE-TEMPERATURE RATINGS AND PIPE EQUIVALENCE 21
Standard Pressure Ratings 21
Pipe Equivalence 24
5. STRESS INDICES FOR INTERNAL PRESSURE 26
Primary-Stress Bx Indices 26
Primary-Plus-Secondary and Peak-Stress Indices 28
6. STRESS INDICES FOR MOMENT LOADINGS 33
Socket-Welding Tees 3^
Socket-Welding Elbows 35
Socket-Welding Couplings 36
Summary of Proposed Stress Indices for Moment
Loadings 36
Comparison of Design Fatigue Lives for Socket-Welding
Fittings and Girth Fillet Welds 38
7. STRESS INDICES FOR THERMAL LOADINGS 47
8. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 50
9. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 55
10. REFERENCES 56
APPENDIX A. PROPOSED CODE CASE ON STRESS INDICES FOR
SOCKET-WELDING FITTINGS 57
APPENDIX B. SURVEY OF FAILURES ASSOCIATED WITH SOCKET AND
FILLET WELDS IN NUCLEAR-POWER-PLANT PIPING SYSTEMS 59
 V

FOREWORD

The work reported here was performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL) and at Battelle-Columbus Laboratories under Union Carbide Corpora
tion Nuclear Division subcontract No. 2913, as part of the ORNL Piping
Program — Design Criteria for Piping, Pumps, and Valves — under the direc
tion of W. L. Greenstreet, Technical Director, Solid Mechanics Department.
The program is funded by the U.S. Energy Research and Development Admin
istration (ERDA) as the government-supported portion of a cooperative ef
fort with industry for the development of design criteria for nuclear-
power-plant piping components. This joint effort is coordinated by the
Pressure Vessel Research Committee (PVRC) of the Welding Research Council,
under the Subcommittee on Piping, Pumps, and Valves. B. C. Wei, ERDA Di
vision of Reactor Research and Development, is the Cognizant Engineer.
Prior reports and open-literature publications under the ORNL piping
program are listed below.

1. W. L. Greenstreet, S. E. Moore, and E. C. Rodabaugh, "Investigations

of Piping Components, Valves, and Pumps to Provide Information for
Code Writing Bodies, " ASME Paper 68-WA/PTC-6, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York, Dec. 2, I968.

2. W. L. Greenstreet, S. E. Moore, and R. C. Gwaltney, Progress Report

on Studies in Applied Solid Mechanics, ORNL-4576 (August 1970).

3. E. C. Rodabaugh, Phase Report No. II5-I on Stress Indices for Small

Branch Connections with External Loadings, ORNL-TM-3OI4 (August 1970).

4. E. C. Rodabaugh and A. G. Pickett, Survey Report on Structural Design

of Piping Systems and Components, TID-25553 (December 1970).

5. E. C. Rodabaugh, Phase Report No. II5-8, Stresses in Out-of-Round Pipe

Due to Internal Pressure, ORNL-TM-3244 (January 1971)•

6. S. E. Bolt and W. L. Greenstreet, "Experimental Determination of Plas

tic Collate Loads for Pipe Elbows," ASME Paper 7I-PVP-37, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, May 1971-

7. G. H. Powell, R. W. Clough, and A. N. Gantayat, "Stress Analysis of

BI6.9 Tees by the Finite Element Method," ASME Paper 71-PVP-40, Ameri
can Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, May 1971-

8. J. K. Hayes and B. Roberts, "Experimental Stress Analysis of 24-Inch

Tees," ASME Paper 71-PVP-28, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
New York, May I97I.
 VI

*9. J. M. Corum et al., "Experimental and Finite Element Stress Analysis

of a Thin-Shell Cylinder-to-Cylinder Model," ASME Paper 7I-PVP-36,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, May 1971.

10. W. L. Greenstreet, S. E. Moore, and J. P. Callahan, Second Annual

Progress Report on Studies in Applied Solid Mechanics (Nuclear
Safety), ORNL-4693 (July 1971).

11. J. M. Corum and W. L. Greenstreet, "Experimental Elastic Stress Anal

ysis of Cylinder-to-Cylinder Shell Models and Comparisons with Theo
retical Predictions," Paper No. G2/5, First International Conference
on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Berlin, Germany,
Sept. 20-24, 1971.

12. R. W. Clough, G. H. Powell, and A. N. Gantayat, "Stress Analysis of

BI6.9 Tees by the Finite Element Method," Paper No. F4/7, First In
ternational Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology,
Berlin, Germany, Sept. 20-24, 1971.

13. R. L. Johnson, Photoelastic Determination of Stresses in ASA BI6.9

Tees, Research Report 7I-9E7-PHOTO-R2, Westinghouse Research Labo
ratory (November 1971)•

14. E. C. Rodabaugh and S. E. Moore, Phase Report No. 115-10 on Compari

sons of Test Data with Code Methods for Fatigue Evaluations, 0RNL-
TM-352O (November 1971).

15. W. G. Dodge and S. E. Moore, Stress Indices and Flexibility Factors

for Moment Loadings on Elbows and Curved Pipe, ORNL-TM-3658 (March
1972).

16. J. E. Brock, Elastic Buckling of Heated, Straight-Line Piping Con

figurations, ORNL-TM-3607 (March 1972).

17. J. M. Corum et al., Theoretical and Experimental Stress Analysis of

ORNL Thin-Shell Cylinder-to-Cylinder Model No. 1, 0RNL-4553 (October
1972).

18. W. G. Dodge and J. E. Smith, A Diagnostic Procedure for the Evaluation

of Strain Data from a Linear Elastic Test, ORNL-TM-34I5 (November
1972).

19. W. G. Dodge and S. E. Moore, "Stress Indices and Flexibility Factors

for Moment Loadings on Elbows and Curved Pipe," Welding Research
Council Bulletin 179, December 1972.

20. W. L. Greenstreet, S. E. Moore, and J. P. Callahan, Third Annual Prog

ress Report on Studies in Applied Solid Mechanics (Nuclear Safety),
ORNL-4821 (December 1972).
 VI1

21. W. G. Dodge and S. E. Moore, ELB0W: A Fortran Program for the Cal
culation of Stresses, Stress Indices, and Flexibility Factors for
Elbows and Curved Pipe, ORNL-TM-4098 (April 1973).

22. W. G. Dodge, Secondary Stress Indices for Integral Structural Attach

ments to Straight Pipe, ORNL-TM-3476 (June 1973)- Also in Welding
Research Council Bulletin I98, September 1974.

23. E. C. Rodabaugh, W. G. Dodge, and S. E. Moore, Stress Indices at Lug

Supports on Piping Systems, ORNL-TM-4211 (May 1974). Also in Welding
Research Council Bulletin I98, September 1974.

24. W. L. Greenstreet, S. E. Moore, and J. P. Callahan, Fourth Annual

Progress Report on Studies in Applied Solid Mechanics (Pressure Ves
sels and Piping System Components), ORNL-4925 (July 1974).

25. R. C. Gwaltney, CURT-II — A Computer Program for Analyzing Curved

Tubes or Elbows and Attached Pipes with Symmetric and Unsymmetric
Loadings, ORNL-TM-4646 (October 1974).

26. E. C. Rodabaugh and S. E. Moore, Stress Indices and Flexibility Fac

tors for Concentric Reducers, ORNL-TM-3795 (February 1975).

27. R. C. Gwaltney, S. E. Bolt, and J. W. Bryson, Theoretical and Experi

mental Stress Analysis of ORNL Thin-Shell Cylinder-to-Cylinder Model h,
ORNL-5OI9 (June 1975).

28. R. C. Gwaltney, J. M. Corum, S. E. Bolt, and J. W. Bryson, Theoretical

and Experimental Stress Analyses of ORNL Thin-Shell Cylinder-to-
Cylinder Model 3, ORNL-5020 (June 1975).
 STRESS INDICES FOR ANSI STANDARD Bl6.ll
SOCKET-WELDING FITTINGS

E. C. Rodabaugh S. E. Moore

ABSTRACT

Stress indices for ANSI standard Bl6.ll socket-welding tees,

1^-5° elbows, 90° elbows, and couplings are developed for intended
use with the Class-1 piping system design rules of Section III -
Division 1 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Indices
are given for the evaluation of appropriate primary stresses,
primary-plus-secondary stresses, and peak stresses due to inter
nal pressure, bending-moment loads, and thermal gradients between
the fitting and the attached pipe. The proposed indices are
based on the dimensional and pressure-burst requirements of the
Bl6.ll standard, the apparent shapes of Bl6.ll fittings as indi
cated from a random sampling taken off-the-shelf, the standard
pressure-temperature ratings of the fittings, and on current
stress indices now in the Code for similar butt-welding fittings.
Specific recommendations are made for issuing the new stress in
dices in a Code case.

Key words: stress indices, stress analysis, straight pipe,

elbows, socket-welding fittings, socket-welded joints, tees,
couplings, fillet welds, piping code, ASME BPVC Section III,
ANSI-Bl6.ll, nuclear piping, pressure-vessel code, ORNL piping
program.

1. INTRODUCTION

Purpose and Scope

Both socket-welding and threaded fittings are permitted for use in

Class-1 nuclear piping systems by Section III, Division 1 of the ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,1 provided they are manufactured in accor
dance with the ANSI standard Bl6.ll, "Forged Steel Fittings, Socket-Weld
ing and Threaded."2'3 Specifically, paragraph NB-36U9* of the Code accepts

*In this report, reference to articles, subarticles, paragraphs, ta

bles, or figures from Section III, Division 1 of the ASME Boiler and Pres
sure Vessel Code are identified by number (e.g., NB-xxxx), as appropriate.
Hereafter Section III, Division 1 will be referred to simply as "the Code."
piping products manufactured in accordance with a set of standards given
in Table NB-369I-I as suitable for use* provided the design adequacy of the
product is based on one of three possible methods, one of which is "...
an ANSI BI6.9 type burst test." The Bl6.ll standard includes a suitable
pressure-bursting requirement. Specific acceptance for socket-welding
branch connections is also given in NB-36^3-2 and for elbows in NB-36^+2.2.
Other Bl6.ll fittings, such as couplings and crosses, are acceptable under
the general provisions of paragraph NB-36U9.
Certain restrictions, however, on the use of socket-welding and
threaded fittings are imposed in other paragraphs of the Code. Subpara
graph NB-366I.2, under the general heading "NB-366O Design of Welds," lim
its the use of socket-welded piping joints to nominal pipe sizes of 2 in.
and smaller and imposes fabrication requirements on the welds joining the
fitting to the pipe.** Threaded joints, on the other hand, are not lim
ited in size, but according to subparagraph NB-367I.3, threaded joints in
which the threads provide the only seal are not permitted. If a seal weld
is used, the stress analysis of the joint must include a determination of
the stresses in the weld resulting from the relative deflections of the
mated parts. Implementing this requirement is sufficiently difficult to
almost eliminate the use of threaded fittings in Class-1 piping systems,
especially if a socket-welding or a butt-welding fitting could be used
instead.

For Class-1 piping systems, the Code requires that a stress analysis
be prepared in sufficient detail to show that the stress limits and design
criteria of the Code are satisfied (NB-3625), and a set of design rules
and formulas are provided in NB-36^0 and NB-365O to implement this require
ment. Stress indices for many commonly used components are provided in
Table NB-3683.2-I for use with the design formulas, Eqs. (9) through (ll+)

*The I966 edition (ref. 2) of ANSI Bl6.ll listed in Table NB-369I.I

is out of date with the I973 edition (ref. 3) of the Standard. The pres
ent report, however, is based primarily on the 1966 edition, since it is
the official Code, reference. Where important differences exist, they are
pointed out in the text, and one of the recommendations given in the last
section is to update Table NB-369I.I to include ANSI BI6.II-I973.
**The present wording of NB-366l.2(b) is not quite accurate. Suggested
changes to the Code to remedy this are included in the "Summary and Recom
mendations" section of this report.
of subparagraphs NB-3652 and NB-3653- These equations are reproduced in
Table 1 for convenient reference.* The stress indices are identified by
the characters B, C, and K for the three categories of Code-allowable
stresses: primary, primary-plus-secondary, and peak stresses, respectively.
Loadings are identified by subscripts: 1 for pressure, 2 for bending and
torsional moments, and 3 for thermal gradients.
To the extent that stress indices are provided, the prescribed analy
sis method is a relatively simple way to check a piping design for com
pliance with Code requirements. At present, stress indices are given for
the fillet weld between a socket-welding fitting and straight pipe but are
not given for the body of the fitting itself. The objective of this report
is to provide stress indices for the more commonly used socket-welding fit
tings. Fittings covered include nonreducing 2 in. and smaller nominal-size
Bl6.ll socket-welding tees, 1+5° elbows, 90° elbows, and couplings. Threaded
fittings and socket-welding crosses and half-couplings are not covered.
Previous reports documenting the development of stress indices for
specific piping products** have drawn heavily on the published literature
for relevant experimental and analytical data and have used existing ana
lytical methods to conduct parameter studies. For socket-welding fittings,
information of this type apparently has not been published, although we
did obtain a small amount of unpublished ANSI Bl6.9-type burst-test data
from one of the manufacturers,4 as well as one indication of a possible
cyclic-pressure fatigue failure from field failure reports.

Since neither experimental nor analytical data were available, the

stress indices presented in this report are based on engineering judgment
and combinations of the following factors: the dimensional and burst-
pressure requirements of the ANSI Bl6.ll standard; the standard pressure-
temperature ratings of the fittings; their apparent shapes, as indicated
from a small random sampling of off-the-shelf fittings; and analogies with
similar butt-welding fittings.

*Table 1 is presented with appropriate definitions given in the nomen

clature, but without the accompanying footnotes, qualifications, or cross
references given in the Code.
**A listing of previously published reports is given in the Foreword.
 Table 1. Equations for the simplified design-
analysis procedures of the Code

Design stress formulas Code equation

PD D

Bi2T + B2 2lMi* 1-5sm (9)

P D D

Bn =ci-§r+ c* s "±+

2^J) m^ I+C3EaJaaTa " VJ * 3Sm (l0>

P D D

SP =Ki°i ir+ K^ 2? Mi+

+ ;P7E«|aT2| (11)

Se =°2 21 MI^ 3Sm (12)

P D DM.

ci ir+ °2 ir+ c3EablaaTa - VJ* 3sm (13)

K

Salt =t %> (1*0

where

K =1 (S s 3S ) ,
e v n J m' '

K
•1 +^(^"1) (3S-<Sn<^B)
Ke =l/n (Sn * 3„Sm) ,
and m and n are material parameters given in NB-3228.3(b).
Q.
Abstracted from paragraph NB-3650 of the Code; see "Nomenclature"
and the Code for symbol definitions.
 The permissible shapes and dimensions of the fittings were determined
by analyzing the requirements of the Bl6.ll standard and by examining a
small random sampling of fittings purchased for this purpose. This infor
mation is presented in Chaps. 2 and 3, respectively. Next, the pressure-
temperature ratings given in the standard were compared with Code-allowable
pressures for corresponding sizes of straight pipe, calculated according
to the rules of NB-36I+O. Using this information, a reference or "equiva
lent" pipe size was defined for each class of Bl6.ll fitting for use in
the Code analysis procedures. This information is presented in Chap. h.
Recommended stress indices for pressure, moment, and thermal loadings are
presented in Chaps. 5, 6, and 7, respectively, based on the information
in the previous chapters and on stress indices now in the Code for similar
butt-welding piping components.
The proposed stress indices for socket-welding fittings and corre
sponding indices for the fillet welds between the fitting and the pipe are
summarized in Chap. 9 for comparison. Chapter 9 also includes specific
recommendations for revising the Code. We believe that the proposed stress
indices are conservative. However, because of the lack of more-definitive
information, it is recommended that the new indices be first introduced as
a Code Case rather than as a Code revision, especially since Code Cases
are permissive rather than mandatory. The proposed Code Case is given in
Appendix A. Appendix B lists the results of a search of the Nuclear Safety
Information Center files at Oak Ridge for relevant failure information in
nuclear-power-plant piping systems.
Definitions of symbols and nomenclature are given in the next section.

Nomenclature

The symbols used in this report and their meanings are as follows:

Stress Indices

B1 = primary-stress index for pressure loading

C1 = primary-plus-secondary-stress index for pressure loading
K2 = peak-stress index for pressure loading
The above set of symbols with subscript 2 refer to moment loading and with
subscript 3 to thermal-gradient loading. The symbol Cg stands for the
stress index for the membrane stress due to thermal loading. Stress in
dices with the additional subscripts b and r (e.g., B^, B2r) refer to
loadings on the branch and run, respectively, for branch connections and
tees.

a = additional wall thickness in Eqs. (l), (2), and (3) of NB-36UI.I to

provide for corrosion, etc.
C = ANSI standard Bl6.ll socket-wall thickness
D = run-bore diameter of a Bl6.ll fitting
D. = nominal inside diameter of pipe
D = nominal outside diameter of pipe
o

E = modulus of elasticity
E = average modulus of elasticity for two sides (a and b) at a gross
discontinuity
G = body wall thickness of a Bl6.ll component
I = moment of inertia

K = fatigue-evaluation factor defined by the Code in paragraph NB-3653-6

M. = range of moment-loading vector due to thermal expansion, anchor move
ments from any cause, earthquake, and other mechanical loads
M. = moment-loading vector due to loads caused by weight, inertial earth
quake effects (amplitude), and other sustained mechanical loads
M* = range of moment-loading vector due to thermal expansion and ther
mally induced anchor movements
P = computed bursting pressure
P = pressure range
P = rated pressure of fitting at 100°F
r = mean radius of pipe cross section
R = bend radius for butt-welding elbow
S = Code-allowable maximum normal stress for Class-2 and Class-3 pipe
(function of material and temperature)
Su = specified minimum tensile strength of pipe material
S = stress-intensity amplitude
Sm = Code desi§n stress intensity (function of material and tempera
ture) for Class-1 pipe
S^ = primary-plus-secondary-stress-intensity range
S = peak-stress-intensity range
t = nominal pipe-wall thickness
t = minimum pipe-wall thickness (O.875 times nominal)
Z = (77-/32) (D4 - D*)/Dq = section modulus of pipe
a, cl = coefficients of thermal expansion for the two sides of a gross
geometric discontinuity
AT2 = range of linear portion of through-the-wall temperature gradient
AT2 = range of nonlinear portion of through-the-wall temperature gradient
v = Poisson ratio (assumed to be 0.3 in this report)

2. ANSI Bl6.ll STANDARD DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Table 2, abstracted from ANSI BI6.H-I966, gives the specified dimen

sions for 2-in. (nominal size) and smaller socket-welding fittings. In
this edition of the standard2 there are two classes of fittings, designated
as 3000-lb and 6000-lb. The 1973 edition3 gives a third class, designated
as 9000-lb, for several nominal sizes. The 3000-lb class is intended for
use with pipe up to sched-80* wall thickness, and the 6000-lb class for use
with pipe up to sched-160 wall thickness. The 9000-lb class corresponds
with double extra strong (XXS) pipe. It might be noted that the values
specified in Table 2 for the minimum body wall thickness G for the 3000-
lb and 6000-lb classes are the same as the nominal wall thicknesses of
sched-80 and sched-160 pipe, respectively, given in the ANSI B36.IO stan
dard.5 These data are given in Table 3 along with other useful dimen
sional information from ref. 6.
Values given in Table 2 for the minimum socket wall thickness C are
generally 1.09 times G.** The socket wall thickness is important because
it determines the maximum size of the fillet weld joining the fitting to
the pipe. The Code requires the minimum leg dimension of the fillet weld
to be 1.09 times the nominal thickness of the pipe but not less than l/8

*In this report the abbreviation sched is used to indicate the wall
thickness or schedule number of standard sized pipe.
*The ratio C/G is I.09 ± 0.005 for all sizes and both pressure classes
-**n

except for the l/8-in. 3000-lb class. For this case, C = 0.125 in., and
C/G = I.3I6.
 Table 2. Specified dimensions8, of Bl6.ll socket-welding
fittings 2 in. and smaller (all values in inches)

H
irnt

45 ELBOW COUPLING

Wall-thickness minimum Bore diameter

of fittingb
Socket Depth
Nominal 3000-lb 6000-lb (D)
bore of
pipe
diameter socket
size Socket Body Socket Body 3000-lb 6000-lb
(B) (min)
(C) (G) (C) (G)

0.1*20 0.H*1
1/8 0.1*30
3/8 0.125 0.095 0.135 0.12k °'Hl
0.281*- 0.171

0.555
3/8 0.130 0.119 0.158 o.iii-5 0.31+9 0.235
lA 0.565 0.379 0.265

O.69O 0.1+78 O.3IA

3/8 3/8 0.138 0.126 0.172 0.158
0.700 0.508 0.37!+

0.855 0.607 0.1*51

1/2 O.865
3/8 0.161 0.1U7 0.20I; 0.188
0.637 0.1(81

1.065 0.809 0.599

3A 1/2 0.168 0.15U 0.238 0.219
0.839 0.629
1.075

1.330 1 O^U 0.800

l^
1/2 0.196 0.179 0.273 0.250 1*0^ O.83O

1 l/lf 1.675 1.365 1.11+5

1/2 0.208 0.191 0.273 0.250
1.685 1.395 1.175

1 l/2 1.915
1.925
1/2 0.218 0.200 0.307 0.281 \^Z> 1.323
1-353

2.1*06 1.67U
2.1H6
5/8 0.238 0.218 0.37^ O.3I* ^082 1.701*-

T)imensional information given here is taken from ANSI BI6.H-I966 (ref.

2). Slightly different values for the bore diameter (D) are given in ANSI
B16.11-1973 (ref. 3).
Upper and lower values for each size are the respective minimum and
maximum values.
 a h
Nominal dimensions and design properties
of standard-size pipe, 2 in. and smaller

Nominal Wall Mean radius-

Outside Schedule Section
pipe thickness to-thickness
diameter or wall modulus
size
designation
(t) ratio
(r/t) (z)
(in.) (in.)

1/8 0.1+05 1*0 0.068 2.1+78 0.0052

80 0.095 1.632 0.0060
160 0.121* 1.133 0.0061+
XXS 0.190 O.566 O.OO65

lA 0.5!*0 1+0 0.088 2.568 0.0123

80 0.119 1.769 0.011+0
160 0.11+5 I.362 0.011+7
XXS O.238 O.63I+ 0.0155

3/8 0.675 ho 0.091 3.209 0.0216

80 0.126 2.179 0.0255
160 O.I58 1.636 0.0278
XXS 0.252 O.839 0.0301

1/2 0.81*0 1*0 0.109 3-353 0.01+07

80 0.11+7 2.357 0.01+78
160 0.187 I.7I+6 0.0527
XXS O.29I+ 0.929 0.0577

3/1+ 1.050 1*0 0.113 1+.11+6 0.0706

80 0.151* 2.909 0.0853
160 0.218 1.908 0.1001+
XXS 0.308 1.205 0.1101+

1 1.315 1*0 0.133 l+.1*1*1+ 0.1329

80 0.179 3.173 0.1606
160 0.250 2.130 0.1903
XXS 0.358 1-337 0.2137

i iA 1.660 1*0 0.11+0 5.1+29 0.231+6

80 0.191 3- 81*6 0.2911+
160 0.250 2.820 0.31+21
XXS O.382 1.673 0.1*111

i 1/2 1.900 1*0 0.11+5 6.052 0.326

80 0.200 I+.250 0.1+12
160 0.281 2.881 0.508
XXS 0.1+00 1.875 0.598

2 2.375 1+0 0.151+ 7.211 O.56I

80 0.218 I+.9I+7 O.73I
160 O.3I+3 2.962 0.979
XXS O.U36 2.221+ 1.101+

Nominal dimensions from ANSI standard B36.IO-I97O, Wrought

Steel and Wrought-Iron Pipe, Amer. Soc. Mech. Engr., New York, I97O.
Design properties from Piping Engineering;, Tube Turns, Louis-
ville, KY, 1969.
cSince ANSI B16.10 does not include sched l£0 or double extra
strong thickness for pipe sizes l/8, l/l+, and 3/8 in., the values
cited here were taken from ANSI Bl6.11-1973.
 10

in. (NB-1+1+27). For other applications the Code requires the minimum leg
dimension of fillet welds to be 1.1+ times the nominal pipe thickness.

In order to visualize the relative dimensions of socket-welding fit

tings and the attached pipe, cross-sectional drawings of Bl6.ll elbows and
tees are shown in Figs. 1 through 8. In these drawings the wall thick
nesses are equal to the specified minimums, whereas the diameters are
either nominal or average dimensions. The exterior-surface intersections
are shown with sharp corners inasmuch as the Bl6.ll standard doesn't spe
cifically require fillets or corners with given radii.
The interior contours of the tees shown in Figs. 1, 2, 5, and 6 were
drawn on the assumption that the bore diameters are both constant and
equal to D from Table 2, and intersect at the transverse plane of the run
axis. The interior contours of the 90° elbows, shown in Figs. 3, 1+, 1,
and 8, were drawn on the assumption that both bore diameters are equal to
D from the ends of the fittings to the intersection of the axes and that
the interior contour at the transition was finished using a spherical cut
ter of the same diameter. It was also assumed that the outside contour
in this region is a quarter-section of a sphere with a diameter equal to
the inside diameter plus twice the wall thickness (D + 2G).
Examination of a few fittings, purchased off-the-shelf at random, in
dicates that the representations shown in Figs. 1 through 8 are-reasonably
accurate, except that the exterior surface intersections do have transi
tion radii, even though such radii are not required by the Bl6.ll stan
dard.

3. DIMENSIONS OF SOME Bl6.ll FITTINGS

For general design purposes it Is necessary to assume that fittings

purchased to a standard specification, such as ANSI Bl6.ll, will have the
most adverse set of dimensions permitted by the specification. Neverthe
less, it is of interest to examine a few fittings purchased as meeting the
standard for unusual features or for dimensional characteristics not cov

ered by the standard. For this purpose a number of fittings were pur
chased from local jobbers' stocks, with an attempt to include fittings
from various manufacturers.
 11

ORNL-DWG 72-13655

SECTION A-A

INCHES

Fig. 1. ANSI Bl6.ll tee, 1-in., 3000-lb-class, sched-80 pipe.

ORNL-DWG 72-13656

X\\\\\\\\\\\\\^\\^l
SECTION A-A

0
l_ _L

INCHES

Fig. 2. ANSI Bl6.ll tee, 2-in., 3000-lb-class, sched-80 pipe.

 12

ORNL-DWG 72-13657R

SHORT-RADIUS
ELBOW

INCHES

Fig. 3. MSI Bl6.ll 90° elbow, 1-in., 3000-lb-class, sched-80 pipe.

ORNL-DWG 72-13658R

SHORT-RADIUS
ELBOW

0
L _|_

INCHES

Fig. 1+. MSI Bl6.ll 90° elbow, 2-in., 3000-lb-class, sched-80 pipe.
 13

ORNL- DWG 72- 13659

_L
SECTION A-A
INCHES

Fig. 5. ANSI Bl6.ll tee, 1-in., 6000-lb-class, sched-160 pipe.

0
_L
SECTION A-A
INCHES

Fig. 6. MSI Bl6.ll tee, 2-in., 6000-lb-class, sched-160 pipe.

 11+

ORNL-DWG 72-13661R

SHORT-RADIUS
ELBOW

0 2 4
I i .. I ... I
INCHES

Fig. 7. MSI B16.11 90° elbow, 1-in., 6000-lb-class, sched-160 pipe.

ORNL-DWG 72-13662R
SHORT-RADIUS
ELBOW

0
l_ J_

INCHES

Fig. 8. MSI B16.11 90° elbow, 2-in., 6000-lb-class, sched-160 pipe.

 15

A few of the fittings were selected for detailed dimensional checks,

and the results are given in Table 1+. These data indicate that the minimum

body-wall thickness typically exceeds G, the specified minimum, by a sig

nificant amount. On the other hand, for some of the fittings the socket-
wall thickness (also called the socket-face width) barely met the speci
fied minimum C. For one 2-in., 3000-lb-class, 90° elbow (not included in
Table 1+) the minimum width of the socket face was 0.2 in., whereas the
specified minimum is O.238 in. As noted earlier, this dimension is sig
nificant in that it controls the size of the fillet weld used to attach

the fitting to the pipe.

Photographs of representative socket-welding tees and elbows are
shown in Figs. 9 through 13. As can easily be seen, the exterior surfaces
of all these fittings have generously rounded rather than sharp corners.
In this respect they are different from the drawings shown earlier. One
valid reason for this difference is that all the fittings shown here were
formed by forging. In this process the surfaces essentially must have
smooth transitions, and unless the exterior surfaces are machined to their
final dimensions, one would expect smooth rather than sharp corner tran
sitions. Furthermore, fabrication of the fittings by forming is in accor
dance with the MSI Bl6.ll standard which requires that the material must
conform to the ASTM standard A-182 (ref. 7) for alloy and stainless-steel
products and to ASTM A-105 (ref. 8) for carbon-steel products. Both these
standards require that: "... the material ... shall be brought as nearly
as practicable to the finished shape and size by hot working and shall be
so processed as to cause metal-flow during the hot-working operation in
the direction most favorable for resisting the stresses encountered in
service." In order to assure that the user of the stress indices given
herein does not inadvertently overlook this requirement and use the indices
for a fitting that has been machined from plate or bar stock, it is recom
mended that the stress indices be specifically limited to fittings in which
the exterior contours are forged to shape.
 Table 1+. Measured dimensions of some randomly selected Bl6.ll fittings
and comparisons with specified minimum dimensions

Socket -wall thickness Body--wall thickness

Nominal
Rating
Type size Material Manufacturer Measured Measured
(ID) Specified Specified
(in.)
minimumb minimum0
Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

90° elbow 2 3000 OS A O.238 0.21+8 0.300 0.218 0.330 0.385

90° elbow 2 6000 SS A O.37I+ 0.1+11 0.1+62 0.31+1+ 0.635 O.69O
1+5° elbow 2 3000 CS B O.238 0.21+0 0.303 0.218 O.360 0.1+35
1+5° elbow 2 3000 CS C O.238 0.280 0.322 0.218 O.285 0.339
Straight tee 1 3000 SS A O.I96 0.207 0.261+ 0.179 0.283 O.325 £
Straight tee 1 6000 CS C 0.273 0.392 0.1+22 0.250 0.535 O.560
Straight tee 2 3000 SS A O.238 0.266 O.29I+ 0.218 O.3I+O 0.370
Straight tee 2 3000 CS A O.238 O.25I+ 0.287 0.218 0.320 O.350
Straight tee 2 3000 CS D O.238 0.279 0.320 0.218 O.290 0.330
Straight tee 2 3000 CS B O.238 0.21+9 0.286 0.218 O.295 0.3!+0
Straight tee 2 6000 CS C 0.37!+ 0.1+31+ 0.1+79 0.31+1* O.596 0.621+
Straight tee 2 6000 SS A 0.371* 0.1+35 0.1+60 0.31+!+ 0.655 0.675
Straight tee 2 6000 SS A 0.371+ 0.1+26 0.1*55 O.3I+4 0.620 0.61+0

*cs carbon steel; SS = austenitic stainless steel.

Dimension C in Bl6.ll.
"Dimension G in Bl6.ll.
 PHOTO 79770

Fig. 9. Typical MSI Bl6.ll fittings. Top row: 2-in., 3000-lb-

class tees; bottom row: 2-in., 3000-lb-class 1+5° elbows and a 1-in.
3000-lb-class tee.
 PHOTO 79768

|'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'
O 1 2
'J .I

Fig. 10. Cross sections of a 2-in., 6000-lb-class 90° elbow and

a 2-in., 3000-lb-class 90° elbow.
 £

Fig. 11. One-inch MSI Bl6.ll 6000-lb-class tees.

 20

PHOTO 79767

Fig. 12. Two-inch MSI Bl6.ll 3000-lb-class tees.

PHOTO 79769

Fig. 13. Sections of MSI Bl6.ll 2-in. and 1-in., 6000-lb-class tees.
 21

k. PEESSURE-TEMPERATUKE PATINGS MD PIPE EQUIVALENCE

Standard Pressure Ratings

When using standard piping products, the Code requires in NB-3612.I

that the ratings given as functions of temperature in the appropriate stan
dard shall not be exceeded, and MSI BI6.II-I966 includes such ratings for
3000- and 6000-lb-class socket-welding fittings. These ratings, listed in
Table 5, are proportional to the pressure ratings for flanges and flanged
fittings given in an earlier edition of MSI BI6.5 (ref. 9). The Bl6.ll
standard also gives a correspondence between the pressure class of the fit
ting and the maximum pipe schedule intended for use with the fitting -
sched 80 for the 3000-lb class and sched 160 for the 6000-lb class. It is
permissible, however, to use a lighter-weight pipe with fittings of either
pressure class. For example, both sched-1+0 and -80 pipe may be used with
either 3000- or 6000-lb-class fittings, but sched-160 pipe may not be used
with 3000-lb-class fittings.
For Class-1 piping, the Code also gives the following formula [Eq.
(2), NB-36I+I.I] for computing the allowable design pressure for straight
pipe, which is also, in effect, a function of temperature (different, how
ever, from the temperature dependence of MSI BI6.II-I966):

2S (t - a)
_ mm '
D - 2y(t ^a)
o °x m '

where S is the design stress intensity given as a function of temperature

for various materials in Appendix I of the Code, t is the minimum wall
thickness (87.5/° of the nominal thickness), a is the corrosion allowance
(taken herein as zero), D is the outside diameter of the pipe, and y =
0.1+. Similar formulas for piping of Classes 2 and 3 are given in subpara
graphs NC-36I+I.I and ND-36I+I.I, respectively. Table 6 gives resulting
calculated maximum pressures for several pipe sizes and materials of inter
est. For comparison, the pressure ratings from Table 5 for comparable
socket-welding fittings are also given.
The values given in Table 6 show that in most cases the Code-allowable
pressures for pipe (from 1/2- to 2-in. nominal size) are higher than the
 22
1>- 80UMAlA01AIAlA0001AOir\ 8IAO0O1AOOOIA0OOO0
CO-rf- ijAHt>-.4-HC—HovoHUALr\vovb HcOUAOAOJUAooHOJOJOHOJcO
i oo O ON OACOCOCO C— t-VQ -5 CO H O OACO o o\co r-vo vo irsj-oj oavo ooH oa c-
00 fa 0O0J OJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJHH vo UAUAUAUAUALr\iiAUA-4--3--d--4- oooo
•rl
EH ^
H 8 0ir\ir\ir\oir\iJAir\ooomoir\ OUAOOOUAOOOUAOOOOO
00 OJ UA H C—_3" H t~H 0*0 H UMTvvD\n OHtniAmanntoriaicuoHwm
I OO O OA OACO 00CO t- IS-VO -3- OOH O OACO O OACO b-VO VO UA-* OJ OAVO OOH oa c-
00 fa OOOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJHH vo ir\ ua ua ua ua ua ua ua -*• JJ J- _* oo oo
o
•H
in I 1-H- OOOIAOIAUMAOOIAIAUNOIA ^\uMiMnoiAinmootf\oinoiA
0) O VO J-J-4-VD 0\H4- Nr-I UA 0A-* ON liA O cococo coco cooauaoj q co 0a0ao h
•P g -I hh a o 5\co^o in uaj- oo co ~ "' ~ oj oj oj h oavo oj h o on t-vo un ua_*
-_ CO
CO fa
WW W W H r l H H H H H r l 3 3 9 j-j-_j-j-oocoooooooojojojojojoj
CO
O
-p
01
M
o o o
o
CO 8 0 "A UA UA O UMAIAO O O ^ O l A OUAOOOQOOOUAOOOOO
00 H IAH N4- rl t - r l O^DH KMAVOVO oh^uaoaoauaoohojojohoj oo
VO O O\O\C000C0 t - l>-VO -T OOH O OACO O OACO t"-VOvO ITS-* OJ ON OOH OMS-
VQ H 00 £? OOCVIOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJCJHH vO ir\ ua ua ua ua ir\ ua ua_* --* J- CO oo
ON 01 T)
H <U
_L ^
. <« 01 O i-q
VO o •d OOUAUAOOOO O O O O i lAOO LT\ ITv LT\ O O o ua o o o o m
pq to
cd CO O OJ o j - OMAH CM tnifi IO.ONJ-I
rlrlrllJ\t--Ml UA-* OO OJ OJ
CO-JpOAONOOJ^^^w
vovo o o-*co .-
i oo ojojojcOLr\ooocovoir\ ir\-3- oo oj cj
1) CO fa OJ OJ OJ H H ' " • ' J-J-J-OOOOOOOOOJOJOJOJOJOJOJCJ
<h ra
O w ?H
ed O
M H
g>, C0 4" o i n o o m i A p o i A o o LT\ o ir\o irMr\ir\Q i a o irsirso ir\< D O O I A
i O t—OJCO t- UAvp E-- OAH UA 0A ,.,
COCO OJ t - J- ir\vo J- H oo-=t co oo O cO t~vo
t~-Vp ITV-*
co oo cd UA-rf MHO OACO t- t-VO ITS ia3j-
UA oo id H .CO
. -- ir\. .
oo. H
. .OA
. -C- UA
_ —J- oo
— H . o aSoo
OSco t~
-P 2 H fa H OJOJOJCJOJHHHHHH H H H r-l H lt\ J- -d-J-J-oooooooooooocoojojoj
OS o Pi o O
I
o *-» o O
•P h OJ O 80iniAiAO mininoooo o Oir\ooouAOOOLr\ooLr\
cd O J - OJ O uaH t - J - H C-H o \ D H uah o OH00lC\0\0Jir\0OHCJ0JO0J
\fa OO O ON ONCO COCO t- t-VO -3" CO H O VO O O\c0 t~VDVO LT\-d- OJ OAVO COO
01 H^ 0O0J OJOJOJOJOJCJOJOJOJOJOJ vo irvir\ir\uALrNLr\iiAir\-d-JT-3--?
ft K> U
a so Pi OJ
M
c!
•H !h
X O .
fn O O UA UA LT\ O lAlAlfNO O OO 8mooQiAooomooif\
O OlTNrH [>--3- r l h H O V O r l l A H H oou-\cy\oj iAmH oj oj o o j
O CA OACO CO CO C— C—VO-=f OOH O O CTvOO t~-VOVO i f t j OJ awo COO
01 OOCJ OJOJOJOJ0JOJOJOJ0JOJOJ VO lALrVLPiirALrNLrNLOXLONj-J-^J-^
fn -ri
PH <d O
H o
0)
• 12 w
S §OIAUMAOUMAIAOOOO 8mOOOlAOOOlAOO!A
o lf\H ISJ-rl t-H Oyj H tf\H Hooio\a\ojLr\ooHOJOJOoj
l-l
£ O ON 0"\OD 0000 Ob-vO J OOH O O ONCO t— vo VO lAd- OJ a\vo oo o
OOOJ CJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJ vo L0\Lr\UAir\Lr\LrALrsLr\_d-_3-_d-_a:
•3Eh
OOUMAinoiniAir\oooo OLTsOOOinOOOLnooUA
^ cd 81AHI>-J-HNrlOvflrllI\H OHOOIAOSOJUAOOHOJOJOOJ
O tr\ On OACOCO CO SN^)3 OOHO O OACO t^vOVO LT\J- OJ OAVO COO
fa OOOJ OJOJOJOJOJCJOJOJOJOJOJ VO LTNUALrNirvUAIJAirsLAJ-J-J-^
LIA
a h
O H 01 OOiniAmo«Mninoooo
,a 01 0) 8UA H r--4- H [s_^ q ^j ,_) ij^^n OUAOOOinOOOlTNOOO
?H 01 -P
~ 'coLr\CT\ojLr\ooHOJOJOOj
OA OACO CO CO C~- t—VO-Hf OOH ON O OACO t-vOVO UAJ-OJ OAVO 0O0A
ai +3 ra OOOJ OJOJOJOJOJOJOJ0J0JCJH VO LlAUAUAtAUAUAUAUAJ-^Fj- CO
O to —-
ii d
ooooooooooooooo OOOO OOOOOOOOOO
!m 01 o OUNOIAOHNOIAOIAOIAOIAO O
Ol Q, _, l A
- .O
_ B-._UAQUAOUAOUAOUAO
M
HHOJC\lrOfnJJ-lAlA\OM3t- D—CO H H OJ OJ OO 0O-=T-d- LT\ LT\VO VO P- t-CO
CO
 23

a \
Table 6. Allowable pressures for straight pipe and comparable socket-welding fittings

Allowable pressures (psi)

A106 grade B carbon steel TP30U and 30I+H stainless steel TP316 and 3I6H stainless steel

100° F 700° F 100 F 800° F 100° F 800°F

Classes Classes Classes Classes Classes Classes

Class 1 Class 1 Class 1 Class 1 Class 1 Class 1
2 and 3 2 and 3 2 and 3 2 and 3 2 and 3 2 and 3

1)
(Sm =20 ksi) (S
(S =
= 15
15 ksi)
ksi) (S = 16.8 ksi) (S = H+.3 ksi) (Sn = 20 ksi) (S = 18.8 ksi) (S = 15.1 ksi) (S = 15.2 ksi) (Sra = 20 ksi) (S = 18.8 ksi) (S = 15.8 ksi) (S = 15.9 ksi)

Straight pipe

Nominal pipe size

Normalized
allowable
Nominal
Schedule pressure,a
diameter
No.
(in.) p/s,m

i+o 1/2 O.2U98 1+996 37U7 1+197 3572 1+996 1+696 3772 3797 1+996 1+696 39^ 3972
31+22 2913 1+076 3830 3076 3096 1+071+ 3830 3218 3239
3/k 0.2037 14076 3°5^
1 0.1905 3810 2857^ 3200 2721+ 3810 3 581 2877 2895 3810 3581 3010 3029
1 l/l+ O.I569 3138,, 2353^ 2636 221+1+ 3138 29I+9 2369 2385 3138 29l+9d 21+78 21+95
1 l/2 O.ll+ll 28225 2116* 2370 2018 2822, 2653d 2131 211+5 2822d 2653^ 2230 221+3
2 0.1189 2378d 1783d 1998 1700d 2378d 2235 1795 1807 2378d 2235a I878 I890

80 1/2 O.3I+9O 698O 5235 5863 1+990 6980 6561 5270 5305 698O 656I 5511+ 55^9
0.2860 5720 1+290 1+805 1+090 5720 5377 1+319 1+31+7 5720 5377 1+519 ^7
3A 5266 1+950
5266 3950 1+1+23 3765 5266 1+950 3976 1+002 1+160 1+186
1 0.2633
I+38O 3132 1+380 1+117 3307 3329 1+380 1+117 3^0 31+82
1 1/1+ 0.2190 3285. 3679
2983d 33te 28¥+ 3978 3739 3003 3023 3978 3739 311+2 3162
1 l/2 O.I989 3978
2881+ 21+55 3^3^ 3228 2593 2610 3^3^ 3228 2713 2730
2 0.1717 3^3^ 2575

6922 6599 9230 8676 6969 7015 9230 8676 7292 7338
160 1/2 0.U615 9230 7753
8502 711+2 6079 8502 7992 61+19 61+61 8502 7992 6716 6759
3/1+
1
0.1+251
O.3838 7676
637^d
57577 61+1+8 5I+88 7676 7215 5795 5831+ 7676, 7215^ 6063 6102
1 l/k O.29I+6 5892^ 1+1+I9d I+9I+9 1+213 5892 5538 1+1+1+8 1+1+78 5892d 5538d I+65I+ 1+681+
1 l/2 0.2887 5761+* l+330d I+850 1+128 5761+ 5I+27 ^359 1+388 5761+d 51+27* 1+561 1+590
2 0.2812 5625d l+2l8d 1+721+ 1+021 5625 5286 1+21+6 1+271+ 5625d 5286d 1+1+1+2 1+1+71

Socket-welding fittings

Pressure class (lb)

3000 3000 3000 i960 i960 2570 2570 1370 1370 3000 3000 1865 I865
6000 6000 3920 3920 5U+5 51^5 27^5 27^5 6000 6000 3730 3730
6OOO

Calculated values using Eq. (2): NB-36I+I.I; Eq.. (k): NC-36I+I.I; and Eq. (1+): ND-36I+I.I. P/s = 1.75t/(DQ - 0.7t): See text for symbol definitions.
Taken from Table 5.
Allowable stress values from Appendix Iof the Code (ref. 1): Sm values from Tables I-l.l and 1-1.2; Svalues from Tables 1-7-1 and 1-7-2.
d.
Allowable pressure for pipe is less than allowable pressure for corresponding-pressure-class fitting.
 wwwaaMSissH1

2k

allowable pressures for the corresponding socket-welding fitting. In

several cases, however, the reverse is true. It is also apparent from
comparing the values in Tables 5 and 6 that no consistent relation exists
between the MSI BI6.H-I966 pressure ratings for fittings and the Code-
allowable design pressures for piping systems of the same materials at the
same operating temperatures. For example, A106 grade-B carbon steel pipe
and type ^Qh stainless steel pipe have the same Code-allowable pressures
at 100°F but the pressure ratings for the corresponding socket-welding
fittings are different; and further, although not indicated in Table 6,
the difference increases as the temperature increases. Thus, in order to
assure compliance with the Code, both sets of rules must be checked.
The 1973 edition of MSI Bl6.ll, however, revises the pressure-tem
perature ratings of the fittings to agree more closely with the Code. Ac
cording to article 2.2 of that edition,

"Ratings determined ... apply to any service within the scope of

a section of the American National Standard Code for Pressure
Piping (ANSI B3I), or of a section of the ASME Boiler and Pres
sure Vessel Code, or of a legally enforced regulation which estab
lishes pressure design requirements for pipe.

"Design temperature and other service conditions shall be lim

ited as provided by the applicable code or regulation for the
material of construction of the fitting. Within these limits
the maximum allowable pressure of a fitting shall be that com
puted for straight seamless pipe of equivalent material ... ."

Thus, simply updating Table HB-369I.I to replace the 1966 version of Bl6.ll
with the I973 version will eliminate a potentially confusing condition with
respect to the maximum allowable pressure ratings of Bl6.ll fittings.

Pipe Equivalence

In order to use stress indices with the design procedures of NB-365O,

it is necessary to define an "equivalent" pipe for a fitting. This is be
cause the design-criteria equations of NB-365O, listed earlier in Table 1,
are in terms of nominal stresses in the so-called equivalent pipe, with
dimensions Dq, D^ t, etc., for specific piping products defined in sub
paragraph NB-3683.I. For ANSI-standard butt-welding fittings, the equiv
alent pipe is defined as straight pipe having the same nominal size and
 25

schedule number as identified by the fitting. The equivalent pipe for the
fitting is thus independent of the wall thickness of the pipe that may be
welded to the fitting in application. This is not only convenient but is
necessary in order to uniquely define the calculated stresses in the fit
ting as functions of the loads.
It is therefore appropriate to follow the same precedent in defining
the equivalent pipe for socket-welding fittings. Since the 3000-lb class
is designated for use with pipe sizes up to sched 80 and the 6000-lb class
for pipe sizes up to sched 160, it is appropriate to define the equivalent
pipe as sched 80 for 3000-lb-class fittings and sched 160 for 6000-lb-class
fittings.* With these definitions, the calculated stresses in the body
of a Bl6.ll socket-welding fitting will not depend on the wall thickness
of the pipe. In accordance with present Code practice, however, the cal
culated stresses in the fillet weld joining the pipe and the fitting will
depend on the nominal wall thickness of the pipe.
Table NB-3683.2-I presently contains stress indices for girth butt
welds and for girth fillet welds; and the design procedures of NB-365O re
quire that these welds be checked for compliance independently of the checks
for any other component. The equivalent pipe dimensions for both types of
girth welds are the same as for the nominal size pipe actually used in the
design.

Stress indices for MSI Bl6.ll socket-welding fittings, to be used

with the appropriate equivalent pipe dimensions, are given in the next
three chapters for internal pressure, bending moment, and thermal-gradient
loadings, respectively. All of the stress indices are then summarized and
compared with corresponding indices from the Code (Table NB-3683.2-I) for
the girth-fillet welds that join the fitting to the pipe.

*For 9000-lb-class fittings, defined by MSI BI6.II-I973, the equiv

alent pipe would be double extra strong (XXS).
 26

5. STRESS INDICES FOR INTERNAL PRESSURE

Primary-Stress B1 Indices

Primary-stress indices, used in conjunction with Eq. (9) of NB-3652,

are intended to protect the piping system against plastic collapse and/or
excessive deformation and are normally established on the basis of results
from limit-load tests. Since information of this type is not available
for socket-welding fittings, the minimum-pressure bursting strength of the
fitting, specified in the Bl6.ll standard, is used as an alternate basis
for establishing the value for B1. According to paragraph 6.2 of MSI
B16.II-I966,

"... the actual bursting strength of fittings shall be not less

than the computed bursting strength of the pipe of the designated
schedule number and material. To determine the relative strength
of the fitting, straight pipe of the designated wall thickness
and material shall be welded to each end, at least six inches in
length but not less than twice the outside diameter of the pipe,
and with proper end closures applied beyond the minimum length
of straight pipe. Hydrostatic pressure shall be applied until
either the fitting or one of the short ends of pipe bursts "*

The computed bursting strength of the pipe, P , for comparison with

the test burst pressure is to be obtained using the formula

Pu = 2BuVDo > (1)

where S^ is the minimum specified tensile strength of the pipe material,
t is the minimum wall thickness (87.5/0 of nominal thickness), and D is
'' o
the outside diameter of the pipe. Although the standard does not specif
ically designate the schedule number of the pipe to be used in the pres
sure-burst test, it can be deduced by comparison of dimensional data in
the standard that the intent is to use sched-80 pipe with 3000-lb-class
fittings and sched-160 pipe with 6000-lb-class fittings.** The minimum

*The last sentence is modified in MSI BI6.II-I973 to read: "Hydro

static pressure shall be applied until at least the computed bursting pres
sure is achieved." Other changes are also made that effectively increase
the computed bursting pressure by about 15 to 20$.
**This point is clarified in MSI BI6.II-I973.
 27

specified tensile strength of the pipe material is given by reference to

the ASTM Standards.Y>8 For A106 grade-B carbon-steel pipe at 100°F, S =
60,000 psi; for type-30l+ stainless-steel pipe, S = 75,000 psi. Several
typical minimum burst pressures computed according to Eq. (l) are given
below. All of the values are considerably larger than the allowable
operating pressures given in Table 6.

Typical minimum burst pressures for MSI Bl6.ll fittings

Nominal 3000-•lb class 6000--lb class

pipe
size Carbon Stainless Carbon Stainless
(in.) steel steel13 steel steel

1/2 18,375 22,968 23,375 29,219

1 ll+, 292 17,866 19,962 2l+,952
2 9,638 12,01+7 15,161+ 18,955

A106 grade-B carbon-steel pipe.

TP30I+ stainless-steel pipe.

Although we were unable to find published burst-pressure data for

socket-welding fittings, some unpublished test data on 3000-lb-class aus-
tenitic-stainless-steel fittings were provided by one of the manufacturers. 4
The results are shown in Table 7- In these tests, a group of fittings
were tested together by welding up a manifold with fittings separated by
required lengths of sched-80 straight pipe. Failures all occurred in the
straight pipe at locations remote from the fittings; hence, a single value
is given for the burst pressure of each group of fittings. As shown in
the table, the test burst pressures were all greater than those required
by the Bl6.ll standard.
Conformance with the dimensional and burst-pressure requirements of
ANSI Bl6.ll apparently gives adequate assurance that the basic designs of
Bl6.ll socket-welding fittings are suitable for use at their rated static
pressures. Since these are the same criteria that were used originally to
establish the primary-stress indices (Bx) for butt-welding fittings, it
seems reasonable to establish Bx indices for MSI Bl6.ll socket-welding
fittings on the same basis. We therefore recommend the following:
 28

Socket-welding fitting B1 index

Tees 1.0
90 and 1+5° elbows 1.0
Couplings 0.5

Primary-Plus-Secondary and Peak-Stress Indices

Although burst-pressure tests yield useful information for establish

ing primary-stress indices, they do not give any information regarding sec
ondary or peak stresses. In order to establish stress indices for the sec
ondary and peak-stress categories it is necessary to use other information.

Table 7. Results of burst-pressure tests on 3000-lb-class

austenitic-stainless-steel socket-welding fittings

Nominal Test burst- Required

Type of
size Material pressure burst-pressure
fitting
(in.) (psi) (psi)

1/2 Tee 301+L 27,ooo+c 21,1+1+0

90° elbow 316L 27,000+ 21,1+^0
1+5° elbow 3^7 27,000+ 22,970
Coupling 30I+L 27,000+ 21,1+1+0

3A Tee 30I+L 21,000 17,970

90° elbow 30I+L 21,000 17,970
1+5° elbow 30I+L 21,000 17,970
Coupling 301+ 21,000 19,250

1 Tee 301+L 19,600 16,670

90° elbow 301+L 19,600 16,670
1+5° elbow 30*+ 19,600 17,870
Coupling 301+ 19,600 17,870

1 Tee 301+ 19,500 17,870

90° elbow 301+ 19, 500 17, 870

2 Tee 301+ 15,1+00 12,050

90° elbow 30^ 15, too 12,050

All failures occurred in the pipe, remote from the

fittings.
These values are based on ANSI BI6.II-I966 requirements.
Values based on MSI BI6.II-I973 would be 15 to 20$ higher.
Q
Test assembly did not fail; value cited is the pres
sure capacity of the pump.
 29

Traditionally, strain-gage data and/or fatigue-test data have been used for
this purpose. To our knowledge, however, there are no controlled-test data
of this type available for socket-welding fittings, although we did find a
few documented cases of fatigue failures in nuclear piping systems (see
Appendix B). Most of the reported failures were in the fillet welds join
ing the fitting to the pipe. One failure, however, occurred in the body
of a socket-welding coupling, and might have been caused by internal pres
sure and/or eyelie-pressure fatigue. Unfortunately, no information was
given on either the magnitudes of the loads or the number of cycles to
failure. The information is thus of questionable value for developing
stress indices, although it is useful to know that failures have occurred
in the bodies of fittings as well as in the joining welds.
In the absence of more-definitive information, proposed stress indices
C1 and K2 for pressure loading are based on the following analysis:
Socket-welding fittings are often used in supply lines for hydraulic
presses, and over a period of years they are subjected to many cyclic
pressure loadings. If we assume that under these service conditions fit
tings do not fail, and make further assumptions that appear to be conser
vative, we can develop a reasonable analytical model upon which to base
the magnitude of the stress-index product K1C1.* Further assumptions can
then be used to determine individual values for Kx and Cx. We therefore
assumed a set of service conditions consisting of the following:
1. The range of cyclic pressure during service never exceeds one-
half of the Bl6.ll rated pressure. For 3000-lb-class fittings, the design
pressure cycle would then be from 0 to 1500 psi and back to 0.
2. The fittings are subjected to 160 cycles per day for ten years,
a total of 58I+,000 cycles. Using a safety factor of 20 on cycles** indi
cates that the fittings would be adequate for 29,200 design cycles.
With these assumptions, the eyelie-pressure-term portion of Eq. (11)
of NB-3653.2 is

*The stress-index product 'K.^i is used in Eq.. (H) of NB-36OO to eval

uate the design fatigue life of fittings for specified cyclic pressure
loading conditions.
**ASME design fatigue curves are based on a safety factor of 20 on
cyclic life or 2 on maximum stress, whichever gives the lower value.
 30

Sp = KC,P D /2t ;
i 1 o o7 '

where S is the peak-stress-intensity range, P is the range of cyclic

pressure loading (in this case P equals one-half the rated pressure of
the fitting at 100°F or P /2), D is the nominal outside diameter, and t
is the nominal wall thickness of the equivalent pipe. Then using Eq. (ll+)
of NB-3653-6,

S = K S 12 ,
a e p

where S refers to the stress-intensity amplitude corresponding to 29,200

design cycles. Assuming further that the factor K =1.0, which is equiv
alent to assuming that the primary-plus-secondary-stress-intensity range
Sn is less than 3Sffl [i.e., Eq. (10) of NB-3653.I is satisfied], gives a
relationship for Y.1C1, in terms of known quantities, of

K1C1(Pr/2)DQ/2t =2Sa . (2)

Since most of the service experience is for fittings made of SA-181 grade-1
carbon steel, it is appropriate to obtain the value of S from Fig. I-9.I,
"Design Fatigue Curves for Carbon, Low-Alloy, and High-Tensile Steels,"
Appendix I of the Code. At 29,200 cycles, Fig. I-9.I gives 28,000 psi for
S . Solving Eq. (2) for K^C, thus gives

^d =22l+,000(t/DQ)/Pr . (3)
According to Eq. (3), K^d will increase with decreasing nominal pipe
size because t/D increases as the nominal pipe size decreases for both
sched-80 and sched-160 pipe (see Table 3). For the 12 class-size combina
tions covered in this report, the range of ^1C1 is from 5.39 for the 2-in.,
6000-lb-class fittings to 13.07 for the l/2-in., 3000-lb-class fittings.
The average for all class-sizes is 8.10. In view of the conservatism used
in deriving Eq. (3), it appears adequate to round the average up to 9.0
and offer this value for YL-^Q-^.
Inasmuch as the above value for ^1C1 is based entirely on a fatigue
evaluation, separate values for Kx and C1 are somewhat arbitrary. In the
 31

above development, however, it was assumed that the primary-plus-secondary-

stress intensity was always less than 3S ; that is,

Sn = C,P D /2t < 3S

1 o o' J m
. (1+)
v '

Accordingly, it is appropriate to obtain the value for C± from Eq. (1+).

Within the range of fittings covered in this report (l/2- to 2-in. nominal
size, 3000- and 6000-lb classes), the maximum value of P D /2t is 20,773
psi (for 2-in., 6000-lb-class fittings with P equal to the rated pressure
at 100°F). The minimum value for the design stress intensity for Class-1
piping, using materials-property data from Appendix I of the Code (see
also Table 6) is 3S = 50,1+00 psi for carbon-steel pipe at 700°F and 1+5,300
psi for stainless-steel piping at 800°F; and the minimum value for the
allowable stress for Class-2 and -3 carbon-steel piping is 3$ = 1+2,900 psi.
Thus, any value of d less than or equal to 2.065 will satisfy Eq. (1+) for
any pressure less than or equal to the rated pressure of the fitting. We
therefore propose that Cx be set equal to 2.0. With K^C-l = 9, the value
for K-l becomes I+.5.
Stress-index values of C1 = 2.0 and K2 = I+.5 should be adequately
conservative for socket-welding tees and elbows, which have the same gen
eral shape in the critical crotch region (see Figs. 1—9). For couplings,
the values are probably overly conservative and smaller values can be jus
tified. As shown by the sketch in Table 2, a Bl6.ll coupling is simply a
cylindrical shell with an interior stop ring at the base of the socket,
where the possibility exists for a sharp machined corner being produced
during fabrication. To cover this condition, the value of K1 = 1+.5 should
be retained. Otherwise, the existing stress-index values for straight pipe
should be adequate (i.e., B-, =0.5 and Cz = 1.0).
Since the values being recommended for Cx and K2 were based on an
analytical model in which 3000-lb-class carbon-steel fittings were pres

sure cycled between zero and one-half their rated design pressure, it is
of interest to determine the permissible number of pressure cycles for
other conditions. Table 8 gives calculated results for a sampling of
Bl6.ll tees, elbows, and couplings that are cycled between zero and their
full rated pressure.
 Table 8. Calculated fatigue design life for selected Bl6.ll fittings subjected
to cyclic pressure loads between zero and their rated pressure

Nominal
B16.11 tees and elbows Bl6.11 couplings
Pressure Pressure
pipe Temperature
size
class Material
(°F) rating12 Peak-stress Design Peak-stress Design
(lb) (psi) amplitude life amplitude life
(in.)
(cycles) (cycles)

1/2 3000 CS 100 3000 38,600 9,000 19,300 100,000

700 I960 25,200 1+0,000 12,600 >106
SS 100 3000 38,600 80,000 19,300 >106
800 1370 17,600 >106 8,800 >106

6000 CS 100 6000 60,600 2,500 30,300 20,000

700 3920 39,600 8,000 19,800 100,000
SS 100 6000 60,600 9,000 30,300 300,000
800 271+5 27,700 800,000 13,900 >106

1 3000 CS 100 3000 1+9,600 l+,000 2l+,800 1+0,000

700 i960 32, too 18,000 16,200 250,000
SS 100 3000 1+9,600 20,000 2l+, 800 >106 ro
800 1370 22,600 >106 11,300 >106

6000 CS 100 6000 71,000 1,500 12,000

700 3920 1+6,1+00 6,000 55,000
SS 100 6000 71,000 l+,500 130,000
800 271+5 32,500 250,000 >106

2 3000 CS 100 3000 73, 500 1,1+00 36,800 10,000

700 i960 1+8,000 5,000 2l+, 000 1+6,000
SS 100 3000 73,500 l+,000 36,800 100,000
800 1370 33,600 200,000 16,800 >106

6ooo CS 100 6000 93,500 750 1+6,800 5,000

700 3920 61,100 2,000 30,600 19,000
SS 100 6000 93,500 1,600 1+6,800 27,000
800 27^5 1+2,800 50,000 21,1+00 >106

design life calculated using MB-365O rules; C1 = 2.0, and K2 = 1+. 5 for tees and elbows;
C-l = 1.0, Kx = 1+.5 for couplings; and Figs. I-9.I for carbon steel and 1-9.2 for stainless steel.
CS = SA-181-1 carbon steel; SS = type 30I+ stainless steel.
ANSI BI6.II-I966 pressure ratings from Table 1+.

CH
OMCUAOV CUOMN
OQ
O
 33

In summary, the recommended stress indices for Bl6.ll socket-welding

fittings for pressure loading are:

Type of fitting Bx C1 iq

Tees 1.0 2.0 1+.5

90 and 1+5° elbows 1.0 2.0 1+-5
Couplings 0.5 1-0 1+.5

Comparable indices for the girth fillet weld used to attach the fitting to
the pipe are: B1 = 0.75, Cx = 2.0, and Kx = 3.0.
Development of the indices for fillet welds, including their specific
application to Bl6.ll socket-welding fittings, is included in ref. 10.
The indices recommended therein were adopted by the Code at the Main Boiler
Code Committee meeting of Nov. 3, 1972.

6. STRESS INDICES FOR MOMENT LOADINGS

Insofar as the authors are aware, no published test data exist on the
effects of moment loadings on ANSI Bl6.ll fittings. Thus, as in the pre
vious chapter, other means must be used to determine reasonable values for
the stress indices. For the case where 3000-lb-class fittings are used in
a sched-1+0 piping system (or any case where the fittings are heavier than
the attached pipe), one might expect that if fatigue failures occurred they
would occur in the pipe at the toe of the fillet-weld joints rather than
in the body of the fittings because of the difference in the relative wall
thickness of the two components. However, in piping systems where the
relative wall thicknesses are comparable, such as in a sched-80 piping sys
tem using 3000-lb class fittings, it seems possible that failures could
occur in the fittings as well as in the pipe. Proposed stress indices for
fittings must therefore protect the design against this possibility as
well. Obviously, a few data points from well-conducted tests are needed.
However, in the absence of such data, we will base the proposed indices
for moment loadings on comparable indices for butt-welding components
listed in Table NB-3683.2-I of the Code.
 3i+

Socket-Welding Tees

ANSI Bl6.ll socket-welding tees and ANSI BI6.9 butt-welding tees are
similar in shape except for the relatively sharper transition radii on the
outer surface of the socket-welding tees and for the reentrant corner at
the bottom of the socket. Under bending-moment loads, the maximum stresses
in butt-welding tees occur in the transition region between the branch and
the run and apparently increase as the radius becomes smaller.* We con
jecture that a similar situation exists for socket-welding tees. Although
neither the ANSI BI6.9 nor the ANSI Bl6.ll standard specifies a minimum
radius for this transition, the radius is normally much larger for BI6.9
than for Bl6.ll tees. It thus seems advisable to increase the existing
stress indices for butt-welding tees by some factor to arrive at appropri
ate indices for Bl6.ll socket-welding tees; a factor of 1.5 is recommended.
The existing C2 index for BI6.9 butt-welding tees is given by the
formula**

Cp2 = 0.67(R
v m
/Tr )2/3 ,

where R = (D - t)/2 = r is the mean radius and T =t is the nominal

wall thickness of the equivalent run pipe. The primary-stress index is
given as B2 = 0.75C2, and the peak-stress index is given as K2 = 1.0. If
we restrict the use of the stress indices developed herein to socket-
welding fittings that are forged to shape so that there are no sharp cor
ners on the outer surface, then a peak-stress-index value of K2 =1.0 is
probably adequate. Accordingly, the recommended moment-loading stress
indices for ANSI Bl6.ll socket-welding tees are:

C2 =(1.5) (0.67) (Rm/y2/3 =(r/t)2/3 ,

*Efforts are underway in other parts of the ORNL Piping Program to

more precisely establish this dependency. It is expected that recommen
dations will be developed for butt-welding tees to limit the use of
established stress indices to tees with transition radii larger than some
minimum value.

**Footnote 9 to Table NB-3683.2-I of the Code.

 35

B2 = 0.75C2 = 0.75(r/t)2/3 ,
and

K2 = 1.0 ,

where r and t are the mean radius and nominal wall thickness, respectively,

of the equivalent pipe.

Socket-Welding Elbows

ANSI Bl6.ll socket-welding elbows appear, at first, to be shaped quite

differently from standard butt-welding elbows. As shown earlier by the
dashed lines in Figs. 3, k, 7, and 8, socket-welding elbows are most sim
ilar to "short-radius" butt-welding elbows11 for which the bend radius R
is approximately twice the mean radius r of the pipe. The socket-welding
elbows, however, have a shorter bend radius and relatively heavy reinforc
ing socket rings at the ends. Because of these basic differences in shape,
one is hesitant about adopting the stress indices given in the Code for
butt-welding elbows without confirming experimental or analytical data.
On closer examination, however, it appears that the differences in shape
should result in lower maximum stresses for the socket-welding elbows.
The bending-moment stress indices currently given in the Code (Table
NB-3683.2-I) for ANSI standard butt-welding elbows are: C2 =
1.95 [(r/t)(r/R)]2/3 s 1.5, B2 = 0.75C2, and K2 = 1.0, where r is the
mean radius of the cross section, t is the nominal wall thickness, and R
is the bend radius. These indices are based on numerous experimental and
analytical studies and represent an upper bound for the maximum stress
intensity in the elbow due to an in-plane or out-of-plane bending moment.
They are also consistent with theoretical solutions based on the assump
tion that every cross section deforms the same (i.e., variations along
the length of the elbow are neglected). It is known, however, that pipe
or flanges welded to the ends of a butt-welding elbow will significantly
reduce the maximum stresses caused by bending.* It is our belief that

*Various experimental studies show this to be true, and analytical

parameter studies are currently in progress to more precisely define the
influence of various structures welded to the ends of the elbow.
 36

these so-called end effects will more than compensate for the influence
of the different shape of socket-welding elbows.
We therefore recommend that the indices for "short-radius" butt-

welding elbows (r/R = 1/2) be used for socket-welding elbows. Thus:

C2 = 1.23(r/t)2/3 ,

B2 = 0.75C2 ,
and
K2 = 1.0 ,

where r and t are the mean radius and nominal wall thickness, respectively,
of the equivalent pipe.

Socket-Welding Couplings

As noted earlier, a Bl6.ll coupling is simply a cylindrical shell

with an interior stop ring at the base of the socket, where the possibil
ity exists for a sharp machined corner being produced during fabrication.
To cover this condition, it is recommended that the peak-stress index K
be taken as 1+.5, the same as proposed for Kx in the previous chapter. For
the other indices, the existing values for straight pipe should be ade
quate (i.e., B2 = 1.0 and C2 = 1.0).

Summary of Proposed Stress Indices

for Moment Loadings

Proposed stress indices for ANSI Bl6.ll socket-welding elbows under

moment loadings, to be used with the design-analysis procedures of Para
graph NB-365O for Class-1 piping systems, are given in Table 9. Corre
sponding stress indices, taken from the Code, for butt-welding fittings
and for the girth fillet welds used to attach the fitting to the pipe are
also given for comparison. Since the C2 indices for tees and elbows are
given as functions of the dimensionless ratio (r/t), numerical values for
these are given in Table 10 over the range of applicable nominal pipe
sizes (i.e., 1/2 to 2 in.). For these sizes, the numerical values are
quite modest, ranging from a minimum of 1.1+5 for l/2-in., 6000-lb-class
tees to a maximum of 3.57 for 2-in., 3000-lb-class elbows.
 37

Table 9- Summary of stress indices for moment loadings

Primary-plus -s«scondary- Peak-

Type of Primary-load
load stress index stress
fitting index (B2)
(c2) index (K2)

ANSI Bl6.ll socket- 0.75C2 (r/t)2/3 1.0

welding tee

ANSI Bl6.ll elbow 0.75C2 1.23(r/t)2/3 1.0

(90 and 1+5°)

ANSI Bl6.ll socket- 1.0 1.0 4.5

welding coupling

ANSI BI6.9 butt- 0.75C2 0.67(r/t)2/3 1.0

welding tee

ANSI B16.28, etc. 0.75C2 1.95[(r/t)(r/R)]2/3 1.0

butt-welding elbows

Straight pipe remote 1.0 1.0 1.0

from welds

Girth fillet welda 1.5 2.1 2.0

^Development of the indices for fillet welds, including specific

application to fillet welds between pipe and socket-welding fittings
is given in Rodabaugh and Moore.
 38

Table 10. C2 indices for Bl6.ll socket-welding tees

and elbows for nominal pipe sizes of 1/2 to 2 in.

Nominal dimensions C2 values

Fitting
size class D t Tee Elbow
(in.)
0 r/t
(lb) (in.) (in.) [1.00(r/t);2/3] [1.23(r/t)2/3]
1/2 3000 0.81+0 0.H+7 2.357 1.77 2.18
6000 O.187 1.7^ 1.1+5 1.78

3A 3000 1.050 O.15I+ 2.909 2.01+ 2.51

6ooo 0.218 1.908 1.5^ 1.89

1 3000 1.315 0.179 3.173 2.16 2.66

6ooo O.250 2.130 1.66 2.01+

11/1+ 3000 1.660 0.191 3.81+6 2.1+6 3-02

6ooo O.250 2.820 1.20 2.1+6

1 1/2 3000 1.900 0.200 1+.250 2.62 3.23

6000 0.281 2.881 2.03 2.1+9
2 3000 2.375 0.218 1+.9I+7 2.90 3-57
6000 o^ 2.962 2.06 2.51+

Comparison of Design Fatigue Lives for Socket-

Welding Fittings and Girth Fillet Welds

From the piping-system-design point of view, one of the more important

questions concerning the use of socket-welding fittings is whether the fil
let weld joining the fitting to the pipe or the fitting itself is more
likely to fail under cyclic loading. According to the present Code philos
ophy, the component with the larger alternating stress intensity, S ,
will fail first,* where S is determined by the procedures given in Sub
paragraph NB-3653. Therefore, to determine whether the fillet weld or the
fitting itself will govern the piping-system design (i.e., fail first),

*A more precise statement is that the allowable number of design cy

cles permitted by the Code is a decreasing function of the magnitude of
the alternating stress intensity S .
 39

it is necessary to determine comparative values of S for the same load-

alt
ing conditions.
In the following example, it is shown that under certain conditions
the allowable cyclic design life will be shorter for the fillet weld than
for the fitting, while for other conditions the reverse will hold. In this
discussion, we consider a carbon-steel piping system of either sched 80 or
sched 160, with 3000-lb- or 6000-lb-class carbon-steel fittings, respec
tively, loaded with a cyclic moment whose range is equal to or less than
that required to give a maximum stress intensity in the pipe of 3S .
For a cyclic-moment-loading range of magnitude M. acting alone (i.e.,
in the absence of other loadings), a determination of S reduces to eval
uating the following set of equations (obtained from Table 1 given earlier):

Salt =KeV2 > ^a)

where

Sp =K2C^11/Z (5b)
and

K = 1.0 for S < ^S , (5c)

e n •" m ' v '

i1 ~
Ke =1.0 + n(m - ?<
1) (z-§
\3S l.o)/ for 3S
J m < Sn < 3mS
J m ,
' (5d)
w '

or

K = - for S a 3mS (5e)

en n ~* m ^ '

with

sn = c^/z . (5f)
The section modulus Z = (17/32) (D4 - D4)/D is taken as that of the equiv
alent pipe for the fitting and as that of the nominal size of the pipe that
is actually used for the fillet weld. In the first part of this discus
sion we assume that both section moduli are the same. The design stress
intensities are given in Appendix I of the Code for the various materials;
 ko

m and n are materials parameters given in Subsubparagraph NB-3228.3. For

carbon steel, S = 20,000 psi, m = 3.0, and n = 0.2.
In the following, each piping product (pipe, fillet weld, and fit
ting) will be subjected to the same loadings, but will have different
stress ranges depending on the numerical values of the stress indices.
Therefore, a separate set of equations must be written for each piping
product.

If the maximum-stress-intensity range in the pipe is expressed as

(M./Z) . = ASm
v 1' 'pipe
(A
v
<: 3)
~JJ

and the appropriate materials parameter values m = 3, n = 0.2, and stress

indices from the following table are substituted into Eqs. (5), a separate
set of equations can be written for each piping product.

Stress indices for use in Eqs. (5)

Product
C2 K2

Straight pipe 1.0 1.0

Fillet weld 2.1 2.0
Socket welding coupling 1.0 U.5
Socket welding tees and Cg-p 1.0
elbows*

*Numerical values of C„„

taken from Table 10.

The resulting equations are as follows:

For straight pipe,

(S ) . = ASm
v n'pipe
(A
v
<; 3) ,
~" '
(6a)
K '

(K ) . = 1.0 ,
v e'pipe '
(6b)
K '

(Sp )pipe
. = ASm ,
'
(6c)
K '
and

(Salt)pipe = ^/2)ASm • (6d)

 1+1

For fillet welds,

(S ) = 2.IAS (A ^ 3) , (7a)
n7w m v '

(K ) = 1.0
x e'w
(A ^ 3/2.1 < 1.1+29) , (7b)

(K ) = 1.0 + 2(0.7A - 1) (1.1+29 ^ A 5; 3) , (7c)

(S ) = 1+.2AS , (7d)
v p'w m ' v '
and
(S _. ) = 2.1(K ) AS . (7e)
v alt'w v e'w m v /

For socket-welding couplings,

(Sn)c =ASm (A ^ 3) , (8a)

(Ke)c = 1.0 (A* 3) , (8b)

(Sp)c =^5ASm , (8c)

and

For socket-welding tees and elbows,

(Sn)f = C2fASm (A ^ 3) , (9a)

(Ke)f = 1.0 (C2fA 5^ 3) , (9b)

(Ke)f =1.0 +2(-|£- -l.o) (3 <C2fA <, 9) , (9c)

(Ke)f = 5-0 (C2fA ^ 9) , (9d)

<V f =Vm ' (9S)

and

<Wf =^Vf^m ' ^f)

For the case in which a socket-welding coupling is used, it can be
seen from Eqs. (7c), (7e), and (8d) that if A <, 1.1+8, then S for the
coupling [Eq. (8d)] will be slightly larger (2.25 vs 2.1) than S for
 k2

the weld [Eq. (7e)]. In this case, the coupling will fail before the
weld. When A > 1.1+8, the weld is predicted to fail first. Note, however,
that these conclusions are based entirely on the relative values of the
stress indices, which in turn are based on inadequate cyclic-fatigue-test
data. If adequate test data were to become available, the indices could
be changed to reflect the test results.

The case in which a socket-welding tee or elbow is used is slightly

more complicated because the stress indices are given in parametric form
rather than as constants. For this case, it is more convenient to deter
mine the minimum value of C (the stress index for the fitting) as a
function of the loading-range parameter A for which S will be the same
ctJ-"G

for both components [i.e., (S&lt)w = (salt)f]- If C is larger than this

critical value, the fitting will fail first; if it is smaller, the fillet
weld will fail first.

For this case there are three distinct loading regimes. If K for
e

both the fillet weld and the fitting is 1.0 [Eqs. (7b) and (9b)], the
critical value for C , obtained by setting Eq. (7e) equal to Eq. (9f),
is

c2fc = h.2 . (10)

Equation (10) is valid for A <, s/k.2 < 0.711+.
If 0.711+ < A < 1.1+29, then K for the fillet weld equals 1.0 [Eq.
(7b)], and Kg for the fitting is between 1.0 and 5.0 [Eq. (9c)]. The
critical value for C2f, obtained by setting Eq. (7e) equal to Eq. (9f),
is found to be a quadratic function of A. Thus,

C = (lAA)(3 +V/100.8A + 9) . (11)

If 1.1+29 < A < 3, then Kg for both the fillet weld and the fitting
is greater than 1 [Eqs. (7c) and
ar (9c)]. The critical value for C for
this case is also given by a quadratic function of A:

C2fc = (XAA)(3 +v/Ha. 12A2 - 100.8A + 9) . (12)

Figure 11+ shows C2fc as a function of A for all three regions. The
minimum value of C2fc is 2.69 when A = 1.1+29, and the maximum stress index
 h3

ORNL-DWG 75-5967

S = 0.714
-C2fc F0R B16-11 TEES AND ELBOWS
2-in. DIAMETER AND SMALLER
- 4
(-
t-

UJ
.!.
I n.-DIAMETERl
h-
/I* 0.915 iELBOWS J
a. 3
o

-C2fc =2.69 C2fc=2.85

O ,4 = 1.429

5
<

o:
o

1 2

MOMENT LOADING RANGE PARAMETERS

Fig. 11+. Critical value of C2 for Bl6.ll elbows and tees as a

function of the cyclie-bending-moment-stress range AS in the attached
pipe.
 1+1+

C2 from Table 10 is 3.57 for 2-in.-diam, 3000-lb-class elbows. Thus, if

the cyclic bending-moment-stress range in the pipe is less than 0.915S
m
[from Eq. (11) with C2fc =3.57] or if the value of C2 for the fitting is
less than 2.69, then S&lt will be larger in the weld than in the fitting,
and the analysis indicates that the weld will fail first. The value of
C2 from Table 10 is larger than 2.69 for only the three 3000-lb-class el
bows larger than l-in.-diam and for the 2-in.-diam, 3000-lb-class tee.
Thus, the analysis predicts that the bodies of these fittings may fail
before the fillet welds if the bending-moment-stress range in the pipe
is greater than 0.915Sm. For the other 20 (of 2k) fittings listed in Ta
ble 10, the fillet weld is always predicted to fail first.
Table 11 shows design-fatigue-cycle comparisons between the 2-in.,
3000-lb-class elbow (C2 = 3.57) and the fillet weld for several nominal
stress ranges up to Sn = 3Sm (60,000 psi) in the corresponding sched-80
pipe. Values in the table show that for nominal stress ranges greater
than about l-5Sm (30,000 psi) the allowable number of design cycles for
the fitting is quite low (N < 260) compared with that of the fillet weld
(N < 1600). In this case it might be advisable to use a 6000-lb-class
fitting in the sched-80 pipeline.
For piping systems in which the equivalent pipe schedule for the
fitting is heavier than the nominal schedule of the attached pipe, the
analysis given in Eqs. (6) through (12) must be modified to include the
heavier section modulus of the fitting. If we let G represent the ratio
of the section modulus of the pipe Z to that of the fitting Z

G =VZf ' (13)

then equations similar to Eqs. (8) and (9) for couplings and for tees and
elbows, respectively, can be generated. Equations (6) and (7) for straight
pipe and for the fillet weld, respectively, need not be modified.

For socket-welding couplings,

(SJc = AGSm (A ^ 3) , (ll+a)

and

(Vc = 1'° (AG * 3) ; (ll+b)

 Table 11. Comparison of design cycles for girth fillet weld with
that for 2-in., 3000-lb Bl6.ll elbow. Elbow and pipe material
of carbon steel; S = 20,000 psi. Pipe is sched 80.

Girth f i l l e t welda 2-in., 3000-lb elbow Design cycles

range, S S
s ail+ 2--in., 3000-
M±/Z (psi) (psi)
n
e
alt
(psi) (psi)
n
e
(psi)
t Fillet
weld lb elbow

10,000 21,000 1.0 21,000 35,700 1.0 17,850 80,000 150,000

15,000 31,500 1.0 31,500 53,550 1.0 26,775 18,000 30,000
20,000 1+2,000 1.0 1+2,000 71,1+00 1.38 ^9,256 7,000 ^,500
25,000 52,500 1.0 52,500 89,250 1.975 88,131+ 3,800 900
30,000 63,000 1.1 69,300 107,100 2.57 137,623 1,600 260 VJl

60,000 126,000 3-2 277,200 211+, 200 5-0 535,000 ^5 12

aGirth fillet weld: Sn = 2.1 M./z,

-.
S = 1+.2 M./z,
1' ' p i' '
and Salt
.. = KeSp'/2.
Kg for carbon steel = 1.0 + 2[(S /60,000) - 1] but not less than 1.0 nor
more than 5.0.

'Two-inch, 3000-lb elbow: Sn =3-57 M./Z, Sp =3-57 M./Z, and S^ =KeSp/2.

*D esign cycles obtained from Code Figure 1-9.1; ultimate tensile strength < 80,000 psi.
 1+6

but since G < 1,

(Ke)c = 1.0 (A <. 3) , (l^c)

(S ) = 1+.5 AGS , (ll+d)
v pyc m '
and

(Salt>c = 2'25 AGSm • ^

For socket-welding tees and elbows,

(Sn)f = C2fAGSm (Ai3) , (15a)

(Ke)f = 1.0 (C2fAG <; 3) , (15b)
/C ^G \
(Ke)f =1.0 +2\-Z± 1.0J (3 <, C2fAG <; 9) , (15c)
(Ke)f = 5 (C2fAG ^ 9) , (15d)
<Vf = C2^\ > ^e)
and

<Salt>f = 1/2^Ke)fC2fAGSm • ^
For a socket-welding coupling, it follows from Eqs. (7) and (ll+) that
if

G < 2.1/2.25 < O.933 for A < 1.1+29 , (16a)

or

G < (2.1/2.25) (1.1+A - 1) for 1.1+29 < A < 3 , (16b)

S for the fillet weld [Eq. (7e)] will be larger than S for the cou
pling [Eq. (ll+e)], and the weld will fail before the coupling. Further,
the values for Z given earlier in Table 3 indicate that for pipe sizes
greater than l/l+ in., G will always be less than O.933 when a heavier
class coupling is used.
For socket-welding tees and elbows that are heavier than the nominal
size of the joining pipe, the critical value for the stress index C?f, is
given by the following three equations:
 hi

C2fc = k-2/Q (A * 0-71U) , (17a)

C2fc = I+A^3 +V/100.8A + 9) (0.711+ £ A<; 1.1+29) , (17b)

and

C2fc =I+1g(3 +yi^l.l2A2 -100.8A +9) (1.1+29 <; A£3) .(17c)

It is rather interesting to note that, for this case, C is proportional
to the curve shown in Fig. ll+ for the previous case differing by the factor
l/G. Thus, if a 2-in.-diam, 6000-lb-class elbow (for which C = 2.?1+)
is used in a sched-80 pipeline (G = Z /Zf =0.731/0.979 =0.7^-7), Eqf.
(17) indicate that the fillet weld will always fail before tr.f fitting
since the minimum value of C is 2.69/G = 3-60. 1' •€ otr:,..ig:: .-.• - ild t-en
be governed by the allowable number of fatigue cvr.l----- tr :'.ne fillet weld
given previously in Table 11.
In general, when fittings of a heavier cla>_s t.:.an the mating pipe are
used and G is less than about 0.9, S _, for tT -:; weld will always be gy ter
than S for the fitting. This conclusion applies to all -material- <1
El-L."u

ues of nominal stress, and values of S .

7. STRESS INDICES FOR THERMAL LOADINGS

Thermal-gradient loadings, as well as internal pressure and bending

moments, are included in the analysis procedures given in Paragraph NB-
365O of the Code. Specifically, six of the terms in Code Eqs. (10), 0-1),
and (13), listed earlier in Table 1, involve thermal gradients M^, -mT2,
and (a T - al,), as well as the stress indices C3, Kg, and C3. To ob-
tain reasonable index values for socket-welding fittings, we again note
the geometric similarity between socket-welding fittings and butt-welding
components and base the proposed values on those existing in the Code for
the butt-welding components.

The term IS1 is defined* as the linear temperature difference between

the inside and outside surfaces; ZYT2 is the maximum value of the nonlinear

fParagraphs NB-3653.1 and NB-3653.2.

 1+8

portion of the temperature variation through the wall thickness; and

(a T - a T ) is the difference in thermal expansion across a "gross dis
continuity." The secondary thermal stress indices C3 and C3 are associ
ated with (a3jT8u - aTj
DO
in Code Eqs. (10), (11), and (13), respectively. The
peak-thermal-stress index K3 is associated with both AT-l and (a T — a T, )
in Code Eq. (11). There are no stress indices associated with AT2, al
though it is ''implied" that a stress index equal to 1.0 precedes the term
[1/(1 - v)]Eq|aT2| in Code Eq. (11).
The only well-defined "discontinuities" in the body of a socket-
welding fitting are at the base of the sockets. There are at least two
of these, and although it might be possible in some applications to de
termine an average temperature difference (T — T ) between the body and
the sockets,* the resulting calculated stress would be of doubtful sig
nificance in evaluating the adequacy of the design. It is therefore rec
ommended that C3 = C3 = 0.0 be used for socket-welding fittings. It
should be noted, however, that we are not recommending that the indices
C3 = 1.8 and C3 = 1.0 for the fillet welds joining the fittings to the
pipe be changed. It is quite possible that significant thermal stresses
could be developed in the fillet welds during thermal transients; thus
the thermal-stress terms are needed for a proper evaluation of the design.
The peak-thermal-stress index Kg is used to evaluate thermal bending
stresses through the wall thickness, as, for example, through the section
A-A7 of the socket-welding elbow shown in Fig. 15. In the Code, K3 is
given as 1.0 for straight pipe, butt-welding tees, and butt-welding el
bows. For reasons of geometric similarity, K3 = 1.0 is also considered
appropriate for the socket-welding fittings treated in this report. In
a similar manner, the term involving AT2 in Code Eq. (11) (i.e.,
[l/(l - v)]Eq|aT2| } along with its "implied" stress index of 1.0 contrib
ute to the thermal stresses in a socket-welding fitting in the same way
as for butt-welding components. It is thus appropriate to retain this
term as it is in the evaluation of Code Eq. (11) for socket-welding fit
tings .

^Note that in this case a = a .

a b
 1+9

ORNL-DWG 72-13663

Fig. 15. Bl6.ll socket-welding 90° elbow showing section AA/, the
probable critical section for evaluation of ATX and AT2 of such a fit
ting body.
 50

In summary, for thermal-gradient loadings on ANSI Bl6.ll socket-

welding fittings, our recommendations are to set C3 = C3 = 0.0 and K3
1.0 and to retain the term [l/(l - v)]Ea|/i\T2| in Code Eq. (11) as it
presently stands.

8. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Stress indices for socket-welding tees, elbows, and couplings that

meet the fabrication requirements of the ANSI Bl6.ll standard2 are pre
sented in this report for use with the design-stress-analysis rules of
NB-36OO, Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.1 At
present, the Code permits the use of socket-welding fittings of 2-in.
nominal size and smaller in both Class-1 and Class-2 piping systems and
provides stress indices (Class 1) and stress intensification factors
(Class 2) for the fillet welds joining the fittings to the pipe. The
Code does not, however, provide either stress indices or stress-intensity
factors for the body of the fitting itself. In order to comply with a
strict interpretation of the Code rules for Class-1 piping, it would
therefore be necessary to perform a theoretical or an experimental stress
analysis of the fitting and to include the analysis in the stress report
[see NB-368l(d)].
For Class-2 piping (subarticle NC) the Code fails to give instruc
tions for the analysis of components not specifically covered by subpara
graph "NC-3673 - Analysis." Since stress-intensification factors for
socket-welding fittings are not presently included, it might reasonably
be inferred that an analysis is not considered necessary. The authors of
this report, however, feel that not including such instructions may have
been an oversight and that the Code should, as a minimum, give an indica
tion of intent. We therefore recommend that this point be clarified. If
it should be considered appropriate, the stress indices given here for
socket-welding fittings in Class-1 piping could easily be modified for
Class-2 piping and included in the Code or in a special Code Case.
 51

Part of the reason for not including stress indices for socket-weld
ing fittings in the Code is that there is, essentially, no specific in
formation in the literature for developing such indices. To fully over
come this difficulty, it would be necessary to develop reasonable ana
lytical models, to conduct stress-analysis parameter studies for the dif
ferent types of fittings and loadings, and to perform at least a few
carefully instrumented tests. Fatigue-test data for both cyclic pressure
and cyclic moment loadings would be especially useful. Next in importance
would be photoelastic or strain-gage data on the stress concentrations at
the bottom of the sockets.

Since data of this type were not available, the stress indices pre
sented here are based on engineering judgment and combinations of the fol
lowing factors: the dimensional and burst-pressure requirements of the
ANSI Bl6.ll standard; the standard pressure-temperature ratings of the
fittings; their apparent shapes, as indicated from a small random sampling
of off-the-shelf fittings; and analogies with similar butt-welding fit
tings that are presently covered by NB-36OO. As a general rule, we pro
pose to restrict the use of the new indices to socket-welding fittings for
which the final exterior contour is forged to shape. Hopefully, this
requirement will tend to eliminate the use of fittings with sharp external
surface transitions, where fatigue cracks are likely to develop.
The proposed Bz stress index for primary pressure stresses is based
on the burst-pressure requirements of the ANSI Bl6.ll standard and on the
Code requirement (NB-36I+9) that piping products considered for use in
Class-1 systems meet these requirements. The proposed B2 stress index is
associated with the C2 index in the same manner as is currently done for
butt-welding components. The indices Cx and Kx for primary-plus-secondary
stresses and for cyclic pressure loading, respectively, are based on a
fatigue analysis of a hypothetical piping system and on a set of operating
service conditions that appears to be conservative with respect to indus
trial practice. The indices C2 and K2 for moment loadings are based on
existing stress indices for geometrically similar butt-welding components.
The indices C3 and C3 for secondary thermal stresses are proposed to be
set equal to zero because of the doubtful significance of and the diffi
culties with their use in this particular application. Cyclic thermal
 52

stresses associated with K3 may, however, be significant, and thus a value

of K3 = 1.0 is proposed. All of the proposed stress indices for socket-
welding fittings are summarized in Table 12, along with comparable stress
indices for the girth fillet welds that join the fittings to the pipe.
An examination of Table 12 shows that several of the proposed stress
indices are larger than the existing indices for the girth fillet welds.
In most cases this reflects our concern over the lack of more definitive
information, although the values are compatible with available information,
including some unpublished pressure-burst data4 and some field-failure-
report data cited in Appendix B. The major impact of the proposed indices
may be to require a somewhat more conservative design on socket-welding
tees and elbows, although for most cases involving moment loadings the
stress indices for the fillet welds will continue to govern the design.
In those cases where the proposed indices would govern the design, a po
tentially simple and inexpensive solution is to use the next-heavier-
class fitting.
The stress indices for both girth fillet welds and Bl6.ll fittings
are believed to be quite conservative. On a relative basis, the indices
for Bl6.ll fittings are probably more conservative than those for girth
fillet welds. However, until such time as fatigue-test data or other per
tinent data become available on Bl6.ll fittings, the conservative indices
developed herein should be used.

It is our recommendation that the stress indices presented herein for

socket-welding tees, elbows, and couplings be introduced first as a Code
Case for the reasons given above. Proposed wording for the Code Case is
given in Appendix A. This will give the technical community a chance to
use and comment on the information without the mandatory requirements of
a Code revision. It may also provide further incentive for development
of the engineering data needed to verify the adequacy or to reduce the
conservatism of these indices.

After a reasonable length of time, it will be desirable to incorpo

rate stress indices and stress-intensification factors for socket-welding
fittings into the Code as revisions. Before this is done, however, we
recommend that paragraph NB-368O, "Stress Indices and Flexibility Factors,"
be edited and rewritten to simplify the stress-index presentation now

f tJWreiti^mnmw^teitUi
 Table 12. Summary of proposed stress indices for ANSI Bl6.ll
socket-welding fittings3, and stress indices for
girth fillet welds for comparison

Internal pre ssure Moment loading Thermal loading

Component
Bi Ci Ki B2 C2 K2 C3 C3 K3
Socket-welding fittings9.
m b
Tees 1.0 2.0 •+•5 (c) (c) 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

90 and 1+5° elbows 1.0 2.0 •+•5 (d) (a) 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

Couplings 0.5 1.0 •+.5 1.0 1.0 •+.5 0.0 0.0 1.0

Girth fillet welds to

0.75 2.0 3.0 1.5 2.1 2.0 1.1 1.0 3.0
socket-welding fittings
VJl
OJ

Socket-welding fitting made in accordance with ANSI Bl6.ll in nominal

sizes of 2 in. and smaller. Applicable only if exterior contour of fitting
is forged to shape and if the pressure class of the fitting is rated equal
to or greater than the allowable design pressure of the attached pipe.
For socket-welding tees, M. in Code Eqs. (9) to (13) must be replaced
with M.j_ = Mr + Mjj, where Mr and M^ are calculated according to the rules in
Footnote 5, Table NB-3683.2-I.
cT
"B2 = 0.75C2 and C2 = (r/t)2'3, where r = mean radius and t = nominal
wall thickness of equivalent pipe.
%s =0.75C2 and C2 = I.23 (r/t)2/3, where r =mean radius and t =
nominal wall thickness of equivalent pipe.
 5^

given in Table NB-3683.2-I. The present format, including the table and
its footnotes, is already quite complicated. If the table were simply
expanded to include stress indices for other components, it would become
increasingly difficult to interpret and use correctly. It may, for exam
ple, be desirable to write new subparagraphs under NB-3683 for the dif
ferent types of piping products.
In conducting this study, we also noted the need for several minor
changes in the Code for clarification of intent. We therefore recommend

the following editorial revisions.

1. As presently written, the first sentence of subparagraph NB-
3661.2(b) is misleading in that the ANSI Bl6.ll standard does not give
requirements for the fillet welds that join the fitting to the pipe. In
addition, the other requirements are already included in the rules for
fabrication and installation, Article NB-1+000. We therefore propose to
replace the present wording:
"(b) Socket welded piping joints shall conform to the requirements
specified in ANSI Bl6.il, the applicable standards listed in
Table NB-369I.I, and shown in Fig. NB-1+1+27.1. A gap of approxi
mately l/l6 in. shall be provided between the end of the pipe
and the bottom of the socket before welding"
with the following:
"(b) Socket-welded piping joints shall be made in accordance with the
applicable provisions of NB-1+1+00."
2. The reference given in subparagraph NB-366I.I is in error, and
we propose to change the present:
"NB-366I.I General Requirements. Welded joints shall be made in
accordance with NB-1+200"

to the following:
"NB-366I.I General Requirements. Welded joints shall be made in
accordance with NB-1+1+00."

3. The I966 edition of ANSI Bl6.ll listed in Table NB-369I.I, "Dimen

sional Standards," is out of date by the revisions included in the I973
edition of the standard. For example, the revised standard establishes
the pressure-temperature ratings for socket-welding fittings as equivalent
to the ratings for straight seamless pipe under the rules of the appropriate
 55

code. This provision of ANSI B16.11-1973 will eliminate the problems

discussed in Chaps. 1+ and 5 of the present report. Note also that the
1973 edition increases the required burst pressure and clarifies several
other points as well. This item has been discussed with the ASME Code
Committee, as well as other revisions to Table NB-369I.I considered ap
propriate. We understand that the table has been revised and updated,
and that a Code revision will be issued.

9. ACKNOWLEDGMENT S

The authors wish to thank the members of Task Group 1 of the Pressure
Vessel Research Committee, Subcommittee on Piping, Pumps, and Valves, and
the members of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Committee, Subgroup
on Piping (SGD)(SC-III), for their review and valuable suggestions. They
also wish to acknowledge the extensive editorial contributions of F. M.
O'Hara, Jr., in preparation of this report. Material given in Table 2
was abstracted from ref. 3 with permission of the publishers, the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers.
 56

10. REFERENCES

1. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1—I97I+
Edition, Nuclear Power Plant Components, American Society of Mechani
cal Engineers, New York, I97I+.

2. ASA Bl6.II-I966, Forged Steel Fittings, Socket-Welding and Threaded,

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1966.

3. ANSI Bl6.11-1973, Forged Steel Fittings, Socket-Welding and Threaded,

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1973-

1+. Private communication, D. K. Greenwald, Ladish Co., Cudahy, WI,

Apr. 28, I967.

5. ANSI B36.IO—1970, Wrought Steel and Wrought-Iron Pipe, American Society

of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1970.

6. Piping Engineering, pp. I3-2I+, Tube-Turns Division of Chemetron Corp.,

Louisville, KY, I969.

7. ASTM A 182-72, "Standard Specification for Forged or Rolled Alloy-

Steel Pipe Flanges, Forged Fittings, and Valves and Parts for High-
Temperature Service," pp. 89-95 in I97I+ Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Part 1, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA,
197^.

8. ASTM A 105-71, "Standard Specification for Forgings, Carbon Steel, for

Piping Components," pp. 20-21+ in 197I+ Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Part 1, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA,
197^.

9- ASA BI6.5—I96I, Steel Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings, American

Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1961.

10. E. C. Rodabaugh and S. E. Moore, Stress Indices for Girth-Welded

Pipe Joints Including the Effects of Radial Weld Shrinkage, Mis
match, and Tapered Wall Transitions, OKNL-TM-36I+3 (to be published) .

11. ANSI BI6.28-I96I+ (rev. 1972), Wrought Steel Buttwelding Short Radius
Elbows and Returns, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New
York, I972.
 57

APPENDIX A

PROPOSED CODE CASE ON STRESS INDICES FOR

SOCKET-WELDING FITTINGS

Inquiry

What stress indices may be used in NB-3650 of Section III for forged-
steel, socket-welding elbows, tees, and couplings that meet the require
ments of ANSI-B16.11-1973?

Repiy

It is the opinion of the committee that the stress indices listed in

Table A.l may be used within the limitations given in Footnote a of the
table. Evaluation of socket-welding fittings in accordance with NB-365O
shall include separate evaluation of (1) the body of the fitting, using
the stress indices given in Table 1, and (2) the girth fillet welds be
tween the pipe and fitting, using the stress indices given in Table NB-
3683.2-I for girth fillet welds.
 Table A.l. Proposed Code Case "Table 1. Stress
Indices for ANSI Bl6.ll Socket-Welding Fittings"

Internal pre;ssure Moment loading Thermal loading

Component
Bi Ci Ki B2 C2 K2 C3 C3 K3

Socket-welding fittings3.
Tees13 1.0 2.0 h.5 (c) (c) 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

90 and I+50 elbows 1.0 2.0 ^•5 (d) (a) 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

Couplings 0.5 1.0 h.5 1.0 1.0 h.5 0.0 0.0 1.0

Socket-welding fitting made in accordance with ANSI Bl6.ll in nominal VJl

sizes of 2 in, and smaller. Applicable only if exterior contour of fitting co

is forged to shape and if the pressure class of the fitting is rated equal
to or greater than the allowable design pressure of the attached pipe.
For socket-welding tees, M. in Code Eqs. (9) to (13) must be replaced
with M.^ = Mp + M^, where Mr and M^ are calculated according to the rules in
Footnote 5, Table NB-3683.2-I.
B2 = 0.75C2 and C2 = (r/t);\2/3 where r = mean radius, t = nominal wall
thickness of equivalent pipe.
ti2 = 0.75C2 and C2 = I.23 (r/t)2/3, where r = mean radius, t = nominal
wall thickness of equivalent pipe.
 59

APPENDIX B

SURVEY OF FAILURES ASSOCIATED WITH SOCKET AND FILLET

WELDS IN NUCLEAR-POWER-PLANT PIPING SYSTEMS

The failure experience of socket-welded fittings in nuclear-power-

plant service was investigated by searching the file (as of Feb. 197^-)
of the Nuclear Safety Information Center. The entire file was searched
using first the key words "Failure, pipe" and then the combination of the
key words "Failure" and "Welds." The items of interest turned up by the
second search were a subset of those found in the first search.

Nine cases of failures were found, one of which involved seven dif
ferent failures. These nine cases are listed in Table B.l. None of the

cases are described in sufficient detail to ascertain the exact location

of the failure. Also, none of the cases specifically identify the fitting
involved as being an ANSI Bl6.ll fitting.
Of the 16 or 17 failures covered by Table B.l, all but one apparently
was associated with a fillet weld (or pipe thread,* Case 9) between a
component body and the attached pipe. As remarked in the text of this
report, this is the region where failures would normally be expected to
occur. Stress indices for the socket-weld region were developed in ref.
10 and have been included in the NB Subsection of the Code.1 The stress
indices for the fillet welds in socket-welded joints are

Bi - 0.75 B2 = 1.5 C3 = 1.8

C1 = 2.0 C2 = 2.1 ^ = 1.0

Kx =3.0 K2 = 2.0 K3 = 3-0

Four of the cases (1, 2, 6, 7) indicate that the cause of failure was
vibration. Vibration would cause a bending moment in the pipe, hence
the C2-index and C2K -product are intended for use in the design for such
loadings. Because the cases give no indication of the magnitude of pipe
bending stresses caused by the vibration, or the number of cycles to fail
ure, the adequacy of the C2 and K2 indices cannot be evaluated from the
failure data.

*Pipe threaded connections without a seal weld are not permitted in

Class-1 piping. No stress indices are given in NB-36OO for such joints,
either with or without a seal weld.
 60

Table B.l. Failure descriptions obtained from search of Nuclear

Safety Information Center files as of Feb. I97I+

Case
2j0 Plant and failure description

Indian Point 1

A crack developed in the weld of a socket-welded connection of

the vent line to one of the primary coolant pumps. The failure
was attributed to fatigue resulting from vibration of the vent
line. Leakage of coolant resulted.

Palisades Point

A weld in a socket-welded joint just upstream of a charging-pump

shutoff valve cracked from vibrations induced by the positive-
displacement pumps. Leakage occurred, and the failure was noted
while the reactor was in the hot shutdown condition.

Palisades Point

A leak in the recirculating water-pump-seal-cartridge controlled-

leakoff line was found to be due to a cracked socket weld. The
leakage of recirculated water was small, and the leak was dis
covered during shutdown inspection.

Nuclear Ship Savannah

During a routine inspection while the reactor was in the cold-
shutdown condition, a leak was found at a socket weld in 1-in.
pipe in the buffer-seal charge-pump-gland leakoff piping. About
1 gal/min of radioactive coolant fluid leaked through the crack
when the reactor was shut down and the system was cold.

Zion 1

A crack occurred 360° around a welda between 3/l+-in. pipe and an

elbow on June 8, 1973• Both the pipe and the elbow were of type
30l+ stainless steel, and the pipe came from the discharge relief
valve of the positive-displacement charging pumps. The leak
caused the loss of 200 gal of borated water and resulted from vi
bration-induced fatigue. Fracture had propagated along a straight
line with almost negligible microstructural deformation, indica
ting cyclic tensile stresses of a relatively low magnitude. No
defects were found in the weld.

Zion 1

A circumferential crack in the weld of a 3/l+-in. socket-welded

1+5° elbow in the upstream orifice tap for the charging-line flow
meter caused the shutdown of the reactor on Nov. 26, 1973, during
operation at 68% power. The fatigue failure was due to the use
of pipe with an improper wall thickness combined with vibration
from the positive-displacement charging pump.
 61

Table B.l (continued)

Case
Plant and failure description
No.

Indian Point 2

Leaks in the 3/l+-in.-pipe-to-socket-weld branch connections of

two vents in the RHR system were found during a routine inspec
tion while the reactor was in the cold-shutdown condition. Ex
cess vibration caused fatigue failure of the welds. The vent
valves were removed, and the pipes were plugged.

Indian Point 2

A crack occurred in the fillet weld on the pipe side of the up

stream orifice flange connection for the flow transmitter in the
return line of the 6-in. RHR system. The 3/^-in. pipe was also
cracked. A small leak resulted and was observed while the plant
was in a cold-shutdown condition and the RHR system was in ser
vice at 1+00 psig. The affected components were replaced.

La Crosse

During a test of the Emergency Core Spray System it was found that
lo/o of the system' s design flow was leaking. Examination of the
piping disclosed six cases of circumferential cracking of socket
pipe nipples. All of these fittings' cracks initiated in the
threads of the components. Also, a longitudinal crack that was
leaking was also found in the body of a socket-welded coupling.

This may not have been a fillet weld.

Presumably, the cracks were in the pipe.

The only failure directly relevant to this report is described by

the last sentence of case 9: "Also, a longitudinal crack that was leak
ing was also found in the body of a socket-welded coupling." Because
this case gives no indication of loading history, no evaluation of the
failure is possible. Indeed, this particular coupling may have been de
fective and may have leaked during the initial hydrostatic test.
In summary, the survey indicates that failures at socket-welded
joints are not uncommon. The one reported failure in the body of a
socket-welded coupling suggests, however, that the body of Bl6.ll socket-
welding fittings should not be ignored in considering possible failures
of piping systems.
 '63

ORNL-TM-l+929
UC-79, -79h, -79k

INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION

1. R. L. Battiste 32 R. N. Lyon
2. M. Bender 33 R. E. MacPherson

3- J. J, Blass 3^ W. J. McAfee
k. S. E, Bolt 35 W. J. McCarthy, Jr.
5- R. H. Bryan 36 H. C. McCurdy
6-7- J. W, Bryson 37 J. G. Merkle
8. J. H. Butler 38-52 S. E. Moore

9- J. P. Callahan 53 F. M. O'Hara (consultant)

10. C. J. Claffey 5^ T, W. Pickel
11. J. A. Clinard 55 H. Postma
12. C. W. Collins 56 C, E. Pugh
13-1^. J. M. Corum 57 M. Richardson
15. w. B. Cottrell 58 D. N. Robinson
16. J, S. Crowe11 59 R. A. Schmidt
17. F. L. Culler 60 M. R. Sheldon
18. R. W. Derby 61 J. E. Smith
19. W. G. Dodge 62 I. Spiewak
20. G. G. Fee 63 W. C. T. Stoddart
21. M. H. Fontana 61+ J. J. Taylor
22. W. R. Gall 65 D, B. Trauger
23. R. H. Gallagher (consultant) 66 G. D. Whitman
24. M. J. Goglia 67 W. J, Wilcox
25-26. W. L. Greenstreet 68 G, T. Yahr
27. R. C. Gwaltney 69 ORNL Patent Office
28. W. 0. Harms 70-71 Central Research Library
29. H. w. Hoffman 72 Document Reference Section
30. P. R. Kasten 73-78 Laboratory Records Department
31. K. C. Liu 79 Laboratory Records, ORNL RC

Subcontractors

80. W. F. Swinson, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 3683O

81-90. E. C. Rodabaugh, Battelie-Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, OH 1+3201
91. J. K. Hayes, Combustion Engineering, Chattanooga, TN 37^+01
92. R. L. Maxwell, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37916

4
 61+

EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION

93-9I+. Director, Division of Reactor Research and Development, ERDA,

Washington, DC 205I+5
95-96, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, NRC, Washing
ton, DC 20555
97. Director, Reactor Division, ERDA, 0R0
98. Research and Technical Support Division, ERDA, 0R0, Oak Ridge,
TN 3783O
99-175- Nozzle Analysis and Nuclear Design Criteria - Piping-Pumps-
Valves Programs Distribution
176-1+1+9. Given distribution as shown in TID-1+500 under categories UC-79,
-791i, and -79k (25 copies - NTIS)