SHORT PAPER

International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 6, May 2009

Determination of maximum span between pipe

supports using maximum bending stress theory.
Dr. D.P. Vakharia1, Mohd. Farooq A2
1
S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat – 395 007, Gujarat,
India Email: [email protected]
2
S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat – 395 007, Gujarat,
India Email: [email protected]

Abstract:- Straight cross-country pipelines are supported (b) & (c). Fig. 1, shows the picture of a pipeline supported on
throughout the length of pipeline on different forms of two supports.
supports at more or less regular spans. Maximizing the
distance between supports will minimize the number of A. Need Of Pipe Support
supports required, which in turn reduce the total cost of
The layout and design of piping and its supporting elements
erecting these pipe supports. ASME has suggested the
standards for support span, but the bending stress
shall be directed toward preventing the following:
considered in its calculation is very low (15.9 Mpa). There (a) Piping stresses.
are other references also who have listed the maximum (b) Leakage at joints.
support span. In this paper equations for calculating the
maximum span using maximum bending stress are given.
Safety of the design is checked using maximum deflection. A
sample problem is considered for evaluation and the results
thus obtained are compared with standards like ASME
B31.1, U S Army Engineer’s Manual and other references.
The problem is also modeled in ANSYS and analyzed for
deflection. A method of optimizing the distance between
supports using ANSYS © optimization technique is also
discussed.

Index Terms—Introduction, Procedure for calculation of Figure 1. Straight pipe resting on two supports
maximum span, Sample calculation & results,
Comparative analysis, Computer analysis, Optimization,
Conclusion. (c) Excessive thrusts and moments on connected equipment
(such as pumps and turbines).
I. INTRODUCTION (d) Excessive stresses in the supporting (or restraining)
elements.
The cross-country pipelines are mainly supported
(e) Resonance with imposed or fluid-induced vibrations.
on metal pipelines. The material is usually alloy metal,
(f) Excessive interference with thermal expansion and
which is chosen based on the fluid to be transported.
contraction in piping which is otherwise adequately flexible.
These pipelines are supported on different forms of
(g) Unintentional disengagement of piping from its supports.
supports viz, Metal in RCC supports, Metal frame
(h) Excessive piping sag in piping requiring drainage slope;
supports, Small Trusses, etc. If the distance between the
(i) Excessive distortion or sag of piping (e.g.,
supports is maximized, the number of supports required
thermoplastics) subject to creep under conditions of
throughout the length of pipeline will reduce. Thus,
repeated thermal cycling.
reducing the total cost of erection.
(j) Excessive heat flow, exposing supporting elements to
Supports for piping must be spaced with respect to
temperature extremes outside their design limits.
three considerations: [1].
a) Ability to place a support at some desired
location. II. PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM SPAN
b) Keeping sag in the line within limits that will Design formulas for calculating bending stress and
permit drainage. deflection between supports are derived from the usual
c) Avoiding excessive bending stresses from the beam formulas, which depend upon the method of support
uniform and concentrated loads between and the type of loading.
supports.
This paper is based on determining the maximum
distance between supports with respect to considerations

© 2009 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

SHORT PAPER
International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 6, May 2009
46

© 2009 ACADEMY PUBLISHER

Maximum Bending stress,
wp = 0.02466(D-t)t [5]
C. Calculation of weight of fluid
(0.0624wL2  0.1248w L)D
c
Sb= in N/m2 [1]. (1) 
I Weight of fluid d2 x density of fluid in N/m (5)
= 4
Maximum Deflection,

5wL4  8w L3 III. SAMPLE CALCULATION & RESULTS

c
y= Let us calculate the maximum support span for
384EI in meter [1]. (2)
transporting water through a seamless stainless steel pipe
(ASTM A 312 TP 316 L) of 300 NPS through a distance of
Where, w = uniformly distributed weight of pipeline in 15 km. Pressure in pipe is 20 bar at atmospheric temperature
N/m using the procedure described above.
w c = concentrated weight on pipeline in
N L = Span length in m D = 0.3239 m [2]
D = Outside diameter of pipe in m P = 20 bar
d = Inside diameter of pipe in m S b = 34.53 MPa (30% of S a = 115.1 MPa) [4]
E = Modulus of elasticity of pipe in
N/m2 I = Moment of Inertia of pipe in Therefore, using equation (3), thickness of pipe comes
m4 out to be 6 mm.

Note : Maximum bending stress of the pipe can be taken as 30% of Note : Schedule 20 is the nearest schedule for this thickness and according
allowable stress. to thumb rule, the next schedule of pipe is finally selected, which is schedule
30. Schedule 30 gives a thickness of 8.382 mm. [2].
A. Calculation of total weight
Hence, d = 0.3071 m [2].
Total weight = weight of pipe (wp) + weight of fluid Weight of stainless steel pipe is calculated 641.16 N/m [5].
(wf) Weight of water = 726.64 N/m
Total weight = 1367.8 N/m
B. weight of pipe Moment of inertia = 1.0369 x 10-4 m 4
Modulus of Elasticity = 195122 MPa
Thickness of pipe can be calculated as :
PxD
t= [4]. (3)
2(Sa E  PY ) Substituting the above values in the maximum bending
stress equation:
Where, P = Pressure of the fluid in pipe in (Since the pipe is not considered to carry flanges, it will not carry any
concentrated load; hence 2nd element of equation is eliminated)
N/m2 S a = Allowable stress in pipe in
N/m2
E = Quality Factor from ASME B 31.3 Maximum Span between supports is calculated as 11.38
meters, which is rounded back to 11.0 meters. Hence
Y = Coefficient of material from ASME B 31.3
number of supports required for 15 km pipeline is approx.
OR
1364.
The thickness of the pipe can be directly accessed from
With the above values, deflection comes out to be 12.89
[2].
L
Corrosion and other allowances are subtracted from this mm, which is less than , Hence the calculated span is
thickness. Now from this thickness, schedule of pipe can 600
be decided which will give inner diameter of pipe. also safe in deflection.
 2 2 The weight of Stainless Steel pipe can be directly calculated
Annular cross-sectional area of pipe = (D - d )
as ,
4
Hence weight of pipe can be calculated as,

(D2 - d2) x density of pipe material (4)
4
OR
 IV. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS seen that for the sample pipeline of 15 km length, the
minimum number of supports required is calculated by the
Table 1 shows a comparative analysis of the span procedure described in the paper.
shown in different tables marked in references. It can be

47
 TABLE 1
COMPARATIVE VALUES OF SPAN

Values of
Maximum
Span for No. of supports
Sr. SS pipe required for a
References
No. 300 NPS pipeline across 15
filled with km
water
(meters)
1 [Fig. 2] 7.0 2143
2 [6] 9.25 1622
3 [7] 10.0 1500
4 [8] 10.0 1500
5 Calculated 11.0 1364

Fig. 3. Model of the problem on ANSYS screen

Fig. 4 shows the deflection of pipe under uniformly

distributed loading on ANSYS screen.

Figure 2. Support span table from ASME B 31.1

Figure 4. Deflected model of pipeline on ANSYS screen
V. COMPUTER ANALYSIS
The sample problem considered in the previous Fig. 5 shows the result from ANSYS analysis. It shows
section is modeled in ANSYS. The calculated value of that a maximum deflection of 20.799 mm takes place, which
the span is used to model the problem and the deflection is a little higher than what was calculated (i.e., 12.89 mm).
of the pipe is evaluated. The model is constrained at the But in any case the value of deflection remains less than 25
end so that the end does not move under application of mm i.e., Length of pipeline/600.
force. The total weight of the dead load plus weight of Both analytical and computational results say that the
the working fluid is applied at the centre. Fig. 3 shows results obtained in the previous section are safe.
the model of the problem considered.

48
 A saving of approx 780 supports will have a great effect
on the total cost of erection. The cost of erection can further
be reduced if the schedule of pipe (i.e., thickness of pipe) is
raised. This will increase the cost of material but at the same
time reduce the cost of erecting supports. Hence, a
comparative study of cost is required before changing the
schedule of pipe.
The pipeline may be subjected to loads in addition to
the loads considered. For example, small pipelines may
become over stressed if personnel walked on the pipeline or
the weight of valves and/or flanges could over stress the
pipe. The spans would need to be reduced to allow for this.
Design of supports need to consider local stresses due
to horizontal and vertical components of thermal and
earthquake forces.

Figure 5. Results obtained from ANSYS analysis REFERENCES

Books:
VI. OPTIMIZATION [1] Sabin Crocker. Piping Handbook, fourth edition, McGraw Hill,
New York, pg. 744-745
Using the optimization technique of ANSYS [2] Louis Gary Lamit. Piping Systems: Drafting & Design. Prentice
version 10.0, distance between the supports can be –Hall Inc., London, 1981. pg. 14-19
optimized. First the pipeline with the calculated
maximum span is modeled in the software and the Standards:
analysis is done to find the stresses and deflection. [3] The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (1995), ASME
The results of the analysis are stored and taken as B31.1 – 2001 Edition, Power Piping, ASME, New York. pp
reference for optimization. 46.
[4] The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (1995), ASME
The design variables for optimization will be bending
B31.3 – 2000 Edition, Process Piping, ASME, New York. pp
stress and deflection and the objective variable will be 19.
the span of supports. [5] The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (1995), ASME
Limits for the design variables are defined and the B36.19 – 2000 Edition, Process Piping, ASME, New York. pp
objective variable will be given a value of highest order. 182.
The software using its first – order method of
optimization will try to achieve that maximum value Conference proceedings:
while keeping the values of the design variables within [6] Kevin Koorey, Determination of optimal pipe support span for
the limits. geothermal pipelines. Proceedings of World Geothermal
Congress, Kyushu – Tohoku, Japan, May 28 – June 10, 2000.

VII. CONCLUSION Manuals:

[7] Engineering Manual, Liquid Process Piping,
Through this paper we tried to maximize the Department of Army, U S Army corps of Engineers,
distance between supports keeping the values of stresses Washington, DC 20314-1000.
and deflection within safe limits. The aim is to reduce [8] Binder Group, Pipe size details, , Kwik –
the number of supports to reduce the total cost of Smart Solutions.
erection. It is seen from section IV that the number of
supports required is reduced from 2143 to 1364.

49