storage tank piping (79720-ps-002) stress analysis - · pdf filepressure system...

Pressure System Documentation-Calculations

Title: Storage Tank Piping (79720-PS-002) Stress Analysis

Note Number: 79720-P0001 R-

Author(s): Scott Kaminski of 25

Pressure System Documentation - Storage Tank Piping Stress Analysis Page 1

Storage Tank Piping

(79720-PS-002)

Stress Analysis

Revision History:

Revision Date Released Description of Change

- May 11, 2017 Original release, Issued for Project use

Issued for Project Use

Scott Kaminski

SLAC Accelerator Directorate

Mechanical Engineer LCLS-II

Bill Crahen

JLAB Mechanical Engineering

Mechanical Engineer

Mike Bevins

JLAB Mechanical Engineering

Cryogenics Plant Deputy CAM

Approved: 5/11/2017; E-Sign ID : 342655; signed by: DCG: T. Fuell; Re. 1: B. Crahen; Re. 2: M. Bevins |






Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3 2.0 Scope ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 Piping Design Parameters ...................................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Analysis.................................................................................................................................................. 9 5.0 Piping Evaluation ................................................................................................................................. 16 6.0 Flange Evaluation ................................................................................................................................ 21 7.0 Equipment Nozzle Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 22 8.0 Support Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 23 9.0 Associated Analyses / Documents ....................................................................................................... 23 10.0 Summary / Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 24 11.0 References .......................................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix A – AutoPIPE Models / Reports ................................................................................................ 25







1.0 Introduction

The purpose of this Engineering Note is to document the analysis that was performed to ensure

the LCLS-II Cryoplant Tank Farm warm helium piping design is suitable for all operating and

occasional loads.

This report discusses the piping scope (Section 2), the piping design parameters (Section 3), the

basis of the analysis that was performed (Section 4), evaluation of the various piping system

components (Sections 5 through 8), associated analyses / documents (Section 9) and the

summary / conclusion (Section 10).

2.0 Scope

The scope of this analysis consists of the clean, dirty and purifier discharge lines from/to the

Warm Helium Gas Storage Tanks through the trench to the North Slab of the Cryoplant

Building. The analysis of the piping continuations on the North Slab is summarized in a separate

document (see Section 9). The scope also includes the helium fill station connected to the dirty

line and the relief valve arrangement on each of the helium storage tanks.

This scope is shown in Figures 1-4 and the drawings listed below.

Drawing

Number Drawing Title

Drawing

Revision

Drawing

Type

79720-0000 LCLSII He Gas Storage System (HGS) C P&ID

79120-0030 LCLSII General Equipment Layout Tank Farm A Layout

79720-0010 LCLSII Storage Warm He Helium Tank

Storage Arrangement A Piping

79720-0011 LCLSII Storage Warm He GHe Dirty Line

Piping Arrangement - Piping

79720-0012 LCLSII Storage Warm He GHe Clean Line

Piping Arrangement - Piping

79720-0013 LCLSII Storage Warm He Purifier Discharge

Line Piping Arrangement - Piping


Interconnect Spool Assembly - Piping


Main Header Pipe Spool - Piping


Main Header Pipe Spool - Piping


Interconnect Spool Assembly - Piping

79720-0027 LCLSII Storage Warm He GHe Purifier

Discharge Header Spool Assembly - Piping







79720-0028 LCLSII Storage Warm He GHe Purifier

Discharge Upper Spool Assembly - Piping

79720-0029 LCLSII Storage Warm He Relief Valve Spool

Assembly, GHe Storage Tank - Piping

79720-0031 LCLSII Storage Warm He GHe Dirty Line Pipe

Spool – Thru Trench To Purifier - Piping


Pipe Spool – From Purifier Thru Trench - Piping


Pipe Spool –Thru Trench To Distribution - Piping

79720-0038 LCLSII Storage Warm He Gas Storage Fill

Rack Assembly - Piping

Figure 1: LCLS-II Storage Tank Piping (Looking Southeast to Northwest)

Purifier Discharge Line

Clean Line Approved: 5/11/2017; E-Sign ID : 342655; signed by: DCG: T. Fuell; Re. 1: B. Crahen; Re. 2: M. Bevins |






Figure 2: LCLS-II Storage Tank Piping (Looking Northwest to Southeast)

Figure 3: LCLS-II He Tank Relief Arrangement

Dirty Line Approved: 5/11/2017; E-Sign ID : 342655; signed by: DCG: T. Fuell; Re. 1: B. Crahen; Re. 2: M. Bevins |






Figure 4: LCLS-II Fill Rack Arrangement

3.0 Piping Design Parameters

All piping is designed in accordance with ASME B31.3 Process Piping, 2014 Edition [1] and

local requirements. These local requirements include the 2013 California Building Code (CBC)

[2], its reference standard ASCE 7-10 [3], the 2013 California Mechanical Code (CMC) [4] and

the Cryogenic Plant Seismic Design Criteria [5].

The pressure-temperature design parameters for each of the lines are summarized below.

Line

Minimum Design

Metal Temperature

(°F)

Design

Temperature

(°F)

Design

Pressure

(PSIG)

Fill Station 30 120 3,000

Dirty Line 30 120 320

Clean Line 30 120 320

Purifier Discharge Line 30 120 275

Relief Line 30 120 250







The size, material, schedule / rating and other pertinent properties for each piping component is

specified on the design drawings. The general properties for each of the lines are summarized

below.

Line Pipe

Size(s) Pipe Materials

Pipe

Schedule(s)

Flange

Rating

Fill Station 1” ASTM

A312-TP304/304L

Schedule

160 NA

Dirty Line 4” / 2” ASTM

A312-TP304/304L

Schedule

10

Class

300

Clean Line 4” / 2” ASTM

A312-TP304/304L

Schedule

10

Class

300

Purifier Discharge Line 4” / 2” ASTM

A312-TP304/304L

Schedule

10

Class

300

Relief Line 2” ASTM

A312-TP304/304L

Schedule

10

Class

300

The pipes are assumed to be electric fusion welded tubes with a single butt seam (Basic Quality

Factor, Ej, of 0.8 per Table A-1B in B31.3). All other A312 tube fabrication methods with

higher quality factors are therefore acceptable.

In addition to operating conditions, the piping is designed for occasional loads (seismic, wind).

The applied seismic loads and load combinations are determined in accordance with the 2013

CBC and ASCE 7-10.

Per the LCLS-II Cryogenic Building Geotechnical Report [6] and the Cryogenic Plant Seismic

Design Criteria, the site seismic design parameters include Site Class C, SD1 = 1.012 and SDS =

1.968.

The substances used in the LCLS-II Cryoplant and these lines (namely inert cryogenics, gaseous

helium) are not hazardous (highly toxic or explosive / flammable). Thus, per ASCE 7-10 Table

1.5-1 and the Cryogenic Plant Seismic Design Criteria, the Risk Category for the Cryogenic

Building and its associated components is II. Per ASCE 7-10 Table 1.5-2 and the Cryogenic

Plant Seismic Design Criteria, the Seismic Importance Factor for the Cryogenic Building and its

associated components is Ie = 1.0. Per ASCE 7-10 11.6 and the site seismic design parameters

(S1 = 1.168), the Seismic Design Category for the Cryogenic Building and its associated

components is E.

As the piping is a nonstructural component, the seismic design force is determined in accordance

with ASCE 7-10 13.3.1 as demonstrated below. The component amplification factor, ap, is 2.5 in

accordance with ASCE 7-10 Table 13.6-1. Except for rare exceptions the piping joints are

welded. Thus, per the Cryogenic Plant Seismic Design Criteria, the component response







modification factor, Rp, is reduced from 12 to 6. To further improve seismic performance, the

component importance factor, Ip, is taken as 1.5 even though not required by ASCE 7-10 13.1.3.

• 𝐹𝑝 =0.4(𝑎𝑝)𝑆𝐷𝑆

𝑅

𝐼𝑝

(1 + 2𝑧

ℎ) 𝑊𝑝 =

0.4(2.5)1.9686.0

1.5

(1 + 2𝑧

ℎ) 𝑊𝑝 = 0.492 (1 + 2

𝑧

ℎ) 𝑊𝑝 (13.3-1)

• 𝐹𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥= 1.6 𝑆𝐷𝑆𝐼𝑝 𝑊𝑝 = 1.6(1.968)(1.5)𝑊𝑝 = 4.724 𝑊𝑝 (13.3-2)

• 𝐹𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛= 0.3 𝑆𝐷𝑆𝐼𝑝 𝑊𝑝 = 0.3(1.968)(1.5)𝑊𝑝 = 0.89 𝑊𝑝 (13.3-3)

• So, 𝐹𝑝 = 0.89 𝑊𝑝 for piping supported at the base (z = 0)

For piping connected higher than 40% of the structural height (z = height of point of attachment,

h = average height of structure), the seismic design force is increased according to equation 13.3-

1. For the rare threaded piping sections / components, the component response modification

factor, Rp, is reduced from 6 to 3 in the spirit of the Cryogenic Plant Seismic Design Criteria.

In this system, most piping is base supported. In accordance with 13.3-1, the seismic force

applied to the Purifier Discharge Line branch connections that run from the header to the tank is

increased by a factor of 1.34 (based on nozzle elevation above tank base), the seismic force

applied to the Clean Line branch connections that run from the header to the tank is increased by

a factor of 1.15 and the seismic force applied to the Fill Station piping is increased by a factor of

1.66 (z/h = 1). Moreover, the seismic force applied to the threaded components within the Fill

Station piping is increased by a factor of 3.22 (i.e. 2.952 Wp). For the relief line z/h = 0.9.

To meet the requirement that the seismic force is applied in the direction that produces the most

critical load effect, 100% of the seismic design force is applied in one horizontal direction and

30% of the seismic design force is applied in an orthogonal direction (ASCE 7-10 12.5.3.1). In

addition, a vertical seismic force of ±0.2 SDS Wp is also simultaneously applied. All directional

combinations are applied (i.e. +100% X, -Y, -30% Z; -30% X, +Y, +100% Z; etc). The design

load combinations / factors in which these forces are applied are discussed in Section 4.

As with the seismic design force, the wind design force is determined in accordance with the

2013 CBC and ASCE 7-10. As discussed / derived previously, the Risk Category for the

Cryogenic Building and its associated components is II. As such, per Figure 26.5-1A in ASCE

7-10, the basic wind speed is 110 miles per hour (mph). In accordance with ASCE 7-10 26.7.2 /

26.7.3, the exposure category for the piping is C (the same as the Cryogenic Building).

The design wind load is determined in accordance with ASCE 7-10 29.5 as demonstrated below.

The gust-effect, G, is 0.85 in accordance with ASCE 7-10 26.9.1. The effect on wind speed from

upstream isolated hills, ridges, etc is considered negligible, so the topographic factor, Kzt, is 1.

As the pipe is round, the wind directionality factor, Kd, is 0.95 in accordance with Table 26.6-1.







As all pipe in this scope is less than 15 feet above the ground, the velocity pressure exposure

coefficient, Kz, is 0.85 in accordance with ASCE 7-10 Table 29.3-1. As D√(qz), see below, is

less than 2.5 for all pipes in this scope, the force coefficient is conservatively taken to be 1.2 (in

accordance with ASCE 7-10 Figure 29.5-1).

• 𝐹 = 𝑞𝑧𝐺𝐶𝑓 (𝑙𝑏/𝑓𝑡2) (29.5-1)

• 𝑞𝑧 = 0.00256 𝐾𝑧𝐾𝑧𝑡𝐾𝑑𝑉2 = 0.00256(0.85)(1)(0.95)(110)2 = 25.1 (29.3-1)

• 𝐹 = (25.1)(0.85)(1.2) = 25.52 (𝑙𝑏/𝑓𝑡2)

• 𝐹𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 16.00 (𝑙𝑏/𝑓𝑡2) (29.8)

• So, 𝐹 = 25.52 (𝑙𝑏/𝑓𝑡2)

To meet the requirement that wind shall be assumed to come from any horizontal direction with

no account for shielding for other structures (CBC 1609.1), the wind is applied in eight

horizontal directions (0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, etc). The wind vertical uplift force is considered

negligible for this piping scope. The design load combinations / factors in which the horizontal

forces are applied are discussed in Section 4.

4.0 Analysis

The piping is analyzed using Bentley AutoPIPE Version 10. The first model created is shown in

in Figures 5 through 7 and the second is shown in Figure 8.

To evaluate piping for the design parameters discussed in Section 3, the models inputs are as

described below.

Pressure –Temperature Cases

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

Pressure Max Max Vacuum Max

Temperature Max Min Install Max

Notes:

1. The install temperature is assumed to be 55 °F (the average expected daytime

temperature in Palo Alto during November through March).

2. As AutoPIPE does not impose pressures below 0 psig, Case 3 is inherently a

gravity check. A separate evaluation is discussed in Section 5.

3. The purpose of Case 4 is to evaluate the system during a pressure relief event

(i.e. apply the relief valve discharge reaction force).







Tank Nozzles

The nozzles are modeled as pipe, per the fabrication drawings [7], to the shell to

nozzle junction. This junction is modeled as a nozzle flexibility element, to

reflect the flexibility of the junction, followed by a rigid anchor. The loads on the

rigid anchor are compared to the allowable nozzle loads.

Anchor movement due to thermal expansion / contraction of the tank and seismic

/ wind displacement of the tank (as required by ASCE 7-10 15.7.4) is considered.

Negligible anchor movements (less than 1/32”) are not included in the model.

In this scope, the drain / Dirty Line nozzle movement is negligible (due to

proximity to the fixed tank saddle) and the Relief Line nozzle movement is

negligible (piping supported off the tank). The thermal movement of the Clean

and Purifier Discharge nozzles is conservatively calculated as linear thermal

expansion and summarized below.

Clean Line Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

X (radial) 0.031 -0.012 0 0.031

Y (vertical) 0.033 -0.013 0 0.033

Z (longitudinal) 0.16 -0.062 0 0.16

Purifier Discharge

Line Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

X (radial) 0.031 -0.012 0 0.031

Y (vertical) 0.043 -0.016 0 0.043

Z (longitudinal) 0.16 -0.062 0 0.16

Seismic movement of the Clean / Purifier Discharge nozzles is shown to be

negligible through the hand calculations below. From the tank design calculations

[8], the seismic design force for the carbon steel tanks is known to be 47,900 lbs.

The length (L) from the fixed saddle to the nozzles is 31.5 feet [9]. As the wind

loads are smaller than the seismic loads [8], the wind movement is also negligible.

Axial Displacement

𝛿 =𝑃𝐿

𝐴𝐸 ([9], equation 2.7)

𝛿 =(47,900)(31.5 𝑥 12)

(𝜋(11𝑥12

2)

2−𝜋(

11𝑥12

2−0.8)

2)(29 𝑥 106)

= 0.002"

Lateral / Vertical Displacement







Treat as a 31.5 foot long uniformly loaded beam

𝛿 =𝑊𝐿3

8𝐸𝐼 ([10])

𝛿 =(47,900)(31.5 𝑥 12)3

8𝜋

64((11𝑥12)4−(11𝑥12−2𝑥0.8)4)(29 𝑥 106)

= 0.016"

Relief Valve Reaction Force

The relief valve discharge reaction forces from the valve manufacturer [11] are

applied to Case 4. The reaction force from the Tube Trailer Fill Line relief valve

(RV11029) is 249 lbs upward at the outlet of the elbow. The reaction force from

the Storage Tank relief valves (RV11100A/B, RV11200A/B, etc) is 249*sin(5°)/2

= 11 lbs upward at each outlet of the tee.

Friction

In calculating pipe stresses, nozzle loads and pipe displacements, friction is

conservatively ignored (in line with ASCE 7-10 [3] 15.5.2.1). In calculating

support loads, friction is considered. The steel-to-steel coefficient of friction at

the supports is assumed to be 0.5.

Supports

In accordance with the design, U-bolts are modeled to reflect a loose installation.

In other words, a gap of half the difference between the inner U-bolt dimension

and the pipe outer diameter on both sides and the difference between the inner U-

bolt dimension and the pipe outer diameter above the pipe is included. Oversized

Unistrut pipe straps and Weld Straps are modeled in the same way. Pipe size

Unistrut straps are modeled with no gaps. Like anchors, the supports are modeled

as rigid. The loads on the rigid supports are compared to the allowable support

loads and used as inputs in the separate structural analysis.

Support movement due to seismic / wind displacement. Negligible anchor

movements (less than 1/32”) are not included in the model. As such, the only

anchor movement imposed on the model is a conservative displacement of 0.1” at

the Fill Station filter anchor (see Section 9).

Flanges

Flanges are checked for leak tightness using the conservative equivalent pressure

method. This method, defined in the obsolete Nuclear Piping Code (ASME

B31.7) paragraph 1-704.5(a), is summarized in the equation below (from







AutoPIPE) where P is the line pressure, M is the external bending moment, F is

the external axial tension force and G is the gasket reaction diameter.

𝑃𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑃 + 𝑃𝑒𝑞

𝑃𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑃 + 16𝑀

(𝜋𝐺3)+

4𝐹

𝜋𝐺2

To reduce the conservatism of this approach to a more reasonable level, the total

calculated pressure is compared to 110% of the ASME B16.5-2013 [12] flange

pressure rating for normal design operating conditions and 150% (equal or less

than the flange hydrotest pressure) for occasional operating conditions.

Combinations

The design load combinations are specified in ASME B31.3 and ASCE 7-10

2.3.2. While the pipe is designed using allowable stress design, some support

components (support anchors for example) are designed based on strength design.

As the pipe snow, rain and live loads are zero, the four potential allowable stress

determining load combinations, in accordance with ASCE 7-10 2.4.1 and

12.4.2.3, are below. Note that ρ = 1 per ASCE 7-10 13.3.1 and pressure (P) and

temperature (T, expansion from ambient / install temperature to case temperature)

apply to all load combinations.

5a. (1.0 + 0.14 SDS) D + 0.7ρQE + P + T

5b. (1.0) D + 0.6W + P + T

7. (0.6) D + 0.6W + P + T

8. (0.6 - 0.14 SDS) D + 0.7ρQE + P + T

The five potential strength determining load combinations, in accordance with

ASCE 7-10 2.3.1 and 12.4.2.3, are below. Note that ρ = 1 per ASCE 7-10 13.3.1

and pressure and temperature loads apply to all load combinations.

1. (1.4) D + P + T

4. (1.2) D + 1.0W + P + T

5. (1.2 + 0.2 SDS) D + ρQE + P + T

6. (0.9) D + 1.0W + P + T

7. (0.9 - 0.2 SDS) D + ρQE + P + T

The ASME B31.3 code required combinations are below.

Hoop Pressure

Sustained Gravity + Pressure







Expansion Minimum to Maximum Temperature

Expansion Ambient / Install Temperature to Case Temperature

Occasional Sustained + Earthquake

Occasional Sustained + Wind

The table below summarizes the load combinations applied to the various pipe

system components. Each load combination is applied in all applicable directions

/ direction combinations. Note that the ASCE load combinations are applied to

pressure-temperature Case 1 (maximum pressure, maximum temperature). The

inclusion of thermal expansion stresses in the ASCE 7-10 occasional loads cases

is significantly more conservative than required by code.

Combination Component Allowable

Limit Reference

Hoop Pipe Stress Ej x S 304.1.2

Sustained Pipe Stress S 302.3.5(c)

Expansion – Max Pipe Stress SA 302.3.5(d)

Expansion – Cases 1-4 Pipe Stress SA 302.3.5(d)

Occasional – Earthquake Pipe Stress 1.33 S 302.3.6

Occasional – Wind Pipe Stress 1.33 S 302.3.6

Gravity + Pressure +

Temperature (Cases 1-4) Flange Pressure 1.1 F See above

ASCE 7-10 – Stress 5a

Pipe Stress 1.33 S 302.3.6

Pipe Displacement NA

Flange Pressure 1.5 F See above

Nozzle Loads Per Fabricator

U-Bolts Per Manufacturer

ASCE 7-10 – Stress 5b






ASCE 7-10 – Stress 7






ASCE 7-10 – Stress 8












ASCE 7-10 – Strength 1 Pipe Straps Per Manufacturer

Anchors Per Manufacturer









Notes:

1. S = Basic Allowable Stress per Table A-1 in ASME B31.3

2. SA = Allowable Displacement Stress Range per ASME B31.3 302.3.5(d)

equation 1(b)

3. F = Flange Pressure Temperature rating per ASME B16.5

Additional model input parameters include

- The pressure case is the initial state for the temperature case

- The wind directionality factor, Kd, is conservatively taken to be 1.0 (instead of

0.95).

- The allowable displacement stress range is calculated by ASME B31.3

302.3.5(d) equation 1(b).

- The three way diverter valve is modeled as a tee with a concentrated weight

equal to that of the valve.

Figure 5: AutoPIPE Fill Station, Dirty, Clean and Purifier Discharge Model Overview







Figure 6: AutoPIPE Fill Station, Dirty, Clean and Purifier Discharge Model Close-Up 1

Figure 7: AutoPIPE Fill Station, Dirty, Clean and Purifier Discharge Model Close-Up 2







Figure 8: AutoPIPE Relief Line Model

5.0 Piping Evaluation

Stress

Stress ratio plots for the two models are provided below in Figures 9 and 10. The

maximum stress ratio for each combination and the node where this stress occurs

is provided in the tables below. As these figures / tables demonstrate, the systems

stresses are below allowable for all load cases / combinations.







Figure 9: AutoPIPE Fill Station, Dirty, Clean and Purifier Discharge Model Stress Plot







Figure 10: AutoPIPE Stress Plot Close-Up 1

Figure 11: AutoPIPE Stress Plot Close-Up 2







Figure 12: AutoPIPE Relief Line Model Stress Plot







Fill Station, Dirty, Clean and Purifier Discharge Model

Combination

Maximum Ratio

( Calculated Stress /

Allowable Stress)

Node Direction

Hoop 0.49 CF09 NA

Sustained 0.38 CF09 NA

Expansion 0.60 F10 Max Range

Occasional 0.97 D03 F-

Seismic

+100% x,

+30% z, +y

ASCE 7-10 – Stress 5a 0.84 F10

Seismic

-30% x,

-100% z, +y

Relief Line Model

Combination

Maximum Ratio

( Calculated Stress /

Allowable Stress)

Node Direction

Hoop 0.25 G02 NA

Sustained 0.16 B09 NA

Expansion 0.12 B01 NA

Occasional 0.53 A01

Seismic

-30% x,

-100% z, +y

ASCE 7-10 – Stress 5a 0.24 A01

Seismic

-30% x,

-100% z, +y

Displacement

The maximum displacement and the node where this movement occurs is

provided in the tables below. The system displacements are reasonable for all

load cases / combinations.

Fill Station, Dirty, Clean and Purifier

Discharge Model

Maximum Displacement Node

1.64” D36

Relief Line Model

Maximum Displacement Node

0.17” E02 / F02







Vacuum

The pipe is capable of full vacuum as described below. Per 304.1.3 of ASME

B31.3, the wall thickness for external pressure shall be determined in accordance

with UG-28 through UG-30 of the ASME BPVC Section VIII, Division 1 [13].

Following these sections, the greatest length to diameter ratio (50) in ASME

BPVC Section II [14] Figure G is selected. The greatest diameter to thickness

ratio for this scope is associated with 4” schedule 10 pipe (4.5 / .120 *.875).

Conservatively from this D0/t ratio, a Factor A of .0004 is obtained from Figure

G. From Figure HA-1, a temperature of 100 °F and this Factor A, a Factor B of

5,500 is obtained. From Step 6 in UG-28, a maximum external pressure

significantly greater than full vacuum is calculated.

𝑃𝑒𝑥𝑡 =4 𝐵

3 (𝐷0

𝑡 )

𝑃𝑒𝑥𝑡 =4 (5,500)

3 (43)= 171 𝑝𝑠𝑖

Confirmation of the pipe vacuum rating is provided by the Engineering Toolbox

[15] and the Welded Steel Pipe Design Manual [16].

Components

The pressure-temperature ratings for all components exceed the requirements of

the four pressure-temperature cases. Please reference the component list

indicated in Section 9.

6.0 Flange Evaluation

The maximum flange ratio (total pressure / 1.1 or 1.5 flange rating) and the combination / flange

where this pressure occurs is provided in the tables below. As these figures / tables demonstrate,

the total pressures are within defined flange ratings (1.1 or 1.5 flange rating) for all load cases /

combinations.


Combination Maximum Total Pressure /

1.1 or 1.5 Flange Rating Node Direction


Temperature (Cases 1-4) 0.62 AT12 NA

ASCE 7-10 – Stress 5a / 8 0.79 AT12

Seismic

+100% x,

+30% z, -y







Relief Line Model

Combination Maximum Total Pressure /

1.1 or 1.5 Flange Rating Node Direction


Temperature (Cases 1-4) 0.87 B06 NA

ASCE 7-10 – Stress 5b / 7 0.78 A06

Seismic

-100% x,

-30% z, -y

7.0 Equipment Nozzle Evaluation

The maximum loads on each equipment nozzle are provided in the table below and compared to

the allowable nozzle loads. As these tables demonstrate, the nozzles loads are less than the

allowable nozzle loads for all load cases / combinations.

He Gas Storage Tanks

Nozzle Maximum Loads Allowable Loads Tank

Clean Line

Radial: 78 lbs

Long Shear: 57 lbs

Circ Shear: 41 lbs

Long Moment: 200 ft-lbs

Circ Moment: 89 ft-lbs

Torsion: 37 ft-lbs

Radial: 1,000 lbs

Long Shear: 1,000 lbs

Circ Shear: 1,000 lbs



Torsion: 500 ft-lbs

116

111

111

116

116

111

Purifier

Discharge Line

Radial: 62 lbs

Long Shear: 62 lbs

Circ Shear: 46 lbs



Torsion: 26 ft-lbs

Radial: 1,000 lbs





Torsion: 500 ft-lbs

111

111

115

116

111

111

Dirty Line

Radial: 283 lbs

Long Shear: 305 lbs

Circ Shear: 283 lbs



Torsion: 446 ft-lbs

Radial: 1,000 lbs





Torsion: 500 ft-lbs

111

111

111

111

111

111

Relief Line

Radial: 180 lbs

Long Shear: 640 lbs

Circ Shear: 423 lbs



Torsion: 330 ft-lbs

Radial: 1,000 lbs





Torsion: 500 ft-lbs

NA







8.0 Support Evaluation

The maximum loads on each support type are provided in the tables below and compared to the

allowable support loads. As these tables demonstrate, the support loads are less than the

allowable loads for all load cases / combinations.

In this application the pipe does not contact the oversized Unistrut pipe straps / U-bolts, so an

impact factor is not applicable (ASME B31E 3.7.4).


Support

Type Maximum Loads Allowable Loads

Node

4” Pipe

Strap

Axial: 192 lbs

Lateral: 584 lbs

Vertical: 631 lbs

Axial: 200 lbs [17]

Lateral: 1,000 lbs [17]

Vertical: 1,000 lbs [17]

D01

C01

C01

4” U-Bolt

/ Weld

Strap

Lateral: 173 lbs

Vertical: 866 lbs

Lateral: 675 lbs [18]


BK04

BK04

2” U-Bolt Lateral: 268 lbs

Vertical: 289 lbs


Vertical: 1,460 lbs [18] Relief

1-1/4”

U-Bolt

Lateral: 215 lbs

Vertical: 231 lbs



CH02F

CF15

3/4”

U-Bolt

Lateral: 121 lbs

Vertical: 20 lbs


Vertical: 580 lbs [18] CH06

Filter

Anchor

Fx: 200 lbs

Fy: 450 lbs

Fz: 150 lbs

Mx: 120 ft-lbs

My: 70 ft-lbs

Mz: 40 ft-lbs

See below CF33

The filter anchor loads are judged acceptable through the Fill Station Structural Analysis (79720-

A0001).

9.0 Associated Analyses / Documents

Structural analyses, pipe stress reports and pressure system documentation related to this report

are listed below.

79120-P0006 CP1/CP2 Helium Recovery, Etc Piping (79120-PS-

111, 211) Stress Analysis

79720-A0001 Fill Station Structural Analysis







79720-A0002 Tank Farm Helium Pipe Support Structural-Anchor

Analysis

79120-P7001 Cryoplant Component List

79120-P9001 Cryoplant Pressure System Forms

10.0 Summary / Conclusions

The pipe stresses are below allowable for all normal and occasional design conditions. The pipe

displacements are reasonable for all normal and occasional design conditions. The pipe flanges

are leak tight for all normal and occasional design conditions. The tank nozzle loads are below

allowable nozzle loads for all normal and occasional design conditions. The support loads are

below manufacturer allowable loads for all normal and occasional design conditions. Thus, the

pipe system design is acceptable.

11.0 References

[1] Process Piping, ASME B31.3-2014

[2] California Building Code, 2013

[3] Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE/SEI 7-10, 2010

[4] California Mechanical Code, 2013

[5] Cryogenic Plant Seismic Design Criteria, LCLSII-4.8-EN-0227-R2

[6] Final Report Geotechnical Investigation LCLS II Cryogenic Building and Infrastructure

SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Rutherford+Chekene #2014-106G

[7] Horizontal Helium Gas Storage Tank, Modern Custom Fabrication 1604441-1-2

[8] Structural Calculations for 30,000 Gallon Helium Gas Storage Tanks, John F Bradley Job

2701300

[9] Mechanics of Materials, Beer, Johnston Jr and DeWolf – 3rd

Ed

[10] http://engineersedge.com/beam_bending/beam_bending8.htm

[11] RE: Flow Safe F84, F7350 Thrust Values, 3/14/17 email from Flow Safe (on file at JLab)

[12] Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings, ASME B16.5-2013

[13] Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels, ASME BPVC Section VIII, Division 1-2015

[14] Materials, ASME BPVC Section IID-2015

[15] http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/stainless-steel-pipes-bursting-pressures-d_463.html

[16] Welded Steel Pipe Design Manual, American Iron and Steel Institute- 2007 Edition, p. 17

[17] P2558 Pipe Strap Design Load Report, Unistrut International – July 24, 2006

[18] Pipe Hangers and Supports, Anvil International – July 16, 2009 Approved: 5/11/2017; E-Sign ID : 342655; signed by: DCG: T. Fuell; Re. 1: B. Crahen; Re. 2: M. Bevins |

http://engineersedge.com/beam_bending/beam_bending8.htm

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/stainless-steel-pipes-bursting-pressures-d_463.html






Appendix A – AutoPIPE Models / Reports

The model and output files listed below are on file at JLab and can be provided upon request.

FILE TYPE FILE NAME

AutoPIPE Model Tank Farm Final (4-24-17).dat

AutoPIPE Output Report Tank Farm Final (4-24-17) Seismic 1-4.xps




AutoPIPE Flange Report Tank Farm Final (4-24-17) Flange 1-4.xps




AutoPIPE Results Database Tank Farm Final (4-24-17) Seismic 1-4.mdb




AutoPIPE Model Relief Final (4-24-17).dat

AutoPIPE Output Report Relief Final (4-24-17) Seismic 1-4.xps




AutoPIPE Flange Report Relief Final (4-24-17) Flange 1-4.xps




AutoPIPE Results Database Relief Final (4-24-17) Seismic 1-4.mdb




These files are located in the folder path indicated below. M:\cryo\LCLS II ANALYSIS FOLDER\Tank Farm Helium Piping\PRESSURE SYSTEMS
