CAESAR consider pipe density 7639.679kg/m3 for A335P91 material and 7833.439 kg/m3 for A335P22/A106Gr.A/B/C material.

But AUTOPIPE consider steel pipe density 7833kg/m3 for all materials grade (A335P91/P22, A106Gr..

In the CAESAR II help specified that "The appropriate pipe density is filled in automatically when a proper material number is input".

Why different and less density for A335P91 material in CAESAR? What is the basis? Is their any standards?

The reference we used for that particular material listed the density as 7639.679kg/m3. We can re-verify this value.

see calculation

System Size OD THK. Density Weight Length Weight
(NB) (mm) (mm) (kg/m3) (Kg/m) (m) (Kg)
HRH 700 711.2 40.00 7833 660.68 13 8589
HRH 700 711.2 40.00 7639 644.32 13 8376
-213

Difference is very high (213kg) because of density difference. Actually in our thermal power plant critical piping system (Main steam, Hot reheat, Cold Reheat), maximum vertical supports are spring hanger because of very high temperature. Spring should be design by proper load otherwise we will face lot of problem. If it is restraint , 213 kg load will not be problem to accommodate.

Can u let me know the reference which you have refereed?

please reply.

When it comes to standards, I would first turn to ASME Section II Part D. Poisson's ratio and densities are provided in Table PRD. The introduction to Subpart 2 (of II-D, which holds these properties) says all the properties are typical - neither average nor minimum. It goes on to say that these properties are for information only and, if you have data supporting the use of different values, you may use them.

Table PRD shows a density of 0.28 lbf/in^3 for all the materials you mention. In your units this is 7750 kgf/m^3. That sits between the CAESAR II and AutoPipe numbers.

While I cannot say why we offer a different density for P91, I will note that we are talking about a 2.5% difference between the two CAESAR II densities that you mention. I understand that in certain systems this difference may be significant but I would then also ask how certain are we of many other assumptions used in these analyses.

If you do not accept the CAESAR II material values you can update the material database you use in CAESAR II.