What is B31J Essentials?
B31J Essentials provides a set of calculations for revised SIFs and flexibility factors, as defined in the upcoming revision to ASME B31J. By using these revised SIFs and flexibilities, your stress analyses produce more accurate results. B31J Essentials provides the “more applicable data” referenced in recent editions of the piping codes. Note: B31J Essentials is a subset of FEATools. Therefore, if you currently have purchased and installed FEATools (Version 3.0), you do not need to install B31J Essentials.

How can I get B31J Essentials?
If you are current on CAESAR II maintenance and have installed CAESAR II 2017 (v.9.00), you can download the B31J Essentials installer from Intergraph Smart Support. Note: For B31J Essentials to run, you must install CAESAR II 2017 Hot Fix 2 over CAESAR II 2017 (v.9.00).

How does CAESAR II 2017 implement B31J Essentials?
B31J Essentials is FEATools (Version 3.0), but limited to only the B31J calculations (for SIFs and Flexibilities). You can access the B31J calculations by selecting the FEA Translation option from the CAESAR II Main Menu. The software starts FEATools, which provides the B31J computations for the translated CAESAR II model.

What is the difference between FEATools and B31J Essentials?
For the B31J computations, there is no difference. The fully-licensed FEATools software also provides a complete FEA analysis of tees, laterals, and bends, as well as support design and local component evaluation.

For more information on FEATools, click here.

Hi Richard,

thank you for this information.

I missed the info on the "inside newsletter Cadworx (r) & ANALYSIS SOLUTIONS" in january because I always wait for info from "COADE Mechanical Engineering News".

I'll never get used to this Cadworx/Intergraph/Hexagon Stuff...

best regards

Dear Sir,
Greeting for the day!
I have one query
Can we used ASME 31J for EN-13480 STRESS analysis?

Thanks in advance
Nitin Lonkar

We often quote the phrase "more applicable data" as in B31.3 para. 319.3.6:
In the absence of more directly applicable data, the flexibility factor, k, and stress intensification factor, i, shown in Appendix D shall be used for flexibility calculations described in para. 319.4.

I do not have the EN code in front of me now but if the EN code has similar references, then, as more applicable, B31J should be applied.

Hi Dave & Nitin,

I've had a look in 2017 Ed. of EN13480-3. There is no such "More applicable data" reference. Moreover, there is no recommendation regarding FEA assessment of SIFs for non-typical fittings. The following vague/less-precise recommendation is provided instead:

"For piping components or attachments (such as valves, strainers, anchor, rings or bands) not covered in Annex H, suitable stress intensification factors may be assumed by comparison of their significant geometry with that of the component shown."

Anyway, EN 13480-3 default approach is rather similar to B31.1 Code than B31.3 when we talk about thermal expansion stress qualification. The unique SIF is applied to the whole resultant moment.
The in-plane/out-plane bending stresses and SIFs discrimination is provided as an alternative analysis method.
Axial thermal expansion stress component is not included in any approach.

So, it appears that B31J SIFs are not applicable "by default" at this time. Maybe only if agreed between Designer and Owner, the alternative analysis method to be based on more accurate values for in-plane and out-plane SIFs.

However, I believe the best approach is to replace EN 13480-3 with B31.3 whenever is accepted by the Owner. As far as I know, PED recognizes alternative design methods based on ASME Codes. Personally, whenever I deal with European projects, I proceed in this way. It's clearer, more accurate and full compliant with Caesar II default algorithms. It just remains the allowable stresses and, maybe, the other material properties, to be specified as used-defined data.

Best regards,

Hello to all,
I have Query regarding 31J sif.
after running 31J module, I observe that SIF inplane and outplane valve is exactly reversed in Word report and C-II model
say eg. at node 595 sif generated in MS word report(taken from 31J CII) is
In-Plane :-3.171
Out-Plane:- 1.614
Torsional :-3.183

In 31J C-II file
In-Plane :-1.614
Out-Plane:- 3.171
Torsional :-3.183

One Can see that Inplane and Outplane Valve are exactly reversed
Why this difference?
Which Valve is correct?
Thanks in Advance

Regards,
Nitin Lonkar

See Caesar II manual for LOCAL COORDINATE AXES on pipe elements.

When the SIFs are specified for an intersection, the intersection type is not any more defined/considered (otherwise Caesar II would take effective modulus Ze for branch part, an this is against B31J provisions...).

So, each pipe element from intersection is considered simple pipe element, Caesar II does not know any more that an intersection is there and does does not identify the in-plane and out-plane directions of that intersection.

Therefore, the SIFs are defined in accordance with Caesar II local axes for each pipe element - example: for a vertical pipe element, global X axis al always the IN-PLANE direction...

Depending on the actual intersection orientation with respect to global coordinate axes, it may happen the "conventional" In-Plane and Out-Plane directions of the pipe elements joined to the intersection to be reversed with respect to the actual directions.

So, my advice is go to Caesar II user guide and study the local coordinate rules...graphics representations are required for full understanding...

Regards,