The echo of M.W. Kellogg’s trunnion design approach seems never to rest, despite more accurate, readily available WRC or FEA methods.

That said, the reputed reliability of its design, in all honesty, lies not so much in the stress analysis of it as in a Kellogg’s engineering practice.

Contrasting to many dummy-leg designers relishing to use “pin leg” pipe supports, Kellogg’s engineering practice as I recall requires that the diameter of a trunnion be always larger than half-size of the supported pipe. Coincidentally or not, none of Kellogg-designed trunnions have had reported failure.

Good stress analysis or good engineering practice?