353 views

Uploaded by shaffeti

Define Load case for Caesar II

- 62913120 Slug Flow Analysis CAESAR
- Hot Sustained (2)
- 1- Training PDS Interface- Generate PCD and PDS RDB Files
- Caesar - A Sketch
- Load Case CAESAR II
- CAESAR II - Modal Analysis With Caesar II
- Piping stress Analysis using CAESAR II
- Determining Limits for Piping Vibration
- Piping stress
- Example from Theory to Caesar II.docx
- CAESAR Load Case
- Bourdon Pressure Effect
- caesar ii training
- Nonconvergence_in_Caesar_In_Caesar_II
- C2 CAU Express Modal
- Load Cases and Combination
- 224813666-Pipe-Stress-Analysis.ppt
- Flange Leakage
- MSS-sp-69
- - Pipe Stress Analysis Design Basis

You are on page 1of 6

Stating the Problem: Since the beginning of time, up until relatively recently, all pipe stress calculations have been done assuming a linear world. The implication of this is, if no boundary conditions change during the operation of the pipe, one assumed that all applied loads act against the same model, so therefore they can be analyzed against the same model, in isolation of each other, and either evaluated separately or superimposed upon each other, as necessary (this is the same as the Cold Sustained analysis). Therefore there were no problems, nor arguments among pipe stress analysts regarding how sustained stress calculations need be done (although this is not really the case). However, a few years back, somebody noticed that the real world isnt linear (or what really happened is that pipe stress programs began to give non-linear capabilities, so somebody started to notice that piping models werent always linear). For somewhat obvious reasons, this caused the greatest concern when supports that were previously considered to be weight-bearing lifted off in the operating case, but in reality, this is an equal concern for all non-linear restraints (gaps, friction, one-way restraints, bi-linears, etc.) which change state during operation. The question is how does one calculate sustained stress during the various operating states of the piping system, since the weight loads may act against a different set of boundary conditions during different operating conditions? Traditional Solution vs. COADEs Solution: One traditional solution has been to remove from the model any restraints designated as weight supports that lift off during any operating case and then reanalyze the Cold Sustained case. It is easy to misapply this method, as typically only +Y supports are removed, but almost never horizontal gapped restraints (that may open during the operating case but, when closed, may have a significant effect on the distribution of the weight loads) or other nonlinear restraints. COADE does not believe that this is the correct way to analyze the weight loads. Since 1984, we have provided the Cold Sustained case (W+P1) as the basics for the sustained calculation. Our arguments were (1) as seen in the first paragraph, this is how the calculation has traditionally been done, and (2) this is sustained stress, isnt it there should only be one any redistribution of sustained stresses due to operating displacements are, as the CODETI code agrees, expansion effects. As boundary condition changes during operation became more of a concern, we decided to look into this issue more carefully. About 7-8 years ago, we came upon a solution that we believe is correct. And whats more, its defensible it doesnt suffer from a lot of the problems that the Traditional Solution (removing restraints and rerunning the Cold Sustained) will be shown to suffer from. This solution was described as building a Hot Sustained load case: L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 W+T1+P1+D1 (OPE) T1 (EXP) W+P1 (SUS) L1-L3 (EXP) L1-L2 (SUS)

In the above set of load cases, L3 represents the Cold Sustained, the greater of L2 or L4 represents the Expansion case (the stress range between the two extremes of operating and installed, and L5 represents the Hot Sustained. We expect that load cases L3 and L5 most likely envelope any of the sustained stress distributions that may occur during the boundary condition changes due to changes in the operating state. Theory: Our Solution is based upon two statements that we doubt anybody can dispute: 1) The distribution of forces, moments, and stresses in a system is a direct reflection of the displaced shape of the system under that load. 2) The sum of the Sustained response and the Expansion response (in terms of forces and moments and most importantly displaced shape) at any given time must be exactly equal to the Operating response. So once we know the displaced shape of the system in the Operating state, all we have to do is subtract the displaced shape of the system due to the Expansion loads from that Operating shape, and voila we will have the Sustained displaced shape, from which we can calculate the Sustained forces, moments, and stresses. The only problem with this is that there are potentially an infinite number of combinations of Expansion and Sustained displaced shapes that might make up this Operating displaced shape. The question then, is which one is correct? It is our belief that the load cases shown above most likely match the Expansion/Sustained distribution exactly (first in the installed case and then in the Operating case) if not, they certainly they envelope the actual distribution. The L3 (SUS) and L4 (EXP) results sum to the L1 (OPE) results these results represent the scenario where the pipe weight is applied first, and then the pipe expands to the operating position from that condition. The L5 (SUS) and L2 (EXP) results also sum to the L1 (OPE) results but these results represent the possible scenario that the pipe expands thermally from its neutral position first, and then the weight is applied, causing it to sag back to its operating position. Now most likely, scenario 1 above (weight applied first, then thermal expansion) is the correct order of loading, but that isnt what is really important. What we are trying to decide is what is the implication of the thermal expansion growing from a fully weight loaded system, and then again, what is the impact of the system sagging under weight from its fully expanded position. Consider an example: Two EMTs are carrying a 250-pound patient in a stretcher, holding the ends of the stretcher roughly three feet above the ground and it is very likely that the stretcher is sagging in the middle. What is the displaced shape of the stretcher due to weight vs. displacement (lifting it up). We can model this in these two manners: 1) Cold Sustained the stretcher was lying on the ground when the patient got onto it. The displaced shape at installation (continuously supported, so no real weight stresses) is calculated. Then imposed displacements are applied (lifting the ends of the stretcher 3 feet) are applied, taking us to the operating state. 2) Hot Sustained the stretcher had imposed displacements by lifting its ends 3 feet high (resulting in a nearly horizontal shape) and then the patient gets on it, causing it to sag from

that original displaced position. In this case the Sustained response is the difference from the original displaced position and the final operating (sagged from the original) position. Now, in order to estimate the distribution of the Expansion vs. Sustained stresses, do I have to know exactly when the patient got on the stretcher? No, because the exact timing is irrelevant what is important is the effect. In other words, I would be willing to make two bets here: (1) the patient got on the stretcher BEFORE the EMTs lifted it (i.e., case #1) and (2) the actual distribution of the stresses is best represented by case #2! That is the same principle behind COADEs Hot Sustained solution. (Oh, and now, lets complicate things a little further lets say that somebody, after seeing that the stretcher is sagging 6 inches under the weight of the patient, shoves a stool underneath that reduces the sag to only 4 inches. Does that make all of the weight stress go away simply because we no longer have a lift-off problem? No, because there still is some sag under weight from the displaced position.) Example: In the provided example, I have modeled a system with 3 +Y supports (at nodes 45, 70, and 95) and 10 different operating temperatures (ranging from 70 to 1100 degrees F). I have also provided displacements at the +Y restraints which permit me to remove them from the Sustained load case to simulate the Traditional Method described above (Displacement Vector D1 removes the supports at 45 and 95, Displacement Vector D2 removes the support at node 70). I have run a number of load cases here, to represent the Sustained response as the system temperature increases from 70 degrees through 1100 degrees, over the course of which first two and then the third support lifts off. The most interesting temperatures are around 196.7 degrees and around 1091.3 degrees, where supports 45-95 and support 70 lift off, respectively (T3 and T4 are a hair to either side of 196.7 degrees, while T7 and T8 are a hair to either side of 1091.3 degrees). Using COADEs Hot Sustained concept, I can show that the Sustained plus Expansion results add up to the Operating results in all cases (as we all agree they should, right?). However, if we use the Traditional Method described above, we would assume that the Sustained response is the same as the Cold Sustained (L10) up to 196.7 degrees (L1 through L3), is the Cold Sustained with supports 45-95 removed (L11) between 196.7 and 1091.3 degrees (L4-L7), and the Cold Sustained with supports 45-95 and 70 removed (L12) above 1091.3 degrees (L8 and L9). I can show that these results do not add up, regardless of which Expansion case one combines these results with:

110 F COADE Sus COADE Exp Traditional Sus Exp #1 Exp #2 COADE Sus + Exp Trad Sus + Exp #1 Trad Sus + Exp #2 Ope L31 L13 L10 L13 L22 Node 35 -0.2436 0.2954 -0.0367 0.2954 0.0885 0.0518 0.2587 0.0518 0.0518 Node 40 -0.2758 0.2954 -0.0167 0.2954 0.0363 0.0196 0.2787 0.0196 0.0196 Node 45 -0.2954 0.2954 0 0.2954 0 0 0.2954 0 0 Node 50 -0.3118 0.2954 0.0002 0.2954 -0.0166 -0.0164 0.2956 -0.0164 -0.0164 Node 55 -0.3188 0.2954 -0.0045 0.2954 -0.0189 -0.0234 0.2909 -0.0234 -0.0234 Node 60 -0.3148 0.2954 -0.0065 0.2954 -0.0128 -0.0194 0.2889 -0.0193 -0.0193 Node 65 -0.3036 0.2954 -0.0037 0.2954 -0.0045 -0.0082 0.2917 -0.0082 -0.0082 Node 70 -0.2954 0.2954 0 0.2954 0 0 0.2954 0 0

Match ?? Match

L1

150 F

Node 35

Node 40

Node 45

Node 50

Node 55

Node 60

Node 65

Node 70

COADE Sus COADE Exp Traditional Sus Exp #1 Exp #2 COADE Sus + Exp Trad Sus + Exp #1 Trad Sus + Exp #2 Ope

L2

Match ?? Match

196.68 F COADE Sus COADE Exp Traditional Sus Exp #1 Exp #2 COADE Sus + Exp Trad Sus + Exp #1 Trad Sus + Exp #2 Ope

L3

Node 35 -0.7152 0.9686 -0.0367 0.9686 0.29 0.2534 0.9319 0.2533 0.2534

Node 40 -0.8662 0.9686 -0.0167 0.9686 0.1191 0.1024 0.9519 0.1024 0.1024

Node 50 -1.0228 0.9686 0.0002 0.9686 -0.0544 -0.0542 0.9688 -0.0542 -0.0542

Node 55 -1.035 0.9686 -0.0045 0.9686 -0.0618 -0.0664 0.9641 -0.0663 -0.0664

Node 60 -1.0172 0.9686 -0.0065 0.9686 -0.0421 -0.0486 0.9621 -0.0486 -0.0486

Node 65 -0.9871 0.9686 -0.0037 0.9686 -0.0149 -0.0185 0.9649 -0.0186 -0.0186

Match ?? Match

196.7 F COADE Sus COADE Exp Traditional Sus Exp #1 Exp #2 COADE Sus + Exp Trad Sus + Exp #1 Trad Sus + Exp #2 Ope

L4

Node 35 -0.7153 0.9688 -0.3105 0.9688 0.2901 0.2535 0.6583 -0.0204 0.2534

Node 40 -0.8663 0.9688 -0.3332 0.9688 0.1191 0.1025 0.6356 -0.2141 0.1024

Node 50 -1.0229 0.9688 -0.2669 0.9688 -0.0544 -0.0541 0.7019 -0.3213 -0.0542

Node 55 -1.0351 0.9688 -0.1916 0.9688 -0.0618 -0.0663 0.7772 -0.2534 -0.0664

Node 60 -1.0173 0.9688 -0.1068 0.9688 -0.0421 -0.0485 0.862 -0.1489 -0.0486

Node 65 -0.9873 0.9688 -0.0339 0.9688 -0.0149 -0.0185 0.9349 -0.0488 -0.0186

Match ?? ??

500 F COADE Sus COADE Exp Traditional Sus Exp #1 Exp #2 COADE Sus + Exp Trad Sus + Exp #1 Trad Sus + Exp #2 Ope

L5

Node 35 -1.8243 3.6223 -0.3105 3.6223 1.8347 1.798 3.3118 1.5242 1.7981

Node 40 -2.3267 3.6223 -0.3332 3.6223 1.3123 1.2956 3.2891 0.9791 1.2956

Node 45 -2.753 3.6223 -0.3174 3.6223 0.8693 0.8693 3.3049 0.5519 0.8693

Node 50 -3.0938 3.6223 -0.2669 3.6223 0.5283 0.5285 3.3554 0.2614 0.5285

Node 55 -3.3458 3.6223 -0.1916 3.6223 0.2811 0.2765 3.4307 0.0895 0.2765

Node 60 -3.5114 3.6223 -0.1068 3.6223 0.1174 0.1109 3.5155 0.0106 0.1109

Node 65 -3.5989 3.6223 -0.0339 3.6223 0.0271 0.0234 3.5884 -0.0068 0.0234

Match ?? ??

L36 L18

Traditional Sus Exp #1 Exp #2 COADE Sus + Exp Trad Sus + Exp #1 Trad Sus + Exp #2 Ope

L6

0 6.7014 0 0 6.7014 0 0

Match ?? ??

1091.28 F COADE Sus COADE Exp Traditional Sus Exp #1 Exp #2 COADE Sus + Exp Trad Sus + Exp #1 Trad Sus + Exp #2 Ope

L7

Node 35 -4.4629 9.9363 -0.3105 9.9363 5.5101 5.4734 9.6258 5.1996 5.4734

Node 40 -5.8017 9.9363 -0.3332 9.9363 4.1513 4.1346 9.6031 3.8181 4.1346

Node 45 -6.9985 9.9363 -0.3174 9.9363 2.9379 2.9378 9.6189 2.6205 2.9379

Node 50 -8.0212 9.9363 -0.2669 9.9363 1.9149 1.9151 9.6694 1.648 1.9151

Node 55 -8.8439 9.9363 -0.1916 9.9363 1.0971 1.0924 9.7447 0.9055 1.0925

Node 60 -9.446 9.9363 -0.1068 9.9363 0.4969 0.4903 9.8295 0.3901 0.4904

Node 65 -9.813 9.9363 -0.0339 9.9363 0.127 0.1233 9.9024 0.0931 0.1233

Match ?? ??

1091.31 F COADE Sus COADE Exp Traditional Sus Exp #1 Exp #2 COADE Sus + Exp Trad Sus + Exp #1 Trad Sus + Exp #2 Ope

L8

Node 35 -4.463 9.9367 -4.463 9.9367 5.5103 5.4737 5.4737 1.0473 5.4737

Node 40 -5.8018 9.9367 -5.8018 9.9367 4.1516 4.1349 4.1349 -1.6502 4.1349

Node 45 -6.9987 9.9367 -6.9987 9.9367 2.9381 2.938 2.938 -4.0606 2.9381

Node 50 -8.0214 9.9367 -8.0214 9.9367 1.9151 1.9153 1.9153 -6.1063 1.91153

Node 55 -8.8441 9.9367 -8.8441 9.9367 1.0972 1.0926 1.0926 -7.7469 1.0926

Node 60 -9.4462 9.9367 -9.4462 9.9367 0.497 0.4905 0.4905 -8.9492 0.4905

Node 65 -9.8133 9.9367 -9.8133 9.9367 0.1271 0.1234 0.1234 -9.6862 0.1234

Node 70 -9.9366 9.9367 -9.9366 9.9367 0.0001 1E-04 1E-04 -9.9365 0.0001

Match Match ??

1100 F COADE Sus COADE Exp Traditional Sus Exp #1 Exp #2 COADE Sus + Exp Trad Sus + Exp #1 Trad Sus + Exp #2 Ope

L9

Node 35 -4.463 10.0363 -4.463 10.0363 5.6099 5.5733 5.5733 1.1469 5.5733

Node 40 -5.8018 10.0363 -5.8018 10.0363 4.2511 4.2345 4.2345 -1.5507 4.2344

Node 45 -6.9987 10.0363 -6.9987 10.0363 3.0377 3.0376 3.0376 -3.961 3.0377

Node 50 -8.0214 10.0363 -8.0214 10.0363 2.0147 2.0149 2.0149 -6.0067 2.0149

Node 55 -8.8441 10.0363 -8.8441 10.0363 1.1968 1.1922 1.1922 -7.6473 1.1922

Node 60 -9.4462 10.0363 -9.4462 10.0363 0.5966 0.5901 0.5901 -8.8496 0.5901

Node 65 -9.8133 10.0363 -9.8133 10.0363 0.2267 0.223 0.223 -9.5866 0.223

Node 70 -9.9366 10.0363 -9.9366 10.0363 0.0997 0.0997 0.0997 -9.8369 0.0997

Match Match ??

One more point works in favor of the COADE method here there should be continuity in the Sustained stress as the temperature creeps up by each tenth of a degree. Below is a plot of the calculated sustained stress using COADEs Hot Sustained vs. the Traditional Method. COADEs method shows a continuous curve as one would expect as the temperature moves up an

imperceptible amount, whereas the Traditional Method shows a step function with massive jumps at temperature points where the pipe goes from not able to slide a sheet of paper under it to just able to slide a sheet of paper under it. Which response seems more realistic?

Maximum Sustained Stress vs. Temperature

35000 30000 25000 Stress 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 1 76 151 226 301 376 451 526 601 676 751 826 901 976 Temp COADE Method Traditional Method

Does it make any sense to notify the user about the lift-off at support 70 in Load Case L38 (SUS), where the maximum stress is 31564 psi, but not about the basically equivalent stress condition (but without lift off) in Load Case L37 (SUS), where the maximum stress only 31563 psi?

- 62913120 Slug Flow Analysis CAESARUploaded bymapasabc
- Hot Sustained (2)Uploaded byWaseem Hakeem
- 1- Training PDS Interface- Generate PCD and PDS RDB FilesUploaded byno1139
- Caesar - A SketchUploaded bysriharshakalidasu
- Load Case CAESAR IIUploaded byshakassp
- CAESAR II - Modal Analysis With Caesar IIUploaded byyundtech974
- Piping stress Analysis using CAESAR IIUploaded byerikoh
- Determining Limits for Piping VibrationUploaded bysammar_10
- Piping stressUploaded bysaadvikhas
- Example from Theory to Caesar II.docxUploaded byTon Phichit
- CAESAR Load CaseUploaded byvijayanmks
- Bourdon Pressure EffectUploaded byNitesh Kumar
- caesar ii trainingUploaded byPetar Jankovic
- Nonconvergence_in_Caesar_In_Caesar_IIUploaded byviv0102
- C2 CAU Express ModalUploaded byerikoh
- Load Cases and CombinationUploaded byOluwachidi
- 224813666-Pipe-Stress-Analysis.pptUploaded bypourang1361
- Flange LeakageUploaded byBuiVanHop
- MSS-sp-69Uploaded byvivekbanu
- - Pipe Stress Analysis Design BasisUploaded bychandru683
- API 608 Valvulas de Bola.pdfUploaded byhssingmec
- Loads on FlangesUploaded byccoollest
- Storage Tank Piping Stress Analysis as Per API 650 Using Caesar IIUploaded byVardhan Yar
- Expansion Joint in CAESARUploaded bykaruna346
- Stress Analysis of Piping1Uploaded bysateesh chand
- CAESAR_Building Static Load CasesUploaded byg.negrini8304
- Piping Stress Analysis Criteria (2)Uploaded bytrinadhulu
- 75577376 Point Pipe Stress Analysis by Computer CAESAR IIUploaded bymsdohar
- Load CasesUploaded bytebodin_319
- NORSOK-L-002[July 2009]_Piping-Layout-&-AnalysisUploaded byNils Antoine Freund

- Chapter 03 Fractal Fracture Mechanics Applied to Materials EngineeringUploaded byJorge Perdigon
- Dinamic Force on an Elbow Caused by a Traveling Liquid SlugUploaded byshaffeti
- metals-08-00022.pdfUploaded byshaffeti
- Vacuum Attraction Friction and Heating of Nanoparticles Moving Nearby a Heated SurfaceUploaded byshaffeti
- Estratto2_Cap5FFTVolumeII.pdfUploaded byshaffeti
- 1. PART 4.1Uploaded byshaffeti
- Defining a Negligible Creep Temperature Curve for Gr. 91 SteelUploaded byshaffeti
- pdmstocaesarii.pdfUploaded byshaffeti
- Chapter 11 Fracture Analysis of Generator Fan BladesUploaded byJorge Perdigon
- Assessment of Water Pipes Durability Under Pressure SurgeUploaded byshaffeti
- water-07-05284Uploaded byAnonymous A4NHI5
- FPSO Related Piping and Pipe Stress AspectsUploaded bySmith780512
- r 015987Uploaded byshaffeti
- Chapter 02 Foundations of Measurement Fractal Theory for the Fracture MechanicsUploaded byJorge Perdigon
- Virtual Anchor Length - KBRUploaded bySammar Adhikari
- Acoustic of Two-phase FlowsUploaded byshaffeti
- CH_1Uploaded byshaffeti
- Water Hammer 2Uploaded byshaffeti
- PulsationUploaded byNavab Khan
- calculation-of-water-flow-rates-for-different-pipe-sizes_si.xlsUploaded byXinggrage Nih
- GRI-04-0093-6Uploaded byshaffeti
- 3-Analytical Techniques for Evaluation of Compressor-manifold Response - Jcw&FrsUploaded byshaffeti
- Water Hammer TutorialUploaded byaike_5
- Loads on FlangesUploaded byccoollest
- pdmstocaesarii.pdfUploaded byshaffeti
- Storm Sewer AnalysisUploaded byshaffeti
- Nonconvergence_in_Caesar_In_Caesar_IIUploaded byviv0102
- Pipes Support Basic CalculationsUploaded byIlija Runjajic
- Gravity Flow Pipe Design ChartUploaded byjppmj
- support spacingUploaded byshaffeti

- Windows ReinstallationUploaded byVasile Tipcu
- Functions of the BrainUploaded bylightlance7
- Securing the HumanUploaded byManu Pacheco
- Gd2O3 Nanoparticles: Effect on Photoluminescence StudiesUploaded byijaert
- The Protection of the Environment Through Criminal Law in Croatia_Master ThesisUploaded bylawfrik
- Pat Stack Resignation letterUploaded byPat Stack
- MSD 475_Intro.pdfUploaded byXeno Genesis
- 7Uploaded byKaiser
- The New Media and the Rise of Exhortatory TerrorismUploaded byMico A. Galang
- ITESoft FreeMind for InvoicesUploaded byandy_penington
- Random VariablesUploaded bysaintmh
- Matricces NotesUploaded byNaveen Singh
- People vs MelchorUploaded byGemrose Santos
- SQL Practice Problems(1)Uploaded bySudhanshu Mishra
- Documento BasofitaUploaded byJavier Hidalgo
- 00940586Uploaded byHaris Masood
- Dietz Otto Edzard - Enlil, Vater Der GötterUploaded byPerly09
- IndustryARC : Hair Care Market Indonesia (2015-2020)Uploaded bySanjay Matthews
- Mtap Reviewer for Grade 4Uploaded byJhoanna Cortez
- amj.2014.0092.fullUploaded byDiego Maganhotto Coraiola
- Post- magazine, March 25, 2010Uploaded byThe Brown Daily Herald
- Republic vs MenziUploaded byRosalie Castro
- Generelized Sierpinski Fractal Multiband AntennaUploaded byRoy Simorangkir
- Error AnalysisUploaded bygreeneddine
- chap07.pdfUploaded byFalak Sher Buzdar
- Littering CultureUploaded byqonaaha
- Teachers’-Pack for ChildlrenUploaded byMsMartinni
- Jackson Parts ListUploaded byVictoria Corona
- Functions of Language - Revised 2015Uploaded byLorenz Small
- GammaUploaded byBigBoss