01 - Tutor M PDF
01 - Tutor M PDF
Introduction:
This exercise develops the initial modeling of the system and several sequences of "run-evaluate-modify"
to determine the acceptability of the system. This job reviews many of the modeling and analysis
capabilities of CAESAR II. Starting with a quick sketch, the problem will be developed through a series of
tasks, each of which will develop another aspect of the program.
Task 1: Route pipe from pump discharge (A) to fixed nozzle (D).
With A at (0,0,0), D will be at (-4200,4200,6205)
8 inch, standard wall, ASTM A-53 Gr. B pipe
Analysis temperature = 315C
Analysis pressure = 2 bar
Corrosion allowance = 0.8 mm
75 mm C.S. insulation
Content: 0.8SG (bottoms)
Pipe specification: 150 pound class components
Use B31.3
Model:
Boundary conditions:
spacing. Locate a restraint on each horizontal 8 inch run by using the Break command to
add new node numbers – on 70-80, add node 75, placing it 1200 mm before node 80 and, on
80-90, add node 85, placing it 3000 mm after node 80. Define a (double-acting) Y restraint
on these new nodes and include a coefficient of friction of 0.3. Also place a Guide at node 75
with a gap of 8 mm. Define friction for the guide.
Results:
Fix (SIFs):
One of the easiest fixes for an overstressed component is to replace it with a stronger
component. Component strength is indicated by the stress intensification factor (SIF). Here, the
stub-in branches are overstressed. Their in-plane SIF is 3.96 and their out-plane SIF is 4.95.
Adding a pad to these tees will strengthen them. Check the effect of adding a pad by using the
Tee SIF Scratchpad. Changing the UFT to an RFT with a pad equal to the pipe thickness will
drop the SIF by almost 50%. With the stress here proportional to the SIF, the stress should be
acceptable if the tees are changed. This modification will have no effect on the flexibility of the
model. Run the analysis again with pads specified at these tee connections. (Note that a
welding tee or some other self-reinforced attachment may be a better choice in light of the labor
associated with attaching the pad.)
Results:
Deadweight that is now resting on the pump must be transferred to the hanger. The easy way to
do this in CAESAR II is to remove the load-carrying capability of the pump in the initial weight
analysis when the hanger load is first calculated. CAESAR II provides a convenient means to do
this. On the Hanger Design data for node 70 (below) enter values for “Free Restraint at Node:”
and “Free Code:” to release the “restraint” at node 10. While defined as a set of displacements,
this boundary condition can also be freed for the initial weight analysis in hanger sizing. Enter “1”
as the “free code”. This will release node 10 only in the Y direction. With these commands, the
pump nozzle will not provide any Y support to the system when the deadweight is distributed
between the proposed hanger and the other, remaining supports. Since the hanger is located
very close to the riser, much of the riser load will now be carried by the hanger rather than rest on
the pump discharge. Now re-analyze the system.
Results:
Review once again the Restraint Summary of the operating and sustained (installed) cases.
These large pump loads exist in operation but not at “installation”. Therefore these excessive
pump loads are caused by thermal growth. These large loads can be reduced by increasing
system flexibility – by either modeling existing flexibility that is not currently in the model, or, by
modifying the pipe and/or support layout. Certainly the most inexpensive modification would be
the provision of more modeling detail. Welding Research Council Bulletin 297 provides
flexibilities for cylinder-cylinder intersections and these flexibilities might be applicable to the
vessel connection at node 110.
Here is the vessel/nozzle information:
vertical vessel constructed of SA-516 Gr. 70
OD = 1500mm (D), wall = 4.75mm (T)
nozzle is 2200mm above skirt
skirt is 3000mm above foundation
the long weld neck flange serves as the nozzle
OD=247.65mm (d), wall=22.225mm (t)
nozzle pad is 4.75mm. thick and 100mm. wide
a tray is within 600 mm of the nozzle and a stiffener ring is 1000 mm on the other
side
Add Welding Research Council Bulletin 297 nozzle flexibility to the existing model.
• First, evaluate the vessel/nozzle parameters to confirm that the WRC 297 approach is
valid. (d, t refer to nozzle and D,T refer to vessel shell.)
Here, T will be the vessel thickness plus the pad thickness.
d/t ≥ 20: here d/t = 11; use this data even though it is outside the acceptable range
20 ≤ D/T ≤ 2500; here D/T = 158
5 ≤ d/T ≤ 100; here d/T = 26
• This flexibility will be modeled as a (zero-length) spring inserted between the long weld
neck flange (100-110) and the displacement set representing the vessel growth at 110.
• Reassign the vessel growth by changing the reassigning the displacements from node
110 to node 1500. Node 1500 will not appear as a From Node or To Node on a piping
spreadsheet. Instead it is referenced in the displacement set defined on the element
100-110.
• On 100 – 110 click the Nozzle checkbox to open the window to define nozzle flexibility
using the data above. See below.
• Review the nozzle flexibilities listed in the error review. The nozzle provides limited axial
flexibility but the longitudinal and circumferential bending flexibilities appear significant.
Reanalyze the system.
Results:
There is a rather large operating load on the guide (Z restraint) at node 75. The thermal growth
of the long Z run from 80-90 loads the guide and pushes the elbow at node 70 in the positive Z
direction. This thermal growth increases both the pump load in Z and the bending moment about
X. Is the structure guiding the pipe as rigid as the CAESAR II model says it is? If the guide has
lower stiffness, the pump loads may reduce within their allowed limits. There may be reason,
then, to model the structural steel that is interacting with this piping system.
There are two structures – a frame under Node 75 and a t pole under Node 85. These structures
will be included in the analysis.
FRAME T POLE
UNIT EURO.FIL UNIT EURO.FIL
MATID 1 MATID 1
VERTICAL=Y VERTICAL=Y
SECID=1 W8X31 SECID=1 W8X31
SECID=2 W6X20 SECID=2 W6X20
EDIM 2000 2010 inc=10 incTo=10 last=2020 DY=2500 ANGLE=90
EDIM 2010 2012 DZ=-1800 secID=2 EDIM 1000 1005 DY=5000
EDIM 2002 2012 inc=10 incTo=10 last=2022 DY=2500 DEFAULT Section ID=2
DEFAULT Section ID=2 ANGLE=0
EDIM 2020 2021 DZ=-300 EDIM 1005 1010 DX=-600
EDIM 2021 2022 DZ=-1500 EDIM 1005 1015 DX=300
FIX 2000 2002 by=2 all=Fixed EDIM 1015 1020 DX=300
FIX 1000 all=Fixed
To build these models, start a new CAESAR II job but declare them as Structural Input rather
than Piping Input. The Steel Wizard will request response through section ID before opening the
general steel processor. Enter the lines of data as shown. When finished, click the Save button
to process and save the data.
Include the steel models in the piping analysis by first clicking on the “Include structural files”
button (or use the Environment menu item). Use the Browse command to select and add these
two steel files to this job. Since these two steel models do not share a common node number
with the piping, the program will ask where to place their local origins. Let these two models
share the same origin as the piping.
Reviewing the piping and steel nodes, it is clear that pipe node 75 will be connected to steel node
2021 and pipe node 85 will be connected to node 1015. But are the centerlines in contact or
does the bottom of pipe contact the top of structure? Clearly the latter is true. A more pleasing
model will show the proper position of pipe and steel. And, in some cases (e.g. where friction or
a guide is included on larger diameter pipe) the proper contact point will affect the results. In this
system there is about 210mm between the pipe and steel centerlines. A dummy rigid element will
be built at both support points to offset the pipe above the steel. First locate element 70-75.
INSERT a new element AFTER this element. The new element will be from 75 to 1075 and the
distance between these nodes will be -210 mm in Y. Make this a weightless, rigid element. Now
return to the element 70-75 and redefine the restraint at node 75 by changing the Node to 1075
and define a CNode (connecting node) of 2021. Be sure to do this for all restraints at this point.
The plot will now reposition the Frame under node 75. Follow this procedure for the restraint at
85, creating a new element 85-1085 and connecting 1085 to 1015.
Results:
Without changing the position of the pump or vessel nozzle, or changing the thermal strain; the
only way to reduce these loads is to add flexibility to the layout. There is no inherent flexibility
1
that was (conveniently) excluded from the model so an expansion loop will be introduced.
1
One other item in this model that has not been evaluated is the sensitivity to friction effects at these supports.
• Added legs of loop should be laid perpendicular to the thermal growth causing the load
(See page 2-28 of the course notes.)
• Attention will be focused on the most excessive pump load component. The API610
report shows that this is the moment about the local Y axis. This is the bending moment
about the global Z axis.
• Determine which element’s strain causes this high moment about the Z axis
o What force acting on the Y cantilever leg causes a negative Z moment in the
nozzle?
o +FX cross Y gives a negative Z moment at 10
o The thermal growth of the X run causes the negative Z moment
• The added loop legs can go in the Y or Z direction (perpendicular to the strain in X).
• What is the most effective orientation and location?
o A Z loop on the “C end” of the X run (Layout A)
o A Y loop on the “C end” of the X run (Layout B)
o A Y loop on the “B end ” of the X run (Layout C)
o A Z loop on the “B end” of the X run and a Y loop on either end of the Z run is the
same as Layout B
• Run through bending moment equation (LOOP LEG.XLS)
o Page 2-28 of course notes shows the bending stress at the nozzle is estimated
as SE=6ERΔLj/Σ(Li3)
o Use this to evaluate the change in moment by changing the flexible legs
o SE=M/Z=MR/I
o M=6EIΔLj/ Σ(Li3); 6EIΔ is constant; let 6EIΔ=K
o Solve for K using current M and Current L’s
o Now calculate M as L changes for each design
) 14
m
- 12 In Y (B)
N
K
( 10
t In Z (A)
n
e 8
m
o 6 Max Mz (= 2
M * Table 4)
4
2
0 1 2 3 4 5
Added Loop Leg (m)
Model:
• The Wizard sizes a loop that extends less than 1000mm in –Z. (Recall that the simple
hand calculation projected an added length of over 4000mm.) It may be sensible to
round this length up to an even meter and drop the pump load a little further. Do this by
changing the length of 76-77 and 78-80 to 1000mm in the appropriate directions.
• The support configuration should also be reviewed. Is there sufficient deadweight
support to carry the added pipe? Will there be excessive sag in the loop? Does the loop
interfere with other components?
• Rather than adding another support, the sustained stress and the pipe sag will be
monitored in the results. The loop’s interference with the frame’s space will be ignored
here.
• The node number sequence between 75 and 80 did not provide enough “room” to assign
consecutive node numbers around the two new bends. To include the near- and mid-
points on the new elbows just de-select and re-select a bend at each of these locations
(76 & 77).
• Once complete, it will be necessary to review all results for this model.
• Rename this new model by selecting the menu item File, then select Save As and save
this new model as TASK2.
• Run the analysis.
Results:
•A Size 10 Anvil Figure B-268 spring is still the selected support with a minor reduction in
hot load.
(hot load = 5701N, deflection = 17mm, k= 46N/mm, cold load = 6472, L.V. = 14%)
Pump load looks much better
• Rerun API610 check with new data to confirm
• (Global) Mz is 1.98 times the allowable.
• Other Appendix F checks (validating the 2 timed Table 4 approach) also pass.
Conclusion:
• The Z moment is 99 percent of its allowable limit (1.98/2.0). How much confidence do we have in
this calculation?
• What is an easy way to reduce the Y load on the discharge nozzle? Will doing so improve the
overall loads? How does this affect the confidence in the pump loads?
• Should the loop be extended?
• Select an 3.5 kg/cm2 class, 8 inch expansion joint out of the Senior Flexonics / Pathway
catalog.
• What sort of joint is needed here? Review the types of joint assemblies.
• A tied expansion joint on the riser and below the valve will be best suited to absorb the
horizontal pipe growth over the pump. The vertical loads associated with thermal
expansion can be adjusted by the spring at Node 70.
• Have CAESAR II calculate the free horizontal growth of the joint by breaking the system
above the pump. Use this value to select the number of convolutions. Then install the
expansion joint and analyze its suitability.
TASK 3a – Determine the service requirements (travel) for the expansion joint assembly
Model:
Results:
Using the expansion case displacements, calculate the change in position between Node 20 and
Node 21.
• Nodes 20 & 21 move together in Y, RX, RY, & RZ because of the NODE/CNODE
restraint definitions
• Delta X is 34 mm and delta Z is 11 mm resulting in a relative horizontal displacement of
36 mm
• Relative lateral displacement = 22 mm. The global moment Mz on the pump is only 877
N-m but the moment about Y is excessive at over 6000 N-m. This moment will also place
torsion on the expansion joint and this torsion may be excessive as well.
• If this observation did not stop the iteration, how would this process proceed?
o Test 16 convolutions - 16 convolutions allow 24.8 mm lateral deflection and has
K = 118 N/mm
o Reset X and Z restraint stiffness to 118 and reanalyze
o Check travel limits for the proposed joint and the load limits for the pump.
o If 16 convolutions are OK and overall joint lateral translation drops, test a shorter
(i.e., fewer convolutions) joint
Conclusion:
• Because of the large global My on the pump and the torque on the expansion joint, the
proposed length and location of this joint should be reconsidered.
• For this exercise, though, analysis of a 20 convolution, tied expansion joint will be
evaluated (for this length a tied universal joint would probably be preferred; consult
manufacturer for other options)
• The flanged expansion joint would be located between the discharge nozzle and the
existing weld neck flange. To save time in this examination, the expansion joint will be
placed between the flange and pipe rather than between the nozzle and flange. The
error introduced will be small.
• Once again open TASK1 and immediately ‘Save As’ TASK3
• Move to the pipe element 20 – 30
• Enter Expansion Joint Modeler
• Select a 50 pound class, tied, 20 convolution tied expansion joint with slip on ends
• Place the joint at the From end (20)
• Adjust stiffness to pipe temperature
• Note details:
Results:
Using the expansion case displacements, calculate the lateral deflection between Nodes 21 and
22, which bound the expansion joint.
• Delta X is 21 mm and delta Z is 12 mm resulting in a lateral displacement of over 24 mm.
A quick check of the catalog shows that this works for a 20 convolution joint
• There is minimal axial deflection and angular rotation. Torsion in the joint is 0.33
degrees. This is excessive.
Check the pump loads
• Operating loads do not look unusual. Sustained (installed) loads are small indicating that
these operating loads are due to thermal growth.
• Running the API 610 report shows that this layout is acceptable with the largest load
component being the global My at 0.98 times Table 4.
• Estimate the number of expansion cycles for the life of this joint at 2000.
• Run through the linear interaction formula for a quick check
o Confirm the twist is within its limit: actual = 0.3368 deg. & allowed = 0.212 deg.
o JOINT FAILS
• Run through the EJMA check
Actual
Axial 0.34 =X
Lateral 23.8 =Y
Bending 0.0002 = Theta
Eff. Dia. 239.6 =D
Flex. Length 317.5 =L
X+0.00872665*D*Theta+3*D*Y/L = 54.22
Conclusion:
Otherwise, a 20 convolution expansion joint will safely provide the added flexibility required for
proper pump operation.
Complete the Expansion Joint Specification Sheet (Appx. A of the Standards of EJMA)
Other convolution counts are available; watch out for fatigue (rating of 2000 cycles); consult the
manufacturer.
Use the Welding Research Council Bulletin 107 processor available from the CAESAR II Main
Menu/Analysis
• Evaluate the vessel/nozzle parameters to confirm that the WRC 107 approach is valid
d/D ≤ 0.3; here d/D = 0.165
Dm/T ≥ 50; here Dm/T = 157
• Vessel and nozzle data is listed in Task 1 above.
• The nozzle vector must point to the center of the vessel for proper load conversion
• Collect the sustained and expansion loads from TASK2
Calculate local stresses using WRC 107 but use the stress summations from ASME BPVC
Section VIII Div. 2 Appendix 4 – Design Based on Stress Analysis. See also WRC Bulletin 429 –
3D Stress Criteria Guidelines for Application.
• Push the button
• Pm (general, primary membrane) stress has yield strength as its limit thus ensuring no
failure by gross distortion. This is away from the junction discontinuity and is simply
calculated using pressure stress equations. Pm < Smh
• Pm+PL (primary membrane) stress is an indicator of excessive plastic deformation. This
stress combines the local membrane stress (stress that is constant across the cross
section) due to sustained loads (from WRC 107) with the pressure term in Pm.
Pm+PL<1.5Smh
• Pm+PL+Q (primary plus secondary) stress monitors shakedown. These primary plus
secondary stresses are used to monitor fatigue. Q is calculated using the WRC 107
results—bending stress from sustained loads and membrane and bending stress from
expansion loads. Pm+PL+Q<1.5(Smc+Smh)
• There is no Pb stress in this evaluation. Pb is bending due to pressure. This is
monitored just as Pm but the limit is 1.5Smh to account for the shape factor.
• Additional checks would be required if fatigue failure is anticipated; in which case the
peak stresses need be calculated and comparisons be made to the endurance limit.
Results:
Vessel shell is thick enough to carry the pipe’s operating loads even if the entire pressure thrust
load is carried by the nozzle. (Test this by running the analysis with and without pressure thrust.)