Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Engineering
News
VOLUME 29
JUNE 2000
TANK Version 2.10 was released in May of 2000. Version 2.10 updates the
software to comply with the latest editions and addenda of API-650 and API653. Version 2.10 also incorporates venting computations as per API-2000.
The dialog for the venting input data is shown in the figure below.
IN THIS ISSUE:
Whats New at COADE
Finite Element
Analysis
Options in
Vessel Software
Mitered Bends
and other Gems
Secrets of the
"Windows" Keys
Program Specifications
CAESAR II Notices ......................................
TANK Notices ...............................................
CodeCalc Notices ........................................
PVElite Notices ............................................
31
31
32
32
June 2000
3D model viewer
3D Viewer
This viewer is a stand-alone application that can read any PVElite
input file and render it. Some of the functionality includes real time
model rotation, zooming, panning, cutting planes, wire frame
viewing, tool tips and many others. The modeler makes many
1,
Description: BS Nozzle
OD
0.0000
2540.000
23.000
150.000
227.000
2.25
1.20
mm.
mm.
mm.
N/mm
N/mm
Nbasis
Can
Dn
Tn
h
OD
0.0000
219.000
15.200
0.000
mm.
mm.
mm.
mm.
L
Dx
3000.00
1500.00
mm.
mm.
Dp
Fr
1.10
4410.00
N/mm
N
June 2000
Circumferential Shear
Longitudinal Shear
Torsional Moment
Circumferential Moment
Longitudinal Moment
Fc
Fl
Mt
Mc
Ml
6600.00
6600.00
8900000.00
3630000.00
3630000.00
Longitudinal Stresses:
Membrane Component (Nx/t) due to:
Radial Load
1.3
1.3
1.3
Circ. Moment
-9.4
-9.4
-9.4
Long. Moment
-3.0
-3.0
3.0
Sub-Total loc.
-11.1
-11.1
-5.1
Pressure (fp)
123.1
123.1
123.1
Sub-Total(fxm)
112.0
112.0
118.0
N
N
Nmm
Nmm
Nmm
1.3
-9.4
3.0
-5.1
123.1
118.0
1.3
9.4
3.0
13.7
123.1
136.8
1.3
9.4
3.0
13.7
123.1
136.8
1.3
9.4
-3.0
7.6
123.1
130.7
1.3
9.4
-3.0
7.6
123.1
130.7
Tot. Long. fx
195.6
28.4
112.9
123.2
43.0
230.6
125.8
135.7
0.0810
The following are the curves of rho selected for the analysis:
Values of Rho: 0.500 (Curve1), 0.599 (Computed rho), 0.600 (Curve2)
Values of erb/ers for values of rho: 0.430, 0.540, 0.520, 0.660
5.1
0.8
0.8
5.1
0.8
0.8
5.1
0.8
0.8
5.1
0.8
0.8
5.1
0.8
0.8
5.1
0.8
0.8
5.1
0.8
0.8
Intermediate Values
L o n g i t u d i n a l
Circ.
Radial
At Point A
Point B
At C
K Factor
K
8.0000
8.0000
2.0348
Load over the Area
W
31432.2
-31432.2
31432.2
-4410.0
Equivalent Length
Le 2995.5542 2995.5542
3000.0000
3000.0000
Parameter
Cx
28.8717
28.8717
86.6150
86.6150
Parameter
C
86.6150
86.6150
28.8717
86.6150
Parameter
64r(Cx/r)
1.8431
1.8431
16.5877
16.5877
Parameter
2Cx/Le
0.0193
0.0193
0.0577
0.0577
Parameter
C/Cx
3.0000
3.0000
0.3333
1.0000
G6
G7
G8
G9
Curve
Curve
Curve
Curve
G6
G7
G8
G9
at
at
at
at
Value
Value
Value
Value
Zero
Zero
Zero
Zero
0.1645
0.1557
-0.1952
-0.1548
0.1645
0.1557
-0.1952
-0.1548
0.3364
0.2439
-0.2064
-0.1685
0.3364
0.2439
-0.2064
-0.1685
Circ.
Long.
Circ.
Long.
value
value
value
value
M
Mx
N
Nx
0.4890
0.6385
0.9461
0.9188
0.4890
0.6385
0.9461
0.9188
Curve
Curve
Curve
Curve
Value
Value
Value
Value
M3/W
Mx3/W
N3/W
Nx3/W
0.1245
0.0489
-0.0684
-0.1131
0.1245
0.0489
-0.0684
-0.1131
M2/W
Mx2/W
N2/W
Nx2/W
0.0609
0.0312
-0.0647
-0.1039
0.0609
0.0312
-0.0647
-0.1039
M/W
Mx/W
Nt/W
Nxt/W
0.1036
0.1245
-0.1306
-0.0509
0.1036
0.1245
-0.1306
-0.0509
Value
Value
Value
Value
Circ.
Long.
Circ.
Long.
value
value
value
value
0.1953
0.1243
-0.1673
-0.1579
0.1953
0.1243
-0.1673
-0.1579
Q2
Out
0.1389
0.1013
-0.1624
-0.1534
Q3
Q4
In
Out
In
Out
In
Out
Circumferential Stresses:
Membrane Component (N/t) due to:
Radial Load
1.4
1.4
1.4
Circ. Moment
-9.9
-9.9
-9.9
Long. Moment
-7.8
-7.8
7.8
Sub-Total loc.
-16.3
-16.3
-0.8
Pressure (fp)
123.1
123.1
123.1
Sub-Total(fm)
106.8
106.8
122.3
1.4
-9.9
7.8
-0.8
123.1
122.3
1.4
9.9
7.8
19.1
123.1
142.2
1.4
9.9
7.8
19.1
123.1
142.2
1.4
9.9
-7.8
3.5
123.1
126.7
1.4
9.9
-7.8
3.5
123.1
126.7
Bending Component
Radial Load
Circ. Moment
Long. Moment
Sub-Total(fb)
6.9
-69.6
36.9
-25.7
-6.9
-69.6
-36.9
-113.5
6.9
69.6
36.9
113.5
-6.9
-69.6
36.9
-39.6
6.9
69.6
-36.9
39.6
126.9
85.9
-41.1
167.7
134.3
-33.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
337.50
-204.00
180.00
2.0455
Q1
In
257.4
228.8
-28.6
Quadrant
Surface
To get PVElite to create such a file, fill in the data in the DXF
options tab as shown in the following figure. When the program
runs, up to 3 DXF files will be produced. The files contain the
drawing itself, the nozzle schedule and the bill of material. The
nozzle and the bill of material are optional. With the exception of
the scale factor, the other settings are saved in between sessions so
that they do not have to be checked repeatedly.
After the DXF files have been created, PVElite can invoke any
program available on the system capable of displaying a DXF file.
This is simply done by pressing a button on the toolbar after the files
have been created. Some companies have free DXF file viewers
that allow a file to be viewed and printed but not edited.
206.4
7.2
148.0
96.6
28.7
255.7
87.0
166.3
June 2000
Volume
25
No Parallel Port?
Need a USB ESL?
Let us know when you order your software.
June 2000
June 2000
1.5(k)Smh
18,000
psi
1
Primary Membrane Load Case 2
Plot Reference:
1) Pl < 1.5(k)Smh
(SUS,Membrane) Case 2
111%
2.
3.
4.
5.
Allowable Loads
SECONDARY
Load Type (Range):
Axial Force
Inplane
Moment
Outplane Moment
Torsional Moment
Pressure
(lb.
)
(in. lb.)
(in. lb.)
(in. lb.)
(psi
)
Maximum
Individual
Occurring
398030.
5306513.
3358105.
2343568.
344.
Conservative
Simultaneous
Occurring
120631.
1137199.
719650.
710264.
111.
Realistic
Simultaneous
Occurring
180946.
2412363.
1526608.
1065396.
111.
(lb.
)
(in. lb.)
(in. lb.)
(in. lb.)
(psi
)
Maximum
Individual
Occurring
618455.
5998639.
5458219.
2938301.
422.
Conservative
Simultaneous
Occurring
178300.
1222872.
1182725.
847110.
111.
Realistic
Simultaneous
Occurring
267450.
2594104.
2508939.
1270665.
111.
PRIMARY
Load Type:
Axial Force
Inplane
Moment
Outplane Moment
Torsional Moment
Pressure
In the top frame are several other important links. The Site Map
link produces a concise, single page view of the entire website. The
Search link provides a search form from which the entire website
can be scanned for a particular topic. The Contact Us link
produces a page detailing complete contact information for COADE,
as well as e-mail addresses of all COADE employees.
June 2000
Whats New:
This section of the website provides two quick ways to obtain the
latest COADE information. The first link in this section produces a
news file, which lists the latest developments at COADE. The
second link produces a website revision history. A quick perusal
of this page shows immediately whether or not you need to look
elsewhere on the site for new or updated information. This page
typically includes direct links to the referenced subjects, for quick
access.
(At the bottom of each page is the last modified date of the
page. Use this to determine how up-to-date the page is.)
Company Information:
Probably the two most useful pages in this section are the Travel
and Privacy Policy pages. The Travel page can be used to
acquire (COADE) area maps, local weather, area hotels, and driving
directions from the airport. This page also contains links to airline
and car rental sites. If you plan to attend a COADE seminar in
Houston, this page is invaluable.
Internet privacy is a key area of concern to most businesses and
individuals. The COADE Privacy Policy details exactly what
COADE does with any information acquired from website visitors.
In short, any personal information obtained from the website is used
solely for COADEs marketing and support efforts. This information
is not revealed to third parties.
Products:
Support:
The Support section of the navigation bar is the most important, and
most frequently used. The Downloads page of this section
produces a list of COADE software products, from which users can
view a list of files available for download. These files range from
examples to software updates. This section should be checked
frequently to ensure the latest edition of the software is in use.
June 2000
Zoom Window Used to zoom on a specific region of the model,
using a standard rubber band box.
The first menu option is Operators, which contains options for the
global manipulation of the graphic image. The second menu option
is Views, which contains options to quickly orientate the image into
the three standard planar views and the isometric view. The third
menu option is Projections, which provides various viewing options.
The fourth menu option is Properties, which presently only provides
a single option to change the colors of the various plot items. Each
of these menu options is discussed in the paragraphs below.
The Operators menu provides global manipulation options, as
shown in the figure below. These operations are:
Annotate
XZ Plane
YZ Plane
Isometric
Pan
Zoom Extents
Perspective
June 2000
Stretched to Window
This option produces a stretched view
of the model, such that the model fills the entire
Window.
June 2000
Element Details:
Data interrogation has always been the most important feature of
the CAESAR II graphics system. Users must have the capability to
ensure the correct model is being analyzed. The HOOPS graphics
expand these interrogation abilities.
For quick details about an element or node point, click on the
Object Selection Button (the white arrow pointing to the upper left).
Now put the mouse cursor over the object of interest. An information
bubble will appear describing the major properties of the object
beneath the cursor. A typical information bubble is shown in the
figure below.
Again using the left mouse button, grab the upper right splitter bar
and drag it down. This will split the two existing panes into two
additional panes, upper and lower. When the mouse button is
released, all four panes are updated, with the Z axis view in the
lower left pane, the isometric (or original view) in the lower right
pane, the X axis view in the upper left pane, and the Y axis view in
the upper right pane. This modification to the graphics view is
shown in the figure below.
Moving the mouse cursor off of the piping system causes this
information bubble to disappear. Pointing to a different object,
displays its information bubble.
Previous versions of CAESAR II allowed users to view element
diameters, thicknesses, and temperatures by simply placing values
on pipe elements. The new 3D graphics instead generate a color
table, where each color represents a different diameter, or thickness,
or temperature. The corresponding pipe elements are shaded in the
same color. The thickness data is shown in the figure below.
June 2000
This figure shows that element 75-80 has been selected (since it has
been redrawn in gray). The spreadsheet has been updated to
correspond to the data associated with this same element, 75-80.
Assuming enough screen real estate is available, the entire
spreadsheet for the selected element can be viewed and its data
modified.
These new 3D graphics are under continual development. Each
new revision to CAESAR II will provide more features and
capabilities to the graphic representation of the model.
11
June 2000
At the present time, only static results are available for ODBC
export. To query these database tables for reports, the user must
first enable the ODBC Data Export function. The program will then
require the user to specify a location to which the database will be
saved. From this location, the user can access the report templates.
Shown below is the form provided for accessing the reports.
12
1.
2.
June 2000
Apply a filter to any of the fields in the table. The filter options
can be accessed by right-clicking on the field where the user
wishes to apply the filter. For example, if you want to only
view data for the job CRYNOS._A, right-click on any
JOBNAME row with the data CRYNOS._A and select Filter
By Selection as shown below. A filter will then be applied that
only shows records from CRYNOS._A.
Important Note: The filter option by default uses the logical AND
operator to conduct searches. Therefore, when searching values of
PRCT_STRF, PRCT_STRT, or any other numerical fields, care
must be taken not to mutually exclude filters. For instance, if there
are values specified for both PRCT_STRF and PRCT_STRT, the
filter will attempt to obey both filters and may not find any data,
whereas there might be elements where only the FROM node i.e.
PRCT_STRF will be overstressed. In such a case, the user should
opt to use the query method that is more flexible.
Query Method: The following steps will outline how to create a
simple query for displaying elements that are overstressed.
1.
2.
Select the Queries tab or button and then pick Create Query
in Design View.
3.
4.
5.
6.
13
June 2000
COADE Inc. recommends that readers interested in furthering
their Access knowledge consult Microsoft Access 2000 Bible, by
Cary Prague and Michael Irwin, available at the COADE website
(http://www.coade.com) in association with Amazon.com and can
be found under the category Reference Materials.
8.
This error occurs if a user has upgraded the user database (as
specified in the CAESAR II Configuration file) to Access 2000.
CAESAR II 4.20 provides a template database in Access 97
format. This was done so Access 97 users can use the data export
utility. The template database is stored in the CAESAR\SYSTEM
directory.
To solve this problem:
1.
2.
10. To create the report within Access, select the Reports tab and
use the Report Wizard to select the query created earlier.
11. To export the data to Word or Excel, select Office Links from
the Tools menu.
The CAESAR II ODBC Data Export feature allows users to
selectively create reports that address their concerns using commonly
available productivity tools such as Microsoft Office. More
information about Access can be obtained from reference books.
14
1.
2.
June 2000
3.
4.
2.
3.
15
June 2000
You will notice that the DSN is now updated as shown below.
DO NOT change the data source name. Click on the OK
button and then again on OK to close the ODBC Data Sources
window.
16
June 2000
indicates a w-s miter while a value greater than one signifies a c-s
miter. The angle theta used in the miter calculations is set by the
overall miter angle (angle) and the number of cuts
(n) = angle 2n . The bend radius or the effective miter radius
defaults to 1.5 times the nominal pipe size (long radius). This
radius field should be updated to reflect the actual or effective
radius of the component. Determining this effective radius for
mitered components is simplified by the bend SIF scratchpad. This
scratchpad calculates the miter spacing based on the overall bend
angle and two user valuesbend radius and number of miter cuts.
This scratchpad is shown in Figure 2. Keep an eye on the miter
spacing as you change the bend radius or the number of cuts. This
value s is back-calculated from the equivalent radius formula for cs miters R1 = s cot 2 . If this miter spacing is greater than
the c-s spacing limit in the scratchpad, you have a widely
spaced miter and it must be coded as suchas straight runs
connected by single miters. Using the approximate default bend
radius of 1.5OD, this means that a 90 degree miter requires more
than three cuts to be considered closely spaced. Alternatively, your
equivalent miter radius could be reduced to meet the spacing
requirement. A subtle point (developed in the example below) is
that CAESAR II will use the w-s values for flexibility and stress
intensification for those joints that do not meet the c-s requirements
even if they are entered as a multiple-cut component.
Figure 1
Figure 2
NOTE 23 The MITERED BEND at 20 is WIDELY SPACED.
A typical user, in a rush to get results, will code through the miter
joint by checking on bend and specifying the number of cuts. The
default radius is usually ignored. It will not be until the error
checker that the program warns the user with Note 23 that the
multiple-cut miter does not qualify as a multi-cut, closely spaced
miter component. This component should be modeled as a series of
widely spaced (single) miters separated by straight pipe. What does
CAESAR II do in this situation? Again, if the number of cuts is
greater than one, a c-s miter is assumed. The overall miter angle is
defined by the pipes entering and exiting the miter and the bend
radius will default to one and one-half times the nominal OD. The
programs error processor will check the calculated miter spacing
and report if the mitered component fails the c-s check using the
Appendix D definition of maximum spacing of closely spaced
cuts s !r 2 (1 + tan ) . If the group is considered widely spaced,
CAESAR II will use the widely spaced flexibility and stress
intensification factors in the analysis. (These w-s values will also
be displayed in the bend scratchpad.). OK, so the program uses the
wrong flexibility and stress intensification factors. How wrong are
they? Is it a conservative error? Using the data in the scratchpad
above, the difference between widely and closely spaced parameters
is less than 20 percent and the program, in using the w-s data, will
use the stiffer, weaker numbers. You could say that it is conservative.
Except for the effect of the straight pipe! Remember, the code
treats the c-s miter as a single component with the flexibility and
stress intensification factors applied across the entire, multi-cut
component. The widely spaced miter data applies to the single cut
and the spacing between the cuts is treated as regular pipe. What is
the effect of the straight runs on the widely spaced model? The
significance of the straight runs will be examined using sensitivity
study. Rather than trying to think through the mathematics, the
program will be treated as a black box. Two small models will be
built, one with the straight runs through the miter and one without.
17
June 2000
If the results are similar, the model is not sensitive to the differences.
If the differences are significant, the better model should be used.
An Example
An example will review the concepts presented so far. Run a 12
inch nominal, standard wall, A106 Gr.B pipe from 10 to 20 ten feet
in the Y direction with an anchor at 10. Specify a bend at 20 and,
leaving the radius at 18 inches, enter 3 for the number of miter
points. Add the second element from 20 to 30 as 10 feet in X.
Check the bend scratchpad to review the miter spacing and stress
intensification factors. This data is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 3
Bend SIF Scratchpad
The spacing between cuts is shown as 9.646 inches and the stress
intensification factor is 3.285. Checking the Appendix D calculations
with r2 = 6.1875 , = 15 ; s = r2 (1 + tan ) = 7.845 . With the
scratchpad spacing (9.646) greater than the limit for closely spaced
miters (7.845), either the equivalent radius should be reduced or
this group of miter cuts should be modeled as three single cut
miters. If changing the radius, either use the equation
R1 ! (r2 / 2)((1 + tan ) (tan )) or test values in the bend scratchpad.
For this example, the miters will be modeled as a series of single
cuts.
A strategy for modeling the example as a w-s miter group
A three-miter component has two elements separated by these three
cuts. For simplicity, we will replace the overall group with four
elementsthese two elements plus two extensions of the existing
pipe in and out of the group (the existing Y and X runs). Using the
scratchpad length L=9.646; these extensions will be L/2 long and
the two new runs will be L long. These four pipes will be bounded
by the node sequence 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 and single miter cuts
will be specified at 200, 300 & 400. In this example we will
produce a miter group that maintains the face-to-face dimension of
a standard welding elbow, i.e. radius = 1.5OD = 18 inches. The
spacing between cuts, then, will be the same as the scratchpad value
of 9.646 inches. The extensions will be half that or 4.823 inches.
Now add these new elements. First break 10 to 20 (the ten foot run
in Y) 8 to 6 from 10 (18 inches from 20) by adding node 100. The
four miter elements will be inserted after this new element 10 to
100. Insert 100 to 200 as a 4.823 inch (L/2) run in the Y direction.
For easy input, all new elements will be entered in the Y direction.
The orientation of the new elements will be set in a second pass
through the group. Now insert 200 to 300 after 100 to 200 and
make it 9.646 inches (L) and follow it with 300 to 400, also L long
and finally, 400 to 500 4.823 inches or L/2 long. Adjust the
orientation of the new elements using the Block and Rotate features
of the List Processor (see Figure 3).
18
First, in the element list, block the three elements 200 to 300
through 400 to 500. Rotate this block 30 degrees about the Z axis
(again, 10 to 20 was in Y and 20 to 30 was in X). The overall
change in direction is 90 degrees and with three cuts, each change
will be 30 degrees. Now block only 300 to 400 and 400 to 500 and
again rotate 30 degrees about Z. Finally block and rotate 400 to
500 the same 30 degrees about Z. Now go back to the input
screens and specify bends at 200, 300, and 400 with Miter Points =
1. To clean up the model, delete element 100 to 20 and break 20 to
30 by adding node 500 18 inches from 20 and delete element 20 to
500. The plot should look good and the bend scratchpad will show
that s = 9.646 inches and the SIF is 3.285. These are the w-s miter
numbers. If you would change the equivalent radius now, the
spacing would change but since the number of cuts is 1, the flexibility
and stress intensification factors will stay at the w-s calculations
the spacing has no effect on w-s miters.
Comparing the results of the correct and incorrect modela
sensitivity study
How does this new model compare with the improperly coded, 3cut miter model? A quick analysis of this simple system will reveal
the significance of this proper model. Place a 0.1 inch displacement
at node 30 on both the quick & dirty, miter = 3 job and the fancy,
3 single-cut job and run an analysis of the displacement case. The
anchor load on the incorrect model is 178 lbf and the anchor load
on the correct model is 219 lbf. The maximum stress in the
incorrect model is 1600 psi and the maximum stress in the correct
model is 1889 psi. The stresses change but not as a result of the
SIFs; these stress intensification factors are the same in both
models. It is the bending moments that are different and these are
different because the correct model is stifferthose short, straight
runs do play a role here. The numbers here are low but the change is
about 20 percent. The model is sensitive to this change.
You might have seen Note 23 (The MITERED BEND is
WIDELY SPACED) in the error checker and ignored it in the past.
You might not have known the reason or impact of such a modeling
condition. If you knew what it meant, the remedy might have been
too costlywith confusing angles and lengths of pipe. Here, we
June 2000
have reviewed the background and cause of this message by
examining the nature of closely spaced and widely spaced mitered
components. If there is more than one miter cut specified for a
CAESAR II bend, it better be a closely spaced miter. If it
doesnt pass the c-s miter test, CAESAR II will apply flexibility
and stress intensification factors for a w-s miter, but that will not
fully address the issue. The individual runs between cuts should be
modeled. This article reviews a quick and painless way to build
that model and it illustrates the significance of that change.
In the 1920s through 1950s Markl et al. performed their first set of
fatigue tests on piping components and wrote his benchmark paper
Piping Flexibility Analysis. Afterwards and in conjunction
with this paper, the B31 rules for Expansion and Flexibility section
6 were modified by Markl and subgroup(s) membersH.C.E.
Meyer, R. Michael, S.W. Spielvogel, N. Blair, H.V. WallStrom.
For the most part, these changes have gone largely unmodified and
Markl's work is still quoted and referenced today.
The codes (B31.1 and B31.3) approach is predicated to a great
extent upon simplified methods of analysis and evaluation, i.e. no
design rules per Section III NB3200 Design by Analysis etc. As
such, the single dimension beam element structural analysis programs
such as CAESAR II and other Pipe Stress Analysis programs
have been used quite successfully for a wide variety of piping
systems. Code (SIFs) Stress Intensification Factors and flexibility
factors improve the analytical results of these programs. The codes
assume that the predominant loads imposed by weight, displacements,
and other loads (not including pressure) primarily result in bending
stresses.
19
June 2000
One might notice that the highest sustained stress is shown at node
10. However, the calculation of the code stress Sl is a combination
of bending stress due to weight + axial pressure stress. Therefore,
the maximum bending stress should be at the midpoint of the
element and could be based upon the classic beam formula
Mmax occurs at midspan but look where CAESAR II thinks the
maximum stress is! Not at midspan, what happened?
Loading
Mmax at point (C)
2
wl
Mmax :=
8
Looking at a deflected plot (Fig. 5), things now make sense as well.
If we would add many nodes the deflected plot would assume the
correctly curved shape, but the mid span deflection of 2.706
would not change.
So what happened? Well the only way that a beam element program
can extract data from a model is at node points. The only places
where mathematical results can exist are at node points. In the first
model, the analyst busily built the model without asking the
question At what locations am I likely to pick up the maximum
stress of any code type stress? If this would have been considered,
the analyst would have added the midspan node. Well shouldnt
CAESAR II have known this and added a node?
Currently no beam element program that I know of is equipped with
Artificial Intelligence of this type. Therefore, the analyst needs to
provide adult supervision of the program at all times. Conversely in
the hands of an unskilled person any computer program will yield
inaccurate results. In instances where failures have gone to court
(Hartford, Connecticut Arena roof collapse) invariably the unskilled
user is held to account for the mis-modeling.
One thing that CAESAR II does by default in the current version is
to add a mid point node on an elbow. This small change is an
enormous help. Previously, users could identify an elbow so that
the correct Code SIF was applied but lacked the mid point node.
This lack of a node on occasion could result in a missed high
stress in an elbow, similar to the above example.
20
June 2000
The missing small diameter Sockolet/ Weldolet/ Pipet
These welded attachments are commonly used for all types of pipeon-pipe intersections. They are commonly used for drains, vents,
and instrument connections. Clearly in B31.3 and B31.1 they are
assigned SIFs. Yet most analysts ignore their increase in SIF for
both the header location as well as the branch. The addition of this
to a pipe element that is part of the header, is branch diameter
independent! A copy of B31.3 Table D300 shows that the formulas
for k, io, II, and h do not require the branch geometry to come into
play at all.
Line Contact
Water Cooled
Pedestal
Pump Case
3"
Insulation
Localized effects
In the real world, round cylinders do not behave as a single
dimensional beam element does. What I mean is that in a beam
element model, the circular properties are assumed constant from
one end of the element to the other. This is ordinarily not a
problem; however, it may lead to under-estimation of stresses in
some cases. I quote B31.3:
TABLE D300 NOTES (1)
Stress intensification and
flexibility factor data in Table D300 are for use in the
absence of more directly applicable data (see para. 319.3.6).
Their validity has been demonstrated for D/T 100.
What this means is, the simple SIFs and Flexibility Factors in the
code(s), which beam element programs such as CAESAR II use,
may not be appropriate for very thin high D/T ratio pipes. Indeed
when you realize that Markl's original work was based on 4NPS
standard weight pipe (D/T=19.6) you should realize the farther you
stray from that D/T, the less accurate your SIF and flexibility factors
will be. (And, no, 99.99 is not necessarily OK, and 100.01 is not
necessarily wrong.)
Other local effects that CAESAR II and other beam element
programs do not deal with are the localized effects of line loads.
Line loading is what occurs when a cylinder sits upon a flat surface.
This effect is discussed in Tom Van Laans book Piping and
24 NPS
Pipe
18"
6"
21
June 2000
very little imagination to see that the simple model missed the
additional 1/16 + upward growth of the trunnion. When this
hidden growth was accounted for, the overturning moment on the
pump was enormous! Yet here again the analyst had acceptable
loads from the model. The print out all looks good the pump must
be bad! Well I guess thats why fixed supports around hot equipment
are a bad idea. It also reinforces the notion that single dimension
beam element models must be given adult supervision at all times.
Caesar II
Nodes
Anchor
R
+Y
Whats in a code?
CAESAR II , when used with either B31.3 or B31.1 as a piping
code, analyzes piping systems per those codes rules. SIF, flexibility
factors and load combinations are automatically selected. However
lets look at some interesting facets of these rules.
Feeling squeezed?
Both of these codes presume that your piping system is somewhat
normal, as far as layout and restraints are concerned. What do I
mean by normal? Well lets take a look at the following situation
" The B31.3 and B31.1 codes are simplified codes. They do not
provide specific direction on three-dimensional analysis of
piping systems ala three-dimensional finite element models.
" The code SIFs and flexibility factors shown in, for instance,
Table D of B31.3 are used by beam element models to provide
a more realistic set of reactions and stresses. These factors
have limitations based upon D/T ratios as stated in the B31.3
code.
22
June 2000
" If you are designing pipe columns neither CAESAR II, nor
the B31.1 and B31.3 codes are very helpful. This phenomena
can and does occur in jacketed piping systems where the core
and jacket pipes experience different temperatures. Be
AWARE OF THIS SITUATION!
" When modeled correctly and used within the norms of expected
beam element behavior in systems where bending loads are
the predominant issues of concern, beam element models
have been quite successfully used in combination with ASME
Code factors. The knowledgeable analyst can extend the use
of beam element models into higher D/T ratio piping system
analysis by addressing localized concerns.
tr
Figure 1
We have received requests from a few users who are not happy with
the number of restraints around the bend. The problem is the bend
restraints may not be close enough to eliminate bending around the
nodebending which would not be possible in a proper bearing/
foundation model. Again, CAESAR II is modeling the continuous
soil support by a series of point supports; if they are not close
enough, an unrealistic bending moment develops (see Figure 2).
The obvious work-around is to break the bend by hand into a
series of bends and let CAESAR II add the additional bend restraints
to each of these segments. This is not easy. You have to have a
good handle on analytical geometry to set the tangent intersection
points for this series of small angle bends.
Figure 2
Well, here I am looking at a job that now has a whole lot more nodes
around the bend. The modeler even maintained the bend designation
through these back-to-back partial bends so each node is a change
in direction with a bend. All I need to do is to continue in the buried
pipe modeler and bury this modified model once again. My node
density is automatically increased without me or CAESAR II doing
anything more.
So, if you are running large radius (50*OD) bends (or any other
radius for that matter) through the buried pipe modeler, you can add
a node at the start and end of each bend and bury only the bends
(by specifying a soil model number for these segments) on the first
23
This article aims to clarify the use of the Welding Research Council
Bulletin 107 to perform Elastic and/or Fatigue analysis on vesselattachment junctions. The topic is complex and the user is advised
to refer to the WRC Bulletin 107, ASME Section VIII Div. 2
paragraphs: AD-160, AD-560, App. 4 and App. 5, before using
this software.
The Welding Research Council (WRC) Bulletin 107 is implemented
in COADEs CAESAR II , CodeCalc, and PVElite programs. In
the rest of this article, these programs will be collectively referred to
as the software unless otherwise noted.
In many cases it is necessary to check loadings on nozzles and
attachments at the shell junction. As a result of these loadings, local
stresses are induced at the intersection of the components. These
loads can be determined from a pipe stress program such as
24
June 2000
CAESAR II or PVElite in the case of lug supports. Stress
classifications for these loads are Primary, Secondary, and Peak.
Primary stress is necessary to satisfy the equilibrium conditions
with the external imposed loading such as P*A and M/Z. It may
also be called load-controlled stress (ASME Code Case N-47-28).
They are not self-limiting in nature and can cause ductile rupture or
a complete loss of load carrying capacity due to the plastic collapse
of the structure upon single application of load (ASME). Secondary
stress is developed as result of imposed strain. Secondary stress is a
global self-limiting stress. The examples include some bending
stresses and the stress due to thermal expansion; however, Peak
stress is a localized self-limiting stress. It causes no objectionable
distortion but it may be a possible source of fatigue failure.
Depending upon the type of loading, the design should be checked
for these stresses.
Section AD-160 of the ASME VIII Div 2 Code provides the
guidelines indicating when a fatigue analysis is required and when
an elastic analysis will suffice. One of the conditions for materials
with minimum tensile strength not exceeding 80 ksi is that the total
number of expected cycles does not exceed 1000. The expected
cycles include full-range pressure cycles, operating cycles, effective
number of changes in metal temperatures between two adjacent
points in the pressure vessel and temperature cycles. (The user
should refer to Section AD-160 for complete list of guidelines.) In
an elastic analysis, the primary and secondary stresses are taken into
account and the effect of peak stress is neglected. For fatigue
analysis all the stress categories are evaluated in a combined manner.
Peak stress is computed by applying both the stress concentration
factors and Pressure Stress Indices, defined in the following
paragraph.
Peak stress intensities resulting from internal pressure are needed
for performing fatigue analysis. They can be computed using the
Section AD-560 Alternative Rules for Nozzle Design instead of
Article 4-6 (Stresses in openings for fatigue analysis) when all the
conditions of AD-560.1 through AD-560.6 are met. This alternative
method is implemented in the software. With this method, a base
stress value is multiplied by certain factors to get the intensified
stress at different locations in the shell. These factors are known as
Pressure Stress Indices and are given in the Table AD-560.7.
Pressure Stress Indices, sometimes referred as Pressure Stress
Concentration factors, are only applied to the internal pressure
stress.
Stress Concentration Factors Kn and Kb factors are used to compute
the highest peak stress due to external piping loads. Peak stresses
are usually localized at discontinuities such as fillets and transitions.
The membrane and bending stresses are modified using the Stress
Concentration Factors Kn and Kb respectively. The program uses
the fillet radius between the Vessel and the Nozzle to estimate the
Kn and Kb values using WRC 107 Appendix B equations (3) and
(4).
June 2000
If an elastic analysis is the only requirement, then the following
points should be kept in mind when using the WRC 107 module:
First, set up the range pair and load cycles (e.g. Installed to
operating, pressure fluctuations) for the fatigue loading.
2.
Now evaluate each load range using the WRC 107 module one
by one. Enter each cyclic load as a sustained load and leave the
other types of loads blank.
3.
4.
120 inch
1.0 inch
Nozzle:
Nominal diameter: 10 inch (10.75 inch actual )
Schedule:
80S (thk. 0.5 inch)
Elastic analysis will be performed first followed by fatigue analysis.
Elastic analysis: For the elastic analysis, loads are specified in
sustained, expansion and occasional categories. The vessel
information is entered first. The input for Fillet Radius between
Vessel and Nozzle should be left blank. This will serve as an
indication to CAESAR II software that Stress Concentration Factors
(Kn and Kb) should not be included in analysis (Fig. 1). In
CodeCalc, there is an explicit checkbox for the same. Moreover,
the Include Pressure Stress Indices check box should be left
unchecked. Peak stress is neglected from the analysis by not
including the effect of stress concentration factors (Kn and Kb) and
pressure stress indices.
There are two ways to combine the stresses due to external loads
with the ones due to internal pressure:
1.
25
June 2000
Nozzle data input is next. This is a radial nozzle along the X-axis.
The direction of the nozzle is from the nozzle pointing towards the
center of the vessel. This convention makes the axial force consistent
with the WRC 107 convention, in which the axial force P is
positive pointing into the vessel. In this case the direction cosines
of the nozzle are (-1, 0. 0). Next, we will enter the forces and
moments acting on this nozzle.
On the input screen for sustained loads there is a check box that
prompts for inclusion of pressure thrust. Pressure thrust is the force
exerted on an attachment such as a nozzle due to the internal
pressure of the cylinder to which it is attached. The inclusion of this
force depends on the flexibility, configuration, and restraint
information of the piping system attached to the nozzle. Pressure
thrust is a topic of a separate article and will be addressed in future.
However, we will assume the piping system on the other side is
flexible and the box will be checked (Fig. 2).
Next, the expansion and the occasional loads should be entered
(Fig. 3). There is not an additional internal pressure in this occasional
load case, so that entry will be zero.
26
June 2000
Type of
|
Stress values at
Stress Intensity
|
(lb./sq.in.)
|
Location
|
Au
Al
Bu
Bl
Cu
Cl
Du
Dl
|Circ. Pm (SUS)
|
8850
8850
8850
8850
8850
8850
8850
8850
Circ. Pm (OCC)
|
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Circ. Pm (TOTAL)
|
8850
8850
8850
8850
8850
8850
8850
8850
Circ. Pl (SUS)
|
1350
1350
2922
2922
2157
2157
1645
1645
Circ. Pl (OCC)
|
-43
-43
743
743
493
493
129
129
Circ. Pl (TOTAL)
|
1307
1307
3665
3665
2650
2650
1774
1774
Circ. Q (SUS)
|
4578 -4578
8886 -8886 14539 -14539
4119 -4119
Circ. Q (EXP)
|
-37
15
107
-53
169
-145
-79
83
Circ. Q (OCC)
|
26
-26
2180 -2180
5250 -5250 -2192
2192
Circ. Q (TOTAL)
|
4567 -4589 11173 -11119 19958 -19934
1848 -1844
Long. Pm (SUS)
|
4387
4387
4387
4387
4387
4387
4387
4387
Long. Pm (OCC)
|
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Long. Pm (TOTAL)
|
4387
4387
4387
4387
4387
4387
4387
4387
Long. Pl (SUS)
|
1688
1688
2114
2114
2494
2494
1778
1778
Long. Pl (OCC)
|
205
205
417
417
605
605
95
95
Long. Pl (TOTAL)
|
1893
1893
2531
2531
3099
3099
1873
1873
Long. Q (SUS)
|
6210 -6210 13020 -13020
9599 -9599
3827 -3827
Long. Q (EXP)
|
-44
48
136
-112
108
-76
-38
38
Long. Q (OCC)
|
-126
126
3278 -3278
3161 -3161
-961
961
Long. Q (TOTAL)
|
6040 -6036 16434 -16410 12868 -12836
2828 -2828
Shear Pm (SUS)
|
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Shear Pm (OCC)
|
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Shear Pm (TOTAL)
|
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Shear Pl (SUS)
|
88
88
-88
-88
-148
-148
148
148
Shear Pl (OCC)
|
88
88
-88
-88
-148
-148
148
148
Shear Pl (TOTAL)
|
176
176
-176
-176
-296
-296
296
296
Shear Q (SUS)
|
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
165
Shear Q (EXP)
|
2
2
2
2
4
4
0
0
Shear Q (OCC)
|
231
231
231
231
231
231
231
231
Shear Q (TOTAL)
|
398
398
398
398
400
400
396
396
S.I. Pm (SUS)
|
8850
8850
8850
8850
8850
8850
8850
8850
S.I. Pm (SUS+OCC)
|
8850
8850
8850
8850
8850
8850
8850
8850
S.I. Pm+Pl (SUS+OCC)| 10164 10164 12520 12520 11521 11521 10643 10643
Type of
|
Max. S.I.
S.I. Allowable |
Result
Stress Intensity
|
(lb./sq.in.)
|
|
S.I. Pm (SUS)
|
8850
23300
|
Passed
S.I. Pm (SUS+OCC)
|
8850
27960
|
Passed
S.I. Pm+Pl (SUS)
|
11773
34950
|
Passed
S.I. Pm+Pl (SUS+OCC)|
12520
41940
|
Passed
S.I. Pm+Pl+Q (TOTAL)|
31458
69900
|
Passed
27
|
Stress values at
Type of
|
(lb./sq.in.)
|
Stress
Load|
Au
Al
Bu
Bl
Cu
Cl
Du
Dl
|
Circ. Memb. P -Pl |
3000
3000
3000
3000
2671
2671
2671
2671
Circ. Bend. P -Q |
8470 -8470
8470 -8470 11737 -11737 11737 -11737
Circ. Memb. MC -Pl |
0
0
0
0
265
265
-265
-265
Circ. Bend. MC -Q |
0
0
0
0
4836 -4836 -4836
4836
Circ. Memb. ML -Pl | -1966 -1966
1966
1966
0
0
0
0
Circ. Bend. ML -Q | -4827
4827
4827 -4827
0
0
0
0
|
Total Circ. Stress |
4677 -2609 18263 -8331 19509 -13637
9307 -4495
Shear
VC -Pl |
148
148
-148
-148
0
0
0
0
Shear
VL -Pl |
0
0
0
0
-207
-207
207
207
Shear
MT -Pl |
171
171
171
171
171
171
171
171
|
Total Shear Stress |
319
319
23
23
-36
-36
378
378
Stress Intensity
|
6655
2817 22932 16524 19509 13637
9443
4593
Type of
|
Stress values at
Stress Intensity
|
(lb./sq.in.)
|
Location
|
Au
Al
Bu
Bl
Cu
Cl
Du
Dl
|
Circ. Pm (SUS)
| 10620 27435 10620 27435 23010 -1770 23010 -1770
Circ. Pl (SUS)
|
1034
1034
4966
4966
2936
2936
2406
2406
Circ. Q (SUS)
|
3643 -3643 13297 -13297 16573 -16573
6901 -6901
Long. Pm (SUS)
|
4387
-877
4387
-877
9214
4387
9214
4387
Long. Pl (SUS)
|
2138
2138
3204
3204
3371
3371
2629
2629
Long. Q (SUS)
|
4466 -4466 19728 -19728 11125 -11125
5767 -5767
Shear Pm (SUS)
|
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Shear Pl (SUS)
|
148
148
-148
-148
-207
-207
207
207
Shear Q (SUS)
|
171
171
171
171
171
171
171
171
S.I. Pm (SUS)
| 10620 28312 10620 28312 23010
6157 23010
6157
S.I. Pm+Pl+Q (TOTAL)| 15320 28038 28883 36505 42519 15407 32326
7551
Type of
|
Max. S.I.
S.I. Allowable |
Result
Stress Intensity
|
(lb./sq.in.)
|
|
S.I. Pm (SUS)
|
28312
23300
|
Failed
S.I. Pm+Pl (SUS)
|
32401
34950
|
Passed
S.I. Pm+Pl+Q (TOTAL)|
42519
69900
|
Passed
28
June 2000
computed a stress intensity of 42,519 psi. This is actually the total
stress intensity including the effect of peak stress thus,
S.I: Pm + Pl + Q + F = 42,519 psi.
In a future release of the software, modifications will be incorporated
to make it easier to perform fatigue analysis. Since there is no stress
reversal, this is a stress range (Sr). Therefore, alternating stress
intensity is,
Sa = 1/2 * Sr = 1/2*42519 = 21259.5 psi.
Correct the Sa for the design temperature in accordance with Section
VIII Div 2 Appendix 5 5-110.3(f) by multiplying by the ratio of
modulus of elasticity given on the design curve to the value used in
this analysis.
Sa = 21259.5 * (30/29.25) = 21804.6 psi.
From the figure FIG. 5-110.1 in App. 5 Sec. VIII Div. 2 (for UTS
80 ksi), shown here in Fig. 6, the number of allowable cycles are for
21,805 psi. is:
N = 75,000 cycles (Allowed)
n = 10,000 cycles (Actual)
June 2000
This article will focus on the use of the Windows keys on the
keyboard, optimizing your use of Windows Explorer, and the related
issue of file associations. (The information for this article has
been obtained from Ziff Davis tips and PC Magazine.)
The Windows Keys:
Most newer keyboards include two Windows keys, outside of the
[Alt] keys on the keyboard. These keys are labeled with the
Windows logo. Simply pressing the Windows key brings up the
Start Menu. This seems like quite a wastetwo keys to only
bring up the Start Menu? What else are these Windows keys used
for?
Actually, there are a number of things the Windows keys will do for
you, when used in combination with another key on the keyboard.
These key combinations are described in the table below. In this
table, the notation [Win] refers to the Windows key.
[Win]+[E]
[Win]+[F]
Windows Explorer:
Windows Explorer is the main file management / navigation tool for
Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows NT. Typically, when
(Windows) Explorer is launched, its initial window displays the
contents of Drive C. There are a number of command line switches
that can be used to alter the way Explorer starts up. These command
line switches are discussed in the following paragraphs. For
testing purposes, it is suggested that a DOS box be utilized. Once
specific configurations have been deemed desirable, they can be set
in the Target setting of the desktop shortcut.
Explorer [Enter]
This command launches Explorer, supposedly in single pane
view. However, testing reveals that this command results in
a double pane view with Drive C expanded.
Explorer /n [Enter]
This command launches Explorer, in a single pane view.
The content of the view is the Desktop. To change the view,
the drop list should be used. This will allow the selection of
the various system drives.
Explorer /e [Enter]
This command launches Explorer, in a two pane view. The
content of the view is the Desktop.
[Win]+[M]
[Win]+[R]
[Win]+[Break]
[Win]+[F1]
The best way to use these command switches is to use them from a
DOS box, and decide the settings best for your installation. Then,
modify the Explorer shortcut on the desktop. This is shown in the
following figure.
June 2000
30
June 2000
If using Windows NT, you can view these file associations at the
Command Prompt (i.e. a DOS box) by issuing the assoc command.
If the list is too long, you can always pipe it into the more
command.
CAESAR II Notices
Listed below are those errors & omissions in the CAESAR II
program that have been identified since the last newsletter. These
corrections are available for download from our website. Unless
otherwise stated, all of these changes and corrections are contained
in the 000502 build of Version 4.20.
1) Static Analysis Setup Module: Corrected the wave plot
routines to properly handle the wave/current directions.
Corrected a problem with wind data, where running dynamics
in a different units system could corrupt a user-defined
elevation table. Fixed in 000512 build
2) Structural Input Module: Corrected a plotting problem
with the orientation of non-symmetric cross sections.
3) Dynamic Force/Stress Computation Module: Corrected a
memory allocation problem.
4) Animation Module: Corrected a plotting problem with the
orientation of models viewed along one of the orthogonal
global axis.
Corrected the data display in the element viewer for time
history results.
5) Intergraph Interface: Corrected a problem accessing the
4.20 material data base.
Corrected the interpretation of nodes flagged as anchor
points.
6) Miscellaneous Module: Corrected the equation for the
flange factor F1.
Corrected a units conversion problem. Fixed in 000509
build.
7) Offshore DLL: Corrected a convergence problem with the
Stokes wave theory.
8) Static Force/Stress Module: Corrected a problem generating
ODBC output for load cases existing at only the stress level.
9) PCF Interface: Corrected to prevent some rigid elements
from being interpreted as bends.
TANK Notices
Listed below are those errors & omissions in the TANK program
that have been identified since the last newsletter. These corrections
are available for download from our website. Unless otherwise
stated, all of these changes and corrections are contained in the
000217 build.
1) Input Module: Corrected the handling of user units files
when located in the data directory instead of the \tank\system
directory. This problem was corrected in the 000217 build of
Version 2.00
Corrected a problem with the sizing scratchpad for the
diameter variation table. This problem was corrected in
the 000217 build of Version 2.00
An incorrect date check was included in the initial release
of Version 2.10. This problem was corrected in the 000605
build of Version 2.10.
2) Solution Module: Corrected the determination of the percent
roof weight supported by the shell for supported cone roof
tanks, supported by only a single center column. This problem
was corrected in the 000217 build of Version 2.00.
3) Error Check Module: The error checker in Version 2.10 did
not allow roofs to be turned off, according to the setting in the
input file. This problem was corrected in the 000605 build of
Version 2.10.
4) Units Files: An error in the data for Pressure Loading in the
2.10 units files caused incorrect roof live load input. New
units files were generated for the build of 000614.
31
June 2000
6) WRC 107:
CodeCalc Notices
Listed below are those errors & omissions in the CodeCalc program
that have been identified since the last newsletter. These corrections
are available for download from our website.
PVElite Notices
1) Window Interactions:
Memory issues (Issues arising out of the memory overwrite)
in CodeCalc were fixed in subsequent builds (117 and
315). This caused aborts for no apparent reason while
entering data.
Addressed the unit conversion glitch for input in nonEnglish units.
Addressed the unit conversion of design temperature that
caused incorrect references to material-allowable stresses
in non-English units.
Corrected the conversion of tubesheet corrosion allowance
into user units.
The program was not remembering the occurrence number
for the material. This occurred for the new files created after
the 117 build. This was addressed in the 501 build.
Printing issues for windows 95/98 computers are resolved.
2) Floating head:
For full-face gaskets, the program was computing the
incorrect bolt loads (nonconservative error).
3) Horizontal vessel:
During wind load application, in the calculation of the area
for transverse wind load, the head length for torispherical
and flat head was not converted to feet units. This has been
corrected now.
4) Rectangular vessel:
For A4 vessel, the value of delta parameter was not being
converted to non-English units. This only affected the
display and not the calculations.
Listed below are those errors & omissions in the PVElite program
that have been identified since the last newsletter. These corrections
are available for download from our website.
1) All of the notices listed in the CodeCalc section.
2) The program was using table 2a/2b allowable stresses for
Division 2 flanges when table 1a/1b should have been used.
This error was introduced in version 3.6.
3) For BS-5500 lap joint flanges, the program was using all 4
moments instead of only 1, thereby producing a conservative
flange design.
4) For horizontal vessels that had a "section type" stiffener entry
in the saddle dialog, the program would compute a conservative
saddle weight.
5) In non-English units, the ANSI flange lookup would multiply
some dimensions by the conversion constant (when
unnecessary), producing a recognizable error. The graphic
would become noticeably distorted.
6) Corrected the computation of the axial force at the small/large
end junction of the cone for the horizontal vessel. The program
was computing a conservative solution.
7) For computing the MOI checks for the cone-cylinder junction,
the program was considering total length of the attached shell
instead of the distance to the adjacent stiffener. Previous
implementation was usually a conservative one.
8) For large hub type nozzles, an adjustment was made to the
appendix 1-7 routines for the proper computation and inertia
calculations when the vertical limit cut through or was above
the bevel.
5) Summary:
Fixed the summary for UG-45, as it was erroneously printing
out the message UG-45 failed for the Manway openings.
Tel: 281-890-4566
Fax: 281-890-3301
Web: www.coade.com
E-Mail: techsupport@coade.com