Mechanical Engineering News

VOLUME 32

FEBRUARY 2002

PVElite 4.3 and CodeCalc 6.4 Released!

CodeCalc 6.4 released in January 2002 introduced many new features, some of the significant ones are: Interactive computation of results on the input screen Trunnion design Leg baseplate design WRC 368 (local stress in the nozzle-cylinder junction due to internal pressure)

On-screen calculations are introduced in this version, to aid in faster design and estimation. As the data is entered the calculation is automatically performed. Once the data is consistent and complete, the results are displayed on the status bar in color. A failure in design is indicated in red to bring it to the users attention. The following figure shows an internal/external cylindrical shell analysis with the results displayed on the status bar. This interactive feature is implemented in the shell/head, nozzle and flange modules.

FOR THE POWER, PROCESS AND RELATED INDUSTRIES

IN THIS ISSUE: Whats New at COADE
PVElite Version 4.30 and CodeCalc 6.4 Released .................................................... 1 CADWorx Version 2002 Released ................ 4 TANK Version 2.30 ........................................ 6

Technology You Can Use

Comparison of Response Spectrum and Static methods uisng ASCE 7-98 .............. 6 Coordinate Systems in CAESAR II ................ 9
The COADE Mechanical Engineering News Bulletin is published twice a year from the COADE offices in Houston, Texas. The Bulletin is intended to provide information about software applications and development for Mechanical Engineers serving the power, process and related industries. Additionally, the Bulletin serves as the official notification vehicle for software errors discovered in those Mechanical Engineering programs offered by COADE. 2002 COADE, Inc. All rights reserved.

Frequency / Phase Pairs in CAESAR II ....... 18 PC Hardware for the Engineering User (Part 32) ................................................... 24

Program Specifications
CAESAR II Notices ...................................... 25 TANK Notices .............................................. 26 CodeCalc Notices ........................................ 26 PVElite Notices ............................................ 26

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

February 2002

Figure 2 Nozzle angle input To illustrate lets consider a 6 in. tangential nozzle located on a 60 in. ID elliptical head. The nozzle is offset from the head centerline by 20 in. Appropriate data input and the CodeCalc graphic for this case is shown in Figure 3. Additionally, CodeCalc now checks the design in both the longitudinal and the circumferential planes for Hillside nozzles in the same analysis. Lateral nozzles or Y-angle on cones or cylinders can also be easily specified.

Lifting trunnion analysis was also implemented in this version. Stresses in the trunnion are computed and compared to their respective allowables. An option to perform an automatic local stress evaluation per the WRC 107 method is available. In this version the leg baseplate can also be designed. The features discussed above were available to the PVElite users in the component analysis module in the September release. Features, which are new for both the CodeCalc and PVElite users (in the component analysis module) are: Simplified input and analysis for the non-radial nozzles. Split screen graphics. Tailing lug analysis. Improved registration procedure. ASME A-2001 update

Visit www.coade.com for a complete list. Input for non-radial nozzles has been simplified. Nozzles can be easily located around the vessel by specifying the angle between the vessel and nozzle centerline and the nozzle offset, as illustrated in the following figure.

Figure 3 Nozzle input and corresponding graphic for a tangential nozzle.

February 2002 As seen in Figure 1, the split screen graphic is back by popular demand. This provides instant visual check of the input. The splitter bar that separated the screen areas can be used to adjust the size of the input tabbed dialog and the graphic. CodeCalc can now perform a tailing lug analysis. The tailing lug, which is attached to the basering, is used for lifting vertical vessels. Another enhancement in CodeCalc version 6.4 is the improved product registration procedure. A link is provided in the software that allows users to register with COADE. By registering, important news about builds, new versions etc. is emailed to those who registered. Contact information can be modified or updated any time through this web interface. Significant new features in PVElite version 4.3 are: Added top head platform and caged ladder PD5500 Annex F Nozzle calculations IBC 2000 Earthquake code added Modal Natural frequency solver Added Dynamic Response Spectrum for earthquake load calculation ASME A-2001 update

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

The following figure shows a vessel with a rectangular platform and 2 caged ladders. Modal natural frequency solver and computation of earthquake loading using the dynamic response spectrum method, helps to accurately model the vessel. This can provide considerable savings in material cost, especially for tall vertical vessels. These features are discussed in another article (Comparison of Response Spectrum and Static Methods using ASCE 7-98) in this newsletter.

As previously advised, beginning with PVElite Version 4.3, there will only be one update of the software per year.

Figure 4 A Vessel modeled with PVElite 4.3

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

February 2002

CADWorx 2002 Released!

The CADWorx development team is excited to announce the release of CADWorx 2002, the latest advancements in COADEs plant design and automation software. The new version is packed with features many of them requested by existing CADWorx users. Here is a brief overview of CADWorx 2002. CADWorx PIPE and P&ID 2002 Windows style tool tips have been added. Hover over a component and view information about that component without running any command. The tool tips displayed can be customized to include only information you need.

Figure 2: CADWorx PIPE Setup Dialog In French

Figure 1: Tool Tip Data Selection In CADWorx PIPE Editing a component is easier than ever before. Just doubleclick on it and change any information including long, short descriptions etc. CADWorx now supports various languages. All prompts and dialogs can now be localized with different languages. Initial languages available include French and Spanish. Future languages are also planned. Below are examples of two dialogs one in Spanish and one in French.

Figure 3: CADWorx P&ID Setup Dialog In Spanish Enforce specification and size limitation using the new variable SpecSizeOveride in the configuration file. New HTML Help system has been implemented and online help is available from dialogs and the command line.

February 2002 CADWorx PIPE 2002 A fully integrated live database has been added. Complete integration with AutoCAD commands like COPY, ERASE is included to make database operation seamless. The database is updated immediately. Make your changes in the drawing or in the database and you will not lose any information! Using the SYNC command, CADWorx will update your drawings with the information from the database. CADWorx supports Microsoft Access, Oracle and Microsoft SQL Server databases. The ISOOUT command has been enhanced dramatically to improve speed. In addition, a special component STOPSIGN has been added to break ISOs at specified points along lines. Creating new data files is now easy with the new Template button in the Specification Editor. Just select the component type, pick a location to save the data file and a brand new template data file is created. All you have to do is fill it with the sizes you need. A new variable IsometricColor has been added. Set this variable to make all your ISOs come out in the same color. The Auto Isometric Configuration dialog has been improved and records the last used configuration file. Convert your CADWorx Modelspace/Paperspace AutoISO into a 2D flat drawing using the new 2DISO command. This command requires the use of AutoCAD express tools. The ZOOMLOCK command has been improved to lock all MVIEWs in Paperspace. Flange placement has been enhanced to prevent the flange face from being placed on buttweld side of a component. Previous versions of the program required the user to change the option at the command line during flange placement. Specifications can be set to a particular color in advance using the SpecColor setting. Previous versions of the program required the spec color to be entered every time the spec was set in a new drawing. New commands have been added to set the current main size, reduction size, specification and/or line number based on an existing component. GCEDIT (Global Component Edit) now shares the same options as CEDIT (Component Edit) including newly added BOM Item Type. Sort your Bill of Material in any order with the new SORT BY button in the BOMSETUP dialog. You can now start your BOM tag numbers at any value you specify.

COADE Mechanical Engineering News Several commands including ISOOUT, DBFGEN now have the ability to select multiple line numbers at the same time. The ROUTER command has been enhanced to allow a constant slope to be set, maintain the crosshairs at the elevation of the last point picked, and allow a sloped segment at the beginning of a routing line. Importing a PCF file using PCFIN has been improved with more components and with less clean up required. The menu file was updated to allow easy activation of toolbars by simply right clicking on a docked PIPE toolbar.

CADWorx P&ID 2002 Create specification driven P&IDs. CADWorx can now read information from specifications and automatically update the database as you draw your P&ID drawing. This feature is controlled by the SpecControl variable in the configuration file. Change process line priority using the new PROCESSASSIGN command. Embedded instruments can now be copied with the correct number of entries created in the database. Added flanged, socketweld valves and function symbols to menu. New SyncOnStartUp variable has been added to the configuration file. This variable allows you to always synchronize on opening a drawing, never synchronize or prompt for user response. The XDATAADD is used to convert existing P&ID drawings into CADWorx P&ID drawings. XDATAADD now has the option of adding component information to user-defined tables. If any user created text styles contain the phrase No Change, CADWorx P&ID will no longer change the text style to the current style when inserting components into the drawing. The SETVISIBILITY command has new options. You can now hide all objects with an entry in the database. You can also isolate a single object based on its database ID. The SETVISIBILITY command allows you to only view a subset of all objects in a drawing. REMOVEITEM is a new command that removes the link between valves or other objects and process lines.

COADE Mechanical Engineering News UNCOMBINELINE is a new command that creates individual entries in the database for each broken segment of a process line. This command is the opposite of COMBINELINE that creates one entry in the database for broken process line segments. The menu file was updated to allow easy activation of toolbars by simply right clicking on a docked P&ID toolbar.

February 2002

Comparison of the Response Spectrum Analysis and Static Methods using the ASCE 7-98 Earthquake Code
By: Scott Mayeux

All CADWorx users under current UMS, (Upgrades, Maintenance and Support), contract should receive CADWorx 2002 shortly. If you are not already using CADWorx, now is a great time to start. Visit www.coade.com and download an evaluation version or call 281-890-4566 to request a demo CD. If you are ready to buy CADWorx, contact your local CADWorx dealer or contact us. Register with us (www.coade.com/updates.htm) and keep up-todate with the latest releases and builds of CADWorx.

PVElite version 4.3 was released in January 2002 and incorporates a variety of new features including earthquake analysis utilizing the Response Spectrum Method. What is the Response Spectrum Method (RSM) and why is it useful? The response spectrum method computes forces and moments on a structure utilizing matrix solution methods and shock spectra data to yield a more accurate result than the static equivalent building code technique. The vessel is modeled as an elastic, multiple degree of freedom system and the equations of motion for each degree of freedom are solved. The resulting equations of motion (matrices) are integrated in time to obtain the simulated response of the structure. To understand the difference between the methods, it is important to understand how a static earthquake analysis works. Generally, when using a typical building code it is necessary to obtain basic parameters such as the seismic zone, soil factors, site class, etc. to solve for a base shear force. In the case of our example below, the ASCE 7-98 building code was selected. After entering the input, PVElite was utilized to analyze a tall process tower. Selected results appear in the tables below. Note the value of V (16823 lb.). This is the base shear. It is an equivalent static inertial horizontal load. With a known base shear and element masses, a lateral force (Element Load) can be computed for each element, based on a weighted mass distribution summation equation. After these loads are computed, bending moments and subsequent bending stresses at each node can be calculated. These bending stresses cause both tensile and compressive stresses in the tower elements. These stresses are ultimately combined with other types such as pressure and weight stresses, which are then compared to appropriate code allowables. It is known that a flexible structure such as a freestanding tall vertical vessel or piping system can have many modes of vibration.

TANK Version 2.30

TANK Version 2.30 should be ready to ship by the first part of February 2002. This new release of TANK includes the following changes and modifications. New input options exist to disable the output of annular base plate information, and to exclude the wind moment in F.4.2 computations. Rafter supported cone roof (no columns) design has been added. In the wind girder report, the actual distances below the top of the tank have been added. In the tank layout graphics, the shell course thicknesses have been added. TANK output can now be sent directly to Microsoft WORD, with subsequent reformatting. The configuration dialog now includes [D]efault buttons, allowing users to reset the directive to its default value with a single click. The Error Checker module has been modified to notify users of fatal errors when run in batch mode. Use of user defined materials has been simplified. The user material file no longer needs to be manually merged with the COADE supplied material database. This operation is performed in memory by the input processor when necessary. Software registration is now handled directly on-line. This provides better abilities to notify users when software updates become available.

February 2002 Using traditional methods of structural analysis in pressure vessel design, only the first mode of vibration is considered. This fundamental mode of vibration is used in both wind and seismic calculations. PVElite 4.3 incorporates advanced technology that allows it to solve for multiple frequencies under 100 cycles per second using the Eigen Solution method. This method solves a mass/stiffness matrix problem iteratively until a mode of vibration is successfully extracted. Computing several modes of vibration is important because the elemental mass may contribute differently based on the mode of interest. This is obviously not a consideration using the static method. After PVElite extracts the modes and mode shapes, it can determine the shear forces, axial forces and the corresponding moments. Additionally, the dynamic displacements at each node point (typically a weld seam) can now be computed. Since ASCE 7-98 addresses both the RSM and the static equivalent method, it was chosen because it allows a direct comparison of the two techniques. For our test, a 112 feet tall (34 meters) process tower tall was selected. The task of interest is to compare the resulting bending moments throughout the tower. At the base of the tower a moment of 519629 ft-lbs was computed using the RSM, while a moment of 1,100,000 ft-lbs was computed using the traditional method. This is quite a remarkable difference, less than half! If the governing thickness requirement is based upon seismic requirements, this analysis could reduce the thickness of the skirt and shell courses. The thickness savings become especially important if the vessel is constructed of an expensive material, such as zirconium, titanium, stainless steel or other. Additional benefits such as lower foundation loads, smaller anchor bolts, chair caps etc. are also realized. It is also interesting to note that the wind moment changed. This is due to the change in the natural frequency and resulting energy dissipation difference. When the RSM is chosen, PVElite will always use the Eigen Solver to extract the various modes of vibration. Note that there is a slight difference here, 1.115189 hz (using the Freese Method) versus 1.1682 hz using the Eigen method. The difference is very small but does have an impact on the wind load calculation. Another important advantage of the Eigen solver is that it does not rely on the assumption that the structure is supported at the base, which is a requirement of the Freese method. The newer, advanced technique in PVElite allows for accurate solutions of lug, intermediate skirt and leg supported vessels. For newly created vessels, the program uses this method as the default. In addition to the ASCE and IBC 2000 earthquake types using the RSM, a table of data points for Period or Frequency versus Displacement, Velocity or Acceleration can be entered into the program. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commissions guide 1.60 shock spectra and ElCentro are also built into PVElite. The missing mass correction factor is included as an option.

COADE Mechanical Engineering News In conclusion, the Response Spectrum Method can provide vessel designers with more accurate stress and deflection results when compared to the older, more traditional analysis techniques. The resulting calculations are shown for each case below. Earthquake Analysis Results per ASCE 7-98 (static method)
User Entered Table Value 9.4.1.2.4a Fa User Entered Table Value 9.4.1.2.4b Fv Max. Mapped Acceleration Value for Short Periods Ss Max. Mapped Acceleration Value for Long Periods S1 Moment Reduction Factor Tau Force Modification Factor R Importance Factor I Seismic Design Category 1.000 1.400 1.00 0.400 1.000 3.000 1.000 C

Check the Period (1/Frequency) from 9.5.3.3-1 Ta = Ct * hn^(3/4) where Ct = 0.020 and hn = total Vessel Height Ta = 0.020 * ( 114.0697 ^(3/4) = 0.698 seconds The Coefficient Cu from Table 9.5.3.3 is 1.300

Check the Min. Value of T which is the Smaller of Cu*Ta and T T = Min. Value of ( 1.300 * 0.698, 1/ 1.152 ) = 0.8681 per 9.5.3.3 Compute the Seismic Response Coefficient Cs per 9.5.3.2.1 Cs = Sds / ( R / I ) Cs = 0.6667 / ( 3.0000 / 1.0000 ) = 0.2222 Check the minimum value of Cs per eqn. 9.5.3.2.1-3 Cs = Maximum Value of ( 0.1433, 0.044 * 1.00 * 0.6667 ) = 0.1433 Compute the Total Base Shear V = Cs * Total Weight V = 0.1433 * 117364.1 = 16823.69 lb. Distribute the Base shear force to each element according to the equations Fx = Cvx * V (eqn. 9.5.3.4-1 ) and the vertical distribution factor Cvx = Wx*hx^k/( Sum of Wi*hi^k ) and k is an exponent which is related to the period of Vibration. In this case, the value of k was 1.1841. The Natural Frequency for the Vessel (Ope...) is 1.15189 Hz.

Wind/Earthquake Shear, Bending

| From| | 10| 20| 30| 40| 50| 60| 70| 80| 90| 100| 110| 120| 130| 140| | Elevation | Cummulative| Earthquake | To | of To Node | Wind Shear| Shear | | ft. | lb. | lb. | 20| 10.5000 | 29821.4 | 16823.7 | 30| 21.0833 | 23674.9 | 15684.7 | 40| 25.3333 | 23635.2 | 15554.8 | 50| 30.2500 | 21573.5 | 14825.4 | 60| 36.0000 | 20744.9 | 14531.6 | 70| 46.0000 | 18671.6 | 13305.0 | 80| 56.0000 | 16512.6 | 11861.0 | 90| 66.0000 | 13173.5 | 9789.46 | 100| 76.5000 | 10871.9 | 7980.78 | 110| 87.5000 | 7566.71 | 5437.96 | 120| 94.0000 | 4281.93 | 2566.15 | 130| 104.267 | 3874.40 | 2291.62 | 140| 113.742 | 80.1298 | 157.889 | 150| 114.010 | 17.8717 | 86.1383 | Wind Bending ft.lb. 1.639E+06 1.077E+06 1.073E+06 884802. 853063. 655981. 480060. 331629. 211403. 109991. 44823.1 36666.8 21.4870 1.07035 | Earthquake | | Bending | | ft.lb. | | 1.100E+06 | | 758759. | | 756156. | | 629573. | | 607555. | | 468372. | | 342542. | | 234289. | | 145438. | | 71635.1 | | 27612.5 | | 22754.7 | | 55.9972 | | 5.15889 |

COADE Mechanical Engineering News Tensile and Bending Stresses due to Earthquake Moments
Analyzing Stresses for Load Case : EQ Stress Units: psi From Tensile All. Tens. Comp. All. Comp. Tens. Comp. Node Stress Stress Stress Stress Ratio Ratio 10 6961.37 14700.00 -6961.37 -18940.33 0.4736 0.3675 20 4428.13 21000.00 -4428.13 -20215.11 0.2109 0.2191 30 4412.93 17850.00 -4412.93 -20215.11 0.2472 0.2183 40 3674.19 17850.00 -3674.19 -20215.11 0.2058 0.1818 50 4936.62 17850.00 -4936.62 -21000.00 0.2766 0.2351 60 4686.55 17850.00 -4686.55 -21000.00 0.2626 0.2232 70 3870.30 17850.00 -3870.30 -21000.00 0.2168 0.1843 80 3555.63 17850.00 -3555.63 -20763.93 0.1992 0.1712 90 3334.83 17850.00 -3334.83 -19806.43 0.1868 0.1684 100 1642.56 17850.00 -1642.56 -19806.43 0.0920 0.0829 110 357.88 17850.00 -357.88 -21000.00 0.0200 0.0170 120 2488.57 15300.00 -2488.57 -18000.00 0.1627 0.1383 130 6.12 21000.00 -6.12 -21000.00 0.0003 0.0003 140 0.25 21000.00 -0.25 -21000.00 0.0000 0.0000

February 2002

Element Forces and Moments: [Report Abbreviated] Node Fx(lb.) Fy(lb.) Mz(ft.lb.)

10 Max Contrib 20 Max Contrib 8586.4 6192.2 1 (X) 8586.4 6192.2 1 (X) 10787.0 10645.0 6 (Y) 10787.0 10645.0 6 (Y) 519629.0 485676.4 1 (X) 362310.7 355640.6 1 (X)

Displacements: [Report Abbreviated] Node Dx(in.) Dy(in.) Rz(Deg) 10 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Max 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Contrib 1 (X) 6 (Y) 1 (X) 20 Max Contrib 0.1342 0.1266 1 (X) 0.0017 0.0017 6 (Y) 0.0548 0.0525 1 (X)

Maximum Stress ratio: 0.4736, tension at node 10, moment 1,100,000 ft-lbs Response Spectrum Analysis per ASCE 7-98
Computed Natural Frequencies (OPE): 11 Mode Freq (Hz) Freq (Rad/Sec) Period (Sec) 1 1.1682 7.3398 0.8560 2 4.0176 25.2430 0.2489 3 7.4993 47.1197 0.1333 4 14.0766 88.4458 0.0710 5 24.7993 155.8188 0.0403 6 31.0785 195.2722 0.0322 7 39.9319 250.8992 0.0250 8 58.1019 365.0652 0.0172 9 70.5193 443.0861 0.0142 10 78.7207 494.6167 0.0127 11 100.0587 628.6871 0.0100 Mass Participation Factors: 11 Mode X Y 1 10.95138983 0.00000029 2 0.93197919 -0.00000003 3 -0.25465900 0.00000000 4 0.04770686 -0.00000018 5 0.00704619 0.00000005 6 0.00000000 0.01942145 7 -0.00126486 0.00000000 8 0.00033505 0.00000000 9 0.00000000 -0.00152696 10 0.00010016 0.00000000 11 -0.00003331 0.00000000 Computed EigenVectors Report Deleted for Brevity

Wind/Earthquake Shear, Bending

Wind/Earthquake Shear, Bending | | Elevation | Cummulative| Earthquake | From|To | of To Node | Wind Shear| Shear | | | ft. | lb. | lb. | 10| 20| 10.5000 | 29733.4 | 8586.43 | 20| 30| 21.0833 | 23607.6 | 7696.16 | 30| 40| 25.3333 | 23568.0 | 7491.96 | 40| 50| 30.2500 | 21513.3 | 7153.78 | 50| 60| 36.0000 | 20685.9 | 6820.82 | 60| 70| 46.0000 | 18619.5 | 6179.39 | 70| 80| 56.0000 | 16467.9 | 5440.72 | 80| 90| 66.0000 | 13136.3 | 4691.29 | 90| 100| 76.5000 | 10842.4 | 3909.20 | 100| 110| 87.5000 | 7546.04 | 2766.40 | 110| 120| 94.0000 | 4270.26 | 1902.53 | 120| 130| 104.267 | 3864.10 | 1604.81 | 130| 140| 113.742 | 79.8592 | 150.120 | 140| 150| 114.010 | 17.8114 | 53.2318 | Wind Bending ft.lb. 1.634E+06 1.074E+06 1.070E+06 882358. 850708. 654181. 478744. 330723. 210829. 109693. 44703.1 36568.8 21.4144 1.06674 | Earthquake | | Bending | | ft.lb. | | 519629. | | 362311. | | 361184. | | 306675. | | 297297. | | 237813. | | 184079. | | 136472. | | 95293.3 | | 58549.6 | | 33256.5 | | 29811.4 | | 68.9268 | | 6.37673 |

Mass Percentages: Included(X) Included(Y) Added(X) Added(Y) 82.82 80.48 0.00 0.00 NOTE: In the following reports, Max Contrib displays the contribution of the Mode/Load combination having the maximum impact on the total (and names that Mode/Load combination). Restraint Loads: Node Fx(lb.) Fy(lb.) Mz(ft.lb.) 10 8586.4 10787.0 519629.0 Max 6192.2 10645.1 485676.4 Contrib 1 (X) 6 (Y) 1 (X)

Analyzing Stresses for Load Case : EQ Stress Units: psi From Tensile All. Tens. Comp. All. Comp. Tens. Comp. Node Stress Stress Stress Stress Ratio Ratio 10 3324.08 14700.00 -3324.08 -18940.33 0.2261 0.1755 20 2114.45 21000.00 -2114.45 -20215.11 0.1007 0.1046 30 2107.87 17850.00 -2107.87 -20215.11 0.1181 0.1043 40 1789.76 17850.00 -1789.76 -20215.11 0.1003 0.0885 50 2415.65 17850.00 -2415.65 -21000.00 0.1353 0.1150 60 2379.57 17850.00 -2379.57 -21000.00 0.1333 0.1133 70 2079.87 17850.00 -2079.87 -21000.00 0.1165 0.0990 80 2071.12 17850.00 -2071.12 -20763.93 0.1160 0.0997 90 2185.03 17850.00 -2185.03 -19806.43 0.1224 0.1103 100 1342.51 17850.00 -1342.51 -19806.43 0.0752 0.0678 110 431.03 17850.00 -431.03 -21000.00 0.0241 0.0205 120 3260.33 15300.00 -3260.33 -18000.00 0.2131 0.1811 130 7.54 21000.00 -7.54 -21000.00 0.0004 0.0004 140 0.31 21000.00 -0.31 -21000.00 0.0000 0.0000

Maximum Stress ratio: 0.2261, tension at node 10, moment 519629 ft-lbs

February 2002

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

By: Richard Ay

Coordinate Systems in CAESAR II

Introduction This article discusses coordinate systems, and how they relate to piping systems and pipe stress analysis. Additional information on this subject can be found in two issues of COADEs Mechanical Engineering News - December 1992 and November 1994. These issues can be found on the COADE web site at http://www.coade.com. Many analytical models in engineering are based upon being able to define a real physical object mathematically. This is accomplished by mapping the dimensions of the physical object into a similar mathematical space. Mathematical space is usually assumed to be either two-dimensional or three-dimensional. For piping analysis, the three dimensional space is necessary, since almost all piping systems are three dimensional in nature. Two typical three-dimensional mathematical systems are shown below in Figure 1. Both of these systems are Cartesian Coordinate Systems. Each axis in these systems is perpendicular to all other axes.

The direction of the arrow heads indicates the positive direction of each axis. In Figure 1, the X axis has one arrowhead, the Y axis has two arrowheads, and the Z axis has three arrowheads. The circular arcs labeled RX, RY, and RZ define the direction of positive rotation about each axis. (This point will be discussed later.) Any point in space can be mapped to these coordinate systems by using its position along the number lines. For example, a point 5 units down the X axis would have a coordinate of (5.0, 0.0, 0.0). A point 5 units down the X axis and 6 units down the Y axis would have a coordinate of (5.0, 6.0, 0.0). Notice that if the system on the right side of Figure 1 is rotated a positive 90 degrees about the X axis, the result is the system on the left side of Figure 1.

The coordinate system on the left side of Figure 1 is the default CAESAR II global coordinate system. In this system, the X and Z axes define the horizontal plane, and the Y axis is vertical. (The other coordinate system in Figure 1 can be obtained in CAESAR II by selecting the Z-axis Vertical option, discussed later in this article.) All further discussion in this article will target this default coordinate system, unless otherwise noted. Other Global Coordinate Systems There are other types of coordinate systems that can be used to mathematically map a physical object. A Polar coordinate system maps points (in a two dimensional space) using a radius and a rotation angle, (r, theta). A Cylindrical coordinate system maps points using a radius, a rotation angle, and an elevation, (r, theta, z). The origin in this system could be considered the center of the bottom of a cylinder. Cylindrical coordinates are convenient to use when there is an axis of symmetry in the model. A Spherical coordinate system maps points using a radius and two rotation angles, (r, theta, phi). The origin in this system could be considered the center of a sphere. Spherical coordinates are convenient to use when there is a point which is the center of symmetry in the model.

Figure 1 Typical Cartesian Coordinate Systems In addition, for these Cartesian coordinate systems, the right hand rule is used to define positive rotation about each axis, and the relationship, or ordering, between the axes. Before illustrating the right hand rule, there are several traits of the systems in Figure 1 that should be noted. Each axis can be thought of as a number line, where the zero point is the point where all of the axes intersect. While only the positive side of each axis is shown in Figure 1, each axis has a negative side as well.

Typically, none of these coordinate systems are easily used to map piping systems. Most piping software deals exclusively with the Cartesian coordinate system.

COADE Mechanical Engineering News The Right Hand Rule In the Cartesian coordinate system, each axis has a positive and a negative side, as previously mentioned. Translations, straight-line movement, can be defined as movement along these axes. Rotation can also occur around these axes, as illustrated by the arcs in Figure 1. A standard rule must be applied in order to define the direction of positive rotation about these axes. This standard rule (known as the right hand rule) is: Put the thumb of your right hand along the axis, in the positive direction of the axis. The direction your fingers curl is positive rotation about that axis. This is best illustrated in Figure 2.

February 2002

Figure 3 The Right Hand Rule - Continued The left pane of Figure 3, corresponds to vector equation 3 above. Similarly, the center pane in Figure 3 also corresponds to vector equation 3 above. The right pane in Figure 3 corresponds to vector equation 2 above. All panes of Figure 3 refer to the left hand image of Figure 1. Straight-line movement along any axis can be therefore described as positive or negative, depending on the direction of motion. This straight-line movement accounts for three of the six degrees of freedom associated with a given node point in a model. (Analysis of a model requires the discretization of the model into a set of nodes and elements. Depending on the analysis and the element used, the associated nodes have certain degrees of freedom. For pipe stress analysis, using 3D Beam Elements, each node in the model has six degrees of freedom.) The other three degrees of freedom are the rotations about each of the axes. In accordance with the right hand rule, positive rotation about each axis is defined as shown in Figures 1 and 2. When modeling a system mathematically, there are two coordinate systems to deal with, a global (or model) coordinate system and a local (or elemental) coordinate system. The global or model coordinate system is fixed, and can be considered a constant characteristic of the analysis at hand. The local coordinate system is defined on an elemental basis. Each element defines its own local coordinate system. The orientation of these local systems varies with the orientation of the elements. An important concept here (which will be reiterated later) is the fact that local coordinate systems are defined by, and therefore associated with, elements. Local coordinate systems are not defined for, or associated with, nodes.

Figure 2 The Right Hand Rule The right hand rule can also be used to describe the relationship between the three axes. Mathematically, the relationship between the axes can be defined as: X cross Y = Z eq 1 Y cross Z = X eq 2 Z cross X = Y eq 3 Where cross indicates the vector cross product. Physically, using your right hand, what do the above equations mean? This question is best answered by Figure 3.

10

February 2002 Pipe Stress Analysis Coordinate Systems As noted previously, most pipe stress analysis computer programs utilize the 3D Beam Element. This element can be described as an infinitely thin stick, spanning between two nodes. Each of these nodes has six degrees of freedom - three translations and three rotations. Piping systems (models) are constructed by defining a series of elements, connected by nodes. These pipe elements are typically defined as vectors, in terms of delta dimensions referenced to a global coordinate system. Several example pipe elements are shown below in Figure 4.

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

Figure 5 - Geometry Configuration Once the Z Axis Vertical switch is activated, the CAESAR II global coordinate system will be in accordance with the right half of Figure 1. This configuration affects all new jobs created in this data directory. Existing jobs with the Y axis vertical are not affected by this configuration change. The second method to obtain a global coordinate system with the Z axis vertical is to switch coordinate systems from within the input for the specific job at hand. This can be accomplished from the Special Execution Parameters dialog of the piping input processor. This dialog is shown below in Figure 6.

Figure 4 - Example Pipe Elements For most pipe stress applications, there are two dominant global coordinate systems to choose from, either Y axis or Z axis up. These two systems are depicted in Figure 1. As previously noted, the global coordinate system is fixed. All nodal coordinates and element delta dimensions are referenced to this global coordinate system. For example, in Figure 4 above, the pipe element spanning from node 10 to node 20 is defined with a DX (delta X) dimension of 5 ft. Additionally, node 20 has a global X coordinate 5 ft greater that the global X coordinate of node 10. Similar statements could be made about the other two elements in Figure 4, only these elements are aligned with the global Y and global Z axes. In CAESAR II, the user can choose between the two global coordinate systems shown in Figure 1. By default, the CAESAR II global coordinate system puts the global Y axis vertical, as shown in the left half of Figure 1, and in Figure 4. There are two ways to change the CAESAR II global coordinate system so that the global Z axis is vertical. The first method is to modify the configuration file in the current data directory. This can be accomplished from the Main Menu, by selecting Tools\Configure Setup. Once the configuration dialog appears, select the Geometry tab, as shown in Figure 5. On this tab, check the Z Axis Up check box, as shown in the Figure.

Figure 6 - Special Execution Parameters Dialog

11

COADE Mechanical Engineering News Checking the Z Axis Vertical checkbox will immediately change the orientation of the global coordinate system axis, with corresponding updates to the element delta dimensions. However, the relative positions and lengths of the elements are not affected by this switch. Defining a Model Using the CAESAR II default coordinate system (Y axis vertical), and assuming the system shown below in Figure 7, the corresponding element definitions are given in Figure 8.

February 2002 For this sample model, most of the element definitions are very simple: The first element, 10-20, is defined as 5 ft in the positive global X direction. This element starts at the model origin. The second element, 20-30, is defined as 5 ft in the positive global Y direction. This element begins at the end of the first element, since both elements share node 20. The third element, 30-40, is defined as 5 ft in the negative global Z direction. Note in Figure 8 that the delta dimension for this element is a negative number. This is necessary to define the element in a negative direction. The fourth element, 40-50, runs in both the positive global X and negative global Y directions, this element slopes to the right and down. This element is defined with delta dimensions in both the DX and DY fields. Notice that these delta dimensions are equal in magnitude; therefore this element slopes at 45 degrees. Continuing the model, from node 50, along the same 45 degree slope can be rather tedious, since most often only the overall element length is know, not its components in the global directions. In CAESAR II this can be best accomplished by activating the Direction Cosine dialog box, shown below in Figure 9. (The Direction Cosine dialog can be activated button next to the DY field.) Using by clicking on the this dialog box, the element length can be entered, and CAESAR II will determine the appropriate components in the global directions, based on the current direction cosines (which default to those of the preceding element).

Figure 7 - Sample Piping Model

Figure 8 - Sample Piping Model Element Definitions

Figure 9 - Direction Cosine Dialog

12

February 2002 CAESAR II provides an additional coding tool, for longer runs of pipe with uniform node spacing. An element break option is provided, which allows an element to be broken into equal length segments, given a node number increment.

COADE Mechanical Engineering News Using Local Coordinates When analyzing a piping system, there are a number of items that must be checked and verified. These items include:
Operating loads on restraints and terminal points Hanger design results Equipment evaluation Expansion joint evaluation Maximum operating displacements Codes stresses for code cases Vessel nozzle evaluation

In the preceding example, the model is defined solely using delta dimensions. By constructing the model in this fashion, it is assumed that the world coordinates of node 10 (the first node in the model) are at (0., 0., 0.). This assumption is acceptable in all but a one instance, when environmental loads are applied to the model. In this instance, the elevation of the model is critical to the determination of the environmental loads, and therefore must be specified. In CAESAR II, the specification of the starting node of the model can be accomplished using the [Alt+G] key combination, and all nodal coordinates will be displayed as absolute coordinates. Regardless of whether or not the global coordinates of the starting node are specified, the model relative geometry will plot the same. Once a model has been defined, there are a number of operations that can be performed on the entire system, or on any section of the system. These operations include: Translating the model: translation can be accomplished by specifying the global coordinates of the starting node of the model. If the model consists of disconnected segments, CAESAR II requests the coordinates of the starting node of each segment. Rotating the model: rotation can be accomplished by using the [LIST] processor(by clicking on the zbutton in the toolbar). The [LIST] processor presents the model in a spreadsheet, or grid, format, as shown in Figure 8. Options in this processor allow the model (or any sub-section of the model) to be rotated about any of the three global axes, a specified amount. For example, if the model shown in Figures 7 and 8 is rotated a (negative) -90 degrees about the global Y axis, the result is as shown in Figure 10.

Restraint loads and displacements are checked in the global coordinate system. This is necessary because restraint loads and displacements are nodal quantities. Element loads and stresses are most often evaluated in their local coordinate system. A good example illustrating the use of a local (element) coordinate system is the free body diagram, of forces and moments. The forces and moments in this free body diagram remain the same, regardless of the position of the element in the global coordinate system. Note however, that each element has its own local coordinate system. Furthermore, the local coordinate system of one element may be different from the local coordinate system of a different element. While the global coordinate system is typically referred to using the capital letters X, Y, and Z, local coordinate systems use a variety of nomenclature. In almost all cases, local coordinate systems use lower case letters. Typical local coordinate system axes are: xyz, abc, and uvw. CAESAR II uses xyz to denote the local element coordinate system. The local coordinate system for an element is related to the global coordinate system through a rule. There may be a number of such rules, depending on the type of element. In CAESAR II, the following rules are used to define the local coordinate systems of the piping elements in a model. CAESAR II Local Coordinate Definitions Rule 1 - Straight Pipe: For straight pipe elements, the local x axis always points from the From Node to the To Node. The local y axis can be found by the vector cross product of the local x axis with the global Y axis. Applying the right hand rule, this local y axis can be found by: 1. 2. Lay your right hand on the pipe, with the wrist at the From Node, and the fingers pointing to the To Node. Align or rotate your hand so that the global Y axis points perpendicularly out from the palm. The thumb is now aligned with the local y axis for this element.

Figure 10 - Example of Model Rotation Duplicating the model: duplication can also be accomplished by using the [LIST] processor. The entire model, or any subsection of the model, can be duplicated.

3.

The local z axis can be found by the vector cross product of the local x and local y axes.

13

COADE Mechanical Engineering News An exception to this rule is the case of a vertical element. In this case, the local x axis is still aligned in the From - To direction. However, you cant cross a vertical element into global Y, so the local y axis was arbitrarily assigned to align with the global X axis. The straight elements of the model in Figure 7 are reproduced below in Figure 11, along with their local coordinate systems. Notice that each of these straight elements has its own local coordinate system, and that in this model, they are all aligned differently.

February 2002 As an additional example, the local element coordinate systems for the rotated system of Figure 10 are shown below in Figure 12.

Figure 12 - Local Coordinate Systems for Straight Elements (2) Rule 2 - Bend Elements: For the near weld line of bend elements, the local x axis is directed along the incoming tangent, in the From To direction. The local z axis points to the center of the circle described by the bend. For the far weld line of bend elements, the local x axis is directed along the outgoing tangent, in the From To direction. The local z axis points to the center of the circle described by the bend. In both cases, the local y axis can be found by applying the right hand rule. The local coordinate system for the bends in the example model of Figure 7 are shown below in Figure 13.

Figure 11 - Local Coordinate Systems for Straight Elements (1) In Figure 11, the positive direction of the local x axis for each element is defined according to the From - To definition of the element. For example, the local x axis of element 10-20 is aligned with the positive global X axis, because that is the direction defined in moving from node 10 to node 20. The local x axis of element 30-40 is aligned with the negative global Z axis, because that is the direction defined in moving from node 30 to node 40. Figure 11 should be studied to ensure a good understanding of how the local element coordinate system can be defined based on the definition of the element, especially with regard to the skewed element 40-50.

Figure 13 Local Coordinate Systems for Bend Elements

14

February 2002 Rule 3 - Tee Elements: For tees, there is no element or fitting as there is in a CAD application. Rather designating a node as a tee simply applies code defined SIFs at that point, for the three elements framing into the tee node. As usual, the local x axis is defined by the element From - To direction. The local y axis coincides with the line that defines the in-plane plane of the tee (in other words, the local y axis is perpendicular to the plane of the three tee elements). The positive direction of the local y axis is found by (vectorally) crossing the local x axis of the header element with the local x axis of the branch, and then (strangely enough) reversing the sign (direction). (In those cases where the two header elements have opposite local x axes, CAESAR II chooses the first one that it finds.) The local z axis can then be determined using the right-hand rule. Note that the local z axis coincides with the out-of-plane axis of the tee, for each element. Examples of local coordinates for elements framing into tees are depicted below in Figure 14.

COADE Mechanical Engineering News The piping system is then assigned node points at locations where: there is a change in direction, a support, a terminal point, a point of cross section change, a point of load application, or any other point of interest. Once the nodes have been assigned the piping model can be defined using the delta dimensions as dictated by the orientation of the global coordinate system. Analysts should take advantage of the tools provided by CAESAR II in constructing the model - this includes the element break option, the LIST rotate and duplicate options, and the direction cosine facility. After verifying the input, confirming the load cases, and analyzing the model, output review commences.

Output review involves checking various output reports to ensure the system responds within certain limits. These checks include: Checking that operating displacements make sense and are within any operational limits (to avoid ponding etc.). Displacements being nodal quantities, are reviewed in the global coordinate system. There is no local coordinate system associated with nodes. For the model defined in Figures 7 and 8, the operating displacements are shown in Figure 15 below.

Figure 14 - Local Coordinate Systems for Tee Elements Applications - Utilizing Global and Local Coordinates Global coordinates are used most often when dealing with piping models. Global coordinates are used to define the model and review nodal results. Even though element stresses are defined in terms of axial and bending directions, which are local coordinate system terms, local coordinates are rarely used. A typical piping analysis scenario is as follows. A decision is made as to how the global coordinate system for the piping model will align with the plant coordinate system. Usually, one of the two horizontal axes is selected to correspond to the North direction. However, if this results in a majority of the system being skewed with respect to the global axes, one should consider realigning the model. It is best to have most of the system aligned with one of the global coordinate axes.

Figure 15 - Operating Displacements This report shows the movements of all of the nodes in the model, in each of the six degrees of freedom, in the global coordinate system. Checking that the restraint loads for the structural load cases are reasonable. This includes ensuring that the restraints can be designed to carry the computed load. Restraints being nodal quantities, are reviewed in the global coordinate system. There is no local coordinate system associated with restraints. For the model defined in Figures 7 and 8, the operating / sustained restraint summary is shown in Figure 16 below.

15

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

February 2002 These reports provide sufficient information to evaluate the pipe elements in the model, to ensure proper behavior and code compliance. However, the analysts job is not complete, loads and stress must still be evaluated at terminal points, where the piping system connects to equipment or vessel nozzles. Depending on the type of equipment or nozzle, various procedures and codes are applied. These include API-610 for pumps and WRC-107 for vessel nozzles, as well as others. In the case of API-610 and WRC107, a local coordinate system specific to these codes is employed. These local coordinate systems are defined in terms of the pump or nozzle/vessel geometry. When the equipment coordinate system aligns with the global coordinate system of the piping model, the nozzle loads from the restraint report (node 50 in Figure 14) can be used in the nozzle evaluation. However, when the equipment nozzle is skewed (as it is in the case of node 50 in Figure 14), the application of the loads is more difficult. In this case, it is best to use the loads from the elements force/moment report, in local coordinates. The only thing to remember here is to flip the signs on all of the forces and moments, since the element force/moment report shows the loads on the pipe element, not on the nozzle. For the element from node 40 to node 50, the local element force/moment report is shown in Figure 18 below.

Figure 16 - Operating / Sustained Restraint Summary This report shows the loads on the anchor at 10 and the nozzle at 50, for all six degrees of freedom, for the two selected structural load cases, in the global coordinate system. Checking the Code cases for codes stress compliance. Typically the code stress is compared to the allowable stress for each node on each element. Occasionally, when there is an overstress condition, a review of axial, bending, and torsion stresses are necessary. These stresses (axial, bending, and torsion) are local coordinate system terms, and therefore relate to the elements local coordinate system. For the model defined in Figures 7 and 8, a portion of the sustained stress report is shown in Figure 17 below.

Figure 18 - Local Element Force/Moment Report

Figure 17 - Sustained Stress Report

16

February 2002 Because the correlation between the pipe models coordinate systems and those of equipment codes (API, WRC, etc) are often times tedious and error prone, CAESAR II provides an option in its equipment modules to acquire the loads on the nozzle directly from the static output. The user simply has to select the node and the load case; CAESAR II will acquire the loads and rotate them into the proper coordinate system as defined by the applicable equipment code. The user really does not have to be concerned with the transformation from global to local coordinates, even for skewed components. This is illustrated below, in Figure 19. In this figure, the API-610 nozzle loads at node 50 have been acquired by clicking on the [Get Loads from Output File] button. Notice that the loads shown in Figure 19 are in the CAESAR II global coordinate system. This can be easily verified by comparing these values to those in the restraint summary (for the Operating load case) as shown previously in Figure 16.

COADE Mechanical Engineering News In the corresponding output report for this API-610 analysis, both the global and API local loads are reported. This is shown below in Figure 20.

Figure 20 - API-610 Nozzle Output Report Segments Notice in Figure 20, that each report segment indicates which values are related to the global coordinate system and which are related to the local API coordinate system. Figure 19 - API-610 Nozzle Load Acquisition Transforming from Global to Local Converting (or transforming) values from the CAESAR II global coordinate system to a local coordinate system involves applying a number of rotation matrices to the global values. Matrix mathematics is not a trivial task, and one must exercise the utmost care to arrive at the correct result. For those that want to undertake this task themselves, a small utility (discussed in the July 2001 issue of COADEs Mechanical Engineering News) can be downloaded from the COADE web site to perform this transformation. The use of this utility (GlbtoLocal) is illustrated here, using the nozzle at node 50 as an example.

17

COADE Mechanical Engineering News The element 40-50 is defined with the delta coordinates of: DX = 3 ft. 6.426 in DY = -3 ft. 6.426 in DZ = 0.0 The global restraint forces at node 50, in global coordinates, for the operating case are: FX = 323. FY = 4. FZ = -271. MX = -953. MY = -9. MZ = -548.

February 2002 The set of values labeled Rotated Displacements / Load Vector can be compared with the Local Element Force / Moment report, as shown in Figure 18. Note however, that a change in sign is necessary, since the restraint report shows loads acting on the restraint, while the element report shows loads acting on the element. Frequently Asked Questions What are global coordinates? Global coordinates define the mapping of a physical system into a mathematical system. For any given model, the global coordinate system is fixed for the entire model. In CAESAR II, there are two alternative global coordinate systems that can be applied to a model. Both coordinate systems follow the right hand rule and use X, Y, and Z as mutually perpendicular axes. The first alternative uses the Y axis vertical, while the second uses the Z axis as vertical. What are local coordinates? Local coordinates represent the mapping for a single element. Local coordinate systems are used to define positive and negative directions and loads on elements. Local coordinate systems are aligned with the elements, and therefore vary throughout the model. What coordinates are used to plot and view the model? The models global coordinate system is used to generate plots of the model. This is necessary since each element has its own local coordinate system, and these local systems can vary from element to element. Local coordinate systems are an element property, not a system property. How do you obtain restraint loads in local coordinates? In general, you dont - this doesnt make any sense. Restraint loads are a nodal property. Nodes dont have local coordinate systems, elements do. While an argument can be made that the local coordinate system of the connecting element should be used, this is only valid if one single element frames into the restraint. As soon as multiple elements frame into the restraint, there are multiple local coordinate systems to deal with. The lone exception is when a single element frames into a nozzle. In this instance, the restraint loads in this single elements coordinate system can be obtained from the elements local force / moment report, with a change in sign. How do you obtain nodal displacements in local coordinates? In general, you dont - this doesnt make any sense. Displacements are a nodal property. Nodes dont have local coordinate systems, elements do. Refer to the preceding discussion on restraint loads for additional details. What do you do with local coordinates? In most instances nothing. The only time local coordinates are useful in CAESAR II is when dealing with a skewed nozzle. The CAESAR II software interface makes the use of local coordinates unnecessary except in this one instance.

Using this data as input to GlbtoLocal, the utility yields the forces on the restraint in the elements local coordinate system. This is shown in Figure 21 below.

Figure 21 - Example Global to Local Transformation

18

February 2002

COADE Mechanical Engineering News which they are played. The frequency or pitch produced on stage will reach your ear in the audience. Of course, the sound produced on stage will change before it reaches your ear. It may be amplified or attenuated by the room dynamics and there are delays in sounds that have traveled farther before reaching your ear. But a C played on stage will still be a C when you hear it. Your piping system dynamics are analogous to the acoustics in that concert hall. The response exhibits the same frequency as the applied load. Heres another basic the system response is always changing. If we apply a harmonic load to a piping system, we can take a snapshot of that system at any point in time and the magnitude of system response will vary according to the frequency of the applied load and the time of the snapshot. Now this may sound overly simple but it is often overlooked. CAESAR II output the system deflections, loads and stresses varies according to when you take that snapshot. Using some non-maximum value as the amplitude of the response would underestimate the system response. We want to report the maximum response, reporting results at any other time would not show the true amplitude of the response. Refer to Figure 1 and identify proper report times to display response amplitude. The nodal response reported at snapshot B can be used for the system amplitude as can D. Reports generated for a given point in the system at time A would not show maximum response and should not be used to predict things like fatigue life. Time C illustrates a report that would have zero response for the selected node.

Frequency / Phase Pairs in CAESAR II

By: Dave Diehl

Introduction The harmonic analysis included with the initial release of CAESAR II was simple in one way yet complex in another. It was simple in that it did not account for system damping. Therefore, the maximum system response occurred at the same instant as the maximum applied load. But these ideal systems, systems without damping, are capable of producing infinite response when driven exactly at a natural frequency. Of course, a CAESAR II model with infinite response would not mimic the real world. What made it more complex was the way we addressed this damping term. At the time, we offered an equation to adjust the forcing frequency to simulate the damping that was missing from the analysis. It worked well enough for those users who understood the theory behind it all. Then in Version 3.22, back in 1995, Tom1 added damping to CAESAR II harmonic analysis2 . Now that frequency shift is no longer required for an accurate analysis. But with damping the maximum response no longer happens at the same time as the maximum load. So Tom added a few more screens to the harmonics processor to search for and display the maximum system response, no matter when it occurs. This search and display is performed for each loading frequency in the analysis. All this data is presented to the user along with two choices 1) let CAESAR II sort through the data and report the significant results, or, 2) allow the user to pick through the numbers and choose. As you might imagine, most users simply have CAESAR II select frequency/phase pairs. We see it time and again here at COADE; as we add more sophistication to our programs, more user input and knowledge is required to successfully utilize these analysis improvements. This article describes what those additional harmonic analysis screens hold, how to use them, and why you may want to select your own frequency/phase pairs. Harmonic Analysis A few basics in harmonic analysis are worth reviewing. First of all, the system response to a harmonic load (either force or displacement) has the same frequency as the applied load. The equations may not make this obvious but the real world does. Consider an orchestra on stage. All the instruments can tune up independent of the hall in

Harmonic Analysis with Damping Remember that with no system damping, the system response follows the load exactly when the load is maximum, the response is maximum. This would have report times A, B, C & D above keyed directly to the load itself. Figure 2a shows another way of looking at this. Here we are watching the response at the tip of the cantilever for an undamped system. The response of the tip (and any other point in this undamped system) tracks the applied load identically.

Tom Van Laan, President of COADE

2 Rayleigh

damping is incorporated by adjusting the system stiffness. This approximation works well when the forcing frequency is close to a system natural frequency which is usually the case of interest. 19

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

February 2002

Figure 2a Figure 2b We can show this in equation:

load = A cos( ) ; response = B cos( ) 3

This lag in the response is the phase shift (f) at the tip of the cantilever. The equations now include this phase shift:

Where A is the magnitude of applied load (force or deflection) is the forcing frequency B is the nodal response (deflection, load, stress) But when damping is introduced in this system4 , there is a lag in the response. The frequency of response still matches the applied load but there is a phase shift. The maximum response of any node no longer occurs at the same instant as the maximum applied load. This point is illustrated in Figure 2b. The base of the cantilever is approaching its maximum positive value while the tip is coming from is minimum position as it approaches zero deflection.
3 Its

load = A cos( ) ; response = B cos( + )

Where is the phase shift at the node in question. We Want the Maximum Response With no damping the response will match the timing of the applied load. Theres no reason to fool with a phase angle; the response changes over time but the maximum response is known to match the maximum applied load. The early version of harmonic analysis, without damping, did not require a search for the maximum response. But because of the associated phase shift, damping alters this simple view. Fortunately, CAESAR II monitors the maximum displacement of every node for each exciting frequency and tracks the phase shift associated with this nodal response. When you have CAESAR II select frequency/phase pairs late in the harmonic analysis, a report is displayed for each analyzed frequency at the phase angle that produced the largest overall displacement. For each forcing frequency analyzed, CAESAR II lists the node with greatest displacement, that displacement and phase angle of this response5 . This frequency/phase pair, as we call it, can also be selected by hand and this is discussed later. When the user has CAESAR II select the frequency/phase pairs the report tabulating these results (shown in Figure 3) is displayed before control is passed to the output processor.

a little more complicated than this. In the ideal, with no damping, the response is either exactly in phase or 180 degrees out of phase (points B & D in Figure 1) with the applied load. It is in phase when the forcing frequency is less than a system natural frequency and out of phase when the forcing frequency is greater than a system natural frequency. Since we are interested in the absolute maxima, the numbers come out the same.
4 So whats a good number for the critical damping ratio for piping?

The default value displayed in the CAESAR II dynamic input control parameters is 0.03. This is on the high side for most piping. The U.S. A.E.C. Regulatory Guide 1.61 states that piping with a nominal OD of 12 inches and lower has a damping value (percent of critical damping) of 1 (thats 0.01 in CAESAR II input) and larger piping has a damping value of 2. These values are for seismic design for an operating basis earthquake. ASME BPVC Section III (Nuclear) Div. 1 Appendix N (Dynamic Analysis Methods) mimicked these values until the 1999 addendum. In 1999 the Nuclear code changed the damping value to 5 for all pipe sizes and earthquake magnitudes. While this newer information is useful in selecting the magnitude of the ground response, the older data is still applicable for the harmonic analysis we are running here.

The program also lists the real and imaginary terms of this displacement. Think of the real term as the X axis and the imaginary term as the Y axis in an X-Y plot. The magnitude of the response is plotted as a vector with its base at (0,0) and this vector is rotated off the +X axis by the phase angle, where positive is counterclockwise.

20

February 2002 The real term is magnitude cos( ) and the imaginary term is
magnitude sin( ) .

COADE Mechanical Engineering News Other Information in this Report Response increases exponentially as the forcing frequency approaches a system natural frequency and fades as the forcing frequency increases beyond a system natural frequency. Figure 4 shows this relationship in equation and plot. The plot displays this response for a 1% critically damped system in terms of amplitude versus ratio of forcing frequency to natural frequency. When a system is driven exactly at a natural frequency the amplitude of the response simplifies to: A = 1 (2 ) ; where is the critically damped ratio. Here, where is 0.01 (not atypical for piping systems), the amplification factor is 50.

Figure 3 Rather than analyzing a single frequency, the user should typically sweep through a range of loading frequencies. This would accommodate any inaccuracies in the dynamic (mass & stiffness) model and any uncertainties in the loading frequency. This presents a lot of data to review. Using CAESAR IIs snapshot at each frequency; the task of data review is greatly simplified. Figure 3 shows that 15 frequencies were analyzed from 7.0 to 7.7 Hz. This will produce 15 load cases for review in the output processor each having the usual complement of reports of displacements, restraint loads, internal loads and stresses. The maximum response up to 7.5 Hz is at node 25 and beyond that node 58 has the maximum displacement. The phase angle of these maxima increases from 8 degrees at 7.0 Hz to 165 degrees at 7.7 Hz. These snapshots of the system at these point in time (in other words, at this phase angle) will display, and report the system response based on these selected maximum nodal displacements. Thats what you want to see6.

Figure 4 Of course, if you are looking for maximum response as you sweep through a range of frequencies, you would only need to review the results at one frequency the driving frequency closest to a system natural frequency. This report in Figure 3 also indicates which forcing frequency is closest to the natural frequency, but not directly. In the example, the response at node 25 builds exponentially from 4.2 mm at 7.0 Hz up to 20.2 mm at 7.45 Hz and then drops off. You will also note that the phase shift for each frequency increases with the forcing frequency. A useful key here is that as the forcing frequency approaches a system natural frequency, the phase shift in the maximum response approached 90 degrees. This is true for any amount of system damping. Keep an eye on the phase shift in the maximum response and you can easily pick out the forcing frequencies of greatest significance. In our example, a natural frequency of this piping system is somewhere between 7.45 Hz and 7.50 Hz. Our attention will focus on the 7.45 Hz report since that one shows the greatest displacement at node 25. With this

In most cases the maximum displacement of a system node will produce the maximum stress but this is not necessarily true. Most of our concerns regarding harmonic analysis center on lower modes of system vibration modes that usually display simple cantilever bending. Higher modes of vibration may produce higher bending stresses with a smaller maximum deflection. Also, higher modes could develop high stresses at intermediate points along the pipe between existing node numbers. Without the node number defined, these high stresses cannot be reported.

21

COADE Mechanical Engineering News information, you could also go back to the harmonic input and run a finer sweep between 7.45 Hz and 7.50 Hz, confident that this would get you closer to the system maximum response at node 25. The stress report at the frequency/phase pair of 7.45 Hz and 69 degrees (or anything closer to the natural frequency) will show the stress amplitudes at every node. With the appropriate fatigue curve, this information could be used to estimate the number of cycles to system failure. Selecting Your Own Frequency/Phase Pairs The discussion so far concerns the programs selection of frequency/ phase pairs. The user is also offered the choice of selecting these data by hand as shown in Figure 5. Figure 6a

February 2002

After selecting the frequency to monitor, you then select a node. In our example we will monitor node 25. Again, the CAESAR II selection shown earlier indicated that node 25 exhibited the maximum displacement at 7.45 Hz. Once you choose a node the following screen appears (Figure 6b).

Figure 5 Once you know signs to look for, you can select your own frequencies to report maximum system response. In our example, we will select our own frequency/phase pairs using the 7.45 Hz load. Figures 6a illustrates this selection.

Figure 6b

22

February 2002 You see that 18 different reports each at a different phase angle can be displayed for this single forcing frequency of 7.45 Hz. The report at Index #4 (the first column in the report), with a phase angle of 69.13, is the one that CAESAR II selected earlier but you can review the others as well. Watching the DZ column, you see the node cycle through its displacement in Z. Index #13 is just the opposite of #4. Index #9 essentially shows zero deflection as does #18. All the others show intermediate results. Looking back at Figure 1, you could say report times A, B, C & D correlate to Indices 17, 4, 18 & 13. Note how these 18 reports are based on phase angles pretty much running between 0 and 340 degrees at 20 degree increments. The displayed displacement will equal (maximum displacement)*cos() where is phase angle and runs through 0, 20, 40,340. There are four exceptions to this pattern that shift the phase angle to catch the maximum, minimum and two zero response times for the node in question. These four phase angles replace the closest reports. In Figure 6b you see that the report at phase angle 60 is replaced by a report at 69.13 degrees to catch the maximum response. Likewise, the reports at 160, 240 and 340 degrees are also replaced by more significant events. Stars are added to the screen capture to mark these four reports. A plot of these responses in Figure 7 reinforces this point. The two curves represent the applied harmonic load defined and the response at node 25. The response at node 25 lags node 5 by 69.13 degrees. CAESAR II provides reports at the 18 phase angles indicated by the circles. The stars highlight the report shifts to catch those significant points. The shifts to catch the maximum and minimum response are obvious while the zero points are not apparent with the scale used. These are the 18 phase solutions or reports discussed in the program text shown in Figure 5.

COADE Mechanical Engineering News So Why Would You Want to Select Your Own Frequency/ Phase Pairs? If CAESAR II can find the frequency/phase pairs producing the maximum displacement, why would you want to get in the way and select your own? I can think of three reasons. 1. If you wanted to reduce the amount of reports listed in the output, simply select the same node and phase shift as CAESAR II but only for the forcing frequencies close to a natural frequency. If you are interested in a specific node (a point of failure?), you can select your node here. You will note that the phase angle associated with maximum response changes from node to node. If you simply wanted to exercise the processor to increase your understanding of harmonic analysis in CAESAR II.

2.

3.

Conclusion You must remember the cyclic nature of harmonic results. The snapshot we see in the CAESAR II output is time or phase dependant. Our goal is to display the maximum response based on the proper frequency/phase pair. This article described the importance of that frequency/phase pair and how you can use CAESAR II to confirm you are looking at the proper results. Most vibration texts provide good background in forced harmonic vibration. One such book is Theory of Vibrations with Applications by William T. Thompson published by Prentice-Hall, now in 5th Edition.

Figure 7

23

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

February 2002

PC Hardware/Software for the Engineering User (Part 32)

Keeping Your System Up to Date Recently, Microsoft published a document titled Windows Desktop Product Lifecycle Guidelines. This document (available at http:// www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycleconsumer.asp) discusses the life cycle of the various Microsoft operating systems. As explained in this document, the operating system life cycle consists of three phases; mainstream phase, extended phase, and non-supported phase. In the non-supported phase, support for the operating system is available only online, and Microsoft may terminate this after providing 12 months notice. The following operating systems are currently listed in the un-supported phase of their life cycle: MS DOS, Windows 3.xx, Windows 95, Windows NT 3.5x. Of these operating systems, current COADE software will only run on Windows 95. From this Microsoft document: When a Windows desktop operating system enters the NonSupported phase, does that mean new applications wont run on the older operating system? There is no direct correlation between when an operating system enters the Non-Supported phase and when new applications and new hardware will no longer work with the older operating system. However, the older an operating system is, the less likely it is that new applications will run well on it. As happens today, to offer customers products that take advantage of the complete functionality of the latest operating systems, hardware and software manufacturers may choose to only have their products work with the most recent operating systems and discontinue supporting their products on older operating systems. Register Your COADE Product! Keeping with the latest builds and versions of COADE products is both important and highly recommended. The developers at COADE are constantly adding new features and fixing problems found by users and us. These updates are available for download from our website. Visit www.coade.com/updates.htm and register yourself to receive timely e-mail notices informing you about newly available builds, versions and other important product information. As always, the information you share with us is used solely by COADE Inc. and is not sold or provided to any outside sources. For more information, visit www.coade.com and click Privacy Policy to review our privacy policy.

For those users running Norton Anti-Virus, ensure you re-enable scripting from the "options" tab. Failure to do this will prevent COADE products from sending output to Microsoft Word.

24

February 2002

COADE Mechanical Engineering News 7) Static Load Case Setup Module / Dynamic Input: Increased memory allocation for force sets when performing force spectrum analysis. Removed a restriction limiting the number of static load cases that could be referenced in a combination case Corrected wave plots to properly label Z axis up. Corrected load case error message when introducing spring hanger design. Corrected scalar/absolute warning to show only once. 8) Output Modules: Modified the handling of rotational restraint stiffnesses for anchors and displacements so as to use the default specified in the configuration. Corrected the operation of the Find dialog, for the onscreen mode (unity/mass) reports. Corrected input echo generation when reporting allowable stress data for output modules. Corrected a problem accessing the two line user titles, following report export to MS Word. Corrected a problem causing the cumulative usage and code compliance reports to print more than once. Corrected a problem where if MS Word was implemented first, data was not available for plotting. 9) PCF Interface: Modified to allow the conversion of multiple neutral files in a single session. 10) CADPIPE Interface: Implemented additional intersection checks to improve olet location Corrected the placement of the downstream leg of bends when terminating at tees. Added an additional 18 entity types per latest CADPIPE version. 11) PIPENET Interface: Corrected the interface to properly put forces set values in the CAESAR II dynamic input file..

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 WEB site. 1) Stress Computation Modules: Modified the computation of the minimum Sh value for B31.8 Ch VIII allowable computation Modified the handling of rotational restraint stiffnesses for anchors and displacements so as to use the default specified in the configuration.

2) Animation Module: 3) Modified to address dual monitors. Element Generator: Modified the handling of rotational restraint stiffnesses for anchors and displacements so as to use the default specified in the configuration. 4) Error Checker Module: Corrected the diameter/thickness checks to ensure zero values are properly reported as errors. Modified the handling of rotational restraint stiffnesses for anchors and displacements so as to use the default specified in the configuration. Corrected the specification of user entered SIF values for the TD/12 piping code. Corrected the specification of user entered SIF values for TD/12 pressure stresses. Corrected the units conversion of the API-650 delta T value when printing the nozzle report directly to the printer. 5) Input Echo / Neutral File Module: Corrected to address the Z axis up setting.. 6) Intergraph Interface: Modified to handle alpha-numeric pipe schedule designations. Corrected temperature/pressure data storage allocation. Refined the tolerance used to determine English nominal diameters from metric values.

25

COADE Mechanical Engineering News 12) Miscellaneous Processor: Added handling of Z axis up for EJMA routines Corrections to the flange routine; nubbin width definition, conversion of B and G to user units, applied moment units conversion, ring joint width from gasket dimensions. 13) Piping Input Module: Corrected temperature, pressure, diameter, and wall thickness window close operations. Corrected the operation of the node marker on/off switch. Corrected the hanger run control data when upgrading input files from previous versions. Added handling of skewed restraints when performing a mirror duplication. 14) MS Word Templates: Updated to address Win95/Office97 table of contents issues. 15) Eigen Solver: Corrected the execution of the out-of-core solver.

February 2002

CodeCalc Notices
Listed below are those errors & omissions in the CodeCalc program that have been identified since the last newsletter. 1) TEMA Tubesheet: Corrected an error related to tubesheet class selection. 2) Flange: Corrected the Flange MDMT computation. 3) Cone: The external pressure required thickness calculation for cones with half-apex angle greater than 60 degrees, is per the flat head formula, as outlined in the code. 4) ASME Tubesheet: Corrected the tube allowable stresses for Temperature + Pressure cases. This only affected the fixed tubesheet design and was a conservative error.

PVElite Notices
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 WEB site. 1) Nozzle Dialog - Depending on the path taken through the nozzle dialog a program abort could occur, specifically if one of the lookup buttons was pressed before tabbing past the nozzle diameter. 2) Detail Properties - Under BS:5500, the allowable stresses for detail components was not being updated if the design temperature was changed. 3) Nozzle Analysis - The strength reduction factor for set on (abutting) nozzles when constructed of different materials was not handled in the Division 2 area of replacement calculations . 4) The corroded hydrotest option was not handled by the program for the Zick analysis in the test condition. 5) The distance for stiffening ring inclusion in conical calculations was not computed correctly due to a units problem. 6) For vessels with intermediate skirts that had large differences in element diameter diameters, the natural frequency calculation was in error. This usually resulted in very low natural frequency. 7) For Horizontal vessels where -Y forces were specified, the program was subtracting the applied force from the saddle load and not adding to it. 8) For Division 2 vessels with reinforcing pads, the program was not properly considering the reduced pad area in the two thirds area calculation.

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 WEB site. 1) Input Module: Corrected a problem preventing the sizing scratchpad from displaying output. Corrected for the 2.30 release.

26

February 2002

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

27

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

February 2002

COADE Engineering Software

12777 Jones Rd. Suite 480 Houston, Texas 77070 28 Tel: 281-890-4566 Fax: 281-890-3301 Web: www.coade.com E-Mail: techsupport@coade.com