5/26/2011

CAESAR II: Calculating Modes of Vibration

A Quick Overview
26 May 2011
Presented by David Diehl

Quick Agenda

Modal Extraction, a brief introduction

Dynamic Input Review
Results Review
Model Adjustments
Use as Acceptance Criteria
Close

5/26/2011

INTRODUCTION
Modal Extraction / Eigen Solution

Modal Extraction / Eigen Solution the Start of It All

M &x& + C x& + Kx = F ( t )

is the angular frequency

(radians/second) of this free
oscillation

There is a matching shape to this

oscillation

There is no magnitude to this shape

This is important:
Think of a mode of vibration (the &
mode shape pair) as a single degree
of freedom system

let
C =0

F (t )

be harmonic

so

x = A sin t
&x& = 2 A sin t = 2 x
2 Mx + Kx = F ( t )
let
F (t ) = 0
(K M 2 )x = 0
so
x =0
or

K M 2 = 0

K M

5/26/2011

Examples of Modes of Vibration

Two examples of a One

Degree of Freedom
(DOF) System

A two DOF System

Mode 1

Mode 2

An n DOF System

Mode 1

Mode 2

Mode 3

Mode 4

Mode n

These are NOT circumferential modes

We are following nodal displacement distortion of the pipe centerline

The pipe also has modes of vibration associated with shell distortion:

:From Piping Vibration Analysis

by J.C. Wachel,
Scott J. Morton and
Kenneth E. Atkins of
Engineering Dynamics, Incorporated
San Antonio, TX
A Tutorial from the
Proceedings of 19th Turbomachinery Symposium
Copyright 1990

CAESAR II does NOT calculate these circumferential or axial modes

5/26/2011

DYNAMIC INPUT REVIEW

Controlling the Analysis

Starting the Dynamic Input Processor

5/26/2011

Starting the Dynamic Input Processor

Starting the Dynamic Input Processor

5/26/2011

General Comments on Data Entry

Add a new
line below
current

Delete
selected
line(s)

Save,
Error Check
Check,
Run
Comment
(do not process)

Modifying Mass

5/26/2011

Modifying Mass

X, Y, Z or ALL
The affected
Or a range
or
Node number
of Nodes
RX, RY, RZ or RALL

The
A signed
zero
magnitude
is
eliminates
li i t the
th
summed
with
mass. the
calculated mass.
Calculated Mass:
Node

Node

Node

Adding Snubbers

Remember, damping was

eliminated from the equation of
motion (C=0). Point damping
is simulated with a stiff spring.
Mechanical

Hydraulic

5/26/2011

Control Parameters

Def=Default;
this is a button

Entry cell
(use F1 for help)

Nonlinear Considerations

Our equation of motion insists on a linear system that is, the stiffness, K, is
constant. ( K M 2 ) x = 0

But our static model allows nonlinear conditions.

The dynamic model must linearize those nonlinear conditions.

In many cases, the operating state of nonlinear boundary conditions can serve
as the linear state for the dynamic evaluation.

An example will help

5/26/2011

Nonlinear Considerations (Liftoff)

: Cold Position

A +Y
(resting)
restraint

Nonlinear Considerations (Liftoff)

: (Static) Operating Position 1

Liftoff

Dynamic Model
(no restraint)

5/26/2011

Nonlinear Considerations (Liftoff)

: (Static) Operating Position 2

No liftoff

Dynamic Model
(double-acting Y)

Nonlinear Considerations (Friction)

Y
X

: (Static) Operating Position

Friction defined;
Normal Load = N
Dynamic Model

X
Z

K=Stiffness Factor for Friction**N

10

5/26/2011

Stiffness Factor for Friction

This Stiffness Factor for Friction is not a physical parameter; it is a modeling

tool.

Larger
g normal loads ((N)) will p
produce g
greater restraint

This is NOT a 0 or 1! I use 1000 but values as low as 200 produce similar
results for the models I run.

This value will knock out frequencies associated with frictionless surfaces.

ASCE 7-10 para. 15.5.2.1: "Friction resulting from gravity loads shall not be
considered to provide resistance to seismic forces
(But were
we re not running a seismic analysis here
here.))

Use it as a tuning parameter in forensic engineering.

How right is it?

Control Parameters (nonlinear issues)

11

5/26/2011

Stopping the eigensolver

A system with n degrees of freedom will have n modes of vibration.

Are all mode important?

No,
N nott for
f our purposes.
The lower (frequency) modes contribute the greatest structural response of the
system.

CAESAR II extracts modes starting with the lowest mode (lowest frequency).

Piping modes of vibration above 33 Hertz do not show resonant response to

seismic motion. This is the default CAESAR II cutoff frequency.

Piping modes of higher frequency (100+ Hz) may play a role in fast-acting
events such as fluid hammer.

Piping modes at lower frequencies respond to many environmental harmonic

loads (equipment vibration, acoustic vibration & pulsation).

Stopping the eigensolver

Two parameters are checked to stop the eigensolution:

A maximum frequency.
The total count of calculated modes (count = 0 ignores this check)

First limit reached stops the solution.

Frequency cutoff is typically used alone.

12

5/26/2011

Control Parameters (to stop the eigensolution)

Lumped Mass versus Consistent Mass

For many years CAESAR II (like most analysis tools) ignored rotational inertia
and off-diagonal mass terms.

This is what we call lumped

p mass.

Todays bigger and faster PCs can handle the fully-developed, complete mass
matrix.

This is the consistent mass approach.

Consistent mass will more accurately determine the frequencies of natural

vibration without adding more nodes (mass points) to the static model.

BUT more mass points may still be required to establish a proper mode
shape in the frequency/mode shape pair.

13

5/26/2011

Lumped Mass versus Consistent Mass

Lumped mass matrix

Consistent mass matrix

Control Parameters (mass model)

14

5/26/2011

Confirming the calculation

The Sturm sequence check is a back check on the calculated frequencies

View the eigensolver as a search routine that finds system natural frequencies
from lowest to highest.
g

At times these frequencies may be discovered out of sequence.

The Sturm sequence check as a separate calculation of the total number of

modes below the last frequency produced. If this count doesnt match the
eigensolver total, the program will state that the check has failed.

A cheap (time-wise) insurance that no mode is missing.

Not so much a problem with todays PCs

Control Parameters (confirming the modal solution)

15

5/26/2011

RESULTS REVIEW
What Does It All Mean?

The Output Menu

No Load

16

5/26/2011

Results Frequency Report

cycles perradians
secondper second
seconds per cycle

Results Mode Shapes

Mode shapes (mass & unity normalized)

Modes Mass Normalized the tendency of that modes contribution to the overall
response to a quickly-applied load, all other things being equal (i.e. DLF and point
of load application)
application).
Model Unity Normalized the typical mode shape. This is the same shape but
normalized to one.

Same shape;
different magnitude

17

5/26/2011

Results Mass Model

: Lumped Mass

Consistent Mass :

Results Active Boundary Conditions

Input
Operating Position (Liftoff 30, Resting 40)

18

5/26/2011

Results Animation

MODEL ADJUSTMENTS
Is the Static Model Sufficient?

19

5/26/2011

Is the static model adequate?

More mass points may be required to approximate the continuous mass beam

Reality:
continuous mass throughout

CAESAR II:
half of total mass at end
10

20

Adding
g more nodes improves
p
the calculation

Is the static model adequate?

2node
lumped

Mode

1
2
3
4
5

0.328

2node
consistent
0.473
1.51
4.658
57.339

OD=4.5 in
t=0.237 in
length=50 ft
density=0.283 lb/cu.in
E=29.5E6 psi

10node
10node
lumped consistent
0.469
2.902
8.039
15.572
25.415

0.479
2.971
8.235
16.005
26.377

100node
lumped
0.471
2.948
8.248
16.143
26.646

hand
calculation
(continuous)
0.471
2.95
8.26

Consistent mass will develop

better frequencies
***BUT***
More mass points may be
needed to develop the mode
shapes

20

5/26/2011

Suggested mass spacing

Some simple suggestions:

Add nodes (break pipe) so that the maximum node spacing is no more
than one foot ((300mm)) p
per nominal inch of p
pipe
p
Use half this spacing into anchors
Have a node between restraints
Have a node between bends
from the paper On Mass-Lumping Technique for Seismic Analysis of
Piping - John K
Piping
K. Lin & Adolph T
T. Molin of United Engineers &
Constructors and Eric N. Liao of Stone & Webster

L = 4 9.2( D 3 t W )

USE AS ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

An End in Itself

21

5/26/2011

Use as an acceptance criteria

The lowest natural frequency can be used to assess the risk of failure
associated with dynamic response

DNV-RP-D101 recommends the first mode of vibration be no less than 4-5 Hz

You typically increase frequency by adding stiffness

Adding stiffness will increase cost

Adding stiffness may impact thermal flexibility

CLOSE

22

5/26/2011

Closing Points

Many systems are built for static loads (deadweight and thermal strain) by
providing Y supports alone, leaving great flexibility in the horizontal plane
modal analysis will uncover such oversights.

Modal evaluation is a quick and easy tool to learn more about your piping
system response.

The topic for Junes webinar is not established.

Next dynamic session response to harmonic loads.

PDH Certificate

23

5/26/2011

Intergraph @ Hexagon 2011

www.hexagonconference.com/ppm

Join us for Intergraph @ Hexagon 2011

Intergraphs International Users Conference
Orlando, FL, USA | June 6-9, 2011

CADWorx & Analysis University

www.cau2011.com

24