Output of Modal Analysis

12/03/2019 Output of Modal Analysis - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis
Welcome sharu. [Log out] ↓
Home Page » Forums » Analysis Solutions » CAESAR II » Output of Modal Analysis
Forum List My Stuff Calendar Active Topics Search FAQ
New Reply Topic Options Search

Output of Modal Analysis #32119 12/21/09 08:56 PM
Dylan Go
Member Dear All, Advanced

I face a problem where the output at modal analysis is not significant.
Registered: Who's Online
09/23/07 so i try modeling it with Autopipe and Caepipe and the result from those
Posts: 99 two program is what i expected, and the result from both is almost the 3 registered (sharu,
Loc: Indonesia same. Allen_Moore, 1

So why only CAESAR that gives different result? invisible), 32 Guests

Example: with same model the output of natural frequency is almost the and 1 Spider online.
same for the three of them: Key: Admin, Global Mod,
Mod
CAESAR II gives 14.78 Hz
Caepipe gives 12.54 Hz March
Autopipe gives 12.32 Hz Su M Tu W Th F Sa

But the mode shape is different from CAESAR, example i take only in x 1 2
direction : 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16
CAESAR II gives 0.00145 (in mode mass normalize)
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Caepipe gives 10.865 mm
Autopipe gives 9.247 mm 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
I try to read the user guide and technical reference but it seem i can't
found the answer of it. Forum Stats
please enlighten me.....
11627 Members

14 Forums
Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post
15774 Topics
70858 Posts
Re: Output of Modal Analysis [Re: Dylan] #32124 12/21/09 11:35 PM
Richard Ay Max Online: 126 @
05/09/18 04:29 PM
There is only one explanation the models are different.

Member

Send your "c 2" file in to techsupport@coade.com so we can see what
Registered:
12/13/99 you're talking about.

Posts: 5913
Loc: Houston, _________________________
Texas, USA Regards,

Richard Ay

Hexagon PPM (CAS)

Re: Output of Modal Analysis [Re: Richard Ay] #32126 12/22/09 01:07 AM
Dylan
Member Dear Richard,

The model is the same. the way i modellingit in CAESAR that the way i
Registered:
09/23/07 modelling it in Caepipe and Autopipe. I think the different should not be
Posts: 99 so far just like between the result from Caepipe compare to the result
Loc: Indonesia from Autopipe. But the result in CAESAR is to much different.

My question if, i set the unit in SI (mm), does the output in Mode Mass
http://forums.coade.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showﬂat&Number=32154&Searchpage=12&Main=6990&Words=constant&Search=true#Post32154 1/8
Normalized is also in mm ? or it is using a scale factor and need to
convert it again to mm maybe ?

Re: Output of Modal Analysis [Re: Dylan] #32138 12/22/09 08:42 AM
Richard Ay
The units don't matter, that will be taken care of.

Member

I want to see your model:
Registered:
12/13/99 Do you have rigid elements? If so, CAESAR II determines the

Posts: 5913 stiffness differently from the other two programs you sited.
Loc: Houston,
Do you have nonlinear boundary conditions? If so, maybe you
Texas, USA linearized things differently in the CAESAR II dynamics differently.

As I said before, you should get the same result, and if you don't, the
models are different.
_________________________
Regards,

Richard Ay

Hexagon PPM (CAS)

Dave Diehl
Check the "Unity Normalized" report, not the "Mass Normalized" report.
There are no absolute magnitudes units (or units) to these mode

Member shapes. They are relative positions of the pipe under no load.

We are confident that CAESAR II produces proper results. Like Rich
Registered:
says, send your data if you can't find what input to fix.
12/14/99

Posts: 2355
_________________________
Loc: Houston, TX,
Dave Diehl
USA

Re: Output of Modal Analysis [Re: Richard Ay] #32153 12/22/09 08:03 PM
Dylan

I think you are right is about the rigid element. Yes, i have Rigid
Registered:
09/23/07 element in this model. but can the output be so different like that, it is
Posts: 99 almost 100 % different in mode shape result, but strange the other
Loc: Indonesia result is 85% the same. I try to attach my model, but it my office is
close due to Christmas. If i get the model, i will send it to you. but
meanwhile can you suggest me anything to do with the input?

Richard Ay
Different programs handle rigid elements differently. In CAESAR II, the

Member stiffness of a rigid element is determined by holding the ID constant and

increasing the thickness by a factor of 10. The result is that an 8" rigid
Registered:
12/13/99 is much stiffer than a 4" rigid, but much less stiff than a 12" rigid.

Posts: 5913
Loc: Houston, Other programs simply multiply E by 10 or 100, so all rigids have pretty
Texas, USA much the same stiffness.

While we feel our approach is closer to reality (and therefore more
accurate), it really shouldn't make a difference unless the system is
significantly sensitive to the rigid element.

Test this out yourself remove the rigid and see if the three programs
agree. Build the model up from there.
_________________________
Regards,

Richard Ay

Hexagon PPM (CAS)

Re: Output of Modal Analysis [Re: Richard Ay] #32155 12/22/09 09:31 PM
Dylan

I have do like you say, i put away the rigid element in three of those
Registered:
09/23/07 program, but it still have the same result where the two program
Posts: 99 (Caepipe & Autopipe) give result that close each other. meanwhile
Loc: Indonesia CAESAR II in static case give the result that almost the same like the
two other program, but in dynamic (modal) the frekueny is different,
and the important thing that CAESAr always give the Mode mass
normalized and Mode Unity Normalized below one (1) millimeter, but the
two other program gives result of modal analysis in displacement of
mode shape above five (5) millimeter, just like the first that i told in my
post.

Richard Ay
Send the model.

Member
_________________________
Registered: Regards,
12/13/99
Richard Ay

Posts: 5913
Hexagon PPM (CAS)
Loc: Houston,
Texas, USA

Re: Output of Modal Analysis [Re: Dave Diehl] #32177 12/25/09 12:08 AM
Dylan
Member Dear Dave, what did u mean with Relative Position under no load. So

where i should look to mode shape displacement just like Caepipe and
Registered:
09/23/07 Autopipe gives.
Posts: 99
Loc: Indonesia
Dave Diehl
I do not know at what you are looking in the CAEPIPE or AUTOPIPE
output.

Member
A mode shape is just that, a shape that the system may take under no
load. You do this by solving Ma+Kx=0. Given that response is harmonic,
Registered:
then let x=A*sin(wt). Acceleration is second derivative with respect to
12/14/99

Posts: 2355 time of x, or a=(w^2)A*sin(wt), or a=(w^2)x.
Loc: Houston, TX, Ma+Kx=M*[(w^2)x]+Kx=0
USA [K(w^2)M]x=0

So either [K(w^2)M]=0 or x=0. The interesting solution is [K
(w^2)M]=0. The (w^2)'s are the eigenvalues that satisfy this
relationship. The natural frequencies are those w's divided by 2*pi. For
each of these eigenvalues there is a matching distorted shape of the
system that can be achieved with no load. These mode shapes have no
defined magnitude, only a relative position with respect to all other
nodes, as no load was needed to set these positions. When you apply
transient loads, each mode will influence the total transient response of
the system that is modal analysis.
_________________________
Dave Diehl

Dylan
Member What i need to see is the displacement that the Mode shape

describe....in the other 2 programs, you will see a mode shape and its
Registered:
09/23/07 absolute magnitude displacement....
Posts: 99 Thanks.
Loc: Indonesia
Ohliger
Member The displacement that you see at Mode shape are normalized values.

Without a load you dont have a real displacement result.
Registered:
12/16/99 Only the relation between nodes displacement is true and dont change
Posts: 246 under load.
Loc:
Mode shape show you the shape from the pipe for you visuell dynamic
Mannheim,Germany feeling.

Re: Output of Modal Analysis [Re: Ohliger] #32495 01/11/10 08:18 AM
Richard Ay
... and in CAESAR II you can see that "normalized" mode shape in two

Member ways:

Registered:
12/13/99 a) you can look at the report "Modes Unity Normalized", or

Posts: 5913 b) you can look at the graphic "Animation"
Loc: Houston,
Texas, USA _________________________
Regards,

Richard Ay

Hexagon PPM (CAS)

Re: Output of Modal Analysis [Re: Ohliger] #32503 01/11/10 12:43 PM
Dylan
Member It mean that i will not get the absolut value of displacement in modal

analysis (only the pictures of the system shape in each of its natural
Registered:
09/23/07 frequency) until i put a load or continue to harmonic analysis or other
Posts: 99 dynamic analysis (depend on the case). Ok then, but Once it is
Loc: Indonesia mentioned in coade seminar notes that this mode shape is ratios of the
displacements at various degree of freedom in each mode, is it this what
unity normalized represent of?

Dave Diehl
Please read my earlier response in this thread: #32142 22/12/09
08:56 AM.

Member
Mode SHAPE is a system charateristic, no load is required.
Registered:

12/14/99

Posts: 2355 Calculated pipe POSITION is (dynamic) response to an applied
Loc: Houston, TX, (transient) load.
USA
_________________________
Dave Diehl

Shamim Huq
Dave How do I navigate to response #32142. I am sorry I have not

Member visited the forum in a while to remember all the navigation tools.

Registered:
11/24/08
Posts: 31
Loc: Texas, USA
Re: Output of Modal Analysis [Re: Shamim Huq] #32603 01/14/10 03:39 PM
Dave Diehl
We're now on page 2 in this thread. Note the indicator in the top right
corner "Page 2 of 2" Response #32142 is on Page 1. Just click on the 1

Member in that indictor to go to page 1.

Registered: _________________________
12/14/99 Dave Diehl

Posts: 2355
Loc: Houston, TX,
USA

sillyman
Member Dear Dave and Richard,

Registered:
06/06/09 With your above discussion on modal analysis, please solve the following
Posts: 128 queries,
Loc: Australia
I am doing a vibration check for a slug flow line using static equivalent
approach (DLF=2) and modal analysis. I applied the slug force on every
elbow of the piping after the source of slug force (Say after PCV). My
vibration frequency limit is 5Hz and above. For static case, all is fine.
When i check for modal analysis, the starting frequecny is less than 1Hz
for friction stiffness is 0 and 2Hz for friction stiffness is 1000 (as per Mr.
Dave instruction), in both the cases i could not reach the frequency
atleast 4Hz. In my model there are many places where the rigidty is
less, to increase the rigidity i have to increase the number of supports
and restraints.

My query are

1.In the first modal analysis, my starting frequency is 2 Hz (friction
stiffness = 1000), so to increase the frequency to 5 Hz, can i able to find
a point in the Dynamic output result where the frequency of the
paticular node is less, so that i can increase the rigidity of that paticular
portion of piping. (To be clear in my query, there are many portion of
piping system where the rigidity is less due to nonavailability of support
location, so using the dynamic analysis Frequency result, can i able to
point out, in which point or part of the piping portion the natural
frequency is less).

2. In my case, the strum check failure occurs, can i ignore it or not? If
not how to rectify it?

3. Under the control parameters i selected the load case for nonlinear
restraint as Max. Operating condition with slug forces. Is the frequency
shown in the dynamic output consider those slug forces or not?

Please clarify.....
_________________________

Knowledge is nothing unless it is shared

Dave Diehl
1. The mode shape will illustrate locations where there is significant
deflection. These are good locations for added restraint.

Member
2. Increase the frequency cutoff. You may also address this by
Registered:
increasing precision on the Advanced tab.
12/14/99

Posts: 2355
Loc: Houston, TX, 3. Your modal results do not show response to the slug. But the
USA restraint configuration considers the slug loads you ran in your static
analysis. I would run the modal analysis based on support configuration
both with and without the slug just to see if things change much.
_________________________
Dave Diehl

sillyman
Member Dear Dave:

Registered:
06/06/09 Thanks for your reply.
Posts: 128
Loc: Australia Regarding my 3rd query and your reply of it, i applied the forces on all
elbow of piping system after the source of slug flow (i.e.) downstream of
PCV in my case. The way i defined the slug forces are such that the
forces are not cancelling each other case (i.e. i used the available 9
forces defining provisions in the input spread sheet on each elbow so
that one force shall not cancel other force) and forces that cancel each
other.

When i started the modal analysis, i checked the 1st mode natural
frequency (5.2 Hz) of piping system with the load case of slug forces on
all elbows at a time. When i changed the load case to only one force at a
time, the first natural freq. is 3.6 Hz. So i conclude the slug force has an
effect on the natural frequency of the system to a great extent and
while doing modal analysis for checking the frequency it is best to check
on all load cases the 1st natural frequency is more than the required
one.

Finally, in modal analysis, there is input sheet for lumped mass analysis,
under what case, we must use the lumped masses. Please clarify....

Thankyou...
_________________________


Rajinder
Singh Dear Sillyman,
Member
I somewhat disagree with your statement "So i conclude the slug force

has an effect on the natural frequency of the system...".
Registered:
07/25/06 1. Slug force will not affect the natural frequency of the piping system.
Posts: 55 The support configuration will.
Loc: New Delhi
2. Check out and compare the nonlinear supports in static analysis
(gaps, liftoff) in both the cases. Dynamic analysis will not consider non
linear effects, ie. In dynamic analysis the inactive support will be
removed (support that is lifted or gap that is not closed).

Use lumped mass in case:

1. A mass that you have not included in static case.

2. A concentrated load that will have major impact on the dynamic
output.

3. Refer Caesar technical reference manual for detail.

Regards.
_________________________
Rajinder

sillyman
Member Dear Singh,

Registered:
06/06/09 I apologise for the word i used as "load case" in modal analysis. Actually
Posts: 128 i mean for static load case for nonlinear restraint status. Till date there
Loc: Australia is no accurate solution to calculate the dynamic effect of nonlinear
restraint status, so we change it to linear and we select one of the static
load case to carry on.

For a complex piping system with a chance of more nonlinear
restraints. In selecting the static load case for it, when i select the
sustained case the 1st natural freq is say 4.5 Hz, when i selct the
operating case without slug force the 1st natural freq is say 5.3 Hz, with
slug force the freq is 3.1 Hz. So for nonlinear conditions the natural
freq is varying to great extent. My client requirement for 1st natural freq
is more than 5Hz.

Any how we managed to keep the natural freq more than 5Hz in all
static load cases by adding additonal restraints.

Regarding lumped mass, as per your reply, it is not generally
recommended to exclude the concentrated mass in the static case.

Can you please explain with an expample for lumped mass usage.

Thank you.
_________________________


Rajinder
Singh Dear sillyman,
Member
Sometimes omitting couple of flanges (eg. flanges on rack lines

designed on modular concept) will not alter the flexibility analysis to a
Registered:
07/25/06 great extent. However, it may not be same in dynamic analysis.
Posts: 55
Loc: New Delhi While modeling a pipe to pipe support in caesar, if you like to include
weight of supported pipe into the supporting pipe (that you have
excluded in static analysis) go for lumped mass.

Regards,

_________________________
Rajinder

Search Results

Tweet
Like Be the ﬁrst of your friends to like this.

Quick Reply:
HTML is
enabled
UBBCode
is
enabled
Add
Signature

Submit Preview Reply Switch to Full Reply Screen

Moderator: Dave Diehl, Richard Ay Hop to: CAESAR II Go
Privacy statement · Board Rules · Mark all read
GooG_v2_copy_copy_copy Contact Us · Home Page · Top

Generated in 0.077 seconds in which 0.053 seconds were spent on a total of 13 queries. Zlib compression disabled.
Powered by UBB.threads™ 7.5.7

Output of Modal Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Output of Modal Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12/03/2019 Output of Modal Analysis - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis

New Reply Topic Options Search

Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post

Like Be the ﬁrst of your friends to like this.

You might also like