Intro:

The present evaluation was made upon the latest information and review of the piping system,
according to isometric drawings P-1473049-21 and P-1473049-60 Rev-0. It covers the analysis
of line 8”-P147-3049-B2A2-I (as built) and the review of the work presented by “Tekfen”
regarding the line 8”-P147-3201-B1A2-T (comments on the conclusions and recommendations
section), both lines showing problems apparently of the same nature.

First is crucial to analyze the lines in its current operating conditions, modeling an assumed
representative slug force in order to review the response and stress behavior of the system,
allowing to conclude/corroborate the nature of the problem and the necessity of changes in
order to improve the systems.

It is necessary to determine the risk of dynamic response by monitoring the systems natural
frequencies through a modal analysis. Finding the piping systems natural frequencies are
essential to determine the correct pipe-support type and location in order to avoid detrimental
vibrations caused by internal flow. By calculating the Lowest Natural Frequency (LNF) it can be
estimated the likelihood of piping vibration.

The criteria used, pursue modifications in order to increase line stiffening by taking
considerations into support position and design, with the premises of minimum impact to the
system offering realistic, constructible and viable solutions. The analysis requirements cover the
avoidance of excessive vibrations ensuring the piping system meet a minimum of 4 Hz natural
frequency according with DNV-RP-D101 2.2.7.1.

“Modal analysis of a static model is usually not time consuming and should therefore be carried
out to determine the lowest natural frequency of the system. A typical system supported in
accordance with a good pipe support standard should result in a lowest natural frequency not
less than 4 to 5 Hz”.
First Evaluation:
The following picture shows the Caesar II model of line 8”-P147-3049-B2A2-I in its original
status, according to isos P-1473049-21 and P-1473049-60 Rev-0 (attached in this document).

147C-310

S13

8”-P147-3049-
S12

Picture. 1 – Caesar II graphical input model of line 8”-P147-3049-B2A2-I.

From the analysis it could be corroborated that the static parameters (such as stress, loads and
displacements) are within the allowable values. It is not the intent of this report to show or
inquire over this values but to corroborate that the solution proposal take them into
consideration, allowing to focus in the modal response. The results obtained from the modal
analysis are the following:

Table 1 - Natural Frequencies Report – Original Piping System.

FREQUENCY FREQUENCY PERIOD

MODE
(Hz) (Radians/Sec) (Sec)
1 2.190 13.763 0.457
2 6.005 37.728 0.167
3 13.672 85.901 0.073
4 18.454 115.952 0.054
5 19.748 124.082 0.051
6 22.373 140.573 0.045
7 23.177 145.626 0.043
8 26.432 166.074 0.038
9 27.347 171.829 0.037
10 34.191 214.825 0.029
Picture. 2 – Modal shape graphical representation corresponding to the first mode (the Lowest
Natural Frequency).

The results from table and picture 1, corroborate that the system could be prone to a not desired
dynamic response, the firs mode correspond to a frequency of 2.19 Hz, lower than the recommended
values and with a shape that indicate that the area (circled in red) needs to be controlled.

The idea is to “break” this mode changing the support configuration (adding a restriction) by diminishing
the capacity of the system to move in that particular zone and with that particular shape, there for
obtaining a higher LNF (lowest natural frequency).
Solution Proposal Evaluation:
In order to change the support configuration an horizontal angled restriction was add 1200 mm
from S12 (as shown in P-1473049-21-New attached to this document), this restraint (coded as
S15 & S16) will only act horizontal and under no circumstances will load vertically.

8”-P147-3049-
S13

S12

8”-P147-3049-
S12

S15
S16
S15
S16

Picture. 3 – Caesar II graphical input model of line 8”-P147-3049-B2A2-I including the new
horizontal restriction S15 & S16.

Picture. 4 – Plant view of line 8”-P147-3049-B2A2-I including the position and configuration of
the new horizontal restriction S15 & S16.
 Table 2 - Natural Frequencies Report – Modified Piping System.

FREQUENCY FREQUENCY PERIOD

MODE
(Hz) (Radians/Sec) (Sec)
1 4.254 26.726 0.235
2 14.139 88.839 0.071
3 18.408 115.661 0.054
4 20.119 126.410 0.050
5 24.051 151.118 0.042
6 27.335 171.751 0.037
7 27.838 174.910 0.036
8 32.053 201.397 0.031
9 34.876 219.132 0.029

Picture. 5 – Modal shape graphical representation corresponding to the first mode (the Lowest
Natural Frequency) including the new horizontal restriction.
 Table 3 – Loading Difference between Adjacent Restraints.

Support FX (KN) FY (KN) FZ (KN)

S13 (Node 90)
Original 2.266 1.381 2.413
Modified 2.642 1.395 2.009
Diference 0.376 0.014 0.404
S12 (Node 120)
Original 0.224 5.331 0.113
Modified 0.308 5.130 0.366
Diference 0.084 0.201 0.253
S15/16 (Node -230)
New Restraint 15.832 1.530 8.774

Conclusions and Recommendations:

With this modification an increase of the line stiffening was achieved by changing the motion's
pattern of the line, modifying the first mode with a higher LNF of 4.254 Hz, this within the
recommended values and within the criteria of DNV-RP-D101.

As it can be observed from picture 5, the original first mode was modified; the system tendency
to respond dynamically is within the expected with a different movement pattern area and
shape (circled in red).

In addition, as it can be observed from table 3, a little variation on adjacent restraint loads for
all operational cases is ensured, within the premises of minimum impact to the system,
obtaining a viable and constructible solution.

It was corroborated that with this modification the static parameters such as stress levels, loads
on restraints/nozzle and displacements are within the allowable values of the code and specs.

The configuration, position and detailed information regarding the special support and the
changes to the line isometric are attached in this document (SS-997-P147-3049 & P-1473049-21
New).

The accuracy of Mechanical Natural Frequency Calculations is acceptable and obtainable where
accurate boundary conditions are known and extensive, detailed modeling of the piping system
and support representation was performed.
It is recommended to verify and close all gaps in restrictions (guides and limit stops) to cero, in
order to stop motion at friction points and restraints in general, this will reduce the tendency of
the operating systems of suffering from excessive dynamic response.
It is also recommended a change in the flow pattern and/or to restrict the flow in order to avoid
the presence of slug flow in the system.