Nuclear Engineering and Design 67 (1981) 145-164 145

North-Holland Publishing Company

INFLUENCE OF GAP SIZE ON THE DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR OF PIPING SYSTEMS

J o h n P. V A Y D A
Senior Consultant, FIDES Trust Company, Zurich, Switzerland

Received January 1981, revised version June 1981

This paper addresses the effects of dynamic events induced by support motion on piping systems with snubbers having
variable gap sizes. The investigation consists of 3 parts: (i) Mathematical examination of a linear I DOF mass-spring-snubber
system with gap size zero or infinity. (ii) Numerical analysis of a piecewise linear I DOF mass-spring-snubber system with
varying gap sizes, by means of a simple computer code. (iii) Numerical analysis of a realistic three-dimensional piping system
with 3 snubbers, each having 4 different gap sizes, with the aid of a non-linear F.E. code.

1. Introduction 2. 1 DOF mass-spring-snubber linear analysis

The snubber deadband is a well-known phenomenon 2.1. Equation of motion

in the analysis of piping systems. However, the effect of
the gap size is being ignored in most piping codes. The Defining Kj as the spring stiffness, Kg as the snubber
programs assume for simplicity a snubber force- stiffness, m as the mass, Xg as gap size, q~ as the loading
deflection relationship passing through the origin, as amplitude, and a as the loading function frequency (see
shown in fig. 1. This paper takes into account the origin figs. 3-5) the following undamped equation of motion
offset, see fig. 2, and examines the optimal gap size for a can be derived:
wide range of dynamic loading events. Even in the
absence of damping, a system subjected to forced vibra- )( + o~ X = qi sin at + S K g X g / m . (1)
tion at resonance attains "infinite" amplitude only after
Two configurations are possible in (1):
"infinite" time. Thus it takes many cycles to build up
the open systen, i = 1
significant amplitudes.
But with the presence of small non-zero gap sizes, ,,2 = K , / m ,
the system stiffnesses and therefore eigenvalues change
S = 0 for - X s < X < X ~ ;
continually as various snubbers open and dose. As a
result the number of cycles or increase of amplitude is the closed system, i = 2
severely limited before a new configuration arises.
oa2 = K 2 / m , K 2 = K I + K~,
S = l for Xg < X,
S= -1 forX< -X~.
Ftn Fsn

J Xg xg J

Fig. I. Snubber force-deflection without origin offset.

Fig. 2. Snubber force-deflection with origin offset. Fig. 3. 1 DOF system with I gap.

0 0 2 9 - 5 4 9 3 / 8 1 / 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 / $ 0 2 . 7 5 © 1981 N o r t h - H o l l a n d
146 J.P. Vavda / Dynamic hehaviour . f piping .~v~'tems

wherc

~o C ~Cc~ ~2mW ~w. (5)

n -- 2m 2m 2m
-XQ ~ l m ~X ----t
x, Now ~ is typically 0.01 or 0.02, and w ranges from
2 5 ( - 2¢r × 4) to 600(= 2~r × 100), so n ranges from Tess
K2~/ than 1 to not more than 15. Table l illustrates these
ranges.
Fig. 4. System force-deflection.
2.3. M a x i m u m response at resonance
Fig. 5. Support motion DOsin at.
As the driving frequency a approaches the eigen-
value w,, it appears as if X reaches infinity, but by using
L'Hopital's rule it is seen that infinite amplitude is only
The loading amplitude q, is defined, for periodic sup-
attained after infinite time. Letting
port motion, D O sin at, as

q, : K i D o l i n . (2) f(a) = q, sin a t - --sin w,t.

Wt !

and
2.2. Solution
g ( o 0 = w 2 --0¢ 2,
It is instructive to examine (1) with Xg = 0, or S = 0. then
The solution to (1) in this case is
f(w,)=g(w,)=O when a=w,,
X ~ C I cos wit + C 2 sin wit
f(ot) df,/da
+ ~ sin a t , w, =A a. (3) lira - lira d g / d a
6Oi - - O~

= --qi ( w i t cos w i t - sm w,t). (6)

With initial conditions X0 = )(0 = 0, 2w,2
-- ( Ot .
(4) Fig. 6 shows the buildup of amplitude for resonant
X - w , ~ _qia 2 s i n a t - w ~- - sm w, t I}. loading. The amount of buildup each cycle, irrespective
of a is ¢od/2 which is equal to or. This increase does not
Normally, the second term in (4) is not given much diminish significantly even with damping, as long as the
attention because it is a part of the free vibration of the damping ratio ~ = C / Q r is less than or equal to 2%,
system and is damped out after a few cycles. However, which is the case for most piping analyses.
in piping applications, the assumed damping values are
very low, not more than 2%, and it is imperative to 2.4. M a x i m u m response away from resonance
consider (4) in its entirety. The damping factor is e - " ,
There are two ranges of loading frequency a to
consider:
(i) a < w , o r w , < a < w z,
Table I
Relationship between damping and free vibration (ii) a > w2.

a t e ,,t Number of cycles

a = IOX2~r a = IOOX2~r X

0.5 10 0.007 100 1000

1 5 0.007 50 500
5 I 0.007 10 100
10 0.5 0.007 5 50
15 0.33 0.007 3 38
Fig. 6. Buildup of amplitude at resonance.
 J.P. Vt(vda/ Dynamicbehaviour of piping systems 147

Expanding eq. (4) to obtain the open (i = 1) and closed Loowfreq. events High freq. events
(i = 2) solutions, oL < oJ~ ~ > O.1=

X, - ~°2q~ 012 (sinat--°tsin¢°'t)

' ~ o , (7) iosed , o p e n

x2 - ~,] q~z
_ ,~2 (sinett--~2sin~2t ) (8)

and defining the maximum response as

R,

,9, Fig. 7. 1 DOF transient closed/open response ratio.

F < 1 if RI/R 2 < 2 - RI

F > 1 if RI/R 2 > 2 - - R 1,
the ratio of maximum closed to maximum open re-
sponse is that is, the ratio can be either way;

f=lX 2 Imax/I X ' Im~ (11) for a>~o2(Rl>l;R2<Ri;Ri/R2>l)

F>I,
and can be examined for the two ranges of loading
.frequency. Substituting into (11) from (9) and (10) one that is, closed response is greater than open response.
obtains The above results are illustrated schematically in fig. 7.

] q2(-,~ - 52)(1 +./-2) (12)

F= q,(~o~2 52)(1 +a/~o,) 3. 1 DOF mass-spring-snubber piecewise linear analysis

A more general solution to (1) for t o <~ t and initial

which can be simplified to
q2(1 -- R 2 ) ( I + R'/R2)
F= q--~(R-~2--
- R--~ti-( { + R,~)
conditions X(to) = Xo and X(to) = A'o is
17
(13)
X( t ) = Xo cos ¢oi(t -- to) + A ° s i n ~0i(t - to)
, 60i

where R t = a/o~t, the ratio of the applied loading + l fr=tsin6oi(t--r)

O) i .r=to
frequency to the eigenvalue of the open system, and
R 2 = ~02/o~t, the ratio of the closed system eigenvalue × qi sin aT + d~'. (15)
to the open system eigenvalue.
Using definition (2) eq. (13) can be rewritten as
Carrying out the integration, one obtains for the last
follows:
part of (15)
F= R~(I--R2)(I +R,/R2)I
(14) q~ [sin at - sin ato cos toi ( t - to)
(R~-Rf)(I+R,) I 602 Ot2 /

After a few algebraic manipulations, it can be shown

that
°
,0i cos ato sin tos(t - to >]
KsX~[l - cos o,2(,- to)].
for a<o~ I (RI<i;R2>Rt;RI/R2<I) +s--~ (l,)
F<I,
Note, that by setting t o = X~ ---Xo = A'o = 0, eq. (4) is
that is, dosed response is less than open response;
obtained. Eq. (16) along with its derivative were then
for ~ol<a<¢o2(Rl>l;R2>Rl;Rt/R2<i) programmed. The 1 D O F spring-mass-snubber system
148 J.P. Vavda / Drnamic hehaviour of p pm ~ .wstems

was subjected to a harmonically varying sinusoidal sup-

port motion. For each set of spring stiffness (K~), gap :... -~'2 =1.o
or snubber stiffness (Kg), and mass (m), the frequency I 05(Rt=1) I
(a) of the support motion ( D o s i n a t ) was varied to i
20- 0,9 ~ •
: [ 20
range from a value below the eigenvalue of the open
system (~0~) to a value above the eigenvalue of the P~ '.:. P o=p

closed system (¢o2). In other words, the whole range of 10- 0,51R~=11 0.8 :~
low (e.g. earthquake) and high (e.g. safety relief-valve
discharge, aircraft impact) frequency events was consid-
ered. Furthermore, for each forced support frequency, 0
several gap sizes (Xg) were included. The support am- open 0 1 2 .3 open
G=Xg/D0
plitude (Do) was also varied. For each value of a the
n u m b e r of applied cycles was kept constant. The maxi- Fig. 9. p~ vs G for R 2 =2, ( K I / K 2 =0.25).
mum spring force and the maximum snubber force,
~max, were monitored for each parameter variation:
(2) For R2 < R ~ , i.e., a > ¢ o 2, m i n i m u m response is
FmaXsp --maxl~(/)l , (17) with some finite gap size. More importantly, when one
t
considers the entire loading range, without separating
~,"ax = mtaxlF~(t) I, (18) low and high frequency events, m i n i m u m overall re-
sponse is with a finite gap size. Explicitly for normal
where F~ is the spring force for % and F~ is the ranges of Rz(1 ~ R 2 ~< 10 or 0.01 ~ K I / K 2 ~ 1), the
snubber force for aj. optimal gap size is
To nondimensionalise the results, the following deft-
nitions are useful: I~<G~<3 or Do<~Xg~<3Do.

Ps~ . . r s. p . D0 , (19) For the whole loading range, then, a more general form
//tI~F' l
of (I 7) and (18) is
P~f = F~m.~'/KgDo, (20)
F ~ ~ = max(F~p(t) I , (22)
= x~/~o. (21) %,t

A plot of the above relations for a typical ratio of /~m.x = maxlF/.(t) i, (23)
t~],t
R 2 -- - ~ 2z/ ~ 2 = K 2 / K ~ = 16 is shown in fig. 8 and a
plot of R~ = 4 is shown in fig. 9. with ~j v~ ~ . Two new ratios are obtained
Looking at figs. 8 and 9, one can draw the following --D - - --max
obvious conclusions, already arrived at in section 2.4: 1%-~p /X, Do,
(1) For R 2 > R ~ , i.e., a > w ~ , m i n i m u m response is ~f = ~Tax/K~D o. (24)
with no gap size.
Figs. 10 and 11 show a plot of these ratios for various
values of K I / K 2.

t
/~"-¢~z~`"''', 0.95-~ "q'X ~//~!
!I /

Dp 09~
" "'. j1.05 L o
I /,~ l% ~
10 0 . 8 ~ / ~ 1'1 10 1C
I o.z~(R,.~) /I ~ 1\~". -~.z /

O ~ % _ _ _~_ r 1 ~ 4 "'~ - ~ 0
open 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 open G- xg/o0
G-X~ /Do

Fig. 8. Psp
D vs G for R z =4, (K~/K2 =0.0625). Fig. 10. fisp
~ vs G for 1.05<R 2 ~ 10, 0.01 ~ K I / K 2 <0.9.
 J.P. Vavda / Dynamic behaviour of piping svstem~ 149

~
4. Three-dimensional analysis of a multi-gap piping sys-
tem

.9
Fig. 12A shows the 3D piping system analysed b y
2(
m e a n s of a F.E. program. The system was basically split
up into 4 subsystems to characterize the four different
gap sizes used, see fig. 12B. One c o m p u t e r run, includ-
ing the four subsystems with offset element a n d n o d a l
n u m b e r i n g was then m a d e for each d y n a m i c loading
event, see table 2.
In order to correlate with the ideas a n d nomencla-
G • Xo/Do
ture of the 1 D O F system discussed in sections 2 a n d 3,
Fig. 11, Psn
- o vs G for 1.05<~R2~10, O.OI<~Kt/K2<-0.9. the 3-dimenisonal piping system was reduced by means

Table 2
3D piping model - subsystems

Support motion loading: a=2~-X 10 Hz, DO=0.1, 10 cycles, 2% damping

a=2~rX 100 I'iz, DO=0.1, 10 cycles, 2% damping

Subsystem Node numbering Element numbering Gap size Gap nomenclature

(in)
Gap I Gap II Gap III

1 1-11 1-10 0 1 3 5
2 21-31 11-20 1/32 7 9 II
3 41-51 21-30 2/32 13 15 17
4 61-71 31-40 4/32 19 21 23

Table 3
Reduced system characteristics 1

Gap KI Kg K2 m fJ =wl/2~r f2 --w2/2'n"

(Ib/in) (lb/in) (lb/in) (lb sec 2/in) (I-lz) (Hz)

I 10000 200000 210000 1.55 12.8 58.6

II 18000 200000 218000 2.21 14.4 50.0
III 15000 200000 215000 4.3 9.4 35.6

Table 4
Reduced system characteristics 2

~o2 KI
Gap R 2= -- -- R I : ~t / t,~ I R,/R2
w] K2

a = 1 0 HzX2~r a = 100 HzX2~r a = 1 0 HzX2~r a = 100 HzX2~r

I 4.6 0.05 0.78 7.8 0.17 1.7

II 3.5 0.08 0.70 6.9 0.2 2.0
III 3.8 0.07 1.06 10.6 0.28 2.8
150 J.P. b~vda/ l~rnamic hehaviour o/pip/, ~ svste, s

D
t Y
GEOMETRY
Scale 1 : 170 (below i : 125)

D/~~D Z~ x X-SECTION
Diam.O. = 8.625 in thickn. = 0.322 in
GAP I =i "-" D
PROPERTIES
D
Weight/Length = 65.9 ib/ft
GAP11' (incl. insul., fluid)
E = 27.9 x 106 psi u = 0.3
GAP m t
LOADING
Support D = D sin~t
o

Fig. ]2A. Basic 3D piping system with 3 gaps.

ELEMENTS ELEMENTS
_@®to ® ®to @
NODES NODES
1 to 11 21 to 31
GAP 1 ~)
GAP SIZE
Oin GAe 7
GAP SIZE
1/32 in

GAP 3, GAP 9,,,

~27
-@
,28 30

GAP GAP 1 1 ~ - ~ ~ ~

4~ ) 43
ELEMENTS ~ ~=~ D ~ " ELEMENTS
@to (~
NODES NODES
41 to 51 61 to 71
GAP SIZE GAP SIZE
GAP13 2 / 3 2 in GAP 19 ~ 4 / 3 2 in
~4S

~46

GAP15 ' =
T"
)47

g To
GAP 2 ~

Fig. 12B. Four subsystems to characterize four gap sizes.

 J.P. Vayda/ Dynamicbehaviour of piping systems 151

.. I
;= I
?. I

,00~
IV V ~ , V V ~ - v, ---v
t~IAA~~ . ~ m
-.=q

- I
- I
=mr
I¢'I/1=~OG-IO II.,FIIb'IIC~ T=IS 'IGCYCI.ES ~,,,.'L m

III
I Ilia
hi A
I~ I/ f'
imiw,=== vii)Ill I
ill~llll~llli~i
g ilill|iU
/ ]llll I11 II I , i
L~ Ill III I1~ I //, ~ ~/
]'Vl
II
Ill mrl~
Itl/Im~ m - ILI"III~"ISNI Tm'Ui ~ C0=.1 IU'Hb"lal~ lr.'l,s ~ aD=.t

Fig. 13. 10 Hz event, relative displacements at Gap I

of static condensation and Guyan reduction to an anal- The results of the 3D piping analysis are presented
ogous ! D O F mass-spring-snubber system at Gap 1, in the form of time-history displacement and snubber
Gap II and Gap III, respectively. The reduced system force plots in figs. 13-24, and in the form of maximum
characteristics are summarized in table 3 and table 4. member forces in tables 5 and 6. The general behaviour
152 J.P. l/avda / Drnamic beha~ iour ~/ pipz~g s~'vtem.x

• T l

I
.,11~

'~v-u,^-
- vv
~
v,
^_-,, h
-.i]~

°..1~ -o1~O

-.'is(

..am 1 finE

6 I¢I/XG-.OS-.',O ~ ~ r-ts ~ DO-.1 W',,WI~

°,.,r.

.1SI

Vk III k ~1 Ill VI I/I /t/1

il IIIJ5 l Yl I Vl
._llkll Ill IA 1A llkl k]/11] 11 i~IIIA IIAI kit I]I-
i J ' l Vl ~1 ~ ~1 ~
d
.dill
LLL
I
II
J JlJ
1
~ ~1 ~1
l
II1
l
t,,.
,I Lvtw[
I ~111 II/11 IAIII AI
V

• Itm . .L NO .am ."/gO .ran .IW 1. i,nnni'ln(

K~.OS-.ltO N..ftft- 1tOte lr, ls ,.OCVCL.D 00,,.1 ~ Ires't3 o IC'dYD,.GS-.tO ~ I~Q T-'IS ~ OOe.l nmlm 8

F i g . 14. I 0 H z e v e n t , r e l a t i v e d i s p l a c e m e n t s at G a p II.
 I I I deed le s l u a t u a ~ e l d s ! p o^!lela~ "lUOAO z H O I "51 "~!:[
L',.OO ~ S'L m~ ~ ~ 011",,4m*qil1,1
'I, 008" 0Oll" 0m." nnl. ~. 001,* i n ' * " Imr OOl,* n n n . . .
": .,, ~."
"I"ii" ~."
I ~l II II II II ,lT_:- .........
II II II
~ 4 'E':
III
" IIIill I Illlllllill Ill .
LI 1
| [ I I I ~
~I Vl V
001"
I111 Ill 11
-~°
~ZO
L' 11I ' '
v,v, I°=00 Q'IOJI301, $'I,-,I, ~ ~ 0L'-g0*"eW"l v
• °
~1111001 1411O0
C]0Z*-
n,~ ..
~-. ~..
1
A ,,~ ^ .A A. A '~A ,,~.ff.A .~.
w. v -'~ v' ~ ~ "V' w. v~ ¢ ' ,,Uv
~..
i -
£g I s'zaatsa'~ ~u!d!d f o .mo!cJt~qaq ,~!u4r~u,4(7 / t~p4"nA "d" f
 'I deE) 1~ sa3Joj ] a q q n u s 'lu~ho ZH 01 "91 "~!~I
9L c,~NU ggdZadO I.',qJQ g ' g ~ , . ' ~ ~-J ~ ~ 01~'.-£10",-9~t.~1
]gll0~
t
~b
I A ! I v A
I 1 I
!
iU A
! V "d v
I
T.'=CX~ STD;~Ol. 5"t. m/. ~ ,,~ld'lkl 0 t , ' - ~ ' , , ~ J ~ l 4L SX~4U
,~IMLOOc ~,cq.cs gUlL004
A
,,..A , l l . , A. v v
v vv I
~J
 "lI deD le s~3Joj ~ q q n u s 'luza~ z H 01 "LI "~!..-[
H[3.dl~,d0 v,',.O0 ~ ~-,L ]P4m ~ m,'-So*",o'4/T,'J
3Uf,t 00l L
i . A . l. i a{ . .4 A a , . ,11
~ V V II V V ~ V V
AIUb
_-...-
SA]NI U]*'~"dO V*00 ~ ST.-L DI01, ~ G~.'.'S0",.~N,~I lit G/tSNU
]UII00~ L____
!
/t A A ,A ~1 _,,,,L _^ .^, .^, .^t,.^A,,^l~ lkA
v- v- V ~ -VV" ~V" rVV V V ~V
Apn.p~ XI~
-.-..7
ggl szudlsXs ~u!dld fo Jno!amldq .~!u~r~uao / opabA "d'f
156 Y. P, l~a)'da / Ornamic hehaviour of pipi~g system~

F~

I
20~

%r.-,~__

,A /~ n ~ a ^ ~ ~ fi A,,
~V r~ ~JV CW V v ~'J IV- "V ~ V -~ ~ V V ~ v IV V w ~

-2@@~

:nnt l t~
KllXG,,.OS,..IO ~ "t~Kg T. tS ~ PO..t W6"¢S Kt/Kr~.~S-.lO ~ ~ r- !.5 ~ IX)-.1 ~ RNS'VS 2:3

/% a"a_
v v V V V I/ :v V
vv i l/ ~ l/ VII/ V v
~,2.-.-. -2130£.

-.-.-.-. -:31~

annn

~ 0 rlnE
Kt/Im-.OS-.W I I J ' H R - ~ I'. ",S tOCm.F.S ~ . . ~ NISYS 1116'¢S ZS

Fig. 18. 10 Hz event, snubber forces at Gap II1,

 J.P. Vavda / Dynamic behaviour of piping svstems 157

°'%

.20i

.ISI

.llOI

nt'~

/<~ lit t, t vtj t L- :1 // \/ " "~ \-

-°~

vv V ,-:id
°.~ - ° 'l..~O

-.2O! i

-°~ ~Ol~ I l l [
,I I
I,
K~.~-.lO N.PHR~'IOQ~ l-.'lS ~ DO-.'I 2 ~S 3

°'.%

.~o !

.,,~ A i
m

l t
/
/ .,./ / \j \/ \/y
_ qtm'~ _.t/ I
- . %.q~

--.___ -.2~

:ll tilt -.~= morm[

K~.~.~ ~ T-.~ ~ ~.l ~ 5

Fig. 19. 100 Hz event, relative displacements at Gap I.

 I I deD le sluotuo3elds!p ~A.tll~[;~.I'IUg'A~ZH 001 'OZ "~!~I
~,._
~1j~ ,
i0~, o-
AI )01.'-
]OI'-
A A A ^
El@@"
A/////A// /
,~lJJ~lllll / @gO"
?,
q v @01.°
~0',"
OSI.'
0~:"
-I i__ °s~ a
O~l • @@W •
00~. C~- OQW" OW.O" OQiO" ~ ° OOtO" OOCO" G~O" aOl.O" ~ .
~ / //I ~- m 'ix Ill i/1
aiA~ A/I//'' /1 :-
1~i/1 //l
[
V ,
I0
szuals'aX' ltu!d!d jo lno.lanqaq .munu,I G / np,lbA "d "f 8g[
 "!
J.P. Vavda / Dynamic behaviour of piping systems 159

I
1 Allllll RAIl
7/ A F/ #/[ i II !1
A A~ II I!
= Ill II I It lit l
II111
m
t11~! i - I

_= II1/II I/ i/ x_
~, V " V

,= t OlOtl14[
O - . ~ I P'm .O'd@O .~OO .IZ3a] .Oql~ .@WO o
K'I~G,,.@S--.'tO W..PI~'U~O'~ T-.~,q ~ 00".*+ l ~ mlS'~S Kq]Ir+Gm.@S-.qO RLPI'I~O'IZ fm.'~q q@C'YCI.I~ l~m.'l ~ P I ~ I@1~$ +l+t

o~
° ! DI..~ , A

f
r //I At
.~_llmll
.. I111 I
n li lI~'A A

,I
_~li l
I
/1/I
'lit =
.:_j~/I/t/'i
III tt Jl
IL
_ v IA
#
~J II iJ ,j 1/
VtlV~
Kq,+'ltO,,.@&-.qO Iql.lqqbql~la T-.q5 ~ DOa.q
~0
FNSvS ~.
*". + ~ .Oql00.0~@ .o3oo .oqoo .O@00 .l
Ir,'L+q~m.~-,qO RLpIqlqa+II~IqZ i'-.'l~ ~ 00,..~
.
t
.I~I~ .I~W
~tt~

Fig. 21. 100 Hz event, relative displacements at Gap III.

160 J.P. Vqvda / l~)'namic hehaviour of piping ,~vstems

l
i

~rv~r~

I'/ . p ; Ai v L/
F~
d V
k I IVV JJV ,__-_~'
"V v l/
v
_ J

I
m , l
~.11~-. ~0 II.I'HIImlD~tQ. T.. lS ~ ~..1 1~'.,3"1~

~ A
V v
4_n~__

KI~I(G-,~-.'LO AI.Ptt~'lOa'~ r-o',s ~ ~,,.~

Fig. 22. 100 Hz event, snubber forces at Gap I.

 J.P. Vavda / Dynamic behaviour of piping svstems 161

+ram++
• xz A

I1
A A
IA ~ I A A 1 A
III IJl !II IAA IAAA.
IIIII iii ii ~ v l l v
V lJl ~+ v ,
t
v I
rmn -+q
K1/tCC--.OS-.IO I t J ' t t ~ l l ~ l Q 1'-.iS IOCYCL~ I ~ - . 1 I~IB~ ~SYS t"I/IC~.13~-.'l~ II.PI41~II@O~ I'-.~ 'I@C+'I+Ct.~ IIO-.X I ~ , ~

A
~V

@IX~

~:X30
tl+l'IE tXlOTIll[
It'IA¢~.@~.~O FI..I'It4~"II@@IG l'-.'gl ~ @O,,.'+ Ir,,,~'q~ 211 ~$'YS :"t

Fig. 23. 100 Hz event, snubber forces at Gap II.

162 J.P. Vavda / Dw~amic behaviour of piping ,sTstems

!
A ~ A
II ~ i/
~"lll Illll iI I/,I II II II ,,
_1,1
-I/1,
,1,[I, III i ~
t, Ill Ill
v I/JII Ii I I
~V VVIIII I [vl ~oTI~
<t/K~.OS-.',O N.F'H~IOI:~ T-.IS toc'/glgS ~0-.1 NISY$ 22 ~(1/1~,,.05-.10 IILPH~ll~tZ r-.l.~ IDC'tCL~ ~,,.1 RI~YS

[11I I I

IIAII
IA [I IA IA
.... i [~ II II Vl A fi

---rl l 1 A
_ IIII/ li l]IllIllIllI v ~ v ~ V 1IV I/ V
V v
v ~ l/ L/ II II II IA
~vvvvIv
[IIl @@@rlr~
'C'VKb.~-.'.@ M.l~lb~@tllZ I'-.13 ~ ~0-.1 N6"Y$ 24 'C1/K~.~5-.ID ~'~ll~@tl~ t-.lS IOCYO.£S ~0-.1 DP,,,TI~

Fig. 24. 100 Hz event, snubber forces at Gap III.

 J.P. Vayda / Dynamic behaviour of piping systems 163

Table 5
10 Hz event, m a x i m u m member forces

Member Subsystem I Subsystem 2 Subsystem 3 Subsystem 4

force
(S-pipe) Maximum Elem. Maximum Hem. Maximum Elem. Maximum Elem.
(B-bend)

FXS 3510.045 7 3382.265 17 6523.892 27 6399.793 37

FYS 3156.451 I 4905.260 I1 4599.200 21 5723.735 31
FZS 4480.530 9 3974.453 19 7374.531 29 8113.764 39
MXS 18849.13 6 24862.11 II 29159.24 24 39260.26 39
MYS 116197.0 I 152911.9 11 176900.5 21 209922.1 31
MZS 154287.4 I 210546.9 II 203699.6 21 254929.5 31
FXB 3890.791 8 4025.359 12 8503.329 28 8006.055 38
FYB 2685.615 2 3041.305 12 3313.791 22 3905.871 32
FZB 2869.457 2 3745.026 12 4149.010 22 4694.039 32
MXB 14203.27 2 15336.47 18 18902.99 28 23542.54 32
MYB 52326.77 8 80789.22 22 127623.7 28 169953.0 38
MZB 22268.94 2 48382.86 12 40763.55 22 54121.25 32

Table 6
100 Hz event, m a x i m u m member forces

Member Subsystem I Subsystem2 Subsystem3 Subsystem

force
(S-pipe) Maximum Elem. Maximum Hem. Maximum Hem. Maximum Elem.
(B-bend)

FXS 43165.70 I 43347.84 17 42942.54 27 37040.90 37

FYS 88835.33 9 88788.73 19 86469.23 29 80257.45 39
FZS 105730.2 9 100572.7 19 89796.68 29 71046.50 39
MXS 309691.5 1 297137.8 11 298269.8 21 262401.6 31
MYS 1371397.0 1 1273255.0 I1 1257068.0 21 1124867.0 31
MZS 1280671.0 10 1268576.0 20 1287936.0 30 1207682.0 40
FXB 64317.45 8 62339.38 18 59191.40 28 45991.05 38
FYB 49011.16 8 49869.84 18 50432.19 28 44858.28 38
FZB 48961.70 2 49042.20 12 44046.58 22 28463.98 32
MXB 119469.2 8 109498.5 18 104556.4 28 118349.8 38
MYB 968505.3 8 947643.9 18 816945.2 28 632574.7 38
MZB 581964.7 8 585790.8 19 577029.8 28 512751.5 38

Table 7 Table 8
Ps° for a = 1 0 HzX2~r poO for a = 100 Hz × 2 '11"

Gap Ps° for G = X g / D o = Gap p o for G = X s / D o =

0.0 0.31 0.63 1.25 0.0 0.31 0.63 1.25

I 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.5 I 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.85

II 0.2 0.6 0.9 1.6 II 2.2 1.8 1.3 1.0
III 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.7 III 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.0
164 J.P. Vavda / Dynamic behaviour of piping .s3'stems

of the 3D system corresponds quite closely to the 1D j( d2X/dt 2

system. This similarity can be observed by comparing X 0, Xo initial displacement, velocity
the 3D results of tables 7 and 8 with the 1D results of Xg gap size
fig. 8. a forcing function frequency
damping ratio
~" time
5. Conclusions w, circular eigenvalues of 1 D O F spring-snubber
system
(i) For high frequency dynamic events (e.g. aircraft
impact, safety valve discharge), a small non-zero gap
size results in the lowest pipe stresses and lowest snubber Appendix
forces.
(ii) For low frequency dynamic events (e.g. earth- 3D piping model - unit conversions
quake), any non-zero gap size produces higher stresses
than zero gap size.
(iii) Considering the range of all dynamic events
together, a small non-zero gap size is the most favoura- Item English SI
ble condition.
Do 0.1 in 2.54 mm
(iv) The 1D results in nondimensional form of figs. 8
KI 10000 lb/in 1755 N/mm
and 9 can be used to approximately predict the 3D KI 18000 lb/in 3160 N/mm
behaviour of piping systems. KI 15000 lb/in 2633 N/mm
Kg 200000 lb/in 35 I I 1 N/ram
K2 210000 lb/in 36866 N/ram
Nomenclature K2 218000 lb/in 38271 N/mm
K2 215000 lb/in 37744 N/ram
C damping coefficient m 1.55 lb sec2/in 0.272 Nsec2/mm
C~ critical damping coefficient m 2.21 lb sec2/in 0.388 Nsec2/mm
m 4.3 lb sec2/in 0.755 Nsec2/mm
CI,C2 constants of integration
Xg I,/32 in 0.79 mm
Do amplitude of periodic support motion
X~ 2/32 in 1.59 mm
/, cyclic eigenvalues of 1 D O F spring-snubber Xg 4/32 in 3.18 mm
system Diam. O. 8.625 in 219.1 mm
F~ maximum response ratio Thickness 0.322 in 8.2 mm
G nondimensional gap size ratio Weight/length 65.9 lb/ft 408.2 N / m
i index; 1 is open, 2 is closed E 27.9× 106 psi 20000 N/mm 2
Ki spring stiffness
K2 spring plus gap stiffness
Kg gap or snubber stiffness
m mass References
n C/2m
P, fi nondimensional response ratios [I] S. Timoshenko, D,H. Young and W. Weaver, Jr., Vibration
Problems in Engineering (Wiley, New York, 1974).
qi loading function
[2] R.W. Clough and J. Penzien, Dynamics of Structures (Mc-
Rt ratio of applied loading frequency to the Graw-Hill, New York, 1975).
eigenvalue of open system [3] G.T. De Salvo and J.A. Swanson, Ansys Engineering Anal-
R2 ratio of closed to open system eigenvalue ysis System User's Manual, SASI (1979).
S gap function multiplier with values 0, I, - 1
l,t o time
X,L absolute displacement