See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286715951

Time History Steam Hammer Analysis For Critical Hot Lines In Thermal Power
Plants

Conference Paper · November 2014

DOI: 10.1115/IMECE2014-38076

CITATION READS
1 1,908

2 authors:

Anestis Papadopoulos Ahmed Bayoumy

PGESCo McGill University
6 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   27 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Vibration Analysis of a piping system. View project

Multi-model Management in Multidisciplinary Design Optimization View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anestis Papadopoulos on 08 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2014 International Mechanical Engineering Congress &
Exposition
IMECE 2014
November 14-20, 2014, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

IMECE2014-38076

TIME HISTORY STEAM HAMMER ANALYSIS FOR CRITICAL HOT LINES IN

THERMAL POWER PLANTS

Ahmed H. Bayoumy Anestis Papadopoulos

MSc., Plant Design Eng. Group Leader MSc., PE, Engineering Group Supervisor
Plant Design Plant Design
Power Generation Engineering Power Generation Engineering
and Services Company. (PGESCo.) and Services Company. (PGESCo.)
New Cairo, Cairo, 11835 New Cairo, Cairo, 11835
Egypt Egypt
Email: ahbayoum@PGESCo.com Email: apapadop@PGESCo.com

ABSTRACT paper, a design and analysis method is proposed to analyze the

steam hammer in the critical hot lines due to the turbine trip us-
Pressure surges and fluid transients, such as steam and wa- ing both PIPENET transient module and CAESAR II programs.
ter hammer, are events that can occur unexpectedly in operat- The method offered in this paper aims to assist the design engi-
ing power plants causing significant damages. When these tran- neer in the power plant industry to perform dynamic analysis of
sients occur the power plant can be out of service for long time, the piping system considering the dynamic response of the system
until the root cause is found and the appropriate solution is im- using the PIPENET and CAESAR II programs. Furthermore, the
plemented. In searching for root cause of transients, engineers dynamic approach is validated with a static method by consid-
must investigate in depth the fluid conditions in the pipe line ering the appropriate dynamic load and transmissibility factors.
and the mechanism that initiated the transients. The steam ham- A case study is analyzed for a typical hot reheat line in a power
mer normally occurs when one or more valves suddenly close or plant and the results of the transient analysis are validated using
open. In a power plant, the steam hammer could be an inevitable the theoretical static approach.
phenomenon during turbine trip, since valves (e.g., main steam
valves) must be closed very quickly to protect the turbine from
further damage. When a valve suddenly stops at a very short
NOMENCLATURE
time, the flow pressure builds up at the valve, starting to create
∆P Pressure change.
pressure waves along the pipe runs which travel between elbows.
Furthermore, these pressure waves may cause large dynamic re- ∆A Flow area change.
sponse on the pipeline and large loads on the pipe restraints. The Lc Critical pipe segment length.
response and vibrations on the pipeline depend on the pressure C Sonic speed.
waves amplitudes, frequencies, the natural frequencies and the k Specific heat ratio.
dynamic characteristics of the pipeline itself. The piping flexi- gc Gravity constant.
bility or rigidity of the pipe line, determine how the pipes will P Pressure.
respond to these waves and the magnitude of loads on the pipe v Specific volume.
supports. Consequently, the design of the piping system must Ls Pipe segment length.
consider the pipeline response to the steam hammer loads. In this tc Closure time.

1 Copyright
c 2014 by ASME
Fhammer Hammering force.
Fmax Maximum Hammering force for Lc
W Mass flow rate.
Sn Transmissibility factor.
D Pipe diameter.
ρ Flow density.
E Modulus of elasticity.
t Pipe wall thickness.
c1 Pipe distensibility.
M Mass matrix.
Cd Damping Matrix.
R Force Vector.
x Displacement vector.
ω Frequency.
σy Yield stress.
EC Pipe modulus of elasticity.
ρ p Pipe density.
ρi Insulation density.
ν Poisson ratio.

INTRODUCTION
The hot reheat lines at a conventional thermal power plant
transmit reheated steam at a high temperature and pressure (up
to 540C and 41 bar) from a reheater of a steam boiler to an inter-
mediate pressure turbine see Figure 1. Parallel hot reheat lines
from the boiler terminate in a common header which feeds the
two admission leads to the turbine. Each steam turbine lead has
an automatic turbine isolation valve, which is being closed at the
turbine trip. Also, by-pass lines are connected with the hot reheat
lines, which pass steam to the turbine condenser in the case of a
turbine trip. Closure of isolation valves, in a very short time, and
opening the by-pass valves, in a relatively long time, cause inten- FIGURE 1. SUEZ THERMAL POWER PLANT HOT REHEAT
sive pressure wave propagation which exerts high fluid dynamic LINE
forces on the pipes and pipelines supports. An understanding of
the steam flow and pressure wave propagation during this tran-
sient, and the proper prediction of the fluid dynamic forces, are are described. The purpose of this analysis is to determine the
necessary for the design of the pipeline and its supports. time-dependent forcing functions in the hot reheat (HR) steam
In this paper, the numerical simulations and analysis of a lines during a fast stop valve closure transient (i.e., a turbine trip).
real hot reheat lines transient at the gas/oil fired, 650 MW, Suez Therefore, a transient forcing function is generated for each pip-
Thermal Power Plant are presented. The main events of the ing segment using PIPENET program, which is used as an input
transient were the closure of isolation valves in front of the in- to CAESAR II program for the piping stress analysis accord-
termediate pressure turbine. The transient has been simulated ing to ASME B31.1 code. In order to validate the results from
by the computer code PIPENET transient module, based on the PIPENET analysis, the magnitude of the steam hammer forces,
Method of Characteristics [1, 2]. This method gives, potentially, at each pipe segments are estimated using the theoretical static
the most accurate solutions, especially for one-phase, compress- approach using the pipe flow, segment length, transmissibility
ible fluid flows, and it enables proper modelling of boundary factors and valve closure time. The segment loads from the static
conditions [3]. Simulations and analysis had specific tasks to analysis are used to compare the loads from transient PIPENET
estimate the pressure pulse load caused by the closure of the analysis and the comparison is in a good agreement. This agree-
turbine isolation valves , and to predict the intensity of the dy- ment also validates the time step and the boundary conditions
namic force in the steam line. The pressure wave propagation used in the PIPENET analysis. A comparison of operating loads
and the influence of the boundary conditions on these processes including steam hammer and static seismic is also presented.

2 Copyright
c 2014 by ASME
THEORETICAL STATIC APPROACH
The sudden closure of the stop valves on the main steam
and reheat steam inlets to the turbines in a steam power plant
can result in large momentary unbalanced forces in the steam
piping.The magnitude of the unbalanced forces are primarily a
function of initial rate of steam flow [kg/Sec.], pipe run length
[m] and stop valve closure time [sec]. The magnitude of the un-
balanced force in any given straight run of pipe reaches a mo-
mentary peak equal to the pressure differential existing over the
length of the run multiplied times the cross-section area of the
pipe. The response of the piping system is a function of its mass
and stiffness. Steam hammer forces, piping system response and
restraint reactions may be estimated by the use of a relatively
simple procedure to calculate the maximum momentary unbal-
anced forces in each run of the piping system, see Figure 2.
These forces can then be used to determine the approximate sys-
tem response to the forces and to estimate the forces to be used
in designing the flexible or rigid restraints needed to control the
piping movements and keep pipe stresses within an acceptable
range [4]. When a valve is closed on a fluid flow the pressure
upstream of the valve increases and the pressure downstream de-
creases. Any changes in the fluid state will propagate through the
pipe with sonic velocity, and this phenomena is known as wave
motion. The pressure rise upstream of this valve can be related
to time as follows [4]:

∆P (t) = f unction (∆A, Lstroke (t)) (1)

following the procedures in Figure 2 by using equations (1-4).

p
C= k × gc × p × v (2)

Lc = C × tc (3)

W × Ls × Sn
Fhammer = (4)
g c × tc
FIGURE 2. FLOW CHART OF THE SIMPLE STATIC APPROACH
FOR CALCULATING A HAMMERING LOAD

W ×C × Sn
Fmax = (5)
gc
A flow Area versus time curve is necessary for any valve to
be analyzed, see Figure 3. A wave produced at a steam valve
eventually interacts with a turbine, boiler, and condenser these
devices represent many area changes. At each area change, there
will be a transmitted waves which will be splitted or combined
according to the area change configuration,see Figure 4. The
resulted wave energy depends on the transmissibility factor Sn .
HOT REHEAT MODEL, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND
ASSUMPTIONS
The piping system is analyzed as a link network, with each
link being comprised of several nodes. The resulting transient
piping forces can be utilized as the dynamic forcing functions for
pipe stress analysis. The turbine hot reheat steam stop/control
valves closure time is (0.20 seconds). The flow area for the
turbine hot reheat steam stop/control valves are modeled to re-
duce linearly to zero over the closure time. A flow coefficient

3 Copyright

c 2014 by ASME

FIGURE 3. TYPICAL VALVE CLOSING CURVE
FIGURE 4. TRANSMISSIBILITY FACTOR Sn
Cv changes with the stroke percentages, see Figure 7. For anal-
ysis, it is assumed that the corresponding stop/control valves are
fully open at time zero, and start to close as soon as the tran-
sient begins. For the hot reheat case, the total maximum mass
flow rate of steam leaving the reheater of the boiler is based on
the maximum steam flow from the boiler to the steam turbine
(505.01 [Kg/Sec.]). The steam conditions at the turbine for the
Hot Reheat (HR) case are based on the Intermediate pressure (IP)
turbine inlet pressure of (40.85 bara) and a temperature of 538 C.
The hot reheat (HR) case considers the HR piping from the boiler
reheater to the inlet to the IP steam turbine inlet as well as the HR
bypass piping to the bypass valves. It is assumed that a positive
force on the piping generated due to the dynamic loads is in the
direction opposite of steam flow. A positive fluid force is taken
to be In the same direction of steam flow, while the piping ”reac-
4 Copyright
tion force” reacting to the positive fluid force is In the opposite
direction. or against steam flow. In other words, the pipe’s re-
action to the positive fluid force would be a movement against
the direction of flow. As a result, pipe supports should be ade-
quately designed to offset the piping reaction force. Modeling of
the piping links is performed on an elbow-to-elbow basis. The
run duration time is 3.0 seconds to ensure that the resulting pres-
sure wave travels through all the piping, capturing both positive
and negative peak dynamic forces. The initial flow rate in the HR
bypass lines is zero since the bypass valves are normally closed.
No bypass line opening transient is considered in the steam ham-
mer calculation. Typically, the bypass valve opening transient
is not significant since its opening time is much greater than the
stop valve closure time. The steam properties are summarized in
Table 1. The wave speed in a pipe is the speed at which pressure
surges are propagated along the pipe. It depends on a number
of factors including the material and diameter of the pipe, and
the bulk modulus of the fluid. For Transient Module to make an
automatic calculation of the wave speed the User must provide a
pipe schedule and define the fluid bulk modulus. The wave speed
is calculated using equation 6.
Hot reheat line (HR) is modeled using the static approach
as shown in Figure 5, where all the transmissibility factors are
calculated at each branch, and the steam hammer force is cal-
culated at each pipe segment. Furthermore, the PIPENET tran-
sient model is shown in Figure 6. The network is modeled using
number of pipe segments where each segment represents a pipe
run from elbow to elbow. The (HR) line is analyzed using both
static and transient approaches, to validate the transient analysis
results, because when the transient results achieve good agree-
ment with the static approach it means that the time step for the
transient analysis is good enough for obtaining accurate results
otherwise the time step has to be decreased. In preliminary de-
sign phases the flow coefficient curves are not available for the
turbine stop/control valves. However the flow coefficient varia-
tion with the valve stroke and the closure time are considered to
be the dominant variables for the significance of the steam ham-
mer effect on the pipeline. Consequently the flow coefficient is
deduced from the pressure difference between downstream and
upstream the valve at the operating load case from the heat bal-
ance sheets, then this calculated flow coefficient is assumed to
change linearly with the stroke. In this case running the static
approach at this phase helps in validating the preliminary tran-
sient analysis results as the static approach doesn’t depend on
the flow coefficient variation with the stroke.
v
u K
u ρ
C=t KD

(6)
1+ Et c1
c 2014 by ASME
 FIGURE 7. THE FLOW COEFFICIENT CURVE VERSUS THE
VALVE STROKE OPENING PERCENTAGES

FIGURE 5. HOT REHEAT LINE FLOW DIAGRAM module, the maximum time step for numerical stability is easy
to understand intuitively [5]. Consider a single pipe filled with a
liquid, if we create a pressure disturbance at one end of the pipe,
it will travel at the wave speed along the pipe, reflect at the other
end and return. In other words, the disturbance will travel back
and forth along the pipe at the wave speed. It is clear that it is es-
sential to model the reflection of the disturbance because without
that we will not have oscillations in the pressure. Furthermore
consider what the maximum time step for the calculation should
be. In the case of a single pipe we can define the following. Time
step for numerical stability = length of pipe/wave speed. In the
case of a system with multiple pipes, each pipe would have its
FIGURE 6. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR THE HOT REHEAT own time step for numerical stability. The smallest of such time
PIPENET MODEL steps would be the time step for numerical stability for the com-
plete system. In this context it is important to note that the wave
speed is usually different for different pipes [5]. This program is
Density 11.1596 [Kg/m3] designed to analyze the transient steam (gas) flow phenomena in
complex piping systems. The code calculates fluid pressure, ve-
Viscosity 3.035E-05 Pa s
locity, and density changes with line. which are then used in the
Bulk modulus 5200298 Pa computation of the piping forces. Table 2 summarizes the peak
pipe run forces generated for the HR case. Figure 8 shows the
TABLE 1. STEAM PROPERTIES time history transient forces in segments 6,7,8 and 9. Moreover
a good agreement was found between the resulted steam ham-
NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF THE HOT REHEAT LINE mer loads of static approach analysis and the Transient analysis
TRANSIENTS maximum loads.
Numerical solution procedure often has a maximum limit on
the time step. If we used a time step bigger than this, the numeri-
cal procedure may become unstable. Essentially the term numer- DYNAMIC STRESS ANALYSIS (TIME HISTORY)
ical instability means any errors in the solution at one time step Steady-flow analyses and steam hammer analyses provide
will increase at the next time step. After a few time steps the real information on the liquid behaviour under operational conditions
solution could be completely swamped so that the calculated so- . Static pipe-stress analyses and structural dynamics analyses
lution bears no resemblance to the real solution. In the case of the give insight into the corresponding behaviour of the pipe sys-
method of characteristics which is used in PIPENET Transient tem . Where the liquid analysis yields pressures and velocities,

5 Copyright
c 2014 by ASME
 FIGURE 8. THE TRANSIENT LOADS ON SEGMENTS 6,7,8,9

Section Segment Transient Analysis Static approach Firstly the PIPENET force output file (which contains all
pipe segments in one file) must be separated into individual files
3 6 127.5 KN 126.8 for each segment to be applied in CAESAR II. The separation
3 7 85.5 KN 84.4 from PIPENET output into individual segments is accomplished
by running a subroutine (developed by PGESCo. stress group
3 8 50.3 KN 50.1 team). Secondly running the Static stress analysis of the hot re-
3 9 47.2 KN 46.9 heat model according to ASME B31.1 code with the static design
of the pipe support. The boundary conditions for the model in the
TABLE 2. MAXIMUM DYNAMIC LOADS RESULTS DUE TO normal operation case are shown in Figure 14. Thirdly the dy-
BOTH THE SIMPLE AND TRANSIENT APPROACHES namic loads files are defined in CII dynamic module in the time
history dynamic analysis, and create a load case for the ham-
mering scenario which is the algebraic combination between the
the structural analysis provides dynamic stresses, reaction forces static normal operation case and the dynamic load case (S11+D1)
and resonance frequencies. It is not unusual to perform an un- for the loads and displacements check on the pipe supports, and
coupled calculation . Pressure histories, resulting from a steam algebraic combination between the cold load of the piping sys-
hammer analysis , are used as the exciting loads in a structural- tem and the dynamic load case for stress check. By running the
dynamics analysis . The calculation is called uncoupled since analysis the results give us the loads, displacements and stresses
the predicted structural response does not influence the predicted on the pipe supports. Further the results of seismic loads are
liquid pressures [6]. compared with the steam hammer combination load case and the

6 Copyright
c 2014 by ASME
pipe support is designed due to the larger loads. Code ASME B31.1
Time history analysis is a more accurate, more computation-
ally intensive analytical method than response spectrum analysis. EC 2.13e08 Kpa
It is best suited to impulse loadings or other transient loadings ν 0.3
where the profile is known. This method of analysis involves the
actual solution of the dynamic equation of motion throughout ρp 0.00783 Kg/cm 3
the duration of the applied load and subsequent system vibra- ρi 0.00014 Kg/cm 3
tion, providing a true simulation of the system response [7]. the
dynamic equation of motion for a system is σy 413685.4 Kpa
TABLE 3. HOT REHEAT LINE PIPING MATERIAL PROPERTIES
M ẍ +Cd ẋ + kx = R (t) (7)

This differential equation cannot be solved explicitly, but may

be integrated using numeric techniques by slicing the duration of
the load into many small time steps. Assuming that the change
in acceleration between time slices is linear, the system accelera-
tions, velocities, displacements, and corresponding reactions, in-
ternal forces, and stresses are calculated at successive time steps.
Because the total response of a system is equivalent to the sum
of the responses of its individual modes of vibration, the above
equation can be simplified assuming that the damping matrix C
is orthogonal. Use the transformation X = Φx, to be expressed
in modal coordinates:

Ẍ (t) + ∆Ẋ + ω 2 X = ΦT R (t) (8)

∆ = diag (2ωi ξi ) (9) FIGURE 9. HOT REHEAT LINE PIPE DIAMETERS

time profile is entered as a spectrum with an ordinate of Force

ω 2 = diag ωi 2


(10)
ΦTi Cd Φ j = 0where (i 6= j) (11)
This transformation represents N uncoupled second order
differential equations, where N is the number of modes of vi-
bration extracted. N can then be integrated and summed, using
the in-phase, algebraic summation method to give the total sys-
tem response. CAESAR II uses the Wilson method (an extension
of the Newmark method) to integrate the equations of motion,
providing an unconditionally stable algorithm regardless of time
step size chosen [8]. Only one dynamic load can be defined for
a time history analysis. This dynamic load case can be used in
as many static/dynamic combination load case as necessary. The
single load case may consist of multiple force profiles applied
to the system simultaneously or sequentially. Each force versus
(in current units) and a range of Time (in milliseconds). The pro-
files are defined by entering the time and force coordinates of the
corner points defining the profile. The Pipe line Material proper-
ties are summarized in Table 3. and the pipe line dimensions are
expressed in Figures.(9-11) and the boundary conditions which
are represented in the temperature and pressure distributions for
the normal operating static load case are shown in Figures (12-
13). The restraints which represents the pipe supports according
to the static analysis are shown in Figure 14.
STATIC ANALYSIS FOR SEISMIC LOADS
A static seismic analysis was performed by applying the
following acceleration g factors in the three global directions,
X=0.21g, y=0.07g, Z=0.21g. The acceleration levels were calcu-
lated for suez project based on [9]. A comparison of the effect of
the hammering load with the static seismic loads is presented in
Appendix A.

7 Copyright

c 2014 by ASME
 FIGURE 10. HOT REHEAT LINE PIPE WALL THICKNESSES
FIGURE 11. HOT REHEAT LINE PIPE INSULATION THICK-
NESSES
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The pipe stresses resulted from the static stress analysis due
to the normal operating static load case is shown in Figure 15.
The results for dynamic steam hammer loads on selected pipe
restraints are summarized in Appendix A and compared with the
seismic resulted loads. The results show a significant effects of
the steam hammer loads on the pipe supports close to the tur-
bine control valves and decay as much going far from the con-
trol valves. In general the hammering loads are higher than the
static seismic loads by as much as a factor of 2. The significant
hammer loads which is larger than the seismic loads are in the
8 Copyright
FIGURE 12. HOT REHEAT LINE TEMPERATURES FOR THE
NORMAL OPERATING CASE
FIGURE 13. HOT REHEAT LINE PRESSURES FOR THE NOR-
MAL OPERATING CASE
vertical directions at node 300 and 310, In the lateral directions
at node 385 and in the axial direction at node 420. The design
of pipe supports from the dynamic analysis point of view is not
only related to the excitation amplitude but is related also to the
excitation frequency, which may dominates the rigidity or the
flexibility of modeling the pipe restraints configurations. Also
while comparing the load it is important to check the response
time for the resulted load which tells when the pipe will respond
to the system and the way the wave will reflects between elbows
or splitting through tee branches. Time history analysis is one
c 2014 by ASME

FIGURE 14. HOT REHEAT LINE RESTRAINTS FOR PIPE SUP-
PORTS DESIGN ACCORDING TO THE STATIC ANALYSIS
FIGURE 15. THE STRESSES ON THE HOT REHEAT PIPING
DUE TO THE STATIC ANALYSIS UNDER NORMAL OPERATING
LOAD CASE
of the most accurate methods, because it uses numeric integra-
tion of the dynamic equation of motion to simulate the system
response throughout the load duration. This method can solve
any type of dynamic loading, but due to its accurate results, re-
quires more resources (such as computer memory, calculation
speed and time) than other methods. Time history analysis is
not appropriate when, for example, the spectrum method offers
sufficient accuracy.
9 Copyright
FIGURE 16. THE PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN ACCORDING TO
BOTH THE DYNAMIC AND STATIC ANALYSIS
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Simulation and analysis of the Hot Reheat line (HR) tran-
sient with the isolation valves closure is undertaken. The trip
scenario study is for the gas/oil fired Suez Thermal Power Plant.
The procedure is based on the transients simulations with the
PIPENET transient module program. The methodology de-
scribed in this paper uses a comprehensive approach of steam
hammer time history analysis using PIPENET and CAESAR II
program to evaluate the pressure waves and fluid dynamics forces
generated during isolation valve closure. The PIPENET results
can be validated using the static approach presented to ensure
that the numerical input parameters such as the time step are ap-
propriate and the results are reasonable. Moreover this valida-
tion help in the preliminary design phases of the projects when
some assumptions are considered for the turbine control valves.
The frequency content of the steam hammer transient loads are
also important for checking if they impact the frequencies of
the piping system. In many cases the static approach can be
used as an alternative to the comprehensive time history tran-
sient approach. The comparison between the operating loads in-
cluding steam hammer and static seismic loads indicate that in
general the operating loads including steam hammer have ap-
proximately the same magnitude with operating loads including
seismic. However in the vertical direction where the seismic ac-
celeration is very small (0.07g), the steam hammer effect is more
significant. In case where the steam hammer or water hammer
loads are very significant and the dynamic response of the pip-
ing system can impact the magnitude of the hammer loads on
the pipe segments, the comprehensive approach described using
PIPENET and CAESAR II programs is recommended.
c 2014 by ASME
REFERENCES
[1] Stevanovic, V., Studovic, M., and Bratic, A., 1994. “Simula-
tion and analysis of a main steam line transient with isolation
valves closure and subsequent pipe break”. International
Journal of Numerical Methods for Heat & Fluid Flow, 4(5),
pp. 387–398.
[2] Wulff, W., 1990. “Computational methods for multiphase
flow”. Multiphase Science and Technology, 5(1-4).
[3] Shin, Y., and Wiedermann, A., 1981. “A hybrid numeri-
cal method for homogeneous equilibrium two-phase flows
in one space dimension”. Journal of Pressure Vessel Tech-
nology, 103(1), pp. 20–26.
[4] Coccio, C., 1967. “Steam hammer in turbine piping
systems”. In MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, Vol. 89,
ASME-AMER SOC MECHANICAL ENG 345 E 47TH ST,
NEW YORK, NY 10017, p. 80.
[5] Sunrise, 2010. PIPENET VISION Transient Module User
and Reference Manual Software Revision 1.5. Sunrise.
[6] Lavooij, C., and Tusseling, A., 1991. “Fluid-structure inter-
action in liquid-filled piping systems”. Journal of fluids and
structures, 5(5), pp. 573–595.
[7] Bathe, K.-J., Wilson, E. L., and Peterson, F. E., 1974. SAP
IV: a structural analysis program for static and dynamic re-
sponse of linear systems, Vol. 73. College of Engineering,
University of California Berkeley.
[8] CAESAR, I., 2013. “User manual”. COADE Engineering
Software Inc.
[9] ASCE Standard: Minimum Design Loads for bulding and
other structures. ASCE 7-02, 2002.

10 Copyright
c 2014 by ASME
Appendix A: RESTRAINT LOAD SUMMARY FOR OPERATING LOADS INCLUDING STEAM HAMMER DYNAMIC AND
SEISMIC LOADS (LOADS UNITS ARE IN NEWOTON)

11 Copyright
c 2014 by ASME

View publication stats