## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

**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

1

5/26/2011

INTRODUCTION

Modal Extraction / Eigen Solution

**Modal Extraction / Eigen Solution – the “Start of It All”
**

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

let C =0

ω 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 ω & mode shape pair) as a single degree of freedom system

F (t )

so

be harmonic

**x = A sin ω t && = − ω 2 A sin ω t = − ω 2 x x − ω 2 Mx + Kx = F ( t ) let F (t ) = 0 (K − Mω 2 )x = 0 so x =0
**

or

K − Mω 2 = 0

ω =

K M

2

TX A Tutorial from the Proceedings of 19th Turbomachinery Symposium Copyright 1990 CAESAR II does NOT calculate these circumferential or axial modes 3 .C. Scott J. Incorporated San Antonio. Wachel.5/26/2011 Examples of Modes of Vibration Two examples of a One Degree of Freedom (DOF) System A two DOF System An n DOF System Mode 1 Mode 2 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. Morton and Kenneth E. Atkins of Engineering Dynamics.

5/26/2011 DYNAMIC INPUT REVIEW Controlling the Analysis Starting the Dynamic Input Processor 4 .

5/26/2011 Starting the Dynamic Input Processor Starting the Dynamic Input Processor 5 .

5/26/2011 General Comments on Data Entry Add a new line below current Delete selected line(s) Save. Run Comment (do not process) Modifying Mass 6 . Error Check Check.

5/26/2011 Modifying Mass The signed A zero magnitude th is eliminates the li i t summed with the mass. damping was eliminated from the equation of motion (C=0). Mechanical Hydraulic 7 . RY. Y. Calculated Mass: Node X. RZ or RALL Node Node Adding Snubbers Remember. calculated mass. Point damping is simulated with a stiff spring. Z or ALL affected The Or a range or Node number of Nodes RX.

this is a button Entry cell (use F1 for help) Nonlinear Considerations Our equation of motion insists on a linear system – that is. is constant.5/26/2011 Control Parameters Def=Default. the stiffness. the operating state of nonlinear boundary conditions can serve as the linear state for the dynamic evaluation. ( K − M ω 2 ) x = 0 But our static model allows nonlinear conditions. K. In many cases. An example will help… 8 . The dynamic model must “linearize” those nonlinear conditions.

5/26/2011 Nonlinear Considerations (Liftoff) : Cold Position A +Y (resting) restraint Nonlinear Considerations (Liftoff) : (Static) Operating Position 1 Liftoff Dynamic Model (no restraint) 9 .

Normal Load = N Dynamic Model X Z K K K=Stiffness Factor for Friction*μ*N 10 .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.

How right is it? Control Parameters (nonlinear issues) 11 .5.1: "Friction resulting from gravity loads shall not be considered to provide resistance to seismic forces“ (But we’re not running a seismic analysis here ) we re here.) Use it as a tuning parameter in forensic engineering. ASCE 7-10 para. This value will knock out frequencies associated with frictionless surfaces.5/26/2011 Stiffness Factor for Friction This “Stiffness Factor for Friction” is not a physical parameter. Larger normal loads ( ) will p g (N) 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.2. it is a modeling tool. 15.

5/26/2011 Stopping the eigensolver A system with n degrees of freedom will have n modes of vibration. This is the default CAESAR II cutoff frequency. Are all mode important? – N not for our purposes. Frequency cutoff is typically used alone. Piping modes at lower frequencies respond to many “environmental” harmonic loads (equipment vibration. Piping modes of higher frequency (100+ Hz) may play a role in fast-acting events such as fluid hammer. Piping modes of vibration above 33 Hertz do not show resonant response to seismic motion. No. 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. t f – The lower (frequency) modes contribute the greatest structural response of the system. 12 . CAESAR II extracts modes starting with the lowest mode (lowest frequency).

complete mass matrix. This is what we call “lumped mass”. Consistent mass will more accurately determine the frequencies of natural vibration without adding more nodes (mass points) to the static model. This is the “consistent” mass approach. 13 . p Today’s bigger and faster PCs can handle the fully-developed.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. BUT… more mass points may still be required to establish a proper mode shape in the frequency/mode shape pair.

5/26/2011 Lumped Mass versus Consistent Mass Lumped mass matrix Consistent mass matrix Control Parameters (mass model) 14 .

The Sturm sequence check as a separate calculation of the total number of modes below the last frequency produced. A cheap (time-wise) insurance that no mode is missing.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. the program will state that the check has failed. g At times these frequencies may be “discovered” out of sequence. Not so much a problem with today’s PCs Control Parameters (confirming the modal solution) 15 . If this count doesn’t match the eigensolver total.

5/26/2011 RESULTS REVIEW What Does It All Mean? The Output Menu No Load 16 .

DLF and point of load application) application). all other things being equal (i. – Model Unity Normalized – the typical mode shape.e. different magnitude 17 . Same shape. This is the same shape but normalized to one.5/26/2011 Results – Frequency Report f ω t cycles perradians per second per cycle second seconds Results – Mode Shapes Mode shapes (mass & unity normalized) – Modes Mass Normalized – the tendency of that mode’s contribution to the overall response to a quickly-applied load.

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 .

473 1.658 57.948 8.237 in length=50 ft density=0.5E6 psi Consistent mass will develop better frequencies ***BUT*** More mass points may be needed to develop the mode shapes 20 .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 more nodes improves the calculation g p Is the static model adequate? Mode 2 node lumped 1 2 3 4 5 0.005 26.039 15.328 2 node consistent 0.572 25.471 2.248 16.5 in t=0.415 0.471 2.283 lb/cu.902 8.143 26.26 OD=4.95 8.479 2.971 8.469 2.235 16.51 4.339 10 node 10 node lumped consistent 0.377 100 node lumped 0.646 hand calculation (continuous) 0.in E=29.

Liao of Stone & Webster L = 4 9.5/26/2011 Suggested mass spacing Some simple suggestions: – Add nodes (break pipe) so that the maximum node spacing is no more than one foot (300mm) p nominal inch of p p ( ) per pipe – 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 Piping” .2( D 3 t W ) USE AS ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA An End in Itself 21 . Constructors and Eric N.John K Lin & Adolph T Molin of United Engineers & K. T.

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 .

The topic for June’s webinar is not established. Next dynamic session – response to harmonic loads. leaving great flexibility in the horizontal plane – modal analysis will uncover such oversights. PDH Certificate 23 .5/26/2011 Closing Points Many systems are built for static loads (deadweight and thermal strain) by providing Y supports alone. Modal evaluation is a quick and easy tool to learn more about your piping system response.

FL.com/ppm Join us for Intergraph @ Hexagon 2011 Intergraph’s International Users’ Conference Orlando. 2011 CADWorx & Analysis University www.com 24 . USA | June 6-9.cau2011.5/26/2011 Intergraph @ Hexagon 2011 www.hexagonconference.

- 01 - Hanger sizing in CAESAR II.pdf
- C2 CAU Express Modal
- Load Cases
- Tutorial PV Elite 2005
- Dynamic Cear2I
- GRE Frp Analysis 1
- Pipe Stress Analysis (Seminar Notes)
- RPS FRP Piping Stress Analysis
- ceasar ii pipe stress analysis
- Seminar Notes
- Fatigue Analysis in Caesar II
- Pipe Stress Analysis Work
- CADWorx
- Structural Trunnion
- Customize CADworx 2010 Ribbon
- Eurosteel_2011_A0288_Full_Versão Final
- Process Equipment Design by Brownell & Young 0471113190.pdf
- 6-Piping Stress Analysis Case Study(08_0507)
- May-2011-webinar.pdf
- May-2011-webinar.pdf
- Caesar
- Dynamic Analysis Using Mode Superposition
- 75577376 Point Pipe Stress Analysis by Computer CAESAR II
- C-30 Guide to Ceaser 2
- CAESAR II - UG
- Piping Stress by Caesar-II
- Ch11A-Dynamic Response of Undamped MDOF Systems
- Engine Vibration Analysis Guidelines_InProgress
- Piping stress Analysis using CAESAR II
- Component Mode Modelling of Bladed Disk Vibration

- Valve Selection Guide
- Calender 1392
- Flow Analysis
- Boiler Tube Failures
- KKS Handbook Edition 07
- KKS Handbook Edition 07
- Irregular Verb List
- Alspa Boiler Care Amodis Hrsg
- E-Mails Phrase Bank
- Dissimilar Metal Corrosion
- Boiler Tube Failures
- Comparison of Pressure Vessel Codes
- Fort McMurrary Map
- Mechanical Engineer Resume Sample
- Pipeline Stress Analysis With Caesar II
- Valve Guide 1
- Piping Info Blogspot Com Piping 20Questions
- Design Guide for Slug Force Calculation Procedure
- ASME B31.3 Over Veiw
- Mar90 Holddown Modelling
- Mar90 Holddown Modelling
- Summary
- CAESAR II Startup Problem
- Piping Stress Specification
- Piping Design Basis- Jacobs
- Stress Analysis
- Pumps in SAGD Service
- Writing Approach Letters
- MWK Piping Design Manual
- AFT Evaluating Pipe Dynamic Loads Caused by Waterhammer

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading