Expansion Load Case Requirements

Transcription

Mechanical
Engineering
News
VOLUME 34
JULY 2003
New Features in CodeCalc 6.5
and PVElite 5.0
(by: Mandeep Singh)
CodeCalc version 6.5 (also included in PVElite version 5.0) was released in
January 2003 and has many new features. Some of the new capabilities are
listed below:
Enhancements in the TEMA Tubesheet module in CodeCalc 6.5
In this version, the tubesheet module and the thick (flanged and flued)
expansion joint modules were integrated. The tubesheet module contains the
input for the expansion joint. This makes analyzing a fixed tubesheet with an
expansion joint, quicker and easier. As the manual data transfer is eliminated,
the chances of error are also reduced. See the article Integration of Tubesheet
and Expansion Joint also in this newsletter.
> continued on p.2
IN THIS ISSUE:
What’s New at COADE
FOR THE POWER,
PROCESS AND
RELATED INDUSTRIES
CADWorx
Equipment
> see story page 3
CodeCalc and PVElite New Features .......... 1
COADE Releases CADWorx EQUIPMENT .. 3
COADE Announcement Procedures .............. 4
Graphics Speed Issues .................................. 5
Problems Exporting
to Word
Exporting Output to MS Word ........................ 7
> see story page 7
CADWorx 2004 ............................................ 23
CAESAR II Version 4.50 ................................ 8
Technology You Can Use
CAESAR II 4.50
> see story page 8
The COADE Mechanical Engineering
News Bulletin is published twice a year
from the COADE offices in Houston,
Texas. The Bulletin is intended to provide
information about software applications
and development for Mechanical
Engineers serving the power, process and
related industries. Additionally, the Bulletin
serves as the official notification
vehicle for software errors discovered in
those Mechanical Engineering programs
offered by COADE.
©2003 COADE, Inc. All rights reserved.
API-579
Integration of Tubesheet and Expansion
Joint Analysis ............................................. 9
Satisfying Expansion Load Case
Requirements .......................................... 11
> see story page 14
Mass Spacing for Dynamic Analysis ............ 13
Dealing with Spam
PC Hardware/Software for the Engineering
User (Part 34) ......................................... 18
> see story page 19
Assessing the Metal Loss Flaws using
API Recommended Practice 579 ............ 14
Program Specifications
CADWorx 2004
CAESAR II Notices ...................................... 20
> see story page 23
TANK Notices .............................................. 22
CodeCalc Notices ........................................ 22
PVElite Notices ............................................ 23
COADE Mechanical Engineering News
CodeCalc version 6.5 also includes PD 5500 tubesheet rules (British
code), for u-tube, fixed and floating tubesheets.
Modifications were also made in the calculation of required fixed
tubesheet thickness, to properly account for the non-linearity in its
formula. In previous versions it may have been necessary to manually
iterate on a required thickness. Now, CodeCalc performs this
iteration automatically. Improvements were also made in U-tube
and fixed tubesheet summaries.
July 2003
Added WRC 107 Auto-calc on support lug
An option was added in the support lug dialog to perform WRC-107
calculations without leaving the Leg Lug module. See the dialog in
the figure below.
Fitness for Service using API 579
CodeCalc 6.5 implements API 579 Sections 4 and 5 covering
Level 1 and Level 2 flaw assessments for metal loss on cylindrical
shells, simple cones, and formed heads. Another article in this
newsletter has an in-depth discussion of this capability with a
solved example.
Fitness for Service (FFS) assessment using API Recommended
Practice 579 is performed to assess the operation, safety and
reliability of the process plant equipment, such as pressure vessels,
piping and tanks for some desired future period. The assessment
procedure provides an estimate of the remaining strength of the
equipment in its current state, which may have been degraded while
in-service from its original condition.
Color Syntax Highlighting in the Output Reports
Color has been added to the output reports to highlight important
values, thus increasing the readability of the reports. Important
notes appear in blue while headings are in bold and failures/warnings/
errors are indicated in red color. This feature was added in the April
4th build of CodeCalc and PVElite.
In the shell, nozzle and flange modules input errors (if any) are now
displayed on the screen at the time of input. Here is an example:
The color highlighting is also preserved when printing these reports
and when exporting to MS Word.
Enhancement in the Nozzle module
For hillside or other non-central nozzles on elliptical or torispherical
heads, the program now prints a warning if the nozzle is outside the
spherical portion of the head and the user has indicated otherwise.
A “small” nozzle is nozzle that does not require an area replacement
calculation due to its smaller size. But, some “small” nozzles that
are in close proximity to each other may require these calculations.
In this version, the switch to force the program to perform area
replacement calculation on “small” nozzle was moved from the file
level to each individual nozzle input.
2
The ASME Material database now displays the “Class/Thickness”
of materials in the list view. This will help in finding the right
material when more than one occurrence of a material is listed in the
ASME database.
July 2003
A few of the new features in PVElite version 5.0 are:
•
Enhancements listed in the CodeCalc part.
•
Added ASME A-2002 updates, including revision to material
databases
•
Integrated 3D graphics into Input
•
Added option to model Sump Elements
•
Added Nozzle on Nozzle capability
•
Implemented export to ODBC database (MS Access)
•
Added OD basis support is for Division 1, vessels
•
Added color syntax highlighting in the output, e.g. questionable
results are shown in red color
•
Added PD:5500 (British code) Annex C, fluctuating pressure
fatigue analysis
•
Added criterion of PD:5500 category C vessels
•
Added bolting requirements for Horizontal vessels
•
Added on screen calculations for Nozzle Weld sizes and a
WRC 107 scratch pad
•
Enhancements to the load case combinations for longitudinal
stress
•
Added option for 0.90*Yield for hydro-test allowable (Div 1)
•
Added weld sizes for basering chair caps
•
Improvements to the MS Word report generation
•
Major update of the printed documentation.
COADE Releases CADWorx
EQUIPMENT
(by: Scott Nickel)
COADE has announced the release of the latest module in its
CADWorx 2004 Plant Design Suite, CADWorx EQUIPMENT.
CADWorx EQUIPMENT adds the ability to quickly and easily
create AutoCAD-based 3D models of equipment — horizontal or
vertical, single or multi-state vessels, heat exchangers and pumps
— to the piping, P&ID, structural steel, HVAC, and instrument
loops capabilities already available with CADWorx 2004.
CADWorx EQUIPMENT works on a hierarchal basis. The process
begins by identifying the equipment’s component parts, such as a
vessel’s heads, shells, nozzles and supports, via icons selected from
the toolbar. Entering required dimensional data in the property
editor instantly, parametrically updates the model. Equipment
components, or details on the components, can be “cut and pasted”
for easy modeling and modification of equipment. Selection lists
containing flange ratings, flange facings, motor frames and more
are available from the program’s property editor.
COADE has long been on the forefront of the industry as far as
CAD-to-analysis integration is concerned, with its CADWorx PIPE
to CAESAR II seamless bi-directional interface. The same strategy
is brought to CADWorx EQUIPMENT, which offers a seamless,
bi-directional interface between vessel models built in this module
and PVElite, COADE’s vessel analysis software. A vessel built in
CADWorx EQUIPMENT may be exported to a native PVElite
file, analyzed and modified, and then re-imported to ensure that all
changes made during the analysis process are reflected back into the
CAD model. Likewise, any vessel built in PVElite may be used to
generate a 3D CAD model in CADWorx EQUIPMENT, ensuring
accuracy and saving modeling time.
3
July 2003
COADE Announcement Procedures
(by: Richard Ay)
In an effort to keep all users informed of software releases, software
updates, and other important occurrences, COADE directly e-mails
registered users. This e-mail process is controlled by a web-based
List Server. This procedure was introduced in the February 2002
issue of this newsletter. There are several important points to note
about this announcement procedure.
How do you register for this service?
Vessel in CADWorx/Equipment
From the “Help” menu of COADE’s engineering products, and the
“Pipe” menu of the CADWorx application, is a link for “On-Line
Registration”. Additionally, the first time you run the software
following an installation, you are prompted to register. Either
alternative takes you to a web page for you to fill in your contact
information. Once completed, this information is stored on a List
Server. (This List Server is maintained by a third party. COADE
does not maintain this server.) If you don’t register, you will not
receive our announcements.
When registering, if you have the capability to receive HTML email, you should check the appropriate checkbox indicating this.
The HTML e-mails are laid out better, and are more informative
than the plain text messages.
How do you update your information?
When your contact information (such as e-mail address) changes,
you can follow the link at the bottom of any announcement to access
your profile on the List Server. You should then make the necessary
changes to your profile.
What should you do if you no longer want COADE notices?
If at some point you decide you no longer want to receive COADE
announcements, you can follow the link at the bottom of any
announcement to access your profile on the List Server. You can
then “opt out” of future announcements.
Same Vessel transferred into PVElite
Please do not “reply” to the announcements:
The e-mail announcements sent by the List Server contain a return
address of info@coade.com. This is not a real e-mail address. We
eventually do get the reply, but these responses are directed to an
un-attended mailbox. The announcement itself includes the proper
contact information if you need to communicate directly with
COADE.
4
July 2003
What should you do if you registered, but don't receive
announcements?
Every time an announcement is distributed, we learn from the List
Server that roughly 10% of the messages bounced back. This
indicates bad or changed user e-mail addresses. When two
consecutive messages bounce, the List Serve deletes the offending
profile from its database. This means that you will no longer
receive COADE announcements, even though you think you are
registered. In effect, the List Server un-registered your profile.
If you suspect this may have happened, please register again, as
described above.
We are hoping that the use of this List Server provides an additional
service to our users. However, the success of this service depends
on users maintaining their correct contact information.
Graphics Speed Issues
(by: Richard Ay)
COADE’s engineering programs (CAESAR II, PVElite, and
CodeCalc) utilize the HOOPS 3D graphics engine. This engine is
3rd party software, not developed by COADE. Using a 3rd party
graphics engine provides a number of benefits to users:
• State of the art graphics technology (such as rendering
and calculations in hardware)
• Faster implementation of the advances in new hardware
• Provides a more uniform handling of graphics across a
variety of operating systems
However, the draw back to using a 3rd party package is that the
software is limited to the performance and capabilities of the 3rd
party package. Recently, a number of CAESAR II users and
dealers have expressed concern that these 3D graphics are slow.
“Slow” is a relative term, slow compared to what?
Each release of CAESAR II since Version 4.20 has offered a
HOOPS speed improvement of at least 40%. These improvements
are due to optimization of the CAESAR II code (to take better
advantage of the capabilities of the HOOPS library), and
improvements in the base HOOPS library.
There are two groups of tests. The first set of tests used a
“Performance Test” program from the HOOPS vendor. The tests
performed here consisted of drawing simple shapes and text, over
and over again, in various positions. These tests indicate that the
better your graphics board, especially the more graphics memory
available, the better the performance.
The second set of tests consisted of plotting a number of
CAESAR II jobs on the test machines. The results of these tests
show the expected interaction between the CPU and graphics
board. For example, the “dual 700 Mhz with 8 Mbyte graphics
card” performed better than all but one of the machines with a
single processor and 8 times the graphics memory! These tests
indicate that in addition to a good graphics board, you also need
either a very fast single CPU, or dual CPUs of medium speed.
To illustrate the performance improvement made between different
versions of HOOPS, in the “CAESAR II tests”, a number of the
results are shown in “blue”, and are noted as “Ver 8.12”. These
results were obtained with the graphics released for CAESAR II
Version 4.40 Build 030403, using the 8.12 version of the HOOPS
library. (Previous builds of CAESAR II Version 4.40 used the
8.00 version of the HOOPS library.) Depending on the job, the
speed improved by a factor of from 4 to 30. This improvement can
be attributed to 8.12 version of HOOPS, which now draws more
primitives directly using the hardware, instead of COADE drawing
them in software.
In addition, most video cards now have OpenGL built-in, which
allows HOOPS to push the rendering all the way down to the
hardware, where before, most of the drawing had to be done with
the CPU. Video cards with a lot of memory have big z-buffers,
plus good optimization, which helps them avoid drawing things
that will be obscured by objects “on top”. While the HOOPS
library and COADE software can improve and optimize, the best
performance can be obtained only by also utilizing fast hardware.
This is one of the key concepts to grasp. By default, HOOPS
utilizes the OPENGL capabilities of your system. Utilizing graphics
cards with good OPENGL acceleration will improve the overall
performance of the applications.
(CAESAR II users note that Version 4.50 will provide even faster
performance. The model may be manipulated while it is being
drawn.)
In an attempt to provide specific answers to this question, several
performance tests using the HOOPS 3D graphics were performed
on a number of COADE computers. The details of the hardware
used can be found on the accompanying spreadsheet. Note that the
test machines encompassed a wide range of CPUs (from dual 300
Mhz to single 2.8 Ghz) and a variety of graphics boards (from 8
Mbytes to 128 Mbytes).
5
July 2003
HOOPS Graphics System Speed Tests
Setup
A
B
C
D
E
F
Dual 700,
Dual 300 Mhz,
Machine Description 512Mbytes Ram 512Mbyte Ram
Dual 700 Mhz,
1Gbyte Ram
1.9 Ghz, 512Mbyte 2.8 Ghz,
Ram
1Gbyte Ram
1Ghz,
512Mbyte Ram
Windows 2000
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows XP
Windows 2000
AccelStar II,
8Mbytes, AGP
Winfast A170,
64Mbytes, AGP
Nvidia GeForce2
Mx400, 64Mbytes,
AGP
Nvidia GeForce4
Radeon 9000 IF
MX 440, 64Mbytes, Pro, 128Mbytes,
AGP
AGP
Operating System Windows 2000
Diamond
Multimedia Fire
Gl 1000 Pro,
Graphics Board Description 8Mbytes, AGP
Techsoft Test
2) 3D Edges/sec
33,865
30,059
1,164,189
114,472
227,625
1,308,552
4) 3D markers/sec
40,355
49,556
1,717,821
222,819
226,387
1,460,214
7) 3D polygons/sec
17,338
15,039
554,454
143,572
215,665
802,499
8) 3D edgeless polygons/sec
9) 3D lit edgeless
polygons/sec
26,905
26,765
934,892
215,138
413,939
1,265,078
79,421
24,585
807,252
216,095
414,924
1,119,365
2,662
3,364
17,000
18,832
27,546
32,869
14) unlit shells/sec
875
981
46,531
3,895
7,732
44,263
15) flat lit shells/sec
863
879
37,923
3,894
7,732
41,039
16) gouraud lit shells/sec
819
826
36,428
3,893
7,771
39,117
11) 3D hello worlds/sec
Techsoft Test Notes:
1) Test results were obtained using Techsoft's performance test program "PT.EXE".
2) On all machines, the PT.EXE options of double buffering and culling were turned on.
3) Of the 16 tests performed, only those noted above were compared.
4) Tests results shown in red are those functions used most by COADE products.
CAESAR II Test
Job Description
Plot Time
fw-oper, 1910 elements, 593
restraints, 135 rigids. (12M
allocated)
Ver 8.00 - 37 sec
rev-beattock28, 727
elements, 473 restraints, 80
rigids. (12M allocated)
100yrs1, 3935 elements,
3362 restraints, 0 rigids. (32M
allocated)
Plot Time
Plot Time
Plot Time
Ver 8.12 - 33 sec
Ver 8.00 - 612 sec
Ver 8.00 - 237 sec
Ver 8.12 - 8 sec
Ver 8.00 -162 sec
Ver 8.00 - 48 sec
Ver 8.12 - 18 sec
Ver 8.00 -235 sec
Ver 8.00 - 82 sec
Ver 8.12 - 7 sec Ver
8.00 - 61 sec
Ver 8.00 - 194
sec
Ver 8.12 - 76 sec
No Ver 8.00
Ver 8.00 - 844 sec
Ver 8.12 - 21 sec
Ver 8.00 - 630 sec
COADE Test Notes:
1) Tests were timed using the Task Manager.
2) Times are from start of plot request to active toolbar.
3) Ver 8.00 HOOPS was released with the initial CAESAR II Version 4.40.
4) Ver 8.12 HOOPS was released for CAESAR II Version 4.40, build 030403.
6
Plot Time
Plot Time
July 2003
Exporting Output to MS Word
(by: Richard Ay)
All COADE engineering products include an option to export output
data directly to MS WORD. Since introducing this capability a
small but noticeable percentage of our users have been unable to
utilize this option. Initial investigation revealed two reasons for this
difficulty:
1) Failure to register the “outword.dll” DLL with the system.
Manually registering the DLL using “regsvr32.exe” usually
resolved this issue.
2) Norton Anti-Virus installations by default turn off scripting
abilities. This prevents macros from running, which
disabled the COADE interface into MS Word. Some
versions of NAV (Norton Ant-Virus) allowed users to
configure NAV to allow scripting. This allowed some
users to then send COADE output to MS WORD.
However, enough problems persisted so that we rewrote our MS
WORD interface. We abandoned the “macros” and wrote the
necessary procedures into the “outword.dll” DLL. This resolved
more issues, but not all. A number of users were still facing the
“Unable to launch MS WORD” message. This message is a
COADE message that indicates the COADE product is installed
and functioning as designed, but that WORD failed to start.
The problem was finally traced, again, to Norton Anti-Virus. NAV
inserts a key in the System Registry that forces MS WORD to ask
permission before starting. NAV denies permission to all
applications except Internet Explorer. (This is not good because
this registry key is buried beneath a Microsoft Word key, in a part of
the registry users should not really be adjusting.) However, the
solution is to remove this key and contact Norton.
Unfortunately, this isn’t a permanent solution because NAV will
re-insert the key, on some machines everytime it reboots. Even
though some versions of NAV have an “enable Word Automation”
option, it doesn’t correct this problem with the registry. Some
versions of NAV insert this key and provide NO “enable Word
Automation” switch. Uninstalling NAV does not remove this key
from the registry! Norton says they are working on the problem –
see the information in the figure below, from Norton’s web site.
For those who want to edit their registry and remove this key,
perform these steps.
1.
Click the Start|Run menu, then type REGEDIT in the “Run”
dialog box.
2.
Expand the HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID key.
3.
Scroll down the list until you see {00020906-0000-0000C000-000000000046} and expand it. There are several keys
that look alike, or differ by only one number, so make sure
that the one you choose matches exactly. This is the “secret
code” used by Microsoft to determine when and how Windows
will start MSWord.
4.
Under this key will be an entry named “InProcServer32”.
Right-click it and select “Delete”. The value that is stored
here points to a Norton file named “Symantec Shared/Script
Blocking/scrblock.dll”. This part of the registry should look
like the figure below.
7
July 2003
CAESAR II Version 4.50
(by: Richard Ay)
CAESAR II Version 4.50 will likely be in “Beta Testing” by the
time you read this. In addition to piping code revisions, some of the
other enhancements for this release include:
•
Revised material database for B31.1 A2002 changes
•
“Load Case Template” implemented for recommending static
load cases.
•
Reducer element added.
•
Major graphics improvements, including:
•
A walk-through option is available.
•
The static output processor can now produce
colored stress plots of the piping system.
•
A graphical find (zoom to) option has been added.
•
Model drawing during CPU idle time.
5.
Close REGEDIT.
6.
CAESAR II should be able to invoke MSWord now, at least
until NAV modifies the registry again.
•
The static output processor remembers all user settings (filters,
labels, and report size).
If modifying the registry isn't an option, the only solution we are
aware of is to remove NAV from the machine.
•
New dynamic (HTML) help system for piping input and
configuration.
•
Automatic acquisition of website software updates.
•
Combined WRC-107/297 module for local stress calculations
•
The structural steel interface has been redesigned for easier
operation.
•
Spectrum generation wizard
Users who continue to have problems exporting data to MS WORD,
and have had NAV installed at anytime on their machine, should
contact Norton directly.
8
July 2003
Integration of Tubesheet and
Expansion Joint Analysis
Tubes tab:
(by: Mandeep Singh)
In previous versions of CodeCalc, the fixed tubesheet and the thick
Expansion Joint (flanged and flued) modules were not integrated. If
the exchanger design required a thick expansion joint, a manual
transfer of some information (spring rates and prime pressures)
between the tubesheet results and the expansion joint input must
have been made. In version 6.50 these two modules have been
integrated. Hopefully this automation reduces the design time of
these elements and reduces transcription errors.
Input on the tubes tab was reorganized for consistency. Check the
box “Tube to Tubesheet Joint information”, to enter information
about the Tube-Tubesheet joint. CodeCalc will use this information
to check tube to tubesheet welds, and in the case of fixed tubesheets,
compute the allowable tube to tubesheet joint load.
In this version, when multiple fixed tubesheet load cases are
analyzed, the corresponding expansion joint cases are automatically
run. A summary of results is provided at the end of the report. A
single execution of the TEMA tubesheet module can accomplish
what required many different runs and manual data transfer between
modules, in the previous version.
Discussion of the New Input
On the Shell tab the design code can be selected from the drop down
box. The British code (PD 5500) is available in conjunction with
the TEMA code. This allows the program to customize the input per
the appropriate code selected.
Shell tab:
Using the Tube joint type
and the “tested” check box,
program automatically puts
in the “fr” joint factor.
Option to specify
design code
9
July 2003
Tubesheet Tab:
This button sets default expansion joint dimensions,
based on the shell thickness and material
Procedure for analyzing a Fixed Tubesheet with a Thick
Expansion Joint:
This button merges the
flange, gasket and bolting
input from an existing
flange, into this
tubesheet.
Typically in the first pass a fixed tubesheet is analyzed without an
expansion joint. If the configuration (tubes, shell or tubesheet) does
not pass, and if the cause of the failure is due to differential thermal
expansion, a thick or thin expansion joint can be added. If a thick
(flanged and flued) expansion joint is selected, CodeCalc follows
these steps:
1.
This button merges the flange, gasket and bolting input from an
existing flange, into this tubesheet input.
The axial spring rate of the expansion joint is computed in
both the corroded and new conditions.
2.
The expansion joint spring rate is used to compute equivalent
differential pressure.
Expansion Joint Tab:
3.
Next the program extracts the prime pressures (P’s, P’t, Pd)
from the output of the tubesheet calculation and uses those
values to compute the expansion joint stresses.
4.
If multiple tubesheet load cases are selected, a corresponding
expansion joint analysis is automatically performed.
Results of all the runs are summarized in tabular format like the one
below:
Fixed Tubesheet Required Thickness per TEMA 8th Edition:
The above screen becomes active only in the case of fixed tubesheet
exchangers. The expansion joint can be either a thin (bellows type)
or thick (flanged/flued type) or there can be no joint at all.
For a thin expansion joint, only the axial spring rate needs to be
specified.
For a thick expansion joint, either the spring rate needs to be
specified (Design option set to ‘Existing’) or analyze the expansion
joint geometry and allow CodeCalc to compute the spring rate and
expansion joint stresses (Design option set to ‘Analyze’).
10
Reqd. Thk. + CA
—— P r e s s u r e s
Case
Pass/
Case# Tbsht
Extnsn
Pt’
Ps’
PDif
Type
Fail
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
1uc
1.471
0.000
71.07
0.00
0.00
Fvs+Pt-Th-Ca
Ok
2uc
0.750
0.000
0.00
2.39
0.00
Ps+Fvt-Th-Ca
Ok
3uc
1.471
0.000
71.07
2.74
0.00
Ps+Pt-Th-Ca
Ok
4uc
0.757
0.000
0.00
0.00
-37.66 Fvs+Fvt+Th-Ca
Ok
5uc
1.471
0.000
71.04
0.00
-39.07
Fvs+Pt+Th-Ca
Ok
6uc
0.784
0.000
0.00
2.65
-37.75
Ps+Fvt+Th-Ca
Ok
7uc
1.471
0.000
71.04
2.74
-39.07
Ps+Pt+Th-Ca
Ok
8uc
0.750
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.00 Fvs+Fvt-Th-Ca
Ok
1c
1.491
0.000
70.45
0.00
0.00
Fvs+Pt-Th+Ca
Ok
2c
0.775
0.000
0.00
2.25
0.00
Ps+Fvt-Th+Ca
Ok
3c
1.491
0.000
70.45
2.64
0.00
Ps+Pt-Th+Ca
Ok
4c
0.839
0.000
0.00
0.00
-43.40 Fvs+Fvt+Th+Ca
Ok
5c
1.490
0.000
70.42
0.00
-45.02
Fvs+Pt+Th+Ca
Ok
6c
0.863
0.000
0.00
2.55
-43.50
Ps+Fvt+Th+Ca
Ok
7c
1.490
0.000
70.42
2.63
-45.02
Ps+Pt+Th+Ca
Ok
8c
0.775
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.00 Fvs+Fvt-Th+Ca
Ok
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Max: 1.491
0.000 in.
Given Tubesheet Thickness:
2.0000 in.
Note:
Fvt,Fvs
0.0.
Ps, Pt
Th
Ca
- User-defined Shell-side and Tube-side vacuum pressures or
- Shell-side and Tube-side Design Pressures.
- With or Without Thermal Expansion.
- With or Without Corrosion Allowance.
July 2003
Tube and Shell Stress Summary:
————— Shell Stresses
————— Tube Stresses Tube Loads Pass
Case# Ten Allwd
Cmp Allwd
Ten Allwd
Cmp Allwd
Ld Allwd Fail
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
1uc
75 20000
0 -13887
2163 19300
0 -5740
303 2160
Ok
2uc
67 20000
0 -13887
0 19300
-138 -5740
19 2160
Ok
3uc
142 20000
0 -13887
2163 19300
-138 -5740
303 2160
Ok
4uc
479 20000
0 -13887
0 19300 -1346 -5395
0 2160
Ok
5uc
517 20000
0
0
2158 19300 -1346 -5395
302 2160
Ok
6uc
479 20000
0 -13887
0 19300 -1483 -5395
19 2160
Ok
7uc
517 20000
0
0
2158 19300 -1483 -5395
302 2160
Ok
8uc
0 20000
0 -13887
0 19300
0 -5740
0 2160
Ok
1c
89 20000
0 -13824
2170 19300
0 -5740
304 2160
Ok
2c
67 20000
0 -13824
0 19300
-136 -5740
19 2160
Ok
3c
156 20000
0 -13824
2170 19300
-135 -5740
304 2160
Ok
4c
568 20000
0 -13824
0 19300 -1570 -5395
0 2160
Ok
5c
613 20000
0
0
2166 19300 -1570 -5395
303 2160
Ok
6c
568 20000
0 -13824
0 19300 -1705 -5395
19 2160
Ok
7c
613 20000
0
0
2166 19300 -1705 -5395
303 2160
Ok
8c
0 20000
0 -13824
0 19300
0 -5740
0 2160
Ok
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
MAX RATIO 0.031
0.000
0.112
0.316
0.141
Summary of Expansion Jt Results, (displays the worst case):
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —
Category
Max. Stress
Allowable
Location
Ld Case
Pass
(psi)
(junction)
Tsht ExpJt
Fail
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Annul. Elm.
-38456.
65000. Inside
5c
Pt+Pd
Pass
Cyl. at Y
-989.
65000. Inside
7uc
Ps+Pt+Pd
Pass
Cyl. at L
850.
65000. Inside
5c
Pt+Pd
Pass
Cycle Life
82089
10000 Inside
7c
Pt+Pd
Pass
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
In conclusion, the integration of thick expansion joint and fixed
tubesheet analysis provides a solution technique that is easier and
less prone to input errors. Also, the overall length of the printed
reports is reduced.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
W+T1+P1 (OPE)
W+T2+P1 (OPE)
W+P1 (SUS)
L1-L3 (EXP)
L2-L3 (EXP)
What the article explains is that one more load case is required to
completely satisfy the intent of the code, to address the phrase “or
any anticipated condition with a greater differential effect”. This
greater differential is created by cycling between T1 and T2.
Therefore, to completely satisfy the intent of the code, another load
case must be setup as follows:
6) L1-L2 (EXP)
CAESAR II doesn’t setup this last load case, since the program
doesn’t know what the loads (T1 and T2) represent. The construction
of load case 6 above is the user’s responsibility.
Other situations exist where the user must review the load cases
recommended and consider whether or not they completely satisfy
code requirements. For example, consider the system shown in the
figure below, having a single operating temperature, but where at
any given time, one of the pump branch legs could be “spared”.
Satisfying Expansion Load Case
Requirements
(by: Richard Ay)
Typical Power and Process piping codes evaluate the stresses of a
piping system under in three different states; sustained (or primary),
expansion (or secondary), and occasional. The focus of this article
is on the proper evaluation of the expansion stresses, and the
corresponding load case setup.
The B31.3 code in Paragraph 319.2.3.b states “While stresses
resulting from displacement strains diminish with time due to
yielding or creep, the algebraic difference between strains in the
extreme displacement condition and the original (as-installed)
condition (or any anticipated condition with a greater differential
effect) remains substantially constant during any one cycle of
operation. This difference in strains produces a corresponding
stress differential, the displacement stress range, which is used as
the criterion in the design of piping for flexibility.” A previous
article in this newsletter (Expansion Case for Temperatures Below
Ambient, May 1993, p32) discusses this requirement, using an
example situation where the system has two temperatures, one
above ambient and one below ambient. To summarize, in this
situation, CAESAR II would recommend the following load cases:
Example System from WRC-449
11
To analyze this system, the following temperature vectors could be
defined.
July 2003
12) L3-L4 (EXP)
OPE case A minus OPE case B
13) L3-L5 (EXP)
OPE case A minus OPE case C
•
“T1” vector – entire system at operating temperature to design
hangers
14) L3-L6 (EXP)
OPE case A minus OPE case D
•
“T2” vector – entire system at operating temperature except
leg 1 at ambient
15) L4-L5 (EXP)
OPE case B minus OPE case C
16) L4-L6 (EXP)
OPE case B minus OPE case D
•
leg 2 at ambient
17) L5-L6 (EXP)
OPE case C minus OPE case D
•
leg 3 at ambient
This situation is different than the one discussed in the previous
newsletter article. There is only one operating temperature.
However, to satisfy the intent of the code (the extreme displacement
stress range), what are the necessary load cases?
CAESAR II will recommend the following set of load cases:
1) W (HGR)
restrained weight case for
hanger design
2) W+D1+T1+P1 (HGR)
hot case for hanger design
3) W+D1+T1+P1+H (OPE)
OPE case A with all legs hot
4) W+D2+T2+P1+H (OPE)
OPE case B with leg 1 spared
5) W+D3+T3+P1+H (OPE)
OPE case C with leg 2 spared
6) W+D4+T4+P1+H (OPE)
OPE case D with leg 3 spared
7) W+P1+H (SUS)
Sustained (ambient) case
8) L3-L7 (EXP)
OPE case A minus Sustained
9) L4-L7 (EXP)
OPE case B minus Sustained
10) L5-L7 (EXP)
OPE case C minus Sustained
11) L6-L7 (EXP)
OPE case D minus Sustained
Are these cases sufficient?
The answer is “no”, they are not sufficient. The system could cycle
between OPE case B and OPE case C, or between OPE case B and
OPE case D, or between OPE case C and OPE case D. So to
completely satisfy the intent of the code, the following additional
load cases must be setup.
12
These six additional cases consider the effects of the system cycling
between the different possible operating states. This cycling can
cause the “extreme” displacement range the code requires.
CAESAR II has no knowledge of what OPE cases 3, 4, 5, and 6
represent, therefore the program is unable (at the present time) to
include cases 12 through 17 when it performs its recommendations.
These additional load cases are the responsibility of the user.
According to the code, the expansion stress range SE is the largest
computed displacement stress range. However, SE could come
from different load combinations, which is a point many analysts
miss. For example, consider the metering station shown in the
figure below.
Metering Station
Either leg could be hot, with the other leg cold. The greatest stress
on the tees occurs when switching from one leg to the other. The
difference between these two operating conditions will produce the
“extreme” condition for the proper stress evaluation of the tees.
Understanding the requirements of the applied piping code, as well
as what the recommended load cases represent, is necessary in
determining if the intent of the code is completely satisfied, or if
additional load cases are necessary.
July 2003
Mass Spacing for Dynamic Analysis
(by: Richard Ay)
Many times when constructing a model for static analysis in
CAESAR II, node points are defined only when data changes.
Examples of this are: pipe property changes, load changes, geometry
changes, and boundary conditions. In most instances, this nodal
layout is sufficient for a static analysis. However, if it is necessary
to evaluate the system for dynamic response, the typical nodal
layout for a static analysis may be insufficient. This is because in a
dynamic analysis of a piping system, the mass is lumped at the node
points. Insufficient nodal spacing causes insufficient mass lumping,
leading to inaccuracies in the dynamic solution.
Many codes, standards, and technical papers provide similar
equations and guidelines for determining the maximum nodal spacing
for dynamic analysis. What is the origin of these equations, and
how can they be applied to piping systems?
The basis for the maximum nodal (mass) spacing is founded on the
Euler beam equation. Assuming a simply supported beam, the
Euler beam equation relates the circular frequency of harmonic
motion ( ω ) to the length of the beam (l), its flexural rigidity (EI),
and its mass per unit length (w/g). The mass per unit length (w/g)
should include the contribution from the pipe, the fluid contents,
and any insulation if applicable.
ωn =
EIg
( nπ ) 2
*
2
l
w
The term (n π )2 is valid for simply supported beams only, where (n)
is the mode of vibration. This equation can be easily rearranged to
solve for the length (l), which will correspond to a specified
frequency. Substituting ω = 2 π f, the equation used to determine
the span length corresponding to frequency (f in Hz) is:
l2 =
Setting (n) to 1 (indicating the first mode of vibration) and setting
(f) to the cutoff frequency (for the eigen extraction) yields the
minimum wavelength of interest. (This is an important point, which
indicates that the minimum wavelength depends on the type of
dynamic analysis being performed.)
Now that we have the minimum wavelength of interest in the model,
idea is to provide sufficient mass points along this span to adequately
model this mode (frequency). This can be accomplished by
introducing a constant into the above equation, resulting in:
l2 = k2 *
EIg
(nπ ) 2
*
2πf
w
This equation therefore yields the maximum recommended distance
between the mass points. How does one determine the constant
“k”? Work has been done that shows when 3 intermediate mass
points are used along the span, an accuracy of 99.7% is achieved for
the first mode of vibration (of the span). When 2 intermediate mass
points are used, an accuracy of 99% is achieved. (Of course, all
frequencies below the cut-off frequency will be even more accurately
modeled.) Relating the number of mass points to the constant “k”
means that for 3 mass points the span is broken into fourths, thus
“k” is ¼. Similarly, for two mass points the span is broken into
thirds, thus “k” is 1/3. Therefore the value of (k) is chosen based
upon the accuracy desired.
To aid COADE users in determining the suggested maximum nodal
spacing (the distance between mass points), a small utility program
has been developed. The first step in utilizing this utility is to select
the desired units system, as shown in the figure below.
EIg
( nπ ) 2
*
2πf
w
How do we use this? The vibrating wave in a pipeline can be
approximated as the vibration of a simply supported pipe (beam).
Therefore this equation can be used to calculate the distance between
nodes (points of no movement) in the vibrating wave (this is the half
wavelength).
13
July 2003
Once this selection has been made, the “Pipe Data” tab can be
presented. Filling in the necessary data and clicking on the
[Calculate] button yields the maximum suggested nodal spacing, as
shown in the figure below.
Typical approaches for FFS (Fitness For Service) as indicated in
API 579 are as follows:
•
Identifying the Flaw and Damage Mechanism.
•
Reviewing the Applicability and Limitations of the FFS
Assessment Procedures.
•
Gathering data.
•
Applying the assessment techniques and comparing the result
to the acceptance criteria.
•
Estimating the remaining life for the inspection interval.
•
Applying remediation as appropriate.
•
Applying in-service monitoring as appropriate.
•
Documenting the results
Common degradation mechanisms include general corrosion,
localized corrosion, pitting corrosion, blister, mechanical distortion
etc. The procedures on how to assess these common flaws are
discussed in the sections described in the Table of Contents of the
API 579 document.
This utility program can be acquired from the CAESAR II download
area of the COADE web site. This program can be used to check
the maximum nodal spacing of models before running dynamic
analysis.
Assessing the Metal Loss Flaws
using API Recommended
Practice 579
•
Section 1 – Introduction
•
Section 2 – Fitness-For-Service Engineering Assessment
Procedure
•
Section 3 – Assessment of Equipment for Brittle Fracture
•
Section 4 – Assessment of General Metal Loss
•
Section 5 – Assessment of Local Metal Loss
•
Section 6 – Assessment of Pitting Corrosion
•
Section 7 – Assessment of Blisters and Laminations
•
Section 8 – Assessment of Weld Misalignment and Shell
Distortions
•
Section 9 – Assessment of Crack-Like Flaws
•
Section 10 – Assessment of Component Operating in the
Creep Regimes
•
Section 11 – Assessment of Fire Damage
(by: Kevin Kang)
Corrosion and groove-like flaws are common problems that are
experienced by vessels in service. Loss of metal through the vessel
wall thickness reduces the strength of the component. At some
localized points, these flaws may reduce the vessel wall thickness
below a minimum Code requirement. Rather than replace the vessel
with a new one, the integrity of the vessel may be checked to
determine its remaining life and whether it can continue to operate
at some specified conditions.
API document Recommended Practice 579 can be used to evaluate
the integrity and operational safety of process plant equipment,
such as pressure vessels, piping and storage tanks. The results of
the assessment procedure will provide an estimate for the strength
and the remaining life of the equipment.
14
The recently released PVElite 5.0 and CodeCalc 6.5 programs
have included metal loss assessments according to API 579 Section
4 and Section 5 for vessel elements such as cylindrical shells,
simple cones and formed heads. The analysis can be performed
using the Shell and Head Module as depicted in Figure 1 below.
July 2003
Section 4 covers FFS assessment procedures for components subject
to general metal loss resulting from corrosion and/or erosion. Section
5, on the other hand, is a method for analyzing local metal loss or
Local Thin Areas (LTAs) that include groove-like flaws or gouges.
In general, flaw assessment using Section 4 provides conservative
results.
The differences between Section 4 and 5 when applied to LTAs are
as follows:
•
Section 4: rules for all Level 1 and 2 assessments are based on
average thickness averaging approach in which is used with
Code rules to determine acceptability for continued operation.
•
Section 5: rules for Level 1 and Level 2 assessments are based
on establishing a Remaining Strength Factor (RSF) in which
is used to determine acceptability for continued operation.
The assessment type either using Section 4 or Section 5 can be
selected from the API 579(FFS) tab, as shown in Figure 2.
The Assessment of General Metal Loss described in Section 4 can
be performed using either point thickness (random type readings) or
profile thickness (grid type readings) measurement data. The
selection of the data type readings can be made in the Data
Measurement tab as shown in Figure 3a. The API Recommended
Practice 579 requires a minimum of 15 measurement data. CodeCalc
can accommodate up to 99 points.
Figure 2. General and Local Metal Loss Selection
Figure 3a. Data Measurement Type Selection
Figure 1. API 579 Analysis Selection
15
The localized metal loss assessment described in Section 5, however,
can only be performed using profile thickness data. The data matrix
can be set up by providing the number of points in both
circumferential and longitudinal directions. The matrix size in this
case is limited to maximum 9x9.
For convenience, Critical Thickness Profile (CTP) data entry is also
provided.
The measurement data grid dialog is pictured below in Figure 3b.
July 2003
API 579 Section 4 limitations for Level 1 and Level 2 assessments
are as follows:
•
Original design in accordance with a recognized code or
standard.
•
The component is not operating in the creep range.
•
The region of metal loss has relatively smooth contours
without notches.
•
The component is not in cyclic service (less than 150 total
cycles).
•
The component under evaluation does not contain crack-like
flaws.
•
The component under evaluation has a design equation in
which specifically relates pressure and/or other loads, as
applicable, to a required wall thickness.
•
With some exception, the following specific components not
having equation relating pressure and/or other loads to a
required wall thickness may be evaluated using Level 2:
•
Pressure vessel nozzles and piping branch connections
Figure 3b. Profile Thickness Data Grid
•
Cylinder to flat head junctions
For most evaluations, it is recommended to first perform the
assessment using Section 4, then move on using Section 5 if
necessary. The rules in Section 4 have been structured to provide
consistent results with Section 5. However, it is the engineer’s
responsibility to review the Assessment Applicability and Limitation
whenever the assessment is changed.
•
Integral tubesheet connections
•
Flanges
•
Piping systems
When the acceptance criteria either passes or fails, a respective
remaining life using a thickness approach or a de-rated value of the
MAWP of the vessel will be calculated automatically.
There are three (3) levels of evaluations available for each flaw type
described in general as follows:
•
Level 1 - typically involving a simplified method using
charts, simple formulae, and conservative
assumptions.
•
Level 2 - generally requires more detailed evaluation and
produces more accurate results
•
Level 3 - allows flaw assessment using more sophisticated
methods such as FEA.
16
Note: Currently CodeCalc does not support API 579 analysis
on nozzle, flange, tubesheet, flathead, and piping system
components.
The following limitations on applied loads are satisfied:
•
Level 1 assessment: components are subject to internal and/or
external pressure (negligible supplemental loads).
•
Level 2 assessment: components are subject to internal and/or
external pressure and/or supplemental loads such as weight,
wind and earthquake.
Limitations for the API 579 Section 5 Level 1 and Level 2
assessments are similar to the limitations for Section 4 above with
the following additions:
•
The components cannot be subjected to external pressure, or
if the flaw is located in the knuckle region of elliptical head
(outside of the 0.8D region), torispherical/toriconical head, or
conical transition.
July 2003
•
•
The material component is considered to have sufficient
material toughness.
Special provisions provided for groove-like flaws such as:
•
Groove (no mechanical cold work).
•
Gouge (mechanical cold work).
It is important that the user fully understand the scope
limitations on each level of the assessments. Please refer to API
Recommended Practice 579 for more details.
The following is the assessment results of the example problem
5.11.1 described in the API Recommended Practice 579 book
analyzed using PVElite 5.0 or CodeCalc 6.5.
The metal loss flaw is categorized as localized corrosion with CTP
measurements along longitudinal and circumferential directions as
outlined in Figure 4.
Input Echo, Component
1,
Description: E5111
Design Internal Pressure
Temperature for Internal Pressure
P
300.00
650.00
Include Hydrostatic Head Components
NO
Material Specification (Not Normalized)
Material UNS Number
Allowable Stress At Temperature
Allowable Stress At Ambient
Curve Name for Chart UCS 66
Joint efficiency for Shell Joint
Design Length of Section
Length of Cylinder for Volume Calcs.
Inside Diameter of Cylindrical Shell
psig
F
psi
psi
E
SA-516 70
K02700
17500.00
20000.00
B
1.00
L
CYLLEN
D
120.0000
20.0000
96.0000
in.
in.
in.
T
T
FCA
1.2500
1.2500
0.1250
Inside
0.1000
0.9000
60.0000
300.00
0.0010
in.
in.
in.
S
SA
Minimum Thickness of Pipe or Plate
Nominal Thickness of Pipe or Plate
Future Corrosion Allowance
Flaw Location
Uniform Thickness Loss
Allowable Remaining Strength Factor
Minimum Dist. to a Major Struct. Disc.
User Input MAWP
Annual Corrosion Rate
XLOSS
RSFA
Lmsd
MAWP
Crate
Near Axisymmetry Discontinuity
in.
in.
psig
in.
No
Thickness Measurement Type
Number of Points in Circumferential Dir. NROW
Number of Points in Longitudinal Dir.
NCOL
Circumferential Grid Size
GRIDSC
Longitudinal Grid Size
GRIDSL
Profile
5
9
1.0000
0.5000
Skip UG-16(b) Min. thickness calculation
NO
Type of Element:
Cylindrical Shell
API579 ANALYSIS RESULTS, SHELL NUMBER
1, Desc.: E5111
Inside Diameter (D) with XLOSS:
Thickness (T) with XLOSS:
96.2000
1.1500
in.
in.
Circumferential Minimum Required Thickness (TMINC):
= (P*(D/2+FCA))/(S*E-0.6*P) per UG-27 (c)(1)
= (300.00*(96.2000/2+0.1250))/(17500.00*1.00-0.6*300.00)
= 0.8353 in.
Longitudial Minimum Required Thickness (TMINL):
= (P*(D/2+FCA))/(2*S*E+0.4*P) + tsl
= (300.00*(96.2000/2+0.1250))/(2*17500.00*1.00+0.4*300.00)+0.000
= 0.4119 in.
Figure 4. Flaw CTPs Along Longitudinal and
Circumferential Directions
Max. All. Working Pressure at Given Thickness (MAWP):
= (S*E*(T-FCA))/((D/2+FCA)+0.6*(T-FCA)) per UG-27 (c)(1)
= (17500.00*1.00*(1.0250))/((96.2000/2+0.1250)+0.6*1.0250)
= 367.27 psig
Min. Metal Temp. w/o impact per Fig. UCS-66
Min. Metal Temp. at Req’d thk. (per UCS 66.1)
38
-72
F
F
Minimum Required Thickness (TMIN):
= MAX[ TMINC, TMINL, Tca ]
= MAX[ 0.835, 0.412, 0.000 ]
= 0.835 in.
Thickness Profile Analysis Results:
Critical Thickness Profile in Longitudinal Dir., CTPL (in.):
1.150 0.810 0.750 0.700 0.620 0.450 0.650 0.900 1.150
Critical Thickness Profile in Circumferential Dir., CTPC (in.):
1.150 0.700 0.450 0.810 1.150
Minimum Measured Thickness
Remaining Thickness Ratio ((TMM-FCA)/TMIN)
Factor from Table 4.4
TMM =
Rt =
Q =
0.450
0.389
0.447
in.
Length for Thickness Averaging (XL):
= Q * SQRT(D * TMIN)
= 0.447 * SQRT( 96.000 * 0.835)
= 3.999 in.
Using Para. 4.4.2.1.e.2.b
Circ.(C) |
Long.(S)
(TMM at midpoint of XL)
in. |
in.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Flaw Dimension
3.021 |
3.342
17
July 2003
PC Hardware/Software for the
Engineering User (Part 34)
SECTION 5, Local Metal Loss Analysis
Limiting Flaw Size Check:
Rt >= 0.20
0.389 >= 0.20
TRUE
(TMM - FCA) >= 0.10
( 0.450 - 0.125) >= 0.10
0.325 >= 0.10 TRUE
(by: Richard Ay)
Lmsd >= 1.8 * SQRT(D * TMIN)
60.0000 >= 1.8 * SQRT( 96.000 * 0.835)
60.000 >= 16.119 TRUE
If you don’t use Windows Messenger, you probably want to turn off
the “auto load” of this application. This will save some system
resources, and simply avoid the nuisance of seeing its icon in your
task bar tray. Here is how to turn this off, for good.
SECTION 5 LEVEL 1 ANALYSIS:
Shell Parameter (LAMDA):
= 1.285 * S / SQRT(D * TMIN)
= 1.285 * 3.342 / SQRT( 96.000 * 0.835)
= 0.480
Longitudinal Check:
Figure 5.6 check is ACCEPTABLE with: LAMDA =
Rt =
Windows XP – “Windows Messenger”
0.480
0.389
Folias Factor (Mt):
= SQRT(1 + 0.48 * LAMDA²)
= SQRT(1 + 0.48 * 0.480)
= 1.054
1.
Click [Start], then [Run]
2.
Type in “gpedit.msc” and press [Enter]. This will start the
“Group Policy Editor”.
3.
Double click these items to expand them: local computer
policy, computer configurations, administrative templates,
Windows components, Windows Messenger.
4.
Now double-click “Do not allow Windows Messenger to
run”, then click [Enabled].
5.
Click [OK] and then quit the “Group Policy Editor”.
Remaining Strength Factor (RSF):
= Rt / (1 - 1 / Mt * (1 - Rt))
= 0.389 / (1 - 1 / 1.054 * (1 - 0.389))
= 0.926 >= RSFA ( 0.900 ) Acceptable
Circumferential Check:
* Figure 5.7 check is ACCEPTABLE with: C/D = 0.031
Rt = 0.389
SUMMARY SECTION 5 LEVEL 1 ANALYSIS:
Calculated
Allowable
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Long./Merid. - RSF
0.926
0.900
Passed
Circ. - Figure 57 Check
Passed
For Windows Messenger Version 4.5 or later, please refer to http://
support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q302089&.
(Note the semicolons in this link!)
** Section 5 Level 1 Assessment criteria are satisfied **
RLife (Iteration Method) |RSF—>RSFA
years
| : 168.90
|Rt—>(TMM-(Crate * Time))/TMIN|
SECTION 5 LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS:
Longitudinal Check:
Using Slicing Method:
With
*
S =
* Length Inc.=
Acceptable
3.342
0.025
in. | Calculated RSFmin: 0.977
in. | RSFmin > RSFA (0.900)
Advanced Searching on the Microsoft (and other) Web Sites
Sooner or later you will have a problem where you need to search
the “knowledge base” on Microsoft’s web site. This is such a large
web site, navigation can be difficult. However, the link below is
designed to bring up a Google search page, that only searches
Microsoft’s support database. The link is:
Circumferential Check:
* Figure 5.7 check is ACCEPTABLE with: C/D = 0.031
Rt = 0.389
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=+site:
support.microsoft.com
SUMMARY SECTION 5 LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS WITH NO LOAD:
Calculated
Allowable
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Long./Merid. - RSF
0.977
0.900
Passed
Circ. - Figure 57 Check
Passed
Once this search page is displayed, fill in your search criteria, then
click [Google Search]. This same idea can be extended to any web
site. For example, to search the COADE web site for any articles or
documents on friction, this link can be used:
** Section 5 Level 2 Assessment criteria are satisfied **
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=+site:www.coade.com
CodeCalc 6.5, 2003 ©1989-2003 by COADE Engineering Software
As shown in both the Level 1 and Level 2 summaries of the report,
the flaw located on the inside of a vessel does pass Level 1 and
Level 2 assessment criteria. In general, the Level 2 assessment is
not needed when the flaw has passed the Level 1 assessment.
However, for checking purposes, both levels of assessment are
performed unless restricted by the scope of limitations.
18
Simply change the URL of the website, following the “+site:”
qualifier.
July 2003
Is Spam the Majority of Your E-mail?
2) Shut down Outlook for the installation procedure.
Many articles have recently been published concerning the e-mail
spam problem. “Spam” is the current hot topic in the press. Some
views even go so far as to claim that spam could render e-mail
useless in the near future if a solution to this problem is not found.
3) Install the Python package, then the Win32 extensions, then
the SpamBayes package.
The discussion of one possible solution appeared in the April 2003
issue of Network Magazine, in an article titled “Fighting the Spam
Monster – and Winning”. The article discussed the various methods
used to fight spam, with particular attention on Bayesian Filtering.
Bayesian filtering is an attempt to classify e-mail based on snippets
of text from the e-mail, and a mathematical algorithm to determine
the probability that the message is good, bad, or unsure. The
advantages and disadvantages of Bayesian filtering are summarized
in the following table.
Advantage
Disadvantage
Very effective filtering, over 95%
of spam caught
Computationally intensive
Generates few false positives
Not well suited for
upstream server installation
Automatically learns
Hard for spammers to trick
Allows user fine tuning
Additional details are discussed in the referenced article. So, what
is necessary, how is it setup, how does it work. (The following
details are provided for information only. While COADE is
currently testing the implementation described here, this is not
COADE software. Therefore, COADE can not provide assistance
or support for this anti-spam tool.) The starting point should be
http://spambayes.sourceforge.net, which contains explanations and
other necessary links. To summarize, the following steps should be
implemented:
4) After installation, run “addin.py”, then view about.html.
5)
If the installation succeeded, you should see three new
controls on the Outlook toolbar, as shown in the figure below.
6) Create two new folders in Outlook, the names are irrelevant,
but “spam” and “possible-spam” are good choices.
7) Gather as many “spam” e-mails as possible, and move them to
your “spam” folder.
8) Use the “Anti-Spam control to specify all of your folders with
“good e-mails”, and your “spam” folder.
9) Then use the “train now” option to initialize and train the
Bayesian filter.
As new e-mails arrive, they are evaluated. If the filter decides the email is good, it is left in your in-box. If the filter decides the e-mail
is spam, it is moved to your “spam” folder. If the filter is unsure
about a particular e-mail, it is moved to the “possible-spam” folder,
at which point you can use either the “Delete As Spam” or “Recover
from Spam” controls. These controls also enhance the training of
the filter, so future, similar, e-mails are handled automatically. It is
also recommended that you occasionally re-train the filter, since
spam is continually changing.
Initial use at COADE has shown that 99% of all spam no longer
resides in the “in-box”. After a few days of use, virtually all spam
goes to the “spam folder”, with the remainder going to the “possiblespam” folder.
1) Download:spambayes-1.0a2.zip which is the Bayesian
filtering package (available from https://sourceforge.net/
project/showfiles.php?group_id=61702)
win32all-153.exe, which is a set of Windows extensions for
Python (available from http://starship.python.net/crew/
mhammond/win32/Downloads.html)
python-2.3a2.exe, which is the Python compiler (available
from http://www.python.org/download/)
19
CAESAR II Notices
Listed below are those errors & omissions in the CAESAR II
program that have been identified since the last newsletter. These
corrections are available for download from our WEB site, for
Version 4.40.
Static Load Case Setup Module / Dynamic Input
•
Corrected the friction multiplier application when static load
cases were deleted on the “edit dialog”.
•
Corrected initialization of load case options when changing
piping codes.
•
Corrected the storage of wind topographical data for wind
vectors 2 through 4. This also affects wave data.
July 2003
Configuration Module
•
Corrected a “version identification” problem which prevented
the “stress color range settings” from being read from existing
configuration files.
•
Added B31.11 as an option for the “default piping code”.
Buried Pipe Module
•
Modified to address new B31.1 materials
•
Corrected the element data space initialization.
Dynamic Output Module
•
Large Job Printing Module
•
Modified to handle correction for spring hanger load variation
calculation when “cold load design” is activated.
Material Database Editor
•
Corrected the identification of the piping code when adding
materials to the data base for codes listed after B31.11.
Material Database
•
Corrected allowables for B31.3 A312 TP347H over 1000
degF.
Corrected a problem on Win98 with “critical code section”
that caused module linked to this DLL to crash on exit.
PipePlus Interface
•
Corrected acquisition of bend data in Pipeplus interface.
•
Corrected units translation for densities in Pipeplus interface.
•
Corrected testing for material and allowable specifications.
•
Corrected restraint processing for multiple restraints at the
same node point.
Structural Modeler
•
20
Corrected so that the interface won’t “eat” trailing zeros on
exponential notation, i.e. “1e10”.
•
translational stiffness units labels
•
B31.3_SUS_SIF_FACTOR display
•
OCCASIONAL_LOAD_FACTOR display
•
Corrected an instance of pathname allocation being too short.
•
Corrected the access of nozzle data for input echos.
Animation Module
•
Corrected an instance of pathname allocation being too short.
Element Generator
•
Corrected an error in generating element loads when “uniform
loads” are in G’s, and “W” (weight), “WNC” (weight no
contents), or “WW” (water weight) are not present in the load
case.
•
Changed to include buoyancy effects in load cases based on
“WW” (weight with water).
Low Level Graphics DLL
•
Corrected the input echo of configuration data for:
Static Solver
•
Corrected the stiffness used for designed constant effort
supports when changing “hanger status” to a setting other than
“as designed”.
•
Corrected the friction loads when the new “friction mulitplier”
was set to zero in the load case setup details.
•
Tweaked the friction algorithm for stiffness reset when
convergence problems occur.
•
Corrected to properly lock “predefined spring hangers” for
the hydrotest load case.
July 2003
Intergraph Interface
•
Updated the splitting of bend elements to address both tees
and dummy legs.
Miscellaneous Computation Processor
•
•
Corrected “imposed limits” on the crotch radius for B31.8
extruded welding tees.
•
Corrected the operation of the “spinner control” on the bend
SIF dialog so that the number of miter cuts is properly
obtained.
•
Corrected the SIFib division by 2 for use in WRC329 EQ 46
when SIFob was previously divided by 2.
•
Corrected message handler from “eating” the “3” key on the
numeric keypad.
Offshore DLL
•
Corrected a “dimensionless parameter” used in the Stream
Function wave theory, which was actually units dependent.
Nozzle Input Echo Format File
•
•
Corrected re-initialization of graphics data space when
switching jobs from within the output processor.
•
Corrected the determination of the data directory path when
switching jobs from within the output processor.
•
Corrected the formatting of node numbers in the “restraint
summary report” for nodes with multiple restraints.
•
•
Corrected the output of the “Lisega” spring size when sending
data through the “Data Export Wizard” (ODBC).
•
Modified to handle correction for spring hanger load variation
calculation when “cold load design” is activated.
Static Stress Computation Module
•
Corrected a material input/output procedure to address
combined piping files.
•
Corrected the usage of “Sh” values for B31.8 Ch VIII,
affecting multipe OPE cases.
•
Modified the bending term in “3D Max Stress Intensity”
calculation for “hydrotest” load cases.
Modified all output filters to use a “logical and” instead of a
“logical or” when a node number range is specified.
•
Added the conversion of the “hydrotest pressure” field to the
routine for input echo display.
•
•
Initialized printer device context flags before getting the
device defaults.
•
Corrected the graphical display of displacement values when
“Z axis vertical” is activated.
•
Corrected the access of nozzle data for input echos.
•
Corrected the printing of stress titles for TD/12 code when the
“yield stress criterion” is set to “Von Mises”.
•
Corrected the computation of spring hanger load variation
when “cold load design” is activated.
•
Corrected shutdown of program using “File\Exit” when printing
is in progress.
Piping Error Check Module
•
Corrected the over-ride of the thickness used in the B31.1
effective section modulus calculation for SUS and OCC load
cases when the “B31.1 Reduced Z Fix” configuration directive
was activated. This change only affects those tees where the
“branch connection” equation is used.
•
•
Corrected “imposed limits” on the crotch radius for B31.8
extruded welding tees.
•
For B31.3 Welding Tees and Sweepolets, changed the test for
“Note 11” to correct a “code” error.
•
Corrected table pointers for B31.1/B31.3 “y” parameter used
in minimum wall thickness calculations.
•
Corrected the SIFib division by 2 for use in WRC329 EQ 46
when SIFob was previously divided by 2.
•
Corrected handling/storage of material data for “included”
job files.
Static Output Module
•
•
Corrected template for nozzle input echo.
ODBC Export DLL
•
21
Interfacing DLL
•
Corrected handling of temporary material file.
Piping Input Module
July 2003
2) Output Module:
•
Corrected the output of the annular base plate weight.
•
Corrected the use of the units conversion constant for
“threads per unit length”.
•
Corrected the activation of the “Eff” field for new jobs when
the code is switched to B31.8.
•
Corrected the use of the units conversion constant for
“nozzle expansion coefficient.
•
Modified so the “seam weld” setting is assumed for new bends
when using the TD/12 code.
•
Corrected the output of two configuration directives for the
input echo.
•
Corrected the operation of the “Element LIST” dialog to
allow proper editing of the fields following the “hydrotest
pressure” field.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Corrected the usage of the “block rotate setup” options.
•
Corrected “SaveAs” function to handle .SOI and .XML files.
•
Corrected the display of the “count” of “node names” in the
model status auxiliary display.
•
Corrected the “UNDO” operation when invoked from the
LIST.
•
Corrected the access of nozzle data for input echoes.
WRC107 Module
•
Corrected the use of the “Z-up” flag.
•
Corrected to initialize all graphics variables between different
load cases
TANK Notices
3) Units Generation Utility:
•
Corrected the conversion factor for “rotational stiffness”
for “N-m/deg”.
4) Error Check Module:
•
Corrected the check of “seismic data” to allow “-1” as valid
input for the seismic zone.
CODECALC Notices
Listed below are those errors & omissions in the CODECALC
program that have been identified since the last newsletter.
1) TEMA Tubesheet module:
•
Properly corroding the outer cylinder of the Expansion Jt.
•
Added warning for the tube pitch.
•
Corrections in the Tube-Tubesheet full-strength weld calcs.
•
Correctly interpreting the flange load transferred to the
tubesheet that are entended but the bolt load is not transferred
to them.
•
For floating tubesheet, added input for G of the stationary
tubesheet.
2) Program Interface:
Listed below are those errors & omissions in the TANK program
that have been identified since the last newsletter. These corrections
are available for download from our WEB site, for Version 2.40.
•
Addressed issues relating to switching between input and
graphics views.
1) Solution Module:
•
Fixed some dialogs that were closing on hitting Enter
key, instead of tabbing to the next input field.
22
•
Corrected the reset of minimum shell thickness (6mm)
when working in metric units.
•
Modified the reading of title page data for older files.
•
Corrected the use of the “FULL_SHELL_
WEIGHT_IN_APP_F” directive in the computations.
•
Added some missing materials in the material database.
July 2003
3) Shell:
11) Some 3D graphics features were fixed, such as nozzle on
nozzle plotting.
•
Corrections to API-579, calculation of c value.
•
Fixed MAWP on the status bar for jobs with static head
specified.
4) Nozzle:
•
12) For leg baseplates when there were 0 bolts in tension the
program could abort.
13) When user defined wind pressure was specified and there was a
top head platform, the wind load on the platform may not have
been calculated in some cases.
Fixed some issues relating to results on the status bar.
5) Flange:
•
Corrections to the blind flange calculations.
•
Added check for Lap Joint.
PVElite Notices
Listed below are those errors & omissions in the PVElite program
that have been identified since the last newsletter.
1) Algebraic force/moment summation for base skirt supported
vessels was corrected.
2) On screen nozzle calcs for external pressure were not considering
the shell CA. This has been corrected.
3) Changed Nozzle diameter limit and added pad area for 5500
closely spaced nozzle check.
4) The “F” factor was being used on offset hillside nozzles in
cylinders unintentionally for the external tr case.
5) Fixed on screen calc of the pad diameter when the pad width
was entered on actual thickness basis for larger nozzles.
6) Fixed the on screen weld calc for required thickness of the
inside weld.
7) Sorted out a memory issue with the output processor and color
hightlighting.
8) Implemented new computation for partial volumes of nonstandard F&D Heads.
9) Sorted out a sign issue for cone/knuckle/ring/shell inertia calc.
10) Fixed the use of local shell thickness for the on screen nozzle
calcs.
14) When user specified axial loads were entered at cone/cylinder
junction, they may not have been consider in the Q calculation.
COADE Releases CADWorx 2004
Simultaneously with AUTOCAD®
2004, Co-Promotes Products with
AUTODESK
(by: John Brinlee)
On March 17, 2003, COADE released CADWorx Version 2004,
the latest version of its AutoCAD-based Plant Design Suite. The
release culminated a development period during which COADE
worked closely with Autodesk as one of only four software
developers worldwide selected to release an AutoCAD 2004-based
product on the same day, coincident with the debut of Autodesk’s
new release, AutoCAD 2004 (note that CADWorx is also compatible
with AutoCAD versions 2000, 2000i, and 2002). CADWorx 2004
not only offers process industry designers the ability to immediately
take advantage of the groundbreaking enhancements in AutoCAD
2004, but also provides many new features compared to COADE’s
previous version, CADWorx 2002.
By leveraging Autodesk’s investment in the next release of
AutoCAD, COADE’s new version of CADWorx greatly increases
the size of plant models that teams of designers can work on
simultaneously, while making it much easier to learn and use the
program. These dramatic improvements in both performance and
functionality are made possible by significant file size reduction,
faster load and save times, enhanced management of external
references (XREFs), and user interface refinements such as the new
tool palette system.
In addition to offering compatibility with AutoCAD 2004, CADWorx
2004 offers many other new features. The CADWorx PIPE 2004
module provides improved integrated steel capabilities, integrated
HVAC/cable tray components, automatic weld gaps, and layering
by line number. New capabilities in CADWorx P&ID 2004 include
enhanced copy procedures, an auto repeat feature, and a dropdown
list for instant data entry.
23
July 2003
Thomas Van Laan, president of COADE, believes that the improvements offered in AutoCAD 2004 are exactly those for which the plant
design industry has been hoping. Says Van Laan, “Our customers are always concerned with three things - speed, size, and how to manage
them - so we think our customers will love this new version of AutoCAD. We’ve found that a 22-megabyte project created under CADWorx
2002 drops to less than 6 megabytes under CADWorx 2004, a dramatic 70%+ reduction in project file size.” Van Laan continued,
“CADWorx has always taken maximum advantage of AutoCAD’s XREF capabilities to the hilt. The new XREF management features,
including improved load speed and change notification, are perfect complements to the way that our customers manage large projects.”
John Sanders, Vice President Platform Technology Division for Autodesk, agrees that COADE has done a great job leveraging the best
features of AutoCAD 2004. Sanders says, “We are very pleased that COADE was able to develop a 2004-compatible version of CADWorx
so quickly. Autodesk has been working very closely with COADE to determine what AutoCAD enhancements that would be most valued by
the plant design community. We’re impressed by how they have leveraged the strengths of AutoCAD 2004 - speed, teamwork and
management - and translated these strengths into productivity improvements for process plant designers. CADWorx 2004 is a great tool for
anyone involved in the design of process plants.”
Following the release, COADE and Autodesk collaborated on a multi-city tour to conclusively demonstrate the advantages of CADWorx
2004 operating in an AutoCAD 2004 environment. Presentations showing how CADWorx 2004 can offer a more economic plant design
solution over a full range of project sizes were made to receptive audiences in Houston, New Orleans, Philadelphia, New York, Boston,
Chicago, Calgary, Singapore, Antwerp, and Moscow with more of the same touted for Birmingham, Atlanta, Seattle and Kuala Lumpur in
mid to late July.
CADWorx 2004 Takes Advantage of
AutoCAD 2004's Finest Features
Gates Barman of Hanover Corporation
Receives the First Copy of CADWorx 2004
COADE Engineering Software
12777 Jones Rd. Suite 480
Houston, Texas 77070
24
Tel: 281-890-4566
Fax: 281-890-3301
Web: www.coade.com
E-Mail: techsupport@coade.com

Expansion Load Case Requirements

Transcription

Similar documents

Consult the PDF.

NATURAL REFLECTIONS

Heading to go here heading to go here

columbia - Alumaweld

PI May 2011 - Petroleum Technical Services LLC.

Quadco`s Forespro® delimbers are engineered with the highest

Fan-Jet® - Bowsmith

Super Soaker Monster XL (2000)

providernews - INTotal Health

our Equipment and Capabilities list

City of Atchison, Kansas