Topic Options
#34716 - 05/02/10 01:04 AM Maniflod lines.
Raam____ Offline
Member

Registered: 05/01/10
Posts: 33
Loc: .....
Dear Friends,

I have been learning to do a stress analysis for Manifold lines, which has 5 Headers (24") and several slots (Flow lines - 100 (6")) connecting to each Headers. Design Pressure - 140 bar, T - 100 c, pipe thickness are 32 mm & 14 mm (approx.) and flange ratings are 900 lb. API 5L G. B Material for pipe.

I completely modeled the whole system by providing node increment 2 for every Headers & Slots (Separately drawn H & S and attached). While executing the analysis, I found CAESAR II takes several min to run the model because of less node increment.

Then I decided to split the model into three parts and performed the analysis once again. Now I have a couple of doubts, the place where I separated the second model is 1/3 of the header lines, where there is no anchor. Do I have to enter first part end point D & F for the second part starting point? If I enter the D & F at second part I will get new D & F, so what should I do with that new D & F how to correlate this two. Or else, should I place an anchor at the both parts.

After the First part accomplished, I noticed that the Header line lifts slightly (2 mm) during operating condition but well seated at sustained case (load- 6 tones). Headers are supported by a pipe rack, it has column every 6 meter apart throughout the end. Though the lifting is slightly more it effects in flow lines support (3 tones) which is connected from bottom to the every header through a weldolet. Sustained case 0.8 ton at the flow line support.

Please suggest me how to separate complex model. Though the pipe rack support is a fixed one how to utilize it and make to rest the pipe during operating condition. Also kindly give me some guidelines (reference) to get a better knowledge about this.

------- Raam...

Top
#34731 - 05/03/10 07:56 AM Re: Maniflod lines. [Re: Raam____]
Dave Diehl Offline
Member

Registered: 12/14/99
Posts: 2382
Loc: Houston, TX, USA
The node increment has nothing to do with run time. Because of all the closed loops (my assumption), you have a very large bandwidth for your stiffness matrix.

Breaking the system may run faster but, as you point out, the force and displacement transfer across your breaks cannot balance.

I'd stick with the big job. The several minutes are worth it.
_________________________
Dave Diehl

Top



Moderator:  Denny_Thomas, uribejl 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 45 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
May
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
Forum Stats
12065 Members
14 Forums
16973 Topics
75151 Posts

Max Online: 303 @ 01/28/20 11:58 PM
Top Posters (30 Days)