Dear all,

At this time, I try to analyze a system to save some bad piping design.

I have a 48" line that connect to the exhaust of the turbine. The piping design didnt give me enough flexibility to save the turbine nozzle. so Im thinking, What the posible solver is using the expansion joint, but after I do the analysis the expansion joint didnt give so much answer for my problem. Load of the nozzle still to high compare with the allowable

this is my first time to use the expansion joint in my calculation, frankly Im still not sure my EJ model is correct.
so please help me to determine what should the Exp. joint type that I need to select and give me some direction to model the Exp. Joint properly.


here I attach my caesar file

Turbine


Best regard.

Windu

windu,

The expansion joint length of 192 mm is very short for the 1219 mm diameter piping to have any practical lateral flexibilty. There is also the missing pressure effective diameter of the bellows element of expansion joint, which will be at least the 1219 mm of the piping for most designs of the expansion joint.

A tied universal joint is one design for addiing lateral flaexibility to a piping configuration. The addition of a second expansion joint into the horizontal piping just past the elbow might be a simple improvement to get more flexibility to reduce piping loads on the turbine. The piping layout has very little available space for adding components for flexibilty. If the node 140 could be shifted to provide more offset in the piping, then some more flexibility or even space for a tied universal expansion joint could be considered.

Richard,

Thanks for your response,
I have same Idea with you to add second expansion joint into horizontal pipe, and seems It works , but unfortunately node 140 could not be shifted so the turbine nozzle still over loaded. than I try to add spring near the 45 bend and near the reducer and make some adjustment on it. with this configuration I can safe the turbine, but ofcourse the cost will be expensive.

would you please to advise, to make my system more simple

Regards,
WINDU

windu,

The curious feature of the piping is the smaller 762 mm diameter at the node 140 connection. It would be more benefit to use a smaller diameter expansion joint there being more flexible. That would also reduce the cost of the second expansion joint. The 762 mm diameter is a large size, though smaller than the first expansion joint.
A simple straight system is stiff, while more flexibility is needed. The piping system could have been more flexible with a equipment arrangement that would have allowed more offset and length of piping for flexibility. The small lengths of large diameter piping require more complexity, not a simple system, to achieve adequate flexibility. A more flexible piping route might have turned to 'Z' first and then turn '+X' to loop back to the node 140. There would then be three or four elbows to provide more flexibility in the piping. The elbows of 1219 mm piping would take much space that might not be available.

Richard,

Thanks for your advise.
I've passed 2 option of calculation to my client, 1st is my above scenario the second one is based on your suggestion.
Then I let them to decide what scenario will be chosen.

regards,
Windu