Topic Options
#494 - 11/08/01 12:35 AM Wind Loading
R Sofijanic Offline
Member

Registered: 11/07/01
Posts: 4
Hi all,
I have analyzed a steam piping system and everything was working perfectly. After adding the wind loading in my static model in operating(case 3) and sustained case (case 4), somehow my expansion stresses (L3-L4) increased significantly (+/-60%)and now they are in excess of allowable. I expected that in this case the wind effects should be cancelled. Could anyone clarify for me why would wind loading have such a great effect in expansion case. confused
_________________________
Ranka Sofijanic

Top
#495 - 11/08/01 07:48 AM Re: Wind Loading
Richard Ay Offline
Member

Registered: 12/13/99
Posts: 6226
Loc: Houston, Texas, USA
The first thing that comes to mind is that your system may be undergoing non-linear restraint changes between Sustained and Operating. Perhaps the wind load is causing a pivoting in the model that causes lift-off from a support?

(The other thing would be some type of input error, but I presume you have checked that out?)

Note that if you have a non-linear system, running a load case as W+P1+Wind1 (OCC) doesn't really satisfy the intent of the code. Your load cases need to be something like this:

1) W+T1+P1 (OPE) := standard operating case
2) W+T1+P1+WIND1 (OPE) := operating plus wind
3) W+P1 (SUS) := standard sustained case
4) L1-L3 (EXP) := standard expansion case
5) L2-L3 (OCC) := operating difference, gives wind effects
6) L5+L3 (OCC) := stress summation, SUS + OCC

Cases 3, 4, and 6 are your code compliance cases.
_________________________
Regards,
Richard Ay - Consultant

Top
#496 - 11/09/01 03:38 AM Re: Wind Loading
R Sofijanic Offline
Member

Registered: 11/07/01
Posts: 4
Thanks for your comments Richard,
I managed to find some recommendations in the COADE's Seminar Notes (page 2-53). It is advised that sustained +wind is checked against allowable, but not thermal +wind.
I assume your case 5. should have been L2-L1. Then case 6 is sus+wind and you confirmed the above (page 2-53).
I have updated my cases and they are as follows:
1. (HGR)
2. (HGR)
3. W+D1+T1+P1+F1
4. W+D1+T1+P1+F1+WIN1
5. W+P1+F1(SUS)
6. L3-L5(EXP)
7. L4-L3(OCC)-wind
8. L7+L5(OCC)-wind+sus.
(9. L7+L6(OCC)-wind+exp.)
If the stresses in cases 8. and 6. are acceptable, can we conclude that case 4. will be acceptable regarding stresses and ignore case 9. (even it shows excessive stresses)?
_________________________
Ranka Sofijanic

Top
#497 - 11/09/01 11:09 PM Re: Wind Loading
Richard Ay Offline
Member

Registered: 12/13/99
Posts: 6226
Loc: Houston, Texas, USA
You said:
Quote:

I assume your case 5. should have been L2-L1.


Yes you're correct - typo on my part.


Regarding your suggested load cases above:
  • Cases 5, 6, and 8 are your code stress compliance cases
  • Case 4 is not a stress case. This case should only be used for restraint loads, restraint design, and max deflection checks.
  • Case 9 is not a valid combination. You are combining the effects of the occasional load (wind) with the expansion stress range. You don't want to add stresses to a "stress range".



[ November 09, 2001: Message edited by: rich_ay ]
_________________________
Regards,
Richard Ay - Consultant

Top



Moderator:  Denny_Thomas, uribejl 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 62 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
April
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
Forum Stats
12065 Members
14 Forums
16973 Topics
75151 Posts

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