Is it right practice to give lock point near pump suction nozzle nozzle (its bottom suction pump),pump loads are with in limit. please see the attachment and shre your comments please

This looks like bad design to me.

The pump nozzle modelled as as set of springs but the adjacent restraint is fully rigid. Does that make sense ??

this is not spring ..itz pump nozzle defined with local stiffness..

I can see what you are up to. It just looks wrong.

Are you saying that the pump body is flexible (has local stiffness) whereas the restraint is infinitely stiff ?

Seems to be wierd modelling to me.

i havent model pump i just put Displacement at pump nozzle ..and localy defined the stiffnes as its size is lower than tha main line.for the main line restraint stiffness i have already defined in configuration fil as global stiffness..

To be conservative with the inherent uncertainty, most engineers would not model flexibilty of the pump housing. I know that standards such as API 610 indicate casing deflection related to allowable load and you can turn that into a stiffness but, in my opinion, it is not good practice.
It looks like you are trying to eat your cake and have it too - those rigid restraints to knock out piping load into the pump but then a flexible nozzle to absorb strain between the rigids and the pump.

Why do people insist on putting "anchors" next to equipment??

Sure it negates anything that happens on one side of the anchor, but then you have even bigger problems on the short run to the equipment (you don't have problems because you estimated the pump stiffness and brought it way down from 1E12 lb/in). That's just wrong in so many ways. UNLESS you carefully select the anchor's location to even out thermal growth or you are using an untied bellows to eliminate pressure thrust or some other reason.

Also, it is dangerous to change the boundary condition of the pump connection and not of the pipe support (even more dangerous if you change both!). I agree with others this is unrealistic.

I would just put an adjustable base support with an offset to absorb the vertical thermal growth of the pump (certain length after the first or second bend in this case) and then keep the "infinite" stiffness at the pump connection so you can look at conservative loads. Start conservative and work yourself into "reality land" only if you encounter problems.

HI Ltorrado

i also disagree with putting anchors near to equipment.but here its different case as operating temperature is 100 degree.the thermal growth between the lock point and pump can easily absorb by the leg.

but still iam not satisfied with the answer on defining nozzle stiffness locally.
for eg: iam having system with 700 NB header and 80NB size pump discharge is connecting to this header. here globally i defined the stiffness corresponding to 700 NB Pipe
if iam not defining the stiffness locally at pump nozzle, caesar will consider the global stiffness at pump nozzle.(here 700 Nb stiffness is 26 times larger than 80 Nb)
here how can i expect to have this much stiffness on the pump nozzle and it leads to over designed and accordingly my cost will increase ..
please correct if iam wrong..

am i right?

IMHO ... No.

IMHO ... No.

IMHO.... Mr. Diehl clearly explained the matter.

"To be conservative with the inherent uncertainty, most engineers would not model flexibility of the pump housing. I know that standards such as API 610 indicate casing deflection related to allowable load and you can turn that into a stiffness but, in my opinion, it is not good practice.".

You can see that there is a way to model the "stiffness" based on API 610 and there is an advice/opinion to follow "good practice".

I guess we don't need to convince you about topics as "over-design", reasonably "conservative", "my cost will increase", "good practice"; giving you our opinion it's all we can do.
You still have the freedom to experiment your ideas if your Client agrees with you.