I am analysing the Stress system having different operating conditions.

Parameters for the same are as follows:
Line Size : 20"
Design / Operating Temperature : 450 / 430 deg C
Fluid : Molten Salt
Fluid density : 1850 kg /m3

I have used Constant spring support (user defined based on sustain weight) to qualify the nozzle loads and stresses.

Hold down support (-Y restraint) with gap also provided along with the spring support for normally no flow condition (when no fluid inside pipe) to overcome stress failure and nozzle load because of high density fluid and large size pipe.


Here in C-II, we have defined constant spring support (user defined) and at same location -Y support with 35 mm gap in upward direction.

Request Intergraph that is this modelling is acceptable or this is not appropriate modelling in CAESAR-II defining spring (user defined) and -Y with gap at same location? Is there loop holes in C-II with this?


Regards,
Shamalia Bhavin

Your results should confirm the "correctness of the model. If the system moves in a way that reflects the real world operation, my guess is that you have a good model.

This is the typical case with the systems having re-boiler. There is always a difference in Operating and Empty weight of the re-boiler. So, springs try to move up during NO FLOW (EMPTY) case. It may result into stress failure and increase in nozzle loads.

Thus, sometimes we need to provide -Y to pass in stress. Also, it simulates the exact behaviour of the system. So, your model is OK.

Thank you all for quick response.

Regards,
Shamalia Bhavin