Hi,

I am working on a project where the pipework experience significant movement due to vessel bowing and thermal expansion. Therefore I can not use rigid guides to take care of the wind loading. The only option left is to use Snubbers. The question is can we use use snubbers for wind loading?
Do snubber stop the movement due to wind or it may leak through snubber?

Another question is should we multiply the CAESAR predicted loads on snubbers by 2 to select the correct type of the snubber or the impact factor is already included in snubber design?

Many thanks

MW

I've seen the term snubber to apply towards dampeners as well as tie-rods / tension rods.

A dampener will not be suitable against wind. The wind impulse will not be reliable.

I am planning to use hydraulic snubber for wind loading. Snubbers may help against the wind gust. Due to significant movement of piping I can not use the passive guides with gaps.

I think CAESAR loads should be multiplied with 2 to select the right snubber size. What is your opinion on this?


Thanks

MW

A dampener may protect you against a short duration gust, but it does you no good if your pipe fails due to a long duration breeze.

To that end, if you opt to go the dampener path, you should be willing to define what the sustained wind loads your dampened pipe can withstand are.

If by multiplying the loads by 2 doesn't come with an associated reduced time of affectation, I will agree that the stresses should be higher until you install a bigger dampener. I can't guarantee that for example, 2F applied for 1/3 of a second compared to 1F applied for 3 seconds will be comparable.

Hi Waheed,

Have you tried using a guide with some gaps to allow thermal expansion while suppressing the wind load a bit. Just my suggestion in case it helps. Maybe you can put some snapshot of your model to see the piping configuration and maybe some re-routing of pipe can be an option. Nowadays, there are other options in case your facing some problem with thermal expansion like using branch flexibility factor K (which previously we assume as 1).

Just my opinion.

Cheers!!!