Improved pipe support design for the
process industry to reduce
mechanical loads on pumps
Vidareutveckling av rörstöd för processindustrin för att reducera mekaniska
krafter på pumpar
Carl Påhlsson
Faculty of Health, Science and Technology
Degree Project for Master of Science in Engineering, Mechanical Engineering
30 ECTS Credit points
Supervisor: Leo de Vin
Examiner: Jens Bergström
Date: 2016-06-12
1
Abstract
This master thesis has been written to develop a new pipe support for pipe systems in
the process industry. The purpose was to relieve pumps or other sensitive equipment
from elevated forces or moments that may cause failure. The elevated forces or moments
occur due to the weight of the piping, the weight of the medium and expansion due to
elevated temperatures. The support is mainly designed to be implemented in a 90◦
bend but they can also be implemented in straight pipes with small adjustments of
the attachment between the support and the pipe. Six different complete concepts
were developed and put through different elimination matrices and evaluated against a
requirement specification. The final design was calculated to withstand the forces and
moments from a worst case scenario. The concept is in need of further development and
testing before it can be implemented in projects. It is necessary to investigate if the
clamps can withstand the working load in the new design. The concept should also be
tested possibly by a prototype.
Sammanfattning
Denna uppsats skrevs för att utveckla ett nytt rörstöd för rörsystem i processindustrin.
Syftet var att avbelasta pumpar och annan känslig utrustning från förhöjda krafter och
moment som kan leda till haveri. Stödet är huvudsakligen tänkt att implementeras vid
vinkelräta böjar men kan justeras så att den även kan implementeras på raka rör. Sex
olika koncept har tagits fram och har genomgått ett antal olika elimineringsmatriser
som sedan utvärderades mot kravspecifikationen. Den slutliga designen genomgick en
spänningsanalys som baserades på ett tidigare projekt för att uppskatta vilka krafter
och moment som kan uppstå. Det slutliga konceptet behöver vidareutvecklas och testas
innan det kan implementeras i projekt. Det är nödvändigt att utreda om klämmorna kan
tolerera arbetsbelastningen då de i denna rapport har antagits tolerera lasterna baserat
på tidigare projekt. Konceptet bör också testas, förslagvis med en prototyp.
Acknowledgements
I would like to send a special thanks to my supervisors Fredrik Nilsson and Niklas
Stenqvist at ÅF AB, for their support and helpful advice.
I would also like to thank all other personnel at ÅF AB for making me feel welcome
and appreciated. It has truly been a wonderful experience. I would also like to send a
thanks to my supervisor Leo De Vin at Karlstad University for guiding me through the
process.
Karlstad, May 2016
Carl Påhlsson
iii
Contents
Abstract
i
Sammanfattning
ii
Acknowledgements
iii
Contents
iv
List of Figures
vi
List of Tables
vii
1 Introduction
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.1 ÅF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.2 Problem description . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.3 History and currently used equipment
1.1.4 Definition of problem . . . . . . . . .
1.1.5 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.6 Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.7 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 Method
2.1 Project planning . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Identify customer needs and determine
2.3 Concept generation . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Construction and calculations . . . . .
2.4.1 Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.2 Constrains and applied forces .
3 Results
3.1 Problem formulation . . . . . . . . .
3.1.1 Identified sub-problems . . .
3.1.2 Requirement specification . .
3.2 Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.1 Concepts for reducing friction
iv
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
4
4
. . . . .
criteria
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
5
6
6
8
9
9
.
.
.
.
.
11
11
11
12
14
14
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
(z-axis)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Contents
3.3
v
3.2.2 Concepts for Reduce friction (y-axis)
3.2.3 Concepts for restricting movement .
3.2.4 Concepts for pipe holder . . . . . . .
3.2.5 Concepts for the body . . . . . . . .
3.2.6 Combined concepts . . . . . . . . . .
Development of final concept . . . . . . . .
3.3.1 Calculations of bearings . . . . . . .
3.3.2 Calculations of the support . . . . .
3.3.3 Cost and manufacturing . . . . . . .
4 Discussion
4.1 General discussion . . . . . .
4.2 Discussion about the concepts
4.3 Elimination matrices . . . . .
4.4 Development of final concept
4.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.6 Cost and manufacturing . . .
4.7 Further development . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
16
18
19
20
22
22
23
26
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
28
29
31
32
33
33
34
5 Conclusion
35
A Project Plan
38
B Morphologic Matrix
40
C Elimination Matrix
42
D Relative decision matrix according to Pugh
43
E Criteria Weight Matrix
45
F Estimation of forces
47
G CAEPIPE results
48
List of Figures
1.1
1.2
1.3
Example of pipe system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Illustration of the project where the temporary solution was designed. . .
The pipe support that is used today. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1
2.2
2.3
The different bodies while meshing. . . . . . . . . .
Placement of the remote point. . . . . . . . . . . .
Placement of the remote point and the connected
with red. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The model in Caepipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17
3.18
. . . . .
. . . . .
surfaces,
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
highlighted
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
The coordinate system used in the sub-functions. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The first concepts for reducing friction due to vertical forces. . . . . . .
The third concepts for reducing friction due to vertical forces. . . . . . .
The fourth concept for the restriction of movement. . . . . . . . . . . .
The first concept for preventing friction in the cross-direction. . . . . . .
The second concept for preventing friction in the cross-direction. . . . .
The first concept for the restriction of movement. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The second concept for the restriction of movement. . . . . . . . . . . .
The third concept for preventing friction in the cross-direction. . . . . .
The fifth concept for preventing friction in the cross-direction. . . . . . .
Illustration of the pin and track concept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The first concept for attaching pipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The second concept for attaching pipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preliminary concept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The pipe system that was used in order to estimate forces and moments.
Singular elements in the area between the body and the holder. . . . . .
Relation between element size and stress level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
High stress concentrations at the welded area between the base plate and
the body. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.19 The path from the hot spot and the corresponding stress levels . . . . .
5.1
2
2
3
. 9
. 10
. 10
. 10
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
17
18
18
19
19
23
24
25
25
. 26
. 27
The final design with the pipe system and the pump. . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
B.1 Example of Morphological matrix [2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
C.1 Example of elimination matrix based on Pahl and Beitz[2] . . . . . . . . . 42
D.1 Example of Relative decision matrix according to Pugh [2] . . . . . . . . . 44
E.1 Example of criteria weight matrix based on Kesselring [2] . . . . . . . . . 46
vi
List of Tables
2.1
2.2
Main tasks of the project with estimated time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The aspects of the different categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
Requirement specification . . . . . . .
Morphologic matrix for pipe support. .
Elimination matrix . . . . . . . . . . .
Detailed concept evaluation . . . . . .
Criteria weight matrix . . . . . . . . .
Results from Caepipe analysis . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
6
13
20
21
22
22
24
A.1 Work breakdown structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
vii
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1
1.1.1
Background
ÅF
ÅF AB is a consulting engineering company working in the energy, industrial and infrastructure market areas. This thesis was carried out in the industry division in Karlstad,
Sweden. ÅF was founded in 1895 and has their main office in Solna, Sweden. They have
approximately 7500 employees in over 30 countries around the world and their net sales
per year is approximately 9 billions SEK [1]. The mechanical and plant design division
of ÅF Karlstad is involved in many projects within the process industry, such as paper
industry, district heating plant and nuclear power station.
1.1.2
Problem description
In the process industry piping systems are commonly used to transport liquids or gasses
from one location to another. Paper industry, district heating plant and nuclear power
station are examples of industries that uses piping systems to a large extent. The
temperature of the medium can vary significantly between applications. The piping
systems usually involves long pipes with many bends and additional equipment that
controls pressure, flow rate and temperature of the transmitted fluid.
Piping systems are typically controlled by stress analysis to verify that nozzle loads,
hangers, and supports are properly placed and selected such that the pipe stresses not
exceed the allowable stresses. The analysis also takes internal pressure and thermal
stresses into account in order to verify that the system is properly designed. The thermal
stresses can result in thermal expansions of maximum 3 cm.
1
Chapter 1. Introduction and specification of problem
2
Figure 1.1: Example of pipe system.
Figure 1.2: Illustration of the project where the temporary solution was designed.
A frequent problem when conducting stress analysis on piping systems is that the weight
of the piping, the weight of the medium and expansion due to heat will result in forces
and moments on sensitive components in the system. This will cause problems and in
worst case result in pump wreckage or that fluids with high temperatures will spray
uncontrolled, perhaps on operators. This is compensated by pipe supports that restricts
the degrees of freedom in a point of the system and transfers the loads from the sensitive
equipment to more suitable components or to the floor.
1.1.3
History and currently used equipment
There is a wide range of pipe supports that are currently in use, but they can not handle
all situations. A need for a support that restricts all degrees of freedom but the axial
direction has arisen. This need arose during an earlier project where a short term solution
was developed. This support that solved the problem in that specific project have been
re-used in several projects since it was developed even though it wasn’t intended to.
An illustration of the project in mind can be viewed in figure 1.2. A closer look at the
support design and the coordinate system that will be used in this thesis can be viewed
in figure 1.3.
Chapter 1. Introduction and specification of problem
3
Figure 1.3: The pipe support that is used today.
The idea is that it will restrict the pipe from moving in any direction but the x-direction
by having four slits and four bolts that the support can slide in.
One big issue with this solution is that the frictional forces can reach high levels if the
pipe is exposed to elevated forces in the z-direction. Another issue is the risk for the
support to be inclined and becoming wedged because of the bolts. Additionally, the
support in question needs to be properly stress analysed and need further development
in order to be a primary solution.
1.1.4
Definition of problem
The aim of this thesis is to develop the existing support in a way that it can be implemented in perpendicular bends and hopefully find a solution that can simply adjusted
in order to be implemented in other cases as well. The support needs to meet all the
requirements of such a support and have the features that the existing one doesn’t.
1.1.5
Purpose
To develop a new standard pipe support that restricts all degrees of freedom but movement in the x-axis in a piping system in order to avoid damaging on the pipes and other
sensitive equipment.
Chapter 1. Introduction and specification of problem
1.1.6
4
Goal
The goal of this project is to deliver several concepts and to propose a new design for
a new kind of pipe support for pipe systems that effectively relieves sensitive equipment. The support should fit different pipe dimensions and tolerate a wide range of
temperatures.
1.1.7
Limitations
The goal with this thesis is to construct a fully functional concept and conduct a stress
analysis of the concept. The thesis is limited to a support in a 90◦ bend of the pipe
system.
Chapter 2
Method
2.1
Project planning
The project started with identifying which work packages that should be included and
which dependencies there was between them. This resulted in a work breakdown structure (WBS), can be seen in appendix A. By following the WBS a time estimation for
each task was performed in order to fit the assigned time for the thesis, which is 30
ECTS credits or 800 hours or work. Table 2.1 shows the main tasks of the WBS. These
main tasks were then divided into sub-tasks. The project followed the main tasks of
a design process, as defined in [2]. When developing concepts, the main concepts were
divided into sub-concept that each took up time. When preparing the presentation this
was divided into one presentation for ÅF and one for Karlstad University. In order to
ensure that the final design met the criteria listed in the requirement specification the
’design loop’ ended up as the largest entry of the project.
Table 2.1: Main tasks of the project with estimated time
Task Name
Preparation
Pre-study
Concept phase
Finalization of design
Half time presentations
Report
Patent preparations
Final presentation
Sum
5
Work
40
120
200
120
16
240
16
40
792
hrs
hrs
hrs
hrs
hrs
hrs
hrs
hrs
hrs
Chapter 2 Method and theory
2.2
6
Identify customer needs and determine criteria
In order to achieve a more detailed description of the the problem the initial problem
was broken down and divided into two main categories of interest and then these were
further developed into detailed areas. Reason for this was to make sure that the correct
problem was solved from the start in the project rather than making big changes later
in the project. Big changes in the definition of the problem late in the design phase will
be costly and time consuming compared to changes early in the process according to [2].
By consulting with the supervisors at ÅF the categories could be further expanded and
this eased the process of refining the problem. When the list of demands and wishes had
been expanded, the wishes part of the list got weighted. The demands part of the list
consisted of features that had to be fulfilled and the wishes part of the list were weighted
between 1 to 5, where 1 was the least important and 5 was the most important. The
features also got divided into three different categories, including design, manufacturing
and operation.
Table 2.2: The aspects of the different categories
2.3
Category
Aspects included
Design
Manufacturing
Operation
Construction-related
Manufacturing approach and cost
Maintenance and service
Concept generation
As detailed earlier the aim of the process was to break down the requirements into
as many smaller requirements as possible in order to solve the correct problems from
start rather than making big changes late in the project. In order to verify that a
systematic concept generation process was conducted, involving the following five steps,
as suggested in [2].
• Formulate the problem in a broader, abstract, solution-neutral form
• Divide the main functions of the part into sub-functions by conducting a function
analysis
• Seek solutions to the sub-functions
• Combine these solutions into a solution
• Sort out potential final solutions and compare
Chapter 2 Method and theory
7
In the first step of the process the problem is formulated in a solution neutral form that
is concrete, and detailed in order to get a more abstract and broader formulation of the
problem. The purpose of this step is to find more general solutions in a broader sense,
rather than basing the problem on a too detailed problem formulation.
With this abstract problem formulation as a starting point the next step was to conduct
a function analysis. The purpose of this step is to create a function structure that
shows all the necessary main functions of the product and its sub-functions. The result
of the function analysis was a function structure where it is possible to see how the
total complex function is realized by the interaction of the involving sub-functions. By
dividing the problem into many sub-functions it was possible to solve each sub-function
separately which made it easier to find a complete solution that solves the whole complex
problem by combining all sub-functions into a complete solution.
The next step in the concept generation process was to seek solutions to the identified
sub-functions in the function structure. This was done by consulting with the supervisors
at ÅF and during a brainstorming process. By consulting with a number of people it was
possible to get several aspects of the problem and find more possible solutions. During
this step all the ideas that was generated was documented in order to trying to find
as many solutions as possible. When the different solutions had been generated and
divided from the main function they got placed in a matrix.
Here the different sub-functions of the final product are listed to the left and the other
columns represent different proposed solutions to each sub-function. When the subfunctions had been identified and concepts had been generated in order to satisfy them
they were combined in order to find a number of final concepts that could be compared.
During this process the unreasonable concepts and the concepts that couldn’t be combined with the other concepts got sorted out in order to get a smaller number of final
concepts. This was done by using a morphologic matrix were the different complete
solutions were marked with different symbols, as suggested by [2]. An example of this
matrix can be viewed in appendix B.
When the candidates for the final concepts had been generated they were compared
in an elimination matrix, for this thesis the Pahl and Beitz elimination matrix was
chosen as initial method for sorting and evaluation of concepts [2]. An example of this
elimination matrix is shown in appendix C. When this was done the best concepts were
further compared in a more detailed elimination matrix, for this thesis the Pughs relative
decision matrix have been chosen. An example of this matrix can be seen in appendix D.
The concepts were finally evaluated with help from a reference group. In this matrix the
concept were given a plus or a minus sign, depending on if they fulfilled the criteria or
not. When the concepts had been assigned with plus, minus or zero signs the signs were
Chapter 2 Method and theory
8
summed up. A plus sign had a value of +1 and a minus sign gave a value of -1. With
this done, they were summed up and then ranked in order to evaluate which concepts
that looked most promising.
The best concepts of the detailed concept matrix got further analyzed in a criteria
weight matrix, in this thesis the Kesselring-matrix have been chosen as suggested by [2].
The criteria weight method is a method with better precision than the relative decision
matrix. In order for the method to be effective it is necessary to assign each evaluation
criteria with a weight factor, w. This was done by consulting with the supervisors at
ÅF. The evaluation criterions were based on the desires in the requirement specification
since the demands are already satisfied in this step in the process. Each of the concepts
got assigned with a grade value, v from 1-5 depending on how good they satisfy each
desire, were 5 represents the best and 1 the worst. When this had been done, the
weights and the grades got multiplied in order to get a sum, assigned with the letter t.
When all weights and grades had been multiplied for each concept they got summed up
and assigned with letter T. An ideal column was also added in order to see what the
maximum possible value of T, Tmax was. Then each T-value got compared with Tmax in
order to see how close the concepts are to an ideal concept. Finally, the concepts were
ranked. An example of this matrix can be viewed in appendix E.
2.4
Construction and calculations
The highest allowed coefficient of friction in the requirement specification (Table 3.1)
were based on the handbook [3] and the pump specification [4]. The handbook [5] was
used to control the strength of the preliminary concept. In order to ensure the structural
integrity of the final design a common case was modeled in Caepipe. The analysis was
conducted in order to estimate the representing forces and moments that would act
on the support. Caepipe is a software that is used in order to estimate stresses and
strains in pipe systems due to thermal expansions, internal pressure and the weight of
the system. When this was done the design was modeled in Creo Parametric 2.0 in order
to be exported to Ansys 17, which was the Finite Element Analysis software that was
use in the project. While conducting the finite element analysis the clamps that attach
the support to the pipe were assumed to withstand the loads according to standard
[6]. The bearing system that was chosen was not stress analysed either, since all the
parts should withstand the corresponding loads according to the product specification
[7]. Three parts of the final design were included in the analysis, the bottom plate, the
body and the holder.
Chapter 2 Method and theory
2.4.1
9
Mesh
The finite element analysis resulted in 422423 elements and 1783301 nodes. All contacts
were modelled with the pure penalty method. The pure penalty method introduces a
force at the contact points that has penetrated across the target surface with the express
purpose of eliminating the penetration. This method is based on a simple formula for
all contact points that penetrate across the target:
Fc = kc ·Dp
Were kc is the contact stiffness, this means that it is a predetermined property of the
contact element. Dp is the penetration at the contact element. Which means that a
larger penetration also increases the calculated force. [8]
In order to optimize the meshing, the bottom plate and the holder were divided into
three parts instead of one. This was necessary since they have different difficulties while
meshing. In total there were seven different bodies, which can be seen in figure 2.1.
All bodies were meshed with hex dominated elements, the bodies marked with 1-5 got
assigned with an element size of 6 mm and body 6-7 got assigned with an element size
of 3 mm.
Figure 2.1: The different bodies while meshing.
2.4.2
Constrains and applied forces
In order to get a model that simulates the reality as close as possible without modeling
the attachment between the pipe and the support a remote point was connected to the
surfaces where the clamps would be placed. All forces and moments were then applied
at this point. The remote point was placed in the junction between the two pipes, as
seen in figure 2.2. The four contact surfaces between the clamps and the support can
be seen in figure 2.3.
Chapter 2 Method and theory
10
Figure 2.2: Placement of the remote point.
Figure 2.3: Placement of the remote point and the connected surfaces, highlighted
with red.
In order to estimate the forces and moments that occurs in a worst case scenario a model
of a frequent scenario was modelled in Caepipe. In this model the pipe lengths were set
to three meters in all directions, the material properties of the pipes were based on [9]
and [10]. A picture of the scenario can be viewed in figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4: The model in Caepipe.
Chapter 3
Results
3.1
Problem formulation
In the first step of the process the problem was formulated in a solution neutral form
that was concrete, and detailed in order to get a more abstract and broader formulation
of the problem. The problem was then defined as:
Develope a pipe support which relieves loads on sensitive equipment due to reaction
forces in piping systems.
3.1.1
Identified sub-problems
The problem was then divided into many detailed sub-functions in order to find the best
final solution as mentioned in chapter 2. The sub-functions were identified by evaluating
the current commercial pipe supports and by consulting with the supervisors at ÅF. The
sub-functions are defined by the coordinate system seen in 3.1 These are the objectives
that were found:
• A design that minimizes friction due to vertical forces (z-axis)
• A design that minimizes friction due to horizontal forces (y-axis)
• Attach piping to the support
• Restrict all degrees of freedom but movement in x-axis
• A body with enough bending stiffness to not bend
11
Chapter 3. Results
12
Figure 3.1: The coordinate system used in the sub-functions.
In order to formulate the functions in a solution neutral but concrete form the subproblems were then described with two words, a predicate and a subject, as described
in [2].
• Reduce friction (Vertical forces)
• Reduce friction (Transverse forces)
• Hold piping
• Restrict movement
• Withstand load
3.1.2
Requirement specification
The requirement specification ended up with 20 criterias divided on 3 categories as
mentioned in chapter 2. The list can be viewed in table 3.1.
Category
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Operation
Operation
Operation
Operation
Operation
Criteria no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Demand = D Wish = W
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
W
D
W, 5
W, 3
W, 2
W, 3
D
D
D
W, 3
W, 3
Criteria
Angle variations of maxiumum 1◦
Corrosion resistant
Coefficient of friction under 0.19
Maintain mechanical properties at 80◦ C
Manufactured in S235JR
Implement the support in one node in Caepipe
Vibration resistant, no loose components
Base plate diameter of maximum 2.5 * Dpipe
Easy to build
Able to be modified in order to be implemented in several cases
Adjustable height dependent on case
Simple design, no complex design solutions
Simple montage
Low manufacturing cost
Development of existing support
No maintenance required
Life cycle of 15 years
Compatible with pipe dimensions between 50-600mm
Reduce friction due to vertical forces
Reduce friction due to horizontal forces
Table 3.1: Requirement specification
Chapter 3. Results
13
Chapter 3. Results
14
Requirement 4 is based on the fact that the pump with the smallest dimensions cant be
exposed to tangential forces above 750 N according to [4]. An axial force of 750 N and a
vertical force of 20 000 N results in a coefficient of friction of 0.19 according to [5]. The
dimensions is based on the standard [11].
3.2
Concepts
When the sub-problems had been identified, the next step in the process, as described in
section 2.3 is to generate concepts for each problem in order to satisfy the requirements.
When these concepts had been generated they will be combined to several final concepts
and then evaluated in order to find the best possible final concept. All final concept can
be viewed in table 3.2.
3.2.1
Concepts for reducing friction (z-axis)
These concepts were the one generated in order to lower the frictional forces that occur
due to forces in the z-direction. The different concepts each pros and cons is presented
below.
Wheels: The first concept for the reduction of friction is heavy duty wheels. These
have been successfully used in other applications at ÅF and might be useful here as well.
They can tolerate high stresses but they require an additional solution that linearizes the
movement but doesn’t risk the support of being tilted or wedged. Another con is that
the height of the support may be too high which can cause the support to be unstable.
A model of the idea can be viewed in figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2: The first concepts for reducing friction due to vertical forces.
Bearings: The second concept is to compensate for the frictional forces by the use
of bearings. It has the same idea as the wheel concept (figure 3.2) but replaces the
Chapter 3. Results
15
wheels with bearings. The combination of a small size, linearized motion and having the
possibility to withstand high loads makes this concept promising. The cons are that it
might be an expensive solution and it might require service too often.
Conveyor: The third concept is a conveyor that the support can roll on. This is a
simple solution and affordable. But it requires an additional solution in order to solve
the linearized motion.
Figure 3.3: The third concepts for reducing friction due to vertical forces.
Hanger: The fourth concept is development of an already existing support. There
already exists conventional pipe supports that is of a hanging nature but it needs further
development in order to meet all the requirements in this application. The pros of this
solution is that it doesn’t require any contact between the floor and the support which
basically removes the frictional forces. The cons is that it requires either a pipe in order
to be attached to and that makes it not applicable in all situations as desired in this
case. The concept can be viewed in figure 3.4
Figure 3.4: The fourth concept for the restriction of movement.
Coating: The fifth concept is to coat the contact area between support and floor/base
plate with a low frictional coating or to surface treat the area in order to lower the
friction. It is a simple solution but the question is if the coating will wear off with time
and if it would be too expensive.
Chapter 3. Results
3.2.2
16
Concepts for Reduce friction (y-axis)
Since the pipe support will be exposed to shear forces the support needs to prevent
frictional forces in that direction as well. If this is not taken into account, the support
will risk of being somewhat tilted and cause the support to be stuck and thus cause high
loads on the equipment that’s intended to protect. Three concepts have been generated
to solve this issue. The different concepts each pros and cons is presented below.
Bearing: The first concept was bearings that would be activated when the support was
exposed to shear forces. The big advantage of this concept is that there already exist
combined roller bearings on the market that are easy to order and will fit in the budget.
Figure 3.5 illustrates the concept.
Figure 3.5: The first concept for preventing friction in the cross-direction.
Wheels: In this concept the frictional forces is reduces by the use of rolling wheels
that will be enabled when the support is exposed to shear forces. The advantage of this
concept is mainly that it is a simple solution but the question is if it can tolerate the
required stresses for this application. The concept can be viewed in figure 3.6.
Figure 3.6: The second concept for preventing friction in the cross-direction.
Coating: In this concept the idea is to coat the contact area between support and base
plate with a low frictional coating or to surface treat the area in order to lower the
friction. It is a simple solution but the question is if the coating will wear off with time
and if it would be too expensive.
3.2.3
Concepts for restricting movement
Different concept was generated in order to restrict the degrees of freedom of the support
and making the motion of the support linear. The concepts also need to take into account
that the support can not have the risk of being wedged and stuck.
Chapter 3. Results
17
Channel-Beams: Here the idea is to linearize the movement by two channel-beams
that will restrict the movement of the support. It can easily be modified dependent
on which other concepts it will be combined with, it is a simple solution that can be
pre-mounted in a workshop. The cons are that it requires an additive solution in order
to prevent tilting. A model of the idea can be viewed in figure 3.7.
Figure 3.7: The first concept for the restriction of movement.
Rail system: This concept takes inspiration from train tracks and roller-coaster tracks.
It results in a fixed linearized motion that seemed promising. The cons are that it might
be hard to find a manufacturer and it requires a wheel solution that fits with track. The
concept can be viewed in figure 3.8.
Figure 3.8: The second concept for the restriction of movement.
Springs: The third concept is based on springs that will compensate for eventual
misalignments. This would remove the risk for wedging of the support. It is a simple
construction but the question is if the structure wont be rigid enough. The concept can
be viewed in figure 3.9.
Figure 3.9: The third concept for preventing friction in the cross-direction.
Tuned mass damper: The fourth concept is based on tuned mass dampers that are
usually mounted in bridges or other structures to minimize resonances in the construction
and the amplitude of mechanical vibrations.
Chapter 3. Results
18
Screw head: In this concept there is a screw head that are intended to linearize the
motion. The uncertainty of the concept is if it will linearize the motion enough in order
to meet the 1◦ requirement in the requirement specification and if it would be rigid
enough. Figure 3.10 illustrates the concept.
Figure 3.10: The fifth concept for preventing friction in the cross-direction.
Hydraulic system: The sixth concept was based on a hydraulic system that should
compensate for transverse forces by hydraulic pressure. The idea was to have a hydraulic
system with hydraulic cylinders, a tank and valves in order to achieve the desired function. The concept would look somewhat like the spring concept but replacing the springs
with hydraulic cylinders.
Dampers: The seventh concept would also look somewhat like the spring concept but
replacing the springs with dampers that would compensate for transverse forces by the
use of dampers.
Pin and track : The eight concept is based on a pin and track solution where the idea
is that the support will achieve a linearized motion by a pin that is placed in a track that
constrains the support from moving in the z-direction and the y-direction. See Figure
3.11
Figure 3.11: Illustration of the pin and track concept.
3.2.4
Concepts for pipe holder
These concepts are for the attachment between the pipe and the pipe support. The
attachment will be exposed to high stresses and thus needs a rigid structure, which is
the demand of the attachment but it is also desired that the attachment can be loosen
up in order for eventual maintenance.
Chapter 3. Results
19
Weld: The first concept is to simply weld the pipe and the support together in order
to achieve a rigid structure. The con is that eventual dismantling will be complicated
and there might occur high stress concentrations in the contact area between support
and pipe. In Figure 3.12 the weld is illustrated with a perpendicular bended pipe and
an illustration of how the support could be designed.
Figure 3.12: The first concept for attaching pipe.
Clamps: The second concept is clamps that can be opened and closed when desired.
The con is that the structure won’t be as rigid as the welded one and the clamps can’t
handle torque moments as good as a welded structures but clamps are widely used in
the business today and have shown that it is a working concept. In figure 3.13 the clamp
is illustrated with a perpendicular bended pipe and an illustration of how the support
could be designed.
Figure 3.13: The second concept for attaching pipe.
3.2.5
Concepts for the body
The concepts for the body of the support was based on existing supports. It was important that the support was stiff in order for the support to be rigid and to be able to
transport stresses from the pipe to the floor without bending. With this is mind it is
Chapter 3. Results
20
Table 3.2: Morphologic matrix for pipe support.
important to combine a rigid cross section with a short height of the body in order to
achieve a stiff structure. The body was considered to have enough bending stiffness if it
had a maximum displacement of 0.5mm in the highest loading case.
3.2.6
Combined concepts
The concepts were then combined in order to create complete concepts that solves the
main problem. Many of these are not compatible and thus are not possible to realize due
to geometrical and physical reasons. Other concepts were not realizable since they don’t
fit the requirement specification. This resulted in six different complete concepts. A
matrix over how the different sub-solutions got combined can be seen in Table 3.2. The
different symbols are combined together in order to combine the different sub-concepts
to different complete concept.
When all the unreasonable solutions had been sorted out the next step was the elimination of combined concepts. This was done by comparing the concepts against the
requirement specification. Only concepts that fulfilled all the requirements was further
processed in the next step. The elimination matrix can be seen in Table 3.3.
The bearing concept was assigned with a question mark at the lifetime column. Bearings
are usually designed to rotate to a large extent but in this application it would barely
make one revolution in total and it was uncertain if the bearings would tolerate a dirty
industry environment without continuous maintenance. It was needed to contact a
bearing distributor in order to get more information about the lifetime of such a solution.
By consulting with the supervisors at ÅF and by studying [12] one could be conclude
that the bearings wouldn’t have any problems in the application and it would be able to
Chapter 3. Results
21
1.0
Fulfills all demands
Rigid motion
No maintenance required
15 years lifetime
Enough information
Decision
Concepts:
1
2
3
4
5
6
Version:
Solves the problem
Table 3.3: Elimination matrix
Wheels both directions
Wheels on rail track
Wheels and springs
Bearings both directions
Conveyor and springs
Conveyor and wheels
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
+
be in service 15 years without maintenance as required in the requirement specification.
With this information the bearing concept could proceed to the next step in the process.
At this part of the process a delimitation was done. The clamps that are used on
several other types of pipe supports were assumed to be applicable in this support as
well. This delimitation eliminated one sub-problem, meaning that the welded concept
got removed. The four concepts that were remaining were then further investigated in
a detailed concept matrix. Here the remaining concept got compared to the existing
support, marked as Ref in the table. The evaluation of these concepts can be seen in
Table 3.4
Concept 6 with the springs wasn’t robust enough to be a reliable alternative. Then
there was only concept 1, 2 and 4 left. These concept are more complex to assemble but
the assembly work can be done in a workshop before arriving to the sight, the assembly
would be easy when at sight. They would also cost more than the reference concept,
but the function is much greater than the reference concept and both of the concept are
within the budget.
To be able to further analyse the concepts the Kesselring criteria-matrix was used. Here
the different requirements that was marked as wishes was used and weighted dependent
on how important they were. The weighting of the criterias was done with the supervisors
at ÅF. See table 3.5
Which ended up with a preliminary concept that is visualized in figure 3.14.
Chapter 3. Results
22
Table 3.4: Detailed concept evaluation
(Ref)
4
6
2016-03-16
Concept →
1
2
Design - robust
Simple montage
Manufacturing cost
Flexibility
Function
+
0
0
+
+
0
+
+
0
0
+
0
+
Sum +
2
2
2
1
Sum 0
2
1
2
1
Sum -
1
2
1
3
Net value
1
0
0
1
-2
Rank
1
2
2
1
3
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Demands ↓
Further development
Table 3.5: Criteria weight matrix
Solutions →
Ideal
Criteria ↓
W
V
Simple design
Simple montage
Manufacturing cost
Utilizing existing components
Minimal height
Minimize friction due to horizontal forces
Minimize friction due to vertical forces
P
T= ti
3
5
5
2
3
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
T /Tmax
Rank
3.3
3.3.1
1
T
15
25
25
10
15
10
10
V
4
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
T
12
15
20
6
6
4
4
V
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
4
T
6
10
10
4
9
4
4
V
T
4
3
4
4
4
5
5
12
15
20
8
12
10
10
110
67
47
87
1.00
0.61
0.43
0.79
2
3
1
Development of final concept
Calculations of bearings
In order to verify that the preliminary concept could be realized and fulfills the main
problem the forces was estimated for a worst case scenario. First the forces on the
bearings got estimated in order to verify that they can tolerate the forces that are needed.
When the temperature of the media in the system is elevated the system is exposed to
forces in three different directions which will demand the most from the system. In
appendix F the forces in the worst case scenario are estimated. This was done by using
Chapter 3. Results
23
Figure 3.14: Preliminary concept.
equations from the handbook [5]. The material properties and the temperatures were
received and interpolated from standard [10], [11], [13], [14]. By estimating these forces,
it became clear that the forces in the y-direction of the system will be the restricting.
The example in the appendix is a worst case scenario with big pipe dimensions and big
temperature differences which results in a transverse force of roughly 50 kN. This force
would be distributed on three axial bearings if the prototype concept would be used,
which results in 16.7 kN per bearing. The bearings that this thesis have been studying
tolerates static loads up to 18 kN [7] and the coefficient of friction can be estimated to
roughly 0.002 [15].
3.3.2
Calculations of the support
In order to conduct a stress analysis on the support it was necessary to estimate the
forces and moments that the support will be exposed for, this was done by using a
Caepipe model. Then the forces and moments were implemented in Ansys along with a
CAD model of the pipe support. The Caepipe model can be viewed in figure 3.15.
The nodes marked 10 and 70 was set to be rigid in all directions. Node 30 was only
rigid in the z-direction and the coefficient of friction was set to 0.3. The pipe support
is represented in node 60, which is rigid in all directions but allows displacement in
the x-direction. The support was displaced 0.8 mm in order to compensate for thermal
expansions in the support due to the heat from the piping. The forces and moments
that the analysis estimated in the support that is represented by node 60 can be viewed
in 3.6 All details during the analysis can be viewed in appendix G.
The next step was to get a rough estimation of the dimensions that would be implemented in the CAD model that was going to be exported to a finite element analysis.
Chapter 3. Results
24
Figure 3.15: The pipe system that was used in order to estimate forces and moments.
Table 3.6: Results from Caepipe analysis
Caepipe results
Fx
-7 N
Fy
11732 N
Fz
-49693 N
Mx
-33625 Nm
My
6258 Nm
Mz
12048 Nm
In order to estimate the dimensions of the the base plate, equations from the book [16]
were used. The contact between the base plate and the body was chosen to be welded
rather than being attached with bolts in order to achieve a more rigid structure. The
estimation of the thickness and the height of the body was done by use of the book
[5]. These dimensions worked well as start values in order to start the stress analysis
and then the dimensions were increased or decreased depending on the result from the
analysis. These dimensions were modeled and the forces and moments from Caepipe
was implemented in an Ansys model. Thereafter the analysis was iterated a number of
times until the final design was finally found.
After conducting the analysis a number of times there were still two areas with elevated
stress levels. One was the contact area between the body and the holder see Figure 3.16.
Chapter 3. Results
25
Figure 3.16: Singular elements in the area between the body and the holder.
These elevated levels occurred in a corner of the structure. In reality all corners has a
radius, but the finite element method models corners as sharp edges without a radius.
Since the corner is sharp, i.e. the radius approaches zero the stress levels will approach
infinity. This phenomenon is called a singular point. The finite element method is
based on discretization of a geometry in form of a limited amount of elements. When
increasing the amount of elements, the accuracy of the analysis will also increase. In the
case of corners this results in that the stress levels will get closer to infinity when using
a finer mesh with more elements and the area at the corner is getting smaller. In order
to investigate if the stress concentrations are singular points the analysis was conducted
four times with different element sizes at the corners [17]. This resulted in a relation
between the element size and the equivalent von-Mises stress levels. As seen in figure
3.17 the behavior indicated that this was a singular point.
Figure 3.17: Relation between element size and stress level.
Chapter 3. Results
26
Another area with elevated stress levels can be seen in figure 3.18.
Figure 3.18: High stress concentrations at the welded area between the base plate
and the body.
This also occurs due to the small radius of the corners of the welded part of the structure.
In the case of welded constructions, it is possible to evaluate the construction with the hot
spot method. The hot spot method evaluates elevated stress levels in welded structures
in order to estimate a more realistic value. The hot spot point is the critical joint in
the corner of the welded structure. The book [17] recommends that the hot spot stress
is calculated by first determining the stress in three points a certain distance from the
hot spot point. The equation can be viewed below:
σhs =2,52·σ0,4t -2,24·σ0,9t +0,72·σ1,4t
The path that were evaluated can be viewed in Figure 3.19a and a graph of how the
stress varies along the path can be viewed in Figure 3.19b Where t refers to the thickness,
which was 20 mm in this case. This resulted in a hot spot stress of 79.8 MPa which is
under the safe working load which was 150MPa.
3.3.3
Cost and manufacturing
The new pipe support as well as the old pipe support are manufactured of structural
steel, S275JR. The new support would have a total mass of 50 kg more than the old one
according to the CAD-models. This weight difference would end up in a difference of
650 SEK in material cost [18]. The new support would also need bearings, in order to
assemble these onto the support they need a mounting plate for each bearing and two
channel-beams that they can roll in. The bearing package would have a total cost of
7907 SEK. Which ends up in a total difference of 8557 SEK in material cost. The clamps
that attach the support to the pipe will be based on earlier standard and manufactured
as earlier. Which means that the cost will be the same as well. The assembly cost may
Chapter 3. Results
27
(a) The path from the hot spot point
(b) Relation between the distance from the hot spot and the stress level
Figure 3.19: The path from the hot spot and the corresponding stress levels
differ to an extent since the new base plate would require more welded areas and drilled
holes in order to mount the bearings to the base plate but this cost was assumed to be
low enough to be neglected.
Chapter 4
Discussion
4.1
General discussion
This master thesis has been written to deliver several concepts and a working design for
a new kind of pipe support for pipe systems that effectively relieves sensitive equipment,
(see chapter 1.1.7). The support should fit different pipe dimensions and tolerate a wide
range of loads. The project started with identifying the main problem (see chapter 3.1)
with the current equipment and then narrowing it down to several sub-problems. The
approach is solely based on the procedure described in the book [2], which idea is to
avoid the problem of jumping to conclusions rather than having a structured approach
that results in the best possible solution. The result was five different sub-problems (see
chapter 3.1.1 )and these eased the task of solving the main problem.
The first sub-problem was identified as ”A design that minimizes friction due to vertical
forces (z-axis)” and was formulated this way because the frictional forces leads to high
axial forces on the pump. As the thermal expansion increases the normal forces also
increases which can cause high loads on the attachment between pipe and pump. Five
different concepts were generated in order to handle this sub-problem. The second subproblem was identified as ”A design that minimizes friction due to horizontal forces
(y-axis)” and was formulated the same way as the first because it will cause the same
problem if it isn’t solved. The pumps can’t withstand high loads in this direction since it
will cause a bending moment on the attachment to the pump and the attachment aren’t
designed to tolerate this kind of forces. Initially the third sub-problem was identified
as ”Attach piping with support”. However, during the project this sub-problem was
revised, since the clamps are widely used in all kinds of supports and sliding shoes today
an assumption was made that it would fit in this application as well. During development
of the final design the clamps was solely based on established standards in order for the
28
Chapter 4. Discussion
29
support to fit the clamps. The fourth sub-problem was identified as ”Restrict desired
degrees of freedom”. This problem was formulated this way because one cause of concern
with the existing design was that the support could be wedged due to shear forces. If
the support would be wedged there won’t be anything that restricts the forces on the
pump and that would likely cause pump failure. The fifth sub-problem was identified
as ”A body with enough bending stiffness to not bend”. This problem had to be dealt
with since it is not desirable for the support to bend while in use. A displacement of the
support would cause un-desired forces on the pump and that is why it is necessary for
the body to be considered as completely stiff. This was done by combining a low height
and an increased cross section compared to the reference support.
4.2
Discussion about the concepts
When the project started it was decided that the focus was to be put upon developing
a new solution from the body and down. That is the part of the current support that
causes the problem with high loads on the pump and it is that part of the structure that
needs to be developed in order to effectively solve the problem. That is the reason that
the concept phase of the project took the majority of the time. It was necessary to find
a solution that can treat that issue effectively first before developing the final design
and conducting a stress analysis. If that part of the project was hastened there would
be a great risk of developing and stress analysing a design that doesn’t handle the main
problem effectively and all other work is unnecessary.
In the initial part of the project it became clear that all solutions that involved complex
materials, constructions or other complex technical features was not desired. If the
support was going to be implemented in future projects, it was necessary that it was
a simple design that would not cost much more than the solution that is used today.
This fact may have caused the brainstorming process to be narrowed. Concepts that
involved complex solutions had the tendency to be neglected since it was clear that
it would not be implemented in any projects anyway. A reference group was involved
during the brainstorming process in order to achieve the widest perspective as possible.
But the majority of the work was done alone and it might have been better to involve
more people in the process.
Wheels: This concept will reduce the frictional forces significantly by having rotating
wheels. Initially this was thought as a promising concept since there already exists
wheels that are used in other products in the process industry by ÅF and the idea was
to re-use these wheels in this project. A big issue with this concept was that the support
will be exposed to such high forces that the diameter of the wheels had to be large which
Chapter 4. Discussion
30
would result in an elevated centre of gravity of the structure. This will cause the support
to be unstable and not fulfill the problem in a desired way. Another con was that the
concept requires an additive solution in order to handle the friction due to transverse
forces.
Bearings: This concept had the pros of the wheel concept but it didn’t need as big
diameter as the wheels and it could be easily combined in order to solve the second subproblem as well. The fact that the bearings could handle several sub-problems was very
appealing. The bearings also showed the lowest coefficient of friction of all concepts. One
uncertainty of the concept was if it would require service due to the dirty environment
that it would be exposed to. After consulting with an expert of machine elements at
ÅF and by studying the SKF standard [12] it became clear that this would not be an
issue. Another concern was if it would become a problem that the bearings won’t rotate
to the same extent as they usually do. The expert could also insure that it wouldn’t
become an issue since the bearings are designed in order for the lubricant to flow down
to bottom part of the structure and function as intended at the part where it is desired.
Conveyor: This concept was a conveyor that rolls in order to reduce the frictional
forces. It is widely used in industrial applications and are proven to tolerate dirty
environments. The issue with this concept was that it would be difficult to implement
it with other concepts in order to fulfill all sub-problems. The biggest issue would be to
achieve a linearized movement that would be rigid. Another issue is that the concept
requires many components, which will complicate the assembly process at site.
Hanger: This concept is based on the idea of constant hangers that already exist on
the market today. It could possibly be implemented in some cases but many projects are
very restricted with space and it would be hard to implement it since it requires a roof,
rigid pipe or a wall that it can be attached to. Another issue is that it won’t linearize
the motion enough to satisfy the 1◦ requirement in the requirement specification and
the concept would become expensive.
Coating: Here the contact area between the base plate and the body would be surface
treated in order to lower the frictional forces. In order to achieve a low enough coefficient
of friction that is required in this application the coating or surface treatment needs to
be very effective. Such a solution would be expensive compared to the other concepts
and ÅF specifically asked for a solution that didn’t involve any complex materials and
that is the reason the concept didn’t advance to the morphologic matrix in the process.
Screw head: This was another concept that came up during a brainstorming session.
It is a simple solution that could easily be implemented but it would not reduce the
friction as well as the chosen concept.
Chapter 4. Discussion
31
Channel-beams: The big advantage with this concept is that it is a very simple in it’s
nature. Since the bearings showed such promising features and they were delivered with
channel-beams this concept got chosen.
Rail system: This was considered as a promising concept far into the concept phase.
One concern with this concept was the distributor issue. It would obviously be possible
to find a distributor but the question is how fast they can deliver and how expensive it
would be. This concept would be more complex to assemble than the chosen concept
too.
Springs: The concept was based on springs that will compensate for eventual misalignments. It was not chosen because it is a more complex solution than the chosen one and
doesn’t provide any feature that the simpler one doesn’t. The concept would also have
an obvious risk of being unstable compare with steel beams.
Tuned mass damper, hydraulic system and dampers: These concepts were ideas
that came up during brainstorming sessions that later didn’t fit the requirement specification. The brainstorming session was conducted early in the process in order to keep
an as open mind as possible in order to find all possible solutions. The problem with
all of these solutions is that they are too complex for this application. They might have
been possible to realize but it wasn’t what ÅF was looking for.
Pin and track: This idea was believed to not reduce the frictional forces efficiently
enough in order to relieve the pump. The concept reminds of the wheel concept and
the bearing concept but since it doesn’t have any rotating components that reduces the
sliding friction it could not compete with the other concepts. Another con is that it
would be difficult to handle the frictional forces in the transverse direction. It needs to
be complemented with another solution in order to be a final concept but it didn’t have
the good features that the other concepts had and thus it got removed.
Concepts for the body The cross section of the body was chosen to be a cross since it
provides a high stiffness against bending and it is commonly used today for that reason.
The length and width of the body was based on standards since they are proven to be
successful.
4.3
Elimination matrices
The first screening of the concepts were conducted before applying the morphologic
matrix (Table 3.2). Many concepts got removed in this screening process since many
concepts were too complex or simply wasn’t possible to realize. But that was the idea
Chapter 4. Discussion
32
behind the brainstorming process, all ideas should be included in the process in order
to not narrowing the process too early.
During the work with the elimination matrices and grading each of the concepts a level
of subjectiveness was present. A reference group was involved in this process but it
could have been to a larger extent. This might influence the weighting of each concept
and thus influence the quality of the final product. In this step the springs concept got
removed because it wasn’t rigid enough for this application and it would be hard to
realize when assembling at the industry.
In the second table the existing pipe support was chosen as reference since the goal of the
thesis is to develop a better product than the existing one. All concepts were given the
same grade in function since they all will relieve the pump from forces and moments but
to different extents. The conveyor concept were given a lower grade in ”Design-robust”
since it consists of more components than the other concepts and it would be hard to
achieve a perfect linearized motion with this concept. Here the conveyor concept with
wheels got removed since it couldn’t compete with the other concepts regarding the
montage simplicity and the design wasn’t rigid enough. It was the single concept that
consisted of a high amount of components and in the end that wasn’t desirable.
In the final matrix, the criteria weight matrix, the reference group got involved again
in order to weight all concepts. The rail track concept got the lowest grading of the
three concepts. Since the concept is based on a relatively complex idea it was given
low numbers considering montage and design. There might be an issue with finding
a manufacturer of such solution and it had a big risk of becoming expensive. When
comparing the wheel concept with the bearing concept it became clear that the bearing
concept had some big pros that the wheel concept didn’t. The wheels required a big
diameter in order to tolerate the forces that it would be exposed for in the application,
this will result in a higher center of gravity and the support won’t be as rigid as with
a lower diameter. Another advantage of the bearing concept is that the bearings solves
the friction in both directions rather than having wheels that solely solves the friction
in one direction and then add another pair in order to solve the friction in the other
direction. The fact that it used fewer components also makes the assembly easier.
4.4
Development of final concept
The design of the holder component of the support was based on the standard [11] but
the thickness of the steel was too low in order to tolerate the safe working load that
was needed. The stress analysis showed that the increased thickness resulted in a rigid
Chapter 4. Discussion
33
structure. The design of the body was also based on the standard [11] but in order to
achieve a higher stiffness and a more rigid structure a x-cross section was chosen instead
of the u-cross section that was in the standard. The height of the body was based on the
standard and then the thickness of the steel was increased until it could tolerate the safe
working load. When designing the bottom plate, it was necessary to take the mounting
plate for the bearings into consideration. The walls of the bottom plate had to be high
enough in order to make it possible to mount the mounting plate to the bottom plate.
The thickness of the plate was also iterated and analyzed in Ansys in order to find a
design that could tolerate the safe working load.
Stress analysis In order to mesh the complex geometries a hex-dominated mesh was
chosen with smaller elements at the parts that showed higher stress concentrations.
After the calculations were done there where two areas with elevated stress levels due
to singular stresses. These stresses were found in the contact between the body and the
holder and at the welded part between the bottom plate and the body. The singularities
were located at the end of a radius on the edge of the material and this might explain
why they appeared. This problem could possibly be solved by using a even finer mesh
at those specific areas but the stresses were believed to be singular since the stresses got
higher with a finer mesh and the hot spot method showed that it wasn’t of any concern.
4.5
Results
Although some of the stresses were higher than the allowed limit during the simulations
they are believed to be singular and thus they were excluded from the analysis. The
highest non-singular stress in the analysis was 79.8 MPa which is far from the safe
working load of 150 MPa.
4.6
Cost and manufacturing
The design would be manufactured of structural steel, S275JR, as detailed in the requirement specification (Table 3.1). The solution would have an increased manufacturing cost
of 8557 SEK. This was believed to be reasonable considering the new support handles
all the problems that the reference support doesn’t.
Chapter 4. Discussion
4.7
34
Further development
In order to implement the support in a real project some further development is needed.
It is necessary to investigate if the clamps can tolerate the working load rather than
assuming it based on that it has done it earlier in other applications. The concept
should also be tested before implemented in a project, possibly by a prototype.
Chapter 5
Conclusion
The final design of the pipe support with the support mounted on bearings meets the
requirements specified by ÅF. The design consists of two channel-beams, six combined
roller bearings, a base plate, a body and a holder. A finite element analysis showed a
highest stress of 79.8 MPa which insured the structural integrity of the design. A final
concept has been developed but it is necessary to investigate if the clamps can withstand
the working load, rather than assuming that they do so based on the fact that they have
done it earlier in other pipe supports. The concept should also be tested before being
implemented in a project, possibly by a prototype. The choice of bearings also has to be
further considered. There are many manufacturers of combined roller bearings and the
distributor that was chosen in this thesis might not be the best fit for ÅF. An illustration
of the final design implemented in the system can be viewed in figure 5.1
Figure 5.1: The final design with the pipe system and the pump.
35
Bibliography
[1] ÅF AB. At a glance. Webpage, 2016. URL http://www.afconsult.com/en/
about-af/at-a-glance/. Accessed 23st Febrary 2016.
[2] H. Johannesson, J-G. Persson, and D. Pettersson. Produktutveckling. Liber AB,
Stockholm, first edition edition, 2004.
[3] Karl Björk. Elementär mekanik. Björks förlag, third edition edition, 2007.
[4] Sulzer. Admissible forces and moments on pump flanges. Series BK, NK & AK,
2014.
[5] Karl Björk. Formler och tabeller för mekanisk konstruktion. Björks förlag, sixth
edition edition, 2007.
[6] SSG 7075. Rörupphängningselement, rörklammer av stål, 2008.
[7] Euro-Beaings LTD. Combined roller bearings & mating steel profiles catalogue.
Webpage, 2016. URL http://www.euro-bearings.com/crbearings.pdf. Accessed 19th April 2016.
[8] Huei-Huang Lee. Finite Element Simulations With ANSYS Workbench 14. Schroff
Development Corp, first edition edition, 2012.
[9] SSG 7831. Ped - rörklass mss10a, metrisk dimensionsserie, pn 10, material 1.4307,
z=0,7, 2013.
[10] SSG 7650. Rörsystem. anvisningar för val av material och komponenter samt kontroll och besiktning, 2007.
[11] SSG 7178. Rörupphängningselement stöd i rörböj, 2008.
[12] SKF.
seals.
Skf
explorer
Webpage,
2016.
deep
groove
ball
bearings
with
rsl
and
rsh
URL http://www.skf.com/binary/92-179206/
SKF-Explorer-deep-groove-ball-bearings-with-RSL-and-RSH-seals_
6270-EN.pdf. Accessed 19th April 2016.
36
Bibliography
37
[13] SS-EN 13480-3:2012+C3:2014. Metallic industrial piping - part 3: Design and
calculation.
[14] SS-EN 10217-7:2005. Welded steel tubes for pressure purposes - technical delivery
conditions - part 7: Stainless steel tubes.
[15] SKF. Constant coefficient of friction for open bearings. Webpage, 2016. URL http:
//www.skf.com/pages/jsp/catalogue-table.jsp?id=tcm:21-119719. Accessed
19th April 2016.
[16] Ali M. Sadegh Warren C. Young, Richard G. Budynas. Roark’s Formulas for Stress
and Strain. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., eight edition edition, 2012.
[17] Claes Olsson Hans Spennare Åsa Eriksson, Anna-Maria Lignell. Svetsutvärdering
med FEM, handbok för utmattningsbelastade konstruktioner.
Industrilitteratur,
Teknikföretagen, first edition edition, 2002.
[18] BE group. Band- och grovplåt. Webpage, 2016. URL http://www.begroup.
com/sv/BE-Group-sverige/Produkter/Stal_ror/Sortiment/Plat/Bandplat_
grovplat/. Accessed 12st May 2016.
Appendix A
Project Plan
38
Appendix A. Project plan
39
Table A.1: Work breakdown structure
WBS
Task Name
1
1.1
1.2
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
5
5.1
5.2
6
6.1
6.2
7
7.1
7.2
7.3
8
8.1
8.2
8.3
Preparation
Start-up
Time schedule
Pre-study
Research of existing products
Literature study
Interviews
Concept phase
Problem identification
Requirement specification
Concept generation
Evaluation
Finalization of design
3D-modelling
Structural calculations (FEM)
Evaluation
Report
Report structure
Report
Patent preparation
Application preparation
Patent application
Half time presentations
Concept presentation
Half-time presentation preparations
Half-time presentation
Final presentation
Opposition
Final presentation of project
Presentation
Appendix B
Morphologic Matrix
40
Sub-solution 1
Sub-solution 1
Sub-solution 1
Function 1
Function 2
Function 3
Sub-function
Sub-solution 2
Sub-solution 2
Sub-solution 3
Sub-solution 3
Sub-solution 3
Sub-solutions
Sub-solution 2
Morphologic matrix for: Pipe support
Sub-solution 4
Sub-solution 4
Sub-solution 4
Morphologic Matrix
Appendix B. Morphologic Matrix
41
Figure B.1: Example of Morphological matrix [2]
Concept
42
Criteria 1
Short description of concepts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Criteria 2
Elimination matrix for: Pipe support
Criteria 3
Criteria 7
(+)
(-)
(?)
Criteria 8
Elimination criteria:
Yes
No
More info needed
Elimination Matrix
(+)
(-)
(?)
Decision
Decision
Proceed with solution
Eliminate solution
Acquire more info
Comments
Appendix C
Elimination Matrix
Figure C.1: Example of elimination matrix based on Pahl and Beitz[2]
Criteria 6
Criteria 5
Criteria 4
Appendix D
Relative decision matrix
according to Pugh
43
0
2
Rank
Yes
2
0
0
Net worth
Yes
1
Sum -
Further development
3
Sum 0
1
Date
Sum +
Desire E
Demand D
Desire C
Yes
1
2
1
1
3
+
-
0
+
0
+
0
Desire A
Desire B
3
+
Alternative
1 (ref)
2
Criteria
Relative decision matrix for: Pipe support
No
4
-1
2
2
1
-
0
-
+
0
4
No
5
-2
3
1
1
-
0
-
+
-
5
Relative decision matrix
(+)
(-)
(0)
Elimination criteria:
Better
Worse
Equal
Appendix D. Relative Decision Matrix
44
Figure D.1: Example of Relative decision matrix according to Pugh [2]
Appendix E
Criteria Weight Matrix
45
𝑇'()
w
v
t
T
Criteria:
Weight factor (1-5)
Value factor (1-5)
w
2
4
5
3
1
4
Ideal
v
t
5
10
5
20
5
25
5
15
5
5
5
20
95
1.00
-
Total ( 𝑡 = 𝑣 ∙ 𝑤)
Merit value
Maximum merit value
𝑇 = Σ𝑡%
𝑇/𝑇'()
Rank
Desire A
Desire B
Desire C
Desire D
Desire E
Desire F
Criteria
1
Solution alternative
2
3
v
t
v
t
v
t
2
4
2
4
3
6
3
12
4
16
4
16
2
10
4
20
3
15
3
9
4
12
3
9
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
8
4
16
1
4
46
70
53
0.48
0.74
0.56
3
1
2
Relative decision matrix for: Pipe support
v
2
2
3
1
3
3
t
4
8
15
3
3
12
33
0.35
4
4
Criteria weight matrix
Appendix E. Criteria Weight Matrix
46
Figure E.1: Example of criteria weight matrix based on Kesselring [2]
Appendix F
Estimation of forces
Known values:
Calculations:
Do = 610 mm
Apipe =
Di = 600 mm
Amedia =
0.283 · 103 mm2
E = 183.6 GPa
π
I= 64
·
= 4.348·104 cm4
kg
m3
ρ = 7930
ρmedia = 1200
· (Do2 − Di2 ) = 9.503 · 103 mm2 ,
π·Di2
=
4
4
4
(Do − Di )
mpipe = Apipe · L · ρ = 301.5 kg
kg
m3
mmedia = Amedia · L · ρmedia = 1357 kg
mtotal = mpipe + mmedia = 1659 kg
L=4m
α = 16.7 ·
g = 9.82
π
4
10−6
1
∆◦ C
m
s2
∆T = 200 ∆◦ C
∆L = α · ∆T · L = 1.3 cm
Fexp =
∆L·3·E·I
L3
= 50 kN
Fg = mtotal · g = 16.3 kN
Ftotal = Fexp + Fg = 66.3 kN
47
Appendix G
CAEPIPE results
48
Appendix G. CAEPIPE result
49
Caepipe
Quality Assurance Block
Caepipe
Version 7.40
Client
: Karlstad University
Project
: Thesis work
File Number
:
Report Number :
Version 7.40
Model Name
: Carls ror
Title
:
Analyzed
: Tue May 03 10:31:27 2016
Prepared by
: _________________________
Carl Påhlsson
Date:
Checked by
: _________________________
Date:
Carls ror
May 3,2016
Appendix G. CAEPIPE result
50
Caepipe
Page i
Table of Contents
Analysis options
Layout
Details
Anchors
Bends
Limit stops
Specified displacements
Coordinates
Pipe materials
Pipe sections
Pipe loads
Sorted stresses
Code compliance
Support load summary
Anchor at Node 10
Anchor at Node 70
Anchor at Node 60
Limit stop at node 30 (0.000,0.000,1.000)
Load case = Sustained (W+P)
Loads on anchors
Loads on limit stops
Pipe forces (local coordinates)
Pipe forces (global coordinates)
Displacements
Load case = Expansion (T1)
Loads on anchors
Loads on limit stops
Pipe forces (local coordinates)
Pipe forces (global coordinates)
Displacements
Load case = Operating (W+P1+T1)
Loads on anchors
Loads on limit stops
Pipe forces (local coordinates)
Pipe forces (global coordinates)
Displacements
Weight & Center of gravity
Bill of materials
Version 7.40
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
Carls ror
May 3,2016
Appendix G. CAEPIPE result
51
Caepipe
Page 1
Analysis Options
Code
: Piping code = EN 13480 (2012)
Occasional load factor (k) = 1.20
Include axial force in stress calculations
Temperature : Reference temperature = 20 (C)
Number of thermal cycles = 7000
Number of thermal loads = 1
Solve thermal case
Use temperature dependent modulus
Pressure
: Pressure stress = PD / 4t
Peak pressure factor = 1.00
Include Bourdon effect
Use pressure correction for bends
Dynamics
: Cut off frequency = 33 Hz
Number of modes = 20
Include missing mass correction
Do not use friction in dynamic analysis
Misc.
: Include hanger stiffness
Vertical direction = Z
Layout (9)
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Node Type DX (mm) DY (mm) DZ (mm)
Title =
10
From
20
Bend 3000
30
3000
40
Bend
3000
50
Bend
-6000
70
3000
Expansion acc. to SS-EN 13480-3 ch. 13
60
From
Matl
Sect
Load Data
14307
14307
14307
14307
14307
DN600
DN600
DN600
DN600
DN600
L01
L01
L01
L01
L01
Anchor
Limit stop
Anchor
Anchor
Anchors (3)
Releases
Node Tag KX/kx KY/ky KZ/kz KXX/kxx KYY/kyy KZZ/kzz
(N/mm) (N/mm) (N/mm) (Nm/deg) (Nm/deg) (Nm/deg) X Y Z XX YY ZZ Anchor in
10
70
60
Rigid
Rigid
1
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
GCS
GCS
GCS
Bends (3)
Bend
Node
20
40
50
Radius
(mm)
914
914
914
Rad. Thk Bend Flex. SIF Int.
Angle Int.
Angle
Type (mm) Matl Fact.
Node (deg) Node (deg)
User
User
User
60
45
Limit stops (1)
Direction
Node Tag Lower Lmt Upper Lmt
Friction Stiffness CNode
(mm)
(mm)
X comp Y comp Z comp Coeff. (N/mm)
30
0.000
None
1.000
0.300
Rigid
Specified Displacements (1)
Node Type Load X/x (mm) Y/y (mm) Z/z (mm) XX/xx (deg) YY/yy (deg) ZZ/zz (deg)
60
Anchor T1
0.8
Seis
Setl
Version 7.40
Carls ror
Disp. in
GCS
GCS
GCS
May 3,2016
Appendix G. CAEPIPE result
52
Caepipe
Page 2
Coordinates (13)
Node
10
20A
20
20B
30
40A
40
40B
50A
50
50B
60
70
X (mm)
0
2086
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3914
3267.7
6000
Y (mm)
0
0
0
914
3000
5086
6000
6000
6000
6000
6000
6000
6000
Z (mm)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-914
-5086
-6000
-6000
-5732.3
-6000
Pipe material 14307: EN 1.4307 (X2CrNi18-9) EN 10217
Density = 7930 (kg/m3), Nu = 0.300, Joint factor = 0.70, Type = AS
Tensile strength = 470.0 (MPa)
Temp
(C)
20
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
E
(MPa)
200000
197500
193330
189170
185000
181430
177860
174290
170710
167140
163570
160000
Alpha
(mm/mm/C)
15.29E-6
15.52E-6
15.90E-6
16.25E-6
16.60E-6
16.90E-6
17.20E-6
17.45E-6
17.70E-6
18.00E-6
18.30E-6
18.50E-6
ff
fCR
(MPa) (MPa)
156.7
133.3
120.7
108.0
98.00
91.30
84.70
80.70
77.30
74.70
72.70
72.00
Pipe Sections (1)
Name Nom
Sch OD Thk Cor.Al M.Tol Ins.Dens Ins.Thk Lin.Dens Lin.Thk Soil
Dia
(mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (kg/m3) (mm) (kg/m3) (mm)
DN600 Non Std
610 5
Pipe Loads (1)
Name T1 P1 Specific Add.Wgt. Wind
(C) (bar) gravity (kg/m)
Load
L01
175 15.0 1.2
EN 13480 (2012) Code compliance (Sorted stresses)
Sustained (12.3.2-1)
S1
ff
S1
Node (MPa) (MPa) ff
10
57.94 103.0 0.56
30
54.84 103.0 0.53
60
49.85 103.0 0.48
70
48.17 103.0 0.47
20A 47.42 103.0 0.46
50B 47.10 103.0 0.46
20B 46.72 103.0 0.45
Version 7.40
Expansion (12.3.4-1)
S3
fa
S3
Node (MPa) (MPa) fa
60
71.93 207.3 0.35
50A 62.87 207.3 0.30
40A 53.88 207.3 0.26
40B 52.17 207.3 0.25
20A 50.87 207.3 0.25
20B 47.08 207.3 0.23
10
25.68 207.3 0.12
Expansion (12.3.4-2)
S4
ff+fa S4
Node (MPa) (MPa) ff+fa
60
121.8 310.3 0.39
50A 108.7 310.3 0.35
40A 100.2 310.3 0.32
40B 98.37 310.3 0.32
20A 98.29 310.3 0.32
20B 93.79 310.3 0.30
10
83.62 310.3 0.27
Carls ror
May 3,2016
Appendix G. CAEPIPE result
53
Caepipe
Page 3
EN 13480 (2012) Code compliance (Sorted stresses)
Sustained (12.3.2-1)
S1
ff
S1
Node (MPa) (MPa) ff
40A 46.33 103.0 0.45
40B 46.19 103.0 0.45
50A 45.80 103.0 0.44
Expansion (12.3.4-1)
S3
fa
S3
Node (MPa) (MPa) fa
30
12.50 207.3 0.06
70
3.193 207.3 0.02
50B 1.615 207.3 0.01
Expansion (12.3.4-2)
S4
ff+fa S4
Node (MPa) (MPa) ff+fa
30
67.34 310.3 0.22
70
51.36 310.3 0.17
50B 48.72 310.3 0.16
EN 13480 (2012) Code Compliance
Press.
Node Allow.
(bar)
15.0
10
20A 11.9
20A 15.0
20B 9.52
20B 15.0
30
11.9
15.0
30
40A 11.9
40A 15.0
40B 9.52
40B 15.0
50A 11.9
50A 15.0
60
9.52
60
15.0
50B 9.52
50B 15.0
70
11.9
Sustained (12.3.2-1)
S1
ff
S1
(MPa) (MPa) ff
57.94 103.0 0.56
46.62 103.0 0.45
47.42 103.0 0.46
46.72 103.0 0.45
46.25 103.0 0.45
54.84 103.0 0.53
54.83 103.0 0.53
46.05 103.0 0.45
46.33 103.0 0.45
46.19 103.0 0.45
45.78 103.0 0.44
44.70 103.0 0.43
45.80 103.0 0.44
49.85 103.0 0.48
47.88 103.0 0.46
47.10 103.0 0.46
46.43 103.0 0.45
48.17 103.0 0.47
Expansion (12.3.4-1)
S3
fa
S3
(MPa) (MPa) fa
25.68 207.3 0.12
19.87 207.3 0.10
50.87 207.3 0.25
47.08 207.3 0.23
18.80 207.3 0.09
12.50 207.3 0.06
12.50 207.3 0.06
21.42 207.3 0.10
53.88 207.3 0.26
52.17 207.3 0.25
20.65 207.3 0.10
24.76 207.3 0.12
62.87 207.3 0.30
71.93 207.3 0.35
3.388 207.3 0.02
1.615 207.3 0.01
0.941 207.3 0.00
3.193 207.3 0.02
Expansion (12.3.4-2)
S4
ff+fa
S4
(MPa) (MPa) ff+fa
83.62 310.3 0.27
66.49 310.3 0.21
98.29 310.3 0.32
93.79 310.3 0.30
65.06 310.3 0.21
67.34 310.3 0.22
67.33 310.3 0.22
67.46 310.3 0.22
100.2 310.3 0.32
98.37 310.3 0.32
66.42 310.3 0.21
69.46 310.3 0.22
108.7 310.3 0.35
121.8 310.3 0.39
51.26 310.3 0.17
48.72 310.3 0.16
47.37 310.3 0.15
51.36 310.3 0.17
Support load summary for anchor at node 10
Load combination
Sustained
Operating1
Maximum
Minimum
Allowables
FX (N)
288
-4451
288
-4451
0
FY (N)
100
-11733
100
-11733
0
FZ (N)
-12073
-13757
-12073
-13757
0
MX (Nm)
686
20533
20533
686
0
MY (Nm)
17326
33563
33563
17326
0
MZ (Nm)
163
-23686
163
-23686
0
Displacements (global)
X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm)
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
Support load summary for anchor at node 70
Load combination
Sustained
Operating1
Maximum
Minimum
Allowables
FX (N)
249
4458
4458
249
0
FY (N)
0
1
1
0
0
FZ (N)
-6391
-4901
-4901
-6391
0
MX (Nm)
0
-6
0
-6
0
MY (Nm)
-3483
151
151
-3483
0
MZ (Nm)
0
-1
0
-1
0
Displacements (global)
X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm)
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
Support load summary for anchor at node 60
Load combination
Sustained
Operating1
Maximum
Minimum
Version 7.40
FX (N)
0
-7
0
-7
FY (N)
43
11732
11732
43
FZ (N)
-28767
-49693
-28767
-49693
MX (Nm)
-30
-33625
-30
-33625
MY (Nm)
-3004
6258
6258
-3004
Carls ror
MZ (Nm)
7
12048
12048
7
Displacements (global)
X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm)
0.011 0.000 0.000
-7.127 0.000 0.800
0.011 0.000 0.800
-7.127 0.000 0.000
May 3,2016
Appendix G. CAEPIPE result
54
Caepipe
Page 4
Support load summary for anchor at node 60
Load combination FX (N)
Allowables
0
FY (N)
0
FZ (N)
0
Displacements (global)
MX (Nm) MY (Nm) MZ (Nm) X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm)
0
0
0
0.000 0.000 0.000
Support load summary for limit stop at node 30 (0.000,0.000,1.000)
Load combination
Sustained
Operating1
Maximum
Minimum
Load (N)
-21120
0
0
-21120
Friction (N)
556
0
556
0
Displacements (global)
X (mm)
Y (mm)
Z (mm)
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.944
7.464
6.804
3.944
7.464
6.804
0.000
0.000
0.000
Loads on Anchors: Sustained (W+P)
Node Tag FX (N)
10
288
70
249
60
0
FY (N)
100
0
43
FZ (N)
-12073
-6391
-28767
MX (Nm)
686
0
-30
MY (Nm)
17326
-3483
-3004
MZ (Nm)
163
0
7
Loads on Limit stops: Sustained (W+P)
Node Tag Lower
Upper Load Friction X comp Y comp Z comp
Limit
Limit (N)
Force (N)
30
Reached None -21120 556
1.000
Pipe forces in local coordinates: Sustained (W+P)
Node fx
(N)
10
288
20A 288
20A 288
20B 100
20B 100
30
100
30
-43
40A -43
40A -43
40B -3899
40B -3899
50A -20850
50A -20850
60
-16981
60
3360
50B -249
50B -249
70
-249
fy
(N)
100
100
100
-288
-288
-288
249
249
1934
43
43
43
-249
16629
-3712
-2084
0
0
fz
(N)
-12073
-3598
-3598
2235
2235
10711
-10409
-1934
249
249
249
249
43
43
0
0
-2084
6391
mx
(Nm)
686
686
686
-370
-370
-370
-370
-370
-370
18
18
18
18
26
0
0
0
0
Node FX
(N)
10
-288
20A 288
20A -288
20B 288
20B -288
30
288
30
249
40A -249
FY
(N)
-100
100
-100
100
-100
100
43
-43
FZ
(N)
12073
-3598
3598
2235
-2235
10711
10409
-1934
MX
(Nm)
-686
686
-686
580
-580
-12922
12922
-49
my
(Nm)
17326
981
981
-580
-580
12922
12922
49
-209
597
597
1636
2
17
0
0
-1009
3483
mz
(Nm)
163
-45
-45
127
127
729
729
209
49
179
179
-2
1636
-4300
-1296
1009
0
0
SIF S1
(MPa)
57.94
46.62
2.60 47.42
2.60 46.72
46.25
54.84
54.83
46.05
2.60 46.33
2.60 46.19
45.78
44.70
2.60 45.80
2.60 49.85
2.60 47.88
2.60 47.10
46.43
48.17
Pipe forces in global coordinates: Sustained (W+P)
Version 7.40
MY
(Nm)
-17326
981
-981
-370
370
-370
370
-370
MZ
(Nm)
-163
-45
45
127
-127
729
-729
209
Carls ror
May 3,2016
Appendix G. CAEPIPE result
55
Caepipe
Page 5
Pipe forces in global coordinates: Sustained (W+P)
Node FX
(N)
40A 249
40B -249
40B 249
50A -249
50A 249
60
-249
60
249
50B -249
50B 249
70
-249
FY
(N)
43
-43
43
-43
43
-43
0
0
0
0
FZ
(N)
1934
3899
-3899
20850
-20850
23766
5001
-2084
2084
6391
MX
(Nm)
49
-179
179
2
-2
30
0
0
0
0
MY
(Nm)
370
-597
597
-1636
1636
4300
-1296
-1009
1009
3483
MZ
(Nm)
-209
-18
18
-18
18
-7
0
0
0
0
Displacements: Sustained (W+P)
Node X (mm)
Displacements (global)
Y (mm) Z (mm) XX (deg) YY (deg) ZZ (deg)
10
20A
20B
30
40A
40B
50A
50B
60
70
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.000
-0.038
-0.111
-0.063
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.000
-0.326
-0.401
0.000
-0.054
-0.070
-0.041
-0.027
0.000
0.000
0.0000
0.0013
0.0117
0.0048
-0.0026
0.0002
-0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0113
0.0063
0.0056
0.0049
0.0007
-0.0026
0.0003
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0001
0.0000
0.0006
0.0013
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Loads on Anchors: Expansion (T1)
Node Tag FX (N)
10
-4933
70
4940
60
-7
FY (N)
-10999
2
10998
FZ (N)
9177
1540
-10716
MX (Nm)
26495
-7
-34481
MY (Nm)
-11670
3812
11680
MZ (Nm)
-21169
-1
14820
Loads on Limit stops: Expansion (T1)
Node Tag Lower
Upper Load Friction X comp Y comp Z comp
Limit
Limit (N) Force (N)
30
Not rchd None
1.000
Pipe forces in local coordinates: Expansion (T1)
Node fx
(N)
10
-4933
20A -4933
20A -4933
20B -10999
20B -10999
30
-10999
30
-10999
40A -10999
40A -10999
40B -9177
40B -9177
50A -9177
50A -9177
60
-9977
Version 7.40
fy
(N)
-10999
-10999
-10999
4933
4933
4933
4933
4933
-9177
10999
10999
10999
-4933
3001
fz
(N)
9177
9177
9177
9177
9177
9177
9177
9177
4933
4933
4933
4933
10999
10999
mx
(Nm)
26495
26495
26495
15860
15860
15860
15860
15860
15860
17769
17769
17769
17769
34869
my
(Nm)
-11670
7472
7472
-18108
-18108
1035
1035
20177
13260
-11351
-11351
9230
27379
13904
mz
(Nm)
-21169
1776
1776
7321
7321
-2970
-2970
-13260
20177
18511
18511
-27379
9230
9962
SIF S3
(MPa)
25.68
19.87
2.60 50.87
2.60 47.08
18.80
12.50
12.50
21.42
2.60 53.88
2.60 52.17
20.65
24.76
2.60 62.87
2.60 71.93
Carls ror
May 3,2016
Appendix G. CAEPIPE result
56
Caepipe
Page 6
Pipe forces in local coordinates: Expansion (T1)
Node fx
(N)
60
-2405
50B -4940
50B -4940
70
-4940
fy
(N)
-4582
-1540
-2
-2
fz
(N)
2
2
-1540
-1540
mx
(Nm)
7
7
7
7
my
(Nm)
2
-3
-600
-3812
Node FX
(N)
10
4933
20A -4933
20A 4933
20B -4933
20B 4933
30
-4933
30
4933
40A -4933
40A 4933
40B -4933
40B 4933
50A -4933
50A 4933
60
-4933
60
4940
50B -4940
50B 4940
70
-4940
FY
(N)
10999
-10999
10999
-10999
10999
-10999
10999
-10999
10999
-10999
10999
-10999
10999
-10999
2
-2
2
-2
FZ
(N)
-9177
9177
-9177
9177
-9177
9177
-9177
9177
-9177
9177
-9177
9177
-9177
9177
1540
-1540
1540
-1540
MX
(Nm)
-26495
26495
-26495
18108
-18108
-1035
1035
-20177
20177
-18511
18511
27379
-27379
34488
-7
7
-7
7
mz
(Nm)
-1718
600
-3
1
SIF S3
(MPa)
2.60 3.388
2.60 1.615
0.941
3.193
Pipe forces in global coordinates: Expansion (T1)
MY
(Nm)
11670
7472
-7472
15860
-15860
15860
-15860
15860
-15860
11351
-11351
-9230
9230
-9962
-1718
-600
600
-3812
MZ
(Nm)
21169
1776
-1776
7321
-7321
-2970
2970
-13260
13260
-17769
17769
-17769
17769
-14824
4
-3
3
1
Displacements: Expansion (T1)
Node X (mm)
Displacements (global)
Y (mm) Z (mm) XX (deg) YY (deg) ZZ (deg)
10
20A
20B
30
40A
40B
50A
50B
60
70
0.000
-0.401
2.160
7.648
13.136
14.561
0.995
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.495
7.077
3.592
0.256
-1.092
-7.311
-5.495
-7.123
0.000
0.000
0.185
1.738
8.484
15.178
13.553
2.573
0.077
0.800
0.000
0.0000
0.0473
0.1758
0.1875
0.1730
-0.1802
-0.1680
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-0.0029
-0.0174
0.0109
0.0393
0.0785
0.0814
0.0030
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-0.0133
0.0923
0.0953
0.0841
0.0192
-0.0442
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Loads on Anchors: Operating (W+P1+T1)
Node Tag FX (N)
10
-4451
70
4458
60
-7
FY (N)
-11733
1
11732
FZ (N)
-13757
-4901
-49693
MX (Nm)
20533
-6
-33625
MY (Nm)
33563
151
6258
MZ (Nm)
-23686
-1
12048
Loads on Limit stops: Operating (W+P1+T1)
Node Tag Lower
Upper Load Friction X comp Y comp Z comp
Limit
Limit (N) Force (N)
30
Not rchd None
1.000
Version 7.40
Carls ror
May 3,2016
Appendix G. CAEPIPE result
57
Caepipe
Page 7
Pipe forces in local coordinates: Operating (W+P1+T1)
Node fx
(N)
10
-4451
20A -4451
20A -4451
20B -11733
20B -11733
30
-11733
30
-11733
40A -11733
40A -11733
40B -23335
40B -23335
50A -40286
50A -40286
60
-33696
60
1437
50B -4458
50B -4458
70
-4458
fy
(N)
-11733
-11733
-11733
4451
4451
4451
4451
4451
-17502
11733
11733
11733
-4451
27401
-7742
-3574
-1
-1
fz
(N)
-13757
-5282
-5282
551
551
9027
9027
17502
4451
4451
4451
4451
11733
11733
1
1
-3574
4901
Node FX
(N)
10
4451
20A -4451
20A 4451
20B -4451
20B 4451
30
-4451
30
4451
40A -4451
40A 4451
40B -4451
40B 4451
50A -4451
50A 4451
60
-4451
60
4458
50B -4458
50B 4458
70
-4458
FY
(N)
11733
-11733
11733
-11733
11733
-11733
11733
-11733
11733
-11733
11733
-11733
11733
-11733
1
-1
1
-1
FZ
(N)
13757
-5282
5282
551
-551
9027
-9027
17502
-17502
23335
-23335
40286
-40286
43202
6491
-3574
3574
4901
mx
(Nm)
20533
20533
20533
10815
10815
10815
10815
10815
10815
15192
15192
15192
15192
32302
6
6
6
6
my
(Nm)
33563
13705
13705
-21966
-21966
-11976
-11976
15693
11124
-6747
-6747
11822
26048
15260
2
-2
-1535
-151
mz
(Nm)
-23686
790
790
7446
7446
-1839
-1839
-11124
15693
22903
22903
-26048
11822
3399
-2859
1535
-2
1
SIF Sopr
(MPa)
77.49
62.61
2.60 74.18
2.60 87.52
62.47
55.91
55.91
59.99
2.60 80.43
2.60 88.15
63.14
64.23
2.60 94.79
2.60 78.64
2.60 51.12
2.60 48.08
46.36
45.39
Pipe forces in global coordinates: Operating (W+P1+T1)
MX
(Nm)
-20533
20533
-20533
21966
-21966
11976
-11976
-15693
15693
-22903
22903
26048
-26048
33631
-6
6
-6
6
MY
(Nm)
-33563
13705
-13705
10815
-10815
10815
-10815
10815
-10815
6747
-6747
-11822
11822
-3399
-2859
-1535
1535
-151
MZ
(Nm)
23686
790
-790
7446
-7446
-1839
1839
-11124
11124
-15192
15192
-15192
15192
-12051
3
-2
2
1
Displacements: Operating (W+P1+T1)
Node X (mm)
Displacements (global)
Y (mm) Z (mm) XX (deg) YY (deg) ZZ (deg)
10
20A
20B
30
40A
40B
50A
50B
0.000
-0.487
1.965
7.464
12.963
14.825
1.052
0.000
0.000
5.508
7.209
3.944
0.777
-0.956
-7.415
-5.508
Version 7.40
0.000
-0.740
-0.270
6.804
14.492
13.466
2.514
0.052
0.0000
0.0392
0.1787
0.2058
0.2053
-0.1775
-0.1729
0.0000
0.0000
0.0326
0.0361
0.0568
0.0774
0.0871
0.0797
0.0034
0.0000
-0.0168
0.0857
0.0899
0.0803
0.0097
-0.0483
0.0000
Carls ror
May 3,2016
Appendix G. CAEPIPE result
58
Caepipe
Page 8
Displacements: Operating (W+P1+T1)
Node X (mm)
Displacements (global)
Y (mm) Z (mm) XX (deg) YY (deg) ZZ (deg)
60
70
0.000
0.000
-7.127
0.000
0.800
0.000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Weight & Center of gravity
Empty weight = 1267.8 (kg)
Insulation weight = 0 (kg)
Content weight = 5702.1 (kg)
Lining weight = 0 (kg)
Total weight = 6969.9 (kg)
Center of Gravity for Total weight
X = 3000, Y = 4000, Z = -2000 (mm)
Bill of materials: Materials
#
1
Name Description
14307 EN 1.4307 (X2CrNi18-9) EN 10217
#
Material OD Thk Total length Total weight
(mm) (mm) (mm)
(kg)
14307 610 5
12516
943.22
Bill of materials: Pipes
1
Bill of materials: Bends
#
1
Material OD Thk Radius Angle Count Total weight
(mm) (mm) (mm) (deg)
(kg)
14307 610 5
914
90.00 3
324.59
Version 7.40
Carls ror
May 3,2016