20

16

Effects of Modelling Supports with

CIIs Structural Module on Static
and Seismic Analysis
Presenter: Gaurav Bhende

Effects of Modelling Supports

with CIIs Structural Module on
Static & Seismic Analysis
Gaurav Bhende

Intergraph 2016

 Static Stress Analysis

Dynamic Stress Analysis
Finite Element Analysis
GRE Pipe Stress Analysis
Acoustic & Flow Induced Vibrations
Composite Analysis
Off-shore Pipe Stress Analysis
Special Support Design
PMC / Owners Engineer
Site Trouble-shooting
www.protton.co.in
Intergraph 2016

Contents

Introduction to CII structure module

Deflection of Structure: Simple hand calculations
Effect of Structure on thermal stresses and forces
FEA basics / hand calculations
When to use Structure Module?
Design of Structure using AISC module of CII
Seismic Analysis- Structure response
Relative motion between sliding & floating bodies during an earthquake
Support stiffness & earthquake
Effect on structure on various parameters
Questions Answers
Closure

Intergraph 2016

Scope & Exclusion

Objective is to understand effects of structure on the Pipe Stress Analysis results.

Not to learn Response Spectrum Analysis or Dynamic Analysis
During experiments, emphasis was given only on structure and not on other
parameters like friction, modal combination methods, damping, mass model (lumped
or consistent) etc.

Intergraph 2016

Introduction to CIIs Structural Module

As simple as Piping module

Large structural data base
Has tools to model large framework quickly
Useful for secondary support design.
Tutorial - 1 Hand-outs

Intergraph 2016

Deflection of Structure: Simple hand calculations

Consider 18 ft long W16x26 steel section

anchored at the bottom is acted upon by a
horizontal force of Fz = 100 lbs.
Ixx = 301 in4
Iyy = 9.6 in4
Zxx = 38.4 in3 Zyy = 3.5 in3
E = 30 x 106 PSI
A = 7.878 in2
K= A * E / L = 1.093 E6 lb / in
Deflection at node 20 :
Y = - W * l3 / 3* EI
= - 100 * 216^3 / 3* 30E6 *301
= - 0.0372 in Answer

Intergraph 2016

Deflection of Structure: Simple hand calculations

Intergraph 2016

Effect of Structure on thermal stresses & forces

Intergraph 2016

Effect of Structure on thermal stresses & forces

Why & How?

10

Intergraph 2016

FEA basics / hand calculations

11

Intergraph 2016

FEA basics / hand calculations

Data:
Pipe OD = 273 mm, Thk.= 9.271 mm,
L =5m, c/s area = 7679 mm2 ,
E = 2.034E5, = 13.39E-6mm/mm C
Material = A106B, T = 375 C
Case 1: Both ends are rigid

Case 2: One end rigid & other flexible

[K]10-20 = AE/L *
1
-1
-1
1
[K]10-20 = 103

312.37 -312.37
-312.37
312.37

[K]20-30 = 103

9.337 -9.337
-9.337
9.337

Fthermal = AE T = 7403.34 kN
Strain = T = 4.75E-3

12

Intergraph 2016

FEA basics / hand calculations

[K]global = 103 312.37

-312.37
0

-312.37
321.7
-9.337

0
-9.337
9.337

U10 = U30 = 0 , F = 7403.34 kN

103

312.37
-312.37
0

-312.37
0
321.7 -9.337
-9.337
9.337

0
u2
0

-7403.39
= 7403.39
0

* 103

u2 = 23mm
Reaction force = [K] u2 = 9337.78 * 23 = 214769 N
Reduction in force is due to reduction in strain
New Strain = (23.75 -23) / 5000 = 1.48 E -4
13

Intergraph 2016

Few questions....

14

Should we always model structure?

Is Considering rigid support an incorrect approach?
Which loads to be given to civil?... With structural support or with rigid supports?
Can we reduce support size?

Intergraph 2016

When to model structure

16

If Pipe Stiffness is close to

support stiffness.. Will see in
detail later
If support is near to strain
sensitive equipment.
At axial / limit stops where almost
zero movement is required.
In case of inline equipment like
big strainers on leg supports to
get actual stresses and loads on
pump nozzle.
Take advantage of structure if
expansion loop size cannot be
increased in case of marginal
expansion stress failure

Intergraph 2016

Few guidelines about civil structures:

18

Lateral deflection allowed = L / 200 to

L / 325 for structure based on method
of design.
Type of connection, i.e. Welded or
bolted, decides the degree of freedom
of supports.
Make use of Local Element Forces
when analyze the member.
Be careful when referring to
compressive strength of column. It
can be much lower than tensile
strength as it is a function of Length
and Radius of Gyration.
Always consult civil engineer in case
of doubt.

Intergraph 2016

Useful data
Permissible stress in axial compression

l = Effective length of member, r = Radius of Gyration

REFERENCE: IS800

19

Intergraph 2016

Seismic Analysis

SEISMIC WAVES

BODY WAVES

PRIMARY WAVES
(P-WAVES)

extension &
compression strain
along the direction of
energy transmission

20

SURFACE WAVES

SECONDARY
WAVES
(SWAVES)

particle oscillate right

angle to P-waves

LOVE WAVES

cause surface
motion similar to Swave with no vertical
component

Intergraph 2016

RAYLEIGH WAVES

particle oscillate in
elliptical path in
vertical plane

Seismic Analysis

REFERENCE: C.V.R. Murty, Indian Institute of Technology

Kanpur, India, IITK- BMTPC Earthquake Tips.

21

Intergraph 2016

Structure response to spectrum

Section
I
E
L
m
g

W6x12
22.1 in4
29500 KSI
120 in
17.85 lb/in
386.22 in /s2

F = (K0 / 2)*{(EI)/(mL4)}1/2
For K0 = 3.52
VIDEO
REFERECE: Pipe Vibration Analysis; J. C. Wachel; Scott J. Morton; Kenneth E. Atkins

22

Intergraph 2016

Structure response to spectrum

Section
I
E
L
m
g

W6x12
22.1 in4
30000 KSI
120 in
17 lb/in
386.22 in /s2

F = (K0/ 2)*{(EI)/(mL4)}1/2
For K0 = 3.52
Natural frequency = 4.8 Hz

23

Intergraph 2016

Structure response to spectrum

Equation of motion

Displacement = X sin t
Velocity
= X cost
Acceleration = - 2 * Displacement
From graph
Acc. = 0.191*g = 0.191 *386.22 = 73.76 in /s2
For T = 2 sec, = 3.14 rad /sec
Displacement = Acc. / 2 = 7.47 in
Velocity = X = 3.14 * 7.47 = 23.5 in /sec

24

Intergraph 2016

Structure response to spectrum

T-11

25

Intergraph 2016

26

Intergraph 2016

Relative motion between sliding & floating bodies

during an earthquake

REFERENCE: Kinetic Effect on Flexible Bodies Behaviour, Eduardo Botero; Miguel P. Romo; 13th World Conference on
Earthquake, Canada

27

Intergraph 2016

Relative motion between sliding & floating bodies

during an earthquake

28

When flexible body shakes due to EQ, it gains KE that coupled with the seismic force
modifies its base fixed behavior. One of the reasons for this.. excitation motions are
modified when sliding occurs.
rigid block approach is common. but not realistic.
Body flexibility and inertia affects the body displacements.

Intergraph 2016

Relative motion between sliding & floating bodies

during an earthquake

Force Equilibrium

Fr = *N
Fa = Fs +Fk + Fd+ Fi
Where,

Fr = resistance force
N = normal reaction
Fs = shear force at the base
Fk = Stiffness force due relative displacement
Fd = damping force due to relative velocity
Fi = inertia force

29

Intergraph 2016

Relative motion between sliding & fixed bodies

during an earthquake

Fa = Fs +Fk + Fd+ Fi
Fa = M1*g* sin + k U + c U -mb (Ug + Uo)
Where

M1
g
U
c
U
mb
Uo
Ug

Total mass
gravitational acceleration.
relative displacement
damping
relative velocity
mass directly over the sliding surface
Kinetic acceleration of the system
external acceleration
inclination of sliding surface

During seismic excitation, the body can remain in equilibrium for a long period of time ,
but the force equilibrium in sliding surface may be broken.

30

Intergraph 2016

Comparison: Fixed base (FB)& Free-to-slide (FTS)

EXPERIMENT: SINE WAVE, FREQUENCY 1.4 Hz, DURATION 32 sec

31

Intergraph 2016

Comparison: Fixed base (FB)& Free to-slide (FTS)

FREE TO -SLIDE

FIXED BASE

32

Base and Shaking table motions are

identical.

Once the yield acceleration occurs,

behaviour is completely modified.

Plate 1 motion is slightly different due to

steel rod in between.

Yield acceleration remains constant for

few seconds and then drops down until
the input acceleration reverses the
direction.

Plat 3 shows double peak due to effect

of two vibration modes.

Plate 3 shows single peak due to sliding

of the body that masks the second
mode.

Intergraph 2016

Comparison: Fixed base (FB)& Free to-slide (FTS)

33

When yield acceleration is reached FTS model starts accumulating

displacements whereas FB transmits motions as depicted by recorded
movements.
Actual excitation in FTS model is defined by vibration characteristics at the base
interface.
In both cases acceleration is amplified.
In FTS due to stick slip movement at the base induces a whip effect.

Intergraph 2016

Mode shapes and Support Stiffness

For random excitation 1st few modes are dominant & higher order modes are of
decreasing importance and amplitudes.
Pipeline has its base excitation at each support point , vibrating almost uniformly.
Does not have independent discrete excitation or single base excitation.
First few modes can lie within same frequency range.

REFERENCE: Seismic Design of Geothermal Piping Systems; Gunnlaur Oskar Augustsson

35

Intergraph 2016

Suggested node spacing

Maximum node spacing for better results: 1ft per nominal inch of pipe.
Have a node between restraints.
Have a node between bends.
From the paper Mass Lumping Technique for Seismic Analysis of Piping "by John K.
Lin & Adolph T. Molin of United Engineers & Constructors and Eric n. Liao of Stone &
Webster.

L:
D:
t:
W:

L = [ 9.2(D3t / W) ]1/4
Length, ft
Diameter, in
thickness, in
pipe weight, lb/ft

REFERENCE: Intergraph webinars: Calculating Modes of Vibrations (26-May-2011) presented by Dave Diehl

36

Intergraph 2016

Mode shapes and Support Stiffness

37

EXPT: Modal analysis of straight pipe 700 mm NB x 8mm thickness,9 equally spaced supports 18m
apart, simply supported ends.

Intergraph 2016

Mode shapes and Support Stiffness

Observations:

38

Intergraph 2016

1st mode is most natural and

expected. But mass participation
is zero i.e. this mode is not being
excited in transverse direction as it
assumed that supports and pipes
are in-phase with response
spectrum.
Mode 2 to 7 are of unpredictable
shape.
Participation of 8th mode is
maximum and will result in highest
reaction forces at the supports
and acting is same direction.
The natural frequency also
depends upon the distance
between support.

Frequency Vs Support Spacing

f = (K0/ 2)*{(EI)/(mL4)}1/2

39

Intergraph 2016

Support stiffness & earthquake

Support is what connects pipe to the ground and hence knowing its flexibility is vital.
Stiffness = Total force / displacement at pipe centre

Experimental FEA model subjected to static acceleration in transverse direction

40

Overall stiffness is greatly affected by pipe thickness.

For larger diameter pipes with large D/t ratio, pipe itself contributes to the
flexibility of supports.

Intergraph 2016

Support stiffness & earthquake

The pipe transverse stiffness can be calculated as:

k = 48 EI / l3 ........for simply supported beam
= 192 EI / l3 ........for fixed beam
For example in this case,
k simply supported = 2 kN /mm
k fixed
= 8 kN /mm
If these values are close to support stiffness then assumption of rigid support
may not be a good approximation.

41

Intergraph 2016

Comparison.. Flexible support and rigid support

RIGID SUPPORT

FLEXIBLE SUPPORT

42

Natural frequency reduced due to support stiffness.

Previous first mode appeared again but at 7th position.
Other mode shapes keep similar shape but their order is sometimes mixed.
Modes seem to gather much closer in the low frequency range.

Intergraph 2016

Comparison in static/ RSA as rigid / RSA flexible

supports

43

Intergraph 2016

Comparison: Fx forces

1800

1400

1600

1200

1400
1200

PIPESTATICRIGID

1000
800

PIPE+SUPP
-STATIC
EQUI

600

400
200

600
PIPE +
STRUCTUR
E

400
200

290

260

190

140

100

30

10

STATIC EQUIVALENT METHOD, Fx FORCE,

lb
PIPE +
Support
RIGID
Node Nos. SUPPORTS

44

PIPE+RIGID
SUPPORT

800

10
30
100
140
190
260
290

1000

1673
0
0
0
188
369
237

RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS, Fx

FORCE, lb

PIPE +STRUCTURE

Support
Node Nos.

PIPE + RIGID
SUPPORTS

PIPE
+STRUCTURE

1689
0
0
0
224
283
272

10
30
100
140
190
260
290

1141
0
0
0
128
144
96

1281
0
0
0
153
198
129

Intergraph 2016

Comparison: Fy forces

STATIC EQUIVALENT METHOD, Fy FORCE, lb

RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS, Fy FORCE,

lb

Support Node
Nos.

PIPE + RIGID
SUPPORTS

PIPE
+STRUCTURE

Support
Node Nos.

PIPE + RIGID
SUPPORTS

PIPE
+STRUCTURE

10
30
100
140
190
260
290

671
0
0
0
0
0
996

673
0
0
0
0
0
994

10
30
100
140
190
260
290

57
118
91
77
120
66
47

57
118
92
77
114
67
48

In RSA the supports acts rigid in vertical direction and hence no difference in
Results w.r.t. Rigid support case.

45

Intergraph 2016

Comparison: Fz forces

900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

500
400

PIPE+
RIGID
SPPORT
PIPE +
STRUCTUR
E

300
200

PIPE +
STRUCTUR
E
SUPPORT

100
0

STATIC EQUIVALENT METHOD, Fz

FORCE, lb
Support PIPE + RIGID
PIPE
Node Nos. SUPPORTS +STRUCTURE

10
30
100
140
190
260
290

46

PIPE +
RIGID
SUPPORT

86
504
539
541
0
0
798

182
384
569
511
0
0
821

RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS, Fx

FORCE, lb
PIPE +
Support
RIGID
PIPE
Node Nos. SUPPORTS +STRUCTURE

10
30
100
140
190
260
290

106
274
232
190
0
0
379

Intergraph 2016

46
338
408
455
0
0
405

Natural Frequency

80

Natural Frequency, Hz

70

60

50

PIPE+RIGID
SUPPORT

40

PIPE + STRUCTURE

30

20

10

0
1

11 13 15 17 19

Natural frequency of structure alone = 4.794 Hz

47

Intergraph 2016

MODE

PIPE + RIGID SUPPORT

PIPE + STRUCTRE

6.203

4.794

8.216

4.794

9.543

4.794

10.204

4.794

13.371

4.794

13.413

5.583

16.139

6.85

16.155

7.14

25.891

8.194

10

26.136

9.465

11

31.862

10.354

12

33.224

12.164

13

36.575

12.727

14

37.791

13.355

15

39.315

16.072

16

41.837

16.206

17

46.348

22.87

18

46.853

23.762

19

50.12

25.778

20

71.367

30.264

Observations

48

The forces obtained by Response Spectrum Analysis are less in magnitude than that
of static equivalent method due to added support flexibility.
Addition of structure shows effect on forces. But trend needs to be analyzed on case
to case basis.
In RSA the supports acts rigid in vertical direction and hence no difference in
Results w.r.t. Rigid support case.
Natural frequency changes based on support and pipe flexibility.
For independent structures like T-post natural frequency decreases.
For first few modes natural frequencies accumulate in narrow region when structure
is included.
It may take no. of modes to reach cut-off frequency when structure is added.

Intergraph 2016

49

Question Answers

Intergraph 2016

References

50

C.V.R. Murty, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India, IITK- BMTPC Earthquake
Tips.
Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipelines systems, Published in
1984 by American Society of Civil Engineers.
Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and design of Petrochemical Facilities Published
in 1997 by American society of Civil Engineers.
Seismic Design and Retrofit of Piping systems, July 2002, American Lifelines
Alliance.
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil
Engineers, ASCE/SEI 7-05.
Diehl, David., Current Approach to Defining Ground Motion, COADE Mechanical
engineering new, volume 33, October 2002.
Intergraph CAESAR II is a comprehensive and standard program for Pipe Stress
Analysis used worldwide .
IS800: Indian Standard, General Construction in Steel Code of Practice

Intergraph 2016

References

51

Chopra, Anil K., Dynamics of Structures Theory and Application to Earthquake

Engineering.
Seismic Design of Geothermal Piping Systems; Gunnlaur Oskar Augustsson
Intergraph webinars: Calculating Modes of Vibrations (26-May-2011) & Response
Spectrum analysis presented by Dave Diehl

Intergraph 2016

THANK YOU

52

Intergraph 2016