Men 0202

Mechanical
Engineering
News
VOLUME 32
FEBRUARY 2002
PVElite 4.3 and CodeCalc 6.4

Released!
CodeCalc 6.4 released in January 2002 introduced many new features, some
of the significant ones are:
Interactive computation of results on the input screen
Trunnion design
Leg baseplate design
WRC 368 (local stress in the nozzle-cylinder junction due to internal

pressure)
On-screen calculations are introduced in this version, to aid in faster design

and estimation. As the data is entered the calculation is automatically performed.
Once the data is consistent and complete, the results are displayed on the
status bar in color. A failure in design is indicated in red to bring it to the
users attention. The following figure shows an internal/external cylindrical
shell analysis with the results displayed on the status bar. This interactive
feature is implemented in the shell/head, nozzle and flange modules.
FOR THE POWER,

PROCESS AND
RELATED INDUSTRIES
IN THIS ISSUE:
Whats New at COADE
PVElite Version 4.30 and CodeCalc 6.4
Released .................................................... 1
CADWorx Version 2002 Released ................ 4
TANK Version 2.30 ........................................ 6
Technology You Can Use

Comparison of Response Spectrum and
Static methods uisng ASCE 7-98 .............. 6
Coordinate Systems in CAESAR II ................ 9
The COADE Mechanical Engineering
News Bulletin is published twice a year
from the COADE offices in Houston,
Texas. The Bulletin is intended to provide
information about software applications
and development for Mechanical
Engineers serving the power, process and
related industries. Additionally, the Bulletin
serves as the official notification
vehicle for software errors discovered in
those Mechanical Engineering programs
offered by COADE.
Frequency / Phase Pairs in CAESAR II ....... 18

PC Hardware for the Engineering User
(Part 32) ................................................... 24
Program Specifications
CAESAR II Notices ...................................... 25
TANK Notices .............................................. 26
CodeCalc Notices ........................................ 26
PVElite Notices ............................................ 26
2002 COADE, Inc. All rights reserved.
COADE Mechanical Engineering News
February 2002
Figure 2 Nozzle angle input
Lifting trunnion analysis was also implemented in this version.

Stresses in the trunnion are computed and compared to their
respective allowables. An option to perform an automatic local
stress evaluation per the WRC 107 method is available. In this
version the leg baseplate can also be designed. The features discussed
above were available to the PVElite users in the component analysis
module in the September release.
To illustrate lets consider a 6 in. tangential nozzle located on a 60

in. ID elliptical head. The nozzle is offset from the head centerline
by 20 in. Appropriate data input and the CodeCalc graphic for this
case is shown in Figure 3.
Additionally, CodeCalc now checks the design in both the
longitudinal and the circumferential planes for Hillside nozzles in
the same analysis. Lateral nozzles or Y-angle on cones or cylinders
can also be easily specified.
Features, which are new for both the CodeCalc and PVElite users
(in the component analysis module) are:
Simplified input and analysis for the non-radial nozzles.
Split screen graphics.
Tailing lug analysis.
Improved registration procedure.
ASME A-2001 update
Visit www.coade.com for a complete list.

Input for non-radial nozzles has been simplified. Nozzles can be
easily located around the vessel by specifying the angle between the
vessel and nozzle centerline and the nozzle offset, as illustrated in
the following figure.
Figure 3 Nozzle input and corresponding graphic for a

tangential nozzle.
February 2002
As seen in Figure 1, the split screen graphic is back by popular

demand. This provides instant visual check of the input. The
splitter bar that separated the screen areas can be used to adjust the
size of the input tabbed dialog and the graphic.
CodeCalc can now perform a tailing lug analysis. The tailing lug,
which is attached to the basering, is used for lifting vertical vessels.
Another enhancement in CodeCalc version 6.4 is the improved
product registration procedure. A link is provided in the software
that allows users to register with COADE. By registering, important
news about builds, new versions etc. is emailed to those who
registered. Contact information can be modified or updated any
time through this web interface.
Significant new features in PVElite version 4.3 are:
Added top head platform and caged ladder
PD5500 Annex F Nozzle calculations
IBC 2000 Earthquake code added
Modal Natural frequency solver
Added Dynamic Response Spectrum for earthquake load

calculation
ASME A-2001 update
The following figure shows a vessel with a rectangular platform and

2 caged ladders. Modal natural frequency solver and computation
of earthquake loading using the dynamic response spectrum method,
helps to accurately model the vessel. This can provide considerable
savings in material cost, especially for tall vertical vessels. These
features are discussed in another article (Comparison of Response
Spectrum and Static Methods using ASCE 7-98) in this newsletter.
As previously advised, beginning with PVElite Version 4.3,

there will only be one update of the software per year.
Figure 4 A Vessel modeled with PVElite 4.3
February 2002
CADWorx 2002 Released!

The CADWorx development team is excited to announce the release
of CADWorx 2002, the latest advancements in COADEs plant
design and automation software. The new version is packed with
features many of them requested by existing CADWorx users.
Here is a brief overview of CADWorx 2002.
CADWorx PIPE and P&ID 2002
Windows style tool tips have been added. Hover over a

component and view information about that component without
running any command. The tool tips displayed can be
customized to include only information you need.
Figure 2: CADWorx PIPE Setup Dialog In French
Figure 1: Tool Tip Data Selection In CADWorx PIPE
Editing a component is easier than ever before. Just doubleclick on it and change any information including long, short
descriptions etc.
CADWorx now supports various languages. All prompts and

dialogs can now be localized with different languages. Initial
languages available include French and Spanish. Future
languages are also planned. Below are examples of two
dialogs one in Spanish and one in French.
Figure 3: CADWorx P&ID Setup Dialog In Spanish
Enforce specification and size limitation using the new variable

SpecSizeOveride in the configuration file.
New HTML Help system has been implemented and online

help is available from dialogs and the command line.
February 2002
CADWorx PIPE 2002
A fully integrated live database has been added. Complete

integration with AutoCAD commands like COPY, ERASE is
included to make database operation seamless. The database
is updated immediately. Make your changes in the drawing or
in the database and you will not lose any information! Using
the SYNC command, CADWorx will update your drawings
with the information from the database. CADWorx supports
Microsoft Access, Oracle and Microsoft SQL Server databases.
The ISOOUT command has been enhanced dramatically to

improve speed. In addition, a special component STOPSIGN
has been added to break ISOs at specified points along lines.
Creating new data files is now easy with the new Template
button in the Specification Editor. Just select the component
type, pick a location to save the data file and a brand new
template data file is created. All you have to do is fill it with
the sizes you need.
Several commands including ISOOUT, DBFGEN now have

the ability to select multiple line numbers at the same time.
The ROUTER command has been enhanced to allow a constant

slope to be set, maintain the crosshairs at the elevation of the
last point picked, and allow a sloped segment at the beginning
of a routing line.
Importing a PCF file using PCFIN has been improved with

more components and with less clean up required.
The menu file was updated to allow easy activation of toolbars

by simply right clicking on a docked PIPE toolbar.
CADWorx P&ID 2002
A new variable IsometricColor has been added. Set this

variable to make all your ISOs come out in the same color.
Create specification driven P&IDs. CADWorx can now

read information from specifications and automatically update
the database as you draw your P&ID drawing. This feature is
controlled by the SpecControl variable in the configuration
file.
The Auto Isometric Configuration dialog has been improved

and records the last used configuration file.
Change process line priority using the new PROCESSASSIGN

command.
Convert your CADWorx Modelspace/Paperspace AutoISO

into a 2D flat drawing using the new 2DISO command. This
command requires the use of AutoCAD express tools.
Embedded instruments can now be copied with the correct

number of entries created in the database.
Added flanged, socketweld valves and function symbols to

menu.
The ZOOMLOCK command has been improved to lock all

MVIEWs in Paperspace.
Flange placement has been enhanced to prevent the flange

face from being placed on buttweld side of a component.
Previous versions of the program required the user to change
the option at the command line during flange placement.
New SyncOnStartUp variable has been added to the

configuration file. This variable allows you to always
synchronize on opening a drawing, never synchronize or
prompt for user response.
The XDATAADD is used to convert existing P&ID drawings

into CADWorx P&ID drawings. XDATAADD now has the
option of adding component information to user-defined
tables.
If any user created text styles contain the phrase No Change,

CADWorx P&ID will no longer change the text style to the
current style when inserting components into the drawing.
The SETVISIBILITY command has new options. You can

now hide all objects with an entry in the database. You can
also isolate a single object based on its database ID. The
SETVISIBILITY command allows you to only view a subset
of all objects in a drawing.
REMOVEITEM is a new command that removes the link

between valves or other objects and process lines.
Specifications can be set to a particular color in advance using

the SpecColor setting. Previous versions of the program
required the spec color to be entered every time the spec was
set in a new drawing.
New commands have been added to set the current main size,
reduction size, specification and/or line number based on an
existing component.
GCEDIT (Global Component Edit) now shares the same

options as CEDIT (Component Edit) including newly added
BOM Item Type.
Sort your Bill of Material in any order with the new SORT BY
button in the BOMSETUP dialog.
You can now start your BOM tag numbers at any value you
specify.
UNCOMBINELINE is a new command that creates individual

entries in the database for each broken segment of a process
line. This command is the opposite of COMBINELINE that
creates one entry in the database for broken process line
segments.
The menu file was updated to allow easy activation of toolbars

by simply right clicking on a docked P&ID toolbar.
All CADWorx users under current UMS, (Upgrades, Maintenance

and Support), contract should receive CADWorx 2002 shortly. If
you are not already using CADWorx, now is a great time to start.
Visit www.coade.com and download an evaluation version or call
281-890-4566 to request a demo CD. If you are ready to buy
CADWorx, contact your local CADWorx dealer or contact us.
Register with us (www.coade.com/updates.htm) and keep up-todate with the latest releases and builds of CADWorx.
TANK Version 2.30

TANK Version 2.30 should be ready to ship by the first part of
February 2002. This new release of TANK includes the following
changes and modifications.
New input options exist to disable the output of annular base

plate information, and to exclude the wind moment in F.4.2
computations.
Rafter supported cone roof (no columns) design has been

added.
In the wind girder report, the actual distances below the top
of the tank have been added.
In the tank layout graphics, the shell course thicknesses

have been added.
TANK output can now be sent directly to Microsoft WORD,

with subsequent reformatting.
The configuration dialog now includes [D]efault buttons,

allowing users to reset the directive to its default value with a
single click.
The Error Checker module has been modified to notify users

of fatal errors when run in batch mode.
Use of user defined materials has been simplified. The user

material file no longer needs to be manually merged with the
COADE supplied material database. This operation is
performed in memory by the input processor when necessary.
Software registration is now handled directly on-line. This

provides better abilities to notify users when software updates
become available.
February 2002
Comparison of the Response

Spectrum Analysis and Static
Methods using the ASCE 7-98
Earthquake Code
By: Scott Mayeux
PVElite version 4.3 was released in January 2002 and incorporates

a variety of new features including earthquake analysis utilizing the
Response Spectrum Method.
What is the Response Spectrum Method (RSM) and why is it
useful?
The response spectrum method computes forces and moments on a
structure utilizing matrix solution methods and shock spectra data
to yield a more accurate result than the static equivalent building
code technique. The vessel is modeled as an elastic, multiple
degree of freedom system and the equations of motion for each
degree of freedom are solved. The resulting equations of motion
(matrices) are integrated in time to obtain the simulated response of
the structure. To understand the difference between the methods, it
is important to understand how a static earthquake analysis works.
Generally, when using a typical building code it is necessary to
obtain basic parameters such as the seismic zone, soil factors, site
class, etc. to solve for a base shear force. In the case of our example
below, the ASCE 7-98 building code was selected. After entering
the input, PVElite was utilized to analyze a tall process tower.
Selected results appear in the tables below. Note the value of V
(16823 lb.). This is the base shear. It is an equivalent static inertial
horizontal load. With a known base shear and element masses, a
lateral force (Element Load) can be computed for each element,
based on a weighted mass distribution summation equation. After
these loads are computed, bending moments and subsequent bending
stresses at each node can be calculated. These bending stresses
cause both tensile and compressive stresses in the tower elements.
These stresses are ultimately combined with other types such as
pressure and weight stresses, which are then compared to appropriate
code allowables.
It is known that a flexible structure such as a freestanding tall
vertical vessel or piping system can have many modes of vibration.
February 2002
Using traditional methods of structural analysis in pressure vessel
design, only the first mode of vibration is considered. This
fundamental mode of vibration is used in both wind and seismic
calculations. PVElite 4.3 incorporates advanced technology that
allows it to solve for multiple frequencies under 100 cycles per
second using the Eigen Solution method. This method solves a
mass/stiffness matrix problem iteratively until a mode of vibration
is successfully extracted. Computing several modes of vibration is
important because the elemental mass may contribute differently
based on the mode of interest. This is obviously not a consideration
using the static method. After PVElite extracts the modes and
mode shapes, it can determine the shear forces, axial forces and the
corresponding moments. Additionally, the dynamic displacements
at each node point (typically a weld seam) can now be computed.
Since ASCE 7-98 addresses both the RSM and the static equivalent
method, it was chosen because it allows a direct comparison of the
two techniques. For our test, a 112 feet tall (34 meters) process
tower tall was selected. The task of interest is to compare the
resulting bending moments throughout the tower. At the base of the
tower a moment of 519629 ft-lbs was computed using the RSM,
while a moment of 1,100,000 ft-lbs was computed using the
traditional method. This is quite a remarkable difference, less than
half! If the governing thickness requirement is based upon seismic
requirements, this analysis could reduce the thickness of the skirt
and shell courses. The thickness savings become especially important
if the vessel is constructed of an expensive material, such as
zirconium, titanium, stainless steel or other. Additional benefits
such as lower foundation loads, smaller anchor bolts, chair caps etc.
are also realized.
It is also interesting to note that the wind moment changed. This is
due to the change in the natural frequency and resulting energy
dissipation difference. When the RSM is chosen, PVElite will
always use the Eigen Solver to extract the various modes of vibration.
Note that there is a slight difference here, 1.115189 hz (using the
Freese Method) versus 1.1682 hz using the Eigen method. The
difference is very small but does have an impact on the wind load
calculation. Another important advantage of the Eigen solver is that
it does not rely on the assumption that the structure is supported at
the base, which is a requirement of the Freese method. The newer,
advanced technique in PVElite allows for accurate solutions of
lug, intermediate skirt and leg supported vessels. For newly
created vessels, the program uses this method as the default.
In addition to the ASCE and IBC 2000 earthquake types using the
RSM, a table of data points for Period or Frequency versus
Displacement, Velocity or Acceleration can be entered into the
program. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commissions guide
1.60 shock spectra and ElCentro are also built into PVElite. The
missing mass correction factor is included as an option.

In conclusion, the Response Spectrum Method can provide vessel
designers with more accurate stress and deflection results when
compared to the older, more traditional analysis techniques. The
resulting calculations are shown for each case below.
Earthquake Analysis Results per ASCE 7-98 (static method)
User Entered Table Value 9.4.1.2.4a
Fa
User Entered Table Value 9.4.1.2.4b
Fv
Max. Mapped Acceleration Value for Short Periods Ss
Max. Mapped Acceleration Value for Long Periods S1
Moment Reduction Factor
Tau
Force Modification Factor
R
Importance Factor
I
Seismic Design Category
1.000
1.400
1.00
0.400
1.000
3.000
1.000
C
Check the Period (1/Frequency) from 9.5.3.3-1

Ta = Ct * hn^(3/4) where Ct = 0.020 and hn = total Vessel Height
Ta = 0.020 * ( 114.0697 ^(3/4) = 0.698 seconds
The Coefficient Cu from Table 9.5.3.3 is
1.300
Check the Min. Value of T which is the Smaller of Cu*Ta and T

T = Min. Value of ( 1.300 * 0.698, 1/ 1.152 ) = 0.8681 per
9.5.3.3
Compute the Seismic Response Coefficient Cs per 9.5.3.2.1
Cs = Sds / ( R / I )
Cs = 0.6667 / ( 3.0000 / 1.0000 ) = 0.2222
Check the minimum value of Cs per eqn. 9.5.3.2.1-3
Cs = Maximum Value of ( 0.1433, 0.044 * 1.00 * 0.6667 ) =
0.1433
Compute the Total Base Shear V = Cs * Total Weight
V = 0.1433 * 117364.1 = 16823.69 lb.
Distribute the Base shear force to each element according to
the equations Fx = Cvx * V (eqn. 9.5.3.4-1 ) and the vertical
distribution factor Cvx = Wx*hx^k/( Sum of Wi*hi^k ) and k is
an exponent which is related to the period of Vibration.
In this case, the value of k was 1.1841.
The Natural Frequency for the Vessel (Ope...) is 1.15189 Hz.
Wind/Earthquake Shear, Bending

|
From|
|
10|
20|
30|
40|
50|
60|
70|
80|
90|
100|
110|
120|
130|
140|
| Elevation | Cummulative| Earthquake |

To | of To Node | Wind Shear|
Shear |
|
ft. |
lb. |
lb. |
20|
10.5000 |
29821.4 |
16823.7 |
30|
21.0833 |
23674.9 |
15684.7 |
40|
25.3333 |
23635.2 |
15554.8 |
50|
30.2500 |
21573.5 |
14825.4 |
60|
36.0000 |
20744.9 |
14531.6 |
70|
46.0000 |
18671.6 |
13305.0 |
80|
56.0000 |
16512.6 |
11861.0 |
90|
66.0000 |
13173.5 |
9789.46 |
100|
76.5000 |
10871.9 |
7980.78 |
110|
87.5000 |
7566.71 |
5437.96 |
120|
94.0000 |
4281.93 |
2566.15 |
130|
104.267 |
3874.40 |
2291.62 |
140|
113.742 |
80.1298 |
157.889 |
150|
114.010 |
17.8717 |
86.1383 |
Wind
Bending
ft.lb.
1.639E+06
1.077E+06
1.073E+06
884802.
853063.
655981.
480060.
331629.
211403.
109991.
44823.1
36666.8
21.4870
1.07035
| Earthquake |
|
Bending |
|
ft.lb. |
| 1.100E+06 |
|
758759. |
|
756156. |
|
629573. |
|
607555. |
|
468372. |
|
342542. |
|
234289. |
|
145438. |
|
71635.1 |
|
27612.5 |
|
22754.7 |
|
55.9972 |
|
5.15889 |

Tensile and Bending Stresses due to Earthquake Moments
Analyzing Stresses for Load Case : EQ
Stress Units: psi
From
Tensile
All. Tens.
Comp.
All. Comp.
Tens.
Comp.
Node
Stress
Stress
Stress
Stress
Ratio
Ratio
10
6961.37
14700.00 -6961.37
-18940.33 0.4736 0.3675
20
4428.13
21000.00 -4428.13
-20215.11 0.2109 0.2191
30
4412.93
17850.00 -4412.93
-20215.11 0.2472 0.2183
40
3674.19
17850.00 -3674.19
-20215.11 0.2058 0.1818
50
4936.62
17850.00 -4936.62
-21000.00 0.2766 0.2351
60
4686.55
17850.00 -4686.55
-21000.00 0.2626 0.2232
70
3870.30
17850.00 -3870.30
-21000.00 0.2168 0.1843
80
3555.63
17850.00 -3555.63
-20763.93 0.1992 0.1712
90
3334.83
17850.00 -3334.83
-19806.43 0.1868 0.1684
100
1642.56
17850.00 -1642.56
-19806.43 0.0920 0.0829
110
357.88
17850.00 -357.88
-21000.00 0.0200 0.0170
120
2488.57
15300.00 -2488.57
-18000.00 0.1627 0.1383
130
6.12
21000.00
-6.12
-21000.00 0.0003 0.0003
140
0.25
21000.00
-0.25
-21000.00 0.0000 0.0000
Maximum Stress ratio: 0.4736, tension at node 10, moment

1,100,000 ft-lbs
Response Spectrum Analysis per ASCE 7-98
Computed Natural Frequencies (OPE): 11
Mode
Freq (Hz)
Freq (Rad/Sec)
Period (Sec)
1
1.1682
7.3398
0.8560
2
4.0176
25.2430
0.2489
3
7.4993
47.1197
0.1333
4
14.0766
88.4458
0.0710
5
24.7993
155.8188
0.0403
6
31.0785
195.2722
0.0322
7
39.9319
250.8992
0.0250
8
58.1019
365.0652
0.0172
9
70.5193
443.0861
0.0142
10
78.7207
494.6167
0.0127
11
100.0587
628.6871
0.0100
Mass Participation Factors: 11
Mode
X
Y
1
10.95138983
0.00000029
2
0.93197919
-0.00000003
3
-0.25465900
0.00000000
4
0.04770686
-0.00000018
5
0.00704619
0.00000005
6
0.00000000
0.01942145
7
-0.00126486
0.00000000
8
0.00033505
0.00000000
9
0.00000000
-0.00152696
10
0.00010016
0.00000000
11
-0.00003331
0.00000000
Computed EigenVectors Report Deleted for Brevity
Mass Percentages:
Included(X)
Included(Y)
Added(X)
Added(Y)
82.82
80.48
0.00
0.00
NOTE: In the following reports, Max Contrib displays the
contribution of the Mode/Load combination having the maximum impact
on the total (and names that Mode/Load combination).
Restraint Loads:
Node
Fx(lb.)
Fy(lb.)
Mz(ft.lb.)
10
8586.4
10787.0
519629.0
Max
6192.2
10645.1
485676.4
Contrib
1 (X)
6 (Y)
1 (X)
February 2002
Element Forces and Moments: [Report Abbreviated]

Node
Fx(lb.)
Fy(lb.)
Mz(ft.lb.)
10
Max
Contrib
20
Max
Contrib
8586.4
6192.2
1 (X)
8586.4
6192.2
1 (X)
10787.0
10645.0
6 (Y)
10787.0
10645.0
6 (Y)
519629.0
485676.4
1 (X)
362310.7
355640.6
1 (X)
Displacements: [Report Abbreviated]

Node
Dx(in.)
Dy(in.)
Rz(Deg)
10
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Max
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Contrib
1 (X)
6 (Y)
1 (X)
20
Max
Contrib
0.1342
0.1266
1 (X)
0.0017
0.0017
6 (Y)
0.0548
0.0525
1 (X)

|
| Elevation | Cummulative| Earthquake |
From|To | of To Node | Wind Shear|
Shear |
|
|
ft. |
lb. |
lb. |
10| 20|
10.5000 |
29733.4 |
8586.43 |
20| 30|
21.0833 |
23607.6 |
7696.16 |
30| 40|
25.3333 |
23568.0 |
7491.96 |
40| 50|
30.2500 |
21513.3 |
7153.78 |
50| 60|
36.0000 |
20685.9 |
6820.82 |
60| 70|
46.0000 |
18619.5 |
6179.39 |
70| 80|
56.0000 |
16467.9 |
5440.72 |
80| 90|
66.0000 |
13136.3 |
4691.29 |
90| 100|
76.5000 |
10842.4 |
3909.20 |
100| 110|
87.5000 |
7546.04 |
2766.40 |
110| 120|
94.0000 |
4270.26 |
1902.53 |
120| 130|
104.267 |
3864.10 |
1604.81 |
130| 140|
113.742 |
79.8592 |
150.120 |
140| 150|
114.010 |
17.8114 |
53.2318 |
Wind
Bending
ft.lb.
1.634E+06
1.074E+06
1.070E+06
882358.
850708.
654181.
478744.
330723.
210829.
109693.
44703.1
36568.8
21.4144
1.06674
| Earthquake |
|
Bending |
|
ft.lb. |
|
519629. |
|
362311. |
|
361184. |
|
306675. |
|
297297. |
|
237813. |
|
184079. |
|
136472. |
|
95293.3 |
|
58549.6 |
|
33256.5 |
|
29811.4 |
|
68.9268 |
|
6.37673 |
Analyzing Stresses for Load Case : EQ

Stress Units: psi
From
Tensile
All. Tens.
Comp.
All. Comp.
Tens.
Comp.
Node
Stress
Stress
Stress
Stress
Ratio
Ratio
10
3324.08
14700.00 -3324.08
-18940.33 0.2261 0.1755
20
2114.45
21000.00 -2114.45
-20215.11 0.1007 0.1046
30
2107.87
17850.00 -2107.87
-20215.11 0.1181 0.1043
40
1789.76
17850.00 -1789.76
-20215.11 0.1003 0.0885
50
2415.65
17850.00 -2415.65
-21000.00 0.1353 0.1150
60
2379.57
17850.00 -2379.57
-21000.00 0.1333 0.1133
70
2079.87
17850.00 -2079.87
-21000.00 0.1165 0.0990
80
2071.12
17850.00 -2071.12
-20763.93 0.1160 0.0997
90
2185.03
17850.00 -2185.03
-19806.43 0.1224 0.1103
100
1342.51
17850.00 -1342.51
-19806.43 0.0752 0.0678
110
431.03
17850.00 -431.03
-21000.00 0.0241 0.0205
120
3260.33
15300.00 -3260.33
-18000.00 0.2131 0.1811
130
7.54
21000.00
-7.54
-21000.00 0.0004 0.0004
140
0.31
21000.00
-0.31
-21000.00 0.0000 0.0000
Maximum Stress ratio: 0.2261, tension at node 10, moment

519629 ft-lbs
February 2002
Coordinate Systems in
CAESAR II
The direction of the arrow heads indicates the positive

direction of each axis.
In Figure 1, the X axis has one arrowhead, the Y axis has

two arrowheads, and the Z axis has three arrowheads. The
circular arcs labeled RX, RY, and RZ define the direction
of positive rotation about each axis. (This point will be
discussed later.)
Any point in space can be mapped to these coordinate systems

by using its position along the number lines. For example, a
point 5 units down the X axis would have a coordinate of
(5.0, 0.0, 0.0). A point 5 units down the X axis and 6 units
down the Y axis would have a coordinate of (5.0, 6.0, 0.0).
Notice that if the system on the right side of Figure 1 is rotated

a positive 90 degrees about the X axis, the result is the
system on the left side of Figure 1.
By: Richard Ay
Introduction
This article discusses coordinate systems, and how they relate to
piping systems and pipe stress analysis. Additional information on
this subject can be found in two issues of COADEs Mechanical
Engineering News - December 1992 and November 1994. These
issues can be found on the COADE web site at
http://www.coade.com.
Many analytical models in engineering are based upon being able to
define a real physical object mathematically. This is accomplished
by mapping the dimensions of the physical object into a similar
mathematical space. Mathematical space is usually assumed to be
either two-dimensional or three-dimensional. For piping analysis,
the three dimensional space is necessary, since almost all piping
systems are three dimensional in nature.
Two typical three-dimensional mathematical systems are shown
below in Figure 1. Both of these systems are Cartesian Coordinate
Systems. Each axis in these systems is perpendicular to all other
axes.
The coordinate system on the left side of Figure 1 is the default

CAESAR II global coordinate system. In this system, the X and
Z axes define the horizontal plane, and the Y axis is vertical.
(The other coordinate system in Figure 1 can be obtained in
CAESAR II by selecting the Z-axis Vertical option, discussed
later in this article.) All further discussion in this article will target
this default coordinate system, unless otherwise noted.
Other Global Coordinate Systems
There are other types of coordinate systems that can be used to
mathematically map a physical object.
Figure 1 Typical Cartesian Coordinate Systems

In addition, for these Cartesian coordinate systems, the right hand
rule is used to define positive rotation about each axis, and the
relationship, or ordering, between the axes. Before illustrating the
right hand rule, there are several traits of the systems in Figure 1
that should be noted.
A Polar coordinate system maps points (in a two dimensional

space) using a radius and a rotation angle, (r, theta).
A Cylindrical coordinate system maps points using a radius,

a rotation angle, and an elevation, (r, theta, z). The origin in
this system could be considered the center of the bottom of a
cylinder. Cylindrical coordinates are convenient to use when
there is an axis of symmetry in the model.
A Spherical coordinate system maps points using a radius

and two rotation angles, (r, theta, phi). The origin in this
system could be considered the center of a sphere. Spherical
coordinates are convenient to use when there is a point
which is the center of symmetry in the model.
Typically, none of these coordinate systems are easily used to map

piping systems. Most piping software deals exclusively with the
Cartesian coordinate system.
Each axis can be thought of as a number line, where the

zero point is the point where all of the axes intersect. While
only the positive side of each axis is shown in Figure 1, each
axis has a negative side as well.
February 2002
The Right Hand Rule

In the Cartesian coordinate system, each axis has a positive and a
negative side, as previously mentioned. Translations, straight-line
movement, can be defined as movement along these axes. Rotation
can also occur around these axes, as illustrated by the arcs in
Figure 1.
A standard rule must be applied in order to define the direction of
positive rotation about these axes. This standard rule (known as the
right hand rule) is: Put the thumb of your right hand along the
axis, in the positive direction of the axis. The direction your fingers
curl is positive rotation about that axis. This is best illustrated in
Figure 2.
Figure 3 The Right Hand Rule - Continued
The left pane of Figure 3, corresponds to vector equation 3 above.
Similarly, the center pane in Figure 3 also corresponds to vector
equation 3 above. The right pane in Figure 3 corresponds to vector
equation 2 above. All panes of Figure 3 refer to the left hand image
of Figure 1.
Figure 2 The Right Hand Rule

The right hand rule can also be used to describe the relationship
between the three axes. Mathematically, the relationship between
the axes can be defined as:
X cross Y = Z
eq 1
Y cross Z = X
eq 2
Z cross X = Y
eq 3
Where cross indicates the vector cross product.
Physically, using your right hand, what do the above equations
mean? This question is best answered by Figure 3.
10
Straight-line movement along any axis can be therefore described

as positive or negative, depending on the direction of motion. This
straight-line movement accounts for three of the six degrees of
freedom associated with a given node point in a model. (Analysis
of a model requires the discretization of the model into a set of
nodes and elements. Depending on the analysis and the element
used, the associated nodes have certain degrees of freedom. For
pipe stress analysis, using 3D Beam Elements, each node in the
model has six degrees of freedom.) The other three degrees of
freedom are the rotations about each of the axes. In accordance
with the right hand rule, positive rotation about each axis is
defined as shown in Figures 1 and 2.
When modeling a system mathematically, there are two coordinate
systems to deal with, a global (or model) coordinate system and a
local (or elemental) coordinate system. The global or model
coordinate system is fixed, and can be considered a constant
characteristic of the analysis at hand. The local coordinate system
is defined on an elemental basis. Each element defines its own local
coordinate system. The orientation of these local systems varies
with the orientation of the elements. An important concept here
(which will be reiterated later) is the fact that local coordinate
systems are defined by, and therefore associated with, elements.
Local coordinate systems are not defined for, or associated with,
nodes.
February 2002
Pipe Stress Analysis Coordinate Systems

As noted previously, most pipe stress analysis computer programs
utilize the 3D Beam Element. This element can be described as an
infinitely thin stick, spanning between two nodes. Each of these
nodes has six degrees of freedom - three translations and three
rotations. Piping systems (models) are constructed by defining a
series of elements, connected by nodes. These pipe elements are
typically defined as vectors, in terms of delta dimensions referenced
to a global coordinate system. Several example pipe elements are
shown below in Figure 4.
Figure 5 - Geometry Configuration

Once the Z Axis Vertical switch is activated, the CAESAR II
global coordinate system will be in accordance with the right half of
Figure 1. This configuration affects all new jobs created in this data
directory. Existing jobs with the Y axis vertical are not affected
by this configuration change.
Figure 4 - Example Pipe Elements
The second method to obtain a global coordinate system with the

Z axis vertical is to switch coordinate systems from within the
input for the specific job at hand. This can be accomplished from
the Special Execution Parameters dialog of the piping input
processor. This dialog is shown below in Figure 6.
For most pipe stress applications, there are two dominant global
coordinate systems to choose from, either Y axis or Z axis up.
These two systems are depicted in Figure 1. As previously noted,
the global coordinate system is fixed. All nodal coordinates and
element delta dimensions are referenced to this global coordinate
system. For example, in Figure 4 above, the pipe element spanning
from node 10 to node 20 is defined with a DX (delta X) dimension
of 5 ft. Additionally, node 20 has a global X coordinate 5 ft
greater that the global X coordinate of node 10. Similar statements
could be made about the other two elements in Figure 4, only these
elements are aligned with the global Y and global Z axes.
In CAESAR II, the user can choose between the two global
coordinate systems shown in Figure 1. By default, the CAESAR II
global coordinate system puts the global Y axis vertical, as shown
in the left half of Figure 1, and in Figure 4. There are two ways to
change the CAESAR II global coordinate system so that the global
Z axis is vertical.
The first method is to modify the configuration file in the current
data directory. This can be accomplished from the Main Menu, by
selecting Tools\Configure Setup. Once the configuration dialog
appears, select the Geometry tab, as shown in Figure 5. On this
tab, check the Z Axis Up check box, as shown in the Figure.
Figure 6 - Special Execution Parameters Dialog
11

Checking the Z Axis Vertical checkbox will immediately change
the orientation of the global coordinate system axis, with
corresponding updates to the element delta dimensions. However,
the relative positions and lengths of the elements are not affected by
this switch.
February 2002
For this sample model, most of the element definitions are very
simple:
The first element, 10-20, is defined as 5 ft in the positive global

X direction. This element starts at the model origin.
Defining a Model
Using the CAESAR II default coordinate system (Y axis vertical),

and assuming the system shown below in Figure 7, the corresponding
element definitions are given in Figure 8.
The second element, 20-30, is defined as 5 ft in the positive

global Y direction. This element begins at the end of the
first element, since both elements share node 20.
The third element, 30-40, is defined as 5 ft in the negative

global Z direction. Note in Figure 8 that the delta dimension
for this element is a negative number. This is necessary to
define the element in a negative direction.
The fourth element, 40-50, runs in both the positive global

X and negative global Y directions, this element slopes to
the right and down. This element is defined with delta
dimensions in both the DX and DY fields. Notice that these
delta dimensions are equal in magnitude; therefore this element
slopes at 45 degrees.
Continuing the model, from node 50, along the same 45

degree slope can be rather tedious, since most often only the
overall element length is know, not its components in the
global directions. In CAESAR II this can be best accomplished
by activating the Direction Cosine dialog box, shown below
in Figure 9. (The Direction Cosine dialog can be activated
Figure 7 - Sample Piping Model
button next to the DY field.) Using

by clicking on the
this dialog box, the element length can be entered, and
CAESAR II will determine the appropriate components in
the global directions, based on the current direction cosines
(which default to those of the preceding element).
Figure 8 - Sample Piping Model Element Definitions
Figure 9 - Direction Cosine Dialog
12
February 2002
CAESAR II provides an additional coding tool, for longer

runs of pipe with uniform node spacing. An element break
option is provided, which allows an element to be broken into
equal length segments, given a node number increment.
In the preceding example, the model is defined solely using delta

dimensions. By constructing the model in this fashion, it is assumed
that the world coordinates of node 10 (the first node in the model)
are at (0., 0., 0.). This assumption is acceptable in all but a one
instance, when environmental loads are applied to the model. In
this instance, the elevation of the model is critical to the determination
of the environmental loads, and therefore must be specified. In
CAESAR II, the specification of the starting node of the model can
be accomplished using the [Alt+G] key combination, and all nodal
coordinates will be displayed as absolute coordinates. Regardless
of whether or not the global coordinates of the starting node are
specified, the model relative geometry will plot the same.
Once a model has been defined, there are a number of operations
that can be performed on the entire system, or on any section of the
system. These operations include:
Translating the model: translation can be accomplished by

specifying the global coordinates of the starting node of the
model. If the model consists of disconnected segments,
CAESAR II requests the coordinates of the starting node of
each segment.
Rotating the model: rotation can be accomplished by using the

[LIST] processor(by clicking on the
zbutton in the
toolbar). The [LIST] processor presents the model in a

spreadsheet, or grid, format, as shown in Figure 8. Options in
this processor allow the model (or any sub-section of the
model) to be rotated about any of the three global axes, a
specified amount. For example, if the model shown in Figures
7 and 8 is rotated a (negative) -90 degrees about the global Y
axis, the result is as shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10 - Example of Model Rotation
Duplicating the model: duplication can also be accomplished

by using the [LIST] processor. The entire model, or any subsection of the model, can be duplicated.
Using Local Coordinates

When analyzing a piping system, there are a number of items that
must be checked and verified. These items include:
Operating loads on restraints and terminal points
Hanger design results
Equipment evaluation
Expansion joint evaluation
Maximum operating displacements

Codes stresses for code cases
Vessel nozzle evaluation
Restraint loads and displacements are checked in the global

coordinate system. This is necessary because restraint loads and
displacements are nodal quantities. Element loads and stresses are
most often evaluated in their local coordinate system. A good
example illustrating the use of a local (element) coordinate system
is the free body diagram, of forces and moments. The forces and
moments in this free body diagram remain the same, regardless of
the position of the element in the global coordinate system. Note
however, that each element has its own local coordinate system.
Furthermore, the local coordinate system of one element may be
different from the local coordinate system of a different element.
While the global coordinate system is typically referred to using the
capital letters X, Y, and Z, local coordinate systems use a
variety of nomenclature. In almost all cases, local coordinate
systems use lower case letters. Typical local coordinate system
axes are: xyz, abc, and uvw. CAESAR II uses xyz to
denote the local element coordinate system.
The local coordinate system for an element is related to the global
coordinate system through a rule. There may be a number of such
rules, depending on the type of element. In CAESAR II, the
following rules are used to define the local coordinate systems of
the piping elements in a model.
CAESAR II Local Coordinate Definitions
Rule 1 - Straight Pipe: For straight pipe elements, the local x
axis always points from the From Node to the To Node. The
local y axis can be found by the vector cross product of the local
x axis with the global Y axis. Applying the right hand rule,
this local y axis can be found by:
1.
Lay your right hand on the pipe, with the wrist at the From
Node, and the fingers pointing to the To Node.
2.
Align or rotate your hand so that the global Y axis points

perpendicularly out from the palm.
3.
The thumb is now aligned with the local y axis for this
element.
The local z axis can be found by the vector cross product of the
local x and local y axes.
13

An exception to this rule is the case of a vertical element. In this
case, the local x axis is still aligned in the From - To direction.
However, you cant cross a vertical element into global Y, so
the local y axis was arbitrarily assigned to align with the global
X axis.
February 2002
As an additional example, the local element coordinate systems for
the rotated system of Figure 10 are shown below in Figure 12.
The straight elements of the model in Figure 7 are reproduced

below in Figure 11, along with their local coordinate systems.
Notice that each of these straight elements has its own local
coordinate system, and that in this model, they are all aligned
differently.
Figure 12 - Local Coordinate Systems for Straight Elements (2)
Figure 11 - Local Coordinate Systems for Straight Elements (1)

In Figure 11, the positive direction of the local x axis for each
element is defined according to the From - To definition of the
element. For example, the local x axis of element 10-20 is
aligned with the positive global X axis, because that is the direction
defined in moving from node 10 to node 20. The local x axis of
element 30-40 is aligned with the negative global Z axis, because
that is the direction defined in moving from node 30 to node 40.
Figure 11 should be studied to ensure a good understanding of how
the local element coordinate system can be defined based on the
definition of the element, especially with regard to the skewed
element 40-50.
Rule 2 - Bend Elements: For the near weld line of bend

elements, the local x axis is directed along the incoming tangent,
in the From To direction. The local z axis points to the center
of the circle described by the bend. For the far weld line of bend
elements, the local x axis is directed along the outgoing tangent,
in the From To direction. The local z axis points to the center
of the circle described by the bend. In both cases, the local y axis
can be found by applying the right hand rule. The local coordinate
system for the bends in the example model of Figure 7 are shown
below in Figure 13.
Figure 13 Local Coordinate Systems for Bend Elements
14
February 2002
Rule 3 - Tee Elements: For tees, there is no element or fitting as
there is in a CAD application. Rather designating a node as a tee
simply applies code defined SIFs at that point, for the three elements
framing into the tee node. As usual, the local x axis is defined by
the element From - To direction. The local y axis coincides
with the line that defines the in-plane plane of the tee (in other
words, the local y axis is perpendicular to the plane of the three
tee elements). The positive direction of the local y axis is found
by (vectorally) crossing the local x axis of the header element
with the local x axis of the branch, and then (strangely enough)
reversing the sign (direction). (In those cases where the two header
elements have opposite local x axes, CAESAR II chooses the
first one that it finds.) The local z axis can then be determined
using the right-hand rule.
Note that the local z axis coincides with the out-of-plane axis of
the tee, for each element. Examples of local coordinates for elements
framing into tees are depicted below in Figure 14.
The piping system is then assigned node points at locations

where: there is a change in direction, a support, a terminal
point, a point of cross section change, a point of load application,
or any other point of interest.
Once the nodes have been assigned the piping model can be
defined using the delta dimensions as dictated by the
orientation of the global coordinate system. Analysts should
take advantage of the tools provided by CAESAR II in
constructing the model - this includes the element break
option, the LIST rotate and duplicate options, and the direction
cosine facility.
After verifying the input, confirming the load cases, and

analyzing the model, output review commences.
Output review involves checking various output reports to ensure

the system responds within certain limits. These checks include:
Checking that operating displacements make sense and are

within any operational limits (to avoid ponding etc.).
Displacements being nodal quantities, are reviewed in the
global coordinate system. There is no local coordinate
system associated with nodes. For the model defined in
Figures 7 and 8, the operating displacements are shown in
Figure 15 below.
Figure 14 - Local Coordinate Systems for Tee Elements

Applications - Utilizing Global and Local Coordinates
Global coordinates are used most often when dealing with piping
models. Global coordinates are used to define the model and
review nodal results. Even though element stresses are defined in
terms of axial and bending directions, which are local coordinate
system terms, local coordinates are rarely used. A typical piping
analysis scenario is as follows.
A decision is made as to how the global coordinate system for

the piping model will align with the plant coordinate system.
Usually, one of the two horizontal axes is selected to correspond
to the North direction. However, if this results in a majority
of the system being skewed with respect to the global axes, one
should consider realigning the model. It is best to have most
of the system aligned with one of the global coordinate axes.
Figure 15 - Operating Displacements

This report shows the movements of all of the nodes in the model, in
each of the six degrees of freedom, in the global coordinate system.
Checking that the restraint loads for the structural load

cases are reasonable. This includes ensuring that the restraints
can be designed to carry the computed load. Restraints being
nodal quantities, are reviewed in the global coordinate
system. There is no local coordinate system associated with
restraints. For the model defined in Figures 7 and 8, the
operating / sustained restraint summary is shown in Figure 16
below.
15
February 2002
These reports provide sufficient information to evaluate the pipe
elements in the model, to ensure proper behavior and code
compliance. However, the analysts job is not complete, loads and
stress must still be evaluated at terminal points, where the piping
system connects to equipment or vessel nozzles. Depending on the
type of equipment or nozzle, various procedures and codes are
applied. These include API-610 for pumps and WRC-107 for
vessel nozzles, as well as others. In the case of API-610 and WRC107, a local coordinate system specific to these codes is employed.
These local coordinate systems are defined in terms of the pump or
nozzle/vessel geometry.
Figure 16 - Operating / Sustained Restraint Summary

This report shows the loads on the anchor at 10 and the nozzle at 50,
for all six degrees of freedom, for the two selected structural load
cases, in the global coordinate system.
Checking the Code cases for codes stress compliance.

Typically the code stress is compared to the allowable
stress for each node on each element. Occasionally, when
there is an overstress condition, a review of axial, bending,
and torsion stresses are necessary. These stresses (axial,
bending, and torsion) are local coordinate system terms,
and therefore relate to the elements local coordinate system.
For the model defined in Figures 7 and 8, a portion of the
sustained stress report is shown in Figure 17 below.
When the equipment coordinate system aligns with the global

coordinate system of the piping model, the nozzle loads from the
restraint report (node 50 in Figure 14) can be used in the nozzle
evaluation. However, when the equipment nozzle is skewed (as it is
in the case of node 50 in Figure 14), the application of the loads is
more difficult. In this case, it is best to use the loads from the
elements force/moment report, in local coordinates. The only
thing to remember here is to flip the signs on all of the forces and
moments, since the element force/moment report shows the loads
on the pipe element, not on the nozzle. For the element from node
40 to node 50, the local element force/moment report is shown in
Figure 18 below.
Figure 18 - Local Element Force/Moment Report
Figure 17 - Sustained Stress Report
16
February 2002
Because the correlation between the pipe models coordinate systems
and those of equipment codes (API, WRC, etc) are often times
tedious and error prone, CAESAR II provides an option in its
equipment modules to acquire the loads on the nozzle directly from
the static output. The user simply has to select the node and the load
case; CAESAR II will acquire the loads and rotate them into the
proper coordinate system as defined by the applicable equipment
code. The user really does not have to be concerned with the
transformation from global to local coordinates, even for skewed
components. This is illustrated below, in Figure 19. In this figure,
the API-610 nozzle loads at node 50 have been acquired by clicking
on the [Get Loads from Output File] button.

In the corresponding output report for this API-610 analysis, both
the global and API local loads are reported. This is shown below in
Figure 20.
Notice that the loads shown in Figure 19 are in the CAESAR II

global coordinate system. This can be easily verified by comparing
these values to those in the restraint summary (for the Operating
load case) as shown previously in Figure 16.
Figure 20 - API-610 Nozzle Output Report Segments

Notice in Figure 20, that each report segment indicates which
values are related to the global coordinate system and which are
related to the local API coordinate system.
Figure 19 - API-610 Nozzle Load Acquisition
Transforming from Global to Local

Converting (or transforming) values from the CAESAR II global
coordinate system to a local coordinate system involves applying a
number of rotation matrices to the global values. Matrix mathematics
is not a trivial task, and one must exercise the utmost care to arrive
at the correct result. For those that want to undertake this task
themselves, a small utility (discussed in the July 2001 issue of
COADEs Mechanical Engineering News) can be downloaded from
the COADE web site to perform this transformation. The use of this
utility (GlbtoLocal) is illustrated here, using the nozzle at node 50
as an example.
17

The element 40-50 is defined with the delta coordinates of:
DX = 3 ft. 6.426 in
DY = -3 ft. 6.426 in
DZ = 0.0
The global restraint forces at node 50, in global coordinates, for the
operating case are:
FX = 323.
FY = 4.
FZ = -271.
MX = -953.
MY = -9.
MZ = -548.
Using this data as input to GlbtoLocal, the utility yields the forces
on the restraint in the elements local coordinate system. This is
shown in Figure 21 below.
February 2002
The set of values labeled Rotated Displacements / Load Vector
can be compared with the Local Element Force / Moment report,
as shown in Figure 18. Note however, that a change in sign is
necessary, since the restraint report shows loads acting on the
restraint, while the element report shows loads acting on the element.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are global coordinates? Global coordinates define the
mapping of a physical system into a mathematical system. For any
given model, the global coordinate system is fixed for the entire
model. In CAESAR II, there are two alternative global coordinate
systems that can be applied to a model. Both coordinate systems
follow the right hand rule and use X, Y, and Z as mutually
perpendicular axes. The first alternative uses the Y axis vertical,
while the second uses the Z axis as vertical.
What are local coordinates? Local coordinates represent the
mapping for a single element. Local coordinate systems are used to
define positive and negative directions and loads on elements.
Local coordinate systems are aligned with the elements, and therefore
vary throughout the model.
What coordinates are used to plot and view the model? The
models global coordinate system is used to generate plots of the
model. This is necessary since each element has its own local
coordinate system, and these local systems can vary from element to
element. Local coordinate systems are an element property, not a
system property.
How do you obtain restraint loads in local coordinates? In
general, you dont - this doesnt make any sense. Restraint loads are
a nodal property. Nodes dont have local coordinate systems,
elements do. While an argument can be made that the local
coordinate system of the connecting element should be used, this is
only valid if one single element frames into the restraint. As soon as
multiple elements frame into the restraint, there are multiple local
coordinate systems to deal with. The lone exception is when a
single element frames into a nozzle. In this instance, the restraint
loads in this single elements coordinate system can be obtained
from the elements local force / moment report, with a change in
sign.
Figure 21 - Example Global to Local Transformation
How do you obtain nodal displacements in local coordinates? In

general, you dont - this doesnt make any sense. Displacements are
a nodal property. Nodes dont have local coordinate systems,
elements do. Refer to the preceding discussion on restraint loads
for additional details.
What do you do with local coordinates? In most instances nothing.
The only time local coordinates are useful in CAESAR II is when
dealing with a skewed nozzle. The CAESAR II software interface
makes the use of local coordinates unnecessary except in this one
instance.
18
February 2002
Frequency / Phase Pairs

in CAESAR II
By: Dave Diehl
Introduction
The harmonic analysis included with the initial release of
CAESAR II was simple in one way yet complex in another. It was
simple in that it did not account for system damping. Therefore, the
maximum system response occurred at the same instant as the
maximum applied load. But these ideal systems, systems without
damping, are capable of producing infinite response when driven
exactly at a natural frequency. Of course, a CAESAR II model
with infinite response would not mimic the real world. What made
it more complex was the way we addressed this damping term. At
the time, we offered an equation to adjust the forcing frequency to
simulate the damping that was missing from the analysis. It worked
well enough for those users who understood the theory behind it all.
Then in Version 3.22, back in 1995, Tom1 added damping to
CAESAR II harmonic analysis2 . Now that frequency shift is no
longer required for an accurate analysis. But with damping the
maximum response no longer happens at the same time as the
maximum load. So Tom added a few more screens to the harmonics
processor to search for and display the maximum system response,
no matter when it occurs. This search and display is performed for
each loading frequency in the analysis. All this data is presented to
the user along with two choices 1) let CAESAR II sort through
the data and report the significant results, or, 2) allow the user to
pick through the numbers and choose. As you might imagine, most
users simply have CAESAR II select frequency/phase pairs. We
see it time and again here at COADE; as we add more sophistication
to our programs, more user input and knowledge is required to
successfully utilize these analysis improvements. This article
describes what those additional harmonic analysis screens hold,
how to use them, and why you may want to select your own
frequency/phase pairs.
Harmonic Analysis
A few basics in harmonic analysis are worth reviewing. First of all,
the system response to a harmonic load (either force or displacement)
has the same frequency as the applied load. The equations may not
make this obvious but the real world does. Consider an orchestra on
stage. All the instruments can tune up independent of the hall in
which they are played. The frequency or pitch produced on stage

will reach your ear in the audience. Of course, the sound produced
on stage will change before it reaches your ear. It may be amplified
or attenuated by the room dynamics and there are delays in sounds
that have traveled farther before reaching your ear. But a C played
on stage will still be a C when you hear it. Your piping system
dynamics are analogous to the acoustics in that concert hall. The
response exhibits the same frequency as the applied load.
Heres another basic the system response is always changing. If
we apply a harmonic load to a piping system, we can take a snapshot
of that system at any point in time and the magnitude of system
response will vary according to the frequency of the applied load
and the time of the snapshot. Now this may sound overly simple but
it is often overlooked. CAESAR II output the system deflections,
loads and stresses varies according to when you take that snapshot.
Using some non-maximum value as the amplitude of the response
would underestimate the system response. We want to report the
maximum response, reporting results at any other time would not
show the true amplitude of the response. Refer to Figure 1 and
identify proper report times to display response amplitude. The
nodal response reported at snapshot B can be used for the system
amplitude as can D. Reports generated for a given point in the
system at time A would not show maximum response and should
not be used to predict things like fatigue life. Time C illustrates a
report that would have zero response for the selected node.
Harmonic Analysis with Damping

Remember that with no system damping, the system response follows
the load exactly when the load is maximum, the response is
maximum. This would have report times A, B, C & D above keyed
directly to the load itself. Figure 2a shows another way of looking
at this. Here we are watching the response at the tip of the cantilever
for an undamped system. The response of the tip (and any other
point in this undamped system) tracks the applied load identically.
Tom Van Laan, President of COADE
2 Rayleigh
damping is incorporated by adjusting the system

stiffness. This approximation works well when the forcing
frequency is close to a system natural frequency which is usually
the case of interest.
19
February 2002
Figure 2a
Figure 2b
We can show this in equation:
load = A cos( ) ; response =
B cos( ) 3
Where A is the magnitude of applied load (force or deflection)

is the forcing frequency
B is the nodal response (deflection, load, stress)
But when damping is introduced in this system4 , there is a lag in the
response. The frequency of response still matches the applied load
but there is a phase shift. The maximum response of any node no
longer occurs at the same instant as the maximum applied load.
This point is illustrated in Figure 2b. The base of the cantilever is
approaching its maximum positive value while the tip is coming
from is minimum position as it approaches zero deflection.
3 Its
a little more complicated than this. In the ideal, with no

damping, the response is either exactly in phase or 180 degrees
out of phase (points B & D in Figure 1) with the applied load. It
is in phase when the forcing frequency is less than a system
natural frequency and out of phase when the forcing frequency is
greater than a system natural frequency. Since we are interested
in the absolute maxima, the numbers come out the same.
4 So whats a good number for the critical damping ratio for piping?
The default value displayed in the CAESAR II dynamic input

control parameters is 0.03. This is on the high side for most piping.
The U.S. A.E.C. Regulatory Guide 1.61 states that piping with a
nominal OD of 12 inches and lower has a damping value (percent of
critical damping) of 1 (thats 0.01 in CAESAR II input) and larger
piping has a damping value of 2. These values are for seismic
design for an operating basis earthquake. ASME BPVC Section III
(Nuclear) Div. 1 Appendix N (Dynamic Analysis Methods)
mimicked these values until the 1999 addendum. In 1999 the
Nuclear code changed the damping value to 5 for all pipe sizes and
earthquake magnitudes. While this newer information is useful in
selecting the magnitude of the ground response, the older data is
still applicable for the harmonic analysis we are running here.
20
This lag in the response is the phase shift (f) at the tip of the
cantilever. The equations now include this phase shift:
load = A cos( ) ; response = B cos( + )

Where is the phase shift at the node in question.
We Want the Maximum Response
With no damping the response will match the timing of the applied
load. Theres no reason to fool with a phase angle; the response
changes over time but the maximum response is known to match the
maximum applied load. The early version of harmonic analysis,
without damping, did not require a search for the maximum response.
But because of the associated phase shift, damping alters this
simple view.
Fortunately, CAESAR II monitors the maximum displacement
of every node for each exciting frequency and tracks the phase shift
associated with this nodal response. When you have CAESAR II
select frequency/phase pairs late in the harmonic analysis, a report
is displayed for each analyzed frequency at the phase angle that
produced the largest overall displacement. For each forcing
frequency analyzed, CAESAR II lists the node with greatest
displacement, that displacement and phase angle of this response5 .
This frequency/phase pair, as we call it, can also be selected by
hand and this is discussed later. When the user has CAESAR II
select the frequency/phase pairs the report tabulating these results
(shown in Figure 3) is displayed before control is passed to the
output processor.
The program also lists the real and imaginary terms of this
displacement. Think of the real term as the X axis and the imaginary
term as the Y axis in an X-Y plot. The magnitude of the response is
plotted as a vector with its base at (0,0) and this vector is rotated off
the +X axis by the phase angle, where positive is counterclockwise.
February 2002
The real term is magnitude cos( ) and the imaginary term is

magnitude sin( ) .
Other Information in this Report

Response increases exponentially as the forcing frequency
approaches a system natural frequency and fades as the forcing
frequency increases beyond a system natural frequency. Figure 4
shows this relationship in equation and plot. The plot displays this
response for a 1% critically damped system in terms of amplitude
versus ratio of forcing frequency to natural frequency. When a
system is driven exactly at a natural frequency the amplitude of the
response simplifies to: A = 1 (2 ) ; where is the critically damped
ratio. Here, where is 0.01 (not atypical for piping systems), the
amplification factor is 50.
Figure 3
Rather than analyzing a single frequency, the user should typically
sweep through a range of loading frequencies. This would
accommodate any inaccuracies in the dynamic (mass & stiffness)
model and any uncertainties in the loading frequency. This presents
a lot of data to review. Using CAESAR IIs snapshot at each
frequency; the task of data review is greatly simplified. Figure 3
shows that 15 frequencies were analyzed from 7.0 to 7.7 Hz. This
will produce 15 load cases for review in the output processor each
having the usual complement of reports of displacements, restraint
loads, internal loads and stresses. The maximum response up to 7.5
Hz is at node 25 and beyond that node 58 has the maximum
displacement. The phase angle of these maxima increases from 8
degrees at 7.0 Hz to 165 degrees at 7.7 Hz. These snapshots of the
system at these point in time (in other words, at this phase angle)
will display, and report the system response based on these selected
maximum nodal displacements.
Thats what you want to see6.
In most cases the maximum displacement of a system node will

produce the maximum stress but this is not necessarily true. Most of
our concerns regarding harmonic analysis center on lower modes of
system vibration modes that usually display simple cantilever
bending. Higher modes of vibration may produce higher bending
stresses with a smaller maximum deflection. Also, higher modes
could develop high stresses at intermediate points along the pipe
between existing node numbers. Without the node number defined,
these high stresses cannot be reported.
Figure 4
Of course, if you are looking for maximum response as you sweep
through a range of frequencies, you would only need to review the
results at one frequency the driving frequency closest to a system
natural frequency.
This report in Figure 3 also indicates which forcing frequency is
closest to the natural frequency, but not directly. In the example,
the response at node 25 builds exponentially from 4.2 mm at 7.0 Hz
up to 20.2 mm at 7.45 Hz and then drops off. You will also note that
the phase shift for each frequency increases with the forcing
frequency. A useful key here is that as the forcing frequency
approaches a system natural frequency, the phase shift in the
maximum response approached 90 degrees. This is true for any
amount of system damping. Keep an eye on the phase shift in the
maximum response and you can easily pick out the forcing
frequencies of greatest significance. In our example, a natural
frequency of this piping system is somewhere between 7.45 Hz and
7.50 Hz. Our attention will focus on the 7.45 Hz report since that
one shows the greatest displacement at node 25. With this
21
February 2002
information, you could also go back to the harmonic input and run a
finer sweep between 7.45 Hz and 7.50 Hz, confident that this would
get you closer to the system maximum response at node 25.
The stress report at the frequency/phase pair of 7.45 Hz and 69
degrees (or anything closer to the natural frequency) will show the
stress amplitudes at every node. With the appropriate fatigue curve,
this information could be used to estimate the number of cycles to
system failure.
Selecting Your Own Frequency/Phase Pairs
The discussion so far concerns the programs selection of frequency/
phase pairs. The user is also offered the choice of selecting these
data by hand as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 6a
After selecting the frequency to monitor, you then select a node. In
our example we will monitor node 25. Again, the CAESAR II
selection shown earlier indicated that node 25 exhibited the maximum
displacement at 7.45 Hz. Once you choose a node the following
screen appears (Figure 6b).
Figure 5
Once you know signs to look for, you can select your own frequencies
to report maximum system response. In our example, we will select
our own frequency/phase pairs using the 7.45 Hz load. Figures 6a
illustrates this selection.
Figure 6b
22
February 2002
You see that 18 different reports each at a different phase angle

can be displayed for this single forcing frequency of 7.45 Hz. The
report at Index #4 (the first column in the report), with a phase angle
of 69.13, is the one that CAESAR II selected earlier but you can
review the others as well. Watching the DZ column, you see the
node cycle through its displacement in Z. Index #13 is just the
opposite of #4. Index #9 essentially shows zero deflection as does
#18. All the others show intermediate results. Looking back at
Figure 1, you could say report times A, B, C & D correlate to
Indices 17, 4, 18 & 13.
Note how these 18 reports are based on phase angles pretty much
running between 0 and 340 degrees at 20 degree increments. The
displayed displacement will equal (maximum displacement)*cos() where is phase angle and runs through 0, 20, 40,340.
There are four exceptions to this pattern that shift the phase angle to
catch the maximum, minimum and two zero response times for
the node in question. These four phase angles replace the closest
reports. In Figure 6b you see that the report at phase angle 60 is
replaced by a report at 69.13 degrees to catch the maximum response.
Likewise, the reports at 160, 240 and 340 degrees are also replaced
by more significant events. Stars are added to the screen capture to
mark these four reports. A plot of these responses in Figure 7
reinforces this point. The two curves represent the applied harmonic
load defined and the response at node 25. The response at node 25
lags node 5 by 69.13 degrees. CAESAR II provides reports at the
18 phase angles indicated by the circles. The stars highlight the
report shifts to catch those significant points. The shifts to catch the
maximum and minimum response are obvious while the zero points
are not apparent with the scale used. These are the 18 phase
solutions or reports discussed in the program text shown in
Figure 5.
So Why Would You Want to Select Your Own Frequency/

Phase Pairs?
If CAESAR II can find the frequency/phase pairs producing the
maximum displacement, why would you want to get in the way and
select your own? I can think of three reasons.
1.
If you wanted to reduce the amount of reports listed in the

output, simply select the same node and phase shift as
CAESAR II but only for the forcing frequencies close to a
natural frequency.
2.
If you are interested in a specific node (a point of failure?),

you can select your node here. You will note that the phase
angle associated with maximum response changes from node
to node.
3.
If you simply wanted to exercise the processor to increase

your understanding of harmonic analysis in CAESAR II.
Conclusion
You must remember the cyclic nature of harmonic results. The
snapshot we see in the CAESAR II output is time or phase
dependant. Our goal is to display the maximum response based on
the proper frequency/phase pair. This article described the
importance of that frequency/phase pair and how you can use
CAESAR II to confirm you are looking at the proper results.
Most vibration texts provide good background in forced harmonic
vibration. One such book is Theory of Vibrations with Applications
by William T. Thompson published by Prentice-Hall, now in 5th
Edition.
Figure 7
23
February 2002
PC Hardware/Software for the

Engineering User (Part 32)
Keeping Your System Up to Date
Recently, Microsoft published a document titled Windows Desktop
Product Lifecycle Guidelines. This document (available at http://
www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycleconsumer.asp) discusses the
life cycle of the various Microsoft operating systems. As explained
in this document, the operating system life cycle consists of three
phases; mainstream phase, extended phase, and non-supported phase.
In the non-supported phase, support for the operating system is
available only online, and Microsoft may terminate this after
providing 12 months notice. The following operating systems are
currently listed in the un-supported phase of their life cycle: MS
DOS, Windows 3.xx, Windows 95, Windows NT 3.5x. Of these
operating systems, current COADE software will only run on
Windows 95.
From this Microsoft document:
When a Windows desktop operating system enters the NonSupported phase, does that mean new applications wont run on
the older operating system?
There is no direct correlation between when an operating system
enters the Non-Supported phase and when new applications and
new hardware will no longer work with the older operating system.
However, the older an operating system is, the less likely it is that
new applications will run well on it. As happens today, to offer
customers products that take advantage of the complete functionality
of the latest operating systems, hardware and software
manufacturers may choose to only have their products work with
the most recent operating systems and discontinue supporting their
products on older operating systems.
Register Your COADE Product!
Keeping with the latest builds and versions of COADE products is
both important and highly recommended. The developers at COADE
are constantly adding new features and fixing problems found by
users and us. These updates are available for download from our
website. Visit www.coade.com/updates.htm and register yourself
to receive timely e-mail notices informing you about newly available
builds, versions and other important product information.
24
As always, the information you share with us is used solely by

COADE Inc. and is not sold or provided to any outside sources.
For more information, visit www.coade.com and click Privacy
Policy to review our privacy policy.
For those users running Norton Anti-Virus, ensure you

re-enable scripting from the "options" tab. Failure to do
this will prevent COADE products from sending output to
Microsoft Word.
February 2002
CAESAR II Notices

7)
Increased memory allocation for force sets when

performing force spectrum analysis.
Listed below are those errors & omissions in the CAESAR II

program that have been identified since the last newsletter. These
corrections are available for download from our WEB site.
Removed a restriction limiting the number of static load

cases that could be referenced in a combination case
Corrected wave plots to properly label Z axis up.
1) Stress Computation Modules:
Corrected load case error message when introducing spring

hanger design.
Modified the computation of the minimum Sh value for

B31.8 Ch VIII allowable computation
Modified the handling of rotational restraint stiffnesses for
anchors and displacements so as to use the default specified
in the configuration.
Corrected scalar/absolute warning to show only once.

8)
3)
Modified to address dual monitors.
Corrected the operation of the Find dialog, for the onscreen mode (unity/mass) reports.
Element Generator:
Corrected input echo generation when reporting allowable

stress data for output modules.

4)
Error Checker Module:
Corrected a problem accessing the two line user titles,

following report export to MS Word.
Corrected the diameter/thickness checks to ensure zero

values are properly reported as errors.
Corrected a problem causing the cumulative usage and

code compliance reports to print more than once.

Corrected a problem where if MS Word was implemented

first, data was not available for plotting.
9)
Corrected the specification of user entered SIF values for

the TD/12 piping code.
Corrected the specification of user entered SIF values for
TD/12 pressure stresses.
10)
Corrected the placement of the downstream leg of bends

when terminating at tees.
Input Echo / Neutral File Module:
Added an additional 18 entity types per latest CADPIPE

version.
Intergraph Interface:
Modified to handle alpha-numeric pipe schedule
designations.
Corrected temperature/pressure data storage allocation.
CADPIPE Interface:
Implemented additional intersection checks to improve
olet location
Corrected to address the Z axis up setting..

6)
PCF Interface:
Modified to allow the conversion of multiple neutral files in
a single session.
Corrected the units conversion of the API-650 delta T

value when printing the nozzle report directly to the printer.
5)
Output Modules:
2) Animation Module:
Static Load Case Setup Module / Dynamic Input:
11)
PIPENET Interface:
Corrected the interface to properly put forces set values in
the CAESAR II dynamic input file..
Refined the tolerance used to determine English nominal

diameters from metric values.
25

12)
Miscellaneous Processor:
February 2002
CodeCalc Notices
Added handling of Z axis up for EJMA routines

Corrections to the flange routine; nubbin width definition,
conversion of B and G to user units, applied moment
units conversion, ring joint width from gasket dimensions.
13)
Piping Input Module:

Corrected temperature, pressure, diameter, and wall
thickness window close operations.
Corrected the operation of the node marker on/off switch.
Corrected the hanger run control data when upgrading
input files from previous versions.
Added handling of skewed restraints when performing a
mirror duplication.
14)
MS Word Templates:
Updated to address Win95/Office97 table of contents issues.
15)
Eigen Solver:
Corrected the execution of the out-of-core solver.
TANK Notices
Listed below are those errors & omissions in the TANK program
that have been identified since the last newsletter. These corrections
are available for download from our WEB site.
1)
Input Module:
Corrected a problem preventing the sizing scratchpad
from displaying output. Corrected for the 2.30 release.
Listed below are those errors & omissions in the CodeCalc program
that have been identified since the last newsletter.
1) TEMA Tubesheet: Corrected an error related to tubesheet class
selection.
2) Flange: Corrected the Flange MDMT computation.
3) Cone: The external pressure required thickness calculation for
cones with half-apex angle greater than 60 degrees, is per the flat
head formula, as outlined in the code.
4) ASME Tubesheet: Corrected the tube allowable stresses for
Temperature + Pressure cases. This only affected the fixed
tubesheet design and was a conservative error.
PVElite Notices
Listed below are those errors & omissions in the PVElite program
that have been identified since the last newsletter. These corrections
are available for download from our WEB site.
1) Nozzle Dialog - Depending on the path taken through the nozzle
dialog a program abort could occur, specifically if one of the
lookup buttons was pressed before tabbing past the nozzle
diameter.
2) Detail Properties - Under BS:5500, the allowable stresses for
detail components was not being updated if the design temperature
was changed.
3) Nozzle Analysis - The strength reduction factor for set on
(abutting) nozzles when constructed of different materials was
not handled in the Division 2 area of replacement calculations .
4) The corroded hydrotest option was not handled by the program
for the Zick analysis in the test condition.
5) The distance for stiffening ring inclusion in conical calculations
was not computed correctly due to a units problem.
6) For vessels with intermediate skirts that had large differences in
element diameter diameters, the natural frequency calculation
was in error. This usually resulted in very low natural frequency.
7) For Horizontal vessels where -Y forces were specified, the
program was subtracting the applied force from the saddle load
and not adding to it.
8) For Division 2 vessels with reinforcing pads, the program was
not properly considering the reduced pad area in the two thirds
area calculation.
26
February 2002
27
February 2002
COADE Engineering Software

12777 Jones Rd. Suite 480
Houston, Texas 77070
28
Tel: 281-890-4566
Fax: 281-890-3301
Web: www.coade.com
E-Mail: techsupport@coade.com

Men 0202

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Men 0202

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Mechanical

PVElite 4.3 and CodeCalc 6.4

Interactive computation of results on the input screen

Leg baseplate design

WRC 368 (local stress in the nozzle-cylinder junction due to internal

On-screen calculations are introduced in this version, to aid in faster design

FOR THE POWER,

Technology You Can Use

Frequency / Phase Pairs in CAESAR II ....... 18

2002 COADE, Inc. All rights reserved.

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

Figure 2 Nozzle angle input

Lifting trunnion analysis was also implemented in this version.

To illustrate lets consider a 6 in. tangential nozzle located on a 60

Simplified input and analysis for the non-radial nozzles.

Split screen graphics.

Tailing lug analysis.

Improved registration procedure.

ASME A-2001 update

Visit www.coade.com for a complete list.

Figure 3 Nozzle input and corresponding graphic for a

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

As seen in Figure 1, the split screen graphic is back by popular

Added top head platform and caged ladder

PD5500 Annex F Nozzle calculations

IBC 2000 Earthquake code added

Modal Natural frequency solver

Added Dynamic Response Spectrum for earthquake load

ASME A-2001 update

The following figure shows a vessel with a rectangular platform and

As previously advised, beginning with PVElite Version 4.3,

Figure 4 A Vessel modeled with PVElite 4.3

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

CADWorx 2002 Released!

Windows style tool tips have been added. Hover over a

Figure 2: CADWorx PIPE Setup Dialog In French

Figure 1: Tool Tip Data Selection In CADWorx PIPE

CADWorx now supports various languages. All prompts and

Figure 3: CADWorx P&ID Setup Dialog In Spanish

Enforce specification and size limitation using the new variable

New HTML Help system has been implemented and online

A fully integrated live database has been added. Complete

The ISOOUT command has been enhanced dramatically to

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

Several commands including ISOOUT, DBFGEN now have

The ROUTER command has been enhanced to allow a constant

Importing a PCF file using PCFIN has been improved with

The menu file was updated to allow easy activation of toolbars

CADWorx P&ID 2002

A new variable IsometricColor has been added. Set this

Create specification driven P&IDs. CADWorx can now

The Auto Isometric Configuration dialog has been improved

Change process line priority using the new PROCESSASSIGN

Convert your CADWorx Modelspace/Paperspace AutoISO

Embedded instruments can now be copied with the correct

Added flanged, socketweld valves and function symbols to

The ZOOMLOCK command has been improved to lock all

Flange placement has been enhanced to prevent the flange

New SyncOnStartUp variable has been added to the

The XDATAADD is used to convert existing P&ID drawings

If any user created text styles contain the phrase No Change,

The SETVISIBILITY command has new options. You can

REMOVEITEM is a new command that removes the link