Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

1. Need to consider pressure thrust for Flexible VCs only - e.g.

standard style-770 for CW lines.


non-standard style-75,77,77S for other lines where you have decided to use them.
And include in the Caesar model only where essential.

2. Pressure thrust becomes fully restrained by the flexible VC when it extends and
becomes rigid.So it is only necessary to include it in the analysis if the VCs are
between two anchor points, and this layout is (or should be) very rare.

3. Where flex' VCs are used in normal pipe lengths, then it is important to model the
extension due to pressure, which occurs before the VC becomes rigid. For a long run
of pipe, with many VCs, this could exceed the thermal expansion, so become very
important for the sizing of the loop.

4. For the CW lines on the sleeperways, please anchor in one location, as is normal,
and allow the VCs to extend freely. So the anchor/linestop loading should be only
due to thermal+weight+friction.
(For safety reasons in a gas line with a large number of VCs, some limit stops with
gaps and hold-down guides should be added to limit displacements in the event of a
total failure of a coupling, but for cooling water this won't be required).

5. Where a flex' VC has extended and become rigid due to pressure, if the applied
bending moment exceeds a certain value, the VC will become flexible again. See the
attached (page 048) for what I think is how to calculate this "yield moment". This
could be modelled in caesar as a plastic hinge
e.g. restraint type RX2 with K1=stiff, Yield="yield moment",
K2=some_nominal_value.
Where the pressure is low, and the movements are compression and bending, follow
the Caesar article in page18. However, I have not yet compared these yield
moments with the max' allow' loads discussed in point-7 below).

6. Where 5. is done, check the allowable rotation has not been exceeded, and note
that the allowable rotation has to be reduced by 25% for factor-of-safety (and can
be doubled if cut instead of rolled grooves are in use).

7. Where rigid VCs are in use, the catalogue reads to me a little contradictory with
regard to the strength :
Provides rigidity
Zero-Flex Style 07 unique
(patented) angled-pad design
adjusts to standard pipe
tolerances Provides positive
clamping of the pipe to resist
flexural and torsional loads
and
Systems incorporating rigid couplings require the calculated
thermal growth/contraction of the piping system to be fully
compensated for in the design of the piping system. This requires
adequate use of flexible components, (i.e. flexible couplings,
expansion joints, expansion loops using flexible couplings at the
elbows, etc.) such that no bending moments can be developed
and imparted at the pipe joints.
So one part of the catalogue states that the VCs are able to resist flexural loads, and
another part states that no bending moments can be imparted at the VCs. (This may
be to encourage you to use flexible VCs instead of plain pipe and so more profit for
Victaulic Inc.) However, the catalogues also give tables of allowable end loads, with
the note at the bottom of
the table :
* Working Pressure and End Load are total, from all internal and external loads,
So that means it is possible to calculate an equivalent pressure due to bending
moment and internal pressure and compare that to the rated pressure for the VC. To
be conservative, include torsional moment with the bending and axial load with the
pressure.See the attached (page 047).

8. Also consider the effective SIF, as per the Caesar notes. The SIF of 2.3 should be
used, I feel,and no need to worry about the reduction in wall thickness for this
project, as this is covered bythe load rating discussed in 7. above.
Also, for style-77, the load path is complex (see the attached page-046b) so the
cyclic performanceof this VC (more than the others) would be limited. There is no
mention of this in the Victaulic catalogue. This should not be a problem for this
project, however.

9. For rigid VCs, you will be modelling only a simple rigid element with the SIFs on
the matching elements.Don't worry too much about accurate length. For long runs of
pipe, which are not critical for weight,just model a single node, or pair of CNoded
nodes, so that the loads can be checked.

10. Where flexible VCs are in use, but are in rigid mode, the same applies.

11. Note that rigid style-89 also has some extension due to pressure, as the installed
VC grips the pipe at the bottom of the groove not at the sides like style-77.
This should be condidered where the pressure is high, say above 5barg, but I doubt
if it will be a problem below that.

12. Elbow joints - consider as VC, elbow, VC.

13. Minimum distance from VC to support - to suit the physical design - no supports
on VCs.

14. use of flexible VCs in vacuum systems should be avoided, due to the need for a
special gasket.

15. Spans should be as per Victaulic's span tables.

Note that I need to check the formulas.

VC-ideas-1.pdf
QUESTIONS :

1. Pressure thrust to be considered in Caesar on each Victaulic Coupling Joint while


modeling in the Caesar.

"As per Coade Mechanical Engineering News June ,1998 States that " The pressure thrust
must over come the joint friction to start moving through the gap.This Pressure Thrust in
the joint is not included in Caesar II Models. " Scan Copy Attached.

<<< COUPLING.pdf >>>

The Pressure Thrust Loads As stated below :

Pressure Thrust = Area * Pressure.

For 800 NB Pipe = 375 KN


700 NB Pipe = 290 KN
1050 NBPipe = 645 KN

The above thrust Loads to be added on the main Anchors while giving the Sleeper
Loading.

2. Elbow joints to be considered As Victaulic Couplings while modeling in the Caesar.

3. What is the minimum Distance between the Victaulic Coupling and Support .

4. Any Special checks required for Victaulic Coupling Modeling ( To check Max End Loads
) In Caesar.