Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

[Type text]

1791 Tullie Circle NE Atlanta, Georgia 30329-2305 Tel 678.539.1211 Fax 678.539.2211 http://www.ashrae.org
Michael R. Vaughn, P.E. mvaughn@ashrae.org
Research & Technical Services

TO: Julia Keen, Chair TC 6.1, jkeen@ksu.edu

Thomas Cappellin, Research Subcommittee Chair, tcappellin@msn.com
Stephen Hancock, Research Liaison Section 6.0, steve.hancock@trane.com

FROM: Michael Vaughn, MORTS, mvaughn@ashrae.org

DATE: May 6, 2013

SUBJECT: Research Topic Acceptance Request (1695-RTAR), Comparison of Computational

Methods of Flexibility Analysis to Computer Modeling to Determine
Thermally Developed L-Bend Z-Bend, and U-Bend Anchor Forces

During their recent spring teleconference meeting, the Research Administration Committee (RAC)
reviewed the subject Research Topic Acceptance Request (RTAR) and voted 4-0-0 to reject it. The
following list summarizes the consensus review comments and questions on this RTAR:

1. The proposed topic, advancement, work scope does not seem to justify funding this effort
as an ASHRAE Research project.
2. This RTAR does not include sufficient information to evaluate the approach and budget.

By rejecting this RTAR, RAC is strongly suggesting to the TC that this particular topic be dropped
from the TC research plan based on the information that has been provided.

An RTAR evaluation sheet is attached as additional information and it provides a breakdown of

comments and questions from individual RAC members based on specific review criteria. This
should give you an idea of how your RTAR is being interpreted and understood by others.

If the TC wishes to pursue this topic further, please address the above issues noted by RAC in a
revised version of the RTAR with the help of your Research Liaison, Stephen Hancock
RL6@ashrae.net, prior to submitting it to the Manager of Research and Technical Services for
further consideration by RAC. In addition, a separate document providing a point by point
response to each of these comments and questions must be submitted with the RTAR. The
response to each item should explain how the RTAR has been revised to address the comment, or
a justification for why the Technical Committee feels a revision is unnecessary or inappropriate.
The RTAR and response to these comments and questions must be approved by the Research
Liaison prior to submitting it to RAC.

The next submission deadline for RTARs and WSs is May 15, 2013 for consideration at the
Societys 2013 annual meeting. The submission deadline after that is August15, 2013.
Project ID 1695
Comparison of Computational Methods of Flexibility Analysis to Computer Modeling to Determine
Project Title Thermally Developed L-Bend Z-Bend, and U-Bend Anchor Forces
Sponsoring TC TC 6.1, Hydronic & Steam Equipment Systems
Cost / Duration $50,000/ 6M
Submission History 1st Submission
Classification: Research or Technology Transfer Basic/Applied Research
Check List Criteria VOTED NO Comments & Suggestions

Is there a well-established need? The RTAR should include

some level of literature review that documents the #13 - If there is, then it isn't documented well enough in this RTAR. #6 - This does not seem to be a particularly pressing issue. #15- Inadequate
importance/magnitude of a problem. If not, then the RTAR #13, #6,#15, justification for funding. #9- Don't see this an an issue to the desginers and members. Committee should be able to determine what
should be returned for revision. #9 equations/methods to show in the handbook for selection by consutlants.

Is this appropriate for ASHRAE funding? If not, then the

RTAR should be rejected. Examples of projects that are not #6- It does not seem like this work rises to the scope of an ASHRAE Research project. It seems to amount to running simulations of a few case
appropriate for ASHRAE funding would include: 1) research studies on a computer, using an approach somewhat partially developed by one reference paper that was not completed due to financial and time
that is more appropriately performed by industry, 2) topics constraints. It could be readily done by engineers working on such piping networks as part of their design activities. #9 - Manufacturer's and
outside the scope of ASHRAE activities. #6, #9 consultants decide what method to use based upon the project requirements

Is there an adequate description of the approach in order #13 - This RTAR doesn't include sufficient information to evaluate the approach/budget. #8 - $50 k seems to be a high request considering the
for RAC to be able to evaluate the appropriateness of the amount of information provided on the approach. #6 - Yes, the description of the approach is adequate, it is just that the problem being addressed
budget? If not, then the RTAR should be returned for revision. #13, #8, #15 does not seem too significant, and the approach is some simple calculations. #15 - Inadequate description of the approach

Is the budget reasonable for the project scope? If not, then

RTAR could be returned for revision or conditionally accepted
with a note that the budget should be revised for the WS. #13, #15 #7 - Potential Co-founding is outlined. #15 - Budget seems too high for the proposed work

Have the proper administrative procedures been followed?

This includes recording of the TC vote, coordination with other
TCs, proper citing of the Research Strategic Plan, etc. If not,
then the RTAR could be returned for revision or possibly
conditionally accepted based on adequately resolving these
issues. #15- There are a significant number of TC members who did not vote on this RTAR.

Decision Options Decision Approval Conditions
#13 - There is very little information in this RTAR and it needs to be rewritten with enough information to properly judge its merits. #6 - There just
does not seem to be enough here to justify an ASHRAE research project.




ACCEPT Vote - Topic is ready for development into a work statement (WS).
COND. ACCEPT Vote - Minor Revision Required - RL can approve RTAR for development into WS without going back to RAC once TC satisfies RAC's approval condition(s)
RETURN Vote - Topic is probably acceptable for ASHRAE research, but RTAR is not quite ready.
REJECT Vote - Topic is not acceptable for the ASHRAE Research Program
Unique Tracking Number Assigned by MORTS ____1695-RTAR________________________
(Generally 2 to 6 pages, with 10 pt Times New Roman font)
Sponsoring TC/TG/MTG/SSPC/EHC/REF: _TC 6.01____________

Comparison of Computational Methods of Flexibility Analysis to Computer Modeling to Determine

Thermally Developed L-Bend Z-Bend, and U-Bend Anchor Forces
Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan:

Goal 9: Support the development of improved HVAC&R components ranging from residential through
commercial to provide improve system efficiency, affordability, reliability, and safety.

Objective: The improvement of HVC&R components is a continuous, never ending process, with the
current state-of-the-art being the collective result of work by organizations and companies over years and
the application of a rule of thumb. The opportunity to re-evaluate anchor forces generated in thermally
developed L-bends and U-bends is one such case.

Technical Challenge: There is a simple methodology to calculate the anchor forces generated by
thermally developed in L-bends and U-bends in Chapter 45 of the 2008 Systems Handbook. The very
conservative forces generate by this equation has been brought to T.C. 6.1 attention several times.

Research: Conduct computer modeling of anchor forces generated in thermally developed L-bends and U-
bends over a range of lengths, temperatures, and pipe sizes and compare the results to results from a
previous study. The comparison shall conform to ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
standards. The model will analyze L-bends, Z-bends, and U-bends in air and one buried media for bonded
Research Classification:
Basic/Applied Research
TC/TG/MTG/SSPC Vote: Reasons for Negative Votes and Abstentions:
For 7 Against-0 Abstentions- 0
Absent- 4 Total 11
Estimated Cost: Estimated Duration:
$50,000 6 months
RTAR Lead Author Expected Work Statement Lead Author

Scott Fisher, PE scott.fisher.ag4j@statefarm.com Scott Fisher, PE scott.fisher.ag4j@statefarm.com

Co-sponsoring TC/TG/MTG/SSPCs and votes:

TC 6.2 District Energy January 27, 2013 vote 9-0-0

Possible Co-funding Organizations:

Contact has been initated with the following firms:ECE Developers of Caesar II, Perma-Pipe,
Thermacor, Urecon, Mason Industries, ITT Grinnell, AutoDesk, SST Systems, Bentley, and Rovanco.

Application of Results:

The results will be used to update the anchor force equations in Chapter 46 of the 2012 System
State-of-the-Art (Background):

There are four separate equations that are used to calculate anchor force in a length of pipe due to its
thermal expansion that T.C. 6.1 found. These are: ASHRAE Handbooks Guided Cantilever Method and
U-bend equation, Handbook of Mechanical Engineering Calculations Grinnell-Spielvogel method,
Kelloggs Design of Piping Systems method, and a simple cantilevered beam undergoing free-end
deflection. The results of these equations were compared and graphed in response to an inquiry that
noticed discrepancies between Guided Cantilever Method and a simple cantilevered beam for anchor
force calculation. While researching the discrepancy between the two method in Sean Robinson expanded
his research to include the Grinnell-Spielvogel and the Kelloggs Design of Piping Systems to determine
if there was any agreement between the methods. Research found the existence of several software
programs such as CAESAR II, AutoPIPE, and CAEPIPE. Also there is a concern that the methods used
are out of date and used less.

This project is a continuation of the work started by Sean Robinson in the paper Comparison of
Simplified Computational Methods of Flexibility Analysis to Determine Thermally Developed U-Bend
and L-bend Anchor Forces. Computer modeling was not included in the paper because of financial and
time constraints. Plus one of the comments from a reviewer was the suggestion to run problem using
computer software.
Advancement to the State-of-the-Art:

First, the additional research would determine if the Guided Cantilever Method in the ASHRAE
Handbook should be deleted because it is too conservative and replaced with the simple cantilevered
calculation. Second, the U-Bend formula should be evaluated and replaced as the current formula in the
Handbook is a constant slope with respect to diameter whereas the Grinnell-Spielvogel and the Kelloggs
Design of Piping Systems methods display an exponential component that begins to deviate from the
linear slope round 12 inch diameter pipe. Third The Z-bend equation should be similarly evaluated for
validity and reliability
Justification and Value to ASHRAE:

ASHRAE strives for the most accurate, professional, informative, reliable, and up-to-date handbook
series on piping design. Including the new formulas in the Fundamental Handbook will modernize the
section on anchor forces.

Provide the Fundament Handbook user with a reliable, cost effective, easy to use equations to determine
anchor forces for small system. Larger systems should use computerize modeling to determine anchor
Key References:

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (2010),Comparison of
Simplified Computational Methods of Flexibility Analysis to Determine Thermally Developed U-Bend
and L-bend Anchor Forces, Sean Robinson, ASHRAE

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (2008). 2008 ASHRAE
Handbook. Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Avallone, E. A., & Baumeister III, T. (Eds.). (1986). Mark's Standard Handbook for Mechanical
Engineers (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Azeem, H. (2001, September 10). Stress Analysis for Process Piping. Retrieved June 15, 2010, from J-
Tech Pvt. Ltd.: www.pipingdesign.com/stressanalysis.pdf

Basavaraju, C., & Sun, W. S. (n.d.). Stress Analysis of Piping Systems. Retrieved June 15, 2010, from

Becht Engineering Company. (2006, March 10). B31.3 Process Piping Workshop Supplement. Retrieved
June 15, 2010, from http://www.psig.sg/Don/B31.3%20Process%20Piping%20Course%20-

Hicks, T. G. (2006). Handbook of Mechanical Engineering Calculations (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

M. W. Kellogg Company. (2009). Design of Piping Systems (2nd ed.). Mansfield Centre, CT, USA:
Martino Publishing.

National Oilwell Varco. (2010, January). Engineering & Piping Design Guide: Fiberglass Reinforced
Piping Systems. Retrieved June 15, 2010, from Fiber Glass Systems:

Peng, L. C. (n.d.). Quick Check on Piping Flexibility. Retrieved June 15th, 2010, from Peng Engineering:

Wu, M. C. (1997, January 19). Mechanical Structures. Retrieved June 15, 2010, from Electrical
Engineering UCLA: www.ee.ucla.edu/~wu/ee250b/Mechanical%20Structures.pdf