Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12
Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286715951 Time

Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286715951

Time History Steam Hammer Analysis For Critical Hot Lines In Thermal Power Plants

ConferencePaper·November2014

DOI:10.1115/IMECE2014-38076

CITATION

1

READS

834

2authors:

DOI:10.1115/IMECE2014-38076 CITATION 1 READS 834 2authors: AnestisPapadopoulos AhmedBayoumy PGESCo

AnestisPapadopoulos

AnestisPapadopoulos AhmedBayoumy

AhmedBayoumy

PGESCo

McGillUniversity

4 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS

7 PUBLICATIONS 19 CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

SEEPROFILE

Someoftheauthorsofthispublicationarealsoworkingontheserelatedprojects:

Multi-modelManagementinMultidisciplinaryDesignOptimization Viewproject Viewproject

AllcontentfollowingthispagewasuploadedbyAnestisPapadopouloson08January2018.

Theuserhasrequestedenhancementofthedownloadedfile.

Proceedings of the ASME 2014 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition IMECE 2014 November 14-20, 2014, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

IMECE2014-38076

TIME HISTORY STEAM HAMMER ANALYSIS FOR CRITICAL HOT LINES IN THERMAL POWER PLANTS

Ahmed H. Bayoumy MSc., Plant Design Eng. Group Leader Plant Design Power Generation Engineering and Services Company. (PGESCo.) New Cairo, Cairo, 11835 Egypt Email: ahbayoum@PGESCo.com

ABSTRACT

Pressure surges and fluid transients, such as steam and wa- ter hammer, are events that can occur unexpectedly in operat- ing power plants causing significant damages. When these tran- sients occur the power plant can be out of service for long time, until the root cause is found and the appropriate solution is im- plemented. In searching for root cause of transients, engineers must investigate in depth the fluid conditions in the pipe line and the mechanism that initiated the transients. The steam ham- mer normally occurs when one or more valves suddenly close or open. In a power plant, the steam hammer could be an inevitable phenomenon during turbine trip, since valves (e.g., main steam valves) must be closed very quickly to protect the turbine from further damage. When a valve suddenly stops at a very short time, the flow pressure builds up at the valve, starting to create pressure waves along the pipe runs which travel between elbows. Furthermore, these pressure waves may cause large dynamic re- sponse on the pipeline and large loads on the pipe restraints. The response and vibrations on the pipeline depend on the pressure waves amplitudes, frequencies, the natural frequencies and the dynamic characteristics of the pipeline itself. The piping flexi- bility or rigidity of the pipe line, determine how the pipes will respond to these waves and the magnitude of loads on the pipe supports. Consequently, the design of the piping system must consider the pipeline response to the steam hammer loads. In this

Anestis Papadopoulos MSc., PE, Engineering Group Supervisor Plant Design Power Generation Engineering and Services Company. (PGESCo.) New Cairo, Cairo, 11835 Egypt Email: apapadop@PGESCo.com

paper, a design and analysis method is proposed to analyze the

steam hammer in the critical hot lines due to the turbine trip us-

ing

both PIPENET transient module and CAESAR II programs.

The

method offered in this paper aims to assist the design engi-

neer in the power plant industry to perform dynamic analysis of the piping system considering the dynamic response of the system using the PIPENET and CAESAR II programs. Furthermore, the dynamic approach is validated with a static method by consid- ering the appropriate dynamic load and transmissibility factors. A case study is analyzed for a typical hot reheat line in a power

plant and the results of the transient analysis are validated using

the theoretical static approach.

NOMENCLATURE

P

A

L c

C Sonic speed.

k

g c

P Pressure.

v

L s

t c

Pressure change. Flow area change. Critical pipe segment length.

Specific heat ratio. Gravity constant.

Specific volume. Pipe segment length. Closure time.

F hammer

F max

Hammering force.

Maximum Hammering force for L c

W Mass flow rate.

S n

Transmissibility factor.

D

Pipe diameter.

ρ

Flow density.

E

Modulus of elasticity.

t

Pipe wall thickness.

c

1

Pipe distensibility.

M Mass matrix.

C d

R Force Vector.

x

ω

σ y

E C

ρ p

ρ i

ν Poisson ratio.

Damping Matrix.

Displacement vector. Frequency. Yield stress.

Pipe modulus of elasticity.

Pipe density.

Insulation density.

INTRODUCTION The hot reheat lines at a conventional thermal power plant transmit reheated steam at a high temperature and pressure (up to 540C and 41 bar) from a reheater of a steam boiler to an inter- mediate pressure turbine see Figure 1. Parallel hot reheat lines from the boiler terminate in a common header which feeds the two admission leads to the turbine. Each steam turbine lead has an automatic turbine isolation valve, which is being closed at the turbine trip. Also, by-pass lines are connected with the hot reheat lines, which pass steam to the turbine condenser in the case of a turbine trip. Closure of isolation valves, in a very short time, and opening the by-pass valves, in a relatively long time, cause inten- sive pressure wave propagation which exerts high fluid dynamic forces on the pipes and pipelines supports. An understanding of the steam flow and pressure wave propagation during this tran- sient, and the proper prediction of the fluid dynamic forces, are necessary for the design of the pipeline and its supports. In this paper, the numerical simulations and analysis of a real hot reheat lines transient at the gas/oil fired, 650 MW, Suez Thermal Power Plant are presented. The main events of the transient were the closure of isolation valves in front of the in- termediate pressure turbine. The transient has been simulated by the computer code PIPENET transient module, based on the Method of Characteristics [1, 2]. This method gives, potentially, the most accurate solutions, especially for one-phase, compress- ible fluid flows, and it enables proper modelling of boundary conditions [3]. Simulations and analysis had specific tasks to estimate the pressure pulse load caused by the closure of the turbine isolation valves , and to predict the intensity of the dy- namic force in the steam line. The pressure wave propagation and the influence of the boundary conditions on these processes

the influence of the boundary conditions on these processes FIGURE 1 . SUEZ THERMAL POWER PLANT

FIGURE 1.

SUEZ THERMAL POWER PLANT HOT REHEAT

LINE

are described. The purpose of this analysis is to determine the time-dependent forcing functions in the hot reheat (HR) steam lines during a fast stop valve closure transient (i.e., a turbine trip). Therefore, a transient forcing function is generated for each pip- ing segment using PIPENET program, which is used as an input to CAESAR II program for the piping stress analysis accord- ing to ASME B31.1 code. In order to validate the results from PIPENET analysis, the magnitude of the steam hammer forces, at each pipe segments are estimated using the theoretical static approach using the pipe flow, segment length, transmissibility factors and valve closure time. The segment loads from the static analysis are used to compare the loads from transient PIPENET analysis and the comparison is in a good agreement. This agree- ment also validates the time step and the boundary conditions used in the PIPENET analysis. A comparison of operating loads including steam hammer and static seismic is also presented.

THEORETICAL STATIC APPROACH The sudden closure of the stop valves on the main steam and reheat steam inlets to the turbines in a steam power plant can result in large momentary unbalanced forces in the steam piping.The magnitude of the unbalanced forces are primarily a function of initial rate of steam flow [kg/Sec.], pipe run length [m] and stop valve closure time [sec]. The magnitude of the un- balanced force in any given straight run of pipe reaches a mo- mentary peak equal to the pressure differential existing over the length of the run multiplied times the cross-section area of the pipe. The response of the piping system is a function of its mass and stiffness. Steam hammer forces, piping system response and restraint reactions may be estimated by the use of a relatively simple procedure to calculate the maximum momentary unbal- anced forces in each run of the piping system, see Figure 2. These forces can then be used to determine the approximate sys- tem response to the forces and to estimate the forces to be used in designing the flexible or rigid restraints needed to control the piping movements and keep pipe stresses within an acceptable range [4]. When a valve is closed on a fluid flow the pressure upstream of the valve increases and the pressure downstream de- creases. Any changes in the fluid state will propagate through the pipe with sonic velocity, and this phenomena is known as wave motion. The pressure rise upstream of this valve can be related to time as follows [4]:

P (t) = f unction (A, L stroke (t))

(1)

following the procedures in Figure 2 by using equations (1-4).

C = k×g c × p × v

L c = C×t c

F hammer = W ×L s ×S n

g c ×t c

F max = W ×C×S n

g c

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

A flow Area versus time curve is necessary for any valve to be analyzed, see Figure 3. A wave produced at a steam valve eventually interacts with a turbine, boiler, and condenser these devices represent many area changes. At each area change, there will be a transmitted waves which will be splitted or combined according to the area change configuration,see Figure 4. The resulted wave energy depends on the transmissibility factor S n .

energy depends on the transmissibility factor S n . FIGURE 2 . FOR CALCULATING A HAMMERING

FIGURE 2.

FOR CALCULATING A HAMMERING LOAD

FLOW CHART OF THE SIMPLE STATIC APPROACH

HOT REHEAT MODEL, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS The piping system is analyzed as a link network, with each link being comprised of several nodes. The resulting transient piping forces can be utilized as the dynamic forcing functions for pipe stress analysis. The turbine hot reheat steam stop/control valves closure time is (0.20 seconds). The flow area for the turbine hot reheat steam stop/control valves are modeled to re- duce linearly to zero over the closure time. A flow coefficient

FIGURE 3 . TYPICAL VALVE CLOSING CURVE FIGURE 4 . TRANSMISSIBILITY FACTOR S n C

FIGURE 3.

TYPICAL VALVE CLOSING CURVE

FIGURE 3 . TYPICAL VALVE CLOSING CURVE FIGURE 4 . TRANSMISSIBILITY FACTOR S n C v

FIGURE 4.

TRANSMISSIBILITY FACTOR S n

C v changes with the stroke percentages, see Figure 7. For anal- ysis, it is assumed that the corresponding stop/control valves are fully open at time zero, and start to close as soon as the tran- sient begins. For the hot reheat case, the total maximum mass flow rate of steam leaving the reheater of the boiler is based on the maximum steam flow from the boiler to the steam turbine (505.01 [Kg/Sec.]). The steam conditions at the turbine for the Hot Reheat (HR) case are based on the Intermediate pressure (IP) turbine inlet pressure of (40.85 bara) and a temperature of 538 C. The hot reheat (HR) case considers the HR piping from the boiler reheater to the inlet to the IP steam turbine inlet as well as the HR bypass piping to the bypass valves. It is assumed that a positive force on the piping generated due to the dynamic loads is in the direction opposite of steam flow. A positive fluid force is taken to be In the same direction of steam flow, while the piping ”reac-

tion force” reacting to the positive fluid force is In the opposite direction. or against steam flow. In other words, the pipe’s re- action to the positive fluid force would be a movement against the direction of flow. As a result, pipe supports should be ade- quately designed to offset the piping reaction force. Modeling of the piping links is performed on an elbow-to-elbow basis. The run duration time is 3.0 seconds to ensure that the resulting pres- sure wave travels through all the piping, capturing both positive and negative peak dynamic forces. The initial flow rate in the HR bypass lines is zero since the bypass valves are normally closed. No bypass line opening transient is considered in the steam ham- mer calculation. Typically, the bypass valve opening transient is not significant since its opening time is much greater than the stop valve closure time. The steam properties are summarized in Table 1. The wave speed in a pipe is the speed at which pressure surges are propagated along the pipe. It depends on a number of factors including the material and diameter of the pipe, and the bulk modulus of the fluid. For Transient Module to make an automatic calculation of the wave speed the User must provide a pipe schedule and define the fluid bulk modulus. The wave speed is calculated using equation 6. Hot reheat line (HR) is modeled using the static approach as shown in Figure 5, where all the transmissibility factors are calculated at each branch, and the steam hammer force is cal- culated at each pipe segment. Furthermore, the PIPENET tran- sient model is shown in Figure 6. The network is modeled using number of pipe segments where each segment represents a pipe run from elbow to elbow. The (HR) line is analyzed using both static and transient approaches, to validate the transient analysis results, because when the transient results achieve good agree- ment with the static approach it means that the time step for the transient analysis is good enough for obtaining accurate results otherwise the time step has to be decreased. In preliminary de- sign phases the flow coefficient curves are not available for the turbine stop/control valves. However the flow coefficient varia- tion with the valve stroke and the closure time are considered to be the dominant variables for the significance of the steam ham- mer effect on the pipeline. Consequently the flow coefficient is deduced from the pressure difference between downstream and upstream the valve at the operating load case from the heat bal- ance sheets, then this calculated flow coefficient is assumed to change linearly with the stroke. In this case running the static approach at this phase helps in validating the preliminary tran- sient analysis results as the static approach doesn’t depend on the flow coefficient variation with the stroke.

C =

K

ρ

on the flow coefficient variation with the stroke. C = K ρ 1 + K D

1+ KD

Et

c 1

(6)

FIGURE 5 . HOT REHEAT LINE FLOW DIAGRAM FIGURE 6 . PIPENET MODEL SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM

FIGURE 5.

HOT REHEAT LINE FLOW DIAGRAM

FIGURE 5 . HOT REHEAT LINE FLOW DIAGRAM FIGURE 6 . PIPENET MODEL SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR

FIGURE 6.

PIPENET MODEL

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR THE HOT REHEAT

Density

11.1596

[Kg/m3]

Viscosity

3.035E-05

Pa s

Bulk modulus

5200298

Pa

TABLE 1.

STEAM PROPERTIES

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF THE HOT REHEAT LINE TRANSIENTS Numerical solution procedure often has a maximum limit on the time step. If we used a time step bigger than this, the numeri- cal procedure may become unstable. Essentially the term numer- ical instability means any errors in the solution at one time step will increase at the next time step. After a few time steps the real solution could be completely swamped so that the calculated so- lution bears no resemblance to the real solution. In the case of the method of characteristics which is used in PIPENET Transient

method of characteristics which is used in PIPENET Transient FIGURE 7 . THE FLOW COEFFICIENT CURVE

FIGURE 7. THE FLOW COEFFICIENT CURVE VERSUS THE VALVE STROKE OPENING PERCENTAGES

module, the maximum time step for numerical stability is easy to understand intuitively [5]. Consider a single pipe filled with a

liquid, if we create a pressure disturbance at one end of the pipe,

it will travel at the wave speed along the pipe, reflect at the other

end and return. In other words, the disturbance will travel back and forth along the pipe at the wave speed. It is clear that it is es- sential to model the reflection of the disturbance because without that we will not have oscillations in the pressure. Furthermore

consider what the maximum time step for the calculation should be. In the case of a single pipe we can define the following. Time step for numerical stability = length of pipe/wave speed. In the case of a system with multiple pipes, each pipe would have its own time step for numerical stability. The smallest of such time steps would be the time step for numerical stability for the com-

plete system. In this context it is important to note that the wave speed is usually different for different pipes [5]. This program is designed to analyze the transient steam (gas) flow phenomena in complex piping systems. The code calculates fluid pressure, ve- locity, and density changes with line. which are then used in the computation of the piping forces. Table 2 summarizes the peak pipe run forces generated for the HR case. Figure 8 shows the time history transient forces in segments 6,7,8 and 9. Moreover

a good agreement was found between the resulted steam ham-

mer loads of static approach analysis and the Transient analysis maximum loads.

DYNAMIC STRESS ANALYSIS (TIME HISTORY) Steady-flow analyses and steam hammer analyses provide information on the liquid behaviour under operational conditions . Static pipe-stress analyses and structural dynamics analyses give insight into the corresponding behaviour of the pipe sys- tem . Where the liquid analysis yields pressures and velocities,

FIGURE 8 . THE TRANSIENT LOADS ON SEGMENTS 6,7,8,9 Section Segment Transient Analysis Static approach

FIGURE 8.

THE TRANSIENT LOADS ON SEGMENTS 6,7,8,9

Section

Segment

Transient Analysis

Static approach

3

6

127.5 KN

126.8

3

7

85.5

KN

84.4

3

8

50.3

KN

50.1

3

9

47.2

KN

46.9

TABLE 2. MAXIMUM DYNAMIC LOADS RESULTS DUE TO BOTH THE SIMPLE AND TRANSIENT APPROACHES

the structural analysis provides dynamic stresses, reaction forces and resonance frequencies. It is not unusual to perform an un- coupled calculation . Pressure histories, resulting from a steam hammer analysis , are used as the exciting loads in a structural- dynamics analysis . The calculation is called uncoupled since the predicted structural response does not influence the predicted liquid pressures [6].

Firstly the PIPENET force output file (which contains all pipe segments in one file) must be separated into individual files for each segment to be applied in CAESAR II. The separation from PIPENET output into individual segments is accomplished by running a subroutine (developed by PGESCo. stress group team). Secondly running the Static stress analysis of the hot re- heat model according to ASME B31.1 code with the static design of the pipe support. The boundary conditions for the model in the normal operation case are shown in Figure 14. Thirdly the dy- namic loads files are defined in CII dynamic module in the time history dynamic analysis, and create a load case for the ham- mering scenario which is the algebraic combination between the static normal operation case and the dynamic load case (S11+D1) for the loads and displacements check on the pipe supports, and algebraic combination between the cold load of the piping sys- tem and the dynamic load case for stress check. By running the analysis the results give us the loads, displacements and stresses on the pipe supports. Further the results of seismic loads are compared with the steam hammer combination load case and the

pipe support is designed due to the larger loads. Time history analysis is a more accurate, more computation-

ally intensive analytical method than response spectrum analysis.

It is best suited to impulse loadings or other transient loadings

where the profile is known. This method of analysis involves the actual solution of the dynamic equation of motion throughout the duration of the applied load and subsequent system vibra- tion, providing a true simulation of the system response [7]. the dynamic equation of motion for a system is

Mx¨+C d x˙ + kx = R (t)

(7)

This differential equation cannot be solved explicitly, but may be integrated using numeric techniques by slicing the duration of the load into many small time steps. Assuming that the change in acceleration between time slices is linear, the system accelera- tions, velocities, displacements, and corresponding reactions, in- ternal forces, and stresses are calculated at successive time steps. Because the total response of a system is equivalent to the sum of the responses of its individual modes of vibration, the above equation can be simplified assuming that the damping matrix C is orthogonal. Use the transformation X = Φx, to be expressed in modal coordinates:

X (t)+X +ω 2 X = Φ T R (t)

¨

˙

= diag (2ω i ξ i )

ω 2 = diag ω i 2

Φ i T C d Φ j = 0where (i

= j)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

This transformation represents N uncoupled second order differential equations, where N is the number of modes of vi- bration extracted. N can then be integrated and summed, using the in-phase, algebraic summation method to give the total sys- tem response. CAESAR II uses the Wilson method (an extension of the Newmark method) to integrate the equations of motion,

providing an unconditionally stable algorithm regardless of time step size chosen [8]. Only one dynamic load can be defined for

a time history analysis. This dynamic load case can be used in

as many static/dynamic combination load case as necessary. The single load case may consist of multiple force profiles applied to the system simultaneously or sequentially. Each force versus

TABLE 3.

Code

ASME B31.1

EC

2.13e08 Kpa

ν

0.3

ρ

p

0.00783

Kg/c m 3

ρ

i

0.00014

Kg/c m 3

σ

y

413685.4 Kpa

HOT REHEAT LINE PIPING MATERIAL PROPERTIES

y 413685.4 Kpa HOT REHEAT LINE PIPING MATERIAL PROPERTIES FIGURE 9 . HOT REHEAT LINE PIPE

FIGURE 9.

HOT REHEAT LINE PIPE DIAMETERS

time profile is entered as a spectrum with an ordinate of Force (in current units) and a range of Time (in milliseconds). The pro- files are defined by entering the time and force coordinates of the corner points defining the profile. The Pipe line Material proper- ties are summarized in Table 3. and the pipe line dimensions are expressed in Figures.(9-11) and the boundary conditions which are represented in the temperature and pressure distributions for the normal operating static load case are shown in Figures (12- 13). The restraints which represents the pipe supports according to the static analysis are shown in Figure 14.

STATIC ANALYSIS FOR SEISMIC LOADS A static seismic analysis was performed by applying the following acceleration g factors in the three global directions, X=0.21g, y=0.07g, Z=0.21g. The acceleration levels were calcu- lated for suez project based on [9]. A comparison of the effect of the hammering load with the static seismic loads is presented in Appendix A.

FIGURE 10 . HOT REHEAT LINE PIPE WALL THICKNESSES FIGURE 11 . HOT REHEAT LINE

FIGURE 10.

HOT REHEAT LINE PIPE WALL THICKNESSES

FIGURE 10 . HOT REHEAT LINE PIPE WALL THICKNESSES FIGURE 11 . HOT REHEAT LINE PIPE

FIGURE 11.

HOT REHEAT LINE PIPE INSULATION THICK-

NESSES

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The pipe stresses resulted from the static stress analysis due to the normal operating static load case is shown in Figure 15. The results for dynamic steam hammer loads on selected pipe restraints are summarized in Appendix A and compared with the seismic resulted loads. The results show a significant effects of the steam hammer loads on the pipe supports close to the tur- bine control valves and decay as much going far from the con- trol valves. In general the hammering loads are higher than the static seismic loads by as much as a factor of 2. The significant hammer loads which is larger than the seismic loads are in the

loads which is larger than the seismic loads are in the FIGURE 12 . HOT REHEAT

FIGURE 12. HOT REHEAT LINE TEMPERATURES FOR THE NORMAL OPERATING CASE

. HOT REHEAT LINE TEMPERATURES FOR THE NORMAL OPERATING CASE FIGURE 13 . HOT REHEAT LINE

FIGURE 13. HOT REHEAT LINE PRESSURES FOR THE NOR- MAL OPERATING CASE

vertical directions at node 300 and 310, In the lateral directions at node 385 and in the axial direction at node 420. The design of pipe supports from the dynamic analysis point of view is not only related to the excitation amplitude but is related also to the excitation frequency, which may dominates the rigidity or the flexibility of modeling the pipe restraints configurations. Also while comparing the load it is important to check the response time for the resulted load which tells when the pipe will respond to the system and the way the wave will reflects between elbows or splitting through tee branches. Time history analysis is one

FIGURE 14 . PORTS DESIGN ACCORDING TO THE STATIC ANALYSIS HOT REHEAT LINE RESTRAINTS FOR

FIGURE 14.

PORTS DESIGN ACCORDING TO THE STATIC ANALYSIS

HOT REHEAT LINE RESTRAINTS FOR PIPE SUP-

THE STATIC ANALYSIS HOT REHEAT LINE RESTRAINTS FOR PIPE SUP- FIGURE 15 . THE STRESSES ON

FIGURE 15. THE STRESSES ON THE HOT REHEAT PIPING DUE TO THE STATIC ANALYSIS UNDER NORMAL OPERATING LOAD CASE

of the most accurate methods, because it uses numeric integra- tion of the dynamic equation of motion to simulate the system response throughout the load duration. This method can solve any type of dynamic loading, but due to its accurate results, re- quires more resources (such as computer memory, calculation speed and time) than other methods. Time history analysis is not appropriate when, for example, the spectrum method offers sufficient accuracy.

example, the spectrum method offers sufficient accuracy. FIGURE 16 . THE PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN ACCORDING TO

FIGURE 16. THE PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN ACCORDING TO BOTH THE DYNAMIC AND STATIC ANALYSIS

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Simulation and analysis of the Hot Reheat line (HR) tran- sient with the isolation valves closure is undertaken. The trip scenario study is for the gas/oil fired Suez Thermal Power Plant. The procedure is based on the transients simulations with the PIPENET transient module program. The methodology de- scribed in this paper uses a comprehensive approach of steam hammer time history analysis using PIPENET and CAESAR II program to evaluate the pressure waves and fluid dynamics forces generated during isolation valve closure. The PIPENET results can be validated using the static approach presented to ensure that the numerical input parameters such as the time step are ap- propriate and the results are reasonable. Moreover this valida- tion help in the preliminary design phases of the projects when some assumptions are considered for the turbine control valves. The frequency content of the steam hammer transient loads are also important for checking if they impact the frequencies of the piping system. In many cases the static approach can be used as an alternative to the comprehensive time history tran- sient approach. The comparison between the operating loads in- cluding steam hammer and static seismic loads indicate that in general the operating loads including steam hammer have ap- proximately the same magnitude with operating loads including seismic. However in the vertical direction where the seismic ac- celeration is very small (0.07g), the steam hammer effect is more significant. In case where the steam hammer or water hammer loads are very significant and the dynamic response of the pip- ing system can impact the magnitude of the hammer loads on the pipe segments, the comprehensive approach described using PIPENET and CAESAR II programs is recommended.

REFERENCES [1] Stevanovic, V., Studovic, M., and Bratic, A., 1994. “Simula- tion and analysis of a main steam line transient with isolation valves closure and subsequent pipe break”. International Journal of Numerical Methods for Heat & Fluid Flow, 4(5), pp. 387–398. [2] Wulff, W., 1990. “Computational methods for multiphase flow”. Multiphase Science and Technology, 5(1-4). [3] Shin, Y., and Wiedermann, A., 1981. “A hybrid numeri- cal method for homogeneous equilibrium two-phase flows in one space dimension”. Journal of Pressure Vessel Tech- nology, 103(1), pp. 20–26. [4] Coccio, C., 1967. “Steam hammer in turbine piping systems”. In MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, Vol. 89, ASME-AMER SOC MECHANICAL ENG 345 E 47TH ST, NEW YORK, NY 10017, p. 80. [5] Sunrise, 2010. PIPENET VISION Transient Module User and Reference Manual Software Revision 1.5. Sunrise. [6] Lavooij, C., and Tusseling, A., 1991. “Fluid-structure inter- action in liquid-filled piping systems”. Journal of fluids and structures, 5(5), pp. 573–595. [7] Bathe, K.-J., Wilson, E. L., and Peterson, F. E., 1974. SAP IV: a structural analysis program for static and dynamic re- sponse of linear systems, Vol. 73. College of Engineering, University of California Berkeley. [8] CAESAR, I., 2013. “User manual”. COADE Engineering Software Inc. [9] ASCE Standard: Minimum Design Loads for bulding and other structures. ASCE 7-02, 2002.

Appendix A: RESTRAINT LOAD SUMMARY FOR OPERATING LOADS INCLUDING STEAM HAMMER DYNAMIC AND SEISMIC LOADS (LOADS UNITS ARE IN NEWOTON)

DYNAMIC AND SEISMIC LOADS (LOADS UNITS ARE IN NEWOTON) ViewView publicationpublication statsstats 11 Copyright c

ViewView publicationpublication statsstats

11

Copyright c 2014 by ASME