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/IMECE201438076
CITATION
1
READS
834
2authors:
AnestisPapadopoulos 

AhmedBayoumy 
PGESCo 
McGillUniversity 

4 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS 
7 PUBLICATIONS 19 CITATIONS 
SEEPROFILE
SEEPROFILE
Someoftheauthorsofthispublicationarealsoworkingontheserelatedprojects:
MultimodelManagementinMultidisciplinaryDesignOptimization Viewproject
AllcontentfollowingthispagewasuploadedbyAnestisPapadopouloson08January2018.
Theuserhasrequestedenhancementofthedownloadedfile.
Proceedings of the ASME 2014 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition IMECE 2014 November 1420, 2014, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
IMECE201438076
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.
1
Copyright c 2014 by ASME
F _{h}_{a}_{m}_{m}_{e}_{r}
F _{m}_{a}_{x}
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, bypass 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 bypass 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 onephase, 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
FIGURE 1. 
SUEZ THERMAL POWER PLANT HOT REHEAT 
LINE 
are described. The purpose of this analysis is to determine the timedependent 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.
2
Copyright c 2014 by ASME
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 crosssection 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 _{s}_{t}_{r}_{o}_{k}_{e} (t))
(1)
following the procedures in Figure 2 by using equations (14).
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} .
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
3
Copyright c 2014 by ASME
FIGURE 3.
TYPICAL VALVE CLOSING CURVE
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 elbowtoelbow 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
1+ ^{} ^{K}^{D}
Et
^{} c 1
(6)
4
Copyright c 2014 by ASME
FIGURE 5.
HOT REHEAT LINE FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 6.
PIPENET MODEL
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR THE HOT REHEAT
Density 
11.1596 
[Kg/m3] 
Viscosity 
3.035E05 
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
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) Steadyﬂow analyses and steam hammer analyses provide information on the liquid behaviour under operational conditions . Static pipestress analyses and structural dynamics analyses give insight into the corresponding behaviour of the pipe sys tem . Where the liquid analysis yields pressures and velocities,
5
Copyright c 2014 by ASME
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
6
Copyright c 2014 by ASME
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 inphase, 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
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.(911) 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.
7
Copyright c 2014 by ASME
FIGURE 10.
HOT REHEAT LINE PIPE WALL THICKNESSES
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
FIGURE 12. HOT REHEAT LINE TEMPERATURES FOR THE NORMAL OPERATING CASE
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
8
Copyright c 2014 by ASME
FIGURE 14.
PORTS DESIGN ACCORDING TO THE STATIC ANALYSIS
HOT REHEAT LINE RESTRAINTS FOR PIPE SUP
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.
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.
9
Copyright c 2014 by ASME
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(14). [3] Shin, Y., and Wiedermann, A., 1981. “A hybrid numeri cal method for homogeneous equilibrium twophase 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, ASMEAMER 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. “Fluidstructure inter action in liquidﬁlled 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 702, 2002.
10
Copyright c 2014 by ASME
Appendix A: RESTRAINT LOAD SUMMARY FOR OPERATING LOADS INCLUDING STEAM HAMMER DYNAMIC AND SEISMIC LOADS (LOADS UNITS ARE IN NEWOTON)
ViewView publicationpublication statsstats
11
Copyright c 2014 by ASME
Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.
Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.
Отменить можно в любой момент.