See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311858157

Nonlinear Boundary Condition Effects for Piping System in the Dynamic

Analysis

Conference Paper · November 2016

DOI: 10.1115/IMECE2016-66861

CITATIONS READS
0 443

1 author:

Mohamed I. Abou El-Ella

PGESCo
6 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Vibration Analysis of a piping system. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamed I. Abou El-Ella on 23 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2016 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition
November 13-19, 2016, Phoenix,Arizona, USA
NONLINEAR BOUNDARY CONDITION EFFECTS FOR PIPING SYSTEM IN THE
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Mohamed I. Abou El-Ella
MSc., Hydraulic Transient and Dynamic
Deputy Engineering Supervisor
Plant Design Power Generation Engineering
and Services Company. (PGESCo.)
New Cairo, Cairo, 11835 Egypt
Email: miaboul@PGESCo.com
ABSTRACT
Piping system in thermal power plants usually include non-
linear boundary condition (e.g. Single acting and gap supports)
to eliminate the high thermal stresses since those systems are op-
erating in high temperature range with large thermal displace-
ment. Using this kind of non-linear supports may include er-
ror due to the linear approximation when it comes to study the
response of the piping system in the dynamic analysis. Most
of the common pipe stress analysis programs such as CAESAR
II [1].cannot perform a dynamic analysis for nonlinear systems.
This paper is investigating the effect on maximum reaction forces
when modelling nonlinear boundary condition using the dynamic
analysis module in ANSYS program [2]. The aim of of this paper
is to estimate the impact of gaps and to study the effect of dif-
ferent pipe support stiffness. The dynamic analysis is performed
for a range of different gap and stiffness support arrangements.
The results from the nonlinear analysis are compared with reg-
ular linear analysis (supports with zero gaps) and a correlation
is established indicating that large spikes in dynamic force are
expected when large gaps are included in dynamic analysis. The
results of the paper shows that the design engineer must be very
caution in using linear dynamic analysis when large gaps are in-
cluded and that the nonlinear analysis is required when dynamic
amplification is significant.
1 Copyright
IMECE 2016
IMECE2016-66861
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
INTRODUCTION
In thermal power plant, the steam hammer could be an in-
evitable phenomenon during turbine trip, since valves (e.g., main
steam valves) must be closed very quickly to protect the turbine
from further damage incase of turbine trip. When a valve sud-
denly 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 response on the pipeline and significant
loads on the pipe restraints [3]. Piping system in thermal power
plants are subjected to large thermal displacement which leads
the designer to include different nonlinear boundary condition
(i.e. supports with gaps) to eliminate the high thermal stresses
and ensure that the plant will operate safely.
Most of the pipe stress analysis programs have some limi-
tation when deal with the nonlinear boundary condition such as
one way supports and gaps [4]. The dynamic analysis techniques
used by CAESAR II require strict linearity assumption in the
piping and structural systems,also the dynamic responses asso-
ciated with nonlinear effects are not addressed [1]. This paper
investigates the effect on the support reactions determined from
the linear analysis with the values calculated by the nonlinear
analyses for different gaps and support stiffness.
The results from nonlinear analysis shows that the small
gaps up to 5 mm does not necessarily corresponds to a significant
increase in maximum support force. However, for large support
gaps (i.e. 15mm) the support force is amplifying by more than
c 2016 by ASME
FIGURE 1. STIFFNESS CHARACTERISTICS FOR LINEAR PIPE
SUPPORT

2 times. Therefore, larger gaps can not be simplified by linear FIGURE 2. FORCE VS. DISPLACEMENT FOR A ONE-WAY PIPE
analysis as ”zero” gaps and they need to be considered in the SUPPORT
dynamic analysis.
With this in mind, it is concluded, that the design of large
gap restraints ( more than 5mm) must consider the nonlinear ef-
fect or use a dynamic amplification factor of 2.0 [5].or more to
design the attached supports.

NONLINEARITIES
There are many situations in which assuming a linear behav-
ior for the physical system might provide satisfactory results. On
the other hand, there are circumstances that may require a nonlin-
ear solution. A nonlinear structural behavior may arise because
of geometric and material nonlinearities, as well as a change in
the boundary conditions. [6].
In general, the nonlinearities in piping system can be sum-
marized as (a) Material nonlinearities which occurs because of
the stress-strain response, i.e. the constitutive relation of the ma-
terial that accounts for phenomena such as plasticity of materials.
(b) Boundary condition nonlinearities where the stiffness of the FIGURE 3. FORCE VS. DISPLACEMENT FOR A ONE-WAY PIPE
structure may change when two or more parts either contact or SUPPORT WITH LIFT STOP
separate from initial contacts [7]. The boundary condition non-
linearities due to support gaps and stiffness will be discussed in
this paper.

The differences between the linear and nonlinear behaviour,

LINEAR AND NONLINEAR PIPE SUPPORTS
Pipe supports are mainly divided into two categories (a) lin-
ear and (b) nonlinear. These two categories are referring to how
the support force will behave with the support displacement. [8].
The linear pipe support has a constant stiffness irrespective of
displacement as shown in Figure 1. On the other hand, for the
non linear supports, the support stiffness depends on the support
gap.
for different pipe supports designs are, illustrating in Figures 2,3
and 4.
For the one way support, Figure 2, shows that the support
has a stiffness only in the support direction. In case the up-lift
direction is added the result will have stiffness in the other di-
rection which is similar to if the gap is closed, Figure 3. The
spring support stiffness figure shown in Figure 4 varies linearly
in tension and compression load. [8].

2 Copyright

c 2016 by ASME

FIGURE 4. STIFFNESS CHARACTERISTICS FOR A SPRING
SUPPORT
PIPE SUPPORTS STIFFNESS
Supports in the piping analysis model may be modelled with
either the actual stiffness of the support structure, or an arbitrar-
ily rigid stiffness. In general, rigid stiffness will be utilized for
the piping supports, with a check on support deflection in the re-
strained direction(s) to verify the rigidity. The actual stiffness
will be modelled for variable spring supports. If actual support
stiffness are utilized for other than spring supports, the support
should be designed such that the stiffness is approximately the
same for both directions along a single axis. In the case of one
way supports, or supports with large gaps, caution should be used
in the support design to keep the unrestrained direction of the
support from having a frequency which would tend to provide
significant amplification of the support structure mass [9].
NON LINEAR PIPING MODEL USING ANSYS
In this paper ANSYS APDL mechanical module is used
which is a common program for structural mechanics based on
the finite element method. This program includes several pipe
element components and has no limitations in modeling of non-
linear pipe supports with gaps and stiffness during dynamic anal-
yses [2]. For this analysis the following elements are used:
(a) PIPE288 shown in Figure 5, is a uniaxial element with
tension-compression, torsion, and bending capabilities. The el-
ement has six degrees of freedom at two nodes: translations in
the nodal x, y, and z directions and rotations about the nodal x, y,
and z axes [2].
(b) ELBOW290 shown in Figure 6, also known as an elbow
element, is a circularly uniaxial element with tension, compres-
sion, torsion, and bending capabilities. The element has six de-
3 Copyright
grees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y, and
z directions and rotations about the nodal x, y, and z axes [2].
(c) CONTA178 shown in Figure 7,represents contact and
sliding between any two nodes of any types of elements. This
node-to-node contact element can handle cases when the contact
location is known beforehand [2].
(d) COMBIN14 shown in Figure 8,is a combination of a
spring-slider and damper in parallel, coupled to a gap in se-
ries [2].
In This paper the two elements COMBIN14 and CONTA178
are used to model the pipe support as shown in Figure 9 to get the
effect of the nonlinear behaviour by applying different gap sizes
during the dynamic analysis.
TYPICAL PIPING SYSTEM
The model of the piping system investigated is shown in Fig-
ure 10 and Figure 11. It includes eight pipe elements, three el-
bows elements and two pipe supports with gaps and two supports
with no gaps. Pipe cross section OD=508 mm, thickness is STD
schedule. The piping system response when is subjected to dy-
namic load (i.e. steam hammer),is investigated for the case of
changing pipe support boundary conditions i.e. gap size,and pipe
support stiffness.
The material used in the piping analyses is linear elastic ma-
terial with Young‘s modulus E (Pa) =2.02 E011, Poisson‘s ratio
=0.3 and Density (kg/m3) =7830.
DYNAMIC LOAD
The applied water hammer load as shown in Figure 12 is
simplified to a damped sinus shaped load given by equation 1 [6].
f (t) = Ae−kt sin ωt (1)
where:
(A) Amplitude,
(k) Constant (set to 2.8),
(w) angular frequency,
(t) time.
The dynamic load was applied in vertical direction shown in
Figure 11, in order to have the maximum effects on the nonlinear
vertical restraints.
PARAMETERS TESTED
For this study we tested the following parameters:
(a) 8 cases of pipe support gaps (0,1,3,5,7,9,10,15 mm)and,
(b) 3 cases of pipe support stiffness (10000,30000,50000 N/cm).
c 2016 by ASME
 FIGURE 5. PIPE288 ELEMENT DESCRIPTION

FIGURE 6. ELBOW290 ELEMENT DESCRIPTION

4 Copyright

c 2016 by ASME

FIGURE 7. CONTA178 ELEMENT DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 8. COMBIN40 ELEMENT DESCRIPTION
The dynamic load shown in equation 1 was applied with am-
plitude A=5000 N. The results are shown in figure 13 and 14.
Additionally, the effects of different amplitudes was tested for
A=1000 N, A=5000 N and A=9000 N and pipe support stiffness
of K=30000 N/cm. The results are shown in figures 15 and 16.
The paper includes two different type of analysis, (a) linear
where all supports are modelled as linear (just as in CAESAR
II) zero gap, and (b) nonlinear where nonlinearities (i.e. supports
with gaps).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This paper evaluates the change in the maximum force ap-
plied on rigid supports and fixed anchors due to different gap
sizes when the piping system is subjected to steam hammer time
history load. The main objective of this paper is to study the ef-
fect of changing the system boundary conditions i.e. when the
gap size between the support and the pipe is varied. The paper
investigates first the effect of the gap and second the effect of
5 Copyright
FIGURE 9. MODELING OF COMBIN14 AND CONTA178 IN SE-
RIES
FIGURE 10. PIPING CONFIGURATION
pipe support stiffness with the applied load amplitude A. The re-
sults are presented as a gap versus reaction force for (a) the gaped
support (25), Figures 14 and 16, and (b) the anchor (1), Figures
13 and 15.
As it is shown in Figure 14, the increase in the gap size does
not necessarily corresponds to a decrease in the maximum sup-
port reaction force for the small gaps (i.e 5 mm). However, it is
clear that the rigid support become inactive and does not resist
the dynamic load when applying large gaps.
As a result of increasing the gap sizes and decreasing the reaction
force on the rigid support, it is observed that the fixed anchor is
resisting the full dynamic load as shown in Figure 13. For the an-
chor load the increase by more than a factor of 2.0 (i.e. = 15mm),
can lead to its failure, if it is not designed for the higher load.
The effect of the different support stiffness is well described
in both Figures 13 and 14. It is concluded that the stiffer support
c 2016 by ASME
 FIGURE 11. TEST MODEL GEOMETRY USING ANSYS PROGRAM

FIGURE 12. APPLIED DYNAMIC LOAD (F) IN A DAMPED SINUS SHAPED

6 Copyright
c 2016 by ASME
FIGURE 13. REACTION FORCES AND CORRESPONDING GAP SIZES FOR ANC (1) AT DIFFERENT SUPPORT STIFFNESS FOR AMPLI-
TUDE=5000 N

FIGURE 14. REACTION FORCES AND CORRESPONDING GAP SIZES FOR SUPPORT (25) AT DIFFERENT SUPPORT STIFFNESS FOR
AMPLITUDE=5000 N

7 Copyright
c 2016 by ASME
FIGURE 15. REACTION FORCES AND CORRESPONDING GAP SIZES FOR ANC (1) AT DIFFERENT APPLIED FORCE AMPLITUDE FOR
SUPPORT STIFFNESS=30000 N/CM

FIGURE 16. REACTION FORCES AND CORRESPONDING GAP SIZES FOR SUPPORT (25) AT DIFFERENT APPLIED FORCE AMPLI-
TUDE FOR SUPPORT STIFFNESS=30000 N/CM

8 Copyright
c 2016 by ASME
(i.e. K=50000 N/cm) is contribute more in the small gaps region. REFERENCES
However, it has a lesser effect on the large gaps region. Therefore [1] CAESARII, 2014. “User guide”. COADE Engineering Soft-
the support stiffness is having an effect only when the support ware Inc.
gap is active and less or no effect when the gap is inactive. [2] ANSYS, release 15.0. ANSYS Mechanical APDL documen-
For the case of applying higher dynamic force amplitude, tation.
the results indicate that the reaction forces is significant when [3] BAIOUMY, A., and PAPADOPOULOS, A., 2014. “Time
it is compared to the reactions forces from applying lower dy- history steam hammer analysis for critical hot lines in ther-
namic load amplitude. As Figure 16 shows, the rigid support for mal power plants”. ASME - IMECE2014.
the case of A=1000 N, does not resist any load and the support [4] FALOPPA, A. A., et al., 2013. “Comparative study of de-
become inactive. However, in the case of higher amplitude force sign of piping supports class 1, 2 and 3 considering german
A=9000N, the gap support is still active and pick up most of the code kta and asme iii-nf”. International Nuclear Atlantic
load even for the large gap cases. Conference - INAC 2013.
The comparison between the maximum forces determined [5] ABOUEL-ELLA, M. I., and PAPADOPOULOS, A., 2015.
from the linear analysis and the values calculated by the non- “Dynamic amplification factor for rigid and flexible pip-
linear analyses (gap is closed) at different boundary conditions, ing system due to steam hammer transient load”. ASME -
as shown in Figures 13, 14, 15 and 16, indicate that the devia- IMECE2015.
tion is quite significant for bigger gap sizes / large dynamic load [6] AXELSSON, J., and VIKTORSSON, H., 2011. “Influence
amplitude and must be considered, since the load distribution on of support stiffness in dynamic analysis of piping systems”.
the system will be changed and accordingly the moment and the Master thesis in soild and fluid Mechanics - CHALMERS
maximum stresses will vary which may lead to supports and pipe UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY.
failure. [7] POWELL, G. H., and ASHRAF, O. “Nonlinear effects in
Figures 13, 14, 15 and 16 are presented in tabulated format see piping system analysis”. American Society of Mechanical
Table 1, 2, 3 and 4. Engineers - C459/042 IMechE.
[8] ALKMYR, S., 2014. “Paramter study on nonlinear piping
systems exposed to time history loading in ansys”. Master
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION thesis in soild Mechanics - LUND UNIVERSITY.
Most of pipe stress analysis programs has some limitations [9] AREVA, 2010. “U.s. epr piping analysis and pipe support
when it deals with the nonlinear boundary condition such as one design topical report”. AREVA NP Inc.
way supports and supports with gaps. The linear approximations
may lead to unrealistic results since the values from the linear
analyses are not directly comparable with the nonlinear loads.
The results of this paper shows that the variation of the pipe
support gap sizes as a nonlinear boundary condition will lead to a
significant change in the load and accordingly the stress distribu-
tion in the piping system. It is also clearly shown that the largest
difference in maximum resultant forces between linear and non-
linear analysis was found to occur when the load with a high
amplitude content was applied. Moreover, the paper presented
that the force spikes partially disappeared when the support stiff-
ness was decreased due to the lower acceleration in the support
impact.
The parameter tested and the analysis of a typical piping sys-
tem with real time history loading have shown that it is quite dif-
ficult to propose a method that compensate for nonlinear effects.
Therefore, the linear approximation (gap is closed) to calculate
the maximum force is not conservative, and can lead to a signifi-
cant change on the maximum force of the piping system.
It is recommended that, the design of the restraints in the
thermal power plant piping systems must consider the nonlinear
effect for the transient load and select the optimum pipe support
arrangement that will cause the minimum dynamic amplification
on the pipeline.

9 Copyright
c 2016 by ASME
 Applied Force Amplitude = 5000 N
ANC (1) ANC (1) ANC (1)
Gap Size(mm)
Supp Stiff N/cm Reaction Force N Supp Stiff N/cm Reaction Force N Supp Stiff N/cm Reaction Force N
0 10000 72241 30000 3971 50000 54196
1 10000 78574 30000 64286 50000 12603
3 10000 67240 30000 44916 50000 10582
5 10000 103910 30000 55546 50000 83767
7 10000 96470 30000 76176 50000 56953
9 10000 119240 30000 96794 50000 81326
10 10000 115570 30000 107060 50000 93822
15 10000 162980 30000 158410 50000 156300
TABLE 1. REACTION FORCES AND CORRESPONDING GAP SIZES FOR ANC (1) AT DIFFERENT SUPPORT STIFFNESS FOR AMPLI-
TUDE=5000 N

Applied Force Amplitude = 5000 N

SUPPORT (25) SUPPORT (25) SUPPORT (25)
Gap Size(mm)
Supp Stiff N/cm Reaction Force N Supp Stiff N/cm Reaction Force N Supp Stiff N/cm Reaction Force N
0 10000 89502 30000 173120 50000 175400
1 10000 93717 30000 114330 50000 196150
3 10000 82147 30000 146770 50000 177660
5 10000 70577 30000 129200 50000 109170
7 10000 59167 30000 121630 50000 140680
9 10000 73437 30000 92834 50000 112970
10 10000 61652 30000 79466 50000 96702
15 10000 6677 30000 12628 50000 15367
TABLE 2. REACTION FORCES AND CORRESPONDING GAP SIZES FOR SUPPORT (25) AT DIFFERENT SUPPORT STIFFNESS FOR
AMPLITUDE=5000 N

10 Copyright
c 2016 by ASME
 Support Stiffness = 30000 N / CM
ANC (1) ANC (1) ANC (1)
Gap Size(mm)
App. Force Amp. N Rea. Force N App. Force Amp. N Rea. Force N App. Force Amp. N Rea. Force N
0 10000 794 30000 3971 50000 7148
1 10000 11109 30000 64286 50000 17463
3 10000 31682 30000 44916 50000 38093
5 10000 33622 30000 55546 50000 88723
7 10000 33622 30000 76176 50000 69353
9 10000 33622 30000 96794 50000 119983
10 10000 33622 30000 107060 50000 120300
15 10000 33622 30000 158410 50000 161870
TABLE 3. REACTION FORCES AND CORRESPONDING GAP SIZES FOR ANC (1) AT DIFFERENT APPLIED FORCE AMPLITUDE FOR
SUPPORT STIFFNESS=30000 N/CM

Support Stiffness = 30000 N / CM

SUPPORT (25) SUPPORT (25) SUPPORT (25)
Gap Size(mm)
App. Force Amp. N Rea. Force N App. Force Amp. N Rea. Force N App. Force Amp. N Rea. Force N
0 10000 34624 30000 173120 50000 251610
1 10000 25840 30000 114330 50000 302830
3 10000 2526 30000 146770 50000 285260
5 10000 0 30000 129200 50000 237700
7 10000 0 30000 131630 50000 290130
9 10000 0 30000 92834 50000 232560
10 10000 0 30000 79466 50000 223780
15 10000 0 30000 12628 50000 179860
TABLE 4. REACTION FORCES AND CORRESPONDING GAP SIZES FOR SUPPORT (25) AT DIFFERENT APPLIED FORCE AMPLITUDE
FOR SUPPORT STIFFNESS=30000 N/CM

11 Copyright
c 2016 by ASME

View publication stats