You are not logged in.

[Log In]
Home Page Forums Analysis Solutions CAESAR II Snubber
Register User

Forum List

Calendar

Active Topics

Topic Options
Snubber
Zdravko
Ivancic
Member
Registered:
05/27/01
Posts: 1
Loc:
Karlovac,
CROATIA

FAQ

Who's Online
#383 - 06/27/01 07:46 AM

I have a system with seismic and snubber and

I made load cases with next seismic condition:
Horizontal load = 0.3 g
Vertical load = 0 g
Problem is how to properly dene load cases
if I have snubber in the system.
I made next load cases (only those important
for seismic):
1 W+D1+T1+P1+F1 (OPE)
2 W+D1+T1+P1+F1+U1 (OPE)
3 W+D1+T1+P1+F1+U2 (OPE)
4 W+D1+T1+P1+F1-U1 (OPE)
5 W+D1+T1+P1+F1-U2 (OPE)
6 W+P1+F1 (SUS)
7 LC7=LC2-LC1 (OCC) Algebraic method
8 LC8=LC3-LC1 (OCC) Algebraic method
9 LC9=LC4-LC1 (OCC) Algebraic method
10 LC10=LC5-LC1 (OCC) Algebraic method
11 LC11=LC7+LC6 (OCC) Scalar method
12 LC12=LC8+LC6 (OCC) Scalar method
13 LC13=LC9+LC6 (OCC) Scalar method
14 LC14=LC10+LC6 (OCC) Scalar method
Load cases 7,8,9 and 10 give displacement
only due to seismic load.
Load cases 11,12,13 and 14 are standard
Occasional load (Sustained load at NO +
seismic load).
The question is. If I use load cases 2,3,4 and 5
as OPE, the snubber is not active. If I use
these load cases as OCC, the snubber is
active.
But!!!???
In this case load cases give me displacement
on the snubber equal 0 (zero). It can not be
correct, because I have other loads it the
system. In the same time for load cases 7,8,9
and 10 I have displacement on the snubber
dierent than 0 (zero). For load cases 7,8,9,

0 registered (), 13
Guests and 1 Spider
online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod,
Mod

August
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Forum Stats
9394 Members
13 Forums
11919 Topics
53997 Posts
Max Online: 57 @ 12/06/09

11:14 AM

and 10 displacement should be 0 equal (zero).

Does anybody have some suggestion how to
solve this problem? How can I make correct
model with seismic and snubber?
Best regards!
_________________________
Zdravko Ivancic, dipl.ing.
Top

Re: Snubber
Anonymous
Unregistered

#384 - 06/27/01 12:38 PM

How are you Zdravo?,

Your question is a good one. The answer
however is not exactly what you might
want to hear! First of all the snubber in
CAESAR II was never intended for use in
static loading situations. I suspect that it
was put in during the glory days of
Nuclear power work here in America.
As such the popular way to deal with
seismic loads then, was dynamic analysis.
This is the way, which this works. What do
I mean works? Well rst we need to
discuss how a true snubber works.
A snubber is intended to allow the quasistatic thermal displacements to occur
freely. However, when a dynamic load is
applied they hopefully become fully
locked up in a couple of milliseconds. The
way in which CAESAR II “locks up
the snubber” is the use of (OCC) in
a load case. When the OCC is used the
snubber becomes a xed boundary
condition. The problem when using this in
a static case when thermal displacements
are present is that the snubber will be
“locked” and will restrain
the pipe thermally as well as for the
statically applied occasional load.
So what can be done? I suggest the
following approach…

1) Place a node(s) where the snubber(s) is

to be attached to the system.
2) Run the required operating cases i.e., W
+ T + P + (F for spring can if req'd) + D (if
req'd)
3) Note the displacements linear and
rotation that occur at the snubber node(s).
4) Call out snubbers attaching them to the
piping node(s) and then cnode them to a
ctitious node.
5) Then go to the displacements input
screen and input the operational
displacements for the cnode.
6) Finally set up your load cases….
CASE 1 (OPE) W+D1+T1+P1
CASE 2 (SUS) W+P1
CASE 3 (OCC) W+D1+T1+P1+U1(Case for
algebraic summation)
CASE 4 (EXP) L4=L2-L1
CASE 5 (OCC) L5=L3-L1 (Results in U1
loads/ stresses alone)
CASE 6 (OCC) L6=L2+L5 (Weight + Pressure
+ U1 loads)
When you look at your restraint summary
you will nd that the snubber only
experiences loading during the application
of the uniform load and yet allow the
system to be free thermally. I hope this
helps I was going to write this up for the
newsletter to include sketches etc.
Top

Re: Snubber
tubecomp
Member
Registered:
05/27/04
Posts: 42
Loc: spain

#385 - 05/16/05 02:26 PM

Hello all,
I have the same problem as Zdravko when
dening the load cases in a non-linear
model with snubbers and static seismic
forces. Has there been any change in
CAESAR during these 4 years or the only
way to dene it is as John says (note the

displacemets, create a c-node, etc..)?

By the way, any newsletter handles this
topic?
Best regards,
_________________________
Carletes
Top

Re: Snubber
John C.
Luf
Member
Registered:
03/25/02
Posts: 1110
Loc: U.S.A.

#386 - 05/16/05 02:45 PM

No changes.... what was applicable 4 years

ago is still applicable....
I am working on an article which as an aside
will discuss topic this but I need to nish it....
I strongly suggest you consider using gapped
restraints in lieu of a snubber. The gapped
restraints may very well be sucient for your
purpose.
_________________________
Best Regards,
John C. Luf

Top

Re: Snubber [Re: John C. Luf]

Ferex
Member
Registered:
11/29/07
Posts: 72
Loc: Italia

#28861 - 07/24/09 04:51 AM

I resume this old post... I don't understand

the need to use C-Node. I tried this method
with and without c-node to the snubber, I
obtained the same results for all the cases
which is obvious, results were satisfying too
because (I tried with wind load) when the OCC
load was acting snubber did its work. I didn't
insert any data in snubber stiness. Maybe I
miss something....

Top

Re: Snubber [Re: Ferex]

Richard
Ay

#28871 - 07/24/09 07:48 AM

In this application, the CNODE permits you to

Member
Registered:
12/13/99
Posts:
4865
Loc:
Houston,
Texas, USA

displace the "other end" of the snubber. If you

don't do this, the snubber is assumed to be
xed to a "xed point" in space.
If you leave the stiness eld blank, then
CAESAR II uses a "rigid stiness value", which
defaults to 1E12 lb/in.
_________________________
Regards,
Richard Ay
Intergraph CAS

Top

Re: Snubber [Re: Richard Ay]

Ferex
Member
Registered:
11/29/07
Posts: 72
Loc: Italia

#28874 - 07/24/09 08:05 AM

Ok, many thanks, I think I am getting it. Why

in his explanation he puts D1 in the OPE case
"CASE 1 (OPE) W+D1+T1+P1"
??
This D1 should be a consequence, an eect
not an imposition. I mean that from the OPE
case you get D1 and you apply it to the OCC
case L3.
I think this formally uncorrect but it doesn't
make any dierence from a results
standpoint.
Did I say right things or i am still missing
something?

Top

Re: Snubber [Re: Ferex]

Richard
Ay
Member
Registered:
12/13/99
Posts:
4865
Loc:
Houston,
Texas, USA

#28875 - 07/24/09 08:10 AM

Ordinarily you would be correct, the D1 would

be a consequence not an imposition.
However, snubbers are dierent - you only
want them active in the OCC event. So you
can't setup a load case such as W+T1+P1+"occ
event" with the snubber in the model, since it
will restrict all movement of the node, not just
that imposed by the "occ event".
The only proper way to handle snubbers in a
static analysis is the multi-step (analysis)

setup described by "Anonymous" above.

_________________________
Regards,
Richard Ay
Intergraph CAS

Top

Re: Snubber [Re: Richard Ay]

Darren_Yin
Member
Registered:
12/15/99
Posts: 40
Loc: Houston,
TX, USA

#29026 - 07/31/09 02:25 AM

Zdzavko,
Are you sure the Vertical Load = 0 g,
whereas HL = 0.3g at site?

Top

Re: Snubber [Re: Richard Ay]

Piper
Member
Registered:
11/10/05
Posts: 38
Loc: SA

#41667 - 03/16/11 07:04 AM

Dear Richard
A couple of weeks ago I came to check "Piping
Handbook" by Mohinder,if I'm right about the
name, about using snubbers.I don't really
remember the exact phrases but the concept
prohibited the using of snubbers near
equipment nozzles. As said the reason is the
snubber's DEAD BAND that makes it not work
in the proper time.
I thought if they cannot be used near nozzles
because of their probable malfunction, they
cannot be used anywhere else. This could
result in disasters especially if snubbers are
used near compressor suction or discharge
nozzles to dampen seismic loads.
I would be thankful if you claried that.
Thanks
Mehdi

Top

Re: Snubber [Re: Piper]

MoverZ
Member
Registered:
11/22/06
Posts: 1021
Loc: Hants,
UK

#41669 - 03/16/11 08:25 AM

In order to lock up, a snubber must rst

detect movement, usually due to seismic or
similar forces. Generally, pipe local to
equipment such as a compressor is far too
sti to allow this, and a snubber so located
simply will not work, even though a stress
analysis model may suggest dierent.

Top

Re: Snubber [Re: MoverZ]

Piper
Member
Registered:
11/10/05
Posts: 38
Loc: SA

#43837 - 07/24/11 12:56 PM

Thanks to MoverZ for his kind reply

I tried modeling snubber just giving the axial
displacement to the cnode, since it's an axial
snubber. No load changes I found. Is it ok to
model like that?

Top

Re: Snubber [Re: Piper]

Piper
Member

#43850 - 07/25/11 10:35 AM

No response...

Registered:
11/10/05
Posts: 38
Loc: SA
Top

Re: Snubber [Re: Zdravko Ivancic] #43887 - 07/27/11 01:41 PM

danb
Member
Registered:
04/22/05
Posts: 1113
Loc: ...

If you obtain no load changes in W+P+T is

normal, if you obtain in W+P+T+U than
activate the snubber in load case editor.
_________________________
Dan

Top

Re: Snubber [Re: danb]

#44433 - 08/30/11 10:03 AM

Piper
Member
Registered:
11/10/05

Have you heard of using large gap guides or

stops instead of snubbers? I thought it could

Posts: 38
Loc: SA

be a good idea but one of my friends says if

the gap is increased support will experience
more load and software will not calculate the
real loads in the eld. Referring to the physics
formula(X=V*t) he says if X as support gap is
increased the velocity is proportionaly
increased and thus using these supports is
not applicable.

Top

Re: Snubber [Re: Zdravko Ivancic] #44436 - 08/30/11 02:06 PM

Dave
Diehl
Member
Registered:
12/14/99
Posts:
1258
Loc:
Houston,
TX, USA

B31E (setting seismic design of B31 piping)

has a short paragraph on gapped restraints
during seismic events. In many cases (based
on gap size), the restraint can be considered
active for the seismic evaluation. BUT, the
restraint must be designed for twice that load
as this would end up as an impact.
_________________________
Dave Diehl

Top

Re: Snubber [Re: Dave Diehl]

Piper
Member
Registered:
11/10/05
Posts: 38
Loc: SA

#44509 - 09/04/11 07:43 AM

Thank you Dave

You mentioned the restraint must be
designed for twice that load. Is this
mentioned in the code or it's based on some
calculation or experience?
Could you please share a shot from that
paragraph (gapped restraints during seismic
events)or send the B31E code itself?
Unfortunately I do not have access to that.

Top

Re: Snubber [Re: Piper]

Piper
Member
Registered:

No response ...

#44528 - 09/06/11 09:19 AM

11/10/05
Posts: 38
Loc: SA
Top

Re: Snubber [Re: Zdravko Ivancic] #44535 - 09/06/11 02:40 PM

Dave
Diehl
Member
Registered:
12/14/99
Posts:
1258
Loc:
Houston,
TX, USA

Impact load is twice applied load. That's a

basic and accepted approach.
You can purchase a copy of B31E from ASME.
_________________________
Dave Diehl

Top

Previous Topic

Moderator: Dave
Diehl, Richard Ay

Index Next Topic

Hop to:

CAESAR II

Privacy statement Board Rules Mark all read

GooG_v2_copy_copy_copy

Go
Contact Us Home Page Top

Generated in 0.045 seconds in which 0.006 seconds were spent on a total of 14 queries. Zlib compression
disabled.
Powered by UBB.threads PHP Forum Software 7.5.7