Gentlemen,
Refer to http://www.coade.com/support_discussion.asp and see
discussion on quality or reality check...Somehow I think you're on
the same topic.
Regards,
- In PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Wright
<chrisw@s...> wrote:
>
> On Jul 7, 2005, at 7:47 AM, Saha, Tanmoy wrote:
>
> > Agreed. But sometimes or most of the times I found people
deciding
> > supporting and stress analyzing are not sufficiently
experienced. And
> > they think that they should provide guides and line stops only
when
> > they
> > think that this is required from stress analysis point of view.
> This is a very good point. You've probably also run into cases
where
> boundary and support conditions are improper resulting in
incorrect
> reaction forces. A client of mine ahd some problems with verifying
that
> a light air to air heat exchanger could support some enormous
piping
> loads. Turns out that the analyst had assumed that the heat
exchanger
> was a fixed support. It took 3 or 4 exchanges of phone calls and
> letters to make the contractor understand what had happened,
> particularly that the assumption might have been conservative for
the
> heat exchanger, but it was definitely un-conservative for the
pipe:
> what had been assumed as two short spans was in fact much closer
to one
> long span. I've also seen cases where only translational end
fixity was
> applied at connections which were stiff enough to carry moments as
> well, resulting in wildly incorrect nozzle loading.
>
> It's always a good idea to check nozzle loads carefully and sniff
> around to make sure that boundary conditions are realistic. Too
many
> people use piping analysis software like a black box that does
their
> thinking for them.
>
> Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at
> chrisw@s... | this distance" (last words of Gen.
> .......................................| John Sedgwick,
Spotsylvania
> 1864)
> <a href="http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw/">http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw/</a>
Received on Thu Jul 07 11:32:00 2005