analysis and evaluation of frp in caesar ii.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
1/34
Intergraph 2014
Analysis and Evaluation of Fiberglass-
Reinforced Plastic Pipe
Using CAESAR II
Intergraph 2014
Agenda
! Fiberglass pipe
!
Design using ISO 14692
! Using C2
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
2/34
Intergraph 2014
How do these materials together
define the Mechanical properties?
Intergraph 2014
Glassappearance in many ways
! Continuous roving
" Direct
" Assembled
!
Chopped strand mats
! Continuous strand mats
! Woven fabrics
" Unidirectional
" Bi-directional
" Multi-axial
! Knitted
Plain weave
twill weave
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
3/34
Intergraph 2014
Micro level analysis
! Failure modes to be evaluated:
"
Failure of the fiber" Failure of the coupling agent layer
" Failure of the matrix
" Failure of the fiber-coupling agent bond
" Failure of the coupling agent matrix bond
! Reduced failure mode evaluation (lack of detailed knowledge of 2, 4 and 5)
" Fiber failure
" Matrix failure
" Fiber-matrix interface failure
Intergraph 2014
Stress level dependent on glass resin ratio
! Maximizing glass- resin ratio is not favorable for loads perpendicular to the glass
! For larger glass resin ratios resin bridges become the weak spot
Transverse resin stress intensity
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Mass fr action glass
Stress
intensity
Transverse resin stress intensity
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
4/34
Intergraph 2014
Macro level analysis instead of Micro level
! Micro level analysis
"
Feasible in concept" Not feasible in practice since many fibers randomly distributed and oriented
! Mini level analysis.
" Evaluation of individual laminate layers
" Laminate layer is considered a continuum with material properties and failure
modes
" Assessment by averaging over cross-section.
! Macro level analysis. (actual state of the art)
"
Evaluation of components made from multiple laminate layers" Series of layers act as a homogeneous material with estimated properties based
on layer properties and winding angle
" Failure analysis based on equivalent stress
Intergraph 2014
Hand Lay-up processing technique
Impregnated Reinforcement
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
5/34
Intergraph 2014
Spray-up processing technique
CATALYST + RESIN
RESIN + ACCELERATOR
GLASS FIBRE
MOULD
ROLLER
Intergraph 2014
Glass fibres
Filament winding processing technique
Resin
Fillers
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
6/34
Intergraph 2014
Filament winding in action
Intergraph 2014
Helical winding processing technique
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
7/34
Intergraph 2014
Continuous glass fiber strand
Sand
Chopped
roving
Infrared oven
L = 12 m
Continuous filament winding processing
technique
Diameters from 100 through 4000mm
Intergraph 2014
Continuous filament winding in action
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
8/34
Intergraph 2014
Continuous filament winding in action
Intergraph 2014
Continuous filament winding in action
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
9/34
Intergraph 2014
Continuous filament winding in action
Intergraph 2014
Before looking at the various design aspectsfirst a little Fiberglass Quiz
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
10/34
Intergraph 2014
How does typical specific thermal
expansion coefficients compare?
Stainless Steel
Carbon Steel
PVC
Polyethelene
Fiberglass
16.5
11.0
72.0
120.0
?
[m/m/C]
= 50.0 [m/m/C]
= 20.0 [m/m/C]
Intergraph 2014
How does typical specific thermalexpansion coefficients compare?
Stainless Steel
Carbon Steel
PVC
Polyethelene
Fiberglass
16.5
11.0
72.0
120.0
?
[m/m/C]
= 50.0 [
m/m/
C]
= 20.0 [m/m/C]
CORRECT
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
11/34
Intergraph 2014
How does the typical (volumetric) Elasticity
of fiberglass compare?
Ductile iron
Steel
PVC
Fiberglass
E [MPa]
E = 20.000 MPa
E = 2.000 MPa
180.000
200.000
3.000
?
Intergraph 2014
How does the typical (volumetric) Elasticityof fiberglass compare?
E = 20.000 MPa
CORRECT
E = 2.000 MPa
Ductile iron
Steel
PVC
Fiberglass
E [MPa]
180.000
200.000
3.000
?
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
12/34
Intergraph 2014
What is the GRP required free bend leg
length?
GRP: 7m and 8m
GRP: 5m and 5.5m
! " # $ % & " ' ) & " " * " + ' , " - , " + - . / ) 0 & 1220330'1.%0+ 0) ./" "451+6%0+7
91&13"."&6:! ;+."&+1, 5&"66$&": 1&-7! ?",.1 @"357: A= 0B! C451+'%+- ,"-: D= 3
150mm
200mm
DIAMETER
?
?
GRP STEEL
4m
4.6m
Intergraph 2014
What is the GRP required free bend leglength?
GRP: 7m and 8m
GRP: 5m and 5.5m
CORRECT
! " # $ % & " ' ) & " " * " + ' , " - , " + - . / ) 0 & 1220330'1.%0+ 0) ./" "451+6%0+7
91&13"."&6:! ;+."&+1, 5&"66$&": 1&-7! ?",.1 @"357: A= 0B! C451+'%+- ,"-: D= 3
150mm
200mm
DIAMETER
?
?
GRP STEEL
4m
4.6m
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
13/34
Intergraph 2014
What is the typical wave speed in a
Fiberglass pipe?
E
K
t
D
K
a
+
=
1
!
K = fluid modulus of elasticity [Pa]
= fluid density [kg/m3]
D = pipe diameter [mm]
t = pipe wall thickness [mm]
E = pipe modulus of elasticity [Pa]
GRP: 1300 1500m/s
GRP: 300 500m/s
Steel: 1000 - 1400m/s
Intergraph 2014
What is the typical wave speed in aFiberglass pipe?
E
K
t
D
K
a
+
=
1
!
K = fluid modulus of elasticity [Pa]
= fluid density [kg/m3]
D = pipe diameter [mm]
t = pipe wall thickness [mm]
E = pipe modulus of elasticity [Pa]
GRP: 1300 1500m/s
GRP: 300 500m/s
Steel: 1000 - 1400m/s
CORRECT
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
14/34
Intergraph 2014
Surge/Pressure Effects in GRP pipe in
general are less than in metal pipe
Pressure time history at valve (valve closure time: 2 secs)
STEELFIBERGLASS
Intergraph 2014
How does the effective material wallroughness of fiberglass compare?
![mm]
!= 0.001 mm
!= 0.05 mm
Ductile iron
Steel
PVC
Fiberglass
0.03-0.1
0.1-0.3
0.05
?
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
15/34
Intergraph 2014
How does the effective material wall
roughness of fiberglass compare?
!= 0.001 mm
!= 0.05 mm
CORRECT
![mm]
Ductile iron
Steel
PVC
Fiberglass
0.03-0.1
0.1-0.3
0.05
?
Intergraph 2014
How large is the effective material axialstrain due to internal pressure ?
!= 0.015 %
!= 0.15 %
![mm]
Ductile iron
Steel
Fiberglass
0.005-0.01
0.005-0.01
?
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
16/34
Intergraph 2014
How large is the typical material axial strain
due to internal pressure ?
!= 0.015 %
!= 0.15 %
CORRECT
For "a= 18 MPa !"# %&'%())) # )*%+,For #T = 75C= !T= 20 * 75 * 10
-6= 0.15 %
![mm]
Ductile iron
Steel
Fiberglass
0.005-0.01
0.005-0.01
?
Intergraph 2014
Agenda
! Fiberglass pipe
!
Design using ISO 14692
! Using C2
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
17/34
Intergraph 2014
ISO 14692 part 2 requires qualification
of pipe and components
Small bore products (typically pipe):
! Long term regression test (ASTM D 2992)
! Delivers long-term strength
! Takes approximately two years
Intergraph 2014
Example of a burst test
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
18/34
Intergraph 2014
101Time (hours)
log
(pressure)
102 103 104 105
Qualification of GRP ASTM D 2992
Intergraph 2014
Failure
Time (hours)
log
(pressure)
101 102 103 104 105
Qualification of GRP ASTM D 2992
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
19/34
Intergraph 2014
Failure
Failure
Time (hours)
log
(pressure)
101 102 103 104 105
Qualification of GRP ASTM D 2992
Intergraph 2014
Time (hours)
log
(pressure)
101 102 103 104 105
Qualification of GRP ASTM D 2992
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
20/34
Intergraph 2014
LCL
LTHP
Time (hours)
log
(pressure)
101 102 103 104 105
Qualification of GRP ASTM D 2992
Intergraph 2014
Qualification of GRP ASTM D 2992
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
21/34
Intergraph 2014
Relation between long-term strength of
piping and piping loads
PIPING LOADSLONG-TERM STRENGTH
Intergraph 2014
GRP-pipe systems often fail due to poor orno engineering
! ./012 34 533"
" 633" 7+,8 790": ; ?:3>:=4< 0; ;0>"2: 0@ A04AB>C:4:@=012 D04:A=03@8
" ./012 7E+,8 790": ; ?:3>:=4< 0; A3>"2:/ 0@ 1/012 D04:A=03@8
! F5:@
" G>122 "14= 7H+,8 3C =5: C102B4:; 3AAB4; DB40@? 0@;=1221=03@ 34 3":41=03@
" I3;= 3C =5: C102B4:; 3AAB4 DB40@? 5
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
22/34
Intergraph 2014
Axially Overloaded pipe failureAlso small bore can cause a lot of collateral damage
Intergraph 2014
Axial tensile failure at reducer
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
23/34
Intergraph 2014
Typical failures adjacent to bend
Intergraph 2014
Failure in Pipe Adjacent to bend not in bend
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
24/34
Intergraph 2014
Large tee failure during pressure testing
Intergraph 2014
Axially Overloaded joint failureWith large consequential damage due to waterhammer
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
25/34
Intergraph 2014
Hoop Stress
AxialStress
2:1 load condition
Construct a design envelope to assess pipe
stresses against
Intergraph 2014
Effect of winding angle (netting theory
!= 55: $hoop:$axial= 2:1
!= 63: $hoop:$axial= 4:1
!= 73: $hoop:$axial= 10:1
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
26/34
Intergraph 2014
Hoop Stress
AxialStress
2:1 load condition
Construct a design envelope to assess pipe
stresses against
Intergraph 2014
Long-term envelope
Hoop stress
Axialstress
Construct a design envelope to assess pipestresses against
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
27/34
Intergraph 2014
2:1 load condition
Long-term envelope
ASTM D 2992-96
FPIAD,Wavistrongserie EST,ID 150mmpipe PL/PL,65C,pressure, TUV
10,0
100,0
1000,0
1 ,0 0E +0 0 1 ,0 0E +0 1 1 ,0 0E +0 2 1 ,0 0E +0 3 1 ,0 0E +0 4 1 ,0 0E +0 5 1 ,0 0E +0 6
time (hrs)
pressure
(barg)
M ea n L CL L PL D at a
Hoop stress
Axialstres
s
"qs
Construct a design envelope to assess pipe
stresses against
Intergraph 2014
2:1 load condition
Construct a design envelope to assess pipestresses against
ASTM D 2992-96
FPIAD,Wavistrongserie EST,ID 150mmpipe PL/PL,65C,pressure, TUV
10,0
100,0
1000,0
1 ,0 0E +0 0 1 ,0 0E +0 1 1 ,0 0E +0 2 1 ,0 0E +0 3 1 ,0 0E +0 4 1 ,0 0E +0 5 1 ,0 0E +0 6
time (hrs)
pressure(barg)
M ea n L CL L PL D at a
Hoop stress
Axialstress
f2= 0.67
Design envelope
"qs
Long-term envelope
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
28/34
Intergraph 2014
Several f2 safety factor values to create
different design envelopes
Intergraph 2014
2:1 load condition
Hoop stress
Axialstress
f2= 0.67
Design envelope
Construct a design envelope to assess pipestresses against
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
29/34
Intergraph 2014
2:1 load condition
Hoop stress
Axialstress
"
axial,pressure
"hoop, pressure f2= 0.67
Internal Pressure"
Design envelope
Construct a design envelope to assess pipe
stresses against
Intergraph 2014
2:1 load condition
BendingX
Hoop stress
Axialstress
"axial, bending
f2= 0.67
Internal Pressure"
"axial,pressure
"hoop, pressure
Design envelope
Construct a design envelope to assess pipestresses against
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
30/34
Intergraph 2014
2:1 load condition
BendingXHoop stress
Axialstress
f2= 0.67
Internal Pressure"
Increase wall
thickness!
"axial, bending
"
axial,pressure
"hoop, pressure
Design envelope
Construct a design envelope to assess pipe
stresses against
Intergraph 2014
"axial,pressure
Hoop stress
Axialstress
"hoop, pressure f3
2:1 load condition
f2= 0.67
Internal Pressure"
Design envelope
Construct a design envelope to assess pipestresses against
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
31/34
Intergraph 2014
"axial, bending
Bending
"
Hoop stress
Axialstress
2:1 load condition
f2= 0.67
Internal Pressure"
"axia
l,pressure
"hoop, pressure f3
Construct a design envelope to assess pipe
stresses against
Intergraph 2014
Result: ISO 14692 design envelop thatis producer and pipe specific
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
32/34
Intergraph 2014
Agenda
! Fiberglass pipe
! Design using ISO 14692
! Using C2
Intergraph 2014
Configuration Options C2 for FRP
!"#$%&' )&'*+, -./0 & ,*##'$+.1
3&45678889:&
3;4687
3;3& ?;&48=@A B:/$,,/C D&E$/F
G+C,$E"45A
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
33/34
Intergraph 2014
Select FRP material while building your
model
Activates Orthotropic material
model of C2
Requires several parameters
for axial and hoop direction
! Elastic Modulus
! Poisson Ratio
! Shear modulus
Be careful with diameters and
wallthicknesses
Use Fitting data from supplier
to ensure the right laminate
thickness is entered
everywhere
Intergraph 2014
Check the special execution parameters
-
7/25/2019 Analysis and evaluation of FRP in Caesar II.pdf
34/34
Intergraph 2014
Setting up the Design Envelope using values
provided by supplier
al (0:1)
al (2:1)
hl (2:1)
Run and evaluate the results is similar to steel
except the stresses are evaluated per direction
T +31 79 361 5150
F +31 79 361 5149
Wwww.dynaflow.com
Houtsingel 95
2719 EB Zoetermeer
The Netherlands
Reg nr. 27320315