# U-bolts

I have a question on how to model U-bolts in Autopipe. If the U-bolts holding a pipe are not clamped down tight to the pipe I have been modelling them as a guide. If the U-bolts are clamped tight can anyone tell me the proper way to model these supports? What friction factor should I use? Thank you!

Parents
• A friction factor of 0.3 to 0.4 is commonly used for guides unless low friction pads are added in which case 0.1 can be used. If the U-bolt is tight, then a non-metallic padding is usually added, otherwise the pipe will dent due to hoop radial expansion or the support will break due to axial growth.

Most of the friction will come from horizontal surface where the weight is acting and so the above mentioned factors should be used. If the tightness is excessive, it can be expressed as an equivalent normal radial force (contact pressure*contact area) and that can be used to evaluate the friction factor by dividing the force by the gravity reaction.

Karim

• Request for Clarification:

Loose U-Bolts should be modeled as frictionless guides

Tight U-bolts should be modeled as guides with friction.

1) If no low-friction pad is present, a friction factor of 0.3 or 0.4 should be applied.

2) If a friction pad is present, use a friction factor of 0.1

Is there a reference for this methodology and is this the "only" realistic method that should be applied to modeling u-bolts?

An approach has been used in the past to model loose vs. tight u-bolts was to install a small gap (~1/16" or so) for three of four directions (zero gap in the gravity direction since the support is applied to normally carry the deadweight).  Is this approach an alternate acceptable method for analysis?

• Request for Clarification:

Loose U-Bolts should be modeled as frictionless guides

Tight U-bolts should be modeled as guides with friction.

1) If no low-friction pad is present, a friction factor of 0.3 or 0.4 should be applied.

2) If a friction pad is present, use a friction factor of 0.1

Is there a reference for this methodology and is this the "only" realistic method that should be applied to modeling u-bolts?

An approach has been used in the past to model loose vs. tight u-bolts was to install a small gap (~1/16" or so) for three of four directions (zero gap in the gravity direction since the support is applied to normally carry the deadweight).  Is this approach an alternate acceptable method for analysis?

Children
No Data