Good Book Load Case Editor

Mechanical Engineering News
VOLUME 30
JANUARY 2001
PVElite Version 4.10 New Features

(by: Scott Mayeux)
PVElite Version 4.10 contains many new exciting additions. A brief list of the enhancements is shown in the table below. This article will discuss a few of these new features and how they may impact vessel designs.
ASME 2000 addenda has been incorporated Provision to use the 1999 year material database TEMA and ASME tubesheet programs updated to perform multiple load cases Separate entry of m and y factors for partition gaskets User bolt loads in the tubesheet programs Simultaneous Corroded and UnCorroded thick expansion joint calculations ASCE 98 wind code added Rigging analysis with graphical results processor added The input ( thicknesses, rings, repads ) can now be updated by the analysis program The 3-D viewer now has a transparency option Ladder information is now collected User time history input for IS-893 RSM
FOR THE POWER, PROCESS AND RELATED INDUSTRIES
As always there have been changes to ASME VIII Division 1 and the material database(s). Typically, new materials are added and obsolescent materials are withdrawn from the Code. In this revision to the program we have of course updated the material tables and now offer the option of using the current (2000) addenda, the pre-1999 addenda (lower allowable stresses) or the 1999 stress tables. The option that allows this is found in the Tools->Configuration dialog. Another major change was made to both the ASME and TEMA tubesheet programs. ASME Appendix AA was modified substantially for 2000. The new changes themselves do not typically generate answers that are significantly different from the previous year addenda. While the alterations were being IN THIS ISSUE: CAESAR II Version 4.30 New Features Whats New at COADE
PVElite Version 4.10 New Features ............... 1 CAESAR II Version 4.30 New Features ......... 4 TANK Version 2.20 Released ...................... 11 The New Pipe Stress Seminar Format ......... 11
> see story page 4

The COADE Mechanical Engineering News Bulletin is published twice a year from the COADE offices in Houston, Texas. The Bulletin is intended to provide information about software applications and development for Mechanical Engineers serving the power, process and related industries. Additionally, the Bulletin serves as the official notification vehicle for software errors discovered in those Mechanical Engineering programs offered by COADE. 2001 COADE, Inc. All rights reserved.
Sustained Stresses
Technology You Can Use

Sustained Stresses ...................................... 12 Using the New CAESAR II Static Load Case Builder ...................................................... 19 PC Hardware for the Engineering User (Part 30) ................................................... 25
> see story page 12

Using the New CAESAR II Static Load Case Builder
Program Specifications
CAESAR II Notices ...................................... TANK Notices ............................................... CodeCalc Notices ........................................ PVElite Notices ............................................ 26 26 27 27
> see story page 19

Article Here
COADE Mechanical Engineering News made, we added new functionality in the way of multiple load cases. If informed to do so, either of the ASME or TEMA tubesheet programs can run up to 16 load cases for fixed tubesheet exchangers. These load cases involve different combinations of temperature, pressure (internal and external) as well as corrosion allowance. The generated output for these 16 cases is reduced to a mere 2 or 3 pages. Previously, this could have generated up to 60 pages. A sample table of results and the dialog used to control the output is shown below:
Tube and Shell Stress Summary:
January 2001
Shell Stresses Tube Stresses Tube Loads Pass Case# Ten Allwd Cmp Allwd Ten Allwd Cmp Allwd Ld Allwd Fail -1c 33 15900 0 -4968 10762 13500 0 -5458 1161 1020 Fail 2c 0 15900 -290 -4968 1870 13500 0 -5458 202 1020 Ok 3c 33 15900 -290 -4968 12633 13500 0 -5458 1363 1020 Fail 4c 28 15900 0 -4968 0 13500 -116 -5287 0 1020 Ok 5c 45 15900 0 -4968 10765 13500 -116 -5287 1162 1020 Fail 6c 28 15900 -289 -4968 1870 13500 -116 -5287 202 1020 Ok 7c 45 15900 -289 -4968 12634 13500 -116 -5287 1363 1020 Fail 8c 0 15900 0 -4968 0 13500 0 -5458 0 1020 Ok 1uc 3389 15900 0 -5038 3467 13500 0 -5458 374 1020 Ok 2uc 1507 15900 0 -5038 0 13500 -1975 -5458 213 1020 Ok 3uc 4896 15900 0 -5038 3467 13500 -1975 -5458 374 1020 Ok 4uc 2771 15900 0 -5038 0 13500 -11927 -5287 0 1020 Fail 5uc 4473 15900 0 -5038 3436 13500 -11927 -5287 371 1020 Fail 6uc 2771 15900 0 -5038 0 13500 -13885 -5287 211 1020 Fail 7uc 4903 15900 0 0 3436 13500 -13885 -5287 371 1020 Fail 8uc 0 15900 0 -5038 0 13500 0 -5458 0 1020 Ok -MAX RATIO 0.308 0.058 0.936 2.627 1.337
Additionally, the thick expansion joint program can now also accommodate calculations in both the corroded and uncorroded conditions in the same run. The ability of the program to provide this functionality will potentially reduce input errors. Also in the Component Analysis program (CodeCalc), we have allowed the entry for separate m and Y factors as well and sketch and column information for all components that have optional entries for partition gasket information. User defined bolt load data is also available in the tubesheet modules. In the main analysis section of PVElite there have also been many changes. One time saving change is that after the analysis (in design mode) has changed any data values such as thicknesses, stiffening rings, basering data or reinforcing pad information, the input can be automatically updated by the program at the users request. To illustrate this, review the model below. We have requested the program to add angle type stiffeners to this vessel.
Fixed Tubesheet Required Thickness per TEMA 8th Edition: Thickness Reqd ----- P r e s s u r e s Case Pass/ Case# Tbsht Extnsn Pt' Ps' PDif Type Fail ---------------------------------------------------------------------1c 2.551 0.879 49.71 0.00 0.00 Fvs+Pt-Th+Ca Ok 2c 0.850 0.879 0.00 -2.48 0.00 Ps+Fvt-Th+Ca Ok 3c 2.610 0.879 49.71 -2.48 0.00 Ps+Pt-Th+Ca Fail 4c 0.770 0.879 0.00 0.00 -0.48 Fvs+Fvt+Th+Ca Ok 5c 2.550 0.879 49.71 0.00 -0.48 Fvs+Pt+Th+Ca Ok 6c 0.850 0.879 0.00 -2.47 -0.48 Ps+Fvt+Th+Ca Ok 7c 2.609 0.879 49.71 -2.47 -0.48 Ps+Pt+Th+Ca Fail 8c 0.770 0.879 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fvs+Fvt-Th+Ca Ok 1uc 1.662 0.879 19.81 0.00 0.00 Fvs+Pt-Th-Ca Ok 2uc 1.279 0.879 0.00 13.43 0.00 Ps+Fvt-Th-Ca Ok 3uc 1.662 0.879 19.81 13.43 0.00 Ps+Pt-Th-Ca Ok 4uc 1.733 0.879 0.00 0.00 -49.37 Fvs+Fvt+Th-Ca Ok 5uc 1.733 0.879 19.68 0.00 -49.37 Fvs+Pt+Th-Ca Ok 6uc 1.954 0.879 0.00 13.35 -49.37 Ps+Fvt+Th-Ca Ok 7uc 1.954 0.879 19.68 13.35 -49.37 Ps+Pt+Th-Ca Ok 8uc 0.750 0.879 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fvs+Fvt-Th-Ca Ok ---------------------------------------------------------------------Max: 2.610 0.879 in. Given Tubesheet Thickness: 2.5625 in.
Note: Fvt,Fvs - User-defined Shell-side and Tube-side vacuum pressures or 0.0. Ps, Pt Th Ca - Shell-side and Tube-side Design Pressures. - With or Without Thermal Expansion. - With or Without Corrosion Allowance.
After the program has generated the new input, it will ask for confirmation to use the new data.
January 2001
COADE Mechanical Engineering News
After accepting the changes, here is how the model appears.
Another major addition to this version is that the program can now perform a rigging analysis. This is the computation of bending and shear stresses in a vessel when it is being lifted from the horizontal position. The rigging analysis requires that the location of the lugs be entered in as well as the impact factor for lifting. The impact factor accounts for how rough the vessel is lifted. This value generally lies between 1 and 2, but values as high as 3.0 can be used. If the impact factor is less than 1.0 or the lug distances are not defined, the program will not perform the analysis. The main objective is to determine if the stress levels are excessive during lifting. The program computes a combined bending plus shear stress check. The result of this check should be less than or equal to 1.0. The result of a typical rigging analysis is shown below.
RIGGING ANALYSIS Total weight of the vessel (No liquid) Impact weight multiplication factor Design lifting weight, DWT = Imp * Twt Elevation of the tail lug Elevation of the lifting lug Length of element used for the analysis, INC Overall height (node to node) Elevation of the vessel center of gravity Design reaction force at the tail lug Design reaction force at the lifting lug Twt Imp 92238.39 1.50 138357.58 0.50 70.00 1.00 94.77 44.26 51250.46 87107.12 lb. lb. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. lb. lb.
Other new items include the option of entering ladder data in the platform dialog. As shown below, the 3-D graphics have also been updated to draw the ladders. Note that the transparency option has been turned on for the shell and cone elements.
Critical values: Max stress Elevation Allowables psi ft. psi ||| Bending | -3772.13 | 30.38 | 14518.90 (UG-23) Shear | -470.55 | 69.95 | 11280.00 (0.4*Sy) ||| AISC Unity Check was 0.2600 at 29.44 ft. (must be <= 1.0). Note: Plot data successfully generated ...
COADE Mechanical Engineering News The graph shown below depicts the combined bending plus shear stress. The graph tool is invoked from the main screen after the rigging results data file has been generated. The arrows on the toolbar switch between the different graphs.
January 2001
CAESAR II Version 4.30 Features Improved 3-D graphics New Load Case Editor, offering different combination methods, load scale factors, and more Undo/Redo in the input module Z-axis vertical MS WORD as an output device Code Compliance report (statics only) Load Case Report ODBC/XML wizard interface for CAESAR II input and output Graphics in the WRC 107 Module Animated Tutorials New Configuration Options User-Configurable Toolbar in Input Module Updated piping codes: B31.1, B31.3, ASME NC, ASME ND
Graphics Improvements: The 3D graphics have been improved to provide more information to the user. These improvements include: When the button is in selected mode, the user can add annotations, with leader lines, to the graphics. Font type, size and color, may be changed for the annotation through use of the button, followed by the Fonts tab. Another update to version 4.10 came in the form of the ASCE 98 wind design code. This code is nearly identical to its predecessor, ASCE 95. However, the computation of the gust response factor for both static and dynamic cases has been slightly altered. New values of the dynamic gust factor have been found to be slightly lower than those computed by the previous edition of ASCE. The static gust factor is slightly higher than previous values. There are several other enhancements to PVElite that have not been mentioned here. The updates to the user guide will contain more information. This product is scheduled for an early January 2001 release date. Clicking the or the buttons (or using the Options-Diameters or Options-Wall Thickness menu commands) highlights the piping model, by color, according to its diameters or wall thicknesses, respectively. Three new standard views (YX, ZX, and ZY) have been added. Standard views are accessed by the , , , , , , and (isometric) buttons. Changes to graphics settings are restored whenever users exit and return to the graphics view. Alternatively, the user may set a standard setup to be always restored upon entering graphics. This is done through the use of the button, followed by the User Options tab. The CAESAR II Animation module has been converted to use these new 3D graphics. Zooming, rotating, and panning can now be easily controlled via the mouse, in exactly the same manner as the input graphics. Static Load Case Editor Enhancements: The CAESAR II Static Load Case editor now offers much more user control. New features include use of scale factors when including load components in load cases or previous load cases in load combinations; user-defined load case names; user-controlled combination methods (for combination cases only); and greater user control of what output data gets produced.
CAESAR II Version 4.30 New Features

(by: Tom Van Laan & Richard Ay)
CAESAR II Version 4.30 is a major release providing users with significantly enhanced analysis capabilities, as well as additional user interface improvements. A list of the major additions and improvements for Version 4.30 are listed in the table below.
January 2001 Note that previous load cases are now referred to, in combination cases, as L1, L2, L3, etc. (Load Case 1, Load Case 2, Load Case 3, etc.) rather than DS1, FR2, ST3, etc., since it is no longer meaningful to talk about combinations being done at the displacement level, force level, or stress level. Scale factors for load components and previous load cases in combinations: When building basic load cases, load components (such as W, T1, D1, WIND1, etc.) may now be preceded by scale factors such as 2.0, -, 0.5, etc. Likewise, when building combination cases, references to previous load cases may also be preceded by scale factors as well. This provides the user with a number of benefits: 1) In the event that one loading is a multiple of the other (i.e., Safe Shutdown Earthquake being two times Operating Basis Earthquake, only one loading need be entered in the piping input module; it may be used in a scaled or unscaled form in the Load Case Editor. 2) In the event that a loading may be directionally reversible (i.e., wind or earthquake), only one loading need be entered in the piping input module; it may be used preceded by a + or a to switch directionality. Load Rating Design Factor (LRDF) methods may be implemented by scaling individual load components by their risk-dependent factors, for example: 1.05W+1.1T1+1.1D1+1.25WIND1 User-defined load case names: CAESAR II now offers a second tab on the Static Load Case screen Load Case Options. Among other features, this screen allows the user to define alternative, more meaningful Load Case names, as shown in the figure.
COADE Mechanical Engineering News These user-defined names appear in the Static Output Processor in the Load Case Report (for more information, see below), and may also be used in place of the program load case names anywhere in the Static Output Processor, by activating the appropriate option therein. Note, these load case names may not exceed 132 characters in length. User-controlled combination methods: For combination cases, CAESAR II now offers the user the ability to explicitly designate the combination method to be used. Load cases to be combined are now designated as L1, L2, etc. for Load Case 1, Load Case 2, etc., with the combination method selected from a drop list on the Load Case Options tab. The available methods are: Algebraic: This method combines the displacements, forces, moments, restraint loads, and pressures of the designated load cases in an algebraic (vectorial) manner. The resultant forces, moments, and pressures are then used (along with the SIFs and element cross-sectional parameters) to calculate the piping stresses. Load case results are multiplied by any scale factors (1.8, -, etc.) prior to doing the combination. (Note that the obsolete CAESAR II combination methods DS and FR used an Algebraic combination method. Therefore, load cases built in previous versions of CAESAR II using the DS and FR methods are converted to the Algebraic method. Also, new combination cases automatically default to this method, unless specifically otherwise designated by the user.) Note that in the load case list shown in the figure, most of the combination cases typically are built with the Algebraic method. Note that Algebraic combinations may be built only from basic (i.e., non-combination) load cases or other load cases built using the Algebraic combination method. Scalar: This method combines the displacements, forces, moments, restraint loads, and stresses of the designated load cases in a Scalar manner (i.e., not as vectors, but retaining consideration of sign). Load case results are multiplied by any scale factors prior to doing the combination (for example, for a negative multiplier, stresses would be subtractive). This method might typically be used when adding plus or minus seismic loads to an operating case, or when doing an Occasional Stress code check (i.e., scalar addition of the Sustained and Occasional stresses). (Note that the obsolete CAESAR II combination method ST used a Scalar combination method. Therefore, load cases built in previous versions of CAESAR II using the ST method are converted to the Scalar method.) SRSS: This method combines the displacements, forces, moments, restraint loads, and stresses of the designated load cases in a Square Root of the Sum of the Squares (SRSS) manner. Load case results are multiplied by any scale factors prior to doing the combination; however, due to the squaring
COADE Mechanical Engineering News used by the combination method, negative values vs. positive values will yield no difference in the result. This method is typically used when combining seismic loads acting in orthogonal directions. Abs: This method combines the displacements, forces, moments, restraint loads, and stresses of the designated load cases in an Absolute Value manner. Load case results are multiplied by any scale factors prior to doing the combination; however, due to the absolute values used by the combination method, negative values vs. positive values will yield no difference in the result. This method may be used when doing an Occasional Stress code check (i.e., absolute summation of the Sustained and Occasional stresses). Note that the Occasional Stress cases in the figure are built using this method. Max: For each result value, this method selects the displacement, force, moment, restraint load, and stress having the largest absolute value from the designated load cases; so no actual combination, per se, takes place. Load case results are multiplied by any scale factors prior to doing the selection of the maxima. The report shows the signed value. This method is typically used when determining the design case (worst loads, stress, etc.) from a number of loads. Note that the Maximum Restraint Load case shown in the figure uses a Max combination method. Min: For each result value, this method selects the displacement, force, moment, restraint load, and stress having the smallest absolute value from the designated load cases; so no actual combination, per se, takes place. Load case results are multiplied by any scale factors prior to doing the selection of the minima. SignMax: For each result value, this method selects the displacement, force, moment, restraint load, and stress having the largest actual value, considering the sign, from the designated load cases; so no actual combination, per se, takes place. Load case results are multiplied by any scale factors prior to doing the selection of the maxima. This combination method would typically be used in conjunction with the SignMin method to find the design range for each value (i.e., maximum positive and maximum negative restraint loads). SignMin: For each result value, this method selects the displacement, force, moment, restraint load, and stress having the smallest actual value, considering the sign, from the designated load cases; so no actual combination, per se, takes place. Load case results are multiplied by any scale factors prior to doing the selection of the minima. This combination method would typically be used in conjunction with the SignMax method to find the design range for each value (i.e., maximum positive and maximum negative restraint loads). User control of output availability:
January 2001
CAESAR II allows the user to specify whether any or all of the load case results are retained for review in the Static Output Processor. This is done through the use of two controls found on the Load Case Options tab. These are: Output Status: This item controls the disposition of the entire results of the load case the available options are Keep or Discard. The former would be used when the load case is producing results that the user may wish to review; the latter option would be used for artificial cases such as the preliminary hanger cases, or intermediate construction cases. For example, in the load list shown in the figure, the Wind only load case could have been optionally designated as Discard, since it was built only to be used in subsequent combinations, and has no real value as a standalone load case. Note that load cases used for hanger design (i.e., the weight load and hanger travel cases designated with the stress type HGR) must be designated as Discard. Note that for all load cases created under previous versions of CAESAR II, all load cases except the HGR cases are converted as KEEP; likewise the default for all new cases (except for HGR load cases) is also KEEP. Output Type: This item designates the type of results that are available for the load cases which have received a KEEP status. This could be used to help minimize clutter on the output end, and ensure that only meaningful results are retained. The available options are: Disp/Force/Stress: This option provides displacements, restraint loads, global and local forces, and stresses. Example: This would be a good choice for Operating cases, when designing to those codes which do a code check on Operating stresses, because the load case would be of interest for interference checking (displacements), restraint loads at one operating extreme (forces), and code compliance (stresses). Note that basic (non-combination) and DS combination load cases developed under previous versions of CAESAR II are converted with this Disp/ Force/Stress type. Likewise, new load cases created also default to this Disp/Force/Stress type. Disp/Force: This option provides displacements, restraint loads, and global and local forces. Example: This would be a good choice for Operating cases, when designing to a code which does not do a code check on Operating stresses, because the load case would be of interest for interference checking (displacements) and restraint loads at one operating extreme (forces). Disp/Stress: This option provides displacements and stresses only.
January 2001 Force/Stress: This option provides restraint loads, global and local forces, and stresses. Example: This might be a good choice for a Sustained (cold) case, because the load case would be of interest for restraint loads at one operating extreme (forces), and code compliance (stresses). Note that FR combination load cases developed under previous versions of CAESAR II are converted with this Force/ Stress type. Disp: This option provides displacements only. Force: This option provides restraint loads, and global and local forces only. Stress: This option provides stresses only. Example: This would be a good choice for a Sustained plus Occasional load case (with Abs or scalar combination method), since this is basically an artificial construct used for code stress checking purposes only. Note that ST combination load cases developed under previous versions of CAESAR II are converted with this Stress type. Undo/Redo in the input module: Any modeling steps done in the CAESAR II piping input module may be undone, one at a time, using the Undo command, activated by the button on the toolbar, the Edit-Undo menu option, or the Ctrl-Z hot key. Likewise, any undone steps may be redone sequentially, using the Redo command, activated by the button on the toolbar, the Edit-Redo menu option, or the Ctrl-Y hot key. An unlimited number of steps (limited only by amount of available memory) may be undone. Note that making any input change while in the middle of the undo stack of course clears the stack of redoable steps. Z-axis vertical: Traditionally, CAESAR II has always used a coordinate system where the Y-axis coincides with the vertical axis. In one alternative coordinate system, the Z-axis represents the vertical axis (with the X-axis chosen arbitrarily, and the Y-axis being defined according to the right-hand rule). CAESAR II now gives the user the ability to model using either coordinate system, as well as to switch between both systems on the fly (in most cases). Defaulting to Z-axis vertical: The users preferred Axis Orientation may be set using the Tools-Configure/Setup option, on the GEOMETRY DIRECTIVES tab. Checking the Z-axis Vertical checkbox causes CAESAR II to default any new piping, structural steel, WRC 107, NEMA SM23, API 610, API 617, or API 661 models to use the Z-axis vertical orientation. (Note that old models will appear in the orientation in which they were last saved.) The default value in Configure/Setup is unchecked, or Y-axis vertical.
Orienting a piping model to Z-axis vertical: A new piping model will determine its axis orientation based on the setting in the Configure/Setup module, while an existing piping model will use the same axis orientation under which it was last saved. The axis orientation may be toggled from Y-Axis to Z-Axis Vertical by activating the checkbox on the Kaux-Special Execution Parameters screen, as shown in the figure.
Activating this checkbox causes the model to convert immediately to match the new axis orientation (i.e., Y-values become Z-values, or vice versa), so there is effectively no change in the model only in its representation, as shown in the following figures:
January 2001
Note: Unlike the piping and equipment files elsewhere in CAESAR II, toggling this setting does not translate the structural input file, but rather physically rotates the model into the new coordinate system, as shown in the figures below: (Note to Beta testers: Is it OK to handle the axis orientation conversion differently in the Structural Input Module than how it is handled elsewhere in CAESAR II?)
This allows any piping input file to be immediately translated from one coordinate system into the other. When including other piping files in a piping model, the axis orientation of the included files need not match that of the piping model. Translation occurs immediately upon inclusion. When including structural files in a piping model, the axis orientation of the included files need not match that of the piping model. Translation occurs immediately upon inclusion. The axis orientation of the Static Load Case Builder (i.e., wind and wave loads), the Static Output Processor, the Dynamic Input Module, and the Dynamic Output Processor is dictated by the orientation of the models input file. Orienting a structural model to Z-axis vertical: A new structural model will determine its axis orientation based on the setting in the Configure/Setup module, while an existing structural model will use the same axis orientation under which it was last saved. The axis orientation may be toggled from Y-Axis to Z-Axis Vertical by changing the value of the VERTICAL command, activated by clicking the button on the toolbar, or through the CommandsMiscellaneous-VERTICAL menu command, as shown in the figure. When including structural files in a piping model, the axis orientation of the included files need not match that of the piping model. Translation occurs immediately upon inclusion. When analyzing a structural model on its own, the axis orientation of the Static Load Case Builder (i.e., wind and wave loads), the Static Output Processor, the Dynamic Input Module, and the Dynamic Output Processor is dictated by the orientation of the structural models input file. Orienting an equipment model to Z-axis vertical: The WRC 107, NEMA SM23, API 610, API 617, and API 661 equipment analytical modules may also utilize the Z-axis vertical orientation. A new equipment model will determine its axis orientation based on the setting in the Configure/Setup module, while an existing equipment model will use the same axis orientation under which it was last saved. The axis orientation may be toggled from Y-Axis to Z-Axis Vertical by activating the checkbox typically found on the second data input tab of each module, as shown in the following figures:
January 2001
COADE Mechanical Engineering News WORD is available as an output device from the following modules: Static Output Processor: Multiple reports may be appended to form a final report by selecting the desired reports, clicking the button, closing Word, selecting the next reports to be added, clicking the button again, etc. A Table of Contents, reflecting the cumulatively produced reports always appears on the first page of the WORD document. Dynamic Output Processor: This processor operates exactly as does the Static Output Processor: Multiple reports may be appended to form a final report by selecting the desired reports, clicking the button, closing WORD, selecting the next reports to be added, clicking the button again, etc. A Table of Contents, reflecting the cumulatively produced reports always appears on the first page of the WORD document. Intersection SIF and Bend SIF Scratchpads, WRC 297, Flange Analysis, B31G, and Expansion Joint Rating: Clicking the button performs the calculation and sends the results to WORD. button, rather than the button, WRC 107: Clicking the performs the initial WRC 107 calculation and sends the results to WORD. Subsequently, clicking the button performs the Section VIII, Division 2 summation and appends those results to the WORD document. NEMA SM23, API 610, API 617, API 661, HEI, and API 560: Pressing the button performs the calculation and sends the results to WORD. Code Compliance report:
Activating this checkbox causes the model to convert immediately to match the new axis orientation (i.e., Y-values become Z-values, or vice versa), so there is effectively no change in the model only in the terms of its representation. When using the Get Loads From Output File button to read in piping loads from CAESAR II output files, the axis orientation of the piping files need not match that of the equipment model. Translation occurs immediately during the read-in of the loads. WORD as an output device: For those users with access to Microsoft WORD, CAESAR II provides the ability to send output reports directly to WORD. This permits the use of all of WORDs formatting features (font selection, margin control, etc.) and printer support from the CAESAR II program. This feature is activated through use of the button (or some variant) instead of the (display), file) buttons when producing a report. (print), or (print to
Stress checks for multiple static load cases may be included in a single report using the Code Compliance report, available from the Static Output processor. For this report, the user selects all load cases of interest, and then highlights Code Compliance under Report Options. The resultant report shows the stress calculation for all load cases together, on an element-by-element basis. Load Case Report: The Load Case Report documents the Basic Names (as built in the Load Case Builder), User-Defined Names, Combination Methods, Load Cycles, and Load Case Options of the static load cases. This report is available from the General Computed Results column of the Static Output Processor.
January 2001
Graphics in the WRC 107 Module: The WRC 107 Analysis module now provides a graphical representation of the nozzle and its imposed loads. This can be accessed via the button on the toolbar.
ODBC/XML Wizard for CAESAR II input and output: CAESAR II now offers an ODBC Wizard for immediate interfacing (in addition to the in-line interfacing offered previously) of both input and output piping model data. (Note that the input data may only be accessed through the Wizard; while the in-line interface still transfers only the output data.) This Wizard, besides being compatible with ODBC (Microsoft Access and Excel) can also export data in XML format. (Note that the Excel interface, which was excruciatingly slow under the previous version of CAESAR II has been changed to produce a semi-colon delimited text file, which can be imported into Excel very quickly.) The interface is accessed via the Tools-External Interfaces-Data Export Wizard menu command from the CAESAR II Main Menu. This brings up the initial Wizard screen; the exported data set can be developed by simply responding to the questions and clicking the Next buttons. The setup procedure defined in the previous newsletter is still required prior to accessing the new wizard.
The displayed load case (SUS, EXP, OCC) can be varied by selecting the tab for that load case immediately before activating the graphics. Animated Tutorials: Under the Help-Animated Tutorials menu of the CAESAR II Main Menu, the user can find a list of a number of Viewlets which use animation, text, and voice over to demonstrate answers to commonly asked questions. (Clicking on the topic runs the tutorial.) These tutorials, which typically have durations ranging from 30 seconds to 5 minutes, cover a variety of topics.
10
January 2001
COADE Mechanical Engineering News The new static analysis session format The seminar now has more structure in the day-to-day format. The first day will introduce the subject of pipe flexibility and stress analysis focusing on the piping code requirements and generating proper and effective CAESAR II input. Morning will be lecture and afternoon will be spent working with the program. Tuesday will have the same morning/afternoon split but now the focus is on properly designing piping systems. We will still focus on design considerations for each of the basic load categories. Program work will highlight output review and the redesign cycle; that is, identifying the significant results and using them to direct system modification. All of Wednesday will be on the computers. We will review and use many of the added modeling and analysis features of the program. This day will be spent with a job very similar to the tutorial found in the CAESAR II Applications Guide. Thursday and Friday, the added static analysis days, will be set aside for group exercises and workshops. Four different subjects will be coveredtransmission piping, occasional load evaluation, fiberglass pipe, and jacketed riser design. We understand that these items are not of universal interest but they are important components of the program and provide additional insight to the operations of the program, such as buried pipe, jacketed pipe, and fatigue analysis. Friday afternoon will be set aside for suggested approaches to documenting and reproducing an analysis. The week will end with two or three small workshop problems to reinforce the learned skills of piping system modeling, evaluation and redesign. The new dynamic analysis session format The three dynamics sessions are scheduled on Monday to Wednesday of the week following the static analysis sessions. There is no carryover from the previous week so students can attend either the statics or dynamics segment or both, if they wish. The content from the old, two-day session remains but the pace is reduced and new material is added. Monday morning covers the required theory and the afternoon is a harmonic analysis exercise. Tuesday develops seismic analysis of piping systems and surveys several approaches to relief valve discharge analysis. This survey was published in the December 1998 newsletter and provides an intuitive look at the different types of dynamic analysis. The third day has a group exercise reviewing time history analysis in CAESAR II and the afternoon gives us an opportunity to practice what was learned two or three small workshop problems. Schedule for 2001 One item that has changed in our seminar brochure is the extent of our seminar schedule. We normally print a two-year calendar but with this new format we thought it best to treat it with some healthy skepticism and only announce the schedule for 2001. This schedule appears below:
TANK Version 2.20 Released

(by: Richard Ay)
In September 2000, TANK Version 2.20 was officially released. This version of TANK incorporated Addendum 1 to the 10th Edition of API-650. Changes in this Addendum include material modifications and changes to the way corrosion is handled in the Seismic computations of Appendix E. Since the release of Version 2.20 in September, two updates have been issued and are available for download from the COADE web site. These updates correct a data problem in non-US structural steel databases, modify roof allowable stress checks, and modify live-load reporting for roof designs. Anyone using a version of TANK prior to Version 2.20 should upgrade immediately. All users of Version 2.20 should ensure they have the build of 001205 installed.
New Pipe Stress Seminar Format

(by: Dave Diehl)
Many of you received our new CAESAR II seminar mailer in late November or early December. If you havent, you can review its content on our web site or contact us to mail or fax one to you. Beyond the 4-color presentation, the most striking component is the label New Format for 2001. We have expanded the static analysis section from three days to five days and the dynamic analysis section from two days to three days. We have four static sessions and three dynamics session scheduled through 2001. Reasons for the change At the conclusion of each seminar we ask all students to evaluate our course content, instructors and materials. It is the response we read again and again that indicates people want more time using the program in group exercises and in individual workshops. Another common comment is the course pace is too rapid, that there is too much information to assimilate. We are addressing these issues by extending the duration of the two segments to allow more time to develop the topics and work with the software. Another common suggestion is to provide both an introductory course and an advanced course. That approach was tried several years ago when we had a three-day introductory course just ahead of the standard five-day course. We were dissatisfied with the result of those arrangements, as many students who did not attend the introductory course still required introductory training to the chagrin of the other students. We have always had to deal with varying levels of student experience. By slowing down the pace of the course and increasing time on the computers, we hope to improve the confidence and competence of all students.
11
COADE Mechanical Engineering News Statics 5-9 Feb. 14-18 May 17-21 Sept. 12-16 Nov. Dynamics 12-14 Feb. 21-23 May 24-26 Sept. Not offered
January 2001 the training (a hot project is starting) you dont have the time to attend, and when you have the time to attend (no project; you are on overhead) you dont have the funding. We hope that your companys commitment to quality work and continuing education will allow a broader outlook on the value of this course.
Sustained Stresses
(by: John C. Luf of Washington Industrial Process, Cleveland, OH)
COADE also provides in-house training at your site and training organized by your local CAESAR II dealer. In both cases, a full eight-day course may not be practical. For in-house applications, this course can be tailored to focus the content and fit the available schedule. Dealers will probably maintain the current five-day course covering statics and dynamics or break the seminar into two independent courses. Contact your dealer to learn more. Continuing Education Units You may be interested in knowing that our courses are monitored by an outside organization for consistency and effectiveness. In March 1997 the International Association for Continuing Education and Training (IACET) certified COADE as an Authorized CEU Sponsor. The Continuing Education Unit or CEU is a standard measure of contact hours in training; basically ten contact hours equal one CEU. IACET is quite rigorous in their criteria for authorizing CEU sponsors. COADE has adjusted the course content, presentation, and documentation to meet their standards. This year we have renewed our application as an IACET Authorized Provider. We are currently in the renewal cycle of that certification. Among other uses, these CEUs serve as credit toward the maintenance of a Professional Engineering license in those states where such continuing education is required. To learn more about IACET you can visit www.iacet.org. The five-day course will yield 3.5 CEUs and the three-day course will 2.1 CEUs. If you do the math, thats seven contact hours a day. In a change from previous courses, we will start at 9AM rather than 8AM. This will decrease the sessions from four hours to three-and-a-half hours and ease the intensity of each session. Responding to your comments Once again, it is in response to the evaluations completed by our students that we have introduced these changes. This new format is not intended to pull old students back for additional training as the new content is not segmented into a discreet section. But this course will provide more complete coverage of those existing topics, introduce new topics and allocate more time to using the program. Obviously, one of the major concerns we have with this new course format is the amount of time we are taking from your regular schedule. Oftentimes the situation is such that when you really need
Whats A Sustained Stress and why do we care about it? Due to what may seem to some people, the controversial nature of this articles contents I would like to make it perfectly clear THESE ARE MY OWN OPINIONS! Although, I am sure some may agree and yet others will disagree with some of the content of this article. My intent in writing this article is to provide a forum for discussion, give sound advice, and some insight into the subject matter from the past, present, and possibly the future points of view. Well where to start? Perhaps we should start with a definition of the word Sustained. From my Random House Dictionary...- Sustained To keep up or keep going as an action or process. So how does this apply to the design of piping systems? Stresses caused by thermal displacements of the system are often called secondary or self limiting. This is because ordinarily these stresses decrease (slightly) over time. This is illustrated in the figure below, excerpted from one of Markls original papers on the subject of Flexibility or Stress Analysis.
12
January 2001 You can see that the stress level is not sustained it decreases over time. As for why, a detailed discussion on this subject can be found in various publications. Suffice it to say because these stresses are displacement limited their very nature is self-limited. If the reader wishes to ponder this a bit more, a simple example would be to, take an L bend geometry anchored on each end. Imagine it heated or cooled to the same temperature time and time again. The stresses will never increase over the maximum from the first heat up so long as the maximum temperature of the first heat up is never exceeded. If the strains in the L bends elbow exceed the yield stress of the metal (as is permissible by the B31 codes) the small area of highest stress that exceeds the yield strength of the metal in the elbow yields or deforms. This deformation then redistributes the internal strain energy to a larger surface and hence the peak stress value decreases as shown in the hypothetical graph in the figure above. This cycle of load application, material yielding, and strain redistribution will occur repeatedly during the first few cycles. After the strain has been fully redistributed the system will have been shaken out. This entire phenomenon is often described as a strain controlled phenomena. After full shakeout occurs all subsequent cycles will behave in an elastic manner. Well what types of stresses are sustained? Or better yet what types of imposed loads on a piping system are sustained and unrelenting? For an earth bound or planetary-based piping system everything within that planets field of gravity is constantly loaded by the gravitational field in a sustained manner. Therefore weight is a sustained load. Based on the science of Strength of Materials we know that the bending stress for a simply supported beam has the maximum stress, located along the bottom of the pipe, at the midpoint of the span, in the outermost fiber of the pipe.
A fair question might be asked, If these loads do not produce stresses which are self limited what would be the consequences of an overstressed system? Lets say there is a hypothetical piping system with a span in it that imposes a weight induced bending stress well above the SMYS (Specified Minimum Yield Strength) of the metal. Let us also assume during construction the fitters worried about the saggy, droopy, pipe and add some chainfalls at the midspans of the longer spans. After hydrotesting is finished the fitters start cleaning up, they pull the first chainfall out and the next and so on... The pipe is highly over stressed.... Guess what? When they take off their chainfalls they also get an extra work order! The extra work is to replace the pipe, which has collapsed, torn out and is lying in a pile of twisted metal on the floor below. This is one of the major concerns of sustained loads; they are also known as collapsing loads. Other real life examples are buildings, which suddenly collapse under their weight loads. I will digress for a moment to talk about the sustained loads of pressure and weight. Piping systems that are filled and then drained as a part of their normal operation have that portion of their weight, which is the fluid, acting as a cyclic load. In like manner these types of systems would have the internal pressure acting as a cyclic load. These cyclic loads are fatigue based loads. Indeed extreme pressure cycling (unsteady flow pulsation) has been known to cause failures. However most piping systems do not operate in these manners (except incidentally), but if a system does operate in this manner, the issue of sustained versus fatigue type loads should be considered, however for most systems a few cycles of filling and draining are of no significance. Now what does B31.3 say about sustained stresses? 302.3.5 (c) The sum of longitudinal stresses in any component in a piping system, due to pressure, weight and other sustained loadings shall not exceed Sh in (d) below. The thickness of pipe used in calculating SL shall be the nominal thickness T minus mechanical, corrosion, and erosion allowance c, for the location under consideration. The
Mmax at point (C) M max :=

and Max
wl 8
M max Z
What other loads are sustained in nature, that act on piping systems? In general piping systems which become candidates for analysis are pressurized. This internal pressure loads the pipe walls in tension. Therefore pressure is generally considered a sustained load (L ).
13
COADE Mechanical Engineering News loads due to weight should be based on the nominal thickness of all system components unless otherwise justified in a more rigorous analysis. Axial deadweight loads should be included with bending in calculating these stresses. Phew, just think my co-workers and family accuses me of being long winded! Well let's take the long paragraph (consisting of only 3 long sentences) apart one step at a time. The first sentence combines bending stress due to weight, and longitudinal stress due to internal pressure. This combination is based upon the principle of superposition. The stress in the outermost surface on the bottom of the pipe, (according to simple beam theory) at the midspan due to a bending moment is a tensile stress. (Whereas the outermost top of the pipe is under compression.) This tension stress is combined with the longitudinal stress due to pressure. These summated stresses are compared against the allowable value of Sh. This is a more profound thing than people realize. First Sh stands for the hot stress or... the basic allowable stress at the maximum elevated temperature expected during the displacement cycle being analyzed. For most materials it is 2/3 of the SMYS (specified minimum yield strength) of the material. This is why when CAESAR II detects internal pressure in the input file it recommends the code load case of W+P. Because this load case in the program (W+P) contains no thermal displacements some people refer to this load case as the cold stress load case. This is wholly incorrect! The Code requires these sustained type stresses to be reviewed not against the S value of the metal at 70F but rather at the operating temperature of the metal. The code S value itself may seem overly conservative (in most cases it is 2/3 of the SMYS or 1/3 of the tensile strength of the material, whichever is lower at temperature) but dont forget these loads are sustained loads. If the metal yields due to these applied loads it will continue to yield until it fails.
January 2001 The curve above is a typical carbon steel yield curve. As you can see, once you exceed yield strength the metal continues to stretch under the applied load for a long time. If the redistribution of the load into the yielded metal does not decrease the stress to below yield (as the code assumes it does not for sustained loads) the piping will fail at the ultimate strength line. The allowed stress value used is Sh. Why does the code use what may be a lower allowed S value for metal at a higher temperature? Well the code seems to presume that once the system heats up it will also be operating with internal pressure inside the system. In order to assure the structural integrity of the piping to these sustained loads under these circumstances the Sh is used. In the remaining code sentences we see some additional interesting things. The Code uses the approach that it is possible to have the majority of metal in place in a system in a non-corroded state with the point(s) of highest Sustained stresses being corroded as far as strength is concerned. This approach may be called conservative by some, but it cannot be faulted as being unsafe! Markl3 (for those who dont know, A.R.C. Markl and his colleagues were the founding fathers of stress evaluation in the B31 code!) separated the sustained stresses in his original work from the thermal displacement and operating allowable stress range. This approach guards against incremental collapse due to ratcheting effects. Sustained Stress Multipliers (Indices): Sustained Stress Indices (SSI) (or whatever they end up being called): Why the long Code paragraph instead of a simple formula for SA as found under 302.3.5 (1a) i.e., SA=f (1.25Sc+0.25Sh)? My belief is that some of the reluctance of the committee to provide an equation for SL is because of something we have not yet discussed and is not yet in the Code (ASME B31.3) at the present time. I hope the readers are all familiar with the term Stress Intensification Factor (SIF). These SIFs are used to multiply the beam element based calculated thermal (or) other type of displacement stresses in order to approximate the actual level of (higher stresses) that will occur in the piping component. These SIFs as published in Appendix D of the code are based on physical fatigue tests of actual components. Once the fitting breaks (a through wall leak develops) a simple calculation is made as follows:
S i M Z
b S ( N )
a N b
245000psi number_cycles_to_failure 0.2
14
January 2001 Factors a, and b are material specific, values shown are for carbon steel. This calculation is unique from some standpoints. First in lieu of polished bars, actual welded piping components are tested. Second, all SIFs are calibrated against a pipe butt weld. The standard pipe butt weld is assigned an SIF of 1.0. I have just spent a large amount of effort discussing SIFs, why? Well as you can see a fatigue test multiplier (SIF) has very little to do with a Sustained type load. Testing for a sustained type load might be something on the order of adding weight onto the end of a fitting in a test setup and seeing how much weight it takes to cause the fitting to collapse. Then compare that load (perhaps assuming that it has reached and exceeded the SMYS of the test specimen) versus a calculated beam element stress. A formula might look like Sustained Stress Index (SSI) SSI = SMYS/Calculated Stress (based upon the actual collapsing load) and shall be no less than 1.0. If we consider this in a thought experiment with some various common piping components we can develop a feel for what an SSI might be. Consider first an elbow. With a Standard Wt 6NPS LR elbow we can see where the effect might not be too large. However conversely a 6x6 NPS standard weight unreinforced intersection would probably collapse with a much greater difference between it and a calculated single piece beam element. Failing all else I suppose we could set up a testing program. However, to my knowledge such a testing program does not exist. So to recap the current state as far as SSI factors are concerned... 1) SIFs are not applicable to Sustained collapsing type loads. 2) SSI factors may vary significantly based on the fitting geometry and may be of greater significance for some fittings than others. 3) The ASME B31.3 committee does not have a testing program to derive SSIs currently, although it could be said various agencies such as the Welding Research Council or the Pressure Vessel Research Council stand ready to develop these factors if funding becomes available (corporate donations welcome). 4) The code currently does not address SSIs or have an expression written for the calculation of SL. What to do about the SSI? So whats a poor design stiff supposed to do? I have found over the years to truly understand the issues of applying code rules to a design one must be a historian and must be widely read of various piping codes. When you buy a copy of a B31 code book you buy the latest version of that code. Unfortunately the many accumulated 2.
COADE Mechanical Engineering News years of history of interpretations do not necessarily shine boldly and visibly in the latest edition. For instance the B31.3 committee has rendered two opinions on the subject of a SSI. In one Interpretation (#1-34 (2/23/81)) they said the designer could ignore the effect of any SSI and use a factor of 1.0. In another separate interpretation (# 6-03 (12/14/87)) they said the designer could use a factor of 0.75 x SIF. This seems confusing, but in part it is caused by a lack of information. Maybe if we look elsewhere we can gain some help? Turning to ASME B31.1 we find some interesting things on this subject matter. We find first of all an expression for SL! Also we find the calculated SL stresses being multiplied by a factor of 0.75SIF. So if we base our engineering on nothing other than populism it seems like we should use a SSI = 0.75 SIF 1.0, at least for right now1. So for the time being I would recommend that this factor of 0.75 SIF 1.0 = SSI be used in analysis. This can easily be set in the CAESAR II configuration setup. Set up of the configuration file (file name CAESAR.CFG) is readily accomplished through the Main menu as follows 1. From the main menu window select the configure set up icon.
Next select the SIFs and Stresses tab.
15
COADE Mechanical Engineering News 3. Select the 0.75 option from the drop down box and dont forget to exit with save.
January 2001
2'-9"
Max Ld Hot Oil @ 600 F Carbon Steel A53 Gr B Pipe Carbon Steel Fittngs, Valves, and Pump No Ld
Load On Support Beam
Max Op Temp
12'-0"
Temperature
Amb Temp Time
Pump Side Elevation of Hypothetical Pump Support
If for no other purpose this factor can act as a screening tool. For instance I would be less concerned over a slightly over stressed tee/ intersection using 0.75 SIF as the SSI than an elbow1. In case of doubt, though, a more rigorous review using alternate methods should be made (When in doubt make it stout, or refine your calculations). Non - Linear Pipe Supports (+ys): Personal Computers are the constant companions of design engineers today. The advent of this ubiquitous technology is both a blessing and a curse. Currently in our world of compressed schedules and segmented work efforts, pipe supports, their locations and types, are often selected by a designer on the basis of span charts. The Stress Analyst / Piping Engineer then accounts for thermal displacements (as well as their impact) after the fact. This approach while it may be more efficient (a maybe at best) can cause significant difficulties to occur as far as sustained stresses in the piping system are concerned. What am I talking about? When displaced by thermal effects the system may completely or partially lift off certain non-linear pipe supports. What types of supports are non-linear? Pipe racks, trapezes, clevis hangers, or any other support which supports the pipe fully only in one direction. These types of supports are unable to provide the same supporting force at the displaced position versus the nondisplaced position. I should also point out a legitimate use of a +y support that is lifted off is a maintenance or turn around support. These supports allow maintenance of flanged connections by providing support for one or more sides of a flange which is unbolted during maintenance shut downs.
In the example above the load on the support beam carrying the pipe and some of the valve weight quickly decreases as the system comes up in temperature until finally it is lifted off and drops to zero load before the system gets to its maximum temperature! (Guess what happens to the pump loading? I suppose thats what spring cans are used for!) The result of this type of support lift off is that if one evaluates the system for SL stresses in only one state you may not be seeing the complete picture. The code requires evaluations for SL at various temperatures. Some people call these evaluations as cold sustained and hot sustained stress checks. The following example illustrates the problems associate with support lift off. I have been permitted to borrow it from its current author Mr. Don Edwards of ASME B31.3 task group B. The task group has been working on a non mandatory Appendix S whose purpose will be to illustrate the code and its relationship to computerized analysis. Note in no way, shape, or form is this supposed to represent good practice! It is only a hypothetical layout!
10'-0" Y 20'-0" Typ. 45 40'-0" +Y X Z 10 20 +Y 55 10'-0" 10'-0" Typ.
St at ed Dat a:
Material-Carbon Steel A106Grb, Astm A234 Gr WPB NPS-16 Wall-Standard Wt (0.375" Nom W all) Elbows LR Insulation-3" Thk Density = 11.0 #/Ft3 Corrosion Allowance = 1/16" Fluid Density=1.0 S.G. Maximum Op. Pressure = 500 P.S.I.G. Maximum Op. Temperature = 600 F Minimum Operating Temp = 70F Installation Temp = 70 F
80 40'-0" Typ.
90
Fix Y
Anchor 6 D.O.F.
Proposed Appendix S Model
16
January 2001 When the loop heats up, it will lift off the upper supports. The first pass SL code stress calculation is made with the upper supports active i.e., supporting the pipe. This is required to obtain the thermal displacements from the installed position to the displaced position. When SL is evaluated with the pipe sitting on these supports SL stresses are within the code allowable. However when we look at the CAESAR II Restraint Summation (in the 132 column format) at nodes 45 and 55 we see the loads go to zero in the operating case and a look over at the displacements shows a +y movement.
COADE Mechanical Engineering News other times adding a fixed pipe support(+y) or moving supports around will easily solve a SL overstress. In any event it is unlikely that if or when Appendix S is published that the sample problems will show a preferred solution. This is because the committee's role is to tell the users to do their homework, give advice on how to do the homework, but the committee will never do the users' homework for them. Judicious use of Engineering Judgement: It is the authors opinion that engineering judgement can and should play a role in the process of sustained stress evaluations. Turning to another example:
3' 0" 5' 0" 60 90 70 1 0 5' 0" 20 5' 0" 30 5' 0" 3' 0" 8' 0"
Design Data: Code: ASME B31.3 Pipe: A53Gr B Smlss Wall : Standard Wt. NPS: 6 Elbows: L.R. 90Degree B.E. Process Data: Maximum operating temperature : 180F Minimum operating temperature: 70 F Installation temperature : 70 F Maximum operating pressure 250 PSIG
5' 0"
80
40
Y
50
The liftoffs effects should be re-evaluated by performing another SL analysis with the supports at nodes 45 and 55 removed from the model. When this is done it turns out the code SL stress limit is exceeded (this evaluation is made using a SSI = 0.75 SIF 1.0). This second analysis determines the sustained stress (B31.3 Code stress) redistribution, it is not used for any other purpose (i.e. code stress review of displacement stresses). Leave the thermal data in the job so that the proper Sh is used. To sum up, the supports at nodes 45 and 55 are used for evaluating the thermal displacements, but are removed to evaluate the code sustained stress level. (It should be noted that restraint summaries shown herein show the pure thermal forces to illustrate the book keeping on the restraints. These thermal loads would not be used for support design). When this sample problem was discussed at the committee's last meeting a visitor asked, Well what should be done? Some of the committee members stated that first, an evaluation with the lifted off supports removed from the model should be made and then finally some members said That redesign of the system should be made to eliminate the over stressed condition. Clearly some of the committee members opinions do not agree with ignoring lift off. The visitor then mentioned, You should put a spring can(s) on the top of the loop! I myself countered that spring cans might not be necessary! I disagreed strongly and suggested that jiggling support locations around would probably solve the overload. Indeed moving the supports at 20 and 80 inwards a couple of feet (towards the loop) make the overstressed condition go away (Although the midpoint sag would probably be unacceptable by most criterias for drainage). Sometimes spring cans are good things (especially adjacent to rotating and other sensitive/delicate equipment), and
X Z
We have another hypothetical layout; this contrived geometry is for illustration only. Other than the close support spacing in this example I have seen lines run in racks supported in similar fashion on either side of the riser elbow pair. If we look at a deflected plot of the operating case we see that the pipe has clearly lifted off and when we take a look at the restraint summation we see this as well.
17
January 2001
Small + movement
Load shift to 0, sticks out!
Looking closely we see the liftoff(s) in the operating case are by extremely small amounts. So what would be the appropriate way to deal with this design? Well the first step has already been taken. That is a review of the restraint summation. This essential step I suspect is often ignored! I have heard people occasionally say that CAESAR II does not evaluate support lift off correctly. However, I feel that a piping engineer reviewing, and supervising the non-sentient computer is essential to the work process. The review process and the ability of who does the review is very important. When the lift off displacement is equal to or less than the fabrication tolerance of the piping, the designers gray matter is much more important than the computers chip speed (D. Edwards). One method of evaluation could be by feel, which is, it is readily apparent that the bending stress portion of SL is minuscule. Therefore the liftoff adjacent to the elbow becomes of no concern. However I suppose there are those persons who are trying to develop feel. In that case I suggest another way that you could look at this would be to use a span chart such as found in MSS SP 69 2. Looking at its span limits for 6NPS Std. Wt. Steel pipe that is used in water service we see that we could have spans seventeen feet (17) in length. The distance from node 40 to node 80 is only eleven feet (11) well within the span chart limit. What about the effect of the SSI on the elbows calculated code stresses? Well it feels like it should be low, but in order to evaluate it numerically we will have to remove the support lifted off at node 70, copy the file into a new name, and reanalyze it using the SSI = 0.75 SIF 1.0 CAESAR II Configuration option. When we do this and examine a stress report we see all is well. It should be noted that if one were to calculate the SIF for these elbows per the Code you would get the number shown in the report. CAESAR II will use a numerically adjusted value per the configuration setup as a multiplier despite the fact that the code SIF is shown on the report. Why not adjust the value shown on the report? Well the column heading says SIF, not SSI therefore in essence because the codes have not adopted the use of a SSI what do you call the ad hoc SSI in code terminology? At this point I would suggest that we have met the intent of ASME B31.3. We have evaluated the SL stresses in two states and have complied with the code stress limit in both cases. I would suggest notations be placed on the restraint summation report at the lifted off nodes, such as Support liftoff is incidental, spans as lifted off comply with ASME B31.3 SL limits So a summation of one mans opinions: 9 Adult supervision of the computer is always required. What I mean by this statement is, that I consider the computer to be like a young child who requires adult or parental supervision at all times. Use the CAESAR II, 0.75SIF option in the configuration setup as a multiplier for the SL case. Its probably not 100% right but it is more appropriate than 1.0. Besides which, usually a maximum deflection criterion dominates the pipe support layout and design. (Editor's Note: CAESAR II defaults to use of the full SIF, not 1.0 as the SSI.) Review the 132 column restraint summary reports looking for load shifts or lift off at non-linear +Y supports. Pay close attention to supports adjacent to rotating equipment.
18
January 2001 9 Evaluate the amount, type and locations of lift offs. If lift off versus the system's design is minor or incidental write your comments on the archival report. If the lift offs are more than minor, such that their effects on the code SL cannot be readily discerned, remove the supports (+ys) that are lifted off from the model. Rerun the sustained stress case. If redesign is required, modify the support scheme by support relocation, or adding +y supports, or spring cans with the thought in mind that spring cans (except when adjacent to sensitive equipment nozzles) are usually less desirable.
Utilizing the New Load Case Editor in CAESAR II Version 4.30

(by: Richard Ay)
For Version 4.30, the Load Case Editor in CAESAR II experienced significant revisions. These modifications simplify the specification of load cases, streamline the output data, and allow additional analysis capabilities. The revised load case editor dialog is shown in the figure below. In this figure, areas that have been changed are indicated with numerals, and are explained in the following paragraphs.
References (additional reading): 1) Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology August 1988 Commentary on Class 2/3 Piping Rules Authors comment this provides some of the technical background behind the use of the factor of 0.75 as a SIF multiplier. 2) Manufacturers Standardization Society of the Valve and Fitting Industry, Inc. Standard Practice SP69 "Pipe Hangers and Supports Selection and Application". 3) Transactions of the ASME, February 1955, Piping Flexibility Analysis A huge thanks to my editors Rich Ay, COADE Dave Diehl, COADE Don Edwards, Phillips Petroleum Phil Ellenberger, WFI
Late Breaking News

Over a year ago COADE started the process to register its name and all product names as trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. We are pleased to report that both CAESAR II and PVElite are now registered to COADE. Other names should be registered soon. Vessel seminar dates are announced. Our three day vessel seminar using CodeCalc and PVElite is scheduled for 21-23 February and 10-12 October 2001. The first two days cover component analysis (found in CodeCalc and PVElite) and the optional third day continues with a whole vessel approach to design in PVElite. Ask for a brochure or view a copy on our web site for more information. Please register as a user of our software. Registered users receive a brief e-mail identifying new program releases and Builds as they become available. This heads up will keep you up to date with the current software and eliminate your need to monitor our web site for new postings.
Item 1: In previous versions of the software, the available stress types were listed on the lower left side of the dialog. (The stress type determines what stress equations are used in the solution module.) Users could either drag the stress type onto a load case, or manually type in the abbreviation. As of Version 4.30, the stress type for each load case is selected from a drop list. Simply clicking on the stress type grid cell activates this drop list. Item 2: In previous versions of the software, algebraic load case combinations could be combined at various levels; displacement, force, or stress. This was indicated on the right side of the dialog, where DS indicated the displacement level, FR indicated the force level, and ST indicated the stress level. As of Version 4.30, this combination level idea is obsolete, and has been replaced by an output type indicator. The type of output desired for a particular load case can be specified on the Load Case Options tab, whose dialog is shown in the figure below. Item 3: The Load Case Options tab is new for Version 4.30. Clicking on this tab presents additional load case controls. These new controls are shown in the figure below.
19
COADE Mechanical Engineering News Item 4: Any load case component can be preceded by a numeric multiplier. This means that safety factors can be applied at the load case level, instead of in the input.
January 2001 As discussed above, this level idea is now obsolete, being superceded by the output status and output type settings. However, there are instances where it is necessary to control the combination method used, as well as other methods in addition to algebraic and scalar. The additional combination methods of absolute, SRSS (square root sum of squares), Min, Max, Signed Min, and Signed Max, have been added for Version 4.30. Complete documentation on the correct usage of these options can be found in the CAESAR II documentation, as well as the on-line help. However, an example will be used to illustrate the usage of these new capabilities. Assume we must statically analyze a model (with only linear boundary conditions) for a seismic event. (A plot of this symmetric, simple model is shown below.) For this seismic event, G loads have been specified for each global direction, X, Y, and Z. These loads have been defined as U1, U2, and U3 respectively, as shown in the figure below.
Load Case Name: This grid column can be used to define a name for a particular load case. For example, instead of wondering what W+T1+P1+D1+F1 might represent, you can now type in a name such as Operating + Cold Spring. Both the formal load case component definition and the load case name can be used at the output level for review and report generation. Output Status: This grid column is used to specify whether or not a particular load case will have output available for review. The Discard setting allows intermediate and construction load cases to be ignored by the output processor, which simplifies output review and evaluation. Output Type: For load cases where the Output Status is set to Keep, this grid column specifies exactly what type of output will be available. So for a typical operating case, this setting should indicate Displacement/Force, while a typical expansion case should indicate only Stress. With these settings, stresses would be unavailable for the operating case, while displacements, forces, and restraint loads would be unavailable for the expansion case. Combination Method: Previous versions of CAESAR II used an algebraic combination method when combining load cases at either the displacement or force level, and an absolute or scalar combination method when combining load cases at the stress level. {The use of an algebraic combination is required by the B31 codes (for instance see ASME B31.3 Paragraph 319.2.3) for review of displacement stresses. In the review of B31 piping systems the user is strongly encouraged to continue the use of the algebraic summation method for the review of displacement stresses.}
To properly address the code requirements for occasional stress checks, and to evaluate the restraint loads on the system, the following set of load cases have been defined.
Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Components W+P1+T1 W+P1 U1 U2 U3 L1-L2 L3+L4+L5 L1+L7 L2+L7 L9, L8 Stress Type OPE SUS OCC OCC OCC EXP OCC OCC OCC OCC Comments Operating Sustained Seismic load X Seismic load Y Seismic load Z Expansion range code case Resultant seismic load, SRSS combination Operating plus seismic combined absolutely, hot restraint loads Sustained plus seismic combined absolutely, cold restraint loads, code case Maximum restraint loads
With the new load case editor, these load cases can be defined exactly as laid out in the table above. This load case layout is defined on two related dialogs, as shown in the figures below.
20
January 2001
COADE Mechanical Engineering News The second dialog shows the advanced load case controls offered by Version 4.30. First, note that the load cases can be given meaningful names - these names are user defined. Second, the Output Status column provides two settings for each load case; keep and discard. In this context, keep means that the data from the load case will be available for review in the output processor, while discard means that the data from the load case will not be available for review. The discard setting would typically be applied to construction load cases, those cases used solely to build other cases. The Output Type column indicates what type of data will be available for review in the output processor (assuming the Output Status is set to keep). Setting a load case to Disp/Force/Stress means that displacements, forces (and restraint loads), and stresses will be available at the output level for review. Setting a load case to Disp/Force means that only displacements and forces (and restraint loads) will be available at the output level for review. This is the preferred setting for typical B31.1/B31.3 operating cases (OPE), where the stress results are not code related and are of minimal use. Conversely, setting a load case to Stress means that only stresses will be available at the output level for review. This is the preferred setting for typical B31.1/B31.3 expansion cases, where only the stress range is needed. The displacements and forces for this case are also ranges and are typically of minimal use. The final column on this dialog Comb Method defines for each combination load case, the combination method to be employed. In versions of CAESAR II prior to 4.30, combination load cases combined at the displacement or force level were combined algebraically. Load cases combined at the stress level were combined in a scalar fashion. As of Version 4.30, the user has control over the combination methods. Additionally, the combination methods have been expanded to also include Absolute, SRSS, Min, Max, signed Min, and signed Max. The best way to understand the new capabilities of the static load case editor is through the use of the example started above. Examining the load cases in more detail shows: Load cases 3, 4, and 5 are comprised of only a single seismic load (direction). By themselves, these load cases provide minimal information, they exist solely as construction cases. Load case 6 is the standard expansion load case, which determines the extreme displacement stress range by subtracting case 2 from case 1. In previous versions of CAESAR II, this load case would have been denoted as DS1 - DS2. Load case 7 is a combination case, constructed by computing the square root sum of squares of load cases 3, 4, and 5. (Prior versions of CAESAR II could not perform this computation.) This load case yields the combined effect of the three seismic loads.
The figure above is the familiar load case editor screen. Note however that the load case stress type is now selected from a drop list for each specific load case. This drop list is shown activated for the last load case in the figure above. The above screen is essentially the same as in previous versions of CAESAR II. The two obvious differences are the stress type drop list and the setup of the combination load cases. Consider for example load case 6 above. Previous versions of CAESAR II would have listed case 6 as DS1 - DS2. As of Version 4.30, this same load case is listed as L1 - L2. The combination methods and the output type (formerly combination level) are defined on the second load case definition dialog, shown in the figure below.
21
COADE Mechanical Engineering News Load case 8 is a combination case, constructed by adding the operating case to the combined seismic case. This combination is made taking the absolute values from each of the component load cases. (Prior versions of CAESAR II could not perform this computation.) This load case yields the absolute value of hot restraint loads. Load case 9 is a combination case, constructed by adding the sustained case to the combined seismic case. This combination is made taking the absolute values from each of the component load cases. (Prior versions of CAESAR II could not perform this computation.) This load case yields the cold restraint loads. This case is also the code compliance case satisfying the requirements the sustained plus occasional code equation. Prior versions of CAESAR II performed this code computation at the stress level, i.e., ST2 + ST7. Load cases 10 is a combination case, constructed by taking the maximum results from cases 8 and 9. The absolute magnitude of the values from each case are used in determining the maxima. (Prior versions of CAESAR II could not perform this computation.) This load case yields the maximum restraint loads.
January 2001
For this particular job, a review of the restraint summary for load cases 3, 4, 5, and 7 shows expected results for this symmetric model, as illustrated in the figure below.
And finally, a restraint summary comprised of case 8, 9, and 10 shows the maximum restraint loads as expected, illustrated in the figure below.
Similarly, a restraint summary comprised of load cases 1, 2, and 7 yields expected results in cases 8 and 9, as illustrated in the figure below.
In a production environment, with a real job, we can take more advantage of these new load case capabilities. In this simple example, the results of load cases 3, 4, 5, and 7 are of minimal
22
January 2001 interest - these are just construction load cases. Additionally, we dont care what the stresses in the Operating case are, nor do we care what the displacements and forces are in the Expansion case. We can make these eliminations on the Load Case Options tab of the static Load Case Editor. The figure below shows this dialog after these changes have been made.
Output review now consists of reviewing displacements for cases 1 and 2 (operating and sustained), restraint loads for cases 1, 2, 8, 9, and 10 (operating, sustained, hot+seismic, cold+seismic, and maximum), and stresses for cases 2, 6, and 9 (sustained, expansion, and occasional). In reviewing these latter stress cases, we can take advantage of the new Code Compliance report. This report is shown in the figure below. Upon running the analysis with this load case setup, the resulting output menu is modified, as shown in the figure below.
Here we see that the load cases set to discard in the Load Case Editor are labeled Not Active at the output level. We cannot review data for these load cases. This greatly simplifies reporting, and the need to explain why stresses for these cases are of no importance. Another option that makes interpreting the results easier is the user specified load case names. These user defined names can be shown in the output by selecting the Load Case Names option from the Options menu, or by clicking on the load case name icon in the tool bar. Activating this option modifies the output menu as shown in the figure below.
23
COADE Mechanical Engineering News To aid in keeping track of how the load cases were setup and combined, the new Load Case Report is available. This report details the load case components, the user defined name, the output status, and the combination method. A sample load case report is shown in the figure below.
January 2001
Note that in the first of these figures, load case #4 applies a scale factor of 0.667 to the U2 vector. A scale factor can be applied to any load case component if desired. In the second figure, we see that the seismic loads are combined in load case #7 by the SRSS method. It is the resultant of this case which is then combined (plus or minus) with the operating and sustained cases to obtain the minimum and maximum restraint loads for the hot and cold conditions. These four conditions are defined as load cases 8 through 11. Load case #12 acquires the signed maximum from load cases 8 through 11. Similarly, load case #13 acquires the signed minimum from load cases 8 through 11. The difference between these two load cases, provides the extreme restraint load range which occurs during the seismic event. A similar scale factor scheme can be applied to a cold spring situation. If the cold spring is modeled using the temperature method (say in the T2 vector), then the 2/3 scale factor can be applied at the load case level, obviating the need for a duplicate job. This static Load Case Editor provides much greater capabilities than in previous versions of the software. By understanding the purpose of the load cases, a great deal of additional system evaluations can be defined and automatically performed by the software. Future versions of CAESAR II will see even more enhancements dealing with the setup and manipulation of load cases and their components.
The example above details the basic approach that can be applied to occasional loads. The above load cases are sufficient for most requirements. However, an even more detailed study of the systems behavior can be evaluated by refining the load cases. For example, consider the load case setup as defined in the following two figures.
24
January 2001
COADE Mechanical Engineering News To date, COADE has a rather small library of Viewlets. These Viewlets are available from the COADE web site (shown in the figure below) by clicking on the link Animated Tutorials in the left hand navigation bar. Successful playback of Viewlets from the web requires a fast connection to the Internet. Load times for a 28.8 dial-up connection are on the order of 1.5 minutes, with an occasional lag in the audio. ISDN or better connections typically dont suffer these problems.
PC Hardware for the Engineering User (Part 30)

(by: Richard Ay)
By the time you read this, current COADE products will no longer be supporting the old green External Software Locks (ESLs). All of these older ESLs should have been exchanged by now, for the newer model devices.
Viewlets: COADE has started to utilize a new educational tool. This tool enables the creation and subsequent playback of small, animated tutorials, called Viewlets. These Viewlets can be played back in either Netscape or Internet Explorer. These Viewlets consist mostly of annotated screen captures, of either the computer desktop or an application program. The annotations explain the context of the Viewlet, augmented by cursor movements and optional voice-over. A sample screen from a running Viewlet is shown in the figure below.
These Viewlets will also be shipped with future versions of COADE products, as an additional tutorial / support medium. The SendTo Menu: When using Windows Explorer, right clicking on a file brings up a context menu. One of the items in this menu is the SendTo option. This SendTo option will expand to reveal all of the locations (or programs) that you can send the current file to. Common items in this list include floppy drive A, My Briefcase, and e-mail. How do you add or remove items from this list? Under Windows 95/98/ME, use Windows Explorer and navigate to C:\Windows\SendTo. This folder contains the list of SendTo menu options. To remove an item, simply select it and hit the [Delete] key. To add an item, right click in the folder and select new\shortcut. When the shortcut dialog appears, use the [Browse] button to locate the program to start (a good example is Notepad), the folder to copy/move the file to, or type in the desired command line. Once the command line has been specified, click [Next]. On this final dialog, type in a name for this new shortcut. This name will be what appears on the SendTo menu. After specifying the desired name, click [Finish]. The SendTo menu now contains the new item.
The best feature of a Viewlet is that it allows us to show in a matter of minutes, what would ordinarily take a half an hour to explain on the telephone. The Viewlet allows the author to show exactly where to move the mouse, and what to click.
25
COADE Mechanical Engineering News Under Windows NT/2000, the procedure is almost identical to the above description. The only difference is that the SendTo options are in C:\WinNT\profiles\user_name\SendTo. Here user_name is the name used to login to Windows. Note that if the name you select with the [Browse] button is a folder name, the default action is to move the selected file to that folder. If you want to copy the selected file to the destination folder, hold down the [Crtl] key when selecting the destination folder.
January 2001 Corrected an SIF computation error for TD/12 full encirclement tees. 4) Naval DLL: Corrected the hydrodynamic coefficient interpolation setup for very small Reynolds numbers. 5) Miscellaneous Module: Corrected the flange ANSI pressure rating ratio. Corrected an SIF computation error for TD/12 full encirclement tees. 6) Intergraph Interface: Corrected the weight combination of valves and flanges when following a bend element. Corrected the tracking of element properties when program generated pipe elements are created for tees and elbows. 7) Material Database: Corrected allowable stress values for several materials. Corrected in the 4.30 release. 8) Static Solution Module: Corrected the memory allocation for the variables used to display the current values of the friction tolerances. Corrected in the 4.30 release. 9) Element Generator: Corrected the determination of the wave/current direction for -x cosines. Corrected in the 4.30 release. 10) Structural Input Module: Corrected the operation of the section id dialog when user shapes are specified - the height/width dimensions were switched. Corrected in the 4.30 release. Corrected the initialization of data for wind, temperatures 49, and pressures 4-9 when combining structures and piping jobs. Corrected in the 4.30 release. 11) Material Database Editor: Corrected a problem where the value of eff was modified by a units conversion constant. Corrected in the 4.30 release.
CAESAR II Notices
Listed below are those errors & omissions in the CAESAR II program that have been identified since the last newsletter. These corrections are available for download from our WEB site. Unless otherwise stated, all of these changes and corrections are contained in the 000801 build of Version 4.20. 1) Analysis Setup Module: Corrected the wave plot for horizontal acceleration versus phase at zero depth. Corrected the determination of the wave/current direction for -x cosines. Corrected in the 4.30 release. Corrected the deletion of spectrum names from the dynamic input file. Corrected in the 4.30 release. Corrected the initialization of data for wind when combining structures and piping jobs. Corrected in the 4.30 release. 2) Input Module: Corrected the display of tooltip help text for the units display of the expansion joint effective id field. Corrected in the 4.30 release. Corrected the behavior of the grid control to prevent the erroneous display of the previous data on a cursor focus change. Corrected a memory allocation error which caused wind data to overwrite offset data. Corrected a problem in the 3D Hoops graphics where restraints applied to bend mid-side nodes did not plot on the bend element. For the NC/ND piping codes the SIF and B2 values were switched on the intersection SIF scratchpad display. This was a display only problem, corrected in the 4.30 release. Corrected an SIF computation error for TD/12 full encirclement tees. 3) Error Checker: Corrected the tracking of Sc values when mixing user defined and database allowable stresses. Corrected printer handling when printing error/warning messages.
TANK Notices
Listed below are those errors & omissions in the TANK program that have been identified since the last newsletter. These corrections are available for download from our WEB site. 1) Input Module: Corrected a network ESL logout problem. Corrected for the 2.20 release. Added units conversion for the threads per inch value in the bolting specification. Corrected for the 2.20 release. 2) Error Check Module: Added units conversion for the threads per inch value in the bolting specification. Corrected for the 2.20 release.
26
January 2001 Reactivated the check for excessive structural allowable stress values. Corrected in Build 001024. 3) Solution Module: Modified the seismic calculations to include corrosion allowance in the determination of the wl term in Section E.4.2. Corrected for the 2.20 release. Corrected the computation of the hydrotest allowable stress to remove the consideration fro the yield strength reduction factor due to temperatures over 200 deg F. Corrected in Build 001024. 4) Structural Libraries: Modified all non-US libraries to correct the cross sectional area and unit weight of pipe shapes. Corrected in Build 001024.
COADE Mechanical Engineering News 5) Leg and Lug module: For continuous ring type support lug, shell section is now taken into account along with the ring as the section to resist the loading. 6) WRC 297 module: ASME Section VIII Div. 1 material database is replaced by the Div 2 database. 7) WRC 107 module: ASME Section VIII Div. 1 material database is replaced by the Div 2 database. Interactive control feature, which is used when the WRC 107 curve parameters exceed their respective curves, has been implemented.
CodeCalc Notices
Listed below are those errors & omissions in the CodeCalc program that have been identified since the last newsletter. These corrections are available for download from our WEB site. 1) General: In the flange, floating head and the tubesheet modules (ASME and TEMA) the partition gasket factors M & Y, sketch and column can now be specified through a separate input. In previous versions, main gaskets factors where also used for the partition gasket. External pressure charts HA-7, CD-1, NFN-21, NFN-22, NFN-23, NFN-24, CS-6, HT-2, HA-6 have been added. 2) Shell module: A check box for skipping UG-16b, the minimum thickness requirement, has been added. 3) ASME Tubesheet module: Analysis of the configuration C fixed tubesheets has been allowed, after a correction was made for the gammab parameter. This was an oversight in the ASME code. The allowables used for Shell and channel stresses due to joint interaction, after the Elastic-Plastic iteration, have been corrected to be 3 * S. For computing the tube buckling, in case of a fixed tubesheet, the program now asks for the tube end condition k, and span L for the maximum value of k*L. 4) TEMA Tubesheet module: For computing the tube buckling, in case of a fixed tubesheet, the program now asks for the tube end condition k, and span L for the maximum value of k*L.
PVElite Notices
Listed below are those errors & omissions in the PVElite program that have been identified since the last newsletter. These corrections are available for download from our WEB site. 1) The CodeCalc errors listed above. 2) The internal computation of the saddle extension based on the given angle was off by a factor of 2. The computed length was too long. 3) For BS Nozzle calculations, the required thickness of conical sections were computed as if they were cylindrical. 4) The weight computation for horizontal vessel rings placed over the saddles was incorrect. This value was on the conservative side. 5) For BS Nozzle calculations. the corrosion allowance should have been added to the minimum thickness from the table for comparison. 6) The weight of the saddle was used in computing the weight load on the saddle.
27
January 2001
COADE Engineering Software

12777 Jones Rd. Suite 480 Houston, Texas 77070 28 Tel: 281-890-4566 Fax: 281-890-3301 Web: www.coade.com E-Mail: techsupport@coade.com

Good Book Load Case Editor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Good Book Load Case Editor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mechanical Engineering News

PVElite Version 4.10 New Features

FOR THE POWER, PROCESS AND RELATED INDUSTRIES

> see story page 4

Technology You Can Use

> see story page 12

> see story page 19

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

After accepting the changes, here is how the model appears.

CAESAR II Version 4.30 New Features

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

TANK Version 2.20 Released

New Pipe Stress Seminar Format

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

Mmax at point (C) M max :=

245000psi number_cycles_to_failure 0.2

Next select the SIFs and Stresses tab.

Load On Support Beam

Amb Temp Time

Pump Side Elevation of Hypothetical Pump Support

Proposed Appendix S Model

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

Load shift to 0, sticks out!

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

Utilizing the New Load Case Editor in CAESAR II Version 4.30

Late Breaking News

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

PC Hardware for the Engineering User (Part 30)

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

COADE Engineering Software

You might also like