Any comments on Piping Stress Analysis Software? 6

[reades]

I'm currently in the process of determining which piping stress analysis program, currently available on the market, would best work for me. My four choices are "Algor Pipeplus", "AutoPipe", "Caesar II", and "CaePipe". I would like your opinion on the software previously mentioned as far as usability, customer support and upgrades, price to functions comparison, and any thing else you may find relevant. Your expertise and opinion are greatly appreciated. Thank you.

 

[JohnBreen]

Hello reades,

No contest:

1. Caesar II
2. Caesar II
3. Caesar II
4. Caesar II
5. Triflex

Regards, John.

 

[DavidCR]

We have Caesar II. Very complete, good service. Requires to be updated with the annual support, since some hardware or Windows problems may affect the hardware external key and you need CII support to reconfigure it. Very little problems, but quickly solved. Lots of extras wich are very useful.

Caepipe is considered one of the best if you have a big volume of work to be done, since it is the fastest for most common cases. (I mean, the time it takes you to use it input, output and generating reports for civil design from the software output). It is not very "interactive" dealing with complicated cases.

We have received a course with a man that is very related to the B31 codes and is friend of Coade (CII) and Rebis(Autopipe) people and knows a lot about both softwares. He recomends both.

 

[pharoofthermo]

Caesar II.....there is no substitute.

 

[KernOily]

They all work pretty well. I have used CAESAR and Pipeplus. Of the two, I'd prefer CAESAR. Some of my clients like PipePlus. C2 has *pretty* good tech support - I've had a couple language barrier and some attitude issues with their tech support staff, though. PipePlus is buggy. C2 has a couple minor bugs too, but PipePlus has more.

One good thing about C2 is that it interfaces directly with CADworx, which means (in theory at least) that you should only have to draw your iso once in CADworx, and then input it directly to C2 for load case building and analysis. This is *supposed* to save a bunch of time. Most people use AutoCAD though, so the CADworx export option is a limited benefit as I see it. Thanks!
Pete

 

[LSThill]

I do agree with all of the above and addition tho the comment FE-PIPE

http://www.paulin.com/

by Paulin Research Group, Tony Paulin is the Author of CAESAR II.

 

[stanier]

Dear 74 Elsinore,

Please advise where you find Pipeplus to be "buggy". As a user I am very concerned and need to know. Does it give eroneous results? Which module is the problem?

I have used Pipeplus and Caesar and find Pipeplus easier for setting up models. I have to admit I havent used Caesar for a few years now.

What I have found is that Pipeplus is a lot less expensive, the support is good and its easy to use. So every engineer can afford to have a copy on their machine even for determining load cases where there is no thermal loading.

 

[LSThill]

reades (Mechanical)

If you need to CHECK as a Reviewer of Stress Analysis CAESAR II or other stress application the reference check software is FE-PIPE.

 

[reades]

Thank you too all. I appreciate all of the feed back I have received and it shall help in my decision.

 

[piping1971]

Caesar II and Autopipe....but I like Autopipe better....
It is easy to model and to interpret results...

 

[reades]

How Do People feel about "CAE Pipe" Stress Analysis Program? Do you feel it can compete with Autopipe? What are the over all adavantages and disadvantages of "CAE Pipe"? Any input on the program would be of great help. Thanks to all for the input.

 

[StressGuy]

Can't say that I'm familiar with CAE Pipe. Who makes that one?

I'm afraid I'll have to go along with my colleagues regarding the recommendation of Caesar II. It's got it's problems and the company seems to mostly be resting on it's laurels, but it is by far the dominant player in the game. In a few more years, I think AutoPipe is probably going to give them a more serious run for the money.

But, for now, if you want to have the most portability in your skills, learning Caesar is the way to go.

Of course, far more important that whatever program you use, it developing an understanding of the piping system and figuring out the best way to model them. I can easily code a system one way and show it to work, and code it differently and show it to fail. Knowing which is the "correct" one is what makes the difference between and engineer and a computer operator.

Alright, off my soapbox....for now Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

 

[KernOily]

Amen, Brother Edward. I teach stress analysis classes here and I have a slide in my first presentation that says, in effect, that C2 and its contemporaries are nothing more than really fast calculators. This might be a bit of an oversimplification, but I submit that a smart chimpanzee could run C2. It is a totally classic case of GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.

Until a person reads the Code books and makes the rules and equations their own, and takes the time to learn what an SIF is, and really scratch their head about the correct way to model supports, any C2 model is a rough approximation at best, and at worst is downright inaccurate and potentially unsafe.

Thanks for bringing up that most important point. - Pete
Thanks!
Pete

 

[MJCronin]

reades,

I am in complete agreement with the above comments about CAESAR-II. It seems to be the best, most widely used program and has an active support staff and detailed complete documentation.

It is, however, not cheap.....

Amen, also to (Pete) 74Elsinore....GIGO... All too often, I have seen pipe stress "newbies" who have been assigned to perform analysis on complex, expensive piping systems who did not know what "Scedule 40" piping really meant..... the MBA project managers simply wanted things done fast.

Another consideration which has not been mentioned above is the fact that a personnel training program should be considered at the time of purchase. Selected engineers within an organization should receive training. The COADE company and others offer C2 training to new users.....

My thoughts only ....

MJC

 

[LSThill]

YOU NEED TO CHECK THIS OUT

http://www.pipestress.com/Pages/PEpapers.html

LC Peng, president of PENG ENGINEERING, is a leading authority in the field of pipe stress analysis and piping engineering.

LC Peng has authored, co-authored and presented many technical papers on these subjects. Electronic versions of his most popular papers are available below.

Please note, documents are in Adobe PDF format and require Adobe Acrobat Reader to view.

The Art of Checking Pipe Stress Computer Programs

Treatment of Support Friction in Pipe Stress Analysis

Local Stresses in Vessels - Notes on the Application of WRC-107 and WRC-297

Quick Check on Piping Flexibility

Toward More Consistent Pipe Stress Analysis

Evaluation of Flanged ConnectionDue to Piping Load

An Interpretation on Pressure Elongation in Piping Systems

The Art of Designing Pipe Support Systems

Rethinking the Allowable Pipe Load on Rotating Equipment Nozzles

Stress Analysis Methods for Underground Pipe Lines: Part 1 - Basic Calculations

Stress Analysis Methods for Underground Pipe Lines: Part 2 - Soil-Pipe Interaction

Equipment Reliability Improvement through Reduced Pipe Stress

Cold Spring of Restrained Piping System

Computer Application to the Piping Analysis Requirements of ASME Section III, Subscribe NB-3600

Mr. Tony Paulin,is the Author of CAESAR II. Also FE-PIPE PAULIN RESEARCH GROUP.

http://www.paulin.com/

Leonard

 

[steve1]

I have used PipePlus, Autopipe, and CeasarII in professional applications. I have found that C2 gives the best overall performance, but it still has its problems (for example it doesn't handle reducers very well, and the notation at bend elements can be confusing). I liked Autopipe's simplicity and graphics. Pipeplus drawbacks consist of the use of the "control card" for setting analysis parameters, and what was for me just totally terrible customer support (including cancelling an appointment at their home office the day before it was scheduled and then informing me that no "office visits" were allowed.

For my money I would rank thse programs on a scale of 1 to 10 as: Ceasar 9, Autopipe 9, Pipeplus 3.

 

[rothrock]

I have used Caepipe since it first came out. It has served us well and is easy to use. They used to have a training course taught by a B31 code committee member and the Caepipe staff. I assume they still offer that.

I also have used Autopipe for a couple of projects. I found Caepipe easier and quicker to edit alternate solutions, but that may be based on my greater familiarity and experience with Caepipe.

I still check the Caesar website for good modeling tips, and Caepipe has a monthly tip page as well. I think the programs are all useful, and the results are only as good as your model and its interpretation.

Good Luck

 

[waterguy]

Just out of curiousity, a former co-worker of mine who worked in another department was a user of ADLPIPE. I didn't see ADLPIPE mentioned in the previous posts, so I was just wondering if they were/are a serious "player" in pipe stress analysis ??

 

[MJCronin]

waterguy,

As a historical note, the "ADLPIPE" piping stress anlysis program was originally developed by the Arthur D. Little Consulting firm of Cambridge Mass. and has been around since the mid 1970s. It was originally developed at the time of "punch-card" entry into mainframe computers. Analysis of the typical piping system took several hours.

"ADLPIPE" performed both static and dynamic (response spectra)stress anlysis of piping systems. Many piping systems for older nuclear power plants were qualified by the "ADLPIPE" program.

"ADLPIPE" was sold by ADL and now has been re-written for PC usage (thankfully)and is currently offered by "Research Engineers" of GDR

See:

http://www.woelfel.de/WTPeng/bauwesen/REI/ADLP/adlpipe.htm

For many years I had used ADLPIPE and it's California cousin NUPIPE-II. Other strange 1970's relatives in the piping stress analysis family include "SUPERPIPE" and the truly bizzare "PIPESD"

The grandfather of this family started in the Mare island shipyard in the 1960's......... I believe the name of the program was MEC-100

Any of you "old pipe-stress buzzards" out there able to add anything to this ?


MJC

 

[JohnBreen]

Hi Mike and all,

Mike as you know, pipe stress buzzards that are still "on the wing" don't come much older than me (mercifully).

The original Mare Island pipe stress program was called MEC-21 and it was written for the "incredibly powerful" IBM 7094 computer (ker-chunk, ker-chunk...). The author was Bob Cramer and he used the algorithm developed by John Brock (he describes it in the Piping Handbook, Fifth Edition by Sabin Crocker and Reno King). The program used the flexibility method of solution so it could not be directly adapted to address dynamic analyses. I had the contract to maintain the Mec-21 program through its "S" version. In my defense, I tried to tell the Navy to pick up a copy of the public domain version of Sap IV (state of the art at the time by Bathe and Wilson at Berkley) and use that equation solver in MEC-21 such that it would handle dynamic problems. Through the time-sharing years we adapted the program to run on most mainframe computers.

The Navy Sea Systems Lab in MD. had an IBM 360-40 so the program was rewritten for that machine too but it was a small machine so some of the capability (e.g., all the "graphics" such as they were) was watered down for that version and it was called MEC-40.

In its last incarnations MEC-21 "S" used a nice sparse matrix solution update to its algorithm that was developed by Bob Malakoff at Loftus - nice piece of work, that. When the Navy finally dropped the development, Malakoff converted it to "free format" input (key word followed by value) like that used in the Strudl structural analysis program. The name became LPIPE and it was Proprietary to Loftus.

Then came the ALTAIR computer kit (circa 1975, built around an 8008 chip developed for NC machines) and then came the IBM AT and then..... who could keep up with it after that? It was the end of computer time-sharing.

Ok, no more history. But thanks Mike, for teeing up my ball.

Best regards, John.