GTSTRUDL - Accepted in Oil/Gas/Petrochemical field ?

[Baek]

Hi, y all experienced and generous to share thoughts.

Wondering how GTSTRUDL is accepted by Oil/Gas/Petrochemical Owners and how much it is used by global EPC companys.

Basically, my firm does multi-disciplinary EPC design / construction management for projects in europe, middle-east and central asia. Piping uses CAESAR II and SMART PLANT 3D by HEXAGON PPM, (formerly INTERGRAPH). Structural uses STAAD PRO by BENTLEY SYSTEMS AND CAD 3D by AUTODESK.

I recently happened to learn that there's GTSTRUDL by HEXAGON PPM, structual analysis software. If we go with GTSTRUDL, piping stress analysis results are imported by a click and they are modeled in SP3D by a click after structural modeling. Other options for sure would denifitely worth mention but the huddle is company's acceptance.

My clients often require to use STAAD PRO in their bid invitation, my colleagues seem to hesitant to go for an approval request. I would dare to make one if I get informed enough that it's widely used in our field by both in Ownder's side and Contractor/Firms side.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

It's been almost 20 years since I worked in the Petro/Chem industry. But, GTStrudl was definitely a player in the industry back then. Behind SAP and STAAD for sure. And, (at least for the company I worked for) behind RISA. Certainly ahead of RAM though.

However, I would caution you to really check out the program first. My impression is that GTSTRUDL really let their interface slide and hasn't kept up with the times.

Granted, they did a better job of QA/QC documentation at the time. This made them a better option for nuclear work than some others because they had already done 90% of the paperwork to demonstrate that it's features were safe to us per nuclear requirements. That's a BIG deal for smaller engineering companies that can afford to go through all those procedures and file all that paperwork.

Caveat: After working for 6 years in PetroChem, I worked for RISA for 16 years. Now I work for CSI (which writes SAP2000). So, I'm not exactly an unbiased source.... That and the fact I'm basing my comments on what GTSTRUDL was like 20 years ago and what I've seen and heard from users of other products since then.

 

[WARose]

It is still used and respected in the business.....but definitely not as much as it use to be. Other programs have caught up to it. (For example, STAAD can do a (seismic) pushover analysis now.)

Seems like I've seen it more in the nuke business than anywhere else. Most of the outfits I have worked at (that did chemical, oil & gas, and so on) have trended towards RISA & STAAD.

 

[bones206]

I used GTSTRUDL almost exclusively when I worked in nuclear. I have not used it since it was bought by Hexagon, but I do believe they have made efforts to improve the interface. Honestly I always found it easiest to work with via editing the text input file! I’ve only done a few projects in STAAD over the years but I found the input file format and command structure to be very similar to STRUDL, so you might find some overlap there.

One thing to note, Georgia Tech developed a FEA “base plate wizard” module for STRUDL that was way ahead of its time. Not sure if it’s still part of the software or not, it I got a lot of use out of that in particular.

In terms of its pedigree, STRUDL has a long history of use on major projects and always had top notch QA/QC as Josh mentioned. It is a well respected and powerful - yet somewhat archaic - software package.

 

[1503-44]

You may not get any takers on its pipe stress capability.

 

[bones206]

 

[1503-44]

My mistake. I thought they were doing pipe stress, not importing loads. That should be just fine.

 

[bones206]

No worries, looks like a new feature just added. But I recall being able to import pipe support loads back in the day. May have been a CAESER to Frameworks to GTSTRUDL route.

 

[Baek]

Thanks for sharing all.

Quick follow-up. Can GTSTRUDL and CAESAR II combination synchronize displacement of the structure and the pipe? As you are aware, rigid anchor point is not rigid as structures are flexible. So rigid support assumption derives conservative structure sizing (and inappropriate pipe dynamic responses, but let's focus on realistic structure design.) The opponent from HEXAGON PPM, combination of STAAD and AUTO-PIPE does the synchronization through a few iteration process.

Please share who have come accross while your professional life.


--------Quote---------
The supports in AutoPIPE can be assumed rigid or flexible while still maintaining a link to STAAD.pro via Pipelink.
The reactions to the supports are transferred to the superstructure in STAAD.pro as external loads. In the case of the AutoPIPE thermal effects, these are imported to STAAD.pro as a reference load case with the Title "Pipe Thermal", but the forces in that loading are just static forces taken from the AutoPIPE analysis support reactions.
Getting the displacements of the supporting beam in STAAD.pro to match the support deformation in AutoPIPE is achieved by running through the process a couple of times, though one or two trips is usually sufficient for the work I see.
-------Unquote--------