Pipe Stress Analysis Software Engine 1

[JGard1985]

Good afternoon

I'm looking to purchase a pipe stress analysis software package for my Engineering & Consulting Firm. In a previous career I used DST PIPESTRESS in Nuclear QA applications. In my experience it wasn't very user friendly and didn't mesh with any CADD design activities

I was wondering if forum members could offer any pipe stress software that they recommend or commonly defined as "Industry Standard" for B31.1 & B31.3 piping applications (NON-Nuclear). Any other benefits/experiences/lessons learned would be appreciated.

I'm considering the following software packages:
DST Pipestress
CAESAR II
CAEPIPE


Thank you
Jeff

 

[DSB123]

The best helpful advice I can offer is that by purchasing a Pipe Stress Analysis software does not mean that you are a Pipe Stress Engineer. To be a competent Pipe Stress Engineer takes many years of experience working with other competent pipe stress engineers. Don't fall into the idea that by using a software package means that you can attack any pipe stress problem competently!!!

 

[XL83NL]

AutoPIPE works well for B31.1 and B31.3.

 

[curtis2004]

JGard1985,

I used AutoPIPE and Ceasar II. Both work well and user friendly.
For what purpose you'd like to purchase it?

Curtis

 

[XL83NL]

Hi Curtia, I'm curious to hear your experiences on the difference between AP and CII. What's the scope of piping you used both packages for (design code, etc.), and what are your personal specific pros and cons of either package?

 

[curtis2004]

XL83NL,

First, I learn AutoPIPE because company I worked for has it. I spent about 2 weeks, 1-2 hours after work every day, to go through tutorials to be able to start my first project.
We used to design and built thermal oil energy systems. It is usually carbon steel pipe, up to 8"-10" max, B31.1 or B31.3 depending on client. We used to have static analysis only. For ceismic also use equivalent static analysis.
AutoPIPE has a small interactive window, which have coordinates of node being entered, you enter your nodes one after another. In a bottom of the screen, you have a table where you can see all of your entries.

Then I moved to another company, they had Ceasar II. Different kind of projects B31.1 and B31.3 codes of construction. Static or equivalent static in place of dynamic analysis. It took me about a week, 2-3 hours a day to learn how to built in Ceasar II. In the beginning I didn't like it. It looked claterred with a windows which has a lots of parameter entries. But little by little I start appreciate that big window where you can enter or change all parameters of your system. I guess, I get used to work in AutoPIPE before. I'm sure if I move to AutoPIPE, I'm gonna miss Ceasar II.

In my personal opinion, both are good software. I think, cost wise also full versions of both softwares are comparable. Except, Coade offers limited to 50 runs Ceasar II for around $1,200. This may be suitable for mechanical engineers who do not have a lots of pipe stress projects, who has smaller and simpler and more predictable systems.

Regards,
Curtis

 

[kacarrol]

I'm with Curtis. I've used both CII and AutoPIPE. I think I only did one B31.1 project on CII and the rest were B31.3, all were static analysis. I used the forces provided from CII to calculate nozzle and shell loads on tanks etc in a separate program. On AutoPIPE I've ran B31.1, B31.3 and one dynamic nuclear analysis. I find they are both good, I think I liked CII more as I like the set up of their tables better, I like seeing the input in tabular form, I find AutoPIPE seems to favor pictorial form.

I think they're both great products I don't think you can go wrong with either for B31.1 and B31.3. I haven't used either program in about 5 years now though, so take that into account.

Regards,
K

 

[XL83NL]

Ive worked with AP for some years now (mostly B31.3 piping, some acc EN 13480), and have no experience with CII. AP works well from a graphical point of view, but I was curious how it compares to other packages. The support on AP for the EN 13480 code however is not always that good, but thats also due to the relative young age of 13480, and the number of bugs/discrepancies in the code.

 

[DSB123]

Autopipe and Caesar II are both useful Pipe Stress analysis tools. However Caesar has a shortcoming. If you are close to the Allowable stress limits then Caesar may not output the maximum stress level within a system. For example I tested Caesar against another software package using exactly the same model and exactly the same inputs. Caesar output said the maximum atress was acceptable whereas the other package showed the maximum stress to be over the Code allowable. Problem was that Caesar only gives the stress output for the start/end and midle of a bend whereas the other package calculated the stresses at every degree around a bend and output the maximum.

 

[XL83NL]

Problem was that Caesar only gives the stress output for the start/end and midle of a bend whereas the other package calculated the stresses at every degree around a bend and output the maximum.

But does AP address this feature?

 

[curtis2004]

XL83NL,

AP has the same 3 node elbow model. No difference in this instance.
In order to avoid this kind of situations, I try to keep code stress values below 80% if possible. It is always a good practice to redistribute stress levels more evenly to entire system and minimize forces and moments at equipment nozzles. I have most headaches from nozzle loads, and usually do not come close to allowable code stress levels.
You will see high stress levels in piping most often in high temperature and/or high pressure systems, with code stress values above 80%.

Regards,
Curtis

 

[XL83NL]

I share the same experience. Unless the pressure and temperature is really high (well in or above creep with high hoop/sustained stress due to pressure), the nozzle load usually is the bottle neck (or the occasional flange leakage based on the VIII-1 app 2 calf. method).
Or when one has very high pressures where the hoop itself, regardless of pressure, already 'consumes' &0% of the code allowable.

 

[JGard1985]

Thank you all for your opinions and thoughts, so much to consider

 

[DSB123]

XL83NL. curtis2004,
I was just pointing out that Caesar and AP do not output the maximum stress automatically in a bend. Just something to remember and consider.

 

[HYFX72]

Check out "winpipesoftware.com". It handles B31.3 2008 to 2016. And up to 10 nodes on a bend. It is a new kid on the block

 

[Gator]

"...purchasing a Pipe Stress Analysis software does not mean that you are a Pipe Stress Engineer."

Well, in my experience it's the stress engineer who stamps the isometrics (in jurisdictions where this is required) so that role cannot be easily off-shored.

 

[DSB123]

Gator,
So what has your comment got to do with what I said - Answer: nothing

 

[HYFX72]

The way I see it, it's two sides of the same coin. Basically, a software is just a tool to facilitate an engineer to do his/her job, not to substitute for him/her.
A pipe stress software give info at a node. If you don't set a node at proper location on a straight pipe, you wouldn't get the maximum stress on the straight pipe. About bend, it's relatively simple. You are always able to twist it (add more nodes, and make sure bending moments not exceeding certain values). How about tee. You cut a hole in pipe and stick a branch on top of it, do you really think tee flexibility is 1.0, and it has nothing do to with the branch size (same for SIF). To compare tee to bend, it's like compare cancer to fever.