×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

CAESAR II
2

CAESAR II

CAESAR II

(OP)
Hi all,
suppose the allowable load of a specific pipe support in the standard pipe support of a project is determined to be 10 KN. It is clear that the stress analyst should compare the calculted pipe support load by CAESAR II in the OPE load case by 10KN. Now, my question is:
Should the stress analyst compare the calculted pipe support load by CAESAR II in the Wind or Seismic OPE load cases by 10KN or some more allowable load than 10KN? if yes, how is the allowable load in the Wind or Seismic OPE load cases determined?

RE: CAESAR II

strsanalyst,
            As I said to your previous post - ask the structural design engineer that placed the 10KN limit what it includes for. Really if you are going to check piping loads against an allowable you must understand where the allowable came from in the first place!!

RE: CAESAR II

strsanalyst,

I hope you chose your forum name as a joke. Clearly you are not a stress analsyst. You need help from an expert at your work place. This forum is not the place to raise such fundamental issues.   

RE: CAESAR II

C2it,
      You posted exactly what I was thinking!!! Strange - but then again great minds think alike!!

RE: CAESAR II

Great minds .... certainly experienced minds.

Here's my grumpy bit: I really worry about the questions raised about Stress / Caesar in this forum and worse, in the Coade Caesar forum. So often it is quite obvious that the person raising the question has not the remotest idea about  stress, but has apparently been let loose to play at being a stress engineer with Caesar II.

These ignorant players will undoubtedly engineer a fatal accident for some trusting operator in the future, and will probably not even be aware of what they caused.

Right, off for a moan around the coffee machine.

RE: CAESAR II

Cit,
     Not sure how old you are but I am getting to be a "grumpy old man" especially as you say when you see such fundamental questions being raised and the fact that there are too mant "pipe stress engineers" who know how to run the software but do not really know if the modelling actually resembles what is going to be built. We were discussing this today at work and I/we understand that everyone has to learn but there are too many young graduates let loose with software without knowing the Code requirements. I looked at one model today for example - that had been checked - where the mill tolerance had been input as 85.5% for 2"nb pipe. It only worked because the pressure was very low.  I fear what is going to happen in another 5-10 years when all the "old hands" are coming up for retirement.

 

RE: CAESAR II

They'll have to start reducing the allowable stresses in the codes over the next 25 years to account for the GI/GO factor.   

"We have a leadership style that is too directive and doesn't listen sufficiently well. The top of the organisation doesn't listen sufficiently to what the bottom is saying."  Tony Hayward CEO BP
"Being GREEN isn't easy." Kermitfrog http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpiIWMWWVco

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.liv

RE: CAESAR II

BigInch,
        That's a really good idea as I find GI/GO is becoming all too regular.

Here's a good one to illustrate. Bending of pipe to form bends causes thinning, as we all know (so I thought) which is based on tests. Well I've come across several spreadsheets whereby the bend thinning allowance has been added to the pressure wall thickness by multiplying the pressure wall thickness by a bend thinning percentage. This is crazy - the amont of bend thinning is dependant upon the actual thickness of the pipe not the theoretical pressure thickness. In the spreadsheets if the pressure wall thickness is negligible then the bend thinning is negligible - another example of GI/GO.

RE: CAESAR II

DSB123....

I agree with your observations about the depth of C2 questions asked and the caliber of the posts.

I think we are witnessing a "perfect storm" of uncaring MBA project management coupled with inexperienced newbies....

Usually, after the big accident and either the loss of large amounts of money or the deaths of innocents, te MBAs add a grey hair to the team.

I strongly believe that this would be a great topic for the "Where is Engineering going" forum.

As for me.... I will be 62 soon and heading for the SS door.

It just doesn't look good.

Regards

MJC

   

RE: CAESAR II

Good topic.  I am under 40 and have had your grumpy old man attitudes since I was 23..  I was a young graduate and got a 20+ year process engineer sent off the jobsite for doing PSV calcs incorrectly and costing us some piping rework.  

In general you are right that you can't replace real experience..  But really the point should be that ANY engineer who does not fully understand the subject, and does not also follow through completely with what they are doing are personally reckless and dangerous..  Regardless of age..  I've met plenty of "grey hairs" who I've thought were lazy overpaid arrogant blowhards who use name dropping and buzzwords to sound more intelligent than they are.  I've also met some who were great technical mentors, but not nearly as many.  The older crowd tends to be overly confident in their abilities, to the point where they no longer learn.  And the young crowd tends not be aware of their abilities..

But to me age is not important.  It is about attitude, and the persons character, smarts, and tenacity.

Anytime I broach a new field of engineering, the first thing I do is try to completely understand every aspect of it, and go to great lengths to seek the input and review of someone knowledgeable..   Where that is not possible then I decline the work or recommended bringing in someone with experience to consult with.

I've heard a good soundbyte description of an engineer who is the opposite of this: "John doesn't know what John doesn't know"..   To me the hallmark of a great engineer is that he/she knows what they don't know..  

The ironic twist on that is when doing something new like learning stress analysis, you have to do some learning to even KNOW what you DON'T know..  You know?

 

RE: CAESAR II

pipesnpumps,
            I was not tarring all young graduates with the same brush but from my experience of interviewing graduates for training positions it seems that there are many who cannot remember the first thing about a subject they had only studied two years before. I'm not talking about complex engineering aspects but the fundamentals of the various subjects you study whilst doing a mechanical engineering degree. I agree that there are older guys "acting" as engineers and have achieved their positions in companies due to longevity and not capability. I know of several engineers who have gained memberships of engineering institutions on the backs of others and having their disertations penned by others. As you say there are three types of engineers " Those that know-those that don't know and those that don't know they don't know" Obviously it's that last who are the most dangerous.

We older engineers in general see far too often the young beleiving that by learning to use a software package they "know" all about the subject and forget a computer is just an aid and GIGO rules.  

RE: CAESAR II

Merit to both sides.

The high ground is to continue to set an example and mentor, even if it means providing intelligent answers to questions that - in our often jaded opinions - are not intelligent.  Credit to those who ask such questions - it means that they are trying to do the right things.  In my mind, that's half the battle.

To scorn or slam such young or inexperienced folks is counterproductive.  It discourages people who might need the help from seeking it.  Instead of bridging the gap between incompetence (read "undeveloped competence") and expertise, it serves only to drive a wedge into the ever-widening chasm between same.

Regards,

SNORGY.

RE: CAESAR II

There used to be a golden rule that mistakes were in a 7 year cycle. That meant that the knowledge was lost from industry gradually due to retirements and promotion to management of the senior engineers who had done "it" before. The same mistakes started to occur that had occurred 7 years earlier.

Industry is telling me now that the churn cycle is down to 3 years. I can only see  a bonus for lawyers and expert witnesses on the horizon.

RE: CAESAR II

The other thing is that you can do almost anything, at least to a certain number of nodes, with a spreadsheet and VBA.  It no longer takes a professionally written (expensive) program, where due to the cost, the program was verified and reverified before it was considered worthy of purchase.  Now you can find spreadsheets all over the place, many with outright errors and others with no "global picture" that are perfect for the GI half of the equation.

As for the young vs old engineers, I know both can be good, but you don't have to hang around here very long to see that young engineers arn't getting the benefits of working with experienced collegues these days.  The other indicator is that companies offering training courses seem to vastly outnumber companies doing the actual engineering.

That's interesting Geoff.  Hasn't the average length of an engineer's stay at a company and the length of time in the same home, dropped from 7 to 3 years as well?

"We have a leadership style that is too directive and doesn't listen sufficiently well. The top of the organisation doesn't listen sufficiently to what the bottom is saying."  Tony Hayward CEO BP
"Being GREEN isn't easy." Kermitfrog http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpiIWMWWVco

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.liv

RE: CAESAR II

stanier,
         If you are correct we will see a vast number of "expert witness" courses popping up where you can become an "expert witness" with a six week - one day a week - course. Only being cynical - but you never know!!!

RE: CAESAR II

We already have them downunder along with a myriad of hopeless courses on engineering being provided by Gen X & Y. Eng-tips is the saviour as you can get good knowledge from some old hands.

RE: CAESAR II

Dennis,

Its not that engineers move from company to company in shorter periods. Engineers go into management in 3 years rather than 7 years these days. Chasing the big bucks without having to do the hard work of the engineer. mamanger gets to buy a bigger house and thus changes home. Also the manager does not go to gaol when it goes pear shape, using the "I'm not technical defence".

Geoff

RE: CAESAR II

stanier,
        I agree. But why is it that these managers get the rewards when they never ever take the flak when decisions they make go wrong? It's always the engineer that gets the blame. Where do they get their "slopy shoulders" from along with their teflon shoulder pads I presume. The only reason they actually migrate to managers , in my view, is that they cannot hack the technical design and so "bail out" to managerial posts where they get higher paid for basically pushing paper around and never get blamed. It shows it's an unjust world we live in.

RE: CAESAR II

Perhaps its a difference in the work environment too.

In my limited experience, engineers working directly for an industrial concern (think plant engineer, maintenance engineer, design engineer who actually oversees production of his design) stay technical longer and are promoted on technical ability.  These engineers make money for their employer by directly impacting the production of widgets.

Consulting engineer firms don't seem to be that way.  Successful consultants are as much people persons as they are widget producers.  The goal here is to develop and maintain relationships, which turn into money.  The people issuing the engineering services PO are probably not technically focused people... they were all let go when the engineering departments were cut!

Maybe the shift from 7 year to 3 year cycles and the fact that new grads want to be project managers after their first performance review is due, in part, to the shift from in-house engineering to consultant engineers?

- Steve Perry

RE: CAESAR II

Steve,
      I remember when it was the case tha new recruits, both graduate and technical apprentices, were given a period in each of the departments within an engineering c ompany office. If any showed apptitude the head of that department, or chief engineer would encourage them to choose that discipline and if they were not much good they would be allowed to pass on to the next discipline. If after the recruit had been around all disciplines and non of the chief engineers wanted them they were dumped into the Project group. That's fact not fiction by the way. You then end up with Project people whom are not technical but are allowed to make technical decisions but when things go wrong, due to their decisions out comes the "I'm not technical" card. Seen it too many times and it's more prevalent than ever.

RE: CAESAR II

DSB123,

Funny that the project team get paid more than technical specialists. So those who are not committed to the technical aspects of a role will move to projects.

I have upset do many clients as I bring to their attention their technical inability and impreciseness. But at my age I can do this for I have no fear of economic ruin. Having worked out that its what you can do without not what you want, I have freedom of choice. i choose not to let cretins get away with it.

RE: CAESAR II

stanier,
        I have always done the same. I'm blunt with people - no PC rubbish from me - tell them straight how it is - never been scared of the consequences.

I did not say these people were not commited to the technical aspects and hence moved to Projects it's more a matter of they are generally incapable of a technicel role so they were "dumped" into projects. That's not how everyone ends up in there. Some see the higher rewards - realise they are never going to climb the ladder in a technical area so opt for Projects as the best way to earn more money. As you may have guessed I think Project people are overpaid numpties in general, but there are some good ones in there but not many. I'd say about 10% max.

RE: CAESAR II

You guys sound bitter...

Thanks.  That's a relief.  It proves that you aren't MBAs.

Most of the Project Engineers I know didn't get "dumped" there.  They got promoted there because they have the responsibility of leading the team and handling all of the client interface.  The truly good ones might not be as in tune with the calculations, science and other minutiae, but they are conversant enough with it to take things under advisement from the egg-heads and turn them into meaningful decisions forward on successful projects.

It's a skill set, and a talent, the same as solving triple integrals or doing exotic FEA stuff.  We all have a role to play.

Even the MBAs...

Pictures of whom make good targets on dart-boards and the like...

Regards,

SNORGY.

RE: CAESAR II

SNORGY,
         I'll stick by everything I've said from experience. But everyone has their own opinion and I'll accept that. What is hard to accept is these incompetant's getting rewards when technical guy's don't. It's a fact of life and I have handled Projects/jobs without the need for a Project guy and all went well - it's only when Project people get involved that the jobs started going to ratsh!t.

RE: CAESAR II

No worries DSB123.

I've seen both sides of it, and worked with some project engineering idiots as well.

But some of them were good.  I guess I just had better luck.

I was a project engineer for quite some time.  Projects were always in time, within 10% of budget, and the facilities worked.  I guess I wasn't a complete idiot.

I'm back in Mechanical nuts and bolts stuff now.  Not sure what I like better.  But I know it's frustrating to work for an idiot PE.

Regards,

SNORGY.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources