Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Piping analysis software 2
- Thread starter PipePimp
- Start date
I heard Cesaer was one of the best. Typically I use SolidWorks, but not to the capacity of actual pipe programs.
Cool handle though, "PipePimp", I like it!
Kenneth J Hueston, PEng
Principal
Sturni-Hueston Engineering Inc
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Cool handle though, "PipePimp", I like it!
Kenneth J Hueston, PEng
Principal
Sturni-Hueston Engineering Inc
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
I used Triflex back in the 1980s. It was based on the Mare Island program from US Navy.
Rather than ask the audience why not get the agent to provide you with a demo package including verification examples.
In selecting software it may be best to consider who you may share your files with. If you are a consultant your customers may run certain software.
You have Pipepak, Caesdar II, Autopipe, triflex etc etc to choose from. Also consider what CAD packages you want to import models from into the software.
Remember if someone is using an expensive software they are not going to tell you it is a "dog" as they will have to admit their mistakes. Most people live with the problems. Even a person who used to use a product at a previous job may be knocking it because they hated the job rather than the product.
Geoffrey D Stone FIMechE C.Eng;FIEust CP Eng
Rather than ask the audience why not get the agent to provide you with a demo package including verification examples.
In selecting software it may be best to consider who you may share your files with. If you are a consultant your customers may run certain software.
You have Pipepak, Caesdar II, Autopipe, triflex etc etc to choose from. Also consider what CAD packages you want to import models from into the software.
Remember if someone is using an expensive software they are not going to tell you it is a "dog" as they will have to admit their mistakes. Most people live with the problems. Even a person who used to use a product at a previous job may be knocking it because they hated the job rather than the product.
Geoffrey D Stone FIMechE C.Eng;FIEust CP Eng
- Thread starter
- #4
Thanks for the replies, I suppose you`re right. Actually our piping-guys already use Triflex at my company, personally I am fresh out of school without any experience with the different softwares.
Though, when I searched for 'Triflex' on these forums I got no hits, as opposed to for 'Cesaer' or others, which made me wonder Anyway, all of these programs probably use the same formulas for shear stress etc, so I figure it is a question of convenience and personal preference.
Though, when I searched for 'Triflex' on these forums I got no hits, as opposed to for 'Cesaer' or others, which made me wonder
Anyway, all of these programs probably use the same formulas for shear stress etc, so I figure it is a question of convenience and personal preference.If you're in the US, you can get a free pipe stress program, probably also based on the original Mare Island. Has anybody used it yet?
Going the Big Inch!![[worm]](/data/assets/smilies/worm.gif "[worm] [worm]")
Going the Big Inch!
CathyKeener
Petroleum
Hello PipePimp, love the name. I am your sales rep for TRIFLEX. I am going to encourage our users to become members and post on this site. It is a great site that will benefit them and we do need more exposure. Call us for some free "getting started" training.
NozzleTwister
Mechanical
I like the PipePimp too...
Back in the Mainframe days, TRIFLEX was one of the most popular Pipe Stress programs, at least for PetroChem.
Then Caesar II jumped out of the gates about the same time as PC's started showing up in engineering offices. Mainframe usage died out pretty quick when people learned these new PC's could easily handle most applications previously run on a mainframe and with a lot less hassle.
Caesar II captured the market pretty quickly with their popular spreadsheet style input format and left everyone else in the dust and playing catch up. Other companies like TRIFLEX have caught up but it's tough to convince users to abandon a license they've already invested in and invest in another one.
If you're shopping around for alternatives, I would compare your needs to what the program has to offer and consider the following.
1. Does the software have a good support staff and support reputation?
2. Is the software updated for bugs and code changes on a timely basis?
3. Do you need to supply electronic files to your clients and what programs do the majority of them have? Can they dictate what you use?
4. Is the program user friendly?
5. Get trial run programs for each software considered. Run test problems on each one. You’re not going to get the exact same values on each program. Rigid element stiffness, anchor and support stiffnesses, pressure stiffening etc. may be different or have different defaults for each program. Learn want these differences are and find out your options for editing the defaults. Anticipate all of the Load Case options you will need and the maximum number of Load cases you will need in a single run. Will the programs your are considering accommodate your needs?
6. List Pro's and Con's for each.
7. Review the license contract and fee's for each. Don't forget maintenance fees and what fees apply if you let your maintenance lapse and once again want to bring the software current.
Good Luck,
NozzleTwister
Houston, Texas
Back in the Mainframe days, TRIFLEX was one of the most popular Pipe Stress programs, at least for PetroChem.
Then Caesar II jumped out of the gates about the same time as PC's started showing up in engineering offices. Mainframe usage died out pretty quick when people learned these new PC's could easily handle most applications previously run on a mainframe and with a lot less hassle.
Caesar II captured the market pretty quickly with their popular spreadsheet style input format and left everyone else in the dust and playing catch up. Other companies like TRIFLEX have caught up but it's tough to convince users to abandon a license they've already invested in and invest in another one.
If you're shopping around for alternatives, I would compare your needs to what the program has to offer and consider the following.
1. Does the software have a good support staff and support reputation?
2. Is the software updated for bugs and code changes on a timely basis?
3. Do you need to supply electronic files to your clients and what programs do the majority of them have? Can they dictate what you use?
4. Is the program user friendly?
5. Get trial run programs for each software considered. Run test problems on each one. You’re not going to get the exact same values on each program. Rigid element stiffness, anchor and support stiffnesses, pressure stiffening etc. may be different or have different defaults for each program. Learn want these differences are and find out your options for editing the defaults. Anticipate all of the Load Case options you will need and the maximum number of Load cases you will need in a single run. Will the programs your are considering accommodate your needs?
6. List Pro's and Con's for each.
7. Review the license contract and fee's for each. Don't forget maintenance fees and what fees apply if you let your maintenance lapse and once again want to bring the software current.
Good Luck,
NozzleTwister
Houston, Texas
If you contact Algor they will let you have a fully licenced software for Pipepak to try for a month.
Pipepak is probably the lowest cost of all the packages out there.
Geoffrey D Stone FIMechE C.Eng;FIEust CP Eng
Pipepak is probably the lowest cost of all the packages out there.
Geoffrey D Stone FIMechE C.Eng;FIEust CP Eng
-
2
- #10
Read NozzleTwisters list of "considerations". Support in all its guises is essential. The biggest thing to remember will always be "you get what you pay for".
Regarding the approach to structural analysis of piping systems, please read my posting here:
Regards, John
Regarding the approach to structural analysis of piping systems, please read my posting here:
Regards, John
....."back in the day" - mid 60's....
The original Triflex was the original Navy Mare Island pipe stress analysis program called Mec-21. Mec-21 was a "fixed field" input (punched card) program that was the first really comprhensive pipe stress program available. The solution method was the flexibility method. The Mec-21 program WAS NOT "user friendly" and it was very easy to make mistakes (and very little was availavle in the way of graphics). Triflex (Reid McNally, a visionary and VERY active ASME Region X member) worked very hard to create a "front-end processor" that converted much more "user friendly" Triflex input data to the original Mec-21 card images. He also created a "post processor" that took the Mec-21 calculated data and used it in a "stress report" format that addressed the equations used by B31 for combining stresses and comparing them to the Code allowable stresses (stress ranges). The preprocessor, Mec-21 equation solver and post processor were rolled into a single fortran routine (with subroutines). In later years, Triflex adopted the computer program Sap-V (stiffness method) that was I believe developed by Bathe and Wilson at U-CAL at Berkely. Because Sap-V was a stiffness method program, it was more easily adapted to dynamic analyses. At Triflex, the late Dan Yongue (a really good experienced pipe stress analyst and a great guy) used the Sap-V program as the analysis engine (equation solver) for the newer generation Triflex. You had the choice of running the "flexibility method" or the "stiffness method" (this was to allow consistant solutions for older input files). The old Mec-21 program really did not have a true "curved beam element" to use at bends whereas the Sap-V program actually DID have such an element. Sometimes with small fairly close coupled piping system models, the two would return different results (the Sap-V calculations were closer to the truth). More recently, Triflex was rewritten to make it an "MS Windows" program. Triflex has quite a history.
The original Triflex was the original Navy Mare Island pipe stress analysis program called Mec-21. Mec-21 was a "fixed field" input (punched card) program that was the first really comprhensive pipe stress program available. The solution method was the flexibility method. The Mec-21 program WAS NOT "user friendly" and it was very easy to make mistakes (and very little was availavle in the way of graphics). Triflex (Reid McNally, a visionary and VERY active ASME Region X member) worked very hard to create a "front-end processor" that converted much more "user friendly" Triflex input data to the original Mec-21 card images. He also created a "post processor" that took the Mec-21 calculated data and used it in a "stress report" format that addressed the equations used by B31 for combining stresses and comparing them to the Code allowable stresses (stress ranges). The preprocessor, Mec-21 equation solver and post processor were rolled into a single fortran routine (with subroutines). In later years, Triflex adopted the computer program Sap-V (stiffness method) that was I believe developed by Bathe and Wilson at U-CAL at Berkely. Because Sap-V was a stiffness method program, it was more easily adapted to dynamic analyses. At Triflex, the late Dan Yongue (a really good experienced pipe stress analyst and a great guy) used the Sap-V program as the analysis engine (equation solver) for the newer generation Triflex. You had the choice of running the "flexibility method" or the "stiffness method" (this was to allow consistant solutions for older input files). The old Mec-21 program really did not have a true "curved beam element" to use at bends whereas the Sap-V program actually DID have such an element. Sometimes with small fairly close coupled piping system models, the two would return different results (the Sap-V calculations were closer to the truth). More recently, Triflex was rewritten to make it an "MS Windows" program. Triflex has quite a history.
Hi Leonard,
I really don't know much bout the various ME-101 pipestress programs. The first program named ME-101 that I rncountered was an old in-house code used by the Westinghouse Bettis Atomic Lab and that would have been about 1973 or so. They had been using this old static analysis program on a DEC PDP-10 when I met it but it was originally written to run on an IBM 1130. It was limited to a maximum of 50 beam elements as the computer could not handle a system flexibility matrix for larger models. Later, I had to use printed output from the old Bechtel in-house program called ME-101 (maybe in the early 1980's) and they refused me when I asked to borrow a users' manual. I have heard that there were other piping structural analysis programs with that name, but Kismet was kind to me and I did not meet up with them.
Regards, John.
I really don't know much bout the various ME-101 pipestress programs. The first program named ME-101 that I rncountered was an old in-house code used by the Westinghouse Bettis Atomic Lab and that would have been about 1973 or so. They had been using this old static analysis program on a DEC PDP-10 when I met it but it was originally written to run on an IBM 1130. It was limited to a maximum of 50 beam elements as the computer could not handle a system flexibility matrix for larger models. Later, I had to use printed output from the old Bechtel in-house program called ME-101 (maybe in the early 1980's) and they refused me when I asked to borrow a users' manual. I have heard that there were other piping structural analysis programs with that name, but Kismet was kind to me and I did not meet up with them.
Regards, John.
CathyKeener
Petroleum
Thanks for your comments John! I really miss Dan Yongue. He was a great guy!
I have used TRIFLEX, CAESAR II, and AutoPIPE. They were all good programs.
My problem was not so much in modelling the piping - it was how to react to the results.
1 - If a pipe lifts off its seat, and there is no exceedence of stress - is that really a problem? What range of tolerances are acceptable?
2 - Are pump casings really that sensitive to API reactive loads - or is someone pulling my leg?
3 - What are the criteria before you really have to go for spring supports and other fancy devices
4 - We had a lot of problems trying to accommodate multiple pump arrangements to limit suction & discharge load limits. In the end we scrapped all the fine analysis and did it by eye (not a very elegant solution - but better than all that theoretical mathematical stuff)
5 - I said one day I'll understand it all better - maybe my day will come
My problem was not so much in modelling the piping - it was how to react to the results.
1 - If a pipe lifts off its seat, and there is no exceedence of stress - is that really a problem? What range of tolerances are acceptable?
2 - Are pump casings really that sensitive to API reactive loads - or is someone pulling my leg?
3 - What are the criteria before you really have to go for spring supports and other fancy devices
4 - We had a lot of problems trying to accommodate multiple pump arrangements to limit suction & discharge load limits. In the end we scrapped all the fine analysis and did it by eye (not a very elegant solution - but better than all that theoretical mathematical stuff)
5 - I said one day I'll understand it all better - maybe my day will come
johnp,
You may be interested in reading this discussion:
It is a real issue and one that is routinly addressed with varying degrees of success by piping engineers. You should always strive to comply with API-610 when you connect piping to centrifugal pumps.
R
You may be interested in reading this discussion:
It is a real issue and one that is routinly addressed with varying degrees of success by piping engineers. You should always strive to comply with API-610 when you connect piping to centrifugal pumps.
R
Computer operator or stress engineer?
I used to keep some heavy gauge wire on the desk and make a model of a system and push on one end to easily understand why and how the other end did whatever it did.
I've had to replace and redirect guides and anchors for several compressor stations because somebody thought compressor flanges were anchors.
Going the Big Inch!
I used to keep some heavy gauge wire on the desk and make a model of a system and push on one end to easily understand why and how the other end did whatever it did.
I've had to replace and redirect guides and anchors for several compressor stations because somebody thought compressor flanges were anchors.
Going the Big Inch!
reply to johnnp
Are pump casings really that sensitive to API reactive loads - or is someone pulling my leg?
do you use the appendix F : criteria for piping design
1 - If a pipe lifts off its seat, and there is no exceedence of stress - is that really a problem? What range of tolerances are acceptable?
if you need support got to spring
if you don't need support why have you a support
3 - What are the criteria before you really have to go for spring supports and other fancy devices
lift off and forces on pumps casings
Are pump casings really that sensitive to API reactive loads - or is someone pulling my leg?
do you use the appendix F : criteria for piping design
1 - If a pipe lifts off its seat, and there is no exceedence of stress - is that really a problem? What range of tolerances are acceptable?
if you need support got to spring
if you don't need support why have you a support
3 - What are the criteria before you really have to go for spring supports and other fancy devices
lift off and forces on pumps casings
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Question
