I have been provided with a Caesar II ver 4.40 model that uses 2 codes IGE/TD/12 & B31.3 so I can verify the loads at the Termination point of our design.
This model apparently runs fine on ver 4.4 but we only have version 5.
After extending the model on our side of the termination point (all to B31.3) I did an error check which came up with a number of 187E, 191E & 192E error messages on the existing IGE/TD/12 part of the model.
Has Caesar changed the way it checks intersections between versions 4.4 & 5.0 as I have been assured that the model has been run OK or are these error codes due to modeling errors.
The only data fields on the SIF Aux. Input is the node number & intersection type am I now expected to work out & fill in the other variables?

It wasn’t CAESAR II per se that changed the way that the IGE/TD/12 code checks intersections after Version 4.4. What happened is that the IGE/TD/12 Code itself got updated (significantly) to Edition 2 in 2003. We (COADE) were requested by Transco UK to upgrade CAESAR II to reflect the new code, which we did. In May 2004 after extensive review by Transco’s representatives, we received the go-ahead to activate the new version, which we did in CAESAR II Version 4.50.

Unfortunately, a major part of the rewrite to IGE/TD/12 Edition 2 involved requesting much more extensive input data for all of the intersection SIF calculations. During the review process, we proposed having CAESAR II default to certain values in order to simplify the system modeling, but this was not agreed to by Transco’s representatives. Therefore we ended up with what you just discovered – a code that requires much more data at intersections (and other places) than it did a couple of years ago. You may want to look at Appendix 4 of IGE/TD/12 Edition 2 to see to what I’m referring.

I’ m sorry, but the conversion from Edition 1 to Edition 2 is not going to be easy. I'm not sure what your best course of action is -- since you are only adding B31.3 piping to an existing system, maybe you can break the system somewhere in order to exclude the existing TD/12 piping? For example, if the break location is sufficiently remote from where you are working, you can possibly just input displacements (gotten from the old 4.40 results) at the break point.

Thank's Tom,
It's not to bad to change this time as I only have about 20 intersections.
The interesting thing is that this job was designed in 2006 so should probably have been done to TD/12 Ed 2
Just glad I don't normally work to this code & have to input this info at every intersection.