Can longitudinal stresses be displayed in stress output

Posted by: sreesarin

Can longitudinal stresses be displayed in stress output - 04/15/14 11:47 PM

Dear all,
I have a requirement for displaying longitudinal stresses in stress output. Can I customize my stress report which includes longitudinal stresses also.

Thanks
Posted by: CAESARIII

Re: Can longitudinal stresses be displayed in stress output - 04/16/14 02:10 AM

sreesarin,

In standard reports, 'Stresses Extended' category will show the axial stress.

Since EXP load cases comply with code's rule and it doesn't contain axial stress from pressure in calculation, you cannot get longitudinal stress from it. So try load case consider pressure?
Posted by: Richard Ay

Re: Can longitudinal stresses be displayed in stress output - 04/16/14 09:24 PM

If you're running B31.1/B31.3, the "code stress" is a longitudinal stress, computed as per the "code equation" for the specific load case. Refer to the c2 Quick Reference Guide, or the specific piping code for the equations.

The above comment is correct, the "Extended Stress Report" will include a column for "axial stress". However, this does not include the bending stress value.
Posted by: sreesarin

Re: Can longitudinal stresses be displayed in stress output - 04/20/14 11:24 PM

Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for your reply. I am using caesar 5.0 and the code required is DNV. SO is it possible to get the same.

Thanks & Regards,
Sreesarin
Posted by: Richard Ay

Re: Can longitudinal stresses be displayed in stress output - 04/21/14 09:41 AM

For the offshore Codes, there are three Code Stresses (hoop, longitudinal, and combined) and three corresponding allowables. c2 determines the ratios of these three stresses and reports the governing ratio, so depending on which ratio governs, you may or may not have the longitudinal stress reported as the Code Stress.
Posted by: CAESARIII

Re: Can longitudinal stresses be displayed in stress output - 04/21/14 05:21 PM

Shame on me.. code stress is longitudinal, not the other...
Thanks for correcting it, sir.