Coordinates problem in API 610-Super-Charging Your Equipment

Hi Richard Ay,

I found that the convention coordinates between Caesar II and API 610 are difference so when I check the nozzle loads using API-610 Equipment module, the reports shown allowable loads and the loads from Caesar are not properly. I mean that Fy in report should be Fz and My should be Mz. Please clarify.

Thanks,

Hello Hung,

Can you submit your query at our support portal, https://smartsupport.intergraph.com

Please attach your input files for CAESAR II - piping input file, Structural input, configuration file. Also indicate what versions and build of software are you using.

Hung,

In CAESAR II, capital letters on coordinates indicate global coordinates and lower case lettering indicates local (API 610) coordinates.

Are you running the stand-alone API 610 processor or are you applying the (newer) piping model entry?

Hello Mandeep,

Could you please give me your email? and I will attach and send to you. I am using two version of Caesar II (Version 8.0 2016 and version 10.0 2018).
I did model in version 8.0 and translate to version 10.0 and then using API 610 module to verify nozzle loads.

Hello Dave,

When I imported the load case from Caesar II to API 610 module and I saw the coordinates were global (It appears capital letter). And then I check the reports at the "Nozzle Allowable - Table 5" (It appears lower case)and I compared the value in the table and found that the comparison between fy, fz and my, mz were not proper.

Thanks both of you for looking about the concern.

I'm having the same problem. I've tried validating the 2018 module against the Annex F example in API 610, but to get the example's answer I have to use exactly the same numbers as the Annex F example. However, the API 610 axes and CII axes don't align, and assuming the X axes align for the Caesar II global axis and pump local axis, the global +Y translates to local +z and the local +y translates to global -Z. When the loads / dimensions are corrected accordingly the results don't align with the Annex F example for the F4 and F5 equations (where moments are resolved to the pump centreline). Is this a bug?