Dear All,

Do you have any experience that the same input for the two version makes different output result?

I did an analysis in v4.5, and then copied the directory including *._A to another disk partition, opened with version v5.1 and did a static analysis. The result is quite different from the version v4.5 output. (Take one of the boiler superheated steam header interface as an example, the Z-dir moment in v4.5 is about 120000Nm, but in v5.1 is about 710000Nm. There are many other significant difference in the output besides.)

I did only a little configuration for the two version, and I am sure they are the same. The code is B31.1. I choose the material as USER DEFINED, and I am sure the digital values in the material blocks are the same. So what makes this BIG difference?

May be you need to check the *cfg file if they are different. This file should be copied to another folder where the model saved if we want to run it in such configure setup. Different *.cfg file may give the diff. result especially for the computational control TAB.

BTW, Sir Richard Ay, I ever ran the same model from older version to the newest one by changing the flange rigid to flange (by ticking) w/ the same *cfg file. It is connected to equipment. The result are different for the restraint report.

Does Caesar give different flexibility to "flange" in the new version instead of rigid? thank in advance.

And don't forget about changes necessitated by Piping Code revisions. Since you're comparing 4.50 to 5.10, you have changes made in both 5.00 and 5.10 to consider. For both of these versions, go to the User's Guide, and right behind the "Distribution Letter" you'll find a list of "Technical Changes". These are changes that may cause different results between versions.



"No". All that "Flange Checkbox" does is enable the flange rating routine for the specified node. If you unchecked the "rigid checkbox", then the old model had a rigid element and the new model does not.

Dear Samsul,

The *.cfg file is the same file. I copied the whole directory including the input model, configuration and other files. I clicked the CAESAR II 5.10 shortcut, opened the pre 5.0 input file *._A, and "fixed" its version, then run it, but the results are different.

If the case like that, please note Sir Richard Ay's post above due to the change of Code.

Sir Richard,

I don't think the piping code revisions and the software technical changes can make so BIG difference. It seems unbelievable.

Look through the "Technical Changes" and see.

If you can't figure it out, send your 4.50 _A and _J file to techsupport@coade.com.

Dear Harry,

Even code ever revised the value of allowable stress of material from about 17 ksi to 20 ksi . But I do really like this Q...sorry.

I send my model to COADE, and Mr. Loren Brown responsed for the issue. It is the hot-load-specified hanger design method made this difference. Version 5.1 is correct, whereas version 4.5 is incorrect.

Hi, I am a curently user of 4.5 version and I would like to know what is exactly incorrect. I suppose that the hot load specified hanger design method in both versions, 4.5 and 5.1 is the same.


____________________
Regards,
Dagoberto Gonzalez.

The problem was that if you specified the "hot load" in the input, essentially over-riding the hot load value that CAESAR II would compute, that (input) load wasn't distributed correctly. If you didn't specify an over-riding hot load in the input, there is no problem.

The design procedure is the same between 4.50 and 5.10.