Having used Caesar II v4.4 and v4.5, I find that entering data via the piping input can be very time consuming (up to 70% of the project time). For future versions, how about creating a graphics-driven interface?

It would be nice if the user can build the model from a toolbar or a drop down menu. For example, Insert->Bends, right click to enter bend properties etc.

In graphics mode, the user will be able to create complicated piping arrangements without the risk of incorrect node numbering or ridiculous geometry.

Most of the framework for this type of application already exists in Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC) such that object inheritance can be easily applied to all elements.

In fact, it wouldn't be that difficult to implement the new interface. Since Caesar is already using the OpenGL protocol, it is simply a matter of writing a bunch of DLLs to bolt onto the existing app.

Anyway, this is my 2 cents worth...

Graphics building would be nice.....In the future would it also be possible to enable the worksheets to be copied in to excel, manipulated and then copied back into CAESAR II?? Some way of keeping track of node numbers already used would be nice as well so half my model didn't shoot into outerspace because I have used a node number that has already been used before - would be especially useful for when working with models created by someone else as you have no idea how they have defined their node numbers.

Miss Itchy,

Use the coordinate list window and excel to get you a sorted list of the nodes that exist in the model...

Highlight the data in the CAESAR II window Ctrl C and ctrl V will then paste it into a blank excel sheet, then use the text to columns command to delimit the text.

Or export the data via the ODBC transfer see the last newsletter.

MH -

Things are a whole lot more complicated than that. The next version (Version 5.00) will have some graphics input/editing ability, but I think you'll find the spreadsheet input method much more precise.

We will continue to improve the graphics abilities in the software, so user comments and suggestions are always welcome.

<hr>

Miss Itchy -

With someone else's model, that has a "less than intelligent node numbering scheme", you could always use the LIST processor to renumber all the nodes. You will loose the original numbering, but if it jumps all over the place this isn't a big loss.

Version 5.00 will help out with this also, because the graphics will be active next to the spreadsheet by default. So if you make a coding mistake, you'll know instantly.

Is there a target date for v.5.0? And is there a deadline for submitting suggestions? hehe

You can make suggestions at any time.

Absolutely no apologies for repeating myself. Can we have the dos version function keys (Or equivalent programmable keys) to move around the input spread sheet. The biggest drain on effort and a real pain is having to stop using the keyboard to use the mouse to jump to another area of the screen in a non-sequential manner. eg for editing

While we're doing suggestions I'd second the
nominations for

1. Better spreadsheet (oh wait, that's what
you call the main window, I guess I mean
list) editing (move group up
or down comes to mind)

2. In both spreadsheet and list format, keys
I'd like either programmable or something like
alt-b - adds bend at to node
alt-y - adds +y at to node with default (user
defined) friction)
and I guess If I'm doing that, then might as
well have alt-G and alt-L with user default gaps.

and while we're at it...

3. Would be nice to have the break command
allow you to pick from which end so I can be
lazy and not have to figure out how much
20'-one flange is all the time.

and some sort of a goal seek, essentially
make the distance from A to B X by changing
dimension from C to D.

Shannon

My suggestion for future versions is to make the Stress Summary a separate choice in the report output. I like to get all my Code stress evaluations in one spot and then the Code Compliance Report. It takes some editing in Word to do this now.

OK, I have an easy one here (I hope) add
a "properties" tab to the file menu on the
input screen. (Otherwise for a long path or
filename there appears to be no way to check
what file you're in). Also the update for the
file name on the main Caesar screen doesn't seem
to work if you change which file you're working
on from the input screen.

SLH

Another item on the wish list would be the ability to enter all nodes in global co-ordinates rather than local co-ordinates.

Also I know we can now name nodes but alpha-numeric node numbering would be nice.

SLH,

"1. Better spreadsheet (oh wait, that's what
you call the main window, I guess I mean
list) editing (move group up
or down comes to mind)"

You can do this at the moment using the block command.

Cheers

I have a suggestion regarding a requirement we have been needing the most. That is regarding the composite analysis. If the structural engineer's design activities are done on STAAD, the STAAD model could be imported to CAESAR to make the composite study. This will save lot of time required to remodel the structure already modeled by Structural Engineer. In short STAAD and CAESAR should be compatible.

I'd like to suggest adding the capability of analyzing uniform loads in units of both "g"s and Force/length in one run. It would be nice to have all the required outputs (stresses, restraint loads, etc.) in one report.

Uhm I see block copy etc, I don't see
"move this part to somewhere that makes more sense"

IE I can copy to the end of the block or to
the end of the file, but not to a random location
in the file.

(I can sometimes do what I want to do by copying
and deleting appropriate sections but it's
annoying and slow).


If there's a "move" command, it must be hidden
:-)

Yes you can do this now. After you block the elements you want, use the [up] or [down] arrow keys to move the current element pointer. The copied block will go after this current element pointer.

This concept is discussed in one of the CAESAR II Tips articles in the reference section of this web site. Here is a direct link to applicable article.

There are other tips articles and FAQs on this site that you will find helpful.

Got it, thanks. I'd skimmed through the tips
but missed that tidbit.


[/QUOTE]Yes you can do this now. After you block the elements you want, use the [up] or [down] arrow keys to move the current element pointer. The copied block will go after this current element pointer.

This concept is discussed in one of the CAESAR II Tips articles in the reference section of this web site. Here is a direct link to applicable article.

There are other tips articles and FAQs on this site that you will find helpful. [/QB][/QUOTE]

OK, just needed a move, I guess that is still
not there? Or did I miss that too (changed
a tee to an elbow and had to move associated
piping for elbow definition.

Shannon


Yes you can do this now. After you [b]block the elements you want, use the [up] or [down] arrow keys to move the current element pointer. The copied block will go after this current element pointer.

This concept is discussed in one of the CAESAR II Tips articles in the reference section of this web site. Here is a direct link to applicable article.

There are other tips articles and FAQs on this site that you will find helpful. [/b][/QUOTE] [/QB][/QUOTE]

No the LIST doesn't have a Move command yet.

hi
My suggestion for next version is about fluid density field.Some places we have to modify fluid density (eg. filter, strainer etc) for stimulate inline components weight.

regards

Hi senthil,

I'm a little confused by your suggestion.

I use RIGID ELEMENTS w/ WEIGHT to simulate the weight of in-line components.

If your talking about a conical strainer, ignore it or add it to your flange weight.

If you adjust the fluid density, it's too easy to forget to adjust it back.

Regards,

Hi Richard,

Your quote:
"Yes you can do this now. After you block the elements you want, use the [up] or [down] arrow keys to move the current element pointer. The copied block will go after this current element pointer.

This concept is discussed in one of the CAESAR II Tips articles in the reference section of this web site. Here is a direct link to applicable article."
Yes, I have seen this, and tried it many times in desperation, but it does not work for me. If I press "up" and "down" arrows it only scrools between three choices on the "duplicate" dialog box. If I press Page Up and Page Down, nothing happens. Am I missing something?
Regards
Ranka

RS,

You need to move the element pointer right after you highlight the block, before you click the "duplicate option".

CII made many giant steps forward in the eighties. It also made a giant step backwards in not being able to add comments. 25 years ago you could add comments to text based input.

Following an old calc is virtually impossible. Was that restraint assumed to be a hanger rod or did I forget to add friction ? If you can't understand what you or anybody else did 3 months ago, the calc is worthless.

The "excuse" for not including a comment field was that nobody would agree on its length. I would want about 40-50 Chars. Enough for "Dimension estimated", "Guide support assumed", "Trial dimension". Any longer notes could be covered by a cross reference "See Note 1" etc.

Ok, it is possible to add comments to the title sheet. This is labour of love because you have to move to the front sheet, find a place to make the note, cross refer you comment to the element and then get back to the element you started from. A week later you merge the calc and renumber nodes. Your comments are now ratsh*t.

Any insurer or public body inspector doing serious QA on calcs as opposed to simply checking signatures should demand full annotation and comments of every calculation.

Having Used PS+CAEPIPE, CAESAR, AUTOPIPE following are my personal views:

Caesar II needs to Improve the Graphical User Interface a lot. The Graphical Input or Output interface features are very limited as of now.

For example ,The output screen in Autopipe allows an user to see the Displacments, Forces etc by Clicking on the model and moving thro the model using arrow keys on the screen. This I found is very useful.

An option to mdofiy the model thro the Spreadsheet or Graphical interface( on screen editing) will be a good value.

CNODE:
For an application Piping Stress Engineer, does it really require to know about a term " Cnode ".
The use of Common Stress Engineers terms would be better.

Neelam,

I agree with all your points, except the last one.

An application Piping stress engineer SHOULD KNOW AND UNDERSTAND the term C-Node else he/she should not work in Pipe Stress.It does not matter if the terminology C-Node is replaced by alpha, Beta or Gamma.

Regards

Anindya Bhattacharya

I agree with Mr. Bhattacharya the cnode function is one of the most powerful boundary conditions that the program has.

Cnode is short for Connecting node which is self descriptive.

A truly wise man knows what he does not know...

You can do this now. Click on the "Grid Review" toolbar button. As you click on items in the grid, the corresponding pipe is highlighted. Conversely, if you click on a pipe, the corresponding dataline in the grid is highlighted.

You could always modify the model from the spreadsheet or LIST, and see the graphics update (assuming you had enough screen real estate to have both open). With Version 5.00 there will be "some" editing capabilities in the input graphics.

With regards to CNODEs, you're right, this isn't a common Stress Engineer's term. A CNODE is simply a restraint construct that associates degrees of freedom. We needed a term for this, hence the use of CNODE, or "connecting node". The alternative would be either:

a) require the user to define polynomial constraint equations, or
b) require the user to define zero length dummy (expansion joint) elements to define the stiffness connectivity.

Both ideas are very error prone in actual usage.

<font color="#ff0000">Just for the record, there will not be a "Version 4.60". The version that follows 4.50 will be "Version 5.00".</font>

Wish List for Version 5.00:

How about adding a graphic to API 610, NEMA SM23, etc. (It would be nice to tell at a glance that one has the shaft centerline in the correct direction and the nozzles properly located.)

Yes your right, this would be a nice addition. I'll add it to the list.

I would like to fully endorse Andrew Weighell comment above about being able to add a comment in each element entry. This would be an invaluable feature.

One of the trends on fast track projects is that the checking of stress analysis is left to the tail end of the project in an attempt to get the deliverables out the door faster. This means that quite often calcs are left for months before they are checked and even the engineer who did the calc can not remember all the reasons for the assumptions made. This feature would save time and add integrity to Caesar II analyses.

To pick up on the graphical input thread above…. DON’T DO IT!... my personal experience with some of the programs referenced above is that, yes the geometry may be a bit easier to input to start with, but adding the rest of the data is a lot harder and prone to error than the Caesar spreadsheets and lists.

Well said Nigel... but its a click this and click that hurry up world...

Thanks Nigel for support on my request for a comment field.

I would also agree with Nigel on GUI. The present CII input is not perfect for everybody but it is 95% there. I am more than happy with the overall approach and definitely would not want it changing.

The movers and shakers might be easily impressed by slick interfaces but in my 20 years experience, Stress Calc input is never on the critical path. Input is only a small percentage of the calc process. Even if input could be improved by 10%, it would only be 10% of 20% which is an even smaller number. My support goes with any modification that improves the other 80% of the calc process or adds new calc features.

A cattle prod programmed to require pipe supports to be located on piping arrangements at practicable locations would be my modification of choice.

"""re..For example ,The output screen in Autopipe allows an user to see the Displacments, Forces etc by Clicking on the model and moving thro the model using arrow keys on the screen. This I found is very useful.""
I must be getting really old... this feature used to be in the old DOS version. it was OK sometimes but not enormously useful, maybe in Windows it could be enhanced. eg.by pre-selecting what appears. I found all the numbers to be oversaturating, kind of like drinking from a fire hydrant.

Rich and i discussed notes for many years., apparently not an easy programming problem. Personally I think its essential and think it would be an enormous enhancement. I wonder why 3M"post it" notes software couldnt be added to the package", it must be a cheap rental by now an would be a quickie solution. Obviously something
custom written would be better, but something is better than nothing.

I agree that the GUI is pretty good now but some of the proposals herein are excellent. However re
"cattle prod supports to be located on piping arrangements at practicable locations"
location is dependant on where the steel is
(except for grade level) so this could be a largely useless whistle".. a prompt wouldnt hurt like the Wthick warning. (see also the next para)

For those who dont know some years ago COADE and STAAD almost came together. For the users and "merged models" this would have been great. I'm sure the concept is still on the burner, its the way to go. (maybe via CADWORX)

however I definitely agree that the rest of the input methods in the other programs leave a LOT to be desired , the few glitzy easy begining steps dont compensate for the later headaches.

cheers
al

I was being facetious. The cattle prod is for use mainly on the small minority of designers who after years of begging and pleading still insist on modelling or drawing pipe routes either a) without support locations shown (support locations NOT type) or b) in unsupportable locations.

I am using CAESAR II version 4.4. With this version, it is not possible to take print out of soil properties and description of buried elements through MS word. Modification on this would be useful to the users.
In a piping system, if more than one code (e.g.-31.3 and 31.4) is applicable, Stress Summary does not address this code break properly. It always indicates the last code specified in the input model.
We have noticed that co-efficient of expansion (alpha) for Duplex Stainless Steel(DSS, S31803)in CAESAR II data base is same as austenitic SS. As per ASME BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE, section II- part D, table TE-1, for DSS ( group 2 material) alpha value is lesser than austenitic SS.CAESAR II database should be updated for the correct values.