If you were looking to hire an engineer who would be tasked with pipe stress analysis, what sort of questions would you ask in order to qualify their knowledge of CAESAR II and their skills in modeling, analysis and redesign?

We are considering the implementation of a CAESAR II Certification exam. Do not confuse this certification with the certificate we issue to all who attend our current CAESAR II training. That certificate indicates only that the recipient attended our statics or dynamics class and does not signify any level of knowledge or skill in using our program. It is our hope that this CAESAR II certification will serve both piping engineers and managers in qualifying those skills and knowledge.

As I see it, there are several topics in this test:

1. Basis for calculation (Establish design criteria)
. a. F=KX
. b. Modes of piping failure
. c. Code-defined stresses and their limits
. d. Piping codes
. e. Selecting spring supports
2. CAESAR II navigation (“How do I…”)
. a. Create a new model
. b. Edit an existing model
. c. Set global defaults (Configuration)
. d. Manipulate plots
. e. Utilize toolbars
. f. Define/edit load cases
. g. Review results
. h. Create reports
3. Modeling (static)
. a. Generate an appropriate model from a stress isometric
. b. Linear v nonlinear boundary conditions (including friction)
. c. Restraint types
. d. Bend rule (required element sequence)
. e. System origin
. f. Correcting modeling errors
. g. Adjust piping code criteria
. h. Duplicating, manipulating data
4. Output review
. a. Verify input
. b. Review hanger selection
. c. Produce structural results (loads on restraints, displacements)
. d. Produce stress results
. e. Create a complete stress report
5. Problem diagnosis and correction (design skill)
. a. Recognize & correct poor modeling
. b. Identify poor design/layout (stress, load, position)
. c. Correct poor design – both collapse and fatigue
. d. Reduce equipment loads
6. CAESAR II dynamic analysis
. a. Proper node spacing
. b. Modal analysis
. c. Verifying/Improving the dynamic model
. d. Types of CAESAR II dynamic analysis
7. Practical application / Special topics
. a. For a given drawing, create and document a complete analysis
. b. For a given overstressed model, provide a fix
. c. FRP/GRP
. d. Buried pipe
. e. Cumulative damage

REQUEST NUMBER 1: What’s missing here? I would appreciate your criticism and additions to this list of exam topics.

Now we at COADE can certainly generate many, many questions for such a test. But you, our program users have a differing and perhaps more important view of our software. I am looking for your input regarding this exam in order to make it a useful indicator of competency.

REQUEST NUMBER 2: Do you have any specific questions in mind for this hypothetical new hire with CAESAR II experience?

If you want your point of view included in this exam, please response to these requests by entering a reply. Should the volume become excessive (and I hope it does), I will move this thread to its own forum.

Thank you.

There are a few general engineering topics mixed in with the CAESAR 2 specific items.

Sections 1 & 7 appear to be going the right direction, but as I read them these following items belong in a new section "engineering concepts":

5.b, 5.c, 5.d, and maybe 7.b.

These questions aren't particular to CAESAR II. I understand this "test" would identify those ready to sit down, plug in, and churn out work with your software. That's excellent. But there are other populations out there that managers may wish to hire or avoid... for instance:
1. The computer wizard who doesn't know piping engineering.
2. The expert engineer who is technologically handicapped.
3. The engineer who knows some other software.

Maybe that information doesn't immediately help COADE's bottom line but please don't prejudice a manager against Case #3 who may turn into an excellent CAESAR II user. Similarly, Case #2 may make an excellent QA/QC guy even if he isn't quick with the inputs. Properly categorizing questions and clearly reporting them is key.

SP

Many people can generate CAESAR II models and produce output - that's a technical
ability, that's program navigation. But engineering skill is required to
verify the model, interpret results and redesign systems. Some managers and users figure that such skill is included with the purchase of CAESAR II. No, the engineer provides the skill; we "just" supply the tool. For this exam to be more useful, that engineering skill must also be demonstrated.
So yes, this exam is intended to verify both program navigation and engineering skill.
Sections 1 & 5 are intended to work on the skill side. The intent of 7.b. ("For a given overstressed model, provide a fix") is to blend the navigation with the skill.
Is this too far-reaching? Should we have two separate levels - technical (navigation and input) and engineering (verification, diagnosis and modification)?
Thanks for your input.

G'day Dave,

Will the certification exam be available at the end of the course or does this need to be conducted another day? Will this be offered as an online test (but then who is going to police this?) and will this exam also be offered by your dealers from different countries? Jusk asking due to the logistics and cost involved in sending personnel (potentially) twice.

Thanking you in advance and a Belly Merry Christmas.

There need not be a direct link between CAESAR II training and this certification exam.
Current thinking is to work it so that our dealers can offer this online exam. The dealers can schedule a test when and where they can can satisfy demand.
We are currently working with Tony Horn and his video training course for CADWorx Plant Professional. He is launching a similar certification program for CADWorx. I'm sure we'll learn more as we go forward with the CADWorx program.
That said, I also expect this exam to be offered at the end of our training class. But where do we find the time for such a detailed test? Anyone who has attended our training knows we already pack in a lot of information. But with a certification test in place, the class content will change as well. Why? Because the class content will change to fit the test. (While "teaching the test" is a frowned-upon concept in today's public schools, it's certainly valid for such specific topics as "Pipe Stress Analysis using CAESAR II".) With seminar content streamlined to fit these better-defined goals, I think we'll find the time to conduct this test at the end of our course (perhaps to the chagrin of those who wish to depart early from the last day of our class).

I'm still looking for suggestions on the scope of this certification exam. And I would like some specific ideas for test questions.

Happy Holidays...

Dave,

The measurement of piping stress analysis skills by tests could be separated into a statics topics test and a dynamics topics test like the divisions of the seminars (your topics 6 & 7). I agree with you that "engineering skill is required to verify the model, interpret results and redesign systems." Maybe a preliminary test would have visual evaluation of different piping systems to decide whether stress analysis would be required along with the particular problems or results to focus on for the stress analysis. Some of the questions on the forum do reflect a lack of experience to judge the relative importance of different aspects of piping design and its stress analysis (your topic 5). A good design avoids many problems, while a poor design may result in over-simplified analysis that hides a piping problem of stress, loads, or deflections. The approach to split into "two separate levels - technical (navigation and input) and engineering (verification, diagnosis and modification) could put the proper emphasis on the engineering aspect.

Sounds a good idea to me.

It would be good to have two levels of certification perhaps. One being Caesar II statics, and on being Caesar II statics plus dynamics.

Building models people are use to working to different codes so that could make it a little difficult. Or would it be specifically based around the ASME codes? Could the exam be a series of base questions and then perhaps choose 2 out of 3 questions on more specific areas?

We have used a simple model building excercise when we have been looking at employing people who say they are CAESAR II users, and we include things like thermal displacements of nozzles and rupture dis reaction loads, as we have found this is a good way to check setting up the load cases correctly. An example where you had to consider more than one or two hot cold combinations could be good as well. It does quickly frighten off people who perhaps can not use CAESAR II to the level they say they can.

I like the idea, except is this a costly program that the individual is likely to pay?
Afterall if you have gainful employment you need not have the certificate. How likely is it that your employer will pay for a certificate proving skills they know you have already?

Industry wise I think this is good quality control that doesn't allow the skill/value of the pipe stress engineer to become diluted.

Thoughts & Opinions Welcome.

Thanks Richard.
I agree that certification should cover both the technical and engineering aspects. I'm not sure if they should be separate components, each with their own pass/fail grade or a single grade over all aspects.
While it could be part of such an exam, I don't think COADE would be the best author of a "visual evaluation" portion. Maybe you guys can help here too...

Itchy,

You bring up a good point. As I see it, the exam would focus on B31.3 rules. I see items such as transportation or power code application, dynamics and such would be additional qualifications that would have their own test components if these topics will be noted on the certificate.

Thanks for the specific items.

Perseus,

Yes, such certification would be most valued by individuals who are changing employers and do not have a well developed resume. But companies, too, may benefit if they could state that their engineers are CAESAR II certified.

Dave,

I agree with Richard's opinions of the two levels, technical level and engineering level.

Reviews by a qualified senior piping stress engineer for a piping stress analysis could be an important step especially for a complicated system. Engineering reviews could be from the views of process, civil, material, installation, test, maintenance, FEA, cost and the previous experiences, and could find the “hided” problems, evaluate piping movements, reduce stress level, etc. So the “exam” could be hard for this level and not included in any software.

Caesar II is one of piping stress analysis tools which contains many theories and engineering practices. COADE has provided many ways to support the users, for example, many user manuals, magazines and the forums. So I think the exam would be one of these helps for engineers and users to properly use the tools. For this, below topic could be added:
1. restraint stiffness adjustment and evaluation,
2. support loads for civil,
3. divide models and model boundary conditions,
4. properly define restraints, loads and friction.

Merry Christmas,
Carter

Carter,

Yes, this test cannot avoid the requirement to serve under an experienced engineer. See B31.3 para. 301.1 - Qualifications of the Designer. But it can assess the engineer's ability to "turn the crank" in CAESAR II and use the results.

Thank you for the specific topics. That's what I'mn after here.

Are there any (other) tasks you would expect a "capable" CAESAR II engineer to perform?

Hi Dave

I definitely would have two level certification. One for the use of the program (Building model) and the other to figure out the design and analyze the results. First part is definitely for COADE certification but the other? Where to draw a limit certifying a CAESAR II expert and where true piping engineer?

If I would be a boss of a company supplying large number of design calcs I would definitely have two level people working on a pipe stress program. Those who can build a model and those who can analyze it. Reason for this is pure cost and availability. It is easy and quick to train model builders but you still need to know their skill level. To find one who is a pipe designer or train one is a different issue. As the plan is to have CAESAR II certification so maybe the limit would be that the "engineer" should be a CAESAR II guru. Anything over this is for professional engineering bodies.

Jouko,

We spend a good bit of class time in our CAESAR II seminars with engineering - how to reduce stress. I guess that's why I figured we should also test that. But, once we agree on what the test should hold, we can adjust the curriculum accordingly.
I make a point in out class to state that ours is an analytical rather than practical approach. Analytically, I could show you a high sustained stress and you might add a support to reduce that stress; if I show you a high expansion stress, you would add flexibility. If I ask you to add a loop to reduce a bending moment on a pump, you will have to select the best leg to add the loop. I think we can teach and test such engineering skill. This analytical skill alone will not be sufficient to properly engineer a piping system but it is worth evaluating.
As long as we clearly indicate what the test actually "tests", I think a manager will be able to use our results.
Generally speaking, though, I agree that the test should segregate CAESAR II navigation and "analytical skill" or engineering.

Dave,

Part of the examination should ascribe to few "idosyncracies" unique to CAESAR II program. Examples are (1) that the intersection node of an elbow actually means the end node, (2) iteration of calculations due to the presence of friction force or a short rod element, (3) that any CAESAR II element is no more than a "stick," not a "volume" as shown on graphics, (4) hot restrained vs cold restrained analysis approach, (5) the vertical component of an earthquake, and (6)the allowable stress determination relating to a dynamic fatigue analysis.

Ignorance of those situations and the remedies thereof could lead to a misrepresentation of the analysis made, unfortunately.

A FE Analysis tool has a certification program that it offers online. You may or may not be familiar with it, but it offers you the chance to get certified in several areas of the program: basic modeling, changing models, finite element analysis, a sheet metal program, etc. Each test costs money so that they cannot be taken unlimited times in order to achieve a "PASS." I can see this being used for this certification. For modeling and basic manipulation of the program, there can be a series of isometrics or something to go by. At the end, you enter the fluid weight, pipe weight, centers of gravity, etc. and if those numbers match the correct numbers within a 5% range, it is considered passing. Then you can walk through an operating case with temperatures and displacements, and you can ask them to size a spring hanger, or identify overstressed nodes (I know everyone has different node sequencing schemes) and the percentage of overstress, pipes lifting off supports, or some other criteria for ensuring they can correctly identify problems. This techinique cannot certify all of the points in your first post, but it can certify knowing the CAESARII tool. Engineering knowledge can be submitted by written responses, but I imagine you are worried about fraud. Engineering ethics have to be used. Just my 2 cents. I like this idea of being certified. I would take it just to find out what I do and do not know! Thanks,

DK

Darren,

You bring up some subtle but interesting points. Thank you.

DK,

Unfortunately, fraud is a concern. We would require some sort on monitor to verify the test environment and test taker.

I agree with your approach - asking for significant numbers from an analysis to confirm that the model was built and analyzed "correctly".

Maybe we could establish two tests - the official certification exam and a second (free?) self-assessment where users can run through a series of questions on their own. But there I go; we don't even have a test built and already I'm talking about having two!

Thank you for your thoughts.

Dave Diehl,

You have not included the topic of "Expansion Joint" in modelling. Improper modelling of bellows will change the output result.

Regards,

I would welcome to conduct this test by COADE. In India, only IBR qualified welders can only be used for welding the critical lines in power plant.

As like this, if the client/consultant specify in their specification that
that only "CII Certified" has to carryout the stress analysis then this will be pre-requiste for all the companies to have a certified person in their company to quote for the job.

Regards,

That's a difficult issue.
If certification was recognized, then engineers would seek certification. If engineers were certified, then companies would seek them.
What comes first? Since employers are not requesting any standard verification that an engineer is capable of manipulating CAESAR II; it seems as if the starting point is with COADE - to develop a program and make it "popular".

My response may be beyond the useful life of this topic. But let me put ME THINKS for records.

You say <>

Then, the exam should be lot more about the tool, then for the engineering aspect of it.

The certification will, as minimum, reflect the knowledge of the TOOL. Additinally, it may also reflect the minimum engineering expertise that is required to be able to use the TOOL.

As it is the case for all professional licences and certifications, practice only makes it worthwhile.

I think the certification may be more on line with Microsoft certifications on MS Applications, with minimum necessary engineering knowledge added for the CAESAR II.

Dahya,

Thanks. I'm still watching this...

Biggest problem ic ome acroos WRT stress engineers is not Academic ( An area i am weaker in myself), but rather an appreciation of piping and an inane engineering abillity.

Example,

We had a very,very,very qualified engineer in here a few years ago. It took me ages to figure out why he had changed the stiffness matrix of an entire run of pipe. Only when he explained that the pipe shoe ran the full length of the pipe did i understand his error.

Similarly nuclear stress engineers who put everything into a CII model without excemption (they should be shot IMHO)

Having gun laws is the easy bit, stopping people from shooting each other is a bit harder.


Regards
(Oh, and i should spend some more time here TBH...)

Hi Dave,

Is there any exam out there for CAESAR II now? And what about the Tony Horn training Video?

In nowadays better to learn some PDS. You will be more successful than a stress engineer, and more important, you will not do any harm to anybody.

regards,

Dave
Why do you want to call it CAESAR II exam?? why not stress engineering licensing ?? since you are generally speaking about stress engineering more than only using the CAESAR II !!

We know CAESAR II so we could test for CAESAR II knowledge. As a software vendor, we have no recognized standing as a pipe stress engineering authority.

Since the original posting here, I have learned that Intergraph will not certify an individual as a "qualified CAESAR II user". There will be no Intergraph-sponsored CAESAR II certification.