In India, infotech industry is building a database of all employees in the BPO industry to tighten quality checks in their integrity & committment to ensure the highest standards of privacy.

Similarly, in safety related field of piping stress analysis using Caesar-II, can't industy bodies enforce some quality checks, as from just caesar-II inputs & outputs, it is not understood whether the work is performed with required dedication & committment.

Often,it is seen some works are outsourced in three levels to incompetent people who carry out Caesar-II runs.

Before some interested parties carry out any sting operation, we need to have reality check on pipe stress analysts. Due to the greed of some smart operators,the high reputation of all pipe stress analysts can't be sacrificed.

regards,

sam

I agree with you, atleast this exercise will segregate "Pipe Stress Analysts" from "Caesar-II Operators".
Regards,
John

Dears,

I expected more participation from the community on this issue.

The simple fact that engineers need to be honest to their customers & cultivate an attitude of service seems passe' today. Our CEOs present the vision which remains hidden in the back of our swipe cards. If we do not follow what we are told to do, how can we expect to develop !

After all, as you sow, so shall you reap!

We must not remain shy & devise some way to make the right thing easy and the wrong thing hard. We earn by providing value to our customers after all, must not allow them to be fooled with print-outs churned by non-professionals.

Let us do something constructive in this direction!


regards,

sam

Sam,

This is an issue which should have been addressed to much earlier. Not just in Asia but all over. Reference to many ordinary posts in this forum, incompetancy is all over the globe not just in Asia.

May be an eligibility Test (Certification Test)as do in software shall be conducted by the code to refine the number of so called "Analysts" around the globe. Ofcourse certification shall be made mandatory.

Looking at some of the basic questions posted in the forum, it would'nt be fair to make the induvidual alone guilty. Curse those firms which make them to carry out engineering without giving them a proper or even a basic training on the subject. Curse those people who supervise their work sitting as seniors above them who obviously does'nt want to teach the younger generation or doest'nt share any of their experience with the younger generation.

Together its the attitude which has to change not just with ignorant but also with the people who keep them ignorant.

Back in 1998 in response to Mr. Paul Woorhaar starting an excellent web site dedicated to stress engineers with 15+ years experience I wrote:

“I had to certify numerous calculations of fellow pipe stress analysts and in 17 years of my experience many times witnessed cases of misuse of computer software in engineering design. Quite often I had discussions with colleagues about this worrying trend and was delighted when I saw that someone on the other side of the globe has actually started a campaign on this topic…
In Australia, there is no organisation such as Stoomwezen, so we are even more exposed to the syndrome of "smooth talking colleagues", "least trouble equals good performance" and "managers who make profit their only objective". It has all indeed contributed to the decline in quality and safety of designs.
Not long ago however we did have a body called D.O.L. (Department of Labour) which had a mandate at least on paper, to perform verification of piping stress analysis. Unfortunately this function has been taken away from them and piping stress analysis has become a sole responsibility of clients and consequently engineering design and consulting firms. When this happened, many companies in order to protect themselves, developed comprehensive piping stress analysis procedures and guidelines. The so called third party verification of stress analysis work become mandatory and is occasionally subcontracted to outside companies but most of the time, for obvious cost reasons performed within the company by an engineer not directly involved on the project.
In spite of the fact that all this satisfies and probably exceeds the requirements of Australian code and ISO 9001, it still is not enough to guarantee that stress reports are complete or correct. In my opinion, no administrative measure will be able to guarantee this because as you pointed out, no person is the same and there are various approaches to solving similar problems. For the same reason, much is always going to be dependent on the experience, knowledge and other qualities of an individual stress analyst.
I believe that it is an excellent idea to form a database of graded experienced stress engineers…..”
This of cause was possible in Holland where stress calculations needed approval by notified body called Stoomwezen , but what about the rest of the world?
Seven years down the track when I read this, I could see that the decline in quality which Mr. Woorhar rightfully noticed back then, didn’t show any signs of stagnation, on the contrary it has become worse. It is especially bad in places without regulating authorities and where clients accept work from consulting firms which take no liability for what they do. In such places you can indeed expect to see anything. I have also noticed that the qualities of individual stress engineers mentioned above can make only minor difference if there are no procedures, systems and guidelines in place, either internally developed or externally imposed and there is no culture developed which is needed for this kind of work. By culture I mean that people willingly accept that regulations serve not to oppress them but to protect the quality of our work. Unless all this happens and with the old generation getting closer to retirement, unfortunately my opinion is that we will see the decline getting even worse.

In the world of today which in economic terms is small and getting smaller... the cost of things drives everything so that cheapest wins without regard to such niceties as competence. And my experience has it that incompetent practioners are usually the cheapest out there.

I have been thinking about this issue since Sam posed the question. I think it goes perhaps even deeper than that. Most real (or would be) pipe stress analysts are mechanical engineers. The first problem seems to be that the ME field is so broad (machine design, HVAC, pressure technology (us guys), etc.) that one must specialize and at the same time generalize. So, how many piping structural analyses does the “generalist” do in one year? How much total experience does he/she have in 20 years? Not long ago (?) some design firms had a “pipe stress department” with 30 full time piping engineers. The department was also responsible for drawing up the hanger details. Some of the pipe support manufacturers would offer the stress analysis and hanger detailing as part of the cost of supplying the pipe hangers (they had their own piping engineers). So OK, those days are over.

Next comes the problem of learning how to be a competent piping engineer (pipe stress designer/analyst) -- how many universities have an undergraduate COURSE (let alone whole major programs) in "Piping Engineering"? Structural design of piping systems is very much unlike any other type of structural design. Yes, pi is still pi in any engineering field but pressure technology in general and piping design in particular are unique in many ways. At this time the most effective way to get a sudden infusion of piping structural analysis knowledge is to go to a seminar. But there is also a problem there - three days will not put a dent in it. It almost takes that long just to explain the concepts that the piping Codes are based upon. I can tell you from having done such seminars for 30 years that it takes a good solid 5 days of three hour module in the AM and three hour module in the PM to cover the most important topics. I give a quiz before I start the seminar and give the same quiz at the end of the seminar. I quantify how good a job I did in communicating the concepts.

THEN, you have to learn the tool! CAESAR II is the most user friendly piping structural analysis program that I have ever used. BUT it is comprehensive in its utility. I have been using CAESAR II since it first came on the scene (slightly after the Crimean War) and I am sure I have not mastered all the "bells and whistles" (CAESAR II support people will verify that). Sadly, there are many people using software of all types that have no concept of the science. It has always been that way with engineering computer software. Management seems to think that buying the software is a SUBSTITUTE for having a competent piping engineer on the staff.

"Back in the day" (Navy Mare Island Mec-21 program, fixed format punched cards, no graphics, no support, can't seem to find any books on the subject, what is this Markl paper that all the cognoscenti are talking about?....) it took so much persistence and devotion to detail just to make the program work that ONLY a very few (albeit, knowledgeable) engineers worked in the piping field (and they passed the "secret handshake" off to only a chosen few deserving young friends, you may kiss my ring). And yes, sadly, there will always be the group of elite “Super Analysts” who think that the great unwashed masses of plebeians are too far beneath them to bother wasting their precious time in educating (they post only demeaning comments on the discussion boards but offer no real help).

I can well remember when the software began to get easier to use and we olde tymers lamented "look at them; they believe that if the program runs to completion the analysis must be right (the "anything printed on 132 column green and white paper most be the truth" syndrome). By then we saw mere mortals (most with no training in the SCIENCE) trying to practice an art that was heretofore known only to certain deities and John Luf (redundant?).

Will things improve? NO. There is nothing to drive an improvement and nothing can be done at the "grass roots" level. It is all about money. The less experienced engineers are paid the least salary and that makes it less expensive to “get the work done” (and now much "engineering" is being shipped "off-shore" to be done by "engineers" (diploma from WHAT institution) where salaries are 25 percent of what otherwise would be paid). Three day seminars cost $1.2k to $1.5k (not including the cost of travel, housing, rental car and 8 hour days of overhead time). "Hey, what if the guy has us train him and takes that knowledge across the street to XYZ Company for a buck an hour more" - it is too "portable" to please the corporate bean counters. The only thing that will drive an improvement is if design firms are held accountable for ALL the costs of a failure caused by design mistakes. Then the insurance companies will be pressed into "damage control" (aka, "risk control") and begin to demand certification of the people doing the work. The government licenses engineers by testing (usually only once in a career) but few licenses require continuing education so the Science can "get past" the practicing engineer. Certifications will only be creditable if they are controlled by a government and if there is periodic re-certification to assure that the engineer is “current” in his/her knowledge. Right now, I believe there is a disconnect between the licensing bureaucrats and the profession. Most of the professional societies and some of the licensing governments support a “Code of Ethics” that among many other things tells the engineer (or asks him/her to promise) NOT to practice engineering beyond his/her area of expertise and level of competency. Has this Code been withdrawn while I was not looking?

Mentoring is a good idea and it could be organized by the professional societies at the local section level. BUT, many of the professional societies are in the "seminar business" and they are telling the local sections that they may not offer local seminars (because they cut into the profits but the "national" will not admit that motive). This board and other discussion boards are forums for mentoring. As Sam pointed out, “A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle. This noble act will promote creativity and a socially conscious society”. I might add, it also keeps the mentor’s mind involved in the science.

So, what is the poor up and coming piping engineer to do? Pay attention, try to get to a seminar (a good one by Glynn Woods or Ron Haupt or Chuck Becht), read the book by Woods and the book by Becht, for sure try to get to a CAESAR II training program and ask questions (even when “Super Analyst” slams you). There is an ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference every year – many good piping specific papers are presented (and have been for years). Seek out those papers (yes, some guy named Markl wrote one). See if you can “find” some of the Welding Research Council bulletins that are specific to (or near) the piping engineering science.

Other than that though, I guess I don’t have much of an opinion on the topic.

Myself and Forest Gump are not even close to deities.... however everybody knows Wal Mart has suceeded on a nearly worldwide basis because they have cheap goods for sale...

So in this small world of ours cheaper is always better...

Me... I hope to get a few crumbs fixing up stuff that the cheap people made a mess of.... Have a Happy Holiday (U.S.A. & Canada)

Things are not going to change until there is a seriously big bang in a plant that has been designed with external inspector approved QA.

The real numbers game is in external inspector's QA checks. Rather than deep slice checking they spend time on trivia and avoid the real issues like the plague. I have yet to find a pipe failure caused by an 5 mm dimension error in a CII calc. Other issues such as the tried and trusted sky hook pipe support are agressively overlooked.

A few years I was working on a project with the worst layout I have probably come across. Finding real and life threatening design fault should have been shooting fish in a barrel.

However, the only design fault found by the insurer was that we had incorrectly specfied Cl150 flanges for sat steam at 185 psi. Other little death trap issues like steam relief within the process building as specifically instructed by the Process "you'll effing do as I say" Engineer was ignored. The insurer informed everybody how clever he was about identifying our design fault. For some unknown reason, we never heard from him again.

(In fairness to the Insurer, another inspector noticed the indoor steam relief after the plant had been built).

Sam,
Speaking from a Petrochemical standpoint I think the problem of quality checks and incompetency in dealing with pipe stress calculations started a long long time ago, and it started in the west and is speading to the east.
I put the blame solely at the foot of corporate management. All too often if not always, Stress Engineers are responsible to Lead Piping Engineers who in most instances are not qualified Engineers and have very limited appreciation stress issues, and often have different agendas. As far as some of them are concerned, stress is an impedance to meeting those schedule dates. I know of many instances where manhours allocated for stresswork was wholly inadequete to do the job and often no manhours were allocated for checking calcs. For many years this has been the norm in the petochem industry and still is. Nothing has changed except in some European countries such as Holland where a more rigorous QA is applied.
I feel the impotus has to come from ASME, for instance ASME B31.3 should make it mandatory for all comprehensive stress calculations to be checked and approved by a Professional Engineer, this would go a long way to ensuring good QA.

A

Aaron,

While I feel your sentiments and heart is in the right place I will tell you rather frankly a P.E. license does not demonstrate competence as a matter of fact it means only that the person who has obtained it managed to pass an FE and a P.E. exam neither of which have any direct questions concerning piping analysis or the piping codes.

Your statement " feel the impotus has to come from ASME, for instance ASME B31.3 should make it mandatory for all comprehensive stress calculations to be checked and approved by a Professional Engineer, this would go a long way to ensuring good QA." ..... is answered by the qualifications of a designer listed right in the beginning of B31.3.

However cheap is best and thats all there is to matters.

I will also state that thousands died here in the U.S.A. before the adoption of a boiler code. My guess is until some disaster occurs due to poor work nothing will happen. And I would also speculate that said disaster is unlikely.

On July 4th,John C Luf's "cheap is best and thats all there is to matters." really hurts. I initiated this to cheer ourselves up.

It is no doubt that our hourly price matters in the short term perspective. But, from the stand point of brand image of the A/E firms we represent, it may be costly in the long run.

It does not require a disaster to prove a poor design. A poor design costs high in terms of high hardware cost & recurring O&M cost in this age of post-Kyoto regime of very high energy price.

We have to show that our hard-earned learning, experience, mental spark & open-mindedness add value to customers & with constant questioning & positive attitude, we have to keep ourselves relevant to the high-cost future market. We must try to make Customers realise that something coming cheap really cost high to them.

Wish You All in USA a very Happy Independence Day!
Let Lord reward the right & punish the wrong in Us.

regards,

sam

John C. Luf, My old Boss, Is out sourcing to India a good idea? I just completed the clean up in Bombay, India, before shipping to LNG Project. Thank you for teaching me.

Wish You All in USA a very Happy Independence Day!
Let Lord reward the right & punish the wrong in Us.

regards,

Leonard Thill, Changwon, Korea

Outsourcing is a consideration of economics a subject that this forum does not deal with. This thread is discussing competently performed work vs. incompetently performed work.

Unfortunately for as long as humans have been around chicanery, untruth, and lying have been part of our weaknesses.

Today cheaper is always better without regard to competence. The ASME is not a governmental body that regulates practitioners. Governments have attempted half-hearted measures but nothing definitive to my knowledge has become law.

SAM's Infotech is a large firm in India which I am sure realizes the acts of a few bunglers will hurt them. So Infotech is trying to self-regulate which is a good thing.

Hopefully the fakers, the liars will hurt nobody except themselves.

To add few points to the discussion:

In my personal opinion the primary reason for deterioration in quality is due to the fact ( this is applicable both in west and in east ) that the younger generation does not find the stress job "interesting" or "rewarding".

Interesting because "they don't have time to think " as they have to give "maximum output" in "minimum amount of time" courtesy computerized pipe stress analysis softwares where if the output comes in a red color it is "fail", else it is "pass".Also if CAESAR or any software shows higher loads at equipment( this is also a bane of too much of computerization as they do not bother to see what is written in those equipment standards but rely blindly on the software) add a loop here or there and do some iteration till CAESAR or any other software does not come out with the desired values.

In olden time we had good quality stress engineers as they did not have the luxury of computers to help them do their job and had to read these codes and standards to do them.I don't belong to the school of "old stress engineers' as I am in mid thirties but I was tought stress analysis by a gentleman who is sort of a contemporaty of Mr.Luf Or Mr. Breen and I revere him for his indepth knopwledge which I found missing in today's young stess engineers.

They don't find the job "rewarding" as in todays world an engineer has lost his reputation and pride which he earlier used to enjoy and he ( the stress engineer) is no longer a decision maker but a "software user" who is expected to perform miracle ( maximum output in minimum time )using the "software".

So then what is the solution.In my opinion till attitude does not change , there is no solution. In someway the stress analysts job should be more rewarding to draw fresh blood in this field who would enjoy their job and only then will the quality improve.

Lastly dishonesty is a growing epidemic not only confined to east but in west also.The reason why Leonard Thill had to "clean up" the work in Bombay because in India the average age of a stress engineer is thirty or less than that. So they in no way can meet the experience and knowledge of Mr. Thill.I think the same would happen in USA also if Mr. Thill checks the work of a stress engineer who is 3-4 yrs experienced.

India has a vast resouce of qualified and hard working persons ( not only cheap) and can produce excellent stress engineers ( the fact that a major population of engineers at NASA are people of indian origin supports my view )which would really justify outsourcing not only for price but also for quality .Only thing they need is a "more rewarding" job profile else the best of brains will go for management or administrative services.

I have personally visited USA on two occasions and found that the young generation of engineers over there also do not find the " stress analysts" job intersting , particularly because of the "maximum output in minimum time using the garbage-in-garbage-out concept" . If young generation in USA also do not get the right motivation and " reawrding environment", there will not be a second generation of stress engineers whom Mr. Luf Or Mr. Thill can pass their knowledge on.So this is a global problem and not confined to ASIA only.

Regards

In India, NASCOM is performing self-regulation in software & BPO industry.

We admire the positive attitude of our great mentors John C. Luf & John Breen. As Mr. Luf pointed out, our concern revolves round the
competently performed work vs. incompetently performed work. Locations or economies don't matter.

Error does not become a mistake until I refuse to correct it. Our professionals should not forget
that market never accepts inferrior items for long.

regards,

sam

Well Aaron, no offense intended to you personally, but I must take exception to your comment:

"I feel the impetus has to come from ASME, for instance ASME B31.3 should make it mandatory for all comprehensive stress calculations to be checked and approved by a Professional Engineer, this would go a long way to ensuring good QA."

You apparently have a gross misconception of how Codes and Standards work. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers has no legal jurisdiction in the issue you raise. ASME Codes are voluntary consensus documents that are written by committees of volunteers to a scope provided by the American National Standards Institute (our charter is to address design, fabrication, erection, testing and examination. The responsibility of the Code Committee is to try as best we can to codify the concept of good engineering practice. We cannot write LAWS - only your elected officials can do that. These Codes even when adopted by ANSI DO NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL force of law until they are adopted by the government by reference from a law or regulation - typically the local building Code (a Law) references the State of Province building Code which includes ASME B31 Pressure Piping Codes. THEN they have the force of law but only because they have become (by reference) part of the legal Code of Regulations. ASME does not issue Engineers licenses and it has no power to assure that any engineer complies with the Law. It is up to those people that you helped (I hope) to elect to enforce the law.

ASME B31.3 can only define words and terms used within their Code. B31.3 can define the intention of the Code, as written, in defining "responsibilities" of owner, designer, etc. but then it is up to your government to assure that the Law of the land is upheld. ASME does not have a police department.

Write your lawmaker.

Regards, John

My statement...

"Unfortunately for as long as humans have been around chicanery, untruth, and lying have been part of our weaknesses. "

Was intended for all of us, regardless of race, or where in the world you are sitting. I suspect that one of the things human first learned how to do was to lie to each other!

Dears,

In this discussion forum we have seen many people including myself taking help from experts like John C. Luf so easily without paying anything in return, sometimes paying back with hostility. From the recent issue of a newspaper in Kolkata, "The Telegraph", I am attaching an article to learn how we students should behave in front of our teachers like John Breen or John C.Luf. I am giving the responsibility of explaining the indian film context to non-resident indian piping engineers to our foreign friends & teachers.

regards,

sam
-------------------------------------------------
My Fundays
Ismail Darbar
This versatile music director has conquered the hearts of fans with his tunes in movies like Devdas and Kisna. he was in Calcutta a few weeks ago to judge the participants in a talent show contest
For four generations, we have been a family of musicians in Surat. My family had a band party called the Darbar Band. But there was no future in it. Business was seasonal. Income dried up in the monsoon when no weddings took place. Sometimes I used to accompany my father to the receptions. But the high-handed attitude of clients towards the musicians would hurt me.
I hated the municipality school I went to. It taught Urdu and Gujarati. Though it gave me the scope to be the lead singer on all big occasions like Independence Day, I dropped out after six months in class VI. Between the age of 11 and 13 years, I picked up a number of things — tailoring, folding mithai boxes, painting cars in a garage, zari work… But I never survived in any of them beyond three-four months. So when my father left for Mumbai, I left with him. All the neighbours laughed and said I would be back in four days. Though I was heart-broken to leave my sisters, elder brother and friends behind, my father made sure I hung on.
I was taken for violin lessons to Ramprasadji, father of Pyarelal Sharma of the famous Laxmikant-Pyarelal duo. Students from all backgrounds came for classes to him. Manoj Kumar’s son came in a Mercedes, while I landed up, bumping all the way in a bus. There were some students whose fathers were violinists in the industry. The music of the film Karz was being recorded then. They would come and play the tunes to impress others.
I could not afford to pay for tuitions. Instead, I would run all the errands of guruji. They stayed in a multistorey building without a lift. There were days when I would run up and down 25 times. My father always kept my spirits up, saying “Guruji ki sewa karoge to mewa khaoge (If you serve your teacher, you'll reap the benefits)”. When I used to massage him for hours at a stretch, he would bless me saying that I would become a bigger composer than Laxmikant-Pyarelal. Maybe the blessing worked. While the duo never got a National Award in their career, I got one for my first film Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam
-----------------------------------------------

This is my first response in this forum, even though I’ve been following it closely for quite some time. I’m a new entrant in this field with just around 4 yrs of experience. I just wanted to record my views as a younger generation representative. If I’m wrong, all my respected seniors pl. feel free to correct me.

As I observe from the discussions, I feel its all blame game. It’s a basic fact that any field will have new entrants. Unfortunately the time, in which young guys like me entered this field, the field is bombarded with software programs and fast paced projects. Many young guys like me (to my knowledge) are taking time out to learn the concepts and code requirements as we try and fulfill our Boss’s requirements, expectations the whole day. But to match up the knowledge level of all seniors, pl. understand we need some time. With the demanding work pressures, this is taking more than expected time. This situation is not a favorable one for young engineers but unfortunately we have entered that phase.

Now the question of who is a better stress engineer? I have heard two school of thoughts. One saying a guy with rich experience and practical knowledge is the best and another claiming a guy with strong theoretical concepts is the best. (Of course an ideal guy shud have an perfect blend of these 2). Bcos in a personal argument with a senior guy about spring hangers I was chided away by that senior for the fact that I have never seen a spring hanger even though I had theoretical base for that argument. (This is another potential topic for discussion!).

So on behalf of the young stress engineers I would like seniors to guide us. I would like my seniors to come up with some kind of learning activity chart.

Some of the issues that could be addressed include (pl. free to add many more)

What are the mandatory requirements to start with?
What other things to look for when we get familiarized with basics?
How important is practical knowledge, what are the things to look for?( I’m afraid we’ll never get practical exposure in the first 10 yrs of our career)
In this fast paced stress analysis world, how do we utilize the so called Garbage in – Garbage out process to learn?

It would be easier to say there’s so much available in net etc. u shud go in search of that? But what guidance can do to the learning process is unbeatable. I feel this is the time seniors do something concrete to transfer their knowledge to the younger generation.

Thanks for ur patience in reading my opinion.

Personally, I think practical experience in invaluable. I spent my college years interning at a couple of chemical companies and spent my days in the units working with operations and maintenance to solve problems. During my first few years out of school, I had several opportunities to work on projects that were staffed at the plant site and required a lot of time in the field working with the designers to figure out how to route the pipe through some congested pipe rack and still not break the nozzles off of some new drum we were shoe-horning into a facility. Being able to walk around these units and see how things are laid out and what they really do when they are up and running has been invaluable to me.

I'll admit, I can't to all the matrix algebra and calculus by hand that Caesar uses to approximate the behaviour of piping systems. But, I have learned over the years from this forum and from senior engineers that I've worked with (most notably Noble Stewart) what the limitations are and what the numbers really tell me about a system.

While theoretical knowledge is useful, I think, particularly with the fast paced computer driven nature of our business now, any practical experience you can get is going to be more valuable.

As for the notion that there need to be more broad based quality control standards to insure adequte checking - I think it's a nice idea, but I don't see it happening. To a degree, I think we are somewhat victims of our own success. I don't think I've ever actually heard of a major plant/refinery incident that was traced back to an improper stress analysis, even though there are a lot of systems in service that were improperly analyzed.

Errors in our field tend to show up more as maintenance issues - leaking flanges, worn pump seals, etc. But, with the the nature of the system, the client project manager isn't the same guy who has to maintain the plant down the line and isn't necessarily interested in spending money now (stress review) that will payoff later (lower maintenance cost) because those hours are just a cost in his budget.

There are a few companies around that understand this connection and they are generally the better clients to work for. Most clients, unfortunately, have no appreciation for the value that a good stress review can mean to their facility and treat stress analysts and budgets accordingly.

Edwards statement...

"Errors in our field tend to show up more as maintenance issues - leaking flanges, worn pump seals, etc. But, with the the nature of the system, the client project manager isn't the same guy who has to maintain the plant down the line and isn't necessarily interested in spending money now (stress review) that will payoff later (lower maintenance cost) because those hours are just a cost in his budget. "

In my experience is right on target! I have been in situations where I could say with confidence that the reason his pumps needed seals changed out every 6 months were due to them being badly overloaded. The owner said he had money in his budget for the pump repairs but had no money for my work. Therefore he kept fixing the pumps despite the fact that my meager salary and refit was far less than 2 pump rebuilds....

The other thing that happens when the pipe itself breaks is that it must have been fabricated poorly...

My view is that practical experience is invaluable. When I started in this job many years ago, we used to do site inspections before attempting any stress analysis work. It was a must, and it was expected from us although it was not in our standard procedures. We talked to maintenance personnel who showed us around and listened to their opinions and tried to understand the problems they had to deal with. We also talked to fitters and boilermakers in the field trying to appreciate their worries and in the end we did commissioning and construction supervision observing how everything is put together, making sure that it is built and installed as per our requirements.
All this gave us another, I could say real perspective of the work we did in the office and people for whom we did the work, appreciated it and treated the requirements created by our analysis with seriousness and respect.
Finally also worth mentioning is that this approach brought us a lot of new work from satisfied clients, which came as the best reward for our efforts.
Later everything started to change. New generation was not interested in getting dirty and expected to resolve everything with applied mathematics and sophisticated programs, which seamed more like playing a video game then doing a serious engineering work.
The respect for their requirements was lost both with the management as well as clients because of many impractical if not ridiculous things that were produced and then tried to be covered up with “smooth talking”.
In my opinion any training program for this kind of work must also involve considerable practical exposure to site problems as well as to design work. It might not be favorable by some but it is necessary for those who want to be successful in doing pipe stress analysis.

When we are lucky our lives provide a good mix of learned theory and experience. Sometimes the rigorous study of the theory prepares us to understand what we are looking at in the plants. Sometimes seeing something in the plants teaches us how to understand Mohr's circles. I have had the good fortune to meet many good people who care about "getting it right" - some with degrees from universities and some with degrees from the "school of hard knocks" (and of course some with a mix). After about 20 years "in practice" they (the good ones, the ones who want to keep learning) are about equal in what they know (they just understand it in different ways). The key is learning how to listen to people and striving to reconcile what they understand with what you understand. About 20 years ago I met an ol' boy in Austin, Texas who proceeded (over the years) to teach me more about power plants than I would have ever known (and a lot about life too). Looking back I think the reason is just because I was willing to LISTEN and then exchange ideas with him (of course there was some very good bourbon involved in that equation too). I count my blessings.

John.