hi! every1
have nay one used triflex windows by AAAT technologies/piping solutions, n wat r the major difference one can find in b/w these 2 software. isuppose the triflex is less technical but more user fiendly, which is a lacking point of caesar2,i think caesar 2 should be more userfrinedly ,espacialy triflex's flange loading report is quite easy to make. as compare 2 caesar2,it takes a lot of inputs to be put in.
anothr thing ! can we have all the members of this board ,in a complete list ,so that we can know each other well ,according to our problems n remedies !

You won't find any piping program friendlier than CAESAR II, but I admit that is a biased opinion. However, we are told this everyday by clients, especially those moving from other programs.

A recent attendee to our CAESAR II stated that he picked the program up in a matter of hours. He stated that it was obvious the program was a mature product with much thought behind both the technical operations as well as the user interface. He was attending the seminar not to learn how to use the software, but to learn what was behind it, i.e. to answer the question "why".

I think you're putting too much faith in "flange loading reports" that are based on B16.5. Comparing an equivalent pressure (based on internal pressure and external piping loads) to the B16.5 pressure ratings (which are based on material modulus of elasticity) is not sufficient. B16.5 doesn't address bolting or gasket parameters. The reason there is so much data required to perform a flange analysis in CAESAR II is because we perform a full ASME Section VIII Division 1 Appendix 2 stress check on the flange. The flange module also performs two different (rudimentary) flange leakage checkes. The flange loading reports in other software based on B16.5 doesn't come anywhere close to this. These reports instill a false sense of confidence.

[ July 13, 2001: Message edited by: rich_ay ]