While archiving our Caesar-II models, must be many of us catalogue them like piping supports and reuse the same with small modifications; Component models are parallely coded by different analysts, error checked & then these are integrated in the final model.

From our forum members, if any, use this approach, I wish to hear about their lessons learnt - how much does it help - in schedule, manpower, quality & overall cost?

regards,
sam

The closest I come to anything like that is to model equipment in Caesar models at the beginning of a job, particularly if it will have several nozzle connections (i.e. be used in several stress models). I'm doing that on the job I'm working on now as vendor data has been coming in, but piping design is only doing preliminary piping layout.

Most jobs, we code on the fly. I can't say that I've ever built a model on one job saved it to reuse on another job. Despite what project guys, clients, and accountants want to believe, every job is unique.

'Despite what project guys, clients, and accountants want to believe, every job is unique.'

Dear,

What you have written above has some truth in it.

But, in older days we were building plants in years, which we are making now in months with much lesser profit margin. Where is the way out?

Nowadays, we don't build P&Ds from scratch, neither the layout nor 3D models. What is there so Holy in pipe stress analysis that we can't use seed files from the past jobs of similar nature & save some time?

If these piping analysis softwares can reuse older day FORTRAN modules, why can't we? We, too, can learn from software developers.

At home, my daughter writes essay without a pen, just using a mouse, lifting paragraphs from Internet essays taking some time in integrating them with some alteration. Her justification, she is not as intelligent as the authors of the Internet essays she steals from, while putting the links in in reference.

regards,

sam