I was wondering if you can answer this. We have a pipeline with two different material properties. Unfortunately, Caesar II has only “Material 20” allocated for the FRP material.
I was wondering if you can give me a direction how to input both material properties which include different “ axial modulus of elasticity” and “Ea/Eh*Vh/a”.
Do you think the second FRP material user defined? If so how I can create user defined material for GRE?

Thanks in advance.

Ibrahim Demir

I forgot to mention that I am using ISO 14692 for the analysis.

Dear Mr. Ibrahim,

Change the material from the spec change first to A106 or something, then back to FRP (20). Now you can enter your values, I mean different material properties over there. This might not be the correct method, I just tried once.

Regards

Thanks for your answer, But, I do not understand what you mean. That is why I will open your answer up:

Say I have used Material 20 for the first GRE material by asigning it in Config file with properties. To be able to introduce the second GRE material properties, I should select different material such as A 106B, and change it again to Material 20. Do you mean that?

I tried this, some others earlier, and they did not work. When you select Material 20 again it comes with earlier properties assigned. I even tried to change the given properties in the allocated cells but axial modulus elasticity, coefficient of thermal expansion and others assigned in the Config file came back to the cells with the allocated values.

So your suggestion does not work if I correctly understand what you mean.

I guess the best answer can be provided by the Intergraph personal since they involved in the programming side of Caesar II.

Kind regards,

Ibrahim Demir

CAESAR II allows for only one set of FRP data in a model.

Dave,

Thanks for the prompt answer. It means that I have to split the model into three.
Kind regards,

Ibrahim Demir

Dave,

Sorry about this stupid question but I am trying to find a way to analyse this piping in a proper manner without losing the connectivity.

I was wondering if I split the models into three, provide the material properties in the separate files, and combined them in a single file to run the analysis.

Do you think that can work?

Thanks in advance and kind regards,

Ibrahim Demir

Ibrahim,

This may work, you'll have to test your theory on a set of small models (2-3 elements each). Fake the properties such that they are radically different so you can verify that each set of properties is maintained. Also make sure you do the "large job include", which combines the files generated by the Error Check process. If you combine sooner, you'll only have one set of properties.

Richard,

Thanks for the answer. But I have still doubt that the configuration file will overwrite the materail properties. What do you think?

Kind regards,

Ibrahim Demir

Richard,

Probably I misread your answer. It is worth to try your suggestion. I guess I will be producing three different section model under three configuration files and run the analysis by combining them in to one.
But I do not understand what you mean with do the "large job include". You are saying that there is a stage for it. I need a bit more description for the stage, I have not practices the combination for a long time unfortunately.

Kind regards,

Ibrahim Demir

Hi Rich,

I am also intrigued by about the "large job include". What does it do and how is it initiated?

Cheers,
Gary MacLeod

Richard,

I am trying to analyse one Fire water pump system, in which there are there pump and the discharge of these pump (Pipe material=Cu-Ni material) is connected to One common header (pipe maetrial= FRP material).

I have inputed FRP and Cu-Ni properties and performed error check, there is no error shown.

My question is that Can can I combine these to dissimiler material piping in Caesar II and would it give me correct results?

Dev

Dev engg stress,

Please open new topic for your question, this is not a good place to get answer.

Richard,

I went through a trial with two different material properties, and it seems to be achieveable. I can see from the results the analysis use two different allowable stresses for long straight lines,and the displacement I am getting for the symmetrical elbow locations are different for the same length lines.
So it is the answer to use two different material properties in the same analysis. It is a bit annoying but saves a long time, and we can avoid the problems with boundary conditions on three different models.

Thanks and kind regards,

Ibrahim Demir

Dear Mr. Ibrahim,

You got clearly what I meant. But, I wonder why it is not working for you? (I did the same in 5.30 version) Even, I had tried in one model with different Ea values for different diameters.

Regards

When you "include" (or combine) multiple piping jobs there are three settings indicating how the models are combined:

a) "Yes" - the secondary job file is immediately combined with the primary, leaving one complete (primary) model.

b) "No" - the models are combined when necessary: plotting, and error checking. The graphics and the Error Checker see one (primary) model, even though there are multiple input files.

c) "Large" - The models are not combined graphically, and the Error Checker simply combines the analysis files of each secondary job with the analysis files of the primary job. So for an FRP analysis, each set of analysis files could have different material properties.

Richard,

After I split the model into two, I put them in the separate directories to make sure the configuration files are different. I filled the FRP properties on each configuration file for the models.
Error Checked them separately to be able to convert them to U/G models. Opened the U/G models and Error Checked again for both.

I opened one error checked U/G model, included the other error checked U/G model, and run directly without additional Error Checking process. This worked.

What you are saying with "Large" is involving with another Error Checking process. I am not at workplace to try your suggestion. How about the one I tried? What do you think about it? By doing that I used the suggested load cases without involving wind, seismic load cases and filling the temperatures for flanges.

Kind regards,

Ibrahim Demir

Whatever your process is, as long as you verify that it works, you're good.

I would like to make correction to my previous post for the record. Caesar II always run the ERROR CHECKING process, did in my case as well, before the analysis. My statement was not correct.

Thanks and kind regards,

Ibrahim Demir