Topic Options
#54051 - 04/22/13 03:55 AM CAESAR II & AUTOPIPE RESULT COMPARISON
Damanpreet Singh Offline
Member

Registered: 01/22/07
Posts: 25
Loc: Gurgaon, India
Dear All,

This is regarding the CAESAR II & Autopipe result comparison.

I have carried out critical pipe stress analysis using Caesar II.As per client requirement we have to resubmit the report using Autopipe Software.

I have considered Caesar II Translational & Rotational stiffness in Autopipe.

We observed that the Spring Laods are within the range. But for the Guides, Axial stop & Rigid hangers there is huge change in result. Also the thermal movement is different for same geometry.

Please advice.

Regards,
Damanpreet Singh

Top
#54053 - 04/22/13 06:19 AM Re: CAESAR II & AUTOPIPE RESULT COMPARISON [Re: Damanpreet Singh]
Richard Ay Offline
Member

Registered: 12/13/99
Posts: 6226
Loc: Houston, Texas, USA
Verify that the material properties are the same. Next verify that the weight loads are the same in a W only case.
_________________________
Regards,
Richard Ay - Consultant

Top
#54217 - 05/01/13 05:52 AM Re: CAESAR II & AUTOPIPE RESULT COMPARISON [Re: Damanpreet Singh]
Damanpreet Singh Offline
Member

Registered: 01/22/07
Posts: 25
Loc: Gurgaon, India
Dear Sir,

As suggested i have changed the below:

1. Translational & Rotational stiffness updated as per Caesar II values.

Translational Stiffness = 0.175127E+15 N/m
Rotational Stiffness = 0.112985E+12 N m/deg

2. Pipe Density updated.

Still there is a change in Results around 50% at Guides/Rigid restraints & Axial stop support points.

Also i need advice for your side Sir.

For Time History analysis, we use Pipenet s/w for fluid transient. The Output(Load v/s Time history) is input in Caesar II dynamic module.

As you know Autopipe having fluid Transient Module. Can we run Fluid transient in Autopipe & input (Load v/s Time history) in Caesar II dynamic module.

Regards,
Damanpreet Singh

Top
#54221 - 05/01/13 11:41 AM Re: CAESAR II & AUTOPIPE RESULT COMPARISON [Re: Damanpreet Singh]
Richard Ay Offline
Member

Registered: 12/13/99
Posts: 6226
Loc: Houston, Texas, USA
If you're getting different results, the models are different somehow.

CAESAR II doesn't care where the input comes from. You can hand CAESAR II a datafile from anywhere, as long as the format matches (i.e. the same as the format of the file from Pipenet).
_________________________
Regards,
Richard Ay - Consultant

Top
#54255 - 05/02/13 05:58 AM Re: CAESAR II & AUTOPIPE RESULT COMPARISON [Re: Richard Ay]
Damanpreet Singh Offline
Member

Registered: 01/22/07
Posts: 25
Loc: Gurgaon, India
Sir,

I have run one case in Both Caesar II & Autopipe s/w.

The following observations made during the review.

1. Material Density:- Caesar II uses 7639 kg/m3 for A335 P91 and 7833 kg/m3 A 160 Gr.B. Please guide.

2. Young Modulus, EH = 18915264 kg/cm2 @300 deg C & EC = 20768000 Kg/cm2@ 21 deg C in Caesar II input file.

But as per ASME B31.1 code:- 185 GPA @ 300 deg C.

EH = 1886474.99400917 kg/cm2
EC = 2070023.9123452 Kg/cm2

Note that the Autopipe EC & EH values matching with Code.

There is a difference in values.
I have also attached the files.

Regards,
Damanpreet Singh


Attachments
Comparison.PDF (525 downloads)
Example-1.dat (346 downloads)
CASE-1.C2 (322 downloads)


Top
#54275 - 05/02/13 09:05 PM Re: CAESAR II & AUTOPIPE RESULT COMPARISON [Re: Damanpreet Singh]
Richard Ay Offline
Member

Registered: 12/13/99
Posts: 6226
Loc: Houston, Texas, USA
Are both models using the same Edition (year) of B31.1?
_________________________
Regards,
Richard Ay - Consultant

Top



Moderator:  Denny_Thomas, uribejl 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 40 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
May
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
Forum Stats
12065 Members
14 Forums
16973 Topics
75151 Posts

Max Online: 303 @ 01/28/20 11:58 PM
Top Posters (30 Days)