I think could be very useful create a group with suggestion to improve Caesar. i think is a good way to developers know the dificulties of the user.

Example of improvements:

1.Caesar does not allow the multisession for an user (in other software of stress is allowed. (it´s very useful to compare model or copy things of the other model).
2.When you run the software, the input close, and open the output, maybe you could be the input and the output both (because in the output there is not the same element that input).
(The trick i use is close and open the output , so i can see output and input together).
3. Maybe in the output, graphical output, Filter for line (to see) is very useful (i Know you have filter in results but not in the graphical output).
...

In definitive the user may have new ideas and dificulties in his diary work, and developer could use some of this ideas and improve the product.

David,

Thank you, these are all great ideas - especially #3.

For #2, you can do this, once the model has been analyzed. From the input, if output exists, the output toolbar button is enabled and you can review the output without leaving the input model.

For #1, reviewing multiple sessions is possible, at one time we did allow this. We can revisit this idea.

Thanks Richard for your answer,

I like the idea of having the possibility of multiple sessions, Because it save a lot of time when you revise two models. You can work with two model and prove two things one time in two model differents.

Other idea, work with specifications (piping class)
If i can define specifications about diameter and schedule and the specification change would be easier change the conditions. (In the last versions Caesar 7.0 did one thing, allow change the diameter, thickness, temperature, graphicaly and is very usefuf, but if further i could create a specification the work would be easier and the posibility de wrong would be more difficult).

Example

Create de specifications:
A131 24" --> i define A131 24" is diameter 24" and schedule std.

A331 24"--> i define A331 24" is diameter 24" and shedule 80
When i start with one line, i could choose the specification (that come of my piping class), and then it would be easy revise my model is corretly introduced.

Thanks in advance.

Richard,

Please when it possible multisession please tell me.

Other ideas:

Renumber of nodes:

In Caesar we have two modes for renumber nodes:
1) Rename all the nodes
2) REname only the nodes i need.

The problem with this renumber is that we waste a lot of time.

Usually we use the renumber because we want join two models (maybe mine and the other supplier or company, or maybe 2 mines).

But very usually the number of nodes of two models are coincidents. So we need change the nodes but with careful, because we cannot have more of 32000. So We need waste a lot of time changes the name of nodes and verifying really the nodes of two model there is not coinciddent (nodes and cnodes). It´s a hard task.

Maybe if we have other way to renumber the nodes the problem could be solve easily.

For example: 1)Renumber 2)Increment 3) interval(new)

With the 3)
Caesar changed all the model his nodes and only would have two question:
My first node (my first node when Caesar finish the calculation)
Increment--> nodo de incremento entre nodos.

Example of application:
First Model:
Renumber.
3) Interval
My first node= 500
My increment= 10

Caesar return the nodes 500,510,520,530,540,550,560,570.......5010. (the cnodes also less 5010)

Second model
Renumber
3) interval
My first node= 5020
My increment = 10

Caesar returns the nodes= 5020, 5030,5040,5050.......8550

This changed would be possible also with structure


Then would be easy change only the node to join.


Thanks.

Suggestion: How about being able to scale the time history animation. Presently, the displaced animation is meaningless as it is often too large.

I would like to see scaling here too. This is a registered change request.

Other suggestion(in this case consultation)
In thermal solar plant the density is very important (There is a lot of change of density, you can have a fluid with density 2000kg/m^3 and then in other case you have a density 1000Kg/m^3, but also you can have a density of 0kg/m3(the pipe is empty but hot).
Caesar in this versio(7.0) and in the last version (6.0) have the field to put some densities. But is not possible use. I supose initially intergraph thinks include more densities would be easy but really for Caesar is not easy this change (I don´t know why , i´m not developer).

But the densitiy can change and it´s very dificult work with differents files is better to have only 1 file. When use spring hanger is not easy define this spring hanger.


Well the consultation is, In the next version or maybe in the next pack we can have the posibility to put more densities?

Thanks.

Hi Richard!!

If possible, I would like to request some more suggestion.

1. For different load cases, it’s always good if we can use different densities. This is especially where we have gas testing; it’s not advisable to use 1000kg/m3.

2. Material addition is a very tricky process (Especially for EN codes), is it possible to make it smooth a little bit.

3. Direct input and output to and from other 3-D pipe modelling software.

Regards,
R.K.

Other suggestions about load cases:
When you add a row, Caesar says: would you like renumber?

But when you delete a row, Caesar not give the option of renumber.



Relation with the load cases, Caesar in the new version gives in recommended cases the different thermal possible equations, but maybe the problem is that your equation can be very different so it´s in some occasions is difficult creating all the equations. Maybe a better option could be create a new Case that include all the possible thermal cases between two or three...9 temperatures. So you could put some that
Maximum Stress (T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7;T8,T9)

Please consider adding this function.

In stress analysis report, we usually include stress summary. But sadly it is not affected by filter, in case that we merged vendor's CAESAR II and their stress value is higher than ours.

In the meantime...
You can create your own (custom) stress report that omits the stress summary.

Well,

other task:
Caesar II in the last version , don´t study the Creep case in EN13482.

Other task:

In buried pape, can be important to study the settlement, i think in Caesar is not possible.

Other thint when the new Caesar version (8.0) will be available?

Any of this improve (or suggestion) will be in the new version? or what is the new in the new version?

Here's one from me.
I believe that many companies have external tools that they use alongside CAESAR II for their analyses.

I think it would be nice if users can add custom buttons in some custom tabs in CAESAR II main window ribbon. The buttons can be set to launch something that the user chooses(Excel workbook, executable files etc.)

I'd love to have one place where I can launch all things related to stress work. And it'll be nice if the place is CAESAR II, the primary tool we use. And like how it is in Microstation, I can share the custom interface with my colleagues.

Or maybe there's already a way to do it that I just don't know.

In the code EN13480, we have the material EN 10216-3 P335NH (10565), but this material is not in Caesar. I can introduce this material, but i think it would be good, have all the materials of this normative.

Thanks.

Richard,

to creep,
I can do the following:


fcr=Srte/Sfcr
Sfcr--> it´s function of numbers of hours.
Srte--> in the Annex A in the standard in function Tª and number of hours

L3 W+P1+T1 OPE
L4 W+P1 SUS
L5 L3-L4 EXP
L6 L4+(0.25*L5) --> SUS I compare this value with fcr.

But it´s easy to include these equations in Caeasr , no?¿ or is there any problem that i don´t know?

Nothing is as easy as it initially appears.

To do this correctly, (now I'm just thinking off the cuff here), your L6 would have to be designated as creep - so we would have to introduce a new stress type - say "CRP" in the drop list. That means everywhere we use or check for the stress type we have to make allowances for the new "CRP" designation.

Then in the allowable stress routine, yes we would add the computations to determine "fcr" - that part is easy.

There are likely other issues to address, but I haven't thought things through.

Hi,

I created this post of suggestion, but i´m not very sure if it´s the best way to procedure.

Maybe there is a suggestion box to include these issues.

I understand that these suggestions are not question and it´s easy to ask somethings, but it´s much more difficult to apply. However i think that could be useful.


Well, other suggestions
First.
Caesar i can manage transfer from Caesar to excel, but from excel to Caesar is not easy.
Example
In "edit static load Case"--> "Load Case Option"
if i modify these elements in Excel and then i do a copy(Ctrl + C) and then i paste in Caesar. First the copy seems to have done but really is not made. you must write in the Caesar, and then the changes are saved.

Maybe it´s easy to solve , i don´t know

Second suggestion
I like the way Caesar makes his load cases, but as more and more data put the number of equatinos is quite large and difficult to follow. Caesar has the option "recommended load case" but ignore wind, seismic, and other possible combination. (Caesar ingores Wind or seismic in "recommended load Case" because Caesar doesn´t know how i want combinate this load case).

But maybe Caesar could do an "helper edit load case" where i say to Caesar what i can combinate (P*, T*, U*, D*, win*, F*) and how combinate. I know it´s not easy, but in my opinion it´s easier that other things because it´s a code independent to the calculation). And the mode to calculate for Caesar would be the same.

Third suggestion
The snubber need i run and then i come back to input and put the displacement. I think Caesar could do directly. It´s true Caesar doesn´t know what is the displacement relationship with the thermal displacement
but maybe i could say him which is it.

(Again i understand is not easy but to ask is easy and maybe Intergraph consider some of these ideas).

1) The data structure is more complicated than you can imagine, just visually looking at that grid. If we open things up to allow pasting from Excel, and you drop things in the wrong column - you've trashed your model. That's why we haven't allowed this to date. Maybe in the near future, you're not the first one to ask ...

2) You're correct, CAESAR II doesn't know how you want to combine the occasional loads. We're actually working on the recommendation template for v.8.00, but occasional loads will have to come after that.

3) There is no fixed relationship between predefined nodal displacements and restraint types. We can investigate this for a future version.

Speaking of Load Cases, I think the least I'd ask for is for the editor window to expand properly. I can expand the window by dragging the edges, but the content would stay the same. I'd love to be able to fully utilize my big screens when I'm editing the load cases.

Thanks Richard, I wish to see the next version with these changes (specially multisesion).

Other question: i Know intergraph has GT-strut but i don´t know if this software has bidirectional comunication or unidirection comunication with Caesar.

The problem is, when i do my Caesar calculation, then i pass the loads to civil department, but put the loads in the civil software is very manual. It´s possible put the load automatically to GT-strut or other software using a swap file?

and backwards? I think maybe could be possibe using CADWorx, i suppose convert the file to fomat CIS but I don´t know.

Thanks.

At the moment there is no interface between CAESAR II and GT STRUDL. This concept is high on our priority list though.

Thanks Richard , but about the second question:

is it possible using CADworx convert the file (structure file)to format Cis and the put this file in Caesar?

CAESAR II does not address the CIs format.

Another thing I'd like is the ability to save/import Load Case combinations. Rebuilding 20-30 lines of load cases everytime can get a bit tedious.

It's great to see many constructive suggestions in this post. I would like to add a small one of mine.

When a run is completed, it would be convenient that we can review the results (stresses, restraints, displacements etc. ) of nodes, against the nodes shown in the graphic.

So is it possible to keep the graphic open during and after the run. Thus we don't need to re-open the graphic in order to find where the concerned nodes are located.

Not sure if it is technically easy to implement. Thanks in advance.

Mamacint: You can import load cases from existing jobs now. Use the [Import Load Cases] button to the right of the load cases.



Du Wei: You can also do this now. Display the report you're interested in, them move the window aside - this will reactivate the toolbar. You can then bring up the plot and investigate the results as needed.

Also,

If you are in the input processor and output is available, you can open the output processor while the input processor is open. You can then view the input and output at the same time.

:facepalm

wow, that was right in front of my face. thank you.

edit: hmm, so the *._j file is the one that keeps the load cases - so I should just be able to go open up a particular model and once all the sub-files unpack I can just copy the "modelname._j" into a template folder and rename it to something descriptive.

This will be tremendously helpful.

Regarding stress isometric creation, While selecting the "restraint/hangers" from the input menu Present version indicates the type of restraint only at the support location. It'll be better if the node number also included in this testlf for supporting nodes. It is tedious to select the node numbers of the support nodes.

In my opinion Caesar Works with 32 bits, if Caesar change to 64 bits, Caesar works quicker (i think a lot more).

Dave, what´s your opinion?

Is there some way to go to the dynamic output if you have calculated before?

Yes. From the Main Menu, click on Output. There you will find existing output.

I never knew this topic was even here. I have a few things to add:

1. Window resizing. Please extend the ability to resize windows to ALL windows. The Load Case editor is the most obvious of the issues I think. You can resize the window but can not expand the data area.

2. Increase the node numbers beyond 32000. I actually like to leave a good amount of space between nodes and I actually had one model running into the 32000 limit. I am sure this is legacy code issues, but it would be nice to fix.

3. Improve interoperability with CADWorx. I can most of the time get a CAESAR II file from CADWorx, but there does not appear to be any functionality to go the other way with my CAESAR II data or changes. That limits the usability with out CAD group.

4. I too would request multi-session usability. If you could copy things from one session to another that would be a huge plus.

5. I also agree with the above suggestion that deleting a load case does not offer to renumber like adding a load case does.

6. Again, I also agree with the stress iso restrains with node numbers.

7. I would like there to be a way to run load cases at the same time with and without friction. Right now I either have to double the cases and us the global friction multiplier or run one, switch friction and run again. It would also be good to see what friction valve us used in a case when it is output.

8. This may exsit, but a way to preset the view of the model would be good. Mine always starts in the SE Isometric view. Similarly, my tool bars and input window have a nasty habit of moving around even if I locate them where I want them.

I am sure I can find more suggestions, but this will do for now.

Thanks,
Duncan

Duncan,

Thank you for your list. Item 1 is addressed in CAESAR II 2016 (v.8.00). We have also made improvements on Item 3, but you'll need CADWorx 2016. We are looking at Item 5, but there could be some dangerous collateral (cascading deletes).

The other items are on the backlog.

Dear Richard,

Is there a way to open the CII file using the old version when the file is created from the latest version? For example I want to open a file from CII Ver 5.30 but the file is created from Ver 7.00

Unfortunately "no". We state this clearly in the documentation and the distribution letter. This is because (usually) we add new input items in each new release, that previous versions are unaware of - hence these earlier versions cannot read the input from later versions.

Is it possible to open CAESARII model created in 2016/ver 8 in CADworX? If so what versions of CADworX?
Thanks!

I have a few things to add:

1. add a column in restraint summary & local restraint showing the pipe size. This would be a great help if the loads are to be sent to other department.

2. Add option to create/import new flange and valve database in caesar input, instead of editing the database from the system folder.

3. The reset view ain't disable sometime even if it's turned off.

I always find it easier to model jacketed lines if I can model the core pipe solid and add the jacket as transparent. In Caesar, it's all or nothing. Have seen this feature in a competitor's product where transparency cascades like temperature and can be turned on and off per element, if desired. It also makes it easier to see if you screwed up and insulated both core and jacket, or haven't changed fluid densities.

Would be nice to have.

I have to give a summary of displacements under various load conditions for almost 60 nodes (for an existing piping system) to end user.

There is restraint summary in CAESAR II output options, but no such summary for displacement. If we need to compare displacements on one node for various loadings, we have to read separate sheets.

Can this function be added in future versions?

Or is there already a method (which I don't know) so that I stop doing it manually in excel - copying and pasting in one sheet (it is taking a heck of time as there are around 36 loadcases). Really tiring, help me!

You can do this now, just create a custom report.

For Engineers are Us: Use your line number definition to identify core and jacket. Then, in the plot, you can use the line number legend to assign color and translucency to each.

The jacketed pipe model in the Examples folder does this now (CAESAR II 2016).

Thanks Richard!
I could do it and now it looks like piece of cake!

Hi Richard and Dave,
I would like to recommend CII has functions (LENGENDS) to display some inputs variables, such as Sy, Sc or Sh,..
when we have stress analysis for CSA Z662, material Sy must by manually input, and local material upgrading is not easy to managed.
graphy display will be great help to check input accurate or not.


Regards,
Limin

Mistake in P91.

Hi Richard and Dave,

I am working to high temperatur and i ´m using A335 P91, thickness upper to 3". And when i have revised the allowable i have had a surprise. The allowable in P91 is function of thickness (according to ASME B31.1). So if the thicknessis upper to 3" and temperatura is upper 1050ºF we have a allowable but if the thickness is lower to 3" and temperatura is upper 1050 the allowable is other.
But Caesar it is not make distintion between thickness and also catch the high value (it´s not conservative)

(or i am wrong?)

You can use the Material Database Editor to view the materials and their properties that are in the database. CAESAR II does not have all of the materials listed in the Code. If you find yourself frequently using a material that is not in the database, you should add that material to the database.

CAESAR II does not make a distinction on the pipe wall thickness. The material used is based solely on the material name/code combination. As an example, you could use A335-P91 for your 3+ thicknesses and add A335-P91-3 for thicknesses thinner than 3".

Remember that when adding materials to the database, you MUST also add the "All Codes" entry (without allowable values).

Here's my suggestion on how the Output Processor could be improved (I don't have 2017 version yet, so I'm not sure if any of this is already implemented).

Exhibit1.png shows how the Output Processor window looks like when maximized.

Exhibit2.png shows how I wish it looks like.

1) The Load Cases Analyzed list box expands with the main window. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has to deal with more than 35 load cases. Would be nice to see more of my load cases without having to scroll so much.

2) A button to quickly switch back and forth between Caesar and User Defined load case name without having to go to Options>Load Case Name. I think it is useful especially down the load case list, where we start combining cases, sometimes it's more useful to see the user-defined case names rather than tracing which case is what manually. This could be a couple of radio buttons as shown in the attachment, or just one toggle button like the "Less/More" button.

3) "Generate Table of Contents" checkbox remembers the selection from the prevous session.

Thanks Richard, But in my opinión it´s a mistake, because the material is included in the database but Caesar doesn´t do the distinction. If the material is incluided in the database i don´t revise the Caesar values (but it´s only an opinión).