I am comparing the same calculation in 2 revisions of ISO14692; 2005 vs. 2017.
I noticed the hoop stress in the stress results is strangely 100 times larger in the 2017 version compared to 2005. I just wonder if anyone could give me a tip since pretty much everything is the same in both calculations.

many thanks in advance,

just a short update; when I check the stresses in the 'stress extended report' I see a huge difference. if I look into the 'stresses' (multiple code/Allow.) it makes sense. so I wonder if this is potentially CII's bug using the latest revision of ISO. I am currently using CII V.12 SP1

Can you upload the job file (the [c 2] file) so we can work with it?

Is your system buried?

Did you check the curve radius & hoop due to soil load (using default va in iso 14692 2017?

Maybe this is the reason.

Warm Regards,

Suggestions from Development/Support:

For the 2017 Edition, specify reinforced dimensions for the OD and pipe thickness. If you Error Check the model, the software will display Note 553E that explains how to calculate the reinforced OD and pipe thickness.

If the model has mill tolerance specified, then it will use that value to convert the reinforced OD and thickness to the minimum reinforced DO and thickness, which are used in the stress calculations.

The corrosion allowance is not used by this piping code.

For the 2005 Edition, the software does not use the reinforced OD and thickness. It does however always use the corrosion allowance if specified.

In addition, the Hoop stress in the 2017 Edition does not use any stress multipliers, while the 2005 Edition does use a multiplier for tee and bend elements.

I can't tell if these differences are enough to cause the large differences that you have observed in the Hoop stress value, but I'm interested in taking a closer look if you can provide the job files.

I would be able to give precise answers to any questions involving differences between the two code editions, once I can review your job file.

Hello Richard,

thanks for outlining the potential causes of the difference in the results however, I think none of the above applies to the situation; I was already aware of those and checked them all.
I have attached both one-element files to this post. CII wouldn't run on iso2005 unless I filled in the qualified stresses for the components so I manually filled in the values in addition I removed the 'liner' thickness' from the 2005 calc. and these are the only differences between the 2 files.
the stress extended report in 2017 shows 4400 MPa hoop stress in the element 10-20 and this value is nowhere else to be seen.

many thanks in advance

Hello Borzki,

thanks for your suggestion; my calculations are not buried

Hi,
I looked into your large Hoop stress using the provided jobs and I can't find any significant differences between 2005 and 2017 of ISO 14692 using both v. 12 SP1 (which I think is what you used?) as well as SP2.

Have you checked in the report that the units are MPa and not lb/in^2?
I can't find large Hoop stress in any of the stress reports.

Could you provide a screenshot of the report with the large value and the column labels as well as the version of the software and the load case number.

Regards,
Johan

Hello Johan,
the 'stress extended' report in is02017 shows significantly larger values compared to 'stresses (Multiple code)' report of even the same calculation. the units are all metric units MPa.
you can find the screenshots attached.

many thanks

Try to run in a lower version if the same result occurs.

Warm Regards,

up

This issue has been resolved in V12 SP2 under TX-TR-37747. The problem was caused by a units conversion issue affecting the legacy stress report for ISO-14692.

Tech Support will be sending you a link where you can access Service Pack 2 for Version 12.

CAESAR II v.12 SP2 download link:
https://smartcommunity.hexagonppm.com/id...ctEntry?Id=5585

_________________________
Denny Thomas
Hexagon PPM (CAS)