Dear board of this forum,

I’m happy to inform you that my company has bought Caesar II licenses and one of them is for my use under the contract with my company.

This statement shows few benefits which I try to list bellow, in the importance order:
- CraigB must postpone spitting on me (CraigB, I’m not "one of those scum" so please, don’t spit on me….);
- I have some legal rights and responsibilities and I understand them;
- Particularly I have the right and the privilege to put questions (and I try- in the limits of my poor knowledge- to not question stupidities, but I cannot give you any warranty on this matter…;
- Particularly I have the responsibility to clarify the Caesar II results that seem to be not complying with the engineering practice. At least, in the "Disclaimer- Caesar II" section it is clear said "IT IS THE USER RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THE RESULTS OF THE PROGRAM" and I take it seriously.

Please consider my questions as a part of my effort to "verify the results of the program". Please note I’ve tried – in the limits of my understanding- to clarify myself some aspects and I failed. I failed also to find out some particular clarifications in the Caesar II papers.

So please don’t get so easily offended on my insistence to question or double- question.



Regarding the particular case of the “Flange calculation" I have some comments:

1. Mr. Richard Ay has answered in the “Flange analysis in Equivalent Pressure method" topic

Quote
The Hg force is derived from the equation:

2 * b * Pi * G * m * P for the operating condition
Code:
b = gasket effective width
G = gasket effective diameter
m = A pressure multiplying factor
P = The pressure acting on the flange
Quote


I find this approach in contradiction with one American fundamental work that is the Taylor Forge’s "Modern Flange Design Bulletin 502".

Since “IT IS THE USER RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THE RESULTS OF THE PROGRAM", I’m very interested to know if Coade is going to change this approach.

2. Regarding the seating condition– which is the subject of this topic.
Based on this criterion, the Caesar II calculation often fails to qualify a lot of flanges and I can see we prefer to say “it is an incompatibility between B16.5 and ASME VIII". I said I made some numerical tests and I cannot confirm this conclusion.
Since “IT IS THE USER RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THE RESULTS OF THE PROGRAM", I’m very interested to know what particular Hg – gasket load- Caesar II takes into consideration for the seating case?.
Please note that I cannot find out this clarification in the Caesar II documents, so my question is not trivial.

With the hope my remarks don’t offend the honorable board of this forum,

Thank you in advance and please consider my best regards.




Dear CraigB,


If you pay the effort to read my precedent posts you can see I said “I've made some numerical tests for 150# flange cases." So really I don’t understand your accusations.


Regarding the "seating condition check".
The matter is why a particular flange is not passing the seating condition.
For the seating check, I cannot see a connection “total bolt cross-section area vs. flow area".
Moreover, the weaker the bolts are, the less the seating condition stress is.
That not means, of course, this is the problem’s solution….the bolts load must assure “Y" stress on the gasket.

Best regards,