I have been thinking about this issue since Sam posed the question. I think it goes perhaps even deeper than that. Most real (or would be) pipe stress analysts are mechanical engineers. The first problem seems to be that the ME field is so broad (machine design, HVAC, pressure technology (us guys), etc.) that one must specialize and at the same time generalize. So, how many piping structural analyses does the “generalist” do in one year? How much total experience does he/she have in 20 years? Not long ago (?) some design firms had a “pipe stress department” with 30 full time piping engineers. The department was also responsible for drawing up the hanger details. Some of the pipe support manufacturers would offer the stress analysis and hanger detailing as part of the cost of supplying the pipe hangers (they had their own piping engineers). So OK, those days are over.

Next comes the problem of learning how to be a competent piping engineer (pipe stress designer/analyst) -- how many universities have an undergraduate COURSE (let alone whole major programs) in "Piping Engineering"? Structural design of piping systems is very much unlike any other type of structural design. Yes, pi is still pi in any engineering field but pressure technology in general and piping design in particular are unique in many ways. At this time the most effective way to get a sudden infusion of piping structural analysis knowledge is to go to a seminar. But there is also a problem there - three days will not put a dent in it. It almost takes that long just to explain the concepts that the piping Codes are based upon. I can tell you from having done such seminars for 30 years that it takes a good solid 5 days of three hour module in the AM and three hour module in the PM to cover the most important topics. I give a quiz before I start the seminar and give the same quiz at the end of the seminar. I quantify how good a job I did in communicating the concepts.

THEN, you have to learn the tool! CAESAR II is the most user friendly piping structural analysis program that I have ever used. BUT it is comprehensive in its utility. I have been using CAESAR II since it first came on the scene (slightly after the Crimean War) and I am sure I have not mastered all the "bells and whistles" (CAESAR II support people will verify that). Sadly, there are many people using software of all types that have no concept of the science. It has always been that way with engineering computer software. Management seems to think that buying the software is a SUBSTITUTE for having a competent piping engineer on the staff.

"Back in the day" (Navy Mare Island Mec-21 program, fixed format punched cards, no graphics, no support, can't seem to find any books on the subject, what is this Markl paper that all the cognoscenti are talking about?....) it took so much persistence and devotion to detail just to make the program work that ONLY a very few (albeit, knowledgeable) engineers worked in the piping field (and they passed the "secret handshake" off to only a chosen few deserving young friends, you may kiss my ring). And yes, sadly, there will always be the group of elite “Super Analysts” who think that the great unwashed masses of plebeians are too far beneath them to bother wasting their precious time in educating (they post only demeaning comments on the discussion boards but offer no real help).

I can well remember when the software began to get easier to use and we olde tymers lamented "look at them; they believe that if the program runs to completion the analysis must be right (the "anything printed on 132 column green and white paper most be the truth" syndrome). By then we saw mere mortals (most with no training in the SCIENCE) trying to practice an art that was heretofore known only to certain deities and John Luf (redundant?).

Will things improve? NO. There is nothing to drive an improvement and nothing can be done at the "grass roots" level. It is all about money. The less experienced engineers are paid the least salary and that makes it less expensive to “get the work done” (and now much "engineering" is being shipped "off-shore" to be done by "engineers" (diploma from WHAT institution) where salaries are 25 percent of what otherwise would be paid). Three day seminars cost $1.2k to $1.5k (not including the cost of travel, housing, rental car and 8 hour days of overhead time). "Hey, what if the guy has us train him and takes that knowledge across the street to XYZ Company for a buck an hour more" - it is too "portable" to please the corporate bean counters. The only thing that will drive an improvement is if design firms are held accountable for ALL the costs of a failure caused by design mistakes. Then the insurance companies will be pressed into "damage control" (aka, "risk control") and begin to demand certification of the people doing the work. The government licenses engineers by testing (usually only once in a career) but few licenses require continuing education so the Science can "get past" the practicing engineer. Certifications will only be creditable if they are controlled by a government and if there is periodic re-certification to assure that the engineer is “current” in his/her knowledge. Right now, I believe there is a disconnect between the licensing bureaucrats and the profession. Most of the professional societies and some of the licensing governments support a “Code of Ethics” that among many other things tells the engineer (or asks him/her to promise) NOT to practice engineering beyond his/her area of expertise and level of competency. Has this Code been withdrawn while I was not looking?

Mentoring is a good idea and it could be organized by the professional societies at the local section level. BUT, many of the professional societies are in the "seminar business" and they are telling the local sections that they may not offer local seminars (because they cut into the profits but the "national" will not admit that motive). This board and other discussion boards are forums for mentoring. As Sam pointed out, “A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle. This noble act will promote creativity and a socially conscious society”. I might add, it also keeps the mentor’s mind involved in the science.

So, what is the poor up and coming piping engineer to do? Pay attention, try to get to a seminar (a good one by Glynn Woods or Ron Haupt or Chuck Becht), read the book by Woods and the book by Becht, for sure try to get to a CAESAR II training program and ask questions (even when “Super Analyst” slams you). There is an ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference every year – many good piping specific papers are presented (and have been for years). Seek out those papers (yes, some guy named Markl wrote one). See if you can “find” some of the Welding Research Council bulletins that are specific to (or near) the piping engineering science.

Other than that though, I guess I don’t have much of an opinion on the topic.