Hi Xiaojun,

I understand your example with F/A in your last reply. However, the results we get after adding F/A in stresses are very confusing and seem to be unreliable, and therefore we turned back to "Default" option. Now, everything makes sense.

We had several temperature trials with short models. We used temperatures in the piping 60, 70 and 80 deg C under different file names, and found that the failure occures at 60 deg C not on others. In these trials we have used the allowables for sigma al(0:1)for given temperatures only the remaining stayed the same. The results we obtained from Caesar II did not make any sense to us to understand why this was happening.

However, we tried the same after using F/A as "Default" the results were as expected, and 60 deg C option has passed the code stresses, and failure stress ratio at one location increased by the increased temperature as expected.

I understand ISO 14692 needs interpretation on the stress evaluation to make everything clearer to the users. However, I see that, if I do not look at correctly, there are some slight differences between ISO 14692-3:2002(E) Technical Corrigendim 1:2005 for Equations 21 and 22 and the equations given in C2Quick.pdf for "Fully Measured Envelope". Since I do not exactly know the background of the standard I cannot easily comment on it.

If you are interested in I can forward the files on you for your trials. However the files are a bit large although they are the short versions, you need to send me direct e-mail address if you are interested in.

Kind regards,

Ibrahim Demir