Jul 03

8/4/2019 Jul 03

1/24

M

echan

ical

En

gineering

News

FOR THE POWER,

PROCESS AND

RELATED INDUSTRIES

The COADE Mechanical Engineering

News Bulletin is published twice a yearfrom the COADE offices in Houston,

Texas. The Bulletin is intended to provide

information about software applications

and development for Mechanical

Engineers serving the power, process and

related industries. Additionally, the Bulletin

serves as the official notification

vehicle for software errors discovered in

those Mechanical Engineering programsoffered by COADE.

2003 COADE, Inc. All rights reserved.

V O L U M E 3 4 J U L Y 2 0 0 3

Whats New at COADE

CodeCalc and PVElite New Features .......... 1

COADE Releases CADWorx EQUIPMENT .. 3

COADE Announcement Procedures .............. 4

Graphics Speed Issues .................................. 5

Exporting Output to MS Word ........................ 7

CAESAR II Version 4.50 ................................ 8

CADWorx 2004............................................ 23

Technology You Can Use

Integration of Tubesheet and Expansion

Joint Analysis ............................................. 9

Satisfying Expansion Load Case

Requirements .......................................... 11

Mass Spacing for Dynamic Analysis ............ 13

Assessing the Metal Loss Flaws using

API Recommended Practice 579 ............ 14

PC Hardware/Software for the Engineering

User (Part 34) ......................................... 18

Program Specifications

CAESAR II Notices ...................................... 20

TANK Notices .............................................. 22

CodeCalc Notices ........................................ 22

PVElite Notices ............................................ 23

I N T H I S I S S U E :

New Features in CodeCalc 6.5and PVElite 5.0

(by: Mandeep Singh

CodeCalc version 6.5 (also included in PVElite version 5.0) was released in

January 2003 and has many new features. Some of the new capabilities are

listed below:

Enhancements in the TEMA Tubesheet module in CodeCalc 6.5

In this version, the tubesheet module and the thick (flanged and flued)

expansion joint modules were integrated. The tubesheet module contains the

input for the expansion joint. This makes analyzing a fixed tubesheet with anexpansion joint, quicker and easier. As the manual data transfer is eliminated

the chances of error are also reduced. See the article Integration of Tubeshee

and Expansion Joint also in this newsletter.

> continued on p.2

CADWorx

Equipment

>see story page 3

Problems Exporting

to Word

>see story page 7

CAESAR II 4.50

>see story page 8

API-579>see story page 14

Dealing with Spam

>see story page 19

CADWorx 2004

>see story page 23

8/4/2019 Jul 03

2/24

COADE Mechanical Engineering News July 20

2

CodeCalc version 6.5 also includes PD 5500 tubesheet rules (British

code), for u-tube, fixed and floating tubesheets.

Modifications were also made in the calculation of required fixed

tubesheet thickness, to properly account for the non-linearity in its

formula. In previous versions it may have been necessary to manually

iterate on a required thickness. Now, CodeCalc performs thisiteration automatically. Improvements were also made in U-tube

and fixed tubesheet summaries.

Fitness for Service using API 579

CodeCalc 6.5 implements API 579 Sections 4 and 5 covering

Level 1 and Level 2 flaw assessments for metal loss on cylindrical

shells, simple cones, and formed heads. Another article in this

newsletter has an in-depth discussion of this capability with a

solved example.

Fitness for Service (FFS) assessment using API Recommended

Practice 579 is performed to assess the operation, safety andreliability of the process plant equipment, such as pressure vessels,

piping and tanks for some desired future period. The assessment

procedure provides an estimate of the remaining strength of the

equipment in its current state, which may have been degraded while

in-service from its original condition.

Color Syntax Highlighting in the Output Reports

Color has been added to the output reports to highlight important

values, thus increasing the readability of the reports. Important

notes appear in blue while headings are in bold and failures/warnings/

errors are indicated in red color. This feature was added in the April

4th build ofCodeCalc and PVElite.

The color highlighting is also preserved when printing these reports

and when exporting to MS Word.

Enhancement in the Nozzle module

For hillside or other non-central nozzles on elliptical or torispherical

heads, the program now prints a warning if the nozzle is outside the

spherical portion of the head and the user has indicated otherwise.

A small nozzle is nozzle that does not require an area replacement

calculation due to its smaller size. But, some small nozzles that

are in close proximity to each other may require these calculations.

In this version, the switch to force the program to perform area

replacement calculation on small nozzle was moved from the file

level to each individual nozzle input.

Added WRC 107 Auto-calc on support lug

An option was added in the support lug dialog to perform WRC-1

calculations without leaving the Leg Lug module. See the dialog

the figure below.

In the shell, nozzle and flange modules input errors (if any) are no

displayed on the screen at the time of input. Here is an example

The ASME Material database now displays the Class/Thickne

of materials in the list view. This will help in finding the rig

material when more than one occurrence of a material is listed in t

ASME database.

8/4/2019 Jul 03

3/24

July 2003 COADE Mechanical Engineering News

3

A few of the new features in PVElite version 5.0 are:

Enhancements listed in the CodeCalc part.

Added ASME A-2002 updates, including revision to material

databases

Integrated 3D graphics into Input

Added option to model Sump Elements

Added Nozzle on Nozzle capability

Implemented export to ODBC database (MS Access)

Added OD basis support is for Division 1, vessels

Added color syntax highlighting in the output, e.g. questionable

results are shown in red color

Added PD:5500 (British code) Annex C, fluctuating pressure

fatigue analysis

Added criterion of PD:5500 category C vessels

Added bolting requirements for Horizontal vessels

Added on screen calculations for Nozzle Weld sizes and a

WRC 107 scratch pad

Enhancements to the load case combinations for longitudinal

stress

Added option for 0.90*Yield for hydro-test allowable (Div 1)

Added weld sizes for basering chair caps

Improvements to the MS Word report generation

Major update of the printed documentation.

COADE Releases CADWorx

EQUIPMENT(by: Scott Nickel

COADE has announced the release of the latest module in its

CADWorx 2004 Plant Design Suite, CADWorx EQUIPMENTCADWorx EQUIPMENT adds the ability to quickly and easily

create AutoCAD-based 3D models of equipment horizontal or

vertical, single or multi-state vessels, heat exchangers and pumps

to the piping, P&ID, structural steel, HVAC, and instrumen

loops capabilities already available with CADWorx 2004.

CADWorx EQUIPMENT works on a hierarchal basis. The proces

begins by identifying the equipments component parts, such as a

vessels heads, shells, nozzles and supports, via icons selected from

the toolbar. Entering required dimensional data in the property

editor instantly, parametrically updates the model. Equipmen

components, or details on the components, can be cut and pasted

for easy modeling and modification of equipment. Selection list

containing flange ratings, flange facings, motor frames and more

are available from the programs property editor.

COADE has long been on the forefront of the industry as far as

CAD-to-analysis integration is concerned, with its CADWorx PIPE

to CAESAR II seamless bi-directional interface. The same strategy

is brought to CADWorx EQUIPMENT, which offers a seamless

bi-directional interface between vessel models built in this module

and PVElite, COADEs vessel analysis software. A vessel built in

CADWorx EQUIPMENT may be exported to a native PVElite

file, analyzed and modified, and then re-imported to ensure that al

changes made during the analysis process are reflected back into theCAD model. Likewise, any vessel built in PVElite may be used to

generate a 3D CAD model in CADWorx EQUIPMENT, ensuring

accuracy and saving modeling time.

8/4/2019 Jul 03

4/24

8/4/2019 Jul 03

5/24


5

What should you do if you registered, but don't receive

announcements?

Every time an announcement is distributed, we learn from the List

Server that roughly 10% of the messages bounced back. This

indicates bad or changed user e-mail addresses. When two

consecutive messages bounce, the List Serve deletes the offending profile from its database. This means that you will no longer

receive COADE announcements, even though you think you are

registered. In effect, the List Server un-registered your profile.

If you suspect this may have happened, please register again, as

described above.

We are hoping that the use of this List Server provides an additional

service to our users. However, the success of this service depends

on users maintaining their correct contact information.

Graphics Speed Issues(by: Richard Ay)

COADEs engineering programs (CAESAR II, PVElite, and

CodeCalc) utilize the HOOPS 3D graphics engine. This engine is

3rd party software, not developed by COADE. Using a 3rd party

graphics engine provides a number of benefits to users:

State of the art graphics technology (such as renderingand calculations in hardware)

Faster implementation of the advances in new hardware

Provides a more uniform handling of graphics across avariety of operating systems

However, the draw back to using a 3 rd party package is that the

software is limited to the performance and capabilities of the 3rd

party package. Recently, a number ofCAESAR II users and

dealers have expressed concern that these 3D graphics are slow.

Slow is a relative term, slow compared to what?

Each release of CAESAR II since Version 4.20 has offered a

HOOPS speed improvement of at least 40%. These improvements

are due to optimization of the CAESAR II code (to take better

advantage of the capabilities of the HOOPS library), and

improvements in the base HOOPS library.

In an attempt to provide specific answers to this question, several

performance tests using the HOOPS 3D graphics were performed

on a number of COADE computers. The details of the hardware

used can be found on the accompanying spreadsheet. Note that the

test machines encompassed a wide range of CPUs (from dual 300

Mhz to single 2.8 Ghz) and a variety of graphics boards (from 8

Mbytes to 128 Mbytes).

There are two groups of tests. The first set of tests used a

Performance Test program from the HOOPS vendor. The tests

performed here consisted of drawing simple shapes and text, over

and over again, in various positions. These tests indicate that the

better your graphics board, especially the more graphics memory

available, the better the performance.

The second set of tests consisted of plotting a number of

CAESAR II jobs on the test machines. The results of these tests

show the expected interaction between the CPU and graphics

board. For example, the dual 700 Mhz with 8 Mbyte graphic

card performed better than all but one of the machines with a

single processor and 8 times the graphics memory! These tests

indicate that in addition to a good graphics board, you also need

either a very fast single CPU, or dual CPUs of medium speed.

To illustrate the performance improvement made between differen

versions of HOOPS, in the CAESAR II tests, a number of the

results are shown in blue, and are noted as Ver 8.12. These

results were obtained with the graphics released forCAESAR IIVersion 4.40 Build 030403, using the 8.12 version of the HOOPS

library. (Previous builds ofCAESAR II Version 4.40 used the

8.00 version of the HOOPS library.) Depending on the job, the

speed improved by a factor of from 4 to 30. This improvement can

be attributed to 8.12 version of HOOPS, which now draws more

primitives directly using the hardware, instead of COADE drawing

them in software.

In addition, most video cards now have OpenGL built-in, which

allows HOOPS to push the rendering all the way down to the

hardware, where before, most of the drawing had to be done with

the CPU. Video cards with a lot of memory have big z-buffers

plus good optimization, which helps them avoid drawing thingthat will be obscured by objects on top. While the HOOPS

library and COADE software can improve and optimize, the best

performance can be obtained only by also utilizing fast hardware

This is one of the key concepts to grasp. By default, HOOPS

utilizes the OPENGL capabilities of your system. Utilizing graphics

cards with good OPENGL acceleration will improve the overal

performance of the applications.

(CAESAR IIusers note that Version 4.50 will provide even faster

performance. The model may be manipulated while it is being

drawn.)

8/4/2019 Jul 03

6/24


6

Setup A B C D E F

Machine Description

Dual 700,

512Mbytes Ram

Dual 300 Mhz,

512Mbyte Ram

Dual 700 Mhz,

1Gbyte Ram

1.9 Ghz, 512Mbyte

Ram

2.8 Ghz,

1Gbyte Ram

1Ghz,

512Mbyte Ram

Operating System Windows 2000 Windows 2000 Windows 2000 Windows XP Windows XP Windows 2000

Graphics Board Description

Diamond

Multimedia Fire

Gl 1000 Pro,

8Mbytes, AGP

AccelStar II,

8Mbytes, AGP

Winfast A170,

64Mbytes, AGP

Nvidia GeForce2

Mx400, 64Mbytes,

AGP

Nvidia GeForce4

MX 440, 64Mbytes,

AGP

Radeon 9000 IF

Pro, 128Mbytes,

AGP

Techsoft Test

2) 3D Edges/sec 33,865 30,059 1,164,189 114,472 227,625 1,308,552

4) 3D markers/sec 40,355 49,556 1,717,821 222,819 226,387 1,460,214

7) 3D polygons/sec 17,338 15,039 554,454 143,572 215,665 802,499

8) 3D edgeless polygons/sec 26,905 26,765 934,892 215,138 413,939 1,265,078

9) 3D lit edgeless

polygons/sec79,421 24,585 807,252 216,095 414,924 1,119,365

11) 3D hello worlds/sec 2,662 3,364 17,000 18,832 27,546 32,869

14) unlit shells/sec 875 981 46,531 3,895 7,732 44,263

15) flat lit shells/sec 863 879 37,923 3,894 7,732 41,039

16) gouraud lit shells/sec 819 826 36,428 3,893 7,771 39,117

Techsoft Test Notes:

1) Test results were obtained using Techsoft's performance test program "PT.EXE".

2) On all machines, the PT.EXE options of double buffering and culling were turned on.

3) Of the 16 tests performed, only those noted above were compared.

4) Tests results shown in red are those functions used most by COADE products.

CAESAR II Test

Job Description Plot Time Plot Time Plot Time Plot Time Plot Time Plot Time

fw-oper, 1910 elements, 593

restraints, 135 rigids. (12M

allocated) Ver 8.00 - 37 sec

Ver 8.12 - 33 sec

Ver 8.00 - 612 sec Ver 8.00 - 237 sec

Ver 8.12 - 8 sec

Ver 8.00 -162 sec

rev-beattock28, 727

elements, 473 restraints, 80

rigids. (12M allocated) Ver 8.00 - 48 sec

Ver 8.12 - 18 sec

Ver 8.00 -235 sec Ver 8.00 - 82 sec

Ver 8.12 - 7 sec Ver

8.00 - 61 sec

100yrs1, 3935 elements,

3362 restraints, 0 rigids. (32M

allocated)

Ver 8.00 - 194

sec

Ver 8.12 - 76 sec

No Ver 8.00 Ver 8.00 - 844 sec

Ver 8.12 - 21 sec

Ver 8.00 - 630 sec

COADE Test Notes:

1) Tests were timed using the Task Manager.

2) Times are from start of plot request to active toolbar.3) Ver 8.00 HOOPS was released with the initial CAESAR II Version 4.40.

4) Ver 8.12 HOOPS was released for CAESAR II Version 4.40, build 030403.

HOOPS Graphics System Speed Tests

8/4/2019 Jul 03

7/24


7

Exporting Output to MS Word(by: Richard Ay)

All COADE engineering products include an option to export output

data directly to MS WORD. Since introducing this capability a

small but noticeable percentage of our users have been unable to

utilize this option. Initial investigation revealed two reasons for thisdifficulty:

1) Failure to register the outword.dll DLL with the system.

Manually registering the DLL using regsvr32.exe usually

resolved this issue.

2) Norton Anti-Virus installations by default turn off scripting

abilities. This prevents macros from running, which

disabled the COADE interface into MS Word. Some

versions of NAV (Norton Ant-Virus) allowed users to

configure NAV to allow scripting. This allowed some

users to then send COADE output to MS WORD.

However, enough problems persisted so that we rewrote our MS

WORD interface. We abandoned the macros and wrote the

necessary procedures into the outword.dll DLL. This resolved

more issues, but not all. A number of users were still facing the

Unable to launch MS WORD message. This message is a

COADE message that indicates the COADE product is installed

and functioning as designed, but that WORD failed to start.

The problem was finally traced, again, to Norton Anti-Virus. NAV

inserts a key in the System Registry that forces MS WORD to ask

permission before starting. NAV denies permission to all

applications except Internet Explorer. (This is not good becausethis registry key is buried beneath a Microsoft Word key, in a part of

the registry users should not really be adjusting.) However, the

solution is to remove this key and contact Norton.

Unfortunately, this isnt a permanent solution because NAV will

re-insert the key, on some machines everytime it reboots. Even

though some versions of NAV have an enable Word Automation

option, it doesnt correct this problem with the registry. Some

versions of NAV insert this key and provide NO enable Word

Automation switch. Uninstalling NAV does not remove this key

from the registry! Norton says they are working on the problem

see the information in the figure below, from Nortons web site.

For those who want to edit their registry and remove this key

perform these steps.

1. Click the Start|Run menu, then type REGEDIT in the Run

dialog box.

2. Expand the HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID key.

3. Scroll down the list until you see {00020906-0000-0000

C000-000000000046} and expand it. There are several keys

that look alike, or differ by only one number, so make sure

that the one you choose matches exactly. This is the secre

code used by Microsoft to determine when and how Windows

will start MSWord.

4. Under this key will be an entry named InProcServer32

Right-click it and select Delete. The value that is stored

here points to a Norton file named Symantec Shared/Scrip

Blocking/scrblock.dll. This part of the registry should look

like the figure below.

8/4/2019 Jul 03

8/24


8

5. Close REGEDIT.

6. CAESAR II should be able to invoke MSWord now, at least

until NAV modifies the registry again.

If modifying the registry isn't an option, the only solution we are

aware of is to remove NAV from the machine.

Users who continue to have problems exporting data to MS WORD,

and have had NAV installed at anytime on their machine, should

contact Norton directly.

CAESAR II Version 4.50(by: Richard

CAESAR II Version 4.50 will likely be in Beta Testing by t

time you read this. In addition to piping code revisions, some of

other enhancements for this release include:

Revised material database for B31.1 A2002 changes

Load Case Template implemented for recommending sta

load cases.

Reducer element added.

Major graphics improvements, including:

A walk-through option is available.

The static output processor can now producecolored stress plots of the piping system.

A graphical find (zoom to) option has been added.

Model drawing during CPU idle time.

The static output processor remembers all user settings (filte

labels, and report size).

New dynamic (HTML) help system for piping input a

configuration.

Automatic acquisition of website software updates.

Combined WRC-107/297 module for local stress calculatio

The structural steel interface has been redesigned for eas

operation.

Spectrum generation wizard

8/4/2019 Jul 03

9/24

8/4/2019 Jul 03

10/24


10

Tubesheet Tab:

This button merges the flange, gasket and bolting input from an

existing flange, into this tubesheet input.

Expansion Joint Tab:

The above screen becomes active only in the case of fixed tubesheet

exchangers. The expansion joint can be either a thin (bellows type)

or thick (flanged/flued type) or there can be no joint at all.

For a thin expansion joint, only the axial spring rate needs to be

specified.

For a thick expansion joint, either the spring rate needs to be

specified (Design option set to Existing) or analyze the expansion

joint geometry and allow CodeCalc to compute the spring rate and

expansion joint stresses (Design option set to Analyze).

This button sets default expansion joint dimension

based on the shell thickness and material

Procedure for analyzing a Fixed Tubesheet with a Thi

Expansion Joint:

Typically in the first pass a fixed tubesheet is analyzed without

expansion joint. If the configuration (tubes, shell or tubesheet) do

not pass, and if the cause of the failure is due to differential therm

expansion, a thick or thin expansion joint can be added. If a thi

(flanged and flued) expansion joint is selected, CodeCalc follo

these steps:

1. The axial spring rate of the expansion joint is computed

both the corroded and new conditions.

2. The expansion joint spring rate is used to compute equival

differential pressure.

3. Next the program extracts the prime pressures (Ps, Pt, P

from the output of the tubesheet calculation and uses tho

values to compute the expansion joint stresses.

4. If multiple tubesheet load cases are selected, a correspondi

expansion joint analysis is automatically performed.

Results of all the runs are summarized in tabular format like the o

below:

Fixed Tubesheet Required Thickness per TEMA 8th Edition:

Reqd. Thk. + CA P r e s s u r e s Case Pass/

Case# Tbsht Extnsn Pt Ps PDif Type Fai

1uc 1.471 0.000 71.07 0.00 0.00 Fvs+Pt-Th-Ca

2uc 0.750 0.000 0.00 2.39 0.00 Ps+Fvt-Th-Ca

3uc 1.471 0.000 71.07 2.74 0.00 Ps+Pt-Th-Ca

4uc 0.757 0.000 0.00 0.00 -37.66 Fvs+Fvt+Th-Ca

5uc 1.471 0.000 71.04 0.00 -39.07 Fvs+Pt+Th-Ca

6uc 0.784 0.000 0.00 2.65 -37.75 Ps+Fvt+Th-Ca

7uc 1.471 0.000 71.04 2.74 -39.07 Ps+Pt+Th-Ca

8uc 0.750 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fvs+Fvt-Th-Ca

1c 1.491 0.000 70.45 0.00 0.00 Fvs+Pt-Th+Ca

2c 0.775 0.000 0.00 2.25 0.00 Ps+Fvt-Th+Ca

3c 1.491 0.000 70.45 2.64 0.00 Ps+Pt-Th+Ca

4c 0.839 0.000 0.00 0.00 -43.40 Fvs+Fvt+Th+Ca

5c 1.490 0.000 70.42 0.00 -45.02 Fvs+Pt+Th+Ca

6c 0.863 0.000 0.00 2.55 -43.50 Ps+Fvt+Th+Ca

7c 1.490 0.000 70.42 2.63 -45.02 Ps+Pt+Th+Ca

8c 0.775 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fvs+Fvt-Th+Ca

Max: 1.491 0.000 in.

Given Tubesheet Thickness: 2.0000 in.

Note:Fvt,Fvs - User-defined Shell-side and Tube-side vacuum pressures or

0.0.

Ps, Pt - Shell-side and Tube-side Design Pressures.

Th - With or Without Thermal Expansion.

Ca - With or Without Corrosion Allowance.

This button merges theflange, gasket and boltinginput from an existingflange, into thistubesheet.

8/4/2019 Jul 03

11/24


11

Tube and Shell Stress Summary:

Shell Stresses Tube Stresses Tube Loads Pass

Case# Ten Allwd Cmp Allwd Ten Allwd Cmp Allwd Ld Allwd Fail

1uc 75 20000 0 -13887 2163 19300 0 -5740 303 2160 Ok

2uc 67 20000 0 -13887 0 19300 -138 -5740 19 2160 Ok

3uc 142 20000 0 -13887 2163 19300 -138 -5740 303 2160 Ok

4uc 479 20000 0 -13887 0 19300 -1346 -5395 0 2160 Ok

5uc 517 20000 0 0 2158 19300 -1346 -5395 302 2160 Ok

6uc 479 20000 0 -13887 0 19300 -1483 -5395 19 2160 Ok

7uc 517 20000 0 0 2158 19300 -1483 -5395 302 2160 Ok

8uc 0 20000 0 -13887 0 19300 0 -5740 0 2160 Ok

1c 89 20000 0 -13824 2170 19300 0 -5740 304 2160 Ok

2c 67 20000 0 -13824 0 19300 -136 -5740 19 2160 Ok

3c 156 20000 0 -13824 2170 19300 -135 -5740 304 2160 Ok

4c 568 20000 0 -13824 0 19300 -1570 -5395 0 2160 Ok

5c 613 20000 0 0 2166 19300 -1570 -5395 303 2160 Ok

6c 568 20000 0 -13824 0 19300 -1705 -5395 19 2160 Ok

7c 613 20000 0 0 2166 19300 -1705 -5395 303 2160 Ok

8c 0 20000 0 -13824 0 19300 0 -5740 0 2160 Ok

MAX RATIO 0.031 0.000 0.112 0.316 0.141

Summary of Expansion Jt Results, (displays the worst case):

Category Max. Stress Allowable Location Ld Case Pass

(psi) (junction) Tsht ExpJt Fail

Annul. Elm. -38456. 65000. Inside 5c Pt+Pd Pass

Cyl. at Y -989. 65000. Inside 7uc Ps+Pt+Pd Pass

Cyl. at L 850. 65000. Inside 5c Pt+Pd Pass

Cycle Life 82089 10000 Inside 7c Pt+Pd Pass

In conclusion, the integration of thick expansion joint and fixed

tubesheet analysis provides a solution technique that is easier and

less prone to input errors. Also, the overall length of the printed

reports is reduced.

Satisfying Expansion Load Case

Requirements(by: Richard Ay)

Typical Power and Process piping codes evaluate the stresses of a

piping system under in three different states; sustained (or primary),

expansion (or secondary), and occasional. The focus of this article

is on the proper evaluation of the expansion stresses, and the

corresponding load case setup.

The B31.3 code in Paragraph 319.2.3.b states While stresses

resulting from displacement strains diminish with time due to

yielding or creep, the algebraic difference between strains in the

extreme displacement condition and the original (as-installed)

condition (or any anticipated condition with a greater differential

effect) remains substantially constant during any one cycle of

operation. This difference in strains produces a correspondingstress differential, the displacement stress range, which is used as

the criterion in the design of piping for flexibility. A previous

article in this newsletter (Expansion Case for Temperatures Below

Ambient, May 1993, p32) discusses this requirement, using an

example situation where the system has two temperatures, one

above ambient and one below ambient. To summarize, in this

situation, CAESAR II would recommend the following load cases:

1) W+T1+P1 (OPE)

2) W+T2+P1 (OPE)

3) W+P1 (SUS)

4) L1-L3 (EXP)

5) L2-L3 (EXP)

What the article explains is that one more load case is required tocompletely satisfy the intent of the code, to address the phrase or

any anticipated condition with a greater differential effect. This

greater differential is created by cycling between T1 and T2

Therefore, to completely satisfy the intent of the code, another load

case must be setup as follows:

6) L1-L2 (EXP)

CAESAR II doesnt setup this last load case, since the program

doesnt know what the loads (T1 and T2) represent. The construction

of load case 6 above is the users responsibility.

Other situations exist where the user must review the load casesrecommended and consider whether or not they completely satisfy

code requirements. For example, consider the system shown in the

figure below, having a single operating temperature, but where at

any given time, one of the pump branch legs could be spared.

Example System from WRC-449

8/4/2019 Jul 03

12/24


12

To analyze this system, the following temperature vectors could be

defined.

T1 vector entire system at operating temperature to design

hangers

T2 vector entire system at operating temperature except

leg 1 at ambient


leg 2 at ambient


leg 3 at ambient

This situation is different than the one discussed in the previous

newsletter article. There is only one operating temperature.

However, to satisfy the intent of the code (the extreme displacement

stress range), what are the necessary load cases?

CAESAR II will recommend the following set of load cases:

1) W (HGR) restrained weight case for

hanger design

2) W+D1+T1+P1 (HGR) hot case for hanger design

3) W+D1+T1+P1+H (OPE) OPE case A with all legs hot

4) W+D2+T2+P1+H (OPE) OPE case B with leg 1 spared

5) W+D3+T3+P1+H (OPE) OPE case C with leg 2 spared

6) W+D4+T4+P1+H (OPE) OPE case D with leg 3 spared

7) W+P1+H (SUS) Sustained (ambient) case8) L3-L7 (EXP) OPE case A minus Sustained

9) L4-L7 (EXP) OPE case B minus Sustained

10) L5-L7 (EXP) OPE case C minus Sustained

11) L6-L7 (EXP) OPE case D minus Sustained

Are these cases sufficient?

The answer is no, they are not sufficient. The system could cycle

between OPE case B and OPE case C, or between OPE case B and

OPE case D, or between OPE case C and OPE case D. So to

completely satisfy the intent of the code, the following additionalload cases must be setup.

12) L3-L4 (EXP) OPE case A minus OPE case



15) L4-L5 (EXP) OPE case B minus OPE case

16) L4-L6 (EXP) OPE case B minus OPE case

17) L5-L6 (EXP) OPE case C minus OPE case

These six additional cases consider the effects of the system cycli

between the different possible operating states. This cycling c

cause the extreme displacement range the code requir

CAESAR II has no knowledge of what OPE cases 3, 4, 5, and

represent, therefore the program is unable (at the present time)

include cases 12 through 17 when it performs its recommendatio

These additional load cases are the responsibility of the user.

According to the code, the expansion stress range SE

is the larg

computed displacement stress range. However, SE could comfrom different load combinations, which is a point many analy

miss. For example, consider the metering station shown in

figure below.

Metering Station

Either leg could be hot, with the other leg cold. The greatest str

on the tees occurs when switching from one leg to the other. T

difference between these two operating conditions will produce t

extreme condition for the proper stress evaluation of the tees.

Understanding the requirements of the applied piping code, as w

as what the recommended load cases represent, is necessary

determining if the intent of the code is completely satisfied, or

additional load cases are necessary.

8/4/2019 Jul 03

13/24


13

Mass Spacing for Dynamic Analysis(by: Richard Ay)

Many times when constructing a model for static analysis in

CAESAR II, node points are defined only when data changes.

Examples of this are: pipe property changes, load changes, geometry

changes, and boundary conditions. In most instances, this nodallayout is sufficient for a static analysis. However, if it is necessary

to evaluate the system for dynamic response, the typical nodal

layout for a static analysis may be insufficient. This is because in a

dynamic analysis of a piping system, the mass is lumped at the node

points. Insufficient nodal spacing causes insufficient mass lumping,

leading to inaccuracies in the dynamic solution.

Many codes, standards, and technical papers provide similar

equations and guidelines for determining the maximum nodal spacing

for dynamic analysis. What is the origin of these equations, and

how can they be applied to piping systems?

The basis for the maximum nodal (mass) spacing is founded on the

Euler beam equation. Assuming a simply supported beam, the

Euler beam equation relates the circular frequency of harmonic

motion ( ) to the length of the beam (l), its flexural rigidity (EI),

and its mass per unit length (w/g). The mass per unit length (w/g)

should include the contribution from the pipe, the fluid contents,

and any insulation if applicable.

w

EIg

l

nn *

)(2

2

=

The term (n)2 is valid for simply supported beams only, where (n)

is the mode of vibration. This equation can be easily rearranged to

solve for the length (l), which will correspond to a specified

frequency. Substituting = 2f, the equation used to determine

the span length corresponding to frequency (f in Hz) is:

w

EIgnl *

f2

)(2

2

=

How do we use this? The vibrating wave in a pipeline can be

approximated as the vibration of a simply supported pipe (beam).

Therefore this equation can be used to calculate the distance betweennodes (points of no movement) in the vibrating wave (this is the half

wavelength).

Setting (n) to 1 (indicating the first mode of vibration) and setting

(f) to the cutoff frequency (for the eigen extraction) yields the

minimum wavelength of interest. (This is an important point, which

indicates that the minimum wavelength depends on the type of

dynamic analysis being performed.)

Now that we have the minimum wavelength of interest in the modelidea is to provide sufficient mass points along this span to adequately

model this mode (frequency). This can be accomplished by

introducing a constant into the above equation, resulting in:

w

EIgnkl *

f2

)(*

222

=

This equation therefore yields the maximum recommended distance

between the mass points. How does one determine the constan

k? Work has been done that shows when 3 intermediate mas

points are used along the span, an accuracy of 99.7% is achieved for

the first mode of vibration (of the span). When 2 intermediate masspoints are used, an accuracy of 99% is achieved. (Of course, al

frequencies below the cut-off frequency will be even more accurately

modeled.) Relating the number of mass points to the constant k

means that for 3 mass points the span is broken into fourths, thus

k is . Similarly, for two mass points the span is broken into

thirds, thus k is 1/3. Therefore the value of (k) is chosen based

upon the accuracy desired.

To aid COADE users in determining thesuggestedmaximum noda

spacing (the distance between mass points), a small utility program

has been developed. The first step in utilizing this utility is to selec

the desired units system, as shown in the figure below.

8/4/2019 Jul 03

14/24


14

Once this selection has been made, the Pipe Data tab can be

presented. Filling in the necessary data and clicking on the

[Calculate] button yields the maximum suggested nodal spacing, as

shown in the figure below.

This utility program can be acquired from the CAESAR II download

area of the COADE web site. This program can be used to check

the maximum nodal spacing of models before running dynamic

analysis.

Assessing the Metal Loss Flaws

using API Recommended

Practice 579(by: Kevin Kang)

Corrosion and groove-like flaws are common problems that are

experienced by vessels in service. Loss of metal through the vessel

wall thickness reduces the strength of the component. At some

localized points, these flaws may reduce the vessel wall thickness

below a minimum Code requirement. Rather than replace the vessel

with a new one, the integrity of the vessel may be checked todetermine its remaining life and whether it can continue to operate

at some specified conditions.

API document Recommended Practice 579 can be used to evaluate

the integrity and operational safety of process plant equipment,

such as pressure vessels, piping and storage tanks. The results of

the assessment procedure will provide an estimate for the strength

and the remaining life of the equipment.

Typical approaches for FFS (Fitness For Service) as indicated

API 579 are as follows:

Identifying the Flaw and Damage Mechanism.

Reviewing the Applicability and Limitations of the F

Assessment Procedures.

Gathering data.

Applying the assessment techniques and comparing the res

to the acceptance criteria.

Estimating the remaining life for the inspection interval.

Applying remediation as appropriate.

Applying in-service monitoring as appropriate.

Documenting the results

Common degradation mechanisms include general corrosio

localized corrosion, pitting corrosion, blister, mechanical distortietc. The procedures on how to assess these common flaws

discussed in the sections described in the Table of Contents of t

API 579 document.

Section 1 Introduction

Section 2 Fitness-For-Service Engineering Assessm

Procedure

Section 3 Assessment of Equipment for Brittle Fracture

Section 4 Assessment of General Metal Loss

Section 5 Assessment of Local Metal Loss

Section 6 Assessment of Pitting Corrosion

Section 7 Assessment of Blisters and Laminations

Section 8 Assessment of Weld Misalignment and Sh

Distortions

Section 9 Assessment of Crack-Like Flaws

Section 10 Assessment of Component Operating in

Creep Regimes

Section 11 Assessment of Fire Damage

The recently released PVElite 5.0 and CodeCalc 6.5 progra

have included metal loss assessments according to API 579 Secti

4 and Section 5 for vessel elements such as cylindrical she

simple cones and formed heads. The analysis can be perform

using the Shell and Head Module as depicted in Figure 1 below

8/4/2019 Jul 03

15/24


15

Figure 1. API 579 Analysis Selection

The assessment type either using Section 4 or Section 5 can be

selected from the API 579(FFS) tab, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. General and Local Metal Loss Selection

Section 4 covers FFS assessment procedures for components subjec

to general metal loss resulting from corrosion and/or erosion. Section

5, on the other hand, is a method for analyzing local metal loss or

Local Thin Areas (LTAs) that include groove-like flaws or gouges

In general, flaw assessment using Section 4 provides conservative

results.

The differences between Section 4 and 5 when applied to LTAs are

as follows:

Section 4: rules for all Level 1 and 2 assessments are based on

average thickness averaging approach in which is used with

Code rules to determine acceptability for continued operation

Section 5: rules for Level 1 and Level 2 assessments are based

on establishing a Remaining Strength Factor (RSF) in which

is used to determine acceptability for continued operation.

The Assessment of General Metal Loss described in Section 4 can

be performed using either point thickness (random type readings) or

profile thickness (grid type readings) measurement data. Th

selection of the data type readings can be made in the Data

Measurement tab as shown in Figure 3a. The API Recommended

Practice 579 requires a minimum of 15 measurement data. CodeCalc

can accommodate up to 99 points.

Figure 3a. Data Measurement Type Selection

8/4/2019 Jul 03

16/24


16

The localized metal loss assessment described in Section 5, however,

can only be performed using profile thickness data. The data matrix

can be set up by providing the number of points in both

circumferential and longitudinal directions. The matrix size in this

case is limited to maximum 9x9.

For convenience, Critical Thickness Profile (CTP) data entry is alsoprovided.

The measurement data grid dialog is pictured below in Figure 3b.

Figure 3b. Profile Thickness Data Grid

For most evaluations, it is recommended to first perform the

assessment using Section 4, then move on using Section 5 if

necessary. The rules in Section 4 have been structured to provide

consistent results with Section 5. However, it is the engineers

responsibility to review the Assessment Applicability and Limitation

whenever the assessment is changed.

When the acceptance criteria either passes or fails, a respective

remaining life using a thickness approach or a de-rated value of the

MAWP of the vessel will be calculated automatically.

There are three (3) levels of evaluations available for each flaw type

described in general as follows:

Level 1 - typically involving a simplified method using

charts, simple formulae, and conservative

assumptions.

Level 2 - generally requires more detailed evaluation and

produces more accurate results

Level 3 - allows flaw assessment using more sophisticated

methods such as FEA.

API 579 Section 4 limitations for Level 1 and Level 2 assessme

are as follows:

Original design in accordance with a recognized code

standard.

The component is not operating in the creep range.

The region of metal loss has relatively smooth conto

without notches.

The component is not in cyclic service (less than 150 to

cycles).

The component under evaluation does not contain crack-l

flaws.

The component under evaluation has a design equation

which specifically relates pressure and/or other loads,

applicable, to a required wall thickness.

With some exception, the following specific components n

having equation relating pressure and/or other loads to

required wall thickness may be evaluated using Level 2:

Pressure vessel nozzles and piping branch connectio

Cylinder to flat head junctions

Integral tubesheet connections

Flanges

Piping systems

Note: Currently CodeCalc does not support API 579 analy

on nozzle, flange, tubesheet, flathead, and piping systecomponents.

The following limitations on applied loads are satisfied:

Level 1 assessment: components are subject to internal and

external pressure (negligible supplemental loads).

Level 2 assessment: components are subject to internal and

external pressure and/or supplemental loads such as weig

wind and earthquake.

Limitations for the API 579 Section 5 Level 1 and Level

assessments are similar to the limitations for Section 4 above wthe following additions:

The components cannot be subjected to external pressure

if the flaw is located in the knuckle region of elliptical he

(outside of the 0.8D region), torispherical/toriconical head

conical transition.

8/4/2019 Jul 03

17/24


17

The material component is considered to have sufficient

material toughness.

Special provisions provided for groove-like flaws such as:

Groove (no mechanical cold work).

Gouge (mechanical cold work).

It is important that the user fully understand the scope

limitations on each level of the assessments. Please refer to API

Recommended Practice 579 for more details.

The following is the assessment results of the example problem

5.11.1 described in the API Recommended Practice 579 book

analyzed using PVElite 5.0 orCodeCalc 6.5.

The metal loss flaw is categorized as localized corrosion with CTP

measurements along longitudinal and circumferential directions as

outlined in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Flaw CTPs Along Longitudinal and

Circumferential Directions

Input Echo, Component 1, Description: E5111

Design Internal Pressure P 300.00 psig

Temperature for Internal Pressure 650.00 F

Include Hydrostatic Head Components NO

Material Specification (Not Normalized) SA-516 70

Material UNS Number K02700

Allowable Stress At Temperature S 17500.00 psi

Allowable Stress At Ambient SA 20000.00 psi

Curve Name for Chart UCS 66 BJoint efficiency for Shell Joint E 1.00

Design Length of Section L 120.0000 in.

Length of Cylinder for Volume Calcs. CYLLEN 20.0000 in.

Inside Diameter of Cylindrical Shell D 96.0000 in.

Minimum Thickness of Pipe or Plate T 1.2500 in.

Nominal Thickness of Pipe or Plate T 1.2500 in.

Future Corrosion Allowance FCA 0.1250 in.

Flaw Location Inside

Uniform Thickness Loss XLOSS 0.1000 in.

Allowable Remaining Strength Factor RSFA 0.9000

Minimum Dist. to a Major Struct. Disc. Lmsd 60.0000 in.

User Input MAWP MAWP 300.00 psig

Annual Corrosion Rate Crate 0.0010 in.

Near Axisymmetry Discontinuity No

Thickness Measurement Type Profile

Number of Points in Circumferential Dir. NROW 5

Number of Points in Longitudinal Dir. NCOL 9Circumferential Grid Size GRIDSC 1.0000

Longitudinal Grid Size GRIDSL 0.5000

Skip UG-16(b) Min. thickness calculation NO

Type of Element: Cylindrical Shell

API579 ANALYSIS RESULTS, SHELL NUMBER 1, Desc.: E5111

Inside Diameter (D) with XLOSS: 96.2000 in.

Thickness (T) with XLOSS: 1.1500 in.

Circumferential Minimum Required Thickness (TMINC):

= (P*(D/2+FCA))/(S*E-0.6*P) per UG-27 (c)(1)

= (300.00*(96.2000/2+0.1250))/(17500.00*1.00-0.6*300.00)

= 0.8353 in.

Longitudial Minimum Required Thickness (TMINL):

= (P*(D/2+FCA))/(2*S*E+0.4*P) + tsl

= (300.00*(96.2000/2+0.1250))/(2*17500.00*1.00+0.4*300.00)+0.000

= 0.4119 in.

Max. All. Working Pressure at Given Thickness (MAWP):

= (S*E*(T-FCA))/((D/2+FCA)+0.6*(T-FCA)) per UG-27 (c)(1)

= (17500.00*1.00*(1.0250))/((96.2000/2+0.1250)+0.6*1.0250)

= 367.27 psig

Min. Metal Temp. w/o impact per Fig. UCS-66 38 F

Min. Metal Temp. at Reqd thk. (per UCS 66.1) -72 F

Minimum Required Thickness (TMIN):

= MAX[ TMINC, TMINL, Tca ]

= MAX[ 0.835, 0.412, 0.000 ]

= 0.835 in.

Thickness Profile Analysis Results:

Critical Thickness Profile in Longitudinal Dir., CTPL (in.):

1.150 0.810 0.750 0.700 0.620 0.450 0.650 0.900 1.150

Critical Thickness Profile in Circumferential Dir., CTPC (in.):

1.150 0.700 0.450 0.810 1.150

Minimum Measured Thickness TMM = 0.450 in.

Remaining Thickness Ratio ((TMM-FCA)/TMIN) Rt = 0.389

Factor from Table 4.4 Q = 0.447

Length for Thickness Averaging (XL):

= Q * SQRT(D * TMIN)

= 0.447 * SQRT( 96.000 * 0.835)

= 3.999 in.

Using Para. 4.4.2.1.e.2.b Circ.(C) | Long.(S)

(TMM at midpoint of XL) in. | in.

Flaw Dimension 3.021 | 3.342

8/4/2019 Jul 03

18/24


18

SECTION 5, Local Metal Loss Analysis

Limiting Flaw Size Check: Rt >= 0.20

0.389 >= 0.20 TRUE

(TMM - FCA) >= 0.10

( 0.450 - 0.125) >= 0.10

0.325 >= 0.10 TRUE

Lmsd >= 1.8 * SQRT(D * TMIN)

60.0000 >= 1.8 * SQRT( 96.000 * 0.835)

60.000 >= 16.119 TRUE

SECTION 5 LEVEL 1 ANALYSIS:

Shell Parameter (LAMDA):

= 1.285 * S / SQRT(D * TMIN)

= 1.285 * 3.342 / SQRT( 96.000 * 0.835)

= 0.480

Longitudinal Check:

Figure 5.6 check is ACCEPTABLE with: LAMDA = 0.480

Rt = 0.389

Folias Factor (Mt):

= SQRT(1 + 0.48 * LAMDA)

= SQRT(1 + 0.48 * 0.480)

= 1.054

Remaining Strength Factor (RSF):

= Rt / (1 - 1 / Mt * (1 - Rt))

= 0.389 / (1 - 1 / 1.054 * (1 - 0.389))

= 0.926 >= RSFA ( 0.900 ) Acceptable

Circumferential Check:

* Figure 5.7 check is ACCEPTABLE with: C/D = 0.031

Rt = 0.389

SUMMARY SECTION 5 LEVEL 1 ANALYSIS:

Calculated Allowable

Long./Merid. - RSF 0.926 0.900

Passed

Circ. - Figure 57 Check

Passed

** Section 5 Level 1 Assessment criteria are satisfied **

RLife (Iteration Method) |RSF>RSFA | : 168.90

years

|Rt>(TMM-(Crate * Time))/TMIN|

SECTION 5 LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS:

Longitudinal Check:

Using Slicing Method:

With * S = 3.342 in. | Calculated RSFmin: 0.977

* Length Inc.= 0.025 in. | RSFmin > RSFA (0.900)

Acceptable

Circumferential Check:

* Figure 5.7 check is ACCEPTABLE with: C/D = 0.031

Rt = 0.389

SUMMARY SECTION 5 LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS WITH NO LOAD:

Calculated Allowable

Long./Merid. - RSF 0.977 0.900

Passed

Circ. - Figure 57 Check

Passed

** Section 5 Level 2 Assessment criteria are satisfied **

CodeCalc 6.5, 2003 1989-2003 by COADE Engineering Software

As shown in both the Level 1 and Level 2 summaries of the report,

the flaw located on the inside of a vessel does pass Level 1 and

Level 2 assessment criteria. In general, the Level 2 assessment is

not needed when the flaw has passed the Level 1 assessment.

However, for checking purposes, both levels of assessment are

performed unless restricted by the scope of limitations.

PC Hardware/Software for the

Engineering User (Part 34)(by: Richard

Windows XP Windows Messenger

If you dont use Windows Messenger, you probably want to turn

the auto load of this application. This will save some syst

resources, and simply avoid the nuisance of seeing its icon in yo

task bar tray. Here is how to turn this off, for good.

1. Click [Start], then [Run]

2. Type in gpedit.msc and press [Enter]. This will start

Group Policy Editor.

3. Double click these items to expand them: local compu

policy, computer configurations, administrative templat

Windows components, Windows Messenger.

4. Now double-click Do not allow Windows Messenger

run, then click [Enabled].

5. Click [OK] and then quit the Group Policy Editor.

For Windows Messenger Version 4.5 or later, please refer to http

support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q302089

(Note the semicolons in this link!)

Advanced Searching on the Microsoft (and other) Web Sites

Sooner or later you will have a problem where you need to sear

the knowledge base on Microsofts web site. This is such a lar

web site, navigation can be difficult. However, the link below

designed to bring up a Google search page, that only search

Microsofts support database. The link is:

h t t p : / / w w w . g o o g l e . c o m / a d v a n c e d _ s e a r c h ? q = + s i

support.microsoft.com

Once this search page is displayed, fill in your search criteria, th

click [Google Search]. This same idea can be extended to any w

site. For example, to search the COADE web site for any articles

documents on friction, this link can be used:

http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=+site:www.coade.c

Simply change the URL of the website, following the +sit

qualifier.

8/4/2019 Jul 03

19/24


19

Is Spam the Majority of Your E-mail?

Many articles have recently been published concerning the e-mail

spam problem. Spam is the current hot topic in the press. Some

views even go so far as to claim that spam could render e-mail

useless in the near future if a solution to this problem is not found.

The discussion of one possible solution appeared in the April 2003

issue ofNetwork Magazine, in an article titled Fighting the Spam

Monster and Winning. The article discussed the various methods

used to fight spam, with particular attention onBayesian Filtering.

Bayesian filtering is an attempt to classify e-mail based on snippets

of text from the e-mail, and a mathematical algorithm to determine

the probability that the message is good, bad, or unsure. The

advantages and disadvantages of Bayesian filtering are summarized

in the following table.

Advantage Disadvantage

Very effective filtering, over 95% Computationally intensive

of spam caught

Generates few false positives Not well suited for

upstream server installation

Automatically learns

Hard for spammers to trick

Allows user fine tuning

Additional details are discussed in the referenced article. So, what

is necessary, how is it setup, how does it work. (The following

details are provided for information only. While COADE is

currently testing the implementation described here, this is not

COADE software. Therefore, COADE can not provide assistance

or support for this anti-spam tool.) The starting point should be

http://spambayes.sourceforge.net, which contains explanations and

other necessary links. To summarize, the following steps should be

implemented:

1) Download:spambayes-1.0a2.zip which is the Bayesian

filtering package (available from https://sourceforge.net/

p r o j e c t / s h o w f i l e s . p h p ? g r o u p _ i d = 6 1 7 0 2 )

win32all-153.exe, which is a set of Windows extensions for

Python (available from http://starship.python.net/crew/

m h a m m o n d / w i n 3 2 / D o w n l o a d s . h t m l )

python-2.3a2.exe, which is the Python compiler (available

from http://www.python.org/download/)

2) Shut down Outlook for the installation procedure.

3) Install the Python package, then the Win32 extensions, then

the SpamBayes package.

4) After installation, run addin.py, then view about.html.

5) If the installation succeeded, you should see three new

controls on the Outlook toolbar, as shown in the figure below

6) Create two new folders in Outlook, the names are irrelevant

but spam and possible-spam are good choices.

7) Gather as many spam e-mails as possible, and move them to

your spam folder.

8) Use the Anti-Spam control to specify all of your folders with

good e-mails, and your spam folder.

9) Then use the train now option to initialize and train the

Bayesian filter.

As new e-mails arrive, they are evaluated. If the filter decides the e

mail is good, it is left in your in-box. If the filter decides the e-mai

is spam, it is moved to your spam folder. If the filter is unsure

about a particular e-mail, it is moved to the possible-spam folder

at which point you can use either the Delete As Spam or Recoverfrom Spam controls. These controls also enhance the training o

the filter, so future, similar, e-mails are handled automatically. It is

also recommended that you occasionally re-train the filter, since

spam is continually changing.

Initial use at COADE has shown that 99% of all spam no longer

resides in the in-box. After a few days of use, virtually all spam

goes to the spam folder, with the remainder going to the possible-

spam folder.

8/4/2019 Jul 03

20/24


20

CAESAR II Notices

Listed below are those errors & omissions in the CAESAR II

program that have been identified since the last newsletter. These

corrections are available for download from our WEB site, for

Version 4.40.

Static Load Case Setup Module / Dynamic Input

Corrected the friction multiplier application when static load

cases were deleted on the edit dialog.

Corrected initialization of load case options when changing

piping codes.

Corrected the storage of wind topographical data for wind

vectors 2 through 4. This also affects wave data.

Large Job Printing Module

Modified to handle correction for spring hanger load variation

calculation when cold load design is activated.

Material Database Editor

Corrected the identification of the piping code when adding

materials to the data base for codes listed after B31.11.

Material Database

Corrected allowables for B31.3 A312 TP347H over 1000

degF.

Low Level Graphics DLL

Corrected a problem on Win98 with critical code section

that caused module linked to this DLL to crash on exit.

PipePlus Interface

Corrected acquisition of bend data in Pipeplus interface.

Corrected units translation for densities in Pipeplus interface.

Corrected testing for material and allowable specifications.

Corrected restraint processing for multiple restraints at thesame node point.

Structural Modeler

Corrected so that the interface wont eat trailing zeros on

exponential notation, i.e. 1e10.

Configuration Module

Corrected a version identification problem which preven

the stress color range settings from being read from existi

configuration files.

Added B31.11 as an option for the default piping code

Buried Pipe Module

Modified to address new B31.1 materials

Corrected the element data space initialization.

Dynamic Output Module

Corrected the input echo of configuration data for:

translational stiffness units labels

B31.3_SUS_SIF_FACTOR display

OCCASIONAL_LOAD_FACTOR display

Corrected an instance of pathname allocation being too sho

Corrected the access of nozzle data for input echos.

Animation Module

Corrected an instance of pathname allocation being too sho

Element Generator

Corrected an error in generating element loads when unifo

loads are in Gs, and W (weight), WNC (weight

contents), or WW (water weight) are not present in the lo

case.

Changed to include buoyancy effects in load cases based

WW (weight with water).

Static Solver

Corrected the stiffness used for designed constant eff

supports when changing hanger status to a setting other th

as designed.

Corrected the friction loads when the new friction mulitpliwas set to zero in the load case setup details.

Tweaked the friction algorithm for stiffness reset wh

convergence problems occur.

Corrected to properly lock predefined spring hangers

the hydrotest load case.

8/4/2019 Jul 03

21/24


21

Intergraph Interface

Updated the splitting of bend elements to address both tees

and dummy legs.

Miscellaneous Computation Processor


Corrected imposed limits on the crotch radius for B31.8

extruded welding tees.

Corrected the operation of the spinner control on the bend

SIF dialog so that the number of miter cuts is properly

obtained.

Corrected the SIFib division by 2 for use in WRC329 EQ 46

when SIFob was previously divided by 2.

Corrected message handler from eating the 3 key on the

numeric keypad.

Offshore DLL

Corrected a dimensionless parameter used in the Stream

Function wave theory, which was actually units dependent.

Nozzle Input Echo Format File

Corrected template for nozzle input echo.

ODBC Export DLL

Corrected the output of the Lisega spring size when sendingdata through the Data Export Wizard (ODBC).

Modified to handle correction for spring hanger load variation

calculation when cold load design is activated.

Static Stress Computation Module

Corrected a material input/output procedure to address

combined piping files.

Corrected the usage of Sh values for B31.8 Ch VIII,

affecting multipe OPE cases.

Modified the bending term in 3D Max Stress Intensitycalculation for hydrotest load cases.

Static Output Module

Modified all output filters to use a logical and instead of a

logical or when a node number range is specified.

Added the conversion of the hydrotest pressure field to the

routine for input echo display.

Corrected re-initialization of graphics data space when

switching jobs from within the output processor.

Corrected the determination of the data directory path when

switching jobs from within the output processor.

Corrected the formatting of node numbers in the restrain

summary report for nodes with multiple restraints.





Initialized printer device context flags before getting the

device defaults.

Corrected the graphical display of displacement values when

Z axis vertical is activated.

Corrected the access of nozzle data for input echos.

Corrected the printing of stress titles for TD/12 code when the

yield stress criterion is set to Von Mises.

Corrected the computation of spring hanger load variation

when cold load design is activated.

Corrected shutdown of program using File\Exit when printing

is in progress.

Piping Error Check Module

Corrected the over-ride of the thickness used in the B31.1

effective section modulus calculation for SUS and OCC load

cases when the B31.1 Reduced Z Fix configuration directive

was activated. This change only affects those tees where the

branch connection equation is used.


Corrected imposed limits on the crotch radius for B31.8

extruded welding tees.

For B31.3 Welding Tees and Sweepolets, changed the test for

Note 11 to correct a code error.

Corrected table pointers for B31.1/B31.3 y parameter used

in minimum wall thickness calculations.

Corrected the SIFib division by 2 for use in WRC329 EQ 46

when SIFob was previously divided by 2.

Corrected handling/storage of material data for included

job files.

8/4/2019 Jul 03

22/24


22

Interfacing DLL

Corrected handling of temporary material file.

Piping Input Module

Corrected the activation of the Eff field for new jobs whenthe code is switched to B31.8.

Modified so the seam weld setting is assumed for new bends

when using the TD/12 code.

Corrected the operation of the Element LIST dialog to

allow proper editing of the fields following the hydrotest

pressure field.






Corrected the usage of the block rotate setup options.

Corrected SaveAs function to handle .SOI and .XML files.

Corrected the display of the count of node names in the

model status auxiliary display.

Corrected the UNDO operation when invoked from the

LIST.

Corrected the access of nozzle data for input echoes.

WRC107 Module

Corrected the use of the Z-up flag.

Corrected to initialize all graphics variables between different

load cases

TANK Notices

Listed below are those errors & omissions in the TANKprogram

that have been identified since the last newsletter. These correctionsare available for download from our WEB site, for Version 2.40.

1) Solution Module:

Corrected the reset of minimum shell thickness (6mm)

when working in metric units.

Corrected the use of the FULL_SHELL_

WEIGHT_IN_APP_F directive in the computations.

2) Output Module:

Corrected the output of the annular base plate weight.

Corrected the use of the units conversion constant

threads per unit length.

Corrected the use of the units conversion constant nozzle expansion coefficient.

Corrected the output of two configuration directives for

input echo.

3) Units Generation Utility:

Corrected the conversion factor for rotational stiffne

for N-m/deg.

4) Error Check Module:

Corrected the check of seismic data to allow -1 as vainput for the seismic zone.

CODECALC Notices

Listed below are those errors & omissions in the CODECAL

program that have been identified since the last newsletter.

1) TEMA Tubesheet module:

Properly corroding the outer cylinder of the Expansion

Added warning for the tube pitch.

Corrections in the Tube-Tubesheet full-strength weld cal

Correctly interpreting the flange load transferred to

tubesheet that are entended but the bolt load is not transferr

to them.

For floating tubesheet, added input for G of the stationa

tubesheet.

2) Program Interface:

Addressed issues relating to switching between input a

graphics views.

Fixed some dialogs that were closing on hitting En

key, instead of tabbing to the next input field.

Modified the reading of title page data for older files.

Added some missing materials in the material database

8/4/2019 Jul 03

23/24


23

3) Shell:

Corrections to API-579, calculation of c value.

Fixed MAWP on the status bar for jobs with static head

specified.

4) Nozzle:

Fixed some issues relating to results on the status bar.

5) Flange:

Corrections to the blind flange calculations.

Added check for Lap Joint.

PVElite NoticesListed below are those errors & omissions in the PVElite program

that have been identified since the last newsletter.

1) Algebraic force/moment summation for base skirt supported

vessels was corrected.

2) On screen nozzle calcs for external pressure were not considering

the shell CA. This has been corrected.

3) Changed Nozzle diameter limit and added pad area for 5500

closely spaced nozzle check.

4) The F factor was being used on offset hillside nozzles in

cylinders unintentionally for the external tr case.

5) Fixed on screen calc of the pad diameter when the pad width

was entered on actual thickness basis for larger nozzles.

6) Fixed the on screen weld calc for required thickness of the

inside weld.

7) Sorted out a memory issue with the output processor and color

hightlighting.

8) Implemented new computation for partial volumes of non-standard F&D Heads.

9) Sorted out a sign issue for cone/knuckle/ring/shell inertia calc.

10) Fixed the use of local shell thickness for the on screen nozzle

calcs.

11) Some 3D graphics features were fixed, such as nozzle on

nozzle plotting.

12) For leg baseplates when there were 0 bolts in tension the

program could abort.

13) When user defined wind pressure was specified and there was atop head platform, the wind load on the platform may not have

been calculated in some cases.

14) When user specified axial loads were entered at cone/cylinde

junction, they may not have been consider in the Q calculation

COADE Releases CADWorx 2004

Simultaneously with AUTOCAD

2004, Co-Promotes Products withAUTODESK

(by: John Brinlee

On March 17, 2003, COADE released CADWorx Version 2004

the latest version of its AutoCAD-based Plant Design Suite. The

release culminated a development period during which COADE

worked closely with Autodesk as one of only four software

developers worldwide selected to release an AutoCAD 2004-based

product on the same day, coincident with the debut of Autodesks

new release, AutoCAD 2004 (note that CADWorx is also compatible

with AutoCAD versions 2000, 2000i, and 2002). CADWorx 2004

not only offers process industry designers the ability to immediatelytake advantage of the groundbreaking enhancements in AutoCAD

2004, but also provides many new features compared to COADE

previous version, CADWorx 2002.

By leveraging Autodesks investment in the next release of

AutoCAD, COADEs new version ofCADWorx greatly increases

the size of plant models that teams of designers can work on

simultaneously, while making it much easier to learn and use the

program. These dramatic improvements in both performance and

functionality are made possible by significant file size reduction

faster load and save times, enhanced management of externa

references (XREFs), and user interface refinements such as the new

tool palette system.

In addition to offering compatibility with AutoCAD 2004, CADWorx

2004 offers many other new features. The CADWorx PIPE 2004

module provides improved integrated steel capabilities, integrated

HVAC/cable tray components, automatic weld gaps, and layering

by line number. New capabilities in CADWorx P&ID 2004 include

enhanced copy procedures, an auto repeat feature, and a dropdown

list for instant data entry.

8/4/2019 Jul 03

24/24


12777 Jones Rd. Suite 480 Tel: 281-890-4566 Web: www.coade.com

Houston, Texas 77070 Fax: 281-890-3301 E-Mail: [email protected]

COADE Engineering Software

Thomas Van Laan, president of COADE, believes that the improvements offered in AutoCAD 2004 are exactly those for which the pla

design industry has been hoping. Says Van Laan, Our customers are always concerned with three things - speed, size, and how to mana

them - so we think our customers will love this new version of AutoCAD. Weve found that a 22-megabyte project created underCADWo

2002 drops to less than 6 megabytes under CADWorx 2004, a dramatic 70%+ reduction in project file size. Van Laan continue

CADWorx has always taken maximum advantage of AutoCADs XREF capabilities to the hilt. The new XREF management featur

including improved load speed and change notification, are perfect complements to the way that our customers manage large projects.

John Sanders, Vice President Platform Technology Division for Autodesk, agrees that COADE has done a great job leveraging the b

features of AutoCAD 2004. Sanders says, We are very pleased that COADE was able to develop a 2004-compatible version ofCADWo

so quickly. Autodesk has been working very closely with COADE to determine what AutoCAD enhancements that would be most valued

the plant design community. Were impressed by how they have leveraged the strengths of AutoCAD 2004 - speed, teamwork a

management - and translated these strengths into productivity improvements for process plant designers. CADWorx 2004 is a great tool

anyone involved in the design of process plants.

Following the release, COADE and Autodesk collaborated on a multi-city tour to conclusively demonstrate the advantages ofCADWo

2004 operating in an AutoCAD 2004 environment. Presentations showing how CADWorx 2004 can offer a more economic plant desi

solution over a full range of project sizes were made to receptive audiences in Houston, New Orleans, Philadelphia, New York, Bosto

Chicago, Calgary, Singapore, Antwerp, and Moscow with more of the same touted for Birmingham, Atlanta, Seattle and Kuala Lumpur

mid to late July.

CADWorx 2004 Takes Advantage of Gates Barman of Hanover Corporation

AutoCAD 2004's Finest Features Receives the First Copy of CADWorx 2004

Jul 03

Documents

Transcript of Jul 03