Professional Documents
Culture Documents
C2 Cover Letter PDF
C2 Cover Letter PDF
Engineering
News Volume 19
For the Power, Petrochemical and Related Industries November, 1994
The COADE Mechanical Engineering News Bulletin is has been updated to reflect the variety of different operating
published periodically from the COADE offices in Houston, environments under which users run COADE software. The
Texas. The Bulletin is intended to provide information about new SYSCHK main screen is shown in the figure below:
software applications and development for
Mechanical Engineers serving the power, petrochemical,
and related industries. Additionally, the Bulletin will serve
as the official notification vehicle for software errors discov-
ered in those Mechanical Engineering programs offered by
COADE. (Please note, this bulletin is published only two to
three times per year.)
Table Of Contents
PC Hardware for the Engineering User (Part 19) ...... 1
What’s New at COADE
TANK Enhancements ........................................... 2
CAESAR II Version 3.21 Released in July .......... 2 The major changes/enhancements to this program are:
Seminar Schedules for 1995 .................................. 3
German Language Files Available for • A revised detection method for the DOS SHARE utility
CAESAR II ....................................................... 4 is implemented. This is necessary because it is illegal to
Technology You Can Use load SHARE once Windows is loaded. Therefore
Caution When Moving COADE Programs ........... 4 Windows always patched the standard detection method
Notes on the Density of Calcium Silicate to lie about the existence of SHARE. SYSCHK can now
Insulation ........................................................... 4 detect if SHARE is loaded, even from a DOS box under
Local Coordinate Systems - Revisited ................... 4 Windows.
Fine Tuning & Sensitivity Studies – Added
Benefits of Piping System Analysis .................. 6 • The new SYSCHK checks to see if DOS is loaded in
The CAESAR II Pulse Table Generator .............. 9 high memory.
Commonly Asked CAESAR II Questions .......... 12
CAESAR II Specifications ................................. 13 • The new SYSCHK checks to see if Windows is loaded,
TANK Specifications .......................................... 14 and if so what version is running.
CodeCalc Specifications ..................................... 14
CAESAR II celebrates 10 years
of industry leadership
this December
PC Hardware & Systems for the
Engineering User (Part 19)
• The new SYSCHK checks to see if a network redirector
is running.
Summer 1994 brought about a new release of all COADE
software products. In addition to supporting a local ESL • The new SYSCHK also checks to see if disk caching or
from a new vendor, these releases also support a network disk compression have been implemented.
ESL. Additionally, the SYSCHK (system check) program
1
COADE Mechanical Engineering News November, 1994
2
COADE Mechanical Engineering News November, 1994
Note that there are no graphics controls built into the viewer Seminar Schedules for 1995
distributed with Version 3.21. This decision was made to
keep the viewer program as small as possible, which reduces
the load time. Once the desired job is found, the input Our seminar schedule for 1995 has been set. It appears
processor should be used to access the other graphics functions. below. We will again have five piping analysis seminars and
(A full featured viewer was developed, but the load/display two pressure vessel courses. These are our open attendence
time approaches six seconds - for this reason the small viewer courses held here in our training room. Other, in-house,
was released.) training can be held at any time, anywhere, by appointment.
3
COADE Mechanical Engineering News November, 1994
German Language Files Available The second change in the Summer 94 releases is that all
for CAESAR II products now reference a SYSTEM subdirectory (beneath
the installation directory) for certain data files, which may be
subject to alteration by the user. These files are now located
As of November 1994, the language text files utilized by in SYSTEM to allow network installations the option of
CAESAR II have been translated into German. These new “write protecting” the program directory. If the software is
language files provide German users the same presentation moved, the SYSTEM subdirectory must be moved also in
abilities as has been available to Spanish and French users. order for the software to find the necessary data files.
Most users eventually have the need to move a software Source Density
program, either from one machine to another, or from one
disk drive to another. Up until the Summer 94 releases, this Grinnell Catalog 11 lb/ft3
was a rather simple affair for COADE products. However, The Piping Guide 11 lb/ft3
as of the Summer 94 releases, there are two new traits of Intro to Pipe Stress Analysis 11 lb/ft3
COADE software products that may hamper the simple
“copy from here to there” scenario. Users should be aware of the default data used for engineering
computations, its origin, and other possible values.
First, the products are no longer managed by a .COM
program. The old .COM loader/manager has been replaced
by a more powerful .EXE loader/manager. What does this Local Coordinate Systems - Revisited
mean to the user? By default, DOS looks for .COM files By Richard Ay
before .EXE files. Therefore if one of the products is moved
to a location where DOS finds an old .COM before the new The December 1992 issue of Mechanical Engineering News
.EXE, the program will not run. Instead, the user will receive contains an article discussing the “Global” versus “Local”
an error message that the Main Menu module could not be coordinate systems implemented in CAESAR II. This
loaded. (Using INSTALL instead of a COPY procedure article explains what each coordinate system represents and
eliminates this problem, since INSTALL cleans up the how they can be determined. Many users have requested
installation directory.) additional information on this subject, especially for bends
and skewed sections of a piping model. This article is
This switch from a .COM to a .EXE can also cause the same intended to provide this information.
error to occur if more than one version of the software exists
on the computer. DOS will find and execute whichever The figure below shows a small piping system with the local
loader it finds first when it walks down the PATH. Users with coordinate system for each elbow sketched near the element.
multiple versions of the same product, on the same machine, The local element coordinate system for an elbow can be
must adjust the AUTOEXEC.BAT file to correctly run the determined as follows: local “x” is directed along the incoming
programs.
4
COADE Mechanical Engineering News November, 1994
Note that the figure above and the figures from the 12/92
article all represent systems aligned with the Global coordinate
system. How can the system forces and moments for skewed
piping be resolved? The figure below shows a portion of a
line which terminates at a vessel nozzle. The pipe running
into the nozzle makes an angle of 150 degrees with the Global
“X” axis. (Note that the pipe nodes are from 190 to 200,
which defines the direction of the Local “x” axis. The angle
from the Global “X” axis to the Local “x” axis is 150
degrees.) We need to know the loads imposed on the nozzle
for a WRC-107 analysis, which means radial, circumferential,
and longitudinal directions. (If the pipe element had been RESTRAINT REPORT, Loads on Restraints
aligned with the Global “X” or “Z” directions, it would be a CASE 3 (OPE) W+T1+P1+FOR
simple matter to obtain the forces and moments from the —— Forces(lb.) —— — Moments(ft.lb.) —
NODE FX FY FZ MX MY MZ TYPE
restraint report. However, for a skewed system, the forces
and moments must be obtained from the element force/ 200 -302. -234. 564. 57. -6352. -3. Rigid ANC
The figure below shows both the “Global” and “Local” DATA ——Forces(lb.)—— —Moments(ft.lb.)—
POINT FX FY FZ MX MY MZ
coordinate systems for the pipe element 190-200. Below the
190 -302 -87 564 -345 -3153 693
figure are the Global and Local Force reports for this element 200 302 233 -564 -56 6351 3
for the Operating case, and the Restraint report for node 200.
LOCAL FORCE REPORT, Forces on Elements
CASE 3 (OPE) W+T1+P1+FOR
5
COADE Mechanical Engineering News November, 1994
The radial force needed for the WRC-107 analysis is simply Fine Tuning & Sensitivity Studies –
the “negative” of the local “fx” at node 200, or -20.0 pounds. Added Benefits of Piping System Analysis
The circumferential moment is the “negative” of the local By David Diehl
“mz” at node 200, or 6351.9 foot-pounds. The longitudinal
moment is the negative of the local “my” at node 200, or 31.0 With today’s software-based analysis tools so quick and
foot-pounds. convenient, their application has been expanded to include
“what-if” analysis. For example, “what-if” a support is
These Local forces and moments can be related to the Global moved down the line a few feet or “what-if” the spared pump
forces and moments at node 200 by applying the “coordinate is not heat traced. One change of the input data and a few
system rotation” matrix. This transformation matrix (for a more seconds of analysis will allow the engineer to evaluate
two-dimensional system) is shown below. the reliability of the system under variations in installation
and under unexpected operating conditions. Within minutes,
{f }= [ M] {F} and without paper, the results from a base model’s analysis
can be compared to those of a modified model.
fx cos θθθθ-sin θθθθ FX
= ∗ When only small, simple model changes are made in each
fz sin θθθθ+ cos θθθθ FZ design iteration, these modifications could serve two
purposes. First, if the model is accurate, the modification can
For this system, the angle theta is 150 degrees. This results push the design closer to the desired value. This will be
in the following matrix equation, based on the forces and called fine tuning the design. Second, the modification is
moments from the “Global Force/Moment” report. made only to test the impact of the change in the results. This
will be called a sensitivity study. Both fine tuning the design
fx = (-.866)(302) - (.5)(-564) = 20.5 and the sensitivity study are a natural outgrowth of computer
fy = (.5)(302) + (-.866)(-564) = 639.4 simulation.
mx = (-.866)(-57) - (.5)(3) = 47.9 Fine tuning has a specific goal in mind. For example, if pump
my = (.5)(-57) + (.866)(3) = -31.1 loads must be reduced then intelligent changes are made to
the model and the results are examined to see if that goal is
approached. Of course, fine tuning is only valid if the model
Note that for this system, the Global “Y” direction corresponds itself is “fine” or detailed in the first place. The sensitivity
to the Local “z” direction, and the Global “MY” corresponds study is more of a discovery process. The model is “tweaked”
to the Local “mz”. to see how sensitive the results are to the change. For
example, if pump loads are low in a model where all rack
The resulting “local” forces and moments agree with those piping supports are modeled as “rigid Y restraints” (with a
reported in the “Local Force/Moment” report. These forces stiffness of 106 lbf./in.) but pump loads are high when these
and moments represent the loads acting on the end of the pipe rack supports are modeled with structural steel elements, the
element. To use these values in the WRC-107 analysis, the model is sensitive to the support stiffness and accurate
signs must be reversed, since the forces on the vessel are restraint stiffnesses are then important in this design. The
needed. figure below exemplifies this process. The three lines
signify the limits on typical pump/piping systems. The area
More information on local-global transformations can be bounded by these limits indicates safe and reliable operation
found in most graphics texts, and in texts on matrix solutions while results falling outside are not acceptable. If a user is
to engineering problems. uncertain about some aspect of the model, a second job is
analyzed which changes that aspect. If the results move from
#1 to #2, the uncertainty has no great impact. If, however, the
The COADE BBS has recently been upgraded to the results move from #1 to #3, than the user should take the time
latest version of PCBOARD. Suggestions to research the issue and build a more accurate model. This
from the users of the BBS are welcome. sort of investigation was not feasible with earlier analysis
Users desiring additional information about using methods due to the inherent inaccuracies or because of the
this BBS can download the file BBS_INFO.ZIP large commitment in time.
from the “Information” file area.
6
COADE Mechanical Engineering News November, 1994
An Example
Figure 1
7
COADE Mechanical Engineering News November, 1994
AS DESIGNED
size and orientation. If the nozzle loads are below these limits X Force = -313.0 lb. 850 .37 Passed
Y Force = -1499.0 lb. 1100 1.36 Passed
(specified in Table 2 of the standard), then the pump alignment Z Force = 279.0 lb. 700 .40 Passed
is assured. A second test is available for pumps if the Table
X Moment = 3596.0 ft.lb.2600 1.38 Passed
2 limits are exceeded. This secondary check is defined in Y Moment = -2099.0 ft.lb.1900 1.10 Passed
Z Moment = 2526.0 ft.lb.1300 1.94 Passed
Appendix F of the standard. Appendix F has three checks:
Check of Condition F.1.2.2 Requirement Status
F.1.2.1 - the component loads on each nozzle (which can be (FRSa/1.5FRSt2) + (MRSa/1.5MRSt2) = 1.756 < or = 2.00 Passed
(FRDa/1.5FRDt2) + (MRDa/1.5MRDt2) = 1.593 < or = 2.00 Passed
as large as twice the Table 2 limits),
Check of Condition F.1.2.3 Requirement
Status
F.1.2.2 - the resultant forces and moments on each nozzle,
1.5 ( FRSt2 + FRDt2 ) = 5640. > 3910. (FRCa) Passed
and 2.0 ( MZSt2 + MZDt2 ) = 6200. > 4338. (MZCa) Passed
1.5 ( MRSt2 + MRDt2 ) = 12750. > 12748. (MRCa) Passed
F.1.2.3 - the resultant forces and moments and the moment Overall Pump Status Passed
about the local Z axis of all loads resolved to the
center of the pump Figure 4
The example here generates pump loads that exceed the API With the calculated pump loads so close to their limits it is
610 Table 2 limits. It is necessary, then, to examine the wise to take a much closer look at the model to confirm it is
Appendix F limits defined in that standard. The correct. Any questionable input items could be “tweaked” to
CAESAR II API 610 processor collects the definition of the examine their impact on the results. If the results do not
pump along with the nozzle loads to check the Appendix F suffer, no additional investigation into these model details is
criteria. The API 610 report (shown in Figure 4) confirms necessary.
that the 10 inch end suction nozzle and the 8 inch top
discharge nozzle meet the Appendix F criteria; the pump is If the system is built as it was designed the pump should
OK. operate without difficulty. To illustrate an additional benefit
of this analysis, four variations on this design will be used to
determine how sensitive the pump is to the hanger load and
position. As it is initially designed, the hanger (at node 125)
is placed 7 feet from the discharge riser. It is a Grinnell
8
COADE Mechanical Engineering News November, 1994
Figure B-286 (mid range) spring with a spring rate of 260 lbf./ could have indicated that model modification – “fine tuning”
in. The spring’s load is set to 1200 lbf. when the system is in – was necessary. But here the model looked fine so the
operation. Since the spring moves 1/3 inch to its operating model was manipulated in the second fashion — a “sensitivity
position, the installation load on the spring is set to 1286 lbf. study” was made. This sensitivity study did not focus on
Four additional analyses will be made to test the significance variations in design layout but instead on variations on the
of common installation variations. All four involve the spring hanger installation. The study clearly illustrates that the
and are very simple to run through the program. The changes layout is sensitive to the spring; the spring load and position
are: must be properly set for reliable pump operation. It is
noteworthy that the spring, which in so many cases is used to
• Set the spring load to reach only 70% of the operating improve system loads, can also harm the design. Man time
load, for the four analyses in this study is minimal, about ten
minutes, but the benefits may be great. Not all systems
• Set the spring so that the spring load is 130% the design require this sort of study, but here, where the pump loads are
value, very close to their limits, such an examination plus a close
review of the model definition is warranted. If these pump
• Move the spring towards the discharge riser by 3.5 feet, loads are not reduced, it would be wise to give close attention
and to this pump at startup.
• Move the spring 3.5 feet away from the discharge riser. This sort of formal analysis can confirm a good piping design
and can assist the engineer in redesigning the piping system
In each case the suction loads on the pump are the same. The when it is required. When used as a tool for sensitivity
pump discharge loads (in pounds and foot-pounds) for each studies, piping analysis software can indicate critical
variation are shown in Table 1 below. The final column installation parameters so that safe and reliable operation is
(% of allowable) lists the maximum ratio of the Appendix F ensured.
criteria.
Case FX FY FZ MX MY MZ % of allowable
The CAESAR II Pulse Table Generator
1 - light load -315 -1745 279 3620 -2093 2172 100.74 By Thomas Van Laan and Richard Ay
2 - heavy load -312 -1252 278 3571 -2105 2882 111.00
3 - closer -313 -1318 278 3619 -2084 2166 98.01
4 - farther -316 -1696 281 3592 -2118 2562 101.39 The Force Spectrum solutions offered by CAESAR II (for
simulation of relief valve, water hammer, slug flow, etc.) use
Table 1 a frequency domain model based on a Dynamic Load Factor
(DLF) vs. natural frequency response spectrum. Dynamic
Only one of these variations — moving the spring closer to Load Factor is defined as the ratio of the system response
the riser — passes the API 610 check; the loads here are much (i.e., deflection, force, stress, restraint load) during dynamic
better than the original design. The other three cases fail for application of a load to the system response which would
the following reasons: have resulted from the static application of the same load.
Case 1 - The moments resolved at the pump’s base point The DLF response spectrum for a given load is generated by
exceed the allowable limit (Condition F.1.2.3), solving the dynamic equation of motion for a single degree
of freedom system:
Case 2 - The bending moment about the Z axis at the pump
Ma(t) + Cv(t) + Kx(t) = F(t)
discharge nozzle exceeds the two times the Table 2
value, and Where:
Case 4 - The moments resolved at the pump’s base point M = mass of system, slug
exceed the allowable limit. a(t) = acceleration of system (as a function of time), in/sec2
C = damping of system, slug/sec or lb-sec/in
Again, why were these analyses made? The analysis of the v(t) = velocity of system (as a function of time), in/sec
original layout showed that the pump was very close to its K = stiffness of system, lb/in
maximum rated loads. The model was first examined to x(t) = displacement of system (as a function of time), in
determine whether or not modeling shortcuts might have F(t) = applied force (as a function of time), lb
produced low values for these loads. This initial review
9
COADE Mechanical Engineering News November, 1994
For an idealized system, where the system damping is near natural period of the system. (For an instantaneous rise time,
zero, and the loading takes the form of an instantaneously and an infinite load duration, the ratios to all natural periods
applied constant force of infinite duration, the system are the same, which explains why the DLF was constant for
displacement solution is: all frequencies in the example discussed above). A review
of the textbook Introduction to Structural Dynamics, by
x(t) = (F/K) (1-cos ωt) John M. Biggs, shows several plots of maximum DLF curves
as a function of the ratio of load duration to system natural
Where: period.
x(t) = system displacement (as a function of time), in
F = magnitude of applied force, lb
ω = system angular natural frequency, rad/sec
= (K/M)½
t = time, sec
omega
10
COADE Mechanical Engineering News November, 1994
υυυ0 1.6
∫ ( )
tr
X( t ) = X0 cos ωωωt +
1 t
sin ω
ω
ωt + F( τττ) sin ω
ω
ω t - τττ d τττ
ωω
ω Mωω
ω0
1.4
Where:
1.2
t = time for which displacement is solved, sec
τ = time at which force is applied, sec 1.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
tr/T
When the arbitrary load can be broken into discrete, linearized
segments, the force function can be fairly easily integrated
using Simpson’s rule, permitting the solution of the system
displacements at any point throughout the duration of the
load. The ASME B31.1 Power Piping Code, in Section 3.5.1.3 of
Appendix II (Nonmandatory Rules for the Design of
CAESAR II provides the user with a Pulse Table/DLF Safety Valve Installations), presents a discussion on
Spectrum Generator, which performs the automatic dynamic load factors, including a DLF curve, adapted from
integration of Duhamel’s integral. This module takes a user the Biggs text. Here, the Code uses to (the opening time of
supplied, segmented pulse, and creates the appropriate the relief valve) to represent the rise time of the loading. The
equation for each segment. Displacements are calculated at figure below demonstrates how the ASME Code curve,
each terminus of the segment, and the equation is differentiated which is based upon an infinite load duration, envelopes the
in order to locate any displacement minima or maxima DLF curves generated by CAESAR II for various finite
ocurring within the interior of the segment (this assures that load durations.
the maximum displacement is found, without using a hit-or-
miss approach). The absolute maximum dynamic
Comparison of Dynamic Load Factors
displacement is then selected from the largest of the segmental
2.0
values, and the DLF calculated from that. This process is 1.8 ASME Curve
repeated for the number of natural frequencies specified by 1.6 Long Duration
1.4
the user, which, when plotted, create the response spectrum. 1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
Response spectra for the same load profiles as shown in the 0.4 Short Duration
0.2
theoretical plots above have been generated using the 0.0
CAESAR II Pulse Table/DLF Spectrum Generator, and 0.1 1.0 10.0
t0/ T
are shown below, demonstrating the accuracy of
CAESAR II’s algorithm:
In general one can reach the following conclusions about
Dynamic Load Factors and impulse loading:
2.0
• The magnitude and shape of the DLF curve is
1.6 independent of the magnitude of the applied force, but
dependent on the shape of the normalized load profile.
1.2
F1 Therefore the CAESAR II user may specify the actual
0.8
load, or a normalized value of 1.0 as the pulse magnitude.
td
0.4 • If the rise time is much greater than the natural period of
the system, the system response approaches the static
0.0 response to the applied load - the dynamic effects (and
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0
thus the DLF) are negligible.
td/T
11
COADE Mechanical Engineering News November, 1994
• The shorter the rise time of the load profile is, the greater article "Expansion Case For Temperatures Below Ambient",
the DLF will be. If the rise time (for a load of infinite published in Mechanical Engineering News, May 1993.
duration) is less than approximately one quarter of the
natural period, the response approximates that for an By examining a pipe resting on a pipe rack, this variance can
instantaneously applied load — i.e., the DLF is 2.0. be seen. In the sustained (cold) condition, the pipe is resting
on the rack, and there is a deadweight load imposed on the
• As the duration of the load increases, peak dynamic rack. In order for the pipe to move off of the rack, the forces
response (higher DLFs) will shift toward the systems due to expansion must first overcome the deadweight load.
with longer natural periods (smaller natural frequencies). Therefore, the loading on the pipe will be the difference
between the deadweight load and the forces due to the
expansion of the pipe. If instead of reviewing the difference,
Commonly Asked CAESAR II Questions the user looked at the temperature case only, the deadweight
By Tim Curington effects would be ignored. In order to adhere to one code’s
definition of secondary loadings ( loadings due to expansion,
The following begins a Question & Answer series that will be weight stress variation, differential settlement, movements
continued in subsequent newsletters. In addition, these and in the supports, etc. ) these deadweight effects must be
other Q & A entries can be found in the subsequent editions considered.
of the program documentation, and on the COADE BBS.
The series is intended to provide an additional reference
3) I have entered wind/uniform loads in the job, but my
source from which to obtain answers to
results have not changed?
CAESAR II questions.
12
COADE Mechanical Engineering News November, 1994
CAESAR II Specifications 3) Pen Plot Module: A plotting error was discovered in the
Pen Plot module which caused all elements of the model
to be plotted as expansion joints - when the job included
Listed below are those bugs/errors/omissions in the thermal bowing. This error exists in Versions 3.19,
CAESAR II program that have been identified since the last 3.20, and 3.21. This error also exists in the Animation
newsletter. These items are listed in two classes. Module in Versions 3.19 and 3.20. This was corrected
Class 1 errors are problems or anomalies that might lead to in 3.21a.
the generation of erroneous results. Class 2 errors are general
problems that may result in confusion or an abort condition, 4) Static Output Module: An error has been discovered in
but do not cause erroneous results. the static output module which could cause the restraint/
hanger symbol plotting to put the symbols at incorrect
Class 1 locations. This problem only occurred if the “restraint
summary” report was previously requested, resulting in
1) Hanger Design Modules: An error has been discovered a restraint nodal sort. This plotting error exists in
in the computation of the “Actual Installed Load” on Versions 3.19, 3.20, and 3.21. This was corrected in
Variable Spring Hangers when more than one hanger is 3.21a.
specified at the location. This error was an output error
only and involved the application of the spring rate of the 5) Graphics File Saves: A compiler conversion problem
total installation to each individual spring. This did not was discovered which prevents “appending” to graphics
cause an error in spring selection, calculation of hot or image files. This problem exists in Versions 3.20 and
cold load, or subsequent load case results. This error 3.21 in the following modules: piping input, structural
exists in all versions of CAESAR II prior to Version input, dynamic animation, static output. This was
3.21, and was corrected in Version 3.21a, which was corrected in 3.21a.
sent to all current users.
6) Documentation, Technical Reference Manual: On page
3-27 of this document, reference is made to using the
2) Refractory Lined Pipe: An oversight was discovered in [Alt] key to plot node numbers with hangers, supports,
the element generator when generating the mass matrix anchors, and nozzles. This is an error, the proper key to
for dynamic jobs. The presence of refractory lining was use is [Shift].
not considered.
On page 6-20, the Expansion case is defined as D1-D2.
This error exists in Versions 3.19, 3.20, and 3.21, and is This is incorrect, it should be D3-D4.
corrected in Version 3.21a.
7) Piping Error Checker: Two errors have been discovered
Class 2 in the piping error check module. The first error occurs
when the “INCLUDE” feature is used with the “N” (no)
1) Analysis Setup Module: A file management error has option, and the second intersection field of the SIF
been discovered in the setup of the wind loading data for auxiliary field is used. The node number increment is
“structural only” jobs. For these jobs, if an attempt was not applied to this second intersection node, resulting in
made to adjust the ASCE #7 wind data, the program a fatal error. This error exists in all CAESAR II 3.x
aborted back to DOS. This error exists only in Versions versions.
3.19 and 3.20. This error was corrected for the Version
3.21 release. The second error limits the number of intersections to
200. This limit should have been removed in Version
2) WRC-107 Module: A units conversion problem was 3.21. This was corrected in 3.21a.
discovered in the WRC-107 module which was activated
if the user made an input error. When the program 8) Piping Input Module: An error has been discovered in
detected the input error, it returned control to the input the input module when attempting to use Stainless Steel
routine, by passing the units conversion step. This error pipe schedules. The addition of the half-pipe sizes (in
is only apparent for non-English operation. This error, Version 3.21) caused the access routine to overlook the
corrected for Version 3.21, is in all other 3.x versions of stainless thicknesses, resulting in an error notification
the program. during input. This was corrected in 3.21a.
13
COADE Mechanical Engineering News November, 1994
9) Piping Input Module: A change has been made in the to those for the first nozzle. This error exists in both
ordering of the bend node numbers during the node Version 1.00 and 1.10 of TANK. This problem was
number increment. Versions prior to 3.21A incremented corrected in Version 1.10C and was shipped to all users.
the auxiliary bend nodes backwards, causing the new
nodes to be ordered incorrectly. This was corrected in Class 2
3.21a..
1) Input Module: An error has been discovered in the
10) Input Listing Module: A memory management error has Version 1.10 input module regarding the automatic
been discovered Version 3.21 in the Input Listing Module. specification of elastic modulus and expansion
This error causes some input data to be omitted from the coefficient for the Appendix P nozzles. The data
listing report, for jobs that exceed roughly 1000 elements. provided is correct, however for nozzles 2 through 5 this
This was corrected in 3.21a. information is placed in the wrong input cells. This
error is obvious to the user when specifying the remaining
11) Documentation, Applications Guide: Pages 3-93 through nozzle data. This problem is corrected in Version
3-96 should have been reprinted for the 3.21 update. 1.10C.
This is necessary since the echo of two elements moved
from 3-92 to 3-93. 2) Output Generation Module: Several conversion errors
were discovered in the output preprocessor which
affected the display of “user input”. The values of:
design temperature, bottom plate yield stress and bottom
TANK Specifications plate thickness were not converted from the English
system properly. This error exists in Versions 1.00 and
Listed below are those bugs/errors/omissions in the TANK 1.10 of TANK and is corrected in Version 1.10C.
program that have been identified since the last newsletter.
These items are listed in two classes. Class 1 errors are 3) Output Generation Module: An error exists in Version
problems or anomalies that might lead to the generation of 1.10 which prevents the nozzle input text labels from
erroneous results. Class 2 errors are general problems that being associated with the proper input data. This error
may result in confusion or an abort condition, but do not produces incorrect input listings. This problem is
cause erroneous results. corrected in Version 1.10C.
Class 1
CodeCalc Specifications
1) Appendix E Seismic Computations: An error has been
discovered in the Appendix E seismic calculations
regarding the usage of the “percentage of roof weight Listed below are those bugs/errors/omissions in the CodeCalc
supported by the shell”. This user specified percentage program that have been identified since the last newsletter.
value (entered on the Roof Details Spreadsheet) should These items are listed in two classes. Class 1 errors are
have been divided by 100. problems or anomalies that might lead to the generation of
erroneous results. Class 2 errors are general problems that
This error exists in Versions 1.00 and 1.10 of TANK. may result in confusion or an abort condition, but do not
The error was corrected and Version 1.10A was shipped cause erroneous results.
to all users.
Class 1
2) Appendix E Seismic Computations: An error has been
discovered in the Appendix E seismic calculations in the 1) The UCS-66.1 MDMT reduction was off for vessels
determination of the required anchor bolt size. The bolts whose required thicknesses were between .4 and .5 of
were oversized by a factor of approximately SQRT(pi/ the actual thickness. This problem was corrected in
4). This error exists in Version 1.10, and was corrected Version 5.30A and was shipped to all users.
in Version 1.10C and shipped to all users.
2) The piping materials used by the Pipe&Pad program
3) Appendix P Nozzle Computations: A data management were updated to the latest edition of the B31.1 piping
error prevented the computation of nozzle stiffnesses Code. These were updated in 5.30A.
and limiting loads for any nozzles after the first one
specified. The results for subsequent nozzles are identical
14
COADE Mechanical Engineering News November, 1994
Class 2
15
COADE Mechanical Engineering News November, 1994
16