c2 v&v_manual_v530

Printed on 4 January, 2011

CAESAR II 2011 Verification and Validation Manual

Copyright © 1985-2010 Intergraph CAS, All Rights Reserved.

These documents are the property of Intergraph Corporation, they may be used for internal reference purposes only and may not be copied, sold or otherwise distributed to any third party.

Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction 1-1

Chapter 2 Discussion of QA Standards 2-1

Chapter 3 Intergraph CAS Quality Assurance Procedures 3-1

Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-2 Reference Documents ............................................................................................................................... 3-3 Management ............................................................................................................................................. 3-4 Verification Methods ................................................................................................................................ 3-5

Quality Assurance Test Procedure ................................................................................................ 3-5 QATEST ........................................................................................................................................ 3-6 Additional Manual Checks for Staff and Beta Users ..................................................................... 3-6

Implementing QATEST ............................................................................................................................ 3-7 Installing the QA Files................................................................................................................... 3-7

User Documentation ................................................................................................................................. 3-8 Corrective Action Standard....................................................................................................................... 3-9 Distribution Control ................................................................................................................................ 3-10

Chapter 4 NRC Benchmarks 4-1

NRC General Benchmarks ........................................................................................................................ 4-2 NRC Spectrum Benchmarks ................................................................................................................... 4-11

Chapter 5 ASME Benchmarks 5-1

Chapter 6 General Benchmarks 6-1

ANSYS Benchmark .................................................................................................................................. 6-2 ADLPIPE Benchmark............................................................................................................................... 6-6 AUTOPIPE Benchmark ............................................................................................................................ 6-8 DYNAFLEX Benchmarks ...................................................................................................................... 6-13 TRIFLEX Benchmark............................................................................................................................. 6-23 UBEND Benchmark ............................................................................................................................... 6-25 SIMFLEX Benchmarks .......................................................................................................................... 6-28 PIPESTRESS Benchmarks ..................................................................................................................... 6-38 E400 Benchmark .................................................................................................................................... 6-43 CAEPIPE Benchmarks ........................................................................................................................... 6-48 L- Bend Benchmark ................................................................................................................................ 6-58

Chapter 7 Stoomwezen Benchmarks 7-1

Test Case I ................................................................................................................................................ 7-2 These documents are the property of Intergraph Corporation, they may be used for internal reference purposes only and may not be copied, sold or otherwise distributed to any third party.

2 Introduction

Test Case II ............................................................................................................................................... 7-9 Test Case III ............................................................................................................................................ 7-18 Bend With Concentrated Loads .............................................................................................................. 7-25 Bend With Uniform Loads ..................................................................................................................... 7-33

Chapter 8 Structural Benchmarks 8-1

ANSYS Truss Job ..................................................................................................................................... 8-2 3D Beams & Columns .............................................................................................................................. 8-4 Portal Frame.............................................................................................................................................. 8-6 Truss Analysis # 1 .................................................................................................................................... 8-7 Truss Analysis #2 ..................................................................................................................................... 8-9 Loaded Beam .......................................................................................................................................... 8-10 Plane Frame ............................................................................................................................................ 8-11 Simple Plane Frame ................................................................................................................................ 8-12 Space Frame............................................................................................................................................ 8-13 Simple Truss Plane ................................................................................................................................. 8-15 Plane Truss.............................................................................................................................................. 8-17

Chapter 9 User Quality Assurance Procedures 9-1

Installing the QA Series ............................................................................................................................ 9-2 Preparing to Perform the QA .................................................................................................................... 9-3 Performing the QA.................................................................................................................................... 9-4 Configuration Settings Table .................................................................................................................... 9-7

Chapter 10 Appendix A 10-1

CAESAR II Version X.XX Beta Evaluation Form ................................................................................. 10-2


Chapter 1 Introduction

The CAESAR II Verification and Validation Manual is intended to provide users with a standard set of CAESAR II jobs for use in verifying both the operation of the program and the accuracy of the results. The verification jobs presented in this manual represent a small subset of the jobs run by Intergraph CAS for the verification of each release of the CAESAR II

This manual consists of two major sections: the

package. The jobs selected for this manual have been obtained from either industry publications or are comparisons to other software programs.

Quality Assurance Procedures section, and the Job Verification section. The Quality Assurance section consists of Chapters 2 and 3, and describes the QA procedures employed by Intergraph CAS to insure that CAESAR II

The

is producing correct results. References to accepted Quality Assurance documents are given where applicable.

Job Verification section consists of Chapters 4 through 8, and presents a series of benchmark jobs. These jobs compare CAESAR II

Chapter 9 discusses the accompanying CD and how to use its contents.

output to either published results or output from other similar programs. For each job in this section, a brief description of the job and any special considerations are discussed. Following the discussion is a graphical representation of the system with selected result comparisons. (Due to the volume of output, random node points are listed in tables comparing displacements, reactions, forces, and stresses. Users interested in the entire output can re-analyze the jobs as necessary.)

Appendix A contains the CAESAR II Beta Evaluation Form

When additional benchmark jobs are obtained, they will be added to this Manual. As new Quality Assurance procedures are published they will be incorporated into the QA methods employed by

.

Intergraph CAS. Users with questions, comments, or suggestions are encouraged to contact Intergraph CAS

This manual and its contents should be considered proprietary. This material should not be copied or distributed to other parties without the expressed consent of Intergraph

to discuss future revisions to this document.

CAS

.

C H A P T E R 1


Chapter 2 Discussion of QA Standards

Software Quality Assurance is a rather abstract idea, since no matter how much testing is performed; the next test may reveal an error in the software. Therefore, the attempt of any QA procedure is to perform enough testing to achieve a level of confidence in the software, such that errors are rare and unlikely.

Toward this goal, several organizations have published guidelines for use in the Quality Assurance of software. The publications which have been reviewed on this subject are:

10 CFR-50, Appendix B: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

10 CFR-21; Nuclear Regulatory Commission

IEEE 370: ANSI.

AQAP 13: NATO. Software Quality Control System Requirements.

DOD STD 2167: Defense System Software Development.

ASQC Q90-Q94: ANSI

ISO 9000-3: International Organization for Standardization, Part 3: Guidelines for the application of ISO 9001 to the development, supply and maintenance of software.

NQA-2A: ASME Quality Assurance Requirements of Computer Software for Nuclear Facility Applications.

NQA-1: ASME Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications

Guide for Verification and Validation in Computational Solid Mechanics, ASME V & V.

The procedures described in Chapter 3 of this manual conform closest to the IEEE 370 guidelines (although some items from some of the other standards are also implemented). The IEEE document describes procedures which should be implemented to insure that a Quality Assurance Plan exists and is implemented by the developer.

10 CFR-50 does not explicitly discuss software, it emphasizes documentation of procedures, notification of management if problems are uncovered, and record keeping.

10 CFR-21 discusses the reporting of defects and noncompliance. However, like 10 CFR-50, this document also does not directly address software.

The Department of Defense Standard 2167 is a military standard for the development and maintenance of software programs. This is the only standard reviewed which offers suggested coding guidelines.

AQAP 13 is also a specification for the development and maintenance of software programs. Additionally, the management

The ANSI ASQC Q90-Q94 guidelines are technically equivalent to the ISO 9000-9004 series. These guidelines discuss quality assurance concepts, management, policies and implementation.

issues of software development are discussed.

The ISO 9000-3 specification is a complete guide to the development and maintenance of software products. Various sections discuss the design stage, the testing stage, the supply stage, and the maintenance stage. Many of the topics of this document are also discussed in IEEE 370 and DOD STD 2167.

C H A P T E R 2


2-2 Discussion of QA Standards

The NQA-2A requirements discuss the various stages of the software life cycle and the controls and verifications needed at each stage. This document also discusses reporting procedures for software errors.

NQA-1 is a broad document that discusses all aspects and activities that could affect the quality of nuclear facilities, systems, and components. The use of software and the testing of software are also discussed here.

The ASME V&V standard is a broad document discussing the concepts of software verification and testing, errors, and testing procedures.


Chapter 3 Intergraph CAS Quality Assurance Procedures

This section describes the methods through which Intergraph CAS performs the Quality Assurance testing on the CAESAR II Pipe Stress Analysis

In This Chapter

software. Each subsequent section herein has a specific purpose and should be reviewed carefully.

Purpose .................................................................................. 3-2 Reference Documents ........................................................... 3-3 Management .......................................................................... 3-4 Verification Methods ............................................................ 3-5 Implementing QATEST ........................................................ 3-7 User Documentation ............................................................. 3-8 Corrective Action Standard ................................................... 3-9 Distribution Control .............................................................. 3-10

C H A P T E R 3


3-2 Intergraph CAS Quality Assurance Procedures

Purpose

The official name of the software is CAESAR II. The intended use of CAESAR II

The typical use of

is for the design/analysis of piping systems that are subject to various loading conditions. These loading conditions are typically the result of the physical location of the system and the request of the owner/analyst. One may note that these loadings may be static or dynamic in nature.

CAESAR II is to analyze piping systems in accordance with a nationally or internationally recognized piping code. In these piping codes, formulations exist for determining the state of stress on an element due to the incurred loads. With the geometry and physical properties of the system known CAESAR II, using standard finite element techniques, will determine system displacements, forces and moments, and finally stresses. The determination of that information is the primary purpose for the use of the CAESAR II

Pipe Stress Analysis software.



Reference Documents

The documents referenced as part of the Quality Assurance are the following.

The documents and standards discussed in Chapter 2 of this Manual.

Babich, Wayne A., Software Configuration Management, Addison-Wesley, 1986.

Cooper, John D., Software Quality Management, Petrocelli Press

Dunn, Robert, Software Defect Removal, McGraw Hill, 1984

Kaner, Falk, and Nguyen, Testing Computer Software, John Wiley & Sons, 1999.

Dustin, Elfriede, Effective Software Testing, Addison-Wesley, 2003.



Management

Intergraph CAS (dba COADE Engineering Software) is wholly responsible for all software made available to the public that bears the Intergraph CAS

Leading

label on the distribution media (CDs and DVDs).

Intergraph CAS is the developer/head software engineer in charge of the CAESAR II Pipe Stress Analysis source code. Any changes made to the software are done with his consent. Additional members of the software group are all engineers or qualified software developers, who interact at the same level (i.e. there are no communication problems between the development personnel). Thus all software problems can easily be brought to the attention of the lead developer with minimal waiting and difficulty. In addition, all members of the development staff may find themselves supporting or helping customers who have difficulty installing/interpreting, etc. the CAESAR II

In review, each engineer and/or developer will be called upon to verify that

software package. All members of the software development team are also called upon to help test/QA the software before each release.

CAESAR II

is operating and performing correctly at release time, to the best of his ability.



Verification Methods

Quality Assurance Test Procedure

Currently in the United States there is no organization which formally establishes (or does not establish) the credibility of pipe stress analysis software. Therefore this burden lies on the shoulder of the supplier of the software. Generally, there are two different ways to establish that any software program is performing correctly. They are:

1 Comparing program results to hand calculations.

2 Comparing results to previously verified results from an outside source.

If 1 and 2 above compare favorably to program generated results, we may say that the software is performing as expected. If it is not, the difference must be identified and the problem corrected. Before a new version of CAESAR II

A Test new features against existing software. Tests have been run against industry standard programs such as Dynaflex, Triflex, ADLpipe, Mec21, SAP IV, Pipeline, and UCCpipe. In addition a number of companies have independently compared the results of

is released, alpha level testing is done by the development personnel. This entails a check of the source code and the running of basic test problems designed to test the functionality of the feature addition, error and abort conditions, etc. Next the development staff generates a series of tests (alpha tests) with the following objectives:

CAESAR II

B Test new features against hand calculations.

against their own in house program.

C Test new features against published literature, i.e. the NRC dynamics benchmarks: NUREG-51267, Vol. I and II, ASME benchmarks, and Stoomwezen benchmarks.

D Test the interaction between new features and features already existing in the software.

E Test the new (development) version against existing output from prior versions of the software.

F Any new test developed to verify a new feature of the software is added to the QA series of test jobs. In this manner the suite of test jobs continually grows. Each subsequent version of the software is therefore subjected to more tests than prior versions.

After all of these tests are run, with satisfactory results, the new version is made available to selected clients as a beta test version

. If any program errors are discovered and corrected at any time during the testing, all test jobs are rerun.



QATEST

Results from the new version of the software are compared to previously verified results using an Intergraph CAS developed program - QATEST

To summarize, by thoroughly checking program results by hand, to other software and with benchmark problems, high product quality can be achieved and maintained.

. This program compares each piece of numerical output between two files and records the discrepancies. The output from this program can be directed to the screen, file or to the printer. The hardcopy results can then be saved as proof that each output file was checked. By checking new version results to previously verified results, program errors can quickly be spotted and remedied or justified (in the case of Piping Code changes).

The QATEST procedure (for testing new versions of CAESAR II) is discussed in Chapter 9. Also included is a sample test log sheet. Similar log sheets are filled out for all of the test jobs compared using QATEST.

QATEST

is made available to customers (with a small subset of the verification jobs), with this Validation and Verification Manual, for those who want to perform their own local verification of the software.

Additional Manual Checks for Staff and Beta Users

Once the new (test) version of the software is distributed to beta users, a number of suggested verifications should be performed. The list of these suggested checks (test) can be found in Appendix A - The Beta Evaluation Form. Note that this list of suggested checks is sent to the beta users to aid in their testing and to record their activities. At the end of the beta test period, the beta users are requested to return these forms to Intergraph CAS.

All forms received are archived as part of the verification for each release of the software.



Implementing QATEST

As previously stated, QATEST is a comparison tool used to verify new CAESAR II output to previously generated CAESAR II output. Accompanying this Validation and Verification Manual is a CD that contains QATEST

, as well as a number of directories containing a subset of the QA job suite.

Installing the QA Files

Inserting the CD should invoke the Installation Routine. Follow the prompts to install all of the files on the CD. It is highly recommended that the default installation directory be changed to an easily accessible working folder, preferably a “top level” directory. Once the installation completes, the following directory structure will exist in the specified target directory:

> CAESARII_QA

> EXE Contains the QATEST program, and EXE file.

> ASME Contains the ASME benchmark jobs

> General Contains a number of general benchmark jobs

> NRC Contains the NRC (dynamic only) benchmark jobs

> Stoomwzn Contains the Stoomwezen benchmark jobs

> Struct Contains a number of structural benchmark jobs

Note:

Details on running these test jobs and using the QATEST utility can be found in Chapter 9 of this Validation and Verification Manual.



User Documentation

The CAESAR II user is provided with online access to documentation spanning all facets of the software, including all of the ancillary processors and interfaces. The standard CAESAR II

A User’s Guide

documentation consists of the following documents.

An Applications Guide A Technical Reference Manual A Quick Reference Guide

All of these documents can be accessed on-line, from the Help menu of the main CAESAR II

Contact information is contained throughout these documents, as well as displayed in the

module.

help system

, and in a variety of other locations in the software. Anytime users experience problems or confusion with the software they are encouraged to contact us for resolutions and suggestions.



Corrective Action Standard

As mentioned above, the CAESAR II user has many channels through which he or she can reach the Intergraph CAS development staff. When a problem or error occurs, the engineering staff will attempt to verify the problem or error. The appropriate software developer will be assigned to correct the problem. Once corrected, the change will be verified. Depending on the nature of the problem and the solution, additional QA jobs may be run to verify the integrity of CAESAR II

If the problem affects the numerical results of the program, all non-distributed changes since the last release are assembled in to a build or patch. This build is verified, and then posted at www.coade.com for download. Registered users are notified by e-mail that a new build is available.

. The corrected program module will then be sent to the user who discovered the problem.

If the problem does not affect the numerical results it is saved for distribution in the next build. Following a build the master DVD is regenerated to ensure that Intergraph CAS

As one can infer from reading the preceding sections the

ships the most current software.

CAESAR II pipe stress analysis program is heavily tested before the entire client base is allowed to use a new version. With this in mind, we may say that CAESAR II will perform as required/specified by Intergraph CAS. Also note that user comments for new features are always welcome. In short, by working with the user, the CAESAR II

development staff will continue to develop a product which meets the needs of all persons involved in the pipe stress analysis field.



Distribution Control

After the QA procedure is completely finished, a production copy of CAESAR II will be made off of the lead developer’s computer. The installation program will be modified to load any new executables which may be released with a new version. CAESAR II

will then be loaded onto several PCs. This step is performed to check the installation of the program and the CD/DVD integrity. The master CD/DVD will then be copied onto the “CD/DVD Burner” for duplication. After the duplicated CD/DVDs are generated, a sample CD/DVD Is loaded is onto each of the PCs in the Engineering and Development groups. Periodic testing of the software is performed as necessary.


Chapter 4 NRC Benchmarks

In This Chapter NRC General Benchmarks .................................................... 4-2 NRC Spectrum Benchmarks ................................................. 4-11

C H A P T E R 4


4-2 NRC Benchmarks

NRC General Benchmarks

The following sheets describe both static and dynamic NRC Benchmarks. This series of jobs can be found in bulletin NUREG-21241-R2, published in 1977. The five jobs in this series of benchmarks are briefly described below:

1. The static response of a Hovgaard Bend.

2. The dynamic response of a Hovgaard Bend.

3. The dynamic response of a coffee table structure.

4. A static analysis of Spence’s pipe work problem.

5. The dynamic response of a low frequency coffee table.

Any special settings of the CAESAR II

CAESAR II Benchmark Problem NRG1

configuration file will be noted in the title page of the input for each job.

This job is the static response of a Hovgaard bend. The programs being compared are CAESAR II

1) Displacements (in) at Node 5.

, EPIPE, PIPDYN and the Analytical method. This job is Problem #1 from BNL-NUREG-21241-R2, informal report.

DX DY DZ RX RY RZ

EPIPE .0611 .07641 -.24912 .1710 -.1283 -.2389

CAESAR II .0607 .0760 -.2472 .1713 -.1275 -.2375

2) Forces (lb) and Moments (ft-lb) at Node 1.

FX FY FZ MX MY MZ

EPIPE -1711 -1666.9 -628.2 -4573 1194.66 10847.1

Analytic -1750 -1710.0 -640.0 -4670 1200.00 11090.0

Pipdyn -1737.2 -1686.2 -636.7 -4635 1207.9 11025.3

CAESAR II -1700 -1658 -625. -4548 1187. 10777.0

3) Longitudinal Stresses (psi) at Node 1.

EPIPE 15212

Analytical 15548

CAESAR II 15425




This job is the dynamic response of a Hovgaard bend. The programs being compared are CAESAR II

Natural Frequencies (hz)

and EPIPE. This job is Problem #1 from BNL-NUREG-21241-R2, informal report.

MODE CAESAR II EPIPE

1 28.539 28.53

2 55.848 55.77

3 141.958 141.7

4 162.994 162.8

SRSS of the Modal Forces (lb) and Moments (ft-lb)

Node FX FY FZ MX MY MZ

CAESAR II 1 11 2 18 129 26 67

EPIPE 1 11.66 1.567 18.28 130 26 68

CAESAR II 11 29 2 13 28 134 4


4-4 NRC Benchmarks


EPIPE 11 29.4 2.79 13.1 28.4 134.6 4.42

Longitudinal Stress Components ( Bending + Axial ) (psi)

ELEMENT NUMBER CAESAR II EPIPE

1 193 193.8

2 69 69.9

6 39 40.9

9 79 79.9

10 124 124.8




This job is the dynamic response of a coffee table. This job compares CAESAR II


to ANSYS. This job is Problem #3 from BNL-NUREG-21241-R2, informal report.

MODE ANSYS CAESAR II

1 111.5 111.3

2 115.9 115.8

3 137.6 137.2

4 218.0 215.9

5 404.2 404.55

Response Spectrum Forces (lb) and Moments (ft-lb)

NODE FX FY FZ MX MY MZ

CAESAR II 15 9 4 0 0 0 8

ANSYS 15 9.4 4.7 .002 0 0 8.58

CAESAR II 10 8 4 0 0 0 5

ANSYS 10 8.5 4.7 .002 0 0 5.4

Longitudinal Stresses ( Bending + Longitudinal ) (psi)

ELEMENT NUMBER CAESAR II ANSYS

1 187 188.19

2 19.8 19

11 119.0 120.2

12 187.0 188.19


4-6 NRC Benchmarks




This job is the static analysis of Spence’s Pipe Work Problem #4 from BNL-NUREG-21241-R2. The programs being compared are CAESAR II

Nodal Translations (in) and Rotations (deg)

, EPIPE, and the Analytical method .

NODE DX DY DZ RX RY RZ

CAESAR II 2 -.5507 -.1522 -.0004 .1761 -.6022 -.2834

EPIPE 2 -.5583 -.1537 -.0004 .1777 -.6101 -.2851

CAESAR II 5 -1.9740 -1.1992 .4571 .2370 -.4265 -.6997

EPIPE 5 -2.0012 -1.1940 .4536 .2385 -.4360 -.7017

CAESAR II 8 -3.1101 -4.7568 .6487 .0621 .0142 -.2059

EPIPE 8 -3.1300 -4.7645 .6537 .0634 .0226 -.2205

CAESAR II 12 -5.2570 -4.5292 .3257 -.0973 -.4262 .6138

EPIPE 12 -5.2599 -4.5554 .3186 -.0993 -.4296 .6260

CAESAR II 15 -5.6300 -3.2926 -.1543 -.1504 .4557 .2116

EPIPE 15 -5.6364 -3.2988 -.1556 -.1513 .4571 .2148

CAESAR II 18 -6.0866 -1.9598 -2.3866 -.2022 .3352 .5452

EPIPE 18 -6.0825 -1.9598 -2.3845 -.2026 .3379 .5462

Element Forces (lb) and Moments (ft-lb)

NODE AXIAL FORCE SHEAR FORCE BENDING MOMENT TORSION MOMENT

CAESAR II 2 -9947. 40036. 195504. -119564.

EPIPE 2 -10066. 39962. 197877. -120304.

CAESAR II 5 -39414. 12178 211119. -3535.

EPIPE 5 -39962. 10066. 215146. -3955.

CAESAR II 8 -39414. 12178 392744. -84105.

EPIPE 8 -39962. 10066. 393410. -84494.

CAESAR II 12 -9947. 40036. 68457. -122801.

EPIPE 12 -10066. 39962. 68461. -125080.

CAESAR II 19 -7026. 40650. 441272. -104315.


4-8 NRC Benchmarks

NODE AXIAL FORCE SHEAR FORCE BENDING MOMENT TORSION MOMENT

EPIPE 19 -7121. 39962 444586. -105187.

Bending Stresses (psi)

NODES BEND STRESSING

CAESAR II 2 13221

EPIPE 2 13258

CAESAR II 6 2970

EPIPE 6 2628

CAESAR II 8 26558

EPIPE 8 26116

CAESAR II 12 4629

EPIPE 12 4506




This job is the dynamic response of a low frequency coffee table. This job compares CAESAR II


to EPIPE. This job is Problem #5 from BNL-NUREG-21241-R2, informal report.

MODE CAESAR II EPIPE

1 8.712 8.712

2 8.807 8.805

3 17.515 17.51

4 40.372 40.37

5 41.633 41.63

Element Forces (lb) and Moments (ft-lb)

Element FX FY FZ MX MY MZ

1 CAESAR II 109 297 0 0 0 435

1 ASME 109.3 297.4 0 0 0 435.7

5 CAESAR II 78 297 0 0 0 337

5 ASME 78.4 297.3 0 0 0 337.4

7 CAESAR II 109 297 0 0 0 435

7 ASME 109.3 297.4 0 0 0 435.7

Longitudinal Stresses ( bending + axial ) (psi)

Element CAESAR II EPIPE

1 9600 9603

13 7232 7233.8


4-10 NRC Benchmarks



NRC Spectrum Benchmarks

The following sheets describe the NRC Dynamic Benchmarks. This series of jobs can be found in bulletins NUREG-51267 Volumes I and II, published in 1980 and 1985 respectively. These jobs consist entirely of dynamic spectrum runs, for uniform and independent support motion analysis. The introduction to each bulletin describes the jobs, the loading conditions, and the analysis techniques to be applied - and will therefore not be repeated here.

These jobs were initially analyzed using CAESAR II Version 2.0A, which was compiled using the Microsoft Ver 3.2 FORTRAN compiler. Since that time, the 16 bit versions of the dynamics modules have been recompiled using the Microsoft Ver 5.1 FORTRAN compiler. The 32 bit versions of the dynamics modules have been compiled using the WATCOM Ver 9.0 FORTRAN compiler. Users re-analyzing these jobs from the accompanying CD may notice some variation in the CAESAR II

Users should also note that these jobs require that the

numbers compared to those presented here (in the third or fourth decimal place) due to the differences in precision of these compilers.

CAESAR II

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980.

configuration directive BEND_AXIAL_SHAPE be set to YES.

NRC PROBLEM 1 CAESAR II JOB: NUREG1 NATURAL FREQUENCY REPORT (Hz)

MODE NRC CAESAR II

1 28.53 28.538

2 55.77 55.779

3 81.50 81.509

4 141.7 141.758

5 162.8 162.838


4-12 NRC Benchmarks

TRANSLATIONS (in)

DX DY DZ

Node NRC CAESAR II NRC CAESAR II NRC CAESAR II

1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

2 .0020 .0020 .0 .0 .0049 .0049

3 .0059 .0059 .0 .0 .0146 .0146

4 .0074 .0074 .0006 .0006 .0174 .0174

5 .0078 .0078 .0016 .0016 .0143 .0143

6 .0078 .0078 0021 .0021 .0106 .0106

7 .0078 .0078 0025 0025 .0068 .0068

8 .0058 .0058 0020 0020 .0017 .0017

9 .0022 .0022 .0007 .0007 .0 .0

10 .0006 .0006 .0002 .0002 .0 .0

11 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

2 .0088 .0088 .0032 .0032 .0036 .0036

3 .0105 .0105 .0064 .0064 .0040 .0040

4 .0083 .0083 .0087 .0087 .0029 .0029

5 .0065 .0065 .0116 .0116 .0017 .0017

6 .0058 .0058 .0129 .0121 .0014 .0014

7 .0051 .0051 .0122 .0122 .0011 .0011

8 .0040 .0040 .0103 .0103 .0005 .0005

9 .0019 .0019 .0055 .0055 .0004 .0004

10 .0010 .0010 .0032 .0032 .0002 .0002 These documents are the property of Intergraph Corporation, they may be used for internal reference purposes only and may not be copied, sold or otherwise distributed to any third party.


RX RY RZ

11 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

FX FY FZ


1 17.9 17. 4.96 4. 36.4 36.

11 34.8 34. 7.5 7. 24.0 24.

SUPPORT MOMENTS (ft-lb)

MX MY MZ


1 268.9 268. 52.5 52. 116.2 116.

11 64.5 64. 206.4 206. 9.4 9.


4-14 NRC Benchmarks

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. 1 1980. NRC PROBLEM 2A CAESAR II JOB NUREG2 NATURAL FREQUENCY REPORT (Hz)

MODE NRC CAESAR II

1 8.712 8.713

2 8.806 8.807

3 17.51 17.510

4 40.37 40.371

5 41.63 41.631

TRANSLATIONS (in)

DX DY DZ


1 .2303 .2302 .0013 .0013 .2251 .2250

2 .2303 .2302 .0013 .0013 .2251 .2250

3 .2303 .2302 .0013 .0013 .2251 .2250

4 .2303 .2302 .0013 .0013 .2251 .2250

5 .4618 .4617 .0025 .0025 .4462 .4460

7 .4618 .4617 .0025 .0025 .4462 .4460

10 .4618 .4617 .0025 .0025 .4462 .4460

11 .4618 .4617 .0025 .0025 .4462 .4460



ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


1 .3747 .3744 .0004 .0004 .3851 .3850

2 .3747 .3744 .0004 .0004 .3851 .3850

3 .3747 .3744 .0004 .0004 .3851 .3850

4 .3747 .3744 .0004 .0004 .3851 .3850

5 .0507 .0507 .0008 .0008 .0638 .0638

7 .0507 .0507 .0008 .0008 .0638 .0638

10 .0507 .0507 .0008 .0008 .0638 .0638

12 .0507 .0507 .0008 .0008 .0638 .0638


4-16 NRC Benchmarks

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. 1 1980. NRC PROBLEM 2A CAESAR II JOB NUREG2 SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

FX FY FZ


15 109.3 109 766.4 766 108.2 108

16 109.3 109 766.4 766 108.2 108

17 109.3 109 766.4 766 108.2 108

18 109.3 109 766.4 766 108.2 108


MX MY MZ


15 427.9 427 0.2 .0 435.7 435.

16 427.9 427 0.2 .0 435.7 435.

17 427.9 427 0.2 .0 435.7 435.

18 427.9 427 0.2 .0 435.7 435.



NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. 1 1980. NRC PROBLEM 2B CAESAR II JOB NUREG2 TRANSLATIONS (in)

DX DY DZ


1 .2303 .2302 .0009 .0009 .2251 .2250

5 .4618 .4617 .0018 .0018 .4462 .4460

ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


1 .3747 .3744 .0003 .0003 .3851 .3850

5 .0507 .0507 .0006 .0006 .0638 .0638

SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

FX FY FZ


16 109.3 109. 555.2 555. 108.2 108.

17 109.3 109. 555.4 555. 108.2 108.


MX MY MZ


16 427.9 427. .1 .0 435.8 435.

17 427.9 427. .1 .0 435.8 435.


4-18 NRC Benchmarks



NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. 1 1980 NUREG PROBLEM 4A CAESAR II JOB NUREG4 NATURAL FREQUENCY REPORT (Hz)

MODE NRC CAESAR II

1 6.133 6.134

2 6.188 6.184

3 6.557 6.559

4 6.571 6.572

5 6.632 6.633

6 6.636 6.637

7 6.722 6.723

8 7.984 7.985

9 10.21 10.215

10 11.73 11.735

11 13.40 13.401

12 13.89 13.896

13 14.25 14.249

14 14.50 14.498

15 14.71 14.710

16 15.57 15.581

17 17.10 17.098

18 18.90 18.914

19 28.29 28.288

20 28.31 28.312

21 29.52 29.526

22 29.80 29.799

23 30.32 30.318

24 30.49 30.492


4-20 NRC Benchmarks

MODE NRC CAESAR II

25 30.50 30.500

26 31.83 31.832

27 31.86 31.855

28 39.50 39.504

29 40.42 40.420

30 40.73 40.736



NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 4A CAESAR II JOB NUREG4 TRANSLATIONS (in)

DX DY DZ


2 .2095 .2096 .0752 .0752 .4380 .4386

14 .1094 .1091 .0780 .0781 .1743 .1748

15 .1196 .1196 .0557 .0557 .0891 .0894

16 .1094 .1094 .0780 .0779 .1743 .1740

25 .2388 .2382 .0229 .0230 .5732 .5719

26 .2388 .2381 .0229 .0230 .5732 .5715

36 .1453 .1452 .0319 .0318 .1229 .1228

37 .1453 .1450 .0319 .0318 .1229 .1228

47 .1355 .1355 .0081 .0081 .1120 .1121

61 .1453 .1452 .0319 .0318 .1229 .1228

62 .1453 .1453 .0319 .0318 .1229 .1231

82 .1094 .1094 .0780 .0781 .1743 .1743

83 .1196 .1196 .0557 .0558 .0891 .0892

84 .1094 .1091 .0780 .0780 .1743 .1739

96 .2095 .2096 .0752 .0753 .4380 .4378


4-22 NRC Benchmarks

ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


2 .0980 .0981 .0393 .0393 .0502 .0502

14 .0603 .0602 .0452 .0451 .0419 .0419

15 .0182 .0182 .0539 .0540 .0186 .0186

16 .0603 .0604 .0452 .0451 .0419 .0419

25 .2785 .2773 .1067 .1063 .1172 .1170

26 .2785 .2777 .1067 .1065 .1172 .1170

36 .0585 .0582 .1548 .1541 .0343 .0343

37 .0585 .0583 .1548 .1543 .0343 .0343

47 .0097 .0097 .0 .0001 .0023 .0023

61 .0585 .0584 .1548 .1542 .0343 .0342

62 .0585 .0586 .1548 .1552 .0343 .0343

82 .0603 .0603 .0452 .0451 .0419 .0418

83 .0182 .0182 .0539 .0539 .0186 .0186

84 .0603 .0604 .0452 .0452 .0419 .0418

96 .0980 .0979 .0393 .0393 .0502 .0502



NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 4A CAESAR II JOB NUREG4 SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

FX FY FZ


4 2.416E6 2.416E6 0. 0. 1.877E6 1.879E6

38 8.704E5 8.71145 7.711E5 7.695E5 8.704E5 8.709E5

39 0. 0. 3.595E5 3.595E5 1.067E6 1.068E6

40 8.704E5 8.698E5 7.711E5 7.697E5 8.704E5 8.696E5

58 8.704E5 8.705E5 7.711E5 7.695E5 8.704E5 8.703E5

59 0. 0. 3.595E5 3.595E5 1.067E6 1.068E6

60 8.704E5 8.711E5 7.711E5 7.692E5 8.704E5 8.709E5

90 2.416E6 2.415E6 0. 0. 1.877E6 1.876E6


4-24 NRC Benchmarks

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 4b CAESAR II JOB NUREG4 TRANSLATIONS (in)

DX DY DZ


2 .2095 .2092 .0752 .0751 .4380 .4377

14 .0917 .0916 .0739 .0739 .1675 .1677

15 .1196 .1195 .0557 .0557 .0891 .0892

16 .0917 .0918 .0739 .0738 .1675 .1676

25 .1958 .0189 .1960 .0189 .4364 .4369

26 .1958 .1959 .0189 .0189 .4364 .4376

36 .1392 .1392 .0291 .0290 .1142 .1143

37 .1392 .1391 .0291 .0290 .1142 .1143

47 .1355 .1354 .0081 .0081 .1120 .1121

ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


2 .0980 .0979 .0393 .0392 .0502 .0501

14 .0486 .0487 .0402 .0402 .0388 .0388

15 .0182 .0182 .0539 .0539 .0186 .0186

16 .0486 .0488 .0402 .0402 .0388 .0389

25 .2147 .2148 .0805 .0807 .1006 .1006

26 .2147 .2152 .0805 .0808 .1006 .1006

36 .0463 .0462 .1184 .1185 .0307 .0307

37 .0463 .0463 .1184 .1187 .0307 .0307

47 .0097 .0097 .0 .0 .0023 .0023



NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 4B CAESAR II JOB NUREG4 SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

FX FY FZ


4 2.416E6 2.415E6 0. 0. 1.877E6 1.876E6

38 8.301E5 8.307E5 7.312E5 7.296E5 8.301E5 8.304E5

39 0. 0. 3.594E5 3.593E5 1.067E6 1.068E6

40 8.301E5 8.299E5 7.312E5 7.299E5 8.301E5 8.302E5

58 8.301E5 8.305E5 7.312E5 7.297E5 8.301E5 8.302E5

59 0. 0. 3.584E5 3.594E5 1.067E6 1.068E6

60 8.301E5 8.306E5 7.312E5 7.293E5 8.301E5 8.304E5

90 2.414E6 2.414E6 0. 0. 1.877E6 1.874E6


4-26 NRC Benchmarks

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 5 CAESAR II JOB NUREG5 NATURAL FREQUENCY REPORT (Hz)

MODE NRC CAESAR II

1 4.036 4.036

2 4.257 4.258

3 9.116 9.121

4 11.19 11.190

5 17.11 17.128

6 18.17 18.195

7 22.38 22.418

8 27.19 27.407

9 28.01 28.051



MODE NRC CAESAR II

10 37.98 38.089

11 40.97 41.124


4-28 NRC Benchmarks

TRANSLATIONS (in)

DX DY DZ


2 .0002 .0002 .0002 .0002 .0009 .0009

4 .0003 .0003 .0005 .0005 .0024 .0024

5 .0172 .0172 .0023 .0023 .0146 .0146

6 .0762 .0763 .0005 .0005 .0146 .0146

9 .0822 .0822 .0305 .0305 .0459 .0459

11 .0813 .0813 .0487 .0487 .0448 .0448

15 .0488 .0488 .0315 .0315 .0280 .0281

20 .0015 .0014 .0043 .0043 .0056 .0056

24 .0018 .0018 .0037 .0037 .0063 .0063

29 .0018 .0018 .0018 .0018 .0028 .0028

30 .0018 .0018 .0018 .0018 .0022 .0022

31 .0015 .0015 .0015 .0015 .0015 .0015



NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 5 CAESAR II JOB NUREG5 ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


2 .0003 .0003 .0047 .0047 .0009 .0009

4 .0003 .0003 .0141 .0141 .0026 .0026

5 .0011 .0011 .0603 .0603 .0062 .0062

6 .0032 .0032 .0629 0630 .0079 .0079

9 .0233 .0234 .0135 .0135 .0109 .0109

11 .0237 .0238 .0059 .0059 .0087 .0087

15 .0246 .0246 .0310 .0310 .0038 .0038

20 .0134 .0135 .0225 .0225 .0056 .0056

24 .0076 .0076 .0027 .0027 .0028 .0028

29 .0054 .0054 .0033 .0033 .0025 .0025

30 .0048 .0048 .0032 .0032 .0024 .0024

31 .0040 .0040 .0029 .0029 .0022 .0022

SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

FX FY FZ


7 0. 0. 34.3 34. 0. 0.

13 0. 0. 27.0 27.0 0. 0.

18 0. 0. 298.9 299. 501.9 500.

25 0. 0. 0. 0. 4.6 4

31 0. 0. .9 0. 0. 0.


4-30 NRC Benchmarks



NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 6a CAESAR II JOB NUREG6 NATURAL FREQUENCY REPORT

MODE NRC CAESAR II

1 6.391 6.397

2 9.993 10.001

3 13.27 13.273

4 14.49 14.484

5 15.33 15.327

6 17.50 17.500

7 19.09 19.093

8 19.62 19.641

9 21.44 21.439

10 28.71 28.726

11 29.86 29.864

12 31.48 31.488

13 32.01 32.010

14 36.37 36.420

15 40.98 41.079

16 41.37 41.369

17 47.39 47.406

18 49.77 49.786

19 50.13 50.145

20 52.93 52.941

21 56.90 56.943

22 58.51 58.545

23 67.47 67.480

24 70.46 70.460


4-32 NRC Benchmarks

MODE NRC CAESAR II

25 75.41 75.418

26 79.18 79.198

27 80.74 80.742

28 86.11 86.114

29 88.28 88.349

30 92.74 92.739

31 99.36 99.389




DX DY DZ


3 .0035 .0035 .0025 .0025 .0032 .0032

6 .0117 .0116 .0026 .0026 .0122 .0122

9 .0047 .0047 .0027 .0027 .0046 .0046

12 .0055 .0055 .0039 .0039 .0052 .0052

18 .0065 .0065 .0068 .0068 .0086 .0086

24 .0064 .0064 .0040 .0040 .0044 .0044

30 .0223 .0223 .0020 .0020 .0042 .0042

36 .0081 .0080 .0689 .0684 .0151 .0151

39 .0057 .0056 .0109 .0108 .0053 .0053

ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


3 .0042 .0042 .0036 .0036 .0035 .0035

6 .0006 .0006 .0033 .0033 .0003 .0004

9 .0039 .0039 .0036 .0036 .0037 .0037

12 .0028 .0028 .0033 .0033 .0040 .0040

18 .0035 .0035 .0025 .0025 .0015 .0015

24 .0012 .0012 .0018 .0018 .0016 .0016

30 .0075 .0075 .0025 .0025 .0038 .0037

36 .0138 .0136 .0031 .0031 .0159 .0158

39 .0108 .0107 .0046 .0046 .0175 .0173


4-34 NRC Benchmarks

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 6A CAESAR II JOB NUREG6 SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

FX FY FZ


1 1265. 1269. 2398. 2397. 1171. 1170.

10 2825. 2826. 0. 0. 1673. 1669.

20 1333. 1332. 1790. 1791. 1389. 1388.

26 2466. 2462. 2764. 2756. 1886. 1883.

30 0. 0. 4084. 4063. 0. 0.

34 385. 384. 0. 0. 1439. 1438.

41 1991. 1986. 1750. 1741. 946.8 944.


MX MY MZ


1 7645.0 7640. 4005.8 4019. 5688.3 5692.

10 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

20 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

26 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

30 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

34 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

41 11066.7 11026. 8151.7 8405. 13825.0 13806.



NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 6B CAESAR II JOB NUREG6 TRANSLATIONS (in)

DX DY DZ


3 .0033 .0034 .0023 .0023 .0029 .0029

6 .0108 .0108 .0024 .0024 .0110 .0110

9 .0044 .0044 .0024 .0024 .0042 .0042

12 .0053 .0053 .0038 .0038 .0051 .0051

18 .0063 .0063 .0066 .0066 .0085 .0085

24 .0062 .0062 .0039 .0039 .0043 .0043

30 .0222 .0222 .0020 .0020 .0041 .0041

36 .0081 .0080 .0689 .0684 .0151 .0151

39 .0056 .0056 .0109 .0108 .0053 .0053

ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


3 .0037 .0037 .0034 .0034 .0032 .0032

6 .0006 .0006 .0033 .0033 .0003 .0003

9 .0035 .0035 .0035 .0035 .0034 .0034

12 .0028 .0028 .0033 .0033 .0038 .0038

18 .0034 .0034 .0024 .0024 .0015 .0015

24 .0012 .0012 .0018 .0018 .0016 .0016

30 .0075 .0075 .0025 .0024 .0038 .0037

36 .0138 .0136 .0031 .0031 .0159 .0158

39 .0108 .0107 .0046 .0046 .0175 .0173


4-36 NRC Benchmarks


FX FY FZ


1 1182. 1187. 2298. 2297. 1060. 1059.

10 2810. 2811. 0. 0. 1589. 1585.

20 1289. 1288. 1721. 1722. 1368. 1367.

26 2438. 2434. 2736. 2725. 1850. 1847.

30 0. 0. 4067. 4046. 0. 0.

34 375. 374. 0. 0. 1440. 1397.

41 1973. 1967. 1748. 1738. 929.4 927.


MX MY MZ


1 7079.2 7076. 3857.5 3871. 5255.0 5259.

10 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

20 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

26 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

30 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

34 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

41 11050. 11014. 8130. 8383. 13816.7 13793.


4-38 NRC Benchmarks

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 7A CAESAR II JOB NUREG7 NATURAL FREQUENCY REPORT (Hz)

MODE NRC CAESAR II

1 5.034 5.035

2 7.813 7.814

3 8.193 8.194

4 8.977 8.890

5 9.312 9.314

6 9.895 9.897

7 13.22 13.227

8 14.96 14.960

9 15.07 15.071

10 17.75 17.757

11 18.21 18.217

12 22.90 22.907

13 25.02 25.035

14 25.85 25.860

15 26.94 26.957

16 28.13 28.149

17 30.30 30.315

18 35.22 35.266

19 37.10 37.105

20 42.61 42.641

21 44.42 44.429

22 48.09 48.103




DX DY DZ


2 .0002 .0002 .0 .0 .0016 .0016

6 .0459 .0459 .2129 .2127 .0103 .0102

8 .0557 .0556 .2438 .2436 .0425 .0425

11 .0848 .0848 .2439 .2437 .3115 .3115

16 .0098 .0098 .0156 .0156 .3428 .3425

25 .0001 .0001 .0066 .0066 .2350 .2348

30 .0 .0 ? .0091 .1122 .1120

33 .0356 .0356 .0286 .0286 .0781 .0780

41 .0069 .0069 .0337 .0336 .0781 .0779

50 .0006 .0006 .0 .0 .0013 .0013

70 .0 .0 .0059 .0059 .0066 .0066

.0039 73 .0039 .0195 .0195 .0104 .0104

81 .0062 .0062 .0375 .0375 .0104 .0104

90 .0008 .0008 .0 .0 .0003 .0003

111 .0001 .0001 .0320 .0320 .0671 .0670

115 .0056 .0056 .0448 .0448 .0662 .0661

130 .0013 .0013 .0 .0 .0014 .0014


4-40 NRC Benchmarks

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 7A CAESAR II JOB NUREG7 ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


2 .0283 .0283 .0085 .0085 .0025 .0025

6 .2768 .2765 .0585 .0584 .0295 .0294

8 .3222 .3219 .0642 .0641 .0360 .0360

11 .3139 .3136 .0733 .0732 .0345 .0345

16 .2114 .2112 .0903 .0902 .0151 .0151

25 .1395 .1393 .1209 .1208 .0073 .0073

30 .0665 .0664 .1067 .1066 .0037 .0037

33 .0263 .0263 .0373 .0372 .0139 .0139

41 .0214 .0214 .0720 .0719 .0385 .0384

50 .0082 .0082 .0120 .0120 .0043 .0043

70 .0098 .0098 .0155 .0155 .0135 .0135

73 .0206 .0206 .0048 .0048 .0252 .0252

81 .0056 .0056 .0041 .0041 .0454 .0454

90 .0019 .0019 .0018 .0018 .0056 .0056

111 .0260 .0260 .0104 .0104 .0566 .0565

115 .0265 .0265 .0189 .0189 .0607 .0606



SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

FX FY FZ


20 0. 0. 54.5 54. 0. 0.

55 34.3 34. 48.8 48. 106.3 106.

65 69.7 69. 54. 53. 96.9 0.

110 0. 0. 51.4 51. 0. 0.

140 34.8 34. 60.7 60. 126.5 126.


4-42 NRC Benchmarks

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 7A CAESAR II JOB NUREG7 SUPPORT MOMENTS (ft-lb)

MX MY MZ


20 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

55 307.4 307. 265.6 265. 131.6 131.

65 213.8 213. 777.8 777. 239.7 238.

110 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

140 340.3 340. 239.8 239. 270.9 270.

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 7b CAESAR II JOB NUREG7 TRANSLATIONS (in)

DX DY DZ


6 .0459 .0459 .2129 .2127 .0103 .0102

11 .0848 .0848 .2439 .2437 .3115 .3113

33 .0356 .0356 .0286 .0286 .0781 .0780

50 .0006 .0006 .0003 .0 .0013 .0013

73 .0039 .0039 .0193 .0193 .0102 .0102

81 .0062 .0062 .0374 .0374 .0102 .0102

115 .0055 .0055 .0434 .0434 .0652 .0652



ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


6 .2768 .2765 .0585 .0584 .0295 .0294

11 .3139 .3136 .0733 .0732 .0345 .0345

33 .0263 .0263 .0373 .0372 .0139 .0139

50 .0082 .0082 .0120 .0120 .0043 .0043

73 .0206 .0206 .0047 .0047 .0250 .0250

81 .0056 .0056 .0040 .0040 .0453 .0453

115 .0257 .0257 .0185 .0184 .0587 .0587


4-44 NRC Benchmarks


FX FY FZ


20 0. 0. 54.6 54. 0. 0.

55 34.3 34. 48.8 48. 106.3 106.

65 66.4 66. 52.7 52. 96.4 96.

110 0. 0. 50.0 49. 0. 0.

140 34.0 33. 58.9 58. 124.6 124.



20 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

55 307.4 307. 265.6 265. 131.6 131.

65 212.7 212. 775.8 775. 232.5 232.

110 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

140 335.6 335. 236.2 236. 262.8 262.



NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 1a CAESAR II JOB NUREG8 NATURAL FREQUENCY REPORT (Hz)

MODE NRC CAESAR II

1 6.042 6.052

2 6.256 6.258

3 7.760 7.760

4 8.943 8.967

5 12.44 12.453

6 12.83 12.837

7 14.30 14.392

8 15.49 15.500

9 16.37 16.441

10 18.54 18.546

11 19.50 19.513

12 23.24 23.231

13 24.10 24.089

14 32.64 32.637 These documents are the property of Intergraph Corporation, they may be used for internal reference purposes only and may not be copied, sold or otherwise distributed to any third party.

4-46 NRC Benchmarks

MODE NRC CAESAR II

15 33.84 34.198



TRANSLATIONS (in)

DX DY DZ


3 .0471 .0471 .0083 .0084 .0524 .0524

6 .0101 .0101 .0658 .0656 .0106 .0107

12 .0234 .0234 .0659 .0657 .0221 .0222

18 .0205 .0205 .0659 .0657 .0143 .0145

24 .0243 .0240 .0591 .0590 .0196 .0200

27 .0087 .0085 .0606 .0605 .0068 .0069

29 .0514 .0504 .0205 .0208 .0211 .0215

33 .0052 .0044 .1127 .1127 .0703 .0701


4-48 NRC Benchmarks

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 1A CAESAR II JOB NUREG8 ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


3 .0483 .0483 .0356 .0356 .0446 .0446

6 .0533 .0534 .0248 .0249 .0502 .0502

12 .0220 .0221 .0225 .0226 .0241 .0241

18 .0117 .0119 .0237 .0238 .0194 .0193

24 .0141 .0143 .0127 .0128 .0180 .0178

27 .0325 .0333 .0169 .0173 .0456 .0446

29 .0437 .0437 .0624 .0635 .0400 .0407

33 .0717 .071 .0492 .0485 .0252 .0263

SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

FX FY FZ


1 93 93 107 106 89 88

4 0 0 234 233 0 0

7 100 100 0 0 84 83

14 78 77 0 0 39 38

20 78 77 0 0 28 27

26 185 182 0 0 59 59

28 0 0 221 219 89 91

36 120 120 57 56 56 54



NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 1B CAESAR II JOB NUREG8 TRANSLATIONS (in)

DX DY DZ


3 .0622 .0622 .0069 .0069 .0689 .0689

6 .0125 .0125 .0566 .0553 .0137 .0137

12 .0256 .0256 .0567 .0554 .0272 .0272

18 .0182 .0182 .0568 .0555 .0161 .0161

24 .0200 .0197 .0535 .0525 .0280 .0275

27 .0075 .0072 .0541 .0530 .0108 .0106

29 .0365 .0361 .0380 .0371 .0428 .0421

33 .0088 .0074 .1876 .1833 .1910 .1891

ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


3 .0648 .0648 .0480 .0480 .0586 .0586

6 .0691 .0691 .0296 .0297 .0629 .0629

12 .0277 .0276 .0249 .0249 .0263 .0263

18 .0130 .0131 .0226 .0225 .0167 .0167

24 .0129 .0128 .0179 .0179 .0149 .0148

27 .0550 .0540 .0440 .0434 .0392 .0377

29 .0594 .0597 .1264 .1243 .1132 .1098

33 .0520 .0523 .0631 .0629 .0582 .0583


4-50 NRC Benchmarks

SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

FX FY FZ


1 86 85 93 90 81 80

4 0 0 202 197 0 0

7 84 82 0 0 74 73

14 55 55 0 0 34 33

20 57 57 0 0 26 25

26 136 135 0 0 53 51

28 0 0 152 151 95 93

36 84 84 67 65 74 74



NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 1C CAESAR II JOB NUREG8 TRANSLATIONS (in)

DX DY DZ


3 .0724 .0724 .0095 .0095 .0800 .0800

6 .0147 .0147 .0779 .0762 .0161 .0161

12 .0303 .0303 .0782 .0764 .0322 .0321

18 .0204 .0203 .0783 .0765 .0199 .0198

24 .0256 .0252 .0737 .0724 .0383 .0377

27 .0100 .0096 .0746 .0731 .0149 .0147

29 .0499 .0494 .0526 .0515 .0593 .0584

33 .0122 .0103 .0260 .2543 .0265 .2629

ROTATIONS (deg)

DX DY DZ


3 .0746 .0750 .0554 .0554 .0681 .0681

6 .0809 .0807 .0344 .0344 .0738 .0738

12 .0326 .0325 .0296 0285 .0309 .0309

18 .0157 .0157 .0286 0285 .0191 .0190

24 .173 .0171 .0236 .0235 .0186 .0186

27 .0761 .0749 .0606 .0600 .0528 .0508

29 .0818 .0823 .1753 .1726 .1571 .1525

33 .0720 .0707 .0871 .0870 .0806 .0810


4-52 NRC Benchmarks

SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

FX FY FZ


1 117 114 128 125 109 107

4 0 0 278 271 0 0

7 113 111 0 0 100 98

14 65 65 0 0 44 43

20 63 63 0 0 35 34

26 185 184 0 0 72 70

28 0 0 204 203 131 128

36 116 116 92 90 103 102


4-54 NRC Benchmarks

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985.

NRC PROBLEM 2A CAESAR II JOB NUREG9 NATURAL FREQUENCY REPORT (Hz)

MODE NRC CAESAR II

1 9.360 9.362

2 12.71 12.708

3 15.38 15.379

4 17.80 17.800

5 21.60 21.606

6 25.10 25.102

7 32.03 32.039

8 38.07 38.075

9 40.29 40.299

10 48.90 48.905

11 57.51 57.524

12 61.50 61.510

13 62.54 62.550

14 69.35 69.359

15 77.44 77.456

16 78.88 78.893

17 101.7 101.731

18 103.6 103.598

19 108.0 107.983

20 115.1 115.116

21 135.2 135.265

22 155.2 155.244

23 160.6 160.626

24 203.8 203.820

25 209.9 209.957 These documents are the property of Intergraph Corporation, they may be used for internal reference purposes only and may not be copied, sold or otherwise distributed to any third party.


NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 2A CAESAR II JOB NUREG9 TRANSLATIONS (in)

DX DY DZ


2 .0105 .0105 .0 .0 .0250 .0250

4 .0431 .0431 .0049 .0049 .0907 .0907

6 .0475 .0475 .0249 .0249 .0327 .0327

8 .0280 .0280 .0379 .0379 .0491 .0491

10 .0108 .0107 .0249 .0249 .0631 .0631

12 .0285 .0285 .0186 .0186 .0633 .0633

14 .0849 .0849 .0085 .0085 .0635 .0635

16 .0476 .0476 .0001 .0001 .0401 .0401

18 .0286 .0286 .0318 .0318 .0421 .0421

ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


2 .0457 .0457 .0260 .0260 .0190 .0190

4 .0515 .0515 .0688 .0688 .0269 .0268

6 .0389 .0389 .1012 .1012 .0268 .0267

8 .0309 .0309 .0950 .0949 .0217 .0217

10 .0201 .0201 .0289 .0289 .0203 .0203

12 .0105 .0105 .0328 .0328 .0224 .0224

14 .0102 .0102 .0514 .0511 .0299 .0299

16 .0359 .0359 .0496 .0496 .0476 .0476

18 .0105 .0105 .0343 .0343 .0128 .0128


4-56 NRC Benchmarks

RX RY RZ

20 .0215 .0214 .0273 .0273 .0090 .0090



SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

FX FY FZ


1 90 90 65 64 177 177

7 0 0 0 0 708 707

9 446 445 0 0 0 0

11 0 0 206 206 0 0

13 0 0 164 164 0 0

15 188 187 188 187 263 262

17 58 58 198 197 103 103

21 378 377 192 191 245 245


4-58 NRC Benchmarks

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 2B CAESAR II JOB NUREG9 TRANSLATIONS (in)

DX DY DZ


2 .0064 .0064 .0002 .0 .0158 .0158

4 .0267 .0267 .0031 .0031 .0574 .0574

6 .0295 .0295 .0162 .0162 .0207 .0207

8 .0170 .0170 .0242 .0242 .0311 .0311

10 .0029 .0029 .0152 .0152 .0399 .0399

12 .0103 .0103 .0110 .0110 .0400 .0400

14 .0530 .0530 .0053 .0053 .0401 .0401

16 .0301 .0301 .0001 .0001 .0255 .0255

18 .0103 .0103 .0187 .0187 .0267 .0267

20 .0033 .0033 .0057 .0057 .0 .0

ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


2 .0289 .0289 .0165 .0165 .0116 .0116

4 .0326 .0326 .0435 .0435 .0172 .0171

6 .0247 .0247 .0641 .0640 .0171 .0171

8 .0199 .0199 .0599 .0598 .0132 .0132

10 .0134 .0134 .0075 .0075 .0120 .0120

12 .0071 .0071 .0204 .0204 .0134 .0134

14 0062 0062 .0307 .0307 .0184 .0184

16 .0228 .0228 .0276 .0276 .0301 .0301

18 .0070 .0070 .0208 .0208 .0079 .0079



RX RY RZ

20 .0128 .0128 .0074 .0074 .0053 .0053

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 2B CAESAR II JOB NUREG9 SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

FX FY FZ


1 53 53 46 46 113 112

7 0 0 0 0 441 440

9 257 256 0 0 0 0

11 0 0 123 123 0 0

13 0 0 98 98 0 0

15 111 111 111 111 156 156

17 32 32 124 123 66 66

21 103 103 114 113 116 115


4-60 NRC Benchmarks

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 2C CAESAR II JOB NUREG9 TRANSLATIONS (in)

DX DY DZ


2 .0090 .0090 .0 .0 .0220 .0220

4 .0373 .0372 .0044 .0044 .0800 .0800

6 .0411 .0411 .0235 .0235 .0289 .0288

8 .0237 .0237 .0355 .0355 .0434 .0434

10 .0043 .0043 .0227 .0227 .0556 .0556

12 .0148 .0148 .0164 .0164 .0558 .0558

14 .0741 .0740 .0074 .0074 .0560 .0560

16 .0420 .0420 .0001 .0001 .0355 .0355

18 .0148 .0148 .0281 .0281 .0372 .0372

20 .0049 .0049 .0085 .0085 .0001 .0001

ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


2 .0402 .0402 .0229 .0229 .0163 .0163

4 .0456 .0455 .0606 .0605 .0244 .0244

6 .0347 .0346 .0894 .0893 .0252 .0252

8 .0282 .0282 .0835 .0835 .0196 .0196

10 .0197 .0197 .0112 .0112 .0179 .0179

12 .0104 .0104 .0285 .0285 .0199 .0199

14 .0092 .0092 .0429 .0429 .0260 .0260

16 .0318 .0317 .0387 .0387 .0421 .0420

18 .0104 .0104 .0291 .0291 .0116 .0116



RX RY RZ

20 .0191 .0191 .0110 .0110 .0079 .0079

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 2C CAESAR II JOB NUREG9 SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

FX FY FZ


1 76 76 70 69 156 155

7 0 0 0 0 607 607

9 350 350 0 0 0 0

11 0 0 184 184 0 0

13 0 0 146 146 0 0

15 151 151 151 151 212 211

17 45 45 169 168 91 90

21 152 151 170 169 158 157


4-62 NRC Benchmarks

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 3A CAESAR II JOB NURG10 NATURAL FREQUENCY REPORT (Hz)

MODE NRC CAESAR II

1 7.238 7.242

2 10.14 10.148

3 14.58 14.584

4 15.99 16.011

5 17.20 17.192

6 17.99 17.990

7 22.28 22.268

8 23.63 23.622

9 27.86 27.853

10 29.21 29.197

11 29.51 29.474

12 31.55 31.554

13 34.02 34.025

14 34.78 34.763

15 35.12 35.114



TRANSLATIONS (in)

DX DY DZ


5 .0216 .0216 .0 .0 .0217 .0216

10 .0027 .0027 .0110 .0111 .0162 .0162

17 .0039 .0039 .0142 .0143 .0119 .0119

31 .1699 .1699 .0356 .0354 .2370 .2367

36 .6114 .6114 .0082 .0082 .4958 .4943

51 .3732 .3714 1.1035 1.1024 .0600 .0597

58 .0003 .0003 .0711 .0710 .0014 .0014

29A .0328 .0327 .0 .0 .0441 .0441

ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


5 .0154 .0154 .0087 .0087 .0131 .0132

10 .0463 .0463 .0175 .0174 .0109 .0109

17 .1067 .1066 .0142 .0142 .0122 .0122

31 .2783 .2777 .3438 .3434 .2015 .2012

36 .2751 .2752 .1092 .1090 .3571 .3573

51 .0923 .0920 .1198 .1196 .7063 .7070

58 .0263 .0262 .0039 .0039 .2833 .2832

29A .2508 .2503 .2742 .2739 .1873 .1870


4-64 NRC Benchmarks

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 3A CAESAR II JOB NURG10 SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

FX FY FZ


1 1685 1684 87 87 1370 1367

5 359 363

8 729 736

13 6784 6781 315 312

14 784 796

14A 37 35 800 796

18 31 30 302 301

20 1043 1043

25 1378 1376

29 4325 4319 6063 6052

29A 3408 3389

32 9758 9724 6969 6941

37 1448 1447

41 3638 3624 8931 8921 2601 2591

49 11 10

55 1095 1095 7760 7769

59 3031 3019 15859 15850 896 912



NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 3B CAESAR II JOB NURG10 TRANSLATIONS (in)

DX DY DZ


5 .0274 .0274 0. 0. .0274 .0273

10 .0038 .0038 .0158 .0159 .0227 .0227

17 .0022 .0022 .0256 .0257 .0079 .0079

31 .0890 .0889 .0184 .0184 .1241 .1240

36 .5674 .5671 .0092 .0092 .5219 .5213

51 .1943 .1934 .3888 .3383 .0595 .0592

58 .0003 .0003 .0230 .0229 .0011 .0012

29A .0173 .0172 0. 0. .0232 .0232

ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


5 .0184 .0185 .0163 .0163 .0165 .0165

10 .0569 .0570 .0243 .0243 .0140 .0140

17 .1256 .1256 .0102 .0102 .0220 .0221

31 .3361 .3359 .1779 .1778 .2306 .2305

36 .2629 .2629 .1195 .1196 .3345 .3344

51 .0548 .0545 .0941 .0941 .3349 .3353

58 .0198 .0197 .0032 .0032 .0926 .0924

29A .3028 .3027 .1441 .1441 .2143 .2141


4-66 NRC Benchmarks

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 3B CAESAR II JOB NURG10 SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

FX FY FZ


1 3160 3147 109 109 2408 2398

5 524 527

8 1144 1150

13 4948 4936 230 227

14 1068 1075

14A 38 37 831 830

18 32 31 311 310

20 1416 1420

25 1666 1668

29 2562 2560 3591 3588

29A 2776 2779

32 4800 4795 3428 3423

37 1736 1736

41 2522 2516 2923 2916 1803 1799

49 4 3

55 956 957 6778 6791

59 2834 2831 4923 4918 803 817



NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 3C CAESAR II JOB NURG10 TRANSLATIONS (in)

DX DY DZ


5 .0442 .0442 0. 0. .0442 .0442

10 .0058 .0059 .0248 .0249 .0350 .0350

17 .0030 .0030 .0414 .0415 .0114 .0114

31 .1266 .1263 .0259 .0258 .1766 .1763

36 .8272 .8258 .0130 .0129 .7619 .7602

51 .2773 .2757 .5475 .5462 .0780 .0774

58 .0004 .0004 .0320 .0319 .0015 .0015

29A .0245 .0244 0. 0. .0330 .0330

ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


5 .0272 .0272 .0225 .0225 .0249 .0249

10 .0847 .0848 .0375 .0374 .0210 .0211

17 .1837 .1835 .0149 .0149 .0355 .0356

31 .4895 .4888 .2534 .2529 .3352 .3347

36 .3800 .3796 .1742 .1741 .4852 .4845

51 .0728 .0725 .1335 .1333 .4797 .4797

58 .0270 .0268 .0041 .0042 .1292 .1289

29A .4411 .4404 .2048 .2045 .3114 .3109


4-68 NRC Benchmarks

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 3C CAESAR II JOB NURG10 SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

FX FY FZ


1 4353 4342 168 169 3376 3368

5 832 837

8 1828 1837

13 6859 6843 318 315

14 1689 1701

14A 59 57 1275 1275

18 50 50 490 490

20 2149 2154

25 2467 2467

29 3677 3671 5155 5145

29A 4062 4064

32 6848 6834 4891 4872

37 2537 2534

41 3453 3440 4001 3996 2472 2460

49 5 5

55 1325 1324 9390 9388

59 3937 3927 6819 6804 1069 1087



NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985.

NRC PROBLEM 4 CAESAR II JOB NURG11 NATURAL FREQUENCY REPORT (Hz)

MODE NRC CAESAR II MODE NRC CAESAR II

1 2.612 2.613 26 18.71 18.733

2 2.914 2.937 27 18.90 18.908

3 4.337 4.337 28 19.99 20.007

4 4.660 4.664 29 21.46 21.469

5 5.734 5.735 30 21.52 21.525

6 5.833 5.832 31 22.74 22.743

7 7.359 7.358 32 23.28 23.293

8 7.769 7.768 33 24.07 24.065

9 9.952 9.952 34 24.54 24.588

10 10.33 10.340 35 25.12 25.111

11 10.68 10.678 36 26.52 26.513

12 10.94 10.942 37 26.94 27.368

13 12.03 12.028 38 27.51 27.507

14 12.29 12.284 39 28.66 28.659

15 13.25 13.249 40 29.5 29.537

16 13.41 13.406 41 30.60 30.592


4-70 NRC Benchmarks

MODE NRC CAESAR II MODE NRC CAESAR II

17 14.43 14.428 42 31.27 31.342

18 14.72 14.717 43 32.38 32.291

19 15.52 15.252 44 35.48 35.467

20 15.55 15.552 45 36.02 36.020

21 16.17 16.167 46 36.39 36.394

22 16.80 17.092 47 36.77 36.743

23 17.23 17.233 48 38.00 38.055

24 17.28 17.375 49 38.42 38.421

25 17.45 17.486 50 40.18 40.174

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 4A CAESAR II JOB NURG11 TRANSLATIONS (in)

DX DY DZ


10 .0119 .0118 .0094 .0094 .0027 .0027

17 .0389 .0388 .0391 .0391 .0278 .0278

25 .1314 .1313 .0558 .0558 .1092 .1091

35 .1143 .1144 .0327 .0331 .0893 .0893

42 .1021 .1021 .0137 .0137 .1716 .1716

54 .0419 .0433 .0776 .0777 .1946 .1947

62 .1866 .1866 .1008 .1010 .6260 .6264

72 .5515 .5519 .0351 .0352 .1924 .1925

83 .7725 .7729 .2719 .2720 .0955 .0956

106 .2204 .2204 .1192 .1191 .1306 .1307

155 .4726 .4988 .3190 .3305 .9143 .9630

176 .8110 .8459 .0306 .0301 .9478 .9968

183 .8830 .9240 .0476 .0472 .8175 .8609



ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


10 .0386 .0386 .0470 .0469 .0175 .0175

17 .0471 .0471 .0525 .0524 .0231 .0231

25 .0808 .0808 .0681 .0681 .0464 .0464

35 .0619 .0618 .0961 .0960 .0104 .0103

42 .0587 .0588 .1469 .1469 .0519 .0521

54 .2031 .2032 .2390 .2392 .0832 .0833

62 .2266 .2267 .3883 .3884 .1291 .1292

72 .1503 .1504 .4390 .4392 .2127 .2128

83 .0231 .0236 .1774 .1775 .5153 .5156

106 .1306 .1305 .0584 .0583 .1810 .1811

155 .1070 .1115 .1721 .1797 .1928 .1969

176 .0763 .0754 .1633 .1657 .0889 .0881

183 .0696 .0696 .1002 .0916 .0335 .0378


4-72 NRC Benchmarks

NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 4A CAESAR II JOB NURG11 SUPPORT FORCE (lb) *

FX FY FZ

Node NRC

CAESAR II

NRC

CAESAR II

NRC

CAESAR II

1 3724 3722 2390 2405 2156 2151

17 42 42

29 2466 2473

43 4751 4756 365 365

56 2096 2179 151 156

67 2553 2554 6152 6154

72 2669 2673

74 2428 2428 1641 1642 5862 5866

94 3334 3337 4739 4743 861 871

108 64 63

117 432 432 2034 2033

127 188 186 1819 1803

135 398 385 773 749

141 1771 1782 561 564

165 3901 4004 1066 1093 1656 1699

188 1170 1218

192 970 1010 749 745 2952 3187


Chapter 5 ASME Benchmarks

The following sheets describe the two piping jobs found in: Pressure Vessel and Piping 1972 Computer Programs Verification - An Aid to Developers and Users. This document was published by the American Society of mechanical Engineers in 1972. These two jobs are briefly described below:

1. The modal analysis of a coffee table like structure.

2. The static analysis of a 3D piping system.

Any special settings of the CAESAR II configuration file will be noted in the title page of the input for each job. This job is an ASME Verification job published by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division. The title of the publication is: Pressure Vessel and Piping 1972 Computer Programs Verification, Library of Congress Card No. 72-94235. This job is a modal analysis of a three dimensional structure, similar to the other coffee table models. The CAESAR II job name is ASME1. The first fourteen modes of the system were extracted by CAESAR II


and compared to the published results. The published results are from four sources: measurements, Code A, Code B, and ANSYS. The ASME document did not identify Code A or Code B.

MODE MEASURED CODE A CODE B ANSYS CAESAR II

1 110 109.0 110.5 111.5 111.2355

2 117 115.9 115.0 115.9 115.8009

3 134 135.0 134.7 137.6 137.1691

4 214 212.5 211.7 218.0 215.7990

5 359 352.4 385.5 404.2 404.2702

6 382 394.6 404.2 422.7 422.6415

7 416 422.2 433.0 451.7 451.5992

8 553 532.1 517.5 554.0 549.0119

9 * 655.8

10 697 684.9 693.0 735.7 733.5886

11 * 760.7 727.1

12 821 822.1 800.0 762.3 758.5624

13 853 849.3 838.2 852.6 851.3538

14 885 873.2 870.7 894.1 892.2800

15 898 903.5 910.2 893.0593

C H A P T E R 5


5-2 ASME Benchmarks

MODE MEASURED CODE A CODE B ANSYS CAESAR II

16 910.8283

In the previous table, the asterisk indicates modes which were not observed experimentally, while CODE_A found them both and CODE_B found one. Neither ANSYS nor CAESAR II computed these modes.

This job is an ASME Verification job published by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division. The title of the publication is: Pressure Vessel and Piping 1972 Computer Programs Verification, Library of Congress Card No. 72-94235. This job is a static analysis of a three dimensional piping system the CAESAR II

CAESAR II RESULTS, ASME BENCHMARK JOB #6

job name is ASME6.

RESTRAINT LOADS (lbs)

PROGRAM NODE 2 NODE 20 NODE 23 FX FY FZ FX FY FZ FX FY FZ

49 WESTDYN -4 -144 -287 -837 -1981 238 469 2126

49 ANSYS -3 -144 -286 -713 -1985 238 513 2129

49 ADLPIPE -2 -144 -287 -737 -2003 238 502 2146

49 CAESAR II -3 -144 -287 -723 -1975 238 488 2120

RESTRAINT MOMENTS (in-lb)

PROGRAM NODE 2 NODE 20 NODE 23 MX MY MZ MX MY MZ MX MY MZ

-10 WESTDYN 34 20 -66516 -1407 16599 13173 -11382 210 These documents are the property of Intergraph Corporation, they may be used for internal reference purposes only and may not be copied, sold or otherwise distributed to any third party.

Chapter 5 ASME Benchmarks 5-3

PROGRAM NODE 2 NODE 20 NODE 23

34 ANSYS 33 20 -66572 -1442 16591 11678 -11357 221

-12 ADLPIPE 48 24 -66984 -1428 16662 13608 -11400 216

-12 CAESAR II 36 24 -66492 -1416 16620 13440 -11400 216

DISPLACEMENTS (in)

NODE DX DY DZ

ANSYS CAESAR II ANSYS CAESAR II ANSYS CAESAR II

4 .04688 .0489 -.00284 -.0028 -.14418 -.1450

9 .14652 .1467 .06352 .0628 -.25589 -.2581

12 .20071 .2006 .03749 .0367 -.23096 -.2322

16 .18648 .1863 .01129 .0106 -.21779 -.2184

19 .18510 .1850 .02837 .0284 -.17186 -.1718

ROTATIONS (rad)

NODE RX RY RZ ANSYS CAESAR II ANSYS CAESAR II ANSYS CAESAR II

4 -.00096 -.0010 .00333 .0034 .00200 .0020

9 -.00150 -.0016 .00128 .0013 .00169 .0017

12 -.00194 -.0020 .00063 .0007 .00168 .0017

16 -.00191 -.0020 .00033 .0004 .00158 .0016

19 -.00440 -.0045 -.00204 -.0020 .00023 .0002


5-4 ASME Benchmarks


Chapter 6 General Benchmarks

This chapter contains a mixture of jobs collected from various sources. Several of these jobs can be found in the User Guides of other software packages, several of these jobs were obtained from our customers requesting a comparison to CAESAR II

Each job will be briefly described before the

, and some jobs were obtained from publications.

CAESAR II comparisons are presented. Any special settings of the CAESAR II

In This Chapter configuration file will be noted in the title page of the input for each job.

ANSYS Benchmark .............................................................. 6-2 ADLPIPE Benchmark ........................................................... 6-6 AUTOPIPE Benchmark ........................................................ 6-8 DYNAFLEX Benchmarks .................................................... 6-13 TRIFLEX Benchmark ........................................................... 6-23 UBEND Benchmark ............................................................. 6-25 SIMFLEX Benchmarks......................................................... 6-28 PIPESTRESS Benchmarks ................................................... 6-38 E400 Benchmark ................................................................... 6-43 CAEPIPE Benchmarks ......................................................... 6-48 L- Bend Benchmark .............................................................. 6-58

C H A P T E R 6


6-2 General Benchmarks

ANSYS Benchmark

This benchmark compares the results of CAESAR II

1 When using the ANSYS piping input module of PREP7, be aware of the modeling assumptions made. Typical piping programs (such as

to ANSYS Version 4.4A. The problem description can be found in the ANSYS User Manual pg. 3.5.6.2. The differences in the analysis methods employed by these two programs cause the results to vary by up to 20% are noted below.

CAESAR II

2 Proper modeling of rigid elements has always been an important consideration when analyzing a system on two different programs.

) generate bend radii based on 1.5 times the nominal pipe diameter. ANSYS generates the bend radii based on 1.5 times the outer diameter. This means that for pipe sizes smaller than 14 inches, the two programs will generate different models in the default generation mode.

CAESAR II

3 ANSYS assumes closed ended pipes, which includes an axial pressure force in the analysis. In order to perform in a similar fashion,

computes the stiffness of rigid elements by increasing the element thickness by a factor of 10, keeping the inner diameter constant. ANSYS uses a flexibility factor of 0.5, which makes the element twice as stiff as a standard pipe.

CAESAR II

4 When using the ANSYS pipe modeler, and changing temperature at a branch, ANSYS also changes the temperature of the two header elements which make up the tee. In order to generate the same model in

must be set to use Bourdon option #2.

CAESAR II

The displacement comparison and the element force comparison are shown below. The restraint comparison is shown on the following plots.

, the tee must be modeled as three pieces of pipe and the temperatures set appropriately.

CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name:ANSYS1 D I S P L A C E M E N T S Case 1 - Operating (Weight+Displacements+Pressure+Uniform+Forces)

DX DY DZ

Node CAESAR II ANSYS CAESAR II ANSYS CAESAR II ANSYS

1 -.4000 -.4000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5 -.0859 -.0859 -.0155 -.01547 -.0004 -.00037

14 0.0721 0.0729 -.0453 -.04487 0.4111 0.4139

20 0.2095 0.2108 -.2441 -.24459 0.3616 0.3643

27 -.0075 -.0077 -.2205 -.2208 0.0858 0.0888

35 -.1771 -.1774 -.0829 -.0836 -.0445 -.0421

41 -.4931 -.4950 -.1380 -.1434 -.0951 -.09265



DX DY DZ

45 -.3414 -.3420 -.0904 -.0912 -.0938 -.0914

Case 2 - Thermal ( Temperature )

DX DY DZ


1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5 -.0059 -.0051 -.0052 -.0051 -.0179 -.0179

14 0.174 0.173 -.0162 -.0162 -.0645 -.0645

20 -.0442 -.0443 -.0492 -.0493 -.1017 -.1016

27 -.1204 -.1203 -.0026 -.0027 -.1199 -.11999

35 -.0787 -.0787 0.1108 0.1107 -.1469 -.1470

41 -.0404 -.0405 0.0211 0.0212 -.3447 -.3448

45 -.0783 -.0783 0.1601 .15997 -.2512 -.25135

Case 3 - Occasional ( Weight+Uniform )

DX DY DZ


1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5 0.0036 0.0036 -.0102 -.0102 0.0 .000014

14 0.0157 0.01575 -.0661 -.06605 0.0345 0.0345

20 0.0505 0.0506 -.1849 -.18496 0.0088 0.00889

27 -.0137 -.0137 -.1737 -.1738 -.1029 -.10299

35 -.1076 -.1076 -.0850 -.08506 -.0825 -.0826

41 -.1323 -.1324 -.0741 -.0742 -.0828 -.0829

45 -.1646 -.1647 -.0833 -.08325 -.0828 -.0829



CAESAR II / ANSYS Benchmark F O R C E S Case 1 - Operating ( Weight+Displacements+Pressure+Uniform+Forces)

FX FY FZ

Element CAESAR II ANSYS CAESAR II ANSYS CAESAR II ANSYS

1 741. 733. 644 642. 430. 436.

5 -741. -733. -612. -610. -430. -436.

22 741. 733. -258. -261. 430. 436.

25 -741. -733. 304. 307. -430. -436.

S T R E S S E S Case 1 - Operating ( Weight+Displacements+Pressure+Uniform+Forces)

FX FY FZ

Element

CAESAR II AXIAL

ANSYS AXIAL

CAESAR II BENDING

ANSYS BENDING

CAESAR II TORSION

ANSYS TORSION

1 1467. 1468. 16409. 16408. 293. 303.

5 1467. 1468. 13657. 13680. -293. -303.

22 1441. 1441. 2426. 2419. -2217. -2235.

25 1448. 1448. 3618. 3582. 2217. 2235.



ADLPIPE Benchmark

This benchmark compares the results of CAESAR II to ADLPIPE Version 3D34A. This job is a small flare line, consisting of a riser and an elbow. Comparison of Results between CAESAR II

CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name:ADL2

and ADLPIPE .

Displacement Report Comparison CASE 1 (EXP) T1 Translations (in.)

Node DX DY DZ

60 CAESAR II .3648 .0000 -.3804

60 ADLPIPE .366 -.000 -.381

449 CAESAR II .0088 .0407 -.0137

450 ADLPIPE .009 .041 -.014

Rotations (deg.)

Node RX RY RZ

60 CAESAR II .1201 -.0453 .0002

60 ADLPIPE 120 -.045 -.001

449 CAESAR II .1296 -.0282 -.0516

450 ADLPIPE .130 -.028 -.052

Restraint Loads Comparison CASE 1 (EXP) T1 Forces (lb.)

Node FX FY FZ

40 CAESAR II -818. 255. 98.

40 ADLPIPE -820. 256. 98.

65 CAESAR II 0. 103. -98.

65 ADLPIPE -0. 104. -98.



Expansion Stresses Comparison CASE 1 (EXP) T1 Stresses (lb./sq.in.)

NODE

BENDING

STRESS

TORSION

STRESS

INTENSIFICATION

IN PLANE OUT PLANE

CODE

STRESS

450 CAESAR II 270. 22. 8.233 6.861 274.

451 ADLPIPE 270.8 21.7 8.233 6.861 274.3

500 CAESAR II 108. 0. 1.000 1.000 108.

.501 ADLPIPE 108.2 0.0 1.000 1.000 108.2



AUTOPIPE Benchmark

This benchmark compares the results of CAESAR II to AUTOPIPE Version 4.03. This is a small static system which illustrates the differences in modeling assumptions between these two programs. These differences are listed below and in the title page of the CAESAR II

1 Rigid valves were modeled in

input.

CAESAR II

2

using Diam= 5.99 and t= 0.29 to approximate AUTOPIPE’s stiffness of 100 times normal pipe. The weight of these elements was increased by 21 pounds to account for the insulation.

CAESAR II3 Densities and expansion coefficients were adjusted to match those in the AUTOPIPE listing.

must be set to use Bourdon option #2 to match the pressure cases.

4 Anchor movements were obtained from the AUTOPIPE output, since there are more decimal places contained in the output than in the input.

5 The following CAESAR IIUSE_PRESSURE_STIFFENING=NO ADD_TORSION_IN_SL_STRESS=YES ADD_F/A_IN_STRESS=YES

configuration directives must be set:

6 The P2 value is 1.1 * P1, needed for the stress calculations in cases 4 to 6, since AUTOPIPE used Pmax.

This job was obtained from a client. This job compares the results of a static CAESAR II run against a similar analysis performed with AUTOPIPE. There are notes contained in the CAESAR II input title page which list the specific items which must be accounted for (such as rigid element modeling) necessary to get the two programs to agree. Several modifications must be made to the standard CAESAR II

CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name:AP1

configuration file in order to run this job.

Load case definitions for the two programs are:

CASE CAESAR II AUTOPIPE

1 W GR

2 D1+T1 T1

3 P1 P1

4 W+P2 MAX P

5 W+D1+T1+P2 GR+MAX P

6 L5-L4 COLD to T1

The P2 case is 1.1*P1 since this looks like what AUTOPIPE did for the stress calculation.



DISPLACEMENTS (in)

DX DY DZ

Node CASE CAESAR II AUTOPIPE CAESAR II AUTOPIPE CAESAR II AUTOPIPE

1101/A01N 1 .0000 .0000 -.0048 -.005 -.0001 .000 2 .1052 .105 .0552 .055 .0672 .067 3 .0002 .000 .0000 .000 .0000 .000

103/A03 1 .0230 .022 -.0104 -.010 -.0148 -.015 2 .0859 .086 .1446 .144 .0780 .078 3 .0016 .002 .0001 .000 .0000 .000

106/106F 1 -.0213 -.022 -.0132 -.013 -.0971 -.098 2 -.5126 -.513 .0101 .010 -.5379 -.537 3 -.0002 .001 .0003 .000 -.0041 -.004

110/A10 1 -.0100 -.010 .0000 .0000 .0188 .019 2 .2396 .239 .0000 .0000 .0242 .025 3 .0066 .009 .0000 .0000 -.0021 -.003

112/A12F 1 .0036 .004 -.0087 -.009 -.0044 -.004 2 .0159 .016 .1526 .152 -.0314 -.031 3 .0001 .000 .0014 .002 -.0004 -.001



RESTRAINT LOADS (lb)

FX FY FZ

Node CASE CAESAR II AUTOPIPE CAESAR II AUTOPIPE CAESAR II AUTOPIPE

100/A00 1 -8 -8 -1157 -1143 9 9 2 -52 -52 -21 -21 57 57 3 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 2

107/A07 1 0 0 -360 -363 0 0 2 0 0 -13 -13 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0

108/A08 1 0 0 -200 -201 0 0 2 0 0 122 122 0 0 3 0 0 -3 -5 0 0

110/A10 1 0 0 -162 -164 0 0 2 0 0 -389 -390 0 0 3 0 0 1 2 0 0

114/A14 1 8 8 -154 -155 -9 -9 2 52 52 301 302 -57 -57 3 1 1 2 2 -1 -2



STRESSES (psi)

VALUE TYPE

Node CASE CAESAR II AUTOPIPE

100/A00 4 6988 6745 SUSTAINED 6 1748 1738 EXPANSION

101/A01F+

4 1956 1825 SUSTAINED

6 1850 1849 EXPANSION

107/A07 4 2995 3163 SUSTAINED 6 1890 1899 EXPANSION

111/A11F-

4 1607 1647 SUSTAINED

6 3508 3424 EXPANSION



DYNAFLEX Benchmarks

This section includes two Dynaflex benchmark jobs. The first job is a small static job which is discussed in Section 5.3 of the Dynaflex Users Guide. The second Dynaflex benchmark is a much larger system, which models a steam piping system. This job was obtained from a client.

For this job, the CAESAR II

ALPHA_TOLERANCE=0.5 BEND_AXIAL_SHAPE=YES

loading consists of a single case with the force vector, which activates cold spring. Additionally, the following configuration directives must be set.

CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name: DYNHGR Displacement Results Comparison (Restrained Weight Case) CASE 1 (SUS) W Translations (in.)

Node DX DY DZ

10 CAESAR II -.0022 -.0035 .0000

10F DYNAFLEX -.002 -.004 .000

25 CAESAR II .0042 -.0001 .0019

25F DYNAFLEX .004 .000 .002

Rotations (deg.)

Node RX RY RZ

10 CAESAR II .0000 .0000 -.0324

10F DYNAFLEX .000 .000 -.032

25 CAESAR II .0034 .0096 -.0106

25F DYNAFLEX .003 .010 -.011



Comparison of Displacement Results ( Free Thermal Case ) CASE 2 (EXP) T1 Translations (in.)

Node DX DY DZ

15 CAESAR II .3229 .1479 .0000

15 DYNAFLEX .323 .148 .000

23 CAESAR II -.0241 .1549 -.0922

23F DYNAFLEX -.024 .155 -.092

55 CAESAR II .0203 .1594 .1843

55F DYNAFLEX .020 .159 .184

Rotations (deg.)

Node DX DY DZ

15 CAESAR II .0000 .0000 .0657

15 DYNAFLEX .000 .000 .066

23 CAESAR II -.0101 .0764 -.0002

23F DYNAFLEX -.010 .076 .000

55 CAESAR II -.0076 -.1734 .0159

55 F DYNAFLEX -.008 -.173 .016



Comparison of Restraint Loads( Restrained Weight Case )CASE 1(SUS)W Forces (lb.)

Node FX FY FZ RESULTANT

5 CAESAR II 38. -240. 0. 243.

5 DYNAFLEX 38. -240. 0. 243.

21 CAESAR II 34. -421. 0. 34.

21 DYNAFLEX 34. -420 0. 34.

56 CAESAR II 34. -421 0. 421.

56 DYNAFLEX 34. -420 0. 421.

76 CAESAR II -53. -590. 1. 592.

75 DYNAFLEX -53. -525. 1. 528.

Moments (ft.lb.)

Node MX MY MZ RESULTANT

5 CAESAR II 0. 0. -506. 506.

5 DYNAFLEX 0. 0. -505. 505.

21 CAESAR II 0. 0. 0. 0.

21 DYNAFLEX 0. 0. 0. 0.

56 CAESAR II 0. 0. 0. 0.

56 DYNAFLEX 0. 0. 0. 0.

76 CAESAR II -65 -147. -73. 177.

75 DYNAFLEX -65 -147. -73. 176.



Comparison of Restraint Loads ( Free Thermal Case ) CASE 2 (EXP) T1 Forces (lb.)

Node FX FY FZ RESULTANT

5 CAESAR II -1885. 168. 0. 1892.

5 DYNAFLEX -1884. 167. 0. 1891.

21 CAESAR II 799. 0. 0. 799.

21 DYNAFLEX 798. 0. 0. 798.

76 CAESAR II 144. -84. 2. 167.

75 DYNAFLEX 144. -84. 3. 167.

Moments (ft.lb.)

Node MX MY MZ RESULTANT

5 CAESAR II 0. 0. -708. 708.

5 DYNAFLEX 0. 0. -708. 708.

21 CAESAR II 0. 0. 0. 0.

21 DYNAFLEX 0. 0. 0. 0.

76 CAESAR II 116. -458. -740. 878.

75 DYNAFLEX 118. -457. -741.



Comparison of Thermal Expansion Stress Calculations and SIFs CASE 2 (EXP) T1 Stress (lb./sq.in.)

Node INTENSIFICATION IN-PLANE OUT-PLANE

CODE STRESS

ALLOWABLESTRESS

15 CAESAR II 1.518 1.691 14016 30000

15 DYNAFLEX 1.52 1.69 14008.

60 CAESAR II 2.254 1.878 727. 30000

60F DYNAFLEX 2.25 1.88 727.

66 CAESAR II 1.000 1.000 1122. 30000

65 DYNAFLEX 1.00 1.00 1122.



The second Dynaflex benchmark is a much larger system, which models a steam piping system. This job was obtained from a client.

For this job, the CAESAR II

ALPHA_TOLERANCE=0.5 BEND_AXIAL_SHAPE=YES

loading consists of a single case with the force vector, which activates cold spring. Additionally, the following configuration directives must be set.

Comparison of CAESAR II

CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name:Z1 - Steam Piping System under Cold Spring Load Only

and DYNAFLEX

D I S P L A C E M E N T S (in)

DX DY DZ

Node CAESAR II DYNAFLEX CAESAR II DYNAFLEX CAESAR II DYNAFLEX

10 -.1505 -.151 -.0002 .000 .0177 .018

22 -.3246 -.328 -.9354 -.939 -.0496 -.050

44 -.1140 -.119 -4.9940 -4.964 -.0380 -.042

55 -.4163 -.414 -9.8227 -9.822 .4108 .403

80 -.5108 -.540 -11.6452 -11.653 4.0394 4.011

102 -3.2686 -3.338 .0000 .000 2.7400 2.689

138 7.6932 -7.707 -.9690 -.964 -.0370 -.038

170 .1343 .133 -.0963 -.090 .1292 .127

204 .0056 .006 .0097 .010 .0029 .003

244 .0017 .002 -.0012 -.001 .0011 .001

280 -8.6546 -8.661 -1.6385 -1.617 .0266 .026

348 .7155 .718 -12.8068 -12.808 -1.3154 -1.335

413 -.0215 -.021 .0141 .014 -.0194 -.019

454 -.0427 -.042 -.0788 -.076 .1223 .121

512 -.0625 -.062 -.0119 -.012 .0724 .072

635 .0016 .002 .0066 .007 .0060 .006



R O T A T I O N S (degrees)

MX MY MZ


10 .0154 .016 -.0215 -.022 .1006 .101

22 -.0564 -.057 -.0331 -.033 .4758 .478

44 -.2750 -.277 .0278 .027 .5768 .579

55 -.3830 -.386 .1113 .110 .4091 .410

80 .0783 .079 .2169 .213 -.0842 -.086

102 .1358 .138 .3126 .309 -.2531 -.256

138 .0371 .038 .2797 .271 -.1444 -.146

170 .0040 .005 -.0516 -.051 -.0073 -.008

204 -.0107 -.011 .0074 .008 -.0065 -.006

244 -.0187 -.018 -.0096 -.010 -.0020 -.002

280 -.0451 -.044 .1528 .153 -.2661 -.265

348 .1832 .182 .0431 .044 -.0194 -.023

413 .0069 .007 .0066 .007 .0576 .058

454 -.0114 -.011 -.0244 -.024 -.0080 -.008

512 -.0202 -.020 -.0041 -.004 -.0198 -.020

635 -.0107 -.011 .0074 .008 -.0065 -.006

R E S T R A I N T L O A D S (pounds)

FX FY FZ


5 -5559 -5597 -18398 -18604 -8806 -8865

102 0 0 15666 15826 0 0

216 -2224 -2239 -1001 -970 1898 1948

256 -1435 -1392 3334 3267 4817 4842

312 0 0 19021 19044 0 0



FX FY FZ


421 -7019 -7008 -18845 -18809 9575 9418

530 -1741 -1723 -948 -891 1449 1470

645 0 0 1152 1151 0 0

R E S T R A I N T L O A D S (foot-pounds)

MX MY MZ


5 46095 46603 -115834 -116833 743112 746768

102 0 0 0 0 0 0

216 -31905 -31644 22177 22812 -20894 -20903

256 -60792 -60056 -35022 -35369 -196 -196

312 0 0 0 0 0 0

421 -52320 -50502 208597 207240 770594 771453

530 -22207 -22114 7719 7752 -12751 -13122

645 0 0 0 0 0 0

E X P A N S I O N S T R E S S (psi)

STRESS

Node CAESAR II DYNAFLEX

10 4323 4345

44 3232 3265

62 4863 4906

112 879 879

149 2948 2959

170 600 589

258 805 808

320 1262 1243



STRESS

Node CAESAR II DYNAFLEX

378 4387 4376

461 631 623

528 424 426



TRIFLEX Benchmark

This job is a small statics job obtained from the Triflex Users Manual, Appendix H page 21. These results are for an “operating” case. The CAESAR II job name is TRFLX1. This job is a comparison of Results between CAESAR II

The following is a table of results comparing output from the TRIFLEX mainframe computer program and the PC based

and TRIFLEX.

CAESAR II

CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name:TRFLX1

pipe stress analysis program. This problem was taken from the TRIFLEX manual appendix H, page 21. It is sample problem number 1.

Comparison of Displacements : ( OPE W+P1+DIS+FOR+T1 ) Units = in

DX DY DZ

Node CAESAR II TRFLX CAESAR II TRFLX CAESAR II TRFLX

10 0.0246 0.025 -0.1642 -0.164 0.0002 0.000

25 0.1877 0.188 0.1617 0.162 0.0012 0.000

50 -0.0103 -0.010 0.0708 0.071 0.0207 0.020

77 -0.0938 -0.094 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Rotations : Units = Degrees

RX RY RZ


10 -0.0005 0.000 -0.0006 0.000 0.1934 0.193

25 -0.0007 0.000 0.0003 0.000 0.0451 0.046

50 0.0452 0.044 -0.0240 -0.024 -0.2011 -0.201

77 -0.0002 0.000 0.0001 0.000 -0.002 0.000

Comparison of Restraint Loads Units = Lbs.

FX FY FZ


5 -2792. -2776. 1425. 1413. 4. - 0.

80 1404. 1388. -1694. -1657. -443. -436.



Comparison of Restraint Moments Units = Ft.-Lbs.

MX MY MZ


5 -17. 0. -14. 0. -3954. -3907.

80 -2139. -2039. 916. 900. -2324. -2289.



UBEND Benchmark

This benchmark compares CAESAR II

This job is a small “U” bend. The benchmark data has been obtained from two publications:

results for a U-bend model to the ANSYS Finite Element program from Swanson Analysis and to the I-DEAS program from SDRC. The static comparisons are listed in the tables below, followed by the modal comparisons. Note, only a limited amount of data has been published on this job, so only a few results comparisons can be made

1 Results of the Finite Element Analysis Demonstration Problems Using SDRC I-DEAS, by Richard Russell and John Priess of SDRC.

2 FEA Demonstration Example Problems Using the ANSYS Code, by Gerald L. Jones, of ABB Impell Corporation.

For this job, the following configuration directives must be set.

USE_PRESSURE_STIFFENING=YES BEND_AXIAL_SHAPE=YES

CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name: UBEND

This job compares CAESAR II

DISPLACEMENTS (in) ROTATIONS (deg)

results for a U-bend model to the ANSYS Finite Element program from Swanson Analysis and to the I-DEAS program from SDRC. The static comparisons are listed in the tables below, followed by the modal comparisons. Note, only a limited amount of data has been published on this job, so only a few results comparisons can be made.

Node DX DY DZ RX RY RZ

190 CAESAR II 0.9054 -2.5623 1.000 0.6220 -0.3236 -0.9435

33 ANSYS 1.017 -2.788 1.000 0.0636 -0.3226 -1.0084

J I-DEAS 0.9048 -2.5619 1.000 0.6220 -0.3236 -0.9434



REACTIONS (lb & ft-lb)


100 CAESAR II 1500. 302. -140. 4000. 739. 2198.

1 ANSYS 1500. 306. -132. 4000. 699. 2217.

A I-DEAS 1500. 302. -140. 4000. 739. 2197.

110 CAESAR II 0. -619. 489. 0. 0. 0.

6 ANSYS 0. -625. 483. 0. 0. 0.

B I-DEAS 0. -619. 483. 0. 0. 0.

180 CAESAR II 0. -2654. 308. 0. 0. 0.

28 ANSYS 0. -2652. 298. 0. 0. 0.

I I-DEAS 0. -2654. 308. 0. 0. 0.

STRESSES (psi)

Node AXIAL BENDING

100 CAESAR II 6135 1655

1 ANSYS 179 1660

A I-DEAS 6135 1655

120 CAESAR II 5994 2017

10 ANSYS 38 2023

C I-DEAS 5994 2017

Note, for the modal analysis, the "Z" displacement at node 190 must be removed. The published test job modeled node 190 as completely free.



NATURAL FREQUENCIES (hz)

MODE CAESAR II ANSYS I-DEAS

1 2.3273 2.293 2.341

2 2.4385 2.451 2.590

3 2.7007 3.273 3.342

4 4.3641 4.986 5.252

5 15.1753 13.900 14.592



SIMFLEX Benchmarks

This section includes two SIMFLEX Benchmark jobs. Both jobs compare the results of thermal bowing analysis


CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name:TB4B

to PENGS, a version of the Simflex program. This run is a thermal bowing run, using weight, pressure, bowing and temperature.

OPERATING CASE DISPLACEMENTS (in) AND ROTATIONS (deg)

DX DY RZ

Node CAESAR II PENGS CAESAR II PENGS CAESAR II PENGS

10 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

20 .1822 .182 -.0247 -.025 -.0283 -.028

30 .2596 .260 -.0660 -.066 -.0713 -.071

31 .2851 .285 -.0638 -.064 -.0807 -.081

40 .3468 .348 .0 .0 -.0875 -.088

41 .3751 .376 -.0015 -.002 -.1006 -.102

50 .4343 .435 -.0871 -.089 -.1499 -.152

OPERATING CASE RESTRAINT LOADS (lb) AND MOMENTS (ft-lb)

FY MZ

Node CAESAR II PENGS CAESAR II PENGS

10 -94 -100 1136 1019

40 -475 -465 0 0

50 0 0 0 0



SUSTAINED CASE DISPLACEMENTS (in) AND ROTATIONS (deg)

DX DY RZ


10 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

20 .0007 .0 .0116 .011 .0044 .005

30 .0010 .001 .0042 .004 -.0281 -.027

31 .0062 .006 -.0003 .0 -.0373 -.037

40 .0360 .035 .0 .0 -.0441 -.044

41 .0438 .043 -.0083 -.008 -.0572 -.058

50 .0440 .043 -.0619 -.063 -.0995 -.100

SUSTAINED CASE RESTRAINT LOADS (lb) AND MOMENTS (ft-lb)

FY MZ


10 -82 -92 1307 1150

40 -486 -474 0 0

50 0 0 0 0

The following Expansion case results from CAESAR II

were obtained by running a load case with T1 only. (Bowing is automatically included with the temperature.)

EXPANSION CASE DISPLACEMENTS (in) AND ROTATIONS (deg)

DX DY RZ


10 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

20 .1822 .182 -.0149 -.015 -.0336 -.034

30 .2596 .259 -.0648 -.065 -.0824 -.082

31 .2858 .286 -.0638 -.064 -.0800 -.080

40 .3444 .344 .0 .0 -.0800 -.080



41 .3707 .371 .0011 .001 -.0800 -.080

50 .4299 .430 -.0696 -.070 -.1279 -.128

EXPANSION CASE RESTRAINT LOADS (lb) AND MOMENTS (ft-lb)

FY MZ


10 115 107 1719 1603

40 -115 -106 0 0

50 0 0 0 0




CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name:TB5B

to PENGS, a version of the Simflex program. This run is a thermal bowing run, using weight, pressure, bowing and temperature.

OPERATING CASE DISPLACEMENTS (in) AND ROTATIONS (deg)

DX DY


10 .0 .0 .0 .0

20 .1822 .182 -.0764 -.079

30 .2596 .260 -.1441 -.148

31 .2743 .275 -.1368 -.142

40 .2499 .250 .0 .0

50 .1768 .177 -.0805 -.085

51 .1503 .150 -.0847 -.089

60 .0911 .091 -.0363 -.039

70 .0 .0 .0 .0

DZ RX


10 .0 .0 .0 .0

20 .0408 .041 .0770 .079

30 .0641 .064 .1098 .113

31 .0526 .053 .1348 .138

40 -.0795 -.080 .0223 .022

50 -.2115 -.212 -.1097 -.114

51 -.2105 -.211 -.1106 -.115

60 -.1322 -.132 -.1106 -.115

70 .0 .0 -.1106 -.115



RY RZ


10 .0 .0 .0 .0

20 -.0285 -.028 -.0626 -.064

30 -.0219 -.022 -.0934 -.094

31 .0026 .003 -.0803 -.081

40 .0309 .031 -.0822 -.083

50 .0666 .067 .0841 -.086

51 .1078 .108 -.0864 -.088

60 .1210 .121 -.0568 -.059

70 .1287 .129 -.0103 -.013

OPERATING CASE RESTRAINT LOADS (lb) AND MOMENTS (ft-lb)

FX FY


10 14 13 -183 -186

40 0 0 -663 -657

70 -14 -12 -112 -111

FZ MX


10 62 57 600 571

40 0 0 0 0

70 -62 --56 0 0

DX MZ


10 -595 -552 -26 -88

40 0 0 0 0



70 0 0 0 0

SUSTAINED CASE DISPLACEMENTS (in) AND ROTATIONS (deg)

DX DY


20 .0007 .0 -.0707 -.073

30 .0010 .001 -.1301 -.133

50 .0007 .0 -.0772 -.081

60 .0004 .0 -.0372 -.040

DZ RX


20 .0002 .0 .0693 .071

30 .0003 .0 .0988 .101

50 -.0008 .0 -.1016 -.105

60 -.0005 .0 -.1023 -.106

RY RZ


20 -.0001 .0 -.0557 -.056

30 -.0001 .0 -.0811 -.081

50 .0003 .0 -.0750 -.076

60 .0005 .0 -.0535 -.056



SUSTAINED CASE RESTRAINT LOADS (lb) AND MOMENTS (ft-lb)

FX FY


10 0. 0. -191. -194.

40 0. 0. -654. -647.

70 0. 0. -113. -112.

FZ MX


10 0. 0. 540. 509.

40 0. 0. 0. 0.

70 0. 0. 0. 0.

MY MZ


10 -2. -2. -161. -225.

40 0. 0. 0. 0.

70 0. 0. 0. 0.



The following Expansion case results from CAESAR II

EXPANSION CASE DISPLACEMENTS (in) AND ROTATIONS (deg)

were obtained by running a load case with T1 only. (Bowing is automatically included with the temperature.)

DX DY


20 .1822 .182 -.0391 -.039

30 .2596 .259 -.0970 -.097

50 .1768 .177 -.0230 -.023

60 .0911 .091 .0058 .006

DZ RX


20 .0408 .041 .0531 .053

30 .0641 .064 .0756 .076

50 -.2115 -.211 -.0559 -.056

60 -.1322 -.132 -.0571 -.057

RY RZ


20 -.0285 -.028 -.0472 -.047

30 -.0219 -.022 -.0847 -.085

50 .0666 .066 -.0625 -.063

60 .1210 .121 -.0226 -.023



EXPANSION CASE RESTRAINT LOADS (lb) AND MOMENTS (ft-lb)

FX FY


10 14. 13. 58. 54.

40 0. 0. -64. -59.

70 -14. -12. 6. 6.

FZ MX


10 62. 57. 413. 384.

40 0. 0. 0. 0.

70 -62. -56. 0. 0.

MY MZ


10 -595. -551. 928. 864.

40 0. 0. 0. 0.

70 0. 0. 0. 0.



PIPESTRESS Benchmarks

This section includes two PIPESTRESS benchmark jobs. PIPESTRESS is a main frame analysis package used mostly in Europe. This job is a comparison of CAESAR II

CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name:PSKE4 Job

to PIPESTRESS. This job compares the static results for a “Z” shaped cantilever. The “Z” is modeled with a straight section between back-to-back bends.

SUSTAINED DISPLACEMENTS and ROTATIONS

DY (in) RX (deg) RX (deg)

NODE CAESAR II PIPESTRESS CAESAR II PIPESTRESS CAESAR II PIPESTRESS

20 -.0674 -.067 -.0120 -.0128 -.0870 -.0868

30 -.1833 -.183 -.0240 -.0257 -.0850 -.0855

40 -.2624 -.264 -.0360 -.0385 -.0362 -.0385

50 -.2499 -.251 -.0717 -.0791 .0342 .0334

55 .0 -.217 -.0780 -.0817 .0592 .0587

60 -.1798 -.179 -.1092 -.1133 .1231 .1235

70 .0 ..0 -.1092 -.1133 .1532 .1506

SUSTAINED RESTRAINT LOADS

FY (lb) MY (ft-lb) MZ (ft-lb)


10 -947 -940 -401 -429 -6295 . -6111

70 -536 -544 0 0 0 0



This job is a comparison of CAESAR II

CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name: RCCM2.

to PIPESTRESS, using the RCC-MC piping code.

SUSTAINED DISPLACEMENTS (in)

DX DY DZ


20 .0 .0 -.1182 -.122 .0320 .033

30 -.0081 -.008 -.1971 --.205 .0660 .068

40 -.0465 -.048 -.1439 -.149 .0060 .068

50 -.0799 -.082 -.0717 -.074 .0552 .057

60 .0 .0 -.0589 -.061 .0038 .004

100 -.0443 -.045 -.1936 -.201 .1340 .138

110 .0133 .015 -.1790 -.185 .2021 .209

120 .0133 .015 .0 .0 .2554 .264

SUSTAINED ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


40 -.0848 -.0887 -.0565 -.0580 -.0761 -.0771

60 -.0195 -.0201 -.0085 -.0087 -.0796 -.0829

110 -.0848 -.0887 -.0565 -.0580 .1637 .1715

SUSTAINED RESTRAINT LOADS (lb)

FX FY FZ


10 -56 -57 -446 -439 33 34

70 56 57 -643 -645 -33 -34

120 0 0 -127 -132 0 0



SUSTAINED RESTRAINT MOMENTS (ft-lb)

MX MY MZ


10 -343 -363 -566 -583 -2778 -2655

70 -290 -299 -76 -77 -3067 -3062

SUSTAINED CODE STRESSES (psi)

NODE CAESAR II PIPESTRESS NODE CAESAR II PIPESTRESS

10 @10-20 4810 4649 40 @40-98 1692 2028

20 @20-28 1503 1491 98 @98-100 2898 3036

30 @28-30 1954 2044 108 @100-108 2204 2286

40 @30-40 2384 2458 110 @110-120 2114 2191

40 @40-48 2155 2140

58 @58-60 1860 1898

70 @60-70 5130 5123



E400 Benchmark

This section includes an E400 benchmark, consisting of both static and dynamic analysis.

This job compares CAESAR II

The system was modeled as closely as possible, 10 modes were extracted, and modal results were combined using SRSS methodology; missing mass results were combined using SRSS as well. The job was run on

results for a small model to E400. Both a static and a dynamic analysis are performed. The dynamic analysis is an earthquake simulation. This job was obtained from the E400 Users Manual, sample problem line 2001A-14" V-204 to P-202A&B, dated Jan 23, 1980.

CAESAR II Version 3.19, with a slight modification: the ZPA (for multiplication of the missing mass) was hardcoded as 0.11, rather than having CAESAR II calculate it. This was done due to a difference of philosophy between the two programs — E400 multiplies the missing mass by the ZPA taken from the entered spectrum (0.11g), while CAESAR II

All results matched between

more conservatively, and in our opinion more correctly, uses the acceleration of the last extracted mode (which in this case is actually 0.241g for mode 10).

CAESAR II and E400 within nominal tolerances. The percents of included mass varied slightly 40.73% vs. 42.49% for Y, and 59.98% vs. 61.74% for Z. This is due to the fact that E400 does not consider missing mass (for this calculation) in directions normal to the shock, CAESAR II

When

does. However, the fact that the final results are the same tends to indicate that E400 does apply the missing mass normal to the shock when making the correction.

CAESAR II

Note that the E400 job extracted 14 modes, but only 10 were used in the computation of results. When

was left to calculate the rigid acceleration factor, it used 0.241g, and the resulting missing mass forces matched, when multiplied by the appropriate correction factor of (0.11/0.241).

CAESAR II was instructed to extract 14 modes, the Included Mass

Since the results shown below were obtained by internally fixing

report matched the E400 results for 14 modes.

CAESAR II’s ZPA value to 0.11, users will obtain different dynamic restraint loads from those shown below if they rerun the job.



CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name: 320571 (E400 Job ) STATIC THERMAL DISPLACEMENTS (in)

DX DY DZ

NODE CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II E400

2 .0002 .000 -.0911 -.091 -.0052 -.005

3 .0008 .001 -.1333 -.133 -.0132 -.013

4 -.0976 -.098 -.1317 -.132 -.0545 -.054

5 -.2113 -.211 -.1205 -.120 -.1096 -.110

6 -.2362 -.236 -.0715 -.071 -.0308 -.031

7 -.2473 -.247 .0 .0 .0727 .073

8 -.2282 -.228 .0716 .072 .1798 .180

9 -.1370 -.137 .1296 .130 .2519 .252

10 -.0843 -.084 .1484 .148 .1554 .155

11 -.0029 -.003 .1489 .149 .0245 .024

13 .0 .0 .0535 .053 .0013 .001

22 .2365 .236 -.0652 -.065 -.0284 -.028

25 .1343 .134 .1092 .109 .2541 .254

29 .0 .0 .0295 .021 .0014 .001



STATIC THERMAL RESTRAINT LOADS (lb)

FX FY FZ


1 0. 0. 337. 337. 2032. 2030.

7 0. 0. 38. 38. 0. 0.

12 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

14 77. 77. -201. -201. 1018. 1017.

23 0. 0. -5. -5. 0. 0.

28 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

30 -77. -76. -170. -170. 1014. 1013.

STATIC THERMAL RESTRAINT MOMENTS (ft-lb)

MX MY MZ


1 7905. 7894 -51. -51. 252. 252.

14 6916. 6911. 6808. 6802. 310. 310.

30 7056. 7048 -6775. 6768. -63. 63.

STATIC THERMAL CODE STRESSES (psi)

NODE CAESAR II E400 NODE E400 CAESAR II

1 1782. 1780. 20 1225. 1223.

3 17401. 17384. 21 2000. 1999.

5 2082. 2081. 23 768. 767.

7 770. 770. 25 2714. 2712.

9 2811. 2809. 28 1540. 1539.

13 1965. 1963. 30 2204. 2202.



NATURAL FREQUENCIES (hz) % MASS INCLUDED

MODE CAESAR II E400 DIRECTION CAESAR II E400

1 4.194 4.196 X 55.82 55.83

2 5.553 5.555 Y 40.73 42.49

3 5.766 5.768 Z 59.98 61.73

4 7.093 7.098

5 9.093 9.100

6 9.439 9.446

7 10.231 10.24

8 12.737 12.75

9 15.013 15.02

10 15.261 15.27

DYNAMIC DISPLACEMENTS (in)

DY (in) RX (deg) RX (deg)


3 .0201 .020 .0001 0. .0313 .031

9 .0453 .045 .0958 .096 .1534 .153

10 .0452 .045 .0559 .056 .1030 .103

13 .0015 .002 0. 0. .0013 .001

23 .0631 .063 0. 0. .1686 .168

25 .0453 .045 .0958 .096 .1534 .153

29 .0015 .002 0. 0. .0013 .001



DYNAMIC RESTRAINT LOADS (lb)

FX FY FZ


.11g .11g .11g

1 900. 898 720. 719. 2921. 2916.

7 652. 651.

14 954. 953. 476. 475. 836. 835.

23 652. 651.

30 954. 953. 476. 475. 836. 835.



CAEPIPE Benchmarks

This section includes two CAEPIPE benchmark jobs. This job is a comparison between CAESAR II and CAEPIPE. This job is the sample problem found in the CAEPIPE Users manual. The CAESAR II

Note that this job requires setting the “USE_PD/4t” directive to YES in the configuration file. This job also required adjusting the standard material property values.

job name is KPIP1.

CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name:KPIP1 OPERATING DISPLACEMENTS (in)

DX DY DZ

Node CAESAR II CAEPIPE CAESAR II CAEPIPE CAESAR II CAEPIPE

18/20A .3606 .361 .2145 .214 -.3938 -.393

30 -.6027 -.601 .6007 .600 -.0550 -.055

38/40A -.6309 -.630 .7889 .788 .1502 .150

60 -.3471 *.346 .4446 .447 .1273 .132

70 -.2556 -.256 .2949 .296 .0962 .101

OPERATING ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


18/20A -.1908 -.191 .0589 .059 .2045 .204

30 -.2579 -.258 -.4408 -.440 .2529 .253

38/40A -.1031 -.103 .1943 .194 .5241 .523

60 -.1296 -.134 .0727 .064 -.3566 -.353

70 -.1282 -.256 .0751 .082 -.3575 -.360

OPERATING RESTRAINT LOADS (lb)

FX FY FZ


10 -27088. -27006. 1382. 1374. -13050. -13017.



30 0. 0. -1246. -1241. 0. 0.

50 -16802. -16765. -4052. -4041. 11883. 11853.

80 43890. 43772. 1573. 1575. 1167. 1164.

OPERATING RESTRAINT MOMENTS (ft-lb)

MX MY MZ


10 -6559. -6552. 54833. 54700. 15347. 15300.

30 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

50 45581. 45453. 12549. 12509. 84239. 84071.

80 -1564. -1509. 4693. 4799. -10585. -10585.


DX DY DZ


18/20A .0000 .000 -.0082 -.008 .0020 .002

30 .0000 .000 .0046 .005 .0022 .002

38/40A .0015 .002 .0016 .002 .0022 .002

60 .0000 .000 -.0118 -.013 .0010 .001

70 .0000 .000 -.0117 -.013 .0006 .001


RX RY RZ


18/20A -.0105 -.011 -.0015 -.002 -.0058 -.006

30 -.0038 -.004 .0011 .001 -.0114 -.012

38/40A .0059 .006 .0016 .002 -.0061 -.006

60 -.0019 -.002 .0009 .001 .0000 -.002

70 -.0019 -.002 .0009 .001 .0006 .002 These documents are the property of Intergraph Corporation, they may be used for internal reference purposes only and may not be copied, sold or otherwise distributed to any third party.



FX FY FZ


10 -13. -13. -382. -381. 26. 26.

30 0. 0. -1401. -1396. 0. 0.

50 -40. -40. -192. -192. -27. -27.

80 52. 53. -368. -364. 1. 1.


MX MY MZ


10 -362. -363. -171. -171. -1108. -1107.

30 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

50 123. 123. 102. 103. -86. -87.

80 -23. -22. 18. 17. 917. 932.

SUSTAINED STRESSES (psi)

CODE STRESS ALLOWABLE SIFS

ELEMENT CAESAR II CAEPIPE CAESAR II CAEPIPE CAESAR II CAEPIPE

10/10 1410. 1410. 17300. 17300. 1.000/1.000 1.00/1.00

18/20A 911. 912. 17300. 17300. 1.000/1.000 1.00/1.00

18/20A 935. 938. 17300. 17300. 1.751/1.459 1.75/1.46

20/20B 1001. 1001. 17300. 17300. 1.751/1.459 1.75/1.46

38/40A 888. 888. 17300. 17300. 1.333/1.110 1.33/1.11

40/40B 1085. 1086. 17300. 17300. 1.333/1.110 1.33/1.11





70 2164. 2105. 17300. 17300. 1.000/1.000 1.00/1.00

80 2470. 2490. 17300. 17300. 1.000/1.000 1.00/1.00

EXPANSION STRESSES (psi)



10/10 28268. 28198. 29325. 29325. 1.000/1.000 1.00/1.00

18/20A 24496. 24434. 29325. 29325. 1.000/1.000 1.00/1.00

18/20A 42656. 42548. 29325. 29325. 1.751/1.459 1.75/1.46

20/20B 30681. 30615. 29325. 29325. 1.751/1.459 1.75/1.46

38/40A 16875. 16841. 29325. 29325. 1.333/1.110 1.33/1.11

40/40B 9416. 9402. 29325. 29325. 1.333/1.110 1.33/1.11

70 3939. 3746. 29325. 29325. 1.000/1.000 1.00/1.00

80 17673. 17793. 29325. 29325. 1.000/1.000 1.00/1.00



SPRING HANGER DESIGN

SOFTWARE

HANGER

SIZE

SPRING RATE (lb/in)

VERTICAL MOVE (in)

HOT LOAD (lb)

HORIZONTAL MOVE (in)

COLD LOAD (lb)

CAESAR II Grinnell B-268 10 260. .601 1246. .605 1402.

CAEPIPE Grinnell B-268 10 260. .600 1241. .604 1397.



This job is a comparison between CAESAR II and Caepipe with a job designed to test compliance to B31.3 and B31.5. The fittings in this job have been selected so that both B31.3 and B31.5 produce the same values of SIFs and flexibility factors. The CAESAR II

Job B315A

job name for this analysis is B315A.

OPERATING DISPLACEMENTS (in)

DX DY DZ


20/20B .1043 .104 -.0683 -.068 .0339 .034

30 .1478 .148 -.2006 -.201 -.0031 -.003

40/40B -.1275 -.127 -.2385 -.239 .1805 .181

50 .0 .0 -.0126 -.013 .4461 .446

60/60B .3396 .340 -.1462 -.146 -.0595 -.059

70 .4489 .449 -.0091 -.009 .1488 .149

OPERATING ROTATIONS (deg)

RX RY RZ


20/20B .0143 .014 -.0823 -.082 -.0103 -.010

30 .0345 .034 -.1657 -.166 .0778 .078

40/40B .0277 .028 -.1811 -.181 .1429 .143

50 .0277 .028 -.1811 -.181 .1602 .160

60/60B .0380 .038 -.1657 -.166 .1036 .104

70 .0380 .038 -.1657 -.166 .1122 .112

OPERATING RESTRAINT LOADS (lb)

FX FY FZ


10 -112. -112. -625. -625. 0. 0.

50 112. 112. -251. -251. 0. 0.



70 0. 0. -182. -182. 0. 0.

OPERATING RESTRAINT MOMENTS (ft-lb)

MX MY MZ


10 280. 281. -896. -896. -2668. -2667.

50 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

70 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.


DX DY DZ


20/20B -.0081 -.008 -.0714 -.071 -.0036 -.004

30 -.0133 -.013 -.0717 -.072 -.0442 -.044

40/40B .0 .0 -.1273 -.127 -.0459 -.046

50 .0 .0 -.0107 -.011 -.0578 -.058

60/60B -.0214 -.021 -.0374 -.037 -.0459 -.046

70 -.0214 -.021 -.0050 -.005 -.0556 -.056


RX RY RZ


20/20B .0204 .020 .0056 .006 -.0311 -.031

30 .0331 .033 .0077 .008 .0239 .024

40/40B .0349 .035 .0081 .008 .0708 .071

50 .0349 .035 .0081 .008 .0845 .085

60/60B .0255 .025 .0077 .008 .0241 .024

70 .0255 .025 .0077 .008 .0270 .027




FX FY FZ


10 3. 3. -745. -745. 0. 0.

50 - 3. - 3. -213. -213. 0. 0.

70 0. 0. -100. -100. 0. 0.


MX MY MZ


10 176. 176. 22. 22. -3346. -3346.

50 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

70 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

SUSTAINED STRESSES (psi)

ELEMENT CODE STRESS ALLOWABLE SIFS

CAESAR II CAEPIPE CAESAR II CAEPIPE CAESAR II CAEPIPE

20/20B 3123. 3123. 17000. 17000. 2.244/1.870 2.24/1.87

30 2741. 2741. 17000. 17000. 3.011/3.682 3.01/3.68

40/40B 1707. 1707. 17000. 17000. 2.407/2.005 2.41/2.01

60 650. 650. 17000. 17000. 1.000/1.000 1.00/1.00

EXPANSION STRESSES (psi)

ELEMENT CODE STRESS ALLOWABLE SIFS

CAESAR II CAEPIPE CAESAR II CAEPIPE CAESAR II CAEPIPE

20/20B 1334. 1334. 40627. 40627. 2.244/1.870 2.24/1.87

30 2510. 2510. 41009. 41009. 3.011/3.682 3.01/3.68

40/40B 382. 382. 42042. 42043. 2.407/2.005 2.41/2.01



60 350. 350. 43100. 43100. 1.000/1.000 1.00/1.00



L- Bend Benchmark

This job is an example of the application of the flexibility method to a small L-Bend spool. This example was published by John Brock in Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning, in 1977. The Table below shows the results comparison between CAESAR II

CAESAR II (Result ) Comparison to John Brock's Flexibility Analysis of L-Bend Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning 1977 Expansion Load Case

and the published example.

Restraint Loads

NODE FX (lb) FY (lb) FZ (lb) MX (in lb) MY (in lb) MZ (in lb)

A Paper 612.3 1597.6 220.3 57042.0 8077.0 93466.0

10 CAESAR II 604.0 1575.0 221.0 57088.8 8130.0 92068.8

A Paper 604.0 1575.0 221.0 22359.6 39503.0 215047.2

30 CAESAR II 612.3 1597.6 220.3 22259.0 39503.0 218110.0

Element Moments

NODE MX (in lb) MY (in lb) MZ (in lb)

B Paper 13448 8077 102530

18 CAESAR II 13531 8130 101062

C Paper 734 22259 63118

20 CAESAR II 697 22359 62194



Code Stress at 30 (D)

(PSI )

Paper 13250

CAESAR II 13076


Chapter 7 Stoomwezen Benchmarks

This chapter contains several jobs from the Stoomwezen series of piping benchmarks. Each of the three systems is presented twice, once for the "dead weight" case and once for the "thermal" case. The CAESAR II

In This Chapter

results are compared to the results from E400, a Stoomwezen approved piping program.

Test Case I ............................................................................. 7-2 Test Case II ........................................................................... 7-9 Test Case III .......................................................................... 7-18 Bend With Concentrated Loads ............................................ 7-25 Bend With Uniform Loads .................................................... 7-33

C H A P T E R 7


7-2 Stoomwezen Benchmarks

Test Case I

This benchmark consists of CAESAR II jobs STM06D and STM06T represent the dead weight and thermal cases respectively. A figure of the system geometry is shown below, followed by the results comparison.

TEST CASE I - DEAD WEIGHT CASE (CAESAR II JOB STM06D) GENERAL NODE CROSS REFERENCE LIST

E400 CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II

101 10 224 310 215 620

102 20 225 320 115 630

1 30 226 330 116 640

2 40 227 340 118 700

103 50 228 350 119 710

3 60 229 360 120 720

4 70 230 370 320 730

5 80 24 400 321 750 These documents are the property of Intergraph Corporation, they may be used for internal reference purposes only and may not be copied, sold or otherwise distributed to any third party.


E400 CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II

107 90 13 410 122 760

6 100 117 420 124 800

7 110 14 430 125 810

8 120 15 440 126 820

110 130 16 450 26 830

9 140 123 460 29 840

10 150 17 470 127 850

11 160 18 480 27 860

113 170 19 490 128 870

12 180 133 500 28 880

106 190 20 510 129 890

105 200 21 520 130 900

109 210 22 530 131 910

108 220 139 540 132 920

112 230 23 550

111 240 114 600

223 300 214 610



DISPLACEMENTS

NODES DX (mm) DY (mm) DZ (mm)

CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II E400

30 1 .000 .0 -.724 -.7 .249 .2

70 4 -.249 -.2 -.724 -.7 .000 .0

110 7 .000 .0 -.724 -.7 -.249 -.2

150 10 .249 .2 -.724 -.7 .000 .0

400 24 .000 .0 -.151 -.2 .066 .1

440 15 -.066 -.1 -.151 -.2 .000 .0

480 18 .000 .0 -.151 -.2 -.066 -.1

520 21 .066 .1 -.151 -.2 000 .0

410 13 .000 .0 -.155 -.2 .064 .1

490 19 .000 .0 -.155 -.2 -.064 -.1

60 3 -.237 -.2 -.727 -.7 .000 .0

140 9 .237 .2 -.727 -.7 .000 .0

REACTIONS*

NODES FX (N) FY (N) FZ (N)


10 101 0. 0. -5580. -5581. -9953 -9954

190 106 9953. 9954. -5580. -5580. 0 0

210 109 0. 0. -5580. -5581. 9953 9954

230 112 -9953. -9954. -5580. -5580. 0 0

640 116 -232. -232. -522 -522. 0 0

760 122 -198. -198. -722 -722. 0 0

990 138 539. 539. -1262. -1262. 0 0

920 132 -76416. -76362. 269819 269603. -90690. -90621. * The REACTION report in CAESAR II shows the loads acting “ON” the restrained node, which include the pre-load of spr ing hangers. The s igns of the loads from E400 were reversed for comparison.



FORCES*



30 1 4811 4811 3796 3796 4977 497

40 2 5103 5103 4490 4491 5103 510

60 3 4977 4977 -3076 -3076 4811 481

70 4 -4977 -4977 3796 3796 4811 481

80 5 -5103 -5103 4490 4491 5103 5103

400 24 9518 9519 17129 17131 9352 9353

410 13 9226 9227 13536 13537 9226 9227

430 14 9352 9353 -15529 -15532 9518 -9519

440 15 -9352 -9353 17129 17131 9518 9519 * The FORCE report in CAESAR II

shows the loads acting “ON” the element as a free body diagram. The signs of the forces from E400 were reversed for comparisons. The nodes compared are the “FROM” nodes of the elements.

STRESS

NODES

AXIAL STRESS

(N./sq. mm.)

BENDING STRESS **

(N./sq. mm.)

CODE STRESS

(N./sq. mm.)


40 2 0.18 0.2 5.90 5.9 7.44 7.4

60 3 0.17 0.2 5.67 5.7 6.71 6.7

80 5 0.18 0.2 5.90 5.9 7.44 7.4

100 6 0.17 0.2 5.67 5.7 6.71 6.7

430 14 0.13 0.1 7.28 7.3 7.54 7.5 Bending stresses in CAESAR II as reported in the stress report are computed from “ iM/Z”. Some codes use “0.75i” in the computation of the “code” stress. The “.75” factor is applied in CAESAR II when the “code” stress is computed, but it is not included in the bending stress value. For this comparison, the CAESAR II bending stress values were manually multiplied by 0.75.



TEST CASE I - EXPANSION CASE (CAESAR II JOB STM06T) DISPLACEMENTS

NODES DX (mm) DY (mm) DZ (mm)


30 1 .000 .0 -9.026 -9.0 -14.507 -14.5

70 4 14.506 14.5 -9.026 -9.0 .000 .0

110 7 .000 .0 -9.026 -9.0 14.507 14.5

150 10 -14.506 -14.5 -9.026 -9.0 .000 .0

400 24 -.001 .0 -34.503 -34.5 -17.068 -17.1

440 15 17.068 17.1 -34.503 -34.5 .000 .0

480 18 .000 .0 -34.503 -34.5 17.068 17.1

520 21 -17.068 -17.1 -34.503 -34.5 .000 .0

730 320 4.566 4.6 3.331 3.3 .000 .0

740 321 3.333 3.3 4.568 4.6 .000 .0

REACTIONS



10 101 -2 0 -975891 -975926 -730860 -730893

190 106 730860 730893 -975891 -975925 0 0

210 109 0 0 -975891 -975926 730860 730893

230 112 -730660 -730893 -975887 -975925 0 0

760 122 -928862 -929066 928596 929112 0 0

990 138 894253 894314 821612 821654 0 0

920 132 -851601 -851575 1127835 1127677 -715372 -715332

300 0 0 -403** -903 0 0 0

720 120 -2553045 -2553047 47710 47216 -7 0 *The REACTION report in CAESAR II

** E400 apparently removes the hanger preloads from the

shows the loads acting “ON” the restrained node, which include the pre-load of spring hangers. The signs of the loads from E400 were reversed for comparison.

REACTION report. If the E400 preload is subtracted from reaction load ( -403 -500 = -903 ), then the loads can be compared.



FORCES*



30 1 -845013 -845064 488144 488164 365425 365446

40 2 -885632 -885686 0 0 -885632 -88568

60 3 365428 365446 -488146 -448164 -845018 -845065

70 4 -365432 -365447 488146 488164 -845018 -845065

80 5 885632 885686 0 0 -885632 -885686

400 24 -530513 -530546 -488135 -488164 -1740947 -1741056

410 13 -489892 -489924 8 0 -489889 -489924

430 14 -1740956 -1741057 488155 488164 -530508 -530545

440 15 1740947 1741056 -488150 -488164 -530502 -530545

730 320 -928862 929066 928596 929112 0 0

740 321 -928862 929066 928596 929112 0 0 * The FORCE

STRESS

report in CAESAR II shows the loads acting “ON” the element as a free body diagram. The signs of the forces from E400 were reversed for comparison. The nodes compared are the “FROM” nodes of the elements.

NODES AXIAL STRESS (N./sq. mm) BENDING STRESS (N./sq. mm) CODE STRESS (N./sq. mm)


40 2 -31.04 -31.0 1468.05 1468.1 1540.54 1540.6

60 3 -29.61 -29.6 1423.42 1423.5 1448.75 1448.8

80 5 -31.04 -31.0 1468.05 1468.1 1540.54 1540.6

100 6 -29.61 -29.6 1423.42 1423.5 1448.75 1448.8

430 14 -7.52 -7.5 433.46 433.5 451.32 451.3

550 23 -7.51 -7.5 433.45 433.5 451.31 451.3

960 234F -84.89 -84.9 240.61 240.6 240.61 240.6

970 235F -86.83 -86.8 779.62 779.7 779.62 779.7

980 236F -65.51 -65.5 149.13 149.1 149.13 149.1

990 138 -65.51 -65.5 800.89 800.9 800.89 800.9



NODES AXIAL STRESS (N./sq. mm) BENDING STRESS (N./sq. mm) CODE STRESS (N./sq. mm)


730 320 -104.26 -104.3 182.52 182.9 182.52 182.9

740 321 -104.29 -104.3 182.52 183.0 182.52 183.0



Test Case II

This benchmark consists of the CAESAR II jobs STM07D and STM07T, which represent the dead weight and thermal cases respectively. A figure of the system geometry is shown below, followed by the results comparison.



TEST CASE II - DEAD WEIGHT CASE (CAESAR II JOB STM07D)

This job is modeled using an expansion joint for the special element, spanning nodes 240 and 250. This enables the diagonal of the 12x12 element matrix to be specified by the user. It is not possible to specify the cross terms of the matrix

GENERAL NODE CROSS REFERENCE LIST

.

CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II E400

10 1 160 13 280 231

20 2 165 14 290 24

30 3 170 15 300 25

40 4 180 16 400 28

49 52 190 17 410 27

50 53 200 18 420 26

60 6 210 181 430 251

70 7 220 182 440 29

80 8 230 19 460 34

90 9 240 191 480 43

100 10 250 21 490 44

110 11 260 22 500 50

150 12 270 23



DISPLACEMENTS

NODE DX (mm) DY (mm) DZ (mm)


19 2I -.267 -.3 1.313 1.3 .192 .2

20 2F -.551 -.6 1.585 1.6 .250 .2

60 6 -.329 -.3 .8 .8 -.969 -1.0

89 9I .230 .2 1.416 1.4 -1.186 -1.2

90 9F .362 .4 1.490 1.5 -.828 -.8

150 12 .0 .0 .795 .8 -1.707 -1.7

165 14 -.461 -.5 .0 .0 -2.448 -2.5

220 182 -.843 -.8 -9.139 -9.1 -.459 -.5

250 21 3.586 3.6 -.318 -.3 4.926 4.9

280 231 .0 .0 -.099 -.1 3.815 3.8

300 25 -1.657 -1.6 -.306 -.3 3.393 3.4

460 34 -1.027 -1.0 .141 .2 .993 1.0

480 43 -.514 -.5 -.138 -.1 .260 .3

REACTIONS*

NODE FX (N) FY (N) FZ (N)


10 1 3297 3281 642 629 -385 -385

49 52 0 0 -6833 67** 0 0

110 11 912 904 -6170 -6164 641 628

150 12 -4996 -4966 0 0 0 0

165 14 0 0 2075 2090 0 0

270 23 0 0 322 348 0 0

280 231 -10725 -10666 0 0 0 0

400 28 13010 13037 2334 2313 -1396 -1392





440 29 0 0 -8372 28** 0 0

500 50 -2039 2131 -3506 -3467 1396 1392 * The REACTION report in CAESAR II shows the loads acting “ON” the restrained node, which include the pre-load of spring hangers. The signs of the loads from E400 were reversed for comparison. ** E400 apparently removes the hanger preloads from the REACTION report. If the E400 preload is subtracted from these values, the CAESAR II loads will be obtained. ( 67-6900= -6833, 28-8400= -8372 )



ELEMENT FORCES



10 1 -3297 -3281 -642 -629 385 385

19 2I -3297 -3281 -1623 -1610 385 385

50 53 -3297 -3281 2910 2919 385 385

100 10F 912 904 -5189 -5183 641 628

180 16F 245 240 899 886 0 0

210 181 245 240 379 367 0 0

270 23 -245 -240 615 598 0 0

410 27I -13010 -13037 -3035 -3013 1396 1392

440 29 -2039 -2131 988 1001 1396 1392

480 43 -2039 -2131 -2192 -2153 1396 1397

ELEMENT MOMENTS

NODE MX (N-M) MY (N-M) MZ (N-M)


10 1 -1501 -1479 4422 4396 4707 4708

19 2I -23 -19 -9.1 -12 4338 4336

50 53 454 452 -1001 -998 105 110

100 10F -1592 -1601 300 299 -280 279

180 16F 347 340 -197 -194 -629 -624

210 181 -228 -225 19 18 119 110

270 23 -28 -25 -460 -450 -63 -57

410 27I 2344 2345 -3269 -3291 -881 -891

440 29 -4028 4007 7653 7685 3637 3647

480 43 -4516 -4592 -268 217 -1320 -1402



ELEMENT STRESSES

NODE AXIAL (MPA) BENDING (MPA) CODE (MPA)


10 1 0.29 .3 9.51 9.5 15.5 15.4

19 2I 0.32 .3 5.85 5.9 12.1 12.1

50 53 0.5 .5 2.8 3.8 3.1 3.1

100 10F 0.2 .2 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.6

180 16F 0. 0. 4.67 4.6 8.72 8.6

210 181 0. 0. 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.6

270 23 0. 0. 2.14 2.1 2.8 2.8

410 27I -1.34 -1.3 10.1 10.2 10.8 10.8

440 29 -0.2 -0.2 9.1 9.2 13.5 13.5

480 43 0.13 .1 3.2 3.3 4.5 4.5 * Bending stresses in CAESAR II as reported in the stress report are computed from “ iM/Z”. Some codes use “0.75i” in the computation of the “code” stress. The “.75” factor is applied in CAESAR II when the “code” stress is computed, but it is not included in the bending stress value. For this comparison, the CAESAR II

TEST CASE II - THERMAL EXPANSION CASE (CAESAR II JOB STM07T) bending stress values were manually multiplied by 0.75.

DISPLACEMENTS



19 2I -6.917 -6.8 -17.381 -17.3 -35.746 -35.7

20 2F -22.691 -22.6 -19.978 -20.0 -73.175 -72.9

60 6 20.211 20.2 1.946 1.9 -112.746 -112.5

89 9I 58.870 58.8 -4.878 -4.8 -56.4 -56.4

90 9F 54.582 54.5 -16.304 -16.2 -40.094 -40.2

150 12 0. 0. 16.694 16.7 -131.648 -131.5

165 14 -50.981 -50.8 0. 0. -148.968 -148.9

220 182 -75.564 -75.0 -171.287 -171.8 -131.362 -131.7

250 21 30.214 30.0 35.212 35.8 86.104 86.1

280 231 0. 0. -6.025 -6.1 63.308 63.5





300 25 -7.284 -7.0 -7.082 -7.2 49.892 50.0

460 34 -31.969 -31.5 16.704 16.6 51.641 51.4

480 43 -22.354 -22.8 16.621 16.7 27.084 27.2

REACTIONS*



10 1 -150100 -149282 -178490 -177931 10338 10288

49 52 0 0 343 240** 0 0

110 11 80128 79948 -90672 -90431 2840 2893

150 12 51962 51839 0 0 0 0

165 14 0 0 271814 271006 0 0

270 23 0 0 -111879 -113386 0 0

280 231 49517 54936 0 0 0 0

400 28 189543 191320 57031 56528 23148 23083

440 29 0 0 -657 277** 0 0

500 50 -232876 -240065 52397 54421 -23167 -23102 * The REACTION report in CAESAR II

** E400 apparently removes the hanger preloads from the

shows the loads acting “ON” the restrained node, which include the pre-load of spring hangers. The signs of the loads from E400 were reversed for comparison.

REACTION report. If the E400 preload is subtracted from these values, the CAESAR II

ELEMENT FORCES

loads will be obtained. ( 240+100=340, -277-400=-677 )



10 1 150123 149282 178588 177931 -10370 -10288

19 2I 150123 149282 178588 177931 -10370 -10288

50 53 150123 149282 178247 177951 -10370 -10288

100 10F 80281 79948 -90579 -90431 2812 2893

180 16F 6299 6191 -3167 -3113 -19 -19





210 181 6299 6191 -3167 -3113 -19 -19

270 23 6299 6191 108766 110273 -19 -19

410 27I 189394 -191320 -57013 -56528 -23149 -23083

440 29 -232884 -240065 52409 54421 -23168 23102

480 43 -232884 -240065 52409 54421 -23168 23102



ELEMENT MOMENTS



10 1 317186 316110 -231308 230051 22823 22769

19 2I 65982 65817 -24434 -24321 -51060 -50945

50 53 8898 8919 31953 31803 -34371 -34372

100 10F -49118 -48965 -35339 -35156 -54842 -54743

180 16F 1416 1579 -13995 -13853 40 7

210 181 4228 4343 -8401 -8355 23 -10

270 23 9918 9937 2917 2769 40 2

410 27I 21954 21463 -130380 -131351 21127 20922

440 29 -39379 -38960 181259 -184250 18833 18400

480 43 -51285 -50590 61556 67545 -132281 -135672

ELEMENT STRESSES



10 1 -17 -17.0 903 899.7 917 913.5

19 2I -17 -17.0 202 201.0 324 323.0

50 23 -23 -22.4 175 174.5 178 177.6

100 19F 1.92 1.9 296 295.2 304 303.3

180 16F -.01 .0 219.51 217.6 219.51 217.6

210 181 -.01 .0 58.35 58.4 58.35 58.4

270 23 -.01 .0 64 64.0 64 58.4

410 27I -20 -20.0 465 467.3 467 469.6

440 29 -23 -24.0 262 266.0 268 271.8

480 43 -2.1 -20 75.81 79.8 146 151.2



Test Case III

This benchmark consists of the CAESAR II jobs STM08D and STM08T, which represent the dead weight and thermal cases respectively. A figure of the system geometry is shown below, followed by the results comparison.

TEST CASE III - DEAD WEIGHT CASE (CAESAR II JOB STM08D) GENERAL NODE CROSS REFERENCE LIST

CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II E400

10 12 80 13 150 20

20 11 90 14 160 21

30 10 100 15 170 22

40 9 110 16 180 23

50 8 120 17 200 4

60 7 130 18 210 3

70 6 140 19 220 2 230 1



DISPLACEMENTS



20 11I -6.240 -6.2 -18.278 -18.3 3.563 3.6

30 10I -73.892 -74.0 -230.485 -230.5 6.144 6.1

50 8I -12.156 -12.1 -438.134 -438.1 3.070 3.1

60 7 -12.169 -12.2 -441.015 -441.0 .273 0.3

70 6 -12.170 -12.2 -439.266 -439.3 1.252 1.3

90 14F -10.519 -10.5 -403.757 -403.8 17.709 17.7 17 .0 .0 -344.548 -344.6 13.187 13.8

140 19F -5.723 -5.7 323.019 -323.1 15.465 15.4

160 21F -38.386 -38.4 -63.913 -64.0 5.560 5.6

200 4I 15.031 14.8 -51.821 -51.4 -3.252 -3.2

210 3I 5.640 5.5 -7.716 -7.6 -6.573 -6.5

220 2I .001 .0 -.006 -.0 .000 .0

REACTIONS*



10 12 -2928 -2928 -5202 -5201 -1964 -1964

60 7 0 0 0 0 1364 1377

120 17 -15304 -15206 0 0 0 0

180 23 18405 18303 -46184 -46187 -884 -885

230 1 -172 -170 -3572 -3565 1485 1472 * The REACTION report in CAESAR II shows the loads acting “ON” the restrained node, which include the pre-load of spring hangers. The signs of the loads from E400 were reversed for comparison.



ELEMENT FORCES



230 1 172 170 3572 3565 -1485 -1472

219 2F -172 -170 -3391 -3394 1485 1472

200 4I -172 -170 -2552 -2554 1485 1472

70-199 6-5F -172 -170 2136 2134 1485 1472

70-60 6-7 -2928 -2928 -2614 -2613 -601 -587

29 10F 2928 2928 4452 4451 1964 1964

99 15I -3100 -3098 3512 3511 884 885

120 17 -3100 -3098 4857 4857 884 885

180 23 -18405 -18303 46184 46187 884 885

ELEMENT MOMENTS



230 1 9988 9892 1935 1932 6601 6618

219 2F -8004 -8084 -2052 -2041 -6646 -6663

200 4I -5991 -6018 1011 997 -641 -650

70-199 6-5F -3205 -3193 -920 -904 1544 153?

70-60 6-7 -183 -185 6194 6187 -9870 -9865

29 10F -3270 -3268 5264 5264 -6590 -658?

99 15I -2916 -2907 -1893 -1894 6109 610?

120 17 -4862 -4855 -3348 -3351 6078 6076

180 23 19241 19248 -4043 -4045 67322 67487 ? - Denotes digits not readable from the E400 output due to copying



ELEMENT STRESSES

NODE AXIAL (MPA) BENDING (MPA)* CODE (MPA)


20 11I .9 .9 193.5 193.5 214.2 214.2

30 10I 1.3 1.3 98.7 98.7 128.6 128.6

39 9F 1.3 1.3 118.7 118.6 144.5 144.4

50 8I 1.3 1.3 40.2 40.2 53.6 53.6

70-60 6-7 0.6 .6 171.6 171.5 171.6 171.5

70-79 6-13I 0.6 .6 145.1 145.2 153.5 153.5

99 15I 0.6 .6 14.2 14.2 20.8 20.8

140 19F -0.5 -.5 357.5 357.4 420.6 420.6

180 23 8.7 8.7 155.3 155.6 207.4 207.8

209 3F -0.1 -.1 31.0 31.1 53.5 53.7

220 2I -0.5 -.5 72.9 73.3 87.4 87.7 * Bending stresses in CAESAR II as reported in the stress report are computed from “ iM/Z”. Some codes use “0.75i” in the computation of the “code” stress. The “.75” factor is applied in CAESAR II when the “code” stress is computed, but it is not included in the bending stress value. For this comparison, the CAESAR II Bending Stress

values were manually multiplied by 0.75.



TEST CASE III - THERMAL CASE (CAESAR II JOB STM08T) DISPLACEMENTS



20 11I 1.800 1.8 -.187 -.2 -7.082 -7.1

30 10I 64.594 64.6 -7.056 -7.1 -38.735 -38.7

50 8I 82.448 82.4 -63.193 -63.2 -.992 -1.0

60 7 71.737 71.7 -66.224 -66.2 -2.776 -2.8

70 6 68.538 68.5 -65.899 -65.9 -3.985 -4.0

90 14F 36.046 36.0 55.728 -55.7 -17.794 -17.7

120 17 .0 .0 -27.955 -27.9 -55.731 -55.5

140 19F -9.978 -9.9 -31.294 -31.2 -47.937 -47.8

160 21F -15.722 -15.7 -31.169 -31.0 -4.409 -4.4

200 4I 47.047 46.8 15.074 14.7 85.253 85.2

210 3I 13.860 13.6 13.488 13.3 -.831 -.7

220 2I .006 .0 .004 .0 -.287 .0

REACTIONS*



10 12 2497 2497 516 515 1176 1176

60 7 0 0 0 0 -13882 -13905

120 17 96796 96360 0 0 0 0

180 23 -97972 -97536 -282 -283 857 854

230 1 -1322 -1320 -234 -232 11848 11875 * The REACTION report in CAESAR II shows the loads acting “ON” the restrained node, which include the pre-load of spring hangers. The signs of the loads from E400 were reversed for comparison.



ELEMENT FORCES



230 1 1322 1320 234 232 -11848 -11875

219 2F 1322 1320 234 232 -11848 -11875

200 4I 1322 1320 234 232 -11848 -11875

70-199 6-5F 1322 1320 234 232 -11848 -11875

70-60 6-7 2497 2497 516 515 -12705 -12729

29 10F 2497 2497 516 515 1176 1176

99 15I 1175 1176 282 283 -857 -853

120 17 -97972 -97536 -282 -283 857 853

180 23 97972 97536 282 283 -857 -853

ELEMENT MOMENTS



230 1 -12200 -12276 18043 -18197 -1757 -1763

219 2F -9236 9295 18944 -19043 -1409 -1415

200 4I 4543 4519 -5553 -5553 -355 -359

70-199 6-5F -107 -115 -8870 -8855 565 568

70-60 6-7 1645 1648 3630 3642 -3333 3337

29 10F -1692 -1690 3514 -3515 757 758

99 15I 1651 1647 2441 2430 -84 -79

120 17 -3537 -3525 -54882 -54579 -28290 -2815?

180 23 4775 4758 3015 3001 152632 15195? ? - Denotes digits not readable from the E400 output due to copying



ELEMENT STRESSES



20 11I -.5 -.5 94. 94. 95. 95.

30 10I -1.1 -1.1 82.5 82.6 90.6 90.6

39 9F -1.1 -1.1 51.1 51.1 63.3 63.2

50 8I -1.1 -1.1 84.1 84.1 89.5 89.6

70-60 6-7 -.5 -.5 96.8 97.0 102.0 102.2

70-79 6-13I -.2 -.2 116.4 115.9 120.2 119.7

99 15I -.2 -.2 7.2 7.2 8.7 8.7

140 19F -14.0 -13.9 196.1 195.3 202.1 201.2

180 23 .1 .1 451.5 449.5 451.6 449.6

209 3F -.4 -.4 95.6 96.3 105.3 105.8

220 2I -3.9 -3.9 212.0 213.2 213.8 213.8



Bend With Concentrated Loads

JOB: STM04 consists of various concentrated loadings on a bend element. The model is shown in the figure below. This model consists of a single bend with a radius of 10 meters, with an applied flexibility factor of 2.0. The model is anchored at node 3. A standard CAESAR II Version 4.40 configuration file is used with this job, except the BEND_LENGTH_ATTACHMENT factor is set to 0.01.

The analysis consists of separate load cases applying FX, FY, and FZ loads of 10 N, as well as applying MX, MY, and MZ moments of 1000 N-M. The results for these various loading conditions are shown in the tables below.

The node number correlation between the CAESAR II model and the benchmark model (E400SW) is:

CAESAR II E400SW

3 1

2 M

1 2



Load Case 1: FX Displacements (mm):

X Y Z

Node CAESAR II E400SW CAESAR II E400SW CAESAR II E400SW

1/2 25.8 25.8 16.4 16.4 0. 0.

Rotations (deg):

X Y Z


1/2 0 0 0 0 0.1883 0.1891

Restraint Forces (N):

X Y Z


3/1 10. 10. 0 0 0 0

Restraint Moments (N-M):

X Y Z


3/1 0 0 0 0 100 100

Code Stress Value (MPA):

Node CAESAR II E400SW

1/2 1.7 1.7



Load Case 2: FY Displacements (mm):

X Y Z


1/2 16.4 16.4 11.7 11.7 0. 0.

Rotations (deg):

X Y Z


1/2 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.1075 0.1089


X Y Z


3/1 0 0 10 10 0 0


X Y Z


3/1 0 0 0 0 100 100



1/2 1.7 1.7



Load Case 3: FZ Displacements (mm):

X Y Z


1/2 0 0 0 0 33.4 33.4

Rotations (deg):

X Y Z


1/2 -0.1554 -0.1547 -0.1216 -0.1203 0 0


X Y Z


3/1 0 0 0 0 10 10


X Y Z


3/1 -100 -100 -100 -100 0 0



1/2 2.44 2.4



Load Case 4: MX Displacements (mm):

X Y Z


1/2 0 0 0 0 -271.1 -271.1

Rotations (deg):

X Y Z


1/2 2.44 2.44 0.3295 0.3323 0 0


X Y Z


3/1 0 0 0 0 0 0


X Y Z


3/1 1000 1000 0 0 0 0



1/2 17.25 17.3



Load Case 5: MY Displacements (mm):

X Y Z


1/2 0 0 0 0 -212.3 -212.3

Rotations (deg):

X Y Z


1/2 0.3295 0.3323 2.44 2.44 0 0


X Y Z


3/1 0 0 0 0 0 0


X Y Z


3/1 0 0 1000 1000 0 0



1/2 17.25 17.3



Load Case 6: MZ Displacements (mm):

X Y Z


1/2 328.6 328.6 187.6 187.6 0 0

Rotations (deg):

X Y Z


1/2 0 0 0 0 2.9578 2.9564


X Y Z


3/1 0 0 0 0 0 0


X Y Z


3/1 0 0 0 0 1000 1000



1/2 17.25 17.3



Load Case 7: FX+FY+FZ+MX+MY+MZ Displacements (mm):

X Y Z


1/2 370.9 370.9 215.7 215.7 -450 -450

Rotations (deg):

X Y Z


1/2 2.6144 2.6127 2.6481 2.6471 3.2535 3.2544


X Y Z


3/1 10 10 10 10 10 10


X Y Z


3/1 900 900 900 900 1200 1200



1/2 30.18 30.2



Bend With Uniform Loads

JOB: STM05A

This job consists of various uniform loadings on a bend element. The model is shown in the figure below. This model consists of a single bend with a radius of 10 meters, with an applied flexibility factor of 2.0. The model is anchored at node 3. A standard CAESAR II Version 4.40 configuration file is used with this job, except the BEND_LENGTH_ATTACHMENT factor is set to 0.01.

The analysis consists of separate load cases applying UX, UY, and UZ loads of -1 N/mm. The results for these various loading conditions are shown in the tables below.

The node number correlation between the CAESAR II model and the benchmark model (E400SW) is:

CAESAR II E400SW

3 1

2 M

1 2



Load Case 1: UX DISPLACEMENTS (mm):

X Y Z


1/2 -12057.0 -12055.9 -8253.2 -8252.1 0. 0.

Rotations (deg):

X Y Z


1/2 0 0 0 0 -80.82 -80.82


X Y Z


3/1 -15710. -15708. 0 0 0 0


X Y Z


3/1 0 0 0 0 -57082 -57080



1/2 984.8 984.8



Load Case 2: UY Displacements (mm):

X Y Z


1/2 -12907.0 -12905.2 -9731.5 -9729.8 0. 0.

Rotations (deg):

X Y Z


1/2 0 0 0 0 -80.82 -80.82


X Y Z


3/1 0 0 -15710 -15708 0 0


X Y Z


3/1 0 0 0 0 -100020

-100000



1/2 1725.3 1725.3



Load Case 3: UZ Displacements (mm):

X Y Z


1/2 0 0 0 0 -19914.9 -19911.8

Rotations (deg):

X Y Z


1/2 66.68 66.69 85.49 85.48 0 0


X Y Z


3/1 0 0 0 0 -15710 -15708


X Y Z


3/1 57082 57080 100020 100000 -100020 -100000



1/2 1986.6 1986.5


Chapter 8 Structural Benchmarks

The following sheets describe a variety of structural jobs from various sources. All of these jobs are stand alone structural jobs, no piping is involved. Any special settings of the CAESAR II

In This Chapter

configuration file are noted in the specific input files as applicable.

ANSYS Truss Job ................................................................. 8-2 3D Beams & Columns .......................................................... 8-4 Portal Frame .......................................................................... 8-6 Truss Analysis # 1 ................................................................. 8-7 Truss Analysis #2 .................................................................. 8-9 Loaded Beam ........................................................................ 8-10 Plane Frame........................................................................... 8-11 Simple Plane Frame .............................................................. 8-12 Space Frame .......................................................................... 8-13 Simple Truss Plane................................................................ 8-15 Plane Truss ............................................................................ 8-17

C H A P T E R 8


8-2 Structural Benchmarks

ANSYS Truss Job

This job compares the results between CAESAR II, ANSYS, and a published reference for a small plane truss structure. The CAESAR II job name is AN50-2. This job and its solution can be found in “Vector Mechanics for Engineers”, by Beer and Johnston. The model geometry is shown in the figure below.

DISPLACEMENTS (in)

NODE DX (mm) DY (mm)

CAESAR II ANSYS CAESAR II ANSYS

1 .0121 .0212 .0279 -.02789

2 .0097 .00972 .0 .0

3 -.0054 -.00540 -.0431 -.04312

4 -.0042 -.00420 -0.136 -0.1357

5 .0 .0 .0 .0

ELEMENT FORCES (lb)

ELEMENT

AXIAL FORCE

CAESAR II ANSYS REFERENCE

1,2 -3000 -3000 -3000

1.3 -2500 -2500 -2500

1,4 2500 2500 2500

2,4 -3750 -3750 -3750

2,5 -8750 -8750 -8750

3,4 1500 1500 1500



4,5 5250 5250 5250



3D Beams & Columns

This job is a small 3D model consisting of beams and columns under uniform load. Results are presented from CAESAR II, ANSYS, and the reference publication. This job can be found in “Computer Methods of Structural Analysis”, by Beaufait, Rowan, Hoadley, and Hackett. The CAESAR II job name is BMCOLS. The model geometry is shown in the figure below.

Only selected results are presented in the reference publication, so only these same items are compared here.

Y Deflection (in) at Node 6:

CAESAR II -.0038

ANSYS -.00385

Reference -.00115 (this is an error in the book)

RY Rotation (deg) at Node 6:

CAESAR II 0.0

ANSYS 0.0

Reference 0.0



Axial Force (lb) in Element 3-6:

CAESAR II 1047

ANSYS 935

Reference 1070

MY Restraint Load (ft-lb) at Node 3:

CAESAR II 170958

ANSYS 200900

Reference 169000



Portal Frame

This job is a small portal frame model under concentrated loads. Results are presented from CAESAR II and the reference publication. This job can be found in “Computer Methods of Structural Analysis”, by Beaufait, Rowan, Hoadley, and Hackett. The CAESAR II job name is PLNFRM. The model geometry is shown in the figure below.


X Deflection (in) at Node 10:

CAESAR II 1.3970

Reference 1.39

X Deflection (in) at Node 15:

CAESAR II 2.2974

Reference 2.28



Truss Analysis # 1

This job is a small plane truss model under concentrated loads. Results are presented from CAESAR II and the reference publication. This job can be found in “Structural Analysis”, by J. C. McCormac. The CAESAR II job name is TRUSS. The model geometry is shown in the figure below.

ELEMENT FORCES (lb)

ELEMENT AXIAL FORCE

CAESAR II REFERENCE

5,10 15023 15000

10,15 15023 15000

15,20 40023 40000

20,25 40023 40000

5,30 -19239 -19200

30,35 -7453 -7500

35,40 -7453 -7500

40,25 -51255 -51200

10,30 30000 30000

30,15 -28784 -28800

15,40 -60800 -60800

40,20 30000 30000

15,35 0 0



Truss Analysis #2

This job is a small plane truss model under uniform load. Results are presented from CAESAR II, STAAD III, and the reference publication. This job can be found in “Resistance des Materiaux”, by M. Laredo. The CAESAR II job name is SSLL. The model geometry is shown in the figure below.


Y Deflection (MM) at Node 2:

CAESAR II -.5489

STAAD III -.5428

Reference -.5428

MZ Moment (N-m) at Node 7:

CAESAR II 48448

STAAD III 49249

Reference 49249

Axial Force (N) in Element 5-6

CAESAR II 585915

STAAD III 584584

Reference 548584



Loaded Beam

This job analyzes a fixed-fixed beam, with an intermediate support. This job is taken from “Integrated Matrix Analysis of Structures”, by Mario Paz and William Leigh. This particular job is Example 1.9 from this text.

Deflections (Inches):

Node DX DY DZ

CAESAR II Text CAESAR II Text CAESAR II Text

20 0. 0. -.5161 -.5161 0. 0.

Deflections (degrees):

Node RX RY RZ


20 0. 0. 0. 0. .6438 .636

Restraint Loads (lb, ft-lb):

Node FY MZ

CAESAR II Text CAESAR II Text

10 -72935 -72850. -127866 -127633

40 -3452. -3530. 15413 15633



Plane Frame

This job analyzes a Plane Frame, with various loads. This job is taken from “Integrated Matrix Analysis of Structures”, by Mario Paz and William Leigh. This particular job is Example 3.4 from this text.

Deflections (cm, degrees):

Node DX DZ RY


2 .2317 .2317 -.0197 -.01971 .1336 .1337

3 .4166 .4167 -.0237 -.0237 .0356 .0356

5 .2262 .2262 -.0373 -.0373 -.0893 -.0893

6 .3544 .3545 -.0464 -.0464 -.0177 -.0177

Restraint Loads (N, N-M):

Node FX FZ MY


10 24209. 24208. -135362. -135358. -49826 -49853

40 115791. 115792. -344637 -344642 114171 114149.



Simple Plane Frame

This job analyzes a simple plane frame. This job is taken from “Integrated Matrix Analysis of Structures”, by Mario Paz and William Leigh. This particular job is Example 3.1 from this text.

Deflections (inches):

Node DX DY DZ


20 .0153. .0153. -.0378 -.0378 0. 0.

Deflections (degrees):

Node RX RY RZ


20 0. 0. 0. 0. -.0378 -.0378


Node FX FY MZ


10 -76778. -76792. -160928. -160928. -67801 -67794

40 76778. 76780. -59072 59070 -194319 -194322



Space Frame

This job analyzes a Space Frame, with various loads. This job is taken from “Integrated Matrix Analysis of Structures”, by Mario Paz and William Leigh. This particular job is Example 5.2 from this text.

Deflections (in, degrees):

Node DX DY DZ


2 .0464 .0591 -.9026 -.9291 -.0190 -.0190

3 .1035 .1266 -1.4096 -1.4566 -.0277 -.0277

5 -.0489 -.0614 -.9073 -.9339 -.0137 -.00137

6 -.0997 -.1230 -1.4170 -1.4639 -.0213 -.0213

11 -.0464 -.0591 .9083 9348 -.0190 -.0190

12 -.1035 -.1266 1.4153 1.4622 -.0277 -.0277


Node FX FZ


1 6486 6811 -167687 -167507.

4 -18626 -18577 -120312 -120493

7 18626 -18577 -120312 -12453

10 -6811 -6811 -167687 -167507. These documents are the property of Intergraph Corporation, they may be used for internal reference purposes only and may not be copied, sold or otherwise distributed to any third party.


Local Element Forces (lb):

CAESAR II Axial Force

Element Nodes CAESAR II Text

1 1-2 -167687 -167510

4 5-6 -67446 -67510

5 7-8 -120312 -120490

8 11-12 -76554 -76490

9 2-8 10883 9860

14 3-6 -32364 -32250



Simple Truss Plane

This job analyzes a simple Plane Truss, with various loads and is taken from “Integrated Matrix Analysis of Structures”, Example 6.1 by Mario Paz and William Leigh.


Node DX DY


3 .0161 .01611 .0033 .00333

2 .0033 .00333 0 0


Node FX FZ


1 10000 10000 10000 10000

2 0 0 -10000 -10000




1 1-2 10000 10000




2 1-3 10000 10000

3 2-3 -14140 -14200



Plane Truss

This job analyzes a Plane Truss, with various loads and is taken from “Integrated Matrix Analysis of Structures”, Example 6.2 by Mario Paz and William Leigh.


Node DX DZ RY


1 0 0 0 0 -.0024 -.0024

2 .0095 .00953 0 0 .0174 .0174

3 .0191 .0191 -.1522 -.1522 -.0014 -.0014

4 .0221 .0221 0 0 -.0170 -.0169

5 0 0 0 0 .0053 .0053

6 .0304 .0304 -.0737 -.0737 .0082 .0082

7 -.0044 -.00445 -.1074 -.1074 -.0052 -.0052

8 -.0141 -.0141 -.0349 -.0349 -.0115 -.0115




Node FX FZ


1 -1071 -1071 -4076 -4076

2 0 0 -11525 -11525

4 0 0 -12453 -12453

5 6071 6071 -1946 -1946




1 1-2 1986 1990

4 4-5 -4611 -4610

7 7-8 -2008 -2010

8 5-8 -2433 -2430

9 2-6 -11523 -11520

14 3-8 9247 9250


Chapter 9 User Quality Assurance Procedures

In This Chapter Installing the QA Series ........................................................ 9-2 Preparing to Perform the QA ................................................ 9-3 Performing the QA ................................................................ 9-4 Configuration Settings Table ................................................ 9-7

This chapter describes the contents of the accompanying CD, and how the QA procedures can be performed by a user. The formal QA procedure performed by Intergraph CAS

Directory

is described in Chapter 3 of this manual. The CD contains several directories as described in the following table (as described earlier in Chapter 3).

Contents

Executable Contains the program QATEST.EXE and execution instructions. This program is modified with each release of CAESAR II to update the title and address any data structure changes.

NRC Contains the NRC benchmark jobs: input and output.

ASME Contains a series of ASME benchmark jobs: input and output. Some of these jobs are static, some are dynamic.

General Contains other jobs compared to other public domain programs.

Stoomwezen Contains the Stoomwezen benchmark jobs.

Structural Contains several structural benchmark jobs.

C H A P T E R 9


9-2 User Quality Assurance Procedures

Installing the QA Series

In order to perform the QA series, the job files from the QA Distribution CD must be installed on the hard drive. This can be accomplished by running the installation program found on the CD. Simply inserting the CD should start this installation program. If the CD Auto Run feature is disabled on the computer, simply browse to the CD and double-click“SETUP.EXE

SETUP.EXE is the standard Windows installation program most users are familiar with. This installation requires little input from the user, just the desired installation directory. It is suggested that the installation program be instructed to place the QA files in a clean

.

Benchmark directory. The QA files will be placed in sub-directories beneath this Benchmark

In each directory (except Executable which contains the

directory.

QATEST.EXE program) are the files necessary to analyze and compare the jobs. Each job consists of the input and resulting output as produced at Intergraph CAS

.



Preparing to Perform the QA

The directory structure detailed above is referred to as the Benchmark Directory. DO NOT RUN CAESAR II FROM WITHIN THIS DIRECTORY.

1 Copy the QATEST.EXE file from the \EXE directory into the

These files are the benchmarks, the baseline to which the local runs should be compared to. In order to successfully perform a local QA, the files in this directory structure need to be copied, as follows:

CAESAR II

2 Copy the \ASME, the \General, the \NRC, the \Stoomwzn, and the \Struct directories to a working folder. (This is necessary because to make a comparison you need two instances of each job. One instance is the benchmark or baseline, the other is the job just run in this working folder.)

program directory. It is also advisable to create a “Shortcut” to this EXE and place it on the desktop (to aid in invoking the QATEST utility).

To summarize, you need two copies of the QA jobs on your machine. One copy exists in the Benchmark directory (structure) and the other in the Test

directory (structure).



Performing the QA

QA series should begin by analyzing each job in the Test

Once the necessary files are available in the

directory (structure). Note, it is extremely important that the title page of each job be reviewed to see if changes are necessary to the configuration file (see the last page of this chapter for a summary table). Failure to use the proper program configuration will generate mismatch errors in the final comparison. Users should also note that some jobs are static and some are dynamic. It is suggested that the jobs be run and compared one at a time, until confidence in the procedure has been attained.

Test directory (structure), the CAESAR II program can be used to perform the analysis. (Performing the analysis in the Test directory (structure) preserves the input and output as distributed by Intergraph CAS. This allows further analysis and output comparisons. Analyzing the jobs in the original Benchmark directory (structure) will overwrite the output provided by Intergraph CAS

Once an analysis has been completed, the

.)

QATEST.EXE program can be invoked to compare the new output to that provided by Intergraph CAS. QATEST.EXE can be invoked from Windows Explorer, or from a desktop shortcut. The QATEST.EXE dialog is shown in the figure below.

QATEST Program Dialog Box



The top half of the dialog is available for the user to specify the job data for comparison. The bottom half of the dialog presents a summary of what was compared and the result. If the comparison between the new output and the Intergraph CAS supplied output matches, a check is placed in the appropriate box. If the comparison does not match, a “gray” check is placed in the appropriate box.

The first edit box of this dialog,

Note, you should not attempt to manually check these boxes, the program will do this for you!

To process individual jobs, enters the directory containing the bench job(s):, is used to define where the Intergraph CAS supplied Benchmark files is. The entry here should contain the full path to the Benchmark

The second edit box of this dialog,

directory (structure).

For batch processing …

The third edit box of this dialog,

is intended to allow multiple jobs to be compared in a batch mode. This option is not applicable here.

Enter the test job name to verify:, is used to specify the name of the job just analyzed, which is to be compared to Intergraph CAS generated results. You should type in the desired job name here. The fourth edit box of this dialog, Signature file name:

Dual Pentium 700 (DELL)

is used to specify a text file which contains the machine id and operating system id for the comparison reports. This is a simple text file which contains only two lines of text, as illustrated below.

Windows 2000 SrvcPk 1

This is just an example, you should setup your own Signature file. For proper usage, the Signature file needs to reside in the same directory as the Test job. For efficiency, create the Signature file, test it once, and then copy it to all of the directories in the Test

While the use of a Signature file is optional, the use of this file saves time if the QA Reports are to be printed and archived.

structure.

The Send reports to a file

The

check box, causes the program to create output reports for each job compared. The output reports will be named <jobname>.QA, and are text files. These files can be printed and saved for future reference. By default, this box is checked at startup.

Report all Mismatches

The

check box, causes the program to generate an entry for every mismatch detected. By default, this box is not checked, and the program only reports mismatches greater than the previous mismatch. All mismatches are always counted and reported in the report, regardless of how this box is checked.

Wait between jobs

Once the input in the top half of the dialog has been defined, click

check box is intended for use in batch mode processing. This option is not applicable here.

OK to invoke the comparison routine. The program then compares the data in the two output files and reports any mismatches. For each category of results, the comparison status is displayed on the screen and possibly reported to the QA file. A sample comparison is shown in the figure below.



After comparing a job, the user can change the job name in the upper right edit box to continue comparing jobs. The View QA File

The asterisk in this table indicates standard 3.23 configuration settings. Configuration changes in the table are modifications from the 3.23 settings. By using the system menu (available by clicking the

button can be used to view the generated report file. The table at the end of this chapter lists all of the jobs (installed from the CD) and their appropriate configuration settings.

QATEST icon in the upper left corner), users can set all configuration directives to 3.23, 3.24, or the latest version.

Note:

A number of configuration file default values have been revised between the 3.23 and 3.24 releases in order to improve calculation results or program performance. These changes are listed in the table below.

Failure to properly adjust the configuration settings will cause numerous mismatches when QATEST is run.

Changed from 3.23 to 3.24

BEND_LENGTH_ATTACHMENT= 5.0 1.0

BEND_AXIAL_SHAPE = NO YES

FRICT_STIFF = 50000 1.0E6

FRICT_NORM_FORCE_VAR = . 25 . 15

FRICT_ANGLE_VAR = 30 15

VALVE_&_FLANGE = GENERIC CADWORX



Configuration Settings Table General

Configuration Settings Differing From The Default

Pass_Fail Filename Directory RunType System Menu PD_4t Pressure Stiffening

Tees Meet B169

Bend Axial Shape

Add Torsion

Add F/A

Bend Length

Alpha Tolerance

All Corroded MaxBend B313_SIF Decomp

adl2 General Static 3.23 Defaults b315a General Static 3.23 Defaults rccm2 General Static 3.23 Defaults tb4b General Static 3.23 Defaults ON tb5b General Static 3.23 Defaults ON kpip1 General Static 3.23 Defaults ON ansys1 General Static 3.23 Defaults ON No trflx1 General Static 3.23 Defaults ON Default ON 320571 General Both 3.23 Defaults ON dynhgr General Static 3.23 Defaults ON ubend General Static 3.23 Defaults YES ON ap1 General Static 3.23 Defaults ON NO YES YES pske4 General Static 3.23 Defaults 0.50 z1 General Static 3.23 Defaults ON 0.5

NRC



Tees Meet B169

Bend Axial Shape

Add Torsion

Add F/A

Bend Length

Alpha Tolerance


nureg1 NRC Dynamic 3.23 Defaults ON nureg2 NRC Dynamic 3.23 Defaults nureg4 NRC Dynamic 3.23 Defaults ON 0.05 nureg5 NRC Dynamic 3.23 Defaults nureg6 NRC Dynamic 3.23 Defaults ON 1.00 nureg7 NRC Dynamic 3.23 Defaults ON ON nureg8 NRC Dynamic 3.23 Defaults ON nureg9 NRC Dynamic 3.23 Defaults ON ON nurg10 NRC Dynamic 3.23 Defaults ON nurg11 NRC Dynamic 3.23 Defaults ON 0.05

ASME



Tees Meet B169

Bend Axial Shape

Add Torsion

Add F/A

Bend Length

Alpha Tolerance


asme1 ASME Dynamic 3.23 Defaults asme6 ASME Static 3.23 Defaults nrg1 ASME Static 3.23 Defaults nrg3 ASME Dynamic 3.23 Defaults nrg5 ASME Dynamic 3.23 Defaults nrg2 ASME Dynamic 3.23 Defaults ON nrg4 ASME Static 3.23 Defaults ON 2.5



Stoomwezen



Tees Meet B169

Bend Axial Shape

Add Torsion

Add F/A

Bend Length

Alpha Tolerance


stm08d Stoomwzn Static 3.23 Defaults stm08t Stoomwzn Static 3.23 Defaults stom01 Stoomwzn Static 3.23 Defaults stom02 Stoomwzn Static 3.23 Defaults stm04 Stoomwzn Static 5.10 Defaults 0.01 stm05a Stoomwzn Static 5.10 Defaults 0.01 stm06d Stoomwzn Static 3.23 Defaults ON ON 0.05 ON stm06t Stoomwzn Static 3.23 Defaults ON ON 0.05 ON stm07d Stoomwzn Static 3.23 Defaults ON 120 stm07t Stoomwzn Static 3.23 Defaults ON 120

Structural



Tees Meet B169

Bend Axial Shape

Add Torsion

Add F/A

Bend Length

Alpha Tolerance


AN50-2 Struct Static 3.23 Defaults 1.00E+20 BMCOLS Struct Static 3.23 Defaults PLNFRM Struct Static 3.23 Defaults TRUSS Struct Static 3.23 Defaults 1.00E+20 SSLL Struct Static 3.23 Defaults 1.00E+20 PAZ1-9 Struct Static 3.23 Defaults 1.00E+20 PAZ3-1 Struct Static 3.23 Defaults 1.00E+20 PAZ3-4 Struct Static 3.23 Defaults 1.00E+20 PAZ5-2 Struct Static 3.23 Defaults 1.00E+20 PAZ6-1 Struct Static 3.23 Defaults 1.00E+20 PAZ6-2 Struct Static 3.23 Defaults 1.00E+20


Chapter 10 Appendix A

In This Chapter CAESAR II Version X.XX Beta Evaluation Form ............... 10-2

C H A P T E R 1 0


10-2 Appendix A

CAESAR II Version X.XX Beta Evaluation Form

Please provide the information requested on these sheets to aid us in finalizing Version x.xx.

Name:

Company:

Operating System:

Please return this form to Intergraph CAS

Evaluation Forum Purpose:

by <date>.

The purpose of this form is to acquire your feedback on this new version, in a uniform documented manner. The topics and questions have been phrased to avoid yes/no answers

While this form is very important, we want your on-going feedback regarding this new release. Please contact us as necessary, either via the website Discussion Forum,

, and instead solicit your reaction and feelings about the new software. Beta evaluation forms are saved with the QA for a particular release, so we do appreciate your time in completing these forms.

email, fax, or phone. We need to know if you encounter any difficulties or have any suggestions as early as possible.

General Items:

Describe any problems you experienced with the CAESAR II

1-1) Did the auto-run start on your machine? Did you review the other options on the CD menu?

Installation process.

1-2) With regards to the actual installation of CAESAR II

x.xx, did you have any difficulty? Were the dialog messages clear? Was the installation successful?

1-3) Once the installation was completed, could you start the software from the Windows Start Menu? From the desktop shortcut? Did the Main Menu, splash screen, and Tool Tip

screen appear correctly?

1-4) Do you have other versions on CAESAR II

installed on this machine? If so, did you experience any conflicts?



1-5) How would you describe the usefulness and content of the “tip of the day”?

_____ I read them most of the time _____ I rarely read them _____ I sometimes read them _____ I turn them off

1-6) Did you uninstall the beta version using the routine provided?

If so, why and did you encounter any problems?

1-7) Was this beta version installed on a network drive or on a local hard drive?

What type of ESL is involved (local USB, local white, or network red)?

What type of network?

1-8) Are you using Windows 2000, Windows XP, or Windows Vista?

_____ Windows 2000 _____ Windows XP Professional

_____ Windows Vista Business _____ Windows Vista Ultimate

_____ Windows Vista (other ___________________________________)

1-9) Was context sensitive help useful (and available everywhere)?

1-10) Of the new capabilities incorporated into this release, which one is most important to you and why?

Did you use the "beta testers" section of the Intergraph CAS

If so, what did you find most useful?

website? If not, why not?


10-4 Appendix A

Piping Input:

2-1) Did you encounter any problems in building piping models?

2-2) Did you notice any speed improvements in Version x.xx over y.yy? If so, where?

2-3) Did you use the “LIST

” facility to review the various categories of data?

2-4) Did you use the LIST

_____ Very Often _____ Occasionally _____ Sometimes _____ Never

facility to duplicate or rotate the model? (Please check only one.)

2-5) Did you find the "tool tips" for the expected units useful?

2-6) Did you use the valve/flange and expansion joint selection tables?

2-7) Did you collapse the input spreadsheet to increase the graphics area? If so, did you find this capability useful?

2-8) What graphics features do you use most?

2-9) Did you customize the arrangement of the input interface? Did you use the “cutting planes”?

2-10) Did you use the "undo / redo" capabilities? If so, did you encounter any problems?

2-11) Did you use the "alpha node name" capabilities? If so, did you encounter any problems?

2-12) Did you find the new “navigation tools” helpful?



2-13) Did you use the configuration and/or the Load Case

editor from within the piping input processor? If so did you find this ability useful?

2-14) Did you import any drawing (DWG) files into the input to see how the piping system overlays the remainder of the plant?

2-15) How often do you graphically construct models, or graphically change element characteristics?

2-16) What is your configuration set to with regards to the default piping display?

_____ center line mode _____ double line (volume mode) _____ rendered mode

2-17) Did you find the ability to “tear off” parts of the spreadsheet useful for graphical manipulation and/or interrogation of the model?

Load Case Setup:

3-1) How useful did you find the “drag & drop” editing capability?

3-2) How often do you modify the recommended load cases?

3-3) Did you do any fatigue analysis?

3-4) Did you use the "wind load" or "wave/current load" vectors?

3-5) Did you use the wave graphics section?

3-6) Did you use the friction multiplier ability?

3-7) What are your thoughts on the Second Load Case tab, used to describe the static load case, the combination methods and the output expected?


10-6 Appendix A

3-8) What are your thoughts on the Hanger Options found on the Load Case Options

tab?

3-9) Did you have the need to alter the Modulus Of Elasticity setting in the Load Case

options?

Static Analysis Process:

4-1) Did you encounter any problems during Static Analysis

?

4-2) Do you find the in-core solution dialog useful in monitoring the solution process?

4-3) Did you use the 3D output graphics element viewer?

4-4) Did you have any problems printing the output reports? If so, describe your printer/network setup.

4-5) Did you print output reports to disk (in ASCII format)?

4-6) Did you send the static output to MS Word™?

4-7) Did you create any “customized” output reports? If so, was the use of this ability straight forward?

Structural Input:

5-1) Have you ever used the Structural Modeler

? If not, why not?

5-2) Did you use the structural modeler from within the Piping Input

?

5-3) Which structural databases do you use most often?



5-4) Did you analyze a “structural only” job?

Dynamic Input:

6-1) How did you find the organization of the dynamic input topics? (Did you notice necessary topics are shown based on analysis type?)

6-2) Describe the presentation of the input dialogs.

6-3) What type of Dynamic Analysis

did you perform?

6-4) Comment on the “wizard” for building Seismic Spectra

.

6-5) Do you have any suggestions regarding the specification of Dynamic Input

?

6-6) Do you find the DLF Plotting

useful?

Dynamic Analysis and Review:

7-1) Did you encounter any problems reviewing the Dynamic Output

? Did you have any problems printing?

7-2) Did you use the dynamics animation? If so, how did you find the operation and speed of this facility?

Interfacing:

8-1) Did you utilize any of the CAD interfaces? If so, which one(s)? Did the operation produce the expected results?

Autocad Intergraph

Cadpipe Isomet

CADWorx PCF

ComputerVision


10-8 Appendix A

8-2) Did you generate or read any CAESAR II

neutral files?

CAESAR II

Complete Neutral File

Data Matrix

8-3) Did you utilize either of the hydraulic interfaces? If so, which one(s)?

LIQT AFT PIPENET

Did you use the (ODBC) database export facilities? If so, did you use MS Access or MS Excel? Please describe what you used the database for.

Auxiliary Analysis:

9-1) Which of the following auxiliary analysis processes did you use:

___WRC-107 ___NEMA SM23 ___API-610 ___AISC

___API-617 ___HEI Standard ___API-560

___API-661 ___B31G ___ASME Flanges

___EJMA ___WRC-297 ___SIF Review

9-2) Please comment on any items you checked in 9-1 above.

Miscellaneous:

10-1) How did you find the operation of the Material Database

Editor?

10-2) Do you use accounting? If so, what type of setup did you use?

10-3) How often did you use the options on the Diagnostic menu?



Wrap-Up:

11-1) In general how did you find the presentation and operation of Version x.xx?

11-2) Did you use the menus or tool bars most often and why?

11-3) What did you like best about Version x.xx?

11-4) What did you like the least about Version x.xx?

11-5) Did you review the on-line documentation?

Did you find this useful?

11-6) Did you review or use the videos? Do you feel they should ship as a standard part of the CAESAR II

package?

11-7) Do you have any general comments or suggestions toward improving the software or the beta test phase?

Technical Support:

12-1) Have you contacted Intergraph CAS

for Technical Support? If so, how would you describe the support experience?

12-2) Are your support instances typically via telephone, fax, or email?

12-3) Do you have any suggestions that could improve the "support experience" for other users?

12-4) Are your support instances more related to software issues or technical issues? If software issues, what could be improved with the software or documentation to reduce these issues?


10-10 Appendix A

12-5) Do you use the Intergraph CAS

___Discussion Forums ___Software Downloads

website? If so, what for?

___Technical Articles ___Seminar Information

___Newsletter Review ___Sales/Product Information

12-6) If you do use the Intergraph CAS

___Discussion Forums ___Software Downloads

website rank these areas in the order of importance to you.

___Technical Articles ___Seminar Information

___Newsletter Review ___Sales/Product Information

12-7) If you don't use the Intergraph CAS

website, why not?

12-8) If you do use the Intergraph CAS

website, about how often do you visit (times per week/month)?


c2 v&v_manual_v530

Documents

nrc benchmarks

contents chapter

nrc general benchmarks

asme benchmarks

nrc spectrum benchmarks

reference documents

internal reference purposes

ansys benchmark