AutoPIPE's CAE development team is constantly updating the program with new enhancements based in part on already logged enhancements from Service Requests and our belief what users would like added to the program. However, we would like to provide another avenue for people to voice their opinion on what new features they would like in AutoPIPE.
Please add your comments on what enhancements YOU would like to see added to the next version of AutoPIPE:
Bentley Technical Support Analyst
1. Occasional loads, like wind, seismic and snow, but especially wind, have mostly been based on American standards (like ASCE), which makes it hard for European work to accurate model wind loads. Suggestion to include an option in AutoPIPE, to define occ. loads (like wind, seismic and snow) based on relevant EN standards (EN 1991-1-4, EN 1998-1 and EN 1991-1-3, respecitvely), using also the national annexes. This way, the user only has to select the region the piping system is in, and AutoPIPE can apply the local values for occ loads (based on antional annexes), and relvant calulcattion methods (EN 199x-series standards).
2. EN 13480 piping codes updates;
- 2012 update (or, when V9.6 already includes, a bugfix on that AutoPIPE now displays EN 13480 2012)
- use issue numbers rather than year edition, and
- incorporate whether or not amendments or corrigendum have been incorporated
3. Option to calculate more accurate SIF's by means of FEA, e.g. like PCL gold. B31(.x) Codes are known to have inaccurate SIFs.
4. Include the EN 1591-1 calculation methodology for flanges/flange leakage. This method is known to be more accurate than ASME VIII-1 App 2 or VIII-2. Another suggestion for AutoPIPE to include on improved flange analysis; there's some excellent work by W. Brown on a simplified closed form formula (which is kind of like the ANSI flange check formula) to calculate the leak potential of a flange based on operating conditions, like p, T, F, M (PVP2013-97814)
The coordinate axes (left bottom) are not displayed when a pipe is in front of it; I would suggest the coordinate system display should always be visible.
1. Allowable Loads input to Anchor (for equipment nozzles) to see ratio when checking Restrain Results. I my opinion Reference Point option and than ploting raport to see ratio is very slow - to many clicks.
2. Hanger length field as a user input to have an angle control after pipe displacement (usually not more than 4 deg) - maybe not so nessesery but would be nice to report it somehow.
3. Proper slope control for corresponding loads cases - true scale deflected shape would be usefull. (now it's possible to export deflected shape to DGN and see it in other cad program, or maybe I don't know everything.)
Regards / Pozdrawiam,
Pipe Support Loads
There are two main stages in working with pipe support loads.
The first stage is not well handled by AutoPIPE. Because of this we have developed an external load processor. We create a results *.mdb file, then use an Excel macro to run a database query and load the information into Excel. In Excel we can:
• Combine supports where required – commonly Guide + Linestop will act on a single structure
• View global and/or local forces
• View global and/or local displacements
• Filter based on a number of complex criteria – for example Local Direction Forward greater than +50mm or less than -50mm, Local Force Right greater than +50kN or less than -50kN etc
• Use conditional formatting with colours to highlight progressively greater loads and displacements so that the user is automatically drawn to areas of high loading or large displacement
• Format the data so that it is easily read – for example instead of displaying a value in N of -28647.52, we format it to kN displayed as -28.7 – this makes it much easier to scan and review the results.
The limitations in the AutoPIPE grids are:
Combining Pipe Support Loads at One Point
It would be really helpful to have an options to combine loads where there are two or more supports at one node point.
I would envisage that this be implemented by allowing “Groups” to be defined for each node point, and that supports would be automatically assigned to a group (I don’t think you should have to create these). For example the first support at a node is Group 1, the second support at the same node is Group 2, and so on.
This would give the user the ability to join together supports as required by the physical arrangement.
For example a typical support on a steam system could use a Guide + Line-stop + Spring hanger. The actual grouping of these would depend upon the detail design of the support steelwork. I can think of one configuration where you would put the Guide & Line Stop in Group 1, with the Spring Hanger in Group 2. Alternatively it is also possible that you might want them all in one group.
For simplicity all supports entered at a node would default to unique groups e.g.
This means that users who do not wish to use this feature don’t need to do anything or change anything.
However users who do want to combine supports could then assign supports to the appropriate group (in the example above, the line-stop would be changed to Group 1). Output reporting would then be by Group at a node, rather than by support at a node. The Group no. would just be another field that appears on the support dialogue box, and defaults to 1 for 1st support, 2 for 2nd support and so on.
1. Being able to save and load the standard environment inputs, seismic, wind, etc