AutoPIPE Ideas Portal

Welcome to the AutoPIPE Ideas Portal. We value your feedback, and our team regularly reviews your ideas and considers them for future improvements to our products and services.

You have 3 options for providing feedback:

  1. VOTE for an existing idea. The popularity of an idea helps us understand its importance to the community.

  2. COMMENT on an existing idea. We want to hear your unique point of view.

  3. ADD a new idea. You can always submit a new idea if no existing one describes your suggestion.

When you add, vote or comment on an idea you will also be subscribed to that idea and receive status updates. Please note we may merge or rename ideas for better clarity for the community. Thank you for your support and feedback.

Add a new idea Subscribe
Status Future consideration
Categories Analysis
Created by Guest
Created on Jul 29, 2024

RELATED IDEAS

Add the capability to analyse multiple piping codes in a single model

Whilst using AutoPIPE Nuclear to assess pipework to ASME III, the models included different regions of pipework that were required to be assessed to ASME III Class 1 and Class 2 respectively. As it is not possible to assess to two different piping codes within one model, separate models had to be created for the same geometry. One model assessed the Class 1 regions of pipework using the Class 1 code, and the other model assessed the Class 2 regions of pipework using the Class 2 code. It would be very useful to be able to analyse the appropriate regions of pipework to the appropriate code within the same model. This would be of particular use when assessing to different Classes within one model for an ASME III assessment.

With this enhancement in place, an ASME assessment would only require one model, and therefore only one model would require to be updated to account for any necessary changes. In addition, the results could all be stored in one output report, making traceability and reporting more straightforward.

  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Oct 20, 2024

    Alternatively the ASME class 1 and 2 could be held in 2 different models but a provision to call in the other model for closing the boundary conditions at the connection / interface points while analysis alone temporarily or permanently embed into the file like the STAAD files but not compute code stress for the section not relevant could be helpful as well.

  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Jul 29, 2024

    That's good to know that it's already on your list. I hadn't realised that it was possible in ADLPipe (I know ADLPipe a bit, but not in that much detail). Whilst including all codes would clearly be of benefit, I had thought that different classes within an ASME assessment would be a great place to start this, as that is how pipework in nuclear facilities is laid out, and modelling to appropriate anchor positions will often include pipework of different classes in the one model. In the models I referred to, there was also some ASME B31.1 pipework, but I just included that in the Class 2 assessments. I appreciate the setup would be tricky as the use would have to specify which regions were which (i.e. to sub-divide the model into the appropriate classes), and to set up appropriate Class 1 and Class 2 (or 3 or B31.1) stress summaries. I will be keen to see how this can progress. Thanks.

    1 reply
  • Admin
    Phil Senior
    Reply
    |     Jul 29, 2024

    I completely agree with this feature and this has been on my list for some time. It was something that ADLPipe could do, but AutoPIPE's architecture makes it a little more challenging. We want not only ASME III codes, but nuclear / non nuclear, metallic / non metallic, offshore / on shore interfaces too