Post Discuss About Virtual Anchor Buried Pipe

Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II Software - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis
Pgina 1 de 12
You are not logged in. [Log In]

Home Page Forums Analysis Solutions CAESAR II Buried Pipeline using CAESAR
II Software
Register User
Forum List
Calendar
Active Topics
Topic Options
Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II
Software
Who's Online
#60961 - 11/02/14 05:02 AM
kart89
Member
Registered:
08/17/13
Posts: 27
Loc: kuwait
FAQ
1 registered (Rocker),
11 Guests and 1
Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod,
Mod
Dear expats,
I am doing a stress analysis for a buried pipeline using
CAESAR II software. CAESAR II software has two types of
soil model type one is by CAESAR II Basic Model which is
based on L.C. Peng, published in 1978 and another type is
American Lifelines Alliance which is based on "Appendix B:
Soil Spring Representation" from the Guidelines for the
Design of Buried Steel Pipe by the American Lifelines
Alliance.
April
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
5
9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
My question is to follow which type? As my contractor

didnt specify the type.
Will the stiffness, displacement, stress and anchor block
loads created by both CAESAR II Basic Model and
American Lifelines Alliance will have same result or there
will be changes.
Forum Stats
10589 Members
13 Forums
13503 Topics
60675 Posts
Max Online: 57 @
12/06/09 11:14 AM
Top
Re: Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II

Software [Re: kart89]
Dave
Diehl
Member
Registered:
12/14/99
Posts: 1634
Loc: Houston,
TX, USA
#60981 - 11/03/14 11:56 AM
I believe you would do better with the American Lifelines

Alliance as it is a published document that serves better as
a standard.
The two approaches will not produce identical results.
_________________________
Dave Diehl
Top

Software [Re: Dave Diehl]
#61020 - 11/05/14 01:43 AM
http://65.57.255.42/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=60961
24/04/2015
Pgina 2 de 12
kart89
Member
Registered:
08/17/13
Posts: 27
Loc: kuwait
I believe you Mr.Dave that both the results are not

identical, then what is the big difference between the
CAESAR II Basic Model and American Lifelines Alliance we
are not able to get clear idea about both the methods.
If both the methods produce different results then why
there is option of both the methods in CAESAR II.
If American Lifelines Alliance is a standard method then
why there is option for CAESAR II Basic Model in CAESAR
II .
Top

Dave
Diehl
Member
Registered:
12/14/99
Posts: 1634
Loc: Houston,
TX, USA
#61024 - 11/05/14 08:09 AM
The CAESAR II Basic Soil Modeler (Peng) was part of our

original release of the buried pipe modeler. We added the
American Lifelines Alliance (ALA) approach much later.
I prefer the ALA method only because it is better
documented and formally published. There may be
CAESAR II users who use the Peng approach and have
adjusted their soil input to produce results that "match"
their system's response in the field. For that reason, we
usually do not replace existing capability but add new
capability instead.
_________________________
Dave Diehl
Top

#61079 - 11/07/14 05:39 PM
aleps_86
Member
Registered:
05/23/14
Posts: 72
Loc: Italy
Dear Dave,
I have to model a 8" buried pipeline. In this preliminary
phase I have to verify only the pipeline sections at starting
and ending point and my battery limit is the first support
above ground ( my model starts at this support and I will
provide the axial displacement). But, my question Is:
I have a 8" pipeline, buried depth=1,5m and 100C design
temperature; for contain the thermal expansion i placed a
buried expansion loop about at 90 meters from the vertical
bend(where the pipeline become buried), then I modeled
further 250 meters of pipeline up to virtual anchor point.
the loop and vertical bends are 40 ND radius (this is a
Client requirement, they don't want hot bend) .I have
some doubts regard the output results:
1) I modeled the soil by Peng method and ALA Method:
-In the first case the axial displacement at first above
support is 88mm
24/04/2015
Pgina 3 de 12
-In the second case the axial displacement at first above

support is 70 mm.
As you already said above, maybe ALA method is better
than Peng, then I can consider it.
2) I tried also to model a straight pipe section up to virtual
anchor point (250 meters). In this case the displacement
at first support is 90 mm (axial) and 50mm (vertical);
Instead with an expansion loop I have a 70 mm axial
displacement. Then, I think that, the expansion loop does
not work enough, maybe because the bend radius are so
large that the bend is not able to dissipate the thermal
expansion (As opposed to have a hot tight bend that
works better).
Finally, It's better to insert an expansion loop that absorbs
only 20 mm of displacement or it is better to have a
straight pipe?
3)Otherwise, What Can I do? I tried to reduce the distance
between the vertical AG/UG bend and the loop, I tried to
increase the buried depth, I tried to increase the loop
width but the results is ever the same.
Please help me, thank you
Top

Dave
Diehl
Member
Registered:
12/14/99
Posts: 1634
Loc: Houston,
TX, USA
#61094 - 11/10/14 02:28 PM
Is your loop buried?

I doubt that a buried loop, surrounded with soil, will be
able to provide the flexibility you want. The loop legs
perpendicular to the main run will serve more as axial
restraint for the main run rather than strain absorbers.
_________________________
Dave Diehl
Top

#61096 - 11/10/14 04:30 PM
aleps_86
Member
Registered:
05/23/14
Posts: 72
Loc: Italy
Yes my loop is buried and it has 40ND Bend radius (Client

does not want hot bend); with is axial displacement at first
above support are 90 mm.
Maybe it don't give me the flexibility that I want because
of the large curvature (If I insert a 5ND radius expansion
loop, the displacement decreases up to 50mm).
An idea to decrease the displacement at the first above
support could be insert a stop support on it.
Top

#61104 - 11/11/14 06:13 AM
24/04/2015
Pgina 4 de 12
Pablo_GH
Member
Registered:
05/18/13
Posts: 45
Loc: Spain
Dear,
If I understood as Dave, your loop is buried, so your bends
are surrounded by soil. How are those bends going to
move as much as you require and absorb expansion?
As Dave said, I also think that those loop pipes will work
more as an axial anchor than as a loop. Maybe I am
missunderstanding how is the loop placed.
Regards.
Top

#61114 - 11/11/14 01:29 PM
aleps_86
Member
Registered:
05/23/14
Posts: 72
Loc: Italy
Dear Pablo,
Ok I understand that, being my loop buried it is no able to
absorb expansion because the bends are not going to
move being surrounded by soil.
However, What Can I do in order to reduce the
displacements at firt above support? (client does not want
anchor block or 5ND bends).
I think that I cannot obtain displacements at first above
support less than those already calculated(100mm). then,
I will pass this displacements to the piping and they will do
their design calculation. (battery limit between me and
piping is first above support and my model start at this
point).
Top

#61115 - 11/11/14 01:41 PM
mariog
Member
Registered:
09/29/07
Posts: 494
Loc: Romania
Have you properly modeled the bend with radius 40ND?

How you did it?
And 250 m of straight pipe are enough to simulate virtual
anchor point? Do you have displacements at that endwhere it is supposed to be that virtual anchor?
Top

#61116 - 11/11/14 02:12 PM
aleps_86
Member
Registered:
05/23/14
Posts: 72
Loc: Italy
Hello mariog,
is the first time for me that I have to model a buried
pipeline, then I have a lot of doubts and I don't know if the
model is correct.
1) I modeled a bend simply with a piece of pipe,doubleclicking on bend check box and appropriate bend radius
(8764m). How do you intend to model a bend with radius
40ND?
24/04/2015
Pgina 5 de 12
2) I calculated virtual anchor lenght as per Peng's formula

and value is 250 meters. Also CAESAR II Basic Soil
Modeler calculated a similar value.
But, virtual anchor lenght is another doubt. At the and of
250 m of pipe I have a 128 mm of axial displacement (in
theory after VAL I should have zero axial displacement); I
try to model another piece of pipes (300m,400m,etcc) but
I have ever a certain value of displacements. How does
Caesar show the virtual anchor point if It shows ever a
axial displacement?
Top

#61138 - 11/12/14 11:51 AM
mariog
Member
Registered:
09/29/07
Posts: 494
Loc: Romania
IMO, you need fine meshing of that 40ND buried bend,

let's say as it is made up of multiple bends.
Again IMO, the pipeline end which is supposed to be fully
restrained has a displacement because there is a "cap
effect" considered by FEA method for your truncated
model. Try to identify a point with about zero displacement
along the modeled pipeline and check the distance from
that point to the bend is greater than the theoretical VAL. I
would prefer a fictitious explicit anchor placed at a
distance a bit greater than the theoretical VAL, however
I've seen that in practice such anchor has the same
engineering effect as the matador's red cape....
Edited by mariog (11/12/14 12:17 PM)

Top

#61143 - 11/12/14 12:49 PM
aleps_86
Member
Registered:
05/23/14
Posts: 72
Loc: Italy
Regarding VAL, after the expansion loop (node 140) I tried

to model 850 meters of pipeline(node 990). I checked the
axial dispacements and they ranging from -0.9mm at node
420 to +0.9mm at node 510; then for about 90 meters of
pipeline the axial displacements are about zero. Node 420
is located at about 270 meters from my expansion loop,
then I think that my virtual anchor lenght is correct. Are
you agree?
Regarding fine meshing for 40 ND buried bend, I don't
understand very well how to obtain it. Maybe I have to
model the bend using short straight segments? How can I
model a fine mesh?
Thank you
Top

Dave
Diehl
#61146 - 11/12/14 01:58 PM
Bends in buried segments will be finely meshed

automatically.
24/04/2015
Pgina 6 de 12
Member
Registered:
12/14/99
Posts: 1634
Loc: Houston,
TX, USA
_________________________
Dave Diehl
Top

#61148 - 11/12/14 04:15 PM
mariog
Member
Registered:
09/29/07
Posts: 494
Loc: Romania
In this case, you are not longer recommending the

"undocumented" procedure described in Mechanical
Engineering News June 2000?
Top

Dave
Diehl
Member
Registered:
12/14/99
Posts: 1634
Loc: Houston,
TX, USA
#61157 - 11/13/14 08:11 AM
I took a look at that newsletter.

Now I am unsure of aleps_86's question. Is his bend not
meshed at all or is the standard bend mesh insufficient?
I assumed the former and mariog assumes the latter.
(That undocumented "feature" is to "rebury" the buried
section where extra nodes are desired.)
_________________________
Dave Diehl
Top

#61161 - 11/13/14 01:59 PM
mariog
Member
Registered:
09/29/07
Posts: 494
Loc: Romania
aleps_86,
When performing the judgement of the two alternatives
you've mentioned, I think the first step is to be sure about
the model accuracy. In both alternatives, the truncated
models have to count properly the displacement from VAL,
and I think you've found a conclusion on this subject.
The modeled buried bends must simulate as accurate is
possible the complex interaction between the toroidal
geometry of bend and soil. That June 2000 Newsletter,
available on site, may be the basis of an improved model.
Maybe you have to pay attention also to the pipeline
geometry on the "vertical" plane to the above ground end
of pipeline.
And, of course, the soil must be accurately considered.
After rechecking the model, maybe you'll see an
24/04/2015
Pgina 7 de 12
improvement of the calculated displacements. As you can

see there are lots of "maybe" because I cannot guess what
is there without having the model.
Top

#61163 - 11/13/14 03:59 PM
aleps_86
Member
Registered:
05/23/14
Posts: 72
Loc: Italy
Dear mariog,
Yes, regarding VAL I think that I have found a conclusion
but the last doubt about it is: At the point where I suppose
to have a virtual anchor, I need to insert an anchor
restraint or not? because If I put an anchor restraint the
displacements increase a little but I think that the reply is
No. Is not necessary insert an anchor restraint. Are you
agree?
More complex is the topic about the modeled buried

bends. I read the June 2000 Newsletter, and as Dave
said,if my understanding is correct, I need to break the
bends into small bends, bury only the bend and then bury
the entire model. But I don't know if I understand very
well it. However, If I upload here my Caesar model and if
you have time, you can quickly check the model in order
to verify if my modeling and output displacements are
correct?
Thank you
Top

#61177 - 11/14/14 10:59 AM
mariog
Member
Registered:
09/29/07
Posts: 494
Loc: Romania
About your first question: the important point is that you

need to have a modeling procedure that assures the
pipeline end shall receive a displacement corresponding to
the length VAL-to-end. I understand that your results
confirm that, with a VAL estimated as 250 m, truncating
the model to 250m does not assure this goal. How to solve
this problem is after you. Of course placing an anchor
beyond VAL, even makes sense, is not only ugly but also
shall rise a lot of question marks from others. In the end,
just keep in mind that the soil cannot be modeled exactly
and software cannot simulate the continuous contact
pipeline-soil, so small differences in results are not
significant.
About the second point, I'll try to make a compilation from
Mr. Diehl's article.
If you are running large radius (50*OD) bends (or any
other radius for that matter) through the buried pipe
modeler, you can add a node at the start and end of each
bend. "Bury" only the bends (by specifying a soil model
number for these segments) by click on "bury the
system".
Once the program listed "Model conversion complete",
24/04/2015
Pgina 8 de 12
instead of clicking on either the "OK" or "Cancel" buttons

at the bottom of the window, click on the Close (X) button
at the top right corner of the window. After this first step,
the restraints shall be not added and control shall be
returned to the Underground Pipe Generator and yo can
find that the model now has extra soil model nodes. The
effect is that node density is automatically increased for
bends. The modeler shall maintain the bend designation
through these back-to-back "partial" bends so each extra
node is a change in direction with a bend.
All you need to do is to continue in the buried pipe
modeler and bury this modified model once again, this
time bury all sections that should be buried.
The short version is exactly what Mr. Diehl said "That
undocumented "feature" is to "rebury" the buried section
where extra nodes are desired."
I would add that in the last time I haven't used this
procedure so I cannot say how is functioning in the last
versions.
Top

Software [Re: mariog]
#61181 - 11/14/14 02:32 PM
aleps_86
Member
Registered:
05/23/14
Posts: 72
Loc: Italy
Sorry Mariog, but I don't understand what do you mean

when you say:
Originally Posted By: mariog
About your first question: the important point is

that you need to have a modeling procedure that
assures the pipeline end shall receive a
displacement corresponding to the length VAL-toend.
Please clarify.
However I tried also to model 850 meters length of
pipeline, both with anchor restraint and without it, and the
displacements are ever the same (the difference is only +7 mm ).
Edited by aleps_86 (11/14/14 02:33 PM)

Top

#61183 - 11/14/14 02:58 PM
mariog
Member
Registered:
09/29/07
Posts: 494
Loc: Romania
I tried to convince you that you don't need to investigate

more this point!
The problem appears when you model too short the
straight part of pipeline.
After solving this point, it makes no difference when you
24/04/2015
Pgina 9 de 12
model 800 m or 8000 m.

But tell me please, if you model 850m and 250m, both
without that anchor, you got the same results?
Top

#61184 - 11/14/14 04:17 PM
aleps_86
Member
Registered:
05/23/14
Posts: 72
Loc: Italy
the cases and axial displacements are the following:

1) 250 meter length: with anchor -94mm; without -85mm
In the end, I have chosen to model 500 meters of pipeline
because I think that it represents better my VAL.
Top

#61186 - 11/15/14 12:26 AM
mariog
Member
Registered:
09/29/07
Posts: 494
Loc: Romania
OK, I see that for 850m in model, you have a difference of

1mm (with anchor -95mm; without -94mm), not 7 mm as
you said.
But as I said, is important to have a good procedure to
calculate the displacement received in the end of pipeline
(in the hot bend, if there is one\ in front of your battery
limit if you haven't that loop/offset/leg). Anyway the
actual figure that software returns depends on the soil
modeled and this is not an exact science, isn't it? Again,
important is to be sure that with your modeled soil your
calculation returns a correct value of the displacement.
Top

#61187 - 11/15/14 05:54 AM
aleps_86
Member
Registered:
05/23/14
Posts: 72
Loc: Italy
Yes, the difference is 1 mm, sorry but I made an error

error of digitizing at the above post.
If I'd like to verify that the modeled soil returns a correct

value of the displacement, Is it possible calculate it by
hand? I think that is not a easy job to calculate
displacements at first above pipe support,but If a
approximate calculation is available will be surely useful in
order to verify that my values are reasonable ( I would not
that I will provide a value of 95 mm but the actual value
will be 50/60mm for example). I hope to be clear
Edited by aleps_86 (11/15/14 06:02 AM)

Top
#61189 - 11/15/14 01:01 PM
24/04/2015
Pgina 10 de 12
Re: Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II Software [Re: kart89]

mariog
Member
Registered:
09/29/07
Posts: 494
Loc: Romania
You can consider the old Schnackenberg's article "How to

calculate stress in above/below ground transition".
The key parameter considered in article is "the longitudinal
resistance of the soil that needs to be known".
In fact, Schnackenberg's model is a simple linear one,
where the stress difference between "fully restrained" and
"unrestrained" points (multiplied by pipeline metal
sectional area) generates a tendency to "elongate" to the
ends of pipeline (typically toward pig stations).
Fortunately, this reference article is still included in
"Pipeline rules of thumb" handbook.
For your case, the results based on this article are only a
rough approximation.
Actually, your model shall return a correct value of the
displacement when VAL is established in a correct position;
this may be checked by performing few trials that would
convince you that points with zero displacements are
indeed where they are supposed to be.
Top

#61190 - 11/16/14 07:39 AM
aleps_86
Member
Registered:
05/23/14
Posts: 72
Loc: Italy
Ok I will read the article above mentioned by you.

In the end, Once tha VAL is established in a correct
position the Caesar model should provide a correct value
of displacements. I understood that maybe, truncate the
model at the exact length of VAL is not a good modeling
procedure. Then is ever necessary to model a length of
pipeline greater than effective VAL, and this length of
pipeline is reached after have performed few trials (with
different lengths) where we can demonstrate that
the pipeline length does not affect the displacements at
bends/transition AG-UG zone,etc.
Edited by aleps_86 (11/16/14 07:43 AM)

Top

#61412 - 12/03/14 08:35 AM
ZDawg
Member
Registered:
12/02/14
Posts: 4
Loc: Metairie,
LA
Hey guys, new user here. I am working on modeling PIG

traps for work and am having a few problems
understanding whether what I am doing is accurate. I'm
modeling a 42" Pig trap and working on the buried section.
I have already buried it several times to test the VAL and
came up with a value of 393 feet. I am using twice the
VAL for conservative results. I did not, however, place a
hard anchor at the first node. Is this a good standard
practice?
Secondly, I was getting ridiculously high bi-linear restraint
24/04/2015
Pgina 11 de 12
values when I would bury the pipe (stiffnesses over 2

million psi, and a yield load of 3 million lbs). I was
suspicious of this and read through the Caesar and
Autopipe manuals to get a better idea of soil restraint
properties and calculations, since I'm mechanical, not civil.
I saw that there are equations for distances between soil
restraints and when I checked the model I realized that
were only 2 spans of well over 300 feet in the buried
model. So I went in and added nodes so that the model
will better match the equations provided in the manual.
This decreased the bi-linear restraints, which seems more
realistic, but when I compared the analysis results, the
stresses and loads increased quite a bit. Is this simply a
more accurate result or did I mess up Caesar's modeling?
Top

#61439 - 12/05/14 01:05 PM
ZDawg
Member
Registered:
12/02/14
Posts: 4
Loc: Metairie,
LA
Ok, I now have a better understanding on how CAESAR

assigns values to the bi-linear restraint stiffnesses, but still
not sure about yield loads. Also, when I calculated the VAL
by hand, I got a value well over the estimated VAL by
CAESAR. I did not take into account the up bend of the
pipe, but all other variables were the same for the soil. Is
my calculation too simplified?
Top

#61443 - 12/06/14 03:48 PM
mariog
Member
Registered:
09/29/07
Posts: 494
Loc: Romania
I think when calculating VAL by hand you should have the

same friction pipeline skin as when software calculate it.
This is difficult since software uses axial soil springs as
defined by ALA in "Guidelines for the design of buried steel
pipe", however you may try to make an equivalence.
Top

#61444 - 12/07/14 01:22 AM
mariog
Member
ZDawg,
Registered:
09/29/07
Posts: 494
Loc: Romania
I cannot say the anchor you mentioned it is a good

standard practice; rather is an "annoying" device to solve
a hidden issue.
As logic, truncating the model of pipeline in a zone where
the pipeline is supposed to be fully restrained will make
pipeline "subject to an end cap pressure force" i.e. will
make pipeline as unrestrained in that point and beyond.
The hidden issue is that introducing in model a fictitious
unrestrained part of pipeline, the model can influence -in
calculation- the true unrestrained part of pipeline in case
that part is nearby.
Again as logic, placing an anchor where pipeline is
24/04/2015
Pgina 12 de 12
supposed to be fully restrained cannot influence the true

unrestrained part of pipeline, however that anchor will be
seriously loaded because tries to maintained (in model)
the restrained status for the zone where it is placed.
And more than this, in case you use it, that anchor should
be placed where pipeline is fully restrained, and you need
to experiment the place to be sure about this point.
And that's all, it is after you to use it or not!
Top
Previous Topic
Index Next Topic
Moderator: Dave Diehl, Richard Ay
Hop to:
CAESAR II
Privacy statement Board Rules Mark all read
GooG_v2_copy_copy_copy
Go
Contact Us Home Page Top
Generated in 0.081 seconds in which 0.014 seconds were spent on a total of 14 queries. Zlib compression disabled.
Powered by UBB.threads PHP Forum Software 7.5.7
24/04/2015

Post Discuss About Virtual Anchor Buried Pipe

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Post Discuss About Virtual Anchor Buried Pipe

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II Software - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis

You are not logged in. [Log In]

My question is to follow which type? As my contractor

Re: Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II

#60981 - 11/03/14 11:56 AM

I believe you would do better with the American Lifelines

Re: Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II

#61020 - 11/05/14 01:43 AM

Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II Software - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis

I believe you Mr.Dave that both the results are not

Re: Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II

#61024 - 11/05/14 08:09 AM

The CAESAR II Basic Soil Modeler (Peng) was part of our

Re: Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II

#61079 - 11/07/14 05:39 PM

Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II Software - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis

-In the second case the axial displacement at first above

Re: Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II

#61094 - 11/10/14 02:28 PM

Is your loop buried?

Re: Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II

#61096 - 11/10/14 04:30 PM

Yes my loop is buried and it has 40ND Bend radius (Client

Re: Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II

#61104 - 11/11/14 06:13 AM

Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II Software - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis

Re: Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II

#61114 - 11/11/14 01:29 PM

Re: Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II

#61115 - 11/11/14 01:41 PM

Have you properly modeled the bend with radius 40ND?

Re: Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II

#61116 - 11/11/14 02:12 PM

Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II Software - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis

2) I calculated virtual anchor lenght as per Peng's formula

Re: Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II

#61138 - 11/12/14 11:51 AM

IMO, you need fine meshing of that 40ND buried bend,

Edited by mariog (11/12/14 12:17 PM)

Re: Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II

#61143 - 11/12/14 12:49 PM

Regarding VAL, after the expansion loop (node 140) I tried

Re: Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II

#61146 - 11/12/14 01:58 PM

Bends in buried segments will be finely meshed

Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II Software - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis

Re: Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II

#61148 - 11/12/14 04:15 PM

In this case, you are not longer recommending the

Re: Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II

#61157 - 11/13/14 08:11 AM

I took a look at that newsletter.

Re: Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II

#61161 - 11/13/14 01:59 PM

Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II Software - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis

improvement of the calculated displacements. As you can

Re: Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II

#61163 - 11/13/14 03:59 PM

More complex is the topic about the modeled buried

Re: Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II

#61177 - 11/14/14 10:59 AM

About your first question: the important point is that you

Buried Pipeline using CAESAR II Software - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis