Use this discussion thread ts submit questions that do not fit in with the previously created categories.

What about dba of non metallic components, it could be better not to link dba by default to steel

I would like to know what you think is the dominant code (e.g. such as the R6) specific to the pipeline industry, either in Europe and USA?

To be material independent FE could easily show safety margin in state of the Von Mises or Tresca for multi-materials structures .

Multi-material components has to be analyzed at the same reliability level not only at the same safety margin (Safety factor 2 for steel for example is equivalent to 3 in composite).

The ASME Code Task Force on Elastic plastic Analysis is dealing with this very issue, your participation would be welcome.

What is CCOPPS PROJECT mainly about?

matthew.ladzinski wrote:

What about dba of non metallic components, it could be better not to link dba by default to steel

DBA has a specific defined role in PV design and is used in this context with the Code allowable materials. In a general sense the issues we are discussing are relevant to other sectors and other material - many of the issues in relation to FEA and the needs of analysts, validation etc are generic.

matthew.ladzinski wrote:

I would like to know what you think is the dominant code (e.g. such as the R6) specific to the pipeline industry, either in Europe and USA?

I dont have any data on this personally I am afraid. It was not something that the CCOPPS survey probed. Hopefully someone else can throw some light on the matter. Are you asking what is the most dominant piping code or the most dominant code for the assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects? What is the reason for the question?

matthew.ladzinski wrote:

What is CCOPPS PROJECT mainly about?

The provision of learning resource material that engineers can use to develop their competency in the use of FEA in the power and pressure systems industry sector. If you visit the CCOPPS web-site you can get more info www.ccopps.eu

In the NAFEMS CCOPPS webinar it was noted that the number of FEA proficient engineers may be falling, as only a small percentage spend their time on analysis, and that FEA is not perceived as a standalone skill. Should professional engineering institutions (such ICE, IMechE etc.) somehow recognise FEA and DBA as specialised core skills (*if* they are available) through their chartership process to provide a drive for more FEA proficient engineers?

DKourepinis wrote:

In the NAFEMS CCOPPS webinar it was noted that the number of FEA proficient engineers may be falling, as only a small percentage spend their time on analysis, and that FEA is not perceived as a standalone skill. Should professional engineering institutions (such ICE, IMechE etc.) somehow recognise FEA and DBA as specialised core skills (*if* they are available) through their chartership process to provide a drive for more FEA proficient engineers?

While this may be desirable, I think that it is unlikely to happen in the UK. The Educational Bases that the IMechE, ICE etc use to accredit degree courses are guided by what is called UK-Spec produced by the former Engineering Council. The learning outcomes in these documents are at a high level and also focus a lot on non-technical or softer skills. The technical requirements are written more in terms of "being competent in the use of relevant mathematics and modelling" rather than going into detail about finite element requirements. The IMechE have a broad view of what constitutes a mechanical engineering degree and is keen I suspect not to be too prescriptive in the detail.

I also came across a survey in the US about a year ago which tried to identify the core content of US undergrad mechanical engineering courss i.e. subjects that were compulsory. They surveyed around 9 or 12 universities if I recall and I was surprised that FEA was only compulsory in 3 of the University courses included in the survey.

This is partly why I feel the CCOPPS deliverables were necessary - that people engaged in personal development or designing new courses would appreciate the detail.