Cx The American Society of ‘Mechanical Engineers Raprintad From PVP — Vol. 169 Design and Analysis of Piping and Components Editors: Q. N. Truong, EC, Goodling, JR. J.J. Balaschak, and G. E. 0. Widera Book No, H00484 — 1989 THE ART OF CHECKING PIPE STRESS COMPUTER PROGRAMS: Liang-Chuan Peng Peng Engineering Houston, Texas ABSTRACT With the computer getting more and more soph- isticated, the chance of getting a bug in a program er a misapplication fn an analysts also becomes more and more likely. Analyste necd aome rules of thumb to quickly spot problem areas and to make a auick check if necessary, This paper outlines some of the generai rules used in checking boundary con- ditions, anbalanced forces, and irregularities. it aiso uses specific examples to demonstrate tae checking of some elementary functions. Special dis- cussions are given on advanced features such as Support friction, thermal bowing, and expansion bellow elements. INTRODUCTION With the uew requirements given on the design of a modern plant piping, the only practical toot for the design analysis Is the computer. ‘The computer program: designed for pipe stress analysis gets more aad more sophisticated every day. Some programs have gone through several generations of develop~ ment employing completely differem background of personne), ‘The ney genpéation normally will aot touch the good work done by their predecessors. instead, they make layers of shelis around the exis ting work. The completed program becomes very Glsorganized. Therefore, it is safe ta say that a modern pipe stress computer program is bound to have Somp inconsistoncies. Pipe stress analysts are normally too timid sn challenging a well established compnter program However, if we recognize that to err i6 computer program, we mey be able to more objecuvely ensure the quality of our analysis, It is important to real- ize that everylhing has its se called norm, Tp other words, if something Jocks unrealistic then it probably n i8 unreal. Therefore, it is important to be able to ook at the oatpet and point out the irregularities that might exist, That is the art. From time to time we have sean some experienced engineers who are able to judge whethor 4 system is satisfactory just by Joking st the model, The computer analysis is just a comfirming check. However, they are the exceptional rather than the normal. The inconsistent resis in an analysis comes either from the bug in the program or from the mis- applicslion of the program, Nowadays, people Like ito boast that you don't even need to read tue manual to use their compuier program, The so called asor friendly is probably wbat they intended to say, but eomebow ths impression they give is avi. You type in some data, then you get some results. it sounds easy, bot is scary. ‘To ensure a good analysis the analyst has to have gl leusi a clear picture of what the program functions are, He or she should also be able to epot the inconsistencies when they occur. PROGRAM VERIFICATION A program in systematically verified before beiag released for production. The verifiestion invo~ wes alsost every slep of the program's operation and function. ‘The resaiis of the verification are do- cumentes in the verification reports. This is the function of the program developer and should not be a burden to the asers Verification by the user is occasionally required by the inhouse QA procedure, or to simply satisfy the curiosity of the user or the boss. To an analyst, to be able to personally verify a couple of analyses will definitely increase his or her cowlidence is the program, ‘The mosi common approach of the veriZi- cation is lo encek against known results. ‘The book by Kellogg Company [1] contains quite a ew band calculation results which can be checked against the