Author Topic: Stiffening woes (Read 13327 times)

Cam-burger · « **Reply #15 on:** Nov 05, 2007, 15:11:32 PM »

this is at least the fifth post I have seen about stiffener/tie rod woes, heck I even posted my own last week, and still no response!! Frowny face!!!!

deisman · « **Reply #16 on:** Nov 06, 2007, 13:08:37 PM »

Yes stiffeners for everyone... We need it on rectangular, We need it on Round, We even need it of Flat-Oval hell lets just add it all around. Yes stiffeners for all lets not forget that there are many options some ducts just long side, some ducts on both sides, some oval just on the flats others all around. I will provide pictures, photos, written descriptions if needed. Then there are these things called tie-rods which must also be addressed seems someone has decided that the ones in negative pressure duct should be sized based on their length.
And one side may be different than the other, the long side may require 2 but the short side only gets one. Well I think you see where I am going with this. We will need more than one field to meet all the requirements of stiffening ductwork. Personally I could care less about the some of the new design features I need to make sure what I am currently drawing is being fabricated to SMACNA Standards. I am waiting for that phone call with someone screaming your freaking drawing doesn't show any stiffeners there so we didn't install them and now the duct has collapsed.

L18cammer · « **Reply #17 on:** Nov 06, 2007, 14:28:32 PM »

well said. they should fix the problems before creating new ones.

peteco · « **Reply #18 on:** Nov 06, 2007, 14:51:54 PM »

With internal reinforcements, (tie rods) we don't have any problems. It's all about database setup, which is extremely laborious. Assuming your pressure classes are set up to work to fitting lengths as well as size, you need to create a tie rod for each category in your pressure class.

For example; at 4" Smacna, a fitting that is 36" long with a 48x36 end size gets 1/2"+4 wg (3') tie rod. You have to actually get that in depth with the tie rods. If the same fitting is 48x48, it gets a 3/4"+4 wg (3') tie rod. You also have to use long side/short side set up in your specs.

To summarise, you need a tie rod for each pressure class, each fitting length change within that pressure class, and for each tie rod diameter (we use 1/2" up to 36", 3/4" over that.) Then you have to plug the appropriate tie rod into the right place in your main spec. This was the only way we could get it to work consistently across all pressure class/size combinations. The guy that set this up now works for TSI, so it must be right!

I have no idea about external stiffeners; we try to stay away from them, and let the field install them.

deisman · « **Reply #19 on:** Nov 06, 2007, 15:12:31 PM »

Please share this setup knowledge with us it is at least a start. Lets say I have a joint of duct 96"x68". The 96" side requires a 1" Tie-rod at both connectors and 2- Mid point tie rods also 1" in diameter. Then the 68" side requires a 1 1/4" tie-rod at both ends and 1 in the center. I know it is asking a lot but please post some screen captures as I have been struggling with this for some time now.

c2k · « **Reply #20 on:** Nov 06, 2007, 15:59:57 PM »

Sure would be nice if MAP or even TSI would let us know what is happening with this. Anything? Seems to be this big push for design line (2 years in a row), what about the rest of the program? Plenty of things that could be fixed before new features are worked on. I realize you guys are trying to make money going after a new market (engineers) but don't you have to keep your current customers happy? We are paying for the support and upgrades, and would like to see important areas such as stiffeners/reinforcement and oval work correctly. I find it hard to believe that over the last few years there hasn't been enough talk (complaints) about stiffener/reinforcement issues, that it isn't at the front of the line. I do thank you for the improvements to the oval over the last few years, but there are still problems and lack of fittings. This needs to be fixed too.

How about a list be posted that shows what is being worked on by the programmers and the order or priority of each issue or feature. Then you could get response from us and know if you are raising customer satisfaction or not

Hope I got the point across without offending. Thanks for the hard work on the improvements we have received, just seems like some things have been swept under the carpet. Some response or updates on ongoing issues like stiffeners/reinforcement would help alleviate some of the questions & concerns. Thank you.

L18cammer · « **Reply #21 on:** Nov 06, 2007, 16:04:04 PM »

and if you know how to say put 2" angle on the long side and 1.5" angle on the short side please share this info as well.

thanks

Cam-burger · « **Reply #22 on:** Nov 06, 2007, 16:04:50 PM »

Yes, when we have two different types of tierod in a certain fitting (1/2" for short side and 3/4" for long side) our spec will pull the bigger size for both. It makes figuring materials a bit tougher when you have to weed through the tierod sizes and make sure you aren't charging for 12" long tierods that are 1"Ø. If we could somehow have individual control of each side, that would be too simple! I still want midpoint hole to burn out too, xmas IS coming around again.

cam-nav · « **Reply #23 on:** Nov 06, 2007, 16:13:08 PM »

I hate to say it but Vulcan did a wonderful job with this on their 6xp version. I wonder if it's copyrighted and if MAP tries to sing the same song will they get in trouble?

deisman · « **Reply #24 on:** Nov 06, 2007, 17:07:38 PM »

CAM-NAV
I hear this every week the shop uses both Vulcan and CAM-Duct. Want to guess which one they refer to as the Pinto?

peteco · « **Reply #25 on:** Nov 07, 2007, 14:32:16 PM »

First off, as I said, I don't know anything about external reinforcements. We don't have them set up in our database. The field installs as & when necessary.

http://www.map-cc.com/Manuals/New%20Manual%20PDF-07/Advanced%20Pressure%20Classes.pdf

Go to this link, and follow the instructions to set up your spec according to Long Side/Short Side with Length pressure class. Take a good look at the screen shots. You will see that the tie rods are specific to the pressure class, and length, of the fitting. You have to create a tie rod for each pressure class, and length break point. If you don't have your pressure class set up this way, you won't get the tie rods you need.

Hopefully this will be helpful. It's a huge pain in the @ss to set up, so make sure you back it up when you're done.

L18cammer · « **Reply #26 on:** Nov 07, 2007, 15:02:51 PM »

peteco,
first off let me apologize for my post. it was not directed at you but rather map/tsi. the directions are difficult to follow for the tie rods but it is doable. the point i was trying to make is that this area is so lacking that i feel this whole thing should never have been released as a hvac software until they had the basic bugs worked out of it. it is my feeling that this forum is a form of beta test for map / tsi and that you folks that are smart enough to figure this stuff out are just doing a free service for map / tsi.
i hope this makes sense to you as i am just a tinner trying to work with the tools given to me

Nick Hyland · « **Reply #27 on:** Nov 14, 2007, 14:15:50 PM »

Hi Guys

We are going to look at resolving the current issues with stiffening.

We need to break the "issues" down to the following.

Bugs, or "features" as we like to call them, and Development requests.

Rectangular

Bugs
Pattern CID 36 does not currently draw stiffeners - this will be resolved.

Development Requests
Stiffening fittings, lets look at the Rect Bend for example...

To implement we need a specification to work with, what are the rules to specify when Type 1 or Type 2? Obviously this goes for any fitting requiring stiffening, for each type - what are the specifications we can work to?

Round
Stiffening does not currently work for round, there is no DW144 specification for this in the UK, if there is one for SMACNA we could look to implement it.

Flat Oval
Stiffeners can be configured and reported correctly. Is the issue that the stiffeners do not display?

FYI there is a development meeting with MAP/TSI in December, please take this opportunity to make the issues, development requests, specification information known, either to support@map-cc.com or support@map-software.com

deisman · « **Reply #28 on:** Nov 14, 2007, 16:05:28 PM »

Nick,
Thanks for the update I guess you can tell what a big issue this is for us. As far as the rectangular stiffeners if I answer Type 1 two other people will need type 2. Safest to say we need both and to further complicate it all the stiffeners really need a node allowing them to be dragged/moved along the fittings and/or duct joints. There are times when taps must be located exactly where the stiffener has been placed forcing them to be relocated when this happens it sometimes necessities adding an additional stiffener to the joint/fitting. Not sure how to accomplish all this within the parameters of CADduct but these are issues we face daily.

On to round and flat-oval it is critical for us to display the stiffeners and have the ability to move them for the same reasons as above. More times than not we spool round and oval sections for fabrication. This spool needs to show the stiffener so we can identify and dimension them on the spools. As far as the requirements for stiffening round SMACNA has extensive information and oval is easily determined from vendor catalogs.

If the development meeting between MAP and TSI is held at TSI´s office I am not opposed to spending the afternoon with them if that helps clarify the issues if needed. I worked with Brett for the last eight years so he should have a real sense of what is required.

Cam-burger · « **Reply #29 on:** Nov 14, 2007, 16:20:38 PM »

My issue with the flat oval stiffeners is that not every flat oval library fitting has a stiffener option in it. Also, it would be tough to set up the stiffening specs for flat oval because we base it off amount of flat span, not overall length.

With round stiffeners we put in rods over a certain size diameter. I was able to finesse the reports to show them on our materials list though.

With the rect stiffeners, if we could at least get our mid-point holes to burn in the correct spot, and for some fittings, to burn in the first place.