ETUDUHOR, N. Návrh potrubí v papírně [online]. Brno: Vysoké učení technické v Brně. Fakulta strojního inženýrství. 2025.
The student's task was to analyse a pressure piping designed for a paper mill with and without considering a supporting structure. Models of several modules of the structure and piping were provided by Afry company to the student and his task was to create 2 models of the whole piping in CAESAR II software, which was consequently used for stress analysis. As a last step, the student compared stress analysis results from the piping without the supporting structure with results from the piping with the supporting structure. Compared to the original extent, only one section of the piping bridge structure was analysed. There are some typos in the text, but the intent can be always inferred. Nevertheless, all goals have been accomplished. The student gained experience in performing piping stress analysis in CAESAR II software as well as knowledge of some of the underlying principles involved and applicable standards. In conclusion, I classify the work as good and recommend the defence.
| Kritérium | Známka | Body | Slovní hodnocení |
|---|---|---|---|
| Splnění požadavků a cílů zadání | C | ||
| Postup a rozsah řešení, adekvátnost použitých metod | B | ||
| Vlastní přínos a originalita | C | ||
| Schopnost interpretovat dosažené výsledky a vyvozovat z nich závěry | B | ||
| Využitelnost výsledků v praxi nebo teorii | C | ||
| Logické uspořádání práce a formální náležitosti | D | ||
| Grafická, stylistická úprava a pravopis | C | ||
| Práce s literaturou včetně citací | C | ||
| Samostatnost studenta při zpracování tématu | C |
The student became familiar with the requirements for pressure pipelines, with the possibilities of supports and supporting structures and with the determination of the pipeline class. The strength analysis is presented in chapters 5 and 6. The results are evaluated at the end of the document. The work procedure and methods were chosen appropriately. He followed the standards and used the CAESAR software manual. He simplified the calculation model, claiming that it would not have a significant impact on the results, which he did not credibly prove. The work's own contribution and originality are not very evident. A large part of the work is devoted to describing the procedure according to the manuals and standards. The work lacks theoretical considerations on such a complex calculation task. He presented the results of the work clearly and compared the results with and without supports on the pipeline bridge. He also described the most stressed areas in more detail. However, I would expect an optimization of the support leading to a reduction/distribution of the load. This is directly offered when using numerical calculations. The benefit for practice is obvious. The operator learned that the calculation with the influence of the bridge structure will not change the pipe load much, which is valuable information. The work is quite logically organized, but the unclear description of the parameters under the equations (e.g. equation 2.1) makes the work difficult to read. Some equations with specific numbers are not marked (e.g. on page 17). The chapter "Pipe class calculation" is not numbered. All literary sources are mentioned in the text, but the text lacks a separator between the sources, which is unusual.
| Kritérium | Známka | Body | Slovní hodnocení |
|---|---|---|---|
| Splnění požadavků a cílů zadání | A | ||
| Postup a rozsah řešení, adekvátnost použitých metod | B | ||
| Vlastní přínos a originalita | D | ||
| Schopnost interpretovat dosaž. výsledky a vyvozovat z nich závěry | B | ||
| Využitelnost výsledků v praxi nebo teorii | A | ||
| Logické uspořádání práce a formální náležitosti | A | ||
| Grafická, stylistická úprava a pravopis | C | ||
| Práce s literaturou včetně citací | B |
eVSKP id 165837