|
| 1. | Facilties Engineer |
|
| A lot of time is spent on forces in flexibility analysis, that coudl perhaps be simplified or given as pre course materials. |
|
|
| 2. | Construction Engineer |
|
| We cover one semester in 4 days rather successfully. To delete anything would take something away. Maybe there is a need for a 5th day on non-metallic and others from a material point of view! |
|
|
| 3. | Piping Specialist |
|
| N/A |
|
|
| 4. | Facilties Technologist |
|
| None |
|
|
| 5. | Construction Engineer EIT |
|
| None |
|
|
| 6. | piping engineer |
|
| over all covered as per agenda |
|
|
| 7. | Senior Project Manager |
|
| All sections are well thought, organized, and presented. All sections should be kept. |
|
|
| 8. | Piping E.I.T. |
|
| More practical examples about applying the code to real piping systems would be useful. More in depth explanations of code interpretations would be useful. |
|
|
| 9. | Site Discipline Coordinator |
|
| the course sections were fine. Each section built on the previouse so sequence was necesary. |
|
|
| 10. | Engineer - Static Equipment |
|
| Course could benefit from exploring more real-world applications of the code, as well as incidents that occurred due to not following the code. Or, even better, looking at incident investigations that led to code development with accompanying pictures and videos. |
|
|
| 11. | Mechanical EIT |
|
| If the instructor had portrayed a bit more passion for instruction and the course material while presenting it would have made the course even more enjoyable. |
|
|
| 12. | Facilities Engineer |
|
| I would suggest that this course is for those that require further information on stress / strain and flexibility analysis. These topics were covered in much more detail with the other topics being quickly skirted through. Also, I wouldn't reccomend this course to anyone that has not done at least some calculations regarding to the above mentioned topics, as it was quite quick paced and didn't always go into detail on how to get to the answer. As a result, I wasn't able to take as much out of it as I was expecting to. |
|
|
| 13. | QC Inspector |
|
| none |
|
|
| 14. | Ld Tech Engineer- Vessel |
|
| Piping Flexibility should be discussed more in details. |
|
|
| 15. | Project Engineer |
|
| More focus on software for stress/flexibility analysis, as that is how most people will likely interact with it. More difficult situations modelled and outputs shown and explained |
|
|
| 16. | Chief Steam Engineer |
|
| I think the instructor did well considering the course material that needs to be covered is dry and not very exciting stuff. However, maybe more use of group discussion or maybe more frequent short breaks may have helped to make it less monotonous. |
|
|
| 17. | Training Coordinator |
|
| The couse mateial is boring and need to be spiced. Theres was a lot of jumping quickly through the course. My recomendation is to show a failure and use the codes to explain what went wrong and how the code should have prevented it. |
|
|
| 18. | Field Engineer |
|
| Have the powerpoint being used by the instructor match the hard copies of the material given to the students.
Have the reference paragraphs supporting the interpretations section match the actual information in the code which was used by the board to make a response. |
|
|
| 19. | Operations Engineer |
|
| The instructor was VERY knowledgeable, but very monotone and somewhat boring at times. |
|
|
| 20. | Plant Engineer |
|
| Use of computer Analysis could be improved. |
|
|
| 21. | Mech. Engineer |
|
| It is difficult to recommend anything due to variety of individuals that can be assumed will attend. For myself, the content was excellent. |
|
|
| 22. | PSM/MOC Coordinator |
|
| I found the course content is fine as it is. |
|
|
| 23. | Operations Engineer |
|
| Existing piping systems and rating requirements was the last thing to be covered and due to time constraints, it was rushed a bit more than it could have been. |
|
|
| 24. | Plant Engineer |
|
| I think the topics are all good, however a extra 0.5 - 1 hour each day would be good to cover all the topics outlined in the course syllabus. |
|
|
| 25. | Project Engineer, P.Eng. |
|
| N/A |
|
|
| 26. | Mechanical Engineer |
|
| comparions of B31.3 to CSA z662. |
|
|
| 27. | Engineer |
|
| I would have liked to see more case examples and basic rule of thumbs to address solving problems existing in operating plant. |
|
|
| 28. | Sr. Facilities Engineer |
|
| More explanation of where our instructor got certain information and what sections he was referencing was needed. Far too much was implied or unexplained as we went along. |
|
|
| 29. | Project Engineer |
|
| All sections should be impoved. I was more interested in learning how to do the hand calculation stress anaylis so I could quantify a computer based analysis program. Instead of learning what the equations were, and the assumptions/limitations built into these equations, I was just told to use the program. To me, this meant the instructor had never really performed an analysis by hand, but rather relyed on a computer program, which wasn't the reason I signed up for this course. |
|
|
| 30. | MECHANICAL ENGINEERING |
|
| I expected more advanced topics in stress analysis than what was introduced.
Also discusion on material could be expanded more. |
|
|
| 31. | Intermediate Pipe Stress Specialist |
|
| Section 10 is too simple |
|
|
| 32. | Mechanical Engineer |
|
| QA section should be more elaborative |
|
|
| 33. | Integrity Advisor |
|
| Elastic Follow-up: Instructor/course materials were very vague on this topic - I have no idea what it is. |
|
|
| 34. | Project Engineer |
|
| I really like the answer to our specific questions |
|
|
| 35. | Mechanical EIT |
|
| The Chapter on differences between B31.3 and B31.1 and High Pressure Piping were extremely repetitive and perhaps could be limited to only a couple slides. Maybe they can be included for interest only and removed from the presentation portion of the course (as this doesnt apply to most of us interested in B31.3). I found most of the class "zoned out" on these chapters-my colleague was actually banging his head on the table in frustrated boredom :). More time could be spent on flexibility analysis and practical problems instead. |
|
|
| 36. | Mechanical Engineer |
|
| The speed of delivery. Often the course went into lulls and lost interest. Go right into the calculations. No one wants to spend 15 minutes punching stuff into a calculator. We know how it works. |
|
|
| 37. | Integrity Advisor |
|
| The assignment portion was not well structured. Some of the initial problems provided incomplete data or direction that resulted in students disengaging from the process. "Elastic followup" was not explained adaquately - material prsentated was insufficient to communicate the concept clearly. |
|
|
| 38. | Project Technicial Specialist |
|
| more information on in service piping |
|
|
| 39. | Facilities Engineer |
|
| Section 3 - Materials |
|
|
| 40. | Project Engineer |
|
| Notes may be re-organized such that students don't have to search for tables when doing examples / exercise in class. |
|
|
| 41. | Piping Lead |
|
| 7 - more examples; 6 - expanded |
|
|
| 42. | Project Engineer |
|
| none |
|
|
| 43. | Plant Engineer |
|
| I don't beleive there was anything that was not sufficiently covered. |
|
|
| 44. | QC/QC Inspector |
|
| A few more work shop examples done at the seminar and take home assignments with more variables to improve the grasp of formula. |
|
|
| 45. | Mechanical Engineer |
|
| none |
|
|
| 46. | Facility Engineer |
|
| The instructor has tremendous industry background and his examples are excellent, however, they are too few. Expanding on actual observed examples for routine evaluation would be beneficial. |
|
