Case examples
CES™ can be used to support the interpretation of real assets by combining engineering reasoning, energetic benchmarking, and a synthetic structural condition output.
The case examples shown on this website are intentionally limited extracts. The full CES™ client deliverable is a structured technical report, typically organised into 6 chapters. It covers methodology, declared inputs, energetic contributors, global CES classification, and engineering interpretation. Report length may vary depending on the case.
Shiploader application examples
(for Engineers and technical specialists)
Domain: BULK HANDLING ASSETS
Although both machines may appear structurally acceptable under conventional stress-based assessment, CES™ reveals that the 8000 t/h shiploader (case 1) operates with a much narrower energetic reserve and is significantly closer to a critical fatigue-driven condition.
Case example 1
8000 t/h Continuous Shiploader
CES = 0.641 → Class E
(Critical but manageable)
Dominant: fatigue Miner D=0.20
Residual life: 80 %
Asset class: Bulk handling assets
Assessment output: CES™ Class E
Key insight:
Fatigue-related reserve consumption appears structurally significant and deserves priority attention within the current asset condition.
Engineering value:
Supports targeted monitoring, maintenance prioritisation and engineering review where structural fatigue may become the leading operational concern.
Case example 2
4500 t/h Continuous Shiploader
CES = 0.502 → Class D (Adequate) Dominant: fatigue Miner D=0.20
Residual life: 80 %
Asset class: Bulk handling assets
Assessment output: CES™ Class D
Key insight:
Fatigue remains the dominant mechanism, but within a more manageable overall structural condition.
Engineering value:
Helps maintain control through structured monitoring and maintenance planning while preserving the current condition margin.
Why CES™ is needed after FEM
CES™ adds a level of interpretation that becomes especially valuable when comparing two shiploaders: it separates the governing energy contributions, shows which machine is consuming a greater share of its structural reserve, estimates the remaining margin available in service, and links the dominant energy pattern to a more appropriate line of action, such as structural modification, maintenance planning, reinforced monitoring or targeted machine improvement.
In this sense, CES™ is not only useful for comparative assessment and maintenance prioritisation, but can also provide forensic engineering value if a premature failure occurs, by helping reconstruct the energetic condition that had developed in the asset before the event.
Pump foundation application example
(for Managers and decision-makers)
Domain: CIVIL STRUCTURES
This case shows how CES™ can also be applied to civil support systems and foundations, translating the structural response into an energetic diagnosis. In this example, the foundation remains in Class A, with seismic/inertial demand identified as the main contributor to the global energy balance.
Case example 3
Foundation under seismic loading
CES = 0.003 → Class A (Excellent)
Dominant:
seismic / inertial energy (U_seismic = 96.0%)
Asset class: Civil structure / foundation system
Assessment output: CES™ Class A
Key insight:
The foundation remains energetically well within the available safety margin. Seismic/inertial demand is the dominant contributor to the global structural energy balance, while soil–structure compliance plays only a secondary role.
Engineering value:Confirms the high structural resilience of the foundation under the declared loading condition and supports engineering validation of anchorage behaviour, lateral load transfer and seismic response consistency.
From FEM verification to energetic diagnosis of seismic foundation response
A conventional FEM model can confirm stresses, displacements and support reactions in the foundation. CES™ goes one step further: it translates that structural response into an energetic balance, showing how much energy the foundation system is actually absorbing and which physical mechanism is governing the global condition. In this case, the result is not only that the foundation remains well within the available margin, but that the absorbed energy is driven primarily by seismic/inertial action, while the soil–structure compliance remains secondary. This turns a standard verification into a clearer engineering diagnosis, helping the civil engineer immediately recognize where the structural demand is really concentrated.
AOD Converter application example
(for Engineers and technical specialists)
Domain: THERMAL & PROCESS EQUIPMENT
In the AOD case, CES does not treat the converter as a single wall: it uses the refractory layer sequence to reconstruct heat transfer through the lining, estimate interface temperatures and heat flux, and determine the actual thermal demand reaching the steel shell.
Case example 4
AOD Converter
CES = 0.172 ➜ Class B (Very Good)
Dominant:
elastic distortion energy (U_el = 59.9%)
Asset class: Thermal and process equipment
Assessment output: CES™ Class B
Key insight:
Elastic energy remains the dominant contributor, while cyclic and creep-related effects are present but still within a stable overall structural condition.
Engineering value:
Helps interpret combined thermal, cyclic and time-dependent demand in high-temperature process equipment, supporting monitoring and maintenance planning without indicating an immediate need for structural upgrade.
Why CES™ matters for an AOD converter
CES™ gives the customer a clearer understanding of how thermal and structural demand develops across the refractory layers, the shell and the lifting points, while also estimating the remaining structural reserve of the converter. This supports safer operation, more informed maintenance decisions and greater protection of both plant assets and personnel.
Fluid machine application example
(for Managers and decision-makers)
Domain: FLUID MACHINES
In this fluid-machine example, CES shows how cavitation-related flow phenomena may acquire structural meaning, contributing to excitation, local degradation relevance and reduced effective operating margin.
Case example 5
Fluid machine
CES = 0.094 ➜ Class A (Excellent)
Primary Risk Contributor: Fluid Excitation
Asset class: Fluid machines
Assessment output: CES™ Class A
Key insight:
The overall energy demand is well within the safety margins, with fluid-induced excitation representing the dominant contribution to the structural energy balance.
Engineering value:
Confirms the high structural resilience of the design against dynamic fluid loads and supports the validation of operational stability in vibration-sensitive environments.
Why CES™ is needed after FEM
CES™ is needed after FEM because it adds phenomena that are critical in fluid machines but are not captured in standard structural output alone: energy-channel decomposition, fluid-induced excitation, cavitation-related surface effects, residual reserve evaluation and the overall energetic condition of the machine. This provides a more complete basis for machine protection, maintenance planning and operational safeguarding.
1000 m3 Ash Silo application example
(for Engineers and technical specialists)
Domain: BULK HANDLING ASSETS
How the same silo leads to two different conclusions
This silo is not interpreted by CES™ as a simple civil structure. It is evaluated as a bulk-handling asset, exposed over time to repeated filling and discharge cycles, material flow, impact, abrasion and cyclic structural demand.
Under operating conditions alone, the structural state remains manageable. When seismic demand is added, however, CES™ evaluates the earthquake acting on a structure whose energetic reserve has already been partially consumed by years of service.
The result is a different structural diagnosis. Seismic energy becomes the dominant contribution, but the final outcome is shaped by the combined effect of seismic demand, fatigue, wear, impact and baseline elastic response.
This is where CES™ goes beyond isolated verification: it captures the interaction between operational history and sudden external loading within one unified structural energy balance. Reaching a comparable interpretation with conventional methods would generally require coupling structural FEM with additional flow or process modelling.
Breakdown of total energetic demand
-
Seismic / inertial energy: 1.051e+06 J (67.7%)
-
Cyclic / fatigue energy: 2.775e+05 J (17.9%)
-
Wear / abrasion energy: 1.429e+05 J (9.2%)
-
Impact energy: 4.469e+04 J (2.9%)
-
Elastic baseline energy: 3.725e+04 J (2.4%)
Case example 6
Silo for Ash evaluated in its operating condition
CES = 0.377 ➜ Class C (Good)
Dominant:
fatigue-related cyclic energy (U_cycle = 57.5%)
Asset class: Bulk handling assets
Assessment output: CES™ Class C
Key insight:
The structural condition remains globally good, but cyclic demand is the leading energy driver, with additional contribution from impact and wear mechanisms associated with bulk material handling.
Engineering value:
Helps maintain control through fatigue-focused inspection, structured monitoring and maintenance planning while preserving the current structural margin.
Case example 7
Silo for Ash assessed with seismic loading added
CES = 1.221 ➜ Class F (Unsafe)
Primary Risk Contributor: Seismic / inertial energy
Asset class: Bulk handling assets
Assessment output: CES™ Class F
Key insight:
Seismic demand becomes the dominant energetic mechanism and drives the structure beyond acceptable reserve under the declared conditions.
Engineering value:
Supports rapid identification of critical seismic vulnerability, helping prioritise immediate review, temporary mitigation measures and operational decision-making.
CES™ does not evaluate the silo as new. It evaluates it as operated.
Why CES™ is needed after FEM
CES™ does not interpret the silo as a static structure, but as an operating bulk-handling asset. It evaluates the structure as it actually behaves in service: through repeated filling and discharge cycles, material flow, impact, abrasion, fatigue and seismic demand acting on a reserve that may already have been partially consumed over years of operation. The result is a more realistic structural diagnosis, capable of revealing conditions that conventional verification alone may leave hidden. Very few tools can interpret a silo in this integrated way, and mainstream analysis software generally requires separate FEM, DEM and sometimes CFD workflows to reach a comparable level of understanding. CES™ condenses that operational reality into a unified structural-energy diagnosis, providing the user with a faster, clearer and more decision-oriented view of the asset.
Container RMG (Rail Mounted Gantry) application example
(for Managers and decision-makers)
Domain: CONTAINER HANDLING MACHINES
The value of this case lies in its accessibility: CES™ converts everyday operating data into a structural-energy reading that can support earlier technical judgement, maintenance planning and operational review, even when detailed local FEM data are not yet available.
Case example 8
RMG assessed from decision-level operating inputs
CES = 0.161 ➜ Class B (Very Good)
Dominant:
dynamic operational energy (U_dyn = 100%)
Asset class: Container handling machines
Assessment output: CES™ Class B
Key insight:
The overall structural energy demand remains well within the available safety margin, with dynamic operational demand acting as the dominant contributor to the global energy balance.
Engineering value:
Supports early identification of the governing operating mechanism and helps guide monitoring, dynamic review and maintenance planning while preserving the current structural margin.
CES™ works upstream of detailed FEM
This RMG case is particularly significant because it was obtained from decision-level GUI inputs only, without relying on a local FEM hotspot. CES™ uses operating data such as payload, speeds, cycles and service exposure to reconstruct the structural energy demand of the component under evaluation. The outcome is a Class B assessment with dynamic energy clearly dominating the response, showing how CES™ can support early technical judgement even before detailed FEM refinement.
Pressure Vessel application example
(for Managers and decision-makers)
Domain: THERMAL & PROCESS EQUIPMENT
In this pressure-vessel example, CES™ reveals how thermal operating conditions influence structural reserve, showing that constrained expansion and temperature-dependent capacity reduction can become the governing drivers of the energetic state..
Key insight:
The structural condition remains globally good, but thermal demand is the leading energetic mechanism, with constrained expansion and temperature-dependent reserve reduction governing the current response.
Engineering value:
Helps interpret thermal loading in pressure equipment and supports targeted review of thermal gradients, restraint conditions, insulation strategy and operating assumptions while preserving the current structural margin.
Case example 9
Pressure vessel assessed from decision-level operating inputs
CES = 0.363 ➜ Class C (Good)
Dominant:thermal energy (U_th = 100%)
Asset class: Pressure equipment
Assessment output: CES™ Class C
From nameplate data to structural insight
The strength of this case lies in accessibility: through the Manager GUI, CES™ can turn basic pressure-vessel nameplate data into a first structural-energy diagnosis, enabling faster maintenance judgement and earlier visibility on the residual reserve of the asset.
Parking structure application example
(for Managers and decision-makers)
Domain: CIVIL STRUCTURES
This case shows the accessibility of CES™ for civil structures: from a limited set of macro-level building and seismic inputs, CES™ reconstructs the energetic response of the parking structure and provides an immediate reading of its residual operating margin.
Case example 10
Parking structure under seismic civil assessment
CES = 0.068 ➜ Class A (Excellent)
Dominant:
dissipative energy (U_diss = 71.4%)
Asset class: Civil structure
Assessment output: CES™ Class A
Key insight:
The parking structure remains energetically well within the available
safety margin, with dissipative response governing the global condition
and seismic demand acting as the secondary energetic contributor.
Engineering value:
Supports rapid interpretation of seismic structural behaviour by showing that, under the declared conditions, the building retains a very large residual margin while clearly identifying how dissipation, seismic demand and soil–structure interaction contribute to the overall response.
From seismic verification to structural-energy diagnosis
CES™ adds an interpretative layer that is particularly valuable for civil structures under seismic loading: it does not stop at confirming that the parking structure remains in a highly favourable overall condition, but shows which physical mechanism is actually governing the absorbed energy. In this case, CES™ reveals that the energetic state is dominated by dissipative response, with seismic demand clearly present and soil–structure compliance remaining secondary, turning a conventional assessment into a clearer and more decision-oriented structural diagnosis.