×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

ASME response to WRC 429

ASME response to WRC 429

ASME response to WRC 429

(OP)
Did ASME make a published response to WRC 429?

RE: ASME response to WRC 429

No - ASME has not specifically (nor officially) endorsed nor refuted WRC 429.

My personal view is that it is "good engineering practise".  That said, there is a non-mandatory appendix winding its way through the committees that incorporates the vast majority of WRC 429.  As well, the Div. 2 Re-Write portion on stress linearization borrows heavily from WRC 429.

That said, if you talk to engineers who have been doing FEA for pressure vessels for 25+ years, they will tell you that the methodology explained in WRC 429 is what they used "long time ago" - linearizing at the component level and then calculating the stress intensity.  Really, the only argument now is the placement of the SCLs (stress classification lines).  In my experience, the disagreement arises between the nuclear guys whose reactors have "unique" geometries, and the non-nuclear, whose geometries are rather regular.

Are you getting push-back from a client or regulator about using WRC 429?

RE: ASME response to WRC 429

(OP)
AI

RE: ASME response to WRC 429

In that case, I would kindly refer the AI to the Foreword in Div 1 (I'm assuming that your application is Div 1), second paragraph, near the end:

"Accordingly, it is not intended that this Section be used as a design handbook; rather, engineering judgement must be employed..."

What, specifically, is the AI's objection?  If it's that ASME has not "endorsed" WRC 429, it should be noted that ASME has a general policy of not "endorsing" specific calculation procedures - and only provided minimum requirements where and when required.  I have used other FE-based methodologies that will likely never be incorporated into the Code, but I can demonstrate the requirement of U-2(g).

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources