×
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

Relationship between Part 4 and Part 5 in 2007 Div 2

Relationship between Part 4 and Part 5 in 2007 Div 2

Relationship between Part 4 and Part 5 in 2007 Div 2

(OP)
I'm confused about the requirements of Div 2, Part 4 with regards to welds, and how they fold into a design qualified by the procedures of Part 5.

Specifically: Part 4 requires a Type 1 or Type 2 butt weld at a Category B joint. Is it then true that a Part 5 design must adhere to this requirement also?

Though that seems very reasonable, I cannot find any specific statement to that effect. I would appreciate any guidance that might be offered.

RE: Relationship between Part 4 and Part 5 in 2007 Div 2

The simple answer is that it depends.  Are you using Part 4 or Part 5 to design your component/vessel?  Is there any statement in Part 5 that restricts you to design features/details in Part 4?

RE: Relationship between Part 4 and Part 5 in 2007 Div 2

(OP)

The intent is to design the device by the rules of Part 5.

I can not find within Part 5 any requirement to use any specific requirements of Part 4. There is mention that certain stress quantities need not be checked if Part 4 details are used, so some mixing of the procedures seems expected.

But the only evidence I have that any Part 4 requirement may be ignored is from 4.1.5.1, where it says that "the design thickness (of a vessel part) may be established using the design-by-analysis procedures in Part 5, even if this thickness is less than that established using Part 4 design-by-rule methods."

If the Division is willing to surrender even basic shell thickness to analysis, then the welds might also be free of the Part 4 requirements of type per Category. But I don't want to make that assumption unless there is support for it from people more experienced than I.

  

RE: Relationship between Part 4 and Part 5 in 2007 Div 2

The only other place that Part 4 is mentioned is in paragraph 5.3.1.1.

From a design-by-analysis perspective, if you can prove a design through analysis, there is essentially no design restriction.  Fabrication and inspection are additional requirements, but you would have to meet those requirements for a Part 4 design as well...

You should also read paragraph 4.2.1.

RE: Relationship between Part 4 and Part 5 in 2007 Div 2

(OP)

Thank you for your guidance; I was too narrow in my interpretation of 4.2.1, it being difficult to imagine that Section VIII would abandon the requirement of butt welds at Category A and B joints. But, taken at its word, and assuming there is no controlling text I've missed, that is what it appears to do.

Thanks again for your thoughtful response.
 

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