WRC 537 interpretation
WRC 537 interpretation
(OP)
Hi to everyone,
can anyone tell me if there is any restriction for WRC 537 application in case for external attachments (for example Cross plates) welded directly to the cylindrical pressure vessel and w/o pad reinforcement (see attached file for attachment design and welded side has marked in yellow).
basically, a doubt is which length for c1 & c2 (length of rectangular loading in circumferential & longitudinal direction).
is correct to apply:
c1 = 75 mm
c2 = 175 mm
thanks in advance.
can anyone tell me if there is any restriction for WRC 537 application in case for external attachments (for example Cross plates) welded directly to the cylindrical pressure vessel and w/o pad reinforcement (see attached file for attachment design and welded side has marked in yellow).
basically, a doubt is which length for c1 & c2 (length of rectangular loading in circumferential & longitudinal direction).
is correct to apply:
c1 = 75 mm
c2 = 175 mm
thanks in advance.





RE: WRC 537 interpretation
RE: WRC 537 interpretation
RE: WRC 537 interpretation
Put a pad under it.
Regards,
Mike
The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
RE: WRC 537 interpretation
thanks for your advice.
the issue is:
the attachments have been fabricated and welded to the vessel (vessel thk = 73 mm) and W/O PAD.
vendor has been preformed WRC analytical verification and my concern is if values for c1 & c2 can be considered as indicated in may 1st message?
I've understood from your message that an approach is completely wrong. is this correct?
thanks again.
Alek
RE: WRC 537 interpretation
RE: WRC 537 interpretation
Perhaps you should also be assessing the stresses within the clip as well.
RE: WRC 537 interpretation
The clip itself possibly needs its' own analysis.
Regards,
Mike
The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
RE: WRC 537 interpretation
thank you very much for your comments/indications.
this confirms my concern regarding to shell - attachment connection, and i've brought out 2 conclusions:
1. WRC 537 should be avoided in this kind of junction
2. here is more concern for external attachment than the shell itself due to thick plate used for PV.
thanks again and Cheers.
Alek
Alek