Samuel here is performing a fitness for service assessment. an engineering assessment to determine if the damage or flawed equipment is still fit for continued service (actually its replaced- -retire-continue proposistion). it just makes more sense to me that tightening your reqt would produce better result and lower risk.
In PipingDesign@y..., Christopher Wright <chrisw@s...> wrote:
> >ok that seems reasonable. but then again an assessment has still
to
> >be made using the latest edition of the code to ensure that the
> >original cont'n code rules provide adequate margin of safety.
> Again, if you're using Section VIII, the allowable stresses were
> increased since 1977. The Code results therefore won't correspond.
There
> will also be requirements for operating temperatures that apply
today
> that would not have applied in 1977. Vessels built in 1977 won't
> necessarily satisfy the present Code, and also the other
way 'round,
> unless you start cherry-picking to find paragraphs you like.
>
> Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at
> chrisw@s... | this distance" (last words of Gen.
> ___________________________| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania 1864)
> http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw
Received on Sun Jul 21 12:17:00 2002
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 27 2008 - 20:23:57 EDT