2004 edition ASME Section VIII Div 2 1

[Caleb Voisin]

I am trying to run some fatigue analysis per API 17D which references ASME Section VIII Div 2 2004 edition. I am having trouble finding the 2004 edition. I have the 2013 edition and have found up to 2007 edition, but the 2004 edition is hiding from me! If anyone knows where I could find a copy of it, it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[pdiculous963]

You could probably get away with using the current edition of S8D2. The rules in 5.5.3 are nearly identical to those in the 2004 edition. One exception is that mises stress is used now, where stress intensity was used in 2004. Also, the fatigue strength reduction factors outlined in WRC 432 are also incorporated. ASME PTB-1 section 5.5.3.1 discusses these points.

 

[jte]

Caleb- Welcome to Eng-Tips! Consider adding a bit about yourself and your experience in your user profile. It helps in some cases to fine-tune a response. You can see my profile by clicking on my user name in this post.

I'm curious as to which version of API 17D you are referring to. Looking it up in IHS, the current version is 2011 with Errata thru October 2015. In that version, the 2004 edition of VIII Div. 2 is not called out:

5.1.3.1 General
Structural strength and fatigue strength shall be evaluated in this part of ISO 13628. ASME BPVC, Section VIII,
Division 2, Appendix 5, or other recognized standards may be used when calculating fatigue.

Now, "Appendix 5" is an anachronistic term which implies the first generation of Div. 2, and the 2004 edition was the last of that generation. Fair enough. But I'd suggest that the "or other recognized standards" phrase pretty explicitly allows you to use the current edition of Div. 2, which as pdicuolous963 points out above has one method which is remarkably similar to that in the first generation Div. 2.

Now, if you really must have the 2004 edition, you can get a copy complete thru 2006 Addenda thru IHS. It shows up on my company's subscription, so it's available for a price.

 

[Caleb Voisin]

Thank you both, your answers are very insightful. I will most likely use the method in the 2013 edition. As JTE stated is an acceptable "other recognized standard"