ASME Sec. VIII Div. 1 Ed. 2019, UG-44(b), Code case 2901 3

[RAJPT89]

Dear experts,

After reviewing the code case 2901 & UG-44(b) of ASME Sec. VIII Div. 1 Ed. 2019, it appears that code still does not mandatorily tells us to use the provision of context mentioned there in, as they use EXTERNAL LOADS MAY BE EVALUATED and not SHALL BE , as in, Flange rating evaluation as per UG-44(b) is optional & the same is left to manufacturer/customer/consultants.

Kindly confirm my understanding.

Thanks,

Rajput

 

[SnTMan]

RAJPT89, use of the word "may" is ordinarily interpreted as optional. The word "shall" is ordinarily interpreted as mandatory. It should ordinarily be incumbent upon the buyer to invoke an optional portion of a Code.

I don't know how this is actually playing out in industry, but I suspect the worms will not be easily re-canned.

Regards,

Mike

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[DriveMeNuts]

I interpret "may" as meaning "to be considered" using engineering judgement in a similar way to the loadings listed in UG-22 and Appendix G-9.
You have to make the judgement that the loading is insignificant to not carry out an external loading assessment.

Describing the word "may" as "optional" gives the impression that the clause can be arbitrarily ignored.

Any rules making it mandatory would be a worm can opening exercise. A robotic set of rules could never judge the difference between significant and insignificant loading.

 

[TGS4]

It is phrased "may" in the context of this is one of a number of options that the manufacturer may choose from. Evaluation of loads on flanges is mandatory. UG-44(b) is but one option.

This will be clarified in the 2021 Edition. If you require further clarity, please submit a Request For Interpretation.

 

[SA IN ME]

Hi all, this is my first post

I have been following the UG-44 discussion for a while now, the last response from TGS4 states that UG-44 (b) is one option.U-2(g) is the only way to use alternate methods ( outside of code) and this has a check clause which states, " Where design rules do not exist in this Division", this issue now is that UG 44 (b) provides a set of rules, so what is the mechanism for using an alternate method.

Performing the calc and getting AI "approval" still does not negate the risk of a NCR being raised during joint review as the pathway to use other methods is not really clear in regard to U-2 (g)

A clarification would be nice from ASME which can be used in response to queries during the joint review, thus far there has not been a cohesive answer from AI's and team leaders etc on this topic which leaves manufacture's at risk of rejection for following alternate methods.

I would appreciate your inputs, thanks in advance

Regards