WRC Bulletins 5

[BigTank]

Does anyone know where to get (buy) these things aside from the WRC? I've been thinking of adding one or more to my personal library, but I'm not giving them $72 unless I can see the thing first.

Does anyone have a copy? How much content is there? Is it actually WORTH $72?

--------------------------------
Fitter, happier, more productive

 

[JStephen]

I've used WRC 107 and WRC 297 in the past. They are very specialized publications, but, IF you need them, they would be well worth the $72. They are tools, not just reading material, and would be a bit pricy for bathroom reading. I can't speak for the rest of their publications.

Some of the topics covered in WRC bulletins have also been covered in API publications, so you might check there, also. Of course, they're not cheap either.

You might check in nearby university libraries to see if they have any of these (liable to be old ones if they do).

 

[LSThill]

BigTank (Mechanical) & JStephen (Mechanical)

Also: WRC 497 is needed,

Review

http://www.paulin.com/WEB_FE107_Experimental_Validation.aspx

http://www.paulin.com/WEBfe107-1.aspx

 

[TomBarsh]

"Worth" is certainly a subjective term.

However, the Welding Research Council probably isn't getting rich off the published bulletins, nor are the authors of the bulletins. In most cases the writing is done by the authors for free, there may be compensation from from ASME, API, or other supporters for experimental testing, etc.

It begs the question, if no one supports this fundamental engineering research with dollars to buy relatively cheap bulletins, then who else will pay for it? And what will happen to our fields when there is no more new research because the authors and researchers aren't supported any longer?

In years past, large companies had deeper pockets and there was prestige in sponsoring research. In the recent years (not only due to current recession) companies don't have so much spare cash laying around to support research.

 

[jte]

If you don't need it, it's worthless.

If you need it to complete a job... Well, I'd just bet that $72 is less than the contract value of one job.

Now... which WRC bulletin might be the subject? I happen to like 452 myself.

And finally... TomBarsh put it well. 'Cmon folks. You can't just take, take, take. Sometimes you have to give.

jt

 

[BigTank]

i agree that it is necessary, and am all for giving, however, i have no way to preview the product in this particular case. i have no idea if i'm getting a 30 page soft-cover magazine of a technical piece, or a hard-bound book ala mcgraw-hill.

my point is better illustrated by the asme prices for technical information. i don't know about you guys, but i don't make six figures, and probably never will. i can't afford to stock my personal library with $300 books that i'll use for 1 or 2 chapters. and look at the cost of their training! they certainly don't seem to be looking to improve the independant engineer, but rather reach into the pockets of the industries that can afford the high pricing.

perhaps i've inadvertantly imposed my opinion on the WRC, but then again...i have no way to tell what my money is buying. and i'm sure some of that cost includes someone to sit and make sure it doesn't leak onto the internet...

--------------------------------
Fitter, happier, more productive

 

[rneill]

I suppose it would be useful if they have previews of the Table of Contents available but unfortunately they don't. Perhaps that's a suggestion that could be passed along ...

 

[MJCronin]

Tom...

"And what will happen to our fields when there is no more new research because the authors and researchers aren't supported any longer?"

Well.... Your answer is pretty much what you see right now !!

We are a nation of politicians, landlords, realtors, home appraisers, temp agencies, fast food joints and website designers..... we have ad agencies, political consultants, newscasters, interior designers, importers, exporters, coaches, facilitators and sexual therapists.

None of these people nor most others will ever need basic reasearch such as that offered by the WRC

Tom... you have to face facts...

Real engineering is...... dead...

My opinion only..

-MJC

 

[LSThill]

rneill (Mechanical)

1) Attach is Table of Contents available

MJCronin (Mechanical)

2) Let say thanks to the technical research by AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEER'S & PAULIN RESEARCH GROUP ON THIS SUBJECT at present.

 

[TomBarsh]

MJC, regrettably, a "thumbs up" for your comments; you are so correct. That is probably fodder for another long discussion.

 

[gr2vessels]

""Worth" is certainly a subjective term." said above;-
WRC,...Hmmm. Only $72.00?
A different comment from a vessel designer;-
"WRC107 is not an acceptable method for evaluating nozzle external loads on cylindrical shells, especially where reinforcing pads are used. This method does not take the nozzle wall thickness into account for nozzles on cylindrical shells and the only parameter, which is really considered, is the outside radius of the round attachment (ref. WRC107 clause 4.2.2.1). In addition, the basic assumption in developing WRC107 is that the shell is not penetrated by the attachment, which neglects the stress rising effect of the opening. This, in turn, reduces the accuracy of the calculations to some extent.
On top of all, PVElite and CodeCalc calculations are inaccurate with regard to primary membrane stress at shell when using pads. Membrane stress in shells with openings will be higher in the vicinity of the opening. Actually the pad is used to reduce the membrane stress around the opening, ideally to the level of unpenetrated shell. But in PVElite and CodeCalc the membrane stress around an opening without pad is considered equal to an unpenetrated shell, and when the user adds a pad, the software takes the membrane stress around the opening equal to half the value of membrane stress away from the opening, which is totally incorrect!"
Indeed, the WRC bulletin for $72 might be a waste.
Any comments?
Cheers,
gr2vessels

 

[SnTMan]

gr2vessels, while you are no doubt correct, the usefulness of a design method is not wholly related to its accuracy. Before FEA methods became common WRC 107 was the ONLY tool, and it is still useful IMO, exactly because it does not depend on FEA. Many of our design rules may not be exactly accurate but they are quick and you might say "good enough". What I like about the hand calc type stuff is that we can all do the calculation and get the same result, and agree on it. Not so FEA.

MJC, you left out the lawyers

Regards,

Mike

 

[TGS4]

BigTank - we seem to somehow have evolved this conversation into a discussion about WRC Bulletin 107. Is this the Bulletin that you are referring to? Or was it another? There are over 500 Bulletins in total.

 

[BigTank]

yes, tgs4...i started off asking about wrc 107, but 297 is of interest as well.

my original question was: is the wrc site the only retail outlet for these bulletins, does anyone have and/or use one enough to give me a sense of the amount of usable content so that i can guage if my $72 will yield a better value somewhere else...

--------------------------------
Fitter, happier, more productive

 

[TGS4]

I believe that University Libraries may be the only place to "Preview" them. However, you have a huge group of colleagues here that may be kind enough to print out a TOC for you from their collection, if you ask nicely .

I would recommend getting WRC 107 just for the fact that once you read it through, you will understand the limitations of the method. Same with 297.

I have both - are you interested in seeing the TOC?

 

[EngAddict]

Most of the copies I have seen are photcopies of photocopies, they really are not worth spending the money on for your private collection. You can find them online for free, it isn't easy but they are around. Try the petroleum forums..

Although they don't specifically specify pads, WRC 297 does provide a method for increasing the thickness for pads and inserts. Wince WRC 297 is a supplement to WRC 107, it is applicable to both.

gr2vessels, I completely agree with you regarding PV Ellite and CodeCalc, we have written to COADE regarding these mistakes but as yet have not had a reply.

I believe if you do this for a living then they are worthwhile, if you use them for their intended purpose they are good for a quick check. Since most of the time they are conservative it means not FEA will be required. If you had to run FEA for all your nozzle it would take considerable time w/o software like NozzlePro. I think they will become obsolete in the near future but does not mean they cannot still be useful.

 

[LSThill]

TECHNICAL REFERENCE PVRC PRESSURE VESSEL RESEARCH COMMITTE
LOCAL STRESS IN Vessels-Notes on the Application of WRC-107 and WRC-297
L.C. PENG

http://www.pipestress.com/papers/WRC107-297.pdf

 

[BigTank]

hmmm...this has been an interesting discussion. i'm getting the sense that, although the content might be worth the money, it might not be the best methodology.

tgs4...i would love to see the toc's for both if that's at all possible. unfortunately, i cannot download anything from the files.engineering.com domain. security is tight here.

and LSThill, thank you for the link. i think i brushed past that at some point in my search. your calling it to my attention has brought cause for reading.

--------------------------------
Fitter, happier, more productive

 

[JStephen]

If it will help any, the great majority of WRC 107 and WRC 297 is graphs giving the different stress indices. There are several pages of discussion about how to use it, the basis of it all, etc., but the bulk of each publication is the graphs. If you need them, or think you might, the $72 is not a bad cost. If you need 297, go ahead and get 107 also. Also, some of the graphs are not real easy to read, so originals would be better than scanned copies of copies, etc. And seems like there may have been some revisions to 297, so it would be worthwhile to make sure you had whatever the latest version was.

Actually using 297 by hand is a pain. You wind up reading about 30 different factors off the graphs, interpolating, interpolating the interpolations, etc., so it is not a quick and easy process. Some of the PV handbooks give simplified versions based on 297 that are much easier.

 

[BigTank]

now THAT was VERY helpful jstephen. thank you!

--------------------------------
Fitter, happier, more productive