It appeared to me perhaps incorrectly that flexmen was trying to avoid looking at all or at the very least the most significant OCC case.

As you have stated the gaps may vary on a system based upon temperature and this is why the algebraic differences between operating cases (with U and without) and then a scalar addition with the SUS stresses is the way to handle the mathmatics for a non-linear system.

Flexmen in this post seemed to be refuting what the comittee stated ....

posted July 27, 2005 11:30 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Massabie:

I am TOTALLY AGREE with you, in everything you have mentioned.

Although I am still thinking that the strict calculation must be done with the correspondant
Sh, any engineer would be quiet if he is on behalf of safety. But referring to Mr Liang-Chuan Peng, at what point can go the safety factor against what economically can mean the excedent of such safety?

A teacher at my university said "If an engineer takes too much factors of safety in his calculations, perhaps, this factor of safety is due to his own unsafety".
I say that safety is a very important factor but the economical to assure you such safety it is also important."
-------------------------------------------------
This post about conservatism led me to believe he was agreeing but disagreeing. The B31 codes allow a designer to be more conservative in their aproach however for a designer to become less conservative requires some justification...

And the justification should be agreeable to the apropriate parties.

B31.3 has stated unequivocally that all cases must be examined I suspect B31.1 will render a similiar RFI This removes all speculation out of this issue.