Hey Vance if you are prepared to send a copy I would happily pay
for it. Would love to have that on the wall framed. rEgards,
Hugh
Well,
I do have the PC-8 hull weldment drawing, which includes all that. It is a BIG
drawing, drawn to go on the shop wall and to show all the details.
Vance
More to the point what was the PC-8 Conning tower Penetration
thickness and what was the reinforcing etc of the 8 viewports. ASME
/ ABS allows for more holes but the overlapping of reinforcing allowable areas
must be compensated for. It would be great to get a blueprint of how it
was built in that area
It would be interesting to find out about the conning tower pens.
My PC-8 print has a 28" pen, which allows for 8 X 8" viewports in the
circumference. And I'm here to tell you, that's better than six.
Some additional
information.
1) Vessels under external pressure only need 50% of the reinforcement as a
vessel under internal pressure.
2) Reinforcement pads are no longer acceptable under current standards. All
reinforcement must be integral to the hull and/or penetration nozzle.
3) The maximum size hole for a vessel with diameter up to 60 inches, is 20
inches. So what do you do if you want a 24 inch ID conning tower? ABS says to
submit plans for specific approval. ASME says that 2/3 of the reinforcement has
to be within the "limits of reinforcement" which is the lessor of
2.5x hull thickness or 2.5x nozzle thickness. Since manned submersibles must
have ALL reinforcement integral to the hull or nozzle, a 24 inch ID conning
tower already complies with the 2/3 rule assuming you have followed all other
requirements as well.
4) I forgot to provide the link in my previous mail for the white paper
proposing an alternate method of calculating reinforcement. One of the
arguments presented by the author was that the current rules are so
conservative they result in a material thickness that poses a structural threat
to the pressure vessel due to the weight of the finished nozzle alone. I
noticed that this paper was written in 2000 and although I have not seen the
2010 version of ASME BPVC rules, I know that in BPVC 2007 ASME had not adopted
this papers argument. Of course, I'm not sure it was even submitted to ASME for
approval. It's very interesting reading since the authors proposal is based
upon FEA and field tests of prototype vessels that he shows match FEA
results.
http://www.codeware.com/support/papers/bildy.pdf
Jon
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
The personal submersibles mailing list complies with the US Federal
CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. Your email address appears in our database
because either you, or someone you know, requested you receive messages
from our organization.
If you want to be removed from this mailing list simply click on the
link below or send a blank email message to:
removeme-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Removal of your email address from this mailing list occurs by an
automated process and should be complete within five minutes of
our server receiving your request.
PSUBS.ORG
PO Box 53
Weare, NH 03281
603-529-1100
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5045 (20100420) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5045 (20100420) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5045 (20100420) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5045 (20100420) __________