[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] ASME PVHO



Hi Jon,

I think that we should have the Q.A. part tied up for P-subs as well so that the home builders appreciate the requirement for roundness.  I am afraid I am lacking in the understanding and math behind getting the answers and I think that Cliff, Sean, and you would come to some agreement as to a formula.

I cant believe that it is a misprint in ASME.  I am missing something somewhere but I don’t know what.  Chs,  Hugh

 

 

From: owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org [mailto:owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org] On Behalf Of Jon Wallace
Sent: Monday, 1 November 2010 5:51 p.m.
To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] ASME PVHO

 


Interesting catch, Hugh.  Definitely something wrong with that formula.



On 10/31/2010 11:06 PM, Hugh Fulton wrote:

Hi Sean,

 

I am having problems with doing Q.A. on my shell for out of roundness.  This is an area which is fairly important to measure.

I have applied the 1% rule as a general tolerance but trying to comply and understand the PVHO caclcs.

 

ASME PVHO-1-2007 has a section:-

 

1-7.13.3 (e) (2)  Formula for c

 

c= 2.28(R/t)^0.54  cannot get under the required 2.8 with any normal measurements of a vessel .

 

Do you have any experience with this. 

My diameter is 48” and the shell thickness 5/16”  L is 15.75” 

Have you done any calcs on this area. 

 

Do/t for my purpose is 162 which falls within normal dimensions and under UG80.1 gives sensible answers.

 

 




__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5580 (20101031) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5580 (20101031) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com