-----Original Message-----
From: owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
[mailto:owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org]On Behalf Of Hugh Fulton
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 10:26 PM
To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Subject: 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