Thanks Phil,
That makes a lot of sense. The test at 1.5
above rated depth & the 100%
safety margin seem good figures to
adopt.
Regards Alan
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 1:21
PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Design
depth
All:
We class with lloyds,Germanischer Lloyd and ABS. The only difference in
design depth/hull test,etc., that I'm aware of, Is the test depth versus rated
depth (or 'working depth') Lloyds Surveyors, for example' is that physical
test depth must be 1.4. rated depth - G.L.is
1.5 and so on. Design collapse in all these agencies is 2 times rated or
working depth - or,100 percent safety factor. For clarity, the Deepworkers are
2000 foot rated or working depth, 2800 foot test depth and design collapse (as
shown by calculation and FEA's) meets or exceeds 4000 feet.
Seems pretty easy to me!
Phil
Sent from my iPhone
You guys
have fallen head over heels in love with a logic trap, heavily basted with
semantics. Give it up. Design depth is your operating depth PLUS the
percentage required for testing. It means the depth to which the pressure
vessel may be taken repeatedly without incurring irrecoverable damage.
125% doesn't make some people happy. I'll just stick in my 2 cents and
tell you that I have done a whole bunch of dives in vehicles built and
tested to that standard. Crush depth is an arbitrary derivative of the
overall calculations, suggesting that all things being perfect, if you go
this deep (whatever THIS happens to be) then the hull MAY suffer irreparable
damage, and if it does, then THIS is the site of most probable damage. The
THIS is typically a measure of the weakest link in the design, which is
specific to the design, not general discussion. It is NOT a weak link, but
simply the first failure point.
A C-class Perry for instance would be rated for 1200 feet maximum
operating depth. It's design depth (and unmanned test depth) would be 1500
feet and it's crush test.....hmmm, I forget. About 1800 and change, I think.
Maybe 19 and change. That kind of thing is in the initial ABS calculation
package, if you happen to have it. However, it is not normally in the
general ABS certs. I do not have a crush depth number for Gamma, for
instance, but do have her certifications.
For general interest, Nekton Alpha, Beta and Gamma are all rated at
1000 feet and were all tank tested to 1500. Crush depth was ascertained by
model testing, which verified the calculations handily (just over 2000
feet). Perry was doing repetitive construction on two proven primary designs
(tubular hull, internal or external ring stiffeners). Once proven, in other
words, all they had to do was replicate and prove that they had done
so.
As to accepting one safety factor over another, I'd say 125% should be
the accepted norm, based on experience and history. Anything over that is a
personal choice. I feel one way, somebody else feels another. Potato,
potahto.
Shallow boats are easy to double up on. The old Submaray, for instance,
was 3/8" plate and they held it to 300 feet for safety. The PC-8, on the
other hand, was also 3/8" plate and I can't even tell you how many times
I've been to her operating maximum of 800 feet. Different construction
techniques. Different design. Different results.
Vance
-----Original
Message----- From: Jon Wallace < jonw@psubs.org> To:
personal_submersibles < personal_submersibles@psubs.org> Sent:
Fri, Dec 10, 2010 4:53 am Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Design
depth
Jim, Design
depth is derived from the parameters (material type, hull thickness, number
of ribs, spacing of ribs, etc) used in ABS/ASME formulas to determine the
maximum external pressure that the submarine can operate in. I don't
think ABS or anyone else can reliably calculate "fail depth" or "crush
depth" because those depths are highly dependent upon quality of material,
fabrication, vessel use/maintenance, etc. The crush depth could be
some percentage above or below design depth, however you could only find out
definitively by testing the vessel to destruction. For that reason,
you don't want to perform a manned dive to 375 feet. Make sure that is
an unmanned test. You'll note that ABS Underwater Vessels Section 3.5
limits the manned test dive to the design depth. Jon On
12/10/2010 9:04 AM, JimToddPsub@aol.com wrote:
Jon,
I need to read and study the whole ABS publication
thoroughly, but from what I've read is seems that the Design Depth I would
need to claim would be 300 feet. During the survey I would need to
dive in increments to 375 feet (300 x 1.25). The vessel would then
be rated to 300 feet. Per ABS, Design Depth is the depth to which
the vessel is "designed and approved to operate." It's going to be
approved to 300. If I want to have it approved for anything more
than that, I'll have to have it surveyed to 125% of whatever I want its
operating depth to be.
What is surprising is that [so far] I see nothing in ABS
that specifies how the Design Depth must be derived. It seems rather
arbitrary rather than stating something such as "60% of the calculated
fail depth."
Jim
In a message dated 12/10/2010 1:24:29 A.M. Central Standard Time, jonw@psubs.org writes:
A
different approach is to say, I know I don't want to dive deeper than
300 feet (my max operating depth) and I want a 2x safety margin.
That means using material capable of withstanding 600 feet depth.
Now with this approach you certainly may not pass a 1.25 overpressure
test for a 600 foot design depth, however you've already self imposed a
2x safety margin. If you wanted ABS certification, then you simply
claim the design depth as 480 feet. Now you meet the ABS
requirement (480 x 1.25 = 600) and also are still well within your 300
foot self-imposed depth
limit.
|