Hi Scott,
I've heard that George Kitrige advised that his boats be
tested to twice their operational depth
unmanned for an hour. So this would mean that there
failure depth would be more than 700ft.
I'm not sure what their failure depth is; someone else may
be able to help with this.
Regards Alan
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 3:12
PM
Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Design
depth
I'm confused, haha. So on a K-350, the operating depth is 350
feet and the test depth would be 437.5 feet (multiplied by 1.25) and the
failure depth would be 600 feet? I'm just trying to understand the
thread of posts. -Scott Waters
To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org Subject:
Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Design depth From: vbra676539@aol.com Date: Fri, 10 Dec
2010 20:01:27 -0500
Phil,
How close are those numbers to the ABS specs of the 70s? I think HBOI did
an FEA study on their PC-1204 and reckoned the ABS certification for 1000 feet
(and, one supposes, the test and crush depths, as well) were marginal. Strong
enough, but nothing to spare. Twice the working depth would be 2000 feet for a
PC-12 and I think they were a half inch thick with 2" leg out ring stiffeners
on something like 16" centers. HBOI did go through the recert process and
accepted the 1000 foot capability, but someone up there was not altogether
thrilled with the numbers. Maybe it was that 28" conning tower reinforcement.
I don't know. Mind you, the 12s are possible the most successful series ever
built, considering the jillion or so dives they have racked up, and continue
to rack up. Nervous or not, the Perrys still perform. I'd take one to 1000
right this minute without a qualm. Been there, done that.
Vance
-----Original
Message----- From: Phil Nuytten <phil@philnuytten.com> To:
personal_submersibles <personal_submersibles@psubs.org> Sent: Fri,
Dec 10, 2010 2:23 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.
|