|duncan webster||20/01/2021 18:23:12|
3068 forum posts
I've got it to run, it is to do with macro security setting in Libre calc.
Fizzy, I'm not trying to argue that there is anything wrong with this or any other definition of acceptable stress. I repeat yet again, none of them (apart from Aussy) say what they are based on.
I'm not even trying to argue that a code should be mandatory, as I've said before if it passes 2* wp test there can't be a lot wrong with it, but how is a boiler inspector supposed to assess the calcs which SFED want without a recognised criterion? if designed up to the Tubal Cain limit, it would fail the spreadsheet limit, if designed up to the spreadsheet limit it would fail the limit suggested by Keith Wilson. The Aussy code tells you how to do all the sums in a small number of pages, with tables to avoid most of the sums. It is not terribly restrictive, I'll put money on it that Fizzy boilers would pass without even having seen one. If we want to use this spreadsheet just let the SFED endorse it.
I've now said my piece repeatedly, so I'll retire gracefully from the field.
|Roger Best||23/01/2021 16:14:44|
|216 forum posts|
My professional specialism is Nuclear crane design, so you would have thought that I would have something useful to say about design codes and standards.
Not a hope.
They are written by committees, so satisfy no-one. The committee rarely wants to take full responsibility so they leave lots to the designer, and its usually impossible to correlate between a prescribed design feature geometry, a degree of stress and the probability of failure.
At best any design code is a hint of Relative Good Practice for the observance of idiots to reduce risk to the public.
Its great to see people talking about FEA and parallel calculations. That way any anomalies and errors are likely to come out.
One more point, you need a four times safety factor against failure for good safety in a variable load environment. Buildings can make do with less as their self weight is the dominant load. Aircraft fly with this sort of factor to allow for a blustery flight. A 2X hydraulic test should be well away from causing damage if the design is that sound.
|Andrew Johnston||23/01/2021 17:48:27|
5930 forum posts
Not so; if they did they wouldn't fly as they'd be too heavy. For sailplanes limit loads, including gust loads, are calculated and then a factor of 1.5 is applied to get an ultimate load. The structure should not permanently deform at the limit load and not break until the ultimate load is reached. The loads are also speed dependent so each aircraft will have a flight envelope and speed restrictions such as maximum rough airspeed and maximum manoeuvring airspeed. Below maximum rough airspeed a sharp edged gust will stall the wing before the limit load is reached. Above it something may deform or break. Likewise below maximum manoeuvring speed full control deflection can be applied without reaching limit loads. Above it maximum allowable control deflections reduce to about a third of full deflection at never exceed speed. Applying full up elevator at never exceed speed will most likely pull the wings off - it has been done.
|Andrew Johnston||24/01/2021 09:18:53|
5930 forum posts
That's odd, there was a following post made that simply said "deleted", presumably by the poster. But it now seems to have disappeared. Is it policy to remove posts where the poster has thought better of it and deleted the text?
|Nick Clarke 3||24/01/2021 09:35:27|
1095 forum posts
This bit from Keith Wilson's description of his Bulldog/Dukedog boiler may be of interest (ME 16/5/80)
A subsequent letter suggested the value of 5000 be substituted for the 7000 above.
I wonder if the relative safety of model boiler designs is down to the high factor of safety, rather than detailed design.
6877 forum posts
Not policy, but I occasionally delete empty posts. I often remove duplicates and rotate photos for the same reason - it makes threads easier to read.
It's a bit risky, so I don't always intervene. No mistakes allowed whilst deleting because it's permanent and rotating photos can mess up the text.
|Phil H1||24/01/2021 18:43:33|
|344 forum posts|
I think you have demonstrated my point regarding small model boiler calculations. The author talks about a safety factor of 6 or maybe 10. Then you say that the a letter suggested 5000 rather than 7000 be used in the equation - so why bother at all?
I think that small copper boilers are quite well established regarding plate and tube sizes and that is all based on many years of successful use. There is absolutely nothing wrong with successful historical information being used because it works.
I think we should avoid trying to suggest some kind of design engineering in taking place by throwing some equations about when there s clearly no sound basis.
19965 forum posts
I tend to delete them if I see them to keep the thread tidy just as I also delete double posts. Poster could have thought twice, or simply poste din the wrong thread
Please login to post a reply.
Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!
You can contact us by phone, mail or email about the magazines including becoming a contributor, submitting reader's letters or making queries about articles. You can also get in touch about this website, advertising or other general issues.
Click THIS LINK for full contact details.
For subscription issues please see THIS LINK.