I would suggest that you keep the area of the Lexan small. Look at other
plastics and compare strengths. As the other poster suggested, doing
allthreads with two caps would allow you to sandwich the plastic in there as
one layer, and you could make the hole in the top cap smaller in diameter
making the surface area of Lexan (whatever) smaller, thus a little beefier
in area/thickness ratio.
Keep us posted.
The window does not need to be large, just enough to keep an eye on the
unit under test. The real testing is watching the pressure gauge after
shutting off the air supply to look for a drop in pressure indicating
air is leaking into the "sealed" device under test.
The tie rod design is not ideal from an operational standpoint as it
would require full removal of the hand knobs to remove the lid vs.
loosening and swinging to the side like the fasteners used on many trash
You are talking about 8" schedule 80 pipe. I did a quick calc and if
the material strength is 18,000 psi, which seems conservative, and
using a safety factor of 4, the working pressure would be 600 psi and
the calculated burst pressure is 2400 psi.
Normally pressure vessels have either domed heads or a standard flange
and blind so to be technically correct you should either locate a 8"
schedule 80 dome or flange and blind.
Having said that I might comment that you are grossly over designing
for a 150 psi system.
8" schedule 40 has a wall thickness of 0.322 and using a conservative
strength of 18,000 psi and a safety factor of 4 the working pressure
is 400 psi.
8" schedule 10 with a wall thickness of 0.165 with other data the same
has a working pressure of 200 psi.
The fixed and removable ends are another story. If I were building
this for my own use I'd probably use schedule 10 pipe and a 0.5" plate
for the closed end, which would be the base of the chamber. For the
end that is removable I would try to locate a manufactured flange (I
don't know where you are but here in Asia you can buy low pressure
weld neck flanges. Check the pressure rating to be sure what you are
As you want a viewing port I would make the flange blind out of 0.5"
material also and machine a stepped hole in it for the lemon:
Since the lemon is held in by pressure I'd just mount it with some
kind of sealing gunk.
When I had the thing finished, if I felt nervous at all, I'd hydrostat
it. Fill the vessel completely full of water, clamp on the lid and
pump it up to 300 psi. Close the valve and come back tomorrow. You
will probably have some pressure variance because of temperature but
if you've still got about 300 psi in the pot your good to go.
Bruce in Bangkok
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
It'll be easy enough to test. Here's a photo of a quick and dirty test
pot I made for testing small underwater camera housings to 500psi
. In use it's
clamped to a car hoist so I can get some leverage on that 3" pipe
bushing. Spare port at the top is used to fill the assembly completely
with water. Plunger has been removed from a HF $10 grease gun. I
squirt perhaps a quarter inch of oil into the grease tube via the
plunger shaft hole (cheap gun wouldn't function with water). It only
takes a few squeezes of the grease gun handle to get the pressure up.
It works so well I wish I'd made it pretty.
As for lenses, I've used two different types on my housings -
1/4"X1.5" diameter polycarbonate, and a 1/4"X 2" diameter glass round
from McMaster Carr. Both with about .200" seating around the rim, and
sealed with an Oring.
. Both tested fine at
500psi. No worry of flying glass in my application though.
Your chamber is a hydrostatic one so it doesn't have the same issues as
the air one I need to make. I've got a really good design for a
hydrostatic chamber, but for this application it needs to be an air type
since you want to avoid filling the unit you are leak testing with
water. It's not going to 1,000' depth so 150 PSI is sufficient. It also
needs to be larger and reasonably quick to open and close.
My point was that you could use the same basic method I used to safely
pressure test your vessel before use. I wasn't suggesting 500psi for
your test, but that might be a fair safety margin. The welding
shouldn't be an issue anyway, and once you're satisfied that the lens
won't blow out at 3X operating pressure and that the lid stays sealed,
then you should be pretty confident about filling the thing with air
and putting your eyeball (or mirror) up to the lens.
I've concluded that the testing that has to be done in an air
environment can be done passably using a modified Harbor Freight
pressure paint pot. It's limited to 60 PSI, but that should be
sufficient for what has to be done in air.
For testing that requires higher pressures it will simply have to be
done hydrostatically. I'll build the chamber with the same basic specs
as I indicated, but limit it to hydrostatic (hand pump) testing so there
is no catastrophic failure mode potential.
IMHO this is a wise decision. 'Safety before all else.'
'You should always think about how your actions will appear in the accident
I would caution you to resist the urge to switch to air after many
successful hydrostatic cycles as failures due to lamellar tearing or other
metallurgical fault are cumulative and may give no warning before failure.
Good luck and continue to work safely.
You might consider using a " Joy " test. Instead of pressurizing to
do a leak test, immerse the item in water with some Joy ( or Dawn )
dishwashing detergent and pull a vacuum. It used to be called out on
aerospace drawings as a leak test. The detergent is so you can see
very small leaks that only generate a bubble every 5 minutes or so.
Good suggestion, and nice to see somebody thinking 'outside the box'.
Sometimes we go to great effort to implement an obvious solution when an
alternate is simpler and safer and less work.
just my .02, YMMV
If that's more practical, then by all means. But if it's because of
the safety angle then I'm sorry to hear it. Whenever these sort of
things come up on Usenet, there's a always a flock of "better safe
than sorry" posts. It's discouraging but tolerable when the project in
question might involve the safety of the unsuspecting. But it's hard
to take when the only person at risk is the one who's willing to take
it. At the rate the scope of home projects is being limited by safety
concerns, we're going to need licenses to sharpen our pocket knives
before long. Your plan as you described it was certainly doable with
reasonable skills and common sense. A conservative builder could test
the thing to say, 5 times operating pressure. I expect that's a higher
margin than was used for HF's paint pot, or countless portable air
tanks etc. which everybody seems to have faith in.
Well, at least it'll be easy to tell if the test part leaked. :-)
Your plan as you described it was certainly doable with
You're missing a lot here.
To put it as simply as possible, this is a field where there are literaly
hundreds of possible failure modes that will happily appear days or years
after the vessel has passed a pressure test. A pressure test is one small
portion of the overall picture and does not tell you you have a suitable
There are dozens of red flags in the op's idea, number one being he has no
way of knowing (and therefore duplicating) the original material specs, weld
procedure, any pre/post heat treatment, ect.
And, I can say with confidence that when you desire to build a vessel with
flat plate, your engineering bill will turn straight up with many engineers
not even willing to work it, and the thought of putting a fillet weld on the
plate to pipe juncture would give your vessel engineer nightmares, you just
can't design in a more wicked notch than that. I think thats a guaranteed
fatigue failure down the road.
This is the world of 100% weld penetration. Not an area hobby welders are
going to excell.
We could go on and on. Anyone who thinks this is a simple, solve it in the
backyard type endeavor is showing how little they know about a very complex
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.