<html><head></head><body><div class="ydpe0ae7f80yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 16px;"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Sean, thanks for that analysis. See attached image for reference to K350.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I screwed up some of the K600 numbers based upon the plans which turn out not to be accurate. Specifically, the actual K600 hatch seal configuration I see does not match either the K600 plans nor the K350 plans, so somewhere along the way the details were changed without documentation (which Lloyds didn't catch) or I don't have the final set of K600 drawings.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">K600 groove - 23.5 ID, 24 OD, 23.75 mean diameter</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">K350 groove - 23.25 ID, 23.75 OD, 23.5 mean diameter, according to the plans.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">BOTH have a groove width of 1/4 inch as shown in K350 image (including dovetail on ID side) and a depth of .215 inches.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Cross section diameter of both 2-471 and 2-472 is .271 inches. On the K600 that's a 2.1% stretch which would be within the limits you wrote about, but now I'm wondering if Kittredge used the 2-471 on the K350 to reduce the cross-sectional diameter enough to counter the relatively hefty .271 o-ring inside a .25 x .215 channel. Too big of a diameter would cause extrusion at some point, wouldn't it?</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Jon</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="ydp48240b4ayahoo_quoted_3330198959" class="ydp48240b4ayahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Wednesday, June 9, 2021, 05:25:03 PM EDT, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles <personal_submersibles@psubs.org> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div id="ydp48240b4ayiv3206249022"><div>Per ORD5700, stretch should be limited generally to no more than 5%. A 2-471 O-ring (21.955" ID) on a 23.25" gland is 5.90% stretch. A 2-472 O-ring (22.940" ID) on that same 23.25" gland is only 1.35% stretch.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Sometimes it is advantageous to specify an O-ring which must be stretched for installation in order to create friction against the gland in order to prevent the O-ring from slipping out of the groove if it isn't retained by other means (e.g. dovetail).<br clear="none"><br clear="none">At 5% stretch however, the cross-sectional diameter of the O-ring is reduced by about 2.5% (and at 5.9% squeeze, almost 4%) so the gland depth may need to be reduced accordingly in order to achieve the design squeeze on the O-ring. Per ORD5700, for face seal glands in sizes 425 through 475, that design squeeze is 21% to 29% with no extrusion gap.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">For face seals subject to external pressure, the gland is usually sized with its inside diameter equal to the mean diameter of the O-ring, with tolerance of +1% of that mean ID, but not more than 0.060". The reason for this is that by ensuring that the O-ring is situated on the correct side of the groove for the anticipated pressure, it won't experience premature failure as a result or being shifted across the groove on every pressurization cycle. For a 2-471, that mean diameter would be 22.230", and for a 2-472, 23.215", which would correspond to 1.25% and 1.20% installation stretch respectively, but these are recommended design minimums.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">My guess is that the 23.25" gland ID just provides enough stretch to keep the O-ring from slipping out, and performance in that embodiment was good enough. Provided the cross-sectional diameter reduction and associated gland depth changes are accommodated, the only downside to greater installation stretch is premature aging of the O-ring. (See ORD5700, 3.6).<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Sean<br clear="none"> <br clear="none"></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>