EdStainless
Materials
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
And here there is a lesson in ethics 1
- Thread starter EdStainless
- Start date
- Status
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed
MacGyverS2000
Electrical
When I mentioned this in the Failures forum, I never expected it would make its way to the Ethics forum...
From EP's article:
That takes this out of the domain of "I just think the test parameters are stupid" and straight to "I see failures, but I'm going to hide them". Basic ethics just took a big hit...
Dan - Owner
From EP's article:
As concerning as the lack of testing is, what is more concerning is the fact that some tests failed and were changed to a passing grade.
That takes this out of the domain of "I just think the test parameters are stupid" and straight to "I see failures, but I'm going to hide them". Basic ethics just took a big hit...
Dan - Owner
geotechguy1
Civil/Environmental
I worked in a soils lab briefly on an earth dam where the other techs regularly faked sieve test results to get fines contents that met the specification. Only problem was they were so bad at faking it - they numbers they made up never added up properly even for simple formulas. Of course in that case there was a broader issue - mainly that the dam designers produced a specification for fines content where the available material on site with the required fines content wasnt available in the required quantities.
This stuff definitely happens in the west.
This stuff definitely happens in the west.
EnergyProfessional
Mechanical
geotechguy1: A former supervisor wanted me to enter "good" numbers in a spreadsheet. She told me "numbers don't have to be correct, they have to look good". I just gave her the spreadsheet for her to enter whatever numbers she wanted. It was just numbers to publish some data to make us look good in the public, nothing that would result in any actual construction. And I bet no single person actually cared if the numbers looked bad or not. The number showed our building energy consumption was increasing, and they were supposed to look like we were reducing energy consumption. But I still didn't want anything to do with it. If this ever comes up that the numbers are wrong, I'm very sure that supervisor would not have remembered the part where she told me to fake them.....
-70C is not liquid nitrogen temp, which is closer to -196C. If she thought it was stupid, she should have suggested an value engineering change proposal (VECP) to save the Navy money; but I would expect that the shipyard would have nixed it for engineering reasons. And, I agree with the notion that the temperature buys margin for a brittleness spec that you don't want to do on an actual sub, although the USS Connecticut apparently attempted such a test ;-).
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
Remember one of the causes for the loss of the submarine Thresher. A long blow on the emergency air resulted in piping or nozzles into the ballast tanks freezing hard with condensed moisture. Cold enough it didn't thaw even a little in the slow drop to crush depth. This was in the Gulf Stream.
Most of the problems apparently faced by the Thresher were basic design and basic Navy procedures being followed. As to melting - it looks like it was less than 10 minutes from the emergency attempt at blowing the tanks to implosion.
"The pressurized air rapidly expanding in the pipes cools down, condensing moisture and depositing it on temporary strainers installed in the system to protect the moving parts of the valves during new construction (which should have been removed prior to sea trials)"
The reactor operator stated he would not have followed procedure given the depth of operation and would have kept the steam running to the turbine for propulsion and driving to the surface (which does not require blowing the ballast - subs are close to neutral and need the air to lift the top of the sub out of the water, not to get to the surface.)
However, it's bad to falsify data and probably the company should have reneged on the contract, forcing the Navy to either not over-specify or to go elsewhere or to go with a new contract at a more appropriate price for what must be a more expensive process/material.
The period of performance was long enough that I'd guess they could not admit their first material didn't meet contract and were forced to stick with the process lest that fact be exposed. Plus, that original delivery was essentially proved in use and changing that might require re-qualifying the entire submarine, depending on how critical the components were.
Also, VECP is a non-starter. While it might reduce the cost to the Navy it will certainly reduce the profit to the company, possibly by a very large amount. The VECP process needs to be initiated by the Navy and offer contracts that pay for the initial investigation and make up for the likely loss of profit. It also needs to pay for that aforementioned re-qualification process, which might be an order of magnitude or more than the savings.
"The pressurized air rapidly expanding in the pipes cools down, condensing moisture and depositing it on temporary strainers installed in the system to protect the moving parts of the valves during new construction (which should have been removed prior to sea trials)"
The reactor operator stated he would not have followed procedure given the depth of operation and would have kept the steam running to the turbine for propulsion and driving to the surface (which does not require blowing the ballast - subs are close to neutral and need the air to lift the top of the sub out of the water, not to get to the surface.)
However, it's bad to falsify data and probably the company should have reneged on the contract, forcing the Navy to either not over-specify or to go elsewhere or to go with a new contract at a more appropriate price for what must be a more expensive process/material.
The period of performance was long enough that I'd guess they could not admit their first material didn't meet contract and were forced to stick with the process lest that fact be exposed. Plus, that original delivery was essentially proved in use and changing that might require re-qualifying the entire submarine, depending on how critical the components were.
Also, VECP is a non-starter. While it might reduce the cost to the Navy it will certainly reduce the profit to the company, possibly by a very large amount. The VECP process needs to be initiated by the Navy and offer contracts that pay for the initial investigation and make up for the likely loss of profit. It also needs to pay for that aforementioned re-qualification process, which might be an order of magnitude or more than the savings.
I am the same age as the woman in the BBC story. This is exactly why source inspectors like me were and INMO still necessary. We earned our money keeping others accountable. My former profession as a source inspector and quality engineer in the defense industry under American MIL-Q-9858 quality programs hardly exists anymore. Furthermore, falsification of data is inexcusable and should be punished by law.
I had training with U.S. Navy Nuclear laboratory in Pittsburgh.
I had training with U.S. Navy Nuclear laboratory in Pittsburgh.
- Thread starter
- #28
EdStainless
Materials
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed
EnergyProfessional
Mechanical
I meanwhile heard podcast where they discussed that. Regarding the temperature requirement they said the subs also surface in arctic regions and that air temperature gets closer to the required test temperature. So whatever the Navy required, wasn't just an arbitrary value to be ignored.
[URL unfurl="true" said:
[URL unfurl="true" said:
So the spec temperature was actually a bit shy of coldest ever, and for providing some level of margin. Nevertheless, those temperatures would only have applied to the conning tower, since sitting in surface water limits the temperature to around freezing.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
EnergyProfessional
Mechanical
Well, the movies show the subs front projecting out of the water for a second when emergency-surfacing at high speed 
Sure not enough time to cool down to air temperature and obviously the water pressure isn't high while exposed to air.
Sure not enough time to cool down to air temperature and obviously the water pressure isn't high while exposed to air.As I mentioned, the conning tower is above water when a sub surfaces -- can be seen in Ice Station Zebra for a movie example.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
EnergyProfessional
Mechanical
bottom of sub exposed to air
Sure, for about 30 seconds; so unless we're talking about one of those movies with instantaneous freezing, the outer surface of the sub will barely drop below the temperature of the water.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
I'm assuming the temperature requirement was due to fracture toughness concerns, any metal person who doesn't understand the fact that the temperature is important in fracture toughness is a bit of a red flag.
It's cold down deep in the ocean.... put two and two together lady.
They talk about strength, but that could mean anything because of the non-technical nature of the authors.
It's cold down deep in the ocean.... put two and two together lady.
They talk about strength, but that could mean anything because of the non-technical nature of the authors.
It's a measurable property that helps to build confidence that the material we're being given is the material we ordered (and the one whose other properties - not all of them so readily measurable - the design relies upon).
Anyone going to stick their neck out and suggest there's no point in measuring UTS of materials either, since we don't expect in-service loads to approach that level?
A.
Anyone going to stick their neck out and suggest there's no point in measuring UTS of materials either, since we don't expect in-service loads to approach that level?
A.
^ Van Halen didn't actually need brown M&Ms removed from the stage at any of their shows, except as a proxy for competence and attention to technical detail.
- Thread starter
- #39
EdStainless
Materials
Moon, I have done this in material specification.
Put something very odd in it and see if the people bidding comment.
If they don't then they didn't read the spec and they are out of consideration.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed
Put something very odd in it and see if the people bidding comment.
If they don't then they didn't read the spec and they are out of consideration.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question