Code Case 1290 1

[jte]

I'm looking at a drawing for a vessel built to the 1980 VIII-1 which has a note that the stiffening rings were designed in accordance with Code Case 1290 (the 9 is blurry - could be another number). I've searched our archives and IHS but wasn't able to find it. Anyone have a copy or know something about it?

jt

 

[chaulklate]

I did a little looking around and also came up empty handed. The only thing I can think of is that if it either got worked into a regular part of the code and the code case was therefore dropped, or the code committee decided to drop the code case outright. I would either try to locate a hard copy of the 1980 code or sound this off your local jurisdcitions office, they more than likely keep old copies of codes.

I'm quite curious now, would love to hear back if you get it figured out.

 

[jte]

chauklate- Thanks for checking!

To follow up / pass on on what I've figured out: I got a copy of Case 1290 (ca. 1961) and 1290-1 (ca. 1970) titled Case 1290-1
Interpretation of Par. UG-29, Stiffening Ring Design
Section VIII, Division 1/

If you go back and look at the 1971 edition of Div. 1 you'll find that UG-29 lists only one option for required moment of inertia of the stiffening ring, that which is calculated with the ring only with no credit for the shell. The option to calculate the required moment of inertia taking credit for part of the shell acting together with the ring (I prime) appears in the 1974 edition. This code case dealt with adding the option of taking credit for the shell, and presumably expired with its incorporation into the 1974 edition.

You learn something new every day!

jt

 

[chaulklate]

Thanks for the follow up JT, appreciate you sharing what you've learned!

 

[JoeTank]

jte,
Great detective work and thanks for the effort to share it with us Code-o-philes. A star for you.

Joe Tank

 

[jte]

Thanks, Joe-

I'm still a bit perplexed by this... The note is on a drawing ca. 1981 and refers to a Code Case which was originally published 20 years earlier and revised 11 years earlier and incorporated into the code with the 1974 edition. Here we are 7 years after the Code Case has been incorporated into the main body of the code but they are still using it separately? It does look like a standard drawing note block so I guess they just didn't revise it and failed to cross out that note...

jt

 

[vpl]

jte

It sounds like no one else bothered to take the time to look up the Code Case.

Good job!

Patricia Lougheed

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.