But if I understand you correctly for all formulas t should be the shell thickness only?
Yes.
Is this deleted because of the errors it apperently has?
My guess would be "yes", but the Code doesn't give a reason for its changes.
It was an easier calculation method than that with the figures. Will something like P.3 be re-instated?
I didn't find it easy, the examples contradicted the body of the Code and there were curves mis-labeled. I couldn't get through it (computation wise) which is why I never put it in our software. Will something like this come back - I don't know. This was a massaged WRC107 method and I'm not a big fan of that bulletin either. Whatever they put in the Code has to be complete, correct, and computationally possible.
Previous Topic
Index
