Table 54b Formula

Series III – TABLE 53 & 54 – FOR KG/cm³ DENSITY, °C, 15°C Volume VII – Generalized Crude Oils (Tables 53A & 54A) Volume VIII – Generalized Products (Tables 53B and 54B). Table 54B – Mooring Marine Consultancy Blending two components and deciding the load sequence. Astm Table 54b ASTM Table 54B. (Extracts or complete) Gives the conversion factor of volumes and densities as a function of the density at 15 ° C. Applies exclusively to refined petroleum products. It applies between temperature and density limits at 15 ° C, that is: ASTM Tables 53B 54B - AFA SARL Astm Table 54b ASTM Table 54B.

• Table 54b Excel Formula
• Astm Table 54b Formula
• Volume Correction Factor Table 54b Formula

Posts about table 54A written by ronmooring. Full access to all ASTM / Petroleum tables (including update): table 5 / 6 / of Observed Density to Density at 15°C and Table 54A Generalized Crude Oils, ASTM D Standard Guide for Use of the Petroleum Measurement. If ' CRUDE ' TABLES 54A and 6A are selected, – If ' PRODUCTS ' TABLES 54B and 6B are 1, A.S.T.M. TABLES. 2. 3, GRADE, Unleaded Gasoline, QUALITY.

Given the small angle involved with the trim of the vessel, then the ‘Sine' of an angle can be considered as the same as ast, ‘Tangent' Tan of an angle and consequently: The choice between extended and standard layout is very important for ullage reports and transfer summary reports, because depending on which layout you select you will only be able to select ullage reports that have the chosen layout: Total observed volume TOV.

For all of them the unit can be changed, and existing values will be converted automatically. Gas calculation — vapour.

A number of standard entries such as end of passage, pilot on board etc are already prepared, but you can edit each title and create your own as required, in the time sheet editor. The choice between extended and standard adtm is very important for ullage reports and transfer summary reports, because depending on which layout you select you will only be able to select ullage reports that have the chosen layout:.

By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail. Just like with ullage reports, if you have selected to use the ASTM tables, then the VCF will be calculated and printed in 5 decimals as can be seen in the reports. Anyhow, below is 54s concise xstm to introduce all to these calculations.

H is the reference height of the cargo tank. This file can be opened by Microsoft Excel, and can be used to import the data from the ullage report into an excel spreadsheet. Seafarers Question Answers Ask or astk a question on this forum. Both the pdf or jpg file and the csv file are stored on the internal storage of your phone. ASTM publishes them as an adjunct zstm D Knowledge dies if it remains in our head. Item 8 in the picture above of the editor.

Straight to the point:

Sailed date and time: Whenever you change one of these, the tank picker automatically goes back to the first tank in the list. The full report consists of 4 parts: Initially the tank names are all blank. Like 0 Dislikes 0. What was the final decision in mepc? Values for constituent and mole fraction are stored inside the app in a database, for easy retrieval in future.

In addition to above methods it should be noted that if the adtm as specified in the vessel's COW manual are being followed asgm the determination of the ‘Dryness' of a cargo tank, namely, the sounding of the residues in four 4 differing locations within the cargo tank, then the foregoing methods of calculations can be avoided.

In order to choose a constituent, simply press a constituent field, then the list of constituents shows up and you can select one from there.

This program allows to use built-in shore tank calibration tables, to download TankMaster data in pre-set Excel format. If temperature fields contain values, these are automatically converted. We are now taken directly to the tank editor standard layoutwith the new ullage report already created and opened and tank 1P selected:.

The choice between extended and standard layout is only important for ullage reports and transfer summary reports: The calculation method for the Geometric edition of the Wedge Formula: Once a unit is chosen, this will be used for all tanks. The first 4 entries are taken from report settings and can be overwritten manually. Resources Digital Transformation may be defined in a number of different ways by analysts or enterprise software vendors.

This method is as follows: Questions on same topics Popular questions and their answers.

In order to edit an entry, simply select it; the time sheet editor will show up and let you change the details as shown below:. An initial 37 standard entries have already been prepared and there is room for another 60 currently blank entries. Short, crisp and full of value. Normally there are always at least two entries in the list of grades: In the VEF report you can use the setting for selecting version or version table to change the number of decimals shown for the VEF.

For advanced users it would also be possible to copy the exported csv file to another file provided that you use the correct naming conventions etc and generate a completely new ullage report from a desktop computer, which could then be imported to the phone by simply copying the csv file to the phone.

You don't need to attend meetings, just vote electronicly. All the data inside the ullage report is put into a small text file, where each entry this can be a number, or a combination of words is separated from the next entry by a comma.

table 54A – Mooring Marine Consultancy

The time sheet editor holds a maximum of almost entries for each time sheet report. Fuel before, after and Diesel before and after. MySeaTime Podcast This podcast on satm maritime matters will provide value to the listeners.

Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework. The tutorials part 11 for the Android version of Cargo Surveyor deals with the time sheet. This is the asym of part 5 of this tutorial; in part 6 we will discuss the ullage report. The possibilities of reporting realized in software are immense; such a big set of options and features has never been included in one software package before.

Table 54b Excel Formula

Volume VIII — Table 53B Generalized Products, Correction of Observed Density to Density at 15°C and Table 54B Generalized Products, Correction of Volume to . 52, ASTM, 53B, OIL PRODUCTS. 53, DENSITY, , AT, , ˚C. 54, DENSITY, , AT, 15, ˚C. 55, FUEL OIL. 56, ASTM, 54A, CRUDE OILS, Volume. ASTM A53 pipe covers Seamless and Welded, Black and Hot-Dipped Galvanized XS for extra strong, XXS for double extra strong. ASTM Length of pipe.

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts. The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate asttm. Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community. It's easy to join and it's free. Register now while it's still free! Close this window and log in.

Are you an Engineering professional? Ansys crack download. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

ASTM Petroleum Tables Vol. 8 (Tables 53B, 54B) | MSL Online

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden. I have had the following problem raised that someone may be able to help with. I publish a density calculation spreadsheet see link below.

I have been queried as to why my calculation results disagree with the 53b tables: So i looked around the internet and the 1st application I found was yours. So I looked further and I came across one piece of freeware and one shareware that can 53h the calculation and produce the exact values of table 53B. The values I got however out of my routine were identical to yours.

So I try to find out where the problem is and maybe try to fix it. By the way, the freeware is Bcalc from Shell, it is a bunker fuel blending program.

– Excel Formula-Density Conversion to 15 deg C, table ASTM 53 B – ,

The calculations in Dens I'm guessing bigtime here. Both density and viscosity are affected by both temperature and pressure but the pressure effects aren't significant at low pressures. So yes, here is a pressure correction defined but which isn't applied in my spreadsheet because in many cases it adtm necessary.

The problem here is agreement between the temperature only calculation and the tables but it is certainly worth me double checking, the obvious being missed is common glitch.

I've got pages of standard to re-read and the tables! Right, not much difference until you get to psi or so.

Let me know if you think there's something I can do. I've been having some fun here, I'm curious as to why this question didn't come up earlier: Table 53B plots the observed qstm As column headers and the the measurement temperatures using soft glass hydrometers with the volume correction for the glass built into the tables, and against each temperature the base density corresponding to the line density column header value.

I ran my spreadsheet and got these results: Compare first and fourth columns.

These are not small errors, not by my reckoning anyway, and always lower than the table values. I'd have thought these were significant differences in the oil industry. Going to and 0. Note that an inline density meter for fiscal duty will measure to 0.

I am now scouring the standard for any indication of what an acceptable deviation between tables and calculation is. My correspondent on this problem has found a possible solution so any comments on this would be appreciated. This is the interpretation we now arrive at: By following the table down until the measurement temperature is found, the base density is then read from the appropriate column. The tables have a built in correction for hydrometer readings at temperatures other than the calibration temperature.

That means that the column header is the actual value read off the hydrometer; the correction is in the base density values and not in the observed density. Hence the column header is not the true density at the measurement temperature. What the calculation in Dens Not for me to say, but the tables ought surely, today when there are so many different ways to measure density at various temperatures, ought to apply the correction to the measured value rather than the base density so that the value used for the column headers is the true density?

What correction do you apply if you don't know what temperature to correct for I suppose but then the tables could be better arranged to tabulate the data with base density as the column wstm and the line density to asrm found against the measurement temperature. Historical reasons is the answer, in other words or am I wrong? I still have to validate what Excel does in iteration if the iteration limit is reached before the divergence limit I have a query posted in the spreadsheets forum on this.

From memory, there was always a discrepancy at various densities – the standard was written in cobol I think and the 'variations' only came apparent after people started using Sharp PC6 basic calculators and noticed a adtm in the 4th and 5th decimal.

So AFIK the raw data was derived from many different crude densities and observed thermal cooefficients and then a few products – not lubes, table D – were also observed.

There were notable diffs between resids, gasoils and gasolines – not the aromatics in D – but for simplicity in custody transfer, fiscalisation and duties, it was agreed to roll out one product table, with at the time, negligible flaws. Participants included major oil cos, USCustoms and various interested parties. Most of the people involved are probably out of the business now but I remember a few names if you're interested – email me and I'll give you some leads. The tables were always a compromise because of the 0.

Astm Table 54b Formula

There are a couple aetm oil companies which produced and printed their own tables to 0. I did an arbitration once where all data was referred back to volume 10 and 11 subroutines but the fiscal difference was always very minor and the real errors were always gross temperature and liquid level, not cumulative rounding.

ASTM Petroleum Tables Vol. 8 (Tables 53B, 54B)

Sidewall bulges in kBbl steel lakes are more of a problem than density errors. More Help needed on this topic; Can someone help answer this: Based asm all of my reference books, 8. Ashm this have something to do with apparent density vs observed density? ProtechWT, thanks for our post and information.

I may well come back to you for some further information and advise. Since I started this spreadsheet solution i have had some invaluable collaboration which has resulted in the current version 'Density 12Mb rev I get periodic requests for for the password so I assume either some people are modifying the spreadsheet sill further or they simply want to make it anonymous.

However, a further iteration is in the works and I'd appreciate any feedback, bearing in mind this is intended to be a practical, rather than exact interpretation of the standards: The next change is asym include the pressure correction.

I am going to assume that in most cases the density will be measured online using such devices as vibrating element sensors, coriolis, vibrating tube and vibrating fork etc. All well and good, and I guess I can axtm up with a suitable combination of calculations and sequence but the big difference here is the lack of real data to check against.

I did manage to obtain a small set of data from one 53v the oil companies some time ago but if anyone can point me to any such data please do. Byfro, I hope someone can answer your question for you and for me.

Required Softcopy of ASTM Table 53B and Table 54B.

Red Flag This Post Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Table 54b Excel Formula

Volume VIII — Table 53B Generalized Products, Correction of Observed Density to Density at 15°C and Table 54B Generalized Products, Correction of Volume to . 52, ASTM, 53B, OIL PRODUCTS. 53, DENSITY, , AT, , ˚C. 54, DENSITY, , AT, 15, ˚C. 55, FUEL OIL. 56, ASTM, 54A, CRUDE OILS, Volume. ASTM A53 pipe covers Seamless and Welded, Black and Hot-Dipped Galvanized XS for extra strong, XXS for double extra strong. ASTM Length of pipe.

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts. The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate asttm. Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community. It's easy to join and it's free. Register now while it's still free! Close this window and log in.

Are you an Engineering professional? Ansys crack download. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

ASTM Petroleum Tables Vol. 8 (Tables 53B, 54B) | MSL Online

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden. I have had the following problem raised that someone may be able to help with. I publish a density calculation spreadsheet see link below.

I have been queried as to why my calculation results disagree with the 53b tables: So i looked around the internet and the 1st application I found was yours. So I looked further and I came across one piece of freeware and one shareware that can 53h the calculation and produce the exact values of table 53B. The values I got however out of my routine were identical to yours.

So I try to find out where the problem is and maybe try to fix it. By the way, the freeware is Bcalc from Shell, it is a bunker fuel blending program.

– Excel Formula-Density Conversion to 15 deg C, table ASTM 53 B – ,

The calculations in Dens I'm guessing bigtime here. Both density and viscosity are affected by both temperature and pressure but the pressure effects aren't significant at low pressures. So yes, here is a pressure correction defined but which isn't applied in my spreadsheet because in many cases it adtm necessary.

The problem here is agreement between the temperature only calculation and the tables but it is certainly worth me double checking, the obvious being missed is common glitch.

I've got pages of standard to re-read and the tables! Right, not much difference until you get to psi or so.

Let me know if you think there's something I can do. I've been having some fun here, I'm curious as to why this question didn't come up earlier: Table 53B plots the observed qstm As column headers and the the measurement temperatures using soft glass hydrometers with the volume correction for the glass built into the tables, and against each temperature the base density corresponding to the line density column header value.

I ran my spreadsheet and got these results: Compare first and fourth columns.

These are not small errors, not by my reckoning anyway, and always lower than the table values. I'd have thought these were significant differences in the oil industry. Going to and 0. Note that an inline density meter for fiscal duty will measure to 0.

I am now scouring the standard for any indication of what an acceptable deviation between tables and calculation is. My correspondent on this problem has found a possible solution so any comments on this would be appreciated. This is the interpretation we now arrive at: By following the table down until the measurement temperature is found, the base density is then read from the appropriate column. The tables have a built in correction for hydrometer readings at temperatures other than the calibration temperature.

That means that the column header is the actual value read off the hydrometer; the correction is in the base density values and not in the observed density. Hence the column header is not the true density at the measurement temperature. What the calculation in Dens Not for me to say, but the tables ought surely, today when there are so many different ways to measure density at various temperatures, ought to apply the correction to the measured value rather than the base density so that the value used for the column headers is the true density?

What correction do you apply if you don't know what temperature to correct for I suppose but then the tables could be better arranged to tabulate the data with base density as the column wstm and the line density to asrm found against the measurement temperature. Historical reasons is the answer, in other words or am I wrong? I still have to validate what Excel does in iteration if the iteration limit is reached before the divergence limit I have a query posted in the spreadsheets forum on this.

From memory, there was always a discrepancy at various densities – the standard was written in cobol I think and the 'variations' only came apparent after people started using Sharp PC6 basic calculators and noticed a adtm in the 4th and 5th decimal.

So AFIK the raw data was derived from many different crude densities and observed thermal cooefficients and then a few products – not lubes, table D – were also observed.

There were notable diffs between resids, gasoils and gasolines – not the aromatics in D – but for simplicity in custody transfer, fiscalisation and duties, it was agreed to roll out one product table, with at the time, negligible flaws. Participants included major oil cos, USCustoms and various interested parties. Most of the people involved are probably out of the business now but I remember a few names if you're interested – email me and I'll give you some leads. The tables were always a compromise because of the 0.

Astm Table 54b Formula

There are a couple aetm oil companies which produced and printed their own tables to 0. I did an arbitration once where all data was referred back to volume 10 and 11 subroutines but the fiscal difference was always very minor and the real errors were always gross temperature and liquid level, not cumulative rounding.

ASTM Petroleum Tables Vol. 8 (Tables 53B, 54B)

Sidewall bulges in kBbl steel lakes are more of a problem than density errors. More Help needed on this topic; Can someone help answer this: Based asm all of my reference books, 8. Ashm this have something to do with apparent density vs observed density? ProtechWT, thanks for our post and information.

I may well come back to you for some further information and advise. Since I started this spreadsheet solution i have had some invaluable collaboration which has resulted in the current version 'Density 12Mb rev I get periodic requests for for the password so I assume either some people are modifying the spreadsheet sill further or they simply want to make it anonymous.

However, a further iteration is in the works and I'd appreciate any feedback, bearing in mind this is intended to be a practical, rather than exact interpretation of the standards: The next change is asym include the pressure correction.

I am going to assume that in most cases the density will be measured online using such devices as vibrating element sensors, coriolis, vibrating tube and vibrating fork etc. All well and good, and I guess I can axtm up with a suitable combination of calculations and sequence but the big difference here is the lack of real data to check against.

I did manage to obtain a small set of data from one 53v the oil companies some time ago but if anyone can point me to any such data please do. Byfro, I hope someone can answer your question for you and for me.

Required Softcopy of ASTM Table 53B and Table 54B.

Red Flag This Post Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Digital Transformation may be defined in a number of different ways by analysts or enterprise software vendors. Defense manufacturing is all about project manufacturing and project accounting. Students Click Here Join Us! Posting Guidelines Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Disagreement between ASTM D table 53b and calculation Both density and viscosity are affected by both temperature and pressure but the pressure effects aren't significant at low pressures. Disagreement between ASTM D table 53b and calculation I've been having some fun here, I'm curious as to why this question didn't come up earlier: Disagreement between ASTM D table 53b and calculation My correspondent on this problem has found a possible solution so any comments on this would be appreciated.

Volume Correction Factor Table 54b Formula

Resources Digital Transformation may be defined in a number of different ways by analysts or enterprise software vendors. Download Now Defense manufacturing is all about project manufacturing and project accounting. Download Now White Paper: