Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267611879
Conference Paper in American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Pressure Vessels and Piping Division (Publication)
PVP · January 2010
DOI: 10.1115/PVP2010-25173
CITATIONS READS
3 881
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Photoemission and inverse-photoemission studies of Bi 2 Y 3 ( Y=S, Se, Te) semiconductors View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Dennis Keith Williams on 08 December 2015.
PVP2010-25173
Yogeshwar Hari
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
9201 University City Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28223-0001 USA
Email: hari@uncc.edu
Dennis K. Williams
Sharoden Engineering Consultants, P.A
P.O. Box 1336
Matthews, NC 28106-1336 USA
Email: DennisKW@sharoden.com
In general, two approaches can be used for determining the The length and inside radius of the cylindrical shell are
critical buckling load of a cylindrical shell: deterministic represented by L and R. The first half range cosine series
methods representing a host of closed form solutions, and summation term in Eq. (4) denotes the axisymmetric part of the
stochastic methods that employ any number of statistical imperfection and the second half range sine series summation
parameters. While the deterministic approach carries out term denotes the non-symmetric portion of the imperfection.
analysis on the basis of some physical laws, stochastic (or The axisymmetric imperfections as derived from Eq. (4) are
probabilistic) methods attempt to mimic several unknown given by Eq. (6):
factors (including the imperfection profile, for instance) that can
affect the critical buckling load or the given shell. Deterministic ∑ cos (6)
approaches do not include perturbations in the shell wall
thicknesses, which are admittedly known to exist in practice. In
the present analytical study, a stochastic approach is employed The initial asymmetric imperfections are represented by a
in an attempt to predict the probability of a given critical double Fourier sine series. To determine the non-dimensional
buckling load within a defined confidence interval. This critical buckling load, calculation of Fourier coefficients must
approach was previously presented by the authors [3, 4] for a first be completed. Fourier coefficients Ckl and Dkl, as
series of shells subjected to an external pressure. represented in Eq. (7), have to be determined in order to
The example cylindrical shell considered in this study is a represent the initial imperfections in a simulation of a number of
fractionating tower with a 14 ft. I.D., 21 ft. long bend line to shell geometries utilized in this study, herein after referred to as
bend line, fitted with fractionating trays, and designed for an the "GSB shells".
external design pressure of 15 psi at 700°F. The tower material
of construction is assumed to be SA-285, Gr. C carbon steel. , ∑ ∑ sin cos sin (7)
TABLE 3
SHELL WALL THICKNESS PROFILE OF GSB10 SHELL
θ\L(in.) 0.75 3.25 5.75 8.25 10.75 13.25 15.75 18.25 20.75 23.25 25.75 28.25
0 0.293 0.287 0.294 0.298 0.294 0.296 0.300 0.306 0.288 0.283 0.310 0.309
30 0.287 0.292 0.288 0.300 0.288 0.289 0.300 0.290 0.306 0.295 0.296 0.298
60 0.297 0.283 0.284 0.310 0.281 0.306 0.309 0.290 0.305 0.290 0.305 0.295
90 0.294 0.291 0.292 0.289 0.306 0.295 0.295 0.305 0.294 0.300 0.294 0.284
120 0.304 0.283 0.284 0.310 0.293 0.288 0.309 0.283 0.298 0.311 0.287 0.284
150 0.294 0.308 0.297 0.301 0.300 0.296 0.286 0.312 0.291 0.294 0.286 0.288
180 0.313 0.301 0.306 0.302 0.307 0.283 0.293 0.282 0.309 0.302 0.295 0.289
210 0.293 0.303 0.302 0.307 0.290 0.287 0.310 0.303 0.307 0.306 0.306 0.308
240 0.289 0.297 0.295 0.300 0.292 0.313 0.296 0.295 0.295 0.292 0.297 0.299
270 0.310 0.303 0.309 0.303 0.296 0.308 0.282 0.285 0.300 0.286 0.286 0.307
300 0.295 0.305 0.292 0.286 0.297 0.299 0.299 0.293 0.312 0.293 0.288 0.284
330 0.291 0.299 0.284 0.281 0.298 0.303 0.307 0.307 0.298 0.293 0.312 0.287