26 Apr (Revision of ASME STS-1–). Steel Stacks. AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD. Three Park Avenue • New York, NY • USA. In addition, the materials of construction referenced in this Standard may not be allowed for use with flammable gases under pressure per ASME B and. ASME procedures provide for reconsideration of this interpretation when or if additional REC# STS (81KB) · STS Section ( 9KB).
|Published (Last):||16 January 2007|
|PDF File Size:||11.62 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.91 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
You might look back at an earlier edition and see if you aren’t asme sts 1 2006 with a misprint here. I think you are correct about contacting ASME about this, but im still hoping im missing something obvious here.
He’s probably the asme sts 1 2006 knowledgable guy with regard to stack design. Download Now Over the past three decades, 3D printing has developed a reputation as an essential manufacturing process for prototype parts. But, I doubt that it’s the same one you are looking at, which I understand you see in Gaylord’s book. And, as I said earlier pointing the inequality symbol the other way, would do this for you.
Is this interpretation correct? I have a couple of ideas but they are no more than speculation, however, do check with ASME. When using the above method, I am able to calculate the exact thicknesses being used by my international colleagues.
Given a ‘D’, I would expect ‘t’ to have to increase as the design stress increased to guard against buckling. Can anyone suggest the best way to contact ASME with something like this? If you require a formal written interpretation, asme sts 1 2006 must follow the guidelines noted in page vi correspondence with the committee of the Asme sts 1 2006.
This is a very slender stack and I can imagine that wind amse vibration vortex shedding may be controlling the design.
Now days, you can’t trace three quarters of the stuff in asme sts 1 2006 codes, their formulas, factors, limitations, etc. D and t are intimately related in this type of buckling problem. I have never seen a situation where thickening a plate made a buckling problem worse, at a given stress level, unless it changes the buckling from one mode to another, and their cases are based on the former. Maybe we should be looking at the fact that the actual max. Ill write a little more asme sts 1 2006 as it has been a hectic daybut perhaps these findings may spark some of your previous knowledge on the subject.
Sorry for the confusion dhengr, see attached scan of the asme-sts1.
Im my calcs it is. Thanks for your reply. Artificial intelligence AI has asme sts 1 2006 become a field in which research sst proceeding at a feverish pace.
Dhengr, im still looking for some of your other references and the number of my coworkers who are same or interested by this is growing daily By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail. Typically this condition occurs when we have a relative thick shell, and so my conclusion was that it behaves more as a “Beam” and we can ignore local buckling concerns of a thin wall shell.
Asme sts 1 2006 you would add some vibration damping device asme sts 1 2006 helical strakes to address the vortex shedding, otherwise if you increase the thickness to handle the vortex shedding loads then you will end up with a very thick stack.
There will be a blip in our design criteria, and in our design approach as we move from aame theoretical sst, or buckling regime to another. Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts. It is purely D to t.
Committee Pages – STS Steel Stacks
Thanks and BR -Hoots P. You see this very typo. And, we have been arguing this back and forth through this whole thread. Can anyone comment in agreement or disagreement with the above methodology?
Our foreign counterparts design the above stack with st thickness around or over 20mm over the lower half of the asme sts 1 2006. Those cases solve for a assumed t with trial and error to get your correct thicknesses as asme sts 1 2006 results.
Compression and Bending F. They talk about out-of-roundness of 1 or 2t, and very small differences in edge or lateral loading as having large differences in buckling strength.
I guess the basic question is: I and many other in my office are.
Notice the reference and similarities to the ASME. What xsme stress do you expect? I actually asme sts 1 2006 some older books on buckling that may point me in the right direction near the end of the day today. Download a few pages of that so I can see what they are doing, and what their formulas and load cases look like.
I’ll try to look a little deeper later, if I don’t see any more activity on asme sts 1 2006 thread.
Are you sure that equation is not just giving you a limitation on when one stress range or equation is applicable, rather than an absolute maximum thickness? In effect, the above is about what I meant when I said you are moving out of the thin shell regime, but into something of a no-mans land, since this sure isn’t a 16″ round pipe col.
Or, as paddington suggested any discussions of the standards in journals, prior to 22006. Except, of course, that your allowable working stress is a percentage of Fy, and then throw in a few load factors or asme sts 1 2006 factors, and you get a ten asme sts 1 2006 the eq.
Digital transformation may be the most frequently misunderstood and misused term in business discourse today.