ASME STS(Revision of A5ME 5T) Steel Stacks AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD Sold fo:DOOSAN HEAVY. Fellow Engineers, I am running into an international difference in steel stack design. Per the ASME, STS-1, Section , Eq , allowable stress. 27 Aug The purpose of a stack is to vent process exhaust gases to the atmosphere. The mechanical design of stacks is now controlled in part by air.
|Published (Last):||18 October 2014|
|PDF File Size:||6.54 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.41 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
What circumferential stress do you ss-1 And can anyone provide a reason that the ASME would be limiting maximum plate thickness by diameter. Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden. You see this very typo. Are they asme sts-1 to force you to use a steel with an Asme sts-1 way higher than the design stresses dictated by buckling with their eq.
I think you should call ASME and find out who’s on the committee that works on that particular code.
Design of stacks
Gaylord’s Sts1 return similar results In hindsight Download Now Artificial intelligence AI has recently become a field in which research is proceeding at a feverish pace. Handbook 3rd page Asme sts-1 Steel stacks 9. Your allowable stress asme sts-1 prevent buckling will be less than.
These forces and asme sts-1 were in both cases calculated by combination asme sts-1 the forces in correspondence with the two mode contributions along each direction using the square root of the sum of squares SRSS. And, I suspect asme sts-1 your FY should really be F gamma. The tougher problem may be making this stack check as a canti. I think you’re on the right track now. In your 4th para. It certainly isn’t a rolling issue in the 1. I actually found some older books on buckling that may point me in the right direction near the end of the day today.
Design of stacks – Modalyse
Once stresses are calculated, the design would require mm plate at the base. Consistent improvement in parts and systems are a standard asme sts-1 of the job. There certainly shouldn’t be anything embarrassing about asking that kind of question of them. They are as follows Case 4. Table 14 summarises the equivalent asme sts-1 loads associated with the first two vibration modes along each direction.
I and other coworkers stared at the line about “all other steel members shall comply with the requirements of the AISC Fellow Engineers, I am running into an international difference in asme sts-1 stack design. The only thing i can possibly think asme sts-1 is that the rolling of thicker plate to smaller diameters could compromise the steel??? This is a very slender stack and I can imagine that wind induced vibration vortex shedding may be controlling the design.
Can anyone offer asme sts-1 ssme or interpretation? Given the fundamental frequencies of the chimney, this structure is assumed as rigid for the purpose of wind assessment and therefore a static analysis was conducted based on the application of equivalent static loads.
Do asme sts-1 little rearranging, add a few fudge factors and you might get near ASME’s eq. It is purely D to t. The first did not seem to post. This makes no sense to me. Asme sts-1 issue is in design of something like a 1. I sent an email and will update the thread std-1 any response.
In qsme, the above is about what I meant when I said asme sts-1 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. As expected, the response spectrum method leads to a lower response than the static procedure.
This also apears to not be the case as FY is on the right side asme sts-1 the formula stronger steel would allow larger thicknesses Adme joining you are opting in to asme sts-1 e-mail.
They undoubtedly do pay some attention asme sts-1 pl. Seismic effect According to the UBC code, the static force procedure cannot be applied to this chimney, considering the corresponding height.
You might look back at asme sts-1 earlier edition and see if you aren’t dealing with a misprint here. Increasing plate 2mm to move beneath the lower bound asme sts-1 give me. Our foreign counterparts design the above stack with most thickness around or over 20mm over the lower asme sts-1 of the stack. I’m not sure why the thickness is so high mm. In front of 4. The extremes of your buckling problem are: For the other horizontal direction this TMD is not required as the vortex shedding critical velocity Thanks and Best regards.
What do you do when Eq is not satisfied If the answer to the above is yes, what design method is acceptable. Do they mean asme sts-1 torsional loading or a pressure one way or another, or asme sts-1 loads? Equation says i cant go above 16mm when using the design cases that result in a requirement of 22mm They are break forming their poles in 8, ss-1 or 12 sides, certainly as tall as your stack, and with much higher imposed loads and moments.
Azme, it shouldn’t be hard to wrap your head around this, but it’s a min. This particular buckling problem is asme sts-1 susceptible to any same in the shape and loadings ats-1 testing, that no one has been able to do a test which approaches the theory very well.
If your shell is thick you don’t need to check those and you only need to check the requirements of AISC. Get in touch with a couple of them, and find out what their asme sts-1 is on this conundrum, because you and all us old guys don’t understand the rationale, and we want to know.
Table 4 systematises structural data, namely dimensions, mass asme sts-1 damping ratio defined according to the ASME STS specificationforce coefficients and importance factor.