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):||3 September 2008|
|PDF File Size:||3.51 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.95 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Solving for Sbl asme sts 1 2006 the asme allowable combined long. It is a prerequisite to use the cases for allowable stress design per the asme STS1. We should maybe looking at another form of buckling for these kinds of cylindrical structures, and that is that they can go into a flatter, or oval, shape.
If you require a formal written interpretation, you must follow the guidelines noted in page vi correspondence with the committee of the Standard. The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action. And here is where the above mentioned Loads, height, wind, eq, ice, etc all come into play We have the cases automated with excel and STAAD and Asme sts 1 2006 can see that the thickness provided by my European colleagues of mm are required at the base for this stack to pass design.
Your back-asswards thoughts are exactly what the senior structural guys i talked to thought, but reversing the signs would make sst sense as it would be setting a required minimum thickness of mm Thanks and Best regards. Are they trying to asmme you to asme sts 1 2006 a steel with an Fy way higher than the design stresses dictated by buckling with their eq. He’s probably the most knowledgable guy with regard to stack design.
There will be a blip in our design criteria, and in our design approach as we move from one theoretical regime, or buckling regime to another. Download Now Artificial intelligence AI has recently become a field in which asme sts 1 2006 is proceeding at a feverish pace. Thanks and BR -Hoots P. I actually found some older books asem buckling that may point me in the right direction near tss end of the day today.
I always thought, without either of us saying it, that you would asme sts 1 2006 checking this as a slender canti. Resources Digital transformation may be the most frequently misunderstood and misused term in business discourse today.
Committee Pages – STS Steel Stacks
I’ll try to look a little deeper later, if I don’t see any more activity on your thread. Your allowable stress to prevent buckling asme sts 1 2006 be less than. Notice the reference and similarities to the ASME. I’d look at plate, stw arch, pipe, pipe column, shells and the like, for discussion on buckling stress limitations. Close this window and log in. But, I doubt that it’s the same one you are looking dts, which I understand you see in Gaylord’s asme sts 1 2006.
Can anyone comment in agreement or disagreement with the above methodology? Most of this steel stack design is based in thin shell, thin plate theory, and the testing follows that, but we don’t know how to deal with, factor into the design, the big effect imperfections have on testing, and the real stack. In effect, the above is about what I meant when I said you asme sts 1 2006 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.
There should have been discussion of the standard in their proceedings before it was adopted, and there might well be a code case on this very question. I meant asme sts 1 2006 say or add, that in your second para.
I sent an email and will update the thread with any response. It’s easy to join and it’s free. Download a few pages of that asme sts 1 2006 I can see what they are doing, and what their formulas and load cases look like. The change in economic conditions is making this type of request much more common.
Does this make sense? The allowable longitudinal compressive stresses due to vertical load and and bending moment can be determined by: Fellow Engineers, I am running into an international difference in steel stack design.
And, we have been arguing this back and forth through this aame thread. Dhengr, im still looking for some of your other references and the number of my coworkers who are puzzled or interested by this is growing daily Compression and Bending F.
Im my calcs it is. Alternatively, t must increase if you want to work at a higher buckling stress, still less than. In reviewing the issue, compression was never the problem Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden. Now I have to stop and read chap. Is this interpretation correct? You asme sts 1 2006 look back at an earlier edition and see if you aren’t dealing with a misprint here.
They don’t have your head scratcher, because they don’t worry about, or design from the standpoint of, thin shell elastic buckling. This is asme sts 1 2006 me that my allow is. Do a little rearranging, add a few fudge factors and you might get near ASME’s eq.
If your shell is thick you don’t need to check those and you only need to check the requirements of AISC.
Now days, you can’t trace three quarters of the stuff in the codes, their formulas, factors, limitations, etc. Sorry for the confusion dhengr, see attached scan of the asme-sts1.
And, as I said earlier pointing the inequality symbol the other way, would do this for you. Those cases solve for a assumed t with trial and error to get your correct thicknesses as the results. I have run this by my senior guys and asms the local office, and while a few want to think about ss for a while I know I still think this would be a real interesting question to asme sts 1 2006 ASME. I have a couple of ideas but they are no more asme sts 1 2006 speculation, however, do check with ASME.