×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Code case N-284-2

Code case N-284-2

Code case N-284-2

(OP)
Hello,

I am doing a shell buckling evaluation per code case N-284-2. The cylinder is considered immersed in water at a 290 psi. After doing the evaluation with no stiffeners I did not pass the relationships of -1713, and since my thickness is fixed I started messing with stiffeners.

The constraints are that I can't use rings. So I'm using stringers (internal). Just to make sure I understand (english vocabulary - sorry, I'm French): stringers would be straight longitudinal stiffeners, parallel to the cylinder axis, is that correct?

I want to make sure I understand -1200 correctly, especially the terminology and definitions. For example: l_i (= "l index i", so that's either l_phi or l_theta). l_phi is going to be the distance between ring stiffeners and l_theta is going to be the distance between stringers, is that correct? So let's say, for example, that I have no rings and 2 stringers: l_phi is going to be about the length of the cylinder and l_theta is going to be half of its inner perimeter?

How about l_si? It's defined as "one-half of the sum of the distances l_i on either side of an intermediate size stiffener". I must be missing something because the way I see it there is one l_i on either side of the stiffener, so the sum of the distances l_i on either side of a stiffener is always going to be 2 x l_i, so half of that is l_i, and therefore l_si would always be equal to l_i? I must be missing something obvious here...

Thanks for any help anyone can provide...

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.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources