nuche1973
Structural
- Apr 29, 2008
- 300
Greetings all, I have a particularly interesting problem. For several months I have been checking the design of dust collectors. This involved verifying the housing thickness with respect to the vacuum and deflagration pressure, for both round and rectangular collectors. As you may be aware, these structures are under 15psig and do not necessarily fall under ASME BPVC. However, I have been using ASME BPVC as a guideline, especially for the round collectors. My problem revolves around the rectangular collectors.
Up to now, I have been using simple beam theory per AISC for these collectors. Under AISC, I have to mathematically determine the effective width of the plate what the plate contributes to a plate with stiffeners combined section and determine the section modulus. I then, use that section modulus to determine the allowable pressures for both vacuum and internal pressure based on the spacing of the stiffeners. I use both the high and low section modulus, since they are not the same when the combined section is in negative or positive pressure.
I was recently informed that my results were extremely conservative. This came about when my client sent me a drawing asking for the maximum operating pressure. I determined the maximum operating pressure to be of -9 inches of water column. However, the collector is operating at -20 inches of water column. A coworker suggested to me that I refer to Roark’s Formulas for Stress and Strain, as a check. When I used the formulas outlined in Chapter 11.6 Thin Plates and Stiffeners, the resulting pressure was higher, a lot higher (around -300 inches of water column!)
The formula in Roark’s is similar to AISC, with respect that the effective width of the plate is required. However, the calculation gives a larger number than AISC (7” vs 3”). This is obviously where my discrepancy lies. However, I want to be sure that I am looking at this from the right perspective. I am curious to hear how a mechanical engineer would address this issue. Please bear in mind the following:
1. I am aware that I am a structural EI and I am not pursuing this type of work. Although I enjoy it, but these projects were pushed on me (work is work and lowest man syndrome).
2. The company I work for has a Mechanical division but work mostly in HVAC (I got blank stares or the usual “why are you doing this?”)
3. Most of my work is by hand, or using MS Excel. We have RISA but limited licenses.
4. And as always any comments are greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Up to now, I have been using simple beam theory per AISC for these collectors. Under AISC, I have to mathematically determine the effective width of the plate what the plate contributes to a plate with stiffeners combined section and determine the section modulus. I then, use that section modulus to determine the allowable pressures for both vacuum and internal pressure based on the spacing of the stiffeners. I use both the high and low section modulus, since they are not the same when the combined section is in negative or positive pressure.
I was recently informed that my results were extremely conservative. This came about when my client sent me a drawing asking for the maximum operating pressure. I determined the maximum operating pressure to be of -9 inches of water column. However, the collector is operating at -20 inches of water column. A coworker suggested to me that I refer to Roark’s Formulas for Stress and Strain, as a check. When I used the formulas outlined in Chapter 11.6 Thin Plates and Stiffeners, the resulting pressure was higher, a lot higher (around -300 inches of water column!)
The formula in Roark’s is similar to AISC, with respect that the effective width of the plate is required. However, the calculation gives a larger number than AISC (7” vs 3”). This is obviously where my discrepancy lies. However, I want to be sure that I am looking at this from the right perspective. I am curious to hear how a mechanical engineer would address this issue. Please bear in mind the following:
1. I am aware that I am a structural EI and I am not pursuing this type of work. Although I enjoy it, but these projects were pushed on me (work is work and lowest man syndrome).
2. The company I work for has a Mechanical division but work mostly in HVAC (I got blank stares or the usual “why are you doing this?”)
3. Most of my work is by hand, or using MS Excel. We have RISA but limited licenses.
4. And as always any comments are greatly appreciated.
Thanks.