Revision: Edition, January 1, ; Published Date: January ; Status: Active, Most Current; Document Language: English; Published By: ASME. 15 Feb Hi, I’m looking for: ASME STS Steel Stacks, if someone could upload it, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much in. Title, ASME STS Steel Stacks. Publisher, American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Length, 96 pages. Export Citation, BiBTeX EndNote RefMan.

Author: Akinosida Arashiktilar
Country: Chile
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Literature
Published (Last): 10 May 2010
Pages: 243
PDF File Size: 18.80 Mb
ePub File Size: 6.81 Mb
ISBN: 945-3-40398-218-7
Downloads: 84242
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Ball

You might look back at an earlier edition and see if you aren’t dealing with a misprint here. Design of stacks Aliaga: Keep in mind, this equation has no asme sts 1 2011 to loads, height, wind, eq, ect. However, for the purpose of comparison, the loads determined according to the static force procedure have been calculated and are summarised in Table 13 considering the first two modes in each direction.

Your back-asswards thoughts are exactly what the senior structural guys i talked to thought, but reversing the signs would make less sense as it would be setting a required minimum thickness of mm One issue with that is the ASME cases we use to check thickness. And can anyone same asme sts 1 2011 reason that the ASME would be limiting maximum plate thickness by diameter.

I would contact the person listed and request the interpretation. Y becomes 1 as noted in case 4. I do not know if it means. But, see their footnote ‘c’ and appendix B5, pg. What do you do when equation is not satisfied?

Does this make sense? Get in touch with a couple of them, and find out what their take is on this conundrum, because you and all us old guys don’t understand asme sts 1 2011 rationale, and we want to know. The design response spectrum was calculated based on the one proposed in UBC for such damping, as represented in Figure 8. Please note that since this is the personal opinion of a committee member, it asme sts 1 2011 not endorsed by ASME.

The significant discrepancy between the two approaches is explained by the very high overturning force at the top of the asme sts 1 2011 given by the static procedure, as a result of the very high mass of the supporting structure.


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? I have brough this issue to 3 or 4 of our senior US structural asme sts 1 2011 and they have all be puzzled by this mostly by the fact that they havnt noticed this stipulation in previous designs. Red Flag This Post Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Asmd will be a blip in our design criteria, and in our asme sts 1 2011 approach as we move from one theoretical regime, or buckling regime to another.

ASME STS-1 Steel-Stacks-2011.pdf

I still think this would be a real interesting question to ask ASME. Posting Guidelines Promoting, asme sts 1 2011, recruiting, coursework asme sts 1 2011 thesis posting is forbidden.

With no reference to height in the prerequisite it was just mind-boggling. There certainly shouldn’t be anything embarrassing about asking that kind of question of them.

I sent an email and will update the thread with any response. A thickness is selected to reduce the stack heat loss to the desired level or to a maximum stack exterior surface Friction loss c Exit loss loss calculations. Please help us to share our service with your friends.

I’d look at plate, plate arch, pipe, pipe column, shells and the like, for discussion on buckling stress limitations. It certainly isn’t a rolling issue in the 1. 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. Do they mean a torsional loading or a pressure one way or another, or dynamic loads? I asme sts 1 2011 like i have to be missing something here!

As you go to thinner plate, the allowable stress equations will asme sts 1 2011 needing to consider local buckling.

The biggest curve ball, to me, was no mention or relation to slenderness in equation My first look would be a number of Timoshenko books or Roark. The extremes of your buckling problem are: According to the UBC code, the static force procedure cannot be applied to this chimney, considering the corresponding height.


The tougher problem may be making this stack check as a canti. For the other horizontal direction this TMD is not required as the vortex shedding critical velocity Resources Digital transformation may asme sts 1 2011 the most frequently misunderstood and misused term in business discourse today. Now days, you asme sts 1 2011 trace three quarters of the stuff in the codes, their formulas, factors, limitations, etc.

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. Close this window and log in. Can a asme sts 1 2011 containing thicknesses that do not comply with eq.

You would still follow STS for other aspects of the design Vortex shedding, etc. D and t are intimately related in this type of buckling problem.

You see this very typo.

Design of stacks – Modalyse

The change in economic conditions is making this type of request much more common. Please fill this form, we will try to respond as soon as possible. A comparison between the base shear and bending moments calculated on the basis of the static procedure and as,e the response spectrum analysis is presented in Table 15, considering ase response factor R of 2. Asme sts 1 2011 this aspect into consideration, static equivalent forces were asme sts 1 2011 according to defined in the ASME-STS code, in order to check the amplitudes of vibration and stresses.

A minimum of 8 tt Thus the large difference in empirical approaches, different guy’s best guesses.