You are on page 1of 11

H'crC11 :;l~r>~io;-.!

lwn 1'
8"Do78;;)jco6{33) ( [1!1outr.rpn o,d~r- r
k. .~~~~~~:~~~-~;.~;, . -~- ,_
Oesigning fiherglass-reinforced- 04-
plastic vessels for agitator service
-.... ~~;t. .'";:'-tr.'J-l?11 rr;..:...f\.2~:::.:...:: ..r.].'}:...:..~;.s.. .... :.:- .
.. ; .. \~,: ,; ... ~. -~=-r.~~ ~~-~--.'
-' .

~ere is practica!, step-by-step inforrna~ion on ho'v to design

1berglass-re'infor'ced-plastic tanks that have turbine
:tgitators !llounted on top.

J. B. Fasarw, Chemineer, lnc., and T. M. Eberhart, Hercules lru:.

] This is an analysis of various aspects of mounting blades attached to a hub driven by an agitator shaft.
onfigura tions, baffle theory, agitator loads and me- There are five major components: the prime mover, the
hanical design criteria. It explains in sorne depth the drive, the shaft sea!, the sha(t, and the impdler.
1eory of two of the most popular configurations-the Turbine impellers are chatacterized by the type of
Jp-center, nozzle-mounted agitator and the frame- or flow produced. Axial-ftow turbines move the fluid par-
essel-mounted agitator. Two examples are worked in allel to the axis of the agita~or shaft, while radial-flow
::>mplete detail, one for each of thc two configurations. types discharge the fluid frofn the impeller region per-
~eferences are quotcd for additional information. pendicular to the axis. The most common turbine is the
45 o -pitched-blade one (see Fig. 1).
Agitators l\1ounting configuration
A turbine agitator is a mcchanico.l device that pro- Top-entering mountings are shown in Fig. 2-6. In
uces motion in a fluid through thc rotary action of Fig. 2, the agitator is supponed independent from the
npellers. The turbine impeller consists of fixed-angle vesseL The beams must carry all agitator loads. This


forces and moments acting on the agitator fig. 1

mounting is used where (a) an cxisting vcssel does not

have sufficient strength to take agitator loads, or where
(b) an agitator for a ncw vcssel is _most economically
supported in this manner. In many mstances, large agt-
tators for fiberglass-reinforced-plastic (FRP) tanks are
most economically supported independent ofthe vessel.
Sufficient structural engineering methods are available -~,

to permit design of independent mountings. For most ,_'.

applications, only the effect of fluid forces against the
baffies and tank wall must be considered in designing
fiberglass-reinforced plastic tanks with independent
mountings ..
In Fig. 3, the agitator is supported by a strucrure
mounted on the vessel. In this case, the FRP vessel must
be designed to handle all agitator loads. An auxiliary
stuffing box or lip sea! may be rnounted on the nozzle of
a closed-top vessel if a sea! is required. A separa te tank-
supported sea! cannot be used because ofseal alignment
When a separate, tank-supported mechanical sea! is
needed, the configuration- of Fig. 4 should be used. The
prime mover and drive are mounted on an independ-
ently supported bearri structilre. The drive is conn~ted
to the shaft by means of a flexible gear-type couphng.
The beam structure resists the torque load and supports
the weight of the prime mover. All other loads must be.
handled by the nozzle and tank top. A pedestal assem-
y,y, . . " .. . , ,: .-;!: ...
bly (mounted on the vessel nozzle) contains ~he me-

Yz,)'ro Ddlections, in. chanical sea!. This configuration is often used w1th very
a Angular deflection, agitator shaft large drives (greater than 10,000 lb) in arder to isolate
'1 Correlation factor, local buckling stres.~
the mechanical loads from the vessel.
p Laminate dcnsity, lb/in. 3 The configuration shown in Fig. 5 is the most com-
mon arrangement for smaller, closed-top tanks of FRP
.. requiring a shaft sea!. Typically, .this will apply to FRP
116 CHE~I!CAL E..'..;G!NEER!:'IG MAY ~. 1980
. ''"~ .... .


. <Nt:cJ~.~!J.
... ~~ ~~-'\ llf!!l!lllil!'.ll
.:: ::;~) f
. . 1:...:' ---'"-4

Jndependent support (on open tank) Fig. 2 Frame-mounted agitator su'pported by tan k wall Fig. 3

tanks 6ft dia. and smaller. The pedestal is the transition as calculated by Eq. 1 implies an unchanging load.
piece between the agitator drive and the mounting Actual torque (or power draw) shows sorne variabiJ;
flange. A lip sea!, stuffing box, or mechanical sea! can ity, which is a function of the turbulerit conditions
be mounted within the pedestal. within the agitated fluid. Usually, the larger the inten-
A turbine agitator mounted independent of the vessel sity of agitation, the larger the variability, up toa maxi-
on beams (Fig. 6) has a flexible bellows to connect the mum of -+-15%.
agitator flange to the vessel flange. This arrangement Hydraulic forces acting on the impeller generate
has the advantage of essentially removing allloads from moments that act on the shaft. Because of the random
the FRP vessel. \Vhere mechanical seals are required, nature of the forces and the rotation of the shaft, these
this option is less costly than the arrangement shown in bending moments often reverse during operation. The
Fig. 4. In addition, agitator vibration is isolated from horizontal component of these hydraulic forces can be
the vessel. Any type of sea! is compatible with this con- estimated from:
figuration. Of the mounting configurations discussed,
the vessel-mounted support (Fig. 3) and the vessel- [2]
mounted pedestal (Fig. 5) are the only two commonly
where D is the impeller dia., in. K will vary between 0.3
used mountings that require design considerations of
and 2.1; depending u pon impeller and vessel geometry
the FRP vessel due to the agitator. and the leve! of agitation.
Further discussions in this paper are directed toward
The bending moment, M, is the product of the hy-
the design of FRP vessels for these latter two types of
draulic force, Fh, and the distance, L, from the turbine
agitator mountings. to the first support bearing in the agitator drive (the
shaft length):
Agitator loads
It is necessary to understand agitator loads in arder to [3]
relate them to the design of FRP vessels. Refer to Fig. 1
for the following discussion. For multiple impellers, the lvf is cumulative.
The forces and moments created by a fluid agitator Long, cantilevered shafts can produce very large
are a result of the fluid motion produced by rotation of bending moments. Such moments are quite often the
the turbine impeller. The power required to rotate a largest loads to be accounted for in FRP vessel design.
turbine impeller results in a torque that can be calcu- Most often, adequate design may be achieved by in-
lated from: cluding only the static weight and the bending mo-
ment. Other loads do have an_effect, but they are usu-
Tq = 63,025HPtfN (1]
. ' ally minar by comparison.
where HP 1 , the impeller shaft horsepower, and N is Tests using full-scale agitators have shown that off-
the impellcr shafi rotational speed in rpm. Torque center or angular mounting greatly increases dynamic

CHE:-.IICAL L'\;GC"!!:Rl)G M.W 5, 19BIJ 117





__ ;,_
. ~

. ...::-1

. . 31.
. .; ~~~

lndependent support
(tank-supported mechanical seal) Vessel-mounfed pedestal (shaft sea! in pedestal) Fig. 5
Fig. 4
bending moment. Because of this, the tolerances used guiar load distribution is conservative. The maximurn
during fabrication of the vessel can have more inftuence pressure in this case would be twice the pre!Sure in a
on design than any other single factor. It is important uniform load, and, assuming that four baffies are used,
that mounting flanges be installed with extra care in can be found from:
order to ensure that the flange centerline coincides with
34,377 HP 1
the tank centerline and that the flange face is perpen- pbma:r = . A Nd [4]
dicular to the axis of the vessel. :. b
When mounting an agitator on a: steel supporting where Ab is the projected baffie area, in. 2 and d is the
frame, allowances should be rnade for horizontal align- tank dia., in. Designing for this pressure acting on the
ment, and the unit should be shimmed so that the shaft projected area of the baffle ensures adequate design.
will align with the axis of the vessel. During agitation, a continuous radial load is experi-. 'l

Intentional off-centering or angular orientation for enced by the tank wall. The maximum pressure (near
the purpose of random agitation wirhout the aid of in- the lower tangent line) will generally be no larger than
terna! baffiing should be treated as a special design situ- 0.02 psi. An agitator will also contribute a Jocalized,
ation. \Vhen this type of installation is used, the de- randomly fluctuating pressure pf as m u eh as 1 psi.
signer should contact the agitator manufacturer for an With respect to the design of FRP tanks, only two
estmate of the expected maximum shaft bending-
types of agitator mountings will be discussed: the noz-
zle-supported agitator and the frame-mounted agitator
The agitator shaft and drive are subjected to vertical supported by the tan k sidewall. An example of the noz-
forces. The principal vertical force is the weight of the zle-supported agitator can be found in Fig. 5, and the
shaft and impeller, Fw. In high-pressure applications, frame-mounted agitator supported by the tank wall in .
the upward thrust, FP, acts on the bearings in the agita- Fig. 3.
tor drive. A pitched-blade or axial-flow irnpeller nor- When designing a support of any kind to hold an
mally pumps downward and generates an upward agitator, it is essential to limit deflection at the impeller
thrust, F1 As mentioned above, the forces FP and F1 to %in./ft of shaft extension. \Vith a nozzle-suppor~ed
generally are not significant.
agitator, any fiexure of the tank head, due to bendmg
mornent, will result in an angular deflection of the im-
'-Agitator loadings on vessels peller shaft. This sarne type of deflection can occur on
Irrespective of the type of mounting, the radial and frarne-mounted units supported by the sidewall Frames
tangential loads applied to the baffies and sidewall are should be designed to lirnit this angular deflection; the
essentially the same for identical irnpellers rotating at techniques and data for frame design are wdl known.
the same speed. For an axial-fiow irnpeller, the baffle The methods for designing FRP tanks to support
loading distribution is minimal ar the tp and increases frame-mounted units, however, are not well known and
to a ma.x:imum at the bottom. An assumption of trian- will be discussed in further sections.

loads imparted to vessel from
lndependent support (bellows connector) Fig. 6 Fig. 7
nozzle-mounted agitator

Nozzle loadings for a nozzle-mounted agitator are Tensile and compressive strength
depicted in Fig. 7a. These loadings result from: the Sufficient information exists to adequately define
bending moment (Eq. 3), the static weight, and the these in terms of the ultimate strengths for filament-
torque (Eq. 1 ). . wound as well as contact-molded vessels. Generally, the
The frame-mounted unit (assumed to be a rigid allowable limits, as a mnimum, are those permitted by
frame, as in Fig. 3) will transmit forces to the tank side- the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) Voluntary
wall, as shown in Fig. 8. The force Fr is the tangential Product Standard 15-69 [JO] for hand-layup construc-
force generated by the agitator torque. The force F 11 is tion and the American Soc. for Testing and Materials
the sum of the static-weight contribution plus the force (ASTM) D3299-74 [ 1) for filament-wound construction.
genet:"ated by the bending moment. The reaction forces
required by the vessel are shown also.
A strain requirement is generally used to prevent
Baffies liner failure and is usually limited to 0.001 in./in. The
Mixing in vessels by an agitator is most effectively mechanical forces of agitation will cause strains higher
accomplished through the use of baffles. There are v~ri~ than those occurring in static conditions.
ous types of mounting positions and baffiing that can
be used to accomplish mixing. The most common ar- Fatigue strength
rangement is v.rith the agitator shaft coincident with the Cyclic or repeated loading can result in fatigue fail-
centerline of the vessel, and four baffles attached to the ure at stress levels well below a material's ultimate static
tank wall, each having a v.'dth that is 1/2 the tank dia. strength. Few conclusive fatigue-strength data have
and being set off the tank by Y-, 2 of the tank dia. The been published pertaining to corrosion-resistant fiber-
plane of the baffies should intersect the centerline of the glass laminates. In addition, fatigue data are generally
vessel. This is termed "standard baffling." For FRP taken under ideal conditions-that is, no stress concen-
tanks, triangular or wedge-shaped baffles are the most tration, uniaxial stress condition, and so on. The num-
cost-effective and provide essentially the same baffiing ber of variables usually associated with fatigue data,
as standard baffles. The design of triangular baffies will when combined with material variables (such as type
be considered later on. and direction of reinforcement, reinforcement weight
ratio, resin strength and fabrication quality), makes
correlation of data relating to FRP very difficult.
Mechanical design criteria Agitator loadings provide one of the most extreme
In designing FRP vessels to handle agitator loads, variations of possible stress cycles. Knowing the maxi-
there are primarily five criteria. Al! o these, where ap- mum number of cycles to which the structure will be
plicable, must be satisfied. subjected, along with the stress ratio (max. compres-



of engineering judgment be used for any particular

application of general fatigue data.
The fatigue characteristics of stcel used for support-
ing structures are general! y much better known. There-
f<:>re, the design of the stcel support will not be discussed
he re.

Local buckling
Frame-mounted agitators supported off the tank wall
present concentrated compressive loads on the sidewall.
The relative thickness of the "!al! requires that a local-
ized buckling analysis be made. For FRP tank design, a
safety factor of 5 is sufficient. . . .

The entire support system of an agitator should be
made sufficiently strong to limit shaft deflection to less
than or equal to Ys in./ft of agitator shaft length. Un-
balanced hydraulic forces are the primary cause of this
deflection and should not be confused with the static
deflection caused by weight. Supports that permit dy-
namic shaft deflections much larger than %in./ft can
severely shorten agitator life. If the criteria for shaft de-
flection are not controlling, deflection should be limited
to %% of span. . .
Load diagram for wall support
of frame-mounted agitator Fig. 8 N ozzle-mounted agitators
Head design
An investigation of stresses and deflections caused by . ..,
sion/max. tension), we can determine .the fatigue
strength from typical test data. When plotted to log-log agitator loads was made for FRP tanks with dished
scale (stress versus number of cycles, or SN), most fatigue heads [5]. Here, for typical support reactions caused by
data closely approximate two straight-line segments. agitation equipment, it was found that stresses, rather ."O;

When a curve reaches a constant stress that is inde- than static deflections, govemed the design, and that .'~'
pendent of the number Of cycles of ioading, thecorre- the component of stress due to bending moment ~ . -~

sponding stress is referred to as the "fatigue limit" or from three to five times that due to the agitator's dead
"endurance limit." This usually occurs in the vicinity weight. ..
o: a few millio~ ~ycles ofloading. AII agitators will pro- For the purposes of analysis, it was assumed that the
VIde over 2 m1lhon cycles throughout their useful life. area of support had a radius equal to the radius of the
Therefore, when no endurimce limit exists maximum base of a 60-deg. conical gusset (see Fig. 7b). In all cases,
stresses must be determined from the SN c~rve for the nozzles used for agitator support should be properly
maximum number of cycles expected over the useful gusseted. The effectiveness of 60-deg. plate gussets in
life of the equipment. evenly distributing stress to the head will be signifi-
Many materials do not an endurance limit. FRP cantly less than for a comparably sized conical gusset
falls into this category. For such materials in agitator- (see Fig. 4 and 5).
applied ser;vice, maximum stress levels should be lirn- As can be expected, stresses due to locally applied
ited according to the anticipated number of cycles ~f loads quickly die out as the radial distance from the
applied load over the expected life of the equipment. point of load is increased. The point of investigation of ,
An approximate indication of the SN behavior of FRP" stresses is taken as the location of the attachment of the
lamina tesis given in terms of the percentage of ultima te gusset to the head, r0 Because deflections and stresses
strength in Fig. 9. This figure represents a compilation vary directly with the magnitude of applied loads, coef-
of data from severa! references [8,9,11]. The data of ficients dependent upon the geometry of the supporting
Isham [8,9] extend approximately to 2 X 10 6 cycles. structure can be defined in arder to simplify the govern-
The rate of decline beyond this number of cycles has ing equations. By this procedure, deflections can be re-
been shown to be much slower than for the initial part lated to applied loads by:
of the curve. y= k1 W [5]
Beca use of the limited basis for predicting fatigue life
of corrosion-resistant laminates, a safety factor of 2 is and h=kzM [6]
suggested for use with Fig. 9. Other factors-stress ratio, where k1 and k2 are deflection coefficients. Similarly,
multiaxial stress conditions, elcvated operating temper- maximum radial stress is given by: ,.
atures, e..xposure to corrosivc environments, and so .
on-have a marked effcct on the fatigue characteristics
of laminates. This demands that a significant amount and [8]

120 CHE:,IJCAL I'..'I:GL'IEERI!'OG M.W ~. 1980

wher' q1 and q2 are stress, coefficients that take into
account the combined effects of radial moments and ..c.
membrane forces. g, 100

" These deflection and stress coefficients are functions
...... 80
of r0 , R and t [5, 12]. In addition, k1 and k2 are inversely
proportional to the elastic _modulus, E, which was as- "'
' t: 60 !"- .,

~sumed to have the PS 15-69 [JO] value for the purpose
of analysis .. Fig. 1O to 13 give val u es of the coefficients
for 4-ft to 8-ft-dia. tanks of varying head thickness with
the load applied to a 6-in.-dia. conically gusseted noz-
~ 40
"' ' ~

;!!. 30
zle. Fig. 14 through 17 show how each of the coefficients
is affected by nozzle size.
Because of the complex nature of the interaction be- "'- ........
tween head -stiffness and the static and dynamic load
characteristics of an agitator, it is very difficult to sim- --
plify the analysis of head stability. The area of concem
becomes one of angular vibration, which will be highly ~.

dependent on the agitator's mass distribution. It has

been found from test results that hydraulic forces dueto
fluid motion will be random in nature as long as the Endurance data for FRP laminates
tan k is uniform and the agitator centered and balanced. extrapolated to 10 9 cycles Fig. 9
For agitators with impellers operating below the liquid
interface, this effectively minimizes the cyclic nature of
bending as long as the mounting nozzle is aligned prop-
erly and the agitator is balanced within reasonable tol-
erances. Again, proper installation is seen to be an im- 18.0
portant factor in nozzle-mounting design.
16.0 1--'1-~1--\--t---"c-t---t---+-1
Practically speaking, nozzle-mounted agitators have
not been utilized toa great e.xtent on FRP tanks. This is 14.0
due to the lack of understanding of how nozzle loads xl120~~r-~~--~---~------+-----~-1
affect head design, the lack offatigue data (particularly E 10.0
related to failure of the bond of the nozzle to the head), "'b B.O 1------T-----""t-----".....-1------+-----t--i
and beca use of the unpredictable natur.e of head insta-
bility. For these reasons, the use of nozzle-mounted agi- .:, 6.0
. tators has been limited to small units mounted on 4.0~----~---~~--~~~~r---~~-1
small- to medium-sized tanks where the loads have been '2.0
low enough to afford an extra degree of conservatism in 0.0 '
design. 0.125 .. o.2so . o.375 o.5oo ~ :.o.625 o.750 ,
Because of the unpredictable nature of head instabil- Head th ickness, in..: : ~L~:;:~; : ;.: : . ::1
ity, it is recommended that agitators with easily accessi-
ble change-gears be used for nozzle-mounted installa- Deflection coefficient vs. head thickness for load
tions. Altemately, the head stiffness may require field applied toa 6-in.-dia., conically gusseted nozzle Fig. 10
modification in instances where dynamic deftection is
found to be unacceptably high.
The two primary factors inftuencing top-head design
of tanks with nozzle-mounted agitators are then local
.. ~~:ri:;~::':;( .. -. ~, -; r::~,f:'~~f-T'i'.~..~:~:-:~~:'~'-" :~: -;-:.3
radial stress (dueto dead weight and bending moment) M ~
and installation tolerances. Optimum head design may
entail thickening of the head at the center to reduce B.O H--\-1~.,.._-'--l------t------t------t--1
local stresses or stiffening the top in arder to raise the ..e 7.0
head's natural frequency to a safe operating leve!. 6.0 f---lr--\:+-~--+
'i 5.0
Conicalgusset design
Assuming that a canica! gusset is provided and that
b 4.0r--T--~~~r-----+---;------r-;
~. 3.0
the nozzle neck and gusset share in the resistan ce of the ~
agitator's torque reaction, shear stress in the gusset wall 20~----~~--~~~~~~-~-~--~-;

riear the attachment to the flange is given by: 1.0

SI= Tb/j [9] 0.0 L:----'----''--~~-~'=-~=='

0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500 . 0.625 o. 750
wherej = 2'ii'(a 3 tn + b\). Normally, the gusset will be Head thickness, in. {
provided with two or four handholes for bolt access.
The rernoval of material at the centerline of the hand- Deflection coefficient vs. head thickness for moment
holes may be enough to make the Iocation of the hales applied to 6-in.-dia., conically gusseted nozzle Fig. 11

CHB.IIC.~L DiGJr;EERI:'G ~!AY 5, 1980 121


~ . . . . !...\_}~ .:::.r ~
the governing stress area for design. An approximate
relationship for J at the centerline of the handholes is:
j = 27T[a3/n + c3tg(l - n~d1/27Tc)J [10]
~1 Stress due to torsion cari then be found by substitut-
ing e for b in Eq. 9 and solving as befare.
Conical-gusset stress due to bending is given by:
~ 1.51----'ol---'.,....,...-'-+----+----+----1--1 '1 [11]
E ~
:j where Z = +
7T(a 2 tn b2tq)
at the attachment of the gus-
set to the flange. With four hales, the section modulus at
the centerline of the holes is (approx.):
.. 0.5!---t---+---~~~~==--4-=--~ j
_ Z = 7T[a /n + c tg(l
2 2
- d1J27T)] (12]
0.0 ..___ _..__ _.1.-_ _..J__ __L._ _____.-J ,el '1 .
Bending stress can then be calculated as befare (see
o:1_2~ ~"_0.2~ _ o.375, 1 _,o.500. -~o.s_~~:.:,.:o-1.~-,;~
. -.-.,., .._.,-~~-:--,-,-- Head thickness in '-..,-.:.t:..,.~.,...,.~~:-. ':i! Eq. 11). Direct compressive stress dueto agitator wcight
,.,::..~.,.-~~:<:rf'f'.-.<--,..._~~~,_.. , . . ~ .'.:'_J.;i_~i:Y..~~t: ~::~-_.y:'~
will be in addition to compressive stress dueto bending.
Stress coefficient vs. head thickness for load applied It should be noted that the equations for bending and
to a 6-in.-dia .. conically gusseted nozzle Fig. 12 shear stresses contain no correction factors for the stress
coricentrations that will occur at the edge of the hole.
While shear-stress concentration will be minimal, the
stress concentration factor due to direct stress has been
.. shown to be three at the edge of a round hole.
6ft J
istt Tan~ dia. Because of the small diameter of the gusset, stress will
not be limited by local buclding, but will be governed
0.6 \'Y by the stress limit for static or cyclic load application.

\~ Frame-mounted agitators
e: 0.4 \~ If it has been determined that the top head will re--
~ .j quire significan! modification from a standard desigp, it

'~ ~
may be economically feasible to mount the agitator on
a steel supporting frarrie that is in turn attached to the
~ tank at its periphery. Fairly large agitators (up to
20 hp, 5,000 lb on a 12-ft-dia. tank).have been success-
fully mounted by this method. The primary area of
concern is the attachment of the supporting structure to
the tank sidewall.
The most significan! loading applied to the attach-
Stress coefticient vs. head thickness for moment
applied toa 6-in.-dia., conically gusseted nozzle Fig. 13
ment is the vertical reaction, F 11 For a properly de-
signed mount, this reaction is composed of roughly
equivalent parts due to agitation plus supporting-struc-
ture dead weight and to the agitator's bending moment. i'
If the center of gravity of the-agitator coincides with the -~
"-;~o~'"'~- t-;'-~::-~''5''f:''l{:r_r~'~~~:<r:~~~~~!.'":!12:t;~~":9;~ center of the support, then the component of force due
to weight, F~, is given by:
16.0 l - - - - - - 1 r f - l o - \ - - - l - - - + - - - - l - - - - 1 - - l .. F~ = W/4 (13]
14.0 The reaction due to bending moment will be greatest
_- 12.01---+-"r---'r-~-..:--+----1----1-~ when the moment vector is parallel with the support
-~ 10.0 beams. This condition results in equal reactions on each
side of the support, but the reactions are of opposite
b 8.0 ~---1----~---=~>..c:t-_:_~----~--1
sign (one upward and one downward). On the side of
"'< 6.0 the support that bears the downward reaction, the ver-
4.0~---1-----l---t-=-o={:=-~~---~ tical load due to bending moment, F~, will have the
2.0 same sign as F~, and will create the worst-case loading
on the support. The magnitude of .r:~ (max) is:
0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500 0.625 0.750 . F~(max) = M/24
Head thickness, in. .
where Lb is equal to the beam support spacing, in. The
Deflection coefficient vs. head thickness for load vertical support reaction is then:
applied to nozzles on an 8-ft-dia. tank Fig. 14 [15]


Once the magnitude of the vertical load has been
determined, the local shell compressive-stress and the - -,-~~~~~{:~~-~~=~= '.;~ ,7;,2-r;:-:~: {;.-:-.::~.~~-:-:~~:f":~~:~~\-~-~ ~~: -~-=-~ .
shear stress of the laminate attachmcnt must be ana- 9.0 1
}yzcd based on the actual shell thickness, type and .size
_, of support lug, and the method of lug attachrnent. The
support attachment configuration must be designed :f! 7 0 Gusseted nozzle dia.
~ based on the use of apprqpriate safety factors in con-
junction with the material's compressive stren_gth, shear i

strength, local buckling stress, and cyclic stress limits.

~ Ht-----"'c-----t-~c--+"""""""-t----+--1 _j~
The compressive buckling of thin cylindrical shells
has been shown to be governed by the following rela-
Se = y 0.6Et/r [16) 1.0
no ,
where y is a correlation factor (less than unity) that - ,., o.12l>- 0.250 --0.375:., o.50o .:: o.625; y:o.750 :l
-~~~~!;1,~:.~.t~~~~;~~~~~~~:I~:::J~r:~:;~n-:.";~~ 1
accounts for the difference between theoretical and ex- 2
perimental results. Values of y can be conservatively
approximated by y= [1.17 - 0.13 ln(r/t)] for direct Deflection coefficient vs. head thickness for moment
axial compression. This relationship is based on plots of applied to noziles on an 8-ft-dia. tank Fig. 15
the correlation factor, y, for r/t values ranging from 10
to 400 [2].
The torque reaction will cause a lateral force, F1, on _...,...,..~ ~'a-..c.-...,..a.-: ... ,.~.,_..... -~, :~,..,...,.~~~-:~..,_.. ..y.:,.~:-~~:~ct--_.,- -=-]
each support. This will result in a linearly varying shear . ":,. ~; "'~~;;:..;_:-:;. . . .:~.: :- -~-:.:rr:~~ ~7 -=-~~(-~q ... .~:::,~::;.{ :..'""if~~~~-: ~ . tl
load applied on the support,.ft, as shown in Fig. 8. The 2.5t---l---t---+---+---t---t
rnagnitude of this stress is usually srnall as long as the ., ! ~ ., j
projection of the support above the attachrnent is mini- !
mized. 'Lateral stress can, however, infl u en ce the type of
larninate required for attachment of the support to the
vessel sidewall.
Other types of attachments of agitator support
frames to FRP tanks have been used successfully. These.
include beams mounted toflanges of open-top vessels
by means of appropriate load-spreading baseplates (of
steel construction) and similar types of support used
with flat-top tanks. '
0.0 '!

General design .- 0-125 '- 0.250 . 0.375 < :~,;~0.500 -~: 0.625 ..,- 0.750 ... -7,
:: . ~~~1~~3i~H _-;j~)~.,~,H~ad.!~i~k,'~' ~;~:;;~~-i\:.:, ..~
Sidewall stress and stability
As previously ~entioned, sidewall pressures will be Stress c01ifficient vs. head thickness for load
randomly applied due to agitation in the range of applied to nozzles on an 8-ftdia. tan k Fig. 16
1 psi. The effect of localized pressures of this magni-
tud e were analyzed [3]. The results of the investigation
showed that neither local flexura! stresses nor deflec-
tions are likely to be large enough to affect the design of - -
the sidewall. ;: .. ,. l
An investigation of the sidewall's dynamic stability 0.1 '

was also made [6]. From th;,, it was found that the 0.6
\ \
period of vibra tion of the shell can be in the range of
frequencies normally used for shaft speed of turbine 0.5 \\ Gusseted nozzle di a.

agitators. The natural frequency of the sidesheli can be

approximated by: 7 0.4 \ f\\ ,
.,. ... sm.
j = 581.6 T/t:f2 -...fii7P [17] ;. 0.3

""'"' --
where the density of fiberglass, p, will normally range 0.2
from 0.05 to 0.07 lb/in. 3 , depending on glass-to-resin 0.1
"' ~ F==:::::-
weight ratio and resin density. The second mode of vi-
bration will occur at 2.83 times the frequency of the 0.0
first. 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500 0.625 0.750
Head thickness, in.
In determining the free-ring requency, stiffening ef-
fects of the end-constraints have been ignored. Al-
though end-effects, nozzle reinforcemenr and attach- Stress coefficient vs. head thickness for moment
ments may increase the frequency of vibration, it is applied to nozzles on an 8-ft-dia. tank Fig. 17

CHE!I.IICAL r.,-;cr:-;EER!;":G l\.IAY >. \9aO 123


< recommended that circumferential stiffeners be added Deftection should be limited to 0.5% of span. In fact,
if the operating speed of the agitator is greater than 80% deflection = 0.05 7/72 X 100 = 0.08 ( 0.5%). Shaft<
of the theoretical frequency so calculated. lf stiffeners deftection should be limited to %in./ft of extension.
are req~ired, they should have a centerline spacing of Shaft deftection/ft of extension = 12 sin(0.18 deg) =
frorn one half to two thirds that of the tank diameter. <
0.037 in. ( %in.).
. The required rib stiffness is: Head stresses are:
. - .. El. = 1.98 ?< 10-6 p th d4 ]l(d . (18]
sl = ql w = o. 70(580) = 406 psi
where t is the average shell thickness between stiffeners, s2 = qzM = 0.18(6,000) = 1,080 psi
I, is the rnoment of inertia of the circurnferential rib
S= S 1 + S 2 ='1,486 psi
stiffener, and h is the stiffener spacing in inches.
Using a safety factor of 10 on the ultimate flexura!
Baffies stress of 22,000 psi (for %-in.-thick hand-layup larni-
The maximurn distributed load applied to the face of nates) yields a static allowable l)tress of 2,200 psi. Refer-
a flat baffle has been given previously (Eq. 4). Over the ring to Fig. 9 yields a reduction in strength to 16% of
normal range of agitator applications, this load will re- the static ultirnate for 109 cycles of loading. Since the
sult in low stresses ~d deflections for wedge-shaped agitator will reach 6.6 X 108 cycles after 15 yr of opera-
baffles. This is due to the nature of the contiri.uous sup- tion, the design stress for fatigue resistance should be:
port of the baffle along the tank wall. The rnoment that
is applied to the tank shell will not affect the sidewall's SF = 0.16(22,000)/2 = 1,760 psi
design under normal operating conditions.
where the suggested safety factor of 2 has been used
The superiority of this baffle design over a flat-plate-
with the Fig. 9 data. Therefore, the rnaxirnurn stress for
type baffle is obvious. First, the flat-plate baffle is sub-
fatigue resistance governs the head design. The safety
ject to significant bending stresses and deftections under .
factor for fatigue design is !hen:
load. And second, gusseted baffles apply a rnuch higher
sidewall rnoment at the location of the gussets, whereas S.F.= 0.16(22,000)/1,486 = 2.4
the wedge-type baffle distributes this rnoment over the
entire length of the baffle. lf a gusseted-type baffle is which is greater than the value of 2 suggested for use
used, the design of the attachrnent and sidewall should with Fig. 9.
be based on an analysis of the stresses arising frorn lo- For the analysis of gusset stre5ses, J is given for the
cally applied moments on a cylindrical shell [4]. centerline ofthe holes in the'conical gusset by Eq. 10 as
J 286.8 in.\ where e = 6.375, ln = tg = 0.25 in., a
= 3.0 in., and the gusset is assumed to have four 4-
Design examples in.-dia. handholes for bolt access. Torsional shear stress
is then: .
N ozzle-mounted agitator
Considera 3-hp agitator to be mounted on a 6-in.- S1 = Tcfj = (2,250)6.375/286.8 =50 psi
dia. nozzle on a 6-ft-dia. tank. The agitator will have a
Similarly, using Eq. 12:
2-in.-dia. shaft with a single 33-in.-dia. turbine rotating
at 84 rpm. The agitator weighs 580 lb and generates
2,250 lb-in. torque and 6,000 lb-in. bending mornent
Z =
J8.7 in. 3
Sb =MIZ= 6,000/18.7 :::: 321 psi
when operating. The design chosen uses a %-in.-thick
ASME dished head and a 6-in. conically gusseted nozzle The direct compressive stress d~e to agitator weight is
with %-in. nozzle neck and gusset thickness. Deftection 15 psi, so that the c~mbined direct cornpressive stress is
and stress coefficients for the configuration chosen can Scomp = 321 + 15 = 336 psi. Adding a factor of 3 for
be determined from Fig. lO through 13 as: stress concentration at the hale yields:
/c1 = 5.0 x 1o- 5 in./lbr S= 336 X 3= 1,008 psi
lc2 = 3.0 X 10-5 deg/lb-in. Again, the fatigue stress limit will govem the design.
q1 = 0.70 in.- 2 The factor for fatigue is given by:
q2 = 0.18 in.-3
S.F. = 0.16(18,000 est. comp. strength)/1,008 = 2.9
The deflection analysis is as follows:
Tensile strength will be:
y 1 = k1 W = 5.0 X
10-5(580) = 0.029 in.
sten. = 321 - 15 = 306 psi
Y2 = k.}vl = 3.0 X 10-5(6,000) = 0.18 deg
. S = 306 X 3 = 918 psi
r0 =
9 in.
and the resulting safety factor for tensile stress is:
Therefore, vertical deftection (at r0 ) due to angular
rnovement o the nozzle is: S.F.= 0.16(12,000)/918 = 2.1
Yro = 9 sin(0.18 deg) = 0.028 in.
Frame-mounted agitator
Total deflection:
A 7.5-hp agitator is to be rnounted on a 12-ft-dia.
y =}' + Yro = 0.057 in. tan k using two \V6 x 12 steel wide-ftange bearns. The

124 CHE!\.IICAL E.."GlXEER!XG MAY 5. 1980

tank has a 12-ft straight length. The agitator is to rotate 100 psi, the mm1mum shear-bond-area of the wdd
a 36-in.-dia. turbine on a 144-in.-long shaft at 45 rpm. bdow the baseplate is:
The agitator generates 10,500 lb-in. torque and a bend- [-
ing moment of 56,000 lb-in., and the agitator plus its . A = 1,128 jjS1/lOO psi 11.3 in. 2=
support weighs 1,500 lb. The compressive stress in the weld material at the
The agitator mounting design chosen attaches to an edge of the plate will be governed by the fatigue stress
area on the tank where the shell thickness is o/t 6 in. The limit:
steel base plate of the support is %-in. thick by 6-in.
wide. The weld has a mnimum thickness of %6 in. The F. = 19,000 psi X 0.16 = 3,040 psi
average shell thickness is %in. The support area 1s 1~ X 6 = 1.5 in. 2 Comprcssive
From Eq. 13: stress is:
F~ = W/4 = 1,400/4 = 350 lb S= F/A = 1,128/1.5 = 752 psi
Similarly from Eq. 14 and 15:
Therefore, the safety factor for fatigue stress is:
F~ = M/2Lb = 56,000/2(36) = 778 lb
S.F. = 3,040/752 = 4.0 ...
This is adequate since it is larger than the safety fac-
F 11 = F~ + F~ = 1,128lb tor of 2 that was suggested for use with the data of
Thus, th sidewall must withstand a 1,128-lb vertical Fig. 9.
load at each support location. The natural frequency of the shell can be approxi~
Eq. 16 can be used to predict the allowable compres- mated by:
sive stress to prevent buckling:
f= 581.6(0.375/144 2 )\h.s X 10 6/0.07 =53 cpm
Se (t = %6 i~.) = 206 psi, where E= 0.9 X 106 psi where the flexura! modulus of the composite (structural
Se (t = 7'z in.) = 418 psi, where E= 1.0 X 10 6 psi and liner) has been taken as 1.8 X 106 psi. Since the
and a safety factor of 5 has been used. estimated natural frequency is greater than 80% of the
Therefore, the mnimum weld width (to adequately Qperating rpm of the agitator, it is suggested that one
distribute compressive load to the shell) is: rib be added to stiffen the tank shell. The stiffness re-
w = 1,128/0.3125(206) = 18.4 quired is given by Eq. 18 as:

Using a reinforced thickness of %in. at the edge of El,= 1.98 X 106(0.07)(0.375)(72)(45 3/53)(144) 4
the base plate results in a stress of: El. = 2.8 X 10 6
. S= 1,128/0.50(6) = 376 psi For a rib stiffener having a flexura] modulus of 1 X
10 6 psi, the mamen t of inertia of the rib should equal or
Since 376 psi <Se (t = "% in.), this weld thickness is
adequate. exceed 2.8 in. 4 .
Assuming an allowable average shear-bond-stress of Kmneth J. Maicmghtrm., Editar

References The authors

Julian B. Fauno is M=ag.,-, Procos
' l. ASTM D3299-74, Standard Sp=ification for Filament-Wound Gla'IS-Fibcr Enginecring and Dcvdopmcnt, for
Rcinforccd Polyester Chemicai-Roistant Tanb, Annual Book of ASTM Cheminecr Agitaton Div. of Chemineer,
Standards (Part 36), ASTM, Philadelphia, 1977. loe., P.O. Box 1123, 5870 Poc Ave.,
-{D Baker, E. H., Kovalcvsky, L., and Rish, F. L., "Structural Analysis of Dayton, Ohio 45401, tdephone 513-
Shells," McGraw-Hill, Ncw York, 1972, pp. 229-235. 898-1 fll. He previously worloed for Air
~Bi)laard, P. P., Strcsses fmm Radial Loads in Cylindrical Pn:ssure V=ds, Products and Chcmicals, and PPG
~ f'rtlding jo!D7UJI Rmarch Supplmunl, 195~. Industries. He reccivcd bis B.S.Ch.E. and
M.B.A. degr= from the Univenity of
~ijlaard, P. P., Stresses from Radial Loaru and Externa! Momcnts in Cy- Dayton, and an M.S.Ch.E. dcgrtt from
~indrical Pressure Vcssels, Wtlding }Wmai Rwarch Supplmunt, 1955. Lchigh University. Mr. Fasano is a
~ijlaard, P. P., C:omputation of thc Stress<:> from Local Loads in Sphmcal registcrcd profcssimul enginca in. the
Pressure Vcs><:ls or Pres!<Ur< Vosd Hcads, Wdding RuttJTch Ccuncil Bull. 34, statc of Ohio and a member of Al ChE.
Q. Den Hartog, J. P., "Mechanical Vibratioru," 4th cd., McGraw-Hill, Jnc.,
1\:cw York, 1956, pp. 165-IQ;.
7. Gates, L E., Hicks, R. W., and Dickcy, D. S., Application Guiddincs for Timothy M. Ebcrhart is a S<:nior
Turbine Agitaron, Chem. En., De-c. 6, 1976, p. 165. Enginecr at Hcrculcs Inc.'a Allcgany
Ballistio Laboratory, P.O. Box 210,
- B. lsham, A. B., Dcsign of Fiberglaso.Rcinforoed Plastic Chemical Storage
Cumbcrland, MD 21502, tdephone 304-
Tanks, Proc. :!lsl Armual Trch. Gen[., Reinforced Pla.stics Div., Soc. of thc 726-4500, where he is involvcd in the
Plastio Industry, 1\:ew York, 1966.
dcsign of advanccd-composite products.
9. lsham, A B., lnlluence of Chcmical ExP'Jsure and Tcmpcrature on the He rcceivcd B:S. and M.S. dcgre<:' in
.Oc<ii:n Propcrtic:s of Reinforced Pb.stic Cbemical Storage Tan k., Pru<. o.fth< Enginecring Mechanics from
- 22rul Annual Trch. Con[., Reinforccd Pla>tics Div., Soc. of thc Pl:mio lndus- Pennsylvania State Univenity and has
tf)', Ncw York, 1967. ..__- --- - -- worked with General Electric Co. and
lO. J';BS PS 15.69, Custorn ConlactMolded Reinforcc-dPolycster Chemical- Bectle Pla.stics, lnc., a Cheminccr
- - Res.istanr Proccss Equipmcnt, 1'\ational Bureau of Standard!', Voluntary company. He is a mcmbcr of the Soc. of
Produce Standard, U.S. Govt. Prinring Officc, Washington, 1969. Plastic Enginecrs and the Amaican Soc.
O;good, C. C., 'Fatigue Dnign,~ Jnhn Wilcy and Som, Inc., New York, for Tcsting nnd Materials. .
19i0, pp. 4fi2-467.
-.@Roark, R.J., "Formula.1 for Str=< and Strain," 5th cd., l\!cGraw-Hill, Nr:w
York, 1~7'i, p. 47fi, ( 2).

CHD.!!C:AL ESGr:-;EERI:"G :O.! AY 5, 1980 125