45 views

Uploaded by Anonymous T8aah3Jf

Design fiber glass reinforcementr vessel for agitator

- Loads in Bridge Design as per CSA S6-06
- Agitator design
- Agitation and Mixing
- Application Guidelines for Turbine Agitators
- FatigueLife FEA
- Analysis of Jumpers
- Mechanics of Materials
- SHM_Ships
- BS5400 - 10
- Non Linear Static and Multi Axial Fatigue Analysis of Automotive Lower Control Arm Using Neinastran
- Implementation of Risk Based Inspection (RBI) to Determine Ammonia Factory Inspection Planning PT. Pupuk Kaltim TBK
- 904-V-20 Fea Analysis CWS Nozzle
- Simulation of Low Cycle Fatigue With AbaqusFEA 376-383
- Fatigue Analysis in Caesar II
- Fatique Lecture Notes
- The Design of an Aluminium Alloy Wheel
- KISSsoft, Shaft Analysis_ Introduction to DIN 743, October 2000
- Evaluation of design of rear axle
- Fatigue Testing and Analysis of Results
- Fatigue Assessment

You are on page 1of 11

lwn 1'

8"Do78;;)jco6{33) ( [1!1outr.rpn o,d~r- r

k. .~~~~~~:~~~-~;.~;, . -~- ,_

Oesigning fiherglass-reinforced- 04-

1'1

plastic vessels for agitator service

-.... ~~;t. .'";:'-tr.'J-l?11 rr;..:...f\.2~:::.:...:: ..r.].'}:...:..~;.s.. .... :.:- .

.. ; .. \~,: ,; ... ~. -~=-r.~~ ~~-~--.'

......

-' .

1berglass-re'infor'ced-plastic tanks that have turbine

:tgitators !llounted on top.

] 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

115

AGITATED VF.SSEL!I

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 -~,

,

.,

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

requirements.

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

. ''"~ .... .

~

-(

'

't

. <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

AGITATED VESSELS

1

t

f

t

J

::1

:,

i.,

__ ;,_

'J...

. ~

~

:'".=1

. ...::-1

,'-

. . 31.

. .; ~~~

~).-:1'

lndependent support

(tank-supported mechanical seal) Vessel-mounfed pedestal (shaft sea! in pedestal) Fig. 5

Fig. 4

,

i

[

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-

mornent.

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.

118

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.

Strain

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-

AGITATF.D VF.SSF.LS

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. . . .

Deflection

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;

1

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 hq.ve 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 .

[7]

on-have a marked effcct on the fatigue characteristics

of laminates. This demands that a significant amount and [8]

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 !"- .,

1

1

~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-

...."'

"'E

~ 40

-o

"' ' ~

['-

i

~

;!!. 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 ~.

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~----~~--~~~~~~-~-~--~-;

0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500 . 0.625 o. 750

.~i

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

AGITATED VESSELS

~ . . . . !...\_}~ .:::.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-

20~~~~--~~---+-----+~--~~~

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

l

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.

4ft

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.

0.5

\~ Frame-mounted agitators

M

1

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

..

-7

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:

-18.0

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

O.OL---'-----1---1-----1------I.___.J

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. .

:i

[14]

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.

11

~ based on the use of apprqpriate safety factors in con-

junction with the material's compressive stren_gth, shear i

'O

6.0

5.0

J'l

~ Ht-----"'c-----t-~c--+"""""""-t----+--1 _j~

The compressive buckling of thin cylindrical shells

has been shown to be governed by the following rela-

tionship:

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,n~.in:.'~' ~;~:;;~~-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-

;-:-.':-~~~;r--:::];.~i'-!~~-i)~-~-:~~-'/~~~-:r_J..~~~~'J\:~~:"~~~~-~:-"~-~

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.

approximated by: 7 0.4 \ f\\ ,

,~12in.

S!n.

\

~~"'\

.,. ... sm.

;

j = 581.6 T/t:f2 -...fii7P [17] ;. 0.3

~

tr

""'"' --

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

AGITATF.D '1/f_<;SELS

< 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

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

and:

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

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.

1957.

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.

11.

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, (c.ne 2).

- Loads in Bridge Design as per CSA S6-06Uploaded byAyaz Malik
- Agitator designUploaded byAdrales Kristine
- Agitation and MixingUploaded bybkkbrazil
- Application Guidelines for Turbine AgitatorsUploaded byGian Carlos Perea Diaz
- FatigueLife FEAUploaded byMario Tirabassi
- Analysis of JumpersUploaded bygvsha88
- Mechanics of MaterialsUploaded byJack jackson
- SHM_ShipsUploaded byHemanand
- BS5400 - 10Uploaded byMhd Thr
- Non Linear Static and Multi Axial Fatigue Analysis of Automotive Lower Control Arm Using NeinastranUploaded bygramesh1985
- Implementation of Risk Based Inspection (RBI) to Determine Ammonia Factory Inspection Planning PT. Pupuk Kaltim TBKUploaded byInternational Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
- 904-V-20 Fea Analysis CWS NozzleUploaded bykkaranag
- Simulation of Low Cycle Fatigue With AbaqusFEA 376-383Uploaded byDmitry Grenishen
- Fatigue Analysis in Caesar IIUploaded bysj22
- Fatique Lecture NotesUploaded byMarcel Silva
- The Design of an Aluminium Alloy WheelUploaded byAjay Bhaarath
- KISSsoft, Shaft Analysis_ Introduction to DIN 743, October 2000Uploaded byTomas Pinheiro
- Evaluation of design of rear axleUploaded byAbhijeet Pandey
- Fatigue Testing and Analysis of ResultsUploaded byAndrei Costache
- Fatigue AssessmentUploaded byvsvineesh
- Dynamic Design AnchorsUploaded byDianna Lambert
- Allowable Stress RangeUploaded bySharun Suresh
- 10563b53e584d6c15317afc7f9bd7bbb Syllabus Machine Design Part 1Uploaded bySri Nath
- 1_3 NPTEL DESIGN NOTESUploaded bygirishnnaik
- Low Cycle Fatigue Analysis of Gas Turbine BladeUploaded byKaushik
- 1-s2.0-S0142112317300658-main.pdfUploaded byManhal Abd Albake Khriama
- Fatigue OhpsUploaded bymdmarufur
- 1089_MulkogluUploaded byNguyen Thanh Duc BK
- 95 BaicchiUploaded byPiotr Sokoliński
- Tutorial - 1-Design for Static and Fatigue StrengthUploaded bySouradeepBhattacharya

- Mixing Fundamentals_Hayward GordenUploaded byskjjy41
- ADM14[1]Uploaded byAnonymous T8aah3Jf
- ANSYS 10.0 Workbench Tutorial - Description of TutorialsUploaded bysangeethsreeni
- Robot 2010 Training Manual MetricUploaded byanhkiem1980
- Analitical model for erosionUploaded byAnonymous T8aah3Jf
- Corrosion in Minewaters 3CR12 MS 316L ReportUploaded byAnonymous T8aah3Jf
- 8.D.3.pdfUploaded byAnonymous T8aah3Jf
- _fullpapers_136_70_feaovcsUploaded byksksasikumar
- FEM ANSYS Composites GuideUploaded bysjqlund
- 6.- Mineral Processing Equipment MCU 2011 Luis MagneUploaded byAnonymous T8aah3Jf
- 5.- Mineral Processing_Introduction_MCU_2011_Luis Magne.pdfUploaded byAnonymous T8aah3Jf
- herramientas diseño CompositesUploaded byAnonymous T8aah3Jf
- A8 0 MineralsProcessing GBUploaded byAnonymous T8aah3Jf
- Composite Simulations in ANSYS WB 12Uploaded byKelly Shi
- Composites Fiber AnsysUploaded byAnonymous T8aah3Jf
- ANSYS 10.0 Workbench Tutorial - Exercise 6F-6G, Exploring Simulation Part 2Uploaded byAnonymous T8aah3Jf
- 7.- Mineral Processing_Grinding Models_MCU_2011_Luis Magne.pdfUploaded byAnonymous T8aah3Jf
- Asme b31.11 - Slurry Transportation.pdfUploaded byDaniel Alvarado Lizana
- Propiedades elastomeros.pdfUploaded byAnonymous T8aah3Jf
- Material Conversion TableUploaded byasokk
- ANSYS CFX Solver Theory GuideUploaded byBruno Furtado

- Toppling MechanismUploaded byDerek Wong
- Design Chapter 4. Design Calculation ExamplesUploaded byom_prakash1986
- Soil Mechanics (Richard Brachman).pdfUploaded byedemmike
- ICE Raspunsuri Beton Si Structuri Din BetonUploaded byovidiu_nt
- Analysis of Large Bracing Connections Designs for Heavy Construction[1]Uploaded bydaniel.j.mccarthy
- Analysis of Seismic Pounding between Adjacent BuildingsUploaded byIRJET Journal
- PresentationUploaded byعلياسماعيل
- TO STUDY THE EFFECT OF SHAPE AND CRACK PARAMETERS ON THE ULTIMATE LOAD OF CRACKED LEAN DUPLEX STAINLESS STEEL (LDSS)Uploaded byJoydweep Deori
- Unconfined Compression Tests - 018Uploaded byfunky_jebon
- Simulation for the Collapse of WTC After Aeroplane ImpactUploaded bypelados
- Direct Shear Test_lab ManualUploaded byEr Venkat
- Effect Basement in High Rise BuildingUploaded byWaleed Ation
- Ppt07 ClarificationsUploaded byPranjal Tamuly
- garlock fault structure paperUploaded byapi-283936329
- theories_of_failure.pptUploaded byAnonymous 6HADGUEXD
- Polymer Properties :Experiment 1 Tensile TestUploaded byfatinzalila
- Designing Plastic Parts for Assembly.pdfUploaded bypoppop
- 2 SlimDek Components_AW 48240.pdfUploaded bysitek
- soil - chapter 12Uploaded bySudharsananPRS
- k16-31Uploaded byMochammad Surya
- 0132497468-Ch06_ISMUploaded byglttcgamer
- Micropile Design and Construction FHWA05Uploaded byAlejandro Trujillo
- 3.Model Visco-elasticity.pptUploaded byopabaleke
- IS800-8Beam_155(1)Uploaded byDeepak J Potty
- 121_1 (1)Uploaded bybilalabdulmajeed
- Fatigue Crack PropagationUploaded bydjsourav
- Survey Paper on Analysis of Flat Slab Resting on shear wallsUploaded byIRJET Journal
- New Microsoft Word Document (2)Uploaded byfahimraiyan_ipo
- Laporan ScanlineUploaded byGilang Pamungkas
- Guide on Design of Post-Installed Anchor Bolt Systems in HKUploaded byAhsan Sattar