"Thin-Walled" Model Data
A summary and comparison of the calculated
and measured data for IITRI Model "C-1" is
contained in Table A-4. From this comparison, it
will be noted that -in some instances there are very
large discrepancies between, the calculated and
measured stress values'. Further, it will be observed
that under a longitudinal moment loading,
the maximum stress occurs well off the longitudinal
27.55 20.5 20.5
30.26 35.4 27.2d
48.8 44.7 34.4d
31.1 21.2 21.2
12.95 14.6 14.6
11.63 23.7
"Thin-Walled" Model Data
A summary and comparison of the calculated
and measured data for IITRI Model "C-1" is
contained in Table A-4. From this comparison, it
will be noted that -in some instances there are very
large discrepancies between, the calculated and
measured stress values'. Further, it will be observed
that under a longitudinal moment loading,
the maximum stress occurs well off the longitudinal
27.55 20.5 20.5
30.26 35.4 27.2d
48.8 44.7 34.4d
31.1 21.2 21.2
12.95 14.6 14.6
11.63 23.7
"Thin-Walled" Model Data
A summary and comparison of the calculated
and measured data for IITRI Model "C-1" is
contained in Table A-4. From this comparison, it
will be noted that -in some instances there are very
large discrepancies between, the calculated and
measured stress values'. Further, it will be observed
that under a longitudinal moment loading,
the maximum stress occurs well off the longitudinal
27.55 20.5 20.5
30.26 35.4 27.2d
48.8 44.7 34.4d
31.1 21.2 21.2
12.95 14.6 14.6
11.63 23.7
and measured data for IITRI Model "C-1" is contained in Table A-4. From this comparison, it will be noted that -in some instances there are very large discrepancies between, the calculated and measured stress values'. Further, it will be observed that under a longitudinal moment loading, the maximum stress occurs well off the longitudinal 27.55 20.5 20.5 30.26 35.4 27.2d 48.8 44.7 34.4d 31.1 21.2 21.2 12.95 14.6 14.6 11.63 23.7 16.9b 35.66 57.1 40.7b 25.0 26.9 26.9 6. 79 1.4 1.4 7.86 2.2 1.57·' 7.86 14.4 10.3" 6.79 8 2 8.2 4.8 4.8 9.7 6.9'' 9.8/6)0 . 8.15< 3 . 3 ( ( aXIS 3.3 axis of the vessel, with the maximum value being better than twice that directly on the longitudinal axis; a very similar effect was noted under internal pressure. Whereas we had forewarning of this possibility under internal pressure, the effect was quite unexpected under longitudinal moment. Because this result seems somewhat irrational, a special effort was made to evaluate the probable validity of the results, summarized as follows: (a) The vessel was not a machined model and ~as slightly out-of; round. Such out-of-roundness may have some effect on the measu,·ed pressure stresses, but we do not believe that it would significantly affect the stres.<;es due to external loading. The fillet and the area adjacent to the nozzle-shell juncture were checked with templates, and it is believed that any deviation in thickness or local contour is minor and does not constitute an explanation for the effects noted. (b) Ip. testing the model, only one quadrant was completely instrumented.* However, for the axes of symmetry, supplementary instrumentation was installed 180 o opposite the primary instrumentation. Alw, for the external loading tests, the loads were applied in both the "positive" and "negative" directions, giving a total of four readings for each nominal location on the axes of symmetry and two readings for locations off the axes of symmetry. In all cases, the critically stressed region was found to be directly in the fillet at the nozzle-shell juncture. A plot of the stresses along this fillet, under the four loading conditions used, is shown in Figs. A-2 to A-5 inclusive, based on arithmetic averages of the available data. The total scatter in the data for a given location slightly