Layer | Fill | Outline |
---|
Map layers
Theme | Visible | Selectable | Appearance | Zoom Range (now: 0) |
---|
Fill | Stroke |
---|---|
Collaborating Authors
Results
In the last the last ten years mounded cylindric pressure vessels for the Foundation methods storage of explosive and other dangerous liquids have gained an increasing significance with regard to growing safety requirements. These tanks are usually placed in a sandbed and covered with earth. The interactions between operational loadings and soil pressure on the one side, and reactions from elastic foundation on the other side, necessitate an accurate investigation. The nonaxisymmetric loadings create circumferential bending reactions and ring stiffeners have to be installed. With internal pressure, these stiffeners hamper the expansion of the cylindrical shell and cause secondary bending in the longitudinal direction of the vessel. This paper gives a survey of common construction methods and describes the major calculation procedures required for the design. INTRODUCTION For the storage of combustible liquids under atmospheric pressure and liquefied gases under high pressure, the horizontal cylindrical steel vessel with earth cover has been increasingly applied within the last years. The decision for the earth covered type of installation is mainly justified by the safety advantages in respect to external influences on the vessel, such as high temperature in case of fire and dynamic pressure from near by explosion. The vessels are placed in trenches or above ground and covered with earth. The type of installation as well as storage conditions, structural dimensions and assembly methods have to be considered within the design of the cylindrical steel vessel. As a rule, only single horizontal vessels with capacities up to 400 m and diameters up to 4.0 m are placed in trenches, whereas within an aerial installation under embankment, several vessels are preferably installed in a battery line-up. With this type of installation, vessels with contents up to 4000 m, diameters up to 8.5 and lengths up to 100 m are designed at present.
- Europe > Germany (0.29)
- North America > United States (0.29)
This paper presents first recent results on some comparative investigations on the fatigue behaviour of uniplanar and multiplanar K-joints with gap. In several figures and tables, a direct comparison between these joints made of rectangular hollow sections shall be drawn. Based on this, first references to possible design rules for multiplanar K-joints with gap are to be given. INTRODUCTION Nearly all the tests on the fatigue behaviour of hollow section joints published the last few years were carried out using uniplanar test specimens. Regarding multiplanar K-joints, to the authors knowledge no experimental work has been reported in the literature. In almost all the cases, the tests were carried out under static load. First fundamental investigations on multiplanar joints made of circular and square hollow sections under fatigue load are being carried out in the Netherlands (Delft University of Technology and TNO Building and Construction Research Rijswijk) and in Germany (Karlsruhe University) sponsored by the ECSC (Puthli, R.S., 1988–1991, Mang, F., 1988–1991, Mang, F.,1991). Based on the knowledge gained in this programme, further tests with uniplanar K-joints were performed in Karlsruhe. In addition also results from a previous ECSC research project (Mang, F., 1989–1h989–2) are used. The objective of these studies was to allow a simple and direct comparison of uniplanar and multiplanar hollow section joints. TEST RIG AND TEST SPECIMENS For this, the joint dimensions of both types of joints corresponded exactly to each other. Fig. 1 shows the joint types investigated and typical geometric parameters. The weld procedures and details have been carried out in the same way for both types of joints (see fig. 2). The fatigue tests consisted of 2 series with uniplanar and 4 series with multiplanar test specimens made of rectangular hollow sections. In the tables 1 and 2 the results of the comparable test series can be seen.
- Europe > Germany > Baden-Württemberg > Karlsruhe Region > Karlsruhe (0.47)
- Europe > Netherlands > South Holland > Delft (0.27)
- Europe > Netherlands > South Holland > Rijswijk (0.24)