First published: N/A
Standard: £9 + VAT
An IStructE account gives you access to a world of knowledge. Create a profile to receive details of our unique range of resources, events and training.
Added to basket
THESE notes and diagrams have been prepared with the following limited objects. Firstly, to compare the moments in beams and columns which result from the application of the three methods of computation sanctioned in the L.C.C. Memorandum (1938) as revised in 1939 (Clauses 12 and 19), and to express these methods in the form of diagrams. Secondly, to compare alternative methods of calculating end moments in beams and colmumns for a monolithic frame (Clause 12, Section (i)) and thirdly to shew approximately the effect on beam and column moments of some secondary factors which are usually ignored.
EXPERIENCE shows that, under two types of loading, the circular bottom of a large cylindrical steel tank may partially lift off the concrete base on which the tank rests, leaving a central area lying flat on the base. The first of these, indicated in Fig. 1 and examined in section 2, occurs when the tank is filled with fuel or water. The hydrostatic pressure on the shell causes a bending moment along the circumference of the bottom which tends to lift the bottom. The second is found when a tank is used for the storage of volatile spirit. To prevent excessive loss by evaporation the vents in the roof are loaded so that a small vapour pressure is maintained in the tank. Although this pressure is usually only a few pounds per square inch, yet it acts on such a large area of roof that the shell is put in vertical tension. The pressure persists when the tank is emptied, and then the edge of the bottom tends to lift as shown in Fig. 4, the disturbance caused by the shell being due partly to the bending moment as in the first case and partly to the upward force. The behaviour of the shell and the bottom with uniform pressure in the tank is therefore considered in section 3. The procedure in each case will be to calculate the relation between the bending moment
M., and the rotation è (Figs. 1 and 4) first for the bottom and then for the shell. Hence the absolute magnitudes of these quantities can be obtained. When this has been done, the usual methods suffice to determine the deflexions and stresses throughout both the bottom and the shell.
Mr. B. Rhodes: Mr. Longbottom has done less than justice to large diameter strand, by which I mean 28 mm (1 1/8 in) diameter strand. I know it is not used a lot, but this is really because of lack of effort on the part of the manufacturers and the system suppliers. 28 mm diameter strand has certain basic drawbacks, namely:
1. The shape of the load/extension curve
2. Relaxation losses at 6 per cent
3. Lower grip efficiencies
4. The tendency to fly open when cut
5. The 'banana' effect at the ends