Winding Drums The analysis and design of fabricated steel cylindrical drums for mine winding engines By L. T. J. Atkinson & G. L. Taylor* ‘VEEC (rome Exim Ley Fane ta Gino BG ‘CEG. (esas Enpoerng) Li, Finer ane Ghalmoa Biaiow Reprinted by kind permission of the Publishers of "Colliery Engineering" fron e series of articles published between December 1966 and August 1967. GEC Mechanical Handling Limited BIRCH WALK ERITH KENT ENGLAND Telephone Errh 36823 + Teleprems, Cables Propac, Dentors Telex 263237_ Winding Drums The analysis and design of fab- ricated steel cylindrical drums for mine winding engines. By L.T.J. ATKINSON & G.L. TAYLOR ' 1. Introduction Is sms series of articles it is proposed 10 deal with two main aspects of winding engine drum design in which the accent is upon cylindrical drum winders as opposed \w friction winders, the latier needing a completely different theoretical analysis from the former. The bulk of the early work deals with the mathemati al analysis of shells in which. out of necessity, the computer plays # big purt: this forms the basis of the first_muin aspect of design. In the final stages. the ‘more practical aspect is dealt with in as much as certain physical structures are analysed in which the weak points of ‘design are outlined and remedies are suggested. During the course of these articles the reader may find that theoretical analysis cannot be discussed without certain points of practical design being introduced and vice-versa; this is, however, unavoidable and no apologies can he given for some degree of repetition as this is necessary: jn order to correlate certain features of design. 1.1. The basic problem To the layman, and indeed to the uninitiated designer in this field of ‘engineering, a winding engine drum ‘appears to be a simple piece of engineering construction epparently requiring no special knowledge for both its conception and its design. This could not be further from the truth as this series will ultimately show. It has been heard suid that winding engines are so much “old iron” but one must suppose. however, that, should the uninitiated be allowed a glimpse at the insides of some of the older drums. resplendent in their display of com= Pression rings made from fiat bottom tail’ securely riveted 10 the shell plates. then there may be some excuse for such remarks, There is nothing wrong in using rails for compression rings provided it is used in the cortect fashion and that it is present in the right Quantity as the reader will luter appreciate when com- Pression rings are being discussed. Modern winding engine drums (see Fig. 1) should give no excuse for such derogatory remarks (at least it is hoped that this is so) because they should have been Fig. 1. & modern winding engine under constuction. This it » ouble-drum, single-clutch machine for which the ums ore ‘manufactured entirely from ralé stee! plete scientifically designed and carefully manufactured with 8 much care as is justifiably possible. In this respect, ukhough great care is normally taken to ensure sound designs, too little knowledge has been available to wind= ing engine designers in the past to enable them to predict with greater certainty whether or not the finished product is going to withstand the duty for which it is required. Jt is relatively easy 10 overdesign, to be on the “safe side".'although this does not always solve the problem as one is often confronted with side effects and, in these modern times, one of the worst of these side effects is the economy of manufacture. This is basically where the problem starts, as indeed is the case in most com: petitive industries, but, here we are faced with the human element in that lives may be dependent upon whether of not the safe functioning of equipment can be assured The continual battle for economy must be weighed against sefety and the latter must. of course, win every time but it will be shown that, the manufacturing economy can account for itself quite effectively if greoier fatiention is paid towards obtaining lighter and less bulky structures providing ulways. of course. that such re- sulting structures are proved adequate for their appointed duty. Faced with the circumstances outlined above. many Gesigners will be presented with the problem of how such economies can be achieved and one answer is. of course. t0 fabricaie their drums rather than adhere to the ever fuithful castings which can be more expensive and sometimes very troublesome to manufacture. The Beneral trend these days is towards fabrication because4 Fig. 2. Some of the forces acting on 2 paraile! winding drumForces (¢). (e). (g). (h) and (j) are not shown iis often very much quicker to obtain # welded structure than it is 10 obtain patterns and subsequent castings. But whut if our designer is working for a company who ere currenily in the habit of manufacturing all drums from welded steel plate? He is presumably faced with an even bigger problem but this need not be so if attention 's paid lo-design detail along the lines suggested by these atticles, 1.2 Finding the loads - Before any unalysis of the stresses in a structure can he undertuhen. it is fist necessary to know what loading configuration is being applied to that structure. This may appent very obvious bul if one considers the situation, av )ied to 8 winder drum, it will be appreciated that although it 3s necessary to know the loading configura- tion how is it 0 be obtained? There are main types of Joad which can be con- sidered, namely:— (4) Tangential pull of over and/or underlay ropes. (b) Torsional load applied via main driving motor. tc) Centrifugal forces due to rotation, (a) Crushing of shell due to winding on ropes under tension. (2) Forces due to thermal expansion of brake path. (1) Forces produced as brakes are applied, In addition to these there are also: (g) Forces produced due to dead weight. th) Forces produced due to drumshaft deflection by virtue of (p). (i) Auxiliary dynamic loads from various sources. Fig. 2 gives some idea of the directions of the loads shich can be encountered. ‘DF all these only (A), (e) and (1) have any prime signi- ‘cance but only (2) is being considered for the time veing although mention will be made of the remainder ts these articles progress. Why choose only (d)? Let a nodestly small drum of 100in diameter by 100in Jong be considered having wound on to it a lin diameter rope inder a constant tension of 10,000 Ib: this will produce vm the shell @ gross impressed load of 6.280.000 1b of ‘ome 3,000 tons, Compared with this the other forces ex.) for (e)) are of no particular significance when rnalysing the shell Having now established that the crushing forces are ‘portant it is necessary to define the magnitude and, vithout doubt, this has been the greatest single cause of design controversy for very many years. Many readers will undoubtedly be familiar with that excellent text book “Electric Winders” by H. H. Brough. ton which was first published in 1928 and subsequently revised in 1948 (see references). This book is 38 years cld and it is surprising to see how litle change there has been in the approach towards designing winders. On page 273 of the 1948 revision Broughton discusses the “Strength of Drums” and his opening paragraph states that, (quote) “Except in special cases, if a drum de designed to have strength sufficient to resist the crushing action of the rope coiled upon its surface, it will also be strong enough to resist bending”. (unquote). Unfortu- nately, no mention is made as to which plane of bending is referred to but it is taken to mean bending in a plane parallel to, and passing through, the axis of the drum, or is it known what is implied by “special cases” for instances will be given later of “normal” drums which, although adequate from 2 compressive point of view, can suffer very high bending stresses in the axial plane, During the past few years, many drum failures have ‘been investigated and it has been suggested that the designers of some of the older drums have utilised the results obtained many years ago by E. O. Waters. In ‘one experiment carried out by Waters, and outlined by Broughton, it is significant to note that a rope of only in diameter was used, it being wound on to a 10in diameter drum under 2 ‘constant tension of 1,000 Ib. AS each successive layet was wound on the tensions in each previous layer were, in some way, measured until after 4 layers had been completed the ‘compressive stress in the Shell was only about 54% of what it would have been if the tensions in the ropes of each layer had remained at 1,000 1b, The figures given inthe text book do, of course, imply a load reduction in the under layers as new layers are wound on but one must be very wary of using such results when designing full sized machine as some drum failures have probably indicated already.* In connection with the above results Waters may have failed 10 appreciate that, although his experiments may have been technically correct, the rope which was used bore no resemblance whatsoever to the constructional features of a true winding rope, No other data exists in Broughton’s text to indicate the thickness of the shell its length, the material from which it was made or the DeraFig 3. Although the South Atvican winder nas drums manufactured fom cast steel. same ideo can be erned of the size of the installation which is typical of that county manner in which its ends were supported. All these can alfect the final load upon the shell and probably the ‘most important was the rope which was used. or the method used 10 measure the tensions. Waters’ experiments were a starting point and were ‘aimed at giving designers something more tangible with which to work but it is unfortunate that drums. designed by using his methods, would have yielded shells which were 100 weak to withstand the superimposed loads. 1.3 The South African scene Cylindrical Drum winders in South Africa are ex: emely common (see Fig, 3) and are also very important in relation to the output of gold and other minerals from the mines of that country and it is because of this that the machines are used to their fullest capacity, It is not surprising then that, should any failures occur, they are considered with the utmost importance and urgency and ) every attempt is made to rectify such costly stoppages. Ki was, presumably, with this in mind that Mr. John Dolan, the Consulting Electrical & Mechanical Engineer to the Rand Mines Limited, wrote a paper, dated June 11. 1957, the object being to arrive at suitable equations with which to enable a more accurate assessment 10 be ‘made of the loads, and hence the stresses, on a winder drum shell. Commenting very briefy on this paper. Do‘an firstly evolves @ “factor” equation which enables the direct Joad upon the shell to bs computed. d=pending upon the multifarious parameters of design. Waters’ experiment is also mentioned and Do'an has applied his own factor equation to a similar set of circumstances and presum- ably assumes w shell thickness for his final results. The figures given by Dolan definitely show that Waters’ results Wouid give too thin a shell and this is shown to be so when laler in the paper several analysed with a > obtaining service str machines. some of which have failed. and Dolan’s figures show that a minimum compressive siress of same 35.000 Ib. sq. in. was obtained on these machines using his analytical methods. Compurisons between the valves of these stresses certainly imply that shells desizned to Waters’ factors would definitely have been ton weak. This paper was followed up by another fur more comprehensive work which was read by Mr. Dolan und published in “The South Africun Mechanical Engine in December of 1963. It represents a very great deal of work which had presumably been carried out in the intervening years between 1957 and 1963 and deals’ at great length with many practical tests on various winder drums, some of which were still operating satisfactorily and others which had failed in service. The work also contains an extremely comprehensive list of literally hundreds of machines giving full details of the duty of each and the stresses.to which the shells are subjected. calculated by means of Dolan’s methods, At this stage, the reader may feel that the subject matter is becoming mainly historical. This is quite true, up to # point. be- cause it is necessary 10 briefly outline the researches which have been cartied out to date so as to emphasise the very important points which have either been ov looked ‘or considered virtually insoluble due 10 the lack of knowledge at the time. Dolan’s researches have outlined certain weaknesses in some existing designs and yet. if one cares 10 look through his tabulated list of winders, armed with the knowledge of which of the drums ofthe listed machines have failed and which have not failed, some interesting facts emerge. Let several cases be mentioned in respect of the stresses obtained on various mild stzel shells as follows:— Uae, (1) Machine installed in 1946, shell stress 35,700 Ibyin?. failed, Ue hte (2) Machine installed in 1954, shell stress 32,609 Ibn failed. These are two cases selecisd from the lisi und the stresses obiained are approximatsly equal to the design stress limit menticned in Dolan’s earlier paper. Now examine the following:— Fomen, (3) Machine installed in 1959, shell sizess 4,300 Ibn’,failed qn ‘4) Muhine installed in 1931, shell stress 20.200 Ibn, failed, Both (3) und (4) are well below the design stress limi set_by Dolan, Finally:— v «51 Machine installed in 1925, shell stress 38.000 tbyin’ Apparently still serviceable. 43 (6) Machine installed in 19s, shell stress 48.600 Ibiin‘, Apparently still serviceable, The failure of (1) and (2) may be more easily under- siood when it is remembered that both stresses are near to Dolan’s design limit but this does not explain the reason behind the failuges of (3) and (4) and the non failures of (5) and (6) the stresses in which ate very much removed from Dolan’s limit of 35.000 Ibjint By far the greater proportion of machines in Dolan's tubulated list are apparently still performing satisfactorily the majority of shell stresses being under 30.000 Ib/in with quite a few under 20.000 Ibjin:. How then, ‘ch unrelated shell failures be explained? It is quite sear. from the foregoing, that circumferential compres- sive stresses are not the only criterion for design as s0 much depends upon the designer's individual approach to detail and the way in which a particular drum is con- stfucted and it is the authors’ opinion that much more could be done to overcome previously unrecognised siresses, the most important being the stresses produced by the bending moments imposed at the shell end connections. Before proceeding further it would be advantageous outline the fundamental approach made by Dolan towards obiaining the magnitude of the superimposed loads upon a shell and hence the evaluation of the circumferential stress in the shell material Let_us consider for the moment an infinitely long cylindrical shell. If such a shell was to have only external cylindrical surface subjected to a constant and uniformly distributed radially applied load. acting in- wards lowards the centre, then it is reasonable to suppose that the whole shell would suffer a reduction in diameter ich would be everywhere similar. This is better des- wibsd as a constant radial displacement of the shell surface. Further let it be assumed that this constant uniform load is produced by one layer of rope coils wound around the shell. Suppose now an additional layer of coils be wound on top of the first such as to produce an increuse in the constant uniform load and therefore an increase in the adial displacement of the shell surface, what has hap- 5 we Sapam at rvng shat h = ae cometh TRE section xox pened to the first layer coils? Quite clearly they too would have been given a radial displacement and be- cause of this they would have suffered a change of strain resulting in @ reduction of the load in each coil. This means. of course. that the total load from the two layers of rope. as impressed upon the shell. is not the sum of the individual layers: in fact it is less because of the eduction of load in the first layer. The same situation arises as more and more layers lied where the additional load imposed by a new layer is only partially felt as an additional load on the shell. In this way we can arrive at a proportion. or a factor not greater than unity. by which the loads in new layers are multiplied, the resultant load being that which is felt by the shell. It is upon this simple principle that Dolan has based his rope load “factors” but the deriva- tion of the factors is rather more involved and depends upon such things as size and type of rope. shell material and thickness and the relevant elastic moduli of both rope and shell. One of the main things that has been outlined in Dolan’s report is that the rope load “factors” are not constant between one drum and another (assuming of course that the machines are not identical) ic. the rope load “factors” for a 2in shell having wound upon it @ din dia. stranded rope would be different from that of the same shell having, say, a I4in locked coil rope. Dolan’s factors are applied in the following equation to give the total load upon the shel: Ks ks ks STAT Roar tT Ks aK TT Kedar Ks TMK sR inliKr where ne Ty Ty, To. Tesaverage tensions in Ist. 2nd, 3rd layers up to “n” layers. ‘oung's modulus of shell material multiplied by shell area under one coil pitch. ‘ope stretch modulus multiplied by rope metallic area. This equation, based upon the principles outlined above, has been verified by the authors’ Alll the foregoing research work, mentioned herein. has presumed the loads acting over the shell to be constant from one end to the other and from the point of view Brahe patn Diving moe hayestonan Fig. 4. The essential components of poralle! winding drumool obtaining compressive siresses on tong shells this is quite adequate bur what of the other sinewes which are inherent in-a deformed shell! It is not sulliciemt 1 de purely upon the basis af compressive stress as it will shown liner thut there are other stress2s of equal, if not of greater. importance which should not he ignored. It must be emphasised that the methods outlined ybove can niy produce an approximate value of circumferential compressive sirens at the mid point of fairly long shells and should only be used as a guide for designing winder drums. The reader may well ask haw, over all these years. have designers been able to justify their designs fay being able to fulfil the duty requirements laid down for them? As already mentioned many drums have fuiled. particularly in S, Africa where duties are severe. Possibly due to lack of knowledse ar lack of attention to fundamental detuils. it is difficult 19 know. but from the authors” point of view justification comes from long experience of successful designs coupled with an ap- Preciatinn of the nature of stresses in a shell und aliens tion to detail. In siew of this doubt, is there no heitér und more accurate approach towards designing drums such that designers ean be more sure of the stresses which eun be expected in service? The authors believe that this series will illustrate that a more accurate approsch is possible and that it will shed far more light upon this problem thun has hitherto been possible in the past. 1.4 Mathematical analysis of shells Mathematics is not everyone's idea of bliss, even less so when it comes to the point of using differential equa tons. The mathematical theory of shells must not be confused with simple beam theory..as can be the ten- dency when examining a sectional drawing of a drum Gee Fig. 4), it is a three dimensional problem which necessitates the solution of differentia! equations and ‘can hecome very complex unless one assumes certain conditions of symmetry. Generally speaking it is possible 10 assume certain symmetrical attributes in that winder drumshells are of equal thickness throughout. that they ure. for all practie cal purposes. initially round and that the shell material is homogeneous. that is to say. providing 2 shell is at all times subjected to circumferential compressive stress at every point then the effect of longitudinal shell joins ean be ignored. It is also assumed that there are no longitudinal tensile stresses present. produced by the stretching of the shell in this direction during deflection. his latter assumption is a fairly safe one as the practical end supports of a drum shell (cheeks) are never strong to allow such stresses 10 develop i.e. us the shell deflects the outer edges of the cheeks will move inwards towards one another." Mf faced with the problem of designing a shell using the known mathematical theories whut sort of approuch can he made” Clearly. if one looks at a drum design Urawing. seeing the ends of the shell fixed to rather com Plicaied cheeks of virtually incalculahle stifness. the problem looks insurmountable. unless, once again. other Fundamental assumptions are made, ‘The problem facing Dr, W. R. Crawford when he Published his article in "COLLIERY ENGINEERING’ ig. § This illustration shows the compression rings around the inner surface ofthe shell plate. An older ye bolt-on shells shown in July 1948 was how to present ing manageable form, 4 practical and usable theory based upon the more sophisticated theories of cylindrical shells. especially when confronted with the problem of compression rings 3). Unfortunately. Dr, Crawford has made some very rash ussumptions, us indeed he had to, in order 10 allow the simplified approach to he made possible. The assumptions made in his article encompass these already outlined above hut in addition there ate: (a) That the winding ropes impose 3 uniform external radial pressure over the whole surface of the drum, fie. no aecount is taken of the variation in rope pull as the rope is eoiled on to the drum, He has erred on the safe side here, as the shell load ix assumed as being produced” by wound on at constant tension, the tension being that which exists when the conveyance ix at pit bottom ie, the maximum." (1 That each end support behaves in the same fashion asa compression fing. Le. the supparis Uelleet radially” inwards when’ the shell hecomes TInaded. This is clearly incorreet as very litte radial slefleetion occurs at these points, If a fabricated rum is considered having dise plate end supports radial defleetion is virwally absent (Fig. 4. fer That the supported ends af the shell dev notvey ising ‘supper Detected form oF abel plate (a) rolute, This means that a tangent, drawn longi- tudinally. to the shell at a point where the shell is attached to the end supports remains horizontal before. during und after defection has taken place, Rotation definitely takes place, if it did not then ‘many more drumshells would probably have failed than those that have done so already (Fig. 6). |i should be stated at this point that Dr. Crawford way fully aware of the assumptions, already itemised ‘ubove, und he has stated this in his paper but unfortu- hhately, a practical shell does not behave in this ideal way. as the reader will be made aware of later. but no cary way could be found to enable existing theory to be utilised ‘in such a manner except by assuming certain ideal conditions. Although Crawford's work is being criticised on havis. i is. however. the first major attempt at applying true cylindrical shell theory to practical design and the “pswers can be obtained merely by the use of a slide Je. It also emphasises the importance of the longi- tudinal bending moments which are produced at the ends of the shell and which are correlated to the maxi mum compressive stresses at the mid point instead of, 28 in previous empirical work, basing the whole design ‘upon only the compressive stress. Dr. Crawford's assumptions relating to the end supports are the subject of the greatest criticism, Whether of not it is desirable to aim at rigid end connections during the design is debatable as this depends to a large extent lupon the position of the brake path. Quite clearly it is not desirable to allow too much distortion of this ‘member as braking troubles may possibly oceur but. be this as it may. some movement clearly takes place ‘an practical structures and in this respect it is quite impossible 10 impose a rigid anchor for the shell ends. (see Fig. 6) ‘Those readers who are familiar with Crawford's paper should Took at the cross sectional drawings Figs. 4 and § on page 263 of the July 1949 issue of "COLLIERY ENGINEERING" (See also Fig. 7 in this text). From these drawings it can be seen that the shell is shown Testing on a ledge forming part of the cheek to which it is usually bolted. using countersunk headed, nibbed bolts. Let it be assumed that the “end ring”, as Craw- ford has called it, is absolutely rigid. The’ shell end ending moments are trying to twist the end ring but the only media through which the moments can be ysmitted are the bolts themselves. jenerally speaking. the bolts are not strong enough to allow the full possible end moment to be transmitted in this way and they will extend elastically or yield*. As sonn as this happens the end of the shell is allowed to rotate, in tbe longitudinal sense, and ultimately “settles () Fig. 6. Par sections st shell support point “Crawlord” bases tvs theories on the fact tat the shel! suppor jomis do not rotate (ig, 64) whereas in practice some rotation ofthe joint is ineviable (Fig. 6b grossly ied) as oll practical end supports hhave some degree of elasticity down” at some value of end moment less than the pos- sible maximum, thus reducing the severity of bending stress in the material of the shell itself. It is quite pos- sible that, had this not happened. some drum shells may have failed in bending as the degree of stiffness in some of the older end rings (cheeks), being of massive cast section, was probably quite high. It can be proved that, as the end fixing moment is reduced, so is the shear stress at that point until a point is reached where the shell end moment is zero where ‘upon the shear stress is at its lowest value. Shear forces are, generally speaking, not all that severe on normal drums but can assume some importance in connection Wwith certain types of shell end fixation methods.* * Another criticism of Crawford's work is that, if one desires 10 design a shell with compression rings which do not have similar cross sectional areas and which are not all uniformly spaced along the shell, it is not pos- sible, This is quite a justifiable criticism as in fact very ‘often such a case does arise and one could be left wondering how this theory can be used. So far in this present work some historical aspects have been introduced mainly. as previously mentioned, to outline the state of researches existing until recently. All have been criticised in one way or another and justifiably s0, as falling short of the true state of affairs ‘existing on a practical drumshell, and to conclude this Bot fares m this type of ammecon dave been Known so cer ‘Fie Seporant nes of oon Be "wile Beake path Fig. 7. Part section of one of the older type east end supports ‘elered to as an end tnglirst article these are now summarised below for con- venient reference 1.5 Summarising 1) Wars His experiments produced results which. if used. would have given designs which were toa weak Dylan has more or less proved this. Only compressive stresses were analysed. bending land shear were not apparently considered. Dotan ‘Although 4 monumental work he is still only relating his results 10 the compressive stresses but as such his results are more accurate than anything prev- viously used, Only two people associated with him, Messrs. T. C. Kuun and R. S, Loubser of the CSIR of S. Africa appreciated the significance of axial stresses. Crawford The first article of any real value to the designer in this country (United Kingdom) introducing true shell theory which for the first time considers shell bend ing moments and shear siress as well as compressive Stresses. The main criticism is his treatment of the shell end fixation and the fact that asymmetric com: pression ring layouts cannot be allowed for. In Part Il of this series we shall deal more fully with the mathematical theory of shell design and investigate the problem of shell deflection, producing results from which defection, bending moment, shear force and compressive stress diagrams can be plotted. Bending ‘moments will be examined with a view to assessing the severity of the bending stresses and the magnitude of these stresses will be compared with those of the more 2 familiar circumferential compressive’ stresses. Shear stresses will also be commented upon. Ravenrners Waters, £, 0, Paper No, LIM read at Annual Meeting of the ‘ASME. in December 1920, outlining the results of tes Sime oul"te: determine loading factors Drguanign "Aur of leap Winden-— manus on the "Design. “Construction, Application “ang Operation Winging Engines and Mine Hants’ Firs published in 193% Stcond esiton 1998 Dolan, J. Bresident of the South African Insite of Mechanical Engineers (19s4/48)" Electes’ Honorary” Member 98k Con sulting Electrical and Mechanical Engineer to'the Rand Mines Tia From 1948-190. Firs paper ented “Winging Drum, Shell Loading due 10 Successive Layers of Suressed Roper June’ 11. 198 Second paper entitled “Winder Drum Treag, Design Invest ign” published in “The South African Methania? Engines? of ebember 196. Crawford. W. R. Article publthed in “COLLIERY ENGINEER: ING™ of july 1849 emttles “Design of Colliery Machinery and Equipment™ Part One. This frat of 3 teres of articles eals im particular with the design of Winding Drums Authors’ note There are many other references which could be given but it has been thought advisable to restrict these to the ‘most significant of recent years. the works of which may. or _may not be familiar to every reader. The above are significant due to the fact that some | designers in the United Kingdom may be using Craw- | ford’s results and most certainly designers in South “Africa will be using Dolan’s results as the latter has been the most authoritative work in that country to date, Much work has been done in respect of strain gauge testing by such bodies as the British Welding Research Association and the Design Advisory Service but no firm theories have resulted from any of this work2.4. The initial approach Before any serious line of research can be undertaken there has to be clear understanding in one’s mind as to the method of approach. Quite clearly this is a com- plex problem and it is only by building up a picture from very small beginnings that one can attempt a solution, The question of finding the stresses in the drum struc- ture is of course the main aim but finding the load on the shell is the biggest problem of all (see 1. By now nearly every reader will be familiar with the fact that, especially with multi-layer winding, not all ¢* the load from subsequent layers of rope is irhpressed upon the drum. This is due 10 drum deformation, by virtue of adding new layers, affecting a change of strain and hence a change (reduction) of load in the coils of rope in the under layers. (see 1.3). To allow for this a designer introduces “factors”, by which the average rope pull of any layer is multiplied, the resulting load being applied 10 the drum shell. The sum of all such loads from individual layers being the total load on the shell for the purpose of estimating compressive stresses, It was usual for the “factor” applied to the first layer to be unityt and those for subsequent layers to be less than unity, the values reducing gradually in some rather tie 7 / / / ~~~ ‘Fig. 8 Axiol plone of reterance of shell vague fashion which did not appear to be related to anything tangible. It was because of this and also to the fact that Dolan had already published his, work, that the present line of research was initiated. It was thought advisable to teach .some logical conclusion based upon accepted theoretical reasoning so that designers in the future would be better equipped to enable them to know, within reason, what stresses could be expected as a result of their designs. 2.2, Theoretical considerations of shell deflection Although it has been mentioned previously (1.4) that it is impossible to achieve rigidly fixed ends to a pract cal shell, it was decided to use this condition with wi to start the present line of research and to eventually build a computer programme around it, modifications being made to it as research progressed, ‘The starting point then was the simplest possible shell. 1 was of necessity assumed that, (@) the shell material was homogeneous and of con- stant thickness (b) the shell was initially purely cylindrical (©) the shell ends were rigidly attached to some solid unyielding support (@) the shell load was uniformly distributed and con- stant all over, and was acting radially inwards. It can be seen from this that the shell ends could suffer no radial displacement and were not free to rotate in the axial plane. (Fig. 6 part 1). Fig. 8 shows such a shell and clearly indicates the axial plane of reference. Fig. 9 shows the same shell in section and elevation, the axial plane in this case being the pane of the paper on ‘Which this text is witten in relation to the sectional view. How then does the shell behave under these condi tions? To establish this e must make use of the mathematical theory of elasticity as applied to shells. Without going fully into this theory, which is ade- quately covered elsewhere, it is sufficient to state that certain conditions of symmetry can be accepted as being appropriate to this particular problem. One of these conditions is that the load be symmetrical with respect to the axis of the shell: that is to say the valve of the load is identical at every point measured around a cir cumferential line. This does not imply that the value of the load around a circumferential line at one end of the fioroved snd i fact he “actor” sping at he mi pat Fae iy nai tnt aes oth Fig. 9. Section and elevation of shelshell has to be the same as that at the other end, the load can vary in any way whatsoever along the length of the shell but it must be symmetrically disposed around the cireumference at any panticular point This is very nearly obtained in practice as the variation ‘of load. or pull. between one end of a single coil of rope and the other may be only a matter of a few hundred pounds whereas the to1al rope pull may be several thousand pounds. A small percentage error indeed. Another condition is that longitudinal stresses are zero* as previously mentioned (1.4 para. 2), This leaves the 3 remaining forces with which we are concerned, (e) axial bending moments (f) radial shear forces (2) circumfezential forces (compression). I is further assumed that the shell is thin in relation to ils mean radius such that the compressive stress across a section is everywhere sensibly the same. This is true enough of most practical shells. From the fundamental equations of equilibrium we obtain the basic equation:— a “fo al ® aw et Ww ae shell remains constant along its length then equation (1) reduces t0:— ae @ and is the Hexural rigidity of the shell, comparable to EX/ in beam theory. E=Elastic modulus of the shell material el} thickness in inches oisson's ratio an radius of shell in inches suing deflection in inches oad function. In the case of a uniformly distri- buted load this becomes the value in Ib/in’. Z can however be any function of x and is indeed so when the load varies slong the shel x=any point measured from the end of the shell. It is not proposed to deal with the integration of equation (2) as this will detract somewhat from the general theme and any equations given will have to be accepted as being correct for the particular case in question, 2.3. Long shells Very nearly all shells applicable 10 winding engine parallel drum practice can be considered as “long” in terms of the shell theory being discussed but this is not always the case and care should be taken, when using such theories. 10 make sure that the length is sufficient {Pp sean aye SEE ee a aS | Sa a “ Fig. 10. An ‘intintely' long shell subjected to 2 single band of load uniformly distibuted around the circumference sumone ieee I ig, 11, nine’ shell subjected to.» uniformly applied constant {ond ai over outer shell and acting relay wares before using the simplified versions to follow. What should be the minimum length? Generally speak- ing for the case of fixed ended plain shells the overall unsupported length should not be less than 4/71 inchest. There. will be small errors even on shells of much greater length but these will be very small in comparison to the general stress. magnitudes. Before dealing with the primary equations let us imagine a shell of reasonable length having completely unsupported ends and subjected over its cylindrieal sur- face to a constant uniform external load similar to that shown in Fig. 9. Common sense tells us that the shell i® going to contract radially and in fact boiler theory a3 be used to obtain the radial deflection, This theory states that the circumferential stress boiler shell will be:— a Pape aan where p is the pressure is the mean dia 1 is the shell thickness rsd? the mean radius. Knowing E, the radial deflection can be found from the relationsbip| Stress EX strain ten Pee xe and the radial deflection A= 2 =r 2) 1t will be seen that this simple equation will continue to appear in this work and is of fundamental importance. In the case of long shells with supported ends it wil be:seen that the radial deletion at the mid point along the length will be very neatly equal to priJEr except for the very small differences created by the form ef equation governing the deflection values. From this it should be seen that the maximom compressive stress in ASSESS RAINE 8 minimum enh owas ehnge wih seo' very long plain shell cannot be any greater than pritt 41 the centre and it was on this basis only that all Jprevious workers (except Crawford) evaluated shell sresses after using the appropriate load factors previ- ‘ously mentioned. In view of this then, what is the effect on the com- pressive siress when some form of end support is pro- vided and what happens at the ends? 2.4, End supports Before discussing this aspect it should be pointed out, to those readers not familiar with the notations used, that the énds of a shell. in mathematical terminology, are called “boundaries” and in future throughout this series the term “boundary conditions” will frequently appear. This relates purely to what is done to the shell ends i.e. they may be rigidly clamped, completely free, of elastic, in fact anything may be done to the boundaries provid: ing it is subsequently possible 1 translate such conditions into mathematical notations for the purpose of analysis. 1k will be as well at this stage to try and understand how a long shell behaves under load. Let an infinitely long shell Fig. 10 be imagined and let it be subjected to a single band of load uniformly distributed around the circumference. The deflection pattern of the shell is clearly indicated but greatly ‘exaggerated and is seen to be symmetrically disposed on either side of the load point. At a certain distance from the load point the deflection changes sign and becomes negative, then positive, etc., put the magnitudes of these supplementary deflections re very small and become even smaller the further away from the load they are measured. 1f the direction of the load was reversed it would pro duce a similar deflection pattern to the above but every- where reversed in sign. The magnitude of the principal defection in both cases is directly proportional to the applied load, Let it now be supposed that the infinite shell is initially subjected (0 a uniformly applied constant load all over its outer surface and acting radially inwards; in this case the shell would be given a constant radial defiection as shown in Fig. 11 in which only one side of the shell section is shown. If we now select two points (x- and jy) equal distance apart to the end supports (assumed fixed) of a typical long shell and apply to each of these poims a single band of load as in Fig, 10 but acting radially out- wards and of sufficient magnitude to produce, each by itself, a maximum defection A then there exists a situa- tion similar to that arising out of a shell of length “I” having rigidly clamped ends and subjected to a similar uniformly applied load as in Fig. 9. The two identical eflection diagrams about x-x and y-y are similar to those in Fig. 10 but it will be seen that each diagram interacts with the other in the central portion of the shell. Fig. 11 clearly shows this and it is why the simple equation pr/E1 may not give exact values for mid point deflections. We are here dealing with a simplified form of the “Method of Superposition” in which individual defiec- tion diagrams are all “algebraically” added to give one whole pattern. This is what should be done with the diagram of Fig. 11 but it will, in general, be found that the discrepancy from 3 at the midpoint of the shell is of relatively small magnitude and this fact will be ‘established later on. It would be quite interesting. and entertaining. to dis- cuss the “Method of Superposition” at great length be- cause here is what appears to be a vety simple manual ‘method of solving shell problems. This is not so, especi- ally when compression rings are introduced and when the shell ends themselves are allowed to rotate in the axial planes. Graphical analysis is really an art in itself and as yet the authors have not fully explored the possibilities of ‘obtaining solutions to more complex loading problems. Not only is the method laborious but even when the diagrams have been prepared there is still the question of obtaining bending moments and shear forces, as a deflection diagram alone, although interesting, is not sufficient, For the purposes of calculating the slope, bending moment and shear forces the only sensible method of obtaining the Ist, 2nd and 3rd derivatives from a deflection diagram is by means of finite difference calculations but any reader conversant with this will appreciate the tedium and inaccuracies involved, unless only spot checks are required. Such spot checks will, however, be necessary at the boundaries but it is here where the utmost accuracy’ is required because of the large variations in the rate of change of the deflection pattern thus making finite difference calculations very difficult. There are much better ways of obtaining the same results by means of computer programmes and they are much faster and infinitely more accurate. Tt is because ‘of these computer techniques that the methods outlined above have. been disregarded except for one of two simple cases used later on. Before proceeding with the mathematical analysis of the simpler shells it would be as well 10 define the conventions used in order to arrive at the correct inter- pretation of results. CS) (——) Te teatng Ve beng Fig. 12. Convention for the shapes due to axial bending t tL ate got Fig. 13. Convention for the shapes due to shearsoos NY can gfton. co anion ol The following conventions will apply: Loads or forces acting on the shell Loads or forces acting radially inwards towards the shell axis will be classed as +ve. loads. Loads or forces acting radially outwards will be classed as —ve. loads. Bending Fig. 12 illustrates the convention for the shapes due to axial bending. Shear Fig, 13 illustrates shear convention. The above convention enables the general shape of deflection, bending moment and shear force diagrams to be visualised from only written results and will be Used throughout this work. Deftections Radial deflections measured inwards towards the axis ‘of the shell will be considered as +ve. (i. shell con- traction). Radial deflections measured outwards will be considered —ve. (ie. shell expansion) NB. Positive loads do not necessarily produce positive deflections at every point. This will be evident when, in part 3 of the series, partial loadings are considered, Let us now examine, mathematically, what happens to the shell in Fig. 9 in which the boundaries are rigidly - ou y Fig. 14. Graphs of functions WD. YG», 6(82), and (8x) clamped. Ignoring longitudinal tensile stresses the governing equations are:— Debection we be 1-2669+¥ 6x) pr Fz lw Ba) inches o Bending moment ‘Mx’ a R1Gx)-v 6a) Ib in/in of circumference (5) Shear force Qe'= fn B3)+¥ G2] Itfin of circumference O The expressions within the brackets are:— w (Bx)me* = [cos Bx+sin B x) oe ™M Y (B x)me* = [cos f x—sin fx) oe 8) O(Bx)met = con px =) n(Bx)me**sin fx (10) “ 1285 and po V/2S=P appro Say fot mil eel In the above @ x is simply the product of @ and the distance ‘x from either boundary. It should be noted that pr'/Et has appeared as a coefficient in equation (4) and, for a given shell geometry and uniform loading, is a constant. The term within thebrackets produces a variation in the actual defection “value in accordance with the distance ‘x’ measured from Kher boundary. for example. from conditions given, Felating to the shell of Fig. 9. the known deflection at the boundaries is zeto by design i when x=0, 8.50 and y (2.1) 1 and equation (4) pe becomes S [1—1ezero, When x is very large Ax Fy Un reef: becomes large and y (8x) becomes numerically very small and can be considered zero*. Equation (4) becomes, on Lo f-Oep r/Er Fy Unda To enable an easy assesment of the 4 functions of equations (7) to (10) to be made, a graph has been plotted with @x as abscissa and the values of the functions as ordinates for values of 8x from 0 up to 5 (Fig. 14) 2.5. A typical shell AL this stage it would be interesting to investigate typical shell 10 discover the magnitude of the stresses produced. It must be appreciated, however, that it is not possible to determine a shell thickness direct as a result of the equations but rather a shell thickness must first be given and then investigated, alterations being made up or down, as necessary, followed by a further investigation until a shell thickness has been arrived at within which the stresses are at a safe level. Fig. 15 shows the typical shell which is to be investi- ied together with the data (parameters) necessary for 2 siress analysis, the rope pull is assumed to be constant ang wound the full length of the shell and for the moment the resulting load on the shell is assumed con- stant from end to endt. Shell material Yield stress Young's modulus E Poisson's ratio v Rope dia. d posoet being 19 A over mild steel 35,000. Ibyin? UH 30x10 gS 03 . 1Sin 386 (rope will be close coiled) ” iar Bain Rope pull P 30,000 1 Eoastant. The first step is to convert the rope pull into an equivalent unit pressure on the shell P _ 30,000 Tread pressure per inch of rope length mm 300 1b. p= Equivalent pressure in Ib/in?=. = 200 Ibvin?. Tope dia, 1-285 1-285 pe, vii ViGxI For the moment only local stresses will be considered. Defection at boundaries=zero (by design) Detection halfway alone shell (using equation (4) 1285 % 36= 4625 (Gay 4-60) “y (89=-0011 ‘We cannot just insert these values in equation (4) and expect the answer to give the value of deflection at 01285 - x=36in because of the interaction of the opposite boundary pattern as already shown in Fig. 11. What we must do is to calculate the deflection as found from equation (4) and subtract from it the value of the de- fection as found from pr/Et. Double the resulting value and add it algebraically 10 p r/Et. This will give the true deflection at the mid point only.* This can be done purely by operating on the terms within the brackets of equation (4) as follows: — or weet Fra ¥ Gs) substituting gives:— we2l +0011) Er this differs from 1-0 p/E1 by O-O111 and the effect of the opposite diagram is to add as much as this again 10 the deflection: therefore the true deflection will be We 10222 prjEt which in this case will be 1.0222 « 200 x 1002 30% 10%%T =0-0682in whereas p r/E 1=0-0667in. Jean How can we cope with any other point not in the centre of the shell? Basically what we are doing is to firstly draw one half of the defection diagram app able to say the left hand boundary (see Fig. 16) which provides a set of ordinates for the deflection (full line), and superimposing upon it the ordinates of the diagram applicable to the right hand boundary (dotted line). ‘The deflection at a point A~A (not in the centre) would be the deflection as found from equation (4) for the full Tine diagram plus the small amount by which the deflec- tion of the dotted diagram exceeds pr'/E 1 at this point. Similarly the true deflection at a point B-B will be the full line diagram deflection minus the small amount by Which the deflection of the dotted diagram differs from prt, Having drawn the full line diagram from the results of equation (4) it is @ simple matter to measure off and modify accordingly to produce half of the nett diagram which will be symmetrical about the mid point of the shell at I, *To,ghan,anuwes by dre compuiaon te teary of hor sete shoal PETROS Sete pa Pad see Boos v © pee 8 , tote Uw 100% 2 S40 te Fig. 18. Typical shell investigated together with the data (pars. (meres) necessary for 2 sess analysis4 fi Hi 1 + 8 Fie. 16. Dellectons for fixed ended shell cena arene have Having found the deflections at every point how do We determine the sizesses? The circumferential compres. sive siress is easily found by multiplying the deflections by Elr which will produce a compressive stress diagram cf the same shape as the deflection diagram but to ifferent scale . The compressive stress at the point JJ, will be 0-0682 x 30x 10* 109 -= 20,460 Ibjin? 19) MP Note:—p r'/E 1 alone would produce a compressive stress of r/t=20,000 Ibyin®, Bending moments and stresses ‘At the boundaries 8 x=zero and 9 (8 x)=0, ¥ (2 x)=1 and substituting in equation (5) gives:— Bending moment fo-1) 200 “Toes 050 Ib injin of circumference. ‘The section modulus of a lin square bar is 0-1666in* and =6.050 = 36,300 Ibjin? ver i665 ~ 26500 Win? very nearly (The influence of the opposite boundary will very slightly modify this value). The bending moments at points other than at the boundaries are difficult to calculate accurately unless the Shell is extremely long. in which case equation (3) is used direct, but the reader is asked to wait until the theory of short shells is developed by means of the compuer programme in Part 3 of this series, the errors the bending stress will be -23 Dethcton ————— 4} k-—--- (In order to illstate the diagram interactions the ‘supplementary’ dellections around the been exaggerated Manual calculations are not very large but they are evident, as will be seen, Shear forces and stresses At boundaries 8 x=0 and (8 )=0, W (2x)= substituting in equation (6) gives:— and a P P__200 Shearing force=@ [0+ 1}=2———— = 1,555 Ibjin of cire cn oe (OH nm age 1S Ibn of cumference. As the shell is lin thick this will be the shear stress. The remarks concerning the calculation of bending moments at points other than at the boundaries apply equally as well to shear forces as these are also difficult to ‘calculate accurately. All that can be said at the ‘moment of bending moments and shear forces at the ‘midpoint of the shell is that they will both be sensibly zero for the shell in question. Fig, 16 also shows the true deflection diagram for this shell on to which has been added the line repre: senting the theoretical deflection pr/E7 and it is signi- ficant to note that this value of deflection occurs at dis- tances of 1'835/r# from either boundary. (18-35 inches.) This shell can be considered “long” but it does not imply that every 6-f-long shell is “long” because "7’ and ‘r' may change radically thus producing a different resultant value for the length given by 1-835 Jr. The reader should now be able to see the similarity between the diagrams of Figures 11 and 16 and should also be able to appreciate the slight deflection discrepan- ies which occur over the central portion of the shell due to diagram interactions. Here we have a shell of a given type having rigidly fixed boundaries subjected to a constant rope. pull of 30.000 Tb producing 2 very safe compressive stress of20.460 Ibsin? max.* but at the boundaries the shell is Subjected 10 a yield magnitude stress of 36,300 Ibyin*. this state of affairs was to continue the shell material Ould almost certainly yield locally and even if early Structural overload failure did not occur then the pos sibility exists of a very short fatigue life. So much depends upon the nature of the material and upon whether the shell is welded at the boundaries and whether the weld design and welding technique was correct. Knowing these points it would be possible to predict a fatigue life with reasonable certainty. tis quite clear from the above results that the boundary sifesses are 100 severe and an alternative shell thickness should be chosen and a Iin shell under similar circumstances would produce a stress of 24.200 Ib/in’§ but fatigue stress limits should be aimed at to provide a suitable life, Such high boundary stresses will enabie the reader to appreciate more fully the cause of bolt breakages in the type of shells which are bolted on to circumferential ledges forming part of the cheeks. ‘Although it is not strictly possible to obtain such boundary conditions, as previously stated (1.4, 22) it does give some idea as to the “possible” magnitude of the stresses involved. On the other hand there are rela- live degrees of rigidity of boundary fixation and it is the object of this series to develop ways and means of Duilding in” a suitable value of rigidity such that stresses are kept within safe calovlable limits, but firstly the theories must be explored and developed. conditions ‘One method of attaining this is to attach the shell to exible end supports in order to induce a rotation of the shell at this point and the other method is to allow the shell ends to rest freely upon the end supports.** 6. Reducing the boundary stresses—free end ‘The most obvious way is the latter but this is by no means always possible and the former method can be adopted as an alternative, but before discussing flexible fend supports we shall deal with the case of a shell, identical in every respect with Fig. 9 except that its ends are completely free but constrained only in the radial sense such that boundary deflection is zer0. ‘The appropriate equations will be:— Deflection *Wa" o () os 12) ww 13) ai on tpl and ave ame 64/3238 ‘The functions @(2 3), 9 (2 x) and ¥ (8 2) are as given before in equations (9), (10) and (8) respectively or as in Fig. 14. It should be clear that the “semi-critical length” is no longer 1-835 yt as given before for the fixed ended shell as the equation governing deflection has changed slightly, thus the deflection of pr/E tis only now exactly realised when 6(B x)—zer0 ie. when @ x=1'5728. Cor- responding to this the semi-critical length will be 1225/7 t This means that full defection to approximately priEt can be realised on shorter shells than would have been possible for fixed ended shells. How do the stresses and deflections compare with the previous example? The following calculations will show, Using the same shell geometry as before. Defiection at boundaries by design=zero Deflection ha'fway along shell using equation (11) fi x=01285 x36—462 from which @ (2 x)=—0-00086 ‘eat _x=36=[1-00086-+0-00086) p H/E 1=1-00172 x 0-0667=0-0667in neatly. Bending moment at boundaries is zero by design and is also very nearly zero at the centre. Shear force at boundaries using equation (13). x0 -, Br=0 and ¥(Bx)=1 Pp Shearing force 2 2777 tojin of circum Zp” Taoiaas 777 Wn of ceoum reference ’ ‘These results prove three things:— (a) The shea fore fo fe ends is bal (b) The central defections remain unchanged trom those of the Gxed ended shell within the limits of diagram interactions, ete. (© For # shell of this particular geometry the central Geflections are not influenced to any degree by variations in boundary conditions. Fig. 17 shows the deflection diagram for the free ended shell, the semicritcal length of 1-225 V7i=1225in. ‘What has been gained by allowing the ends to rotate without hindrance? Firstly the boundary moments have been reduced to zero and at the same time the shear siress has been halved. Circumferential compressive stress has remained virally unchanged at around 20,000 Ibn and whereas previously a lin thick shell would have been too thin, due to the large boundary moments, in the present case it would be perfecdy safe.* There are of course bending moments present along the shell but these are not very severe and the criterion for design will be the compressive stress limit, but only when the boundaries are released. Values of bending moments and shear forces for free ended shells will be given in part 3 of this series when investigating the computer results, Such results will be far more accurate than any manual calculation which could be obtained from equations (11) 10 (13) due to boundary interactions. ‘Although these two cases bear no direct resemblance to an actual winder drum, as the reader may know it, purely by virtue of the boundary conditions, it quite larly illustrates how important it is not’ to have If that for fixed * saber gene cay ah, gern, geting racial aleten af shalt ovtnima——— é — Fig. 17. Delleetion diagram for freely supported shell boundary fixauons which are too rigid and in fact it is preferable to adopt fixations which approach a simply supported condition. The reader may well appreciate that this is possible, in fact the older type bolt on shells provided a rather erude form of fixation approaching this condition but the question is, how can a flexible connection be introduced such as to enable an assess ment of the boundary, and other stresses, 1o be made? This problem is, for the moment, too complicated to introduce at this stage and will be treated later in the series. We should, however, confine ourselves to the simpler forms of construction which are, mathematically, more easily predictable and within the scope of slide rule caleulations. 2.7. Short shells In preparing this series the Authors did feel that the ‘mathematical equations relating to short shells should be introduced at this stage in order to obtain compari sons between the three major stresses for the cases of fixed ended shells of length greater than 4/rf and those of shells considerably shorter than this value. It has already been emphasised that there is a severe limitation placed upon the value of manual computation and at best the introduction of short shell theory can only tend to confuse the reader who is trying to grasp this subject. The simple approaches so far outlined are really sufficient to enable an understanding to be gained of the way in which loaded shells behave. In part 3 of this series computer results will be given for various cases and the programme which has been prepared can accommodate short shells equally as well as long shells as the mathematics contained within the programme is adequate to cover any case in question. Such computer programmes are vastly superior to manual calculations as they are infinitely more accurate and are capable of providing results which cannot be attempted in any other way. It is because of the usefulness of such programmes and the severe limitation of manual methods that we ask the reader to wait until part 3 of this series before examining comparable results for long and short shells.) 34 The first computer results In the second part of this series we Jcalt with only be simpler approximate, techniques of manual eampy: stwwo relative wy “long” shells having both fixed and e houndaries. It is now time to intenducs the results chained from the earlige computer programmes s0 that Semparisens cane made belween the boundary and finer siteses tay well ay defistions! relating 10 both long and shoet shells The authors were fortunate in having easy aevess ta the digital compuier situsted in the Erith offices of GEC. (Process: Engineering) Lid, This isa Ferranti machine using Mercury Aurocode language (See Fig. 18) sn operates wholly By means of punched tape. Much vseltl work way already: being carried out by its use in respect of winding engine calculations, such as drum- shafts and brakes, etc. and one of the authors was Simversant with the Autocode lunguuge used. For the curler work however the authors are ine sicied_ 10 the Senior Mathematician, Mr. B, M, Scott ‘shoss help in preparing and modifying the programmes used) in the fundamental analyses was invaluable. The results in this part of the series are a direct result of Mir. Seoit’s labours and the programme existing to date ts an such a form that Ht ean be used as a direct check fon some of the later programme material produced. Such cross checking is of course invaluable in determi the sceuracies of complex problems At the time of completing. the firsi computer pro- mmnie_thers was being designed, in the ofces of GEC. Frith, » double drum winder for South Africa and if was decided 10 utilise the data for this machine {is trial for the new programme. 9943 ur ach drum of this winder was 10 fA diameter by'3 ft Yin hetween anges having a shell Zin thick. Although the drum was being supplied with compression rings it was decided 10 omit them until such time as plain shells hl been analysed. Only the fist laver coils were ape lied. the loading being transformed into a constant uniform loud over the whole shell based upon the sverage rope pull, This loading was found to be 374 Ibjint. US Ow Ax mentioned in part 2 of this series the programme was based upon fixed boundaries, Ze. the slope and de- Acetion at these points is zero, und it wus upon this basis that the programme was initially run. The change In the programme to accept free ended vonditions wus then purely a routine matter. First of all Jet us deal with the results from the com- pier as upplied 19 the boundaries and mid point of a lived ended long shell. The results from the compuler are listed below: - ae Br Fig. 18 The “Mercury” computer at Entn At boundaries Bending moment =-13.579 Ibin/in of circumference = stress = = 20,400 Ibfin Shear force = 3186 Ib/in of circumference = stress = 1.593 Ibjin® Compressive stress = 0 by design At mil point Bending moment =~ 75 Ib infin of circumference = sttess = = 12S Ibjin? Shear force = 9.13 Ibjin of circumference sess 4.56 Ib/in* Radial deflection = 23.535 thou Circumferential Compressive stress Now let these results be compured with some results ‘obtained manually by the use of equations (4). (5) und (6) of part 2, but first let the value of 8 be calculated, 1285 vn Vx? —— Ar boundaries (deflection: 1285 yBe0. Yiasi=l, WBS, MBsIEL and mane Bending moment oP tonite oe iF TF 374 SSSI 713.580 Ib inlin of circumference POTS » 2 Shear foree = 5 (04 1] teT aie! compres 00 Brg se) [+s ssa shar = RAINS Ib‘in of circumference onin3 1 mid point 0-0244, Mr (8 x)=0-0029, # (8 x) 00137 Trom which: = 08 0 (0197 and 9 (8 Bending moment 00274 +0-02441— = 213.580 x ~0-003 = ~40:74 Ib infin of circumference Shear force ” 001374 il .0-0028) 001082 a 2 = 0-0108 x 3.185= 34-4 Ibfin of circumference Detleetion Pe (140-0246) = zy! } using the technique described in part 2 the total deflec- tion will be: Hoag 2 @ HO x 374 x 60? x 1,000 30x 10°x2 =23-53 thou. Ay mentioned in part 2 the errors in the values of ending moment and sheur force at the centre which involve the 2nd and 3rd derivatives of the deflections. are obsious although in this case not at all significant ‘iue 10 the low magnitude, The values obtained manually at the boundary are exactly identical 10 those obtained Irom the computer as also is the deflection obtained at the mid point. which proves that the computer pro- gramme is giving correct results The reader may like to calculate for himself the re- - 7 Fig. 19, Detlection, benging moment and shear force oiagrams ‘Sheil—60in radive 6919 long Zin thick No comp. rings Unitorm tose-—37 Ib Boundary conditions —tigidy clampes 230. 10" sults for a point ITin from the L-H. boundary for which the-computer results are:~ Deflection “w"=20.866 thou, Bending moment “M™ 2.400 Ib infin ference. Shear force "Q"=~ 182.6 Tofin of circumference —remembering. when calculating deflection. 10 allow for the influence of the opposite boundary diagram Slight discrepancies will be found in M and as already outlined. Fig, 19 shows the deflection diagram for this fixed ended ong” shell plus the bending moment and shear force iagrams related to it. and it should be noticed that despite this being the frst of three layers of rope the tensile bending siress at the boundaries is 20,400 bf whereas the compressive stress is 11.750 Ib/in? at the mig. point. ‘We will now compare the above results with what would be obisined when the boundaries are released $0 as 10 be constrained radially but free to rotate in the axial planes. The reader may wish to analyse the results given by using equations (11), (12) and (13) of pan 2. Fig. 20 shows the deflection, bending moment and shear force diigrams for the free ended “long” shell identical in every respect, but for the boundary candi- tions. 10 the shell above. of circum. 3.2 Short shells, ‘The reader has already been warned about using the simple theories already outlined, on fixed ended shells shorter thun about 4/71 in and free ended shells shorter than ubout 2.Sv71 in. Manual results can give moder- ately accurate deflection values on shells shorier than the above appropriate lengths by suitably applying the simple superposition methods previously outlined bu! care musi be taken at each boundary because the shorter the shell becomes the more euch diagram affects the