JStephen
Mechanical
- Aug 25, 2004
- 8,696
In API-650 Section 5.7.7.7 are equations for thickness of the cover plate for flush manways.
The equations include a C factor, with is defined differently depending on whether h/b is > 0.5 or less than 0.5.
Curiously, those criteria have flipped in the latest (13th) Edition. Anyone know what is going on? Was it "right" before and wrong now, or the other way around?
I find those C definitions included in rectangular plate stress equations. The one with "0.623" in it is a clamped edge, the one with "1.61" in it is simply-supported edges. I can see arguing it either way, but I'm not so sure why you would change the assumption depending on the shape. It also seems in both cases that the height is assumed less than the width.
The rectangular plate equations:
Edit: These are in Roark's 2nd Edition, and are credited to Timoshenko's "Applied Elasticity" of 1925.
The equations include a C factor, with is defined differently depending on whether h/b is > 0.5 or less than 0.5.
Curiously, those criteria have flipped in the latest (13th) Edition. Anyone know what is going on? Was it "right" before and wrong now, or the other way around?
I find those C definitions included in rectangular plate stress equations. The one with "0.623" in it is a clamped edge, the one with "1.61" in it is simply-supported edges. I can see arguing it either way, but I'm not so sure why you would change the assumption depending on the shape. It also seems in both cases that the height is assumed less than the width.
The rectangular plate equations:
Edit: These are in Roark's 2nd Edition, and are credited to Timoshenko's "Applied Elasticity" of 1925.