Paul:
Patricia and MikeH give good advice, and you would do well to reread/study their posts, for your own edification, if not for the betterment of this shipping scheme. Are you a Mech. Eng.? At what experience level? We all started on the lower rungs at beginning of our careers. So, starting out, and having to learn how to approach real world problems is nothing to be ashamed of. Remember, being able to draw something with a CAD program doesn’t mean it’ll work and is not the same as giving it thorough engineering attention in its details. You were asked the wrong question, or interpreted the question incorrectly if you think the result should be presented in bars of pressure. Just what standard calcs. did you do to get from 27.2 kips applied at six locations (~4.5 kips/wood block) on a shell/plate cone structure, to 1.49 bars pressure. Uniform pressure of 3 bars is quite different than compressive line loads perpendicular to the cone plate, which will cause buckling. I’ll bet the question was... ‘will this shipping arrangement work without screwing up our cone housings in transit?’ Or, design a shipping arrangement for these cone housings. As MikeH mentioned your 3 bar test pressure is quite different that six line loads on that lowest cone structure. Have you checked the 31.7 kip load on the lowest flange at four points on the shipping frame (~31.7/4= 7.9 kips) at the flange and up into the cone shell plate? That’s a compressive loading on the flange, a bearing load on the flange/cone plate welds, and akin to a web crippling problem in a plate girder. Did your CAD tell you that you probably can’t get into the shipping frame tube to make that bottom bolted connection to the lowest flange or to tack weld a nut in place? That’s about 15" into the tube. Did it tell you that lifting slings or chains might slip off the four lifting ends you show in your sketch. You at least have to prevent this potential slippage, or provide a lifting lug or some such at each corner.
Now, look at my last post again and reread it for its full meaning. I don’t think you should load those cone shells the way you show. I think you would have a better solution if you used about 9" long/high oak blocks btwn. the cone bottom flanges, at each level. They would keep the cones properly separated and provide a direct and continuous load path down to the shipping frame. These blocks would be about 3"x16" wide x 9" high, one on each side of each of your lifting lugs on the cones. On the four corner columns, I suggested above, I would have vert. slotted holes to bolt your lifting lugs to. But, more importantly when I put the cone down with its lifting lugs touching the column I would also be aligning the flange holes for some through bolts. The wood blocks would have a vert. kerf cut, at mid width, in their outer face to allow a full height through bolt. These wooden blocks would span 3 flange bolt holes; the middle one with the kerf for the through bolt; and the two side locations would be for locator dowels, top and bottom, to fit into the adjacent flange holes. I would also adjust the dimensions of your shipping frame so that the cone flange landed on both frame members at each corner to give you more bearing area at each corner.
you sound rather miffed.