Comparative evaluation of design codes for buckling assessment of a steel spherical shell

IF 1.4 4区 工程技术 Q3 ENGINEERING, CIVIL Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures Pub Date : 2023-07-07 DOI:10.1590/1679-78257473
M. Ismail, J. Mahmud
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of design codes for buckling assessment of a steel spherical shell","authors":"M. Ismail, J. Mahmud","doi":"10.1590/1679-78257473","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This work focuses on the comparative evaluation of the buckling capacity of steel spherical shells subjected to external pressure with existing design codes. The recorded experimental data of buckled spherical shells are compared with the calculated buckling pressure using design codes such as (i) European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS), (ii) Det Norske Veritas (DnV), (iii) British Standard (PD 5500) and (iv) American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). The selected experimental data are widely used in industrial applications. The experimental data are categorised as 'thin-shell', 'moderate-shell' and 'thick-shell' and reviewed against selected design codes. The comparative analysis clearly shows that the DnV design code with a deviation of 3.6% is well suited to estimate the buckling capacity of 'thick shells\", while PD 5500 with a deviation of 9% to 50% is better suited for \"medium and thin' shells. On the other hand, statistical analysis shows that PD 5500 is close to 1.0 with the value of COV (i.e., 1.281 and 9.383%). Further analysis of 28 steel spherical shell test data is performed and compared with the plotted curves in the format of PD 5500 and ECCS. The result shows that 3 test data are below the lower limit curve specified in the design guideline for ECCS, indicating that PD 5500 is the more conservative design guideline.","PeriodicalId":18192,"journal":{"name":"Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-78257473","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This work focuses on the comparative evaluation of the buckling capacity of steel spherical shells subjected to external pressure with existing design codes. The recorded experimental data of buckled spherical shells are compared with the calculated buckling pressure using design codes such as (i) European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS), (ii) Det Norske Veritas (DnV), (iii) British Standard (PD 5500) and (iv) American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). The selected experimental data are widely used in industrial applications. The experimental data are categorised as 'thin-shell', 'moderate-shell' and 'thick-shell' and reviewed against selected design codes. The comparative analysis clearly shows that the DnV design code with a deviation of 3.6% is well suited to estimate the buckling capacity of 'thick shells", while PD 5500 with a deviation of 9% to 50% is better suited for "medium and thin' shells. On the other hand, statistical analysis shows that PD 5500 is close to 1.0 with the value of COV (i.e., 1.281 and 9.383%). Further analysis of 28 steel spherical shell test data is performed and compared with the plotted curves in the format of PD 5500 and ECCS. The result shows that 3 test data are below the lower limit curve specified in the design guideline for ECCS, indicating that PD 5500 is the more conservative design guideline.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
钢球壳屈曲评定设计规范的比较评价
本文主要研究了钢球壳在外部压力作用下的屈曲能力与现有设计规范的比较评价。采用欧洲钢结构公约(ECCS)、挪威船级社(DnV)、英国标准(pd5500)和美国船级社(ABS)等设计规范,将记录的屈曲球壳实验数据与计算的屈曲压力进行了比较。所选的实验数据被广泛应用于工业应用。实验数据被分类为“薄壳”、“中壳”和“厚壳”,并根据选定的设计规范进行审查。对比分析清楚地表明,DnV设计规范的偏差为3.6%,非常适合估计“厚壳”的屈曲能力,而PD 5500的偏差为9%至50%,更适合估计“中、薄”壳的屈曲能力。另一方面,统计分析显示,PD 5500与COV值(即1.281和9.383%)接近1.0。对28个钢球壳试验数据进行了进一步分析,并与pd5500和ECCS格式的作图曲线进行了比较。结果表明,3个试验数据均低于ECCS设计指南规定的下限曲线,说明PD 5500是较为保守的设计指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
8.30%
发文量
37
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Reliability-based design of reinforced concrete pipes to satisfy the TEBT Innovative Approach for Enhancing GLULAM Performance with Reinforcing Steel Bars: A BESO-based Study Sequential method of topological optimization in multi-component systems Coupling Modal Analysis with the BEM for the Transient Response of Bar Structures Interacting with Three-Dimensional Soil Profiles Experimental and Numerical Study on Ballistic Impact Response of Vehicle Tires
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1