Ansys user guide pdf
Enter the terms you wish to search for. Microwave Circuit Design Microwave Office is known for its intuitive interface, innovative design automation, and powerful harmonic balance circuit simulation. Recent Additions The latest release of NI Ansys user guide pdf Design Environment, specifically Microwave Office, provides for new and expanded capabilities. Expanded Circuit Envelope – APLAC harmonic balance technology now includes a circuit envelope simulator capable of addressing circuits excited by non-periodic signal sources, i.
Frequency Matters: Video Interview With Prof. Please forward this error screen to 173. Eng-Tips’s functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.
I am suggesting that we use the maximum SI as viewed from the SI stress distribution. The membrane stress component should be compared against the Code allowable stress. Depending on the loading condition, the allowable stress can be increased by a factor of 1. For instance, the 3 factor would be used to evaluate local stresses from nozzle loads. That’s how I would evaluate the stresses! 5 limit is for local primary membrane plus primary bending. The intent is to insure that a primary load does not cause a plastic collapse failure.
0 factor is an entirely different failure mode. So wading through the code for the first time, I am having similar questions. Pb, 4-133 does say “highest value across the thickness of a section”, but membrane stress is explicitly defined in 4-112f as the “average value of stress across the section”. The same ambiguity exists in 4-134. Without going into some of the rather complex issues, such as what is a valid stress classification line, the basics are these.
You draw a line through the wall thickness, normally normal to the sufaces. In this case, the combination of linearized stresses on the surface gives you local membrane plus bending plus secondary stress. If you want to up the level of sophistication a notch, you should consider that linearization typically gives some fictitious values of stress components on the surfaces, and that you should consider the real values. Further, the radial stress at the inside surface must equal the internal pressure, also based on equilibrium. I do understand the theory, but ASME dispenses with theory to some degree in order to apply tried-and-proved methods as industrial codes are want to do. I had originally assumed that “linearization” meant “averaging”, but that doesn’t follow.
Bending stress, for example, varies linearly across the section whereas radial and hoop pressure stresses do not. 2 is the actual average of this linearized stress rather than just an approximation of the average of the true stress distribution? I do have some more questions, but maybe I should sketch out our specific problem. Obviously, the above method doesn’t follow ASME VIII-2 App 4 at all. How would you recommend setting this up? I have a copy of some stress calcs done by our sister company, and I’m not convinced they do theirs right either. They idealize their bodies as thick-walled clinders too.
But for operating conditions, they assume an external axial load plus external moment. I really do appreciate the help on this. I can read the code over and over, but there’s danger in interpreting things incorrectly. I am also looking to take a course put on by the local ASME organization in order to gain a better understanding of how to apply this code, but in the meantime, your feedback will very useful. You really should engage an appropriate consultant to help you on this issue. Having said that, here is a couple more items of advice. When liniarizing, your determine what linear bending stress distribution gives the same bending moment about any abritrary point in space, as those in the section you choose.
It is a straight forward weighted average. Microwave Circuit Design Microwave Office is known for its intuitive interface, or students posting their homework. And already I find that I cannot rely on learning how to apply these standards by examining what was done before. Review and markup of engineering notes can now be done directly by team members without them all requiring a full Mathcad Prime license. In independent mode, however don’t want to imply that the linearization procedure of that code is correct: personally found in the past quite odd results output by Ansys.
When y1ou are doing membrane stress caclulations, it is a straight forward weighted average. When you are doing membrane plus bending, you use the combined, linearized values, but should consider the actual values of the two shear and one normal stress value, previously mentioned, on the free surface. Get a consultant or WRC bulletin if you need more detail. I can remember, the term linearization is not used in the code. Hence a bending stress is combined with membrane stress only at the wall surfaces, as only there the maximum stress intensity may occur. The assumptions done by your sister company are not surprising: if an external moment is present, it must be accounted for, and it will contribute to the membrane component of axial stress. But I’ve only been here a short while, and already I find that I cannot rely on learning how to apply these standards by examining what was done before.
Actual hoop stress varies across the section according to equation in 4-221. It seems that I am being confused by ASME’s use of the term “bending”. If I understand the responses correctly, bending due to external applied moments is not considered a bending stress but rather a membrane stress, which jives with the description for nozzle stresses on table 4-120. As I’ve been writing this, I’ve been having some “ahhs” as more things click into place. Of course, I may just be misleading myself!