J _.'
)
)
. '
····&D
Winding
Drums
The analysis and design of fabricated steel cylindrical drums for mine winding engines
By L. T. J e . Atkinson & G.l. Taylor·
"G,£.C. (Proccs; E.n~inecrini) Lid., Fraser and Chalrrren Division.
Reprinted by kind pemission of the PUblishers of "Colliery Engineering" frot! a 'series of articles published between December 1966 and August 1967.
GECMechanical
Handling Limited
KENT ENGLAND
BIRCH WALK
ERITH
,
'Winding Drums
)
The analysis and design of fabricated steel cylindrical drums for mine winding engines.
By L. T. J. ATKINSON & G. L TAYLOR'
,. Introduction
)
I~' TillS. series of articles it is proposed 10 deal with two main aspects of winding enaine drum desian in wh ich the accent isupon cylindrical drum winder{ as opposed' 10 fric: ion winders. the Ju Iter need ing a completely dillerent theoretical analysis from the former.
The bulk of the early work deals with the rnathemati 1:<11 analysis of , shells in which. out of necessity. the computer plays a big: part: this' forms the basis of· the first main aspect of design. In the final stages the more rHlcLical aspect is dealt with in as much as certain physical structures are analysed in which the weakpoints 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 p'~ints of practical design being introduced and viceversa: this is, however. unavoidable and no apologies can he given for some degree of repetition as this is necessury.)n order to correlate certain features of design.
)
, .i. 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 ) apparently requiring no special knowledge for both its I conception and its design. This could not be further from the truth as this series will ultimately show. It has
been heard said that winding engines are so much "old iron" but one must suppose. however. that, should the uninitiated be allowed II glimpse at the insides of some of' the older drums. resplendent in their display of comp.ression rings made from' fiat bottom rail securely riveted to the shell plates. then there may be some excuse for such remarks. There is nothing wronz in using rails for compression rings provided it is used in the correct fashion and that il is present in the right quantity as the reader will later appreciate when cornpression rings are being discussed.
Modern winding engine drums (see Fig. I) should give no excuse for such derogatory remarks (at least it is hoped that this is so) because they should have been
)
! • f r . p •. , ....... ~ I ':~·"l;.·'''':.' I I 11.1
Fig, 1. A modern winding engine under construction. This is 8 doubtedrum. single·clutch machine for which the drums 8fe manufacturedenti;ely tram mild steel plate
scientifically designed and carefully manufactured with as much care as is justifiably possible. In this respect. although great care is normally taken 10 ensure sound designs, too little knowledge has been available to winding engine designers in the past to enable them 10 predict ~jth ~reater c~rtainty whether or not the finished product IS going to WIthstand the duty for which it is required.
J 1 is relatively easy to 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 .rnost competitive industries, but, here we are faced .with the human element in that Jives may be.4~p~I')~~nrtipOrtwh~t1ier or not the safe functioning of equipment can be assured. The continual battle for economy must be weighed against safety 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 greater attention is paid towards obtaining lighter and Jess bulky structures providing always. of course, that such resulting structures are provedadequate for their appointed
duty. .
Faced with the circumstances outlined above. many designers will he presented with the problem of how such economies can be achieved and one answer is. of course. to fabricate their drums rather than adhere to the ever fuithful castings which can be more expensive and sometimes very troublesome to manufacture. The general trend these days is towards fabricatioa because
• •
•
•
f II
Il
II
I
f. II II
o •
Fig. 2. Some of the forces ~cting on e paflllsl winding drum.·Forces (c). (e), (g), (h) end (i) .re nor shown
it j~ often very much quicker to obtain a welded structure than it is to obtain patterns and subsequent castings. But whuri! our designer is working for a company who ;.J re currently in the habit of manufacturing all drums lrorn welded steel plate? He is presumably faced with an even bigger problem but this need not be so if attention is ru id 10' design detail along the lines suggested by these articles,
1.2 Finding the loads
Before :I ny analysis of the stresses in a structure can he undertaken. il is first necessary to know what loading configuration is being applied to that structure. This may u rr~ar very obvious but if one considers the situation. as. )lecJ to a winder drum. it will be appreciated that ulthough it is necessary to know the loading configuration how is it \11 be obtained'!
There are 6 main types of load which can be con
idered, namely:
(a) Tangential pull of over and/or underlay ropes. (b) Torsional load applied via main driving motor. Ic) Centrifugal forces due to rotation.
IcJ) Crushing of shell due to winding on ropes under
tension,
t e l Forces due to thermal expansion of brake path. (f) Forces produced as brakes are applied.
I n addition 10 these there are also:
(g) Forces produced due to dead weight.
(h) Forces produced due to drumshaft deflection by virtue of (g).
(j) Auxiliary dynamic loads from various .sources. Fig. :2 gives some idea of the directions of the loads vhich can he encountered.
bf all these only (d). (e) and (f) have any prime signiicance hut only (d) is being considered for the time leing although mention will be made of the remainder I~ these articles progress. Why choose only (d)? Let a nodestly small drum of IOOin diameter by lOOin long be .onsidered having wound on 10 it a I in diameter rope mder a constant tension of 10.000 Ib: this will produce In the shell a gross impressed load of 6.280,000 Ib or "me 3.000 Ions. Compared with this the other forces e x , ) fnr (ell are of no jiarticular significance when Inulysing the shell.
Having now established that the crushing forces are mportam 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. Broughton which was first published in 1928 and subsequently revised in 1948 (see references). This book is 38 years old and it is surprising to see how little 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 be 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). Unfortunately. 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. nor is it known what is implied by "special cases" for instances will be given later of "normal" drums which. although adequate from a 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 iin diameter was used, it being wound on to a lOin diameter drum under a constant tension of 1,000 lb. As each successive layer was wound on the tensions .in each previous layer were. in some way. measured ulltil after 4 layers had been completed the compressive stress in the shell was only about S4 % of what it would have been if the tensions in the ropes of each layer had remained at 1.000 lb. The figures given in' the 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 machines, as some drum failures have probably indicated already."
In connection with the above results Waters may have failed to 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
,
I
. J
I
) I
 J
.
,
i
.. • Sec 2nd paper byT: n~:·an. ". '9'i(if';;he South African Meebaaical £nJ!ineer". nee. 1%'. in "'hieh one ... ~h laihirc Is reponed.
I I
Fig 3. Although this South Alrican winder has drums manufactured trom cast steel. some idea can be gained of the size 01 the installation wnicn is typical 01 that country
)
manner in which its ends were supported. All these can allect the final load upon the shell and probably the most important was the rope which was used. or the method used to 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 too weak to withstand the superimposed loads.
1.3 The South African scene
Cylindrical Drum winders in South Africa are extremely common (see Fig. 3) and are also very important in Tela tion 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. Jt 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. " It 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 II. 1957. the object being to arrive at suitable equations with which to enable a more accurate assessment to be made of the loads. and hence the stresses, on a winder drum shell.
Cornrnznting very briefly on this paper. Do.an firstly evolves a "factor" equation which enables the direct load upon the shell to be computed, depending upon the multifarious parameters of design. Waters' experiment is also mentioned and Dolan has applied his own factor equation to a similar set of circumstances and presumably assumes a shell thickness for his final results. The figures given by Dolan definitely show that Waters' results would give too thin a shell and this is shown to be so
) when later in the paper several winder shells are analysed with a view to obtaining service stresses on machines, some of which have failed. and Dolan's figures
show that a minimum compressive stress of some 35.000 Ih. sq. in. was obtained on these machines using his
analytical methods. Comparisons between the values Ill' these stresses certainly imply that shells designed to Waters' factors would definiteJy have been teo weak.
This paper was followed up by another far more comprehensive work which was read by Mr. Dolan and published in "The South African Mechanical Engineer" 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 a point. hecause it is necessary to briefly outline the researches which have been carried out to date so as 10 emphasise the very important points which have either been overlooked or considered virtually insoluble due to the lack of knowledge at the time.
Dolan's researches have outlined certain weaknesses in some existing designs and yet. if one cares to look through his tabulated list of. winders, armed with the knowledge of which of the drums clthe listed machines have failed and which have not failed. some interesting facts emerge. Let several cases be mentioned in respect cfthe stresses obtained on various mild steel shells as folJows: 7..% jo4.{1 .... (I) Machine installed in 1946. shell stress 35.700 lb.in".
failed. t..1..oIT f'tP.;;
(2) Machine installed in 1954, shell stress 3:!.60:J lbin", failed.
These are two cases selected from the list anti the stresses obtained are approximately equal to the design stress limit mentioned in Dolan's earlier paper.
Now examine the following: 1<;> I"l.p ....
(3) Machine installed in 1959. shell stress 4.J()(J lhin",
3
11q rlP,insta lied in 1931. shell stress 10.100 lb/in",
f~ikd. ~41 Machine failed.
Both (~) and (4) are well below the design stress limit set by Dolan.
Finally: 15) Machine
1...~ t, installed in 1925. shell stress 38.000 lb/in".
Apparently still serviceable. '3 J{
(hI Machine installed in 19 ·1. shell stress 48.600 lb/in", Apparently still serviceable.
The failure of (I) and (2) may be more easily undersiood when it is remembered that both stresses are near to Dolan's design limit but this does not explain the reason behi nd the failures of (3) and (4) and the non Iuilur es of (5) and (6) the stresses in which are ljfry much removed from Dolan's limit of 35.000 lb/in", \
By far the greater proportion of machines in Dolan's tabulated list are apparently still performing satisfactorily ihe majority of shell stresses being under 30.000 lb/in" with quite a few under 20.000 lb/in". How then, can
'~:h unrela led shell fa ilures be explained? It is quite .,ear. from the foregoing. that circumferential cornpressive stresses are not the only criterion for design as EO much depends upon the designer's individual approach 10 detail and the way in which a particular drum is constructed and it is the authors' opinion that much more could be done 10 overcome previously unrecognised stresses, the most important being the stresses produced by the bending moments imposed at the shell end connections,
\ Before proceeding further it would be advantageous ,6 outline the fundamental approach made by Dolan towards obtaining the magnitude of the superimposed loads upon a shell and hence the evaluation of the circumferential stress in the shell material.
Lei us consider for the moment an infinitely long cylindrical shell. If such a shell was to have only its external cylindrical surface subjected to a constant and uniformly distributed radially applied load. acting inwards towards the centre. then it is reasonable to suppose that the whole shell would suffer a reduction in diameter
. ich would he everywhere similar. This is better des\. .• ned 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 tor of the first such as to produce an increase in the constant uniform load and therefore an increase in the radial displacement of the shell surface. what has hap
pened to the first layer coils'.' Quite clearly they too would have been given a radial displacement and because of this they would have suffered a change of strain resulting in a 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 reduction of load in the first layer.
The same situation arises as more and more layers are applied 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 tha I which is felt by the shell. It is upon this simple principle that Dolan has based his rope load "factors" but the derivation 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 thlnzs that has been outlined in Dolan's report is that th~ rope load "factors" are not constant between one drum and another (assuming of course that the machines are not identical) i.e, the rope load "factors" for a 2in shell having wound upon it a I tin dia. stranded rope would be different from that of the same shell having, say, a Itin locked coil rope.
Dolan's factors are applied in the following equation to give the total load upon the shelI:
Ks . Ks Ks
T=T,+T:Ks+Kr +T'Ks+2Kr +T'Ks+3Kr
Ks'
...... Tnks+<n_1 )K.r
where
T=total tension on drum shell
T,• T:. T." T.=average tensions in 1st. 2nd, 3rd layers up to "n' layers.
Ks=Young's modulus of shell material multiplied by shell area under one coil pitch.
Kr=Rope stretch modulus multiplied by rope metallic area.
This equation, based upon the principles outlined above. has been verified by the authors:
All 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
Brak. path
~::::;;:::=n=~/
Compr ••• ion ring •
• IId .,_t.
or cite ..
Section XX
Fig. 4. Th. 1I::lInt;.' componllnt: 01 • ".r.II.' winding drum
4
01 nbtaining compress iv e .',tre~se, on I"n;: xhc ll lhi, i~ quite adequate hut what of the other 'tr~'~.:, \\ hich ~re inherent in :J deformed shell" It i, not sufficient ttl ueSign jlurcly upon the h:Jsis of ~'I'm!1re"i\ e sires :J.' it \\~ill he ,hown later that there are other slress~, (If CLjll:J1. If nOI I ,f :,:ro:a tcr. irnportu nee wh ich should nnt. be ignored. II InU,1 he ernphusised that the methods (111111~eLi above can "nly produce an a pproxirnure value nf circumterem ia l c<lmrre"i\ e ,Ire" at the mid r(:inl of faIT.I: ~(111g ~hells :JIlLi should only be used :.lS a guide fnr de>lgillng winder drums. The reader may \\ ell ask how. 0\ er a II these vcurx. hav e dcsiuners been able 10 justify their designs ~, heine able to" fulfil the duty requirements bid ~1<\\\"I1 Ior thc~n'! As alr eudv mentioned many drums have failed. p:JTlicuiarly in S, Africa where duties are se\·~re. r""ihly due 10 lack of knowledge or lack of ancnuon tn Iundumemu i details. it is difficult to know. but from the authors' point of view justification comes from long experience of successful designs coupled with an apprcciuiion of the nature of stresses in a shell and anention til detail.
In \ iew of th is doubt. is t here no better and more accurate approach towards designing drums. such that desieners can be more sure (If the stresses which can be e:xre:~cted in service? The authors believe that .this se_ries will illustrate that a more accurate approach IS possible ;111d iha: it will shed far more light upon this problem than has hitherto been possible in the past.
)
'.4 Mathematical analysis of shells
Mathematics is not everyone's idea of bliss. even less so when il comes to the point of using differential equutions, The mathematical theory of shells must not be confused with simple beam theory .. as can be the tendency when examining a sectional drawing of a dr~m (see: Fiu. 4). it is a three dimensional problem which necessitates the solution of differential equations and can become very complex unless one assumes certain conditions of symmetry.
Generally speaking it is possible to assume certain svrnrnetrical attributes in that winder drumshells are of equal thickness throughout. that they are. for all prac,ti. cal purposes. initially round and that the shell material is homoaeneous. that is 10 say. providing a shell is at all limes~ subjected to circumferential compressive stress at every point then the effect of longitudinal shell joints can be isnored. It is also assumed that there are no Illngit udi~al tensile stresses present, produced by the ~trelchinu of the shell in this direction during deflection. This latt~r assumption is a fairly safe one as the practical end supports of a drum shell (cheeks) are never strong e nouuh to a lIow such stresses to develop i.e. as the shelldeflects the outer edges of the checks will move inwards towards one another."
If Faced with the problem of designing. a shell using the known mathematical theories what sort of approach can be made'.' Clearly. if one looks 'It a drum design drawinu. seeine the ends of the shell fixed to rather cornrlic:llcd chceks of virtually incalculable stiffness. the problem looks insurmountable. unless. once again. other Iundurnental assumptions are made.
The prnhlem facing Dr. W. R. Crawford when he rublishe:d his article in "COLLIERY ENGINEERING"
)
Fig. 5. This illustration snows: the compression rings around the inner surface of the shell plate. An older type botton shell is shown
in July 191\). wus how to present in a manageable form. a practica I and usa hie theory based upon the ~ore snphistica ted theories of cylindrical. shells. ~spe:cl;L1ly when confronted with the prohlern 01 compression rings (Fig. 5),
Unforlunatelv. Dr. Crawford has made some very rash ussumruions. as indeed he had til. in order 10 allow the simplified approach to he made possible.
The assumptions made in his article encompass tbose alreudv outlined above hut in addition there are.v
(a) That the winding ropes impose a unifnrm external radial pressure over the whole surfac~ (~r th~ drum. i.e. no account is taken of the vanauon 111 rope pull as the rope is coiled on to the drum.
He has erred on the safe: side here. as the shell Iliad i" assumed as being produced by the rope wound on ut constant tension. the tension heing that which exists when the: conveyance is <It pit h,III<\I11 i.e. the maximum."
(hI That each end support behaves in the same r'",hi,'m ,IS a cornpresvion ring. i.e. ·the: support» deflect rudiullv inwards when the: shell becomes loaded. This i~ clcurlv incorrect as very little radial ddlcclit1l1 occurs ;11 "the~e: point». If a fabricated drum is considered ha\·ing disc plate end surport~ 1·:Jdi;11 deflection is virtually ahscru (Fig. ·n
1("1 T!l;JI I he Q1rpMIC:U e:nd~ ,)f the: shell do nOI
I .,
,"1 ." It·· IIU·I •••• ,: :1''''''''".
Fig. 6. Part sections at sh~1I support point "Crawford" bas~s his tbeones on th~ faet that the shell support joints do not rotate (Fig. 5a) whereas in practic~ some rotation 01 th~ joint is inevitable (Fig. 6b grossly exaggerated) as al/ prsr.tical end supports
have some deg,e~ of elasticity
S,,,ke path
.t
\
Deflect.d form
of snII plate
Unyieldin; .upporl
(8)
rotate. This means that a tangent. drawn longirudjna lly, 10 the shell at a point where the shell b attached to the end supports remains horizontal before. during and after deflection has taken place. Rilla tion definitely takes place. jf it did not then many more drumshells would probably have failed than those that have done so already (Fig. 6).
It should be stated at this point that Dr. Crawford \\'" fully aware of the assumptions. already itemised above. and he has stated this in his paper but unfortunute ly, a practical shell does not behave in this ideal way. as the reader will be made aware of later. but no eu,y way could be found to enable existing theory to be utilixed in such a manner except by assuming certain ideal conditions.
Although Crawford's work is being criticised on this hasis. it is. however. the first major attempt at applying true cylindrical shell theory to practical design and the "OSWt!TS can be obtained merely by the use of a slide
)e. it also emphasises the importance of the longirudinal bending moments which are produced at the ends of the shell and which are correlated to the maximum compressive stresses at the mid point instead of, :J~ 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 or not it i~ desirable to aim at rigid end connections during the design is debatable as this depends to a large extent upon the position of the brake path. Quite clearly it is not desirable to allow too much distortion of this memher as braking troubles may possibly occur but, he this as it may. some movement clearly takes place on practical structures and in this respect it is quite impossible to impose a rigid anchor for the shell ends. (see Fig. 6)
Those readers who are familiar with Crawford's paper should look at the cross sectional drawings Figs. 4 and 5 on rage :63 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 r:::iting on a ledge forming part of the cheek to which it is usua Ily bolted. using countersunk headed. nibbed hnlts. Let it he assumed that the "end ring", as Crawf ord has called it, is absolutely rigid. The shell end bending moments are trying to twist the end ring but the onlv media throueh which the moments can be
'~smiited are the bolts themselves.
",lienera Ily speaking. the bolts are not strong enough to allow the full possible end moment to be transmitted in th i~ way and they will extend elastically or yield". As soon :JS this happens the end of the shell is allowed to rotate. in the longitudinal sense. and ultimately "settles
\ deflect.! form
of shell plate
Elaslle
support
(b)
down" at some value of end moment less than the possible maximum. thus reducing the severity of bending stress in the material of the shell itself. It is quite possible 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 whereupon 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 with certain types of shell end fixation methods." •
Another criticism of Crawford's work is that. if one desires to 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 Dot possible. 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 so, as falling short of the true state of affairs existing on a practical drumshell, and to conclude this
• Boll failure. 1ft this t~ 01 Ctlnnection hue been known to occur.
•• Shon shell. with ritid fiutiun for exampl e, in whi<h the fuU al)o"'able campreslive ,,~.. in the shell materia] may not have ben. developed. This important .. poct of shoM. sheU deuan will be d.alt with later.
)
Bolted connection
Shell plat.
tl
Fig. 7. Part section of on« 01 the olt:l~' type CIlSt tlnd supports ,ef~"et:l trJ liS lin end ring
lir.~t article these are now summarised below for can familiar circumferential compressive' stresses. Shear
\ cnicn [ I'd erence. stresses will also be commented upon.
, _5 Summarising ( I) 11'(/11'1'.\'
Hi~ experiments produced results which. if used. w(1uld have given designs which were [00 weak. D.·I;J1l has more or less proved this.
Only compressive stresses were analysed. bending ;1I1U shear were not apparently considered.
( :!) /),,11111
Although a monumental work he is still only relating his results to the compressive stresses hut as such his results are more accurate than anything prevvinus ly used. Only two people associated with him. Messrs. T. C. Kuun and R. S. Loubser of theCSIR I,f 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 iheorv which for the first time considers shell bending moments and shear stress as well as compressive stresses. The main criticism is his treatment of the shell end fixation and the fact that asymmetric compression ring layouts cannot be allowed for.
I n Part I I 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 deflection, bending moment. shear force and cumpressi ve 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 he compared with those of the more
)
)
)
RF.FF.RENCfS
Waters. E. O. Paper No. 1.71i0 read at Annual Meetin; of the A.S.M.E. in December 1920. outlininj; the results of tests carried OUt to determine loading factors.
Broughton, H. H. Author of "Electric WindersA manual on the Design, Construction. Application and Operation of Winding Engmes and Mine Hoists". First published in IcrK. Second edition I ~4R.
Dolan. J. President of the: South African Institute of Mechanical Engineers (1944 (45). Elected Honorary Member 195R. Consulting Electrical and Mechanical Engineer to the Rand Mines Ud. from 19461960.
First paper entitled "Winding Drums. Shell Loading due to Successive Layers of Stressed Ropes". June II. 19~7.
Second paper entitled "Winder Drum Tread Desigl'\ Investigation" published in "The South African Mec!hanical Engineer" of December 1963.
Crawford, W. R. Article published in "COLLIERY ENGINEERING" of July 1949 entitled "Design of Colliery Machinery and Equipment" Part One. This first of a series of artieles deals in 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 siznificant due to the fact that some ; designers in the UnIted Kingdom may be using CrawI ford's results and most certainly designers in South Africa will be usina 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.
7
2.1. 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 complex problerr 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 structure is of course the main aim but finding the load on the shell is the biggest problem of all (see 1.1).
By now nearly every reader will be familiar with the fact that. especially with multilayer winding. not all ,,the load from subsequent layers of rope is impressed upon the drum. This is due to 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 to 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.
I t was usual for the "factor" applied to the first layer to be unity+ and those for subsequent layers to be less than unity. the values reducing gradually in some rather
/ /
/ /
L .I
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 reach .sorne 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.
)
8
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 'practical shell, it was decided to use this condition with which 10 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.
It was of necessity assumed that.
(a) the shell material was homogeneous and of constant thickness
(b) the shell was initially purely cylindrical
(c) the shell ends were rigidly attached to some solid unyielding support
(d) the shell load was uniformly distributed and constant 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 p.ane of the paper on which this text is written in relation to the sectional view.
How then does the shell behave under these conditions? To establish this we must make use of the mathematical theory of elasticity as applied to shells.
Without going fully into this theory, which is adequately 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 value of the load is identical at every point measured around a circumferential line. This does not imply that the value of the load around a circumferential line at one end of the
• This is liter disproved Ind in [act lbe "factor" applyina at the mid lIOint of she!>. i. Ie" than unity. It is prnbably more correct to MY tha, tile "faCIO'" i. only unit)' at lbe ends.
)
\U.H.; .. ~1~I.trl"'''' / ..... p
Fig. 9. Section .nd e/evltion of shell
shell has 10 be the same as that at the other end. the load can varv in any way whatsoever alone the length nf the shell b~t it mu'st be 'symmetrically disposed around the circumicrrtu:« at any particular point.
Th is is very nearly obta ined in practice as the variation of load. or pull. between one end of a single coil of rope u nd the other mav be onlv a matter of a few hundred pounds whereas the total rope pull may be several thousa nd pounds. A small percentage error indeed.
Another condition is that lonaitudinal stresses are zero" as previously mentioned (1.4 para. 2l. This leaves the 3 remaining forces with which we are concerned, Ie) u xia lbending moments
U) radial shear forces
(g) circumferential forces (compression).
II is further assumed that the shell is thin in relation 10 irs mean radius such that the compressive stress across LI section is everywhere sensibly the same. This is true enough of most practical shells.
Frorn the fundamental equations of equilibrium we obtain the basic equation:
)
... (1)
the ruegrauon of which will solve all problems concern.nu the svmmetrical deformation of circular cylindrical sh~lIs but if one of the conditions of symmetry. mentioned above. is satisfied i.e. that the thickness of the shell remains constant along its length then equation (I) reduces to:
d~ W £1 D+W=Z d X4 rl
... (2)
)
where D  and is the flexural rigidity of the
12 (I  ,.2)
shell. comparable to Ex I in beam theory.
£=Elastic modulus of the shell material r==shell thickness in inches
v=Poisson's ratio
r=mean radius of shell in inches W=ensuing deflection in inches
Z=load function. In the case of a uniformly distributed load this becomes the value in lb/in", Z can however be any function of .r and is indeed so when the load varies along the shell.
.t=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 to 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. to rna ke sure that the length is sufficient
)
• H ;h" .. ,,· ",~rt'«(("'t ate In hC' wnrrh,' of cnn~;dtr~tion lhen the pncJ.i:a1 shell mu ... : huve verv n:.:id c,u,,~(\!,~,· H :h''I. jot the :3\e fh~ 'ttrfc~ can be :ut'~<d 'a; Cl1mT'l:~I".'j,\· indrpzondent:.v and ,dd~d b~ m~Jn .. of ~pe",n~hiDn t" :h .... ,·.;.I:r('ad"· \·x,.;..inI! in 'Irdcr I" ;lfTIY(" at princlJ).:a1 ~tre!S levels.
Unit.,," Nq If I... f
\ . ; .' \, 'v .
..... '';
Pt,"ciPII dlU.ctton

_._


Fig. 10. An 'infinitely' long shell subjected to a single band of load uniformly distributed around the circumftuence
x v
·LIi
I .
Fig. 11. 'Infinite' shell subjected to a uniformly applied constsnt load all over its outer shell and acting radially inwards
before using the simplified versions to follow .
What should be the minimum length? Generally speaking for the case of fixed ended plain shells the overall unsupported length should not be less than 4.,1rt inches'[. 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 imazine a shell of reasonable length having completely unsupported ends and subjected over its cylindrical surface to a constant uniform external load similar to that shown in Fig. 9. Common sense tells us that the shell is going. to contract radially and in fact boiler theory can be used to obtain the radial deflection.
This theory states that the circumferential stress in a boiler shell will be:
pd pr

2r
where P IS the pressure d is the mean dia
t is the shell thickness r=at; the mean radius.
Knowing E.. the radial deflection can be found from the relationship
Stress=Ex strain
. p r .1 I.e.,Ex
t r
p r2 and the radial deflection .1Et
. .. (3)
It 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 will be' seen' that the radial deflection at the mid point along the length will be very nearly equal to p r/E t except for the very small differences created by the form of equation governing the deflection values. From this it should be seen that the maximum compressive stress in
t A~ ... i1: be Wf'n Iller lhil minimum Imath aJlowaftl:c chanrn witn .,..rfatkms in boundary fiution.
<I very long plain shell cannot be any g~eater than pr/t! . at the centre and it was on this baSIS only that all )rre,·jous workers (except Crawford) evaluated she~1 stresses after using the appropriate load factors previouslv mentioned.
I ~ vie w of this then. what is the effect on the compressive stress when some form of end support is provided 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 ends of a shell. in mathematical terminology. are called "boundaries" and in future throughout this series the term "boundary conditions" will frequently appe.ar. This relates purely to what is done to the shell ends I:e. they may be rigidly clamped. completely free '. or elas~tc. in fact anything mav be done to the boundaries providing it is subsequently possible to translate such conditio?s into mathematical notations for the purpose of analysts.
It will be as well at this stage to try and understand how a lena 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 pa ttern of the shell is clearly indicated b?t greatly exazaerated and is seen to be symmetrically disposed on eith~~ side of the load point.
At a certain distance from the load point the deflection chances sign and becomes negative. then positive. etc .• but ihe m~agnitudes 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 produce a similar deflection pattern to the above but everywhere reversed in sign. The magnitude of the principal deflection in both cases is directly proportional to the applied load.
Let it now be supposed that the infinite shell is initially subjected to 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 deflection as shown in Fig. II in which only one side of the shell section is shown.
If we now select two points (xx and yy) equal in distance apart to the end supports (assumed fixed) of a typical long shell and apply to each of these points a single band of load as in Fig. 10 but acting radially outwards and of sufficient magnitude to produce. each by itself. a maximum deflection ~ then there exists a situation 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 deflection diagrams about xx and ),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. Fi2. ) I clearly shows this and it is why the simple equation p r/E t may not give exact values for mid point deflections.
.. We are here dealing with a simplified form of the
)
: TIl he QUilt ,"rnet Ihe ~he:!. if lIurtrtnried It the e'nd" would t,.'Ve rn be ~I:'f'\ '"nt ft" 1":'" ":fP" to he rear,rd but fOf ~nenJ DUrpO"e'S 'he mlr.,n .,, tf'1'.,f 1\ ~f't .. 'mol:; on l'f:lC'tin: lon, ,he!! .. and in farl 1I'le true ~trtss tin .. u;h ;) f)tJ:!J':11 dtcl: difft~, ~rv Lir~\lly frnm ,hi, valut due 10 1nt,er • .,:::n= hnund.af\' int\ut'ftcr' .nd the form of the equation .ovemn'l
dt'ftc:1ions. .
"Method of Superposition" in which individual defiection diagrams are all "algebraically" added to give one whole pattern. This is what should be done with the diagram of Fig. 1 I but it will. in general. be found that the discrepancy from ~ at the midpoint of the shell is of relatively small magnitude and this fact will be established later on.
lt would be quite interesting. and entertaining. to discuss the "Method of Superposition" at great length because here is what appears to be a very simple manual method of solving shell problems. This is not so. especially 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 1st, 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. It is because of these computer techniques that the methods outlined above have. been disregarded except for one or two
simple cases used later on. .
Before proceeding with the mathematical analysis of the simpler shells it would be' as well to define the conventions used in order to arrive at the correct interpretation of results,
All •• 1 '~!":..' , _
Fig. 12. Convention fOf the ,hapes due to axial bending
t
+ve 51 ... ,
 ve 110 •• ,
_______ .. A~r!. of ... 11
Fig. 13. Convention 10f thtt ,haptt' due to ,heaf
10
,.,

.,
~
e.
• 0·7
~
So
~ D·I Fig. 14. G,.phs of functions .
'f (/3 x), if (/3 x), (j (/3 x), and 1] (/3 x)
)
.. D3
c
.
..
c
~ D'2
'i
..
.
~
> D·.
D"
3'0
4'0
.
s·o
)
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.
)
Defiections
Radial deflections measured inwards towards the axis of the shell will be considered as +ve. (i.e, shell con. traction). Radial deflections measured outwards will be considered + ve. (i.e. shell expansion).
N.B. 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
" .
clamped. Ignoring longitudinal tensile stresses the governing equations are:
. p rl
:Deflection 'Wx'= [12 () (jJ x)+ 'I' (jJ x)] Et
pr'J..
 [111f (jJ x)] inches
E t . . .. (4)
Bending moment 'Mx'=_!_ (2 rJ (jJ X)1If (jJ x)]
2/P
lb in/i!1 of circumference ... (5)
Shear force 'Qx'_!... r" (jJ x)+'I' (jJ x)]
Ibf~ of circumference The expressions within the brackets are:
IIf (JJ x)=e' % (cos P x+sin P x] 'I' (JJ x) e' % [cos fi x sin p x] . () (ft x) e~ % cos p x
rJ (JJ x)e' % sin P x
(6)
... (7) . .• (8) ... (9)
.,. (10)
V3 (11':') 1·285
and p ... approx. = for mild steel.
r2 (2 vr (
In the above p ;r is simply the product of /3 and the distaace 'x' from either boundary.
It should be noted that p r/E ( has appeared as a coefficient in equation (4) and, for a given shell geometry and uniform loading, is a constant. The term within the
11
brackets produces a vananon in the actual deflection \alue in accordance with the distance ·.r· measured from
Iiher boundary. for example. from conditions given. relating to the shell of Fig. 9, the known deflection at the boundaries is zero by design, i.e.:
wr en .r =0, /3 .r =0 and ..;., (/3 x)= I and equation (4) p ,2
becomes  [I  I] = zero. When x is 1'(,'.1' large flx £1
becomes large and ..;, (/3 .r) becomes numerically very small and can be considered zero". Equation (4) becomes, p rl
 [I O]=p rl/£ ( E1
To enable an easy issesment of the 4 functions of equations (7) to (10) to be made, a graph has been plotted with /3 x as abscissa and the values of the functions as ordinates for values of /3.x from 0 up to 5 (Fig. (4).
2.5. A typical shell
At this stage it would be interesting to investigate a typical shell to 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 w ithin which the stresses are at a safe level.
Fig. 15 shows the typical shell which is to be investi
)ed together with the data (parameters) necessary for a> stress analysis, the rope pull is assumed to be constant a no wound the full length of the shell and for the moment the resulting load on the shell is assumed constant from end to endt.
, i.e the '01'0 load "I.::u,·' i ... Waled II bein, 1'0 aU O'OT,
Shell material ... Yield stress Young's modulus E Poisson's ratio v Rope dia. d
(rope will be close coiled) Rope pull P
mild steel
35000 lbjin21..4\
, /
30XIO' /.,.~
0·3
1'5in 38 r..<'>
. 13AoT 13116J
30,000 lb constant.
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..,=""
r 100
300 300
300 lb. p= Equivalent pressure in Jbjinl... .
rope dia, ]·5 =200 lb/in? ..
1·285 1·285
p"",,==... ...0·1285
y'r 1 ,,/100 xl
For the moment only local stresses will be considered. Defiection at boundaries=zero (by design)
Detiection halfway along shell (using equation (4) P~=0'1185 x 36 =4'625 (say 4'60)
),;, (8 ,r)= 0,011
~We cannot just insert these values in equation (4) and expect the answer to give the value of deflection at
• I~ j .. n~': QU;lt true 10 ';2:" It ~:nmC'~ Iero 0"/)' fer iar,,~ va:ues of R ~ D:'::ilU~ i: 1\ .:...,., zero for va:ut~ of 6 x..:: 2~ .. ~.~. etc .• approx.
x=36in because of the interaction of the opposite boundary pattern as already shown in Fig. II. What we must do is to calculate the deflection as found from equation (4) and subtract from it the value of the deflection as found from p r:jE t, Double the resulting value and add it algebraically to p rlE t, This will give the true deflection at the mid noint only:"
This can be done purely by operating on the terms within the brackets of equation (4) as follows:
p rl
H'= [1 '" <p x)]
£ r .
substituting gives:
p r2
W= [l +0,0111] El
•
this differs from 1'0 p rjE 1 by 0'0111 and the effect of the opposite diagram is to add as much as this again to the deflection: therefore the true deflection will be
W= 1'0222 p r2jE t which in this case will be
1'0222 x 200 x 1002
W=:
30 x 106 x l
=0'0682in
whereas p rl/E 1 ",,0·0667in. 1~1 ~'"
i.
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 deflection diagram applicable 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 AA (not in the centre) would be the deflection as found from equation (4) for the full line diagram plus the small amount by which the deflection of the dotted diagram exceeds p r/E 1 at this point Similarly the true deflection at a point BB will be the full line diagram deflection minus the small amount by' which the deflection of the dotted diagram differs from » "':/E t. Having drawn the full line diagram from the results of equation (4) it is a 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 1/,
• To ob:.in. Inswen by direct COlnllUlation the· tIIoory of shon sltel1. lIIould ,e.:ly be UJed. This will be CDv.",d in IIln 3 of this series In &he form of ~ml>lIt.eT results.
~s 'ig
1721. ........
I
re{ ~
f
I
Ti'DOIa
_. __ : L. _::"';:.:1;.:.;1, .!!...!!!!!!Ii:.;;,; •• ;.,._ __ ' _
Fig. 15. TypiclIl sh~1I inv~stigllt~d togtlth~' with th~ dllt. (p.,.meters) nllc~ssllry fOf II stress IInlllysis
12
Oistance along shllll
,.
I /
I
I :
I /
I
I I I
 . I ,_ I
"13S,'rl , r"!35vrr .. =t=:
I I /
I I /
I 1,1 I
I I / I
l I / I
I I / I
, I I / I
L 4.=':'~,,~I~~==~~~~~~~~~======~=/='~~j I
___ ..i
... . .... ~Rlllht hand boundary diagram
_ ...
, ............. ._'
I . "'True deflection diagram .ym~triul
A about mid point
;;. ~I
a:
)
Left hand boundary diagram
Fig. 76. Deflections for fixed ended shell. In order to illustr~te the diagrllm tmersctions the 'supplementary' d,Hlection.t around the centlsl erees have been eXlIgge'~ted
)
Having found the deflections at every point how do W~ determine the stresses: The circumferential compressive stress is easily Iound by multiplying the deflections by Elr which will produce a compressive stress diagram of the same shape as the deflection diagram but to a
d ifi'erent scale. .
The compressive stress at the point 1/: will be 0·0682 x 30 x 106
=20.460Ib/in2
14\ MP"""
100
Note:p r=/E, alone would produce a compressive stress of p r/t=20,OOO lb/in".
Bending moments and stresses
At the boundaries 13 x=zerc and '7 (f3 x)=O, "" (13 x)= 1· . and substituting in equation (5) gives:
Bending moment=~ [01)
2p2
200
)
2xO'12852
= 6,050 Ib in/in of circumference.
The section modulus of a lin square bar is O'1666in~ and 6,050
the bending stress will be 36,300 lb/in! very
0·1666
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 (5) is used direct. but the reader is asked to wait until the theory of short shells is developed by means of the computer programme in Part 3 of this series, the errors
 13
in manual calculations are not very large but they are evident, as will be seen .
...
Shear forces and stresses
At boundaries f3 x=O and "7 (f3 x)=O, 'l1 (ft x)= 1 and substituting in equation (6) gives:
. p p 200
Shearmgforce= [0+1]==1.555 Ib/in of cir
P p 0·1285
cumference,
As the shell is 1 in 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 representing the theoretical deflection p r/E t and it is significant to note that this value of deflection occurs at distances of 1835 vrt from either boundary. (18'35 inches.) This shell can be considered "long" but it does not imply that every 6ftIong shell is "long" because 'r' and 't' may change radically thus producing a different resultant value for the length given by 1'835'; r t.
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 discrepancies which occur over the central portion of thesliell 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 Ib producing a very safe compressive stress of
20.460 lbin' max." but at the boundaries the sheIl is subjected to a yield magnitude stress of 36.300 Ibjin".t
)this state of affairs was to continue the shell material ~ould almost certainly yield locally and rven if early structural overload failure did not occur then the possibility 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.
It is quite clear from the above results that the boundarv stresses are too severe and an alternative shell thickness should be chosen and a Ilin 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 enable 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, 2.2) it does give some idea as to the "possible" magnitude of the stresses involved. On the other hand there are relative degrees of rigidity of boundary fixation and it is the object of this series to develop ways and means of "building in" a suitable value of rigidity such that stresses are kept within safe calculable limits, but firstly the theories must be explored and developed.
')).6. Reducing the boundary stressesfree end conditions
One method of attaining this is to attach the shell to flexible end supports in order to induce a rotation of the shell at this pointe and the other method is to allow the shell ends to rest freely upon the end supports.'?
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 end 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 zero.
The appropriate equations will be:p r2
Deflection 'Wx' ..  [I(J (fJ x)]
s I (11)
Bending moment 'Mx'_L..· '1 (fJ x) 2p:
. p
Shear force 'Q.\"' ... . 'f! (fJ x) 2P
'" (13)
• A: the m,,"><nt t~ .1111;. :ollipse It.bUlly of the sheM i, ;'norecl.
.. Tht: ~,cld \tn,' Quoted in the dau ror, Ihi1 esamp:c is. unly typical Icd dC'l"'cnd, u"".n Ihe n .. lure or 1M ml,er1.J bein. used.
Oee ,t"lI,ujd 2Iwa~''S des"ft winder drum' on a faliaue lIle blsis and this .i1; tote de~ilwilh in a i.Jler aft1:Jr.
~ h .. ili be ~n .. n. wht'n cu",,;derinc reee IOld (a:ton thlt the ,ain, mad,c ;,< ~ rt'''';~ ol in::rc"'.RC the sheU thu;knCII arc not a, 8reat IS [hiS l"lOlmf'l:r a1",,~ar, til indl"::IiIlC'.
Thr ttUund .. r~· :lIndlliun, fur this type of conne:tion art not. however. ,dC'n:h·;,1 111 tht ca,c in quesuon.
'J I: ~'IJ: rot .artJ"lrC'cI2tcd i:uer In the !.erie'\ thll. rOt a .i~n .he:: .. b;ectcd hi 01 iF1wen k)adlnlt. if the buund.:rrie\ Iff a.liowed I conuoll~d rou:uon IhC' htlunciln ml..menl 1\ reducC'c!. Th;~ is of COUf~ illU!fnlCd .MIt .. "\,n ... lo('ftnw: 'Imp:'" ,ut)purled enJi
•• NOTE:8mh the'~ m\:lhud~ uf cunnectl"& the shell end I ro the end ""Uf'Pllrt\. ur .. hf'f'''~. n:aVI: hH'n dt'Velo~C'd b, lhoe authon' for the G~nef.l E:c~tri..: Cu. Ind are Ihe ,"ubjc:t of 1..InHed Kin.dnm PI lent IpplicJlion num"'C'T )t()~CjI~. A palent appiic.aliun co\O'cfina tr.ese des:,", nl\ .ahO' ~n n;cd In the IlCllublic or SoUlh "(rica, lhe number bel"1l 6615::28,
(12)
The functions " (p x), 11 (p x) and '1' (fJ .r) are as given before in equations (9). (10) and (8) respectively or as in Fig. 14.
It should be clear that the "semicritical length" is
no longer 1·835.jrr as given before for the fixed ended shell as the equation governing deflection has changed slightly. thus the deflection of p r/E t is only now exactly realised when fJ (fJ x)=zero i.e. when ,8 x= 1'5728. Corresponding to this the semicritical length will be
1·125 v'rr. .
This means that full deflection to approximately p rj£ t 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.
Deflection at boundaries by design=zero
Deflection ha!fway along shell using equation (11)
f:J x=0'1285 x 36=4'62 from which (J (fJ x)=0·oo086 'w' at x=36=[l·00086+0·00086] p r/E t= 1'00172 x
0'0667=0'0667in nearly.
Bending moment at boundaries is zero by design and is also very nearly zero at the centre.
Shear force at boundaries using equation (13). x=O :. f3 x=O and,*, (,8 x)= 1
p 200
:.Shearing force== 777 lb/in of circum
2P 2xO·1285.
reference
These results prove three things:;_
(a) The shear force for free ends is half that for fixed
ends. .
(b) Tne central deflections remain unchanged from those of the fixed ended shell within the limits of diagram interactions, etc.
(c) For a shell of this particular geometry the central deflections are not influenced to any degree by variations in boundary conditions.
Fig. 17 shows the deflection diagram for the free ended shell. the semicritical length of 1·225 v' r t= 12·25in.
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 stress has been halved. Circumferential compressive stress has remained virtually unchanged at around 20,000 Ib/in% 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 perfectly 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) to (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 clearly illustrates how important it is not to have
\ )
)
• Sub,e:1 10 beine ellstic.lly <tlb:c. ,enerally 11> •• 1""1 practical "'.11. are l)er(ectlr >I.b;. due 10 lhe CIOM I'rcwmity of the twO boulldlries.
i
Oishnc. alono shell
..
.c .
'0
I
I
I
I
I I. I
I
I
'·lUJrt....,
I I I I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I !tl·m.lTt I
I
I
I
I
I I
!
"
s
• ."
.. :;;
II II:
)
Fig. 17. Deflection diagram for freely supponed shell
boundary fixations which are too rigid and in fact it of shells considerably shorter than this value.
is preferable to adopt fixations which approach a simply It has already been emphasised that there is a severe supported condition. The reader may well appreciate limitation placed upon the value of manual computation that this is possible, in fact the older type bolt on shells and at best the introduction of short shell theory can provided a rather crude form of fixation approaching only tend to confuse the reader who is trying to grasp this condition but the question is, how can a flexible this subject. The simple approaches so far outlined are connection be introduced such as to enable an assess' really sufficient to enable an understanding to be gained
ment of the boundary, and other stresses. to be made? of the way in which loaded shells behave.
This problem is, for the moment, too complicated to In part 3 of this series computer results will be given
introduce at this stage and will be treated later in the for various cases and the programme which has been series. We should. however, confine ourselves to the prepared can accommodate short shells equally as well simpler forms of construction which are. mathematically, as long shells as the mathematics contained within the more easily predictable and within the scope of slide programme is adequate to cover any case in question. rule calculations. 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.
2.7. Short shells
)
In preparing this series the Authors did feel that the mathematical equations relating to shan shells should be introduced at this stage in order to obtain cornparlsons between the three major stresses for the cases of fixed ended shells of length greater than 4./ri and those
)
15
3.1 The first computer results
In ih .... second pari of thi~ ~ c ric!~ II c J c ah with 11!l1~ ill .. irnpler approxima: c techniques of manual cornpu: •• 111'11 rc lutiv e hl "lnnu" shells huvinu hoth fixed and IT c ;: b.iuruluricv, It is now time to int;nJUl'_: th c results . ,h:;Iin..:d from th c earlier computer programmes so tha: ",':nr~.ri"ln, .... .m he made between the buundury and .uh .... r tr c " c ~ \;tS w c 11 ;IS deflcciion«: relating tn hoth I,,:\u .uul vhort shells.
I~h .... u uthors were Ionunare ill having easy a ce ess to I ilL' d ig itul computer situated in the Erith offices of (i.E.C. t Pr. .... css Enuineerinu) Lid. This is a Ferranti Illa .. hin c uvinu Men:l~r\' Autocode lunuuaue (Set! Fie. IRI .uul ,'r .... rates whl,lI: by means of pl~nched tape. Mu .... h I",,·rui w or], Ila, already being carried out by its use in 1' .... ,[1 c ,·1 "f winding engine culcularions. such as drum,haft and brakes. etc: .. and one of the authors was ,"nll.·rs;ant with th c Auto c ode language used.
lor the earlier work however the authors are in.khwl In the Senior Mathematician. Mr. B. M. Scott. \\ h",,,: help in preparing and modifying the programmes tJ, .... d in rhc Iundurncnta l unulvses was invaluable. The r .... 'lIit' in this part of the sl!ries arc a direct result of \Ir. SC,'lt\ labours and the progrumme existing to dare i, in uch " form that it can be used us a direct check I'll ,,'111': of the later programme material produced. "'"~'h ~'r"~,, check ina is of course invaluable in deterrninill:': the accuracies ~f complex problems.
'\1 the time of completing the first computer pro
) :.:r.II11Ill': there was being designed. in the offices of (i.E.\, F.rilh. a double drum winder for South Africa .111;! it \\;IS decided to utilise the data for this machine
.1' ;1 tria l f"f the new programme. j\)!fe l~l.k
La,'h drum of this winder was 10 ft diameter by 5 ft ')il1' between tlunucs huvinc u shell 2in thick. Although ihc drum I\'US being supplied with compression rings it \\;1' d..: c idcd to omit them until such time as plain shells had been analysed. Only the first layer coils were applied. the Illuding being transformed into a c onstant uniform loud over the whole shell based upon the average rope pull. This loading was found In he
,'7~ lh/in". 'L . .5~ f"\O~
A~ mentioned in part :2 of this series the programme \las bused upon fixed boundaries. i.e, the slope and dellccticn al these points is zero. and il wus upon this basis thai the programme was initially run. The change in the programme to accept free ended .... onditions was then purely a routine matter.
First of all let us deul with the results from the compurer as applied 10 the boundaries and mid point of u li:"(d ended long shell. The results from the computer arlO listed below: 
)
)
Fig. 18. The "Mercury" computer lit Erith
AI boundaries Bending moment stress Shear force
•• stress Compressive stress
=13.579 Ib in/in of circumference  20.400 lb/in"
 3.186' lb/in of circumference
= 1.59.3 lb/in" = 0 by design
A 1 mid point
Bending moment stress Shear force
stress Radial deflection Circumferential Compressive stress =
75 Ib in/in of circumference = 112.5 lb/in"
9.13 lb/in of circumference 4.56 lb/in"
23.535 thou.
=
=
=
11.765 lb/in"
Now let these results be compared with some results obtained manually by the use of equations (4). (:'i) and (6) of pari 2. but first let t·he value of (3 be calculated.
)
1·285 1·2g5
IJ=, == 0·1173
v'rt v'6Qx 2
AI boundaries (deflection=zero)
x=O. {3x=O. ",,(8.1'1=1. 'I/({3xl=1. "(#.1')=1 and '/ (/3 x)=O
Bending moment
p "
"'2/~: [OIJ ... 2 [J'f2
374
   13.SIlO lh in/in or circumference 2 x 0'1173l
I' "
Shear force = [0+ 11=
/1 /1
16
Fig. 19. Deflection. bending moment tmd sheaf force diagrams
Shell60in radius 69m long
2in thick No camp. rings Uniform load374 Ib/in:
Boundary conditionsrigidly cla~ped E 30· '0·
Dilllncc ItDn, 1:hell, ",c:'u 12 11 a 7' Z! 32 36 '0 '4 U
3D
.c, .... , cul,.1 dtUtction • 2~·S ,hlul.nd,hl 11 7!:itt 1~/ir.J CDm"eH'" 'trill

~
.
E
o
E
:+50:0 ;0;
:
.",
13 519
·
... , 000 ~
.'00°1 .. Z 000;
·
"'1 000"5
.!
o ;
·
~ Dooi
i.
2000 .• e 30CO.!
· · .. '0000''.000:.
suits for a point 17in from the L.H. boundary for which the 'computer results ure:.;..·
Deflection ··w"=20.866 thou .
Bending moment "M"= + 2.400 Ib in/in of circum
ference.
Shear force "Q" = 182.6 lb/in of circumference. remembering. when calculating deflection. to allow for the influence of the opposite boundary diagram. Slight discrepancies will be found in M and 0 as already outlined .
Fig. 19 shows the deflection diagram for this fixed ended "long" shell plus the bending moment and shear force diagrams related to it. and it should be noticed that despite this being the first of three layers of rope the tensile bending stress a·t the boundaries is 20.400 Ib/in' whereas the ;ompressive stress is 11.750 Ib/in" at the mid point.
We will now compare the above results with what would be obtained when the boundaries are released so as to be constrained radially but free to rotate in the axial planes. The reader may wish to analyse the results given by using equations (11 l. (12) and (13) of pal'l2.
Fig. 20 shows the deflection. bending moment and she a r force diagrams for the free ended "long" shell. identic u ) in every respect. but for the boundary conditions. 10 the shell above.
:. 3.1::5 Ih fin of circumference
0·1173
. '1, mid point
.1"=34·5. 8,\'=34'5 x 0'1173=4,05
irorn which: .:, (/3 x)= 0'0244. '" <8 x)=0·0029. fI (8 .r) = (),() 1 :)7 and 'I (8 xl= 0'0137
Bending moment
p p
.:.  [0'0274+0'02441= 0,003
'2lf~ . . 2/P
" 1J.5~O x  0·003 =  40· 74 Ib in/in of circumference Shear force
p n
=. 10,0137 +0'0029] = 0'0108'
~ P
'"  0·01 Oil x 3. I 85 =  34·4 lb/in of circumference Deflection
"r~ . pr?
=_. II +0,0244]= 1·0244 
/:", D
lIsing the technique described in part 2 the total defleciion will be:·
)
pr? 1·0438  El
I·04XX x 374 x 60= x 1.000
=  =23·53 thou,
30 x IOh X 2
A~ mentioned in pari '2 the errors in the values of bcn.Jing moment and she a r force at the centre which involve the 2nd and 3rd derivatives of the deflections. :ITC obvious although in this case not at all significant till': In the low magnitude. The values obtained manually .u the boundarv are exactly identical to those obtained rrl1111 Ihe computer a, also is the deflection obtained at t h.; mill point. which proves that the computer pro!.!ra 111m..: is uivinc correct results.
 The reaJ~r m;y like to calculate for himself the re
3.2 Short shells
The reader has already been warned about using the simple theories already outlined. on fixed ended shells shorter than about 4'; n in and free ended shells snorter than a bout 2.5'; rt in. Manual results can give moderatelv accurate deflection values on shells shorter Ih"n the 'above appropriate lengths by suitably applying. the simple superposition methods previously outlined bUI care must be taken at each boundary because the shorter the shell becomes the more each diagram atfecis the
)
11
Fig. 20. Deflection. bending moment and she"r force diagrams
ShellSOin radius 69in long
2in thick No cornp. rings Uniform load374 Ib/in~ Boundary conditionssimply supported s 30·' O·
Oi h.lI. itte .
21 32 3' ~o " U 52 55
50 '"
 .
.. I ....
.. .. _ .... _ ....
__ _t_ ~%Olb/i"' COIII"~'2!!'!!.':!l.
A., •• I ... ,,,.1 d.II, .. ;,,, • %2'13 Ih ... s, .. ~'h.
II CIS Ib/i"' _sjot "" ..

.!
•• oeo! ;
.30001
..
+2 000 ~ ';
.10001 1
.
E 1
i '000 i
~5oeO 2000!·
• a
~ ~~i
• •
IOOOoL ....J_. ooo~
opposite boundary in such a way as to modify the nett deflection at the centre. Such simple methods are no longer accurate and it will be found that the greatest inaccuracies occur when considering the bending and
) shear stresses.
.. It has already been mentioned that the theory of short
shells should be used but it is not proposed to expand the mathematical theory in this series particularly as this is not intended as a treatise on fundamental shell theory and especially as the computer programme can give similar and far more accurate results. Let it be emphasised once more that almost all cylindrical drum winder shells are "long" in terms of the theories being discussed, and that the simple theories already outlined arc sufficient for an adequate understanding of the way in which shells generally behave under load.
The main reason for not dealing mathematically wi~h the short shell theory lies in ·the fact that when dealing later. on. with shell loadings, it will be found that the load can only be found by  utilising an entirely different computer technique evolved by considering the progressive nature of the coiling of the rope. By virtue of this the earlier computer programmes become redundant and a full mathematical study of this emblem would be rurely academic. Our aim is to arrive at the true state of affairs existing on a drumshell and the purely theorcticul approach can no longer be used when considering rope load factors combined with elastic ends, etc.
Let us consider a shell identical in all respects to the IWO cases above except that its length has been reduced Irurn 72in to 30in. If such a shell had fixed ends the semicritical length would be 20in. therefore this shell is in the "short" category. If the ends were free the
) semicritical length would be 13.4in and this would ~ place it in the "long" category.
Figs. 11 and 12 show the deflection. bending moment and shear force diagrams for the fixed ended and free ended "short" shells respectively.
What can be learned from the relationship between
the diagrams of Figs. 19. 20. 21 and 227 In order to consolidate the more important points Table 1 has been prepared so as to enable a quick comparison to be made of the various stresses existing at the boundaries and also over the central portion of the shells but not necessarily at the mid point Relative maximum deflections are also given.
TAB1.E: I. eo.."'m1I RIlSULn Sl~ in Ib/in'. Oelleclions in iroch ..
  .. ... ~ ~ .__
: Shmt sh.n ! I.onl shell
T)I1>C of stress and deflection , , 1 Fi .. d ; FI'H . Fixed I Free
 ends : end.  ends . mrt.

, Bendinl . _ ! 21.300 n 20.100 0
1
Boundaries! Shur.. ..! ',721 __ 822_:_,_.59_3 ''''_.6_
, Compression 0 i 0  0 0
l00IICC:'ion.. .  .. 11 0;0:0'0
; Bendin,(mu.) .. I~i 7.479 _~m
I Sh ... r (ml:<.) .. jol ll: IIO! 164
Con,ra'.reo  ; .
! CompTession (max.) I 7941 ! 12.000 i 11.'$0 . 11."17
 Ootlcc:lion lmax.) •• I 00'588 I 00240 i 0023!3 . Q()23S7
• 1'"
The figures above prove that the value of shear stress at the boundaries of a free ended long shell are half that for a fixed ended long shell. This almost applies to the short shell in that the shear reduction for free ends is just over half.
Except for the fixed ended short shell there is very little difference in the value of central compressive stress, as was to be expected, but apart from this the most significant point arising from Table I is that the ueneral level of bending and shear stresses in both the free ended shells is much lower than that of the fixed ended shells: this is particularly evident at the boundaries, of course, where the bending stresses are zero.
The fixed ended short shell is rather a special case. It may be thought that it is better from all aspects as the compressive stress is fairly low. Apart from the fact that
30in lnng shells are a rarity on drum winders we are Iaced with hicher bendinc and shear stresses at the boundaries (It ~ should be ~emembered that this is still only the first layer of rope of a multilayer machine).
Although the above results are nOI characteristic of a practical shell they do prove that from ever)' aspect a fixed ended shell exhibits far higher boundary stresses than the free ended version and it should be the aim when designing 10 avoid high degrees of fixation stiffness.
r,
3.3 Partial loads
It should now be accepted that the computer programme. so far produced. is accurate. as the manual check calculations have indicated. and that we are in a position to proceed with rather more complex loading configurations. in particular the effect of a variable load across the shell. Allied with this we are also interested in discovering what happens to the shell deflection pattern due to partial loads. l.e, part only of the first layer of coils.
The computer programme was revised to accept load variations along the shell and it was decided to run it so as to obtain four sets of consecutive results based upon 25%. 50%. 75% and 100% of applied first layer coils respectively. Load variation was from 388 lb/in" at the first coil of the layer to 360 lb/in" for the last coil of the full layer. varying lineally across the shell. the average being 374 lb/in" as used in the previous examples.
Each of the four deflection patterns is shown in Fig. 23· a nd, upon examination. produce some interesting facts.
The first th ing which will be noticed is that the shell is suffering a negative deflection. or expansion. when subjected to the 25 % and 50% load patterns but is of very small magnitude compared to the general deflections
r
I I
)
• Wl' arv ",,: nu",,· ~,'n~~rnt'\J wilh "':''1:''''' "~:uae' 'm.\ .,"1" with the beh:.viour III Ihe d4!f\( .. 'uon "OI:tl!rn Iherd"r!: hend:n~ mumcnl .and ,;"car fur,::
I,HOI;tr!Jnh ha\l'\' been ,'miacd.
under the loads. Nearly all practical shells are made in halves with a joint running the length of the shell and. as the above theories are based upon complete homogeneity of the shell material. some readers may feel that all theoretical work of this nature is rather pointless unless it can cover the case of nonhomogeneous constructions. It should be pointed OUt however that negative deflections can only be produced by partial loading and as such the general stress levels. particularly on a drum designed for multilayering, are quite low and as soon as 75 % of the layer is complete the shell is subjected to positive deflections all ov~r.
The second point. which may not be immediately obvious. is that the deflection at a point some 20 inches along the shell remains fairly constant subsequent to the completion of the half layer. 'This point is of course situated at the semicritical length from the boundary (1'835'; n or 20'1 inches) where the major boundary influence ceases. In fact the pattern of the boundary diagram changes very little as the remainder of the layer is completed.
By far the most interesting point arising from Fig. 23 is the variation in deflection of a particular coil as the length of the layer progresses.
Let us examine a point 17 inches from the left hand boundary which is where the last coil of the 25 % complete layer is situated. When 50% of the layer had been completed the coil at point 17 inches was subjected to an additional deflection of 10·64 thou. beyond the position it had adopted when it had just been wound on (i.e. when 25% of the layer was complete). When this coil had just been wound on it would have had in it the full normal load dictated by the position of the winding conveyance in the mine shaft which. in this instance, corresponded to the equivalent of 381 lb/in". It is now given an additional deflection due to winding on more coils which. by virtue of Hooke's Law, must alter its inherent tensile load: but' what value does it finally end up at?
\
I
=~
"c "'_
';1
Di.l,net' .ton, Ihtll, inches
oO~~~+ __ ~~~r'~O __ lT2 __ ~'~~~'6~~'I~~2~O~Z~%~2~~ __ ~~;.~30
.! : 10
:; ...
.  _ ..
c
01: 15
.. : i; %0
"'_
•
., .....
=: ~ C .... ,rI .. i •• ,tr .... 7 941 fb/'n%.
1 _
·1!.OOO
Ie ," illt (21 300 I~/ift' ""ftdi )
+ 2 '~3 Shl.' (, 721Ib/in' Ih •• , ." ••• )
;s 000 ..:::...
. !
:!
.
E E
)

~ +SOOO
•
... +1 OOO~ .!
.: , 000 i .! 2000 :: .!
19
:;
A
Fig. 21. D,d/ection. bending moment and shear force diagrams
Shell60in radius 30in long
2in thick No camp. rings Uniform load  374 Ib/inl
Boundary conditionsrigidly clamped E=30 y'O·
e
•
+3000;
i + 2 oo0i
+t ooo~ .!
~ ~~  __ ~~~~~ 0 :
.. ..
• 1000:
; :
e 5000 % 000;
: j
1 3000:
•
IOOOO~ ~ ~~OOO~
FIg. 22. Dettectton. b~nding moment and sheer torce di~gr~ms •
Shell60in radius 30in long
2in thicK No come, rings Uniform load374 Ib/in:
Boundary conditionsslmplv supponed
E 30 1 O~ .
l+lO 000 ;
i
~
.: +5000
·
:;
"
<,
.: ~
Dist.neo It"", .... n. Iftchft
'0 12 14 " • II 20 U 24 Z.
:I :;
I
.... . .
~~
+.000
Before answering this question it would be advisable to investigate the general behaviour of a rope during a winding cycle.
)4 How ropes behave during coiling
. The pull in a rope. as it passes on to a drum. is made up of many complex factors. Rarely is there a smooth linear transition of load as the wind progresses.
Such complex factors can be attributed to the follow
ing dynamic conditions:
(a) accelerations and retardations (b) rope oscillations
(c) shock loads when changing layers
(d) shock loads when jumping grooves (second layer upwards)
Usually (a) only occurs over a few coils at each end of the wind and does not materially affect the shell deflections to any large extent even if the first live coil is near the mid point of the shell. Normally the first live coil is near to a boundary and any additional load due to accelerating is reflected in a slight increase in the shear value at that boundary. Retardations relieve the load in the rope and can be considered as safe from the shell
+ v( ... dlnt
)
loading aspect. (We are of course considering coiling onto a drum. therefore the conveyance in question is ascending and retardations would reduce the rope load.)
The same remarks really apply to (c) as this definitely occurs at a boundary." therefore (c) can really be considered as a boundary load and not a load which can materially affect the central areas of the shell.
Rope oscillations (b) are almost always present except at very low winding speeds, and may take any form. Some machines. particularly those with very long rope planes and those with shallow angle planes (horizontal rope planes are an example) are most prone to the slightest disturbance and can suffer fairly severe oscillations. If we can consider such oscillations as being purely cyclic then the average or mean rope pull will be equal to the static rope pull at that point. i.e, the rope pull at any particular point in the wind is equal 10 the static pull plus or minus some particular value dependent upon the amplitude of the oscillations. This means that the effect on the shell of fluctuating load is averaged out.
The effect due to (d) is rather similar to (c) except that
• ,Except in special circumstances 01 • IWU .. omplr1rnt'nl ';nwJc drwn d .. ivned (u, multi I.yeti",.
311Ib/,.' t., .. Hot~A.'
.     F~II I la'.r _"
f. ''' .. ' .. I·'''1U71~/ift' I
r_l"'''IO, .. j3741b/in' I
f'o"''''lo,.rU81lb!in' I I I
I Oillince lton, Ih.U. inch ••
00 4 12 16, 20 24 21 32 I 36 40 AI
HlS.".!i=1 ~
Fig. 23. Shtl/l dtlfltlction dutl to ptlrtitll {otlding SheilSOin radius S9;n long 2;n thick No eeme, rings Loading as shown Boundary conditionsrigidly clamped E30 X 10·
20
)
i: occurs once or perhaps twice every revolution, At each cross over point the! shell is subjected to an impulse load which is transient in nature i.e. it is not sustained.
HllI\ II ill such complex loadings affect the stress levels in :J shell"!
II seems logical 10 discount (a) altogether due to it mainly atlc:cting only the boundary shear stresses. Generally speaking the cyclic acceleration of the suspended 111ad is only about 3 ft.sec" thus the accelerating forces in the: rope! are approximately IO~~ of the static pull. Allowances can be made for this slight additional load, as it has a calculable value. but for the moment it is being ignored.
Also for the moment (b) is being considered as though its effect is averaged out as previously mentioned.
What of (c) and (d)'? They are both transient in nature a nd both have a local effect and could conceivably contribute! \0 a reduction in the fatigue life of a given rnachine. In view of such local effects,' however; they cannot be considered in the overall picture with respect to final shell deformations which demand circumferentially uniform loads. So far we have not mentioned dead coils and this is a question. not of complexity, but rather of determining the magnitude of the inherent load within each coil. It depends wholly upon the technique used in
)
)
)
applying suitable loads to these coils, Once the technique is known for any particular installation the loads become calculable and can then be allowed for in any calculation.
Such techniques will not be dealt with here as it will detract the reader from the general context but il remains to say that any dead coil loading can be allowed for in subsequent calculations if it is decided that the number of dead coils warrants such a measure.
For readers not familiar with winding engine terminology a "dead" coil is one which plays no normal part in the winding cycle, i.e. it never leaves the surface of the drum. Such coils are introduced for the purposes of providing spare rope, or as a frictional supplement to the rope anchorage point or to purposely modify rope "fleet angling" (i,e. the angle at which the first "live" coil leaves the drum from the first layer) or a combination of all three.
In the above brief description it should be quite clear that one type of complex load can give rise to another in some measure, but for the purposes of this series of articles it has been considered sufficient to ignore the effects produced by them and to assume that the rope load is shock free and exhibits a smooth transition throughout the winding cycle.
21
3.5 Rope load factor's
It has been thought for some time that the factors applying to individual layers have been in error, particularly the unity factor normally associated with the first layer. and that the values applicable to any layer were not constant over the full length of the drum shell. This is really quite obvious, if one thinks about it, because all the factors calculated by previous workers, Dolan included. have of necessity been based upon variations of coil loads in the under layers produced by increased shell deflections as more layers are applied. i.e. to obtain a rope load factor there must be a deflection.
. At the ends of a drum there is little or no deflection, therefore how can there be a factor of less than unity? If it is agreed that there is a unity factor at the shell boundaries and that at the mid point. where deflection ocurs. there is some factor less than unity then the value of such factors must vary in some way across the shell. and approximately in accordance with the deflection pattern. (This is very nearly so up to a point.)
Let us for the moment confine ourselves to the first layer only. At the end of section 3.3 and from Fig. 23 it was shown that the coil at point 17in suffered an additional deflection of 10·64 thou. which means that the circumferential length of this coil has been reduced. As the rope forming this coil had previously been stretched due to the suspended load any reduction in length of this coil constitutes a reduction of stress in the rope and the change in stress is directly proportional to the change
) in the rope coil diameter, and hence rope coil radius.
)
O'l
Once again using the relationship.
Stress=E x strain
we can write, using appropriate notation:Change of Stress=Er x Mr
ErAra
i.e., Rope load change D _
r
. Er Ar a
Change in unit loading ... ,2
Where:
Er=Rope stretch modulus
Ar=Metallic area of rope per inch of shell length. !J. = radial deflection change
r=mean shell radius·
Putting this into figures gives:
)
15 X 106 x 0·66 x 0·01064 29·25Ib/in2 60%
This means that the load in this coil has been reduced by 29'25 Ib/io2 (equivalent unit load), which leaves only 38]29·25=351·75Ib/inl•
Expressed as a "factor" this is
351·75 0·923 381
So then. in the ultimate. only 0'923 of the originally
0'7
0"
0"
SHELL DATA
NV, l& ift ,.di .. r , in thick
H! 2 n'25 in ,odillt r '4375 in thick NV 3 82'25in rodiun ',406 i. thick HH IS in ,.diu. I 2 in thick
N25 &0 in ,.diul r 2 in thick
N96 60 in rodin r 2'47 in thick
liP 7 6t'75 i. ,adi .. r 2'Sin thick N2. as in ... i •• I l'ZS in thick
(KrL. )Z RrL.
A .. ro" CU'" IQultion.03771 /KR 0'5D43 /l\S.'
. ( .: Shill N.'
)
f. 0"
..:..
!
w
:
;
~
..
!
.
.,
D" 1\ rl.
F )_'+0'%5'3 'lJ(I"
s(.. K1:
1': ,. 0'7U6 T K",
""!
1
Fs (mi.) = ,. "':'h."';" r' /:""1  /2 \li
,
O·7' ....J
Fig. 24. Re/.tionship betwettn leNInduced f.ctors .nd r.tlo Kr/Ks b.sed upon col/ing over en Hinfinit, shell .
22
)
applied load in the coil at point 17in is transferred to ihe shell.
A similar set of circumstances arise for the coils at points 34in and 52in in that these are subjected to additional deflections of 1 I and 8'94 thou. respectively. reo suiting in "factors" of 0'918 and 0'933.
This is surely proof enough of the presence of a "factor" in the first layer although the values given will be a pproximate due to the fact that each complete quarter layer was applied as a whole assuming no factors within that quarter layer. (It will be shown later that these values. although approximate for this case. are fairly representative of the values obtained by using more sophisticated methods of analysis.)
For the above to be true there must of course be no rope slippage around the drum. If we examine a very severe case where the difference in rope pull between one end of complete coil and the other is at its maximum and then calculate whether slippage will occur it can be shown to be highly unlikely. .
Take the case of a winder having a very heavy 2in locked coil rope weighing. say. 10 Ib/ft and a drum diameter of 18 ft. The minimum rope pull is assumed to be 40,000 lb. The total weight of rope in one complete coil around the drum is 565 lb. producing a rope pull at the beginning and end of the complete coil of 40.000 and 39.435 Ib respectively.
TI Using the relationship, = e'" r.
I nserti ng our parameters gives 40,000
___ =el'u,= 1'01433 nearly
39,435
Taking logs (to base 10) of both sides log l'OI433=2::,u log 2'71828
i.e. 0'0060=2:1/1 x 0'4343
0'0060
j1=
0·4343 x 2 7r
=0·0022 which is an extremely low coefficient of friction.
)
Where:
T I = initial pull
T 2 = final pull
e=2'71828 /l=coefficient of friction
8=angle of wrap of rope around drum.
If the coefficient of friction was to fall below this then slippage could occur. A conservative figure for oiled metal surfaces is 0·05 which is well above the limiting figure obtained. The reader should consider the case of a friction winder where the rope only has approximately 180· angle of wrap yet which can sustain very high out of balance loads compared to those with which we are concerned. From this example it can be apprec'ated that rope slippage around a drum shell is highly unlikely.
It should be quite clear from the foregoing results that. in view of having eliminated rope slippage. there is a rope load "factor" relating to the first layer which. varies from one end of the shell to the other and is sensibly unity at the boundaries.
This does. of course. bring us to the big problem of how to find these "factors" and it is no simple matter to calculate them.
)
ACla.' IMII ,.'UFIt '1 ,1t1 i .. d ... "., •• u
~~!f;k~ X
M,ft , _. C.1I·wil~ ... d·,"
,.i}J ..... ,
:Fs.p:
" ~~
F".% ,/.?~ 0/2
L ,±::/' .
/1'1
",,;:.1 . , AI
_,...... (n) I : 7%
~~T~0i
_ i· t I
X Su.i •• d I~.II
Fig. 25: This di.gl.m illustf6t~$ th~ way in which $h~1I deflections
• contribut~ to rop~ load (acton .
3.6 The manual search
Both authors. having convinced themselves that such first layer factors existed. spent considerable time in trying to establish suitable equations from which the factors at the mid point of long shells could be derived.
It. had already been shown by Dolan. and subsequently proved by the authors. that the better known factors from the second layer upwards depended upon the ratio of rope metallic area to shell thickness and it was thOUght reasonable that the factors for the first layer would depend similarly upon this. Some form of equation was needed based upon ,lcnown theory. Alternatively the existing computer 'programme could have been used in a revised form and programmed such as to apply each new coil progressively with a view to obtaining the final coil loads by means of progressive feed back loops. It was found, however, that with the type of programme as existing the cost would have been extremely prohibitive in terms of computer running bours.
Of economic necessity it was decided to try a manual approach by firstly assuming an infinitely long shell and applying it to one coil at a time. As each new coil was added its effect on all previous coils was calculated and in turn the interaction of aU coils upon each other was assessed. In view of the cumbersome nature of the expressions obtained it was only possible to apply the interaction feedback once only in determining the equilibrium conditions following the application of every new coil. As was to be expected a form of mathematical series was evolved but it was desired to extend this series such as to cover sufficient individual coils across the shell so as to allow the factor to "settle down" to some sensibly constant value.
It was decided to apply say 20 coils and derive an equation from the series which defined the deflection of the 20th coil below the unstrained shell position. It was further necessary to arrive at a second equation which would define the additional deflection of the 20th coil after say 20 more coils had been applied. Twenty coils have been mentioned as it was necessary to select " a point far enough away from the first coil so as to preclude any interaction due to the shell deflection diagram adjacent to the first coil.
Having obtained the two equations they were then combined to form a single equation which would, it was hoped. provide an expression for the first layer factor. This was of the following quadratic form:
Fs=In;Z' (YX) ... (14)
where ~. Y and X are rather complicated summations
23
'lr the: heights of the deflection diagram ordinates fO,1" .1ch individual coil and Z is a function of such variables as rap: type and shell geometry etc."
A small computer programme was prepared 10 evaluate the above expressions over a large range of Z values and for 8 widely differing shells based on contract records, The results are shown on the graph of Fig, 24 and were extremely disappointing as may be appreciated by noting the behaviour of the 'group of curves forming the narrow band.
The factor values Fs derived from equation (14) have been plotted as ordinate against the ratio Kr/Ks as abscissa. where:
K r= metallic area of rope per inch of shell • stretch modulus
Ks=shell thickness " Youngs modulus
It is clear to see that the band of curves has a turning point at a factor value of approximately 0'83 which would mean that by using equation (14) the factors could only range between 1·0 and 0·83 which is quite ridiculous.
For example. if Kr was very small then the shell could deflect quite a lot more under the action of additional coils and/or layers without affecting to any great degree the load in the coils of the under layers. If Kr was very large the converse would happen so that for very low values of Kr/Ks we obtain high factors (when Kr/Ks= o the factor= I) and when Kr/Ks is very large we obtain '"'\w factors.
)As a matter of interest and convenience a computer curve fitting programme was utilised. basad upon the mean values found for all 8 shells. to produce a quadratic factor equation involving the ratio Kr/Ks as the independent variable and this produced:
[KrJl Kr
Fs=O,3778  0,5043 + I
Ks Ks
". (15)
The minimum value being 0'8315 at Kr/Ks=O'666 which agrees generally with the plotted results based upon equa tion (14).
The main reason for introducing this rather erroneous graph is to show that. despite its obvious error at large values of Kr/Ks, the factors are within reason almost completely dependent upon the relationship between rope size and type and shell thickness and virtually independent of shell diameter. The shells chosen here range from a modest 36in radius by 1 in thick to 96in radius by 3'25 in thick.
It was previously stated. when explaining the deriva.tion of the mathematical series. that it was only possible 10 consider the coil interaction feedback once only; it is this fact which has created the errors in equations (]4) and (15) Which. as is known from later analysis. are wildly divergent from the true values of factors above
Kr If'
r va ues 0 approximately 0'3.
)"
3.7 The importance of K,IKs
This ratio is extremely important and was used in the
• It is not',:' intendtd to el.p:&1n in fulJ the d.er;Yldoft of (hi" lIQ'ultiO'ft ., It HI :.If'r "rf"""f'd 10 t'f' inlCQJN11(' nUI'tOt t'C".rt'l h",ir~
inverse: sense in Dolan's equation. (1.3). It is really defining a ratio of the load changes between rope and shell. If. once again. we examine the simple relationship.
Stress=E x strain
which produces. Load= (E x area) x strain
then for a given strain (!./r) to which both rope and shell are subjected the load "gained" by' the shell is related to the load "lost" by the rope in the fonn:
Load lost by rope Er Ar Kr
..,:._== .. a constant Load gained by shell Es As Ks
The above is a constant for one "particular rope/shell combination.
It should be clearly seen then that as Kr increases so does the ratio Kr/Ks which means that for a given strain the load lost by the rope is a higher proportion of that gained by the shell: this will affect. the rope load "Factor",
3.8 An approximate proof of the 1st layer factor Fs
The following proof is based upon loadings over an infinite shell.
Let a uniformly distributed load of intensity "p" be applied over an inftnite shell (Fig. 25): this will produce a radial deflection everywhere of
prl
a
£1
If all the load to the right of xx is removed we are left with a deflection diagram (a) Fig. 25 which crosses sx at ~/2.
This latter fact should be apparent from conditions of symmetry in that if instead. a11 the load to the left of xx had been removed we would get a mirror image pattern and. as the total deflection ~ is equal to the sum of all deflections. then it is clear that at xx the sum should equal A therefore the deflection curve crosses xa at A/2. On examining the graph of Fig. 23 it can be seen that the initial deflection of coil 17 was 10'69 thou. and its final deflection 21·33 thou. which corroborates the above facts.
As the presence of a "factor" has been accepted it is clear that the ultimate deflection is less than A and its value. is A x the factor since the factor being sought reduces the applied load from "p" to "Fs.p" therefore
. the deflection becomes Fs..6..
At this stage we cannot assess the sha.pe of the true load pattern adjacent to the coil at xx (i~. the cross hatched area is indeterminate in nature) and the only way to arrive at a suitable factor equation is to firstly assume that the maximum unfactored load "p" is operative to the left of xx producing a deflection A/2 for the coil being examined at xx. and then secondly to assume that the minimum factored load Fs.p is in operation producing a deflection Fs..6./2. Clearly the deflection of this coil will lie somewhere between these two values. the average being A/4 (Fs+ O.
Let us for the moment consider the maximum possible factor. When the remaining load to the right of xa is applied and with the factor in operation the coil at xs
_
___ . 
24
will have deflected from !:.i2 to Fs . .! i.e. the additional deflection is Fs::'.!/2=.! (Fs!). The load change in the coil will be:
Ar Er Kr prl
 ~ (Fs±)=  (Fs±)
r2 rl Er
and since E" f=Ks the load change becomes:Kr
p. (Fs!) Ks
Under the initial conditions depicted in Fig. 25 the coil at xx was assumed to have in it the full load "p" as it was the last coil wound on up to this point. In this case, after subsequent deflection to Fs.S; the new load in this coil will be:
)
Kr'
pp _PCFs!) Ks
and the factor Fs will be:
Kr
p=p Ks (Fst)
Fs
p
r
! ,
from which we obtain
)
1 + Kr/2 Ks Fs(max.)
I + Kr/Ks (16)
If now the coil had originally been deflected to FsM2. under the action of the factorised minimum load Fs.p to the left of ~x, the load change in the coil would be Kr . .F
2Ks p s and by going through the same procedure as
above we obtain the minimum factor:
t I
Fs (min.) =Kr
1+ 2Ks
... (17)
)
and similarly if we were to assume that the initial deflection was the average value ::"/4 (Fs+ 1) we would arrive at an average factor:
Kr 1+ 4Ks
3 Kr 1+
4Ks
Using the average factor equation Fs (av.) it was found by suitably modifying the coefficients that the slope produced by it at KrIKs=O could be made identical to that of the curve fitting equation (15) and the following final equation is obtained in which it should be noted that the coefficients suffer only a slight change:
Fs(av.) ...
1+0,2513 Kr/Ks Fs(av.) = 1+0,7556 Kr/Ks
... (18)
)
It is interesting to note that the resulting independent :,ariables in Fs (rnax.), Fs (min.) and Fs (av.) are purely m terms of the KrlKs ratio which gives added proof of the fact that the factors are dependent wholly upon this . ratio (within sensible design limits) and independent of
shell radius and loading. All three equations (l6). (I 7) and (18) are plotted on Fig. 24.
The type of factor just described has been christened by the authors the "Self Induced Factor" because it is a factor. applicable to a layer. which is induced purely by the addition of the remaining coils of the same layer and not by the addition of layers above it.
We can at this stage, before terminating this particular article, qualify the three principal factors applicable to rope coiling. with two of which we shall be principally concerned. These are:
(a) Self induced factor Fs
That factor which is applied to the coil loads of any particular layer but which is induced pur~ly as a result of coiling more rope under load on to that same layer.
It is simpler to think of this in terms of the first layer only as it is interrelated from the second layer upwards with the better known factor (b).
(b) Mutually induced factor F x
That factor which is applied to the coil loads of a layer by virtue of the mutual action of additional layers wound over it. In the ultimate it is not possible to isolate this factor as it is interrelated with (a).
(c) Auxiliary factor F ..  .
That factor which is applied to the coil loads of,any layer by virtue of the change in coil .diameter due to the physical yieldingor crushing of the ropes in layers beneath it
We are principally concerned with (a) and (b) above because too little is known about the 'behaviour of rope crushing, and the transverse modulus of elasticity related to it. to be able to assess any factor such as in (c). Rope manufacturers know of no physical research in this direction. Such a problem is very complex when one considers the structure. of all the various types of rope in use today and this particular aspect is not being pursued. A little thought will show that. could this be allowed for, it would only serve to reduce the shell loads still further, thus by ignoring its action the results will err on the safe side.
4.1 Further thoughts on rope load factors
At the end of section (3.8) of this series we defined the three basic factors affecting the loads in the coils of any layer and it was further stated that the "Auxiliary Factor", due to rope crushing. was not being considered in view of the scarcity of data from the rope manufacturers relating to this particular aspect of wire rope behaviour. We shall however continue to concern ourselves with both the "self induced factor" and the "mutually induced factor", both of which play an important part in the determination of shell loading and no apologies can be given for dwelling on this subject.
It has so far been decided that. as the original curves produced by equation (14) are in error, the more probable factor equation (18) will give results in keeping with what we should expect. Equation (18) is reproduced here for convenient reference and is applicable only to the fir~t layer .
1 +0·2513 Kr/Ks
FS(''''I
1 +D75S6Kr/Ks ... (18)
25
. '"
Fig. 26. Coil/o,d f,ctors b,sed upon coiling. lin de! uniiorm rope pIIII. over Hinfinite" shell. At no point is the shell ,rtHici,lIy
restrained in the radi" direction
e·
~ ...
i
.
;
·h,:o ; .r~3b
..  .
~ "i 40 .;
... SO
J .o1...... ..::::::::::==========::::::...._ __ ...l
How can the numerical values obtained from this equation be proved?
Further thoughts on the matter suggested that a computer programme be prepared so as 10 emulate the manual approach (3.6) but with no limitation on the
• .<;1 back terms. By using the computer. feedback was
. )longer any problem. The programme was duly prepared, based upon the same infinite shell analogy. and several successful runs were made to produce the results shown graphically in Fig. 26.
For these trials the coil loads were initially constant and were assumed acting at one inch increments along the infinite shell in exactly the same way as in the abortive manual assessment.
Five plots are shown with the first layer self induced factor "Fs" as ordinate against coil pitching as abscissa. the curves being lettered from (a) to (e) inclusively. The data relating to each curve is as follows in Table II.
Various total lengths of coil coverage Were tried in order to observe trend behaviours.
TABLE 11 l'KYsICAI. DATA RELATINO TO R1!.StlLTS GIVEN IN FlO 26
.
SHELL ROPE
Curve Coils
Rldius Thicknas TyJ>C A,.... peT Stre1eh
(in) (in) in of .hell mod.
fl) 9'.~ 104375 LoC. 1016 20" 10' 61
(bl 9"~ 14375 L.C. 116 20x 10 24
Ie) 60 1 ST. 066 IS x 10' 33
(dl 60 2 ST_ 0066 1')( 10' 21
(eJ 89 2 ST. D!ll 15" 10 31 L.c. locked eoll
ST. suandcd
The values of the ratio of Kr/Ks relating to each. case is shown in Fig. 26.
II should be pointed out and emphasised that. despite using factual ropes for assesing the rope metallic area per inch of shell length. the ropes are themselves all
);umcd to be acting at one inch pitch such that each .. ~ditional coil adds one inch to the layer length. In practice. unless using a one inch rope. this is never so. as each coil load acts at increments of one rope "pitch" along the shell. This approach was adopted. at the time. as being more convenient but later in the series factors will be assessed using the true rope pitching.
Fig. 27. D~flection dillgrllm rel,ting to curve (II) of Fig. 26. Note the defl~ction under the first lind Illst coils
The curves clearly show that the "factor" values are not constant along the whole length of... coil coverage, particularly when approaching the last coil. The last coil is assumed to have suffered no load change and thus has a factor of 1'0.
We are not interested, for the moment, in what happens at the ends but only in what happens over the central areas of that part of the shell which is covered by coils.
Examining curve (a) first it can be assumed that the factor is' "settling" at about 0'817 and. if we look at the graph of Fig. 24 or Fig. 28 of this article. a factor of 0'807 is observed corresponding to a Kr/Ks ratio of 00538. If curve (a) of Fig. 26 is assumed correct then the factor curve Fs(av) of Fig. 24 is 12% in error which, in view of the approximations assumed in its derivation. is not tOO great an error.
Curve (c) of Fig. 26 is "settling" at 0·930 and the Fs(av) curve of Fig. 24 gives a factor of 0·926 for a Kr/Ks ratio of 0'165 which. in the same sense as above, gives an error of under 0·5 % !
In view of the limited number of coils involved. curves (b) and (d) must be discounted as the factor has not "settled" in so short a coverage length, but they are of the same order. In fact the error. using the minimum value of curve (d), from the value given by the Fs(av) curve of Fig. 24 is less than that of the final value taken from curve (c) as can be seen. Curve (e) exhibits the same close agreement as the others with an error of only about 0'25%.
These figures indicate a high degree of agreement between the values obtained from the approximate manual method given by equation (18) and the more exact method based upon accurate computer analysis. but it should be pointed out that a reasonable degree of factor "settlement" is only obtained when the total length of coil coverage is somewhat greater than the appropriate semi critical length of approximately 1·835./rl
for each shell. _
This fact can be observed by examining curves (b) (d) and (e). The coverage lengths for curves (b) and (d)
26
)
are just about equal to this semi critical length and the factor value is not settling. but for curve (e) the semi critical length is approx. 24·5 ins. whereas the coverage is 30 ins. and the factor is beginning to settle but will. in the ultimate when many more coils have been applied. exhibit similar properties to that of curves (a) and (c).
The reason behind the slight increase in the factor at the left hand end. as more cons are wound onto the layer. lies in the influence of the previously mentioned "supp'ernentary" deflections creating deflections in the negative sense. When the coil coverage exceeds the semi critical length by a reasonable amount the effect of such supplementary deflections becomes less evident and the factor settles down.
This cross check should by now have convinced the reader of the validity of the self induced factor equation (18). as applied to the first layer only. when considering the central areas of very long shells. but we must go much further than this. It is no good finding out what the loads are only over the central area. as this will not tell us what is happening at the boundaries and this must be known before any assessment can be made of the boundary stress. Quite clearly the results just given in Fig. 26. being based upon an infinite shell. are not truly representative in as much as the first and last coils are allowed to deflect radially. Fig. 27 shows what the deflection diagram is like under the action of the loads relating to curve (a) of Fig. 26.
Before determining the effect of boundary deflection restraint on the resulting factors it would be advisable to investigate the type of factor expressions that would be obtained due to two or more layers. The resulting expression is in the form of a combination of both the self induced and mutually induced factors already defined and is only identical to the self induced factor when dealing with the first layer. The expression which we are about to find will be called a "Combined factor".
)
4.2 The combined factor~"Fn"
Referring back. for the moment, to equation (I8) i.e.
Fs(av)if the shell thickness was to increase. leaving the rope size the same. the resulting value of Fs(av) would be greater. which is what we should expect (3.7). If instead of increasing the shell thickness a layer of tensioned rope coils were to be wound onto the shell and then the value of Fs(av) for an additional or second layer was to be examined separately 'we should find that the results would be very simliar. Why is this so?
It should be remembered that shell deflection is proportional to the nett applied load. in the infinite shell analogy. and for a given load, an increased shell thickness would produce a smaller deflection thus resulting in a smaller rope load change and a higher factor.
We have. of course. decreased the KrlKs ratio resulting in the higher factor.
In the case of a shell already containing one layer of coils the situation is similar. i.e. as the second layer loads are applied there is a reduction in the loads of the first layer coils thereby giving rise to a smaller additional nett deflection than if the first layer coils were absent. resulting in a higher self induced factor for the second layer.
It is hoped that the reader is not being confused by the factors increasing as the layers increase when all the
time he is expecting them to decrease; it should be emphasised that we are only examining the self induced factor for each top layer and. if the reasoning above has been grasped. it should be seen that this factor does increase. The combined factor. on the other hand. decreases as will be seen later.
When a layer of coils is applied to the shell its effect is to increase the numerical value of Ks by an amount equivalent to the degree of "help" which this layer can give to the shell when assessing the combined effect upon a subsequent layer. If the wire rope comprising the first layer could be considered as a solid metal 'band across. and of equivalent thickness to. the shell then Ks would be doubled. i.e. the shell thickness would uave been doubled. In the case of actual rope coils. however. the true addition to Ks would be Kr and if there were two layers beneath the layer being examined it would add 2 Kr or Kr (nI) where n is the number of the top layer, If there was only one layer then Kr (nI)=O and nothing would be added to Ks thus leaving equation (18) as it stands.
Having established this fact we can say that the "self induced factor" for any top layer is given by:
0·2513 Kr l+~~
Xs+{nl) Kr
0·7556 Kr 1+~
Kr+{nl) Kr ... (19)
=assurmng. of course. that this factor is being considered separately from that of the combined factor.
The similarityo! form between this and Dolan's Factor equation should be observed.
Fs(n)
4.3 Mathematical evaluation of Fn
The following nomenclature will apply:n = total number of layers
PF = equivalent unit pressure created by final layer
coils as they are wound on.
Fn = combined factor
LF = Load change (reduction) in final layer
Lu = Load change (reduction) in under layers per layer.
d = nett deflection due to final additional nett load on shell.
Pd = equivalent unit pressure on shell produced
by final layer after load reductions.
Fstn) = self induced factor for final layer (n.th.layer), Weare here dealing with changes in loads and deflections over an infinite shell where each layer of coils is wound on under a uniform tension.
Let us imagine an infinite shell. in radial equilibrium, having (nI) layers already wound upon its surface under tension. The radial deflection is everywhere similar and the shell remains purely cylindrical.
Imagine now that one more layer is wound on. under the same tension. making a total of "n" layers; this last layer will be called the "final layer".
As this final layer is completed the shell will deflect a further amount "d" radially but in doing so the under layers will be deflected an additional amount "d" thereby creating a load reduction Lu in each layer. We have already seen that the final layer itself will suffer a load reduction due to its inherent self induced factor because of the progressive nature of the coiling. This load reduction is l..F.
27
"J t·J ••• ..~ e·, 1'
K
...... ~
Fig. 28. MultiI.yer rope coiling lo,d f,ctOfS
if PF is the load in the coils (converted to unit pressure) as they are actually being wound on then it can be clearly seen that the final additional load on the shell. after the final layer has been wound on. and equilibrium obtained. is:
, Pd=PFLF Lu (nl) .,. (20) }te general expression for the deflection of an infinite shell under uniform load p is.
prl prl
~= ...  (since Et=K.r)
Et Ks
but p=Pd=PFLF  Lu (nl)
and the additional shell deflection due to the nett effect of the final layer load can be written as
rl
d= [PFLFLu (nI)]
Ks ... (21)
The change in unit load Lu can be expressed as ~ . d, and rl
by inserting equation (21) in place of "0" in the expression jU3t given results in:
Kr rl
Lu'  [PFLFLu (nI)) rl Ks
Kr Kr Kr
Lu· PF· LF· Lu (nI)
KsKs K.r
:.Lu [1 + Kr (nl)l_ Xr [PF LF] Ks J Ks
Cram which we obtain:
Xr
Ks[PFLF]
Lu==
Kr l+(nl)
Ks ... (22)
The load change in the final layer only is:
\ LF=PFPF Fs (n) ... (23) Jsing equation (20) the combined factor for the n.th. layer can be written as:
PFLFLu enI)
Fn
PF PF LF Lu
 PF PF PF (nl)
Substituting equations (23) and (22) for LF and LII respectively gives:
Fn= 1_[PFPF Fs (n)]_ Xr. [PF(PFPF Fs(n»)
PF Ks Kr
1+ (nI) Ks
(nI) PF
Cancelling PF's gives:Kr
 [I(]  Fs (n»)
Ks .
Fn= 1[IFs (n)]· (nl) Kr
1+ (nl)
. Ks
which finally gives:Xr
(nl) ' Fs (n) xs
Fne Fs (n)Kr
1 + (nI) K.r
)
or simplified
[ InI) Kr ]
Fn ... Fs (n) 1 Kr Ks
1+/&(nl)
i
For the first layer only when n=l the expression be
comes:
Fn=Fs(I) [1  0)  Fs(I) or as in equation (19) Finally we write:
[1+ 0'2513 Kr. ] [
Ks+(nl) Kr
Fn . 1
0·7556 Kr
1+
Ks+(nl) Kr
Kr]
(nl)'
Ks
20
)
4.4 Flexible or elastic boundary supports
When initially dealing with this most interesting aspect of drum design we must revert. once again. to the simpler load conditions of parts 2 and 3 wherein the resulting shell loads were considered uniform and constant all over. This makes for an easier approach and a simpler understanding of the problem.
It has previously been stated tha; if the ends of a loaded shell were allowed to· rotate in the axial planes then the end fixing moment would be reduced until such time as simply supported end conditions were arrived at with a consequent zero moment.
If the boundaries of a shell were attached to flexible members. then. as the shell became loaded. these boundaries would rotate and ultimately settle down to an equilibrium condition where the boundary moment would, by itself. produce identical slopes in both shell and support members.
Fig. (19a) shows such support members which are seen to be in the form of annular flat plates securely anchored. or built into central bosses whereas the outer peripheries are rigidly attached to the shell at its boundaries. Fig. C!9b) shows the deflected form of both shell and end support.
Quite clearly it is possible, by the use of circular flat
dw plate theory, to determine the amount of slope dr
at the periphery of the end support for any given value of applied peripheral bending moment. If this can be
equated in some way to a similar slope ddW and boundary
. x
moment for the shell then the value of moment so found from this equality is the resulting moment from which bending stresses can be derived. both in the shell material and in that of the end support.
Having derived an equation, too complex to be explained here. from which the shape of the deflection curve for the end support plate could be obtained. when
)
Shell
FI .. ibl, .ftd luppe.1 plate
(a)
(Il)
Fig. 29. For this analysis th~ drum is consid~,,,d liS comprising II homog~n~ous shell forming lin integral part of both end support plates and driving bosses. Tb« deflected form (b) illustrllte~ th« simiterity of slope for both sh~" and ~nd plattl boundllritls
)
subjected to peripheral bending moments and shear forces. it was a simple matter (0 produce a computer programme to calculate these deflections and so arrive
It is also found that the slope dw is directly proper
dr
tional to the applied moment thus the slope/moment relationship can be represented graphically by a straight line passing through the origin.
What is now needed is an expression from which the slope/moment relationship of the shell boundary can be constructed. If this latter relationship be plotted upon the same graph as that of the end support then the resulting moment at the boundary junction is given by the value at which the two graphical plots intersect.
4.5 Slope/moment relationship of shell boundary Take the case of a simply supported long shell (Fig. 30) subjected to a constant uniform load all over.
At the ends where x=o the following relationship
exists:Bending moment
M(J'.O)=0
dw prl ..
Slope=p 
dx Et ... (25)
To simulate a fixing moment at the end an anticlockwise, or negative moment must be applied. In the case of a free shell with no superimposed load or end supports such an applied moment would create a deflection as shown in Fig. 31. where:
1 Mo
WMo=·· P Mo=
. 2/PD 2p2D ... (26)
(note D = flexural rigidity)
As the ends of the shell being examined axe supported there cannot be any deflection W.w. at x=O therefore to simulate this a shear force must be applied to bring
'Ii To the mathematician or the purist. the silPl convention in this oecti"" may appear rather curious. MathematicallY it is incam:c.l as positively increasinl functions "'i11 Dl'oduce p",itive slopes. Howev.,.. aU deftec:don d;.,rams have been .drawn belo .. the ori,in and have been desiillated ..;. .... (sec ".,n ~). and increasins toward! the shen axi,. This is the ,.." shape of the dellecllon d_am
Telui to the axi, and would appear to be conventionally more aC«l'tablc.
In vie of this, the dia,...m would appear to e.hibit • n~,,'I ... slo~ at the left·
hand boundary, and it i, ";th this in mind that the above convenU"" has been adopted.
r L u.~:_' ... I'~ I ft===i~t= ==~t~r
I I ..
____ . C.L.Shllllli! . . __ ""
Fig. 30. This simply supported sh~" is providtld with II uniform IOlld 1111 over in order to srtiv« lit simple mllthtlmllt;clIl boundllry expressions
29
_.
c.L. Sho.I,I"" '~I:.:.il _
Fig. 31. A unitorm moment IIpp/ied to the free end of lin unresUllined shell will produce , positive deflection es shown
W 1r.. back to zero. The shear force on its own must prod uce a deflection equal to W M. it! the opposite sense and such a deflection is shown in Fig. 32. where:
W ~
Qo 2 fJ3 D 27)
... (
Equating these two deflections gives:
Mo Qo
=
from wbich:
Qo=  f3 Mo ... (28)
The slope produced at the end of this simply supported. unloaded shell under the action of Mo and Qo above
is:
dw I
 ..  (2 fJ Mo+Qo)
dx 2 pl D .•• (29)
It is now necessary to equate all the above equations (25), (26) and (27). etc., to arrive at the nett slope of .)'" fully loaded shell having a moment applied to its end.
Referring back to Fig. 30.
dw pr2  (xr=O) ... p
dx Et .•. (25)
M.=O
Now apply a moment and corresponding corrective shear thus:
Applied moment=M.
Applied shear =Q.=  f3Mo ... (28) Slope due to applied moment and additional correcting shear
I
=  (2 fJ Mop Mo) from Eq, (29) 2p2 D
Mo
'1 P D .. (30)
The tinal nett slope is equal to the mathematical sum of the slope produced by the superimposed load on a simply supported shell (equation (25» and that pro' duced by the applied moment and correcting shear force (equation (30) ).
Referring to Fig. 33 the slope produced by the super
• Sine. Mn is ~. Eq. (30, "roduca. + ....... "IL.
Qo
)
__ ._. __ ...::C:..:...,L •• Shtlftlis
Fig. 32. A force 00 IIcting if! the neglltive sense prodvces , neg. rive tiefleaion It the free end af In u~w.Jmd meR
imposed load (equation (25)) is represented by angle "An and in mathematical convention is lie. The slope produced by equation (30) is +\'e and represented by angle B.· The nett slope is represented by the sum of angles A and B as shown and since the slope. generally. is given as
dw
 (gen)  tan (J dx
then. in this particular case
dw tan A + tan B
 (nett) = tan [(A)+.8] ..... d."( Itan A tan B
but since .
dw pr'l
tan .4= (A) = p 
dx El
dw Mo
tan .8 (B) ... 
dx 2PD
the nett slope becomes:
prl Mo
dw PTr2P D  (nett)=__;,,_ dx prl Mo
1P'El 2P D
)
El
substituting  for D the expression becomes:
4 P" r2 l
rl I
 [2 p3 Mo+p PJ
dw El
 (nett)=
dx . (j3r)"
12pMo'(El)2
It is significant to note that. when dealing with very small angles. the denominator in the last expression is very small and for the case of the practical example to follow its numerical value. for unit moment. would be 15'1 X 1010.
In view of this the errors would not be very large if the denominator was considered as having a numerical value of unity and the final expression for the nett slope becomes ::
dw r2
 (nett) ...  [2 pl Mo+p PJ
dx Et u. (31)
Equation (31) is of the form X= Ky  C which produces a straight line plot but not passing through the origin.
As a simple check. if equation (31) is equated to zero the resulting expression would be the moment at the boundary of a fixed ended shell. The expression becomes
Mo  2~l which is correct (see equation (5) of pan 2).
If Mo becomes zero the resulting expression is _p prl Et which is. of course, the slope for zero moment on the shell of Fig. 30. (Equation (25).
All tha.t is necessary is to plot both slope/moment relationships for the end support and the shell to obtain the resulting boundary moment.
4.6 Practical example of elastic ends
By way of an example let the shell shown in Fig. 34 be analysed. This is basically the same shell as already used in the previous examples. except for the
30
boundary conditions.
As the slopemoment relationship for the shell boundaries produces a straight line it is only necessary to calculate the slope for zero moment and the moment for zero slope and join the two values on the graph.
The slope for zero moment is
dw pr? 374 x 3,600 x 0·1173  (1110=0)= ' p= 
dx Er 30 x J 06 X 2
= 0·00263
Moment for zero slope (i.e. fixed end conditions) is
p 374
21P 2xO'JJ73l
=  13.580 lb ins/in of circumference
The straight line joining these two values has been drawn on the graph of Fig. 35 where the moment is . plotted as ordinate against the slope as abscissa.
To make the problem more interesting the slope/ moment relauonships for a succession of end support plates of varying thickness have been drawn from the origin. the thinnest being iin varying in tin increments up to 2in thick. This will provide us with a range of stresses. in both shell and end support. from which to choose.
Each line of the individual end support plots intersects that for the shell at specific points which each indicate the slope and the moment applicable at the boundary junction for each particular plate thickness. From each of these moments we can determine the stress in both shell and end support material.
Such stresses can be put into the form of a continuous graph by plotting both as ordinate against the end support plate thickness as abscissa. This is shown in Fig, 36. It can be seen from this graph that for a given drum geometry and shell thickness we can choose whatever plate thickness required such that the resulting stress is below the fatigue limit for the type of welded joint used.
It is possible that the reader may be rather confused concerning the interrelationship existing between both the boundary slopes and bending moments. Quite obviously. for a shell mounted on flexible boundary supports. an increase in the superficial load will create a larger boundary slope because the end support boundary has been rotated to a greater extent thus requiring. and producing. a larger bending moment at this point. This is. of course. shown by the slope/moment lines relating to each of the various end support plates. How then can we reconcile the inverse relationship of the shell boundary slope/moment line in Fig. 35?
The full line drawn for the shell boundary only. represents the value of the moment existing for any given slope at that point for one particular value of superficial load. For example. if the end plate was infinitely thick then its slope/moment line would pass vertically through the origin and no matter what the value of the load the slope would remain zero i.e. the end plate is inelastic. Similarly. if the end plate was infinitely thin its slope/moment line would pass horizontally through the origin and therefore no moment could be produced at anv time.
Let us select the 2in side plate as a further example.:
I: can be seen that. if the loaded shell is in such a state
__ .~ . ~i.I_._. _
Fig. 33. Rotations of the shell about II boundary produced by the individual forces mentioned in the text. Super position methods are used here to obtllin the nett slope expression Angle "A" is
. ve by virtue:ol the conventions adopted
tI 69in..,
I , I
I L .. ~ P=374Ib/in' I
'_'_',
I I I .! :i I
..
r I
_. __ . C.lSh,1I '~::.il ._.___I._l_.
Fig. 34. Physical data relating to the results given in Figs. 35 lind 35
that its boundary slope is 0·00173 'the moment produced would be 4.650 lbs ins/in of circumference thus equating itself exactly with the 2in plate under similar circumstances. What now happens if the load is changed whilst still retaining the 2in side plate?
Assume that the original load of 374 lbs/in' is halved then both the slope for zero moment and the moment for zero slope of the shell boundary would be halved as each is directly proportional to the load. Wha't we should expect is that the flexible boundary moment and slope have both been halved. This is evident from Fig. 35 wheee the dotted line is the new slope/moment line for the boundary of the shell having the reduced load. The intersection. with the 2in plate line is now at 0·00086 and 2.325 respectively which are half the previous values.
For this particular case, using a 2in plate. the true slope/moment rela.tionship of the shell boundary is identical with th.at of the 2in plate l.e. zero slope and zero moment representing an unloaded shell.
4.7 Analysis of results.
It has been mentioned previously that it is not always possible to arrange in the design for a free ended shell connection and the only alternative is to rigidly attach the shell boundaries to the supports. If the supports were inelastic it has been shown that for this particular shell geometry the boundary moment produced had a modulus of 13.580 Ib ins/in of circumference which represented a stress of 20.400 Ib/in". This is far too high for safety when it is remembered that this is only the first layer.
Examination of the graph of Fig. 35 shows how drastically the end moment is reduced by supporting the shell on flexible members.
In using this type of construction it is found that the design criterion is not the shell boundary stress but the end plate boundary stress as can be secn from Fig. 36.
31
"'\he end plate stress is only numerically equal to, the
)dl stress when both have identical thicknesses i.ej 2in but even so the stress is very conservative at about 1.000 lbin", A lin sideplate would be considered far too thick as a structural feature, therefore a thinner plate would probably be used. The lin plate produces a very modest stress of 5.000:'i1b/in2 which. from the shell aspect. is,,,,v)rtually a simply supported condition producing only'l1,250 lb/in" stress in the shell material.
The reader may feel that we are at last getting somew here towards a solution to the problem of overcoming the possible high boundary stresses purely by introducing a flexible enJ support of the type just illustrated, This is true. up to a point, but certain other aspects must be considered.
NormaJJy each end support plate is stiffened by radial arms to provide some stability to the structure as a whole. It would be clearly inadvisable to omit the stiffeners altogether unless some other means could be provided to prevent the drumshell from swaying from side to side along its axis. or unless the sideplates were thick enough or had sufficiently limited annular depth to overcome such a tendency. 11 will be found in practice that if a I in or lin thick sideplate was to be used for purposes of economic construction then a much smaller annular depth would be provided which would u utomatically stiffen the flexible portion of the sideplate such as to produce a slope/moment line approaching. or even exceeding. the line drawn on Fig. 35 for a 2in l,~)te. This would automatically alter the stress diagram
/ Fig. 36 and produce higher sideplate stresses all round.
It should be appreciated from the graph of Fig. 35 that as the sideplates get thinner and thinner the effect upon the shell boundaries approaches that of a simply supported condition l.e, the boundary moment approaches zero. Conversely as the' sideplate thickness approaches infinity the effect upon the shell boundaries approaches a rigidly clamped condition which allows the development of the full shell boundary fixation moment with zero sideplate stress.
No hard and fast rule can be given here with regards to the best thickness and annular depth of the flexible portion of the sideplates as the variations are infinite and each design must be prepared with a view to the final requirements in respect of economy, duty and
fatigue life stress limits.
Many readers will have appreciated, by now, that the fundamental conception behind the analyses so far presented lies in the term "symmetrical deflection", At no point in this work have we mentioned any structural member which. when applied to the drum, will prevent symmetrical deflection of either the shell or the flexible portions of the sideplates. The classical error of construction. especially with respect to fabricated structures, is to provide radial stiffening arms to the sideplates and to run each arm up 10 the under surface of the shell where it is rigidly attached by welding to the shell plate. Nothing could be worse than this as it prevents the shell from deflectinz to a circular form thus inducing circumjerential bending in addition to the already familiar axial bending; it also provides the shell boundaries with local rigid fixation thus inducing high local axial bending moments, the very thing we are trying to overcome. Under these circumstances it will be quite clear that stress analysis would be highly complex indeed and may lead to uneconomic structures or otherwise dangerously high local fatigue stresses within an economic structure.
The simpler the structure becomes the easier it is to arrive at the principal stress levels and generally it is far more economic, This is what we have arrived at by the introduction of flexible end supports.
Much more has to be done, however, before the true solution is obtained as this has been only a glimpse of the simpler aspect of design. Because we were interested in treating tbis problem mathematically the loads over the shell have not been factorised and structural stability has not been allowed for in the selection of the sideplate geometry. except in so far as to outline the importance of it.
)
4.8 Restrained boundaries and the effect upon load factors
Much has so far been written concerning rope load factors and the computet' results have already corroborated the first layer self induced factors. as calculated using equation (18). This corroboration was. however. based upon results obtained using an infinite shell having no radial restraint whatsoever (See Fig, 26).
Will the factors remain the same over the central areas of a long shell when radial restraint is applied to the
Fig. 35 (left). Showing slope/momttnt inU,,· sects lor shell Bnd end plate boundaries. lor end plate 01 constant annular depth
Fig. 36 (right). Shitll 6nd end platll boundary stresses for "ariations in lind plate thickness snd tor end plllre 01 constsn: annulsr depth
32
Fig. 37. D~tI~ction diagram lor shell having radially restreinet: elastic boundaries. Shell radius=60in. Sh~1I thickn~ss=2in. Shell l~ngth=69in nom. E=30:,·106• Rop~= 1iin dia. stland~d. Pitch coetticient». 1·035. Initial rop~ pull at coil No. 1 =33.130 lb. Single
lay~r only. Kr / Ks = 0'165
Fig. 38. BMding moment and sh~8' force diagrams for sh~1I d,u, of Fig. 37. Th~ shear curve is an average vslue. The true shear force diagram !Jlt~rnares as shown. in part.
lit the lelt·hand end
)
Fig. 39. Rope load lactors lor shell of Fig. 37. As this Js only the Ilrst layer these values 8r~ the self induced tsctors Fs
)
t.il HI!.'
It IS 11 :1 :~ 27 3D 33
w
:~ s •. !
c~ 10 :"!
...
= :; '5
:;:
... = 20
._ c
: .
K ZS
Coiliftg directio"c!!" '" _ 0'001:7
UX
d ... ·
 '" 0·00123 .d x
7000
 £ 000
·
~ 5000
~ ~ 000 ~ 3000 ~  2000 ......
•
;  1000
~~~===~~rl1
<,
"'.VI •• ldi ..
<:
· v
·
;
i
~
CUflfW I., ' •• "1_ ,heir
·
E
·
1+1000
·
~ +2000
: + 3000
· ..
·
+~ 000
1000 j ..
r.E 1·00 I
~ o·n
·
i. 0·t6
·
: 0·14
•
: O· '2
Kr
 =0·1&5 Ks
boundaries?
In order to investigate the factor behaviour over the first layer of a practical shell the authors have produced a computer programme which does not depend upon the same method of analysis as the very early programmes. This later work does. of course. use fundamental shell theory but takes into account the progressive nature of the coiling. in that the' coils are applied one at a time in the same way as was used in the programme producing the factor values in the graph of Fig. 26.
This later programme is far more sophisticated in as much as the loads are applied at the true coil pitching across the shell and values of slope. bending moment and shear forces can be obtained at any point. Variable boundary fixing moments are also catered for. The major contribution made by this programme is for the allowance of up to 6 layers ofroee on the drum and a maximum of 70 cOils per layer.
We now have available a programme that. despite being based upon statical theory. will behave in a dynamic fashion in that it is behaving, in lime. exactly as a true drum would behave. The time scale is. however, considerably extended as the computer running lime is very much greater than the time normally taken [0 complete one winding cycle.
The authors feel that this programme provides a major advance in the field of winder drum design and virtually all the work which now follows will be based
upon the use of this programme and variations of it. This programme has been called "Research Programme No. 14."
In order to discover whether restrained boundaries will affect the factors over the central areas the parameters relating to the shell. which has featured throughout this work. were used as data and the number of layers restricted to one only. The rope used was Itin
dia, triangular strand with an assumed stretch modulus 03E( of 15 x 10' Ib/in", The coil pitching was taken as (~~ ~
1'035 x 1 tin. i.e., the rope pitch coefficient = 1'035. .
and tbe coil loads were arranged to act at this pitch
across the shell. The full set of results obtained from tht. computer. using "Research Programme No. 14," are presented graphically in Figs. 37. 38 and 39.
Confining ourselves. for the moment. to Fig. 39 which shows the factor values. it can be seen that comparisons between the value of factor given here and that of Fig. 26 shows quite remarkable agreement in that Fig. 39 shows a settlement at around 0·9353 and Fig. 26 shows 0'930 whereas equation (I8) provides a value of 0'926. an overall error of about 1 %.
Despite radial restraint at the boundaries there bas been no significant change in the value of the first layer self induced factor over the central area of this long shell.
Before proceeding to give proof of the combined factors it would be interesting. at this stage. to anaJyse
)
)
33
· ....
0·'
! d·'
I
·
] 01
!
.! D·'
0·$
o , Z 3 • 5 • 7 • I 1 D t1 12 13 ,4 IS " t7 II " ZD Z1 C.iI ""
Fig. 40. Showing coil 10lld tsctors for ellch layer liS il is completed. Kr/Ks for this shell=0·172. Twenty coils of 1 in dia. strBnaea rop«
the results given in Figs. 37 and 38. The shell deflection is shown in Fig. 37 on which. for the first time. can be seen the actual values of the slopes dwjd x for each boundary. These will be useful later when considering the end support members.
The maximum deflection occurs at coil 18 and is 21·20 thou. whereas previously (Fig. 19, Part 3) a central deflection of 23·5 thou. was obtained for a uniform load of 374 lb/in'. Multiplying 23'5 by the factor just found. i.e., 0'9353. we obtain 22'0 thou. which is almost correct. It should be remembered from previous work. however. that variations in end restraint produce marginal changes in central deflections.
Fig. 38. showing the bending moment and shear force '~urves for this shell. produces some very interesting reo .sults. As will be seen from the deflection diagram the boundaries are neither fixed nor free but have been provided with an end restraint which produces a bending moment of  6.582 ib in/in of circumference which is approximately half that for a fixed ended shell (13.580). This has of course reduced the boundary stress in the shell material from 20,400 Ib/in2 to 9.900 lb/in" which is a far safer figure. The shear force has also dropped from 3.186 to 2.121 lb/in of circumference. This is of course the natural outcome of hav
 C.",paltr , ... 111
........ _. A •• lyt.tlL lIs"lts •••• 1i ... Nt 24 .._ DDtl"" hchu
· ...
J'5'~~l~~~~~~
LI," N!
Fig. 41. This 9r.ph iIIuslrlltes Iht! continuity ot tb« tsctor expres· sions tram tht! computer results. V.lues ,ellllt! to the centrs! aren of the shell ll$ indic61ed in Fig. 40
ing a reduced bending moment. By providing flexible boundary supports of a given flexibility it is possible to obtain maximum bending and compressive stresses in the shell and maximum bending stresses in the end support members. all having roughly the same magnitude and all well within the safe limit.
The shear force diagram is rather interesting in that the true shape has been shown at the left hand end of the graph. I t consists of alternating vertical lines. the length of each being equal in magnitude to the value of the coil load at that point. Each vertical line is joined to its neighbour by a diagonal. line. This is exactly analogous to the bending moment diagram exhibited by a plain beam subjected to a multitude of concentrated loads but with one exception and that is. on a beam the joining lines are. of course, all horizontal.
Shear force diagrams will not generally be plotted in this way as it is tedious and can be confusing but it may become necessary later on when dealing with shear force diagrams for shells containing compression rings.
4.9 Proving the combined ,factor 'equation
Fig. 28 in the previous article has already shown bow the combined factors Fn vary for variations in Kr.Ks, the relationship being dictated by the computation of equation (24) over a wide range of parameters.
The first layer factor has already been proved but what of the second and subsequent layers?
Research programme No. 14 can only accept a maximum of 6 layers of rope and so it is only possible to obtain comparisons up to this number of layers.
An entirelv random choice was made for the shell used as a ch~cking case but care was taken to see that it was a "long" shell to allow enough length for factor settlement. Details of this shell are given in Fig. 40.
Programme No. 14 was run so as to "wind on" 6 complete layers and the results are shown in Fig. 40 where the combined coil load factors En are plotted as ordinate against coil numbers as abscissa.
In all six cases the value of the factor has been chosen relating to the "high points" over the central areas (as has been done in the previous analyses) of
each of the plotted curves. .
A further graph has been drawn (Fig. 41) in which the factor value Fn is plotted as ordinate against layer numbers as abscissa. The full line shows the variation in factor values obtained from the plotted. computer results of Fig. 40, whereas the short dotted line shows the equivalent values calculated from equation (24). Aremarkable agreement is immediately noticed.
As a further point of interest Dolan's factors have been introduced (long dotted line) as a comparison and it is clear to see that his factors are in error to the extent of roughly 6, %on the first layer. As his first layer factor is considered as being unity this is not surprising but in any case the error is not too great.
The main error in Dolan's factors lies in the absence of a "self induced factor" for each layer: in other words, if each of Dolan's factors was to be multiplied by the author's own self induced factor for the appropriate layer then the results would compare very favourably with the results in Fig. 40 obtained from the computer.
It should be quite obvious now that equation (24) is as near accurate as is required for checking the value of th: factors over the central areas of long shells. but equation (24) can only produce one value per layer. It
)
)
cannot tell us what value of load exists near the boundary. it cannot tell us the boundary support reactions or thr. bending moments or. shear forces. nor can it decide for us what type of end support is required. Only "Research Programme No. 14" can give us the complete answer.
5.1 The introduction of compression rings
So far throughout this series compression rings, or stiffening rings as they may sometimes be called, have only been mentioned briefly in passing.
If the reader would refer back to the photograph (Fig. 5, Part I in the December, 1966 issue) he will see the exact nature of, and the form taken by, compression rings in a practical shell.
Wby are compression rings used"] We have already seen that a shell, in order that it may safely withstand any superimposed load. must have a minimum thickness dictated by limiting design stress limits. In view of this then, what is the purpose of introducing such rings when a plain shell of appropriate thickness could be used?
There are, of course, various reasons and these will now be outlined as follows:
Supposing, for example. that preliminary investigations showed that a heavy duty winder drum. such as those typical of S. Africa. demanded a plain shell 5in thick to comply with the safe compressive stress limit (ignoring other stresses for the moment). It would be extremely unlikely that such thick plate, in the sizes required for such a shell, would be obtainable and. furthermore, there would be a problem in rolling it to the required radius. Faced with such circumstances there are two alternatives firstly. resort to a cast steel drumshell and secondly. resort to thinner plate and supplement it with compression rings. As this series of articles is aimed primarily at fabricated drums then the' second alternative is the only one with which we should be concerned.
Some readers may well ask, what is wrong with a plain cast steel shell Sin in thickness? The answer is. of course, nothing at all except that the designer may be faced with rapid changes of material thickness at the ends of the shell. which is not at all desirable in steel casting, and also 'that the design may tend to appear disproportionate or in other words it will not "look right"
Let us return to the second alternative above. It will be necessary to choose a shell thinner than Sin but how thin? This is not an easy question to answer in a few words as there are so very many factors which can influence the decision.
\
!
)
)
Figure 42 will illustrate this point admirably. On this graph there are six curves plotted with radial deflection as ordinate against coil number as abscissa. The results are obtained from" Research Programme No. 14" the data for which was related to the shell used throughout this series. Only one layer of rope has been "wound on Of although this shell is destined for 3 layers as mentioned before. In producing this graph the main object was to outline the variations in maximum deflection produced by various combinations of ring sizes and positions such that the total cross sectional area of each shell/ring combination was the same.
As a reference, curve .• f" is the deflection applicable to a plain 2in thick shell with no compression rings whatsoever, the total cross sectional area being 69'8 x 2=139·6in~. The next step was to introduce one ring only of 29'72in2 situated under coil number 24. Curve .. a" shows the resulting deflection which. from the compressive stress point of view, shows marginal gain only over that of curve "f. "The total cross sectional area in this case being 139'6 +29'72= 169·32in=. Two rings were next introduced each having a cross sectional area of 14'86in: (curve "b") then 3 rings with an area each of 9'91in2 (curve" c ").
There is, upon examination, little to choose between curves "b" and "c" unless a difference of one tenth of thou. is going to worry anyone. in which case, curve "b Of with only two rings,' is the marginal winner. Results for four rings of 7'43in2 were computed but not plotted as it would have created a confusion of lines in this area but the absolute maximum deflection was 17'994 thou.
If now a little thought is given to these results it should be clear that there must be an optimum condition which will' produce safe stress limits for the most economical Iayout,
~I~ d
O,~O~3 __ 'r~'~!~2_!~S~1'~2~!;24~~~~3D~33~3r&~H~4~2_'~S~481
·
.. 10
·
.;;
.
iu
.!
~ 20
'I
·
;;
.: 2.
3S
Fig. 42. This grllph il/u$trlltes the vllrilltions in deflections for various compression ring/shell combinations. The combined total cross sectional aftla of ring/shell arrangements "s" to 11 inclusive lire ellch identical. Shell ", .. is the bllsic 2in thick shell with no compression rings. Shell "a" (dotted) is a plain shell hllving the ssm« tots! ClOSS sllctional IIrell liS shlllls 11, "b", clInd "e". Elich II"OW rllprtlsents thtl position of a compression
ring. Only ontl IllY.' of coils hilS bllen IIpplied
35
Suppose it were possible to introduce an extremely larze number of very tiny compression rings evenly \::laced across the shell. This would be almost, but nOI 4·uite, analogous to ha ving a plain shell whose total cross sectional area was equal to that used in curves "a", "b" and "c", etc., i.e. the plain shell would be 169·32/ 69·8 = 2·427in thick. From a compressive point of view the multitudinous ring analogy is quite sound but from a bending stress point of view it is not as the values ?f !3 and the flexural rigidity D must be related to a 2m thick shell. Curve "d" indicates such a deflection, the maximum being 18·58 thou.
Imagine now that it was only possible to obtain .oneinch thick plate for the shell. We should not despair as it is only a matter of adding sufficient area of ring to make up tbe same total cross sectional area as before, or is it? We saw from curve "b" that two rings were adequate so let us apply two rings to this thin shell, each having an area of 49·75in2• Curve "e" indicates the devastating result. There is a maximum deflection of 37·85 thou. Which, in this shell, produces a compressive
no _~g.e_Si0418,925 Ib/in2. for only the first layer! .
r~'" This unfortunately IS not the worst. The maximum o t\'"'~~ndin!:! moment occurs over the first ring and is  5,188
"J Ib in/i; of oci!"cumference, a stre~s of 31,;oQ. Ibs/in2. Th~s is clearly ridiculous and amply Illustrates \be fact that It is not just thetotal cross sectional area that matters but the way in which it is arranged.
If we try to analyse what is happening it is seen that the all important semicritical length is playing a large parj., The semicritical length for the oneinch thick ~~IJ ~ 60in radius is l4·2in ~us the critical length. is
{'~ r" twice this i.e. 28·4in and the rings are spaced at 22·710.
This situation is almost identical to having a fixed ended shell of length equal to the critical length above where the end fixing moments are  5,900 lb in/in of circumference and a maximum central compressive stress of J 9,450 lb/in! for a uniform load of 374 Ib/in" subjected to the appropriate first layer factor. The actual central compressive stress from curve "en is 17.200 lb/in" which is lower than that just calculated as rhe tWO rings are in fact closer together than the critical length by about 6in.
What, then, is the best combination of ring layout that can be chosen from Fig. 42? It should be remembered that the critical length for the basic twoinch thick shell is very nearly 40in and in the case of a single ring (curve "a") it is situated some 35in from the boundary point. almost equal to the critical length. Crawford states in his article that there is nothing to be gained, in the compressive sense, by inserting rings at a spacing
_y_ greater thanil.!1. inches apart and this statement is 9\ quite correct as curve "a" illustrates.
The most economical layout, both in terms of the number of rings and hence the amount of welding necessary for their installation, would be that shown in curve "b" i.e. two rings only, each 14·86in' of cross sectional area. The spacing here 15 22·75in which is just about equal to the semicritical length of 20in and the central deflection is one thou. less than the maximum )f curve "d".
5.2 Bending moments at the rings
The less the number of compression rings in a shell of given total cross sectional area the greater will be
t4"20ift.,
I 1".4= 13·333i"" ~
~ E.. _u
Fig 43. Pillin ~quiv'/ent thickness shell section
the bending moment in the shell material adjacent to the ring. This is particularly true near to the central areas and depends upon the ratio of shell metal to ring metal.
Curve "a", Fig. 42, produces a bending moment of  6,320 lb in/in of circumference over the single central ring, almost identical to that at each boundary. The maximum bending moments over the rings of curves "b" and "c" are  3,150 and  2,079 lb in/in of circumference respectively. The moment, in curve "b" being approximately balf that of the boundaries. We have of course already seen the drastic results for curve "e",
From the point of view of the boundary mom~nts these are of course influenced by the number of nngs in the shell. For curves "a", "b" and "c" these moments are  6,748,  6,413 and  6,018 lb in/in of circ~mterence respectively and the shell containing four nn~s produced  5,900 lb in/in of circumference. The plain shell, curve "f", is subjected to a bending moment of  6,583 lb in/in of circumference at the boundary.
The last five values of bending moment show only nominal changes and it would _ thus appear that the number of rings introduced, providing the total cross sectional area is the same, have only a negligible effect
upon the boundary moments. .. . ,
We should now be in a posiuon to consolidate the I' facts so far presented and thus create a basic law for
ring spacing, which can be stated as follows:: I
(i) Having ascertained the total cross sectional area I of ring metal required it ° is b7st to ensure that II the spacing between the rings IS no great:r than • the semicritical length for the shell portion rej maining. _ j
(ii) The total cross sectional area of ring metal must I be so related to the cross sectional .area of ~hel shell metal such that, with the nng spacing I chosen, the _ bending stresses in the sh~l1 material ! adjacent to the rings and the com~resslve str7ss~s ! in the shell material between the rings are Within \ the safe limits required of the design. I
(iii) Rings positioned nearer to the boundaries than I approximately 1·5 ..; rt, ins. serve no ~seful p~r I pose in relieving boundary stresses or In reducmg\ . __ central area deflections unless they are very large
in which case they may develop large axialbending moments in the shell material.
The above three simple rules rely upon the fact that, whatever the number or rings placed in a shell the total cross sectional area of the ring/shell combination remains constant.
It is possible, purely by introducing extra large rings near to thi:: boundary, to reduce the boundary stresses. This aspect has not been dealt with as it is uneconomical to do so and completely unnecessary if the boundary stress can be kept below the safe limit by the methods already described.
Although the above three simple rules are quite valid it is not correct to base the ring/shell area relationship on the equivalence of total cross sectional area. It is
\ /
)
36
more correct to base it upon what is termed the "equivalent thickness" of a shell which will be explained more fully when dealing with the practical design aspects.
Curve "d" illustrated that the maximum deflection was 18'58 thou. whereas curves "b", "c" and the unplotted results for four rings showed that the maximum deflections were less than this. The equivalent thicknesses for the shells in curves "b" and "c" and for the four ring shell are: 2·653in. 2·58in and 2'S22in respectively whereas the plain shell, whose equivalent thickness is its own thickness.' is 2·427in. The area of the rings are all a little too great in order to create, with the spacing given, an equivalent thickness equal to the plain shell therefore, in a properly designed drum, there is a slight economy to be gained by using the equivalent thickness technique.
5.3 Rings as an aid to circular stability
The second reason for introducing rings can really be divided into two pans,
(a) The improvement in stability of a "free" shell during machining.
(b) Circular stability in service under load. This really introduces the problem of the elastic collapse stability of the shell as a whole and will be dealt with under a separate main heading.
Let us first of all deal with (a) under this main heading.
In some of the older type constructions, and indeed in one method already outlined by the authors', the shell does not form an integral part of the end supports in that it is subsequently secured to the end supports, by some means, on final erection.
Very often such a shell is subjected to machining after rolling and one of the difficulties lies in adequately supporting such a relatively thin structure as a plain shell such that accurate machining can be carried out. A further difficulty arises out of the need for stress relieving the finished fabrication which presupposes extensive welding operations, having been carried out on such items as compression rings and flanges, etc. Almost without exception, on free ended shells, it. becomes necessary to introduce auxiliary bracing, of the type shown in Fig. 5 to prevent undue distortion of the shell during heat treatment b~t in the shell illustrated this
. bracing is relatively simple and serves mainly to contain the shell joint diameter at its correct value.
The first machining operation, after fabrication and stress relieving. is to plane the joint faces of each half shell then each half can be bolted together to form a whole. For thin shells containing no compression rings, or fianges. quite elaborate bracing may be required to maintain it in its circular form but the inclusion of rings overcomes this requirement and may mean that no additional bracing is required over and above that which was originally introduced to prevent heat treatment distortion.
)
5.4 Circular stability under load
It is a well known fact that some winder shells. when deflected under load, are no longer circular i.e. they tend to go "out of round". One case has been reported where this has happened on a shell in which rings were actually fitted but they were of such a shallow depth. in the
EO
radial sense, as to contribute virtually nothing to the stability.
In order to be of any use com presion rings must be of sufficient depth to maintain the shell in a circular form and this is even more important in a machined cast shell due to the possibility of variation of metal thickness resulting from the casting of such large members: such variations can induce out of roundness under load. This is, however. less important in rolled steel shells, where the original plate thickness is reasonably constant, but if poor machining is carried out this effect could still be obtained.'
For a ring to be of any use in this sense its introduction must be made to materially increase the cross sectional moment of inertia of the completed shell. A few simple figures will illustrate this.
Take the case of a shell 2in thick and having, for the moment, no rings. When rings are introduced they will be placed at say 20in centres. This length of plain shell will be compared with a similar length of thinner shell containing one ring such that the total area of metal is the same in both cases. Fig. 43 shows the plain shell.
The moment of inertia of this section about the neutral
20x2J
axis N.A. is = 13·333in4 12
If the shell is now reduced in thickness to l;in and a ring added to make up a total of 40in' the following is obtained Fig.!W. !
The moment of inertia of this particular section is approx, 1 06in·, which is a big increase.
It can be seen that the effect of rearranging the metal of a shell in the form of rings improves its circular stability as it is far more difficult for it to be bent out of round than the equivalent plain shell due to the large increase in the moment of inertia of the shell section. This is, of course, quite elementary but has been included to iliustrate the great advantages that can be gained from fitting rings. It also demonstrates the "equivalent thickness" technique.
One question yet remains and that is, knowing the cross sectional area of a compression ring what should be the relationship of width to depth?
Very thin deep rings, are not considered good practice unless the free edge is stiffened to avoid the possibility of edge buckling. This immediately adds cost by virtue of having more welding to do on each compression ring, unless some special section can be found which would comply with the requirements.
On the other hand very wide rings, with a radially shallow section, are not very satisfactory as they contribute Iittle to circular stability. There is also a danger of overstraining the ring to shell connection welds by virtue of the variation in deflection of the shell across the face of the ring. Such a connection should be fairly narrow to avoid this possibility.
~zo'" ""'1
I!r, i.II..:I:..!N~. Al,;".:..;.:'D;_._ia_4 ...,I,Y
'W'
~Zi":'
Fig. 44. Equiv.'.nr sh.1I with ring
37
Both authors favour some compromise whereby the jroporuon of depth to width is approximately 3 to 1. This gives a sturdy ring which is very simple and easy to install with the minimum of welding.
Knowing the area, how can the ring proportion be obtained? By now the reader will be aware of the fact iha t, after being deflected, the material in the ring will be subjected to circumferential compression and each ring will be exerting an outward force upon the shell in the same way, but in the opposite sense. to that force created by a tensioned coil of rope. .
Let us imagine the ring removed from the shell but subjected to the same radial deflection. This deflection can only be obtained on the free ring if a positive UDl· form load was 10 be applied to its outer surface and of a val ue equal to the interactive force between ring and shell when the ring was acting as part of the shell. Such a load is given in tbe output data produced by "Research Programme No. 14" and it is this load which must be used to determine the ratio of depth to width.
As a practical example it will be necessary to use results relating to our standard shell but containing three compression rings each 9'91in2 cr0SS sectional area and having three layers of rope wound on. The maximum ring reaction is  3,477 lb per inch of circumference. Expressed as a maximum compressive force over the ring section this is :: 3,477 x 60=  208.420 lb and as a compressive stress in the ring material =208,420/9'91 =21,000 lb/in",
The minimum eompressive stress which would cause iastic collapse into two nodes on an unrestrained plain .lng is given by:
aer=__!_ (.!_)2Ib/in2
1  v2 2 r ... (32)
Where:
ir cr = critical stress in the ring (compressive)
E=Young's modulus \·=Poisson's ratio
T = radial depth 'of ring
r=mean radius of ring (usually taken as mean shell radius)
Let us SUppose the ring to be Sin deep then:
aer 30 x 106 (_:_)2 =57;250 Ib/inl
0'91 120
. For a ring lOin deep (T cr= 229,000 Ib/in2; but yield point for this material is 38,000 lb/in" therefore a ring Sin deep would be perfectly stable up to yield point thus, the ring in the practical example. having an area of 9'91 in: would have a factor of safety of 57.250/ 21.000=2·73 to I on the theoretical collapse pressure but 38/21 = 1·81 to I on yield.
The proportion for this ring would be 5in radial depth by 2in thick and would be perfectly safe and elastically stable in its own right; it would also be narrow enough to preclude the possibility of any undue 'te1d strain during shell deflection.
) Equation (32) can be rewritten tbus:
yl4 r2 (I _vl) aer .
To: inches
E
but if. for mild steel. ,,=0'3, E=30xIO' and (TC1' is
assumed to be 63.000 lb/in: (V.T.S. for mild steel) the above equation becomes:
T=0·0874 r inches radial depth ... (33)
The reason for choosing 63,000 Ib/in2 for (T C1' gives the designer a good factor of safety on the theoretical collapse stress and ensures that yield stress is reached well before this, it is then only a question of ensuri.og that the compressive stress in the ring, as found from Research Programme No. 14, gives an adequate factor of safety based upon the yield stress for this material. The compressive stress in any ring is a measure also of the compressive stress in the shell at that point thus the two become compatible.
• If equation. (33) had been used to find the critical ring depth. in the practical example. it would have produced:
T=0·0874 x 60=5'244 inches
which does of course allow for the development of 63,000 Ib/in: critical stress instead of 57.2,50 Ib/in2 as found for a 5 inch ring using equation (32).
It should be clear that the ring size chosen has enabled us to choose a thickness which is equal to that of the basic shell, namely 2in. This shows that the ring size and proportion has worked out very economically as the ring segments can be cut from similar plates to that of the shell. If shell machining is being carried out then obviously the basic shell.· plate thickness would be at least 2iin and possible 2im thick and it would be wise to investigate making rings from this basic material thickness but not at the expense of sac.ificing radial depth because of the . increased thickness that is obtained. It must be remembered that it is the radial depth which determines the critical collapse stress and not the thickness.
A great deal more could be written about compression rings but as space does not permit. it is felt that the preceding text has at least outlined the major points arising out of their inclusion in a shell. The very keynote is simplicity, as it has been throughout this work. and the less complicated a compression ring becomes the cheaper it is to introduce.
)
)
5.5 Critical collapse pressure for plain shells
For a very long. or infinite. plain shell. the critical pressure to cause collapse into two nodes (i.e. the shell would collapse into an elliptic form initially. with a very rapid ultimate collapse of the minor axis. The ultimate collapse would produce two lobes) can easily be found from a revised form of equation (32) ;.4.
Et3
per Ib/in2
4 rJ (Iv:)
using the parameters for our usual shell gives: 30 x 106 x23
Per 305lb/in2 (_M F~
4 x60l xO'9l
With three layers on this shell the approximate pressure, as found from the Research Programme. was 860 Ib/in' producing a compressive stress of 26,500 Ib/in' in the
1 &L ""P<,,,
'.
shell material (This was a plain 2 inch thick shell with no compression rings).
This does of course look disastrous but two points' should be made,
(a) Equation (34) gives the minimum critical collapse pressure for a very long shell but, in the practical shell. the end supports have a marked influence in increasing the critical pressure.
(b) True collapse, as we know it. by subjecting the shell to a uniform gas pressure which does not change in magnitude throughout collapse displacement. could not possibly take place. ln the case of a shell containing tensioned coils of rope, as soon as collapse started to take place the rope tensions would change thus alleviating the collapse condition.
Despite what has been said in (b) above it is still good practice to ensure that the shell is constructed such as 10 preclude the possibility of collapse i.e, we should imagine the pressure produced by the rope coils as remaining constant over the whole surface when co:' lapse conditions are reached.
How do boundary conditions affect the collapse pressure found from equation (34)? The analysis of the theory of elastic stability is very involved and will not be undertaken here but sufficient information can be derived from sources of published works to enable us 10 understand this aspect of shell theory a little more clearly.
The critical collapse pressure for a shell of finite length is given by:
)
Et qci
r (I _ ~,2)
[ 1_1,2 +~ (n21+ 2n21I' )]
(n2 1) (1 +n2 /2/'1':2 r2) 12 r2 1 +nl P/nl r2
lb/in? ... (35)
It can be seen that the critical collapse pressure depends not only upon the usual parameters already met but also the shell length "I" between boundaries and the number of nodes "n" into which the shell collapses. By ringing the changes between parameters it is possible to construct a graphical plot consisting of a series of lines each for various ratios of t/2r with the critical pressure. as .ordina"te against the ratio 1/2r as abscissae.
One important feature about equation (35) is that it can be used to calculate the critical collapse pressure of a shell irrespective of whether the ends are built in or simply supported as it is found that the mode of end restraint has little effect upon the value of the critical pressure. If we introduce into equation (35) the parameters relating to the shell featured throughout this work it is found that the minimum, critical collapse pressure occurs when n = 7 but has a value of 8,950 Jb/in2 over the outer surface! This pressure would produce a compressive stress in the shell of 268,500 lb/in" which is well above yield stress! In general this is typical of most winding engine drum shells of a practical nature wherein the compressive yield point is reached long before there is even the remotest chance of reaching critical collapse conditions.
For this particular shell 1/2r would have to be 3 or more before the critical collapse pressure approaches
the pressure produced by 3 layers of rope i.e. it would have to be 30 ft long instead of the existing length of
5 ft 9in. •
It is fairly safe to say that for all normal sized winder drums there is absolutely no danger of elastic instability occurring before yield point has been reached.
5.6 Brake paths
Unfortunately space does not permit as fujI a discussion as one would like concerning the effect of brake paths upon the shell and boundary support members.
It is assumed in what follows that each brake path . is a pure extension of the cylindrical shell beyond the normal boundary point and that for ease of explanation there are two such extensions on each drum shell. one
at each end. and of identical length.
How are we going to introduce these extensions into the general shell programme? It should be pointed out that t~e nett restraint at the shell ends is made up of the combined effect of the end support plate stiffness plus that of the brake path overhang. A suitable mathematical expression could possibly be found for this combined stiffness but it would be virtually impossible to introduce it in such a way as to be applied in the direct computation of shell deflections of Research Programme No. 14. The way out of this dilemma is to consider separately all elements extending outside the normal shell boundaries thereby leaving tile shell boundaries free of complexity, This enables simple boundary expressions 'to be used in the normal computation process.
It has already been demonstrated that it is possible. by means of moment/slope relationships. to integrate the shell boundary and the end support members such that some equilibrium condition is reached (see 4.4). The same method can be used in the case of shells computed by means of Research Programme No. 14 because, if the shell boundaries are attached to flexible members. which themselves exhibit proportional moment/slope relationships. then the boundary point of the shell must behave in a similar manner.
5.7 Moment / slope relationships of brake path section
The boundary point at the shell/brake path/end support junction can be "exploded" and providing each in
II l'I,i. ~ .. kopllh
arl •• plth saln
u
BI.k.p.th
T ..
: : Ell. &II,,.t . 12 Ii t
Sholl
 2
•
10
7' 5' 32 t
Dill.ac.·I, ....• hln ....... .,y. inc",. , ... ~':i!':=:.!!!..
Fig 45. D~II~ctions of sti(f~n~d end unstiff~n~d brek~peth m~mbers" Brllkepath 2in thicJc x 6Din redius. with 1 Din ext~nsion from shell boundery
39
dividual element is provided with a similar value of bending moment slope and appropriate linear force 10 . )that existing when il was a homogeneous part of the whole. it is perfectly proper to treat it as an individual item.
If each brake path extension is thus treated it can be assumed to take the form of a very short cylindrical shell as sho ..... m in Fig. 45.
The onlv external forces on this member arc the bending moment and shear force. components at the right hand end.
There is no known theory existing for providing a direct answer to the question of what is the slope for a given terminal moment and what is the deflection?, To obtain these answers a further computer programme was developed by Mr. B. M. Scott of the Computer Unit. Various trial runs were made and it was proved tha t the slope was directly proportional to the applied terminal moment. A further programme was developed 10 include a circumferential stiffening ring near the free end and a similar relationship was observed between the slope and the moment.
This does. of course, make the problem delightfully simple, if one allows for the complexities along the way, because each brake path extension is behaving in the sa me fashion as the end support plates with respect to moment and slope. If the end support plate is now "joined" to the brake path plate at the boundary then each will be subjected to the same slope but the total external moment necessary to deflect the combination will be made up of the sum of the moment MB necessary )0 deflect the brake path alone and that necessary to deflect the end support plate alone i.e. ME' Such an external moment will be provided by the shell. at its boundary. when it becomes "joined" to the above combination.
The moment/slope relationship for both the brake path and the end support plate will be known in adv ance as they will usually be dictated by design considerations. The sum of these two will be equal to the moment/slope relationships required at the shell boundary when utilising Research Programme No. 14 and it is simply a case of entering this relationship as input data so that the appropriate boundary correction can be made thus allowing the coil loads to be correctly computed.
)
IN THIS article the authors will try to present to the reader the procedure adopted in obtaining the working stresses for a practical winder drum. As will be seen later the drum chosen is identical in almost every respect to that which has featured so largely throughout the later parts of this work. This particular selection was made for the prime purpose of affording a comparison with the multifarious treatments given to this particular geometry in previous articles and not merely as a matter of convenience. It is hoped the reader is not gaining the impression tbat the methods used throughout this series. and those shortly to be described. are only capable of designing one particular drum because this is not so, even though no other design is being investigated in this work: Far better to "ring the changes" on one particular shell than to confuse the issue by presenting a lot of disconnected results.
Before commencing with the design analysis it will be necessary to amplify upon the short description of brake paths which was presented in the last article (5.6).
)
6.1 The constant "e"
There is nothing magical about "C", It is simply the ratio of boundary moment divided by the slope produced by the moment i.e.
Mol Cslope
which. for any specific shell geometry. or brake path geometry or end support plate geometry. is a constant.
Let us refer back to section (4.5) in the April issue and examine Figs. 31 and 32. It was found that, if the free end of a very long shell was given a terminal moment Mo then the corresponding shear force necessary to maintain this free end at zero deflection was {3Mo
i.e •
Qo={3 Mo (equation 28).
and that the slope produced at this free end by substituting for Qo in the basic. equation was:
dw Mo
 (equation 30). dx 2PD
40
From the definition of "C" above we obtain for the shell boundary:
Mo Cs== 2P D. Ma
2P D
Etl EI
ButD= or
12 (I  yl) 4 p. rl
Substituting the first expression gives:
•
2 P Ell 1·285
Cs=  butP==
12 (1 v2) yrt
1·285 Et3 :.Cs=_~
6 yrt (l_yl)
and cancelling the constants (assuming 1'=0'3) gives:Etl
Cs=0·23SyrT
... (36)
Tnis is me "C' value for the shell boundary and is constant for this shell as the slope produced is directly proportional to IDe applied moment.
Tne reader must not be conf.used by this however because, in the above context of proportionality. it is assumed that the shell boundary IS connected to some elastic medium such that. as the shell load increases the boundary slope increases and the restraining moment in the elastic medium builds up in proportion to the slope. The above value of "Cs" in equation (36) presumes that the shell extends beyond the boundary to infinity thus the boundary restraining moment/slope relationship is equivalent to the conditions obtaining in Figs, 31 and 32 as already described. This particular value of Cs will be called its "natural" value.
It can be shown that under these conditions at simulated end restraint the boundary moment is approximately half that produced at the boundary of a rigidly fixed ended shell.
The value of Cs found from equation (36)· is not the only admissible value as it can be changed within Research Programme No. 14 to assume a different, or apparent value such that the boundary conditions can exhibit behaviours ranging from rigidly fixed to simply supported by applying suitable corrections. This will be dealt with a little more fully later on.
Allied to the Cs value we can obtain similar values of Cb for the brake path boundary and Ce for the end plate boundary by applying suitable parameters to the appropriate computer programmes. The manner in which Cband Ce are found is by extracting the appropriate bending moment and slope from the results ob
tained from the computer. ,oOr'a
IlJo
6.2 The correlation of Cs,~ Cb and c« In the ultimate. an order to simulate a practical shell. its boundary is rigidly connected to both the brake path
and the end plate; therefore. for equilibrium, all three components are subjected to the same slope. Under these conditions we find that the moment demanded by the shell boundary must equal the sum of the moments produced at the boundaries of the other two components due to their being strained to the same slope. In other words:
Cs=Cb+Ce+C for any additional component
for the moment we are only concerned with two external components thus. using the modulus of the "C" values. we get:
Cs=Cb+Ce ... (37)
This simple expression is only made possible because of the direct proportionality existing between the applied moment and the slope produced on any of the three components.
The apparent value of Cs can range between zero. for a simply supported shell boundary. through to infinity for a rigidly fixed boundary. but the useful range will extend from zero up to some value around the natural Cs found from equation (36).
6.3 A practical design
Where does the design begin? Quite obviously we shall know the basic geometry i.e., drum diameter. width between flanges, rope diameter and type. shaft depth and loads. etc., etc., but the things that must be known before commencing the analysis are the shell thickness, the number and area of compression rings and the type of end support/brake path combination. It is fully and rightly expected that many readers wilJ ask. "what on earth is the use. to the designer, of all this theory if the poor 'chap has got to design it first in any case?" This is absolutely no different from designing a bridge in which a rough idea must be obtained before its own self weight can be determined in order that a more accurate stress analysis can be made. The desiener of a bridge cannot proceed on the basis of weizhtless members otherwise he is in for a shock when the final weight is taken anto account.
Any drum desizn must be started with this in mand and. providing this is accepted. the desisn can proceed.
It will be quite obvious that the authors have fully investisated the particular layout now to be described and. by virtue of this. know what the answers are jroin It to be. Generallv speaking a little zuess work is needed in order to arrive at a nreliminarv desism ·that win be suitable f0T investiearion and from the authors' ncint of view this has already been done. The readers time will not. therefore. be wasted bv too much nreliminllrv "iuezline" and so it will be possible to go right to the final answers.
The drum to be designed will be one of a pair suitable for a double drum machine. Each drum will be fitted with two narrow brake paths. instead of the usual sinele wide one. the' diameter being the same as that of the drum. i.e .• 10 ft. The width between the drum flanses will be 5 ft 9in and this will also be the distance between the supporting end plates. Shaft loads are such that the effective pull of the rope. measured at the drum. provides an equivalent unit surface pressure of 388 Ib/in% varying lineally across the drum to 360 IbfjnJ at the opposite end of the first layer. The equivalent pressures over the second and third lavers are 360332 lb/in" and 332304 Ib/in2 respectively. The winding rope is a Ifin
1) t~"
41
dia. triancular strand construction assumed as having a How many compression rings are required? In the
stretch m;dulus of 15 X la' lb/in", ), <JJ is ,;", last article it was stated that the maximum spacing dis
The choice of stretch modulus for the rope is rather tance should be no zreater than 1'835 .; ;rin which for
important as the value changes after the rope has been a 2in thick shell is  20· lin. With 2 rings the spacing
in use for some time and will gradually get larger to a would be 23in if evenly spaced along the shell, and in
degree dependent upon the method of manufacture and view of this three rings have been chosen. For simplicity
the type of rope used. A larger modulus will mean a of computation Research Programme No. 14 demands
higher KrlKs ratio with resultant lower factors. In view that each compression ring be situated exactly beneath a
of this it is imperative that the manufacturer's "as new" coil point. therefore the three rings have been placed be
modulus value should be chosen so as to enable the neath coil numbers 12. 24 and 36 which gives a 12 coil
worst conditions of loading to be applied to the shell ;Slpftch spacing, i.e. 17·lin. ' . .
in the design stages. I' . 'prJ
,.\}(:l;"Lt .
_) ,,,1,,,..
6.4 Preliminary analysisthe shell 1.1";'
Determine the mean load of each layer / ro
Layer No. 1 Mean load = 374 lb/in' 1·}"
Layer No. 2 Mean load = 346 lb/in" \'·1 i
Layer No.3' Mean load = 318 lb/in" 1. WL
These loads will now have to be "Iactorised" in order t~ determine the nett load on the shelJ but we cannot ptermine the factors until a shell thickness is known. fhis is where aIittle judicious guess work is required.
A starting point can be made by assuming a limiting compressive stress over the central area of the shell. Let a factor of safety of 2 to 1 be chosen on the yield 2.~1.,.p" stress of 38,000 lb/in" thus limiting the compressive t"f, stress to something in the order of 20,000 Ib/in2•
\}. Assuming now a plain shell with a thickness. based
upon experience, of 2,in we are able to assess the Kr/Ks ratio as follows:
" Kr=Er Ar= 15 X 10' X 0'907S= 13·6 xl0'
) where Ar is the metallic cross sectional area of the rope.
Ks=Es As=30x 10' xas x 1·375 x 1·035=106·8 X 10' the rooe pitch across the shell is 1·035 times the rope dia.
, '
and:
Kr 13·6
==0·1275 Ks 106:8
from the graph of Fig. 28 (in the March issue) the ap)priate layer factors will be: 
/ Fn1=0'94, Fn:=0'84 and Fn3=0'76
The net load on the shell will be:
From lst layer  374 X 0'94=352 From 2nd layer  346 X 0·84=291 From 3rd layer  318xO'76=242
Total 885 Ib{m2
pr 885 x 60
Compressive stress in shell=,,", 21,250Ib/inl
t 2·5
which is a little higher than required but in the right order.
It was decided that a 2,in thick plain shell was too thick and we would settle for a 2 inch. shell reinforced )'ilh compression rings. This decision could be based .Jpon any number of reasons. e.g. material availability. rolling capacity, etc .. and could apply to any particular project. For the sake of the exercise this decision was made such that the procedure adopted for the inclusion of compression rings could be investigated.
6.5 The equivalent thickness e,
This only relates to shells containing compression rings. Imagine an infinite shell containing compression rings. each having the same cross sectional area and aU spaced at Zin apart. If the shell portion was tin thick and each ring cross sectional area was Ain: then approximately the same radial deflection would be obtained by using the same load if a plain shell of equivalent thickness t, was used wheret=
A. t.=t+In Z
... (38)
All that has happened here is that the sectional area of metal in the ring has been distributed over a length of shell equal to the ring spacing centre Z and the resulting thickness added to that of the existing shell portion t.
This approach to the ring/shell combination is rather different from that outlined in the previous article wherein we were basically concerned with the effect of constant total cross sectional area by suitably rearranging the number of. and hence the amount of metal in. the compression rings.
Returning to the design. the equivalent thickness has already been decided upon at 2;in and the basic thickness t is now to be 2in rearranging equation (38) to give A results in:
A =Z (I.t) sq in ring area =lHxO'S
=8'5in'
In view of the fact that the preliminary compressive stress was a little hieher than our limit demanded it would be wise to s1i2htly increase the sectional area of each comnression rinz. lOin' suP.'JZcsts itself and this is what they could be an actual fact the rinll areas chosen for use in Programme No. ]4 were 9·911nt. This was due entirelv to convenience in eomearine the effect of 3 layers aeainst I laver for the same shell 2eometrV as was used in the nreearation of the !Zl'3ph in FiJZ. 42 of the nrevious issue (curve c) ).
The true equivalent thickness. usinz the 9'91 in' rine i~
... (39)
9'91
1, ... 2+=2·58in 17'1
,
6_6 Values of the constants "C"
It will be found convenient to let the value of Cs for the shell take on its "natural" value of
Et3 0·235 
'1/71
42
Hr"'~~'_""''
1 ;
"1:7
. !
)
Fig. 46. This graph shows the veristion in Ce for variations of internet radius of a flexible end support plate having constant outside diametel and thickness
t
0·235 x 30 x 106 X 23
Cs= = 5·166 X 106
60x2
)
therefore the sum of Cb and Ce for the brake path and end support plate respectively must equal 5·166x 10'.
The brake paths chosen. from considerations of mechanical braking requirements. are each lOin wide by 2in thick and each will be provided with a sma11 circumferential stiffening ring of 5in2 at its outer extremity. This not only effectively stiffens up the free end against heat distortion during braking but also acts as a small heat "sink" which evens up the temperature distribution when the paths get hot.
The above data was used in the running of the appropriate "Brake Path" computer programme and from the results we ascertained that Cb=3'82 which leaves 5'166 3·82 = 1·346 for the end support plate constant Cr.
)
)
6.7 End support plates
There would now appear to be some difficulty in finding a flat annular plate to fit adequately into the structure and having the right proportion of annular depth and thickness to suit our requirements, This is not quite so difficult as may be imagined. It was decided to use liin thick plate for this member and so all that is required is to run the "Flat Circular Plate" programme for different values O'f internal radius and plot a graph from the results. Such a graph has been plotted in Fig. 46 for constant outside diameter and thickness. with the variable inside radius as abscissae against the Cc value as ordinate. The intercept of 1'346 occurs at an inside radius of 44in (approx.). This is quite a convenient figure but if some inconvenient result had occurred then the plate thickness would have to be changed and a new graph drawn. It should be mentioned that higher values of Ce are obtained by increasing the plate thickness for a constant outside diameter and annular depth or by decreasing the annular depth
for a constant outside diameter and thickness. .
Weare now in possession of all the data necessary for feeding into the computer so that Research Programme No. 14 can produce its results.
6.8 Research programme number 14
It is. not po.ssible in the space available to· present an analysis of this programme as it is too highly involved. A full study would probably run into about 15,000 to 20.000 words and the authors' own report on this pro~mm~ does not fall far short of this figure. It is clearly impossible to embark on any deseription of this nature. Most of the theory contained within the programme has already been dealt with throughout the series but the techniques used to adjust coil loads la"er by layer and the methods adopted to correct the boundary influences, shear forces, bending moments and slop:s. etc., as each new coil and each new layer is applied must unfortunately remain hidden.
For those interested in computer analysis we give below the computer input data in its correct order of presentation. Only the numbers are entered on the input data tape:
Shell radius in in '" .
Shell thickness in in .
Number of layers of rope .
Rope stretch modulus .
Number of compression rings .
Possible No. of coils .. in 1st layer .
Rope diameter in in .
Ra~jus. to. 1st layer rope coil centre
line In in 60'6875
Weight per ft of rope in lb 1·542
Initial rope pull in Ib . 33,130
Area of each compression ring in in2 9·91
Rope coiling pitch coefficient 1·035
Coil number over 1st compression ring 1·2
Coil number over 2nd compression ring 24
COM number over 3rd compression ring 36
Coil number over 4th compression ring 0
Rope metallic area coefficient 0'48
No. of coils in final layer 48
L.H. boundary Cs apparent value 5.166.000
R.H. boundary Cs apparent value 5.166.000
One or two points of explanation will. be in order.
The possible number of coils in the first layer automatically sets up the width between flanges to take 48 coils at the appropriate pitching irrespective of whether the first layer becomes filled or not.
To some readers the weight per ft of 1'542 lb for a liin dia. triangular strand rope may seem low~The ~xp]~na~ion is quit~ si.mple as' the machine in question IS winding up an incline, thus the weight given is the apparent weight obtained by multiplying the true weight by the sine of the incline angle.
In any catalogue produced by the wire rope manufacturers the reader will find tabulated data by which the cross sectional area of the wire metal can be found for various rope constructions.
The usua:l equation is:
A=K d'
wher~ K is a CO~$tant depending upon the type of rope and 1tS construcnon and .. d" is the overall diameter of the co.mplete rope. The constant K above is the "Rope :netalhc area coefficient" in the programme input data. i.e. 0'48.
"
43
60 .
2
3 ]5.000.000 \ 8'5' nl'q 3
48
]'375
Finally. the apparent value of Cs for both boundaries has been given its "natural" value as previously mentioned.
6.9 Programme results
Figs. 47 and 48 show the complete system deflection and bending moment diagram respectively. It should be noted from Fig. 47 that the absolute maximum deflection is 44·358 thou. under coil number 17 and the deflection at the centre ring is 41·285 thou. thus the mean deflection will be approximately 42'821 thou. The average resultant force over this same area is approximately 894 lb/in", Using the fundamental equation:
prl 894 x 3,600
 gives a deflection of =41·6 thou.
£1 30 x 106 x 2·58
Note: 2·58 is the equivalent thickness. The equation prl
) B
has always given answers less than the true deflection as will be remembered from the deflection diagrams in section 3_1 and in view of this the above is a reasonably accurate comparison of the actual conditions,
In the preliminary analysis (6.4) a maximum compressive stress of around 20.000 Ib/in' was desired and
)
COIL No'.
20
12
15 II ZI 24
)
............,. :0 10 a D.uo,,;'"
r
i 10000 l
i 5000 ~
,j
e
1
i
A .5000
r 1
.10000
'.1'1,·15500 sIfI.·nuo .. iitt'
)
the first attempt produced a stress of 21.250 Ib/in' which Jed to a slight increase in ring area being introduced. The final compressive stress is a maximum of 22.179 ]b/ in: under coil 17 but over the central ring it is only 20.642 Jb/in". When it is considered that the preliminary
pr
compressive stress is based on using  an equation t
which. on normal shells. always gives slightly low values over the central areas then the actual final stresses are not far out.
6.10 Boundary junction stress analysis
This is the most important aspect of the whole design as "bad" stresses at t·his point would mean a complete revision of the problem. Let this junction now be investigated.
In Fig. 49 the "exploded" section is shown. the ends of each individual member being provided with the appropriate forces such as to maintain the joint in equilibrium at the given slope of 0·00303.
The appropriate values of the "C" constants. the bending moments and the resulting bending stresses f,. in the shell and the brake path are self explanatory but the stresses at the boundary of the end support need
some explanation. I
i I,
t
1
.I
.. ..
i
.!
. . I I I I I I I
:
'.M.·'''1O
'I .... ·Z,."~ ....
5000 • '$000 $000 0 $lOll .
a. iot
Fig. 47 (top). Deflllction dillgrllm of complete shell. Brllkll pllths Fig. 48 (bottom). Blinding moment dillgrllm fOf comp/tltft drum
lind end pilltft$ IIsslImbly IIsumbly of Fig. 47
44
C,:S'1fih10' CII:::'!2J1t'
M.aJSfi1D III ia/ill Mba 11540 Jbiniill
Z:: 0'6667 in' Z = 0'6167 ill'
Ib : 23400 III/htZ Ill: ~ 17320 lII!ia2
~ sl.,.~=ci.o0303 ~
~~·a~~~~·
,. . . ( i ,M'"" Ill""
Fig. 49. Simple 6n.lysis of direct forct:s in sht:lI/br.kt:p6th!end pllte junction for shell of Fig. 47 6nd 48
'"" ,
)
r
I I
Research Programme No. 14 provides us with a support reaction which. for the R.H. boundary. is 7.465 Ib/in of circumference. This is a "natural" value eotained by considering the shell as extending beyond this point to infinity. The support reaction is made up of three elements:
(a) Shear force due to the load only on the shell. i.e .• as ;r the ends were simply supported.
(b) Shear force due to applying the fixing moment at end of shell proper.
(c) Shear force due to straining the end of the infinitive extension to the same slope.
The shear forces in (b) and (c) are of identical magnitude and are each equal to f3 Mo (see equation (28)). For this shell the shear component is 0·1173 X 15.610= 1.830 lb/in of circumference. If this infinitive shell extension be removed and renlaeed by a pure moment which needed no shear reaction then the support reaction would be 7,465].830=5.635 lb. A brake path extension is now to be fitted but its boundary point demands a shear reaction when a moment is applied. It was found from the appropriate computer programme that for a brake path boundary moment of 11.540 lb in/in of circumference the shear at this point was 1.685 lb/in of circumference. The true end plate support reaction is now 5.635 + 1.685=7.320 lb/in of circumference which is a compressive force of 7.320/1'25 =5.860 Ib/in2 over the periphery of the end plate,
Combined with this compressive force are the stresses due to bending the end plate which. for a bending moment of 4.070 lb in/in of circumference. are ± 15.600 lb/in". For the fully deflected state the combined stresses are 21.460 Ib/in2 compressive and 9.740 Ib/in" tensile.
We now have what appears to be a very satisfactory situation with all the maximum stresses around about the same intensity. i.e .. 22.179 lb/in" max. compressive in the shell. ± 23.400 Ib/in2 shell bending stress and 21.460 lb/in" max. compressive over the periphery of the end support plate. Although alJ these stresses may Jook to be quite in order there is another very important aspect to consider.
6.'1 Fatigue
It is very surprismg how little attention is paid to this most important branch of mechanical engineering.
J I t" 1,J; S.,pert ,. •• ti ••
'" ... '" 5160 Ib!inl eOIll,,,,,i,,.
, II
i "'.cliv, .h .. r_,",,~~ lud= 362 Ill/i •
• t cimtlllteruct Ie
C .. ,·Ulz101
" M..4070 Ib in/in .Z o· 21104 ill' It • 1740 1~1n2 Ie a21 460 IlI/ml
When a designer. in any of the general engineering fields is faced with a problem involving repetitive stress applications how much thought does he give to such things as SoN curves. life rating. stress limits and. most important of all. how much emphasis is laid upon the design of the weld which holds his components together? He may have analysed pretty thoroughly the mechanical strength of the .composite whole and is therefore extremely perplexed and frantically searches for his calculations when. in six months time. his pride and joy lies in an untidy heap upon the floor. Upon examination he may discover that certain components have completely broken at points where they were welded to other members. and to exonerate himself. hurriedly blaims Fred the Welder who was "never any good anyway". In all probability Fred was not to blame at all as he was merely carrying out the designer's instructions. What. then. had gone wrong?
It is only in recent years that the more forward looking Companies have given their desizners a chance to answer this question and it has all been made possible bv the excellent services given to Industry by the British Weldin!! Research Association. This Association carries out extensive research into all asoects of fatigue and is also fully ecuinoed to undertake site testing of cornnonents and has already been actively encased in deIf':TTT1inine: the causes of several winder drum failures. Their advice has also been sought in the preparation of this narticular article.
What is fatieue? So far the research workers in this field :Ire not whotlv ~lIt"i!:fi~iI :lmnnlT themselves that rhe complete answer has been found to explain the meehanics of fatisrue. What is more important than this. how· ever. is that an understanding be gained as to the fundamental causes of fatigue: the effect is of secondary importance to the engineer.
There are two things which can determine the fatigue life of a welded structure and these are:
(a) Magnitude and type of stress fluctuation (b) Type of weld and joint
The fatigue life is measured in terms of the total number of stress fluctuations to which any particular joint can be subjected before failure occurs. From
45
this the actual life, on a time basis. can be obtained '''''hen the time of one complete fluctuation cycle is known.
6.12 Weld types and allowable stresses
The biggest factors affecting fatigue life are the type of joint used to fasten components together and the lyre oi weld used in the production of such a joint. B.S. J 53. dealing with Girder Bridges, allocates certain class letters to various specific types of welded joint connections for which it is possible to obtain limiting maximum stresses for a given fatigue life consisting of a given number of cyclic stress fluctuations. Such stresses can range from zero to wholly compressive. or wholly tensile or there can be complete stress reversals.
This stress range is usually put in the form of:
)
where:
r.:
",,
F""" 
F min = minimum stress Fmn = maximum stress
with "z" becoming PC:' or + ve depending upon the sign of the appropriate stresses, Conventionally. tensile st resses are + 1't;' and compressive stresses are  ve, and in the case of some winder drums Fm.n/Fm .. =zero, irrespective of whether we are concerned with tensile y compressive stresses (i.e. Fml" is zero for an unloaded <.lrum).
It should be pointed out at this stage that the authors consider the thermal stress relief of fabricated drums an essential part of the manufacturing process as it will remove as much residua) welding stress as possible. This' lea ves the drum in a virtually unstressed state. prior to loading with rope. and ensures that the stresses. as round from the previous calculations, are more realist ic or the true sta te as they are not influenced by any unknown residual stress. Machining stability is also rm
yed, of course.
Drum III",.
Sh.1I
Comp""i. ring
Theel,licel limil of It~"bilil,
..:L. Rep ..... nu a
", •• hined lurf •• ,
I  FII.ibl, I." IUpporl pllu
)
Fig 50. Pan sectior: through end of shell. Thfl double IITfowfld lines inaicst« the directions of the tensile stresses at the points where fatigue '.i/ures lire most likely to occur. Compressive stresses. {or an Fmin of zero. liTe not being considertld in vitlw of the fact thai the wbot« structure is being thtlrmlllly Slrtlss relit1Ved
Winder drums generally (except single drum machines) are: subjected to working stresses ranging from zero. in the unloaded state. up to some maximum value: of tensile or compressive stress which exists after all the tensioned rope has been wound onto the drum. (In certain cases of drums containing a high proportion of "dead" coils which have been loaded by the "doubling down" technique the above is not true and special attention should be paid to the stress range ratio Fmin/Fmnl in which Fml" is some stress other than zero).
In general, and in view of the fact that stress relief is being carried out. it is possible to ignore the effect of stresses ranging from zero to purely compressive as it is· known that fatigue failure. due to this type of stress in a stress relieved joint. is highly unlikely.
The problem now resolves itself simply into assessing the effect of wholly tensile stresses upon the fatigue life of the welded drum. l.e. Fml~/Fm .. =zero with F ..... beinz the maximum tensile stress at any particular joint being investigated.
The limiting stresses given in B.S.lS3 for each class of welded ioint have been based upon life tests carried out by subjecting each specimen to pure tensile fluctuating forces up to fatieue failure: point. In the case of the above drum we are faced with a combination of bending and direct stresses. It will be found sufficient to consider the maximum tensile fibre stresses and calculate the fatizue life on the basis of an equivalent direct force which produces a direct stress equal to the above fibre stresses.
How does an this fit in. with the drum desism beine investigated? It is first necessary to determine the class of ioint which is applicable to our case before an analvsis can be undertaken. Fill'. SO shows a cross section at the end of the shell and it will be noticed that the ioint contains fulJ penetration welds between shell and suo
I~~III
\ J
Fig. 51 (left). Joint in the "liS wtlldtlrf' condition. Th~ fully prtlpllred welds fun trsnsvers« 10 th« direction of tn« $tress II"OWS. This simullltes thtl conditions tor flltigutl life clI/cullltions re/ared to Ih'" ms». ttlnsile fibre stres« lit potnt S (Fig. 50) be/ore mllchining t~ rtldius. It is given II CllISs "F" cJlIssificlltion when the lines
of $t,ess lire In the direction shown
Fig. 52 (middltl). The ssm« joint liS in Fig. 51 but 11/1 wtllds bev« been mllchined 10 a flldius. This simulllltls the conditions for fllligutl fife clllcullliiom reillted 10 Ihe mIX. tensile libre stresses III points A lind 8 of Fig. 50. Although hllving the SllfTItl bllsic gllomtltry as the joint of Fig. 51 lind with thtl stresses in the same dirtlction it hils the equivalent fatigue strength of a CllIss D
detail due to machining the welds
Fig. 53 (right). This configuflltion simulllttls thtl conditions for fatigue life cstcusnions rtl/sled to rhtl ms». tt1nsi/e librtl stres« at point D of Fig. 50. Although this wtlld detail is identiclI! to thllt of Fig. 51 it is given II CIIIss "r; c/lIssification due to the a/terlliion
in the directIon of thtl st,ess
46
.. ~
port plate and between shell and drumfiange. In terms of B.S. J 53 this is a cruciform butt weld which is allocated a Class Letter F in the "as welded" condition (see Fig. 51). The surface at point A is. however. machined and. depending upon the roughness of the machining. will elevate this point to a somewhat better class than F. If the machining is reasonably good a Class D joint can be assumed (see Fig. 52).
It is now found convenient to use one of two Fatigue Life Diagrams published by the B.W.R.A. and based upon B.S.153. One diagram is used when the stresses are predominantly compressive, and the other when they are predominantly tensile and it is the latter which will be used in this instance.
The tensile stress at point A. Fig. 50. based upon the stress obtained at the theoretical boundary point. ranges from zero up to a value of + 10·45 ton/in: and. using the appropriate fatigue diagram. we obtain
Point Ref. Weld Class Stress range Cycles to failure
ADO to + 10'45 4 X lOS
For this machine each stress cycle occurs 6·6 times per hour. therefore the fatigue life. (''1 a time basis. will be
400,000
 = 6·9 years l 6'6 x 24 x 365
Let us now examine point B. which. in the "as welded" condition. has a Class F rating (see Fig. 51) Point Ref. Weld Class Stress range Cycles to failure
B F 0 to + 7·7 3·5 X 105
(unmachined)
. which gives a life of six years!
It is a simple matter to machine a radius at point B by extending the machined surface of the brake path along towards the drum flange. If. after machining. it is allocated a Class Letter D then the life will be 69 years.
Tt should now be very clear to the reader that the choice of class letter for any particular point around the joint can make a vast difference in the fatigue life expectancy. This is amply illustrated by the lafe difference at point B due to elevating its class letter from F to D. By suitably machining this point the life has increased to 11 times its original value.
What of point A? For this particular construction the only thing which can be done is to improve the quality of the machined surface at this point. This would involve extra fine machining or grinding which. on a structure of this size. although possible. becomes economically undesirable.
Nobody, not even the experts, will say that the assessment of fatigue life is an exact science. It cannot passibly be so as no two similar specimens can be manuFactured such that the welding in each is absolutely identical. The B.W.R.A. diagrams give a fatigue life below which failure is not expected and as such is the safe minimum life for any specific joint detail. On the other hand the actual life for a specific joint could be well above the predicted value.
The reason for this is that the fatigue life. as found under actual test conditions. for a multitude of supposedly identical specimens produces a "scatter band" on a graphical plot of maximum tensile stress against cycles to failure. for an F"'in/Fm .. ratio of zero.
Very broadly speaking the B.W.R.A. diagrams (and B.S.153) are based upon a fatigue life created by selecting limiting stresses lying near the lower limit of this scatter band thus ensuring that there is a reasonable chance of a greater life than that calculated. but a very much smaller chance of failure before the predicted life.
With respect to the drum design being investigated there is a minimum life expectancy of some seven years with a possible extension of this up to some unpredictable value depending on the quality of the machining. This is not at all satisfactory and it would be far better to design for a minimum life expectancy of say 25 years. What alternative is now open to the designer other than costly additional care during machining?
One alternative is to have simply supported shell boundaries: but what if the design costs do not allow for this in view of the necessity of separate bolt on brake paths. etc.?
It becomes ridiculously obvious, when considerinz only tensile fatigue. that the ideal state of affairs would exist jf the drum flange could be repositioned such that its influence was outside that area of the shell subjected to large tensile forces. i.e .• position it in an area where the shell bending stresses over the outer surface are compressive.
An examination of the bendine moment diazrarn of Fig. 48 will show that the negative bending dies away very rapidly and becomes zero at only 3'16in from the boundary. If this shell retains its basic geometry but the boundary points, or end support plates. were to be moved outwards 'towards the ends of the brake path then the above effect would be obtained. Having rearranged these components in this fashion it will be found that the fatigue life will now be dictated by the relatively low tensile stress existing in the support plates and also by that existing in the under surface of the shell adjacent to the compression rings.
So far no mention has been made as to the life expectancy of the joint based upon the stresses at point D in the end support plate. Ignoring the purely compressive stress we are left with a maximum tensile stress ranging from zero up to +4·35 ton/in". At this particular point we can allocate a Class Letter E (see Fig. 53) and this will give a minimum fatigue life of 260 years which is clearly ample!
This final point has been left until this late stage in order to show that. providing the maximum static compressive stress in the outer periphery of the support plate has an ample factor of safety on the ~eld stress than the repositioning of the drum flansre. as already outlined. virtually eliminates the possibility of fatigue failures associated with the shell and its attachments within a very long useful life. It is' hoped to show that this is so when the data appropriate to a redesigned end has been presented.
47
"'.' Increasing the fatigue life
j In the previous article it was shown that in certain types of end construction. which may result out of pun: necessity or out of pcor design. the minimum fatigue life was very low and was produced, not by a load hearing member. but by a flange whose sole purpose is 10 retain ihe rope coils within defined limits. The fiange 10 shell connecting welds were positioned at a point on the shell subjected to high tensile bending stresses and it should be a strict rule. when designing any welded structure. which is subjected to regular stress fluctuations. to avoid welding in highly tensile areas .• This is not always possible. in which case great care should be taken to limit such tensile stresses to safe limits dictated by the fatigue life required of the structure.
It is not possible to outline in a few words the "do's" and "don'ts" related to fatigue as so much depends upon the type and magnitude of stress and the way in which it fluctuates coupled. of course. with the type of welded
)nt upon which the stresses are acting, this much, ~11ould be apparent from what has already been written.
A further computer aided study was made on the shell shown in Fig. 47 (previous article) using "Research Programme No. 14" with a view to rearranging the end supports so as to increase the minimum fatigue life from seven years up to some more realistic figure.
In order to assess the maximum tensile design stress r or any specified machine it is first necessary to know its cyclic duty. As a typical example let us take a winder 'perating a t a shallow depth which has a total cycle time ",1' 2 min (i.e. from bank to bottom and to bank again). 11 is assumed that. at bank. the tensile stresses some.... 'here in the drum shell are at a maximum whereas at pit bottom they are sensibly zero+ thus, in this, particular case, the stress fluctuation cycle time is 2 min. i.e. 30 limes per hour.
Having selected a suitable "life" for the machine the
stress cycles to failure can be found from:No. of cycles to failure=52 L.H.D.W. where:
\. = selected life in years } = stress cycles per hour D=hours usage per day. W=days usage per week.
For the above machine running 16 hours per day, 5 days a week for 25 years. the cycles to failure=3'12 X 10' and for class E and F weld details the maximum tensile stresses must be kept below 5·8 and 4·3 ton/in! respectively (13.000 and 9,650 lb/in%). If the above machine was run for 24 hours per day, 7 days a week the failure cycles would be 6'552 x 10· and the stresses Ior the same weld classes would then have to be kept bela w 5·0 and 38 ton/in: respectively (11.200 and 8.500 Ib in').
Perhaps many readers would consider 25 years too low a life and consider say 50 years more appropriate, in which case the limiting stresses would be 10.000 and 6.720 lb/in". If the maximum tensile shell stresses can be kept below 5.000 lbin" then fatigue failure is not likely, although the accurate assessment of the limiting stresses in the upper life range for these poorer, classes of weld detail is extremely difficult When working to the B.W.R.A. fatigue graphs.
Figs. 54 and 55 show the complete system deflection and bending moment diagrams respectively. This shell has now been rearranged so as to contain only one wide brake path at the L.H. end. whereas at the R.B. end the shell boundary is connected only to the support plate.
The L.H. support plate has been moved outwards a distance of 4 coil pitches. i.e. approx. 5lin and is of similar construction to that previously used. The R.H. support plate. on the other hand. is completely unstiffened by radial arms. all the longitudinal stability coming from the L.H. end.
Several things become immediately apparent and these. related to the shell of Fig. 47, are:
(a) L.H. boundary moment has been reduced from  15.500 to 8,860 lb in/in of circumference.
(b) R.H. boundary moment shows a drastic reduction down to  2.237 Ib in/in of circumference.
(c) The moment under the t.H. drum flanze is nOW only  2.368 Jb in/in 'of circumference. A tremendous reduction. although this design has still not placed this flange in a compressive area.
(d) Both support reactions have been reduced .
(e) Central area compressive stresses remain virtually unaltered.
Considering the minimal alterations. this has achieved a remarkable reduction in the stresses at the "critical" points in the drum which has obviously improved the fatigue life beyond all' expectations.
7 _2 Fatigue life aspect
The shortest fatigue life that can be measured is 3.460 years. as outlined in the diagram of Fig. 56. and relates to the tensile stress in the support plate ranging from zero. for .an unloaded shell. up to 7.335 lb/in". This is a highly theoretical figure and can be taken to mean that. for this stress range, fatigue failure is quite unlikely in the Class E weld.
The same applies to the points of attachment at the drum flanges where the tensile stresses are so low as to preclude fatigue failure altogether. There will be no trouble at the compression rings providing the shell has been correctly stress relieved and so it can be confidently expected that this design will have a useful life far exceeding its operational requirements.
Figs. 56 and 57 show the exploded view of each end giving all the relevant details appropriate to these points.
48
)
o . 
k lS·7S ,n .~ I I I I I I I I 1$"" ~ ... ,
I O·ooS~g
, fo! brlk, PJth I d.
0 I I ! ~f
I Slope d .. • 0'00172' I ., I ~ i I I
~ iI I !I@'ISI CGtI
0 ____ I :: I CoiIiftg direction tor 'II lint
i i ~ nJ I u u 'V) ~
,
0 \ li~ .  _ .  vv f '"
I I
I
0 : I Flo",. g'91 in' ~ ... / I i\
i \ I I I It 1 I t I 1+ I I \
, I 9~ Ib/in ot eire. ~ 000 III/in .f cite.
0 i I A ... 9'91 in' ._ Ring 9·91in'. """ 9'91 i.'
, ! j_
0 
I ,
0 I ._I_~  _ . . _ .  .. .. ..  _ ..
J II: I
..
::
I 20 10 0 V
I I I I
f L H. ~"" pille ... tlection
Tile ........ '''' jin /
I
I /; 
1
 II .1
: f
R. H. Su!>port pia,. deflection 0 10 20 30 40
.~heuslndths lin I ·2
!
)
160
180
200
220
240 .10 .7 4
11
,.
17 20 23
Coil .......,
.,
26
JS.. 38 .,
so 53
.~ ~7
29
)
Fig. 54. Deflection of drum components for revised boundary lind end conditions. Note that this drum contains only one brakepath bending moment under flange  2.368 Ib in/in or eire. producing an upper shell surface tensile stress of 3.550 Ib/in2• This stress is too low to produce fatigue in any measurable tima
)
In these two diagrams it can be seen that the stresses are all very conservative and in fact the largest stresses anywhere occur as a shell bending stress of ± 17.550 lb/in" under coil number 44 and as a shell compressive stress of 21.824 lb/in" under coil number 17.
In view of the above. and if one cares to allow the two shell stresses to go up slightly. there is no reason why a thinner shell could not be used, providing of course that the remaining stresses are within the limits demanded by a reasonable fatigue life related to the critical points in the design.
Quite certainly a thinner shell. backed up by slightly larger compression rings. would not produce prohibitive shell stresses across the rings. (The max. bending stress over any ring in Fig. 54 is only 7.650 lb/in")
7.3 Modifications to boundary stresses
Stress analysis throughout this work has been based upon the assumption that there is no radial shell deflection at the boundaries. It has never been suggested that it is entirely absent but it has been stated that it is virtually absent (see 1.4). Dr. Crawford was perfectly correct in assuming that deflection did take place but he allowed for too much.
As an exercise let us investigate what sort of radial deflection it is possible to attain by analysing the end plate in the design just discussed. Let the outside radius he 59in and the inside radius be say J4in where it is
rigidly attached to the bosses. (The inside radius of 44in in Fig. 54 is not the physical limit of the end plate but the assumed limit of flexibility.)
If we think about what happens we shall come to realise that the behaviour of this end plate is like a' section of infinitely long thick cylinder subjected to external and internal fluid pressures. The external "pressure" is provided by the shear reactions from the shell and the internal "pressure" is the radial reaction from the boss. In this analysis it is assumed that the bosses are massive enough to preclude any radial deflection and in this case there will be no circumferential stress existing at the side plate to boss interface. By using Lame's equation we shall be able to find an equivalent internal "pressure" such that, in combination with the external "pressure", produces zero circumferential stress at the boss interface. It will then be possible. having found this internal pressure. to obtain the value of the circumferential stress at the outside radius such as to determine the amount of circumferential strain at this point and hence the reduction in diameter or radial deflection.
As an example take the case of an infinite shell loaded only with a negative band of load representing a support reaction.
If this load had initially been developed by an unyielding support. and the support was then allowed to yield. a state of equilibrium would be reached whereby the load on the shell equals the load over the support plate. and would be less than the original. The amount
I
\
~ .... / \ IA
I, I
11' ve I~ 2361 ...... ~ y~ '104
0
V li\ v~ / , lve\ I
\
0 I t\ it I J '\. V 11 L
\ r\. ·ye ·'(8
~
0 I \ \ / c ""'  ~L
, s. pill ...
s., ....... .ve ... r,
_..,
0 V f\ I
1\ .ye
0 I\, \ ./_ \ ~
, J
0 ~ lL
I
0
n.895 ._
1755O./io'
0
0 J
V
1 I I I ,. / by which the tinal load differs from the original load is )nelsure of the deflection produced to obtain equiliu(lum.
Let original load on shell be F .. and the final lead be F, lb in of circumference. By suitably rearranging Lame's equation we obtain:
F, r ~V=' K
ET ... (40)
Where:r=shell radius
T=support plate thickness E=Youngs modulus
W = support deflection
Rl+rl 4 R2 r2
K=
r2Rl r~R~
with R being the boss radius.
We know from basic theory that a single band of load produces a shell deflection of:
P rl f3
') A= 2 Ef
and to find the load. representing the above shell deflection change. the equation becomes:
2 Er W P=(FoF,)=
rl f3
Ib/in of circumference change
.10.000 ) •• 000
 6.000
4.000
2.00
j )0
!
·e .00 '; .S <,
.1 '00
•
J 1000
f
'0000
'200
,.. 00
'600
II 00
20000
2 ~Il
·'0
,
but
and equating with the original equation (40) produces:F, r K ,r2 p =(FoF,) 
E T 2 EI
which produces:
rl P r..
FJ
t r s+i r x« T
•.• (41)
In the shell being discussed (Fig. 54) the support reaction is 1,906 lblin of circumference at the L.H. boundary. This can be considered as F ...
Inserting the appropriate parameters in equation (41) gives.
3.600 x 0·1173 x 1,906
F,= =
(3.600 x O·J 173)+(2 x 60 x 0·898 x_2_) 1·25 1.355 lb/in of eire, .
Inserting this answer in eq, (40) we get:J,355 x 60 x 0·898 x 1,000
W 1·95 thou.
30 x I 06 xl· 25
The support reaction has been. reduced by 551 Ibjin
20
28
••
.7
26
J2
31
41
FIg. 55. Bending moment diagram for drum components of drum shown in Fig. 47. Note the low value of bending moment at drum flange producing a tensile stress of only 3.550 Ib/inJ. The bending moment at right·hand flange is only ?, ?37. prodJJcing (In even lower tensile stress. Neither ot these points need now be considered as points III which fatigue fa/lurll will Dccur
50
•
of circumference which is very marginal.
So then. in the ultima teo support deflections are not [00 severe and this feature has not been allowed for in the results produced by "Research Programme No. 14" as it is felt that the values it does give will be slightly on the high side with respect to bending mcmentsj.
The above analysis. when applied to a practical design case. can only be approximate because support settlement depends to a very large extent on the type of boundary with which we are dealing and has only been included as a rough guide as to the variations produced.
)
7.4 Stiffness of end support plates
The property of the "stiffened" support plate is th.at. although a limit of flexibility has been introduced, which is assumed as being completely flexible, not only does this flex. but the "stiffened" portion does also to a much smaller extent.
It can be shown that a spoked Wheel. subjected to uniform peripheral bending moments around its rim. deflecis very little due to its stiffness. relative to a plane flat plate. especially when the radial arms exhibit a rairly high section inertia. An example is. of cours~. to be found in the difference between the cross sectional inertia of a rectangular flat plate and a tee section both in bending. In the former an inertia of say 2'0 would be compared with probably 100 or more for the tee section althouah this is not an exact parallel. Nevertheless, the stiffen;d portion does deflect and this can only help to still further reduce the boundary moments slightly.
As the nature of the combined deforma, 'on of a partiallv stiffened annular flat plate involves complex mathematics its effect upon the boundary moments has not been allowed for. thus the boundary moments found from "Research Prozrarnme No. 14" will be slightly higher than is actually the case which, once again, provides a further safety factor in design. It should be pointed out. in this respect. that the boundary moments given by the research programme are only ever theoretically exact when the support plate is unstiffened and similar to that shown as an example at the righthand end of the drum in Fig. 54.
)
7.5 Other stresses
Having satisfied ourselves that the shell has been correctly designed and is adequate from the point of view of fatigue failure. are there any other critical points in the drum as a whole at which troubles can occur?
In the design being investigated the only other critical points are the support plate to boss connections. especially the lefthand end where the radial stiffening arms are welded to the boss. At this point the trouble usually arises. not from stresses produced by coiling on the rope. but from the deflection of the shaft under the dead weight of the whole drum plus the complete complernent of rope wound onto it.
When the shaft deflects. [he slope. adjacent to the drum bosses. causes the bosses to rotate thus inducing a bending moment in the radial stiffening arms properiionul [0 the degree of rotation. As a very simple case let us examine a single drum machine whose shaft is simply supported between two drumshaft bearings as shown in Fig. 58. where.
)
:~;:j:ft.~~'I':;::h.::~ :alr~:ld\' been moadr t" "R~~.rch Prut'r;;;;~· No. I.i:·
[iI .I'l .. ';U.k I", the cftn':' Hr. ,UPJ)urI mtmhtr dC'ne':liuftt. bU.' 1M rrsuhl .crt" n .. , ;t'\·"II .. h~C' in lime I,., puhlic:n".n.
D= 18in (I for shaft=S,160in4) a= 36in
b= 132in
1=168in
W= 40 tons (89,600 Ib)
The slope of the drumshaft at "0" in from the end.
under the load W is given by:
dw Wa
 (.\,=a)= (ba)=O radians
dx 2 E I ... (42)
For the parameters given here the slope becomes:
89.600 x 36
()= (13236)
2 x 30 x 106 x 5.160
()=O'OOI radians
From this we may obtain the bending moment at the boss end of the radial stiffener which is:
3 s i,
M,=' e lb/in
t, ... (43)
When I, and I. arc the crosssectional moment of inertia and length of the radial stiffener respectively. For the stiffener/end plate combination shown in Fig. 59 the section inertia about the neutral axis is 190in' and its effective length is assumed as being 30in.
3x30x 106x 190xO'001
Af,=
30
Af,=570,OOO Ib/in
The min. section modulus of stiffener is Z=28·5in"
and the bending stress is ~7~8~~ = ± 20,000 lb/in~ (8·9 ton/in').
When considering fatigue in this respect it should be remembered that the stress just found in the arm, adjacent to the boss. will be subjected to a complete reversal once every revolution, and this particular weld joint can only be as good as a Class F detail which, for the above stress. allows an extremely limited number of revolutions to failure. What can be done to ease this situation?
Let the drumshaft diameter be increased to 20in and tuck the bearings in closer to the drum. i.e. let a=30in. then we find that the shaft slope at the boss is 0'000548 radians. By reducing the moment of inertia of the stiffener/end plate combination to 63'5in4 we find the bending moment has fallen to 104,500 lb/in and the bending stress to 9,200 Ib/in2 (4'1 ton/in') which gives this joint a life of 4,800,000 cycles which, on the basis of winding say 42·5 rev per wind in 1 min with a 16hour day and a 5day week. produces a life of only about 24 weeks as a minimum.
Supposing the stiffeners were to be removed altogether.
The stress can now be easily found from:aTE
a (at boss) . e
r ... (44)
where n is a constant depending on' the ratio of boss radius to inner shell radius Rlr. If we use the same unstiffened plate as in the shell of Fig. 54 then Rjr= 14/59 =0'237 and 0.=7 approx,
7x )'25x30x )06 x 0'000548
)
:. a (at boss)
59
 ± 2,440 Ib/in? (I'09"ton/in2)
This virtually eliminates fatigue within the useful life . of the machine. as a stress of only 1·2 ton/in: provides a cyclic life of 100.000,000 which on a time basis is nearly 10 years. Although this may appear rather short
)
5l
when considering the effects of gear loads, due to the variation of transmitted torque throughout the winding cycle. It should be sufficient. however, to maintain a stress limit. at the arms. of 2.500 Ib'in= related to the slope produced by a gear load equivalent to the R.M.S. horsepower of the driving motor.
Finally. in respect of arm fatigue. it should be pointed out that the simple equation (42) can only be used to determine the slope at the drum bosses for the drum configuration of Fig. 58. For continuous shafts, and
other configurations. more. sophisticated analytical \;: S.·O·OO172 r:::::j~ methods must be used which. unfortunately. cannot be
!i __ ...:B::.:";;;:ka::::";;;;'h_~I)Mb MsO Shell ., discussed herein. Equation (43) can be used. however.
•. t for the determination of the "arm" bending moment and
tim Ib!in'_ tnd pIoU it should be mentioned that. however many arms there
_""'Mt .
may be around the end support plate. each one is sub
. jected to the slope produced at the drum boss. as it passes bottom dead centre. once every revolution.
In the first part of this series (December 1966) in paragraph 1.2 we outlined nine types of load which could be found on any typical winder drum. Of these (d). (g). (h) and (j) have already been dealt with. Of the remainder (a). (c) and (f) can be discounted as not creating too much cause for concern except perhaps in certain circumstances. The two remaining forces are:
(1)) Torsional load applied via main driving motor and i
(e) Forces due to thermal expansion of brake path.
Dealing with (b) first. The only point which needs consideration from this aspect is the strength of the welds connecting the end support plates to the bosses. which must be strong enough to amply resist the driving torsion. Usually this is no problem and the minimum weld area on one boss can be assessed by assuming that one boss only is taking the peak torque from the driving
motor. The final weld used in the design must. of course. bear some relation to the support plate thickness even though it may be far too strong to just take the driving torque.
These torsional stresses will not have any undue effect upon the stiffener weld fatigue life as the stiffener arm itself can play no part in resisting torsional forces at the critical point where its outer edge joins the boss. Generally speaking the torsional shear forces measured in the metal of the support plate are so low as to be not worthy of consideration in the general context.
Turning now to (e) above. It is unfortunate that. as yet. very little research has been carried out into this extremely complex subject and the Authors cannot. at this stage. present any evidence as to the stresses involved. This subject is equally as complex as the analyses presented in this series of articles. and many months of work are needed before any results could be
. forthcoming.
It is known that. under cenain conditions. very high stresses can be set up. and of sufficient magnitude to produce failures. which have occurred on some drums constructed with cast iron end supports. With fabricated drums. of the type being discussed herein, it is not known how such stresses would affect the overall structure. particularly the critical points where shell. brakepath and support plates meet.
Generally. however. on modern winding engines. due to the more sophisticated electrical control which is currently available. the brakes are rarely used as a re
fompared with the known life of many old machines it Should be remembered that this is a minimum life which could easily be 50 years. which is reinforced. of course, by the fact that it is very difficult to obtain exact lives at this extremely high end of the life range. If the stresses at these points are kept at 2.500 lb'in" or below then we can eliminate fatigue failure altogether. From the above it is easy to sec how important it is to reduce the arm stiffness.
)
h"t._, pIolt
Fig. 55. "Exploded" view of L.H. boundlfY junction showing releven! iorces ~nd stresses. Min. I,tigue life b,sed on stress of 7.335 Iblin~ tensile in end plate is 2 x 10' cycles (clns E weld)
producing , life time 01 3.450 veers lor this machine!
{'__ _ _.;..S"'~I; \I) Ms
t
$,," • 0'00549
t 3 zoa 111/.,' ....... ,It M,"""_
Fig. 57. "Explodl!d" viev« of !i.H. bound"y junction showing ,/~v,nt forces ,nd stresus. Min. f,tigu, IiI, for this joint csnnot
) be meuurtJd 's stress is too low
Once again it is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rules related to design around this area except to say that undue stiffness should be avoided at all costs. So much depends on the overall configuration of the whole machine. The example given above was only a simple one of a drumshaft resting on two bearings. whereas normally the shaft is continuous over three or more bearings. which automatically controls the shaft slope under the drum bosses for a given shaft size.
The dfect of gear loads (when applicable) should be carefully considered. as the additional deflections and slopes produced When acting in the upward direction can seriously affect the fatigue life even though. when acting in the downwards direction. the slopes can be less than under d:ad load conditions. In this respect it }ould once again be stressed that fatigue life is not
diversety proportional to stress. so that the bonus gained with the gear load in the downward direction is more than destroyed when it is acting in the reverse manner. These remarks really relate to a single drum three bearinz machine.
Fatigue life analysis is made increasingly difficult.
52
•
tarding means except in emergencies or during statutory tests. neither of which are. or should be. arduous enough to produce the high temperature rises which can occur due to prolonged application. There are exceptions 10 every rule and in one or two instances in this country (U.K.) some of these exceptions are in evidence. Many old machines still use the brakes as the main retardation system whilst some slightly lessaged machines require slight continuous braking during shaft inspection. These machines do not apparently suffer from cracked drums despite the use of cast iron cheeks.
It would appear that failures which have occurred have been caused by particularly severe conditions such as trying to "bed down" the friction linings. or brakes which have inadvertently been maladjusted so as to rub continuously.
When considering the detailed design of brake path extensions the reader is referred to an excellent publication called "u" or "Friction Materials for Engineers" by Ferodo Limited. and also to a fairly recent series of articles by Dr. P. Newcomb of the same Company. and published in "Machine Design Engineering" of May 1966.
In view of the wealth of information contained within these publications there is no need to dwell upon the subject in this series.
7.6 Practical points of design
Many practical design aspects have already been mentioned throughout this series but. of all these, by far the most important is welding.
Welding should be related to the fatigue life required of the machine as already outlined previously. i.e. the decision as to whether a weld should be fully prepared or plain fillet rests upon this. depending on where the weld is to be located relative to the stresses existing in the structure. It has already been seen that full preparation welds need not be used at every point and indeed they may not be possible or economically desirable. Plain fillet welds are quite adequate in the right places.
It almost goes without saying that all welding should be first class. that is. sound. free from blow holes and scale inclusions. etc .• and a good surface finish is just as important. "Lumpy" welding can induce stress concentrations jf carried out in the critical areas. Poor welding can have an adverse effect upon the fatigue life of an otherwise adequate weld detail.
So far throughout this work the whole structure has been considered as homogeneous but in practice. on the larger machines. it is made in two or more pieces. The problem remains of how to fasten the pieces together. Without question. joint machining is essential if it is desired to retain the feature of homogeneity in compression. Dolan's second paper gives an example of a shell plate in which the joints did not butt together. with the consequence that it could not behave as a true shell and failure occurred due to extreme bending stresses set up in the two separate halves.
It has 'been said many times herein that it is very important not to interfere with the natural deformations of both shell and support plates. therefore all joint bolting lugs must be designed with this in mind.
One important discontinuity which invariably occurs on the shell is provided at those points where the rope is fed through into the inside of the drum. i.e. the hawse
hole or rope spout. It is rather unfortunate that nothing much can be done about this. especially if the rope entry point is adjacent to the brake path extension: certainly. at this stage there is no theory to allow for
......  I l
:.... a ;;.. b l
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I IW 0 W i
I I
i I
Fig. 58. Simple drum simply supponed between two beerings
i" .. "'Iof ... ~
I I :
T i
I I I
1+ __ ;1_1
Ie '".
I
I I I I
~
I
~
N.1a
Fig. 59. The length of 14tin is obt,ined by dividing the circumference st the outside di,meter of the boss by the number of erms This mey eppeer epproximete but prectic,' strsin geuge tests
bev« proved the reli,bility of the method
such abrupt discontinuities in the general analysis.
By suitable design. however. rope entries can be constructed such that they do not act as "hard spots" tending to interfere with the symmetric deformations.
If winder drums generally. and when possible. are kept as simple as this series has tried to illustrate the . practical design becomes simple and the whole problem becomes more soluble than has hitherto been possible when using the older. more complex methods and. in this respect, it is hoped that. the work presented so far has at least shed some light over a problem which has for years been a source of doubt.
At this stage in this. the final article. the authors feel that a word of warning will be in order for those readers who are actively engaged in winding engine design and who have been closely following this series of articles.
All stresses and deflections. etc .. given in this. and the previous article. relate only 10 one specific shell geometry and 10 one given duty, Owing to the fact that the stresses so found can only be obtained by means of rather extensive computer programmes. no rigid specific rules can be laid down. in simple mathematical language. so as
53
to enable any type of design to be carried out.
In view of this should any person. or persons. carry out designs using the sPecific details given in these analyses. whether .. the design be similar or otherwise. neither the authors nor G.E.C. (process Engineering) Ltd. can accept any responsibility whatsoever.
This is. after all. only common sense as no one should slavishly copy any designs without giving considerable thought to the problem. As has already been emphasised. each machine must be analysed on its merits and the stresses in one machine may be completely different f"qrn those of another.
Jt has already been amply proved that slight altersnons to the position of structural elements can make the difference between success and failure and great care should be given to any project before the designs are finalised.
Some readers may feel that this warning is rather derogatory but this is not so as it is only intended as a safeguard to any designer/s who may feel that the designs herein are suitable for some other specific case and
who may then be disappointed jf and when any trouble does occur,
Our aim has been to demonstrate that hitherto .in . soluble problems. relating to parallel winding drum designs. are no longer insoluble providing certain elementary precautions arc taken and it should be remembered. above all else. that in any rotating machine constructed of welded fabrications. fatigue is the biggest enemy. Remember that the fatigue limit for the types of welded joint commonly found in fabrications of this nature are well below the fatigue limit of the parent metal.
7.7 Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank G.E.C. (process Engineering) Ltd. for permission to publish the results of their research and to acknowledge the help given to them by members of the G.E.C. Computer staff. the British Welding Research Association on matters relating to fatigue and the Editor and staff of "Colliery Engineering" for their help and courtesy on al1 occasions.
)
)
 I
, .