Elastic buckling of buried flexible tubes — a review of theory and experiment

1975 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. W. Aylward ◽  
G. D. Galletly ◽  
D. G. Moffat

Experimental buckling pressures are given for some thin cylindrical shells closed by two types of end closure. These were (a) unpierced toriconical shells and (b) torispherical shells penetrated by axisymmetric flush cylindrical nozzles. The loading investigated was uniform external pressure and all the shell combinations were machined and stress-relieved. The theoretical elastic buckling pressures corresponding to the above models were calculated using a digital computer program known as BOSOR 3, which is based on the variational finite-difference technique. This program calculates, for perfect elastic segmented shells of revolution, the asymmetric (i.e. with circumferential waves) bifurcation buckling pressures and also the large-deflection axisymmetric collapse pressure. In the asymmetric elastic case, both linear and non-linear pre-buckling stress resultants may be utilized. For the five cylinders with toriconical end closures, the buckling failures were always elastic and the agreement between theory and experiment was good. For the six cylinders with pierced torispherical ends, failure was by asymmetric buckling, in the n = 1 mode. For most of these cases there were significant discrepancies between the experimental results and the predictions of elastic buckling theory. However, better agreement between theory and experiment was obtained when a more recent version of the BOSOR program, which considers elastic/plastic effects, was utilized. Two limited comparisons, which should be of interest to designers, are also given. One comparison deals with the buckling resistance of a cylinder with either a toriconical or a torispherical head; the other considers the effect on the experimental buckling pressure of a cylinder/torisphere combination of piercing the torispherical head.


Author(s):  
Gertrude F. Rempfer

I became involved in electron optics in early 1945, when my husband Robert and I were hired by the Farrand Optical Company. My husband had a mathematics Ph.D.; my degree was in physics. My main responsibilities were connected with the development of an electrostatic electron microscope. Fortunately, my thesis research on thermionic and field emission, in the late 1930s under the direction of Professor Joseph E. Henderson at the University of Washington, provided a foundation for dealing with electron beams, high vacuum, and high voltage.At the Farrand Company my co-workers and I used an electron-optical bench to carry out an extensive series of tests on three-electrode electrostatic lenses, as a function of geometrical and voltage parameters. Our studies enabled us to select optimum designs for the lenses in the electron microscope. We early on discovered that, in general, electron lenses are not “thin” lenses, and that aberrations of focal point and aberrations of focal length are not the same. I found electron optics to be an intriguing blend of theory and experiment. A laboratory version of the electron microscope was built and tested, and a report was given at the December 1947 EMSA meeting. The micrograph in fig. 1 is one of several which were presented at the meeting. This micrograph also appeared on the cover of the January 1949 issue of Journal of Applied Physics. These were exciting times in electron microscopy; it seemed that almost everything that happened was new. Our opportunities to publish were limited to patents because Mr. Farrand envisaged a commercial instrument. Regrettably, a commercial version of our laboratory microscope was not produced.


1978 ◽  
Vol 39 (12) ◽  
pp. 1355-1363 ◽  
Author(s):  
L.G. Caron ◽  
M. Miljak ◽  
D. Jerome

1986 ◽  
Vol 150 (10) ◽  
pp. 321
Author(s):  
V.L. Dunin-Barkovskii

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document