the same orientation and are directly additive.

Until further data become available, the orientation

of these stresses will be taken as circumferential
and axial with respect to the nozzle, 0' n and 0' ,,
respectively (wh~ch corresponds to the orientation
of the strain gages on Model C-1 and to the
terminology which has been generally used in the
reinforced openings program). For relatively small
values of {3, where the maximum stresses are on the
longitudinal axis, 0' n = 0'., and 0' 1 = 0' x; curves for
O'n and 0'1 were therefore obtained through modification

of the curves for O"., and O'x, respectively.

Also, since no basis is available for modifying the
membrane stress, and that component of the stress
appears to be relatively small in relation to the
bending component, the curves for membrane
stress on the longitudinal axis were arbitrarily
assumed to apply, and the necessary correction
made to the bending curves. The resulting modifications
to the curves are as shown on Figs. A-15
and A-16 for O"n and 0' respectively.
1,

A.3.3.4 DIRECT AxiAL LOAD. Bijlaard's treatment

of axial load calculated the stress at the center
of an attachment on an unpierced shell, having a
uniformly distributed load. For the sake of conservatism,
and in an effort to take into account the
rigidity of the attachment, he then assumed that
these values would apply at the edge of the attachment.
2· 10 However, as noted in Reference 17, this procedure does not distinguish between the
values at the edge of the attachment on the
longitudinal axis of the shell vs. the transverse axis
of the shell. A summary of the experimental results
in comparison with the calculated (as taken
from Table 3 of Reference 17, for Attachment 2) is
shown in Table A-6. From this comparison, it will
be noted that the agreement between theory and
experiment was quite good on the transverse axis,
but that the theoretical results were conservative
by a factor of, say 1.5-2.0, as applied to the stresses
on the longitudinal axis. Prof. Cranch therefore
suggested that, in the case of the· circumferential
stress, (]""' on the longitudinal axis, no "shift" in the
stress from the center of the attachment to its edge
is necessary. However, the only calculated data
Fig. A-16-Moment Mtf(M/Rmfl) due to a longitudinal moment M
available for the edges of the attachment are those
obtainable from a cross plot of the curves presented
in Reference 10; further, the latter data were for a
value of a = 4 rather than 8, and were limited to
values of {3 no greater than 0.25. Under these circumstances,
the comparisons of Tables A-3 and -4
were made on the basis that Bijlaard's calculated
stresses, for the center of the attachment, apply
at the edge of the attachment on both the longitudinal
and transverse axes (even though the available
evidence for a model well within the presumed
limits of Bijlaard's theory indicated that the
calculated stresses might be appreciably conservative
as applied to the longitudinal axis).
The test results on the longitudinal axis of both·
Models "R" and "C-1" indicate that Bijlaard's