Recent content by OffshoreWindStructures

I have been looking at ArcelorMittal Portal+ design software (v1.39) from https://sections.arcelormittal.com/design_aid/design_software/EN It seems to be a fair complete prelim tool for portal frame design to eurocodes with lots of clear info in calc reports. Has anybody used it in earnest...

AFAIK yes there is a difference between the two types. I think the UK sections are direct metric versions of the old imperial section sizes using inches so you have dimensions with irregular values. The EU sections seem to be based on metric sizing from day one so the dimensions and size...

That's UK sections which might not be the EN/EU sections OP was looking for

Appreciate the responses folks, the consensus forming seems to be to simply take the conservative infinite length coefficient of 2.0 when considering individual elements. Not familiar with ASCE 7 but from a quick scroll through it , I couldnt find any information on wind coefficients for...

Thanks for the recommendation. I had a look for any theory docs for the software that might explain their approach in detail but was unsuccessful.

The image attached in the first message hopefully coveys the concept of a non regular lattice unclad open frame with a significant amount of members. Approach 1 uses infinite length coefficients, sketching an infinite beam might be hard. Approach 2 suggests using average length, sketch is >...

Wind force coefficients for flat sided individual members are dependent on their slenderness (and thus their length as seen in design codes like British standards, Eurocodes , DNV , etc). It's easy to incorporate that for single member and there's guidelines for doing so with a regular lattice...

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the other half of uplift mostly counteracts the uplift OTM. It's my understanding there should be at least one case where all roof uplift acts in the same direction so there shouldnt be counteracting uplift. For clarity, here is some examples from online...

JStephen, it was more of a loads from first principles discussion than a loads from code discussion as it was a general topic rather than particular design to a particular code, and for this example you can assume there is no wind flow (so no suction forces) on the bottom of the container. I'm...

Maybe too many years spent working on unclad structures (pipe racks), etc, to consider roof cladding suction actions.

Hi, I wanted to get some outside opinions on how much suction forces on roofs due to wind contributes to OTM for small modules or shipping containers, Wind load on containers produces pressure on the windward face and suction on the leeward face and roof. There's a discussion on whether or...

If it doesn't make sense to you from a geotechnical point of view, maybe you should be asking in the structural engineering forum if it makes sense from a structural point of view. Maybe it's related to the structural design of the mat itself (thickness, rebar placement, etc) , maybe not.

Maybe some examples would help to understand the differences between approaches. I've attached a 3rd party UK example and found examples from the Philippines and Sierra Leone that look to have a similar approach including the bar schedule full reinforcement arrangements ...

The check should include the self weight of the foundation shouldn't it? If there's net uplift (including the self-weight of the foundation), isn't that an automatic failure seperate to the bearing check that requires increasing the weight of the foundation anyway? Assuming US from the kips so...

@271828 I think you are probably correct about computerized options being slower but I lean towards them because you build a library of sketches that can be adapted without starting fresh every time, I use colour to make my drawings clearer and easier to read, it's easier to correct a mistake...