Slenderness Ratio of Conductor Supported Platform

[fremgym]

Hi,

I just wonder, have any of you involve in design of conductor supported platform?
Can any of you share your acceptance value of conductor/ leg slenderness ratio for the structure? Is it still below 200 or exceed 200?

I just saw picture of COSMOS in the internet and from what i can see, the unbraced length of the conductor/ leg is quite long. but it's just a picture. I just wanna know what is the consideration for the real platform.. The deeper the water depth, the unbraced length must be longer.

If it is exceed than 200, can we just disregard the value and focus on the euler buckling analysis and combined stress (flexural + axial) analysis?

Hopefully members here can enhance my understanding on this matter.

Thanks.

 

[SDMAX]

Fremgym,

I do not want to breach any rules on advertising on this forum, I work as the technical director of the company which designs and supplies Conductor Supported Platforms using the Sea Swift brand name, some quick searching on the internet will bring up our details if you wish to contact me directly.

In answer to your question, we would have a slenderness ratio below 200, below 150 is the aim. If the unbraced span exceeded this you would incorporate an additional support structure into the design. This would be robust enough to properly act as a moment resisting connection and would allow you to justify the reduction in span length and therefore slenderness ratio.

If you have any other questions on Conductor Supported Platforms I would be happy to assist.

 

[fremgym]

Hi SDMAX,

Thanks for your reply. Wow.. I definitely will contact you if my project in the future take conductor supported platform as an option.

Thanks again.

 

[Jason8zhu]

To fremgym，

For code/Rules?AISC, There is no limitation on Slenderness Ratio. However, large Slenderness Ratio will means less compressive capacity for column. So the allowable compressive load against the working load will dominates the design.