TP23 Rabot PDF

50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines
SUPERLIFT ENGINEERING
Roland D. Rabot, MEng’g (RTU), Nestor Competente

and Kee Wah Nam (Zentech Malaysia)
ABSTRACT: In an offshore project, the structures are fabricated in a yard accessible to water
transport. The semi-submersible Floating Process Systems Operation (FPSO) elevated structure
which is called as topsides will be constructed at grade then interconnected with the hull
structure as soon as all structural steel frame support members are integrated and the process
equipments and piping are in place. These structures will be super lifted to integrate the offshore
structure system.
The concept of Superlift Principle which is applied to the design of temporary structures,
composed of eight (8) jacking legs, eight (8) carrier beams and eight (8) catheads. The Superlift
load that it will support the load from the topside modules with has an estimated weight of
about 23,500 tons.The topside is composed of four (4) modules that will be lifted
simultaneously to an enough height at 46.5m from the ground to mate the semi Floating Process
System. This means that the hull and topside will be interconnected through the support system.
Further, this paper provides the basic fundamental principles and the technical background of
the Superlift Engineering applied in offshore structures. The application of the structural
engineering was established considering materials structure properties and its strength. The
results of the analysis are compared against material strength capacities. It has demonstrated the
effectiveness of the Superlift structures in terms of the constructability and economy in doing
works at grade rather than working at height.
KEYWORDS:: Superlift, Topside modules, Carrier beams, Catheads, Jacking legs
1. INTRODUCTION
Superlift Engineering is a design approach based on the construction methods, sequence of
activities which involves heavy lift of huge offshore structure module at the same time, to mate
with the skidding super structures such as hull and pontoons.
278
Figure 1 The Superlift model
1.1 Production Platform
The semi-submersible platform is based on four square steel columns, 23.52m wide and 59.64m
high, connected by four rectangular steel pontoons, 17.22m wide and 14.70m high.
The hull weighs 20,000t and provides 64,000t of displacement. The topside facilities measure
140.7m by 121.8m, with a 54.60m by 50.40m central opening.
The topside is made of four modules – quarters for 60 people, process, east receiving and west
receiving – totalling 20,000t. There are complete separation, dehydration and treatment facilities.
The production systems feature an advanced slug control (gas lift, surface slug suppression
device, automated process controls, dynamic modelling), a coiled tubing gas lift for start-up and
production enhancement and an enhanced produced water treatment.
The host platform is secured by a 16-leg catenary mooring system comprising suction piles, and
a chain and wire rope line extending a distance of 2771.92m to 3485.92m from the platform
location. The well stream was exported via a 450mm diameter oil pipeline and a 500mm
diameter natural gas pipeline.
1.2 Structural Design of Temporary Structures
The design of Superlift temporary structures comprises with 8 of jacking legs, 4 of lifting towers,
8 of carrier beam and 8 of catheads. Temporary structure system is lifted at a height of 46m
above ground level and with initial lifting weight 23,500 MT. The resulting Table 2 herein was
referred from initial studies performed by others. This was verified with the used of
commercially available structural analysis software.
The structural design of temporary structures for superlift from geometrical concept and initial
lifting weight were applied. While the lateral loadings of 5% of the lifting initial weight
(23500t), which is 1175 MT or 11526.75 KN is applied respectively to 16 locations at the upper
joint/nodal point of jacking legs and catheads. More so, since load shall be applied in 8 directions
to check the stability design requirement of the temporary structures, One (1) direction had been
considered or applied in structural design to verify result of the analysis.
Moreover, in load combination analysis of temporary structures for Superlift, self weight and
additional 10% for the design load factor and external loads (vertical reactions due to designed
weight of each module on the carrier beam and lateral loads) are included in the computation and
analysis.
279
In the case of carrier beam design, rectangular prismatic steel members were used in this model
of 2.2m x 2.8m and 2.2m x 3.70m dimension parameters for EAST – WEST MODULE and
NORTH – SOUTH MODULE respectively. Additionally, the superlift beam or carrier beam
shall be considered as a simply supported beam lifting the Topside Modules with a dynamic load
factor of 1.10. Conservatively, this carrier beam shall be analyzed separately to have a
comparative result structural analysis. Likewise, tapered tube for catheads was considered in the
design.
1.3 Scope of Superlift Analysis
The first thing needed to establish Superlift engineering analysis is to prepare the design premise.
This will include the assumptions on the loading, design basis such as design codes, criteria,
materials strengths, soil properties, tolerable limits among others. In addition to premises are the
load calculation and its application to the member within the system structural configuration.
Therefore the geometric configuration of frame is configured figured to establish the load line of
path.
The premises itself shows structural configuration, load application, model of structures, its
member elements, supports condition. Graphical presentation is presented in Figure 1 showing
the arrangement of the Supelift structure.
1.3.1 Design of carrier beams
Each of the topside modules is carefully assess to ascertain the real load transmitted to the carrier
beam by the truss rows of each module. The arrangement of each equipment loads position,
level, elevations to include all attachments, support foundation are part of the design
consideration.
The main carrier beam design load comes from the centre of gravity (CoG) of each topside
module. Main module structures truss rows shall be built with temporary support by pipes
underneath. Each of the topside modules will be provided w/ set of carrier beams. At this stage
when all equipment is completely installed, the lifting support system will be position underneath
top sides bottom chord. This two carrier beam shall carry each of the topside modules using the
cable attached to the cathead of lifting tower.
The carrier beam shall be design as a simple beam using the philosophy of the allowable stress
design. The beam cross section shall be box type of configuration with several plate
reinforcements(gussets and stiffiners).
Developed sections of steel materials properties shall be obtain using the principles of
mechanics. Built up section are the result of the analysis and design of the Superlift structure will
280
be treated as single body jointed together with suitable welding rod materials. The welding
design shall conform AWSD 1.1 design requirements complete join penetration and following
the weld details and requirements.
1.3.2 Design of lifting tower
This tower is supported by four legs, wherein it has its cathead attachments, passing a cable
terminated at the carrier beam.
This cable pulled out to commence lift of topside using high tensile strength cable materials
wherein the lifting tower will enable modules lifted at desired elevation to allow skidding of
pontoon and the hull support system. The lifting by a carrier beam will enable the topside being
suspended for a time being, allow movement of super structures element mentioned to finally
mate with each pot bearing. The load of this tower shall emanate from the reaction of the carrier
beam self weight with load combination to wind load. Steel tower member elements design shall
be verified in conformity with AISC and API RP2A code of engineering practice.
1.3.3 Design of anchorage and foundations
The existing site development foundation will be reviewed to verify each piles capability of
carrying load generated from the lifting activity, so with developed tower reaction of forces
transmitted by tower jacking legs. The tower anchor bolts are design for shear reaction and 10%
of the weight from the vertical reaction. The Pedestal shall be designed conformed with the
provisions of British Standard for concrete design. Foundation shall be as per geotechnical
requirements made up and shall be made up of bored piles, supporting the Superlift structures.
1.3.4 Global Superlift design with soil foundation
The model in three dimensional shall be analyzed globally to include the mass from the topsides
with different scenario like the uneven distribution of weight transmitted to the carrier beams.
Further verify scenarios from uneven lifting force among lifting cable, the overload on the frame
systems lifting point, checking the most possible worst wreck scenario in the Superlift
operations. In this analysis the most possible critical condition is being look into, to determine
the adequacy of each member elements.
The soil reaction is also taken into consideration specially, the during lifting operations checking
soil settlement due to load concentration developed and load distribution among piles of course
determining the effect to the total substructures. Factor of safety is always check vis-à-vis limits
of the design.
2. DESIGN FROM GENERAL PREMISE
The design premise is developed and adopted for Superlift structure design.
2.1. Engineering Design Codes and Design Manuals
281
Superlift structure analysis is performed in accordance with the following structural code and
design specifications:
API-RP-2A 20th Edition

AISC 9th Edition
DNV(Plate buckling check) Class Note 30.1, July 1995
ABS(Plate Yield check) MODU, Column Stabilized Units, Deep Tanks, 2001
DEP, FPSO Marine Operations Requirements for Load out, Transportation and Installation of
Deepwater Structures, 2006
2.2. Materials Constants
Table 1. Specific constants and their values

Young’s modulus 2.06 x 1011 N/m2
Poisson’s Ratio 0.3
Yielding stress for steel 50 ksi (3.5ton/cm2)
Density of steel 7850kg/m3
Gravitational Acceleration 9.81m/s2
2.3 Environmental Criteria
Wind
The design wind speed of 15 m/s is adopted for the structural analysis of Superlift structure.
The wind force will be automatically generated by available commercial structural analysis
software for block area structure and the wind force for non-coded structure such as topside
module will be calculated. The wind force is taken as dynamic force in order to consider a
harmonic effect of the Superlift structure due to wind.
Earthquake and Snow Load not applied
3. DESIGN LOADS
3.1. General
Structural analyses are generally in accordance with the Superlift Design Premise API RP2A
Allowable Stress Design and AISC ASD 1989 Edition.
3.2. Vertical Load
The module lifting weight is basically based on the Initial Weight Budget from the Oil and Gas
Operator. The total lifting weight is estimated about 22,358 tons.
Hence, in this design of Superlift temporary Structures, 23,500 tons of the design Superlift
weight have been used in the design of the system. The center of gravity (CoG) of each module
has been computed to established exact point location of the initial weight.
282
Initial analysis and study from each top sides module weight and CoG applied in this Superlift
Engineering are shown in the succeeding tables.
Table 2. Weight Summary for Superlift Based On Initial Weight

Category Weight E/W N/S UP
North/Water flood 6,977 0.49 34.88 52.32
South/Process 7,617 3.06 -34.13 52.14
East/Receiving 4,071 32.89 -5.45 48.75
West/Receiving1) 4,835 -33.54 -6.08 50.33
Total 23,500 -0.06 -2.90 51.23

Note 1) The weight and CoG of the west module have been calculated according to site condition, that is, only first section flare tower
will be included during Superlift operation.
Table 3 below shows a Superlift load acting on the 4 bearing plate on a set of a carrier beam
due to induced topside module (such as North, East, South and West) weight from the above
table.
Table 3. Lifting Weight at Bearing Point on Carrier Beam
North Module East Module Process Module West Module
Weight
68,442.7 kn 39,939.8 kn 74,720.8 kn 47,431.7 kn
Weight X 0.49 m 32.89 m 3.06 m -33.54 m
COG Y 34.88 m -5.45 m -34.13 m -6.08 m
Center Bet. Lift X 0.00 m 32.80 m 0.00 m -32.80 m
Point Y 32.80 m 0.00 m -32.80 m 0.00 m
Lifting Point 1,13,5,9 12,401.5 kn 14,710.6 kn 27,995.5 kn 15,941.1 kn
Total 68,442.7 kn 39,939.8 kn 74,720.8 kn 47,431.7 kn
Figure 2 below show lifting point ID from above Table 3.
283
Figure 2 Lifting point ID
Lateral Load
Lateral load is applied to the lateral jacking system and the lifting tower/cathead in order to verify
lateral jacking system and lifting tower/cathead during adjustment of any misalignment just prior to
mate the topside modules.
The lateral load shall be based on 150mm movement of topside module which should be applied
simultaneously at proper locations of lifting tower and carrier beam for Superlift structure global
analysis
There are 3 lateral hydraulic jacks at each lifting tower.
The lateral load has been calculated as below order.
1) Check the possible occurrence of lateral load based on lateral jacking system. In the
following Figure 4 shows the adjustable direction of each hydraulic jack.
284
SE SW
X
S
SE 90 SW
NW 135 45
NE
180
E W
0
NE NW
225
270 315
N
Figure 3 Adjustable direction of hydraulic jack

On this figure, view case of adjustment during operation for mating.
2) Calculate reaction at each lateral jacking system(SE, SW, NE, NW) for 28 cases of the
150mm adjustment operation using “Load case combination” card in software program (the
reactions are shown in Appendix 1).
- Detailed analysis and drawings will be incorporated in Hull Mating Analysis.
- The effect of the offset has not been considered in this global analysis but it will be
considered in Cathead design.
3) Apply the appropriate results (reaction) obtained from 2 at Cathead(positive reaction) and
carrier beam(negative reaction) for Superlift global analysis as shown in Figure 4.
Lateral Load acting on Carrier Beam
Lateral Load acting on Cathead or Lifting Tower
Figure 4. Plan showing carrier beam and cathead
285
3.3. Wind Load

The wind velocity is based on Meteorology Data of Malaysia. The design wind speed is
conservatively determined because of uncertainty during sustained time, reference point.
Table 4: Wind Speed
Measured wind maximum Design wind speed Remarks
13.97 m/s 15.0 m/s Reference height : 10m
For the consideration of the harmonic effect due to wind force, the Harris Wind Spectrum has
been used (refer to Appendix2).
The following wind areas are applied in available commercial structural analysis model program
in order to calculate automatically wind pressures of each top side module for Semi FPS.
3.4. Settlement Load
The allowable settlements of 20 mm at the support of the lifting tower structure and 10 mm for
Jacking Legs are considered.
Two methods were considered as the worst conditions during Superlift are applied in analysis as
shown following tables and figure
Table 5. Method 1 (refer to Figure 5)
Lifting Tower Support Jacking Leg Support

Joint No. Value(mm) Joint No. Value(mm)
1 -20 14G -10
2 -20 14E -10
3 -20 14F -10
4 -20 166 -10
68 -20 167 -10
69 -20 168 -10
6A -20 1AN -10
6B -20 1AM -10
- - 1AO -10
- - 17Y -10
- - 17Z -10
- - 180 -10
286
Table 6. Method 2 (refer to Figure 6)
Lifting Tower Support Jacking Leg Support

Joint No. Value(mm) Joint No. Value(mm)
8Z -20 172 -10
90 -20 173 -10
91 -20 174 -10
92 -20 138 -10
3K -20 139 -10
3J -20 13A -10
3I -20 19Q -10
3H -20 19R -10
- - 19S -10
- - 18U -10
- - 18V -10
- 18W -10
Figure 5 Method 1
287
Figure 6 Method 2
3.5. Additional Moment Load
The preset tolerance of alignments at the top of the catheads and the jacking legs is +/- 30mm.
Additional moment due to preset tolerance were added to the lifting weights and moments on the
jacking legs and catheads.
The lifting force based on design weight (23,500 tons). These lifting reactions of forces include
design weight and carrier beam dead weight and will be used to calculate additional moment in
accordance with Superlift design premise.
3.6. CoG shift envelope
The Superlift analysis consider the CoG shift envelope of 2m (for long span) x 1m (for short
span) as per Superlift design premise.
In order to consider the CoG shift envelope, the vertical load and additional moment has been
applied. A variation of the lateral load is not considered in this report since it is too small to affect
Superlift structural stability.
4. RESULT OF THE ANALYSIS
Result of analysis from available commercial structural analysis software, considering the design
premise parameters and design requirements above was found that few members consider steel
reinforcement (transverse stiffener or gusset plate) provided in the Superlift model. It is
concluded that the adequacy and stability of temporary structures for Superlift designed is based
on minimum code requirement.
With application of this method, the Superlift temporary structure, will allow the construction of
huge structure at grade, therefore there are tangible and non-tangible benefits will be attained in
terms of economy and safety during the constructions operations.
REFERENCES
API-RP-2A American Petroleum Industries Standards 20th Edition
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction 9th Edition
_____(1995) DNV(Plate buckling check) Class Note 30.1
288
_____(2001) ABS(Plate Yield check) MODU, Column Stabilized Units, Deep Tanks.
_____(2006) DEP, FPSO Marine Operations Requirements for Loadout, Transportation and Installation of
Deepwater Structures.
Company Profile, PSC-Fagioli, Singapore
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Author 1 is Rolando D. Rabot CE, AER, FASEP, Vice President for Engineering of Tri-Ex Tower Co,
Master of Engineering Major in Structural Engineering, Pamantasan Lungsod ng Manila Philippines.
Fellow ASEP, MBA from Central College of the Philippines and Master in Environmental Science in
Miriam College and a PhD Candidate in Environment Science in Miriam College and PhD Candidate in
Technology from Rizal Technological University, Mandaluyong City, Philippines.
Currently he is an Associate Professor in CEIT, Rizal Technological University, Mandaluyong City,

Philippines. He can be contacted @ Tri Ex Tower Company, @ 75 Ordonez Ave., Marikina Heights,
Marikina City, Tel No. 942-5978, 948-6744. RDRABOT2002@yahoo.com
Author 2 is Nestor Competente CE, EE, MBA, Chairman for Civil Engineering Department of Rizal
Technological University, Mandaluyong City, Philippines. Currently he is an Associate Professor in this
university he can be contacted in this Tel No. 534 9710 email: go_competente@yahoo.com
Author3s Kee Wah Nam, President of Zentech Engineering, Mechanical Engineer from Korea, have
worked as Technical Head in several heavy industries in Korea. Visiting address for ZENTECH
ENGNEERING 2nd Fl. Shin-an Bldg. 751-4 Yeoksam-Dong, Gangnam-GU, Seoul #135-080, Korea
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Superlift engineering is based on the product line of Fagiolli in Singapore, and their involvement in
NAKIKA Project in Korea. Referenced principles in superlift engineering in Korea. The Nakika project in
Gulf of Mexico as designed by DCA and ABB Lumus Global and Design Engineering Practices of Oil
and Gas Companies
289
APPENDIX 1: Hydraulic jack reactions
Load Case Hydraulic Jack Reaction

Direction
(Global System No
(in degrees) Fx Fy
Analysis) (Joint ID)
LC#5 SW 1 1749.71 0.00
LC#6 NW 2 1732.39 0.00
0
SW 1340.01 0.00
LC#7 3
NW 1299.89 0.00
LC#8 SE 4 1277.08 1108.59
LC#9 SW 5 1237.74 1030.40
LC#10 NW 6 1224.20 1088.93
45
SE 1539.41 1054.52
LC#11 SW 7 -536.76 632.67
NW 968.05 413.17
LC#12 SE 8 0.00 1540.27
LC#13 SW 9 0.00 1516.03
90
SE 0.00 1367.11
LC#14 10
SW 0.00 1341.17
LC#15 SE 11 -1180.58 1052.34
LC#16 SW 12 -1219.89 1086.77
135
LC#17 NE 13 -1216.89 1109.97
LC#18 SE 14 567.05 674.27
290
SW -1509.51 1033.02
NE -976.45 393.54
LC#19 SE 15 -1692.54 0.00
LC#20 NE 16 -1725.50 0.00
180
SE -1279.72 0.00
LC#21 17
NE -1310.50 0.00
LC#22 SE 18 -1187.92 -1170.65
LC#23 NW 19 -1262.61 -1191.64
LC#24 NE 20 -1209.23 -1118.32
225
SE -956.08 -435.75
LC#25 NW 21 -1664.27 -1132.02
NE 685.67 -697.50
LC#26 NW 22 0.00 -1618.90
270 LC#27 NE 23 0.00 -1610.38
NW 0.00 -1436.62
LC#28 24
NE 0.00 -1426.32
LC#29 SW 25 1245.05 -1181.71
LC#30 NW 26 1215.79 -1128.81
LC#31 NE 27 1269.16 -1180.66
315
SW 1016.19 -464.29
LC#32 NW 28 -693.60 -680.72
NE 1661.68 -1124.78
APPENDIX 2 Table 6: Wind Force Application
Wind Loading Center (m)

Area Shape Distribution
Area
(m2) X Y Z Factor (Joint Name)
ID
NX 1,026.0 2.32 -36.31 60.00 1.0 F01, F02, F03, F04
NY 1,944.0 2.32 -36.31 60.00 1.0 F01, F02, F03, F04
SX 981.8 -0.70 36.39 61.38 1.0 F05, F06, F07, F08
SY 1,457.8 -0.70 36.39 61.38 1.0 F05, F06, F07, F08
EX 2,001.0 -33.66 12.06 61.00 1.0 F13, F14, F15, F16
EY 464.0 -33.66 12.06 61.00 1.0 F13, F14, F15, F16
291
WX 2,120.1 34.04 18.53 61.30 1.0 F09, F10, F11, F12

WY 665.2 34.04 18.53 63.44 1.0 F09, F10, F11, F12
APPENDIX 3
Table 1: Carrier Beam Weight Calculation

Location Length Section Area Density Weight
North 41.255 m 1.1304 m2 7.85 ton/m3 3,591.26 kn
South 41.255 m 1.1304 m2 7.85 ton/m3 3,591.26 kn
East 35.255 m 1.1304 m2 7.85 ton/m3 3,068.96 kn
West 35.255 m 1.1304 m2 7.85 ton/m3 3,068.96 kn
292
Table 2: Carrier Beam Weight Distribution to Each Strand Jack

Weight North Module East Module Process Module West Module
Point 1,13,5,9 1,795.6 kn 1,534.5 kn 1,795.6 kn 1,534.5 kn
Point 2,14,6,10 1,795.6 kn 1,534.5 kn 1,795.6 kn 1,534.5 kn
Point 3,15,7,11 1,795.6 kn 1,534.5 kn 1,795.6 kn 1,534.5 kn
Point 4,16,8,12 1,795.6 kn 1,534.5 kn 1,795.6 kn 1,534.5 kn
Total 7,182.5 kn 6,137.9 kn 7,182.5 kn 6,137.9 kn
The following table shows additional moment based on design Superlift weight (23,500 ton)
Table 3: Sling Load Based on Design Weight (23,500 ton) With Carrier Beam Weight
Weight North Module East Module Process Module West Module
Point 1,13,5,9 19,693.0 kn 14,194.3 kn 24,271.0 kn 21,030.8 kn
Point 2,14,6,10 19,516.9 kn 6,286.5 kn 26,207.6 kn 7,920.9 kn
Point 3,15,7,11 18,288.8 kn 17,914.2 kn 15,137.6 kn 17,766.4 kn
Point 4,16,8,12 18,126.5 kn 7,682.7 kn 16,287.2 kn 6,851.6 kn
Total 75,625.2 kn 46,077.7 kn 81,903.3 kn 53,569.7 kn
Table 4: Additional Moment - Design Weight 23,500 ton (Based on Local Axis)
North Module East Module Process Module West Module
Lateral Load
My My My My
Point 1,13,5,9 590.8 kn-m 425.8 kn-m 728.1 kn-m 630.9 kn-m
293

TP23 Rabot PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

TP23 Rabot PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”

Roland D. Rabot, MEng’g (RTU), Nestor Competente

KEYWORDS:: Superlift, Topside modules, Carrier beams, Catheads, Jacking legs

Figure 1 The Superlift model

1.1 Production Platform

1.2 Structural Design of Temporary Structures

1.3 Scope of Superlift Analysis

1.3.1 Design of carrier beams

1.3.2 Design of lifting tower

1.3.3 Design of anchorage and foundations

1.3.4 Global Superlift design with soil foundation

2. DESIGN FROM GENERAL PREMISE

2.1. Engineering Design Codes and Design Manuals

API-RP-2A 20th Edition

2.2. Materials Constants

Table 1. Specific constants and their values

2.3 Environmental Criteria

Earthquake and Snow Load not applied

3.2. Vertical Load

Table 2. Weight Summary for Superlift Based On Initial Weight

North/Water flood 6,977 0.49 34.88 52.32

South/Process 7,617 3.06 -34.13 52.14

East/Receiving 4,071 32.89 -5.45 48.75

West/Receiving1) 4,835 -33.54 -6.08 50.33

Total 23,500 -0.06 -2.90 51.23

Figure 2 below show lifting point ID from above Table 3.

Figure 2 Lifting point ID

There are 3 lateral hydraulic jacks at each lifting tower.

The lateral load has been calculated as below order.

Figure 3 Adjustable direction of hydraulic jack

Lateral Load acting on Carrier Beam

Lateral Load acting on Cathead or Lifting Tower

Figure 4. Plan showing carrier beam and cathead

3.3. Wind Load

Table 4: Wind Speed

Measured wind maximum Design wind speed Remarks

13.97 m/s 15.0 m/s Reference height : 10m

3.4. Settlement Load

Lifting Tower Support Jacking Leg Support

Table 6. Method 2 (refer to Figure 6)

Lifting Tower Support Jacking Leg Support

3.5. Additional Moment Load

3.6. CoG shift envelope

4. RESULT OF THE ANALYSIS

API-RP-2A American Petroleum Industries Standards 20th Edition

AISC American Institute of Steel Construction 9th Edition

_____(1995) DNV(Plate buckling check) Class Note 30.1

Company Profile, PSC-Fagioli, Singapore

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Currently he is an Associate Professor in CEIT, Rizal Technological University, Mandaluyong City,

APPENDIX 1: Hydraulic jack reactions

Load Case Hydraulic Jack Reaction

APPENDIX 2 Table 6: Wind Force Application

Wind Loading Center (m)

WX 2,120.1 34.04 18.53 61.30 1.0 F09, F10, F11, F12

Table 1: Carrier Beam Weight Calculation

Table 2: Carrier Beam Weight Distribution to Each Strand Jack

Вам также может понравиться