The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlansil:¡ ñNTANA OIL & GA$ STRUCTURAL AhIALYSIS FCIR: PRÕJFCT NO" 1085643 - M23 INJETTION FAT}LITY Frepared for: Prepared by: Power Service, lnc. Pil lar Structural Engineering {l $eptember 16,2*11 130 West tollins trlve taspor, WY 82601 P: {tt7J 265.3u0Ë Ër (3üT)2ê$.3559 trlA 37219 s116t2û1 1 iJ Resulfs BY:JS DATÉ:8/1812011 DESCRfPTION; DRS - LIFTÍNG EYÊ Pll,l,ûRsTRt¡gnlR&l,ENG]NEERIÃ¡S FROJECT: EOG . M23 INJECTTON/GENERATOR JOB# 11-t8128 CLIENT: Power Service, lnc. il::::: ::::l Ðesign Rupture $trenqth (AISC Spec. J.4) Properties Fy (ksi) = !$ Fu ftsi) = $$ $gss Area Subjectto TensionI 1in¡ = s"5 t ¡n¡ = 1"5 AE {n] = 14.25 Gross Area Subjectto ShearI çin¡ = 17 t 1in1 = 1.5 Asv {in2¡ = 19 Net fuea Subject to TensionI trin¡ = 7.5t {¡nl = i"5 A* {in?) = 11.25 Net Area Subject to ShearI 1in¡ = 19 t 1ln¡ = 1.5 Anv 1in2¡ = 15 Strenqth of Elements in Tension Tensile Yeilding iÞRn {k) = 461'1 Tensile Rupture Uls = fl'/$ ÕRn (k) = 367.0 NOTE: REFER TO AISC SFECIFICATIÐN FOR ADÞ¡TIONAL REQUIREMENTS. ü4-1) Strength of Elements in Shear Shear Yeilding ORn {k) = 38ts.8 Shear Rupture oRn {kl = 391.5 (J44) Block Shear Strenqth Um='¡ ORn ß) = 7S0.9 (J4-5i (J4-2i (J4-3) DRS. LIFTÍNG EYE BY:JS DÂTE-8/18/2011 DESCRTPïION: Design l-oads Structural Ðesi n Loads MISCELLANEOUS B WALL LOADS 2 MISCELLANECIUS C FLOORLOADS D wlND LOADS BASIC WIND SPEED EXPOS["TRE E SEISMIC LOADS ÐESIGN CATEGORY OCTUPÁNCY CATEGORY YOTAL {5 psf 90 mph PROJECT: EOG - M23 INJECTIONIGENERATOR JoB# 11-08128 CLIENT: Powêr Serv¡c€, lnc- ow TOTAL TOTAL PffifiNgrRftg¡rÌR-Br, SlllGINEERIn¡(¡ 4.29 psf 5 psf 4.29 psf 5 psf 1 2 1 2 2 2 Dêsign Loads ROOF SLOPE MORE THAN 2:THAN ROOF ROOF SLOPE OF 2:12 OR LESS (ADJACENT ROOF NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY) For Sl: 1 inch = 25.4 mm, 304.8 mm Figure R302.2.3 PARPET REQUIREMENTS R302.2.4 Structural independence. Each indiviú:al town- house shall be structurally independent. Exceptions: 1. Foundations supporting exterior walls or conìmon walls. 2. Structural roof and wall sheathing from each unit fastened to the common wall framing. 3. Nonstructural wall and roof coverings. 4. Flashing at termination of roof covering over com- mon wall. 5. Townhouses separated by a common wall as pro- vided in Section R302.2,Item I or 2. .i. Each townhouse must be structurally independent and capable of being removed without affecting the adja- cent dwelling unit. This provision is applicable only to townhouses, not two-family dwellings. This indepen- dence is useful not only in the event of a fire in one unit, but also during any remodeling or alteration. The objective of this structural independence is that a com- plete burnout could occur on one side of the wall with- out causing the collapse of the adjacent townhouse. This condition occurs rarely. The provision also helps if there is ever a fire or other problem by creating a clear separation between the units. With separate owner- ship and each owner having a different insurance com- pany, the ability to gain access or get repairs made can be difficult and time consuming. By having clearly sep- arated units, it is much easier to determine who is responsible and to make any needed repairs. The code lists five exceptions that waive the struc- tural independence requirement. A quick review of the exceptions shows that they generally deal with items BUILDING PLANNING that will not structurally affect townhouses should a problem develop in the adjacent dwelling unit. Excep- tion 1 is based on the norm within the industry for foun- dation construction. ln the code, Section R402 lists only wood and concrete within the foundation materi- als section, although Section R404 accepts masonry foundation walls. ln general, concrete and masonry are the most common types of foundations; wood foun- dations are viewed as unique. Given the performance of both masonry and concrete, and the fact that these foundation systems must sustain loads from both the structure and the adjacent soils, it is reasonable to assume that the foundation will not be the item that fails in most situations. Permitting a common founda- tion also helps solve other problems that would arise if the structural independence issue were taken as an absolute. An example where requiring separate foun- dations would probably create more problems or diffi- culty is in the dampproofing or waterproofing of below- grade foundation walls. lf a wood foundation is used between adjacent units, what is the level of fire protection that may be needed? Because concrete and masonry foundations are the norm, it would be easy to forget or overlook protecting the foundation when it is constructed of wood. ln these cases, it would seem appropriate to deal with the foun- dation as any other wall, and protect it on any exposed side. The level of fire resistance should be equalto that of the wall or walls that the foundation supports. R302.3 Two-family dwellings. Dwelling units in two-family dwellings shall be separated from each other by wall and floor assemblies having not less than a l-hour fire-resistance rating where tested in accordance with ASTM E119 or UL 263. Fire-resistance-rated floor/ceiling and wall assemblies 201 5 INTERNATIoNAL REstDENT|AL coDE@ coMMENTARy 3-47 . :'i:ì\. i.:, :,i Executive tummary The follovdng condltions were required to be analyzed to determine the structure's integrity and corresponding maximum vertical deflections in accordance wtth the 20tg lnternatianal Building Code, 2005 Ameriean Soctely of Aivil Engineøfs - Minimum Desþn Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, and the American lnstitute of Sfee/ Çonstructian Inc. - Manual of Sfeel Construction - Thifteenth Edition. 1. The entire skid structure along with climatic effects as well as operating loads for final, in- situ conditions. Upon completion of the analysis, the following valúes were eomputed for each condition and d ifferent structure support condition, respectively. 1. The largesl vertical deflection undergone by the skid was determined to be negligÍble (in- situ scenario assumes the skid will be supported at each end and at intermediate localions, refer to the Modef Drawings section of this repoÉ) with all of the skid members passing the given slrength criteria. Ðescripfion $tructure: The skid is eomposad ol wide fianges and channels. Refer to the Si¡¡cturaÍ Drawings, lccated at the end of this report, for skid layout, member sizes and mechanical equipment layouls. The skid and building coverings are as follovr,ç: n Floor Covering: 114" Deck Piate c¡ Wall Covering; Pto-Panel ll, 29 Gauge '> Roof tovering: Prq-Panel ll,29 Gauge The skid supports the following equiprnent: p Booster Pump - 1.250|b o Filters - 4,305 lb o lnjecticn Pump - 9,400 lb Skid members will be welded in accordance with the "Typical Connection Details" drawing, found near the end of this report. Structure is assumed to be placed on a surface capable of supporting lhe nsaximum loads without experiencing significant movement or faitures of any kind. Refer to the Model reactions near the end of this report for foundation design loads. a a I 'l rr'ì ÁþsfracÉ The purpose of this report is to present the findings that resulted from the stfucturäl ar¡ãlysl$ öf the st¡'ucturaT steef skid. The following conditions were analyeed: 1. The eompleie skid structure with climatic effects {inrsítu condition). â. This analysis includes the weþht and member lnteractËons of the entire structure and includes the effects of loeal slimatic conditions for areas near Garfietd County, Cü as fsllows: i. ËLÛOR LIVË LCIAÞ 40 Psf íi. ROÐF SNÕW LOAD 75 psf ¡ii. $tTË WINÞ LOADING 90 mph, Exposure C iv. SElSMlt DESTGN CATËGÕRY B * SITË CLAS$ D . SD1 0.114 n SDS 0,329