monorail capacity & design check - test print

7/29/2019 Monorail Capacity & Design Check - Test Print

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/monorail-capacity-design-check-test-print 1/19

PRODUCTION F ACILITY IMPROVEMENT

Replacement Monorail Design Summary

Lanxess Corporation

Report No.: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1

Issue Data:22-Aug-2013

Issue 1

DOCUMENT ISSUE CONTROL SHEET

Issue Rev. Date Comment Written Checked Approved

1 0 8/15/13 Issued to client to client review TNT KPP ST

2 1 8/22/13 Appendix D added to addressupdated client data (i.e., correctionsto layout of existing structure and alower crane WLL)

TNT KPP KPP

3

4

5

Notice

This report was produced by Total Crane Services for the Lanxess Corporation for the specific purpose of

the Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary.

This report may not be used by any person other than the Lanxess Corporation without the Lanxess

Corporation's express permission. In any event, Total Crane Services, its affiliates, and partners accept

no liability for any costs, liabilities or losses arising as a result of the use of or reliance upon the contents

of this report by any person other than Lanxess Corporation.



Lanxess Corporation

Production Facility Improvement - Replacement Monorail Design Summary

Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1

Issue Date: 8/22/2013

Production Facility Improvement

Replacement Monorail Design Summary

A report prepared by

Pope Oil Tool Company

commissioned by

Total Crane Service

to be prepared on behalf of the

Lanxess Corporation

COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

Total Crane Services Lanxess Corporation

14060 IH-10 West

Orange, TX 77632

USA

8500 West Bay Road

Baytown, TX 77523

USA

Tel: +1 409-842-1500 Tel: +1 281-383-6800

Fax: +1 409-842-1085 Fax: +1 281-383-6808



Lanxess Corporation


Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1


Contents

Section Page

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 General ............................................................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 4

2 Design Description ..................................................................................................................... 5 3 Design Approach ........................................................................................................................ 5

3.1 Design Data ..................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Design Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 5

4 Calculation Summary ................................................................................................................. 8 4.1 General ............................................................................................................................................ 8 4.2 Beam Design .................................................................................................................................... 8 4.3 Connection Design ........................................................................................................................... 8 4.4 Assessment Screening of Support Structure ................................................................................... 8

5 References ................................................................................................................................. 9

Appendices

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D



Lanxess Corporation


Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 0


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

This report presents the design philosophy and summarizes the calculations undertaken in support of themonorail crane beam design package presented in monorail design drawing [1].

1.2 Background

The Lanxess Corporation (Lanxess) has commissioned Total Crane Services, LTD (Total Crane) to

design, procure, and install a replacement monorail crane at Lanxess’ Baytown production facility. The

monorail crane unit being replaced was identified to have an inadequate working load limit (WLL1) with

respect to the service loads it was required to handle.

Lanxess has instructed Total Crane to provide a replacement monorail crane beam having a WLL equal

to 2.5 tons (5,000 lbs). Total Crane was given further instruction regarding specific design constraints that

should be meet by the new crane beam design (i.e., design constrains). Specifically, two particular design

constraints were encountered in the monorail beam design and warrant a discussion herein.

The first design constraint set restrictions on which available cross-sectional shapes (and sizes) were

applicable as potential monorail sections. It was stated that the new monorail crane beam should be of an

appropriate size and shape to allow the reuse of hoist and ruining hardware installed on the redundant

crane beam (i.e., the new monorail beam should not require the purchase of new running hardware).

This criterion caused the types of potential crane beam cross-sections considered to be reduced down to

effectively one type of section (an S-section) and only a small array of section depths and widths.

Moreover, material strength no longer became an option as S-beams are generally exclusively rolled from

A36 steel.

The second design constraint was caused from the anticipated restriction on hot-work in the region of the

new crane beam installation. This, of course, meant that any welding/burning/cutting and etcetera would

required this treatment elsewhere and, more importantly, provisions would need to be developedregarding and pre-welding and also how to install the beam using sole mechanical fastening.

The restrictions noted above are actually not extraordinary nor particularly challenging or complex. They

have, however, had a direct impact on the beam crane beam design. For this reason they have been

referenced here for that reason.

1In the context of the present report the Working Load Limit (WLL) may be interpreted as the crane’s

“rated” lifting capacity applied to “the hook”.



Lanxess Corporation


Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1


2 DESIGN DESCRIPTION The monorail crane design outlined in [1] can be summarized into the following structural sub-groups:

Structure Associated with the Crane Beam Components Associated with the Connections

Details & Miscellaneous (e.g. the bolts, supporting structure)

The crane beam (monorail) consists of a 16 ft long S10x35 capped by a C10x25 channel section (via a

fillet welded continuous until beam ends). The channel cap is cut a bit shorter that the S-beam for the

purpose of allowing proper placement and termination of fillet welds and to also reduce the congestion of

steel components terminating at the crane beam end regions.

The nature of the loads anticipated, likely service duty, and geometric layout of surrounding steel

elements lend themselves to allow the a double angle shear connections that are bolted to web of the in

W12x45 and initially shop welded to the web of the S10x35 crane section.

The cross-section of the composite section is presented in Figure 3.2.

3 DESIGN APPROACH

3.1 Design Data

Relatively limited data was available to develop the replacement monorail design.

Available design data can be summarized by the following:

Dimensional details were obtained through surveys

WLL = 5,000 lbs (2.5 ton)

From client discussions it was gathered that the crane would be used very infrequently and

only be experience some 0 t0 5 service cycles per annum.

The crane’s design load spectrum is extremely narrow. It centers around 2.5 ton (or its target

lifted load). The load spectrum would be expected to have some minimal scatter and be

completely of very heavily biased towards loads above the 2.5 ton (see Figure 3.2)

3.2 Design Objectives

Considering the data noted in Section 3.1, and the idealized load spectrum presented in design

approached to consider the following:

1. The monorail will not be explicitly design for fatigue (low cycles); however, design details willinherently consider fatigue issues.

2. Beam end connections need only resist shear loading (and some small tension loads). The

cranes low cycle operational nature means that these connections can resist loads through

bearing of the bolts (i.e., slip critical connections not required).



Lanxess Corporation


Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1


3. Considering the crane load is only about 5 kips, end support sections (W12 sections) should

be adequate to distribute thee monorail’s reaction forces. Simple checks are only needed to

verify the beams are not nearing the elastic limit.

4. The hook load variability is low and it will be mainly subjected to a single well known weight

(lifting a valve). Some additional loads in the high impulsive range would be expected if thecrane is used to pull a “stuck” valve out of place (as noted by the client). Considering this the

crane beam should be robust and easily resist just load characteristics.

5. The beam section must be an S type (similar dimensions to a S10x25) to allow it to fit the

existing hoisting hardware. As a larger S section may present issues fitting with the existing

equipment, a channel cap was adopted to add substantial robustness to the section strength

in both the in an out-of-plan loading directions (see Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.1 – Lifted Load Spectrum Considered in Design Approach

IncreasingLoad

DecreasingLoad

Lifted Load Value (LL)

2.5 ton

(Weight of Valve)

P (LL)

HighProbability

LowProbability

Likely Biased to the hi end due to potential impulsiveloads caused by “jerking the valve loose)

P (LL ≥ 2.5) =~100%



Lanxess Corporation


Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1


(a)

(b)

Figure 3.2 – Composite Section Considered for (a) Engineering Calculations and (2)

Detailing



Lanxess Corporation


Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1


4 C ALCULATION SUMMARY

4.1 GeneralThe following sections highlight some of the design checks and engineering calculations undertaken in

support of the monorail design. Each of the below subsections has a correlating Appendix. Each

appendix includes a set of calculation sheets. Great care has been taken to present these calculations

and the associated results in a matter that is clear and easy to follow.

4.2 Beam Design

Appendix A includes the checks and inputs used to verify the crane beam design using AISC (9th

ed) and

CMAA (2010 Ed) code checks.

Details associated with the beam’s cross section were developed in CAD software and verified

elsewhere. The composite section properties were then manually input into the calculations.

The resulting data indicates that the capped crane beam easily handles the 2.5 ton lifted load. Inspection

of the safety factors indicates the section has a large degree of residual lifting capacity. This of course

was anticipated for reasons noted in Section 3.2.

4.3 Connection Design

In Appendix B the double angle shear tabs are checked against the crane beam end forces. Code checks

are per AISC 9th

Ed. The sections considered in the design are quite robust to begin with and are not

highly utilized.

4.4 Assessment Screening of Support Structure

In this Appendix calculations check the supporting W12 section against the crane beam end forces. As

the preexisting beam utilization is unknown a value of 60% is assumed (which is very conservative).

The code check results (per AISC 9th) show that under peak crane beam reaction shear forces little effect

to the overall W12 section utilization is observed.



Lanxess Corporation


Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1


5 REFERENCES

1. Total Crane Services, “Lanxess Monorail Upgrade”, AFC Drawing Set, Revision 2, 15-Aug-2013.



Lanxess Corporation


Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1


Appendix A

Monorail Beam Design Calcu lations



Lanxess Corporation


Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1


Appendix B

Connection Calculations



Lanxess Corporation


Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1


Appendix C

Supporting Structure Screening Assessment



Lanxess Corporation


Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1


Appendix D

Design & Analysis Associated to Utilization of Monorail

Support Framing as a Resul t of Updated Structural Layout

Data Provided by the Client



Lanxess Corporation


Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1


D.1 Background

The client has indicated that the original framing layouts considered for the design of the monorail crane

beam is not consistent with the “as-is” structural configuration observed at the facility. The client has

indicated that the length of the W12x45 beams (supporting the monorail) and the spacing of columns

attached to the W12x45 beams are substantially larger than originally considered in the design (see

Figure D.1 below).

In addition to the updated structural information the client has indicated that the monorail crane beam

working load limit (WLL) can be reduced to 3,700 lbs (i.e., 3.7 kips or 1.85 tons).

Figure D.1 – True configuration o f W12x45 monorail support beams and associated columns



Lanxess Corporation


Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1


D.2 Updated Analysis

Although the crane beam WLL is now smaller than originally considered, the unsupported length of the

monorail support beam (i.e., the W12x45) is substantially longer than that originally considered. As such,

further calculations are required to check the adequacy of the support beam under the peak monorail

reaction forces.

Updated calculations indicate that a 3,700 lb WLL will result in a 5.32 kip peak crane beam reaction force

(updated crane reaction limits are presented in Figure D.2). The updated geometry and new crane

reaction force was considered in further AISC design code checks for the W12x45 support beam.

Conservative assumptions have been made to account for the load added by the hanging catwalks (each

assumed to load 1000 lbs to the beam).

Figure D.2 – New monorail hook load and max/min support reaction forces

D.3 Results

Design calculations (presented in the following pages) indicate that even with the conservative hanger

load assumption the beam is only utilized to 53% (i.e., still retains nearly 47% capacity). With this amount

of excess capacity it is very reasonable to assume that it will not be over utilized if pre-existing design

loads were introduced.



Lanxess Corporation


Report No: 130713-01-05 Rev. 1


monorail capacity & design check - test print

Documents