Thread Content
I have a frozen salt water tank with a capacity of 300 m3, a specific gravity of 1.3, and dimensions of 14 meters in length, 4 meters in width, and 5.5 meters in height. It is reinforced using E-type reinforcement; the horizontal reinforcement rings are made of 9# angle steel. The numbers of these reinforcement rings and the distances between them are as follows: H1, mm; H2, mm; H3, mm; H4, mm; H5, mm; H6, mm – 51500, 1000, 900, 850, 650, 600. The reinforcement columns to be used are 9# channel steel, with a spacing of 800 mm between them. When calculating the cross-sectional area required for these reinforcement columns, should the total height of 5500 mm be used, or should the maximum distance between the reinforcement rings, which is 1500 mm, be taken into account? Some people on the internet say to choose 1500mm, while others suggest choosing 5500mm; the main text and explanations in the standard NB/T47003 also do not provide clear guidance. If 5500 mm is chosen, B/A = 6.875; it is still not possible to find the value of the coefficient α in Figure 8-7 of the standards, or in P77, or through interpolation methods, or in Table 10 at P120. Someone with experience in these calculations, please help out promptly. 4.2 Verification of the cross-sectional coefficient required for the reinforcement column: Zp, cm3Lp*i, max3)/t – δwe2/6]
What standard did you use to look up the No. 9 channel steel?
Hello, has your problem been resolved? I’ve encountered the same issue as you, and it’s been bothering me for a long time. If the reinforcing columns are spaced out based on the total height, they are quite dense, and the cross-sectional coefficient is also large
I have the same doubt. The calculations for reinforcement columns do not take transverse stiffeners into account; they depend only on the total height H and the spacing LP between columns. It seems that the cross-sectional coefficient required from the top to the bottom should increase gradually, perhaps following the formula ZP = Kh^3, where h represents the height at a specific location. Currently, however, the calculations are based on the total height H regardless of the location, which seems overly conservative – it’s almost unreasonable. After all, ZP is a function of H raised to the third power, so it increases very rapidly, which means that columns would need to be very large and closely spaced, which is neither reasonable nor economical