Doubts and persistence regarding \"far beyond conventional design\"
Thread Content
The question arises from a project case: A Chinese company was tasked with constructing an oil product pipeline in northeastern Thailand, with the project design carried out by the British company PENSPEN. At that time, the project team found that the foundation design drawings for the 30,000 cubic meter tank provided by PENSPEN indicated a ring wall width of 1.2 meters, which was far exceeding the conventional standards in China. Considering the economic aspects, construction timeline, and safety of the tank foundation, it was necessary to carry out recalculations immediately. The project team promptly conducted a manual verification using the American standard formulas, and determined that a maximum width of 0.8 meters for the ring wall foundation was sufficient. The original conclusion was drawn by the design team using the STAAD calculation software, and it cannot be easily dismissed; sufficient \"evidence\" is required.
STAAD is a general-purpose structural analysis and design software. To this end, the project department organized an expert committee meeting for discussion; after thorough consideration, it was confirmed that there were no issues with the manual calculation sheets, and it was speculated that the software might have had problems in arranging the rebar for the ring walls. At the same time, the project team tried to use the same STAAD software for modeling and calculations, and the results obtained were identical to those from the original design company. Subsequently, a large number of standards and specifications were reviewed, and the software’s user manual was carefully analyzed; it was ultimately confirmed that the software indeed contained errors regarding the limits for rebar placement. The process of consideration, the conclusions, and recommendations were sent by email to the American STAAD software development company. The software company responded promptly, agreeing with the conclusions reached and suggesting that this flaw be corrected in future updates.
This post was last edited by The wise are enlightened on 2020-12-12 at 17:12. Based on this conclusion, PENSPEN quickly identified the problem and revised the drawings; the new design reduced the width of the tank’s surrounding wall from 1.2 meters to 0.8 meters. According to this design, 800 cubic meters of reinforced concrete were saved, resulting in cost savings of around 600,000 yuan. It has also won the trust and respect of the designers and clients.
Storage tanks with capacities of 5,000, 10,000, 30,000, 50,000, 100,000, and 150,000 cubic meters come in standard designs available in China; the only adjustment is made to the foundation design based on the varying bearing capacity of the ground.