Screenshot 2020-11-23 at 08.43.40

PROJECT SGA- Prefabrication
Modular Power Distribution Skid
TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
STRUCTURE ANALYSIS & LIFTING ANALYSIS

TYPICAL SKID OF XHMD-NY-Z & XHMD-RNY-Z & NTHMD
DOCUMENT NO. : 008/ENG.CAL/020

PO No. :
CLIENT : FACEBOOK
CONTRACTOR : SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC
SUB CONTRACTOR : BASUKIGRAHA FABRIKATAMA
Cover Page
APPROVED BY
APPROVED BY
REV. ISSUED DATE STATUS PREPARED BY REVIEWED BY PROFESIONAL
SCHNEIDER
ENGINEERING
0 21/11/2020 IFR SINAGA MARDIANSYAH
“The printed document with original signature of approver is controlled document which should be also available in BGF server in pdf from after
stamping with “MASTER DOCUMENT”. Copy of any controlled document is considered as uncontrolled document”
Page 1 of 30
Title : DOCUMENT NO.

STRUCTURE ANALYSIS and LIFTING CALCULATION Typical skid of xHMD-Ny-z & xHMD-RNy-z & REVISION 0
NTHMD ISSUE DATE 21/11/2020
JOB NO.
Revision History
Revision Date Description of changes

0 21/11/2020 For Review
Page 2 of 30
Any controlled copies may be superseded. Refer to BGF Server for controlled version

JOB NO.
Table Of Content
Cover Page ................................................................................................................................... 1

Revision History ........................................................................................................................... 2
Table Of Content .......................................................................................................................... 3
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 5
1.1. Background ........................................................................................................................... 5
1.2. Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 5
1.3. Skid (xHMD-Ny-z & xHMD-RNy-z & NTHMD) Description and Design Philosophy ..... 5
1.4. Definition............................................................................................................................... 5
1.5. References ............................................................................................................................. 5
1.6. Design Basis and Assumption ............................................................................................... 6
1.7. Data Material ......................................................................................................................... 7
2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 8

2.1. Lifting Analysis and Design Results ..................................................................................... 9
2.2. Deflection during Lifting....................................................................................................... 9
2.3. In Place Analysis and Design Results ................................................................................. 10
2.4. Transport Analysis .............................................................................................................. 10
3. DESIGN INPUT..................................................................................................................... 10
3.1. Skid Model Input ................................................................................................................. 11
3.2. Dead Load (Self Weight & Equipment Weight) ................................................................. 11
3.3. Earthquake Load Input ........................................................................................................ 13
3.4. Combination Load Input ..................................................................................................... 14
3.4.1. In Place Analysis ...................................................................................................... 14
3.4.2. Lifting Analysis ........................................................................................................ 15
3.4.3. Support Input ............................................................................................................ 16
3.5. Combination Load Input ..................................................................................................... 16
Page 3 of 30

JOB NO.
3.5.1. In Place Design ......................................................................................................... 16
3.5.2. Lifting Design........................................................................................................... 17
3.6. Deflection Check ................................................................................................................. 18

3.7. Lifting Lug Design .............................................................................................................. 20
3.8. Skid Frame Connection Design ........................................................................................... 25
3.8.1. Main Beam to Beam Connections Design ............................................................... 25
3.8.2. Secondary Beam to Main Beam Connections Design .............................................. 28
3.9. Center Of Gravity ................................................................................................................ 30
4. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 30
Page 4 of 30

JOB NO.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
The Skid frame proposed in this report is specifically design for Schneider Electric Switchboard
system for the Facebook Project to be located in Singapore. The skid design is to meet the
requirement of the project to lift the entire switchboard supported on this skid to the highest floor
(estimated to be 11th floor) on a tall building and suitable for transport from the installed premises
to the installation site.
1.2. Objectives
This document is to presents the Structural analysis and design of the largest skid (Typical skid
of xHMD-Ny-z & xHMD-RNy-z & NTHMD) which the analysis is carried out using computer
software SAP 2000 Program. Stresses in members due to different stages of the skid life, i.e
fabrication, transportations, lifting and in-place are checked based on applicable codes, with
input load based on SNI 03-1729-2002, LRFD and Specification E801.SGAX-022 to enable the
final product to be safely lifted to the final position and stay in the position for its life.
1.3. Skid (xHMD-Ny-z & xHMD-RNy-z & NTHMD) Description and Design
Philosophy
This skid consists of a solid welded perimeter beam (150 H Beam) and intermediate cross beams
(150 I Beams) to support each switchboard panel. It is ensured that a cross beam is located at
every lifting lug position to counter the torsional forces coming from the lifting eccentricities.
An angle support is provided to support the switchboard panels where the cross beam is provided
only for lifting near panel joint to avoid two large cross beams at near proximity. Lifting lug
positions have been carefully located to ensure the maximum deflection throughout the frame is
to be minimal and to keep the minimum sling angles to ensure least secondary moments in the
lifting lugs.
1.4. Definition
COMPANY FACEBOOK
CONTRACTOR SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC
Page 5 of 30

JOB NO.
SUB-CONTRACTOR PT.BASUKIGRAHA FABRIKATAMA
Approval Means the authorization in writing given by the

COMPANY to the CONTRACTOR on procedure or to
proceed with the performance of a specific part of the work
without releasing in any way the CONTRACTOR from any
of his obligations to conform with the technical
specifications, requisitions, etc. The words "Approve",
"Approved" and "Approval" shall be construed
accordingly.
1.5. References
The analysis and design have been performed in accordance with the latest editions and related
amendments of the following:
1. SNI 03 – 1729 – 2002, LRFD.
2. SNI 1726: 2012 Tata Cara Perencanaan Ketahanan Gempa untuk Struktur Bangunan Gedung
dan Non Gedung.
3. Specification for Electrical Building, Doc.No.: Typical skid of xHMD-Ny-z & xHMD-RNy-z &
NTHMD
4. DNV 2.22 October 2011 “Lifting Appliances”.
5. Project Specification E801.SGAX-022.
6. JIS 3101 SS400 Structural Carbon.
1.6. Design Basis and Assumption
The structural analysis and design for skid frame Typical skid of xHMD-Ny-z & xHMD-RNy-z
& NTHMD has been performed using SAP 2000 v.21 program. The equipment weights and sizes
have been retrieved from the Schneider Electric switchboard general arrangement drawings. The
structure is analyzed for three different stages as below.
Lifting condition
Page 6 of 30

JOB NO.
Transport condition
In place condition
The self-weight of the structure has been calculated by the computer software and added as a
separate load case. The load factors for lifting analysis load combinations was taken from DNV
2.22 October 2011 “Lifting Appliances”. Load factors for in place analysis load combinations
was taken from SNI 03 - 1729 - 2002, LRFD. Structural materials are based on JIS 3101 SS400.
These Skid frames are assumed to be placed on a flat and levelled concrete surface which the
frame is to be fully supported from underneath at the final position. Preparation of lifting plans
and lifting operations shall be carried out at site by others. Lifting contractor shall provide lifting
plans for engineer to review prior to lifting.
Boundary condition of slings connecting to skid frame, lifting frame/bar and at the crane hook is
assumed to be pinned connections. The connection between concrete surface and the bottom of
skid at final connection is assumed to be pinned connections. All member interconnection of the
skid frame are fully moment connections.
For earthquake analysis the soil class in Singapore is assumed to be Class D (soil type, Medium
soil). Due to the unavailability of the soil class in Singapore, the Class D was assumed because
it is the worst-case scenario for earthquake analysis.
1.7. Data Material
The main material used for all members is based on JIS 3101 SS400. The Mechanical Properties
for all primary and secondary steel members are as follows:
1. Grade of steel : SS400
2. Yield Stress, Fy : 245 MPa
3. Tensile Stress, Fu : 390 MPa
4. Modulus of Elasticity : 200 GPa
5. Poisson’s Ratio : 0.26
Page 7 of 30

JOB NO.
Figure 1.1 Material Data Propeties SS400 SAP 2000 input
Standard analysis reports are:
1. Section Ratio Member (Max) : 1,0 (Output SAP 2000 v.21)
2. Allow deflection limit : L/500 or 2 mm/meter
3. Specification Standard : SNI 03-1792-2002
2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Structural analysis for the Skid Frame Typical skid of xHMD-Ny-z & xHMD-RNy-z & NTHMD
has been performed to ensure strength, stability and deflection under the Dead load/ Panels
weight load, Transport, Lifting and operating conditions. While the detail of analysis approach
and detailed result are presented in the subsequent section on this report, a brief summary of
result is presented hereunder.
Page 8 of 30

JOB NO.
2.1. Lifting Analysis and Design Results
Table 2.1 Results Ratio Steel Frame Skid Lifting Typical skid of xHMD-Ny-z & xHMD-RNy-z & NTHMD
TABLE: Steel Design 1 - Summary Data - AISC-LRFD93

Frame DesignSect DesignType Ratio Combo Compliance
B8 H 150 Beam 0,0311 Lifting- 2.2x (SW+EL) PASSED
B5 IWF 150 Beam 0,0041 Lifting- 2.2x (SW+EL) PASSED
B6 L 70 X 70 Beam 0,0036 Lifting- 2.2x (SW+EL) PASSED
2.2. Deflection during Lifting
Table 2.2 Results Deflection Steel Frame Skid Lifting Typical skid of xHMD-Ny-z & xHMD-RNy-z & NTHMD
(A)
Results (B)
Coordina Deflection Compliance
Deflection Standard
Joint Output Case U3 te joint to Range (results ok
Joint to Deflection
location Joint if A<B)
joint L/500
(mm)
P1 Lifting- 2.2x (SW+EL) -0,21 0 P1 0 - 0 Passed
P2 Lifting- 2.2x (SW+EL) -0,11 450 P1-P2 450 0,10 0,9 Passed
P3 Lifting- 2.2x (SW+EL) -0,09 200 P2-P3 -250 0,02 -0,5 Passed
P5 Lifting- 2.2x (SW+EL) 0,06 480 P4-P5 30 0,08 0,06 Passed
P6 Lifting- 2.2x (SW+EL) 0,06 170 P5-P6 -310 0,00 -0,62 Passed
P7 Lifting- 2.2x (SW+EL) 0,05 450 P7 280 -0,01 0,56 Passed
P8 Lifting- 2.2x (SW+EL) -0,21 0 P7-P8 0 - 0 Passed
P14 Lifting- 2.2x (SW+EL) 0,05 450 P13-P14 280 -0,01 0,56 Passed
Page 9 of 30

JOB NO.
2.3. In Place Analysis and Design Results
Table 2.3 Results Deflection Steel Frame Skid In-Place Typical skid of xHMD-Ny-z & xHMD-RNy-z & NTHMD

B8 H 150 Beam 0,0491 1,4D PASSED
B4 L 70 X 70 Beam 0,0023 1,4D PASSED
B3 L 70 X 70 Beam 0,0022 1,4D PASSED
B6 L 70 X 70 Beam 0,0021 1,4D PASSED
B2 IWF 150 Beam 0,0006 1,4D PASSED
2.4. Transport Analysis
The transport analysis will be carried at a later stage when the transport information is available.
However, it is understood that the most critical load condition on the frame is lifting and therefore
this analysis at this stage is not required. If at a later stage, transport analysis show any changes
to the skid frame members, it will be dealt with providing additional transport bracing and will
not impact on the member sizes of the skid frame
3. DESIGN INPUT
Following are the methods of input of the structural members of skid and corresponding
equipment loading that is derived from switchboard general arrangement drawings. Equipment
loading has been considered as a dead load because they are permanently fixed to the skid frame.
There is no any human loads on the skid structure, therefore no live load has been considered in
design input.
Page 10 of 30

JOB NO.
3.1. Skid Model Input
Table 3.1 Frame Section Assignment Design Typical skid of xHMD-Ny-z & xHMD-RNy-z & NTHMD
TABLE: Frame Section Assignments

B1 I/Wide Flange N.A. H 150 H 150
B2 I/Wide Flange N.A. IWF 150 IWF 150
B3 Angle N.A. L 70 X 70 L 70 X 70
B4 Angle N.A. L 70 X 70 L 70 X 70
B5 I/Wide Flange N.A. IWF 150 IWF 150
B6 Angle N.A. L 70 X 70 L 70 X 70
Figure 3.1. Skid Frame Design Input
Figure 3.2. Skid Frame Design Number Frame Input
3.2. Dead Load (Self Weight & Equipment Weight)
Dead load is input as two load cases, namely, self-weight and equipment weight. However, the
self-weight is automatically computed by SAP 2000 and added into self-weight load case.
Equipment load is manually added as shown in below table:
Page 11 of 30

JOB NO.
Table 3.1 Typical skid of xHMD-Ny-z & xHMD-RNy-z & NTHMD Weight
Weight
No Weight input
Panel Length depth Weight input load load(kN/m)
1 Panel Nr.01 1100 1800 600 273 2,67
2 Panel Nr.02 1100 1800 600 273 2,67
Skid weight (Computed by SAP 2000) = 205,3 kgs

Lifting Lug (manual Calculation) = 9,5 x 4 pcs = 38 kg
Towing Lug (manual Calculation) = 4,5 x 2 pcs = 9 kg
Total Weight 252,3 kg
See figure 3.3. Below for snapshot of computer-generated self-weight information.
Figure 3.3. Computer generated input data Skid Frame Weight
Following figure 3.4 shows the equipment load input into SAP 2000 for analysis
Figure 3.4. Graphical Display of Equipment load input
Page 12 of 30

JOB NO.
3.3. Earthquake Load Input
Based on the following location data for Singapore, earth quake acceleration spectrum is
automatically generated by website: http://puskim.pu.go.id/ and the snapshot from the location
is shown below in figure 3.5. and the spectrum is shown in figure 3.6.
Location: Singapore
Coordinate:
Latitude : 1.3608393887454855
Longitude : 103.8417533699313
Figure 3.5. Singapore Location Coordinates Data
Figure 3.6. Earthquake acceleration Spectrum for Singapore from Puskim
From the above information following data was input to SAP 2000.Based on this, the Dynamic
Quake on SAP 2000 generates the acceleration spectrum to be used for earthquake analysis for
the skid frame:
SS = 0,062 (bedrock acceleration for a short period of 0.2 seconds)
S1 = 0,089 (bedrock acceleration period of 1.0 seconds)
Long period = 4s
Page 13 of 30

JOB NO.
Site Class= D (soil type, Medium soil)
Following figure 3.7 shows the spectrum generated by SAP 2000.
Figure 3.7. The Spectrum generatedBy SAP 2000 for Singapore
3.4. Combination Load Input

3.4.1. In Place Analysis
Combinations load are input according to SNI 03-1927-2002 as below:
Figure 3.8. Combination Load SNI 03-1927-2002 page.13
explanation of naming the load:
D = Dead load (self-weight (SW) and equipment load (EW))
E = Earthquake
L = Live load (Not used for skid, because there is no place for human)
Page 14 of 30

JOB NO.
W = Wind Load (Not used for in this calculation, because on the inside house)
La = Live load on roof (Not used for in this calculation)
H = Rain load (Not Used for in this calculation)
Below figure 3.9 shows the combination entered into SAP 2000
Figure 3.9. Input Load Combination on SAP 2000
3.4.2. Lifting Analysis
Load factors and combination for Lifting Analysis is based on DNV No.2.22 “Lifting Appliances”
Sec.12. Table B.2 Test load for loose gear and other accessories and explained Below:
For a Single Crane Lift, the following factors have been used.
Weight Contingency factor: : 1.1 (Assumed unweighted) per ISO 19901-5
Dynamic Amplification Factor (DAF) : 1.1 (Onshore Weight between 3-100T)
Special Loads: : (Not Required)
Skew Factor (SKL) : 1.25 (Indeterminate 4-sling lifts)
Tilt angle : 1.0
The rigging geometry shall normally be configured so that the maximum tilt of the structure does
not exceed 2°
COG Factor : 1.1
(A COG envelope should be maintained of 0.05L x .0.05B x 0.05H)
Consequent factor: 1.3 for Lifting Points : 1.15 for members directly supporting Framing
Therefore;
Page 15 of 30

JOB NO.
Calculated Factor for Lifting Points is:

1.1 x 1.1 x 1.25 x 1.0 x 1.1 x 1.3 = 2.163 ~ 2,2
Calculated Factor Member Directly Connected to Lifting devices:
1.1 x 1.1 x 1.25 x 1.0 x 1.1 x 1.15 = 1.913 ~ 2,0
Calculated Factor All other members:
1.1 x 1.1 x 1.25 x 1.0 x 1.1 x 1.0 = 1.664 ~ 1.7
To make the input of the load factors for lifting easier a global lifting load factor of 2.2 has been
used in the model.
3.4.3. Support Input
Design Support Use Anchor, in SAP use reaction use Pin mode In Place analysis:
Figure 3.10. Assign Joint Restraints on SAP 2000
3.5. Combination Load Input

Structural analysis and design for the Skid Frame Typical skid of xHMD-Ny-z & xHMD-RNy-
z & NTHMD has been performed to ensure strength, stability and deflection under the Self
Weight and Equipment load, Transport load, Lifting load and operating condition loads. Detail
analysis and design result are presented in the subsequent section on this report.
3.5.1. In Place Design
Table 4.1 Results Ratio Steel Frame Skid In-Place Typical skid of xHMD-Ny-z & xHMD-RNy-z & NTHMD

B4 L 70 X 70 Beam 0,0023 1,4D PASSED
Page 16 of 30

JOB NO.
B3 L 70 X 70 Beam 0,0022 1,4D PASSED

B6 L 70 X 70 Beam 0,0021 1,4D PASSED
Figure 3.11. Output Ratio Typical skid of xHMD-Ny-z & xHMD-RNy-z & NTHMD SAP 2000
After the analysis and design, it has been shown that all of the structural members of the skid
have sufficient capacity to withstand the intended loads during its life.
The highest member ratio is 0,0491 < 1.0 and therefore, the structural frame has ample additional
capacity.
Because the skid will be seat flat on concrete surface at the final site, no deflection is to be
checked for in place condition.
3.5.2. Lifting Design
Table 4.1 Results Ratio Steel Frame Skid Lifting Typical skid of xHMD-Ny-z & xHMD-RNy-z & NTHMD

Page 17 of 30

JOB NO.

Following table summarizes the design capacity ratios for all structure members of the skid for
lifting conditions based on the table, it can be seen that all of the structure members are easily
passed the design code requirements.
The highest member ratio is 0.031< 1.0 and therefore, the structural frame has ample additional
capacity.
Figure 3.12. Graphical display of the capacity ratios for lifting conditions
3.6. Deflection Check
The most critical deflection for entire life of the skid occurs during lifting. Therefore, a detailed
analysis of deflection has been done for lifting conditions and therefore, deflection check for
other conditions has been ignored.
The deflection criterion for the skid is based on the requirement of switchgear and it is limited to
L/500 (2mm/m). Following table provides the critical deflection values of the skid and it shows
that these values meet the required deflection criterion for the skid.
Page 18 of 30

JOB NO.
Table 4.3 Results Deflection Steel Frame Skid Typical skid of xHMD-Ny-z & xHMD-RNy-z & NTHMD
(A)
Results (B)
Coordina Deflection Compliance
Deflection Standard
Joint Output Case U3 te joint to Range (results ok
Joint to Deflection
location Joint if A<B)
joint L/500
(mm)
P1 Lifting- 2.2x (SW+EL) -0,21 0 P1 0 - 0 Passed
P7 Lifting- 2.2x (SW+EL) 0,05 450 P7 280 -0,01 0,56 Passed
P8 Lifting- 2.2x (SW+EL) -0,21 0 P7-P8 0 - 0 Passed
P14 Lifting- 2.2x (SW+EL) 0,05 450 P13-P14 280 -0,01 0,56 Passed
Following is the graphical display of deflection.
Figure 3.13. Graph Skid Lifting B13 and B14
Page 19 of 30

JOB NO.
Figure 3.14. Graph Deflection P1 & P8
3.7. Lifting Lug Design
igure 3.15. Graph Axial Sling
Page 20 of 30

JOB NO.
Figure 3.16. Crosby General Catalog
Figure 3.17 U.S.Federal Specification RR-C-271D.
Figure 3.20. U.S.Federal Specification RR-C-271D
Page 21 of 30

JOB NO.
Page 22 of 30

JOB NO.
Page 23 of 30

JOB NO.
Page 24 of 30

JOB NO.
3.8. Skid Frame Connection Design
3.8.1. Main Beam to Beam Connections Design
1) H Beam 150 to H Beam 150

Vu (SAP 2000 Shear) = 4,34 KN
Mu (SAP 2000 Moment) = 0,75 KNm
Pu (SAP 2000 Axial) = 1,126 KN
Page 25 of 30

JOB NO.
Figure 3.21 Shear,Moment and Axial Results Max on Frame SAP 2000
Use GMAW Wire ER-70xx
Yield Strength ER-70 = 400 MPa
Tensile Strength ER-70 (FEXX) = 480 MPa
Yield Stress, (Fyb) = 245 MPa
Tensile Stress, (Fub) = 390 MPa
Design Welding Joint H Beam to H Beam
Welding design is full welding
Figure 3.22. Minimum Size of fillet welding (AISC 2010 Table J2.3)
Thick plate H beam = 10 mm
Minimum Size Fillet welds (tmin) = 5 mm (see Figure 4.5)
According AISC-2010 Along edges of material less than 1 /4 in. (6 mm) thick; not greater than
the thickness of the material. (2) Along edges of material 1 /4 in. (6 mm) or more in thickness;
not greater than the thickness of the material minus 1 /16 in. (2 mm)
Maximum
Maximum Size Fillet Welds (tmax) = 10 mm - 2 mm = 8mm
Page 26 of 30

JOB NO.
tuse = 7 mm
Fnw is nominal stress of the weld electrode metal, ksi (MPa)
Fub is nominal stress of the weld base metal, ksi (MPa)
Fnw = 0.60FEXX, ksi (MPa)
Fnu = 0.60Fub, ksi (MPa)
Fnw = 0.60 x 480 = 288
Fub = 0.60 x 390 = 234
tc (Thick effective weld) 0,707 x tuse = 0.707 x 7 = 4,949 mm
Rnweld (The shear bearing carrying capacity of the welding electrode)
RBM (Welding shear bearing strength of steel profile plates N/mm)
Rnweld (design weld strength electrode) = Ф.tc.(Fnw)………………………(AISC Section J2-3)
Rbm (design weld strength base metal) = Ф.tc.(Fub)………………….……(AISC Section J2-2)
where Ф = 0.75 (LRFD)
Rnweld = 0,75 x 4,949 x 288/1000 = 1,067 KN/mm
RBM = 0,75 x 4,949 x 234/1000 = 0,868 KN/mm
Ruse = Rn = 0,868 KN/mm
ldesign = 276 mm (full welded)
lneed = Pu / Rn
= 7,861 / 0,868
=9
lcheck = ldesign > lneed (ok)
Puweld = 276 x 0,868 = 239,56 kN
PuCheck = Pu (SAP 2000 Axial) < Puweld (OK)
Page 27 of 30

JOB NO.
Figure 3.23.Connecting Welding Fillet Hbeam to Hbeam
3.8.2. Secondary Beam to Main Beam Connections Design

1) H Beam 150 to IWF 150
Vu (SAP 2000 Shear) = 0.09 KN
Mu (SAP 2000 Moment) = 0.18 KNm
Figure 3.24.Shear,Moment and Axial Results Max on Frame SAP 2000

Use GMAW Wire ER-70xx
Yield Strength ER-70 = 400 MPa
Tensile Strength ER-70 (FEXX) = 480 MPa
Page 28 of 30

JOB NO.
Yield Stress, (Fyb) = 245 MPa

Tensile Stress, (Fub) = 390 MPa
Design Welding Joint H Beam to H Beam
Welding design is full welding
Thick plate H beam = 10 mm
Thick plate I beam = 7 mm
Minimum Size Fillet welds (tmin) = 5 mm (see Figure 4.5)
According AISC-2010 Along edges of material less than 1 /4 in. (6 mm) thick; not greater than
the thickness of the material. (2) Along edges of material 1 /4 in. (6 mm) or more in thickness;
not greater than the thickness of the material minus 1 /16 in. (2 mm)
Maximum
Maximum Size Fillet Welds (tmax) = 7 mm - 2 mm = 5mm
tuse = 6 mm
Fnw is nominal stress of the weld electrode metal, ksi (MPa)
Fub is nominal stress of the weld base metal, ksi (MPa)
Fnw = 0.60FEXX, ksi (MPa)
Fnu = 0.60Fub, ksi (MPa)
Fnw = 0.60 x 480 = 288
Fub = 0.60 x 390 = 234
tc (Thick effective weld) 0,707 x tuse = 0.707 x 6 = 4,24 mm
Rnweld (The shear bearing carrying capacity of the welding electrode)
RBM (Welding shear bearing strength of steel profile plates N/mm)
Rnweld (design weld strength electrode) = Ф.tc.(Fnw)………………………(AISC Section J2-3)
Rbm (design weld strength base metal) = Ф.tc.(Fub)………………….……(AISC Section J2-2)
where Ф = 0.75 (LRFD)
Rnweld = 0,75 x 4,24 x 288/1000 = 0,915 KN/mm
RBM = 0,75 x 4,24 x 234/1000 = 0,744 KN/mm
Ruse = Rn = 0,744 KN/mm
ldesign = 276 mm (full welded)
lneed = Pu / Rn
= 7,007 / 0,744
Page 29 of 30

JOB NO.
= 9,41 mm
lcheck = ldesign > lneed (ok)
Puweld = 276 x 0,744 = 205,344 kN
Pu (SAP 2000 Axial) = 1,374 KN KN
PuCheck = Pu (SAP 2000 Axial) < Puweld (OK)
Figure 3.25. Connecting Welding Fillet I Beam to H Beam
3.9. Center Of Gravity
Center Of Gravity Generate on SAP

X = 1100 mm
Y = 300 mm
4. CONCLUSION
From the structural analysis and the design for the skid, it can be concluded that this design meets
the requirement of the strength and the deflection criteria for the installation of switchboard.
Page 30 of 30

Screenshot 2020-11-23 at 08.43.40

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Screenshot 2020-11-23 at 08.43.40

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROJECT SGA- Prefabrication

Modular Power Distribution Skid

STRUCTURE ANALYSIS & LIFTING ANALYSIS

DOCUMENT NO. : 008/ENG.CAL/020

Title : DOCUMENT NO.

Revision Date Description of changes

Title : DOCUMENT NO.

Cover Page ................................................................................................................................... 1

2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 8

3.4.2. Lifting Analysis ........................................................................................................ 15

3.4.3. Support Input ............................................................................................................ 16

3.5. Combination Load Input ..................................................................................................... 16

Title : DOCUMENT NO.

3.5.1. In Place Design ......................................................................................................... 16

3.5.2. Lifting Design........................................................................................................... 17

3.6. Deflection Check ................................................................................................................. 18

3.8.1. Main Beam to Beam Connections Design ............................................................... 25

3.8.2. Secondary Beam to Main Beam Connections Design .............................................. 28

3.9. Center Of Gravity ................................................................................................................ 30

Title : DOCUMENT NO.

CONTRACTOR SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC

Title : DOCUMENT NO.

SUB-CONTRACTOR PT.BASUKIGRAHA FABRIKATAMA

Approval Means the authorization in writing given by the

1. SNI 03 – 1729 – 2002, LRFD.

4. DNV 2.22 October 2011 “Lifting Appliances”.

5. Project Specification E801.SGAX-022.

6. JIS 3101 SS400 Structural Carbon.

1.6. Design Basis and Assumption

Title : DOCUMENT NO.

1.7. Data Material

1. Grade of steel : SS400

2. Yield Stress, Fy : 245 MPa

3. Tensile Stress, Fu : 390 MPa

4. Modulus of Elasticity : 200 GPa

5. Poisson’s Ratio : 0.26

Title : DOCUMENT NO.

Figure 1.1 Material Data Propeties SS400 SAP 2000 input

Standard analysis reports are:

1. Section Ratio Member (Max) : 1,0 (Output SAP 2000 v.21)

2. Allow deflection limit : L/500 or 2 mm/meter

3. Specification Standard : SNI 03-1792-2002

Title : DOCUMENT NO.

2.1. Lifting Analysis and Design Results

TABLE: Steel Design 1 - Summary Data - AISC-LRFD93

2.2. Deflection during Lifting

Title : DOCUMENT NO.

2.3. In Place Analysis and Design Results

TABLE: Steel Design 1 - Summary Data - AISC-LRFD93

Frame DesignSect DesignType Ratio Combo Compliance

2.4. Transport Analysis

Title : DOCUMENT NO.

3.1. Skid Model Input

TABLE: Frame Section Assignments

Figure 3.1. Skid Frame Design Input

Figure 3.2. Skid Frame Design Number Frame Input

3.2. Dead Load (Self Weight & Equipment Weight)

Title : DOCUMENT NO.

Skid weight (Computed by SAP 2000) = 205,3 kgs

Figure 3.3. Computer generated input data Skid Frame Weight

Figure 3.4. Graphical Display of Equipment load input

Title : DOCUMENT NO.

3.3. Earthquake Load Input