Design Report for 30.

0m Tubular Tower
supporting 10kW ABS Wind Turbine

A report prepared by

Advanced Bolting Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Dated: February, 2013

Small Wind Business Development

Add: "ABS House", W 116 A, T .T.C Industrial Area, Khairne,Navi Mumbai 400 708, M.S. – INDIA
Tel:+91 22 4171 4418 Fax: +91 22 2778 2928
Stephen Tasker Mobile: +91 9819950522 skype: stephen.tasker Email: stephen.tasker@absgroup.net.in
 Contents

1. Input Parameters
2. Design Standards
3. Design Approach
4. Tower Geometry
5. Material Properties
6. Loads Applied
7. Load Cases – Tower Strength Analysis
8. Load Cases – Tower Fatigue Analysis
9. Load Cases – Lifting Analysis
10. Load Cases – A-frame Analysis
11. Design Results – Tower Strength Analysis
12. Design Results – Tower Fatigue Analysis
13. Design Results – Lifting Analysis
14. Design Results – A-frame Analysis
15. Foundation Design Summary

Annexure 1 – Structural Drawings

Annexure 2 – Foundation Drawing
1. Input Parameters

Turbine Data:
Nacelle Weight: 750 kg
Rotor Diameter: 9.2 m
Design Power: 10 kW

Wind Parameters:
Maximum wind speed at turbine level for parked condition, Vref = 42.5 m/s
(10 minute reference wind speed for Wind Class II as per IEC 61400)

Equivalent 3-second extreme wind speed at turbine level, Ve50 = 59.5 m/s
(for parked condition)

Wind speed at turbine level for maximum thrust condition, Vhub = 25 m/s
(10 minute reference wind speed)

2. Design Standards

EN61400-2: Design requirements for small wind turbines

EN 1991-1-4: General actions - Wind actions
EN 1993-3-1: Design of steel structures - Towers, masts and chimneys
EN 1993-1-9: Design of steel structures - Fatigue

3. Design Approach

This 30m hydraulic lifting tower was designed as counterbalance tower to keep the required
hydraulic ram capacity within a practical limit.

Separate computer models were prepared and used for the design of the tubular tower and the
supporting A-frame. Linear static analysis was carried out to obtain reaction and deflection
values and to check the strength adequacy of the sections. Modal analysis was carried out to
determine the dominant modal frequencies of the tower.

a) Tower Strength Analysis: The 30m tubular tower was modeled using beam elements. In
this analysis three critical load cases which would be applicable to the tower in its
standing condition were considered. The tower was considered to be supported on the A-
frame at a height of 6.0m from the ground.

b) Tower Fatigue Analysis: The tower was modeled using shell elements in SAP 2000. The
fatigue verification of the tower was checked considering the vortex shedding forces
obtained as per EN 1991-1-4, Annex E.
c) Lifting Analysis: Two cases of lifting were considered. The first case determines if the
bottom section of the tower is safe when bringing it to the horizontal position. The second
analysis checks the adequacy of the sections when the entire 30m tower is rotated to a
vertical position. The capacity of the hydraulic ram is also deteremined using these
analyses.

d) A-frame Analysis: The forces obtained from all the above analysis cases were considered
in the design of A-frame. Geometry was determined in a manner to allow free movement
of the tower during the lifting operations.

Software used for the analysis and design was SAP 2000, v14

4. Tower Geometry

A stepped monopole arrangement composed of five sections is used for the 30m high tower.
In addition to the five sections, there is a large diameter cylinder connected to the bottom
most section of the tower. This cylinder when filled with concrete will act as a
counterweight during the lifting operation. The counterweight section will be 0.5m above
the ground level when the tower is vertical.

Top Outer Pipe Pipe

Bottom Elevation Section Diameter Thickness
Elevation (m) (m) Height (m) (mm) (mm)
2100 diameter cylinder
Counterweight 0.5 1.0 0.5 fabricated using 6mm thk plate

Lowest part (P1) 1.0 7.0 6.0 1400 8

Middle part (P2) 7.0 13.0 6.0 1150 8

Middle part (P3) 13.0 19.0 6.0 900 8

Middle part (P4) 19.0 25.0 6.0 660 7.92

Top part (P5) 25.0 30.0 5.0 406 7.92

The five sections are connected to each other using flange plates & bolts. The flange plates
have been designed to allow nesting of towers during transportation.

The bottom section is supported on the A-frame at 6.0m above the ground level. This same
connection acts as a hinge for the tower to rotate during the lifting process.
5. Material Properties

Circular Hollow Sections: 250 MPa (Minimum yield stress)

Tubes for A-frame: 310 MPa (Minimum yield stress)
Steel Plates used for connections: 250 MPa (Minimum yield stress)
Anchor Bolts & Nuts: Grade 4.6
Connection Bolts & Nuts: Grade 8.8
Hinge Pin for Rotation: Grade 8.8
Pins for connection of Hydraulic Ram: Grade 8.8

6. Loads Applied

Dead Loads (DL):

Weight of Nacelle: 750 kg
Self-weight of the structure

Wind Loads (WL1) – Survival wind speed for parked condition:

Vref = 42.5 m/s (10 minute reference wind speed for Wind Class II as per IEC 61400)
Ve50 = 59.5 m/s (Equivalent 3-second extreme wind speed at turbine level)

The wind forces were calculated based on the following parameters of the Euro code
BS EN 1991 -1-4.

Terrain Category: 0, Sea or coastal area exposed to open sea (Table 4.1)
Orography Factor, C0(z) = 1.0 (Clause 4.3.3)
Directional factor, cdir = 1.0 (Clause 4.2)
Season factor, cseason = 1.0 (Clause 4.2)
Turbulence Factor, k1 = 1.0 (Clause 4.4)
Structural factor, cs cd = 1.006 (Figure D.3)
Equivalent surface roughness, k = 0.02 mm (Table 7.13)
Force coefficient cf,0 for circular cylinders (from Fig 7.28)
End effect factor, Ψλ = 0.88, for solidity ratio 1.0 (Fig 7.36)

For the purpose of accurate load calculations, the tower section was broken down into
smaller elements of maximum length 1.0 m. The forces thus obtained for each such section
is summarized in the table below.
 Mean Peak
Section Section Pipe wind velocity Resultant
Bottom Top Section Outer velocity pressure Force Force Reference wind
Section Elevation Elevation Height Diameter Vm(z) qp(z) coeff coeff area force
Number (m) (m) (m) (mm) (m/s) (N/m2) cf,0 cf Aref (m2) Fw (N)
1 0.00 1.00 1.00 1400 38.52 2045 0.70 0.61 1.40 1764.9
2 1.00 2.00 1.00 1400 43.12 2413 0.70 0.61 1.40 2082.4
3 2.00 3.00 1.00 1400 45.81 2641 0.70 0.61 1.40 2278.7
4 3.00 4.00 1.00 1400 47.72 2807 0.70 0.61 1.40 2422.7
5 4.00 5.00 1.00 1400 49.20 2940 0.70 0.61 1.40 2537.1
6 5.00 6.00 1.00 1400 50.41 3050 0.70 0.61 1.40 2632.3
7 6.00 7.00 1.00 1150 51.43 3145 0.70 0.61 1.15 2229.4
8 7.00 8.00 1.00 1150 52.31 3228 0.70 0.61 1.15 2288.3
9 8.00 9.00 1.00 1150 53.09 3302 0.70 0.61 1.15 2340.9
10 9.00 10.00 1.00 1150 53.79 3369 0.70 0.61 1.15 2388.3
11 10.00 11.00 1.00 1150 54.43 3430 0.70 0.61 1.15 2431.6
12 11.00 12.00 1.00 1150 55.00 3487 0.70 0.61 1.15 2471.5
13 12.00 13.00 1.00 900 55.53 3539 0.70 0.61 0.90 1963.1
14 13.00 14.00 1.00 900 56.02 3587 0.70 0.61 0.90 1990.0
15 14.00 15.00 1.00 900 56.48 3633 0.70 0.61 0.90 2015.2
16 15.00 16.00 1.00 900 56.91 3675 0.70 0.61 0.90 2038.9
17 16.00 17.00 1.00 900 57.31 3716 0.70 0.61 0.90 2061.3
18 17.00 18.00 1.00 900 57.69 3754 0.70 0.61 0.90 2082.5
19 18.00 19.00 1.00 660 58.05 3790 0.70 0.61 0.66 1542.0
20 19.00 20.00 1.00 660 58.39 3825 0.70 0.61 0.66 1556.1
21 20.00 21.00 1.00 660 58.71 3858 0.70 0.61 0.66 1569.5
22 21.00 22.00 1.00 660 59.02 3890 0.70 0.61 0.66 1582.4
23 22.00 23.00 1.00 660 59.32 3920 0.70 0.61 0.66 1594.7
24 23.00 24.00 1.00 660 59.60 3949 0.70 0.61 0.66 1606.6
25 24.00 25.00 1.00 406 59.87 3977 0.70 0.61 0.41 995.3
26 25.00 26.00 1.00 406 60.13 4004 0.70 0.61 0.41 1002.1
27 26.00 27.00 1.00 406 60.38 4030 0.70 0.61 0.41 1008.6
28 27.00 28.00 1.00 406 60.62 4056 0.70 0.61 0.41 1014.9
29 28.00 29.00 1.00 406 60.85 4080 0.70 0.61 0.41 1021.1
30 29.00 30.00 1.00 406 61.08 4104 0.70 0.61 0.41 1027.0
Total 55540

Wind Loads (WL2) – Operating wind speed at maximum thrust condition:

Vhub = 25 m/s (10 minute reference wind speed at turbine level for max thrust condition)

The wind forces were calculated based on the following parameters of the Euro code,
BS EN 1991 -1-4.
 Terrain Category: 0, Sea or coastal area exposed to open sea (Table 4.1)
Orography Factor, C0(z) = 1.0 (Clause 4.3.3)
Directional factor, cdir = 1.0 (Clause 4.2)
Season factor, cseason = 1.0 (Clause 4.2)
Turbulence Factor, k1 = 1.0 (Clause 4.4)
Structural factor, cs cd = 0.971 (Figure D.3)
Equivalent surface roughness, k = 0.02 mm (Table 7.13)
Force coefficient cf,0 for circular cylinders (from Fig 7.28)
End effect factor, Ψλ = 0.88, for solidity ratio 1.0 (Fig 7.36)

The forces obtained for each section is summarized in the table below.

Mean Peak
Section Section Pipe wind velocity Resultant
Bottom Top Section Outer velocity pressure Force Force Reference wind
Section Elevation Elevation Height Diameter Vm(z) qp(z) coeff coeff area force
Number (m) (m) (m) (mm) (m/s) (N/m2) cf,0 cf Aref (m2) Fw (N)
1 0.00 1.00 1.00 1400 22.66 708 0.70 0.61 1.40 589.2
2 1.00 2.00 1.00 1400 25.36 835 0.70 0.61 1.40 695.2
3 2.00 3.00 1.00 1400 26.95 914 0.70 0.61 1.40 760.8
4 3.00 4.00 1.00 1400 28.07 971 0.70 0.61 1.40 808.8
5 4.00 5.00 1.00 1400 28.94 1017 0.70 0.61 1.40 847.0
6 5.00 6.00 1.00 1400 29.65 1055 0.70 0.61 1.40 878.8
7 6.00 7.00 1.00 1150 30.25 1088 0.70 0.61 1.15 744.3
8 7.00 8.00 1.00 1150 30.77 1117 0.70 0.61 1.15 764.0
9 8.00 9.00 1.00 1150 31.23 1143 0.70 0.61 1.15 781.5
10 9.00 10.00 1.00 1150 31.64 1166 0.70 0.61 1.15 797.4
11 10.00 11.00 1.00 1150 32.01 1187 0.70 0.61 1.15 811.8
12 11.00 12.00 1.00 1150 32.35 1206 0.70 0.61 1.15 825.1
13 12.00 13.00 1.00 900 32.67 1224 0.70 0.61 0.90 655.4
14 13.00 14.00 1.00 900 32.96 1241 0.70 0.61 0.90 664.4
15 14.00 15.00 1.00 900 33.22 1257 0.70 0.61 0.90 672.8
16 15.00 16.00 1.00 900 33.48 1272 0.70 0.61 0.90 680.7
17 16.00 17.00 1.00 900 33.71 1286 0.70 0.61 0.90 688.2
18 17.00 18.00 1.00 900 33.94 1299 0.70 0.61 0.90 695.3
19 18.00 19.00 1.00 660 34.15 1312 0.70 0.61 0.66 514.8
20 19.00 20.00 1.00 660 34.35 1323 0.70 0.61 0.66 519.5
21 20.00 21.00 1.00 660 34.54 1335 0.70 0.61 0.66 524.0
22 21.00 22.00 1.00 660 34.72 1346 0.70 0.61 0.66 528.3
23 22.00 23.00 1.00 660 34.89 1356 0.70 0.61 0.66 532.4
24 23.00 24.00 1.00 660 35.06 1366 0.70 0.61 0.66 536.4
25 24.00 25.00 1.00 406 35.22 1376 0.70 0.61 0.41 332.3
26 25.00 26.00 1.00 406 35.37 1386 0.70 0.61 0.41 334.6
27 26.00 27.00 1.00 406 35.52 1395 0.70 0.61 0.41 336.7
28 27.00 28.00 1.00 406 35.66 1403 0.70 0.61 0.41 338.8
29 28.00 29.00 1.00 406 35.80 1412 0.70 0.61 0.41 340.9
30 29.00 30.00 1.00 406 35.93 1420 0.70 0.61 0.41 342.9
Total 18542
7. Load Cases – Tower Strength Analysis

Load combination for all the three load cases used for strength analysis is:
1.2 Dead Loads + 1.6 Wind Loads (based on Annex-A of EN 1993-3-1 for Reliability Class
3)

Load Case 1 (DWX2): Maximum Thrust Case (Case D as per EN 61400-2)

Wind blowing in X-direction (Refer Fig 1.0 for sign conventions used)

Wind forces due to turbine at the top of the tower

Fx, tower 10005 N
Fy, tower 0 N
Fz, tower 0 N
Mx, tower 0 N-m
My, tower 7975 N-m
Mz, tower 5003 N-m

The turbine forces as listed above were applied in combination with the forces obtained
under loads DL and WL2 defined above.

Fig 1.0: Sign Convention

 Load Case 2 (DWX1): Parked Wind Loading Case (Case H as per EN 61400-2)
Wind blowing in X-direction

Wind forces due to turbine at the top of the tower

Fx, tower 26691 N
Fy, tower 0 N
Fz, tower 0 N
Mx, tower 0 N-m
My, tower 17961 N-m
Mz, tower 0 N-m

The turbine forces as listed above were applied in combination with the forces obtained
under loads DL and WL1 defined above. The WL1 was applied on the tower considering
wind blowing along X direction.

Load Case 3 (DWY1): Parked Wind Loading Case (Case H as per EN 61400-2)
Wind blowing in Y-direction

Wind forces due to turbine at the top of the tower

Fx, tower 8673 N
Fy, tower 6674 N
Fz, tower 0 N
Mx, tower 3994 N-m
My, tower 7177 N-m
Mz, tower 1802 N-m

The turbine forces as listed above were applied in combination with the forces obtained under
loads DL and WL1 defined above. The WL1 was applied on the tower considering wind
blowing along Y direction.

8. Load Cases – Tower Fatigue Analysis

It was seen that the vortex shedding forces as per EN 1991-1-4, Annex E would be applicable
to this tubular tower since the following equation was not satisfied.

vcrit,i > 1.25 vm (Eq. E.1, EN 1991-1-4)

Hence fatigue analysis was carried out assuming a 25 year design life for the tower.
The applicable load case is 1.0DL + 1.0WL. Here WL denotes the wind forces obtained from
vortex shedding calculations.
The partial safety factor for material strength has been taken as 1.15 based on Safe Life – Low
consequence of failure based on Table 3.1 of EN 1993-1-9

9. Load Cases – Lifting Analysis

Lifting analysis has been carried out for two cases. The first critical case occurs when the
bottom section of the tower along with the counterweight section filled with concrete is
brought to a horizontal position. The hydraulic ram exerts force to pull this partial height
tower to bring it to a horizontal position from its original vertical position.

The entire tower including the turbine is then assemebled in a horizontal position. The
second critical case occurs when the complete tower is rotated to a vertical position. The
counterbalance weight helps in reducing the force on the hydraulic ram during this lifting.

The capacity of the hydraulic ram is also obtained from the lifting analysis results.

A partial load factor of 2.0 is considered for Dead Loads for the lifting analysis (EN 61400-2,
Eq. 46). The load combination used is:
D = 2.0 x Dead Loads

10. Load Cases – A-frame Analysis

Two models for A-frame were created. The first model considered the forces due to the
following load cases of the tower (as explained in Section 7 above)

Load Case 1 (DWX2): Maximum Thrust Case (Case D as per EN 61400-2)

Load Case 2 (DWX1): Parked Wind Loading Case (Case H as per EN 61400-2)
Load Case 3 (DWY1): Parked Wind Loading Case (Case H as per EN 61400-2)

The second model considered the forces coming on the A-frame during the two lifting cases.
In the second model two members of the A-frame were removed so that unhindered rotation
of the tower is possible during lifting.

11. Design Results – Tower Strength Analysis

The maximum section utilization ratios obtained from SAP 2000 analysis for the three load
cases in strength analysis is presented below. Since utilization ratio for all sections are less
than 1.0, the sections can be considered as safe.
 TABLE: Steel Design 1 - Summary Data
Frame DesignSect DesignType Ratio RatioType Combo
Text Text Text Unitless Text Text
1 OD1400x8mm Column 0.00 PMM DWX1
2 OD1400x8mm Column 0.01 Major Shear DWX1
3 OD1400x8mm Column 0.01 Major Shear DWX1
4 OD1400x8mm Column 0.01 Major Shear DWX1
5 OD1400x8mm Column 0.02 PMM DWX1
6 OD1400x8mm Column 0.60 PMM DWX1
7 OD1150x8mm Column 0.82 PMM DWX1
8 OD1150x8mm Column 0.77 PMM DWX1
9 OD1150x8mm Column 0.72 PMM DWX1
10 OD1150x8mm Column 0.67 PMM DWX1
11 OD1150x8mm Column 0.62 PMM DWX1
12 OD1150x8mm Column 0.57 PMM DWX1
13 OD900x8mm Column 0.85 PMM DWX1
14 OD900x8mm Column 0.78 PMM DWX1
15 OD900x8mm Column 0.71 PMM DWX1
16 OD900x8mm Column 0.65 PMM DWX1
17 OD900x8mm Column 0.59 PMM DWX1
18 OD900x8mm Column 0.54 PMM DWX1
19 OD660x7.92mm Column 0.88 PMM DWX1
20 OD660x7.92mm Column 0.78 PMM DWX1
21 OD660x7.92mm Column 0.70 PMM DWX1
22 OD660x7.92mm Column 0.61 PMM DWX1
23 OD660x7.92mm Column 0.53 PMM DWX1
24 OD660x7.92mm Column 0.45 PMM DWX1
25 OD406x7.92mm Column 0.93 PMM DWX1
26 OD406x7.92mm Column 0.76 PMM DWX1
27 OD406x7.92mm Column 0.58 PMM DWX1
28 OD406x7.92mm Column 0.42 PMM DWX1
29 OD406x7.92mm Column 0.26 PMM DWX1

Tower Natural Frequencies

Two dominant modes of vibration for the tower are obtained in the SAP analysis. The natural
frequencies of these two modes are:
n1 = 1.36 Hz
n2 = 5.28 Hz
Tower Top Deflections

The maximum deflection obtained at the top of the tower = 341mm for wind load case WL1
341 mm = 0.011 x height of the tower < 0.04 x height of the tower.
Hence the deflection value is within acceptable limits.

12. Design Results – Tower Fatigue Analysis

The stress range obtained from Section 9.4 of EN 1993-3-1 has been verified with
the permissible stress range as per the formulas given in Section 8 of EN 1993-1-9.

The stress range for the tower has been found to be within permissible limits.
Hence the tower is safe under fatigue for a 25 year design life.

13. Design Results – Lifting Analysis

The maximum section utilization ratios obtained from SAP 2000 analysis for the two lifting
analysis cases is presented below. Since utilization ratio for all sections are less than 1.0, the
sections can be considered as safe.

Results for Lifting Analysis 1

TABLE: Steel Design 1 - Summary Data

Frame DesignSect DesignType Ratio RatioType Combo
Text Text Text Unitless Text Text
76 OD1400x8mm Beam 0.091 Major Shear D
77 OD1400x8mm Beam 0.096 Major Shear D
78 OD1400x8mm Beam 0.101 Major Shear D
79 OD1400x8mm Beam 0.136 PMM D
80 OD1400x8mm Beam 0.175 PMM D
1 OD1400x8mm Beam 0.705 Major Shear D
2 OD1400x8mm Beam 0.002 Major Shear D

Results for Lifting Analysis 2

TABLE: Steel Design 1 - Summary Data

Frame DesignSect DesignType Ratio RatioType Combo
Text Text Text Unitless Text Text
76 OD1400x8mm Beam 0.09 Major Shear D
77 OD1400x8mm Beam 0.10 Major Shear D
78 OD1400x8mm Beam 0.10 Major Shear D
79 OD1400x8mm Beam 0.14 PMM D
 80 OD1400x8mm Beam 0.18 PMM D
82 OD1150x8mm Beam 0.48 PMM D
83 OD1150x8mm Beam 0.44 PMM D
84 OD1150x8mm Beam 0.40 PMM D
85 OD1150x8mm Beam 0.37 PMM D
86 OD1150x8mm Beam 0.33 PMM D
87 OD1150x8mm Beam 0.30 PMM D
88 OD900x8mm Beam 0.44 PMM D
89 OD900x8mm Beam 0.39 PMM D
90 OD900x8mm Beam 0.35 PMM D
91 OD900x8mm Beam 0.31 PMM D
92 OD900x8mm Beam 0.28 PMM D
93 OD900x8mm Beam 0.24 PMM D
94 OD660x7.92mm Beam 0.39 PMM D
95 OD660x7.92mm Beam 0.33 PMM D
96 OD660x7.92mm Beam 0.29 PMM D
97 OD660x7.92mm Beam 0.24 PMM D
98 OD660x7.92mm Beam 0.20 PMM D
99 OD660x7.92mm Beam 0.16 PMM D
100 OD406x7.92mm Beam 0.33 PMM D
101 OD406x7.92mm Beam 0.25 PMM D
102 OD406x7.92mm Beam 0.18 PMM D
103 OD406x7.92mm Beam 0.12 PMM D
104 OD406x7.92mm Beam 0.05 PMM D
1 OD1400x8mm Beam 0.66 Major Shear D
2 OD1400x8mm Beam 0.34 PMM D

The hydraulic ram capacity required based on the two cases of lifting analysis is 801.5kN.
The required capacity includes a 2.0 safety factor.

14. Design Results – A-frame Analysis

The maximum section utilization ratios obtained from SAP 2000 analysis for the two A-
frame models is presented below. Since utilization ratio for all sections are less than 1.0, the
sections can be considered as safe.
Results for A-frame Model 1
TABLE: Steel Design 1 - Summary Data - Eurocode 3-2005
Frame DesignSect DesignType Ratio Combo
Text Text Text Unitless Text
5 TUBE250X250X8 Beam 0.379 FDWX1
6 TUBE250X250X8 Beam 0.381 FDWX1
7 TUBE300x350x12 Beam 0.380 DWYY1
8 TUBE300x350x12 Beam 0.377 DWY1
9 TUBE250X250X8 Column 0.271 DWXX1
10 TUBE250X250X8 Beam 0.062 DWXX1
11 TUBE250X250X8 Column 0.271 DWXX1
18 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.754 DWX1
20 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.754 DWX1
21 TUBE250X250X8 Beam 0.167 DWYY1
22 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.572 DWXX1
23 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.401 DWXX1
24 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.389 DWX1
25 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.337 DWX1
26 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.401 DWXX1
27 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.572 DWXX1
28 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.389 DWX1
29 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.351 DWX1
31 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.158 DWY1
12 TUBE300x350x12 Beam 0.815 DWX1
14 TUBE300x350x12 Beam 0.750 DWXX1
Results for A-frame Model 2
 TABLE: Steel Design 1 - Summary Data - Eurocode 3-2005
Frame DesignSect DesignType Ratio RatioType Combo
Text Text Text Unitless Text Text
5 TUBE250X250X8 Beam 0.031057 PMM L2
6 TUBE250X250X8 Beam 0.030133 PMM L2
7 TUBE300X350X12 Beam 0.388102 PMM L2
8 TUBE300X350X12 Beam 0.388102 PMM L2
9 TUBE250X250X8 Column 0.164447 PMM L2
10 TUBE250X250X8 Beam 0.113699 PMM L2
11 TUBE250X250X8 Column 0.164447 PMM L2
18 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.352059 PMM L2
20 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.352059 PMM L2
21 TUBE250X250X8 Beam 0.328154 PMM L2
22 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.299615 PMM L2
23 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.142147 PMM L2
24 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.093181 PMM L2
25 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.13382 PMM L2
26 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.142147 PMM L2
27 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.299615 PMM L2
28 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.093181 PMM L2
29 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.13382 PMM L2
31 TUBE250X250X8 Brace 0.281852 PMM L2

15. Foundation Design Summary

Concrete foundations have been provided to support the columns of the A-frame structure.
The foundation design has been carried out assuming 100 kN/m2 as the allowable safe
bearing capacity of the soil.

The following material properties have been used:

Concrete for foundation: 30 MPa (minimum design strength at 28 days)

Concrete for PCC layer: 10 MPa (minimum design strength at 28 days)
Reinforcing bars: Fe 500, high yield steel (minimum yield stress of 500 MPa)

Two types of footings have been used.

The first type of footing (denoted as F1 on the drawings) is an isolated footing and has been
used for two columns of the A-frame.
Footing dimensions obtained for F1 are:
Length = 2.6 m
Width = 2.6 m
Depth = 1.0 m

The second footing (F2 on the drawings) is a combined footing for three columns of the A-
frame.

Footing dimensions obtained for F2 are:

Length = 6.5 m
Width = 2.6 m
Depth = 1.0 m