Structures Congress 2022 430

Analysis of SPMT Transport of Large Onshore Modules

William Bounds, P.E.1; and Bradley Tann, P.E.2

1
Retired; formerly, Senior Fellow, Structural Dept., Fluor Corporation, Sugar Land, TX.
Email: [email protected]
2
Design Engineer, Structural Dept., Fluor Corporation, Sugar Land, TX.
Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Usage of onshore process plant modules includes transportation from a fabrication yard to a
jobsite via a combination of water and land routes. Large modules (larger than 1,000 m) are
normally transported over land using self-propelled modular transporters (SPMTs) in order to
spread the module’s weight uniformly over a large area of the transportation path. SPMTs utilize
hydraulic cylinders to lift and lower modules, and to achieve uniform wheel loads that transfer
the module’s weight to the road. A suitable analysis is needed to consider this uniform wheel
loading and to check against the hydraulic cylinder’s permissible stroke, spine beam permissible
stresses, and deflections within the module. This paper describes a balancing approach for a
SPMT analysis that is used by several companies. The discussion describes the method itself and
includes how hydraulic-type reactions are modeled. One key element is specifically examined,
the rigidity of the module and the resulting effect from SPMT-imposed support. The results of
field measurements are presented in support of the approach.

INTRODUCTION

Modularization for onshore petrochemical projects has become more common in recent
decades. This involves the fabrication and assembly of multi-discipline plant components
(modules) at an assembly yard that is remote from the jobsite. These modules are then
transported to the jobsite and installed on a foundation. This execution approach offers
advantages through the difference in labor costs, through parallel shop & jobsite scheduling of
activities, through minimization of weather delays, and through shop quality control. To
maximize the transfer of labor from jobsite to module fabrication yard, modules are designed as
large as can be safely and economically transported.
Large modules (over 1000 mt) are too heavy to be moved on conventional truck trailers.
Copyright © 2022. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

Instead, overland transport is provided by self-propelled modular transporters (SPMTs). These

transporters spread heavy module loads across multiple wheels that are in contact with the road
surface (Figure 1). For the flexibility to handle various module sizes and shapes, SPMTs are
connected assemblies of standardized trailers (Figure 2a) that directly support the load, and
power packs (Figure 2b) at one or both ends which provide propulsion.
To maintain a uniform wheel loading and to raise/lower loads, SPMT trailer components
are equipped with hydraulic cylinders. Thus, increasing the volume of hydraulic fluid will raise
the supported module and vice versa. For control of stability and leveling, the hydraulic
cylinders are connected into groups. Often 3 groups are used, but the exact configuration of
trailer components, power packs, and hydraulic groups is determined based on the load to be
moved.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2022, edited by James Gregory Soules, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2022. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/istructe/detail.action?docID=29200812.
Created from istructe on 2024-08-01 14:33:46.
 Structures Congress 2022 431

Figure 1. Module being Transported

(a) Trailer (b) Power Pack

Figure 2. Modular Components (Courtesy of Mammoet)

Maintaining a constant hydraulic pressure will ensure a constant wheel load. A constant
wheel load will also allow individual axles to respond to changes in road elevation (Figure 3a).
The difference between loading from the transported module and support reaction from constant
wheel loads will lead to vertical deflections along the length of the SPMT spine beam and along
the supported module (Figure 3b).
Copyright © 2022. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

Module Loads

spine beam
uniform wheel load
spine beam deflection

(a) cylinder stroke (b) vertical deflection

Figure 3. SPMT Cylinders & Deflection

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2022, edited by James Gregory Soules, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2022. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/istructe/detail.action?docID=29200812.
Created from istructe on 2024-08-01 14:33:46.
 Structures Congress 2022 432

The deflection can be either an upward (hog) deflection or a downward (sag) deflection. The
result of a hog or sag deflection depends on the distribution of loads from the module and the
positioning/arrangement of the SPMTs and their hydraulic groupings. The magnitude of vertical
deflection also depends on the combined rigidity of transported module and SPMTs.
Modules for offshore platforms tend to be made from large plate elements and tend to be
relatively rigid. Simple analysis formulas for stress and deflection based on rigid modules can be
applied.
Modules for onshore facilities tend to be less rigid. This means that the use of rigid module
formulas can lead to inaccurate conclusions. The design engineer needs to apply a more suitable
approach and to work closely with the heavy haul contractor so that problems do not show up
unexpectedly in the field.

DESIGN METHODOLOGY

A structural analysis considering SPMT boundary conditions consists of determining

&considering adequacy of:
• SPMT spine beam deflection – verification of permissible cylinder stroke
• SPMT spine beam capacity – verification of permissible axial & shear force
• SPMT wheel load – verification against wheel/road/bridge design limitations
• SPMT stability – verification against loss of control against overturning
• Module structural capacity
• Module structural serviceability
In addition to the module dead weight, other loads to consider include braking accelerations,
road slope, and wind during transport. Load variations to be considered include changes to
weight and center of gravity.
In consideration of uniform wheel loads, the analysis approach to be used involves a
balancing technique which includes modeling the SPMT spine beam, special boundary
conditions, and the calculations of load factors for each of the three hydraulic groups.

Analysis Model

The approach begins with the analysis model of the module itself (Figure 4). Transverse
members at the base frame (highlighted in Figure 4) are the members that are in contact with the
supporting SPMTs.
Copyright © 2022. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

Components of the SPMT are added to the model so that the relative rigidity of module and
SPMT can be jointly considered (Figure 5). Significant SPMT components include the spine
beam and power packs.

Applied Loads

Loads are modeled separately for the SPMT & power pack weight, and for each hydraulic
load group. Loading representing the SPMT and power pack weight are indicated in Figure 6.
SPMT properties can be obtained from the heavy haul contractor. A nominal upward load is
applied at each hydraulic load group representing a nominal reaction from the wheels (Figure 7).
SPMT locations, configurations, and hydraulic groupings are determined in consultation with
the heavy haul contractor.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2022, edited by James Gregory Soules, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2022. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/istructe/detail.action?docID=29200812.
Created from istructe on 2024-08-01 14:33:46.
 Structures Congress 2022 433

Figure 4. Module Analysis Model

transverse framing member

Hinge

Rigid link
SPMT
spine beam Horizontal springs

Figure 5. Modeled SPMT Components

FPP FPP
ULSPMT
Copyright © 2022. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

spine beam

Figure 6. Modeled Weight of SPMT & Power Packs

(a) hydraulic group #1 (b) hydraulic group #2 (c) hydraulic group #3

Figure 7: Sample Nominal Hydraulic Group Loads

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2022, edited by James Gregory Soules, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2022. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/istructe/detail.action?docID=29200812.
Created from istructe on 2024-08-01 14:33:46.
 Structures Congress 2022 434

Boundary Conditions

Module boundary conditions used for the analysis of site conditions are removed and
replaced with boundary conditions specific to SPMT transport. Horizontal supports are placed
along the length of each SPMT spine beam (refer to Figure 5). Three fictitious vertical supports
are placed at selected locations (Figure 8). The fictitious vertical boundaries are not intended to
transfer load; however, they are required by the analysis program to confirm that the model is
stable. These supports are also needed to perform a determinant balancing calculation. In other
words, 2 supports or 3 inline supports would be unstable, and 4 supports would be indeterminate.
Note that FA and FB in Figure 8 need to be in the same transverse plane. Otherwise, the results
from the determinant balancing will not be level.

SPMT spine beams

FA

FB

module outline

FC

Figure 8. Fictitious Vertical Supports

Load Combinations

An analysis case is created for each hydraulic group (HG1, HG2, HG3) which applies each
hydraulic group in isolation using the nominal load previously described.
Then, several analysis cases are entered, one for each design combination (DC) of load,
acceleration, and wind. Load factors can be applied for either strength or service level design.
Load factors are not applied to the hydraulic group portion of these DCs, but will be determined
as a result of the balancing calculation.
At this point, there is a separate analysis case for each hydraulic group (HG1, HG2, HG3),
plus an analysis case for each design combination (DC).

Balancing Operation
Copyright © 2022. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

An analysis is then performed separately of the HG1, HG2, HG3, and DC analysis cases, and
reactions at the 3 fictitious supports are recorded. Balancing will consider the inclusion of the
hydraulic groups, with each design combination described as:

Design Analysis case = (DC) + (1)(HG 1) + (2)(HG 2) + (3)(HG 3)

The 3  factors can be solved through a balancing calculation considering:

• Summation of vertical forces = zero
• Summation of moments about each horizontal axis = zero
• Reactions at each of the 3 fictitious supports = zero

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2022, edited by James Gregory Soules, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2022. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/istructe/detail.action?docID=29200812.
Created from istructe on 2024-08-01 14:33:46.
 Structures Congress 2022 435

Results

With the  factors determined, the design analysis case described above can now be analyzed
to determine deflections, forces, module member code checks, allowable wheel loads, spine
beam capacity, and serviceability.
Because this approach is based on hydraulic pressures instead of hydraulic volumes, relative
model deflections are determined, but absolute elevation and tilt are not established. Elevation
and tilt will instead be based on a zero-vertical deflection at the 3 fictitious vertical supports.

FIELD MEASUREMENTS

Field measurements were obtained on a recent project for several large modules. Such
measurements are not easy to obtain. With a module raised on SPMTs and ready for movement,
there is not much execution enthusiasm to wait for survey measurements to be taken. An
additional drawback is that there is no ability to go back and investigate any unusual
measurement results.
This paper focuses on the correlation of available survey results. Thus, background details
about the survey (selection of modules, level of detail obtained, and sequence) is not described.
However, the survey request was motivated from early differences of opinion, on the calculated
deflection of a couple of modules.
Modules were designed using 150 mm as a maximum relative SPMT deflection. This is well
less than the cylinder limits, but it allows for lifting, leveling, deformations, and road
irregularities.
For comparison purposes, presented vertical deflection results are adjusted by setting the
deflection at each module end to zero. The actual end deflections are controlled by the SPMT
operator.
For each module, SPMTs were modeled in a consistent manner. “Prediction”, “Rigid”,
“Current”, and survey deflections were considered.
Prediction – Deflection based on the original calculation and adjusted for the final SPMT
configuration, and post-weighing module weight report. These deflections represent what was
known prior to the survey.
Rigid – Deflection based on a rigid module, but not a rigid SPMT. A detailed analysis is not
needed because a rigid module assumption results in zero relative deflection at each supported
module column line. SPMT deflections do occur between support locations and at end
extensions. These deflections represent a traditional approach to SPMT spine beam deflection
Copyright © 2022. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

calculations. Note that the “Rigid” approach is not included in the subsequent figures as it has a
negligible relative deflection.
Current – Deflection based on the balancing approach described in this paper. These deflections
were determined after the survey and incorporate subsequent methodology and modeling
improvements. Loading is based on the post-weighing weight report by each engineering discipline.
This condition represents a refined representation of the module and SPMT.
Survey – Deflection based on the as-measured survey results.
Three transportation configurations are considered, depending on when the survey was
conducted.
Loadout – Transportation from the erection location to barge, at the module yard with
transportation (skid) beams installed. Module movement and survey were performed by the
module fabrication contractor.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2022, edited by James Gregory Soules, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2022. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/istructe/detail.action?docID=29200812.
Created from istructe on 2024-08-01 14:33:46.
 Structures Congress 2022 436

Offload – Transportation from barge to a staging pad near the jobsite with transportation
beams installed. Module movement was performed by the heavy haul contractor. The survey was
performed by site construction crews.
Setting – Transportation from staging pad to foundation, at the jobsite without transportation
beams. Module movement was performed by the heavy haul contractor. The survey was
performed by site construction crews.

Module “A” (Loadout Configuration) – Braced Process Enclosure

The basic module layout is shown in Figure 9 with (from left to right) a two-story enclosed
electrical/controls room, a two-level process enclosure, a single level process enclosure, and a
transverse pipe rack. The electrical/controls room and transverse pipe rack were braced against
the process enclosure.

Module length = 78.9 m (column line A to R)

Module weight = 2656 mt (at loadout)

The module was surveyed on the north-most SPMT (far side in Figure 9) at loadout.
Elevations were taken on the top of the SPMT after lifting the module. The maximum difference
between the “Survey” and “Current” deflections is 28.2 mm at column line H. The maximum
surveyed deflection is 69.3 mm at column line F.

0 Current
Survey
-40
-80
Copyright © 2022. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

-120
Prediction
-160
A B C D E F G H J K L M N P R

Figure 9. Module “A” at Loadout

All deflection curves indicate a sag type deflection. The “Current” deflections are
significantly more accurate than the “Prediction” and “Rigid” approaches.
For practical design and construction purposes, all methods result in a deflection less than the
permissible 150 mm. However the maximum “Prediction” deflection was close to the
permissible value.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2022, edited by James Gregory Soules, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2022. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/istructe/detail.action?docID=29200812.
Created from istructe on 2024-08-01 14:33:46.
 Structures Congress 2022 437

Module “B” (Loadout Configuration) – Braced Process Enclosure

The basic module layout is shown in Figure 10 with (from left to right) a two-story
electrical/controls enclosure, a single level process enclosure, and a transverse pipe rack. The
electrical/controls room and transverse pipe rack were braced against the process enclosure.

Module length = 57.45 m (column line A to Q)

Module weight = 2146 mt (at loadout)

The module was surveyed on the south-most SPMT (near side in Figure 10) at loadout.
Elevations were taken on the top of the SPMT after lifting the module. The maximum difference
between “Current” and survey deflections is 13.8 mm at column line E.1. The maximum
surveyed deflection is 38.2 mm at column line K.9.

0
Survey

-40
Current
Prediction
-80
A B C D E.1 F.1 F.9 H.1 H.9 K.1 K.9 M N Q
Copyright © 2022. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

Figure 10. Module “B” at Loadout

All deflection curves indicate a sag type deflection. The “Current” deflections are an
improvement over the “Prediction” deflection, and more accurate than a rigid module approach.
For practical design and construction purposes, all methods result in a deflection well less
than the permissible 150 mm.

Module “C” (Setting Configuration) – Air Cooler & Pipe Rack

The basic module layout is shown in Figure 11 with (from left to right) a transverse pipe
rack, a longitudinal branch pipe rack in front of an air cooler structure, and a vertical vessel.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2022, edited by James Gregory Soules, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2022. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/istructe/detail.action?docID=29200812.
Created from istructe on 2024-08-01 14:33:46.
 Structures Congress 2022 438

Module length = 58.7 m (column line 1 to 11)

Module weight = 1377 mt (at setting)

The west-most SPMT was surveyed (near side in figure 11) at setting. A set of elevations
was taken at top of SPMT. The maximum difference between “Current” and survey deflections
is 34.3 mm at column line 5. The maximum surveyed deflection is 26.0 mm at column lines 5
and 6.

+40
Prediction
+20
0
Current
-20 Survey

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Figure 11. Module “C” at Setting

“Prediction” and “Current” deflections indicate a hog type deflection. Survey deflections
indicates a sag. Because of this difference, the rigid module approach is more accurate. The
“Current” deflection includes a correction of the electrical components’ center of gravity to
match the post-weighing weight report.
For practical design and construction purposes, all methods result in a deflection well less
than the permissible 150 mm.

Module “D” (Loadout Configuration) – Process Enclosure at One End

Copyright © 2022. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

The basic module layout is shown in Figure 12 with (from left to right) an open piping
manifold area, a single level process enclosure, and a two-story electrical/controls enclosure. The
electrical/controls room was braced against the process enclosure.

Module length = 70.65 m (column line A to R)

Module weight = 2174 mt (at loadout)

Module was surveyed on the north-most SPMT (far side in Figure 12) at loadout. Elevations
were taken at top of SPMT after lifting the module. The maximum difference between “Current”
and survey deflections 25.7 mm at column line J. The maximum surveyed deflection is 23.6 mm
at column line K.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2022, edited by James Gregory Soules, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2022. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/istructe/detail.action?docID=29200812.
Created from istructe on 2024-08-01 14:33:46.
 Structures Congress 2022 439

+20 Prediction

0
Current
-20
Survey
A B C D E G H J K L N P Q R

Figure 12. Module “D” at Loadout

The deflection curves are the same basic shape although the “Current” deflections are more
of a hog while the survey is mostly a sag. Because of this, the rigid module approach is fairly
close.
For practical design and construction purposes, all methods result in a deflection well less
than the permissible 150 mm.
Elevations measured before and after the lift indicated some out-of-levelness that carried to
the lifted measurements (Figure 13).

1650
After Lift
1600

1550

1500
Copyright © 2022. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

Before Lift
1450
A B C D E G H J K L N P Q R

Figure 13. SPMT Elevations

Module “E” (Loadout Configuration) – Separate Process Enclosures

The basic module layout is shown in Figure 14 with (from left to right) a transverse pipe
rack, a multi-level process enclosure, a second multi-level process enclosure, and a third multi-
level process enclosure.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2022, edited by James Gregory Soules, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2022. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/istructe/detail.action?docID=29200812.
Created from istructe on 2024-08-01 14:33:46.
 Structures Congress 2022 440

Module length = 75.97 m (column line A to Q)

Module weight = 2541 mt (at loadout)

“Survey 1” was a relative deflection measurement between high point and low point on each
side of the module at column K. This was an initial attempt to quantify observed sag. Survey 2
(one day later) consisted of selected elevations on each side taken at top of SPMT. Figure 14
indicates measurements from the north side. The maximum difference between “Current” and
“Survey 2” 52.8 mm at column line J. The maximum “Survey 2” deflection is 270 mm at column
lines J and L.

0 Current
-200
-400
Surveys
-600
Prediction

A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q

Figure 14. Module “E” at Loadout

All deflection curves indicate a sag type deflection. There is a significant difference between
the two survey measurements.
All deflection curves (except rigid) result in a deflection greater than the permissible 150
Copyright © 2022. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

mm.

Module “E” (SPMT Configuration Modifications)

Because of the large recorded loadout deflection, the SPMT layout was revised in
consultation with the heavy haul contractor. SPMT arrangements, original and revised, are
shown in Figure 15.
In Figure 15, “HG” is a hydraulic group, “PP” is a power pack, red “X” indicates a disabled
axle.
For a hydraulic group, disabling an axle will incrementally increase the wheel load and shift
the load centroid away from the disabled axle.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2022, edited by James Gregory Soules, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2022. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/istructe/detail.action?docID=29200812.
Created from istructe on 2024-08-01 14:33:46.
 Structures Congress 2022 441

75.97 m

60 axles @ 1.4 m = 84 m
PP PP
HG 3
PP PP
62 axles @ 1.4 m = 86.8 m

21.28 m
HG 1
HG 2
60 axles @ 1.4 m = 84 m
PP PP

(a) Loadout at module yard

75.97 m

58 axles @ 1.4 m = 81.2 m

PP PP
HG 2
PP PP
58 axles @ 1.4 m = 81.2 m
21.28 m

HG 1
HG 3
58 axles @ 1.4 m = 81.2 m
PP PP

(b) Offload near jobsite

Figure 15. Module “E” SPMT Configuration

Module “E” (Offload Configuration) – Separate Process Enclosures

The basic module layout is unchanged from the loadout and is shown in Figure 16.

Module length = 75.97 m (column line A to Q)

Module weight = 2873.7 mt (at offload)

The module was surveyed on the north-most SPMT (far side in Figure 16) at offload.
Elevations were taken at top of SPMT and top of module transportation beam. Elevations taken
at the top of transportation beams are used for comparison. The maximum difference between
The maximum difference between “Current” and transportation beam deflections is 40.0 mm at
Copyright © 2022. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

column line G. The maximum surveyed deflection is 30.8 mm at column line G.

“Prediction” and “Current” deflections are a small hog type deflection. The survey
deflections indicate a small sag type deflection.
There was a significant difference between the two survey measurements. Possible causes for
this discrepancy include the SPMT not being level, or cribbing height variances.
For practical design and construction purposes, all methods result in a deflection well less
than the permissible 150 mm.

Observations on Field Measurement Comparisons

The largest difference for “Current” deflections was 52.8 mm on module E (loadout).
Considering the size, length and complexity of these process modules, the deflection differences
are reasonable.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2022, edited by James Gregory Soules, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2022. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/istructe/detail.action?docID=29200812.
Created from istructe on 2024-08-01 14:33:46.
 Structures Congress 2022 442

+40
Prediction

0
Current

-40
Survey (SPMT) Survey (Transp)
A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q

Figure 16. Module “E” at Offload

Deflections based on a rigid module will not indicate which modules are at or over the
deflection limit. Rigid deflections were more accurate only when there was a hog/sag difference
between computed and measured deflections.
Differences in deflected shape (hog vs sag) between calculated and measured values occurred
when the overall deflection was small. This difference appears to be caused by the combined
effect of an upward deflection due to the cantilevered power packs, and a downward deflection
due to the module itself.
Modules are also subjected to hog/sag deflections due to flexing of the marine transport
vessel. For this project, the barge undergoes a hog deflection of 91 mm and a sag deflection of 48
mm. Deflections imposed on each module depend on the module’s length relative to the
transport vessel deck.
Module stiffness comes from a combination of individual member bending, truss action, and
moment-resisting frame action. In the absence of a superstructure which is continuous over the
module length, stiffness is significantly affected by interaction between the SPMT spine beam
Copyright © 2022. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

and the module base frame longitudinal members.

Differences in mass distribution between the analytical model and actual structure can have
an effect on differential deflection, particularly for modules without continuous superstructures.
This is in spite of good overall weight and center of gravity correlation between model and
weight report.
The “Prediction” deflection calculations used a reduced stiffness from the AISC direct design
method. The “Current” deflection calculations removed the reduced stiffness. The effect of
connection flexibility and increased stiffness from wall panels were not considered.
Module E had a high deflection due to isolated superstructure elements, along with a
conventionally-determined SPMT arrangement. An adjustment of the SPMT configuration
provided a successful design.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2022, edited by James Gregory Soules, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2022. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/istructe/detail.action?docID=29200812.
Created from istructe on 2024-08-01 14:33:46.
 Structures Congress 2022 443

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed load-balancing approach is accurate enough to classify modules with respect to
the deflection limit. For modules with larger initially calculated deflections, a closer evaluation
of loading and SPMT configuration would be merited.
The proposed method is not difficult to implement using a spreadsheet.
The rigid module approach is not capable of determining SPMT adequacy except for
extensions beyond module ends.
Because module E was less stiff and was nevertheless successfully reconfigured and
transported, a design choice results between additional module bracing to reduce deflections
versus less steel and a more complex SPMT evaluation process.
Additional survey results would be useful to confirm results for additional non-rigid modules
and pipe racks.

LESSONS LEARNED

Module design and load balancing has been performed on a variety of projects, and several
lessons learned have been observed.
Significant stresses within the module superstructure can be generated from large vertical
deflections.
For service level cases, disable the stiffness reduction normally used with the direct design
method.
For strength level cases, a P-delta analysis can be accommodated, however being nonlinear,
it requires the balancing sequence to be handled in a cyclic manner until convergence.
Appropriate stiffness modification should be carefully evaluated.
Be proactive, do not wait for heavy haul contractor contract & submittal of data. Verify &
clarify spacing of SPMTs on transverse beams with HHC.
Copyright © 2022. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2022, edited by James Gregory Soules, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2022. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/istructe/detail.action?docID=29200812.
Created from istructe on 2024-08-01 14:33:46.