1

TATA STEELSUMMER INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

2011

2

DESIGN OF JUNCTION HOUSE FOR CONVEYOR GALLERY AT RAW MATERIAL HANDLING PROJECT

Presented By:

ARIJIT MONDAL 08CE1013, 4th Yr. UG IIT Kharagpur

Under the Guidance Of

Mr. Manoj Kumar Head Civil & Structural

TATA STEEL

3

Introduction

TATA STEEL Ltd. is presently undergoing 3 MTPA expansion project .

This include a new blast furnace –I , new coke oven battery – 10 & 11 , a new steel making shop LD-3 etc.

Raw materials are conveyed by conveyors which in turn are supported by trestles and transferred to the Junction Houses.

4

Objective

Check the original

structure

Suggest better Designs

Reduction in Steel Consump

tion

5

Purpose of Junction House

Transfer points of Conveyor

systemsSieving and

Purification of the Raw material

Dumping of Raw material

Often starting point or ending point of number

of conveyor galleries

6

Requirements

Functional Requirement

Adequacy & Strength

7

General Features of Junction House

Steel structure building with Beams , Columns & Bracings

Consists of (1)Platform for monorail maintenance (2)Prism gate operation platforms etc.

Supports for the conveyor galleries

General Features of Junction House

Steel sheets are used for Side sheeting & Roofing

R.C.C Floors or chequered Plate

Proper floor slope for drainage

The floor openings such as Erection Hatches , Stair Case entries etc. should be covered with Removable covers or Hand rails

8

9

General Features of Junction House

Junction House may be equipped with Lifting devices like EOT cranes , Electrical Hoists (as per requirement)

Pulley frames , Base frames , chutes are be provided

10

Provisions for Junction House

Effective ventilation

Adequate lighting

Cleaning facilities

Fire fighting arrangements

Adequate space for maintenance

Power socket outlets

11

Description of JP11

• 36.7 meterHeight

• 11.5 meterLength

• 9 meter Width

• 9Floors

• PC 13• CKC 7• SCI 3 & SCI 4

Conveyors

12

13

Main Components of JP 11

Beams (IS sections)

Columns (IS sections & Crucified I sections)

Trusses

Chequered plates

R.C.C slabs

Monorails

Stair cases

Pulley (for SCI - 3)

14

Sections Used

I Sections

Ex:-ISMB200

Channel Sections

Ex:-ISMC150

Single Angle

sections

Ex:-ISA50×50×6

Double Angle

sectionsEx:-

ISA50×50×6LD

15

Approach

16

IS Code Followed

IS 800-2007 : for Steel Design purpose

IS 875 part 1 : for dead load calculation

IS 875 part 2 : for live load calculation

IS 875 part 3 : for wind load calculation

SP 6(1)–1964 : for sectional properties

IS 456-2000 : for R.C.C foundation design

SP 16 : for reinforcement of R.C.C Foundation Design

17

Loads Considered

Dead loadsLive loadsWind loads Dust loads Belt tension of the conveyor

18

Loads in form of UDLDead Load & Live

LoadWind Load

19

Failed Members

Here the red marked members are failing in Original Design

20

Alternate Design 1

Design (original) Design 1

21

Comparisons of Support Reaction

Footing Design (original) Design 1Fy(-1) Fy(+1) Fx Fz Fy(-1) Fy(+1) Fx Fz

1 348 516 -2.175 -0.543 380 398 -3.5 -2.25

2 160 377 70 4 278 349 59 -1.4

3 185 638 19.43 -0.785 247 458 22 1

4 187 222 0.56 0.144 175 413 -0.6 95

5 0 449 64 5.4 0 496 69 25

6 0 238 0.40 14.25 0 435 0.053 65

7 173 280 16.43 53 274 241 -7 3

8 0 569 59 16 0 635 55 27

9 0 267 2.2 23 146 297 -1 5

10 107 795 2 15.37 161 743 -0.832 4.17

11 0 435 69.5 1 0 538.452 69 0.754

12 0 952 10 54 0 852 14 47

13 518 224 -2.273 2.25 488 184 -2.4 2

14 0 800 76.1 0.506 0 719 72 -0.113

22

Alternate Design 2

Design (original) Design 2

23

Comparisons of Support Reaction

Footing Design (original) Design 2Fy(-1) Fy(+1) Fx Fz Fy(-1) Fy(+1) Fx Fz

1 348 516 -2.175 -0.543 372 382 -3 -2

2 160 377 70 4 207 343 62 0.6

3 185 638 19.43 -0.785 225 469 22 2

4 187 222 0.56 0.144 228 290 0.4 -2

5 0 449 64 5.4 0 485 66 8

6 0 238 0.40 14.25 0 320 0.26 12.5

7 173 280 16.43 53 197 346 17 56

8 0 569 59 16 0 619 61.71 19

9 0 267 2.2 23 0 339 2.3 21.6

10 107 795 2 15.37 161 651 -2 6.3

11 0 435 69.5 1 0 523 67 1

12 0 952 10 54 0 811 12.25 54

13 518 224 -2.273 2.25 489 204 -3.6 1.7

14 0 800 76 0.506 0 715 73 0.325

24

Comparisons in Steel Consumption

Original Design

Design 1 Design 2

Steel Consumption

(Tonnes)142.4089 115.3388 116.0277

Reduction Of

Steel - 19% 18.52%

25

Why Design-2 is better than Design-1

Higher uplift force is coming in case of Design-1 compared to Design-2

Horizontal sway of the top most point is less

More adequate in strength

26

Final Outcome

E

v

o

l

v

e

m

e

n

t

o

f

t

w

o

d

if

f

e

r

e

n

t

d

e

s

i

g

n

s

i

n

d

if

f

e

r

e

n

t

a

p

p

r

o

a

c

h

e

s

Economically viable designs

27

Benefits to Company

Reduction of steel consumption

Cost reduction

Expertise in analysis of structures

28

Personal Learnings

Proper Practical application of Theoretical knowledge

How to study engineering drawing in detail

Multiple sites visit increase 3-D visualization

Sound knowledge in application of Staad.Pro

Load analysis of giant structures

29

Pics of Sites Visit

30

31

32

33