Not applicable
Not applicable
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to modular construction of buildings. More particularly, the present invention relates to a modular building constructed of Aluminum wherein the interior and exterior walls are constructed as to not be connected, which allows fire insulation blanketing therebetween to be a prime barrier to potential fire hazards.
2. General Background of the Invention
In the marine transport and vessel regulation environment, the USCG is charged with regulating the materials and methods by which industry must conform in order to have a safe working environment for personnel. Other similar governing agencies in the world are the ABS (American Bureau of Shipping), DNV De Norske Veritas and Lloyds Regulations which are also known as SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea). Many of the regulations in place today stem from meetings of the world shipping organizations in the 1912 and 1970's. Many of the early regulations came as a result of the Titanic catastrophe.
Historically, modular marine buildings exteriors have been constructed out of steel, which is quite heavy. There is a need in the industry for a modular marine building to be constructed of lightweight material, such as Aluminum, and in such a manner that the building is vastly more safe against fire hazards.
The present invention solves the problems in the art in a straightforward manner. What is provided is a modular building and a method of constructing a United States Coast Guard (USCG) certified modular building for utilization on USCG approved vessels, as well as vessels under foreign flags, ABS, NV, and other regulating agencies, out of aluminum and special Firemaster Marine Blanketing material. Under the method of the present invention, the walls are constructed as to not be connected, allow the fire insulation blanketing to be a prime barrier to potential fire hazards. Due to several reasons aluminum can be a better material than steel to utilize for the purpose of marine accommodations. First, Aluminum is considerably lighter, due to the crane capacities on offshore floating platforms and boats, the lighter the building the safer it is to lift. Also, the lightweight on vessels serves to lighten the overall load reducing fuel consumption considerably. Aluminum exterior buildings can weigh half of what steel buildings do. Second and equally important is that aluminum does not corrode (oxidize) nearly as fast as steel in a salt laden marine environment. Therefore, it is not necessary to install elaborate coating systems to try to protect the exterior of the aluminum buildings as must be done on steel buildings making the aluminum buildings much more maintenance friendly.
The design criteria that is novel and sets this as an original invention, is the method by which the building is constructed with one interior structure separate from the exterior structure, thus making it virtually a building inside of a building. The insulation utilized is a blanket that meets all criteria of the USCG for exterior (A-60 fire rating) on its own.
Thus, by having the interior walls being able to stand alone, then covered by the fire blanket insulation, this alone would constitute a safe environment for lodgers. Along with this, an external wall is added, (which is light weight as well) aluminum, just to protect the fire wall blanket insulation from the exterior environment and to provide more structural safety for the building. Another added benefit to having the dual wall system is that it will provide even more air space for increase insulation benefit for greater efficiency for heating and cooling the building. Applicants have designed and engineered a revolutionary method to have a certified, safe, and lightweight exterior wall design that can be utilized to construct all types of buildings for deepwater structures, marine vessels, and other floating structures. The design can be used to build USCG certified accommodations, MCC's, offices, and other manned structures of all sizes. The wall design meets A-60 or H-60 fire ratings. It can be engineered to have a blast rating of as much as 1.5 bar static loading. The dual wall design has better insulation properties for increased protection from fire, heat, cold, and sound. The design can be utilized to save up to half of the weight of conventional structures, whether it be a small modular building or a large multi-story single lift building.
Applicants' new USCG building is nearly half the weight of conventional steel buildings.
The many objects of the present invention are presented below:
A principal object is that Applicants' new building is constructed out of aluminum which does not need a coating system to ward off salt laden environments. The building's exterior is crimped plate aluminum and does not corrode in salt laden environments, making the building less costly and dangerous over time. Steel structures will eventually develop rusting and leakage, leading to dangerous moisture intrusion, along with compromised structural integrity, it can develop mold and bacteria growth making interior living spaces uninhabitable. Because of LQT's dual wall system design, even if there is a breech in an exterior wall the interior space is completely sealed and independent from the exterior wall, making it nearly impossible to have moisture intrusion. Over time the reduced maintenance cost will pay for the entire structure. It also has a considerably longer life cycle.
A second principal object is that Applicants' building has corrosion resistance of Aluminum. According to engineers, Aluminum has excellent corrosion resistance in a wide range of water and soil conditions, because of the tough oxide film that forms on its surface. Although aluminum is an active metal in the galvanic series, this film affords excellent protection in salt water environments.
Another principal object is that Applicants' building has a high blast rating capability. The new design allows for a lightweight answer to the ever increasing safety concerns of catastrophic blasts. The new wall design can be engineered to increase blast ratings from as little as 0.1 bar (10 kPa) to 1.5 bar (150 kPa) and still maintain the lightweight dual wall design. Due to the fact that the wall design is two completely separate walls, with no interconnecting parts, the exterior wall serves as a blast wall, while the interior wall remains structurally sound. This allows the design to have considerably higher protection against blast, making the interior much safer for the occupants. The new USCG/ABS Rental/Sale building wall design is 0.25 bar (25 kPa) blast certified.
Another principal object is that Applicants' building has improved insulation design. The new dual wall design incorporates a 3′ (0.9 m) thick layer of Firemaster A-60 insulation blanketing the entire building. The insulation is tested at extreme temperatures to offer protection from open flames, but along with it's fire protection capabilities, the insulation has a very high R factor when combined with the 4″ (10 cm) airspace in the wall design. Air is the best insulating material. In addition to this, the air in the space, is circulated through the buildings HVAC system, for added heating and cooling benefits.
Another principal object is that Applicants' building has improved sound reduction design. The wall design and interior products discourage noise pollution. Along with the inside wall air space the insulation provides noise reduction capabilities. The building reduces sound decibels by as much as 30% over the conventional steel building single wall design. This obviously makes the building more comfortable for its occupants.
Another principal object is that Applicants' building has state of the art interior design. The interior components are all state of the art fire safe comfortable and USCG approved materials. Living Quarter Technology has years of experience providing accommodations to the Offshore oil and gas business. The company provides pillow top mattresses with oversize bedding along with comfort quiet curtains for privacy. The building has oversized HVAC capacity for heating and cooling in extreme environments. All the latest safety features are incorporated in the unit, including fire and gas detection systems and smoke detection. The system has emergency lighting that maintains full lighting throughout the building in case of loss of power.
Another principal object is that Applicants' design has lower overall costs of construction. Although the costs of aluminum is a little higher than raw steel, due to the fact that the building does not need to have a coating system, the overall capital costs of the building is approximately 10% less than a conventional similar steel building. This along with the fact that the building has better insulation properties and lower maintenance costs, easily make it a better overall value.
23,200 lbs (10,523 kg) Lighter
Another principal object is that Applicants' building is much lighter than conventional offshore buildings. Offshore Oil and Gas Operators understand the advantages of reduced weight from loading, unloading, transportation, safety and platform limitations. Nearly have the weight of conventional steel buildings: compare our aluminum 12-man-sleeper at 24,800 lbs (11,249 kg) to a steel 12-main sleeper at 48,000 lbs (21,772 kg).
Another principal object is that Applicants' building's exterior of crimped plate aluminum does not corrode in salt-laden environments, making the building less costly, safer, and giving it a considerable longer life cycle. Over time the reduced maintenance cost will pay for the entire structure. Because of LQT's dual wall system design, even if there is a breach in the exterior wall, the interior space is completely sealed and independent from the exterior wall, making it nearly impossible to have moisture intrusion.
For a further understanding of the nature, objects, and advantages of the present invention, reference should be had to the following detailed description, read in conjunction with the following drawings, wherein like reference numerals denote like elements and wherein:
As seen first in
In
In
It is of critical importance as seen in the Figures, that the insulation 50 and C beams 15 which are surrounding the interior living quarters 12 make no contact whatsoever with the C beams 35 on the inner surface 33 of protective shell 14, as seen in
Turning now to
It should also be noted in
As seen in
As seen in detail in
Turning now to
Turning to
In
Turning now to
In
In
Reference again is now made to
Design Criteria and Other Data for Module
Having discussed the accommodations module 10 as illustrated in
The aluminum accommodations modules 10 of the present invention are to be constructed of aluminum in lieu of steel. Preferably, building sizes range from a 12′×20″×10′-6″ (3.7 m×6.0 m×3.2 m), to 16′×70″×10′-6″ (4.9 m×21 m×3.2 m), the example for this purpose in the drawings which are expected will be a common dimension is 12′×40′ 9⅝″×10′-6″ (3.7 m×12.4 m×3.2 m).
The accommodations module 10 of the present invention underwent rigorous engineering tests to insure that is novel features were feasible in the field. Through these tests it has been shown that the inventors have engineered a method to construct a USCG certified modular building for utilization on USCG approved vessels, out of aluminum and special Firemaster Marine Blanketing material. This method by which the walls are constructed as to not be connected, allow the fire insulation blanketing to be a prime barrier to potential fire hazards. Historically, modular marine buildings exteriors have been constructed out of steel. Due to several reasons aluminum can be a better material to utilize for the purpose of marine accommodations. First, Aluminum is considerably lighter, due to the crane capacities on offshore floating platforms and boats, the lighter the building the safer it is to lift. Also, the lightweight on vessels serves to lighten the overall load reducing fuel consumption considerably. Aluminum exterior buildings can weigh half of what steel buildings do. Second and equally important is that aluminum does not corrode (oxidize) nearly as fast as steel in a salt laden marine environment. Therefore, it is not necessary to install elaborate coating systems to try to protect the exterior of the aluminum buildings as must be done on steel buildings making the aluminum buildings much more maintenance friendly.
The design criteria that is novel and sets this as a unique invention, is the method by which the building is constructed with one interior structure separate from the exterior structure, thus making it virtually a building inside of a building. The preferred insulation utilized is a blanket that meets all criteria of the USCG for exterior (A-60 fire rating) on its own. Thus, by having the interior walls being able to stand alone, then covered by the fire blanket insulation, this alone would constitute a safe environment for lodgers. Along with this there can be added an external wall (which is light weight as well) aluminum, just to protect the fire wall blanket insulation from the exterior environment and to provide more structural safety for the building. Another added benefit to having the dual wall system is that it will provide even more air space for increase insulation benefit for greater efficiency for heating and cooling the building.
The subject module has been designed in accordance with USCG RP 98-01, Eighth District Interim Recommended Practice-Plan Approval, Certification and Installation of Accommodation Modules. It is intended that the subject building be used on Fixed Offshore Platforms, floating structures and MODU's. (Marine vessels of all sorts)
The Lifting and Operating calculations were based on an Elastic Analysis as per American Aluminum Association, Allowable Stress Design 2005. All calculations are based on welded allowable stresses values, resulting in a higher factor of safety.
The structural framing and cladding was designed for the following conditions;
In the structural design, normal allowable stress was used in design (no ⅓ increase in allowable). Deflection of major members was limited to L/360 where L=member unsupported length (in). Unity checks on members was limited to <1.00 (Utilization Ratio).
The Primary structural framing and cladding were modeled with “STAAD PRO” Structural Analysis software.
Structural Fire Protection Insulation: Shall comply with USCG NVIC 9-97, ABS Rules and 46CFR Part 164.
Electrical: The electrical components, wiring and bulkhead cable transits shall comply with 46CFR Subchapter J and USCG NVIC 9-97.
Construction: Walls, floors and ceilings are constructed to have two layers of Aluminum plate with support beams and 2″ (5 cm)
Firemaster Marine Blanket sandwich between the Aluminum Plates.
Approvals:
USCG evaluated a typical all-aluminum wall designed by Applicants' for structural blast performance. As originally designed, the wall system consists of an exterior layer made of a 3/16″ (0.48 cm) flat plate supported by C6×2.83 stud channels at 24″ (61 cm) spacing o.c. The interior layer is made of a ⅛″ (0.32 cm) flat aluminum plate supported by C3×1.42 stud channels at 24″ (61 cm) o.c. The height of the wall is 9 ft (2.7 m), edge to edge. Applicants requested that the engineering evaluation analyze the walls as if they were fixed at both ends; however, the engineering evaluation did not include the review of any header or sill in the analysis.
The aluminum alloy—temper used is 6061-T6. Mechanical properties for this material were obtained from an Alcoa catalog Since blast response limits for structural aluminum have not been published, engineering evaluation used engineering judgment in extrapolating response ductilities from published figures for ductile steel. The criteria compares the ratio of elongation at a given damage level to ultimate elongation for ductile steel, and uses the same ratios to the ultimate elongation of 6061-T6 aluminum. As for ultimate end rotations, the same response limits as for ductile steel were assumed.
The applied design pressure is 0.25 bar (25 kPa) as requested by LQT. Duration of the positive phase was calculated in accordance with API RP-FB2 and found to be 608 msec. The engineering evaluation analyzed each structural component with a Single Degree of Freedom (SDOF) approach using proprietary software. The deflection of the external wall causes a secondary pressure over the internal wall, which was determined using the engineering evaluation Shield Pressure Prediction design tool; this pressure-time function was then used to load the internal layer and determine its response.
The scope of this work does not include optimization of the individual components to maximize performance and/or minimize construction cost. Based on the engineering evaluation, it is Applicants' opinion that the wall system could be rated for higher loads with some modifications.
Wall System
The structural components of the walls are made of 6061-T6 aluminum. Based on information from Alcoa's catalog, mechanical properties for this alloy—temper are as follows:
Typical modules of elasticity=10,000 ksi (68,947 MPa)
All joints shall be made of 5183 aluminum welding wire. Based on information obtained from U.S. Alloy Co.'s catalog', ultimate tensile strength is 41 ksi (282 MPa). AS proposed by Applicants, studs shall be welded to plates by means of fillet welds of throat thickness not to exceed the thinner part to be connected, with a 3″ (7.6 cm) fillet every 12″ (30 cm) pitch.
Loads
As requested by Applicants, the system shall be verified for a peak applied pressure of 0.25 bar (25 kPa), equivalent to 3.63 psi (25 kPa).
Duration of positive phase was calculated in accordance with API RP-2FB, par. C.6.3.3:
t*=0.084+13,000/P
where t*=duration of positive phase in seconds
P*=nominal overpressure in Pascals (1 bar=100,000 Pascals)
P=0.25 bar=25,000 Pascals
Therefore, t*=0.604 sec, approximately 600 msec. This is a very long event for typical blast scenarios, therefore duration estimation is considered to be on the conservative side.
In accordance with API RP-2 FB par. C.6.3.3, the load function is assumed to be symmetrical triangular (centrally peaked at t*/2=300 msec).
Structural Response
The dynamic response of structural components under the predicted blast loads is determined by the components as Single-Degree-of-Freedom (SDOF) systems such as the equivalent spring-mass system shown in
The calculated peak deflection is used to determine the support rotation and ductility ratio, which represent the deformation limit criteria (or damage levels) most commonly used in blast design. The support rotation is the angle between the original shape of a component and a straight-line segment between the point of maximum deflection and the support. The ductility ration expresses the maximum deflection in terms of the maximum elastic deflection of the component. Therefore, ductility ratios that are greater than 1 indicate that permanent deformations have been sustained.
Aluminum Response Limits
As stated above, the most commonly accepted guidelines for the design and analysis of blast-loaded structures, such as ASCEii and API RP-2FP do not include response limits for structural aluminum. Therefore, the engineering evaluation adopted response limits based on an analogy with ductile steel. An example is given below:
A36 Steel Properties:
Yield tensile strength=36 Ksi (248 MPa)
Ultimate tensile strength=58 ksi (400 MPa)
Ultimate elongation=15%
Modulus of elasticity=29,000 ksi (199,947 MPa)
Strain at yield=36/29,000=0.124%
Medium response ductility limits (ASCE)=10
Strain at medium response limit=10×0.124%=1.24%
Ratio of strain at medium response limit/ultimate elongation=0.083
Apply Same Ratio to Aluminum:
Ultimate elongation for average channel thickness (interpolation)=9.1%
Strain at medium response limit=0.083×9.1%=0.75%
Strain at yield=35/10,000-0.35%
Medium response ductility limit=0.75/0.35=2.15, approximately 2.
Using similar criteria, ductility response limits for different damage levels and aluminum components are shown in Table 1:
Secondary Pressure over Internal Wall Components
As the exterior wall plate and studs react to the applied pressure, it deflects. The deflection vs. time function is provided as output of the SDOF model. This deflection compresses the air between the external and the internal layers, causing a secondary pressure over the internal wall components. This pressure is a function of the air gap between the wall layers: the wider the spacing, the smaller the pressure.
The 3/16″ (0.48 cm) thick wall plate, spanning 24″ (61 cm), assumed to be fixed-fixed (wall plate joints are assumed to be fully welded, and end spans should be reduced slightly [engineering evaluation suggests 20 inches (51 cm)] to compensate for lack of fixity at wall corners) has a predicted peak end rotation of 2.7 degrees, peak ductility 0.41, with a maximum deflection of 0.57 inches (1.4 cm) at 300 msec. Based on the postulated response limits, this is a Low response (acceptable).
The C6×3.42 stud channels spanning 9 ft (2.7 m), assumed to be fixed-fixed as indicated by LQT, have a predicted peak end rotation of 1.4 degrees, peak ductility 0.41, with a maximum deflection of 1.33 inches (3.4 cm) at 300 msec. Based on the postulated response limits, this is considered a Low response (acceptable).
Since both plate and stud deflections peak at about 300 msec, they can be added directly to obtain the peak deflection for secondary pressure calculations (0.57+1.33=1.90 in (4.8 cm) @ 300 msec). The response of both external components is elastic (ductility <1). The peak secondary pressure obtained with our Shield Pressure Prediction Tool is 3.6 psi (25 kPa) at 300 msec.
The ⅛″ (0.32 cm) thick wall plate, spanning 24″ (61 cm), assumed to be fixed-fixed (same as external) has a predicted peak ductility that exceeds the proposed High response limit (unacceptable).
The C3×1.42 stud channels spanning 9 ft (2.7 m), assumed to be fixed-fixed as indicated by Applicants, have a predicted peak end rotation and peak ductility well in excess of Medium response limits (unacceptable).
Note that composite action on the stud channels cannot be assumed since deformation of the plate is too high to be assumed as collaborating in vertical flexure.
The ⅛″ thick wall plate, spanning 12″ (30 cm), assumed to be fixed-fixed (same as external) has a predicted peak end rotation of 1.1 degrees, and peak ductility of 0.23. This is considered a Low response (acceptable).
The C3×1.42 stud channels spanning 9 ft (2.7 m), assumed to be fixed-fixed as indicated by Applicants, have a predicted peak end rotation of 2.7 degrees, and peak ductility of 1.48. This is a Medium response for a non-load bearing component (LQT has confirmed that the roof loads shall not bear on the internal wall). Without considering composite action, which would be reasonable for the predicted Low plate response, this response level is considered acceptable.
The results of the engineering evaluation indicate that response of the proposed aluminum wall system for over a 0.25 bar applied pressure over 600 msec, as originally sketched (internal studs spaced ever 24″ (61 cm) o.c.) was determined to be unacceptable due to excessive deformation of the internal plates and stud channels.
By reducing the internal stud spacing to 12″ (30 cm) o.c., the response of the system as a whole is considered acceptable.
In absence of published response values or test data for structural aluminum, the engineering evaluation has used engineering judgment to estimate reasonable response limits. It should be understood that these limits are not based on any specific blast resistant design code (such as API RP2-FP or ASCE).
Based on the low structural demand for most of the components, it is engineering evaluation finding that the basic design can be fine tuned to be rated for higher design loads, or some structural components can be resized for maximum cost economy, keeping the current load rating. Also, testing of a typical wall section may help to better understand the material response and determine more accurate response limits.
The following is a list of parts and materials suitable for use in the present invention:
All measurements disclosed herein are at standard temperature and pressure, at sea level on Earth, unless indicated otherwise. All materials used or intended to be used in a human being are biocompatible, unless indicated otherwise.
The foregoing embodiments are presented by way of example only; the scope of the present invention is to be limited only by the following claims.
This is a non provisional patent application of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/372,922, filed 12 Aug. 2010. Priority of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/372,922, filed 12 Aug. 2010, hereby incorporated herein by reference, is hereby claimed.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/US11/46274 | 8/2/2011 | WO | 00 | 2/6/2013 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61372922 | Aug 2010 | US |