The sidewalls under Loading Scenario 2 (Fig. 14) were the most
critical load resisting components, and the end walls were somewhat
effective at carrying the loads. The calculated yield load was
942 kN for the full model (M1) was equal to an assumed 942 kN
specified in ISO 1496-1 [11]. The modified models with both sidewalls
removed (models M2, M5, and M8) had an average 10% increase
in maximum applied load and a 70% reduction in stiffness
when compared to the complete container model M1. However,
the model with both end walls removed (model M3) had an 11% increase
in maximum applied force, but only had a 44% reduction in
stiffness when compared to M1. The addition or removal of the roof
did not provide much stiffness or strength in Loading Scenario 2.
Every container model had the loads from Loading Scenario 2 applied
over the front of the container, except model M7. Model M7
had results differing from the other models (Fig. 14), because the
loading was applied over the rear of the container.
The sidewalls under Loading Scenario 2 (Fig. 14) were the most
critical load resisting components, and the end walls were somewhat
effective at carrying the loads. The calculated yield load was
942 kN for the full model (M1) was equal to an assumed 942 kN
specified in ISO 1496-1 [11]. The modified models with both sidewalls
removed (models M2, M5, and M8) had an average 10% increase
in maximum applied load and a 70% reduction in stiffness
when compared to the complete container model M1. However,
the model with both end walls removed (model M3) had an 11% increase
in maximum applied force, but only had a 44% reduction in
stiffness when compared to M1. The addition or removal of the roof
did not provide much stiffness or strength in Loading Scenario 2.
Every container model had the loads from Loading Scenario 2 applied
over the front of the container, except model M7. Model M7
had results differing from the other models (Fig. 14), because the
loading was applied over the rear of the container.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..