Structural FEA of an Elevated Container

The assessed system

Container base frame Wall panels and roof Front cabin and floor Columns and bracing Welds and bolt connections Lifting attachment regions

Original project geometry, with the elevated support frame visible beneath the enclosure

• 

  Component representation

  The assembly view separates the walls, roof, base and supporting structure so their contribution can be traced through the analysis

• 

  Internal connectivity

  The transparent view reveals internal members and payload connections that are hidden by the exterior panels

• 

  Base-frame mesh

  The floor and equipment-supporting members form a primary load path. Their mesh represents the spans and intersections beneath the enclosure

• 

  Welded interfaces

  Connectivity at welded locations transfers load between intersecting members. The report models these joints as continuous connections

• 

  Column-head connection

  The mesh follows the support-to-base interface, where loads enter the elevated steelwork

• 

  Wall-panel connections

  Panel edges, framing and corner interfaces are represented to examine the enclosure response

• 

  Roof and supporting members

  Shell modelling captures the thin roof sections and the members that support them

Bolts were represented by one-dimensional beam elements. Equipment masses were represented by point masses coupled to their mounting locations. The assessment assumes homogeneous material and ideal joints, and excludes ageing and corrosion effects

• 

  Installed support arrangement

  The service cases use six main-container supports and four cabin supports. The illustrated restraints establish how reactions develop at the base

• 

  Equipment mass at its mountings

  The model includes two 2,200 kg control panels, air-conditioning units and distribution boards, in addition to the structural mass

• 

  Walkway and roof loading

  The live-load model applies distributed loads to the occupied floor and roof regions

• 

  Wind in one direction

  Pressure acts on the exposed surfaces of the enclosure in the illustrated orientation

• 

  Wind in the other direction

  The second orientation changes the loaded face and the response of the walls and supports

• 

  1.52 mm under dead load

  The original contour reports 1.518 mm maximum base-frame deformation. The assessment uses an 8.88 mm beam-deflection limit

• 

  145.63 MPa with live load

  Adding the specified walkway and roof loading raises the reported base-frame stress from 80.90 MPa to 145.63 MPa

The combined dead- and live-load case produces 3.06 mm base-frame deformation. Reviewing displacement alongside stress shows both the movement of the supporting members and the regions carrying the higher demand Result interpretation: the report excludes singularities and local peaks when stating some assessment stresses. Original contour legends are retained so the displayed solver values remain visible

• 

  15.45 mm in wind case WL1

  The deformation pattern shows the wall and frame response for the first wind case. The report compares this movement with a 25.5 mm horizontal limit

• 

  12.47 mm in wind case WL2

  Changing the wind direction changes the displacement pattern. This case is assessed against the same reported horizontal limit

The analysis follows the load beyond the external wall: through the base frame, columns and bracing. Separate support results identify the demand on the main-container and cabin steelwork.

Four lifting restraints

The lifting case replaces the installed support condition with restraints at the lifting lugs. This changes how the load is carried through the enclosure and its base frame The model evaluates the defined analysis condition and its associated payload

• 

  2.93 mm reported deformation

  The lifting contour shows the response of the container under the defined lifting condition. The report compares it with an 8.88 mm limit

• 

  Local response at the lifting lug

  The lug plot shows a 544.6 MPa local solver maximum. The report states 150 MPa after excluding peaks, so the local maximum must be distinguished from its assessment value

The base-frame stress for lifting is 206.28 MPa. Local attachment behaviour remains an important part of the review because the handling load enters the structure through a small number of connection regions

• 

  189.63 MPa, longitudinal case

  The wall contour identifies the stress distribution for longitudinal seismic loading. This is the maximum shown by the original component plot

• 

  206.85 MPa, transverse case

  The transverse case produces a higher maximum in the displayed wall result. This comparison helps identify which loading direction governs this component

209.57 MPa

Main support stress in WL1 The report identifies this wind case as the highest main-support stress in its summary. The stated yield-to-stress ratio is 1.67 for the model material

Reaction schedules record forces and moments at the six main columns and four cabin columns, with axis definitions for the foundation interface.

These schedules provide inputs for foundation coordination. They do not establish soil capacity or concrete-foundation adequacy

• 

  Larger access platform

  The separate platform study represents the deck, supporting legs and guardrails. Its loading basis includes self-weight and 5 kN/m² on the platform.

• 

  Smaller access platform

  A second platform geometry is assessed in the same report, with its own span, supports and component response

• 

  Platform deck and guardrail movement

  The report states 6.13 mm on the platform against a 7.22 mm limit. The whole-model contour reaches 17.26 mm at the guardrail, a different location

• 

  81.76 MPa in the smaller platform

  The smaller platform plot shows 81.76 MPa stress. Its separate deformation result is 1.76 mm against a reported 2.72 mm limit

For the larger platform, the report states an assessment stress of 200 MPa after peak exclusions. The original stress contour has a local maximum of 319.89 MPa

Values are rounded from the detailed plots where available. The source summary records satisfaction of its stated checks, subject to the model assumptions and treatment of local peaks