# The Effect of Subgrade Coefficient on Static Work of a Pontoon Made as a Monolithic Closed Tank
## 3 Results
### Calculation Results of Buoyancy and Stability
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Analyzed Value acc. Figure 4** & & & & & \\  & K = 5000 kN/m\({}^{3}\) & & K = 5000 kN/m\({}^{3}\) & & K = 5000 kN/m\({}^{3}\) \\ \hline M\({}_{\rm A3}\) & 0.69868 q\({}^{2}\) & 0.43023 q\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)8.39831q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)6.05757 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.27892 q\({}_{2}\)s & \(-\)0.34647 q\({}_{2}\)s \\ \hline M\({}_{\rm A4}\) & \(-\)8.97746 q\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)6.79305 q\({}^{2}\) & 1.20015 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & 1.04529 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.27892 q\({}_{2}\)s & \(-\)0.34647 q\({}_{2}\)s \\ \hline M\({}_{\rm B1}\) & \(-\)0.03089 q\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.05852 q\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)5.88475 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)4.57988 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.25756 q\({}_{2}\)s & \(-\)0.30472 q\({}_{2}\)s \\ \hline M\({}_{\rm B2}\) & \(-\)6.43673 q\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)5.23986 q\({}^{2}\) & 0.42435 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & 0.47834 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.25756 q\({}_{2}\)s & \(-\)0.30472 q\({}_{2}\)s \\ \hline M\({}_{\rm C}\) & 0.30288 q\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.12571 q\({}^{2}\) & 1.95192 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & 1.39644 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)1.03379 q\({}_{2}\)s & \(-\)0.96737 q\({}_{2}\)s \\ \hline M\({}_{\rm y}\)\({}^{28}\) & \(-\)0.32098 q\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.18282 q\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.61660 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.43870 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & 0.16188 q\({}_{2}\)s & 0.14114 q\({}_{2}\)s \\ \hline M\({}_{\rm z}\)\({}^{28}\) & \(-\)0.06428 q\({}^{2}\) & 0.21213 q\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)1.28998 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.91521 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & 0.95926 q\({}_{2}\)s & 0.90710 q\({}_{2}\)s \\ \hline M\({}_{\rm y}\)\({}^{413}\) & 0.29028 q\({}^{2}\) & 0.05238 q\({}^{2}\) & 7.81254 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & 5.27326 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.19180 q\({}_{2}\)s & \(-\)0.08074 q\({}_{2}\)s \\ \hline M\({}_{\rm x}\)\({}^{413}\) & 0.15780 q\({}^{2}\) & 0.06149 q\({}^{2}\) & 1.29175 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & 0.70420 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.05392 q\({}_{2}\)s & \(-\)0.02615 q\({}_{2}\)s \\ \hline M\({}_{\rm y}\)\({}^{429}\) & 7.40284 q\({}^{2}\) & 5.09798 q\({}^{2}\) & 0.63264 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & 0.19518 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.19180 q\({}_{2}\)s & \(-\)0.08074 q\({}_{2}\)s \\ \hline M\({}_{\rm x}\)\({}^{429}\) & 1.18255 q\({}^{2}\) & 0.65208 q\({}^{2}\) & 0.25493 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & 0.10836 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.05392 q\({}_{2}\)s & \(-\)0.02615 q\({}_{2}\)s \\ \hline M\({}_{\rm x}\)\({}^{437}\) & \(-\)0.19095 q\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.10572 q\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.22838 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.12710 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & 0.01971 q\({}_{2}\)s & 0.01140 q\({}_{2}\)s \\ \hline M\({}_{\rm z}\)\({}^{437}\) & \(-\)1.51448 q\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.61475 q\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)3.16197 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)2.03845 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & 1.18854 q\({}_{2}\)s & 1.07084 q\({}_{2}\)s \\ \hline M\({}_{\rm x}\)\({}^{797}\) & \(-\)0.36444 q\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.08510 q\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)10.87368 & \(-\)8.58140 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & 0.28786 q\({}_{2}\)s & 0.18698 q\({}_{2}\)s \\ \hline M\({}_{\rm x}\)\({}^{813}\) & \(-\)10.24996 q\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)8.16864 q\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.87588 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.41450 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & 0.28786 q\({}_{2}\)s & 0.18698 q\({}_{2}\)s \\ \hline M\({}_{\rm x}\)\({}^{821}\) & 0.13284 q\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.22996 q\({}^{2}\) & 1.62748 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & 1.16812 q\({}_{1}\)s\({}^{2}\) & \(-\)0.95842 q\({}_{2}\)s & \(-\)0.90726 q\({}_{2}\)s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison of coefficients proportional to the values of bending moments for the closed tank with an internal partition, with dimensions. l\({}_{x}\) = 10 m, l\({}_{y}\) = 2.5 m and l\({}_{z}\) = 1.25 m calculated with and without taking into account its elastic substrate. The size of mesh division s = l\({}_{y}\)/12.