Nonbuilding Structure Design: by J. G. (Greg) Soules, P.E., S.E

13
Nonbuilding Structure Design

By J. G. (Greg) Soules, P.E., S.E.
Originally developed by Harold O. Sprague, Jr., P.E.
Contents
13.1
NONBUILDING STRUCTURES VERSUS NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS .............. 4
13.1.1
Nonbuilding Structure ........................................................................................................... 5
13.1.2
Nonstructural Component ...................................................................................................... 6
13.2
PIPE RACK, OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI ...................................................................................... 6
13.2.1
Description ............................................................................................................................. 7
13.2.2
Provisions Parameters ........................................................................................................... 7
13.2.3
Design in the Transverse Direction ....................................................................................... 8
13.2.4
Design in the Longitudinal Direction .................................................................................. 11
13.3
STEEL STORAGE RACK, OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI ............................................................. 13
13.3.1
Description ........................................................................................................................... 13
13.3.2
Provisions Parameters ......................................................................................................... 14
13.3.3
Design of the System ........................................................................................................... 15
13.4
ELECTRIC GENERATING POWER PLANT, MERNA, WYOMING .................................... 17
13.4.1
Description ........................................................................................................................... 17
13.4.2
13.4.3
Design in the North-South Direction ................................................................................... 20
13.4.4
Design in the East-West Direction ...................................................................................... 21
13.5
PIER/WHARF DESIGN, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA ...................................................... 21
13.5.1
Description ........................................................................................................................... 21
13.5.2
13.5.3
13.6
TANKS AND VESSELS, EVERETT, WASHINGTON .......................................................... 24
13.6.1
Flat-Bottom Water Storage Tank......................................................................................... 25
13.6.2
Flat-Bottom Gasoline Tank ................................................................................................. 28
FEMA P-751, NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples

13.7
13-2
VERTICAL VESSEL, ASHPORT, TENNESSEE ................................................................... 31
13.7.1
Description ........................................................................................................................... 31
13.7.2
13.7.3
Chapter 13: Nonbuilding Structure Design

Chapter 15 of the Standard is devoted to nonbuilding structures. Nonbuilding structures comprise a
myriad of structures constructed of all types of materials with markedly different dynamic characteristics
and a wide range of performance requirements.
Nonbuilding structures are a general category of structure distinct from buildings. Key features that
differentiate nonbuilding structures from buildings include human occupancy, function, dynamic response
and risk to society. Human occupancy, which is incidental in most nonbuilding structures, is the primary
purpose of most buildings. The primary purpose and function of nonbuilding structures can be incidental
to society, or the purpose and function can be critical for society.
In the past, many nonbuilding structures were designed for seismic resistance using building code
provisions developed specifically for buildings. These code provisions were inadequate to address the
performance requirements and expectations that are unique to nonbuilding structures. For example,
consider secondary containment for a vertical vessel containing hazardous materials. Nonlinear
performance and collapse prevention, which are performance expectations for buildings, are insufficient
for a secondary containment structure, which must not leak.
Seismic design requirements specific to nonbuilding structures were first introduced in the 2000
Provisions. Before the introduction of the 2000 Provisions, the seismic design of nonbuilding structures
depended on the various trade organizations and standards development organizations that were not
connected with the building codes.
This chapter develops examples specifically to help clarify Chapter 15 of the Standard. The solutions
developed are not intended to be comprehensive but instead focus on correct interpretation of the
requirements. Complete solutions to the examples cited are beyond the scope of this chapter.
In addition to the Provisions and Commentary, the following publications are referenced in this chapter:
API 650
American Petroleum Institute, Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage, 10th edition,
Addendum 4, 2005.
ASCE
American Society of Civil Engineers, Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and Design of
Petrochemical Facilities, 1997.
ASME BPVC
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Section VIII, Division 2, Alternate Rules,

Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels, 2007 Edition, 2008 Addenda.
AWWA D100
American Water Works Association, Welded Steel Tanks for Water Storage, 2005.
Bachman and
Dowty
Bachman, Robert and Dowty, Susan, Nonstructural Component or

Nonbuilding Structure?, Building Safety Journal, International Code Council, AprilMay 2008.
Jacobsen
Jacobsen, L.S., Impulsive Hydrodynamics of Fluid Inside a Cylindrical Tank and of

Fluid Surrounding a Cylindrical Pier, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, 39(3), 189-204, 1949.
Morison
Morison, J.R., OBrien, J.W. and Sohaaf, S.A., The Forces Exerted by Surface Waves
on Piles, Petroleum Transactions, AIME, Vol. 189; 1950.
13-3

RMI
Rack Manufacturers Institute, Specification for the Design, Testing and Utilization of
Industrial Steel Storage Racks, MH16.1, 2008
Soules
Soules, J. G., The Seismic Provisions of the 2006 IBC Nonbuilding Structure
Criteria, Proceedings of 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San
Francisco, CA, April 18, 2006.
13.1 NONBUILDING STRUCTURES VERSUS NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

Many industrial structures are classified as either nonbuilding structures or nonstructural components.
This distinction is necessary to determine how the practicing engineer designs the structure. The intent of
the Standard is to provide a clear and consistent design methodology for engineers to follow regardless of
whether the structure is a nonbuilding structure or a nonstructural component. Central to the
methodology is how to determine which classification is appropriate. Table 13-1 provides a simple
method to determine the appropriate classification. Additional discussion on this topic can be found in
Bachman and Dowty (2008).
The design methodology contained in Chapter 13 of the Standard focuses on nonstructural component
design. As such, the amplification by the supporting structure of the earthquake-induced accelerations is
critical to the design of the component and its supports and attachments. The design methodology
contained in Chapter 15 of the Standard focuses on the direct effects of earthquake ground motion on the
nonbuilding structure.
Table 13-1 Applicability of the Chapters of the Standard

Supporting
Structure
Supported Item
Nonstructural Component
Nonbuilding Structure
Building
Chapter 12 for supporting structure;

Chapter 13 for supported item

Nonbuilding

Chapter 15 for both supporting

structure and supported item
The example shown in Figure 13-1 is a combustion turbine, electric-power-generating facility with four
bays. Each bay contains a combustion turbine and supports an inlet filter on the roof. The uniform
seismic dead load of the supporting roof structure is 30 psf. Each filter weighs 34 kips.
The following two examples illustrate the difference between nonbuilding structures that are treated as
nonstructural components, using Standard Chapter 13 and those which are designed in accordance with
Standard Chapter 15. In many instances, the weight of the supported nonbuilding structure is relatively
small compared to the weight of the supporting structure (less than 25 percent of the combined weight)
such that the supported nonbuilding structure will have a relatively small effect on the overall nonlinear
earthquake response of the primary structure during design-level ground motions. It is permitted to treat
such structures as nonstructural components and use the requirements of Standard Chapter 13 for their
design. Where the weight of the supported structure is relatively large (greater than or equal to 25 percent
of the combined weight) compared to the weight of the supporting structure, the overall response can be
affected significantly. In such cases it is intended that seismic design loads and detailing requirements be
13-4

determined following the procedures of Standard Chapter 15. Where there are multiple large nonbuilding
structures, such as vessels supported on a primary nonbuilding structure and the weight of an individual
supported nonbuilding structure does not exceed the 25 percent limit but the combined weight of the
supported nonbuilding structures does, it is recommended that the combined analysis and design approach
of Standard Chapter 15 be used.
This difference in design approach is explored in the following example.
Inlet filter
25'
'
80
30'
30'
30'
30'
Figure 13-1 Combustion turbine building (1.0 ft = 0.3048 m)
13.1.1 Nonbuilding Structure

For the purpose of illustration, assume that the four filter units are connected in a fashion that couples
their dynamic response through a rigid diaphragm. Therefore, it is appropriate to combine the masses of
the four filter units for both the transverse and longitudinal direction responses.
13.1.1.1 Calculation of seismic weights.
All four inlet filters = WIF = 4(34 kips) = 136 kips
Support structure = WSS = 4(30 ft)(80 ft)(30 psf) = 288 kips
The combined weight of the nonbuilding structure (inlet filters) and the supporting structural system is:
Wcombined = 136 kips + 288 kips = 424 kips
13.1.1.2 Selection of design method. The ratio of the supported weight to the total weight is:
WIF
WCombined
136
= 0.321 > 25%
424
13-5
Because the weight of the inlet filters is 25 percent or more of the combined weight of the nonbuilding
structure and the supporting structure (Standard Sec. 15.3.2), the inlet filters are classified as
nonbuilding structures and the seismic design forces must be determined from analysis of the combined
seismic-resistant structural systems. This would require modeling the filters, the structural components of
the filters and the structural components of the combustion turbine supporting structure to determine
accurately the seismic forces on the structural elements as opposed to modeling the filters as lumped
masses.
13.1.2 Nonstructural Component
For the purpose of illustration, assume that the inlet filters are independent structures, although each is
supported on the same basic structure. Unlike the previous example where the filter units were connected
to each other through a rigid diaphragm, the four filter units are not connected in a fashion that couples
their dynamic response. In other words, the four independent structures do not significantly affect the
response of the support structure. In this instance, one filter is the nonbuilding structure. The question is
whether it is heavy enough to significantly change the response of the combined system.
13.1.2.1 Calculation of seismic weights.
One inlet filter = WIF = 34 kips
Support structure = WSS = 4(30 ft)(80 ft)(30 psf) = 288 kips
The combined weight of the nonbuilding structures (all four inlet filters) and the supporting structural
system is:
Wcombined = 4(34 kips) + 288 kips = 424 kips
13.1.2.2 Selection of design method. The ratio of the supported weight to the total weight is:
WIF
WCombined
34
= 0.08 < 25%
424
Because the weight of an inlet filter is less than 25 percent of the combined weight of the nonbuilding
structures and the supporting structure (Standard Sec. 15.3.1), the inlet filters are classified as
nonstructural components and the seismic design forces must be determined in accordance with
Standard Chapter 13. In this example, the filters could be modeled as lumped masses. The filters and the
filter supports could then be designed as nonstructural components.
13.2 PIPE RACK, OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI

This example illustrates the calculation of design base shears and maximum inelastic displacements for a
pipe rack using the equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure. The pipe rack in this example is supported
at grade and is considered a nonbuilding structure.
13-6

13.2.1 Description
A two-tier, 12-bay pipe rack in a petrochemical facility has concentrically braced frames in the
longitudinal direction and ordinary moment frames in the transverse direction. The pipe rack supports
four runs of 12-inch-diameter pipe carrying naphtha on the top tier and four runs of 8-inch-diameter pipe
carrying water for fire suppression on the bottom tier. The minimum seismic dead load for piping is
35 psf on each tier to allow for future piping loads. The seismic dead load for the steel support structure
is 10 psf on each tier.
Pipe supports connect the pipe to the structural steel frame and are designed to support the gravity load
and resist the seismic and wind forces perpendicular to the pipe. The typical pipe support allows the pipe
to move in the longitudinal direction of the pipe to avoid restraining thermal movement. The pipe support
near the center of the run is designed to resist longitudinal and transverse pipe movement as well as
provide gravity support; such supports are generally referred to as fixed supports.
Pipes themselves must be designed to resist gravity, wind, seismic and thermally induced forces, spanning
from support to support.
If the pipe run is continuous for hundreds of feet, thermal/seismic loops are provided to avoid a
cumulative thermal growth effect. The longitudinal runs of pipe in this example are broken up into
sections by providing thermal/seismic loops at spaced intervals as shown in Figure 13-2. In Figure 13-2,
it is assumed thermal/seismic loops are provided at each end of the pipe run.
20'-0"
5 bays @ 20'-0"
= 100'-0"
20'-0"
6 bays @ 20'-0"
= 120'-0"
Expansion loop
breaks the
continuity
Horizontal bracing
at braced bay only
10'-0"
15'-0"
8'-0"
3'-0"
PLAN
ELEVATION
SECTION
Figure 13-2 Pipe rack (1.0 ft = 0.3048 m)
13.2.2 Provisions Parameters

13.2.2.1 Ground motion. See Section 3.2 for an example illustrating the determination of design ground
motion parameters. For this example, the parameters are as follows:
13-7
SDS = 0.40
SD1 = 0.18
13.2.2.2 Occupancy category and importance factor. The upper piping carries a toxic material
(naphtha) (Occupancy Category III Standard Table 1-1) and the lower piping is required for fire
suppression (Occupancy Category IV Standard Table 1-1). The naphtha piping and the fire water
piping are included in Standard Section 1.5.1; therefore, the pipe rack is assigned to Occupancy Category
IV based on the more severe category.
Standard Section 15.4.1.1 directs the user to use the largest value of I based on the applicable reference
document listed in Standard Chapter 23, the largest value selected from Standard Table 11.5-1, or as
specified elsewhere in Standard Chapter 15. It is important to be aware of the requirements of Standard
Section 15.4.1.1. While the importance factor for most structures will be determined based on Standard
Table 11.5-1, there are reference documents that define importance factors greater than those found in
Standard Table 11.5-1. Additionally, Standard Section 15.5.3 requires that steel storage racks in
structures open to the public be assigned an importance factor of 1.5. This additional requirement for
steel storage racks addresses a risk to the public that is not addressed by Standard Table 11.5-1 and
Standard Table1-1. For this example, Standard Table 11.5-1 governs the choice of importance factor.
According to Standard Section 11.5.1, the importance factor, I, is 1.5 based on Occupancy Category IV.
13.2.2.3 Seismic design category. For this structure assigned to Occupancy Category IV with SDS = 0.40
and SD1 = 0.18, the Seismic Design Category is D according to Standard Section 11.6.
13.2.3 Design in the Transverse Direction
13.2.3.1 Design coefficients. According to Standard Section 15.4-1, either Standard Table 12.2-1 or
Standard Table 15.4-1 may be used to determine the seismic parameters, although mixing and matching
of values and requirements from the tables is not allowed. In Standard Chapter 15, selected nonbuilding
structures similar to buildings are provided an option where both lower R values and less restrictive height
limits are specified. This option permits selected types of nonbuilding structures which have performed
well in past earthquakes to be constructed with fewer restrictions in Seismic Design Categories D, E and
F provided seismic detailing is used and design force levels are considerably higher. The R value-height
limit trade-off recognizes that the size of some nonbuilding structures is determined by factors other than
traditional loadings and result in structures that are much stronger than required for seismic loadings
(Soules, 2006). Therefore, the structures ductility demand is generally much lower than a corresponding
building. The R value-height trade-off also attempts to obtain the same structural performance at the
increased heights. The user will find that the option of reduced R value with less restricted height will
prove to be the economical choice in most situations due to the relative cost of materials and construction
labor. It must be emphasized that the R value-height limit trade-off of Standard Table 15.4-1 applies only
to nonbuilding structures similar to buildings and cannot be applied to building structures.
In Standard Table 12.2-1, ordinary steel moment frames are not permitted in Seismic Design Category D
(with some exceptions) and cannot be used in this example. There are several options for ordinary steel
moment frames found in Standard Table 15.4-1. These options are as follows:
1. Standard Table 15.4-1, Ordinary moment frames of steel, R = 3.5, o = 3, Cd = 3. According to
Note c in Standard Table 15.4-1, this system is allowed for pipe racks up to 65 feet high using
bolted end plate moment connections and per Note d this system is allowed for pipe racks up to
35 feet without limitations on the connection type. This option requires the use of the AISC 341.
13-8
2. Standard Table 15.4-1, Ordinary moment frames of steel with permitted height increase, R = 2.5,
0 = 2, Cd = 2.5. This option is intended for pipe racks with height greater than 65 feet and
limited to 100 feet. This option is not applicable for this example.
3. Standard Table 15.4-1, Ordinary moment frames of steel with unlimited height, R=1, 0 = 1, Cd
= 1. This option does not require the use of the AISC 341.
For this example, Option 1 above is chosen. Using Standard Table 15.4-1, the parameters for this
ordinary steel moment frame are:
R = 3.5
0 = 3
Cd = 3
Ordinary steel moment frames are retained for use in nonbuilding structures such as pipe racks because
they allow greater flexibility for accommodating process piping and are easier to design and construct
than special steel moment frames.
13.2.3.2 Seismic response coefficient. Using Standard Equation 12.8-2:
Cs =
S DS
0.4
=
= 0.171
R I 3.5 1.5
From analysis, T = 0.42 second. For nonbuilding structures, the fundamental period is generally
approximated for the first iteration and must be verified with final calculations. Standard Section 15.4.4
makes clear that the approximate period equations of Standard Section 12.8.2 do not apply to nonbuilding
structures.
Using Standard Equation 12.8-3 for T TL, Cs does not need to exceed
Cs =
S D1
0.18
=
= 0.184
T ( R I ) 0.42(3.5 1.5)
Using Standard Equation 12.8-5, Cs must not be less than

Cs = 0.044ISDS 0.01 = 0.044(1.5)(0.4) = 0.0264
Standard Equation 12.8-2 controls; Cs = 0.171.
13-9
13.2.3.3 Seismic weight.

The seismic weight resisted by the moment frame in the transverse direction is shown below based on two
levels of piping, a 20 ft bent spacing, a bent width (perpendicular with the piping) of 20 ft, piping dead
weight of 35 psf and structure dead weight of 10 psf.
W = 2(20 ft)(20 ft)(35 psf + 10 psf) = 36 kips
13.2.3.4 Base shear. Using Standard Equation 12.8-1:
V = CsW = 0.171(36 kips) = 6.2 kips
13.2.3.5 Drift. Although not shown here, drift of the pipe rack in the transverse direction was calculated
by elastic analysis using the design forces calculated above. The calculated lateral drift, xe = 0.328 inch.
Using Standard Equation 12.8-15:
x =
Cd xe 3( 0.328)
=
= 0.656 in.
1.5
I
The lateral drift must be checked with regard to acceptable limits. The acceptable limits for nonbuilding
structures are not found in codes. Rather, the limits are what is acceptable for the performance of the
piping. In general, piping can safely accommodate the amount of lateral drift calculated in this example.
P-delta effects must also be considered and checked as required in Standard Section 15.4.5.
13.2.3.6 Redundancy factor. Some nonbuilding structures are designed with parameters from Standard
Table 12.2-1 or 15.4-1 if they are termed nonbuilding structures similar to buildings. For such
structures (assigned to Seismic Design Category D, E, or F) the redundancy factor applies. Pipe racks,
being fairly simple moment frames or braced frames, are in the category similar to buildings. Because
this structure is assigned to Seismic Design Category D, Standard Section 12.3.4.2 applies.
Considering the transverse direction, the seismic force-resisting system is an ordinary moment resisting
frame with only two columns in a single frame. The frames repeat in an identical pattern. Loss of
moment resistance at the beam-to-column connections at both ends results in a loss of more than
33 percent in story strength. Therefore, Standard Section 12.3.4.2, Condition (a) is not met. The moment
frame as described above consists only of a single bay. Therefore, Standard Section 12.3.4.2, Condition
b is not met. The value of in the transverse direction is therefore 1.3.
13.2.3.7 Determining E. In Standard Section 12.4.2, E is defined to include the effects of horizontal and
vertical ground motions and can be summarized as follows:
E = QE 0.2 SDS D
where QE is the effect of the horizontal earthquake ground motions, which is determined primarily by the
base shear just computed and D is the effect of dead load. By putting a simple multiplier on the effect of
dead load, the last term is an approximation of the effect of vertical ground motion. For the moment
frame, the joint moment is influenced by both terms. E with the + on the second term where combined
with dead and live loads will generally produce the largest negative moment at the joints, while E with the
- on the second term where combined with the minimum dead load (0.6D) will produce the largest
positive joint moments.
13-10
The Standard also requires the consideration of an overstrength factor, 0, on the effect of horizontal
motions in defining Em for components susceptible to brittle failure. Standard Section 12.4.3 defines Em
and this definition can be summarized as follows:
Em = 0 QE 0.2 SDS D
The moment frame portion of the pipe rack does not have components that require such consideration.
13.2.4 Design in the Longitudinal Direction
13.2.4.1 Design coefficients. In Standard Section 15.4-1, either Standard Table 12.2-1 or
Standard Table 15.4-1 may be used to determine the seismic parameters. In Standard Table
12.2-1, ordinary steel concentrically braced frames are not permitted for Seismic Design
Category D (with some exceptions) and cannot be used for this example. There are several
options for ordinary steel concentrically braced frames found in Standard Table 15.4-1. These
options are as follows:
1. Standard Table 15.4-1, Ordinary steel concentrically braced frame, R = 3.25, 0 = 2,
Cd = 3.25. According to Note b in Standard Table 15.4-1, this system is allowed for pipe
racks up to 65 feet high. This option requires the use of AISC 341.
2. Standard Table 15.4-1, Ordinary steel concentrically braced frames with permitted height
increase, R = 2.5, 0 = 2, Cd = 2.5. This option is intended for pipe racks with height
greater than 65 feet and limited to 160 feet. This option is not applicable for this
example.
3. Standard Table 15.4-1, Ordinary steel concentrically braced frames with unlimited
height, R = 1.5, 0 = 1, Cd = 1.5. This option does not require the use of AISC 341.
For this example, Option 1 above is chosen. Using Standard Table 15.4-1, the parameters for this
ordinary steel concentrically braced frame are:
R = 3.25
0 = 2
Cd = 3.25
Cs =
S DS
0.4
=
= 0.185
R I 3.25 1.5
From analysis, T = 0.24 second. The fundamental period for nonbuilding structures is generally
approximated for the first iteration and must be verified with final calculations.
Using Standard Equation 12.8-3, Cs does not need to exceed:
13-11
Cs =
S D1
0.18
=
= 0.346
T ( R I ) 0.24(3.25 1.5 )
Using Standard Equation 12.8-5, Cs must not be less than:

Cs = 0.044ISDS 0.01 = 0.044(1.5)(0.4) = 0.0264
13.2.4.3 Seismic weight.
W = 2(240 ft)(20 ft)(35 psf + 10 psf) = 432 kips
V = CsW = 0.185(432 kips) = 79.9 kips
13.2.4.5 Redundancy factor. The pipe rack in this example does not meet either of the two
redundancy conditions specified in Standard Section 12.3.4.2. Condition a is not met because
only one set of bracing is provided on each side, so removal of one brace would result in a
reduction of greater than 33 percent in story strength. Condition b is not met because two bays
of seismic force-resisting perimeter framing are not provided in each orthogonal direction.
Therefore, the redundancy factor, , is 1.3. If two bays of bracing were provided on each side of
the pipe rack in the longitudinal direction, the pipe rack would meet Condition (a) and qualify for
a redundancy factor, , of 1.0 in that direction.
13.2.4.6 Determine E. In Standard Section 12.4.2, E is defined to include the effects of horizontal and
vertical ground motions and can be summarized as follows:
E = QE 0.2 SDS D
dead load, the last term is an approximation of the effect of vertical ground motion.
motions in defining Em for components susceptible to brittle failure. Standard Section 12.4.3 defines Em
and this definition can be summarized as follows:
Em = 0 QE 0.2 SDS D
The ordinary steel concentrically braced frame portion of the pipe rack does have components that require
such consideration. The beams connecting each moment frame in the longitudinal direction act as
collectors and, as required by Standard Section 12.10.2.1, must be designed for the seismic load effect
including overstrength factor.
13.2.4.7 Orthogonal loads. Because the pipe rack in this example is assigned to Seismic Design
Category D, Standard Section 12.5.4 requires that the braced sections of the pipe rack be evaluated using
the orthogonal combination rule of Standard Section 12.5.3a. Two cases must be checked: 100 percent
13-12

transverse seismic force plus 30 percent longitudinal seismic force and 100 percent longitudinal seismic
force plus 30 percent transverse seismic force. The vertical seismic force represented by 0.2SDSD is only
applied once in each load case. Do not include the vertical seismic force in with both horizontal seismic
load combinations. In this pipe rack example, due to the bracing configuration, the foundation and
column anchorage would be the only components impacted by the orthogonal load combinations.
13.3 STEEL STORAGE RACK, OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI

This example uses the ELF procedure to calculate the seismic base shear in the east-west direction for a
steel storage rack.
13.3.1 Description
A four-tier, five-bay steel storage rack is located in a retail discount warehouse. There are concentrically
braced frames in the north-south and east-west directions. The general public has direct access to the
aisles and merchandise is stored on the upper racks. The rack is supported on a slab on grade. The design
operating load for the rack contents is 125 psf on each tier. The weight of the steel support structure is
assumed to be 5 psf on each tier.
13-13
8'-0"
8'-0"
8'-0"
8'-0"
8'-0"
0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-
N
W
S
Figure 13-3 Steel storage rack (1.0 ft = 0.3048 m)

13.3.2.1 Ground motion. The spectral response acceleration coefficients at the site are as follows:
SDS = 0.40
SD1 = 0.18
13.3.2.2 Occupancy category and importance factor. Use Standard Section 1.5.1. The storage rack is
in a retail facility. Therefore, the storage rack is assigned to Occupancy Category II. According to
Standard Section 15.5.3 (item 2), I = Ip = 1.5 because the rack is in an area open to the general public.
13.3.2.3 Seismic design category. Use Standard Tables 11.6-1 and 11.6-2. Given Occupancy Category
II, SDS = 0.40 and SD1 = 0.18, the Seismic Design Category is C.
13.3.2.4 Design coefficients. According to Standard Table 15.4-1, the design coefficients for this steel
storage rack are as follows:
13-14
R=4
0 = 2
Cd = 3
13.3.3 Design of the System
13.3.3.1 Seismic response coefficient. Standard Section 15.5.3 allows designers some latitude in
selecting the seismic design methodology. Designers may use the Rack Manufacturers Institute
specification (MH16.1-2008) to design steel storage racks. In other words, racks designed using the RMI
method of Section 15.5.3 are deemed to comply. As an alternate, designers may use the requirements of
Standard Sections 15.5.3.1 through 15.5.3.4. The RMI approach will be used in this example.
Using RMI Section 2.6.3, from analysis, T = 0.24 seconds. For this particular example, the short period
spectral value controls the design. The period for taller racks, however, may be significant and will be a
function of the operating weight. As shown in the calculations that follow, in the RMI method the
importance factor appears in the equation for V rather than in the equation for Cs. The seismic response
coefficient from RMI is:
Cs =
S D1
0.18
=
= 0.188
T ( R ) 0.24( 4 )
But need not be greater than:
Cs =
S DS 0.4
=
= 0.10
R
4
Nor less than:
Cs = 0.044SDS = 0.044( 0.4 ) = 0.0176

The governing value of Cs = 0.10. From RMI Section 2.6.2, the seismic base shear is calculated as
follows:
V = Cs I p Ws = 0.1(1.5 )Ws = 0.15Ws

13.3.3.2 Condition 1 (each rack loaded).
13.3.3.2.1 Seismic weight. In accordance with RMI Section 2.6.8, Item 1:
Ws = 4(5)(8 ft)(3 ft)[0.67(125 psf)+5 psf] = 42.6 kips
13.3.3.2.2 Design forces and moments. Using RMI Section 2.6.2, the design base shear for Condition 1
is calculated as follows:
V = CsIpWs = 0.15(42.6 kips) = 6.39 kips
13-15

In order to calculate the design forces, shears and overturning moments at each level, seismic forces must
be distributed vertically in accordance with RMI Section 2.6.6. The calculations are shown in Table 13.31.
Table 13.3-1 Seismic Forces, Shears and Overturning Moment
wx hxk
wx hxk
0.40
Fx
(kips)
2.56
95.85
0.30
1.92
63.90
0.20
1.28
31.95
0.10
0.63
Level
x
5
Wx
(kips)
10.65
hx
(ft)
12
(k = 1)
127.80
10.65
10.65
10.65
wi hi
i =1
42.6
319.5
1.0 ft = 0.3048 m, 1.0 kip = 4.45 kN, 1.0 ft-kip = 1.36 kN-m.
Vx
(kips)
Mx
(ft-kips)
2.56
7.68
4.48
21.1
5.76
38.4
6.39
57.6
13.3.3.2.3 Resisting moment at the base.

MOT, resisting = Ws (1.5 ft) = 42.6(1.5 ft) = 63.9 ft-kips
13.3.3.3 Condition 2 (only top rack loaded).
13.3.3.3.1 Seismic weight. In accordance with RMI Section 2.6.2, Item 2:
Ws = 1(5)(8 ft)(3 ft)(125 psf) + 4(5)(8 ft)(3 ft)(5 psf) = 17.4 kips
12.3.3.3.2 Base shear. Using RMI Section 2.6.2, the design base shear for Condition 2 is calculated as
follows:
V = CsIpWs = 0.15(17.4 kips) = 2.61 kips
13.3.3.3.3 Overturning moment at the base. Although the forces could be distributed as shown above
for Condition 1, a simpler, conservative approach for Condition 2 is to assume that a seismic force equal
to the entire base shear is applied at the top level. Using that simplifying assumption,
MOT = Vb (12 ft) = 2.61 kip (12 ft) = 31.3 ft-kips
13.3.3.3.4 Resisting moment at the base.
MOT, resisting = Ws (1.5 ft) = 17.4(1.5 ft) = 26.1 ft-kips
13-16

13.3.3.4 Controlling conditions. Condition 1 controls shear demands at all but the top level. Although
the overturning moment is larger under Condition 1, the resisting moment is larger than the overturning
moment. Under Condition 2 the resistance to overturning is less than the applied overturning moment.
Therefore, the rack anchors must be designed to resist the uplift induced by the base shear for
Condition 2.
13.3.3.5 Torsion. It should be noted that the distribution of east-west seismic shear will induce torsion in
the rack system because the east-west brace is only on the back of the storage rack. The torsion should be
resisted by the north-south braces at each end of the bay where the east-west braces are placed. If the
torsion were to be distributed to each end of the storage rack, the engineer would be required to calculate
the transfer of torsional forces in diaphragm action in the shelving, which may be impractical. Therefore,
north-south braces are provided in each bay.
13.4 ELECTRIC GENERATING POWER PLANT, MERNA, WYOMING

This example highlights some of the differences between the design of nonbuilding structures and the
design of building structures. The boiler building in this example illustrates a solution using the ELF
procedure. Due to mass irregularities, the boiler building would probably also require a modal analysis.
For brevity, the modal analysis is not illustrated.
13.4.1 Description
Large boilers in coal-fired electric power plants generally are suspended from the supporting steel near
the roof level. Additional lateral supports (called buck stays) are provided near the bottom of the boiler.
The buck stays resist lateral forces but allow the boiler to move vertically. Lateral seismic forces are
resisted at the roof and at the buck stay level. Close coordination with the boiler manufacturer is required
in order to determine the proper distribution of seismic forces.
In this example, a boiler building for a 950 MW coal-fired electric power generating plant is braced
laterally with ordinary concentrically braced frames in both the north-south and east-west directions. The
facility is part of a grid and is not for emergency backup of an Occupancy Category IV facility.
The dead load of the structure, equipment and piping, WDL, is 16,700 kips.
The weight of the boiler in service, WBoiler, is 31,600 kips.
The natural period of the structure (determined from analysis) is as follows:
North-South, TNS = 1.90 seconds
East-West, TEW = 2.60 seconds
13-17
240'-0"
0"
5'-
18
230'-0"
N
S
W
Plate girder to
support boiler
(typical)
Buck stays
(typical)
BOILER
Section A-A
Figure 13-4 Boiler building (1.0 ft = 0.3048 m)
13-18

Occupancy Category (Standard Sec. 1.5.1)
(for continuous operation, but not for emergency backup
of an Occupancy Category IV facility)
III
Occupancy Importance Factor, I (Standard Sec. 11.5.1)
1.25
Short-period Response, SS
0.864
One-second Period Response, S1
0.261
Site Class (Standard Sec. 11.4.2)
D (default)
Short-period Site Coefficient, Fa (Standard Table 11.4-1)
1.155
Long-period Site Coefficient, Fv (Standard Table 11.4-2)
1.877
=
=
0.665
0.327
Seismic Design Category (Standard Sec. 11.6)
Seismic Force-resisting System (Standard Table 15.4-1)
Ordinary steel
concentrically braced
frame with unlimited
height
Response Modification Coefficient, R
1.5
System Overstrength Factor, 0
Deflection Amplification Factor, Cd
1.5
Height Limit (Standard Table 15.4-1)
Unlimited
Design Spectral Acceleration Response Parameters

SDS = (2/3)SMS = (2/3)FaSS = (2/3)(1.155)(0.864)
SD1 = (2/3)SM1 = (2/3)FvS1 = (2/3)(1.877)(0.261)
According to Standard Section 15.4-1, either Standard Table 12.2-1 or Standard Table 15.4-1 may be
used to determine the seismic parameters, although mixing and matching of values and requirements from
the tables is not allowed. If the structure were classified as a building, its height would be limited to
35 feet for a Seismic Design Category D ordinary steel concentrically braced frame, according to
Standard Table 12.2-1. A review of Standard Table 12.2-1 shows that three steel high ductility braced
frame systems (two eccentrically braced systems and the special concentrically braced system) and two
special moment frame systems can be used at a height of 240 feet. In most of these cases, the additional
requirements of Standard Section 12.2.5.4 must be met to qualify the system at a height of 240 feet.
Boiler buildings normally are constructed using ordinary concentrically braced frames.
13-19

As discussed in Section 13.2.3.1 above, Chapter 15 of the Standard presents options to increase height
limits for design of some nonbuilding structures similar to buildings where R factors are reduced. For this
example, an ordinary steel concentrically braced frame with unlimited height is chosen from Standard
Table 15.4-1. By using a significantly reduced R value, the seismic design and detailing requirements of
AISC 341 need not be applied.
13.4.3 Design in the North-South Direction
Cs =
S DS
0.665
=
= 0.554
R I 1.5 1.25
From analysis, T = 1.90 seconds. Using Standard Equation 12.8-3, CS does not need to exceed
S D1
0.327
Cs =
=
= 0.143
T ( R I ) 1.90(1.5 1.25)
but using Standard Equation 12.8-5, Cs must not be less than:
Cs = 0.044ISDS 0.01 = 0.044(1.25)(0.665) = 0.0366
13.4.3.2 Seismic weight. Calculate the total seismic weight, W, as follows:
W = WDL + WBoiler = 16,700 kips + 31,600 kips = 48,300 kips
V = CsW = 0.143(48,300 kips) = 6,907 kips
13.4.3.4 Redundancy factor. The structure in this example meets the requirements of Condition b
specified in Standard Section 12.3.4.2, because two bays of seismic force-resisting perimeter
framing are provided in each orthogonal direction. Therefore, the redundancy factor, , is 1.0.
It is important to note that each story resists more than 35 percent of the base shear because the
boiler is hung from the top of the structure. Therefore, each story must comply with the
requirements of Condition b. If a story resisted less than 35 percent of the base shear, the
requirements of Standard Section 12.3.4.2 would not apply and that story would not be
considered in establishing the redundancy factor.
13.4.3.5 Determining E. E is defined to include the effects of horizontal and vertical ground motions as
follows:
E = QE 0.2 SDS D
13-20

dead load, the last term is an approximation of the effect of vertical ground motion.
motions in defining E for components susceptible to brittle failure.
E = 0 QE 0.2 SDS D
The ordinary steel concentrically braced frames have components that require such consideration. The
beams transferring shear from one set of braces to another act as collectors and, as required by Standard
Section 12.10.2.1, must be designed for the seismic load effect including overstrength factor.
13.4.4 Design in the East-West Direction
Cs =
S DS
0.665
=
= 0.554
R I 1.5 1.25
From analysis, T = 2.60 seconds. Using Standard Equation 12.8-3, Cs does not need to exceed:
S D1
0.327
Cs =
=
= 0.105
T ( R I ) 2.60(1.5 1.25)
Cs = 0.044ISDS 0.01 = 0.044(1.25)(0.665) = 0.0366
13.4.4.2 Seismic weight. Calculate the total seismic weight, W, as follows:
W = WDL + WBoiler = 16,700 kips + 31,600 kips = 48,300 kips
V = CsW = 0.105(48,300 kips) = 5072 kips
13.5 PIER/WHARF DESIGN, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA

This example illustrates the calculation of the seismic base shear in the east-west direction for the pier
using the ELF procedure. Piers and wharves are covered in Standard Section 15.5.6.
13.5.1 Description
A cruise ship company is developing a pier in Long Beach, California, to service ocean liners. The pier
contains a large warehouse owned by the cruise ship company. In the north-south direction, the pier is
tied directly to an abutment structure supported on grade. In the east-west direction, the pier resists
13-21

seismic forces using moment frames. Calculations for the abutment are not included in this example, but
it is assumed to be much stiffer than the moment frames.
PLAN
3'-0"
15'-0"
3'-0"
The design live load for warehouse storage is 1,000 psf.
W
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
3'-0"
20'-0"
Mean Sea Level
Mud
30'-0"
Dense
sand
ELEVATION
Figure 13-5 Pier plan and elevation (1.0 ft = 0.3048 m)

(The pier serves cruise ships that carry no hazardous
materials.)
II
Importance Factor, I (Standard Sec. 11.5.1)
1.0
1.75
13-22
10'-0"
10'-0"
0.60
Site Class (Standard Chapter 20)
D (dense sand)
1.0
1.5
=
=
1.167
0.60
Seismic Design Category (Standard Sec. 11.6)
Intermediate concrete
moment frame with
permitted height increase
2.5
Height Limit (Standard Table 15.4-1)
50 ft

SDS = (2/3)SMS = (2/3)FaSS = (2/3)(1.0)(1.75)
SD1 = (2/3)SM1 = (2/3)FvS1 = (2/3)(1.5)(0.60)
If the structure were classified as a building, an intermediate reinforced concrete moment frame
would not be permitted in Seismic Design Category D.
Cs =
S DS 1.167
=
= 0.389
R I 3 1.0
From analysis, T = 0.596 seconds. Using Standard Equation 12.8-3, Cs does not need to exceed:
Cs =
S D1
0.60
=
= 0.336
T ( R I ) 0.596(3 1.0 )

Cs = 0.044ISDS 0.01 = 0.044(1.0)(1.167) = 0.0513
13-23

13.5.3.2 Seismic weight. In accordance with Standard Section 12.7.2, calculate the dead load due to the
deck, beams and support piers, as follows:
WDeck = 1.0(43 ft)(21 ft)(0.150 kip/ft3) = 135.5 kips
WBeam = 4(2 ft)(2 ft)(21 ft)(0.150 kip/ft3) = 50.4 kips
WPier = 8[(1.25 ft)2][(10 ft - 3 ft) + (20 ft)/2](0.150 kip/ft3) = 100.1 kips
WDL = WDeck + WBeams + WPiers = 135.5 + 50.4 + 100.1 = 286.0 kips
Calculate 25 percent of the storage live load, as follows:
W1/4 LL = 0.25(1,000 psf)(43 ft)(21 ft) = 225.8 kips
Standard Section 15.5.6.2 requires that all applicable marine loading combinations be considered (such as
those for mooring, berthing, wave and current on piers and wharves). For this example, additional
seismic loads from water flowing around the piles will be considered. A virtual mass (Jacobsen, 1959)
of water equal to a column of water of identical dimensions of the circular pile is to be considered in the
effective seismic mass. This additional weight is calculated as follows:
WVirtual Mass = 8[(1.25 ft)2][(20 ft)/2](64 pcf) = 25.1 kips
Therefore, the total seismic weight is
W = WDL + W1/4LL + WVirtual Mass = 286.0 + 225.8 + 25.1 = 536.9 kips
Additional seismic forces from the water due to wave action may also act on the piles. These additional
forces are highly dependent on the acceleration and velocity of the waves and are heavily dependent on
the geometry of the body of water. These forces can be calculated using the Morison Equation (Morison,
1950). The determination of these forces is beyond the scope of this example.
V = CsW = 0.336(536.9 kips) = 180.4 kips
13.5.3.4 Redundancy factor. The pier in this example has a sufficient number of moment frames that
loss of moment resistance at both ends of a single beam would not result in more than a 33 percent
reduction in story strength. However, the direct tie to a much stiffer abutment at the north end likely
would cause an extreme torsional irregularity for east-west motion, so that Condition (a) would not be
met. Condition (b) is not met because two bays of seismic force-resisting perimeter framing are not
provided in each orthogonal direction. Therefore, the redundancy factor, , is taken to be 1.3.
13.6 TANKS AND VESSELS, EVERETT, WASHINGTON

The seismic response of tanks and vessels can be significantly different from that of buildings. For a
structure composed of interconnected solid elements, it is not difficult to recognize how ground motions
accelerate the structure and cause inertial forces within the structure. Tanks and vessels, where empty,
respond in a similar manner.
13-24

Where there is liquid in the tank, the response is much more complicated. As earthquake ground motions
accelerate the tank shell, the shell applies lateral forces to the liquid. The response of the liquid to those
lateral forces may be amplified significantly if the period content of the earthquake ground motion is
similar to the natural sloshing period of the liquid.
Earthquake-induced impulsive fluid forces are those calculated assuming that the liquid is a solid mass.
Convective fluid forces are those that result from sloshing in the tank. It is important to account for
convective forces on columns and appurtenances inside the tank, because they are affected by sloshing in
the same way that waves affect a pier in the ocean.
Freeboard considerations are critical. Oftentimes, the roof acts as a structural diaphragm. If a tank does
not have sufficient freeboard, the sloshing wave can rip the roof from the wall of the tank. This could
result in failure of the wall and loss of the liquid within.
Seismic design for liquid-containing tanks and vessels is complicated. The fluid mass that is effective for
impulsive and convective seismic forces is discussed in AWWA D100 and API 650.
13.6.1 Flat-Bottom Water Storage Tank
13.6.1.1 Description. This example illustrates the calculation of the design base shear and the required
freeboard using the procedure outlined in AWWA D100 for a steel water storage tank used to store
potable water for fire protection within a chemical plant (Figure 13-6). According to Standard
Section 15.7.7.1, the governing reference document for this tank is AWWA D100. Standard Chapter 15
makes no modifications to this document for the seismic design of flat-bottom water storage tanks.
AWWA D100 is written in terms of allowable stress design (ASD) while the seismic requirements of the
Standard are written in terms of strength design. AWWA D100 translates the force equations from the
Standard by substituting 1.4R for R. For the purposes of this example, all loads are calculated in terms of
strength design. Where appropriate, AWWA D100 equations are referenced for the determination of
impulsive and convective (sloshing) masses.
Freeboard
H = 10'-0"
HR = 15'-0"
5'-0"
D = 20'-0"
Figure 13-6 Storage tank section (1.0 ft = 0.3048 m)

The weight of the tank shell, roof, bottom and equipment is 15,400 pounds.
13-25

13.6.1.2 Seismic design parameters.
IV
1.5
1.236
0.406
Long-period Transition Period, TL
6 seconds
Site Class (Standard Chapter 20)
C (per geotech)
1.0
1.39
=
=
0.824
0.376
Flat-bottom, groundsupported, mechanically

anchored steel tank
2.5

SDS = (2/3)SMS = (2/3)FaSS = (2/3)(1.0)(1.236)
SD1 = (2/3)SM1 = (2/3)FvS1 = (2/3)(1.39)(0.406)
13.6.1.3 Calculations for impulsive response.

13.6.1.3.1 Natural period for the first mode of vibration. AWWA D100 Section 13.5.1 does not
require the computation of the natural period for the first mode of vibration. The impulsive acceleration
is assumed to be equal to SDS.
13.6.1.3.2 Spectral acceleration. Based on AWWA D100 Section 13.5.1, the impulsive acceleration is
set equal to SDS.
Sai = SDS = 0.824
13.6.1.3.3 Seismic (impulsive) weight.
Wtank = 15.4 kips
Wiwater = (10 ft)2(10 ft)(0.0624 kip/ft3) (Wi/WT)= 196.0 (0.542) kips = 106.2 kips
13-26

The ratio Wi/WT (= 0.542) was determined from Equation 13-24 (only valid for D/H 1.333) of AWWA
D100 for a diameter-to-liquid height ratio of 2.0 as shown below:
D
20
tanh 0.866 tanh 0.866

Wi
H
10
=
=
= 0.542
20
D
WT
0.866
0.866
10
H
Wi = Wtank + Wiwater = 15.4 + 106.2 = 121.6 kips
13.6.1.3.4 Base Shear.
According to Standard Equation 15.7-5:
Vi =
Sai Wi 0.824(121.6 )
=
= 50.1 kips
R I
3 1.5
13.6.1.4 Calculations for convective response natural period for the first mode of sloshing.
13.6.1.4.1 Natural period for the first mode of sloshing. Using Standard Equation 15.7-12:
= 2
3.68 tanh
3.68
= 2
20 ft
ft
3.68 10 ft
3.68 32.174 tanh
20 ft
= 2.65 s
13.6.1.4.2 Spectral acceleration. Using Standard Equation 15.7-10 with Tc < TL = 6 seconds:
S ac =
1.5S D1 1.5( 0.376 )

=
= 0.212
Tc
2.65
13.6.1.4.3 Seismic (convective) weight.

Wc = Wwater (Wc/WT) = 196 (0.437) = 85.7 kips
The ratio Wc/WT (= 0.437) was determined from Equation 13-26 (valid for all D/H) of AWWA D100 for a
diameter-to-liquid height ratio of 2.0 as shown below:
Wc
10
H
D
20
= 0.230 tanh 3.67 = 0.230 tanh 3.67 = 0.437

20
WT
D
H
10
13.6.1.4.4 Base shear. According to Standard Equation 15.7-6:
Vc =
0.212(1.5)
Sac I
Wc =
(85.7 ) = 18.2 kips
1.5
1.5
13-27

13.6.1.5 Design base shear. Item b of Standard Section 15.7.2 indicates that impulsive and convective
components may, in general, be combined using the SRSS method. Standard Equation 15.7-4 requires
that the direct sum be used for ground-supported storage tanks for liquids. Note b under Standard Section
15.7.6.1 allows the use of the SRSS method in lieu of using Standard Equation 15.7-4. Therefore, the
base shear is computed as follows:
V = Vi 2 + Vc2 = 50.12 + 18.22 = 53.3 kips

13.6.1.6 Minimum freeboard. Because the tank is assigned to Occupancy Category IV, the full value of
the theoretical wave height must be provided for freeboard. For the case of Occupancy Category IV
tanks, the wave height is calculated based on the convective acceleration using the actual value of TL and
an importance factor of 1.0. Standard Table 15.7-3 indicates that a minimum freeboard equal to s is
required for this tank. Using Standard Equation 15.7-13 and Note c (sets I = 1.0 for Occupancy Category
IV for wave height determination) from Standard Section 15.7.6.1:
s = 0.5DiISac = 0.5(20 ft)(1.0)(0.212) = 2.12 ft
The 5 feet of freeboard provided is adequate.
13.6.2 Flat-Bottom Gasoline Tank
13.6.2.1 Description. This example illustrates the calculation of the base shear and the required
freeboard using the procedure outlined in API 650 for a petrochemical storage tank in a refinery tank farm
(Figure 13-7). An impoundment dike is not provided to control liquid spills. According to Standard
Section 15.7.8.1, the governing reference document for this tank is API 650. API 650 is written in terms
of allowable stress design (ASD) while the seismic requirements of the Standard are written in terms of
strength design. API 650 translates the force equations from the Standard by substituting Rw for R, where
Rw is equal to 1.4R. For the purposes of this example, all loads are calculated in terms of strength design.
Where appropriate, API 650 equations are referenced for the determination of impulsive and convective
(sloshing) masses.
The tank is a flat-bottom, ground-supported, self-anchored, welded steel tank constructed in accordance
with API 650. The weight of the tank shell, roof, bottom and equipment is 490,000 pounds.
13-28
3/16 Thk
roof PL
Top angle (Toe out)

3x3x3/8
12
Ring No. 5 - 5/16 Thk
Roof rafters 1R
(54) W14x26
33' High
liquid
level
3'-9 5/16"
3/4
Center column 1C
20 Dia Sch 10
Shell
Height
=40'-0"
Internal aluminum
floating roof
Top of
bottom PL
Ring No. 1 - 0.401 Thk

3'-0" Low
Liquid Level
10'
Low rest position 3'-0"

High rest position 6'-0"
1"
6" bottom
crown at
center
1/4" Thk
bottom PL
Ringwall
foundation
120'-0" Nominal Diameter
Figure 13-7 Storage tank section (1.0 ft = 0.3048 m)

13.6.2.2 Seismic design parameters.
(The tank is used for storage of toxic or explosive
material.)
III
1.25
=
=
0.824
0.376
Seismic Force-Resisting System (Standard Table 15.4-2)
Flat-bottom, groundsupported, self- anchored

steel tank
2.5

(Using the same site as in Section 13.6.1)
SDS = (2/3)SMS = (2/3)FaSS = (2/3)(1.0)(1.236)
SD1 = (2/3)SM1 = (2/3)FvS1 = (2/3)(1.39)(0.406)
13.6.2.3 Calculations for impulsive response.

13.6.2.3.1 Natural period for the first mode of vibration. API 650 Section E.4.8.1 does not require the
computation of the natural period for the first mode of vibration. The impulsive acceleration is assumed
to be equal to SDS.
13-29

13.6.2.3.2 Spectral acceleration. Based on API 650 Section 13.5.1, the impulsive acceleration is set
equal to SDS.
Sai = SDS = 0.824
13.6.2.3.3 Seismic (impulsive) weight.
Wtank = 490.0 kips
WGas = (60 ft)2(33 ft)(0.0474 kip/ft3)(Wi/Wp) = 17,691 kips (0.316) = 5,590 kips
The ratio Wi/Wp (= 0.316) was determined from Equation E-13 (only valid for D/H 1.333) of API 650
for a diameter-to-liquid height ratio of 3.636 as shown below:
D
120
tanh 0.866 tanh 0.866

Wi
H
33
=
=
= 0.316
120
D
Wp
0.866
0.866
33
H
Wi = Wtank + WGas = 490 + 5590 = 6,080 kips
Sai Wi 0.824( 6080 )

=
= 2,505 kips
R I
2.5 1.25
13.6.2.4 Calculations for convective response.
Vi =
13.6.2.4.1 Natural period for the first mode of sloshing. Using Standard Equation 15.7-12:
= 2
3.68
3.68 tanh
= 2
120 ft
ft
3.68 33 ft
3.68 32.174 tanh
120 ft
= 7.22 s
13.6.2.4.2 Spectral acceleration. Using Standard Equation 15.7-11 with Tc > TL = 6 seconds:
Sac =
1.5S D1TL 1.5( 0.376 )( 6 )

=
= 0.0649
Tc2
7.222
13.6.2.4.3 Seismic (convective) weight.

Wc = WGAS (Wc/Wp) = 17691 (0.640) = 11,322 kips
The ratio Wc/Wp (= 0.640) was determined from Equation E-15 (valid for all D/H) of API 650 for a
diameter-to-liquid height ratio of 3.636 as shown below:
13-30
Wc
33
H
D
120
tanh 3.67
= 0.230 tanh 3.67 = 0.230
= 0.640
120
WT
D
H
33
Vc =
0.0649(1.5 )
Sac I
Wc =
(11,322 ) = 735 kips
1.5
1.5
13.6.2.5 Design base shear. Item (b) of Standard Section 15.7.2 indicates that impulsive and convective
components may, in general, be combined using the SRSS method. Standard Equation 15.7-4 requires
that the direct sum be used for ground-supported storage tanks for liquids. Note b under Standard Section
15.7.6.1 allows the use of the SRSS method in lieu of using Standard Equation 15.7-4. Therefore, the
base shear is computed as follows:
V = Vi 2 + Vc2 = 25052 + 7352 = 2,611 kips

13.6.2.6 Minimum freeboard. Because the tank is assigned to Occupancy Category III and SDS is greater
than 0.50, the freeboard provided must be at least 70 percent of the full value of the theoretical wave
height (based on TL = 4 s). For the case of Occupancy Category III tanks, the wave height is calculated
based on the convective acceleration using a value of TL equal to 4 seconds and an importance factor of
1.25 according to Standard Section 15.7.6.1, Note (d). Standard Table 15.7-3 indicates that a minimum
freeboard equal to 0.7s is required for this tank. Using Standard Equation 15.7-13 and Note (d) (sets I =
1.25 and TL to 4 seconds for Occupancy Category III for wave height determination) from Standard
Section 15.7.6.1:
s = 0.5DiISac = 0.5(120 ft)(1.25)(0.0433) = 3.25 ft
Sac =
1.5S D1TL 1.5( 0.376 )4

=
= 0.0433
Tc2
7.222
0.7 s = 2.27 ft
The 7 feet of freeboard provided also includes a 3-foot allowance for an aluminum internal floating roof
and the roof framing. The seismic freeboard must be sufficient to avoid forcing the floating roof into the
fixed roof framing. The freeboard provided is adequate. The reduced freeboard requirement recognizes
that providing seismic freeboard for Occupancy Category I, II, or III tanks is an economic decision
(reducing damage) and not a life-safety issue. Because of this, a reduced freeboard is allowed. If
secondary containment were provided, no freeboard would be required based on Standard Table 15.7-3,
Footnote (b).
13.7 VERTICAL VESSEL, ASHPORT, TENNESSEE

13.7.1 Description
This example illustrates the calculation of the base shear using the ELF procedure for a flexible vertical
vessel (Figure 13-8). The vertical vessel contains highly toxic material (Occupancy Category IV).
13-31
H=100'
D=10'
T=3/8"
Figure 13-8 Vertical vessel (1.0 ft = 0.3048 m)

The weight of the vertical vessel plus contents is 300,000 pounds.
Standard Section 15.4.4 allows the fundamental period of a nonbuilding structure to be determined using
a properly substantiated analysis. The period of the vertical vessel is calculated using the equation for a
uniform vertical cylindrical steel vessel as found in Appendix 4.A of ASCE (1997). The period of the
vessel is calculated as follows:
7.78 H
T = 6
10 D
where:
12W D 7.78 100

= 6
t
10 10
12(300000 100)10
0.375
= 0.762s
T = period (s)
W = weight (lb/ft)
H = height (ft)
D = diameter (ft)
T = shell thickness (in.)

13.7.2.1 Ground motion. The design response spectral accelerations are defined as follows:
13-32

SDS = 1.86
SD1 = 0.79
13.7.2.2 Importance factor. The vertical vessel contains highly toxic material. Therefore, it is assigned
to Occupancy Category IV, as required by Standard Section 1.5.1. Using Standard Table 11.5.1, the
importance factor, I, is equal to 1.5.
13.7.2.3 Seismic coefficients. The vertical vessel used in this example is a skirt-supported distributed
mass cantilevered structure. There are three possible entries in Standard Table 15.4-2 that describe the
vessel in question:
1. Elevated tanks, vessels, bins, or hoppers: Single pedestal or skirt supported welded steel.
2. Elevated tanks, vessels, bins, or hoppers: Single pedestal or skirt supported welded steel with
special detailing.
3. All other steel and reinforced concrete distributed mass cantilever structures not covered herein
including stacks, chimneys, silos and skirt-supported vertical vessels that are not similar to
buildings.
All three options are keyed to the detailing requirements of Standard Section 15.7.10. Two of the options
specifically require that Items (a) and (b) of Standard Section 15.7.10 be met. The intent of Standard
Section 15.7.10 and Standard Table 15.4-2 is that skirt-supported vessels be checked for seismic loads
based on R/I = 1.0 if the structure is assigned to Occupancy Category IV or if an R factor of 3.0 is used in
the design of the vessel. Skirt-supported vessels fail in buckling, which is not a ductile failure mode, so a
more conservative design approach is required. The R/I = 1.0 check typically will govern the design of
the skirt over using loads determined with an R factor of 3 in a moderate to high area of seismic activity.
The only benefit of using an R factor of 3 in this case is in the design of the foundation. The foundation is
not required to be designed for the R/I = 1.0 load. For the R/I = 1.0 load, the skirt can be designed based
on critical buckling (factor of safety of 1.0). The critical buckling strength of a skirt can be determined
using a number of published sources. The two most common methods for determining the critical
buckling strength of a skirt are ASME BVPC Section VIII, Division 2, Paragraph 4.4 using a factor of
safety of 1.0 and AWWA D100 Section 13.4.3.4. Calculating the critical buckling strength of a skirt is
beyond the scope of this example.
For this example, the skirt-supported vertical vessel will be treated as all other steel and reinforced
concrete distributed mass cantilever structures not covered herein including stacks, chimneys, silos and
skirt-supported vertical vessels that are not similar to buildings from Standard Table 15.4-2. The
seismic design parameters for this structure are as follows:
2.5

13-33
Cs =
S DS 1.86
=
= 0.930
R I 3 1.5
Using Standard Equation 12.8-3, Cs does not need to exceed:
Cs =
S D1
0.79
=
= 0.518
T ( R I ) 0.762(3 1.5)

Cs = 0.044ISDS 0.03 = 0.044(1.5)(1.86) = 0.123
V = CsW = 0.518(300 kips) = 155.4 kips
13.7.3.3 Vertical distribution of seismic forces. Standard Section 12.8.3 defines the vertical
distribution of seismic forces in terms of an exponent, k, related to structural period. If the structural
period is less than or equal to 0.5 second, k = 1 and results in an inverted triangular distribution of forces.
If the structural period is greater than or equal to 2.5 seconds, k = 2 and results in a parabolic distribution
of forces. For periods between 0.5 second and 2.5 seconds, the value of k is determined by linear
interpolation between 1 and 2. The significance of the distribution requirements of Standard
Section 12.8.3 is that the height of the centroid to the horizontal seismic force increases (thus increasing
the overturning moment) as the period increases above 0.5 second (Figure 13-9).
13-34
H
h
k = 1 (triangle)
k = value between 1 & 2
k = 2 (parabola)
T = 0.5 s
0.5 s < T < 2.5 s
T = 2.5 s
h = 2/3 H
h=
(k+1)
(k+2)
h = 3/4 H
Figure 13-9 Vertical distribution of seismic forces

Once k is determined, the height to the centroid, h , of the horizontal seismic force is equal to:
h=
( k + 1) H
( k + 2)
where H is the vertical height of the vertical vessel.

For the vessel period of T = 0.762 second,
k =1+
0.762 0.5
= 1.131
2.5 0.5
The value of h is then calculated as:
h=
(1.131 + 1) 100 = 0.681 100 = 68.1ft

( )
( )
(1.131 + 2)
The overturning moment is then calculated as M = V h = 155.4(68.1) = 10,583 ft-kips.
13-35

Nonbuilding Structure Design: by J. G. (Greg) Soules, P.E., S.E

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Nonbuilding Structure Design: by J. G. (Greg) Soules, P.E., S.E

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

13

Nonbuilding Structure Design

Originally developed by Harold O. Sprague, Jr., P.E.

NONBUILDING STRUCTURES VERSUS NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS .............. 4

Nonbuilding Structure ........................................................................................................... 5

Nonstructural Component ...................................................................................................... 6

PIPE RACK, OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI ...................................................................................... 6

Provisions Parameters ........................................................................................................... 7

Design in the Transverse Direction ....................................................................................... 8

Design in the Longitudinal Direction .................................................................................. 11

STEEL STORAGE RACK, OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI ............................................................. 13

Provisions Parameters ......................................................................................................... 14

Design of the System ........................................................................................................... 15

ELECTRIC GENERATING POWER PLANT, MERNA, WYOMING .................................... 17

Provisions Parameters ......................................................................................................... 19

Design in the North-South Direction ................................................................................... 20

Design in the East-West Direction ...................................................................................... 21

PIER/WHARF DESIGN, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA ...................................................... 21

Provisions Parameters ......................................................................................................... 22

Design of the System ........................................................................................................... 23

TANKS AND VESSELS, EVERETT, WASHINGTON .......................................................... 24

Flat-Bottom Water Storage Tank......................................................................................... 25

Flat-Bottom Gasoline Tank ................................................................................................. 28

FEMA P-751, NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples

VERTICAL VESSEL, ASHPORT, TENNESSEE ................................................................... 31

Provisions Parameters ......................................................................................................... 32

Design of the System ........................................................................................................... 33

Chapter 13: Nonbuilding Structure Design

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Section VIII, Division 2, Alternate Rules,

Bachman, Robert and Dowty, Susan, Nonstructural Component or

Jacobsen, L.S., Impulsive Hydrodynamics of Fluid Inside a Cylindrical Tank and of

FEMA P-751, NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples

13.1 NONBUILDING STRUCTURES VERSUS NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

Table 13-1 Applicability of the Chapters of the Standard

Chapter 12 for supporting structure;

Chapter 12 for supporting structure;

Chapter 15 for supporting structure;

Chapter 15 for both supporting

Chapter 13: Nonbuilding Structure Design

Figure 13-1 Combustion turbine building (1.0 ft = 0.3048 m)

13.1.1 Nonbuilding Structure

FEMA P-751, NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples

13.2 PIPE RACK, OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI

Chapter 13: Nonbuilding Structure Design

Figure 13-2 Pipe rack (1.0 ft = 0.3048 m)

13.2.2 Provisions Parameters

FEMA P-751, NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples

Chapter 13: Nonbuilding Structure Design

13.2.3.2 Seismic response coefficient. Using Standard Equation 12.8-2:

Using Standard Equation 12.8-5, Cs must not be less than

FEMA P-751, NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples

13.2.3.3 Seismic weight.

Chapter 13: Nonbuilding Structure Design

FEMA P-751, NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples

Using Standard Equation 12.8-5, Cs must not be less than:

Chapter 13: Nonbuilding Structure Design

13.3 STEEL STORAGE RACK, OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI

FEMA P-751, NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples

Figure 13-3 Steel storage rack (1.0 ft = 0.3048 m)

13.3.2 Provisions Parameters

Chapter 13: Nonbuilding Structure Design

But need not be greater than:

Nor less than: