Seismic design of industrial structures and facilities

B. Hoffmeister & G. Sedlacek

Institute of Steel Constructions, RWTH Aachen, Germany

ABSTRACT: Common seismic codes [1] usually provide design rules for buildings only. Some extensions are available, as for bridges, silos, tower structures etc. The design of industrial structures, and in particular of processing units of industrial facilities, are not fully covered by these codes. This paper shows, how to adapt the existing rules for buildings given in the Eurocode 8 such that they become applicable to industrial structures and which additional provision have to be observed in order to achieve a sufficient seismic resistance of other industrial facilities, such as processing units, storage tanks etc.

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Eurocode 8 and rules for buildings In the frame of the development of unified European design rules for the construction market Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance is being prepared that is expected to be issued as EN 1998 in 2004 [1]. Eurocode 8 consists of 6 parts, see table 1. Part 1 applies to the design of buildings and civil engineering works and gives both basic performance requirements and compliance criteria, as well as rules for the representation of seismic actions and their combination with other actions, general design rules relevant specifically to buildings and in particular specific rules for various structural materials and elements relevant for buildings.
Table 1. Structure of Eurocode 8 __________________________________________________ Part of EN 1998 Scope __________________________________________________ EN 1998 Part 1 General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings EN 1998 Part 2 Specific provision relevant to bridges EN 1998 Part 3 Provisions for seismic strengthening and repair of existing building EN 1998 Part 4 Specific provisions relevant to tanks, silos and pipelines EN 1998 Part 5 Specific provisions relevant to foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects EN 1998 Part 6 Specific provision relevant to towers, masts and chimneys __________________________________________________

concrete buildings (Section 5) steel buildings (Section 6) steel-concrete composite buildings (Section 7) timber buildings (Section 8) masonry buildings (Section 9)

These specific rules are mainly related to the application of the response spectrum method, for which the guiding principles are given: structural simplicity, uniformity, symmetry and redundancy, bi-directional resistance and stiffness, torsional resistance and stiffness, diaphragmatic behaviour at storey level, adequate foundations. A particular feature of buildings assumed in Eurocode 8 is the action of horizontal diaphragms that collect and transmit the inertia forces to the vertical structural systems and ensure that those systems act together in resisting the horizontal seismic action. Such diaphragms should have sufficient in-plane stiffness for the distribution of horizontal and inertia forces to the vertical structural systems in accordance with the assumptions of the analysis (e.g. rigidity of the diaphragm, particularly when there are significant changes in stiffness of offsets of vertical elements above and beneath the diaphragm). For steel buildings for which these principles apply Eurocode 8 provides behaviour factors q depending on the type of structural frame by which energy dissipation may be accounted for and also specific capacity design rules by which energy dissipation shall be effected by cyclic yielding of the earthquake resistant components without prior failure of connections or due to instability of members.

In EN 1998 Part 1 specific rules are in particular given for:

1.2 Particularities of industrial buildings and equipments Industrial buildings usually differ from office buildings or residential buildings to which Eurocode 8 is mainly related because of the following characteristics: a) Safety approach and seismic actions in particular where industrial facilities processing toxic and explosive materials may cause hazards to the population and environment. Such structures with increased risk for the population are beyond the scope of Eurocode 8. b) Properties of industrial structures related to the introduction of seismic actions from equipments and installations and to the type of framing the layout of which should be variable enough to allow for fast adaptations to modern process techniques. c) Need of particular design rules for ultimate limit state as e.g. for anchoring of equipments and structures, protection of equipments from consequences of failures of secondary structures and also for avoiding leakages from excessive deformations. A particular feature of industrial buildings is that due to the variability of structural frames stiff diaphragms or slabs are often not provided so that the structural analysis differs from the one for normal buildings. In the following particular guidance is given how such industrial buildings may be designed according to Eurocode 8 taking their particular characteristics into account. 2 SEISMIC ACTIONS IN INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 2.1 Safety requirements No-collapse requirements and damage limitation requirements should be defined in dependence of the potential hazard to the population or environment resulting from any earthquake damage of the structures or equipments processing dangerous goods. This increased requirements may be satisfied by: a sufficient return period of the design earthquake which may exceed the standard value accepted for normal buildings, a reliability differentiation by classifying various structures or parts of the structure into different importance classes depending on failure path considerations and possible failure consequences. This may include the definition of safety relevant structures with high requirements and not safety relevant structures with normal requirements as for normal buildings except where the collapse of normal buildings could cause damage to safety relevant buildings,

particular investigations to identify the specific local hazard in terms the reference ground acceleration and the ground conditions controlling the spectrum, where necessary particular investigations to determine the behaviour factor q, depending on the seismic data as relevant accelograms with frequency contents, strong motion period and shape of windows and also on the elastic-plastic behaviour of the specific earthquake resistant structure. 2.2 Return period for design seismic events Whereas Eurocode 8 recommends to adopt a return period for design seismic events of ~500 years for ordinary structures and suggests to apply importance factors I > 1 to the design spectrum for structures with strategic importance; see table 2, for industrial buildings with dangerous goods a return period is suggested between those accepted for unclear power plants (~10000 years) and those for buildings with the highest importance class (~ 2000 years). Table 2 gives a comparison between importance factors and return periods. For industrial plants handling with volatile toxic materials and explosive liquids a return period of 5000 years has been agreed which would correspond to an importance factor I = 1.60, see also Part 4 of EN 1998 Design rules for pipelines, tanks and pipelines.
Table 2. Relation between the importance factor 1 and the return period of an earthquake __________________________________________________ Importance category 1 Approx. return period __________________________________________________ - volatile toxic materials, 1.6 5000 years explosive liquids I strategic structures 1.4 2000 years (hospitals, power plants) II important structures 1.2 1000 years (schools, cultural institutions) III ordinary structures 1.0 500 years IV structures of minor 0.8 200 years Importance (agricultural buildings) __________________________________________________

Figure 1 gives an example for response spectra related to 500 years and 5000 years as applied to a structure for a chemical plant, for which the shape of the spectrum was taken from EN 1998 and confirmed by local seismological and ground investigations [5]. 2.3 Particular investigations Where seismic mapping gives sufficient data for the elastic response spectrum depending on the seismic hazard and deep ground characteristics particular investigations should be provided to determine the effects of soil profiles and shear wave velocity in the

layers closer to surface to confirm the response spectrum chosen.

3.0

return period 500 a return period 5000 a

2.5

2.0

Se(T) [m/s]

1.5

Such q-factors can then be determined from a comparison between the results of time-step analysis of structural responses taking geometrical and material nonlinearities into account with the elastic structural response as obtained from the elastic response spectrum method [2]. Figure 2 gives a flow chart of this procedure which produces q-factors that may cover both the limit states of dynamic structural instability and of low cycle fatigue, see figure 3 [3], [4].

1.0

P
0.5
(cyclic)

0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

T [sec]

Figure 1. Example of response spectra for the return periods 500 and 5000 years (importance factors 1=1.0 and 1.6) with ag = 1 defined as reference acceleration for 1=1.0

plastic hinge

Alternative representations of seismic actions in terms of artificial accelograms that match the elastic response spectrum and the intensity and other relevant features of the seismic event (frequency content, time-window, duration) are necessary where specific q-factors for specific earthquake resistant frames for industrial buildings must be established.
1. Design spectrum and set of design accelerations filling the spectrum

Figure 3. Results from low-cycle-fatigue tests expressed as S-N-curves according to Eurocode 3, from [2]

The q-factors indicated below have been determined using this procedure for seismic areas near Cologne. 3 DESIGN OF INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES

a g (T )
ag

t a
a0

3.1 General features Earthquake resistant structures of industrial buildings in general consist of arrays of moment resisting frames or braced frames arranged in two orthogonal directions without horizontal bracings, diaphragms or slabs, see figure 4. Processing units and other equipments are usually directly connected to the supporting structures or indirectly connected by secondary beams, see figure 4. In consequence there is no diaphragm action for the distribution of seismic actions from such a unit to the various vertical frames and bracings but actions are concentrated to the frames adjacent to the units and differential movements of the various horizontal beams and vertical frames must be accounted for.

T
2. Non-linear time-step simulations response

global local
LCF

3. Determination of the q-factor from the global and local response

qa =

a a0

qmax
q qmax d ,max q LCF
1
qd = 0

qd

q LCF

Figure 2. Determination of q-factors from global response (dynamic stability) and local low cycle fatigue (LCF)

relative frame displacement

and seismic design that may be taken into account in the design strategy, see 3.3. 3.3 Design strategies for seismic design Very often industrial buildings are tall or contain tall units, see figure 6, so that wind actions may supersede actions from seismic events.
component component component

Figure 4. Possible relative displacement between steel frames in a industrial structure without shear-resisting floors.

This behaviour may be expressed as lack of regularity that may reduce the q-factors; on the other hand this behaviour requires that the connections between horizontal beams are sufficiently ductile to avoid local failure, see figure 5.

supporting structure

supporting Structure

supporting structure

a)

b)

c)

Figure 6. Simplified classification of supported components depending on the contribution of the component to the dynamic response
Detail

Detail:

required rotation capability

Figure 3. Example for required rotation capability of a connection resulting from relative displacement of steel frames

3.2 Design situation and loading Main part of the service loads results from the units processing gas, liquids or other media. These loads are fixed loads concentrated in particular zones of the buildings. By their masses and eccentricities they may effect torsional and distorsional movements of the supporting structure. In general the service loads are more or less quasistatic under operating conditions that have to be clearly identified for seismic events. There is a difference to the loads in persistent or transient design situations for which test loads or test fillings undertaken before the operations start are usually relevant for design. This difference of loads results in differences of material strength exploitation rates for normal design

Equipment or units are not only considered as causes for seismic actions affecting the supporting structure; a supporting structures may be selected such that by controlled energy dissipation and interactions the actions at the interface between the supporting structure and the units are minimized, so that the seismic design of the units can be optimised. This may lead to the following design strategies: 1 In the first step industrial plants including equipments are designed for standard persistent and transient design situations for permanent loads, and variable loads including wind actions. Those wind actions normally govern the horizontal bracing and framing systems. 2 In a second step seismic design situations are checked considering the relevant loading combinations where wind in general is of no concern and also elastic design (q = 1.0) is applied. 3 In comparing the exploitation rates (in particular for columns and anchors) for these two design situation the following conclusions can be drawn: a) For what members will seismic design be relevant, when q = 1.5 can be applied. b) What should be the maximum required qfactors to equalize the effects of wind and seismic design. c) How can these maximum q-factors be achieved: by structural detailing only (e.g. capacity design of anchors or connections or mem-

bers connected to earthquake resistant parts), by redesign of earthquake resistant members and subsequent capacity design as above however without modifying the type of structure, by modification of the type of structure to achieve another class of q-factor and subsequent redesign for persistent and transient design situations and seismic design situations. This strategy can also be applied to the design of equipments or units installed in the building and their anchorages, see also 3.4. 3.4 Design of processing units and of their anchorages 3.4.1 Classification of supports of units The following classification of support conditions for units may be applied: units are installed in a building structure and act as rigid mass bodies, see 3.3. units are directly supported on separate foundations with or without an intermediary supporting structure. For units installed in a building structure the position related to the floor and the main structure is relevant to determine the forces at the supports from the behaviour of the structure, see 3.4.2. For units installed on separate foundations either the characteristics of the units are relevant so that they can be modeled as a structure of their own or intermediary supporting structures are provided to improve the dissipative behaviour. 3.4.2 Design of units in building structures In assuming that the response of the structure is not affected by the structural characteristics of the units (that are considered as rigid mass bodies only) and only the fundamental eigenmode is sufficient for determining the response of the structure to seismic actions the dynamic forces acting on the unit mainly depend on the floor level Z related to the overall height H of the building and fundamental period of vibration of the unit Ta related to the fundamental period of the building structure T1:
3 S 1 + Z W H 0 .5 Fa = a a 2 qa Ta 1+ 1 T 1 where

Wa a qa S Z H Ta T1

weight of the component importance factor of the component behaviour factor of the component ratio of the design ground acceleration ag to the gravity constant g soil factor vertical position of the component total height of the main structure fundamental period of vibration of the component fundamental period of vibration of the main structure

Figure 7 shows examples of geometrical notations to be inserted in the formula (1). It should be considered that the COG of the component, where the seismic force is to be applied, usually do not coincide; i.e. overturning moments and shear forces have to be transmitted to the supporting structure.
component 2

Fa

component 3

component 4

Fa
component 1

Fa

Fa

main structure

Figure 7. Geometrical notations for determining seismic actions on components in building structures

Where the units interact with the behaviour of the structure (e.g. where their stiffness or eccentricity significantly contributes to the structural response) they should be included in the structural model. There are no information on qa-factors for industrial units in Eurocode 8, guidance is given in FEMA 368 [6] for certain types of non structural elements as mechanical components, piping systems, racks etc. The dissipative behaviour of units may be improved by ductile supports designed with capacity rules, see figure 8.
dissipative frame

component

floor

(1)
Figure 8. Example of dissipative support of a non-dissipative component

Z (component 1)

Z (component 4)

Z (component 2 and 3)

3.4.3 Design of units directly supported Typical processing or storage units that are anchored directly or indirectly to a foundation of their own are liquid or gas-tanks, processing towers, chimneys, power generators etc. Where no specific design rules are available e.g. Eurocode 8 part 3 for chimneys or Eurocode 8 Part 4 for tanks, silos and pipelines, suitable engineering models following the above mentioned procedures should be applied. 3.5 Examples for behaviour factors q For selected industrial structural systems figure 9 gives examples for q-factors determined according to the procedure mentioned in chapter 2.3.

e) the capacity design of columns, foundations and anchorages must consider the potential scattering of the yield strength of dissipative members, f) when applying the maximum q-factor available for a framing type, the structural overstrength, resulting from the real exploitation of dissipative parts must be considered in the capacity design of columns, foundations and anchorages, figure 10.

or

RH RV RV

RH

RH RV RV

RH

Figure 10. Fully developed dissipative mechanisms to be considered in the design of columns, foundations and anchorages

dissipative systems elastic systems

q>2

K5

quasi-elastic systems

q =1

q 1

Particular attention has to be paid to columns and foundations common to two or more lateral resisting frames, where two or more dissipative systems may develop simultaneously under seismic load acting diagonally, figure 11.

Figure 9. Behaviour factors q determined for selected industrial structural systems

These q-factors may be considered as maximum values applicable both for non-collapse checks and damage limitation checks for seismic conditions as in central Europe. For the capacity design of columns and anchorages see chapter 4. 4 PARTICULAR RULES FOR THE CAPACITY DESIGN OF COLUMNS AND ANCHORAGES From the comparison of exploitation rates from persistent and transient design situations and seismic design situations it becomes evident that columns and anchorages are the critical structural components that govern the q-factors to be achieved, see chapter 3.3. From all values available the following rules may be applied for the design: a) buckling of columns must be prevented for any load combination, b) adequate foundations and anchorages of columns must be designed capable of resisting to compressive, uplift and shear forces, c) soft storey failure must be prevented, d) columns, foundations and anchorages must be designed such that intended plastic mechanisms can develop prior to a brittle or stability failure of columns, foundations and anchorages,

RV
Figure 11. Example of a corner-column participating in two orthogonal dissipative frames

5 PARTICULAR RULES FOR THE DESIGN OF CONNECTIONS Connections shall generally be designed following the capacity rules i.e. the full plastic mechanism shall develop in the connected member prior to a brittle failure in any component of the connection. The strength of the connections shall account for potential scattering of the yield strength of the connected dissipative members, figure 12.

Fy

Fu

Fu Fy
Figure 12. Overstrength design of a connection of a dissipative tension member

Dissipative beam-columns connection should be designed for stable hysterical behaviour by using the following principles: a) for welded joints yielding should be in the base material and welds be designed such that they exhibit sufficient overstrength, b) for bolted joints with endplate connections both welds and bolts should be capacity designed, so that yielding occurs in the base material. Hammering effects should be avoided by preventing bolts in tension from yielding before yielding of endplates and shear panel. c) for shear connections the bearing resistance should be relevant before the shear resistance in the bolts or the tension resistance in the net sections of members is reached. REFERENCES
[1] PrEN 1998-1. 2002. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, CEN [2] Ballio G., Castiglioni C.A. 1995. A Unified Approach for the Design of Steel Structures under Low and/or High Cycle Fatigue. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 34 (1): pp 75-101. Elsevier [3] Feldmann M. 1994. Zur Rotationskapazitt von I-Profilen statisch und dynamisch belasteter Trger. Schriftenreihe Stahlbau RWTH Aachen. Heft 30 [4] Kong B.-S. 1996. Beitrag zur numerischen Simulation des Momenten-Rotationsverhaltens von geschweiten und geschraubten Sttzen-Riegel-Verbindungen unter monotonen und zyklischen Belastungen. Schriftenreihe Stahlbau RWTH Aachen. Heft 32 [5] Meidow H. 2001. Seismologisches Gutachten fr den Chemiepark Knapsack, Werksteile Hrth und Knapsack. Unpublished [6] E DIN 4149. 2002. Bauten in deutschen Erdbebebengebieten, Lastannahmen, Bemessung und Ausfhrung blicher Hochbauten, Beuth Verlag [7] NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, 2000 Edition, FEMA 368 and 369