International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management 451

Volume-2, Issue-2, February-2019

www.ijresm.com | ISSN (Online): 2581-5792

Optimization of Pipe Rack by Study of

Braced Bay
M. G. Kawade1, A. V. Navale2
1
PG Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Amrutvahini College of Engineering, Sangamner, India
2
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Amrutvahini College of Engineering, Sangamner, India

Abstract: Steel pipe racks are commonly used in oil and gas A. Model description
industry to support pipes and cables. They are very complex and
The pipe rack structure is located at Haldia in West Bengal.
long structures. The real common problem in industry is taken
and an attempt is made for optimization by changing the position
The total length of structure is 138m having 23 bays and each
and pattern of bracing. Three cases were considered for study. In bay is of 6m.Width of pipe rack is 6m and height is 12m. First
this, first case is pipe rack with bracings are provided at 6th bay case has the anchor bay at 2 sides of rack, 2nd case has anchor
from either side, second is pipe rack with bracings at center and bay at middle and 3rd at 2 sides of rack with structure cut at
third is pipe rack same as case I with split at center. The use of center. Fig.2. shows 2D model of pipe rack and Fig.3. shows
software STAAD-Pro is done for analysis and design. IS 800:2007 3D model of pipe rack.
along with other relevant codes is used. It is observed that the most
optimized design is obtained when bracing is provided at the
center.

Keywords: non-building structures, pipe, transverse, racks, Fig. 1. 2D model of pipe rack
support, design, optimization

1. Introduction
Pipe networks are considered as main components of
industrial complexes like refineries and petrochemicals that
transfer fluid and gas. Main pipe racks generally transfer
material between equipment and storage. A pipe rack is the
main artery of a process unit. Pipe racks carry process and
utility piping and may also include instrument and cable trays
as well as equipment mounted over all of these. Pipe racks
consist of a series of transverse bents that run along the length
of the pipe system, spaced at uniform intervals typically around
20 ft. To allow maintenance access under the pipe rack, the
Fig. 2. Isometric view of pipe rack
transverse bents are typically moment frames. Transverse bents
are typically connected with longitudinal struts.
Three types of pipe racks are designed for similar loading. In
first case the bracings in longitudinal direction are provided at
two bays at 6 m from both sides. In second case bracings are
provided at center of pipe rack. In third case bracings are similar
to first case but pipe rack is split at center.
 The general dimensions of pipe rack are as below:
 Total length of pipe rack: 138 m
 Each longitudinal span: 6 m
 Transverse span: 6 m
 Elevation of first tier: 12 m
 Elevation of second tier: 9 m
 Elevation of third tier: 6 m Fig. 3. Front view of pipe rack
The location of pipe rack is considered as Haldia in West
Bengal.
 International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management 452
Volume-2, Issue-2, February-2019
www.ijresm.com | ISSN (Online): 2581-5792

B. Case I: pipe rack with bracings are provided at 6th bay from d) Loads considered to design pipe rack
either side 1) Dead Load
Dead load shall include the weight of all process equipment,
pipes, valves and accessories, electrical and lighting conduits,
trays, switchgear, instrumentation, insulation, structural steel
plates and shapes, etc.
I. Pipe Empty Load (PEL)
The empty weight of piping, piping insulation, cable tray,
process equipment and vessels. When plant is shut down using
approximate uniform loads, 60% of the operating dead load for
piping levels is typically used. Engineering judgment should be
used for cable tray levels.
Fig. 4. Geometry of Pipe Rack with Bracings provided at 6th Bay from either Table 1
Side Pipe empty load (Loading data from piping department)
S. No. Elevation (m) Dead load (kN/m)
1. 12 6
2. 9 7.5
3. 6 9
II. Pipe Operating Load (POL)
The operating dead load is the weight of piping, piping
insulation, cable tray, process equipment and vessels plus their
contents (fluid load). When plant is operating the piping and
cable tray loads may be based on actual loads or approximated
by using uniform loads.
Fig. 5. Geometry of pipe rack with bracings at center Table 2
Pipe Operating Load (Loading data from piping department)
S. No. Elevation (m) Dead load (kN/m)
1. 12 9
2. 9 10.5
3. 6 12
III. Pipe Test Load (PTL)
The test load shall be defined as the gravity load imposed by
the liquid (normally water) used to pressure test the piping.
Large vapor lines may require hydro testing. If so, it may be
possible to test them one at a time while the other lines on the
Fig. 6. Geometry of Pipe Rack Same as Case I with Split at Center support are empty and thus avoid the heavy pipe support
loading. When such procedures are used, special notes should
a) Section property be placed on the structural and piping drawings to specify test
In this design of case I, by trial and error method, various procedures. Small vapor lines are normally considered filled
sections for beam and column & bracing are assigned up to with water.
which utilization faction is less than unity and deflection limits Table 3
Pipe Test Load (Loading data from piping department)
should be satisfied by the structure.
S. No. Elevation (m) Pipe test load (kN/m)
1. 12 13.5
b) Specification of structure 2. 9 11.34
Beams in longitudinal (X) direction are provided releases at 3. 6 18
supports as bracings are provided in this direction. This mean 2) Earthquake /Seismic Load (E)
the longitudinal frames are not moment resisting. Beams in As per IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016, following parameters are
transverse (Z) direction are not released as transverse frames considered,
are modeled is moment-resisting frames. 1) Seismic zone factor (III) Z= 0.16 (Clause no.6.4.2,
Table no.3, Page no. 10)
c) Supports 2) Response reduction factor = 4 (Clause no.7.2.6
Fixed butt supports are considered for all columns. Table no.9, Page no. 20)
3) Importance factor = 1 (Clause no.7.2.3 Table no.8,
Page no. 19)
4) Rock and soil site factor = 1
 International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management 453
Volume-2, Issue-2, February-2019
www.ijresm.com | ISSN (Online): 2581-5792

3) Pipe Anchor and Guide Load level shall be obtained by the following relationship between
Anchor forces may dictate the use of horizontal channels or wind pressure and wind speed
horizontal bracing as well vertical bracing at anchor bents. This Pz= 0.6Vz2
should not occur too frequently since Piping Engineering like = 1.69 kN/m2
to anchor large lines on only a few bents in a pipe way. Anchor Where, pz = wind pressure in kN/m2
and guide forces and locations shall be obtained from the piping Table 6
stress analysis and piping isometric drawings. Value of Vz and Pz
Pipe anchor and guide forces produced from thermal Height (m) k2 Vz (m/s) Pz (kN/m2)
expansion, internal pressure, and surge shall be considered as 0 1.05 53.13 1.69
10 1.05 53.13 1.69
dead loads. Pipe racks beams, struts, columns, braced anchor
15 1.09 55.15 1.82
frames, and foundations shall be designed to resist actual pipe
anchor and guide loads. C. Load combinations
Table 4 1) Serviceability Load Combination
Pipe anchor and guide load (Loading data from piping department) i. Plant Empty Condition
S. No. Elevation Anchor load Guide load
(m) (kN/m) (kN/m)
A. D.L
1. 12 1.35 0.9 B. D.L+0.8W.L
2. 9 1.57 1.05 1. DL+0.8WL(X)
3. 6 1.8 1.2 2. DL+0.8WL(-X)
4) Temperature load 3. DL+0.8WL(Z)
5) Wind load 4. DL+0.8WL(-Z)
Wind load is considered in following directions: C. D.L+0.8E.L
1) Wind Load(+X) 1. DL+0.8EQX+0.24EQZ
2) Wind Load (-X) 2. DL+0.8EQX-0.24EQZ
3) Wind Load(+Z) 3. DL-0.8EQX-0.24EQZ
4) Wind Load(-Z) 4. DL-0.8EQX+0.24EQZ
Calculation of Wind load 5. DL+0.24EQX+0.8EQZ
Design Wind Speed (Vz) 6. DL+0.24EQX-0.8EQZ
7. DL-0.24EQX-0.8EQZ
Pipe rack location = Haldia, West Bengal
8. DL-0.24EQX+0.8EQZ
Vz = Vb k1 k2 k 3 k4
D. D.L+W.L
Where, 1. DL+PEL+WL(X)
Vz = design wind speed at any height z in m/s, 2. DL+PEL+WL(-X)
k1 =1= probability factor (risk coefficient) (IS 875 (Part 3. DL+PEL+WL(Z)
4. DL+PEL+WL(-Z)
3):2015, Clause no.6.3.1, Table no. 1, Page no. 7) E. D.L+E.L
k2 = terrain roughness and height factor (IS 875 (Part 3):2015, 1. DL+EQX+0.3EQZ
Clause no. 6.3.2.2, Table no. 2, Page no.8) 2. DL+EQX-0.3EQZ
k3 =1= topography factor (IS 875 (Part 3):2015, Clause no. 3. DL-EQX-0.3EQZ
4. DL-EQX+0.3EQZ
6.3.3.1, Page no. 8) 5. DL+0.3EQX+EQZ
k4 =1.15= importance factor for the cyclonic region (IS 875 6. DL+0.3EQX-EQZ
(Part 3):2015, Clause no. 6.3.4, Page no. 9) 7. DL-0.3EQX-EQZ
8. DL-0.3EQX+EQZ
Table 5
Value of k1, k2, k3, k4
Height (m) k1 k2 k3 k4 ii. Plant Operating Condition
0 1 1.05 1 1.15 A. DL
10 1 1.05 1 1.15 1. DL
15 1 1.09 1 1.15 B. DL+0.8WL
1. DL+0.8WL(X)
Vz = Vb k1 k2 k3 k4 2. DL+0.8WL(-X)
Vb = 44 as per, IS 875(Part 3): 2015, Clause no. 6.3.1, Pg. no 3. DL+0.8WL(Z)
7 4. DL+0.8WL(-Z)
Vz = 1x1.05x1x1.15x44 C. DL+0.8EQ
= 53.13m/s 1. DL+0.8EQX+0.24EQZ
Design Wind Pressure 2. DL+0.8EQX-0.24EQZ
The wind pressure at any height above mean ground 3. DL-0.8EQX-0.24EQZ
 International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management 454
Volume-2, Issue-2, February-2019
www.ijresm.com | ISSN (Online): 2581-5792

4. DL-0.8EQX+0.24EQZ 4. 1.5DL + 1.5WL

5. DL+0.24EQX+0.8EQZ 5. 0.9DL + 1.5WL
6. DL+0.24EQX-0.8EQZ 6. 1.5DL + 1.5EL
7. DL-0.24EQX-0.8EQZ 7. 0.9DL + 1.5EL
8. DL-0.24EQX+0.8EQZ
D. DL+WL ii. Operating Condition
1. DL+WL(X) 1. 1.5DL
2. DL+WL(-X) 2. 1.2DL+ 0.6WL
3. DL +WL(Z) 3. 1.2DL+ 0.6EL
4. DL +WL(-Z) 4. 1.5DL+ 1.5WL
E. DL+EQ 5. 0.9DL+1.5WL
1. DL+EQX+0.3EQZ 6. 1.5DL+1.5EL
2. DL+EQX-0.3EQZ 7. 0.9DL+1.5EL
3. DL-EQX-0.3EQZ
4. DL-EQX+0.3EQZ iii. Test Condition
5. DL+0.3EQX+EQZ 1. DL
6. DL+0.3EQX-EQZ 2. DL + 0.6WL
7. DL+-0.3EQX-EQZ 3. DL + 0.6EL
8. DL-0.3EQX+EQZ 4. DL + 1.5WL
5. 0.9DL + 1.5WL
iii. Plant Test Condition 6. 1.5DL + 1.5EL
A. DL 7. 0.9DL + 1.5EL
1. DL
B. DL+0.8WL 2. Result and discusions
1. DL+0.8WL(X) Results of maximum deflection, maximum utilization ratio
2. DL+0.8WL(-X) and tonnage for three cases are given below:
3. DL+0.8WL(Z)
Table 7
4. DL+0.8WL(-Z) Result of maximum deflection
C. DL+0.8EQ Cases Max. Max. Max.
1. DL+0.8EQX+0.24EQZ X(mm) Y(mm) Z(mm)
2. DL+0.8EQX-0.24EQZ Pipe rack with
3. DL-0.8EQX-0.24EQZ bracings are at 6th bay
4.29 1.36 15.91
from either side
4. DL-0.8EQX+0.24EQZ Pipe rack with central 7.11 1.67 14.17
5. DL+0.24EQX+0.8EQZ bracing
6. DL+0.24EQX-0.8EQZ Pipe rack same as case 4.1 1.37 16.22
7. DL-0.24EQX-0.8EQZ 1with split at center
8. DL+-0.24EQX+0.8EQZ
D. DL+WL
1. DL+WL(X)
2. DL+WL(-X)
3. DL+WL(Z)
4. DL+WL(-Z)
E. DL+EQ
1. DL+EQX+0.3EQZ
2. DL+EQX-0.3EQZ
3. DL-EQX-0.3EQZ
4. DL-EQX+0.3EQZ Fig. 7. Deflection of Beam (X & Z) and Column(Y)
5. DL+0.3EQX+EQZ
6. DL+0.3EQX-EQZ Table 8
7. DL-0.3EQX-EQZ Result of strength for maximum utility ratio
Cases Column Beam Bracing
8. DL-0.3EQX+EQZ
Pipe rack with bracings at 6th 0.96 0.84 0.57
2) Strength Load Combination bay from either side
Pipe rack with central braced 0.96 0.89 0.66
i. Empty Condition bay
1. 1.5DL Pipe rack same as case 1 with 0.96 0.94 0.56
2. 1.2DL + 0.6WL split at center
3. 1.2DL + 0.6EL
 International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management 455
Volume-2, Issue-2, February-2019
www.ijresm.com | ISSN (Online): 2581-5792

 Steel quantity for case one i.e. pipe rack with bracings
are provided at 6 m from either side is 102.01 tones,
for case two i.e. pipe rack with bracings at center is
97.96 tones and for case three i.e. pipe rack same as
case one with split at center is 101.58 tones i.e. steel
required is more by 5% and 4% in case one and case
three respectively, as compared to case two.
 So, case two i.e. pipe rack with bracing at center is
economical than case one and case three i.e. pipe rack
with bracing at two sides and pipe rack same as case
one but split at center.
Fig. 8. Utilization of beam, column and bracing  The structural arrangement in case two i.e. pipe rack
with bracings at center is optimum solution.
Table 9
Result of tonnage
Cases Steel quantity in tones (T) References
Pipe rack with two braced bay at side 102.01 [1] Akbar Shahiditabar, Seyed Rasoul Mirghaderi “Pipes and Pipe Rack
Pipe rack with central braced bay 97.96 Interaction”, International Journal of Applied Science and Technology,
Pipe rack same as case 1 with split at 101.58 Vol. 3 No. 5, May 2013
center [2] Drake R.M, Walter J.R. “Design of Structural Steel Pipe Rack”,
Engineering journal, fourth quarter, pp. 241-251.
[3] Drake, Richard M. and Walter, Robert J., "Seismic Design of Structural
Steel Pipe Racks", (AISC), 4th Quarter, 2011
[4] Mohammad Karimi, Naghdali Hosseinzadeh, Farshid Hosseini, Navid
Kazem, Hamid Kazem “Seismic Evaluation & Pipe Rack Supporting
Structures in a Petrochemical Complex in Iran, (International Journal of
Advanced Structural Engineering, Vol.3, No.1, July 2011.
[5] Maria Vathi, Spyros A. Karamanos Ioannis A. Kapogiannis “Performance
Criteria for Liquid Storage Tanks & Piping Systems Subjected to Seismic
Loading” (Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology-Transactions of the
ASME PVT-16-1045.
[6] Nitesh J Singh, Mohammad Ishtiyaque “Optimized Design and Analysis
of Steel Pipe Racks for Oil and Gas Industries as per International Codes
and Standards”.
Fig. 9. Graph of tonnage [7] Preeti Rathore and D. H. Raval “Comparative Study and Cost Evaluation
of Combined Pipe Rack and Steel Pipe Rack, IJSRD, Vol.4, Issue 03,
2016.
3. Conclusion [8] IS 875:1987 (PART 1) code of practice for design loads (other than
From the results it can be concluded that, earthquake load) for Buildings and structures, New Delhi (India), Bureau
of Indian standards, 1987
 As utilization ratio for all members is less than one, [9] IS 875:1987 (PART 2) code of practice for design loads (other than
and deflection of all members is within permissible earthquake loads) for buildings and structures, New Delhi (India), Bureau
limit the design is safe for all three cases. of Indian standard, 1987
[10] IS 875:1987 (PART 3) “Design for wind loads for building and
 Vertical deflection of structural members is less in
structures” Bureau of Indian standards
case two i.e. pipe rack with bracing at center than case [11] IS 1893-2002/2005 “Indian standard criteria for earthquake 5resistant
one i.e. pipe rack with bracings at 6th bay from either design of structures”, Bureau of Indian standards
side and case three i.e. pipe rack same as case one but
split at center.