ANALYTICAL STUDY ON PIPE

RACK- BY COMPARING SAUDI

ARAMCO STANDARD WITH
INDIAN STANDARD

PROJECT GUIDE: PROJECT MEMBER:

H. ILAYARAJA P.S.HARSHITA
ASSITANT PROFESSOR
 INTRODUCTION
 Pipe racks are structures in petrochemical, chemical and
power plants that support pipes, power cables and
instrument cable trays
 Pipe rack is an non building structure and the design
requirements found in the building codes are not clear on
how they have to be applied on pipe racks
 Hence study comparison is carried out between American
and Indian design codes considering the material properties
and safety factor.
 OBJECTIVE
 Analyze and Design of steel pipe rack
members using manual analysis as per codes
specifications AISC 360-16, ASCE 07 and IS
800:2007, IS 875-Part 3-2015
 Model and analyze the steel pipe rack using
STAAD Pro V8I.
 Quantitative Comparison of different design
building codes from USA and India.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
 In order to model the pipe rack structure as per
design philosophy and to apply design load
based on requirement and code standards,
Various literature and code books were inferred
 The details of the literature is as follows
 Structural design of steel pipe
TITLE OF THESIS support structures
Part 1 & part 2

YEAR OF PUBLISH August 1993

AUTHOR Kasi V Bendapudi

•Impact of failure
•Thermal expansion and contraction
INFERENCE effects
•Effective bracing system
•Pipe interaction between pipe and
pipe supports
TITLE OF THESIS Aspects of pipe rack design

YEAR OF PUBLISH June 2013

AUTHOR Dipesh H Dahanuwala

•Different design aspects of pipe rack

INFERENCE
•Geometrical planning of pipe rack
 Design of structural steel pipe
TITLE OF THESIS
rack

YEAR OF PUBLISH November 2011

Richard M Drake Fluor

AUTHOR
Robert J Walter CB & I

•This paper summarizes a building

code based on industry practice
design criteria
INFERENCE
•The design loads, design criteria and
other design considerations of pipe
rack
 Optimized design and analysis of
steel pipe rack for oil and gas
TITLE OF THESIS
industries as per international
codes and standards

YEAR OF PUBLISH October 2016

1.Nithesh J singh
AUTHOR
2.Mohammed ishtiyaque

Paper is about the optimized design

of pipe rack with structural systems
INFERENCE
for safe and stable production
processes
 Design and analysis of pipe rack
TITLE OF THESIS system using Staad Pro V8i
software

YEAR OF PUBLISH september 2018

J.K.Sumnath
AUTHOR
Dr.C.Sashidhar

•Analysis of pipe structure using

STAAD PRO V8I
INFERENCE
•Wind load calculation and force
coefficients.
 METHODOLOGY
Data collection for pipe rack design
Geometrical planning

Loading furnished by civil discipline

Design of pipe rack as per procedure mentioned in SABP 007 (AISC

CODE STANDARDS)
Design of pipe rack using Indian codes and standards
Structural design of pipe rack using Staad pro V8i software

Analysis of result

Comparison for significance between both the code standards

DATA COLLECTION FOR PIPE
RACK DESIGN
 Plot plan.
 Piping orthographic drawing
 3D model showing piping layout,
 Vendor prints of equipment located on the rack,
e.g., air coolers type exchangers. The vendor
prints should include the equipment layout,
mounting locations and details, access and
maintenance requirements.
DATA COLLECTION FOR PIPE RACK
DESIGN
 Electrical and control systems drawings
showing the routing and location of electrical
and instrumentation raceways.
 Underground drawings
 Pipe rack construction material. (Steel, Cast-in-
situ concrete, Pre-cast concrete) shall be as per
project design criteria.
 LINE ROUTING DIAGRAM

 A line routing diagram is a schematic

representation of all process piping systems
drawn on the copy of the plot plan.
 GEOMETRICAL PLANNING

 SHAPES
 FUTURE SPACE

 WIDTH OF PIPE RACK

 CLEARANCE

 ANCHOR POINT
VARIOUS SHAPES OF PIPE RACK

Dead end yard lines T rack piping. enter

enter and leave one and leave on three
end of the rack sides of the rack

Straight through yard

lines. Enter and leave
both ends of the rack
VARIOUS SHAPES OF PIPE RACK

L shaped yard lines enter and u shaped yard lines. enter

leave north and east of the and leave all four sides of
rack the rack
 VARIOUS SHAPES OF PIPE RACK

Combination of L and T shaped Complex rack piping for very

Rack plant
WIDTH OF PIPE RACK

 The width will be decided in consideration of

the following points:
 No. of piping installed on pipe rack, Pipe size,
Insulation thickness.
 Electrical/Instrument cable trays
 Space for future lines
WIDTH OF PIPE RACK

 How to use space located underneath of pipe

rack such as walk ways, Maintenance road,
Route for underground piping.
 How to use space located above pipe rack, Such
as space for Equipment, operation and
Maintenance floor
FUTURE SPACE
 25% - 30% percentage extra space for future
expansion or modification
TIER ELEVATION

 Number of levels on pipe rack mainly depends

upon width of pipe rack. If W is bigger than 6M
usually two pipe rack levels will be required.
 The width of the pipe rack may be increased or
determined by the space requirement, access to
equipment arranged under the pipe rack
LINE LOCATION IN PIPE RACK

ONE TIER PIPE RACK

 Large diameter pipes are kept near pipe rack
column to reduce bending moment on beam.
 The central pipe rack portion is reserved for
utility lines
 A centrally placed section of the pipe rack is
reserved for future lines.
LINE LOCATION IN PIPE RACK

Two tier pipe rack

 utility lines are placed on the top level and process
lines on the bottom level.
 Generally Hot lines & Cold lines are to kept at
different tiers or at different groups on a tier.
 Lines more than 30” shall not be routed over pipe
rack, these shall be routed underground
SPAN BETWEEN PORTAL FRAMES

 Generally pipe rack span is taken 6m.

 This may be increased to a maximum of
8m consideration must be given to:
 Smaller lines which must be supported more
frequently.
 Liquid filled lines requiring shorter span than
gas filled lines
SPAN BETWEEN PORTAL FRAMES
 Hot lines which span shorter distances than
cold lines of the same size and wall thickness
 Insulated lines; small bore, cold - insulated
lines due to weight of insulation must be
supported at relatively short intervals
ELEVATION OF PIPE RACK

 The Elevation will be decided in consideration of the

following Points: Minimum Head clearance:
 Normal overhead: 2.2 meters
 Plant roads in trucking areas: 4.8 meters
 Rail-road and public main roads: 6.6 meters
 In case of multi-stages Pipe Rack. Vertical elevation
gap: minimum 1.5 m.
PIPE FLEXIBILITY

 Flexibility is also a crucial factor. Pipes are

installed during relatively cooler conditions.
 When a hot fluid passes in the pipe, or when the
ambient temperature rises, the pipe expands
 The expansion generates enormous force.
THERMAL EXPANSION

 The expansion loop should be located in the

centre of the distance between two anchors. It
depends on:
 Co-efficient of thermal expansion of pipe
material
 Pipe length
 Temperature of fluid running through pipe
LOAD CALCULATON
Pipe rack loads shall be given by stress group to civil and structural
discipline for pipe rack design.
 Sustain load (Dead load):
Weight of piping , valve and insulation
 Thermal load:
Load by thermal expansion of piping.
 Dynamic load:
Load by vibration of piping and by wind & earthquake.
 Sustained load (Live load):
Liquid load for hydrostatic test pressure
LOAD CALCULATION AS PER SAUDI
ARAMCO CODE STANDARDS

 The design loads are calculated as per the

procedure mentioned in SABP-007
 SAUDI ARAMCO BEST PRACTICE – 007
Code standards developed for the design for steel
pipe rack structure
References for SABP 007

 American Institute of Steel Construction

AISC Manual of Steel Construction-Allowable
Stress Design (ASD)
American Society of Civil Engineers
 ASCE 7 – Minimum Design loads of Buildings
and other Structures
Wind Load Design for Petrochemical Facilities
 DEAD LOAD PRODUCT LOAD THERMAL LOAD WIND LOAD

•Minimum pipe deck •Minimum product FRICTION FORCE: AS PER ASCE 7-10
load: load •10% of total Wind Load
Less than 300mm- 1.1 Less than 300mm- operating weight 1.Cable tray F1
KN (UDL). 0.81 KN (UDL). tributary to all lines =7.28KN
•Greater than 300mm •Greater than 300mm •30% of total 2.Pipe @ Tier 1 F2 =
-Concentrated load of -Concentrated load of operating weight 4.1 KN
pipe using formula specific pipe using tributary to the lines at 3.Pipe @ Tier 2 F3 =
PDL = S (WDL - pDL D) formula expansion or 3.57 KN
•Cable Trays PDL = S (WDL - pDL D) contraction 4.Stringer Beam =
Minimum load (UDL) LOAD RESULTS: LOAD RESULTS 2.68 KN
Single level- 0.96KN 1.UDL ON Tier 1 & 2- 1.UDL ON Tier 1 & 2- 5.Column = 0.6 KN
Double level- 1.92KN
4.86 KN/m 1.01 KN/m
LOAD RESULTS:
1.UDL ON Tier 1 & 2- 2. Concentrated load 2. Concentrated load
6.6 KN/m on tier 1- 28 KN on tier 1- 3.9 KN
2. Concentrated 3. Concentrated load 3. Concentrated load
load on tier 1- on tier 2- 14.78 KN on tier 2- 2.01 KN
11.04 KN TEMPERATURE
3. Concentrated LOAD- 42.5
load on tier 2- 6.21
TEMPERATURE
KN
4.UDL on cable
LOAD 42.5ºC
(SAES-112-A
LOAD CALCULATION AS PER INDIAN
CODE STANDARDS

 In Indian code standard, there is no availability of well

defined procedure for calculating design load on pipe rack
structure. Hence load factors are followed from the BHEL
DOCUMENT NO. 8-76-0020 EIL (pipe rack design),

 Loading condition is maintained in accordance with the

actual loading condition and load applied is similar to the
load application in AISC method to facilitate proper
comparison between two code standards
LOADING CONDITION
LOADING CONDITION
DEAD LOAD PRODUCT LOAD THERMAL LOAD WIND LOAD

After consideration After consideration Friction force criteria: Gust Factor Method is
of dead load of of product load of • 10% of vertical followed to determine
individual pipe lines individual pipe lines load (longitudinal force coefficient of
present in the pipe present in the pipe
and transverse Individual members
rack and load rack and load
categories categories
direction) (IS 875 part3 2015)
mentioned in BHEL mentioned in BHEL • 10% of vertical 1.Cable tray- Tier 3
DOC.NO 8-76-0020 DOC.NO 8-76-0020 load (Transverse = 1.705 KN
EIL, EIL, direction) 2.Tier 2
Self weight + 1/6 Self weight + full • 10% of vertical = 1.59 KN
weight of water ( on water weight ( on load (Transverse 3.Tier 1
each Tier 1 and Tier each Tier 1 and Tier direction) = 1.81 KN
2 )- V1 is taken as 2) – V2 is taken as
1. Thermal load on 4.Stringer at elevation
dead load product load
tier 1 = 6.26 KN
1. Dead load on tier 1 1. Product load on
Axial load- 0.36 KN 5. Column:
– 6 KN/m tier 1 – 14.67 KN
Lateral load- 0.72 KN = 1.27 KN
2. Dead load on tier 2 2. Product load on
2. Thermal load on
– 3.96 KN/m tier 2 – 8.47 KN
tier 2
3. Dead load on tier 3
Axial load- 0.24 KN
– 5 KN/m
Lateral load- 0.47 KN
LOAD CASE AND LOAD COMBINATION
FROM DESIGN SOFTWARE

AS PER SAUDI ARAMCO AS PER INDIAN

STANDARDS (AISC 360- STANDARDS (IS
16) 875.1987-part 5)
 LOAD COMPARISON BETWEEN
TWO CODE STANDARDS
 Load action and application of design loads on
a pipe rack structure in the design software
based on two code standards Saudi Aramco
standards and Indian Standards is compared
 DEAD LOAD – SAUDI ARAMCO

DEAD LOAD
DEAD LOAD – INDIAN STANDARD
PRODUCT LOAD- SAUDI ARAMCO
PRODUCT LOAD- INDIAN STANDARD
THERMAL LOAD – SAUDI ARAMCO
THERMAL LOAD – INDIAN STANDARD
WIND LOAD – SAUDI ARAMCO
WIND LOAD – INDIAN STANDARD
 RESULTS

 Comparison of results obtained from staad pro

design software.
 Maximum displacement, Axial forces, Beam
end forces, bending moment, bending stress
and utilization ratio is considered
 Results are compared for same member
subjected to same load case
 BEAM END AXIAL FORCES
SAUDI ARAMCO METHOD

INDIAN STANDARD METHOD

 JOINT DISPLACEMENT
SAUDI ARAMCO METHOD

INDIAN STANDARD METHOD

 SECTION DISPLACEMENT
SAUDI ARAMCO METHOD

INDIAN STANDARD METHOD

 BEAM END MOMENT FORCE
SAUDI ARAMCO METHOD

INDIAN STANDARD METHOD

 BEAM STRESS
SAUDI ARAMCO METHOD

INDIAN STANDARD METHOD

 UTILIZATION RATIO
SAUDI ARAMCO METHOD INDIAN STANDARD METHOD
 CONCLUSION

 Two building design codes and the

corresponding codes for actions are considered.
 It is a common practice to use provisions
according to a certain design code if it is
missing from the local design code. However,
not only this is illegal, but it could lead to
unsafe or uneconomic designs.
 Based upon the comparisons made for the
considered cases in this study, the following
conclusions could be drawn:
 Displacement as per Indian code is maximum
compared to Saudi code, Displacement is 30.6
% less value than Indian code.
 Axial force as per Saudi code is maximum
compared to Indian code, axial force as per
Indian code is less by 49.80 % as compared to
Saudi code
 Moment-Z as per Indian code is maximum
compared to other Saudi code, Moment-Z is
16.56% less of Saudi code as compared to
Indian code.
 Bending stress as per Indian code is maximum
compared to Saudi codes, 28.8 % less as per
Saudi code as compared to Indian code.
 Utilization ratio as per Indian code is maximum
compared to other Saudi code, utilization ratio
is 16.56% less of Saudi code as compared to
Indian cod
 REFERENCES

 IS: 800-2007, “Indian standard code of practice for general

construction in steel”, third revision.
 IS: 875 (Part1) - 1987 “Indian standard code of practice for
design loads (other than earthquake) for Buildings and
Structures”. Part 1 Dead Loads – Unit weights of Building
materials and stored materials.
 IS: 875 (Part3) - 1987 “Indian standard code of practice for
design loads (other than earthquake) for Buildings and
Structures”. Part 3 Wind Load
 IS: 875 (Part5) - 1987 “Indian standard code of practice for
design loads (other than earthquake) for Buildings and
Structures”. Part 5 Special Loads and Combinations
 REFERENCES

 Document no. 6987-046-16-48-JS-01 Rev 0. Section: C-

4.6, Job Specifications (Structural & Architecture) Steam
and Power Generation System and Package Dahej
Petrochemicals Complex, Opal BHEL (A government of
India Undertaking) Power Sector – Western Region 345-
Kingsway, Nagpur
 ANSI/AISC 360-16 An American National Standard,
Specification for structural steel buildings
 ASCE Standard, ASCE/SEI 7-10, Minimum Design Loads
for Buildings and other structures
 Saudi Aramco Engineering Standard, SAES-A-112
Meteorological and Seismic Design Data