![20
1. Peyman Shademan Heidari, Roohollah Ahmady Jazany and Hossein Kayhani “An
Investigation on Bracing Configuration Effects on Behavior of Concentrically Braced
Steel Frames” January 2016, World Applied Sciences Journal 17 (9), pg 1095- 1108
2. Z.A. Siddiqi, Rashid Hameed, Usman Akmal “Comparison of Different Bracing
Systems for Tall Buildings March 2015. Pak. J. Engg. & Appl. Sci. Vol.14, [Vol-3,
‟‟
Issue-4], pg 17-26
3. Dhruba jyoti Borthakur, Dr. (Mrs) Nayanmoni Chetia “A Study on the Effectiveness of
Bracing System for Lateral loading” Oct-2016, International Journal of Advanced
Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS), [Vol-3, Issue-4], pg 79-84.
4. Nitesh J Singh, Mohammad Ishtiyaque “Optimized design and analysis of steel pipe
racks for oil and gas industries as per international codes and standards” oct-2016,
IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, Volume: 05
Issue: 10, pg 16-28.
5. Richard M. Drake and robert J. Walter “Design of Structural Steel Pipe Racks”2010,
engineering journal / fourth quarter, pg 241-252
6. M. G. Kawade, A. V. Navale “Optimization of Pipe Rack by Study of Braced Bay”
Feb-2019, International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management,
Volume-2, Issue-2, pg 451-455.
REFERENCES](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/presentationppt-2-241228134411-ad2ce448/85/Performance-Investigation-of-Innovative-Bracing-System-2-20-320.jpg)
Performance Investigation of Innovative Bracing System -2
- 2. 2 As per PIP, Longitudinal pipe friction load for, 1 pipe - 40% of operating load 2 pipe - 30% of operating load 3 pipe - 20% of operating load >=4 pipe - 10% of operating load big bore line >12 inch (act as a pt. load) small bore line <=12 inch (act as a UDL)
- 3. CABLE TRAY + CABLE LOAD 3
- 7. LONGITUDINAL PIPE FRICTION LOAD 7
- 8. TRANSVERSE PIPE FRICTION LOAD 8
- 9. LONGITUDINAL PIPE ANCHOR LOAD 9
- 10. TRANSVERSE PIPE ANCHOR LOAD 10
- 11. PIPE CONTINGENCY LOAD ON LONGITUDINAL TIE 11
- 12. Possible configuration of Piperack structure. ‘A’ Type 12
- 13. ‘X’Type 13
- 15. ‘V’Type 15
- 16. ‘K’Type 16
- 17. Results. 17 After analysis of Pipe rack structure with all types of selected bracing at different location, results are as follows, Type of bracing CENTRAL braced bay ONE END braced bay BOTH END braced bay A type V type K type Diagonal X type 289.45 294.42 303.65 331.66 350.57 318.33 311.28 328.93 335.67 354.58 335.38 328.17 368.95 363.67 401.49 NOTE : All quantities are in KN.
- 18. 18 AType VType K Type Diagonal X Type 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 CENTRAL ONE END BOTH END Tonnage(KN) Graph of tonnage
- 19. 19 CONCLUSION • The objective of this study was to do performance based analysis of a typical structural steel pipe rack for fixing up suitable type of bracing and braced bay location for horizontal loads. The results have indicated that by changing the bracing type and braced bay location we can achieve economy of overall structure. • From the above discussions it is clear that steel tonnage required by adopting ‘A’ type bracing at centre braced bay is found minimum. The overall economy is achieved in whole structure and the extra engineering cost needed is also reduced due to reduction in section profiles. • In comparison with A type and X type bracing, A type bracing saves 27.90% of steel then X type. • In stretches when the bracing is provided at the end bay, Stresses get locked at the end bay. As this stresses have no equivalent path to get released, it required larger sections to cater this stresses. Eventually the Support reactions are also massive which causes the larger foundation size. But when the bracing is provided at the central bay, Stresses are released effectively in both the directions. This causes the lower value of internal stresses in all the members as compared to the structure in first module. Eventually the support reactions are low and the footing size is also reduced.
- 20. 20 1. Peyman Shademan Heidari, Roohollah Ahmady Jazany and Hossein Kayhani “An Investigation on Bracing Configuration Effects on Behavior of Concentrically Braced Steel Frames” January 2016, World Applied Sciences Journal 17 (9), pg 1095- 1108 2. Z.A. Siddiqi, Rashid Hameed, Usman Akmal “Comparison of Different Bracing Systems for Tall Buildings March 2015. Pak. J. Engg. & Appl. Sci. Vol.14, [Vol-3, ‟‟ Issue-4], pg 17-26 3. Dhruba jyoti Borthakur, Dr. (Mrs) Nayanmoni Chetia “A Study on the Effectiveness of Bracing System for Lateral loading” Oct-2016, International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS), [Vol-3, Issue-4], pg 79-84. 4. Nitesh J Singh, Mohammad Ishtiyaque “Optimized design and analysis of steel pipe racks for oil and gas industries as per international codes and standards” oct-2016, IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, Volume: 05 Issue: 10, pg 16-28. 5. Richard M. Drake and robert J. Walter “Design of Structural Steel Pipe Racks”2010, engineering journal / fourth quarter, pg 241-252 6. M. G. Kawade, A. V. Navale “Optimization of Pipe Rack by Study of Braced Bay” Feb-2019, International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management, Volume-2, Issue-2, pg 451-455. REFERENCES
- 21. 21 7. PIP (2007), PIP STC01015, Structural Design Criteria, Process Industry Practices, Austin, TX. ( Use : For Load Combinations) 8. ASCE (2006), ASCE 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Including Supplement No. 1, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. ( Use : loading over the structure.) 9. AISC (2006), AISC 358-05, Prequalifi ed Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic Applications, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL. ( Use : For Steel Design.)
- 22. THANK YOU ! 22