Title: Precast concrete, steel-braced, hybrid pipe rack structures
Date: Fall, 2013
Volume: 58
Issue: 4
Page number: 55-67
Author(s): Sebastián F. Vaquero, Damián R. Correa, Sergio F. Wolkomirski
https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.09012013.55.67
Click here to access the full journal article
Abstract
The construction of a pipe rack in an operating petroleum refinery located in a high seismic zone in Argentina presents singular issues related to its construction and structural typology. In this particular case the structure was required to be made of precast reinforced concrete, as requested by the client to facilitate its construction, minimize on-site work, and comply with the applicable Argentinean regulatory requirements. In addition, the lack of bracing in the cross section was required to allow for maintenance of the pipes. To comply with the boundary conditions, it was proposed to use precast reinforced concrete moment frames with a single cast-in-place concrete connection as the transverse load-resisting system, longitudinal precast reinforced concrete beams as shear keys, and steel bracing as the longitudinal load-resisting system. The connections comply with the requirements of the seismic code, taking into account the erection tolerances and minimizing on-site concrete work as well as working at heights. This paper explains the calculation methodology and presents the results of the erection of the precast concrete frames
References
1. Instituto Nacional de Prevención Sísmica Centro de Investigación de los Reglamentos Nacionales de Seguridad para las Obras Civiles. 1996. Normas Argentinas Para Construcciones Sismoresistentes. INPRESCIRSOC 103. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Industrial.
2. Sezen, H., and A. Whittaker. 2006. “Seismic Performance of Industrial Facilities Affected by the 1999 Turkey Earthquake.” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (1): 28–36.
3. Blandón, J., and M. Rodríguez. 2005. “Behavior of Connections and Floor Diaphragms in Seismic-Resisting Precast Concrete Buildings.” PCI Journal 50 (2): 56–75.
4. Belotti, D., D. Bolognini, and R. Nascimbene. 2008. “Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Precast Traditional Italian Frames and Subassemblies.” Paperpresented at the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, October 2008.
5. Concrete Technology Associates. 1976. “Composite Systems without Ties.” Technical bulletin 76B4. Tacoma, WA: Concrete Technology Associates.
6. Leonhardt, F., and E. Mönning. 1977. Vorlessungen über Massivbau. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.
7. Paulay, T., and N. Priestley. 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
8. Park, R. 1980. “Ductile Design Approach for Reinforced Concrete Frames.” Earthquake Spectra 2 (3): 560–620.
9. Yee, A. 1973. “New Precast Prestressed System Saves Money in Hawaii Hotel.” PCI Journal 18 (3): 10–13.
10. Park, R. 2002. “Seismic Design and Construction of Precast Concrete Buildings in New Zealand.” PCI Journal 47 (5): 60-75.
11. Park, R., J. Restrepo, and A. Buchanan. 1995. “Test on Connections of Earthquake Resisting Precast RC Frames.” PCI Journal 50 (4): 44–61.
12. AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction). 2005. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. ANSI/AISC 341-05. Chicago, Illinois:AISC.
13. Maheri, M., and R. Akbari. 2003. “Seismic Behavior Factor, R, for Steel X-braced and Knee-Braced RC Buildings.” Engineering Structures 25 (12): 1505– 1513.
14. Youssef, M., H. Ghaffarzadeh, and M. Nehdi. 2006. “Seismic Performance of RC Frames with Concentric Internal Steel Bracing.” Engineering Structures 29 (7): 1561–1568.