You are on page 1of 14

171

THE SEISMIC DESIGN OF INDUSTRIAL PLANTS

(The application of NZS 4203, Code of Practice for General


Structural Design and Design Loadings for Buildings).

Roger D. Evison*, Allan F. Mowat**


ABSTRACT:

This paper describes and discusses a practical approach


to f o r m u l a t i n g r a t i o n a l and e c o n o m i c p r o c e d u r e s for the
seismic d e s i g n of industrial p l a n t s and of p e t r o c h e m i c a l
p l a n t s in p a r t i c u l a r , on t h e b a s i s of t h e c u r r e n t N e w Z e a l a n d
L o a d i n g s Code for B u i l d i n g s , N Z S 4 2 0 3 : 1 9 7 6 .

T h e a u t h o r s ' firm w a s e n g a g e d as c o n s u l t a n t s for the


s e i s m i c d e s i g n (inter a l i a ) o f t h e A m m o n i a a n d U r e a P l a n t s
and offsites for the Kapuni Fertiliser Complex. This paper
is a r e s u l t o f t h a t w o r k . a n d w i l l a l s o b e p u b l i s h e d in
'Transactions of the I n s t i t u t i o n of P r o f e s s i o n a l E n g i n e e r s
New Zealand . 1

1. INTRODUCTION: of the frames, b u i l d i n g s , and other basic


s t r u c t u r a l f o r m s in t h e p l a n t .
The N e w Zealand C o d e of P r a c t i c e for
G e n e r a l Structural D e s i g n and D e s i g n Load- These amount to compelling reasons for
i n g s f o r B u i l d i n g s , N Z S 4 2 0 3 : 1 9 7 6 , (1) e m b r a c i n g the task of i n t e r p r e t i n g and
h e r e i n referred to as the L o a d i n g s C o d e , e x t e n d i n g t h e C o d e so t h a t it c o u l d b e
o r t h e C o d e , is in g e n e r a l u s e t h r o u g h o u t c o n v e n i e n t l y applied to the d e s i g n of
New Zealand. plants.

The seismic d e s i g n r e q u i r e m e n t s of the 3. SEISMIC DESIGN OF PLANTS AND BUILDINGS


Code are relatively complex. The levels of COMPARED
p r o t e c t i o n w h i c h it p r o v i d e s a r e g e n e r a l l y
acceptable both socially and financially (2). P r o c e s s p l a n t d e s i g n is a h i g h l y
It w a s w r i t t e n a l m o s t e x c l u s i v e l y for specialised and competitive field w i t h
b u i l d i n g s t r u c t u r e s a n d a s it l a c k s p r o - w e l l established procedures for dealing
v i s i o n for many p a r t i c u l a r requirements with potentially hazardous process conditions
of industrial plants its use for such plants s u c h as t o x i c i t y , t e m p e r a t u r e and p r e s s u r e ,
encounters a number of d i f f i c u l t i e s . conditions which are often very severe.
H o w e v e r , it h a s b e e n f o u n d t h a t t h e C o d e is Established practice includes a whole
c a p a b l e of s a t i s f a c t o r y a p p l i c a t i o n to p h i l o s o p h y o f r i s k m a n a g e m e n t w h i c h , in
p l a n t s , as described below. m a n y c a s e s , may be subject to the policy of
the Owner. In t h e t o t a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l
2. BACKGROUND REASONS FOR USING NZS4203 field of process industry the significance
IN P L A N T D E S I G N of the p a r t i c u l a r r e q u i r e m e n t s of the
N e w Z e a l a n d L o a d i n g s C o d e is m i n i m a l .
The reasons for a d o p t i n g the Code as
t h e b a s i s of s e i s m i c d e s i g n in t h e K a p u n i In t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s e i s m i c
Fertiliser Project were briefly: design to N e w Zealand requirements must
b e s u b o r d i n a t e to the m o r e c o m p e l l i n g
a) C o m p l i a n c e w i t h the C o d e N Z S 4203 w a s d e m a n d s of p r o c e s s and e q u i p m e n t d e s i g n .
m a n d a t o r y for s t r u c t u r e s and p l a n t items It i s u n r e a l i s t i c t o e x p e c t t h a t p l a n t
c l a s s i f i e d as "buildings" for building layout, for example, should b e dominated
permit purposes. by structural p r o b l e m s .

b) C o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e C o d e is the b a s i s In f a c t t h e r i s k p h i l o s o p h y w h i c h
of the requirements of N e w Zealand M i n i s t r y underlies the well established acceptance
of Transport, Marine Division, the statutory a n d a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e L o a d i n g s C o d e in
a u t h o r i t y for pressure v e s s e l s . b u i l d i n g d e s i g n is v e r y d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t
w h i c h is a p p r o p r i a t e t o p r o c e s s p l a n t s .
c) On the advice of the Ministry of Works
and D e v e l o p m e n t to the O w n e r s , c o m p l i a n c e The c i r c u m s t a n c e s of static l o a d s ,
w i t h N Z S 4 203 w a s m a d e a c o n d i t i o n of t h e vertical live loads, occupancy, public
m a s t e r contract for d e s i g n and supply of c o n t a c t and interrelation applicable to
t h e p l a n t s in t h i s p r o j e c t . buildings are generally quite unlike the
c i r c u m s t a n c e s in p r o c e s s p l a n t s . For
d) The Code is familiar to the NZ design e x a m p l e , v e r t i c a l live loads on p l a n t items
profession. are accurately known, whereas they are taken
a s c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e s in b u i l d i n g s .
e) It c o u l d be directly applied to many
By r e c o g n i s i n g this f u n d a m e n t a l
*Partner, Ian M a C a l l a n and C o . , Consulting difference, structural designers will
Engineers, Wellington. m o r e r e a d i l y a p p r e c i a t e and a v o i d c o m p o u n d i n g
**Senior Engineer, Ian M a C a l l a n and C o . the p r o b l e m s of their process design
colleagues and hence the additional costs

B U L L E T I N OF THE NEW Z E A L A N D N A T I O N A L SOCIETY FOR E A R T H Q U A K E E N G I N E E R I N G , V O L . 15, NO. 4, DECEMBER 1982


172

imposed by seismic requirements. 5. SEISMIC TYPE CLASSIFICATION OF PLANT


ITEMS
The preceding comments are not intended
to i m p l y t h a t s e i s m i c p r o b l e m s a r e o f M o s t o f t h e s t r u c t u r e s in t h e K a p u n i
secondary importance, but that they must Fertiliser Complex were designed using the
be c o n s i d e r e d j o i n t l y by t h e S t r u c t u r a l C a p a c i t y Design Method ( 1 ) , by w h i c h specific
and P r o c e s s e n g i n e e r s a s t h e y o c c u r . e l e m e n t s of the s t r u c t u r e are d e s i g n e d to
N o r m a l l y w h a t m a y b e r e q u i r e d is a y i e l d at the d e s i g n e a r t h q u a k e l e v e l ,
s t r e n g t h e n i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n to a plant w h i l e all other parts of that structure
i t e m so a s t o i m p r o v e i t s s e i s m i c p e r f o r m - are d e s i g n e d to b e s t r o n g e r , t h u s c o n f i n i n g
ance without a f f e c t i n g its p r o c e s s function. a n y s e i s m i c d a m a g e to t h e s e l e c t e d e l e m e n t s .
A b a s i c c a p a c i t y F a c t o r o f 1.25 w a s u s e d .
It m u s t b e e m p h a s i s e d t h a t for p l a n t s
as w e l l as for b u i l d i n g s seismic d e s i g n H o w e v e r plant items of low height and
demands not only the appropriate choice c o n s i d e r a b l e m a s s that w e r e u n a b l e to
and a n a l y s i s of l o a d s b u t p e r h a p s even dissipate energy by ductile yielding, were
more importantly, good and effective d e s i g n e d to r e m a i n elastic d u r i n g an
detailing based on a thorough understanding earthquake.
of t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e i t e m u n d e r
seismic loading. S o m e s t r u c t u r e s a n d i t e m s o f p l a n t in
the C o m p l e x w e r e found to be a m e n a b l e to
4. THE KAPUNI FERTILISER COMPLEX d i r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n of the L o a d i n g s C o d e .
Most, however, required special attention
The Kapuni Fertiliser Complex comprises and because of the large and v a r i e d number
a 272 t o n n e / d a y a m m o n i a p l a n t , a 4 7 0 the economic approach was to classify the
tonne/day urea plant with granulation, i t e m s in f o u r s t r u c t u r a l t y p e s a s f o l l o w s :
offsites s e r v i c e s s u c h as storage v e s s e l s ,
tanks and c o o l i n g t o w e r s , and a facility Type A - Tall tubular vessels with ductile
for u r e a b u l k s t o r a g e , d r e s s i n g , b a g g i n g yielding anchor bolts.
and d e s p a t c h .
Type B - Single storey platforms, with
T h e P r i n c i p a l C o n t r a c t o r for the d u c t i l e y i e l d i n g in f r a m e s o r
Complex was Capital Plant International bracing members.
Limited of L o n d o n . The process plant
Subcontractors were Fish Engineering and Type C - Low rigid equipment.
C o n s t r u c t i o n I n c . of H o u s t o n for the
ammonia plant and Toyo Engineering Type D - Multilevel structures, with
Corporation of Tokyo for the urea plant. d u c t i l e y i e l d i n g in f r a m e or
In t h e i r l o n g e x p e r i e n c e o f p e t r o c h e m i c a l bracing members.
plant design including m a n y for seismic
regions, these firms had not hitherto These types are discussed below in detail.
encountered seismic design requirements
comparable with the New Zealand Loadings 6. TYPE A - TALL TUBULAR VESSELS, STACKS
Code. ETC.

The New Zealand Consultants worked 6.1 Scope


closely w i t h e n g i n e e r s of the Principal
C o n t r a c t o r a n d b o t h S u b c o n t r a c t o r s in This category comprises tall tubular
developing and applying a seismic design vessels, stacks etc., usually heavier than
method based on the Loading Code. This 15 t o n n e s or t a l l e r than 5 m e t r e s . Below
involved interchange of senior engineers these limits ductile anchor bolts become
both w a y s b e t w e e n N e w Zealand and Japan, too small for practicality.
and the United S t a t e s . This was a
rewarding e x p e r i e n c e for all concerned 6.2 Design Philosophy
and w a s e s s e n t i a l to a sound, efficient
and economical result. A ductile energy dissipating element
is r e q u i r e d a t t h e b a s e o f t h e T y p e A I t e m ,
S o m e of t h e v e s s e l s in the a m m o n i a to conform with the intent of Clause 3.3.2*2
plant had already been designed for of the Code ( 1 ) .
another site and some had already been
fabricated.

B e c a u s e o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in
w h i c h plant components d i f f e r from building
s t r u c t u r e s , e.g. in s e i s m i c r e s p o n s e , DUCTILE ELEMENT
risk, s t r u c t u r a l t y p e , c o n s t r u c t i o n and
o p e r a t i o n a l f a c t o r s , it w a s n e c e s s a r y
to interpret the L o a d i n g s Code and
p r o d u c e a d e s i g n m e t h o d b a s e d on it, to
cover the differing characteristics.

E x a m p l e s of the a p p l i c a t i o n of the Several m e t h o d s of providing this ductile


C o d e to the s e i s m i c d e s i g n of these p l a n t s element were considered.
a r e g i v e n in t h e s u c c e e d i n g s e c t i o n s ,
w i t h r e f e r e n c e to the r e l e v a n t C l a u s e s and One method was the use of a yielding
Tables of the Code. First the design s k i r t , a s d e v e l o p e d b y C a n e (3) a n d u s e d
p r o c e s s will be outlined for the various a t t h e G a s T r e a t m e n t P l a n t at O a o n u i . This
t y p e s of v e s s e l and p l a n t structure and method has the advantage that the yielding
then the application of the Factors listed e l e m e n t c o n t i n u e s to g i v e s u p p o r t b o t h in
in the Code w i l l be d i s c u s s e d . compression and tension after y i e l d i n g .
173

ratio of
H o w e v e r , a f t e r y i e l d i n g it w o u l d b e i m p a i r e d
and would probably require replacement. <X = actual stress
allowable stress
T h i s c o u l d b e a d i f f i c u l t o p e r a t i o n in t h e
c o n g e s t i o n of a completed p l a n t , as some
w a s e s t a b l i s h e d at v a r i o u s s e c t i o n s of
of t h e s e v e s s e l s in the K a p u n i p l a n t a r e
the vessel as designed. The Alternative
3 0 m h i g h a n d h a v e an u n l o a d e d w e i g h t o f
D e s i g n , o r w o r k i n g s t r e s s , M e t h o d (1)
135 tonnes. Also the authors concluded
bending moment through the bolts was
that the ultimate moment capacity of a
then divided by the largest v a l u e of
rolled and welded skirt could not be
but not less than 0.8. This has the
c a l c u l a t e d as a c c u r a t e l y as that of m a c h i n e d
effect of raising the design bending
b o l t s , so that a h i g h e r c a p a c i t y f a c t o r
m o m e n t at the b o l t s , w h i c h h o w e v e r could
w o u l d b e n e c e s s a r y for t h e v e s s e l . A
just produce yielding at the w e a k e s t
f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n in t h e c h o i c e of
s e c t i o n of the v e s s e l .
d u c t i l e e l e m e n t in t h e s e i t e m s w a s t h a t
w h e n using bolts, no modification work
was necessary to certain vessels which T h e d e s i g n r e s t r a i n i n g m o m e n t is
had already been designed for another t h e sum of t h e b o l t f o r c e s at t h e i r
s i t e and in some c a s e s a l r e a d y f a b r i c a t e d . yield stress m u l t i p l i e d by the a p p r o p r i a t e
lever arms from the neutral axis of the
base ring. T h i s m o m e n t is e q u a t e d
The anchor bolts for all Type A
with the modified design bending moment
v e s s e l s are d e s i g n e d as the d u c t i l e energy
as above, thus providing a reserve
d i s s i p a t i n g e l e m e n t s , a c t i n g in t e n s i o n
s t r e n g t h c a p a c i t y a s r e q u i r e d in t h e C o d e ,
only. The bolts are necked down over
in t h i s case 1.25. The yield stress
such a p o r t i o n of their length that
v a l u e of the bolt steel was a c c u r a t e l y
yielding will be confined to that portion
determined from t e s t s , hence the required
a n d w i l l n o t o c c u r in t h e c o n c r e t e b a s e .
bolt area of the n e c k e d - d o w n s e c t i o n
could be found. A concrete strain of
In comparison w i t h the y i e l d i n g skirt
0.003 w a s u s e d and the n e u t r a l a x i s '
system, the tension-only anchor bolt
of the bolt group was typically tangential
system has the drawback of varying vessel
to the inner side of the base flange
response after first bolt yield. However,
plate. This g e n e r a l l y o c c u r r e d at
in t h i s c a s e t h e v e s s e l p e r i o d w o u l d
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 0.95 o f t h e b o l t c i r c l e
i n c r e a s e , and the subsequent level of
diameter.
force attracted would d i m i n i s h for the
common general shape of the El Centro
type response curve. The length of the necked d o w n section
of the bolt was calculated as follows -
O t h e r a d v a n t a g e s of the d u c t i l e
The v e s s e l periods for the v a r i o u s
anchor bolt system are: that damage can
load cases were conservatively estimated
be e a s i l y r e c o g n i s e d and q u i c k l y repaired
assuming no ground rotation e t c , and by
by replacing strained b o l t s , w i t h o u t
using several response spectra curves,
disturbing the vessel, and that the
H o u s n e r ( 5 ) , S k i n n e r (6) a n d P a r k & B l a k e l e y
y i e l d p o i n t and yield c a p a c i t y can be
( 7 ) , an acceleration Sa was established
established within quite fine limits,
a s s u m i n g 2% d a m p i n g . For this site the
permitting a lower Capacity Factor with
c u r v e s w e r e a d j u s t e d b y 2.0 s e c o n d s t o
cost b e n e f i t s to the,vessel and the
allow for the flexibility of the s o i l .
foundations.

The deflection Au at m a x i m u m
6.3 Ductile Anchor Bolts - Design
P r o c e d u r e (tension only) ductility demand u is d e f i n e d as
Introduction
Au = Ay.u
The a l l o w a b l e stresses specified by
where
the A m e r i c a n Society of M e c h a n i c a l E n g -
0.33 Sa
ineers for pressure vessels were adopted
= 2.0
(4) , i n c r e a s e d b y a f a c t o r o f 1.33 f o r u x

earthquake conditions. T h i s is t h e Cd
A l t e r n a t i v e D e s i g n M e t h o d of the Code ( 1 ) .
The vessels were checked for various Ay = elastic deflection of top of
c o m b i n a t i o n s of load i.e. empty, o p e r a t i n g , vessel under design seismic
test, wind and earthquake. load.

T h e test c o n d i t i o n e x i s t s when an T h e f a c t o r o f 2.0 w a s included for


e r e c t e d v e s s e l is f i l l e d w i t h w a t e r a n d "one w a y " energy absorbing system, i.e.
p r e s s u r e t e s t e d , and in s o m e c a s e s e x c e e d s b o l t s in t e n s i o n o n l y .
the operating load. The tests may be
of three w e e k s 1
duration and may be T h e length of the necked down
r e p e a t e d at intervals throughout the life section L w a s d e t e r m i n e d from
of the plant. Half earthquake force _ *Au
(0.5E) w a s u s e d for the t e s t c o n d i t i o n s . L
" OTTTH
F o u n d a t i o n sizes w e r e often governed by
this test condition because of settlement where
considerations.
x = the distance from the o u t e r m o s t
Detailed Methodi bolt to t h e n e u t r a l a x i s of the
bolt ring at y i e l d s t r e s s
Bending moments and combined stresses
were calculated from combinations of the Au = h o r i z o n t a l d e f l e c t i o n at t h e top
previously mentioned load c a s e s . The of the structure due to seismic
forces
174

0.1 = allowed average steel strain

H = height of the vessel.

The length of L should be not less than EQUIPMENT A T -


300 mm or six b o l t d i a m e t e r s . ONE L E V E L

F o r a n c h o r b o l t s d e s i g n e d in t e n s i o n EQUIPMENT AT
only t h e M f a c t o r (1) w a s t a k e n a s 0 . 9 . ONE L E V E L

Wind Dominated Cases:

W i n d w a s t h e d o m i n a n t l o a d in s o m e
items such as some t a l l , light vessels
with large projected area.

In t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e b o l t s w e r e PORTAL OR X BRACING LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURE


designed as previously described, but using X BRACED
the bending moment due, to wind. The
earthquake bending moment or force can
i n c r e a s e u n t i l it f u l l y u t i l i s e s t h e b o l t
s t r e n g t h t h a t i s a v a i l a b l e in t h e d u c t i l e
energy absorbing element.

6.4 Bolt Material Specification:

Requirements for the material for


these anchors bolts are:

- High ductility

- Low yield strength to a l l o w b o l t s to


be of a r e a s o n a b l e size

- Yield strength of consistent value STEEL OR CONCRETE


PORTAL FORMS
- Reasonable machinability.

The desirable yield characteristics


p r e c l u d e the u s e of h i g h sulphur, high
machining quality steels.

S t e e l s c o n f o r m i n g to N Z S 3402P 1 9 7 3 , b) Horizontally Supported Vessels


G r a d e 275 and A S 1204/250 w e r e finally
Vertical Cantilevers (Ductile hinges at x)
chosen after testing of several finished
bolts. These materials gave consistent
low yield v a l u e s and exhibited m i n i m u m
v a l u e s of e l o n g a t i o n and izod impact tests
o f 2 7 % a n d 4 0 f t l b (54J) r e s p e c t i v e l y .

Good quality, score-free machining of


t h e b o l t s is e s s e n t i a l . Some of the test
samples w e r e d i a g o n a l l y scratched and when
tested gave erratic tensile results.

7. TYPE B SINGLE STOREY PLATFORMS


SUPPORTING EQUIPMENT

7.1 Scope

T h i s d e s i g n p r o c e d u r e is r e c o m m e n d e d
for platforms supporting one or more items
o f equipment at one basic platform level;
t h e s u p p o r t i n g s t r u c t u r e in e f f e c t , a c t s
as a single storey building.

7.2 Examples

a) Frames (Ductile yielding at x) To obtain ductile bending, — ,< 4.


B
175

Consequently the foundations may need TYPE C - SHORT RIGID EQUIPMENT,


to be set well d o w n into the ground. TANKS ETC

In e l e v a t i o n B , h e a t e x p a n s i o n m a y
r e q u i r e o n e e n d s l i d i n g , so t h a t t h e w h o l e 8.1 Scope
l o n g i t u d i n a l C d f o r c e a c t s at o n e e n d o f
the item of e q u i p m e n t . T h i s d e s i g n p r o c e d u r e is r e c o m m e n d e d
for e q u i p m e n t and s t r u c t u r e s that are
7.3 Design Philosophy short, rigid and inherently strong; where
it i s d i f f i c u l t t o f o r m a r e l i a b l e
These structures are analysed as "ductile energy dissipating element"
conventional one-storey frames, the forces within the equipment, its support
in t h e i r m e m b e r s b e i n g c a l c u l a t e d b y structure or the foundation p a r t s .
conventional elastic methods. The
energy dissipating elements are designed 8.2 Examples
closely to these forces•

F o r e x a m p l e , in t h e c a s e of c r o s s -
braced frames, the braces are necked down
over a suitable short length to ensure
controlled ductile yielding, design
loads for all o t h e r p a r t s of the structure
b e i n g i n c r e a s e d by a c a p a c i t y f a c t o r of 1.25.

7.4 Ductile Bracing Examples

BRACING
ROD

VERY STRONG
MEMBERS

L / d > 6

BRACING
ANGLE

BOTH F L A N G E S
MAY B E N O T C H E D

N o limitation of height or size was


placed on these structures.
176

8.3 Design Philosophy 9.1 Scope

This design procedure applies to


structures supporting items of equipment
at several l e v e l s , w i t h t h e s u p p o r t i n g
s t r u c t u r e p e r f o r m i n g as a m u l t i l e v e l
building.

9.2 Examples

w t * w F

Refer to N Z S 4203 Cl. 3.3.2.2.

The e q u i p m e n t , support structure and


foundation parts must be made reliably
strong enough to ensure that the w h o l e I
assembly would over-turn about the point
X b e f o r e any p a r t of t h e assembly f a i l e d .
The m o d e of failure becomes ductile yield-
ing of t h e s o i l and h a s b e e n d e s c r i b e d by
t h e t e r m " r o c k i n g " f o u n d a t i o n s (8) ( 9 ) .

The bearing pressure used in these


cases was
_ , . fb(D+L) x 3
fb r o c k i n g = ^ £

A structural Form Factor of 9.3 Design Philosophy


S = 1.40 w a s u s e d ( 1 ) .
R e f e r to N Z S 4203 Cl 3 . 3 . 2 . 2 .
The support structures w e r e analysed as
8.4 General Comments:
conventional multistorey buildings. The
energy dissipating elements were chosen
In p e t r o c h e m i c a l and s i m i l a r p l a n t s ,
and designed closely to the applied C o d e
v e s s e l s and e q u i p m e n t are often c o n g e s t e d
forces bending m o m e n t s at these p o i n t s .
and a w k w a r d l y l o c a t e d . With the
All other structural members were then
rocking base concept the foundations
checked to ensure they w e r e a b l e to resist
w i t h due a l l o w a n c e for settlement
the effect of the ductile hinges being
requirements are kept quite small and more
25% overstrength for steel and
e a s i l y l o c a t e d in t h e s e r e s t r i c t e d s p a c e s .
1 25

T h e r e l a t i v e d i s p l a c e m e n t s of some — for reinforced concrete. (j2f a s in


of t h e r o c k i n g f o u n d a t i o n s w e r e c h e c k e d (18)).
by a m e t h o d p r o p o s e d by P r i e s t l e y ,
E v i s o n and Carr ( 8 ) . This involved No limits were placed on the height,
o b t a i n i n g t h e period of the structure span or size of t h e s u p p o r t i n g s t r u c t u r e .
a n d t h e n u s i n g t h i s in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h However, tension-only bracing systems were
a tripartite response spectra diagram to limited to structures of not m o r e than
obtain a range of likely displacement three levels.
values.
9.4 General Comments
It w a s f o u n d t h a t s o m e i t e m s o f l o w
The procedure for Type D w a s used
h e i g h t and c o n s i d e r a b l e m a s s w e r e u n a b l e
for a v a r i e t y of d u c t i l e r e i n f o r c e d c o n c r e t e
to r o c k at r e a l i s t i c a l l y low seismic
frames and for steel f r a m e s w i t h d u c t i l e
factors. T h e Cd v a l u e s for t h e s e items
bracing systems.
w e r e t h e r e f o r e assessed elastically by
t r e a t i n g t h e m i n d i v i d u a l l y as p a r t s .
(see S e c t i o n 1 0 b e l o w ) . These equipment Multi-level ductile steel moment
items w e r e d e s i g n e d to r e m a i n stable u n d e r frames were avoided due to the p r o b l e m s for
earthquake c o n d i t i o n s , without uplift, and pipework etc. created by large d e f l e c t i o n s .
the anchor b o l t s w e r e designed for shear Multi-level frames which had to be designed
only. U s u a l l y items in this c a t e g o r y as rigidly bolted K-braced steel frames or
w e r e i n t r i n s i c a l l y v e r y strong and r o b u s t l y with concrete shear walls were designed as
constructed, - for example, squat com- Type C structures, 8 above.
pressors, pumps , electric motors, etc.
D i a p h r a g m a c t i o n in t h e m u l t i - l e v e l
braced frames was often difficult to
9. TYPE D - MULTILEVEL STRUCTURES
a c h i e v e d u e t o e q u i p m e n t o p e n i n g s in t h e
floors. An "overlapping" or p a r t i a l l y
177

redundant bracing system was used to


overcome this problem.

H i g h S t r e n g t h F r i c t i o n G r i p (HSFG)
bolted angle type horizontal bracing was
normally used, although welded chequer plate ATTACHED
PARTS
f l o o r i n g s e r v e d a s b r a c i n g in s o m e c i r c u m -
stances . A c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of
structural steelwork on this project was
detailed for HSFG bolted joints. This
m e t h o d is c o n v e n i e n t f o r p l a n t p r o c u r e -
m e n t , in w h i c h t h e s t r u c t u r e s a r e o f t e n
s u p p l i e d in p a c k a g e s , f a b r i c a t e d b y o n e
c o n t r a c t o r and e r e c t e d by a n o t h e r ,

Throughout the project the analysis


of s e i s m i c l o a d i n g w a s d o n e by the
E q u i v a l e n t S t a t i c F o r c e M e t h o d (1) a s
r e a l i s t i c a n d e c o n o m i c of e n g i n e e r i n g c o s t s .
As a check on this method one selected
T y p e A v e s s e l w a s subjected to a spectral
modal analysis. This showed that the
b a s e s h e a r w a s 1 0 % l o w e r a n d t h e C o d e 2 0%
l o a d a p p l i e d a t t h e t o p w a s in r e a l i t y N o t e : K p = 1.5 f o r o n e s t o r e y s t r u c t u r e s
spread across the upper third. Hence the and for items located at g r o u n d or f o u n d a t i o n
d e s i g n shears and bending moments used were level.
a little high, by a factor which justified
the method used. K p w a s n o t g r e a t e r t h a n 2.5 for any of
t h e items on t h i s p r o j e c t .
The authors recommend the Static
F o r c e M e t h o d , w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e use of 10.3 Risk Factor of Part - Rp
check spectral modal analysis.
The Risk Factor R of the supporting
10. PARTS OF STRUCTURES structure should be the R a p p l i c a b l e to the
highest risk item supported.
It i s w e l l u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o n c e n t -
r a t i o n s of m a s s a t t a c h e d to an e l a s t i c If a n i t e m is r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l a n d o f
s t r u c t u r e m a y a t t r a c t t o it s e i s m i c l o a d s a higher general risk, special consideration
g r e a t e r t h a n t h o s e g e n e r a t e d by its own can be given to this item so as to avoid
response. a n u n n e c e s s a r y o v e r s t r e n g t h c a p a c i t y in
other lower risk items.
10.1 The concept of multiplying factors
for t h e seismic forces on Parts and 10.4 Structural Type Factor - Sp
P o r t i o n s o f B u i l d i n g s is a n i m p o r t a n t
c o m p o n e n t of t h e L o a d i n g s C o d e and is T h e p r e s e n t S p v a l u e s a s s h o w n in
a p p r o p r i a t e to the case of p l a n t s . T a b l e 8 m a k e no reference to p l a n t items
H o w e v e r , the specific p r o v i s i o n s of and a table of Sp values needs to be
T a b l e 9 (1) d o n o t a d e q u a t e l y c o v e r t h e d e v e l o p e d f o r t h e v a r i o u s v e s s e l t y p e s in
l a r g e and v a r i e d n u m b e r of items of a plant. The following values chosen
e q u i p m e n t t h a t a r e supported on v a r i o u s f o r t h e K a p u n i P r o j e c t v a r i e d f r o m 1.0 t o
s t r u c t u r e s and v e s s e l s in t h e s e p l a n t s . 2.0 a n d d e p e n d e d o n t h e n u m b e r o f f i x i n g
b o l t s , the shape, form and inherent
The m e t h o d of obtaining Cp, the d u c t i l i t y of the plant item.
Seismic C o e f f i c i e n t for Parts was therefore
extended as follows.

10.2 Calculated Assessment of Cp

C d = C . I . M . S . R . , a s r e c o m m e n d e d in
t h e D e s i g n B a s i s T y p e s A , B , C a n d D in
Sections 6 to 9 above, where R = the
Risk Factor applicable to the highest
r i s k item of e q u i p m e n t supported by the
structure; and

The seismic coefficient for Parts =


Cp = Kp. Rp. Cd. Sp. Mp.

The Position factor Kp = 1.5 Kx 1.50.


178

RECOMMENDED VALUES OF Sp for items of equipment

not included in N Z S 4203 Table 8.

Item Description of item of equipment Sp

Members and equipment distributing seismic 1.0

forces, detailed for ductility, e.g.

Pedestrian ladders, bridges, platforms,

catwalks etc., pipes, tubes and duct in

structural steel.

Reduced ductility

1.2

1.4

1
4 T

#
More than 6 base
fixing bolts 1.2

6 or less base
fixing bolts 1.4

Thin wall tanks


with integral 2.0
floor and roof,
containing liquids.

8 or m o r e fixing bolts required


Sloshing effects must be added.

Limited ductility

Motors, p u m p s compressors and solid items

which have rigid bases and fixing cleats,

where fixing bolts provide the only

available ductility. More than 6 base

fixing bolts:
1.5

6 or less base fixing bolts: 1.7


179

Sp v a l u e s w e r e c h o s e n to r e f l e c t t h e 10.6 Tabulated Values of Cp


potential seismic performance of the
p a r t i c u l a r v e s s e l o r p i e c e of e q u i p m e n t The following tabulated values of
in q u e s t i o n . The shape, form, m e t h o d Cp for items of e q u i p m e n t are r e c o m m e n d e d
of fixing and ability to d i s s i p a t e e n e r g y as an a l t e r n a t i v e to t h e c a l c u l a t e d
at a number of p l a c e s all require to be assessment of Cp above. The tabulated
considered. v a l u e s o f Cp a r e b a s e d u p o n M p = 0 . 8 ,
and must be adjusted w h e r e n e c e s s a r y for
Particular care has to be taken to l e s s d u c t i l e m a t e r i a l s (10.5 a b o v e ) .
ensure that the method of attaching t h i n -
walled vessels, hoppers etc. to their Cd= C.I.M.S.R.
support structures transfers the calculated
s e i s m i c f o r c e in a s a t i s f a c t o r y m a n n e r . T h e m u l t i p l y i n g f a c t o r s in t h e C o d e
T h i s is o n e of a n u m b e r of i s s u e s w h i c h e q u a t i o n for h o r i z o n t a l s e i s m i c f o r c e
come into a transitional area between w e r e a p p l i e d in t h e K a p u n i p r o j e c t a s
t h e M e c h a n i c a l and S t r u c t u r a l d i s c i p l i n e s , discussed below.
a f f e c t i n g the d e t a i l i n g of the plant items
as w e l l as t h e s t r u c t u r e . 11. STRUCTURAL TYPE FACTOR - S (1)

10.5 Material Factor for Parts This factor p r o v i d e s for the e f f e c t


of seismic loading on the particular type
Mp was as g i v e n in N Z S 4203, of s t r u c t u r e . S v a l u e s w e r e s e l e c t e d in
Table 6. t h e r a n g e o f 0.8 t o 2.0 i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h
T a b l e 5 of the L o a d i n g s C o d e . For Type C
N o t e t h a t M = 0.8 f o r S t r u c t u r a l s t r u c t u r e s as in 8 a b o v e , w h i c h a r e n o t
Steel refers to the ductile grades of c o v e r e d in t h e C o d e , S w a s t a k e n a t 1 . 4 0 .
s t e e l used for b u i l d i n g s in N e w Z e a l a n d .
A larger v a l u e of M must be used for 12. IMPORTANCE FACTOR AND RISK FACTOR
less d u c t i l e g r a d e s of steel and m a t e r i a l s
such as cast iron. As a general guide The Loadings Code uses these two
it is r e c o m m e n d e d f o r g r e y c a s t i r o n , f a c t o r s b u t is n o t e n t i r e l y e x p l i c i t
c e r a m i c s and similar brittle m a t e r i a l s , in t h e t e r m s a p p l i e d t o t h e m , l e a v i n g
that M = 2.0. s o m e r o o m for c o n f u s i o n . Elms draws
a t t e n t i o n to t h i s (10) a n d r e c o m m e n d s

PART attached to
1.0 1.2 1.5 2.0

Attached to a one storey support

structure having ductile frames

(see T y p e B above, Section 7) 0.20 0.24 0.30 0.4

Attached to a one storey support

structure having diagonally

braced frames

(see T y p e B , Section 7) 0.35 0.42 0.53 0.70

*Attached to a multi-storey support

structure having ductile frames

(see T y p e D Section 8) o r attached

to items of equipment that are self

supporting structures (See T y p e A

Section G & C, Section 8) 0.35S 0.42S 0.53S 0.70S

Attached to a foundation supporting

other items such as equipment or

support structures; and not being

Type A or C. 0.5 0.6 0.75 1.0

*These tabulated v a l u e s m u s t be m u l t i p l i e d by the appropriate S value for the support


structure, Refer N Z S 4203 Table 5.
180

that one composite factor be used as also (d) T h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f p e r s o n s


d o o t h e r s , e . g . (17) . w i t h i n the d a n g e r zone at any
o n e t i m e (In J a p a n t h e h i g h e s t
In t h e a u t h o r s ' o p i n i o n it is h e l p f u l , r a t i n g o f t h i s a s p e c t is
p a r t i c u l a r l y in t h e c a s e o f p l a n t s , t o s u g g e s t e d at 100 p e r s o n s ( 1 1 ) .
p r o v i d e distinct and separate factors to Another approach considers
cover two types of consequence of seismic the c l e a r a n c e from communal
damage. These factors may be described occupancy (12)).
as:
(e) Confinement within a building.
12.1 Social or economic importance of the
facility, including its effectiveness (f) T h e m a g n i t u d e , d u r a t i o n a n d
immediately after a destructive earthquake; n a t u r e of a toxic e m i s s i o n
e.g. "lifeline" s e r v i c e s , and o p e r a t i o n s r e s u l t i n g from rupture due to
very s e n s i t i v e to f i n a n c i a l l o s s . e x c e s s s e i s m i c l o a d i n g (12)
(13) .
12.2 R i s k of i m m e d i a t e , s e r i o u s injury to
life or t h e e n v i r o n m e n t by d a m a g e to (g) C o u n t e r m e a s u r e s to contain
the facility; e.g. by r e l e a s e of toxic toxic emissions within the plant
s u b s t a n c e s o r by c o l l a p s e o n t o a l a r g e (13) .
number of people.
14.2 Examples of the Risk Factors adopted
The Loadings Code terms these factors for t h i s plant w e r e as f o l l o w s :
respectively Importance Factor and Risk
F a c t o r , and their d e f i n i t i o n s should b e VESSEL CONTAINED AMMONIA RISK FACTOR
c l a r i f i e d in f u t u r e a m e n d m e n t s .
Reactor 16 tonnes 1.5 (a)
The above concept of Risk F a c t o r is
w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d in s e i s m i c d e s i g n c o d e s Ammonia Reservoir 8 t 2.0 '(b)
generally, but the separate concept of
I m p o r t a n c e F a c t o r in t h e e c o n o m i c o r High Pressure
functional sense appears to be less usual, Absorber
t h o u g h it a p p e a r s in t h e N e w Z e a l a n d L o a d i n g s
C o d e a n d in s o m e c u r r e n t J a p a n e s e w o r k ( 1 1 ) . High Pressure
Cooler 1 t 1.2
13. IMPORTANCE FACTOR - I (1) High Pressure
Decomposer
In its e c o n o m i c a s p e c t t h e v a l u e
a l l o t t e d to this factor m u s t be p r i n c i p a l l y
All other items 0.2 t or less 1.0
a m a t t e r for the O w n e r ' s p o l i c y . The
q u e s t i o n of public or p r i v a t e o w n e r s h i p
Ammonia p i p e l i n e s and equipment from
p e r s e is i r r e l e v a n t t o p l a n t s in t h e
battery l i m i t s to Ammonia Feed P u m p s , to
authors' opinion. See Table 4 ( 1 ) , also
Reservoir, and from Reservoir to Vacuum
(11) .
Absorber and other v e s s e l s c o n t r i b u t i n g
recycled ammonia, including all relevant
The Fertiliser Complex was considered
supporting structures. 2.0
to be a n o r m a l c o m m e r c i a l o p e r a t i o n w i t h
a l i f e o f 2 5 y e a r s a n d a f a c t o r o f I = 1.0
Ammonia Storage
was used.

Storage Bullets 150 t each 3.0


T h e C o d e in T a b l e 4 l i s t s a r a n g e o f
v a l u e s f r o m 1 t o 1.6 t o c o v e r t h e s o c i a l
(Note: This corresponds with the maximum
a s p e c t of t h i s f a c t o r .
risk c o n t e m p l a t e d b y t h e C o d e (1))
14. RISK FACTOR - R (1)
Ammonia Plant
S e l e c t i o n of a p p r o p r i a t e v a l u e s
Ammonia Letdown Drum4.1 t 1.5
of R i s k F a c t o r for p l a n t s n e c e s s i t a t e s a
t h o r o u g h study of all t h e p l a n t i t e m s
Ammonia Absorber (Connected to above) 1.5
including pipework.

Ammonia Stripper Reflux


Some of the aspects to be examined
Drum 0.7 t 1.2
are noted below.

Refrigerant Suction
14.1 General Considerations
Drum 0.6 t 1.2
(a) The level of p l a n t o p e r a t o r and
All other items 1.0
maintenance staff safety train-
ing and e m e r g e n c y p r o c e d u r e s .
Steam Pressure Plant
(b) The degree of access to the
Pipes and Valves 1.0
p l a n t by o u t s i d e p e r s o n n e l not
t r a i n e d in t h e p l a n t , a n d b y t h e
Steam Pressure Vessels within
general public.
-
Buildings
Rp 2.0
(c) The establishment within the
p l a n t of safety zones and e s c a p e All other steam pressure vessels 1.5
routes:
(a) Reactor Ammonia release would be
limited to its c o n t e n t s
181

(16 tonnes) by a back-pressure valve on free lateral m o v e m e n t at t h e s e p o i n t s .


the outlet. The lateral expansion forces were not
c o n s i d e r e d to act c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h e a r t h -
(b) Ammonia Reservoir - The contents quake loads.
could be r e l e a s e d
at f a i l u r e s in c o n n e c t e d p i p e l i n e s 17 .2 Piperacks
and v e s s e l s over m u c h of the p l a n t
area. Two different types of piperack have
been used;
15. LIMITATION ON T O T A L SEISMIC FACTOR
a) fully m o m e n t r e s i s t i n g frames
The Loadings Code provides that, in b o t h l o n g i t u d i n a l a n d t r a n s -
in g e n e r a l , t h e v a l u e o f R x S m a y b e verse directions
limited to 3.6. This relief may possibly
be i n a p p r o p r i a t e in s o m e c a s e s w h e r e b) m o m e n t r e s i s t i n g l a t e r a l f r a m e s ,
h i g h R i s k is c o m b i n e d w i t h s t r u c t u r a l braced in t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l
types of low seismic p e r f o r m a n c e . direction.

On the o t h e r hand there a r e good Both systems had longitudinal breaks


g r o u n d s for c o n s i d e r i n g a m a x i m u m limit for for expansion, with the l o n g i t u d i n a l
I x R x S in c a s e s w h e r e I is g r e a t e r t h a n moment frames being very much m o r e
unity. flexible than the d u c t i l e b r a c e d system.

16. SPECIAL STUDIES (1) Pipework designers may be reluctant


to p r o v i d e s u f f i c i e n t c o n n e c t i o n s , e i t h e r
R e f e r e n c e i s m a d e in t h e L o a d i n g s fixed or sliding, b e t w e e n the p i p e s and
C o d e to S p e c i a l S t u d i e s b e i n g r e q u i r e d the supporting frames. C o - o p e r a t i o n is
for unusual structural c a s e s . A Special n e e d e d h e r e b e t w e e n t h e P r o c e s s and*
Study should involve a careful examination S t r u c t u r a l e n g i n e e r s to e n s u r e that the
of Risk and S t r u c t u r a l F o r m of the p l a n t a s s u m e d d e s i g n l o a d s d o in f a c t o c c u r
i t e m s in q u e s t i o n , a n d s h o u l d b e d o n e in at points where they w e r e i n t e n d e d .
conjunction with the plant process engineers.
Suspending pipe r u n s on h a n g e r s
The use of C o s t / B e n e f i t studies r e d u c e s the p r o b l e m s of seismic loading.
has been suggested as an example of
Special Studies. Although such studies O n long p i p e r u n s o c c a s i o n a l r e s t r a i n t s
m a y imply thoroughness they are unlikely are required against lateral displacement
to be r e a l i s t i c as a g e n e r a l a p p r o a c h under seismic loading.
in t h e d e s i g n o f t h e m u l t i p l i c i t y o f i t e m s
in e v e n t h e s i m p l e s t p e t r o c h e m i c a l p l a n t . The foundations for the piperacks
w e r e of a simple s t r i p f o o t i n g t y p e in
17. MISCELLANEOUS PLANT ITEMS two directions. This system was chosen
to p r o v i d e low b e a r i n g s t r e s s e s and
17.1 Pipework p r o v i d e b a s e f i x i t y w h e r e n e e d e d , a n d it
p r o v e d to be v e r y e c o n o m i c a l .
The pipe lines were computer
designed by the process plant designers 17.3 Storage Tankst
to c o n f o r m w i t h N . Z . M i n i s t r y of T r a n s p o r t
M a r i n e Dept. requirements for Dead, L i v e , M a n y of t h e s m a l l e r s t o r a g e a n d
Wind, M e a n Wind and Seismic Loads. p r o c e s s t a n k s in t h e p l a n t w e r e i n h e r e n t l y
strong, usually with plate steel roofs.
Factors considered were: D e p e n d i n g on t h e i r l o c a t i o n , s o m e t a n k s
w e r e designed as p a r t s u s i n g a n Sp factor
a) Stresses arising from circumferential of 2.0.
pressure.
The sloshing effect was considered
b) Bending stresses caused by support in t h e d e s i g n s b u t t h e e f f e c t w a s m i n o r
c o n d i t i o n s , e.g. corners etc. for the smaller tanks, becoming m o r e
s i g n i f i c a n t in t h e d e s i g n of t a n k s of
c) Differential movement due to d i a m e t e r greater than 12m.
expansion/contraction and earthquake
effects. 17.4 Horizontally Supported Pressure
Vessels
The pipework was classified as "Parts"
and the a p p r o p r i a t e Cp factors were derived It is u s u a l w i t h t h i s t y p e o f v e s s e l
as d e s c r i b e d a b o v e . to h a v e sliding s u p p o r t s at o n e end for
expansion purposes. This requirement
The detailing of the p i p e w o r k / v e s s e l p l a c e s all the longitudinal e a r t h q u a k e
joints w a s the responsibility of the v e s s e l f o r c e s at one s u p p o r t leg. This force
v e n d o r s , w h o s e work was checked by Lloyds was transferred from the vessel to the
of L o n d o n . foundations by m e a n s of steel supports
e x t e n d i n g to m i d - h e i g h t t h u s a v o i d i n g
The nozzle/vessel connections were h i g h l o c a l b e n d i n g s t r e s s e s in t h e s h e l l
designed to remain elastic under earthquake plates. Several v e n d o r s w e r e r e q u i r e d to
conditions. Where necessary added pro- modify their designs accordingly.
tection w a s p r o v i d e d by v e r t i c a l single
p i e r c a n t i l e v e r p i p e s u p p o r t s as w e l l as
by the n o r m a l e x p a n s i o n loops and b e n d s .
P i p e s that entered the m a i n pipe racks at
r i g h t a n g l e s w e r e d e t a i l e d so a s t o a l l o w
182

17.5 M e c h a n i c a l Equipment 19. GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE LOADINGS


CODE
Some comment should be m a d e on the
subject of such plant items as p u m p s , T h e s e c o m m e n t s are o f f e r e d as
c o m p r e s s o r s a n d t h e l i k e , a l t h o u g h in t h e p e r t i n e n t to f u t u r e w o r k on the L o a d i n g s
Kapuni Plant these items were outside C o d e , to w h i c h a m e n d m e n t s are in c o u r s e of
the C o n s u l t a n t ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . preparation.
In t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h i s t y p e o f p l a n t
the provisions for normal service conditions 19.1 Presentation
such as t e m p e r a t u r e , p r e s s u r e , v i b r a t i o n
a n d i n s t a l l a t i o n s t r e s s e s n o r m a l l y r e s u l t in It w a s n o t e d t h a t t h e C o d e is
i n h e r e n t s t r e n g t h a g a i n s t s e i s m i c l o a d s as relatively complex. This applies both
well. to the d e t a i l of the r e q u i r e m e n t s and to
the manner of presentation. The authors
In t h e o v e r a l l d e s i g n o f a p r o c e s s have b e e n r e m i n d e d of this by t h e r e a c t i o n s
p l a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s h o u l d be g i v e n to such of e n g i n e e r s f a m i l i a r w i t h p l a n t d e s i g n
o b v i o u s m a t t e r s as s e c u r e f o u n d a t i o n s and in o t h e r s e i s m i c r e g i o n s , n o t a b l y in J a p a n
anchorage, safety against falling or and the U n i t e d S t a t e s . When the Code
d i s l o d g e d m a t e r i a l , and a v o i d a b l e seismic had b e e n e x p l a i n e d t h e r e was ready
loads i m p a r t e d by r i g i d l y c o n n e c t e d p l a n t a c c e p t a n c e of the m e t h o d s for its
items. a p p l i c a t i o n t o p l a n t s a s d e s c r i b e d in t h i s
paper.
Where special measures are considered
necessary to check the security of critical 19.2 Complexity
i t e m s , it is e s t a b l i s h e d p r a c t i c e f o r t h i s
to b e d o n e by a n a l y s i s or by m e c h a n i c a l test Compared with New Zealand, both Japan
by t h e m a k e r s o r a v e r i f y i n g a u t h o r i t y . and USA have m u c h m o r e extensive data related
to s e i s m i c l o a d i n g , and b o t h h a v e at r i s k
17.6 Vibrating Plant very m u c h larger p o p u l a t i o n s and very m u c h '
g r e a t e r p r o p e r t y in i n d u s t r i a l p l a n t s .
Plant supporting structures subject Requirements for the seismic design of
t o v i b r a t i o n s by h e a v y p l a n t s u c h a s p l a n t s in b o t h c o u n t r i e s a r e a p p r e c i a b l y s i m p l e r
c o m p r e s s o r s a r e likely to be b e s t in a n d l e s s d e m a n d i n g o f e n g i n e e r t i m e (12) .
reinforced concrete and should not be
d e s i g n e d a s T y p e C s t r u c t u r e s a s in 8 T h e C h a i r m a n of the J a p a n e s e
above. committee drafting guidelines for the
seismic d e s i g n of p e t r o c h e m i c a l p l a n t s
17.7 High and Low Operating Temperatures has said that t h o s e g u i d e l i n e s are
intended:
Y i e l d s t r e s s e s c o n s i d e r e d in d e s i g n
must b e a p p l i c a b l e at o p e r a t i n g t e m p e r a t u r e s . "to p r o t e c t p l a n t c o m p o n e n t s from
earthquake damage,"
18. SETTLEMENT AND DEFLECTION
"to p r e v e n t hazards to the public" and
E q u i p m e n t and p r o c e s s design r e q u i r e - that they
ments may impose constraints on settlement
and d e f l e c t i o n w h i c h c a l l f o r s p e c i a l "endeavour to simplify and m a k e the
c o n s i d e r a t i o n in t h e l i g h t of s e i s m i c procedure of seismic design easier as
loadings. m u c h as p o s s i b l e " :

For example in the K a p u n i p l a n t the "and t h a t e m p h a s i s i s g i v e n j o i n t l y t o


following c o n s t r a i n t s w e r e laid d o w n for s a f e t y a n d t o e c o n o m y " (13) . The authors
settlement and deflection induced by h a v e t a k e n t h i s i n t o a c c o u n t in t h e w o r k
settlement: d e s c r i b e d in t h i s p a p e r .

total settlement of any 19.3 Seismic Zoning (14), (15)


foundation 20 mm
T h e s e i s m i c z o n e s p r o v i d e d in t h e
maximum inclination C o d e i n F i g u r e 4 a r e b a s e d o n a b o u t 50
years of a c c u r a t e m a g n i t u d e and l o c a t i o n
- steel structure 6/1000
r e c o r d s a n d a f u r t h e r 90 y e a r s o f l i m i t e d
- concrete structure 3/1000
descriptive information. It is w i d e l y
- vessel 1/1000
h e l d that t h i s is i n s u f f i c i e n t s u p p o r t for
zoning. It b e a r s n o r e l a t i o n t o t h e
pipeline supports, maximum
recorded data upon which Japan and North
inclination d u e to differ-
America have been zoned. (Nevertheless
ential settlement 1/3000
N i i g a t a w a s p l a c e d in a l o w r i s k z o n e
b e f o r e the d i s a s t r o u s e a r t h q u a k e of 1 9 6 4 ) .
I n o b s e r v i n g s u c h r e q u i r e m e n t s it i s
necessary to consider ground motion under
T h e w e a k n e s s e s in t h e z o n i n g m a p ,
seismic loading, as w e l l as p r e d i c t e d
F i g . 4 (1) a r e e v i d e n t i n t h e o r i g i n a l
settlements.
C o m m e n t a r y ( 1 6 ) , s i n c e t h e n h o w e v e r it h a s
remained unchanged. A t o k e n c h a n g e is n o w
In t h i s p r o j e c t a s e t t l e m e n t m o n i t o r -
suggested by the M i n i s t r y of W o r k s and
ing p r o g r a m m e is b e i n g f o l l o w e d f r o m t h e
time of c a s t i n g foundations, the result Development (17). It is r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t
being c o m p a r e d w i t h p r e d i c t i o n s as a g u i d e the zoning p r o v i s i o n s of the Code be
to d e s i g n e d p e r f o r m a n c e u n d e r b o t h static c r i t i c a l l y c o n s i d e r e d in t h e s e i s m i c
ancl s e i s m i c l o a d s . design of important plants.
183

20. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO SEISMIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS;


DESIGN
The authors gratefully acknowledge
Recently there has b e e n a trend to the co-operation of C a p i t a l Plant
a p p l y , in N e w Z e a l a n d , t h e s t a t i s t i c a l o r International Limited, Fish Engineering
r e t u r n period approach to d e t e r m i n e the and C o n s t r u c t i o n Inc. and Toyo E n g i n e e r i n g
b a s i c c o e f f i c i e n t s t o b e u s e d in s e i s m i c Corporation, the valuable contribution
d e s i g n (14, 1 5 , 17) . T h e r e is l o g i c in of R.C. Amos of B r u c e - S m i t h , C h a p m a n and
t h i s a p p r o a c h to d e t e r m i n i n g p r o b a b l e A m o s and the c o m m e n t s of c o r r e s p o n d e n t s
e a r t h q u a k e m a g n i t u d e s for regions w h e r e to 'New Z e a l a n d E n g i n e e r i n g 8
upon the
the data cover a sufficient period of authors 1
i n t r o d u c t o r y p a p e r p u b l i s h e d in
time. H o w e v e r , the N e w Zealand d a t a b a s e t h a t j o u r n a l in M a y 1 9 8 1 .
a s n o t e d in 1 9 . 3 a b o v e i s t o o s h o r t a t i m e
for this purpose. P e r i o d s of seismic REFERENCES:
a c t i v i t y and q u i e s c e n c e are k n o w n to o c c u r
a n d it is i m p o s s i b l e to g a u g e t h e a c t i v i t y 1. NZS 4203:1976 C o d e of P r a c t i c e for
level of the period to w h i c h the limited G e n e r a l S t r u c t u r a l D e s i g n and D e s i g n
data base belongs. Loadings for B u i l d i n g s , Standards
A s s o c i a t i o n of N e w Zealand, W e l l i n g t o n
In using this statistical a p p r o a c h 1976.
t o e s t a b l i s h X X X z o n i n g b o u n d a r i e s , it
s h o u l d be r e m e m b e r e d that N e w Z e a l a n d is 2. H a t r i c k , A . V . " S e i s m i c D e s i g n and
a relatively small country, and that Risk! Bulletin of the N e w Zealand
s t r o n g e a r t h q u a k e e f f e c t s can be felt 100 km National Society for Earthquake
away from the epicentre. A more uniform Engineering, Volume 13, March 1980.
z o n i n g w o u l d seem to be a p p r o p r i a t e as h a s
b e e n c o n s i s t e n t l y suggested for m a n y y e a r s . 3. Cane, F . J . T h e E f f e c t s of Earthquake
u

In f a c t t h e r e is s u p p o r t f o r a Z o n e A f o r L o a d s on t h e D e s i g n of Pressure, V e s s e l
the w h o l e of the South Island and m o s t of the Shells', C o n f e r e n c e o n E n g i n e e r i n g
N o r t h Island, w i t h Zone B for t h e rest of Design for E a r t h q u a k e Environment,
the North Island. November 1978, I Mech E.

The statistical or return period app- 4. American Society of Mechanical


r o a c h , even w i t h its a b o v e s h o r t c o m i n g s Engineers. B o i l e r and P r e s s u r e
for N e w Zealand, has some value when Vessel Code Section VIII Division I.
a s s e s s i n g earthquake m a g n i t u d e s and
distribution. However, the authors 5. Weigel, R.L. editor. "Earthquake
q u e s t i o n t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t o u s e it a s Engineering" Prentice-Hall 1970.
the sole basis for seismic d e s i g n . As
p r o p o s e d , it e l i m i n a t e s t h e u s e o f R i s k 6. Glogau, 0. paper " N . Z . Loadings
F a c t o r and s u b s t i t u t e s r e t u r n p e r i o d s in Code Philosophy". N.Z. Loadings
a r a n g e w h i c h is e x t r a p o l a t e d f a r b e y o n d Code Seminar, Victoria University, 1975.
the limited data base.
7. P a r k , R. a n d B l a k e l e y R . W . G . , "Seismic
The authors consider that the Risk Design of B r i d g e s " N . Z . N.R.B, Road
F a c t o r m e t h o d is b e t t e r s u i t e d t o t h e R e s e a r c h U n i t B u l l e t i n 43 :1980 .
e x e r c i s e of engineering judgement and to
a l l o w i n g for i n d i v i d u a l risk and h e n c e to 8. Priestley, M.J.N.; E v i s o n R.J. and
b u i l d up a b e t t e r general a s s e s s m e n t of the Carr A . J . , " S e i s m i c R e s p o n s e of
e a r t h q u a k e forces w h i c h are a p p r o p r i a t e for Structures free to Rock on their
each particular case. See 14.1 above. Foundations". Bulletin N. Z . Nat.
S o c . E a r t h q u a k e E n g . V o l u m e 11, N o . 3
F u r t h e r , the b a s e c o e f f i c i e n t s as September 1978.
e x i s t i n g in t h e C o d e a r e c o n s i d e r e d t o
o f f e r an a d e q u a t e d e g r e e of p r o t e c t i o n to 9. T a y l o r , P.W. a n d W i l l i a m s R . L . ,
life and property. It h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d "Foundations for C a p a c i t y Designed
b y H a t r i c k (2) t h a t t o a r b i t r a r i l y i n c r e a s e Structures'. B u l l e t i n N . Z. N a t . S o c
the basic design forces offers only a very Earthquake Eng. V o l u m e 12 N o . 2, r

s m a l l i n c r e a s e in p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t June 1979.
structural "failure".
10. Elms, D.G., ^Reliability - Based Risk
21. CONCLUSIONS Factors!! Bulletin N. Z . Nat. Soc.
Earthquake Eng. Volume 13, March 1980.
E x p e r i e n c e in s e i s m i c d e s i g n o f t h e
K a p u n i Fertiliser plant leads to the follow- 11. Shibata, H. and T s u c h i y a , M.
i n g c o n c l u s i o n s in s u m m a r y : "Fundamental Concept of A s e i s m i c
Design of Earthquake Resistant
1. T h e L o a d i n g s C o d e , N Z S 4 2 0 3 , is L i f e l i n e Svsterns a n d I n d u s t r i a l
c a p a b l e of s a t i s f a c t o r y a p p l i c a t i o n to F a c i l i t i e s P r o c . Lifeline Earthquake
the seismic design of plants, as above. Engineering Conference - ASCE 1977.

2. It is r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t f u t u r e 12. D r a f t of A n t i - E a r t h q u a k e D e s i g n C o d e
a m e n d m e n t s to the L o a d i n g s C o d e for H i g h - P r e s s u r e G a s M a n u f a c t u r i n g
i n c l u d e p r o v i s i o n s for p l a n t s . Facilities, 1980. M i n i s t r y of
I n t e r n a t i o n a l T r a d e and I n d u s t r i e s ,
3. In f u t u r e a m e n d m e n t s a t t e n t i o n Japan. (Pers. C o m m ) .
s h o u l d b e p a i d to t h e v i r t u e o f
s i m p l i c i t y b o t h in d e t a i l e d 13. Udoguchi, T.,"Aseismic Design of
r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d in p r e s e n t a t i o n , P l a n t C o m p o n e n t s in P o w e r G e n e r a t i o n
including clarity of l a n g u a g e . and P e t r o c h e m i c a l I n d u s t r i e s " Proc.
184

Third International Conference


on Pressure Vessel Technology, 1977,
A.S.M.E.

14. S m i t h , W . D . " E a r t h q u a k e Risk in


New Zealand: Statistical Estimates.
N e w Zealand J o u r n a l of Geology and
G e o p h y s i c s V o l u m e 21, N o . 3 ( 1 9 7 8 ) :
313-327.

15. Smith, W . D . , " S p a t i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of


Felt Intensities for N e w Zealand
Earthquakes" New Zealand Journal
of Geology and G e o p h y s i c s , V o l u m e
21, No. 3 (1978).293-311.

16. Commentary on C h a p t e r 8 of
NZSS 1900. New Zealand Standards
Institute. 1965.

17. Recommendations for the Seismic


Design of P e t r o c h e m i c a l P l a n t s ,
Ministry of W o r k s and Development,
March 1981.

18. "Building Code R e q u i r e m e n t s for


Reinforced Concrete" ACI 318-77.