Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PTS 11.10.02
October 2013
FOREWORD
PETRONAS Technical Standards (PTS) has been developed based on the accumulated knowledge, experience
and best practices of the PETRONAS group supplementing National and International standards where
appropriate. The key objective of PTS is to ensure standard technical practice across the PETRONAS group.
Compliance to PTS is compulsory for PETRONAS-operated facilities and Joint Ventures (JVs) where PETRONAS
has more than fifty percent (50%) shareholding and/or operational control, and includes all phases of work
activities.
Contractors/manufacturers/suppliers who use PTS are solely responsible in ensuring the quality of work, goods
and services meet the required design and engineering standards. In the case where specific requirements are
not covered in the PTS, it is the responsibility of the Contractors/manufacturers/suppliers to propose other
proven or internationally established standards or practices of the same level of quality and integrity as
reflected in the PTS.
In issuing and making the PTS available, PETRONAS is not making any warranty on the accuracy or
completeness of the information contained in PTS. The Contractors/manufacturers/suppliers shall ensure
accuracy and completeness of the PTS used for the intended design and engineering requirement and shall
inform the Owner for any conflicting requirement with other international codes and technical standards
before start of any work.
PETRONAS is the sole copyright holder of PTS. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise)
or be disclosed by users to any company or person whomsoever, without the prior written consent of
PETRONAS.
The PTS shall be used exclusively for the authorised purpose. The users shall arrange for PTS to be kept in safe
custody and shall ensure its secrecy is maintained and provide satisfactory information to PETRONAS that this
requirement is met.
PTS 11.10.02
SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR ONSHORE FACILITIES October 2013
Page 3 of 24
ANNOUNCEMENT
Please be informed that the entire PTS inventory is currently undergoing transformation exercise
from 2013 - 2015 which includes revision to numbering system, format and content. As part of this
change, the PTS numbering system has been revised to 6-digit numbers and drawings, forms and
requisition to 7-digit numbers. All newly revised PTS will adopt this new numbering system, and
where required make reference to other PTS in its revised numbering to ensure consistency. Users
are requested to refer to PTS 00.01.01 (PTS Index) for mapping between old and revised PTS
numbers for clarity. For further inquiries, contact PTS administrator at
ptshelpdesk@petronas.com.my
PTS 11.10.02
SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR ONSHORE FACILITIES October 2013
Page 4 of 24
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 5
1.1 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................ 5
1.2 GLOSSARY OF TERMS..................................................................................................... 5
1.3 SUMMARY OF CHANGES ............................................................................................... 6
2.0 BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT ................................... 7
2.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................ 7
2.2 SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................... 7
2.3 REQUIREMENT OF SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT....................................................... 9
3.0 DESIGN AND EVALUATION PHILOSOPHY .............................................................. 11
3.1 GENERAL ...................................................................................................................... 11
3.2 DEFINITION OF SHAKING LEVELS ................................................................................. 11
3.3 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................ 12
3.4 OCCUPANCY CATEGORIES ........................................................................................... 12
3.5 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND OCCUPANCY
CATEGORIES ............................................................................................................................. 14
3.6 SUMMARY OF SEISMIC DESIGN LEVEL ........................................................................ 15
3.7 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR LNG PLANT............................................................................... 16
4.0 SEISMIC DESIGN CODE ......................................................................................... 17
4.1 CODE PHILOSOPHY ...................................................................................................... 17
4.2 APPLICABLE CODES FOR DESIGN ................................................................................. 18
5.0 DESIGN METHOD................................................................................................. 19
5.1 STATIC ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................... 19
5.2 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 19
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASPECT ....................................................................................... 21
6.1 LIQUEFACTON .............................................................................................................. 21
6.2 SLOPE STABILITY .......................................................................................................... 21
7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................... 23
PTS 11.10.02
SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR ONSHORE FACILITIES October 2013
Page 5 of 24
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This PTS provides the definition of the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) as the basis for
development of response spectrum and base shear force to be used in civil/structural
design. This PTS was developed to standardize the design criteria in projects and facilities to
ensure safe and reliable operations of civil/structural assets.
This PTS adopts American and European Best Practices with additional requirements as an
amendment and supplement based on PETRONAS lessons learnt and best practices.
1.1 SCOPE
1.1.1 The scope of this PTS covers the the requirements of seismic hazard evaluation for the
proper definition of the Peak Ground Acceleration for Civil/Strcutural Design and Integrity of
onshore projects and facilities including Jetty and other near-shore facilities.
1.1.2 The requirement for the detail structural analysis (static/dynamic/linear/non-linear analysis)
is not covered in this PTS. However the applicable codes and standards as listed in this PTS
can be used as manual, recomendation and guideline for detail design.
Refer to PTS Requirements, General Definition of Terms, Abbreviations & Reading Guide PTS
00.01.03 for General Definition of Terms & Abbreviations.
None
1.2.3 Abbreviations
No Abbreviations Description
No Abbreviations Description
2.1 GENERAL
2.1.1 The seismic hazard assessment is to evaluate and quantify the level of ground motion at the
site to be considered in the seismic design for all PETRONAS onshore facilities including jetty
and marine facilities.
2.1.2 The objective of this PTS is to highlight seismic design requirements in addition to the design
requirements outlined in Table 8.
2.2.1 Seismic hazard assessment involves quantitative estimation of ground motion at the site.
Seismic hazards shall be analysed deterministically, as when a particular earthquake scenario
is assumed, or probabilistically, in which uncertainties in earthquake size, location, and time
of occurrence are explicitly considered. The probabilistic seismic hazard is more
representative in the definition of the peak ground motions and it is mandatory to be carried
out when the desired ground motion for particular site is not covered in any applicable
codes, standards and studies.
2.2.2 The assessment to estimate the seismic hazard shall be carried out through means of a
literature review of global, regional and local seismic hazard studies that are published,
unless site-specific seismic data are available.
2.2.3 Detailed site-specific seismic hazard assessment shall include the following:
i. A review of regional, local and site-specific geology, seismic and tectonics
iii. Characteristic of the regional seismic sources (e.g fault sources, area sources)
iv. Estimation of earthquake recurrence parameters for each source based on both
the geological and seismological data.
d) Define the hazard of the site, in terms of the ground motions produced
at the site by the controlling earthquake
ii. The adoption of a DSHA approach may be desirable where significant active
faults are in close proximity to the site and information exists about those faults
that provide either a check on the appropriateness of the PSHA results, or in
some cases will be a better model than the PSHA. The appropriateness of
incorporating DSHA elements, and the faults studies they are based on, shall be
decided and executed by a seismic expert for review and agreed by the Owner.
ii. In brief the probabilistic seismic hazard assesment (PSHA) shall be described as
procedure of four (4) steps:
2.3.1 The site specific Seismic Hazard Assessment need to be done when a specific ground
acceleration correspond to desired design level are not available in any local or international
codes and standards or if more stringent ground motion than those available in codes and
standards is required by Owner.
2.3.2 The flowchart for the necessity of seismic hazard assessment is presented in Figure 1.0
2.3.3 Unless otherwise stated by Owner structures in Category 3 – Essential Hazard Occupancy as
set forth in section 3.3 in this PTS will require a detailed Seismic Hazard Assessment.
b) Past earthquake records within 500 km radius from proposed site. The
records shall have consistent magnitude and epicentre distance scales.
c) Artificial Earthquake Motion (AEM) for time history analysis (if required
by Owner)
PTS 11.10.02
SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR ONSHORE FACILITIES October 2013
Page 10 of 24
FEL 3 Applicable?
Y
Detailed SHA
Detailed Design:
DETAIL - Static Equivalent
- Response Spectrum Analysis
DESIGN - Time History
- Geohazard
Requirements not
- Tsunami
include in this PTS
3.1 GENERAL
3.1.1 This section defines the seismic hazard assessment philosophy for PETRONAS facilities under
seismic loading. The overall philosophy shall cover the following:
i. Defining the proper ground motion for a site
3.3.1 The performance objectives are intended to provide different level of protection from
damage, consistent with occupancy categories. The elements of these performances are as
follows:
i. Structural Integrity
ii. Containment
iii. Functionality
All structures, systems and components that are needed after an earthquake
shall be designed to maintain functionality. (i.e., continued operability during or
after the design earthquake). Maintaining functionality requires attention to
strength, ductility and deformation limits as well as to stress levels, structural
details, seismic interaction, and protection of essential systems and
components.
3.4.1 For purposes of seismic hazard assessment, three (3) occupancy categories at PETRONAS
facilities shall be used as stated in Table 2. The categories depend on the consequence of
failure of the structures or facilities. Broad definitions of Low Hazard (Category 1),
Substantial Hazard (Category 2) and Essential Hazard (Category 3) are as follows:
Include buildings or other structures with low hazard to human life in the event
of failure. In this category, the structures should sustain no more than repairable
when subject to a rare earthquake (OBE). The failure or collapse of these
structures under a larger very rare earthquake (SSE) shall not impact on other
structures.
life in the event of a failure. This includes specific high occupancy buildings as
well as structures containing sufficient quantities of hazardous materials to be
dangerous to the public if released. In this category, the structures should
sustain no more than minimum damage when subject to a rare earthquake
(OBE) but they shall (PSR) maintain their integrity and to provide containment of
the hazardous material under a very large rare earthquake (SSE). They need not
maintain their general functionality beyond what is required for integrity or
containment. If these structures and components fail, they shall (PSR) fail in a
manner that will preclude release of hazardous material into the environment.
Low Hazard LNG Class C (1), Refinery structures, Lifelines, Normal buildings
LNG Class B(1), Generally all pressurized and toxic storage less than
Substantial Hazard
20,000 m3, High occupancy buildings.
LNG Class A(1), Ethylene tanks, LPG tanks (≥ 20,000 m3), Plants
containing highly toxic (HF, H2S, Chlorine), Generally all
Essential Hazard
refrigerated storage, Fire Suppression System, Control Building,
Emergency Response Centre
3.4.2 In all cases where the occupancy category of a lower category structure shall affect a higher
category structure, the design requirements for the higher category shall (PSR) apply.
PTS 11.10.02
SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR ONSHORE FACILITIES October 2013
Page 14 of 24
3.5.1 Relationship between the performance objectives and occupancy categories are shown in
Table 3. Hazardous material handling facilities and components shall be evaluated to ensure
containment of such hazardous material. Similarly, essential facilities and certain structures
in the hazardous material handling facilities shall be evaluated to maintain selected
functionality.
Performance Objectives
Notes:
(1)
Maintain only those functions which are required for containment
(2)
Maintain only those functions which are required for essential operations or for containment
3.5.2 The relationship between ductility demand and the performance objectives are as follow:
ii. Containment: Limited Ductility, structure may have some plastic hinges but the
release of hazardous material is avoided and evacuation can be done safely but
the system may not function and may require repair for immediate occupancy.
iii. Structural Integrity: Fully Ductile, structure may fail but shall not collapse so
that the emergency response and personnel evacuation can be done in safely
manner for life safety. System may not be able to be repaired.
PTS 11.10.02
SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR ONSHORE FACILITIES October 2013
Page 15 of 24
3.6.1 Design requirements for all PETRONAS onshore including jetty and marine facilities shall
follow this PTS as a minimum, unless there is a specific legal requirement from local
standards authority.
3.6.2 To design for essential hazard structures, the seismic level for OBE and SSE shall correspond
with their performance objectives and ductility demand which are summarized in Table 4 to
Table 6 below:
Seismic Level Return Period Performance Ductility Demand
OBE 475 years Functionality Elastic
SSE 2475 years or Containment Limited Ductility
4975 years(1)
3.7.1 Two different seismic hazard levels, the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) and the Safe
Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) shall be defined for the design of PETRONAS LNG plants as
described below:
i. The OBE is a rare event that the site may be subjected to during its design life.
This shall have a return period of 475 years.
ii. The SSE is a very rare earthquake of extreme magnitude for the facility location.
PGA and return period that shall be used are shown in Table 7.
Seismicity PGA Return period
Higher OBE 0.25g 2475 years
Moderate 0.15g > OBE < 0.25g Interpolation
Lower OBE < 0.15g 4975 years
3.7.2 The different parts of an LNG plant shall be subdivided into three classes in accordance with
EN 1473. Each shall be designed to different criteria. The three classes of plant systems are
defined on basis of their importance, namely:
i. Class A
Systems which are vital to the plant safety. They shall (PSR) remain operational for
both OBE and SSE. The secondary containment of LNG tanks and fire
suppression systems shall be in Class A.
ii. Class B
Systems performing vital functions for the plant operation or systems for which
rupture can create a hazard for the plant for which collapse could cause a major
impact on the environment or could lead to additional hazard. These systems
shall remain operational after the OBE and shall (PSR) keep their integrity in case
of SSE. The primary container of all LNG tanks shall be in Class B.
iii. Class C
Other systems. These systems shall remain operational after OBE and shall not
fail on or impact other systems classes and components after SSE.
PTS 11.10.02
SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR ONSHORE FACILITIES October 2013
Page 17 of 24
This section defines the seismic design approach that shall be used for the various facilities
and structures covered in this PTS.
4.1.1 The philosophy of a particular document indicates the general level of protection that it can
be expected to provide. Most code documents clearly state that their standards are
minimum requirements that are meant to provide for life safety but not to insure against
collapse.
4.1.2 The code-specified forces are generally lower than the actual forces that would occur in a
large or moderate size earthquake. This is because the structure is designed to carry the
specified loads within allowable stresses and deflections, which are considerably less than
the ultimate or yield capacity (when using working stress design) of the materials and
system. It is assumed that the larger loads that actually occur will be accounted for by the
factors of safety and by the redundancy and ductility of the system. Life safety is thereby
insured but structural damage may be sustained.
4.1.3 Specialist code for essential hazards such EN 1473 and NFPA 59A addresses the
requirements of structures to sustain minor structural damage aftershocks for SSE and
resume its function for OBE.
PTS 11.10.02
SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR ONSHORE FACILITIES October 2013
Page 18 of 24
4.2.1 Table 8 provides a summary of common codes and identifies the facilities that are covered
by these codes.
List of Codes Applicability
a) Normal Buildings,
b) Refineries,
i. EN 1998 (Europe)
c) Normal Tanks,
d) Equipment
a) Normal Buildings,
b) Refineries,
ii. ASCE 7 (USA)
c) Non Hydrocarbon Tanks,
d) Equipment
a) Normal Buildings,
b) General Tanks,
iii. UBC 1997/IBC 2000 (USA)
c) Equipment
a) Equipment,
iv. EN 1473 (Europe)
b) LNG
LNG Tanks
v. API 2610 (USA)
LNG Tanks
vi. API 620 (USA)
Normal Tanks
vii. API 650 (USA)
a) Equipment,
viii. NFPA 59A (USA)
b) LNG
Design method for superstructure is generally divided into static-equivalent method and
dynamic method. Brief description and their requirements for each method are described in
subsequent sections.
5.1.1 For all superstructure designs it is necessary to perform a static analysis. This establishes a
minimum level for design displacements and forces. The static analysis is also useful for
preliminary design of the structure when dynamic analysis is required and for design review.
Under certain circumstances it may be the only design method used.
ii. Regular structures under 75m in height with lateral force resistance provided by
systems listed in Table 16-N UBC 1997, except where Section 1629.8.4, Item 4,
UBC 1997 applies.
iii. Irregular structures not more than five stories or 20m in height.
iv. Structures having a flexible upper portion supported on a rigid lower portion
where both portions of the structure considered separately can be classified as
being regular, the average story stiffness of the lower portion is at least 10 times
the average story stiffness of the upper portion and the period of the entire
structure is not greater than 1.1 times the period of the upper portion
considered as a separate structure fixed at the base.
5.2.1 Structure which is not qualified to be designed solely by static procedure shall be designed
by means of dynamic procedure. Dynamic analyses procedures, when used, shall be based
on an appropriate ground motion representation as resulted from site specific seismic
hazard assessment and shall be performed using accepted principles of dynamics design.
General description for dynamic procedures is presented in the subsequent sub-chapter.
6.1 LIQUEFACTON
6.1.1 Preliminary study for potential liquefaction shall (PSR) be addressed in the geotechnical
investigation. Using criteria originally stated by Seed and Idriss (1982) and subsequently
confirmed by Youd and Gilstrap (1999), in order for a cohesive soil to liquefy, it must meet
all the following three criteria:
i. The soil must have less than 15 percent of the particles, based on dry weight,
that are finer than 0.005 mm (i.e., percent finer at 0.005 mm 15 percent).
ii. The soil must have a liquid limit (LL) that is less than 35 (that is, LL 35).
iii. The water content of the soil must be greater than 0.9 of the liquid limit [that is,
w >0.9 (LL)].
6.1.2 If the cohesive soil does not meet all three (3) criteria, then it is generally considered to be
not susceptible to liquefaction. Although the cohesive soil may not liquefy, there could still
be a significant un-drained shear strength loss due to the seismic shaking.
6.2.1 The seismic evaluation of slope stability shall (PSR) be addressed in the geotechnical study.
The slope stability related to seismic design can be grouped into two general categories i.e.,
inertia slope stability analysis and weakening slope stability analysis.
The inertia slope stability analysis is preferred for those materials that retain their shear
strength during the earthquake. Examples of these types of soil and rock are as follows:
b) Soils that tend to dilate during the seismic shaking, or, for example,
dense to very dense granular soil and heavily over consolidated cohesive
soil such as very stiff to hard clays.
c) Soils that have a stress-strain curve that does not exhibit a significant
reduction in shear strength with strain. Earthquake-induced slope
movement in these soils often takes the form of soil slumps or soil block
slides.
e) Soils located above the groundwater table. These soils often have
negative pore water pressure due to capillary action.
PTS 11.10.02
SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR ONSHORE FACILITIES October 2013
Page 22 of 24
f) Landslides that have a distinct rupture surface and the shear strength
along the rupture surface is equal to the drained residual shear strength
′r.
The weakening slope stability analysis is preferred for those materials that will
experience a significant reduction in shear strength during the earthquake. Examples
of these types of soil and rock are as follows:
c) Soft clays and organic soils that are overloaded and subjected to plastic
flow during the earthquake.
Flow slide: flow slides develop when the static driving forces
exceed the shear strength of the soil along the slip surface,
and thus the factor of safety is less than 1.0.
7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
PETRONAS STANDARDS
AMERICAN STANDARDS
EUROPEAN STANDARDS
OTHER STANDARDS
OTHER REFERENCES
The Seismic Design Handbook 2nd Edition, Edited by Farzad ISBN 0-412-07891-0
Naeim. Van Nostrand Reinhold.