Advanced Mechanical Sample Dissertation

University of
Aberdeen
Lateral Stiffness of Piperack

Support Structures
EG59M9, Individual Project Presented

By
Peter Christie, BEng
(51766514)
A dissertation submitted in partial

fulfilment of the requirements of the
award of
Master of Science
in
Advanced Mechanical Engineering at the
University of Aberdeen
August, 2018
Lateral Stiffness of Piperack Support Structures
Abstract
Recent seismic events have resulted in excessive economic loss and has
been concluded that the level of structural damage, in piperack type struc-
tures, is directly related to excessive deformations [1]. This study attempts
to develop a preliminary design algorithm for approximating lateral stiff-
ness in piperack structures, that can be used as a tool to optimise them for
earthquake performance. Previous modelling has been done on this sub-
ject by Irvine [2]. The study presented here attempted to take the initial
preliminary work of Irvine [2] further and develop a more generally applica-
ble design algorithm for approximating lateral stiffness in piperack support
systems. This work had two main deliverables which were the ability to in-
clude, non-uniform and irregular frames. A further deliverable of this study
was to include bracing in the approximate algorithm.
The method presented here is an original approach based upon calculat-
ing the storey drift of each storey. Initial work on the Tanh approximation
developed a considerably more complex set of manipulation equations than
Irvine. Conducting further investigations into this method revealed the need
for a corrected first storey stiffness approximation. Once the method was
adapted to the first storey correction a number of irregular, non-uniform,
and braced frames were investigated.
The results of this study saw the first two deliverables met with great
success, while only partial success was obtained in including braced frames.
For non-uniform and irregular frames the vast majority of approximations
were found to be within 5% of the actual stiffness, with only a few results
over 10% and the worse at c.14%. The level of accuracy obtained from
this algorithm provides justification for the more complex equations used.
The investigation of bracing, while not a complete success, provided an
interesting avenue for further research.
ii
Contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Project Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Project Aim and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Background Theory and Literature Review 3

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Piperack Support Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.1 Regular and Irregular Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.2 Bracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 Lateral Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.1 Earthquake Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.2 Lateral Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 Approximating the Lateral Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4.1 Schultz, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4.2 Hosseini and Imagh-e Naiini, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4.3 Miranda and Reyes, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3 Review of Previous Approach 10

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2 Limits of Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.1 Upper Limit - Rigid Frame with Infinitely Stiff Beam 10
3.2.2 Lower Limit - Rigid Frame with Beam Stiffness Tend-
ing to Zero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.3 µ Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3 Infinitely Stiff Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
iii
3.4 Hyperbolic Tangent Curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5 Frame Analysis Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4 Method 15
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2 Generalising Infinitely Stiff Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.1 Bracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3 Hyperbolic Tangent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3.1 Coefficient Curve Fitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.3.2 Multidimensional Curve Fitting . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.4 Individual Storey Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.4.1 Illustrative Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5 Results, Development and Discussion 29

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.2 Story Drift - Regular, Uniform Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.3 Discussion on the β Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.4 Individual Storey Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.4.1 First Floor Correction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.4.2 Regular Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.4.3 Irregular Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.4.4 Summary of Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.5 Bracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.5.1 Inclusion in the Infinitely Stiff Model . . . . . . . . . 41
5.5.2 Modelling Bracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6 Conclusions and Further Directions 46

6.1 Further Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
References 49
Appendices 49
A MATLAB Tanh Script 50
B Multi 54
C Ethics Review Checklist 56
iv
List of Figures
2.1 Typical piperack support structure found in petrochemical

works. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Showing stiffness ratios (Ke /K∞ ) for a nine storey elastic
frame: a) 9th storey; b) 5th storey; c) 1st storey, adapted
from Schultz [7]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Simplified elastic frame, combination of flexural and shear
deformations [14]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1 Bracing types; a) Diagonal brace, b) X-brace, c) Chevron

brace and d) K-brace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2 Hyperbolic Tangent Curve for 5 storey 1 bay structure. . . . 19
4.3 Sample line fitting for coefficient (a), at 3 storeys high and
various number of bays. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.4 Sample line fitting for coefficient (c), at 3 storeys high and
4.5 Sample line fitting for coefficient (d), at 3 storeys high and
4.6 Three dimensional surface fit, relating P1a and P2a to the
number of bays and storeys in a frame. . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.7 Irregular non-uniform frame used for the illustrative example
shown below. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.1 Showing Ke /Ka ratio for a number of one storey, multi-bay

frames at Lb /Lc ratio’s of 0.5, 1, and 2. Along with compar-
ison Irvine’s method, Data points in red are calculated using
Irvine’s Tanh coefficients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2 Showing Ke /Ka ratio for a number of three storey, multi-
bay frames at Lb /Lc ratio’s of 0.5, 1, and 2. Along with
comparison Irvine’s method, Data points in red are calculated
using Irvine’s Tanh coefficients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
v
5.3 Showing Ke /Ka ratio for a number of five storey, multi-bay
frames at Lb /Lc ratio’s of 0.5, 1, and 2. Along with compar-
ison Irvine’s method, Data points in red are calculated using
Irvine’s Tanh coefficients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.4 a) Three storey, three bay frame modelled using original ap-
proach. b) Three storey, three bay frame modelled using Ns
equal to one for first floor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.5 Showing three storey, three bay frame modelled using Ns =
1 × ζf s for the first storey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.6 Showing normalised stiffness against Ic ratio for nine-bay,
five-storey frame. Where, a) shows Lb /Lc = 0.5, b) shows
Lb /Lc = 1 , c) shows Lb /Lc = 1.5, d) shows Lb /Lc = 2 . . . . 37
two-storey frame. Where, a) shows Lb /Lc = 0.5, b) shows
5.8 Showing normalised stiffness against Ic ratio for two-bay,
two-storey frame. Where, a) shows Lb /Lc = 0.5, b) shows
5.9 Showing normalised stiffness against Ic ratio for five-bay,
four-storey irregular frame. Where, a) shows Lb /Lc = 0.5, b)
shows Lb /Lc = 1 , c) shows Lb /Lc = 1.5, d) shows Lb /Lc = 2 39
three-storey irregular frame. Where, a) shows Lb /Lc = 0.5,
b) shows Lb /Lc = 1 , c) shows Lb /Lc = 1.5, d) shows Lb /Lc = 2 40
5.11 Ke /Ka ratio for various Infinitely stiff regular uniform braced
frames, Lb /Lc equal to one. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.12 Ke /Ka ratio for various nine-bay Infinitely stiff regular uni-
form braced frames, at different Lb /Lc ratios . . . . . . . . . 42
5.13 Ke /Ka ratio for various Infinitely stiff regular uniform braced
frames, at Lb /Lc ratio equal to one, modelled using corrected
ISM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.14 Ke /Ka ratio for various nine-bay Infinitely stiff regular uni-
form braced frames, at different Lb /Lc ratios, modelled using
corrected ISM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.15 Showing ratio Ke /Ka for braced nine-bay, two-storey frame,
modelled using Tanh curve developed in Section 4.3. . . . . 45
5.16 Showing ratio Ke /Ka for braced nine-bay, two-storey frame,
modelled using experimentally altered Tanh curve. . . . . . . 45
vi
B.1 Three dimensional surface fit, relating P1c and P2c to the
B.2 Three dimensional surface fit, relating P1d and P2d to the
vii
List of Tables
4.1 Showing the coefficients for various Lc/Lb ratio for 5 storey,
1 bay structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2 Parameters for Frame shown in Fig. 4.7. . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.3 Comparison between frame analysis package “MASTAN2 ”
and Individual Storey Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.1 Showing non-dimensional parameters for nine-bay, five-storey

non-uniform frame. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.2 Showing non-dimensional parameters for nine-bay, five-storey
5.3 Showing non-dimensional parameters for nine-bay, two-storey
5.4 Showing non-dimensional parameters for two-bay, two-storey
5.5 Showing non-dimensional parameters for five-bay, four-storey
irregular frame shown in Fig. 4.7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.6 Showing non-dimensional parameters for nine-bay, three-storey
irregular frame. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
viii
Nomenclature
List of Symbols
∆ Maximum Displacement of Elastic Frame
∆µ Displacement Due to µ Effect
∆KM ax Displacement of Frame For Maximum Stiffness
∆Story Displacement of Storey Assuming Infinitely Stiff Beams
µb Correction Factor for µ Effect in Braced Frames
Ab Cross-sectioal Area of Beam
Ac Cross-sectioal Area of Column
Abr Cross-sectioal Area of Brace
D Distance Between Outer Columns in a Frame Storey
E Young’s Modulus of Elasticity
FL Lateral Force
H Height of Frame Structure
i Currect Storey Within Frame
IA Frame Moment of Inertia
Ib Beam Moment of Inertia
Ic Column Moment of Inertia
Ka Approximate Lateral Stiffness
Ke Exact Lateral Stiffness
KL Lateral Stiffness
ix
KS Lateral Stiffness of Elastic Frame Storey
Kbr Stiffness of Bracing
L Length from Frame Base to Storey
Lb Length of Beam
Lc Length of Column
Lbr Length of Brace
Nb Number of Bay’s
Nc Number of Columns in Storey
Ns Number of Storeys
Nbr Number of Bay’s With Bracing
Nsf Corrected Number of Storeys For First Floor
Pi Lateral Force Acting on Storey
Ps,i Summation of the Lateral Forces Acting on Storey
Abbreviations
% Percent
c. Circa (Approximately)
m Metres
mm Millimetres
N Newton’s
x
Acknowledgments
Firstly, I would like to thank my project supervisor, Dr Paul Davidson

for the help and support given throughout this project.
Secondly, I would like to acknowledge fellow student Gavin Irvine for the
previous research he conducted on this subject, which provided the basis
for the body of work presented here.
Finally, I would like to thank my sister, Claire, for proof reading my work.
xi
xii
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Project Overview
Piperack support structures are required in petrochemical works, as well as

other industrial plants, to support pipe systems connecting one part of the
plant to another. In the case of the petrochemical industry these pipes could
potentially be transporting highly flammable or corrosive fluids. As such,
the structural integrity of these pipes is of paramount importance. In order
to ensure the structural integrity, the pipes cannot be subjected to too much
deformation. Recent seismic events have resulted in excessive economic loss,
the international community of seismic engineering concluded that the level
of structural and nonstructural damage in a building is a direct consequence
of excessive levels of deformation [1]. The dangers of lateral deformation
due to seismic loading is therefore a field deserving particular consideration.
Currently, piperack support frameworks are characterised in terms of
their lateral stiffness. Analysis of frame structures, subjected to lateral
loading requires knowledge of their lateral stiffness for calculation of dis-
placements. At present the use of structural analysis techniques, such as
computational finite element packages, are employed extensively in industry.
These packages can be used to analyse frame structures to an exceedingly
high degree of accuracy for both static and dynamic loading conditions.
However, these methods can be computationally expensive, especially when
many simulations are required to find the optimal design for the frames
structural needs. Therefore, there are strong justifications for a simple
mathematical model to be developed that can be used to approximate the
response of piperacks to lateral loads to a sufficiently high standard.
This project aims to develop a quick algorithmic approach for estimating
the lateral stiffness of piperacks. The algorithm should act as a preliminary
1
tool to optimise the frame for earthquake performance requirements, before
embarking on more rigorous computer analysis. Previous modelling has
been carried out providing the foundations for this project.
1.2 Project Aim and Objectives

The main aim of this project is to take the previous work, conducted by
fellow student Gavin Irvine (2018), further and develop a more generic, an-
alytically validated, design algorithm. That can be used to predict to a
reasonable degree of accuracy the lateral stiffness of piperack support struc-
tures.
The objectives of this project are to:
• Review available literature to contextualise such an algorithm.
• Generalise Irvine’s Infinitely Stiff Model to accommodate changing

section, changing geometry, and bracing in piperack frame structures.
• Analyse, using finite element methods and the elastic frame analysis
package “MASTAN2”, a wide range of framework geometries.
• Use the results of the analyses to demonstrate in a parametric fashion

how lateral stiffness is affected by changes in frame geometry and
sizing.
• Use the parametric variations in the previous objective to develop an

approximate algorithm for predicting to a reasonable accuracy the
piperack lateral stiffness.
• Investigate the use of approximate algorithm to model Irregular, non-

uniform and braced frames.
• Summarise work and draw relevant conclusions.
2
Chapter 2
Background Theory and

Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents relevant background theory as well as an overview of

piperacks support structures and seismic loading. Furthermore, the princi-
ples of lateral stiffness and it’s place in piperack analyses will be introduced.
Finally, this chapter will go on to discuss and evaluate previous attempts to
approximate the lateral stiffness in piperack type frame structures through
reviewing relevant literature.
2.2 Piperack Support Structures
Piperack support structures are generally described as elastic frame struc-

tures. As stated in the previous chapter, piperack supports are used in
industrial plants to support the sites piping systems between process ar-
eas and storage. These structures can also be required to support electric
cables, equipment such as air fans, and in some cases maintenance/repair
platforms [3]. Fig. 2.1 shows a example of a typical piperack support struc-
tures that needs to meet all of the aforementioned requirements. From Fig.
2.1 it is not hard to imagine how complicated and time consuming analy-
sis can become. Whats more, due to the wide range of potential piperack
structures some definition between different frame geometry’s within this
study is required.
3
2.2.1 Regular and Irregular Frames
Regular frame structures are defined here as frames in which the basic struc-
ture does not change between floors (the number of bays and storeys remain
constant through out the piperack). Irregular frames on the other hand
refers to frames which include setbacks and irregularity in terms of the
number of bays and storeys, such as the piperack seen in Fig. 2.1.
Frames can also be defined as uniform or non-uniform to describe how
the storey parameters, such as the area, length, moment of inertia, and
Young’s modulus, change for the beams and columns within the frame.
In a uniform frame all storey parameters are identical for every storey.
In contrast, the parameters vary between storeys in non-uniform frames.
Therefore, with in this study regular and irregular frames can be either
uniform or non-uniform.
2.2.2 Bracing
An effective and economical way to improve the lateral force resistance of the
piperack is to include bracing members in the frame [4, 1]. Fundamentally
there are two types of bracing, concentric and eccentric.
Concentric Bracing
Concentric bracing is diagonal braces located in the plane of the frame

with axes that align concentrically at the joints, and tend to be made from
structural steel or composite materials [4, 5]. This type of brace is efficient
in resisting lateral forces due to the high stiffness, strength they provide in
addition to a wide array of possible configurations. This type of bracing is
common place in areas of seismic activity and it provides suitable lateral
stiffness to manage lateral load impacts and prevent excessive displacement
resulting from earthquakes [4].
Eccentric Bracing
Eccentric bracing differs from concentric bracing in regards to where the

brace is joined to the frame. [6]. This type of bracing manages to combines
the properties of a moment frame and a concentrically braced frame, while
providing greater ductility and more efficient energy dissipation [4]. Fur-
thermore, eccentric bracing has more scope to customise the brace to better
resist specific loading situations. However, due to the bespoke nature of
4
this bracing it is not as suitable for an approximate algorithm, such as the
one in this study.
Figure 2.1: Typical piperack support structure found in petrochemical works.
2.3 Lateral Analysis

2.3.1 Earthquake Loading
In many parts of the world one of the greatest piperack design challenges
can be to design structures to for earthquake loading. For this study, similar
to Schultz [7] the earthquake loading is considered as a series regular static
loads that are applied uniformly on each storey. This simplification to the
loading can be used effectively to provide preliminary static analysis of the
frame.
2.3.2 Lateral Stiffness

The lateral stiffness of an elastic body is a measure of how resistant the
body is to lateral movement when subjected to a force [8]. The relation-
ship between force and lateral displacement for a single degree of freedom
(SDOF) system,
FL = KL δL , (2.1)
shows how the lateral stiffness (KL ) can be thought of as the force (FL )
required to achieve displacement (δL ) in the lateral direction, or the force
per unit length. The lateral stiffness term itself is defined by Manohar and
5
Madhekar [8] for an elastic body as the “reciprocal of flexibility”, which again
relates the stiffness to the extent an elastic member will deform under some
form of loading.
Lateral Stiffness of a Storey
When considering elastic frames, such as piperack support structures, the

lateral stiffness of a storey has been historically used for analysing frames [7,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, inter alia]. Schultz [7] defined the lateral stiffness of a storey
as a ratio between the storey shear and storey drift. The storey shear is the
summation of lateral loads that act upon the storey under consideration.
Storey drift is the lateral displacement of the storey independent to the
storeys (or ground) below, and not the total lateral displacement of the
frame at the storey level [7].
2.4 Approximating the Lateral Stiffness

Estimation of lateral stiffness in elastic frame structures has been an relevant
topic of research for many years. This section will review relevant literature
concerning the approximation of lateral stiffness in elastic frame structures
and help provide context to the methods applied in the following chapters.
2.4.1 Schultz, 1992

In Schultz’s paper the lateral stiffness for a multi-bay, multi-storey elastic
frame structure is investigated. This investigation resulted in the develop-
ment of a set of explicit, closed-form expressions for approximating storey
lateral stiffness in frames. Schultz also discovered that the lateral stiffness of
the building changes unexpectedly at the ‘boundary storeys’. The boundary
storeys are defined by Schultz as the top and bottom storeys. Furthermore,
the second storey could be consisted a boundary storey due to the prop-
agation of fixed-base conditions in the bottom (1st) storey. A correction
factor was developed and included in Schultz expressions to account for
these previously unforeseen changes in the storeys lateral stiffness.
As an initial test case Schultz analysed a nine storey, five bay elastic
frame. This initial investigation lead to the production of the graphs shown
in Fig. 2.2. These graphs show the stiffness (Ke ) for the ninth, fifth, and
first storeys, normalised against the stiffness of the these storeys under an
infinitely stiff beam assumption (K∞ )1 .
1
see section 3.2.1 for full description of infinitely stiff beam assumption (K∞ )
6
Figure 2.2: Showing stiffness ratios (Ke /K∞ ) for a nine storey elastic frame: a) 9th
storey; b) 5th storey; c) 1st storey, adapted from Schultz [7].
In Fig. 2.2 the x-axis variables α and β are parameters describing the
relative stiffness of the storey beams and columns. Assuming the beams
and columns are made from the same material and have the same Young’s
modulus,
Ib /Lb
α= , (2.2)
Ic /Lc
and,
Ic /Lc 1
β= = . (2.3)
Ib /Lb α
Where; Lb , Ib and Lc , Ic are the lengths and moments of inertia for the
beams and columns respectively. It can be seen from Fig. 2.2 that the fifth
storey is the least stiff followed closely by the ninth storey. However, in
the first storey there is a noticeable increase in the stiffness, this is most
probably due to the fixed base. The first and ninth storeys are examples of
the boundary storeys described by Schultz as having higher stiffness than
the intermediate fifth storey.
This study forms the basic for subsequent work on approximating lateral
stiffness in elastic frames. The similaritys of Fig. 2.2 to a hyperbolic tangent
7
curve provided the methodological approach for Irvine [2] and this research.
2.4.2 Hosseini and Imagh-e Naiini, 1999

‘A Quick Method For Estimating the Lateral Stiffness of Building Systems’
by Hosseini and Imagh-e Naiini [9] outlines a technique for approximating
the lateral stiffness of building structures. The method presented can be
used to analyse a wide range of geometries and frame elements, including
moment frames, braced frames and shear walls.
The basic methodology for this approximation is to consider each storey
as an equivalent single-bay single-storey frame module and analyse each
module separately to eventually build up an overall response for the frame
structure. Bracing and other ‘extra’ elements can all included in the module
stiffness.
The approach taken in this study to include bracing was adopted and
incorporated into the method described in chapter 4.
2.4.3 Miranda and Reyes, 2002

In the paper ‘Approximate Lateral Drift Demands in Multistorey Buildings
with Non-uniform Stiffness’ by Miranda and Reyes, a method is presented
to estimate roof displacements and inter-storey drift ratios in multi-storey
elastic frames when subjected to earthquake ground motion. It is based
upon a simplified model that consists of a flexural cantilever beam and a
shear cantilever beam elements. This model is depicted in Fig. 2.3, and
was used to estimate roof displacement and inter-storey drift.
Figure 2.3: Simplified elastic frame, combination of flexural and shear deformations [14].
8
The construction of a cantilever analogy allowed for the development of
the simplified approach to the limits of stiffness developed by Irvine and
described in the next chapter.
9
Chapter 3
Review of Previous Approach
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a review and critique of the previous approach of
Irvine [2] to help contextualise the method and approach taken in this dis-
sertation. Irvine’s methodology was inspired by Schultz’s work, in particular
the graphs shown in Fig. 2.2. Irvine recognised that Fig. 2.2 resembles a
hyperbolic tangent curve and could be used to approximate the response of
an elastic frame. The initial work determined the upper and lower limits for
stiffness. This lead to the development of an expression for displacement at
maximum stiffness. Following this, a hyperbolic tangent representation of
the ratio of frame displacements at maximum stiffness to actual stiffness,
similar to graphs presented by Schultz [7], was investigated. Irvine success-
fully a means to approximate the lateral displacement for regular elastic
frames via the hyperbolic tangent curve.
3.2 Limits of Stiffness

A key component of Irvine’s research was to define the upper and lower
limits of frame lateral stiffness. Irvine used a cantilever analogy, similar to
Miranda and Reyes [14], to define these limits. An outline of the approach
taken is given below.
3.2.1 Upper Limit - Rigid Frame with Infinitely Stiff

Beam
A frame with infinitely stiff beams presents the upper limit for lateral stiff-
ness of a frame storey, giving rise the lowest possible displacements. For
Irvine’s upper limit the inter-column beams are assumed to be infinitely stiff,
10
and that the columns are identical, the lateral load being spread evenly be-
tween the columns [2, 15]. Furthermore, this assumption also implies that
the columns do not transfer any moment into the beam [15].
Irvine summarised from this simple model that the storey lateral stiff-
ness,
12ENc Ic
KS = , (3.1)
L3c
can be approximated in the same way as the stiffness of a fixed-guided
cantilever beam with te load applied at the guided end. In Equation (3.1),
E is Young’s modulus of elasticity, Nc is the number of columns, Ic is the
moment of inertia and Lc is the length of the column (or the height of the
storey).
3.2.2 Lower Limit - Rigid Frame with Beam Stiffness

Tending to Zero
As the beam stiffness tends to zero the frame will show the largest deflec-
tions. Hence, this model presents Irvine lower limit for lateral stiffness of a
storey. For this model, the entire frame can be considered as a cantilever
beam (fixed at one end and free at the other, with point loads applied at
regular intervals up the cantilever). It is possible to represent the frame
this way because the beam stiffness is so low that there will be next to no
rotational resistance at each storey. Hence, representing the storey stiffness
as,
3EIc 2EIc
KS = + 2 (H − Li ), (3.2)
L3i Li
provides a good estimation under these conditions. In Equation (3.2) H
is the height of the frame, Li refers to the length from the base to the
storey being considered and all other symbols have the same meaning as in
Equation (3.1).
This expression merely provides a lowest possible value only the upper
limit is taken forward in the method.
3.2.3 µ Effect
The µ effect, as named by Irvine [2], is the ratio between column moment
of inertia to the cross sectional area that causes significant errors in the
simplified model presented in the section 3.2.1. The µ effect is comparable
to the stress distribution in a fixed-free cantilever beam with a point load
at the free end, with one side being in tension while the other will be in
11
compression.
In the case of the model shown in section 3.2.1 the columns will act in the
same way as described by the stress distribution analogy made above. This
effect causes axial deformation in the columns that increases the maximum
lateral displacement of the frame. To compensate for this Irvine presented
the following term to be added to displacement calculations;
Pi L3i Pi L2i
∆µ = + (H − Li ), (3.3)
3EIA 2EIA
where,
Ac D 2
IA = , (3.4)
2
is the structures moment of inertia. In equations (3.3) and (3.4) above, Pi
is the lateral load acting to the storey, H is the total height of the frame ,
D is the distance between outer columns and Ac is the area of the columns
in the storey. Equation (3.4) also assumes there are only two columns
in a storey, this was not mentioned in the original text but was implied.
This term is effectively used to incorporate flexural displacement into the
maximum stiffness model. However, there may be a limitations to assigning
a moment of inertia term for the whole structure as it may not account for
any variations in the frame.
3.3 Infinitely Stiff Model

The complete formula presented was developed by including this µ effect
into the displacement of the upper limit model. Within Irvine’s original
dissertation this formula was not given a specific name, for ease of reference
it will be refereed to here on as the ‘Infinitely Stiff Model’ (ISM). The
expression for the ISM is,
Ns
X
∆M ax = ∆storey + ∆µ , (3.5)
Ns =1
where ∆storey is the displacement of the storey calculated from (3.1). The
fully expanded ISM expression,
Ns
L3c L3i L2i
X
∆M ax = Ps,i + + (H − Li ) Pi , (3.6)
i=1
12ENc Ic 3EIA 2EIA
where Ps,i is the summation of the lateral loads acting on the specific storey.
Equation (3.6) presented in Irvine’s work assumes the storeys are uniform.
12
Furthermore, it is also assumed that all the storeys have the same number
of bay’s and hence columns. This is a limitation of this approach as it limits
the user to regular structures with identical storeys. Irvine recognised this
limitation and offers a worked example to explore how the ISM could be
corrected. However, no specific equation was presented.
3.4 Hyperbolic Tangent Curve
As previously stated, Irvine recognised that Fig. 2.2 resembles a hyperbolic

tangent curve. This provided the basis for the estimation of the lateral
displacement in elastic frames. The following hyperbolic tangent function
was presented by Irvine,
y = a · tanh(b · (x − 1) + c) + d, (3.7)
where, y is the ratio of ∆M ax /∆, x is α or β (whichever is greater that 1) and

a, b, c and d are all parameters that manipulate the shape of the hyperbolic
tangent curve. Irvine developed the following equations to calculate the
manipulation parameters;
e0.5Ns × e−0.3Nb Lc

a = 0.02Ns + 0.33 − , (3.8)
200 Lb
b = 0.30, (3.9)
× e−0.16Nb
0.06Ns
e Lc
c = ln + [0.14 ln(Nb ) − 0.1], (3.10)
2.4 Lb

Lc
d = 0.1 ln + 0.55e−0.03Ns . (3.11)
Lb
For the above equations Ns and Nb refers to the number of storeys and bays
respectively. These manipulation parameters were developed using manual
rudimentary curve fitting. However, this time consuming approach, while
involving considerable effort and precision, limits the number of examples
which can be analysed. Within the final equations it is difficult to determine
how the Ns and Nb where related to the fitted curve.
These parameter performed reasonably well when tested against three
different regular uniform frame geometries with all but one of the results
being c.10% of the correct value. The outlier of these results was for a two
storey, three bay frame which produced an error of 26% for a β value of 6.
13
3.5 Frame Analysis Approach
Irvine’s approach for analysing frame structures was to calculate the re-
sponse with Infinitely stiff beams for the whole structure. Following this,
a hyperbolic tangent curve was approximated using equations (3.7 - 3.11)
to represent the entire frame structure. The response of the frame could
then be acquired. This approach allows for fast calculations which appear
to be reasonable accurate and ideal for preliminary analysis. However, this
methodology requires the hyperbolic tangent curve to be calculable for the
whole structure in one iteration. Consequently, this approach effectively
constricts the use of (3.7) to purely regular structures with no variation
between storeys.
14
Chapter 4
Method
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the approach used in this study for the approxima-
tion of lateral stiffness. The approach presented here aims to further the
work done by Irvine [2] and derive a more general method for estimating
the response of elastic frames under uniform lateral loading. Firstly, the
infinitely stiff model (ISM) will be generalised to accommodate individual
storey parameters, irregular frames, and bracing. Following this, equations
will be derived for new manipulation parameters of the hyperbolic tangent
function. Finally, the methodological approach will be described in full.
4.2 Generalising Infinitely Stiff Model

The first step in developing a more generally applicable method for esti-
mating the lateral stiffness was to generalise the ISM. As mentioned in the
Chapter 3 the maximum displacement,
Ns
X
∆Kmax = ∆storey + ∆µ ,
i=1
for elastic frames with infinitely stiff beams can be estimated by summing
the response of each storey. The equation presented in the previous study
(3.6) can easily be adapted to accommodate changes in section and geome-
ters between storeys. Accordingly, each storey is considered individually,
Ns
L3c,i L3i L2i
X
∆Kmax = Ps,i + + (H − Li ) Pi , (4.1)
i=1
12Ei Nc,i Ic,i 3Ei IA,i 2Ei IA,i
15
and
Ac,i D2
IA,i = , (4.2)
Nc,i
where the subscript i represents the current storey within the frame and IA,i
now represents the storey moment of inertia. From this set of equations,
when compared to (3.4) and (3.6), it can be seen how the variables now
allow for changes in column parameters for individual storeys.
4.2.1 Bracing
As briefly described in Chapter 2, bracing is used in elastic frame structures
to improve resistance to lateral forces. To include bracing it is suggested that
the force taken by the braces in each storey be calculated and subtracted
from the force applied to the storey. This method would allow for the use
of equation (4.1) in its current form. However, a more elegant way achieve
this is to include the bracing stiffness in the ISM. Here, the stiffness terms
for a number of braces can be calculated using the Unit Load Method [9].
This method leads to the following set of equations for the bracing shown
in Fig. 4.1, assuming the braces themselves are considered plane trusses;
EAbr L2b
Kbr1 = , (4.3)
(L2c + L2b )1.5
2EAbr L2b
Kbr2 = , (4.4)
(L2c + L2b )1.5
0.5EAbr L2b
Kbr3 = , (4.5)
(L2c + 0.25L2b )1.5
0.5EAbr L2b
Kbr4 = , (4.6)
(0.25L2c + L2b )1.5
where Abr is the cross sectional area of the bracing member. Equations
(4.3-4.6) represent bracing types a) through d) respectively in Fig. 4.1.
This approach has been adopted here as it leads to a more complete
form of the generalised ISM,
Ns Nbr
L3c,i

X X 1
∆Kmax = + Ps,i (4.7)
i=1
12Ei Nc,i Ic,i i=0
Kbr
L3i L2i

+ + (H − Li ) Pi ,
3Ei IA,i 2Ei IA,i
where Nbr is the number of bay’s in a storey with bracing, and Kbr repre-
sents the bracing terms presented in equations (4.3 - 4.6). Although, only
16
concentric bracing has been considered here, this approach to bracing could
be extended to any type of brace.
Figure 4.1: Bracing types; a) Diagonal brace, b) X-brace, c) Chevron brace and d)
K-brace
4.3 Hyperbolic Tangent

The Hyperbolic Tangent (Tanh) curve is arguably the most important as-
pect of this study as it approximates the lateral stiffness of the frame by
relating the properties of the beams and columns to the ratio of ∆Kmax /∆.
Hence, being able to accurately produce the Tanh curve is critical for ob-
taining reasonable approximations of lateral displacement. This section
describes the method used to derive the equations used for modelling the
Tanh curve.
Initial Procedure
The computer program “MATLAB ” was used to create a finite element code
in order to analyse frame structures and produce the type of Tanh curves
shown in Fig. 2.2.
The first step was to use the code to calculate the displacement at the
maximum stiffness (∆Kmax ) for a ratio of column length to beam length.
Once this displacement had been calculated, the maximum frame displace-
ment (∆) at different α and β values in the range of 1 - 10 were determined.
As with Schultz and Irvine, this ratio of ∆Kmax /∆ provided the y-axis for
the hyperbolic tangent graphs.
The next step was to combine the α and β values together into the x-axis
of one graph. This was achieved by using the fact that α = β when α or
β equals one. Therefore, to produce the graphs x-axis, one was subtracted
from α and β, before making β negative. This overlapped the graphs to
17
create an x-axis equal to zero, when α and β are equal one. Hence, in
relation to α and β the x-axis in the Tanh graph is defined as,

α − 1, if α ≥ 1
x= (4.8)
−(β − 1), otherwise.
This augmented α/β graph allows for a hyperbolic tangent function to be

fitted to the data points generated by the MATLAB code. This process
was repeated for a variety of Lc /Lb ratios in the range 5 - 0.2 to produced
similar graphs as Fig. 4.21 .
Similar to Irvine the Tanh function that was used to fit the data points
was of the form,
y = a · tanh(b · x + c) + d. (4.9)
During the curve fitting procedure, b was kept at 0.3 while a, c and d
were subject to change for each Lc /Lb ratio. To fit the data points the
curve fitting suit in MATLAB was implemented. This involved the use
of non-linear regression to model the data with (4.9) using a method of
successive approximations to determine a, c and d for each Lc /Lb ratio.
Table 4.1 shows the manipulation parameters determined for the one bay,
five storey frame structure shown in Fig. 4.2. This process was repeated
for 30 different regular uniform frame geometries, with an upper limit of 9
bays and 5 storeys, to build up a comprehensive set of data.
Table 4.1: Showing the coefficients for various Lc/Lb ratio for 5 storey, 1 bay structure.
Lc/Lb a c d
10.000 0.353549728 0.249672494 0.607722684
5.0000 0.390580224 -0.0001626 0.518484787
3.3333 0.391487715 -0.079564833 0.492009181
2.5000 0.390324276 -0.112753663 0.480996729
2.0000 0.389407394 -0.129357078 0.475482589
1.6667 0.388791303 -0.138748533 0.472360276
1.4286 0.388376281 -0.144546698 0.470431302
1.2500 0.388088678 -0.148366792 0.469160034
1.1111 0.3878831 -0.151012509 0.468279601
1.0000 0.387731913 -0.152918644 0.467645472
0.9091 0.387617916 -0.154336505 0.467174037
0.8333 0.387530089 -0.155419328 0.466814284
0.7692 0.387461152 -0.156264762 0.466533685
0.7143 0.387406163 -0.156937375 0.466310726
1
The MATLAB Script used for this process can be found in appendix (ref).
18
Table 4.1: continued from previous page
0.6667 0.387361684 -0.157481224 0.466130722
0.6250 0.387325265 -0.157927192 0.465983375
0.5556 0.387269948 -0.158608206 0.465759066
0.5263 0.387248743 -0.158871598 0.465672648
0.5000 0.387230753 -0.159096798 0.465598978
0.4762 0.387215393 -0.159290867 0.465535699
0.4545 0.387202205 -0.15945931 0.465480975
0.4000 0.387172384 -0.159850079 0.465355048
0.3846 0.387164898 -0.159951584 0.465322672
0.3571 0.387152603 -0.160123333 0.465268357
0.3226 0.387139208 -0.160322163 0.465206516
0.3030 0.387132732 -0.160426178 0.465174818
0.2500 0.387119753 -0.160677995 0.465101356
0.2000 0.387115194 -0.160876094 0.465050387
Hybolic Tangent Fitted Curves

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
/
Kmax
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Data Points
Fitted Curves
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
- ( - 1) -1
Figure 4.2: Hyperbolic Tangent Curve for 5 storey 1 bay structure.
19
4.3.1 Coefficient Curve Fitting
The next step in deriving manipulation parameters is to develop equations to

model the changing coefficients seen in Table 4.1. To do this, a curve was fitted
to relate the change in the coefficient values to that of the Lc /Lb ratio. Initially,
it was found that all the coefficient a, c, and d followed the curve,
y = P1 · xP2 + P3 , (4.10)
where x is the Lc /Lb ratio, y is the coefficient, and P1 , P2 ,and P2 are the line
fitting variables. However, the variables in (4.10) were found to be too sensitive
to errors, when relating them to Ns and Nb , and a more robust solution was
sought. It was found that all the coefficients could be approximated by a linear
polynomial,
y = P1 · x + P2 , (4.11)
where all variables have the same meaning as in (4.10). The figures below show
a representative sample of the line fit for coefficient (a) (Fig. 4.3), coefficient (c)
(Fig. 4.4), and coefficient (d) (Fig. 4.5). Although, this line did not fit the exact
values for the coefficients, as can be seen the figures, it was less sensitive to error.
Coefficient d for the three bay, three storey frame in Fig. 4.5 shows the greatest
divergence form (4.11). However, the variation in the coefficient is so small it
is almost negligible. The calculation of P1 and P2 for each of the coefficients
can then be related to the number of bays (Nb ) and storeys (Ns ) with the use
multidimensional curve fitting, as explained in Section 4.3.2.
Nb =3 , Ns = 3 Nb =4 , Ns = 3
0.376 0.38
Co-effecient -a
Co-effecient -a
0.374
0.375
0.372
0.37
0.37 data data
fitted curve fitted curve
0.368 0.365
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Lc / L b Lc / L b
Nb =5 , Ns = 3 Nb =9 , Ns = 3
0.38 0.38
Co-effecient -a
Co-effecient -a
0.375
0.375
0.37
data data
0.365 0.37
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Lc / L b Lc / L b
Figure 4.3: Sample line fitting for coefficient (a), at 3 storeys high and various number
of bays.
20
Nb =3 , Ns = 3 Nb =4 , Ns = 3
0.02 0.035
data data
Co-effecient -c
Co-effecient -c
fitted curve 0.03 fitted curve
0.01
0.025
0
0.02
-0.01 0.015
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
L /L L /L
c b c b
Nb =5 , Ns = 3 Nb =9 , Ns = 3
0.05 0.07
data data
0.045
Co-effecient -c
Co-effecient -c
0.065
0.04
0.035
0.06
0.03
0.025 0.055
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Lc / L b Lc / L b
Figure 4.4: Sample line fitting for coefficient (c), at 3 storeys high and various number
of bays.
Nb =3 , Ns = 3 Nb =4 , Ns = 3
0.519 0.526
data data
Co-effecient -d
Co-effecient -d
0.5185 0.525
0.518 0.524
0.5175 0.523
0.517 0.522
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Lc / L b Lc / L b
Nb =5 , Ns = 3 Nb =9 , Ns = 3
0.532 0.542
data data
Co-effecient -d
Co-effecient -d
0.53 0.54
0.528 0.538
0.526 0.536
0.524 0.534
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Lc / L b Lc / L b
Figure 4.5: Sample line fitting for coefficient (d), at 3 storeys high and various number
of bays.
21
4.3.2 Multidimensional Curve Fitting
The final step was to relate variables P1 and P2 for each of the coefficients to
the number of bays and storeys in the frame geometry. As stated previously 30
different regular uniform frames were analysed, and as such 30 different P1 and
P2 values for each coefficient and frames were obtained.
It was found that P1 and P2 for the majority the coefficients (a, c and d) could
be represented by bivariate polynomials of varying degrees. In two instances this
was not the case, and alternative equations were created, see (4.12) and (4.15).
For coefficient a, P1 and P2 are represented by,

1
P1a =(−0.009216Ns3 − 0.003361) · (4.12)
eNs + eNb + 9.023Ns2

−8 2 2
− 4 × 10 · 3310000Ns − (801Nb + 63550Nb + 8050000)Ns − 1862750 ,
and,

−8
P2a = −1 × 10 · 167100Ns4 − (4231Nb + 2440000)Ns3 (4.13)
+ (53980Nb + 1.324 × 107 )Ns2

7
− (254200Nb + 3.22 × 10 )Ns + 303400Nb − 7451000 .
These equations can then be used in (4.11) to produce,

Lc
a = P1a · + P2a , (4.14)
Lb
for coefficient (a). Fig. 4.6 show how equations (4.12) and (4.13) fit the data
points for both P1 and P2 to the number of bay’s and storeys in a frame.
22
Figure 4.6: Three dimensional surface fit, relating P1a and P2a to the number of bays
and storeys in a frame.
23
In a similar manner, P1 and P2 were developed for coefficients c and d. These
are represented by equations (4.15 - 4.18) below2 ,
e(0.3941Ns −0.2578Nb )
P1c = + 3.151 × 10−5 Nb2 − 8.82 × 10−4 , (4.15)
300.2

−8
P2c = −5 × 10 · 194600Ns3 − (5590Nb + 2242000)Ns2 (4.16)
+ (287Nb2 + 30380Nb + 8824000)Ns

2
+ 55420Nb − 943600Nb − 8946000 ,

−9
P1d = −5 × 10 · 1561Ns3 + (1876Nb − 46000)Ns2 (4.17)
− (14032Nb2 − 191100Nb + 325600)Ns

+ 12996Nb3 − 196780Nb2 + 787800Nb − 974600 ,

−8
P2d = −1 × 10 · 688000Ns3 + (15140Nb − 8025000)Ns2 (4.18)
+ (8183Nb2 − 231200Nb + 3.184 × 107 )Ns

2 7
+ 78030Nb − 1086000Nb − 8.899 × 10 .
Once again these can be combined with (4.11) for,

Lc
c = P1c · + P2c , (4.19)
Lb
and,
Lc
d = P1d · + P2d . (4.20)
Lb
2
See Appendix B for Fig. B.1 and B.2, showing the fit of these equations to the data
points.
24
4.4 Individual Storey Approach
As previously discussed in chapter 3, Irvine [2] attempted to approximate the
response of the whole structure using one hyperbolic tangent curve once the dis-
placement at maximum stiffness was calculated. The limitations of this were
determined to be that only regular frame with identical storeys could be anal-
ysed.
For this study an individual storey approach was adopted, where the Tanh
curve is calculated to represent each storey. The response of the piperack can
then be build up with each storey, to find the maximum displacement at the top
floor. This method was used to include irregular structures such as the piperack
show in Fig. 2.1.
To implement this approach, firstly the ISM (4.7) is used to calculate the
storey drift3 for the upper limit of stiffness. The next step is to determine the
manipulation parameters used in the Tanh function for the storey. To do this,
the number of bays (Nb ) in the current storey along with the total number of
storeys (Ns ) are used. Furthermore, each storey is analysed separately using its
own α or β and its own Lc /Lb ratio, independent of the storeys above and below.
Essentially, each storey is analysed as an individual Nb × Ns frame of regular
uniform geometry. Once the response of each storey has been determined these
can be summed together to calculate the response of the whole structure. The
partially worked example below will be used to help illustrate this methodology.
4.4.1 Illustrative Example

The frame for this example is illustrated in Fig. 4.7 with Table 4.2 showing
the cosponsoring parameters. The beams in the frame are identical with length
(Lb ) equal to 5000 mm, area (Ab ) to 1000 mm2 , and moment of inertia (Ib ) to
4×107 mm4 . Furthermore, the Young’s modulus E is constant for all beams and
columns, and is equal to 210×103 N/mm2 .
Table 4.2: Parameters for Frame shown in Fig. 4.7.
Lateral Load, Column Length, Column Area, Column Moment

Storey, i
Pi (N ) Lc,i (mm) Ac,i (mm2 ) of Inertia, Ic,i (mm4 )
1 1000 4000 2000 3×107
2 1000 3000 1000 1×107
3 1000 2000 1000 1×107
4 1000 4000 1000 1×107
3
Storey drift is defined as the displacement of a storey independent of the storeys
below.
25
Figure 4.7: Irregular non-uniform frame used for the illustrative example shown below.
Storey 1 - Nb = 5
Initially, the ISM is used to calculate the displacement at the upper limit
of stiffness.
Ac,1 D2 2000 × 250002

IA,1 = = = 2.0833 × 1011
Nc,1 6
40003

∆max,1 = 4000
12 × 210 × 103 × 6 × 3 × 107
40003 40002

+ + (13000 − 4000) 1000 = 0.5665mm
3 × 210 × 103 × IA,1 2 × 210 × 103 × IA,1
Following this, the coefficients for the Tanh curve are determined using the
storeys individual parameters.
Ib /Lb 1 Lc 4000
α= = 1.0667 β= = 0.9375 = = 0.8
Ic,i /Lc,i α Lb 5000
P1a = − 0.026, P2a = 0.3840, P1c = 0.0043, P2c = 0.0106, P1d = −0.0015, P2d = 0.5207
a =0.3819, c = 0.0140, d = 0.5195
Finally, the maximum displacement for the storey is calculated.
y =a · tanh(0.3 · (α − 1) + c) + d = 0.5325
∆1 =∆max,1 /y = 1.0638mm
This process is repeated for all the storeys until the response of each has
been calculated
26
Storey 2 - Nb = 5
Ac,2 D2 1000 × 250002
IA,2 = = = 1.0417 × 1011
Nc,2 6
30003

∆max,2 = 3000
12 × 210 × 103 × 6 × 1 × 107

7000 3 70002

+ 3
+ 3
(13000 − 7000) 1000 = 0.5477mm
3 × 210 × 10 × IA,2 2 × 210 × 10 × IA,2
Ib /Lb 1 Lc 3000
α= = 2.4 β= = 0.4167 = = 0.6
P1a = − 0.0026, P2a = 0.3840, P1c = 0.0043, P2c = 0.0106, P1d = −0.0015, P2d = 0.5207
a =0.3824, c = 0.0132, d = 0.5198
y =a · tanh(0.3 · (α − 1) + c) + d = 0.6758
∆2 =∆max,2 /y = 0.8104mm
Storey 3 - Nb = 5
Ac,3 D2 1000 × 250002
IA,3 = = = 1.0417 × 1011
Nc,3 6
20003

∆max,3 = 2000
12 × 210 × 103 × 6 × 1 × 107
90003 90002

+ + (13000 − 9000) 1000 = 0.1243mm
3 × 210 × 103 × IA,3 2 × 210 × 103 × IA,3
Ib /Lb 1 Lc 2000
α= = 1.6 β= = 0.625 = = 0.4
P1a = − 0.0026, P2a = 0.3829, P1c = 0.0043, P2c = −0.0106, P1d = −0.0015, P2d = 0.5207
a =0.3829, c = 0.0123, d = 0.5201
y =a · tanh(0.3 · (α − 1) + c) + d = 0.5929
∆3 =∆max,3 /y = 0.2097mm
27
Storey 4 - Nb = 2
Ac,4 D2 1000 × 100002
IA,4 = = = 3.333 × 1010
Nc,4 3
40003

∆max,4 = 1000
12 × 210 × 103 × 3 × 1 × 107
130003 130002

+ + (13000 − 13000) 1000 = 0.9512mm
3 × 210 × 103 × IA,4 2 × 210 × 103 × IA,4
Ib /Lb 1 Lc 4000
α= = 3.2 β= = 0.3125 = = 0.8
P1a = − 3.07 × 10−4 , P2a = 0.3803 P1c = 0.0089, P2c = −0.0668, P1d = 0.0033, P2d = 0.4909
a =0.3801, c = −0.0597, d = 0.4935
y =a · tanh(0.3 · (α − 1) + c) + d = 0.6978
∆4 =∆max,4 /y = 1.3632mm
Total Displacement
Once all the storeys responses have been calculated, they are summed to
obtain the maximum displacement for the whole frame (∆).
∆ = ∆1 + ∆2 + ∆3 + ∆4 = 3.447mm
Table 4.3 shows a comparison of the results from this approximate

method and that calculated from MASTAN2 for this worked example. This
provides some initial validation to the method.
Table 4.3: Comparison between frame analysis package “MASTAN2 ” and Individual
Storey Approach.
Maximum
Percentage
Displacement,
Difference %
∆ (mm)
Approximate Method 3.447
4.1
MASTAN2 3.596
28
Chapter 5
Results, Development and

Discussion
5.1 Introduction
This chapter will present the results and evaluation of the proposed method.
Firstly, the storey drift approximation will be investigated to ascertain the
accuracy that can be expected. From this analyses it was noted that the
highest errors occurred in the β range. The discussion in Section 5.3 con-
siders this effect in previous work, and its limited impact on the storey drift
approximation. The analysis of the complete method for regular and irregu-
lar non-uniform frames (Section 5.4) shows the effectiveness of this method.
The investigation begins by exploring the first floor correction, which was
outlined by Schultz [7] and found here to be necessary. This correction
stops the methods tenancy to underestimate the frame stiffness. Regular
and irregular frames were rigorously tested and it was determined that the
method was accurate and robust. Finally, bracing was investigated with it
inclusion in the ISM found to need a further correction. The inclusion of
bracing in the final Tanh model provides an interesting avenue for future
research.
5.2 Story Drift - Regular, Uniform Frames

The Individual Storey Approach effectively models each storey as its own
regular, uniform frame to calculate the storey drift before summing these
up to obtained to total displacement of the frame. A variety of multi-
storey/bay regular uniform frames have been analysed to investigate the
accuracy that can be expected from the storey drift approximation. These
29
frames are presented alongside a comparison with Irvine’s method to help
justify the considerably more complex equations used in this method.
Figs. (5.1 - 5.3) shows the ratio between the exact stiffness (Ke ) to the
approximate frame stiffness (Ka ) for various one, three, and five storey reg-
ular frames at different α and Lb /Lc values. It can be seen from Fig. 5.1
that the approximated stiffness using the Tanh coefficients presented here
is within c.5% of the actual frame stiffness. The accuracy of the approx-
imation seems to decrease as the number of storeys increases. The worst
approximation is in a five storey, two bay frame with a Lb /Lc of 0.5 showing
an overestimation of c.12%. The parameters with the most noticeable influ-
ence on the accuracy are the number on storeys and the α value. It is clear
to see in the figures that as α is decreased (or β increased) the approxima-
tions accuracy decreases. For α values above one, the approximations never
exceed c.5% of the actual stiffness. This trend will be discussed further in
the next section. On the other hand, the Lb /Lc ratio along with the number
of bays in the structure appears to have very little effect on the accuracy.
Figure 5.1: Showing Ke /Ka ratio for a number of one storey, multi-bay frames at
Lb /Lc ratio’s of 0.5, 1, and 2. Along with comparison Irvine’s method, Data points in
red are calculated using Irvine’s Tanh coefficients.
30
Figure 5.2: Showing Ke /Ka ratio for a number of three storey, multi-bay frames at
Figure 5.3: Showing Ke /Ka ratio for a number of five storey, multi-bay frames at
31
Comparing the results of this study for regular uniform frames to the
results using Irvine’s, the improvements in accuracy obtained by using equa-
tions (4.12 - 4.20), rather than (3.8 - 3.11) are clear. The worst approxi-
mation seen in this study is a stiffness overestimation c.12%, with the vast
majority of the results within 5% of the actual stiffness. Using Irvine’s
method, for α less than one, shows the error in many of the approximations
exceeds 30% and is out with the range of the graphs. The author believes
that Figs. (5.1 - 5.3) provide enough justification for the use of the longer
and more complex equations presented in this study.
5.3 Discussion on the β Error

The trend of estimations getting more unreliable when frame parameters
are within the β range is not unique to this study. This ‘β error’ has long
been know and can be seen in the notable works of Schultz [7], Blume et al.
[11], Benjamin [10], Mutō [13], and Irvine [2]. The models presented by
Blume et al., Benjamin and Mutō preformed well for frames in the α range.
However, they were found by Schultz [7] to break down in the β range
showing in excess of 50% error in some cases. Schultz’s model preformed the
best for most frames, however was unreliable for structures under six storeys
in the β range. To combat this β error Schultz developed a correction factor
that could be applied to the estimated stiffness for low storey structures.
Irvine also reported large errors in this range, presenting a displacement
underestimation of 26% at a β value of 6, and in excess of 30% for some
cases in Figs. (5.1 - 5.3).
An explanation of this error within this study can be derived from Fig.
4.2. From this figure, it can be seen the that the curves in the α range are
all relatively close together. This suggests that an error in approximating
this curve would not necessary give a noticeable error in the response of the
frame. On the other hand, in the β range the curves are spread out over a
wider range of ∆Kmax /∆. This would result in errors in the curve approxi-
mation creating larger, more noticeable errors in the estimated response of
the structure. The greater response of the frame in the β range exacerbates
this effect and amplifies the errors. Fig. 2.2 from Schultz [7] shows that for
each storey in Schultz’s frame the α values are within a ∆Kmax /∆ range of
c.0.9 - 1.0 across all graphs, where as the β values are within c.0.1 - 0.35,
more than twice the range. In relation to the study presented here, this is
compounded when inspecting Table 4.1, which indicates how sensitive the
coefficients are to small errors.
32
This can be attributed to the accuracy of the Tanh curve achieved within
this study significantly reduces the β error. While the β error has not been
completely eradicated, it has been more than half when compared to Irvine
as shown in Figs. (5.1 - 5.3). The reduction of the β error allows this
method to analyse a wider range of frame structures to a reasonable degree
of accuracy.
5.4 Individual Storey Approach

The investigation of previous research and analysis of key principles has lead
to the development of a original method for approximating lateral stiffness
termed “Individual Storey Approach”. This section will test this approach by
analysing a number of non-uniform regular and irregular frames. The effects
the first storey column stiffness on the estimations has been investigated.
Simultaneously, the effects of flexural to shear stiffness, and the length ratio
between the beams and columns has also been explored1 .
5.4.1 First Floor Correction

As explained in Section 4.4, each storey was modelled individually using
the number of bays in the storey and the number of storeys in the frame.
Initial analysis of this approach showed the model wildly underestimated
the lateral stiffness, as shown in Fig. 5.4 a). From the works of Schultz
[7] it is known that the first floor is stiffer than that of the rest of the
frame due to the fixed base conditions. It was proposed within this study,
that the first floor be modelled using Ns equal to one. Theoretically, this
will shift the Tanh curve up on the y-axis for the first storey and make it
stiffer. Fig. 5.4 b) shows the result of this, the figure clearly shows a huge
overcompensation which now overestimates the frames stiffness. Table 5.1
show the parameters for this representative example shown in Fig. 5.4.
A detailed assessment of Fig.5.4 shows the approximated stiffness nor-
malised with the exact stiffness (Ke /Ka ). These graphs shows how well the
approximate method estimates the lateral stiffness, the closer the value is to
one the better the estimation. Moreover, from the graphs it can be see that
any value under 1 will overestimate the stiffness and hence underestimate
the frame displacement (and vice versa). This gives a non dimensional com-
parison between the exact response of the frame, as determined by finite
1
For all frames analysed here Young’s modulus (E) and cross sectional area (A) are
kept constant and the same for both beams and columns
33
Table 5.1: Showing non-dimensional parameters for nine-bay, five-storey non-uniform
frame.
Number of Moment of Interia

Storey Bay Length Storey Height
Bays Beam Coloum
1 3 Lb Lc Ib R · Ic
2 3 Lb 2/3Lc Ib 2/3Ic
3 3 Lb 2/3Lc Ib 2/3Ic
Lb = Lc
Ib = (αIc )(Lb /Lc )
element analysis, and the approximate response predicted by the model.

Where, the Ic ratio in the graphs is the ratio between the first storey and
the nominal column moment of inertia2 (Ic,1 /Ic ).
Figure 5.4: a) Three storey, three bay frame modelled using original approach. b)
Three storey, three bay frame modelled using Ns equal to one for first floor.
Continuing in this vein, the value of Ns for the first storey was experi-
mented with for many frames to determine the following,
Nf s = 0.16 · Ns + 1.32, (5.1)
where Nf s is a corrected number of storey for the first floor. This Nf s is

used in the equations (4.12 - 4.20) when modelling the first storey with the
Tanh curve. Fig. 5.5 shows the results of using Nf s in modelling the first
floor in the three storey three bay frame previously analysed. Modelling
Ns for the first storey like this presents a simple solution to a important
problem that, as will be continually shown in the rest of this section, is very
effective.
2
Determined by variable R is Table 5.1.
34
Figure 5.5: Showing three storey, three bay frame modelled using Ns = 1 × ζf s for the
first storey.
5.4.2 Regular Frames

To further test the method, regular non-uniform frames of different geom-
etry’s have been investigated. Tables (5.2 - 5.4) show the non-dimensional
parameters used in these frames. The parameters were selected to repre-
sent the type of frame that might be found in piperack structures. The
stiffness of the columns for each storey reduces with the number of storeys.
Investigations will be carried out by changing the variables ‘R’ and ‘S’ in-
crementally from 0.3 - 7 and 0.5 - 2 respectively. The effects of the flexural
to shear stiffness will also be explored by experimenting with α values in a
range of 61 - 6.
Table 5.2: Showing non-dimensional parameters for nine-bay, five-storey non-uniform

frame.

Bays Beam Coloum
2 9 Lb 2/3Lc Ib 2/3Ic
3 9 Lb 2/3Lc Ib 2/3Ic
4 9 Lb 1/2Lc Ib 1/3Ic
5 9 Lb 1/2Lc Ib 1/3Ic
Lb = S · Lc
Fig. (5.6 - 5.8) shows the results of this study. In a similar manner
to previous sections the results are presented as a ratio between the exact
stiffness and the approximate lateral stiffness. From the graphs presented
35
Table 5.3: Showing non-dimensional parameters for nine-bay, two-storey non-uniform
frame.

Bays Beam Coloum
2 9 Lb 2/3Lc Ib 2/3Ic
Lb = S · Lc
Table 5.4: Showing non-dimensional parameters for two-bay, two-storey non-uniform

frame.

Bays Beam Coloum
2 2 Lb 2/3Lc Ib 2/3Ic
Lb = S · Lc
it is clear to see how well the individual storey approach approximates the
lateral stiffness, with the majority of the approximations within 5% of the
actual stiffness. This is consistent with what can be seen in estimations in
Section 5.2. The least accurate result of c.10% can be seen in Fig. 5.7, at an
α of 1/6 and Lb /Lc ratio of 2. This lower limit of accuracy is again in keep-
ing with that predicted from the story drift approximation. As expected,
the Lb /Lc ratio seems to have very little effect on the approximation, only
slightly increasing the overall approximated stiffness for the frame.
The main result of increasing the base column stiffness is an increase the
β value in the first storey. This in turn increases the error in the approxi-
mation as discussed in Sections 5.2 and 5.3. This can be seen particularly
well in Fig. 5.7 and 5.8 for already high β values. However, the effects of
changing the base columns stiffness seems to have less effect as the number
of storeys is increased, this makes sense when considering the nature of the
approach used. The individual storey approach sums the response of each
storey and hence the largest response will have the greatest influence on the
error. Increasing the column stiffness will reduce the displacement of this
storey. Therefore, for higher storey structures, as the column stiffness is in-
creased the error due to the β error in the first floor will have less effect on
the overall response as the displacement of the upper floors will correct this
error. This error also seems to decrease with the number of bays, although
to a much less noticeable degree. This can be seen when comparing Fig.
5.7 and 5.8. Furthermore, by comparing these two frames it can be seen
that reducing the number of bays also seems to slightly increase the overall
36
approximated stiffness for all α values.
Figure 5.6: Showing normalised stiffness against Ic ratio for nine-bay, five-storey frame.
Where, a) shows Lb /Lc = 0.5, b) shows Lb /Lc = 1 , c) shows Lb /Lc = 1.5, d) shows
Lb /Lc = 2
Figure 5.7: Showing normalised stiffness against Ic ratio for nine-bay, two-storey frame.
Lb /Lc = 2
37
Figure 5.8: Showing normalised stiffness against Ic ratio for two-bay, two-storey frame.
Lb /Lc = 2
5.4.3 Irregular Frames

The next test for this method was to explore whether irregular frames could
be successfully modelled. To do this two irregular frames were analyse, a
five bay four storey and a nine bay three storey frame.
Five-Bay, Four-Storey Irregular Frame
The first frame used to conduct this investigation, described in Table 5.5
is based upon the piperack shown in Fig. 2.1. Table 5.5 shows the non-
dimensional parameters used in this frame. Investigations will be carried
out in the same way as previously shown by changing the variables ‘R’, ‘S’
and α.
From Fig. 5.9 it can be seen that the model predicts the lateral stiffness
for this irregular frame well, within c.5% for all but one case. This trend
follow that of the previous section with the α frames providing the most
conservative approximation. For this frame the β values actually give the
most accurate estimation with none exceeding c.5%. The largest error can
be seen in the Fig. 5.9 a), with α equalling 3 presenting an underestimation
of 10%. However, this underestimation of stiffness will give a conservative
38
estimation which is preferable. This four storey structure also exhibits a
similar trend to the five storey, nine bay regular frame in Fig. 5.6 in regards
to the increasing Ic ratio. As the Ic ratio is increased the approximate
stiffness improves, this can be explained in the same way. However, the
effects will be greater due to the setback in the top floor causing the top
displacement to increase and suppress the β error in the first floor further.
Table 5.5: Showing non-dimensional parameters for five-bay, four-storey irregular frame
shown in Fig. 4.7.

Bays Beam Coloum
2 5 Lb 3/4Lc Ib Ic
3 5 Lb 1/2Lc Ib Ic
4 2 Lb Lc Ib Ic
Lb = S · Lc
Figure 5.9: Showing normalised stiffness against Ic ratio for five-bay, four-storey
irregular frame. Where, a) shows Lb /Lc = 0.5, b) shows Lb /Lc = 1 , c) shows
Lb /Lc = 1.5, d) shows Lb /Lc = 2
Nine-Bay, Three-Storey Irregular Frame
To provide a comparison and some validation to the previous example, a

nine-bay three-storey irregular frame will now be considered. The non-
39
dimensional parameters for this frame are shown below in Table 5.6.
Table 5.6: Showing non-dimensional parameters for nine-bay, three-storey irregular

frame.

Bays Beam Coloum
2 9 Lb 2/3Lc Ib Ic
3 4 Lb 1/2Lc Ib Ic
Lb = S · Lc
Figure 5.10: Showing normalised stiffness against Ic ratio for nine-bay, three-storey
irregular frame. Where, a) shows Lb /Lc = 0.5, b) shows Lb /Lc = 1 , c) shows
Lb /Lc = 1.5, d) shows Lb /Lc = 2
From inspection of Fig. 5.10 the approximate method estimates the re-
sponse of the frame well, all but one of the parameters tested shows less
than 10% error. That being said, this frame also presents the worst approx-
imation across all the frames tested here, with an overestimation in stiffness
of c.14%. This overestimation occurs when the beams are twice the length
of the columns, the Ic ratio is at 3.5, and the β value is 6. Based upon
what has previously been seen for low storey frames, at high Ic ratio and β
values, this type of error is to be expected.
40
5.4.4 Summary of Model
The majority of the result underestimate the stiffness to within 5% of the
actual value. This underestimation is preferable as it provides a more con-
servative approximation. The β error influence has been minimised, but not
neglected with the worse error of c.14% being at a β of 6.
The testing conditions used in this section were selected to provide a
more realistic evaluation of the method. The simplification of the beams
parameters remaining constant in every floor has been made. The beam
parameters are however represented in the α and β formulas. Therefore,
from Section 5.2 it can be concluded this method could easily handle beam
parameter varying between storeys.
Overall the Individual Storey Approach developed here has proven to
be a accurate and robust method for approximating the lateral stiffness in
non-uniform and irregular frames.
5.5 Bracing
A further deliverable of this study is to include braced frames into the
method. The preliminary analysis for this is presented here, with the suc-
cessful inclusion of bracing into the ISM and a more problematic inclusion
into the individual storey approach. The inclusion of bracing into the in-
dividual storey approach raised several challenges and avenues to further
research.
5.5.1 Inclusion in the Infinitely Stiff Model

To test equations (4.3 - 4.6) in the ISM, a representative sample of frames
were analysed. Fig. 5.11 shows how the bracing equations perform. It can
be seen that there are some serious sort comings to the inclusion of these
equation in the ISM. The approximate response with bracing deteriorates
as the number of storeys is increase. Furthermore, decreasing the number
of bays has a similar effect.
Further investigations where conducted on the nine-bays structures to
determine the effect of altering the length ratio between the beams and
columns (Lb /Lc ). This investigation can be seen in Fig. 5.12 and clearly
shows how the ratio drastically effects how well bracing is included in the
ISM. From Fig. 5.11 and 5.12, it can be concluded that as the flexural
displacement in the frame is increased the bracing performance decreases.
This is due to the µ effect term added to the ISM by Irvine [2].
41
Figure 5.11: Ke /Ka ratio for various Infinitely stiff regular uniform braced frames,
Lb /Lc equal to one.
Figure 5.12: Ke /Ka ratio for various nine-bay Infinitely stiff regular uniform braced
frames, at different Lb /Lc ratios
As previously stated the µ term effectively adds flexural displacement

into the ISM. The µ term effect is reduced as the Lb /Lc ratio is increased,
the Nb is increased, or the Ns is decreased. Therefore, to model the bracing
in this way the flexural displacement added by the µ term must be reduced.
The easiest way to achieve this is to increase the structures IA , increasing
this will reduce the flexural displacement and represent the bracing more
42
effectively. The following term is presented as a IA bracing correction factor,

Lc 1 − Ns,i
µb = − , (5.2)
Lb Ns,i
where Ns,i is the current storey. This is to be applied to the (4.2) in the
following manner,
µb · Ac,i · D2
IA,i = . (5.3)
Nc,i
Fig. 5.13 and 5.14 show the results of applying µb to the structures
moment of inertia. The error in the ISM for bracing has been reduced to a
maximum of c.7% from c.30% which could be seen in Fig. 5.12.
Figure 5.13: Ke /Ka ratio for various Infinitely stiff regular uniform braced frames, at
Lb /Lc ratio equal to one, modelled using corrected ISM.
43
Figure 5.14: Ke /Ka ratio for various nine-bay Infinitely stiff regular uniform braced
frames, at different Lb /Lc ratios, modelled using corrected ISM.
5.5.2 Modelling Bracing

To investigate whether the current Tanh curve can approximate the re-
sponse of braced frames, the nine-bay, two-storey frame with a Ic ratio of
one from the previous section was selected. This was chosen as it was mod-
elled well without bracing. This will help determine the level of error that
can be attributed to bracing and hence whether it can be successfully in-
duced in the individual storey model. Fig. 5.15 shows the ratio between
the exact (Ke ) and the approximate frame stiffness (Ka ) for various α and
β values. From the figure it can be seen that, outside the high α values,
bracing cannot be modelled using the current Tanh approximation.
The addition of bracing has shifted the Tanh curve up in the y-direction.
The β range has clearly been altered the most by the introduction of bracing.
Following this, an experimental study was conducted to ascertain whether
the current Tanh curves could be alter to accommodate braced frames. To
this end, based upon Table 4.1, coefficients a and d where altered as they
seemed to have the greatest impact on the shape of the curve. The following
alterations where made to the Tanh function,
y = (0.44 × a) · tanh(b · x + c) + (0.23 × d), (5.4)
these numbers are purely experimental. That being said, Fig. 5.16 shows
the results of these alterations. The results shown in this figure provide proof
that if new a, c, and d coefficients, or correction factors for the current ones
where developed, this method could be applied to braced frame.
44
Figure 5.15: Showing ratio Ke /Ka for braced nine-bay, two-storey frame, modelled
using Tanh curve developed in Section 4.3.
Figure 5.16: Showing ratio Ke /Ka for braced nine-bay, two-storey frame, modelled
using experimentally altered Tanh curve.
45
Chapter 6
Conclusions and Further

Directions
The study presented here attempted to take the initial preliminary work of
Irvine [2] further and develop a more generally applicable design algorithm
for approximating lateral stiffness in piperack support systems. This work
had two main deliverables, which were the ability to include non-uniform
and irregular frames. To achieve these objectives, further work was devel-
oped from Irvine’s Tanh function approximation to develop an approach
that could be implemented on a wide range of frame geometries. This fur-
ther work resulted in the generalisation of the ISM and the development
of the Individual Storey Approach. The developed Individual Storey Ap-
proach uses the storey drift of the ISM and the specific storey parameters of
the floor to determine the actual storey drift. This approach works on the
basic principle of calculating the storey drift for each floor before summing
them up to get the overall response. After initial testing it was evident that
the first floor stiffness was not being modelled correctly and underestimat-
ing the stiffness. Further research enabled the development of a modelling
formula for the first storey. The results of this saw these main deliverables
met with great success, for non-uniform and irregular frames. The majority
of approximations were found to be within 5% of the actual stiffness, with
only a few results over 10%.
An additional deliverable of this study was to include bracing in the
approximate algorithm. This was implemented by including stiffness terms
for various bracing types into the ISM. This would set a new upper limit and
the Tanh function could be used to approximate a response. The inclusion
of bracing was only met with partial success. Initially it was found that the
ISM tended to overestimate the response of the infinitely stiff braced frame.
This was determined to be due to the µ term and a correction to this was
46
presented. The inclusion of bracing into the Individual Storey Approach
was less successful. The method was only found to work in the high α
range and collapsed in the β range.
Overall, the main deliverables outlined in the objectives were achieved.
The work conducted by Irvine provided the foundations for the approach
taken. Key to this was the identification of the Tanh like nature of the ratio
between the actual and infinitely stiff response of elastic frames.
6.1 Further Directions

While this work met the main two deliverables and furthered Irvine’s work.
There remains scope for future directions that could further this work.
These further directions are;
• Continued investigation including bracing in the Individual Storey

Approach.
• Investigate changing inter-storey parameters such as changing interior

column stiffness and beam length.
• Develop a more user friendly set of equations for approximating the

Tanh curve.
To address the difficultly in bracing, modification could be applied to

the Tanh manipulation parameters. These modifications would shift the
Tanh curve up on the y-axis and represent the bracing more accurately.
This solution to bracing would allow for the continued use of the Individual
Storey Approach.
During the course of this study all beam parameters and inter-storey
parameters have been kept constant. To further represent the complex
frames found in piperack support structures, it is suggested the future work
be conducted on changing inter-storey parameters. The ISM can easily in-
clude such changes, however more research is required to alter the Individual
Storey Approach to accommodate these conditions.
Finally, to further improve the method for use in industry work could
be undertaken to shorted equations (4.12 - 4.18) and make them more user
friendly. The low error values currently justify the use of more complex
equations which could be embedded into an application for existing software.
This would enable the designer to run multiple, low error, preliminary static
analysis for earthquake loading.
47
References
[1] G. Coeto and A. Teran-Gilmore, “Stiffness-based sizing of bracing sys-

tems for tall and slender buildings,” in Proceedings of the 15th World
Conference of Earthquake Engineering, 2012.
[2] G. Irvine, “Developing a design guide for lateral stiffness of pipe rack
support structures,” April 2018, unpublished Dissertation, University
of Aberdeen.
[3] M. Karimi, N. Hosseinzadeh, F. Hosseini, N. Kazem, and H. Kazem,

“Seismic evaluation of pipe rack supporting structures in a petrochem-
ical complex in iran,” IJASE, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 111–120, May 2011.
[4] M. Chimeh and P. Homami, “Efficiency of bracing systems for seismic

rehabilitation of steel structures,” in Proceedings of the 15th World
Conference On Earthquake Engineering., Libosa, Portugal, 2012.
[5] R. Sabelli, C. W. Roeder, and J. F. Hajjar, “Seismic design of steel

special concentrically braced frame systems,” NEHRP, Gaithersburg,
USA, Seismic Design Technical Brief, vol. 8, 2013.
[6] S. D. Hague, “Eccentrically braced steel frames as a seismic force re-

sisting system,” Ph.D. dissertation, Kansas State University, 2013.
[7] A. E. Schultz, “Approximating lateral stiffness of stories in elastic

frames,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 118, no. 1, pp. 243–
263, 1992.
[8] S. Manohar and S. Madhekar, Seismic design of RC buildings: Theory

and practice, 1st ed. Springer, 2015, ch. 2, pp. 35–42.
[9] M. Hosseini and M. R. Imagh-e Naiini, “A quick method for estimating

the lateral stiffness of building systems,” The Structural Design of Tall
Buildings, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 247–260, 1999.
48
[10] J. R. Benjamin, Statically Indeterminate Structures: Approximate
Analysis by Deflected Structures and Lateral Load Analysis. New York,
N.Y: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
[11] J. A. Blume, N. M. Newmark, and L. H. Corning, Design of Multistory

Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Earthquake Motions. Portland Ce-
ment Association Skokie, IL, 1961, vol. 4.
[12] T. Eroğlu and S. Akkar, “Lateral stiffness estimation in frames and its
implementation to continuum models for linear and nonlinear static
analysis,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1097–
1114, 2011.
[13] K. Mutō, A Seismic Design Analysis of Buildings. Toyko, Japan:

Maruzen Co, 1974.
[14] E. Miranda and C. J. Reyes, “Approximate lateral drift demands in

multistory buildings with nonuniform stiffness,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, vol. 128, no. 7, pp. 840–849, 2002.
[15] F. Cobb, Structural Engineer’s Pocket Book: British Standards Edition,

illustrated, revised ed. Elsevier, 2008, ch. 4th, pp. 84–85.
49
Appendix A
MATLAB Tanh Script
1 % This script determines the coefficents for the Tanh approximation

2 % for regular uniform frame structures.
3
4 clear; clc; addpath('Functions');
5
6 F_x = 1.0e3; %N
7 E = 210e3;
8 % ________________Element Properties________________
9 % Cross sectional Area
10 Ac =10000; %mm^2 column
11 Ab = 10000; %mm^2 beam
12
13 % Column Moment of Inertia
14 Ic =2e7; % mm^4
15
16 % Column Length
17 Lc = 5e3;
18 L_c = [1 1 1 1 1]*Lc; %mm
19 Lc1 = cumsum(L_c);
20
21 % Frame Properties
22 Ns = 5; %number of storeys
23 Nb = 1; %number of bays
24
25 for tt = 0.1:0.1:5
26 t = round(tt*10);
27
28 Lb = Lc*tt; %mm Length of the Beams
29 L_ratio(t) = Lc/Lb; % column to beam length ratio
30
31
32 Ib1 = 1e12;% mm^4 Infinitely stiff beam
33
50
34 %__________________Nodes and Elements_________________
35
36 [nx,ny,Ele,e,f,rf] = nxnyEle(Lb,Lc1,Nb,Ns,G_Floor,F_x);
37
38
39 %____________________________________________________________
40 % Infinitely Stiff Beam Analysis
41 %____________________________________________________________
42
43 [L,Theta,X,Y] = ELe_length(nx,ny,Ele);
44
45 for i = 1:length(Ele)
46 if Theta(i) == deg2rad(90)
47 A(i) = Ac; I1(i) = Ic;
48 elseif Theta(i) == 0
49 A(i) = Ab; I1(i) = Ib1;
50 end
51 end
52
53 GK = Global_K(Theta,Ele,nx,E,A,L,I1);
54 [Re,df,Kff]=solveK(GK,rf,f,e);
55 Max_d = df(length(df) − 2)';
56
57
58 %____________________________________________________________
59 % Max Displacement Analysis
60 %____________________________________________________________
61
62 for alpha = 0.1:0.1:10
63 in = round(alpha*10);
64
65 % Beam Moment of Inertia for Alpha Range
66 Ib2(in) = alpha*(Ic/Lc)*Lb;
67 Alpha(in) = alpha;
68
71 A(i) = Ac;
72 I2(i) = Ic;
74 A(i) = Ab;
75 I2(i) = Ib2(in);
76 else
77 A(i) = A_br;
78 I2(i) = I_br;
79 end
80 end
51
81
82 % Generates the Global Stiffness Matrix
84
85 %__________________Displacements (Alpha)__________________
86
87 [Re,df2,Kff] = solveK(GK,rf,f,e);
88 Tip_displacementA(in,t) = df2(length(df2) − 2);
89 Tip_d_ratio_A(in,t) = Max_d/Tip_displacementA(in,t);
90 end
91
92 for beta = 0.1:0.1:10
93 r = round(beta*10);
94
95 % Beam Moment of Inertia for Beta Range
96 Ib3(r) = (1/beta)*(Ic/Lc)*Lb;
97 Beta(r) = beta;
98
101 A(i) = Ac;
102 I3(i) = Ic;
104 A(i) = Ab;
105 I3(i) = Ib3(r);
106 else
107 A(i) = A_br;
108 I3(i) = I_br;
109 end
110 end
111
112 % Generates the Global Stiffness Matrix
114
115 %__________________Displacements (Beta)__________________
116
117 [Re,df3,Kff]=solveK(GK,rf,f,e);
118 Tip_displacementB(r,t) = df3(length(df3) − 2);
119 Tip_d_ratio_B(r,t) = Max_d/Tip_displacementB(r,t);
120
121 end
122 end
123
124 % Creates Augmented Alpha/Beta X axis and Y axis
125 [x_AB, y_AB] = CoordAB(Alpha,Beta,Tip_d_ratio_A,Tip_d_ratio_B);
126
127
52
128
129 %____________________________________________________________
130 % Output Analysis
131 %____________________________________________________________
132
133 coef = zeros(t,3);
134 for q = 1:t
135 % Tanh Curve Fitting
136 y = fittype('a*tanh(0.3*(x)+c)+d','dependent',{'y'},'independent',{
'x'},'coefficients',{'a','c','d'});
137 myfit = fit(x_AB',y_AB(:,q),y,'StartPoint',[0.3 0.184720424
0.499244691]);
138
139 % Tanh Manipulation Parameters
140 coef(q,:) = coeffvalues(myfit);
141 end
53
Appendix B
Multi
Figure B.1: Three dimensional surface fit, relating P1c and P2c to the number of bays
54
Figure B.2: Three dimensional surface fit, relating P1d and P2d to the number of bays
55
Appendix C
Ethics Review Checklist
56
57

Advanced Mechanical Sample Dissertation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Mechanical Sample Dissertation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of

Lateral Stiffness of Piperack

EG59M9, Individual Project Presented

A dissertation submitted in partial

2 Background Theory and Literature Review 3

3 Review of Previous Approach 10

5 Results, Development and Discussion 29

6 Conclusions and Further Directions 46

A MATLAB Tanh Script 50

C Ethics Review Checklist 56

2.1 Typical piperack support structure found in petrochemical

4.1 Bracing types; a) Diagonal brace, b) X-brace, c) Chevron

5.1 Showing Ke /Ka ratio for a number of one storey, multi-bay

5.1 Showing non-dimensional parameters for nine-bay, five-storey

∆ Maximum Displacement of Elastic Frame

∆µ Displacement Due to µ Effect

∆KM ax Displacement of Frame For Maximum Stiffness

∆Story Displacement of Storey Assuming Infinitely Stiff Beams

µb Correction Factor for µ Effect in Braced Frames

Ab Cross-sectioal Area of Beam

Ac Cross-sectioal Area of Column

Abr Cross-sectioal Area of Brace

D Distance Between Outer Columns in a Frame Storey

E Young’s Modulus of Elasticity

H Height of Frame Structure

i Currect Storey Within Frame

IA Frame Moment of Inertia

Ib Beam Moment of Inertia

Ic Column Moment of Inertia

Ka Approximate Lateral Stiffness

Ke Exact Lateral Stiffness

Kbr Stiffness of Bracing

L Length from Frame Base to Storey

Lbr Length of Brace

Nc Number of Columns in Storey

Nbr Number of Bay’s With Bracing

Nsf Corrected Number of Storeys For First Floor

Pi Lateral Force Acting on Storey

Ps,i Summation of the Lateral Forces Acting on Storey

Firstly, I would like to thank my project supervisor, Dr Paul Davidson

1.1 Project Overview

Piperack support structures are required in petrochemical works, as well as

1.2 Project Aim and Objectives

The objectives of this project are to:

• Review available literature to contextualise such an algorithm.

• Generalise Irvine’s Infinitely Stiff Model to accommodate changing

• Use the results of the analyses to demonstrate in a parametric fashion

• Use the parametric variations in the previous objective to develop an

• Investigate the use of approximate algorithm to model Irregular, non-

• Summarise work and draw relevant conclusions.

Background Theory and

This chapter presents relevant background theory as well as an overview of

2.2 Piperack Support Structures

Piperack support structures are generally described as elastic frame struc-

Concentric bracing is diagonal braces located in the plane of the frame

Eccentric bracing differs from concentric bracing in regards to where the

Figure 2.1: Typical piperack support structure found in petrochemical works.

2.3 Lateral Analysis

2.3.2 Lateral Stiffness

Lateral Stiffness of a Storey

When considering elastic frames, such as piperack support structures, the

2.4 Approximating the Lateral Stiffness

2.4.1 Schultz, 1992

2.4.2 Hosseini and Imagh-e Naiini, 1999