50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”

Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

SMART PIPE RACKS: A MODULAR ENGINEERING APPROACH

Winifredo Cipres Jr., Edilberto Perdido, Romualdo Chavez Jr., Reynaldo Velasco

ABSTRACT: In the petrochemical industry, pipe racks have usually been constructed by the
conventional way of connecting steel members by pieces until it is erected completely on site,
which is normally known as "stick-built". For a stick-built approach, the structural analysis will
only require the pipe rack to be designed against its in-place conditions. With the advent of
modularization, pipe racks can now be fabricated off site on a modular fabrication yard and
transported to the project site and then set on its foundation. While modularization creates
potential benefits to cost, schedule, quality, and safety, it also creates higher engineering cost
due to additional structural engineering analysis and transportation. These additional analyses
consider structure condition during lifting, land transportation, load-out and water transportation
forces (if any). This paper intends to present the basic requirements in the design of modular
pipe racks that will include the design concepts, load calculations and support idealization for
modeling. Considering the safety and economic benefits of selecting such an option may be a
smarter solution for a particular situation.

KEYWORDS: modularization, structural, analysis, lifting, transportation,

1. PURPOSE

This paper provides basic information regarding the structural design of modular pipe racks.

2. SCOPE

This paper includes the following topics:

 Land Transportation Analysis

 Water Transportation Analysis
 Lifting Analysis

3. LAND TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS

Modules may be transported by land with the use of Railroad, Road Trailer, Self Propelled
Module Transporter or SPMT. This paper will focus on land transportation by SPMT.

3.1. Impact/Inertia Load

As a module is being transported by land, it is subjected to impact forces due to sudden

acceleration, deceleration, and curving of the SPMT carrying it. These impact forces are
normally taken as follows:
 10% of the module dead weight in the longitudinal direction.
This impact force comes from Newton’s Second Law of Motion: Force = mass x acceleration
(F = m ● a). With an SPMT travelling at 5 km/hr, decelerating and stopping in 14 seconds,

253
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

acceleration, a = dv/dt = (5000 m/3600 sec – 0)/(14sec) = .099 ~ 0.10, thus, force becomes F
= 0.10 mass or 10% of dead weight.

 5% of the module dead weight in the transverse direction.

This impact force comes from the formula for centrifugal force: F = mv2/r. With a reduced
travel speed of 3 km/hr while turning at a radius of 13.7 m (minimum for trailer trucks),
v2/r = (3000 m/3600 sec)2/13.7 m = .0506 ~ 0.05, thus, force F = 0.05 mass or 5% of dead wt.

Longitudinal and transverse impacts are not applied concurrently.

3.2. Horizontal Forces

Horizontal loads from SPMT’s travelling through cross falls or cross slopes and road gradient
impose forces on the modules. These forces are normally taken as a percentage of the dead
weight of the module. In the absence of road gradient and cross falls data, the following values
may be used:
 2.5% of the module dead weight as transverse horizontal load due to cross falls.
Based on civil design criteria for road design, minimum cross slope of 2%
 5% of the module dead weight longitudinal horizontal load due to road gradient.
Based on civil design criteria for road design, maximum gradient of 6%

Longitudinal and transverse horizontal loads are not applied concurrently.

3.3. Wind Loads

Wind loads on module framing and exposed equipment on the module as well as its components
shall be included in the design of modules for land transportation. The procedure for determining
wind forces is the same as that used for designing the structure on its in-place condition at site.
However, the wind speed design value is different from what is used during in-place design
because the wind load associated with land transport modules is not typically associated with
return periods as is commonly used for in-place analysis. Wind load effects on modules have
been accounted for in different manners and one example applied on a project was the use of
designated wind speed values developed by consultation with the Heavy Haul contractor wherein
the values chosen represent the maximum values for which the contractor believed it safe to have
the modules on the SPMTs in the various transport scenarios.

3.4. Stability

The type and the arrangement of trailer or SPMT to be used play a significant role in the analysis
and stability of the module assembly. The size and weight of the modules determine the number
of SPMT’s required. SPMT/Module configuration shall be verified with respect to stability. One
simplified approach is to limit the vertical stability angle to no less than 8°. This angle is
normally provided by the Heavy Haul contractor. This vertical stability angle is measured from
the module C.G. to the centerline of either flat-bed for 2-file trailer configuration or to the center
of either axle for the single trailer configuration at the center of wheel elevation. Refer to Figure
3.4.1 for the vertical stability angle.

254
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

If the configuration above still produces a vertical stability angle less than 8°, one solution is to
provide a transporter beam under the module and increase the transverse spacing of the SPMTs
until the desired vertical angle is achieved. Refer to Figure 3.4.2.

255
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

The minimum vertical stability angle is normally provided by the specialty contractor that
handles the transportation of the modules (heavy haul contractor).

3.5. Transportation tie-down

To keep the modules from falling during transportation the modules are tied down to the SPMT
using steel chains or diagonal straps.

4. WATER TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS

4.1. Introduction to Ship Motions

Modules are transported by water via barge or ship. Wind, wave and current induce motion on
the ship. As a rigid body, the ship has 6 degrees of freedom. Three in translation: namely surge,
sway and heave. And three in rotation: namely pitch, roll and yaw.

For the analysis of Modular Pipe Racks, the following combinations are normally used in design:
 Maximum heave with maximum roll
 Maximum heave with maximum pitch

Pitch and roll are not considered to act simultaneously.

Heave motion is the linear translation of the ship up and down. Pitching motion is a rotation of
the ship around an axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the ship. Rolling motion is a
rotation around the longitudinal axis of the ship.

Refer to Figure 4.1.1 for the Definition of System of Axis and Motions.

(Fvp + Hvp)or(Fvr + Hvr)

(Fhr + Hhr)

256
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

(Fhp + Hhp)

Head Sea

Beam Sea

4.2. Water Transportation Forces

A Marine Consultant and a Naval Architect are usually contracted to determine transportation
forces, design sea fastening and furnish barge stiffness. In the absence of project specific data a
simplified methodology is normally adopted for use in a project. The method used in one of our
previous projects is described in the sections that follow. Criteria and loadings though, are
discussed and confirmed with the Marine Consultant or Naval Architect first, before beginning
the extensive calculations.

Note: Formulas below are unit dependent (English units)

4.2.1 Longitudinal force Fhp, acting in the barge longitudinal/x-axis direction, is defined as the
horizontal component of the force due to pitch plus the horizontal component of gravity
(weight) caused by tilt of the vessel deck during a Head Sea Condition (pitch):

Fhp = Chp W

Where:
4 2  Z
C hp  2
 sin 
Tp g
W = dead load (i.e. weight of structure, empty weight of equipment, piping, trays etc.) at a
particular point. Include the “stowage” load when appropriate.
Z = vertical distance from the center of floatation to the C.G. of dead loads, W. See Fig.
4.2.1 for further details.
g = acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/sec2

∅ = pitch amplitude (radians)

Tp = pitch period (secs)

257
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

4.2.2 Longitudinal force Hhp, is defined as the horizontal component of the force due to heave
acting in the barge longitudinal/x-axis direction and acts concurrently with pitching motion.

H hp  h sin   W

h =heave (unitless)

4.2.3 Transverse force Fhr, acting in the barge transverse/y-axis direction, is defined as the
horizontal component of the force due to roll plus the horizontal component of gravity
caused by the tilt of the barge deck during a Beam Sea Condition (roll).

Fhr = Chr W

Where:
4 2  Z
C hr  2
 sin 
Tr g
 = roll amplitude
Tr = roll period

4.2.4 Transverse force Hhr, is defined as the horizontal component of the force due to heave
acting in the barge transverse/y-axis direction and acts concurrently with rolling motion.

H hr  h sin   W

4.2.5 Vertical Forces Fvp, acting in the vertical/z-axis direction, is defined as the vertical
component of the force due to pitch during a Head Sea Condition.

Fvp acts concurrently with Fhp, and

Fvp = Cvp W

Where:
4 2  X
C vp  2
Tp g
X = horizontal distance from center of pitch to the C.G. of dead load, W. See Fig. 4.2.1
4.2.6 Vertical Forces Fvr, acting in the vertical/z-axis direction, is defined as the vertical
component of the force due to roll during a Beam Sea Condition.

Fvr acts concurrently with Fhr, and

Fvr = Cvr W

Where:
4 2 Y
C vr  2
Tr g
Y = horizontal distance from center of roll to the C.G. of dead load, W. See Fig. 4.2.1

258
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

4.2.7 Vertical Force Hvp, is defined as the vertical component of the force due to heave acting in
the barge longitudinal/x-axis direction and acts concurrently with pitching motion:

H vp  h cos   W

4.2.8 Vertical Force Hvr, is defined as the vertical component of the force due to heave acting in
the barge transverse/y-axis direction and acts concurrently with rolling motion:

H vr  h cos   W

These forces are applied at the center of gravity of a component of the module.

Longitudinal and transverse horizontal loads are not applied concurrently.

Notes:

259
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

Normally, the module is placed near the center of motion of the barge as much as
possible. If this is not possible, or information from transportation contractor is not
available, the module is conservatively assumed located at the farthest possible corner of
the barge.

For input assumptions for this methodology, see Table 4.2.1 Sample Response Criteria.

Response Parameter Unit Sheltered Open

Waterway Water
Roll Amplitude Degree 5 10
Pitch Amplitude Degree 2 5
Roll Period Seconds 6 6
Pitch Period Seconds 6 6
Heave None 0.1 0.2
Notes:
1. Amplitudes for roll and pitch are single amplitudes.
2. Heave response is provided as a fraction of the full gravitational force.
3. Sheltered waterway designates river, canal, and other similar inland waterways.
4. Open water designates Gulf of Mexico or similar bodies of water.
5. Ship Motion Response Criteria varies from project to project and depends on project
location

Table 4.2.1 Sample Response Criteria

4.3.Water Transportation Route

The water transportation route (by sea or by river) will determine the type and size of barge to
use with the smaller barges travelling by river and bigger barges by sea. This is governed by
transportation restrictions. The route also determines the appropriate Motion Response values to
use and the appropriate wind speed to be considered in the design.

4.4. Wind Loads

Effects of wind are not included in the specified motion response criteria listed in Table 4.2.1.
Wind loads on module framing and exposed equipment on the module as well as its components
shall be included in the design of modules for water transportation. The procedure for
determining wind forces is the same as that used for designing the structure on its in-place
condition at site. Wind loads are defined based on the transportation route it will travel through.
Route through sea has faster wind speeds than those modules which will travel through river.

260
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

4.5. Barge Deflection

Barges deflect due primarily to wave action during voyage. And as the barges deflect, the
module deflects with it. This deflection imposes additional stresses to the modules. Figures 4.5.1
and 4.5.2 illustrates what happens when the barge deflect.

Figure 4.5.1 Undeflected Barge

Figure 4.5.2 Barge Deflected

These deflections are applied as support displacement load. The deflection at the end of the barge
is set to zero and the deflections at intermediate points are determined based on a parabolic
distribution. These deflections are applied as support displacement load at the columns. Refer to
Figure 4.5.3.

Figure 4.5.3 Support Displacement

4.6. Sea Fastening

Modules are fastened to the barge during transportation in water. For modules going through the
river, strap diagonals will do; but for modules going through the ocean, special steel members
are attached to the barges to receive the module (support points) to secure it in place. Boundary

261
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

conditions at the module support points depend on the characteristics of the support devices and
the local stiffness of the barge deck. In the absence of project specific data, a barge stiffness
value is established for use in a project based on data from similar type of barges used in
previous projects. In some cases, support points are idealized as pinned.

5. LIFTING ANALYSIS

Modules are lifted using cranes or similar equipment, for placement on trailers or transporters, on
top of stick-built structure or other modules, or final placement into the foundations.

Lifting points are located such that there is no potential for the slings to clash with other parts of
the module.

As a module is lifted, the module tends to deflect thereby causing additional stresses to the
structural members.

5.1. Impact

The lifting lugs or pad-eyes or trunnionsand internal members framing into the joint where the
lifting lug is connected are typically designed for 100% impact. A horizontal (out of plane) load
equal to 5% of the sling load is also typically applied to these members and joints. All other
members are designed typically with 15% impact.

5.2. Deflection

During lifting, the structural members deflect and this deflection should be limited such that it
does not lead to sagging and distortion of the module. Member deflection should typically not be
greater that L/240, where L is the length of the member. Figure 5.2.1 illustrates the deflected
shape of the module during lifting.

Table 5.2.1 Deflected Shape of Module during Lifting

262
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

6. CHALLENGES TO THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

One of the challenges to the structural engineer is the necessity to prepare and run multiple
structural analysis files to capture the various load cases and different load combinations of the
various structure conditions to be able to get the governing member and connection design
forces.

Another challenge is the need to update files while going through the different analysis process
due to the following reasons:
 Members failing on certain types of analysis should be replaced on other file types.
 Other types of analysis may require additional bracing for stability or strength.

There is also the challenge of determining the appropriate bracing location and configuration that
will minimize rework while looking at which bracing should be permanent or temporary.

7. CONCLUSION

Modular pipe racks present a different kind of challenge to the intellect of the structural engineer
as it opens numerous parameters in designing the structure against different forces while it is
being transported from the module yard to the project site. It is hoped that this paper has
provided enough insight in the structural design of modular pipe racks.

REFERENCES

API RP 2A-WSD – Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms – Working Stress Design, 21st Ed., Dec 2000

Arucan, R. and Chavez, R., (2005) Motion Loads in Floating Offshore Structures. Lectures from 11th
ASEP International Conference, Manila, Philippines.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Winifredo Cipres Jr. is a Structural Lead Engineer of Fluor Daniel Inc., Philippines. He has more than
19 years of experience in the field of structural design and construction. E-mail address:
winifredo.cipres@fluor.com Tel. No. 876-2580

Reynaldo Velasco is a Senior Structural Engineer of Fluor Daniel Inc., Philippines. He has more than 27
years of experience in engineering and construction of various civil engineering structures. E-mail
address: reynaldo.velasco@fluor.com

Romualdo Chavez Jr. is a Principal Structural Engineer of Fluor Daniel Inc., Philippines. He has more
than 28 years of experience in engineering and construction of various civil engineering structures. E-mail
address: romualdo.chavez@fluor.com

263
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

Edilberto Perdido is a Principal Structural Engineer of Fluor Daniel Inc., Philippines. He has more than
20 years of experience in engineering and construction of various civil engineering structures. E-mail
address: edilberto.perdido@fluor.com

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We wish to thank the management of Fluor Daniel Inc., Phils. for supporting the preparation of this paper
in terms of time and office resources and encouragement without which this paper would not have been
possible.

264