e-ISSN: 2582-5208

International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science

Volume:03/Issue:04/April-2021 Impact Factor- 5.354 www.irjmets.com

DESIGN OF OPTIMUM PIPE RACK FOR VARIOUS BAYS

Priya D Meshram*1, R V R K Prasad*2
*1Post graduate Student, KDK College of Engineering & Technology, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.
*2Associate Professor, KDK College of Engineering & Technology, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.
(Department of Civil Engineering, K.D.K. College of Engineering, Nagpur-440009, India)

ABSTRACT
Pipe rack are common structures in industries like Oil & gas. Pipe racks are most common structures in
industries like Oil & Gas, Petrochemical, refinery, etc. It carries various pipes from one Equipment to another or
from one unit to another unit. Pipe racks should be designed for various loads like primary essential loads and
pipe loads. The study aims to compare the effect of increasing the column to column distance in pipe rack using
STAAD Pro V8i. The pipe rack members has been designed by using Indian Standard codes. The Members of the
Pipe racks should be verified for Strength, Vertical Horizontal Deflection. The utility ratios of the Pipe racks has
to be maintained within the desired limit. At the end, conclusions are drawn about the comparison of the three
pipe racks with different lengths.
Keywords: Pipe rack, pipe Loadings, Cross bracings, support, design, STAAD Pro V8i.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. General
Pipe networks are considered as main components of industrial complexes like refineries and petrochemicals
that transfer fluid and gas. Pipe rack is concrete or steel structure (better fire resistant) which carries multiple
pipes carrying liquid or gas in different tiers and also carries Electrical/Instrument/Telecom Cable trays for
supporting auxiliary Equipment like Pressure release valves etc. with walkways and service platforms.
Structural steel pipe racks support pipes, power cables and instrument cable trays. They also carry large
diameter to small bore lines with liquid or gas from one Equipment to another Equipment or from one unit to
another unit. These are necessary for carrying large number of Process lines, Utility lines, Flare lines etc. Pipe
racks have a series of transverse bents which run along the length. These are spaced at uniform intervals of the
pipe system around 20 ft. The transverse bents are typically moment frames and connected with longitudinal
struts for maintenance access.
Different types of pipes are used in the pipe rack. Utility pipes include steam, cooling water, fuel oil,
extinguishing water, etc. They are mostly located in the middle of a one-level pipe rack or on the top level. Also
there are the
Process pipes. Process pipes carry product which is a part of chemical reactions. When there are multiple pipes,
process pipes are heavy weighted or placed on the bottom level, they are placed outside of the utility pipes. At
last there are relief pipes and flare pipes that fulfil a safety goal. They are always located on the outside of the
rack to protect the installation against too much pressure. A complete structure of pipe rack system and its
structural elements should perform their function adequately and safely, with appropriate degree of reliability
during design life. It should be constructed before it becomes obstruction for other structures.
B. Objective
The main objective of this project is to design optimum pipe rack. The following are also the objective behind
our project
• To analyze steel pipe rack.
• To design steel pipe rack of 3 various span lengths as per codes specifications.
• To compare of 3 models of pipe rack with different span lengths.
• To determine the optimum pipe rack model.
II. METHODOLOGY
The design of the pipe rack is done on the basis of the standard load data. The design is followed as per the Is
800:2007.
www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[1935]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:03/Issue:04/April-2021 Impact Factor- 5.354 www.irjmets.com
• Data collection: Following data should be collected before designing a pipe rack
• Unit plot plan / overall plot plan.
• Instrumentation and piping diagrams.
• Plant layout specification.
• Specification of clients
• Material of construction.
• Fireproofing requirements
• The loads of pipes has been considered.
• After collecting the data, 3 various spans of different lengths has been considered.
• The pipe rack bridges are designed by using STAAD Pro v8i software.
• All the three designs are compared and figured out the outcomes.
III. MODELING AND ANALYSIS
Three types of pipe rack structures are considered for the study. The pipe rack of 30m, 35m and 40m lengths
are considered having column to column spacing as 6m, 7m and 8m respectively. The loadings and design
parameters are kept constant for all the three cases.

Model 1
Column to column spacing is 6m c/c. Tier spacing is
3m. 1 tier is placed at the centre of main beams. X
type of bracings are provided in longitudinal
direction at 1st grid and at 4th grid. X type of
bracings are provided in lateral direction.

• Length of pipe rack : 30:00m

• Height of pipe rack : 08:00m
• Width of pipe rack : 06.00m
• Column to column spacing : 06.00m
Figure 1: 3D rendered View of 30m length pipe
• Tier spacing : 03.00m
rack
The general dimensions of pipe rack are as below:

Model 2
Column to column spacing is 7m c/c. Tier spacing is
2.33m. 2 tiers are placed at the equal distances of
2.33m from main beams. X type of bracings are
provided in longitudinal direction at 1st grid and at
4th grid. X type of bracings are provided in lateral
direction.
The general dimensions of pipe rack are as below:

• Length of pipe rack : 35:00m

• Height of pipe rack : 08:00m
• Width of pipe rack : 06.00m Figure 2: 3D rendered View of 35m length pipe
rack
• Column to column spacing : 07.00m
• Tier spacing : 02.33m

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[1936]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:03/Issue:04/April-2021 Impact Factor- 5.354 www.irjmets.com

Model 3
Column to column spacing is 8m c/c. Tier spacing is
2m. 3 tiers are placed at the equal distances of 2m
from main beams. X type of bracings are provided
in longitudinal direction at 1st grid and at 4th grid. X
type of bracings are provided in lateral direction.
The general dimensions of pipe rack are as below:

Figure 3: 3D rendered View of 40m length pipe

rack

• Length of pipe rack : 40:00m

• Height of pipe rack : 08:00m
• Width of pipe rack : 06.00m
• Column to column spacing : 08.00m
• Tier spacing : 02.00m

A. Section Property
In this design various sections of beams and columns are assigned up to which utilization is less than unity and
deflection limits should satisfy by the structure. Following sections are assigned to the structure.

• Columns : ISMB 400

• Main Beam : ISMB 300
• Tier : ISMB 200
• Bracings : ISA 75 X 75 X
10
B. Specification of structure
As bracings are provided in longitudinal (X) direction, beams in longitudinal direction are provided releases at
supports. Due to which longitudinal frames are not moment- resisting. As transverse frames are modeled is
moment-resisting frames, the beams in transverse (Z) direction are not released
C. Supports
Fixed supports are considered for all columns.
D. Loads Considered to design pipe rack
The design of the pipe rack is done on the basis of standard data.
1. Dead Load (DL)
Self-weight for all beams and columns are considered.
Floor Load of pressure = 0.1 kN/m2 is taken.
2. Live Load
Pipe carrying water loads are considered.
Live Load of 7kN/m3 has been taken.
3. Seismic Load
As per IS 1893:2002, Zone II is considered for the design. Following parameters are considered,
a) Type of soil = Type II, Medium soil
b) Seismic zone factor (II) Z= 0.10 (Clause no.6.4.2, Table no.2, Page no. 16)

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[1937]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:03/Issue:04/April-2021 Impact Factor- 5.354 www.irjmets.com
c) Response reduction factor = 5 (Clause no.7.2 Table no.7, Page no. 23)
d) Importance factor = 1 (Clause no.7.2 Table no.6, Page no. 18)
e) Damping Ratio = 5%
f) Medium soil factor = 1.00 (Clause no.7.2.3 Table no.3, Page no. 17)
4. Fu = 450kN/m2
5. Fyld = 345kN/m2
6. Effective length Eff length = 1.2 X L
7. All the common parameters are considered as per IS 800:2007.
Load Combinations:
Load Combinations as per Indian codes are taken.
1. (1.5 X DL) + (1.5 X LL)
2. (1.2 X DL) + (1.2 X LL)
3. (1.2 X DL) + (1.2 X LL) + (1.2 X EX)
4. (1.2 X DL) + (1.2 X LL) + (1.2 X E-X)
5. (1.2 X DL) + (1.2 X LL) + (1.2 X EZ)
6. (1.2 X DL) + (1.2 X LL) + (1.2 X E-Z)
7. (1.2 X DL) + (1.2 X LL) + (-1.2 X EX)
8. (1.2 X DL) + (1.2 X LL) + (-1.2 X E-X)
9. (1.2 X DL) + (1.2 X LL) + (-1.2 X EZ)
10. (1.2 X DL) + (1.2 X LL) + (-1.2 X E-Z)
11. (1.5 X DL)
12. (1.5 X DL) + (1.5 X EX)
13. (1.5 X DL) + (1.5 X E-X)
14. (1.5 X DL) + (1.5 X EZ)
15. (1.5 X DL) + (1.5 X E-Z)
16. (1.5 X DL) + (-1.5 X EX)
17. (1.5 X DL) + (-1.5 X E-X)
18. (1.5 X DL) + (-1.5 X EZ)
19. (1.5 X DL) + (-1.5 X E-Z)
20. (0.9 X DL) + (1.5 X EX)
21. (0.9 X DL) + (1.5 X E-X)
22. (0.9 X DL) + (1.5 X EZ)
23. (0.9 X DL) + (1.5 X E-Z)
24. (0.9 X DL) + (-1.5 X EX)
25. (0.9 X DL) + (-1.5 X E-X)
26. (0.9 X DL) + (-1.5 X EZ)
27. (0.9 X DL) + (-1.5 X E-Z)
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Displacement
Displacement diagram of model 1, model 2 and model 3 are as follows:

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[1938]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:03/Issue:04/April-2021 Impact Factor- 5.354 www.irjmets.com

Figure 4: Displacement Diagram of 30m length Figure 5: Displacement Diagram of 35m length
Pipe rack pipe rack

Maximum displacement for model 1, model 2 and

model 3 are as follow

Displacements (mm)

Max X Max Y Max Z

Model 1 0.888 0.159 39.845

Model 2 8.291 23.097 39.479

Figure 6: Displacement Diagram of 40m length Model 3 11.912 25.086 38.133
pipe rack

Comparison of displacements of all the 3 models is as follows:

45
40
Displacements (mm)

35 • Displacement along X direction and Y-Direction is

30 increasing gradually with the increase in the
25 column to column distance.
20 • The displacement along Z-Direction is slightly
15
decreasing with the increase in column to column
10
distance.
5
0
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Max X Max Y Max Z

Graph 1: Maximum Displacement

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[1939]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:03/Issue:04/April-2021 Impact Factor- 5.354 www.irjmets.com
Axial Force
Axial Force diagram of model 1, model 2 and model 3 are as follows:

Figure 7: Axial Force of 30m length pipe rack Figure 8: Axial Force of 35m length pipe rack

Maximum Axial force for model 1, model 2 and

model 3 are as follows:
Maximum Axial Force (kN)

Model 1 58.842

Model 2 91.381

Model 3 119.533

Figure 9: Axial Force of 40m length pipe rack

Comparison of Axial Force of all the 3 models is as follows:

• Axial force in case 1 is 35.61% less than axial force
140 in case 2. Axial force in case 2 is 23.55% less than
120 axial force in case 3.
Axial Force (kN)

100
80
60
40
20
0
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Graph 2: Maximum Axial Force

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[1940]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:03/Issue:04/April-2021 Impact Factor- 5.354 www.irjmets.com
Shear Force
Shear Force diagram of model 1, model 2 and model 3 are as follows:

Figure 10: Shear Force of 30m length pipe rack Figure 11: Shear Force of 35m length pipe rack

Maximum Shear Force for model 1, model 2 and

model 3 are as follows:

Shear Force (kN)

Model 1 33.913

Model 2 53.361
Model 3 54.881

Figure12: Shear Force of 40m length pipe rack

Comparison of Shear Force of all the 3 models is as follows:

60 • Shear force in case 1 is 36.45% less than shear

force in case 2. Shear force in case 2 is 2.77% less
50 than shear force in case 3.
Shear Force (kN)

40

30

20

10

0
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Graph 3: Maximum Shear Force

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[1941]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:03/Issue:04/April-2021 Impact Factor- 5.354 www.irjmets.com
Bending Moment
Bending Moment diagram of model 1, model 2 and model 3 are as follows:

Figure 13: Bending Moment of 30m length pipe Figure 14: Bending Moment of 35m length pipe
rack rack

Maximum Bending Moment for model 1, model 2

and model 3 are as follows:
Bending Moment (kNm)

Model 1 94.185

Model 2 120.361

Model 3 141.659

Figure 15: Bending Moment of 40m length pipe rack

Comparison of Bending Moment of all the 3 models is as follows:

160
140  Bending moment of case 1 is 21.75% less than
120 bending moment of case 2. Bending moment of
Bending Moment (kNm)

100 case 2 is 15.03% less than bending moment in

80 case 3.
60
40
20
0
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[1942]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:03/Issue:04/April-2021 Impact Factor- 5.354 www.irjmets.com
Support Reaction

Support reaction of 30m length pipe rack is as follows:

Horizontal Vertical Horizontal
Node L/C Fx Fy Fz
kN kN kN

Max Fx 5 (1.2 X DL) + (1.2 X LL) + (1.2 X E-X) 11.889 51.172 -1.778

Max Fy 18 (1.5 X DL) + (1.5 X LL) -10.670 65.499 1.756

Max Fz 1 (1.2 X DL) + (1.2 X LL) + (1.2 X E-Z) 9.921 48.618 4.396

Support reaction of 35m length pipe rack is as follows:

Horizontal Vertical Horizontal
Node L/C Fx Fy Fz
kN kN kN

Max Fx 5 (1.2 X DL) + (1.2 X LL) + (1.2 X E-Z) 17.718 83.199 -2.769

Max Fy 4 (1.5 X DL) + (1.5 X LL) -13.135 105.046 2.016

Max Fz 1 (1.2 X DL) + (1.2 X LL) + (1.2 X E-Z) 13.632 58.451 6.429

Support reaction of 40m length pipe rack is as follows:

Horizontal Vertical Horizontal

Node L/C Fx Fy Fz
kN kN kN

Max Fx 5 (1.2 X DL) + (1.5 X LL) 28.605 95.520 -3.600

Max Fy 2 (1.2 X DL) + (1.5 X LL) -17.639 133.541 4.054

Max Fz 1 (1.2 X DL) + (1.2 X LL) + (1.2 X E-Z) 21.412 71.978 6.339

V. CONCLUSION
• As utilization ratio for all members is less than one, and deflection of all members is within permissible limit
the design is safe for all three cases
• Cross vertical bracings are used to transmit transverse and longitudinal forces to the foundation.
• Vertical deflection of structural members is more in case 3 as compared to case 1 and case 2 but found to be
within limit.
• This helps to reduce the number of columns.
• Tried to maximize the distance between supports by keeping the value of stresses and deflection within safe
limits.
• Tonnage of model 1 is found to be 10.06 Tonnes. Tonnage of model 2 is found to be 12.73Tonnes.and
tonnage of model 3 is found to be 15.75Tonnes.
• For the deflection check: Height of pipe rack = 8000mm. Allowable deflection= H/150=53.33mm. As per
Indian code criteria. Actual deflection<53.33mm. So structure is safe in deflection.
• All the utility ratios are less than 1 which is an allowable ratio.
• So the design and analysis has been followed as per the codes IS 800:2007.

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[1943]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Volume:03/Issue:04/April-2021 Impact Factor- 5.354 www.irjmets.com
VI. REFERENCES
[1] IS:800:2007 for code of practice for general construction in steel
[2] IS 1893: Part 1: 2016 for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures
[3] ASCE guidelines for Seismic Evolution and Design of Petrochemical Facilities
[4] “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures (ASCE 7-10).” American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE). (2010)’’
[5] Process Industry Practice PIP (2007), PIP STC01015, Structural Design Criteria,
[6] Ashit K. Kikani and Vijay R. Panchal, “Comparative Study of Pipe Rack Structure with Modular Concept
and Normal Stick-built Approach using ASCE 7-02” Journal of Civil Engineering and Environmental
Technology p-ISSN: 2349-8404; e-ISSN: 2349-879X; Volume 3, Issue 4; January-March, 2016, pp. 303-
307.
[7] J. K. Sumanth and Dr. C. Sashidhar, “Design and Analysis of Pipe Rack System using STAAD PRO V8i
Software,” International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 6.887 Volume 6 Issue IX, Sep 2018
[8] Preeti Rathore and Prof. D.H.Raval, “Comparative Study and Cost Evaluation of Combined Pipe Rack
and Steel Pipe Rack,” IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research & Development| Vol. 4, Issue
03, 2016
[9] Sabade Madhuri, Prof. A.A.Hamane, “Comparison Study of Effective Length Method (ELM) and Direct
Analysis Method (DAM) for Pipe rack,” 2017 IJSRSET | Volume 3 | Issue 2 | Print ISSN: 2395-1990
[10] M. G. Kawade, A. V. Navale, “Optimization of Pipe Rack by Study of Braced Bay,” International Journal of
Research in Engineering, Science and Management Volume-2, Issue-2, February-2019
[11] Nitesh J Singh, Mohammad Ishtiyaque, “Optimized Design & Analysis of Steel Pipe Racks For Oil & Gas
Industries As Per International Codes & Standards,” IJRET: International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308
[12] David A. Nelson, “Stability Analysis Of Pipe Racks For Industrial Facilities”
[13] Rupam Saikia and Jayanta Pathak, “Seismic Response Of Steel Braced Pipe Racks And Technological
Platforms In Oil Refineries” 15th Symposium on Earthquake Engineering Indian Institute of
Technology, Roorkee December 11-13, 2014 Paper No. A127
[14] Richard M. Drake and Robert J. Walter, “Design of Structural Steel Pipe Racks”
[15] Anton Stade Aarønæs, Hanna Nilsson, “Dynamic response of pipe rack steel structures to explosion
loads”
[16] Siyu Xua, Yufei Wanga, Xiao Feng, “Plant Layout Optimization with Pipe Rack and Frames,” CHEMICAL
ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS(CEt) VOL. 81, 2020
[17] Manoharan R. and Amit Srivastava, “Rational Hybrid Analytical Model for Steel Pipe Rack
Quantification in Oil & Gas Industries” Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 6, No. 4, April, 2020
[18] Ali Reza Keyvani Boroujeni and Mehdi Hashemi, “Linear and nonlinear analysis for seismic design of
piping system” Journal of Civil Engineering and Construction Technology Vol. 4(4), pp. 149-156, May,
2013 DOI 10.5897/JCECT12.090 ISSN 1996-0816 © 2013 Academic Journals

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[1944]