1、GUIDELINES FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND DESIGN OF PETROCHEMICAL FACILITIESSecond Edition PREPARED BY Task Committee on Seismic Evaluation and Design of the Petrochemical Committee of the Energy Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 ALEXANDER BELL DRIVE RESTON, VIRGINIA 201914400 Lib
2、rary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Guidelines for seismic evaluation and design of petrochemical facilities / prepared by Task Committee on Seismic Evaluation and Design of the Petrochemical Committee of the Energy Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers. - 2nd ed. p. cm. In
3、cludes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-7844-1140-7 1. Petroleum refineries-Design and construction. 2. Earthquake engineering. I. American Society of Civil Engineers. Task Committee on Seismic Evaluation and Design. TH4571.G85 2010 665.53-dc22 2010048902 American Society of Civil En
4、gineers 1801 Alexander Bell Drive Reston, Virginia, 20191-4400 www.asce.org/pubs Any statements expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of ASCE, which takes no responsibility for any statement made herein. No reference made in this
5、publication to any specific method, product, process, or service constitutes or implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty thereof by ASCE. The materials are for general information only and do not represent a standard of ASCE, nor are they intended as a reference in purchase specifications
6、, contracts, regulations, statutes, or any other legal document. ASCE makes no representation or warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or utility of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this publication, and assu
7、mes no liability therefore. This information should not be used without first securing competent advice with respect to its suitability for any general or specific application. Anyone utilizing this information assumes all liability arising from such use, including but not limited to infringement of
8、 any patent or patents. ASCE and American Society of Civil EngineersRegistered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Photocopies and permissions. Permission to photocopy or reproduce material from ASCE publications can be obtained by sending an e-mail to permissionsasce.org or by locating a title in
9、ASCEs online database (http:/cedb.asce.org) and using the “Permission to Reuse” link. Bulk reprints. Information regarding reprints of 100 or more copies is available at http:/www.asce.org/reprints. Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers. All Rights Reserved. ISBN 13: 978-0-7844-1
10、140-7 Manufactured in the United States of America. 16 15 14 13 12 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ASCE Petrochemical Energy Committee This publication is one of five state-of-the-practice engineering reports produced, to date, by the ASCE Petrochemical Energy Committee. These engineering reports are intended to b
11、e a summary of current engineering knowledge and design practice, and present guidelines for the design of petrochemical facilities. They represent a consensus opinion of task committee members active in their development. These five ASCE engineering reports are: 1) Design of Anchor Bolts in Petroch
12、emical Facilities 2) Design of Blast Resistant Buildings in Petrochemical Facilities 3) Design of Secondary Containment in Petrochemical Facilities 4) Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and Design of Petrochemical Facilities 5) Wind Loads for Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities The ASCE Pet
13、rochemical Energy Committee was organized by A. K. Gupta in 1991 and initially chaired by Curley Turner. Under their leadership the five task committees were formed. More recently, the Committee has been chaired by Joseph A. Bohinsky and Frank J. Hsiu. The five reports were initially published in 19
14、97. Buildings codes and standards have changed significantly since the publication of these five reports, specifically in the calculation of wind and seismic loads and analysis procedures for anchorage design. Additionally, new research in these areas and in blast resistant design has provided oppor
15、tunities for improvement of the recommended guidelines. The ASCE has determined the need to update four of the original reports and publish new editions, based on the latest research and for consistency with current building codes and standards. The ASCE Petrochemical Energy Committee was reorganize
16、d by Magdy H. Hanna in 2005 and the following four task committees were formed to update their respective reports: Task Committee on Anchor Bolt Design for Petrochemical Facilities Task Committee on Blast Design for Petrochemical Facilities Task Committee on Seismic Evaluation and Design for Petroch
17、emical Facilities Task Committee for Wind Load Design for Petrochemical Facilities Current ASCE Petrochemical Energy Committee Magdy H. Hanna Jacobs Engineering - Chairman William Bounds Fluor Corporation John Falcon Jacobs Engineering Marc L. Levitan Louisiana State University J. G. (Greg) Soules C
18、B&I iiiThe ASCE Task Committee on Seismic Evaluation and Design of Petrochemical Facilities This revised document was prepared to provide guidance in the seismic design of new petrochemical facilities and the seismic evaluation of existing facilities. Though the makeup of the committee and the writi
19、ng of this document are directed at petrochemical facilities, these guidelines are applicable to similar situations in other industries. The intended audience for this document includes structural design engineers, operating company personnel responsible for establishing seismic design and construct
20、ion standards, and local building authorities. The task committee was established because of a significant interest in the petrochemical industry in addressing the wide variation of design and construction practices and standards that are applied throughout the country with regards to the petrochemi
21、cal industry. Another primary purpose was to address the need for consistent evaluation methodologies and standards for existing facilities. Most governing building codes and design standards address only new design, and it is recognized that it would be prohibitively expensive to retrofit existing
22、facilities to meet current standards. It is also recognized that standards for new design do not address all of the conditions that may be found in existing facilities. These guidelines are intended to provide practical recommendations on several areas which affect the safety of a petrochemical faci
23、lity during and following an earthquake. In the area of new design, these guidelines emphasize interpretations of the intent of building codes as applied to petrochemical facilities, and practical guidance on design details and considerations which are not included in building codes. For existing fa
24、cilities, these guidelines provide evaluation methodologies which rely heavily on experience from past earthquakes, coupled with focused analyses. The guidelines emphasize methods to address seismic vulnerabilities which are not covered by building codes, but which can be identified by experienced e
25、ngineers. This document also provides background information and recommendations in several areas related to seismic safety where the structural engineer may be interacting with other disciplines and with plant operations. These areas include seismic hazards, contingency planning, and post-earthquak
26、e damage assessment. ivIn helping to create a consensus set of guidelines, a number of key individuals dedicated significant amounts of time to formulating, writing, and reviewing in detail specific sections of this document. Those members are identified below. The ASCE Task Committee on Seismic Eva
27、luation and Design of Petrochemical Facilities J. G. (Greg) Soules, P.E., S.E., SECB Rudy Mulia, P.E., S.E. CB&I, Inc. Chevron Energy and Technology Co. Chairman Vice-Chairman Robert E. Bachman, S.E. R.E. Bachman, S.E. Consulting Structural Engineer Martin L. Eskijian, P.E. California State Lands Co
28、mmission Richard T. (Dick) Gilbert, P.E. ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Co. Kim T. Hoang Chevron Energy and Technology Co. Gayle S. Johnson, P.E. Halcrow, Inc. David Kerins, P.E. ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Co. James Lee KBR Benny E. Lenox, Jr., P.E. Jacobs Engineering Don S. Martin, P.E. M
29、ustang Engineering Ahmed Nisar, P.E. MMI Engineering Inc. James W. Press, P.E. Mustang Engineering Dario Rosidi, Ph.D, G.E. CH2M Hill, Inc. Thomas E. Rosinski, P.E. Jacobs Engineering Jeffrey A. Stokes, P.E. DuPont Engineering Paul B. Summers, P.E., S.E. MMI Engineering Inc. Eric H. Wey, P.E. Fluor
30、Enterprises, Inc. Clay H. Willis, P.E. Mustang Engineering vThe committee would like to thank the following individuals for their reviews and other contributions. Reviewers and Other Contributors Eric Abrahamson, Ph.D, P.E. ExxonMobil Development Co. Donald G. Anderson CH2M Hill, Inc. Vincent Borov,
31、 P.E. Chevron Energy and Technology Co. Rick Drake, S.E., SECB Fluor Enterprises, Inc. Donovan Harnly Jacobs Engineering Perry C. Hendrickson Exxon Mobil Research & Engineering Co. Thomas Hunt, S.E. Fluor Enterprises, Inc. Rory M. McGruer, P.E., S.E. Jacobs Engineering Ai Nguyen Jacobs Engineering M
32、ike Rookstool Chevron Energy and Technology Co. Finally, the task committee would like to acknowledge the numerous contributions made to this task committee by James Lee. James passed away during the preparation of this report update. vi Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction1 1.1 Objective.1 1.2
33、 Related Industry Codes, Standards and Specifications.3 1.3 Organization of the Document.5 Chapter 2: Design and Evaluation Philosophy .7 2.1 Introduction.7 2.2 Considerations for New Design.7 2.3 Considerations for the Evaluation of Existing Facilities 8 2.4 Cautions Regarding Design & Evaluation 9
34、 2.5 Performance Objectives and Occupancy Categories10 2.6 Design Approaches for New Facilities13 2.7 Evaluation of Existing Structure / Replacement in Kind14 2.8 Considerations for Regulatory Requirements .15 2.9 Considerations for Temporary Facilities.17 2.10 Structural Observation and Inspection
35、17 2.11 Quality Assurance18 2.12 Peer Review18 Chapter 3: Seismic Hazards.19 3.1 Introduction.19 3.2 Earthquake Basics 19 3.3 Ground Shaking21 3.4 Design Ground Motions.24 3.5 Ground Failure34 3.6 Tsunami and Seiche37 Appendix 3.A Ground Shaking .39 Appendix 3.B Earthquake Related Coastal Inundation
36、51 vii Chapter 4: Seismic Analysis.60 4.1 Introduction.60 4.2 Structural Systems in a Petrochemical Facility.61 4.3 Selection of Analysis Procedures 64 4.4 Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure 65 4.5 Dynamic Analysis Methods.79 4.6 Considerations for Existing Facilities84 Appendix 4.A Typical Period (
37、T) Computations for Nonbuilding Structures 89 Appendix 4.B Guidelines for Determination of Base Shear for Combination Structures .103 Appendix 4.C Determination of Base Shear for Selected Structures 111 Appendix 4.D Stability Check Using Energy Balance Approach .123 Appendix 4.E Methodology for Dete
38、rmination of Sliding Displacements.139 Appendix 4.F Guidance for California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program Seismic Assessments 143 Appendix 4.G Examples of Configurations of Petrochemical Structures where Dynamic Analysis Is Recommended.191 Chapter 5: Primary Structural Design.203 5.
39、1 Introduction.203 5.2 Design Criteria203 5.3 Design Considerations213 5.4 Structural Details232 5.5 Physical Interaction of Structures and Components .245 5.6 Geotechnical Considerations247 Chapter 6: Walkdown Evaluations of Existing Facilities250 6.1 Introduction.250 6.2 Basis for Performing Walkd
40、owns250 6.3 General Methodology.251 6.4 System Considerations.255 6.5 Evaluation of Components.257 6.6 Limitations284 viii Chapter 7: Design and Evaluation of Tanks at Grade.286 7.1 Introduction.286 7.2 Past Earthquake Performance of Flat-Bottomed Tanks287 7.3 Walkthrough Inspection.290 7.4 Analytic
41、al Evaluation.300 7.5 Mitigation of Seismic Effects 308 7.6 Considerations for Future Investigation 309 7.7 Design of New Tanks.309 Chapter 8: Earthquake Contingency Planning.312 8.1 Introduction.312 8.2 Purpose312 8.3 Scope of Response Plan .312 8.4 Pre-Earthquake Preparation.313 8.5 Incident Recog
42、nition314 8.6 Command & Control / Mobilization System 314 8.7 Roles and Responsibilities of Team Personnel .315 8.8 Inspection Methodology.315 8.9 Assembling of Inspection Data / Reporting Results .315 Chapter 9: Post-Earthquake Damage Assessment .317 9.1 Introduction.317 9.2 Pre-Investigation Activ
43、ities319 9.3 Performing Field Inspections.320 9.4 Evaluation of Load-Carrying Systems 321 9.5 Identification of Damaged Structures322 9.6 Documentation322 9.7 Inspection Team.323 9.8 Recommended Equipment.324 Chapter 10: Retrofit Design.325 10.1 Introduction.325 10.2 Upgrade Situations.325 10.3 Crit
44、eria for Voluntary Seismic Upgrading 326 10.4 Seismic Retrofit Considerations for Plant Structures and Buildings .326 ix Chapter 11: New and Existing Marine Oil Terminals .330 11.1 Introduction.330 11.2 MOT Descriptions330 11.3 Historical Performance.330 11.4 State of Practice 331 11.5 Overall Appro
45、ach .332 11.6 Existing Marine Oil Terminals 333 Chapter 12: International Codes.335 12.1 Introduction.335 12.2 Code Conformance.335 12.3 Multiple Code Conformance336 12.4 Cautions when Performing Code Comparisons336 12.5 Vendor Issues339 12.6 Language Issues339 Nomenclature.340 Glossary344 Reference
46、s348 Index.359 x Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 OBJECTIVE Many different codes and standards are used in the structural and seismic design and assessment of petrochemical facilities. Many of these codes have been developed primarily for use in the design of buildings, and generally offer insufficiently
47、detailed guidelines for complete design and evaluation of structures commonly found in petrochemical facilities. The engineer is often forced to rely on broad subjective interpretation of the intent of these codes to develop detailed design criteria and procedures as they apply to items found in pet
48、rochemical facilities. Many petrochemical operating companies with facilities in seismic regions, as well as engineering offices that serve the petrochemical industry, have developed their own internal standards and guidelines for addressing these unique seismic design and evaluation issues. Consequ
49、ently, these facilities may be designed and built with inconsistent degrees of conservatism and design margins. Until the first publication of these Guidelines, there were no widely accepted standards for the seismic evaluation of existing facilities. As the public and regulators become more aware of environmental and safety issues associated with such facilities, regulators, owners, and engineers have an ever-increasing need for a consistent approach and a technically sound, practical basis for performing evaluations. Recognizing the need for design and evaluation guidel
