×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Torsion on vessel

Torsion on vessel

Torsion on vessel

(OP)
The Seismic codes talk about inherent torsion and accidental torsion.  I cannot find an exclusion for non-building structures not similar to building.  Is there an example somewhere of how to determine the resultant loads on the vessel supports from torsion on the vessel?  I am especially interested in lug and leg supported vessels.

RE: Torsion on vessel

PVGuy, I have found the last couple of issues of ASCE-7 just about incomprehensible on Seismic loadings. Very difficult for us "blacksmiths" to apply with any confidence.

Good luck,

Mike

RE: Torsion on vessel

To put it kindly, the building codes are a mess.  But if it's an oddball design requirement, I'd look for something that specifically required it, rather than looking for something to exclude it.

Do you have a specific reference?

One issue that came up on the structural forum a while back was the applicable code years.  For example, a city will specify what year of IBC or UBC is its building code.  That issue of IBC or UBC specifies certain specific years of other standards- including ASCE 7, ASME B&PV Code or API-650.  Meanwhile, the ASME and API codes themselves specify that latest edition is always used- and are updated in such a way that you don't normally have the previous year's code.  So right off the bat, you get a glaring discrepancy in trying to satisfy the building codes, which the code writers seem oblivious to.

RE: Torsion on vessel

(OP)
This is the pickle, the requirement for the non-building structures not similar to buildings is that the Effective Laterl Force (ELF) method be used as for buildings with some alterations that are then listed.  It allows exceptions for certian requirements.  It stops there for the last 2 ASCE codes (7-02 and 7-05) and IBC 2003 and IBC 2006 simply defer to them.  This is not a design requirement now; but I want to understand the requirements prior to that case.  

RE: Torsion on vessel

This has been my experience: The Customer, a big E&C who presumably has Civil E's sitting on top of each other, puts a vaque requirement in their spec.

The fabricator is then required to perform the calculation in the absence of any hard data.

He puts a page in the mechanical calculations with some equations, answers and perhaps a sketch, and with the words "SEISMIC LOADING" at the top.

Customer sees the page and notes the requitement has been met.

Everybody's happy, and the fabricator gets approval to ship.

Mike

RE: Torsion on vessel

PVguy, is there a specific paragraph you're looking at that requires the torsion?

RE: Torsion on vessel

(OP)
As an example:

ASCE 7-05 15.4.1 (pg. 162) states that these structures must be designed to resist minimum seismic lateral forces that are not less than the requirements from 12.8.

In 12.8 there is a subparagraph on inherent torsion (from unevenly distributed masses) and a subparagraph on accidental torsion (out of plumb, etc. - as best as I can tell).  

The requirement in 15.4.1 specifically states lateral forces, so I thought it meant only the lateral forces from 12.8; however, the title of 12.8 is Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure.  So at this point I am thinking the torsion is required.

RE: Torsion on vessel

After some study, my conclusion that ASCE-7 is a mess is confirmed.

First off, is the vessel covered under ANY of the reference documents listed?  If so, the item in 15.4.1 requiring the forces per 12.8 is not applicable.

Secondly, when a paragraph is plainly meaningless when applied to the situation at hand, are you constrained to somehow twist the meaning to make it apply, or can you just ignore the paragraph and assume it is not applicable?  I think that's the situation in this case, in dealing with the rigid/flexible diaphragms.  A similar case is the calculation of the period using the equation for buildings- this is obviously pure coincidence if it matches your structure's period, but the code allows you to do it.

RE: Torsion on vessel

(OP)
Thank you all for your comments.

RE: Torsion on vessel

In my early tank design days, we just took the seismic shear and assumed it was offset from the centerline of tank by 10% of tank diameter.  It added a marginal addition to shear load in sway rod due to "accidental" torsion on the tower.

Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants
www.tankindustry.com

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources