ISSN (Print) : 0974-6846

Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol 9(13), DOI: 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i13/90554, April 2016 ISSN (Online) : 0974-5645

FEM with Analytical Approach based Wind and

Seismic Design Recommendations for Vertical
Tall Process Column
A. M. Senthil Anbazhagan* and M. Dev Anand
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Noorul Islam Centre for Higher Education, Kumaracoil – 629 180,
Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu, India; ams097@yahoo.com, anandpmt@gmail.co

Abstract
The wind and seismic design is a major requirement in equipment design in oil and gas industries. In this paper we have
investigated how height column intended for being designed to withstand weighty external seismic and wind effects
and few significant design steps intended for considering in order to avoid column failures. Finite element based design
approach is recommended as this is not a normal industrial practice currently. Many of the fabrication industries are
following analytical based approach. That may be the reason some times under designed columns fail. The disadvantage
of analytical method is that we cannot see exact stresses during design, so the chances of over and under design is high in
analytical methods. This is one of the major reasons for developing a firm solution through this research paper. Also there
is no firm fem based design procedure available in industries to follow. The code rules like ASME SECVIII DIV-I, ASME
DIV-II, ASCE, IS-875, and IS-1893 are used and the allowed stresses to determine the adequacy of this design within every
required loading conditions are learnt and presented. Achieved outcomes are acceptable along with the prerequisite of
international standards and codes and current industry practices. FEM was redone and found that the column is safe with
is to be check various shell and skirt thickness.

Keywords: Dead Weight, Earthquake, Empty Vessel, Pressure, Static Test Pressure, Static Pressure, Test Pressure, Vessel
Dead Weight, Wind

1.  Introduction
In this research paper tall process column wind and
­seismic design calculation is discussed as per international
standards and codes recommendation. Now a days wind
and seismic effect is known to be one among the primary
reasons for process plant failures as these are unexpected
as it depends on weather conditions. The condition of
wind or seismic differ place to place. Usually in gas and
oil industries, on failure of any equipment because of
these effects then a possibility of disaster occurrence exist
which is due to hazardous and harmful process fluids that
normally these industries are utilizing for their process of
production1. So designing these plant equipment’s must
be performed with at most concern predominantly for
items like tall process column as this always faces heavy
wind. Also the skirt, shall with stand greater wind and
seismic effects. In present industrial practice, wind and
seismic study of process column is based on the building
codes ASCE 93, UBC-97 and IS-875 due to non avail-
ability of any code procedures. This is one of the reasons
some time failures occur.
In this paper we have recommended FEM technique
along with the building code analytical approach to
strengthen the procedure. The minimum check fabrica-
tor has to do in FEM is advised. The shear and bending
effect of the structure is checked using FEM. The natu-
ral frequency analysis is also performed for the improved
vessel thickness. The IS-875, 1893 are used with FEM for
improving the existing wind and seismic procedures.

*Author for correspondence

 FEM with Analytical Approach based Wind and Seismic Design Recommendations for Vertical Tall Process Column
Figure 1. Top portion of tall column.
2.  Material Properties
Properties associated with strength utilized in this paper
were achieved from ASME Section II Division12, Table 1,
and are appropriate for ASME Section VIII Division
12 components. Column head, shell and skirt were in
assumption that it is intended for fabrication from SA
516 Grade 70 material 3. Table 1 illustrates the properties
details. A rule of ASME Section VIII Division II is utilized
for setting up the material’s allowable stress limits.

3. Modeling of Tall Process

Column
The assumed process column is modeled for simulation.
Figures 1, 2 and 3 are the typical process column model
preferred. Column’s total height is 29m. In order to sim-
plify the estimation the column was divided in to eight
Figure 2.  Figure
Bottom2. Bottom
portionportion
of tall of tall column.
column.

Table 1.  Summary of material properties

Properties of the Material SA-516 Grade 70
Minimum Tensile Strength 482MPa
Minimum Yield Strength 261MPa
Material Density 76807N/m3
Product form PLATE

Figure 1. Top portion of tall column. Figure 3. Full view of tall column.
Figure 1.  Top portion of tall column. Figure 3.  Full view of tall column.

4. Loads and Boundary Conditions

2
The bottom skirt is unchanging in all directions to prevent the
Vol 9 (13) | April 2016 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology
Considered for mounting on cylindrical skirt that would put of
numerous pressure, wind and seismic. The applied forces and
study and their direction of application is mentioned in Table 3
 A. M. Senthil Anbazhagan and M. Dev Anand

dissimilar segments, every segment has 2.8m length and Table 3.  Forces and moments applied to vessel
1.8m internal diameter. From To X and Z Forces X,Z Moments in
The segments has called as A-B, B-C, C-D, D-E, E-F, in N N.mm
F-G, G-H, H-I, I-J, J-K, K-L for identification, the seg- A B 10008 ----
ments details are shown in Table 2. And the top and
B C 88.96 ----
bottom dishes are 0.45m in heights. Bottom skirt height
C D 10586 15.33E6
preferred as 5.6m. Column details modeling summing up
D E 10586 15.20E6
is as illustrated in Table 2. For applying reality the column
has modeled with nozzles, platforms, ladders and man E F 1668 2.39E6
ways but no internals considered. F G 1668 2.39E6
G H 10564 15.17E6
H I 1668 2.39E6
4. Loads and Boundary
I J 1668 2.39E6
Conditions J K 10564 15.17E6
The bottom skirt is unchanging in all directions to pre- K L ---- ----
vent the rigid body motion. Column is Considered for
mounting on cylindrical skirt that would put off dif-
K L ---- ----
ferential ground settling, numerous pressure, wind and
seismic. The applied forces and moments considered for
this study and their direction of application is mentioned
in Table 3 and Figure 4. Other assumed loads are also
listed in Table 4.

5. Design of Column and Skirt

Support
The thickness calculation of the column shell and dish is
estimated as per ASME Section VIII Division 12. The 2:1
Figure 4. Boundary condition of the column.
Figure
5. Design of4. ColumnBoundary condition of the column.
and Skirt Support
The thickness calculation of the column shell and dish is estimated as per ASME Section VIII
Division 12. The 2:1 ellipsoidal head is considered as dishes for column’s top and bottom
portion. Maximum thickness prerequisite of shell and head are 19mm for the assumed internal

ellipsoidal head is considered as dishes for column’s top Table 4.  Wind and Seismic Data’s
design pressure 125psig. The atmospheric pressure is considered as external design pressure.
Usually design pressure is greater than the pressure at which it operates with the choice of
more 10 percent3. The same has assumed in this study. The MAWP and MAP were also
and bottom portion. Maximum thickness prerequisite of Considered Values Values
estimated for identifying the accurate Maximum Allowable Working Pressure (MAWP) and
Reference
shell and head are 19mm for the assumed internal design Maximum Allowable Pressure (MAP). The internal pressure where the column’s weakest
Basic Wind Speed 112.65 Km/hr Assumed
element is loaded to the definitive permissible point, on assumption that the column to be in
corroded condition, under the designated temperature effect, in usual operating position
Wind Zone Number (wind) 1 Ref.7 at top
and under the various loading effects like Hydrostatic Pressure, External Pressure, Wind that
are together with internal pressure. When MAWP calculation has not been done, the 7
Table 2.  Summary of column sectioning Risk Factor (wind) 1
considered design pressure might be utilized as MAWP as per code rule of 3.2 of ASME VIII
Ref.
Division 12. The hydrostatic and MDMT are calculated analytically and found that 19mm
Terrain Category (wind) 1 Ref.7
Sections From To Y Vertical in mm shell thickness is suitable for SA 516 Grade 70 material. In bottom skirt design is concerned,
highly general techniques to support vertical column is by mean of a conical or cylindrical
Equipment Class (wind) A Ref.7
shell that is rolled is referred as skirt. Skirt could be either lap, fillet, or but welded
Skirt A B 5638 straightforwardly to the column. Supporting method is important since it minimizes the
Topological Factor (wind) 1
stress at the attachment point and the direct load is consistently disseminated over the
Ref.7 local
Straight Face B C 5791 complete circumference. The skirt considered for this analysis is rolled cylinder as represented
Important Factor (Seismic) 1 Ref.7
in Figure 3. It is a straight cylinder. The thickness of skirt is considered same as shell
Section-1 C D 8686 thickness 19mm.
Zone Number (Seismic) 1 Ref. 7
Section-2 D E 11558 6. Wind and Seismic Design
Soil Factor
After calculating all basic (Seismic)
calculations, the wind and seismic1calculation are performed
Ref.7 as
Section-3 E F 14429 perIS-875 and IS-1893. ASME Section VIII Division I2 does not give any specific procedure
for wind and seismic on the other hand paragraph UG-22 loadings does list wind to be one
Section-4 F G 17300 among the loading which has to be preferred during design. Three main nationally recognized
Section-5 G H 20171 pressure 125psig. The atmospheric pressure is consid-
standards exists which are very often utilized for wind and seismic design is ASCE-93, UBC
and IS-875,1893. These codes outlines the wind design is utilized for determining the forces
Section-6 I J 23042 ered as external design pressure. Usually design pressure
and moments at every elevation for checking whether the estimated shell thickness are
adequate4-7. Overturning moment at the base is utilized for determining every details regarding
is greater than the pressure at which it operates with the
Section-7 J K 25914
choice of more 10 percent3. The same has assumed in
Section-8 K L 28800
this study. The MAWP and MAP were also estimated for
Top Dish L M 29250
identifying the accurate Maximum Allowable Working

Vol 9 (13) | April 2016 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology 3
 FEM with Analytical Approach based Wind and Seismic Design Recommendations for Vertical Tall Process Column

Pressure (MAWP) and Maximum Allowable Pressure design is having full vessel, wind’s worst case is involving
(MAP). The internal pressure where the column’s weakest empty vessel4-7. This would generate the maximum uplift
element is loaded to the definitive permissible point, on because of the least restraining weight. Wind forces are
assumption that the column to be in corroded condition, achieved by multiplying every element’s projected area,
under the designated temperature effect, in usual operat- under each height zone by the essential wind pressure
ing position at top and under the various loading effects for that height zone for the shape factor of each element.
like Hydrostatic Pressure, External Pressure, Wind that are Entire forces of the vessel are the forces addition of every
together with internal pressure. When MAWP calculation elements. Forces of the elements are functional centroid
has not been done, the considered design pressure might of the projected area. The weights and natural frequencies
be utilized as MAWP as per code rule of 3.2 of ASME VIII are also found out. The estimated natural frequencies are
Division 12. The hydrostatic and MDMT are calculated 1.4455 Hz (Empty) and 1.4450 Hz (Operating). The input
analytically and found that 19mm shell thickness is suit- values are listed in Table 4 based on the recommendation
able for SA 516 Grade 70 material. In bottom skirt design of IS-875 and IS-1893. The IS-875 provides basic wind
is concerned, highly general techniques to support vertical speed map of India as appropriate to 10m height higher
column is by mean of a conical or cylindrical shell that is than the mean ground level for country’s dissimilar zones.
rolled is referred as skirt. Skirt could be either lap, fillet, or The taken wind speed depends on peak gust velocity aver-
but welded straightforwardly to the column. Supporting age over the short time interval of around 3 seconds and
method is important since it minimizes the local stress at associates to mean heights over the level of ground in
the attachment point and the direct load is consistently a terrain that is open. Similarly, the risk factor, terrain
disseminated over the complete circumference. The skirt category, equipment class, topological factor, important
considered for this analysis is rolled cylinder as repre- factor, zone number, and soil factor considered for this
sented in Figure 3. It is a straight cylinder. The thickness calculation is listed in Table 4. Based on these inputs, the
of skirt is considered same as shell thickness 19mm. shear and bending effects are calculated [Tables 5 and 6].
The segmental wise wind and seismic load is also cal-
culated and the maximum wind and seismic loads are
6.  Wind and Seismic Design appeared in the bottom portion of the column A-B and
After calculating all basic calculations, the wind and the values are 9637N, 1174N. With respect to this, the
­seismic calculation are performed as perIS-875 and bending and shear effect is found out [Tables 7 and 8].
IS-1893. ASME Section VIII Division I2 does not give Simultaneously the bending is also calculated [Tables 8
any specific procedure for wind and seismic on the other
hand paragraph UG-22 loadings does list wind to be
Table 5.  Analytical result of wind load calculation
one among the loading which has to be preferred dur-
[IS-875, 1893]
ing design. Three main nationally recognized standards
exists which are very often utilized for wind and seismic From To Distance to Wind Element Wind
Support Height in Loads in N
design is ASCE-93, UBC and IS-875,1893. These codes
in mm mm
outlines the wind design is utilized for determining the
A B 5638 5638 9637
forces and moments at every elevation for checking
whether the estimated shell thickness are adequate4-7. B C 5791 5791 0244
Overturning moment at the base is utilized for determin- C D 8686 8686 6121
ing every details regarding anchorage and support. The D E 11558 11558 6441
given information incorporates anchor bolts number E F 14429 14429 6869
and size, skirts and base plates4 thickness. On variation F G 17300 17300 4935
with loading wind from seismic which is almost constant, G H 20171 20171 7151
while seismic seems to be comparatively less in duration? H I 23042 23042 5186
Additionally the winds pressure various with the vessel
I J 25914 25914 7345
height. A vessel has to be designed for worst case of the
J K 28800 28800 7565
wind or seismic but does not demand design both for
simultaneously5-8 while normally the worst case for seismic K L 29250 29250 0891

4 Vol 9 (13) | April 2016 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology
 A. M. Senthil Anbazhagan and M. Dev Anand

Table 6.  Analytical result of seismic load calculation and 9]. For ­knowing the deflection of applied loads, the
[IS-875, 1893] segmental wise deflection is calculated in Table 9. After
From To Distance to Seismic Seismic all these manual calculations [Table 5, 6, 7 and 8], the
Support in mm Weight Loads in N FE calculation has been done. The critical wind, seismic,
A B 5638 117467 1174 bending and shear were taken for simulation. The suitable
B C 5791 017464 0075 solid model is generated and the loads were transferred.
C D 8686 056389 0335 The effects of loads on the structure is extracted and pre-
D E 11558 049697 0293 sented in Figures 5 to 23. The stresses like von misses and
E F 14429 041853 0229 shear and the associated deflection have been taken for
F G 17300 044191 0221 resultGinterpretation and
H the obtained
20171deflection is com-172 E6
G H 20171 045172 0254 paredHwith the deflection
I calculated
23042
manually in Table 9.101 E6
H I 23042 036486 0176 In simulation, we found that the column was failing due048 E6
I J 25914
I J 25914 044131 0252 J
to applied K
loads calculated based28800
on IS-875, IS1893 in013 E6
J K 28800 046987 0269 Table 10. Refer Table 11 serial no’s 1 to 8. Thus the design222682
K L 29250
K L 29250 004922 0040 improvement has been done in FEM. In manual calcula-
tion, we found
Table that deflection
9. Wind the 19mm shell and skirt thickness
for operating is
cases [IS-875, 1893]
Table 7.  Result of wind and seismic shear [IS-875, enough for the taken windspeed however we realized the
1893] From To Wind Shear in N.
same Athickness is not enough
B based on62391
FEM simulation.
From To Distance to Wind Shear Seismic B C 52754
Support in mm in N Shear in N
C D 52509
Table 9.  Wind deflection for operating cases [IS-875,
A B 5638 62391 5047
B C 5791 52754 3872
1893]D E 46388
E F 39947
C D 8686 52509 3698 From To Wind Shear in N. Deflection in mm
F G 33077
D E 11558 46388 3134 AG B H 62391 281400.378
E F 14429 39947 2637 BH C I 52754 209891.45
F G 17300 33077 2218 CI D J 52509 158022.26
G H 20171 28140 1777
D J E K 46388 084564.19
H I 23042 20989 1325
E K F L 39947 008916.61
I J 25914 15802 0960
F G 33077 9.48
J K 28800 08456 0519 Table 10. Wind deflection for operating cases
K L 29250 00891 0049 G H 28140 12.67
Mode Frequency in Rad/Sec Frequency
H I 20989 16.07
MODE-1
Shapes 9.08 1.4450
Table 8.  Result of wind and seismic bending I MODE-2
J 15802
9.45 19.57 1.5046
[IS-875, 1893] J MODE-3
K 10.10
08456 23.14 1.6089
From To Distance to Wind Seismic K MODE-4
L 10.70
00891 24.98 1.7045
Support in Bending in Bendingin MODE-5 11.93 1.9000
mm Nmm Nmm
A B 5638 964 E6 67.34 E6
B C 5791 640 E6 42.18 E6
C D 8686 632 E6 41.60 E6
D E 11558 488 E6 31.70 E6
E F 14429 364 E6 23.41 E6
F G 17300 259 E6 16.44 E6
G H 20171 172 E6 10.70 E6
H I 23042 101 E6 06.24 E6
I J 25914 048 E6 02.96 E6
J K 28800 013 E6 835466
K L 29250 222682 012300
Figure
Figure 5.  5.
VonVon Misses
Misses stressstress
due to due towind
critical critical
load.wind load.

Vol 9 (13) | April 2016 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology 5
 FEM with Analytical Approach based Wind and Seismic Design Recommendations for Vertical Tall Process Column

Figure 5. Von Misses stress due to critical wind load. Figure 9. Shear stress XY due to critical seismic load.

Figure
Figure 6.  6. Displacement
Displacement due
due to to critical
critical wind load.
wind load. Figure 10.  10.
Figure Shear stress
Shear XZ due
stress XZ to critical
due seismic
to critical load. load.
seismic

Figure
Figure 7.  7.Von
Von Misses
Misses due due to critical
to critical seismicseismic
load. load. Figure
Figure 11.  11. Shear
Shear stress
stress YZ
YZ due to due to seismic
critical criticalload.
seismic load.
Figure 7. Von Misses due to critical seismic load. Figure 11. Shear stress YZ due to critical seismic load.
Figure 7. Von Misses due to critical seismic load. Figure 11. Shear stress YZ due to critical seismic load.

Figure 12. Von Misses due to combined wind and seismic.

Figure 8. Deflection due to critical seismic load.

Figure 12. Von Misses due to combined wind and seismic.
Figure
Figure 8.  8.Deflection
Deflectionduedue to critical
to critical seismic
seismic load. load. Figure 12.  Von Misses due to combined wind and seismic.
Figure 8. Deflection due to critical seismic load. Figure 12. Von Misses due to combined wind and seism

Figure 13. Shear XY due to combined wind and seismic.

Figure 9. Shear stress XY due to critical seismic load. Figure 13. Shear XY due to combined wind and seismic.
Figure 9. Shear stress XY due to critical seismic load.
Figure
Figure 9.  9. Shear
Shear stress
stress XYtodue
XY due to critical
critical seismicseismic
load. load. Figure
Figure13.  13. Shear
Shear XYtodue
XY due to combined
combined wind and seismic
wind and seismic.

6 Vol 9 (13) | April 2016 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology
Figure 14. Shear XZ due to combined wind and seismic.
 A. M. Senthil Anbazhagan and M. Dev Anand
Figure 17. Von Misses for improved thickness 22mm (Wind
Figure 13. Shear XY due to combined wind and seismic.

Figure
Figure 14.  14. Shear
Shear XZtodue
XZ due to combined
combined wind andwind and seismic.
seismic. Figure
Figure 18. 18. Stress
Stress intensity
intensity for for thickness
thickness 22mm22mm
(Wind(Wind +Seism
+Seismic).

Figure Figure 19. Shear stress XY for improved thickness 22mm

Figure 15. 15. Shear
Shear YZto
YZ due due to combined
combined wind andwind and seismic.
seismic. Figure 19.  Shear stress XY for improved thickness 22mm.
Figure 15. Shear YZ due to combined wind and seismic.
Figure 19. Shear stress XY for improved thickness 22mm.
Figure 15. Shear YZ due to combined wind and seismic.

Figure 19. Shear stress XY for improved thickness 22mm.

Figure 20. Shear stress XZ for thickness 22mm (Wind + S

Figure 16. Deflection due to combined wind and seismic.

Figure 16. Deflection due to combined wind and seismic. Figure

Figure 20. 20.Shear
Shear stress
stress XZthickness
XZ for for thickness
22mm22mm (Wind + Seism
(Wind +
Figure 16.  Deflection due to combined wind and seismic.
Figure 16. Deflection due to combined wind and seismic.Seismic).
Figure 20. Shear stress XZ for thickness 22mm (Wind + Seism

Figure 21. Shear stress YZ for thickness 22mm (Wind + S

Figure 17. Von Misses for improved thickness 22mm (Wind +Seismic).

Figure 17. Von Misses for improved thickness 22mm (Wind +Seismic).

Figure Figure 21.

21. Shear
Shearstress
Figure+Seismic). stressYZ
YZfor
forthickness
thickness22mm
22mm(Wind
(Wind++Seism
Seism
Figure 17. 17.
VonVon Misses
Misses for for improved
improved thickness
thickness 22mm22mmFigure
(Wind21.  Shear stress YZ for thickness 22mm (Wind +
(Wind + Seismic). Seismic).

Vol 9 (13) | April 2016 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology 7
Figure 18. Stress intensity for thickness 22mm (Wind +Seismic).
 FEM with Analytical Approach based Wind and Seismic Design Recommendations for Vertical Tall Process Column

Table 11.  Finite element analysis results

Sl. Stresses for Worst Load Values Report
No.
1. Von Misses for Critical Wind Load 319MPa FAIL
[Figure - 5]
2. Deflection for Critical Wind Load 14mm ---
[Figure - 6]
3. Von Misses for Critical Seismic 323MPa FAIL
[Figure - 7]
4. Deflection for Critical Seismic 14mm ---
Figure 22. Displacement for improved thickness 22mm. [Figure - 8]
Figure 22.  Displacement for improved thickness 22mm. 5. Shear XY for Critical Seismic [Figure 36MPa ---
Figure 22. Displacement for improved thickness 22mm. - 9]
6. Shear XZ for Critical Seismic [Figure 31MPa ---
- 10]
7. Shear YZ for Critical Seismic [Figure 21MPa ---
- 11]
8. Von Misses (Wind + Seismic) [Figure 2234MPa FAIL
- 12]
9. Shear XY (Wind + Seismic) [Figure 251MPa ---
- 13]
10. Shear XZ (Wind + Seismic) [Figure 216MPa ---
Figure 23. Natural frequency for improved thickness 22mm. - 14]
Table 11. Finite element analysis results 11. Shear YZ (Wind + Seismic) [Figure 146MPa ---
Sl. Stresses for Worst Load Values - 15] Report
Figure
Figure 23.  23.
No.
1. Natural
Natural
Von frequency
frequency
Misses for
forimprovedfor thickness
Critical improved
Wind Load 22mm.thickness
[Figure12.-22mm.
5]Deflection
319MPa FAIL
(Wind + Seismic) [Figure 100mm ---
Table2. 11. Finite element
Deflection for analysis
Critical Wind results Load [Figure - 6] 14mm - 16] ---
3.
TableSl.10.  Wind Von
StressesMisses
deflection for
forfor Critical
Worst
operating LoadSeismic
cases [Figure - 7] 323MPa
13. Von Misses Values
-22mm Thickness FAIL Report
(W+S) 226MPa PASS
4.
No.
1. Deflection
Von Misses for Critical
for Critical Seismic
Wind [Figure
Load - 8]
[Figure - 5] 14mm [Figure-17] --- FAIL
319MPa
Mode Shapes Frequency Frequency Period
5. Shear XY for Critical Seismic [Figure - 9] 14. 36MPa ---
2. Deflection
in Rad/Secfor Criticalin Hz Wind Load [Figure - 6]Stress Intensity
in Sec 14mm -22mm (W+S) --- 241MPa PASS
6. Shear XZ for Critical Seismic [Figure - 10] 31MPa [Figure-18] ---
3.
MODE-1
7. Von Misses
Shear 9.08 for for
YZ Critical
1.4450Seismic
Critical Seismic
0.492 [Figure
[Figure - 11]15.- 7] 21MPa 323MPa --- FAIL
4. Deflection Shear XY(W+S) [Figure - 19] 25MPa ---
8.
MODE-2 Von 9.45 for
Misses (WindCritical Seismic
+ Seismic)
1.5046 [Figure
[Figure
0.492 - 12]- 8] 14mm
2234MPa FAIL---
5. Shear10.10XY(Windfor Critical Seismic 16. Shear XY (W+S) [Figure - 20] 21MPa ---
9.
MODE-3 Shear XY + Seismic)
1.6089 0.081[Figure
[Figure - 13]- 9] 36MPa
251MPa --- ---
6.
10.
MODE-4
Shear10.70
Shear XZ(Wind
XZ for Critical
+1.7045 Seismic
Seismic) - 14]- 17.
[Figure
[Figure
0.080
10] Shear YZ
31MPa
216MPa (W+S) [Figure --- - 21]
--- 14MPa ---
7.
11. Shear YZ
Shear YZ(Wind
for Critical
+ Seismic)Seismic - 15]- 18.
[Figure
[Figure 11] Displacement
21MPa[Figure---- 22]---
146MPa 10mm ---
MODE-5 11.93 1.9000 0.037
12.
8. Deflection (Wind + Seismic)
Von Misses (Wind + Seismic) [Figure -NOTE: [Figure - 16] 100mm
12] Serial number
2234MPa --- FAIL
1 to 12 is the simulation result of 19mm
13.
9. Von
ShearMisses
XY (Wind -22mm+Thickness
Seismic) [Figure(W+S) [Figure-
- 13] 226MPa
thickness plate and the serial number
251MPa PASS
13 to
---18 is the result of 22mm
14. 17]
Stress thickness plate simulation outputs.PASS
Shear Intensity -22mm (W+S)[Figure[Figure-18] 241MPa
7. 10.
R15.
11.
ecommendation XZ (Wind
and
Shear XY(W+S) [Figure - 19]
+ Seismic)
Shear YZ (Wind + Seismic) [Figure - 15]
- 14]
25MPa
216MPa
146MPa
---
---
---
Conclusions
16.
12.
Shear XY (W+S) [Figure - 20]
Deflection (Wind[Figure+ Seismic)
with stand21MPa
the external forces--- based on FEM. Accordingly
17. Shear YZ (W+S) - 21] [Figure - the 16]thickness 14MPa100mm
has been improved --- ---as 22mm and the FEM
13.
With 18. Von
regard to this Misses -22mm
research, it has
Displacement Thickness
been found
[Figure - 22] that wind (W+S) [Figure-
was redone10mm 226MPa
and found that the PASS
---column is safe with 22mm
and 14. design
seismic 17]
Stress
based Intensity
only on -22mmapproach
analytical (W+S)does [Figure-18] shell and skirt 241MPa
thickness. (Figures PASS
17 serial
to 23).
NOTE: Serial number 1 to 12 is the simulation result of 19mm thickness plate and the
not 15. exact
give
number
Shear
solution
13 to
XY(W+S)
18 is all
thethe timeofand
result
[Figure
it is not
22mm
- 19]
suitableplate simulation outputs.
thickness
25MPa ---
16.
for all types of Shear
columnXY (W+S)The
geometry. [Figure
FEM is- required
20] • The fabricator 21MPa shall least fulfill ---mentioned prerequi-
with 17. Shear YZ
analytical approach (W+S)
(Table [Figure
7, Table 8, and- 21]
Table 9) 14MPaand fabricating
site’s for designing --- column’s process.
18. Displacement [Figure -
to ensure the design is safe. We found in this study, the 22] • The fabricator might consider---conical skirt instead
10mm
passed
NOTE: analytical
Serial design
number is failing
1 to 12during is theFEM analysis result of
simulation of 19mm
straight thickness
skirt as conical platehas and more
theloadserialabsorbing
(Figure
number 7) 13
andtothe
18column requiresofmore
is the result 22mm thickness
thicknessto plate ­csimulation
apabilities. outputs.

8 Vol 9 (13) | April 2016 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology

• The fabricator might utilize internal or external stiff-
ening rings everywhere requisite to save the column
from surplus internal and external conditions of
loading.
• The fabricators could often counsel usage of materials
that are upgraded for designing column and skirt.
• The fabricator is advised in maintaining good factor of
safety limit to column’s shear and bending effect.
• Prerequisite on anchor bolts and foundation could be
verified properly depending on the code recommen-
dation prior to column’s erection.
8.  References
1. Megacy EF. Pressure vessel design hand book. Fourteenth
Edition, PV Publishing Inc.: UK; 2007.
2. ASME NH-Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Section III,
Division 1, Subsection NH, Class 1 Components in Elevated
Vol 9 (13) | April 2016 | www.indjst.org
A. M. Senthil Anbazhagan and M. Dev Anand
Temperature Service. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York, NY; 2011.
3. Dennis RM. Pressure vessel design manual. Third Edition,
Elsevier Publications Inc.: USA; 2003.
4. Riou B. Step forward in negligible creep and creep-fatigue
of Mod 9Cr-Mo. ASME Subgroup on Elevated Temperature
Design submittal. Attachment #6 to November. 2007 ASME
B and PV Code, SG-ETD Meeting Minutes; 2007.
5. IS 875 (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3):1987, Code of practice for
design loads (other than Earthquake) for Buildings and
Structures. Part 1, Dead Loads, Part 2 Live Loads, Part 3
Wind Loads, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi; 1989.
6. ASME boiler and pressure vessel code. Section II - Materials
(Includes Addenda for 2008); 2007.
7. Hendry H, Bedner PE. Pressure vessel hand book. Second
Edition, CBS Publishers and Distributers: Chennai; 2008.
8. Senthil AAM, Dev AM. Fatigue and Brinelling evaluation
of ASME pressure vessel closure. International Review of
Mechanical Engineering, IRME; July 2011.
Indian Journal of Science and Technology 9