KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (0000) 00(0):1-8 Structural Engineering

Copyright ⓒ2015 Korean Society of Civil Engineers

DOI 10.1007/s12205-015-0359-3 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

A Comparative Study on Wind Loads between Design Standards

for the Design of Pipe-Rack Structures
Jong-Han Lee*, Jungwon Huh**, and Jong-Jae Lee***
Received July 3, 2014/Revised January 24, 2015/Accepted January 31, 2015/Published Online Online April 3, 2015

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

Industrial plants currently account for approximately 70 percent of overseas construction but still require design knowledge when
evaluating the economic profit in the field of plant engineering. Most engineering and construction companies remain focused on the
construction of plant structures and have a lack of knowledge on the differences between the design of structural members according
to design standards. Among international design standards, the US and Euro codes are most widely used for the design of plant
structures in the world. In particular, the size of plant structural members is mainly dependent on lateral loads. Therefore, two
international design standards, the US and Euro codes, and one local design standard, the Korean code, were selected to evaluate the
magnitude and the distribution of design wind load for three real plant pipe-rack structures. The US code exhibited about 15% and
25% smaller design wind load than the Korean and Euro codes, respectively. This paper also discusses the stress statuses and the
strength ratios required for the design of structural members. Axial and bending stresses were found to be the smallest in the US code.
The required strength was smallest in the Korean code because of the lower of wind load factor.
Keywords: design standards, wind loads, strength ratios, pipe-rack structures, structural members
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction
With the increasing market for refineries, power and energy
plants, design engineering requires an evaluation of the differences
in the design of structural members between design standards. In
particular, structural engineers encounter considerable difficulties in
the field of structural design because of the different requirements
and standards in each country. Accordingly, several comparative
studies on the design wind loads have been carried out but only
for tall buildings (Bashor and Kareem, 2009; Karaca and
Türkeli, 2012; Kwon and Kareem, 2013; Zhou and Kareem,
2002). For plant structures, which are generally located in flat,
open areas with similar design conditions, knowledge of the
design standards can yield a better understanding of design loads
and structural members, as well as gaining greater advantage in
the strong competition of industrial plant business. Recently,
Topkaya and Sahin (2011) evaluated the similarities and the
differences between the US and Euro codes for the nominal
strength of several types of cross-section but did not consider the
load conditions.
Therefore, the present study first evaluated the differences
between design standards regarding the magnitude and the
distribution of the wind load particularly applied to plant pipe-
rack structures. This is because lateral loads, such as wind and
seismic loads, generally predominate in determining the size of
the structural members in the design of the structure. Because
many local design codes basically originate from international
standards, this study selected two main internal standards, US
codes, ASCE 7-05 (ASCE, 2005) and ASCE 7-10 (ASCE,
2010), and Euro code, EN 1991-1-4 (CEN, 2005). In addition,
this study included one local design standard (AIK, 2009) for
comparisons with international standards. As the target structures,
real three pipe-rack steel structures located in different areas,
Saudi Arabia, Canada, and Uzbekistan, were selected to compare
the magnitude and the distribution of the wind load between the
three design standards.
Based on the design wind load determined from each design
standard, this study evaluated the axial and bending stresses in
the three pipe-rack structures. In addition, because the design of
structural members requires the strength ratio for each member,
this study also examined the strength ratio for the bracing, beam,
and column members of the three pipe-rack structures according
to the design standards. The design method of steel structural
members involved in this study focused on the Load And
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), which most overseas projects
strongly demand for the design of steel structural members.

*Member, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Daegu University, Gyeongsan 712-714, Korea (E-mail: jonghan@daegu.ac.kr)
**Member, Professor, Dept. of Ocean Civil Engineering, Chonnam National University, Yeosu 550-749, Korea (Corresponding Author, E-mail:
jwonhuh@jnu.ac.kr)
***Member, Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sejong University, Seoul 143-747, Korea (E-mail: jongjae@sejong.ac.kr)

−1−
 Jong-Han Lee, Jungwon Huh, and Jong-Jae Lee
Therefore, based on the LRFD method, the Euro limit state
design standard EN 1993-1 (CEN, 2005), US load resistance
factor design standard (AISC, 2005), and Korean limit state
design standard (KSSC, 2009), this paper discusses the strength
ratios required for the design of bracing, flexural, and column
members including the effect of the load combinations and
resistance or safety factors specified in each design standard
2. Design Standards for Wind Load
The standards of design wind load can be divided into international
and local codes. Most of the local codes basically originate from
international standards. Therefore, in this study, two main
international standards, US and Euro codes, and one local
Korean standard were selected to evaluate the differences in the
calculation of design wind load.
2. 1 US Standards
US standards specify three methods for determining the design
wind load for structures; simplified procedure, analytical
procedure, and wind tunnel procedure in ASCE 7-05 (ASCE,
2005) or IBC (2005) and envelope procedure, directional
procedure, and wind tunnel procedure in ASCE 7-10 (ASCE,
2010) or IBC (2010). Most of the plant steel structures have a
regular-shape with little dynamic response such as instability due
to vortices, galloping, or flutter. Therefore, the design wind load
for plant steel structures can be determined using the analytical
procedure, which is the same as the directional procedure in
ASCE 7-10. The main difference between ASCE 7-05 and
ASCE 7-10 is whether to include the importance factor or the
risk category of the structure when calculating the basic wind
speed.
The design wind load is generally calculated by the wind
pressure multiplied by the effective area of the structure. For
frame plant structures, the design wind pressure, pf, can be
determined using the wind velocity pressure, gust effect, and
force coefficient as follows:
pf = qz GC f (1)
in which qz is the wind velocity pressure at height z, G is the gust
effect factor, and Cf is the force coefficient. The wind velocity
pressure, which accounts for the effects of the region and the
height of the structure with the variation in wind speed, can be
calculated from the following equation:
2 - when zmin ≤ z ≤ z max
qz = 0.613K z K zt K d Vo I (2)
in which I is the importance factor, Vo is the basic wind speed
defined as a 3-second gust speed at 10 meters above the ground
in Exposure C category for a return period of 50 years, Kd is the
wind directional factor only applied with combinations of loads,
Kzt is the topographic factor accounting for the wind speed-up
effects in abrupt changes in the general topography, and Kz is the
velocity pressure exposure coefficient accounting for the
distribution of the velocity pressure with respect to the height of
−2−
a structure. The value of Kz is calculated using the following
equation:
⎧ 4.6 2 ⁄ α
⎪ 2.01⎛⎝ -------⎞⎠ z < 4.6m
⎪ zg
Kz = ⎨ (3)
⎪ 2.01⎛ ---z-⎞ 2 ⁄ α
⎪ 4.6m<z < zg
⎝ z g⎠
⎩
As mentioned earlier, ASCE 7-10, instead of using the
importance factor, includes the risk category of the structure for
calculating the basic wind speed. With respect to risk categories
I, II, and III and IV, the basic wind speed is determined using
different return periods, 200, 700, and 1700 years, respectively.
That is, basic wind speed at the same area could be different
depending on the risk of the structure. In addition, the minimum
design wind pressure increased from 0.48 kN/m (10 psf) to 0.77
kN/m (16 psf) in ASCE 7-10.
2.2 European Standard
In Europe, the national standards were integrated into
Eurocodes. Among the Eurocode series, Eurocode 1 (CEN,
2005) specifies the design wind loads for the structures. Wind
pressure, pf acting on a steel frame structure is obtained using the
peak wind velocity pressure, qp, the force coefficient, Cf, and the
structure factor, cscd, using the following equation:
pf = cs cd qp ( z )C f (4)
The structural factor, cscd, is composed of a size factor cs
accounting for the effect of the vibrations of the structure due to
turbulence and a dynamic factor cd accounting for the effects of the
non-simultaneous occurrence of wind pressures on the surface.
Because of little dynamic response in most of the pipe-rack steel
structures, which are normally stiff, wide, and low-rise structures,
the Euro code recommends the structural factor cscd be taken as 1.0.
In addition to the structural factor, the Euro code employs the wind
turbulence intensity Iv(z) in the calculation of the velocity pressure
qp(z). That is, the peak velocity pressure at height z consists of the
average and the variable components of the wind. The wind
velocity pressure qp(z) and the wind turbulence intensity Iv(z) are
respectively calculated using the following equation:
1 2
qz = [ 1 + 7Iv ( z ) ] --- ρV ( z ) (5a)
2
k1
Iv ( z ) = ----------------------------- (5b)
co ( z )ln ( z ⁄ zo )
in which ρ is the density of air (=1.25 kg/m3), k1 is the turbulence
factor (=1.0), and the values of zo and zmin depend on the terrain
category, five representative categories in the Euro code.
Variations in the wind velocity with height, V(z), which depend
on the terrain roughness and orography, are expressed as:
V( z ) = co ( z )cr ( z )Vb (6)
in which co(z) is the orography factor, which can be taken as 1.0
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 A Comparative Study on Wind Loads between Design Standards for the Design of Pipe-Rack Steel Structures
for a plant pipe-rack structure located in flat terrain, and cr(z) is
the roughness factor, which accounts for the variability of the
wind velocity due to the height of the structure and the ground
roughness of the terrain, calculated from the terrain category
using the following equation:
zo ⎞ 0.07 ⎛ z ⎞
cr ( z ) = 0.19 ⎛ ---------
- ln ---- when zmin ≤ z ≤ zmax
⎝ 0.05⎠ ⎝ z o⎠
The basic wind velocity, Vb, in Eq. (6) is defined from the
fundamental wind velocity, Vo, which corresponds to the basic
wind speed in the US code, with the effects of the direction and
the season of wind. The directional and seasonal factors are
normally recommended to be 1.0. Therefore, the basic wind
speed can be taken as the fundamental wind speed, which is
defined as the 10-minute mean wind velocity at 10 meters above
ground in flat, open country terrain (terrain category II) with a
return period of 50 years.
2.4. Korean Standard
The method for calculating the basic wind load in the Korean
standard (AIK, 2009) is originally based on the US standard. For
a steel frame structure in a plant, the design wind pressure is
calculated from the wind velocity pressure, gust effect, and force
coefficient as shown in Eq. (1). On the other hand, the method
for the topographic and geometric factors, such as the wind
distribution along the height, wind gust, and terrain effect, are
different from those defined in the US standard. KBC-09
calculates the design wind velocity as follows:
2 based on the risk category of the structure. In this study, the risk
qz = 0.5ρ ( Kz Kzt Vo I )
in which ρ is the density of air (= 1.25 kg/m3). The basic wind
speed Vo is defined as a 10-minute mean speed at 10 meters
above ground in Exposure C category for a return period of 100
years, which is similar to the European code, not to the US code.
The wind velocity pressure exposure coefficient at height z, Kz,
is calculated using the following equation:
Fig. 1. Examples of Pipe-rack Steel Structures Located in: (a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Canada, and (c) Uzbekistan (Not to scale)
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000
z < 10m
⎧ 1.0
Kz = ⎨ 0.15
(9)
⎩ 0.71z 10m<z<300m
3. Comparisons of Design Wind Forces between
Design Standards
(7)
To compare the design wind load calculated between the
design standards, this study selected three real plant pipe-rack
steel structures located in different areas; Saudi Arabia, Canada,
and Uzbekistan. Fig. 1 shows the three pipe-rack structures
involved in this study. The structures selected had a similar
height, whereas the width of the structures ranged from 6 m to
36 m and 22 m to 38 m in the x and y directions, respectively.
For comparison, the basic wind speed and terrain condition
need to be under the same conditions. Because plant structures
are generally located in flat open areas, the exposure condition
can be assumed to be category C in ASCE 7-05 (ASCE, 2005) &
ASCE 7-10 (ASCE, 2010), which would be category II in EN
1991-1-4 (CEN, 2005), and category C in AIK (2009). The basic
wind speed is assumed to be 30 m/sec (67 mph) for Saudi Arabia
and Uzbekistan and 27 m/sec (60 mph) for Canada. Because the
US code is based on a 3-second gust speed, the 10-minute mean
speed of 30 m/sec and 27 m/sec were changed to a 3-second gust
speed of 43 m/sec (96 mph) and 38 m/sec (85 mph), respectively,
using the gust factor curve shown in Fig. 2. The importance
factor used in ASCE 7-05 and AIK was taken as 1.0. Instead of
the importance factor, ASCE 7-10 defines the basic wind speed
(8)
category of a pipe-rack structure is I, which corresponds to an
importance factor of 1.0. The Euro code does not include the
importance or risk factors when calculating the wind forces.
The magnitude and the distribution of the wind load depend
strongly on the wind velocity pressure and design wind pressure.
The wind velocity pressure mainly represents the variation of the
wind velocity with increasing height. Fig. 3 shows the distribution
−3−
 Jong-Han Lee, Jungwon Huh, and Jong-Jae Lee
Fig. 2. Wind Speed Averaged Over the Gust Duration of t Sec-
onds: Gust Factor Curve (Durst, 1960)
Fig. 3. Distribution of the Wind Velocity Pressure in the x and y
Directions for Three Pipe-rack Structures Located in: (a)
Saudi Arabia, (b) Canada, (c) Uzbekistan (Units: kN/m2, Not
to scale)
of the wind velocity along the height of the three pipe-rack
structures. “A” in Fig. 3 represents the distribution of wind
velocity calculated from the Euro code and “B” and “C” calculated
from the US and Korean codes, respectively. The wind velocity
pressure was largest in the Euro code, followed in order by the
US and Korean codes. This difference is mainly due to the wind
velocity exposure coefficient accounting for the distribution of
velocity pressure with respect to the height of a structure. In
addition, the Euro code includes the effects of the wind
turbulence intensity when calculating the velocity pressure. The
value of the wind turbulence intensity, which is normally greater
than 1.0 for a structure more than 10 meters high, increases the
Fig. 6. Design Wind Velocity and Pressure in the x Direction for the Three Pipe-rack Structures Located in: (a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Canada,
(c) Uzbekistan
−4−
Fig. 4. Distribution of the Design Wind Pressure in the x Direction
for Three Pipe-rack Structures Located in: (a) Saudi Arabia,
(b) Canada, (c) Uzbekistan (Units: kN/m2, Not to scale)
Fig. 5. Distribution of the Design Wind Pressure in the y Direction
for Three Pipe-rack Structures Located in: (a) Saudi Arabia,
(b) Canada, (c) Uzbekistan (Units: kN/m2, Not to scale)
wind velocity pressure. Instead of the wind turbulence factor, the
other two codes account for the wind gust factor when
calculating the design wind pressure.
Figures 4 and 5 show the design wind pressure calculated from
the wind velocity pressure in the x and y directions, respectively.
As shown in the figures, the design wind pressure was the largest
in the Euro code, the second in the Korean code, and the smallest
in the US cod in the both x and y directions. Contrary to the wind
velocity, shown in Fig. 3, larger wind pressure in the Korean
code than the US code is mainly because of the gust factor
included in the calculation in the wind pressure. The gust factor
included in the US and Korean codes was approximately 0.9 and
2.0, respectively.
Figures 6 and 7 compared the total magnitude of the wind
velocity and pressure between the three design standards.
Compared to those calculated from the Korean code, the total
magnitude of the wind velocity calculated from the US code was
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 A Comparative Study on Wind Loads between Design Standards for the Design of Pipe-Rack Steel Structures

Fig. 7. Design Wind Velocity and Pressure in the y Direction for the Three Pipe-rack Structures Located in: (a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Canada,
(c) Uzbekistan

Fig. 8. Contours of the Axial Stresses (σx) Due to the Design Wind Load in the x Direction Calculated from the: (a) Euro Code, (b) US
Code, and (c) Korean Code for a Pipe-rack Structure Located in Uzbekistan (Units: MPa)

approximately 50% larger but the value of the design wind Table 1. Absolute Values of the Axial and Bending Stresses Due
pressure was approximately 15% smaller due to a smaller value to Design Wind Load in the x Direction for the Three Pipe
of gust factor. As a result, the design wind load was found to be Rack Structures (Units: MPa)
the smallest in the US code for all three pip-rack structures in EN ASCE KBC
Design Standards
1991-1-4 7-05(10) -09
the both x and y directions. Compared to the values of the US
Saudi Arabia 1.7 1.2 1.4
code, those of the Korean and Euro codes showed Axial stress
Canada 5.4 3.9 4.6
approximately 11% to 17% and approximately 25% to 28% (σx)
Uzbekistan 25.0 18.8 21.6
larger values, respectively.
Saudi Arabia 127.9 93.6 105.0
Bending stress
Canada 12.5 9.0 10.5
4. Comparisons of the Required Stresses and (σy)
Uzbekistan 0.14 0.10 0.12
Strength between Design Standards Saudi Arabia 137.2 100.2 112.3
Bending stress
Canada 4.4 3.2 3.7
From the wind load determined from each design standard, the (σz)
Uzbekistan 94.1 71.1 81.8
axial and bending stresses were evaluated using finite element
commercial software, MIDAS/Gen (2013). Figs. 8 to 10 show
the contours of the axial and bending stresses caused by the wind The bending stresses caused by the wind design load of the
loads obtained from the Euro, US, and Korean design codes for Korean and Euro codes were approximately 13% to 20% larger
the three pipe-rack structures. Tables 1 and 2 list the maximum and approximately 33% to 40% larger in the x direction, respectively.
axial and bending stresses in the x and y directions, respectively, In the y direction, the Korean and Euro codes exhibited 13% to
for the three pipe-rack structures. As discussed previously, the 38% and 37% to 61% larger bending stresses, respectively.
design wind load was the smallest in the US code. Therefore, the This study also compared the required strength for bracing,
axial and bending stresses were found to be the smallest in the beam, and column members between three design standards for
US code in both the x and y directions for all three pipe-rack the three pipe-rack structures. When designing structures, the
structures. Compared to the axial stresses obtained from the US same design standards are basically used for the loads and
code, those from the Korean and Euro codes were approximately structures. Therefore, the strength ratios required for each
12% and 37% larger in the x direction, respectively, and structural member were also evaluated using the Euro limit state
approximately 13% and 36% larger in the y direction, respectively. design standard EN 1993-1 (CEN, 2005), US load resistance

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −5−

 Jong-Han Lee, Jungwon Huh, and Jong-Jae Lee

Table 2. Absolute Values of the Axial and Bending Stresses Due Table 3. Maximum Strength Ratios for the Bracing, Beam, and
to Design Wind Load in the y Direction for the Three Pipe Column Members in Each Pipe-rack Structure Under the
Rack Structures (Units: MPa) Design Load Combinations of the Wind Load
EN ASCE KBC EN 1991-1-4 ASCE 7-05(10) KBC-09
Design Standards Design Standards
1991-1-4 7-05(10) -09 EN 1993-11) AISC-052) KSSC-093)
Saudi Arabia 0.83 0.61 0.69 Bracing 0 0 0
Axial stress
Canada 5.1 3.2 4.3 Saudi arabia Beam 0.792 0.698 0.636
(σx)
Uzbekistan 4.3 3.2 3.6 Column 0.511 0.453 0.436
Saudi Arabia 0 0 0 Bracing 0.703 0.531 0.481
Bending stress
Canada 0 0 0 Canada Beam 0.412 0.600 0.621
(σy)
Uzbekistan 88.0 64.4 72.6 Column 0.538 0.397 0.439
Saudi Arabia 48.6 35.9 40.5 Bracing 0.370 0.306 0.182
Bending stress
Canada 89.8 56.1 77.4 Uzbekistan Beam 0.623 0.542 0.508
(σz)
Uzbekistan 53.6 39.2 44.2 Column 0.515 0.462 0.432
1)
Load combinations: 1.2D±1.6Wx,1.2D±1.6Wy; 2)Load combinations:
1.0D±1.5Wx,1.0D±1.5Wy; 3)Load combinations: 1.2D±1.3Wx,1.2D±1.3Wy.
factor design standard AISC (2005), and Korean limit state
design standard KSSC (2009), for the Euro, US, and Korean
codes, respectively. In addition, this study accounted for the load analysis for the load combinations of the wind load, Pn, Mny, and
combinations of the wind load and the resistance or safety factors Mnz are the nominal strengths determined according to the
for each design standard. The general equation for checking the specification provisions, and f is the resistance factor given by
strength ratios can be expressed as: each design specification. Instead of using the resistance factors,
the Euro code uses the safety factors when calculating the
Pu M uy M uy
-------- + ------------ + ------------ ≤ 1 (10) nominal strength. Table 3 summarizes the maximum strength
φPn φMny φMny
ratios obtained from each design standard for the bracing, beam,
in which Pu, Muy, and Muz are the axial, the y-axis bending, and and column members in three pipe-rack structures. Similar to the
the z-axis bending strengths, respectively, obtained from structural result of the wind design load, the required strength showed the

Fig. 9. Contours of the Bending Stresses (σy) Due to the design wind load in the x direction calculated from the (a) Euro code, (b) US
code, and (c) Korean code for a pipe-rack structure located in Canada (Units: MPa)

Fig. 10. Contours of the Bending Stresses (σz) Due to the Design Wind Load in the x Direction Calculated from the: (a) Euro code, (b) US
Code, and (c) Korean Code for a Pipe-rack Structure Located in Saudi Arabia (Units: MPa)

−6− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 A Comparative Study on Wind Loads between Design Standards for the Design of Pipe-Rack Steel Structures
largest value in the Euro code. On the other hand, the smallest
strength ratio occurred in the Korean code but not in the US
code. This difference is attributed to the magnitude of the wind
load factors: the US code uses a factor of 1.6 for the wind load,
whereas the Korean code uses a smaller value of 1.3. In addition,
a different trend in the pipe-rack structure located in Canada,
which showed the smallest in the Euro code for the beam
member, occurred due to wind load in the y direction. The other
pipe-rack structures determined the strength ratio of the beam
members from the wind load in the x direction. Except for the
beam member in Canada, these results indicate that the Euro
code requires approximately 46% to 103% (average 74.7%),
23% to 25% (average 23.6%), and 17% to 23% (average 19.7%)
more strength for the bracing member, flexural member, and
column members, respectively, compared to the Korean code.
The US code showed an average of 39.3%, 8.2%, and 0.4%
larger required strengths for the bracing member, flexural
member, and column member, respectively. The difference of the
required strength among the three design standards was the
largest in the bracing member, and the smallest in the column
member.
5. Conclusions
As the market of plant industry continues to increase, extensive
knowledge of the differences between design standards is needed
when determining the structural members. Because the size of
the structural members are mainly determined by the lateral
loads, wind or seismic load, a comprehensive comparative study
on the wind design load was carried out to determine the
differences between design standards in plant structures. In this
study, three real pipe-rack structures located in three different
areas were selected. The design standards involved in this study
were the two main international design standards, the US and
Euro codes, and one local design standard, the Korean code. This
study also evaluated the stresses caused by each design wind
load and the strengths required for the design structural
members. The main conclusions from this study are as follows:
(1) Among the three design standards, the US code generated an
approximately 15% and 25% smaller design wind load than the
Korean and Euro codes, respectively, in both the x and y
directions; (2) similarly, structural analyses using the design
wind load obtained from the US code showed smaller axial and
bending stresses than the Korean and Euro codes. The axial
stress was approximately 10% and 40% smaller than that of the
Korean and Euro codes, respectively, in both the directions, and
approximately 15% and 35% smaller bending stress than the
Korean and Euro codes, respectively, in the x direction and 25%
and 50% smaller than the Korean and Euro codes, respectively,
in the y direction; and (3) the required strength, which accounted
for the load combinations of the wind load and the factors of
member resistance or safety, was smallest in the Korean code
because of the lower of wind load factor. In general, the Korean
code exhibited an average strength ratio of approximately
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000
39.3%, 8.2%, and 0.4% smaller than the US code for the bracing,
flexural, and column members, respectively, and approximately
74.7%, 23.6%, and 19.7% smaller than the Euro code for the
bracing, flexural, and column members, respectively. From these
results, the US code could be more economical than the Euro
code when designing a plant steel structure, particularly a pipe-
rack structure, which is determined by the wind load. The
Korean code, which was originally based on US code, showed
the most economical value of the required strength ratio mainly
due to the lowest of wind load factor among the three design
standards.
The authors recognize that the results of this study were
obtained from the three selected pipe-rack structures. Further
research should consider more types of plant steel structures
located in different areas that were not studied in this paper. For
this, classification of geometric shape and geographical location
for pipe-rack structures need to be preceded. Then with the
theoretical study on the calculation of wind load and the design
of structural members in each design standard, we could lead to a
more general solution to the design wind load and required
design strength for pipe-rack structure in respect to economic
advantage as well as structural safety
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Basic Science Research
Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea
(NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future
Planning (No. 2014R1A1A1005992).
References
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) (2005). Steel construction
manual, Chicago, USA.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2005). ASCE 7-05
Minimum design loads for buildings and other Structures, Virginia,
USA.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2010). ASCE 7-10
Minimum design loads for buildings and other Structures, ASCE 7-
10, Virginia, USA.
Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) (2009). Korean building code,
Korea (In Korean).
Bashor, R. and Kareem, A. (2009). “Comparative study on major
international standards.” Proc. 7th Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind
Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan.
Durst, C. S. (1960). “Wind speeds over short periods of time,” Meteoro-
logical Magazine, Vol. 89, pp. 181-187.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2005). Eurocode 1:
Actions on structures, EN 1991-1-4:2005, Brussels, UK.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2005). Eurocode 2:
Design of steel structures, EN 1993-1:2005, Brussels, UK.
International Code Council (IBC) (2009). International building code,
Illinois, USA.
International Code Council (IBC) (2012). International building code,
Illinois, USA.
Karaca, Z. and Türkeli, E. (2012). “Determination and comparison of
wind loads for industrial reinforced concrete chimneys.” The Structural
−7−
 Jong-Han Lee, Jungwon Huh, and Jong-Jae Lee
Design of Tall and Special Buildings, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 133-154,
DOI: 10.1002/sal.617.
Korean Society of Steel Construction (KSSC) (2009). Korean steel
structure design code-load and resistance factored design, Korea (In
Korean).
Kwon, D. and Kareem, A. (2013). “Comparative study of major international
wind codes and standards for wind effects on tall buildings.” Engineering
Structures, Vol. 51, pp. 23-35, DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.01.008.
MIDAS/Gen (2013). General structural design system. MIDAS/Gen Ver.
8.0, Midas Information Technology Co. Ltd., http://www.midasit.com.
−8−
Topkaya, C. and Sahin, S. (2011). “A comparative study of AISC-360
and EC 3 strength limit states.” International Journal of Steel
Structures, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 13-27, DOI: 10.1007/S13296-011-
1002-x.
Zhou, Y., Kijewski, T., and Kareem, A. (2002). “Along-wind load
effects on tall buildings: Comparative study of major international
codes and standards.” ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 128, No. 6, pp. 788-796, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(2002)128:6(788).
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering