A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LATERAL LOAD RESISTING SYSTEMS FOR OPTIMAL DYNAMIC RESPONSE IN REFINERY STEEL STRUCTURE

Selecting LLRS for a structure is a discreet choice of the structural engineer after evaluating various factors. Seismic considerations ensuring the capacity of the LLRS meeting or exceeding the seismic demands understood through seismic analysis is the top priority. Specific to each structure, the seismic demand vs capacity varies and it must be thoroughly analyzed with respect to the seismic parameters and code provisions. The crux of the analysis is finding an optimal design that satisfies all required dynamic responses [29]. Architectural constraints towards a particular type of LLRS may come implicitly from the client or owner. Structural engineers often adjust designs to meet or exceed code requirements, typically balancing structural integrity against architectural constraints. In industrial refinery steel construction environment, the refinery process flow directly mediates this tradeoff. The structural analysis and design landscape is shifting dynamically [29, 30], with the findings in the analysis chapter highlighting the transition from code prescribed Capacity-Based Design (CBD) approach to modern Performance-Based Design (PBD). Nonlinear static or dynamic analysis procedures are essential to PBD approach [31]. In this approach, the seismic safety of the structure is given paramount importance. The designer goes beyond the conventional code-based instructions to analyze the structure based on seismic structural performance levels categorized by FEMA-356 for which the building is guaranteed to the client [27]. However, code compliance is vital for the analysis. For example, the code [3] prescribes maximum 0.4% drift limit (roof level displacement) which is an essential criterion for the analysis of LLRS. To take care of accidental torsion, the code [3] prescribes 5% increase in moment on each side of the center of mass while performing seismic analysis. The code prescribed slenderness limit and yield strength [5] forms the criteria upon which demand versus capacity is assessed. Based on the discussion above, this dissertation hopes to offer modest insights that may assist future researchers.

1.       R. Sabelli, "Seismic design in steel: Concepts and examples," American Institute of Steel Construction, 2018. [Online Webinar Series]. Available: aisc.org. 2.       AISC Education, "Basic Concepts in Ductile Detailing of Steel Structures," Jan. 29, 2016. [Online Video]. Available: YouTube, youtube.com. [Accessed: Jun. 29, 2026]. 3.       Bureau of Indian Standards, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures: Part 1 General Provisions and Buildings (IS 1893: Part 1: 2016), New Delhi, India: BIS, 2016. [Online]. Available: bis.gov.in. 4.       Bureau of Indian Standards, Earthquake Resistant Design and Detailing of Steel Buildings — Code of Practice (IS 18168:2023), New Delhi, India: BIS, 2023. [Online]. Available: bsbedge.com. 5.       Bureau of Indian Standards, Design Earthquake Hazard and Criteria for Earthquake-Resistant Design of Structures — Code of Practice — Part 1 General Provisions (IS 1893: Part 1: 2025), New Delhi, India: BIS, 2025. [Online]. Available: bsbedge.com. 6.       F. Cavalieri, A. A. Correia, H. Crowley, and R. Pinho, "Dynamic soil-structure interaction models for fragility characterization of buildings with shallow foundations," Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 132, 2020, Art. no. 106004. [Online]. Available: doi.org. 7.       A. Faisal, G. B. Majumder, and S. Ahmed, "Effect of soil structure interaction on the dynamic response of reinforced concrete structures," Sci. Afr., vol. 18, 2022, Art. no. e01389. 8.       M. F. M. Fahmy and H. A. Ibrahim, "Steel-FRP reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames under lateral loads: Numerical investigation," J. Compos. Constr., vol. 24, no. 6, 2020, Art. no. 04020064. 9.       S. Alish and S. Wagh, "Comparative study of conventional and PEB steel structures with laced and battened columns," Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. (IRJET), vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 2940–2945, Jul. 2021. [Online]. Available: irjet.net. 10.     K. S. Akhildev, U. Bhagyaraj, J. Sebastian, K. C. Kiranji, and C. Prabha, "Dynamic response of buildings with soft storey," Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. (IRJET), vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 2943–2946, Mar. 2018. [Online]. Available: irjet.net.