Wind Load Considerations for Existing Petrochemical Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engineers working in the petrochemical industry are commonly required to deal with changes and modifications to an existing facility. These changes and modifications must be recognized and evaluated for their impact on the existing equipment support structures and foundations. The updated ASCE report "Wind Loads on Petrochemical and Other Industrial Structures" provides references and suggested guidelines that should help the practicing engineer who is involved in an engineering evaluation of an existing structure or equipment foundation subject to extreme winds. The evaluation of existing structures for extreme wind loading should be approached differently than when designing new facilities. Conservative design loads and a conservative application of the design loads are common practices in the design of new petrochemical facilities, and this conservatism usually has minimal impact on the installed cost of the facility. But, this same conservatism in the evaluation of an existing structure or foundation could result in unnecessary upgrades and increased costs for the owner. The following sections provide guidelines, references and special considerations that should be used when evaluating wind loads on existing petrochemical structures and foundations, and the focus is on eliminating the conservatism associated with the design of new structures. The topics to be covered include the wind exposure category, the wind load combinations, special considerations for hurricane prone regions, and other considerations and that are unique to an evaluation of an existing structure, such as the potential for past modifications or deterioration of the structure. Finally, some references to model building codes that address modifications or additions to existing buildings or structures are provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".