See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255978975

SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF ELEVATED RESERVOIRS

Conference Paper January 2013

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4597.9201

CITATION READS

1 1,675

3 authors, including:

Eva Kormanikova Ioan Sorin V Leoveanu

Technical University of Kosice - Technicka un Universitatea Transilvania Brasov
50 PUBLICATIONS 57 CITATIONS 43 PUBLICATIONS 50 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Multi-Physics analyse with Hyperbolic and Parabolic VFM aspects involved in structural civil
engineering analyse. View project

Architecture in Extreme Environment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ioan Sorin V Leoveanu on 03 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Hydrology and Water Resources

SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF ELEVATED RESERVOIRS

Assist. Prof. Dr. Kamila Kotrasov1

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Eva Kormankov2
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ioan Sorin Leoveanu3

1
Technical University of Koice, Slovakia
2
Technical University of Koice, Slovakia
3
Transilvania university of Brasov, Romania

ABSTRACT
Elevated reservoirs are used to store a variety of liquids. During earthquake activity the
liquid exerts impulsive and convective pressures (sloshing) on the walls and bottom of
tank. This paper provides theoretical background for analytical calculating of elevated
tanks during an earthquake and deals with comparing of simplified seismic design
procedures for elevated tanks, and the applicability for subsoil classes. The analysis has
been carried out considering four different subsoil classes A, B, C, D, given EC8. The
design by simplified seismic procedures given EC8 and Housner model was compared.

Keywords: elevated tank, simplified procedures, seismic, impulse mass, convective

mass

INTRODUCTION
Seismic event is certainly one of the most critical external events regarding safety of
industrial plants, as demonstrated by recent earthquakes. If industrial facilities store
large amount of hazardous materials, accidental scenarios as fire, explosion or toxic
dispersion may be triggered, thus possibly involving working people within the
installation, population living in close surrounding or in urban area where the industrial
installation is located. Liquid storage tanks are considered essential lifeline structures.
Large-capacity ground-supported tanks are used to store a variety of liquids, e.g. water
for drinking and fire fighting, petroleum, chemicals, and liquefied natural gas.
Elevated tanks are used in military bases, industrial facilities, and nuclear reactor
illustrations. These structures consist of two main parts: a tower and vessel. The former
can be a steel braced frame, a multi-column assembly, or an axisymmetric pedestal
shell. The vessel comes in a variety of geometric shapes such as cylinders, spheres,
cones, ellipsoid, or a combination of any of these geometric shapes. Elevated tanks are
vulnerable to earthquake excitation mainly because of the relatively small resistance
that the supporting system can offer during seismic events. Most elevated tanks are
regarded as essential facilities as they should remain functional even after a major
earthquake. The seismic analysis and design of liquid storage tanks are complicated by
many numbers of problems, for examples: dynamic interaction between contained fluid
and vessel which is called fluid-structure interaction; sloshing motion of the contained
fluid; and dynamic interaction between vessel and supporting structure. In addition, the

1
13th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2013

supporting tower may need to be analyzed in post-elastic state, and for special cases, a
three-dimensional analysis may be required to take into account torsional effect on the
supporting structure. The many different geometric shapes of both vessel and tower
dictate different techniques and methods of analysis for each application, and finally,
soil-tower interaction could under specific conditions have a significant effect on
seismic response of the tower.
Satisfactory performance of tanks during strong ground shaking is crucial for modern
facilities. Tanks that were inadequately designed or detailed have suffered extensive
damage during past earthquakes [2 8]. Knowledge of pressures and forces acting on
the walls and bottom of containers during an earthquake and frequency properties of
containers is important for good analysis and design of earthquake resistant
structures/facilities tanks.

SEISMIC DESIGN OF LIQUID STORAGE TANKS

Seismic design of liquid storage tanks has been adopted in [4, 8, 10]. When a tank
containing liquid vibrates, the liquid exerts impulsive and convective hydrodynamic
pressure on the tank wall and the tank base, in addition to the hydrostatic pressure. The
dynamic analysis of a liquid filled tank may be carried out using the concept of
generalized single degree of freedom (SDOF) systems representing the impulsive
and convective modes of vibration of the tank liquid system. For practical
applications, only the first convective mode of vibration needs to be considered in the
analysis (Fig. 1). The impulsive mass of liquid mi is rigidly attached to tank wall at
height hi (or hi' ). Similarly convective mass mc is attached to the tank wall at height hc
(or hc' ) by a spring of stiffness kc. The mass, height and natural period of each SDOF
system are obtained by the methods described in [4, 8, 10]. For a horizontal earthquake
ground motion, the response of various SDOF systems may be calculated independently
and then combined to give the net base shear and overturning moment. The most tanks
have slimness of tank , whereby 0,3 < < 3. Tanks slimness is given by relation
= H/R, where H is the height of filling of fluid in the tank and R the tank radius [6 -
10].

=
kc/2 mc
kc/2

H mi

z hc hi z
( hc ) ( hi' )
'

x x

Fig. 1. Two single degree of freedom systems for ground supported cylindrical tank

2
 Hydrology and Water Resources

THE SIMPLIFIED SEISMIC ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

A simplified analysis procedure has been suggested by Housner, in 1963 [1], for fixed
base elevated tanks. In this approach, the two masses (mi and mc) are assumed to be
uncoupled and the earthquake forces on the support are estimated by considering two
separate single-degree-of-freedom systems: The mass mc represents only the sloshing of
the convective mass; the mass of consist of the impulsive mass of the fluid, the mass
derived by the weight of container and by some parts self-weight of the supporting
structure. This two-mass model suggested by Housner has been commonly used for
seismic design of elevated tanks. The dynamic characteristic of these model are
estimated by using the expressions given by equations (1b), (4b), (5)-(16). Similar
equivalent masses and heights for this model based on the work of Velestos and co-
workers [Malhotra], with certain modification that make the procedure simple, are also
suggested in the Eurocode 8 ( next only EC8) are given in Table 1 and (1a), (4a) and
(6). mi is the impulsive mass of fluid, mc is the convective mass of fluid, hi is height
of wall pressure resultant for the impulsive component, hc is height of wall pressure
resultant for the convective component, hi' is height resultant of pressures on the wall
and on the base plate for the impulsive component, hc' is height resultant of pressures on
the wall and on the base plate for the convective component, H is height to the free
surface of the liquid; R is tanks radius; D is tanks diameter, C i is dimensionless
coefficient and C c is the coefficient dimension of s/m1/2. Periods are necessary after
determination of the two masses of mi and mc with their locations and stiffnesses. Base
shear and overturning moment for design can be estimated using standard structural
dynamic procedures. Except EC8 all international codes use rule Square of Sum of
Squares (next only SRSS rule), (2a) and (3a), to combine response from impulsive and
convective mode. In EC8 absolute summation rule is used (2b) and (3b), which is based
on work of Malhotra. The basis for absolute summation is that the convective mode
time period may be several times the impulsive mode period, and hence, peak response
of impulsive mode will occur simultaneously when convective mode response is near its
peak. However, recently through a numerical simulation for a large number of tanks,
Malhotra shoved that SRSS rule gives better results then absolute summation rule, [9].

Eurocode-8 Housner
Slimness: = H R (1a) = H 2R (1b)
m i , mc , hi , hc , hi' , hc' :
from Tab. 1. (7) - (15).
Total base shear at the bottom of staging is given
V = Vi 2 + Vc2 (2a) V = Vi + V c . (2b)

Total overturning moment at base of staging is given

M ' = M i' + M c' (3a) M ' = M i' + M c' . (3b)

The natural period of the convective mode of vibration Tc in [s]

3
 13th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2013

Tc = Cc R (4a) Tc = Cc D g
(4b)
C c From Tab. 1.
C c = 2 / 3,68 tanh(3,68 H D ) (5)
The natural period of the impulsive mode of vibration Ti in second for elevated tank is
given by [10]
Ti = 2 (mi + m s ) K s (6)
where m s is mass of container and one-third mass of standing, K s is lateral stiffness of
standing.

Table 1 Recommended design values for first impulsive and convective modes of
vibration as a function of a tank height-to-ratio (h/R) [9]

H /R Ci Cc mi / m mc / m hi / H hc / H hi' / H hc' / H
0.3 9.28 2.09 0.176 0.824 0.400 0.521 2.640 3.414
0.5 7.74 1.74 0.300 0.700 0.400 0.543 1.460 1.517
0.7 6.97 1.60 0.414 0.586 0.404 0.571 1.009 1.011
1.0 6.36 1.52 0.548 0.452 0.419 0.616 0.721 0.785
1.5 6.06 1.48 0.686 0.314 0.439 0.690 0.555 0.734
2.0 6.21 1.48 0.763 0.237 0.448 0.751 0.500 0.764
2.5 6.56 1.48 0.810 0.190 0.452 0.794 0.480 0.796
3.0 7.03 1.48 0.842 0.158 0.453 0.825 0.472 0.825

1 3 4
0,8 m c /m '
h i /H 3
0,6 2
2 h c ' /H
0,4 1
0,2 1
0 0 0
0 1 2 H/R3 0 1 2 H/R3 0 1 2 H/R3
Figure 2: Impulsive and convective masses as fractions of the total liquid mass in the
cylindrical tank, impulsive heights as fraction of the height of the liquid in the cylindrical
tank, convective heights as fraction of the height of the liquid in the cylindrical tank

mi tanh(0.866 D H )
= (7)
m 0.866 D H
m tanh(3.68 H D )
c = 0,23 (8)
m H D
h
i = 0.375 , pre H D 1.5 (9)
H

4
 Hydrology and Water Resources

hc cosh (3.68 H D ) 1.0

= 1 (10)
H 3.68 H L sinh (3.68 H D )
0.09375
= 0.5 , pre H D >1.5(11)
H D
hi' 0.866 D H
= 0.125 , pre D L 1.33 (12)
H 2 tanh (0.866 D H )
= 0.45 ,pre D L >1.33 (13)
hc '
cosh (3.68 H D ) 2.01
= 1 (14)
H 3.68 H D sinh (3.68 L D )

tanh 2 (3.68 H D )
mg
k c = 0.836 (15)
H
2 = 3.68 tanh (3.68 H D )
g
(16)
D

SOLUTION, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The reinforced concrete elevated tank on four different subsoil classes A, B, C, D given
EC8 with a container capacity of 255 m3 is considered in seismic analyses (Fig. 3, 4).
The elevated tank has frame supporting system in which six columns ( 0.65 m) are
connected by the horizontal bracing at regular interval at 4 m 8 m and 12 m elevations.
Youngs modulus and the weight of concrete per unit volume are selected as 32000
MPa and 25 kN/m3, respectively. The container is also filled with the water density of
1000 kg/m3 as seen from Fig. 3. Tank is located on hard soil in seismic zone 1, it is
height seismic zone in Slovakia.
The damping values for the reinforced concrete elevated tank are taken as 5% for the
impulsive mode and 0.5% for convective mode, as recommended in most literature.
[9,10].
Seismic analyses for the selected elevated tanks are carried out under three main groups
are: model 1 and model 3 are using the dynamic characteristic: similar equivalent
masses and heights of two-mass model suggested by Housner, model 2 and model 4 are
using the dynamic characteristic: similar equivalent masses and heights from EC8. Total
base shear at the bottom of staging tank and total overturning moment at base of staging
of model 1 and model 2 are obtained by combining part of impulsive and convective
modes through SRSS rule. Total base shear at the bottom of staging tank and total
overturning moment at base of staging of model 3 and model 4 are obtained by
combining part of impulsive and convective modes through absolute summation rule.
The dynamic characteristic of fully reinforced concrete elevated tank: periods,
equivalent masses and heights for models 1 and 3 are: Ti = 0.86 s, Tc = 3.14 s,
mi = 141145.41 kg, mc = 109728.13 kg, hi' = 3.43 m, hc' = 3.43 m. About 55% of liquid
mass is excited in impulsive mode while 43% liquid mass participates in convective
mode. Sum of impulsive and convective mass is 250873.53 kg which is about 2% less
than the total mass of liquid. The dynamic characteristic of fully elevated tank for
models 2 and 4 are: Ti = 0.86 s, Tc = 3.15 s, mi = 140100.58 kg, mc = 115557.16 kg,

5
13th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2013

hi' = 3.17 m, hc' = 3.45 m. Time period of impulsive mode of empty elevated tank is
Ti = 0.66 s.

Fig. 3. Vertical cross section of the reinforced concrete Fig. 4. Plan of staging
elevated tank considered for the seismic analysis

2500
2083 2096 V [kN]
2000 1785 1785
1671 1678
1477 1476 model 1
1500

987 989
1000
905 903 model 2

469 468 496 496

500 model 3

0 model 4
A B C D
Figure 5: Total base shear V [kN] immediately bellow the base plate in dependency on
category of sub-soil

6
 Hydrology and Water Resources

Table 2 Total base shear at the bottom of staging tank on four different subsoil classes
A, B, C, D

A B C D
V [kN] model 3r 495.69 986.50 1671.35 2083.04
V [kN] model 4 496.20 988.91 1478.34 2096.32
% Deviation of V [kN] 0.10 0.24 0.42 0.64
V [kN] empty tank 356.57 686.39 734.33 881.19

30000
24498
22007 24295 M' [kNm]
25000 21942
17772 19459 18282 18953
19506 18951
20000 18204
17888
model 1
15000
9204 9762
9267 9802 model 2
10000

model 3
5000

0 model 4
A B C D
Figure 6: Total overturning moment M ' [kNm] immediately bellow the base plate in
dependency on category of sub-soil

Table 3 Total overturning moment at base of staging on four different subsoil classes A,
B, C, D

A B C D
M [kNm] model 3 9802.57 19506.09 21842.12 24295.23
M [kNm] model 4 9762.41 19458.63 22007.26 24498.09
% Deviation of M [kNm] -0.41 -0.24 0.30 0.84
M [kNm] empty tank 6823.28 13164.98 14084.43 16901.31

CONCLUSION
The seismic design of elevated tanks was using single lumped-mass models provides
smaller base shears and overturning moments in both fixed-base and flexible soil
conditions. It is evident from the Figures 5 and 6, that the values of total base shears an
overturning moments are grooved with category of subsoil. It is seen, that using SRSS
rule for calculating of total base shear at the bottom of staging tank and total
overturning moment at base of staging are obtained smaller value as by combining of
impulsive and convective modes through absolute summation rule recommended by
EC8. Diferences between two-mass model suggested by Housner and model based on

7
 13th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2013

the work of Velestos and co-workers [Malhotra], simple procedure, which are suggested
in the EC8 for seismic design of elevated tanks, are seen from Table 2 and Table 3.
Calculating of total base shear at the bottom of staging tank and total overturning
moment at base of staging are seen from Figure 5 and Figure 6.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Preparation of the paper has been supported by the Scientific Grant Agency of the
Ministry of Education of Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences under
Project 1/0201/11 and by the Centre Progressive Constructions and Technologies in
Transportation Engineering. The Centre was supported by the Slovak Research and
Development Agency under the contract No. SUSPP-0013-09 and the companies
Ininierske stavby and EUROVIA SK.

REFERENCES
[1] Housner, G., W.: Earthquake pressures on fluid containers, California institute of
technology, Pasadena, California, 1954.
[2] Mel-Rakabawy, M., M., El-Arabaty, H., A., El-Sherbiny, M., G.: Response of
elevated water tanks yo seismic load. In: 11th ICSGE, 17.-19. May 2005, Cairo -
Egypt.
[3] Juhsov, E., Benat, J., Kritofovi, V., Kolcn, ., 2002: Expected seismic response of
steel water tank, In: 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper
reference 595, London 2002.
[4] Krlik, J.: Dynamic analysis of soil-fluid-tsmk interaction due to earthquake even. In:
Dynamic of ridig and deformable bodies 2012: st nad Labem. Univerzita J. E. Purkyn
v st n. L.: Univerzita J. E. Purkyn v st n. L., ISBN 978-80-7414-500-0.
[5] Livaolu, R., Doangn, A.: Simplified seismic analysis procedures for elevated
tanks considering fluid-soil interaction. In: Journal of fluid and structures 22,
2006. p. 421-439.
[6] Malhotra, P. K., Wenk, T., Wieland, M.: Simple procedure for seismic analysis of
liquid-storage tanks, Structural Engineering International, No. 3, 2000, s. 197-201.
[7] Melcer, J., Lajkov, G.: Dynamick vpotov model asfaltovej vozovky In:
Stavebn a environmentlne ininierstvo Ro. 7, . 1 (2011), s. 2-12 ISSN: 1336-
5835.
[8] Jaiswal, O., R., Rai, D. C., Jain, S., K.: Review of code provisions on design seismic
forces for liquid storage tanks. Kanpur, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, 2005
[9] EN 1998-4: 2006 Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 4:
Silos, tanks and pipelines. CEN, Brussels, 2006
[10] IITK-GSDMA, 2005: Guidelines for seismic design of liquid storage tanks provisions
with commentary and explanatory examples. Kanpur, Indian Institute of Technology
Kanpur, 2005

View publication stats