Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering Satellite Conference XVIIth International Conference on Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering 2-3. 10.

2009, Alexandria, Egypt

SEISMIC DESIGN OF LNG TANKS IN LIQUEFIABLE SOILS

Barnali GHOSH1, Subhamoy BHATTACHARYA2 and Zygmunt LUBKOWSKI3
ABSTRACT
LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) is a natural gas (primarily methane) in its liquid form and is one of the cleanest forms of hydrocarbon. When required, LNG is revapourised and piped into the gas distribution network. LNG storage tanks represent critical infrastructure facilities since they are required to provide a steady and safe energy supply even after a natural disaster, such as an earthquake. Increasingly, LNG storage tanks are constructed in highly seismic areas and where the supporting soil is loose to medium dense sands. In such areas, special remedial measures such as ground improvement need to be taken to counter soil liquefaction. Often piles are used to support these structures. This paper describes some of the essential criteria behind the design of LNG tanks in liquefiable soils in seismic areas. The analysis of LNG tanks in seismic areas involves complex dynamic fluidstructuresoil interaction. Some physical mechanisms that may affect the design have been identified. However, uncertainties still remain and more research is required. Keywords: LNG tanks, Liquefaction, Pile foundation, Seismic

INTRODUCTION LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) is a natural gas (primarily methane) in its liquid form and is one of the cleanest forms of hydrocarbon. It has been reported that the world is discovering roughly four times as much gas as it uses every year. However, the main gas consumption areas, for example USA, Japan, UK, India, China and Korea are far away from the location of the reserves (Russia). As a result, storage and transmission is an engineering challenge. LNG storage tanks are typically 50m to 100m in diameter and about 20m to 40m in height providing a storage capacity of between 100,000m3 to 200,000m3. When required, LNG is revapourised and piped into the gas distribution network. Therefore LNG storage tanks represent critical infrastructure facilities since they are required to provide a steady and safe energy supply even after a natural disaster, such as an earthquake. This is a containment type structure, similar to a nuclear reactor and comprises of: (a) An inner stainless steel (nickel steel) tank which contains the LNG at about -160C; (b) An outer tank of approximately 1m thick insulation which surrounds the inner tank to safeguard against any disaster in case of an emergency. Seismic hazards which could cause partial to complete failure of the tank foundation include: Displacement of the foundation due to fault rupture, slope stability failure or lateral spreading effects; Loss of vertical load bearing capacity in the case of raft foundation or piles end-bearing in liquefiable soils; Excessive settlement due to liquefaction of the subsoil; Structural failure of the piles due to pile instability or shear or bending. Modern seismic analyses are based on probabilistic response spectrum rather than deterministic peak ground acceleration. Large-scale storage tanks have a fundamental natural
1

Engineer, ARUP, 13, Fitzroy Street, London, barnali.ghosh@arup.com Lecturer, University of Bristol, UK, S.Bhattacharya@bristol.ac.uk Associate Director, ARUP, 13 Fitzroy Street, London, zygi.lubkowski@arup.com

Seismic Design of LNG Tanks in Liquefiable Soils

period of about 2 to 3 Hz, depending on their shape and geometry, and are more or less within the range of maximum excitation of typical severe earthquakes. Increasingly, LNG storage tanks are constructed in highly seismic areas and where the supporting soil is loose to medium dense sands. In such areas, special remedial measures such as ground improvement need to be taken to counter soil liquefaction. Often piles are used to support these structures. This paper describes some of the essential criteria behind the design of LNG tanks in liquefiable soils in seismic areas. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS Design life The seismic design criteria for LNG plant are described in EN 1473 for projects in Europe and NFPA 59-A for projects in the United States. These documents define the return periods and performance requirements for the different elements of an LNG plant; safety critical components including LNG storage tanks are required to remain operational in a rare or operating basis earthquake (OBE) and to maintain safety-related operational functions after a very rare or safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). For the OBE level the design ground motion is usually below code defined level of motion and tank performance criteria is to remain operational with minimum damage. This type of earthquake is expected at least once during the lifetime of the LNG tank. For the SSE level the design ground motion is usually above the code specified value and the goal is to prevent the catastrophic failure and release of products. The performance of such tanks have been summarized by Lubkowski et al (2006) where it was observed that the exposure of modern LNG tanks to strong earthquakes have been limited. One of the key design issues has been change in return period of SSE level of earthquake over the years. As discussed in the paper Lubkowski et al (2006), the authors have shown that the reduction of return periods in the NFPA 59-A and EN1473 seismic design criteria from 1996 to 2007 has potentially resulted in a disproportionate reduction in seismic hazard and hence increase in risk in areas of low and moderate seismicity, such as India, compared to areas of high seismicity such as California. Table 1 reviews how the SSE criteria have changed in NFPA 59-A and EN 1473 over the last twelve years. This shows that the SSE design level has steadily reduced from 10,000 years in the mid-1990s to 2475 years in the most recent version of NFPA 59-A. The implication of this change and its affect on LNG facilities in different parts of the world is shown graphically in Figure 1.
4

3.5

Ratio SSE/OBE

2.5

1.5

1 very low low 0.5 moderate very high 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Return Period (Years)

Figure 1: Seismic Hazard Curves for various seismic zones

Figure 1 shows the seismic hazard curves for regions of very low, low, moderate and very high seismicity normalised to the OBE. The seismic hazard data is taken from curves presented in ATC 3-06. The four seismic hazard curves correspond to bedrock peak ground acceleration values for a return period of 475 years (10% probability of exceedance in 50 years) of 0.05g, 0.1g, 0.2g and 0.4g respectively.

B.Ghosh, S.Bhattacharya and Z. Lubkowski

Table 1- Comparison of Code SSE Criteria North America NFPA SSE Criteria 59A 1996 10,000 years 2001 5000 years but less than twice OBEa 2006 2500 years MCEb OBEa defined as 2/3 of 2,500 year MCE, but not greater than 475 year. MCEb as defined in ASCE 7-05 or IBC 2006. Europe SSE Criteria 10,000 years 5000 years

EN 1473 1997 2007

A region of very high seismicity (e.g. California), the reduction in SSE criteria from 10,000 years to 2,500 years has resulted in a reduction in PGA of about 15%. However, in areas of low and very low seismicity the equivalent reduction is about 40%. This implies that selection of SSE return period remains a challenging decision even today. FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS In general siting of LNG tanks requires careful consideration. LNG tanks will have very tight tolerances in terms of residual tilting and differential settlement. Two types of foundations are commonly used: Shallow foundations This is considered in areas where soil of adequate bearing strength or rock is found at shallow depth (Figure 2). The selection of a specific foundation type depends on factors such as surface and subsurface conditions at the site, geotechnical capacity, dynamic and static demands, environmental concerns, economics, and construction issue. For shallow foundations the minimum factor of safety against ultimate bearing capacity is recommended as 3.

r h

r h

Non-Liquefied crust Liquefiable soil Liquefiable soil

Figure 2: LNG tanks on shallow foundation

It must be pointed out that if the tank is supported on soft to medium stiff soil, an enhanced soil-structure interaction (SSI) may be expected ( Lubkowski et al. 2000). This SSI is manifested in two ways: (a) Elongation of the fundamental period owing to soil flexibility; (b) Energy loss through foundation damping (material damping and wave propagation effects). Also, the base motion in the tank will be significantly different from the free field motion. This type of analysis is often described as Kinematic Interaction type analysis. Veletsos (1977) carried out extensive study to understand the effect of foundation of SSI. It is said that if Equation 1 is satisfied, the inertial effect can be ignored for all practical purposes.

Seismic Design of LNG Tanks in Liquefiable Soils

h h 1 4 V T r 8 S

(1), where

h = Height of the structure (tank in our case), r = Radius of the foundation, T = Fixed base period and VS = Shear wave velocity. The application of the above is illustrated using a case study: For a 46m diameter, 17.7m high LNG tank having 0.39sec impulsive period, SSI inertial effects can be ignored if the shear wave velocity of the soil supporting the tank is more than 350m/s. This immediately leads to the fact that for liquefiable soils SSI needs to be considered in design. The above SSI studies may predict the base shear and overturning moment on the tank foundation. In addition to SSI, the other considerations are settlement of the tank and the overall tilting due to differential settlement particularly in the case of liquefiable soils. Deep foundations: Deep foundations such as piles are used where the raft cannot bear the load or the surface soil is soft. Two design cases may arise: 1. Piles pass through layered soils where none of the layers may liquefy in the case of an earthquake, see Figure 3. The soil layer may have a sharp interface having high stiffness contrast. In such cases, large kinematic moments may develop at the interface. The location of kinematic bending moments may be different from the location of the maximum inertial moments. This particular design scenerio is mentioned in the EC8 and is advised to design the section as a plastic hinge. 2. Piles pass through layered soil where one of the layers may liquefy during an earthquake, see Figure 4.

Soft soil (VS1)

Soft soil (VS1)

H1

Stiff soil (VS2)

Location of maximum kinematic bending moment (Interface of soil layer having high stiffness contrast)

Stiff soil (VS2)

H2

Figure 3: LNG tanks supported on piles Figure 4 shows a dynamic model for the analysis of pile-supported LNG tanks. The mass of the fluid filled tank is composed of three components: (a) ms is the dead load mass of the tank; (b) mi is the static mass of the fluid which does not slosh and can be considered to remain rigidly attached to the tank wall (impulsive) and ki is some form of stiffness; (c) mc is the mass of the sloshing fluid (convective) due to the seismic event and ks is its stiffness in some form. Typical large storage tanks, (without considering the foundation) have a fundamental frequency of approximately 2 to 10 Hz. In other words, the fixed base time period of the tank varies between 0.1 and 0.5 sec. If the soil flexibility is taken into consideration, the time period of the tank-foundation-soil system, denoted by TSSI increases. Equation 2 gives us an estimate based on Veletsos and Meek (1974).

TSSI = Tstr , Fixed 1 +

2 K str K str H str + K hh K rr

(2) where

B.Ghosh, S.Bhattacharya and Z. Lubkowski

Kstr is the Lateral stiffness of the tank only, Khh is the horizontal translational stiffness of the foundation, Krr is the rotational stiffness of the foundation, Hstr is the Effective Height of the tank and Tstr,Fixed is the Fixed Base Period of the tank which is equal to T in Equation 1. If the soil liquefies, the first natural frequency of the SSI system will alter significantly as the piles will now take part in the vibration while the liquefied soil will provide damping to the vibration, see Bhattacharya et al (2009), Adhikari and Bhattacharya (2008). Typical earthquakes have a frequency ranging between 0.5 and 10 Hz and therefore resonance or dynamic amplification of motion is also an important design consideration.
kc/2 mc kc/2 mi

ki/2
Rigid

ki/2
hc

ms
hi hs

Non-liquefied soil
Pile

Lateral soil spring (p-y spring) Axial soil spring (t-z spring) Bearing soil spring under foundation raft (q-u spring) Viscous damper
3-6 D

Liquefied soil

Hard soil

Radiation damper

Input ground motion

Figure 4: Dynamic model for analysis of pile-supported LNG tanks in liqiefiable deposits, Bhattacharya (2007).

Criteria for design of piles in layered soils The dynamics of the tank-foundation-soil system, include the vibration of the soil layers due to the upward propagating shear waves and the vibration of the tank-pile soil system. The soil layer will have its own natural frequency depending on the layering of the soil and the tank-pile--near field soil system will have a coupled SSI frequency. The design checks and considerations are highlighted below: 1. The kinematic bending moment will be maximum at the soil interface having sharp contrast as shown in Figure 3. A comprehensive set of over 400 shaking table tests were carried out at the EERC [Earthquake Engineering Research Centre] of University of Bristol to study the effect of layered soil, see Dihoru et al (2009). The test results showed that bending moment depends on the ratio of shear wave velocities of the soil layer (VS1 and VS2) at the interface, pile-soil stiffness ratio in the layers, amplitude and the frequency content of the input motion, location of the soil interface (shallow interface or deep interface) and the boundary condition of the pile head. 2. In layered soils (see Figure 3), designers need to estimate the location and the magnitude of inertial and the kinemantic bending moments of the piles for various conditions such as tank empty, tank full and tank partially full. While the kinematic bending moment in the pile at the deep soil layer interfaces (Figure 3(a)), will be almost unaffected by the various tank condition (full or partially full or empty), the inertial moments will change considerably to the variable base shear. 3. In a layered soil, if the interface is at a shallow depth (within the active length of the pile), the position of the maximum inertial moment may be in closer proximity with the maximum kinematic bending moment demanding high bending stiffness of the pile. 4. The magnitude of the inertial bending moment depends on the SSI period of the structurefoundation-soil system and the input motion. The location of the maximum inertial bending is normally few diameters below the pile head i.e. within the active length region.

Seismic Design of LNG Tanks in Liquefiable Soils

5. For short stiff pile, the kinematic bending moment dominates the pile bending design. 6. For flexible piles, large bending moment may be experienced by the pile at the pile head if the frequency of excitation is near the effective natural frequency of vibraton. Also if the input motion excites the higher modes of soil layer vibration, large kinematic bending moment may occut also at the interface. Criteria for design of piles in liquefiable soils This section of the paper lists the essential criteria for design of pile foundations for LNG structures. A safe design procedure should ensure that the piles have enough strength and stiffness to sustain the following, aftter Dash and Bhattacharya (2007): 1. A collapse mechanism should not form in the piles under the combined action of lateral loads imposed upon by the earthquake in addition to the axial load. At any section of the pile, the bending moment should not exceed allowable moment of the pile section. The shear stress load at any section of the pile should not exceed the allowable shear capacity. 2. A pile should have sufficient embedment in the non-liquefiable hard layer below the liquefiable layer, to achieve fixity in order to carry moments induced by the lateral loads. If proper fixity is not achieved, the piled structure may slide due to the kinematic loads (lateral spreading of the soil). Typical calculations show that the point of fixity lies between 3 to 6 times the diameters of the pile in the non-liquefiable hard layer. 3. A pile should have sufficient capacity to carry the axial load acting on it during full liquefaction without becoming laterally unstable (buckling). It has to sustain the axial load and vibrate back and forth, i.e. must be in stable equilibrium when the surrounding soil has almost zero stiffness owing to liquefaction. Lateral loading due to ground movement, inertia, or out-of-straightness, will increase lateral deflections which in turn can cause plastic hinges to form, reducing the buckling load, and promoting more rapid collapse. These lateral load effects are, however, secondary to the basic requirements that piles in liquefiable soils must be checked against Eulers buckling criterion. This implies that there is a requirement of a minimum diameter of pile dependent upon the likely liquefiable depth; see Bhattacharya et al (2004). 4. The pile should have sufficient capacity to carry the additional dynamic forces along with the static forces without exceeding yield. During earthquakes, the frequency of the pilesupported LNG tank should not be close to the driving frequency of earthquake. The piles should also be considered as a part of the structure while carrying out the natural frequency estimation. A simplified method to find the frequency is shown in Bhattacharya et al (2009). 5. The settlement in the foundation due to the loss of soil support should be within the acceptable limit which is very tight for LNG tanks. The settlement should not induce endbearing failure in the pile. CASE STUDY In this section of the paper, two example cases are considered: Case study 1: Pile-supported LNG tank in layered soils (non-liquefiable) In the first example an LNG tank is considered having an outside diameter of 92m and inside diamter of 88m. The capacity of the tank is 180,000m3 which is equivalent to about 84,600T of LNG. The time period of vibration in impulsive mode time period is about 0.39s. The total mass of the tank and LNG referred to as full tank condition is about 1500MN. The soil at the site is layered having 9.5m of cohesive soil having shear wave velocity of 80m/s and bulk density of 15kN/m3 underlain by stiff cohesive soil having shear wave velocity of 330m/s and bulk density of 20 kN/m3. The input acceleration used in this study at the engineering base layer (bed rock or outcrop motion) is shown in Figure 5. This is a synthetically generated motion rich in frequency and the Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) of the motion is shown in Figure 6. The maximum input acceleration is 1.25m/s2. Figure 7 compares the response spectrum of the input motion with EC8 which shows a very good match with Bedrock Spectra.

B.Ghosh, S.Bhattacharya and Z. Lubkowski

1.2 Response Acceleration [m/sec2] 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1 -1.2 -1.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Time [sec] 7 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 5: Input motion used in the study

In this example, the LNG tank described above is considered to be supported on 300 reinforced concrete bored piles having 1.3m diametre and 15.5m long. The soil profile suggests that due to the stiffness contrast of the supporting soil at the interface (ratio of shear modulus is about 23) there will be significant kinematic bending moment induced in the pile. This is due to the curvature imposed by the surrounding soil due to the passage of seismic waves and is termed as kinematic bending moment which is different from the inertial bending moment arising from the superstructure. In this paper, the kinematic and inertial moment in of the piles is estimated using a research program SPIAB 3.0 developed by Mylonakis et al (1997), Mylonakis (2001) and currently being validated using shaking table tests at the University of Bristol (U.K), Dihoru et al (2009). The envelope of the maximum kinematic and the inertial bending moments in the pile is shown in Figure 8. The following points may be observed: (a) Substantial kinematic bending moment developed at the interface is indepedent of the tank condition [full or empty]. A simple back of the envelop check based on Dobry and ORourke (1983) and Mylonakis (2001) is given in the next paragraph. (b) As expected, the inertial bending moment in the top part of the pile changes with the condition of the tank [Full or empty].
0.8 0.7 0.6 Fourier Amplitude 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 5 10 Frequency [Hz] 15 20

Figure 6: FFT of the input motion

Seismic Design of LNG Tanks in Liquefiable Soils

4.5

Spectral Acceleration (m/s )

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Response Spectrum of Input Motion EC8, T ype I, Ground T ype D EC8, T ype 1, Ground T ype A (Bedrock)

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

5.5

Period (s)

Figure 7: Response spectrum of the input motion and its comparison with EC8

Verification based on Dobry and ORourke (1983) The moment at the interface is given by: (3), where EPIP = Bending rigidity of the piles (3500MNm ). The second moment of area is 0.14m4 and the Youngs Modulus of Concrete is taken as 25GPa. G1 = Shear Modulus of the top layer [9.6MPa in this case] F = Dimensionless factor depending on the the stiffness contrast at the interface (G2/G1) where G2 is the shear modulus of the bottom layer. For the present problem, the ratio of (G2/G1) is 23 and this factor is about 0.4. 1 = Peak uniform soil strain in Layer 1 which may be obtained from any simplified approach. This has been estimated to be 0.0051. Based on the above data, the peak moment at the interface has been estimated to be 3200kNm which is of similar magnitude of the moment obtained from SPIAB. This apparent difference is understandable due to the inherent assumtions in the formulation. The most notable limitations being the absence of the dynamic nature of the excitation and the weak assumption of constant shear strain within each layer.
2

M 1.86(EP I P )4 (G1 )4 1F
3 1

Case study 2: Pile-supported LNG tank in Liquefiable soils In this section, the design of a LNG tank in a moderately seismic region is considered. The soil profile consists of fill (0-6mbgl), coastal sand (6-12mbgl) and alluvial deposits. The same LNG tank as considered in the earlier example is considered. The dynamic properties of the soil derived from small strain stiffness is given in Table 2.
Material Fill Alluvium/ Silty Sand Weak Moderated Rock Table 2- Dynamic properties from SPT data Average SPT N value Small Stain Shear Modulus (Go) MPa 7 46 10 63 50 150

Basis of obtaining the design parameters The dynamic behaviour of the proposed foundation for the LNG tank will depend on the dynamic stiffness (Go) of the material below the foundation as well as the strain level induced in the foundation due to vibrations. The value of G0 and the method of calculating it depend on a number of factors. These factors include the specific soil material and, strength and jointing in case of rocks. It is therefore preferable to directly measure the shear wave velocity of the rock and derive G0 from geophysical testing. However, in absence of such tests, it is possible to determine the values of small strain shear modulus and shear wave velocity by using correlation techniques. The

B.Ghosh, S.Bhattacharya and Z. Lubkowski

SPT test results which are more common can be used to determine the values of shear modulus and shear wave velocity of the different strata present on the site.
Bending Moment (kNm)
0 0 3000 6000 9000 12000

Depth of the pile (m)

Inertial Moment (Full Tank) Inertial Moment (Empty tank)

10

12

Kinematic Moment (Empty Tank) Kinematic Moment (Full Tank)

14

16

18

Figure 8: Inertial and Kinematic bending moments in the pile for two cases [Tank Full and Tank Empty].

The SPT N values for Silty Gravel and Gravel with silt have been correlated with the small strain shear modulus (G0) using the following equation by Wong & Pun (1997) [G0 = 8.8N0.86]. The SPT N values for intermediate rocks have been correlated with the small strain shear modulus, G0 using the following equation by Thompson & Leach (1985) [G0 = 3N]. Liquefaction assessment and the pile design Liquefaction assessment following the methodology suggested by Seed et al. (2003) revealed that there is potential for liquefaction at the site for magnitude 6 and above earthquakes. The depth of potentially liquefiable zone need to be estimated. The part of the pile in liquefiable zone has to be considered as unsupported. The analysis can be carried out in two ways: 1. Force based method: In this case the maximum bending moment in the pile can be estimated based on earth pressure applied by liquefied soil and the non-liquefied crust. There are various proposed methods of pressure distribution such as Abdoun (1997), JRA (2002) or He et al (2006). The simplest method is to apply a uniform pressure of 10 to 20kPa on the pile in the liquefied zone and a passive pressure on the non-liquefied crust above the liquefied zone and computing the static bending moment. In addition to this, there is a requirement of amplifying the static bending moment obtained from lateral load analysis to incorporating the axial load effects (P-delta method). This amplification depends on the Euler Load ratio i.e. (P/Pcr) where P is the axial laod on the pile and Pcr is the Euler Load ratio, see Figure 9. A chart showing the Euler Load for various boundary

10

Seismic Design of LNG Tanks in Liquefiable Soils

conditions of the pile can be found in Bhattacharya and Madabhushi (2008). A graph showing the Euler Load ratio is given in Figure 9. 2. Displacement based method: In this method, the soil surrounding the pile-soil interaction is modelled as Beam on Non-Linear Winkler Foundation. The soil is modelled as nonlinear springs denoted by p-y curves. During the process of liquefaction, the nature of the spring changes. Figure 10 shows the transition of the p-y springs from soil being solid to being fluid following Dash et al (2008) and Bhattacharya et al (2009). Lateral loads or ground displacements may be applied to find the bending moments and shear forces. PDelta effect corrections needs to be taken into consideration. A sample calculation can be found in Bhattacharya et al (2008).
Timoshenko and Young (1961) Halabe and Jain (1993) Fixed-headed semi-infinite and finite piles Halabe and Jain (1993) Free-free rigid pile Halabe and Jain (1993) Free headed semi-infinite and finite piles Buckling amplification factor

17 13 9 5 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 (P/Pcr) 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Figure 9: Amplification factors of piles for lateral loads, Bhattacharya (2007)

Bending moment and shear forces can be estimated based on the above methods. In addition, reduction due to pile group effects, reduced moment of inertia for concrete piles due to cyclic strains should be taken into considerations.
Non Liquefied soil ru = 0 ru = 0.25 ru = 0.5 ru = 0.75 Load (P) Liquefied soil ru = 1 K K Transition from solid to fluid state Displacement (y) yt yu Displacement (y)

pu Load (P) Liquefied soil ru = 1 Kl

Figure 10 (a): p-y curve for saturated sandy soil during the process of liquefaction ; (b) Simplified p-y curve for liquefied soil, Dash et al (2008), Bhattacharya et al (2009).

Limitations of Force-based or Displacement based methods: Both the force based and displacement based methods does not incorporate dynamics of the problem. The bending moments estimated in the pile by the two methods may increase significantly if the excitation frequency due to the input motion closely to the natural frequency of the structure-pile system i.e. SSI time period of the pile-supported LNG tank. Research is

B.Ghosh, S.Bhattacharya and Z. Lubkowski

11

underway to account for the dynamic moments, see Bhattacharya et al (2009), Bhattacharya and Adhikari (2008). CONCLUSIONS This paper outlines the principles for seismic design of foundations for LNG tanks. Three types of foundations are considered: (a) Shallow foundations (general); (b) Piled foundations where the piles pass through non-liquefiable layered soils; (c) Piled foundations where the piles pass through liquefiable deposits. The critical design issues for all types of foundations have been identified. For design of piles, two types of mechanisms (such as inertial and kinematic) need to be considered. Inertial moment in the pile depends on the condition of the tank (empty or full). For non-liquefiable layered soils, the design of piles depends on the soil profile particularly if the pile passes through deposits having a stiffness contrast. If this stiffness contrast is at a shallow depth, inertia and kinematic bending moment may need to be algebraically added to find the worst design moment. For piles in liquefiable deposit, additional considerations include the avoidance of buckling instability due to the potentially unsupported length owing to liquefaction. Acknowledgement SB acknowledges the discussion with Prof George Mylonakis [Visiting Professor at University of Bristol] regarding the kinematic bending moments in the piles. The analysis is carried out using the program SPIAB developed by Prof Mylonakis. REFERENCES
1. 2. Abdoun, T.H (1997): Modelling of seismically induced lateral spreading of multi-layered soil and its effect on pile foundations, PhD thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, NY. Adhikari, S and Bhattacharya, S. (2008): Dynamic Instability of pile-supported structures in Liquefiable soils during earthquakes, Shock and Vibration, Volume 15, Number 6, November 2008, pp 665-685 ASCE 7-05 (2006) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-05 American Society of Civil Engineers. ATC 3-06 (1978) Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings, Applied Technology Council. Bhattacharya, S. Adhikari, S and Alexander, N.A (2009): A simplified method for combined dynamic and free vibration analysis of piled foundation in liquefiable soils, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (in press). Bhattacharya, S., Blakeborough, A. and Dash, S.R. (2008): Learning from collapse of piles in liquefiable soils Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Civil Engineering 161, No CE6, November 2008, pp 54-60. Bhattacharya, S and Madabhushi, S.P.G (2008): A critical review of methods of pile design in seismically liquefiable soils, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Volume 6, No 3, pp 407-447. Bhattacharya, S., Bolton, M.D. and Madabhushi, S.P.G. (2005): A reconsideration of the safety of the piled bridge foundations in liquefiable soils, Soils and Foundations, Volume 45, August 2005 issue, No 4, pp 13-26 Bhattacharya, S., Madabhushi, S.P.G., and Bolton, M.D. (2004): An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes, Geotechnique 54, April issue, No.3, pp 203-213. Bhattacharya, S (2007): Chapter 6 in NICEE Special Publications (IIT Kanpur, India) Foundation design in seismic areas: Principles and few Applications, Bhattacharya (ed). Bhattacharya, S (2007): Design of pile-supported LNG tanks in liquefiable soils, Article in Hydrocarbon World, Touch Oil and Gas Publication. BS EN 1473 (1997, 2007) Installation and equipment for liquefied natural gas Design of onshore installations, British Standards Institute. CFR 193, (2003) Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities: The Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Dash, S.R. and Bhattacharya, S. (2007): Essential Criteria for design of pile foundations in liquefiable soils, Paper Number 1724 in Proceedings of the 4th ICEGE Conference, Greece.

3. 4. 5.

6.

7. 8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

12

Seismic Design of LNG Tanks in Liquefiable Soils

15. Dash, S.R., Bhattacharya, S., Blakeborough, A. and Hyodo, M (2008): P-Y curve to model lateral response of pile foundations in liquefied soils, Paper number 04-01-0089, Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Oct 12-17, 2008, Beijing. 16. Dihoru, L., Bhattacharya, S., Taylor, C.A., Muir Wood, D., Moccia, F., Simonelli, A.L. and Mylonakis, G. (2009): Experimental Modelling of kinematic bending moments of piles in layered soils, International Conference on Performance Based Design, June 2009, Tsukuba (Japan). 17. Dobry R. and ORourke M.J., 1983, Discussion on Seismic response of end-bearing piles by Flores-Berrones R.,Whitman R.V., J. Geotech. Engng. Div., ASCE, 109, 778-781. 18. FERC (2006) Seismic Design Guidelines and Data Submittal Requirements for LNG Facilities Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 19. Halabe, U.B and Jain, S.K. (1993): Amplification factors for piles, Journal of Engineering Structures, Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, Volume 15, No 2, pp 97 to 101. 20. He, Liangcai, Elgamal, A., Abdoun, T., Abe, A., Dobry, R., Meneses, J. Sato, M. and Tokimatsu, K. (2006): Lateral load on piles due to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading during one-G shake table experiments, Proceedings of the 100th Anniversary earthquake conference commemorating the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, April 18-22, California. 21. IBC (2006) International Building Code International Code Council. 22. JRA (2002, 1996): Japanese Road Association, Specification for Highway Bridges, Part V, Seismic Design. 23. Lubkowski Z, Pappin J.W. and Willford, M.R. The influence of dynamics soil structure interaction on the seismic design and performance of ethylene tank, 12 WCEE, Auckland, 2000 24. Lubkowski et al (2006), A critical review of the changing seismic design criteria for the LNG plants First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, 3-8th Sept, 2006. 25. Mylonakis G., Nikolaou A., Gazetas G., 1997, Soil-pile-bridge seismic interaction: kinematic and inertial effects. Part I: soft soil, Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics, 26, 337-359. 26. Mylonakis G., 2001, Simplified model for seismic pile bending at soil layer interfaces, Soils and Foundations, 41, 47-58. 27. NFPA 59A, (1996, 2001, 2006) Standard for the Production, Storage, and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), National Fire Protection Agency. 28. Seed, R.B., Cetin, K.O., Moss, R.E.S., Kammerer, A.M., Wu, J., Pestana, JM., Riemer, M.F.,Sancio, R.B., Bray, J.D., Kayen, R.E., and Faris, A. (2003) Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A Unified and Consistent Framework, 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Long Beach, CA, 71 p. 29. Thompson, R.P. and Leach, B.A. (1985) Strain-stiffness relationship for weak sandstone rock, 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Volume No. 2, San Francisco, pp673-676. 30. Veletsos, A. S. (1977) Dynamics of structure foundation systems.Structural and geotechnical Mechanics, N W Newmark Vol., W. J. Hall, ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 333361.