Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Analiza Seism Abaqus Rezervoare - Ffbbbuuunnn PDF
Analiza Seism Abaqus Rezervoare - Ffbbbuuunnn PDF
av beholdere/tank
Anton Gjrven
Thanh Ngan Nguyen
Background
The purpose with this presentation is
to demonstrate different calculation methods and design principles for
seismic response of "full containment" (stand-alone steel inner tank,
separated from outer concrete cylinder) LNG (liquefied natural gas) tanks
to show how an earthquake can impact the design of the steel inner tank.
The basic principles of anchoring/no anchoring of the steel inner tank is a
significant factor of the costs of an LNG tank.
NEED2012
Background
Relevant projects
Risavika: H = 20 m (Ht = 21 m), R = 22.5 m, H/R = 0.89
Lysekil: H = 37.5 m (Ht = 38.2 m), R = 16 m, H/R = 2.34
Lysekil: High H/R-ratio is a challenge when considering safe shutdown
earthquake (SSE - return period 4975 years. Operating basis earthquake
(OBE) - return period 475 years)
NEED2012
Background
Response calculations and design are normally based on hand
calculations using standards
Analyses, both explicit and implicit, have been executed to compare
and validate the hand calculations
Parameters of interest:
Base shear and overturning moment (foundation, stresses in bottom
insulation layers)
Compressive stress in tank wall ("elephant foot" buckling, EC8-4 A.10)
Uplift and anchorage of tank
NEED2012
7.1.4 Earthquake design: "For full containment tanks, the primary liquid container shall be
designed to contain the liquid during an OBE and SSE action."
7.3.2.2.13: OBE earthquake
7.3.3.3: SSE earthquake
Annex C: Seismic analysis
NEED2012
5.1.2.2: Requirements to allowable tensile stress in tank anchorage for OBE and SSE (NB:
Allowable stress theory, not limit state theory)
5.8.1: Other requirements to tank anchorage
6.3.2.2.1: Overall safety factor for brittle materials (insulation) for OBE and SSE (NB: Allowable
stress theory)
Annex C: Tank bottom insulation - Limit state theory
NEED2012
Foto: Norconsult. An LNG tank is a complex structure. Here is the outer concrete
wall from one of our projects - picture is taken from below and upwards.
NEED2012
NEED2012
NEED2012
NEED2012
NEED2012
NEED2012
without anchors
NEED2012
Without anchors
NEED2012
With anchors
Without anchors
NEED2012
NEED2012
NEED2012
Without anchors
(small differences)
NEED2012
10
NEED2012
= 0.8 40
= 1.0 0.8 0.5
2.5
2.5
1.0
= 0.667 2
2
1.5
3.0
= 552
1.5
11
NEED2012
NEED2012
12
Number of anchors = 2
Uplift?
Unachored EC8-4 A.9: Effect of uplift on stress in the wall
OBE
SSE
NEED2012
Malhotra/EC8-4:
NEED2012
Simplified calculations:
= 1.5
=5%
Max. value of spectrum
13
Limit state
Load
factor
Material
factor
Ordinary ULS
Yes
Yes
No (1.0)
No (1.0)
No (1.0)
Yes?
NEED2012
NEED2012
14
NEED2012
15
Summary
Several types of calculations/analyses - benefits and limitations
Simplified hand calculations
Simplified procedure - Malhotra
Implicit analysis
Explicit analysis
Which results are trustworthy?
Unachored tanks: Increased compressive stress when uplifted
(Eurocode, implicit model (moderate!))
Anchored tanks: Increased compressive stress due to tension in
anchors (explicit model)
NEED2012
Summary (continued)
Overturning moment
[MNm]
Hand calculations
(Malhotra)
Abaqus implicit
Tension in anchoring
[kN]
NEED2012
Abaqus explicit
Compression in tank
wall (with anchors)
[MPa 10]
0
500
1000
16
Conclusions
Calculation method may govern the decisions regarding the necessity
of anchoring the tank
Advanced FE methods (explicit analyses) tend to give reduced values of
the governing parameters (hand calculations are more conservative)
The complexity of explicit analyses is very high and need a lot of
engineering time
NEED2012
17