Coe EEE DYNAMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF LARGE STEEL LIQUID RESERVOIRS ABSTRACT ‘The structural response of liquid storage reservoirs or tanks with flexible bottoms supported on the ground is fundamentally different than the response of other ‘structures, including rigid bottom tanks. The different ‘factors that cause the response, including the effects of ‘the tank aspect ratios, foundation interaction and soils characteristics are reviewed, along withthe history of the applicable analytical techniques. An analysis using linear and dynamic methods ts made and conclusions ‘and recommendations are given for their design. INTRODUCTION Liquid storage reservoirs, which have been in construction over centuries, have become a major topic in today’s seismic engineering world, One example of this is the rupture of a 5 million-gallon concrete reservoir in Westminster, California, which caused nearly $27 nillion in damages, on September 21, 1998, Other water districts have been using this asa case example during the design or retrofit oftheir reservoi ‘The performance of water, petroleum and chemical tanks and reservoirs in an earthquake is critical to society. The water supply is essential for controlling fires that usually ‘occur during an earthquake and which can cause more damage and loss of life than the event itself. Broken petroleum tanks can lead to large uncontrollable fires, while they, and chemical spills, can result in enormous ‘environmental damage. 319 Richard L. Hess ‘Structural Engineer/President oss Engineering Ine, Los Alamitos, CA George Pytlik Civilstructural Engineer Hess Engineering nc, Los Alamitos, CA Aswin Rangaswamy Associate Engineer Hess Engineering Inc., Los Alamitos, CA ‘The most common cause of tank ruptures is the failure due to longitudinal compression and radial tension that can burst a vertical seam and spill the entire contents. In steel tanks, this takes the form of bulging or an “elephant’s foot” a the base before actual rupture. Other forms of damage include roof damage due to sloshing, failure ofthe support systems or tearing out ofthe anchor chairs. Excessive movement of the tank can break connecting pipes that do not have sulficient flexibility built into them, resulting in los of liquid contents. Finally, failure of the foundation due to liquefaction or lateral movement of the supporting soil can result in oss of support and rupture ofthe vessel. Over the last several decades, engineers have been using the standard linear static procedure recommended by the American Water Works Association and American Petroleum Institute's publications, Prior to that, theoretical solutions had been developed for se analysis but most tanks were designed for static and wind loads with rule-of-thumb safety factors developed by petroleum and water supply companies. Lately, there have been more requests to do linear dynamic analyses using site-specific response spectra However, there has been no standard procedure published forthe dynamic analysis of such large tanks for the practicing engineer that would cover all conditions of differing aspect ratios, tank anchorage and, base rigidity or soil interaction. ‘The intent ofthis paper isto present the many variables that may be involved, and, as an example, the results of the analysis of a 5 million-gallon steel reservoir using the linear static and response spectra analysis. This willre Fe vat} iy FIG. 2. Site Specific Horizontal Response Spectra (0.58g) Source: Soil Report by “Geolabs - Westlake Village", dated Sep. 4, 1998 (Westlake Village, CA), 220describe the various methods for obtaining the period of the fank through analytical and computer programs. THE BASIS FOR THE LATERAL TANK ANALYSIS Cylindrical tanks containing liquids, with flexible bottoms resting directly on the ground or base mat, constitute a unique category for structural design. ‘This is because the entire weight ofthe tank contents contributes to the lateral seismic force while only a small percentage of that weight helps to resist overturning. Further complicating the analysis isthe fact thatthe lateral force consists of two components: impulsive forces and convective forces. The fist isthe type of force that structural engineers are familiar with, which relates to the inertia ofa portion of the liquid along the walls and the bottom which moves in unison wih the tank as a rigidly atfached mass, The second (convective) force is caused by the movement of the remaining fluid inside the tank, which is the subject of fluid dyna analysis. ‘The relative importance of these two forces depends on the physical configuration of the tank. Because the lateral component of the seismic forces is primary, the larger width-to-height ratios allow the convective forces ‘to come more into play. Whereas when the height is ‘more than the width (H/D > 1), the impulsive forces are predominant. ‘The natural period for these two components is also quite different. When a dynamic response spectrum is used in the analysis, the period for the impulsive force is Spills a fraction of a second while the convective is several seconds fong. The way that these Uifferent components are handled varies with the analysis ‘methodology that is used. ‘The defining consideration in the analysis of the tank is whether the overturning moment is large enough to result in significant uplift of one side of the tank wall. If this ‘were allowed to occur, the longitudinal compression and tangential tension on the other side would become excessive and cause buckling and probable rupture. Uplift ofthe tank shel is resisted by the weight of the shell and supported roof plus a band of liquid adjacent ro it, The width of this band of liquid depends on the stiffness (or thickness) of the bottom plate inside the 321 shell, which is called the annular ring, ‘The designer can thicken this ring but there are imitations because it ‘cannot be thicker than the shell. If this isnot sufficient, additional restraint in the form of anchors must be provided. ‘There is an intermediate zone in which some uplift will occur but anchors are not required by AWWA D100 (16) or API 650 (17). ‘This is because it has been found in the past thatthe uplift was too small to create failure of these tanks. ‘These two codes are based primarily on past experiences of failure of large storage vessels. ‘The seminal work was published by Wozniak and Mitchell in 1978 (4). Mr. ‘Wozniak had been with Chicago Bridge and Iron Company, a major tank fabricator, and Mr. Mitchell, a ‘member of SEAOC, with Standard Oil Company of California, They had access to a large database, including the effects of the great Alaska earthquake of 1964, and were able to take the theoretical data that was available and put it into a set of equations that can be used by practicing engineers. ‘This appears to have been the basis of both the API 650 Appendix E and the seismic provisions of AWWA D100, ‘The latest edition of the later has incorporated provisions that can employ response spectra in the analysis. A 1998 edition of API 650 has been published, ‘but was not examined atthe time this paper was written When anchorage for uplif is required, it can be provided by piles or rock anchors. One approach, that used rock anchors wit steel bolts that were designed to yield, was described in a paper by John Shipp (12) atthe 1993 ‘SEAOC convention and can be found in the Proceedings. This approach may be especially useful in a retrofit situation where the annular ring is not thick enough to climinate uplift and the excess force can be taken by the new anchors that yield at a predetermined level. A more advanced study ofthis type of retrofit anchorage is contained in reference (19). Resistance to uplift ofthe shell by the bottom annular ring cannot begin until an initial vertical displacement ‘occurs which permits the bottom to resist the displacement in tension. Some installation specifications call fora pad to be placed under the edge of the bottom to give it an initial displacement, under no load, with the bottom. This is called pre-uplift and is described in reference (8).