Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

15 views

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- AERO 430 Project 3
- Prof Ashok Jain - Critical Review of is 1893-1-2016 R2
- Basic FEM Webinar 2011
- FEM Model and Mechanical Behavior of Flexible Risers
- Finite modelling
- Ground Motions High Speed Trains
- m Tech Elective
- SW Simulation 2010 TOC
- Ansys Basic Training Course Curriculum
- Transient Beam
- Applications of Finite Element Stress Analysis of Heavy
- Finite Element Modeling and Analysis of Drive Chain
- EF_notes berkeley.pdf
- Me6603 Fea - 2 Marks
- 2 Preliminaries
- dynamic-analysis-of-four-story-building.docx
- DS30_160
- Firstranker.com Finite Element Methods
- A Study of Quasi Static Problem by Sph Method
- FEA-QP1

You are on page 1of 20

Tank Subjected to Artificial Ground

Motion

Gareane A. I. Algreane

PhD Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, University Kebangsaan

Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

e-mail: gerryani@yahoo.com

Siti Aminah Osman

Senior Lecturer, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, University

Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

e-mail: saminah@vlsi.eng.ukm.my

Othman A. Karim

Professor, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering and Director of

Centre for Information Technology, University Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi,

Selangor, Malaysia

e-mail: oak@vlsi.eng.ukm.my

Anuar Kasa

Senior Lecturer, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, University

Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

e-mail: anuar@vlsi.eng.ukm.my

ABSTRACT

This paper is concerned with the soil and water behaviour of elevated concrete water tank

under seismic load. An artificial seismic excitation has been generated according to Gasparini

and Vanmarcke approach, at the bedrock, and then consideration of the seismic excitation

based on one dimension nonlinear local site has been carried out. Seven cases are chosen to

make comparisons with direct nonlinear dynamic analysis, mechanical models with and

without soil structure interaction (SSI) for single degree of freedom (SDOF), two degree of

freedom (2DOF), and finite elements method (FEM) models. The analysis is based on

superposition modal dynamic analysis. SSI and fluid structure interaction (FSI) have been

accounted using direct approach and added mass approach respectively. The results show that

a significant effects obtained in shear force, overturning moment and axial force at the base of

elevated tank.

KEYWORDS: Elevated tank; Soil structure interaction; Fluid structure interaction.

I NTRODUCTI ON

Elevated concrete water tanks are mainly used for water supply and fire protection. One of

the major problems that may lead to failure of these structures is earthquakes. Therefore the

analysis of elevated tank must be carefully performed, so that safety can be assured when

earthquake occurs and the tanks remain functional even after earthquake. The irregular shape of

Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 388

the elevated water tanks for which most of the mass confluent in the upper part of the tank makes

it more sensitive to any dynamic load, especially due to an earthquake.

Elevated water tank can be simulated based on SDOF, 2DOF or FEM, which governed by

one mode, two modes, or more respectively. It is widely recognized that these analysis are not

always the appropriate approach for simulating response of structures subjected to seismic

excitation. The estimation of damages made using this approach is normally poor (Hamburger,

1996). The response of elevated water tank when dynamic effects are considered is deeply

dependent upon the soil deformability and liquid characteristics (Somnath, et al., 2004;

Livaoglua, and Dogangu, 2006; Livaoglua and Dogangu, 2007; Halil et al., 2008). Therefore

interaction between tank foundation and liquid should be accounted in the analysis of these

structures. Previous studies on the seismic behavior of elevated water tanks were only focusing

on the linear seismic response, therefore in this paper investigation on the behaviors of elevated

water tanks based on nonlinear dynamic analysis is presented.

Due to the lack of real seismic excitations recorded at the site that need to be considered in

this study, an artificial seismic excitation has been generated which is compatible with local

response spectrum at the bedrock. The local site effects are estimated based one nonlinear one

dimensional approach.

SEI SMI C EXCI TATI ON

The whole main steps to generate artificial earthquake and account the local site effects can

be described as in Figure 1. It is started from artificial earthquake generation at the bedrock which

is compatible with local response spectrum. The generated earthquake has to be used to

accounting the local site effects to predict the ground motion and ground response spectrum.

Figure 1: Main steps to generate and evaluate the ground motion

Generat ion of Art ificial Seismic Excit at ion

Selection of appropriate seismic excitations that compatible with design response spectrum in

particular region could affect the results significantly (Azlan et al., 2005). In this paper the

procedure of artificial earthquake generation developed by Gasparini and Vanmarcke (Gasparini

Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 389

and Vanmarcke, 1976) is adopted. The procedure is based on the fact that any periodic function

can be expanded into a series of sinusoidal waves (Housner, 1955).

() =

sin(

) (1)

n

=1

where

th

contributing sinusoidal, the

amplitudes

= _2 _ (

).

o

i

0

(2)

the relationship between () of seismic excitation and response spectrum can be expressed as

following

(

)

1

4

s

1

_

2

(

v

)

S.P

2

S.P

2

_ ()

o

i

0

_

12

(S)

where i

S.P

is the peak factor; S

V

is the target velocity of the response spectrum;

I

is the circular

frequency of the i

th

contributing sinusoid;

s

is the fictitious time-dependent damping factor for

duration t . The definitions of these parameters can be found in Gasparini and Vanmarcke (1976).

To simulate the transient character of real earthquakes, the steady-state motions are

multiplied by a deterministic envelope function (). The artificial motion () becomes:

() = () = ()

n

sin(

n

+

n

) (4)

n

There are three different envelope intensity functions available such as trapezoidal,

exponential, and compound (Gasparini and Vanmarcke, 1976). The procedure then artificially

raises or lowers the generated peak acceleration to match exactly the target peak acceleration that

has been computed by using seismic hazard analysis

In this study the response spectrum is obtained from seismic hazard analysis by other

researchers (Azlan et al., 2005). Figure 2 shows the target and calculated response spectrum at the

bed rock, and artificial seismic excitation compatible with its target response spectrum.

Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 390

Figure 2: (a) Target and calculated response spectrum at the bed rock, (b) Artificial

seismic excitation compatible with target response spectrum

Nonlinear Local Sit e Effect

The seismic waves that propagate through the soil layers during earthquakes accrued and can

affected any structures that constructed on the surface. The earthquake that accrued before such

as Loma Prieta (1989) and Northridge (1994) has clarified the role of local site effects in

modifying the characteristics of the motion data.

It is well known that characteristic of soil layers can cause significant effects on the seismic

excitation at bedrock through its propagating in the soil layers which is lead to a different effects

on structures rested at the surface. Therefore, in the case of linear behavior of the soil layers, it is

assumed that the surface motion will be amplified proportionally to the input motion. Whilst, in

the non-linear behavior the soil will have a tendency to damp out the shaking energy for large

amplitude motion.

The nonlinear modifications of the artificial seismic excitation are conducted in this study

through finite difference method software named NERA, which is based on one dimensional

nonlinear site response analysis. The artificial seismic excitation was assigned as outcrop on the

bedrock to NERA model, and the output of ground motion shown in Figure 5 was taken within

the top. Figure 3 and Figure 4 summarizes the soil profile and some selected parameters used for

NERA runs.

Figure 3: Parameters of soil profile at the site

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 2 4 6 8 10

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

(

g

)

Period (Sec)

Target

Calculated

Generated

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

0 5 10 15 20

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

(

g

)

Period (Sec)

Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 391

Clay Sand

Gravel

Figure 4: Material properties of the soil profile

Figure 5: Output ground motion time history

Based on the analysis and according to UBC 97 the average of shear velocity for upper 100

feet of soil profile equal to 269 m/s Thus, the site can be classified as site class D (Figure 6).

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0.0001 0.01 1

G

/

G

m

a

x

Shear Strain (%)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0.0001 0.01 1

G

/

G

m

a

x

Shear Strain (%)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

G

/

G

m

a

x

Shear Strain (%)

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0 5 10 15 20

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

(

g

)

Time (sec)

Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 392

Figure 6: Period (s) Vs Response Spectrum Acceleration (g) at surface (Site Class: D)

DYNAMI C ANALYSI S

The general equation of motion for a system subjected to an earthquake excitation can be

written as,

|N]a + |C]a + |K]a = F(t) (S)

where N, C and K are the mass matrix, damping matrix, and stiffness matrix respectively. F(t) is

the seismic excitation, and time-dependent vectors , and are accelerations, velocities and

displacements, respectively. Solution of Equation (5) can be divided as: direct integration which

no transformation of Equation (5) to another form, and mode superposition, where some

assumption is used to simplify the solution of Equation (5).

Direct I nt egrat ion Dynamics Analysis

To solve Equation (5) directly, the explicit or implicit time integration method that available

in LUSAS FEA software can be chosen. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages

that depend on the type of structure and loading. Implicit method is used to model inertial

dynamic effects with low velocity such as seismic analysis including SSI analysis

(www.lusas.com, 2010). Each time-step of an implicit dynamics analysis is relatively

computationally expensive where the inversion of the stiffness matrix is required at every time-

step. LUSAS has a highly accurate integration scheme facility based on the second order named

Hilber-Hughes-Taylor (HHT). The algorithm equations of HHT can be expressed in (6a), (6b)

and (6c) which is self-starting therefore no static solution is required and allows variable time

steps to be used.

(1 + )f

n+1

f

n

= |N]a

n+1

+(1 +)|C]a

n+1

|C]a

n

+ (1 + )|K]a

n+1

|K]a

n

(6a)

Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 393

a

n+1

= a

n

+ t

n

|(1 )a

n

+ a

n+1

] (6b)

a

n+1

= a

n

+ a

n

t

n

+ t

n

2

|(1 )a

n

+ 2a

n+1

]2 (6c)

where , and are free parameters which govern the stability and numerical dissipation of the

algorithm. In this paper the matrix C in Equation (5), is expressed as a linear combination of the

mass and stiffness matrix.

|C] = A|N] + B|K] (7)

where A and B are constant, and the above equation can be solved through model superposition.

Such assumption leads to a constant damping ratio for the entire system which includes soil,

foundation and tank. This assumption is not usually pertinent to soils, where damping depends

strongly on the development of share strains and may vary abruptly over the geometrical domain

of integration (Wolf, 1985). Therefore for this reason, and when the shear strains are lower than

the threshold value , a variable damping solution can be adopted, in which the Rayleigh

assumption holds good.

MODELI NG TECHNI QUES OF ELEVATED TANK

Structural models of elevated tank are idealized as the prototype and are simulated for the

response characteristics of systems. Three levels of modeling are generally used for earthquake

response analysis of the elevated tank. These are summarized as below in ascending order of

complexity and accuracy:

Single DOF

SDOF idealization of tanks is normally carried out in 2DOF idealization, but in some seismic

codes it is suggested that the tanks can be analyzed as a SDOF system as shown in Figure 7. The

ACI 371R-98 suggests that the single lumped mass model should be used when the water load is

80% or more of the total gravity load (ACI 371R-98, 1995). In this case the fundamental period

of the elevated water tank with SDOF can be obtained by Equation (8)

= 2_

S

(8)

where

L

is the single lumped mass weight and is the ground acceleration. It should be noted

that according to ACI 371R,

L

is consisted of the total mass weight of container, water, and 2S

of the concrete support wall, whilst

S

is the lateral stiffness of the staging

Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 394

Figure 7: Fixed base single lumped mass model

2DOF I dealizat ion

Normally most of the elevated tanks are not completely filled with liquid. Hence the seismic

behaviors of elevated water storage tanks subjected to earthquakes are characterized by two

predominant modes of vibration. The first mode is related to the mass that rigidly moves together

with the tank structure (impulsive mass)

(convective mass)

c

(Housner, 1963).

Seismic response of elevated tanks depends on complex FSI that may result in global

overturning moments and base shear induced by horizontal inertial forces as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Considering two degree of freedom suggested

In Figure 8,

c

is the stiffness of the convective mass springs which can be determined

according to Housners approach as shown below

c

=

c

g

R

1.84

1.84.h

R

(9)

Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 395

where is the radius of tank, is depth of water in the container and

c

is the mass of

convective water,

c

is the height of

c

and

is the height of

simple procedure by recommended design values for the cylindrical tanks. For any tank shapes

other than circular and rectangular (like truncated or conical shape), the values of and shall

correspond to that of an equivalent circular tank of the same.

Table 1: Recommended design values for the first impulsive and convective modes of

vibration as a function of the tank height-to-radius ratio (h/R) (EC-8, 2003)

0.3 0.176 0.824 0.40 0.521 2.640 3.414

0.5 0.300 0.700 0.40 0.543 1.460 1.517

0.7 0.414 0.586 0.40 0.571 1.009 1.011

1.0 0.548 0.452 0.42 0.616 0.721 0.785

1.5 0.686 0.314 0.44 0.690 0.555 0.734

2.0 0.763 0.237 0.45 0.751 0.500 0.764

2.5 0.810 0.190 0.45 0.794 0.480 0.796

3.0 0.420 0.158 0.45 0.825 0.472 0.825

I nert ial I nt eract ions Procedure

The systems commonly employed in simplified analyses of inertial interactions of elevated

are shown in Figure 9. The base of the tank is allowed to translate relative to the free-field for an

amount of and rotate for an amount of . The impedance function is represented by lateral and

rotational springs with complex stiffnesses

and

0

, which gives rise to base shear and

moment respectively,

= _

8

2

_ (1u)

0

= _

8

0

S(2 )

_

3

(11)

where

0

,

modulus of the soil and is the radius of the circular foundation.

The flexible base period is evaluated from Veletsos and Meek (1974),

= _1 +

(1 +

0

) (12)

where .is the fundamental period of a fixed-base structure,

s

is the stiffness of a staging based

on fixed-base and is the effective height that is taken as 70% of the height to the level where the

gravity load is effectively concentrated as shown in Figure 7.

Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 396

Figure 9: Simplified models for inertial interactions analysis

The flexible-base damping ratio has the contributions from viscous damping in the tank as

well as radiation and hysteretic damping in its foundation. Jennings and Bielak (1973) and

Veletsos and Nair (1975) expressed the flexible-base damping as,

`

=

`

0

+

_

T

T

]

3

(1S)

where

0

represents the contribution of the radiation damping, and the soil damping as shown in

Figure 10 and shall be determined by averaging the values obtained from solid lines and the dash

lines.

FEM Analysis

FEM idealization is usually used to analyze structures with complex or irregular geometry or

non-uniform loading such as elevated water tank. The model is usually constructed using 3-

dimensional (3D) FEM. The seismic input for a 3D model includes three orthogonal components

of seismic excitation, two horizontal and the vertical. These seismic excitations can be applied

along the principal axes of the structure.

The dynamic interaction with the foundation introduces flexibility at the base of the tank

model and could provide additional damping mechanisms through material and radiation

damping. The tank also interacts with the retained water through hydrodynamic pressures at the

structure-water interface. This interaction is coupled in the sense that motions of the tank generate

hydrodynamic pressures that affect deformations (or motions) of the tank, which in turn influence

the hydrodynamic pressures.

Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 397

Figure 10: Foundation Damping Factor (IBC 2003 or ASCE 7-02)

The response of the whole system that includes soil, foundation and tank in case of direct

method dynamic analysis is used under severe seismic excitation, may approach or exceed the

yield state especially at the soil, which means that in a linear-elastic dynamic analysis the use of

effective stiffness is more appropriate than the initial elastic stiffness used in the static analysis,

and that the damping should be selected consistent with the expected level of deformation and the

extent of nonlinear behavior.

FSI Model t hrough FEM

The analysis of elevated tank under dynamic load of FSI problems can be investigated by

using different approaches such as added mass (Westergaard, 1931) or velocity potential,

Lagrangian (Wilson and Khalvati, 1983), Eulerian (Zienkiewicz and Bettes, 1978), and

Lagrangian Euclidian approach (Donea, et al 1982). These analyses can be carried out using FEM

or by the analytical methods. The added mass approach as shown in Figure 11 can be investigated

by using some of conventional FEM software such as SAP 2000, STAAD Pro and LUSAS.

Whilst in the other approaches, the analysis needs special programs that include fluid elements in

the elements library, such as ANSYS, ABAQUS ADINA, ALGOR and etc.

According to added mass approach the mass matrix [M] in equation (5) has to modify and

replace with the new mass matrix [M] by adding hydrodynamic mass to the estimated mass,

whilst matrices [C] and [K] are still same. The new equation is shown below as

Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 398

|N]a

Figure 11: The FEM models for FSI added mass approach system.

West ergaard Model

In his study, Westergaard approach is chosen to analyze the FSI of the elevated tank. This

method was originally developed for the dams but it can be applied to other hydraulic structure

under earthquake loads i.e. water tank (Livaoglua and Dogangu, 2006). The convective mass (

)

is obtained according to EC-8 (Table 1) technique and being added to the tanks walls according to

Westergaard approach as shown in Figure 12 using Equation (15),

u

= _

7

8

(

)_

(1S)

in which is the mass density and the depth of water.

(a)

(b)

Figure 12: (a) Westergaard Added Mass Concept,(b) Normal and Cartesian

directions of curvilinear surface

Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 399

In the case of Intze tank where the walls having sloped and curved contact surface, the

Equation 15 should be compatible with the tank shape by assuming the pressure is still expressed

by Westergaard's original parabolic shape. But the fact that the orientation of the pressure is

normal to the face of the structure and its magnitude is proportional to the total normal

acceleration at the recognized point. In general, the orientation of pressures in a 3-D surface

varies from point to point; and if it is expressed in Cartesian coordinate components, it would

produce added-mass terms associated with all three orthogonal axes. Following this description

the generalized Westergaard added mass at any point i on the face of a 3-D structure is expressed

by Kuo, (1982),

u

=

x

2

z

2

_ (16)

where:

(

,

x

,

z

)

SSI t hrough FEM

SSI is where structural-elements and the ground displacements are dependent upon one

another. To handle SSI analysis there are many techniques can be employed such as impedance

functions, simple physical models (Wolf, 1996), macro-element model (CHATZIGOGOS et al.,

2007), substructure method (Wolf, 1985) and direct method (Wolf, 1985). For accuracy, the

direct method is adopted in this study with important considerations, such as kinematic

interaction and foundation flexibility, but the disadvantage of this method its an expensive

computationally.

CASE STUDY

Descript ion of Exist ing Elevat ed Concret e Tank

The elevated tank has a capacity of 250 m

3

with the top of water level at about 17.8 m above

ground. The tank is spherical in shape, 8.6 m in diameter and 7.85 m in height at its centre. The

support consists of 6 vertical circular columns and the columns are connected by the

circumferential beams at regular intervals, at 4,8,12 and 16 m as shown in the Figure 13.

Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 400

Figure 13: Details of tank geometry

Numerical Simulat ion of Elevat ed Tank and soil

LUSAS FEM is used to model the fluid-soil of elevated tank shown in Figure13. Beams and

columns are modeled as 3D thick beam element (BMS3). The nodes number of BMS3 is 3 with

end release conditions of 6 DOF at end nodes. The walls of container and domes are modeled

with quadrilateral 3D thin shell elements (QSI4), with four nodes and 6 DOF/node. The element

includes a high performance incompatible model by considering both membrane and flexural

deformations.The impulsive liquid masses are modeled as point's masses elements 3-D non-

structural mass (PM3), which attached to the tank walls. Whilst, the convictive liquid mass is

modeled as joint element (PM3) connected with the tank wall with also joint element, with no

rotation stiffness (JNT4). The soil and foundation are modeled as hexahedral element (HX8) with

eight nodes and 6 DOF/node. The element used is capable to model curved boundary and also

capable to model initial stresses which used to simulate the in-situ soil stresses. All the chosen

elements for the model mentioned in LUSAS FEA 14.1, User Manual. (2007). QSI4 and BMS3 is

not able to described non-linear behaviour such as geometric or material effects, but it can be

combined with other elements in a non-linear analysis such as HX8 which is capable to described

nonlinear behaviour. In this paper Drucker-Prager as yield criteria is used in the soil element

(LUSAS FEA 14.1, User Manual. 2007).

The actual problem determines to what extent boundaries become necessary. In this case, the

structures under consideration are situated close to the free surface and the soft soil layers at the

surface bounded by hard rocks at the bottom. So we can take advantage of two real elementary

boundaries, a zero displacement boundary at the bottom. Thus, the unbounded domain extends

only in the horizontal directions. The authors examined the extension of the limit of boundary

Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 401

conditions by trial and error to evaluate reasonable results. The seismic loads are applied at

critical direction as shown in the Figure 14, to evaluate the seismic response at the base of

columns

I) Critical direction for shear force in column.

II) Critical direction for axial force in column.

Figure 14: Critical direction of the seismic excitation

Numerical Analysis

Two methods of seismic analysis are employed for elevated tank. The first method is the

eigenvalue natural frequency analysis solves using spectral response methods. For the analysis,

the response spectrum for 5% of critical damping gives a ZPA of 0.231g Figure 6. The analyses

are solved using the complete quadratic combination (CQC) method in all cases except SDOF to

take account of the correlation between modes of similar frequencies.

The second method is a full time stepping implicit dynamics solution of elevated tank using

acceleration time histories as input to the base supports of the model. The acceleration time

history was taken from Figure 2 it has a zero period acceleration (ZPA) of 0.149g.

Several linear integration dynamic analyses are made to investigate the performance of an

elevated tank through the implicit time stepping FEM dynamic analysis with assumption that the

soils do not liquefy. The investigation focuses upon how the responses vary with: (1) the size of

time step (); (2) the density of the soil mesh (). In this study Parameters obtained from direct

integration linear analysis ( = u.u2) and appropriate mesh size is used also for nonlinear

analysis.

I

II

Brace beam

Column

Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 402

RESULTS AND DI SCUSSI ONS

Superposit ion Modal

The results of period of sloshing and impulsive

c

and

and shear

b

and

b

respectively at the base of elevated tank obtained from four mechanical

models and tow FE models are presented in the Table 2, 3 and 4

Table 2: Results obtained from SDOF

Case-1 Case-2

Fixed SSI

(Sec)

c

(Sec)

b

(KK)

b

(KN.m)

(Sec)

c

(Sec)

b

(KK)

b

(KN.m)

1.038 - 92.4 1772.23 1.085 - 91.41 1753.20

Table 3: Results obtained from 2DOF

Case-3 Case-4

Fixed SSI

(Sec)

c

(Sec)

b

(KK)

b

(KN.m)

(Sec)

c

(Sec)

b

(KK)

b

(KN.m)

0.900 3.140 81.84 1581.48 0.941 3.140 78.50 1516.79

Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 403

Table 4: Results obtained from FEM

Case-5 Case-6

Fixed SSI

(Sec)

c

(Sec)

b

(KK)

b

(KN.m)

(Sec)

c

(Sec)

b

(KK)

b

(KN.m)

0.98 3.140 75.15 1452.15 1.02 3.140 71.80 1387.57

The results of

,

c

,

b

and

b

observed a good agreement between 2DOF and FEM

models in case of fixed and SSI effects. Whilst in the case of SDOF for fixed and SSI observed a

significant variation compared with FE. The results above need to be examined with non linear

direct integration which is more realistic and accurate method.

I nt egrat ion Dynamic

In these cases the linear and nonlinear results of

b

, and ,

b

at base are obtained as flowing.

Table 5: Results of direct integration

Analysis

(KN)

(KN.m)

Linear

Case-7

70.77 1364.44

Nonlinear

Case-8

67.45 1315.70

To estimate the values of forces (

b

and

b

) created due to the seismic approach, the

deviations of the all results obtained before, case-1 to 6 and case-7 with case-8.

V

A

analy

In the

35.52

simila

also w

Fr

Id

which

T

the dy

applic

FEM.

T

Whils

comp

T

Othm

Vol. 16 [ 20

Figure 15

As can be seen

sis carried ou

e case of

b

% respective

arly in the ca

with

b

with

rom this pape

dealizing the t

h is economic

The simplified

ynamic respo

cable. Furthe

.

The results of

st in the case

utationally m

The author wo

man Karim and

11] , Bund.

5: Percentage

n from figure

ut with FEM

the deviatio

ely. Whilst i

ase of FEM (s

minor deferen

er it can be co

tank based on

cally inapplica

d procedure th

onse of elevat

rmore, analy

FEM based o

e of linear fu

more expensiv

A

ould like to ac

d Mr Anuar K

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1

D

e

v

i

a

t

i

o

n

(

%

)

. D

e of deviation

to nonlinea

e 15, the devi

is gradually

ons of SDOF

n case of 2D

superposition

nt

CON

oncluded that:

n SDOF still i

able.

hat can be ut

ted tank is mo

ysis with 2DO

on first mode

ull dynamic a

e

ACKNOW

cknowledge m

Kasa for guida

2

ns for shear fo

ar dynamic an

iations

b

an

less than the

in the case

DOF (fixed

n) models the

NCLUSI O

:-

inapplicable a

tilized for eva

ore adequate

OF procedure

(Impulsive m

analysis the r

WLEDGE

my supervisor

ance and assis

3 4

O

M

S

Cases

orce and over

nalysis

nd

b

values

ones calculat

of fixed and

+SSI) the d

deviations 6

ONS

and may rema

aluating the d

by using 2D

e needs less

mode) are reve

results show

EMENTS

r Dr Siti Amin

stance.

5 6

Oveturning

Moment

hear Force

rturning mom

calculated by

ted according

d SSI effects

eviations 21.

.5 and 5.92.

ain as overest

dynamic char

OF, and econ

computationa

eals a very go

excellent co

S

nah and co-su

7

40

ment compared

y the nonlinea

g to the other

are 37%, an

.33 and 16.3

Same scenari

timate analys

racteristics an

nomically ma

al efforts tha

ood estimation

onvergence bu

upervisors Pro

4

d

ar

rs.

nd

38

io

is

nd

ay

an

n.

ut

of

Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 405

REFERENCES

1. Hamburger, R. O. (1996) Implementing performance based seismic design in structural

engineering practice. Proceedings of 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,

Acapuco, Mexico, Paper no. 2121, Elsevier Science Ltd

2. Livaoglua R., and Dogangu, A. (2006) Simplified seismic analysis procedures for

elevated tanks considering fluid-structure-soil interaction. Journal of Fluids and

Structures, 22: 421439.

3. Livaoglua R., and Dogangu, A. (2007) Effect of foundation embedment on seismic

behavior of elevated tanks considering fluidstructure-soil interaction. 27 855863

4. Halil Sezen, Ramazan Livaoglu, and Adem Dogangun (2008) Dynamic analysis and

seismic performance evaluation of above-ground liquid-containing tanks Engineering

Structures 30: 794803

5. Ramazan Livaoglu and Adem Dogangun (2007) Seismic behavior of cylindrical elevated

tanks with a frane supporting system on various subsoil, Indian Journal of Engineering

&Materials sciences 14, 133-145

6. Somnath, Dutta, Aparna Mandal, Sekhar Chandra Dutta (2004) Soilstructure interaction

in dynamic behaviour of elevated tanks with alternate frame staging configurations 277

825853

7. Azlan, Adnan,. Hendriyawan, and Masyhur, Irsyam (2005) Selection and Development

of Appropriate Attenuation Relationship for Peninsular Malaysia, Proceeding Malaysian

Science and Technology Congress, Mid Valley, Kuala Lumpur.

8. Gasparini, D. A., and Vanmarcke, E. H. (1976) Simulated earthquake motions compatible

with prescribed response spectra. Evaluation of Seismic Safety of Buildings Report No.

2, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA

9. Housner, G.W. (1963) Dynamic behaviour of water tanks, Bulletin of the Seismological

Society of the America. 53:381387

10. Housner, G. W. (1955) Properties of strong ground motion earthquakes, Bulletin of

Seismological Society of America. 45:187-218.

11. Kuo, J.S.H. (1982) Fluid-structure interactions: Added mass computation for

incompressible fluid, UCB/EERC-82/09 Report, University of California, Berkeley,

12. LUSAS FEA 14.1, User Manual (2007) Version 14.1 United Kingdom 16, FEA. Ltd.

LUSAS Element Reference Manual, Version 14.1 United Kingdom.

13. Chatzigogos C. T., Pecker, A., and Salenon, J. (2007) Seismic bearing capacity of a

circular footing on a heterogeneous cohesive soil. Soils and Foundations, 4:783-787.

14. Wolf, J. P, Song, C. (1996) Finite-Element Modeling of Unbounded, Wiley, England

15. Wolf, J. P. (1985) Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction, Prentice-Hall, Englewood

Cliffs,NJ.

16. Westergaard, H.M. (1931) Water pressures on dams during earthquakes, Proceedings of

the ASCE, 57: 1303.

17. http://www.lusas.com/products/options/dynamic.html

Vol. 16 [ 2011] , Bund. D 406

18. ACI 371R-98 (American Concrete Institute), (1995) Guide to the Analysis Design and

Construction of Concrete-pedestal Water Tower. ACI 371R

19. Eurocode-8 (2003) Design of structures for earthquake resistancePart 1.1: General

rulesSeismic action and general requirements for structures-Part 4: Silos, tanks and

pipelines. European Committee for Standardization, Final PT Draft

20. Veletsos, A. S., and Meek, J. W. (1974) Dynamic behaviour of building-foundation

systems. Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 3(2), 121-138

21. Jennings and Bielak (1973) P.C. Jennings and J. Bielak, Dynamics of building soil

interaction, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 63:948

22. Wilson, E.L., and Khalvati, M. (1983) Finite elements for the dynamic analysis of fluid-

solid systems. International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering 19, 1657

1668.

23. Donea, J., Guliani, S., and Halleux, J.P. (1982) An arbitrary LagrangianEulerian Finite

Element method for transient dynamic fluidstructure interaction. Computer Methods in

Applied Mechanics and Engineering 33, 689723.

2011 ejge

- AERO 430 Project 3Uploaded bykoelpipj
- Prof Ashok Jain - Critical Review of is 1893-1-2016 R2Uploaded byarvind
- Basic FEM Webinar 2011Uploaded bykolle_sdestefa
- FEM Model and Mechanical Behavior of Flexible RisersUploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- Finite modellingUploaded byhereiamujwal
- Ground Motions High Speed TrainsUploaded bythadikkaran
- m Tech ElectiveUploaded byiagoo
- SW Simulation 2010 TOCUploaded byadoc_adoc
- Ansys Basic Training Course CurriculumUploaded bySagar Balip
- Transient BeamUploaded bygorot1
- Applications of Finite Element Stress Analysis of HeavyUploaded byDr-Nouby Mahdy Ghazaly
- Finite Element Modeling and Analysis of Drive ChainUploaded byRodrigo Marin
- EF_notes berkeley.pdfUploaded byDanilo Álvaro
- Me6603 Fea - 2 MarksUploaded byPrabha Karan
- 2 PreliminariesUploaded bySaif Rahman
- dynamic-analysis-of-four-story-building.docxUploaded byjulesjusayan
- DS30_160Uploaded byHans TB
- Firstranker.com Finite Element MethodsUploaded byVenkata Dinesh
- A Study of Quasi Static Problem by Sph MethodUploaded byJitapriya Das
- FEA-QP1Uploaded bygreatrijuvan
- 1_1_3_WRJCEUploaded byJason Toralde
- Time-Domain Coupled Analysis of Deepwater TLP, And Verification Against Model TestsUploaded byTee Shi Feng
- HOMEWORKUploaded byIvan Jeff Navea
- Design of TrussUploaded bycadetpalang
- A Comparison of Finite Elements for Nonlinear BeamsUploaded byOsmanKatli
- delaunayUploaded byharishram123456
- Smr Company ResumeUploaded byrhnrohe
- International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering (IJASE) Volume 4 issue 1 2012 [doi 10.1186_2008-6695-4-2] Mohamed Abdel-Basset Abdo -- Modeling of shear-wall dominant symmetrical flat-plate.pdfUploaded bySivanand Akhil
- BEM IntroductionUploaded byHugo Chiang
- matlabUploaded bysubha_aero

- 319764876-Inter-M-a-60-120-Service-ManualUploaded byIvan Grech
- Fornace Thesis 8-31-06Uploaded byDarth_Murat
- Elasto-Plasticity of Frame Structure Elements 2014Uploaded byHo Wing Fung
- PVElite-Q-A.pdfUploaded byRajesh Owaiyar
- 777 Empennage Certification ApproachUploaded bygarystevensoz
- Optimization of shell thickness of sub-baric Fryer for manufacture of fried food products using Finite Element Analysis (FEA)Uploaded byjournal
- Modeling and Analysis of Three Dimensional CracksUploaded byjohn_max03
- ANSYSUploaded byAziz Ahmed
- SCIA Engineer Beta FactorsUploaded byMartin
- Rack January 2001 Opus2Uploaded byفتوح عبد العال خميس
- 201051792337561Uploaded byErhan Savaş
- The Use of Finite Element Analysis Applications in Architectural EducationUploaded byMostafa Nouh
- ModelingUploaded byRamkishore Reddy
- Me471s03 Laplace ExampUploaded byHasen Bebba
- Torsion of a Non-Circular Bar.pdfUploaded byPREM KUMAR
- ME13_GJUploaded byBhargav Prajwal
- A Finite Elements Method to Solve the Bloch–Torrey EquationUploaded byDaniel Cervantes Cabrera
- Oil & Gas - 21 September 2014Uploaded byTimes Media
- Moose Crash Test Dummy Masters ThesisUploaded byEphramoliver
- beam write upUploaded byapi-311988244
- A Framework for Optimal Control Alloc Structural Load ConstraintsUploaded byclaudio8acu8a
- Project Title ListUploaded byShrishant Patil
- Structural Design of a Floating Foundation for Offshore Wind Turbines in Red SeaUploaded byfondexx
- Finite Element Modeling of Friction Stir WeldingUploaded byklausosho
- Finite Element Programs for Structural VibrationsUploaded byRogerio
- Some Remarks on the History of Fracture MechanicsUploaded byjs kalyana rama
- 2006_KKKUploaded byJose Vargas Bohorquez
- ansysUploaded bydvarsastry
- A PREDICTION METHOD FOR LOAD DISTRIBUTION IN THREADED CONNECTIONSUploaded bynhung_33
- 6 Seepage Force Considerations in Tunnelling.pdfUploaded bybiles1234