You are on page 1of 20

- 387 -

Behavior of Elevated Concrete Water


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

is the amplitude and

is the phase angle of the


th
contributing sinusoidal, the
amplitudes

are related to power spectral density function () in the following way:

= _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)

and the other mode corresponds to the liquid sloshing


(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

. Eurocode-8 (EC-8) suggested


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
,

are the coefficients of dimensionless, is the poissons ratio, is the shear


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

+ |C]a + |k]a = F(t) (14)




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:

is the tributary area associated with node ;

is the normal direction cosine


(

,
x
,
z
)

as shown in Figure 12(b) and

is Westergaard pressure coefficient.



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

respectively, overturning moment


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