Fluid Structure Interaction Effects On and PDF

Health and Safety
Executive
Fluid structure interaction effects on and

dynamic response of pressure vessels and
tanks subjected to dynamic loading
Prepared by The Steel Construction Institute
for the Health and Safety Executive 2007
RR527
Research Report
Health and Safety

Executive

Part 1: State-of-the-art review
The Steel Construction Institute
Silwood Park
Ascot
Berks
SL5 7QN
As part of a suite of work looking at fluid interaction effects on (and the dynamic response of ) pressure vessels and
tanks subjected to dynamic loading, this report details the findings of a state-of-the-art review of the available literature,
to consider analysis methodologies, dynamic loads and simplified procedures for the determination of the response of
tanks and pressure vessels subjected to strong vibration. Strong vibration is defined as the shaking of a structure
resulting from earthquake, blast or ship impact. The response of a tank/vessel under strong vibration can be split into
three hydrodynamic components and simplified procedures exist for determining the response of fixed-base, vertical,
cylindrical tanks/vessels. For other tank/vessel types, linear/non-linear finite element dynamic analyses need to be
used, as no simple solution for the various hydrodynamic components are available.
This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any
opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.
HSE Books
Crown copyright 2007

First published 2007
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior
written permission of the copyright owner.
Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:
Licensing Division, Her Majestys Stationery Office,
St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ
or by e-mail to hmsolicensing@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk
ii
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY
STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW OF ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES FOR
PRESSURE VESSELS AND TANKS ON TOPSIDES

2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 METHODOLOGIES FOR ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE VESSELS AND TANKS
ON TOPSIDES
2.3 SIMPLIFIED UNCOUPLED ANALYSIS
2.4 COUPLED ANALYSIS AND UNCOUPLED ANALYSIS USING DECK
RESPONSE SPECTRA
VI
2.4.1
UNCOUPLED ANALYSIS USING DECK RESPONSE SPECTRA
2.4.2
COUPLED ANALYSIS
2.5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES
11
11
REVIEW OF LOADING ON PRESSURE VESSELS AND TANKS ON TOPSIDES
FROM LATERAL EXCITATION

3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 EARTHQUAKE LOADING
12
12
12
3.2.1
DESCRIPTION OF EARTHQUAKE LOADING
12
3.2.2
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR ANALYSIS OF OFFSHORE
PLATFORMS
13
SECONDARY EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR ANALYSIS OF
EQUIPMENT ON TOPSIDES
3.3 BLAST LOADING
13
14
3.3.1
DESCRIPTION OF BLAST LOADING
14
3.3.2
DECK RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR BLAST LOADING

3.4 LOADING ON PRESSURE VESSELS/TANKS FROM SHIP IMPACT
14
15
3.4.1
DESCRIPTION OF SHIP IMPACT LOADING
16
3.4.2
DECK RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR SHIP IMPACT LOADING

3.5 COMPARISON OF EARTHQUAKE, BLAST AND SHIP IMPACT
SECONDARY RESPONSE SPECTRA

3.6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON LOADING ON TOPSIDES FROM
EARTHQUAKE, BLAST AND SHIP IMPACT
17
3.2.3
FLUID-STRUCTURE INTERACTION AND DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF PRESSURE
VESSELS/TANKS UNDER LATERAL EXCITATION

4.1 INTRODUCTION
18
19
20
20
iii
iv
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE OF PRESSURE VESSELS AND TANKS

4.3 VERTICAL CYLINDRICAL FIXED BASE TANKS/VESSELS
20
22
4.3.1
CONVECTIVE COMPONENT
22
4.3.2
RIGID IMPULSIVE COMPONENT
24
4.3.3
FLEXIBLE IMPULSIVE COMPONENT

4.4 RECTANGULAR FIXED BASE TANKS
26
29
4.4.1
CONVECTIVE COMPONENT
29
4.4.2
RIGID IMPULSIVE COMPONENT
31
4.4.3
FLEXIBLE IMPULSIVE COMPONENT

4.5 FIXED BASE HORIZONTAL CIRCULAR CYLINDRICAL TANKS/VESSELS
4.6 TANKS WITH INTERNAL BAFFLES
4.7 ROCKING RESPONSE OF VESSELS/TANKS
4.8 COMBINATION OF PRESSURES AND RESULTANT STRESSES
4.9 SUMMARY OF DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF VESSELS/TANKS UNDER
LATERAL EXCITATION
32
32
34
35
36
CONCLUSIONS
39
REFERENCES
40
37
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A state-of-the-art review was carried out on the analysis methodologies, dynamic loads and
simplified procedures for the determination of the response of tanks and pressure vessels under
strong vibration.
Strong vibration is defined as the strong shaking of a structure as may occur under dynamic
loadings such as earthquake, blast and ship impact. This review covered the relevant offshore
and nuclear codes of practice in addition to recent technical papers.
The strong vibration phenomenon is explicitly addressed in ISO/CD 19901-3 [4] where it is
recommended that depending on the exposure level of the platform, all new installations or
reassessment of existing installations be designed for the effects of strong vibration. The
recommended approach for determining the response of deck appurtenances and equipment to
strong vibration is based on whether the component can be classified as rigid or flexible. For
rigid equipment, simplified uncoupled procedures can be used. Flexible or compliant equipment
require the use of coupled analyses or uncoupled analyses using deck (or secondary) response
spectra.
The dynamic loading from strong vibration can result from earthquake, blast and ship impact.
The frequency content of the loading from these excitations is different and it was found that the
peak values from blast and ship impact loading generally occur at higher frequencies than that
from earthquake loading. In addition, it was noted that compared to onshore spectra, sea-floor
spectra exhibit lower peak vertical and comparable peak horizontal accelerations although at
different frequencies.
The response of a tank/vessel under strong vibration can be split into 3 hydrodynamic
components termed convective or sloshing component, rigid-impulsive component and flexibleimpulsive component. The frequencies associated with sloshing are usually quite low and
generally only the first sloshing frequency is considered for design purposes. The rigidimpulsive component is due to rigid body motion of the fluid and is subjected to the maximum
ground acceleration. The flexible-impulsive component accounts for the flexibility of the
tank/vessel and is subjected to the acceleration pertaining to the relevant modes of vibration of
the tank/fluid system.
It was found that simplified procedures exist for determining the response of fixed base vertical
cylindrical tanks/vessels. For other tank types (rectangular, horizontal cylindrical), resort must
be mode to linear/non-linear finite element dynamic analyses as no simple solution for all the
hydrodynamic components are available.
Part 2 of the report will describe the numerical studies and results for the dynamic response of a
typical pressure vessel on topsides under earthquake, ship impact and blast loading.
vi
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Piper Alpha disaster in 1988, which resulted in fatalities, led to a complete re-assessment of
safety on offshore platform structures. Lord Cullen in his subsequent report [1] on the disaster
identified strong vibration as a major issue, which may have led to the failure of emergency
systems. Strong vibration is defined as the strong shaking of the structure which can occur
following blast loading, earthquakes, ship impacts or dropped objects that may result in
breakdown or failure of appurtenances and equipment such as emergency shutdown systems,
fire protection systems, pressure vessels and tanks. Such failures can lead to escalation effects
and delay mitigation measures resulting in partial or total collapse of the structure.
The phenomenon of strong vibration has been the subject of several studies since the issue was
raised in Lord Cullens report and has led to the extension of the Health and Safety at Work Act
1974 to include strong vibration hazards offshore. The Safety Case Regulations (SCR) 1992 [2]
requires that all potential hazards that may lead to a major accident are identified and defines a
major accident as any event involving major damage to the structure of the installation or plant
affixed thereto. The risks associated with such major accidents must be reduced to as low as
reasonably practicable (ALARP) through quantified risk assessment (QRA).
In the offshore industry, the main focus is usually directed at the design of the primary structure.
A survey of suppliers of equipment to North Sea operators, carried out as part of an EATEC
study [3], revealed that there were no specific vibration requirements set for the various
equipments. However, the various items of equipment play a major role in ascertaining the
overall safety of the structure and, as such, need to be designed for the loading scenarios
expected during the lifetime of the structure.
The items of equipment considered in this study are pressure vessels and tanks on topsides. The
various types of platform configurations that exist and the complexity of the fluid-structure
interaction problem combined with the different fixity conditions of the equipments preclude
the provision of standard simplified design guidelines. Instead, this study aims at providing an
understanding of the loads that are associated with the strong vibration phenomenon and their
subsequent treatment in the analysis of equipment on topsides. In addition, an assessment of the
dynamic response of pressure vessels and tanks on topsides is carried out with particular regard
to the quantification of the various hydrodynamic components governing the response under
lateral excitation. Comparison against simplified codified procedures is also provided.

This study is concerned with the loading and response of pressure vessels and storage tanks on
topsides for both fixed jacket structures, jackups (mobile platforms) and floating platforms
subjected to strong vibration. The main objectives of the study can be summarised as follows:

Assess state-of-the-art practice with respect to design of pressure vessels and tanks on
topsides against lateral excitation
Provide guidance on modelling of tank-liquid and vessel-liquid systems
Quantify the relative importance of the hydrodynamic components on the dynamic
behaviour of pressure vessels and tanks
Assess magnitude of linear sloshing response due to lateral excitation.
1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY

To achieve the above objectives, the study is split into several stages as follows:
(a) Conduct a review of current practice for design of pressure vessels and storage tanks on
topsides. The review includes all relevant codes of practice and relevant technical papers
from the offshore industry and also, where appropriate, reference is made to the nuclear
codes of practice. The review will address both the loading (from earthquakes, blast and
ship collisions) and the description and quantification of the dynamic response of pressure
vessels and tanks.
(b) Carry out linear dynamic finite element analysis on typical pressure vessels and tanks on
topsides to determine both structural and fluid response.
(c) Carry out linear dynamic finite element analyses to assess relative importance of various
hydrodynamic components on response of pressure vessels and tanks. The contribution of
the various components to the total response is expected to differ depending on the
configuration and geometry of the vessel/tank, the frequency content of the loading and the
fixity conditions.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the state-of-the-art practices in the analysis methodologies
for pressure vessels and tanks subject to lateral excitation. The various analysis methodologies
for determining the response of the equipment are discussed in relation to their range of
applicability. The loading on the equipment arising from earthquake, ship impact and blast is
described in Chapter 3. The procedures for computing the response of various types of tanks
and vessels are outlined in Chapter 4. Finally the findings from this study are described in
Chapter 5.
2 STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW OF ANALYSIS
METHODOLOGIES FOR PRESSURE VESSELS AND TANKS ON
TOPSIDES
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides a review of the analysis methodologies for design of pressure vessels and
storage tanks on topsides. Both relevant papers and codes are assessed and current design
practice is reported. Due to the vast amount of work carried out in the nuclear industry
regarding the design of equipment (alternatively referred to as secondary systems), reference is
also made to relevant nuclear codes of practice. The design process encompasses the following:

Modelling or analysis methodology for pressure vessels/tanks

Loading definition and application on pressure vessels/tanks
Dynamic response of the pressure vessels/tanks
The codes of practice reviewed as part of this study are as follows:

ISO/CD 19901-3 Petroleum and natural gas industries Specific requirements for
offshore structures Part 3: Topsides structure [4]
API RP 2A-WSD Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing
Fixed Offshore Platforms Working Stress Design [5]
NORSOK Standard N-003 Actions and Action Effects [6]
NORSOK Standard N-004 Design of Steel Structures [7]
ISO/CD 19902 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries Fixed Steel Offshore Structures
[8]
Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems ASCE [9]
Seismic Design of Storage Tanks, Recommendations of a New Zealand Study Group [10]
Eurocode 8: Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures Silos, Tanks and
Pipelines [11]
Department of Energy (HMSO) Offshore Installations: Guidance on design, construction
and certification [12]
ASCE 4-98 Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary [13]
Committee on Nuclear Structures and Materials (ASCE) Structural Analysis and Design
of Nuclear Plant Facilities [14]
The subsequent sections in this chapter provide a review of the various procedures used in the
analysis of pressure vessels and tanks subjected to lateral excitation. Description and
quantification of the loading resulting from earthquake, blast and ship impacts are assessed in
Chapter 3. Chapter 4 addresses the dynamic response of pressure vessels and tanks under lateral
excitation and provides an overview of the various simplified procedures used to quantify the
response for tanks/vessels of various configurations.
2.2 METHODOLOGIES FOR ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE VESSELS AND TANKS ON

TOPSIDES
The terminology used in this report follows that adopted in the offshore and nuclear industries.
Primary and secondary structures (or systems) are used to designate the whole platform
structure and the equipment (i.e. pressure vessels, storage tanks etc.) respectively. Deck
response spectra (variation of acceleration with frequency at deck level of platform) are used
interchangeably with secondary response spectra.
The strong vibration phenomenon is explicitly addressed in ISO/CD 19901-3 [4], which
recommends that, depending on the exposure level of the platform, all new installations or
reassessment of existing installations be designed for the effects of strong vibration. General
guidelines are provided for the assessment of deck appurtenances and equipment and fall into
two categories namely:

Analytical methods finite element analysis to determine magnitude and frequency of

loading. The risk to the items of equipment is quantified by identifying their significant
modes, amplitudes and frequencies of vibration and, if required, by detailed analysis. The
code recognises the fact that the loading arising from strong vibration, particularly relating
to ship impacts and blast loading, is difficult to estimate accurately. Only limited studies
(EATEC study [3]) have been carried out to quantify the loading on topsides arising from
strong vibration. This issue is addressed further in Chapter 3.
Walkdown studies whereby safety-critical equipment are identified and a qualitative
assessment of their adequacy to sustain strong vibration is carried out. The latter is not
addressed in this report but details of walkdown assessments are provided in the Health and
Safety Executive (HSE) report OTH 93 415 [15].
Although seismic events are part of the strong vibration phenomenon, recommendations relating
to seismic resistance of deck equipment are dealt with separately in ISO/CD 19901-3 [4] and are
similar to the guidelines provided in API RP 2A-WSD [5]. However, the analysis types defined
for the seismic case can be equally applied to blast loading and ship impacts unless otherwise
specified.
The approach to determining the response of deck appurtenances and equipment to seismic
loads is based on whether the component can be classified as rigid or flexible. Components
are classified as rigid if they satisfy the following requirements

Their horizontal natural frequencies of vibration fall in the high frequency tail region of the
deck response spectra (earthquake loading only). For blast and ship impact, there is no
clearly defined tail region as the spectral acceleration at high frequencies can be
significantly higher than the maximum deck acceleration. In such cases, engineering
judgement should be used to decide whether the equipment can be assumed to move in
unison with deck motion.
Their support is sufficiently stiff so as not to allow for any dynamic amplification
Such components can be treated through simplified uncoupled analysis i.e. with the equipment
assumed to have negligible effect on the stiffness properties of the primary structure (mass
usually accounted for by point mass representation). Components that do not meet the above
requirements have to be designed either through coupled analyses or uncoupled (decoupled)
analyses using secondary response spectra. Figure 1 provides a summary of the analysis
methodologies, which are detailed in the following sub-sections.
Classification of Equipment
Flexible
Rigid
Coupled
Analysis
Simplified
Uncoupled
Analysis
Detailed FE
Model of
Primary
Structure and
Equipment
Obtain
Forces/Moments
at Supports
Apply Loading Time
History or Response
Spectrum
Obtain
Forces/Moments,
Stresses at Nodal
Points in Equipment
and at Supports
Uncoupled
Analysis Using
Deck Response
Spectra or time
history
Generate Deck
Response Spectra/time
history at Support Points
to Equipment
Apply loading to
Detailed FE Model
of Equipment
Obtain
Forces/Moments,
Stresses at Nodal
Points in Equipment
and at Supports
Figure 1 Analysis Methodologies For Equipment on Offshore Platforms
2.3 SIMPLIFIED UNCOUPLED ANALYSIS

For simplified uncoupled analysis, the equipment is generally modelled as a point mass at the
appropriate centre of gravity. The supports are then designed for the resulting forces and
moments from the dynamic loads. ISO/CD 19901-3 [4] recommends that the forces/moments be
calculated from the following steps:
(d) Determine the significant modes of vibration of the primary structure and extract the
acceleration at the equipment support for each mode
(e) Compute the equipment acceleration by multiplying the acceleration at the support from (a)
by a dynamic magnification ratio and
(f) Multiply the equipment mass by equipment acceleration found in step (b) to obtain
forces/moments
The code specifies that the above method cannot be applied to flexible equipment requiring
multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) treatment. Usually, items of equipment with fundamental
natural frequencies of vibrations exceeding 20 Hz (in the case of earthquake loads) can be
designed using the simplified uncoupled approach. This is, however, not the case for pressure
vessels and tanks where the fundamental frequencies of the hydrodynamic components
generally lie in the lower frequency ranges.
2.4 COUPLED ANALYSIS AND UNCOUPLED ANALYSIS USING DECK RESPONSE
SPECTRA
Components that do not meet the above requirements have to be designed either through
coupled or uncoupled analyses using deck response spectra. In a coupled analysis, the
component is modelled together with the structure and the stresses in the item of equipment and
forces at supports can be directly obtained. For an uncoupled analysis, deck response spectra
have to be generated or time histories of displacements/accelerations obtained at the deck level.
These are then applied as loads to a model of the component from which forces and stresses can
be extracted.
The nuclear code ASCE 4-98 [13] provides clear guidelines as to the criteria for selection of
coupled/uncoupled analyses for items of equipment. ASCE 4-98 [13] recommends that coupled
analysis is not required if the equipment (or secondary system) satisfies the following
requirements:

Total mass of component is 1% or less of supporting primary structure. If components are

identical and located together, their masses shall be lumped together.
Stiffness of component supported at two or more points does not restrict movement of
primary system and
Static constraints do not cause significant redistribution of load in primary structure.
For tanks and vessels with single deck attachment (i.e. connected at one deck level only and
with no significant separation between the support points so that the acceleration at the various
points can be assumed to be the same), the selection of coupled analysis or uncoupled analysis
is based on the frequency ratio and the modal mass ratio [13]. The frequency ratio is the ratio of
the uncoupled modal frequency of the equipment to the uncoupled modal frequency of the
primary structure. The modal mass ratio is defined numerically as [13]
i
Ms
,
M pi
M pi = (1 ci )2
(1)
where ci is the mode vector value from the primary systems modal displacement at the
connection point to the equipment obtained from the ith mass (with respect to the primary
structure mass matrix) normalised modal vector {pi} and Ms is the total mass of the secondary
system. From the numerical values of the frequency ratio and modal mass ratio, the selection of
the type of analysis can be carried out based on Figure 2 [13].
Figure 2 Criteria for Selection of Analysis Type for Equipment Attached to Primary
System [13]
The definition of the models is as follows:

Model A: Uncoupled Analysis In this model, the mass and stiffness of the equipment have
negligible effect on the primary structures dynamic characteristics. The response (response
spectrum or time history) of the primary structure at the attachment point to the equipment is
obtained and subsequently applied to a model of the equipment to evaluate the forces/moments
and stresses in the latter.
Model B: Uncoupled Analysis This model is similar to Model A except for the fact that the
inertial loads due to the equipment are significant enough to warrant inclusion in the modelling
of the primary structure. This is generally achieved via representation as a point mass at the
appropriate centre of gravity similar to the simplified uncoupled case. The response (response
spectrum or time history) of the primary structure at the attachment point to the equipment is
obtained and subsequently applied to a model of the equipment to evaluate the forces/moments
and stresses in the latter.
Model C: Coupled Analysis In this model, both the mass and stiffness properties of the
equipment have a significant influence on the dynamic characteristics of the primary structure.
The equipment model is included in the analysis of the primary structure so that the
forces/moments and stresses in the equipment can be obtained directly.
For frequency ratios close to 1.0 and modal mass ratios exceeding approximately 0.05, a
coupled analysis is generally required. For frequency ratios greater than approximately 1.5 and
higher modal mass ratios (usually exceeding 0.15), an uncoupled analysis (Model B) with the
mass of the equipment accounted for is adequate. Model A usually applies for low frequency
ratios (less than 0.5) and high modal mass ratios (exceeding approximately 0.15).
In the latter two cases, a coupled analysis is sometimes carried out particularly in cases where a
more accurate and less conservative result is sought.
For tanks and vessels with multi-deck attachment (i.e. connected at two or more deck levels),
the differential accelerations have to be accounted for in the analysis. ASCE 4-98 [13] provides
guidelines for determining whether the interaction of the secondary system with the primary
structure is significant enough to warrant a coupled analysis or whether a decoupled analysis is
permissible.
The procedure requires the determination of the modal mass ratio (as for equipment with single
attachment point), which provides a measure of the degree of interaction of the masses of the
equipment and the supporting structure in various modes. Numerically, for a primary structure
mode i and an equipment mode j, it is defined as
[ ]
rij = {cj [ci ]}

2
(2)
where rij is the modal mass ratio, ci is a subvector of the uncoupled primary structures ith
normalised modal vector comprising only of the connecting degrees of freedom (i.e. the degrees
of freedom corresponding to the connection points between the equipment and the primary
structure) and cj is a matrix of secondary system participation factors consisting of one term for
each of the connecting degree of freedom. The values of rij are computed for all combinations of
the modes and Figure 2 can be used to determine the analysis type required based on the value
of rij used for the x-axis. Models A and B in the figure pertain to uncoupled analyses and Model
C requires coupled analysis as described for equipment with single point attachment.
In addition, multi-point attachments can result in static constraints resulting in redistribution of
loads and causing an increase in the primary systems modal frequencies. Generally, ASCE 498 recommends that if the ratio of the increased primary systems natural frequency to the
uncoupled frequency exceeds 1.1, a coupled analysis should be performed.
The procedure for carrying out uncoupled analysis for equipment with multi-point attachment
differ from that for single point attachment as the effect of the differential accelerations
mentioned earlier have to be accounted for. A method for the uncoupled analysis of equipment
with multi-point attachments is described in reference [14]. The procedure requires the
determination of secondary response spectra at the various support points between the primary
structure and the equipment. The various spectra are subsequently enveloped to produce a set of
upper-bound spectra that can be used in the analysis of the equipment. In addition, an analysis
should be performed to determine the effect of differential boundary displacements on the
equipment. This can be achieved through a static analysis whereby the maximum relative
support displacements are obtained from the prior response spectrum analysis and imposed on
the supported equipment in the most unfavourable condition.
Alternatively, loading can obtained at the various support points and are subsequently applied to
the equipment. The force/moments and stresses in the equipment can then be obtained directly
from the analysis.
2.4.1
UNCOUPLED ANALYSIS USING DECK RESPONSE SPECTRA
Deck response spectra are required for uncoupled analyses in the frequency domain. The
problems associated with the generation of deck response spectra on offshore structures have
been summarised by Kost and Sharpe [16]:

Uncertainties in the frequency content of the input loading

Assumptions used in the modelling of the interaction between the component, structure,
water and foundation stiffness
Assumptions used in the modelling of the dynamic characteristics and energy absorption
properties of the structure and
Uncertainty in the representation of the non-linear stiffness and damping effects
Similar uncertainties and approximations exist in the analysis of equipment or secondary

systems in nuclear structures. Detailed guidelines are provided for the generation of secondary
response spectra (SRS) and time histories for uncoupled/decoupled analyses in ASCE 4-98 [13].
The secondary response spectra are generated from the linear time history accelerations at the
deck or support equipment locations. The platform acts as a filter with peaks generally occuring
at the frequencies corresponding to peaks on the ground motion and at the natural frequencies of
the supporting structure as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Structure Excitation and Response at Various Platform Levels
In the figure, &x& g represents the ground acceleration and &x& 1 , &x& 2 and &x& 3 are the resulting
accelerations at the first, second and upper levels respectively. The response spectra exhibit
amplified response at a frequency corresponding to the natural frequency of the structure
(period Ts). In general, other major peaks will be present and are associated with higher
vibrational modes.
ASCE 4-98 [13] recommends that the secondary response spectra be broadened prior to use in
the analysis of secondary systems. Broadening, i.e. widening of the peaks associated with
structural frequencies is carried out to account for the effects of the various uncertainties as
shown in Figure 4. Craig et. al. [17], in their discussion of the API RP 2A 20th Edition Update,
discuss a similar approach with regard to the generation of deck response spectra for design of
equipment on offshore structures. However, no guidance is provided as to the amount of peak
broadening required. ASCE 4-98 [13] suggests that the peaks be broadened by 15% in the
frequency domain. This concept is illustrated in Figure 4 [14] where fj is 15%.
In conjunction with the broadening, ASCE 4-98 [13] also allows for a 15% reduction in the
peak amplitude provided that the secondary system damping does not exceed 10%. The
reduction is associated with the probability of exceedance of the various uncertainties described
above. Similar procedures, as adopted in the nuclear industry, can be used for generation of
deck response spectra for equipment on offshore platforms. It is noted, however, that for
offshore sites, the level of uncertainties, particularly in the spectra/time histories used for
analysis of the structure, may be greater than for onshore sites.
Figure 4 Broadened Spectrum
A procedure for carrying out uncoupled analyses of equipment on offshore platforms has been
proposed by Bea and Bowen [18] based on an approach developed by Biggs and Roesset [19].
The method uses a combination of empirical (based on analysis results of conventional
platforms) and theoretical approaches to derive Acceleration Magnification Ratio (AMR) curves
which provide the ratio of the maximum acceleration of the equipment mass to the acceleration
10
of the structure at the equipment support as a function of the equipment period to structure
period. The AMR is dependent on the damping ratios of the equipment and the structure and is
also based on the assumption that when the equipment period exceeds 1.25 the structure period,
the acceleration experienced by the equipment is governed by the ground motion rather than the
support acceleration. It is noted, however, that it does not account for any of the uncertainties
mentioned previously with respect to peak broadening for secondary response spectra.
Generally, decoupled analysis using secondary response spectra usually results in higher
forces/moments and stresses in the equipment and supports than an equivalent coupled analysis.
This is because for a coupled case, exact resonance cannot occur as the resonant frequencies
shift away from each other [14]. For the uncoupled case, it is possible for a natural frequency of
vibration of the equipment to correspond exactly to a natural frequency of the structure thereby
leading to a resonant behaviour.
2.4.2
COUPLED ANALYSIS
For coupled analysis, ASCE 4-98 [13] recommends that a refined model of the component and a
simplified model (instead of a detailed model) of the supporting structure may be used. The
simplified model of the structure should, however, capture the significant natural frequencies
and modes of vibration at the equipment support locations. This is ascertained by comparing the
secondary response spectra from the simplified model of the supporting structure to that of the
detailed model of the supporting structure at the support locations.
2.5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES
In summary, review of the relevant codes and papers related to design of equipment on topsides
led to the following findings:

Strong vibration is addressed in the ISO standard. Analytical methods and walkdown
studies are described for the assessment of equipment on topsides.
Offshore codes ISO 19901-3 [4] and API 2A WSD [5] provide guidelines for analysis of
equipment under seismic loading. Similar procedures can, however, be used for blast
loading and ship impacts.
For rigid equipment, simplified uncoupled procedures can be used. Flexible or compliant
equipment require the use of coupled analyses or uncoupled analyses using deck (or
secondary) response spectra.
In the nuclear industry, input and modelling uncertainties are accounted for by broadening
the secondary response spectra at the peaks corresponding to the structural frequencies.
For equipment with multi-point attachment, ASCE 4-98 [13] provides guidelines for the
selection of the type of analysis. This requires the determination of the modal mass ratio
and the frequency ratio.
11
REVIEW OF LOADING ON PRESSURE VESSELS AND

TANKS ON TOPSIDES FROM LATERAL EXCITATION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Strong vibration from earthquakes, blast and ship impact results in lateral excitation of the decks
that support the pressure vessels and storage tanks. Dynamic amplification occurs as a result of
the inherent flexibility of the platform structure and depends on the dynamic characteristics of
the platform and on the frequency content of the applied loading. As a result, the equipment
may be subjected to higher acceleration values than free-field accelerations depending on the
ratio of the natural frequencies of the equipment to that of the supporting structure. This review
will address the current practice for determining the loading on topsides due to earthquakes,
blast and ship collision.
3.2 EARTHQUAKE LOADING
The loading on pressure vessels and tanks due to earthquake arises from the vibratory response
of the supporting deck structure. It is not the aim of this review to investigate the derivation of
earthquake spectra used in the analysis of offshore platforms but rather to assess their
application in the loading of pressure vessels and tanks on topsides. However, owing to the
obvious relationship between the base spectra and the loading at deck level, a brief description
of earthquake spectra used in the offshore sector is provided.
3.2.1
DESCRIPTION OF EARTHQUAKE LOADING
The shape and intensity of the response spectrum or time history loading at a particular site are
governed by several parameters as described in reference [20]. Guidelines for generation of
earthquake spectra are provided in the following codes of practice:

API RP 2A-WSD Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing

Fixed Offshore Platforms Working Stress Design [5]
NORSOK Standard N-003 Actions and Action Effects [6]
ISO/CD 19902 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries Fixed Steel Offshore Structures
[8]
The codes recommend that the platform structure be assessed under two different level of
earthquake intensity based on their probability of occurrence. ISO/CD 19902 [8] defines these
two levels as the Strength Level Earthquake (SLE), associated with a ground motion which has
a reasonable likelihood of not being exceeded at the site during the lifetime of the platform,
under which the platform should sustain little or no damage and the Ductility Level Earthquake
(DLE), associated with a rare intense earthquake return period of usually 1 in 10000 years,
where considerable damage is allowed without any loss of life and/or major environmental
damage. Specific clauses are included regarding the effect of SLE and DLE on deck
appurtenances and equipment. The code requires that all equipment shall be designed and
supported such that SLE actions can be resisted and that under DLE, safety critical systems and
equipment shall be designed to be functional during and after the DLE event.
12
3.2.2 EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR ANALYSIS OF OFFSHORE

PLATFORMS
Typical spectra for use on offshore platforms are provided in the API [5] and NORSOK [6]
codes. The API [5] code provides recommendations for the generation of offshore spectra,
which involves seismotectonic and site characterisation, seismic exposure assessment, ground
motion characterisation and design ground motion specification.
Generally offshore spectra are generated from earthquake forcing functions obtained or
modified from onshore sites. However, Smith [21] reported that data gathered from the Seafloor
Earthquake Measurement System (SEMS) Program showed that seafloor motions differed from
ground motions from onshore sites. The study concluded that the peak vertical acceleration
recorded on offshore sites was lower than that recorded from onshore sites but occur at equal
frequencies while the horizontal accelerations exhibited comparable peaks with slight
differences in frequencies. However, owing to the lack of sufficient data, a rigorous
probabilistic analysis was not possible and the above conclusions can only be taken as
indicative of a trend.
3.2.3 SECONDARY EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR ANALYSIS OF
EQUIPMENT ON TOPSIDES
Deck response spectra can be generated from the acceleration response resulting from timehistory analysis of the offshore platform structure. Only limited studies, e.g. EATEC [3], have
been carried out to assess the acceleration response at deck levels of the structure. A typical
deck response spectra, reproduced from the EATEC study, corresponding to a 1 in 10000
earthquake is shown in Figure 5.
The structure was representative of a fixed leg platform of the type commonly found in the
North Sea and comprised of two deck levels in addition to a heliport. The acceleration spectrum
exhibits amplification in regions where the structural frequencies are associated with high
frequency content in the ground motion. Typically, for earthquake loading, this occurs in the
lower frequency ranges (usually below 5 Hz).
13
Figure 5 Deck Response Spectra For a 1 in 10000 year Earthquake Loading [3]
3.3 BLAST LOADING
Blast loading on offshore structures results from the explosion of a mixture of hydrocarbon gas
in air. The loading generated by the blast depends on several factors including the stochiometry
of the hydrocarbon mixture, the ignition source location, the amount of congestion in the
module and the amount of confinement. Blast generally results in two types of loading namely
overpressure loading and drag loading. The latter is not addressed in this study as the focus is on
lateral excitation of the platform, which is generally negligible in the case of drag loading.
3.3.1
DESCRIPTION OF BLAST LOADING
Explosion or blast loading as may arise from overpressure is caused by the increase in pressure
that results from the expansion of combustion products. A typical idealised overpressure time
history is shown in Figure 6 and is characterised by the rise time, peak overpressure and the area
under the curve.
Figure 6 Idealised Overpressure Time History For Blast Loading [24]
Generation of the time history can be achieved through experimental modelling or from
mathematical/numerical models. The complexity of the problem, however, implies that the
loading generated can only be a best estimate of the actual loading. Renwick and Norman [22]
reports on the differences found between experimental overpressure loading data from a full
scale testing at the British Gas site at Spadeadam and theoretical overpressures derived by
various explosion modelling agencies. They found that the theoretical models exhibited a wide
scatter with significant underestimation of the peak overpressure (compared to the experimental
data).
3.3.2
DECK RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR BLAST LOADING
Walker et. al. [23] studied blast-induced vibrations on topsides and suggested a response
spectrum for the assessment of the ability of equipment to withstand severe vibration. The study
considered the displacement and acceleration response at various locations on the deck structure
from 3 overpressure time histories idealised to 1 bar with rise times of 0.1sec, 0.2sec and 0.3sec.
14
The results showed that the rise times did not have any significant impact on the peak response.
In addition, the longer duration impulse resulted in maximum displacement at the remote
locations whereas the shorter duration impulse led to larger maximum accelerations.
The authors noted that the acceleration response spectra generated at the remote locations could
be used in the assessment of equipment to severe vibration. However, the above-mentioned
authors did not address the issue of peak broadening and peak reduction as described in section
2.4.2. These issues still need to be addressed for offshore applications. A typical deck response
spectrum from blast loading, reproduced from the EATEC study [3], is shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7 Deck Response Spectra For Blast Loading [3]
It is noted that the peak accelerations are higher and occur at higher frequencies than that
corresponding to the earthquake secondary response spectrum. This implies that the various
hydrodynamic components characterising the response of pressure vessels and tanks will have
different relative contributions depending on the loading type.
3.4 LOADING ON PRESSURE VESSELS/TANKS FROM SHIP IMPACT
The problem of ship collisions with offshore platforms is generally addressed in terms of energy
considerations. The dissipation of the impact energy in fixed platform structures may be
achieved through the following processes [24]:
Ship deformation and/or rotation

Local deformation or denting of member
Elastic/plastic bending of member
Fendering device
Local framing distortions of platforms
Global sway of platform
The elastic vibrations of platforms arising from ship impacts are generally conservatively
neglected in the energy dissipation formulation of a ship striking a platform structure. This
15
assumption leads to a conservative design for all the external platform members likely to be
subjected to the impact forces. Petersen and Pedersen [25] argue that for the case of ships hitting
small offshore structures, the elastic vibrations of the platform may be significant, particularly
where the generalised masses of the ship and platform are of the same order of magnitude and
the lowest period of vibration of the platform is comparable to the duration of the collision. In
addition, offshore structures having small dynamic stiffness will also experience a significant
level of platform vibrations.
3.4.1
DESCRIPTION OF SHIP IMPACT LOADING
The codes of practice generally adopt the energy approach for the determination of the impact
forces acting on offshore structures. The relevant codes that address this particular issue are:
API 2A WSD [5]

ISO/CD 19902 [8]
NORSOK N-003 [6]
The codes recommend that the kinetic energy of the vessel be calculated from
E = 0.5 a m v 2
(3)
where m is the mass of the ship, v is the velocity of the ship at impact and a is the added mass
coefficient which accounts for the hydrodynamic forces acting on the ship during the collision.
A value of 1.1 is assumed for the added mass coefficient for bow/stern collision and 1.4 for
broadside impacts. ISO/CD 19902 [5] specifies that the values pertain to large vessels (5000
tons displacement) and that for smaller vessels, the above values should be increased. Petersen
and Pedersen [25] report that previous studies have shown that the value of the added mass
coefficients also depends on the duration of the impact and the relation between the collision
force and the deformation. The authors pointed out that for broadside collisions, the added mass
of 40% of vessel mass is a reasonable approximation for very short duration impacts (approx.
0.5-1.0 sec). For longer durations, the value of the added mass coefficient for broadside
collisions can approach 100% of the vessel mass.
NORSOK N-004 [7] specifies that equation (3) pertains to fixed offshore platforms and that for
floating structures, the following equation should be taken as:
vi 2
1 -
2
v s
Es = 0.5 (ms + a s ) vs
m + as
1+ s
mi + a i
(4)
where ms and mi are the masses of the ship and installation respectively, as and ai are ship and
installation added masses and vs and vi are the velocities of the ship and installation. The
velocity of the installation is usually taken as zero. No values are, however, provided for the
added masses to be used for the ship and the installation.
ISO/CD 19902 [8] also specifies that two energy levels should be used in the assessment of the
platform structure namely a low energy level impact corresponding to a frequent occurrence and
a high energy impact level corresponding to a rare event. Guidelines are provided for the
selection of the vessel velocity at impact. For the low energy event, a value of 0.5m/s is
16
recommended while for the high energy impact level, a value of 2m/s is specified. However, no
guidance is offered as to the amount of energy imparted to the offshore structure.
This issue is addressed in the Department of Energy document [12] where the total kinetic
energy of the collision process is specified as 14MJ for broadside impacts and 11MJ for
bow/stern impacts. The amount of energy imparted to the structure is taken to be equal to the
total kinetic energy released or less depending on the relative stiffness of the vessel and
structure. The guidance document recommends that for fixed steel structures, the amount of
energy absorbed by the structure should not be less than 4MJ. No energy levels are specified for
floating platform structures. In addition, no clear specifications are provided for determining the
duration of the collision. Previous studies by EATEC [3] and Walker et. al. [24] have used
values ranging from 0.097sec to 0.5sec. These values were based on the assumption of elastic
displacement of the structure with a peak impact force of approximately of 30MN.
Detailed studies on the collision mechanics of vessels with offshore structures have been carried
out by various researchers [25, 26, 27]. Collision models requiring numerical solutions have
been proposed where the impacting ship is represented by non-linear springs and the variation
of the added mass is accounted for. It is, however, beyond the scope of this study to assess the
applicability of these models for loading on offshore platforms. Instead, the energy approach
adopted by the codes of practice will be used in defining the loading time history from ship
impacts. In this approach, the loading is specified in terms of a force time history based on the
amount of energy imparted to the platform. The force time history is usually determined as a
rectangular impulse with an assumed duration based on the magnitude of the energy.
3.4.2
DECK RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR SHIP IMPACT LOADING
Similar procedures to those described for the seismic and blast loading can be used for the case
of vessel impact. Time histories of accelerations/displacements or secondary response spectra
are generated at the supports to the equipment and depending on the magnitude and frequency
content of the loading, the appropriate analysis type (i.e. quasi-static, coupled/decoupled) for
design of the component and its supports can be selected.
A typical deck response spectrum from ship impact, reproduced from the EATEC study, is
shown in Figure 8. Two impact scenarios were considered:
SHIP 1 Load applied steadily over 0.097sec then removed

SHIP 2 Load applied steadily over 0.4 sec then removed
The deck acceleration response spectra corresponding to these two impact scenarios exhibit
comparable peak responses at nearly equal frequencies. The structural peaks occur at different
frequencies and have different magnitudes compared to that from blast and earthquake loading.
However, the displacement of the structure was higher for the second case owing to the longer
duration of loading (more comparable to the bending frequency of vibration of the structure)
which resulted in greater energy absorption in the structure. Due consideration should therefore
be given to the relative displacement between the equipment and the primary structure as this
may affect the required amount of clearance between the equipment and any adjacent part of the
structure (similar effect may arise from blast and earthquake loading).
17
Figure 8 Deck Response Spectra For Ship Impact [3]
3.5 COMPARISON OF EARTHQUAKE, BLAST AND SHIP IMPACT SECONDARY

RESPONSE SPECTRA
The secondary response spectra reproduced from the EATEC study were derived from a series
of finite element analyses carried out on a typical fixed jacket structure. The structure comprised
of two main decks and a helicopter deck supported on a fixed leg jacket. Earthquake, blast and
ship impact time histories were applied at the appropriate levels and the acceleration response at
various points on the platform was obtained.
A comparison of the secondary response spectra, as reproduced from the EATEC study [3],
from the various loading types is shown in Figure 9. It is observed that:

The secondary response spectra from blast loading and ship impact generally results in
higher peak acceleration values than the corresponding spectra from earthquake loading
The significant peaks in the earthquake secondary response spectra generally occur at
frequencies below 5Hz whereas for blast and ship impacts, structural peaks can occur at
much higher frequencies (up to 15Hz).
18
Figure 9 Comparison Between Deck Response Spectra For Earthquake, Blast and
Ship Impact Loading [3]
3.6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON LOADING ON TOPSIDES FROM EARTHQUAKE,

BLAST AND SHIP IMPACT

Earthquake spectra used in analysis of offshore platforms are generally generated using
onshore data [21]. Sea-floor spectra exhibit lower peak vertical accelerations and
comparable peak horizontal accelerations although at different frequencies. Peaks in deck
response spectra occur at low frequencies (usually below 5Hz)
Input spectra from blast loading are based on overpressure loading. Studies have shown
that CFD and/or mathematical models can result in significant underestimation of the peak
overpressure. Peak accelerations in deck response spectra from blast loading are usually
higher than those from earthquake loading. Also, the peak values tend to occur at higher
frequencies
Derivation of input loading on offshore platforms from ship impacts is based on energy
considerations. It is recommended that the energy to be absorbed by the structure should
not be less than 4MJ. Deck response spectra from ship impacts exhibit similar
characteristics to those from blast loading. Peaks are higher than the earthquake values and
occur at higher frequencies.
Only limited amount of data that relate to deck response spectra are available. Loading on
topsides used in subsequent analysis (section 4.0) is mainly derived from the EATEC study
[3].
19
4 FLUID-STRUCTURE INTERACTION AND DYNAMIC

RESPONSE OF PRESSURE VESSELS/TANKS UNDER
LATERAL EXCITATION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides an overview of the state-of-the-art practice for design of pressure vessels
and tanks against lateral excitation as may arise from the phenomenon of strong vibration. The
lateral excitation can result from earthquake loading, blast loading or ship impacts as described
in the previous sections. The following sub-sections address the current practice for determining
response of pressure vessels and tanks based on both simplified procedures from relevant codes
of practice and technical papers.
Existing guidelines for the design of pressure vessels and tanks mainly address seismic loading
and, in most cases, are applicable to onshore structures. However, the response of vessels and
tanks on topsides under any lateral excitation is characterised by the same hydrodynamic
components and the loading type will only influence the relative contribution of the components
to the overall response so that similar procedures used in the determination of seismic response
can be used for blast and ship impacts.
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE OF PRESSURE VESSELS AND TANKS
The dynamic behaviour and response of the pressure vessels and tanks under lateral excitation is
generally non-linear in nature and has been the subject of extensive research. The problem was
first addressed by Housner [28] for the case of a fixed base rigid upright cylindrical tank under
seismic excitation. The motion of the liquid inside the tank results in hydrodynamic pressure
loading on the tank walls and Housner assumed that the response of the rigid tank could be split
into 2 hydrodynamic components namely:

Impulsive component due to rigid-body motion of the liquid. Under dynamic loading,
part of the liquid moves synchronously with the tank as an added mass and is subject to the
same acceleration levels as the tank. This is hereafter called the rigid-impulsive
component.
Convective component due to sloshing of the liquid at the free surface. Under lateral
excitation, oscillations of the fluid occur and this results in the generation of pressures on
the walls, base and roof of the tank.
In addition to causing forces and moments in the tank wall, the hydrodynamic pressures on the
walls in conjunction with the pressures on the base result in a net overturning moment on the
tank. Based on the assumptions that

The liquid is incompressible and inviscid

Motion of liquid is irrotational and satisfies Laplaces equation and
Structural and liquid motions remain linearly elastic
in conjunction with the boundary conditions

Vertical velocity of liquid along tank base must equal corresponding ground velocity and
Radial velocities of liquid and tank wall must be the same for rigid tank
20
Housner derived solutions for the rigid-impulsive and convective pressure components. The
rigid-impulsive component of the solution satisfies the actual boundary conditions on the tank
walls and base and the condition of zero hydrodynamic pressure at z = H where z is the vertical
coordinate (datum is at base of tank) and H is the height of the liquid. The convective
component of the solution corrects for the difference between the actual boundary condition at z
= H (accounting for the effects of sloshing of the liquid) and the one used in the development of
the rigid-impulsive solution.
Following from the solutions, Housner proposed a mechanical (spring-mass) model, as shown
in Figure 10 below, for representing the response of the rigid tank-liquid system. The rigidimpulsive mass is assumed to be rigidly attached to the container walls while the convective
mass is split into a series of sub-masses m1, m2, , mn associated with the 1st, 2nd, , nth
sloshing masses respectively. These latter masses are attached to the container wall via springs
of stiffness k1, k2, , kn representing the 1st, 2nd, , nth antisymmetric sloshing frequencies
respectively.
kn/2
kn/2
mn
m0 = impulsive mass
m1 = 1st mode convective mass
k1/2
mn = nth mode convective mass
k1/2
hn
m1
m0
h1
h0
h0 = height at which impulsive mass attached to tank

h1 = height at which first mode convective mass
attached to tank
hn = height at which nth mode convective mass
attached to tank
Figure 10 Housners Mechanical Spring-Mass Model for Rigid Tanks
This simple model allows for the computation of the convective and rigid-impulsive pressures
and associated base shears, overturning moments and stresses in tank wall. Housners procedure
was included in the US Atomic Energy Commission in the TID-7024 regulations [29] and was
developed into a practical design by Epstein [30]. However, since the 1964 Alaskan earthquake,
where damage occurred to several tanks, several studies [31, 32, 33] were carried out to address
the issue of tank flexibility and it was shown that the impulsive forces in a flexible tank are
considerably higher than those computed from a rigid assumption.
This fluid-structure interaction effect whereby the flexibility of the tank results in the dynamic
characteristics of the tank-fluid system to be significantly different from that of a rigid tank, has
led to the inclusion of a third hydrodynamic component to quantify the dynamic response of
flexible vessels and tanks namely the flexible-impulsive component. Methods for determining
the contribution of the flexible-impulsive component to the total response (base shear,
overturning moments, wall stresses) of vessel/tanks under seismic excitations have been
proposed by various researchers [33, 34, 35, 36]. These methods pertain mainly to vertical
cylindrical tanks supported on a fixed base and have been adopted by several codes of practice
namely
Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems ASCE [1984] [9]
21
Seismic Design of Storage Tanks, Recommendations of a New Zealand Study Group

[1986] [10]
Eurocode 8: Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures Silos, Tanks and
Pipelines [1998] [11]
Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary ASCE 4-98
[13]
The latter guideline is mainly based on the rigid tank approach with general recommendations
for flexible tanks. Reference is made to the works of Haroun and Housner [34] and Veletsos and
Yang [33] but is not explicitly used in the expressions provided. Eurocode 8 [11] uses the ASCE
(1984) [9] and Recommendations from New Zealand Study Group [10], as well as results from
more recent papers e.g. Fisher et. al. [36, 37], as sources and provides the most comprehensive
simplified design procedures for fixed based cylindrical pressure vessels. The following subsections provide a review of the procedures developed to date for the computation of the
response of various tank types to dynamic lateral excitation. The tanks types considered are:
(g) fixed base vertical cylindrical
(h) fixed base rectangular,
(i) fixed base horizontal cylindrical
(j) fixed base tanks (any type) with internal baffles
4.3 VERTICAL CYLINDRICAL FIXED BASE TANKS/VESSELS
Most of the studies carried out on the response of pressure vessels and tanks under lateral
excitation pertain to the vertical cylindrical fixed base configuration. The pressure resultant on
the tanks walls, base and roof can be divided into the 3 hydrodynamic components, convective,
rigid-impulsive and flexible-impulsive as described above. The computation of these various
components are discussed in turn in the following sub-sections for the case of vertical
cylindrical fixed base tanks and pressure vessels.
4.3.1
Convective Component
When a tank or vessel is subjected to lateral excitations, the liquid in the upper part of the
container moves independently of the tank wall. This liquid motion is known as sloshing and
causes pressures to be induced on the tank walls and base. For a perfectly circular shell, the
sloshing can be described by an infinite number of antisymmetric modes with the first four
modes for a model of a typical tank [38] shown in Figure 11 below.
N=1
0.135 Hz
N=2
0.268 Hz
N=3
0.339Hz
N=4
0.397Hz
Figure 11 Antisymmetric modes and frequencies for tank with height to radius ratio =
0.5 [38]
22
Symmetrical modes of vibration about the vertical axis are also possible although in general,
such modes are not excited by earthquake motions. The frequencies associated with the sloshing
modes are usually low (fundamental frequencies usually in the range 0.1 - 0.2 Hz) and for a
given mode vary with the tank dimensions and are generally independent of liquid height except
for very shallow depths. The jth sloshing frequency in Hertz is given by
fj =
1
2
j
g
H
tanh j
R
R
(5)
where g is the acceleration due to gravity, R is the tank/vessel radius, H is height of fluid in tank
and
j are the zeros of the first derivative of the Bessel function of the first kind and first order
and values of
j for the first four modes are given by
1 = 1.841
2 = 5.331
3 = 8.536
4 = 11.706
(6)
The hydrodynamic pressure induced by the sloshing modes is given by [11]
pc = l
r

J 1 n cosh n
R

2

n -1 J 1 ( n )
cosh n

(
n =1
2R
z

cos S n
H

(7)
where
l is the density of the fluid, r, and z are the radial, circumferential and vertical
coordinates respectively, J1 is Bessel function of first order and Sn is the acceleration
corresponding to the nth sloshing frequency. The convective pressure varies as a cosine function
in the circumferential direction. Generally, only the fundamental sloshing mode is accounted for
in the computation of convective pressures as the higher sloshing modes have low mass
participations and consequently low associated pressures as shown in Figure 12 (reproduced
from reference 11).
Figure 12 Variation of first two modes sloshing pressures along height and for various
height to radius ratios
23
Figure 13 Variation of first two sloshing frequencies with H/R ratio

The convective pressure is a maximum at the top of the tank and decreases to negligible values
for tall, slender tanks (H/R 3) but maintain quite high values for squat tanks. The contribution
of the second mode is observed to be negligible. Figure 13 shows that the sloshing frequencies
( is frequency in rad/sec) are nearly independent of the height to radius ratio for values of H/R
greater than 1.0.
The maximum convective pressure, accounting for the fundamental sloshing mode only, occurs
at z = H (datum at base of tank) and r = R and can be expressed as
p c max = 0.837 l R S1 cos
(8)
where S1 is the maximum spectral acceleration value determined from a response spectrum of
the particular ground motion at the fundamental sloshing frequency and damping value.
Usually, the damping in the sloshing modes is very low (around 0.5%) and is generally assumed
to be zero (for light viscosity liquids and tanks with no internal baffles [37]) for design purposes
as this leads to a conservative estimate of the pressures.
The convective component is, in general, assumed to be decoupled from the effects of tank wall
flexibility [33, 34] so that the same expressions can be used for both rigid and flexible tanks for
computing the pressure contributions from sloshing. In ASCE-1984 [9], based primarily on the
work of Veletsos [31] and Veletsos and Yang [33], it is argued that

Convective effects arise from sloshing motion of liquid whereas impulsive effects are
caused by the lateral motion of the tank and participating liquid. Consequently, those two
effects exhibit only a weak coupling. The tank flexibility alters the lateral motion of the
tank wall so that only the impulsive component is significantly affected.
There exists a wide frequency gap between motions associated with convective and
impulsive effects. This further weakens the coupling between the two components and
further reduces the sensitivity of one component to changes in the other.
These arguments were basically used to justify the assumption that the wall flexibility does not
affect the convective component. This was confirmed by further studies by Haroun and Housner
[34].
4.3.2
Rigid Impulsive Component
For a tank or vessel under lateral excitations, the liquid in the lower part of the container tend to
move in unison with the tank/vessel and is subject to the maximum ground acceleration. The
rigid impulsive pressure component is given in Eurocode 8 [11] as
p i = C i l H cos &x& m (t)
(9)
where Ci is dependent on the dimensionless parameter z/H and the height to radius ratio and
&x& m (t) is the maximum ground acceleration. The variation of Ci (normalised with respect to the
value at z = 0) along the height of the tank is shown in Figure 14. It is observed that the rigid
impulsive pressure decreases from the base of the tank to the top. For tall and slender tanks, the
coefficient assumes high values up to significant tank heights.
24
Explicit expressions for the coefficient Ci is provided in Eurocode 8 [11] and result from
solution of the momentum equations subject to the assumptions and boundary conditions
described in section 4.2. The solution is given in terms of a series expansion as follows:
C i (, ) =
n=0 1
where
n =
(-1) n
I (
) 2n

cos ( n ) I1 n

(10)
2n + 1
H
r
z
, = , = a nd = . I1and I1 denote the modified Bessel function of the
2
R
R
H
first kind and its derivative. A simplified approximation more amenable to design calculations is
reported by Tedesco et. al. [35] and was first proposed by Housner [28] and used in TID-7024
[29]. The impulsive pressure component in this particular case is given by
Ci (z)/Ci (0)
Figure 14 Variation of Coefficient Ci (z) Along Tank Height For Various Tank Height to
Radius Ratios [9]
2

3
z 1 z
cos
p i = l &x& m H 1 - - 1- 3 tanh
H R
H
2
H

25
(11)
where the symbols have been previously defined. In the above expression, the impulsive
pressure is given at the wall of the container so that the radial variation is not contained. The
circumferential variation of the rigid impulsive pressure component is a cosine function similar
to the convective pressure variation. In the radial direction, the variation is generally non linear
for tanks with low height to radius ratios but tend to a linear distribution for slender tanks as
shown in Figure 15 [9].
Figure 15 Radial Variation of Rigid Impulsive Pressure Component For Tanks of

Various Height to Radius Ratios [11]
4.3.3
Flexible Impulsive Component
The flexibility of the tank/vessel wall leads to an interaction between the fluid motion and the
deformation of the wall. The impulsive pressure due to the coupled tank-fluid vibration usually
lies in the high frequency range and results from the contribution of an infinite number of tankliquid modes. Expressions for the flexible impulsive pressure component have been proposed by
various researchers (Haroun & Housner [34]; Veletsos & Yang [33]; Tedesco et. al [35]; Fischer
et. al [36]) and are reported in the various codes of practice (Eurocode 8 [11]; ASCE-1984 (9);
NZSEE [10]).
The derivation of the expression is, in general, based on the assumption that only the first
circumferential m = 1 mode contributes significantly to the pressure. Fischer et. al. [36] reports
that this assumption is valid since
26
Modes with m 1 do not contribute to the overturning moment which leads to the most
common failure mode for tanks and
Higher order m = 1 modes have low participating mode factors.
The tank-fluid system is considered as a single degree of freedom system vibrating in an

assumed configuration. Fischer et. al. [36] proposed the following expression for computing the
flexible-impulsive component:
1
I1 ( )
j

j
f ()cos
d cos

j I
1 j
2
2
0
p fin =
2R l g
( )
(12)
where = x/H0, j = (j)/(2), = H0/R, I1 = dI1 / d j (j = 1, 3, 5,.). The symbols used in the
expression are defined as follows:
pfin
flexible-impulsive pressure component normalised to an excitation of 1g
H0
tank height
axial coordinate
f()
amplitude of vibration mode with max f () = 1
A similar expression is used in Eurocode 8 [11]. The determination of the flexible-impulsive

component requires an iterative procedure. It starts with an assumed mode shape from which an
updated effective mass of the tank can be calculated. The next iterative step involves computing
the new mode shape based on the updated value of the tank mass. This procedure is repeated
until convergence is achieved.
An expression for the flexible impulsive component more amenable to design was proposed by
Tedesco et. al. [35] is given by
2

z
z
(S a - &x& m )H 1 -
cos
p fi = l

H0
H
(13)
where H0 is the height of the tank, (z/H0) is an assumed deflection configuration and Sa is the
spectral acceleration corresponding to the natural frequency of the flexible tank-liquid system
vibrating in the assumed configuration. Based on a statistical analysis of the mode shapes
associated with free vibration of tank-liquid systems, Tedesco et. al. [35] have proposed
simplified approximations to the deflection configuration parameter for tanks filled and halffilled with fluid.
The approach adopted by Veletsos and Yang [33] was to use a single expression to compute the
total impulsive (both rigid and impulsive) pressure and is given by
p
it =
C i l H A 0 (t )cos
(14)
where pit is the total impulsive pressure, C i is the counterpart of Ci in the expression for rigid
impulsive pressure component and A0 (t) is the pseudo-acceleration evaluated for the natural
frequency and damping ratio of the flexible tank-fluid system. In addition to the height to radius
27
ratio and z/H, the coefficient C i also depends on the assumed deflection configuration and the
ratio of the mass of the tank to the mass of the fluid.
The deflection configuration of the tank-liquid system depends on the geometry of the
container, the material properties of the tank/vessel, the depth of the liquid and the boundary
conditions at the top and bottom of the tank/vessel. Veletsos and Yang [33] summarised the
deflection characteristics of an empty tank based on the H/R ratio as follows:

For large values of H/R, the tank deflects in a cantilever flexural beam mode with
practically no distortion of the cross-section
For smaller values of H/R, the deflection shape is as a cantilever shear beam with no
distortion of the cross-section
For yet smaller values of H/R, the deflection configuration of the tank can be represented
as a series of ovalling modes and
For extremely small values of H/R, the tank/vessel wall behaves as a series of independent
cantilever flexural strips.
The vibrational characteristics of the tank-liquid system are similar to those of the empty tank.
Kana [38] reports that flexural modes are more important in tanks with H/R > 1 while more than
one ovalling mode may be important in tanks of all sizes.
Expressions for the fundamental natural frequency of the flexible impulsive mode of vibration
have been proposed by various researchers based on different approaches including finite
element methods and the Rayleigh-Ritz procedure. Rammerstorfer et. al. [39] provide a
comparison between the various expressions and conclude that, in general, they exhibit good
agreement. The approximation provided in Eurocode 8 [11] is as follows:
fs =
1
2 R g ( )
E s1 3
H
g ( )= 0.01675 2 - 0.15 + 0.46
(15)
where E is the Youngs Modulus of the material of the tank/vessel, s is the thickness at 1/3
height and
is the density of the liquid.
In the various procedures developed for computing the flexible impulsive response, an
important assumption is that the cross section of the tank is truly circular. The effect of out-ofroundness and other imperfections would be to excite modes involving more than a single sine
wave in the circumferential direction, which may significantly affect the response of the system
[39].
In summary, the main difference between the response of a rigid and flexible tank pertains to
the nature of the acceleration component. For a rigid tank, the response is proportional to the
maximum ground acceleration whereas for a flexible tank, the response is governed by the
spectral acceleration corresponding to the fundamental frequency of the tank-liquid vibration
and associated damping ratio. The flexible impulsive frequencies usually lie in the range 2 20
Hz. Within this region, the spectral acceleration, for a given damping ratio, is typically greater
than the maximum ground acceleration. In general, the damping in the flexible impulsive mode
is assumed to be approximately 2% (Rammerstorfer et. al. [39]).
28
4.4 RECTANGULAR FIXED BASE TANKS

Results for rectangular tanks have originally been proposed by Housner [28] based on the same
structure and fluid assumptions as for a rigid vertical cylindrical fixed base tank. The response
of the rigid tank is again considered to be made up of a convective part and a rigid impulsive
part.
4.4.1
Convective Component
The convective pressure component results from the contribution of an infinite number of
sloshing modes. However, as for the case of a cylindrical tank, the dominant contribution arises
from the first sloshing mode. The fundamental sloshing frequency for rectangular tanks can be
expressed as [11]:
f1 =
1
2

H
tanh

2
2 L
Lg
(16)
where g is the acceleration due to gravity and L is the half-width of the tank in the direction of
the excitation. Plots of the first two sloshing frequencies (dimensionless period in this case) for
both cylindrical and rectangular tanks are shown in Figure 16.
29
Figure 16 Variation of First and Second Mode Sloshing Periods For Cylindrical and
Rectangular Tanks With Height to Radius Ratio (Cylindrical) or Height to
Half Width Ratio (Rectangular)
The slosh frequencies pertaining to the rectangular tanks are lower than for the cylindrical case.
In both cases, the frequencies tend to become independent of the height to half-width
(rectangular tanks) or height to radius (cylindrical tanks) ratios.
The convective pressure on the tank/vessel wall, perpendicular to the direction of motion, from
the fundamental sloshing mode is given by [11]:
p c = q 1 L S1
(17)
where q1 is a dimensionless convective pressure corresponding to the first sloshing mode

(Figure 17) and S1 is the spectral acceleration corresponding to a response spectrum for the
ground motion under consideration at the fundamental sloshing frequency and damping ratio.
Figure 17 Dimensionless Convective Pressure For First Sloshing Mode on

Rectangular Tank Walls
The variation of the dimensionless convective pressure on the rectangular tank walls is similar
to that of the convective pressure distribution for cylindrical tanks (Figure 12). The same
30
variation is observed with H/R whereby the convective effects become more pronounced at the
base of the tank as H/R decreases i.e. for squat tanks.
Again, as for the cylindrical tank, the damping ratio in the sloshing modes of vibration is
usually negligible and is assumed to be zero for conservative results. Also, the wall flexibility
does not affect the convective component so that the same expressions can be used for both
rigid and flexible tanks.
4.4.2
Rigid Impulsive Component
The approach for determining the rigid impulsive component is similar to that for cylindrical
tanks and the pressure component in this case is given by [11]:
p i = q 0 (z ) L &x& m
(18)
where the function q0 (z) is shown in Figure 18. All other symbols have been previously
defined. The variation is similar to that of the rigid impulsive pressure coefficient for cylindrical
tanks.
Figure 18 Dimensionless Impulsive Pressures on Rectangular Tank Wall

Perpendicular to Direction of Excitation
31
4.4.3
Flexible Impulsive Component
The wall tank flexibility results in an interaction between the deformation of the wall and the
motion of the liquid. In the case of rectangular tanks, however, no closed form expression for
determining the magnitude of the flexible impulsive component is available. Solutions can,
however, be obtained through linear finite element dynamic analysis.
An approximation reported in Eurocode 8 [11] is to use the same expression as for the rigid
rectangular tank with the spectral acceleration Sfi replacing the maximum ground acceleration.
The spectral acceleration is evaluated at the fundamental frequency and damping ratio of the
tank-liquid mode based on the response spectrum of the excitation under consideration.
The fundamental frequency of the tank-liquid mode can be approximated as [11]:
f=
1
2
g
df
(19)
where g is the acceleration due to gravity, df is the deflection of the wall on the vertical
centreline and at the height of the impulsive mass, when the wall is loaded by a uniform load in
the direction of ground motion and of magnitude mi g / 4 B H, mi is the impulsive mass and 2B
is the tank width perpendicular to the direction of loading.
4.5 FIXED BASE HORIZONTAL CIRCULAR CYLINDRICAL TANKS/VESSELS
For the case of horizontal circular cylindrical tanks, the response is further complicated by
Cross sectional curvature and

Possible significant length differences longitudinally compared to laterally.
The slosh configurations would differ along the tank axes so that both the longitudinal and
lateral components of the excitation must be taken into account.
Few studies have been carried out to investigate the response of horizontal circular cylindrical
tanks. Experimental studies on the slosh response are reported by Kana [38] and compared to
predictions based on expressions for rectangular tanks. These studies showed that nonlinearities have a significant effect on the response of horizontal circular cylindrical tanks.
For the impulsive component, Eurocode 8 [11] recommends that the pressures in both the
longitudinal and lateral directions be computed from rectangular tank solutions by assuming an
equal dimension at the liquid level and in the direction of excitation and at a depth required to
give equal liquid volume. The approximation is considered valid for the range 0.5 H/R 1.6.
For values greater than 1.6, the tank should be assumed to be full.
An approximate expression for determining the rigid-impulsive response is provided in
Eurocode 8 [11] for partially filled tanks and for a seismic excitation perpendicular to the length
of the tank and is given by
p i ( )= q 0 ( ) R A g (t )
(20)
where R is the radius of the tank, Ag (t) is the input acceleration at time t, and the pressure
function q0 () is given by
32
H (-1)
sin 2n

n =1 (2n )2 -1
n1
q 0 ( ) =
(21)
The function is plotted in Figure 19. No closed form expressions have been proposed for
determining the convective component of response. However, the sloshing frequency in the first
mode can be obtained from Figure 20.
Figure 19 Rigid-Impulsive Pressure Variation on Horizontal Cylinder (H = R) Subjected

To Transverse Excitation [11]
33
Figure 20 Dimensionless First Convective Mode Frequency for Rigid Tanks of Various
Shapes [11]
4.6 TANKS WITH INTERNAL BAFFLES
The design of tanks of various types with internal baffles is addressed in the aerospace
monographs [40, 41] and is mainly concerned with slosh suppression. Baffles increase the
effective fluid damping thereby reducing the duration of free oscillations and magnitude of
forced oscillations. The variation of the effective damping ratio with baffle location for rigid
ring baffles in a circular cylindrical tank is shown in Figure 21.
1 is the maximum sloshing wave height measured from the quiescent liquid surface at tank
wall. The results are based on the assumption that the baffle remains in the fluid during
sloshing. It is observed that

For a fixed baffle location, the effective damping ratio increases with increasing baffle size
i.e. as a0/a decreases and
For a fixed baffle size, the effective damping ratio increases as the baffle location moves up
along the tank height.
34
Figure 21 Variation of Effective Damping Ratio With Baffle Location
The latter observation can be readily explained by the fact that the sloshing effects are more
prominent near the top of the liquid surface so that the effectiveness of the baffles in
suppressing the sloshing motion would be more evident nearer the top of the fluid surface. For a
series of ring baffles, reference 41 suggests that the combined damping ratio can be obtained by
adding the contribution of each ring. This approximation has, however, not been thoroughly
verified. It is noted that the baffles in this particular case are rigid and that flexible baffles may
provide more damping than rigid ones.
In addition to increasing the effective damping ratio, the effect of the baffles is also to reduce
the masses associated with sloshing and increase the sloshing frequencies. Similar effect is
achieved by compartmentalising the tank i.e. subdividing it into smaller regions and also by
internal components within the tank. Ma et. al. [42] carried out a finite element analysis on a
reactor tank with internal components and found that the presence of internals (e.g. pumps) can
significantly alter the dynamic characteristics of the sloshing motion. Notably, the fundamental
frequency is considerably increased with the sloshing wave height reduced. The hydrodynamic
pressure was also found to increase.
This can be explained as follows. In the low frequency region (usually <5Hz) of the spectrum
(earthquake, blast, ship impact), the acceleration increases sharply as the frequency increases.
The presence of baffles increases the natural sloshing frequencies so that the associated
accelerations are higher. However, the sloshing masses are reduced so that the increase in
pressure due to the higher accelerations is counterbalanced by the reduction in mass. In the
above case, the effect of higher acceleration is more dominant than the decrease in sloshing
masses.
4.7 ROCKING RESPONSE OF VESSELS/TANKS
Vessels and tanks on topsides will also be subject to rocking motions because of the flexibility
of the supporting deck even under purely translational free-field ground excitation of the
platform or lateral excitation from ship impact and blast. The rocking response of cylindrical
vertical tanks has been investigated by Haroun and Housner [43] and Haroun and Ellaithy [44].
Based on the same assumptions as for purely lateral motion, the latter proposed a spring-mass
35
model for determining the rocking response. Explicit values are provided for the various
parameters characterising the system based on the additional assumption that the deformed
shape of the tank (for flexible tanks) is taken as sin (z/2H) where z is the vertical coordinate
and H is the height of the liquid in the tank.
Veletsos and Tang [45] considered the same problem and proposed approximate expressions
similar to that for tanks under purely lateral excitation. By decomposing the rocking motion of
the tank into a rotation of wall with no base rotation and rotation of base with no wall rotation, it
was shown that the impulsive component of wall pressure for tall tanks is dominated by rocking
action of the wall and for broad tanks, it is dominated by the rocking action of the base. A
similar conclusion was postulated for the pressures acting on the base.
The above studies pertained to upright cylindrical tanks only and results for tanks of other
configurations are not available.
4.8 COMBINATION OF PRESSURES AND RESULTANT STRESSES
Two different procedures are widely used in the literature for combination of the impulsive and
convective components namely a direct numerical addition of the absolute maxima and the
SRSS rule. The direct summation of the absolute maxima clearly results in a conservative result
as it is based on the assumptions that

The maximum values of the convective acceleration and the flexible impulsive pseudoacceleration occur simultaneously with the maximum ground acceleration and
Maximum positive and maximum negative values of the convective acceleration and the
flexible impulsive pseudo-acceleration are equally likely
In general, the convective fluid pressure does not occur simultaneously with the 2 impulsive
fluid parts. An alternative superposition rule is based on the square-root-of-sum-of-squares
(SRSS) method. Fischer et. al. [36] proposed three sets of different SRSS superposition rules
based on the natural frequency of the flexible impulsive mode of vibration. A more general
SRSS rule proposed by Fischer et. al. [36] and is given by
p max =
(p c )2 + (p ri + p fi ) 2
(22)
where pc is the convective pressure and pri, pfi are the rigid impulsive and flexible impulsive
pressure components respectively.
The total pressure on the tank wall should include both the hydrodynamic pressure and the
hydrostatic pressure. The tank forces and stresses can then be calculated based on an appropriate
shell theory. In general, only the maximum values of the circumferential, shearing and axial
stresses in the tank walls are required. Following the Veletsos and Yang [33] procedure, as
reported in ASCE-1984 [9], the maximum values of the stresses can be determined from:
( )max =
Maximum Hoop or Circumferential Stress:
Maximum Shear Stress:
max = 2
P max R
H
Q max 1 Q max
=
As
RH
36
(23)
(24)
Maximum Axial Stress:
( z )max =
M max R 1 M max
=
I
R2 H
(25)
where Qmax is the maximum base shear, Mmax is the maximum overturning moment and I is the
moment of inertia of the tank wall about a horizontal centroidal axis. The maximum base shear
and overturning moment can be evaluated from expressions proposed by Veletsos and Yang
[33] amongst others. Simplified approximations have been proposed by Malhotra et. al. [46]
whereby the base shear and overturning moment are calculated from:
( )
M = m i h i S e f imp + m c h c S e (f con )
(26)
where mi, mc are the impulsive and convective masses respectively, hi, hc are the heights of the
centroids of the impulsive and convective masses respectively, Se (fimp) is the spectral
acceleration from a response spectrum of appropriate damping ratio at the tank-liquid frequency
and Se (fcon) is the spectral acceleration from a response spectrum at the sloshing frequency. The
masses and heights can be determined from figures presented in the paper.
Balendra et. al. [47] provides a good discussion of the stress resultants in flexible cylindrical
tanks and reports that for broad and shallow tanks, the circumferential stress is the largest
among all the membrane stress resultants. As the height-to-radius (H/R) ratio increases, the
membrane shear stress becomes dominant and for tall and slender tanks (large H/R ratios), the
axial stress predominates. It is pointed out, however, that the design criterion may not be set by
the value of the maximum stress. This is because the hoop stress is tensile while the axial stress
may be compressive which can result in buckling at lower stresses.
4.9 SUMMARY OF DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF VESSELS/TANKS UNDER LATERAL
EXCITATION

The response of a tank/vessel under lateral excitation can be split into three hydrodynamic
components termed convective or sloshing component, rigid-impulsive component and
flexible-impulsive component.
The frequencies associated with the sloshing are usually quite low (fundamental frequency
between 0.1 0.2 Hz). Generally, only the first sloshing mode is considered for design
purposes. However, while this assumption is accurate for determination of pressures, it
may lead to unconservative results for the displacement of the fluid where higher mode
effects can be important.
The rigid-impulsive component is due to the rigid body motion of the fluid and is subjected
to the maximum ground acceleration. The flexible-impulsive component accounts for the
flexibility of the tank/vessel and is subjected to the acceleration pertaining to the relevant
modes of vibration of the tank-fluid system.
The damping associated with the sloshing modes is usually quite low (approximately
0.5%). However, it should be noted that for higher viscosity fluids and tanks/vessels with
internal baffles, the damping value is higher. For the impulsive components, the damping
ratio is generally assumed to be approximately 2%.
S implif ed
i procedures have been developed in the literature f or computing the response of
f xed
i base vertical cylindrical tanks/vessels. For other tanks types (rectangular, horizontal
cylindrical), resort must be made to linear/non-linear f nite
i element dynamic analyses as no
simple solutions f or all the hydrodynamic components are available.
37
38
CONCLUSIONS
A state-of-the-art review was carried out to assess existing analytical methodologies and
simplified models with respect to the modelling of tanks/vessels on offshore platforms. The
findings of the review can be summarised as follows:

3 different methods exist for analysis of such systems namely simplified uncoupled
analysis, uncoupled analysis using deck response spectra or time histories and coupled
analysis. The applicability of the methods depends on whether the tank/vessel can be
classified as rigid or flexible.
For rigid vessels/tanks, a simplified uncoupled analysis is recommended. In the case of
flexible vessels/tanks where the mass of the tank/vessel is not significant compared to that
of the supporting structure and where static constraints do not lead to redistribution of
stresses, an uncoupled analysis using deck response spectra of time histories can be used.
For tanks/vessels where there is significant interaction (close frequencies of vibration)
between the tank/vessel and the supporting structure, a coupled analysis should be used.
The input loading is important not only in terms of the magnitude of the excitation but also
with regard to its frequency content. Different excitations such as blast, earthquake and
ship impact have different frequency contents. In general, the earthquake excitation is a
low frequency excitation whereas the blast and ship impact loadings can be described as
high frequency excitations.
Simplified models (spring-mass systems) and expressions exist for the representation of
vertical cylindrical tanks. The response of such tanks/vessels to dynamic excitation is
governed by 3 hydrodynamic components namely the rigid-impulsive component (part of
fluid moving synchronously with tank), the flexible-impulsive component (coupled tankfluid motion) and the sloshing component. The relative contribution of these components to
the total response depends on the aspect ratio of the tank/vessel, level of fluid and the
magnitude and frequency content of the input excitation.
Similar simplified models also exist for rectangular tanks, which are fully supported along
the bottom. Expressions exist in the literature for computing the contributions from the
rigid-impulsive and sloshing components. However, no such expressions exist for the
flexible-impulsive component. In the latter case, the response is approximated by assuming
that the pressure contribution varies similarly to the rigid-impulsive component except that
the ground acceleration is replaced by the spectral acceleration at the flexible-impulsive
frequency.
No simplified models or expressions exist for horizontal cylindrical tanks with flat or
dished ends (approximate method is provided in Eurocode 8 [11] based on the rectangular
tank case). Review of tanks/vessels on offshore platforms has shown that the latter
configuration (i.e. horizontal cylindrical tanks with semi-ellipsoidal heads) is the most
common type of production vessels. Generally, these vessels are supported on saddle
supports, which are bolted to the deck structure.
39
REFERENCES
1. Cullen, The Honourable Lord, Public Enquiry into the Piper Alpha Disaster, HMSO,
1990
2. Health and Safety Executive, A guide to the Offshore Installations (Safety Case)
Regulations, HMSO, 1992
3.
Eatec Ltd, Blast and Shock Induced Vibrations in Offshore Jacket Installations, Health
and Safety Executive Report OTH 94 430, 1994
4. ISO/CD 19901-3, Petroleum and natural gas industries Specific requirements for
offshore structures Part 3: Topsides structure, 2001
5.
API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing

and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms Working Stress Design, 2000
6. NORSOK Standard N-003, Action and Action Effects, 1998

7. NORSOK Standard N-004, Design of Steel Structures, 1998, Rev 1
8. ISO/CD 19902, Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries Fixed Steel Offshore Structures,
2001
9. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil
and Gas Pipeline Systems, 1984
10. Priestley, M.J.N (Ed.), Seismic Design of Storage Tanks, Recommendations of a study
group of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 1986
11. European Committee for Standardisation, Eurocode 8: Design provisions for earthquake
resistance of structures Part 4: Silos, tanks and pipelines, 1998
12. Department of Energy, Offshore Installations: Guidance on design, construction and
certification, 4th Edition, HMSO, 1990

13. ASCE, Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary, 1998
14. Committee on Nuclear Structures and Materials of Structural Division of ASCE,
Structural Analysis and Design of Nuclear Plant Facilities, 1980

15. EQE International Ltd, Development of walkdown procedures and pilot study for the
assessment of topsides equipment subject to blast induced vibrations, Health and Safety
Executive Report OTH 93 415, 1995
16. Kost, G., Sharpe, R.L., Seismic Resistant of Piping, Equipment and Appurtenances for
Offshore Structures, Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 2750, 1977

17. Craig, M.J.K., Dolan, D.K., Turner, J.W., API RP-2A 20th Edition Update: Seismic
Topsides Design and Assessment Guidelines, OTC 7156, 1993
18. Bea, R., Bowen, C., Simplified Earthquake Floor Response Spectra for Equipment on
Offshore Platforms,
19. Biggs, J.M., Roesset, J.M., Seismic Analysis of Equipment Mounted on a Massive
Structure, Siemic Design of Nuclear Power Plants, R J Hansen (Ed.), 1970
20. Clough and Penzien, Dynamics of Structures
21. Smith, C.E., Response of a steel-jacket Platform subject to Measured Seafloor Seismic
Ground Motions, OTC 8110, 1996
40
22. Renwick, P., Norman, T., Fire and Blast Engineering in the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry
Developments since Piper Alpha, ERA

23. Walker, D.G., Ramsden, M., Bruce, R.L., Blast Induced Vibrations on Topsides, ERA
24. Donegan, E.N., Brown-Earl, J., Wright, Appraisal of Accidental Impact loadings on steel
piled North Sea, OTC 4193, 1982

25. Petersen, M.J., Pedersen, P.J., Collisions between ships and offshore platforms, OTC
4134, 1981
26. Blok, J.J., Brozius, L.H., Dekker, J.N., The Impact Loads of Ships Colliding with Fixed
Structures, OTC 4469, 1983
27. Litton, R.W., Puskar, F.J., Ship Collision Analysis for the Kawasaki Island Steel
Platforms, OTC 7141, Vol 2, 1993
28. Housner, G.W., Dynamic Pressures on Accelerated Fluid Containers, Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, Vol 47, Jan 1957

29. US Atomic Energy Commission, Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes, TID-7024, Office of
Technical Service, Washington DC, 1963
30. Epstein, H.I., Seismic Design of Liquid Storage Tanks, Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, Vol. 102, No. ST9, 1976
31. Veletsos, A.S, Seismic Effects in Flexible liquid storage tanks, Proceedings of
International Association for Earthquake Engineering, 1974

32. Kana, D.D., Dodge, F.T., Design support modelling of liquid slosh in storage tanks subject
to seismic excitation, Proceedings ASCE conference on Structural Design of Nuclear Plant

Facilities, 1975
33. Veletsos, A.S., Yang, J.Y., Earthquake Response of Liquid storage Tanks, Advances in
Civil Engineering through Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 1977

34. Haroun, M.A., Housner, G.W., Seismic Design of Liquid Storage Tanks, ASCE, Vol 107,
1981
35. Tedesco, J.W., Landis, D.W., Kostem, C.N., Seismic Analysis of cylindrical liquid storage
tanks, Computers and Structures, Vol. 32, No 5, 1989

36. Fischer, F.D., Rammerstorfer, F.G., Scharf, K., Earthquake Resistant Design of Anchored
and Unanchored Liquid Storage Tanks under 3D Earthquake Excitation, Structural
Dynamics Recent Advances, Schneller G.L. (Ed.), Springer Verlag, 1991
37. Fischer, F.D., Rammerstorfer, F.G., The Stability of Liquid-Filled Cylindrical Shells
Under Dynamic Loading, Buckling of Shells, Proceedings of the State-of-the-Art
Colloquium, Springer, Berlin, 1982
38. Kana, D.D., Status and Research Needs for Prediction of Seismic Response in Liquid
Containers, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol 69, 1982
39. Rammerstorfer, F.G., Scharf, K., Storage Tanks Under Earthquake Loading, Applied
Mechanics Review, 1990
40. NASA SP-8009, Propellant Slosh Loads, 1968
41. NASA SP-8031, Slosh Suppression, 1969
42. Ma, D.C., Gvildys, J., Chang, Y. W., Sloshing Response of Reactor Tank With Internals,
Engineering Mechanics
41
43. Haroun, M.A., Housner, G.W., Dynamic Interaction of Liquid Storage Tanks and
Foundation Soil, Proceedings of Second ASCE/EMD Speciality Conference on Dynamic
Response of Structures, Atlanta, Georgia, 1981
44. Haroun, M.A., Ellaithy, H.M., Model for Flexible Tanks Undergoing Rocking, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol 111, No. 2, 1985
45. Veletsos, A.S., Tang, Y., Rocking Response of Liquid Storage Tanks, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol 113, No. 11, 1987
46. Malholtra, P.K., Seismic Analysis of Liquid Storage Steel Tanks, Structural Engineering
International, 1997
47. Balendra, T., Ang, K.K, Paramasivam, P., Lee, S.L., Seismic Design of Flexible
Cylindrical Liquid Storage Tanks, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol
10, 1982.
42
Health and Safety

Executive

Part 2: Determination of sloshing frequencies
Silwood Park
Ascot
Berks
SL5 7QN
tanks subjected to dynamic loading, this report details the findings of work to determine the sloshing frequencies of
liquid within a horizontal, cylindrical vessel - the most commonly encountered type of vessel on offshore platforms. Due
to the complexity of fluid-structure interaction, it was assumed that the vessel was rigid with flat ends. A series of
explicit finite element dynamic analyses were undertaken. A Fourier decomposition of the output force was carried out
to provide an insight into the frequency content. The results show good agreement with the codified equation for a rigid
rectangular tank.
HSE Books

ii
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
1 .1 BACKGROUND
1 .2 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
1 .3 SCOPE OF STUDY
1
1
2
2
ASSUMPTIONS AND FE MODELLING

2 .1 INTRODUCTION
2 .2 VESSEL CONFIGURATION AND ASSUMPTIONS
2 .3 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING
2 .4 LOADING
2 .5 ESTIMATION OF FIRST SLOSHING FREQUENCY
3
3
3
3
5
5
RESULTS FOR UN-BAFFLED VESSEL

3 .1 INTRODUCTION
3 .2 EXCITATION FREQUENCY RANGE AND ANALYSES
3 .3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
7
7
7
7
RESULTS FOR PERFORATED B AFFLED VESSEL

4 .1 INTRODUCTION
4 .2 ANALYSIS
4 .3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
17
17
17
17
CONCLUSIONS
21
REFERENCES
23
iii
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report addresses the determination of sloshing frequencies for a horizontal, cylindrical
vessel which is the most commonly encountered type of vessel on offshore platforms. Part 1 of
this study reported that there is a lack of guidance for the determination of sloshing frequencies
and sloshing masses for vessels of this configuration.
In this study, a series of explicit finite element dynamic analyses were carried out to determine
the sloshing frequency for such vessels. Due to the complexity of the fluid-structure interaction,
it was assumed that the vessel was rigid with flat ends instead of flexible with semi-ellipsoidal
ends. This implies that the fluid response comprises only of the rigid impulsive and sloshing
components.
Both an un-baffled vessel and a perforated baffled vessel were considered in this study. The FE
models were excited using known cosinusoidal velocity functions and the excitation frequency
was varied to cover the typical sloshing frequency range.
A Fourier decomposition of the output force on the vessel was carried out to provide insight into
the frequency content of the output force. The results show good agreement with the codified
equation for a rigid rectangular tank.
A similar procedure was adopted to determine the sloshing frequencies for a baffled vessel with
3 different fluid fill ratios. It was found that the first sloshing frequency remained unchanged
with increasing fluid fill ratio. For the baffled case, there is a significant difference between the
analytical sloshing frequency and that from the codified equation. This is attributed to the
perforation in the baffles which allow movement of fluid between the compartments.
vi
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The first part of this study provided a state-of-the-art review of the dynamic loading and fluidstructure interaction effects in pressure vessels and tanks on offshore platforms. The most
commonly encountered type of vessel is horizontal, cylindrical with semi-ellipsoidal heads. As
reported earlier [1], there is, however, a lack of simplified design methods for such vessels.
The response of such vessels under lateral excitation depends not only on the magnitude and
frequency content of the loading but also on:
Aspect ratio of the vessel

Separation distance between the saddle supports
Presence of baffles and internal components
Diameter to thickness ratio of the vessel and
Ratio of fluid fill height to vessel length i.e. the fluid fill ratio
Determining simplified procedures for the effects of fluid-structure interaction on the vessel
under lateral excitation is further complicated by:
Ellipsoidal ends that provide a stiffening effect,
Support mechanism that leads to large tank deflections along circumference of vessel
particularly at the centre and
Geometrical asymmetry of vessel which results in different frequencies in the lateral
and longitudinal directions.
Currently, the design codes recommend that fluid-structure interaction effects in pressure
vessels be accounted for using the approximate expression derived for rectangular tanks. It is
recognised that due to the complexity of the problem, simplified procedures for horizontal,
cylindrical vessels with semi-ellipsoidal heads cannot be easily derived.
However, it is possible to gain more information by carrying out a limited number of analyses
on a simplified tank model namely a rigid vessel with flat ends. In particular, this limited set of
analyses will allow the derivation of sloshing frequencies for both un-baffled and baffled
configurations. This will provide the structural designer with a starting point to determine
whether fluid-structure interaction effects may be important and, if so, whether there is a need
for detailed analyses.

This part of the study is concerned with the derivation of sloshing frequencies for a rigid,
horizontal, cylindrical tank with flat ends. The main objectives of the study can be summarised
as follows:

Derivation of sloshing frequency for an un-baffled vessel for 1 fluid fill ratio
Comparison of numerical sloshing frequency for un-baffled vessel against codified
equation
Derivation of sloshing frequencies for baffled vessel for 3 fluid ratios
1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY

To achieve the above objectives, the study is split into several stages as follows:
(a) Carry out a set of linear explicit finite element dynamic analysis of an un-baffled vessel
with a fluid fill ratio of 0.2. The excitation will be a cosinusoidal function with a range of
frequencies.
(b) Estimate the sloshing frequency for the un-baffled vessel based on the previous analyses.
(c) Compare the sloshing frequency for the un-baffled vessel with codified equation
(d) Carry out 3 sets of linear explicit finite element dynamic analysis of a baffled vessel with
fluid fill ratios of 0.15, 0.2 and 0.25. These ratios correspond to commonly encountered
fluid fill levels. Again, the excitation will be a cosinusoidal function with a range of
frequencies.
(e) Estimate the sloshing frequencies for the 3 fluid fill ratios based on the dynamic analyses.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the problem and the modelling assumptions for both the unbaffled and baffled vessel. The determination of the sloshing frequency for the un-baffled vessel
is described in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 details the analyses and results for the baffled vessel.
Finally the findings from this study are described in Chapter 5.
ASSUMPTIONS AND FE MODELLING
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides a description of the assumptions used for this study for the determination
of sloshing frequencies for horizontal, cylindrical vessels with flat ends. The finite element
models and the dynamic excitation applied to the various models are also described. Finally, the
procedure adopted for determining the sloshing frequency is provided.
2.2 VESSEL CONFIGURATION AND ASSUMPTIONS
As mentioned earlier, the vessel considered in this study is horizontal, cylindrical with flat ends.
The geometry of the vessel (with baffles un-baffled vessel has similar geometry) is illustrated
in Figure 2.1:
Perforated Baffles
2.5 m
2 m
2 m
2 m
2 m
6 m
Figure 2.1: Geometry of vessel used in sloshing analyses

The chosen geometry for the vessel is based on typical dimensions of vessels found on offshore
modules. The following assumptions are made to simplify the model:
The vessel is assumed to be rigid so that it can be modelled using rigid elements
The fluid motion is assumed to be linear
The following further simplifications are made for the baffled vessel:
The perforated baffles are rigid
The perforated baffles divide the vessel into 3 equal parts
The perforated area is approximately 20% of the total baffle area

2.3 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING
The dynamic finite element analyses were carried out using the explicit dynamics software
MSC Dytran [2]. The software is well suited to dealing with fluid-structure interaction problems
either via a general coupling algorithm or an arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian formulation.
A description of the latter formulation and of the numerical considerations for explicit dynamics
analysis is given in part 3 [3] of this study. The following sections provide a brief description of
the finite element models for both the un-baffled and the baffled vessels.
2.3.1
Modelling of Un-baffled Vessel
As reported in the state-of-the-art review in the first part of this study [1], it is well known that
the sloshing frequencies generally lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 Hz. In order to limit the number
of full 3D analyses that need to be carried out to determine the sloshing frequency, a simplified
3D model was used to narrow the sloshing frequency range.
For both the simplified 3D and the full 3D models, a rigid element was used to model the rigid
vessel. It is noted that no matter how many elements and properties are used to make up the
rigid body, in the solution it is treated as a single element.
The material properties for the vessel structure were as follows:
Material:
Steel
Density:
7850 kg/m3
Youngs Modulus: 2.05e11 N/m2
Poissons Ratio: 0.3
Thickness:
30 mm
MSC Dytran automatically calculates the geometric properties of the rigid body such as the
mass, the centre of gravity and the moments of inertia.
The fluid fill ratio for the un-baffled case was 0.2 i.e. a water level of 1.2 m. The fluid
properties were as follows:
Density:
Bulk Modulus:
Cavitation Pressure:
1000 kg/m3
2.2e06 N/m2
-1.0e05 N/m2
The fluid was modelled using Eulerian solid elements based on an isotropic, non-viscous model.
Simplified 3D Model
In order to narrow the frequency range to be considered for the full 3D analyses, a simplified
3D model was developed. The simplified 3D model was essentially a longitudinal slice along
the vessel with 3 elements in the lateral direction.
The model was restrained translationally in the y and z direction and in all 3 directions
rotationally. The excitation was applied as a cosinusoidal velocity function in the x-direction
(longitudinal) and is described further in section 2.4.
Full 3D Model
The mesh density and boundary conditions for the full 3D model were similar to that for the
simplified 3D model. The excitation was, again, applied as a cosinusoidal velocity function in
the longitudinal direction as described in section 2.4.
2.3.2
Modelling of Baffled Vessel
The baffled vessel configuration is shown in Figure 2.1. As mentioned earlier, the baffles are
assumed to be rigid. Due to the perforations in the baffles, it was not possible to use a simplified
model as in the un-baffled case. The perforated area was assumed to be 20% of the total baffle
area.
The perforations were modelled by numerically removing elements from the baffles. The
boundary conditions were the same as that used for the un-baffled case. The loading applied to
the model is described in the following section.
2.4 LOADING
The excitations applied to the models were cosinusoidal velocity functions of the form:
v (t) = V cos 2f n t
where V is the amplitude of the velocity and fn is the frequency of excitation.

The velocity function was applied to both the rigid element (used to model the vessel structure)
and the Eulerian mesh to ensure compatibility at the Lagrangian/Eulerian boundary as per the
Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (ALE) formulation.
2.5 ESTIMATION OF FIRST SLOSHING FREQUENCY
The procedure for determining the sloshing frequency is illustrated in the flow-chart shown in
Figure 2.2. Essentially, the procedure consists in getting the maximum amplitude of the output
force on the rigid element at various excitation frequencies.
A plot of the maximum amplitude against excitation frequency will subsequently allow for an
estimation of the first sloshing frequency.
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF

VESSEL
APPLY LOADING AT
EXCITATION FREQUENCY Fn
RUN ANALYSIS
OUTPUT TIME HISTORY OF

FORCE ON RIGID ELEMENT
FOURIER DECOMPOSITION OF
OUTPUT FORCE
GET PEAK AMPLITUDE OF

FOR CE FOR EXCITATION
FREQUENCY Fn
NEXT n
END OF EXCITATION
FREQUENCY RANGE ?
PLOT PEAK AMPLITUDE

AGAINST EXCITATION
FREQUENCY
ESTIMATE FIRST SLOSHING

FREQUENCY
Figure 2.2: Procedure for estimation of first sloshing frequency
RESULTS FOR UN-BAFFLED VESSEL
3.1 INTRODUCTION
A set of explicit FE analyses were carried out on the simplified 3D model of the un-baffled
vessel within the frequency range 0.025 Hz to 0.30 Hz. The results from these analyses were
subsequently used to estimate the first sloshing frequency. Full 3D analyses were also carried
out in the region of the estimated sloshing frequency in order to confirm the findings from the
simplified 3D analyses.
3.2 EXCITATION FREQUENCY RANGE AND ANALYSES
A total of 18 runs were carried out on the simplified 3D model of the un-baffled vessel covering
the frequency range 0.025 Hz to 0.30 Hz. The analyses were run for 3 full cycles of excitation
followed by the transient response of the fluid. As mentioned earlier, the excitation was applied
in the longitudinal direction and the fluid fill ratio was 0.2.
The time history variation of the force on the rigid element in the longitudinal direction was
output at steps of 0.05 seconds. A Fourier decomposition of the time history of the force was
subsequently carried out using the software MATHCAD.
3.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The Fourier decomposition provides a breakdown of the force on the rigid element against
frequency. The various Fourier plots for the runs carried out at all the excitation frequencies
within the frequency range 0.025 Hz to 0.30 Hz are shown in Appendix 1. The Fourier results
for the runs at excitation frequencies 0.025 Hz, 0.05 Hz, 0.10 Hz and 0.25 Hz are reproduced
below as Figure 3.1, Figure 3.2, Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4 respectively.
It is observed that at the lower frequencies (Figures 3.1 to 3.3), two distinct peaks are clearly
visible within the frequency range 0 to 1.0 Hz. The first peak occurs at the frequency of the
forcing excitation as expected. The second peak occurs at approximately 0.27 Hz and pertains to
the first sloshing frequency of the fluid.
Figure 3.1: Fourier decomposition of force on rigid element for simplified 3D model of unbaffled vessel (Excitation Frequency = 0.025 Hz)
This is clearly observed in the results for the Fourier transform of the force at 0.25 Hz where
only a single peak is visible and has a significantly higher magnitude than at the other excitation
frequencies.
3 analyses were subsequently carried out on the full 3D model of the un-baffled vessel in order
to confirm the above finding. The analyses were performed for excitation frequencies at 0.125
Hz, 0.275 Hz and 0.400 Hz. The results are shown in Figure 3.5, Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.7
respectively.
1.29710
1.5 .10
1 .10
fForce
5000
52.469
0.5
1.5
2
2
freq
Figure 3.5: Fourier decomposition of force on rigid element for full 3D model of un-baffled
vessel (Excitation Frequency = 0.125 Hz)
1.1310
1.5 .10
1 .10
fForce
5 .10
44.798
0.5
freq
1.5
2
2
vessel (Excitation Frequency = 0.275Hz)
1.24210
1.5 .10
1 .10
fForce
5000
30.612
0.5
freq
1.5
2
2
vessel (Excitation Frequency = 0.400 Hz)
It is clearly observed that the magnitude of the force is significantly higher at 0.275 Hz than at
the other excitation frequencies. Also, only a single peak is observed at 0.275 Hz unlike at the
other excitation frequencies where secondary peaks can be noted.
It is also noteworthy to observe that for both Fourier results at 0.125 Hz and 0.400 Hz, a peak
can be seen at approximately 0.27 Hz. The full 3D results essentially confirm the finding from
the simplified 3D model that the first sloshing frequency for the un-baffled vessel for a fluid fill
ratio of 0.2 is approximately 0.27 Hz.
3.3.1
Time History Plots
The time history variation of the output force on the rigid element is shown in Figures 3.8(a) to
(d) and Figures 3.9(a) to (d) for excitation frequencies corresponding to 0.125 Hz and 0.275 Hz
respectively.
In both cases, the loading was applied for 3 cycles of excitation i.e. for 24 sec in the case of f =
0.125 Hz and for 11 sec in the case of f = 0.275 Hz. The free vibration response was
subsequently monitored up to 90 seconds.
The results show that in the case of the vessel under the initial excitation at 0.125Hz, there is a
rapid decay in the transient output force. In addition, there is no discernible dominant frequency
within the free vibration segments. This is probably due to the fact that the initial forcing
function did not excite any of the sloshing frequencies so that the resulting transient motion has
low amplitude with no dominant frequency.
In the case of he vessel under the initial excitation of 0.275 Hz, a dominant frequency,
corresponding to the first sloshing frequency of the un-baffled vessel, is observed in the
transient motion.
These time history plots further confirm the findings in the previous section that the first
sloshing frequency of the un-baffled vessel is approximately 0.27 Hz.
10
4.0E+04
3.0E+04
Output Force (N)
2.0E+04
1.0E+04
0.0E+00
-1.0E+04
-2.0E+04
-3.0E+04
-4.0E+04
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
22.0
24.0
Time (sec)
Figure 3.8a: Time history of output force for loading segment 0.0 to 24.0 sec (Excitation
frequency: 0.125Hz)
4.0E+04
3.0E+04
Output Force (N)
2.0E+04
1.0E+04
0.0E+00
-1.0E+04
-2.0E+04
-3.0E+04
-4.0E+04
24.0
26.0
28.0
30.0
32.0
34.0
36.0
38.0
Time (sec)
Figure 3.8b: Time history of output force for free vibration segment 24.0 to 40.0 sec
11
40.0
4.0E+04
3.0E+04
2.0E+04
Force (N)
1.0E+04
0.0E+00
-1.0E+04
-2.0E+04
-3.0E+04
-4.0E+04
40.0
42.0
44.0
46.0
48.0
50.0
52.0
54.0
56.0
58.0
60.0
Time (sec)
Figure 3.8c: Time history of output force for free vibration segment 40.0 to 60.0 sec
4.0E+04
3.0E+04
Output Force (N)
2.0E+04
1.0E+04
0.0E+00
-1.0E+04
-2.0E+04
-3.0E+04
-4.0E+04
60.0
62.5
65.0
67.5
70.0
72.5
75.0
77.5
80.0
82.5
85.0
87.5
Time (sec)
Figure 3.8d: Time history of output force for free vibration segment 60.0 to 90.0 sec
12
90.0
5.0E+04
4.0E+04
3.0E+04
Output Force (N)
2.0E+04
1.0E+04
0.0E+00
-1.0E+04
-2.0E+04
-3.0E+04
-4.0E+04
-5.0E+04
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
Time (sec)
Figure 3.9a: Time history of output force for loading segment 0.0 to 11.0 sec (Excitation
frequency: 0.275Hz)
5.0E+04
4.0E+04
3.0E+04
Output Force (N)
2.0E+04
1.0E+04
0.0E+00
-1.0E+04
-2.0E+04
-3.0E+04
-4.0E+04
-5.0E+04
11.0
13.0
15.0
17.0
19.0
21.0
23.0
25.0
27.0
Time (sec)
Figure 3.9b: Time history of output force for free vibration segment 11.0 to 30.0 sec
13
29.0
5.0E+04
4.0E+04
3.0E+04
Output Force (N)
2.0E+04
1.0E+04
0.0E+00
-1.0E+04
-2.0E+04
-3.0E+04
-4.0E+04
-5.0E+04
30.0
32.0
34.0
36.0
38.0
40.0
42.0
44.0
46.0
48.0
50.0
52.0
54.0
56.0
58.0
60.0
88.0
90.0
Time (sec)
Figure 3.9c: Time history of output force for free vibration segment 30.0 to 60.0 sec
5.0E+04
4.0E+04
3.0E+04
Output Force (N)
2.0E+04
1.0E+04
0.0E+00
-1.0E+04
-2.0E+04
-3.0E+04
-4.0E+04
-5.0E+04
60.0
62.0
64.0
66.0
68.0
70.0
72.0
74.0
76.0
78.0
80.0
82.0
84.0
86.0
Time (sec)
Figure 3.9d: Time history of output force for free vibration segment 60.0 to 90.0 sec
14
3.3.2
Code comparison
A check was subsequently carried out to compare the above result against that for the codified
equation for a rigid rectangular tank. The period of vibration for the first sloshing mode for a
rigid rectangular tank [4] is given by:
T1 =
2
Lg
1 tanh ( 1 H L )
where L is the half length of the tank , H is the height of the fluid and 1 = 2 .
1st sloshing frequency = 0.27 Hz
The correlation between the results of the FE models and the code shows that the methodology
adopted to determine the sloshing frequency does provide realistic estimates. It is therefore
proposed to use the same approach to determine the first sloshing frequency for vessels with
perforated baffles for 3 fluid fill ratios. This is addressed in the next chapter.
15
16
RESULTS FOR PERFORATED BAFFLED VESSEL
4.1 INTRODUCTION
As mentioned earlier, the analyses for the perforated baffled vessel were carried out on a full 3D
model. No simplifications were possible in this case due to the perforations in the baffles. The
perforations were modelled by numerically removing elements from the baffle mesh. The model
was, again, based on the Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (ALE) formulation.
4.2 ANALYSIS
3 different fluid fill ratios were considered for the perforated baffled vessel namely 0.15, 0.20
and 0.25 corresponding to a fluid height of 0.9m, 1.2m and 1.5m respectively. 9 analyses were
run for each fill ratio within the frequency range 0.125 Hz to 0.90 Hz.
The same methodology, as for the un-baffled case, was adopted to determine the first sloshing
frequency namely via Fourier decomposition of the time history of the output force on the rigid
element.
4.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.3.1
Fluid fill ratio 0.15
The Fourier transforms are shown in Appendix 2. In contrast to the results for the un-baffled
case, only a single peak is observed for all the excitation frequencies. This peak occurs at the
excitation frequency of the loading applied to the models. The first sloshing frequency can,
however, be estimated by the amplitude of the output force at the various excitation frequencies.
It is well known that at or close to the sloshing frequency, the output force on the rigid element
will be a maximum.
A plot of the peak amplitude (from the Fourier plots) of the output force against excitation
frequency is shown in Figure 4.1. It is clearly seen from the result that the first sloshing
frequency occurs at 0.60 Hz.
17
4.5E+05
4.0E+05
3.5E+05
Peak Amplitude (N)
3.0E+05
2.5E+05
2.0E+05
1.5E+05
1.0E+05
5.0E+04
0.0E+00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 4.1: Variation of Peak Amplitude of Fourier Transform of Force on Rigid Element with
Frequency of Excitation (Fluid fill ratio - 0.15)
4.3.2
Fluid fill level 0.20
The Fourier results for the fluid fill ratio of 0.20 are shown in Appendix 3. As in the previous
case, only a single peak is observed and this occurs at the excitation frequency. The plot of peak
amplitude against excitation frequency is shown in Figure 4.2 and, again, it is seen that the first
sloshing frequency occurs at 0.60 Hz.
7.0E+05
6.0E+05
Peak Amplitude (N)
5.0E+05
4.0E+05
3.0E+05
2.0E+05
1.0E+05
0.0E+00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
Frequency (Hz)
18
4.3.3
Fluid fill ratio 0.25
The Fourier results for fluid fill ratio of 0.25 are shown in Appendix 4. The trend is similar to
the results for fill ratios of 0.15 and 0.20 with only a single peak at the excitation frequency. The
plot of peak amplitude against excitation frequency is shown in Figure 4.3 and it is observed
that the first sloshing frequency is 0.60 Hz.
9.0E+05
8.0E+05
7.0E+05
Peak Amplitude (N)
6.0E+05
5.0E+05
4.0E+05
3.0E+05
2.0E+05
1.0E+05
0.0E+00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
Frequency (Hz)
4.3.4
Comparison of results for fluid fill ratios
Figure 4.4 shows the comparison of the results for the 3 fluid fill ratios. It is observed that:
a) the sloshing frequency for the perforated baffled vessel remains unchanged with
increasing fill ratio. This seems to differ somewhat from the results for un-baffled
vessels where for fluid fill ratios less than 0.3, the sloshing frequency decreases with
decreasing fill ratio.
However, it must be noted that the fill ratios for the baffled and un-baffled vessels are
not directly comparable as the baffles compartmentalise the flow to the extent that the
fill ratio is actually higher than that for an un-baffled vessel.
It is difficult to assign an accurate value to the fill ratio for the baffled vessel due to the
perforations in the baffles which allow fluid to move between the different
compartments. However, a simple estimate can be obtained by dividing the fluid height
by the length between the baffles. As such, the fluid fill ratios for the baffled vessel
correspond to 0.45, 0.60 and 0.75 for the un-baffled vessel.
b) The peak amplitude of the output force increases with increasing fill ratio. For a rigid
vessel, the output force on the vessel comprises of the sloshing component and the
19
rigid-impulsive component. The rigid-impulsive component will increase due to the

increased mass of fluid with increasing fill ratios.
c) The peak amplitude for the perforated baffled vessel is higher that that for the unbaffled vessel. This relates to the fact that the increased mass (due to the baffles) leads
to higher forces on the vessel.
d) Applying the formula for the rigid rectangular vessel gives a first sloshing frequency of
0.38 for the baffled vessel with fluid height of 1.2m i.e. approximately 0.60 fluid fill
ratio. The significant difference between the sloshing frequencies may be due to the
perforations in the baffles which allow movement of fluid between the compartments.
9.0E+05
8.0E+05
Fluid Fill Ratio 0.15
7.0E+05

Peak Amplitude (N)
6.0E+05
5.0E+05
4.0E+05
3.0E+05
2.0E+05
1.0E+05
0.0E+00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 4.4: Comparison of results for 3 fluid fill ratios
20
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
CONCLUSIONS
This study has described a procedure for determining the first sloshing frequency for both unbaffled and baffled horizontal, cylindrical, rigid vessels with flat ends. The procedure can be
summarised as follows:
a) apply known forcing excitations to a finite element model of the rigid vessel
b) output the force on the rigid element
c) carry out a Fourier transformation of the force
d) plot the peak amplitude from the Fourier transforms against excitation frequency and
e) estimate the sloshing frequency
From the limited set of analyses carried out, it can be concluded that:
The Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (ALE) formulation can be used to model both the unbaffled and the vessel with perforated baffles. The perforations can be modelled
numerically by removing elements from the baffle mesh.
The result for the un-baffled vessel showed good correlation with the codified equation for
a rigid rectangular tank. This provides justification for the procedure adopted in this study.
In addition, it also shows that the expression for the rigid rectangular tank can be applied to
un-baffled, horizontal, cylindrical rigid vessels with flat ends.
The results for the baffled vessel show that the sloshing frequency remain unchanged at
approximately 0.60 Hz for the 3 fluid fill ratios considered.
The first sloshing frequency for the baffled vessel is higher than that predicted from the
codified equations for the rigid rectangular tank for a similar fill ratio. This has been
attributed to the perforations in the baffles which lead to a more complex response.
However, it is not possible to provide definite guidance due to the limited scope of this
study.
21
22
REFERENCES
1. The Steel Construction Institute, Fluid Structure Interaction Effects on and Dynamic
Response of Pressure Vessels and Tanks Subjected to Dynamic Loading Part 1: State-ofthe-art review, HSE Report, 2005
2. MSC Dytran 2002 r2 Theory Manual, MSC Software Ltd, 2002
3. The Steel Construction Institute, Fluid Structure Interaction Effects on and Dynamic
Response of Pressure Vessels and Tanks Subjected to Dynamic Loading Part 3: Dynamic
Analysis of Pressure Vessel under Earthquake, Ship Impact and Blast Loading, HSE
Report, 2005
4.
Priestley, M.J.N (Ed.), Seismic Design of Storage Tanks, Recommendations of a study

group of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 1986
23
24
APPENDIX 1
Figure A1.1: Fourier decomposition of output force on rigid element for simplified 3D model of
un-baffled vessel (Excitation Frequency = 0.025 Hz)
25
26
27
28
Figure A1.10: Fourier decomposition of output force on rigid element for simplified 3D model
of un-baffled vessel (Excitation Frequency = 0.100 Hz)
29
30
31
32
33
34
APPENDIX 2
Fourier results for Baffled Vessel Fluid Fill Ratio 0.15
1 .10
7.17710
fForce5 .10
23.953
0.5
1.5
2
2
freq
Figure A2.1: Fourier decomposition of output force on rigid element for full 3D model of
baffled vessel (Excitation Frequency = 0.125 Hz)
1.30210
1.5 .10
1 .10
5 .10
fForce
13.363
0.5
freq
1.5
2
2
35
3 .10
2.66810
2 .10
fForce
1 .10
41.362
0.5
1.5
2
2
freq
3 .10
2.63110
2 .10
fForce
1 .10
7.94
0.5
freq
1.5
2
2
36
6 .10
4.08110
4 .10
fForce
2 .10
25.977
0.5
1.5
2
2
freq
3 .10
2.98110
2 .10
fForce
1 .10
43.861
0.5
freq
1.5
2
2
37
2 .10
1.56110
fForce1 .10
19.524
0.5
1.5
2
2
freq
1 .10
8.49910
fForce5 .10
13.815
0.5
freq
1.5
2
2
38
1 .10
7.46510
fForce5 .10
36.992
0.5
freq
1.5
39
40
APPENDIX 3
1.06110
1.5 .10
1 .10
5 .10
fForce
35.9
0.5
1.5
2
2
freq
2 .10
1.65310
fForce1 .10
12.994
0.5
freq
1.5
2
2
41
4 .10
3.28910
fForce2 .10
18.72
0.5
1.5
freq
2
2
4 .10
3.16910
fForce2 .10
21.81
0.5
1
freq
1.5
2
2
42
6 .10
5.82710
4 .10
fForce
2 .10
38.546
0.5
1.5
freq
2
2
6 .10
4.27110
4 .10
fForce
2 .10
30.657
0.5
1
freq
1.5
2
2
43
3 .10
2.21610
2 .10
fForce
1 .10
24.708
0.5
1.5
freq
2
2
1.5 .10
1.19910
1 .10
fForce
5 .10
21.514
0.5
1
freq
1.5
2
2
44
1.5 .10
1.210
1 .10
fForce
5 .10
40.319
0
0
0.5
1
freq
1.5
2
2
45
46
APPENDIX 4
2 .10
1.55410
fForce1 .10
74.117
0.5
1.5
freq
2
2
3 .10
2.51110
2 .10
fForce
1 .10
18.826
0.5
1
freq
1.5
2
2
47
4 .10
3.9310
fForce2 .10
34.16
0.5
1.5
freq
2
2
4 .10
3.51610
fForce2 .10
43.111
0.5
1
freq
1.5
2
2
48
1 .10
7.92510
fForce5 .10
23.166
0.5
1.5
freq
2
2
1 .10
6.11110
fForce5 .10
10.871
0.5
1
freq
1.5
2
2
49
4 .10
3.07410
fForce2 .10
40.547
0.5
1.5
freq
2
2
3 .10
2.07810
2 .10
fForce
1 .10
64.325
0.5
1
freq
1.5
2
2
50
3 .10
2.43710
2 .10
fForce
1 .10
39.79
0.5
1
freq
1.5
51
Health and Safety

Executive

Part 3: Dynamic analysis of pressure vessel under
earthquake, ship impact and blast loading
Silwood Park
Ascot
Berks
SL5 7QN
tanks subjected to dynamic loading, this report details the findings of a series of explicit dynamic analyses on a
computer modelled horizontal, cylindrical pressure vessel with semi-ellipsoidal heads, mounted on saddle supports.
Using MSC Dytran software, the vessel was subjected to time history earthquake, blast and ship impact loadings. The
results show that in the longitudinal direction, the tank-fluid system behaves essentially as a rigid body with small
sloshing amplitude. Significant cross-sectional distortion is seen in the lateral direction with the maximum effects
occurring in the centre of the tank. High stresses (90% of yield) occur in the extreme fibres of the tank shell structure at
the supports. These, together with stresses from the operating internal pressure could lead to yielding.
HSE Books

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their thanks to Mr Edwin Devries for his advice and technical
support in using the software MSC Dytran. Our thanks also go to Mr Nigel Atkinson of MSC
Software in providing a discounted cost for the software.
iii
iv
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
VII
INTRODUCTION
1.1 VESSEL CONFIGURATION ON OFFSHORE PLATFORMS
1.2 MODELLING OF FLUID-STRUCTURE INTERACTION PROBLEM
1.3 ARBITRARY LAGRANGIAN EULERIAN FORMULATION
1.4 NUMERICAL CONSIDERATIONS
1.4.1
TIME STEP SIZE
1.4.2
ENERGY BALANCE
1.4.3
MASS SCALING AND SUBCYCLING

1.5 MODELLING OF TANK, SADDLE SUPPORTS AND FLUID
1.5.1
MESHING DETAILS AND ASSUMPTIONS

1.6 LATERAL EXCITATIONS
10
FLUID-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF STRESSES IN TANK STRUCTURE
16
16
17
2.2.1
TIME HISTORY VARIATION OF STRESSES
17
2.2.2
LONGITUDINAL VARIATION OF EFFECTIVE STRESS IN TANK
35
2.2.3
CIRCUMFERENTIAL VARIATION OF EFFECTIVE STRESSES IN TANK
46
2.2.4
VARIATION OF SHELL LAYER STRESSES
46
2.2.5
COMPARISON WITH
RESPONSES
EARTHQUAKE
AND
BLAST
EXCITATION
53
2.2.6
BAFFLED VESSEL RESPONSE

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF FLUID PRESSURES
53
61
2.3.1
TIME HISTORY VARIATION OF FLUID PRESSURES
61
2.3.2
LONGITUDINAL VARIATION OF FLUID PRESSURE
62
2.3.3
CIRCUMFERENTIAL VARIATION OF FLUID PRESSURE
69
2.3.4
RADIAL VARIATION OF FLUID PRESSURE
69
2.3.5
VARIATION OF FLUID PRESSURE IN BAFFLED VESSEL
76
2.3.6
FLUID PRESSURE VARIATION IN VESSEL UNDER EARTHQUAKE AND
BLAST EXCITATIONS
2.4 COMPARISON BETWEEN ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND SIMPLIFIED
MODEL
2.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS
76
88
90
vi
CONCLUSIONS
3.1 FURTHER WORK
92
93
REFERENCES
94
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A series of explicit dynamic analyses were carried out on a horizontal, cylindrical pressure
vessel with semi-ellipsoidal heads on saddle supports. The vessel was subjected to time history
earthquake, blast and ship impact loadings.
The analyses were performed using the software MSC Dytran which is well suited to deal with
fluid-structure problems. The Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (ALE) method was used whereby
the structure is modelled using Lagrangian elements while Eulerian elements are used for the
fluid model. The structural and Eulerian regions are subsequently coupled by ALE surfaces
where the structure serves as a boundary condition for the Eulerian region at the interfaces.
The results have shown that in the longitudinal direction (i.e. along the length of the tank), the
tank-fluid system behaves essentially as a rigid body with small sloshing amplitude. In the
lateral direction, the tank exhibits significant cross-sectional distortion with the maximum
occurring at the centre of the tank. This arises mainly due to the significant flexibility of the
tank away from the stiff ends.
It was also noted that high stresses (90% of yield) occur in the extreme fibres of the tank shell
structure at the supports. Superposition of these stresses with the stresses from the operating
internal pressure may lead to yielding.
A baffled vessel was also analysed and the results showed that the presence of the baffles
significantly reduces the stresses in the tank structure.
A comparison of the numerical results with code predictions was carried out. The latter was
based on the approximate procedure for rectangular tanks. As expected, the comparison showed
significant differences. It is recommended that further studies be carried out to derive design
guidance for horizontal cylindrical tanks with semi-0ellipsoidal heads.
vii
viii
INTRODUCTION
1.1 VESSEL CONFIGURATION ON OFFSHORE PLATFORMS

Tanks and pressure vessels are prominent on offshore production platforms where they perform
various functions, which include diesel storage, separators, scrubbers, surge vessels and drums,
coalescers, filters and heat exchangers. A typical layout is shown in Figure 1.The geometry and
configuration of these tanks and pressure vessels differ according to the functional
requirements. Rectangular tanks on elevated braced supports (Figure 2) are predominantly used
for diesel storage while pressure vessels constitute a large proportion of production vessels
where the configuration are either vertical or horizontal cylinders each with dished ends.
Typical examples of the latter configurations are shown in Figures 3-4.
The vertical pressure vessels are usually welded to a continuous skirt, which is bolted to the
deck structure (Figure 3). These vessels have high aspect ratios (H/R between 10 to 12) and
small diameters (typically 600mm). The convective or sloshing pressures due to the fluid will
not be significant for such vessels and the fluid mass can be assumed to move in unison with the
tank under lateral excitation. The design complexity for such vessels lies in the number of
attachment points, which results in differential accelerations being experienced by the vessel at
the various support levels.
Horizontal cylindrical pressure vessels are fixed to two saddle supports (Figure 4), which are
bolted to the deck structure. These vessels are the most common production vessels and the
internal layout varies according to the functional requirements. Typically, such vessels will have
internal baffles and various internal components such as vane packs, vortex breakers and splash
plates, which will affect the fluid flow dynamics. The lateral excitation will result in both
longitudinal (along length of tank) and lateral sloshing modes being excited with the sloshing
magnitude governed by the dimensions of the tank, the fluid level and the magnitude and
frequency content of the excitation.
Due to the prevalence of horizontal cylindrical pressure vessels with semi-ellipsoidal heads and
the dearth of simplified design methods for such vessels under lateral excitation, the subsequent
dynamic finite element analyses are geared towards understanding the behaviour of such vessels
under various dynamic loadings and assessing the contribution of hydrodynamic pressure
components to the effective wall and saddle support stresses.
Figure 1 Typical Layout of Equipment on Offshore Module
Figure 2 Typical Rectangular Tank for Diesel Storage on Offshore Module
Figure 3 Typical Vertical Cylindrical Tank on Offshore Module
Figure 4 Typical Horizontal Cylindrical Tank on Offshore Module
1.2 MODELLING OF FLUID-STRUCTURE INTERACTION PROBLEM

The dynamic finite element analyses for the horizontal cylindrical vessels with semi-ellipsoidal
heads were carried out using the MSC Dytran software, which is based on explicit time domain
methods. The software, developed by MSC Software Ltd, is well suited to dealing with fluidstructure interaction problems via a general coupling algorithm or an arbitrary Lagrangian
Eulerian formulation. The general coupling algorithm is usually used for complex shapes
undergoing arbitrary motions. For the vessel under consideration, the arbitrary Lagrangian
Eulerian (ALE) formulation provides a faster solution without compromising the accuracy of
the solution.
1.3 ARBITRARY LAGRANGIAN EULERIAN FORMULATION
Lagrangian meshes are particularly suited for the modelling of the structural elements as the
elements deform with the material. Since the boundary nodes remain on the boundary
throughout the evolution of the problem, the imposition of boundary conditions in Lagrangian
meshes is straightforward. However, when the material undergoes severe deformation, the
Lagrangian elements become similarly distorted and the accuracy of the elements deteriorates
rapidly.
In the Eulerian method, the mesh is fixed in space while material flows through it. Eulerian
meshes are, therefore, unchanged by the deformation of the material so that there is no
degradation in accuracy of the elements due to material deformation. However, in Eulerian
meshes, boundary nodes do not remain coincident with the boundary which requires the
imposition of boundary conditions at points which are not nodes leading to severe
complications.
The Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian formulation is a hybrid technique that combines the
advantages of both the Eulerian and Lagrangian meshes. ALE descriptions are arbitrary
combinations of the Eulerian and Lagrangian descriptions where arbitrary refers to the fact that
the combination is specified by the user through selection of a mesh motion. The structure is
modelled using Lagrangian elements while Eulerian elements are used for the fluid model. The
structure and Eulerian regions are subsequently coupled by ALE surfaces where the structure
serves as a boundary condition for the Eulerian region at the interfaces. The Eulerian material
exerts a pressure on the structure at the interface causing deformation of the structure which
results in a modification of the fluid flow field and hence in fluid-structure interaction.
1.4 NUMERICAL CONSIDERATIONS
In explicit time domain finite element analysis, several factors govern the accuracy, stability and
cost of the solution. A good description of these factors is provided in the MSC Dytran
Reference Manual [1] and by Belytschko et. al. [2]. A brief overview of these salient parameters
is presented below.
1.4.1
Time Step Size
The time step size is usually set by the requirements to maintain stability of the integration
scheme (usually central difference scheme). Explicit time integration is robust (i.e. procedure
seldom aborts due to failure of numerical algorithm) but conditionally stable which implies that
if the time step size exceeds a critical value tcrit, the solution grows unboundedly. The critical
time step is given by the Courant condition, which states that the critical time step must be
smaller than the smallest natural period in the mesh for stability. This implies that the critical
time step decreases with mesh refinement and increasing stiffness of the material. The cost of an
explicit analysis is therefore dependent only on the size of the model and the number of time
steps.
1.4.2
Energy Balance
For non-linear problems, it is possible for instabilities to develop even when the Courant
condition is observed. Such instabilities are not readily discernible by examining the results and
can lead to large overprediction of displacements. Such instabilities are known as arrested
instabilities and can be detected by an energy balance check due to the fact that they generate
spurious energies, which lead to violation of the law of conservation of energy. Hence, in nonlinear problems, energy balance can be used to check whether stability is maintained during the
computational cycles.
1.4.3
Mass Scaling and Subcycling
The Courant condition imposes severe restrictions on the size of the time step to be used in an
explicit analysis. The problem is particularly acute when the FE model contains only a few very
small or stiff elements as the time step is set by these elements. Methods to circumvent this
problem include:

Mass Scaling: Masses of the stiffer elements are increased so that the time step size is not
unduly reduced by these elements. Mass scaling is however not recommended in problems
where high frequency effects are important.
Subcycling: A smaller time step is used for the very small or stiff elements. In this case, the
model is divided into subdomains with each subdomain integrated with its own stable time
step.
1.5 MODELLING OF TANK, SADDLE SUPPORTS AND FLUID

The configuration and geometry of the tank selected for the dynamic finite element analyses is
shown in Figure 5. The tank is fixed on saddle supports, which are bolted to the deck structure.
Typically, the tank has several internal components and nozzle attachments, which affect the
fluid flow and the distribution of stresses in the tank wall respectively.
2:1 Ellipsoidal Head
Baffles
4.5m
3.7 m
1.125 m
9.2 m
1.2 m
11.6 m
1.2 m
Figure 5 Horizontal Cylindrical Pressure Vessel with Semi-Ellipsoidal Heads (Liquid

Level = 3m)
However, given the variability in the layout of the internal components and nozzle attachments
and the added modelling complexity, the subsequent finite element analyses were carried out for
a tank without any internal components (apart from the baffles) and nozzle attachments. The
effect of these components/nozzle attachments on the flow characteristics and the distribution of
stresses in the tank structure need to be assessed in a separate study.
The dimensions for the selected tank were obtained from an actual knockout free water vessel.
The thickness of the tank structure and support plates were:
Tank Shell Thickness: 33mm
Support Bottom Plate: 30mm
Support Stiffener Plate: 20mm
Support Web Plate:
25mm
Support Top Plate:
33mm
Baffle Thickness:
6mm
The operating pressure of the vessel is 8.0 bars with a design pressure of 27 bars. A summary of
the element types and material types and properties is given in Table 1.
Element Type
Material
Density (kg/m3)
Yield Stress
(N/mm2)
Tank
4 noded Shell
Steel
7850
385
Saddle
4 noded Shell
Steel
7850
385
Fluid
8 noded Solid
Water
1000
Table 1 Element Types and Material Properties

The 4 noded shell element is based on the Key-Hoff formulation, which is an improved version
of the Belytschko-Tsay formulation as it can deal with warped element geometries. The shell
element uses a 3-point Gauss integration and a transverse shear correction factor of 0.83333.
The material properties for the shell element are assumed to be isotropic, elastoplastic with a
Von Mises failure criterion. The 8 noded solid element uses one point Gauss integration and the
material in the element has a stress tensor that consists only of the hydrodynamic pressure
thereby being cheap to use.
1.5.1
Meshing Details and Assumptions
The mesh for the tank shell, saddle supports and the Eulerian region is shown in Figures 6 and 7
respectively. The mesh is refined at the support locations to accommodate the width of the
support plates. To enable ALE coupling, the Eulerian mesh has the same degree of refinement
as the Lagrangian mesh for the tank shell structure. This results in coinciding nodes at the
interface between the Eulerian and Lagrangian meshes which are subsequently coupled via an
ALE formulation. The Eulerian region is divided into 2 sub-regions, which comprise of a fluid
region and a void region. As no material model is used to describe the void, the minimum
pressure for the fluid is set to 1.0 bar. The equation of state for the fluid is polynomial in nature
where the pressure is related to the relative volume and specific internal energy via a cubic
equation.
Figure 6 Meshing Details for Tank and Saddle Supports (4-noded shell elements)
Figure 7 Meshing Details for Eulerian Region (8-noded solid elements)

1.6 LATERAL EXCITATIONS
The velocity time histories for the earthquake, ship impact and blast excitations were obtained
from the Eatec study [3]. The time histories and corresponding acceleration response spectra are
shown in Figures 8-13. The blast loading time history is of very short duration compared to the
earthquake and ship impact loading and has the slightly higher peak velocity. Comparison of the
secondary response spectra shows that:

the blast loading (Y-direction), as defined in Figure 11, has higher acceleration values
(peak value of 1.35g at 8 Hz) at all frequencies. There is also no well-defined tail region
with peaks occurring at frequencies of 19 Hz (1.3g) and 40 Hz (0.85g)
most of the energy in the earthquake loading is concentrated at low frequencies (0.05 4.0
Hz). The acceleration tails off to the zero period ground acceleration (ZPA) at higher
frequencies and is relatively low (0.15g X direction, 0.055g Y direction) compared to
the blast loading accelerations at similar frequencies
the X direction ship impact response spectrum is similar to the earthquake spectra with
high energy content at low frequencies and tailing off to an acceleration of approximately
0.095g at higher frequencies. In the Y direction, there is quite high energy content at the
higher frequencies (similar to the blast loading) characterised by secondary peaks. The
acceleration values (0.25 0.3g) at these peaks are, however, substantially lower than the
corresponding blast loading accelerations at similar frequencies.
10
0.40
0.30
Velocity (m/s)
0.20
0.10
X-Direction
Y-Direction
0.00
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
Time (sec)
Figure 8 Ve lco i yt Time Hi to

sry
11
Fo
r Bla st Exci at ti o
n
1.50
0.30
0.20
Velocity (m/s)
0.10
0.00
X-Direction
Y-Direction
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30
-0.40
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
Time (sec)
Figure 9 Velocity Time History For Earthquake Excitation
12
10.00
0.40
0.30
0.20
Velocity (m/s)
0.10
X-Direction
0.00
Y-Direction
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30
-0.40
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
Time (sec)
Figure 10 Velocity Time History For Ship Impact Loading

1.60
1.40
1.20
Acceleration (g)
1.00
Blast X-Dir
0.80
Blast Y-Dir
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 11 Secondary Response Spectra For Blast Excitation
13
40.0
0.45
0.40
0.35
Acceleration (g)
0.30
0.25
Earthquake X-Dir
Earthquake Y-Dir
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Freauency (Hz)
Figure 12 Secondary Response Spectra For Earthquake Excitation
0.70
0.60
Acceleration (g)
0.50
0.40
Ship Impact - X-Dir
Ship Impact Y-Dir
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 13 Secondary Response Spectra For Ship Impact Excitation
14
Fluid-Structure Interaction Analysis and Results
2.1 INTRODUCTION
A series of dynamic finite element analyses have been carried out to assess the structural
response of the tank and the fluid response under different lateral excitations. The analyses and
results pertain mainly to the un-baffled vessel. However, the effect of baffles on the stresses in
the vessel wall and on the fluid pressures was also examined. Unless otherwise specified, the
subsequent description of the analyses and results pertain to the un-baffled vessel. The analyses
included
Blast Excitation X (longitudinal) and Y (lateral) directions simultaneously

Earthquake Excitation X and Y directions simultaneously
Ship Impact Excitation X direction only
Ship Impact Excitation Y direction only
Ship Impact X and Y directions simultaneously
The time history, longitudinal and circumferential variation of stresses in the tank shell and the
fluid pressures were obtained at various locations. The variation of stresses and fluid pressures
along the length of the tank (i.e. between the right-cylinder-ellipsoid junction and left-cylinderellipsoid junction) is shown at the following heights:
Bottom of tank
Horn of Saddle i.e. level at junction between outer saddle plate stiffener and tank structure
Free Surface level of quiescent fluid (3m above bottom of tank)
Top of tank
The circumferential variation of stresses/fluid pressures are shown at the following locations:
Right-cylinder-ellipsoid-junction
Right support location
Right baffle location for comparison between baffled/un-baffled vessels
Centre of tank
The time history variation of the stresses and fluid pressures is also shown at the same locations
albeit for 3 elements only (corresponding to heights at bottom of tank, horn of saddle and free
surface) at each location. Only results to the right of the centre of the tank are shown as the
distribution of stresses/fluid pressures can be assumed to be symmetrical (section 2.2.2 and
section 2.3.2).
Further insight into the effect of the hydrodynamic components is provided by comparison
against static results for the fluid-filled vessel and against results from dynamic analyses of the
empty tank under the same lateral excitations.
The state of stress is described in terms of an effective (Von Mises) stress at the mid-layer of the
shell. The stresses in the inner and outer layers of the shell can be higher (although the trend in
behaviour is the same) than the mid-layer stress depending on the direction of the stress
component due to bending. However, for purposes of comparison and assessment of the
15
behaviour of the tank structure, only the mid-layer stress values are quoted unless otherwise
indicated.
For the ship impact excitation (X and Y directions simultaneously), the effective stress is
broken down into its components (i.e. longitudinal stress, circumferential stress and tangential
shear stress) to provide a thorough description of the distribution of stresses in the tank structure
and saddle supports.
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF STRESSES IN TANK STRUCTURE
The first part of the results examines the distribution of stresses in the vessel structure under the
different lateral excitations. The main focus of the results in on the ship impact excitation, as the
input accelerations in this case are significantly higher than the corresponding earthquake
excitations. Although the magnitude of the accelerations for the blast excitation is higher than
that for the ship impact excitation, the duration is much shorter (1.5 sec). However, a
comparison of the time history response for the various excitations is provided and the
differences in response are highlighted.
The resultant stresses in the vessel wall are also highlighted by comparison against static and
empty tank results. Finally, the fluid pressure contribution is addressed to provide further insight
into the contribution of the various hydrodynamic components to the overall response of the
vessel.
2.2.1
Time History Variation of Stresses
The variation of effective stresses at different levels and locations under different ship impact
excitation scenarios is shown in Figures 14-17 for the X-direction excitation, Figures 18-21 for
the Y-direction excitation and Figures 22-25 for the combined X and Y direction excitations.
Comparison of the results leads to the following observations:

The main contribution to the effective stresses results from the Y-direction excitation. The
peak stress in the tank structure due to the X-direction excitation only occurs at
approximately 0.1 sec and is significantly lower than the maximum peak stress due to the
Y-direction excitation only.
Highest peak stresses occur at the level of the horn of the saddle at the support locations.
The peak stresses at the various heights decay rapidly after 1.3 sec tailing off to nearly
constant values beyond 5.0 sec. The latter values correspond approximately to the stress
level under static conditions (Figures 26-27) where it is noted that the maximum stress
occurs in the region of the horn of the saddle.
The stress at the free surface level increases towards the centre of the tank in the case of the
Y-direction and XY-direction excitations. This results primarily from the increased
flexibility of the tank away from the stiff ends and supports, which leads to increased
lateral deformations.
For the Y direction excitation only and the combined X and Y direction excitation, the
variation of effective stresses is of the damped periodic type with a predominant period of
approximately 0.5 sec. The stress amplitude at time t = 1.3 sec is approximately halved in
about 2 to 3 cycles which suggests a damping ratio between 4 to 5% of critical in the tankfluid modes of vibration.
The low stresses in the tank structure due to the X-direction excitation only was further
investigated by applying the Y excitation values in the X-direction. The results are shown in
Figures 28-31 and it is observed that the magnitude on the peak stresses has undergone no
16
significant change. The difference in the level of stresses in the two excitation directions lies in
the fact that the X-direction motion results in a rigid-body displacement of the structure as
shown in Figures 32-33. The X displacements along the length of the tank and in the
circumferential direction are approximately the same for all nodal points at the various time
instants shown.
17
14.0
12.0
Effective Stress (N/mm^2)
10.0
8.0
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Time (sec)
Figure 14 Variation of Effective Stress with Time at Right-Cylinder-Ellipsoid-Junction

(Ship Impact X Direction)
30.0
25.0
20.0
Bottom of Tank
15.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Time (sec)
Figure 15 Variation of Effective Stress with Time at Right Support Location (Ship Impact
X Direction)
18
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
Bottom of Tank
8.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Time (sec)
Figure 16 Variation of Effective Stress with Time at Right Baffle Location (Ship Impact
X Direction)
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Time (sec)
Figure 17 Variation of Effective Stress with Time at Centre of Tank (Ship Impact X
Direction)
19
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
Bottom of Tank
50.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Time (sec)

(Ship Impact Y Direction)
160.0
140.0
120.0
100.0
Bottom of Tank
80.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Time (sec)
Y Direction)
20
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
Bottom of Tank
20.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Time (sec)
Y Direction)
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
Bottom of Tank
20.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Time (sec)
Figure 21 Variation of Effective Stresses with Time at Centre of Tank (Ship Impact Y
Direction)
21
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
Bottom of Tank
50.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)

(Ship Impact XY Direction)
160.0
140.0
120.0
100.0
Bottom of Tank
80.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
XY Direction)
22
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
Bottom of Tank
20.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
XY Direction)
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
Bottom of Tank
20.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
Figure 25 Variation of Effective Stress with Time at Centre of Tank (Ship Impact XY
Direction)
23
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
8.0
Free Surface
Top of Tank
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Distance Along Tank (m)
Figure 26 Variation of Effective Stress at Various Heights along Length of Tank (Static)
16.0
Right Cylinder to Ellipsoid Junction
Right Support location
Right Baffle Location
14.0
Centre of Tank
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Circumferential Height (m)
Figure 27 Circumferential Variation of Effective Stress at Various Locations (Static)
24
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Time (sec)

(Ship Impact X Direction Y Excitation Values)
30.0
25.0
20.0
Bottom of Tank
15.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Time (sec)
X Direction Y Excitation values)
25
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Time (sec)
X Direction Y Excitation Values)
26
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Time (sec)
Figure 31 Variation of Effective Stress with Time at Centre of Tank (Ship Impact X
Direction Y Excitation Values)
65.0
60.0
Displacement (mm)
55.0
50.0
t = 0.4 sec
t = 1.1 sec
t = 1.5 sec
t = 2.1 sec
t = 2.8 sec
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 32 Circumferential Variation of Longitudinal (X) Displacement at Right-CylinderEllipsoid-Junction (Ship Impact X Direction Y Excitation Values)
27
65.0
60.0
Displacement (mm)
55.0
50.0
t = 0.4 sec
t = 1.1 sec
t = 1.5 sec
t = 2.1 sec
t = 2.8 sec
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
-7.00
-6.00
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Figure 33 Variation of Longitudinal (X) Displacement along Centre of Tank (Ship Impact
X Direction Y Excitation Values)
It is therefore possible to assume that the forces/moments, generated by the longitudinal (along
the length of the tank) motion of the tank, consists of contributions from the rigid-impulsive and
sloshing components.
Examination of the lateral (Y) displacement pattern (Figures 34-37) under the Y direction
excitation shows that the maximum displacement occurs at the centre of the tank with a
maximum relative displacement of approximately 14mm between the cylinder to ellipsoid
junction and the centre of the tank. Circumferentially, the maximum displacement occurs just
above the centre line of the tank with a maximum relative displacement of approximately 45mm
between the latter nodal position and the bottom of the tank (Figure 37).
This is consistent with the increase in stress level in the region of the free surface towards the
centre of the tank observed earlier. The fluid motion in the lateral direction causes a bulging out
and ovalling of the tank and the circumferential distortion increases from the cylinder-ellipsoidjunction towards the centre of the tank. In this particular case, both sloshing and flexibleimpulsive (i.e. coupled fluid-tank) modes of vibration are excited.
The effect of the flexible-impulsive and sloshing modes is better illustrated by comparison
against results from an empty tank under the same lateral excitation. This is shown in Figures
38-41 and it is noted that

The rapid decay in the peak effective stresses for the fluid-filled tank under the
simultaneous application of the X and Y excitations contrasts with the steady decrease in
peak stresses in the case of the empty tank under similar excitation. This suggests a high
level of damping in the fluid-filled tank. As mentioned earlier, the damping level in the
flexible-impulsive modes is found to be approximately 4 to 5% of critical. In the case of
28
the empty tank, there is no significant inherent energy dissipation mechanism, which
explains the higher peak stresses beyond 4.0 sec.
Although the stress level is significantly higher in the tank-fluid system, the variation in
stress at the different locations with time, in the empty tank case, is similar with the
maximum peak stress again occurring at the level of the horn of the saddle at the support
locations. The peak stresses at the level of the free surface, at the centre of the tank, in the
case of the empty tank are, however, approximately the same as those at the level of the
horn of the saddle and at the bottom of the tank (cf. Figures 25 and 41). This is due to the
fact that there is less cross-sectional distortion of the tank shell (no sloshing and coupled
fluid-tank motion) in this case compared to the fluid-filled tank.
65.0
60.0
Displacement (mm)
55.0
50.0
t = 1.1 sec
t = 1.3 sec
t = 1.6 sec
t = 2.3 sec
t = 2.8 sec
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 34 Variation of Lateral (Y) Displacement along Bottom of Tank (Ship Impact Y
Direction)
29
90.0
85.0
80.0
Displacement (mm)
75.0
t = 1.1 sec
70.0
t = 1.3 sec
t = 1.6 sec
t = 2.3 sec
65.0
t = 2.8 sec
60.0
55.0
50.0
45.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 35 Variation of Lateral (Y) Displacement along Centre of Tank (Ship Impact Y
Direction)
80.0
75.0
70.0
Displacement (mm)
65.0
t = 1.1 sec
60.0
t = 1.3 sec
t = 1.6 sec
t = 2.3 sec
55.0
t = 2.8 sec
50.0
45.0
40.0
35.0
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 36 Circumferential Variation of Lateral (Y) Displacement at Right-CylinderEllipsoid-Junction (Ship Impact Y Direction)
30
90.0
80.0
Displacement (mm)
70.0
t = 1.1 sec
t = 1.3 sec
60.0
t = 1.6 sec
t = 2.3 sec
t = 2.8 sec
50.0
40.0
30.0
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 37 Circumferential Variation of Lateral (Y) Displacement at Centre of Tank (Ship

Impact Y Direction)
31
30.0
25.0
20.0
Bottom of Tank
15.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)

(Ship Impact XY Direction Empty Tank)
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
XY Direction Empty Tank)
32
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
Bottom of Tank
10.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
Figure 41 Variation of Effective Stress with Time at Centre of Tank (Ship Impact XY
Direction Empty Tank)
33
2.2.2
Longitudinal Variation of Effective Stress in Tank
The variation of stress along the length of the tank at various locations is shown in Figures 4245 for the empty tank and in Figures 46-49 for the fluid-filled tank. Both sets of results pertain
to the simultaneous application of the X and Y excitations with the results quoted at the
respective peak effective stresses in the time histories. It is observed that the trend is similar in
both cases and it is noted that

The maximum stress occurs at the level of the horn of the saddle at the support locations as
noted earlier. High stresses are also generated at the junction between the cylinder and
ellipsoidal head at the level of the bottom of the tank.
Stresses along the top of the tank for the fluid-filled vessel are higher than for the empty
vessel due to the increased cross-sectional distortion and sloshing of the fluid.
At the level of the free surface, the maximum stress for the fluid-filled tank exceeds that for
the empty tank by a factor of approximately 2.8. This can be attributed to a combination of
fluid sloshing and coupled fluid-tank motion.
Comparison against static stress distribution for both the empty tank and fluid-filled tank is
shown in Figures 50-57 via a normalised effective stress. The latter is obtained by dividing the
stress in the element (for the fluid-filled and empty vessels under simultaneous X and Y
excitations) by the corresponding static stress value for a fluid-filled tank. The results show that
the dynamic excitation induces large differences at the cylinder to ellipsoid junctions and at the
support locations. The substantially higher normalised stresses at the centre of the tank along the
free surface reflect the fact that the static stress value at the location is very low (0.1 N/mm2)
compared to the dynamic stresses (approximately 16 N/mm2 for empty tank and approximately
40 N/mm2 for the fluid-filled tank). The latter arises primarily from the lateral deformation of
the tank due to the combination of sloshing, rigid-impulsive and flexible-impulsive modes of
vibration mentioned earlier.
The breakdown of the effective stress into its various components for the fluid-filled tank under
lateral excitation is shown in Figures 58-61 at a time instant of 1.3 sec (where the peak stress
occurs). It is observed that

The maximum longitudinal stress component at the bottom of the tank is consistent with
overall longitudinal bending with maximum longitudinal stresses occurring at the supports
and at mid-span.
The high tangential shear stresses at the cylinder to ellipsoid junctions are consistent with
the fact the head stiffens the shell in the region of the saddle supports. This causes most of
the tangential shear stresses to be carried across the saddle to the head and then the load is
transferred back to the head side of the saddle.
The high circumferential stresses at the support locations at the level of the horn of the
saddle are due to the fact that the load must be transferred from the shell to the supports.
34
25.0
20.0
15.0
t = 1.15 sec
t = 1.90 sec
t = 2.85 sec
t = 4.65 sec
t = 5.50 sec
10.0
5.0
0.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 42 Variation of Effective Stress along Level of Bottom of Tank (Ship Impact
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
t = 1.15 sec
25.0
t = 1.90 sec
t = 2.85 sec
t = 4.65 sec
20.0
t = 5.50 sec
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 43 Variation of Effective Stress along Level of Horn of Saddle (Ship Impact
35
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
t = 1.15 sec
10.0
t = 1.90 sec
t = 2.85 sec
t = 4.65 sec
8.0
t = 5.50 sec
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 44 Variation of Effective Stress along Level of Free Surface of Tank (Ship Impact
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
t = 1.15 sec
t = 1.90 sec
t = 2.85 sec
t = 4.65 sec
t = 5.50 sec
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Distance Along tank (m)
Figure 45 Variation of Effective Stress along Level of Top of Tank (Ship Impact XY
Direction Empty Tank)
36
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
t = 1.3 sec
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
40.0
t = 2.7 sec
t = 3.2 sec
t = 5.0 sec
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 46 Variation of Effective Stress along Level of Bottom of Tank (Ship Impact XY
Direction)
140.0
120.0
100.0
t = 1.3 sec
80.0
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
t = 2.7 sec
t = 3.2 sec
60.0
t = 5.0 sec
40.0
20.0
0.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 47 Variation of Effective Stress along Level of Horn of Saddle (Ship Impact XY
Direction)
37
50.0
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
t = 1.3 sec
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
25.0
t = 2.7 sec
t = 3.2 sec
t = 5.0 sec
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 48 Variation of Effective Stress along Level of Free Surface of Tank (Ship Impact
XY Direction)
12.0
10.0
8.0
t = 1.3 sec
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
6.0
t = 2.7 sec
t = 3.2 sec
t = 5.0 sec
4.0
2.0
0.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 49 Variation of Effective Stress along Level of Top of Tank (Ship Impact XY
Direction)
38
12.0
10.0
Normalised Effective Stress
8.0
t = 1.15 sec
t = 1.90 sec
6.0
t = 2.85 sec
t = 4.65 sec
t = 5.50 sec
4.0
2.0
0.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 50 Variation of Normalised Effective Stress along Level of Bottom of Tank (Ship
Impact XY Direction Empty Tank)
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
t = 1.15 sec
t = 1.90 sec
t = 2.85 sec
t = 4.65 sec
t = 5.5 sec
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 51 Variation of Normalised Effective Stress along Level of Horn of Saddle (ship
39
180.0
160.0
140.0
120.0
t = 1.15 sec
100.0
t = 1.90 sec
t = 2.85 sec
t = 4.65 sec
80.0
t = 5.50 sec
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 52 Variation of Normalised Effective Stress along Level of Free Surface of Tank
(Ship Impact XY Direction Empty tank)
12.0
10.0
8.0
t = 1.15 sec
t = 1.90 sec
6.0
t = 2.85 sec
t = 4.65 sec
t = 5.50 sec
4.0
2.0
0.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 53 Variation of Normalised Effective Stress along Level of Top of Tank (Ship
40
25.0
22.5
20.0
17.5
15.0
t = 1.3 sec
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
12.5
t = 2.7 sec
t = 3.2 sec
t = 5.0 sec
10.0
7.5
5.0
2.5
0.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 54 Variation of Normalised Effective Stress along Level of Bottom of Tank (Ship
Impact XY Direction)
12.0
10.0
8.0
t = 1.3 sec
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
6.0
t = 2.7 sec
t = 3.2 sec
t = 5.0 sec
4.0
2.0
0.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 55 Variation of Normalised Effective Stress along Level of Horn of Saddle (Ship
41
400
350
300
250
t = 1.3 sec
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
200
t = 2.7 sec
t = 3.2 sec
t = 5.0 sec
150
100
50
0
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
Figure 56 Variation of Normalised Effective Stress along Level of Free Surface of Tank
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
t = 1.3 sec
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
8.0
t = 2.7 sec
t = 3.2 sec
t = 5.0 sec
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 57 Variation of Normalised Effective Stress along Level of Top of Tank (Ship
42
50.0
40.0
30.0
Stress (N/mm^2)
20.0
10.0
Longitudinal Stress
0.0
Tangential Shear Stress

Circumferential Stress
-10.0
-20.0
-30.0
-40.0
-50.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 58 Variation of Stress Components along Level of Bottom of Tank (Ship Impact
XY Direction t = 1.3 sec)
150.0
100.0
Stress (N/mm^2)
50.0
Longitudinal Stress
0.0

-50.0
-100.0
-150.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 59 Variation of Stress Components along Level of Horn of Saddle (Ship Impact
43
10.0
0.0
Stress (N/mm^2)
-10.0
Longitudinal Stress
-20.0

-30.0
-40.0
-50.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 60 Variation of Stress Components along Level of Free Surface (Ship Impact
8.0
6.0
4.0
Stress (N/mm^2)
2.0
Longitudinal Stress
0.0

-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 61 Variation of Stress Components along Level of Top of Tank (Ship Impact
44
2.2.3
Circumferential Variation of Effective Stresses in Tank
The variation of the effective stresses in the circumferential direction for both the empty and the
fluid-filled tanks is shown in Figure 62-69. Again, the trend is similar in both cases with the
maximum stress occurring in the region of the horn of the saddle and decreasing towards the top
of the tank (circumferential height = 2.25m). The circumferential stress is due to circumferential
bending and is a maximum at the support locations where the load is transferred from the shell
to the saddle and decreases towards the centre of the tank. It is also noted that:

The effective stress at the level of the free surface (circumferential height of approximately
0.77m) at the centre of the tank is higher for the fluid-filled tank (maximum of approx. 17
N/mm2 compared to approx. 5.0 N/mm2 for the empty tank). This is due to the increased
lateral deformation and sloshing from the effects of the fluid motion.
In the region of the free surface, the effective stress is much higher for the fluid-filled tank
towards the centre of the tank. This is due to the increased flexibility of the tank away from
the supports resulting in the motion of the fluid having a greater effect.
The highest effective stress between the level of the centreline of the tank and the top of the
tank at the centre location (Figure 69) for the fluid-filled tank occurs below the level of the
free surface (approximately 0.3m below). In the empty tank case, the highest stress occurs
at a circumferential height of approximately 1.25m at the centre of the tank (about 0.5m
above level of free surface). This shift arises from the combination of the fluid motion
(sloshing and rigid-impulsive modes) and the coupled vessel-fluid modes.
2.2.4
Variation of Shell Layer Stresses
The effective stresses shown in the previous figures pertain to the mid-layer of the shell.
Although the membrane stresses are accounted for, higher stresses will occur in the extreme
fibres of the shell element depending on the direction of the stresses induced by bending.
The stress variation in the shell at the level of the horn of the saddle at the various locations is
shown in Figures 70-73. The trend, as expected, is the same for the various layers. It is
observed, however, that the extreme fibre stresses can be significantly higher than the mid-layer
stresses and at the support location is close to the yield stress of the material (approximately
90% of yield stress). This highlights the fact that the maximum effective stress at the saddle
support junction to the tank structure can exceed the yield stress when the stresses resulting
from the design operating pressure is superposed to those from the lateral excitation.
45
30.0
25.0
20.0
t = 1.15 sec
t = 1.90 sec
15.0
t = 2.85 sec
t = 4.65 sec
t = 5.50 sec
10.0
5.0
0.0
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 62 Circumferential Variation of Effective Stress at Right-Cylinder-EllipsoidJunction (Ship Impact XY Direction Empty Tank)
50.0
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
t = 1.15 sec
t = 1.90 sec
25.0
t = 2.85 sec
t = 4.65 sec
t = 5.50 sec
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 63 Circumferential Variation of Effective Stress at Right Support Location (Ship

46
25.0
20.0
15.0
t = 1.15 sec
t = 1.90 sec
t = 2.85 sec
t = 4.65 sec
t = 5.50 sec
10.0
5.0
0.0
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 64 Circumferential Variation of Effective Stress at Right Baffle Location (Ship

Impact XY Direction Empty tank)
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
t = 1.15 sec
t = 1.90 sec
10.0
t = 2.85 sec
t = 4.65 sec
t = 5.50 sec
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 65 Circumferential Variation of Effective Stress at Centre of Tank (Ship Impact

47
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
t = 1.3 sec
50.0
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
t = 2.7 sec
t = 3.2 sec
40.0
t = 5.0 sec
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 66 Circumferential Variation of Effective Stress at Right-Cylinder-EllipsoidJunction (Ship Impact XY Direction)
140.0
120.0
100.0
t = 1.3 sec
80.0
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
t = 2.7 sec
t = 3.2 sec
60.0
t = 5.0 sec
40.0
20.0
0.0
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 67 Circumferential Variation of Effective Stress at Right Support Location (Ship

48
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
t = 1.3 sec
50.0
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
t = 2.7 sec
t = 3.2 sec
40.0
t = 5.0 sec
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 68 ircumferential Variation of Effective Stress at Right Baffle Location (Ship

60.0
50.0
40.0
t = 1.3 sec
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
30.0
t = 2.7 sec
t = 3.2 sec
t = 5.0 sec
20.0
10.0
0.0
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 69 Circumferential Variation of Effective Stress at Centre of Tank (Ship Impact

XY Direction)
49
160.0
140.0
Effective Layer Stress (N?mm^2)
120.0
100.0
Inner Layer
80.0
Mid Layer
Outer layer
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
Figure 70 Variation of Effective Layer Stress with Time at Right-Cylinder-EllipsoidJunction (Ship Impact XY Direction)
350.0
300.0
Effective Layer Stress (N/mm^2)
250.0
200.0
Inner Layer
Mid Layer
Outer Layer
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
Figure 71 Variation of Effective Layer Stress with Time at Right Support Location (Ship
50
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
Inner Layer
Mid Layer
Outer Layer
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
Figure 72 Variation of Effective Layer Stress at Right Baffle Location (Ship impact XY
Direction)
25.0
20.0
15.0
Inner Layer
Mid Layer
Outer Layer
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
Figure 73 Variation of Effective Layer Stress at Centre of Tank (Ship Impact XY

Direction)
51
2.2.5
Comparison With Earthquake and Blast Excitation Responses
The time history variation of the effective stresses for the earthquake and blast excitations
(simultaneous application of the X and Y direction excitations) is shown in Figures 74-81. It is
observed that:

The effective stresses at the various locations for the earthquake excitation are significantly
lower than the corresponding values for the ship impact excitation. This is due to the fact
the excitation level is significantly lower in the case of the earthquake excitation.
Additionally, the energy in the Y direction excitation is concentrated at very low
frequencies compared to the equivalent ship impact excitation so that the flexibleimpulsive modes of vibration are not significantly excited.
The low peak stresses at the level of the free surface, in the case of the earthquake
excitation, also indicates that there is no significant sloshing although most of the energy in
the Y-direction excitation lies at low frequencies. This is probably due to the fact that the
accelerations at these frequencies are not high enough to excite the sloshing modes
significantly. From the response at the cylinder to ellipsoid junction and support location, it
is possible, however, to discern a low frequency motion of approximately 0.7 Hz.
In the case of the blast excitation, the variation of effective stresses with time exhibits a
more periodic motion. The predominant period is approximately 0.1 sec (10 Hz). This is
consistent with the fact that the blast excitation is a high-frequency excitation and will
excite the higher frequency modes to a greater extent.
The variation at the various locations for the blast excitation is similar to the ship impact
excitation with the maximum peak stress occurring at the level of the horn of the saddle at
the support location. Also, it is noted that the stress level at the free surface, at the centre of
the tank, is higher than that at the bottom of the tank and at the horn of the saddle, which is
consistent with the ship impact results. As before, this is due to the lateral deformation
arising mainly from the coupled fluid-tank motion.
2.2.6
Baffled Vessel Response
An assessment of the effect of baffles on the stresses in the tank structure was carried out by
comparing the time history variation of the effective stresses at the various locations for the
baffled/un-baffled configurations. The baffles are 6mm thick with a height of 3.7 m and are
assumed to be rigidly fixed to the tank structure. Comparisons of the results (Figures 82-85)
show that:

There is a significant reduction in the effective stresses at the various locations. The
maximum peak effective stress at the support location is nearly halved (150 N/mm2 for unbaffled vessel to approximately 70 N/mm2 for baffled vessel).
The maximum peak effective stresses for the baffled vessel occurs at earlier time instant
than for the un-baffled vessel (c.f 0.5 sec to 1.3 sec). There is also a more rapid decay in
the peak stresses for the baffled vessel.
The frequency content of the response is approximately the same for both the baffled and
un-baffled vessel at the cylinder to ellipsoid junction and the support location.
The presence of the baffles effectively compartmentalises the flow thereby restricting the fluid
motion. The sloshing displacements and hence pressures are reduced. Also, the lateral
deformation of the tank structure is reduced resulting in a reduction of the stresses. As
mentioned earlier, the baffles were rigidly fixed to the tank structure in the analysis. This
implies that the baffles will have a stiffening effect which, for other vessels, will differ
52
according to the position of the baffles. In addition, for baffles, which are spot-welded, the
stiffening effect will be lesser and consequently, the reduction in stresses will be lower.
53
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Time (sec)

(Earthquake XY Direction)
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
Bottom of Tank
8.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Time (sec)
Figure 75 Variation of Effective Stress with Time at Right Support Location

(Earthquake XY Direction)
54
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
Bottom of Tank
8.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Time (sec)
Figure 76 Variation of Effective Stress with Time at Right Baffle Location (Earthquake
XY Direction)
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Time (sec)
Figure 77 Variation of Effective Stress with Time at Centre of Tank (Earthquake XY

Direction)
55
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Time (sec)
Figure 78 Variation of Effective Stress at Right-Cylinder-Ellipsoid-Junction (Blast

Excitation XY Direction)
120.0
100.0
80.0
Bottom of Tank
60.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Time (sec)
Figure 79 Variation of Effective Stress with Time at Right Support Location (Blast
56
30.0
25.0
20.0
Bottom of Tank
15.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Time (sec)
Figure 80 Variation of Effective Stress with Time at Right Baffle Location (Blast
30.0
25.0
20.0
Bottom of Tank
15.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Time (sec)
Figure 81 Variation of Effective Stress with Time at Centre of Tank (Blast Excitation
XY Direction)
57
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
Bottom of Tank
20.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
Figure 82 Variation of Effective Stress with Time at Right-Cylinder-Ellipsoid-Junction For

Baffled Vessel (Ship Impact XY Direction)
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
Bottom of Tank
40.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
Figure 83 Variation of Effective Stress with Time at Right Support Location For Baffled
Vessel (Ship Impact XY Direction)
58
30.0
25.0
20.0
Bottom of Tank
15.0
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
Figure 84 Variation of Effective Stress with Time at Right Baffle Location For Baffled
Vessel (Ship Impact XY Direction)
12
10
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
0
0
10
12
Time (sec)
Figure 85 Variation of Effective Stress with Time at Centre of Tank For Baffled Vessel
(Ship Impact XY direction)
59
2.3 DESCRIPTION OF FLUID PRESSURES

The variation of fluid pressures under the various lateral excitations is examined in the
following sections. The layout essentially follows that of the variation of stresses reported
earlier with the results described for the simultaneous application of the X and Y direction ship
impact excitations. Comparison against the stress results for the blast and earthquake excitations
is provided.
2.3.1
Time History Variation of Fluid Pressures
The variation of the fluid pressures with time under the X only direction excitation and the
simultaneous application of the X and Y direction ship impact excitation at various locations is
shown in Figures 86-93. The fluid pressure values quoted are relative to 1 bar. It is observed
that:

The fluid pressures at the level of the horn of the saddle and at the level of the free surface,
in the case of the X-direction excitation, are much lower than the corresponding pressures
under the combined X and Y excitations. This is due to the fact that the flexible-impulsive
do not contribute significantly to the total fluid pressure in the former case. The sloshing
contribution is also less as seen from the fluid pressures at the level of the free surface.
At the bottom of the tank, the fluid pressures are approximately the same in both cases.
This can be attributed to the fact that the variation of fluid pressure at the bottom of the
tank is mainly due to the rigid-impulsive component.
For the case of the simultaneous application of the X and Y direction excitations, the following
observations can be made:

The peak fluid pressure values are approximately the same at all the various locations with
the maximum occurring at the horn of the saddle. The fluid pressures at the various levels
oscillate approximately about the hydrostatic pressure value at that particular level. This
explains the higher pressure values at the bottom of the tank at the later time instants.
The peak fluid pressures at the bottom of the tank and at the level of the horn of the saddle
at the earlier time instants are higher than the pressure at the later time instants. Assuming
that the hydrostatic fluid pressure at the bottom of the tank is 0.294 bars, it can be deduced
that the combination of the rigid-impulsive component and flexible-impulsive components
at the bottom of the tank is approximately 33% of the total pressure. At the level of the
horn of the saddle, these components as well as the sloshing components result in a 70%
contribution to the total fluid pressure.
The fluid pressure values at the free surface can be mainly attributed to the sloshing
components and the peak fluid pressure at that level is approximately 1.8 bars.
The variation of fluid pressures exhibit a high frequency content and decay rapidly after
approximately 5.0 sec similar to the effective stress variation.
The higher fluid pressures at the horn of the saddle results from the superposition of all the
various hydrodynamic components namely the rigid-impulsive modes, the flexible-impulsive
modes and the sloshing modes.
60
2.3.2
Longitudinal Variation of Fluid Pressure
The variation of the fluid pressure along the length of the tank is shown in Figures 94-96. The
pressures along the top surface are not shown as the fluid pressures reduce to zero below that
level. It is noted that:

For the levels shown, the maximum occurs at the height of the horn of the saddle. The
variation in fluid pressure indicates that there is lateral deformation of the tank as discussed
previously.
The fluid pressure at the bottom of the tank is lower than that at the horn of the saddle. This
is consistent with the fact that the lateral deformation increases circumferentially from the
bottom and decreases in the region of the free surface of the fluid.
The peak fluid pressures at the level of the free surface are lower than the corresponding
pressures at the level of the bottom of the tank and the horn of the saddle. This results from
the fact that the contribution of the rigid-impulsive and flexible-impulsive modes decreases
towards the level of the free surface where the main contribution is from the sloshing
modes of vibration.
61
0.50
0.40
Fluid Pressure (Bar)
0.30
Bottom of Tank
0.20
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
-0.10
Time (sec)
Figure 86 Variation of Fluid Pressure with Time at Right-Cylinder-Ellipsoid-Junction

(Ship Impact X Direction)
0.50
0.40
0.30
Bottom of Tank
0.20
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
-0.10
Time (sec)
Figure 87 Variation of Fluid Pressure with Time at Right Support Location (Ship Impact
X Direction)
62
0.50
0.40
0.30
Bottom of Tank
0.20
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
-0.10
Time (sec)
Figure 88 Variation of Fluid Pressure with Time at Right Baffle Location (Ship Impact X
Direction)
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
Bottom of Tank
0.25
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Time (sec)
Figure 89 Variation of Fluid Pressure with Time at Centre of Tank (Ship Impact X
Direction)
63
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
Figure 90 Variation of Fluid Pressures with Time at Right-Cylinder-Ellipsoid-Junction

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
Figure 91 Variation of Fluid Pressures with Time at Right Support Location (Ship Impact
XY Direction)
64
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Bottom of Tank
0.1
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
Figure 92 Variation of Fluid Pressures with Time at Right Baffle Location (Ship Impact
XY Direction)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Bottom of Tank
0.1
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
Figure 93 Variation of Fluid Pressures with Time at Centre of Tank (Ship Impact XY
Direction)
65
0.40
0.38
0.36
0.34
t = 1.2 sec
t = 1.4 sec
0.32
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
t = 2.7 sec
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.24
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Time (sec)
Figure 94 Variation of Fluid Pressures along Bottom of Tank (Ship Impact XY

Direction)
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
t = 1.2 sec
t = 1.4 sec
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
t = 2.7 sec
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 95 Variation of Fluid Pressures along Horn of Saddle (Ship Impact XY

Direction)
66
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
t = 1.2 sec
t = 1.4 sec
0.20
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
t = 2.7 sec
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-0.05
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure 96 Variation of Fluid Pressures at Free Surface of Tank (Ship Impact XY

Direction)
67
2.3.3
Circumferential Variation of Fluid Pressure
The effect of the flexible impulsive modes can be seen more clearly in the circumferential
variation of fluid pressure, which is shown in Figures 97 - 100 for the X only excitation and in
Figures 101 104 for the combined X and Y excitations. Comparison of the results for the two
cases shows that

The pressures at the bottom of the tank are approximately the same in both cases. This is
due to the fact that the pressure at that level can be attributed mainly to a combination of
the hydrostatic pressure and the rigid-impulsive pressure.
The variation of fluid pressures along circumferential height in the case of the X only
excitation suggests that there is no significant contribution from the flexible-impulsive
modes. This is due to the fact that in the longitudinal direction, the tank moves essentially
as a rigid body.
For the case of the combined X and Y excitations, it is further observed that:

The maximum fluid pressure occurs in the region of the centreline of the tank and
decreases to zero at a circumferential height just above the level of the free surface. This is
consistent with the fact that the contribution of the flexible impulsive and rigid impulsive
modes increases from the bottom of the tank reaching a maximum near the centreline of the
tank and decreases to zero at the level of the free surface.
At the bottom of the tank, the main contribution to the fluid pressure is from the rigidimpulsive modes and the hydrostatic pressure. The latter pressure decreases linearly from
the bottom of the tank to zero at the free surface.
The maximum fluid pressures occur at the centre of the tank (Figure 104) and are closely
correlated to the lateral deformation (Figure 37) of the tank structure. The maximum values
at the centre of the tank are consistent with the fact that the tank structure is more flexible
away from the supports.
2.3.4
Radial variation of Fluid Pressure
Figures 105-108 show that radial variation of the fluid pressures across the free surface of the
fluid for the combined X and Y direction excitations. The sloshing motion of the fluid at the free
surface is clearly seen with maximum and minimum fluid pressures occurring at the ends. The
magnitude of the sloshing pressure is approximately the same at all the locations (along the
length) shown. At the centre of the tank, the magnitude of the sloshing components is
approximately 30 % of the total peak fluid pressure (approx. 0.7 bars).
It should however be pointed out that these results pertain to this particular tank and lateral
excitation only. For a similar tank but with a different aspect ratio and/or higher input
accelerations at low frequencies, the sloshing component may result in a higher contribution to
the total fluid pressure and hence stresses in the tank structure.
68
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
t = 0.1 sec
t = 0.3 sec
0.25
t = 0.8 sec
t = 1.7 sec
t = 3.4 sec
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 97 Circumferential Variation of Fluid Pressure at Right-Cylinder-EllipsoidJunction (Ship Impact X Direction)
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
t = 0.1 sec
t = 0.3 sec
0.25
t = 0.8 sec
t = 1.7 sec
t = 3.4 sec
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 98 Circumferential Variation of Fluid Pressure at Right Support Location (Ship

Impact X Direction)
69
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
t = 0.1 sec
t = 0.3 sec
0.25
t = 0.8 sec
t = 1.7 sec
t = 3.4 sec
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 99 Circumferential Variation of Fluid Pressure at Right Baffle Location (Ship

Impact X Direction)
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
t = 0.1 sec
t = 0.3 sec
0.25
t = 0.8 sec
t = 1.7 sec
t = 3.4 sec
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 100 Circumferential Variation of Fluid Pressure at Centre of Tank (Ship Impact
X Direction)
70
0.7
0.6
Fl uid P ressure (B a r)
0.5
0.4
t = 1.2 sec
t = 1.4 sec
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
t = 2.7 sec
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 101 Circumferential Variation of Fluid Pressures at Right-Cylinder-EllipsoidJunction (Ship Impact XY Direction)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
t = 1.2 sec
t = 1.4 sec
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
t = 2.7 sec
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 102 Circumferential Variation of Fluid Pressures at Right Support Location

71
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
t = 1.2 sec
t = 1.4 sec
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
t = 2.7 sec
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 103 Circumferential Variation of Fluid Pressures at Right Baffle Location (Ship
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
t = 1.2 sec
t = 1.4 sec
0.4
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
t = 2.7 sec
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 104 Circumferential Variation of Fluid Pressures at Centre of Tank (Ship Impact
XY Direction)
72
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
t = 1.2 sec
t = 1.4 sec
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
t = 2.7 sec
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Radial Distance (m)
Figure 105 Radial Variation of Fluid Pressures at Right-Cylinder-Ellipsoid-Junction (Ship

0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
t = 1.2 sec
t = 1.4 sec
0.00
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
t = 2.7 sec
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Radial Distance (m)
Figure 106 Radial Variation of Fluid Pressures at Right Support Location (Ship Impact
XY Direction)
73
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
t = 1.2 sec
t = 1.4 sec
0.00
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
t = 2.7 sec
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Radial Distance (m)
Figure 107 Radial Variation of Fluid Pressures at Right Baffle Location (Ship Impact
XY Direction)
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
t = 1.2 sec
t = 1.4 sec
0.00
t = 1.7 sec
t = 2.2 sec
t = 2.7 sec
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
-0.25
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Radial Distance (m)
Figure 108 Radial Variation of Fluid Pressures at Centre of Tank (Ship Impact XY
Direction)
74
2.3.5
Variation of Fluid Pressure in Baffled Vessel
The time history, circumferential and radial variations of fluid pressures for the baffled vessel
are shown in Figures 109-120. The following observations can be made:

The magnitude of the fluid pressures, at all locations, is lower than that for the un-baffled
vessel. The peak pressures decay rapidly after approximately 1.5 sec compared to 5.0 sec
for the un-baffled vessel. This implies that the baffles dampen out the motion of the fluid as
expected.
Circumferentially, the position of the maximum fluid pressure has shifted from the region
near the centreline of the tank (for un-baffled vessel) to the region near the bottom of the
tank and, as observed earlier, is lower than the corresponding fluid pressures for the unbaffled vessel. This is due to the fact that the presence of the baffles stiffens the tank
resulting in less lateral deformation.
From the radial variation of fluid pressure, it is noted that both the sloshing motion of the
fluid and the flexibility of the tank has been significantly reduced (approx. 64% reduction
at centre of tank) indicating, again, that the presence of the baffles reduces the sloshing
displacements and stiffens the tank.
2.3.6
Fluid Pressure Variation in Vessel under Earthquake and Blast Excitations
The variation of the fluid pressures in the vessel was also examined under lateral earthquake and
blast excitations. The time history variation of the fluid pressures for the earthquake excitation
is shown in Figures 121-124 and Figures 125-128 for the blast excitation.
As expected, the magnitude of the fluid pressure variation with time for the earthquake
excitation is small compared to the ship impact excitation. As mentioned previously, this is
mainly due to the fact that the applied input earthquake excitation has smaller accelerations than
the corresponding ship impact excitations. It was also noted that most of the energy in the
earthquake excitation is contained at low frequencies and would not therefore result in
significant excitation of the higher modes i.e. in the region of the flexible-impulsive modes.
The pressure variation in the case of the blast excitation exhibits high frequency content similar
to the corresponding stress variation. The magnitude of the pressures in this case is
approximately the same as for the ship impact excitation.
Examination of the circumferential variation of fluid pressures (Figures 129-130) shows that the
blast excitation results in a similar variation to the ship impact excitation. In the blast excitation
case, however, the maximum fluid pressure occurs just below the centreline of the tank. This is
probably due to the difference in frequency content of the input excitation resulting in different
flexible impulsive modes being excited.
For the earthquake excitation, the circumferential variation of the fluid pressures indicates that
there is no significant flexible-impulsive mode contribution to the total pressure. It is noted that
the fluid pressure at the bottom of the tank is higher than for both the ship impact and blast
excitations. For the earthquake excitation, the total fluid pressure at the bottom is mainly due to
the rigid-impulsive component and the hydrostatic component. Small amplitude sloshing motion
can be seen at the level of the free surface.
75
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Bottom of Tank
0.1
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)

0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
0.10
0.00
-0.10
-0.20
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
Figure 110 Variation of Fluid Pressures with Time at Right Support Location (Ship
76
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
Figure 111 Variation of Fluid Pressures with Time at Right Baffle Location (Ship Impact
XY Direction)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
Figure 112 Variation of Fluid Pressures with Time at Centre of Tank (Ship Impact XY
Direction)
77
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
t = 0.2 sec
t = 0.5 sec
0.25
t = 0.8 sec
t = 1.2 sec
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 113 Circumferential Variation of Fluid Pressures at Right-Cylinder-EllipsoidJunction (Ship Impact XY Direction)
0.60
0.50
0.40
t = 0.2 sec
t = 0.5 sec
0.30
t = 0.8 sec
t = 1.2 sec
0.20
0.10
0.00
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 114 Circumferential Variation of Fluid Pressures at Right Support Location (Ship
78
0.60
0.50
0.40
t = 0.2 sec
t = 0.5 sec
0.30
t = 0.8 sec
t = 1.2 sec
0.20
0.10
0.00
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 115 Circumferential Variation of Fluid Pressures at Right Baffle Location (Ship
0.60
0.50
0.40
t = 0.2 sec
t = 0.5 sec
0.30
t = 0.8 sec
t = 1.2 sec
0.20
0.10
0.00
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 116 Circumferential Variation of Fluid Pressures at Centre of Tank (Ship Impact
- XY Direction)
79
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
t = 0.2 sec
t = 0.5 sec
t = 0.8 sec
t = 1.2 sec
0.00
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Radial Distance (m)
Figure 117 Radial Variation of Fluid Pressures at Right-Cylinder-Ellipsoid-Junction

0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
t = 0.2 sec
t = 0.5 sec
0.00
t = 0.8 sec
t = 1.2 sec
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Radial Distance (m)
Figure 118 Radial Variation of Fluid Pressures at Right Support Location (Ship Impact
XY Direction)
80
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
t = 0.2 sec
t = 0.5 sec
0.00
t = 0.8 sec
t = 1.2 sec
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Radial Distance (m)
Figure 119 Radial Variation of Fluid Pressures at Right Baffle Location (Ship Impact
XY Direction)
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
t = 0.2 sec
t = 0.5 sec
0.00
t = 0.8 sec
t = 1.2 sec
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Radial Distance (m)
Figure 120 Radial Variation of Fluid Pressures at Centre of Tank (Ship Impact XY
Direction)
81
0.05
0.04
0.03
Bottom of Tank
0.02
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
0.01
0.00
-0.01
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)

(Earthquake Excitation XY Direction)
0.05
0.04
0.03
Bottom of Tank
0.02
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
0.01
-0.01
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
Figure 122 Variation of Fluid Pressures with Time at Right Support Location
(Earthquake Excitation XY Direction)
82
0.05
0.04
0.03
Bottom of Tank
0.02
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
0.01
0.00
-0.01
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
Figure 123 Variation of Fluid Pressures with Time at Right Baffle Location (Earthquake
0.05
0.04
0.03
Bottom of Tank
0.02
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
0.01
0.00
-0.01
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Time (sec)
Figure 124 Variation of Fluid Pressures with Time at Centre of Tank (Earthquake
83
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
0.10
0.00
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
Time (sec)

(Blast Excitation XY Direction)
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
0.10
0.00
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
Time (sec)
Figure 126 Variation of Fluid Pressures with Time at Right Support Location (Blast
84
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
0.10
0.00
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
Time (sec)
Figure 127 Variation of Fluid Pressures with Time at Right Baffle Location (Blast
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
Bottom of Tank
Horn of Saddle
Free Surface
0.10
0.00
-0.10
-0.20
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
Time (sec)
Figure 128 Variation of Fluid Pressures with Time at Centre of Tank (Blast Excitation
XY Direction)
85
0.60
Right Support Location
Centre of Tank
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
Figure 129 Circumferential Variation of Fluid Pressures at Various Locations for Blast
Excitation (XY Direction Time = 0.84 sec)
0.50
Right Support Location
0.45

Centre of Tank
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-2.25
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
Figure 130 Circumferential Variation of Fluid Pressures at Various Locations for

Earthquake Excitation (XY Direction Time = 0.1 sec)
86
2.25
2.4 COMPARISON BETWEEN ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND SIMPLIFIED MODEL

A comparison was carried out between the results for the ship impact analyses and that from a
simplified model. The latter model was based on the recommendations from reference [4] where
it is assumed that the response of the horizontal cylindrical tank can be obtained from solutions
for the rectangular tank of equal dimension at the liquid level and in the direction of motion and
of a depth to give equal liquid volume. It is noted that the simplifications do not account for the
effect of the flexible-impulsive modes.
Based on this approximation, the equations for the rigid-impulsive and convective (or sloshing)
pressures are based on the following H/L ratio (H is the height of the fluid and L is the halflength of the tank in the direction of the excitation):
Longitudinal Direction (Longitudinal Excitation): H/L = 0.3
Lateral Direction (Lateral Excitation): H/L = 4.3
The values for the rigid impulsive and sloshing pressures due to the longitudinal and lateral
excitations were based on the equations from sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 of Part 1 of this report.
The comparison between the results (in the case of the analysis results, the hydrostatic pressure
component has been subtracted from the total fluid pressure) is shown in Figures 131-132. The
normalised height values along the X-axis are the vertical heights along the circumference
divided by the height of the fluid in the vessel (3m). It is observed that there is a significant
difference between the results for both directions.
It was argued in the previous sections that the fluid pressures in the longitudinal case is
primarily due to the rigid-impulsive component (excluding the hydrostatic pressure) so that it is
expected that the results from the simplified method would show good agreement against the
analytical results. However, significant differences can be observed particularly at the bottom of
the tank. At the level of the free surface, the results exhibit good agreement, which implies that
the sloshing component can be computed using the simplified equations. The differences for the
rigid-impulsive pressures may be attributed to the crude approximation used in the simplified
model i.e. in using the expressions for a rectangular tank. Also, the approximation relates to
horizontal cylindrical tanks with flat ends instead of semi-ellipsoidal heads.
In the lateral direction, the simplified model overestimates the fluid pressures except in the
region of the free surface where a reasonable agreement with the analytical results is observed.
Again, this implies that the sloshing component in the lateral direction can be obtained from the
simplified equations. The reasons for the discrepancies between the results are the same as those
in the longitudinal case. In addition, the tank investigated is supported on two saddle supports at
a large separation whereas the simplified model assumes fixity along the whole base of the tank.
For the lateral direction, the circumferential variation of fluid pressures for the case of the
baffled vessel under combined X and Y excitation is also shown. This shows that the internal
layout of components within the vessel significantly affects the fluid pressures as discussed
previously. It is to be noted, however, that the simplified method does not provide any guidance
as to the effect of baffles (and other internal components) on the fluid pressures.
87
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
Analysis Result
Simplified Method
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Figure 131 Comparison of Circumferential Variation of Fluid Pressure Between Analysis

and Simplified Model in Longitudinal Direction
88
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
Analysis
Simplified Method
Analysis (Baffled Vessel)
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Figure 132 Comparison of Circumferential Variation of Fluid Pressure Between Analysis

and Simplified Model in Lateral Direction
2.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS

The results have shown that high stresses are generated in the extreme layers of the shell
elements at the junction between the saddle supports and the tank structure from the lateral
excitations. Yielding can occur when these stresses are combined with the stresses from the
design operating pressure. It is noted that the above results pertain to one particular set of
excitations. It is possible that the input accelerations (for blast, earthquake and ship impact)
can exceed those used for the above analyses so that the effect of lateral excitations should
be included in the design of the vessel.
The motion in the longitudinal (along the length of the tank) is predominantly a rigid-body
motion with small amplitude sloshing at the free surface, which results in minimal stresses
in the tank structure.
The behaviour of the tank-fluid system under the higher input accelerations (ship impact
and blast) in the lateral (Y) direction is governed by contributions from the rigid-impulsive
modes, the flexible-impulsive modes and the sloshing modes of vibration. The tank
investigated has a high aspect ratio (length to diameter of approximately 3.8) and is
therefore susceptible to large lateral deformations (combination of flexural and ovalling
modes) owing to its flexibility.
The linear response in the previous analyses implies that the motion in the longitudinal (X)
and lateral (Y) directions can be computed separately and subsequently superposed via a
square-root-sum-of-squares rule. The hydrostatic and operating internal pressure can be
similarly superposed to the dynamic pressures.
The presence of baffles reduces the sloshing displacements and associated fluid pressures
as expected. Additionally, the lateral deformation and stresses in the tank shell were
reduced. This is mainly due to the fact that the baffles (which are rigidly fixed) provide a
89
stiffening effect thus reducing the flexibility of the tank and hence the lateral deformation
of the tank. Consequently, the contribution of the flexible impulsive modes is lessened.
This stiffening effect of the baffles clearly depends on their relative locations in the tank
and also on the fixity between the baffle and the tank structure. Spot-welding of the baffles
to the tank will lower the stiffening effect.
Comparison between a simplified method and the analytical results (for the ship impact
case) has shown that, for this particular vessel, the sloshing component of pressure exhibits
reasonable agreement. However, significant differences were observed for the rigidimpulsive component in the case of longitudinal excitation.
Significant differences also exist in the case of the lateral excitation where the flexibleimpulsive modes are also expected to contribute to the response.
90
CONCLUSIONS
This report was commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive to address the dynamic
behaviour and modelling issues for tanks/vessels on offshore platforms under lateral excitations.
The primary objectives were to

Assess the state-of-the-art practice and the dynamic behaviour of tanks/vessels on offshore
platforms under different lateral excitations through dynamic FE analyses and
Quantification of the contribution of the various hydrodynamic components to the total
response and provide guidance on modelling of the tank/fluid system.
Based on the state-of-the-art review, a series of explicit dynamic finite element analyses were
carried out on a typical horizontal, cylindrical tank with semi-ellipsoidal head on saddle
supports. MSC Dytran software was used for the modelling and analysis as it is well suited to
deal with fluid-structure interaction problems through the Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian
formulation. The vessel was subjected to various lateral excitations including simultaneous
excitations in the longitudinal and lateral directions from blast, earthquake and ship impact
loadings. The results have shown that

Response of the vessel is linear so that superposition methods (e.g. SRSS rule) can be used
to combine the directional (from dynamic excitation) and static responses.
In the longitudinal (along the length of the tank) direction, the tank-fluid system essentially
behaves as a rigid-body with the fluid moving in unison with the tank and also small
amplitude sloshing thereby inducing only low stresses in the tank structure.
In the lateral direction, the tank exhibits significant cross-sectional distortion with the
maximum occurring at the centre of the tank. The distortion is a combination of flexural
and ovalling modes from the flexible-impulsive and rigid-impulsive components of fluid
pressures and also from the sloshing modes. The reason for the significant cross-sectional
distortion at the centre of the tank is because of the large separation (11.6m) between the
saddle supports which leads to significant flexibility of the tank away from the stiff ends
and supports.
The flexibility of the tank in the lateral direction leads to complications in deriving a
simplified model. The simplified approximation proposed in the code for horizontal
cylindrical tanks did not yield a good agreement albeit a reasonable agreement was
achieved in the case of the sloshing component. Further analytical work is necessary to
derive a simplified model.
High stresses (90% of yield stress) can occur in the extreme fibres of the tank shell
structure at the supports. Superposition of these stresses with the stresses from operating
internal pressure can lead to yielding. This implies that the design of such vessels should
account for the loadings from lateral excitations.
The response of the vessel from earthquake excitation exhibited a lower frequency content
than that from the ship impact and blast excitations. This is expected, as the earthquake is
essentially a low frequency loading. Also, there was no significant deformation of the tank
in the case of the earthquake loading. This was due to the significantly lower accelerations
in the earthquake excitation at higher frequencies, which would correspond to flexibleimpulsive modes. The blast and ship impact responses exhibited similar characteristics.
Results for a baffled vessel showed that the presence of the baffles significantly reduces the
stresses in the tank structure. This can be attributed to the fact the baffles provide a
stiffening effect thereby reducing the lateral deformation of the tank. This stiffening effect
91
would depend on the location of the baffles within the tank and also on the fixity between
the baffles and the tank wall. For baffles, which are spot-welded, the stiffening effect
would be reduced. The various codes do not provide any recommendations for baffled
vessels.
3.1 FURTHER WORK
The recommendations for simplified modelling of horizontal cylindrical vessels with semiellipsoidal heads on offshore platforms described in the previous chapter can only be applied to
tank configurations and dimensions which are approximately the same as the one considered in
the analysis. This is because the response of the vessel is influenced by several parameters
namely the aspect ratio of the tank, the level of the fluid in the tank, the internal layout of
components and baffles and the presence of nozzle attachments. This study has highlighted
several key features in the dynamic response of such tanks under lateral excitations and it was
shown that existing simplified models do not yield good approximations. Further analytical and
experimental work need to be carried out so that simplifications in modelling such systems can
be achieved. The work should address the following issues:
a) Effect of Aspect Ratio on Response of Vessel/Tank
The tank considered in this study has a high aspect ratio. It is expected that as the aspect ratio is
reduced, the contribution of the flexible-impulsive mode would become less significant as the
tank becomes less flexible. The contribution of the rigid-impulsive and sloshing components
will vary with the aspect ratio.
b) Effect of Saddle Supports Separation
The distance between the saddle supports affects the flexibility of the tank. Moving the supports
further away from the ellipsoidal heads would reduce the flexibility of the tank in the central
region. However, different deformational modes may be excited from the increased flexibility
between the heads and the supports.
c) Effect of Baffle Location and Nozzle Attachments
The position and fixity of the baffles play a predominant role in the amount of stiffening they
provide to the tank structure. Similar influence is exerted by the nozzle attachments, which are
generally quite substantial connections and can have high local stiffening effects.
92
REFERENCES
1. MSC Dytran 2002 r2 Theory Manual, MSC Software Ltd, 2002
2. Belytschko, T., Liu, W.K., Moran, B., Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and
Structures, John Wiley and Sons, 2000
3. Eatec Ltd, Blast and Shock Induced Vibrations in Offshore Jacket Installations, Health
and Safety Executive Report OTH 94 430, 1994
4. ISO/CD 19901-3, Petroleum and natural gas industries Specific requirements for
offshore structures Part 3: Topsides structure, 2001
93
Published by the Health and Safety Executive
02/07
Health and Safety

Executive

As part of a suite of work looking at fluid interaction
effects on (and the dynamic response of ) pressure
vessels and tanks subjected to dynamic loading, this
report details the findings of a state-of-the-art review of
the available literature, to consider analysis
methodologies, dynamic loads and simplified procedures
for the determination of the response of tanks and
pressure vessels subjected to strong vibration. Strong
vibration is defined as the shaking of a structure resulting
from earthquake, blast or ship impact. The response of a
tank/vessel under strong vibration can be split into three
hydrodynamic components and simplified procedures
exist for determining the response of fixed-base, vertical,
cylindrical tanks/vessels. For other tank/vessel types,
linear/non-linear finite element dynamic analyses need to
be used, as no simple solution for the various
hydrodynamic components are available.
This report and the work it describes were funded by

the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents,
including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are
those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect
HSE policy.
RR527
www.hse.gov.uk

Fluid Structure Interaction Effects On and PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fluid Structure Interaction Effects On and PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Health and Safety

Fluid structure interaction effects on and

Health and Safety

Fluid structure interaction effects on and

Crown copyright 2007

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in

any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior

written permission of the copyright owner.

Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:

Licensing Division, Her Majestys Stationery Office,

St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ

STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW OF ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES FOR

PRESSURE VESSELS AND TANKS ON TOPSIDES

UNCOUPLED ANALYSIS USING DECK RESPONSE SPECTRA

REVIEW OF LOADING ON PRESSURE VESSELS AND TANKS ON TOPSIDES

FROM LATERAL EXCITATION

DESCRIPTION OF EARTHQUAKE LOADING

EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR ANALYSIS OF OFFSHORE

SECONDARY EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR ANALYSIS OF

DESCRIPTION OF BLAST LOADING

DECK RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR BLAST LOADING

DESCRIPTION OF SHIP IMPACT LOADING

DECK RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR SHIP IMPACT LOADING

SECONDARY RESPONSE SPECTRA

EARTHQUAKE, BLAST AND SHIP IMPACT

FLUID-STRUCTURE INTERACTION AND DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF PRESSURE

VESSELS/TANKS UNDER LATERAL EXCITATION

4.2 DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE OF PRESSURE VESSELS AND TANKS

RIGID IMPULSIVE COMPONENT

FLEXIBLE IMPULSIVE COMPONENT

RIGID IMPULSIVE COMPONENT

FLEXIBLE IMPULSIVE COMPONENT

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

Assess magnitude of linear sloshing response due to lateral excitation.

1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY

2 STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW OF ANALYSIS

METHODOLOGIES FOR PRESSURE VESSELS AND TANKS ON

Modelling or analysis methodology for pressure vessels/tanks

The codes of practice reviewed as part of this study are as follows:

2.2 METHODOLOGIES FOR ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE VESSELS AND TANKS ON

Analytical methods finite element analysis to determine magnitude and frequency of

Figure 1 Analysis Methodologies For Equipment on Offshore Platforms

2.3 SIMPLIFIED UNCOUPLED ANALYSIS

Total mass of component is 1% or less of supporting primary structure. If components are

The definition of the models is as follows:

rij = {cj [ci ]}

UNCOUPLED ANALYSIS USING DECK RESPONSE SPECTRA

Uncertainties in the frequency content of the input loading

Similar uncertainties and approximations exist in the analysis of equipment or secondary

Figure 3 Structure Excitation and Response at Various Platform Levels

Figure 4 Broadened Spectrum

REVIEW OF LOADING ON PRESSURE VESSELS AND

DESCRIPTION OF EARTHQUAKE LOADING

API RP 2A-WSD Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing

3.2.2 EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR ANALYSIS OF OFFSHORE

DESCRIPTION OF BLAST LOADING

Figure 6 Idealised Overpressure Time History For Blast Loading [24]

DECK RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR BLAST LOADING

Figure 7 Deck Response Spectra For Blast Loading [3]

Ship deformation and/or rotation

DESCRIPTION OF SHIP IMPACT LOADING