See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255978975
Conference Paper · January 2013
DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4597.9201
CITATION 
READS 

1 
1,675 

3 
authors, including: 
50 PUBLICATIONS 57 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE
43 PUBLICATIONS 50 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The MultiPhysics analyse with Hyperbolic and Parabolic VFM aspects involved in structural civil engineering analyse. View project
Architecture in Extreme Environment View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ioan Sorin V Leoveanu on 03 July 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Hydrology and Water Resources
SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF ELEVATED RESERVOIRS
Assist. Prof. Dr. Kamila Kotrasová ^{1} Assoc. Prof. Dr. Eva Kormaníková ^{2} Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ioan Sorin Leoveanu ^{3}
^{1} Technical University of Košice, Slovakia
^{2} Technical University of Košice, Slovakia
^{3} Transilvania university of Brasov, Romania
ABSTRACT
Elevated reservoirs are used to store a variety of liquids. During earthquake activity the liquid exerts impulsive and convective pressures (sloshing) on the walls and bottom of tank. This paper provides theoretical background for analytical calculating of elevated tanks during an earthquake and deals with comparing of simplified seismic design procedures for elevated tanks, and the applicability for subsoil classes. The analysis has been carried out considering four different subsoil classes A, B, C, D, given EC8. The design by simplified seismic procedures given EC8 and Housner model was compared.
Keywords: elevated tank, simplified procedures, seismic, impulse mass, convective mass
INTRODUCTION
Seismic event is certainly one of the most critical external events regarding safety of industrial plants, as demonstrated by recent earthquakes. If industrial facilities store large amount of hazardous materials, accidental scenarios as fire, explosion or toxic dispersion may be triggered, thus possibly involving working people within the installation, population living in close surrounding or in urban area where the industrial installation is located. Liquid storage tanks are considered essential lifeline structures. Largecapacity groundsupported tanks are used to store a variety of liquids, e.g. water for drinking and fire fighting, petroleum, chemicals, and liquefied natural gas. Elevated tanks are used in military bases, industrial facilities, and nuclear reactor illustrations. These structures consist of two main parts: a tower and vessel. The former can be a steel braced frame, a multicolumn assembly, or an axisymmetric pedestal shell. The vessel comes in a variety of geometric shapes such as cylinders, spheres, cones, ellipsoid, or a combination of any of these geometric shapes. Elevated tanks are vulnerable to earthquake excitation mainly because of the relatively small resistance that the supporting system can offer during seismic events. Most elevated tanks are regarded as essential facilities as they should remain functional even after a major earthquake. The seismic analysis and design of liquid storage tanks are complicated by many numbers of problems, for examples: dynamic interaction between contained fluid and vessel which is called fluidstructure interaction; sloshing motion of the contained fluid; and dynamic interaction between vessel and supporting structure. In addition, the
1
13 ^{t}^{h} International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2013
supporting tower may need to be analyzed in postelastic state, and for special cases, a threedimensional analysis may be required to take into account torsional effect on the supporting structure. The many different geometric shapes of both vessel and tower dictate different techniques and methods of analysis for each application, and finally, soiltower interaction could under specific conditions have a significant effect on seismic response of the tower. Satisfactory performance of tanks during strong ground shaking is crucial for modern facilities. Tanks that were inadequately designed or detailed have suffered extensive damage during past earthquakes [2 – 8]. Knowledge of pressures and forces acting on the walls and bottom of containers during an earthquake and frequency properties of containers is important for good analysis and design of earthquake resistant structures/facilities – tanks.
SEISMIC DESIGN OF LIQUID STORAGE TANKS
Seismic design of liquid storage tanks has been adopted in [4, 8, 10]. When a tank containing liquid vibrates, the liquid exerts impulsive and convective hydrodynamic pressure on the tank wall and the tank base, in addition to the hydrostatic pressure. The dynamic analysis of a liquid – filled tank may be carried out using the concept of generalized single – degree – of freedom (SDOF) systems representing the impulsive and convective modes of vibration of the tank – liquid system. For practical applications, only the first convective mode of vibration needs to be considered in the analysis (Fig. 1). The impulsive mass of liquid mi is rigidly attached to tank wall at
'
height (or ). Similarly convective mass mc is attached to the tank wall at height
h
i
h
i
h
c
'
(or ) by a spring of stiffness k
h
c
_{c} . The mass, height and natural period of each SDOF
system are obtained by the methods described in [4, 8, 10]. For a horizontal earthquake ground motion, the response of various SDOF systems may be calculated independently and then combined to give the net base shear and overturning moment. The most tanks have slimness of tank γ, whereby 0,3 < γ < 3. Tank’s slimness is given by relation γ = H/R, where H is the height of filling of fluid in the tank and R the tank radius [6 
10].
= 



z
x


Fig. 1. Two single – degree – of freedom systems for ground supported cylindrical tank
2
Hydrology and Water Resources
THE SIMPLIFIED SEISMIC ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
A simplified analysis procedure has been suggested by Housner, in 1963 [1], for fixed base elevated tanks. In this approach, the two masses (m _{i} and m _{c} ) are assumed to be uncoupled and the earthquake forces on the support are estimated by considering two separate singledegreeoffreedom systems: The mass m _{c} represents only the sloshing of the convective mass; the mass of consist of the impulsive mass of the fluid, the mass derived by the weight of container and by some parts selfweight of the supporting structure. This twomass model suggested by Housner has been commonly used for seismic design of elevated tanks. The dynamic characteristic of these model are estimated by using the expressions given by equations (1b), (4b), (5)(16). Similar equivalent masses and heights for this model based on the work of Velestos and co workers [Malhotra], with certain modification that make the procedure simple, are also suggested in the Eurocode 8 ( next only EC8) are given in Table 1 and (1a), (4a) and
(6).
m
i
is the impulsive mass of fluid,
m
c
is the convective mass of fluid,
h
i
is height
of wall pressure resultant for the impulsive component,
h
c is height of wall pressure
resultant for the convective component,
h
'
i is height resultant of pressures on the wall
and on the base plate for the impulsive component,
h
'
c is height resultant of pressures on
the wall and on the base plate for the convective component, H is height to the free
surface of the liquid; R is tank’s radius;
D is tank’s diameter,
C i is dimensionless
coefficient and
C c is the coefficient dimension of s/m
^{1}^{/}^{2} . Periods are necessary after
determination of the two masses of
m i and
m c with their locations and stiffnesses. Base
shear and overturning moment for design can be estimated using standard structural dynamic procedures. Except EC8 all international codes use rule Square of Sum of Squares (next only SRSS rule), (2a) and (3a), to combine response from impulsive and convective mode. In EC8 absolute summation rule is used (2b) and (3b), which is based on work of Malhotra. The basis for absolute summation is that the convective mode time period may be several times the impulsive mode period, and hence, peak response of impulsive mode will occur simultaneously when convective mode response is near its peak. However, recently through a numerical simulation for a large number of tanks, Malhotra shoved that SRSS rule gives better results then absolute summation rule, [9].
Eurocode8
The natural period of the convective mode of vibration
(1b) 

(7)  (15). 

(2b) 

. 
(3b) 
3
13 ^{t}^{h} International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2013
standing.
Table 1 Recommended design values for first impulsive and convective modes of vibration as a function of a tank heighttoratio (h/R) [9]
H / R 
C 
i 
m i / m 
c /
m m 
i 
/ 
H 
h 
c / 
H 
h 
' i 
/ 
H 
h 
' c / 
H 


0.176 




0.300 




0.414 




0.548 




0.686 




0.763 




0.810 




0.842 


012 H/R
3
Figure 2: Impulsive and convective masses as fractions of the total liquid mass in the cylindrical tank, impulsive heights as fraction of the height of the liquid in the cylindrical tank, convective heights as fraction of the height of the liquid in the cylindrical tank
(7)
(8)
(9)
4
Hydrology and Water Resources
'
h i
H
=
h c 1 = − 
(cosh 3.68 
H D )− 1.0 

H 3.68 H L = 0.5 − 0.09375
H
D
0.866 D H 
sinh 3.68 H D ) (, pre H D >1.5 D 

(2 tanh 0.866 D H ) 
− 0.125 , pre 

' 
_{=} _{0}_{.}_{4}_{5} , pre (cosh 3.68 
H
D L ≤ >1.33 D )− 2.01 

h c 1 = − 

H 3.68 H D sinh 3.68 L D ) (^{k} c = 0.836
mg
2
tanh
(
3.68 H D ) 

2 ϖ = 
H 3.68
g
(
tanh 3.68 H D D ) 
SOLUTION, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
(10) 

(11) 

L ≤ 1.33 
(12) 
(13) 

(14) 

(15) 

(16) 
The reinforced concrete elevated tank on four different subsoil classes A, B, C, D given
EC8 with a container capacity of 255 m ^{3} is considered in seismic analyses (Fig. 3, 4).
The elevated tank has frame supporting system in which six columns ( φ 0.65 m) are
connected by the horizontal bracing at regular interval at 4 m 8 m and 12 m elevations.
Young’s modulus and the weight of concrete per unit volume are selected as 32000
MPa and 25 kN/m ^{3} , respectively. The container is also filled with the water density of
1000 kg/m ^{3} as seen from Fig. 3. Tank is located on hard soil in seismic zone 1, it is
height seismic zone in Slovakia.
The damping values for the reinforced concrete elevated tank are taken as 5% for the
impulsive mode and 0.5% for convective mode, as recommended in most literature.
[9,10].
Seismic analyses for the selected elevated tanks are carried out under three main groups
are: model 1 and model 3 are using the dynamic characteristic: similar equivalent
masses and heights of twomass model suggested by Housner, model 2 and model 4 are
using the dynamic characteristic: similar equivalent masses and heights from EC8. Total
base shear at the bottom of staging tank and total overturning moment at base of staging
of model 1 and model 2 are obtained by combining part of impulsive and convective
modes through SRSS rule. Total base shear at the bottom of staging tank and total
overturning moment at base of staging of model 3 and model 4 are obtained by
combining part of impulsive and convective modes through absolute summation rule.
The dynamic characteristic of fully reinforced concrete elevated tank: periods,
equivalent masses and heights for models 1 and 3 are:
= 0.86 s,
T
c
= 3.14
s,
m i = 141145.41 kg,
m
c
= 109728.13 kg,
h
'
=
i
3.43
m,
h
'
c
=
3.43
m. About 55% of liquid
mass is excited in impulsive mode while 43% liquid mass participates in convective
mode. Sum of impulsive and convective mass is 250873.53 kg which is about 2% less
than the total mass of liquid. The dynamic characteristic of fully elevated tank for
models 2 and 4 are:
= 0.86 s,
T
c
= 3.15
s,
m
i
= 140100.58
kg,
m c = 115557.16 kg,
5
13 ^{t}^{h} International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2013
h
'
i
=
3
.17
m,
h
'
c
=
3.45 m. Time period of impulsive mode of empty elevated tank is
Fig. 3. Vertical cross section of the reinforced concrete
Fig. 4. Plan of staging
elevated tank considered for the seismic analysis
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2083 2096 


































1785 
1785 




1671 
1678 

1477 
1476 















































905 
903 
987 
989 


















469 
468 
496 
496 

























V [kN]
model 1
model 2
model 3
model 4
ABCD
Figure 5: Total base shear V [kN] immediately bellow the base plate in dependency on
category of subsoil
6
Hydrology and Water Resources
Table 2 Total base shear at the bottom of staging tank on four different subsoil classes
A, B, C, D
A 
B 
C 
D 

V [kN] model 3r 
495.69 
986.50 
1671.35 
2083.04 

V [kN] model 4 
496.20 
988.91 
1478.34 
2096.32 

% Deviation of V [kN] 
0.10 
0.24 
0.42 
0.64 

V [kN] empty tank 
356.57 
686.39 
734.33 
881.19 

30000 
24498 

25000 




























22007 





24295 
M' [kNm] 

17772 19459 
18282 
21942 
18953 















19506 



18204 





18951 




20000 












17888 




















model 1 

15000 
9267 9204 
9762 9802 


























model 2 

10000 


































model 3 

5000 

0 

model 4 

ABCD 

Figure 6: Total overturning moment 
M 
' 
[kNm] immediately bellow the base plate in 

dependency on category of subsoil 

Table 3 Total overturning moment at base of staging on four different subsoil classes A, 

B, C, D 

A 
B 
C 
D 

M’ [kNm] model 3 

21842.12 
24295.23 

M’ [kNm] model 4 

22007.26 
24498.09 

% Deviation of M’ [kNm] 
0.41 
0.24 
0.30 
0.84 

M’ [kNm] empty tank 

14084.43 
16901.31 
CONCLUSION
The seismic design of elevated tanks was using single lumpedmass models provides
smaller base shears and overturning moments in both fixedbase and flexible soil
conditions. It is evident from the Figures 5 and 6, that the values of total base shears an
overturning moments are grooved with category of subsoil. It is seen, that using SRSS
rule for calculating of total base shear at the bottom of staging tank and total
overturning moment at base of staging are obtained smaller value as by combining of
impulsive and convective modes through absolute summation rule recommended by
EC8. Diferences between twomass model suggested by Housner and model based on
7
13 ^{t}^{h} International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2013
the work of Velestos and coworkers [Malhotra], simple procedure, which are suggested
in the EC8 for seismic design of elevated tanks, are seen from Table 2 and Table 3.
Calculating of total base shear at the bottom of staging tank and total overturning
moment at base of staging are seen from Figure 5 and Figure 6.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Preparation of the paper has been supported by the Scientific Grant Agency of the
Ministry of Education of Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences under
Project 1/0201/11 and by the Centre „Progressive Constructions and Technologies in
Transportation Engineering“. The Centre was supported by the Slovak Research and
Development Agency under the contract No. SUSPP001309 and the companies
Inžinierske stavby and EUROVIA SK.
REFERENCES
[1] 
Housner, G., W.: Earthquake pressures on fluid containers, California institute of 
technology, Pasadena, California, 1954. 

[2] 
MelRakabawy, M., M., ElArabaty, H., A., ElSherbiny, M., G.: Response of 
elevated water tanks yo seismic load. In: 11 ^{t}^{h} ICSGE, 17.19. May 2005, Cairo  

Egypt. 

[3] 
Juhásová, E., Benčat, J., Krištofovič, V., Kolcún, Š., 2002: Expected seismic response of steel water tank, In: 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper reference 595, London 2002. 
[4] Králik, J.: Dynamic analysis of soilfluidtsmk interaction due to earthquake even. In:
Dynamic of ridig and deformable bodies 2012: Ústí nad Labem. Univerzita J. E. Purkyně v Ústí n. L.: Univerzita J. E. Purkyně v Ústí n. L., ISBN 9788074145000.
[5] 
Livaoğlu, R., Doğangün, A.: Simplified seismic analysis procedures for elevated 

tanks considering fluidsoil interaction. In: Journal of fluid and structures 22, 

2006. 
p. 421439. 

[6] 
Malhotra, P. K., Wenk, T., Wieland, M.: Simple procedure for seismic analysis of 

liquidstorage tanks, Structural Engineering International, No. 3, 2000, s. 197201. 

[7] 
Melcer, J., Lajčáková, G.: Dynamický výpočtový model asfaltovej vozovky In: 

Stavebné a environmentálne inžinierstvo Roč. 7, č. 1 (2011), s. 212 ISSN: 1336 

5835. 

[8] 
Jaiswal, O., R., Rai, D. C., Jain, S., K.: Review of code provisions on design seismic forces for liquid storage tanks. Kanpur, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, 2005 

[9] 
EN 19984: 2006 Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 4: 
Silos, tanks and pipelines. CEN, Brussels, 2006
[10] IITKGSDMA, 2005: Guidelines for seismic design of liquid storage tanks – provisions with commentary and explanatory examples. Kanpur, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, 2005
8