See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276092072

Probabilistic Seismic Safety Evaluation of Precode Cylindrical Oil Tanks

Article  in  Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities · July 2014

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000669

CITATIONS READS
10 234

2 authors:

Mehran Seyed Razzaghi Sassan Eshghi

Qazvin Islamic Azad University International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
37 PUBLICATIONS   220 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   220 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

In-plane behavior of a confined masonry wall View project

Bridge Management System (BMS) for existing bridges in Iran View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sassan Eshghi on 30 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Probabilistic Seismic Safety Evaluation of
Precode Cylindrical Oil Tanks
Mehran S. Razzaghi 1 and Sassan Eshghi 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on 10/31/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Cylindrical steel liquid storage tanks are important components of many process industries. They are usually used to store toxic,
flammable, and hazardous liquids. Hence damage to liquid storage tanks may cause serious direct and indirect impacts. Many of the existing
tanks in old industrial plants are precode tanks or were designed based on early editions of seismic codes. Meanwhile, the performance of old
liquid storage tanks during the past earthquake revealed that they are noticeably vulnerable. In this paper, analytical and empirical prob-
abilistic seismic safety analysis (PSSA) of precode tanks were performed. Fragility curves were developed in terms of the height-to-diameter
ratio (H=D) and the relative amount of stored liquid (% full). To this end, 750 tank-liquid-earthquake analysis cases have been performed.
Furthermore, performances of 43 unanchored old liquid storage tanks during three major earthquakes were observed. Results of this study
revealed that the H=D can be considered the most important source of uncertainty in PSSA of precode tanks. Moreover, the variation of % full
causes shows noticeable changes in the values of fragilities of tanks. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000669. © 2014 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Seismic performance; Seismic safety analysis; Fragility; Cylindrical tank.

Introduction
The performances of cylindrical liquid storage tanks due to past
earthquakes revealed that these structures are seismically vulner-
able (Swan et al. 1985; Manos and Clough 1985; Manos 1991;
Stepp et al. 1990, Eshghi et al. 2004; Eshghi and Razzaghi
2005, 2007; Zareian et al. 2012; Brunesi et al. 2014). During an
earthquake the upper part of the contained liquid, which is called
a convective liquid, moves in long-period motion and the other part
moves rigidly with the tank. The latter part is known as impulsive
liquid (Jacobsen 1949). The sloshing liquid may apply hydrody-
namic pressure to the tank roof or may lead to the overflowing
of the liquid. Furthermore, a large hydrodynamic pressure can
be applied to the tank shell. The hydrodynamic pressure may lead
to the distortion of shell and/or rupture of shell lap joints. Many of
the on-grade tanks, even anchored ones, may experience shell uplift
due to the strong ground motion (Malhotra and Veletsos 1994;
Malhotra 2000; Ahari et al. 2009). The shell uplift may cause dam-
age to the tank foundation, rupture of the shell to the base plate
junction, and rupture of pipes and/or appurtenances. Elephant-foot
buckling (elastic-plastic failure) can be caused by large axial com-
pressive stresses in the tank wall (Virella et al. 2006; Buratti and
Tavano 2014). Initial imperfections of the tank shell may result in
less common and usual mechanisms, such as secondary diamond-
shaped buckling modes (Brunesi et al. 2014). In addition, distor-
tions of the tank roof or ruptures of the roof-to-wall junction may
occur due to the strong ground motion. In addition to the previously
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Qazvin Branch,
Islamic Azad Univ., Nokhbegan Blvd., 34185-1416 Qazvin, Iran (corre-
sponding author). E-mail: razzaghi.m@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering
and Seismology (IIEES), No. 26, Arghavan St., North Dibajee, Farmanieh,
19395-3913 Tehran, Iran. E-mail: s.eshghi@iiees.ac.ir
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 21, 2014; approved on
July 29, 2014; published online on September 26, 2014. Discussion period
open until February 26, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828/04014170(7)/$25.00.
mentioned physical loss, damage to tanks may cause serious indi-
rect impacts to process industries (e.g., work abandon).
Before the 1970s, many of the tanks were not designed for with-
standing seismic loads. Failure of cylindrical liquid storage tanks
during the 1960 Chile and 1964 Alaska earthquakes attracted
several researchers to the seismic performance of cylindrical steel
tanks (Jaiswal et al. 2007). The earliest seismic code provisions for
steel tanks were presented in the 1970s. Performances of tanks
during the 1994 Northridge earthquake in the United States
(Lindell and Perry 1997) and 1999 Izmit earthquake in Turkey
(Sezen et al. 2006; Scawthorn and Johnson 2000) have also helped
to improve deficiencies in the codes of practices. Since then several
revisions have been made to seismic design codes and guidelines.
For this reason, even tanks that are designed according to the older
editions of codes may be seismically vulnerable (Hosseinzadeh et al.
2013). Most of the precode tanks and those designed according to
earlier editions of the seismic codes are unanchored because of eco-
nomic aspects. In accordance with the high nonlinear behavior of
unanchored tanks and their catastrophic failures due to shell uplift,
the recent editions of most of the codes emphasize using mechanical
anchors for cylindrical steel tanks, especially taller ones.
The importance of acceptable seismic behavior for tanks in indus-
trial plants has emphasized the need for seismic safety evaluations of
existing oil storage tanks. Many precode or old tanks are existing in
operable process industries all around the world. In this study, a prob-
abilistic seismic safety analysis has been conducted for precode cylin-
drical steel tanks. To this end existing tanks of a tank farm of an old oil
refinery have been selected. The seismic performances of the tanks
were evaluated by using nonlinear time history analysis. Furthermore,
empirical probabilistic evaluations of seismic performances of old
cylindrical tanks were conducted based on the seismic performances
of such tanks during some of the major earthquakes in the 2000s.
Theoretical Background
A fundamental requirement for assessing the seismic performance
of cylindrical steel tanks is the ability to quantify the potential for

© ASCE 04014170-1 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

 damage as a function of the level of seismic hazards [e.g., peak Table 1. Description of Damage States Based on HAZUS (Data from NIBS
ground acceleration (PGA)]. A probabilistic seismic safety assess- 1999)
ment provides a framework to evaluate the reliability, uncertainty, Damage
and seismic performance of structures (Ellingwood et al. 2004). state Description
Fragility curves relate strong motion severity to the probability D1 No damage
of reaching or exceeding a certain limit state. The probability that D2 Minor damage without loss of content or functionality:
the demand on a particular structure exceeds its capacity can be damage to roof, localized wrinkles in steel
expressed as follows: D3 Considerable damage with minor loss of content:

  elephant-foot buckling without loss of content
Sd D4 Severe damage: Tank going out of service, elephant-foot
Pf ¼ P ≥ 1jIM ð1Þ
Sc buckling with loss of content
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on 10/31/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

D5 Collapse: losing all of content

where Pf = probability of reaching or exceeding a particular
damage state; Sd and Sc = structural demand and capacity of
the tank, respectively; and IM = ground motion intensity measure.
In this study, it is assumed that the earthquake damage distribution Table 2. Specification of Selected Records
can be represented by the cumulative standard lognormal function. Event Date L (km) Magnitude (Ms) PGA (g)
This assumption has been made by several researchers for the
Tabas 1979 3 (H) 7.4 0.852
derivation of fragility functions (Kircher et al. 1997; Shinozuka
Northridge 1994 8.2 (CFR) 6.7 0.433
et al. 2000; Choi et al. 2004; Hancilar et al. 2013). The most
Loma-Prieta 1989 11.2 (CFR) 7.1 0.473
important advantage of this assumption is that the cumulative Izmit 1999 17 (CFR) 7.8 0.244
lognormal distribution is mathematically convenient for character- Chi-Chi 1999 25.3 (CFR) 7.6 0.227
izing the uncertainties and randomness associated with the struc- San-Fernando 1971 23.5 (CFR) 6.6 0.157
tural capacities and seismic demand (Straub and Der Kiureghian Cape Mendocino 1992 33.8 (CFR) 7.1 0.229
2008; Hancilar et al. 2013). Hence, Eq. (1) can be rewritten as Kern County 1952 41 (CFR) 7.7 0.178
follows: Manjil 1990 65 (CFR) 7.7 0.132

 
  Landers 1992 69.2 (CFR) 7.4 0.146
Sd 1 S
Pf ¼ P ≥ 1jIM ¼ φ ln d ð2Þ Note: CFR = closest to fault rupture; H = hypocentral.
Sc β Sc

where φ½: = standard normal distribution function; and β = loga-
rithmic standard deviation of variables. In this study the ground
motion intensity measurement is PGA.
According to Eq. (2), the first step for the probabilistic seismic
safety assessment is identifying limit states. ATC-13 (ASCE 1985)
provides seven different damage states for tanks, which are no
damage, slight, light, moderate, heavy, major, and destroyed, based
on the repair cost of the affected tank. HAZUS [National Institute
of Building Sciences (NIBS) 1999] provides five damage states
that vary from no damage to collapsed tanks, based on the service-
ability, loss of content, and the occurrence of shell buckling.
The HAZUS damage states have been previously used to develop
seismic fragility curves of liquid storage tanks (So 1999; O’Rourke
and So 2000). In this study the HAZUS damage states are used
(Table 1).
were considered for each group (% full ¼ 25, 50, 70, 95%). Earth-
quake input motion for various magnitudes and epicentral distances
and PGAs were selected. The accelerograms selected are listed in
Table 2. All of the selected ground motions were recorded on hard
soil. For each tank-liquid-earthquake set, a nonlinear response his-
tory analysis was performed. Hence a total of 750 analysis cases
have been performed. Finally, based on the results of the damage
data simulated by numerical analyses, the fragility curves were
developed.
The empirical PSSA is based on the performances of liquid stor-
age tanks during recent earthquakes. In order to perform an empiri-
cal PSSA, the performances of 43 unanchored liquid storage tanks
during three major earthquakes were observed.
Analytical PSSA

Procedure of the Probabilistic Seismic Numerical Analysis

Safety Analysis
In this study, both analytical and empirical probabilistic seismic
safety analyses (PSSAs) for liquid storage tanks have been per-
formed. The analytical PSSA is based on a nonlinear response his-
tory analysis. To this end unanchored cylindrical liquid storage
tanks of a tank farm were considered. The tank farm belongs to
an old oil refinery; hence, the tanks have not been designed accord-
ing to the seismic codes. The PSSA of a particular structure
involves different sources of uncertainties. Previous researches
show that seismic performance of unanchored tanks is highly de-
pendent on height-to-diameter ratio (H=D) and the relative amount
of stored liquid (% full). Hence, they can be considered two of the
most important sources of uncertainty in the PSSA of precode
tanks. For this reason the tanks were categorized into five groups
based on their height-to-diameter ratios (H=D ¼ 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6,
0.9). Furthermore, five different relative amounts of stored contents
In order to perform the previously mentioned analysis cases,
ANSYS software was used. In order to perform exhaustive dynamic
analysis of liquid containers regarding fluid–structure interactions,
complex models incorporating Lagrangian–Eulerian approaches
should be used (Curadelli 2013; Virella et al. 2006a, 2008). How-
ever, usually it is convenient to resort to the simplified models
such as added mass approximations (Curadelli 2013; Buratti and
Tavano 2014; Virella et al. 2005). In this study fluid-specific finite
elements were used. Eight-node FLUID80 elements were used
to model the contained liquid. The fluid elements have three
translational degrees of freedom at each node. They are suitable
for modeling fluid contained within vessels without flow rate
(ANSYS). The FLUID80 element is well suited for calculating both
hydrostatic pressure and fluid–structure interaction. The stress-
strain relationships used to develop the stiffness matrix in a con-
stant temperature are

© ASCE 04014170-2 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

 8 9 21 38 9
> εb > > P > Table 4. Comparison of the Measured and Calculated Natural Frequencies
>
> >
> 6
K
7>> >
> of the Tank
>
> >
>
γ xy > 6 1 7>> τ >
>
>
> > 6 7>>
> xy >
>
>
> >
> 6
S
7> >
> Frequency
>
> γ yz >
> 6 1 7>> τ yz >
> Shell Tank Liquid
>
< >
= 6 S 7<> >
= height diameter height FEM Measured
6 1 7
γ xz ¼ 6 7 τ xz ð3Þ (m) (m) (m) m n (Hz) (Hz) Δ (%)
>
> >
> 6
S 7> >
>
> Rx > > 6 7>>M > >
7> x>
1
>
> >
> 6 >
> >
>
14.75 33.5 11.7 1 1 5.98 5.99 0.1
>
> > 6 B
7> >
>R >
> > 6
> 1 7>>M >
> >
>
14.75 33.5 5 1 1 13.09 13.23 1
>
> y >
> 4 5>> y >
> 14.75 33.5 5 1 2 5.44 5.06 7.5
: ; B
: ;
Rz 1 M 14.75 33.5 0.65 1 1 21.77 22.85 4.7
B z
14.75 33.5 0.65 1 2 24.71 29.46 8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on 10/31/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

14.75 33.5 0 1 1 30.98 30.01 3.2

where εb = bulk strain; K = fluid bulk modulus; P = pressure;
M i = twisting force about axis i; Ri = rotation about axis i; γ ij Note: m = vertical pattern of vibration of tanks; n = number of
and τ ij = shear strain and shear stress in ij plane, respectively; and circumferential waves associated in the free lateral vibration mode
S and B = arbitrary small numbers to give element some shear shape of the tank.
and rotational stability, respectively.
A damping matrix is also developed based on the following
relationships: The kinematic hardening rule was used to define steel material
2 3 property.
8 9 0 8 9
> ε̇ > 6 > P > > The element tests and validation of models were carefully
>
>
b
>
> 7>> >
>
> γ̇ >
> 6 1 7>> τ >
> conducted according to techniques provided by Cook (1994).
>
> xy >
> 6 6 μ 7 >
> xy >
>
>
> >
> 7 >
> >
> The numerical models used in time history analyses of structures
>
> γ̇ yz >>
> 6 6 1 7 > τ yz >
> >
>
< = 6 μ 7 >
< >
= are idealizations required to represent the response of real struc-
7
γ̇ xz ¼ 6 6 1 7 τ ð4Þ tures to various seismic loads. They can be verified by conducting
> > 6 μ 7> xz
>
>
> Ṙ > > 6 7>>M > > full-scale tests (e.g., ambient vibration tests) (Trifunac 1970;
>
> >
x >
1 7 > >
>
> >
> 6 7>> x> > Ivanovic et al. 2000, 2000a). In this study the ambient vibration
7> >
c
>
> Ṙ > > 6 >M >
> >
>
> >
> 6 1 7>> >
> tests were used to verify the numerical models. The natural
>
:
y >
; 4 c 5>:
y >
;
1
frequencies and mode shapes of vibration of one of the tanks were
Ṙz Mz
c measured for four successive stages of filling. As indicated in
Table 4, discrepancies in the natural frequencies were found to
where μ = fluid viscosity; and c can be calculated by c ¼ be less than 8%. Hence, the experimental results and the FEM
0.00001μ. The operator (·) represents differentiation with respect
analysis were in good agreement.
to time.
The amplitudes of vibration in ambient vibration tests are small
Based on the fluid density, a lumped mass matrix is developed
and thus these tests can just reflect the linear behavior of structures.
for fluid element.
Natural seismic events can be considered as full-scale tests on
Four-node shell elements (SHELL181) having six degrees of
structures. In other words, if the ground motion that the structure
freedom at each node were used for modeling the tank shell, roof,
was subjected to is recorded, then observable damage and evidence
and bottom plate. The elements are capable of considering material
of dynamic response of the structure can provide useful tools to
nonlinearity. In unanchored tanks separation of the base plate from
verify numerical models. In this study two tanks that were affected
foundation may occur due to the shell uplift. In such a situation, the
behavior of the tank is geometrically nonlinear. To model such a by the Silakhor earthquake of March 31, 2006, in western Iran were
separation and its associated nonlinear behavior, gap elements were modeled. The tanks are situated close to the Chalanchoulan accel-
used. Gap elements are two-node elements having three transla- erograph station. One of the tanks suffered elastic-plastic buckling
tional degrees of freedom at each node. and all of them experienced shell uplift. Nonlinear performances of
The implicit transient analysis was used to estimate the dynamic the tanks were estimated by response history analysis of the tanks
response of the tank-liquid systems to the acceleration time histor- due to the acceleration time histories recorded at the Chalanchoulan
ies. There are two methods in the ANSYS program that can be station. By comparing the finite-element time-history results with
employed for the solution of the transient dynamic equation of mo- elastic-plastic buckling capacity of the observed tanks it was shown
tion: the central difference time integration and the Newmark time that one of the tanks would not be expected to suffer shell buckling
integration method. The central difference time integration method due to the Silakhor earthquake. However, the analyses for the other
is used for explicit analysis. Hence, in this study the Newmark time tank indicated that the maximum axial compression at the bottom
integration method was employed. The geometrical imperfections quarter of shell would exceed the buckling capacity of the wall.
have not been accounted for in the models.
As illustrated in Table 3, a bilinear model for considering
material properties of steel was employed. The material nonlinear- Table 5. Geometric Specifications of the Tanks
ity of steel was accounted for based on von Mises yield criterion.
Tank H D tb tr Strikes
identification (m) (m) (mm) (mm) ns thicknesses (mm)
Table 3. Material Properties of Steel and Contained Liquid T3 14.75 43.8 6 5 6 25-20-16-12-8-8
T4 14.75 33.5 6 5 6 18-14-12-10-6-6
Elasticity Tangent
T5 14.75 27.5 6 5 6 12-10-8-6-6-6
Density modulus modulus Yield stress Poisson
T6 14.75 19.5 6 5 5 12-10-8-6-6
Material (kg=m3 ) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) ratio
T10 14.75 7.6 6 5 3 6-6-6
Steel 7,850 210 4 × 103 240 0.3
Note: D = tank diameter; H = shell height; ns = number of strikes in tank
Fluid 920 — — — —
shells; and tr and tb = thickness of roof and base plate, respectively.

© ASCE 04014170-3 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on 10/31/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Seismic fragility curves of tanks for damage state D2
These results were consistent with the observed actual buckling
behavior of tanks during the earthquake. Moreover, the numerical
models were capable of predicting the uplifting behaviors of the
tanks (Eshghi and Razzaghi 2007).
In addition to the previously mentioned field investigations, the
results of numerical analysis have been validated by credible
benchmark analyses and experimental investigations (Razzaghi
2007). The geometric specifications of the tanks are shown in
Table 5. The common construction method of cylindrical steel
tanks is rolling flat sheets into curved panels and joining them into
complete strakes and joining the strakes to fabricate the entire shell
(Teng and Rotter 2006). Usually the thicknesses of tank shells
decrease from the bottom strikes to the upper ones.
As indicated in Table 5, the aspect ratios (H=D) of selected
tanks varied from 0.3 to 1.0; this range contains both broad and
tall tanks.
Fig. 2. Seismic fragility curves of tanks for damage state D3
Fig. 3. Seismic fragility curves of tanks for damage state D4
© ASCE 04014170-4
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
Fig. 4. Seismic fragility curves of tanks for damage state D5
Development of Fragility Curves
The seismic performances of cylindrical steel tanks are strongly
dependent on H=D and the relative amount of stored contents.
Hence, in this study fragility analysis has been performed based
on H=D and % full of the tanks. Figs. 1–4 indicate the fragility
curves for 90% full tanks of different H=Ds in different damage
states. As indicated in these figures, the fragility of tanks is very
dependent on H=D. Tall tanks (H=D ≥ 0.6) are more vulnerable
than broad tanks (H=D ≤ 0.5). Moreover, the aspect ratios of
0.3 and 0.4 were the same for almost all of the damage states.
The only exception is the damage state D3 within the PGA range
between 0.4 and 0.8 g. No catastrophic damage (damage states D4
or D5) occurred in very broad tanks (H=D ≤ 0.4). In other words,
H=D is one of the most important sources of uncertainty in the
PSSA of precode tanks. The correlation factors of this set of fra-
gility curves are in the range of R2 ¼ 0.74–0.88.
In order to investigate the effect of the relative amount of stored
content on seismic fragility of unanchored tanks, the fragility
Fig. 5. Effect of % full on seismic fragility of all tanks for (a) damage
state D2; (b) damage state D3
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 Table 6. Specifications of Inspected Tanks Following the Earthquakes
Number of
Event Year observed tanks PGA range (g)
Bam 2003 1 0.7
6 0.44–0.6
Zarand 2005 11 0.16–0.25
Silakhor 2006 5 0.44
12 0.16–0.25
8 0.09–0.15
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on 10/31/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

curves were developed in terms of % full. Correlation factors (R2 )

of fragility curves of the tanks for D4 and D5 damage states
were less than 0.63, which are not reasonable from a statistical
point of view. Hence in this paper the fragility curves for D2
and D3 for different amounts of stored content are presented
(Fig. 5). As illustrated in Fig. 5, the % full made noticeable changes
in the values of fragilities of precode tanks and can be considered
important sources of uncertainty in the PSSA of such tanks.
Empirical PSSA
During the last two decades several tanks in Iran experienced strong
ground motion (Eshghi and Razzaghi 2004, 2007; Razzaghi 2007).
Some of these tanks suffered minor to moderate damages. A data-
base of performance of tanks during major earthquakes in Iran was
developed. These data were obtained from the visual inspection of
approximately 50 cylindrical liquid storage tanks following three
major seismic events. The number of inspected tanks and the
PGA range that each tank experienced are summarized in Table 6.
Fig. 6. Comparison of the analytical fragility curves with empirical
data
The specifications of observed tanks are indicated in Table 7. Most
of the damaged tanks experienced damage state D2 and only one of
them suffered damage state D3. None of the affected tanks suffered
major damage (D4) and none of them collapsed. The probability of
occurrence or exceeding the damage state D2 for the affected tanks
during the earthquake for all of the tanks (whether broad or tall)
was calculated and compared with analytical fragility curves devel-
oped herein (Fig. 6). As indicated in Fig. 6, the probability of fail-
ure, which was estimated using empirical data, is less than the
values of the fragility curves of full tanks for each of the peak
ground accelerations. It is also showed that empirical probabilities
are close to the fragility of 50% full tanks. The differences of the

Table 7. Specifications of Observed Tanks Following the Earthquakes

Tank
identification Quality H=D Roof type Anchorage Liquid Percentage (%) full L (km) Event
TB1 1 ≥ 0.6 Fixed Unanchored Fuel oil Approximately 0.3 <5 Bam
TB2 3 ≥ 0.6 Fixed Unanchored Lubricant ≥ 0.7 >5 Bam
TB3 3 ≥ 0.6 Fixed Unanchored Lubricant U >5 Bam
TZ1 2 ≤ 0.5 Fixed Unanchored Fuel oil U 15 Zarand
TZ2 2 >0.6 Fixed Unanchored Fuel oil U 15 Zarand
TZ2A 1 >0.6 Fixed Unanchored Fuel oil U 15 Zarand
TZ3 2 <0.5 Fixed Unanchored Water U 15 Zarand
TZ4 2 <0.5 Fixed Unanchored Treated water U 15 Zarand
TZ5 2 <0.5 Fixed Unanchored Pure water U 15 Zarand
TS1 1 0.55 Fixed Unanchored Fuel oil 0.91 <5 Silakhor
T1SA 1 0.55 Fixed Unanchored Fuel oil 0.92 <5 Silakhor
TS2 1 1.2 Fixed Unanchored Fuel oil 0.87 <5 Silakhor
TS3 2 1.2 Fixed Unanchored Molasses 0.9a <5 Silakhor
TS4 2 1.2 Fixed Anchored Molasses 0.3a <5 Silakhor
TS5 1 1.3 Fixed Anchored Gas-oil U <5 Silakhor
TS6 1 1.6 Fixed Unanchored — 0 10 Silakhor
TS7 2 2 Fixed Unanchored — 0 10 Silakhor
TS8 1 1.2 Fixed Unanchored — 0 10 Silakhor
TS9 2 1.2 Fixed Unanchored — 0 10 Silakhor
TS10 6 1.5 Fixed Unanchored — 0 10 Silakhor
TS11 1 0.37 Fixed Unanchored Oil 0.12 >20 Silakhor
TS12 1 0.37 Fixed Unanchored Gas-oil 0.64 >20 Silakhor
TS13 1 0.5 Floating Unanchored Oil 0.21 >20 Silakhor
TS14 1 0.5 Floating Unanchored Gasoline 0.55 >20 Silakhor
TS15 1 0.5 Floating Unanchored Oil 0.15 >20 Silakhor
TS16 1 0.5 Floating Unanchored Oil 0.15 >20 Silakhor
TS17 1 0.8 Fixed Unanchored Lubricant 0 >20 Silakhor
TS18 1 0.8 Fixed Unanchored Lubricant 0 >20 Silakhor
Note: L = epicentral distance of the tank; U = unknown.
a
According to personnel of the factory.

© ASCE 04014170-5 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

 empirical values from analytical fragilities for different PGAs were
less than 10%.
Conclusions
A methodology based on numerical analysis was presented for the
development of seismic fragility curves of unanchored oil-storage
tanks. Nonlinear dynamic response analysis was conducted by
using records appropriate for earthquakes. To consider uncertain-
ties involved in PSSA of precode tanks, 750 tank-liquid-earthquake
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on 10/31/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
cases were analyzed. Based on the results of numerical analyses,
the fragility curves were developed in terms of H=D and % full.
The developed fragility curves revealed that the H=D is the most
important source of uncertainty in the PSSA of precode tanks. It
was also shown that variations in the relative amount of stored
liquid may cause noticeable changes in the fragility of the tanks.
In addition to the analytical PSSA, an empirical PSSA was per-
formed based on the performances of 43 oil tanks during earth-
quakes. The comparison of the analytical fragility curves with
empirical data showed that empirical data were noticeably close
to the fragility of 50% full. The differences of empirical and ana-
lytical fragilities of 50% full tanks in different PGAs were less
than 10%.
References
Ahari, M. N., Eshghi, S., and Ashtiany, M. G. (2009). “The tapered beam
model for bottom plate uplift analysis of unanchored cylindrical steel
storage tanks.” Eng. Struct., 31(3), 623–632.
ANSYS [Computer software]. Canonsburg, PA, ANSYS.
ASCE. (1985). “Earthquake damage evaluation data for California.”
ATC-13, Reston, VA.
Brunesi, E., Nascimbene, R., Pagani, M., and Beilic, D. (2014). “Seismic
performance of storage steel tanks during the May 2012 Emilia, Italy,
earthquakes.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-
5509.0000628, 04014137.
Buratti, N., and Tavano, M. (2014). “Dynamic buckling and seismic
fragility of anchored steel tanks by the added mass method.” Earth-
quake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 43(1), 1–21.
Choi, E., DesRoches, R., and Nielson, B. (2004). “Seismic fragility of typ-
ical bridges in moderate seismic zones.” Eng. Struct., 26(2), 187–199.
Cook, R. D. (1994). Finite element modeling for stress analysis, Wiley.
Curadelli, O. (2013). “Equivalent linear stochastic seismic analysis of
cylindrical base-isolated liquid storage tanks.” J. Construct. Steel
Res., 83, 166–176.
Ellingwood, B. R., Rosowsky, D. V., Li, Y., and Kim, J. H. (2004).
“Fragility assessment of light-frame wood construction subjected to
wind and earthquake hazards.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(2004)130:12(1921), 1921–1930.
Eshghi, S., and Razzaghi, M. S. (2004). “The behavior of special structures
during the Bam earthquake of 26 December 2003.” JSEE-J. Seismol.
Earthquake Eng., 5(4), 197–207.
Eshghi, S., and Razzaghi, M. S. (2005). “Performance of industrial facili-
ties in the 2003 Bam, Iran, earthquake.” Earthquake Spectra, 21(S1),
395–410.
Eshghi, S., and Razzaghi, M. S. (2007). “Performance of cylindrical liquid
storage tanks in Silakhor, Iran earthquake of March 31, 2006.” Bull.
N. Z. Soc. Earthquake Eng., 40(4), 173–182.
Eshghi, S., Zare, M., Assadi, K., Razzaghi, M., Ahari, M., and Motamedi,
M. (2004). “Reconnaissance report on 26 December 2003 Bam
earthquake.” Rep. No. 04-01, International Institute of Earthquake
Engineering (IIEES), Tehran, Iran (in Persian).
Hancilar, U., Taucer, F., and Corbane, C. (2013). “Empirical fragility func-
tions based on remote sensing and field data after the 12 January 2010
Haiti earthquake.” Earthquake Spectra, 29(4), 1275–1310.
HAZUS [Computer software]. Washington, DC, Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
© ASCE 04014170-6
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
Hosseinzadeh, N., Kazem, H., Ghahremannejad, M., Ahmadi, E., and
Kazem, N. (2013). “Comparison of API650-2008 provisions with
FEM analyses for seismic assessment of existing steel oil storage
tanks.” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 26(4), 666–675.
Ivanović, S. S., Trifunac, M. D., Novikova, E. I., Gladkov, A. A., and
Todorovska, M. I. (2000). “Ambient vibration tests of a seven-story
reinforced concrete building in Van Nuys, California, damaged by the
1994 Northridge earthquake.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 19(6),
391–411.
Ivanović, S. S., Trifunac, M. D., and Todorovska, M. I. (2000a). “Ambient
vibration tests of structures—A review.” ISET J. Earthquake Technol.,
37(4), 165–197.
Jacobsen, L. S. (1949). “Impulsive hydrodynamics of fluid inside a cylin-
drical tank and of fluid surrounding a cylindrical pier.” Bull. Seismol.
Soc. Am., 39(3), 189–203.
Jaiswal, O. R., Rai, D. C., and Jain, S. K. (2007). “Review of seismic
codes on liquid-containing tanks.” Earthquake Spectra, 23(1),
239–260.
Kircher, C. A., Nassar, A. A., Kustu, O., and Holmes, W. T. (1997).
“Development of building damage functions for earthquake loss
estimation.” Earthquake Spectra, 13(4), 663–682.
Lindell, M. K., and Perry, R. W. (1997). “Hazardous materials releases in
the Northridge earthquake: Implications for seismic risk assessment.”
Risk Anal., 17(2), 147–156.
Malhotra, P. (2000). “Practical nonlinear seismic analysis of tanks.” Earth-
quake Spectra, 16(2), 473–492.
Malhotra, P. K., and Veletsos, A. S. (1994). “Beam model for base-uplifting
analysis of cylindrical tanks.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9445(1994)120:12(3471), 3471–3488.
Manos, G. C. (1991). “Evaluation of the earthquake performance of anch-
ored wine tanks during the San Juan, Argentina, 1977 earthquakes.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 20(12), 1099–1114.
Manos, G. C., and Clough, R. W. (1985). “Tank damage during the
May 1983 Coalinga earthquake.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 13(4),
449–466.
National Institue of Building Sciences (NIBS). (1999). Earthquake loss
methodology, HAZUS 99, Technical manual, Vol. II, Washington, DC.
O’Rourke, M. J., and So, P. (2000). “Seismic fragility curves for on-grade
steel tanks.” Earthquake Spectra, 16(4), 801–815.
Razzaghi, M. S. (2007). “Development of seismic fragility curves for
on-ground cylindrical oil-storage tanks.” Ph.D. dissertation, International
Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Tehran, Iran
(in Persian).
Scawthorn, C., and Johnson, G. S. (2000). “Preliminary report: Kocaeli
(Izmit) earthquake of 17 August 1999.” Eng. Struct., 22(7), 727–745.
Sezen, H., and Whittaker, A. S. (2006). “Seismic performance of industrial
facilities affected by the 1999 Turkey earthquake.” J. Perform. Constr.
Facil., 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2006)20:1(28), 28–36.
Shinozuka, M., Feng, M. Q., Lee, J., and Naganuma, T. (2000). “Statistical
analysis of fragility curves.” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399
(2000)126:12(1224), 1224–1231.
So, P. (1999). “Seismic behavior of on-grade steel tanks; fragility curves.”
M.Sc. thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Stepp, J. C., et al. (1990). “Industrial facilities.” Earthquake Spectra, 6(S1),
189–238.
Straub, D., and Der Kiureghian, A. (2008). “Improved seismic fragility
modeling from empirical data.” Struct. Saf., 30(4), 320–336.
Swan, S. W., Miller, D. D., and Yanev, P. I. (1985). “The Morgan Hill earth-
quake of April 24, 1984—Effects on industrial facilities, buildings, and
other facilities.” Earthquake Spectra, 1(3), 457–568.
Teng, J. G., and Rotter, J. M., eds. (2006). Buckling of thin metal shells,
CRC Press, London.
Trifunac, M. D. (1970). “Ambient vibration test of a thirty-nine story steel
frame building.” EERL 70-02, Pasadena, CA.
Virella, J. C., Godoy, L. A., and Suárez, L. E. (2006b). “Fundamental
modes of tank-liquid systems under horizontal motions.” Eng. Struct.,
28(10), 1450–1461.
Virella, J. C., Godoy, L. A., and Suárez, L. E. (2006a). “Dynamic buckling
of anchored steel tanks subjected to horizontal earthquake excitation.”
J. Construct. Steel Res., 62(6), 521–531.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 Virella, J. C., Prato, C. A., and Godoy, L. A. (2008). “Linear and nonlinear
2D finite element analysis of sloshing modes and pressures in rectan-
gular tanks subject to horizontal harmonic motions.” J. Sound Vibr.,
312(3), 442–460.
Virella, J. C., Suarez, L. E., and Godoy, L. A. (2005). “Effect of pre-
stress states on the impulsive modes of vibration of cylindrical
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on 10/31/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tank-liquid systems under horizontal motions.” J. Vibr. Control,
11(9), 1195–1220.
Zareian, F., Sampere, C., Sandoval, V., McCormick, D. L., Moehle, J., and
Leon, R. (2012). “Reconnaissance of the Chilean wine industry affected
by the 2010 Chile offshore Maule earthquake.” Earthquake Spectra,
28(S1), S503–S512.

© ASCE 04014170-7 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

View publication stats J. Perform. Constr. Facil.