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

net/publication/282679956

Finite Element Simulation of Cylindrical Liquid Storage Tank Under Tri-

Directional Components of Earthquake

Article · April 2015

DOI: 10.3850/978-981-09-1139-3_089

CITATIONS READS

2 1,776

3 authors, including:

Aruna Rawat Vasant Matsagar

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
15 PUBLICATIONS   81 CITATIONS    216 PUBLICATIONS   2,460 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Genetic Algorithms View project

Effect of Vertical Irregularity on RC Building under Seismic Loading View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vasant Matsagar on 30 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Structural Engineering
Vol. 42, No. 1, Apr - May 2015  pp. 28-39 No. 42-5

Finite element simulation of cylindrical liquid storage tank under

tri-directional components of earthquake
Aruna Rawat*, Vasant Matsagar* and A.K. Nagpal*
 Email: rawataruna14@gmail.com

*Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016, India.

Seismic response of ground-supported, three-dimensional (3-D) cylindrical liquid storage tank subjected to tri-
directional components of earthquake ground motion is investigated, using coupled acoustic-structural finite element
(FE) method. The FE modeling of the interaction is carried out in Abaqus® software. In this method, the tank wall is
modeled using shell elements and contained liquid in the tank using acoustic elements. The acoustic elements are based
on linear potential theory having single pressure degree-of-freedom at each node. A parametric study is conducted
for broad and slender tanks subjected to tri-directional components of five different earthquake ground motions. The
time history responses of sloshing displacement and base shear are obtained, and compared with the bi-directional
horizontal components of the earthquake ground motions. Based on the computed results, it is observed that sloshing
displacement and base shear increases under the tri-directional components of earthquake ground motion. Also,
hydrodynamic pressure distribution increases due to the tri-directional components of earthquake.

Keywords: Coupled acoustic-structure; earthquake; finite element; liquid storage tank; sloshing; tri-directional
components

Liquid storage tanks are important components of
civil life and industrial facilities. Severe damages
to the liquid storage tanks occurred during the past
earthquakes, such as the 1933 Long Beach, 1952 Kern
County, 1964 Alaska, 1964 Niigata, 1966 Parkfield,
1971 San Fernando, 1978 Miyagi, 1979 Imperial
County, 1983 Coalinga, 1994 Northridge, 1999 Kocaeli
and 2003 Tokachi-Oki earthquakes1. The failures of
liquid storage tanks were in the form of elephant foot
buckling of tank wall caused mainly by compressive
stresses. Moreover, other forms of failure such as
sliding of base, uplifting of base, sloshing of liquid
caused damage of roof and the top of tank walls, failure
of piping systems etc. This resulted in economic losses
and the spilling of flammable and hazardous material
caused environmental pollution.
Liquid storage tanks subjected to earthquake ground
motions exhibit complex fluid-structure interaction
(FSI). The dynamic analysis of ground-supported
liquid storage  tank was studied by many researchers
considering horizontal component(s) of earthquake
ground motion. Housner2 proposed an analytical
method for obtaining response of rigid rectangular
and cylindrical water tanks fully anchored to the rigid
foundation under uni-directional horizontal ground
motion. The lumped mass model was developed
for rigid liquid storage tank to evaluate its seismic
response. Veletsos3 and Veletsos and Yang4 showed that
the flexibility of the tank shell has a significant effect
on the dynamic forces induced by the horizontal ground
motion in liquid filled cylindrical tanks. Clough5 and
Clough et al.6 performed a series of experiments on
large-scale thin-walled liquid storage tanks. Haroun and
Housner7 and Haroun8 proposed a mechanical analogy
model for the seismic analysis of flexible cylindrical
liquid storage tanks subjected to horizontal ground

28 Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 42, No. 1, April - may 2015
motion. In their model, the liquid mass was divided
into three lumped mass components such as rigid,
impulsive and convective. Veletsos et al.9 observed
seismic response of liquid storage tanks supported
on rigid and elastic foundations, due to horizontal
excitation. Malhotra and Veletsos10 studied the response
of unanchored ground-supported liquid storage tanks
and concluded that the liquid height to tank radius was
the most important parameter governing the uplifting
response of the tanks. Malhotra et al.11 developed
a simple procedure for seismic analysis of liquid
storage tank. Chen and Kianoush12 introduced a new
procedure, called sequential method, for estimating the
hydrodynamic pressures in rectangular tanks. Virella
et al.13 investigated the natural time periods, mode
shapes, and dynamic response under horizontal ground
excitations of cylindrical tanks partially filled with
liquid using finite element software, Abaqus.
Some studies have been reported on the effect of
only vertical component of earthquake ground motion
on the seismic response of ground-supported liquid
storage tanks. Haroun and Tayel14 studied the seismic
response of cylindrical liquid storage tanks subjected
to a vertical component of seismic excitation using
finite element (FE) method. Velestos and Tang15
studied the seismic analysis of circular tanks under
vertical component of earthquake ground motion,
considering the effect of rigid and flexible supporting
medium using Galerkin’s method. Haroun and Abdel-
Hafiz16 developed a simplified seismic analysis method
for rigid base circular liquid storage tanks subjected
to vertical excitation considering the effect of soil-
structure interaction (SSI). Fishcer and Seeber17 carried
out dynamic analysis of liquid storage tanks under
vertical excitation including both liquid-tank and liquid-
soil interaction. Haroun and Abou-Izzeddine18 studied
circular ground-supported tank subjected to a vertical
component of seismic excitation considering the soil-
tank interaction. Kim et al.19 developed an analytical
method for the dynamic analysis of a partially filled
two-dimensional (2-D) and three-dimensional (3-D)
rectangular tank under horizontal or vertical earthquake
excitations using Rayleigh-Ritz method. Kianoush and
Chen20 studied the effect of vertical ground motion
component on the flexible rectangular liquid storage
tanks using added mass and sequential method for the
seismic analysis of tanks.
Combined effects of three mutually perpendicular
components of earthquake are generally neglected in
the dynamic analysis of liquid storage tanks. Recently,
Ghaemmaghami and Kianoush21 studied the effect of
wall flexibility on the seismic response of rectangular
tank subjected to horizontal and vertical excitations. It
is observed that the vertical component of earthquake
has contribution in the dynamic response of the tank
and cannot be neglected22.
Some current codes suggest that the vertical
excitation effect is assumed to be two-third of the
horizontal response spectrum1. The considered
vertical ground motion does influence the dynamic
response of liquid storage tank when it is subjected to
two horizontal components of an earthquake, which
may lead to increased seismic forces for its design.
Further, the buckling caused in the tank wall may be
aggravated by considering the vertical component of
an earthquake in the dynamic analysis. Hence, it is
necessary to study the response of liquid storage tank
subjected simultaneously to all three components of an
earthquake in horizontal and vertical directions duly
considering the interaction effects.
In the present work, dynamic behavior of
cylindrical liquid storage tank is investigated using
coupled acoustic-structural finite element (FE) method,
considering the combined effects of the horizontal and
vertical components of earthquake ground motions.
The objectives of the present study are: (i) to use
coupled acoustic-structure approach of finite element
method (FEM) for the dynamic analyses of fixed-base
ground-supported three-dimensional (3-D) cylindrical
liquid storage tank; (ii) to compare the sloshing and
base shear responses of the tank subjected to horizontal
bi-directional and tri-directional components of
earthquake; and (iii) to study the seismic response of
broad and slender tanks subjected to tri-directional
earthquake components.
Finite element (FE) modeling
Wang and Bathe23 and Virella et al.13 investigated fluid-
structure interaction (FSI) problems, in which liquid
was modeled using acoustic elements. In the present
study, the coupled acoustic-structure interaction is used
for the FE modeling of a liquid storage tank of radius,
Journal of Structural Engineering 29
Vol. 42, No. 1, April - may 2015
R and liquid height, HL using Abaqus® software (Fig.
1). The liquid contained in the tank is modeled using
acoustic eight-node 3-D continuum element, AC3D8R,
with hourglass control and reduced integration. The
flexible tank wall is modeled using three-node triangular
and four-node quadrilateral shell elements, S3R and
S4R, respectively with hourglass control and reduced
integration. The number of elements used to model the
tank and liquid are shown in Fig. 1. A mesh convergence
study is carried out for the present FE model and the
smallest size of mesh 0.8 × 0.8 m is adopted for the
present study for both shell and acoustic elements.
The acoustic element has a single pressure degree-of-
freedom at each node, without any displacement degree-
of-freedom. Hence, computational time required for
simulation is reduced. Boundary impedance condition
is defined at the free surface of the acoustic medium to
model the sloshing behavior, considering the linearized
wave condition. The impedance boundary condition at
any point along an acoustic medium is governed by
1 1
uout  p  p (1)
k1 c1
where uout is the acoustic particle velocity in the outward
normal direction of the acoustic medium surface, p is
Broad
2R
Liquid
HL
Tank Slender
Fig. 1 Coupled acoustic-structure FE model for 3-D cylindrical liquid storage tank
30 Journal of Structural Engineering
Vol. 42, No. 1, April - may 2015
the acoustic pressure, p is the time rate of change of the
acoustic pressure,1 k1 is the proportionality coefficient
between the pressure and the displacement in the
normal direction to the surface = rl g , and 1 c1 is the
proportionality coefficient between the pressure and the
velocity in normal direction to the surface = 024. Here,
rL is the density of the liquid and g is the gravitational
acceleration directed normal to the surface.
For obtaining the impulsive component of the liquid,
the boundary condition at free surface of liquid is to be
replaced by zero pressure, p = 0 at z = HL 25, where z
is the vertical distance measured from bottom of the
tank. The convective response of the liquid is obtained
by subtracting the impulsive response from the total
response. Using these boundary conditions at the free
surface of the liquid, the impulsive and convective
(sloshing) components are determined separately in the
present coupled acoustic-structure FE model. The fluid-
structure interaction (FSI) between the tank wall and
liquid is defined using a surface-based tie constraint24.
The acceleration boundary condition is applied at
the base of the tank. The acceleration time history of
the earthquake is applied as a base excitation input to
the tank along x- and y-axis, i.e. under bi-directional
AC3D8R,
S = 0.6 36,660 elements
S4R, 1,142 elements
S3R, 11 elements
AC3D8R,
S = 1.85 15,456 elements
S4R, 604 elements
S3R, 06 elements
components of the earthquake. For comparison purpose,
the base excitation is applied along x-, y-, and z-axis of
the tank, i.e. under tri-directional components of the
earthquake. The dynamic implicit integration technique
is used to obtain the time history responses of the liquid
storage tank under earthquake ground motion. The
small time increment of dt/100 is used for the analyses
to obtain the desired seismic response, where dt is the
time interval of the earthquake acceleration digital
data.
The acoustic pressures are measured at the two
extreme nodes from the centre of the tank, at the top
surface of liquid surface along both x-direction (θ =
0°) and y-direction (θ = 90°), and the corresponding
sloshing wave height (h) is obtained by
p
h (2)
rl  g
The base shear along x-direction (θ = 0°) and
y-direction (θ = 90°) is the sum of shear force component
in the respective direction for the tank bottom elements
along the circumference of the tank, where maximum
shear stresses are developed. The hydrodynamic pressure
is the absolute maximum acoustic pressure in the
acoustic elements in x-direction (θ = 0°) and y-direction
(θ = 90°), respectively along the liquid height.
Numerical study
In the present study, the ground-supported, flexible
cylindrical liquid storage tank is analyzed under
different earthquake components and varying tank
geometries. The tank geometry is defined using aspect
ratio of liquid height (HL) to radius of the tank (R), S
= HL/R. For modeling broad and slender tanks S = 0.6
and 1.85, respectively are adopted. The geometrical
parameters used to model the liquid storage tank and
water, and their material properties are described in
Table 1. The thickness of tank wall, ts = 0.004 × R
as per Jadhav and Jangid26 is adopted. The structural
damping of 2% is used for the steel tank in the present
study. The characteristics of the five earthquake ground
motions along with their corresponding peak ground
acceleration (PGA) in terms of g, selected for the
present study are given in Table 2.
Table 1
Parameters of cylindrical tank and water
Cylindrical tank Water
Material (steel) Geometry
Density, rS = 7,900 kg/m 3 Broad (S = 0.6), Density, rL =
Modulus of elasticity, HL=14.6 m, 1,000 kg/m3
Es= 200 GPa R = 24.3 m, Bulk
modulus, K =
Poisson’s ratio, v = 0.3 Slender (S = 1.85),
2,250 MPa
HL=11.3 m,
R = 6.1 m
The cylindrical liquid storage tank is subjected to
bi-directional and tri-directional components of the
earthquake ground motion. The acoustic pressures are
measured at the two extreme nodes from the center
of the tank in both x-direction (θ = 0°) as well as
y-direction (θ = 90°), and the corresponding sloshing
displacements are determined using Eq. (2).
Figures 2 and 3 show comparison of the sloshing
displacement time history responses, respectively for

Table 2
Characteristics of the earthquake ground motions
Earthquake Recording station x-direction y-direction z-direction
component PGA (g) component PGA (g) component PGA (g)
Imperial Valley 19th May, 1940, El Centro 0.348 0.214 0.210
California
Kobe 17th January, 1995 Japan Japan Meteorological 0.834 0.629 0.338
Agency (JMA)
Northridge 17th January, 1994 Sylmar Converter Center 0.842 0.604 0.535
California
Loma Prieta 18th October, 1989 Los Gatos Presentation (LGP) 0.569 0.607 0.895
California Center
Northridge (NHF) 17th January, New Hall Fire (NHF) Station 0.589 0.583 0.548
1994 California

Journal of Structural Engineering 31

Vol. 42, No. 1, April - may 2015
broad and slender tanks obtained for bi-directional liquid; therefore, it is essential to take into account the
and tri-directional components of earthquake ground increase in sloshing displacement while designing the
motion, in both x-direction (θ = 0°) and y-direction (θ = free-board for the tanks in seismic prone regions.
90°). The maximum sloshing displacements are given Saha et al.27,28 have distinguished the base shear
in Table 3 for broad and slender tanks in x-direction and developed in a base-excited liquid storage tank in the
y-direction, respectively. It is observed from Figs. 2 and convective (sloshing) and impulsive components of the
3 that the sloshing displacement increases due to tri- liquid mass. Figures 4 and 5 show the comparison of
directional components of earthquake ground motion. impulsive and convective components of base shear
Further, it is observed from Table 3 that the sloshing developed in broad and slender tanks, respectively
displacement increases by about 7 to 12% for both broad due to tri-directional components of the earthquake
and slender tanks due to application of the additional in both x-direction (θ = 0°) and y-direction (θ = 90°).
vertical component of the earthquake in comparison Table 3 shows the maximum values of impulsive and
to the bi-directional horizontal components of the convective components of the base shear as well as
earthquake. With free liquid surface, application of the the percentage increase in the base shear due to the
vertical component of the earthquake ground motion additionally considered vertical component of the
adds to the vertical displacement in the sloshing liquid. earthquake. Fig. 6 shows the maximum response of
The vertical component of the earthquake causes an impulsive and convective base shear components in
increase in the sloshing displacement of the contained broad and slender cylindrical tank for bi-directional and

150 o
Broad o θ = 90
θ =0
75 61.20
0
68.70 81.82 75.62
-75
Imperial Valley, 1940 Imperial Valley, 1940
-150
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Sloshing displacement (cm)

100 y y
θ θ 61.59
R 37.05 R 52.18
50 x 43.59
x
0

-50
Kobe, 1995 Kobe, 1995
-100

100
70.32 Bi-directional
65.58
50 39.88 36.85 Tri-directional

-50
Northridge, 1994 Northridge, 1994
-100
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Fig. 2 Sloshing displacement time history response in x-direction (θ = 0°) and y-direction (θ = 90°) of broad tank under bi-directional
horizontal and tri-directional components of earthquakes

32 Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 42, No. 1, April - may 2015
 100 o
Slender o 75.70
θ =0 θ = 90
50 41.88 52.55

-50 66.91
Imperial Valley, 1940 Imperial Valley, 1940
-100

150 y
Sloshing displacement (cm)

θ y θ
R 102.96
75 x 73.96 82.7 R
x
0

-75 95.46
Kobe, 1995 Kobe, 1995
-150

150 119.50 134.62 Bi-directional Tri-directional

75
0
-75 109.03 93.51
-150 Northridge, 1994 Northridge, 1994
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (sec) Time (sec)
Fig. 3 Sloshing displacement time history response in x-direction (θ = 0°) and y-direction (θ = 90°) of slender tank under bi-directional
horizontal and tri-directional components of earthquakes

200 8 200 o 10
Broad θ = 0o 6.71
137.80 θ = 90
100 4 100 5
0 0 0 0
Impulsive / convective base shear (MN)

-100 182.12 5.86 -4 -100 -5

Imperial Valley, 1940
-200 -8 -200 -10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
400 y θ 4 300 y θ 6
3.15 203.20
200 R 2 150 R 3
x x
0 0 0 0
-200 -2 -150 3.58 -3
319.70
Kobe, 1995
-400 -4 -300 -6

400 8 300 4
Impulsive component 188.83 Convective component
200 345.09 4 150 2
0 0 0 0
-200 -4 -150 -2
6.32 2.46
Northridge, 1994
-400 -8 -300 -4
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (sec) Time (sec)
Fig. 4 Time history response of impulsive and convective components of base shear in x-direction (θ = 0°) and y-direction (θ = 90°) of broad
tank under tri-directional components of earthquakes

Journal of Structural Engineering 33

Vol. 42, No. 1, April - may 2015
 Table 3
Comparison of peak response quantities in cylindrical tank along x-axis (q = 0°) and y-axis (q = 90°)
Along x-direction (θ = 00) Along x-direction (θ = 900)
Aspect ratio, Earthquake Peak response
S (HL/R) excitation quantities Bi- Tri- Bi- Tri-
% increase* % increase
directional directional directional directional
Sloshing (cm) 61.20 68.70 10.92 75.62 81.82 7.58
Imperial Valley,
I base* shear (MN) 127.08 182.12 30.22 96.05 137.80 30.30
1940
C base* shear (MN) 5.06 5.86 13.65 6.01 6.71 10.43
Sloshing (cm) 37.05 43.59 15.00 52.18 61.59 15.28
Kobe, 1995 I base shear (MN) 258.32 319.70 19.20 173.21 203.20 14.76
C base shear (MN) 2.98 3.15 5.40 3.18 3.58 11.17
Sloshing (cm) 65.58 70.32 6.74 36.85 39.88 7.60
Northridge,
0.6 I base shear (MN) 274.92 345.09 20.33 145.43 188.83 22.98
1994
C base shear (MN) 5.62 6.32 11.08 2.18 2.46 11.38
Sloshing (cm) 76.11 86.99 12.51 25.92 32.35 19.88
Loma Prieta,
I base shear (MN) 214.67 246.78 13.01 171.39 198.33 13.58
1989
C base shear (MN) 6.12 7.01 12.70 1.84 2.12 13.21
Sloshing (cm) 87.47 93.64 6.59 41.15 51.90 20.71
Northridge
I base shear (MN) 314.35 355.78 11.64 348.19 401.09 13.19
(NHF), 1994
C base shear (MN) 6.09 6.76 9.91 3.05 3.73 18.23
Sloshing (cm) 41.88 52.55 20.30 66.91 75.70 11.61
Imperial Valley,
I base shear (MN) 12.41 14.22 12.72 7.04 7.90 10.89
1940
C base shear (MN) 0.34 0.40 15.00 0.46 0.51 9.80
Sloshing (cm) 73.96 82.70 10.57 95.46 102.96 7.28
Kobe, 1995 I base shear (MN) 21.34 23.06 7.45 15.62 17.69 11.70
C base shear (MN) 0.42 0.48 12.50 0.56 0.63 11.11
Sloshing (cm) 119.50 134.62 11.23 93.51 109.03 14.23
Northridge,
1.85 I base shear (MN) 19.03 21.50 11.48 14.47 16.15 10.40
1994
C base shear (MN) 0.72 0.79 8.86 0.57 0.67 14.93
Sloshing (cm) 221.80 252.08 12.01 60.08 73.86 18.66
Loma Prieta,
I base shear (MN) 26.91 33.03 18.52 19.01 23.01 17.38
1989
C base shear (MN) 1.58 1.76 10.23 0.41 0.51 19.61
Sloshing (cm) 138.98 157.85 11.95 92.55 99.86 7.32
Northridge
I base shear (MN) 19.91 22.52 11.59 9.14 10.92 16.30
(NHF), 1994
C base shear (MN) 0.83 0.95 12.63 0.52 0.65 20.00
*I- Impulsive, C- Convective, % increase = (tri-directional – bi-directional) / tri-directional×100

tri-directional components of earthquake. The effect of
impulsive component in the development of tank base
shear is significant as compared to that of the convective
component, in both cases of bi-directional and tri-
directional excitations. The peak responses of impulsive
and convective components do not occur in the same
phase and time instance. It is observed that the liquid
sloshing has meager effect in the overall response of the
tank wall as compared to the impulsive component. This
effect mainly depends on the tank geometry, frequency
of earthquake motion and boundary condition between
the liquid and the tank. Moreover, the vertical component
considered in the analysis has pronounced influence on
the convective component than the impulsive component
of the base shear. It is observed from the present study
that the base shear increases by about 15 to 25% for

34 Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 42, No. 1, April - may 2015
 30 o 0.6 10 0.8
0.40 Slender θ=0 0.51 7.90 θ = 90o
15 0.3 5 0.4
0 0.0 0 0.0
-15 14.22 -0.3 -5 -0.4
Impulsive / convective base shear (MN)
Imperial Valley, 1940
-30 -0.6 -10 -0.8
30 y 0.6 20 y θ 1.0
θ 0.48 17.69
15 R 0.3 10 R 0.5
x x
0 0.0 0 0.0
-15 -0.3 -10 0.63 -0.5
23.06 Kobe, 1995
-30 -0.6 -20 -1.0
30 1.0 20 1.2
Impulsive component Convective component
15 0.5 10 0.6
0 0.0 0 0.0
-15 21.50 -0.5 -10 0.67 -0.6
0.79 16.15 Northridge, 1994
-30 -1.0 -20 -1.2
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Fig. 5 Time history response of impulsive and convective components of base shear in x-direction (θ = 0°) and y-direction (θ = 90°) of slender
tank under tri-directional components of earthquakes

500 500
ο ο

401.09
Broad θ=0 Broad θ = 90
355.78
345.09

348.19
400 400
319.70

314.35
274.92
258.32

246.78

300 300
214.67

203.20

198.33
188.83
182.12

173.21

171.39
145.43
137.80

200 200
127.08

96.05

100 100
6.76
5.86

6.09
5.06

2.98
3.15

5.62
6.32

6.12
7.01

6.01
6.71

2.46

3.73
2.12

3.05
3.58

2.18
3.18

1.84
Base shear (MN)

0 0
IMV KBE NR LP NR(NHF) IMV KBE NR LP NR(NHF)
40 40
ο ο
33.03

Slender θ=0 Slender θ = 90

26.91

30 30
23.06

23.01
22.52
21.34

21.5

19.91

19.01
19.03

17.69

16.15
15.62

20 20
14.47
14.22
12.41

10.92
9.14
7.90
7.04

10 10
1.76
1.58

0.83
0.95
0.72

0.63
0.79

0.41
0.46
0.51

0.56

0.57
0.67

0.51

0.52
0.65
0.42
0.48
0.34
0.4

0 0
IMV KBE NR LP NR(NHF) IMV KBE NR LP NR(NHF)
Impulsive component of base shear in bi-directional Convective component of base shear in bi-directional
Impulsive component of base shear in tri-directional Convective component of base shear in tri-directional

Abbreviation of earthquakes: IMV - Imperial Valley, 1940; KBE - Kobe, 1995; NR - Northridge, 1994; LP -
Loma Prieta, 1989; NR(NHF) - Northridge (NHF), 1994.

Fig. 6 Maximum response of impulsive and convective base shear components in broad and slender cylindrical tanks

Journal of Structural Engineering 35

Vol. 42, No. 1, April - may 2015
 15
Imperial Valley,1940

10

5
o o
θ=0 θ = 90
0

15
Kobe, 1995
Liquid height (m)

10

15
Northridge, 1994

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Broad tank with tri-directional excitation Slender tank with tri-directional excitation

Broad tank with bi-directional excitation Slender tank with bi-directional excitation

Hydrodynamic impulsive pressure (kPa)

Fig. 7 Absolute maximum hydrodynamic impulsive pressure in broad and slender tanks

Table 4
Comparison of absolute maximum hydrodynamic impulsive pressure in cylindrical tank along
x-axis (θ = 0°) and y-axis (θ = 90°)
Absolute maximum hydrodynamic impulsive pressure (kPa)
Aspect ratio, S
Earthquake excitation Along x-direction (θ = 00) Along y-direction (θ = 900)
(HL/R)
Bi-directional Tri-directional Bi-directional Tri-directional
0.6 Imperial Valley, 1940 146.13 164.60 124.62 145.71
Kobe, 1995 128.81 146.51 166.89 183.45
Northridge, 1994 156.72 188.59 116.62 121.90
Loma Prieta, 1989 126.84 145.62 114.62 131.74
Northridge (NHF), 1994 122.62 141.93 112.88 132.04
1.85 Imperial Valley, 1940 42.12 72.17 38.44 57.78
Kobe, 1995 59.07 68.81 40.08 66.72
Northridge, 1994 97.31 111.58 82.56 99.08
Loma Prieta, 1989 42.37 51.71 63.23 74.52
Northridge (NHF), 1994 38.13 44.13 42.25 51.12

36 Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 42, No. 1, April - may 2015
both broad and slender tanks under the application of
vertical components of the earthquake in comparison
to that with the bi-directional horizontal components of
the earthquake. Therefore, the thickness of tank wall is
required to be designed based on the contribution from
the vertical component of the earthquake in seismic
prone region to avoid the buckling failures in the tank
walls.
The impulsive hydrodynamic pressure distributions
are studied here as it is substantial in comparison to the
convective hydrodynamic pressure. Fig.7 shows the
absolute maximum hydrodynamic impulsive pressure
distribution along the liquid height in broad and slender
tanks for bi-directional and tri-directional components
of the earthquake in both x-direction (θ = 0°) and
y-direction (θ = 90°). Note that the peak pressures
are induced at different time instances. The pressure
distributions show that hydrodynamic pressures are the
highest at some height from the tank bottom due to the
tank wall flexibility. The hydrodynamic pressures are
the highest at about 1/3rd from bottom of the broad tanks,
whereas in case of the slender tanks the hydrodynamic
pressure shows parabolic increase from top to bottom.
Hydrodynamic pressure acting on the side walls of
tank has amplified due to application of the vertical
component of the earthquakes. Table 4 shows the
peak hydrodynamic impulsive pressure values for the
tank. The effect of tri-directional earthquake excitation
of the tank is more pronounced towards its bottom for
impulsive hydrodynamic pressure, whereas towards the
top surface of the liquid hardly any effect is observed
thereof.
Conclusions
Seismic analysis of 3-D ground-supported flexible
cylindrical liquid storage tank subjected to different
earthquake components and varying tank geometries
are investigated, using coupled acoustic-structure
finite element (FE) method. From the comparison of
responses obtained by the FE analysis, the following
conclusions are arrived at.
1. The sloshing displacement increases due to tri-
directional components of earthquake ground
motion applied. The increase in sloshing
displacement is about 7 to 12% for both broad
and slender tanks due to application of additional
vertical component of the earthquake.
2. The effect of impulsive component in the
development of tank base shear is significant as
compared to that of the convective component,
in both cases of bi-directional and tri-directional
excitations applied.
3. The vertical component of the earthquake
considered in the analysis has pronounced
influence on the convective component than the
impulsive component of the base shear. Base shear
increases by about 15 to 25% for both broad and
slender tanks under the application of the vertical
component of earthquakes in comparison to that
with the bi-directional horizontal components of
the earthquake.
4. The hydrodynamic pressures are the highest at
about 2/3rd from top of the liquid surface in broad
tanks, whereas in case of the slender tanks the
hydrodynamic pressure shows parabolic increase
from top to bottom.
5. Hydrodynamic pressure acting on the side walls
of the tank has amplified due to application of the
vertical component of the earthquakes. The effect
of tri-directional earthquake excitation of the
tank is more pronounced towards its bottom for
impulsive hydrodynamic pressure and diminishes
towards the top surface of the liquid.
References
1. Jaiswal, O. R., Rai, D. C. and Jain, S. K., “Review
of seismic codes on liquid-containing tanks”,
Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 23, 1, 2007, pp 239–260.
DOI: 10.1193/1.2428341.
2. Housner, G. W., “The dynamic behavior of water
tanks”, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, Vol. 53, No. 2, 1963, pp 381–387.
3. Veletsos, A. S., “Seismic effects in flexible liquid
storage tanks”, Proc. of 5th World Conf. on Earthquake
Engg., Rome, Italy, Vol. 1, 1974, pp. 630–639
4. Veletsos, A. S. and Yang, J. Y., “Dynamics of fixed
base liquid storage tanks”, Proc. of US.-Japan
Seminar on Earthquake Engineering Research
with Emphasis on Lifeline Systems, Japan Society
for Promotion of Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo,
Japan, 1976, pp 317–341.
Journal of Structural Engineering 37
Vol. 42, No. 1, April - may 2015
5. Clough, D. P., “Experimental evaluation of seismic
design method for broad cylindrical tanks”,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report,
UCB/EERC 77-10, 1977.
6. Clough, R. W., Niwa, A. and Clough, D. P.,
“Experimental seismic study of cylindrical tanks”,
Jl. of the Struct. Div., ASCE, Vol. 105, 12, 1979,
pp 2565–2590.
7. Haroun, M. A. and Housner, G. W., “Earthquake
response of deformable liquid storage tanks”, Jl. of
Appl. Mech., ASME, Vol. 48, 1, 1981, pp 411-418.
8. Haroun, M. A., “Vibration studies and test of liquid
storage tanks”, Earthquake Engg. and Struct.
Dyn., Vol. 11, 1983, pp 179–206. DOI: 10.1002/
eqe.4290110204.
9. Veletsos, A. S., Tang, Y. and Tang, H. T., “Dynamic
response of flexibly supported liquid storage
tanks”, Jl. of Struct. Engg., ASCE, Vol. 118, No.1,
1992, pp 264–283. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(1992)118:1(264).
10. Malhotra, P. K. and Veletsos, A. S., “Uplifting
response of unanchored liquid storage tanks”,
Jl. of Struct. Engg., ASCE, Vol. 120, 12, 1994,
pp 3525–3547. DOI: 10.1061/ (ASCE)0733-
9445(1994)120:12(3525).
11. Malhotra, P. K., Wenk, T. and Wieland, M., “Simple
procedure for seismic analysis of liquid storage
tanks”, Structural Engineering International, Intl.
Asso. for Bridge and Struct. Engg. (IABSE),
Zurich, Switzerland, Vol. 10, 3, 2000, pp 197–201.
DOI: 10.3929/ethz-a-006032188.
12. Chen, J. Z. and Kianoush, M. R., “Seismic response
of concrete rectangular tanks for liquid containing
structures”, Canadian Jl. of Civil Engg., Vol. 32,
4, 2005, pp 739-752. DOI: 10.1139/l05-023.
13. Virella, J., Prato, C. A. and Godoy, L. A., “Linear
and nonlinear 2-D finite element analysis of
sloshing modes and pressures in rectangular tanks
subject to horizontal harmonic motions”, Jl. of
Sound and Vib., Vol. 312, 2008, pp 442–460. DOI:
10.1016/j.jsv.2007.07.088.
14. Haroun, M. A. and Tayel, M., “Response of tanks
to vertical seismic excitations”, Earthq. Engg.
and Struct. Dyn., Vol. 13, 1985, pp 583–595.
DOI:10.1002/eqe.4290130503.
38 Journal of Structural Engineering
Vol. 42, No. 1, April - may 2015
15. Veletsos, A. S. and Tang, Y., “Dynamics of vertically
excited liquid storage tanks”, Jl. of Struct. Engg.,
ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 6, 1986, pp 1228–1246. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1986)112:6(1228).
16. Haroun, M. A. and Abdel-Hafiz, E. A., “A
simplified seismic analysis of rigid base liquid
storage tanks under vertical excitation with
soil-structure interaction”, Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engg., Vol. 5, No. 4, 1986, pp 217–
225. DOI: 10.1016/0267-7261(86)90007-2.
17. Fishcer, F. D. and Seeber, R., “Dynamic response of
vertically excited liquid storage tanks considering
liquid-soil interaction”, Earthquake Engg. and
Struct. Dyna., Vol. 16, 1988, pp 329–342. DOI:
10.1002/eqe.4290160304
18. Haroun, M. A. and Abou-Izzeddine, W.,
“Parametric study of seismic soil-tank interaction
II: vertical excitation”, Jl. of Struct. Engg., Vol.118,
1992, pp 798–812. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445, 118:3(798).
19. Kim, J. K., Koh, H. M. and Kwahk, I. J.,
“Dynamic response of rectangular flexible fluid
containers”, Jl. of Engg. Mech., ASCE, 122,
9, pp 807-–817. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9399(1996)122:9(807).
20. Kianoush, M. R. and Chen, J. Z., “Effect of
vertical acceleration on response of concrete
rectangular liquid storage tanks”, Engg. Structs.,
Vol. 28, No. 5, 2006, pp 704–715. DOI: 10.1016/j.
engstruct.2005.09.022.
21. Ghaemmaghami, A. R. and Kianoush, M. R.,
“Effect of wall flexibility on dynamic response
of concrete rectangular tanks under horizontal
and vertical ground motions”, Jl. of Struct. Engg.,
ASCE, Vol. 136, 4, 2009, pp 441–451. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000123.
22. Moslemi, M. and Kianoush, M. R., “Parametric
study on dynamic behavior of cylindrical ground
supported tanks”, Engg. Structs., Vol. 42, 2012,
pp 214–230. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.04.026.
23. Wang, X. and Bathe, K., “Displacement/pressure
based mixed finite element formulations for
acoustic fluid-structure interaction problems”,
Intl. Jl. for Numerical Methods in Engg.,
Vol. 40, 1997, pp 2001-2017. DOI: 10.1002/
 (SICI) 1097-0207(19970615)40:11<2001::AID-
NME152>3.0.CO;2-W.
24. Abaqus/Standard User’s Manual, Version 6.11,
Dassault Systemes Simulia Corporation, Rhode
Island, USA, 2011.
25. Zienkiewicz, O. C. & Taylor, R. L, The finite
element method, volume 1: The basis, (5th ed.),
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2000, UK.
26. Jadhav, M. B. and Jangid, R. S., “Response
of base-isolated liquid storage tanks”, Shock
and Vibration, Vol. 11, 2004, pp 33–45.
DOI:10.1155/2004/276030.
View publication stats
27. Saha, S. K., Matsagar, V. A. and Jain, A. K.,
“Comparison of base-isolated liquid storage
tank models under bi-directional earthquakes”,
Natural Science, Vol. 5, 8A, 2013, pp 27–37. DOI:
10.4236/ns.2013.58A1004.
28. Saha, S. K., Matsagar, V. A. and Jain, A. K.,
“Earthquake  response of base-isolated liquid
storage tanks for different isolator models”,
Jl. of Earthq. and Tsunami, Vol. 8, No.5,
2014, pp. 1450013(1-22). DOI: 10.1142/
S1793431114500134.
(Discussion on this article must reach the editor before
July 31, 2015)
Journal of Structural Engineering 39
Vol. 42, No. 1, April - may 2015