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

net/publication/323335750

ASSESSMENT OF DIFFERENT FAILURE MODES IN LIQUID STORAGE TANKS

UNDER HORIZONTAL GROUND MOTION

Conference Paper · February 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 1,173

3 authors, including:

Kamyar Kildashti Bijan Samali

Western Sydney University Western Sydney University
31 PUBLICATIONS   243 CITATIONS    336 PUBLICATIONS   4,596 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Short and Long Term Performance of Concrete Structures Repaired/Strengthened with FRP View project

Seismic performance of asymmetric structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kamyar Kildashti on 22 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 13th International Conference on
Steel, Space and Composite Structures
31 January - 2 February 2018, Perth, Australia

ASSESSMENT OF DIFFERENT FAILURE MODES IN LIQUID

STORAGE TANKS UNDER HORIZONTAL GROUND MOTION

Kamyar Kildashti *, Bijan Samali* and Neda Mirzadeh†

*Centre for Infrastructure Engineering, School of Computing, Engineering and

Mathematics, Western Sydney University, NSW 2751, Australia
e-mail: k.kildashti@westernsydney.edu.au

Keywords: Steel Storage Tanks, Fluid Structure Interaction, Fragility Analysis,

Incremental Dynamic Analysis

Abstract. Steel storage tanks are generally vulnerable to dynamic failure under
strong ground motion. The reason for that is partly because of small thickness of
tank walls which contribute to either elastic buckling or inelastic post-buckling
mechanisms. The tank aspect ratio plays a pivotal role in developing different
failure modes. In order to investigate different failure mechanisms, case study tanks
considering different aspect ratios that are fully anchored at the base are
introduced. Dynamic fluid-structure interaction is utilised based on so-called added-
mass method and tank walls are modelled using general purpose finite element
platform to detect potential failure modes. Seven strong ground motions are
selected from NGA database and spectrally matched with target spectrum.
Incremental dynamic analyses are conducted to identify critical failure modes and
construct fragility curves. The results demonstrate that changing tank aspect ratio
contributes to different modes of failure ranging from elephant foot and diamond
shape to secondary buckling modes.

1 INTRODUCTION
It is well recognised that steel liquid storage tanks are vulnerable to extensive damage after
major earthquakes. Thin-walled buckling is the major source of structural failures because of the
small thicknesses of tank’s wall. Many studies have confirmed that fluid hydrodynamic variations
in the course of seismic events play an important role in triggering local damage and eventual
collapse for this class of structures 1-5. Dynamic buckling phenomenon in steel tanks under strong
ground motions was generally documented in the form of elastic-plastic or elastic buckling,
confirmed through experimental or numerical studies. So called “elephant’s foot” buckling is
attributed to elastic-plastic buckling, which is identified as an outward bulge close to the tank’s
base2, 5. In this failure mode, axial compression due to earthquake overturning moment is basically
compromised by circumferential tensile stresses resulting from both hydrostatic and hydrodynamic
pressures at the bottom of the tank and eventually outward bulge occurs. Diamond-shaped buckling
mode is the second type of possible tank’s failure, which is associated with elastic buckling and is
most likely to happen at small values of hoop stresses 1. The last type of buckling mode, which

†
Woolacotts Consulting Engineers

1
 Kamyar Kildashti, Neda Mirzadeh and Bijan Samali

again happens within the elastic range of material behaviour, is developed due to inward
hydrodynamic suction at upper courses of steel tanks where outward hydrostatic pressure is minor 6.
Pioneering research on seismic behaviour of anchored steel storage tanks by means of fluid-
structure interaction concept were conducted by Haroun and Housner 7, Veletsos and Yang 8. In
these studies hydrodynamic pressure is decomposed into impulsive and convective liquid mode.
The latter is related to upper portion of liquid in the container that moves with a long period sloshing
motion, while the former is associated with short period mode coincidentally vibrating with the tank.
There are considerable differences between natural period of impulsive and convective fluid
motion, therefore; these two modes are considered as uncoupled in normal cases.
This study focuses on identification of different failure modes in anchored steel storage tanks
with different aspect ratios, i.e. height to diameter ratios (H/D), under horizontal earthquake
excitations using 3D nonlinear finite element analysis (NFEA). Only impulsive modes of liquid-
structure interaction are considered herein and added-mass technique is utilized to simulate this
phenomenon5, 9. A suite of seven strong ground motions are selected from NGA database 10 and
spectrally matched to target spectrum. Incremental dynamic analyses (IDA) are perfor med to
identify the onset of critical state, when steel shells undergo excessive deformation. Eventually,
fragility curves are determined to relate probability of failure to intensity measure s (IMs).

2 OVERVIEW OF THE SELECTED STORGAE TANKS

To demonstrate different failure modes of tanks, three geometric configurations are used in this
paper (see Figure 1), with height to diameter (H/D) ratios of 0.62 (model i), 1.01 (model ii), and
1.21 (model iii). For all cases, the filling liquid is water and the freeboard level is roughly equal to
90% of overall height of the tanks. This filling scenario is consistent with fully filled tank condition,
which mainly indicated more seismic vulnerability to steel storage tanks during past earthquakes 11.
The steel tanks are considered as fully anchored based and base uplift and found ation flexibility
are ignored herein. The wall thicknesses are designed in accordance with requirements of API -
65012 for fully anchored tanks in earthquake-prone regions.

3 FLUID-STRUCTURE INTERACTION MODELLING

Dynamic fluid-structure interaction falls into three different modes of vibration including;
convective, rigid impulsive, and flexible impulsive modes. As mention ed, convective component is
mostly dependent on the oscillation in upper portion of stored liquid, while impulsive dynamic
pressures relate to coincidental movement of stored liquid and tank walls. To find global seismic
response of steel tanks, the portion of the liquid, which impulsively moves with tank walls, is
normally taken into account 2, 5. Therefore, impulsive component of fluid-structure interaction is
considered in the current study.
As per Eurocode-813 the temporal-spatial distribution of rigid impulsive component of liquid
pressure is given by the following expressions:

𝑝𝑖 (𝜉, 𝜍, 𝜃, 𝑡) = 𝐶𝑖 (𝜉, 𝜍)𝜌𝑅 × (𝐴ℎ1 (𝑡) 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝜃 + 𝐴ℎ2 (𝑡) 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜃) (1)

∞
(−1)𝑛 𝜈𝑛
𝐶𝑖 (𝜉, 𝜍) = 2𝛾 ∑ 𝜈 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝜈𝑛 𝜍) 𝐼1 ( 𝜉)
𝐼1 ( 𝛾𝑛 ) 𝛾 (2)
𝑛=0 𝜈𝑛
(𝐼0 ( 𝛾 ) − 𝜈𝑛 ) 𝜈𝑛2
𝛾
2𝑛+1 𝐻
where 𝜈𝑛 = ( ) 𝜋, 𝛾 = 𝐿; 𝐼0 , 𝐼1 are the modified Bessel functions of zero and first order,
𝑛 𝑅
respectively, 𝐴ℎ1 (𝑡), 𝐴ℎ2 (𝑡) are the orthogonal horizontal ground acceleration time histories in the
𝑟 𝑧
free-field, 𝜌 is the mass density of the fluid, 𝜉 = , 𝜍 = are the non-dimensional coordinates, 𝑅 is
𝑅 𝐻𝐿
the tank’s radius, and 𝑟, 𝜃, 𝑧 are components of cylindrical coordinates with origin at the centre of
the tank and the 𝑧 axis vertical. In Figure 2, the pressure coefficient distribution defined in Eq. (2)
for each of the tank models for 𝜃 = 0 is presented.

2
 Kamyar Kildashti, Neda Mirzadeh and Bijan Samali

1600
Freeboard

6× 1500+
600

THK.6
1000

15600
Freeboard

5× 1500+
600
Steel Tank

THK.6
9600

2 ×1500
THK.8
2 ×1500
Steel Tank

THK.10
THK.8
1500
(a) (b)
1800

Freeboard

7× 1500+
600

THK.6
18600

Steel Tank 2 ×1500

THK.8
2 ×1500 1500
THK.10
THK.12

(c)

Figure 1: Tank models; THK=shell thickness (a) tank with H/D=0.62 (b) tank with H/D=1.01 (c)
tank with H/D=1.21
To incorporate fluid-structure interaction in NFEA, impulsive pressure components are normally
simulated by lumped added-mass for dynamic analysis (see Figure 3)5. Technically, added-mass
concept indicates that some portion of the stored liquid can coincidentally accelerate or decelerate
with a tank’s wall, which in turn reproduces the impulsive pressure distribution along the tank’s
height. In fact, added-mass is a comprehensive alternative to Housner’s traditional method 7. In this
study, time-independent lumped added-mass are considered for dynamic simulations.
1.20
Model i
1.00 Model ii
Model iii
0.80
ξ=z/HL

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
(Ci)

Figure 2: Impulsive pressure coefficient for the tank-liquid systems

3
 Kamyar Kildashti, Neda Mirzadeh and Bijan Samali

4 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF THE STEEL STORAGE TANKS

The NFEAs of the steel storage tanks are conducted by using ABAQUS 14 platform. The tanks’
walls are modelled by doubly-curved thin shell elements (S4R) with quadrilateral linear geometric
order and reduced integration finite membrane strain formulation, which has both membrane and
bending capabilities and enables the performance of nonlinear analysis. In addition, five integration
points through the thickness of a homogenous shell with Simpson’s rule are used. The steel
material in the modelling is ST37 in which yield stress (fy) and ultimate strength (F u) are 240 and
360 MPa, respectively. Furthermore, elastic and post-yield modulus (E,E t) are 205 and 1.8 GPa,
respectively. Mises yield criterion and kinematic hardening rule is considered for yield surface and
post-yield behaviour of the steel material, respectively. All the nodes of the tanks’ base are
restrained in horizontal and vertical directions to match with fully fixed base condition. Liquid-
structure interaction is modelled by defining mass-spring analogy, which corresponds to linking a
series of masses to steel shell nodes by unidirectional rigid springs (see Figure 3). Since impulsive
pressures can be produced by radial accelerations perpendicular to shell surface, vertical and
tangential acceleration components are both zero. In Figure 4, finite element model for each type
of tank system is illustrated.

Tank wall

r Added-mass
Rigid spring

Radial roller

Figure 3: Mass-spring schematic representation

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4: Finite element model for each tank type (a) model i (b) model ii (c) model iii

5 STRONG GROUND MOTION SELECTION FOR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES

With the aim of NFEA, appropriate ground motions should be selected and matched with a target
spectrum. In accordance with recommendations of NIST-GCR 11-917-1515, scaling ground motions for
oil and gas facilities such as liquid storage tanks should be in accordance with guidelines drafted by
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission16. The guidelines cover provisions in ASCE/SEI 7-0517, ASCE
4-9818, Appendix E of API 650, and NFPA 59A19, Standard for the Production, Storage and Handling of
Liquefied Natural Gas. According to safety and performance expectations after an earthquake, these
facilities shall meet different requirements.
Strong ground motions shall consist of pairs of appropriate horizontal components that shall be selected

4
 Kamyar Kildashti, Neda Mirzadeh and Bijan Samali

and scaled from individual recorded events. For each pair of horizontal ground motion components, a
square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) spectrum shall be constructed by taking the SRSS of the
5 percent damped response spectra for the scaled components (where an identical scale factor is
applied to both components of a pair). Each pair of motions shall be scaled such that for a period
between 0.2T1 and 1.5T1, (T1= fundamental period of vibration), the average of the SRSS spectra from
all horizontal component pairs does not fall below 1.3 times the corresponding ordinate of the design
response spectrum, target spectrum, by more than 10 percent17. Design spectrum is defined in
accordance with requirements of ASCE7-0517 for site class C with Ss=0.75 and S1=0.3, in which; Ss is
the mapped Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) spectral response acceleration at short periods,
and S1 is the mapped MCE spectral response acceleration at a period of 1s. Since multi-directional
ground motions need to be scaled for nonlinear analyses, target spectrum is constructed by multiplying
each individual ordinate of design spectrum by the value of 1.3, satisfying the requirements of ASCE7-
05. It is worthwhile to note that design of the steel tanks is carried out based on response spectrum
analysis, where the simultaneous effects of horizontal ground motion is considered.
In this Study seven pairs of ground motion records, from FEMA P695 far field record set20, have been
selected from a subset of PEER/NGA database10, see Table 1. In Figure 5, comparison between SRSS
of pseudo spectral accelerations obtained from each pair of scaled acceleration time histories and target
spectrum within predefined period range is depicted.

* **
Record Magnitude Rrup Vs30
No. Event Year Station Mechanism
Seq. no. Mw (km) (m/s)
1 RSN125 Friuli, Italy-01 1976 Tolmezzo 6.50 Reverse 16 505
Imperial Valley- El Centro Array
2 RSN174 1979 6.53 strike slip 13 197
06, USA #11
Superstition El Centro Imp.
3 RSN721 1987 6.54 strike slip 18 192
Hills-02, USA Co. Cent
Loma Prieta, Reverse
4 RSN752 1989 Capitola 6.93 15 289
USA Oblique
Cape
5 RSN825 Mendocino, 1992 Cape Mendocino 7.01 Reverse 7 568
USA
Northridge-01, Canyon Country -
6 RSN960 1994 6.69 Reverse 12 326
USA W Lost Cany
7 RSN1111 Kobe, Japan 1995 Nishi-Akashi 6.90 strike slip 7 609

Table 1. Far field record set used for nonlinear dynamic analyses
*
Rrup: Closest distance to rupture plane
**
Vs30: Time-averaged S-wave velocity in top 30 m
Pseudo-spectral Acceleration (g)

Design Spectrum
Median Spectrum-Far Field Set
0.1 SRSS of individual pair
Target Spectrum

0.2T1 1.5T1
0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (sec)

Figure 5: SRSS between each pair of 7 pseudo spectral accelerations consistent with target
spectrum within period range

6 FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF THE STEEL TANKS

In the fragility analysis, the probability of component failure is illustrated with respect to
seismic intensity level. Some failure modes which are more likely to happen in steel storage

5
 Kamyar Kildashti, Neda Mirzadeh and Bijan Samali

tanks can be classified as; shell buckling, roof and miscellaneous steel damage, anchorage
failure, and foundation failure. In the current study, shell buckling is defined as most governing
failure mode which is considered for fragility analyses. To recognise dynamic steel shell
buckling, incremental dynamic analyses21 (IDA) are performed to obtain the critical state
corresponding to onset of buckling. Nonlinear time history analyses according to bidirectional
ground motions are conducted, thereby accelerating the model in both x- and y- directions. The
Budiansky and Roth22 criterion is utilised herein to detect the critical state. As multidirectional
accelerations are applied to the models, collection of control nodes which are more vulnerable
to maximum deformations are selected, see Figure 6.

Y-Direction

X-Direction

Selected points

Figure 6: Selected control nodes

6.1 DETECTION OF DIFFERENT FAILURE MODES AND IDA CURVES

Nonlinear time history analyses show different failure modes in terms of elastic -plastic outward
steel shell bulge close to the tanks’ base (elephant’s foot buckling), elastic buckling in the vici nity
of base level (diamond-shaped buckling), and inward cavitation-type buckling at upper portion of
the tanks’ height (secondary buckling mode), see Figure 7. According to these failure modes, IDA
curves can be obtained by increasing peak ground acceleration (PGA), intensity measure (IM), for
each ground motion until sudden jump in radial displacement, engineering demand parameter
(EDP), at control nodes occurs. The corresponding PGA is then called critical PGA and used for
fragility analyses. In Figure 8, IDA curves for each model is depicted.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 7: Different types of failure modes (a) model i; diamond-shaped buckling mode for
RSN752, PGA=0.32g (b) model ii; secondary buckling mode for RSN174, PGA=0.31g (c) model
iii; elephant’s foot buckling mode for RSN125, PGA=0.36g

6
 Kamyar Kildashti, Neda Mirzadeh and Bijan Samali

0.50 0.50 0.50

PGA (g)

PGA (g)
PGA (g)

RSN125 RSN174 RSN125 RSN174 RSN125 RSN174

RSN721 RSN752 RSN721 RSN752 RSN721 RSN752
RSN825 RSN960 RSN825 RSN960 RSN825 RSN960
RSN1111 RSN1111 RSN1111

0.05 0.05 0.05

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Maximum Radial Displacement (mm) Maximum Radial Displacement (mm) Maximum Radial Displacement (mm)

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 8: IDA curves (a) model i, (b) model ii, (c) model iii
Fragility curves can be obtained as lognormal cumulative distribution functions, having the
logarithmic median value, 𝜇 , and logarithmic standard deviation or dispersion, 𝜎. The mathematical
form of fragility curves is as follows:
ln(𝑖𝑚) − 𝜇
𝐹𝐼𝑀𝑐𝑟 (𝑖𝑚) = 𝛷( ) (3)
𝜎

Where 𝛷 is the conditional probability that the component will be damaged to damage state 𝐼𝑀𝑐𝑟 ,
critical IM, as a function of 𝑖𝑚. 𝜇 , 𝜎 can be calculated by the following expressions 23:
𝑚
𝜇 = ln
𝑣 (4)
√1 +
𝑚2
𝑣 (5)
𝜎 = √ln (1 + 2 )
𝑚

In which, 𝑚, 𝑣 are the median and variance of the non-logarithmized sample values.

Critical IMs are used to develop fragility curves for each tank’s model. Three different fragility
curves are depicted in Figure 9. As can be seen, analytical curves show good agreement with
discrete data points, thereby proving the accuracy of lognormal cumulative density function to
describe fragility of steel storage tanks. The PGA values for 50% probability of exceedance in this
figure for models i, ii, and iii, are 0.34g, 0.26g, and 0.22g. It simply indicates that by increasing the
tank’s aspect ratio, the tank is more vulnerable to onset of failure. More specifically, all tanks have
been initially designed in accordance with API-650 requirements for PGA=0.30g. Nevertheless,
only tank model i shows greater PGA values (0.34g) obtained from fragility analysis compared to
design-based PGA and two the other models ii, iii reveal lower PGA values (0.26, 0.22g,
respectively) according to fragility curves. As a result, the tank’s design as per API -650 might be
underestimated for tanks with higher aspect ratios, despite no clear distinction for various aspect
ratios reported in API-650 design guides.

7
 Kamyar Kildashti, Neda Mirzadeh and Bijan Samali

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70 Model i; Fragility Curve
Model ii; Fragility Curve
P(IMcr≤im)
0.60 50% Model iii; Fragility Curve
0.50 Model i; Data Points
0.40 Model ii; Data Points
0.30 Model iii; Data Points
0.20

0.22g
0.26g

0.34g
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
PGA (g)

Figure 9: Fragility curves for each tank’s model

7 CONCLUSION
In this paper, different failure modes of tanks with various aspect ratios (model i; H/D=0.62, model
ii; H/D=1.01, and model iii, H/D=1.21) were examined. To this aim, the tanks were initially designed
in accordance with API-650 requirements. Strong ground motions were selected and scaled to
target spectrum according to the procedure reported in ASCE7 -05. IDAs were then conducted by
using NFEAs to obtain critical PGA in which incipient failure as a sudden jump in tank’s shell radial
displacement was detected. Fragility curves were constructed to reveal the dependency of critical
PGAs to probability of exceedance. The following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Three different failure modes were observed during nonlinear analyses including; elephant’s
foot buckling, diamond-shaped buckling, and secondary buckling modes. The latter two
corresponded to elastic buckling behaviour, while the former in dicated the elastic-plastic
buckling close to tanks’ base.
2. Results from fragility analyses revealed that by increasing the aspect ratio, the tanks were more
vulnerable to dynamic buckling failure.
3. Only tank’s model i showed greater PGA values (0.34g) obtained from fragility analysis
compared to design-based PGA and two other models ii, iii revealed lower PGA values (0.26,
0.22g, respectively) according to fragility curves. As a result, the tank’s design as per API-650
might be underestimated for tanks with higher aspect ratios, despite no clear distinction for
various aspect ratios reported in API-650 design guides.

REFERENCES
[1] Brunesi, E.; Nascimbene, R.; Pagani, M.; Beilic, D., Seismic Performance of Storage Steel Tanks
during the May 2012 Emilia, Italy, Earthquakes. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
2015, 29, (5).
[2] Buratti, N.; Tavano, M., Dynamic buckling and seismic fragility of anchored steel tanks by the
added mass method. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2014, 43, (1), 1-21.
[3] Hamdan, F. H., Seismic behaviour of cylindrical steel liquid storage tanks. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 2000, 53, (3), 307-333.
[4] K. Meskouris; B. Holtschoppen; C. Butenweg; Rosin, J., Seismic analysis of liquid storage tanks. In
2nd INQUA-IGCP-567 International Workshop on Active Tectonics, Earthquake Geology,
Archaeology and Engineering, Corinth, Greece, 2011.
[5] Virella, J. C.; Godoy, L. A.; Suarez, L. E., Dynamic buckling of anchored steel tanks subjected to
horizontal earthquake excitation. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2006, 62, (6), 521-531.
[6] Rammerstorfer, F. G.; Scharf, K.; Fischer, F. D., Dynamic Fluid-Structure-Interaction and Stability
in Storage Tank Design. Structural Dynamics, Vols 1 and 2 1991, 113-120.
[7] Haroun, M. A.; Housner, G. W., Earthquake Response of Deformable Liquid Storage Tanks.

8
 Kamyar Kildashti, Neda Mirzadeh and Bijan Samali

Journal of Applied Mechanics-Transactions of the Asme 1981, 48, (2), 411-418.

[8] Veletsos, A. S.; Yang, J. Y., Earthquake response of liquid storage tanks advances in civil
engineering through mechanics. In Proceedings of the second ASCE engineering mechanics
specialty conference, 1977; pp 1-24.
[9] Veletsos, A. S.; Shivakumar, P., Tanks containing liquids or solids. Beskos DE, Anagnostopoulos
SA, editors. Computer analysis and design of earthquake resistant structures: A handbook, vol. 3.
Computational Mechanics Publications: Southampton (UK), 1997.
[10] PEER NGA-West2 Data Base, Pacific earthquake engineering research (PEER); University of
California, Retrieved from http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/: 2014.
[11] American Lifelines Alliance. Seismic fragility formulations for water systems; ASCE 2001. Part1-
Guideline, Part-2 Appendices.: 2001.
[12] American Petroleum Institute (API), Welded steel tanks for oil storage. In API-650, Washington,
D.C. 20005., 2007.
[13] Eurocode 8, Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 4: Silos, tanks and pipelines. In
European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, BS EN 1998-4:2006, 2006.
[14] D.S. Simulia, Abaqus analysis user’s manual; Dassault Syst. Pawtucket: USA, 2010.
[15] NIST GCR 11-917-15, Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing
Response-History Analyses; U.S. Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and
Technology Engineering Laboratory: Gaithersburg, Maryland, 2011.
[16] FERC, Seismic Design Guidelines and Data Submittal Requirements for LNG Facilities. In
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects: Washington, D.C., 2007.
[17] ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI7-05. In
American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, Virginia, 2006.
[18] ASCE 4, Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary. In American
Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, Virginia, 2000.
[19] NFPA 59A, Standard for the Production, Storage, and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
In National Fire Protection Association: Quincy, Massachusetts, 2009.
[20] FEMA P695, Quantification of building seismic performance factors; Federal Emergency
Management Agency: Washington, DC, 2009.
[21] Vamvatsikos, D.; Cornell, C. A., Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics 2002, 31, (3), 491-514.
[22] Budiansky, B.; Roth, R. S., Axisymmetric dynamic buckling of clamped shallow spherical shells.
NASA collected papers on stability of shell structures 1962, TN-1510.
[23] Mood, A. M.; Graybill, F. A.; Boes, D. C., Introduction to the Theory of Statistics. McGraw-Hill:
New York, 1974.

View publication stats