Proceedings of the ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference

PVP2016
July 17-21, 2016, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

PVP2016-63928

A Static Analysis of Uplift During Strong Earthquakes of Unanchored Flat-Bottom

Cylindrical Shell Tanks

Teruhiro Nakashima
JIP Techno-Science, Co. Ltd.
2-12-11 Nishi-nakajima Yodogawa-ku Osaka,
532-0011, Japan
Email: teruhiro_nakasima@cm.jip-ts.co.jp

Tomoyo Taniguchi
Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Tottori University,
4-101 Koyama-Minami Tottori, 680-8552, Japan
Email: t_tomoyo@cv.tottori-u.ac.jp

ABSTRACT uplifting of bottom plate of the tank on the dynamic response of

tank-liquid system. However, their works did not consider a
For analyzing the uplift displacement of the tank bottom
mechanical role of tank contents contributing to the tank rocking
plate statically and precisely, this paper develops a shell element,
motion. Taniguchi [4-6] has proposed the mathematical solution
ring element and spring element partially attached to the ring
of the impulsive pressure of the fluid induced by the angular
element. These elements are defined as a semi-analytical finite
acceleration accompanying uplift of the tank.
element. Moreover in analyzing uplift of the tank bottom plate
In analyzing uplift of the tank, it has been considered that
precisely, the ring element can deal with effects of the large
the analysis procedure should be capable of including an impact
deformation, while the spring element enables to express the
between the tank bottom plate and it’s foundation and the
partial contact between the tank bottom plate and foundation.
geometrical non-linearity that appears at a uplift part of the tank
Dead load, hydro-pressure and inertia force due to earthquakes
bottom plate.
acceleration as well as dynamic pressure of fluid induced by
In contrast, behavior of the plates that comprise the tank had
bulging and rocking motions of the tank are applied statically.
been studied by the Fourier series method, finite element method
Comparison of results by the proposed method and that
and the finite strip method. The finite strip method was proposed
computed by the explicit FE Analysis reveals that the accurate
by Y.K.Cheung. Its variety of applications have been recognized
uplift displacement is not obtained until all physical conditions
[7], [8]. Follow the manner introduced by Y.K.Cheung, the
involved in the tank rocking motion and the inward deformation
author newly defined a circular ring plate element[9] and a
of the tank shell is properly considered.
spring element partially attached to a circular ring plate
element[10] with semi-analytical finite elements [11], [12]. In
INTRODUCTION
addition to the circular ring plate element can deal with effects
Uplift of the tank bottom plate has been considered as one of the large deformation. Furthermore, in design process,
of causes of various damages [1] of unanchored flat-bottom analyzing the structures in a short period of time is preferable.
cylindrical shell tanks during strong earthquakes. Clough [2] This paper analyzes the uplift displacement of the tank
first conducted dynamical experiments and hypothetically bottom plate statically under the action of the dynamic pressure
identified the crescent-like uplift region of the tank bottom plate. of fluid induced by bulging [13] and rocking [5] motion of the
Malhotra and Velestsos [3] studied effects of asymmetrical tank. For evaluating analytical accuracy of the proposed method,

1 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 numerical results of the proposed method were compared with BRIEF REVIEW OF SEMI-ANALYTICAL FINITE
those of the explicit FE Analysis. It clarified physical quantity ELEMENTS
that contributes to the mechanism of the uplift of the bottom
Fig. 1 depicts a set of elements for statically analyzing the
plate accompanying rocking motion of the unanchored flat-
tank rock motion in the cylindrical coordinate system. These
bottom cylindrical shell tanks.
elements are defined as a semi-analytical finite shell element,
ring element and spring element partially attached to the ring
NOMENCLATURE
element. The displacement function of the semi-analytical finite
r , θ, z : Cylindrical coordinate system(see in Fig1)
elements is expressed by a Fourier series in circumferential
w : Displacement of the element in the z-coordinate direction
direction and a polynomial in its radial direction. Nakashima
u : Displacement of element in the circumferential
presented the definition of some part of the semi-analytical finite
θ-coordinate direction
elements models [14].
v : Displacement of the element in the radial r-coordinate
direction
(1)CYLINDRICAL SHELL ELEMENT
a : Radius of a tank(see in Fig1)
The displacement-strain relationship of the cylindrical shell
ξ : Dummy variable along the thickness of the element element is given as follows:
w0 : Initial displacement of the ring element
1 ∂u v ⎛ 1 ∂ 2v v ⎞
Δ : Strain increment εθ = + − ξ ⎜⎜ 2 + 2 ⎟⎟ (1a)
φ : Set within the range of spring element a ∂θ a ⎝ a ∂θ 2
a ⎠
l : Circumferential number with spring coefficient ∂w ∂ 2v
εz = −ξ 2 (1b)
K Bl , K b : Spring coefficient ∂z ∂z
a0 , al : Fourier coefficient 1 ∂w ∂u ⎛ 1 ∂ 2v 1 ∂w 1 ∂u ⎞
γ zθ = + − 2ξ ⎜⎜ + 2 − ⎟⎟ (1c)
G : Acceleration due to gravity a ∂θ ∂z ⎝ a ∂θ ∂z 2a ∂θ 2a ∂z ⎠
ρ : Density of structure
α : Response acceleration
(2)CIRCULAR RING PLATE ELEMENT
D : Diameter of tank The tank bottom plate should deal with effects of the large
L : Deformation of tank top deformation. The displacement-strain relationship of the circular
ring plate element with consideration of large deformation [15]
is given as follows:

1 ∂u v ⎛ 1 ∂ 2 w 1 ∂w ⎞
Cyrindrical Shell Element εθ = + − ξ ⎜⎜ 2 + ⎟
r ∂θ r ⎝ r ∂θ
2
r ∂r ⎟⎠
z 1 ∂ (w + 2w0 ) ∂w
+ (2a)
2r 2 ∂θ ∂θ
a ∂v ∂ w 1 ∂ (w + 2 w0 ) ∂w
2

j w εr = −ξ 2 + (2a)
∂r ∂r 2 ∂r ∂r
∂u u 1 ∂v ⎧ ∂ ⎛ 1 ∂w ⎞ 1 ∂ ⎛ ∂w ⎞ 1 ∂w ⎫
H v γ rθ = − + −ξ⎨ ⎜ ⎟+ ⎜ ⎟− 2 ⎬
∂r r r ∂θ ⎩ ∂r ⎝ r ∂θ ⎠ r ∂θ ⎝ ∂r ⎠ r ∂θ ⎭
u
i 1 ∂(w + 2w0 ) ∂w 1 ∂(w + 2w0 ) ∂w
+ + (2c)
2r ∂r ∂θ 2r ∂θ ∂r
R w The strain increment in Eq. (2) is expressed as follows by
i using symbol Δ. The increment displacement-strain relationship
R0 θ
r j is given as follows:
v

u 1 ∂Δu Δv ⎛ 1 ∂ 2 Δw 1 ∂Δw ⎞
Δε θ = + − ξ ⎜⎜ 2 + ⎟
Kb r ∂θ r ⎝ r ∂θ
2
r ∂r ⎟⎠
Ring Element
⎛ 1 ⎞
∂⎜ w + w0 + Δw ⎟
Spring Element Setting Partially + 2
1 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ∂Δw (3a)
r ∂θ ∂θ
⎛ 1 ⎞
∂ ⎜ w + w0 + Δw ⎟
Figure 1: FORMULATION OF ANALYTICAL MODELS ∂Δ v ∂ 2 Δw ⎝ 2 ⎠ ∂Δ w
Δε r = −ξ + (3b)
∂r ∂r 2 ∂r ∂r

2 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 The final form of the spring element is:
Δγ r θ =
∂Δu Δu 1 ∂Δv
− +
K w (θ ) = K b ∑ al cos lθ (7)
∂r r r ∂θ l =0

Here in the Fourier coefficient as:

⎧ ∂ ⎛ 1 ∂Δw ⎞ 1 ∂ ⎛ ∂Δw ⎞ 1 ∂Δw ⎫
−ξ⎨ ⎜ ⎟+ ⎜ ⎟− 2 ⎬ π −φ
⎩ ∂r ⎝ r ∂θ ⎠ r ∂θ ⎝ ∂r ⎠ r ∂θ ⎭ a0 = (8a)
π
⎛ 1 ⎞
∂⎜ w + w0 + Δw ⎟
⎛ 1 ⎞
∂⎜ w + w0 + Δw ⎟ 2 cos lπ sin l(π − φ )
al = (8b)
1 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ∂Δw 1 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ∂Δw (3c) lπ
+ +
r ∂r ∂θ r ∂θ ∂r

(3)SPRING ELEMENT PARTIALLY ARRANGED ANALYSIS OF TANK UPLIFT MOTION DUE TO

The tank is set on the elastic foundation, and the rocking SEISMICALLY INDUCED LOAD
motion of tanks due to earthquakes causes the partial uplift of
(1)DESCRIPTION NUMERICAL TANK MODELS
the tank bottom plate. For simulating it, this paper proposes the
This study uses an actual LNG Storage Tank (see Fig. 3)
use of the spring element for judging the uplift part of the tank
which dynamical behavior was computed by the explicit FE
bottom plate. Fig. 2 gives a coordinate system of the spring
analysis [17]. The cylindrical shell element is used for modeling
element that is partially attached to a left side of the ring element
the tank shell, while the circular ring plate element which is
(hatched part). The spring element is set within the range of
capable to consider the geometrical nonlinearity is used for
φ < θ < 2π − φ . The spring coefficient can be expressed by a
modeling the tank bottom plate. The spring element is attached
Fourier series in circumferential direction [16]: to the circular ring plate to judge the contact between the tank
bottom plate and the foundation. The range of the uplift of the
K w (θ ) = ∑K Bl cos lθ (4) tank bottom plate is determined by the range of spring element
l =0 applied between the bottom plate and foundation. The dynamic
where, l is the circumferential number of the spring pressure of fluid induced by the tank bulging response[13], and
coefficient. the tank uplift motion [5], the tank dead load as well as the
From Fig. 2, the value of K Bl is: hydro-static pressure are considered. A value of the response
acceleration corresponding to the natural period of the tank is
0.0 (θ < φ ) read from the response spectrum diagram that determines
intensity of the tank bulging response. In contrast, the angular
K Bl K b (φ < θ < 2π − φ ) (5) acceleration appeared at pivoting edge of the tank bottom plate
0.0 (2π − φ < θ ) is read from it’s the time-history [17]. Meanwhile, Hayashi, et al.
[17] showed that the base shear decreased about 25% when
uplift of the tank bottom plate reached its maximum. The width
of uplift in the radius direction was about 1 m that corresponds
to 1.3% of the tank diameter. It corroborates the mechanism
θ =φ
predicted by Taniguchi [18] that the rocking response and the
Spring Coefficient Kb
bulging response are coupled and the bulging response
z deteriorates as the tank bottom plate uplifts. However decrease
θ r in bulging response cannot be readily quantified. Therefore this
study simply subtracts 25% of acceleration.
R0 To highlight the discrepancy in evaluating the uplift
R displacement of the tank bottom plate among analytical
conditions, this study compares results based on the small
displacement analysis and that on the large displacement
θ =2π-φ analysis. Table 1 shows a combination of analytical method,
analytical model and applying loads.
Fig. 4 shows the tank model consisting of semi-analytical
Figure 2: SPRING ELEMENT PARTIALLY finite elements. The LNG Storage Tank system has diameter
ATTACHED TO RING PLATE 74.40m, side wall height 36.82m, and liquid height 36.25m. The
value of each member indicates the plate thickness. The side
wall consists of five elements and the bottom plate consists of
Therefore the coefficient K Bl is given as follows using a eight elements. Here in, since the actual LNG tank has a T-
trigonometry function within the range of φ ≤ θ ≤ 2π − φ . shaped top ring at the top rim of the tank side wall, the tank
2 π −φ
model considers its rigidity. As shown in a Fig. 5, around the

K Bl =
∫ φ
K b cos lθ dθ
(6)
center of the bottom plate is simply supported to execute
2π analysis stably. Its diameter is 18,600mm that corresponds one-
∫ 0
cos 2 lθ dθ fourth of the tank diameter D. The tank dimensions and
properties of materials used in the analyses are given below.

3 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 <Tank dimension> <Materials>
Capacity: 150,000m3 Young’s modulus: 191GPa
Diameter: 74.4m Poisson’s ratio: 0.3
Side wall height: 36.82m Density of Structure: ρ=7.85 t/m3
Fluid Level height: 36.25m Density of Fluid: 0.48t/m3
Plate thickness <Seismic intensity>
Side wall:29.6mm~12.0mm Response acceleration: α=0.43G (reference [19])
(29.6mm,25.5mm,21.4mm,17.3mm,12.0mm)
Bottom plate: 5.0mm, 18.7mm(annular part) Cylindrical Shell Element
<Numerical model>
Structure elements(Semi-Analytical finite elements) 12.0mm

Side wall : Cylindrical shell elements 17.3mm

Bottom plate: Circular ring plate elements 21.4mm

Thickness of plate
25.5mm
Foundation: Spring elements 29.6-12.0mm
Non-Uplift Domain: K b = ∞
29.6mm

Uplift Domain: K b = 0
18.7mm
5.0mm
Circular Ring Plate Element Elastic Spring Element

Figure 4: NUMERICAL TANK MODEL

Side wall(29.6-12mm)
36,250
36,820

36,820
Spring element
Bottom plate φ=18,600
(18.7-5.0mm)

D
φ=74,400
D
φ=74,400

Figure 3: DIMENSION OF CYLINDRICAL SHELL TANK Figure 5: BOUNDARY CONDITION OF

NUMERICAL MODEL
Table 1
ANALYTICAL CASES

Models Analysis Theory Dynamic Fluid Pressure

Case-1 Small displacement theory Bulging

Case-2 Small displacement theory Bulging and Rocking

Case-3 Large displacement theory Bulging

Case-4 Large displacement theory Bulging and Rocking

Bulging and Rocking

Case-5-1 Large displacement theory
(25% subtracted from bulging response)
Bulging and Rocking
Case-5-2 Large displacement theory (25% subtracted from bulging response)
But the stiffness of a top ring of is NOT taken into account

Hayashi et al. [17]

[16] Explicit FE analysis (LS-DYNA) Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (ALE)

4 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Earthquake
Earthquake Acceleration
Acceleration
Cosine
ρ・α Interpolation Side Wall
Side Wall

inertial force(Rocking) Seismic Intensity Side Wall

0.43 Angular
Angular Side Wall Acceleration 0.1(rad/sec2)
Acceleration -0.04 -0.02 0.02 0.04
(MPa) (MPa)
Bottom Plate
0.018(MPa)

Figure 6: INERTIAL FORCE OF EARTHQUAKES Figure 8: DYNAMIC PRESSURE OF FLUID

(ROCKING)

(2) DESCRIPTION OF SEISMIC LOADS APPLIED

The analysis considers the dead load, static hydro-pressure,
Earthquake inertia force of plates due to earthquake’s acceleration and
Acceleration dynamic pressure of fluid induced by tank bulging and rocking
motion. Fig. 6 shows the distribution and direction of inertial
force applied on the tank. Furthermore, the dynamic pressure of
Cosine
fluid applied to the tank center part is calculated based on
Interpolation Housner theory [13], which is given as the function of absolute
Side Wall response acceleration. Fig. 7 shows its distribution. The dynamic
pressure of fluid other than the tank center part is interpolated by
multiplying cosine curve corresponding to the position in
circumferential direction.
Moreover, since the time-history by the explicit FE
Analysis [17] indicates that values of the fluid pressure
Side Wall accompanying the tank rock motion is in-between that caused by
the angular acceleration of 0.05rad/s2 to 0.15rad/s2, this study
0.061(MPa)
employs the value of the fluid pressure based on the angular
0.0 0.05 0.10 acceleration of 0.1rad/sec2. Fig. 8 shows its distribution. The
(MPa)
dynamic pressure of fluid on the rest of the part of the tank is
interpolated by cosine curve in the circumference direction. In
Bottom Plate contrast, the inertial force corresponding to the vertical upward
acceleration, which is obtained by multiplying the angular
Figure 7: DYNAMIC PRESSURE OF FLUID acceleration of rocking with the distance between the pivoting
(BULGING) edge of the tank bottom and the point on the tank of interest, is
applied on the tank as shown in Fig. 6.

(3)ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 2 shows the analytical results of the maximum uplift
displacement of the tank bottom plate for Cases-1 to 5 as well as

5 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Table 2
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Models Uplift Displacement (mm)
Case-1 2,062
Case-2 355
Case-3 623
Case-4 167
Case-5-1 27
Case-5-2 112
Hayashi et al. [17]
[14] 22
that presented by Hayashi, et al [17]. The maximum uplift
displacement of the tank bottom plate in Case-1 and Case-2 are
w = 2,062mm and 355mm, respectively. The uplift displacement
decreases about 1/6 when the dynamic pressure of fluid caused
by the tank rocking motion is taken into account. Here, it shows
the importance of considering the dynamic pressure of fluid
caused by the tank rocking motion. As Figs. 7 and 8 show, the
uplift displacement decreases as the resisting moment of tank
due to the dynamic pressure of fluid cause by the tank rocking
motion increases.
Fig. 9 and 11 show the deformation of the tank side wall
and bottom plate at the section of θ=0 degree in Case-1 and
Case-2, respectively. Figs. 10 and 12 are those enlarged views of
annular sections. From Fig. 12, it is clear that the uplift of the
tank bottom plate occurs about 2.0m on the periphery of the tank
bottom plate. The uplift displacement of Case-4 is w = 167mm
that implies the importance of considering the geometrical
nonlinearity of the tank bottom plate. The uplift displacement is
about 1/2 when the geometrical nonlinearity of the tank bottom
plate is considered. Fig. 13 shows the deformation of the tank
bottom plate at the section of θ= 0 degree, while Fig. 14 gives its
enlarged view of the annular section. Based on these figures, it is
evident that the diameter of the tank bottom plate slightly
shrinks toward the tank center due to the effect of geometrical
nonlinearity. The result of Case-5-1 is the analysis case that
consists of the most rational mechanism of the uplift of the tank
bottom plate to date. The maximum uplift displacement becomes
w = 27mm, which is about 1/75 of that of the Case-1. Although
the uplift displacement is somewhat larger than that of explicit
6 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
FE analysis, it approximates the maximum uplift displacement
of the tank bottom plate well. Figs. 15 and 16 are deformation of
the tank bottom plate. Based on the enlarged view of the annular
section in Fig. 16, the proposed method approximates the results
of Hayashi, et al. [17] well, since the uplift width of the tank
bottom plate is about 1.0m, which corresponds to 1 – 2% of the
diameter of the tank bottom plate.
The case 5-2 employs a typical analytical model that does
not have any stiffeners on the shell for simplification. However,
uplift of the case 5-2 is four times as large as that of the case 5-1.
The out-of-round deformation of an upper part of the shell may
cause this large uplift. In the time history analysis [17], the
upper part of the shell shows alternate inward and outward out-
of-round deformation like a petal (See Fig. 17). Contrary, the
proposed static analysis of the case 5-2 causes the elliptical
deformation of the upper part of the shell that has a rather large
inward deformation (See red chain line on Fig. 17). Since
structures deform at least maintaining whole length of structural
members, this inward deformation of the upper part of the shell
may enhance uplift of the tank bottom plate. Fig. 18 shows
enhancement of the uplift displacement of the tank bottom plate
due to being drawn by the inward deformation of the tank shell.
Therefore, as far as the proposed static analysis approximates
the petal-like deformation of the upper part of the shell, the
accurate uplift displacement may not be obtained. In the case 5-1,
the upper part of the shell is stiffened to make the elliptical
deformation of the shell follow a mean deformation of the petal-
like deformation of the upper part of the shell (See a blue dotted
line in Fig. 17). Therefore, the case 5-1 may approximate the
uplift displacement of the tank bottom plate well, because it
averagely simulates the petal-like deformation of the upper part
of the shell.
These results reveal that the proposed method approximates
the uplift displacement and width of the tank bottom plate well.
However, the deterioration in bulging response due to the
rocking-bulging interaction and the angular acceleration at the
pivoting bottom edge are not readily available. It is necessary to
wait for the development of response analysis of these values.
CONCLUSION
To date, only the explicit FE analysis is available to
compute the uplift displacement of the tank bottom plate. The
proposed method enables, however, to compute the uplift
displacement of the tank bottom plate statically with
consideration of the mechanism of the tank rocking motion and
large deformation of the tank bottom plate. The results obtained
in this study are summarized as follows:
- This study presents the spring element partially attached to
the ring element to simulate the contact between the bottom
plate and foundation. Judging from the uplift displacement and
width of the tank bottom plate, the proposed spring element well
simulates the contact behavior between the tank bottom plate
and the foundation.
- The small displacement analysis was conducted with the
dead load, hydro-static pressure, the inertial force and dynamic
pressure of fluid based on the tank bulging response and that
based on the tank rocking motion. Since the maximum uplift
displacement of the tank bottom plate becomes about 1/2 when
 the inertial force and fluid pressure induced by the tank rocking [14]T.Nakashima, T.Taniguchi: A study of applicability of finite
motion are applied. It indicates that neglecting the inertial force displacement analyses with Semi-Analytical finite elements for
and dynamic pressure of fluid based on the tank rocking motion analyzing uplift displacement of Flat-Bottom cylindrical shell
yields erroneous results. tanks statically, ASME 2013 Pressure Vessels and Piping
- Finite displacement analysis with consideration of Conference, PVP2013, 2013.
geometrical nonlinearity of the tank bottom plate gives the uplift [15]J.A.Stricklin, W.E.Haisler: Nonlinear analysis of shells of
displacement of the tank bottom plate 1/5 times of that of the
revolution by the matrix displacement method, AIAA Journal,
small displacement basis analysis. It indicates we will have
erroneous results if we neglect the geometrical nonlinearity of Vol.6, No12, pp2306-2312, 1968.
the tank bottom plate. [16]Haryadi Gunawan Tj, Motohiro Sato, Shunji Kanie, Takashi
- The proposed static analysis method was shown that Mikami: Static and Free Vibrations Analysis of Cylindrical
attention must be paid to modification of the deformation of the
Shells on Elastic Foundation, Journal of Structural Engineering，
upper part of the shell tank.
Vol.50A，pp25～34，JSCE, 2004.
REFERENCES [17]S.Hayashi, T.Taniguchi, et.: A Study of Fluid-Structure
Coupled Analysis for Large LNG Storage Tanks in
[1]Committee on Earthquake Engineering(JSCE): Report on Consideration of Uplift, ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping
Damage in the SAN FERNANDO EARTHQUAKE, JSCE, Division Conference, PVP2011, 2011.
No.195, 1971(in Japanese) [18]Taniguchi,T.: Rocking dynamics of unanchored model flat-
[2]Clough DP.: Experimental evaluation of seismic design bottom cylindrical shell tanks subjected to harmonic excitation,
methods for broad cylindrical tanks. UCB/EERC-77/10, 1977; Journal of Pressure Vessel Technologies, ASME Vol.127 No.4,
PB-272 280. pp373-386, 2005.
[3]Malhotra PK, Veletsos AS. : Uplifting response of [19]Seismic design standard for the high pressure GAS facilities,
unanchored liquid-storage tanks. Journal of Structural p1044 [in Japanese]
Engineering, ASCE, 1994; 120(12): 3525-3547.
[4]T.Taniguchi, Y.Ando, T.Nakashima: Fluid pressure on
unanchored rigid flat-bottom cylindrical tanks due to uplift
motion and its approximation ， Elsevier ， Engineering
Structures 31，pp.2598-2606，2009．
[5]T.Taniguchi, T.Segawa: Effective Mass of Fluid for Rocking
Motion of Flat-Bottom Cylindrical Tanks, ASME 2009 Pressure
Vessels and Piping Conference, PVP2009, 2009.
[6]T.Taniguchi: Effective Mass of Fluid for Rocking-Bulging
Interaction of Rigid Rectangular Tank Whose Bottom Plate
Rectilinearly Uplifts, ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping
Division Conference, PVP2010, 2010.
[7]Y. K. Cheung: Finite Strip Method Analysis of Elastic Slabs,
ASCE EM6, pp 1365-1378, 1968.
[8]Y. K. Cheung: Folded Plate Structures by Finite Strip Method,
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE ST12 pp.2963-2979,
1969.
[9]T.Nakashima, T.Taniguchi: The finite displacement analysis
of the circular aluminum plate, Journal of Applied Mechanics,
JSCE, Vol.14, pp. 127-136 , 2011. [in Japanese].
[10] T.Nakashima, T.Taniguchi: Formulation of the Semi-
Analytical finite spring element setting in ring elements partially,
Proceedings of the Conference on Computational Engineering
and Science, JSCES, vol.17, 2012.5
[11]L. A. Winnicki1, O. C. Zienkiewicz: Plastic (or visco-
plastic) behaviour of axisymmetric bodies subjected to non-
symmetric loading - semi-analytical finite element solution,
International, Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering,
Vol 14, pp1399-1412, 1979.
[12]Isoe A.: Investigation on the uplift and slip behavior of flat-
bottom cylindrical shell tank during earthquake. Dr. Eng. thesis.
University of Tokyo; 1994. [in Japanese].
[13]Housner,G.W.: Dynamic Pressures on Accelerated Fluid
Containers, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., Vol.47, pp119-127, 1957.

7 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 (m) 40.0

(m)
10.0
+ deformation

+ deformation
30.0

(m)
(m)

h=36.820(m)
5.0
20.0 2,062mm

Height
Height
Wall's Height

Wall's Height
10.0
0.0
35.0 36.0 37.0 38.0 39.0 40.0
0.0 Bottomr(m)
Length (m)
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
r(m)
D/2
φ/2=37.200(m)
-10.0 -5.0
Bottom Length (m)
Figure 9: DEFORMATION Case-1(θ=0 rad, ×2 ) ※ Figure 10: ENLARGED PARTIAL DETAIL OF
※amplification of deformation DEFORMATION Case-1(θ=0 rad, ×2)

40.0 10.0
(m)

(m)
+ deformation

+ deformation
30.0
(m)
(m)

5.0
Height

20.0
Height
Wall's Height

Wall's Height

10.0 355mm
0.0
35.0 36.0 37.0 38.0 39.0 40.0
0.0 r(m)
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
r(m)
-10.0 -5.0 Bottom Length (m)
Bottom Length (m)
Figure 12: ENLARGED PARTIAL DETAIL OF
Figure 11: DEFORMATION Case-2(θ=0 rad, ×2)
DEFORMATION Case-2(θ=0 rad, ×2)

40.0 10.0
(m)

(m)
+ deformation

+ deformation

30.0
(m)

5.0
(m)

Height

20.0
Height
Wall's Height

Wall's Height

167mm
10.0
0.0
35.0 36.0 37.0 38.0 39.0 40.0

0.0 r(m)
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
r(m)
-10.0
-5.0 Bottom Length (m)
Bottom Length (m)
Figure 14: ENLARGED PARTIAL DETAIL OF
Figure 13: DEFORMATION Case- 4(θ=0 rad, ×10) DEFORMATION Case- 4(θ=0 rad, ×10)

8 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 40.0 10.0

(m)
+ deformation (m)

+ deformation
30.0

(m)
5.0

Height
(m)
Height(m)

Wall's Height
20.0
Height
Wall'sHeight

0.0 27mm
10.0 35.0 36.0 37.0 38.0 39.0 40.0

Bottomr(m)
Length (m)

0.0 -5.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
r(m)
-10.0
Bottom Length (m)
Figure 16: ENLARGED PARTIAL DETAIL OF
Figure 15: DEFORMATION Case- 5-1(θ=0 rad, ×10) DEFORMATION Case- 5-1(θ=0 rad, ×10)

Diameter
General deformation by Static analysis(Case-5-2)
静的解析におけるタンク側板上縁の変形・
-

Deformation by Dynamic analysis[17]

Hayashi ら[5]の示した変形・

Large Deformation

Suggestion by Static analysis(Case-5-1)

Figure 17:EFFECTS OF OUT-OF-PLANE Figure 18: Up-Lift Displacement of Tank

DEFORMATION

9 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use