Advanced Materials Research Vol 969 (2014) pp 119-124 Online: 2014-06-24

© (2014) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.969.119

Dynamic Analysis of Liquid Storage Cylindrical Tanks Due to

Earthquake

Kamila Kotrasová1,a* and Ivan Grajciar2,b

1
Faculty of Civil Engineering TU, Vysokoškolská 4, 040 01 Košice, Slovakia,
2
Ricardo Prague, s.r.o., The Czech Republic,
a
kamila.kotrasova@tuke.sk, bivan.grajciar@ricardo.com

Keywords: circular tank, earthquake, structure – fluid interaction

Abstract. Ground-supported tanks are used to store a variety of liquids. This paper provides
theoretical background of seismic design of liquid storage ground-supported circular tanks. During
earthquake activity the liquid exerts impulsive and convective (sloshing) actions on the walls and
bottom of the circular tank. Seismic response was calculated by using the seismic response
spectrum. Knowledge of these inner forces is important for design of reservoirs.

Introduction
Ground-supported cylindrical tanks are used to store a variety of liquids, e.g. water for drinking and
fire fighting, petroleum, chemicals, and liquefied natural gas. Satisfactory performance of tanks
during strong ground shaking is crucial for modern facilities. Tanks that were inadequately designed
or detailed have suffered extensive damage during past earthquakes [1 - 7].
The seismic analysis and design of liquid storage tanks is, due to the high complexity of the
problem, in fact, really complicated task.
Number of particular problems should be taken into account, for example: dynamic interaction
between contained fluid and tank, sloshing motion of the contained fluid; and dynamic interaction
between tank and sub-soil. Those belong to wide range of so called fluid structure interactions
(FSI). Tank-soil interaction could under specific conditions have a significant effect on seismic
response of the tank.
The knowledge of forces and pressure acting onto walls and the bottom of containers during an
earthquake plays essential role in reliable and durable design of earthquake resistance
structure/facility – tanks.

Seismic Induced Load Components of Liquid Filled Tanks

Structure – Fluid Interaction. Seismic design of liquid storage tanks has been adopted in [1-3, 5,
7]. The problem of fluid-structure interaction is very important in case of high tanks. The motion of
fluid in the tank is possible to define using the simple quasistatic model, in which the inertial forces
are defined by hydrostatic and hydrodynamic pressure on the tank wall.
Variety methods of discretization of the physical domain invented in the past gives the possibility to
build more precise model. Finite element method (FEM) seems to be on of most appropriate
approach for such an investigation.
The equivalent spring-mass models have been proposed by some researchers to consider the
dynamic behavior of the fluid inside a container as shown in Fig. 1. The fluid is replaced by an
impulsive mass mi that is rigidly attached to the tank container wall and by the convective masses
mcn that are connected to the walls through the springs of stiffness (kcn). According to the literature,
although only the first convective mass may be considered [7], additional higher-mode convective
masses may also be included [3] for the ground-supported tanks. The dynamic characteristics of this
model are estimated by using the expressions given in Tab.1. In this table, mw is the total mass of
the fluid and λn are the roots of the first-order Bessel function of the first kind (λ1=1.8412;

All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of Trans
Tech Publications, www.ttp.net. (ID: 128.210.126.199, Purdue University Libraries, West Lafayette, USA-30/05/15,02:17:47)
120 Structural and Physical Aspects of Civil Engineering

λ2=5.3314; λ3=8.5363, λ4=11.71 and λ5+i=λ5+5 i (i=1,2,...)). If one need to consider additional
higher modes of convective masses (mcn), Bauer’s expressions (Table 1) in which the mass centre of
the fluid is referenced may be used. H id the depth of fluid, hcn are the heights of convective masses,
hi is the height of impulsive mass, R is the inner radius of container.
Table 1 Parameters for the spring-mass
analogy recommended by Bauer [2]
ω 2 = λ n tanh (λ n H R )( g R )
water surface level k cn = mcn λ n tanh (λ n H R )( g R )
2 tanh (λ n H R )
mcn = m w
kcn mcn kcn (
(λn H R ) λ2n − 1 )
hcn
H  ∞ m 
kc1 mc1 kc1 mi = m w 1 − ∑n =0 cn 
hc1
 mw 
mi hi
1 4 
2R
hcn = H  − tanh (λ n H (2 R ))
 2 λn H R 
1 1 ∞  m cn   hcn  
hi = mw  −
( ) ∑ 
n =0 
  
 2 m i m w  w   H 
m

Fig.1 Spring-mass analogy for ground supported

cylindrical tanks

Finite Element Method

As well established the numerical solution using finite element method could be based on Navier-
Stokes formulation or based on potential formulation. The Navier-Stokes formulation is commonly
used for sort of problems where fluid flow including rotationality prevails. If heat transfer can be
neglected, three unknowns components of nodal velocities a nodal pressure are required to solve in
each node of fluid field. In our case irrotational inviscid fluid flow is assumed. Therefore potential
based formulation with only one nodal unknown (velocity potential) can be well used for the fluid
domain. The linearized version of potential-based formulation is widely used in study of acoustic
problems.
Several potential based formulations were developed in the past [13][14] and [15]. Sussman in
[16] was presented the alternative potential based formulation suitable for FSI problems which has
been implemented in numerical code ADINA and was chosen to solve our problem. The essential
assumptions and restriction for FSI problem are (Sussman]:
1. Fluid is inviscid, irrotational, with no heat transfer.
2. Small displacements of fluid boundary are assumed.
3. Small velocities of free surface of fluid domain are present.
The advantage of this method was succesfully applied in frequency dependent problems like the
fluid-structure interaction analysis of nuclear reactor.
Fundamental Equations: Continuity equation in terms of velocity potential v = ∇Φ [17,18]
ρ
+ ∇ ⋅ ( ρ∇Φ) = 0 (30)
and constitutive rule for slightly compressible fluid
ρ p
=1+ . (31)
ρ0 κ
Equation of motion for the kinematically loaded structure
m u

+ c u
+ k u = − m
x
g (32)
 Advanced Materials Research Vol. 969 121

where Surface S1
ρ … density of fluid
Φ … velocity potential Fluid Structure
p … fluid pressure n
κ … bulk modulus of fluid Pressure p Traction -pn
m … structural mass
u … structural displacement
x g … kinematic load Fig.2 FSI boundary, natural boundary condition.
Natural boundary condition at FSI boundary
ρ u
⋅ n = ρ u
FSI ⋅ n
Natural boundary condition at free surface
ρ u
⋅ n = 0
Derivation of governing equations in discrete form is well described in [12]
Equilibrium of common fluid and structural domain in matrix form is:
M 0  U

  0 CTFU  U

 K + (K UU )S 0  U r 
r r
 0 − M  

 +  
 +  − K FF  Φ 
=
 FF  Φ  − C FU 0  Φ   0
(33)
R  (R UB )S   0  (K UU )S d k   0 
 0  +  0  + R  −   u gk +   u
gk
     FB   0  C FU d k 
where U is vector of nodal displacements, Φ is vector of nodal potentials and submatrices M to R
come from Galerkin variation formulation [12], while
U = U r + Ug (34)
U r … vector of ground displacements,
U g … vector of structural displacements excluding ground nodes,
whereas assuming that ground motion can be expressed
U g = ∑ u gk d k , (35)
k
where d k is directional vector.
Considering general modal coordinate ξ j for mode j, nodal displacements, resp. nodal potentials
become
ξj
= ∑−ξ F j ,
Ur = ∑ V resp. Φ j (36)
j ωj j j
where ω j is natural frequency related to eigenvalue problem of (33).
Applying modal decomposition (36) onto equilibrium equation (33), excluding damping effect and
after proper derivations [19] we can get system of single (independent) equations
ξ

j + ω 2j ξ j = Γ j , (37)
Γ j is called modal participation factor
Much better form of modal decomposition, which is suitable for spectral analysis we can get after
introducing new generalized coordinate
ξj
xj = . (38)
ωj
Modal decomposition including damping effect then becomes

x
j + 2 ω j ζ j x
j + ω 2j x j = Γ j u

gk , (39)
where ground motion modal participation factor is
122 Structural and Physical Aspects of Civil Engineering

1
Γj = (F j ) T C FU d k + (V j ) T M d k . (40)
ωj
Numerical solution of (36) is much comfortable than solution of system of mutually dependent
equations (33).
Each of equation (36) means equation of motion of single degree of freedom (SDOF) dynamic
system with natural frequency ω j .
Let us have available maximum responses that relate to time dependent ground motion and range
of SDOF systems with variety of natural frequencies. Data set showing dependency of these max.
responses to natural frequencies related is called response spectrum S a . In our case we have
measured acceleration response spectrum. Then it is worthwhile to suppose
max(
x
j ) = Γ j S a . (41)
As known, peak response at SDOF systems doesn’t appear at the same time point. Therefore
equivalent measure of the peak response was established to describe even peak response of systems
with multidegrees of freedom. Numbers of methods were published to proceed such an equivalency
(SRSS, CRC, NRC…etc.)
Using code ADINA we investigated peak response by method SRSS. (Square Root of the Sum
of the Squares). The formulas for equivalent peak response are
U

= Vj Γ j S , (42)
max a

max = F Γ S a .
Φ j j
(43)
This approach is so called conservative method for evaluation of peak response. Nevertheless it is
widely accepted for modeling of earthquake loaded FSI problems.

Numerical Experiment and Conclusion

Let us have a ground supported cylindrical tank with following dimensions: mean radius R = 7.0m
and the height of walls Hw = 7.5m. Tank’s surrounding walls have the uniform thickness of 0.25m.
The base slab of the channel is h = 0.4m thick. cylindrical tank is filled with water up to the height
of 7 m. The water filled tank is grounded on hard soil. The following material characteristics of tank
were used: Young’s modulus E = 35 GPa, Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.20, density ρ = 2550 kg/m3. Seismic
excitation acts along x - direction. We consider only horizontal seismic load. As seismic loading the
elastic response spectrum Type 1 for ground type A was used. This was determinated for region of
seismic risk 2nd category. The numerical solutions of circular tank were performed by application of
Finite Element Method (FEM) utilizing software ADINA by using Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI)
technique. The fluid inside the tank was modeled by using 3D FLUID finite elements. The solid
walls and base of the cylindrical tank was modeled by using SHELL finite elements.

Fig.3 The pressure [MPa] in fluid due to the Fig.4 The effective stress [MPa] over solid
pure gravity load. structure due to the pure gravity load.
Figure 3 shows the pressure in the fluid and figure 4 shows the effective stress over circular tank
due to the pure gravity load (hydrostatic pressure). On the other hand Figure 5 and 6 present
 Advanced Materials Research Vol. 969 123

distribution of spectral values of responses due to the seismic load. More detailed description of
distribution of fluid pressure and structural stress in two perpendicular positions are in further
graphs (for path A and B along height of the tank).

Path A Path B

Fig.5 The pressure of fluid from spectral Fig.6 The effective stress of circular tank from
analysis in [MPa] spectral analysis in [MPa] and vertical paths of
measured responses

7 7

6 static 6 static
h [m] h [m]
5 dynamic 5 dynamic
total total
4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1
pressure [MPa] pressure [MPa]
0 0
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12

Fig.7 The hydrostatic, hydrodynamic and total pressure [MPa] along height of fluid tank
a) path A b) path B

Peak value of static pressure pmax-stat = 0.06867 MPa at the bottom of the tank (h = 0.0 m). Peak
value of hydrodynamic pressure pmax-hyd = 0.04464 MPa was measured at the middle of the fluid
height h = 3.5 m. Max. total pressure then in the bottom of the tank pmax-total = 0.1133MPa
(h = 0.0 m).

8 8
7 static 7 static
6 dynamic 6 dynamic
5 total 5 total
h [m] h [m]
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
stress [MPa] stress [MPa]
0 0
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00

Fig.8 The spectral values of effective stress [MPa] along the height of tank due to the seismic load.
a) path A b) path B

Similarly graphs in Fig. 8 shows the distribution of the effective stress along the height of the
solid wall in two different positions path A and B. Peak stress (spectral value) due to the hydrostatic
a well as due to the hydrodynamic pressure was measured at the bottom of he tank. Total max.
stress 4.75MPa measured at the bottom of path A (left side graph).
124 Structural and Physical Aspects of Civil Engineering

Acknowledgements
Preparation of the paper was supported by the Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education
of Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences under Project 1/0201/11.

References
[1] J. Habenberger, J. Schwarz, Damping effects of the fluid in cylindrical liquid storage tanks.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2005.
[2] E. Juhásová, J. Benčat, V. Krištofovič, Š. Kolcún, Expected seismic response of steel water
tank, In: 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper reference 595,
London 2002.
[3] J. Králik, Dynamic analysis of soil-fluid-tank interaction due to earthquake even. In:
Dynamika tuhých a deformovatelných těles 2012: sborník přednášek z 10. mezinárodní
konference : 10. - 12. října 2012, Ústí n. L., Česká republika ISBN: 978-80-7414-500-0
[4] P. Kuklík, M. Brouček, M. Kopáčková, Fast analytical estimation of the influence zone depth,
its numerical verification and FEM accuracy testing. In: Structural engineering and
mechanics. Vol. 33, no. 5 (2009), p. 635-647. ISSN 1225-4568.
[5] N. Jendželovský, J. Sumec, Stress - strain fields of the reinforced water tower under seismic
loads. In: 9th international scientific conference VSU' 2009 : 4 - 5 June, 2009, Sofia, Bulgaria:
Vol. 1. Sofia : "L. Karavelov" civil engineering higher school, 2009. P. I76-I-80. ISBN 978-
954-331-023-4.
[6] J. Melcer, Amplitude and frequency composition of seismic load due to transport around
transport ways. Zborník DYN-WIND’2003, SvF ŽU Tále, 19.-22. mája 2003, ISBN 80-8070-
066-4.
[7] EN 1998-4: 2006 Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 4: Silos,
tanks and pipelines. CEN, Brussels, 2006.
[8] STN EN 1998-1, Eurokód 8. Navrhovanie konštrukcií na seizmickú odolnosť. Časť 1:
Všeobecné pravidlá, seizmické zaťaženia a pravidlá pre budovy. SÚTN, Bratislava, 2005.
[9] Theory and Modeling Guide, Volume I: ADINA. Decmber 2012.
[13] Olson L. G., Bathe K. J. Analysis of fluid–structure interactions. A direct symmetric coupled
formulation based on the fluid velocity potential. Comput Struct 1985;21:21–32.
[14] Kock E, Olson LG. Fluid–structure interaction analysis by the finite element method––a
variational approach. Int J Numer Meth Eng1991;31:4 63–91.
[15] Nitikitpaiboon C, Bathe KJ. An arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian velocity potential formulation
for fluid–structure interaction. Comput Struct 1993;47(4/5):871–93.
[16] T. Sussman, J. Sundqvist. Fluid–structure interaction analysis with a subsonic potential-
based fluid formulation. Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 949–962
[17] Batchelor G. K., An introduction to fluid dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
1967.
[18] Lamb H. Hydrodynamics. 6th ed New York: Dover Publications; 1945.
[19] L. Meirovitch. Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics. Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1980.
Structural and Physical Aspects of Civil Engineering
10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.969

Dynamic Analysis of Liquid Storage Cylindrical Tanks due to Earthquake

10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.969.119

DOI References
[13] Olson L. G., Bathe K. J. Analysis of fluid-structure interactions. A direct symmetric coupled formulation
based on the fluid velocity potential. Comput Struct 1985; 21: 21-32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(85)90226-3