Thin–Walled Structures 145 (2019) 106432

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Full length article

On the mechanics of thermal buckling of oil storage tanks

Dafni Pantousa a, Luis A. Godoy b, c, *
a
Marie-Curie Research Fellow, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, UK
b
Institute for Advanced Studies in Engineering and Technology, IDIT CONICET/UNC, FCEFyN, Universidad Nacional de C�
ordoba, C�
ordoba, Argentina
c
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper addresses the thermal buckling behavior of tanks having a fixed roof, as employed to store fuel in the
Finite element analysis oil industry. The study is performed based on finite element analyses of the shell, including linear analysis, linear
Fire bifurcation analysis, and geometrically and constitutive nonlinear analysis, in order to elucidate the mechanics of
Tank roof
stress redistribution at pre-buckling and buckling states. Based on previous works, the roof is modeled as a
Thermal buckling
conical shell with an equivalent uniform thickness. The results show that the stress field due to a uniform
Shells
Vertical oil tanks temperature around the circumference is considerably different from that obtained for a non-uniform field as
modeled in cases of temperatures due to an adjacent fire: Under uniform temperatures around the circumference
the shell does not provide vertical restrain and buckling is dominated by hoop action; whereas displacement
constraints are present under a non-uniform temperature, leading to buckling dominated by meridional stresses.
Contrary to what has been suggested, the tank under uniform temperature cannot be taken as an upper bound to
the buckling of a tank under an adjacent fire. In the evaluation of critical temperatures, the influence of geo­
metric relations H/D (height to diameter) and R/t (radius to thickness) are independent of each other. It is shown
that the problem is not imperfection-sensitive. Finally, thermal buckling mode and critical temperatures are
strongly dependent on the H/D ratio of the cylindrical shell.

1. Introduction constraints in a shell, whereas buckling due to mechanical loads are

Thermal buckling of shells is a phenomenon by which a shell struc­
ture develops compressive stresses caused by a temperature increase on
its surface, leading to a critical temperature at which the shape changes
with elastic or inelastic deformations. Of special interest in this work are
shells employed in the fabrication of oil storage tanks, which in a
simplified version are formed by a cylindrical body with a fixed roof.
Compressive stresses may develop whenever temperature-dependent
displacements are constrained by boundary conditions or by other
parts of the structure that deflect at a different rate.
Reviews establishing the state of the art of shell buckling problems
focus on pressure-loading, rather than temperature effects (see, for
example, Refs. [1,2]). Recent reviews of shell buckling have been pub­
lished in Refs. [3,4]. However, there are significant differences between
thermal and mechanical loads; one of them is that a temperature is
characterized as a scalar field, whereas mechanical loads (both point
and distributed loads) are represented by vector fields. Other differences
are that thermal buckling occurs only if there are displacement
modified by boundary conditions but are not caused by them. Further, a
liquid stored in a shell has a destabilizing effect under some loads
(seismic), but its influence is to stabilize the shell under thermal loads.
Early research on thermal buckling of cylindrical shells was moti­
vated by aeronautical and nuclear applications (see, for example, the
reviews by Thornton [5], and Moulin et al. [6]). Abir and Nardo [7]
investigated cylinders under non-uniform circumferential variation of
temperature and concluded that meridional stresses were responsible for
buckling. A most interesting comparison was made in Ref. [7] that for a
non-uniform temperature around the circumference of a cylindrical
shell the thermal axial stress at the critical state was the same as the axial
stress for a uniform axial load at the critical stress. The equivalence
between mechanical and thermal effects was also found to occur by Hoff
et al. [8], provided the heated zone was not too small. Further, Ross et al.
[9] postulated that this correlation provides a lower bound for highly
non-uniform heating around the circumference in a cylindrical shell.
This is the earliest comparison found between buckling under thermal
load and pressure load; however, for convenience of analytical solutions,

* Corresponding author. Institute for Advanced Studies in Engineering and Technology, IDIT CONICET/UNC, FCEFyN, Universidad Nacional de C�
ordoba, C�
ordoba,
Argentina.
E-mail addresses: dpantousa@gmail.com (D. Pantousa), luis.godoy@unc.edu.ar (L.A. Godoy).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2019.106432
Received 18 March 2019; Received in revised form 17 August 2019; Accepted 25 September 2019
Available online 14 October 2019
0263-8231/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Pantousa and L.A. Godoy
a non-uniform thermal field was related to a uniform axial load.
Testing and comparisons between uniform and non-uniform
circumferential heating were reported by Ross et al. [9], in which the
non-uniform temperature around the circumference was materialized by
heating a small strip of the shell. The authors concluded that for clamped
boundaries, the uniform temperature around the circumference led to
upper bound buckling temperatures.
Computational finite difference results were reported by Bushnell
and Smith [10], who considered the isotropic cylinder of Ref. [9] under
a uniform temperature in the meridional direction and a circumferential
variation given by
T ¼ T0 e kθ
(1)
where k is a temperature attenuation coefficient; and θ is the angle with
respect to the most heated meridian, at which T ¼ T0. A value k ¼ 0
represents a uniform temperature, whereas increasing k in the range
0 < k < 120 causes the critical temperature to decrease down to ¾ of
the uniform temperature case. All results reported in the 1970s
employed linear bifurcation analysis (LBA) and no indication was pro­
vided about the influence of geometric nonlinearity, post-critical
behavior, and imperfection-sensitivity.
Research into the thermal buckling behavior of shells in Mechanical
Engineering, such as tanks, has only attracted the attention of re­
searchers during the last decade, in which case modeling has been based
on finite element analysis using general-purpose codes. Studies of tanks
under an adjacent fire were largely motivated by the Buncefield accident
in 2005. Detailed results of buckling of a tank with a conical roof were
presented in a doctoral thesis by Liu [11], also reported in Ref. [12].
Following detailed heat transfer studies, a simplified variation in the
circumferential direction was proposed in the convenient form:
πθ
T ¼ T0 cos2 ð Þ (2)
2θ0
where 2θ0 is the extent of the heated zone in the circumferential di­
rection; T0 is the temperature of the most heated meridian located at
θ ¼ 0, and without a variation in height. At pre-buckling states, the au­
thors identified high meridional compressions, with a maximum at the
base of the tank, decreasing to zero at the junction with the roof, and
with a wavy pattern around the circumference. They found that these
meridional stresses were significantly reduced by buckling, specially at
the lower half of the shell, where they contributed most in the pre-
buckling state. However, they identified different buckling modes if
computed via LBA or from Geometrically Nonlinear Analysis (GNA).
Regarding buckling modes, the authors in Ref. [12] stated that “buckling
initially occurs either on the roof or near the bottom boundary of the
tank wall, depending on the relative stiffness of the roof and the wall”.
Liu [11] reported an unstable post-critical path with high
imperfection-sensitivity. The authors summarized the buckling mecha­
nism as follows: “the causes of such buckling failures are the reduced
modulus of steel at elevated temperatures, coupled with
thermally-induced compressive stresses due to restraint of thermal
expansion from the cool regions of the tank” ([12], pp. 162).
The next set of studies was motivated by a large fire accident in
Bayamon, Puerto Rico, in 2009, and were reported by Godoy and
Batista-Abreu [13] for tanks with a fixed roof, and by Batista-Abreu and
Godoy [14] for open-top tanks. The authors computed LBA and
Geometrical and Material Nonlinear Analysis (GMNA) using ABAQUS,
to identify critical states and equilibrium paths. Details of the roof
structure, including radial and ring rafters, and columns that support the
conical shell, were included based on a real design. It was shown that
stiffening of the roof causes a stronger constraint on the cylinder; and
this in turn reduces the critical temperature Tc.
The passage of pre-buckling to post-buckling states was described in
Ref. [13] as follows: “At the critical temperature, the cylindrical shell
reaches a limit point, i.e. a maximum in the path. Under controlled
2
Thin-Walled Structures 145 (2019) 106432
displacements, the path becomes unstable and drops; at this stage the
out-of-plane displacement reverses and parts of the shell move inwards.
Eventually for large displacements the shell regains stability under an
advanced post-buckling state and can take further increments in tem­
perature”. Such results indicated a stable post-buckling behavior, with a
moderate temperature drop, but stiffness may be recovered at larger
displacements with an inverted sign. Regarding buckling modes, the
results of both LBA and GMNA detected cylinder modes with a banded
pattern, in a way similar to what was obtained by Liu using LBA, but
different from her GNA results which showed local displacements at the
bottom.
Pantousa et al. [15] revisited a tank with conical roof to investigate
the stress redistributions caused by buckling under a cosine square
temperature distribution (eq. (2)). The authors noticed that the state of
stresses in the shell due to temperature is self-equilibrated, and that
stress levels were below the yield stress of the material. They noticed
that high meridional stresses develop which are about ten times the
circumferential stresses at the same locations. A redistribution occurs
from meridional to circumferential stresses at T ¼ Tc, which significantly
increases the values of the latter. An equivalent (thick) roof model was
employed in the analyses presented by both Liu et al. [12] and Pantousa
et al. [15].
In spite the considerable effort made by researchers to address
buckling and post-buckling of tanks under a localized temperature
representing effects of fire, there are still aspects of the behavior that
need to be clarified at a more basic mechanics level in order to fully
explain the thermal buckling of tanks as employed in the oil industry. To
illustrate a few points that motivated this paper, the influence of the roof
stiffness on the pre-buckling and buckling behavior of a tank is still an
open topic at present, including differences between the mechanics
under uniform and non-uniform temperature distributions around the
circumference. Further, there is limited understanding regarding the
nature of the stress redistribution that takes place at buckling. There are
also limitations in our current understanding of the influence of the roof
stiffness on the development of thermal buckling modes. Finally, most
research up to now addresses tanks with a fixed roof, but there are also
tanks which are opened at the top and their behavior is still largely
unexplored, with the exception of Ref. [14]. Understanding what
changes between conditions with and without a roof seem to be lacking
at present; this includes the pre-buckling behavior, namely stresses and
displacements. This paper addresses some of the topics mentioned above
by means of computational explorations of the behavior of tanks having
a fixed conical roof.
2. Shell structures in tanks with a fixed roof
2.1. Shell geometries
This paper addresses buckling problems of metal tanks with a fixed
conical roof under thermal effects caused by a nearby fire. Small tanks
may be fabricated with a self-supported roof, but for larger diameters
(say larger than 15 m) it is necessary to support the roof with an addi­
tional structure formed by steel rings and rafters, which are in turn
supported by a set of columns. The influence of the roof on the natural
periods of empty tanks was investigated by Virella et al. [16]. Their
results showed that roof modes dominated the response for
self-supported roofs, but for models accounting for the rafters and sup­
port system of the roof, then predominantly cylinder modes resulted.
The natural periods of cylinder modes showed a linear dependence with
the H/D ratio of the tank.
The geometry of a tank is defined by its diameter D, height H,
thickness t of the shell, and thickness tr of the roof. The cylindrical shell
thickness is computed by the so-called one-foot method as given by the
API 650 code [17], and it may be considered as a dependent geometric
variable. Because buckling modes affecting the cylindrical part of a tank
are of special concern to designers and researchers, then details of the
D. Pantousa and L.A. Godoy Thin-Walled Structures 145 (2019) 106432

Fig. 1. Geometry of tanks with a fixed roof studied in the literature. Data has
been obtained from journal papers published since 1990. (For interpretation of
the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web Fig. 3. Circumferential stress distribution in elevation for tank TK1/1000
version of this article.) under uniform heating ΔΤ¼100⁰C. Data: H¼20 m, D¼20 m, t¼0.01 m. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
Table 1
Notation to identify the geometry of each tank considered.
Tank H [m] D [m] t [mm] H/D R/t

TK1/1500 20 20 6.67 1.0 1500

TK1/1000 20 20 10 1.0 1000
TK1/750 20 20 13.33 1.0 750
TK08/1500 12 15 5 0.8 1500
TK08/1000 12 15 7.5 0.8 1000
TK08/750 12 15 10 0.8 750
TK05/1500 10 20 6.67 0.5 1500
TK05/1000 10 20 10 0.5 1000
TK05/750 10 20 13.33 0.5 750
TK03/1500 10 30 10 0.33 1500
TK03/1000 10 30 15 0.33 1000
TK03/750 10 30 20 0.33 750

Fig. 4. Variation of axial displacement along the most heated meridian, for
non-uniform temperature around the circumference with ΔΤ¼50⁰C. Data: TK1/
1000, H¼20 m, D¼20 m, t¼0.01 m. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

region, to a great extent due to the reluctance of oil companies to inform

Fig. 2. Axial displacement in elevation of tank TK1/1000 under roof conditions
A, B, C, and D, subjected to uniform heating ΔΤ¼100⁰C. Data: H¼20 m, D¼20 m,
t¼0.01 m. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
supporting structure are not usually represented in analy­
tical/computational models and are substituted by an equivalent uni­
form thickness in the conical shell. Burgos et al. [18] investigated the
errors involved in such simplification for wind and thermal effects.
Other secondary structures, such as attached lateral stairs or pipelines
are not usually taken into account in tank models.
It is difficult to build an inventory of tanks in a given geographical
about their assets, thus limiting the available information concerning
tank geometries in their refineries and oil depots. An inventory of tanks
along Houston Ship Channel has been recently compiled in Ref. [19]
with reference to Hurricane Harvey.
To estimate the most common dimensions of tanks, a literature re­
view has been carried out in this work to extract the geometries studied
by researchers in this field. It is here assumed that researchers report on
geometries that are relevant to their local industry; or that have been
previously reported by other researchers. Only the first class provides
new entries in the plot of Fig. 1. Based on geometries reported in journal
papers during the last 30 years, a database was built and representative
values of H and D for each tank were recorded together with other
information.
From left to right in Fig. 1, the lines indicate ratios H/D ¼ 2.0; 1.0;
0.5; and 0.25. Most identified cases (about 55%) are within the range
0.5 < H/D < 1.0, with a lower number (27%) falling between
0.25 < H/D < 0.5. This distribution was taken into account by the
present authors in their choice of geometries that were investigated and

3
D. Pantousa and L.A. Godoy Thin-Walled Structures 145 (2019) 106432

Fig. 5. Variation of stress resultants along the most heated meridian. Data: TK1/1000, H¼20 m, D¼20 m, t¼0.01 m, ΔΤ¼50⁰C. (a) Meridional stress resultant N11; (b)
Hoop stress resultant N22. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 6. Circumferential variation of meridional stress resultants at mid-height of the cylinder, z ¼ H/2. Data: TK1/1000; TK08/1000; TK05/1000; and TK03/1000,
tr ¼ 2t. Computed with GNA. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Table 2
Influence of the roof thickness on the
critical temperature of a tank with
conical roof. Data: TK1/1000
(H ¼ 20 m, D ¼ 20 m, t ¼ 0.01 m).
Computed with LBA.
tr/t Tc [⁰C]

5 391
10 330
50 306

Table 3
Tank cases investigated to compute Tc with LBA.
Tank H (m) D (m) t (mm) Tc Tc

for tr ¼ 5t for tr ¼ 50t

TK1/1500 20 20 6.67 80.1 79.6

TK1/1000 20 20 10.00 130.0 135.8
TK1/750 20 20 13.33 186.6 200.9
TK08/1500 12 15 5.00 86.2 81.7 Fig. 7. Non-dimensional critical temperature variation with R/t, for different
TK08/1000 12 15 7.50 140.7 139.7 H/D ratios, assuming tr/t¼5. Computed with LBA. (For interpretation of the
TK08/750 12 15 10.00 199.8 207.6 references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
TK05/1500 10 20 6.67 122.8 102.4
version of this article.)
TK05/1000 10 20 10.00 194.5 172.5
TK05/750 10 20 13.33 271.3 254.5
TK03/1500 10 30 10.00 217.3 145.7 reported in the following sections.
TK03/1000 10 30 15.00 332.9 244.8 Twelve cases of tanks having different H/D and R/t ratios have been
TK03/750 10 30 20.00 455.8 360.8
investigated in this paper, although not all of them are considered in
each section. The choice of the geometries was based on the most
common geometries reported in Fig. 1 and include four cases, having

4
D. Pantousa and L.A. Godoy
Fig. 8. Non-dimensional critical temperature variation with H/D, for different
R/t ratios, assuming tr/t¼5. Computed with LBA. (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)
H ¼ D ¼ 20 m; H ¼ 12 m and D ¼ 20 m; H ¼ 10 m and D ¼ 20 m; and
H ¼ 10 m and D ¼ 30 m. For each H/D ratio, three different R/t ratios
were considered. In summary, the 12 case studies address four different
types of tanks (H/D¼0.33, 0.5, 0.8, and 1.0) and three different values of
R/t (750, 1000, 1500) for each H/D ratio. To simplify computations, t is
assumed to be uniform in each shell. In all cases, the roof slope is 10� .
The notation used here to identify each tank is shown in Table 1.
2.2. Computational models
Finite element analyses of tanks with a fixed roof have been con­
ducted in this work in order to discuss the behavior under a thermal field
leading to buckling. Results presented in this work include Linear
Analysis (LA), Linearized Bifurcation Analysis (LBA), Geometrically
Nonlinear Analysis (GNA), and geometrically and materially nonlinear
analysis (GMNA).
The model was implemented within the general-purpose finite
element code MSC Marc [20], using quadrilateral elements (element 75
of the library of MSC Marc 2018) for the structural problem. This is a
four-node, thick-shell element with global displacements, and rotations
as degrees of freedom. Bilinear interpolation is used for the coordinates,
displacements and the rotations. The membrane strains are obtained
from the displacement field and the curvatures from the rotation field.
The transverse shear strains are calculated at the middle of the edges and
interpolated to the integration points. Through this formulation, the
element retains the proper rank and, hence, does not exhibit various
kinds of spurious behavior. Moreover, the locking phenomena are
eliminated. In this way, a very efficient and simple element is obtained
which exhibits correct behavior in the limiting case of thin shells. The
associated heat transfer element 85 is used for the thermal problem: This
is a four-node heat transfer shell element with temperatures as nodal
degrees of freedom. Bilinear interpolation is used for the temperatures in
the plane of the shell and either a linear or a quadratic temperature
distribution is assumed in the shell thickness direction. A four-point
Gaussian integration is chosen for the element in the plane of the shell
and the eleven-point Simpson’s rule is used in the thickness direction.
Computation of the non-linear and post-buckling response of the
shell under non-uniform thermal field requires some caution in order to
avoid numerical errors once the critical temperature is reached. In other
loading cases, such as external pressure and wind, the Riks algorithm has
proven to be an effective way to compute post-critical states. In such
cases the energy involved in the passage from critical to post-critical
5
Thin-Walled Structures 145 (2019) 106432
states is distributed over the same area of the shell. However, impor­
tant energy redistributions occur under heat so that Riks algorithm
ceases to be reliable.
A different algorithm needs to be employed for post-buckling states,
and the Artificial Damping Method (ADM) has been proposed in this
field ([11,15]) instead of arc-length or Riks approaches. GNA compu­
tations reported in this work are based on the ADM [20] as implemented
in the general-purpose finite element program MSC Marc [21]. Further
details about the computational models and the validation of the nu­
merical techniques used for the prediction of the structural behavior of
the tanks are presented in Ref. [22].
In all cases considered in this work, the term “simply supported
boundary condition” at the top of the cylinder indicates that the radial
and the circumferential displacements are restrained, whereas the term
“clamped boundary condition” indicates that the radial, the circumfer­
ential displacements, and the rotations are restrained. In both cases it is
assumed that the vertical displacement is free at the top of the cylin­
drical shell.
The self-weight of the roof and the cylindrical shell are not taken into
account in the computations. Whenever a fixed conical roof is used in
tanks with dimensions as those employed in the oil industry, the roof is
not self-supported and the tank requires an additional internal structure
formed by columns and stiffeners to support the roof. Thus, the weight of
the roof does not constitute a load on the cylindrical shell but it loads the
internal columns. For this reason, the analyses presented in this paper do
not include the roof weight. Further, the weight of the cylindrical shell
causes axial stress resultants that are in the order of 2% of those due to
thermal load at buckling; for this reason it has not been taken into
account.
Finally, all tanks are assumed to be empty. The influence of fuel
stored in a tank on its thermal behavior has been studied by several
researchers [11,13], and it has been concluded that the fuel has a sta­
bilizing effect on the buckling response of the shell; this is contrary to
what is found under seismic loads, in which a liquid stored in a shell has
a destabilizing influence. Thus, for thermal buckling, the condition of
empty tank is on the safe side with respect to tanks having a given level
of fuel stored inside.
To highlight differences in the response of tanks under uniform and
non-uniform temperature distributions, the two cases are considered
separately in most of this work. The aim is to emphasize that simplified
models based on uniform temperature assumptions cannot be employed
to provide estimates of thermal behavior under an adjacent fire because
their mechanics of behavior are different.
In all computations presented in this work, the modulus of elasticity
is taken equal to 210 GPa, Poisson’s ratio is 0.3, and the coefficient of
thermal expansion is assumed as α ¼ 0.000012 1/� C. For the geometric
non-linear analyses (GNA and GMNA) the mechanical properties of steel
are considered temperature-dependent by using the stress-strain-
temperature model given in Figure 3.1 of EN 1993-1-2 [23]. The
reduction factors for the slope of the linear elastic range, the propor­
tional limit and the effective yield strength are taken from Table 3.1 of
EN 1993-1-2 [23].
3. Pre-critical behavior
3.1. Uniform temperature around the circumference
To illustrate the pre-critical behavior and thus contribute to explain
how the shell reaches a thermal critical state, let us first consider the
behavior of tank TK1/1000 simply supported at the base under a uni­
form temperature T ¼ 100� C around the circumference of the cylindrical
shell.
All tanks have simply supported conditions at the bottom. Four
conditions at the top of the cylindrical shell are considered in this sec­
tion: Condition A, with tr ¼ 0 (open top condition); Condition B, with
tr ¼ 5t; Condition C, with tr ¼ 50t; and Condition D, clamped edge at the
D. Pantousa and L.A. Godoy Thin-Walled Structures 145 (2019) 106432

Fig. 9. Deflected pattern of the shell (radial displacements in m) under thermal load, computed with GNA. (a) T ¼ 47� C; (b) T ¼ 97� C; (c) T ¼ 166� C; (d) T ¼ 204� C;
(e) T ¼ 208� C. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

top. displacements Δ for Conditions A, B, C, and D have been plotted in Fig. 2

Consider first the axial displacement Δ at the top of the cylinder (a
vertical expansion) under a temperature rise of 100 � C. The importance
of the axial displacement on thermal buckling was first discussed by
Frum and Baruch [24] while reporting a series of tests on cylinders. It is
generally believed that the roof has a direct influence on this displace­
ment, because it constrains the vertical expansion, it induces compres­
sions and thus causes the initiation of buckling. The results of axial
and show that Δ is the same in all four cases considered; further, they are
also independent of the slope of the conical roof. This means that, under
a uniform temperature, the end displacements Δ in the vertical direction
are not influenced by the roof configuration and stiffness. On the other
hand, the actual value of Δ depends on the geometry of the shell, as
given by H and D. The conclusion is that the roof does not prevent the
thermal expansion of the cylinder in the axial direction for a uniform

6
D. Pantousa and L.A. Godoy
Fig. 10. Membrane stresses at the bottom of the shell TK1/1000, for (a) tr ¼ 2t; (b) tr ¼ 10t. Computed with GNA; and the equivalent von Mises stresses for (c) tr ¼ 2t;
(d) tr ¼ 10t. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
temperature load.
A similar study was performed for a tank under an axial load with the
same conditions at the top of the cylinder as described for the thermal
case. Again, the end-shortening Δ of the cylinder was the same in all
cases, with the conclusion that the value of Δ under a load P does not
depend on the roof stiffness.
This is an important result and, contrary to what one could assume,
this indicates that, under a uniform temperature field, the roof does not
restrain the cylindrical shell in the vertical direction. The roof restrains
directly only the radial displacement and the rotation at the upper
boundary of the cylindrical shell.
Next, consider the membrane stress resultants in the shell. The
meridional stress N11 has low values, whereas significant values are
obtained for the hoop stresses N22. The distribution of hoop stresses in
elevation in the pre-buckling stage is shown in Fig. 3 for top conditions A
to D: They are almost zero and only have high values at the two edges in
the order of 250 MPa for a temperature increase of Τ¼100⁰C. Thus, the
only possibility of inducing high compressive stresses leading to buck­
ling in this case is due to hoop membrane action.
In view of the above, it seems that thermal buckling of a cylindrical
tank with a fixed-roof under a uniform temperature (considering that the
roof is not heated) is due to the presence of high hoop stresses close to
the top and bottom edges of the cylinder. Buckling modes should then
take the form of localized deformations.
3.2. Non-uniform temperature around the circumference
The behavior of the shell completely changes if there is a
7
Thin-Walled Structures 145 (2019) 106432
temperature variation around the circumference. To illustrate the
behavior, the temperature is now assumed as in eq. (2) with T0 ¼ 50� C
and θ0 ¼ π /2.
For the shell dimensions identified as TK1/1000, the variation of
axial displacements in elevation is shown in Fig. 4. The notation for
Conditions A to D at the top of the cylinder is the same as in Section 3.1,
but now case B has tr ¼ 2t and Case C has tr ¼ 10t.
An almost linear variation is seen to occur in all four cases, with zero
displacement at the bottom and a maximum at the top of the shell.
Contrary to what was observed in Fig. 2, the curves in Fig. 4 are not just
one line and show differences depending on the assumed conditions at
the top. Only conditions B and C yield the same variation in axial
displacement. The results for the boundary conditions C and D are the
same for the case of the uniform temperature (Fig. 2), but there are some
differences in the non-uniform temperature case (Fig. 4).
The shell displays membrane action in two directions, the meridional
N11 and hoop N22 stress resultants. Equilibrium is now provided by both
membrane hoop and meridional stresses. Pantousa and co-workers
identified the predominance of N11 in saying that: “the meridional
compressive forces are higher than the circumferential ones and they
trigger the instability of the thin-walled cylindrical shell” ([15], pp.
177).
The variation of N11 in elevation is shown in Fig. 5a, for the same four
conditions considered in Fig. 4. N11 is zero at the top of the cylinder and
increases downwards to reach a maximum at the bottom of the shell,
with values in the range 350 kN/m < N11 < 650 kN/m. The diagram
presents a discontinuity at the top of the tank for Conditions B and C, for
which the roof is included in the model. This appears due to the
D. Pantousa and L.A. Godoy Thin-Walled Structures 145 (2019) 106432

Fig. 11. Meridional stress resultant for a tank with H/D ¼ 1.0, R/t ¼ 1000, and tr ¼ 2t. Computed with GNA. (a) Meridional variation at the most heated meridian
θ ¼ 0; (b) Meridional variation at θ¼45� ; (c) Circumferential variation at the base; (d) Circumferential variation at mid-height. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

connection of the cylindrical shell with the roof using common nodes.
The stress resultants are zero for the simply supported condition,
whereas the largest stresses were obtained for the clamped shell at the
top. Conditions B and C, which have differences in tr, yield very close
values of N11.
Explanation of why the shell displays N11 under a non-uniform
temperature, whereas N11 is almost zero under a uniform temperature,
requires some further discussion. This is caused by the differences in
thermal expansion between vertical strips: In a shell which is free to
expand under non-uniform temperatures, each strip would have a
different vertical displacement. However, the strips are attached to each
other and compatibility constrains the expansion of the neighboring
strip. This causes compressions in the strip at each meridian associated
to the part of displacement that is restricted by the next strip. This effect
was first discussed in the work on cylinders of Ross et al. [9]. In the case
of a tank, this is accompanied by the partial restraint in the circumfer­
ential and radial directions provided by the roof at the top of the
cylinder.
The variation of N22 in elevation is shown in Fig. 5b, and is similar to
what was shown in Fig. 3, on account that it is caused by the edge effects
at the bottom and top of the cylinder.
For example, values of N11 at mid-height (normalized with respect to
the absolute of the maximum value at θ ¼ 0� ) before buckling for four
geometries (TK1/1000; TK08/1000; TK05/1000; and TK03/1000, in all
cases having tr ¼ 2t) are shown in Fig. 6. Differences in the heated zone
are negligible, and it is away from that zone that there are some changes
in N11 due to the shell geometry.
4. Critical temperatures
4.1. Uniform temperature around the circumference
Critical temperatures Tc have been computed using the finite element
model of the tank with a self-supported conical roof. Uniform heating of
the cylindrical shell is considered in this section, with no heat acting on
the roof.
First, the problem of a fixed-roof tank TK1/1000, has been solved
using the LBA algorithm, which identifies a bifurcation state from a

8
D. Pantousa and L.A. Godoy
Fig. 12. Buckling modes for shells with R/t ¼ 1000, tr ¼ 2 t, and (a) H/D ¼ 1.0; (b) H/D ¼ 0.8; (c) H/D ¼ 0.5; (d) H/D¼0.3. Computed with GNA.
linear pre-buckling equilibrium path. The stiffness of the roof was in­
crease from tr ¼ 5t to tr ¼ 50 t, and the results are summarized in Table 2.
The results show that the critical temperature tends to stabilize for a
stiff roof, with a value in the order of Tc ¼ 305� C. There is a 22% drop
from the tr/t ¼ 5 condition to that given by a very stiff roof having tr/
t ¼ 50. The roof was next substituted by a clamped boundary condition
at the top, and the critical temperature using LBA is Tr ¼ 298 ⁰C. The
result is close to that for high tr/t ratios in Table 2 which are computed
with the roof.
The problem of thermal buckling of rings and cylinders due to hoop
stresses has been discussed by several authors since the 1960s, including
Hoff [8], Johns [25,26], and the review by Thornton [5] summarizes all
the previous findings. For a uniformly heated cylindrical shell, the
critical uniform temperature Tc, may be approximated by
Kt
TC ¼
αR
where K is a coefficient that depends on the boundary conditions, and
for a single shell with simply supported ends, the author recommends
using K ¼ 5.3; whereas for a single or multi-bay shell with clamped ends,
a value K ¼ 3.76 is recommended. For the case considered in Table 2, the
simplified solution with K ¼ 3.76 yields Tc ¼ 313� C, which is of the same
order as results computed from the present finite element analysis.
The results reported in this section indicate that thermal buckling of
a cylindrical tank with a fixed-roof under uniform temperature is trig­
gered by hoop stresses acting near the boundaries of the shell. These
stresses develop due to the radial and rotation restraints that are pro­
vided by the roof. Notice that there is no axial restrain in this problem.
4.2. Non-uniform temperature around the circumference
Consideration of the membrane stresses before buckling indicates
that, under a non-uniform temperature field, there are two competing
buckling modes in the cylindrical shell that is part of a tank: A mode
triggered by the meridional stresses N11, in which case a global mode
Thin-Walled Structures 145 (2019) 106432
develops, and a mode triggered by the hoop stresses N22, in which case a
highly localized mode develops at the bottom of the shell.
Previous studies by Burgos et al. [18] modeled a tank including de­
tails of the roof rafters and rings (the supporting structure), and found
equivalence between the “exact” model and a simplified model based on
an equivalent roof thickness to be in the order of tr ¼ 2.5t, where t is the
thickness of the cylinder in the top half of the shell. Based on that
equivalence, values of Tc were 7% lower in the approximate model with
respect to the “exact” model. The results also showed that “there are two
equivalent thickness values for which the “exact” critical temperature is
reached: one is associated with membrane stiffness for small thickness,
whereas for large thickness values equivalence is reached by bending
stiffness in a thick shell” ([18], pp. 33). Thus, the case of equivalent
thickness in the order of two to five times the cylinder thickness is of
utmost importance to represent a reasonable roof configuration used in
(3) the oil industry, whereas a large value of tr may be of use to estimate
bounds to critical temperatures. Pantousa and co-workers investigated
the incidence of tr/t and found (Table 6 in Ref. [15]) that Tc decreased
with increasing tr, and that results reached a minimum and then values
increased for large roof thicknesses, in much the same way as predicted
in the work of Burgos et al. [18].
LBA was carried out in order to identify the incidence of geometric
parameters on the critical temperature. In each case, two values of tr
were considered, one with tr ¼ 5t (which would be representative of a
standard roof configuration), and a second one with an unrealistic stiff
value tr ¼ 50t.
Comparison of the last two columns in Table 3 indicates that the
influence of the roof stiffness on values of Tc is negligible for H/D ¼ 1,
and it has an influence as the ratio H/D decreases.
Fig. 7 shows the critical temperature Tc (normalized with respect to
c
T for R/t ¼ 1500) versus R/t for four H/D cases investigated, and for tr/
t ¼ 5. The value of Tc decreases with increasing R/t in a nonlinear
relation. It is surprising to observe that curves for different H/D ratios
lead to the same curve in Fig. 7, with the consequence that the variation
of the non-dimensional critical temperature as the R/t changes, is
9
D. Pantousa and L.A. Godoy Thin-Walled Structures 145 (2019) 106432

Fig. 13. Meridional stress resultant for a tank TK08/1000 (H/D ¼ 0.8, R/t ¼ 1000) and tr ¼ 2t. Computed with GNA. (a) Meridional variation at the most heated
meridian; (b) Meridional variation at 45� from the most heated meridian; (c) Circumferential variation at the base; (d) Circumferential variation at mid-height. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

independent on the H/D ratio. 5.1. Development of buckling mode

The variation of critical temperature with H/D is presented in Fig. 8.
The value of Tc has been normalized with respect to the critical tem­
perature for H/D ¼ 1.0. Again, the non-dimensional Tc decreases with
increasing values of R/t, and all curves for different values of R/t are
basically the same curve. This is a new finding and shows that the
dependence of the normalized Tc on H/D is independent of R/t.
The overall conclusion from Figs. 7 and 8 is that in the calculation of
critical temperatures, the influence of the geometric relations H/D and
R/t are independent of each other.
5. Stress redistributions at buckling
The deflected shape of the shell changes significantly when buckling
occurs; in fact, this is one of the ways by which buckling levels can be
identified. The shell configuration TK05/1000, with tr ¼ 10t, has been
initially investigated and the plots are shown in Fig. 9. At T ¼ 47� C the
cylinder shows the largest deflections in a single lobe at the most heated
meridian; the configuration shows minor changes in shape even up to
T ¼ 204� C. However, a change in pattern of deflections occurs at
T ¼ 208� C, with side lobes developing with the central lobe decreasing
in amplitude. Displacements in areas not directly affected by heat are
not significant.

Only cases under non-uniform temperature distributions are re­
ported in the remaining of the paper. The results reported in this section
already include both geometric and material nonlinearity and plasticity.
5.2. Hoop stress concentrations at the bottom of the tank
To understand the occurrence of plasticity at the bottom of the shell
versus elastic buckling elsewhere, geometrically and material nonlinear
analyses (GMNA) have been carried out for the shell TK1/1000 with two
roof configurations, tr ¼ 2t and tr ¼ 10t. For the purpose of this

10
D. Pantousa and L.A. Godoy Thin-Walled Structures 145 (2019) 106432

Fig. 14. Meridional stress resultant for a tank TK05/1000, tr ¼ 2t. Computed with GNA. (a) Meridional variation at the most heated meridian; (b) Meridional
variation at 45� from the most heated meridian; (c) Circumferential variation at the base; (d) Circumferential variation at mid-height. (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

discussion, yield stress is assumed as σy ¼ 450 MPa.
The membrane stresses in the hoop and meridional directions have
been plotted in Fig. 10, showing a linear increase until elastic buckling
occurs and a discontinuity in the equilibrium path can be seen. In both
cases, having tr ¼ 2t and tr ¼ 10t, elastic bucking takes place before the
plasticity develops. It may be seen that the equivalent von Mises stress
reaches the proportional limit around 180� C for both the roofs that are
studied here. However, the associated modes do not affect the same area
of the shell, with the consequence that they develop independently of
each other. This is shown by the results, in the sense that there are some
changes between a purely elastic and an elasto-plastic response, but the
results which go beyond elastic buckling, for example in Fig. 10, clearly
show that there is not interaction between what occurs at the bottom of
the shell and at mid-height.
5.3. Redistribution of meridional stress resultants
A clearer picture of elastic buckling can be observed from the stress
profiles N11 at places where the buckling mode develops.
Consider first the results of Fig. 11, computed for TK1/1000 and
tr ¼ 2t. The meridional stress resultants at the most heated meridian
(θ ¼ 0� ) are shown along the vertical coordinate in Fig. 11a, both before
and at buckling. The values change from an almost linear variation
before buckling having a maximum at the bottom and zero at the top, to
a non-linear variation with clear unloading on the lower third part of the
shell. This unloading was also noticed by Liu [11] and it changes stresses
to such a point that tensile values occur in most of this region. This
unloading at θ ¼ 0� is accompanied by a stress transfer to other merid­
ians of the shell; this can be seen for example at θ ¼ 45� from the most
heated meridian in Fig. 11b, with high compressive stresses N11. The
maximum values reached at this location are of the same order of
magnitude as those originally present at θ ¼ 0� .
To understand the redistribution around the circumference, results
are presented in Fig. 11c at z ¼ 0 and in Fig. 11d at z ¼ H/2. Both
figures show a wavy pattern in the heated zone, in a redistribution from
the most heated meridian which buckles to neighboring areas having
lower out-of-plane deflections. The number of waves is higher at the
base of the shell and decreases at mid-height. Only small changes are

11
D. Pantousa and L.A. Godoy
Fig. 15. Influence of shell geometry on deflected shape at buckling for tr ¼ 10t, and (a) H/D ¼ 1.0; (b) H/D ¼ 0.8; (c) H/D ¼ 0.5; (d) H/D¼0.3. Computed with GNA.
seen away from the heated zone.
The hoop stress resultants, not shown in the figures, do not experi­
ence any significant changes, so that the net force resisted in the vertical
direction is the same before and after buckling, only that there is a
relocation of the meridians in charge of providing equilibrium. Plasticity
does not develop at thermal buckling, so that an elastic mode develops.
6. Influence of shell and roof geometry
6.1. Influence of shell geometry
Buckling modes for shells TK1/1000, TK08/1000, TK05/1000, and
TK03/1000 have been plotted in Fig. 12 to visualize differences in
buckling modes associated with changes in shell geometry. The tanks
with H/D ¼ 0.8, 0.5, and 0.3 show a very similar mode, but the tank with
H/D ¼ 1.0 displays a different mode. For shorter tanks a larger part of
the circumference of the shell is involved, while the mode is localized at
the bottom of the cylinder for more slender tanks.
Two other geometries were investigated in this paper, having H/
D ¼ 0.8, and H/D ¼ 0.5, to illustrate the influence of the geometry on the
stress redistributions at buckling. The mechanics of unloading N11 at the
most heated meridian visualized in Fig. 11 does not appear in Fig. 13,
and the wavy pattern in the circumferential direction is different for the
shorter tanks.
Differences in shorter tanks can be seen to occur in Figs. 13 and 14
for TK08/1000 and TK05/1000. For these cases the shell still has sig­
nificant values of N11 at the most heated zone, and a redistribution oc­
curs in the circumferential direction in the form of a wavy pattern. This
is associated with differences in mode shape illustrated in Fig. 12. Thus,
the mode itself plays a vital role in the definition of where the stress
resultant goes at buckling, and this is a function of the slenderness of the
shell.
12
Thin-Walled Structures 145 (2019) 106432
6.2. Influence of roof thickness
The incidence of the roof stiffness is illustrated by the two conditions
tr ¼ 2t and tr ¼ 10t, for tanks having H/D ¼ 1.0, 0.8, 0.5, and 0.3. The
buckling modes with tr ¼ 10t are presented in Fig. 15, and they should be
compared with those given in Fig. 12 for tr ¼ 2t. Differences in mode
shape are seen between the taller tank TK1/1000 and those shorter ones
TK08/1000, TK05/1000, and TK03/1000.
Plots in Fig. 16 represent the circumferential variation of N11 at
elevation z ¼ H/2. There are some differences between Figs. 11d and
16a, but the same qualitative behavior is reflected in Figs. 13d and 16b,
and between 14d and 16c. Increasing the roof thickness does not
significantly modify the stresses in TK1/1000 at z¼H/2, but the stress
distribution is different near the base of the tank (z¼H/40) where
buckling takes place (Fig. 17). Changes are also noticed in the shorter
tanks TK08/1000, TK05/1000, and TK03/1000, with a wavy pattern
being present as in the cases of smaller roof thickness.
6.3. Influence of geometric imperfections
Since the pioneering work of Koiter [26], the buckling capacity of
shell structures has been associated with imperfections in the geometry.
This does not depend solely on the shell geometry, but on the load and
shell configurations, with the consequence that the same shell may
exhibit severe, moderate, or no imperfection sensitivity depending on
the external load considered. For tanks with a fixed conical roof, interest
in this work focuses on the thermal buckling due to a nearby fire.
To investigate the potential effects of a temperature distribution on
the shell, one specific geometry is initially considered, namely a tank
with R/t ¼ 1000 and H/D ¼ 0.8 (which was identified as TK08/1000 in
Table 1). For the shell without any deviation from its perfect geometry,
geometrically non-linear analysis was first computed using the Artificial
Damping Method as implemented in MARC, and results are presented in
a temperature-displacement plot (Fig. 18), where the maximum radial
displacement at the most heated meridian is considered. The path is
D. Pantousa and L.A. Godoy Thin-Walled Structures 145 (2019) 106432

Fig. 16. Influence of roof thickness for shells with (a) H/D ¼ 1.0; (b) H/D ¼ 0.8; (c) H/D ¼ 0.5; and (d) H/D¼0.3, on the meridional stress resultants N11 at mid-height
of the shell (z ¼ H/2). Computed with GNA. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

initially linear and yields small-amplitude displacements towards the
outside of the shell. At a temperature of 162 � C, the displacement sud­
denly changes from outwards to inwards; this is a sudden deformation
without any increase in temperature and it is identified that the shell
reaches a critical state. This corresponds to a stable one-way bifurcation,
in the sense that the branching can only occur towards the inside of the
shell. At the same critical temperature, the shell reaches a deflection of
approximately w/t ¼ 16, at which it regains stiffness and can take further
increase in temperature and displacements. Notice that this post-
buckling stiffness is much lower than the initial stiffness of the shell.
This post-buckling path is ascending in the plot, so that the shell be­
comes stable again, although at the price of having sustained a large
distortion. This path is typical of a stable bifurcation behavior [28].
Next, an imperfection in the geometry is introduced having the shape
of the eigenmode associated with the lowest eigenvalue in the LBA
study. Although other imperfection shapes may occur in practice, Koiter

13
D. Pantousa and L.A. Godoy
Fig. 17. Influence of roof thickness for the TK1/1000, on the meridional stress resultants N11 at z ¼ H/40. Computed with GNA. (For interpretation of the references
to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 18. Temperature-displacement plot for shell TK08/1000, for imperfection
with the geometry of the eigenmode of the lowest eigenvalue in the LBA study.
For imperfection amplitudes ξ ¼ 0 (perfect shell), ξ ¼ 0.5t, and ξ ¼ 1.0t. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 19. Temperature-displacement plot for shell TK05/1000, for imperfection
with the geometry of the eigenmode of the lowest eigenvalue in the LBA study.
For imperfection amplitudes ξ ¼ 0 (perfect shell), ξ ¼ 0.5t, and ξ ¼ 1.0t. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
14
Thin-Walled Structures 145 (2019) 106432
Fig. 20. Temperature-displacement plot for shell TK03/1000, for imperfection
with the geometry of the eigenmode of the lowest eigenvalue in the LBA study.
For imperfection amplitudes ξ ¼ 0 (perfect shell), ξ ¼ 0.5t, and ξ ¼ 1.0t. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
[27] postulated that it is the component in this lowest eigenvalue that
causes the largest effects on the buckling response. To illustrate the
behavior, consider an imperfection with maximum amplitude ξ ¼ 1.0t,
where t is the shell thickness which was assumed to be constant in
elevation. The path is shown in Fig. 18, and occurs as expected in a
stable bifurcation: The path deviates from the path in the perfect
configuration, and grows monotonically with temperature, and at about
w/t ¼ 16 it approaches the perfect case. There is no singularity in the
path with ξ ¼ 1.0t, and only an inflection point occurs; notice that there
is no maximum along the path, as it would occur in a case of an
unstable bifurcation. This behavior is quite different from that detected
in the same shell under lateral pressure or axial load, for which the
perfect shell exhibits an unstable bifurcation and the imperfect path has
a maximum which is lower than the pressure at bifurcation.
An intermediate situation occurs for an imperfection with ξ ¼ 0.5t, as
shown in Fig. 18. In all computations presented in Fig. 18, the dis­
placements correspond to the nodes that are located at the crest of the
buckles, and the maximum temperature at the most heated meridian is
recorded.
To visualize the influence of shell geometry on imperfect shell
behavior, the case with H/D ¼ 0.5 is next considered, i.e. shell TK05/
1000, and results are shown in Fig. 19. The critical temperature is higher
in this case with respect to the tank in Fig. 18, but the displacement at
which the shell regains stability is much less, here in the order of 0.07 m
D. Pantousa and L.A. Godoy
(w/t ¼ 7) instead of the 0.16 m (w/t ¼ 21.3) obtained in the tank TK08/
1000. The pattern of perfect and imperfect curves in this shell with H/
D ¼ 0.5 is the same as in the shell with H/D ¼ 0.8, again indicating a one-
way stable bifurcation behavior.
Finally, results are shown in Fig. 20 for the shell TK03/1000. This
case follows the same trend as for the other geometries.
One may compare this behavior with what has been obtained for
similar tanks under wind in Ref. [29]. In the wind-loaded tank the
geometrically non-linear response captures an unstable symmetric
bifurcation, and the effect of an imperfection is to cause a path that
exhibits a maximum at a pressure that is lower than in the bifurcation;
thus, showing imperfection-sensitivity under wind. The thermal load
case shows a stable behavior, and the imperfections cause large dis­
placements in the shell before it reaches a stable path.
Because of the stable post-critical behavior detected in tanks under
heat due to an adjacent fire, imperfections should perhaps not be of
much concern regarding elastic buckling, but the large deformations
indicate that high stresses and plasticity could be a problem in imperfect
shells.
7. Conclusions
Some conclusions may be drawn regarding the pre-buckling and
buckling of tanks with a conical roof under a temperature field.
First, for a uniform thermal field around the circumference:
� The end expansion of a tank with a conical roof under a temperature
field is independent of the stiffness of the roof and is also indepen­
dent of the angle of roof inclination. The same situation occurs for
the end shortening under a uniform stress field. Further, the end
(vertical) expansion is the same if the tank has a fixed conical roof or
if it is open at the top. This indicates that, under a uniform temper­
ature around the circumference, the roof does not restrain the cyl­
inder in the vertical direction, and it only constrains the radial
displacements and rotations at the junction with the cylinder.
� The shell does not develop significant meridional stresses, and
buckling can only occur due to hoop compression that concentrates
at the bottom (and top) of the shell.
� The critical temperature Tc is influenced by the roof stiffness (as
reflected by tr/t): For small values of tr, then Tc increases to very large
values; whereas for large values of tr the Tc tends to a lower bound
and reaches the critical temperature in a cylinder clamped at the top.
Second, for a non-uniform temperature around the circumference,
one may conclude that:
� Regarding the axial displacements, there are differences with the
uniform temperature field: The axial expansion now depends on the
roof stiffness, which affects indirectly the axial displacements of the
shell.
� A compressive meridional stress develops, which is caused by the
different thermal vertical expansion between the most heated me­
ridian and less heated strips coupled with the in-plane constraints
provided by the roof. This is a different behavior than what was
found for the same tank under a uniform temperature around the
circumference. The roof induces higher compressions and, in the
limit (clamped cylinder at the top), there is 40% increase in the
maximum meridional stresses, or 60% increase with respect to an
open tank.
� Meridional stresses in the most heated meridian are redistributed at
buckling; this unloading is compensated by an increase in meridional
stresses away from the region where the highest temperatures occur.
A wavy patter in N11 around the circumference is seen to occur as
part of this redistribution.
� Thermal buckling was computed in all cases under elastic material
behavior in the zone where the buckling mode develops. High hoop
15
Thin-Walled Structures 145 (2019) 106432
stresses and plasticity may develop at the bottom of the shell but do
not play a role in the development of the buckling mode.
� In the evaluation of critical temperatures, the ratio H/D and the ratio
R/t play a significant role, but each of these geometric relations seem
to vary independently of the other.
� The shape of the competing modes as computed by LBA show either
global out-of-plane deflections in a two-dimensional pattern, or a
localized mode at the bottom of the shell. The most serious conse­
quences for a tank are those due to the global mode in terms of the
consequences for the operation of the tank (i.e. normal functioning of
the floating roof).
� The buckling mode depends on the H/D ratio of the tank. Slender
tanks display a local buckling mode (near the bottom) while shorter
tanks display a global diagonal buckling mode. In a squat tank a
single lobe develops along the pre-buckling path, but it changes to
two lobes at buckling.
� Higher axial forces are developed in slender tanks and buckling takes
place at a lower temperature Tc than for shorter tanks. For the shorter
tanks, the hoop stresses are higher at the critical temperature (before
buckling) comparing with the slender tanks.
� The roof affects the buckling temperature and the stress distribution
but not the buckling mode, at least for roof thickness representative
of a standard roof configuration, i.e. 2t < tr < 10t.
� The results show that because we are in presence of a
stable bifurcation, then imperfections have the consequence of
destroying the singularity in the bifurcation and a maximum does not
show in the imperfect curves. The equilibrium paths are mono­
tonically increasing and the shell does not show imperfection-
sensitivity. However, plasticity is likely to develop in imperfect
tanks.
� Finally, contrary to what was suggested for cylinders, the tank under
uniform temperature cannot be taken as an upper bound to the
behavior of the same tank under non-uniform temperature, simply
because the mechanisms of buckling are entirely different.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors formally declare that they have no conflict of interest
regarding any issues either economic or academic in their paper titled on
the mechanics of thermal buckling of oil storage tanks. The sources of
support have been mentioned and this is their original work, never
submitted elsewhere.
Acknowledgements
LAG thanks the support of CONICET through a grant awarded to the
Institute for Advanced Studies in Engineering and Technology, IDIT, on
Vulnerability of infrastructure and physical media in the oil industry.
References
[1] J.G. Teng, J.M. Rotter (Eds.), Buckling of Thin Metal Shells, Spoon Press, London,
UK, 2004.
[2] J.M. Rotter, H. Schmidt (Eds.), Buckling Of Steel Shells: European Design
Recommendations, fifth ed., European Convention of Structural Steelwork, Mem
Martins, Portugal, 2008.
[3] A. Zingoni, Liquid containment shells of revolution: a review of recent studies on
strength, stability and dynamics, Thin-Walled Struct. 87 (2015) 102–114.
[4] L.A. Godoy, Buckling of oil storage steel tanks: review of static buckling, Thin-
Walled Struct. 103 (1) (2016) 1–21.
[5] E.A. Thornton, Thermal buckling of plates and shells, Appl. Mech. Rev. 46 (10)
(1993) 485–506.
[6] D. Moulin, A. Combescure, D. Acker, A review of thermal buckling analysis
methods, Nucl. Eng. Des. 116 (3) (1989) 255–263.
[7] D. Abir, S.Y. Nardo, Thermal buckling of circular cylindrical shells under
circumferential temperature gradients, J. Aeronaut. Sci. 26 (1959) 803–808.
[8] N.J. Hoff, C. Chao, W.A. Madsen, Buckling of a thin-walled circular cylindrical
shell heated along an axial strip, J. Appl. Mech. 31 (2) (1964) 253–258.
[9] B. Ross, J. Mayers, A. Jaworski, Buckling of thin cylindrical shells heated along an
axial strip, Exp. Mech. 5 (8) (1965) 247–256.
D. Pantousa and L.A. Godoy
[10] D. Bushnell, S. Smith, Stress and buckling of non-uniformly heated cylindrical and
conical shells, AIAA J. 9 (12) (1971) 2314–2321.
[11] Y. Liu, Thermal Buckling of Metal Oil Tanks Subject to an Adjacent Fire, The
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK, 2011. PhD Thesis.
[12] Y. Liu, J.F. Chen, J.M. Rotter, J.T. Torero, J. Ai, Thermal buckling of metal oil tanks
subject to an adjacent fire, in: Proc. First Int. Conf. on Performance-based and Life-
cycle Structural Engineering, Hong Kong, 2012, pp. 156–165.
[13] L.A. Godoy, J.C. Batista-Abreu, Buckling of fixed-roof above ground oil storage
tanks under heat induced by an external fire, Thin-Walled Struct. 52 (2012)
90–101.
[14] J.C. Batista-Abreu, L.A. Godoy, Thermal buckling behavior of open cylindrical oil
storage tanks under fire, ASCE J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 27 (1) (2013) 89–97.
[15] D. Pantousa, K. Tzaros, M.A. Kefaki, Thermal buckling behavior of unstiffened and
stiffened fixed-roof tanks under non-uniform heating, J. Constr. Steel Res. 143
(2018) 162–179.
[16] J.C. Virella, L.A. Godoy, L.E. Suarez, Influence of the roof on the natural periods of
empty steel tanks, Eng. Struct. 25 (2003) 877–887.
[17] American Petroleum Institute (API), Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage, 2010.
Standard API 650, Washington, DC.
[18] C.A. Burgos, J.C. Batista-Abreu, H.D. Calabr� o, R.C. Jaca, L.A. Godoy, Buckling
estimates for oil storage tanks: effect of simplified modeling of the roof and wind
girder, Thin-Walled Struct. 91 (2015) 29–37.
16
Thin-Walled Structures 145 (2019) 106432
[19] C. Bernier, J.R. Elliott, J.E. Padgett, F. Kellerman, P.B. Bedient, Evolution of social
vulnerability and risks of chemical spills during storm surge along the Houston
Ship Channel, Nat. Hazards Rev. 18 (4) (2017) 1–14.
[20] M.S.C. Marc, Theory and User Information, Version 2018, MSC Software Corp.,
Santa Ana, CA, 2018.
[21] T. Kobayashi, Y. Mihara, F. Fujii, Artificial damping method for local instability
problems in shells, in: Gorski Pietraszkiewicz (Ed.), Shell Structures: Theory and
Applications, Taylor and Francis Group, London, 2014.
[22] D. Pantousa, Numerical study on thermal buckling of empty thin-walled steel tanks
under multiple pool-fire scenarios, Thin-Walled Struct. 131 (2018) 577–594.
[23] European Committee for Standardization, EN 1993–1–2, Eurocode 3: Design of
Steel Structures–Part 1–2, General rules–structural fire design, 2003.
[24] Y. Frum, M. Baruch, Buckling of cylindrical shells heated along two opposite
generators combined with axial compression, Exp. Mech. 16 (4) (1976) 133–139.
[25] D.J. Johns, Local Circumferential Buckling of Thin Circular Cylindrical Shells,
Collected Papers On Instability Of Shell Structures, NASA Langley, Hampton, VA,
USA, 1962, pp. 267–276.
[26] D.J. Johns, Thermal Stress Analyses, Pergamon Press, 1965.
[27] W.T. Koiter, On the Stability of Elastic Equilibrium, Doctoral Dissertation, Delft,
1945.
[28] J.M. Thompson, G.W. Hunt, A General Theory of Elastic Stability, Wiley, 1973.
[29] L.A. Godoy, F.G. Flores, Imperfection sensitivity to elastic buckling of wind-loaded
open cylindrical tanks, Int. J. Struct. Eng. Mech. 13 (5) (2002) 533–542.