29 views

Uploaded by Prasad Barve

save

- A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai, ‘Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings.pdf
- 14_S07-013
- 297536159 Paraskeva Et Al 2006 Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics
- IRJET-Pushover Analysis of 2d Rc Building Frame
- Seisme Base Shear Ibc2003e
- 4EWICS Kappos
- Program_130919
- 15WCEE 1940 pushover analysis.pdf
- Seismic
- Evaluation of Damping Modification Factors
- performance based design
- Seismic Performance Assessment of Long Span SPC Composite Beam
- Article1380811777_Gurel Et Al
- 28216_sherard Et Al 1967
- Behavior of AAC Infilled RC Frame Under Lateral Loading (Bose, Et Al. 2014)
- Tension Rod Design
- AS/NZS 4600 2005 Cold-Formed Steel Structures
- Earth Quake Resistant Structures
- SGEM-2013
- Fema 450
- #11623 Ricci,Di Domenico,Verderame Revised Manuscript.pdf
- Compendium of en 1993-1-1
- Study on Sloshing Frequencies of Fluid-tank System
- Simpliﬁed R-Factor Relationships forStrong Ground Motions
- Study of nonlinear static finite element analysis and plastic behaviour of steel beam section
- Purl in 4600
- Dispatches from Pluto: Lost and Found in the Mississippi Delta
- Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future
- The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution
- Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
- The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America
- Yes Please
- A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story
- This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate
- Grand Pursuit: The Story of Economic Genius
- The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer
- The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power
- John Adams
- Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America
- The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century
- Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore
- Smart People Should Build Things: How to Restore Our Culture of Achievement, Build a Path for Entrepreneurs, and Create New Jobs in America
- The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers
- Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
- The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
- How To Win Friends and Influence People
- Steve Jobs
- Angela's Ashes: A Memoir
- Bad Feminist: Essays
- You Too Can Have a Body Like Mine: A Novel
- The Incarnations: A Novel
- The Light Between Oceans: A Novel
- The Silver Linings Playbook: A Novel
- Leaving Berlin: A Novel
- Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close: A Novel
- The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)
- A Man Called Ove: A Novel
- Bel Canto
- The Master
- The Rosie Project: A Novel
- The Blazing World: A Novel
- We Are Not Ourselves: A Novel
- The First Bad Man: A Novel
- The Flamethrowers: A Novel
- Brooklyn: A Novel
- Life of Pi
- The Love Affairs of Nathaniel P.: A Novel
- The Perks of Being a Wallflower
- The Bonfire of the Vanities: A Novel
- Lovers at the Chameleon Club, Paris 1932: A Novel
- My Sister's Keeper: A Novel
- A Prayer for Owen Meany: A Novel
- The Cider House Rules
- Wolf Hall: A Novel
- The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel
- The Wallcreeper
- Interpreter of Maladies
- Beautiful Ruins: A Novel
- The Kitchen House: A Novel
- Tube Bending
- As Flujo Subterraneo
- Laboratorio de Maquinas Termicas
- Fenomenos Reometria
- Conceitos de temperatura e calor.ppt
- Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion Sharan & Naznin.pdf
- ui-gc9
- Fatigue Failure Resulting from Variable Loading
- ProblemSet8 Solutions
- Homework Thermo2
- ME2301-QB
- 4.pdf
- d 451301
- liquifaction effect.pdf
- Desktop Ram Connection
- 1.6 Relaciones de Gas Perfecto Para Aire Seco y Húmedo _ Ing. Efraín A
- Diseño de Risers Metálicos
- beam_analysis2d.xls
- Strength of Materials Lab Manual
- Ch1-1 Power Plants - Thermodynamics
- Thermodynamic-Formulas.pdf
- codigo asme seccion viii division1a.ppt
- 01. Slab Designs
- essai-brésilien
- Lecture 7 - Static Failure Theories
- Kill Sheet HHHHH
- StoTherm Insulation System_80mm
- workshop_11.pdf
- Ejerciicos Guia de Ejercicios
- Asignacion de Quimica 2. Unidad I

You are on page 1of 22

O. R. Jaiswal,a… Durgesh C. Rai,b… M.EERI, and Sudhir K. Jain,c… M.EERI

Liquid storage tanks generally possess lower energy-dissipating capacity than conventional buildings. During lateral seismic excitation, tanks are subjected to hydrodynamic forces. These two aspects are recognized by most seismic codes on liquid storage tanks and, accordingly, provisions specify higher seismic forces than buildings and require modeling of hydrodynamic forces in analysis. In this paper, provisions of ten seismic codes on tanks are reviewed and compared. This review has revealed that there are signiﬁcant differences among these codes on design seismic forces for various types of tanks. Reasons for these differences are critically examined and the need for a uniﬁed approach for seismic design of tanks is highlighted. DOI: 10.1193/1.2428341 INTRODUCTION Liquid-containing tanks are used in water distribution systems and in industries for storing toxic and ﬂammable liquids. These tanks are mainly of two types: groundsupported tanks and elevated tanks. Ground-supported tanks are generally of reinforced concrete RC , prestressed concrete PSC , or steel. In elevated tanks, the container is supported on a structural tower, which could be in the form of a RC shaft or RC/steel frame. The large-scale damage to tanks during the 1960 Chilean earthquake initiated extensive research on seismic analysis of tanks. Since then, codes of practice have undergone signiﬁcant changes. The performance of tanks during the 1964 Alaska earthquake Hanson 1973 , the 1979 Imperial County California earthquake Gates 1980 , the 1983 Coalinga California earthquake Manos and Clough 1985 , and the 1994 Northridge California earthquake Hall 1995 have also helped in identifying and improving deﬁciencies in codes of practices. Recently, Rai 2002 studied the performance of elevated tanks during the 2002 Bhuj India earthquake and correlated it to the inadequacies in the prevailing practice. Seismic analysis of liquid-containing tanks differs from buildings in two ways: ﬁrst, during seismic excitation, liquid inside the tank exerts hydrodynamic force on tank walls and base. Second, liquid-containing tanks are generally less ductile and have low redundancy as compared to buildings. Traditionally, hydrodynamic forces in a tank-liquid system are evaluated using mechanical analog in the form of spring-mass system, which

a

Assistant Professor, Department of Applied Mechanics, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur 440 011, India b Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur 208 016, India c Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur 208 016, India

239

Earthquake Spectra, Volume 23, No. 1, pages 239–260, February 2007; © 2007, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

240

O. R. JAISWAL, D. C. RAI, AND S. K. JAIN

**Table 1. Details of reviewed codes and standards
**

Code/Standard 2006 IBC & ASCE 7 Eurocode 8 1998 NZSEE ACI 350.3 2001 ACI 371 1998 AWWA D-100 2005 AWWA D-110 1995 AWWA D-115 1995 API 650 2005

1

Type of tanks considered1 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,3 3 2,3,4 1 1 2

Seismic force level2 SD SD SD ASD SD ASD ASD ASD ASD

Provisions on convective mode Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes3 Yes Yes Yes

1=Ground-supported RC/PSC tanks; 2=ground-supported steel tanks; 3=elevated tanks on shaft-type tower 4=elevated tanks on frame-type tower 2 SD=strength design level; ASD=allowable stress design level 3 Provisions on convective mode are given for ground-supported tanks only.

simulate the impulsive and convective mode of vibration of a tank-ﬂuid system Housner 1963; Veletsos and Yang 1977 . Due to low ductility and redundancy, lateral design seismic forces for tanks are usually higher than that for buildings with “equivalent” dynamic characteristics, which is achieved by specifying lower values of response modiﬁcation factor or its equivalent factor. Since tanks have higher utility and damage consequences, codes specify a higher importance factor for liquid-containing tanks, which further increases design seismic forces for tanks. Though the aforementioned general features are retained by various codes of practices, their implementation strategy is rather varied leading to signiﬁcantly different design forces in some cases. In this paper, ten such documents are reviewed and signiﬁcant differences in their provisions are brought out to help develop a uniﬁed seismic design approach. The focus of the paper is primarily on the provisions related to design seismic forces and modeling for the seismic analysis of the tank-liquid system. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF REVIEWED CODES AND STANDARDS Table 1 lists various codes and standards reviewed in this paper. Among these, 2006 IBC, Eurocode 8, and NZSEE are national codes, and ACI 350.3, ACI 371, AWWA D-100, AWWA D-110, AWWA D-115, and API 650 are standards from American industries, namely, American Concrete Institute ACI , American Water Works Association AWWA , and American Petroleum Institute API . For the sake of brevity, standards from AWWA will be denoted as D-100, D-110, and D-115. For such structures, the 2006 IBC refers to ASCE 7 2005 , which has two sets of provisions: the ﬁrst is its own provisions on design seismic forces and analysis, whereas the second consists of modiﬁed expressions for design seismic forces given in other standards from American industries AWWA, API, and ACI . This modiﬁcation was necessary so that the seismic hazard parameters as contained in ASCE 7/ 2006 IBC are referred by all such standards, which

and were modiﬁed by Whittaker and Jury 2000 to incorporate the changes in the primary New Zealand code for design loading. and damping factor. impulsive and convective mode base shear coefﬁcients have a different type of variation with natural period and therefore they are discussed separately. where Cs i is the impulsive base shear coefﬁcient and Wi is the seismic weight of the impulsive component. and API standards are given in Tables 3 and 4. seismic zone factor. In the next section. Recommendations for the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering NZSEE 1986 were originally developed by Priestley et al. Expressions for the base shear coefﬁcient of impulsive Cs i and connective Cs c components from ASCE 7. Base shear coefﬁcient is typically speciﬁed in terms of design acceleration spectrum. velocitysensitive range. and NZSEE are given in Table 2. Various types of tanks considered in these codes and standards can be broadly put into the following four categories: 1 ground-supported RC/PSC tanks 2 ground-supported steel tanks 3 elevated tanks on shaft-type tower 4 elevated tanks on frame-type tower Details on the types of tanks considered in each of the documents are also given in Table 1. The impulsive component is expressed as Vi = Cs iWi. importance factor. In strength design. Corresponding expressions from ACI. Some of the documents specify design seismic force at strength design level.. However. along with the modiﬁed expressions of ASCE 7. Provisions on the evaluation of convective mode seismic forces are given in all the documents except ACI 371. Eurocode 8. and others specify at working stress design level Table 1 . factored loads are used and they correspond to ultimate level. response modiﬁcation factor. and NZSEE deal with all four categories of tanks. Eurocode 8. In most of the codes.REVIEW OF SEISMIC CODES ON LIQUID-CONTAINING TANKS 241 originally referred to 1994 and 1997 UBC. Various terms used in these expressions are also described in these tables. AWWA. NZS 4203 1992 . soil factor. Standards from other American industries deal with only those tanks that are used in that particular industry. and displacement-sensitive or long-period range. PROVISIONS ON DESIGN SEISMIC FORCE Lateral design seismic forces for liquid-containing tanks include impulsive Vi and convective Vc components. . hence in ASCE 7 there are no modiﬁcations for API 650 and D-100. the convective component is given by Vc = Cs cWc. VARIATION OF BASE SHEAR COEFFICIENT WITH TIME PERIOD Variation of base shear coefﬁcient with natural period can typically be divided into three time period ranges: acceleration-sensitive or short-period range. various quantities involved in the expressions for base shear coefﬁcient from various codes/standards are reviewed and compared. ASCE 7. Likewise. API 650 and D-100 have already adopted ASCE 7 parameters.

Eurocode 8.5 Sd = S 1 + Se = S 1 + 0 T TB − 1 0 T TB TB 2. and TB andTc are periods at which constant-acceleration and constant-velocity range begin. TL is transition period for long-period range.5S1 Cs c = SD1I for Tc TL Tc SDSI SD1ITL = for Tc TL Tc2 I is importance factor. and Cf µ .5 S S Tc2/3 T2 0.5 S Tc T 3 T S Tc 2/3 =2. is correction factor that depends on ductility factor. JAIN Table 2. Base shear coefﬁcient from 2006 IBC/ASCE 7.2 Tc T 3 q T Tc 3 T = 7.5 S TB T Tc S =2. Ch T . SDS and SD1 are design spectra response coefﬁcients. NZSEE For impulsive and convective mode Cs i = Ch T. Eurocode 8 For impulsive mode Cs i = ISe or ISd For convective mode Cs i = ISe where Se is elastic spectrum and Sd is design spectrum. q is behavior factor.5 − 1 TB q =2.5 TB T Tc Tc q =2. Ts = SD1 / SDS. and S1 is mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration at a period of 1 s. S is soil factor. 1 is basic seismic hazard coefﬁcient. Lu is limit state factor. JAISWAL. and NZSEE Code 2006 IBC /ASCE 7 For impulsive mode Expression for base shear coefﬁcient For convective mode Cs i = SDSI for Ti Ts R SD1I = for Ts Ti TL RTi SD1ITL = for Ti TL RTi2 0. R is risk factor. R. C. Sp is performance factor. . K. RAI. Z is zone factor.5 7 = 2+ is peak ground acceleration factor.1 SpRZLuCf µ. T is natural period. AND S. T is natural period. R is response modiﬁcation factor. I is importance factor. Tc is natural period of convective mode. . is viscous damping ratio.242 O. is damping factor. D.5 0. and damping factor. µ. respectively. T T 2.2 3 T =39 q T5/3 0. Ti is natural period of impulsive mode.

To = 0. I is importance factor.4SDS I T0 for 0 1. SDS and SD1 are design spectra response coefﬁcients.4R Ti Ts SDSI for T0 Ti Ts 1. .75ZI Rwi Cs i = = SDs Ti + 0.75ZI Ri 2. Ri.75ZI Rw Same as ACI 350.4RiTi SD1ITL = for Ti TL 1.5S1 I/Rwi No modiﬁcation Cs i = D-100 SDSI for 0 Ti Ts 1. Rw. Ca and Cv. Impulsive mode base shear coefﬁcient from American industry standards Standard Original expression from standard Modiﬁed expression from ASCE 7 0.4Ri SD1I = for Ts Ti TL 1.3 Cs i = API 650 SDSI Rwi 0. Ts = SD1 / SDS.25ZIS RiT2/3 i 1.3 2.3 D-115 Cs i = Same as ACI 350.5Ca R 0. and Rwi are response modiﬁcation factor.25ZIS for Ti 0. are seismic acceleration coefﬁcients.007 or 0. R.5Ca No modiﬁcation Cs i = ACI 371 Cs i = SD1I for Ts Ti 2.5 s RTi SDSI and 0.4R SD1I = for Ts Ti TL 1. S1 is mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration at a period of 1 s.75ZI for Ti 0.2SDS R Note: Z is zone factor. Ti is natural period of impulsive mode.25ZIS RwT2/3 i 2.31 s Rwi 1.36S1I/Ri 1. S is soil factor.REVIEW OF SEISMIC CODES ON LIQUID-CONTAINING TANKS 243 Table 3.4RTi SD1ITL = for Ti TL RTi2 D-110 Cs i = 1.2SDS / SD1.4RiTi2 0.6 Cs i = ACI 350. and TL is transition period for long-period range.2CV RT2/3 i 2.31 s = RwTi2/3 2.

3 Cs c = API 650 1. AND S. which has been changed to 1 / Ti in ASCE 7 modiﬁed i expressions for Ts Ti TL. D. the base shear coefﬁcient has a constant value in the acceleration-sensitive range and beyond this range it has 1 / T2/3 variation Table 3 . D-110. Here TL is transition i . Rc. Impulsive Mode Natural period of the impulsive mode Ti for ground-supported RC/PSC tanks. S is soil factor. and D-115.4 s Tc 4ZIS RcT2 c ZIS RwTc 2.5SD1I for Tc TL 1.3. and for Ti TL it has 1 / T2 variation.3 1. C. K.4Tc2Rc No modiﬁcation ACI 371 No Provision No Provision Note: Z is zone factor.5SD1ITL for all values of Tc Tc2 D-110 Cs c = Same as ACI 350.3 D-115 Cs c = Same as ACI 350. Convective mode base shear coefﬁcient from American industry standards Standard Original expression from standard Modiﬁed expression from ASCE 7 Cs c = ACI 350. is expected to remain in the acceleration-sensitive or velocity-sensitive range.5SD1I for Tc TL TcRwc 1. I is importance factor. in ACI 350. RAI.5SD1ITL = for Tc TL Tc2Rwc Cs i No modiﬁcation Cs c = D-100 1. R.4TcRc SDSI/ 1. Tc is natural period of convective mode. and therefore.5SD1ITL = for Tc TL 1.4Rc 1. SDS and SD1 are design spectra response coefﬁcients. the impulsive base shear coefﬁcient is speciﬁed in these ranges only. JAISWAL. and TL is transition period for long-period range.75ZI for Tc Tc2/3 6ZIS = 2 for Tc 2.875ZIS 2. Ts = SD1 / SDS. JAIN Table 4.4 s Cs c = 1.244 O. In these standards. Rc. which may have a ﬂexible base. and Rw are response modiﬁcation factor.

0 to 0.25 4.94 0. whereas the design spectrum has 1 / T2/3 variation. but the design spectrum has a lower limit due to which the base shear coefﬁcient is a constant value in the long-period range Table 2 .81 1. This lower limit of ASCE 7 is quite higher than the lower limit speciﬁed by D-100 0.19 Ch T . .80 0. In the acceleration-sensitive range. 8. for ﬂexible soil NZS 4203 Period.36S1I / Ri . Values of Ch T .88 0.52 2. whereas the design spectrum has 1 / T5/3 variation. These contour maps are given for TL = 4. two types of spectra. and Eurocode 8 are applicable to ground-supported as well as elevated tanks. 1 .e.90 0.5 0.0 0. and in the displacement-sensitive range it has 1 / T2 variation. i. In the velocity-sensitive range. and Eurocode 8 have speciﬁcally prescribed variation of the impulsive base shear coefﬁcient in the displacement-sensitive range also. ASCE 7. 6. at which constant-acceleration range begins and continues up to Tc. ASCE 7 provides contour maps for values of TL in various regions of America. This lower limit is similar to one given in ASCE 7 and D-100.. however. and therefore API 650 speciﬁes a constant value of the base shear coefﬁcient.0 0. In the i displacement-sensitive range. In Eurocode 8.5 0.REVIEW OF SEISMIC CODES ON LIQUID-CONTAINING TANKS 245 Table 5.30 3. 1 for ﬂexible soil are reproduced in Table 5. the elastic spectrum has 1 / Ti variation. The elastic spectrum does not i have any lower limit.0. which begins at 3 s. the elastic spectrum and the design spectrum. Ch T .00 0. wherein it is seen that in the short-period range.5S1 on base shear coefﬁcient. There is a i lower limit 0.38 2. The basic seismic hazard coefﬁcient corresponds to the elastic design level.007 for tanks on hard or stiff soil and shall not be less than 0.70 0. ductility factor µ = 1. values of Ch T . The value of the base shear coefﬁcient shall not be less than 0. Basic seismic hazard coefﬁcient. Natural period of the impulsive mode for ground-supported steel tanks is expected to remain in the acceleration-sensitive range. 1 period for long-period or constant displacement range. which is independent of time period.75 1. In NZSEE. T in s 0. Impulsive base shear coefﬁcients given in ASCE 7. 12. ACI 371 also speciﬁes such a lower limit for elevated tanks on pedestal tower and the modiﬁed expression of ASCE 7 retains this lower limit Table 3 . D-100. In ASCE 7. 1 . variation of the base shear coefﬁcient with time period is governed by the basic seismic hazard coefﬁcient Ch T . the impulsive base shear coefﬁcient has a constant value in the acceleration-sensitive range and has 1 / Ti variation in the velocitysensitive range. 1 for different time periodT are given in tabular form and they depend on soil type. and 16 s. In NZS 4203. both the spectra have a rising part from zero periods to TB.0 0. which ensures a minimum level of design force.5S1I / Rwi for tanks on very soft soils. which begins at Tc. which is taken from NZS 4203 1992 .60 1.00 0. the elastic spectrum has 1 / T2 variai tion. namely. D-100. Since elevated tanks can have quite large time period for the impulsive mode. Ch T . are mentioned see Table 2 . 1 has constant value.

Thus. and API 650. K. and D-115 do not have such upper limit Table 4 .3. In ASCE 7. ACI 350. D-110. The displacement-sensitive range begins at 2. RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR In seismic codes. It may be recalled here that NZSEE uses the basic seismic hazard coefﬁcient Ch T .3. In velocity-sensitive range. JAISWAL.4 s in ACI 350. three types of ground-supported RC and PSC tanks and two types of ground-supported steel tanks are described in ASCE 7 and other American standards. convective base shear coefﬁcient varies as 1 / T2/3 in ACI 350.3. Notwithstanding the differences in the convective base shear coefﬁcients of ACI 350.246 O. NZSEE also suggests classiﬁcation for tanks. ASCE 7.and displacement-sensitive range is of relevance. depending on the location. however. whose values varies from 4 to 16 s. In these standards. and correc- . whereas c D-115 speciﬁes 1 / Tc variation for all values of Tc Table 4 . RAI. overstrength. AND S. Details of these tanks and their response modiﬁcation factors are given in Table 6. whereas ACI 350. and API 450 it begins at TL. for convective mode. The ﬁrst major difference pertains to classiﬁcation of tanks depending on their energy-absorbing capacity. D-110.3. Eurocode 8 uses the behavior factor q. Signiﬁcant differences exist among various codes in speciﬁed variation of the convective base shear coefﬁcient with time period. base shear coefﬁcient has 1 / T2 variation in c displacement-sensitive range. D-100. and D-115. which may be too low for certain shallow containers. In ASCE 7. which is a function of ductility factor µ and damping ratio . D-110 and D-115 do not explicitly specify the beginning of the displacementsensitive range. variation of the base shear coefﬁcient in the velocity. and API 650. In Eurocode 8 and NZSEE. design seismic forces are reduced by a certain amount depending on the ductility. whose values are given for a maximum period of 4 s only Table 5 . Moreover. D-100. the displacement-sensitive range is well demarcated from the velocity-sensitive range. the modiﬁed expression of ASCE 7 is the same for these standards Table 4 . which is given in Table 7 along with the corresponding values of ductility factor µ. and API 650 put an upper limit on the convective base shear coefﬁcient. D-100. D-110 speciﬁes 1 / T2 variation for all values of Tc. JAIN Convective Mode The natural period of convective mode Tc is usually more than 2 s and can be as high as 10 s. For example. 1 given in NZS 4203. variation of the base shear coefﬁcient with time period in convective and impulsive modes is the same. and NZSEE uses the correction factor Cf. Signiﬁcant differences are seen in the strategies followed by different codes to reduce elastic design seismic force. Some codes and standards give a detailed classiﬁcation of tanks and specify the value of the response modiﬁcation factor for each type of tank. R. D.3 Table 4 . whereas in ASCE 7. D-110 and D-115 refer to it as a structure coefﬁcient. this reduction is achieved with the help of the response modiﬁcation factor R. whereas in ASCE 7. Standards from American industries use a factor similar to the response modiﬁcation factor of ASCE 7. and redundancy of the structure or depending on its energy-absorbing capacity. The upper limit speciﬁed in API 650 is quite different and lower than that speciﬁed in ASCE 7 and D-100. C. D-100. it has 1 / Tc c variation. damping ratio .

5 1.0 Conv.0 — 1. however. D-110.3 Impl.0 3. This difference is due to the fact that ASCE 7 speciﬁes seismic design forces at the strength design level.0 — 1.0 Conv.0 D-115 Impl.0 D-110 Impl.3 and D-110 Table 6 . It may be noted that NZSEE gives a detailed classiﬁcation for groundsupported steel tanks but does not give such a classiﬁcation for RC/PSC tanks.0 1. It is intriguing to note that Eurocode 8 does not suggest any classiﬁcation for groundsupported tanks. whereas ACI 350. 4.5 1.0 1.4 times higher than that of ASCE 7 Table 6 .0 Conv.5 a — tion factor Cf.0 2.3.0 2. ACI 350.0 — 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 2.5 3. 1.5 Conv.5 1.5 4.5 D-100 API 650 2.5 — 1.5 ACI 350.REVIEW OF SEISMIC CODES ON LIQUID-CONTAINING TANKS 247 Table 6. D-115 speciﬁes different values of the response modiﬁcation factor for unanchored contained and unanchored uncontained bases. and API 650 are at the allowable stress design level.3 and D-110. 2. The values of the response modiﬁcation factor from ACI 350.0 3.0 1.0 D-100 3. D-115 uses the response modiﬁcation factor for the convective mode. q = 1 shall be used for all types of ground-supported tanks unless better energy-dissipating capacity is demonstrated by proper analysis.0 1.75 2..51 1. D-110. Moreover. 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 — ACI 371 2.0 Ground-supported steel tanks ASCE 7 Mechanically anchored Self anchored 3. Values of the response modiﬁcation factor from D-115 are quite different than those from ACI 350.01 3.5 1. It mentions that elastic design forces i.3 speciﬁes the same values for these two base conditions. In this context it is interesting to note that D-100 also speciﬁes seismic design forces at the allowable .0 — 1.e.0 2. Type of tanks and response modiﬁcation factors from American standards Type of base Response modiﬁcation factor Ground-supported RC/PSC tanks ASCE 7 Impl.75 — 2.5 Elevated tanks ASCE 7 RC pedestal Braced/ unbraced legs a = No provision 1 For steel pedestal ACI 350. which is not the case with ACI 350. and API 650 are about 1. 1.5 2. 4.5 1.0 1. 1.5 2.3 3. Anchored ﬂexible Reinforced nonsliding Unanchored and contained ﬂexible Unanchored and uncontained ﬂexible 3.0 2.3.0 1.

5 0.72 1.0 for elevated tanks on frame-type towers and pedestal towers.54 0. K. damping ratio .25 1. whereas ASCE 7. and ACI 371 refer to the RC pedestal tower.5 0.248 O. Capacity design approach shall be used to protect elevated tanks against failure while yielding occurs in the chosen support system ** Damping ratio depends on soil type and aspect ratio of tank. AND S. R. and API 650 allow limited reduction in convective mode forces by specifying lower values of the response modiﬁcation factor for the convective mode.0a 1. for which q = 2 can be used.5 0.58 0.43 0. JAISWAL.5 and API 650 suggests .41 0.** 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 Conv. from NZSEE Whittaker and Jury 2000 Type of Tank Steel Tanks on Grade Elastically supported Unanchored tank designed for uplift elephant foot shell buckling may occur under seismic overload Unanchored tank designed for uplift and elastic diamond shaped shell buckling mode Anchored with nonductile hold-down bolts Anchored with ductile tension yielding hold-down bolts Ductile skirt pedestal On concrete base pad designed for rocking Concrete Tanks on Grade Reinforced concrete Prestressed concrete Elevated Tanks a b µ 1. * As appropriate for support structure.4 to convert seismic design forces from strength design level to allowable stress design level.83 0. D.5 0. C. 0.92 0. and correction factor Cf. Another major difference among various codes is regarding the use of the response modiﬁcation factor for convective forces. Hence the values of the response modiﬁcation factor in D-100 are the same as those in ASCE 7.54 0. Capacity design check required to protect against other forms of failure. Similarly. D-100 has speciﬁed a response modiﬁcation factor of 3.0 * % Impl. D-100. NZSEE does not give any speciﬁc description of a supporting tower. ACI 350.5 Impl. D-110. RAI.e.0 Cf Conv. 0. 0.41 0.0b 3. JAIN Table 7.3.5 0. In the case of elevated tanks. Values given here are for soil with shear-wave velocity of 500 m / s and height to radius ratio of 2.3. ACI 350.5 0.25 3. It is to be noted that the pedestal tower referred to in D-100 is of steel plates.75 Check that elastic buckling does not occur before elephant foot. and it merely states that the ductility factor applicable to a supporting tower shall be used Table 7 .0b 1. stress design level. ASCE 7.58 0.43 0. ductility factor µ.5 0. ASCE 7 and D-100 specify a response modiﬁcation factor of 1. Types of tanks.92 0. Eurocode 8 suggests elastic design forces i.83 0.83 0. it uses a factor of 1. thereby implying that no reduction due to the energy-dissipating capacity is available. however. q = 1 for all elevated tank types except for tanks with low risk and simple types of support structures. However. the response modiﬁcation factor depends on the structural form of the supporting tower.5 0. and Eurocode 8 explicitly mention that the response modiﬁcation factor shall not be used for the convective mode..25 1.92 1.0.92 0.25 2.0b 2.5 0. Different response modiﬁcation factors are suggested in ASCE 7 for tanks supported on pedestal towers and frame-type towers.

the response modiﬁcation factor for the convective mode is the same for all types of tanks. construction material.0. community utility. DAMPING IN IMPULSIVE AND CONVECTIVE MODES All codes prescribe 0.5 times lower than the 0. Thus the convective spectrum = 0. . However. the impulsive and convective base shear coefﬁcients have a different variation with natural period. aspect ratio of tank geometry.5% is 1. NZSEE does not suggest any speciﬁc value for the impulsive mode. In ASCE 7. in these standards. D-115 and NZSEE allow large reduction in convective forces by specifying the same response modiﬁcation factor or its equivalent factor used for impulsive forces. tanks are classiﬁed in three categories I = 1. has 5% damping for the impulsive mode and 0. whereas for the impulsive mode they have different values.7 times the impulsive spectrum = 5 % in Eurocode 8. moderate. depending on whether consequences of failure are negligible.25. Further. suggest 5% damping for the impulsive mode and 0.6. Moreover. economical. which deal with PSC tanks. for elevated tanks. depending on the type of the tank.5% damping for the convective mode in all types of tanks. and foundation soil shear wave velocity.5.REVIEW OF SEISMIC CODES ON LIQUID-CONTAINING TANKS 249 a response modiﬁcation factor of 2. 1. and social consequences. which depend on functional requirements and hazards due to leakage of their content.5% damping for the convective mode. the 0. the effect of damping on the correction factor Cf depends on the ductility factor µ Table 7 . ACI 350.5 times higher than the 5% spectrum in the velocitysensitive range.8 to 1. In NZSEE.0 .5% damping for the convective mode.5% damping for the convective mode.5% damping for the convective mode. API 650 and D-100. it suggests damping values that depend on tank material. which deals with RC/PSC tanks. On the other hand.5% spectrum is 1. environment. Eurocode 8 speciﬁes 5% damping for the impulsive mode of RC and PSC tanks and 2% damping for steel tanks and its effect is included in the damping factor. which are arrived at by considering risk to life. . Thus there are nine values of the importance factor. Thus in D-115 and NZSEE the response modiﬁcation factor for the convective mode is different for different types of tanks.5 to 1. and the 0. slight. ASCE 7 uses 5% damping for impulsive modes in all types of tanks and this results in a design spectrum that is 1. in the velocity-sensitive range. and 1. NZSEE uses a risk factor whose values range from 0. D-110 and D-115. and it mentions that the damping value appropriate for the supporting tower of an elevated tank shall be used. NZSEE speciﬁes 0. ranging from 0. which deals with steel tanks. and value of adjoining properties.5% damped spectrum in the velocity sensitive range. IMPORTANCE FACTOR The importance factor depends on the utility of tank and damage consequences. It is to be noted that in D-110 and D-115.6. etc. tanks are assigned three protection levels depending on the type of liquid stored. or extreme. and for the impulsive mode of ground-supported tanks. specify 5% damping for the impulsive mode and 0.5% spectrum is 1. Each protection level is further assigned three classes of reliability depending on risk to life and environmental.3.5 times higher than the 5% spectrum. In Eurocode 8.

convective base shear coefﬁcient values from ACI 350.3 are quite higher than those from D-110 and ASCE 7.25. Impulsive and convective mode base shear coefﬁcients are compared separately at strength design level. for PSC tanks. several parameters corresponding to a similar seismic hazard level are chosen from various codes and are given in Table 8. D-100. Unlike American standards.3 values for ground-supported RC/PSC tanks on ﬂexible base and for elevated tanks on shaft support. These differences lead to large variations in the values of base shear coefﬁcients across these codes. For this comparison. D. GROUND-SUPPORTED RC/PSC TANKS In Figure 1. the value of the correction factor Cf for convective mode is 1. since it is speciﬁed at the elastic level. JAISWAL. R. JAIN ACI 350. as shown in Figures 1–3. a comparison for ground-supported RC/PSC tanks with three types of base conditions is presented. for which prescribed values in American industry standards except ACI 371 at working stress level were multiplied by a factor of 1. ACI 350.3. ASCE 7 modiﬁcations suggest the same values of base shear coefﬁcients for ACI 350. and API 650 also classify tanks in three categories with importance factors of 1.250 O.4.3. The lower-bound limit on the impulsive base shear coefﬁcient from ASCE 7 is quite high. representing approximately similar shear-wave velocity. GROUND-SUPPORTED STEEL TANKS Comparison of the base shear coefﬁcient is presented in Figure 2 for groundsupported steel tanks with anchored and unanchored bases. impulsive base shear coefﬁcients of D-115 are different from those from ACI 350. and 1. signiﬁcant qualitative and quantitative differences exist in the parameters associated with base shear coefﬁcients. D-110. C. RAI. .75 compared to 0. In ASCE 7.5. Further. 1. respectively.92 for RC tanks Table 6 . COMPARISON OF BASE SHEAR COEFFICIENTS FROM VARIOUS CODES As discussed above. among various codes.5 may be used for tanks containing hazardous materials. depending on engineering judgment to account for the possibility of an earthquake greater than the design earthquake.25 and 1. respectively. impulsive base shear coefﬁcients from NZSEE and Eurocode 8 have higher values as they either permit very little inelastic behavior or none. The impulsive base shear coefﬁcient from Eurocode 8 is on the higher side. K.0.3 mentions that a value greater than 1. and ASCE 7 Figure 1 because of its very different values of response modiﬁcation factor Table 6 . In NZSEE. The soil categories chosen from various codes represent medium to stiff soil. and hence PSC tanks have a signiﬁcantly higher convective base shear coefﬁcient than RC tanks. D-110 and D-115 group tanks in two categories with importance factors of 1. The modiﬁed values match well with ACI 350. Comparison of base shear coefﬁcient from American industry standards and corresponding modiﬁed expressions from ASCE 7 is given in Table 9. Among American codes.0. the value of transition period TL is taken as 4 s. and D-115.3. D-110. AND S. This comparison is presented at selected values of time periods for impulsive and convective modes.

REVIEW OF SEISMIC CODES ON LIQUID-CONTAINING TANKS 251 Figure 1. . Base shear coefﬁcient for RC/PSC tanks.

Base shear coefﬁcient for ground-supported steel tanks. due to a lower value of upper limit. hence its impulsive base shear coefﬁcient is less than that for anchored tanks with nonductile bolts Figure 2a . . JAIN Figure 2. in Table 9. In API 650. C. there are no modiﬁcations in ASCE 7 for these standards.5 s Figure 2 . D-100. there is no comparison between API 650. in ASCE 7 and D-100 this upper limit is quite high and its effect is not seen for natural periods greater than 1. AND S. JAISWAL. Since API 650 and D-100 have already adopted parameters from ASCE 7. For tanks with ductile anchored bolts. and modiﬁed expressions of ASCE 7. On the other hand.252 O. NZSEE suggests a very high ductility factor. RAI. Hence. R. K. the convective base shear coefﬁcient remains constant for natural periods less than 2 s. D.

ELEVATED TANKS In Figure 3. ACI 371.3. impulsive base shear coefﬁcients for both the elevated tanks correspond to behavior factor q = 2.0 for RC shaft–type tower is assumed for comparison purposes. Base shear coefﬁcients per the modiﬁed expressions of ASCE 7 match well with those obtained from ACI 350.REVIEW OF SEISMIC CODES ON LIQUID-CONTAINING TANKS 253 Figure 3. In Eurocode 8. Base shear coefﬁcient for elevated tanks.0 for the frametype tower and µ = 2. The convective base shear coefﬁcient from ACI 350.3 is quite a bit higher. . and D-100 Table 9 . comparison of the base shear coefﬁcient for elevated tanks on a frametype tower and a RC shaft–type tower is presented. a ductility factor µ = 3. Since NZSEE does not give explicit values of the ductility factor for elevated tanks.

25. and API 650 Eurocode 8 NZSEE ACI 350. D-100.2. FV = 1. TC = 0.25. R = 1. which use the rigid tank model. The second one is for tanks with ﬂexible walls.6. the effect of wall ﬂexibility is included while evaluating impulsive and convective masses. Except for NZSEE.6. D-115. Some important provisions on analysis aspects are reviewed and compared in this section. Soil type C Ca = 0.5. Housner 1963 has given details on impulsive and convective masses. q = 2. D. .0. and NZSEE use the SRSS rule. SDS = 2 / 3FaSS.15. C. ASCE 7. I = 1. Moreover. Site Class D. all other codes use a rigid tank model for all types of tanks. D-110. Cv = 0. AND S. those codes. S = 1. Liquid in the lower portion mostly contributes to impulsive mass and liquid in the upper portion undergoes sloshing motion. Veletsos and Yang 1977 . sub soil class B Z = 1.3. In the three-mass model. The ﬁrst one is for tanks with rigid walls. D-100. D-110. but is included in the evaluation of time period. These provisions deal with modeling of the tank-liquid system. NZSEE uses a rigid tank model for RC tanks. Parameters from various codes and standards Code/Standard ASCE 7. S = 1. SD1 = 2 / 3FVS1. MODELING OF TANK LIQUID SYSTEM All the codes and standards suggest modeling the tank-liquid system using mechanical analogs. Sp = 1. wherein liquid mass is divided into impulsive and convective masses. K. sloshing wave height. = 1. Soil type D PROVISIONS ON ANALYSIS OF TANKS Codes and standards also give provisions for analysis of the tank liquid system.2. two types of mechanical analogs are available for obtaining impulsive and convective masses. Veletsos 1984 . and a ﬂexible tank model for steel tanks. hydrodynamic pressure on wall. I = 1. Lu = 1.44. The effect of wall ﬂexibility on impulsive and convective mass has been studied by Veletsos 1984 .5. Thus wall ﬂexibility is neglected only in the evaluation of impulsive and convective masses.3.0. R. which represents the tank-liquid system as a two-mass model Housner 1963. and D-115 ACI 371 Values of various parameters SS = 1. JAIN Table 8.5. Fa = 1.4.3. site category C Z = 0.3. and it is shown that wall ﬂexibility becomes important only for very slender and thin tanks. rules for combining impulsive and convective responses. The absolute summation rule in Eurocode 8 is taken from Malhotra et al. whereas ACI 350. which represents the tank-liquid system as a three-mass model Haroun and Housner 1981. do include the effect of wall ﬂexibility in the evaluation of impulsive mode time period. It is important to point out that the mechanical analog is a combination of impulsive and convective responses. JAISWAL. In the literature. and so on. TB = 0. The impulsive liquid mass vibrates along with the tank wall and the convective liquid mass vibrates relative to the tank wall and undergoes sloshing motion. TL = 4 s = 0.254 O. API 650.64. 2000 . S1 = 0. however. RAI. and Eurocode 8 use the absolute summation rule.

14 0.0 4.17 0. D-110. reinforced nonsliding base 0.12 0.39 0.0 0.96 0.21 0. it suggests using the provisions of respective industry standards.64 0.0 5. however.35 0.63 0.3 D-110 D-115 ACI 350.18 0.25 0.43 0.48 Same as ﬂexible base 0. .64 0.08 0.25 0.96 0.18 0.63 0.61 0. the value of TL is taken as 4 s.61 0.39 0.17 Original Original Original Modiﬁed2 Original Original Original Modiﬁed2 Original Modiﬁed Original Modiﬁed Impulsive base shear coeff.24 0.53 0.55 0.43 0.18 0.25 1.0 Convective base shear coeff.0 3.31 0.3 ACI 371 1 2 Ground-supported RC/PSC tanks. and is based on the work of Housner 1963 .77 0.25 0.18 Ground-supported RC/PSC tanks.96 0.38 1.2 0.09 0. as mentioned earlier.70 0.76 0. 2.6 0.43 0. ASCE 7 does not specify hydrodynamic pressure distribution on wall and base.3 D-110 D-115 Original Original Original 0. Comparison of base shear coefﬁcient obtained from original expressions of various American industry standards with their modiﬁed expressions given in ASCE 71 Time period s ACI 350.07 ACI 350. Though ASCE 7 suggests use of the absolute summation rule.76 0.55 0.70 0.31 0.51 0.43 0.05 0.70 0.64 0. Expressions for hydrodynamic pressure on the tank base are given in NZSEE only.3.50 Same as ﬂexible base Elevated tanks on shaft support 0. Distribution of impulsive and convective hydrodynamic pressure along wall height.61 0.47 0.07 0.42 — — — — 0.47 0.18 0.39 0.8 1.0 6. uncontained base 0.70 0.70 0.29 1. which is curvilinear.25 0.47 0.25 0.93 1.63 0.52 1.96 0.96 0.96 0.49 0.63 0.26 0.43 0.29 1.24 0.83 0.0 0.43 0.64 0.63 0.83 0.39 0.38 Same as ﬂexible base Ground-supported RC/PSC tanks.REVIEW OF SEISMIC CODES ON LIQUID-CONTAINING TANKS 255 Table 9.64 0.39 0. and D-115 recently Malhotra 2004 has also used the SRSS rule.63 0.12 0.49 0.3 D-110 D-115 Modiﬁed2 ACI 350.93 1.33 0. common for ACI 350.63 0.93 1.3. it also mentions that the SRSS rule may also be used. unanchored. is described in NZSEE and Eurocode 8.42 0.51 0. 0. Simpliﬁed linear pressure distribution is also described in NZSEE and ACI 350.60 0.25 0.70 0.62 0. the effect of hydrodynamic pressure on a tank base in obtaining overturning moment is included in all the codes.42 0.70 0.77 0.06 0.42 — — — — 0.44 0.26 0.18 — — In ASCE 7.70 0. however.70 0.66 Same as ﬂexible base 0.44 1.39 0. for different types of tanks.61 0.48 Same as ﬂexible base 0. ﬂexible base 0.70 0.64 0.66 Same as ﬂexible base 1.21 0.5 0.77 0. HYDRODYNAMIC PRESSURE ON TANK WALL AND BASE Stresses in the tank wall depend on distribution of hydrodynamic pressure along its height.11 0.53 0.

56 0.083 0. Based on the sloshing wave height. Malhotra 2005 has proposed a simpliﬁed method of estimating the additional design forces for tank roof and walls. However.3 D-110 D-100 API 650 0. Like the convective base shear coefﬁcient.28 0.87 0. Eurocode 8 suggests wave height as 0.28 0. the upper limit on the convective base shear coefﬁcient is not applicable for obtaining the sloshing wave height. Comparison of sloshing wave height from various codes and standards Ts 2 4 6 8 1 2 Sloshing wave height/radius of tank ASCE 7 Eurocode 8 NZSEE1 NZSEE2 NZSEE3 ACI 350.43 0.19 0.21 0.3 and D-110 give the sloshing wave height as Cs cRo.07 0. JAISWAL.125 0.75 0. and Eurocode 8. A comparison of the sloshing wave height from various codes and standards is shown in Table 10. sloshing wave height remains the same for all types of tanks.38 0. K.047 0. C. AND S. NZSEE recommends that the contribution of the higher sloshing mode shall be considered while evaluating the sloshing wave height. different values of the response modiﬁcation factor are used in the expression for the convective base shear coefﬁcient.88 0. SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Provisions on soil structure interaction are given in ASCE 7. D.063 — — — 0. whereas in other codes. then the sloshing height is given as 0. ACI 350.256 O. Hence one gets different sloshing wave heights in different types of tanks when using NZSEE.125 0. JAIN SLOSHING WAVE HEIGHT The sloshing component of liquid mass undergoes vertical displacement and it is necessary to provide suitable freeboard to prevent spilling of liquid and possible damage to the tank roof. it mentions that the sloshing wave height shall be evaluated per Housner 1963 . for different types of tanks.56 0. and radiation damping of the soil Table 10. D-100.84 Cs cRo.07 0. R. ASCE 7 and API 650 suggest the sloshing wave height as Cs cRoRwc and D-100 suggests Cs cR0 1. In ASCE 7. where Cs c is the convective mode base shear coefﬁcient and Ro is the radius of the tank. All the codes except D-115 and ACI 371 give explicit expressions to evaluate maximum sloshing wave height.46 0. RAI. ACI 350. For determining the sloshing wave height in tanks under low seismic user group.23 0. D-100 and API 650 suggest setting the value of the transition period TL as 4 s. and API 650.4Rwc .3 also overestimates the sloshing wave height. In NZSEE. when sufﬁcient freeboard is not provided. if only the ﬁrst sloshing mode is considered. Soil ﬂexibility enhances the impulsive time period.107 0. where Rwc is the response modiﬁcation factor for the convective mode. NZSEE.56 0.035 — — — 0.28 0. Though D-115 does not give any explicit expression for sloshing wave height.07 RC tanks and unanchored steel tanks PSC tanks 3 Anchored steel tanks with ductile bolts .07 0.14 0.125 0.84 Cs cRo.28 0.125 0.

These differences are in the values of the response modiﬁcation factor.5S1 is quite different and is higher than that speciﬁed in D-100 0. nature of the variation of convective base shear coefﬁcient with time period. D-115. Due to this basic difference in the strategy. the displacement-sensitive range begins at 2. For convective base shear. NZSEE. whose values vary from 4 to 16 s.3. However. Such a lower limit does not exist for elevated tanks in ACI 350.REVIEW OF SEISMIC CODES ON LIQUID-CONTAINING TANKS 257 increases the total damping of the structure. The lower limit on the impulsive base shear coefﬁcient speciﬁed in ASCE 7 0. there is a large variation in the values of impulsive and convective base shear coefﬁcients from Eurocode 8.3. are singularly different from those of D-110 and ACI 350. and Eurocode 8. Expressions for the impulsive time period including soil ﬂexibility are given in ASCE 7. D-100. and ACI 371 specify design seismic forces in terms of the groundmotion parameters of 1994 and 1997 UBC. CONCLUDING REMARKS Recognizing that liquid-containing tanks possess low ductility and redundancy. however. and API 650. For the convective base shear coefﬁcient. and presence of the response modiﬁcation factor in the expression for convective base shear. Eurocode 8 and NZSEE do not have such detailed classiﬁcation. There are substantial differences. D-110.36S1I / Ri and API 650 0. D-100. this upper limit is on the lower side in API 650 in comparison to that of ASCE 7 and D-100. For elevated tanks.3 and D-110 have identical expressions for the impulsive base shear coefﬁcient. D-110. Moreover. ASCE 7. in ACI 350. NZSEE. and D-115. Interestingly. For these standards. D-100 and API 650 specify design seismic forces in terms of the ground-motion parameters of ASCE 7. and American standards Figures 1–3 . there is no such lower limit in ACI 350. American codes and standards provide a detailed classiﬁcation of tanks and are assigned a different value of the response modiﬁcation factor. Convective base shear forces from ACI 350. ASCE 7 suggests modi- .3. whereas in ASCE 7.3. in the manner and extent to which design seismic forces are increased in various codes. all the codes discussed in this paper suggest higher design seismic force for tanks by specifying lower values of the response modiﬁcation factor or its equivalent factor in comparison to the building system. but for the convective base shear they have quite different expressions. which is not present in ACI 350.3. which are taken from Veletsos 1984 . D-100. it begins the transition period TL.4 s. there are some appreciable differences among American standards also.5S1I / Rwi . along with expressions for the equivalent damping of a tank including the radial damping of soil.3 are quite a bit higher than those given in other American standards. other standards from American industry ACI 350. Provisions of D-115 need a critical revision so as to make them consistent with other American standards. Provisions of D-115. Moreover. which deals with ground-supported PSC tanks. and API 650 specify an upper limit. and ACI 371 have given a lower limit on the value of the impulsive base shear coefﬁcient. ACI 350. depending on the location of the site. In contrast. which can have a large time period in the impulsive mode.3. although NZSEE has given classiﬁcation for groundsupported steel tanks.

however. Eurocode 8 . ASCE 7 and Eurocode 8 use the absolute summation rule. ACI 350. However. • For the convective base shear coefﬁcient. USA. so as to be consistent with other provisions of ASCE 7. Such a uniﬁed approach will also help in ironing out other differences addressed in this study. Mr. . Eurocode 8. D. There is an urgent need to evolve a uniﬁed approach for the classiﬁcation of tanks and the assigning of response modiﬁcation factor for different types of tanks. Provisions on soil-structure interaction are provided in ASCE 7. JAISWAL. and in ASCE 7 modiﬁcations these higher values are retained. NZSEE. Except for NZSEE. particularly with regard to design seismic forces. and D-115 at the same level. no code has given expressions for hydrodynamic pressure distribution on the tank base. ASCE 7. ASCE 7 modiﬁcations bring base shear coefﬁcients of ACI 350. NZSEE and D-115 use the same response modiﬁcation factor as that of the impulsive mode. and ACI 350. in these codes. R. On the other hand. D-115.3. D-110. D-110. D-100. RAI. All other codes use the rigid tank model for all types of tanks. However. However. K.3.258 O. without changing the basic design philosophy of these standards. and NZSEE use the SRSS rule to combine impulsive and convective responses. D-110. NZSEE uses different mechanical analogs for tanks with rigid and ﬂexible walls. Among other differences in various codes. the response modiﬁcation factor is not used for the convective mode. and Eurocode 8 only. which depends on wall ﬂexibility. Stephen Meier of Tank Industry Consultants. AND S. Expressions for hydrodynamic pressure distribution on the tank wall are provided in NZSEE. The ASCE 7 modiﬁcations match well with the original values of ACI 350. The present study has revealed signiﬁcant differences in the seismic provisions of various codes and standards on tanks. In some codes ACI 350. It seems that ASCE 7 modiﬁcations should reduce its values by a factor of 1. ASCE 7 states that SRSS rule may also be used to combine impulsive and convective responses. C. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and not necessary those of the GSDMA or the World Bank. Gandhinagar. provided useful information regarding AWWA D-100 2005 . whereas others have upgraded themselves to strength design level.4. the effect of hydrodynamic pressure on the base in the evaluation of overturning moment is considered in all the codes. design acceleration corresponding to the impulsive mode time period is used.3. it is noted that some codes continue to specify design forces at the allowable stress design level. API 650.3.3. JAIN ﬁed expressions for design seismic forces in terms of its own ground motion parameters. and API 650 use a lower value of response modiﬁcation factor for the convective mode. Differences also exist in the provisions on the analysis of the tank-liquid system.3 values are on the higher side. through World Bank ﬁnances. D-100. A critical review of these modiﬁcations has revealed the following: • For ground-supported RC/PSC tanks. whereas ACI 350. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work has been supported through a project awarded to IIT Kanpur by the Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority GSDMA .

Seismic Analysis of FM-Approved Suction Tanks. Washington D. ASCE 7.. Earthquake Spectra 21 4 . 1979. Simple procedure of seismic analysis of liquid storage tanks. D. P. T.. W. Denver. Eurocode 8. Report No. Welded Steel Tanks for Water Storage. Supplement C to Volume 11.. 331–339. G. Sloshing loads in liquid-storage tanks with insufﬁcient freeboard. Dynamic analysis of ﬂuids in containers subjected to acceleration. 1998. D. Behavior of storage tanks. S. MA. 1980. 1 4 . California. October 15. Earthquake Eng. CO. . Dyn. the Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964. International Conference of Building Ofﬁcials ICBO . Falls Church. Earthquake. Uniform Building Code. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Tank damage during May 1983 Coalinga earthquake. Farmington Hills. 1185–1192. Seismic Design of Liquid Containing Concrete Structures.3. Proceedings. Washington D. K.C. A. K. W. 2005. Vol. Malhotra. Norwood. ———. Seismic design of liquid storage tanks. ASCE Standard. 449–466. Belgium.. Part 1—General Rules and Part 4—Silos.C. Elevated and ground supported steel storage tanks. AWWA D-100. C. ACI 371. . 1985. CA. in Imperial County. 1981. Guide for the Analysis. American Petroleum Institute Standard. Welded Storage Tanks for Oil Storage. TID 7024. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. AWWA D-110. E. F.. Wire. MI.REVIEW OF SEISMIC CODES ON LIQUID-CONTAINING TANKS 259 REFERENCES American Concrete Institute ACI . Atomic Energy Commission. Tanks and Pipelines. G.. Farmington Hills. and Weiland.. W. ACI 350. 1963. . and Housner. Oakland. M. and Clough. G. ———1995. American Society of Civil Engineers ASCE . 1. Vol. 2004. Circular Prestressed Concrete Water Tanks with Circumferential Tendons. pp. Earthquake Spectra.. ———. Whittier. 1995. Hall. Leeds Ed. 1973. CA. Reston. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. CO. P. ———. 7. Washington. 2005. American Water Works Association AWWA . 1997. International Building Code.. J. Struct. 10 3 . Oakland. J. Northridge Earthquake of January 17. Eng. draft. Hanson.C. Manos. Struct. 2005. European Committee for Standardization ECS . Denver. 197–201. American Petroleum Institute API . 2003. SEI/ASCE 7-02. Gates. Denver. Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures. R. VA. Haroun. in Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes. R. Housner. VA. 191–207. Wenk. Uniform Building Code. API 650. 1994: Reconnaissance Report. 2001.and Strand-Wound Circular. Whittier. 1994.. 2000. Prestressed Concrete Water Tanks.. Malhotra.. Brussels. 1995. National Academy of Science.. D. CA. Malhotra. CO. 1998. AWWAD-115. Design and Construction of Concrete Pedestal Water Towers. U. Journal of Technical Councils ASCE 107 1 . MI. FM Global. P. CA. International Code Council ICC . M. ed. 1998. K. W.

255–370. RAI. Seismic Design of Storage Tanks. N. D. Proceedings. K. Raleigh. Wellington. 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. New York. JAIN NZS 4203. Recommendations of a Study Group of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering. Jain et al. J. Martin. Paper No. New Zealand. D. 2nd Engineering Mechanics Specialty Conference. ASCE. 2002... 1–24.. and Wood. J. 279–295.. Davidson. Received 21 January 2006. Ramsey. S. 1984... Veletsos.C. Standards Association of New Zealand. Seismic design loads for storage tanks. 2000. K. B. C. R.. Seismic response and design of liquid storage tanks. pp. 2376. M. C. ASCE. D. in Bhuj. G. Whittaker. N. Elevated tanks. Earthquake of January 26.. Honey. New Zealand. S.. Vessey. New Zealand.. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 1977. D. Wellington. 2001: Reconnaissance Report. Oakland. NZSEE. G. pp. Rai. Supplement A to Volume 18. Eds. Earthquake response of liquid storage tanks.. H. Code of Practice for General Structural Design and Design Loading for Buildings. J. India.260 O. and Yang. J. . 1986. S. R. A. Hopkins. J. D. JAISWAL. accepted 6 October 2006 ... Y. pp. AND S. and Jury. C. Earthquake Spectra. 1992... J. Veletsos. A. Priestley. . Eds. V. D. CA. in Guidelines for Seismic Design of Oil & Gas Pipelines System.

- A.M. Mwafy, A.S. Elnashai, ‘Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings.pdfUploaded bySaurabh Pednekar
- 14_S07-013Uploaded byrashidking
- 297536159 Paraskeva Et Al 2006 Earthquake Engineering Structural DynamicsUploaded byJose Ciprian
- IRJET-Pushover Analysis of 2d Rc Building FrameUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Seisme Base Shear Ibc2003eUploaded byRafael Reyes
- 4EWICS KapposUploaded byalexzioto
- Program_130919Uploaded bySaid Elias
- 15WCEE 1940 pushover analysis.pdfUploaded bycornelo2007
- SeismicUploaded byCarl Crow
- Evaluation of Damping Modification FactorsUploaded byelbinclusol
- performance based designUploaded byartiraha
- Seismic Performance Assessment of Long Span SPC Composite BeamUploaded bycontrerasc_sebastian988
- Article1380811777_Gurel Et AlUploaded byrigasch
- 28216_sherard Et Al 1967Uploaded byaer_ing
- Behavior of AAC Infilled RC Frame Under Lateral Loading (Bose, Et Al. 2014)Uploaded byJose Manuel
- Tension Rod DesignUploaded byMark
- AS/NZS 4600 2005 Cold-Formed Steel StructuresUploaded byFred Flindstone
- Earth Quake Resistant StructuresUploaded byspaul2011
- SGEM-2013Uploaded byZitheeq Umar
- Fema 450Uploaded byPitulice Silvia
- #11623 Ricci,Di Domenico,Verderame Revised Manuscript.pdfUploaded byrjtcosta
- Compendium of en 1993-1-1Uploaded byvasiile
- Study on Sloshing Frequencies of Fluid-tank SystemUploaded bypn1313
- Simpliﬁed R-Factor Relationships forStrong Ground MotionsUploaded byCarlos Eduardo Cueva Caller
- Study of nonlinear static finite element analysis and plastic behaviour of steel beam sectionUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Purl in 4600Uploaded byMichele Simmons

- Tube BendingUploaded byvishal
- As Flujo SubterraneoUploaded byKristina Porter
- Laboratorio de Maquinas TermicasUploaded byAlvaro Garcia Montaño
- Fenomenos ReometriaUploaded byErik Said Laiho
- Conceitos de temperatura e calor.pptUploaded byLuan Costa
- Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion Sharan & Naznin.pdfUploaded byDaniel Zabala
- ui-gc9Uploaded byNivedanSahay
- Fatigue Failure Resulting from Variable LoadingUploaded byBetty Blue
- ProblemSet8 SolutionsUploaded byTeka Kam
- Homework Thermo2Uploaded byMia L. Ayuningtyas
- ME2301-QBUploaded bybalajigandhirajan
- 4.pdfUploaded byAlirezakh
- d 451301Uploaded bymoro1381
- liquifaction effect.pdfUploaded byBMSF khaliqe
- Desktop Ram ConnectionUploaded bywaweng22
- 1.6 Relaciones de Gas Perfecto Para Aire Seco y Húmedo _ Ing. Efraín AUploaded byRamón Quinteiro
- Diseño de Risers MetálicosUploaded byjuseb3
- beam_analysis2d.xlsUploaded byRuben Bartolome Garcia
- Strength of Materials Lab ManualUploaded bygvijaym
- Ch1-1 Power Plants - ThermodynamicsUploaded byAbdul Aziz
- Thermodynamic-Formulas.pdfUploaded byAkki Arora
- codigo asme seccion viii division1a.pptUploaded byEduardo Manuel Díaz Cedré
- 01. Slab DesignsUploaded bysitehab
- essai-brésilienUploaded byfareshassen1996
- Lecture 7 - Static Failure TheoriesUploaded byBrian Zachariah Du
- Kill Sheet HHHHHUploaded byRyan Llaneta
- StoTherm Insulation System_80mmUploaded byMurat Topbaştekin
- workshop_11.pdfUploaded byJohan Conradie
- Ejerciicos Guia de EjerciciosUploaded byfredy
- Asignacion de Quimica 2. Unidad IUploaded byivanaveronica