0
Research Papers: SPECIAL SECTION PAPERS

Seismic Performance Evaluation of Liquid Storage Tanks Using Nonlinear Static Procedures

[+] Author and Article Information
Konstantinos Bakalis

School of Civil Engineering,
Institute of Steel Structures,
National Technical University of Athens,
9 Iroon Polytechneiou,
Athens 15780, Greece
e-mail: kbakalis@mail.ntua.gr

Athanasia K. Kazantzi

School of Civil Engineering,
Institute of Steel Structures,
National Technical University of Athens,
9 Iroon Polytechneiou,
Athens 15780, Greece
e-mail: kazantzi@mail.ntua.gr

Dimitrios Vamvatsikos

School of Civil Engineering,
Institute of Steel Structures,
National Technical University of Athens,
9 Iroon Polytechneiou,
Athens 15780, Greece
e-mail: divamva@mail.ntua.gr

Michalis Fragiadakis

School of Civil Engineering,
Earthquake Engineering Laboratory,
National Technical University of Athens,
9 Iroon Polytechneiou,
Athens 15780, Greece
e-mail: mfrag@mail.ntua.gr

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received December 22, 2017; final manuscript received March 14, 2018; published online December 14, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Fabrizio Paolacci.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 141(1), 010902 (Dec 14, 2018) (13 pages) Paper No: PVT-17-1265; doi: 10.1115/1.4039634 History: Received December 22, 2017; Revised March 14, 2018

A simplified approach is presented for the seismic performance assessment of liquid storage tanks. The proposed methodology relies on a nonlinear static analysis, in conjunction with suitable “strength ratio-ductility-period” relationships, to derive the associated structural demand for the desired range of seismic intensities. In the absence of available relationships that are deemed fit to represent the nonlinear-elastic response of liquid storage tanks, several incremental dynamic analyses are performed for variable post-yield hardening ratios and periods in order to form a set of data that enables the fitting of the response. Following the identification of common modes of failure such as elephant's foot buckling (EFB), base plate plastic rotation, and sloshing wave damage, the aforementioned relationships are employed to derive the 16%, 50%, and 84% percentiles for each of the respective response parameters. Fragility curves are extracted for the considered failure modes, taking special care to appropriately quantify both the median and the dispersion of capacity and demand. A comparison with the corresponding results of incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) reveals that the pushover approach offers a reasonable agreement for the majority of failure modes and limit states considered.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Bursi, O. S. , Paolacci, F. , Reza, M. S. , Alessandri, S. , and Tondini, N. , 2016, “ Seismic Assessment of Petrochemical Piping Systems Using a Performance-Based Approach,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 138(3), pp. 031801. [CrossRef]
RASOR, 2015 “ Risk Assessment for the Seismic Protection of Industrial Facilities, THALES,” RASOR, Athens, Greece, accessed Mar. 30, 2018, http://excellence.minedu.gov.gr/thales/en/thalesprojects/379422
Cornell, C. A. , and Krawinkler, H. , 2000, “ Progress and Challenges in Seismic Performance Assessment,” PEER Cent. News, 3(2), pp. 1–4. https://peer.berkeley.edu/news/2000spring/performance.html
Kohrangi, M. , Bazzurro, P. , and Vamvatsikos, D. , 2016, “ Vector and Scalar IMs in Structural Response Estimation—Part II: Building Demand Assessment,” Earthquake Spectra, 32(3), pp. 1525–1543. [CrossRef]
Kazantzi, A. K. , and Vamvatsikos, D. , 2015, “ Intensity Measure Selection for Vulnerability Studies of Building Classes,” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 44(15), pp. 2677–2694. [CrossRef]
Bakalis, K. , Fragiadakis, M. , and Vamvatsikos, D. , 2017, “ Surrogate Modeling for the Seismic Performance Assessment of Liquid Storage Tanks,” J. Struct. Eng., 143(4), p. 4016199. [CrossRef]
Bakalis, K. , Vamvatsikos, D. , and Fragiadakis, M. , 2017, “ Seismic Risk Assessment of Liquid Storage Tanks Via a Nonlinear Surrogate Model,” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 46(15), pp. 2851–2868. [CrossRef]
Vathi, M. , Karamanos, S. A. , Kapogiannis, I. A. , and Spiliopoulos, K. V. , 2017, “ Performance Criteria for Liquid Storage Tanks and Piping Systems Subjected to Seismic Loading,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 139(5), pp. 051801. [CrossRef]
FEMA, 2005, “ Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures,” Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, Report No. FEMA 440. https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/855
ASCE, 2007, “ Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, ASCE Standard No. ASCE/SEI 41-06. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/book/10.1061/9780784408841
Fragiadakis, M. , Vamvatsikos, D. , and Aschheim, M. , 2014, “ Application of Nonlinear Static Procedures for the Seismic Assessment of Regular RC Moment Frame Buildings,” Earthquake Spectra, 30(2), pp. 767–794. [CrossRef]
Malhotra, P. K. , and Veletsos, A. S. , 1994, “ Uplifting Response of Unanchored Liquid‐Storage Tanks,” J. Struct. Eng., 120(12), pp. 3525–3547. [CrossRef]
Vathi, M. , and Karamanos, S. A. , 2017, “ A Simple and Efficient Model for Seismic Response and Low-Cycle Fatigue Assessment of Uplifting Liquid Storage Tanks,” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., (in press).
Cortes, G. , and Prinz, G. S. , 2017, “ Seismic Fragility Analysis of Large Unanchored Steel Tanks Considering Local Instability and Fatigue Damage,” Bull. Earthquake Eng., 15(3), pp. 1279–1295. [CrossRef]
Christopoulos, C. , Filiatrault, A. , Uang, C. , and Folz, B. , 2002, “ Posttensioned Energy Dissipating Connections for Moment-Resisting Steel Frames,” J. Struct. Eng., 128(9), pp. 1111–1120. [CrossRef]
Vamvatsikos, D. , and Cornell, C. A. , 2006, “ Direct Estimation of the Seismic Demand and Capacity of Oscillators With Multi-Linear Static Pushovers Through IDA,” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 35(9), pp. 1097–1117. [CrossRef]
Miranda, E. , 2000, “ Inelastic Displacement Ratios for Structures on Firm Sites,” J. Struct. Eng., 126(10), pp. 1150–1159. [CrossRef]
CEN, 2005, “ Eurocode 8—Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings,” European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, Standard No. EN 1998-3. http://civil.emu.edu.tr/courses/civl471/1998-3-2005.pdf
Veletsos, A. S. , and Tang, Y. , 1990, “ Soil-Structure Interaction Effects for Laterally Excited Liquid Storage Tanks,” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 19(4), pp. 473–496. [CrossRef]
Phan, H. N. , Paolacci, F. , and Mongabure, P. , 2017, “ Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Unanchored Steel Liquid Storage Tanks Subjected to Seismic Loadings,” ASME Paper No. PVP2017-65814.
Ozdemir, Z. , Souli, M. , and Fahjan, Y. M. , 2010, “ Application of Nonlinear Fluid–Structure Interaction Methods to Seismic Analysis of Anchored and Unanchored Tanks,” Eng. Struct., 32(2), pp. 409–423. [CrossRef]
Virella, J. C. , Godoy, L. A. , and Suárez, L. E. , 2006, “ Dynamic Buckling of Anchored Steel Tanks Subjected to Horizontal Earthquake Excitation,” J. Constr. Steel Res., 62(6), pp. 521–531. [CrossRef]
Buratti, N. , and Tavano, M. , 2014, “ Dynamic Buckling and Seismic Fragility of Anchored Steel Tanks by the Added Mass Method,” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 43(1), pp. 1–21. [CrossRef]
CEN, 2006, “ Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance–Part 4: Silos, Tanks and Pipelines,” European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, Standard No. EN 1998-4.
API, 2007, “ Seismic Design of Storage Tanks—Appendix E, Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage,” 11th ed., American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, Standard No. API 650.
Malhotra, P. K. , 2000, “ Practical Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of Tanks,” Earthquake Spectra, 16(2), pp. 473–492. [CrossRef]
Bakalis, K. , Vamvatsikos, D. , and Fragiadakis, M. , 2015, “ Seismic Fragility Assessment of Steel Liquid Storage Tanks,” ASME Paper No. PVP2015-45370.
Taniguchi, T. , 2004, “ Experimental and Analytical Studies of Rocking Mechanics of Unanchored Flat-Bottom Cylindrical Shell Model Tanks,” ASME Paper No. PVP2004-2913.
Taniguchi, T. , 2005, “ Rocking Mechanics of Flat-Bottom Cylindrical Shell Model Tanks Subjected to Harmonic Excitation,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 127(4), pp. 373–386. [CrossRef]
Cortés, G. , Nussbaumer, A. , Berger, C. , and Lattion, E. , 2011, “ Experimental Determination of the Rotational Capacity of Wall-to-Base Connections in Storage Tanks,” J. Constr. Steel Res., 67(7), pp. 1174–1184. [CrossRef]
Rotter, J. M. , 2006, “ Elephant's Foot Buckling in Pressurised Cylindrical Shells,” Stahlbau, 75(9), pp. 742–747. [CrossRef]
FEMA, 2012, “ Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings,” Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, Report No. FEMA P-58. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1396495019848-0c9252aac91dd1854dc378feb9e69216/FEMAP-58_Volume1_508.pdf
Vamvatsikos, D. , and Cornell, C. A. , 2002, “ Incremental Dynamic Analysis,” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(3), pp. 491–514. [CrossRef]
Ancheta, T. , Darragh, R. , Stewart, J. , Seyhan, E. , Silva, W. , Chiou, B. , Wooddell, K. , Graves, R. , Kottke, A. , Boore, D. , Kishida, T. , and Donahue, J. , 2013, “ PEER NGA-West2 Database,” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, Technical Report No. PEER 2013/03.
Ruiz-García, J. , and Miranda, E. , 2007, “ Probabilistic Estimation of Maximum Inelastic Displacement Demands for Performance-Based Design,” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 36(9), pp. 1235–1254. [CrossRef]
Vidic, T. , Fajfar, P. , and Fischinger, M. , 1994, “ Consistent Inelastic Design Spectra: Strength and Displacement,” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 23(5), pp. 507–521. [CrossRef]
Veletsos, A. , and Newmark, N. M. , 1960, “ Effect of Inelastic Behavior on the Response of Simple Systems to Earthquake Motions,” Second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 895–912. http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/vol.2_session2_895.pdf
Newmark, N. , and Hall, W. , 1982, Earthquake Spectra and Design, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Malhotra, P. K. , 1997, “ Seismic Response of Soil-Supported Unanchored Liquid-Storage Tanks,” J. Struct. Eng., 123(4), pp. 440–450. [CrossRef]
Rahgozar, N. , Moghadam, A. S. , and Aziminejad, A. , 2016, “ Inelastic Displacement Ratios of Fully Self-Centering Controlled Rocking Systems Subjected to Near-Source Pulse-like Ground Motions,” Eng. Struct., 108(2016), pp. 113–133. [CrossRef]
CEN, 2004, “ Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings,” Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, Standard No. EN 1998-1. http://files.isec.pt/DOCUMENTOS/SERVICOS/BIBLIO/Documentos%20de%20acesso%20remoto/Eurocode-8-1-Earthquakes-general.pdf
Bakalis, K. , and Vamvatsikos, D. , 2017, “ Seismic Fragility Functions Via Nonlinear Response History Analysis,” ASCE J. Struct. Eng., (accepted).
Luco, N. , and Cornell, C. A. , 2007, “ Structure-Specific Scalar Intensity Measures for Near-Source and Ordinary Earthquake Ground Motions,” Earthquake Spectra, 23(2), pp. 357–392. [CrossRef]
Bakalis, K. , Kohrangi, M. , and Vamvatsikos, D. , 2017, “ Seismic Intensity Measures for Liquid Storage Tanks,” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., (accepted).
Phan, H. N. , and Paolacci, F. , 2016, “ Efficient Intensity Measures for Probabilistic Seismic Response Analysis of Anchored above-Ground Liquid Steel Storage Tanks,” ASME Paper No. PVP2016-63103.
Cornell, C. A. , Jalayer, F. , Hamburger, R. O. , and Foutch, D. , 2002, “ Probabilistic Basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency Steel Moment Frame Guidelines,” J. Struct. Eng., 128(4), pp. 526–533. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) A liquid storage tank under ground motion excitation, that is approximated by (b) a structural model, to derive the (c) response through nonlinear analysis, and (d) the associated fragility curve through statistical processing

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) Nonlinear elastic and (b) hysteretic-system force-displacement relationships

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) Finite element model discretization and (b) von Mises stress contour on the deformed shape of tank B (Table 1) as a result of nonlinear static analysis that adopts the impulsive pressure distribution as a loading pattern [6]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

(a) The base plate of the tank is discretized into a number of radially spaced beams in view of setting up (b) a strip model that is used to obtain the tensile and compressive response that is eventually assigned to the elastic multilinear springs of (c) the Joystick model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Failure modes on an unanchored liquid storage tank

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Single-record and median IDA curves for the unanchored tanks of Table 1. Sloshing damage on tank B appears well beyond the limits of the graph.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Fitted versus computed 16%, 50%, and 84% fractile IDAs for T = {0.1 s, 0.2 s,…,1 s} and two characteristic hardening ratios: (a) ah = 3% and (b) ah = 15%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Failure mode capacities on the pushover curve versus the 10% and 2% in 50 years target displacements. SL = 1.4df capacity for tanks A and C, and θpl = 0.4 rad for tank C appear well beyond the limits of the graph.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Bilinear fit on the pushover curves for the unanchored tanks presented in Table 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Incremental dynamic analysis versus SPO2IDA comparison using the impulsive mass displacement (δi) as the EDP for the unanchored tanks presented in Table 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Incremental dynamic analysis versus SPO2IDA comparison using uplift (w) as the EDP for the unanchored tanks presented in Table 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Single-record, 16%, 50%, and 84% spectra, featuring the impulsive versus the convective component for the unanchored tanks presented in Table 1; (a) 2% damped spectra and (b) 0.5% damped spectra

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Incremental dynamic analysis versus SPO2IDA demand for plastic rotation, meridional stress and sloshing wave height (the results refer to the unanchored tank A, presented in Table 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

A comparison between IDA- and SPO-based fragility curves for the local DS classification

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In