Seismisk analyse / dimensjonering av beholdere/tank

Anton Gjrven Thanh Ngan Nguyen

Background
The purpose with this presentation is to demonstrate different calculation methods and design principles for seismic response of "full containment" (stand-alone steel inner tank, separated from outer concrete cylinder) LNG (liquefied natural gas) tanks to show how an earthquake can impact the design of the steel inner tank. The basic principles of anchoring/no anchoring of the steel inner tank is a significant factor of the costs of an LNG tank.

NEED2012

Background
Relevant projects Risavika: H = 20 m (Ht = 21 m), R = 22.5 m, H/R = 0.89 Lysekil: H = 37.5 m (Ht = 38.2 m), R = 16 m, H/R = 2.34 Lysekil: High H/R-ratio is a challenge when considering safe shutdown earthquake (SSE - return period 4975 years. Operating basis earthquake (OBE) - return period 475 years)

NEED2012

Background
Response calculations and design are normally based on hand calculations using standards Analyses, both explicit and implicit, have been executed to compare and validate the hand calculations Parameters of interest: Base shear and overturning moment (foundation, stresses in bottom insulation layers) Compressive stress in tank wall ("elephant foot" buckling, EC8-4 A.10) Uplift and anchorage of tank

Typical "elephant foot buckling"

NEED2012

Foto: Prof. J.M. Rotter, The University of Edinburgh

Basic design assumptions

General: Eurocode 2 (Concrete) and Eurocode 3 (Steel) Tanks: Eurocode 1, Part 4 (Action on tanks) and Eurocode 3, Part 4-2 (Design of steel tanks) Eurocode 8 (Earthquake), Part 1 (General) Chapter 3: Ground conditions and seismic excitation

NEED2012

Ref.: NS-EN 1998-1:2004/NA:2008 Figure NA.3(903)

Ref.: NS-EN 1998-1:2004/NA:200 Figure NA.3(901)

Eurocode 8, Part 4 (Silos, tanks and pipelines) Chapter 2: General Chapter 4: Specific rules for tanks Annex A: Seismic analysis procedures for tanks

Basic design assumptions

EN 1473 (Installation and equipment for LNG) Structural parts vital for the plant safety shall remain operational after both operating basis earthquake (OBE) and safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) EN 14620 (Design and manifacture of steel tanks for storage of LNG) Part 1 (General)
NEED2012 7.1.4 Earthquake design: "For full containment tanks, the primary liquid container shall be designed to contain the liquid during an OBE and SSE action." 7.3.2.2.13: OBE earthquake 7.3.3.3: SSE earthquake Annex C: Seismic analysis 5.1.2.2: Requirements to allowable tensile stress in tank anchorage for OBE and SSE (NB: Allowable stress theory, not limit state theory) 5.8.1: Other requirements to tank anchorage

Part 2 (Metallic components)

Part 3 (Concrete components) Part 4 (Insulation components)

6.3.2.2.1: Overall safety factor for brittle materials (insulation) for OBE and SSE (NB: Allowable stress theory) Annex C: Tank bottom insulation - Limit state theory

Part 5 (Testing, drying, purging and cool-down)

Design of LNG tanks

Foto: Norconsult. Steel roof under construction.

NEED2012

Foto: Norconsult. An LNG tank is a complex structure. Here is the outer concrete wall from one of our projects - picture is taken from below and upwards.

Design of LNG tanks

The steel inner tank is the part where the seismic conditions can have a significant influence to basic design, for example the anchoring of the inner tank. The "slenderness" of the tank or the ratio H/R combined with the ground condition govern the anchoring system to be used.

NEED2012

Explicit analysis - Abaqus

In an explicit analysis, the earthquake excitation is defined with a time history The model consists of the container a cylinder (open top) made by steel filled with LNG Two cases are studied without and with anchors (smeared representation) For each case, one earthquake definition based on Norwegian Standards has been used The FE model does not consider the outer concrete cylinder since the obtained results (max. displacement during earthquake) indicate that the interaction forces will be negligible Model definition: Steel tank: Shell elements LNG: Continuum elements. Material defined by wave speed and dynamic viscosity (Equation of state (EOS) material model - only available in Abaqus/Explicit)

NEED2012

Explicit analysis - Abaqus

FE model, interactions: Steel tank and LNG Steel tank and bottom layers (Foamglas, sand) Bottom layers and rock (analytical rigid surface)

NEED2012

Explicit analysis - Abaqus

Gravity load (LNG) is initially in equilibrium with a hydrostatic pressure The initial stress state is obtained with a dynamic (explicit) approach using time integration This is done by increasing the gravity load with a smooth amplitude curve in 10 seconds, thereafter continued 10 seconds further without any load change in order to decrease oscillations of the unbalanced solution

Stress state in LNG and tank wall is checked

NEED2012

Explicit analysis - Abaqus

The earthquake excitation is applied at the reference node for the rock as prescribed acceleration in the 1- and 3-directions The base acceleration has been multiplied by factors 1 respectively 0.3 for these directions and the earthquake is analyzed during 10 seconds

NEED2012

Explicit analysis - Abaqus

Without anchors

NEED2012

Explicit analysis - Abaqus

With anchors

NEED2012

Explicit analysis - Abaqus

Vertical section force lower part of wall (positive indicates risk of uplift)

without anchors

NEED2012

with anchors (higher stress on compression side, reduced risk of uplift on tension side)

Explicit analysis - Abaqus

Envelope of minimum contact pressure (negative indicates risk of uplift)

Without anchors

NEED2012

With anchors

Explicit analysis - Abaqus

Envelope of maximum contact pressure

Without anchors

NEED2012

With anchors (higher pressure!)

Explicit analysis - Abaqus

History plot of uplift at the corner of the tank

Vertical section force in anchors

NEED2012

EC8-4 A.9: Effect of uplift on stress in the wall (unachored)

EN 1998-4:2006 (E) Figure A.11:

NEED2012

EN 1998-4:2006 (E) A.9.2:

Explicit analysis - Abaqus

Rigid (dashed line) vs. elastic (solid line) bed, history plot of vertical section force

Without anchors (small differences)

NEED2012

With anchors (elastic bed gives generally higher compression forces than rigid bed)

10

Explicit analysis - Abaqus

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Material model for LNG EOS material is used Elastic material is also possible - gives more balanced initial state Elastic material shows less damping during seismic excitation Results when using anchors are very similar to the case without anchors Max. vertical displacement for the case without anchors is slightly higher than with anchors However, the uplift seems to have a rather small impact on the vertical stresses in the tank wall The case with anchors has actually increased section force compared to the case without anchors An explicit analysis is probably a very good approach to study the dynamic behaviour for an LNG tank excited by seismic action

NEED2012

Simplified calcuation of overturing moment

= 0.8 40 = 1.0 0.8 0.5

2.5 1.0 = 0.667 2 2 1.5

2.5

OBE (475 years):

= = 1.5 30 000 3 490
NEED2012

0.667 2 18.75 = 276 3

SSE (4 975 years):

= 1.0, 3.0 = 276 3.0 = 552 1.5

11

Hand calculations - Malhotra

EC8-4 A.3.2.2 Simplified method for fixed base tanks The response is splitted into impulsive and convective part, impulsive is dominating for high tanks

EN 1998-4:2006 (E) Table A.2:

NEED2012

Hand calculations - Malhotra

Acceleration from elastic response spectrum, EC8-1 Return period other than TNCR = 475 years is taken into account with the importance factor I (evaluated from EC8-1 2.1(4) Note) Impulsive damping = 2 %, convective damping = 0.5 % Impulsive and convective period EC8-4 Eq. (A.35) and (A.36)

NEED2012

Base shear and moment EC8-4 Eq. (A.37) and (A.38)

12

Hand calculations - Malhotra

Compressive stress = Tension force =
2 2

Number of anchors = 2

Uplift? Unachored EC8-4 A.9: Effect of uplift on stress in the wall

OBE

SSE

NEED2012

Ref.: EN 1998-4:2006 (E) Figure A.11

Response spectra for hand calculations

" = 1.0" (elastic response spectrum) = 2 % Period 0.4 ?

Malhotra/EC8-4:

NEED2012

Simplified calculations:
= 1.5 = 5 % Max. value of spectrum

13

Partial factors for LNG tank design

Limit state OBE (475 yrs) Ordinary ULS

Load factor Yes No (1.0)

Material factor Yes No (1.0)

q No (1.0) Yes?

SSE (4975 yrs) Accidental ULS

NEED2012

Implicit analysis - Abaqus

EC8-4 A.2

Ref.: EN 1998-4:2006 (E) Figure A.1

NEED2012

Why not implicit analysis with response spectrum step? Material model for the fluid? Interaction between the fluid and the flexible steel wall? Hydrodynamic pressure: Motion of the fluid due to seismic excitation is preserved as "snapshot" of max. pressure ("pushover" analysis)

14

Implicit analysis - Abaqus

The rigid impulsive (hydrodynamic) pressure is applied on the tank wall for the acceleration from the elastic response spectrum The LNG fluid is also applied as a hydrostatic pressure A contact algorithm is applied between the tank bottom and an analytical rigid surface, allowing for separation Base shear and moment corresponds well with Malhotra's simplified method
NEED2012

Implicit analysis - Abaqus

Stresses in tank wall and anchors, in addition to uplift may be studied

NEED2012

Results obtained from implicit analysis are in good agreement with hand calculations SSE: Uplift and stress in wall OK with anchors, not OK without. Unanchored case: Highly increased stresses due to extensive deformations OBE: OK with and without anchors. Unanchored case: Increased compressive stress is moderate An implicit analysis is more conservative than an explicit analysis. It is in good agreement with hand calculations and may not give any new information of the behaviour that can be found by simplified methods.

15

Summary
Several types of calculations/analyses - benefits and limitations Simplified hand calculations Simplified procedure - Malhotra Implicit analysis Explicit analysis Which results are trustworthy? Unachored tanks: Increased compressive stress when uplifted (Eurocode, implicit model (moderate!)) Anchored tanks: Increased compressive stress due to tension in anchors (explicit model)

NEED2012

Summary (continued)

Overturning moment [MNm] Base shear [MN10] Tension in anchoring [kN] Compression in tank wall (with anchors) [MPa 10] 0 500 1000 Hand calculations (Malhotra) Abaqus implicit Abaqus explicit

NEED2012

16

Conclusions
Calculation method may govern the decisions regarding the necessity of anchoring the tank Advanced FE methods (explicit analyses) tend to give reduced values of the governing parameters (hand calculations are more conservative) The complexity of explicit analyses is very high and need a lot of engineering time

NEED2012

17