11th ICSGE

Ain Shams University

17-19 May 2005

Faculty of Engineering

Cairo - Egypt

Department of Structural Engineering

Eleventh International Colloquium on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF LIQUID STORAGE TANKS

RESTING ON THE GROUND
A.M. ELHOSINY1

M. K. ZIDAN2

H. H. ORFY3

ABSTRACT
Large capacity, ground supported, cylindrical liquid-storage steel tanks are designed to be
either fully anchored or unanchored at their base. Different models for liquid storage tanks
resting on the ground subjected to seismic load have been developed using (Ansys) program.
The models considered the contact condition between the base plate and the ground and the
sloshing mode inside the tank. The models developed were compared to study the effect of
the tank base condition on the different response parameters. The models were used to obtain
the time history of the different response parameters of the tank elements. When fully
anchored tanks are subjected to strong ground shaking, large base shear is induced, imposing
high demands on the base anchorage system and foundation. Tanks unanchored at their base
experience partial base uplifting when subjected to strong shaking. Increased flexibility
associated with base uplifting reduces the base shear. However, due to reduction of contact
area between the base and the ground, the axial compressive stress in walls increases.
Parametric variations are carried out to study the effects of various geometry parameters on
the response of the tank.
Keywords: circular; ground tanks; sloshing; base shear; uplift; contact; hoop stresses; fluid
elements.
1 INTRODUCTION
Liquid storage tanks are important components of lifeline and industrial facilities. Behavior
of large tanks during seismic events has implications far beyond the mere economic value of
the tanks and their contents. Similarly, failure of tanks storing combustible materials, can
lead to extensive uncontrolled fires.
Steel ground-based tanks consist essentially of a steel wall that resists outward liquid
pressure, a thin flat bottom plate that prevents liquid from leaking out, and a thin roof plate
that protects contents from the atmosphere. It is common to classify such tanks in two
categories depending on support conditions: anchored and unanchored tanks. Anchored tanks
must be connected to large foundations to prevent the uplift in the event of earthquake
1

Associate Prof., Struct. Dep.Ain Shams Univ.Cairo- Egypt

Professor., Struct. Dep.Ain Shams Univ.Cairo- Egypt
3
Graduate Student Ain Shams Univ.Cairo- Egypt
2

E05SR33-1

occurrence. However, improperly detailed anchors may damage the shell under seismic
loading resulting in a ripped tank bottom. Hence, it is common, particularly for large size
tanks, to support the shell on a ring wall foundation without anchor bolts and to support the
bottom plate on a compacted soil though, sometimes, ring walls are omitted. Anchored tanks
are either horizontal or vertical. Circular vertical tanks made of carbon steel are more
numerous than any other type because they are efficient in resisting liquid hydrostatic
pressure mostly by membrane stresses, simple in design, and easy in construction.
Problems associated with the seismic behavior of liquid storage tanks involve the analysis of
three systems: the tank, the soil and the liquid, as well as the interaction between them along
their boundaries. The up-to-date technology in the non-linear finite element analysis of plates
and shells is utilized to model the tank wall and base plate. The Eulerian finite element
method is used to model the liquid inside the liquid domain while the Lagrangian-Eulerian
finite element method is used to model the liquid boundaries.
Analysis of the seismic behavior of unanchored tanks also includes the effect of large
amplitude base uplifting. It has been observed in past earthquakes that the bottom plate can
be lifted by as much as one foot or more, and therefore, its behavior affects the response of
the overall system. The uplifting problem is a special type of the non-linear contact problem
between two bodies. Thus, the evolution of contact analysis as well as large deflection and
rotation analysis of plates and shells are strongly related to the area of the seismic behavior of
unanchored tanks. It also involves the seismic behavior of the soil and the dynamic soilstructure interaction.
Performance of groundbased tanks during past earthquakes showed the following structural
typical damage:
Buckling near the base of the shell due to excessive axial compressive stresses. Shell
buckling is typically characterized by elephant foot bulges, which appear a short
distance above the base. Sometimes, buckling may also occur at the top part of the shell.
Damage to roof caused by sloshing of the liquid and insufficient freeboard.
Differential settlement of the foundation.
Many researchers have investigated the dynamic behavior of liquid storage tanks both
theoretically and experimentally to enable the design of such tanks to resist earthquakes.
Some researchers have been employing the finite element method to investigate contact
problems, soil plasticity and large amplitude liquid sloshing as well as both fluid-structure and
soil-structure interactions.
Large capacity, ground supported, cylindrical liquid-storage steel tanks are designed to be
either fully anchored or unanchored at their base (API 1993; AWWA 1996). When subjected
to strong ground shaking, fully anchored tanks develop large base shear and overturning
moment, due to the fluid hydrodynamic action, and impose high demands on their base
anchorage system and foundation. High stresses in vicinity of poorly detailed anchors can
tear the tank wall, and large base shear can overcome friction, causing the tank to slide. In
regions of strong shaking, it is practically impossible to design tanks to withstand forces
obtained through elastic analysis. Elastic forces are reduced by factors of three or more to
obtain the design forces.
Tanks unanchored at their base experience partial base uplifting when subjected to strong
shaking. However, due to reduced contact of the wall with the foundation, the walls axial
compressive stress increases, sometimes leading to buckling of the wall. They me be
subjected to foundation penetration, plastic rotation at plate boundary, radial separation
between the plate and foundation. Large uplifts can cause uneven and permanent settlement
of the wall due to nonlinear soil response. Several cycles of large plastic rotation can rupture
the plate-shell junction. Different methods of base isolation have been proposed to improve
the seismic performance of tanks (Malhotra 1997a, b).
E05SR33-2

Early developments of the seismic response of liquid storage tanks considered the
hydrodynamic effect of the liquid to be divided into two components; an impulsive pressure
caused by the portion of the liquid accelerating with the tank, and a convective pressure
caused by the portion of the liquid sloshing in the tank ( Housner [12]). A different approach
to the analysis of flexible containers was developed by Veletsos [17]. The tank was assumed
to behave as a single degree of freedom system, to vibrate in a prescribed mode and to remain
circular during vibrations. Later, Veletsos and Yang [15, 16] estimated maximum base shear
by modifying Housner's model to consider the first cantilever mode of the tank.
In 1980 and 81, Haroun and Housner [4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11], used a boundary integral theory to
derive the fluid added mass matrix, thus reducing considerably the number of unknowns in
the problem of deformable cylindrical tanks. The model was applied to predict the maximum
seismic response by means of a response spectrum. Later, Haroun included more
complicating effects in his analyses, such as the effect of soil-structure-fluid interaction on the
dynamic response of flexible tanks [3].
The objective of this research is to develop a mathematical model to be used for predicting the
response of large capacity cylindrical liquid-storage steel tanks either fully anchored or
unanchored at their base when they are subjected to horizontal ground shaking. The proposed
models take into consideration the sloshing effect, the uplift of base, and the flexibility of the
tank.
2 ASSUMPTIONS AND MODELS
In this research, three different mathematical models were used to analyze the problem of
ground-based tanks. The models are described as follows:

Model 1: The simple mechanical Model is used to analyze anchored tanks, Figure (1).

Model 2: A Finite Element Model was built using the (ANSYS) structural analysis
program to analyze anchored tanks with fixed-base boundary conditions, Figure (2).

Model 3: Another Finite Element Model was built using the (ANSYS) program to
analyze the un-anchored tanks but with including surface-to-surface contact boundary
conditions, Figure (3).
The properties of each model are described as follows.
3 SIMPLE MECHANICAL MODEL
Housner mechanical model, shown in Figure (1), was formulated as an idealization for
estimating liquid response in seismically excited rigid rectangular and circular tanks. The
model proposed values for equivalent masses to represent the impulsive and convective
components of the fluid mass. Properties of model parameters are computed from the tank
geometry and the characteristics of the contained fluid. Further refinements of the model
were included by Haroun (1980) and Veletsos (1977) to add other mass and stiffness to
account for shell flexibility. The model is currently adopted by the American Petroleum
Institute [2]. The procedure considers two response modes of the tank and its contents: the
response of the tank shell and roof together with a portion of the contents which moves in
union with the shell, and the fundamental sloshing mode of the contents, Figure (1).
Rigid Ground Tanks
The structure consists of the circular tank full of fluid. The fluid in the tank is replaced with
the rigid and sprung masses represented by mass m1 and mass m2, that is attached to the tank
wall by a linear spring of stiffness kc, as shown in Figure (1.a). The impulsive and convective
masses are located at distances X1 and X2 respectively from the bottom of the tank. The
storage tank is assumed to be rigid cylindrical shell with head range H (maximum water

E05SR33-3

depth) and diameter (D). The parameters describing the model of a rigid cylindrical tank are
given below. According to the (API) code formulas[2]:
For D/H> 4/3

W1

WT

D
tanh 0.866 H
=
D

0.866
H

(1)

Where
is the weight of the effective mass of the tank contents for determining impulsive
W1
lateral earthquake forces.
is the total weight of the fluid
WT
For D/H<4/3, the liquid content in the lower part of the tank (below depth equal to 3/4 of the
diameter) is considered to respond as a rigid body as far as impulsive forces are concerned.
The effective weight of the upper portion of the content is determined from Equation (1)
using D/H=4/3. The total effective weight is determined by adding the full weight of the
lower portion of the contents to the effective weight of the upper portion. Thus, the effective
weight W1 is determined from:
W1
D
= 1.0 0.218

H
WT
The formula used to determine the convective forces, W2 , is:
W2

WT

Where
W2

3.67
D
= 0.230 tanh

H
D H

(2)

(3)

is the weight (pounds) of the effective mass of the

tank contents for determining convictive lateral
earthquake forces.

The height of the centroid of the lateral seismic forces applied due to the impulsive mass, X1 ,
from the bottom of the tank shell may be determined according to the Diameter/Height ratio.
For D/H > 4/3, the formula used to determine the height of the centroid of the impulsive force
is
X1
= 0.375
H

(4)

The formula for height of the centroid of the convective force X2, is
3.67
1
cosh
D H
X2

= 1.0
H
3.67
3.67

sinh
D H
D H

(5)

The above equations were derived based on the assumption that the tank is infinitely rigid. In
reality, storage tanks have typically natural periods in the range of 0.10 to 0.25 seconds. To
account for this flexibility approximately, the maximum ground motion used in the analysis is
E05SR33-4

replaced by the spectral acceleration corresponding to the fundamental natural frequency of

the tank-fluid system.
The period of the first sloshing mode is relatively long and the corresponding value of the
spectral acceleration falls in the region of maximum spectral velocity or displacement. The
(API) [2] code formula for lateral force coefficient for the convective mass is based on a
maximum spectral velocity of 1.1 to 1.65 ft/sec, depending on soil conditions. In the absence
of accurate results, the calculation of the natural period of the first sloshing mode may be
determined approximately from the following equation
T =k D =

2 D
3.67
3.67 g tanh

D H

(6)

Note that in the above equation, the value of D should be in feet. Substituting for g = 32.2
ft/sec2
0.578
k=
(7)
3.67
tanh

D H
Flexible Ground Tanks
Ground water tanks can be modeled as a two-degrees of freedom system. In the model, the
interaction of the fluid with the tank structure is represented by an equivalent spring-mass
system. Fluid is replaced by an impulsive weight W1 that is rigidly attached to the tank wall
and convective weight W2 . Finally the system is defined by the stiffnesses ks and kc
corresponding to the shell of tank/impulsive mass and convective mass, respectively. It has to
be noted that ks is the stiffness of the tank structure and it can be defined as horizontally
through a unit displacement while the base is restrained against translation. The values of kc
and W2 can be calculated using the same equations expressed for rigid tanks. However, the
value of W1 should include the impulsive weight in addition to the effective tank weight.
4 THE FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
The second model used in this research, to analyze anchored and unanchored tanks, was built
using the Finite Element technique. The model utilized several element types that are
available in the (ANSYS) finite element structural program. The elements used in the proposed
finite element model in this research and their properties are described as follows:
3-D Mass element
It is a point element having up to six degrees of freedom: translations in the nodal x, y, and z
directions and rotations about the nodal x, y, and z-axes. A different mass and rotary inertia
may be assigned to each coordinate direction. The element is assumed to have isotropic mass
in the three directions.
3-D Beam element
It is a uni-axial element with tension, compression, torsion, and bending capabilities. The
element has six degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z
directions and rotations about the nodal x, y, and z-axes. The element is assumed to be
isotropic with constant cross section properties.

E05SR33-5

3-D Shell element

It is a 4 node quadrilateral element having both bending and membrane capabilities. Both inplane and normal loads are permitted. The element has six degrees of freedom at each node:
translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions and rotations about the nodal x, y, and z-axes.
The element is assumed to be isotropic with constant thickness.
3-D Contained Fluid element
It is a modification of the 3-D structural solid element. The fluid element is used to model
fluids contained within vessels having no net flow rate. The fluid element is particularly well
suited for calculating hydrostatic pressures and fluid/solid interactions. Acceleration effects,
such as in sloshing problems, may be included. The fluid element is defined by eight nodes
having three degrees of freedom at each node: translation in the nodal x, y, and z directions.
The geometry, node locations, and coordinate system for this element are shown in Figure (4).
The element has isotropic material properties. Youngs modulus, which is interpreted as the
fluid elastic modulus, should be the bulk modulus of the fluid. The density property is used
to compute a weight of the fluid. The shape functions of the contained fluid element and the
derivation of its Element matrices are described in the manual of the structural analysis
program (ANSYS)
Free Surface Effects:
The free surface is handled with an additional special spring effect. This is implicitly done by
the program by adding springs from each node to ground, with the spring constants being
positive on the top of the element, and negative on the bottom. For an interior node, positive
and negative effects cancel out and, at the bottom where the boundary must be fixed to keep
the fluid from leaking out; the negative spring has no effect. Positive springs are added only
to faces. The surface springs tend to retard the hydrostatic motions of the element from their
correct values. The element is permitted to bend without the bulk modulus resistance being
mobilized, as shown in Figure (5). While this motion is permitted, other motions in a static
problem often result, which can be thought of as energy-free eddy currents. For this reason,
small shear and rotational resistances are built in.
3-D Contact element
It is used to represent contact and sliding between 3-D "target" surfaces and a deformable
surface, defined by this element, Figure (6). The element has three degrees of freedom at
each node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions and is located on the surfaces of 3-D
shell elements without mid-side nodes.
3-D Target segment element
It is a single element with a 4 node quadrilateral shape, Figure (6). This element has three
degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. It is a
geometric entity in space that senses and responds when one or more contact elements move
into a target segment element.
Surface-to-Surface Contact element
The contact element has the same geometric characteristics as the shell element face with
which it is connected. Contact occurs when the element surface penetrates one of the target
segment elements on a specified target surface. Coulomb and shear stress friction is allowed.
For shell elements, the same nodal ordering between shell and contact elements defines upper
surface contact; otherwise, it represents bottom surface contact. The target surfaces must
always be on its outward normal direction. The 3-D contact surface elements are associated

E05SR33-6

with the 3-D target segment elements via a shared real constant set. In studying the contact
between two bodies, the surface of one body is conventionally taken as a contact surface and
the surface of the other body as a target surface. For rigid-flexible contact, the contact surface
is associated with the deformable body; and the target surface must be the rigid surface. The
contact and target surfaces constitute a Contact Pair. The contact detection points (i.e. the
integration points) are located either at nodal points or Gauss points Figure (7). The contact
element is constrained against penetration into target surface at its integration points.
However, the target surface can, in principle, penetrate through into the contact surface. The
penetration distance is measured along the normal direction of contact surface located at
integration points to the target surface Figure (8). The formulae and derivation of the element
matrices are found in the manual of the analysis program.
The Constraints For The Contained Fluid Elements
The contained fluid elements at boundaries are constrained such that the coincident nodes of
both the fluid and shell elements at the wall boundary should have the same displacements
(are coupled) in the direction normal to the interface only, while the relative movements in the
tangential and vertical directions are allowed to occur. At the base, fluid element nodes are
allowed to move on the surface of the tank bottom plate and are coupled only in the vertical
direction.
5 NONLINEAR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
ANSYS employs the "Newton-Raphson" approach to solve nonlinear problems. It uses
automatic time stepping based on number of equilibrium iterations used in the last time step
(more iterations cause the time step size to be reduced). The program continues to do
equilibrium iterations until the convergence criteria are satisfied or until the maximum
number of equilibrium iterations is reached. The ANSYS program provides three different
vector norms to use for convergence checking:
The infinite norm repeats the single-DOF check at each DOF in the model.
The L1 norm compares the convergence criterion against the sum of the absolute
values of force (and moment) imbalance for all DOFs.
The L2 norm (which is used in this problem) performs the convergence check using
the square root sum of the squares of the force (and moment) imbalances for all DOFs.
6 NUMERICAL RESULTS
Numerical study was carried out to study and evaluate the performance and accuracy of the
developed finite element model, which uses the fluid element and the interface bottom
element, in detecting the sloshing effect and the uplift of the base, and also to compare the
results obtained by the finite element model with those obtained by the simple model. A steel
ground tank, whose properties are summarized in table (1), was analyzed using three models:

Model-1: represents a discrete two degrees-of-freedom system, Figure (1.b) and

includes the impulsive and convective components of fluid mass. The
simple Model, whose properties are described in table (2), is used to analyze
anchored tanks.

Model-2: A Finite Element Model was built using the (ANSYS) structural analysis
program to analyze anchored tanks with fixed-base boundary conditions. It
contains shell and contained fluid elements, Figure (2).

Model-3: A Finite Element Model was built similar to Model 2 except that it contains
surface-to-surface contact boundary conditions, Figure (3). It can simulate
the uplift of base plate from foundation and was used to analyze the unanchored tanks.
E05SR33-7

A time history analysis was carried out for the three models using (as input) a part of the
scaled north-south component of the 1940 Elcentro earthquake, which has a peak ground
acceleration of 0.31882 g, Figure (9). The results obtained by using all models were
compared.
Table (1). Properties Of Circular Steel Ground Tank
Geometric
Value
Material Properties
Value
Properties
Fluid density,
Height of the tank,
11.00
1000
3
(m)
(N /m )
Diameter of the tank, 12.00
Fluid bulk
2.0685E+9
2
(m)
modulus,( N / m )
Height of water,
(m)

11.00

Steel modulus of

2E+11
2

elasticity, ( N / m )
Steel Poissons ratio
Steel density,
3

(N /m )

0.3
7833.4

Table (2) Model-1 Properties

Material
Geometric Properties Value
Value
Properties
Stiffness of the
1.944
Impulsive weight 95634
impulsive mass k s ,
W1 , N
(N /m)
0.9525E-4
Convective weight 31878
Stiffness of the
convective mass k c ,
W2 , N
(N /m)
The height of the
4.4
centroid of the
impulsive force X 1 ,
(m)
The height of the
8.15
centroid of the
convective force X 2 ,
(m)
Figure (10) shows the time history for some of the Response parameters for anchored tank
obtained by using Model-1
Figure (11) shows the time history for some of the Response parameters for anchored tank
obtained by using Model 2
Figure (12) shows the time history for some of the Response parameters for un-anchored tank
obtained by using Model-3

E05SR33-8

The study shows reasonable agreement between the simple model and the finite element
model with regards to the base shear for anchored tanks. As for un-anchored tanks, it was
observed that the base shear induced in an un-anchored tank is (10%) smaller than that
resulting on a similar anchored tank. This is due to the rigid body motion of the structure,
which absorbs the earthquake energy through the rocking motion. However, the stresses in
walls at the bottom of an un-anchored tank are going to be larger than those of a similar
anchored tank subjected to the same ground motion.
Parametric Study
Later, a parametric study was carried out, using the Finite Element Models to investigate the
effect of varying the tank slenderness ratio (height-to-radius ratio) on the tank response, for
both anchored and un-anchored tanks and to verify the stability of the model over a range of
geometry parameters. Different structures with different height-to-width ratios had been
analyzed. Both the tank height and diameter were changed but keeping the tank capacity as
constant for all cases.
Figure 13: shows the variation of Response Parameters versus the tank height-to-radius ratio
(H/R) for Anchored Tanks
Figure 14: shows the variation of Response Parameters versus the tank height-to-radius ratio
(H/R) for Un-Anchored Tanks
For the cases studied of anchored and unanchored tanks, it was found that the base shear and
the wall stresses, both increase as the slenderness ratio H/R increases.
7 CONCLUSIONS
In this research, the behavior of liquid tanks resting directly on the ground was investigated.
Different finite element models were built up and utilized to analyze tanks of various
boundary conditions. The models include different 3-D element types, such as 3-D contained
fluid element, 3-D contact element, and 3-D target element. The models can accurately
simulate the base partial uplift and the re-contact condition during the uplift motion. The
models are also capable to consider the fluid-structure interaction accurately. An extensive
parametric study was carried out concerning the effect of some factors of the tank geometry
on its response. Using of the proposed 3-D finite element model with the fluid element gives
detailed comprehensive results for wall axial and hoop stresses and for the fluid sloshing,
which cannot be obtained by using the simple mechanical model. The cases studied for unanchored tanks showed the effect of uplift motion in reducing the base shear relative to
anchored tanks. However, the accompanying increase in wall stresses should be observed.
The study also showed the effect of tank slenderness ratio on the tank base shear and wall
stresses.
REFERRENCES
[1] American Water Works Association, AWWA Standard for Welded Steel Tanks for
Water Storage, American Welding Society, New England Water Works Association,
AWWA D100-84, Denver, Colorado, March 1985.
[2] American Petroleum Institute, Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage, API Standard 650,
7th Edition, Washington, D.C., 1980.
[3] Haroun, M.A., and Abdel-Hafiz, E.A., A Simplified Seismic Analysis of Rigid Base
Liquid Storage Tanks Under Vertical Excitations with Soil-Structure Interaction,
International Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 4, October
1986, pp. 217-225.

E05SR33-9

[4] Haroun, M.A., Stress Analysis of Rectangular Walls Under Seismically Induced
Hydrodynamic Loads, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 74, No. 3,
June 1984, pp. 1031-1041.
[5] Haroun, M.A., and Warren, W.L., TANK - A Computer Program for Seismic Analysis
of Tanks, Proceedings of the Third Conference on Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE,
California, April 1984, pp. 665-674.
[6] Haroun, M.A., Behavior of Unanchored Oil Storage Tanks: Imperial Valley
Earthquake, Journal of Technical Topics in Civil Engineering, Vol. 109, April 1983, pp. 2340.
[7] Haroun, M.A., and Housner, G.W., Complications in Free Vibration Analysis of
Tanks, Journal of Engineering mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 108, 1982, pp. 801-818.
[8] Haroun, M.A., and Housner, G.W., Dynamic Characteristics of Liquid Storage Tanks,
Journal of Engineering mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 108, 1982, pp. 783-800.
[9] Haroun, M.A., Earthquake Response of Deformable Liquid Storage Tanks, Journal of
Applied Mechanics, ASME, Vol. 48, No. 2, June 1981, pp. 411-418.
[10] Haroun, M.A., and Housner, G.W., Seismic Design of Liquid Storage Tanks, Journal
of Technical Councils, ASCE, Vol. 107, April 1981, pp. 191-207.
[11] Haroun, M.A., Dynamic Analyses of Liquid Storage Tanks, Earthquake Engineering
Research Laboratory, Report No. EERL 80-4, California Institute of Technology, February
1980.
[12] Housner, G., Dynamic Pressure on Accelerated Fluid Containers, Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, Vol. 47, 1957, pp. 15-35.
[13] Malhotra, P. K. (1997a). Method for seismic base isolation of liquid-storage tanks.
J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 123(1), 113-116.
[14] Malhotra, P. K. (1997b). New method for seismic isolation of liquid-storage tanks.
J. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 26(8), 839-847.
[15] Veletsos, A.S., and Yang, J.Y., Earthquake Response of Liquid Storage Tanks,
Proceedings of the EMD Specialty Conference, ASCE, Raleigh, N.C., 1977, pp. 1-24.
[16] Veletsos, A.S., and Yang, J.Y., Dynamics of Fixed Base Liquid Storage Tanks,
Proceedings of U.S.-Japan Seminar on Earthquake Engineering Research with Emphasis on
Lifeline Systems, Japan Society for Promotion of Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan,
November 1976, pp. 317-341.
[17] Veletsos, A.S., Seismic Effects in Flexible Liquid Storage Tanks, Proceedings of the
5th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy, Vol. 1, 1974, pp. 630-639.

E05SR33-10

x(t)
K/2

m
m12

K/2

W2

Xc

Rigid Wall
Kc

X2

m1
mo

H1

X2

X1

Ho

W1
X1

G(t)

Xs

Ks

G(t)

Fig.1.a: Rigid Tank.

Fig.1.b: Flexible Tank.

Fig. 1: Housners Mechanical Model.

Fig.2: Model II (the finite element model Fig.3: Model 3 (the finite element model for unfor anchored tank)
anchored tank).

E05SR33-11

Fig.4 3-D Contained Fluid Element

Fig.5: Bending without resistance

Fig.6 3-D Surface-to-Surface Contact Elements

Fig.7: Contact Detection Point Locations at Gauss Point

F Fig.8 Penetration Distance

E05SR33-12

4
3

(m/sec2)

acceleration

2
1
0
-1

11

13

15

17

19

21

-2
-3
-4
time (sec)

Fig.9 Scaled north-south component of the 1940 Elcentro earthquake time history.

Fig.10.a: the total base shear ( Fx )

Fig. 10.b: displacements in the X direction ( u x ) for W2 (convective mass)

Fig.10: Response time history for anchored tank Model 1

E05SR33-13

23

Fig.11.a: the total base shear ( Fx )

Fig.11.b: stress for lower right steel wall element

Fig.11.c: hoop-stress for lower right steel wall

element

Fig.11.d: displacements in the Z-direction ( u z )

for right upper point of water

Fig.11: Response time history for anchored tank Model 2

E05SR33-14

Fig. 12.a: the total base shear ( Fx )

Fig.12.b: stress for lower right steel wall

element

Fig. 12.c: hoop-stress for lower right steel wall

element

Fig. 12.d: displacements in the Z-direction

( u z ) for right upper point of
water

Fig. 12.e gap in the Z-direction ( u z ) for left

point of steel base

Fig. 12.f gap in the Z direction ( u z ) for

right point of steel base

Fig. 12: Response time history for un-anchored tank Model 3

E05SR33-15

1.8

2.50E+08

1.6
1.4

2.00E+08

1.2

1.50E+08
STRESS

Fx/Fz

1
0.8

1.00E+08

0.6
0.4

5.00E+07

0.2
0
1

1.5

1.83

2.64

3.17

H/R

0.00E+00
1

1.5

1.83

2.64

3.17

H/R

Fig. 13.a: the total base shear and the total

weight of the tank

Fig. 13.b: the maximum absolute stress for

lower right steel element

Sloshing
0.55

Vertical Displacement (m)

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3
1

1.5

1.83

2.64

3.17

H/R

Fig. 13.c: the maximum absolute sloshing

displacements ( u z ) for upper
right point of water surface

Fig. 13: Variation of Response Parameters versus the tank height-to-radius ratio (H/R) for
Anchored Tank.

E05SR33-16

Stress
0.8
3.51E+08

3.01E+08

0.6

Stress (N/m2)

Reaction Factor

2.51E+08

0.4

2.01E+08

1.51E+08

1.01E+08

0.2

5.05E+07

0
1

1.83

5.00E+05

2.64

H/R ratio

1.83

2.64

H/R ratio

Fig. 14.a: the total base shear and the total

weight of the tank

Fig. 14.b: the maximum absolute stress for

lower right steel element
0.22

2.51E+08

0.216

1.51E+08

Sloshing (m)

Stress (N/m2)

2.01E+08

1.01E+08

0.212

0.208

5.05E+07

0.204
5.00E+05
1

1.83

2.64

0.2

H/R ratio

H/R ratio

Fig. 14.c: the maximum absolute hoopstress for lower right steel
element of wall

Fig. 14.d: the maximum absolute sloshing

displacements ( u z ) for upper right
point of water surface
8.00E-02

7.00E-02

Gap Distance (m)

6.00E-02

5.00E-02

4.00E-02

3.00E-02

2.00E-02

1.00E-02

0.00E+00

1.83

2.64

H/R ratio

Fig. 14.e: the maximum absolute gap distance

( u z ) for right point of base plate
Fig. 14: Variation of Response Parameters versus the tank height-to-radius ratio (H/R) for
Un-Anchored Tank.

E05SR33-17