Professional Documents
Culture Documents
doi: 10.17265/1934-7359/2015.01.009
D DAVID PUBLISHING
Abstract: Large thin walled cylindrical above ground tanks have become more susceptible to failure by buckling during earthquakes.
In this study, three different geometries of tanks with H/D (height to diameter) ratios of 2.0, 0.56, 1.0, and D/t (depth to thickness)
ratios of 960.0, 1,706.67 and 640.0 respectively were analyzed for stability when subjected to the El Centro earthquake at the base. The
Budiansky and Roth procedure was used to find the buckling loads when the tanks were empty and when they were filled with liquid up
to 90% of their depth. Also, nonlinear time history analysis using ANSYS finite element computer program was performed. Analysis
results show that the dynamic buckling occurs for empty tanks at very high PGA (peak ground accelerations) which are unrealistic even
for major earthquakes. Furthermore, when the tanks filled with water up to 90% of its height, analysis results show that when the H/D
ratio reduced by two times (i.e., from 2 to 1), the PGA for the buckling increased by six times (increase from 0.25g to 1.5g). Hence, H/D
ratio plays an important role in the earthquake stability design of over ground steel tanks.
Key words: Dynamic stability, earthquake loads, static buckling, storage tanks, structure fluid interaction.
3. Static
S Buck
kling Analyysis
3.1 Verification of
o the Model
The
T accuracyy of the finnite element model wass
cheecked by applying axial coompressive fo orce at the topp
to Model
M A tannk. The bouundary condittions for thee
com
mparison weere changed to the pin n-pin endedd
cyliindrical shellls. The eigennvalue bucklling analysiss
wass performed on the finiite element models. m Thee
hquake damagee of cylindricaal tanks.
Fig. 1 Earth theooretical critical stress σcr fo
for static axiall buckling forr
the pin-pin ended cylindrical shells is giveen by:
of the tanks [11]. Acceleerograms of 19861 El Salvador
E t
and the 19666 Parkfield eaarthquakes weere chosen. It was cr (1))
found that thhe critical PG
GA (peak grouund accelerattion) 3(1 v 2 ) R
lied betweenn 0.25g to 0.335g. In another study [12], the wheere, R is the radius
r of the ccylinder. For Model A:
research waas focused on three taanks due too an
29, 0000, 000 psi 0.375
0 in.
earthquake load
l (1999) inn Turkey. cr 36, 566 psi
3(1 0.32 ) 180 in.
In this sttudy, the strructure fluid interaction was
incorporatedd. The final aiim of the studdy is to get deesign The
T finite elem ment model w with a mesh off 48 × 48 wass
curves giviing PGA values for various v sizess of mad de by using ANSYS shhell element 181. It is a
cylindrical storage
s vessels subjected to seismic foorces fourr-node elemeent with six ddegrees of freeedom at eachh
from different earthquakees. nodde: translationns in the x, y, and z diirections andd
rotaations about the x, y, andd z axes. A compressivee
2. Geomettry and Maaterial
presssure vertical line load oof 1 lb/in. waas applied inn
In this stuudy, vertical tanks fixed at a the bottom and ANNSYS and a multiplier
m of 113,904 was obtained.
o Thee
free at the toop of three diffferent sizes, Models
M A, B,, and critical load from
m the finite element anallysis is givenn
C, which reppresent tall annd short tanks, were analyyzed. by:
Structural stteel with mateerial propertiies of moduluus of Multiplier
crit (ANSYS)
elasticity, E = 29 × 106 psi (200,000 MPa), Poisson’s t
ratio, ν = 0.3, and masss density, ρ = 7.3386 × 10-4
133,904 lb/in.
slugs/in.3 (77,857 kg/m3) was used. Thhe dimensionns of 37, 077 pssi
0.375 in.
the three tannk models aree as follows: Model A: Heeight
(H) = 60 ft. (18.29 m), diameter
d (D) = 30 ft. (9.144 m), T error is 37
The 3 ,077 36,
5
566
100% = 1.4%.
and thicknesss (t) = 0.375 in. (9.53 mm m) with H/D = 2.0 36,566
and D/t = 9660.0; Model B: B Height (H) = 30 ft. (9.144 m), Similarly,
S thee error for Model B was 9.04
9 %. Thiss
diameter (D) = 53.33 ft. (16.26 m), annd thickness (t) = shows that the fiinite element model is quitte accurate inn
0.375 in. (9.53 mm) with H/D = 0.56 and a D/t = 1706.67; dicting the static critical looad.
pred
and Model C: C Height (H)) = 20 ft. (6.1 m), diameterr (D)
3.2 Eigenvalue Buckling
B Load
= 20 ft. (6.1 m), and thickkness (t) = 0.3375 in. (9.53 mm)
m
with H/D = 1.0 and D//t = 640. Thhe finite elem ment The
T finite elem ment eigenvaalue buckling analysis wass
analysis is performed using u ANSYS S [13] compputer perfformed to giive the staticc buckling lo
oad due to a
program. horizontal shearr load applieed at the top free surfacee
74 Stability Analysis of Cylindrical Tanks under Static and Earthquake Loading
4. Dynamic Analysis
4.1 Modal Analysis
0.8
0.7
stiffness matrix, = nodal acceleration vector, and u
0.6 = nodal displacement vector. For a linear system, free
0.5 vibration will be of the harmonic form expressed as:
0.4
cos (3)
0.3
0.2 where, i = eigenvector representing the mode shape of
0.1 the ith natural frequency, ωi = ith natural circular
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 frequency in radians per unit time, t = time in s.
Deflection (in.) Substitution of Eq. (3) in Eq. (2) gives:
Fig. 4 Load deflection curve for Model A tank. 0 (4)
Stabiliity Analysis of
o Cylindrical Tanks underr Static and Earthquake
E L
Loading 755
Fig. 5 Firstt buckling moode for emptyy cylindrical tank Fig.. 6 First bucckling mode oof Model A ta
ank with 90%
%
Model A. water depth.
76 Stability Analysis of Cylindrical Tanks under Static and Earthquake Loading
equilibrium equations that also take into account inertia The analysis was performed for the empty tank
and damping force . The ANSYS program models and for the tanks when they were filled with
uses the Newmark time integration method to solve water up to 90% depth. The cylindrical shell was
Eq. (6) at a discrete time point. The Newmark method formed by using ANSYS Shell Element 181, whereas
uses finite difference expansions in the time interval Δt, the fluid content in the tanks was modeled with
in which it is assumed that: ANSYS Fluid 80 elements to simulate water. The Fluid
1 ∆ (7) 80 element input data include eight nodes and the
isotropic material properties. The bulk modulus of
∆ + ∆ (8)
water is taken as 300,000 psi (2,068.5 MPa), and the
where, α, δ are the Newmark integration parameters; viscosity property of water to compute the damping
, , and are the nodal displacement, velocity, matrix is taken as 1.639 × 10-7 lbf.-sec./in.2 (1.13 × 10-9
and acceleration respectively at time tn. Similarly, N-sec./mm2). Dynamic buckling analysis of the
, , and are the nodal displacement, tank-fluid system was modeled with geometric and
velocity, and acceleration at the time tn+1; Δt = tn+1 − tn. material nonlinearities. Large deformation and
The governing Eq. (6) is written at time tn+1 to calculate elasto-platic properties, and stress-strain properties
as follows: were assumed for the cylindrical shell. Plasticity was
(9) included using bilinear isotropic hardening with yield
The quantity is calculated by rearranging stress of 50 psi (345MPa) and a tangent modulus of 2 ×
Eqs. (7) and (8) as follows: 106 psi (13,790 MPa). The earthquake force was input
(10) to the base of the tanks as time-history acceleration
(11) corresponding to the El Centro earthquake [15] shown
where, , , 1, in Fig. 7. The north-south component having the
∆ ∆
∆ 1 , and ∆ . maximum ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.319g was
in Eq. (10) can be substituted in Eq. (11), and used. The first 7.04 s of the earthquake record was used
the equations for and are thus expressed because the maximum amplitudes of the earthquake
in terms of unknown and the known occurred before that period.
displacements , velocities , and accelerations For determining the dynamic buckling load, a
at the time tn. The equations for and qualitative but fairly well defined criterion [16] was
are then substituted in Eq. (9) to get: used. This criterion is based on computing the
time-dependent responses for gradually rising load
(12) amplitudes (rising PGA for a particular earthquake in
∆ the case of earthquakes). When the response, measured
where, , 1, and 2 .
∆
at the control point, shows a steep rise in the maximum
The displacements are obtained from Eq. amplitude for a small change in the load amplitude
(12). Eqs. (10) and (11) are used to update the (PGA for earthquake), it is assumed that the buckling
velocities and accelerations. The Newmark parameters load has reached. It was found that, for empty tanks, the
are related to the input as follows: critical PGA was unrealistically high. The Models A, B,
1 , and (13) and C buckled at PGA values of 21g, 28g, and 90g,
where, γ is the amplitude decay factor. The solutions of respectively. This means that the empty tanks will not
Eq. (9) are stable if γ 0 [14]. The default value of γ is buckle under the influence of any possible real world
0.005. earthquake.
Stabiliity Analysis of
o Cylindrical Tanks underr Static and Earthquake
E L
Loading 777
Imperia
al valley NS
Acceleration
A l ti ( )
(g)
Time (s))
Fig. 7 North
h-south horizon
ntal ground accceleration at El
E Centro, Caliifornia.
0.6
0.5
0.4
PGA ((g))
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Radiaal displacementt (in.)
Fig. 8 Pseud
do equilibrium
m path for the critical
c Node 2 of Model A ta
ank filled with water
w up to 900% depth.
PGA (g)
Raddial displacemen
nt (in.)
Fig. 12 Pseu
udo equilibrium
m path for the critical Node 2 of Model C tank
t filled with
h water up to 990% depth.
Stability Analysis of Cylindrical Tanks under Static and Earthquake Loading 79
The critical PGA for the Model C tank is 1.5g shown Stability Research Council) Annual Technical Session,
195-204.
in Fig. 12. The study supports the previous findings [17]
[4] Cooper, T. W., and Wachholz, T. P. 1999. “Optimizing
that for tanks the critical PGA decreases with decrease Post-earthquake Lifeline System Reliability.” In
in natural frequencies. Proceedings of the 5th US Conference on Lifeline
Earthquake Engineering, 878-86.
5. Conclusions [5] Veletsos, A. S., and Yang, J. Y. 1977. “Earthquake
Response of Liquid Storage Tanks—Advances in Civil
For static buckling analysis, the theoretical results Engineering through Mechanics.” In Proceedings of the
compared well with the numerical analysis by the finite Second ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers)
element method. Hence the finite element modeling Engineering Mechanics Specialty Conference, 1-24.
[6] Haroun, M. A., and Housner, G. W. 1981. “Earthquake
can be used to study the stability of cylindrical shells
Response of Deformable Storage Tanks.” Journal of
under seismic loading. Applied Mechanics 48 (2): 411-8.
It is interesting to note that static buckling occurs [7] Chalhoub, M. S., and Kelly, J. M. 1990. “Shake Table Test
when the tanks are empty whereas dynamic instability of Cylindrical Water Tanks in Base Isolated Structures.”
Journal of Engineering Mechanics 116 (7): 1451-72.
occurs in tanks when they have liquid stored in them [8] Bo, L., and Jia-xiang, T. 1994. “Vibration Studies of Base
because of added mass. Finite element analysis results Isolated Liquid Storage Tanks.” Computers and Structures
show that the dynamic buckling occurs for empty tanks 52 (5): 1051-9.
[9] Malhotra, P. K. 1997. “Method for Seismic Base Isolation
at very high PGA which are unrealistic even for major
of Liquid Storage Tanks.” Journal of Structural
earthquakes. Engineering 123 (1): 1051-9.
Nonlinear time history analysis results of three [10] Shenton, H. W., and Hampton, F. P. 1999. “Seismic
cylindrical tanks with different dimensions show that: Response of Isolated Elevated Water Tanks.” Journal of
Structural Engineering 125 (9): 965-76.
Model A (H/D = 2.0 and D/t = 960.0) had buckling at
[11] Virella, J. C., Godoy, L. A., and Suarez, L. E. 2006.
PGA of 0.25g; the Model B (H/D = 0.56 and D/t = “Dynamic Buckling of Anchored Steel Tanks Subjected to
1760.67) had the buckling at PGA of 0.39g; and Model Horizontal Earthquake Excitation.” Journal of
C (H/D = 1.0 and D/t = 640.0) buckled at the PGA of Constructional Steel Research 62 (6): 521-31.
[12] Sezen, H., Livaoglu, R., and Dogangun, A. 2008.
1.50g. It means that when the H/D ratio reduced by two
“Dynamic Analysis and Seismic Performance Evaluation
times (i.e., from 2 to 1), the PGA for the buckling of Above Ground Liquid Containing Tanks.” Engineering
increased by six times (increase from 0.25g to 1.5g). Structures 30 (3): 794-803.
Hence H/D ratio plays an important role in the [13] ANSYS, Inc. 2007. ANSYS Reference Documentation.
USA: ANSYS, Inc.
earthquake stability design of over ground steel tanks.
[14] Zienkiewicz, O. C. 1977. The Finite Element Method.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
References
[15] Chopra, A. K. 2012. Dynamics of Structures—Theory and
[1] Langhaar, H. L., and Boresi, A. P. 1956. Buckling and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. New York:
Post-buckling Behavior of Cylindrical Shells Subjected to Prentice hall.
External Pressure. Report No. 93, Department of [16] Budiansky, B., and Roth, S. 1962. “Axisymmetric
Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, University of Illinois. Dynamic Buckling of Clamped Shallow Spherical Shells.”
[2] Bushnell, D., and Miller, E. 1984. “Elastic-Plastic In NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
Collapse of Axially Compressed Cylindrical Shells: A Collected Papers on Stability of Shell Structures, 597-606.
Brief Survey with Particular Application to Ring-Stiffened [17] Jerath, S., and Qiao, W. 2009. “Dynamic Stability of
Cylindrical Shells with Reinforced Opening.” Journal of Water Tanks.” Presented at the 2009 Joint
Pressure Vessel Technology 106 (1): 122-8. ASCE-ASME-SES (American Society of Civil
[3] Jerath, S., and Porter, S. R. 1990. “Buckling Load of Engineers-American Society of Mechanical
Cylindrical Shells by Finite Element Large Deflection Engineers-Society of Engineering Science) Conference on
Analysis.” In Proceedings of 1990 SSRC (Structural Mechanics and Materials, Blacksburg, USA.