EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING & STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn.

2014; 43:121 Published online 4 July 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2326

Dynamic buckling and seismic fragility of anchored steel tanks by the added mass method
N. Buratti*, and M. Tavano
DICAM Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of Bologna, Italy

SUMMARY Buckling plays a fundamental role in the design of steel tanks because of the small thicknesses of the walls of this class of structures. The rst part of the paper presents a review of this phenomenon for liquid-containing circular cylindrical steel tanks that are fully anchored at the base, considering the different buckling modes and especially the secondary buckling occurring in the top part of the tank. A case study based on a cylindrical tank is then introduced in order to investigate various aspects of dynamic buckling. The nite element model of the case study tank is set-up using the added mass method for uid modelling. The inuence of pre-stress states caused by hydrostatic pressure and self-weight on the natural periods of the structure is rst studied and it is found that this inuence is very small as far as the global behaviour of the tanks is considered, while it is important for local, shell-type, vibration modes. In the following, the efciency and sufciency of different ground motion intensity measures is analysed by means of cloud analysis with a set of 40 recorded accelerograms. In particular, the peak ground displacement has been found being the most efcient and sufcient intensity measure so far as the maximum relative displacement of the tank walls is concerned. Finally, incremental nonlinear time-history analyses are performed considering the case study structure under recorded earthquake ground motions in order to identify the critical buckling loads and to derive fragility curves for the buckling limit state. Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 28 December 2012; Revised 30 April 2013; Accepted 9 May 2013 KEY WORDS:

steel tanks; earthquake response; nite elements; added mass; buckling; ground-motion intensity measures; fragility curves

1. INTRODUCTION Buckling plays a fundamental role in the design of steel tanks because of the small thicknesses of the walls of this class of structures. Many researchers have studied the seismic behaviour of anchored liquid-storage tanks, investigating the effect of hydrodynamic uidstructure interaction on structural response. Past studies have concluded that circular cylindrical anchored tanks containing a homogeneous liquid develop a cantilever-type behaviour under horizontal accelerations [110]. The hydrodynamic response of the tank-liquid system is characterised by the superposition of two different contributions, named impulsive component and convective component, respectively. If the tank walls are rigid, the impulsive component represents the portion of liquid that moves in unison with the tank walls. The liquid that moves with a longperiod sloshing motion in the upper portion of the tank is represented by the convective component. These two components can be considered uncoupled, because there are signicant differences in their natural periods [2]. Furthermore, because the sloshing motion of the convective component is typically associated to long periods, this latter component gives only
*Correspondence to: N. Buratti, DICAM Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of Bologna, Italy. E-mail: nicola.buratti@unibo.it Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

N. BURATTI AND M. TAVANO

a small contribution to the total hydrodynamic pressure on the tank walls and therefore, the global tank response is mainly inuenced by the impulsive component. The complicated deformed congurations of liquid storage tanks and the interaction between uid and structure result in a wide variety of possible failure mechanisms during earthquakes. Brown et al. [11] and Haroun [12] reported the damage on steel tanks due to the 1994 Northridge earthquake and to the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake. Damage on steel tanks was also observed by the authors of the present paper after the 2012 Emilia earthquake, in Northern Italy, and is documented in Section 2. Shell buckling, damage and collapses of tank roofs, base-anchorage failures, tank support-system failures, differential settlements, partial uplifting and pipe failures are the most observed failure modes. Among all these failure modes, shell buckling is what this paper focuses on. In past studies, the buckling problem for on-grade steel tanks was investigated by means of numerical models in which the different buckling modes (elephant0 s foot, diamond shape and secondary buckling) are highlighted and discussed separately. However, there is lack of studies in which the buckling phenomenon is considered in its entirety. In order to study the seismic vulnerability of liquid storage tanks with respect to buckling, there is the need to set up a unique criterion able to identify the buckling load for the structure, including all types of possible buckling modes and to use such criterion to build fragility curves. This is what is performed in the present work. Fragility curves for steel tanks can also be found in ORourke [13] and Salzano [14], even if they are not specic for buckling. In fact, they refer to more general damage states, dened by the HAZUS damage classication [15]. In the present work, fragility curves for buckling are obtained by means of incremental time-history analyses performed on a three-dimensional model of an anchored steel tank with a height-to-diameter ratio typical of petroleum tank farms (H/D = 0.4). When setting up a tank model, the problem of how to model the liquid immediately arises. Various approaches have been proposed in the literature, for example, analytical approaches [16], FEM-based models adopting either added-mass approximations or uid-specic nite elements [1720], BEMFEM coupled models [21], and smoothed particle hydrodynamics [22, 23]. In the present paper, the added mass method was chosen for liquid modelling because it represents a good compromise between accuracy and computational cost [24]. Non-linear dynamic analyses using a set of 40 recorded accelerograms were performed using the nite element software ABAQUS (Rhode Island, USA) [25, 26] in order to investigate the efciency and sufciency of different ground-motion intensity measures (IMs). Then, incremental dynamic analyses were carried out, and their results were processed using the BudianskyRoth buckling criterion [27, 28] and pseudo-equilibrium paths [24], in order to provide an estimate of the dynamic buckling load and to understand which was the dominant buckling mode. Finally, the dynamic buckling loads were used to make some considerations about the seismic fragility of the tank with respect to buckling.

2. BUCKLING OF STEEL TANKS UNDER SEISMIC ACTIONS The buckling behaviour of steel tanks under seismic excitation has been analysed by means of experimental and computational studies, and two main buckling types have been dened: elasticplastic buckling and elastic buckling. These two buckling types are explicitly mentioned in actual codes as Eurocode 8 [29] and New Zealand guidelines [30] and implicitly accounted for in the API formulation [31]. The elasticplastic behaviour is associated with the so called elephants foot buckling, which is characterised by an outward bulge just above the base of the tank. This kind of buckling is clearly visible in the picture in Figure 1 that was taken by the authors during a eld survey after the Emilia earthquake that struck Northern Italy in May 2012. The bottom of the shell is normally in a biaxial stress state consisting of hoop tension and axial compression. The bulge formation results from the large circumferential tensile stresses due to the internal pressures (hydrostatic and hydrodynamic due to vertical excitation), in combination with the axial
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2014; 43:121

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

DYNAMIC BUCKLING AND SEISMIC FRAGILITY OF ANCHORED STEEL TANKS

Figure 1. Elephants foot buckling, emilia earthquake, Italy, 20 and 29 May 2012.

compression stresses due to the overturning moment caused by horizontal earthquake excitation. In fact, when the hoop stress reaches the yield limit, the annular strips of the tank cannot sustain any load increment and therefore, the structural scheme resisting to a further vertical load increment is represented by a tall plate a few millimetres thick. It is immediate to understand how this element can reach quickly a buckling failure. Eurocode 8 and New Zealand guidelines suggest the Rotter [32] formula to compute the buckling capacity with respect to elasticplastic buckling, 2 !2 3    r f y =250 p R 1 5 1 ; (1) f pb sc1 41 t w f y 1:12 r1:5 r1
w where sc1 0:605 w R is the Eulers critical axial compressive stress, R is the tank radius, p is the total internal pressure, Ew and tw are the elastic modulus and the thickness of the tank walls, fy is the steel yielding stress, and r is a coefcient dened as r = R/(400 t). The elastic buckling is associated with the so-called diamond-shape buckling, characterised by shell crippling at the base of the tank (Figure 2). This type of buckling is due to the axial compression forces developed at the general meridian line that are due to the self-weight of the tank walls and roof and to the increment given by the seismic action. The diamond shape buckling is much less common than the elephants foot because it occurs at small values of hoop stress. The axial membrane stress that needs to induce elastic buckling in a shell depends on the internal pressure and the amplitude of imperfections in the shell. In particular, the latter tend to decrease the buckling stress to a fraction of the classical (Eulers) buckling stress. The internal pressure reduces the effective imperfection amplitude and therefore increases the

E t

Figure 2. Diamond shape buckling, emilia earthquake, Italy, 20 and 29 May 2012.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2014; 43:121

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

N. BURATTI AND M. TAVANO

buckling stress. Because of these reasons, the buckling capacity with respect to elastic buckling ^ , to the critical Eulers axial can be computed by applying a proper knockdown factor, a compressive stress for an axially loaded, linear-elastic cylinder, ^0:605 f mb a E w t w R (2)

The knockdown factor takes into account imperfections sensitivity of the bent cylindrical shell and proper values of it were given by the European Convention for Constructional Steelwork in [33]. Eurocode 8 and NZSEE propose a different formula for the elastic critical buckling stress with regard to the elastic buckling limit state, which represents a further development of equation 2 [34]. In addition to the well-known elephants foot and diamond shape buckling modes, a third kind of buckling, due to external pressure and cavitation, is mentioned by Rammerstofer et al. [3] and conrmed also by observations on real tanks after earthquakes (Figure 3). However, this buckling mode is not covered by current codes, and until now, no empirical formula associated to it exists in literature. In the present work, this third buckling mode is named secondary buckling, in order to distinguish it from the rst type of elastic buckling (diamond shape). Computational studies on secondary buckling are mainly by Virella et al. [24]. From a mechanical point of view, it is caused by the pressure at the top of the shell, where the resultant pressure (superposition of the hydrodynamic and hydrostatic pressures) acts in the inward direction, thus causing axial compression forces in the annular strips, as illustrated in Figure 4. These compression forces in addition to the small thickness of the tanks walls at the top, may lead to an elastic buckling problem, which appears in the form of cavitation.

3. FLUID MODELLING WITH THE ADDED MASS METHOD The added mass method was rst developed by Westergaard [19] in a seminal study concerning the dynamic interaction between dams and reservoir systems. According to Westergaard, the hydrodynamic pressures that the water exerts on the dam during an earthquake are the same as if a fraction of the volume of water moved together with the dam. Westergaard considered the dam as rigid. Later Lee and Tsai studied the dynamic interaction between the retained water and a exible dam using modal analysis [35, 36]. They considered the dam as a EulerBernoulli beam and showed that the added mass, which vibrates together with the structure during the imposed excitation, results from the hydrodynamic effect due to the current deection of the structure and the current response of the entire system. Therefore, the added mass is a function of the mode shapes of both the structure and the reservoir.

Figure 3. Secondary buckling, emilia earthquake, Italy, 20 and 29 May 2012.

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2014; 43:121

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

DYNAMIC BUCKLING AND SEISMIC FRAGILITY OF ANCHORED STEEL TANKS

Buckling zone

pimp phyd

pimp phyd

pimp

phyd

Figure 4. Compression force developed in an annular strip located in the zone of buckling, after [24].

As far as liquid-containing tanks are concerned, two main categories of added mass models can be found in the literature, those aimed at simulating the global behaviour of tanks (e.g. the overturning moment and the total base shear), which use a few lumped masses, one for each pressure component [3739], and those aimed at analysing the local behaviour of tank walls. Examples of this latter category of added mass models, which will be used in the present study and discussed in the following, can be found in Virella et al. [20, 24, 40]. The inertia of the portion of the uid that acts impulsively is lumped in with the inertia of the tank walls, and the added masses are calculated from pressure distributions of rigid tanks. Proceeding in this way, the added mass values are constant during the dynamic simulation. But this approach is not strictly correct; in fact, after what Lee and Tsai have shown for exible structures the added mass depends on the deection of the structure and therefore is not constant over time [35, 36]. However, in case of tank liquid systems, the studies by Veletsos and Yang [6] and Haroun and Housner [7] have shown that the pressure distribution due to the liquid impulsive component in rigid and exible tanks are similar, in particular for broad tanks (H/R < 1) as indicated by the diagrams in Figure 5. Therefore, an added mass method that employs constant over time masses can be applied with reference to broad tanks. It is worth noticing that the added mass model is easily implemented in any FEM software because it does not require any special purpose nite element. Furthermore, De Angelis, Giannini [37] favourably compared the results obtained by using this model with experimental tests [37].

H/R = 5 2 1

H/R = 3

0.8

0.8

1
0.6

0.6

0.4

0.5 0.3

0.4

0.5

0.2

0.2

0.5

0.5

ci()

ci1()

Figure 5. Pressure distribution along the tank height (a) for rigid and (b) for the rst mode of exible tanks, after [2].
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2014; 43:121

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

6
2416 mm 2416 mm 2416 mm 2416 mm 2425 mm

N. BURATTI AND M. TAVANO

liquid level

tw = 7.9 mm tw = 9.5 mm tw = 12.7 mm

30480 mm

Figure 6. Geometric characteristics of the tank considered (in mm).

4. CASE STUDY: A STEEL TANK UNDER SEISMIC ACTIONS According to the previous considerations, a broad tank was considered in the present study, whose geometric characteristics are taken from Virella [24] and are shown in Figure 6. A 90% lling level was considered. The tank is assumed without a roof structure. Because full base anchorage is considered and the primary interest of the paper is on the buckling of the cylinder shell, the model has clamped conditions at the base. The tank walls material is steel S275 with elastic-hardening constitutive behaviour, dened the following mechanical properties: yield strength fy = 275.0 MPa, ultimate strength fu = 430.0 MPa, elastic modulus E = 210000.0 MPa and strain hardening modulus Eh = 3888.0 MPa. 4.1. Finite element model The nite element analysis package ABAQUS [25, 26] was used to carry out all the analyses. A nite element mesh of 7080 elements was used to assure convergence of the solution. The mesh size was dened performing a convergence study in which a set of nonlinear static analyses was performed on meshes with decreasing size until the results did not show any signicant mesh dependency [41]. Further, details can be found in [34]. Four-node, doubly curved shell elements with reduced integration and nite membrane strain formulation were employed. From a practical point of view, the added mass approach essentially consists in deriving liquid masses from pressure distributions and to attach them to the shell nodes of a nite element model by means of one-direction elements, as shown in Figure 7. Because the added masses are determined from the hydrodynamic pressure that is normal to the shell surface, they must be dened in such a way that they only add inertia in that direction. Therefore, the one-direction elements (MPC type LINKS in ABAQUS) have supports oriented in their local axes that constrain the motion of the nodal masses to the normal direction of the shell. The motion of

Pinned rigid link Supports Added masses

Figure 7. Schematic representation of the added-mass model, after [20].

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2014; 43:121

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

10880 mm

12089 mm

tw = 7.9 mm tw = 7.9 mm

DYNAMIC BUCKLING AND SEISMIC FRAGILITY OF ANCHORED STEEL TANKS

each support is restricted in the global tangential and vertical directions, whereas it is free in the radial direction. The added mass model is obtained from a pressure distribution for the impulsive mode of the tank-liquid system and the convective component is neglected [20, 24]. The impulsive pressure distribution is obtained from the horizontal rigid body motion of a rigid tank-liquid system and can be expressed in a cylindrical reference system as x g t rR cosy; pi z; y; t ci z (3)

where z indicates the coordinate along the axis of the cylinder, y is the circumferential position, t is the general time, x g t is the ground acceleration time history, r is the water density and the function ci(z) describes the pressure distribution along the tanks height and can be determined after Veletsos and Shivakumar [2]. The lumped mass at each node of the mesh is computed by multiplying the pressure acting on the tank walls (equation (2)) by the tributary area of the x g t cosy . Therefore, for the node and dividing by the reference ground acceleration an general interior node, the expression of the lumped mass is given by equation (4), mi pi E 2 size ci zrRE 2 size ; an (4)

where Esize is the edge length of the rectangular nite elements used that was set in the present work equal to 500 mm.

5. MODAL ANALYSIS Prior to the dynamic buckling analysis, the modal properties of the tank were investigated. In particular, the rst 30 natural periods and mode shapes of the tank-liquid system were evaluated under two different assumptions, that is, by either neglecting or considering the pre-stress state produced by the hydrostatic pressure and the self-weight of the tank. Table I reports the natural periods obtained. Only the odd natural periods are listed because, due to the symmetry of the structure, duplicated natural modes were obtained. The pre-stress state strongly affects the natural periods of the tank-uid system, by reducing the natural periods. However, if the natural periods are plotted versus the number of circumferential waves, n, as performed in Figure 8, it is possible to notice that the effect of the pre-stress state is smaller for the modes characterised by low
Table I. Effect of the pre-stress on the periods, T, of the rst 30 natural modes :n and m indicate the number of circumferential and axial waves, respectively.
Pre-stress considered Mode 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 T [s] 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.92 0.89 0.84 0.83 0.79 0.75 0.71 0.69 0.67 0.64 0.61 0.58 m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n 8 9 10 7 11 12 6 13 14 15 5 16 17 18 19 T [s] 2.74 2.70 2.69 2.60 2.54 2.46 2.32 2.31 2.19 2.07 2.02 1.96 1.85 1.75 1.72 Pre-stress neglected m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n 14 15 13 16 12 17 18 11 19 20 10 21 22 23 9

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2014; 43:121

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

8
4 3.5 3

N. BURATTI AND M. TAVANO

Prestress state considered Prestress state neglected

T [s]

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5

10

15

20

25

Circumferential wave number n

Figure 8. Dependency of the natural period of the rst 30 modes of the tank on the circumferential wave number, n.

circumferential wave numbers (e.g. n < 10). The results found here and collected in Table II are in agreement with the results of Virella et al. [40]. It must be noted that Figure 8 refers to the rst 30 modes extracted byABAQUS, which extracts modes in decreasing order of natural period, but the participating mass in the x-direction of these modes is very small, and therefore, these modes are not the most signicant in describing the global response of the structure; however, they may be important for the local behaviour of the tanks walls. For this reason, a second analysis was performed, considering only the natural modes with the largest participating mass ratio, ax, and in particular, a number of modes that sufces in order to obtain a total participating mass greater than the 85% of the total mass of the system; seven modes were required for the tank-uid system considered. All the details about these modes are reported in Table II, from which it is possible to note that they are all cantilever-type modes (n = 1). In the light of what is shown in Figure 8, for these modes, the effect of prestress states is negligible. Therefore, pre-stress states can be neglected when investigating the global behaviour (i.e. the total shear force or the overturning bending moment at the base) of the structure under earthquake accelerations.

6. DYNAMIC BUCKLING ANALYSIS 6.1. Overview of the analysis procedure Once the added mass model has been validated through modal analysis, dynamic time-history analyses are performed including both material and geometric nonlinearities. The nonlinear equations of motion are solved using an implicit time-integration technique available in ABAQUS/Standard [26]. Only
Table II. Effect of the pre-stress on periods, T, of the cantilever-type vibration modes with the largest effective modal masses, ax: n and m indicate the number of circumferential and axial waves, respectively.
Pre-stress considered Mode 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 T [s] 0.22 0.22 0.18 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.23 ax [] 0.44 0.14 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.03 m [] 1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 n [] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T [s] 0.22 0.22 0.18 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.21 Pre-stress neglected ax [] 0.43 0.15 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.02 m [] 1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 n [] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2014; 43:121

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

DYNAMIC BUCKLING AND SEISMIC FRAGILITY OF ANCHORED STEEL TANKS

unidirectional ground-motions were considered here, therefore, the model was accelerated only in the x-direction. The main objective of the analysis performed herein is to estimate the dynamic buckling load, which in this case is represented by the peak ground acceleration (PGA) that produces buckling, PGAcr. To this aim, the dynamic simulation is not performed using the original ground motion record, but the base accelerogram, x g t , is scaled according to increasing values of PGA. In particular, several analyses are performed for increasing values of PGA, from 0.02 g to 0.75 g. It is worth noticing that the PGA is the most widely used ground motion IM used in the literature related to tanks [11, 13, 14, 24, 4244], therefore, it will be adopted in this section of the present paper. Alternative IMs will be investigated and discussed in Section 7.1. 6.2. Evaluation of the critical buckling load To identify the dynamic buckling load of the tank, the BudianskyRoth criterion [2, 4, 24, 27, 28, 45], which has been used extensively in the literature to determine the dynamic buckling load of structures, was employed in the present study. According to the aforementioned criterion, different analyses of the structure for several load levels (PGA values in this case) need to be carried out, and the load value for which there is a signicant jump in the response for a small increase in the load indicates that the structure moves from a stable state to a critical state. The rst step required by the BudianskyRoth criterion is to monitor the transient response of selected points of the structure. Criteria used to select the most representative node of the structure are discussed at the end of this Section. For now, with the sole purpose of illustrating the criterion, the attention is focused on the transient response of one node. From Figure 9, it is evident how a signicant jump in the displacement eld can be observed only for PGAs above 0.70 g. The dynamic buckling load can be more clearly identied by plotting the maximum radial displacement of the control node recorded during the different analyses versus the corresponding PGA values, as performed in Figure 10. The so obtained points can be used to t a bilinear regression model, thus producing a so called pseudo-equilibrium path, as proposed by Virella et al. [24]. The intersection of the two lines constituting the path provides an estimate of the critical PGA, PGAcr, that is, the ground-motion intensity at the transition from the stable to the unstable path. In order to dene the control node, two grids of points were xed in those parts of the structure where the maximum deformations and plasticization were expected (see Figure 11). The pseudoequilibrium paths were then built for each node belonging to the two grids, and the actual control node was assumed to be the one that developed the smallest critical PGA value. This criterion is particularly important because the position of the control node may change in the different analyses. 6.2.1. Buckling models observed during the analyses. Figure 12 shows the deformed shape of the tank walls at a general step of the dynamic analyses performed, and it is particularly illustrative
50
PGA=0.10g PGA=0.30g PGA=0.40g PGA=0.50g PGA=0.60g PGA=0.65g PGA=0.70g PGA=0.75g

ur [mm]

50

10

time [s]

Figure 9. Time histories of the radial displacement of one node of the FE model for increasing PGA values of the base accelerogram.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2014; 43:121

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

10
0.8

N. BURATTI AND M. TAVANO

0.6

Critical PGA=0.645g

PGA [g]

0.4

0.2

10

20

30

40

50

max|ur| [mm]

Figure 10. Pseudo-equilibrium path for one node of the FE model.

Figure 11. Grid points among which the control node is searched.

Secondary buckling

nd ou Gr otion m

Elephant foot buckling

Figure 12. Deformed shape of the tank at the onset of buckling.

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2014; 43:121

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

DYNAMIC BUCKLING AND SEISMIC FRAGILITY OF ANCHORED STEEL TANKS

11

because two buckling phenomena can be observed. The rst one is the presence of secondary buckling at the upper-middle part of the shell. The second one is the formation of an elephants foot bulge at the bottom of the tank, in the yielded region (see Figure 13). In this case, secondary buckling occurred for PGA values larger than 0.40 g, a few seconds after the peak base acceleration. The elephants foot bulge at the base developed for PGA values larger than 0.55 g. Because the elephants foot buckling has been widely discussed in the literature and it is fully covered by the current regulations, our attention is mainly focused on the local buckling at the upper-middle part of the shell. In particular, it is not yet clear if it is a pure elastic buckling or if material yielding plays a direct role as for the elephants foot buckling. A rst step in understanding this issue is to perform analyses assuming a linear elastic behaviour for the material. The results of such analyses showed that the secondary buckling phenomenon occurred even when considering linear elastic materials; therefore, it can be dened as a purely elastic buckling. 6.2.2. Effect of plasticity. In order to understand the inuence of material yielding on the critical PGA, the pseudo-equilibrium paths resulting from elastic and elasticplastic analyses were compared, as illustrated in Figure 14. As expected, the elasticplastic critical PGA is lower than the elastic one. In particular, a reduction of about 40% is observed. Therefore, the pseudo-equilibrium paths are strongly inuenced by material yielding. Furthermore, it is interesting to notice that the control node to which the elasticplastic curve is referred to is still located in an elastic region; this means that the failure mode is still characterised by pure
+1.03e03 +9.46e04 +8.60e04 +7.74e04 +6.88e04 +6.02e04 +5.16e04 +4.30e04 +3.44e04 +2.58e04 +1.72e04 +8.60e05 +0.00e+00

Figure 13. Equivalent plastic strain and elephants foot bulge at the base of the tank.

0.8

Elastic path
0.6

0.645g Elasticplastic path

PGA [g]

0.4

0.371g
0.2

20

40

60

80

max|ur| [mm]

Figure 14. Elastic and elasticplastic pseudo-equilibrium paths.

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2014; 43:121

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

12

N. BURATTI AND M. TAVANO

elastic buckling, but the value of PGA at which this buckling occurs is strongly reduced by plastic strains in other parts of the structure. We can conclude that material yielding leads to important changes in global behaviour of the structure.

7. SEISMIC VULNERABILITY 7.1. Efciency and sufciency of ground-motion intensity measures The seismic vulnerability of structures is often characterised by a fragility curve that gives the probability of occurrence for a general limit state as a function of a ground-motion IM. This latter is a parameter describing the intensity of ground motions and in particular, their severity on structures. Examples of commonly used IMs are the PGA, the peak ground velocity (PGV), the peak ground displacement (PGD), the pseudo spectral accelerations (PSA) at different periods, etc. Past studies dealing with seismic risk analysis and fragility curves for liquidcontaining tanks may be found in Iervolino et al. [46], ORourke et al. [13], Salzano et al. [14] and Talaslidis et al. [47], in all these studies, the PGA is used as IM. The limit state considered in the present paper is the dynamic buckling, and the probability of failure is intended as the probability of having buckling for a given value of a certain ground motion intensity measure im, as expressed by equation (5) Pf PIM cr im; (5)

where IMcr is the random variable, which represent those particular values of the IM producing buckling. The probability of failure in equation (5) can be rewritten in terms of conditional probability as Pf Pbuckling j IM im: (6)

The correct choice of the IM is of crucial importance in describing the structural response. Because for liquid-storage tanks, there is lack of studies in the literature about this topic, a contribution on the efciency and sufciency of four different ground-motion IMs is given here. 7.1.1. Efciency. According to Tothong [48], an IM is dened efcient if its adoption results in relatively small variability of structural response for a given IM level, that is, if the IM is a good predictor of structural response (e.g. maximum displacement). Different approaches may be used to evaluate efciency, the most common being stripe/multi-stripe analysis, IDA capacity-based analysis and cloud analysis. An extensive discussion of those different analysis methods is available in Baker [49]. All the aforementioned methods listed require to scaling ground motions to specic target IM values with the exception of cloud analysis. With this latter method, the structure is subjected to a set of ground motions that, in general, are either left unmodied, or all records are scaled by a constant factor if the unmodied records are not strong enough to induce the structural response level of interest. The set of IM levels of the accelerograms and their associated structural-response values resulting from nonlinear dynamic analysis are sometimes referred to as a cloud, because they form a rough ellipse when plotted. Regression analysis can be used on this cloud of data to compute the conditional mean and standard deviation of different structural-response values given IM. A linear relationship between the logarithms of the two variables often provides a reasonable estimate [49]. In the present work, cloud analysis was adopted to avoid ground-motion scaling because the effects of such procedure have not been yet fully investigated as far as liquid containing tanks are concerned. Forty nonlinear time-history analyses are performed using 40 different accelerograms from the Next Generation of Ground-Motion Attenuation Models (NGA) project database [50], chosen according to the following criteria [51]: (i) moment magnitude, Mw,
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2014; 43:121

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

DYNAMIC BUCKLING AND SEISMIC FRAGILITY OF ANCHORED STEEL TANKS

13

spanning from 6.0 to 8.0; (ii) JoynerBoore distance. RJB, spanning from 0.0 to 30.0 km; (iii) no pulse-like records, according to the classication by [52]; (iv) maximum usable period greater than 3.0 s [53]; (v) only one horizontal component per record. In addition to the aforementioned criteria, in order to increase the goodness of the efciency analysis, accelerograms were selected in order to obtain a set PGA values as logarithmically spaced as possible. The magnitude - distance distribution of the accelerograms used is depicted in Figure 15. In Figure 16, for each analysis, the maximum radial displacement, max |ur|, occurring in the tank is plotted in double-logarithmic scale versus the four different IMs taken into consideration. For each case, the linear regression model ln maxjur j b0 b1 lnim e (7)

was tted. In Equation (6), im indicates the general intensity measure, b0, e, b1 are unknown regression coefcients, and e is a standard error term. In cloud analysis, the efciency may be quantied by the standard deviation of the error term, se. This latter parameter is reported in Figure 16 together with the slope of the regression line and the coefcient of determination R2. From the results reported in Figure 16, it is possible to notice that the structural response seems to be scarcely correlated with PGA and PSA, whereas it has a very strong correlation with PGD (se = 0.29, R2 = 0.86), which can be dened the most efcient ground-motion IM. In the literature, the PGD is considered an efcient IM for exible structures with long periods [54]. In the uid-tank system investigated in the present paper, two groups of modes can be identied: short-period cantilever-type modes controlling the global behaviour (e.g. overturning bending moment, base shear, etc.) and long-period shell-type model, characterised by a number of circumferential waves greater than 1. The maximum radial displacement, max |ur|, is probably connected to the latter group of modes, in fact, from Figure 17, it is possible to notice that the deformed shape of the tank assumes a wave form, typical of shell modal forms, in the upper-middle part, where the maximum radial displacements occurs. 7.1.2. Sufciency. An IM is considered sufcient if the distribution of structural response values for a given IM value is independent of other parameters involved in the calculation of seismic hazard, mainly, magnitude, source to site distance and e (this latter parameter describes how many standard deviations the spectral acceleration at a given period is distant from the mean spectral acceleration predicted by a given attenuation relationship [48]). Sufciency is particularly important for dening sound ground motion selection criteria for nonlinear analyses [48]. In cloud analyses, sufciency is analysed by evaluating the correlation between the residuals of the linear regression described in Section 6.1.1 with the aforementioned parameters involved in
8

7.5

Mw

6.5

10

15

20

25

RJB [km]

Figure 15. Magnitude-distance distribution of the 40 accelerograms used for efciency and sufciency analysis.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2014; 43:121

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

14
103

N. BURATTI AND M. TAVANO

max|ur| [mm]

102

Slope: 0.62 R2: 0.25 : 0.67

10 1 10
1

10

101

a
103

PGA [g]

max|ur| [mm]

102

101 1 10

Slope: 0.54 R : 0.16 : 0.71

100 101

b
103

PSA(T1) [g]

max|ur| [mm]

102

Slope: 0.94 R2: 0.68 : 0.44

10 2 10
1

10

10

101

c
103

PGV [m/s]

max|ur| [mm]

102

Slope: 0.75 R2: 0.86 : 0.29

101 2 10

101

100

PGD [m]

Figure 16. Efciency of ground-motion intensity measures: peak ground acceleration (PGA) (a), Spectral acceleration at the rst natural period, Sa(T1) (b), peak ground velocity (PGV) (c), peak ground displacement (PGD) (d).
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2014; 43:121

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

DYNAMIC BUCKLING AND SEISMIC FRAGILITY OF ANCHORED STEEL TANKS

15

Figure 17. Deformed shape of the tank when the maximum radial displacement was attained in one of the analyses performed.

hazard calculation. In the present study, the sufciency was evaluated with respect to Mw and RJB by tting the following linear regression models: lnrim b0 b1 M w e lnrim b0 b1 RJB e (8)

where rim indicates the residuals of the regression performed using Equation (6) considering the intensity measure, im. As an example, Figures 18 and 19 show the dependency on Mw (a) and RJB (b) of residuals obtained by tting the model in Eq. (6) considering either IM = PGD or IM = PGA. It is clearly evident that PGA is less sufcient than PGD especially in terms of Mw. Figures 17 and 18 also give the slope coefcient of the regression line depicted and the p-value for the F-statistics corresponding to the null hypothesis b1 = 0. A summary of the results is provided in Table III from which it is possible to conclude that the most efcient measure is PGD, which shows sufciency also in general terms. 7.2. Fragility analysis 7.2.1. Denition of the ground-motion set for fragility analysis. The fragility with respect to dynamic buckling is evaluated for a case study atmospheric tank located in the industrial plant in Milazzo, Italy. In order to derive site-specic fragility curves, the accelerograms used for incremental dynamic analysis were selected on the basis of information on the response spectrum at Milazzo. In particular, the 5% damped elastic spectrum with 475 years return period is calculated using the Italian Seismic Code prescriptions [55]. A type A soil is assumed and therefore, according to the Italian code, a reference PGA of 1.89 m/s2 is considered. Accelerograms were selected from the NGA ground-motion database, identifying a group of 14 records with an average acceleration response spectrum compatible (according to EC8 criteria) with the previously dened site spectrum. Spectral compatibility was dened in the period range [Tmin = 0.178 s, 2 Tmax = 0.456 s] to account the main for cantilever-type modes (n = 1). This period range was dened according to the general criteria suggested by EC8. Furthermore, given the results in terms of efciency long-period spectral accelerations are well-correlated with PGD [54] and in order to take into account the effect of long-period local modes, spectral compatibility was required also in the long period range T > 1.0 s. Dening the range of signicant periods for spectral compatibility, it is possible to select those 14 accelerograms whose average spectrum best ts the site-specic elastic spectrum in that range. In particular, an automatic procedure has been implemented allowing to analyse all the possible
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2014; 43:121

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

16
1.5 1 0.5

N. BURATTI AND M. TAVANO

residuals

0 0.5 1

Slope: 0.03 pvalue: 7.64e1

1.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8

a
1.5 1 0.5

Mw

residuals

0 0.5 1 1.5

Slope: 0.00 pvalue: 6.26e1

0 5 10 15 20 25

RJB [km]

Figure 18. Sufciency of peak ground displacement (PGD) in terms of moment magnitude (a) and JoynerBoore distance (b).

Table III. Results of the sufciency analysis.

Mw IM PGA PSA(T1) PGV PGD Slope 0.930 0.988 0.482 0.029 p-value 9.06 107 9.52 107 3.15 104 0.764 Slope 0.0076 0.0178 0.0130 0.0030 RJB p-value 0.597 0.241 0.167 0.626

IM, intensity measure; PGA, peak ground acceleration; PGV, peak ground velocity; PGD, peak ground displacement.

combinations of the required number of accelerograms in order to identify the group with the best t. The accelerograms selected are listed in Table IV and their PSA response spectra are depicted in Figure 20 together with their average spectrum. To investigate the fragility with respect to dynamic buckling, the incremental dynamic analysis procedure presented in Section 6.2 is repeated for the tank subjected to the 14 response spectrumcompatible accelerograms. Applying the BudianskyRoth criterion to the results of each of them, 14 pseudo-equilibrium paths are built and therefore, 14 values of PGAcr are obtained. At the same time, it is possible to dene also the critical values for all the other IMs considered in the present paper. All these critical values are collected in Table V. However, the results of accelerograms 1, 2 and 7 are considered to be unreliable, because the scale factor associated with them is too high [56]. Because of this reason, these three accelerograms are excluded from the calculations of Section 6.3 to obtain the fragility curves.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2014; 43:121

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

DYNAMIC BUCKLING AND SEISMIC FRAGILITY OF ANCHORED STEEL TANKS

1.5 1 0.5

17

residuals

0 0.5 1

Slope: 0.93 pvalue: 9.06e7

1.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8

a
1.5 1 0.5

Mw

residuals

0 0.5 1

Slope: 0.01 pvalue: 5.97e1

1.5 0 5 10 15 20 25

RJB [km]

Figure 19. Sufciency of peak ground acceleration (PGA) in terms of moment magnitude (a) and JoynerBoore distance (b).

It is interesting to notice that the control nodes to which the 14 pseudo-equilibrium paths are referred to may change from one path to the other. By looking at the position of the control nodes, we found that for 12 out of 14 paths, the control node is located in the upper-middle part of the tank, where the material is elastic; in these cases, the failure mode is characterised by secondary buckling. For the remaining two cases, it is associated to elephants foot buckling, in fact, the control node is located in the middle-low part, where the material is yielded, and an outward bulge has formed.
Table IV. The 14 spectrum-matching accelerograms used for fragility analygis: earthquake and station name, year, component, moment magnitude, Mw and JoinerBoore distance, RJB. Earthquake and station names are as dened by the NGA project [50].
Earthquake name Irpinia, Italy Northridge, CA, USA Irpinia, Italy Northridge, CA, USA Denali, Alaska Whittier Narrows, CA, USA Irpinia, Italy Loma Prieta,CA, USA San Fernando,CA, USA Whittier Narrows,CA, USA Northridge, CA, USA Irpinia, Italy Northridge, CA, USA Northridge, CA, USA Station name Auletta Pacoima Dam (downstr) Auletta LittlerockBrainard Can R109 Pasadena-CIT Kresge Lab. Bagnoli Irpinio Gilroy Array #1 Old Seismo Lab Pasadena-CIT Kresge Lab. LA-Wonderland AVE Sturnio Pacoima Dam (downstr) LA-Grifth Park Observatory Year 1980 1994 1980 1994 2002 1987 1980 1989 1971 1987 1994 1980 1994 1994 Component N-S E-W E-W N-S E-W N-S E-W E-W N-S E-W E-W N-S N-S N-S MW 6.90 6.69 6.90 6.69 7.90 5.99 6.22 6.93 6.61 5.99 6.69 6.22 6.69 6.69 RJB [km] 9.52 4.92 9.52 46.31 42.99 6.77 17.79 8.84 21.5 6.77 15.11 20.38 4.92 21.2

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2014; 43:121

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

18
0.8

N. BURATTI AND M. TAVANO

0.6

Target spectrum EC8 lower bound Actual spectra Mean spectrum [0.2 T1, 2T1]

PSA [g]

0.4

0.2

PGA

0.1

1.0

T [s]

Figure 20. Response spectra of the 14 selected accelerograms and compatibility with the target spectrum in the selected range of periods.

Furthermore, the average value of PGAcr is 0.348 g, so that we can conclude that secondary buckling should be of great concern to designers because it seems to be the dominant failure mode and it occurs at relatively low levels of PGA. 7.2.2. Fragility curves. The probability of failure in equation (5) is essentially the denition of the cumulative density function (CDF) for the random variable IMcr, that is, the critical values of the ground-motion IM under consideration. Therefore, it can be expressed as Pf PIM cr im F IMcr im (9)

Using the data in Table V, the empirical CDF can be computed for each IM. The four empirical CDFs obtained are plotted in Figure 20. From this gure, it is immediate to notice that less uncertainty is associated to the buckling phenomenon if described in terms of PGD, that is, the CDF in terms of PGD is the steepest one. On the contrary, high uncertainty is associated to the dynamic buckling when described in terms of PSA. Assuming a lognormal distribution for the random variables IM, as commonly performed in the literature [47, 57, 58], the cumulative probability functions can be characterised by the rst two
Table V. Critical scale factors, SFcr, and Buckling loads in terms of PGA, PSA(T1), PSV and PGD, for the tank subjected to 14 response-spectrum compatible accelerograms.
PGAcr Accelerogram 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 SFcr 8.68 8.26 1.86 4.72 2.21 3.22 11.25 0.75 2.04 5.26 3.50 2.80 1.02 1.13 [g] 0.54 0.43 0.11 0.28 0.13 0.29 0.55 0.31 0.41 0.59 0.39 0.22 0.44 0.18 PSAcr [g] 1.41 0.78 0.27 0.74 0.46 0.71 0.88 0.89 0.95 1.03 0.81 0.77 0.74 0.34 PSVcr [m/s] 0.53 0.53 0.10 0.30 0.14 0.12 0.51 0.24 0.22 0.42 0.30 0.12 0.31 0.15 PGDcr [mm] 320 749 59 61 77 9 58 48 49 52 50 21 46 27

PGA, peak ground acceleration.

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2014; 43:121

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

DYNAMIC BUCKLING AND SEISMIC FRAGILITY OF ANCHORED STEEL TANKS

1

19

0.8

P (IMcr im)

0.6

0.4

0.2

PGA, COV =0.35 PSA (T1m =1 ), COV =0.90 PGD, COV =0.20 PGV, COV =0.26
0

im ( PGA [ g ], PSA [ g ], PGD [ m], PGV [ m s])

0.5

1.5

Figure 21. Empirical and analytical (lognormal) fragility curves for buckling in terms of the various intensity measures considered in the present paper.

moments. Once the mean and the standard deviation are known, it is possible to compute the lognormal CDF. The so computed curves are plotted in Figure 21 together with the empirical CDF, and also, the coefcient of variation is highlighted. From the gure, we can notice that the analytical curves have a good t; this implies that the lognormal distribution model is well-suited to the buckling problem of liquid-storage tanks.

8. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK In the present work, the seismic behaviour of liquid containing cylindrical tanks was investigated using the added mass method in order to simulate the uidstructure interaction. The added mass was computed from the impulsive pressure distribution for rigid tanks, and therefore, the added mass was constant during the simulation. This approach is correct for broad tanks, where the pressure does not change much depending on whether the tank is assumed to be rigid or exible. The main ndings of the present paper are listed in the succeeding text. The pre-stress state due to the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic pressures on the tank walls has a large effect on shell-type modes, and in particular, it reduces their periods, but it does not have important effects on the cantilever-type vibration modes (i.e. modes characterised by a number of circumferential waves n = 1) that control the global response of the liquid-tank system. Nonlinear dynamic analyses have shown that the added-mass model allows to simulate two types of buckling modes: elephants foot buckling and secondary buckling. However, the dominant failure mode is the secondary buckling at the upper-middle part of the shell. Contrary to the elephants foot buckling, the secondary buckling is an elastic buckling mode, but it is strongly inuenced by the occurrence of plasticity in other parts of the structure. The nite element model developed was used in order to investigate the efciency and sufciency of four different ground-motion IMs, that is, the PGA, peak ground velocity, PGD and spectral acceleration at the natural period of the rst cantilever-type natural mode. PGD has been found being the most efcient and sufcient IM as far as the maximum radial displacement of the tank walls is concerned. The average dynamic buckling load resulting from 14 analyses using spectrum-compatible accelerograms corresponds to PGAcr = 0.35 g, so that the secondary buckling should be of great concern to the designer, although not yet explicitly covered by current standards. Fragility curves, in terms of the attainment of a buckling limit state, have been obtained, considering the four aforementioned IMs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors acknowledge the nanical support of the Italian Department of Civil Protection, ReLUIS 20102013 project Task 2.2.3: Industrial Plants, Nuclear Plants, and Lifelines.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2014; 43:121

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

20

N. BURATTI AND M. TAVANO REFERENCES

1. Hamdan FH. Seismic behaviour of cylindrical steel liquid storage tanks. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2000; 53(3):307333. 2. Veletsos AS, Shivakumar P. Dynamic response of tanks containing liquids or solids, in Computer Analysis and Design of Earthquake Resistant Structures DE Beskos and SA Anagnostopoulos, Editors, Computational Mechanics, Inc. 1997. 3. Rammerstorfer FG, Scharf K, Fisher FD. Storage Tanks Under Earthquake Loading. Applied Mechanics Reviews 1990; 43(11):261282. 4. Veletsos, AS. Seismic response and design of liquid storage tanks in Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems. Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel Lifelines of the ASCE Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Editor, ASCE: New York, 1984 5. Hunt B, Priestley MJN. Seismic water waves in a storage tank. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1978; 68(2):487499. 6. Veletsos, AS, Yang JY. Earthquake response of liquid storage tanks, in Advances in Civil Engineering through Engineering Mechanics - Second Annual Engineering Mechanics Division Specialty Conference, ASCE: North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A. 1977; 124. 7. Haroun MA, Housner GW. Earthquake response of deformable liquid storage tanks. Journal of Applied Mechanics 1981; 48(2):411417. 8. Housner GW. The dynamic behaviour of water tanks. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1963; 53 (1):381387. 9. Jacobsen LS. Impulsive hydrodynamics of uid inside a cylindrical tank and of uid surrounding a cylindrical pier. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1949; 39(3):189204. 10. Graham EW, Rodriguez AM. The characteristics of fuel motion which affect airplane dynamics. Journal of Applied Mechanics 1952; 19(3):381388. 11. Brown KJ, et al., Seismic performance of los angeles water tanks, in Fourth U.S. Conference on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, MJ ORourke, Editor : San Francisco. 1995, 668675. 12. Haroun MA. Behaviour of unanchored oil storage tanks: imperial valley earhquake. Journal of Technical Topics in Civil Engineering 1983; 109(1):2340. 13. ORourke MJ, So P. Seismic fragility curves for on-grade steel tanks. Earthquake Spectra 2000;16(4):801815. 14. Salzano E, Iervolino I, Fabbrocino E. Seismic risk of atmospheric storage tanks in the framework of quantitative risk analysis. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2003; 16(5):403409. 15. HAZUS. Earthquake loss estimation methodology, National Institute of Building Sciences, prepared by Risk Management Solutions: Menlo Park, CA, USA, 1997. 16. Fischer FD, Rammerstorfer FG. A rened analysis of sloshing effects in seismically excited tanks. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 1999; 76(10):693709. 17. Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL, Nithiarasu P. The nite element method for uid dynamics. 6th ed ed2005, Amsterdam ; London: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. xii, 435 p., [6] p. of plates. 18. Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The nite element method for solid and structural mechanics. 6th ed2005, Oxford ; Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. xv, 631 p., [4] p. of plates. 19. Westergaard HM. Water pressures on dams during earthquakes. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers 1933; 98:418433. 20. Virella JC, LE Suarez, Godoy LA. Effect of pre-stress states on the impulsive modes of vibration of cylindrical tankliquid systems under horizontal motions. Journal of Vibration and Control 2005; 11(9):11951220. 21. Kim MK, et al. Seismic analysis of base-isolated liquid storage tanks using the BEFEBE coupling technique. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2002; 22(912):11511158. 22. Gingold RA, Monaghan JJ. Kernel estimates as a basis for general particle methods in hydrodynamics. Journal of Computational Physics 1982; 46(3):429453. 23. Gingold RA, Monaghan JJ. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics - theory and application to non-spherical stars. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 1977; 181:375389. 24. Virella JC, Godoy LA, Surez LE. Dynamic buckling of anchored steel tanks subjected to horizontal earthquake excitation. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2006; 62:521531. 25. Hibbit HD, Karlsson BI, Soresen P. ABAQUS Standard Users Manual, 2002. 26. Hibbit HD, Karlsson BI, Soresen P. ABAQUS Theory Users Manual, 2002. 27. Budiansky B, Roth RS. Axisymmetric dynamic buckling of clamped shallow spherical shells, in Collected Papers on Instability of Shell Structures (TN-D-1510), NASA, 1962 597606. 28. Budiansky B. Dynamic Buckling of Elastic Structures: Criteria and Estimates, G Herrmann, Editor, Pergamon Press: Oxford, 1967, 83106. 29. European Committee for Standardization - CEN. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 4: silos, tanks and pipelines, 2006. 30. Priestley MJN, et al. Seismic design of storage tanks. Recommendations of a Study Group of the New Zealan National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 1986. 31. API. Welded Tanks for Oil Storage, 2008. 32. Rotter MJ. Local collapse of axially compressed pressurized thin shell cylinders. Journal of Structural Engineering 1990; 116(7): 19551970.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2014; 43:121

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

DYNAMIC BUCKLING AND SEISMIC FRAGILITY OF ANCHORED STEEL TANKS

21

33. European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS). Buckling of Steel Shells - European Recommendations (4th Edition), ECCS: Brussels, Belgium, 1988. 34. Tavano M. Seismic response of tank-uid systems: state of the art review and dynamic buckling analysis of a steel tank with the addedd mass method, in Department of Civil, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of Bologna, 2012. 35. Lee GC, Tsai CS. Time-domain analyses of dam-reservoir system. I exact solution. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 1991; 117(9):19902006. 36. Tsai CS, Lee GC. Time-domain analyses of dam-reservoir system. II substructure method. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 1991; 117(9):20072026. 37. De Angelis M, Giannini R, Paolacci F. Experimental investigation on the seismic response of a steel liquid storage tank equipped with oating roof by shaking table tests. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2010; 39(4):377396. 38. Shrimali MK, Jangid RS. Seismic response of base-isolated liquid storage tanks. JVC/Journal of Vibration and Control 2003; 9(10):12011218. 39. Shrimali MK, Jangid RS. Seismic response of liquid storage tanks isolated by sliding bearings. Engineering Structures 2002; 24(7):909921. 40. Virella JC, Godoy LA, Surez LE. Fundamental modes of tank-liquid systems under horizontal motions. Engineering Structures 2006; 28: 14501461. 41. Malhotra PK. Practical nonlinear seismic analysis of tanks. Earthquake Spectra 2000; 16(2):473492. 42. Virella JC, Surez LE, Godoy LA A static nonlinear procedure for the evaluation of the elastic buckling of anchored steel tanks due to earthquakes. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2008; 12(6):9991022. 43. Sun J, Zhang R, Zhang L. Investigation on seismic vulnerability of vertical storage tanks based on probability estimate method. World Information on Earthquake Engineering 2009; 25(1):3742. 44. Krausmann, E, AM Cruz, Affeltranger B, The impact of the 12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake on industrial facilities. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2010; 23(2):242248. 45. Tanov R, Tabiei A, Simitses GJ. Effect of static preloading on the dynamic buckling of laminated cylinders under sudden pressure. Mechanics of Composite Materials and Structures 1999; 6(3):195206. 46. Iervolino I, Fabbrocino G, Manfredi G, Fragility of standard insutrial structures by a response surface based method. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2004. 8(6):927945. 47. Talaslidis DG, et al., Risk analysis of industrial structures under extreme transient loads. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2004. 24(6):435448. 48. Tothong P Luco N, Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(13):18371860. 49. Baker JW Vector-valued ground motion intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand analysis, in Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Stanford: Sanford, CA, U.S, 2005. 50. Power M, et al. An overview of the NGA project. Earthquake Spectra 2008. 24(1):321. 51. Buratti N, Stafford PJ Bommer JJ. Earthquake accelerogram selection and scaling procedures for estimating the distribution of drift response. Journal of Structural Engineering 2011; 137(3):345357. 52. Baker JW. Quantitative classication of near-fault ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2007; 97(5):14861501. 53. Boore DM, Bommer JJ. Processing of strong-motion accelerograms: needs, options and consequences. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2005; 25(2):93115. 54. Buratti, N. A comparison of the performances of various groundmotion intensity measures, in 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 2012. 55. Italian Ministry of Infrastructures. Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni (Building Code), 2008. 56. Bommer JJ, Acevedo AB. The use of real earthquake accelerograms as input to dynamic analysis. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2004. 8(Special Issue 1):4391. 57. Cornell CA, et al. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. Journal of Structural Engineering 2002; 128(4):526533. 58. Buratti N, Ferracuti B, Savoia M. Response surface with random factors for seismic fragility of reinforced concrete frames. Structural Safety 2010; 32(1):4251.

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2014; 43:121

DOI: 10.1002/eqe