Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
SUMMARY
In this paper, the effectiveness of the base isolation on steel storage tanks has been investigated through
numerical models and then checked by shaking table tests on a reduced scale (1:14) model of a real
steel tank, typically used in petrochemical plants. In the experimental campaign the floating roof has also
been taken into account. The tests have been performed on the physical model both in fixed and isolated
base configurations; in particular two alternative base isolation systems have been used: high-damping
rubber bearings devices and sliding isolators with elasto-plastic dampers. Finally, a comparison between
experimental and numerical results has also been performed. Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: steel storage tanks; floating roof; shaking table test; base isolation
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the causes of the most serious accidents occurring in the past to major-hazard industrial
plants is represented by seismic action. In fact, unlike accidents caused by internal events, which
generally happen in specific points of the plant and, at the limit, during an earthquake might be
extended to a limited surrounding region, the input could cause the simultaneous damaging of
different apparatus of the installation, whereas the effects can be amplified by the failure of the
safety systems or by the simultaneous occurrence of numerous accidental chain.
Among the different types of industrial installations, except for the nuclear plants, the process
industry is one of the most vulnerable groups of apparatus, which has to be treated with particular
attention for several reasons: the large number of installations in the national territories, the
important allied industries (petrochemical poles), the frequent location in high seismic hazard
∗ Correspondence to: F. Paolacci, Department of Structures, University of Roma Tre, Via C. Segre 6, 00146 Rome, Italy.
†
E-mail: paolacci@uniroma3.it
Figure 1. Tupras refinery: (a) Tanks farm and (b) fire during Koaceli Earthquake ’99 [7].
areas, the seismic vulnerability demonstrated in several occasions [1–4], (Figure 1(a)) and finally
the consequences, often serious, of losses of dangerous substances (inflammable, explosive, toxic).
On the basis of the above-mentioned observations, the importance of using techniques for
reducing the seismic risk of new or existing plants appears clearly.
Among the techniques employed for reducing the seismic action, the base isolation systems
with HDRB or SIEPD devices are those most widely used; the first is usually adopted for the base
isolation of buildings, while the second one is frequently employed for the seismic isolation of
bridges. On the contrary, similar methods have been used, until now, for a very limited number of
industrial applications; for example, in Europe the isolation technique has been adopted only in a
few cases: the seismic protection of Petrochemical LNG terminal of Revythousa, Greece and of
ammoniac tanks, at Visp, in Switzerland [5, 6].
The Department of Structures of the University of Roma Tre and the Department of Structural
and Geotechnical Engineering of the University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’ are involved in a research
project, funded by the Italian National Institute for Occupational Safety and Prevention (ISPESL),
whose aim is study of the applicability of the base isolation technique in petrochemical plants
exposed to seismic risk. Among industrial components, the big steel tanks (Figure 1(b)) for
the storage of petroleum and its products have been taken into account for their high seismic
vulnerability and suitability for the application of base isolation technique. In fact, in the recent
past (e.g. Izmit earthquake in 1999, in Turkey) most of this kind of tanks have been destroyed,
especially as consequence of fires caused by earthquakes [7].
In this paper, the effectiveness of the base isolation on steel storage tanks has been investigated
through numerical models and then checked by shaking table tests on a reduced scale (1:14)
physical model of a real steel tank (diameter 55 m, height 15.6 m), typically used in petrochemical
plants. In the experimental campaign the floating roof has also been taken into account. In practice,
in order to evaluate the effect of the sloshing, many seismic design codes adopt the formula relative
to free surface conditions [8]. This is justified by theoretical studies [9], where it is shown that
the effect of the floating roof has a negligible influence on the frequency and the amplitude of the
first vibration mode and it is confirmed by the experimental study presented in the following.
The tests have been carried out using the six d.o.f. 4×4 m shaking table installed in the laboratory
of ENEA (Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and the Environment) Research
Centre ‘La Casaccia’ at Rome, Italy. The tests have been performed on the physical model both
in fixed and isolated base configurations; in particular two alternative base isolation systems have
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A STEEL LIQUID STORAGE TANK
been used: high-damping rubber bearings devices (HDRB) and PTFE-steel sliding isolation devices
with c-shaped elasto-plastic dampers (SIEPD).
In the following, after a brief presentation of the dynamic behavior of tanks, with and without
base isolation systems, the main results of the experimental tests are shown and discussed. Finally,
a comparison between experimental and numerical results has been illustrated.
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
M. DE ANGELIS, R. GIANNINI AND F. PAOLACCI
Figure 3. (a) Impulsive pressure; (b) convective pressure; and (c) flexible (continuous lines) versus
impulsive (dotted lines) pressure.
with the weight of a liquid column of height . Taking into account Equation (4) and deriving
both the sides, it follows that:
* * ∼ *
2 2
*
g + 2 =g + 2 =0 (5)
*t *t *z z=H *t
The solution of Equations (1), (3) and (5) can be conveniently divided into three components,
each one solution of Equation (1):
• fluid pressure due to the ground acceleration (considering the tank wall as being rigid), named
‘impulsive pressure’; in this case vn is the velocity impressed to a rigid body by the ground
motion, whereas Equation (5) is substituted by the simpler equation *(H )/*t = 0;
• fluid pressure, named ‘flexible pressure’, caused by the deformability of the tank wall; it is
obtained assuming for vn the velocity of the wall excited by the impulsive pressure component,
the pressure generated by the wall deformations and the inertia forces of the wall mass;
• fluid pressure, named ‘convective’ or ‘sloshing pressure’ obtained by imposing zero velocity
on the wall (vn = 0), and the satisfaction of the (5) on the free liquid surface, where is the
sum of the impulsive and convective components of the velocity potential.
In the above-mentioned concerns, the interaction between the motion due to the deformability of
the wall and the convective motion has been neglected, since their frequencies are very different
and thus their mutual influence is limited [14].
For cylindrical tanks subjected to a base motion, the impulsive and convective solutions of
motion may be expressed in closed form (see for example [13]). In Figures 3(a) and (b) the
pressures, generated along the height by these two components are shown for different values of
height–radius ratio (H/R). The pressure is normalized with respect to fluid density , radius R
and ground acceleration ag .
In order to determine the pressure due to the deformability of the wall (second component), a
fluid–structure interaction problem has to be solved. The solution depends on the geometrical and
mechanical characteristics of the tank: dimensions, thickness, fluid density and elastic modulus.
The problem is uncoupled into infinite vibration modes, a few of which have a significant mass.
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A STEEL LIQUID STORAGE TANK
Figure 4. (a) Percentage of mass relative to the impulsive (continuous line) and convective motion (dashed
line). The bottom line (Total) is the sum of the four terms and (b) comparison between impulsive
(continuous line) and flexible (first and second mode) masses.
In Figure 3(c) a comparison between the first and second component of the pressure is shown.
It is evident that in slender tanks the distributions along the height are very different, whereas for
broad tanks are practically coincident.
In Figure 4(a) the normalized masses of the impulsive and the first three vibration modes of
the convective pressure are represented versus H/R. The percentage of mass associated with the
higher modes of the convective pressure is very small (<3%); in addition, while in the slender
tank a large amount of liquid mass moves rigidly with the tank, in the broad tanks a large part of
the mass oscillates in the convective motion.
The flexible mass is also distributed among the different vibration modes of the tank wall. In
Figure 4(b) the normalized values of the mass of the first two vibration modes is shown versus
the impulsive mass (continuous line).
In the broad tanks (H/R1) the entire mass is practically coincident with the mass of the first
vibration mode; moreover, as already shown, the pressure distribution is the same as for the rigid
case. In fact, in the slender thanks, the mass associated with the higher mode is significant and the
pressure distribution of the first vibration mode is significantly different from that of the impulsive
pressure.
The above results show that the study of the dynamic pressure in a tank subjected to a seismic
motion may be reduced to the study of the simpler model with lumped masses and springs,
represented in Figure 5(a). m i is the impulsive mass and m ik is the mass of the kth vibration
mode of the tank wall; whereas m ck is the mass of the kth convective mode. The total pressure is
obtained by summing the effects of the mass m i subjected to ground acceleration, the masses m ik
subjected to the relative acceleration of the oscillators with stiffness kih = m ik 2ik and masses m ck
subjected to the absolute acceleration of oscillators with stiffness kck = m ck 2ck .
For broad tanks the model of Figure 5(a) can be simplified, as illustrated in Figure 5(b). In fact,
the contribution of the higher vibration modes of the wall may be neglected and the entire mass is
practically coincident with the mass of the first mode; moreover, the distributions of the impulsive
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
M. DE ANGELIS, R. GIANNINI AND F. PAOLACCI
Figure 5. Lumped mass models: (a) fixed base tank (general); (b) fixed base broad
tank; and (c) isolated base tank.
and flexible pressure are almost coincident. Therefore, the effects of the impulsive and flexible
component can be globally evaluated in terms of absolute acceleration of a simple oscillator with
mass m i and stiffness ki1 . If the higher modes of the convective motion are also neglected, the
dynamics of a broad tank could be studied by mean of two simple oscillators of frequency c and
i , where:
g H
c = 1.841 tanh 1.841 (6a)
R R
C Es
i ≈ (6b)
H R
While the expression of c derives exactly from the previous equations, the expression of i
is approximated [8]; is the fluid density, s is the thickness of the tank wall and E is the young
modulus of the material of which the tank wall is made; the coefficient C depends on the ratio
H/R and, for usual values, varies between 0.17 and 0.13.
The difference between the low frequencies of the convective motion and the high frequencies
of the wall vibrations (the ratio is between 20 and 30) justifies the usual hypothesis of neglecting
the interaction between these two phenomena.
The resultant forces on the tank wall can be easily calculated integrating the pressure on the
contact surface between tank and liquid. These may be expressed as follows:
Q j k (t) = Mm j k A j k (t) (7)
in which M is total mass of the liquid, j = 0, 1, 2 indicates the impulsive, flexible and convective
pressure components, k1 indicates the vibration mode, whereas m j k is the percentage of the
mass of vibration mode k. For the impulsive component A j k (t) is the acceleration of the tank base,
whereas for the flexible and convective components it is, respectively, the relative and absolute
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A STEEL LIQUID STORAGE TANK
accelerations of the oscillators of Figure 5(a). For simplicity, hereafter the sum of the impulsive
and flexible contribution will be termed as ‘impulsive’.
in which Mi is the impulsive part of the liquid mass, Mw and Mb are, respectively, the wall and
base tank masses. Mi is a relatively small part of the total mass and this allows a significant
reduction of the devices’ dimensions. Moreover, in the case of big tanks, for which Tc Tiso , the
first period of the convective motion is practically unmodified. Consequently, the base isolation
system does not show any important mitigation effects on the sloshing pressures. This is not
relevant, since the convective pressure is very small because of the long period of the fluid
oscillations.
The negative effect of the sloshing is related only to the free surface motion, because either the
height of the wave may exceed the upper limit, causing overtopping phenomenon, or the floating
roof motion may cause a breaking of the gaskets and the leakage of dangerous vapors of inflammable
substances. Unfortunately, the base isolation technique does not modify this phenomenon.
Moreover, the base isolation can cause high displacements between tank and ground, which
may induce dangerous damage to the pipes–tank connections.
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
M. DE ANGELIS, R. GIANNINI AND F. PAOLACCI
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A STEEL LIQUID STORAGE TANK
Figure 7. Images of the mock-up: (a) without floating roof and (b) with floating roof.
Figure 8. Floating roof: (a) wall connection in a real tank and (b) mock-up roof.
structure with plywood layer, whose mass is about 127 kg. In order to simulate the mechanical
behavior of the roof–wall connection (see Figure 8(a)), a rubber tube was placed along the perimeter
of the roof, as shown in Figure 8(b).
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
M. DE ANGELIS, R. GIANNINI AND F. PAOLACCI
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A STEEL LIQUID STORAGE TANK
Figure 9. Sketch (a–b), in situ placement (c–d), in-plane arrangement (e–f), experimental cyclic response
(g–h) of HDRB and SIEPD isolators, respectively.
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
M. DE ANGELIS, R. GIANNINI AND F. PAOLACCI
Table V. Characteristics of the natural records used during the experimental tests.
Accelerogram Magnitude Epicenter distance (km) PGA (g) Duration (s)
Irpinia, Italy, 11/23/80,Sturno, 270 6.5 32 0.313 40.00
Duzce, Turkey,11/12/99, Duzce, 180 7.2 8.2 0.482 25.88
Kocaeli, Turkey, 08/17/99, Arcelik, 090 7.4 17.0 0.149 28.00
Chi-Chi, Taiwan, 09/20/99, TCU120, W 7.3 8.1 0.268 90
The strong control on the maximum force of this device is also noticed. On the contrary, the rubber
isolator shows a quasi-elastic behavior, together with a reduced energy dissipation capability.
4. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A STEEL LIQUID STORAGE TANK
Figure 11. Transfer functions: (a) pressure transducer, case A, White Noise; (b) pressure transducer,
case B, White Noise; and (c) LVDT, case C, ARC090.
liquid surface or floating roof). The damping ratio has been evaluated using the logarithmic
decrement method applied to the time histories of free vibrations (after the motion stopped).
In Figures 11 the transfer functions between the table acceleration and one of the pressure
sensors (near the bottom of the tank) are shown for the fixed base configurations (A and B),
without (Figure 11(a)) and with floating roof (Figure 11(b)). For both cases, the frequency of
the sloshing motion does not change and is almost coincident with the theoretical value (0.4 Hz),
whereas a resonant frequency of around 18 Hz is also shown, which corresponds to the main
natural frequency of the motion due to the deformability of the wall.
In Figure 11(c) the transfer function of the base displacement, for case C and the Koaceli
accelerogram (PGA = 0.35g), is represented. The graph shows a sloshing frequency placed at
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
M. DE ANGELIS, R. GIANNINI AND F. PAOLACCI
Figure 12. Free vibrations time history of: pressure (a) case A and B; roof
displacements (b) case C; and (c) case D.
0.40 Hz and, more clearly, the isolation frequency equal to 1.22 Hz, in good agreement with the
design indications.
The damping of the sloshing motion has been measured on the basis of the amplitude decrement
of the free vibrations of fluid. Figure 12(a) shows the time-history of the wall pressure relative
to the two fixed base cases; it has been measured after the table was stopped, and filtered with a
low-pass filter using a cut-off frequency of 0.4 Hz. The damping is significantly increased by the
floating roof, even if the first oscillation frequency does not change. In fact, in case of free liquid
surface, the damping is very low and is not in practice measurable, whereas using the floating
roof a damping of 1% has been obtained. This effect is probably due to the interaction between
the liquid surface and the floating roof together with the friction developed by the rubber gasket
during contact with the tank wall.
The free vibrations of the floating roof for the isolated tank are shown in Figures 12(b) and (c).
The signals have been filtered in order to remove the frequencies greater than 1 Hz. Comparison
with the Figure 12 clearly shows a considerable increasing of the sloshing damping, variable in
the range 2.5–3.0%, for both isolated configurations. This increment was expected by numerical
models, carried out with non-classical damping theory, but with lower values than the experimental
ones.
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A STEEL LIQUID STORAGE TANK
Figure 13. (a) Impulsive base shear versus spectral acceleration of the impulsive motion; (b) convective
base shear versus spectral acceleration of the convective motion; (c) total base shear versus spectral
acceleration of the impulsive motion; and (d) maximum displacements of the floating roof versus spectral
acceleration of the convective motion.
In the same figures the interpolation curves of the experimental data are shown for the fixed
base (case B) and isolated base cases (case C, case D). For the fixed base case the trend is linear,
whereas the isolated base cases clearly show a nonlinear behavior of the phenomenon, especially
for high values of spectral acceleration.
The total shear has been plotted as a function of the same spectra ordinate as that used for
the impulsive component, the latter being a significant part of the total one (Figure 13(c)). The
figure clearly shows the high effectiveness of both the isolation systems, which induce considerable
reductions of the total shear affecting the tank wall. However, whereas the effectiveness of HDRB
isolators does not practically vary with Sa , the effectiveness of SIEPD devices is reduced for low
values of spectral acceleration, and it is practically negligible for Sa <0.3g.
This is due to the friction effects, often neglected for this kind of device, but particu-
larly significant for the tanks, in which the gravity mass, represented by the entire liquid
volume, is greater than the dynamic mass, which is represented by the impulsive mass
only (in the present case only 30% of the total mass). Therefore, to overcome the friction
appreciable levels of acceleration are needed. This problem is not present for elastomeric
devices.
This behavior, if appropriately controlled, could represent an interesting advantage recognizable
to SIEPD devices compared with the HDRB devices. In fact, for low levels of seismic intensity,
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
M. DE ANGELIS, R. GIANNINI AND F. PAOLACCI
Figure 14. Liquid pressure on the wall along the height: (a) total; (b) impulsive+flexible; and (c) convective.
it could be convenient to use an isolation device with a reduced amount of slip, which instead is
required for more intense events in order to achieve a full employment of the dissipation capability
of the devices.
For the impulsive component (Figure 13(a)), the reduction is quite important, as already observed
for the total base shear, especially for high values of Sa ; on the contrary, the sloshing component
(Figure 13(b)) remains practically unchanged for HDRB, whereas a slight increase has been
observed using SIEPD. This increase has no influence on the stresses of the tank wall, at least for
large broad tanks. The negative effects are related to the floating roof oscillations, which could
generate, in some cases, the breaking of the gaskets and the leakage of inflammable materials.
Unfortunately, the base isolation does not reduce the amplitude of the superficial waves, although
the sensible increasing of damping reduces its duration and then probably the risk of failure of
the gaskets. However, for case D only an increase of the convective pressure has been measured,
which has induced a rather moderate increase of the amplitude displacement of the floating roof
that does not seem to be not particularly worrying (Figure 13(d)).
Further interesting information is provided by the pressure along the height of the tank wall,
measured in the four points indicated in Figure 10, and placed, respectively, at 0.15, 0.35, 0.45
and 0.75 m (Figure 14). The values have been interpolated using a polynomial function, imposing
the appropriate boundary conditions.
For example, Figure 14(a), relative to Arcelik Earthquake (PGA= 0.5g), demonstrates the high
effectiveness of the HDRB isolation system, which greatly reduces the total pressure on the tank
wall. For the single components of the fluid motion, Figures 14(b) and (c) show that the impulsive
pressure increases with depth while the convective pressure decreases, according to the theory
presented in Section 2. Moreover, the HDRB devices reduce both these quantities; in particular,
the impulsive one for which it is more effective. The almost zero value of the total pressure at the
liquid surface, case (B), is due to the predominance of the impulsive component that, in practice,
hides the convective pressure.
Finally, Figure 15 shows the maximum values of displacements of the tank base, recorded during
the tests. It may be noticed that the displacements of case D are lower than the displacements
of case C. This is another advantage for the SIEPD isolation system, since large displacements,
which have to be absorbed by the pipes–tank connections, represent a problem, the solution of
which is not always easy.
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A STEEL LIQUID STORAGE TANK
Figure 15. Tank base displacement, comparison between HDRB and SIEPD isolation systems.
The numerical model defined in Section 2 has also been used to carry out step-by-step nonlinear
analyses using as base motion the accelerograms recorder on the shaking table during the tests.
The isolator devices have been modeled by the classical Bouc–Wen model [22]. The aim is to
confirm the reliability of the analytical and numerical formulation of the problem, also when the
floating roof is present, generally missing in the evaluation of the dynamic response of tanks.
As a matter of fact, hereafter a numerical–experimental comparison of the results of cases B, C
and D is presented and discussed. For brevity only the results of the Arcelik accelerogram, scaled
to the nominal acceleration nearest to the design value (0.5g), are shown.
Figure 16 shows the comparison, in terms of base shear for case B. First, a good agreement
between the experimental and numerical responses may be noted. A good predictive capacity of
the model emerges when the floating roof is present as well.
The numerical–experimental agreement can be better highlighted by analyzing the single compo-
nent of motion. Figure 16(a) shows, for case B, the base shear due to impulsive pressure. The
agreement is quite good and sufficient to correctly describe the phenomenon.
For the convective component of motion, although the value of the fundamental frequency was
very close to the theoretical value (0.4 Hz), the comparison between numerical and experimental
results proved unsatisfactory, because of non-zero initial conditions due to a low damping of the
liquid motion. The numerical–experimental agreement is improved in the cases C and D. In fact,
in these cases the fluid–structure interactions become less important and the high damping of the
liquid motion arrests oscillations more rapidly, allowing zero initial conditions.
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
M. DE ANGELIS, R. GIANNINI AND F. PAOLACCI
For the isolated tank, Figures 16(b) and (c) show the comparison between theoretical and
experimental results. The good agreement proves the reliability of the model.
For completeness, Figures 17(a) and (b) show the time-history of displacements of the tank
base for case C and D. It may be noticed that both the maximum value of displacements and their
residual values are different in the two cases. This is due to the accumulation of displacements
during the test with SIEPD devices and to a rotational motion of the tank due to a non-perfect
dynamic control of the shaking table. Nevertheless, the numerical model is sufficiently accurate
and may be considered as a good tool for evaluating the response quantities.
To summarize, the comparison between the shaking table test results and the response of simple
numerical models described in Section 2 shows the suitability of the latter to simulate the behavior
of the fluid–structure system, both for fixed base and isolated base tank, considering the floating
roof as well. Actually, the slight discrepancies between numerical and physical models are probably
due to some drawbacks in the experimental activity, caused by the high mass of the filled tank and
the frequency range investigated.
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A STEEL LIQUID STORAGE TANK
6. CONCLUSIONS
This paper deals with the main results of an experimental campaign carried out on a mock-up of
a steel liquid storage tank, equipped with floating roof, excited at base by a shaking table. The
mock-up is a reduced-scale model (1:14) of a big steel tank used in industrial plants for the storage
of petroleum products. The tests have been performed using different experimental configurations:
fixed base with and without floating roof, isolated base with HDRB or SIEPD. During the tests,
the tank has been subjected both to accelerogram histories, which reproduce records of natural and
artificial seismic events, and to appropriate signals for dynamic identification of the system. The
results show the effectiveness of both isolator typologies in reducing the total pressure generated by
the earthquake on the tank wall. On the contrary, a low increase of the oscillation amplitude of the
liquid surface, consequently of the floating roof, has been observed. This is partially compensated
by an increase of damping, which drastically reduces the number of the high amplitude oscillations
of the floating roof, after the seismic event is over. Finally, the comparison between the shaking
table test results and the response of simple numerical models shows the suitability of the latter
to simulate the behavior of the fluid–structure system, both for fixed base and isolated base tank
with and without floating roof.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by ISPESL-D.P.I.A. under project
B106/DIPIA/03. The Italian Company A.L.G.A. s.p.a. (Milan) and in particular Agostino Marioni are
gratefully acknowledged for the realization of the isolation systems. Finally, the ENEA (Italian National
Agency for New Technologies, Energy and the Environment) Research Centre ‘La Casaccia’ (Rome) is
gratefully acknowledged for the experimental apparatus and in particular Gerardo de Canio and Nicola
Ranieri for their participation to all test phases.
REFERENCES
1. Applied Technology Council. ATC-25: seismic vulnerability and impact of disruption of lifelines in the
conterminous United States. Redwood City, CA, 1991.
2. Beavers JE, Hall WJ, Nyman DJ. Assessment of earthquake vulnerability of critical industrial facilities in
the central and eastern United States. Proceedings of the National Earthquake Conference, vol. II, Memphis,
Tennessee, 1993; 81–90.
3. Nielsen R, Kiremidjian AS. Damage to oil refineries from major earthquakes. Journal of Structural Engineering
1986; 112(6):1481–1491.
4. Sezen H, Whittaker AS. Seismic performance of industrial facilities affected by the 1999 Turkey
earthquake. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 2006; 20(1):28–36. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE) 0887-
3828(2006)20:1(28).
5. Tajirian FF. Base isolation design for civil components and civil structures. Proceedings of Structural Engineers
World Congress, San Francisco, CA, July 1998.
6. Marioni A. The use of high damping rubber bearings for the protection of the structures from the seismic risk.
Jornadas Portuguesas de Engenharia de Estruturas, LNEC, Lisboa, 25–28 November 1998.
7. Sezen H, Elwood KJ, Whittaker AS, Mosalam KM, Wallace JW, Stanton JF. Structural engineering reconnaissance
of the 17 August 1999 Kocaeli (Izmit), Turkey earthquake. Technical Report PEER 2000/09, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, December 2000.
8. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part
4: silos, tanks and pipelines. UNI EN 1998-4:2006.
9. Sakai F, Nishimura M, Ogawa H. Sloshing behaviour of floating-roof oil storage tanks. Computer and Structures
1984; 19(1–2):183–192.
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
M. DE ANGELIS, R. GIANNINI AND F. PAOLACCI
10. Housner GW. The dynamic behavior of water tanks. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1963;
53:381–387.
11. Fischer D. Dynamic fluid effects in liquid-filled flexible cylindrical tanks. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1979; 7:587–601.
12. Haroun MA, Hausner GW. Earthquake response of deformable liquid storage tanks. Journal of Applied Mechanics
1981; 48:411–418.
13. Veletsos AS, Tang Y. Rocking response of liquid storage tanks. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 1987;
113:1774–1792.
14. Fischer FD, Rammerstorfer FG. A refined analysis of sloshing effects in seismically excited tanks. International
Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 1999; 76:693–709.
15. Malhotra PK. New method for seismic isolation of liquid-storage tanks. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1997; 26:839–847.
16. Shrimali MK, Jangid RS. Non-linear seismic response of base-isolated liquid storage tanks to bi-directional
excitation. Nuclear Engineering and Design 2002; 217:1–20.
17. Wang Y, Teng M, Chung K. Seismic isolation of rigid cylindrical tanks using friction pendulum bearings.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2001; 30:1083–1099.
18. Summers P, Jacob P, Marti J, Bergamo G, Dorfmann L, Castellano G, Poggianti A, Karabalis D, Silbe H,
Triantafillou S. Development of new base isolation devices for application at refineries and petrochemical facilities.
Thirteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 1–6 August 2004; Paper
No. 1036.
19. Bergamo G, Castellano MG, Gatti F, Marti J, Poggianti A, Summers P. Seismic protection of petrochemical
facilities: main results from Indepth project. Tenth World Conference on Seismic Isolation, Energy dissipation
and Active vibrations Control of Structures, Istanbul, Turkey, 28–31 May 2007.
20. Ciampi V, De Angelis M, Valente C. Una metodologia di progetto di dispositivi per la protezione sismica di
ponti. 7◦ Convegno Nazionale l’Ingegneria Sismica in Italia, Siena, Italy, 25–28 Settembre 1995.
21. Vanmarcke EH, Gasparini DA. Simulated earthquake motions compatible with pre-scribed response spectra.
Technical Report R76-4, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
1976-01; 99 (420/G32/1976).
22. Wen Y. Method for random vibration of hysteretic systems. Journal of the Engineering Mechanical Division
1976; 102:150–154.
Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe