EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:1419–1437 (DOI: 10.1002/eqe.70)

Non-stationary seismic response of tanks with soil interaction

by wavelets

Pranesh Chatterjee and Biswajit Basu∗

Department of Civil Engineering; Jadavpur University; Calcutta 700032, India

SUMMARY
A wavelet-based random vibration theory has been developed for the non-stationary seismic response
of liquid storage tanks including soil interaction. The ground motion process has been characterized
via estimates of statistical functionals of wavelet coe=cients obtained from a single time history of
ground accelerations. The tank–liquid–soil system has been modelled as a two-degree-of-freedom (2-
DOF) system. The wavelet domain equations have been formulated and the wavelet coe=cients of the
required response state are obtained by solving two linear simultaneous algebraic equations. The explicit
expression for the instantaneous power spectral density function (PSDF) in terms of the functionals of
the input wavelet coe=cients has been obtained. The moments of this PSDF are used to estimate the
expected pseudo-spectral acceleration (PSA) response of the tank. Parametric variations are carried out
to study the e@ects of tank height, foundation natural frequency, shear wave velocity of soil and ratio of
the mass of tank (including liquid) to the mass of foundation on the PSA responses of tanks. Copyright
? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: wavelet; non-stationarity; tanks; seismic excitation; soil interaction

1. INTRODUCTION

The response of Euid storage tanks subjected to seismic ground motions has been the subject of
research interest in the recent years. Such storage tanks are quite common e.g. in oil and petro-
chemical industries, water treatment plants and in nuclear industries as spent-fuel tanks. These
tanks are often unanchored at their bases and supported on Eexible soils. In such cases, the
displacement of the tank–foundation system and the soil beneath is generally di@erent from the
free Feld seismic ground displacement due to lateral Eexibility of the supporting soil. The rel-
ative displacement between the tank–foundation and the free Feld ground induces a base shear
at the soil–foundation interface due to lateral soil impedance and a@ects the hydrodynamic
pressure on the tank wall when the tank is subjected to strong ground accelerations. This may

∗ Correspondence to: Biswajit Basu, Department of Civil Engineeering, Jadavpur University, Calcutta 700032, India.

Received 18 May 2000

Revised 20 November 2000
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 15 February 2001
1420 P. CHATTERJEE AND B. BASU

cause an increase in stresses under certain conditions which may seriously damage the tank
wall. For these reasons the Euid storage tanks supported on Eexible soil require critical safety
analysis. Further, the responses of a soil–tank system to seismic excitations become complex
as the ground motions are non-stationary in nature with both amplitude and frequency non-
stationarities [1].
Several researchers have studied the responses of Euid storage tanks both theoretically and
experimentally. Housner [2] proposed the values for equivalent masses with their locations
to represent the forces and moments exerted by a liquid on the tank. Veletsos and Yang [3]
found out the natural frequencies of the tank–liquid system by Rayleigh–Ritz method. In
another study, Haroun [4] modelled the elastic tank shell by Fnite elements and treated the
Euid region as a continuum to Fnd out the natural frequencies of vibration and the associated
mode shapes. The studies performed by Peek [5] and Peek and Jennings [6] concentrated on
tank behaviour due to lateral loads. However, none of these studies accounted for the soil-
structure interaction e@ects on Euid storage tanks. Toki and Miura [7] and Fischer and Seeber
[8] have made signiFcant contributions in studying the e@ects of soil–structure interaction
on liquid storage tanks under seismic ground excitations. Veletsos and Tang [9] presented
a method which establishes the e@ects of impulsive and convective actions of the liquid
on the tank responses and considered the horizontal and rocking motions of the foundation.
In all these studies, the loadings were either considered to be harmonic or represented by
deterministic time histories. However, due to the random nature of the seismic excitation the
responses are also stochastic in nature. Further, the responses should also include the e@ects
of the amplitude and frequency non-stationarities of the ground motions which have not been
considered in earlier studies. Several studies have shown that the amplitude and the frequency
non-stationarities signiFcantly a@ect the structural responses (see [10; 1; 11]).
In the present study, the non-stationary response of unanchored liquid storage tanks sub-
jected to lateral component of seismic base accelerations has been formulated. The random
vibration analysis carried out here is based on the wavelet analytic formulation as proposed by
Basu and Gupta [1]. Wavelet transform enables one to obtain the frequency content of a non-
stationary process locally in time. Thus, the time–frequency localization property of wavelets
allows to study features of the signal locally, the broad and Fne features being studied, respec-
tively, on large and small scales which is not possible either in the case of Fourier domain
analysis or even in the case of short-time (windowed) Fourier transform-based analysis. Seis-
mic ground motion processes show local concentrations of frequency components due to the
dispersive phenomenon associated with propagating waves. The e@ect of this non-stationary
frequency content on the stochastic response of liquid storage tanks with soil interaction e@ects
could be well formulated and studied by proposing a wavelet-based formulation.
In formulating the soil interaction e@ects, the foundation–soil system has been considered
to be laterally Eexible. The translational motion of the tank has been considered. The tank–
liquid–foundation is modelled as a two-degree-of-freedom (2-DOF) system where the lateral
resisting forces of the soil–foundation medium are considered by using appropriate impedance
functions. The tank–liquid structural system has been modelled by a linear spring and a viscous
damper. The ground motion is characterized in terms of certain statistical functionals of the
wavelet coe=cients of the ground acceleration time history (as in [1]). The functionals of
the wavelet coe=cients are obtained from a single realization of a ground motion process by
applying statistical techniques. The expected response spectra computed using these processed
wavelet coe=cients is shown to be very close to the average response spectra obtained by

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:1419–1437
 NON-STATIONARY SEISMIC RESPONSE OF TANKS 1421

time-history simulations of an ensemble of a synthetically generated ground motion process.

A parametric study has been carried out to observe the e@ects of liquid height in the tank,
shear wave velocity in the foundation soil, ratio of impulsive mass of the liquid to the mass
of the foundation and foundation’s natural frequency on the tank responses.

2. THEORETICAL FORMULATION

2.1. System considered

The tank–Euid system consists of a right circular cylindrical, rigid thin-walled tank of radius,
R Flled with an incompressible liquid to a height, H . The tank wall is assumed to be of
uniform thickness, h. The Young’s modulus of elasticity and the density of the tank material
are denoted by E and , respectively. This system has a Fxed-base natural frequency of
vibration, !n and a damping ratio, . The liquid in the tank is assumed to be vibrating in its
impulsive mode. The tank is rigidly clamped to a thick and rigid circular base mat of radius,
R same as that of the tank. The tank with the mat is directly resting on the surface of a
homogeneous elastic half space which is assumed to be laterally Eexible. The shear modulus
of elasticity, the Poisson’s ratio and the velocity of shear wave propagation of the supporting
medium are denoted by Gs , s and Vs , respectively. The tank–liquid system is represented
by a mass–spring–dashpot model with impulsive mass of the liquid, mi , a linear spring with
sti@ness, K and a linear viscous damper with coe=cient, C. The foundation system of the
tank is of mass, mf with a complex valued translational impedance function, Kx due to the
surrounding soil. The rocking motion of the system considered has been ignored in the present
analysis. Studies have shown (see [12; 13]) that for increased values of base mat thickness
the rotation of the base and the rocking component are generally not very signiFcant. Further,
it is expected that the e@ect of rocking modes of vibration of the tank may not be usually
predominant if the height of the tank is not too large for tanks of same proportion (i.e. same
H=R). The tank–liquid–foundation system and the corresponding schematic diagram of the
dynamical mass–spring–dashpot model adopted are shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively.

Figure 1. Tank–liquid–foundation system.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:1419–1437
1422 P. CHATTERJEE AND B. BASU

Figure 2. 2-DOF model of the system.

2.2. Equations of motion

Let the tank–Euid–foundation system as described earlier be subjected to a horizontal free Feld
seismic ground displacement, xg (t). The absolute displacement of the foundation is denoted
by x(t) and the displacement of the liquid in the tank relative to the foundation is denoted
by xi (t). The equation of motion of the tank–Euid–foundation system can be written as
mi (Nxi (t) + xN (t)) + mf xN (t) + Qs = 0 (1)
where the overdot represents the di@erentiation with respect to time and Qs is the base shear at
the soil–foundation interface. When there is no slipping between the soil and the foundation,
the induced base shear is proportional to the relative deformation between the tank–foundation
system and the free Feld ground surface and can be expressed as
Qs = Kx (x(t) − xg (t)) (2)
In Equation (2), Kx represents the complex valued lateral impedance function for a circular
footing on a Eexible soil and is given by [9]
8Gs R
Kx = (x + ia0 x ) (3)
2 − s
The term a0 , in Equation (3) is a dimensionless frequency parameter deFned by
!R
a0 = (4)
Vs
where ! is the frequency of vibration of the foundation and x and x are dimensionless
functions of a0 and s . Closed-form solutions of these parameters are given by Veletsos and
Verbic [14]. In this paper, the value of s has been chosen to be 13 for which x = 1:0 and
x = 0:65. It may be noted here that, when ! = 0, the complex valued impedance function
becomes real and it represents the static sti@ness function. On substituting Equation (2) in
Equation (1) we get
mi [Nxi (t) + xN (t)] + mf xN (t) + Kx (x(t) − xg (t)) = 0 (5)

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:1419–1437
 NON-STATIONARY SEISMIC RESPONSE OF TANKS 1423

Also, the equation of motion of the tank–liquid system considering the dynamic equilibrium
can be written as
mi xN i (t) + C ẋi (t) + K xi (t) = − mi xN (t) (6)
On dividing both sides of Equation (6) by mi and on using the relations, K=mi = !n2 and
C=mi = 2 !n , we obtain
xN i (t) + !n2 xi (t) + 2 !n ẋi (t) = −xN (t) (7)
The expression for !n is given by [9]


Ci E
!n = (8)
H 

Equations (1) and (7) are the di@erential equations of motions of the tank–liquid–foundation
system and the tank–liquid system, respectively. This set of coupled di@erential equations
can be solved to obtain the non-stationary response of the system based on wavelet analytic
techniques for a seismic base acceleration, xN g (t) with known non-stationary statistical char-
acteristics. In the following section, the non-stationary seismic response of the tank–liquid–
foundation system has been obtained by extending the wavelet based formulation of Basu and
Gupta [1] for dynamical systems.

2.3. Wavelet-based-stochastic-response

Let the seismic ground acceleration process, xN g (t) be assumed to have zero mean, non-
stationary Gaussian characteristics. The wavelet transform of this function, xN g (t) with respect
to a wavelet basis function, (t) and the inverse relationship are given as (see [15] for details)
 ∞
1
W xN g (a; b) = 1=2 xN g (t) a; b (t) dt (9)
|a| −∞

and
 ∞  ∞
1 1
xN g (t) = W xN g (a; b) a; b (t) da db (10)
2C −∞ −∞ a2
with
 ∞
| ˆ (!)|2
C = d!¡∞ (11)
−∞ |!|
In Equations (9) and (10), the function (:) is the ‘basic’ or the ‘mother’ wavelet with the
Fourier transform
 ∞
ˆ (!) = √1 (t)e−i!t dt (12)
2 −∞

and Equation (11) is the admissibility condition for (t) to be a ‘basic’ or ‘mother’ wavelet.
The wavelet functions, a; b (t) have been constructed by the dilated and translated versions of

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:1419–1437
1424 P. CHATTERJEE AND B. BASU

the basic wavelet [1] using two parameters a and b as

 
1 t−b
a; b (t) = ; a; b ∈ R+ (13)
|a|1=2 a
The parameter, b localizes or centres the basis function at t = b and its neighbourhood by
windowing over a certain temporal stretch depending on the parameter, a. Equation (10) can
be discretized according to a discretization scheme [1] by assuming aj = j and bj = (j − 1)Tb
into the following form:
  K  Tb
xN g (t) = W xN g (aj ; bi ) aj ; bi (t) (14)
i j aj

where
 
2 1
K  = − (15)
4C 
The non-stationary Gaussian seismic base acceleration process may be characterized by the
wavelet coe=cients, i.e. E[W 2 xN g (aj ; bi )]. Although the wavelet representation for the base
acceleration function, xN g (t) has been discussed above, these expressions hold good for the
ground displacement and the structural response function as well. It may be noted that seismic
base excitations appear in Equation (1) in the form of ground displacement, xg (t). However,
usually the input seismic excitation is described in terms of base acceleration, xN g (t). Thus,
it is necessary to relate the wavelet coe=cient of ground displacement with that of ground
acceleration, as follows. The ground displacement in terms of wavelet coe=cients may be
written as
  K  Tb
xg (t) = W xg (aj ; bi ) aj ; bi (t) (16)
i j aj

On di@erentiating Equation (16) twice and then on Fourier transforming both sides, we obtain
  K  Tb
xN̂ g (!) = W xg (aj ; bi ) ˆaj ; bi (!)(−!2 ) (17)
i j aj

Also, Fourier transform of Equation (14) gives

  K  Tb
xN̂ g (!) = W xN g (aj ; bi ) ˆaj ; bi (!) (18)
i j aj

Comparison of Equations (17) and (18) yields

  K  Tb
W xg (aj ; bi ) ˆaj ; bi (!)
i j aj
 
  K  Tb ˆ 1
= W xN g (aj ; bi ) aj ; bi (!) − 2 (19)
i j aj !

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:1419–1437
 NON-STATIONARY SEISMIC RESPONSE OF TANKS 1425

relating the wavelet coe=cients of ground displacement in terms of that of ground accelera-
tion. Now, the absolute displacement of the foundation and the relative displacement of the
impulsive mass of the liquid with respect to the foundation may also be expanded in terms
of wavelet coe=cients as
  K  Tb
x(t) = W x(aj ; bi ) aj ; bi (t) (20)
i j aj
and
  K  Tb
xi (t) = W xi (aj ; bi ) aj ; bi (t) (21)
i j aj
On substituting the expressions for x(t), xg (t) and xi (t) in Equations (5) and (7), respectively,
we obtain

 1  1
(mi + m f ) W x(aj ; bi ) Naj ; bi (t) + Kx W x(aj ; bi ) aj ; bi (t)
a
i j j i j aj

 1  1
+ mi W xi (aj ; bi ) Naj ; bi (t) = Kx W xg (aj ; bi ) aj ; bi (t) (22)
i j aj i j aj

and

  K  Tb  K  Tb
W xi (aj ; bi ) Naj ; bi (t) + !n2 W xi (aj ; bi ) aj ; bi (t)
i j aj i j aj

  K  Tb
+ 2 !n W xi (aj ; bi ) ˙aj ; bi (t)
i j aj

  K  Tb
=− W x(aj ; bi ) Naj ; bi (t) (23)
i j aj

Further, on taking Fourier transform of both sides of the Equations (22) and (23) and using
Equation (19) we obtain

 1
(Kx − (mi + m f )! 2 ) W x(aj ; bi ) ˆaj ; bi (!)
i j aj

 1
− (! 2 mi ) W xi (aj ; bi ) ˆaj ; bi (!)
i j aj
 
Kx  1
=− W xN g (aj ; bi ) ˆaj ; bi (!) (24)
!2 i j aj

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:1419–1437
1426 P. CHATTERJEE AND B. BASU

and
 1  1
W xi (aj ; bi )(−! 2 ) ˆaj ; bi (!) + !n2 W xi (aj ; bi ) ˆaj ; bi (!)
i j aj i j aj
 1
+ 2 !n W xi (aj ; bi )(i!) ˆaj ; bi (!)
i j aj
 1
=− W x(aj ; bi )(−! 2 ) ˆaj ; bi (!) (25)
i j aj

Equations (24) and (25) can be solved to obtain the wavelet coe=cients of the tank displace-
ment in terms of that of ground acceleration. In order to solve these two equations, a suitable
wavelet basis function is to be chosen. In the present study, the Littlewood–Paley (L–P) basis
has been chosen for further analysis. The Fourier transform of the L–P basis function is given
by (see [1])
ˆ (!) =  1 6|!|6p
2(p − 1)
=0 otherwise (26)

On taking the inverse Fourier transform of Equation (26) with  = p, the wavelet basis
function is obtained as
1 sin t − sin t
(t) = √ (27)
 −1 t
The value for  in Equation (27) has been chosen as 21=4 [1], as this value is reasonable
for representing most of the ground motions. Values smaller than this may also be used;
however, that would lead to increased computational e@orts due to lesser number of energy
bands. Now, multiplying both sides of Equations (24) and (25) by ˆa∗k ; bl (!) and on using the
relation
ˆ (!) ˆa∗ ; b (!) = #jk ˆ ˆa∗ ; b (!) (28)
aj ; bi k l aj ; bi k l

we get  
 Kx
W x(aj ; bi ) ˆaj ; bi (!) − (1 + $)! 2
i mf

+ W xi (aj ; bi ) ˆaj ; bi (!)[−$! 2 ]
i
 
 ˆ Kx
= W xN g (aj ; bi ) aj ; bi (!) − 2 (29)
i ! mf

and
 
W xi (aj ; bi ) ˆaj ; bi (!)(−! 2 ) + !n2 W xi (aj ; bi ) ˆaj ; bi (!)
i i
 
+ 2 !n W xi (aj ; bi )(i!) ˆaj ; bi (!) =− W x(aj ; bi ) ˆaj ; bi (!)(−! 2 ) (30)
i i

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:1419–1437
 NON-STATIONARY SEISMIC RESPONSE OF TANKS 1427

where $ represents the ratio mi =m f . On solving the linear simultaneous Equations (29) and
(30) in W xi and W x we obtain
 
W xi (aj ; bi ) ˆaj ; bi (!) = %(!) W xN g (aj ; bi ) ˆaj ; bi (!) (31)
i i

where %(!) is the frequency domain transfer function of the relative displacement of the
tank–liquid system and is expressed as
Kx =m f
%(!) =− (32)
[Kx =m f − ! 2 (1 + $)][!n2 − ! 2 + 2i !!n ] − $!4
where
 
Kx 0:65!R
= !f2 1 + i (33)
mf Vs
In Equation (33), !f represents the natural frequency of vibration of the foundation. Substitu-
tion of Equation (33) into Equation (32) and subsequent simpliFcation transforms the transfer
function to
A + iB
%(!) = (34)
C + iD
where

A = !f2 (35a)

0:65A!R
B= (35b)
Vs

C = (!n2 − ! 2 )[A − ! 2 (1 + $)] − 2B !!n − $!4 (35c)

and
D = 2 !!n [A − ! 2 (1 + $)] + B(!n2 − ! 2 ) (35d)

Equation (31) gives the relationship between the wavelet coe=cients of the tank responses
and that of the ground accelerations. On taking expectation of the square of the amplitude of
both sides of Equation (31), integrating over ! and using the orthogonality relationship for
the proposed basis function [1], we get


E[|W xi (aj ; bi )| 2 ]
i
 ∞

= 2
E[|W xN g (aj ; bi )| ] |%(!)| 2 | ˆaj ; bi (!)| 2 d! (36)
i −∞

On using Parseval’s identity and the wavelet analysis relationship (see [15])
 ∞
  K  Tb 2
xi 2 (t) dt = W xi (aj ; bi ) (37)
−∞ i j aj

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:1419–1437
1428 P. CHATTERJEE AND B. BASU

we thus obtain from Equation (36) the contribution to the energy or expected (mean) square
response for the frequency band corresponding to the dilation factor, aj as

 ∞
E[|X j (!)| 2 ] d!
−∞
 ∞
 K  Tb
= E[|W xN g (aj ; bi )| 2 ] |%(!)| 2 | ˆaj ; bi (!)| 2 d! (38)
i aj −∞

From Equation (38), on using the time-localization property of the wavelet coe=cients, the
instantaneous mean square response at t = bi , corresponding to the band with dilation factor,
aj is obtained as
 ∞  ∞
K  Tb
j 2
E[|Xi (!)| ] d! = 2
E[|W xN g (aj ; bi )| ] |%(!)| 2 | ˆaj ; bi (!)| 2 d! (39)
−∞ aj −∞

For the value of  assumed in this paper (close to one) the di@erent energy bands become quite
narrow and the above integral has to be performed within a very short interval over which
the integrand may be assumed to be almost constant. Thus, a pointwise relation following
Equation (39) may be written as
K  Tb
E[|Xij (!)| 2 ] = E[|W xNg (aj ; bi )| 2 ]|%(!)| 2 | ˆaj ; bi (!)| 2 (40)
aj
Thus, from Equation (40), the total energy distribution over di@erent frequencies at the instant
t = bi may be obtained by summing up contributions from all energy bands since the bands
are non-overlapping. This energy distribution then averaged over an interval of Tb gives the
instantaneous power spectral density function (PSDF) of the tank–liquid response, xi as
 E[|Xij (!)| 2 ]  K 
Sxi (!) = = E[|W xN g (aj ; bi )| 2 ]|%(!)| 2 | ˆaj ; bi (!)| 2 (41)
j Tb j aj
In order to obtain more information about the statistics of the response process, xi (t), the mo-
ments of instantaneous PSDF of xi (t) must be evaluated. These moments of the instantaneous
output PSDF will be used here to obtain some statistical parameters like rate of crossings
of the zero level, bandwidth parameter, etc. which may further be used to obtain the largest
peak amplitude of the process xi (t). The expressions for the zeroth, Frst and second moments
of the PSDF are given as


m0 |t = bi = K  E[W xN g (aj ; bi ) 2 ]I0; j (!n ; ) (42a)
j

m1 |t = bi = K  E[W xN g (aj ; bi ) 2 ]I1; j (!n ; ) (42b)
j

and

m2 |t = bi = K  E[W xN g (aj ; bi ) 2 ]I2;j (!n ; ) (42c)
j

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:1419–1437
 NON-STATIONARY SEISMIC RESPONSE OF TANKS 1429

with

 =aj
A2 + B2
I0; j = d! (43a)
=aj C 2 + D2
 =aj
A2 + B2
I1; j = ! d! (43b)
=aj C 2 + D2
 =aj
A2 + B2 2
I2; j = ! d! (43c)
=aj C 2 + D2

and
K 
K = (44)
( − 1)
The instantaneous rate of the zero crossings, Ui and the band-width parameter, ,i are given
as


m2 |t = bi
Ui = (45)
m0 |t = bi
and


m12 |t = bi
,i = 1− (46)
m0 |t = bi m2 |t = bi
Also, the expected peak value of the relevant process can be calculated using the non-stationary
peak factors. For calculating the non-stationary peak factors, the expression for the probability
PT (x) (that the process |xi (t)| remains below the level x within the time interval 0; T ) given
by [16]
  T 
PT (x) = exp − (t) dt (47)
0

After being discretized Equation (47) takes the form

 

PT (x) = exp − (t)|t = bi Tb (48)
i

where (t)|t = bi is the time dependent rate of the Poisson process given by
 1:2
Ui −x 2 =2i2 1 − exp(− =2[,i (t)] x=i )
(t)|t = bi = exp (49)
 2
1 − exp(−x 2 =2i )
The expected value of the largest peak can be obtained from
 1
E(x(1) ) = PT−1 (u) du (50)
0

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:1419–1437
1430 P. CHATTERJEE AND B. BASU

3. CHARACTERIZATION OF GROUND MOTION

In order to characterize the ground motions, the wavelet coe=cients are calculated from a
single realization of the synthetic accelerogram process generated by using the SYNACC
program [17–21]. This accelerogram simulates the motion recorded at the Dumbarton bridge
site near Coyote Hills during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The parameters considered for
generating the synthetic accelerogram for Loma Prieta earthquake are same as those considered
by Gupta and Trifunac [22]. The discretization parameter, Tb has been taken as 0.02. The
wavelet coe=cients (totaling 45034 in number) are found out for i varying from 1 to 2047
and j varying from −17 to 4. For a particular frequency band, all the corresponding wavelet
coe=cients over the duration, T , i.e., with i = 1 to 2047 are considered. The total duration, T
is divided into a number of stretches each of duration, Tj equal to the period corresponding
to the central frequency, i.e., (=aj + =aj )=2 of the band considered. The duration of each
stretch is given by the expression
4aj
Tj = (51)
1+
In each stretch, the wavelet coe=cients are squared and then averaged over the stretch of du-
ration, Tj . The average value thus obtained represents the value of E[W 2 xNg (aj ; bi )] uniformly
over that stretch and can be written as

Tb k2 = 4aj (m+1)=(1+)Tb

E[W 2 xNg (aj ; bi )] = W 2 xNg (aj ; bk ); m = 0; 1; 2; : : : (52)
Tj k1 = 4aj m=(1+)Tb

where k1 6i6k2 . To see that E[W 2 xNg (aj ; bi )] really characterizes the ground motion, we
obtain the wavelet based response spectra using the stochastic formulation for the response of
SDOF systems by Basu and Gupta [1]. Also, an ensemble of 50 accelerograms is generated
using the SYNACC program. From these 50 accelerograms the responses of SDOF systems
are simulated by direct time history integration [23]. The response spectra for pseudo-spectral
acceleration (PSA) thus generated are then averaged to obtain the expected PSA spectra from
digitally simulated accelerogram records. Comparison of these two response spectra, i.e., one
obtained by ensemble averaging and the other by stochastic formulation shows good agreement
as seen from Figure 3.

4. NUMERICAL RESULTS

A parametric study on the stochastic responses of the tank–Euid–foundation system is carried

out by the proposed formulation by varying the tank height, H , shear wave velocity of soil
medium, Vs , ratio of impulsive mass of liquid (water being considered for the present study)
to the mass of the foundation, $ (mass ratio) and the natural frequency of foundation, !f .
The values of some of the parameters assumed constant throughout the numerical study are
as follows. The tank–Euid super-structure is assumed to have a damping ratio, of 5%. The
values of Young’s modulus of elasticity and density of the tank material are 2:1 × 106 kg=cm 2 ,
and 7850 kg=m3 , respectively. The tank wall thickness to tank radius ratio, h=R is assumed
to be 0.001. Correspondingly, the value of Ci in Equation (8) can be chosen from Table II

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:1419–1437
 NON-STATIONARY SEISMIC RESPONSE OF TANKS 1431

Figure 3. Comparison of PSA spectra obtained by stochastic-wavelet

formulation and ensemble averaging.

Figure 4. Variation in PSA with tank height for di@erent mass ratios in case of H=R = 0:5.

of Veletsos and Tang [9]. For the purpose of numerical study, the ground motion process in
the case of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake ground accelerations at Dumbarton bridge site
(Coyote Hills) as characterized in Section 3 has been considered.
Figures 4–7, show the variation of PSA response of broad tanks (H /R = 0:5) with di@erent
heights of the tank varying from 2 m to 20 m. Figure 4 represents the variation for di@erent
values of mass ratio, $ (0.5, 2.0 and 6.0) with Vs = 600 m=s and !f = 12:57 rad=s. It can be
seen from the Fgure that when the mass ratio is low, say 0.5, the response is more or less
uniform for tanks of height 4 m to 12 m. When the tank is heavier than the foundation, say
with mass ratio 2 or 6, the response is highest for very small tanks (of height 2 m) and then

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:1419–1437
1432 P. CHATTERJEE AND B. BASU

Figure 5. Variation in PSA with tank height for di@erent shear wave velocities.

Figure 6. Variation in PSA with tank height for di@erent natural

frequencies of foundation at shear wave velocity 600 m=s.

gradually decreases as tank height increases. The graph also shows that the variation in the
e@ect of soil–tank interaction for tanks of di@erent height is more prominent in the case of
tanks with higher mass ratio. The curves in Figure 5 are plotted for di@erent values of Vs
varying from 100 to 2000 m=s, in the case of $ = 6:0 and !f = 12:57 rad=s. It can be seen
from Figure 5, that the response at a given tank height increases due to increase in Vs . It is
also observed that the response gradually decreases asymptotically as the tank height increases.
Further, variation in the e@ect of the soil interaction with tank height is more prominent in
the case of sti@er soils. The graphs in Figures 6 and 7 are for Fve di@erent values of !f , viz.,
3.14, 7.85, 31.42, 62.83 and 157.08 rad=s with $ as 6.0 and Vs = 600 m=s and 2000 m=s,
respectively. Both the graphs are similar in trend with the values of PSA greater in magnitude

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:1419–1437
 NON-STATIONARY SEISMIC RESPONSE OF TANKS 1433

Figure 7. Variation in PSA with tank height for di@erent natural frequencies
of foundation at shear wave velocity 2000 m=s.

in the case of Vs = 2000m=s as compared to those of Vs = 600m=s. It is observed from Figures

6 and 7 that for very sti@ foundations resting on sti@ soil the response of the tank approaches
the Fxed base response. The PSA response of the tank in such case is maximum for a tank
height of about 15 m height (having time period of 0:25 s) which corresponds to the peak of
the Fxed base PSA response in Figure 3 at a period of about 0:25 s. From both the graphs
it is found that the variation in the soil interaction e@ects with tank height are negligible for
tanks resting on Eexible foundation systems.
Figure 8 represents the variation of PSA with shear wave velocity for di@erent values of
tank heights with H=R = 0:5; !f = 12:57 rad=s and $ = 6:0. As the shear wave velocity in-
creases, the soil–foundation medium becomes sti@er and the e@ects of soil–structure interaction
diminish which is shown by the Eatter trends of the curves for higher shear wave velocities.
Further, it is seen that for very low values of Vs the PSA responses of the tanks are almost
independent of the tank height.
Figure 9 shows the variation of PSA with the natural frequency of foundation, !f , for
di@erent values of tank height, H in the case of H=R = 0:5, Vs = 600 m=s and $ = 6:0. It is
observed that up to the foundation frequency range of about 80–90 rad=s the PSA response
decreases with the increase in tank height whereas the trend is reversed beyond the mentioned
range.
To study the variation in the responses with the slenderness of the tanks, Figure 10 has
been plotted to show the variation in the values of PSA responses of tanks with shear wave
velocities for three di@erent H=R ratios, viz. 0.5, 1 and 3. The tank height, mass ratio and
lateral frequency of the foundation are assumed to be 10 m, 6 and 12:57 rad=s, respectively.
It can be observed from Figure 10 that, the values of PSA increase for more slender tanks.
Further, it is seen that the responses increase with the increase in the shear wave velocity. The
change in the response is however predominant for soft soils with low shear wave velocity.
For very soft soils the responses of all types of tanks, broad or slender, are found to be very
close.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:1419–1437
1434 P. CHATTERJEE AND B. BASU

Figure 8. Variation in PSA with shear wave velocity for di@erent tank heights.

Figure 9. Variation in PSA with natural frequency of foundation for di@erent tank heights.

To see how the PSA responses of slender tanks are a@ected with the variation in the height
and mass ratios of the tanks and to compare those with the corresponding variations in the
case of broad tanks Figure 11 has been plotted. Figure 11 represents the change in the values
of PSA response with tank height for varying mass ratios in case of slender tanks (H=R = 3),
with Vs and !f as 600m=s and 12:57 rad=s, respectively. It is seen that the trend in variations
is similar to that in Figure 4, however, for H=R = 3 the tank responses are generally greater
for a particular mass ratio as compared to those for H=R = 0:5.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:1419–1437
 NON-STATIONARY SEISMIC RESPONSE OF TANKS 1435

Figure 10. Variation in PSA with shear wave velocity for di@erent H=R ratios.

Figure 11. Variation in PSA with tank height for di@erent mass ratios in the case of H=R = 3:0.

5. CONCLUSIONS

A wavelet-based stochastic formulation for the non-stationary seismic response of liquid stor-
age tanks with soil–foundation interaction has been presented here. A single realization of
the ground motion process has been used to characterize the non-stationary ground excitation
via statistical estimates of the functionals of wavelet coe=cients of the process. The proposed
characterization scheme works appropriately as is seen from the comparison of the expected
PSA spectra obtained from the wavelet-based stochastic formulation for an SDOF system with
those obtained by ensemble averaging of digital simulation results. The following conclusions
can be drawn from the parametric variation results for broad tanks (with H=R = 0:5) and
for the given ground acceleration process. It has been observed that the e@ects of soil–tank

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:1419–1437
1436 P. CHATTERJEE AND B. BASU

interaction leading to the ampliFcation of PSA responses are pronounced for smaller or heav-
ier tanks. Further, the variation in the interaction e@ects with tank height are predominant
for tanks with larger mass ratio or for those supported on sti@er foundations or sti@er soil
medium. For tanks supported on very Eexible soil, the response is, however, almost constant
irrespective of the height or the slenderness of the tank. Also, generally the slender tanks with
soil interaction have greater PSA responses as compared to the broad tanks and the responses
further increase as the soil becomes sti@er. However, chances of rocking motions a@ecting
the results in case of tanks of greater height demand further studies which would include this
e@ect in soil–tank interaction. The proposed formulation in this paper may thus be utilized
to obtain the ‘site-speciFc’ non-stationary lateral response of soil–tank systems subjected to
ground accelerations characterized through statistical functionals of wavelet coe=cients. The
present formulation may be extended to include the phenomena of rocking of tanks and
also more complex liquid motions which will be addressed in a forthcoming paper by the
authors.

REFERENCES

1. Basu B, Gupta VK. Seismic response of SDOF systems by wavelet modeling of non-stationary processes.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 1998; 124(10):1142 –1150.
2. Housner GW. The dynamic behaviour of water tanks. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1963;
53(2):381– 387.
3. Veletsos AS, Yang JY. Earthquake response of liquid storage tanks. In Advances in Civil Engineering through
Engineering Mechanics, Proceedings of the Engineering Mechanics Specialty Conference, 1977, Rayleigh, NC,
ASCE: New York, 1– 24.
4. Haroun MA. Vibration studies and tests of liquid storage tanks. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1983; 11(2):179 – 206.
5. Peek R. Analysis of unanchored liquid storage tanks under lateral loads. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1988; 16(7):1087 – 1100.
6. Peek R, Jennings PC. SimpliFed analysis of unanchored tanks. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1988; 16(7):1073 –1085.
7. Toki K, Miura F. Non-linear seismic response analysis of soil–structure interaction systems. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1983; 11(1):77 – 89.
8. Fischer FD, Seeber R. Dynamic response of vertically excited liquid storage tanks considering liquid–soil
interaction. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1988; 16:329 – 342.
9. Veletsos AS, Tang Y. Soil–structure interaction e@ects for laterally excited liquid storage tanks. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1990; 19:473 – 496.
10. Basu B, Gupta VK. Nonstationary seismic response of MDOF systems by wavelet transform. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1997; 26:1243 –1258.
11. Yeh C-H, Wen YK. Modeling of non-stationary motion and analysis of inelastic structural response. Structural
Safety 1990; 8(1– 4):281– 298.
12. Malhotra PK. Base uplifting analysis of Eexibly supported liquid–storage tanks. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 1995; 24:1591–1607.
13. Malhotra PK. Seismic response of soil–supported unanchored liquid–storage tanks. Journal of Structural
Engineering ASCE 1997; 123(4):440 – 450.
14. Veletsos AS. Verbic B. Vibrations of visco-elastic foundations. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1973; 2:87 –102.
15. Daubechies I. Ten Lectures on Wavelets, Society for Industrial & Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, 1992.
16. Vanmarcke EH. On the distribution of the Frst-passage time for normal stationary random processes. Journal
of Applied Mechanics Transport Transactions of ASME 1975; 42:215 – 220.
17. Wong HL, Trifunac MD. Generation of artiFcial strong motion accelerograms. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 1979; 7:509 – 527.
18. Lee VW, Trifunac MD. Torsional accelerograms. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 1985; 4(3):
132 –139.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:1419–1437
 NON-STATIONARY SEISMIC RESPONSE OF TANKS 1437

19. Lee VW, Trifunac MD. Rocking strong earthquake accelerograms. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
1987; 6(2):75 – 89.
20. Lee VW, Trifunac MD. A note on Fltering strong motion accelerograms to produce response spectra of speciFed
shape and amplitude. European Earthquake Engineering 1989; III(2):38 – 45.
21. Trifunac MD. Curvograms of strong ground motions. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 1990;
116(6):1426 – 1432.
22. Gupta VK, Trifunac MD. A note on the e@ects of ground rocking on the response of buildings during 1989
Loma Prieta earthquake. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 1993; 13(2):12 – 28.
23. Nigam NC, Jennings PC. Calculation of response spectra from strong motion earthquake records. Bulletin of
the Seismological Soceity of America 1969; 59(2):909 – 922.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:1419–1437