Você está na página 1de 232

AIN SHAMS UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

Seismic analysis For Pure Conical Elevated Tanks Including


Fluid Structure Interaction

Thesis
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
In
CIVIL ENGINEERING (STRUCTURES)

By

AHMED AMR FOUAD RASHED

Supervised by

Prof. Dr. Gamal Hussein Dr. Amgad Ahmed Dr. Nasr Eid
Mahmoud Talaat Nasr

Professor of Assistant Professor Assistant Professor


Structural Engineering Structural Engineering Structural Engineering
Faculty of Engineering Department Department
Ain Shams University Faculty of Engineering Faculty of Engineering
Ain Shams University Ain Shams University
Cairo – 2018

I
AIN SHAMS UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

Name : Ahmed Amr Fouad Rashed


Thesis : Seismic analysis for pure conical elevated tanks including fluid
structure interaction
Degree : Master of science in civil engineering (Structural)

EXAMINERS COMITEE

Name and Affiliation Signature


Prof. Dr. Eman Anwer Mohamed Salem El-Shamy
Professor of Structure Analysis and Mechanics
Faculty of Engineering
Zagazig University

Prof. Dr. Mohamed Noor Eldin Saad Fayed


Professor of Structure Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
Ain Shams University

Prof. Dr. Gamal Hussein Mahmoud


Professor of Structure Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
Ain Shams University

Date:

II
AIN SHAMS UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

Name : Ahmed Amr Fouad Rashed


Thesis : Seismic analysis for pure conical elevated tanks including fluid
structure interaction
Degree : Master of science in civil engineering (Structural)

SUPERVISORS COMITEE

Name and Affiliation Signature

Prof. Dr. Gamal Hussein Mahmoud


Professor of Structural Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
Ain Shams University
Dr. Amgad Ahmed Talaat
Assistant Professor
Structural Engineering Department
Faculty of Engineering
Ain Shams University
Dr. Nasr Eid Nasr
Assistant Professor
Structural Engineering Department
Faculty of Engineering
Ain Shams University

Date:

Postgraduate Studies
Authorization stamp: The thesis is authorized at / / 2018
College Board approval University Board approval
/ / 2018 / / 2018

III
0 CURRICULUM VITAE

Name Ahmed Amr Fouad Rashed

Date of Birth 11, August, 1990

Place of Birth Cairo, Egypt

Nationality Egyptian

Scientific BSc. of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,


degree Ain Shams University, 2012

Current Job Structural Engineer at e.construct FZ- LLC

IV
0 STATEMENT
This thesis is submitted to Ain Shams University for the degree of
M.Sc. in Civil Engineering.

The work included in this thesis was carried out by the author at the
Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ain
Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.

No part of this thesis has been submitted for a degree or a


qualification at any other University or Institution.

Name: Ahmed Amr Fouad Rashed

Signature:

Date:

V
0 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First and foremost thanks to GOD for his many graces and blessings.

I wish to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to Prof.Dr. Gamal


Hussein Mahmoud, Professor of Structural engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, Ain Shams University for his kind supervision, fruitful
comments and valuable advice.

My grateful appreciation also extends to Dr. Nasr Eid Nasr, Assistant


Professor of Structural engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams
University for his patience, help, guidance, useful suggestions, dedication
and encouragement throughout this research till its completion which is
gratefully acknowledged and sincerely appreciated.

An appreciation and thanks to Dr. Amgad Ahmed Talaat for his guidance,
recommendations, and encouragement throughout this research.

A very special gratitude to Prof. Dr. Ashraf El Damatty for his help at the
beginning of this research.

Most important, my deepest thanks and love for my father, mother, brother,
and sisters. Your constant and everlasting support is the reason I was able
to finish this research.

Also I would like to thank my gorgeous wife for her support and patience
through the ups and downs, the sleepless nights and hard times throughout
this long but rewarding journey.

Also I would like to thank Dr. Batool Wahba for her continuous support
and help.

Last but certainly not least, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my friend
Mohamed Hesham who passed away leaving our hearts bleeding.

VI
0 ABSTRACT

Liquid-containing tanks are used in water distribution systems and in


industries for storing toxic and flammable liquids, also water supply is
essential for controlling fires that might happen during earthquakes, which
cause a great damage and loss of lives. Therefore, elevated tanks should
stay serviceable in the post-earthquake period to ensure water supply is
available in earthquake-affected regions and to prevent catastrophic
damage if those tanks collapsed. The truncated conical shape tank is used
for transferring materials such as water and pesticides to many locations;
also it provides easy draining of materials and an easy cleaning manner.
Due to inclination of conical tanks` walls, the seismic response of a conical
tank is expected to be different from the response of a cylindrical tank.
Research studies associated with the dynamic performance of cylindrical
tanks are comprehensive.

According to most of current design codes, if the container has a conical


shape, an equivalent cylinder tank procedure may be followed, although a
limited number of researches have investigated the seismic performance of
conical tanks. The first studies on the dynamic response of conical tanks
were done by El Damatty et al. (1997). An experimental work was
accomplished by Sweedan and El Damatty (2002) to explore the dynamic
characteristics of conical vessels. El Damatty and Sweedan (2006) have
developed a mechanical model that can be utilized to evaluate the seismic
response of conical tanks subjected to horizontal ground excitations.

The main objective of this study is to create a parametric study for conical
ground and elevated tanks by using the mechanical analog parameters
developed by El Damatty and Sweedan (2006) to study the fluid-structure

VII
interaction and seismic response of those tanks through three dimensional
finite element models using SAP2000 V15.1.0 software by using response
spectrum analysis. Results obtained are then compared with the
corresponding values obtained from American Water Works Association
(AWWA D100 (2005)) and Egyptian code for loads (ECP 201 – 2012)
procedures. The effect of changing geometric features of the tank are
investigated such as vertical inclination of vessel`s walls, liquid height to
radius at the base of the vessel ratio (hw/Rb), volume of the tank, and
height of elevated tanks.

Finally an evaluation was done one the parametric study findings and it
was found that the vertical inclination angle of the tank walls of 15o is the
angle where the moment below tank walls is the minimum for the same
tank volume and liquid height to base radius of the vessel ratio (hw/Rb),
also correction factors are recommended to be used for equivalent cylinder
tanks approach of design codes to get a more conservative seismic
response.

 Keywords: conical tanks; fluid-structure interaction; seismic

analysis; seismic response; added mass approach; mechanical

analog.

VIII
0 SUMMARY

According to most of current design codes, if the container has a conical


shape, an equivalent cylinder tank may be used, although a limited number
of studies have investigated seismic response of conical tanks. El Damatty
and Sweedan (2006) have developed a mechanical model that can be
utilized to evaluate the seismic response of conical tanks subjected to
horizontal ground excitations. The main objective of this study is to create
a parametric study for conical ground and elevated tanks by using the
mechanical analog parameters developed by El Damatty and Sweedan
(2006) to study the fluid-structure interaction and seismic response of those
tanks through three dimensional finite element models using SAP2000
V15.1.0 by using response spectrum analysis. Results obtained are then
compared with the corresponding values obtained from American Water
Works Association (AWWA D100 (2005)) and Egyptian code for loads
(ECP 201 – 2012) procedures. Finally an evaluation was done on the
parametric study findings to reach the vertical inclination angle of the tank
walls where the moment below tank walls is the minimum for the same
tank volume and liquid height to base radius of the vessel ratio (hw/Rb),
also correction factors are recommended to be used for equivalent cylinder
tanks approach of design codes to get a more conservative seismic
response.

The thesis is divided into seven chapters

Chapter (1) is the introduction to this research; it discusses the scope and
the main objectives of the research.

Chapter (2) is a literature review which briefly discusses the past


researches of the response and the behavior of liquid containing ground and

IX
elevated tanks, the historical disastrous damages of tanks. Seismic isolation
systems are also briefly studied. Also, design codes and standards
guidelines for design and analysis of tanks are also summarized.

Chapter (3) presents a brief discussion about finite element method


including the analysis program used, and different types of elements that
may be used in the analysis. Also, modeling procedure used is explained
while showing the mechanical analog parameters used to simulate the fluid
structure interaction.

Chapter (4) presents the verification of the finite element model procedure
used in the research in order to make sure of the validity of using this
model procedure in the parametric study. A comparison is done between
model results and manual procedure explained by El Damatty and Sweedan
(2006), also a finite element model has been compared with an experiment
conducted by Maheri MR, Severn RT on a cylinder steel tank.

Chapter (5) presents a parametric study done to investigate the effect of


different parameters on the seismic response of conical tanks. Also
AWWA-D100 (2005) and ECP 201 – 2012 procedures by using equivalent
cylindrical tanks are presented.

Chapter (6) an evaluation of the results of the parametric study is


presented. Finite element model results are compared with AWWA- D100
(2005) and ECP 201-2012 procedures. Also a comparison between studied
tanks is performed to show the effect of changing the geometry of the
conical shape tank on its dynamic response.

Chapter (7) presents the summary and the conclusions of the research. It
ends up with the recommendations for future studies and research subjects
related to this research subject.

X
0 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CURRICULUM VITAE ............................................................................ IV

STATEMENT ......................................................................................... V

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ........................................................................... VI

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................... VII

SUMMARY........................................................................................... IX

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................... XI

List OF Figures .................................................................................... XV

List of Tables .................................................................................... XXII

List of Symbols ................................................................................ XXIII

Chapter (1): Introduction ....................................................................... 26

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 26

1.2 Research scope and objectives .................................................... 27

1.3 Thesis outline ............................................................................... 27

Chapter (2): Literature Review............................................................... 29

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 29

2.2 Damage and failures in tanks due to earthquakes ....................... 29

2.3 Previous research on dynamic behavior of tanks ......................... 38

2.3.1 Ground tanks ......................................................................... 38

2.3.2 Elevated tanks........................................................................ 45

XI
2.3.3 Seismic isolation of liquid containing tanks ............................ 50

2.3.4 Design codes and standards ................................................... 53

Chapter (3): Numerical Modeling .......................................................... 56

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 56

3.2 Finite element method ................................................................ 56

3.2.1 General .................................................................................. 56

3.2.2 Analysis procedure of finite element method ........................ 57

3.3 Finite element modeling program used in this research .............. 58

3.3.1 General .................................................................................. 58

3.3.2 Inputs ..................................................................................... 58

3.3.3 Elements types....................................................................... 59

3.3.4 Modal analysis ....................................................................... 59

3.3.5 Seismic Loads ......................................................................... 60

3.3.6 Response-Spectrum analysis .................................................. 61

3.4 Fluid-Structure Interaction effect ................................................. 64

3.4.1 Added mass approach............................................................ 65

3.4.2 Fluid parameters in the finite element model ........................ 67

Chapter (4): Verification ........................................................................ 73

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 73

4.2 Conical Tank Mechanical analog verification ................................ 73

XII
4.3 Finite element model compared to manual procedure by El
Damatty ................................................................................................ 74

4.4 Finite element model compared to experiment conducted by


Maheri MR, Severn RT........................................................................... 76

Chapter (5): Parametric Study ............................................................... 79

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 79

5.2 Conical tank geometry ................................................................. 79

5.3 Parametric study methodology .................................................... 79

Chapter (6): Results and Discussion ....................................................... 92

6.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 92

6.2 Equivalent cylinder tank approach ............................................... 92

6.2.1 ECP 201 – 2012 equivalent cylinder tank ............................... 92

6.2.2 AWWA D100 (2005) equivalent cylinder tank ........................ 97

6.3 Comparison of Results ............................................................... 100

6.4 Results graphs ............................................................................ 118

6.4.1 First group............................................................................ 118

6.4.2 Second group ....................................................................... 123

6.4.3 Third group .......................................................................... 145

6.4.4 Correction factors ................................................................ 187

6.5 Limitation of this study .............................................................. 189

XIII
Chapter (7): Summary and Conclusion ................................................. 191

7.1 Summary .................................................................................... 191

7.2 Conclusion ................................................................................. 192

7.3 Recommendations for future studies ......................................... 193

REFERENCES .................................................................................. 194

XIV
0 List OF Figures

Figure ‎2-1 damage types of tanks................................................................................................ 32

Figure ‎2-2 the 1964 Alaska earthquake oil tanks` damages ........................................................ 33

Figure ‎2-3 oil spillage over tanks in the 1983 Coaligne earthquake ........................................... 34

Figure ‎2-4 tank roof damage in the 1994 Northridge earthquake ............................................... 35

Figure ‎2-5 tank damaged due to elephant foot buckling in the 1994 Northridge earthquake .... 35

Figure ‎2-6 tank tilted due to liquefaction in the 1995 Kobe earthquake ..................................... 36

Figure ‎2-7 frame staging type collapse ....................................................................................... 37

Figure ‎2-8 Poor detailing of column-brace joints in Manfera tank ............................................. 37

Figure ‎2-9 Chobari village tank collapsed due to flexure cracks ................................................ 38

Figure ‎3-1 Ground tank finite element model ............................................................................. 68

Figure ‎3-2 Elevated tank finite element model ........................................................................... 69

Figure ‎3-3 Conical Vessel geometric parameters........................................................................ 70

Figure ‎3-4‎fluid‎heights‎parameters‎for‎Ɵv‎=‎15o........................................................................ 70

Figure ‎3-5‎fluid‎heights‎parameters‎for‎Ɵv‎=‎30o........................................................................ 71

Figure ‎3-6‎fluid‎masses‎parameters‎for‎Ɵv‎=‎15o ........................................................................ 71

Figure ‎3-7‎fluid‎masses‎parameters‎for‎Ɵv‎=‎30o ........................................................................ 72

Figure ‎3-8 sloshing (convective) frequency ................................................................................ 72

Figure ‎4-1 Water tank studied by (Maheri MR, Severn RT (1988)) ........................................... 77

Figure ‎4-2 Parkfield 1966 earthquake record .............................................................................. 78

Figure ‎4-3 Base shear (N) in finite element model ..................................................................... 78

Figure ‎5-1 Conical vessel geometric parameters ........................................................................ 80

Figure ‎5-2 Response Spectrum used in the parametric study...................................................... 81

XV
Figure ‎6-1 Ratios of convective and impulsive masses and convective spring stiffness (ECP201-
2012) ........................................................................................................................................... 96

Figure ‎6-2 heights of impuslive and convective masses (ECP201-2012) ................................... 96

Figure ‎6-3 Ci factor (ECP201-2012) ........................................................................................... 97

Figure ‎6-4 Case of ground tank ................................................................................................. 119

Figure ‎6-5 Case of elevated tank ............................................................................................... 120

Figure ‎6-6 Moment below tank walls from FEM for volume 250 m3 ....................................... 120

Figure ‎6-7 Moment below tank walls from FEM for volume 500 m3 ....................................... 121

Figure ‎6-8 Moment below tank walls from FEM for volume 1000 m3 ..................................... 121

Figure ‎6-9 Moment below tank walls from FEM for volume 2000 m3 ..................................... 122

Figure ‎6-10 Moment below tank walls from FEM for volume 4000 m3 ................................... 122

Figure ‎6-11 Base shear for volume 250 m3 and hw/Rb = 1.5 ................................................... 124

Figure ‎6-12 Base moment for volume 250 m3 and hw/Rb = 1.5 ............................................... 124

Figure ‎6-13 Base shear for volume 500 m3 and hw/Rb = 1.5 ................................................... 125

Figure ‎6-14 Base moment for volume 500 m3 and hw/Rb = 1.5 ............................................... 125

Figure ‎6-15 Base shear for volume 1000 m3 and hw/Rb = 1.5 ................................................. 126

Figure ‎6-16 Base moment for volume 1000 m3 and hw/Rb = 1.5 ............................................. 126

Figure ‎6-17 Base shear for volume 2000 m3 and hw/Rb = 1.5 ................................................. 127

Figure ‎6-18 Base moment for volume 2000 m3 and hw/Rb = 1.5 ............................................. 127

Figure ‎6-19 Base shear for volume 4000 m3 and hw/Rb = 1.5 ................................................. 128

Figure ‎6-20 Base moment for volume 4000 m3 and hw/Rb = 1.5 ............................................. 128

Figure ‎6-21 Base shear for volume 250 m3 and hw/Rb = 2 ...................................................... 129

Figure ‎6-22 Base moment for volume 250 m3 and hw/Rb = 2 .................................................. 129

XVI
Figure ‎6-23 Base shear for volume 500 m3 and hw/Rb = 2 ...................................................... 130

Figure ‎6-24 Base moment for volume 500 m3 and hw/Rb = 2 .................................................. 130

Figure ‎6-25 Base shear for volume 1000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2 .................................................... 131

Figure ‎6-26 Base moment for volume 1000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2 ................................................ 131

Figure ‎6-27 Base shear for volume 2000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2 .................................................... 132

Figure ‎6-28 Base moment for volume 2000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2 ................................................ 132

Figure ‎6-29 Base shear for volume 4000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2 .................................................... 133

Figure ‎6-30 Base moment for volume 4000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2 ................................................ 133

Figure ‎6-31 Base shear for volume 250 m3 and hw/Rb = 2.5 ................................................... 134

Figure ‎6-32 Base moment for volume 250 m3 and hw/Rb = 2.5 ............................................... 134

Figure ‎6-33 Base shear for volume 500 m3 and hw/Rb = 2.5 ................................................... 135

Figure ‎6-34 Base moment for volume 500 m3 and hw/Rb = 2.5 ............................................... 135

Figure ‎6-35 Base shear for volume 1000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2.5 ................................................. 136

Figure ‎6-36 Base moment for volume 1000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2.5 ............................................. 136

Figure ‎6-37 Base shear for volume 2000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2.5 ................................................. 137

Figure ‎6-38 Base moment for volume 2000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2.5 ............................................. 137

Figure ‎6-39 Base shear for volume 4000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2.5 ................................................. 138

Figure ‎6-40 Base moment for volume 4000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2.5 ............................................. 138

Figure ‎6-41 Base shear for volume 250 m3 and hw/Rb = 3 ...................................................... 139

Figure ‎6-42 Base moment for volume 250 m3 and hw/Rb = 3 .................................................. 139

Figure ‎6-43 Base shear for volume 500 m3 and hw/Rb = 3 ...................................................... 140

Figure ‎6-44 Base moment for volume 500 m3 and hw/Rb = 3 .................................................. 140

Figure ‎6-45 Base shear for volume 1000 m3 and hw/Rb = 3 .................................................... 141

XVII
Figure ‎6-46 Base moment for volume 1000 m3 and hw/Rb = 3 ................................................ 141

Figure ‎6-47 Base shear for volume 2000 m3 and hw/Rb = 3 .................................................... 142

Figure ‎6-48 Base moment for volume 2000 m3 and hw/Rb = 3 ................................................ 142

Figure ‎6-49 Base shear for volume 4000 m3 and hw/Rb = 3 .................................................... 143

Figure ‎6-50 Base moment for volume 4000 m3 and hw/Rb = 3 ................................................ 143

Figure ‎6-51 Base shear for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height 10m ...................... 146

Figure ‎6-52 Base moment for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height 10m .................. 146

Figure ‎6-53 Base shear for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height 10m ...................... 147

Figure ‎6-54 Base moment for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height 10m .................. 147

Figure ‎6-55 Base shear for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height 10m .................... 148

Figure ‎6-56 Base moment for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height 10m ................ 148

Figure ‎6-57 Base shear for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height 10m .................... 149

Figure ‎6-58 Base moment for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height 10m ................ 149

Figure ‎6-59 Base shear for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height 10m .................... 150

Figure ‎6-60 Base moment for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height 10m ................ 150

Figure ‎6-61 Base shear for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height 10m ......................... 151

Figure ‎6-62 Base moment for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height 10m ..................... 151

Figure ‎6-63 Base shear for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height 10m ......................... 152

Figure ‎6-64 Base moment for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height 10m ..................... 152

Figure ‎6-65 Base shear for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height 10m ....................... 153

Figure ‎6-66 Base moment for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height 10m ................... 153

Figure ‎6-67 Base shear for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height 10m ....................... 154

Figure ‎6-68 Base moment for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height 10m ................... 154

XVIII
Figure ‎6-69 Base shear for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height 10m ....................... 155

Figure ‎6-70 Base moment for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height 10m ................... 155

Figure ‎6-71 Base shear for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height 10m ...................... 156

Figure ‎6-72 Base moment for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height 10m .................. 156

Figure ‎6-73 Base shear for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height 10m ...................... 157

Figure ‎6-74 Base moment for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height 10m .................. 157

Figure ‎6-75 Base shear for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height 10m .................... 158

Figure ‎6-76 Base moment for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height 10m ................ 158

Figure ‎6-77 Base shear for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height 10m .................... 159

Figure ‎6-78 Base moment for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height 10m ................ 159

Figure ‎6-79 Base shear for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height 10m .................... 160

Figure ‎6-80 Base moment for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height 10m ................ 160

Figure ‎6-81 Base shear for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height 10m ......................... 161

Figure ‎6-82 Base moment for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height 10m ..................... 161

Figure ‎6-83 Base shear for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height 10m ......................... 162

Figure ‎6-84 Base moment for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height 10m ..................... 162

Figure ‎6-85 Base shear for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height 10m ....................... 163

Figure ‎6-86 Base moment for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height 10m ................... 163

Figure ‎6-87 Base shear for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height 10m ....................... 164

Figure ‎6-88 Base moment for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height 10m ................... 164

Figure ‎6-89 Base shear for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height 10m ....................... 165

Figure ‎6-90 Base moment for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height 10m ................... 165

Figure ‎6-91 Base shear for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height 20m ...................... 166

XIX
Figure ‎6-92 Base moment for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height 20m .................. 166

Figure ‎6-93 Base shear for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height 20m ...................... 167

Figure ‎6-94 Base moment for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height 20m .................. 167

Figure ‎6-95 Base shear for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height 20m .................... 168

Figure ‎6-96 Base moment for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height 20m ................ 168

Figure ‎6-97 Base shear for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height 20m .................... 169

Figure ‎6-98 Base moment for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height 20m ................ 169

Figure ‎6-99 Base shear for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height 20m .................... 170

Figure ‎6-100 Base moment for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height 20m .............. 170

Figure ‎6-101 Base shear for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height 20m ....................... 171

Figure ‎6-102 Base moment for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height 20m ................... 171

Figure ‎6-103 Base shear for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height 20m ....................... 172

Figure ‎6-104 Base moment for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height 20m ................... 172

Figure ‎6-105 Base shear for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height 20m ..................... 173

Figure ‎6-106 Base moment for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height 20m ................. 173

Figure ‎6-107 Base shear for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height 20m ..................... 174

Figure ‎6-108 Base moment for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height 20m ................. 174

Figure ‎6-109 Base shear for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height 20m ..................... 175

Figure ‎6-110 Base moment for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height 20m ................. 175

Figure ‎6-111 Base shear for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height 20m .................... 176

Figure ‎6-112 Base moment for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height 20m ................ 176

Figure ‎6-113 Base shear for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height 20m .................... 177

Figure ‎6-114 Base moment for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height 20m ................ 177

XX
Figure ‎6-115 Base shear for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height 20m .................. 178

Figure ‎6-116 Base moment for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height 20m .............. 178

Figure ‎6-117 Base shear for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height 20m .................. 179

Figure ‎6-118 Base moment for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height 20m .............. 179

Figure ‎6-119 Base shear for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height 20m .................. 180

Figure ‎6-120 Base moment for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height 20m .............. 180

Figure ‎6-121 Base shear for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height 20m ....................... 181

Figure ‎6-122 Base moment for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height 20m ................... 181

Figure ‎6-123 Base shear for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height 20m ....................... 182

Figure ‎6-124 Base moment for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height 20m ................... 182

Figure ‎6-125 Base shear for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height 20m ..................... 183

Figure ‎6-126 Base moment for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height 20m ................. 183

Figure ‎6-127 Base shear for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height 20m ..................... 184

Figure ‎6-128 Base moment for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height 20m ................. 184

Figure ‎6-129 Base shear for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height 20m ..................... 185

Figure ‎6-130 Base moment for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height 20m ................. 185

Figure ‎6-131 Correction factor for base moment of ECP in ground conical tanks ................... 188

Figure ‎6-132 Correction factor for base moment of AWWA in ground conical tanks ............. 188

Figure ‎6-133 Correction factor for base moment of ECP in elevated conical tanks ................. 189

Figure ‎6-134 Correction factor for base moment of AWWA in elevated conical tanks ........... 189

XXI
List of Tables

Table ‎4-1‎Comparison‎between‎ECP‎cylinder‎tank‎and‎conical‎tank‎with‎Ɵv‎=‎0‎for‎mechanical‎
analog parameters in case of (hw/Rb=2) ..................................................................................... 74

Table ‎4-2 Comparison between manual procedure developed by El Damatty and Sweedan
(2006) and finite element model ................................................................................................. 76

Table ‎4-3 Comparison between experiment conducted by Maher et.al. and finite element model
..................................................................................................................................................... 77

Table ‎5-1 Tnks studied in the parametric study .......................................................................... 81

Table ‎6-1 Studied tanks results ................................................................................................. 101

Table ‎6-2 Validation of correction factors ................................................................................ 190

XXII
0 List of Symbols

{Q} nodal force vector in finite element method

[K] stiffness matrix in finite element method

{U} nodal displacement victor in finite element method


{F} global force victor in finite element method

Md diagonal mass matrix in finite element method

Ω2 diagonal matrix of eigenvalues

ɸ matrix of mode shapes


C damping matrix

u relative displacement
u` relative velocity

u`` relative accelerations


ug`` ground acceleration

M* structure mass added to fluid mass

mi impulsive mass portion in design codes

mc convective mass portion in design codes


kc convective mass stiffness in design codes

m1 impulsive mass portion added to tank mass in Housner model


m2 convective mass portion in Housner model

hw water height in conical tanks

hw/Rb ratio of water height to the base radius of conical tanks


Ɵv vertical inclination angle of conical tanks` walls

mr/mt total impulsive mass portion in conical tanks


mf/mt flexible mass portion in conical tanks

XXIII
hf/hw flexible mass height to the total water height in conical tanks
Kf flexible mass stiffness in the conical tank mechanical analog
ms/mt convective mass portion in conical tanks

hs/hw convective mass height to the total water height in conical tanks

fs convective mode frequency

ks convective mass stiffness in conical tanks


mo rigid impulsive mass

ho rigid impulsive mass height

h height of the tank


G``(t) ground acceleration
V volume of water in conical tanks

RT radius at top of liquid surface in conical tanks


hweq water height in the equivalent cylinder tank

Tc convective mode period

Ti impulsive mode period


Ci impulsive mode factor

tu walls thickness

E young`s modulus
f1 impulsive mode frequency in conical tank analog

mef effective tank mass activated in the impulsive mode in conical


tank analog

msh total tank mass in conical tank analog

K stiffness of conical tank in conical tank analog

XXIV
fsys liquid-shell system impulsive mode frequency in conical tank
analog
Sas convective mode spectral acceleration

Sasys liquid-shell system spectral acceleration

Q base shear

M base moment

XXV
1 Chapter (1)
Introduction
1.1 Introduction

Liquid-containing tanks are used in water distribution systems and in


industries for storing toxic and flammable liquids, also water supply is
essential for controlling fires that might happen during earthquakes, which
cause a great damage and loss of lives. Therefore, elevated tanks should
stay serviceable in the post-earthquake period to ensure water supply is
available in earthquake-affected regions and to prevent catastrophic
damage if those tanks collapsed. Vessels that have a truncated conical
shape with no or small cylindrical part exists at the top of the conical part,
this type of tank is referred to as "pure conical tanks". The truncated
conical shape tank is used for transferring materials such as water and
pesticides to many locations; also it provides easy draining of materials and
an easy cleaning process. Due to inclination of conical tanks` walls, the
seismic response of a conical tank is expected to be different from the
response of a cylindrical tank. Research studies associated with the
dynamic performance of cylindrical tanks are comprehensive.

According to most of current design codes, if the container is conical


shaped, an equivalent cylinder tank procedure may be followed, although
the stability of conical tanks under hydrostatic pressure has been
investigated intensively by Vandepitte et al. (1982) and El Damatty et al.
(1997), although a limited number of researches have investigated the
seismic performance of conical tanks. The first studies on the dynamic

26
response of conical tanks were done by El Damatty et al. (1997).An
experimental work was accomplished by Sweedan and El Damatty (2002)
to explore the dynamic characteristics of conical vessels. El Damatty and
Sweedan (2006) have developed a mechanical model that can be utilized to
evaluate the seismic response of conical tanks subjected to horizontal
ground excitations.

1.2 Research scope and objectives

The main objective of this study is to do a parametric study for conical


ground and elevated tanks by using the mechanical analog parameters
developed by El Damatty and Sweedan (2006) to study the fluid-structure
interaction and seismic response of those tanks through finite element
models using response spectrum analysis. Results obtained are then
compared with the corresponding values obtained from American Water
Works Association (AWWA D100 (2005)) and Egyptian code for loads
(ECP 201 – 2012) procedures. The effect of changing geometric
characteristics of the tank are evaluated such as vertical inclination of
vessel`s walls, liquid height to radius at the base of the vessel ratio
(hw/Rb), volume of the tank, and height of elevated tanks.

1.3 Thesis outline

The thesis is divided into the following chapters:

Chapter (1) is the introduction to this research; it discusses the scope and
the main objectives of the research.

Chapter (2) is a literature review which briefly discusses the past researches
of the response and the behavior of liquid containing ground and elevated
tanks, the historical disastrous damages of tanks. Seismic isolation systems

27
are also briefly studied. Also, design codes and standards guidelines for
design and analysis of tanks are also summarized.

Chapter (3) presents a brief discussion about finite element method


including the analysis program used, and different types of elements that
may be used in the analysis. Also, modeling procedure used is explained
while showing the mechanical analog parameters used to simulate the fluid
structure interaction.

Chapter (4) presents the verification of the finite element model procedure
used in the research in order to make sure of the validity of using this
model procedure in the parametric study. A comparison is done between
model results and manual procedure explained by El Damatty and Sweedan
(2006), also a finite element model has been compared with an experiment
conducted by Maheri MR, Severn RT on a cylinder steel tank.

Chapter (5) presents a parametric study done to investigate the effect of


different parameters on the seismic response of conical tanks. Also
AWWA-D100 (2005) and ECP 201 – 2012 procedures by using equivalent
cylindrical tanks are presented.

Chapter (6) an evaluation of the results of the parametric study is presented.


Finite element model results are compared with AWWA- D100 (2005) and
ECP 201-2012 procedures. Also a comparison between studied tanks is
performed to show the effect of changing the geometry of the conical shape
tank on its dynamic response.

Chapter (7) presents the summary and the conclusions of the research. It
ends up with the recommendations for future studies and research subjects
related to this research subject.

28
2 Chapter (2)
Literature Review
2.1 Introduction

In this chapter a literature review on the seismic analysis and dynamic


response of ground and elevated tanks is presented. In section 2.2 damages
and failures in different type of tanks due to earthquakes are presented.
Section 2.3 presents an overview on current design procedure of different
tanks in different design codes. Section 2.3 also summarize previous
studies on seismic analysis and dynamic response of tanks, also
contributions by previous researchers are presented.

2.2 Damage and failures in tanks due to earthquakes

There were many damages in different tanks during different earthquake.


Moslemi et al. (2011) have summarized some of famous failures of tanks
due to earthquakes such as 1933 Long Beach, 1952 Kern County, 1960
Valdivia, 1964 Alaska, 1964 Niigata, 1966 Parkfield, 1971 San Fernando,
1978 Miyagi prefecture, 1979 Imperial County, 1980 Kono, 1983 Coalinga,
1994 Northbridge, 1995 Kobe, and 2001 Bhuj.

Failure of storage tanks depends on many factors such as, material of the
tank, supporting type, and geometric characteristics of the tank.

In general, damage modes in concrete tanks differ from steel tanks.

The most mutual damages in steel tanks are buckling, anchorage failure,
and roof damage due to sloshing.

29
Elephant foot buckling is occurred in steel tanks due to lift-off of the tank
base caused by overturning moment, this lift-off cause high compressive
stress in the wall near the base which causes elephant foot buckling.

On the other hand, design of concrete tanks is based on cracking control.


Stresses generated from hydrodynamic pressure of the contained liquid and
large mass of concrete may lead to cracking.

For elevated tanks, it is noted that elevated tanks are sensitive to seismic
forces due to their height with large lumped masses which leads to high
tensile stresses generated from high overturning moments.

Damages of tanks during earthquakes may be categorized into one or more


of the following types:

1. Failures of the shell.

a. Elephant foot buckling caused by overturning moment on the


shell which causes large axial compression, as shown in fig. (2-
1) photo (a)

b. Large deformation and cracks causing leakage in the shell

c. Spillover of the liquid

d. Damage of the roof due to sloshing of the contained liquid


during earthquakes, as shown in fig. (2-1) photo (b)

2. Failures in supporting structure.

a. Failure in shafts or framing system of elevated tanks, as shown


in fig. (2-1) photo (f)

30
b. Failures in the anchor bolts and foundation, as shown in fig. (2-
1) photo (d)

e. Failure of supporting soil due to tension, bearing pressure or


liquefaction, as shown in fig. (2-1) photo (e)

f. Failure in pipes and other accessories connected to the tank due


to the relative movement of the shell, as shown in fig. (2-1)
photo (c)

31
(a) (b)

(c) (d) (e)

(f)
Figure 2-1 damage types of tanks: (a) Elephant foot buckling, (b) Damage
of upper part of shell due to sloshing, (c) pipes failure, (d) anchor failure
due to high uplift, (e) failure due to soil liquefaction, and (f) failure in
supporting structure.
(Courtesy of University of California at Berkeley)

32
During the 1964 Alaska earthquake, as shown in fig. (2-2) damage to oil
tanks caused a release of liquids and fire that stayed for days. The damage
was caused by soil settlement and liquefaction.

Figure ‎2-2 the 1964 Alaska earthquake oil tanks` damages


(courtesy of www.theatlantic.com)
During the 1971 San Fernando earthquakes, some tanks was observed to
have uplift up to 14 inches due to high overturning moment resulted from
seismic motion. This high overturning moment causes high compression
stress at the area that still in contact with ground leading to elephant foot
buckling failure.

During the1978 Miyagi prefecture earthquake, oil spill-over into the harbor
due to the cracking of the plate of the tank caused by tension stresses from
high bending moment.

33
During the 1983 Coalinga earthquake, Unanchored ground tanks in oil
fields were damaged; failure types included elephant's foot buckling at the
base of three moderate size tanks, joint rupture and top shell buckling in a
tank, bottom plate rupture of a tank and damage to roofs of 11 tanks. Also
as shown in fig. (2-3), oil overflowed many tanks and secondary damages
occurred in pipe connections.

Figure ‎2-3 oil spillage over tanks in the 1983 Coaligne earthquake
(Manos, G. C. and Clough, R. W. (1985))

During the1994 Northridge earthquake three fuel tanks on San Fernando


Valley suffer a sloshing ending up on top of the pans but without sinking
and only a spillage occurred that was removed later and tanks remained in
service. Five water tanks in the west of Northridge suffered failure due to
elephant foot buckling as shown in fig. (2-5). Five tanks located in the
Santa Monica Mountains suffer functional failure resulted from broken
piping and spillage but no damage in the tanks` shells, one tank in the same
are collapsed totally and was removed later. In the north of Northridge, one

34
tank suffered damage due to roof damage as shown in fig. (2-4), elephant
foot buckling, and roof-shell joint failure.

Figure ‎2-4 tank roof damage in the 1994 Northridge earthquake

(Courtesy of Haroun, M.A., and Bhatia, H (1995))

Figure ‎2-5 tank damaged due to elephant foot buckling in the 1994
Northridge earthquake (Courtesy of Haroun, M.A., and Bhatia, H (1995))

35
During the1995 Kobe earthquake a liquid storage tank on the waterfront
was damaged due to soil liquefaction as shown in fig. (2-6).

Figure ‎2-6 tank tilted due to liquefaction in the 1995 Kobe earthquake
(courtesy of www.planat.ch)

During the 2001 Bhuj earthquake, many elevated tanks suffered damage
due to supporting structure failure. As shown in figs. (2-7) to (2-9), tanks
like Manfera tank with supporting structure of frame type staging suffered
a collapsed as brace-column joints were not designed and detailed for
inelastic deformations. Tanks like Chobari village tank with supporting
type of shaft suffered severe flexural cracks close to ground which resulted
in collapse.

36
Figure ‎2-7 frame staging type collapse (courtesy of Durgesh C Rai (2003))

Figure ‎2-8 Poor detailing of column-brace joints in Manfera tank

(courtesy of Durgesh C Rai (2003))

37
Figure ‎2-9 Chobari village tank collapsed due to flexure cracks

(courtesy of Durgesh C Rai (2003))

2.3 Previous research on dynamic behavior of tanks

2.3.1 Ground tanks

Due to the significant damages occurred in liquid containing tanks in many


earthquakes which leaded to disastrous collapses, comprehensive
researches has been carried out on liquid containing tanks.

Study on dynamic behavior of liquid containing tanks started in 1940`s.


Jacobsen (1949) and Jacobsen and Ayre (1951) studied the dynamic
response of cylindrical tanks in case of horizontal ground motions. That
study concluded hydrodynamic masses and masses` moments for the
contained liquid.

38
In the 1960s, Housner (1963) has utilized a lumped mass approach for
obtaining response of rigid rectangular and cylindrical water tanks in case
of full anchored to foundation under horizontal ground motion. Liquid was
assumed to be incompressible fluid. Housner divide the liquid response into
impulsive motion where the liquid is rigidly attached to the tank`s walls
and moves with them and moves with the same acceleration of the ground,
and convective motion also known as sloshing motion where the liquid
surface moves freely with a long period vibration. It is noted that impulsive
portion of movement of the liquid has the greatest effect on base shear and
base moments of tank under seismic motion.

Housner`s method has been used with some modifications in many


standards and codes of practice like ACI standards. Counter to Housner`s
method, ACI 350.3 has taken wall flexibility into account by determining
vibrating water mass components based on rigid tank and using the
amplified pseudoacceleration corresponding to the natural period of the
system. This approximation may be inaccurate for values H/R (liquid
depth/ tank radius) larger than 1 (Veletsos (1984)).

Edwards (1969) has used finite element method to evaluate seismic


response of liquid containing tanks. A cylindrical tank with H/R ratio of
less than two was analyzed using finite element method. The developed
finite element model considered the coupled interaction between the liquid
and tank`s walls.

Epstein (1976) has used Housner`s model to calculate overturning moment


due to hydrodynamic pressure in both rectangular and cylindrical tanks
through curves.

39
Veletsos (1974) and Yang (1976) approved that tank wall flexibility could
have a great effect on dynamic behavior of cylindrical tanks during
horizontal ground motion. Veletsos and Yang (1977) utilized Flugge`s shell
theory (Flugge, 1960) and Rayleigh-Ritz method to calculate natural
frequencies of the tank-liquid system.

Hunt and Priestly (1978) have investigated dynamic behavior of


rectangular and cylindrical tanks during horizontal ground motion. They
have derived mathematical equations to predict fluid motion. Also the
displacement of the liquid free surface was examined experimentally in a
cylindrical tank. The obtained results using mathematical equations were
compared to the corresponding results using experiments and results have
shown a good agreement.

Clough (1977) and Clough et al. (1979) performed experiments on large-


scale thin-walled tanks. The results of hydrodynamic pressure were much
larger than those proposed by Housner`s method. It was believed that this
big difference is due to tank wall flexibility.

Haroun (1980) and Barton and Parker (1987) have done several numerical
studies with taking flexibility of shell into account.

Haroun and Housner (1981A) have studied deformable tanks performance


using modal superposition analysis. Finite elements were used to model
tank shell and fluid was done mathematically using boundary solution
method.

Haroun and Housner (1981B) have established mechanical model with


including wall deformability`s effect. This mechanical model works with
three equivalent lumped masses. The three masses are convective mass

40
corresponding to sloshing of the liquid, impulsive mass corresponding to
portion of liquid that moves with the horizontal ground acceleration and
short period mass corresponding to deformable tank walls acceleration in
flexible tanks. If the tank walls are rigid the short period mass is not
considered. This study showed that the flexibility of the tank walls may
results in very high hydrodynamic pressure compared with rigid tank walls.

Balendra et al. (1982) studied a cylindrical tank with axisymmetric dome


using a finite element code. The fluid was assumed to be incompressible
and inviscid and sloshing of the fluid wasn't considered.

Minowa (1980 and 1984) has studied tank wall flexibility effect on the
hydrodynamic pressure exerted on the tank shell. Also he performed
experimental studies on rectangular tanks.

Haroun (1983) has performed experimental studies with forced and


ambient vibration tests on ground cylindrical flexible tanks. To determine
modes of vibration, three full scale tanks were tested. This study resulted in
better understanding of dynamic behavior of tanks.

Haroun (1984) has studied the dynamic response of rectangular concrete


tanks using the classical potential flow approach in rigid wall case. The
fluid was assumed to be inviscid, incompressible and homogeneous. The
tank was subjected to horizontal and vertical components of earthquake.
Bending moments in the walls were estimated. This study resulted in
theoretical equations to calculate bending moments in tank walls and tables
of numerical values of moment coefficients for seismic design of
rectangular tanks.

41
Veletsos and Kumar (1984) have established a simplified approach to
estimate the effect of vertical component of earthquake on cylindrical
tanks.

Haroun and Tayel (1985) have used finite element method to investigate
the dynamic behavior of cylindrical tanks with elastic walls under vertical
seismic action. Sloshing of the contained liquid was ignored. This study
was based on superposition analysis of free vibration modes of fluid-
structure interaction system. Axial and radial components of
walls`displacement and stresses were calculated.

Veletsos and Tang (1986) have studied dynamic response of tank-liquid


system with taking effects of kinematic and inertia interaction into account.
The results are compared with a no soil-interaction case and with kinematic
interaction case. The convective motion isn`t affected by neither kinematic
nor inertial interactions, therefore it wasn`t examined. This study concluded
that kinematic and inertia interactions reduce the impulsive components
response and doesn`t affect convective components. Also both interactions
have a greater effect on short, wide tanks than tall, slender tanks.

Veletsos and Tang (1986) have studied soil-structure interaction


consequences on rigidly supported tanks ate the base in case of vertical
seismic excitation. This study concluded that soil-structure interaction may
reduce hydrodynamic effects in vertically excited cylindrical steel tanks.

Veletsos and Tang (1990) have studied dynamic behavior of tanks rested
on flexible foundation with rigid mats. This study explained that the
translational and rocking vibrations of tank base cause extended impulsive
period and larger effective damping.

42
Park et al. (1992) have used coupled boundary element method to
investigate the dynamic behavior of concrete rectangular tanks using time-
history analysis.

Gupta (1995) studied coupled free vibration dynamics of cylindrical tanks.


He used Flugge`s exact equations of motion to study the vibration of the
tanks. The hydrodynamic pressure was obtained using velocity potential
approach. The results were compared with Haroun and Housner method`s
results.

Kim et al. (1996) has used Rayleigh-Ritz method to study the dynamic
response of flexible rectangular tanks. The effect of sloshing component
wasn`t included in this study.

Dogangun et al. (1997 and 2004) has studied the dynamic response of
rectangular tanks. He used analytical methods and finite element method
using the modified version of SAPIV program to study the dynamic
response. The fluid was represented in the model using displacement-based
fluid elements. The effect of flexibility of tank`s walls was taken into
account. The proposed model considered the effects of convective motion
and fluid compressibility. FE results were compared with those obtained by
boundary-finite element method and Eurocode-8 provisions.

Koh et al. (1998) has developed a coupled boundary-finite element method


with considering the sloshing vibration in order to estimate the dynamic
response of 3D rectangular water tanks subjected to horizontal seismic
excitation.

Chen and Kianoush (2005) have developed a new method called sequential
method to estimate hydrodynamic pressure in rectangular tank. In this

43
method fluid and structure are coupled by using first analysis results as
boundary conditions or loads in a second analysis. The study was done in
2D space with taking effect of tank walls flexibility and without taking
sloshing effect in consider.

Virella (2006) has studied mode shapes, modal periods, and dynamic
response of partially filled cylindrical tanks due to horizontal seismic
excitation. The finite element general program ABAQUS was used for
finite element modeling. The fluid was represented in the model using two
different methods: the added mass method and acoustic fluid elements
based on linear wave theory. The studied tanks vary in height to diameter
ratios from 0.40 to 0.95. Sloshing wasn`t included in this study. The study
concluded that the response of tank-liquid system due to horizontal seismic
excitation may be estimated by considering only the fundamental model.
Also it was proved that tanks with height to diameter ratios larger than 0.63
have a fundamental mode similar to fundamental mode of a cantilever
beam while for shorter tanks the fundamental mode was a bending mode.

Kianoush and Chen (2006) have studied the dynamic response of


rectangular tanks due to vertical seismic excitation in 2D space. It was
concluded that vertical seismic excitation should be considered in design as
it has a significant effect on dynamic response off tanks.

Kianoush et al. (2006) have proposed a new approach for seismic analysis
of rectangular tanks in time domain with taking both impulsive and
convective components into account. This method solves the coupled
liquid-tank problem in 3D space.

Ghaemmaghami et al. (2010) have studied the seismic behavior of


rectangular and cylindrical tanks in 3D space. The tanks were assumed to

44
be fixed. The study comprised both impulsive and convective components.
Tanks were analyzed in time domain under both horizontal and vertical
seismic excitation of a real seismic record. Fluid-structure interaction was
considered and with including walls flexibility. This study concluded that
for both rectangular and cylindrical tanks, the effect of vertical seismic
excitation may be significant if taken individually, while it was of less
significance if the horizontal and vertical seismic components were applied
together.

Moslemi et al. (2011) have studied the dynamic behavior of ground


cylindrical tanks using a proposed FE model. They have done modal,
spectral and time history analysis using a general finite element analysis
software with taking damping, wall flexibility and sloshing motion. They
have concluded that fundamental impulsive and convective modes are
enough for estimating the dynamic response of ground cylindrical tanks
under horizontal seismic excitation, the effect of sloshing component on the
dynamic behavior of those tanks is more considerable in shallow tanks than
tall tanks. It was also concluded that walls flexibility increases the
impulsive component while the convective component is independent of
walls flexibility.

2.3.2 Elevated tanks

For the dynamic behavior of elevated liquid storage tanks, limited number
of literature is available. Many attempts have been made recently to study
the fluid-structure interaction in elevated tanks.

Housner (1963) method using a two-mass idealization system has enabled


carrying out seismic response of elevated tanks.

45
Sonobe (1965) has done two scale models of elevated water tanks with free
vibration and stationary vibrations tests. The first tank was a cylindrical
elevated tank supported on frame system. The second tank was a spherical
tank. pseudo El-Centro NS 1940 was input to the forced vibration test and
the cylindrical elevated tank was tested. Maximum displacement and
acceleration of the frame and maximum sloshing height of the stored water
were estimated. The results showed a close agreement with those estimated
with the two-DOF system simplified method.

Chandrasekaran and Krishna (1965) and Tamiah and Gupta (1966) have
suggested that dynamic response estimation of elevated tanks may be
satisfactory obtained using a single-DOF system.

Ifrim and Bratu (1969) and Garcia (1969) used a two-DOF method to
investigate the dynamic response of elevated tanks.

Shepherd (1972) has utilized the two-mass idealization system to study the
dynamic response of elevated tanks. The model was verified by comparing
the results with those obtained from a simple dynamic test done on a
prestressed concrete elevated cylindrical tank. Housner`s equations were
used to calculate equivalent water masses, heights and the effective spring
stiffness. The result of the study showed that using of the two-mass system
will give satisfactory estimations of natural frequencies of the elevated
tanks.

Haroun and Ellaithy (1985) have proposed an equivalent mechanical model


to estimate the dynamic response of elevated tanks. Braced frame system
and concrete pedestal tower system were studied. Both rocking and
transitional motion of the tank`s vessel and tank`s walls` flexibility were
considered in their study. It was assumed that the vessel is rigidly

46
connected to the supporting tower in their study. Analyses proved that
rocking motion of the vessel has a significant effect on shear and moment
at the top of the tower.

Vandepitte et al. (1982) have performed an experimental work on the


stability of conical tanks under hydrostatic loads; this study was done
following the collapse of a conical tank in Belgium during the 1970s.

El Damatty et al. (1997A) have studied conical tanks under hydrostatic


loads through a wide numerical study. A finite element model was
proposed to study the stability of conical tanks under hydrostatic including
geometric non-linearity and material non-linearity. The effect of geometric
imperfections was modeled by using initial strains in the model of the tank
before assigning the loads.

El Damatty et al. (1997B; 1997C) have investigated the dynamic response


of elevated conical steel tanks. They have established a numerical model
where the tank walls were modeled by shell elements and the liquid effect
was considered using the coupled boundary-shell element method. The
impulsive component of the fluid was only considered. Several tank models
based on tank radius to its height ratio were studied. The supporting
structure was modeled as linear springs to vessel`s base while the vessel
was prevented from rocking. Both material non-linearity and geometric
non-linearity was considered in the model. Free vibration analysis and non-
linear time history analysis were done. This study concluded that elevated
conical tanks are very sensitive to seismic loads and large load factor need
to be considered to design them safely. Also it was shown that vertical
seismic component has a significant effect on dynamic stability of conical
elevated tanks and needs to be included in seismic analysis of such tanks.

47
Joshi (2000) proposed an equivalent mechanical analog for dynamic
response of rigid intze type tanks under horizontal seismic excitation.
Analog parameters were assessed for a wide range of tank shapes and
compared with results of equivalent cylindrical tanks. Liquid pressure was
estimated by linearized potential flow theory. The liquid was assumed to be
inviscid and incompressible and the sloshing height was assumed to be
minor. Also only first sloshing mode was considered. His study concluded
that differences between equivalent cylindrical tank model and original
intze tank are negligible and the equivalent cylindrical model may replace
the intze tank.

El Damatty et al. (2000) have investigated an analytical model for


evaluating free surface sloshing in conical tanks under seismic excitations.
This model was valid for both pure conical and combined conical tanks.
The sloshing response was assumed to be estimated based on rigid wall
boundary condition. The shell vibration was estimated based on zero
hydrodynamic pressure at the free surface of the liquid assumption. Later
on, this model was verified by experimental research work done by
Sweedan and El Damatty (2002) on pure conical tanks.

El Damatty et al. (2005) have studied liquid-filled combined conical steel


vessels to identify their dynamic parameters using shake table test. The
fundamental frequencies and impulsive modes were determined. Results
were compared with results from analytical and numerical methods and
they showed‎ an‎excellent‎ agreement.‎The‎ impulsive‎mode‎ (cos(Ɵ)-mode)
was found to be higher modes of vibrations.

Sweedan and El Damatty (2005) have investigated the dynamic response of


pure conical tanks subjected to vertical seismic excitation. It was concluded

48
that vertical seismic excitation may lead to a significant increase in the
compressive meridional stresses in the walls.

Sweedan and El Damatty (2006) have established an equivalent mechanical


model for dynamic analysis of pure conical tanks based on coupled finite-
boundary element approach. This mechanical model may be used to
estimate base shear and overturning moment for both ground and elevated
conical tanks due to horizontal ground motions. This mechanical model
takes into account the flexibility of tank`s walls and sloshing component of
liquid while rocking motion of tank`s base wasn`t considered. The
impulsive portion of the liquid dynamic pressure is divided into rigid
component and flexible component. Rigid component is the one that
vibrates with the base excitation while flexible component is the one that
vibrates with the tank walls. Parameters of this analog are introduced for a
wide range of walls vertical inclination angle. The mechanical analog
parameters were verified through comparing them at vertical angle of
inclination of zero with those obtained from cylindrical tanks reported in
the literature. An excellent agreement was shown between the two
mechanical models.

Sweedan (2009) has introduced an equivalent mechanical analog to


simplify the seismic analysis of elevated combined conical tanks through
duplicating the forces in the tanks under vertical seismic excitation. This
analog considers the flexibility of walls. The liquid components were
represented as flexible and rigid components. The flexibly component is
the component associated to vibrate with tank walls and the rigid
component is components associated to vibrate with the base acceleration.
Parametric study was done to calculate the natural frequencies of the

49
system. Also the influence of the liquid to the impulsive response was
determined using modal analysis.

Moslemi et al. (2011) has investigated the performance of elevated conical


tanks subjected to seismic excitation. Finite element method was used to
estimate the dynamic response using both time history and free vibration
analyses. The effect of liquid sloshing and tank wall`s flexibility was
considered. Results were compared to some codes of practice (ACI 350.3-
06 and ASCE 7-05). FEM was compared with results from experimental
and numerical studies in the literature. Natural frequencies and effective
liquid mass ratios were very close to those obtained from Housner`s
methods. The results of this study showed that current practice could
calculate the dynamic response of elevated tanks with a good accuracy.

Patel et al. (2012) have studied seismic response of elevated water tanks
supported on staging frame system with different column proportionality
using a two-mass model under four seismic records. It was concluded that
sloshing height increases as the number of supporting panels increase.

2.3.3 Seismic isolation of liquid containing tanks

A limited number of studies regarding application of base isolation are


available in literature. Base isolation system is followed to absorb energy
transmitted to the tanks from seismic actions. It is also utilized in
rehabilitation and repair of tanks to improve their performance during
seismic events. It was suggested to rehabilitate many elevated tanks using
this technique (Bleiman and Kim (1993)). Detailed analyses were done on
many alternatives for rehabilitation of large capacity tanks and it was
concluded that seismic isolation was the best rehabilitation choice.

50
Chalhoub and Kelly (1990) have done tests on shake table on fixed base
and base isolated ground tanks. A significant reduction in hydrodynamic
pressure and base reactions was noticed. Also a small increase in sloshing
height was noticed.

Bo and Jia-xiang (1994) have created a model for an isolated ground tank
using finite element method. The study showed reduction in hydrodynamic
pressure and sloshing height.

Kim and Lee (1995) have done experimental study on isolated tanks. they
have done a series of pseudo-dynamic tests on isolated tanks under uni-
directional acceleration. Tall and broad tanks were the two types tested to
study the hydrodynamic forces. Tests were done on two steps, fist was
testing the isolated part, and second was to model the tank using a proper
modeling method. The liquid was modeled using three equivalent lumped
masses. Tanks were isolated by laminates of rubber bearing. Free vibration
tests and seismic tests were done with real earthquake records. It was
concluded that seismic isolation is an effective method to reduce dynamic
response of storage tanks.

Malhotra (1997B, 1997C, and 1998) has studied seismic performance


ground tanks with different isolation techniques. He has investigated
several rehabilitation systems as vertical isolation, passive energy
dissipation systems as hold-down anchors, and lateral isolation. For all of
the mentioned systems, significant improvement in the dynamic behavior
was noted; however an increase in the sloshing height in the laterally
isolated tanks was stated. Also a new technique for seismic isolation of
ground cylindrical tanks was proposed. In this technique, the walls of the
tank were disconnected from the base plate and were supported on isolation

51
bearings. Also the base plate rested on the ground directly. In order to
prevent liquid leakage between walls and the base plate, a flexible
membrane was added between them. This membrane allowed the walls of
the tank to move freely. This isolation system reduced the dynamic
behavior and compressive stress on the walls of the tank; however a tensile
force was generated in the bearings of tall tanks due to the small weight
applied on the bearings compared to the fluid`s weight.

Shenton III and Hampton (1999) have investigated the dynamic response of
isolated elevated tank under seismic excitation using a three-DOF model.
The mode shapes and the natural frequencies of this tank were estimated
and seismic analysis was done using response spectral analyses method
with considering only a linear elastic isolation system. Also tank walls
were assumed to be rigid and the rocking effect wasn`t considered.
Isolation bearing was assumed to be rigid in the vertical direction. Results
of isolated tanks were compared with the corresponding values in non-
isolated tanks. It was concluded that base isolation reduced the seismic
response of elevated tank effectively.

Shirmali and Jangrid (2003) have studied the dynamic behavior of isolated
elevated tanks excited by real earthquake record using a four-DOF model.
The isolation material was lead-rubber bearings. The fluid was modeled
using lumped masses. Isolation bearing was assumed to be rigid in the
vertical direction and the effect of rocking and uplift weren`t considered. It
was concluded that the dynamic response of isolated elevated tanks
reduced significantly. Also a two-DOF and two single-DOF models were
studied by assuming the motion of the tank to be rigid under seismic action.
It was concluded that this simplified models could estimate seismic
response of the isolated elevated tanks accurately.

52
Jadhav and Jangid (2004) have studied the dynamic behavior of tanks
isolated by elastometric bearings and sliding system subjected to real
earthquake records. The fluid was modeled by lumped masses. Jadhav and
Jangid (2006) have used the same model to study the dynamic behavior of
tanks subjected to near-fault earthquake.

Shekari et al. (2009) has investigated the dynamic behavior of isolated


cylindrical tanks subjected to horizontal seismic excitation in 3D space.
The fluid was modeled using internal boundary elements and the tank was
modeled using shell elements. The base isolation was modeled using
bilinear hysteretic elements. It was concluded that dynamic response of
isolated tanks is significantly reduced and sloshing wave displacement
increased due to base isolation. It was also concluded that the base isolator
is more effective when its stiffness is smaller; however the base isolator
stiffness should maintain the tank stability.

2.3.4 Design codes and standards

Several design codes and standards guidelines are available relating to


seismic response of liquid containing structure. In this section a summary
of some these codes and standards is presented. The summary will focus on
Egyptian code of loads ECP 201 (2012), American codes like ACI 350.3-
06 (2006), ACI 317-08 (2008), American Water Work Association codes
AWWA D110 (1995), AWWA D115 (1995), and AWWA D100 (2005),
The American Petroleum Institute API 650 (1998), The American
Petroleum Institute API 620 (1998), New Zealand Standard NZS 3106
(2010), Eurocode-8 (2006), British standard BS 8007 (1987), and
American Society of Civil Engineers ASCE 7-10 (2010).

53
In Eurocode-8 (2006) and Egyptian code of loads ECP 201 (2012) the
seismic analysis of rigid circular tanks is performed using Veletsos and
Yang`s model (1977). For flexible circular, models developed by Veletsos
(1984) and Haroun and Housner (1981B) together with the method
proposed by Malhotra et al. (2000) are used. On the other hand, for rigid
rectangular tanks Housner`s method (1963) is followed for seismic analysis
of those tanks. Both codes states to use equivalent volume cylindrical tanks
for other tanks shapes.

ACI 350.3-06 (2006) was developed by ACI Committee 350 to provide


procedures for the seismic analysis and design of liquid containing
structures. For Rectangular and circular tanks, equations used in the code
were developed by Housner (1963). ACI 317-08 (2008) provides more
guidelines for designing and constructing elevated concrete and composite
elevated water tanks.

The American Water Work Association has provided two different codes
AWWA D110 (1995) and AWWA D115 (1995) for design of prestressed
concrete liquid containing tanks. Also it has provided guidelines regarding
design of welded steel liquid containing tanks in AWWA D100 (2005).
AWWA D100 (2005) code states to use equivalent height cylindrical tank
for tanks shape rather than the cylindrical or rectangular shapes.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) has provided two standards API
650 (1998) and API 620 (1998) for design of tanks is used in the petroleum
standards. It also states to use equivalent height cylindrical tank for tanks
shape rather than the cylindrical or rectangular shapes.

54
Both AWWA D110 and API 650 codes have used Housner`s mechanical
model (Housner (1963)) with some modifications for estimating seismic
forces with the contained liquid.

NZS 3106 (2010) uses the mechanical model developed by Veletsos and
Yang (1977) for rigid tanks and the mechanical model proposed by Haroun
and Housner (1981B) for flexible tanks.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has provided two


publications that included procedures for seismic analysis and design for
liquid storage tanks in the nuclear industry; ASCE 4-98 (1998) and ASCE
58 (1980).

Various standards specify damping values for impulsive and convective


modes. All standards specify damping value of 0.5% for convective mode,
while for impulsive modes ACI 350.3-06, AWWA D110, AWWA D115,
API 650, and ASCE 7-05 recommend damping value of 5%, while in
Eurocode-8 and ECP 201 recommend damping value of 5% in concrete
tanks and 2% for steel tanks. In NZS 3106, damping ratio for impulsive
component is estimated based on tank geometry, material and shear wave
velocity in the supporting soil.

55
3 Chapter (3)
Numerical Modeling
3.1 Introduction

Finite element method is a powerful method used in the study of numerous


problems in Structural Engineering, Also it is a tool that can analyze
problems comprising non uniform geometry and complicated boundary
conditions. In this thesis, 3D finite element models were used to analyze
the seismic response of the studied tank using SAP2000 finite element
software.

In this chapter, a brief description of the finite element method and the
analytical model used in this study are illustrated.

3.2 Finite element method

3.2.1 General

The finite element method (FEM) is a numerical method used to solve


several engineering problems. It is also known as Finite element analysis
(FEA).

The development of this method began in the early 1940s, the basic
concepts of this method is to use stiffness matrix of different elements that
represent the model. The most traditional approach usually used to solve
finite element problems in the Structure analysis field is the virtual work
principle approach for both linear and non-linear material analysis, which
follows the simple rule of conservation of energy for any conservative

56
system that is any work added to the system through applied external force
is equal to energy stored through strain of the structure components

3.2.2 Analysis procedure of finite element method

The finite element analysis can be summarized in the following steps:

1. Continuum discretization. The continuum is divided into an


equivalent system of finite elements.

2. Selection of the displacement functions. The displacement functions


are used to approximate the variation of the actual displacements
over each finite element. Displacement functions may be
polynomials, or trigonometric.

3. Derivation of the element stiffness matrix. The stiffness matrix


includes the material and geometric characteristics of elements. The
stiffness matrix [k] links the nodal displacements to the applied
nodal forces, as follows:

{Q} = [K] {U}

Where {Q} is the nodal force vector and {U} is the nodal
displacement vector.

4. Assembly of the equations for the entire discretized continuum. This


step includes the assembly of the global stiffness matrix [K] for the
entire continuum from the individual element stiffness matrices, and
global force vector {F} from the element nodal force vectors.

{F} = [K] {U}

Where {U} is the nodal displacement vector for the entire body.

57
5. Calculation of the unknown displacements. The equations assembled
in step 4 are solved for the unknown displacements.

3.3 Finite element modeling program used in this research

3.3.1 General

In the current research the seismic response of conical tanks is studied


through 3D models using finite element software SAP2000 version 15.1.0.

Computers and Structures, Inc (CSI) which was founded on 1975 has
Developed many engineering software, one of them is Sap2000.

Sap2000 is a finite element package intended for use on civil structures


such as dams, communication towers, stadiums, industrial plants, tanks and
buildings.

The program can be used in plan-strain and axisymmetric modeling as well


as three dimensional modeling. In the following sections a brief description
of the different parts of Sap2000 program while highlighting the different
options used in this study

3.3.2 Inputs

The Input of a problem in Sap2000 includes geometry of the model through


an easy graphical user interface to enter different structural parts (slabs,
walls, columns, beams; etc.), external loads, material properties such as
elastic modulus and density, auto meshing or manual meshing may be
done, boundary conditions are then assigned to the whole model.

58
3.3.3 Elements types

Sap2000 uses advanced type of elements although it is not different from


the basic finite element method elements types; it is easier for modeling
through graphical user interface.

1- The Frame Element: used to model beams, columns, braces and


trusses in two-dimensional or three-dimensional problems,
regardless the problem is linear or nonlinear.

2- The Cable Element: nonlinear element used to model catenary


behavior of slender cables including nonlinear deflections.

3- The shell Element: used to model membrane, plate and shell

behavior is two-dimensional or three-dimensional problems,


regardless the problems is linear or nonlinear.

4- The Link Element: used to connect two joints together, it exhibits

linear and nonlinear behaviors.

As shown in figs. (3-1) and (3-2), in this study special concentrated point
masses are modeled with joints and connected to other elements with link
element, Columns and beams are modeled with frame elements, while
tank`s walls and floors are modeled with shell element.

3.3.4 Modal analysis

Modal analysis is used to get the mode shapes and natural frequencies of
the structure. These modes are used to get the behavior and the structure. It
is also used in the modal superposition response spectrum analysis and
modal time history.

59
There are two methods of modal analysis may be used in Sap2000,
Eigenvector and Ritz-vector

3.3.4.1 Eigenvector

It is a modal analysis method used to estimate the undamped free-vibration


mode shapes and natural frequencies. The generalized eigenvalue problem
is defined as the following:

[K-Ω2 Md] ɸ = 0

Where K is the stiffness matrix, Md is‎the‎diagonal‎mass‎matrix,‎Ω2 is the


diagonal matrix of eigenvalues and ɸ is the matrix of mode shapes

3.3.4.2 Ritz-vector

It is a modal analysis used to find modes that are excited by a certain


loading, it is recommended to use this modal analysis type if response-
spectrum analyses to be done in the model as it takes into account the
spatial distribution of the dynamic loading.

In this study Modal analysis by RITZ-vector is used to get the mode shapes
and natural frequencies of the tank. Six modes are generated for the studied
tank in both X and Y directions.

3.3.5 Seismic Loads

The main aim of this thesis is to study the response of conical tanks under
seismic loads. In this study seismic load is represented through response
spectrum analysis.

60
3.3.6 Response-Spectrum analysis

Response spectrum is a plot of peak response of a system with has various


natural frequencies (i.e. mode shapes) that are forced into motion by a
vibration. The plot is used to get the response of system through combining
response of its multi natural frequencies with any method like square root
of sum of squares (SRSS) or complete quadratic combination (CQC) or any
other method.

The dynamic equilibrium equation used for determining response of any


structure subjected to ground motion is given by:

K u(t) + C u'(t) + Md u''(t) = mx ugx''(t) + my ugy''(t) + mz ugz''(t)

Where K is the stiffness matrix, C is the damping matrix, M is the diagonal


mass matrix, u, u', and u'' are the relative displacements, velocities, and
accelerations with respect to the ground, mx, my and mz are the unit
acceleration loads, and ugx'', ugy'', ugz'' are the components of ground
acceleration.

Response-Spectrum analysis gets maximum positive results. Results


include displacements, forces, and stresses that are got from response
spectrum analysis are maximum positive response.

3.3.6.1 Response-Spectrum case local directions

Local direction is used to define of the ground acceleration loading. The


axes of this local system are 1, 2 and 3. They are corresponding to the
global X, Y and Z directions if the angle is set to be zero.

61
3.3.6.2 Response-Spectrum function

The response spectrum curve for a given direction is defined by plot the
pseudo-spectral acceleration response versus the natural period of the
structure. The response spectrum curve defined shall reflect the expected
damping of the structure modeled and that damping ratio is inherent in the
curve itself.

3.3.6.3 Modal damping

The modal damping shall be defined in the response spectrum case. Unless
overrides are defined in the response spectrum case, the damping ratio will
be the same for all modes.

3.3.6.4 Modal Combination

Modal combination is used to combine the results of the response of the


modes time periods obtained from modal analysis. Results may be
acceleration, displacement, forces and stresses in any direction. The
following mathematical methods may be used.

3.3.6.4.1 SRSS

It is a modal combination method. It combines the modal results by taking


the square root of the sum of their squares. This method doesn't take into
account coupling of modes and it is not affected by modal damping

3.3.6.4.2 CQC

It is a modal combination method. It combines the modal results by taking


the square root of the sum of their squares. This method takes into account
coupling of modes and it is affected by modal damping.

62
3.3.6.4.3 GMC

It is a modal combination method. It combines the modal results by using


Rosenblueth correlation coefficient while setting time duration of the
strong earthquake motion to be infinity. This method takes into account
coupling of modes and it is affected by modal damping.

3.3.6.4.4 Absolute Sum

It is a modal combination method. It combines the modal results by taking


the sum of the absolute values. This method is over-conservative.

3.3.6.4.5 NRC

It is a modal combination method. It assumes coupling between all modes


with correlation coefficients that depend on damping. It is similar somehow
to GMC and CQC methods.

3.3.6.5 Directional Combination

In the response spectrum analysis, after getting the positive results for each
direction of defined acceleration. These results need to be combined again
to produce a single positive result for the response spectrum load case. The
following mathematical methods may be used.

3.3.6.5.1 SRSS

It is a directional combination method. It combines the directional results


by taking the square root of the sum of their squares.

63
3.3.6.5.2 CQC3

It is a directional combination method. It is highly similar to SRSS method


except that it doesn`t depend on the angle direction as it reports the critical
loading angle with corresponding maximum response.

3.3.6.5.3 Absolute Sum

It is a directional combination method. It combines the directional results


by taking the sum of the absolute values with a defined scale factor. This
method is over-conservative.

3.3.6.5.4 Results

The base reactions are the total shear and moments about the defined global
directions of the model at the level of the supports. The base reaction
shears and moments are always referred to the local axes of the response-
spectrum analysis case. It is noted that Ritz-vector modal analysis type
gives accurate base reactions.

In this study Response spectrum function is defined as per the Egyptian


code of practice (ECP) with considering 5% damping ratio with using
SRSS modal combination method and SRSS directional combination
method.

3.4 Fluid-Structure Interaction effect

Fluid-structure interaction (FSI) is the interaction of a deformable structure


with contained fluid, if the tank is subjected to ground motion, oscillation
occurs which causes fluid to accelerates in two modes of oscillations,
impulsive mode and convective mode, the effect of two modes needs to be

64
modeled to get accurate response of the tank by using added mass
approach.

3.4.1 Added mass approach

There are various methods for including fluid-structure interaction on the


seismic response of tanks using finite-element method like; Added mass
approach, Eulerian approach, Lagrangian approach and Eulerian-
Lagrangian approach.

For the added mass approach, the obtained masses has two types, impulsive
mass and convective mass. Those masses are added to the mass of the
structure without changing the stiffness matrix or damping matrix of the
structure so that general equation of motion for a system subjected to
ground motion will be as the following:

M*u``+ Cu` + K u = - M* ug``

Where M* is the total mass matrix including structure mass and added mass
of the fluid, C is the damping matrix, K is the stiffness matrix, u, u`, and
u`` are the relative displacement, velocity and acceleration, and ug`` is the
ground acceleration.

3.4.1.1 Impulsive mass

The impulsive mass is the portion of the fluid that accelerates with vessel`s
walls, and a portion of this mass will have the same fundamental mode of
the deformations of walls in case of flexible walls and the remaining
portion will be activated with higher impulsive modes.

The impulsive mass is added to the walls of the tanks through many
techniques. First technique is lumped mass obtained from mechanical

65
analog and added to the walls at height of (hi+ (hi-hc)/2). The second
technique is to distribute the mass based on the hydrodynamic pressure
obtained from any method (i.e. westergaard or housner or ECP etc.). third
technique which was studied by Algreane, G. A. I. et al. (2009), is to
distribute the mass equally over wall`s joints at height (hi).

Where hi is the impulsive mass height and hc is the convective mass


height, both are obtained from mechanical analog of the tank.

In this study the third technique is utilized.

3.4.1.2 Convective mass

The convective mass is the portion of fluid accelerates freely with sloshing
mode i.e. free surface wave.

Convective mode has always a frequency much lower than the impulsive
mode, so the analysis of the model with uncoupled modes assumption is
accepted.

The convective mass is lumped at joint in the middle of the volume of the
fluid at height (hs) and connected to the walls of the tank in both X and y
direction with link element with stiffness of (Ks/2)

Where hs is the convective mass height and Ks is the stiffness that


represents the convective mode, both are obtained from the mechanical
analog of the tank.

Figs. (3-1) and (3-2) show ground tank and elevated tank finite element
models.

66
3.4.2 Fluid parameters in the finite element model

In order to study the fluid-structure interaction effect, added mass approach


will be used as explained in this chapter. Impulsive and convective
parameters will be obtained from the conical tank mechanical analog
developed by El Damatty and Sweedan (2006). This mechanical analog is a
result of a wide parametric study done on conical tanks with taking walls`
flexibility into account. It consists of rigid, flexible, and sloshing
components. In their paper, charts were presented to estimate the properties
of conical tanks depending on the vertical inclination angle of vessel walls
(Ɵv) and liquid height to base radius of the vessel ratio (hw/Rb).

Six parameters are required to include the fluid-structure interaction effect


in the model. These parameters are impulsive mass ratio (mr/mt) that
represents the total impulsive mass portion of the fluid, the flexible mass
ratio (mf/mt) that represents the portion of fluid which vibrates with the
deformation of vessel`s walls, flexible mass height ratio (hf/hw), convective
mass ratio (ms/mt), convective height ratio (hs/hw), and finally sloshing
frequency (fs) that is used to get the stiffness of the link element used for
convective mode in the model. It is also noted that the residual rigid mass
mo is equal to (mr-mf) represent the portion of the fluid that vibrates rigidly
with the base of the vessel. Figs. (3-3) to (3-8) show the charts used to
obtain the discussed parameters extracted from El Damatty and Sweedan
(2006) study. Extrapolation and interpolation for more Ɵv values is
suggested in their study.

67
Link element to
represent sloshing
effect Lumped Convective
mass (ms)

Distributed
impulsive flexible
mass (mf)

hs

hi
Fixed nodes
representing full
anchored case
Base Level

Figure ‎3-1 Ground tank finite element model

68
Link element to
represent sloshing Lumped Convective
effect mass (ms)

hs
hi
Residual
impulsive mass
(mo)
Staging frame system

Base Level

Figure ‎3-2 Elevated tank finite element model

69
Figure ‎3-3 Conical Vessel geometric parameters

Figure ‎3-4 fluid‎heights‎parameters‎for‎Ɵv‎=‎15o

(El Damatty and Sweedan (2006))

70
Figure ‎3-5 fluid‎heights‎parameters‎for‎Ɵv‎=‎30o
(El Damatty and Sweedan (2006))

Figure ‎3-6 fluid‎masses‎parameters‎for‎Ɵv‎=‎15o


(El Damatty and Sweedan (2006))

71
Figure ‎3-7 fluid‎masses‎parameters‎for‎Ɵv‎=‎30o

(El Damatty and Sweedan (2006))

Figure ‎3-8 sloshing (convective) frequency


(El Damatty and Sweedan (2006))

72
4 Chapter (4)
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
VERIFICATION
4.1 Introduction

Numerical modeling needs verification in order to make sure that the


method of modeling and the results of the finite element analysis are
correct and represent the actual seismic response of the conical tanks.

In this chapter verification will be done one two steps, first step is to verify
the mechanical analog parameters used to model fluid-structure interaction
as explained in chapter (3) and second step is to verify the finite element
model results.

4.2 Conical Tank Mechanical analog verification

The mechanical analog parameters of the conical tank depends on the


geometry characteristics, in order to make sure of the validity of using that
Mechanical analog parameters, a conical tank is selected with vessels walls
height to base radius ratio (hw/Rb) = 2 and with vertical inclination angle
of vessel`s‎ walls‎ (Ɵ)‎ is‎ set‎ to‎ be‎ zero‎ then‎ the‎ output‎ parameters‎ is‎
compared with ECP parameters of the cylinder tank, results are displayed
in Table (4.1). Results show a good agreement between the two mechanical
analog.

73
Table ‎4-1 Comparison between ECP cylinder tank and conical tank with
Ɵv‎=‎0‎for‎mechanical‎analog‎parameters‎in‎case‎of‎(hw/Rb=2)

Item Conical Tank with Ɵ = 0 Cylinder Tank by ECP

(mr/mt) 0.80 0.81

(hr/ht) 0.38 0.40

(ms/mt) 0.22 0.23

(hs/ht) 0.78 0.76

(Kc*h/m*g) 0.81 0.84

4.3 Finite element model compared to manual procedure by El


Damatty
To study the validity of finite element procedure stated in this chapter,
three different conical tanks are modeled using SAP2000 software and
compared with the manual procedure developed by El Damatty and
Sweedan (2006). The manual procedure developed by El Damatty is
summarized in the following steps:

1- Calculate total liquid mass (mt) in the conical tank


2- Based on hw/Rb and Ɵv values , get the followings from charts in El
Damatty and Sweedan (2006) as explained in section (3.4.2):
a. Convective mass ratio (ms/mt)
b. Convective mass height (hs/hw)
c. The convective mode frequency (fs)
d. Flexible mass ratio (mf/mt)
e. Flexible mass height (hf/hw)
f. Rigid mass ratio (mr/mt)

74
g. Rigid mass height (hr/hw)

h. Impulsive mode frequency ratio ( )

i. Effective tank mass activated in the impulsive mode (mef/msh)

3- Calculate analog parameters ms, hs, mf, hf, mr, hr, f1, and mef based
on step#2
4- Calculate stiffness of the tank using the following equation:
K = 4π2f12mf (1)
5- Calculate liquid-shell system impulsive mode (fsys) that includes the
effective tank mass using the following equation:

fsys = )/ 2 π (2)

6- Calculate convective mode spectral acceleration (Sas) from response


spectrum curve based on convective mode frequency (fs)
7- Calculate impuslive mode spectral acceleration (Sasys) from response
spectrum curve based on convective mode frequency (fsys)
8- Calculate base shear (Q) using SRSS method based on the following
equations:
Q1 = ((mr-mf) + msh) * G``(t)max (3)
Q2 = (mf + mef) * Sasys (4)
Q3 = ms * Sas (5)
Q = (Q12 + Q22 + Q32) (6)
9- Calculate base moment (M) using SRSS method based on the
following equations:
M1 = {(mr-mf)*hr – (mf + msh)*hf} * G``(t)max (7)
M2 = (mf + mef) * Sasys * hf (8)
M3 = ms * Sas*hs (9)
M = (Q12 + Q22 + Q32) (10)

75
Table (4.2) shows a good agreement between the two methods with
difference not exceeding 8%.

Table ‎4-2 Comparison between manual procedure developed by El


Damatty and Sweedan (2006) and finite element model
Manual procedure
Finite Element by El Damatty
Tank Dimension Difference (%)
Model and Sweedan
Response (2006)
Spectrum
Ɵv hw/ Type
hw Rb Q1 M1 Q2 M2
(o) Rb Q (%) M (%)
(m) (m) (kN) (kN.m) (kN) (kN.m)

EC-RS
15 10 5 2 Default 2690 19920 2918 20404 -7.8% -2.3%
0.2g

ECP-RS
15 6 2 3 Type(2) 300 1320 298 1222 0.67% 8.0%
Zone4

ECP-RS
30 9 3 3 Type(2) 1948 14060 1805 13234 7.9% 6.2%
Zone4

4.4 Finite element model compared to experiment conducted by


Maheri MR, Severn RT
To further verify the finite element modeling method used in this study, a
finite element model has been compared with an experiment conducted by
Maheri MR, Severn RT on cylinder steel tanks. This Cylinder tank has
been selected due to the rare of availability of detailed experiment studies

76
conducted on pure conical tanks, also a cylinder tank is a conical tank with
Ɵv‎=‎0‎,‎thus‎the‎same‎modeling procedure for conical tanks has been
used.

Maheri MR, Severn RT have measured the base shear force in a water tank
subjected to Parkfield 1966 earthquake record with peak ground
acceleration = 0.25g as shown in fig. (4.2). Tank`s dimensions are shown in
fig. (4.1). The maximum base shear measured in the experiment is 570 N
while the finite element model has shown a very good agreement with
maximum base shear of 540 N as shown in table (4.3) and fig. (4.3).

Table ‎4-3 Comparison between experiment conducted by Maher et.al. and


finite element model
Difference
Finite Element Model Experiment
(%)
1st
1st 2nd Base 2nd
Base shear impulsive
impulsive impulsive shear impulsive Base shear
(N) mode
mode (sec) mode (sec) (N) mode (sec)
(sec)

540 0.03 0.0082 570 0.034 0.0068 5.2 %

Figure ‎4-1 Water tank studied by (Maheri MR, Severn RT (1988))

77
Figure ‎4-2 Parkfield 1966 earthquake record

Figure ‎4-3 Base shear (N) in finite element model

78
5 Chapter (5)
Parametric Study
5.1 Introduction

In this chapter a parametric study is presented to investigate the effect of


geometric parameters of the conical tanks on their seismic response. The
finite element model is done based on the procedure explained in Chapter
(3). The seismic response of the studied tanks is represented by base shear
and base moment resulted from the response spectrum cases. Results of
each model will be compared with those obtained through ECP 201-2012
and American Water Work Association AWWA-D100 codes procedures
described in Chapter (6).

5.2 Conical tank geometry

Fig.(5.1) shows conical shape vessel geometric parameters. Conical shape


vessel is represented through the followings parameters; height of vessel
(ht), height of liquid (hw), radius of vessel base (Rb), radius at the top of
liquid surface (Rt), and vessel`s walls vertical inclination angle (Ɵv).

5.3 Parametric study methodology

As shown in fig. (5.1),‎the‎parametric‎study‎was‎done‎for‎different‎Ɵv‎as‎


follows: 5o, 10o, 15o, 20o, 25o, and 30o.‎For‎each‎Ɵv‎different‎(hw/Rb)‎ratios‎
are studied as follows: 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3 with different liquid volume as
follows 250 m3, 500 m3, 1000 m3, 2000 m3, and 4000 m3. The studied
tanks contain water with density 1000 Kg/m3, height of water to vessel`s
height is taken as 0.8. Each tank will be studied as ground tank, elevated

79
tank of height 10 m, and finally elevated tank of height 20 m. For elevated
tanks, staging frame system is used for supporting the vessel`s with total
number of twelve columns connected with beams each 3.33 m. The studied
tanks are assumed to be concrete tank with grade Fcu=30 Mpa. Response
spectrum function used is defined as ECP 201-2012 type 1 spectrum in
seismic zone 1 and Ground Type C as shown in fig. (5.2). Response
modification factor (R) is taken as 2. The effect of hydrodynamic pressure
on vessels base is not considered in this study. Table (5.1) shows the
studied tanks.

Figure ‎5-1 Conical vessel geometric parameters

80
Figure ‎5-2 Response Spectrum used in the parametric study

Table ‎5-1 Tanks studied in the parametric study

Support Vessel Columns Beams


Tank hw Rb Volume
Ɵv hw/Rb height thickness diameters dimensions
ID (m) (m) (m3)
(m) (mm) (m) (m)
G1 5.40 3.60 1.5 250 0 250 --- ---
G2 6.80 4.55 1.5 500 0 250 --- ---
G3 5o 8.60 5.75 1.5 1000 0 250 --- ---
G4 10.80 7.20 1.5 2000 0 250 --- ---
G5 13.60 9.05 1.5 4000 0 250 --- ---
G6 6.45 3.25 2 250 0 250 --- ---
G7 8.10 4.05 2 500 0 250 --- ---
o
G8 5 10.25 5.10 2 1000 0 250 --- ---
G9 12.90 6.45 2 2000 0 250 --- ---
G10 16.25 8.15 2 4000 0 250 --- ---
o
G11 5 7.40 2.95 2.5 250 0 250 --- ---

81
Support Vessel Columns Beams
Tank hw Rb Volume
Ɵv hw/Rb height thickness diameters dimensions
ID (m) (m) (m3)
(m) (mm) (m) (m)
G12 9.30 3.70 2.5 500 0 250 --- ---
G13 11.70 4.70 2.5 1000 0 250 --- ---
G14 14.80 5.90 2.5 2000 0 250 --- ---
G15 18.65 7.45 2.5 4000 0 250 --- ---
G16 8.20 2.75 3 250 0 250 --- ---
G17 10.40 3.45 3 500 0 250 --- ---
o
G18 5 13.10 4.35 3 1000 0 250 --- ---
G19 16.45 5.50 3 2000 0 250 --- ---
G20 20.75 6.90 3 4000 0 250 --- ---
G21 5.20 3.45 1.5 250 0 250 --- ---
G22 6.45 4.35 1.5 500 0 250 --- ---
o
G23 10 8.25 5.50 1.5 1000 0 250 --- ---
G24 10.35 6.90 1.5 2000 0 250 --- ---
G25 13.05 8.70 1.5 4000 0 250 --- ---
G26 6.10 3.05 2 250 0 250 --- ---
G27 7.70 3.85 2 500 0 250 --- ---
G28 10o 9.70 4.85 2 1000 0 250 --- ---
G29 12.20 6.10 2 2000 0 250 --- ---
G30 15.40 7.70 2 4000 0 250 --- ---
G31 6.95 2.75 2.5 250 0 250 --- ---
G32 8.70 3.50 2.5 500 0 250 --- ---
o
G33 10 10.95 4.40 2.5 1000 0 250 --- ---
G34 13.80 5.55 2.5 2000 0 250 --- ---
G35 17.45 6.95 2.5 4000 0 250 --- ---
G36 7.60 2.55 3 250 0 250 --- ---
G37 9.60 3.20 3 500 0 250 --- ---
o
G38 10 12.00 4.05 3 1000 0 250 --- ---
G39 15.25 5.10 3 2000 0 250 --- ---
G40 19.20 6.40 3 4000 0 250 --- ---
G41 5.00 3.30 1.5 250 0 250 --- ---
G42 6.25 4.20 1.5 500 0 250 --- ---
o
G43 15 7.90 5.25 1.5 1000 0 250 --- ---
G44 9.95 6.65 1.5 2000 0 250 --- ---
G45 12.55 8.35 1.5 4000 0 250 --- ---
G46 5.80 2.90 2 250 0 250 --- ---
o
G47 15 7.30 3.65 2 500 0 250 --- ---
G48 9.20 4.60 2 1000 0 250 --- ---

82
Support Vessel Columns Beams
Tank hw Rb Volume
Ɵv hw/Rb height thickness diameters dimensions
ID (m) (m) (m3)
(m) (mm) (m) (m)
G49 11.60 5.80 2 2000 0 250 --- ---
G50 14.60 7.30 2 4000 0 250 --- ---
G51 6.50 2.60 2.5 250 0 250 --- ---
G52 8.20 3.25 2.5 500 0 250 --- ---
o
G53 15 10.30 4.10 2.5 1000 0 250 --- ---
G54 13.00 5.20 2.5 2000 0 250 --- ---
G55 16.35 6.55 2.5 4000 0 250 --- ---
G56 7.10 2.35 3 250 0 250 --- ---
G57 8.95 3.00 3 500 0 250 --- ---
o
G58 15 11.25 3.75 3 1000 0 250 --- ---
G59 14.15 4.70 3 2000 0 250 --- ---
G60 17.85 5.95 3 4000 0 250 --- ---
G61 4.75 3.20 1.5 250 0 250 --- ---
G62 6.00 4.00 1.5 500 0 250 --- ---
G63 20o 7.60 5.05 1.5 1000 0 250 --- ---
G64 9.55 6.35 1.5 2000 0 250 --- ---
G65 12.05 8.00 1.5 4000 0 250 --- ---
G66 5.50 2.75 2 250 0 250 --- ---
G67 6.95 3.45 2 500 0 250 --- ---
G68 20o 8.75 4.40 2 1000 0 250 --- ---
G69 11.00 5.50 2 2000 0 250 --- ---
G70 13.90 6.95 2 4000 0 250 --- ---
G71 6.10 2.45 2.5 250 0 250 --- ---
G72 7.70 3.10 2.5 500 0 250 --- ---
o
G73 20 9.70 3.90 2.5 1000 0 250 --- ---
G74 12.20 4.90 2.5 2000 0 250 --- ---
G75 15.40 6.15 2.5 4000 0 250 --- ---
G76 6.60 2.20 3 250 0 250 --- ---
G77 8.30 2.75 3 500 0 250 --- ---
G78 20o 10.50 3.50 3 1000 0 250 --- ---
G79 13.20 4.40 3 2000 0 250 --- ---
G80 16.65 5.55 3 4000 0 250 --- ---
G81 4.60 3.05 1.5 250 0 250 --- ---
G82 5.80 3.85 1.5 500 0 250 --- ---
o
G83 25 7.30 4.85 1.5 1000 0 250 --- ---
G84 9.15 6.10 1.5 2000 0 250 --- ---
G85 11.55 7.70 1.5 4000 0 250 --- ---

83
Support Vessel Columns Beams
Tank hw Rb Volume
Ɵv hw/Rb height thickness diameters dimensions
ID (m) (m) (m3)
(m) (mm) (m) (m)
G86 5.25 2.60 2 250 0 250 --- ---
G87 6.60 3.30 2 500 0 250 --- ---
G88 25o 8.30 4.15 2 1000 0 250 --- ---
G89 10.45 5.25 2 2000 0 250 --- ---
G90 13.20 6.60 2 4000 0 250 --- ---
G91 5.75 2.30 2.5 250 0 250 --- ---
G92 7.25 2.90 2.5 500 0 250 --- ---
o
G93 25 9.15 3.65 2.5 1000 0 250 --- ---
G94 11.50 4.60 2.5 2000 0 250 --- ---
G95 14.50 5.80 2.5 4000 0 250 --- ---
G96 6.20 2.05 3 250 0 250 --- ---
G97 7.50 2.50 3 500 0 250 --- ---
o
G98 25 9.80 3.25 3 1000 0 250 --- ---
G99 12.35 4.10 3 2000 0 250 --- ---
G100 15.55 5.20 3 4000 0 250 --- ---
G101 4.40 2.95 1.5 250 0 250 --- ---
G102 5.55 3.70 1.5 500 0 250 --- ---
G103 30o 6.95 4.65 1.5 1000 0 250 --- ---
G104 8.80 5.85 1.5 2000 0 250 --- ---
G105 11.05 7.40 1.5 4000 0 250 --- ---
G106 5.00 2.50 2 250 0 250 --- ---
G107 6.25 3.15 2 500 0 250 --- ---
o
G108 30 7.90 3.95 2 1000 0 250 --- ---
G109 9.95 4.95 2 2000 0 250 --- ---
G110 12.50 6.25 2 4000 0 250 --- ---
G111 5.40 2.15 2.5 250 0 250 --- ---
G112 6.85 2.75 2.5 500 0 250 --- ---
o
G113 30 8.60 3.45 2.5 1000 0 250 --- ---
G114 10.80 4.35 2.5 2000 0 250 --- ---
G115 13.65 5.45 2.5 4000 0 250 --- ---
G116 5.80 1.95 3 250 0 250 --- ---
G117 7.25 2.40 3 500 0 250 --- ---
o
G118 30 9.15 3.05 3 1000 0 250 --- ---
G119 11.55 3.85 3 2000 0 250 --- ---
G120 14.55 4.85 3 4000 0 250 --- ---
E10-1 5.40 3.60 1.5 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
5o
E10-2 6.80 4.55 1.5 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6

84
Support Vessel Columns Beams
Tank hw Rb Volume
Ɵv hw/Rb height thickness diameters dimensions
ID (m) (m) (m3)
(m) (mm) (m) (m)
E10-3 8.60 5.75 1.5 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-4 10.80 7.20 1.5 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-5 13.60 9.05 1.5 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-6 6.45 3.25 2 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-7 8.10 4.05 2 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-8 5o 10.25 5.10 2 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-9 12.90 6.45 2 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-10 16.25 8.15 2 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-11 7.40 2.95 2.5 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-12 9.30 3.70 2.5 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
o
E10-13 5 11.70 4.70 2.5 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-14 14.80 5.90 2.5 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-15 18.65 7.45 2.5 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-16 8.20 2.75 3 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-17 10.40 3.45 3 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
o
E10-18 5 13.10 4.35 3 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-19 16.45 5.50 3 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-20 20.75 6.90 3 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-21 5.20 3.45 1.5 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-22 6.45 4.35 1.5 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-23 10o 8.25 5.50 1.5 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-24 10.35 6.90 1.5 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-25 13.05 8.70 1.5 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-26 6.10 3.05 2 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-27 7.70 3.85 2 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-28 10o 9.70 4.85 2 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-29 12.20 6.10 2 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-30 15.40 7.70 2 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-31 6.95 2.75 2.5 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-32 8.70 3.50 2.5 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
o
E10-33 10 10.95 4.40 2.5 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-34 13.80 5.55 2.5 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-35 17.45 6.95 2.5 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-36 7.60 2.55 3 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-37 9.60 3.20 3 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
10o
E10-38 12.00 4.05 3 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-39 15.25 5.10 3 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6

85
Support Vessel Columns Beams
Tank hw Rb Volume
Ɵv hw/Rb height thickness diameters dimensions
ID (m) (m) (m3)
(m) (mm) (m) (m)
E10-40 19.20 6.40 3 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-41 5.00 3.30 1.5 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-42 6.25 4.20 1.5 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
o
E10-43 15 7.90 5.25 1.5 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-44 9.95 6.65 1.5 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-45 12.55 8.35 1.5 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-46 5.80 2.90 2 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-47 7.30 3.65 2 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-48 15o 9.20 4.60 2 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-49 11.60 5.80 2 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-50 14.60 7.30 2 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-51 6.50 2.60 2.5 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-52 8.20 3.25 2.5 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-53 15o 10.30 4.10 2.5 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-54 13.00 5.20 2.5 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-55 16.35 6.55 2.5 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-56 7.10 2.35 3 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-57 8.95 3.00 3 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-58 15o 11.25 3.75 3 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-59 14.15 4.70 3 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-60 17.85 5.95 3 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-61 4.75 3.20 1.5 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-62 6.00 4.00 1.5 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-63 20o 7.60 5.05 1.5 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-64 9.55 6.35 1.5 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-65 12.05 8.00 1.5 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-66 5.50 2.75 2 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-67 6.95 3.45 2 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
o
E10-68 20 8.75 4.40 2 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-69 11.00 5.50 2 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-70 13.90 6.95 2 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-71 6.10 2.45 2.5 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-72 7.70 3.10 2.5 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-73 20o 9.70 3.90 2.5 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-74 12.20 4.90 2.5 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-75 15.40 6.15 2.5 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
o
E10-76 20 6.60 2.20 3 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6

86
Support Vessel Columns Beams
Tank hw Rb Volume
Ɵv hw/Rb height thickness diameters dimensions
ID (m) (m) (m3)
(m) (mm) (m) (m)
E10-77 8.30 2.75 3 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-78 10.50 3.50 3 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-79 13.20 4.40 3 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-80 16.65 5.55 3 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-81 4.60 3.05 1.5 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-82 5.80 3.85 1.5 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
o
E10-83 25 7.30 4.85 1.5 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-84 9.15 6.10 1.5 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-85 11.55 7.70 1.5 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-86 5.25 2.60 2 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-87 6.60 3.30 2 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
o
E10-88 25 8.30 4.15 2 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-89 10.45 5.25 2 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-90 13.20 6.60 2 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-91 5.75 2.30 2.5 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-92 7.25 2.90 2.5 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-93 25o 9.15 3.65 2.5 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-94 11.50 4.60 2.5 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-95 14.50 5.80 2.5 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-96 6.20 2.05 3 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-97 7.50 2.50 3 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
o
E10-98 25 9.80 3.25 3 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-99 12.35 4.10 3 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-100 15.55 5.20 3 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-101 4.40 2.95 1.5 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-102 5.55 3.70 1.5 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
o
E10-103 30 6.95 4.65 1.5 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-104 8.80 5.85 1.5 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-105 11.05 7.40 1.5 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-106 5.00 2.50 2 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-107 6.25 3.15 2 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
o
E10-108 30 7.90 3.95 2 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-109 9.95 4.95 2 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-110 12.50 6.25 2 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-111 5.40 2.15 2.5 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-112 30o 6.85 2.75 2.5 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-113 8.60 3.45 2.5 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6

87
Support Vessel Columns Beams
Tank hw Rb Volume
Ɵv hw/Rb height thickness diameters dimensions
ID (m) (m) (m3)
(m) (mm) (m) (m)
E10-114 10.80 4.35 2.5 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-115 13.65 5.45 2.5 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-116 5.80 1.95 3 250 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-117 7.25 2.40 3 500 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
o
E10-118 30 9.15 3.05 3 1000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-119 11.55 3.85 3 2000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E10-120 14.55 4.85 3 4000 10 250 0.65 0.6 x 0.6
E20-1 5.40 3.60 1.5 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-2 6.80 4.55 1.5 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
o
E20-3 5 8.60 5.75 1.5 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-4 10.80 7.20 1.5 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-5 13.60 9.05 1.5 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-6 6.45 3.25 2 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-7 8.10 4.05 2 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-8 5o 10.25 5.10 2 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-9 12.90 6.45 2 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-10 16.25 8.15 2 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-11 7.40 2.95 2.5 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-12 9.30 3.70 2.5 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-13 5o 11.70 4.70 2.5 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-14 14.80 5.90 2.5 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-15 18.65 7.45 2.5 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-16 8.20 2.75 3 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-17 10.40 3.45 3 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
o
E20-18 5 13.10 4.35 3 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-19 16.45 5.50 3 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-20 20.75 6.90 3 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-21 5.20 3.45 1.5 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-22 6.45 4.35 1.5 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-23 10o 8.25 5.50 1.5 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-24 10.35 6.90 1.5 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-25 13.05 8.70 1.5 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-26 6.10 3.05 2 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-27 7.70 3.85 2 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
o
E20-28 10 9.70 4.85 2 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-29 12.20 6.10 2 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-30 15.40 7.70 2 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6

88
Support Vessel Columns Beams
Tank hw Rb Volume
Ɵv hw/Rb height thickness diameters dimensions
ID (m) (m) (m3)
(m) (mm) (m) (m)
E20-31 6.95 2.75 2.5 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-32 8.70 3.50 2.5 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-33 10o 10.95 4.40 2.5 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-34 13.80 5.55 2.5 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-35 17.45 6.95 2.5 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-36 7.60 2.55 3 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-37 9.60 3.20 3 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
o
E20-38 10 12.00 4.05 3 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-39 15.25 5.10 3 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-40 19.20 6.40 3 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-41 5.00 3.30 1.5 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-42 6.25 4.20 1.5 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
o
E20-43 15 7.90 5.25 1.5 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-44 9.95 6.65 1.5 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-45 12.55 8.35 1.5 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-46 5.80 2.90 2 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-47 7.30 3.65 2 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-48 15o 9.20 4.60 2 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-49 11.60 5.80 2 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-50 14.60 7.30 2 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-51 6.50 2.60 2.5 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-52 8.20 3.25 2.5 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
o
E20-53 15 10.30 4.10 2.5 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-54 13.00 5.20 2.5 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-55 16.35 6.55 2.5 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-56 7.10 2.35 3 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-57 8.95 3.00 3 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
o
E20-58 15 11.25 3.75 3 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-59 14.15 4.70 3 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-60 17.85 5.95 3 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-61 4.75 3.20 1.5 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-62 6.00 4.00 1.5 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
o
E20-63 20 7.60 5.05 1.5 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-64 9.55 6.35 1.5 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-65 12.05 8.00 1.5 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-66 5.50 2.75 2 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
20o
E20-67 6.95 3.45 2 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6

89
Support Vessel Columns Beams
Tank hw Rb Volume
Ɵv hw/Rb height thickness diameters dimensions
ID (m) (m) (m3)
(m) (mm) (m) (m)
E20-68 8.75 4.40 2 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-69 11.00 5.50 2 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-70 13.90 6.95 2 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-71 6.10 2.45 2.5 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-72 7.70 3.10 2.5 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-73 20o 9.70 3.90 2.5 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-74 12.20 4.90 2.5 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-75 15.40 6.15 2.5 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-76 6.60 2.20 3 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-77 8.30 2.75 3 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
o
E20-78 20 10.50 3.50 3 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-79 13.20 4.40 3 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-80 16.65 5.55 3 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-81 4.60 3.05 1.5 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-82 5.80 3.85 1.5 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
o
E20-83 25 7.30 4.85 1.5 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-84 9.15 6.10 1.5 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-85 11.55 7.70 1.5 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-86 5.25 2.60 2 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-87 6.60 3.30 2 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-88 25o 8.30 4.15 2 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-89 10.45 5.25 2 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-90 13.20 6.60 2 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-91 5.75 2.30 2.5 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-92 7.25 2.90 2.5 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-93 25o 9.15 3.65 2.5 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-94 11.50 4.60 2.5 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-95 14.50 5.80 2.5 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-96 6.20 2.05 3 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-97 7.50 2.50 3 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
o
E20-98 25 9.80 3.25 3 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-99 12.35 4.10 3 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-100 15.55 5.20 3 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-101 4.40 2.95 1.5 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-102 5.55 3.70 1.5 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
30o
E20-103 6.95 4.65 1.5 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-104 8.80 5.85 1.5 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6

90
Support Vessel Columns Beams
Tank hw Rb Volume
Ɵv hw/Rb height thickness diameters dimensions
ID (m) (m) (m3)
(m) (mm) (m) (m)
E20-105 11.05 7.40 1.5 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-106 5.00 2.50 2 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-107 6.25 3.15 2 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
o
E20-108 30 7.90 3.95 2 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-109 9.95 4.95 2 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-110 12.50 6.25 2 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-111 5.40 2.15 2.5 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-112 6.85 2.75 2.5 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
o
E20-113 30 8.60 3.45 2.5 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-114 10.80 4.35 2.5 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-115 13.65 5.45 2.5 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-116 5.80 1.95 3 250 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-117 7.25 2.40 3 500 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
o
E20-118 30 9.15 3.05 3 1000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-119 11.55 3.85 3 2000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6
E20-120 14.55 4.85 3 4000 20 250 1.1 0.6 x 0.6

91
6 Chapter (6)
Results and Discussion
6.1 Introduction

In this chapter results of the parametric study will be displayed and


reviewed. For each tank, base shear and base moment (overturning
moment) are obtained from the finite element model and compared with the
corresponding values obtained by equivalent cylinder tank approach of
Egyptian code of loads ECP 201-2012 and American Water Work
Association AWWA D100-2005. It should be noted that due to not
considering hydrodynamic pressure effect on vessels base, base moment of
ground tanks may represent also the moment just below vessels walls for
both ground and elevated tanks for the same vessel`s dimensions.

6.2 Equivalent cylinder tank approach

To the best of the author`s knowledge, there is no guidelines available for

seismic design of conical tank shape and most of current design codes

states to follow equivalent cylinder tank approach to determine the seismic

response of conical tanks. The equivalent cylinder tank in AWWA (2005)

differs from the one specified in ECP 201-2012.

6.2.1 ECP 201 – 2012 equivalent cylinder tank

ECP 201-2012 states in clause (10-6-1-3) to use equivalent cylinder tank

for any tank shape like conical tanks other than rectangular and cylindrical

92
shape. This equivalent cylinder tank should be with the same volume of the

original conical tank while its radius will be the same of the conical tank

radius at the top of the liquid surface. The procedure of getting the

equivalent tank is summarized in the following steps:

1- Get the geometry of the cylinder equivalent tank using the liquid

volume of the conical tank (V) and the radius is the radius at the top

of liquid surface (Rt), therefore height of liquid (hweq) will be driven

as:

6.1 hweq = V / ( * Rt2)

2- Determine the parameters for that cylinder tank; parameters are

impulsive and convective masses and heights, and convective mode

spring stiffness using figs (6.1) and (6.2).

3- Determine the convective mode`s period (Tc) using the stiffness and

mass from step number (2).

4- Determine the impulsive mode`s period (Ti), for ground tanks (Ti)

may be estimated using the following equation :

6.2 Ti = ( )*( )

Where Ci is the impulsive mode`s period factor obtained from fig.(

6.3), H is the height of fluid, t is the wall thickness, D is the tank

diameter,‎ρ‎is‎the‎fluid`s‎mass‎density,‎and‎E‎is‎the‎young`s‎modulus‎

93
of the tank wall. For elevated tanks (Ti) may be estimated using

finite element model or any other method depending on the structure

system of the studied tank.

5- Determine spectral acceleration using impulsive and convective

modes` periods.

6- Determine the base shear for convective mode (Vc) using the

following equation :

6.3 Vc = Sd (Tc) * mc

Where Sd(Tc) is the spectral acceleration corresponding to

convective mode, and mc is the convective mass.

7- Determine the base shear for impulsive mode (Vi) using the

following equation :

6.4 Vi = Sd (Ti) * (mi + ms)

Where Sd(Ti) is the spectral acceleration corresponding to

impulsive mode, mi is the impulsive mass, and ms is the

vessel weight added to one third portion of the supporting

structure in case of elevated tanks .

8- Determine the total base shear (Vt) using square root summation of

squares (SRSS) method using the following equation :

6.5 Vt =

94
9- Determine the base moment for the convective mode (Mc) using the

following equation:

6.6 Vc = Sd (Tc) * mc * (hc + hs)

Where hc is the equivalent convective mass height and hs is

supporting structure height.

10- Determine the base moment for the impulsive mode (Mi)

using the following equation:

6.7 Mi = Sd (Ti) * (mi * (hi + hs) + ms * hcg )

Where hi is the equivalent impuslive mass height and hcg is

height of the center of gravity of the vessel measured to the

top level of the foundation.

11- Determine the total base moment (Mt) using square root

summation of squares (SRSS) method using the following equation :

6.8 Mt =

95
Figure ‎6-1 Ratios of convective and impulsive masses and convective
spring stiffness (ECP201-2012)

Figure ‎6-2 heights of impuslive and convective masses (ECP201-2012)

96
Figure ‎6-3 Ci factor (ECP201-2012)

6.2.2 AWWA D100 (2005) equivalent cylinder tank

AWWA-D100 (2005) uses equivalent cylinder tank for conical tanks. This

equivalent cylinder tank depends on equivalent height and radius. It is

noted that the equivalent height and radius give a cylinder tank with a

volume higher than the original conical tank. The procedure of getting the

equivalent tank is summarized in the following steps:

1- Get the geometry of the cylinder equivalent tank, the following

equations are used :

6.9 Equivalent tank height (Heq) = , where (hw) is the liquid

height‎ in‎ the‎ conical‎ tank‎ ,and‎ Ɵv‎ is‎ the‎ vertical‎ inclination‎

angle of the conical tank height

97
6.10 Equivalent tank radius (Req) = , where

(Rb) is the radius of the conical tank base

6.11 Equivalent tank Volume (Veq) =

2- Determine the parameters for the cylinder tank, parameters are

impulsive and convective masses and heights, and convective mode

spring stiffness using the following equations :

When‎Deq/Heq‎≥‎1.333:

6.12 Impulsive mass (mi) = * mt , where (mt)

is total fluid mass

6.13 Impulsive mass height (hi) = 0.375 Heq

When D/H < 1.333:

6.14 Impulsive mass (mi) = (1.0-0.218 )* mt

6.15 Impulsive mass height (hi) = (0.5 - 0.094 )Heq

6.16 Convective mass (mc) = (0.23* )*mt

6.17 Convective mass height (hc)= (1.0 -


( )

)* Heq

3- Determine the convective mode`s period (Tc) using the following

equation:

98
6.18 Tc = √

4- Determine the impulsive mode`s period (Ti) using any proper

method.

5- Determine spectral acceleration using impulsive and convective

modes` periods.

6- Determine the base shear for the convective mode (Vc) using the

following equation :

6.19 Vc = Sd (Tc) * mc

Where Sd(Tc) is the spectral acceleration corresponding to

convective mode.

7- Determine the base shear for the impulsive mode (Vi) using the

following equation :

6.20 Vi = Sd (Ti) * (mi + ms)

Where Sd(Ti) is the spectral acceleration corresponding to

impulsive mode, and ms is the vessel weight added to one

third portion of supporting structure in case of elevated tanks .

12- Determine the total base shear (Vt) using square root

summation of squares (SRSS) method using the following equation :

6.21 Vt =

99
13- Determine the base moment for the convective mode (Mc)

using the following equation:

6.22 Vc = Sd (Tc) * mc * (hc + hs)

Where (hs) is the height of the supporting structure.

14- Determine the base moment for the impulsive mode (Mi)

using the following equation:

6.23 Mi = Sd (Ti) * (mi * (hi + hs) + ms * hcg )

Where hcg is the height of the center of gravity of the vessel

measured to the top level of the foundation.

15- Determine the total base moment (Mt) using square root

summation of squares (SRSS) method using the following equation :

6.24 Mt =

6.3 Comparison of Results

Base reactions obtained from finite element model, ECP 201-2012

procedure and AWWA-D100 (2005) procedure are displayed in table (6.1).

100
Table ‎6-1 Studied tanks results

Base shear (kN) Base moment (kN.m)


Tank ID
FEM ECP AWWA FEM ECP AWWA

G1 255 303 275 1045 711 636

G2 474 594 507 2415 1723 1452

G3 892 1219 958 5709 4402 3418

G4 2058 2540 1794 13302 11346 7934

G5 3820 5541 3418 33894 30738 18801

G6 273 340 302 1309 940 854

G7 513 676 561 3067 2331 1991

G8 967 1387 1053 7221 5934 4657

G9 1736 2932 1986 16788 15543 10928

G10 3949 6398 3792 41667 42148 26044

G11 291 376 325 1600 1194 1097

G12 542 740 596 3667 2898 2499

G13 1024 1526 1115 8603 7392 5834

G14 1888 3260 2107 20346 19563 13754

G15 4119 6827 4024 48832 50875 32847

G16 297 399 336 1829 1397 1289

G17 561 801 624 4273 3469 2988

G18 1062 1658 1166 10017 8871 6964

G19 2005 3554 2194 23643 23503 16358

101
Base shear (kN) Base moment (kN.m)
Tank ID
FEM ECP AWWA FEM ECP AWWA

G20 4440 7134 4169 55245 58402 38822

G21 248 282 277 1043 613 626

G22 459 542 507 2408 1445 1417

G23 845 1093 951 5669 3581 3300

G24 1950 2264 1790 13259 9121 7711

G25 3554 4878 3408 33298 24214 18256

G26 263 311 306 1300 787 834

G27 490 604 564 3009 1869 1904

G28 908 1216 1054 7087 4613 4422

G29 1993 2539 1992 16578 11820 10391

G30 3664 5513 3802 40617 31574 24713

G31 275 334 324 1508 946 1032

G32 513 647 595 3469 2236 2350

G33 965 1310 1115 8175 5536 5481

G34 2151 2746 2108 18711 14206 12907

G35 3832 5987 4024 46192 38001 30736

G36 282 352 337 1700 1088 1208

G37 529 687 622 3971 2591 2773

G38 997 1388 1160 9303 6378 6438

G39 1745 2903 2184 21972 16262 15070

102
Base shear (kN) Base moment (kN.m)
Tank ID
FEM ECP AWWA FEM ECP AWWA

G40 3957 6366 4176 52293 43723 36071

G41 233 257 279 1013 530 617

G42 437 493 515 2381 1239 1410

G43 795 980 965 5688 3006 3280

G44 1783 2004 1816 13332 7495 7655

G45 3355 4278 3463 32945 19561 18167

G46 251 284 310 1238 669 807

G47 474 549 577 2911 1575 1862

G48 843 1091 1079 6955 3803 4322

G49 1876 2238 2033 16032 9482 10105

G50 3549 4800 3886 39218 24778 24038

G51 261 304 329 1432 797 992

G52 487 583 605 3306 1843 2258

G53 907 1164 1135 7650 4463 5271

G54 1966 2403 2146 18130 11161 12393

G55 3638 5148 4090 44155 29023 29412

G56 268 317 340 1560 899 1144

G57 502 610 628 3701 2084 2616

G58 945 1217 1176 8742 5031 6112

G59 2181 2516 2222 19712 12557 14368

G60 3763 5412 4244 49302 32706 34222

103
Base shear (kN) Base moment (kN.m)
Tank ID
FEM ECP AWWA FEM ECP AWWA

G61 234 239 286 1102 472 619

G62 439 453 530 2636 1089 1420

G63 785 893 996 6006 2608 3324

G64 1792 1811 1881 15162 6414 7804

G65 3433 3813 3585 37368 16399 18515

G66 246 262 322 1290 593 807

G67 458 495 593 3028 1351 1840

G68 792 977 1118 6854 3226 4309

G69 1833 1979 2108 17127 7882 10085

G70 3493 4182 4027 41929 20121 23961

G71 250 275 337 1424 683 962

G72 471 525 628 3368 1575 2228

G73 834 1031 1177 7700 3721 5185

G74 1875 2103 2231 18862 9122 12226

G75 3526 4422 4240 45682 23049 28876

G76 257 287 350 1574 771 1109

G77 482 545 649 3680 1756 2545

G78 891 1076 1220 8810 4164 5968

G79 1942 2178 2295 20428 10079 13946

G80 3617 4628 4397 50035 25705 33329

G81 233 227 302 1184 438 643

104
Base shear (kN) Base moment (kN.m)
Tank ID
FEM ECP AWWA FEM ECP AWWA

G82 430 425 558 2854 991 1474

G83 780 825 1046 6655 2326 3445

G84 1785 1655 1980 16528 5635 8118

G85 3449 3454 3788 40961 14209 19368

G86 242 245 335 1335 536 820

G87 449 459 623 3195 1211 1888

G88 790 893 1172 7436 2830 4416

G89 1833 1782 2211 17127 6772 10342

G90 3488 3720 4234 44904 16983 24673

G91 244 256 355 1445 614 965

G92 457 481 660 3430 1387 2228

G93 840 933 1241 7750 3223 5205

G94 1835 1871 2352 19527 7727 12259

G95 3493 3917 4514 48032 19357 29326

G96 250 265 368 1566 686 1101

G97 466 496 681 3683 1538 2535

G98 833 963 1279 8863 3559 5916

G99 1874 1926 2418 20790 8469 13878

G100 3530 4026 4634 50985 21108 33168

G101 233 216 322 1256 411 678

G102 436 402 598 3061 920 1565

105
Base shear (kN) Base moment (kN.m)
Tank ID
FEM ECP AWWA FEM ECP AWWA

G103 782 771 1124 7219 2130 3671

G104 1809 1533 2137 17965 5099 8712

G105 3499 3158 4089 44564 12633 20817

G106 237 232 358 1375 499 858

G107 438 429 664 3298 1107 1971

G108 810 821 1247 7749 2539 4606

G109 1807 1636 2380 19283 6062 10966

G110 3477 3373 4561 47715 14945 26224

G111 241 242 380 1479 568 995

G112 451 448 706 3521 1259 2293

G113 865 859 1332 8217 2886 5381

G114 1829 1699 2529 20376 6805 12705

G115 3499 3513 4865 50401 16769 30501

G116 245 250 394 1571 627 1118

G117 458 460 729 3705 1381 2564

G118 888 1072 1216 8765 4142 5936

G119 1865 1752 2620 21507 7459 14304

G120 3528 3957 5026 52916 18247 34220

E10-1 489 503 515 5813 4955 5176

E10-2 594 595 615 7754 6697 7008

E10-3 750 739 772 10819 9338 9821

106
Base shear (kN) Base moment (kN.m)
Tank ID
FEM ECP AWWA FEM ECP AWWA

E10-4 968 945 986 15520 13204 13795

E10-5 1282 1214 1185 23286 18820 18185

E10-6 490 513 521 6067 5373 5608

E10-7 603 612 633 8238 7304 7735

E10-8 774 770 800 11683 10318 10960

E10-9 1007 991 1037 16918 14731 15753

E10-10 1260 1207 1207 24079 19987 20349

E10-11 482 516 519 6263 5641 5893

E10-12 609 623 643 8719 7766 8334

E10-13 781 787 835 12394 11015 12179

E10-14 1025 1019 1060 18165 15893 17264

E10-15 1237 1212 1203 25043 21125 21914

E10-16 473 515 519 6375 5822 6149

E10-17 606 634 648 9058 8195 8814

E10-18 783 807 867 13017 11737 13331

E10-19 1027 1039 1075 19136 16845 18544

E10-20 1216 1211 1200 25994 21980 23224

E10-21 477 490 514 5654 4706 5147

E10-22 577 576 611 7524 6288 6936

E10-23 723 708 766 10431 8639 9667

E10-24 946 905 980 15254 12197 13595

107
Base shear (kN) Base moment (kN.m)
Tank ID
FEM ECP AWWA FEM ECP AWWA

E10-25 1306 1204 1175 24027 17872 17850

E10-26 475 499 521 5915 5030 5544

E10-27 586 592 633 8034 6779 7638

E10-28 748 730 790 11361 9380 10734

E10-29 977 941 1033 16643 13281 15368

E10-30 1308 1208 1193 25517 18841 19589

E10-31 467 505 520 6020 5268 5814

E10-32 582 601 643 8284 7120 8177

E10-33 735 752 834 11912 9951 11884

E10-34 988 966 1058 17526 14127 16771

E10-35 1278 1208 1197 26097 19541 21084

E10-36 452 508 512 6044 5447 6063

E10-37 578 608 649 8571 7404 8623

E10-38 747 765 862 12336 10404 12877

E10-39 988 984 1073 18355 14784 17890

E10-40 1246 1204 1198 26842 20061 22366

E10-41 463 475 513 5445 4435 5118

E10-42 560 554 611 7258 5895 6902

E10-43 703 673 766 10130 8002 9614

E10-44 925 861 981 15003 11283 13515

E10-45 1310 1158 1164 24528 16658 17544

108
Base shear (kN) Base moment (kN.m)
Tank ID
FEM ECP AWWA FEM ECP AWWA

E10-46 461 485 521 5667 4733 5503

E10-47 569 571 637 7714 6345 7617

E10-48 722 702 810 10857 8681 10770

E10-49 953 897 1036 16114 12209 15168

E10-50 1327 1197 1184 25917 17881 19052

E10-51 452 491 522 5782 4955 5770

E10-52 563 580 646 7965 6632 8100

E10-53 729 719 845 11468 9144 11835

E10-54 964 920 1063 17088 12864 16475

E10-55 1322 1204 1189 27089 18481 20404

E10-56 432 494 524 5732 5095 6003

E10-57 553 587 654 8139 6872 8532

E10-58 721 730 873 11842 9493 12745

E10-59 958 933 1080 17784 13331 17529

E10-60 1289 1198 1192 27831 18797 21545

E10-61 450 461 512 5351 4218 5111

E10-62 544 534 611 7178 5572 6901

E10-63 688 649 768 10187 7570 9620

E10-64 914 933 989 15426 11967 13571

E10-65 1310 1119 1149 25951 15735 17223

E10-66 446 470 522 5539 4483 5506

109
Base shear (kN) Base moment (kN.m)
Tank ID
FEM ECP AWWA FEM ECP AWWA

E10-67 548 547 641 7541 5931 7615

E10-68 695 666 834 10732 8045 10990

E10-69 927 855 1047 16297 11340 15141

E10-70 1318 1149 1168 27152 16654 18525

E10-71 433 473 525 5567 4639 5761

E10-72 542 556 654 7756 6186 8112

E10-73 700 679 872 11227 8406 12020

E10-74 937 874 1078 17124 11858 16393

E10-75 1316 1167 1178 28163 17280 19745

E10-76 412 476 529 5465 4768 5997

E10-77 521 560 658 7713 6347 8440

E10-78 689 690 899 11469 8694 12869

E10-79 923 882 1093 17532 12165 17322

E10-80 1304 1183 1183 29146 17813 20797

E10-81 440 450 513 5276 4067 5156

E10-82 530 518 620 7090 5333 7015

E10-83 672 626 787 10182 7213 9844

E10-84 901 877 1002 15749 11082 13709

E10-85 1307 1096 1126 27334 15134 16806

E10-86 430 456 525 5368 4282 5538

E10-87 528 528 650 7362 5637 7708

110
Base shear (kN) Base moment (kN.m)
Tank ID
FEM ECP AWWA FEM ECP AWWA

E10-88 674 641 869 10632 7615 11396

E10-89 906 923 1063 16449 12002 15272

E10-90 1312 1112 1152 28403 15745 18109

E10-91 415 459 534 5357 4416 5837

E10-92 519 534 664 7492 5834 8160

E10-93 669 647 910 10901 7849 12379

E10-94 907 832 1097 17029 11056 16401

E10-95 1310 1128 1156 29252 16288 19014

E10-96 392 462 539 5206 4527 6069

E10-97 480 523 646 7011 5698 8044

E10-98 655 655 939 11029 8076 13223

E10-99 890 840 1113 17278 11323 17265

E10-100 1293 1136 1167 29838 16616 19995

E10-101 428 439 514 5162 3928 5204

E10-102 515 502 632 6963 5122 7181

E10-103 656 605 837 10131 6916 10483

E10-104 888 829 1027 16030 10402 14054

E10-105 1298 1071 1107 28635 14599 16504

E10-106 415 444 535 5196 4121 5673

E10-107 507 511 661 7123 5385 7836

E10-108 651 813 917 10422 9532 11989

111
Base shear (kN) Base moment (kN.m)
Tank ID
FEM ECP AWWA FEM ECP AWWA

E10-109 889 867 1089 16627 11149 15573

E10-110 1311 1088 1129 29719 15174 17662

E10-111 397 447 546 5141 4240 5970

E10-112 496 516 676 7194 5559 8273

E10-113 641 624 973 10589 7474 13120

E10-114 880 889 1122 16933 11643 16584

E10-115 1303 1099 1143 30215 15570 18534

E10-116 373 448 552 4939 4332 6185

E10-117 472 518 682 7008 5669 8558

E10-118 621 627 995 10534 7609 13786

E10-119 864 805 1145 17112 10692 17462

E10-120 1711 1607 2368 40022 23041 39717

E20-1 839 895 903 13853 10908 11305

E20-2 898 902 920 16162 13199 13817

E20-3 992 983 1043 19712 17228 18676

E20-4 1144 1055 1096 25355 21587 22663

E20-5 1292 1093 1070 32259 25638 24895

E20-6 832 900 904 14027 11504 11904

E20-7 905 918 933 16810 14177 14863

E20-8 1015 1043 1104 20961 19256 20964

E20-9 1180 1102 1148 27271 23694 25241

112
Base shear (kN) Base moment (kN.m)
Tank ID
FEM ECP AWWA FEM ECP AWWA

E20-10 1281 1099 1096 33137 27011 27203

E20-11 818 899 897 14048 11980 12366

E20-12 900 925 936 17135 14844 15585

E20-13 1022 1082 1144 21808 20729 22759

E20-14 1197 1132 1178 28755 25261 27215

E20-15 1275 1109 1116 34312 28243 29245

E20-16 801 896 885 13853 12259 12591

E20-17 891 928 935 17280 15380 16182

E20-18 1024 1116 1176 22456 22069 24351

E20-19 1209 1154 1196 30031 26536 28831

E20-20 1271 1116 1131 35389 29239 30991

E20-21 830 883 900 13612 10502 11248

E20-22 887 881 914 15825 12514 13677

E20-23 977 934 1037 19281 15847 18453

E20-24 1130 1014 1086 25070 20125 22333

E20-25 1350 1092 1053 34351 24862 24335

E20-26 819 889 903 13731 11021 11878

E20-27 891 896 929 16440 13309 14704

E20-28 994 980 1104 20448 17348 20756

E20-29 1163 1049 1139 26998 21652 24771

E20-30 1340 1085 1079 35519 25607 26397

113
Base shear (kN) Base moment (kN.m)
Tank ID
FEM ECP AWWA FEM ECP AWWA

E20-31 803 892 899 13599 11398 12281

E20-32 883 905 933 16616 13862 15386

E20-33 1000 1015 1143 21132 18521 22436

E20-34 1174 1076 1171 28095 22847 26637

E20-35 1330 1092 1104 36328 26462 28371

E20-36 782 892 891 13298 11683 12538

E20-37 871 910 935 16615 14322 15943

E20-38 998 1043 1171 21582 19513 23804

E20-39 1178 1091 1188 29003 23691 28004

E20-40 1321 1096 1114 37306 27091 29807

E20-41 821 869 895 13318 10053 11184

E20-42 874 859 907 15449 11843 13589

E20-43 966 885 1045 18954 14577 18584

E20-44 1120 971 1080 24875 18787 22151

E20-45 1420 1082 1029 36760 24110 23691

E20-46 807 875 901 13337 10530 11821

E20-47 876 873 925 15957 12564 14622

E20-48 980 931 1119 19912 15949 20962

E20-49 1144 1003 1134 26355 20068 24466

E20-50 1406 1083 1065 37590 24812 25770

E20-51 788 879 899 13163 10881 12235

114
Base shear (kN) Base moment (kN.m)
Tank ID
FEM ECP AWWA FEM ECP AWWA

E20-52 868 881 930 16105 13029 15245

E20-53 980 961 1154 20477 16905 22482

E20-54 1161 1023 1166 27646 20972 26207

E20-55 1387 1081 1081 38253 25265 27347

E20-56 764 880 894 12748 11107 12486

E20-57 853 886 936 16006 13407 15842

E20-58 976 982 1027 20813 17640 20630

E20-59 1162 1038 1185 28445 21654 27539

E20-60 1376 1072 1091 39148 25450 28599

E20-61 811 856 890 13129 9692 11147

E20-62 863 839 900 15262 11286 13519

E20-63 956 854 1064 18920 13756 18976

E20-64 1114 942 1077 25296 17876 22125

E20-65 1442 1071 1004 38680 23484 23113

E20-66 794 861 897 13052 10105 11826

E20-67 859 849 918 15590 11850 14527

E20-68 964 881 993 19706 14676 18610

E20-69 1132 966 1137 26546 18845 24449

E20-70 1451 1073 1035 40131 24062 24888

E20-71 770 864 897 12713 10356 12198

E20-72 849 856 931 15654 12247 15255

115
Base shear (kN) Base moment (kN.m)
Tank ID
FEM ECP AWWA FEM ECP AWWA

E20-73 962 903 1016 20096 15379 19702

E20-74 1141 981 1169 27504 19542 26078

E20-75 1433 1074 1054 40682 24441 26329

E20-76 744 864 895 12190 10550 12472

E20-77 830 859 936 15312 12502 15727

E20-78 950 921 1028 20103 15970 20522

E20-79 1137 985 1189 27939 19879 27294

E20-80 1419 1072 1075 41367 24727 27744

E20-81 803 842 882 12967 9407 11175

E20-82 857 822 890 15173 10868 13514

E20-83 945 831 950 18822 13127 17060

E20-84 1108 911 1079 25607 17034 22249

E20-85 1436 1084 972 40281 23437 22398

E20-86 780 846 891 12717 9743 11823

E20-87 844 828 918 15233 11319 14623

E20-88 948 845 994 19411 13781 18686

E20-89 1119 930 1140 26616 17814 24521

E20-90 1452 1061 1018 41643 23404 24415

E20-91 754 848 894 12282 9954 12220

E20-92 831 833 931 15137 11619 15319

E20-93 943 859 1017 19596 14269 19717

116
Base shear (kN) Base moment (kN.m)
Tank ID
FEM ECP AWWA FEM ECP AWWA

E20-94 1125 941 1173 27322 18345 26032

E20-95 1459 1062 1040 42666 23760 25769

E20-96 725 849 893 11659 10121 12503

E20-97 795 834 926 14122 11495 15154

E20-98 926 874 1033 19347 14740 20540

E20-99 1114 948 1193 27393 18692 27179

E20-100 1450 1062 1060 43175 23962 27007

E20-101 793 828 871 12754 9140 11195

E20-102 850 804 889 15030 10474 13684

E20-103 934 808 952 18662 12586 17285

E20-104 1103 883 1087 25892 16348 22592

E20-105 1408 1075 958 41804 23039 22175

E20-106 767 831 881 12387 9432 11846

E20-107 828 810 916 14802 10869 14753

E20-108 931 816 993 18973 13059 18801

E20-109 1108 898 1137 26674 16991 24572

E20-110 1440 1074 1031 43180 23395 24759

E20-111 738 832 888 11849 9615 12294

E20-112 812 814 932 14583 11128 15468

E20-113 924 827 1020 19070 13482 19871

117
Base shear (kN) Base moment (kN.m)
Tank ID
FEM ECP AWWA FEM ECP AWWA

E20-114 1110 907 1151 27088 17397 25539

E20-115 1450 1071 1091 43802 23614 26907

E20-116 708 833 893 11132 9750 12618

E20-117 789 815 940 13982 11292 15903

E20-118 905 834 1034 18575 13754 20559

E20-119 1100 913 1167 27048 17723 26495

E20-120 1449 1069 1123 44301 23757 28355

6.4 Results graphs

The following figures display base reactions obtained from finite element

model and codes for all the studied tanks. Results are displayed in three

groups.

6.4.1 First group

The first group of results is displayed in figs (6-6) to (6-10) displaying

moment on vertical axis versus different (Ɵv) values on horizontal axis;

results are shown for each (hw/Rb) value in different colors. This group

shows the moment below tank walls for both ground and elevated tanks

finite element models as shown in figs (6-4) and (6-5). It should be noted

that due to not considering hydrodynamic pressure effect on vessels base,

base moment of ground tanks may represent also the moment just below

118
vessels walls for both ground and elevated tanks for the same vessel`s

dimensions.

Below tank walls level

Figure ‎6-4 Case of ground tank

119
Below tank walls level

Figure ‎6-5 Case of elevated tank

2000

1500
M (KN.m)

hw/Rb=1.5
1000
hw/Rb=2
hw/Rb=2.5 500
hw/Rb=3
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-6 Moment below tank walls from FEM for volume 250 m3

120
5000

4000

M (KN.m)
hw/Rb=1.5 3000
hw/Rb=2
2000
hw/Rb=2.5
hw/Rb=3 1000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-7 Moment below tank walls from FEM for volume 500 m3

12000
10000
8000
M (KN.m)

hw/Rb=1.5
hw/Rb=2 6000
hw/Rb=2.5 4000
hw/Rb=3 2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-8 Moment below tank walls from FEM for volume 1000 m3

121
25000

20000

M (KN.m)
hw/Rb=1.5 15000
hw/Rb=2 10000
hw/Rb=2.5
hw/Rb=3 5000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-9 Moment below tank walls from FEM for volume 2000 m3

60000
50000
40000
M (KN.m)

hw/Rb=1.5
hw/Rb=2 30000
hw/Rb=2.5 20000
hw/Rb=3 10000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-10 Moment below tank walls from FEM for volume 4000 m3

Figs (6-6) to (6-10) show moments below vessel`s walls with different

hw/Rb‎ratios‎varies‎from‎1.5‎to‎3‎with‎different‎Ɵv‎varies‎from‎5 o to 30o.

Tanks volumes studied are 250, 500, 1000, 250, 2000, and 4000 m3. It is

found‎that‎for‎the‎same‎liquid‎volume,‎as‎Ɵv‎increases‎the‎fluid‎height‎in‎

the vessel decreases so moment below vessel`s walls will decrease till a

certain‎ value‎ of‎ Ɵv‎where‎ the‎ effect‎of‎ vessel`s‎ wall‎ inclination‎becomes‎

122
more significant due the effect of vertical resultant of the hydrodynamic

pressure on vessel`s walls. Figs (6-6) to (6-10) show‎that‎the‎value‎of‎Ɵv‎=‎

15o is the vessel`s walls vertical inclination angle where the moment below

vessel`s walls become the least for the same volume and the same hw/Rb.

6.4.2 Second group

The second group of results is displayed in figures (6-11) to (6-50)

displaying moment and shear at base level on vertical axis versus different

(Ɵv) values on horizontal axis in case of ground tanks; results are shown

for ECP-2012 procedure, AWWA procedure, and finite element models in

different colors.

123
350
300
250

Q (KN)
200
ECP
150
FEM
100
AWWA 50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-11 Base shear for volume 250 m3 and hw/Rb = 1.5

1400
1200
1000
M (KN.m)

800
ECP
600
FEM
400
AWWA 200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-12 Base moment for volume 250 m3 and hw/Rb = 1.5

124
700
600
500

Q (KN)
400
ECP
300
FEM
200
AWWA 100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-13 Base shear for volume 500 m3 and hw/Rb = 1.5

3500
3000
2500
M (KN.m)

2000
ECP
1500
FEM
1000
AWWA 500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-14 Base moment for volume 500 m3 and hw/Rb = 1.5

125
1400
1200
1000

Q (KN)
800
ECP
600
FEM
400
AWWA 200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-15 Base shear for volume 1000 m3 and hw/Rb = 1.5

8000
7000
6000
M (KN.m)

5000
ECP 4000
FEM 3000
2000
AWWA
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-16 Base moment for volume 1000 m3 and hw/Rb = 1.5

126
3000
2500
2000

Q (KN)
ECP 1500
FEM 1000
AWWA 500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-17 Base shear for volume 2000 m3 and hw/Rb = 1.5

20000

15000
M (KN.m)

ECP 10000
FEM
5000
AWWA
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-18 Base moment for volume 2000 m3 and hw/Rb = 1.5

127
6000
5000
4000

Q (KN)
ECP 3000
FEM 2000
AWWA 1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-19 Base shear for volume 4000 m3 and hw/Rb = 1.5

50000

40000
M (KN.m)

30000
ECP
20000
FEM
AWWA 10000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-20 Base moment for volume 4000 m3 and hw/Rb = 1.5

128
400
350
300
250

Q (KN)
ECP 200
FEM 150
100
AWWA
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-21 Base shear for volume 250 m3 and hw/Rb = 2

1600
1400
1200
M (KN.m)

1000
ECP 800
FEM 600
400
AWWA
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-22 Base moment for volume 250 m3 and hw/Rb = 2

129
800
700
600
500

Q (KN)
ECP 400
FEM 300
200
AWWA
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-23 Base shear for volume 500 m3 and hw/Rb = 2

3500
3000
2500
M (KN.m)

2000
ECP
1500
FEM
1000
AWWA 500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-24 Base moment for volume 500 m3 and hw/Rb = 2

130
1600
1400
1200
1000

Q (KN)
ECP 800
FEM 600
400
AWWA
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵ

Figure ‎6-25 Base shear for volume 1000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2

10000

8000
M (KN.m)

6000
ECP
4000
FEM
AWWA 2000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-26 Base moment for volume 1000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2

131
3500
3000
2500

Q (KN)
2000
ECP
1500
FEM
1000
AWWA 500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-27 Base shear for volume 2000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2

25000

20000
M (KN.m)

15000
ECP
10000
FEM
AWWA 5000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-28 Base moment for volume 2000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2

132
7000
6000
5000

Q (KN)
4000
ECP
3000
FEM
2000
AWWA 1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-29 Base shear for volume 4000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2

60000
50000
40000
M(KN.m)

ECP 30000
FEM 20000
AWWA 10000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-30 Base moment for volume 4000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2

133
400
350
300
250

Q (KN)
ECP 200
FEM 150
AWWA 100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-31 Base shear for volume 250 m3 and hw/Rb = 2.5

1800
1600
1400
1200
M (KN.m)

ECP 1000
800
FEM 600
AWWA 400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-32 Base moment for volume 250 m3 and hw/Rb = 2.5

134
800
700
600
500

Q (KN)
ECP 400
FEM 300
200
AWWA
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-33 Base shear for volume 500 m3 and hw/Rb = 2.5

4000
3500
3000
M (KN.m)

2500
ECP 2000
FEM 1500
1000
AWWA
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-34 Base moment for volume 500 m3 and hw/Rb = 2.5

135
2000

1500

Q (KN)
ECP 1000
FEM
500
AWWA
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-35 Base shear for volume 1000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2.5

10000
9000
8000
7000
M (KN.m)

6000
ECP 5000
FEM 4000
3000
AWWA 2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-36 Base moment for volume 1000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2.5

136
Base Shear (V=2000 , hw/Rb=2.5 )
3500
3000
2500

Q (KN)
ECP 2000
1500
FEM 1000
AWWA 500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-37 Base shear for volume 2000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2.5

25000

20000
M (KN.m)

15000
ECP
FEM 10000

AWWA 5000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-38 Base moment for volume 2000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2.5

137
8000
7000
6000
5000

Q (KN)
ECP 4000
FEM 3000
2000
AWWA
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-39 Base shear for volume 4000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2.5

60000
50000
40000
M (KN.m)

ECP 30000
FEM 20000
AWWA 10000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-40 Base moment for volume 4000 m3 and hw/Rb = 2.5

138
500

400

300

Q (KN)
ECP
200
FEM
AWWA 100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-41 Base shear for volume 250 m3 and hw/Rb = 3

2000

1500
M (KN.m)

ECP 1000
FEM
500
AWWA
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-42 Base moment for volume 250 m3 and hw/Rb = 3

139
1000

800

600

Q (KN)
ECP
400
FEM
AWWA 200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-43 Base shear for volume 500 m3 and hw/Rb = 3

5000

4000
M (KN.m)

3000
ECP
2000
FEM
AWWA 1000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-44 Base moment for volume 500 m3 and hw/Rb = 3

140
2000

1500

Q (KN)
ECP 1000
FEM
500
AWWA
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-45 Base shear for volume 1000 m3 and hw/Rb = 3

12000
10000
8000
M (KN.m)

ECP 6000
FEM 4000
AWWA 2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-46 Base moment for volume 1000 m3 and hw/Rb = 3

141
4000
3500
3000
2500

Q (KN)
ECP 2000
FEM 1500
1000
AWWA
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-47 Base shear for volume 2000 m3 and hw/Rb = 3

25000

20000
M (KN.m)

15000
ECP
10000
FEM
AWWA 5000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-48 Base moment for volume 2000 m3 and hw/Rb = 3

142
8000
7000
6000
5000

Q (KN)
ECP 4000
FEM 3000
2000
AWWA
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-49 Base shear for volume 4000 m3 and hw/Rb = 3

70000
60000
50000
M (KN.m)

40000
ECP
30000
FEM
20000
AWWA 10000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-50 Base moment for volume 4000 m3 and hw/Rb = 3

As shown in figs (6-11) to (6-50), for ECP 201 – 2012, the equivalent

cylinder tank methodology used generates a broad tank which has a height

of liquid less than the one in the conical tank, it is also noted that broad

tanks have equivalent impulsive heights less than narrow tanks. This leads

to base moment less than the one calculated by finite element model that

143
represent the real conical tank which means that ECP 201 – 2012

equivalent cylinder tank is less conservative and doesn`t represent the real

seismic response of conical tanks. On the other hand, although equivalent

masses ratio are almost the same for the equivalent cylinder tank in ECP

201 2012 and the equivalent conical tank used in the finite element model,

base shear calculated by ECP 201–2012 is higher than the one calculated

by finite element model, this is due to the fact that the equivalent tank used

in ECP 201-2012 is broader which leads to a more rigid tank with the same

total mass.

For AWWA D100, unlike ECP 201-2012, the equivalent cylinder tank

methodology used generates a cylinder tank with height and radius larger

than original conical tank, thus the equivalent cylinder tank water volume

is higher than the original volume, although the impulsive mass ratio used

is higher than the ones used in ECP 201-2012 and finite element model, the

impulsive mass height is less. This leads to a base moment less than the one

calculated by finite element model and higher than the one generated by

ECP 201-2012 equivalent cylinder tank methodology. On the other hand

base shear generated by AWWA D100 methodology is in most of cases the

highest value between all the methods investigated due to the high tank

water volume used.

144
6.4.3 Third group

The third group of results is displayed in figures (6-51) to (6-130)

displaying moment and shear at base level on vertical axis versus different

(Ɵv) values on horizontal axis in case of elevated tanks with height 10 m

and 20m; results are shown for ECP-2012 procedure, AWWA procedure,

and finite element models in different colors.

145
600

500

400

Q (KN)
ECP
300
FEM
200
AWWA
100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-51 Base shear for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height
10m

7000
6000
5000
M (KN.m)

ECP 4000
FEM 3000
AWWA 2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-52 Base moment for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height
10m

146
700
600
500

Q (KN)
ECP 400
300
FEM
200
AWWA
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-53 Base shear for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height
10m

9000
8000
7000
6000
M (KN.m)

ECP 5000
4000
FEM
3000
AWWA 2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-54 Base moment for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height
10m

147
900
800
700
600

Q (KN)
ECP 500
FEM 400
300
AWWA
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-55 Base shear for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height
10m

12000

10000

8000
M (KN.m)

ECP
6000
FEM
4000
AWWA
2000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-56 Base moment for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank
height 10m

148
1200

1000

800

Q (KN)
ECP
600
FEM
400
AWWA
200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-57 Base shear for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height
10m

18000
16000
14000
12000
M (KN.m)

ECP 10000
FEM 8000
6000
AWWA
4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-58 Base moment for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank
height 10m

149
1400
1200
1000

Q (KN)
ECP 800
FEM 600
AWWA 400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-59 Base shear for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height
10m

35000
30000
25000
M(KN.m)

ECP 20000
FEM 15000
AWWA 10000
5000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-60 Base moment for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank
height 10m

150
600

500

400

Q (KN)
ECP
300
FEM
200
AWWA
100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-61 Base shear for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height
10m

7000
6000
5000
M (KN.m)

ECP 4000
FEM 3000
AWWA 2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-62 Base moment for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height
10m

151
700
600
500

Q (KN)
ECP 400

FEM 300

AWWA 200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-63 Base shear for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height
10m

9000
8000
7000
6000
M (KN.m)

ECP 5000
4000
FEM 3000
2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-64 Base moment for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height
10m

152
1000
900
800
700
600

Q (KN)
ECP
500
FEM 400
AWWA 300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-65 Base shear for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height
10m

14000
12000
10000
M (KN.m)

ECP 8000
6000
FEM
4000
AWWA
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-66 Base moment for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height
10m

153
1200
1000
800

Q (KN)
ECP
600
FEM
400
AWWA
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-67 Base shear for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height
10m

18000
16000
14000
12000
M (KN.m)

ECP 10000
8000
FEM
6000
AWWA 4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-68 Base moment for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height
10m

154
1400
1200
1000

Q (KN)
ECP 800
FEM 600
AWWA 400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-69 Base shear for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height
10m

35000
30000
25000
M (KN.m)

ECP 20000
FEM 15000

AWWA 10000
5000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-70 Base moment for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height
10m

155
600

500

400

Q (KN)
ECP
300
FEM
200
AWWA
100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-71 Base shear for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height
10m

7000
6000
5000
M(KN.m)

ECP 4000

FEM 3000

AWWA 2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-72 Base moment for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height
10m

156
800
700
600
500

Q (KN)
ECP
400
FEM
300
AWWA 200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-73 Base shear for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height
10m

10000
9000
8000
7000
M (KN.m)

6000
ECP
5000
FEM 4000
AWWA 3000
2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-74 Base moment for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height
10m

157
1200
1000
800

Q (KN)
ECP
600
FEM
400
AWWA
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-75 Base shear for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height
10m

14000
12000
10000
M (KN.m)

8000
ECP
6000
FEM
4000
AWWA 2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-76 Base moment for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank
height 10m

158
1200
1000
800

Q (KN)
ECP
600
FEM
400
AWWA
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-77 Base shear for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height
10m

20000
18000
16000
14000
M (KN.m)

ECP 12000
10000
FEM
8000
AWWA 6000
4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-78 Base moment for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank
height 10m

159
1400
1200
1000

Q (KN)
ECP 800
FEM 600
AWWA 400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-79 Base shear for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height
10m

35000
30000
25000
M (KN.m)

ECP 20000
FEM 15000
AWWA 10000
5000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-80 Base moment for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank
height 10m

160
600

500

400

Q (KN)
ECP 300
FEM 200
AWWA
100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-81 Base shear for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height
10m

7000
6000
5000
M(KN.m)

ECP 4000
FEM 3000
AWWA 2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-82 Base moment for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height
10m

161
800
700
600
500

Q (KN)
ECP
400
FEM 300
AWWA 200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-83 Base shear for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height
10m

10000
9000
8000
7000
M (KN.m)

6000
ECP 5000
4000
FEM
3000
AWWA 2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-84 Base moment for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height
10m

162
1200
1000
800

Q (KN)
ECP
600
FEM
400
AWWA
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-85 Base shear for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height
10m

16000
14000
12000
M (KN.m)

10000
ECP
8000
FEM
6000
AWWA 4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-86 Base moment for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height
10m

163
1400
1200
1000

Q (KN)
ECP 800
FEM 600
AWWA 400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-87 Base shear for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height
10m

25000

20000
M (KN.m)

ECP 15000
FEM
10000
AWWA
5000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-88 Base moment for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height
10m

164
2500

2000

1500

Q (KN)
ECP
FEM 1000

AWWA 500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-89 Base shear for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height
10m

45000
40000
35000
30000
M (KN.m)

ECP 25000
FEM 20000
15000
AWWA
10000
5000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-90 Base moment for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height
10m

165
920
900
880

Q (KN)
860
ECP
840
FEM
820
AWWA 800
780
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-91 Base shear for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height
20m

16000
14000
12000
M (KN.m)

ECP 10000

FEM 8000
6000
AWWA
4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-92 Base moment for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height
20m

166
940
920
900
880

Q (KN)
ECP
860
FEM
840
AWWA 820
800
780
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-93 Base shear for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height
20m

18000
16000
14000
12000
M(KN).m

10000
ECP 8000
FEM 6000
4000
AWWA 2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-94 Base moment for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height
20m

167
1200

1000

800
ECP

Q (KN)
600
FEM
AWWA 400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-95 Base shear for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height
20m

25000

20000
M (KN.m)

ECP 15000
FEM
10000
AWWA
5000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-96 Base moment for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank
height 20m

168
1400
1200
1000
ECP

Q (KN)
800
FEM 600
AWWA 400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-97 Base shear for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height
20m

30000

25000

20000
M (KN.m)

ECP
FEM 15000

AWWA 10000

5000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-98 Base moment for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank
height 20m

169
1600
1400
1200
ECP 1000

Q (KN)
800
FEM
600
AWWA 400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-99 Base shear for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank height
20m

45000
40000
35000
30000
M (KN.m)

ECP 25000
FEM 20000
AWWA 15000
10000
5000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-100 Base moment for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 1.5, and tank
height 20m

170
920
900
880
860
ECP

Q (KN)
840
FEM 820
AWWA 800
780
760
740
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-101 Base shear for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height
20m

16000
14000
12000
M (KN.m)

10000
ECP
8000
FEM
6000
AWWA
4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-102 Base moment for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height
20m

171
940
920
900
ECP

Q (KN)
880
FEM 860
AWWA 840
820
800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-103 Base shear for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height
20m

18000
16000
14000
12000
M (KN).m

ECP 10000
FEM 8000
AWWA 6000
4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-104 Base moment for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height
20m

172
1200
1000
800
ECP

Q (KN)
FEM 600

AWWA 400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-105 Base shear for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height
20m

25000

20000
M (KN.m)

ECP 15000

FEM 10000
AWWA 5000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-106 Base moment for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank
height 20m

173
1400
1200
1000

Q (KN)
ECP 800
FEM 600
AWWA 400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-107 Base shear for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height
20m

30000
25000
20000
M (KN.m)

ECP
15000
FEM
10000
AWWA
5000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-108 Base moment for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank
height 20m

174
1600
1400
1200
1000

Q (KN)
ECP
800
FEM 600
AWWA 400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-109 Base shear for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank height
20m

50000
45000
40000
35000
M (KN.m)

30000
ECP
25000
FEM 20000
AWWA 15000
10000
5000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-110 Base moment for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 2, and tank
height 20m

175
1000
900
800
700
600

Q (KN)
ECP
500
FEM 400
AWWA 300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-111 Base shear for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height
20m

16000
14000
12000
M (KN).m

10000

ECP 8000
6000
FEM
4000
AWWA
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-112 Base moment for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank
height 20m

176
960
940
920
900

Q (KN)
ECP
880
FEM
860
AWWA 840
820
800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-113 Base shear for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height
20m

18000
16000
14000
12000
M (KN.m)

ECP 10000
8000
FEM
6000
AWWA 4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-114 Base moment for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank
height 20m

177
1400
1200
1000

Q (KN)
ECP 800
FEM 600
AWWA 400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-115 Base shear for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height
20m

25000

20000
M (KN.m)

ECP 15000
FEM
10000
AWWA
5000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-116 Base moment for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank
height 20m

178
1400
1200
1000
ECP

Q (KN)
800
FEM 600
AWWA 400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-117 Base shear for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height
20m

35000
30000
25000
M (KN.m)

ECP 20000
FEM 15000
AWWA 10000
5000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-118 Base moment for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank
height 20m

179
1600
1400
1200
1000

Q (KN)
ECP 800
FEM 600
AWWA 400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-119 Base shear for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank height
20m

50000
45000
40000
35000
M (KN.m)

ECP 30000
25000
FEM 20000
AWWA 15000
10000
5000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-120 Base moment for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 2.5, and tank
height 20m

180
1000
900
800
700
600

Q (KN)
ECP
500
FEM 400
AWWA 300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-121 Base shear for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height
20m

16000
14000
12000
M (KN.m)

10000
ECP
8000
FEM 6000
AWWA 4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-122 Base moment for volume 250 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height
20m

181
960
940
920
900

Q (KN)
ECP 880
860
FEM
840
AWWA 820
800
780
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-123 Base shear for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height
20m

20000
18000
16000
14000
M (KN.m)

12000
ECP 10000
FEM 8000
6000
AWWA 4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-124 Base moment for volume 500 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height
20m

182
1400
1200
1000

Q (KN)
ECP 800
FEM 600
AWWA 400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-125 Base shear for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height
20m

30000

25000

20000
M(KN.m)

ECP
15000
FEM
AWWA 10000

5000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-126 Base moment for volume 1000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank
height 20m

183
1400
1200
1000

Q (KN)
ECP 800
FEM 600
AWWA 400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-127 Base shear for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height
20m
35000
30000
25000
M (KN.m)

ECP 20000
FEM 15000
AWWA 10000
5000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-128 Base moment for volume 2000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank
height 20m

184
1600
1400
1200
ECP 1000

Q (KN)
800
FEM
600
AWWA
400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-129 Base shear for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank height
20m

50000
45000
40000
35000
M (KN.m)

ECP 30000
25000
FEM 20000
AWWA 15000
10000
5000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ɵv

Figure ‎6-130 Base moment for volume 4000 m3, hw/Rb = 3, and tank
height 20m

As shown in figs (6-51) to (6-130), For ECP 201 – 2012, the equivalent

cylinder tank methodology used generates a broad tank which has a height

of liquid less than the one in the conical tank, it is also noted that broad

tanks have equivalent impulsive heights less than narrow tanks. This leads

185
to base moment less than the one calculated by finite element model that

represent the real conical tank which means that ECP 201 – 2012

equivalent cylinder tank is less conservative and doesn`t represent the real

seismic response of conical tanks. On the other hand, base shear calculated

by ECP 201–2012 is in most cases same as the one calculated by finite

element model, this is due to the fact that equivalent masses ratio are

almost the same for the equivalent cylinder tank in ECP 201 2012 and the

equivalent conical tank used in the finite element model, and the slight

difference in base shear- if any- are only due to the difference in the

rigidity between the two tanks due to the geometric difference between

them.

For AWWA D100, unlike ECP 201-2012, the equivalent cylinder tank

methodology used generates a cylinder tank with height and radius larger

than original conical tank, thus the equivalent cylinder tank volume is

higher than the original volume, although the impulsive mass ratio used is

higher than the ones used in ECP 201-2012 and finite element model, the

impulsive mass height is less. This leads to a base moment less than the one

calculated by finite element model and higher than the one generated by

ECP 201-2012 equivalent cylinder tank methodology. On the other hand

base shear generated by AWWA D100 methodology is the highest value

between all the methods investigated due to the high tank volume used

186
except that in conical tank volume of 4000 m3 where finite element model

base shear exceeds the one calculated by AWWA D100 due to the very

high volume used in the equivalent tank AWWA D100 which leads to

much more flexible tank, thus the base shear of that equivalent tank

become less than the one calculated by finite element model.

6.4.4 Correction factors

Correction factors may be used to adopt the equivalent cylinder tank used

in design codes to reach design requirement. These correction factors are

driven by evaluating base moment as explained and shown before in this

chapter through calculating the average ratio between finite element results

and design‎ codes‎ results‎ in‎ each‎ (Ɵv)‎ values‎ tanks‎ for‎ each‎ volume‎

separately (i.e. 5o, 10o, 15o, 20o, 25o, 30o ). As explained before, base shear

is almost the same as the finite element model in case of ECP 201-2012

equivalent cylinder tank, and higher in case of AWWA D100 equivalent

cylinder tank, thus design codes are considered more conservative in

calculating base shear and so correction factor is required for base shear

forces. Figs (6-131) to (6-132) show correction factors in vertical axis

versus tank volumes in horizontal axis with different (Ɵv) values in

different colors.

187
3.40
3.20
3.00
Ɵv = 5 2.80
2.60

Correction
Ɵv = 10
2.40
Ɵv = 15 2.20
2.00
Ɵv = 20 1.80
1.60
Ɵv = 25 1.40
1.20
Ɵv = 30 1.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Volume (m3)

Figure ‎6-131 Correction factor for base moment of ECP in ground conical
tanks

1.90
1.80
1.70
Ɵv = 5
1.60
Correction

Ɵv = 10
1.50
Ɵv = 15 1.40
Ɵv = 20 1.30
Ɵv = 25 1.20
Ɵv = 30 1.10
1.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Volume (m3)

Figure ‎6-132 Correction factor for base moment of AWWA in ground


conical tanks

188
2.00
1.90
Ɵv = 5 1.80
1.70
Ɵv = 10

Correction
1.60
Ɵv = 15
1.50
Ɵv = 20 1.40
Ɵv = 25 1.30
Ɵv = 30 1.20
1.10
1.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Volume (m3)

Figure ‎6-133 Correction factor for base moment of ECP in elevated conical
tanks

1.80
1.70
1.60
Ɵv = 5
Correction

Ɵv = 10 1.50
Ɵv = 15 1.40
Ɵv = 20 1.30
Ɵv = 25 1.20
Ɵv = 30 1.10
1.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Volume (m3)

Figure ‎6-134 Correction factor for base moment of AWWA in elevated


conical tanks

6.5 Limitation of this study

The finite element modeling procedure used in this study and explained in

chapter (3) is limited to conical vessel geometry where the effective heights

of liquid masses don`t exceed vessel height, this condition is usually

associated with values‎of‎‎Ɵv larger than 30o which may be unpractical

189
inclination angle. Also the correction factors provided in this chapter is

applicable for pure conical tanks that have hw/Rb ratios range from 1.5 to 3

and‎maximum‎Ɵv of 30o. In order to make sure of the validity of the

provided correction factors, some tanks with volume larger than those

studied in the parametric study are investigated. Finite element result is

compared with those estimated from correction factors; tables 6-2 shows

the results of those tanks. Results show an excellent agreement between

results of the finite element model and those obtained using correction

factors with difference not exceeding 8%.

Table ‎6-2 Validation of correction factors

Tank geometry Base moment (kN.m)


Height of Volume
hw/Rb Ɵv FEM ECP*Correction AWWA*Correction
tank (m3)
0 (ground) 3 10 4500 61500 51100*1.2= 61320 42300*1.5= 63450

0 (ground) 1.5 25 5000 55259 19445*2.63= 51140 25892*2= 51784

0 (ground) 2.5 15 5500 66802 45316*1.51 = 68427 44238*1.53 = 67684

20 m
2 20 4500 42455 24651*1.74 = 42892 25276*1.5= 44990
(elevated)
20 m
1.5 10 5000 38335 25592*1.49 = 38132 24465*1.45= 35474
(elevated)
20 m
2.5 15 5500 44153 26769*1.7 = 45507 32654*1.4= 45715
(elevated)

190
7 Chapter (7)
Summary and Conclusions
7.1 Summary
A study on the seismic response of pure conical tank was conducted. Finite
element method was used to investigate the seismic response of pure
conical tanks. Three dimensional models using SAP 2000 V 15.1.0
analyses software were used to simulate the studied tanks. Seismic
response of conical tank is different from cylindrical tanks due to the
vertical resultant of the hydrodynamic pressure in conical tanks,
accordingly in order to represent fluid structure interaction, added mass
approach was utilized using mechanical analog developed by El Damatty
and Sweedan (2006). A comparison of the seismic response of pure
conical tanks between the finite element model results, American Water
Works Association- D100 (2005), and Egyptian code-201 (ECP-201-2012)
was performed.

A parametric study was done on ground and elevated tanks based on


change the geometric characteristics of the conical vessel. The effect of
changing geometric characteristics of the conical vessels was assessed and
seismic response was evaluated using base reactions. A comparison
between results of the finite element models and design codes procedures
was performed in order to evaluate the equivalent cylinder tank approach
used in design codes. Finally, correction factors for base moment resulted
from design codes procedure was introduced to make it more conservative.

191
7.2 Conclusion

The following conclusions were detected from this research

(1) Three dimensional finite element models using added mass approach
may be used to model dynamic response of tanks efficiently using
modeling procedure introduced in this research.

(2) Design codes equivalent cylinder tank method used is less conservative
in estimating dynamic response of conical tanks as base moment
estimated is less than the one estimated by finite element model.

(3) For ground tanks, difference in base moment between conical tank
model and equivalent cylinder tank procedure by ECP-201-2012
doesn`t depend on liquid height to vessel`s base radius ratio of conical
tank (hw/Rb) and depends primarily on vertical inclination angle of the
conical vessel`s walls (Ɵv) and liquid volume, while difference in base
moment between conical tank model and equivalent cylinder tank
procedure by AWWA-D100 (2005) depends slightly on only vertical
inclination angle of the conical vessel`s walls (Ɵv).

(4) For elevated tanks, difference in base moment between conical tank
model and equivalent cylinder tank procedure by both ECP-201-2012
and AWWA-D100 (2005) doesn`t depend on liquid height to vessel`s
base radius ratio (hw/Rb) of conical tank and depends primarily on
vertical inclination angle of the conical vessel`s walls (Ɵv) and liquid
volume.

(5) ECP-201-2012 equivalent cylinder tank is less conservative than the


one used in AWWA-D100 (2005).

192
(6) For the same volume and liquid height to vessel`s base radius ratio
(hw/Rb), vertical inclination angle of conical vessel`s walls Ɵv) of 15o
is the angle which gives the least moments on vessel`s walls.

(7) For the same volume and vertical inclination angle of conical vessel`s
walls, as liquid height to vessel`s base radius ratio (hw/Rb) increases,
the base moment increases.

7.3 Recommendations for future studies

(1) The dynamic response of pure conical tanks may be investigated under
vertical seismic excitation.

(2) The dynamic response of combined conical-cylindrical tanks may be


investigated.

(3) The conclusion of this study may be checked and reviewed by other
finite element modeling technique rather than added mass approach.

(4) The dynamic behavior of elevated conical tanks may be studied under
wind loads.

(5) Soil-structure interaction effect on conical tank dynamic response may


be investigated. Also other supporting conditions may be studied.

193
8 REFERENCES
Vandepitte, D., Rathe, J., Verhegghe, B., Paridaens, R., and Verschaeve,
C.,‎ 1982,‎ ‎ ―Experimental‎ investigation‎ of‎ hydrostatically‎ loaded‎ conical‎
shells‎ and‎ practical‎ evaluation‎ of‎ the‎ buckling‎ load‖,‎ Buckling of Shells,
ed. Ramm, E., Proc. State-of the-Art Colloquium, Universitat Stuttgart,
Germany, pp. 375-399

El‎ Damatty,‎ A.A.,‎ Mirza,‎ F.A.,‎ and‎ Korol,‎ R.M.,‎ 1997A,‎ ‖Stability‎ of‎
imperfect‎steel‎conical‎tanks‎under‎hydrostatic‎loading‖,‎J.‎Struct.‎Engng.,‎
ASCE, 123, 703-712.

El‎ Damatty,‎ A.A.,‎ Korol,‎ R.M.,‎ and‎ Mirza,‎ F.A.,‎ 1997B,‎ ‖Stability‎ of‎
elevated liquid-filled conical tanks under seismic loading, Part I—Theory‖,‎
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 26, 1191–1208.

El Damatty, A.A., Korol, R.M., and Mirza, F.A., 1997C,‎ ‖Stability‎ of‎
elevated liquid-filled conical tanks under seismic loading, Part II —
Applications‖,‎Earthquake‎Eng.‎Struct.‎Dyn.,‎26,‎1209–1229.

Sweedan,‎ A.M.I.,‎ and‎ El‎ Damatty,‎ A.A.,‎ 2002,‎ ―Experimental‎


identification of the vibration modes of liquid-filled conical tanks and
validation‎of‎a‎numerical‎model―,‎Earthq.‎Eng.‎Struct. Dyn., 32(9), 1407-
1430.

El Damatty, Ashraf & Sweedan, Amr. (2006). Equivalent mechanical


analog for dynamic analysis of pure conical tanks. Thin-walled Structures -
THIN WALL STRUCT. 44. 429-440. 10.1016/j.tws.2006.03.016.

AmericanWaterWorksAssociation(AWWA).2005.Welded steel tanks for


water storage, AWWA D-100. Denver, Colo.

194
Egyptian Committee for making Egyptian Code for estimating loads and
forces in structural and construction works.Code number 201. Egyptian
Code for estimating loads and forces in structural and construction works
(2012).

Moslemi, Mehdi, "Seismic Response of Ground Cylindrical and Elevated


Conical Reinforced Concrete Tanks" (2011).Theses and dissertations.Paper
1402.

L. S. Jacobsen (1949), "Impulsive Hydrodynamics of Fluid Inside a


Cylindrical Tank and of a Fluid Surrounding a Cylindrical Pier," Bull.
Seism. Soc. Am., Vol. 39, 1949.

L. S. Jacobsen and R. S. Ayre (1951), "Hydrodynamic Experiments with


Rigid Cylindrical Tanks Subjected to Transient Motions," Bull. Seism. Soc.
Am., Voh 41, 1951.

Housner, G.W. (1963) The dynamic behavior of water tanks. Bulletin of


Seismological Society of America, 53, 381-387.

Veletsos, A. S. and Ventura, C. E. (1984), Efficient analysis of dynamic


response of linear systems. Earthquake Engng. Struct. Dyn., 12: 521-536.
doi:10.1002/eqe.4290120408

Edwards N., 1969, A procedure for the dynamic analysis of thin walled
cylindrical liquid storage tanks, Ph.D Thesis,Ann Arbor (MI), University of
Michigan.

Epstein,‎H.I‎(1976),‎―Seismic‎design‎of‎liquid‎storage‎tanks‖,‎J.Struct.‎Div.‎
ASCE, 102, 1659-1673.

195
Eurpcode-8‎ (2006),‎ ―Design‎ of‎ Structures‎ for‎ Earthquake‎ Resistance-Part
4:‎Silos,‎Tanks‎and‎Pipelines‖,‎EuropeanCommittee‎for‎Standardization, 65
pages.

A.‎ S.‎ Veletsos,‎ ―Seismic‎ effects‎ in‎ flexible‎ liquid‎ storage‎ tanks,‖‎ in‎
Proceedings of 5th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 1,
pp. 630–639, Rome, Italy, 1974.

Yang, J.Y., (1976). Dynamic Behavior of Fluid-Tank Systems, PhD Thesis,


Rice University, Houston, Texas,USA.

A. S. Veletsos and J. Y. Yang, Earthquake Response of Liquid Storage


Tanks: Advances in Civil Engineering through Engineering Mechanics,
ASCE, Reston, VA, USA, 1977.

W.‎ Flügge,‎ ―Stresses‎ in‎ Shells,‖‎ Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1960.


doi:10.1007/978-3-662-01028-0

Hunt,‎B.,‎and‎Priestley,‎N.,‎1978,‎―Seismic‎water‎waves‎in‎a‎storage‎tank‖,‎
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 68(2), 487-499.

Clough,‎ R.W.,‎ and‎ Clough,‎ D.P.,‎ 1977,‎ ―Seismic‎ response‎ of‎ flexible
cylindrical‎ tanks‖,‎ Paper‎ K‎ 5/1‎ Trans.‎ 4th‎ International‎ Conference‎ on‎
Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, San Francisco, CA.

Clough,‎ R.W.,‎ Niwa,‎ A.,‎ and‎ Clough,‎ D.P.,‎ 1979,‎ ―Experimental‎ seismic‎
study‎of‎cylindrical‎tanks‖,‎Journal‎of‎the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol.
105, No. 12, pp. 2565-2590.

Haroun,‎ M.A.,‎ 1980,‎ ‖Dynamic‎ analyses‎ of‎ liquid‎ storage‎ tanks‖,‎ EERL¸‎
Report No. 80-04,

196
Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory Report, California Institute
of Technology, Pasadenas, CA.

Barton,‎ D.C.,‎ and‎ Parker,‎ J.V.,‎ 1987,‎ ‖Finite‎ element‎ analysis‎ of‎ the‎
seismic‎ response‎ of‎ anchored‎ and‎ unanchored‎ liquid‎ storage‎ tanks‖,‎
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 15, 299-322.

Haroun,‎ M.A.,‎ and‎ Housner,‎ G.W.,‎ 1981A,‎ ‖Seismic‎ design‎ of liquid


storage‎tanks‖,‎Journal‎of‎the‎Technical‎Councils‎of‎ASCE,‎107,‎191- 207.

Haroun,‎ M.A.,‎ and‎ Housner,‎ G.W.,‎ 1981B,‎ ‖Earthquake‎ response‎ of‎


deformable‎ liquid‎ storage‎ tanks‖,‎ Journal‎ of‎ Applied‎ Mechanics,‎ ASME,‎
48, 411-418.

Balendra, T., Ang, K.K.,‎ Paramasivan,‎ P.,‎ and‎ Lee,‎ S.L.,‎ 1982,‎ ‖Seismic‎
design‎of‎flexible‎cylindrical‎liquid‎storage‎tanks‖,‎Earthquake‎Engineering‎
and Structural Dynamics, 10, 477-496.

Minowa,‎C.,‎1980,‎―Dynamic‎analysis‎for‎rectangular‎water‎tanks‖,‎Recent‎
Advances in Lifeline Earthquake Engineering in Japan, 135-142.

Minowa,‎C.,‎1984,‎―Experimental‎studies‎of‎seismic‎properties‎of‎various‎
type‎water‎tanks‖,‎Proceedings‎of‎Eighth‎WCEE,‎San‎Francisco,‎945-952.

Haroun,‎M.A.,‎1983,‎―Vibration‎studies‎and‎tests‎of‎liquid‎storage‎ tanks‖,‎
Earthquake Engng. Struct. Dyn., 11, 190-206.

Haroun,‎ M.A.,‎ 1984,‎ ―Stress‎ analysis‎ of‎ rectangular‎ walls‎ under‎


seismically‎ induced‎ hydrodynamic‎ loads‖,‎ Bulletin‎ of‎ the‎ Seismological‎
Society of America, 74(3), 1031-1041.

197
Veletsos, A.S., and Kumar, A.,‎ 1984,‎ ‖Dynamic‎ response‎ of‎ vertically‎
excited‎liquid‎storage‎tanks‖,‎Proceedings‎of‎the‎Eighth‎World‎Conference‎
on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. I, California, USA, pp. 453-459.

Haroun,‎ M.A.,‎ and‎ Tayel,‎ M.A.,‎ 1985,‎ ‖Response‎ of‎ tanks‎ to‎ vertical‎
seismic‎excitations‖,‎Earthquake‎Engng. Struct. Dyn., 13, 583-595.

Veletsos,‎A.S.,‎and‎Tang,‎Y.,‎1986,‎‖Dynamics‎of‎vertically‎excited‎liquid‎
storage‎ tanks‖,‎ ASCE‎ Journal‎ of‎ Structural‎ Engineering,‎ 112(6),‎ 1228-
1246.

S. Veletsos, Anestis & Tang, Yu. (1986). Dynamics of Vertically Excited


Liquid Storage Tanks. Journal of Structural Engineering-asce - J STRUCT
ENG-ASCE. 112. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1986)112:6(1228).

S. Veletsos, A & Tang, Y. (1990). Soil‐ structure interaction effects for


laterally excited liquid storage tanks. Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics. 19. 473 - 496. 10.1002/eqe.4290190402.

Park,‎ J.H.,‎ Koh,‎ H.M.,‎ and‎ Kim,‎ J.,‎ 1992,‎ ‖Liquid–structure interaction
analysis by coupled boundary element – finite element method in time
domain‖,‎ ‎ Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Boundary
Element Technology, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Edited by Brebbia, C.A.,
and Ingber, M.S., Computational Mechanics Publication BE-TECH/92,
Southampton, UK., pp. 89–92.

Gupta,‎ R.K.,‎ 1995,‎ ―Free‎ vibrations‎ of‎ partially‎ filled‎ cylindrical‎ tanks‖,‎
Journal of Engineering Structures, 17(3), 221-230.

198
Kim,‎ J.K.,‎ Koh,‎ H.M.,‎ and‎ Kwahk,‎ I.J.,‎ 1996,‎ ―Dynamic‎ response‎ of‎
rectangular‎ flexible‎ fluid‎ containers‖,‎ ASCE‎ Journal‎ of‎ Engineering‎
Mechanics, 122(9), 807-817.

Dogangun,‎A.,‎Durmus,‎A.,‎and‎Ayvaz,‎Y.,‎1997,‎―Earthquake‎analysis‎of‎
flexible‎rectangular‎tanks‎using‎the‎Lagrangian‎fluid‎finite‎element―,‎Euro.‎
J. Mech.-A/Solids, 16: 165-182.

Dogangun,‎A.,‎and‎Livaoglu,‎R.,‎2004,‎―Hydrodynamic‎pressures‎acting‎on‎
the‎ walls‎ of‎ rectangular‎ fluid‎ containers―,‎ Structural‎ Engineering‎ and‎
Mechanics, 17 (2), 203-214.

Koh,‎ H.M.,‎ Kim,‎ J.K.,‎ and‎ Park,‎ J.H.,‎ 1998,‎ ‖Fluid–structure interaction
analysis of 3D rectangular tanks by a variationally coupled BEM–FEM and
comparison with‎ test‎ results‖,‎ Earthquake‎ Engng.‎ Struct.‎ Dyn.,‎ 27,‎ 109–
124.

Chen,‎ J.Z.,‎ and‎ Kianoush,‎ M.R.,‎ 2005,‎ ―Seismic‎ response‎ of‎ concrete‎
rectangular‎ tanks‎ for‎ liquid‎ containing‎ structures‖,‎ Canadian‎ Journal‎ of‎
Civil Engineering, 32, 739-752.

Virella, J.C., Godoy,‎L.A.,‎and‎Suarez,‎L.E.,‎2006,‎‖Fundamental‎modes‎of‎


tank-liquid‎ systems‎ under‎ horizontal‎ motions‖,‎ Journal‎ of‎ Engineering‎
Structures, 28, 1450-1461.

Kianoush,‎ M.R.,‎ and‎ Chen,‎ J.Z.,‎ 2006,‎ ―Effect‎ of‎ vertical‎ acceleration‎ on‎
response of concrete rectangular‎ liquid‎ storage‎ tanks‖,‎ Engineering‎
Structures, 28(5), 704-715.

199
Kianoush,‎ M.R.,‎ Mirzabozorg,‎ H.,‎ and‎ Ghaemian,‎ M.,‎ 2006,‎ ―Dynamic‎
analysis of rectangular liquid containers in three-dimensional‎ space‖,‎
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 33, 501-507.

Ghaemmaghami, A.R., Moslemi, M., and Kianoush, M.R., 2010,


‖Dynamic‎behaviour‎of‎concrete‎liquid‎tanks‎under‎horizontal‎and‎vertical‎
ground‎ motions‎ using‎ finite‎ element‎ method‖,‎ 9th‎ US‎ National‎ and‎ 10th‎
Canadian Conf. on Earthquake Eng., Toronto, Canada.

Sonobe,‎ Y.,‎ and‎ Nishikawa,‎ T.,‎ 1969,‎ ―Study‎ on‎ the‎ earthquake‎ proof‎
design‎ of‎ elevated‎ water‎ tanks‖,‎ Proceedings‎ of‎ the‎ Fourth‎ World‎
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, B-4, Santiago, Chile, pp. 11-24.

Chandrasekaran,‎ A.R.,‎ and‎ Krishna,‎ 1965,‎ ―Water‎ towers in seismic


zones‖,‎ 1965‎ Proceedings‎ of‎ the‎ Third‎ World‎ Conference‎ on‎ Earthquake‎
Engineering, New Zealand, IV, 161-171.

Ifrim,‎ M.,‎ and‎ Bratu,‎ C.,‎ 1969,‎ ―The‎ effect‎ of‎ seismic‎ action‎ on‎ the‎
dynamic‎ behavior‎ of‎ elevated‎ water‎ tanks‖,‎ Proceedings‎ of‎ the Fourth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, B-4, 127-142.

Garcia,‎ S.M.,‎ 1969,‎ ―Earthquake‎ response‎ analysis‎ and‎ seismic‎ design‎ of‎
cylindrical‎ tanks‖,‎ Proceedings‎ of‎ the‎ Fourth‎ World‎ Conference‎ on‎
Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, B-4, 169-182.

Shepherd,‎R.,‎1972,‎―Two‎mass‎representation‎of‎a‎water‎tower‎structure‖,‎
Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 24.

Haroun,‎M.A.,‎and‎Ellaithy,‎H.M.,‎1985,‎‖Seismically‎induced‎fluid‎forces‎
on‎elevated‎tanks‖,‎J.‎Tech. Topics Civil Eng., 1, 1-15.

200
Joshi,‎S.P.,‎2000,‎‖Equivalent‎mechanical‎model‎for‎horizontal‎vibration‎of‎
rigid‎Intze‎tanks‖,‎ISET‎Journal‎of‎Earthquake‎Technology,‎37,‎39-47.

El‎ Damatty,‎ A.A.,‎ Korol,‎ R.M.,‎ and‎ Tang,‎ L.M.,‎ 2000,‎ ―The‎ sloshing‎
response‎ of‎ conical‎ tanks‖,‎ Proceedings of World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 966, Topic No. 7, New Zealand.

El Damatty, A.A., Saafan, M.S., and Sweedan, A.M.I., 2005,


‖Experimental‎ study‎ conducted‎ on‎ a‎ liquid-filled combined conical tank
model‖,‎Journal‎of‎Thin‎Walled‎Structures, 43, 1398–417.

Sweedan,‎A.M.I.,‎and‎El‎Damatty,‎A.A.,‎2005,‎―Equivalent‎models‎of‎pure‎
conical‎ tanks‎ under‎ vertical‎ ground‎ excitation―,‎ Journal‎ of‎ Structural‎
Engineering, ASCE, 131(5), 725-733.

Sweedan,‎ A.M.I.,‎ 2009,‎ ‖Equivalent‎ mechanical‎ model‎ for seismic forces


in‎combined‎tanks‎subjected‎to‎vertical‎earthquake‎excitation‖,‎Journal‎of‎
Thin Walled Structures, 47, 942–952.

Bleiman,‎ D.,‎ and‎ Kim,‎ S.,‎ 1993,‎ ―Base‎ isolation‎ of‎high‎volume‎ elevated‎
water‎ tanks‖,‎ Proc.,‎ Seminar‎ on‎ Seismic‎ Isolation,‎ Passive Energy
Dissipation and Active Control, ATC 17-1, Applied Technology Council,
Redwood City, Calif.

Chalhoub,‎ M.S.,‎ and‎ Kelly,‎ J.M.,‎ 1990,‎ ―Shake‎ table‎ test‎ of‎ cylindrical‎
water tanks in base-isolatedstructures‖,‎ J.‎ Engrg.‎ Mech.,‎ ASCE,‎ 116(7),‎
1451-1472.

Bo, L., and Jia-xiang,‎ T.,‎ 1994,‎ ―Vibration‎ studies‎ of‎ base-isolated liquid
storage‎tanks‖,‎Comp.‎and‎Struct.,‎52(5),‎1051-1059.

201
Kim,‎ N.S.,‎ and‎ Lee,‎ D.G.,‎ 1995,‎ ―Pseudo-dynamic test for evaluation of
seismic performance of base-isolated liquid storage‎ tanks‖,‎ Engineering‎
Structures, 17(3), 198-208.

Malhotra,‎P.K.,‎1997B,‎―Method‎for‎seismic‎base‎isolation‎of‎liquid‎storage‎
tanks‖,‎J.‎Struct.‎Engrg.,‎ASCE,‎123(1),‎113-116.

Malhotra,‎P.K.,‎1997C,‎―New‎method‎for‎seismic‎isolation‎of‎liquid‎storage‎
tanks‖,‎ Journal‎ of‎ Earthquake‎ Engineering‎ and‎ Structural‎ Dynamics,‎ 26,‎
839-847.

Malhotra,‎P.K.,‎1998,‎ ―Seismic‎strengthening‎of‎liquid‎storage‎tanks‎with‎
energy-dissipating‎anchors‖,‎J.‎Struct.‎Engrg., ASCE, 124(4), 405-414.

Shenton III, H.W., and Hampton,‎F.P.,‎1999,‎―Seismic‎response‎of‎isolated‎


elevated‎ water‎ tanks‖,‎ ASCE‎ Journal‎ of‎ Structural‎ Engineering,‎ 125(9),‎
965-976.

Shirmali,‎M.K.,‎and‎Jangid,‎R.S.,‎2003,‎―The‎seismic‎response‎of‎elevated‎
liquid storage tanks isolated by lead-rubber‎bearings―, Bulletin of the New
Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering, pp. 141-164.

Jadhav,‎ M.B.,‎ and‎ Jangid,‎ R.S.,‎ 2004,‎ ‖Response‎ of‎ base-isolated liquid
storage‎tanks‖,‎Shock‎and‎Vibration,‎11,‎33-45.

Jadhav,‎ M.B.,‎ and‎ Jangid,‎ R.S.,‎ 2006,‎ ‖Response‎ of‎ base-isolated liquid
storage tanks to near-faultmotions‖,‎Structural‎Engineering‎and‎Mechanics,‎
23, 615-634.

Shekari,‎ M.R.,‎ Khaji,‎ N.,‎ and‎ Ahmadi,‎ M.T.,‎ 2009,‎ ―A‎ coupled‎ BE-FE
study for evaluation of seismically isolated cylindrical liquid storage tanks

202
considering fluid-structure‎ interaction‖,‎ Journal‎ of‎ Fluids‎ and‎ Structures,‎
25, 567-585.

The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964: Seismology and Geology. National


Academy of Sciences, 1973.

Maheri MR, Severn RT. Hydrodynamic consideration for seismic design of


cylindrical structures.Proc of the Conf on Civil Engngr Dyna, Organised by
the University of Bristol and SECED, Univer-sity of Bristol, 24–25 March,
1988:297–313.

Werner, Stuart D. Seismic Guidelines for Ports. American Society of Civil


Engineers, 1998.

Kanade, Prakash, translator. Dynamic Analysis and Earthquake Resistant


Design. Dams, Nuclear Power Plants, Electrical Transformers and
Transmission Lines, Aboveground Storage Tanks and Piping. Vol. 3,
Japanese Society of Civil Engineers, 2001.

Manos, G. C. and Clough, R. W. (1985), Tank damage during the may


1983 coalinga earthquake. Earthquake Engng. Struct. Dyn., 13: 449–466.
doi:10.1002/eqe.4290130403.

Cooper TW (1997) A study of the performance of petroleum storage tanks


during earthquakes 1933-1995. Report for US Department of Commerce:
NIST GCR 97-720.

Rai, D. C. (2003), "Performance of Elevated Tanks in Mw 7.7 Bhuj


Earthquake of January 26, 2001", Proc. Indian Academy of Sciences (Earth
& Planetary Science), Vol. 112, No. 3, September, 421-429.

203
Veletsos AS, Tang Y (1990) Soil–structure interaction effects for laterally
excited liquid storage tanks. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 19(4):473–496.

S. Veletsos, Anestis & Tang, Yu. (1986). Dynamics of Vertically Excited


Liquid Storage Tanks. Journal of Structural Engineering-asce - J STRUCT
ENG-ASCE. 112. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1986)112:6(1228).

Patel,‎ Chirag‎ N.,‎ Vaghela,‎ Shashi‎ N.,‎ Patel,‎ H.‎ S.,(2012).‎ ―Sloshing‎
Response‎of‎Elevated‎Water‎Tank‎Over‎Alternate‎Column‎Proportionality‖‎
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology EISSN 0976-
3945IJAET/Vol.III/ Issue IV/Oct.-Dec.,2012/60-63.

European Committee for Standardization (ECS). 1998. Design provisions


for earthquake resistance of structures. Part I: General Rules and Part 4:
Silos,Tanks, and Pipelines. Eurocode 8, Brussels, Belgium.

LĠVAOĞLU,‎ Ramazan‎ &‎ Doğangün,‎ Adem.‎ (2004).‎ A‎ simple‎ seismic‎


analysis procedure for fluid-elevated tank-foundation/soil systems,.

LĠVAOĞLU,‎ Ramazan‎ &‎ Doğangün,‎ Adem.‎ (2006).‎ Simplified‎ seismic‎


analysis procedures for elevated tanks considering fluid–structure–soil
interaction. Journal of Fluids and Structures. 22. 421–439.
10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2005.12.004.

SAP2000, 2011. Integrated Software for Structural Analysis & Design.


Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, CA.

204
Algreane, G. A. I., Osman, S. A., Karim, O. A., & Kasa,
A. (2009). Dynamic behaviour of elevated concrete water tank with
alternate impulsive mass configurations. In Proceedings of the 2nd WSEAS
International Conference on Engineering Mechanics, Structures and
Engineering Geology, EMESEG '09 (pp. 245-250)

Jolie, M & M. Hassan, Mahmoud & El Damatty, Ashraf. (2013).


Assessment of current design procedures for conical tanks under seismic
loading. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 40. 1151-1163.
10.1139/cjce-2012-0318.

S.H.HELOU.(2014).Seismic induced forces on rigid water storage tanks.


Asian Journal of Engineering and Technology.

Anup Y Naik, Rakshan K M ,Ashok P G.(2015).Seismic analysis of


completely buried rectangular concrete reservoir.International Research
Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET).

Jaiswal, O.R. & Kulkarni, S & Pathak, P. (2008). A study on sloshing


frequencies of fluid-tank system. Proceedings of 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 2008. 1-8.

Azabi, Tareq & El Ansary, Ayman & El Damatty, Ashraf. (2016). Analysis
and design of elevated liquid-filled reinforced concrete conical tanks.
Advances in Structural Engineering. 19. 10.1177/1369433216630824.

Elansary, AA, El Damatty, AA, El Ansary, AM (2016) Assessment of


equivalent cylinder method and development of charts for analysis of
concrete conical tanks. Engineering Structures 126: 27–39.

205
Azabi, Tareq M., "Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Conical Tanks under
Hydrostatic Loading" (2014). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation
Repository. 1900.

Musa, Ahmed, "Analysis and Design Procedure for Liquid-Filled Conical


Tanks Under Seismic Loading" (2016). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation
Repository. 3724.

Chen, Jun Zheng, "Generalized SDOF system for dynamic analysis of


concrete rectangular liquid storage tanks" (2010). Theses and
dissertations.Paper 997.

Joshi, Sanjay. (2000). Equivalent Mechanical Model for Horizontal


Vibration of Rigid Intze Tanks. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology.
37. 39-47.

Whittaker, David & Saunders, D. (2008). Revised NZSEE


Recommendations for Seismic Design of Storage Tanks.

R. Jaiswal, O & C. Rai, Durgesh & K. Jain, Sudhir. (2007). Review of


Seismic Codes on Liquid-Containing Tanks. Earthquake Spectra -
EARTHQ SPECTRA. 23. 10.1193/1.2428341.

Haroun, M.A., and Bhatia, H.. Analysis of tank damage during the 1994
Northridge earthquake. United States: N. p., 1995. Web.

Rai, D.C. J Earth Syst Sci (2003) 112:


421.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02709269

206
‫يهخص انبحث‬
‫ذغرخذً اىخضاّاخ ف‪ ٜ‬اّظَح ذ٘ص‪ٝ‬غ اىَ‪ٞ‬آ ٗف‪ ٜ‬اىصْاػاخ ىرخض‪ ِٝ‬ع٘ائو ٍرؼذدج ماىقاتيح ىالشرؼاه‪،‬‬
‫مَا اُ ذ٘ص‪ٝ‬غ اىَ‪ٞ‬آ ‪ٝ‬ؼرثش ٍَٖح ؼ‪ٝ٘ٞ‬ح الؼر٘اء اىؽشائق اىر‪ ٜ‬قذ ذؽذز اشْاء اىضالصه ٍغثثح دٍاس‬
‫ٗخغائش ف‪ ٜ‬االسٗاغ‪ ،‬ىٖزا التذ ٍِ ٍؽاٗىح االتقاء ػي‪ ٜ‬اىخضاّاخ ف‪ ٜ‬ؼاىح ذشغ‪ٞ‬ي‪ٞ‬ح ظ‪ٞ‬ذج تؼذ ؼذٗز‬
‫اىضالصه‪ .‬ذغرخذً اىخضاّاخ راخ اىشنو اىَخشٗغ‪ ٜ‬اىَقي٘ب ف‪ ٜ‬ذ٘ص‪ٝ‬غ ٗذخض‪ ِٝ‬اىَ٘اد ٗذغرخذً‬
‫ا‪ٝ‬عا ىغٖ٘ىح صشف اىَ٘اد ٍْٖا ٗذْظ‪ٞ‬فٖا‪.‬‬
‫ّظشا ىَ‪ٞ‬و ؼ٘ائػ اىخضاّاخ اىَخشٗغ‪ٞ‬ح‪ٝ ،‬ؼرثش ذأش‪ٞ‬ش أؼَاه اىضالصه ػي‪ٖٞ‬ا ٍخريف ػِ اىخضاّاخ‬
‫االعط٘اّ‪ٞ‬ح اىر‪ ٜ‬ذٌ دساعح ذأش‪ٞ‬ش اىضالصه ػي‪ٖٞ‬ا تص٘سج ٍغرفاظح‪.‬‬

‫غثقا الغية ام٘اد اىرصَ‪ ٌٞ‬فئُ اىرؼاٍو ٍغ اىخضاّاخ اىَخشٗغ‪ٞ‬ح ‪ٝ‬رٌ ٍِ خاله ذؽ٘‪ٝ‬يٖا اى‪ ٜ‬خضاُ‬
‫اعط٘اّ‪ٍ ٜ‬ناف‪ٜ‬ء‪ٗ ،‬تاىشغٌ ٍِ ٍؽذٗد‪ٝ‬ح دساعح اىخضاّاخ اىَخشٗغ‪ٞ‬ح اال أّ ٍِ اقذً اىذساعاخ‬
‫ػي‪ ٜ‬ذيل اىخضاّاخ ماّد )‪ .El Damatty et al. (1997‬ا‪ٝ‬عا قاً ‪Sweedan and El‬‬
‫)‪ Damatty (2002‬تؼَو ذعاسب ٍؼَي‪ٞ‬ح تٖذف فؽص اىخصائص اىذ‪ْٝ‬اٍ‪ٞ‬ن‪ٞ‬ح ىيخضاّاخ‬
‫اىَخشٗغ‪ٞ‬ح‪ El Damatty and Sweedan (2006) .‬قاٍا تاعرْراض َّ٘رض ٍ‪ٞ‬ناّ‪ٞ‬ن‪ٝ ٜ‬رٌ‬
‫اعرخذأٍ ىرؽي‪ٞ‬و اىخضاّاخ اىَخشٗغ‪ٞ‬ح ذؽد ذأش‪ٞ‬ش اؼَاه اىضالصه االفق‪ٞ‬ح‪.‬‬

‫‪ٖٝ‬ذف ٕزا اىثؽس إى‪ ٚ‬دساعح ذأش‪ٞ‬ش أؼَاه اىضالصه ػي‪ ٜ‬اىخضاّاخ اىَخشٗغ‪ٞ‬ح اىراٍح اىْاقصح ٍغ‬
‫األخز ف‪ ٜ‬اإلػرثاس اىرفاػو اىذ‪ْٝ‬اٍ‪ٞ‬ن‪ ٜ‬ت‪ ِٞ‬اىخضاُ ٍٗا ‪ٝ‬ؽر٘‪ٍ٘ ٍِ ٔٝ‬ائغ ػِ غش‪ٝ‬ق اىرؽي‪ٞ‬و اإلّشائ‪ٜ‬‬
‫تطش‪ٝ‬قح اىرعاٗب اىط‪ٞ‬ف‪ ٜ‬اىَشُ تئعرخذاً تشّاٍط ذؽي‪ٞ‬و إّشائ‪ SAP2000 V15.1.0 ٜ‬اىز‪ٝ ٛ‬ؼَو‬
‫تطش‪ٝ‬قح اىؼْاصش اىَؽذدج ٍٗقاسّح اىْرائط تطش‪ٝ‬قح اىن٘د األٍش‪ٝ‬ن‪)AWWA- D100-2005 ( ٜ‬‬
‫ٗغش‪ٝ‬قح اىن٘د اىَصش‪ ٛ‬ىألؼَاه )‪ ٗ ، (ECP 201-2012‬ذٌ ػَو دساعح تاساٍرش‪ٝ‬ح ىذساعح ذأش‪ٞ‬ش‬
‫ذغ‪ٞ‬ش ؼعٌ ٗأتؼاد اىخضاُ ٍٗقاسّح اىْرائط تاألم٘اد اىغاتقح ٍِ خاله ذغ‪ٞٞ‬ش اىخصائص اىْٖذع‪ٞ‬ح‬
‫ىيخضاُ مضاٗ‪ٝ‬ح ٍ‪ٞ‬و ؼائػ اىخضاُ ٗاسذفاع اىخضاُ ٗاىغائو اىَؽر٘‪ٗ ٛ‬قطش اىخضاُ ٗاسذفاع اىخضاُ‬
‫ٍِ عطػ األسض‪.‬‬

‫ٗقذ ذٌ ٍقاسّح ّرائط اىرؽي‪ٞ‬و اإلّشائ‪ ٍِ ٜ‬خاله ػضًٗ اإلّقالب ٗق٘‪ ٛ‬اىقص األفق‪ٞ‬ح ػْذ ٍْغ٘ب‬
‫األعاعاخ ىنو خضاُ ذٌ دساعرٔ‪‎ .‬‬
‫ذٌ اىر٘صو اى‪ ٜ‬تؼط اإلعرْراظاخ ؼ‪ٞ‬س أُ األم٘اد اىَخريفح ذغرخذً غش‪ٝ‬قح ٍقشتح ترؽ٘‪ٝ‬و اىخضاُ‬
‫اىَخشٗغ‪ ٜ‬اى‪ ٜ‬خضاُ اعط٘اّ‪ٗ ٜ‬تاىَقاسّح تْرائط اىَْ٘رض االّشائ‪ ٜ‬اىَؽيو تطش‪ٝ‬قح اىؼْاصش‬
‫اىَؽذدج‪ ،‬ذٌ اىر٘صو اى‪ ٜ‬أُ غش‪ٝ‬قح األم٘اد غش‪ٝ‬قح ذقش‪ٝ‬ث‪ٞ‬ح ‪ٝ‬ؤد‪ ٛ‬إعرخذاٍٖا إى‪ّ ٜ‬رائط أقو ٍِ اىْرائط‬
‫اىصؽ‪ٞ‬ؽح ٍَا ‪ٝ‬ؤد‪ ٛ‬إى‪ ٜ‬ذصَ‪ ٌٞ‬غ‪ٞ‬ش أٍِ‪ ،‬مَا ذٌ اىر٘صو إى‪ ٜ‬إٍناّ‪ٞ‬ح اى٘ص٘ه اى‪ّ ٜ‬فظ ؼعٌ‬
‫اىخضاُ اىَخشٗغ‪ ٜ‬اىَشغ٘ب ف‪ٍ ٔٞ‬غ اى٘ص٘ه اى‪ ٜ‬اظٖاداخ أقو ػِ غش‪ٝ‬ق ظؼو صاٗ‪ٝ‬ح ٍ‪ٞ‬و ؼائػ‬
‫اىخضاُ اىشأع‪ٞ‬ح تق‪َٞ‬ح ‪ 15‬درجة‪.‬‬
‫شكر و تقذير‬
‫تذا‪ٝ‬ح أؼَذ هللا ذؼاى‪ٗ ٜ‬أشنشٓ ػي‪ ٜ‬فعئ ّٗؼَائٔ ػي‪ ٜ‬ف‪ ٜ‬مو شئ ٗف‪ ٜ‬ذ٘ف‪ٞ‬قٔ إ‪ٝ‬ا‪ ٛ‬ف‪ٕ ٜ‬زا اىؼَو‪.‬‬
‫ٗأذ٘ظٔ تاىشنش ٗاالٍرْاُ ألٍ‪ٗ ٜ‬أت‪ٗ ٜ‬اخ٘ذ‪ ٜ‬ػي‪ ٜ‬ذشع‪ٞ‬ؼٌٖ ى‪ٗ ٜ‬دػ٘اذٌٖ ى‪ٗ ،ٜ‬اذ٘ظٔ تنو اىؽة‬
‫ٗاىرقذ‪ٝ‬ش تاىشنش ىضٗظر‪ ٜ‬ػي‪ ٜ‬صثشٕا ٗذشع‪ٞ‬ؼٖا ٗذؽَيٖا ىنو األ‪ٝ‬اً ٗاىي‪ٞ‬اى‪ ٜ‬اىصؼثح اىَصاؼثح‬
‫ىٖزا اىؼَو ٍٗا شنئ ٍِ ذؽذ‪ٗ ٛ‬اقرطاع ىي٘قد ٗاىَعٖ٘د ‪.‬‬
‫أذ٘ظٔ تاالٍرْاُ ٗ االؼرشاً ىَششف‪ ٗ ٚ‬أعرار‪ ٙ‬اىذمر٘س ظَاه ؼغ‪ ِٞ‬أعرار ٍغاػذ تقغٌ اىْٖذعح‬
‫اىَذّ‪ٞ‬ح مي‪ٞ‬ح–‬
‫اىْٖذعح ظاٍؼح ػ‪ ِٞ‬شَظ ٗرىل ىذػَٔ ٗ ٍغاػذذٔ ى‪ ٜ‬خاله فرشج ٕزا اىثؽس ‪.‬مَا اذ٘ظٔ‬
‫تاىشنشىيذمر٘س ّصش‬
‫ػ‪ٞ‬ذ‪ٍ -‬ذسط ‪ ‎‬تقغٌ اىْٖذعح اىَذّ‪ٞ‬ح مي‪ٞ‬ح اىْٖذعح ظاٍؼح ػ‪ ِٞ‬شَظ‪ٗ -‬رىل ىَغاػذذٔ ٗذؼاّٗٔ ٍؼ‪ٚ‬‬
‫ف‪ٕ ٚ‬زا اىثؽس‪.‬‬
‫مَا أذ٘ظٔ تاىشنش ىيذمر٘س أٍعذ غيؼد‪ٍ -‬ذسط ‪ ‎‬تقغٌ اىْٖذعح اىَذّ‪ٞ‬ح مي‪ٞ‬ح اىْٖذعح ظاٍؼح ػ‪ِٞ‬‬
‫شَظ‪‎ .‬‬
‫ٗاخ‪ٞ‬شا إٔذ‪ٕ ٛ‬زا اىثؽس اى‪ ٜ‬صذ‪ٝ‬ق‪ٍ ٜ‬ؽَذ ٕشاً اىز‪ٗ ٛ‬افرٔ اىَْ‪ٞ‬ح ذاسما قي٘تْا داٍؼح‪ٗ ،‬اعأه هللا‬
‫اُ ‪ٝ‬رغَذٓ تشؼَرٔ‪‎ .‬‬
‫‪‎‬‬
‫‪‎‬‬
‫‪‎‬‬
‫‪‎‬‬
‫‪‎‬‬
‫‪‎‬‬
‫‪‎‬‬
‫‪‎‬‬
‫‪‎‬‬
‫‪‎‬‬
‫‪‎‬‬
‫‪‎‬‬
‫‪‎‬‬
‫‪‎‬‬
‫‪‎‬‬
‫اقرار‬
‫ٕزٓ اىشعاىح ٍقذٍح ف‪ ٜ‬ظاٍؼح ػ‪ ِٞ‬شَظ مي‪ٞ‬ح اىْٖذعح قغٌ اىْٖذعح اىَذّ‪ٞ‬ح ىيؽص٘ه ػي‪ ٚ‬دسظح‬
‫اىَاظغر‪ٞ‬ش‪.‬‬
‫اُ اىؼَو اىز‪ ٛ‬ذؽر٘‪ٕ ٔٝ‬زٓ اىشعاىح ذٌ اّعاصٓ تَؼشفح اىثاؼس عْح‪. 2018‬‬
‫ٕزا ٗ ‪ٝ‬قش اىثاؼس أُ اىؼَو اىَقذً ٕ٘ خالصح تؽصٔ اىشخص‪ ٗ ٜ‬أّ قذ اذثغ االعي٘ب اىؼيَ‪ ٜ‬اىغي‪ٌٞ‬‬
‫ف‪ٜ‬‬
‫االشاسج اى‪ ٜ‬اىَ٘اد اىَؤخ٘رج ٍِ اىَشاظغ اىؼيَ‪ٞ‬ح مو ف‪ٍ ٜ‬نأّ ف‪ٍ ٜ‬خريف اظضاء اىشعاىح‪.‬‬
‫˓˓˓ٗ ٕزا اقشاس ٍْ‪ ٜ‬تزىل‬

‫اىر٘ق‪ٞ‬غ‪:‬‬
‫اىثاؼس ‪:‬أؼَذ ػَشٗ فؤاد ساشذ‬
‫اىراس‪ٝ‬خ‪‎ ‎:‬‬
‫جامعة عين شمس‬
‫كلية الهندسة‬
‫قسم الهندسة اإلنشائية‬

‫صفحة تعريف بًقذو انرسانة‬


‫االسى ‪ :‬أؼَذ ػَشٗ فؤاد ساشذ‬
‫تاريخ انًيالد ‪11/8/1990 :‬‬
‫يحم انًيالد ‪ :‬اىقإشج‬
‫انذرجة انعهًية االونى ‪ :‬تناى٘س‪٘ٝ‬ط اىْٖذعح اىَذّ‪ٞ‬ح‬
‫انتخصص ‪ :‬اّشاءاخ‬
‫انجهة انًاَحة ‪ :‬مي‪ٞ‬ح اىْٖذعح ظاٍؼح ػ‪ ِٞ‬شَظ‬
‫تاريخ انًُح ‪2012 :‬‬
‫جامعة عين شمس‬
‫كلية الهندسة‬
‫قسم الهندسة اإلنشائية‬

‫االعٌ‪ :‬أؼَذ ػَشٗ فؤاد ساشذ‬


‫ػْ٘اُ اىشعاىح‪ :‬اىرؽي‪ٞ‬و االّشائ‪ ٜ‬ىيخضاّاخ اىَخشٗغ‪ٞ‬ح اىراٍح اىؼاى‪ٞ‬ح ذؽد ذأش‪ٞ‬ش اؼَاه اىضالصه ٍغ‬
‫دساعح اىرفاػو اىَشرشك ت‪ ِٞ‬اىغائو ٗاىخضاُ‬
‫اىذسظح اىؼيَ‪ٞ‬ح‪ٍ :‬قذٍح ىيؽص٘ه ػي‪ٍ ٜ‬اظغر‪ٞ‬ش اىؼيً٘ ف‪ ٜ‬اىْٖذعح اىَذّ‪ٞ‬ح قغٌ اّشاءاخ‬

‫نجُة انحكى‬

‫االيضاء‬ ‫االسى‬

‫أ‪.‬د ايًاٌ أَىر يحًذ سانى انشايي‬


‫أعرار اىرؽي‪ٞ‬و االّشائ‪ٗ ٜ‬اىَ‪ٞ‬ناّ‪ٞ‬نا‬
‫مي‪ٞ‬ح اىْٖذعح‬
‫ظاٍؼح اىضقاص‪ٝ‬ق‬

‫أ‪.‬د يحًذ َىر انذيٍ سعذ فايذ‬


‫أعرار اىْٖذعح االّشائ‪ٞ‬ح‬
‫مي‪ٞ‬ح اىْٖذعح‬
‫ظاٍؼح ػ‪ ِٞ‬شَظ‬

‫أ‪.‬د جًال حسيٍ يحًىد‬


‫أعرار اىْٖذعح االّشائ‪ٞ‬ح‬
‫مي‪ٞ‬ح اىْٖذعح‬
‫ظاٍؼح ػ‪ ِٞ‬شَظ‬

‫اىراس‪ٝ‬خ‪:‬‬
‫جامعة عين شمس‬
‫كلية الهندسة‬
‫قسم الهندسة اإلنشائية‬

‫التحليل االنشائي للخزانات المخروطية التامة العالية تحت تأثير احمال الزالزل‬

‫مع دراسة التفاعل المشترك بين السائل والخزان‬

‫ٍقذٍح ىيؽص٘ه ػي‪ ٚ‬دسظح اىَاظغر‪ٞ‬ش‬


‫ف‪ ٜ‬اىْٖذعح اىَذّ‪ٞ‬ح‬
‫اىرخصص اّشاءاخ‬

‫اػذاد‬
‫أحًذ عًرو فؤاد راشذ‬

‫تناى٘س‪٘ٝ‬ط اىْٖذعح اإلّشائ‪ٞ‬ح ‪2012‬‬


‫مي‪ٞ‬ح اىْٖذعح‪ -‬ظاٍؼح ػ‪ ِٞ‬شَظ‬

‫انًشرفىٌ‬
‫أ‪.‬د ‪.‬جًال حسيٍ يحًىد‬
‫أعرار اىْٖذعح اإلّشائ‪ٞ‬ح‬
‫مي‪ٞ‬ح اىْٖذعح‪ -‬ظاٍؼح ػ‪ ِٞ‬شَظ‬

‫د ‪.‬أيجذ أحًذ طهعت‬


‫ٍذسط تقغٌ اىْٖذعح اإلّشائ‪ٞ‬ح‬
‫مي‪ٞ‬ح اىْٖذعح‪ -‬ظاٍؼح ػ‪ ِٞ‬شَظ‬

‫د ‪َ.‬صرعيذ َصر‬
‫ٍذسط تقغٌ اىْٖذعح اإلّشائ‪ٞ‬ح‬
‫مي‪ٞ‬ح اىْٖذعح‪ -‬ظاٍؼح ػ‪ ِٞ‬شَظ‬

‫اىقإشج‬
‫‪2018‬‬