Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 14, Issue 11, pp 3283–3299 | Cite as

Seismic vulnerability mitigation of liquefied gas tanks using concave sliding bearings

  • H. N. Phan
  • F. PaolacciEmail author
  • D. Corritore
  • B. Akbas
  • E. Uckan
  • J. J. Shen
Original Research Paper

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of a concave sliding bearing system for the seismic protection of liquefied gas storage tanks through a seismic fragility analysis. An emblematic case study of elevated steel storage tanks, which collapsed during the 1999 İzmit earthquake at Habas Pharmaceutics plant in Turkey, is studied. Firstly, a fragility analysis is conducted for the examined tank based on a lumped-mass stick model, where the nonlinear shear behaviour of support columns is taken into account by using a phenomenological model. Fragility curves in terms of an efficient intensity measure for different failure modes of structural components demonstrate the inevitable collapse of the tank mainly due to insufficient shear strength of the support columns. A seismic isolation system based on concave sliding bearings, which has been demonstrated a superior solution to seismically protect elevated tanks, is then designed and introduced into the numerical model, accounting for its non-linear behaviour. Finally, a vulnerability analysis for the isolated tank is performed, which proves a high effectiveness of the isolation system in reducing the probability of failure within an expected range of earthquake intensity levels.

Keywords

Elevated tanks Nonlinear analysis Fragility analysis Concave sliding bearing Reinforced concrete column Shear behaviour 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been partially funded by the Italian RELUIS consortium within the executive research program DPC/ReLUIS 2015 and the European Research Project INDUSE-2-SAFETY (Grant No. RFS-PR13056).

References

  1. Abali E, Uckan E (2010) Parametric analysis of liquid storage tanks base isolated by curved surface sliding bearings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(1–2):21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alessandri S, Giannini R, Paolacci F (2013) Aftershock risk assessment and the decision to open traffic on bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42:2255–2275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. API 650 (2007) Welded storage tanks for oil storage. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentz E, Collins MP (2001) Response-2000 user manual University of Toronto, Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  5. Berahman F, Behnamfar F (2007) Seismic fragility curves for un-anchored on-grade steel storage tanks: Bayesian approach. J Earthq Eng 11(2):166–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buratti N, Tavano M (2014) Dynamic buckling and seismic fragility of anchored steel tanks by the added mass method. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calugaru V, Mahin SA (2009) Experimental and analytical studies of fixed base and seismically isolated liquid storage tanks. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on advances in experimental structural engineering, San Francisco, 15–16 October 2009Google Scholar
  8. Cornell C, Jalayer F, Hamburger R, Foutch D (2002) Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC Federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526):526-533 Google Scholar
  9. De Angelis M, Giannini R, Paolacci F (2010) Experimental investigation on the seismic response of a steel liquid storage tank equipped with floating roof by shaking table tests. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39:377–396. doi: 10.1002/eqe.945 Google Scholar
  10. Elwood KJ, Moehle JP (2005) Axial capacity model for shear-damaged columns. ACI Struct J 102(4):578–587Google Scholar
  11. EN 1998-1 (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 1—general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  12. EN 1998-4 (2006) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 4—silos, tanks and pipeline, EN 1998-4, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  13. Fenz DM, Constantinou MC (2006) Behaviour of the double concave friction pendulum bearing. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35:1403–1424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gregoriou V, Tsinopoulos S, Karabalis D (2011) Dynamic analysis of liquefied natural gas tanks seismically protected with energy dissipating base isolation systems. In: Proceedings of the COMPDYN 2011, Corfu, Greece, 25–28 MayGoogle Scholar
  15. Haroun MA, Housner GW (1981) Earthquake response of deformable liquid storage tanks. J Appl Mech 48:411–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hatayama K (2008) Lessons from the 2003 Tokachi-oki, Japan, earthquake for prediction of long-period strong ground motions and sloshing damage to oil storage tanks. J Seismol 12:255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Housner GW (1963) The dynamic behaviour of water tanks. Bull Seismol Soc Am 53:381–387Google Scholar
  18. Iervolino I, Fabbrocino G, Manfredi G (2004) Fragility of standard industrial structures by a response surface based method. J Earthq Eng 8(6):927–945Google Scholar
  19. Jalayer F, Cornell CA (2009) Alternative non-linear demand estimation methods for probability-based seismic assessments. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(8):951–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karamanos SA, Patkas LA, Platyrrachos MA (2006) Sloshing effects on the seismic design of horizontal-cylindrical and spherical industrial vessels. Trans ASME J Press Vessels Technol 128(3):328–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krausmann E, Cruz A, Affeltranger B (2010) The impact of the 12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake on industrial facilities. J Loss Prev Process Ind 23:242–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luco N, Cornell CA (2007) Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 23(2):357–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Malhotra PK, Wenk T, Wieland M (2000) Simple procedure for seismic analysis of liquid-storage tanks. Struct Eng Int 10(3):197–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McKenna F, Fenves GL, Scott MH (2007) OpenSees: open system for earthquake engineering simulation. PEER, University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  25. Paolacci F (2015) On the effectiveness of two isolation systems for the seismic protection of elevated tanks. J Press Vessels Technol. doi: 10.1115/1.4029590 Google Scholar
  26. Paolacci F, Giannini R (2009) Seismic reliability assessment of a disconnect switch using an effective fragility analysis. J Earthq Eng 13:217–235. doi: 10.1080/13632460802347448 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Paolacci F, Giannini R, De Angelis M (2013) Seismic response mitigation of chemical plant components by passive control systems. J Loss Prev Process Ind 26(5):879–948. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2013.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schellenberg A (2006) Computer Program singleFPBearing element for analysis of single FP bearings in OpenSees. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  29. Setzler EJ, Sezen H (2008) Model for the lateral behavior of reinforced concrete columns including shear deformations. Earthq Spectra 24(2):493–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sezen H, Chowdhury T (2009) Hysteretic model for reinforced concrete columns including the effect of shear and axial load failure. J Struct Eng 135(2):139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sezen H, Moehle JP (2004) Shear strength model for lightly reinforced concrete columns. J Struct Eng 130(11):1692–1703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sezen H, Whittaker AS (2006) Seismic performance of industrial facilities affected by the 1999 Turkey earthquake. J Perform Constr Facil 20(1):28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sezen H, Lıvaoğlu R, Doğangün A (2008) Dynamic analysis and seismic performance evaluation of above-ground liquid-containing tanks. Eng Struct 30:794–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shome N, Cornell CA, Bazzurro P, Carballo JE (1998) Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses. Earthq Spectra 14(3):469–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shrimali MK (2003) Seismic response of elevated liquid storage steel tanks under bi-direction excitation. Steel Struct 7:239–251Google Scholar
  36. Shrimali MK, Jangid RS (2002) Non-linear seismic response of base-isolated liquid storage tanks to bi-directional excitation. Nucl Eng Des 217:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Suzuki K (2006) Earthquake damage to industrial facilities and development of seismic and vibration control technology—based on experience from the 1995 Kobe (Hanshin-Awaji) earthquake. J Disaster Res 1(2):177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tajirian FF (1998) Base isolation design for civil components and civil structures. In: Proceedings of structural engineers World Congress, San Francisco, California, JulyGoogle Scholar
  39. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vathi M, Karamanos SA (2015) Simplified model for the seismic performance of unanchored liquid storage tanks. In: Proceedings of ASME 2015 pressure vessels and piping conference, Boston, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
  41. Veletsos AS, Tang Y (1987) Rocking response of liquid storage tanks. J Eng Mech 113:1774–1792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang Y, Teng M, Chung K (2001) Seismic isolation of rigid cylindrical tanks using friction pendulum bearings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 30:1083–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhu L, Elwood K, Haukaas T (2007) Classification and seismic safety evaluation of existing reinforced concrete columns. J Struct Eng 133(9):1316–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Roma Tre UniversityRomeItaly
  2. 2.Gebze Institute of TechnologyGebzeTurkey
  3. 3.Bogazici UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  4. 4.College of EngineeringIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations