Coe EEE DYNAMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF LARGE STEEL LIQUID RESERVOIRS ABSTRACT ‘The structural response of liquid storage reservoirs or tanks with flexible bottoms supported on the ground is fundamentally different than the response of other ‘structures, including rigid bottom tanks. The different ‘factors that cause the response, including the effects of ‘the tank aspect ratios, foundation interaction and soils characteristics are reviewed, along withthe history of the applicable analytical techniques. An analysis using linear and dynamic methods ts made and conclusions ‘and recommendations are given for their design. INTRODUCTION Liquid storage reservoirs, which have been in construction over centuries, have become a major topic in today’s seismic engineering world, One example of this is the rupture of a 5 million-gallon concrete reservoir in Westminster, California, which caused nearly $27 nillion in damages, on September 21, 1998, Other water districts have been using this asa case example during the design or retrofit oftheir reservoi ‘The performance of water, petroleum and chemical tanks and reservoirs in an earthquake is critical to society. The water supply is essential for controlling fires that usually ‘occur during an earthquake and which can cause more damage and loss of life than the event itself. Broken petroleum tanks can lead to large uncontrollable fires, while they, and chemical spills, can result in enormous ‘environmental damage. 319 Richard L. Hess ‘Structural Engineer/President oss Engineering Ine, Los Alamitos, CA George Pytlik Civilstructural Engineer Hess Engineering nc, Los Alamitos, CA Aswin Rangaswamy Associate Engineer Hess Engineering Inc., Los Alamitos, CA ‘The most common cause of tank ruptures is the failure due to longitudinal compression and radial tension that can burst a vertical seam and spill the entire contents. In steel tanks, this takes the form of bulging or an “elephant’s foot” a the base before actual rupture. Other forms of damage include roof damage due to sloshing, failure ofthe support systems or tearing out ofthe anchor chairs. Excessive movement of the tank can break connecting pipes that do not have sulficient flexibility built into them, resulting in los of liquid contents. Finally, failure of the foundation due to liquefaction or lateral movement of the supporting soil can result in oss of support and rupture ofthe vessel. Over the last several decades, engineers have been using the standard linear static procedure recommended by the American Water Works Association and American Petroleum Institute's publications, Prior to that, theoretical solutions had been developed for se analysis but most tanks were designed for static and wind loads with rule-of-thumb safety factors developed by petroleum and water supply companies. Lately, there have been more requests to do linear dynamic analyses using site-specific response spectra However, there has been no standard procedure published forthe dynamic analysis of such large tanks for the practicing engineer that would cover all conditions of differing aspect ratios, tank anchorage and, base rigidity or soil interaction. ‘The intent ofthis paper isto present the many variables that may be involved, and, as an example, the results of the analysis of a 5 million-gallon steel reservoir using the linear static and response spectra analysis. This willre Fe vat} iy FIG. 2. Site Specific Horizontal Response Spectra (0.58g) Source: Soil Report by “Geolabs - Westlake Village", dated Sep. 4, 1998 (Westlake Village, CA), 220describe the various methods for obtaining the period of the fank through analytical and computer programs. THE BASIS FOR THE LATERAL TANK ANALYSIS Cylindrical tanks containing liquids, with flexible bottoms resting directly on the ground or base mat, constitute a unique category for structural design. ‘This is because the entire weight ofthe tank contents contributes to the lateral seismic force while only a small percentage of that weight helps to resist overturning. Further complicating the analysis isthe fact thatthe lateral force consists of two components: impulsive forces and convective forces. The fist isthe type of force that structural engineers are familiar with, which relates to the inertia ofa portion of the liquid along the walls and the bottom which moves in unison wih the tank as a rigidly atfached mass, The second (convective) force is caused by the movement of the remaining fluid inside the tank, which is the subject of fluid dyna analysis. ‘The relative importance of these two forces depends on the physical configuration of the tank. Because the lateral component of the seismic forces is primary, the larger width-to-height ratios allow the convective forces ‘to come more into play. Whereas when the height is ‘more than the width (H/D > 1), the impulsive forces are predominant. ‘The natural period for these two components is also quite different. When a dynamic response spectrum is used in the analysis, the period for the impulsive force is Spills a fraction of a second while the convective is several seconds fong. The way that these Uifferent components are handled varies with the analysis ‘methodology that is used. ‘The defining consideration in the analysis of the tank is whether the overturning moment is large enough to result in significant uplift of one side of the tank wall. If this ‘were allowed to occur, the longitudinal compression and tangential tension on the other side would become excessive and cause buckling and probable rupture. Uplift ofthe tank shel is resisted by the weight of the shell and supported roof plus a band of liquid adjacent ro it, The width of this band of liquid depends on the stiffness (or thickness) of the bottom plate inside the 321 shell, which is called the annular ring, ‘The designer can thicken this ring but there are imitations because it ‘cannot be thicker than the shell. If this isnot sufficient, additional restraint in the form of anchors must be provided. ‘There is an intermediate zone in which some uplift will occur but anchors are not required by AWWA D100 (16) or API 650 (17). ‘This is because it has been found in the past thatthe uplift was too small to create failure of these tanks. ‘These two codes are based primarily on past experiences of failure of large storage vessels. ‘The seminal work was published by Wozniak and Mitchell in 1978 (4). Mr. ‘Wozniak had been with Chicago Bridge and Iron Company, a major tank fabricator, and Mr. Mitchell, a ‘member of SEAOC, with Standard Oil Company of California, They had access to a large database, including the effects of the great Alaska earthquake of 1964, and were able to take the theoretical data that was available and put it into a set of equations that can be used by practicing engineers. ‘This appears to have been the basis of both the API 650 Appendix E and the seismic provisions of AWWA D100, ‘The latest edition of the later has incorporated provisions that can employ response spectra in the analysis. A 1998 edition of API 650 has been published, ‘but was not examined atthe time this paper was written When anchorage for uplif is required, it can be provided by piles or rock anchors. One approach, that used rock anchors wit steel bolts that were designed to yield, was described in a paper by John Shipp (12) atthe 1993 ‘SEAOC convention and can be found in the Proceedings. This approach may be especially useful in a retrofit situation where the annular ring is not thick enough to climinate uplift and the excess force can be taken by the new anchors that yield at a predetermined level. A more advanced study ofthis type of retrofit anchorage is contained in reference (19). Resistance to uplift ofthe shell by the bottom annular ring cannot begin until an initial vertical displacement ‘occurs which permits the bottom to resist the displacement in tension. Some installation specifications call fora pad to be placed under the edge of the bottom to give it an initial displacement, under no load, with the bottom. This is called pre-uplift and is described in reference (8).TANK SUPPORT CONDITIONS X % MASS IMPULSIVE ANALYSIS CASE [HORIZONTAL | MODE# | PARTICIPATION | PERIOD (SEC) Notes! PER 2008 1 RISA3D 1_[200%Fin 39,40, 90.62 03572 __| Acc=2.4g 16008 RISASD 2 [600% 43,44 6931 0.23645 rigid RISASD 3_ [rigid 43,44 55.66 0.21380 rigidly supported ‘A. Veletsos 4_[ righty supported = = 0.1980 1997 flexibly supported ‘A. Veletsos 5__| flexibly supported = = 0.2760 1997 600i RISA-3D 6 | 600\s/in’ 43,44 81.84 027163__| Acc=2.4¢ ‘Note: 1 Acceleration obtained from the response spectrum based on the calculated impulsive petiod Ks = Coefficient of subgrade reaction Table ‘omparison of tank's impulsive period SMGStee! Tank (50'iax40'high #9012-T GP job #$012,(TankRighly Supporad) FIG. 3, RISA 3-D Model of the Tank 322(Other considerations concer the effect thatthe rigidity ‘of the tank base has on seismic forces. Ifthe base is relatively soft, damping increases and the intensity of forces decrease, whereas the opposite is true for rigid bases. An analysis ofthe different responses to be expected from these differing conditions is contained in reference (19). CHRONOLOGY OF ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES Analytical studies were undertaken inthe late 40°s through the early 60°s by Jacobsen (1) at Stanford and Housner (2) at CalTech. After the 1964 Alaska earthquake, a major study was made of tank failures, Which resulted in the basic methodology, as described above, for linear static procedure stil in use. In the late 60's, analytical studies began to appear inthe literature by Veletsos and others who attempted to provide a theoretical framework to account for actual vessel ‘behavior during earthquakes. This has continued to the present date with more sophisticated studies that attempt {o predict behavior with varying combinations of shell thickness, foundation and sol interaction characteristics. However, a general procedure has not yet appeared. Fifty years ago, Lydik Jacobsen, under a grant from the U.S. Navy, analyzed the dynamic forces exerted by a fluid on the inside of a cylindrical tank and on the outside ofa cylindrical pier. The two cases are similar from a theoretical standpoint. This analysis was then used both for the design of tanks and for submerged piers or caissons in a marine environment. By analyzing what he called impulsive hydrodynamic forces of fluids, he derived graphs from which values for the “effective” mass of the fluid could be obtained for various height-to-diameter ratios. This “effective” mass then had an appropriate seismic force factor applied to it to obtain the seismic shear. The method was still in by many engineers well into the 1980's. It is interesting. to compare his findings with current practice. ‘The following is a brief description of the analysis of a 5- million-gallon water tank with 150 foot diameter and 40 foot height using the Jacobsen effective mass approach ‘with the charts from reference (1): Mass of wate hia= 40/75 323 From graphs: Zh ~ 0381 MyM=032 Nytt"(a'h? = 1.04 Z, = (0.381}(40) = 15.24 feet My = (0.32\(44108) = 14,115 kips Using typical factors from the 1976 UBC: Cp=0.12 5 ‘Therefore f(t) = (0.12\(1.5) - 0.18 ‘The overturning moment due to horizontal hydraulic forces would be: M, = (0.18)(15.24)(14,115) = 38,720 kip feet ‘The hydrodynamic couple acting on the bottom of the tank wil be: Ny = (0.0624)(0.18)(75)°(40)%(1.04) = 105,132 kip feet ‘Assuming a roof weight of 20 PSF and an average shell ‘weight of 30 PSF, the overturning moment due to the roof and shell would be: ‘Mr=(0.030)(40)(150)(=)(0.18(20) + (0.020)(75)*n(0.18)(40) = 4,580 kip feet ‘The total overtuming moment: My + Ni +Mp= 148,432 kip feet This analysis does not take into aecount the mass of liquid that is supported by the annular ring, It only considers the theoretical hydraulic forees on a rigid tank surface. However, the final result is not too dissimilar from the results obtained from the analysis given below. ANALYSIS OF FIVE-MILLION-GALLON STEEL RESERVOIR ‘The following is the analysis ofa steel tank using static, AWWA procedure and the dynamic approach with the period calculated by computer analysis and by methods found in the current literature. ‘The tank in this example is 150 feet in diameter x 40 feet high of carbon steel. The liquid level inthe tank is assumed to be at 39.25 feet. The capacity ofthe tank is calculated at approximately 5.0 milion gallons. The tank is located in Southern California. The tank has a supported cone roof with a slope of 4" toa foot, TheRESPONSE SPECTRA ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION eee CASE CASED CASES Ry Assumed Wak 25 3 “Receleraion PerAWWADIO096 24a 2g fg controlled by sliding check ‘ANALYSIS RESULTS: Moment (10 Kips) [98 22 Bs 116 Shear (10" kips) 60 143 102 TA SHELL THICKNESS | Based on hydrostatic | Based on hydrodynamic combined withthe hydrostatic Torees reg. for hoop tension | forces, ‘Course I (top) va Te Tie 7a Course a Toe Tae" iy Courses ry ¥ ¥ Tia Coursed TO" 258" 5 ¥ Course 5 (bottom) Ta ia" ae Ie" ANCHORAGE Tpit in Tank Yes Yes Yes ‘W/anchorage GHP Dia AB. COTS" Dia AB. | GB) 1-34" Dia AB. ‘wlo anchorage OK OK OK Earthquake Compressive Stress TS w/ anchorage Ta 12.07 161 BS FS wio anchorage Ba NG 2135 262 Sloshing wave height ‘wT anchorage TTR 1a Tae Tare ‘wo anchorage Zan NG Lat 2a ‘Sliding Check “Tank will side Wa Yes Yes No ‘© Deduced from allowable sliding shear from equation 13-30 (AWWA D100-96) ‘Table 2: Comparison of tank design under different Rr Factor and Acceleration 324content ofthe tank is water with a weight of 62.4 pef and a specific gravity of 1.0 RISA-3D DYNAMIC ANALYSIS The tank was modeled with plate shell elements, tank roof beams and plate elements with roof's center supporting column as shown in Figure 3. Two shell ‘courses of I-inch thick members as shown in Figure 1 was modeled. Vertical & horizontal spring constants (with increase factors 1, 3 & 8) were chosen for the tank's boundary conditions — ref. cases # 1, 6 & 2 of the attached comparison table, ‘Tank support rigid condition was also analyzed and tabulated as case #3. Risa-3D 94 design spectra, soil type 1 were used to obtain periods for diferent modes of vibration together with model's mass participation percentages (%) It should be noted that dynamic analysis was performed for tank’s dead load together with impulsive weight of tanks water content distributed evenly along tank's periphery. Impulsive weight of liquid is moving in ‘unison with tank's shell during a seismic event, therefore its inclusion in dynamic analysis is justified. ‘As seen in Table 1 (comparison table), dynamic analysis ‘shows that increase of rigidity of spring constant (horizontal direction only) fom 200#/in’ all the way to rigid condition will have no substantial impact on horizontal gravity acceleration since all the periods investigated are within highest acceleration peak curve of the attached response spectra for WI impulsive liquid 2% damping, AWWA ANALYSIS ‘The tank was analyzed using the latest American Water Works Association's (AWWA) standard for Welded Steel tanks for water storage, publication D100-96. The seismic design in Section 13 of the publication was used inthe proceeding analysis. ‘The repetitive calculations were simplified by the use of ‘ur in-house Mathcad template. Sample calculations have been attached. ‘The acceleration corresponding to the various impulsive periods as noted in Table 1 was scaled to be 2.4g. This 325 ‘was based on the site specific response spectrum as shown in Figure 2. Convective acceleration is 0.59% damping per AWWA Sec. 13.4. Usually the convective acceleration is higher than impulsive for about 2-3 seconds and later is same. Since 0.5% damping was not available the impulsive acceleration was used to get the convective acceleration. ‘This assumption was made in reading the spectra in Figure 2. For this specific example all the periods gave the same acceleration. This was used in the AWWA analysis. One of the key factors in the dynamic analysis prescribed in AWWA is the Ry factor, called the reduction factor. A. recommended reduction factor is 2.5 for ground motion with a mean recurrence interval of 10,000 years. Proceeding with the calculation based on this factor resulted in uplift in the tank requiring 84-2 inches diameter anchor bolts. On assuming a higher reduction factor of 3.5, calculations indicated uplift in the tank ‘without requiring anchor bolts. The above two cases indicated a chance of sliding in the tank as calculated per the AWWA method. We then backtracked the calculations based on the sliding check. ‘The appropriate acceleration that the tank could ‘withstand without sliding was found by trial and error to be 1.7g. This case also produced uplift but was not sufficient to require anchor bolts. The results of this analysis have been tabulated in Table 2. Anchorage ofthe tank was calculated based on the ‘maximum longitudinal shell compression stress at the bottom of the shell as prescribed by the AWWA method, ‘There is @ possibility of three different options - one ‘when there is no uplift, second when there is uplift but not sufficient to require remedial measures and three ‘when there is uplift which requires remedial measures like anchors or thickening ofthe bottom annulus Sometimes, anchor bolts are specified if required by the supplier. The anchor bolts required in the different cases iscussed above are shown in the table for comparison, ‘The calculated seismic SOH should be the maximum height to which the tank can be filled such thatthe tank ‘overturning and shell instability are guarded during a major earthquake. Filling a tank to this level however ‘may not preclude a portion of the tank contents from damaging the roof during a major earthquake, This can ‘occur ifthe freeboard is insufficient to accommodate sloshing displacements of the liquid contents. Although such fluid motion is normally not associated witha large release of contents, and therefore, is generally notimportant from a catastrophic failure viewpoint, such a spill can potentially be a hazard, and roof damage can be costly to repair. Therefore, the required freeboard to preclude sloshing of tank contents over the tank wall was also calculated, The summary in Table 2 shows the sloshing height with and without the anchorage for the different cases discussed above. ‘The hydrodynamic seismic hoop tensile stress was calculated in order to determine the shell thickness for the four courses. The summary in Table 2 indicates how these values vary with the various cases discussed above. ‘The hydrodynamic seismic hoop tensile stress takes into account the impulsive, convective and the hydrostatic force combined with the vertical acceleration, which was specified to be 100% of the impulsive acceleration in our example, EXAMPLE CALCULATION STATIC SEISMIC ANALYS! Design Information: D=150.0n Inner diameter of the tank Height of the shell ofthe tank Design liquid level in the tank (per Spec see. 103-4.2) of the tank C= 5.189 ‘Weight ofthe fluid in the tank (water) Specific Gravity of the lui in the tank Seismic Analysis (Per AWWA Chapter 13) Zin04 Zone coefficient from Fig. 7 and Table 24 11.25 Use factor from Table 26 Weight of the tank shell and appurtenances W., = S77.Skips Hy Height from bottom of the tank shell to center of gravity of shell in feet 326 068 52.3 PS ‘Total weight of tank roof plus @ portion of snow load, ifany. nae Height of tank shell aio! kips Weight of tank contents Passe a Ratio of Diameter of tank to Height of fluid in tank Value of WL/WT obtained from Fig. 9( AWWA) Weight of effective mass of the tank contents that move in unison with the tank shell eo! W 1 = L310" 45 atue of W2/WT obtained from Fig. 9 (AWWA) =WyrWy 65 =W20Wt Weight of effective mass of the tank contents that move in the first sloshing mode ips ‘Value of X1/H obtained from Fig. 10 cawwa) Height from the bottom of the tank shell tothe centroid of lateral seismic force applied to WI ‘Value of X2/H obtained from Fig. 10 cAWwa) Height from the bottom of the tank shell to the centroid of lateral seismic force applied to W2 Site amplification factor from Table 7 k:=067 Factor obtained from Fig 8 forthe DiH ratio =p" TwitkD ‘Natural period of the first sloshing rode, in seconds Ty= 821\ [0.75) w) tye) T\Tw] Acceleration of the sloshing contents Force reduction coefficient for ‘unanchored flat bottom tank, Table 25 ‘The overturning moment applied to the bottom of the tank shell due tothe seismic forces is: Ms RE oag(w gt W pH hw 1X1} #SW 2X2 1810" ekips-t Resistance To Overturning (See, 13.3.3.3): }6000psi ‘The minimum specified yield strength ‘of the bottom plate under the shell ‘p= 05125in ryikness ofthe bottom plate under the shell ‘The maximum weight of the tank contents that may be used to resist the shell overturning moment in pound per foot of shell circumference i GHC Ib) 2.93¢klt wu sat Lif sown) whe w= 2.93Klf ‘Shell Compression (Sec, 1 P| _ (nD) tank shell where wt is the weight sie tank shel. wee LI@10% pir C shell | us Cohen = 0.93 < 1.54 D(wetwr) 327 Tank need not be anchored FOR UNANCHORED TANKS: Ma: longitudinal shel Compression free at he botiom ofthe shell when hee tens pitas drmined above wg aroMt} \ D FOR UNANCHORED TANKS: Max. longtina!se Compression force at hebatom ote shell when he Isupltasdetrmined above ee ew fh a F ie Di(wet WE) 6g = 487%psi o.6o70- one 0 gq 500s FOR ANCHORED TANKS: the maximum longitudinal compressive force at the bottom ofthe shell {oye tars) \ Dy) tss 6 gg 487si The maximum longitudinal shell compression force at ‘the bottom of the shell is: 3 6 gHfC gy <0.785.6 g1.7856C gh <1-540 g98 3) 6 g= 500% ‘Wave height, from sloshing, above top eapaci (see. 1333.7. For unanchored Tank: [Z1C 3) d= 7.53D, d= 2168 Rw PROVIDE A FREE BOARD OF d= 2.18 FOR ‘THE SLOSHING WAVE Earthquake Allowable Compressive Stres tg5=125in Thickness of plate under consideration Hydrostatic pressure at point under consideration (Ht of fluid x tts We) P= 17.01"psi Modulus of Elasticity for steelspectra. The period is obtained from Cgaxis® 03 Risa 3D rom the aph in Figure x Reduction factor from Sec. 13.4.1 Ee a eee The overturning moment without the factors are value of Cxaxis: &Cg = 0.15 presented here Allowable compression is determined from Table 11 M impulsive’=W eX 5+ W gHy + W pXy based on UR (shell thickness/radius) Sat oe 7 Minpusne= 21410 ip. — = = 0.00139 From AWWA Table 10, pg.19; 0sD M convective 6 = 2690psi a 2X2 convective = 59510" ips-t fe O55 4 r= 6042p ‘The overtuming moment applied tothe bottom ofthe For unanchored tank (Ea, 13-27): tak shel the seme: My impulsive [==] M convective rise) Allowable Actual: Mg= 15810 skips. G p= 7595q5i 1>4 —@ g= SOI aaa fechas THE REST OF THE ANALYSIS IS SIMILAR TO THE ~ Shell thickness is OK in compression using the ae thickness of t 45 = 1.25ein RESPONSE SPECTRA ANALYSIS - CASE3 The calculations are similar as shown above. The For anchored tank (Eq. 13.29): required acceleration was calculated by trial and error. The sliding check is shown here. ° ~The plate has a factor of safety of —E = 15.19 egies ‘Check Sliding (See.13.3.3.75): Allowable ‘Actual: © ps 3578psi ada © 3 2 487%psi {A¢\ FS23578/487=74 inpuisiet [z*) comectne ‘Shell thickness is OX in compression Vgcr® 741010 ips SPONSE SPECTRA ANALYSIS - Vallow =tan(30-deg)-(W ¢ + W p+ W y+ W 2)-(1.0- 0.42) 3 Seismic Analysis (Per AWWA Chapter 13): This is Vatiow= 7810? skips >V gcr= 7410 ‘based on the response spectra and period based on OK dynamic analysis and/or Veletsos 1997. Ag ‘The acceleration ofthe convective CONCLUSIONS (sloshing ofthe liquid) mass obtained from the response spectra. The period ‘Most of the problems in tank design could be eliminated is obtained as above (Tw) if the engineer could choose the site forthe vessel and its aspect ratio. The rule of thumb used to be that ifthe height was less than the tank radius in seismie zone 4 and it could be placed on a level pad of firm homogenous soil, no anchorage would be required and a ring wall ccould be designed to restrain the supporting soil. After a ‘The acceleration of the impulsive (tank + the liquid which moves in unison) ‘mass obtained from the response 328large seismic event, re-leveling ofthe tank could be done, but failure would not occur. More stringent ratios are now required for this ‘unanchored condition due to new code requirements for soil, near source and importance factors. What is becoming more important tothe designer i the fact that tanks and reservoirs are located on more demanding sites ‘where space is limited and anchorage is required because of the height ofthe vessel and/or the poor soil conditions. However, due tothe size ofthe tank, a foundation mat ‘may not be feasible and consideration must be given to anchorage to a ring wall which, if made strong enough to resist uplift, wil affect the seismic response of the tank due to siffening ofthe base ‘We do not believe that dynamic computer solutions can be relied on as the sole design tool. It does not appear that the geotechnical profession can provide the kind of | information that is necessary to accurately mode! the soil response of the tank to seismic movements Furthermore, variations in the supporting soil and in the type and direction of seismic motion lead to more variables. ‘Vertical acceleration is also a factor that is not well understood. We know that high vertical accelerations ccan occur at a point. However, i this is eaused by a laterally moving wave in the soil, it will not lift the bulk ofthe tank contents atthe same time and therefore the overall frictional resistance to lateral movernent will not be greatly impaired. Furthermore, as the AWWA D100 document states, tanks have not been observed to slide off their bases. Itis recommended that if response spectra are available, the Veletsos (1997) (18) method be used to calculate the period and that the dynamic solution be compared with a static AWWA D100 or API 650 solution. If desired, computer runs may be made using a range of spring factors to confirm the manual solution and to check the sensitivity to changes inthe properties. A great deal of, judgement is still required, and remember, bigger is not always better. Flexibility is often desirable, and if it is built into the piping connections, some re-leveling of the tank can be made after a major event at relatively little cost. REFERENCES 1 Jacobsen, Lydik S, “Impulsive Hydrodynamics of Fluid Inside @ Cylindrical Tank and of Fluid surrounding 329 Cylindrical Pier,” Bulletin ofthe Seismological Society of America, Volume 39, Number 3, July 1949, 2 Housner, G.W., “Earthquake Pressures on Fluid Containers,” Eighth Technical Report under Office of Naval Research, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, August 1954. 3. Veletsos, A.S, “Seismic Effects in Flexible Liquid Storage Tanks,” Proceedings of International Association for Earthquake Engineering, 5* World Conference, Rome, Italy, 1974, 630-639 4 Wozniak, R.S., and W.W. Mitchell, “Basis of Seismic Design Provisions for Welded Steel Oil Storage Tanks,” 1978 Proceedings - Refining Dept., Washington, D.C.: American Petroleum Institute, 1978, $7:485-501 5 Haroun, M.A., “Dynamic Analyses of Liquid Storage “Tanks,” A report on Research Conducted under Grants _from the National Science Foundation, Pasadena, California, California Institute of Technology, February 1980. 6 Veletsos, A.S, “Seismic Response and Design of Liquid Storage Tanks", Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oll and Gas Pipeline Systems, New York, ASCE, 1984, 7 Priestley, M.IIN.,et al, “Seismic Design of Storage “Tanks,” Recommendations of a Study Group of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, December 1986 8 Peek, R, etal, “Pre-Uplit Method to ‘Anchor’ Liquid Storage Tanks,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Volume 114, No. 2, ASCE, February 1988. 9 Haroun, M.A., Badawi, HS. & Bains, G.P., “Static Uplift Analyses of Unanchored Tanks,” Proceedings of Fourth US. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Volume IIL, Palm Springs, California, May 1990, 157-166, 10 Haroun, M.A. & Abou-Izzeddine, W., “Parametric Study of Seismic Soil-Tank Interaction. : Horizontal Excitation,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, March 1992, 783-797.I] Haroun, M.A. & Abou-Lzzeddine, W., “Parametric Study of Seismic Soil-Tank Interaction. IT: Vertical Excitation,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, March 1992, 798-812, 12 Haroun, M.A, Shipp, J. et al, “Seismic Strengthening of Johnstown Tank in Lakeside, California,” Proceedings, 62™ Annual Convention, Structural Engineers Association of California, 1993. 13 Malhotra, P. & Veletsos, A. S., “Beam Model for Base-Uplifting Analysis of Cylindrical Tanks," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1994, 120(12), 3471- 3488, 14 Malhotra, P. & Veletsos, A. S., “Uplifting Analysis ‘of Base Plates in Cylindrical Tanks,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1994, 120(12), 3489- 3505 15 Malhotra, P. & Veletsos, A. S., “Uplifting Response ‘of Unanchored Liquid Storage Tanks,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1994, 120(12), 3525- 3547. 16 AWWA Standard D100 for Welded Steel Tanks for Water Storage, American Water Works Associ ‘New England Water Works Association, American ‘National Standards Institute, 1996 17 API Standards 650 Welded Stee! Tanks for Oil Storage, 9" Edition, American Petroleum Institute, ‘American National Standards Institute, 1993, addendum 1 1994, addendum 2 1995, addendum 3 1996, addendum 4.1997 18 Veletsos, AS & Shivakumar, P, “Tanks Containing Liquids or Solids,” Computer Analysis and Design of Earthquake Resistant Structures, A handbook edited by DE. Beskos and S.A. Anagnostopoulos, Computational Mechanics Publication, 1997. 19 Malhotra, P.K., “Seismic Response of Soil-Supported Unanchored Liquid-Storage Tanks," Journal of ‘Structural Engineering, ASCE, April 1997. 20 Malhotra P. K., “Seismic Strengthening of Liquid- Storage Tanks with Energy-Dissipating Anchors,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, April 1998, 405-414, 330