See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263382868

Optimal finite element modelling for modal analysis of liquid storage circular
tanks

Article  in  International Journal of Structural Engineering · January 2014

DOI: 10.1504/IJSTRUCTE.2014.063034

CITATIONS READS

4 1,577

4 authors, including:

S. A. Elkholy Alaa Elsayed

United Arab Emirates University Ajman University
60 PUBLICATIONS   122 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Safaa Sadek
Fayoum University
3 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Non linear seismic analysis of liquid storage tanks View project

INVESTIGATION THE BEHAVIOUR OF R.C. DEEP BEAM WITH WEB OPENINGS RETROFITTED BY FERROCEMENT View project

All content following this page was uploaded by S. A. Elkholy on 21 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Structural Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2014 207

Optimal finite element modelling for modal analysis

of liquid storage circular tanks

Said A. Elkholy*
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department,
United Arab Emirates University,
P.O. Box 15551, UAE
and
Fayoum University,
P.O. Box 63514, Cairo, Egypt
E-mail: selkhouly@uaeu.ac.ae
*Corresponding author

Alaa A. Elsayed
Fayoum Univresity,
P.O. Box 63514, Cairo, Egypt
E-mail: aas11@fayoum.edu.eg

Bilal El-Ariss
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department,
United Arab Emirates University,
P.O. Box 15551, UAE
E-mail: bilal.elariss@uaeu.ac.ae

Safaa A. Sadek
Fayoum University,
P.O. Box 63514, Cairo, Egypt
E-mail: sas05@fayoum.edu.eg

Abstract: Model analysis of liquid storage vertical tanks is a complex task

due to fluid-structure-soil interaction. Analysis of tanks subjected to earthquake
excitations using finite element modelling (FEM) has become a preferred
technique. The FEM is validated by comparing its results with experimental
and theoretical results in the literature. However, most finite element studies in
literature do not provide enough details on the selection of the elements used.
The objective of this study is to provide optimal FEM options of parameters
such as element types and number of elements which best predict the tank
dynamic characteristics, natural frequencies and principal mode shapes.
Coupled natural frequencies in sloshing modes were obtained for various
tank height-to-diameter ratios, various tank wall thicknesses and various
liquid depths. The FEM predictions compared well with literature available
experimental and numerical results. A set of FEM options of parameters is
recommended for elastic and inelastic analysis of such tanks.

Copyright © 2014 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

208 S.A. Elkholy et al.

Keywords: liquid storage tank; finite elements; modal analysis; FE modelling;;

sloshing modes.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Elkholy, S.A.,

Elsayed, A.A., El-Ariss, B. and Sadek, S.A. (2014) ‘Optimal finite element
modelling for modal analysis of liquid storage circular tanks’, Int. J. Structural
Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.207–241.

Biographical notes: Said A. Elkholy is an Associate Professor of Structural

Engineering in the Department of Engineering at Fayoum University. He
obtained his PhD degree from Tokyo University, Japan and his MSc degree
from Cairo University, Egypt.

Alaa A. Elsayed is an Associate Professor of Structural Engineering in the

Department of Civil Engineering at the Fayoum University. He obtained
his PhD degree from the University of Windsor-Canada and his MSc degree
from Cairo University, Egypt.

Bilal El-Ariss is an Associate Professor of Structural Engineering in the

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the United Arab
Emirates University. He obtained his PhD degree from Quebec, Canada and his
MSc degree from Missouri, USA.

Safaa A. Sadek is an Assistant Lecturer in the Civil Engineering Department,

Fayoum University, Egypt. She obtained her MSc degree from Fayoum
University, Egypt.

1 Introduction

Damages to liquid storage tanks in past earthquakes have shown how critical they are to
any society and; therefore, have attracted special attention to evaluating the seismic
behaviour of such tanks. The most commonly used type of tanks is the vertical thin
walled cylindrical tanks. Thin walled cylindrical liquid storage tanks have a simple
geometry, but exhibit complex vibration behaviour. This vibration behaviour is a coupled
system between the liquid and the tank structure because the tank walls are elastic and
deformable. In the coupled system, various vibration modes simultaneously occur during
earthquakes because the natural frequencies of most of the modes are in the exciting
frequency range of the earthquakes. Seismic behaviour of elastic vertical tanks, whether
they are fully or partially filled with liquids, is affected by the tank structural flexibility,
fluid properties and soil characteristics. To fulfil the requirement of keeping these tanks
functional after a major seismic excitation event, numerous theoretical and experimental
studies have been performed to better analyse the seismic behaviour of these tanks.
Housner (1963) developed the most commonly used analytical model in which
hydrodynamic pressure induced by seismic excitations is separated into impulsive and
convective components using lumped mass approximation. This model has been adopted
with some modifications in most of the current codes and standards. Yang (1976) used a
 Optimal FEM for modal analysis of liquid storage circular tanks 209

single degree of freedom model with different modes of vibrations to study the effects of
wall flexibility on the pressure distribution in liquid and the corresponding forces in the
tank structure. Veletsos and Yang (1977) developed flexible anchored tank linear models
and found that the magnitude of the pressure was highly dependent on the wall flexibility.
Minowa (1980, 1984) carried out experimental studies investigating the effect of
flexibility of tank walls and hydrodynamic pressure acting on the wall of rectangular
tanks. Haroun (1984) introduced a detailed analytical method and performed a series of
experiments including ambient and forced vibration tests for rectangular tanks. He used
the classical potential flow approach to estimate the hydrodynamic pressure assuming
rigid tank walls. On the experimental part, three full scale water storage tanks were tested
to determine the natural frequencies and mode shapes of vibrations. Also, Haroun and
Tayel (1985) used the finite element method for analysing the dynamic response of liquid
tanks subjected to vertical seismic ground motions. Veletsos and Tang (1986) analysed
liquid storage tanks subjected to vertical ground motion on both rigid and flexible
supporting foundations. Haroun and Abou-Izzeddine (1992) conducted a parametric
study of numerous factors affecting the seismic soil tank interaction under vertical
excitations. Dogangun et al. (1997) implemented a displacement-based fluid finite
element model in the general purpose structural analysis computer code SAPIV to
analytically study the effects of wall flexibility on the dynamic behaviour of rectangular
storage tanks filled with liquid. Excluding the fluid sloshing of the liquid, Chen and
Kianoush (2005) estimated the hydrodynamic pressure in two-dimensional flexible
rectangular tanks using the sequential method. Kianoush and Chen (2006) analysed the
dynamic behaviour of two-dimensional rectangular tanks subjected to vertical seismic
excitations. Their model included impulsive and convective masses in their seismic
analysis of two-dimensional rectangular tanks. Livaoglu (2008) studied the dynamic
behaviour of a fluid rectangular tank-foundation system with a simple seismic analysis
procedure using the interaction effects presented by Housner’s two mass approximations
for the liquid and the soil foundation system. Dutta et al. (2004) studied the dynamic
behaviour of reinforced concrete elevated tanks with soil structure interaction (SSI). The
investigation, in the initial phase, evaluates primary dynamic characteristics, impulsive
lateral period and impulsive torsional-to-lateral period ratio of such systems incorporating
the effect of SSI. Curadelli et al. (2010) studied the dynamic behaviour of elevated liquid
storage containers because of the interest in their response to seismic loads (e.g., in the
petro chemical industry) and in connection with the structural integrity and reliability
analysis of diverse shell components (e.g., in nuclear reactors). Ruifu et al. (2011) used
the multiple friction pendulum system (MFPS) to analyse the seismic response of an
isolated vertical, cylindrical, extra-large liquefied natural gas (LNG) tanks for large
displacements induced by earthquakes with long predominant periods. They compared
their analysis results to those in the literature and they did not propose finite element
modelling (FEM) in their methodology. Moslemi et al. (2011) considered fluid-structure
interaction in liquid containing tanks by developing a finite element technique that
implements such interaction. Utilising their developed technique, they were able
conclude that investigating liquid sloshing effects in tanks of complex geometries such as
conical tanks was possible. The elements they used for the liquid and tank wall were
displacement-based fluid elements and shell elements, respectively. Amiri and Sabbagh-
210 S.A. Elkholy et al.

Yazdi (2011, 2012) addressed experimental and numerical investigations of dynamic

parameters, natural frequencies and mode shapes of fixed roof ground supported storage
tanks. Three tall liquid storage tanks having similar height of 12.190 m and different radii
of 6.095, 8.00 and 9.144 m were considered using the finite element package ANSYS.
The finite element meshes of tank wall and roof were constructed using Shell181
quadrilateral shell elements and the fluid region was meshed by Fluid80 quadrilateral
fluid elements. They concluded that the constructed models can serve as a baseline in
structural dynamics for future analyses. They did not carry out further investigating on
other element types that may yield more representative models of the real structures.
Sezen et al. (2008) investigated the parameters influencing the dynamic behaviour of
above-ground liquid tanks. They carried out simplified and finite element dynamic
analyses of the tanks including the effect of liquefied gas-structure interaction using a
ground motion recorded at a nearby site. The simplified proposed analysis was based on a
three-mass model. In the ANSYS FEM the reinforced concrete columns were modelled
using frame elements. Quadrilateral four-node-shell elements were used for stainless tank
walls and eight-node-solid elements were used to model the thick reinforced concrete
tank. Fluid inside the tank was modelled using eight-node-brick fluid elements. Jalali and
Parvizi (2012) carried out an experimental work to investigate the effects of different
parameters on modal properties of liquid-containing structures. Their experimental results
were then used to construct analytical models for these structures using the finite element
package, ANSYS. Shell element SHELL63 and fluid element FLUID80 from the
ANSYS element library were used in their models which were capable of regenerating
the experimental dynamic characteristics of the structures with an acceptable accuracy.
Maheri and Abdollahi (2013) conducted a numerical study using ABAQUS to investigate
the effects of material degradation due to corrosion on the dynamic buckling of three
cone roof ground-based, cylindrical tanks with height-to-diameter ratios (H/D) of 0.40,
0.63 and 0.95, subjected to horizontal seismic-base excitations. They used four-sided
doubly-curved shell elements to model the wall and three-sided shell elements (S3R) are
utilised to model the roof. No liquid element was specified or identified in their study to
model the liquid-tank interaction.
Therefore, different simplified design provisions for tanks have been developed based
on the simplified beam model analytical results reported by Veletsos, Haroun and
Housner (Veletsos, 1984; Haroun and Housner, 1981) and on experimental research
outputs reported in the literature. These simplified design provisions can be found in
codes and standards such as American Petroleum Industry (API) Standard 650 Appendix
E – ‘Seismic design of storage tanks’ (1980) or in Eurocode 8-Part 4 ‘Tanks, Silos and
Pipelines’ in Appendix B ‘Seismic analysis procedure for anchored cylindrical tanks’
(1998).
The finite element studies listed above did not provide enough details on the selection
criteria of the element types used and did not investigate the effects of other element
types available in the programme library on the performance of the tanks. The study also
recommends the optimal ANSYS shell element type and number of elements that best
predict the tank dynamic characteristics of natural frequencies and principal mode shapes.
 Optimal FEM for modal analysis of liquid storage circular tanks 211

2 Description of the finite element model

There are two approaches for modelling liquid storage tanks by using mechanical and FE
modelling techniques. The mechanical modelling technique has been defined as a
simplified model that had been developed by different researchers and recommended by
current major earthquake codes. The approaches for modelling tanks included approaches
for modelling the fluid structure interaction (FSI) system and approaches for modelling
the SSI system. The FE structural analysis programme, ANSYS (2006) was used in this
study to produce the FE modelling needed for the tank dynamic analysis. For the FSI
analysis, there are different FE approaches to represent fluid motion such as added mass
approach, Lagrangian approach, Eulerian approach, Lagrangian-Eulerian in the FE
method, smoothed particle hydrodynamic (SPH) methods and analytical methods such as
Housner’s two mass representations. The main objective of any FE modelling is to create
a mathematical representation of the engineering system that reflects its actual geometry
and behaviour. Building FE models in ANSYS requires familiarity with the ANSYS
operating manual and element library. Each element in ANSYS has specific properties
and behaviours to be defined according to the structure in the problem.

2.1 Modelling of the wall tank

The 3D FE model of empty tank was established as surfaces using the pre-processor
section in ANSYS. The selection of a suitable element for a given application is not a
trivial matter and will directly influence the computational time and accuracy of the
results. The ANSYS element library has many different types of shell elements. This
study examined the library available shell properties and concluded that six elements
have properties more appropriate for modelling liquid tank walls than other elements.
These shell types are commonly used by several researchers for modelling tanks with
different mesh sizes. Therefore, six different FE models were considered and analysed
individually in this study to investigate the choice of each of these six elements and its
total number in the mesh on its corresponding FE model performance and output. The
best shell element would be the one whose FE model performance and results are the
closest to, or have the least difference with, those results in the literature. The six shell
elements considered in this paper are:
1 SHELL43 with stress stiffening, creep and large plastic strain and deflection
capabilities, shown in Figure 1. It is a four-node element and is recommended for
modelling moderately-to-thick shell structures. Each node has six degrees of freedom
in the x, y and z nodal axes. Linear deformation shapes are used in both in-plane
motions. For out-of-plane direction, the element uses a mixed interpolation of
tensorial components.
2 SHELL63 elastic shell, shown in Figure 2. It is a four-node shell element and is
known of its membrane and bending capabilities. Loads applied normal and in-plane
are allowed. Each node of this element has six degrees of freedom in the x, y and z
nodal axes. SHELL63 is also known of its large deflection and stress stiffening
capabilities.
212 S.A. Elkholy et al.

3 SHELL93 is an eight-node shell element, shown in Figure 3. It is well suitable for

modelling curved shells. Each node has six degrees of freedom in the nodal x, y and
z axes. Deformation shapes are quadratic in both in-plane directions. SHELL93 has
large plastic strain, stress stiffening and large deflection capabilities.

4 SHELL143 plastic shell, shown in Figure 4. SHELL143 is well suited to model

nonlinear, flat or warped, thin to moderately-thick shell structures. It is a four-node
element and each node has six degrees of freedom in the x, y and z nodal axes.
SHELL143 has small plastic strain, stress stiffening, creep and large deflection
capabilities.

5 SHELL181 finite strain shell, shown in Figure 5. It is well suited for modelling thin
to moderately-thick shell structures. This element has four nodes and each node has
six degrees of freedom at each node and in the x, y and z nodal axes. It is well-suited
for linear, large rotation and/or large strain nonlinear applications. Change in shell
thickness is accounted for in nonlinear analyses. It can be used instead of SHELL43
for many problems that have convergence difficulty with SHELL43.

6 SHELL281, shown in Figure 6. According to the authors’ knowledge, this is one of

the most recently introduced elements by ANSYS. Element SHELL281 is an
eight-node element with six degrees of freedom at each nodes: three translations and
three rotations about the x, y and z nodal axes. The element is suitable for the
analysis of thin to moderately-thick shell structures where it is recommended to use
quadrilateral shaped elements. SHELL281 is recommended for modelling linear and
nonlinear strain and large rotation applications. SHELL281 may be used for layered
applications for modelling laminated composite shells or sandwich construction.

Figure 1 SHELL43 elastic shell

 Optimal FEM for modal analysis of liquid storage circular tanks 213

Figure 2 SHELL63 elastic shell

Figure 3 SHELL93 eight-node structural shell

Figure 4 SHELL143 plastic shell

214 S.A. Elkholy et al.

Figure 5 SHELL181 finite strain shell

Figure 6 SHELL281 geometry

2.2 Modelling of the fluid

As for the fluid, the ANSYS library has different types of fluid elements that can be
used to model the fluid in 2-D and 3-D problems. In this study, the fluid is divided into
a number of 3-D fluid elements (FLUID80 3-D contained fluid) with eight nodes
each node having three degrees of freedom. The fluid element FLUID80 is a
modification of the 3-D structural solid element (SOLID45). FLUID80 element, shown
in Figure 7, is recommended for modelling fluids within vessels with no net flow rate.
The fluid element is suitable for computing hydrostatic pressures and fluid/solid
interactions. Acceleration effects, such as in sloshing problems, as well as temperature
effects, may be included.
 Optimal FEM for modal analysis of liquid storage circular tanks 215

Figure 7 FLUID80 3-D contained-fluid element

2.3 Modelling of the FSI

The fluid-structure interaction can be modelled by one of two ways. The first is called
structure surrounded by water (SSW) and the second one is called water surrounded by
structure (WSS). The latter is adopted in this research where the tank wall and fluid
elements are used. In the WSS, the fluid domain is modelled inside the structure domain.

2.4 Coupling equations

Fluid element at the boundary should not be attached directly to structural elements (shell
elements) but should have separate, coincident nodes that are coupled only in the
direction normal to the interface. The FSI is accounted for by properly coupling the
coincident nodes that lie in the common faces of the two domains (liquid and wall) in the
radial direction. This means that the fluid is attached to the shell wall but can slip in the
wall tangential directions and therefore only can exert normal pressures to the tank wall.

2.5 Boundary conditions

The tanks studied in this research are assumed to have completely fixed-base. Therefore,
all the nodes at the base are assumed to be fixed.

2.6 Master degrees of freedom

Master degrees of freedom are required in modal analysis. These are degrees of freedom
that describe the dynamic behaviour of the structure. The accuracy of the finite element
analysis (FEA) depends greatly on the mesh used. A fairly course mesh is first employed
and then refined in areas of interest or high stress. The solving time of the model is
dependent on the number of elements which is determined by the mesh density. A low
density is appropriate where the stress is uniform over a relatively large area. However,
where there is high concentration of stresses over smaller areas a high mesh density is
deployed. The model of a circular tank in this research was drawn in ANSYS using
volumes, areas and lines and then the mesh is mapped (map meshing allows precise
control of the meshing procedure).
216 S.A. Elkholy et al.

2.7 Analysis method

The reduced method is widely referred to for modal analyses using the ANSYS fluid
elements. This method is used for the eigenvalue and eigenvector extractions to calculate
frequencies and modes shapes including the fluid modes. It utilises householder-
bisection-inverse iteration to evaluate the eigenvalues and eigenvectors. This method uses
a small subset of degrees of freedom, referred to as master DOF which makes is suitable
for fast calculations that yield an exact stiffness matrix and an approximate mass matrix
[M]. The accuracy of the results, therefore, depends on how well [M] is approximated
which in turn depends on the number and location of the master degrees of freedom.

3 Modelling and analysis results

A verification example of liquid storage tank tested experimentally by Mazúch et al.

(1996) and numerically analysed by Zienkiewicz (2005) using the FEA is presented.
The tank different mode shapes and frequencies were experimentally obtained and
documented by Mazúch et al. (1996). The different analytical frequencies of the same
tank were obtained by Zienkiewicz (2005) without using computer software and without
providing details on the types and number of elements used in the analysis. The example
was modelled in this study using the computer programme ANSYS and the model
frequency values for different mode shapes were compared to the tank experimental
measurements and theoretical solutions obtained by Mazúch et al. (1996) and
Zienkiewicz (2005) respectively.

3.1 A three-dimensional experimental tank

A 3D flexible circular tank tested by Mazúch et al. (1996) was chosen to verify this study
model results. The tank, shown in Figure 8, was tested in two different cases: empty tank
case and filled with liquid tank case. The same tank was numerically analysed for both
cases by Zienkiewicz (2005) using the FEA method. The available experimental and
analytical results were used to verify the accuracy of the results produced by the ANSYS
models proposed in this study. In addition, a parametric study was performed to evaluate
the effect of some variables on the numerical simulations, such as element types and
mesh sizes.

Figure 8 Tank tested experimentally by Mazúch et al. (1996)

 Optimal FEM for modal analysis of liquid storage circular tanks 217

The elastic cylindrical tank had a mean radius R = 77.25 mm, a wall thickness
h = 1.5 mm and a length L = 231 mm; the tank material characteristics were Young’s
modulus E = 2.05 × 1011 N/m2, Poisson ratio υ = 0.3, density ρs = 7,800 kg/m3. Water was
used as the contained fluid having a density of 1,000 kg/m3. The tank was welded at the
base to a 20 mm thick circular plate which was bolted to a heavy-base block .The tank
was filled with water up to the level H. The boundary conditions of the shell were
theoretically assumed to be of clamped-free type. Finite element analyses using ANSYS
were performed to obtain the modal characteristics of the tank. The fluid region is
divided into a number of three-dimensional contained fluid elements. The tank is
modelled with different types of shell elements as mentioned above.

4 Empty tank case

The experimental natural frequencies and mode shapes of the considered liquid storage
tank were obtained from the vibration measurements by Mazúch et al. (1996). The
analytical natural frequencies and mode shapes were computed as well by Zienkiewicz
(2005). In this study, the empty tank was treated as a 3D empty tank and was modelled as
surfaces using the pre-processor section in ANSYS. The bottom nodes of the tank shell
are fixed in all six degrees of freedom. The model was drawn in ANSYS using volumes,
areas and lines and then was map-meshed (map meshing allows precise control of the
meshing procedure). In order to find the best numerical model for the experimental test, a
total of 22 FE models of the tank were built in ANSYS, 19 models with four-node shell
elements and three models with eight-node shell elements.
To start modelling the tank, it was first decided to examine the effect of the model’s
element number increase along the tank circumferential perimeter (radial direction) and
along its height on the convergence and accuracy of the tank frequency values obtained.
First, the number of divisions along the tank height, NH, was chosen to be ten divisions
and kept fixed while increasing the number of divisions along the radial direction, NR,
from 6 to 30 divisions. Next, NH was increased to twenty divisions and kept fixed while
increasing NR from 6 to 30 divisions. SHELL 43 elements were used in this model
convergence test and the model frequency results were compared to the tank frequency
measurements by Mazúch et al. (1996). Figure 9 shows the FE model of the empty tank
using ANSYS.

Figure 9 3D FE model of empty tank (see online version for colours)

 218

Table 1

NH = 10 NH = 20
S.A. Elkholy et al.

SHELL 43 ELEMENT NR = 6 NR = 12 NR = 18 NR = 24 NR = 30 NR = 6 NR = 12 NR = 18 NR = 24 NR = 30
varying NH and NR

Total no. of elements Total no. of elements

m
348 912 1,692 2,688 3,900 588 1,392 2,412 3,648 5,100

Mode
Experiment
1 1 3 616 647.58 636.52 634.62 633.97 633.67 648.64 637.43 635.49 634.82 634.51
2 1 2 708 818.09 816.83 816.62 816.55 816.52 818.73 817.45 817.22 817.15 817.11
3 1 4 945 1,002.2 958.81 951.74 949.35 948.26 1,004.7 960.82 953.62 951.17 950.03
4 1 5 1,479 1,624 1,509.2 1,491.6 1,485.8 1,483.1 1,629.8 1,512.9 1,495 1,486 1,486.2
5 2 4 1,628 1,677 1,646.2 1,641.1 1,639.4 1,638.7 1,691.1 1,659.3 1,654.1 1,652.3 1,651.5
6 2 5 1,851 1,924 1,826.2 1,821 1,816.9 1,815 1,950.2 1,827.5 1,828 1,828.1 1,828.2
7 2 3 1,969 2,060 2,039.3 2,036.1 2,034.9 2,034.4 2,067.5 2,049.7 2,046 2,045.3 2,044.8
8 1 6 2,151 2,486 2,216.7 2,179.8 2,167.8 2,162.4 2,497.4 2,223.3 2,185.7 2,173.3 2,167.6
FE model natural frequencies for empty clamped-free cylindrical tanks (Hz) with
 Optimal FEM for modal analysis of liquid storage circular tanks 219

Figure 10 Effects of element number increase, NH and NR, on the model result accuracy
220 S.A. Elkholy et al.

The results of this model test are shown in Table 1 and in Figure 10. Figure 10 shows that
increasing the numbers of elements in both directions, the height of the tank and the
circumferential perimeter of the tank, minimises the difference in the model results and
the experimental measurements which means increasing the results accuracy. However, it
can be concluded that increasing the number of elements in the radial direction of the
tank yields a faster increase in the accuracy of the model results than the accuracy
increase when increasing the number of elements in the tank height direction. Number of
elements in the tank-base would be equal to the total number of elements generated by
ANSYS minus NH *4NR.
The tank analysis began with ANSYS models of 252 elements using the different
shell elements listed above separately. To investigate the effects of the element number in
the model on the tank calculated dynamic properties, i.e., natural frequencies and
principal mode shapes, the number of elements over the cylindrical shell surface was
increased gradually from 252 to 7,168 elements. The different types of shell elements
above were used separately in the different models of the tank with the different element
numbers to check the effects of choosing a particular individual shell element option on
the validity and accuracy of the results, therefore to propose the optimal model element
types and numbers for analysis of such tanks.
In this analysis, a large number of different models were investigated (as shown in
Table 2) to obtain the dynamic characteristics of the empty tank. The model mode shapes
of the empty tank using ANSYS and those of experimental measurement are shown in
Figure 11. A comparison shows good agreement of the results obtained from the FE
analysis and the experiments. Therefore, the results demonstrate the validity of the
model. The mode shapes of the cylindrical shell are identified by the number of axial
modes, m and number of circumferential waves, n.
Table 2 shows the experimental natural frequency measurements by Mazùch et al.
(1996), the frequency analytical values from FEM by Zienkiewicz (2005) and the natural
frequencies predicted by the ANSYS FE models in this study using different element
types and numbers. The FE model-obtained frequency results were compared with their
corresponding experimental measurements by Mazùch et al. while the analytical values
by Zienkiewicz were used as a reference. This comparison is shown in Table 1 as error,
or difference, percentages. The less the error or difference, the better the model result
accuracy is. As it can be seen in Table 2, the obtained FE results display good pattern
with the experimental results verifying that the current method of tank FE modelling can
further be employed to study the FSI problems of liquid-containing structures. The table
also shows that when using finer mesh, or increasing the number of elements, the
frequencies obtained from the FE models tend to come close to the experimental
measurements. The results of the final idealisation (7168 elements) compared very well
with the experimental measurements, except for the mode shape (m = 1 and n = 2) and
they were adopted for the in-vacuum dynamic characteristics of the vertical clamped-free
cylindrical shell. The mode shapes of the cylindrical shell are identified by the number of
axial modes, m and the number of circumferential waves, n.
 Table 2a

m
FEM
[27])

Mode

No. of
Shell 43
Shell 63
Shell 93

Error %
Error %
Error %
Error %
Error %
Error %
Error %

elements
Shell 143
Shell 181
Shell 281

Experiment
(Zienkiewicz

1 1 3 616 645 4.70 640.6 4.00 634.3 2.97 645.3 4.76 669.6 8.71 634.88 3.06 633.2 2.79
2 1 2 708 816.3 15.30 820.6 15.90 817.2 15.42 816.4 15.31 813 14.84 817.42 15.45 814.6 15.06
different type of shells, 252 elements

3 1 4 945 995.8 5.38 956 1.16 949.8 0.51 997 5.50 1,095 15.83 951.44 0.68 947.6 0.28
4 1 5 1,479 1,611 8.90 1,480 0.08 1,489 0.70 1,614 9.14 1,878 26.95 1,493.3 0.97 1,481.1 0.14
5 2 4 1,628 1,643 0.94 1,712 5.15 1,662 2.08 1,644 1.01 1,857 14.09 1,665.6 2.31 1,650.3 1.37

252 elements
6 2 5 1,851 1,858 0.38 1,898 2.52 1,859 0.41 1,861 0.56 2,257 21.93 1,868.5 0.95 1,842.1 0.48
7 2 3 1,969 2,031 3.13 2,100 6.66 2,052 4.20 2,031 3.16 2,191 11.27 2,052.0 4.22 2,029.6 3.08
8 1 6 2,151 2,444 13.62 2,135 0.74 2,183 1.50 2,453 14.04 3,065 42.49 2,191.0 1.86 2,158 0.33
Optimal FEM for modal analysis of liquid storage circular tanks

FE model natural frequencies for empty clamped-free cylindrical tanks (Hz) at

221
 222

Table 2b
S.A. Elkholy et al.

m
FEM
[27])

Mode

No. of
Shell 43
Shell 63
Shell 93

Error %
Error %
Error %
Error %
Error %
Error %
Error %

elements
Shell 143
Shell 181
Shell 281

Experiment
(Zienkiewicz

1 1 3 616 640.1 3.92 637.2 3.44 634 2.91 640.3 3.94 659.4 7.04 634.2 2.96 633.2 2.79
2 1 2 708 816.8 15.37 818.1 15.55 817.09 15.41 816.9 15.38 817.5 15.46 817.2 15.43 814.6 15.06
different type of shells, 448 elements

3 1 4 945 973.9 3.06 952.2 0.76 948.3 0.35 974.5 3.12 1,039 9.96 949.1 0.43 947.6 0.28
4 1 5 1,479 1,549 4.74 1,480 0.09 1,483 0.27 1,551 4.85 1,708 15.49 1,485 0.42 1,481.1 0.14
5 2 4 1,628 1,648 1.24 1,679 3.15 1,656 1.72 1,649 1.28 1,776 9.12 1,657 1.77 1,650.3 1.37

448 elements
6 2 5 1,851 1,847 0.22 1,865 0.73 1,847 0.22 1,849 0.10 2,079 12.33 1,849 0.13 1,842.1 0.48
7 2 3 1,969 2,038 3.50 2,070 5.12 2,049 4.06 2,039 3.56 2,134 8.36 2,049 4.04 2,029.6 3.08
8 1 6 2,151 2,306 7.21 2,145 0.28 2,165 0.65 2,310 7.38 2,641 22.76 2,169 0.81 2,158 0.33
FE model natural frequencies for empty clamped-free cylindrical tanks (Hz) at
 Table 2c

m
FEM
[27])

Mode

No. of
Shell 43
Shell 63
Shell 93

Error %
Error %
Error %
Error %
Error %
Error %
Error %

elements
Shell 143
Shell 181
Shell 281

Experiment
(Zienkiewicz

1 1 3 616 635.8 3.21 634.9 3.07 627.9 1.93 629.7 2.23 644 4.55 627.9 1.93 633.2 2.79
2 1 2 708 817.2 15.42 816.7 15.36 809.3 14.31 809.4 14.32 813.9 14.95 809.4 14.31 814.6 15.06
different type of shells, 1,792 elements

3 1 4 945 954.8 1.04 950 0.53 939 0.64 945.9 0.09 981.3 3.84 938.9 0.65 947.6 0.28
4 1 5 1,479 1,498 1.30 1,484 0.31 1,467 0.78 1,484 0.35 1,553 5.03 1,467 0.80 1,481.1 0.14
5 2 4 1,628 1,653 1.52 1,658 1.86 1,639 0.68 1,637 0.56 1,685 3.50 1,638 0.59 1,650.3 1.37
6 2 5 1,851 1,843 0.41 1,847 0.22 1,825 1.38 1,826 1.34 1,911 3.26 1,824 1.47 1,842.1 0.48

1,792 elements
7 2 3 1,969 2,045 3.87 2,050 4.12 2,028 3.00 2,026 2.88 2,057 4.46 2,027 2.96 2,029.6 3.08
8 1 6 2,151 2,192 1.92 2,159 0.35 2,138 0.62 2,172 0.99 2,293 6.62 2,137 0.65 2,158 0.33
Optimal FEM for modal analysis of liquid storage circular tanks

FE model natural frequencies for empty clamped-free cylindrical tanks (Hz) at

223
 224

Table 2d
S.A. Elkholy et al.

m
FEM

Mode

No. of
elements
SHELL 43
SHELL163
SHELL181

Experiment
SHELL 143

% Difference
% Difference
% Difference
% Difference
% Difference

1 1 3 616 629.1 2.13 634.7 3.04 629.2 2.13 636.1 3.26 633 2.79
2 1 2 708 809.4 14.32 816.8 1537 809.4 14.32 805.6 13.79 815 15.1
different type of shells, 2,800 elements

3 1 4 945 943.5 0.16 949.8 0.51 943.5 0.16 965.4 2.16 948 0.28
4 1 5 1,479 1,478 0.05 1,484 0.33 1,478 0.05 1,522 2.88 1,481 0.14
5 2 4 1,624 1,638 0.58 1,657 1.77 1,638 0.59 1,658 1.86 1,650 1.37
6 2 5 1,851 1,828 1.37 1,846 0.26 1,826 1.37 1,875 1.27 1,842 0.48

2,800 elements
7 2 3 1,969 2,026 2.92 2,049 4.06 2,026 2.92 2,028 3.01 2,030 3.08
8 1 6 2,151 2,160 0.40 2,161 0.44 2,160 0.40 2,235 3.91 2,158 0.33
FE model natural frequencies for empty clamped-free cylindrical tanks (Hz) at
 Table 2e

m
FEM

Mode

No. of
elements
SHELL 43
SHELL163
SHELL181

Experiment
% Difference
% Difference
% Difference
% Difference

1 1 3 616 633.8 2.89 634.1 2.93 626.8 1.76 633.2 2.79

2 1 2 708 817.1 15.41 816.7 15.35 801.3 13.18 814.6 15.1
different type of shells, 7,168 elements

3 1 4 945 949.8 0.51 945.1 0.01 955.6 1.12 947.6 0.28

4 1 5 1,479 1,486 0.47 1,438 0.24 1,503 1.62 1,481 0.14
5 2 4 1,624 1,654 0.159 1,639 0.67 1,647 1.16 1,650 1.37
6 2 5 1,851 1,842 0.46 1,844 0.41 1,855 0.19 1,842 0.48

7,168 elements
7 2 3 1,969 2,047 3.95 2,047 3.96 2,018 2.51 2,030 3.08
8 1 6 2,151 2,167 0.75 2,162 0.52 2,197 2.13 2,158 0.33
Optimal FEM for modal analysis of liquid storage circular tanks

FE model natural frequencies for empty clamped-free cylindrical tanks (Hz) at

225
226 S.A. Elkholy et al.

Figure 11 Predicted mode shapes for empty shell with different m and n: (a) m = 2, n = 4
(b) m = 2, n = 5 (c) m = 1, n = 5 (d) m = 1, n = 4 (see online version for colours)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

This table shows that SHELL93 elements tend to give the least errors which mean that
the frequency values predicted by the FE models using these shell elements are more
accurate than the values obtained by using other shell elements. SHELL 181 yields the
highest error, or difference, in all modes between the analytical and experimental results.
The other shell elements give result differences that are more than the result differences
produced by SHELL93 and less than the result differences given by SHELL181. It should
be noted that SHELL93 (eight-node large strain curved shell) is particularly well suited to
analyse empty circular tanks since it is designed model curved shells.
Figure 12 shows the effects of the element types on the accuracy of the empty tank
natural frequency results by the FE model in comparison with those of experimental
measurements.
Table 2 and Figures 12 and 13 indicate that no particular SHELL element gives the
highest result accuracy for all modes investigated in this paper. However, SHELL
elements with the least result accuracy can be excluded and not recommended for
ANSYS FE models used for the analysis of such tanks. It can be seen from Table 2 and
Figures 12 and 13 that the option of using SHELL 181 element seems to be the least
reliable option in modelling such tanks as it gives the largest difference between the
ANSYS FE model results and the experimental values. Therefore, the option of
deploying SHELL 181 element in predicting the frequency of the tank will have the least
accuracy and should not be recommended.
As for increasing the number of elements in the models, Table 2 shows that for any
element used in this study the result differences, in general, decrease as the number of
elements increases leading to a higher accuracy in the FE model output for any mode
shape. However, for any mode shape Figures 12 and 13 indicate that as the number of
any SHELL element becomes larger the increase in the result accuracy (or the decrease in
 Optimal FEM for modal analysis of liquid storage circular tanks 227

the % difference) occurs rapidly up to a certain number of elements after which the
accuracy becomes almost steady and almost unaffected by any further increase in the
number of elements. This concludes that increasing the number of elements is a critical
model tuning task and should be carefully sought to get the highest result accuracy with
the least model time consumption. Therefore, it should be noted that increasing the
element number randomly may not improve the results much but will likely increase the
model time consumption.

Figure 12 Effect of element types and numbers on the tank natural frequency
228 S.A. Elkholy et al.

Figure 13 Effect of element numbers (mesh sizes) on the natural frequency (see online version
for colours)
 Optimal FEM for modal analysis of liquid storage circular tanks 229

5 Full tank case

The fluid region is divided into a number of 3-D contained fluid elements (FLUID80).
The fluid movement at the bottom of the tank is considered to be constrained in the
vertical direction. The vertical velocities of the fluid element nodes adjacent to each
surface of the wetted shell coincide with those of the shell. The boundaries are assumed
to be constrained in order to simulate the rigid walls. Figure 14 shows the 3D model of
the tank filled with liquid using ANSYS and the shape of the shell meshing.

Figure 14 A 3D model of the tank filled with liquid (see online version for colours)

The FSI is considered by properly coupling the nodes at the interface of the fluid and the
shell in the radial direction. Therefore, the fluid can exert only normal pressure on the
tank wall and it can slip on the tank wall in the tangential directions. For the completely
filled cylindrical tank, four different idealisations were considered as shown in Table 3.
In the first idealisation, a total number of 792 elements were adopted. In the second
idealisation, the number of elements over the cylindrical shell surface was increased first
to 1,792 and then to 3,584. In the final test of idealisation, the number of elements was
increased to 4,480 elements which were distributed over the shell structure.
Figure 15 shows the effects of the element types on the empty tank natural frequency
results by the FE model in comparison with those of experimental data.
Table 3 and Figures 15 and 16 indicate that most of the shell elements in any mode
shape either have high difference between their outputs and the measured values or have
inconsistent behaviour whose result difference increases as the element number increases
up to certain element number after which any further increase in the element number will
yield a decrease in the difference. In general all of these shell elements except SHELL43
do not have a unified pattern in all mode shapes. This is attributed to the case studied
which is the filled tank case. In this case, FLUID80 (3-D eight-node; with four nodes on
each face) elements are utilised to model the liquid in the curved tank. When a shell
element such as SHELL93 (eight-node shell) element or SHELL281 (eight-node shell)
element is used to model the curved tank in conjunction with FLUID80 element, this will
yield a model whose element nodes are not matching, particularly the mid-span nodes.
This will yield inaccurate results.
SHELL43 element is the only element among all the elements investigated in this
study which gives the highest result accuracy as it yields consistent results and consistent
behaviour patterns in all modes studied. The accuracy of its results increases rapidly as
the number of elements increases up to certain number, after which the accuracy becomes
almost steady and almost unaffected by any further increase in the number of elements.
Therefore, SHELL43 seems to be the best and could be recommended for the analysis of
filled tank case.
 230

Table 3a
S.A. Elkholy et al.

792 1,792 3,584 4,480 FEM,

Mode m n Experiment Error % Error % Error % Error ℅ Error ℅
elements elements elements elements [27]
1 1 3 388 375.97 3.10 379.47 2.20 381.05 1.79 381.93 1.56 400.6 3.25
2 1 2 421 454.7 8.00 463.73 10.15 464.79 10.40 465.66 10.61 482.1 14.51
3 1 4 628 593.04 5.57 626.57 0.23 627.86 0.02 629.16 0.18 633.2 0.83
4 1 5 1,027 1,058 3.02 1,025 0.19 1,025 0.19 1,022 0.49 1,033 0.58
5 2 4 1,094 1,025 6.31 1,070 2.19 1,077 1.55 1,080 1.28 1,110.6 1.52
7 2 5 1,245 1,246 0.08 1,247 0.16 1,264 1.53 1,269 1.93 1,286.9 3.37
8 2 3 1,299 1,208 7.01 1,221 6.00 1,226 5.62 1,229 5.39 1,304.2 0.40
9 1 6 1,546 1,728 11.77 1,601 3.56 1,599 3.43 1,602 3.62 1,561.3 0.99
different element numbers, (a) SHELL 43 elements

10 2 6 1,748 1,796 2.75 1,744 0.23 1,759 0.63 1,767 1.09 1,762.6 0.84
FE model natural frequencies for full clamped-free cylindrical tanks (Hz) with
 Table 3b

792 1,792 3,584 4,480 FEM,

Mode m n Experiment Error % Error % Error % Error ℅ Error ℅
elements elements elements elements [27]
1 1 3 388 372.5 3.99 373.97 3.62 379.99 2.06 381.22 1.75 400.6 3.25
2 1 2 421 455.2 8.12 459.03 9.03 464.57 10.35 465.58 10.59 482.1 14.51
3 1 4 628 568.46 9.48 569.49 9.32 581.7 7.37 584.564 6.92 633.2 0.83
4 1 5 1,027 976.03 4.96 974.59 5.10 1,000 2.63 1,006 2.04 1,033 0.58
5 2 4 1,094 1,053 3.75 1,043 4.66 1,052 3.84 1,055 3.56 1,110.6 1.52
7 2 5 1,245 1,257 0.96 1,247 0.16 1,266 1.69 1,271 2.09 1,286.9 3.37
8 2 3 1,299 1,228 5.47 1,219 6.16 1,231 5.23 1,233 5.08 1,304.2 0.40
different element numbers, SHELL 63 elements

9 1 6 1,546 1,499 3.04 1,489 3.69 1,541 0.32 1,554 0.52 1,561.3 0.99
10 2 6 1,748 1,703 2.57 1,689 3.38 1,733 0.86 1,745 0.17 1,762.6 0.84
Optimal FEM for modal analysis of liquid storage circular tanks

FE model natural frequencies for full clamped-free cylindrical tanks (Hz) with
231
 232

Table 3c
S.A. Elkholy et al.

792 1,792 3,584 4,480

Mode m n Experiment Error % Error % Error % Error ℅ FEM, [27] Error ℅
elements elements elements elements
1 1 3 388 366.39 5.57 374.14 3.57 376.51 2.96 377.5 2.71 400.6 3.25
2 1 2 421 452.3 7.43 462.42 9.84 464.48 10.33 465.5 10.57 482.1 14.51
3 1 4 628 556.74 11.35 567.85 9.58 571.17 9.05 575.69 8.33 633.2 0.83
4 1 5 1,027 948.05 7.69 957.6 6.76 970.8 5.47 972.97 5.26 1033 0.58
5 2 4 1,094 1,001 8.50 1,016 7.13 1,032 5.67 1,034 5.48 1,110.6 1.52
7 2 5 1,245 1,196 3.94 1,191 4.34 1,211 2.73 1,214 2.49 1,286.9 3.37
8 2 3 1,299 1,176 9.47 Not applicable #VALUE! Not applicable #VALUE! Not applicable #VALUE! 1,304.2 0.40
different element numbers, SHELL 93 elements

9 1 6 1,546 1,433 7.31 1,451 6.14 1,473 4.72 1,476 4.53 1,561.3 0.99
10 2 6 1,748 1,614 7.67 1,625 7.04 1,652 5.49 1,657 5.21 1,762.6 0.84
FE model natural frequencies for full clamped-free cylindrical tanks (Hz) with
 Table 3d

792 1,792 3,584 4,480 FEM,

Mode m n Experiment Error % Error % Error % Error ℅ Error ℅
elements elements elements elements [27]
1 1 3 388 376.17 3.05 375.94 3.11 381.1 1.78 381.97 1.55 400.6 3.25
2 1 2 421 457.78 8.74 459.34 9.11 464.81 10.41 465.68 10.61 482.1 14.51
3 1 4 628 593.78 5.45 582.1 7.31 589.4 6.15 590.73 5.93 633.2 0.83
4 1 5 1,027 1,005.7 2.07 1,011.5 1.51 1,020.8 0.60 1,022.3 0.46 1,033 0.58
5 2 4 1,094 1,060 3.11 1,027.8 6.05 1,045 4.48 1,047.8 4.22 1,110.6 1.52
7 2 5 1,245 1,249 0.32 1,236.2 0.71 1,264.9 1.60 1,269.5 1.97 1,286.9 3.37
8 2 3 1,299 1,208 7.01 1,209.3 6.91 1,226.3 5.60 1,228.9 5.40 1,304.2 0.40
different element numbers, SHELL 143 elements

9 1 6 1,546 1,735 12.23 1,588.9 2.77 1,600.8 3.54 1603 3.69 1,561.3 0.99
10 2 6 1,748 1,803 3.15 1,711.8 2.07 1,760.9 0.74 1,768.2 1.16 1,762.6 0.84
Optimal FEM for modal analysis of liquid storage circular tanks

FE model natural frequencies for full clamped-free cylindrical tanks (Hz) with
233
 234

Table 3e
S.A. Elkholy et al.

792 1,792 3,584 4,480 FEM,

Mode m n Experiment Error % Error % Error % Error ℅ Error ℅
elements elements elements elements [27]
1 1 3 388 379.99 2.06 378.73 2.39 383.8 1.08 384.73 0.84 400.6 3.25
2 1 2 421 449.48 6.76 454.712 8.01 460.1 9.29 460.95 9.49 482.1 14.51
3 1 4 628 619.12 1.41 599.14 4.60 606.175 3.48 607.52 3.26 633.2 0.83
4 1 5 1,027 1,160 12.95 1,073 4.48 1,082 5.36 1,084 5.55 1,033 0.58
5 2 4 1,094 1,072 2.01 1,056 3.47 1,063 2.83 1,064 2.74 1,110.6 1.52
7 2 5 1,245 1,387 11.41 1,317 5.78 1,335 7.23 1,338 7.47 1,286.9 3.37
8 2 3 1,299 1,236 4.85 1,225 5.70 1,229 5.39 1,230 5.31 1,304.2 0.40
different element numbers, SHELL 181 elements

9 1 6 1,546 2,267 46.64 1,808 16.95 1,853 19.86 1,820 17.72 1,561.3 0.99
10 2 6 1,748 2,417 38.27 1,989 13.79 2,046 17.05 2,025 15.85 1,762.6 0.84
FE model natural frequencies for full clamped-free cylindrical tanks (Hz) with
 Table 3f

Mode m n Experiment 792 elements Error % 1,792 elements Error % 3,584 elements Error % 4,480 elements Error ℅ FEM, [27] Error ℅
1 1 3 388 366.9 5.44 370.8 4.43 376.6 2.94 377.57 2.69 400.6 3.25
2 1 2 421 452.52 7.49 458.11 8.81 464.53 10.34 465.514 10.57 482.1 14.51
3 1 4 628 596.5 5.02 563.075 10.34 571.33 9.02 572.77 8.79 633.2 0.83
4 1 5 1,027 953.02 7.20 959.441 6.58 971.19 5.43 973.14 5.24 1,033 0.58
5 2 4 1,094 1,039 5.03 1,016 7.13 1,032 5.67 1,034 5.48 1,110.6 1.52
7 2 5 1,245 1,202 3.45 1,215 2.41 1,211 2.73 1,213 2.57 1,286.9 3.37
8 2 3 1,299 1,178 9.31 Not applicable #VALUE! Not applicable #VALUE! Not applicable #VALUE! 1,304.2 0.40
9 1 6 1,546 1,447 6.40 1,456 5.82 1,474 4.66 1,476 4.53 1,561.3 0.99
different element numbers, SHELL 281 elements

10 2 6 1,748 1,629 6.81 1,630 6.75 1,653 5.43 1,657 5.21 1,762.6 0.84
Optimal FEM for modal analysis of liquid storage circular tanks

FE model natural frequencies for full clamped-free cylindrical tanks (Hz) with
235
236 S.A. Elkholy et al.

Figure 15 Effect of element types and element sizes on the natural frequency (full tank)
 Optimal FEM for modal analysis of liquid storage circular tanks 237

Figure 16 Effect of element numbers (mesh sizes) on the natural frequency (see online version for
colours)

6 Deviation in ANSYS model results

Figure 17 shows the average, median, minimum and maximum differences between the
experimentally measured frequency values and the model frequency results obtained in
this study for both cases of empty tanks and filled tanks. Despite the large deviations
between the maximum and minimum differences in both cases, Figure 17 reveals that the
median and average difference values are leaning towards the minimum difference
values. This indicates that the empty and filled tank frequency values produced in this
study by the different ANSYS FE models using different shell and liquid elements are
reasonable and can be described as reliable.
238 S.A. Elkholy et al.

Figure 17 Deviation in ANSYS model results (see online version for colours)

7 Conclusions and recommendations

Empty and liquid filled storage vertical thin tanks are analysed in this paper using
ANSYS 3D finite element models. To predict the tank dynamic characteristics such as
natural frequencies and principal mode shapes, a number of shell and liquid elements
available in ANSYS element library were utilised extensively. A parametric study of
different element numbers for each element type in the 3D FE models was carried out.
Tank natural frequencies and mode shapes were obtained and compared with
experimentally measured values and analytical results available in the literature. The
paper investigated different ANSYS FE 3D models to recommend the optimal element
types and element numbers which best predict the empty and filled tank dynamic
characteristics of natural frequencies and principal mode shapes.
ANSYS, a general-purpose FE programme, element library has many different types
of shell elements six of which were most suitable for modelling the cylindrical tank walls
therefore were investigated in this study. These are SHELL43 (four-node plastic large
strain shell), SHELL63 (four-node elastic shell), SHELL93 (eight-node large strain
curved shell), SHELL143 (eight-node plastic small strain shell) and SHELL181
(four-node finite strain shell) and SHELL281 (eight-node large strain nonlinear shell). As
for modelling the fluid in the tank, fluid element FLUID80 (3-D eight-node contained
fluid element) was used in this study. To investigate the effects of the element number in
the model on the accuracy of the tank calculated dynamic natural frequencies and
principal mode shapes, the number of elements over the cylindrical shell surface was
increased gradually from 252 to 7,168 elements. Accordingly, the number of liquid
elements was increased.
As it is indicated above, the results of the FE models are greatly influenced by the
number of elements chosen and the meshing scheme utilised. Therefore, to find out the
optimal model, it is highly recommended to investigate the optimal number of elements
and corresponding meshing scheme. To fulfil this objective, the analysis should be
performed by studying different models with different increasing number of elements and
the optimal model will be the one with the least number of elements used and that would
not cause a significant difference in the results.
The study shows that increasing the number of elements in the radial direction of the
tank wall yields a faster increase in the accuracy of the model results than increasing the
 Optimal FEM for modal analysis of liquid storage circular tanks 239

number of elements along the height of the tank wall. However, any further increase in
the element number beyond a specific element number results in an accuracy that
increases at a slower rate and eventually becomes almost steady.
For the case of an empty tank, it can be seen from the results obtained in this study
that no particular shell element gives the highest result accuracy for all modes. However,
SHELL 181 element seems to be the least reliable option in modelling such tanks in all
mode shapes as it gives the largest difference between the ANSYS FE model results and
the experimental measurements. Therefore, the option of using SHELL 181 element
should not be recommended. On the other hand, SHELL93 elements tend to give the least
errors which mean that the frequency values predicted by the FE models using these shell
elements are more accurate than the values obtained by using other shell elements.
SHELL93 element should be recommended for the analysis of empty circular thin tanks
as well as structures with similar shapes such as chimneys, shafts and empty circular
pipes. As for the number of elements in the models, the study concludes that increasing
the number of elements is a critical model tuning task and should be carefully selected to
get the highest result accuracy with the least model time consumption. The model results
indicate that result accuracy increases rapidly as the element number increases but up to a
certain number, beyond which the result accuracy becomes almost constant or steady and
is not affected by any further increase in the element number in the model.
For the case of a filled tank, some shell elements investigated in this study for any
mode shapes have high difference between their results and those of the experimentally
measured values. Other elements have inconsistent results whose difference with the
experimental measurements increases as the element number increases in the model up to
a certain element number after which any further increase in the element number will
yield a decrease in the difference. In general all of these shell elements, except SHELL43
do not have a unified pattern in all mode shapes. This is attributed to mesh mapping.
When a shell element such as SHELL93 (eight-node shell) element or SHELL281
(eight-node shell) element is used to model the curved tank in conjunction with FLUID80
(3-D eight-node with four nodes on each face) element, this will yield a model whose
element nodes are not matching, particularly the mid-span nodes. This will yield
inaccurate results. SHELL43 element is the only element among all elements investigated
in this study that gives the highest result accuracy as it yields consistent results for all
modes. The accuracy of its results increases rapidly as the number of elements increases
up to certain number, after which the accuracy becomes almost steady and unaffected by
any further increase in the number of elements. Therefore, SHELL43 seems to be the best
and could be recommended for the analysis of filled tank case.
Despite the large deviations between the maximum and minimum differences
between the model results and the experimental measurements, the study reveals that the
median and average difference values are leaning towards the minimum difference
values. This indicates that the empty and filled tank frequency values produced in this
study by the different ANSYS FE models using different shell and liquid elements can be
described as reliable.
To examine numerically the influence of the element types as well as meshing on the
seismic behaviour of real steel tanks, a full-scale tank case and many parameters such as
tank configuration, filling ratio and different ground motion characteristics must be
considered and highly recommended in future research.
240 S.A. Elkholy et al.

References
American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 650 (1980) Steel Tanks for Oil Storage, 7th ed., API,
Washington, DC.
Amiri, M. and Sabbagh-Yazdi, S.R. (2011) ‘Ambient vibration test and finite element modeling of
tall liquid storage tanks’, Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 49, No. 8, pp.974–983.
Amiri, M. and Sabbagh-Yazdi, S.R. (2012) ‘Influence of roof on dynamic characteristics of dome
roof tanks partially filled with liquid’, Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 50, No. 1, January,
pp.56–67.
ANSYS (2006) V. 10.0. Swanson Analysis Systems Inc. Houston, Pennsylvania, USA.
Chen, J.Z. and Kianoush, M.R. (2005) ‘Seismic response of concrete rectangular tanks for liquid
containing structures’, Can. J. Civ. Eng., Vol. 32, No. 4, pp.739–752.
Curadelli, O., Ambrosini, D., Mirasso, A. and Amani, M. (2010) ‘Resonant frequencies in an
elevated spherical container partially filled with water: FEM and measurement’, Journal of
Fluids and Structures, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.148–159.
Dogangun, A., Durmus, A. and Ayvaz, Y. (1997) ‘Earthquake analysis of flexible rectangular tanks
using the Lagrangian fluid finite element’, Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.165–182.
Dutta, S., Mandal, A. and Dutta, S.C. (2004) ‘Soil-structure interaction in dynamic behavior of
elevated tanks with alternate frame staging configurations’, Journal of Sound and Vibration,
Vol. 277, Nos. 4–5, pp.825–853.
Eurocode 8, European Committee for Standardization ENV 1998-4 (1998) Earthquake Resistant
Design of Structures, Part 4: Tanks Silos and Pipelines.
Haroun, M.A. (1984) ‘Stress analysis of rectangular walls under seismically induced hydrodynamic
loads’, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., Vol. 74, No. 3, pp.1031–1041.
Haroun, M.A. and Abou-Izzeddine, W. (1992) ‘Parametric study of seismic soil-tank interaction. II:
vertical excitation’, J. Struct. Eng., Vol. 118, No. 3, pp.783–797.
Haroun, M.A. and Housner, G.W. (1981) ‘Earthquake response of deformable liquid storage tanks’,
Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.411–418.
Haroun, M.A. and Tayel, M.A. (1985) ‘Response of tanks to vertical seismic excitations’,
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., Vol. 13, pp.583–595.
Housner, G.W. (1963) ‘The dynamic behavior of water tanks’, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., Vol. 53,
No. 2, pp.381–387.
Jalali, H. and Parvizi, F. (2012) ‘Experimental and numerical investigation of modal properties for
liquid-containing structures’, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, May, Vol. 26,
No. 5, pp.1449–1454.
Kianoush, M.R. and Chen, J.Z. (2006) ‘Effect of vertical acceleration on response of concrete
rectangular liquid storage tanks’, Eng. Struct., Vol. 28, No. 5, pp.704–715.
Livaoglu, R. (2008) ‘Investigation of seismic behavior of fluid rectangular tank-soil/foundation
systems in frequency domain’, Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.132–146.
Maheri, M.R. and Abdollahi, A. (2013) ‘The effects of long term uniform corrosion on the buckling
of ground based steel tanks under seismic loading’, Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 62, No. 1,
pp.1–9.
Mazúch, T., HoràWek, J., Trnka, J. and Veselý, J. (1996) ‘Natural modes and frequencies of a thin
clamped-free steel cylindrical storage tank partially filled with water: FEM and
measurements’, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 193, No. 3, pp.669–690.
Minowa, C. (1980) ‘Dynamic analysis for rectangular water tanks’, Recent advances in lifeline
earthquake engineering in Japan, ASME Pressure Vess. Conf., ASME, New York,
pp.135–142.
Minowa, C. (1984) ‘Experimental studies of seismic properties of various type water tanks’, Proc.,
8th WCEE, pp.945–952.
 Optimal FEM for modal analysis of liquid storage circular tanks 241

Moslemi, M., Kianoush, M.R. and Pogorzelski, W. (2011) ‘Seismic response of liquid-filled
elevated tanks’, Engineering Structures, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp.2074–2084.
Ruifu, Z., Dagen, W. and Xiaosong, R. (2011) ‘Seismic analysis of a LNG storage tank isolated by
a multiple friction pendulum system’, Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Vibration, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.253–262.
Sezen, H., Livaoglu, R. and Dogangun, A. (2008) ‘Dynamic analysis and seismic performance
evaluation of above-ground liquid-containing tanks’, Engineering Structures, Vol. 30, No. 3,
pp.794–803.
Veletsos, A.S. (1984) ‘Seismic response and design of liquid storage tanks’, Guidelines for the
Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, pp.255–370, Technical Councils on Lifeline
Earthquake Engineering, ASCE, New York, NY.
Veletsos, A.S. and Tang, Y. (1986) ‘Dynamics of vertically excited liquid storage tanks’, J. Struct.
Eng., Vol. 112, No. 6, pp.1228–1246.
Veletsos, A.S. and Yang, J.Y. (1977) ‘Earthquake response of liquid storage tanks-advances in civil
engineering through mechanics’, ASCE Proc., 2nd Engineering Mechanics Specially Conf.,
ASCE, Reston, Va., pp.1–24.
Yang, J.Y. (1976) Dynamic Behavior of Fluid-Tank Systems, PhD thesis, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Rice Univ., Houston, Tex.
Zienkiewicz, O.C., Taylor, R.L. and Zhu, J.Z. (2005) The Finite Element Method: Its Basis and
Fundamentals, 6th ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, 2 May.

View publication stats