Thin-Walled Structures 64 (2013) 50–59

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Heuristic optimization of cylindrical thin-walled steel tanks under

seismic loads
Minas K. Minoglou a, George D. Hatzigeorgiou a,n, George A. Papagiannopoulos b
a
Department of Environmental Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, Patras, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Cylindrical ground supported steel tanks are traditionally applied to store water and inflammable
Received 29 July 2012 liquids due to their simple structural design, very good behavior under hydrostatic loads, low cost and
Received in revised form easy construction. Despite these advantages, thin-walled steel tanks are sensitive to seismic loading.
22 November 2012
The aim of this work is the simplified, fast and direct optimum seismic design of these special
Accepted 12 December 2012
structures, avoiding complicated computational methods such as the finite element or the boundary
Available online 16 January 2013
element methods. This objective is achieved using software developed in-house, where the optimum
Keywords: seismic design is achieved satisfying the stability of these structures under extreme seismic design
Cylindrical thin-walled steel tanks loads according to the Eurocode 8 or the Greek seismic regulation provisions. The proposed method
Heuristic optimization
provides with the most economical dimensions for the tank and its foundation, for a predefined, design
Seismic design
liquid volume. The proposed method can be considered as a basis for determining minimum cost
Eurocode 8
seismic design of thin-walled steel tanks that satisfy the structural and stability requirements.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Cylindrical ground supported steel tanks are traditionally
applied to store water and inflammable liquids due to their
simple design, very good behavior under hydrostatic loads, low
cost and easy construction. However, these types of tanks were
severely damaged during major seismic events such as Alaska
(1964), Izmit (Turkey, 1999) and Bam (Iran, 2003) earthquakes.
It has been found that steel tanks are vulnerable to strong ground
motions and their major failure modes have to do with (a) the
elephant foot buckling of the tank shell due to the uplift of the
tank and bending type action of the shell and (b) leakage of
contains from the tank due to sloshing of the liquid and/or
rupture of the wall nearby the connection of tank to pipes mainly
due to the non-ductile action of welded connections [1–4].
In the past, many researchers studied the seismic response of
the steel tanks. One can mention the pioneering works of Housner
[5,6], where a simple and effective model with two degrees of
freedom was developed to simulate the tank and liquid response
using the concentrated mass approach. This model was based on
the separation of the liquid in two parts where the first one
follows the movement of the tank while the other one moves
separately causing sloshing. Similar to this model, Epstein [7]
recommended equations for the evaluation of the concentrated
n
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ 30 25410 79373.
E-mail address: gchatzig@env.duth.gr (G.D. Hatzigeorgiou).
mass model and the ability to simulate the tank-liquid system.
Malhotra et al. [8] developed a simple methodology for the
seismic analysis of the steel tanks, avoiding complicated methods
such as the finite element method.
Recently, Berahman and Behnamfar [9] developed a probabil-
istic seismic demand approach for the critical failure modes of
unanchored steel storage tanks while Ozdemir et al. [10] devel-
oped a nonlinear fluid structure interaction algorithm of finite
element method for seismic analysis of unanchored and anchored
steel liquid storage tanks. Furthermore, Korkmaz et al. [11]
evaluated the earthquake performance of storage tanks in Turkish
industrial facilities using time history analyses and probabilistic
seismic assessment. Additionally, Bayraktar et al. [12] studied the
effect of the finite element updating method on the earthquake
behavior of the steel storage tanks. Probably, the most influence
In this study, a simplified heuristic optimum seismic design of
anchored, cylindrical thin-walled steel liquid storage tanks is
proposed. The evaluation of seismic behavior of steel tanks is
based on the pioneering works of Haroun and Housner [1,13],
where a simple but efficient three-degrees-of-freedom system has
been proposed that takes into account the response of tank, and
the response and the sloshing of the liquid, known as impulsive
and convective action, respectively. This model appears to be an
extension of Housner’s approach [5,6] and has been universally
adopted by many structural codes. Furthermore, in the proposed
method, the results of Hamdan [14] have been adopted and
applied to examine the stability, in local and global level, of steel
tanks under earthquakes. It should be noted that these results

0263-8231/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2012.12.009
 M.K. Minoglou et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 64 (2013) 50–59 51

have also been adopted by Eurocode 8 [15]. Thus, the objectives of The total mass ML of the liquid with volume V is given by [4]
this study are to determine the optimum values of tank diameter,
ML ¼ Vr L ¼ pR2 HrL ð1Þ
tank height, shell thickness and dimensions of foundations for
specific liquid storage volume. where rL the fluid mass density.

2.1. System S
2. Modeling and evaluation of dynamic characteristics
of cylindrical liquid storage tanks The mass MS and the height HS, which are concerned with the
liquid sloshing, are given by [2,4]
A typical thin-walled steel tank with external radius R (dia-      
1:84H R 1:84H
meter D), total height h, fluid height H, thickness s is shown in MS ¼ 1:429rL R3 tanh ¼ 0:455ML tanh ð2Þ
R H R
Fig. 1.
The response of these special structures under seismic excita- and
    
tion is strongly influenced by the interaction between the flexible R 0:92H
steel shell and the liquid within. It should be noted that the HS ¼ H 1 tanh ð3Þ
1:84H R
seismic response of thin-walled steel flexible tanks presents
significantly different characteristics from those of corresponding The mass MS and height HS of system-S can also be evaluated
rigid storage tanks [1–4]. According to Haroun and Housner in a normalized form from Fig. 3.
[1,13], a flexible cylindrical steel tank can be simulated using a Furthermore, the frequency for the sloshing action of liquid
three-degrees-of-freedom system. More specifically, the tank and is given by [2,4]
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
the liquid can be simulated with three discrete masses, which are
g 1:84H
placed in specific heights. This system of the masses is shown in f S ¼ 0:216 tanh ð4Þ
R R
Fig. 2 and consists of

 The mass MS, in a height HS, for the simulation of the sloshing 2.2. System F
of the liquid (system-S).
 The mass MF, in a height HF, for the simulation of system tank-
The mass MF and the height HF, which are concerned with
liquid (system-F) response.
tank-liquid system (system-F), are given by [2,4]
 The mass MG, in a height HG, for the simulation of the part of     
liquid-tank system which closely follows the ground motion 1000 S=R 1
MF ¼ ML ðA2 A1 Þ þA1 ð5Þ
(system-G). 3
where A1 and A2 are empirical parameters. We propose the
following formulae for the computation of parameters A1 and A2
   2
D H H
A1 ¼ 0:1339þ 1:1431 0:5768
R R R
 3  4
H H
s þ 0:1296 0:0111 ð6Þ
R R
h tot
and
H    2
H H
A2 ¼ 0:1029 þ 1:1284 0:5455
R R
 3  4
H H
þ 0:1144 0:0089 ð7Þ
R R

Additionally, the height HF can be determined by [2,4]

    
1000 S=R 1
Fig. 1. Geometry of the tank. HF ¼ H ðB2 B1 Þ þ B1 ð8Þ
3
where B1 and B2 are empirical parameters. We propose the
following formulae for the computation of parameters B1 and B2
   2
MS H H
B1 ¼ 0:40030:0735 þ 0:1385
R R
 3  4
H H
MF 0:0530 þ 0:0068 ð9Þ
R R
HS
and
HF MG    2
H H
B2 ¼ 0:46880:2153 þ0:2732
R R
HG  3  4
H H
0:1073 þ0:0145 ð10Þ
R R

The aforementioned parameters A1, A2, B1 and B2 can also be

Fig. 2. Analysis model of the tank. evaluated from Fig. 4.
52 M.K. Minoglou et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 64 (2013) 50–59

Fig. 3. Evaluation of mass MS and height HS of system-S.

Fig. 4. Evaluation of parameters A1, A2, B1 and B2.

Fig. 5. Evaluation of parameters C1, C2, D1 and D2.

The horizontal vibration frequency of the tank-liquid system

(system-F) is given by [2,4]
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Es Similarly, the height HG can be determined by [2,4]
f F ¼ cF   ð11Þ
1n2 ML     
1000 S=R 1
HG ¼ H ðD2 D1 Þ þ D1 ð16Þ
where E and n are the elasticity modulus and Poisson ratio of 3
steel, respectively, while cF is a tank-liquid system parameter that
reads as where D1 and D2 are empirical parameters. We propose the
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi following formulae for the computation of parameters D1 and D2
   
R R    2
cF ¼ 0:7254 0:2275 0:2023 ð12Þ H H
H H D1 ¼ 0:41350:0355 þ 0:0388
R R
 3  4
H H
2.3. System G 0:0118 þ0:0124 ð17Þ
R R

The mass MG and the height HG, which are concerned with and
system-G, are given by [2,4]    2
H H
     D2 ¼ 0:44000:0728 þ 0:0634
1000 S=R 1 R R
MG ¼ ML ðC 2 C 1 Þ þC 1 ð13Þ  3  4
3 H H
0:0190 þ 0:0020 ð18Þ
where C1 and C2 are empirical parameters. We propose the R R
following formulae for the computation of parameters C1 and C2 Furthermore, Fig. 5 can also be used to evaluate the afore-
   2  3 mentioned parameters C1, C2, D1 and D2.
H H H
C 1 ¼ 0:0492 þ 0:8770 0:3126 þ0:0400 ð14Þ It should be noted that the aforementioned empirical expres-
R R R
sions that proposed in this study can be applied only for thin-
and walled tanks, where the following inequality should be satisfied
   2  3
H H H 1 s 1
C 2 ¼ 0:0007 þ 0:8797 0:3118 þ 0:0396 ð15Þ r r ð19Þ
R R R 2000 R 200
 M.K. Minoglou et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 64 (2013) 50–59 53

Table 1
Importance factor g of a tank, according to the performance level and the flammability of stored liquids.

Use of the structure Level

1 2 3

Potable water, non-toxic and non-flammable liquids 1.2 1.0 0.8

Fire fighting water, non-volatile toxic liquids, petrochemicals of low flammability 1.4 1.2 1.0
Volatile toxic chemicals, very flammable liquids 1.6 1.4 1.2

3. Modeling and evaluation of dynamic characteristics height to tank, htot, (see Fig. 1) should be determined as
of cylindrical liquid storage tanks
htot Z H þ zmax ð24Þ

The seismic response of the system tank-liquid is determined

according to the following steps: 3.3. Step 3: Evaluation of maximum seismic loads

3.1. Step 1: Evaluation of spectral accelerations In this step, the maximum seismic loads are evaluated. Thus,
the base shear is given by [1,4]
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
The spectral accelerations SaS and SaF, for the system-S and
system-F, respectively, are determined using the Eurocode 8 [15] Q max ¼ ðM S SaS Þ2 þ ðM F SaF Þ2 þ ½ðM G M F ÞPGA2 ð25Þ
or the Greek Seismic Code [16] design spectrum. The spectral where PGA is the peak ground acceleration for the site location of
ordinates are evaluated for the corresponding periods, TS and TF, the tank considered. Furthermore, the overturning moment can
or equivalently, for the corresponding frequencies, fS and fF, which be evaluated by [1,4]
are computed using Eqs. (4) and (11), respectively. It is obvious qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
that any other design spectrum can be adopted in this step. Mmax ¼ ðM S HS SaS Þ2 þ ðM F HF SaF Þ2 þ ½ðM G HG M F HF ÞPGA2 ð26Þ
According to Eurocode 8 [15], three performance levels of the
structures can be set. Level 1 is referred to situations of high risk
for loss of human life and to very important environmental, 3.4. Step 4: Evaluation of maximum seismic stresses
economical and social effects. Situations of medium risk for loss
of human life and important environmental, economical and The maximum seismic axial stress developed in the base of the
social effects correspond to the Level 2. Finally, Level 3 has to tank and can be given by [4]
do with low risk for loss of human life and with environmental,
Mmax
economical and social effects of low importance. Furthermore, it smax ¼ ð27Þ
should be noted that according to Eurocode 8 [15], the impor- pR2 s
tance factor g of a tank depends to the kind of stored liquid. The hydrodynamic pressure, ph, due to the horizontal compo-
Table 1 shows the values of importance factor, g, that multiplies nent of an earthquake can be thoroughly assumed to be uniformly
appropriately the spectral ordinates to take into account addi- distributed and can be given by [4]
tional risk due to flammability of some stored liquids.
Q max Q
ph ¼ ¼ max ð28Þ
DH 2RH
3.2. Step 2: Evaluation of spectral displacements The hoop stress, sy, due to the aforementioned hydrodynamic
pressure, results from [4]
The spectral displacement SdF of system-F can be determined
ph R Q
by [4] sy ¼ ¼ max ð29Þ
s 2Hs
SaF SaF SaF T 2F Finally, the shear stress, tmax, can be given by [4]
SdF ¼ ¼ ¼ ð20Þ
o2F 4p2 f F
2 4 2
p
Q max
tmax ¼ ð30Þ
where oF is the circular frequency of the system-F. The maximum pRs
horizontal displacement of the tank-liquid system is given by
[2,4]
3.5. Step 5: Design of anchors
wmax ¼ BF SdF ð21Þ
The maximum axial force of an anchor can be evaluated by the
where BF a correction factor, where the following formula is
following Eq. [17]
proposed herein for its computation
2Mmax
   2  3  4 R W T
R R R R Tmax ¼ ð31Þ
BF ¼ 2:04002:6450 þ 2:8494 1:3204 þ 0:2851 N
H H H H
ð22Þ where N the number of anchors and WT the self-weight
of the tank.
Moreover, the maximum vertical distance of sloshing from the The number of anchors, N, should be selected on the basis
liquid surface, zmax, can be evaluated by [2,4] of strength criteria, where the safety factor can be defined as [4]
SaS sy,anchor
zmax ¼ 0:837R ð23Þ f anchor ¼ Z1 ð32Þ
g sanchor
Therefore, in order to avoid any probable effusion of liquid or where sy,anchor and sanchor are the yield and the maximum stress,
any damage of the tank roof during a strong earthquake, the total respectively, of an anchor. Furthermore, the following inequalities
54 M.K. Minoglou et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 64 (2013) 50–59

4.5 Thus, according to EC8 provisions [15], the soil categorization has
0.00 RΘ,int./ RΘ,ext. to do with the soil shear wave velocity, VS, where four different
4.0
0.50 categories can be defined
3.5 0.60
0.70
0.80
3.0 0.90  hard rock site conditions with shear wave velocity 750
fc

2.5 m/s rVS (Soil type A)

2.0
 soft rock or dense soil with shear wave velocity 360
m/s rVS o750 m/s (Soil type B)
1.5  stiff soil with shear wave velocity 180 m/s rVS o360 m/s
1.0 (Soil type C)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
 soft soil with shear wave velocity 180 m/s oVS (Soil type D)
ecc./RΘ,ext.

Fig. 6. The correction factor fc. Taking into account the aforementioned categorization, in this
work it is assumed that the shear wave velocity, VS, is equal to
1000, 550, 270 and 150 m/s, for Soil type A, B, C and D,
respectively. Then, the approach of Tezcan et al. [19] is applied
should be satisfied for the distance between anchors [17] where the allowable soil stress can be directly related to soil shear
0:6m r da r 6:0m ð33Þ wave velocity.
It should be noted that the restrictions of Eqs. (35) and (39)
should be simultaneously satisfied, as they appear to be essential
3.6. Step 6: Design of foundation criteria for the appropriate selection of the dimensions of the
foundation.
In this step, the design of tank foundation is investigated.
It should be noted that both ring and mat foundations can be
considered. 4. Stability criteria and restrictions
Firstly, the eccentricity, ecc., of the vertical loads in the level of
the foundation-soil interface is evaluated by [4] 4.1. Elastic buckling
M max þQ max hY
ecc: ¼ ð34Þ According to Hamdan [14] and EC8 [15], the axial stress
W L þW T þW Y
required to cause elastic buckling in a cylindrical shell structure
where hY and WY are the height (thickness) and weight of depends on its circumferential variation, the internal pressure,
foundation, respectively, and WL are the weight of stored fluid the amplitude of imperfections and the thickness of shell. More
(see also Eq. (1)). specifically, the buckling strength of the shell of the tank tends to
In order to avoid any tensile stress in foundation-soil interface, decrease due to imperfections. The reduction factor, l, given in
the following relation should be satisfied [4,18] Eq. (40) can be used to take into account the amplitude of
RY,ext imperfections [14,15]
ecc: r ð35Þ 0 1
8 rffiffiffi vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where RY,ext is the radius of the mat foundation or the external 0:0744 RBu u 26:88aq C
l ¼ 1 @t1 þ qffiffi 1A ð40Þ
radius of the ring foundation. aq s R
s
The mean stress sm on the foundation-soil interface can be
given by [4] where the parameter aq indicates the quality of the construction
and its values are shown in Table 2.
W þ W þW
smean,soil ¼ L 2 T 2 Y
ð36Þ Then, the non-dimensional parameter, a, is defined as [14,15]
p RY,ext RY,int
sy
a2 ¼ ð41Þ
where RY,int is the internal radius of ring foundation. It should be lspr
noted that RY,int ¼0 for the case of mat foundation. where, sy the yield stress of steel and spr the buckling strength of
The maximum soil stress can be evaluated by a perfect tank, which is given by [14]
smax,soil ¼ smean,soil f c ð37Þ s
spr ¼ 0:6E ð42Þ
where the correction factor, fc, has to do with the eccentricity, ecc., R
and the radii (internal and external) of foundation, and can be with E the elastic modulus of steel.
evaluated by the following empirical relation: In order to avoid the elastic buckling of tank, the following
1 inequality should be satisfied [14]
fc ¼
0:5
ð38Þ sb s
ecc: RY,int 3=2 r0:19 þ 0:81 d ð43Þ
0:97750:9882 RY,ext: þ 0:2195 RY,ext: spr spr
In passing, Fig. 6 can also be used to evaluate the correction
factor fc.
The safety factor for the soil stress can be defined as [18] Table 2
s The construction quality parameter aq.
f soil ¼ all,soil Z1 ð39Þ
smax,soil
Construction quality aq
where sall,soil the allowable soil stress which can be generally
evaluated from classical soil mechanics textbooks, e.g., Budhu [18]. Normal construction 1
Quality construction 1.5
In this work an alternative procedure for the allowable soil Very high quality contruction 2.5
stress is adopted in order to be compatible with Eurocode 8 [15].
 M.K. Minoglou et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 64 (2013) 50–59 55

Fig. 7. Optimum radius of the tank for various PGA values.

where sb the maximum vertical membrane stress on the tank and cost results from the ministerial cost values of Hellenic Ministry
sd is given by [14,15] of Infrastructure, Transport and Networks [21]. Thus, the follow-
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ing cost parameters have been taken into account:
u    2 !
u
t s 2 so
sd ¼ spr 1 1 1 r spr ð44Þ
5 spr a) materials costs, i.e., steel shells, concrete, steel rebars, anchors,
formworks and insulation;
with b) construction costs, i.e., excavation of soil (taking into account
so ¼ lspr for a2 Z 2 the soil category), assembly of formworks, insulation and steel
  rebars for the foundation, assembly of anchors and assembly,
a2 welding and painting of steel shells;
so ¼ sy 1 f or a2 o 2 ð45Þ
4 c) Land ownership cost.
and
Without loss of generality and in order to simplify the
pR
s¼ r5 ð46Þ optimization problem studied herein, the following design para-
sspr
meters have been assumed to be constant for all the cases under
where p is the lowest hydrodynamic pressure. consideration:

4.2. Elasto-plastic buckling  Steel rebars (reinforcement/ anchors) category: S500s

 Concrete grade: C16/20 (uniaxial compressive strength equal
In order to avoid elasto-plastic buckling phenomena, EC8 [15] to 16 MPa)
provisions adopt the Rotter’s empirical formula, which can be  Steel shell yield stress: 235 MPa
expressed by the following relation [20]:  Stored material: petroleum
"   # !   Importance factor: gi ¼1.2 (acc. to EC8 [15])
pR 2 1 sb þ sy =250  Quality of the construction coeff.: 1.5 (see Table 2)
sb r spr 1 1 ð47Þ
ssy 1:12 þ s1:5
b
sb þ 1  Foundation type: mat foundation
 Land cost: 200h/m2
where the non-dimensional factor sb is given by [20]
R
sb ¼ ð48Þ
400s
5.2. Optimization procedure

Structural optimization methods can be divided in exact

5. Optimum seismic design of thin-walled steel liquid storage
methods and heuristic approaches. In this work, a heuristic
tanks
approach is adopted. Heuristic methods have to do with artificial
intelligent approaches and various applications have been exam-
5.1. Introduction
ined in the past using these methods [22–26]. The seismic design
optimization of steel tanks has to do with the minimization of the
In order to achieve the optimum seismic design of thin-walled
objective function F with n-parameters
steel liquid storage tanks, the total cost both for the steel tank and X
its foundation is selected as the objective function. It should be F ðx1 ,x2 ,:::,xn Þ ¼ aj bj ðx1 ,x2 ,:::,xn Þ ð49Þ
noted that the total (materials, construction and land ownership) j ¼ 1,k
56 M.K. Minoglou et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 64 (2013) 50–59

Fig. 8. Optimum radius of the tank for soil types A, B, C and D.

Fig. 9. Optimum thickness of the tank for various PGA values.

where a is the unit prices and b is the measurement of materials
and construction works. As mentioned above, the unit prices
(materials, construction and land ownership costs) results from
the ministerial cost values of Hellenic Ministry of Infrastructure,
Transport and Networks [21] but similar unit prices correspond to
other countries like Spain [23]. Eq. (49) should satisfy the
constraints
g j ðx1 ,x2 ,x3 ,:::,xn Þ r 0 ð50Þ
Eq. (50) has not only to do with constructability and geome-
trical restrictions but also with bearing capacity, deformation and
stability restrictive criteria. Then, the optimization algorithm of
Perea et al. [24] is adopted and applied in software that has been
developed in-house to achieve the objective of this work, i.e., to
define the optimum (minimum cost) dimensions for the tank
(radius, height, thickness) and its foundation (height and external
radius). The reader can consult Ref. [24] for additional informa-
tion and details.
5.3. Results
This section illustrates characteristic results from the optimi-
zation procedure of cylindrical thin-walled steel tanks subjected
to seismic loads. Various capacities of petroleum tanks are
examined herein including 50, 100, 200, 300, 500, 700, 1000,
2000 3000 and 5000 m3. Thus, Figs. 7–12 depict the optimum
values of the dimensions of the tank, i.e., optimum external
radius, R, thickness s, and height h. In these figures, the influence
of soil category and peak ground acceleration PGA (AGmax) on the
total cost C of the tank is also investigated. More specifically,
Figs. 7 and 8 show the optimum value of the external radius of the
tank, R, for various values of required volume of stored fluid, V,
 M.K. Minoglou et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 64 (2013) 50–59 57

Fig. 10. Optimum thickness of the tank for soil types A, B, C and D.

Fig. 11. Optimum height of the tank for various PGA values.

and for various intensities of seismic ground motions, i.e., for PGA
equal to 0.1 g, 0.2 g, 0.3 g and 0.4 g. Moreover, the influence of soil
type on the optimum value of the radius of the tank is also shown.
As it is expected, the external radius of the tank, R, generally
increases with the increment of the required volume (capacity) of
tank. Figs. 7 and 8 appear to be useful since they depict the
increment rate of this radius. Taking into account the results of
Fig. 7, it is found that the soil type strongly affects the optimum
radius. More specifically, as the soil bearing capacity degrades
(from soil A to D, i.e., from rock to soft soil) the optimum value of
radius of the tank should be increased. This behavior has to do
with the different design spectra correspond to these soil types
and especially with the optimum design of the tank’s foundation
where its dimensions should be larger for the case of soft soil in
comparison with the case of rocky soil type. Finally, examining
the general trend of results of Fig. 8, it is obvious that the higher
the PGA, the larger the optimum radius.
Figs. 9 and 10 depict the optimum thickness of the shell for
various values of the required volume of the tank V. These figures
also depict the influences of PGA and soil types on the optimum
thickness of the shell. It is found that tanks with increased
required storage volume appear to have thicker shells in compar-
ison with tanks with lower requirements. Furthermore, examin-
ing Fig. 9 it is obvious that as soil quality degrades (from rock to
soft soil), the shell thickness should increase. This phenomenon is
attributed to the soil bearing capacity that leads to different
dimensions for the tank as well as to the dissimilar response
spectra for the various soil types which cause different hydro-
dynamic pressures. Additionally, it is obvious from Fig. 10 that
more intense ground motions leads to tanks with increased shell
58 M.K. Minoglou et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 64 (2013) 50–59

Fig. 12. Optimum height of the tank for soil types A, B, C and D.

Fig. 13. Influence of intensity of earthquakes and soil types on the total cost of a steel tank.

thickness. It should be noted that this characteristic appears to be
generally rational, taking into account that the higher the external
loads the higher the sectional dimensions of a structural member,
but examining the optimum dimensions of a tank, the optimum
shell’s thickness is also affected by the optimum values of radius
and height of the tank.
Figs. 11 and 12 show the optimum value of tank height, h, for
various values of required volume of stored fluid, V, and for PGA
equal to 0.1 g, 0.2 g, 0.3 g and 0.4 g. In these figures, the influence
of soil type on the optimum value of height of the tank is also
shown. As expected, the height of the tank h generally increases
with increasing the required volume of the tank V and Figs. 11
and 12 depict the increment rates. Examining Fig. 11, it is obvious
that the soil type strongly affects the optimum value of tank’s
height, where, as the soil bearing capacity degrades (from soil A to
D, i.e., from rock to soft soil) the optimum height of the tank is
reduced. This characteristic has mainly to do with the soil bearing
capacity that leads to different dimensions for the tank, i.e., tanks
with larger dimensions of foundation. Furthermore, this charac-
teristic has also to do with the dissimilar response spectra for the
various soil types which cause different hydrodynamic pressures
where the softer the soil the higher the hydrodynamic loads.
Additionally, from Fig. 12 it is obvious that the higher the PGA, the
lower the optimum height.
Thus, the cases of strong and moderate earthquakes generally
lead to stubby and spindly types of tanks, respectively. Finally, the
cases of soft and very hard soils also lead to stubby and spindly
shape of tanks, respectively.
Summarizing the above results, it is found that in order to
achieve an optimum seismic design for cylindrical thin-walled
steel tanks, the local site conditions (soil type) and the intense of
seismic loads (peak ground acceleration) should be taken into
account. These parameters also affect the total cost of the tank.
For example, Fig. 13 depicts the total cost for a thin-walled steel
tank with capacity V ¼1000 m3. It is evident from this figure that
the total cost is affected by the intensity of the design earthquake.
Furthermore, the case of soft soil leads to increased cost, mainly
due to the increased cost of foundation. In this case, soil
improvement techniques should be applied in order to decrease
the total cost and reduce other types of seismic hazards such as
the liquefaction potential. The investigation of this problem is
beyond the purpose of this paper.
6. Conclusions
In this study, a simple and effective method is proposed for the
optimum seismic design of cylindrical thin-walled steel liquid
 M.K. Minoglou et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 64 (2013) 50–59
storage tanks taking into account the material, construction and
land use costs. The method employs strength and stability criteria
to ensure the integrity of these tanks under strong earthquakes.
A detailed study of the problem leads to the following conclusions:
 The proposed method can be considered as a basis for
performing minimum cost seismic design of thin-walled steel
tanks that satisfy structural and stability requirements. For
illustrative proposes, various storage volumes of petroleum
tanks have been examined where their capacity ranges
between 50 and 5000 m3.
 The optimum radius of tanks increase as the intense of seismic
loads increases. Thus, a strong earthquake (PGA¼0.4 g) requires
the increase of the tank’s radius of about 25% compared to a
moderate earthquake (PGA¼0.1 g).
 The optimum radius of tanks increases as the stiffness/quality
of soil decreases. Thus, a soft soil type (Soil D) requires the
increase of the radius of about 70% compared to a rocky type of
soil (Soil A). This requirement has to do with the different
bearing capacities of these soil types and their different design
spectra which lead to different fluid dynamic pressures.
 The optimum shell thickness of tanks increases as the intense
of seismic loads increases or the stiffness/quality of soil
decreases. Thus, a strong earthquake (PGA¼0.4 g) requires
the increase of the tank’s radius of about 25% compared to a
moderate earthquake (PGA¼0.1 g).
 The optimum height of the tank generally increases as the
volume of the tank increases. Furthermore, it is found that the
higher the PGA the lower the height of the tank. Thus, a strong
earthquake (PGA¼0.4 g) requires the decrease of the tank’s
height of about 40% compared to a moderate earthquake
(PGA¼0.1 g). Therefore, strong and moderate earthquakes
generally lead to ‘stubby’ and ‘spindly’ tanks, respectively.
Furthermore, as soil quality/stiffness is reduced, the optimum
tank height should also be reduced. Thus, the cases of soft
and very hard soils lead to ‘stubby’ and ‘spindly’ tanks,
respectively.
 The total cost of the tank is strongly affected by the soil type
and the intensity of the design earthquake.
References
[1] Haroun MA, Housner GW. Seismic design of liquid storage tanks. Journal of
Technical Councils of ASCE 1981;107:191–207.
[2] Rammerstorfer GF, Scharf K, Fisher DF. Storage tanks under earthquake
loadings. Applied Mechanics Reviews 1990;43(11):261–82.
[3] Veletsos AS, Shivakumar P. Tanks containing liquids or solids. In: Beskos DE,
Anagnostopoulos SA, editors. In computer analysis and design of earthquake
59
resistant structures: a Zandbook. Southampton: Computational Mechanics
Publications; 1996.
[4] Hatzigeorgiou GD. Introduction to earthquake engineering. E-book, Xanthi,
Greece 2008 in Greek.
[5] Housner GW. Dynamic pressures on accelerated fluid containers. Bulletin
of Seismological Society of America 1957;1:15–37.
[6] Housner GW. Dynamic behavior of water tanks. Bulletin of Seismological
Society of America 1963;53:381–7.
[7] Epstein HI. Seismic design of liquid storage tanks. Journal of Structural
Division–ASCE 1976;102:1659–73.
[8] Malhotra PK, Wenk T, Wieland M. Simple procedure for seismic analysis
of liquid-storage tanks. Structural Engineering International 2000;3:197–201.
[9] Berahman F, Behnamfar F. Probabilistic seismic demand model and fragility
estimates for critical failure modes of un-anchored steel storage tanks in
petroleum complexes. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 2009;24:527–36.
[10] Ozdemir B, Souli M, Fahjan YM. Application of nonlinear fluid_structure
interaction methods to seismic analysis of anchored and unanchored tanks.
Engineering Structures 2010;32:409–23.
[11] Korkmaz KA, Sari A, Carhoglu AI. Seismic risk assessment of storage tanks in
Turkish industrial facilities. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
Industries 2011;24:314–20.
[12] Bayraktar A, Sevim B, Altunisik AC, Turker T. Effect of the model updating on
the earthquake behavior of steel storage tanks. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 2010;66:462–9.
[13] Haroun MA. Vibration studies and test of liquid storage tanks. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1983;11:179–206.
[14] Hamdan FH. Seismic behavior of cylindrical steel liquid storage tanks. Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 2000;53(3):307–33.
[15] Eurocode 8. Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, Part 1-
General rules and Part 4-Silos, tanks and pipelines, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels; 2005.
[16] Greek Seismic Code. Regulations and provisions. Technical Chamber of
Greece, Athens, Greece; 2003.
[17] Wozniak SR. Steel tanks. In Structural Engineering Handbook. In: Gaylord EH,
Gaylord CN, Stallmeyer JE, editors. 4th ed.. New York: Mc Graw-Hill; 1996.
[18] Budhu M. Soil mechanics and foundation. 3rd ed. N.J.: John Wiley & Sons;
2011.
[19] Tezcan SS, Ozdemir Z, Keceli A. Allowable bearing capacity of shallow
foundations based on shear wave velocity. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering 2006;24:203–18.
[20] Rotter JM, Seide P. On the design of unstiffened shells subjected to an axial
load and internal pressure. In Proccedings of ECCS Colloquium on Stability of
Plate and Shell Structures. Belgium: Ghent University; 1987 539-548.
[21] Hellenic Ministry of Infrastructure, Transport and Networks. /http://www.
yme.grS, [accessed 02.21.12].
[22] Barakat SA, Altoubat S. Application of evolutionary global optimization
techniques in the design of RC water tanks. Engineering Structures
2009;31:332–44.
[23] Perea C, Yepes V, Alcala J, Hospitaler A, Gonzalez-Vidosa F. A parametric
study of optimum road frame bridges by threshold acceptance. Indian
Journal of Engineering & Materials Sciences 2010;17:427–37.
[24] Perea C, Alcala J, Yepes V, Gonzalez-Vidosa F, Hospitaler A. Design of
reinforced concrete bridge frames by heuristic optimization. Advances in
Engineering Software 2008;39(8):676–88.
[25] Yepes V, Alcala J, Perea C, Gonzalez-Vidosa F. A parametric study of optimum
earth-retaining walls by simulated annealing. Engineering Structures
2008;30(3):821–30.
[26] Paya-Zaforteza I, Yepes V, Hospitaler A, Gonzalez-Vidosa F. CO2-optimization
of reinforced concrete frames by simulated annealing. Engineering Structures
2009;31(7):1501–8.