Engineering Failure Analysis 142 (2022) 106767

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Failure analysis of the collapse of a raised steel wine tank

Salvador Ivorra a, Benjamín Torres a, *, Luis Estevan a, José Manuel Piqueras b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alicante, P.O. Box 99, 03080 Alicante, Spain
b
Piqueras Ingenieros SL, Britania Street, 03540 Alicante, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: As structural damage or even catastrophic collapses are sometimes due to improper design,
Progressive collapse underestimated design loads or unexpectedly extreme loads, progressive collapse and structural
Steel structure robustness has recently received a great deal of attention, while the number of scientific papers
Structural robustness
published on the topic has grown considerably. This paper describes an analysis of the failure of a
Cyclic loading
Forensic engineering
106 m3 steel raised wine tank belonging to a local wine producer that suddenly collapsed,
fortunately without personal injury, but causing significant damage to the company’s facilities.
The collapse generated the progressive failure of other tanks next to the first one that failed. After
several visits to inspect the accident on site, a diagnosis was made to determine the causes.
Possible reasons were examined by visual inspections and experimental tests on steel specimens
recovered from the collapsed structures, which allowed to determine the mechanical properties
and study the fracture surfaces by scanning electron microscopy and micrographs. On the other
hand, the load-carrying capacities of the structure were studied by a linear-static finite-element
and a nonlinear-static push-over analysis. The collapse mechanism of the system was found to be
due to cyclic horizontal loads generated by a pressurized air injection system. The results allowed
to conclude that this type of structure is highly vulnerable to horizontal loads and has very little
capacity to activate alternative loas paths. The paper also describes a possible solution that could
be used to improve the mechanical performance of this structural typology against horizontal
loading, based on the lessons learned from the experience.

1. Introduction

Structures can sometimes be subjected to extreme events (impacts, hurricanes, terrorist attacks, earthquakes, etc) or exposed to a
range of degradation actions such us corrosion or fatigue [1,2,3,4,5]. These events can cause the sudden loss of local elements and
trigger a cascading failure, known as “progressive collapse” [5,6]. Since a progressive collapse of buildings or bridges can have
dramatic consequences, this topic has recently attracted significant attention in the field of structural engineering [7].
In this general context, structural robustness is defined as a measure of the ability of a system to remain functional in case of local
failure of a single component or a set of connected components [8]. According to this concept, structural robustness is a significant
property towards improving resilience in buildings and infrastructures, i.e., ability to withstand and recover from extreme events
[9,10].
Most studies on progressive collapse focus on buildings [7,10–13] or bridges [5,14–17] with dramatic consequences due to the
large number of lives lost. In the case of buildings, most research is carried out by theoretical studies or experimental lab tests. Works

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: benjamin.torres@ua.es (B. Torres).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.106767
Received 15 July 2022; Received in revised form 20 August 2022; Accepted 29 August 2022
Available online 12 September 2022
1350-6307/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
S. Ivorra et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 142 (2022) 106767

on bridge robustness and progressive collapse are basically approached by numerical or analytical studies and, to a much lesser extent,
by experimental tests. To date, only two scientific publications are known to exist [5,18] in which experimental lab studies were
carried out on full scale steel truss bridges; these structures were subjected to various types of damage and their capacity to open up
alternative load paths (ALPs) was investigated.
However, assessing structural robustness has also been carried out by analysing actual cases of collapse in a wide range of different
types of structures [13,19–34]. In all these studies, collapses were found to be due to several causes, e.g., improper design, under­
estimated design loads, unexpected extreme loads, improper manufacturing, or poor workmanship. Null structural robustness was
observed when the local failure began, without the ability to activate ALPs, producing the progressive collapse of the whole structure.
On the other hand, raised liquid storage tanks have been the subject of a large number of publications over the last decades. This
singular type of structure is present in many industrial processes and generally consists of a steel tank supported on steel or concrete
columns and used to store liquids. Their main characteristic pathologies range from small cracks to the complete collapse of the
supporting elements [35]. Similar damage and consequences were found in raised tanks during recent earthquakes, e.g., the 1995 Kobe
earthquake (Japan) and the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake (China) [36]. In most cases, the tanks were designed by outdated standards
and thus hazards like seismically-induced fires and seismically-induced tsunamis were completely ignored [36–38]. These types of
structures are generally correctly dimensioned for gravity loads, but have a very low capacity to activate ALPs, and frequently become
seriously damaged or, in most cases, suffer complete collapse when horizontal loads act on them.
The aim of this work is to analyse the sudden collapse of a wine storage tank. The accident took place at 3:45 a.m. on October 4th,
2020, and luckily caused no injuries, although the material damage was considerable and the repairs were assessed at several thousand
euros. An initial total collapse in one tank led to the progressive failure of many of the neighbouring tanks. Although not all of the tanks
failed, approximately 18 units became completely useless, suffering serious plastic deformations. The stability of the entire set of tanks
that had not failed was seriously compromised as they were all leaning on each other and had to be dismantled and replaced by new
ones. To identify the causes of the initial collapse that led to the total or partial failure of the set of tanks, a forensic engineering study
was carried out that included: (i) several visits to the wine producer’s installations that involved taking photographs and having
conversations with the directors of the company; (ii) experimental tests on steel specimens taken from the collapsed tanks to char­
acterize their mechanical behavior and study the fractured surfaces; (iii) a linear-static finite-element and a nonlinear-static push-over
analysis to identify the vulnerability of this type of structure under horizontal loads. After determining the origin of the problem and its
analysis, we define some possible improvements and remedial measures that could be adopted to avoid the repetition of the problem,

Fig. 1. General geometry of the raised tank with details of the columns and horizontal ties.

2
S. Ivorra et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 142 (2022) 106767

based on the lessons learned from the experience.

2. Description of the raised steel wine tank

The accident occurred in the installations of a wine producer. The structure under study consisted of a raised stainless-steel tank
used to ferment the must. The tank geometry is given in Fig. 1. The cylindrical tank had an external diameter of 4200 mm and the steel
plate was 4 mm thick, with upper and lower sections roughly in the shape of a spherical cone. The total height was 10300 mm and the
capacity was 106 m3. The tank rested on 8 hollow circular steel columns, with a height of 2650 mm, an external diameter of 270 mm
and 3 mm thick plate. The columns were joined to the tank by a continuously welded metal plate (Fig. 1, view A), and were connected
to each other at a height of 1400 mm from the floor by horizontal steel ties, with a diameter of 83 mm and 2 mm thick plate (Fig. 1,
view B). The columns were simply placed on the floor without anchoring and were adjusted by means of threaded devices which
allowed the tank to be perfectly leveled (Fig. 1, view C).
The tank is made of cold laminated steel with a quality of AISI-304, corresponding to austenitic stainless steel. This is normally used
in this type of structures as it combines excellent mechanical characteristics with high strength to corrosive agents. The upper section
of the tank was also made of cold laminated steel, but with a quality of AISI-316.
The winery had many of these tanks very close to one another to save space (Fig. 2a). The must produces bubbles during
fermentation as a by-product of the sugar being transformed into ethyl alcohol. These bubbles take the solid grape particles to the
surface, where they form a layer known as the “cap”. Since wine fermentation is an aerobic process, the must has to be provided with
oxygen to avoid its turning into vinegar, for which the layer of solids on the surface must be broken in a process known as the “recovery
cycle”. This was formerly done manually using long poles, although now it is done by an automatic process of pumping air under
pressure into the base of the tank to form bubbles that rise to the top to carry out the recovery cycle (Fig. 2b). The air is injected under
pressure into the tank in a continuous automatic process for as long as it takes for the correct fermentation. The system injects air at
approximately 9 bar for no more than 10 s in an operation repeated for a number of days according to the degree of fermentation
required.

Fig. 2. General view of the group of tanks built close together (a) and scheme of pressurized air injection for must fermentation (b).

3
S. Ivorra et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 142 (2022) 106767

3. Description of the failure

On October 4th, 2020, at 3:45 a.m. one of the tanks full to 85% of its capacity collapsed and started a series of collapses of other
nearby tanks. A total of 18 units were seriously damaged, either because they collapsed completely or because they suffered significant
deformations caused by the impacts of neighbors (Fig. 3). The original cause of the accident became clear in the visual inspection, i.e.,
the first to fail and cause the progressive collapse of the others. This tank was put out of service due to damage in its columns and plates,
as were the others, which were seriously buckled.
The tank that originally failed was studied in detail and characteristic damage was found in the columns at the plates where they
were connected to the horizontal braces. Fig. 4 shows some images taken after the collapse, including the buckled upper section of the
tank where it was joined to the columns (Fig. 4a and 4b). Some of the welding lines were broken on the plates that joined the columns
to the tank (Fig. 4c) and on the plates that connected the columns to the horizontal braces (Fig. 4d), with significant damage to the steel
(Fig. 4e). The bases of the columns were undamaged, as they were simply supported on the floor, although some were bent out of their
original position (Fig. 4f).
During the inspection, some other tanks were examined in a zone of the winery unaffected by the progressive collapse, in which the
apparent beginning of buckling was found in the upper columns where they joined the steel plate of the tank (Fig. 5).

4. Experimental tests

Five test sets were conducted to evaluate the mechanical and chemical properties of the material extracted from parts of the tanks
not affected by the accident, and also from portions of the collapsed structures. Tests were carried out to determine:
Thickness and geometry of the healthy samples extracted from the columns, braces and tank plate.
Tensile test of the healthy simples extracted from the columns, braces and tank plate.
Inspection of welding in unaffected tank areas by means of penetrant liquids.
Study of welding fracture surfaces affected by collapse by means of scanning electron microscope (SEM).
Hardness test of welding affected by the collapse and adjacent healthy material.
Details of these tests are given below.

4.1. Geometry measurements

Ten measurements were made of the thickness of the healthy samples from columns, horizontal ties and tank steel plates. Table 1
gives the average thickness with standard deviation of the measurements.

4.2. Tensile tests

Tensile tests were carried out according to the recommended process [39]. An extensometer was used to determine the yield stress
of the material with an initial length of 50 mm for samples from the horizontal ties and tank steel plate and 100 mm for column
samples. The ultimate tensile strength and maximum elongation reached on failure were also determined. Two specimens were taken
from the samples from columns, ties and tank steel for tensile testing. The calculation of the initial cross section of the specimens was as
indicated in [39] according to the thickness and curvature of the specimens. The results obtained are given in Table 2.

Fig. 3. Damage caused by tank collapse: (a) general view; (b) detail of the collision with the adjacent tank; (c) detail of buckled plates caused by
the impact.

4
S. Ivorra et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 142 (2022) 106767

Fig. 4. Details of damage found in the collapsed tank: (a) buckled upper column section; (b) buckled tank plate in the joint with the column; (c)
broken welding on the column-tank joint; (d) broken welding in the brace-column joint; (e) column buckled at the brace; (f) bent but otherwise
undamaged column resting on floor.

Fig. 5. Beginning of buckling in columns of tanks similar to those that failed, but remained unaffected by the accident.

Table 1
Thickness of the elements that formed the tank structure.
Tank plate Column Horizontal Tie

Average thickness (mm) 4.01 3.00 2.08

Stand. deviation (mm) 0.03 0.05 0.04

4.3. Penetrant liquids

Non-destructive inspection of the weld surfaces was carried out by means of penetrant liquids. This method is used to detect cracks,
pores or any other surface defects in the materials and is based on the principle of capillary action. A liquid with low surface tension is

5
S. Ivorra et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 142 (2022) 106767

Table 2
Dimensions and mechanical properties of the steel specimens.
Specimen Cross section dimensions (mm2) Yield stress (MPa) Ultimate stress (MPa) Elongation
at failure (%)

Tank 1 98.9 307 707 62.3

Tank 2 100.8 301 704 66.4
Column 1 115.1 322 660 67.1
Column 2 116.9 308 649 69.4
Horiz. Tie 1 45.4 395 740 64.1
Horiz. Tie 2 46.4 399 723 64.6

applied to the element to be studied that enters any defect it finds. After removing the excess liquid, a “developer” product is applied to
mark in red the position, orientation and type of defects present on the studied surface.
All the weld lines analyzed were in general found to be healthy with a few exceptions that did not indicate deficient mechanical
behavior (Fig. 6). From the images obtained, an initial defect in the column welds was ruled out as the origin of the accident.

4.4. Metallographic and fractographic analysis: fracture surface by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and micrographs

The external broken part of the tank was subjected to a metallurgic and fractographic analysis to determine the type of steel, its
condition, mechanical properties and type of fracture. The analysis of the fractured surface is crucial to identify the type of defect that
has taken place, e.g., fatigue, corrosion, weakening, etc. [40,41]. The technique is applied by scanning electronic microscope (SEM) in
which images are obtained by projecting a beam of electrons instead of light. Preparation of the samples is relatively simple as they
only have to be conductive. The sample is covered with a carbon layer or a thin layer of metal to make it conductive before being
scanned, by an accelerated beam of electrons to produce high-resolution images in two or three dimensions. Each type of defect has an
easily recognisable characteristic pattern in the SEM images, so that the phenomenon that caused the failure can be established by
studying various zones of a fracture.
The plastic deformation capacity of steel can vary with the different micro-structures and tensile state at the point studied, but in all
cases an easily recognizable fracture surface is shown by SEM [42]. All the images obtained by this method have the same appearance
as shown in Fig. 7, where a pattern characteristic of a ductile fracture of a low-carbon steel is observed. The cavities seen in the images
(dimples) are due to plastic deformation in which the material particles have absorbed a great deal of energy previous to the fracture.
These small cavities are the result of a break around micro-inclusions or micro-discontinuities that cause a strong concentration of
strains and a local increase in plastic deformation. During deformation, the initial micro-cavities break up into a surface fracture with
hemispherical or semi-ellipsoidal depressions. The SEM images also show the absence of any type of fatigue or fragile break or due to
corrosion that could have led to the accelerated loss of mechanical properties of the material.
A series of samples were prepared for the metallurgical study of the welds joining the columns with the tank in both the affected and
unaffected zones. The aim was to perform micrographs of the healthy and fractured samples to obtain their micro-structures and
compare their qualities. This way it was possible to detect if there were differences between the two materials, if the material was
processed correctly, as well as to identify grain size, impurities and possible mechanical defects. The different micrographs of the
healthy and fractured zones did not provide significant differences, since they were made of steel with similar characteristics and
properties.
For all of the above, from the metallographic and fractographic study, it cannot be expected that a deficient execution of the welds
was a possible cause of the collapse.

4.5. Hardness tests

The Vickers hardness test has been widely employed to evaluate the hardness of metal materials because of its accuracy and
simplicity [43]. In this case hardness tests were carried out on the samples used for the micrographs to obtain the results of tests on

Fig. 6. Inspection of weld lines by penetrant liquids.

6
S. Ivorra et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 142 (2022) 106767

Fig. 7. SEM image of fracture of welded surface of a column.

healthy and fractured samples. The HV5 method was used, which applies a 50 N test load to compare the hardness of both materials as
any significant differences show that certain welds have failed under lighter loads and caused the collapse. The results are given in
Table 3 in the form of the average of three measurements.

4.6. Conclusions of experimental tests

The results obtained from the experimental tests did not show any signs that the cause of the collapse could be attributed either to
the poor mechanical properties of the steel used in the structures or to deficient welds. The steel tensile tests gave the habitual yield
stress values of S275 steel for columns and tank and S355 for the horizontal ties [44]. The penetrant liquids tests on the welds indicated
healthy weld lines with no surface defects that could have affected the mechanical behavior, while the SEM images showed the absence
of fatigue failure, fragile failure or corrosion that could have caused a fast degradation of the mechanical properties. Neither the
different micrographs of the sound and fractured zones nor the Vickers hardness tests provided any significant differences between
these, since they were made of steel with similar characteristics and properties.

5. Qualitative diagnosis

A qualitative diagnosis was compiled from the test results on steel samples and the visual inspection of the accident site on the
original cause of the collapse.
Deficient mechanical properties of the steel used and welds were originally ruled out. No signs were found to indicate that the steel
possessed inferior mechanical properties to those initially considered in the structural design, nor were any signs of corrosion found in
the steel that could have caused the fast deterioration of the material. The welds had no surface defects to indicate poor quality
execution. The images of the fracture surfaces obtained by SEM showed ductile failures after the collapse with the large deformation
capacity pertaining to sound steel, and no signs were found of surface fractures due to weakness or associated with fatigue. The
hardness tests on sound and fractured surfaces did not show any differences to indicate a lower strength in the fractured weld lines. The
tensile tests on the samples gave yield stress and ultimate strength values for S275 and S355 cold laminated steel, in accordance with

Table 3
Results of Vickers hardness test on healthy and fractured welds.
Vickers hardness Column 1 Column 2

Healthy weld 209 193

Fractured weld 200 230

7
S. Ivorra et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 142 (2022) 106767

[44].
These previous considerations indicated that underestimated design loads or unexpected extreme loads were acting on the
structure. In the visual inspection the damage was seen to be concentrated in the columns where they joined the tank and in the
horizontal ties. The damage found in the tank steel such as fractures and buckling occurred after the collapse of the first tank due to the
impact of the tanks falling into each other and thus was irrelevant in considering the origin of the problem.
The type of damage in the columns indicated that the tank structure had been subjected to some type of horizontal action. From a
mechanical point of view, this structural typology seems to be subjected to a low level of stresses against gravity loads, although there
is some uncertainty about its capacity to resist horizontal loads. As regards the origin of these horizontal loads, the immediate question
was the possibility of differential settling of the foundation or failure of the screws used to adjust the height of the columns (Fig. 4f).
However, all the column supports were checked as were the supporting floor, which were composed of a concrete slab which was
unlikely to be subjected to ground settling. In turn, the adjusting screws on the bases of the eight columns were available for inspection
and none of these showed symptoms of weakness, so they could be ruled out as the origin of the problem.
The possible horizontal actions that laterally excited the tank must have been due to another reason. All the possible hypotheses
thus pointed to the tank air-injection system (Fig. 2b) that generates an upward stream of bubbles for the recovery cycle, as described
in Section 2. This system was installed in 2018 and since the grapes are picked between the end of the summer and the beginning of
autumn, the production system only lasts for a few months of the year. In this period the aeration system is put into operation at certain
times and its operating record showed it had been activated on 350 occasions since its installation in the tank in which the collapse had
started. This is a very small number of cycles and supported the initial hypothesis that ruled out fatigue as the original cause of the
collapse.
The next step was to situate the 350 times the recovery system had been applied in time. These times are recorded in a register and
provided evidence of the day and the time the system had been put into operation. With this information, security camera recordings
from the winery were reviewed, which confirmed that after the aeration system had been activated the tank structure was subjected to
horizontal excitation whose amplitude increased in time until reaching a maximum and then gradually diminished until it dis­
appeared. After consulting the system data and the video camera recordings, it could be confirmed that the lateral excitation of the
structure always coincided with the activation of the aeration system, and everything seemed to point to the strong stream of bubbles
exerting a horizontal action on the tank.

6. Linear elastic structural analysis

As mentioned in the previous section, this type of structure is normally subjected to low levels of stresses against gravity loads,
although there are doubts about its ability to withstand horizontal loads. A finite element numerical model (FEM) of a steel tank was
carried out to determine the cause of the original collapse. The first step was a static, elastic linear analysis of the structure subjected to
a horizontal load on the top of the tank to obtain the response in terms of stresses on the columns, ties and tank steel according to the

Fig. 8. Finite element model of the raised steel wine tank.

8
S. Ivorra et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 142 (2022) 106767

horizontal displacements reached, to show the vulnerability of this structural typology under these circumstances.
The numerical study was carried out on SAP2000 software [45]. The structure was composed of different elements: (i) the external
plate of the tank with its upper and lower covers; (ii) columns and (iii) horizontal ties. The plate of the steel tank was modelled with
thin-shell elements, which is a four-node shell that combines membrane and plate-bending behavior with six degrees of freedom at
each of its connected joints. Columns and horizontal ties were modelled with line objects composed of frame elements using a general
three-dimensional beam formulation which includes the effects of biaxial bending, torsion, axial deformation and biaxial shear de­
formations. A frame element is modelled as a straight line connecting two nodes, each with six degrees of freedom.
For material properties, a conventional steel was used with a Younǵs modulus of 210000 MPa, a Poissoń s ratio of 0.3 and a mass
density of 7.8 ⋅10− 9 N/mm3. The yield stress obtained in the experimental tests was used in each element (Table 2). All the model
elements had linear elastic behavior. The model (Fig. 8) had a total number of 1728 shell finite elements and 23 frame elements. The
inter-column nodes and the steel plate of the tank were stiff, as were the connecting nodes between columns and horizontal ties. The
tank was 85% full at the time of collapse, which was taken into account for the action of the self-weight of the wine on the bottom of the
tank, considering wine to have the same density as water. The hydrostatic lateral load on the tank steel was also included. Horizontal
action was applied by the horizontal displacement of the tank’s upper nodes, which were increased until the yield strength of the steel
was reached. Horizontal displacement was only imposed in the direction X (Fig. 8), although the real horizontal excitation on the
structure had two components on the plane due to the randomness of the upward stream of bubbles. However, the case of the increased
displacement was studied in a single direction to be on the safe side. Finally, the structure’s self-weight was also considered by means
of its mass density.

6.1. Structural response under gravity loads

When only gravity loads due to the self-weight of the structure and the wine’s self-weight act on the tank, the columns are subjected
to maximum Von Mises stresses (SVM) of 87.3 MPa (Fig. 9a). The almost perfect radial symmetry of the structure (note that there are 8
columns but a total of 7 ties to allow access to the bottom of the tank) make the stresses in all the columns practically the same. The
maximum stresses in the horizontal ties reached 17.3 MPa (Fig. 9a). The function of these ties under gravity loads is exclusively to
brace the columns when they are loaded. Regarding the steel tank plates, the maximum stresses can be seen to be reached in the joints
with columns, with maximum values of 123 MPa (Fig. 9b). In any case, the stresses reached in the different elements were far from the
yield strength of the steel, which gave values of 322 and 308 MPa for the columns, 395 and 399 MPa for the ties and 307 and 301 MPa
for the tank steel plate (Table 2). In this scenario, the columns are the elements that withstand most stress and are working at
approximately 30% of their yield stress. In view of these initial results, it can be concluded that the structure was highly robust under

Fig. 9. Von Mises stress (SVM) under gravity loads: (a) columns and horizontal ties; (b) tank shells.

9
S. Ivorra et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 142 (2022) 106767

gravity loads only.

6.2. Structural response under horizontal loads

Even though the structure was shown to be robust under gravity loads (Section 6.1), the structural characteristics presented serious
uncertainties when horizontal actions were considered. In this case a horizontal imposed displacement was applied to the top of the
tank in the positive direction of the X axis and the evolution of the SVM was assessed in the different elements. Fig. 10 gives the results
obtained for the horizontal displacement of 30 mm of the top of the tank: deformed shape (Fig. 10a), SVM in columns and horizontal
ties (Fig. 10b) and SVM in tank plates (Fig. 10c).
Fig. 11 shows the evolution of the SVM stresses in the different elements as the horizontal displacement at the top of the tank was
increased. The results reveal that the stresses on the columns increased except on column C5, which was unloaded due to the direction
of the displacement applied (Fig. 11a). The horizontal ties are seen to reach their yield stress values for 35 mm of horizontal
displacement (Fig. 11b). Ties T2, T3, T6 and T7 are seen to withstand the biggest stress increase as horizontal displacement rises, since
their orientation is the closest to the direction of the X axis, along which the displacement was generated. All the stresses in the tank
steel plate increased, except for the area close to the connecting node of column C5, which was unloaded. For the maximum horizontal
displacement considered in this analysis (50 mm) it can be seen that the maximum stresses in columns and tank shells (169 and 187
MPa, respectively) are well below the yield strength of the steel, while the ends of the 4 ties mentioned above had been completely
yielded.
These results show that although the tank structure behaves well under gravity loads only, it is highly vulnerable to horizontal
actions since it cannot generate alternative load paths. The graphs included in Fig. 11 clearly show that the failure sequence starts in
the horizontal ties, in which the maximum stresses are reached in their joints with the columns (Fig. 10b), so that the yield of these
sections would involve the formation of plastic hinges. This phenomenon extended to the highest loaded ties, and after a certain
damage level, plastic hinges were formed in the columns. The tank structure will thus lose stiffness as the plastic hinges affect more
elements up to a certain damage level that makes the structure unable to withstand higher loads. This analysis in the form of a
nonlinear pushover analysis will be described in the following section.

7. Nonlinear static pushover analysis

Recent investigations indicate that pushover methods have been widely applied for the seismic evaluation of common structures.
The application of nonlinear static (pushover) analysis is used as an efficient tool to predict the seismic demands of structures, since its
results agree with the nonlinear dynamic analysis results [46]. The results obtained from a static linear elastic model show that a study
should be made of the conditions to which the structure must be subjected to cause the failure of its elements, or that these elements on
exceeding their working elastic range reach a limit at which they cannot recover their initial resistant characteristics. From the

Fig. 10. Results for a horizontal displacement of 30 mm: (a) deformed shape; (b) SVM in columns and horizontal ties; (c) SVM in tank shells.

10
S. Ivorra et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 142 (2022) 106767

Fig. 11. Von Mises stresses according to the horizontal displacement: (a) columns; (b) horizontal ties; (c) tank shells around columns.

nonlinear pushover test, the structural behavior can be determined up to the point of collapse after various elements have exceeded
their yield stress.
In this case each of the frame elements is assigned a possibility of developing plastic hinges at their ends at a percentage of their
lengths to easily determine whether the plastic hinge is formed in the column or in the tie. Default hinge properties are provided based
on FEMA 365 [47]. For each degree of freedom, it is possible to define a moment-rotation curve that gives the yield value and the
plastic deformation following yield. This is done in terms of a curve with values at five points A-B-C-D-E (Fig. 12). The shape of this
curve is intended for pushover analysis. The following points should be noted:

– Point A is always the origin.

– Point B represent yielding (no deformation occurs in the hinge up to point B).
– Point C represent the ultimate capacity for pushover analysis.
– Point D represent a residual strength for pushover analysis.
– Point E represent total failure or collapse
– The different performance levels are indicated between points B and C. These levels are defined in [48] and each one is associated
with a state of damage for existing buildings. Immediate Occupation (IO) is associated with a damage level classed as slight. Life
Security (LS) is associated with moderate damage in structural elements with a loss of strength and stiffness of the system against
lateral loads. Collapse Prevention (CP) implies a severe damage level in structural elements, with generalised failures in secondary
elements and which, without reaching the point of collapse, could make it necessary to demolish the structure.

Fig. 13 shows the evolution of the formation of plastic hinges in columns and ties. The results are given in the form of a graphic scale
of colours that refers hinge formation to the performance levels laid down in [47,48]. The successive formation of hinges involves
activating mechanisms for the collapse of the structure.
Up to a displacement of 39 mm no hinges were formed in any of the elements, which agrees with the conclusions obtained in
Section 6.2. After the second load step (54 mm of horizontal displacement) a plastic hinge formed in tie T7 in the joint with column C7,
although the state of Immediate Occupation (IO) was not reached, indicating that structural safety is not under threat. In the third load
step a horizontal displacement of 82 mm was applied and new hinge formation affected a greater number of elements, including T2,
T3, T6 and T7, all of which pass immediately to the IO level but with no risk to structural safety. However, in this step hinges are
formed in the heads of columns C3 and C7, with doubts as regards structural safety and the risk of collapse. At a displacement of 121
mm (fourth load step) the hinges in ties T6 and T7 reach the Life Security level (LS), as well as the heads of columns C3 and C7, that
involves loss of strength and stiffness in the system against lateral loads, as the state before Collapse Prevention (CP). After this load

Fig. 12. Load-Displacement / Moment-Rotation defined for hinge properties.

11
S. Ivorra et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 142 (2022) 106767

Fig. 13. Evolution of hinge formation in columns and ties (pushover analysis).

step new hinges are formed in other ties and columns and the ultimate capacity of the structure is reached.
Fig. 14 shows the load–displacement pushover curve of the structure, which is clearly similar to the curve shown in Fig. 12. As
horizontal displacement increases, the structure loses stiffness due to the successive formation of plastic hinges in the elements. This
reduces the slope of the curve until it reaches a certain displacement value at which the structure is unable to assume greater loads.
From this point onwards, structural safety is seriously compromised.

8. Analysis of vibrational modes

It was observed that the activation of the aeration system applied a dynamic action on the tank to which the structure responded by
vibrating, initially in a forced way and then in a free way (after finishing the air injection). An analysis was carried out to examine the
natural frequencies and modal shapes, i.e., the characteristic way in which the structure vibrates after excitation. Most systems
generally present modal shapes and their vibration is always a combination or mix of different modes, although not all of these are
excited to the same degree. Fig. 15 shows the first vibration modes associated with each of the frequencies obtained. The initial po­
sition with no structural deformation is shown in grey. The first vibration mode corresponds with the lateral displacement of the tank
(f1 = 0.41 Hz) while the second is due to vertical torsion (f2 = 0.67 Hz).
After reviewing the images from the security camera, it was clearly seen that the tank collapsed due to a combination of the first two
modal shapes (Fig. 15). It can even be said that the natural frequencies obtained fit well qualitatively with the those observed in the
camera images, in which it is evident that on putting the aeration system into operation the tank structure is subjected to horizontal
excitation whose amplitude increases in time until it reaches a maximum, and then gradually diminishes until it disappears. During this
period of gradual reduction, a slow vibration can be seen with a period of approximately 2 s, which agrees reasonably well with the
natural frequencies obtained. Finally, it should be noted that the horizontal displacements imposed on the tank can be clearly seen
from the security camera images.

9. Improvements and remedial measures

From the diagnosis made, the aeration system installed to improve wine fermentation imposed a horizontal action on the tank
structure, and without any doubt this was not considered in its initial design, which probably only considered gravity loads. For this
reason, the structure was highly vulnerable to horizontal actions, since the formation of successive plastic hinges activates collapse
mechanisms. As the same air injection system is installed in many wine tanks similar to the one studied in this work, the same problem
could be repeated. In fact, as explained in Section 3, the heads of the columns in other tanks that did not collapse were seen to indicate
the beginnings of plate bucklings (Fig. 5). In view of the study carried out, this air injection system involves a serious threat to the
stability of these tanks and if corrective measures are not taken the consequences could mean the system is inviable for the wine
industry.
In view of this situation, measures should be taken to make these structures more robust against horizontal actions, for which we
propose reinforcing them with braces with the same geometry as the horizontal ties, according to the scheme shown in Fig. 16a. This
reinforcement would considerably increase the robustness against horizontal actions, as shown in Fig. 16b, which shows the
load–displacement curve both of the original non-braced structure (Fig. 14) and the reinforced version. This solution would notably
improve this type of structure against horizontal loads and would give it greater robustness.
The reinforcement solution would also allow the structure to activate different ALPs, in case of failure of any of its elements.
Fig. 16b shows the structural load–displacement curve in different diagonal failure scenarios, for example, the failure of diagonal D2,
with subsequent failures in other elements: D2; D2 + D5; D2 + D5 + D6; D2 + D5 + D6 + D3. In the failure of D2 the structure is seen to
retain a good level of robustness although there is a slight loss of stiffness (slope of the load–displacement curve) and strength,
compared to the completely reinforced structure. As the number of failed diagonals increases, stiffness and strength are gradually
reduced, although the structural robustness is much higher than that of the original non-reinforced structure. This response indicates
that the reinforcement shown in Fig. 16a provides the tank with structural redundancy. This proposal would be easy to implement in
existing non-reinforced wine tanks and would make a notable contribution to structural robustness against horizontal actions.

12
S. Ivorra et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 142 (2022) 106767

Fig. 14. Load-displacement pushover curve.

Fig. 15. Instant of collapse obtained from security camera, as a combination of the first two modal shapes.

Fig. 16. Structural improvement measures: (a) proposal for reinforcing columns: (b) load–displacement curves of different failure scenarios.

13
S. Ivorra et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 142 (2022) 106767

10. Conclusions

This article describes and analyses the sudden collapse of a 106 m3 capacity raised wine storage tank in the early morning of
October 4th, 2020. The tank was at 85% of its capacity when the accident occurred and caused the progressive collapse of identical
neighbouring tanks that had been built close together. A total of 18 tanks suffered serious damage either because they collapsed
completely or were badly deformed by the impact of other falling tanks.
The visual inspection of the tank and the experimental tests carried out on the steel specimens recovered after the collapse made it
possible to focus on the problem. Everything indicated that the collapse occurred due to horizontal loads caused by an air injection
system installed in the tanks to improve the wine fermentation. This system created a strong upward current of air bubbles to
oxygenate the must in the tank, but at the same time applied horizontal actions to the structure that caused it to collapse. After this first
diagnosis a series of experimental tests were carried out, including geometrical measurements, tensile tests, penetrant liquids in weld
lines, SEM images and hardness tests. The results allowed concluding that, in general, the steel and welds were in good condition,
which ruled out poor steel mechanical properties or deficient execution of the welds as the cause of the collapse.
As the mechanical properties of the steel used in the tanks were known, a theoretical analysis was carried out by FEM models from
two perspectives. On the one hand, a linear static elastic analysis of the structure subjeceted to horizontal displacement in its upper
section. The results showed that after a displaceent of 35 mm the horizontal ties reached Von Mises stresses (SVM) equal to the yield
strength of the steel. This indicated that the tank structure, although secure against gravity loads, was highly vulnerable to horizontal
loads. On the other hand, a nonlinear static pushover test was also carried out to study the structural behavior up to the point of
collapse after various elements had reached their yield stress. The results showed that the horizontal ties were the first elements to form
plastic hinges at their ends, to be immediately followed by hinges at the heads of the columns. The formation of plastic hinges implies
the generation of collapse mechanisms, so that at a certain level of horizontal displacement the structure is unable to bear higher loads.
In view of the results obtained, the air injection system involves a serious risk to the stability of the tanks. In fact, security camera
recordings from the winery confirmed that after the aeration system had been activated the tank structure was subjected to horizontal
excitation whose amplitude increased in time until reaching a maximum and then gradually diminished until it disappeared. For this
reason, measures should be taken to make these structures more robust against horizontal actions. If corrective measures are not taken,
the consequences for the system obviously make it inviable for the wine industry. As a corrective measure we therefore propose
reinforcing them with braces with the same geometry as the horizontal ties. The use of the same geometry for bracing has been
proposed for greater simplicity in the construction, although the study could be carried out with another type of cross-section. The
bracing has been proposed between the bottom of the column and the joint of the neighbouring column with the horizontal tie, similar
to San Andres systems used for the bracing of steel frames. The results indicate that this reinforcement would considerably improve
structural robustness against horizontal loads and would allow it to activate ALPs in case of failure of any of its elements. As the
number of failed elements increases in the diagonals, structural robustness, stiffness and strength are progressively reduced, although
in all these scenarios the structural robustness is much higher than that of the original non-reinforced structure. This response indicates
that strengthening would provide structural redundancy to the tank, that the measure would be easy to implement in existing non-
reinforced wine tanks and would considerably increase their structural robustness against horizontal loads.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

References

[1] A. Ghali, G. Tadros, Bridge progressive collapse vulnerability, J. Struct. Eng. 123 (2) (1997) 227–231, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:2
(227).
[2] E.J. Cha, B.R. Ellingwood, Risk-averse decision-making for civil infrastructure exposed to low-probability, high-consequence events, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 104
(2012) 27–35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2012.04.002.
[3] C. Apostolopoulos, P. Colajanni, A. Recupero, G. Ricciardi, N. Spinella, Failure by corrosion in PC bridges: a case history of a viaduct in Italy, Int. J. Struct.
Integrity. 7 (2) (2016) 181–193, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSI-09-2014-0046.
[4] M. Zhuang, C. Miao, Fatigue reliability assessment for hangers of a special-shaped CFST arch bridge, Structures 28 (2020) 235–250, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
istruc.2020.08.067.
[5] M. Buitrago, E. Bertolesi, P.A. Calderón, J.M. Adam, Robustness of steel truss bridges: Laboratory testing of a full-scale 21-metre bridge span, Structures 29
(2021) 691–700, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.12.005.
[6] U. Starossek, Avoiding disproportionate collapse of major bridges, Struct. Eng. Int. 19 (3) (2009) 289–297, https://doi.org/10.2749/101686609788957838.
[7] J.M. Adam, M. Buitrago, E. Bertolesi, J. Sagaseta, J.J. Moragues, Dynamic performance of a real-scale reinforced concrete building test under a corner-column
failure scenario, Eng. Struct. 210 (2020) 110414, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110414.
[8] M. Buitrago, J. Sagaseta, J.M. Adam, Avoiding failures during building construction using structural fuses as load limiters on temporary shoring structures, Eng.
Struct. 204 (2020) 109906, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109906.
[9] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures (ASCE/SEI 7-05), Struct. Eng. Inst. (2005).
[10] M. Buitrago, E. Bertolesi, J. Sagaseta, P.A. Calderón, J.M. Adam, Robustness of RC building structures with infill masonry walls: Tests on a purpose-built
structure, Eng. Struct. 226 (2021) 111384, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111384.
[11] J.M. Adam, F. Parisi, J. Sagaseta, X. Lu, Research and practice on progressive collapse and robustness of building structures in the 21st century, Eng. Struct. 173
(2018) 122–149, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.06.082.
[12] N. Eren, E. Brunesi, R. Nascimbene, Influence of masonry infills on the progressive collapse resistance of reinforced concrete framed buildings, Eng. Struct. 178
(2019) 375–394, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.10.056.

14
S. Ivorra et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 142 (2022) 106767

[13] Z.F. Alemdar, F. Alemdar, Progressive collapse of a steel structure under expected snow loads, Eng. Fail. Anal. 125 (2021) 105378, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engfailanal.2021.105378.
[14] M.R. Wang, Z.J. Zhou, Progressive collapse and structural robustness of bridges, Appl. Mech. Mater. 193–194 (2012) 1021–1024, https://doi.org/10.4028/
www.scientific.net/AMM.193-194.1021.
[15] H. Jiang, J. Wang, M.G. Chorzepa, J. Zhao, Numerical investigation of progressive collapse of a multispan continuous bridge subjected to vessel collision,
J. Bridge. Eng. 22 (5) (2017) 04017008, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001037.
[16] M.T. Davidson, G.R. Consolazio, D.J. Getter, F.D. Shah, Probability of collapse expression for bridges subject to barge collision, J. Bridge. Eng. 18 (4) (2013)
287–296, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000376.
[17] K. Miyachi, S. Nakamura, A. Manda, Progressive collapse analysis of steel truss bridges and evaluation of ductility, J. Constr. Steel Res. 78 (2012) 192–200,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.06.015.
[18] A. Azizinamini, Full scale testing of old steel truss bridge, J. Constr. Steel. Res. 58 (5–8) (2002) 843–858, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0143-974X(01)00096-7.
[19] F. Bontempi, Elementary concepts of structural robustness of bridges and viaducts, J. Civ. Struct. Health Monit. 9 (5) (2019) 703–717, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13349- 019-00362-7.
[20] L. Deng, W. Wang, Y. Yu, State-of-the-art review on the causes and mechanisms of bridge collapse, J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 30 (2) (2016) 04015005, https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000731.
[21] J. Halvoník, A. Vidaković, V. Borzovič, Failure analysis of collapsed parking garage building due to punching, Eng. Fail. Anal. 129 (2021) 105712, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.105712.
[22] P.A. Calderón, J.M. Adam, I. Payá-Zaforteza, Failure analysis and remedial measures applied to a RC water tank, Eng. Fail. Anal. 16 (5) (2009) 1674–1685,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2008.12.004.
[23] S. King, N.J. Delatte, Collapse of 2000 Commonwealth Avenue: Punching Shear Case Study, J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 18 (1) (2004) 54–61, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2004)18:1(54).
[24] O. Caglayan, E. Yuksel, Experimental and finite element investigations on the collapse of a Mero space truss roof structure-a case study, Eng. Fail. Anal. 15 (5)
(2008) 458–470, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2007.05.005.
[25] A. Biegus, K. Rykaluk, Collapse of katowice fair building, Eng. Fail. Anal. 16 (5) (2009) 1643–1654, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2008.11.008.
[26] A. Brencich, Collapse of an industrial steel shed: a case study for basic errors in computational structural engineering and control procedures, Eng. Fail. Anal. 17
(1) (2010) 213–225, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.06.015.
[27] A.G. Liechtenstein, The silver bridge collapse recounted, J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 7 (4) (1993) 249–261, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(1993)7:4
(249).
[28] A. Biegus, A. Kowal, Collapse of halls made from cold-formed steel sheets, Eng. Fail. Anal. 31 (2013) 189–194, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engfailanal.2012.12.009.
[29] G.-S. Tong, Y.-L. Pi, M. Bradford, Buckling failure of an unusual braced steel frame supporting an electric dust-catcher, Eng. Fail. Anal. 16 (2009) 2400–2407,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.03.027.
[30] F. Piroğlu, K. Ozakgul, Partial collapses experienced for a steel space truss roof structure induced by ice ponds, Eng. Fail. Anal. 60 (2016) 155–165, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.11.039.
[31] K. Ozakgul, O. Caglayan, O. Tezer, Investigation of buckled brace system of an existing industrial building, Eng. Fail. Anal. 18 (2011) 455–463, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engfailanal.2010.09.037.
[32] G. Piskoty, L. Wullschleger, R. Loser, A. Herwig, M. Tuchschmid, G. Terrasi, Failure analysis of a collapsed flat gymnasium roof, Eng. Fail. Anal. 35 (2013)
104–113, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2012.12.006.
[33] C. Klinger, M. Mehdianpour, D. Klingbeil, D. Bettge, R. Häcker, W. Baer, Failure analysis on collapsed towers of overhead electrical lines in the region
Münsterland (Germany) 2005, Eng. Fail. Anal. 18 (2011) 1873-1883, doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2011.07.004.
[34] R. Helmerich, A. Zunkel, Partial collapse of the Berlin Congress Hall on May 21st, Eng. Fail. Anal. 43 (2014) (1980) 107–119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engfailanal.2013.11.013.
[35] H. Sezen, A.S. Whittaker, Seismic performance of industrial facilities affected by the 1999 Turkey earthquake, J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 20 (1) (2006) 28–36,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2006)20:1(28).
[36] H.N. Phan, F. Paolacci, O.S. Bursi, N. Tondini, Seismic fragility analysis of elevated steel storage tanks supported by reinforced concrete columns, J. Loss Prev.
Process Ind. 47 (2017) 57–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2017.02.017.
[37] K. Hatayama, Tsunami damage to oil storage tanks in the MW90 2011 Tohoku Japan earthquake, In: Proc. Of ASME 2015 Pressure Vessels and Piping
Conference (Boston, Massachusetts, USA) (2015).
[38] Y. Itoh, Y. Waki, K. Kasuya, Material tests and analysis for pressure vessels rupture study under fire in plant, In: Proc. Of ASME 2015 Pressure Vessels and Piping
Conference (Boston, Massachusetts, USA) (2015).
[39] UNE-EN ISO 6892-1. Metallic materials. Tensile testing. Part 1: Method of test at room temperature (2020).
[40] R. Romero, R. López, F. Martín, J.R. Ramos-Barrado, D. Leinen, Corrosion behaviour of zirconia barrier coatings on galvanized Steel, Surf. Coat. Technol. 200
(2006) 6606–6610, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2005.11.098.
[41] R. López, F. Martín, J.R. Ramos-Barrado, D. Leinen, Optimization of spray pyrolysis zirconia coatings on aluminized steel, Surf. Coat. Technol. 200 (2006)
6368–6372, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2005.11.017.
[42] J. Salles, Estudio de la deformación en materiales con grano ultrafino, Master Thesis, Barcelona School of Industrial Engineering, Spain (2009).
[43] H. Chu, T. Wang, L. Han, L. Cao, M.-Z. Guo, Y. Liang, L. Jiang, Vickers hardness distribution and prediction model of cement pastes corroded by sulfate under the
coexistence of electric field and chloride, Constr. Build. Mater. 309 (2021), 125119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125119.
[44] UNE-EN 1993-1-1. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings (2013).
[45] SAP2000. Integrated Solution for Structural Analysis & Design Version 17. CSI Analysis Reference Manual, Computers & Structures, INC.
[46] M. Kheirollahi, K. Abedi, M.R. Chenaghlou, A new pushover procedure for estimating seismic demand of double-layer barrel vault roof with vertical double-
layer walls, Structures 34 (2021) 1507–1524, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.08.090.
[47] Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA 365. American Society of Civil
Engineers (2000).
[48] Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers. Structural Engineering Institute. ASCE STANDARD 41-13 (2014).

15