739

Seismic response of concrete rectangular tanks

for liquid containing structures
J.Z. Chen and M.R. Kianoush

Abstract: In this paper, a procedure for computing hydrodynamic pressures in rectangular tanks is proposed. The pro-
cedure, which is referred to as the sequential method, considers the effect of the flexibility of the tank wall in deter-
mining the hydrodynamic pressures. In this study, only the impulsive response of the tank is considered. Based on a
two-dimensional model of the tank wall, dynamic time-history analysis is carried out to study the effect of wall flexi-
bility on the response. In the analysis, both a tall tank and a shallow tank are considered. The results of analysis are
compared with those obtained based on current design practice codes and standards. The well-known Housner’s model,
which assumes that the mass of liquid is lumped on the wall based on rigid wall boundary condition in the calculation
of hydrodynamic pressure, is widely used in practice. A comparison shows that in most cases, the lumped mass ap-
proach overestimates the base shear. The effect of wall flexibility on wall displacements, base shears, and moments are
also discussed.
Key words: reinforced concrete, liquid containing, rectangular tank, seismic, dynamic analysis, tank flexibility.
Résumé : Le présent article propose une procédure pour calculer les pressions hydrodynamiques dans les réservoirs
rectangulaires. Cette procédure, connue sous le nom de méthode séquentielle, tient compte de l’effet de la flexibilité de
la paroi du réservoir lors de la détermination des pressions hydrodynamiques. La présente étude ne considère que la ré-
ponse impulsive du réservoir. L’analyse dynamique variant en fonction du temps basée sur un modèle bidimensionnel
de la paroi du réservoir est effectuée afin d’étudier l’effet de la flexibilité de la paroi sur la réponse. Dans l’analyse, un
réservoir haut et un réservoir peu profond sont examinés. Les résultats de l’analyse sont comparés à ceux obtenus selon
les codes et les normes de pratique de conception actuels. Le modèle bien connu de Housner, qui présume que la
masse de liquide est amassée contre la paroi en fonction d’une condition limite à la paroi rigide pour calculer la pres-
sion hydrodynamique, est largement utilisé en pratique. Une comparaison montre que, dans la plupart des cas, l’ap-
proche de la masse amassée surestime le cisaillement à la base. L’effet de la flexibilité de la paroi sur les mouvements
de la paroi ainsi que les efforts et les moments de cisaillement à la base sont également abordés.
Mots clés : béton armé, stockage de liquide, réservoir rectangulaire, sismique, analyse dynamique, flexibilité des réservoirs.
[Traduit par la Rédaction] Chen and Kianoush 752

1. Introduction mic event. For these reasons, serviceability becomes the

Liquid storage tanks as a part of environmental engineer-
ing facilities are primarily used for water and sewage treat-
ment plants and other industrial wastes. Normally, they are
constructed of reinforced concrete in the form of rectangular
or circular configurations. The behavior of liquid storage
tanks during earthquakes is more important than the eco-
nomic values of the tanks and their contents. It is important
that utility facilities remain operational following an earth-
quake to meet the emergency requirements, such as fire-
fighting water or meeting the public demands as a source of
water supply. On the other hand, the containment of hazard-
ous waste is important to meet the public safety after a seis-
Received 1 October 2003. Revision accepted 7 February
2005. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at
http://cjce.nrc.ca on 9 August 2005.
J.Z. Chen and M.R. Kianoush.1 Department of Civil
Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until 31 December 2005.
1
Corresponding author (e-mail: kianoush@ryerson.ca).
Can. J. Civ. Eng. 32: 739–752 (2005)
prime design consideration in most of these structures. A
good understanding of the seismic behaviour of these struc-
tures is necessary to meet safety objectives while containing
construction and maintenance costs.
There are currently few guidelines and standards available
in North America for the design of liquid storage tanks.
Also, a great deal of inconsistency exists among these guide-
lines and standards for this important and broad class of
structures. This is mainly because of the lack of understand-
ing of the seismic behaviour of these structures. An exten-
sive research project is currently underway at Ryerson
University to resolve some of the issues of concern for
design of these types of structure. As part of this ongoing re-
search effort, in this paper, the dynamic response of rectan-
gular tanks for liquid storage tanks is described.
Early investigation of dynamic analysis of fluid in con-
tainers subjected to acceleration was conducted by Housner
(1963). An approximate method was proposed to include the
effect of hydrodynamic pressure for a two-fold symmetric-
fluid container subjected to horizontal acceleration. The
fluid response was represented by impulsive and convective
components. The fluid was assumed to be incompressible
and the container was assumed to have rigid walls. The
doi: 10.1139/L05-023 © 2005 NRC Canada
740
Fig. 1. Schematic of rectangular tank (a) three-dimensional (3-D) model of rectangular tank (b) two-dimensional (2-D) model of rect-
angular tank.
Fig. 2. Finite element model of rectangular tank (a) 2-D tank configuration (b) finite element model.
Housner’s model has been adopted in most of the current
codes and standards for calculating the hydrodynamic pres-
sures in concrete tanks. It is expected that the effect of the
flexibility of the tank wall is more significant in steel tanks
than that for concrete tanks. For this reason, most of the re-
search investigations have been carried out for steel tanks. In
this regard, little attention has been paid to concrete tanks.
Yang and Veletsos (1976) used Flügge’s shell theory to ana-
lyze circular tanks. It was found that for tanks with realistic
flexibility, the impulsive forces are considerably higher than
those in a rigid wall. Veletsos (1984) considered the effect
of the wall flexibility on the magnitude and distribution of
the hydrodynamic pressures and associated tank forces.
They assumed that the tank-fluid system behaved like a sin-
gle degree of freedom system and the base shear and mo-
ment were evaluated for several prescribed modes of
vibration. Most of the research conducted on liquid storage
tanks, as mentioned above have been of circular configura-
tions. For rectangular tanks, Haroun (1984) gave a very de-
tailed analysis method in the typical system of loadings. The
hydrodynamic pressures were calculated using the classical
potential flow approach. The formula for hydrodynamic
pressures only considered the rigid wall condition. Specific
to concrete tanks, Park et al. (1992) studied the dynamic be-
haviour of rectangular tanks using boundary element model-
ing for the fluid motion and finite element modeling for the
solid walls. The time-history analysis method was used to
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 32, 2005
obtain the dynamic response of fluid storage tanks subjected
to earthquakes. Both impulsive and convective effects were
considered. Later they presented an analytical method with
formulas for the three-dimensional (3-D) hydrodynamic
pressure calculation and applied Rayleigh–Ritz method us-
ing assumed vibration modes of rectangular plate with
boundary conditions as admissible functions (Kim et al.
1996).
In this paper, a procedure, referred to as the sequential
method, is used to determine hydrodynamic pressures for
rectangular tanks. The method considers the effect of wall
flexibility on impulsive pressures.
2. Hydrodynamic pressure
Figure 1a shows a 3-D rectangular tank. It is assumed that
the liquid storage tank is fixed to the rigid foundation and a
Cartesian coordinate system (x, y, z) is used with the origin
located at the center of the tank base. Furthermore, it is as-
sumed that the width to the length ratio of the tank is so
large that the unit width of tank can represent the tank and
the corresponding two-dimensional (2-D) model, as shown
in Fig. 1b. It is noted that Lx and Lz are assumed to be paral-
lel and perpendicular to the direction of the earthquake, re-
spectively.
The fluid filled in the rectangular tank is of height Hl
above its base. The fluid, which is incompressible, inviscid,
© 2005 NRC Canada
Chen and Kianoush 741

Fig. 3. Comparison of impulsive pressure distribution in rigid Fig. 4. Procedure of sequential analysis.
wall models.

and with mass density ρl, is considered to be ideal. The re-

sponse of body of fluid to an earthquake can be treated as
gravity waves on its free surface that is irrotational in most
instances. Then the velocity potential φ (x, y, t) must satisfy
Laplace equation:
[1] ∇ 2φ = 0
The solution of velocity potential that satisfies the bound-
The velocity components vx, vy in the directions of x, y are ary conditions above, can be solved by the method of sepa-
defined as vx = ∂ φ/∂ x and v y = ∂ φ/∂ y. The hydrodynamic ration of variables introduced by Currie (1973). The
pressure is expressed by Hydrodynamic pressure distribution on the flexible wall re-
∂ φ(x, y, t) lated to the velocity potential can be obtained by the applica-
[2] p(x, y, t) = − ρ1 tion of eq. [2], therefore
∂t
∞
2ρl tanh( λ i Lx ) H
For the impulsive pressure, the boundary conditions are
(1) At the free surface condition, the pressure on the surface
[6] p= ∑ λ i Hl
cos (λ i y)∫ cos (λ i y) u
0
&& (t) dy
i =1
of the liquid is constant and equal to atmospheric pres-
sure that is assumed zero in this case. Therefore, at y = && (t) or simply
where u
Hl ∞

[3]
∂ φ
2
∂φ
(x, Hl , t) + g (x, Hl , t) = 0
[7] p= ∑ Ri u&& (t) dy
i =1
∂t 2 ∂y
where λ i = (2i–1)π/2Hl, u && (t) is the acceleration along the
(2) The boundary condition at the flat bed at y = 0, the ver- height of the wall, and Ri is a time dependent factor given by
tical velocity becomes zero in the horizontal ground mo-
∞
tion condition, that is 2ρl tanh( λ i Lx ) H

∂φ
[8] Ri = ∑ λ i Hl
cos (λ i y)∫ cos (λ l y)
0
[4] (x, 0, t) = 0 i =1
∂y
&& (t) dy 1
× u
(3) At the surface of fluid in contact with the tank wall x = && (t)
u
±Lx: The detailed derivation of the above equation is described
∂φ by Chen (2003). As the series in eq. [6] converges very fast,
[5] (± Lx , y, t) = u& (t) = u& g (t) + u& r (t) = u& (t)
∂x only the first term of the series may be used for practical ap-
plications.
where u& g (t) is the velocity of horizontal ground motion, and && (t) = u
For the rigid tank, u &&g (t). It means that the accelera-
u& r (t) is the transverse velocity relative to the ground motion tion along the height of the wall is same as the ground accel-
due to the flexibility of tank wall. eration, then eq. [6] becomes

© 2005 NRC Canada

742 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 32, 2005

Fig. 5. Transfer data between two fields.

Fig. 6. North–south component of El Centro accelerogram: 1940 Imperial valley earthquake record.

∞
2(−1) iρl In this study, two types of time-history analysis are used
[9] p= ∑ λ2i Hl
&&g (t)
tanh( λ i Lx ) cos (λ i y) u to investigate the dynamic response of liquid storage tanks,
i =1 the mode superposition method with the added mass ap-
proach and direct step-by-step integration method, which in-
This equation is the same as the hydrodynamic pressure
cludes the sequential method. The sequential method is
equation for the rigid wall derived by Haroun (1984).
discussed subsequently in this paper. The unconditional sta-
ble Wilson θ method is used for direct integration.
3. Dynamic analysis In design application, usually the impulsive hydrodynamic
pressure is applied on the wall using the added mass ap-
3.1. Finite element model proach. This can be calculated using the Housner method.
In this investigation, the dynamic response of the tank is Using this approach, the added mass can be either lumped at
obtained by using both empty and full conditions. The tank the one node or distributed over the height of the wall. In
wall is considered as 2-D plane elements fixed at the base terms of distributed mass this is expressed as
and free at the top, as shown in Fig. 2. The walls parallel to
the direction of horizontal ground motion are assumed to be 3ρl Hl ⎡ y2 ⎤ ⎛ 3Lx ⎞
rigid and have no significant effect on the flexibility of two [11a] m i (y) = − ⎢1 − 2 ⎥ tanh ⎜ ⎟
2 ⎣ Hl ⎦ ⎝ Hl ⎠
long sidewalls on which hydrodynamic pressures are ap-
plied.
or using the lumped mass
The hydrodynamic pressures are considered as external
forces in the proposed model, while they are treated as tanh [0.866(Lx /HL )]
[11b] M i ,total = ML
added masses in the Housner model. The advantages of us- 0.866(Lx /HL )
ing the proposed model will be explained in the following
section. Although only the impulsive pressure is considered The mass distribution can also be derived from eq. [9] using
in this paper, basically both impulsive and convective pres- the proposed model assuming that the walls are rigid. In this
sures can be calculated, and the dynamic response of a liq- case, the distributed mass can be expressed as:
uid storage tank can be analyzed using the proposed model.
∞
2(−1) iρl
3.2. Time-history analysis
[12a] m i (y) = ∑ λ2i Hl
tanh( λ i Lx ) cos(λ i y)
i =1
The governing equation of motion using the finite element
method can be expressed by and the lumped mass is expressed as
[10] [Mw]{ür} + [C]{ u& r } + [K]{ur} ∞
2
[12b] M i ,total = ∑ λ3 H 2 L tanh( λ i Lx ) M L
= –[Mw]{üg} + {P} i =1 i l x

where {ur}, {u& r }, {ür} are displacement, velocity, and accel-
eration of rectangular wall relative to the ground motion;
{üg}is the horizontal ground acceleration in x direction; {P}
is the hydrodynamic pressures on the wall surface; [K] is the
stiffness matrix of rectangular tank wall; [Mw] is the mass
matrix of rectangular tank wall; and [C] is the damping ma-
trix of rectangular tank wall.
Figure 3 compares the hydrodynamic pressure distribution
for the Housner model and the proposed model for the rigid
wall condition (same as the model by Haroun (1984)).
Although there are some differences between the two formu-
lations, the difference in pressure distribution is not signifi-
cant. The difference in the total pressure, which represents
the area under the pressure curve, does not exceed 10%. The

© 2005 NRC Canada

Chen and Kianoush 743

Table 1. Summary of dynamic response of empty tank.

Results of Analysis
Analysis method
Schematic of model
Model 1 – equivalent Model 2 – mass Model 3 – mass
lumped mass model distributed model distributed model
Mode superposition Mode superposition Direct step-by-step
method method integration method

Period (s) T1 = 0.1878 T1 = 0.2619 –

T2 = 0 T2 = 0.04309 –
Damping 0.05 0.05 α = 2.059
β = 0.00185
tmax* (s) 2.71 2.59 2.61
FB (kN) 207.7 167.3 153
dA (mm) 13.56 21.79 17.22
*tmax: time when the peak values of dynamic response are reached.

Fig. 7. Displacement time-history response for the empty tank: (a) model 1, (b) model 2, and (c) model 3.

input parameters for these results are provided in the exam- Therefore the equation of motion with respect to the added
ple for tall tank analysis later in this paper. mass method can be expressed by
For the general condition, the hydrodynamic pressure in
terms of added mass method can be expressed by [14] [Mw + Mi]{ür} + [C]{u& r } + [K]{ur}

[13] {P} = –[Mi]{ü} = –[Mi]{üg + ür} = –[Mw + Mi]{üg}

© 2005 NRC Canada

744 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 32, 2005

Table 2. Summary of dynamic response of tall tank.

Model type Model 1 (Housner) Model 2 (Housner) Model 3 (Proposed)
Fluid
Impulsive component Lumped Lumped Lumped
Boundary condition Rigid Rigid Rigid
Wall
Inertial mass Lumped Distributed Distributed
Wall type Flexible Flexible Flexible
Analysis method Mode superposition method Mode superposition method Mode superposition method

Schematic of model

Period (s) T1 = 0.2353 T1 = 0.2956 T1 = 0.2923

T2 = 0 T2 = 0.08088 T2 = 0.07880
Damping ratio 5% 5% 5%

tmax* (s) 2.56 2.63 2.63

4.3 4.52 4.51
Base Shear FB (kN) 790.0 433.8 406.0
423.8 312.8 262.3
Displacement dA (mm) 34.73 34.54 33.24
18.63 24.97 21.54
*tmax: two different times at which the peak values of dynamic response are reached during the time-history analysis.

As the added mass matrix representing the impulsive pres-
sure is derived from the rigid wall boundary condition, this
approach cannot consider the change in hydrodynamic pres-
sure distribution because of the effect of wall flexibility.
4. Sequential method
To consider the effect of flexibility of the tank wall on hy-
drodynamic pressures in dynamic analysis, the sequential
method is used in this investigation. The sequential method
is a technique in which the two fields of fluid and structure
are coupled by applying results from the first analysis as
loads or boundary conditions for the second analysis. Ba-
sically the dynamic response of a liquid storage tank must
be solved by strong coupled method, which is that the data
must be transferred or shared at each step of the solution to
maintain accuracy of dynamic response analysis. From
eq. [10], the hydrodynamic pressure can be treated as the ex-
ternal forces applied on the rectangular tank wall, and the
boundary conditions of a rectangular tank wall determines
the hydrodynamic pressure in eq. [6]. Actually, these two
equations must be solved simultaneously because the inter-
action between the rectangular tank wall and the hydrody-
namic pressure occurs at the same time. Since it is difficult
to solve the dynamic response of wall and hydrodynamic
pressure directly from eq. [10], we can apply the sequential
method to approximate it.
The sequential method is carried out by the following pro-
cedure. First the dynamic response of the flexible tank wall
subjected to an earthquake is analyzed at time t. Then the
hydrodynamic pressure P is determined, which also includes
the effect of flexibility of the tank wall. Finally, the hydro-
dynamic pressure is applied on the tank wall at the next time
step t + ∆t. The procedure is then repeated at each time step
until the analysis is complete. Figure 4 shows in a flowchart
format the procedure for analysis, and Fig. 5 shows how the
data is transferred between rectangular tank wall and fluid.
The equation of motion in terms of sequential method at
time t can be expressed as
[15] &&r , t} + [C]{u& r , t} + [K]{ur , t} = −[M w ]{u
[M w ]{u &&g , t}
&&g , t − ∆t + u
− {Ri(t − ∆t)}{u &&r , t − ∆t}
where Ri(t-∆t) is time dependent function for impulsive hy-
drodynamic pressure.
If Ri(t-∆t) is treated as Mi(t-∆t), the time dependent func-
tion of added mass matrix related to hydrodynamic pressure
at time t-∆t, then eq. [15] becomes
[16] &&r , t} + [C]{u& r , t} + [K]{ur , t} = − [M w ]{u
[M w ]{u &&g , t}
&&g , t − ∆t + u
− {M i(t − ∆t)}{u &&r , t − ∆t}
It can be seen that if the impulsive hydrodynamic pressure
due to the acceleration of the flexible wall is moved to right
hand side, eq. [14] is similar to eq. [15] except that the effect
of wall flexibility in calculating the hydrodynamic pressure
is ignored. After the hydrodynamic pressure at time t – ∆t is
established, it can be easily applied as external force on the
tank wall to obtain the dynamic response of tank wall at
time t. Furthermore, if the time interval ∆t is decreased in
the calculations, the accuracy of final results may be im-

© 2005 NRC Canada

Chen and Kianoush 745

Model 4 (Proposed) Model 5 (Proposed) Model 6 (Proposed)

Distributed Distributed Distributed

Rigid Flexible Rigid

Distributed Distributed Distributed

Flexible Flexible Flexible
Mode superposition method Direct step-by-step integration method Direct step-by-step integration
and sequential method method and sequential method

T1 = 0.3413 – –
T2 = 0.06365 – –
5% α = 1.552 α =0
β = 0.0027 β =0
2.69 2.65 2.16
4.76 4.56 5.030
314.8 319.0 284.0
290.0 338.1 202.9
32.68 23.04 0
30.11 26.90 (t=4.57 s) 0

proved. For this investigation, the time interval ∆t used is

0.01 s which is considered as sufficiently accurate for practi-
cal purpose.
The sequential method is incorporated into a computer
software package (Bathe et al. 1974), SAP IV, using the sub-
routine called HYDRO developed for this purpose. The di-
rect step-by-step integration method is used because this
method can calculate the displacement, velocity, and acceler-
ation of the flexible wall subjected to an earthquake at each
time step. The impulsive hydrodynamic pressure is calcu-
lated by the subroutine HYDRO that considers the effect of
flexibility of tank wall in the boundary condition.
5. Analysis of rectangular tanks
To demonstrate the efficiency of the sequential method as
described above and to study the effect of different modeling
approaches on dynamic response of storage tanks, two dif-
ferent rectangular tanks, a tall tank, and a shallower tank are
analyzed under a horizontal ground motion. The first 8 s of
the north–south component of El-Centro accelerogram:1940
Imperial Valley record (EERI 1976) with a maximum peak
ground acceleration of 0.33g is used (Fig. 6). This is the
same rectangular tank that has been analyzed by Kim et al.
(1996) in their investigations. It should be mentioned that af-
ter a detailed review, the writers disagree with some of the
results presented in the aforementioned reference. For 2-D
analysis, a 1-m strip of tank wall is considered. The tank
wall is discretized into 2 and 22 elements in the horizontal
and vertical directions, respectively, using a 2-D plane rect-
angular element (see Fig. 2).
The damping ratio for all cases is assumed to be 5% of
critical. The Rayleigh damping [C] = α[M] + β[K] is used in
the direct step-by-step integration method. The values α and
β are determined using the procedure as described by Bathe
et al. (1974), which are as follows:
4π(T j λ j − Ti λ i)
[17] α=
T j2 − Ti2
Ti T j (T j λ j − Ti λ i)
[18] β=
T j2 − Ti2
where λ n (i.e. λ i and λ j ) is proportion of critical damping in
the nth mode, and Tn (i.e. Ti and Tj) is period of vibration in
the nth mode. Only the first two modes of vibration are con-
sidered in this study.
In this paper, the response of a tall tank is described fol-
lowed by a shallow tank. In both cases, the tank wall is as-
sumed as fixed at its base and free at the top.
5.1. Analysis of a tall tank
The dimensions and the properties of the tank are as fol-
lows: ρw = 2300 Kg/m3, Lx = 9.8 m; ρl = 1000 Kg/m3, Lz =
28 m; Ec = 2.0776x104 MPa, Hw = 12.3 m; and ν = 0.17,
Hl = 11.2 m, and tw = 1.2 m.

© 2005 NRC Canada

746 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 32, 2005

Fig. 8. Displacement time-history response for the full tank: (a) model 1, (b) model 2, (c) model 3, (d) model 4, and (e) model 5.

© 2005 NRC Canada

Chen and Kianoush
Fig. 9. Dynamic response of wall and impulsive pressure distribution at the time of maximum response (model 5) (a) acceleration of
wall and (b) hydrodynamic pressure.
5.1.1. Response of empty tank
For the empty tank, three models are considered:
(i) equivalent lumped mass model, where the total mass of
rectangular wall is lumped at the centroid of the wall; (ii),
and (iii) distributed mass model in which the mass of the
wall is distributed at nodal points. Both models 1 and 2 are
analyzed using the mode superposition method, while the
third model is analyzed using the direct step-by-step integra-
tion method. In the direct step-by-step integration method, a
time step ∆t = 0.01 s is used for analysis. The results of
analysis are summarized in Table 1. The time-history re-
sponse in terms of displacement dA at the top of tank wall is
shown in Fig. 7.
Both Table 1 and Fig. 7 show that the results are very sim-
ilar with respect to the mode superposition method and the
direct step-by-step integration method for the mass distribu-
tion models (models 2 and 3). However, in the equivalent
lumped mass model, the maximum base shear FB is larger
than the mass distribution model. The mass distribution
model is expected to yield more accurate results than the
lumped mass model. The displacement dA at the top of
equivalent beam in model 1 is less than that of mass distri-
bution model.
5.1.2. Response of full tank
For the full tank, six conditions referred to as models are
considered. In both models 1 and 2, the impulsive mass of
liquid is determined using the procedure described by
Housner (1963). In model 1, both the impulsive mass and
the inertial mass of wall is lumped at an equivalent height h,
which is determined by
M i hi + M whw
[19] h =
Mi + Mw
where hi is the height from the base of the wall to the centre
of gravity of the impulsive lateral force, hw is the height
from the base of the wall to the centre of gravity of the tank
wall, Mi is the equivalent mass of impulsive component of
stored liquid, and Mw is the equivalent mass of wall.
In model 1, the period of vibration of the tank wall is de-
termined using the classical approach for a cantilever wall.
747
This represents a typical model for tank wall used in most of
the current codes and standards for design of concrete liquid
containing structures.
In model 2, the mass of wall is distributed over the height
of the wall whereas the impulsive mass of the liquid is
lumped at height hi, as given by Housner (1963). Model 3 is
the same as model 2, but the impulsive mass is determined
using the proposed method assuming rigid wall condition. In
this case, the impulsive mass is lumped at height hi. Models
4–6 are also based on the proposed method. Model 4 is the
same as model 3 except that the impulsive mass is distrib-
uted over the height of the wall. In model 5, the hydrody-
namic impulsive pressure is determined considering the wall
flexibility. This model is expected to provide the most accu-
rate results among the six different models. Model 6 is the
same as model 5 except that the wall is assumed to be infi-
nitely rigid. In this case, the hydrodynamic pressure is deter-
mined assuming a rigid wall condition. In models 1 to 4, the
mode superposition method is used for dynamic analysis
whereas the last two models are analyzed using the direct
step-by-step integration method including the sequential pro-
cedure.
A summary of the analytical results for all models is
listed in Table 2. This is in terms of the maximum base shear
and top displacement during the time-history analysis. Peak
values corresponding to two different times at which maxi-
mum values occur are shown. Fig. 8 also shows the displace-
ment time-history response for all models. These results
indicate that the response is considerably less for model 5 as
compared with the other models. The results also show that
values obtained from the proposed model assuming rigid
boundary conditions (model 3) are similar to that of Housner
model (model 2).
From calculation results, it is observed that for model 1,
the results for base shear in particular are much higher than
those observed in other models. This gives an indication that
the procedure adopted in the codes and standards are too
conservative.
It is observed that the results of model 2 and 3 are very
similar. The difference in results between these two models
does not exceed 10%.
© 2005 NRC Canada
748 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 32, 2005

Table 3. Summary of dynamic response of shallow tank full.

Model type Model 1 (Housner) Model 2 (Housner) Model 3 (Proposed same as Haroun)
Fluid
Impulsive component Lumped Lumped Lumped
Boundary condition Rigid Rigid Rigid
Wall
Inertial mass Lumped Distributed Distributed
Wall type Flexible Flexible Flexible
Analysis method Mode superposition method Mode superposition method Mode superposition method

Schematic of model

Period (s) T1 = 0.1055 T1 = 0.1217 T1 = 0.1208

T2 = 0 T2 = 0.03503 T2 = 0.03430
Damping ratio 5% 5% 5%

tmax* (s) 2.51 2.65 2.65

3.54 3.55 3.55
4.54 5.06 5.06
Base shear FB = (kN) 153.2 121.5 113.9
151.7 106.8 99.5
142.9 97.1 92.4
Moment MB (kN·m) 372.9 381.5 362.9
369.3 335.4 317.3
347.8 305.0 294.4
Displacement dA (mm) 5.09 6.93 6.65
5.04 6.09 5.81
4.74 5.54 5.39
*tmax: three different times at which the peak values of dynamic response are reached during the time-history analysis.

Fig. 10. Time-history response of shallow tank — proposed method (model 5) (a) top displacement and (b) base shear.

© 2005 NRC Canada

Chen and Kianoush 749

Table 3. Summary of dynamic response of shallow tank full.

Model 4 (Proposed) Model 5 (Proposed) Model 6 (Proposed)

Distributed Distributed Distributed

Rigid Flexible Rigid

Distributed Distributed Distributed

Flexible Flexible Rigid
Mode superposition method Direct step-by-step integration Direct step-by-step integration
method and sequential method method and sequential method

T1 = 0.1476 – –
T2 = 0.02798 – –
5% α = 3.579 α =0
β = 0.0012 β =0
2.69 2.28 2.16
3.59 3.57 3.40
4.95 4.56 4.87
73.2 78.7 74.5
78.9 54.6 49.2
74.3 64.6 59.4
278.2 241.8 179.5
300.0 167.8 119.2
282.4 179.2 143.0
5.48 4.54 0
5.91 3.15 0
5.56 3.25 0

Table 4. Effect of wall flexibility on response.

Ec/E0 1 0.8 0.6 0.4
Frequency, f1 (1/s) 6.78 6.01 5.25 4.29
Period, T1 (s) 0.148 0.166 0.191 0.233

Frequency, f2 (1/s) 35.74 31.92 27.68 22.61

Period, T2 (s) 0.028 0.031 0.036 0.044
fi/fi0 (i = 1,2) 1 0.89 0.78 0.63
Damping Ratio α 3.579 3.179 2.772 2.264
β 0.0012 0.0013 0.0015 0.0019
Base Shear, FB (kN) 78.7 79.7 84.5 86.3
Moment, MB (kN·m) 241.8 248.6 259.5 271.8
Top Dispisplacement, dA (mm) 4.5 6 8.2 12.9

For model 4, although the period of first two modes are
not much different from models 2 and 3, there is a major dif-
ference in the values of the base shear that is less for
model 4. This effect is due to the mass distribution. In these
three models (2–4), the rigid wall boundary condition is
used to calculate the impulsive pressure, which is approxi-
mated by added masses placed on the wall.
The direct step-by-step integration method together with
the proposed sequential analysis is applied to model 5. In
this case, the effect of flexibility of wall on hydrodynamic
pressure and tank wall is considered. The base shear is in-
creased because of the flexibility of tank wall as compared
with model 4 but the maximum displacement is somewhat
smaller. It is observed from the results of calculations that

© 2005 NRC Canada

750 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 32, 2005

Fig. 11. Effect of flexibility of tank wall on response: (a) nor- Fig. 12. Effect of tank flexibility on wall acceleration and impul-
malized displacement spectrum, (b) normalized base shear spec- sive pressure distribution: (a) acceleration of wall and (b) hydro-
trum, and (c) normalized base moment spectrum. dynamic ressure.

the results obtained in terms of base shear using the lumped

mass models (1–3) are higher than those obtained for dis-
tributed mass models for the liquid. However, the peak val-
ues of displacement and base shear occur almost at the same
time during the time-history analysis.
Figure 9 shows acceleration and hydrodynamic pressure
distribution along the height of wall at the time the maximum
base shear is reached. The hydrodynamic pressure calculated
using the flexible wall boundary condition is significantly
larger than that of rigid wall, as shown in Fig. 9b.
Model 6, which is considered as a special case, represents Ec = 2.644×104 Mpa; Hw = 6.0 m, and ν = 0.17, Hl = 5.5 m,
an infinitely rigid wall. In this case, the wall moves with the and tw = 0.6 m.
ground motion. The maximum base shear is less than that in The same analytical procedures as discussed above for the
the flexible wall (model 5) as expected. In this case, the tall tank (full) are carried out for the shallow tank. The re-
maximum base shear can simply be approximated as the sults of analysis are summarized in Table 3. The results of
product of the maximum ground acceleration and the impul- time-history analysis in terms of top displacement and base
sive and the inertial mass of the liquid and the tank wall, re- shear for model 5 are shown in Figs. 10a and 10b, respec-
spectively. tively.
Results of analysis show that the general trend in the be-
5.2. Analysis of shallow tank havior of the shallow tank is very similar to the tall tank. In
The dimensions and properties of the tank are as follows: particular, a comparison in the results in terms of base shear
ρw = 2300 Kg/m3, Lx = 15 m; ρl = 1000 Kg/m3; Lz = 30 m, between models 1 and 5 indicates that this value is signifi-

© 2005 NRC Canada

Chen and Kianoush
cantly higher for model 1. In this case, the difference is
195% as compared with 230% observed in the tall tank.
5.3. Effect of wall flexibility
The shallow tank is used to study the effect of flexibility
of rectangular tank wall. In this case, the stiffness of rectan-
gular tank wall is varied using the modulus of elasticity of
concrete material, Ec, used in the tank wall.
The tank is analyzed using the direct step-by-step integra-
tion method and the sequential method (model 5). The
damping ratio, which is assumed to be 5% of critical, is
based on the first two modes of vibration.
Under horizontal ground motion, the tank wall may de-
velop cracking of concrete and yielding of reinforcement. As
a result, the stiffness of the wall could be reduced consider-
ably. For this reason, the tank wall is analyzed under differ-
ent Ec values ranging from Ec = E0 for the fully uncracked
section up to Ec = 0.4E0 for the fully cracked section. For
the latter case, the concrete is expected to be totally dam-
aged. It may be unrealistic to use such a small value of Ec
for liquid containing structures. However, the results provide
some useful information on how the fully flexible tank wall
could behave as compared with the more rigid walls.
The results of analysis are presented in Table 4. Also,
Fig. 11 shows plots of the normalized response with respect
to E0. To reflect the dynamic response of the full tank sys-
tem more precisely, the normalized response of these tanks
can also be presented in the response spectrum form. The
normalized natural frequencies of tanks with respect to f0 for
the variable flexibility are used in the x coordinate as well.
Both the first and the second natural frequencies have the
same proportion to f0 of which the tank has the modulus of
elasticity equal to E0. Similar graphs are shown for base
shear and moment.
Figure 11 shows that the natural frequencies of vibration
decrease when the tank wall becomes more flexible. The
base shears and top displacement increase with the increase
of flexibility of tank wall.
Figure 12 shows the acceleration and impulsive pressure
distribution along the tank wall when the maximum base
shear is reached. Figure 12a indicates that as the flexibility
of tank wall increases, the acceleration along the height of
tank wall increases. Figure 12b shows the increase in impul-
sive pressure distribution with the increase of the flexibility
of the tank wall.
6. Conclusions
The dynamic response of liquid storage tanks is studied in
this investigation. Using the proposed model, the hydrody-
namic pressures are no longer required to be approximated
by added mass, but they can be treated as external forces.
The advantage of the proposed model is that it can consider
the effect of the flexibility of the wall in the calculation of
hydrodynamic pressures during the time-history analysis. To
analyze the dynamic response of liquid storage tanks, the se-
quential method is applied.
To demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed model us-
ing the sequential method, the response of a rectangular tank
is studied based on a time-history analysis. This study shows
751
that the dynamic response of liquid storage tanks calculated
using the current design codes or standards in terms of base
shear is too conservative. It is concluded that the effect of
the flexibility of the tank wall should be considered in the
calculation of hydrodynamic pressures in concrete rectangu-
lar tanks.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their appreciation to the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Can-
ada (NSERC) for research grant to the second author that
enabled this work to be done. The authors would also like to
thank Ryerson University for financial support provided to
the first author during graduate studies that enabled him to
complete the M.A.Sc. degree, which is the basis for the re-
sults in this paper.
References
Bathe, K.J., Wilson, E.L., and Peterson, F.E. 1974. SAP IV A
structural analysis program for static and dynamic response of
linear system. College of Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley, EERC 73-11.
Chen, J.Z. 2003. Dynamic analysis of concrete rectangular liquid
storage tanks. M.A.Sc. thesis, Ryerson University, Toronto,
Ont., Canada.
Currie, I.G. 1973. Fundamental mechanics of fluid. McGraw-Hill,
Inc., New York, N.Y.
EERI. 1976. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, California
Institute of Technologies, Report No. EERI 76-02.
Haroun, M.A. 1984. Stress analysis of rectangular walls under
seismically induced hydrodynamic loads. Bulletin of the Seis-
mological Society of America, 74(3): 1031–1041.
Housner, G.W. 1963. The dynamic behavior of water tanks. Bulle-
tin of the Seismological Society of American, 53(2): 381–387.
Kim, J.K., Koh, H.M., and Kwahk, I.J. 1996. Dynamic response of
rectangular flexible fluid containers. ASCE Journal of Engi-
neering Mechanics, 122(9): 807–817.
Park, J.H., Koh, H.M., and Kim, J. 1992. Liquid-structure interac-
tion analysis by coupled boundary element-finite element
method in time domain. Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Boundary Element Technology, BE-TECH/92,
Computational Mechanics Publication, Southampton, England.
89–92.
Veletsos, A.S. 1984. Seismic response and design of liquid storage
tanks. In Guidelines for the seismic design of oil and gas pipe-
line systems, 1992, Albuquerque, N. Mex. Tech, Council on
Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, ASCE, New York, N.Y.
Yang, J.Y., and Veletsos, A.S. 1976. Dynamic behavior of fluid-
tank system. Ph.D. thesis, Civil Engineering, Rice University,
Houston, Tex.
List of symbols
[C] matrix of damping coefficient
Ec modulus of elasticity of concrete
FB base shear of tank wall
g acceleration due to gravity
hi height above the base of the wall to the center of the
gravity of the impulsive lateral force
hw height from the base of the wall to the center of gravity
of tank wall
© 2005 NRC Canada
752 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 32, 2005

Hl height of liquid u&& acceleration

Hw height of tank wall {u} matrix of system displacement
[K] matrix of stiffness coefficient {u&} matrix of system velocity
Lx, Lz half inside length of a rectangular tank in the directions {u&&} matrix of system acceleration
of x and z u&g velocity of horizontal ground motion
mi impulsive distribution mass ur transverse displacment relative to the ground motion
MB base moment u& r transverse velocity relative to the ground motion
Mi impulsive mass of contained liquid per unit width of a u&&r transverse acceleration relative to the ground motion
rectangular tank wall ν Poisson’s ratio
ML lumped mass vx velocity component in the x directions
Mw mass per unit width of a rectangular tank wall vy velocity component in the y direction
[M] matrix of inertia coefficient x, y, z Cartesian coordinates
p hydrodynamic pressure distribution φ velocity potential function for liquid
P hydrodynamic pressure on the wall surface λi wavelength for impulsive pressure
R hydrodynamic pressure factor λn proportion of critical damping in the nth mode
Ri time dependent factor ρl mass density of liquid
t time ρw mass density of tank wall
tw thickness of tank wall ωi natural frequency of the impulsive mode of vibration
Tn period of vibration in the nth mode
u displacement
u& velocity

© 2005 NRC Canada