Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Seismic assessment of an industrial frame-tank system: development of fragility functions

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Evidence from past earthquakes has shown high levels of damage to industrial facilities, demonstrating that seismic loading can cause damage or failure, not only to the main structural elements, but also to secondary or non-structural components. In contrast to other types of building structures, failure of a secondary component could imply both huge downtime costs for low intensity/high probability events and catastrophic accidents for high intensity/low probability events. It is thus necessary to investigate the seismic vulnerability of industrial plants in a comprehensive manner, that is (1) by including both structural and non-structural components in the framework of analysis; and (2) by giving full account of multiple damage conditions, which entails identification/consideration of a wide range of seismic intensities. In light of this, the analyses presented in this paper fall within a probabilistic framework and focus on the derivation of seismic fragility functions at multiple damage states, which describe the physical vulnerability of an industrial frame supporting a cylindrical steel tank. The structure in question is a steel special concentrically braced frame, whilst the tank is a small liquid-storage item commonly used for a vast variety of industrial processes. To begin with, a fibre-based finite element model of the supporting structure was developed within an open-source platform, and then an incremental dynamic analysis was carried out by considering 47 natural accelerograms that were scaled to 9 seismic intensities. For the first run, the mass of the tank was lumped together with that of the rest of the structure, and acceleration floor spectra were computed, permitting the evaluation of the maximum response of the tank, as completely uncoupled from the structure. Additionally, a second analysis was run to explicitly account for both the dynamic interaction between the frame and the tank as well as the hydrodynamic response of the fluid-tank system. To this end, use was made of a well-known analytical model that treats the impulsive and convective components of motion as two uncoupled single degree of freedom systems. Demand resulting from both methods of analysis was convolved with capacity corresponding to the attainment of limit state conditions for both the frame and the tank. Fragility models were derived and compared so as to evaluate the vulnerability of the case study as well as the effectiveness of both analysis approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AISC 341-10 (2010) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • AISC 360-10 (2010) Specification for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston

    Google Scholar 

  • ASME B31.3 (2006) Process piping, ASME code for pressure piping, B31. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). New York

  • Bakalis K, Vamvatsikos D (2018) Seismic fragility functions via nonlinear response history analysis. J Struct Eng ASCE 144(10):04018181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakalis K, Fragiadakis M, Vamvatsikos D (2015) Surrogate modelling of liquid storage tanks for seismic performance design and assessment. In: Proceedings of the 5th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering. May 25–27, 2015, Crete Island, Greece

  • Bakalis K, Vamvatsikos D, Fragiadakis M (2017) Seismic risk assessment of liquid storage tanks via a nonlinear surrogate model. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(15):2851–2868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker JW (2007) Probabilistic structural response assessment using vector-valued intensity measures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(13):1861–1883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker JW (2015) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spectra 31(1):579–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunesi E, Nascimbene R, Pagani M, Beilic D (2015a) Seismic performance of storage steel tanks during the May 2012 Emilia, Italy, Earthquakes. J Perform Constr Facil ASCE 29(5):04014137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunesi E, Nascimbene R, Rassati GA (2015b) Seismic response of MRFs with partially-restrained bolted beam-to-column connections through FE analyses. J Constr Steel Res 107:37–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunesi E, Nascimbene R, Casagrande L (2016) Seismic analysis of high-rise mega-braced frame-core buildings. Eng Struct 115:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bursi OS, Reza MS, Abbiati G, Paolacci F (2015a) Performance-based earthquake evaluation of a full-scale petrochemical piping system. J Loss Prev Process Ind 33:10–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bursi OS, Reza MS, Paolacci F (2015b) Performance-based analysis of coupled support structures and piping systems subject to seismic loading. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2015 pressure vessels and piping conference. July 19–23, 2015, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

  • Calvi PM, Sullivan TJ (2014) Estimating floor spectra in multiple degree of freedom systems. Earthq Struct 7(1):17–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campedel M, Cozzani V, Garcia-Agreda A, Salzano E (2008) Extending the quantitative assessment of industrial risks to earthquake effects. Risk Anal 28(5):1231–1246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CEN (2002) European Committee for Standardisation. EN 13480-3. Metallic industrial piping—part 3: design and calculation. Brussels, Belgium

  • CEN (2004) European Committee for standardization. EN-1998-1. Eurocode 8 (EC8): design provisions for earthquake resistant structures. Brussels

  • CEN (2006) European Committee for Standardisation. ENV-1998-4. Eurocode 8 (EC8): design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 4: silos, tanks and pipelines. Brussels, Belgium

  • Colombo JI, Almazán JL (2017) Experimental investigation on the seismic isolation for a legged wine storage tank. J Constr Steel Res 133:167–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Angelis M, Giannini R, Paolacci F (2010) Experimental investigation on the seismic response of a steel liquid storage tank equipped with floating roof by shaking table tests. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(4):377–396

    Google Scholar 

  • De Biasio M, Grange S, Dufour F, Allain F, Petre-Lazar I (2015) Intensity measures for probabilistic assessment of non-structural components acceleration demand. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(13):2261–2280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyanati M, Huang Q, Roke D (2017) Sensitivity analysis of seismic performance assessment and consequent impacts on loss analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 15(11):4751–4790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FEMA 356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Washington, D.C.

  • Filippou FC, Popov EP, Bertero VV (1983) Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete joints. Report EERC 83-19. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley

  • Flores FX, Lopez-Garcia D, Charney FA (2015) Assessment of floor accelerations in special steel moment frames. J Constr Steel Res 106:154–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatayama K (2008) Lessons from the 2003 Tokachi-oki, Japan, earthquake for prediction of long-period strong ground motions and sloshing damage to oil storage tanks. J Seismol 12(2):255–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houliara S, Karamanos SA (2006) Buckling and post-buckling of long pressurized elastic thin-walled tubes under in-plane bending. Int J Nonlinear Mech 41(4):491–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao P-C, Lehman DE, Roeder CW (2013) A model to simulate special concentrically braced frames beyond fracture. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(2):183–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jayaram N, Lin T, Baker JW (2011) A computationally efficient ground-motion selection algorithm for matching a target response spectrum mean and variance. Earthq Spectra 27(3):797–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krausmann E, Cruz AM, Affeltranger B (2010) The impact of the 12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake on industrial facilities. J Loss Prev Process Ind 23(2):242–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucchini A, Franchin P, Mollaioli F (2016) Probabilistic seismic demand model for nonstructural components. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(4):599–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucchini A, Franchin P, Mollaioli F (2017) Uniform hazard floor acceleration spectra for linear structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(7):1121–1140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra PK (1997) Seismic response of soil-supported unanchored liquid-storage tanks. J Struct Eng ASCE 123(4):440–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra PK (2000) Practical nonlinear seismic analysis of tanks. Earthq Spectra 16(2):473–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manos G (1991) Evaluation of the earthquake performance of anchored wine tanks during the San Juan, Argentina, 1977 Earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 20(12):1099–1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New Zealand GeoNet (2011) New Zealand. ftp://geonet.org.nz/strong/processed/Proc. Accessed 2 June 2011

  • Nip KH, Gardner L, Elghazouli AY (2010) Cyclic testing and numerical modelling of carbon steel and stainless steel tubular bracing members. Eng Struct 32(2):424–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OpenSees (2006) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley

  • Paolacci F, Reza MS, Bursi OS (2011) Seismic analysis and component design of refinery piping systems. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering. May 25–28, 2011, Corfu, Greece

  • Paolacci F, Giannini R, De Angelis M (2013a) Seismic response mitigation of chemical plant components by passive control techniques. J Loss Prev Process Ind 26(5):924–935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paolacci F, Reza MS, Bursi OS, Gresnigt AM, Kumar A (2013b) Main issues on the seismic design of industrial piping systems and components. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2013 pressure vessels and piping conference. July 14–18, 2013, Paris, France

  • PEER (2011) NGA-West database. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California. http://peer.berkeley.edu/ngawest. Accessed 2 June 2011

  • Petrini L, Maggi C, Priestley MJN, Calvi GM (2008) Experimental verification of viscous damping modeling for inelastic time history analyzes. J Earthq Eng 12(S1):125–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrone C, Magliulo G, Manfredi G (2015) Seismic demand on light acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components in European reinforced concrete buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(8):1203–1217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phan HN, Paolacci F (2016) Efficient intensity measures for probabilistic seismic response analysis of anchored above-ground liquid steel storage tanks. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2016 pressure vessels and piping conference. July 17–21, 2016, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

  • Phan HN, Alessandri S, Paolacci F (2016a) Fragility analysis methods for steel storage tanks in seismic prone areas. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2016 pressure vessels and piping conference. July 17–21, 2016, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

  • Phan HN, Paolacci F, Corritore D, Akbas B, Uckan E, Shen JJ (2016b) Seismic vulnerability mitigation of liquefied gas tanks using concave sliding bearings. Bull Earthq Eng 14(11):3283–3299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RELUIS (2011) Consorzio della Rete dei Laboratori Universitari di Ingegneria Sismica. Italy. https://www.reluis.it. Accessed 2 June 2011

  • Reza MS, Bursi OS, Paolacci F, Kumar A (2014) Enhanced seismic performance of non-standard bolted flange joints for petrochemical piping systems. J Loss Prev Process Ind 30(1):124–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotter JM (2006) Elephant’s foot buckling in pressurized cylindrical shells. Stahlbau 75(9):742–747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salawdeh S, Goggins J (2013) Numerical simulation for steel brace members incorporating a fatigue model. Eng Struct 46:332–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santagati S, Bolognini D, Nascimbene R (2012) Strain life analysis at low-cycle fatigue on concentrically braced steel structures with RHS shape braces. J Earthq Eng 16(S1):107–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sezen H, Whittaker AS (2006) Seismic performance of industrial facilities affected by the 1999 Turkey earthquake. J Perform Constr Facil ASCE 20(1):28–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sezen H, Livaoglu R, Dogangun A (2008) Dynamic analysis and seismic performance evaluation of above-ground liquid-containing tanks. Eng Struct 30(3):794–803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stepp JC, Swan S, Wesselink L, Haupt RW, Larder RR, Bachman RE, Malik L, Eli M, Porush A (1990) Loma Prieta Earthquake reconnaissance report. Industrial facilities. Earthq Spectra 6(S1):189–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan TJ, Calvi PM, Nascimbene R (2013) Towards improved floor spectra estimates for seismic design. Earthq Struct 4(1):109–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki K (2002) Report on damage to industrial facilities in the 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake, Turkey. J Earthq Eng 6(2):275–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan SW, Miller DD, Yanev PI (1985) The Morgan Hill earthquake of April 24, 1984—effects on industrial facilities, buildings, and other facilities. Earthq Spectra 1(3):457–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uriz P (2005) Towards earthquake resistant design of concentrically braced steel structures. Ph.D. thesis. University of California, Berkeley

  • Uriz P, Filippou FC, Mahin SA (2008) Model for cyclic inelastic buckling of steel braces. J Struct Eng ASCE 134(4):619–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vakili M, Showkati H (2016) Experimental and numerical investigation of elephant foot buckling and retrofitting of cylindrical shells by FRP. J Compos Construct ASCE 20(4):4015087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2004) Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Spectra 20(2):523–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vathi M, Karamanos SA, Kapogiannis IA, Spiliopoulos KV (2015) Performance criteria for liquid storage tanks and piping systems subjected to seismic loading. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2015 pressure vessels and piping division conference. July 19–23, 2015. Boston, Massachusetts, USA

  • Veletsos AS, Tang Y, Tang HT (1992) Dynamic response of flexibly supported liquid-storage tanks. J Struct Eng ASCE 118(1):264–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vukobratovic V, Fajfar P (2017) Code-oriented floor acceleration spectra for building structures. Bull Earthq Eng 15(7):3013–3026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vukobratović V, Fajfar P (2016) A method for the direct estimation of floor acceleration spectra for elastic and inelastic MDOF structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(15):2495–2511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanitkorkul A, Filiatrault A (2008) Influence of passive supplemental damping systems on structural and nonstructural seismic fragilities of a steel building. Eng Struct 30(3):675–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wieser J, Pekcan G, Zaghi AE, Itani A, Maragakis M (2013) Floor accelerations in yielding special moment resisting frame structures. Earthq Spectra 29(3):987–1002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zareian F, Sampere C, Sandoval V, McCormick DL, Moehle J, Leon R (2012) Reconnaissance of the Chilean wine industry affected by the 2010 Chile offshore Maule Earthquake. Earthq Spectra 28(S1):S503–S512

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Advanced Studies – UME School, ROSE Programme, IUSS Pavia, Palazzo del Broletto, Piazza della Vittoria n.15, 27100, Pavia, Italy

    R. J. Merino Vela

  2. EUCENTRE, European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering, Via Ferrata 1, 27100, Pavia, Italy

    E. Brunesi & R. Nascimbene

Authors
  1. R. J. Merino Vela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Brunesi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Nascimbene
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Nascimbene.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Merino Vela, R.J., Brunesi, E. & Nascimbene, R. Seismic assessment of an industrial frame-tank system: development of fragility functions. Bull Earthquake Eng 17, 2569–2602 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-00548-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-00548-2

Keywords