570

6th International Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, 6-8 October 2004

Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey





A Simple Seismic Analysis Procedure for Fluid-Elevated
Tank-Foundation/Soil Systems


R. Livaolu, A. Doangn
Karadeniz Technical University, Department of Civil Engineering. 61080, Trabzon, Turkiye



Abstract

All structures are effected soil-structure interaction with varying emphasis in the
earthquake excitation as known. Especially, for structures with slenderness and heavy
mass, the soil effects should be considered for different soil properties. Furthermore if
the structure is a fluid tank, the fluid-structure interaction effects should be considered,
too. The primary goal of this study is to exhibit a simple procedure for fluid-elevated
tank-foundation/soil systems and, by this way, investigate behavior of the elevated
tanks during earthquake excitation. Fluid modeled as lumped masses as impulsive and
convective masses proposed by Housner. The substructure method was selected to
consider soil effects. Mode superposition method is used for dynamic analysis of all
elevated tank systems. Both time domain and frequency domain are performed to
analyze the systems. The procedure presented in this paper can be easily used for
frequency domain analysis when compared to more rigorous numerical methods.


Introduction

The water supply is essential for controlling fires that usually occur during an
earthquake and which causes more damage and loss of life than the event itself.
Therefore, the elevated tanks should remain functional in the post earthquake period to
ensure water supply to earthquake affected regions. But several elevated tanks damaged
or collapsed during the past earthquakes. This type of structure and whose reliability
against failure under seismic load is of critical concern. This type of upsetting
experiences was shown by the damage to the staging of elevated tank in the some
earthquakes occurred different regions of the World (Haroun and Ellaithy 1985). That is
why, the seismic behavior of elevated tanks should be well known and they are
designed earthquake resistant.

There have been numerous studies done for dynamic behavior of liquid storage tanks,
most of them are concerned with ground level cylindrical tanks. Contrary to this
circumstance, very few studies related to underground and elevated tanks exist. It is
generally assumed that the elevated tanks are fixed the ground. So, attention is focused
571

on the dynamic behavior of the fluid and/or supporting structure. How the effects of
subsoil on the dynamic behavior of elevated tanks have not been generally discussed in
these studies. Almost all existing studies about this subject for elevated tanks are
summarized as follow:

Haroun and Ellaithy (1985) developed a model including an analysis of a variety of
elevated rigid tanks undergoing translation and rotation; the model considers liquid
sloshing modes; and it assesses the effect of tank wall flexibility on the earthquake
response of elevated tanks. Resheidat and Sunna (1986) investigated the behavior of
rectangular elevated tank during earthquakes considering soil-foundation-structure
interaction. They neglected the sloshing effects on the seismic behavior of the elevated
tanks. Haroun and Temraz (1992) analyzed models of two-dimensional X-braced
elevated tanks supported on isolated footings to investigate the effects of dynamic
interaction between the tower and the supporting soil-foundation system and they
neglected the sloshing effects too. As seen from studies mentioned above, very few
studies have been carried out on the soil-structure interaction effects for elevated tanks.
So, it is necessary that new studies should be carried out related to fluid-structure-
foundation/soil interaction for elevated tanks. Therefore, in this study, it is aimed to
investigate the seismic behavior of elevated tanks with frame supporting system on
different subsoil. Considered problem for dynamic fluid-elevated tank-soil interaction
can be seen form Fig.1.












Fig.1. Considered problem for dynamic fluid-structure-soil interaction

Housners Equivalent Spring-Mass Model for Fluid

Housner (1963) proposed equivalent impulsive mass and convective mass to represent
the dynamic behavior of fluid (Fig.2). The impulsive mass is connected to tank walls by
rigid links, whereas the convective mass is connected by springs. A two-mass model
was developed by using these equivalent masses and springs whose total stiffness of k
2
.
In this model, walls assumed as rigid and the rigidity of supporting structure
characterized by k
1
rigidity which equal to that of the supporting structure for a
horizontal force applied at the same height as the mass. Housners two-mass model has
been commonly used for seismic analysis of elevated tanks (Priestley et al. 1986). The
impulsive and convective masses for a cylindrical tank were determined using
following equations, in which m
t
is the total mass of the fluid, R is the radius of the
vessel and h is the depth of fluid.
Structure
Fluid-structure
Structure soil
interface

Unbounded
Soil
medium
572

( )
( )
( )
th 1.74
; 0.318 th 1.84
1.74
i t c t
R h
R
m m m m h R
R h h
= = (1)

Fig.2. Equivalent spring-mass model for fluid

Additional higher-mode convective masses may also be included, if so desired. A single
convective mass is generally used for practical design of elevated tanks, and higher
modes of sloshing have negligible influence on the forces exerted on the tank even if
the fundamental frequency of the structure is in the vicinity of one of the natural
frequencies of sloshing (Haroun and Ellaithy 1985). Sloshing frequency of
c
and the
stiffness of k
2
for a cylindrical tank are given by;

2 2
2
1.84
1.84th ;
c c c
g h
k m
R R
e e

= = (2)

Where, g is the ground acceleration. The impulsive and convective masses are located
at distances h
i
and h
o
as shown in Fig.1, respectively, from the bottom of the vessel; the
heights are given by,

( )
( )
ch 1.84 1 3
; 1
8 1.84 sh 1.84
i o
h R
h h h h
h R h R
(
= =
(

(

(3)

Cone Model for Soil Medium

In a dynamic soilstructure-interaction analysis a bounded structure (which may be
linear or nonlinear), consisting of the actual structure and an adjacent irregular soil if
present, will interact with the unbounded (infinite or semi-infinite) soil which is
assumed to be linear elastic (see Fig. 1). The most striking feature in an unbounded soil,
which is never encountered in a bounded medium, is, in general, the radiation of energy
towards infinity, leading to so-called radiation damping even in such a linear system.
Mathematically, in a frequency-domain analysis, the dynamic stiffness relating the
amplitudes of the displacements to those of the interaction forces in the nodes of the
structuresoil interface of the unbounded soil is complex for all frequencies. As is well
known, this occurs when the unbounded soil consists of a homogeneous half-space
(Wolf, 2002). Therefore, a cone model has been proposed by Meek and Wolf (1994) for
evaluating the dynamic stiffness and effective input motion of a foundation on the
ground. Compared to more rigorous numerical methods, this cone model requires only
simple numerical manipulation within reasonable accuracy (Wolf 1994, Takewaki,
2003).

Impulsive mass (m
i
)
2R
h
i

h
0

h

k
2
/2 k
2
/2
k
2
/2
k
2
/2
Convective mass (m
o
)
Water surface level
h
i
:Height of the impulsive mass
from bottom of the tank
h
0
:Height of the convective mass
from bottom of the tank
h :Depth of the fluid
R :Inner radius of the tank
573

Simple physical models to represent the unbounded soil can be applied as follows: in
certain cases, the effect of the interaction of the soil and the structure on the response of
the latter would be negligible and thus need not to be considered. This applies, for
example, to a flexible high structure with small mass where the influences of the higher
modes on the seismic response remain small. Exciting the base of the structure with the
prescribed earthquake motion is then possible. For load applied directly to the structure,
the soil can in this case be represented by a static spring or the structure can even be
regarded as built-in (Wolf 1994, 2002). When a homogeneous halfspace statically
loaded how the static vertical displacement varies with the increasing depth is well-
known as a Boussinesq theory. The shape is also like a truncated cone (Fig.3), for
dynamic loading.

Fig. 3. Cones for various degrees of freedom with corresponding apex ratio (opening
angle), wave-propagation velocity and distortion (Wolf 1994).

Static stiffness of this truncated cone for circular rigid foundation can be mentioned as
given in Table 1.

Table 1. Static stiffness values of rigid circular foundation, G: shear modulus, r
0
: radius of
circular foundation, u : Poisson ratio. d: heights of soil layer resting on rigid rock (d= for
embedment no rock ), e: embedment height.

Stiffness
Foundation with
no embedment
Foundation with Embedment
Vertical
(K
v
)
0
4
1
Gr
u

0 0
0 0
4
1 1.3 1 0.54 1 0.85 0.28
1 2
Gr r e e e d
d r r e d u
| | | | | |
| |
+ + +
| | |
|
|

\ .
\ . \ . \ .

Horizontal
(K
H
)
0
8
2
Gr
u

0 0
0
8 1
1 1 1
2 2
Gr r e e
d r d u
| |
| | | |
+ + +
| | |

\ . \ .
\ .

Rocking
(K
R
) ( )
3
0
8
3 1
Gr
u

( )
3
3
0 0
0 0
8 1
1 1 2.3 0.58 1 0.7
3 1 6
Gr r e e e
d r r d u
(
| |
| | | |
( + + + +
| | |

\ . ( \ .
\ .


Torsional
(K
T
)
3
0
16
3
Gr

3
0 0
0
16 1
1 1 2.67
3 10
Gr r e
d r
| |
| |
+ +
|
|
\ .
\ .

Coupling
3
Hr H
e
K K =

r
0
u
0
z
0
u

v
p
AXIAL

u
0
r
0
u

v
s
z
0
SHEAR

TRANSLATI ON

Vertical

Horizontal

r
0

0
z
0

v
p
AXIAL

t0
r
0

t
v
s
z
0
SHEAR

Torsional

Rocking
ROTATI ON

574

In the above table K
v
, K
H
, K
R
and K
T
is the vertical, horizontal, rocking and torsional
stiffnesses, respectively. For stiffness value of other geometrical shape like square and
rectangular are given by Wolf 1994 and for arbitrary shape are given by Dobry and
Gazetas (1986) and Gazetas and Tassoulas (1987). Because the stiffness is the
frequency dependent in the dynamic loading, these static stiffness can be used for
calculating the dynamic stiffness coefficient [S(a
0
)] estimated by using Eq.4 with the
spring coefficient k(a
0
), the damping coefficient c(a
0
) (including radiation damping) and
the dimensionless frequency a
0
[=r
0
/v
s
where is the excited frequency, r
0
is the
radius of the rigid circular foundation and v
s
is the shear wave velocity].

( )
0 0 0 0
( ) ( ) ( ) S a K k a ia c a = + (4)

Dynamic coefficients [
0
( ) k a ,
0
( ) c a ] for translational cone and [
0
( ) k a
u
,
0
( ) c a
u
] for
rotational cone for rigid foundation resting on the surface of halfspace could be
estimated using Eqs. 5 and 6, respectively.
2
2 0
0 0 2
0
( ) 1
s
z v
k a a
r v

t
=
0
0
0
( )
s
z v
c a
r v
= (5)
2 2
2 0 0
0 0 2 2
0
2 0
0
0
4 1
( ) 1
3 3
s
s
z v a
k a a
r v
r v
a
z v
u
u

t
=
| |
+
|
\ .

2
0 0
0 2
0
2 0
0
0
( )
3
s
s
z v a
c a
r v
r v
a
z v
u
=
| |
+
|
\ .
(6)

For horizontal motion, truncated cone move with shear wave velocity (
s
v v = ), aspect
ratio (
0 0
z r ) of the cone is equal to ( ) 8 2 t u , and is the 0 for all Poisson ratios
(u ). For rotational cone, truncated cone velocity is equal to
p
v , and for 1/ 3 1/ 2 u < s ,
wave velocity is 2
s
v v = and 0
u
= for 1/ 3 u s . It should be noted that for
1/ 3 1/ 2 u < s , soil is nearly incompressible soil. This behavior corresponds to trapped
soil beneath the foundation, which moves as a rigid body in phase with the foundation.
A close match is achieved by defining the trapped mass ( M A ) to be

3
0
M r A = where
1
2, 4
3
t u
| |
=
|
\ .
(7)
for vertical motion and trapped mass moment of inertia

5
0
M r
u u
A = where
1
0, 3
3
u
t u
| |
=
|
\ .
(8)
for rocking. In the intermediate and higher frequency ranges, the dynamic stiffness
coefficient is governed by the damping coefficient, as c(a
0
) is multipled by a
0
in
contrast k(a
0
). Both c
v
(a
0
) and c
H
(a
0
) of the cone model are very accurate in this
frequency ranges. Whereas in the lower-frequency range (a
0
<2) and for 1/3, which
is practical importance, the cones results overestimate (radiation) damping to certain
extent, especially in the vertical motion (Wolf, 1994).


Seismic Analysis Procedure for Fluid-Elevated Tank-Soil System

Initially, to determine the all system response to dynamic excitation, the system may be
represented by four properties (Fig 4). First one is lateral stiffness of the supporting
structure (k
1
). This stiffness for this type of supporting structures is estimated using the
Eq. 9 suggested by Dutta and co-workers (2000). Second one is the stiffness of (k
2
) for
575

convective mass sugested by Housner. Third one is the mass m
2
which equals to
sloshing mass (m
c
) estimated using Eq.1. Fourth one is the mass m1 which includes the
impulse mass estimated using Eq.1, the mass of the vessel and maximum of two-thirds
(66%) the mass of concrete support wall or supporting system.

Fig.4. Two-mass model for elevated tanks suggested by Housner

1
3 2
2
12 1
2 (4 1)
/
2( 1)
/
cl cl cl
cl cl p p
cl cl cl
p p
b b
c s
E I N
k
h I N N
E I h
N N
E I L A R
(
(
(
=
(

(
+ +
(

(9)

Where: E
cl
, h
cl
, I
cl
and N
cl
are Youngs modulus of column material, net height,
moment of inertia and number of the columns, respectively; E
b
, L and I
b
are Youngs
modulus of beam material, span and moment of inertia of the beam, respectively; N
p
is
the number of panels and R
s
is the staging radius. Modal propertied like modal mass,
height and stiffness can be calculated from this two degree of freedom system. Thus two
single degree of freedom systems may be obtained. Behavior of these two single degree
of freedom systems can be separately calculated in case soil structure interaction for
horizontal and rocking motion (Fig. 5) and than internal forces or displacement
calculated can be combined with modal combination technique as SRSS, CQC, etc.

Fig.5. Dynamic model of structure and soil for horizontal and rocking motions

For the system given in Fig.4, the force-displacement relationship P() in the horizontal
direction and moment-rotation relationship M() in the rocking interaction are
formulated in frequency domain as given in Eq. 10.
h
i

m
c
m
i
h
c

h

k
c
/2 k
c
/2
R
m
1
= m
i
+ m
v
+ 0.66 m
ss

m
2
=m
c

k
1

k
2
=k
c

Two-mass
model
Equivalent
mechanical model
*
1
M
*
2
M
*
1
, k ,

*
2
, k ,

*
2
h
*
1
h
1. mode 2. mode
k
s
c
S
K
u
k
u
(a
0
)
K
H
k(a
0
)
(r
0
/v
S
)

K
H
c(a
0
)
(r
0
/v
S
)

K
u


c
u
(a
0
)

u
g
u
0
k
S
,c
S
h
m
u
m
u
b
hu
576

0
0 0 0 0
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
g g g
H H o H H o H o
s
r
P K k a u K c a u S a u
v
, , ,
e e e e ' = + =
(10)
0
0 0 0 0
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
g g g
b b b
s
r
M K k a K c a S a
v
u u, u u, u,
e u e u e u e ' = + =

The dynamic stiffness coefficients [(
0
( )
g
H
S a
,
) and (
0
( )
g
S a
u,
)] for horizontal and
rocking motions depending dimensionless frequency are approximated as below;
( )
0 0 0
( ) ( ) 1 2 ( ) 2
g g
H H H H g
S a K k a i a i
, ,
, , = + + (11a)
( )
0 0 0
( ) ( ) 1 2 ( ) 2
g g
g
S a K k a i a i
u, u u, u
, , = + + (11b)

Where (
g
, ) is the material damping ratio,
0
( )
H
a , and
0
( ) a
u
, are the radiation-damping
ratios of undamped soil which can be estimated as below;
0 0
0
0
( )
( )
2 ( )
H
H
H
a c a
a
k a
, =
0 0
0
0
( )
( )
2 ( )
a c a
a
k a
u
u
u
, = (12)
For three degree of freedom, dynamic equilibrium is formulated as.
2 2
[ ( ) ( ) ( )] (1 2 ) ( ) ( )
b b s g
m u u h k i u m u e e e u e , e e e + + + + =

2 2
0
[ ( ) ( ) ( )] ( ) ( ) ( )
g
o b b H b g
m u u h S a u m u
,
e e e u e e e e + + + =
(13)
2 2
0
[ ( ) ( ) ( )] ( ) ( ) ( )
g
o b b b g
mh u u h S a h mh u
u,
e e e u e u e e e + + + =

Eq. 13 can be written as given below;
2
2
0
2
0
2 2
(1 2 ) 1 1 1
( ) 1
( )
1 1 1 ( ) 1 ( )
( ) 1
( ) ( )
1 1 1
g
g
s
H
b g
b
b
i
u
S a
u u
m
h
S a
mh
,
0,
e
,
e
e
e e
e
u e
u e
e
(
+
(
(

(

=
` ` (
(
) )
(

(
(

(14)
Where ( )
b
u e and ( )
b
hu e are expressed using ( ) u e as;
2
0
(1 2 )
( ) ( )
( )
g
s
b
H
i
u u
S a
m
,
e ,
e e
+
=
2
0
2
(1 2 )
( ) ( )
( )
g
s
b
i
h u
S a
mh
u,
e ,
u e e
+
= (15)
Eqs. 13 and 14 yield the following equation:
2 2 2 2
2 2
0 0
2
(1 2 ) (1 2 )
1 2 ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
g g
g
H
s s
i i
i u u
S a S a
m mh
, u,
e e , e , e
, e e
e e
(
(
+ +
( + =
(
(

(16)
Where ( )
g
u e is the effective input motion in frequency domain and it may be obtained
with Fourier transformation or Laplace transformation of the displacement derived from
the excited force like ground motion ( )
g
u t in time domain. Using Fourier
transformation or inverse Fourier transformation ( )
g
u t and ( )
g
u e may be expressed as
( 2 ) ( ) exp( 2 )
g g
u j f u t j f dt e t e t

= = =
}

1
( ) ( ) exp( 2 )
g g
u t u j f d
T
e e t e

= =
}
(17)

Numerical Example
577


A reinforced concrete elevated tank with vessel capacity of 895 m
3
is considered for
seismic analyses (Fig.6). The elevated tank has frame supporting structure in which
columns are connected by circumferential beams at regular interval at the 7 m and 14 m
height level. The tank container are Intze type. The container and supporting structure
have been used as typical project in Turkey up to recent years. Youngs modulus and
unit weight of concrete are taken to be 32,000 MPa and 25 kN/m
3
, respectively. The
container is filled with water of density 1,000 kg/m
3
. (Calculated modal properties is m
t

= 1,211,700 kg m
c
=212,620 kg, k
i
= 630.25 kN/m, k
2
=

34600 kN/m)

Fig.6. Vertical cross section of the reinforced concrete elevated tank considered for
seismic analysis

In the seismic analysis, it is assumed that the tank is subjected to North-South
component of the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake in Turkey (Fig.7). The ground
acceleration of North-South component of this earthquake was taken consideration for
approximately fourty seconds. Here, four subsoil conditions were considered. They are
[v
s
=5000 m/s and 0.2 u = ], [v
s
=1000m/s and 0.2 u = ], [v
s
=250 m/s and 0.33 u = ], and
[v
s
=175 m/s and 0.33 u = ]. The unit weight of soil is assumed to be 19 kN/m
3
.

Fig.7. North-South component of the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake in Turkey
20.00 m
21.20 m
24.15m
30.60 m
32.30 m
14.0 m
7.0 m
0.0m
30.,00 m
4.30 m
6,375 m
5
.
4
5

m

0
.
6

m

0.5 m
0.5 m
0.1 m
Roof
Truncated invert
cone
Ring beam
Support beam of container
Circumferential beam-14
Circumferential beam -7
0.2 m
0.40 m
Mat foundation
Vessel
scope
shaft
6.0 m
Ring beam
0.5 m
0.1m

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec)
G
r
o
u
n
d

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
G
r
o
u
u
n
d

d
i
s
p
l
e
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Time (s)
Time (s)
G
r
o
u
n
d

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
e
c
2
)

G
r
o
u
n
d

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)

578


The computed displacements varying with the time for first mode and two shear wave
velocity (v
s
) are illustrated in Fig.8. In this figure, U
1
represents the structure first
(sloshing) mode displacement and it may be approximately estimated as 1.22m at
22.24s for v
s
=5000 m/s. Similarly, U
1
is obtained as 1.60 m at 22.4s for v
s
=125 m/s.
When the results obtained for the shear wave velocities of 5000 m/s and 1000 m/s are
compared, it is seen that the deviation of the displacement value is approximately %32.
Furthermore, it is seen from the results for analyzed system that, the effect of the shear
wave velocity on the displacement of the structure can be effective above 500 m/s (but
these can not be illustrated due to limitation of the page number).

Fig.6. Displacement for first mode (U
1
) for v
s
=5000 m/s and for v
s
=125 m/s

The computed displacements varying with the time for the second mode and two shear
wave velocities (v
s
) are illustrated in Fig.9. For the U
2
displacement represents the
displacement for second mode and it can be approximately estimated by roof
displacement. Maximum displacement of the U
2
was obtained as 0.08 m at 12.57 s for
v
s
=5000 m/s, and 0.10 m at 10.37 s for v
s
=150 m/s.

Fig.6. Displacement for second mode (U
2
) for v
s
=5000 m/s and for v
s
=125 m/s


CONCLUSIONS

A simple procedure was given for seismic analysis of fluid-elevated tank-soil system
considering interaction effects. This developed procedure can be easily used for
frequency domain analysis when compared to more rigorous numerical methods.
Especially this evaluation model can represent practical determination not only base
shear, overturning moment and displacement of supporting system but also wave height
on the vessel.
- 2
- 1 . 5
- 1
- 0 . 5
0
0 . 5
1
1 . 5
2
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0
for 125 m/s
for 5000 m/s
U
1

(
m
)

Time (s)
- 0 . 1
0 . 0 5
0
0 . 0 5
0 . 1
0 . 1 5
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0
for 125 m/s
for 5000 m/s
U
2

(
m
)

Time (s)
579


One can be seen the results that the displacement increased for getting decrease shear
wave velocity of the soil medium. Furthermore it is taken into account the decreases in
the base shear and overturning moment of the supporting system. Thus, procedure
presented in this paper may lead economic and reliable design. For this, more numerical
examples should be analyzed for different soil and foundation conditions. Furthermore,
the procedure presented here can be developed by using cone model for different soil
and foundation systems.

References

ACI 371R-98. (1995) American Concrete Institute. Guide to the analysis design and
construction of concrete-pedestal water tower, ACI 371R.

Dobry, R. Gazetas, G. (1986). Dynamic Response of Arbitrarily-Shaped Foundations,
ASCE. Geotechnical Engineering Division. J, Cilt: 113, No: 2, Sf: 109-135

Dutta, S.C. Jain, S.K. Murty, C.V.R. (2000). Assessing the seismic torsional
vulnerability of elevated tanks with RC frame-type staging. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 19, 183197

Gazetas, G. Tassoulas, J. L. (1987) Horizontal Stiffness of Arbitrarily-Shaped
Embedded Foundations, ASCE. Geotechnical Engineering Division. J., Cilt: 113, No: 5,
440-457

Haroun M.A., Ellaithy, M.H. (1985) Seismically induced fluid forces on elevated tanks,
Journal of Technical Topics in Civil Engineering; 111 (1): 1-15.

Haroun, M.A., Temraz, M.K. (1992). Effects of soil-structure interaction on seismic
response of elevated tanks, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 11(2), 73-86

Housner, G.W. (1963). Dynamic behavior of water tanks, Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of the America, 53, 381-387

Takewaki, I, Takeda, N, Uetani, K, (2003), Fast Practical Evaluation of Soil-Structure
Interaction of Embedded Structure, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
23,195-202

Meek , J.W, Wolf, J. P. (1994), Cone Models for Embedded Foundation, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 120(1):60-80

Priestley, M.J.N. Davidson, B.J. Honey, G.D. Hopkins, D.C. Martin, R.J., Ramsey, G.
Vessey, J.V. Wood, J.H. (1986). Seismic Design of Storage Tanks, Recommendation of
a Study Group the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand.

Resheidat, R.M. Sunna, H. (1986). Behavior of elevated storage tanks during
earthquakes, Proc. the 3th U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, 2143-2154

Wolf, J.P. (1994) Foundation vibration Analysis Using Simple Physical Models .
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,

580

Wolf, J.P.(2002). Some Cornerstones of Dynamic SoilStructure Interaction,
Engineering Structures, 24, 13-28

Wolf, J.P. (2003) Dynamic Stiffness of Foundation Embedded in Layered Halfspace
Based on Wave Propagating Cones, Earthq. Engng.& Struc. Dynamics , 32, 10751098