You are on page 1of 9

Proceedings of PVP2008

2008 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference


July 27-31, 2008, Chicago, Illinois, USA

PVP2008-61675

MODEL TESTS ON SLOSHING OF A FLOATING ROOF IN A CYLINDRICAL LIQUID


STORAGE TANK UNDER SEISMIC EXCITATION
Takashi Nagaya, Tetsuya Matsui
and Takuo Wakasa

Department of Architecture, Meijo University,


Nagoya 468-8502, Japan
E-mail: matsuite@ccmfs.meijo-u.ac.jp

ABSTRACT e.g., during the 1964 Niigata earthquake and the 1983
Shaking table tests are carried out to validate the analytical Nihonkai-chubu earthquake, the sinking of the floating roof
solutions for the sloshing of a floating roof in a cylindrical caused by sloshing has never been experienced so far in Japan.
liquid storage tank under seismic excitation. The experimental It was a very dangerous situation that the oil surface was
tank is a 1/100 scaled model of typical oil-storage tank of directly exposed to the air.
100,000m3 capacity, made of acrylic tube of 800mm in After the 2003 Tokachi-oki earthquake, the Fire and
diameter. The tests are performed using three types of floating Disaster Management Agency of Japan [3] has issued the
roof model: (1) a roof composed of a pontoon ring only, (2) a amended Notification of the Fire Defense Law, in which the
roof composed of uniform isotropic plate, and (3) a single-deck design spectrum for sloshing was increased to almost twice the
type roof composed of an inner deck and an outer pontoon. The spectrum in the past Notification. In addition, the standard for
motion capture system using high-speed micro cameras is the seismic design of floating roofs under long-period ground
employed to measure the roof displacement over the whole roof motion, which has never been included in the past Notification,
surface. The test results are compared with the analytical has been newly regulated. This requires the evaluation of
solutions based on linear potential theory. Overall agreement is earthquake-resistance capacity of the floating roof of many
confirmed between theory and experiment, while nonlinear bi- existing as well as newly designed tanks and raising it up to the
harmonic resonance oscillation is observed to occur in certain level requested by the amended Notification. Thus, there is a
cases. rapidly increasing demand for predicting the sloshing response
of floating roofs under long-period seismic excitation.
In the earlier papers by Matsui [4, 5], analytical solutions
Keywords: shaking table test, liquid storage tank, floating
have been presented for the sloshing of a floating roof in a
roof, sloshing, fluid-structure interaction, potential theory
cylindrical liquid storage tank under seismic excitation.
Explicit solutions have been obtained for two types of floating
INTRODUCTION
roof: (a) a floating roof composed of uniform isotropic plate,
Sloshing of contained liquid is one of the major
which may be a rational approximation to a double-deck type
considerations in the design of liquid storage tanks. In the past
floating roof, and (b) a single-deck type floating roof composed
major earthquakes many tanks have been subjected to serious
of an inner deck with relatively small bending stiffness and an
damages which may be attributed to liquid sloshing. Especially
outer pontoon with relatively large stiffness. The dynamic
during the September 2003 Tokachi-oki earthquake, seven oil-
interaction between the liquid and the floating roof was taken
storage tanks of floating-roof type located at Tomakomai,
into account exactly within the framework of linear potential
Hokkaido, Japan were seriously damaged (Hatayama et al. [1]).
theory.
Damages include the sinking of the floating roof, which led one
In the present paper, shaking table tests are carried out to
of the seven tanks to a whole surface fire, as observed also in
confirm the validity of the analytical solutions based on the
the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake, Turkey (The Japan Society of
linear potential theory. The experimental tank is a 1/100 scaled
Civil Engineers [2]). Although the failure of the floating roof
model of typical oil-storage tank of 100,000m3 capacity, made
and the fire of oil-storage tanks have been observed frequently,
of acrylic tube of 800mm in diameter. The motion capture

1 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

Downloaded 20 Jun 2012 to 128.42.202.150. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
system using high-speed micro cameras is employed to Table 1 Principal Dimensions of Tank Model
measure the roof displacement over the whole roof surface. The Outer diameter of tank 800 mm
test results are compared with the analytical solutions to be Inside diameter of tank 780 mm
validated.
Liquid depth 400 mm
TEST PROCEDURE Mass density of liquid 1000 kg/m3
Diameter of floating roof 770 mm
Experimental Model Thickness of deck (double-deck) 2 mm
The principal dimensions of the experimental tank are Thickness of inner deck (single-deck) 0.1 mm
shown in Table 1 and Fig. 1. The tank is made of acrylic tube of
800mm in diameter, 10mm thick and 800mm high and filled Thickness of pontoon (single-deck) 2 mm
with water to a depth of 400mm. The tests are carried out using Width of pontoon (single-deck) 45 mm
three types of floating roof model: (1) a roof composed of a Mass density of deck (double-deck) 1244 kg/m3
pontoon ring only (which is referred to as “free surface” Mass density of inner deck (single-deck) 2836 kg/m3
hereafter), (2) a roof composed of uniform isotropic plate Mass density of pontoon (single-deck) 1206 kg/m3
(which is referred to as “double-deck type roof” hereafter), and
(3) a “single-deck type roof” composed of an inner deck and an Young's modulus of acrylite 2.90 Gpa
outer pontoon. The floating roofs are made of acrylic plate of
2mm thick except the inner deck of the single-deck type roof Measurement System of Roof Displacements
made of polyvinyl chloride sheet of 0.1mm thick. To provide Three high-speed micro cameras are set up at the top of
buoyancy a number of Styrofoam blocks of 1mm thick are tank as shown in Photo 2 to catch the 3D movement of the
attached to the lower surface of the double-deck type roof and targets marked by white-colored small circles on the black-
of the pontoon of the single-deck type roof, as shown in Photo painted surface of the floating roof. The motion capture system
1. Due to their light weight and low bending stiffness compared is employed to obtain the digitized time-series data of roof
with those of acrylic plates the effect of the Styrofoam blocks displacement over the whole roof surface, measured
on the response is ignored in the analysis later. simultaneously at the frame rate of an integral sub-multiple of
60fps (10, 12, 15, 20, 30 and 60fps) with the restriction of 262
frames in storage capacity. The arrangement of the measuring
800 mm
770 mm points is shown in Fig.2.
780 mm
2 mm

Double-deck Type Roof

770 mm
2 mm
400 mm

0.1 mm
45 mm

Tank Single-deck Type Roof


Double-deck Type Roof Single-deck Type Roof
Fig. 1 Experimental Tank Photo 1 Floating Roof Models

θ r

Ground
motion
R

Photo2 Set Up of High-speed Free Surface Double-deck Type Roof Single-deck Type Roof
Micro Cameras Fig. 2 Arrangement of Measuring Points

2 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

Downloaded 20 Jun 2012 to 128.42.202.150. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
FREE-OSCILLATION TESTS Table 2 Test Conditions for Free-oscillation Tests
Free-oscillation tests have been carried out to measure the Frame rate (fps) Duration time (s)
natural period, damping ratio and free-oscillation mode of the 17.5
Test 1 / Test 4 15
floating roof models in liquid. The free-oscillation was
generated by pulling up and down the string attached to an Test 2 / Test 5 12 21.8
edge of the roof and releasing it after the oscillation was fully Test 3 / Test 6 10 26.2
developed. Six tests have been performed for each floating roof
type under the test conditions shown in Table 2. The frame rate Table 3 Natural Periods Evaluated from Free-
was determined to be an integral sub-multiple of 60fps by oscillation Tests (s)
taking into consideration the range of natural frequencies to be Free surface Double-deck Single-deck
measured and the storage capacity of the motion capture Test 1 0.950 0.951 0.951
system.
The measured time histories of free-oscillation y (t ) were Test 2 0.950 0.947 0.952
fitted by the least-square method to Test 3 0.951 0.950 0.951
y (t ) = exp(− β t ) { A cos(ωd t ) + B sin(ωd t )} (1) Test 4 0.951 0.953 0.953
Test 5 0.950 Failed 0.951
where t denotes the time, and ωd denotes the damped natural Test 6 0.950 0.950 0.951
circular frequency of the roof. The coefficients A , B , β and
ωd can be determined to minimize the error norms between the Average 0.950 0.950 0.952
measured and fitted time histories of oscillation. Once these Analysis 0.945 0.946 0.947
coefficients have been determined, the natural period T and
damping ratio h can be evaluated from Table 4 Damping Ratios Evaluated from Free-
oscillation Tests
T = 2π ωd , h = β ωd 2 + β 2 (2) Free surface Double-deck Single-deck
Test 1 0.00229 0.01130 0.00323
Test 2 0.00234 0.01060 0.00336
Test 3 0.00243 0.01070 0.00340
Test 4 0.00198 0.01180 0.00319
Test 5 0.00245 Failed 0.00368
Test 6 0.00199 0.01120 0.00342
Average 0.00225 0.01110 0.00338
Free Surface
The corresponding free-oscillation mode can be obtained from
the amplitude ratio of least-square fitted free-oscillation curve
at each measuring point.
Figure 3 shows examples of the measured and least-square
fitted time histories of free oscillation. Complete agreement is
observed between the measured and fitted oscillation curves,
illustrating the validity and high accuracy of the least-square
fitting.
Double-deck Type Roof The natural periods and damping ratios evaluated from
free-oscillation tests are shown in Tables 3 and 4. These are the
averages of those values obtained from the free-oscillation
curve of every measuring point. In Table 3 the fundamental
natural periods predicted by the analytical solutions (Matsui [4,
5]) are also shown for comparison. It can be observed that the
variance of the natural period of each test is quite small and
that the measured natural periods are very close to the
analytical solutions, confirming the validity of the linear
Single-deck Type Roof potential theory. The variance of damping ratios is also found
Fig. 3 Measured and Least-square Fitted Time to be small. It can be noted that the damping values depend
Histories of Free-oscillation strongly on the type of floating roof. They are lowest in the

3 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

Downloaded 20 Jun 2012 to 128.42.202.150. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
case of free surface, and the single-deck type roof provides
lower damping than the double-deck type roof.
The free-oscillation modes evaluated from free-oscillation
tests are plotted and compared with the analytical solutions in
Figs. 4 and 5, where r R and θ denote the radial coordinate
normalized by the radius R of the floating roof and the
circumferential coordinate, respectively. Again satisfactory
agreement is observed between theory and experiment,
confirming the validity of the linear potential theory.

Double-deck Type Roof SEISMIC OSCILLATION TESTS


Seismic oscillation tests were carried out to measure the
sloshing response of the floating roof models under seismic
ground motion. The earthquake wave recorded at the K-NET
Tomakomai station during the 2003 Tokachi-oki earthquake
(HKD1290309260450EW) was selected as an input ground
motion. Three tests have been performed for each floating roof
type under the test conditions shown in Table 5.
The experimental tank was designed to be a 1/100 scaled
model of typical oil-storage tank of 100,000m3 capacity (80m
in diameter), but it is possible to consider tanks of other size by
adjusting the time scale of ground motion. It is well-known that
Single-deck Type Roof the law of similarity is satisfied by t ' t = L ' L , where t and
L denote the time and characteristic dimension in real scale,
Fig.
Fig. 44 Radial
Radial Free-oscillation
Free-oscillation Modes
Modes while t ' and L ' denote the corresponding quantities in model
scale. In the present study two tank sizes, referred to as “model
L” and “model S” hereafter, are considered by reducing the
time scale as shown in Table 6.
Figure 6 shows an example of time histories and
corresponding velocity response spectra of the target and
generated ground motions in the case of free surface of model
L. It can be observed that the target wave is generated on the
shaking table with high accuracy over the whole range of
periods.

Table 5 Test Conditions for Seismic Oscillation Tests


Frame rate (fps) Duration time (s)
Test 1 15 17.5
Double-deck Type Roof
Test 2 12 21.8
Test 3 10 26.2

Table 6 Model Scales Corresponding to Real Tank


Dimension Diameter/Liquid
Model Time scale
scale depth of real tank
Model L 1/10 1/100 80m/40m
Model S 1/7.91 1/62.5 50m/25m

Table 7 Parameters in Time History Analysis


Model Sampling period (s) Duration time (s)
Single-deck Type Roof Model L 1/160 51.2
Fig. 5 Circumferential Free-oscillation Modes Model S 1/187.5 43.7

4 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

Downloaded 20 Jun 2012 to 128.42.202.150. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Table 8 Computed Natural Frequencies of Single-
deck Type Floating Roof Model (Hz)
Number of radial half Number of circumferential waves
waves n =0 n =1 n =2
1 1.56 1.06 1.39
2 2.11 1.84 2.07
3 2.55 2.33 2.52

experiment. The oscillation after the main earthquake motion


has passed decays more slowly in the analytical curve than in
the experimental one. As a possible reason for these
discrepancies it can be considered that the damping ratio for
model S is higher than that evaluated by the free-oscillation
tests due to its amplitude-dependent nature. This may be
justified by the fact that the roof displacement of model S
amounts to 50mm, which is beyond the range of displacement
in the free-oscillation tests (see Fig. 3).
From the figures of the Fourier amplitude spectra shown in
Figs. 9 – 14, it can be observed that the contribution of the
fundamental mode is dominant in most cases. In these cases the
Fig. 6 Time Histories and Velocity Response difference between the Rayleigh damping and the stiffness-
Spectra of Target and Generated Ground Motions proportional damping cannot be recognized. However, in the
(Free Surface of Model L)
case of the free surface and the single-deck type roof of model
L, it can be noted that the contribution of the second mode can
Earthquake response analysis was performed by using the
never be ignored. In these cases the Rayleigh damping gives
table motions generated on the shaking table as input ground
better predictions than the stiffness-proportional damping.
motions. Newmark’s method (the average acceleration method)
Figure 15 show the time histories and corresponding
was adopted with the sampling period and the duration time
Fourier amplitude spectra of displacement measured at the
shown in Table 7. The Rayleigh damping as well as the
center of the single-deck type roof of Model S. According to
stiffness-proportional damping were assumed for each mode
the linear theory, the roof oscillates with only a component with
using the measured damping ratios shown in Table 4 for the
the number of circumferential waves 1, resulting in zero
fundamental and second modes in liquid. 6 free surface modes
displacement at the center of the roof. However, the measured
and 5 elastic vibration modes in air were adopted for the
displacement at the center of the roof is found to be as high as
double-deck type roof, while 30 free surface modes and 29
7mm which can never be ignored, and has the peak of Fourier
elastic vibration modes in air for the single-deck type roof. It
amplitude spectrum at 2.09Hz which is just twice the
should be noted that a larger number of modes are needed to
fundamental natural frequency (1.05Hz). This implies the
express the pressure and the bending moment in the deck of the
occurrence of nonlinear bi-harmonic resonance oscillation, as
single-deck type floating roof, which increase rapidly as
discussed by Ohmori, et al. [6] for the case of free surface. It is
approaching to the connection between the deck and the
well-known that the bi-harmonic resonance oscillation occurs
pontoon. For more details, see Matsui [4, 5].
when the natural frequencies of modes with the number of
Figures 7 and 8 show the comparison between the
circumferential waves 0 and/or 2 coincide with twice the
measured and simulated maximum amplitudes of roof
f u n damental natural frequency with the number of
displacement along the radius parallel to the direction of
circumferential waves 1. This is just the case in the singe-deck
ground motion. Quite good agreement is observed between
type floating roof model as shown in Table 8, where the natural
theory and experiment except the slight discrepancies along the
outer circumference. frequencies of modes with the number of circumferential waves
Figures 9 - 14 show the time histories and corresponding 0 and 2 and the number of radial half waves 2 are close to twice
Fourier amplitude spectra of roof displacement at the wave the fundamental natural frequency of mode with the number of
front, together with the natural frequencies evaluated from the circumferential waves 1 and the number of radial half waves 1.
analytical solutions. In the case of model L quite good In order to confirm the occurrence of bi-harmonic resonance
agreement is observed between analysis and experiment. On oscillation, Fig. 16 shows the Fourier coefficients of the roof
the other hand, in the case of Model S it can be observed that displacement expanded around the circumference. In addition
the analysis gives somewhat higher predictions than the to the linear component with the number of circumferential

5 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

Downloaded 20 Jun 2012 to 128.42.202.150. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Double-deck Type Roof

Single-deck Type Roof


Fig. 7 Maximum Amplitude of Displacement Fig. 9 Time Histories and Fourier Amplitude
along the Radius Parallel to the Direction of Spectra of Displacement at the Wave Front
Ground Motion (Model L) (Free Surface of Model L)

Double-deck Type Roof

Single-deck Type Roof


Fig. 8 Maximum Amplitude of Displacement Fig. 10 Time Histories and Fourier Amplitude
along the Radius Parallel to the Direction of Spectra of Displacement at Wave-front Edge
Ground Motion (Model S) (Free Surface of Model S)

6 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

Downloaded 20 Jun 2012 to 128.42.202.150. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig.11 Time Histories and Fourier Amplitude Fig. 13 Time Histories and Fourier Amplitude
Spectra of Displacement at the Wave Front Spectra of Displacement at the Wave Front
(Double-deck Type Roof of Model L) (Single-deck Type Roof of Model L)

Fig. 12 Time Histories and Fourier Amplitude Fig. 14 Time Histories and Fourier Amplitude
Spectra of Displacement at the Wave Front Spectra of Displacement at the Wave Front
(Double-deck Type Roof of Model S) (Single-deck Type Roof of Model S)

7 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

Downloaded 20 Jun 2012 to 128.42.202.150. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
waves 1 which is dominant, the components with the number
of circumferential waves 0 and 2 can be recognized. The bi-
harmonic resonance oscillation mode can be observed clearly
in Fig. 17, showing the 3D plot of the measured roof
displacement band-pass filtered between the frequencies of 2.0
and 2.2Hz.Such a nonlinear oscillation mode can also be
observed in model L although not so significantly as in model
S.

CONCLUSIONS
Shaking table tests using a small-scale model have been
carried out to validate the analytical solutions for the sloshing
of a floating roof in a cylindrical liquid storage tank under
seismic excitation. The tests have been performed using three
types of floating roof model: (1) a roof composed of a pontoon
ring only, (2) a roof composed of uniform isotropic plate, and
(3) a single-deck type roof composed of an inner deck and an
outer pontoon. The test results were compared with the
analytical solutions based on linear potential theory. Overall
agreement was confirmed between theory and experiment,
while nonlinear bi-harmonic resonance oscillation was
observed to occur in certain cases. The theoretical prediction of
such nonlinear oscillations will be a matter of further research.
Fig. 15 Time Histories and Fourier Amplitude Finally, the conclusions obtained from the present
Spectra of Displacement at the Center of Roof experimental study can be summarized as follows:
(Single-deck Type Roof of Model S)
• The analytical solutions for the fundamental natural periods
and the corresponding free-oscillation modes coincide well
with those measured by the free-oscillation tests.
• The damping ratios evaluated from the free-oscillation tests
depend strongly on the type of floating roof. They are
lowest in the case of free surface, and the single-deck type
roof provides lower damping than the double-deck type
roof.
• The analytical solutions for the roof displacement also
coincide well with those measured by the seismic
oscillation tests if the damping ratios are properly assumed.
• To the roof displacement the contribution of the
fundamental mode is dominant in most cases. However, in
Fig. 16 Fourier Coefficients of Displacement
the case of the free surface and the single-deck type roof of
Expanded around the Circumference
larger diameter, the contribution of the second mode can
(Single-deck Type Roof of Model S)
never be ignored. In these cases the Rayleigh damping
gives better predictions than the stiffness-proportional
damping.
• As the roof displacement increases, the nonlinear bi-
harmonic resonance oscillation with the number of
circumferential waves 0 and 2 can occur at twice the
fundamental natural frequency with the number of
circumferential waves 1.

Fig. 17 3D Plot of Measured Bi-harmonic ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


Resonance Oscillation Mode This work has been carried out as a part of research project
(Single-deck Type Roof of Model S) in the Advanced Research Center for Seismic Experiments and

8 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

Downloaded 20 Jun 2012 to 128.42.202.150. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Computations, Meijo University. The financial support by the Civil Engineering Structures-, the Japan Society of Civil
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society of Engineers, Tokyo.
Promotion of Science (through Grant No. 17360278) and from [3] The Fire and Disaster Management Agency, 2005, “On the
Meijo University Research Institute is also greatly Enforcement of the Ministerial Ordinance Which Amends
acknowledged. The strong motion data was provided by the K- a Part of the Rule Concerning the Control of Hazardous
NET of National Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Materials,” Notification 14, in Japanese.
Prevention, Japan. [4] Matsui, T., 2007, “Sloshing in a Cylindrical Liquid
Storage Tank With a Floating Roof Under Seismic
REFERENCES Excitation,” Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology,
[1] Hatayama, K., Zama, S., Nishi, H., Yamada, M., Hirokawa, Transactions of the ASME, 129 (4), 557-566.
M., and Inoue, R., 2005, “The Damages of Oil Storage [5] Matsui, T., 2007, “Sloshing in a Cylindrical Liquid
Tanks during the 2003 Tokachi-oki Earthquake and the Storage Tank With a Single-deck Type Floating Roof
Long Period Ground Motions,” Proceedings of the JSCE- Under Seismic Excitation,” Proceedings of the ASME
AIJ Joint Symposium on Huge Subduction Earthquakes - Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, San
Wide Area Strong Ground Motion Prediction-, pp.7-18, in Antonio, Texas, PVP2007-26249.
Japanese. [6] Ohmori, H., Hibino, H., Kato, K., and Matsui, T., 1986,
[2] The Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 1999, The 1999 “Nonlinear Sloshing of Cylindrical Liquid Storages,”
Kocaeli Earthquake, Turkey -Investigation into Damage to Proceedings of the IASS Symposium on Shells,
Membranes and Space Frames, Osaka, Vol.1, pp. 97-104.

9 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

Downloaded 20 Jun 2012 to 128.42.202.150. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm