4.7 Article

Generalized SDOF system for seismic analysis of concrete rectangular liquid storage tanks

期刊

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
卷 31, 期 10, 页码 2426-2435

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.05.019

关键词

Reinforced concrete; Liquid containing rectangular tank; Seismic; Dynamic analysis; Tank flexibility; Impulsive hydrodynamic pressure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a simplified method using the generalized single degree of freedom (SDOF) system for seismic analysis and design of concrete rectangular liquid storage tanks. In most of the current design codes and standards for concrete liquid storage tanks, the response of liquid and tank structures is determined using rigid boundary conditions for the determination of hydrodynamic pressures. Also, the lumped mass approach is used for dynamic analysis. However, it has been shown that the flexibility of a tank wall increases the hydrodynamic pressures as compared to the rigid wall assumption. On the other hand, the consistent mass approach reduces the response of liquid containing structures as compared to the lumped mass approach. In the proposed method, the consistent mass approach and the effect of flexibility of a tank wall on hydrodynamic pressures are considered. The prescribed vibration shape functions representing the first five mode shapes for the cantilever wall boundary condition are studied. The application of the proposed shape functions and their validity are examined using two different case studies including a tall and a shallow tank. The results are then compared with those using the finite element method from a previous investigation and ACI 350.3 commonly used in current practice. The results indicate that the proposed method is fairly accurate which can be used in the structural design of liquid containing structures. It is also concluded that the effect of the second mode should also be considered in the dynamic analysis of liquid containing structures. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据