Thin-Walled Structures 106 (2016) 437–447

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: [Link]/locate/tws

Strengthening effects of spiral stairway on the buckling behavior

of metal tanks under wind and vacuum pressures
Amir R. Shokrzadeh n, Mohammad R. Sohrabi
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Iran

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Steel cylindrical tanks are formed by very thin-walled shells and as typical thin-walled structures, they
Received 11 February 2016 are very sensitive to buckling under external pressures, especially when they are empty or at low liquid
Received in revised form level. Results of numerical investigations on the effects of spiral stairway on the buckling behavior of
25 May 2016
ground based steel cylindrical liquid storage tanks subjected to both wind and vacuum pressures are
Accepted 25 May 2016
Available online 1 June 2016
presented. It is concluded that by choosing appropriate circumferential position for stairway, considering
regional prevailing wind direction, designers can use the noticeable amount of added strength arising
Keywords: from stairway as a safety margin. In other words, it seems that the spiral stairway acts as an oblique
Steel cylindrical tanks stiffener on the tank wall. Contrary to the case of wind loading, the stairway has negligible effect on
Buckling
buckling resistance of tanks under vacuum pressure. However, it changes the buckling modes of tank
External pressures
significantly under vacuum loading.
Numerical investigations
Spiral stairway & 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Prevailing wind direction

1. Introduction strengthening and improving buckling capacity such as Ref. [14] in

which the additional buckling capacity of steel tanks caused by the
Cylindrical steel liquid storage tanks are important components addition of fiber reinforced polymers (FRP) retrofit layers attached
of many process industries. As a result, their safety during harsh to the outer walls of the steel tank was studied.
atmospheric conditions or other kinds of external pressures is of Furthermore, the strengthening effects of stiffening rings (like
prime concern and has been the subject of numerous investiga- top and intermediate wind girder) on buckling capacity of tank
tions. The occurrence of moderate damage to total failure under wall have been investigated in different papers. Such girders have
high wind speeds is mainly associated with buckling of cylindrical been taken into account in some research papers [6,15–18]. In
shell of the tank [1–5]. Different types of tanks have been in- addition, the strengthening effects of the tank roof or tank bottom
vestigated, like open-topped [6] and fixed-roof [7,8,10], by com- have been studied in some recent papers. Portela and Godoy [7,8]
bination of computational methods and experimental results. Jaca studied the additional stiffness provided by the roof for tanks with
and Godoy [3] indicated that tanks failure can occur under mod- conic and dome roof under wind load. The strengthening effects of
erate wind velocities during their construction. the tank bottom and intermediate wind girders were further ex-
In addition, thin-walled cylindrical tanks are susceptible to plored by Bu and Qian [17]. They presented some optimal design
buckling due to uniform external pressure (internal vacuum), formulas for computation of the size and spacing of the wind
which could happen during discharge process. If rapid discharge of girders. They found that the influence of the tank bottom should
tank accompanied by inadvertent closure of all tank valves will be computed with a three-dimensional analysis rather than two-
lead to a rapid drop in internal pressure and in severe cases, tank dimensional one.
failure [9,11]. Since the effect of spiral stairway (circumferential stairway)
Steel cylindrical tanks are formed by very thin-walled shells. As and its circumferential position on the buckling behavior of steel
a result, buckling under external pressure becomes a major design cylindrical tanks (critical buckling load, buckling deformations,
constraint, and many researches have been done in this field etc.) considering prevailing wind direction has not been in-
[3,12,13]. There are some papers on innovative ways of vestigated, in this paper, the buckling characteristics of tanks
equipped with spiral stairway have been studied under vacuum
n
Corresponding author. pressure and various wind directions. For numerical investigations
E-mail address: amir.sh4919@[Link] (A.R. Shokrzadeh). both conical roof and open-top tanks are considered.

[Link]
0263-8231/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
438 A.R. Shokrzadeh, M.R. Sohrabi / Thin-Walled Structures 106 (2016) 437–447

Table 1 Table 2
Geometrical characteristics of tanks TK-a, TK-b and TK-c. Shell courses details for tank TK-2047.

Geometrical characteristics TK-a TK-b TK-c Course no.a Course thickness (mm) TK-2047 Course width (m) TK-2047

Shell height (m) 12.191 19.337 29.103 1 18.30 2.430

Roof height (m) 2.858 2.858 2.858 2 15.50 2.430
Tank diameter (m) 30.48 30.48 30.48 3 13.60 2.430
H/D 0.40 0.63 0.95 4 10.80 2.430
5 7.94 2.430
6 (top) 7.94 2.405
Top angle L75
75
9 –
Roof shell 6 1.829

a
Courses are numbered from bottom to top (i.e. no.1 refers to bottom shell
course etc.).

Fig. 1. On-site picture of tank TK-2047.

2. Computational models

2.1. Structure prototypes

The tanks considered in this paper have cone roofs supported Fig. 3. Finite element model of tank (TK-a).
by a number of columns and radial beams. The tanks were as-
sumed to be fixed at the base. Since only fixed base tanks are
considered, the bottom plates are not included in the models. The
cylinder and they are placed on ring beams.
radial beams are connected at their ends directly to the tank The tank geometries chosen (TK-a, TK-b and TK-c) are similar to
those considered by Virella et al. [19]. Table 1 summarizes the
geometries of tanks TK-a, TK-b and TK-c, which are representative
of three tanks with aspect ratios of 0.40, 0.63 and 0.95,
respectively.

Fig. 2. Typical structure of rafter supported conical roof steel tanks. Fig. 4. Spiral stairway of tank TK-2047.
 A.R. Shokrzadeh, M.R. Sohrabi / Thin-Walled Structures 106 (2016) 437–447 439

Fig. 5. Spiral stairway of TK-2047 details: (a) the real stairway and (b) simplified model of the stairway (beam model).

Fig. 6. Model of the tank with spiral stairway (TK-2047s) adopted for the computations.

In addition, a tank (TK-2047) in an oil plant located 20 km west above, the conical roof is supported by a number of radial rafters
of Arak (Markazi province, Iran) is considered (see Fig. 1). TK-2047 and ring beams with three groups of sections (inner rafters:
supports a conical roof with a slope equal to 1/16. As mentioned H198
99
4.5
7, outer rafters: H248
124
5
8 and ring
440 A.R. Shokrzadeh, M.R. Sohrabi / Thin-Walled Structures 106 (2016) 437–447

Table 3
Critical buckling loadsa obtained from bifurcation (eigenvalue) analysis.

Tank models Modes

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th

TK-2047 2.357 2.358 2.359 2.360 2.366 2.366 2.371 2.372 2.386 2.387
TK-2047s 2.356 2.357 2.361 2.362 2.369 2.369 2.378 2.379 2.393 2.397
b
Relative difference (%)  0.02  0.04 0.068 0.064 0.127 0.101 0.266 0.295 0.285 0.39
TK-a 2.096 2.096 2.099 2.099 2.135 2.135 2.139 2.139 2.197 2.197
TK-as 2.097 2.097 2.112 2.115 2.14 2.142 2.173 2.178 2.215 2.229
b
Relative difference (%) 0.062 0.072 0.634 0.762 0.225 0.290 1.627 1.814 0.842 1.424
TK-b 2.999 2.999 3.010 3.010 3.021 3.022 3.045 3.046 3.100 3.100
TK-bs 3.004 3.004 3.019 3.020 3.043 3.046 3.077 3.084 3.120 3.130
b
Relative difference (%) 0.167 0.177 0.302 0.312 0.728 0.798 1.051 1.248 0.648 0.984
TK-c 2.995 2.995 3.007 3.007 3.009 3.009 3.045 3.045 3.051 3.051
TK-cs 2.999 3.0 3.013 3.013 3.033 3.034 3.062 3.064 3.098 3.103
b
Relative difference (%) 0.140 0.150 0.193 0.206 0.804 0.831 0.565 0.627 1.547 1.717

a
All buckling loads are in kPa.
λ s −λc
b
Relative difference¼ c × 100% .
λc

λcs −λc
Fig. 7. Relative difference of buckling loads ( ×100%) for lowest ten eigenvalues obtained from bifurcation analysis: (a) TK-2047 under vacuum pressure, and (b) TK-a,
λc
TK-b and TK-c under vacuum pressure.

beams: H496
199
9
14). The overall geometry is given by a element discretization of the structure. Eight-node shell elements
diameter D¼ 36.59 m, cylinder height H¼ 14.63 m, and 1.143 m with reduced integration (identified as S8R5 in ABAQUS) were
maximum elevation of the roof with respect to the cylinder. It can used for the cylinder, whereas triangular elements were employed
be seen that the aspect ratio of the tank (H/D) is quite low (0.40).
on the roof (STRI65). Rafters were modeled by beam elements. In
The tank has variable wall thicknesses and its cylindrical shell is
divided in six courses (see Fig. 2). The width and thickness of each the finite element model, columns are represented by vertical
shell course along with relevant information regarding the roof are restraints were applied at the points where they support the
summarized in Table 2. structural grid (some points on ring beams). The fixed boundary
In all the models, the tank was assumed empty, this is worst condition was applied on the bottom of the finite element model.
case for tanks subjected to wind and uniform external pressure
In all computational models, the material is assumed as elastic and
[6,18,20].
isotropic. ASTM A36 steel is assumed for all tank models, with

2.2. Finite element model

density γ ¼7850 kg/m3, modulus of elasticity E ¼206 GPa, and
Poisson's ratio 0.3. The finite element model of TK-a is shown in
General purpose program ABAQUS [21] was used for finite Fig. 3.
 A.R. Shokrzadeh, M.R. Sohrabi / Thin-Walled Structures 106 (2016) 437–447 441

Fig. 8. First buckling mode of TK-as, TK-bs and TK-cs under vacuum pressure (isometric and bottom views): (a) isometric view of TK-as; (b) bottom view of TK- as;
(c) isometric view of TK-bs; (d) bottom view of TK- bs; (e) isometric view of TK-cs; (f) bottom view of TK- cs.
442 A.R. Shokrzadeh, M.R. Sohrabi / Thin-Walled Structures 106 (2016) 437–447

Fig. 10. Created tank models and their associated wind directions (the figure shows
the tanks from top view).

Cp ( θ )=k c Cp1 ( θ ) (1)

where θ is the longitude measured from the windward. Factor

kc takes the form.
kc =1.0 for Cp1≥ − 0.15 or,
k c =1. 0 − 0. 55 ( Cp1+0. 15) log ( H /D) for Cp1 < − 0.15 (2)

Cp1 ( θ )= − 0. 5 + 0. 4 cos θ +0. 8 cos 2θ +0. 3 cos 3θ −0. 1 cos 4θ

−0. 05 cos 5θ (3)

The space variation of pressures in the cylindrical part of the

tank was assumed to be constant in elevation and variable around
the circumference, as in other research works in the field [7,20].
The pressure distribution pattern on the conical roof was con-
sidered in accordance with AS-NZS 1170-2 (Appendix C5.2.2).
It should be noted that the Fourier coefficients given above
relate only to cylinders with closed-top, not including the internal
wind pressure. Therefore, for simulation of wind pressure on cy-
linders with open-top, an additional uniform negative wind
pressure coefficient should be subtracted to take account of the
internal suction (AS-NZS 1170-2 Appendix C5.2.3).

3. Influence of spiral stairway on buckling behavior of the

Fig. 9. Examples of buckling of cylindrical tanks under vacuum pressure:
(a) buckling near the top of a large tank caused by rapid cooling of the contents tanks with conical roof
combined with a blocked vent [23]; (b) tank collapse during process of discharge
due to inappropriate sizing of the breathers and (c) this collapse occurred following TK-2047 and its finite element models are shown in Figs. 1, 2,
accidental draining of the contents whilst the vacuum valve was blocked by plastic 4 and 6. The tank is modeled with, and without stairway and the
tape during paint refurbishment.
results are compared in order to obtain the effect of stairway on
buckling behavior of the tank. The slope angle of the stairway with
respect to horizontal plane is approximately 44°.
2.3. Wind loads on cylindrical tanks The circumferential stairway of TK-2047 shown in Figs. 4 and 5
(a) is simulated by an I-shaped section beam element (Figs. 5
According to AS-NZS 1170-2 Appendix C equations [22], the (b) and 6) supported by a number of brackets (L75
75
6). The
coefficient of wind pressure Cp acting on the cylindrical structure beam flanges are the same as stringer plates of real tank stairway
surface is given by: (PL6
210) and beam height is equal to real stairway tread length.
Since very thin web is considered for the beam, stiffness of the
 A.R. Shokrzadeh, M.R. Sohrabi / Thin-Walled Structures 106 (2016) 437–447 443

λ s −λc
Fig. 12. Relative difference of buckling loads ( c ×100%) : (a) TK-2047 under
λc
various wind directions, and (b) TK-a, TK-b and TK-c under various wind directions.

stairway details are used in these three tanks.

In the rest of the paper, the superscript (s) or (o) shows that the
constructed finite element model is “with stairway” tank model or
“open-topped” one, respectively.

3.1. Tanks under vacuum pressure

Table 3 and Fig. 7 show the eigenvalues and the relative dif-
ference of the first ten eigenvalues of the tanks with and without
stairway. Based on the results, generally, the critical buckling loads
obtained from eigenvalue analysis of tanks without stairway are
slightly lower than those obtained from eigenvalue analysis of
tanks with stairway, as depicted in Table 3. The relative difference
of the first ten eigenvalues of the tanks with and without stairway
varies from 0.017 to 1.8%. Moreover, the maximum difference be-
Fig. 11. Bifurcation analysis results of tanks: (a) critical loads for the lowest six tween the first eigenvalues is observed in the TK-b, which
eigenvalues of TK-2047s in different wind directions; (b) a comparative view of the corresponds to the tank with aspect ratio of 0.63.
TK-as, TK-bs and TK-cs buckling loads in different wind directions.
Fig. 8 shows the first buckling mode of tanks with stairway
under uniform pressure. Although in both cases (with, and with-
out stairway) the corresponding eigenvalues are the same (see
treads (made from galvanized grating with 32 mm thickness) is Fig. 7), the buckling modes attached to them are different. Tanks
ignored. In addition, handrail is not considered in the model without stairway show approximately the same buckling de-
(handrail stiffness is ignored). However, its weight along with formations all around the circumference of tank wall, whereas in
treads weight are taken into account by increasing density of beam tanks with stairway, the buckling waves are not formed in loca-
material. Since the stiffness of the beam stairway is smaller than tions around the stairway, as shown in Fig. 8. The deflected shape
the real one, the effect of the beam stairway on the buckling be- of tanks with spiral stairway resulting from the computations
havior (including buckling load, mode shapes etc.) can be defined (Fig. 8) is also consistent with the buckled shapes shown in Fig. 9.
as lower bound for the real stairway effect. As can be seen from Fig. 9, the buckling waves are not formed in
Furthermore, the finite element models of TK-a (H/D ¼ 0.4), TK- locations around the stairway, which confirms analytical results.
b (H/D ¼0.63) and TK-c (H/D ¼0.95) with and, without stairway Fig. 4(a) in Ref. [5] also shows a buckled tank in which the stairway
are examined (Models A, B and C of Ref. [19]) under vacuum and has locally strengthened the shell, thus causing a non-symmetric
wind pressures. The same slope angle (approximately 44°) and mode.
444 A.R. Shokrzadeh, M.R. Sohrabi / Thin-Walled Structures 106 (2016) 437–447

Fig. 13. First buckling mode of finite element models (a) TK-a; (b) TK-as-(10°); (c) TK-b; (d) TK-bs-(20°); (e) TK-c; (f) TK-cs-(35°).

λcos −λco
Fig. 14. Relative difference of buckling loads ( ×100%) for tanks with different aspect ratios.
λco

3.2. Tanks under wind pressure measured with respect to the line connecting the center of the
stairway to the tank cylinder axis perpendicularly. The wind di-
To simulate effect of wind direction on tanks with spiral stair- rection angles used for analysis are shown in Fig. 10.
way, the direction of wind incidence is considered as a variable. Clearly, the spiral stairway gives a positive reinforcement to the
For this purpose, wind directions characterized by angles ranging tank wall (see Fig. 11). The λ c=3. 05, 2. 87, 4. 00and3. 86 kPa are
between 0° and 360° are investigated. Wind direction angle (α) is the smallest eigenvalues of TK-2047, TK-a, TK-b and TK-c
 A.R. Shokrzadeh, M.R. Sohrabi / Thin-Walled Structures 106 (2016) 437–447 445

deformations is not changed drastically due to stairway existence.

The mode deflections are restricted to the windward region, and
the rest of the tank remains unaffected at bifurcation buckling.
However, because of the stiffening effect of circumferential stair-
way on the tank wall, the number of buckling waves increases by
stairway installation.
As it is mentioned before, the spiral stairway has its greatest
strengthening effect on TK-as, TK-bs, and TK-cs when the wind
angle is 10°, 20° and 35°, respectively. In this paper, we call these
angles “angles of peak capacity”. For the taller tanks the buckling
deformations are formed in the upper part of the tank wall (see
Fig. 13). On the other hand, by increasing H/D ratio, the stairway is
attached to the upper part of the tank wall in larger angles.
Therefore, by increasing the aspect ratio (H/D) of tank, angle of
peak capacity is increased.

4. Influence of spiral stairway on buckling behavior of the

open-top tanks

Three tanks open at the top were investigated in order to

compare the strengthening effect of the spiral stairway on the tank
with a conical roof previously studied. The same diameters, cy-
linder heights, shell thicknesses, and external wind pressures were
assumed for the models. From the results, the buckling resistance
of TK-ao, TK-bo, and TK-co (open-top cases) increases up to 12%,
42.4% and 73.2%, respectively, when spiral stairway is installed on
them. Therefore, the effect of stairway on buckling resistance in-
creases from TK-ao to TK-co, whose aspect ratio increases.
Contrary to the case of shorter tank (TK-ao), the effects of
stairway on buckling behavior of TK-bo and TK-co are much higher
than those obtained from the analysis of TK-b and TK-c. (see
Fig. 15). As can be seen in the Figs. 14 and 15, similar to the conical
roof cases, in the open-top tanks equipped with spiral stairway the
greatest strengthening effect is seen when the wind angle is 10°,
20° and 35° for TK-aos, TK-bos and TK-cos, respectively. In other
words, angles of peak capacity for both open-top and conical roof
tanks (with, same aspect ratios) are equal. Perhaps this similarity
confirms our previous hypothesis about the relation between
tanks aspect ratio and angle of peak capacity (see Section 3.2).
λcs −λc
Fig. 15. Comparison of buckling load relative differences ( ×100%) for: (a) TK-a The buckling deformation of each tank under wind pressure at
λc
and TK-ao; (b) TK-b and TK-bo and (c) TK-c and TK-co.
the angles of peak capacity is shown in Fig. 16. The spiral stairway
acts as an oblique stiffener and it can prevent the spread of
buckling deformations from top to bottom part of the tank wall
respectively, while λ c=3. 55, 3. 00, 4. 10and4. 71 kPa are computed (see Fig. 16(d) and (f)).
for TK-2047s-(10°), TK-as-(10°), TK-bs-(20°), and TK-cs-(35°),
respectively.
Fig. 11 represents the critical loads for TK-2047s, TK-as, TK-bs, and 5. Conclusions
TK-cs, in different wind directions. Moreover, the effect of cir-
cumferential stairway on critical load of the tanks ( (λcs −λ c ) /λ c ) for A numerical study was carried out to investigate strengthening
different wind directions is shown in Fig. 12. It can be seen that the effect of spiral stairway on the buckling behavior of anchored steel
buckling resistance of TK-2047, TK-a, TK-b, and TK-c (λ c ) increases up cylindrical tanks subjected to external pressures (wind and va-
to 16.1%, 13.5%, 21.3% and 22%, respectively, when spiral stairway is cuum pressures). Comparative evaluations of results, lead to the
installed on them. Therefore, the effect of stairway on buckling re- following conclusions:
sistance increases from TK-a to TK-c, whose aspect ratio increases
while their diameter is unchanged. Since the same slope angle is 1. Under wind pressure, the spiral stairway improves the buckling
used for stairway of TK-as, TK-bs and TK-cs, as the aspect ratio of the strength of tank wall significantly. It seems that the spiral
tanks increases the greater arc length of the tank cylinder is covered stairway acts as an oblique stiffener on the tank wall.
by the spiral stairway and larger portion of the cylindrical part of the 2. The strengthening effect of circumferential stairway on the
tank is strengthened by the spiral stairway. As can be seen from buckling resistance of tanks under wind pressure increases as
Figs. 11 and 12, for TK-as, TK-bs, and TK-cs the spiral stairway can the aspect ratio increases.
improve buckling resistance when the wind angle changes from 3. The influence of stairway on buckling behavior of open-top
30° to 50°,  35° to 65° and  25° to 80°, respectively. tanks can be much higher than those obtained from the analysis
Buckling modes of TK-a, TK-b, TK-c, TK-as-(10°), TK-bs-(20°), of conical roof tanks.
and TK-cs-(35°) are shown in Fig. 13. Unlike the tanks under va- 4. When the angle between wind direction and the line connect-
cuum pressure, for those under wind pressure, location of buckling ing the center of stairway to the tank cylinder axis
446 A.R. Shokrzadeh, M.R. Sohrabi / Thin-Walled Structures 106 (2016) 437–447

Fig. 16. First buckling mode of finite element models (a) TK-ao; (b) TK-aos-(10°); (c) TK-bo; (d) TK-bos-(20°); (e) TK-co; (f) TK-cos-(35°).

perpendicularly is 15° to 25° for TK-as,  15° to 40° for TK-bs under uniform external pressure and it can cause a dramatic
and  5° to 60° for TK-cs, the buckling resistance of the conical decline of buckling deformation in locations around the
roof tanks increases 4%–13.5%, 3%–21.3% and 3%–22%, respec- stairway.
tively. These values change to 4%–12%, 12%–42% and 20%–73% for 8. Since the stiffness of the beam stairway (constructed by beam
TK-aos, TK-bos and TK-cos (open-top tanks), respectively. There- elements in numerical model) is smaller than that of real one,
fore, as the aspect ratio of the tanks increases, the stairway can the effect of the model stairway on the buckling behavior (in-
strengthen larger portion of the tank wall. In addition, by cluding buckling load, mode shapes etc.) can be defined as a
choosing appropriate circumferential position for spiral stair- lower bound for real stairway effect. Therefore, this kind of
way considering regional prevailing wind direction, designers simplification in spiral stairway modeling can be used in prac-
can use this added strength as a safety margin. tical design of steel cylindrical tanks.
5. Since the fatigue failure happens as a result of repetition of
maximum stress experienced by the specimen, by choosing
appropriate circumferential position for spiral stairway con-
References
sidering regional prevailing wind direction, number of experi-
enced maximum stress can be decreased considerably. There-
[1] P. Pavlovic, R. Folic, V. Radonjanim, M. Tatomirovic, The testing and repair of
fore, spiral stairway can improve fatigue life. steel silo, Constr. Build. Mater. 11 (5) (1997) 353–363.
6. Based on the results, the strengthening effect of the circumfer- [2] F.G. Flores, L.A. Godoy, Buckling of short tanks due to hurricanes, Eng. Struct.
ential stairway is significant and should be considered in future 20 (8) (1998) 752–760.
[3] R.C. Jaca, L.A. Godoy, Wind buckling of metal tanks during their construction,
editions of design codes.
Thin-Walled Struct. 48 (6) (2010) 453–459.
7. Contrary to the case of wind loading, the stairway has negligible [4] A. Zingoni, Liquid-containment shells of revolution: a review of recent studies
effect on buckling resistance of tanks under vacuum pressure. on strength, stability and dynamics, Thin-Walled Struct. 87 (2015) 102–114.
However, it changes the buckling modes of tanks significantly [5] L.A. Godoy, Buckling of vertical oil storage steel tanks: review of static buck-
ling studies, Thin-Walled Struct. 103 (2016) 1–21.
 A.R. Shokrzadeh, M.R. Sohrabi / Thin-Walled Structures 106 (2016) 437–447 447

[6] Y. Zhao, Y. Lin, Buckling of cylindrical open-topped steel tanks under wind walled cylindrical tanks under wind load, Thin-Walled Struct. 31 (1998)
load, Thin-Walled Struct. 79 (2014) 83–94. 203–220.
[7] G. Portela, L.A. Godoy, Wind pressures and buckling of cylindrical steel tanks [16] L. Chen, J.M. Rotter, Buckling of anchored cylindrical shells of uniform thick-
with conical roof, J. Constr. Steel Res. 61 (6) (2005) 786–807. ness under wind load, Eng. Struct. 41 (2012) 199–208.
[8] G. Portela, L.A. Godoy, Wind pressures and buckling of cylindrical steel tanks [17] F. Bu, C. Qian, A rational design approach of intermediate wind girders on large
with dome roof, J. Constr. Steel Res. 61 (6) (2005) 808–824. storage tanks, Thin-Walled Struct. 92 (2015) 76–81.
[9] C. De Paor, D. Kelliher, K. Cronin, W.M.D. Wright, S.G. McSweeney, Prediction [18] C.A. Burgos, J.C. Batista-Abreu, H.D. Calabro´, R.C. Jaca, L.A. Godoy, Buckling
of vacuum-induced buckling pressures of thin-walled cylinders, Thin-Walled estimates for oil storage tanks: Effect of simplified modeling of the roof and
Struct. 55 (2012) 1–10. wind girder, Thin-Walled Struct. 91 (2015) 29–37.
[10] Y. Lin, Y. Zhao, Wind loads on fixed-roof cylindrical tanks with very low aspect [19] J.C. Virella, L.A. Godoy, L.E. Suarez, Fundamental modes of tank-liquid systems
ratio, Wind Struct. 18 (6) (2014) 651–668. under horizontal motions, Eng. Struct. 28 (2006) 1450–1461.
[11] L. Chen, J.M. Rotter, C. Doerich-Stavridis, Practical calculations for uniform [20] C. Maraveas, G.A. Balokas, K.D. Tsavdaridis, Numerical evaluation on shell
external pressure buckling in cylindrical shells with stepped walls, Thin- buckling of empty thin-walled steel tanks under wind load according to
Walled Struct. 61 (2012) 162–168. current American and European design codes, Thin-Walled Struct. 95 (2015)
[12] F.G. Flores, L.A. Godoy, Buckling of short tanks due to hurricanes, Eng. Struct. 152–160.
20 (8) (1998) 752–760. [21] ABAQUS v6.9. Simulia. Unified FEA. Dassault Systems. Warwick, Rhode Island,
[13] L.A. Godoy, Performance of storage tanks in oil facilities following hurricanes USA, 2009.
Katrina and Rita, ASCE J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 21 (6) (2007) 441–449. [22] AS/NZS. Structural design actions, Part 2 – Wind Actions, Australian/New
[14] M.A. Al-Kashif, H. Ramadan, A. Rashed, M.A. Haroun, Effect of FRP composites Zealand Standards 1170.2:2011, Sydney, 2011.
on buckling capacity of anchored steel tanks, Steel Comp. Struct. 10 (4) (2010) [23] C. De Paor, The Effect of Random Geometric Imperfections on the Buckling of
361–371. Thin Cylindrical Shells Due to External Pressure (Ph.D. thesis), National Uni-
[15] H. Schmidt, B. Binder, H. Lange, Postbuckling strength design of open thin versity of Ireland, Cork, Ireland, 2012.