ARTICLE IN PRESS

Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 750759

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Simplied procedure for design of liquid-storage combined conical tanks

Amr M.I. Sweedan a,, Ashraf A. El Damatty b
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, United Arab Emirates University, P.O. Box 17555, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B9

a r t i c l e in f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Steel vessels in the form of combined conical-cylindrical shells are commonly used for liquid storage in
Received 25 May 2008 elevated water tanks. A number of such tanks collapsed in different places around the globe due to
Accepted 14 December 2008 instability of the steel shells. An essential cause of those collapses is the lack of adequate design
Available online 11 February 2009
procedures for such structures. In this study, a simplied design approach is developed to ensure safety
Keywords: of hydrostatically loaded combined steel conical tanks against buckling. The study is conducted
Combined tanks numerically using a non-linear nite element model that accounts for the effects of large deformations
Conical tanks and geometric imperfections on the stability of combined conical tanks. The nite element results
Buckling together with a non-linear regression analysis are used to develop magnication functions that relate
Stability
the overall shell stresses to the membrane stresses which can be evaluated analytically. Numerical
Finite element
examples are presented to explain application of the suggested design approach.
Steel
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the conical segment is replaced by a cylindrical part. The main

Conical shells are extensively used in the construction of
containment vessels of elevated water tanks. The vessels of such
tanks often consist of a truncated cone with superimposed top
cylindrical cap. Due to the combined conicalcylindrical geometry
of the vessel, this conguration is referred to as combined conical
tanks. In case the containment vessel consists only of a pure
conical shell with no upper cylindrical segment, this conguration
is referred to as pure conical tanks. As a result of the inclination
of the walls of the conical segment, hydrostatic pressure
associated with the contained uid lead to compressive meridio-
nal stresses having maximum values at the bottom region of the
vessels. Those stresses can lead to a state of structural instability
due to buckling of the highly stressed part of the vessel. The
concern about safety of combined conical tanks was raised after
the catastrophic collapse of the 1000-tons combined conical steel
tank located in Fredericton, Canada in December 1990. Investiga-
tions revealed that failure is attributed to instability of the steel
vessel due to insufcient shell thickness [1,2].
The design of liquid-storage structures in North America is
usually based on the specications provided by either the
American Water Works Association (AWWA D100) [3] or the
American Petroleum Institute (API 650) [4]. However, both
specications do not provide direct guidelines for the design of
hydrostatically loaded conical or combined tanks. Current speci-
cations adopt an equivalent cylindrical tank approach in which
 Corresponding author. Tel.: +971 50 2338970; fax: +971 3 7623154.
E-mail address: amr.sweedan@uaeu.ac.ae (A.M.I. Sweedan).
drawback of this approximation is that it does not simulate the
state of stresses induced in the inclined walls of the conical
segment. On the other hand, the European recommendations
related to shell buckling, published by the Convention for
Constructional Steel Work [5], have adopted a more rational
approach that incorporates design equations based on the
outcomes of the experimental studies conducted by Vandepitte
et al. [6]. This experimental program focused on assessing the
buckling strength of imperfect conical tank models. As a result of
the different methods of construction of the scaled models
compared to that of full-scale tanks, the experimental results
might lead to buckling strength values that are different than the
full-scale cases. This is attributed to the difference in the
geometrical imperfection patterns associated with the construc-
tion of tested models to those induced in full-scale tanks.
Geometric imperfections have a signicant impact on the stability
of thin shell structures. El Damatty et al. [7,8] have shown that an
imperfection pattern having an axisymmetric distribution along
the tank perimeter and varying along the shell generator as a sine
wave results in the lowest limit load for hydrostatically loaded
conical shells. The assumed sine wave is assigned a wavelength
equal to the buckling wavelength of its perfect counterpart [6]. El
Damatty et al. [9] developed a simple design procedure for
hydrostatically loaded conical steel vessels. The procedure is
based on a linear regression analysis of the buckling strength
values determined numerically using nite element analysis. The
suggested procedure is limited to pure steel conical tanks having
wall-inclination angle of 451 and yield strength of 300 MPa. In the
current study, the aforementioned design procedure is extended
to include combined conical tanks taking into account the

0263-8231/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2008.12.005
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

A.M.I. Sweedan, A.A. El Damatty / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 750759 751

variation of both the angle of inclination of the conical part of the
vessel as well as the yield strength of steel. The study is carried
out numerically using the non-linear consistent shell element that
was developed by El Damatty et al. [7] and validated by El
Damatty et al. [7,8] using the experimental results of Vandepitte
et al. [6]. An extensive parametric study is conducted to assess the
buckling capacity of wide spectrum of geometric parameters of
combined tanks that cover the range of practical dimensions.
Results of the parametric study are employed to develop
magnication functions that relate the maximum overall stresses
induced in the vessels to the membrane stresses that can be
evaluated using closed form equations. The maximum overall
stresses take into account the effect of bending stresses associated
with the support conditions, the geometric imperfections and
large deformations. Those magnication functions are the basis of
the proposed design approach which is illustrated through a
number of numerical examples.
2. Identication of the problem
2.1. Description of model geometry
The geometry and coordinate system of a typical vessel of
combined conical tank is presented in Fig. 1. In this gure, Rb is
the radius at the base of the tank, ts is the shell thickness, hcone is
the height of the frustum of cone segment, hcap is the height of the
upper cylindrical cap and hT is the overall height of the tank. The
angle between the tank generator and the vertical direction (the
Z-axis) is denoted as yv. Meanwhile, the position of any meridional
plane with respect to the X-axis is determined by the circumfer-
ential angle y.
2.2. Stresses affecting the stability of combined tanks
For a combined conical vessel lled with a uid of a specic
weight, g, the developed hydrostatic pressure results in two stress
components to be induced in the shell, namely; compressive axial
stresses along the meridional direction of the conical segment
(sm) and tensile hoop stresses (sh) that develop both in the
cylindrical and conical parts as shown in Fig. 1. The compressive
membrane stresses result from the weight of the uid contained
in the toroidal volume of the shaded section enclosed by the
imaginary cylinder ab, a0 b0 and the walls of the vessel. At the
bottom of the vessel, this weight reaches its maximum value and,
meanwhile, the radius of the shell cross section reduces resulting
in high compressive stresses in this region, which can lead to a
state of instability. Let (sth th
m ) and (sh ) denote the theoretical
membrane meridional and hoop stresses resulting from the
hydrostatic weight of the contained uid, respectively. From static
equilibrium, those stresses can be evaluated in accordance with
the following equations:
  
ghcone tan yv 1
sth
m R b h cone 2h cap h cone tan y v hcone h cap
2Rb t s cos yv 3
(1)
ghT Rb
sth
h (2)
t s cos yv
Those membrane stresses will be magnied due to the localized
bending effect resulting from the support conditions and the
geometric imperfections. Such a magnication in the total stresses
relative to the membrane stresses will be evaluated in this study
using nite element analysis.

3. Numerical model
Z
In the conducted nite element analysis, walls of the tanks are
modeled using the 13-node consistent subparametric shell
element developed by Koziey and Mirza [10] for linear analysis.
a a
ts This element uses cubic interpolation functions for the mid-
surface displacements, while the through thickness rotational
hcap p Rcap p
degrees of freedom are interpolated using quadratic functions.
Such a consistency between the displacement and rotational
elds makes this element free from the spurious shear modes
p
p observed in isoparametric shell elements that result in locking
hT
behaviour when used to model thin shells. The geometry of the
hcone Rcone
element is dened using quadratic interpolation functions, and
therefore the element is classied as being subparametric. The
V element formulation has been extended by El Dammaty et al. [11]
b b to incorporate the material and geometric non-linear effects. The
X, r
material non-linear model for the steel used in this study is
bilinear strain-hardening plasticity model based on the Von Mises
m m
Yield Criterion and its associated ow rule. The effect of initial
Rb
imperfections is incorporated into the model as initial strains
included in the non-linear stiffness matrix.
Y
El Damatty et al. [7,8] have shown that the minimum buckling
load capacity of conical tanks is associated with an axisymmetric
r imperfection pattern having a wavelength matching the rst
h buckling mode of the perfect structure. As such, the imperfection
shape assumed in the current study w is expressed using the
p
following equation:
X  
2ps
p w wo sin (3)
Lb
h where w is the imperfection perpendicular to the tank walls, wo is
the imperfection amplitude, s is the distance measured along the
Fig. 1. Geometry and hydrostatic stress components of combined tanks. tank generator and Lb is the buckling wavelength. The ndings of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

752 A.M.I. Sweedan, A.A. El Damatty / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 750759

Table 1 the shell. The following steps are conducted in order to develop a
Range of variation of geometric parameters for numerical analysis. simplied design procedure for combined conical tanks:
Parameter Lower limit Upper limit Increment
1. A combined conical tank dened by its geometric parameters:
Rb (m) 3.0 8.0 0.5 Rb, hT, hcap, ts and yv is selected. A critical imperfection pattern
hT (m) 3.0 10.0 1.0 is assumed for the tank geometry. The tank is modeled
CPr (%) 0.0 45 15 numerically while it is assumed to be lled with water. The
ts (mm) 10 20 2
yv (deg.) 30 60 15
hydrostatic pressure inside the tank is magnied by the load
factor p.
2. An incremental non-linear analysis is conducted by gradually
the extensive experimental investigation by Vandepitte et al. [6] increasing the load factor p until reaching a maximum value of
have led to the following expression for the buckling wavelength 1.4 that corresponds to the load factor typically applied to dead
Lb: loads [12]. The maximum value of the yield function sl
s occurring at all points within the shell at p 1.4 is evaluated.
Rb t s This value of sl accounts for the effects of both the membrane
Lb 3:6 (4)
cosyv stresses and the bending stresses associated with the end
support conditions, geometric imperfections and large defor-
The Tank walls are assumed to be simply supported at the base mations.
by restraining the displacement degrees of freedom at the base 3. A corresponding value of the theoretical yield function slth,
level while allowing for rotations. The welding between the tank representing the maximum effective membrane stresses, is
walls and the circular base plate is expected to provide partial calculated based on the Von Mises yield criterion as [13]
rotational restraint. Thus, this assumption is conservative as it r
leads to lower predictions of the buckling loads. The top edge of 3
th
sl s 1 2 s 2 2 s 3 2  (6)
the tanks is assumed to be unrestrained laterally. The validity of 2
adopting this simplication for pure conical tanks has been in which,
conrmed by El Damatty et al. [7], where it has been shown that
the lateral displacement at the top edge is almost zero. This sth th
m  sh
s 1 sth
m  (7)
implies that the inclusion of the ring beam has insignicant 3
inuence on the stiffness of the model. The nite element
discretization includes only one quarter of the tank. This is
sth th
m  sh
attributed to the symmetry in the structural geometry, loading s 2 sth
h  (8)
3
and response. A total of 128 shell elements constitute the nite
element mesh. A ner mesh is used near the base of the tank
where high compressive stresses are anticipated. In generating the sth th
m  sh
nite element mesh, the height of the lowermost four elements is s 3  (9)
3
constrained to be equal to one quarter of the wavelength th
associated with the rst buckling mode Lb as dened by where sl represents the value of the yield function based on
the theoretical membrane stresses (sth th
m and sh ) only. As such,
Vandepitte et al. [6]. This condition is imposed to ensure the
detection of the lowest potential buckling mode localized near the the calculated slth does not account for the effect of the
bending stresses.
base of the tank. The non-linear analysis is conducted incremen-
tally by multiplying the hydrostatic pressure by a factor p that is 4. A magnication function, b, is calculated based on the actual
value of the yield function, sl, and the theoretical value, slth as
gradually increased until the structure either yields or reaches a
state of overall instability. Table 1 summarizes the geometric follows:
parameters of liquid-lled tanks analyzed in the current study. All sl
b (10)
tanks are assumed to have a modulus of Elasticity E 2  105 MPa sth
l
and Poissons ratio n 0.3. Two levels of initial geometric
5. Steps (1)(4) are repeated for various tank dimensions and
imperfections are considered following the classication provided
different values of the yield strength of steel.
by Vandepitte et al. [6] for good and poor shells. In the current
6. A non-linear multiple regression analysis of the nite element
study, the imperfection amplitude (wo) is assigned two values of
results is conducted to assess the variation of the magnication
(0.004 Lb) and (0.01 Lb) which correspond to good shells and poor
function b with the dimensions of combined conical tanks for
shells, respectively [6].
various values of the yield strength of steel.

4. Design philosophy 5. Magnication function

Inelastic analyses of liquid-lled combined conical tanks
conducted in this study reveal that local yielding usually precedes
buckling. The same nding was observed by El Damatty et al. [7]
for pure conical tanks. As such a conservative design approach can
be established by preventing yield from occurring at any point
within the tanks surface. Yielding occurs at a certain point when
the state of stresses satises the following equation:
sl  sy X0
where sy is the yield strength of the steel and sl is the yield
function that represents the maximum overall stresses induced in
A series of non-linear stability analyses is carried out to
determine the buckling capacity of a total of 12,672 liquid-lled
tanks having two levels of geometric imperfections that corre-
spond to good and poor shells. Figs. 2ad show the typical
buckling modes for tanks having cap ratios of 0%, 15%, 30% and
45%, respectively. These plots conrm the validity of the
assumption of not restraining the top edge of the tanks as no
signicant lateral displacement can be observed at the top rim.
(5)
This observation is, however, more evident in combined tanks
(Figs. 2bd) than in pure conical tanks (Fig. 2a). This is attributed
to the additional lateral stiffness of combined tanks provided by
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

A.M.I. Sweedan, A.A. El Damatty / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 750759 753

11 11
10 Original Generator 10 Original Generator
9 Buckled Generator 9 Buckled Generator
8 8
7 7

Height (m)
Height (m)

6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 Lb 2 Lb
1 Location of maximum
1
0 0 Location of maximum
compressive stresses compressive stresses

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Radius (m) Radius (m)

11 11
10 Original Generator 10 Original Generator
9 9 Buckled Generator
Buckled Generator 8
8
7 7

Height (m)
Height (m)

6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 Lb 2 Lb
1 1
Location of maximum 0 Location of maximum
0
compressive stresses compressive stresses

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Radius (m) Radius (m)
Fig. 2. Buckling modes of conical and combined tanks. (a) CPr 0%, (b) CPr 15%, (c) CPr 30%, and (d) CPr 45%.

the upper cylindrical segment. Moreover, conducted analysis
shows that maximum compressive meridional stresses occur at
the circumferential level near the base where maximum deforma-
tions occur (refer to Figs. 2ad). It should be noted that the
maximum stresses occur at the innermost ber of the shell. At this
location, membrane compressive stresses are augmented by
compressive bending stresses which are affected by the support
conditions and the geometric imperfections. As such, poor tanks
with high level of initial imperfections are expected to experience
higher meridional stresses than good tanks.
Non-linear multiple regression analyses is carried out using
the nite element results to determine the variation of the stress
magnication function b, provided in Eq. (10), with the indepen-
dent geometric parameters (Rb, hT, hcap, ts and yv). The regression
analysis is conducted using the Econometric Views software
(EViews) [14] for three different yield stress values (sy 250, 300
and 350 MPa). Preliminary results of the regression analysis reveal
strong correlation between the magnication function, b, and the
cap ratio CPr. Therefore, different magnication functions are
derived for various cap ratios. Several regression models are
attempted to determine the one that best ts the results of the
nite element analysis. The following non-dimensional form is
found to provide accurate means for calculating the magnication
factor b for various cap ratio CPr, yield stress sy and geometric
imperfections
 b  d  f  g
R t R ts
ba b c s e b yv h
hT hT hT hT
where a, b, c, d, e, f, g and h are regression coefcients that depend
on the cap ratio CPr, the level of geometric imperfections (i.e.,
good or poor shell) and the yield stress sy of the shell material.
The mean values of the obtained regression coefcients are
summarized in Table 2ac for yield stress values of 250, 300 and
350 MPa, respectively. Tabulated coefcients indicate higher stress
magnication for poor shells than for good shells. This empha-
sizes the signicance of considering the impact of geometric
imperfections on the stability of liquid-storage tanks. Values of
the regression coefcients reveal that the stress magnication b is
directly proportional to the tank slenderness ratio (hT/Rb) which
shows that tall tanks are more vulnerable to buckling. Meanwhile,
the inverse proportion observed between b-values and the
thickness-to-height ratio (ts/hT) indicates the lower buckling
capacity of thin-walled tanks. It is also observed that higher
compressive stresses are induced in the walls of tanks with
steeper inclination angle yv. This is attributed to the increasing
weight of the uid contained in the toroidal volume of the shaded
area (Fig. 1), as well as to the development of higher through
thickness bending stresses in the walls of these tanks. A more
conservative design can be attained by using the regression
coefcients that correspond to the upper bound of the 95%
condence interval [8,15]. The upper 95% regression coefcients
are presented in Table 3ac, for yield stress sy values of 250, 300
and 350 MPa, respectively.
The accuracy of regression models can be assessed using
several statistical measures adopted by EViews [14] such as
 The coefcient of multiple determination (R2) measures the
success of the regression model in predicting the values of the
dependent variable within the sample using
(11)
SSE
R2 1  (12)
SST
where SSE is the sum of squared residuals from regression line
and SST is the sum of squared residuals from a horizontal line
passing through the mean value of the data. R2 has a possible
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

754 A.M.I. Sweedan, A.A. El Damatty / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 750759

Table 2
Mean values of regression coefcients.

Level of imperfection Cap ratio (CPr) (%) Mean value of regression coefcient

a b c d e f g h

(a) sy 250 MPa

Good shells 0 1.3737 0.1281 0.5199 1.4468 4.0353 0.1853 1.2604 3.7744
15 1.3994 0.1309 0.4971 1.6456 3.7186 0.2103 1.2479 3.7425
30 1.3874 0.1324 0.4253 1.5879 3.5000 0.2015 1.2512 3.7463
45 1.3640 0.1320 0.3491 1.5680 3.0878 0.1693 1.2408 3.7476

Poor shells 0 1.5316 0.2280 1.0213 1.4156 6.0260 0.0094 0.9545 3.5209
15 1.5523 0.2190 1.0006 1.5432 5.6011 0.0170 0.9422 3.5007
30 1.5099 0.2157 0.8712 1.4236 5.1581 0.0106 0.9251 3.4775
45 1.4571 0.2106 0.7349 1.3386 4.5153 0.0574 0.9098 3.5046

(b) sy 300 MPa

Good shells 0 1.4003 0.1252 0.5235 1.6221 4.9353 0.2325 1.4210 3.9860
15 1.4242 0.1293 0.5032 1.8295 4.6128 0.2589 1.4204 3.9936
30 1.4116 0.1310 0.4261 1.8200 4.2536 0.2455 1.4093 3.9455
45 1.3870 0.1326 0.3393 1.7355 3.7588 0.2226 1.4093 3.9975

Poor shells 0 1.5477 0.2222 1.0432 1.4616 6.7132 0.0326 1.0314 3.6333
15 1.5587 0.2158 1.0099 1.5437 6.1035 0.0411 1.0036 3.5881
30 1.5345 0.2128 0.8895 1.5246 5.6955 0.0156 0.9980 3.5889
45 1.4848 0.2090 0.7246 1.4561 5.0363 0.0219 0.9953 3.5862

(c) sy 350 MPa

Good shells 0 1.4269 0.1235 0.5281 1.7940 6.0760 0.2728 1.5913 4.2570
15 1.4433 0.1277 0.4982 2.0318 5.4473 0.2909 1.5554 4.1278
30 1.4376 0.1310 0.4248 2.0455 5.2392 0.2886 1.5878 4.2346
45 1.4082 0.1330 0.3300 1.9609 4.4655 0.2629 1.5615 4.2108

Poor shells 0 1.5711 0.2172 1.0703 1.5442 7.4099 0.0501 1.1022 3.7549
15 1.5900 0.2123 1.0192 1.6724 6.8602 0.0634 1.0910 3.7013
30 1.5634 0.2100 0.8773 1.6121 6.4559 0.0479 1.0974 3.7121
45 1.5147 0.2090 0.7166 1.5322 5.7202 0.0157 1.0982 3.7612

range 01, where 0 shows a complete lack of t of the
regression model to the data while, 1 indicates a perfect t to
the data points [16].
 The adjusted coefcient of multiple determination (R2) accounts
for the effect of the number of regressors (independent
variables) on the accuracy of the multiple regression model
and can be computed as
2 n1
R 1  1  R2
nk
where n is the number of data points and k is the number of
regressors excluding the constant term. A negative value of R2
implies a very poor regression model, whereas a value of 1
indicates a perfect t to the data points [16].
 The standard error of regression model (MSE) is a measure of the
variability in the regression model based on the estimated
variance of the residuals and is dened as
where Yi represents the dependent variables, Y i are the
predicted values of Yi and MSE is the standard error of the
regression model as provided in Eq. (14). For a good regression
model, most of the residuals should be in the range between
(2) and (+2) [15].
 Probability of the F-statistic is a tool to test the hypothesis that
the regression coefcients, excluding the constant term, are
zero and can be computed as
(13)
R2 =k  1
F (16)
1  R2 2 =n  k
The probability of the F-statistic represents the marginal
signicance level of the F-test. A probability value that is less
than the signicance level of the test indicates rejection of the
null hypothesis that the regression coefcients are equal to
zero [15].

SSE
MSE (14) The above listed statistical measures are utilized to verify the
n  k 1
adequacy of the proposed regression model. Obtained results are
where SSE is the sum of squared residuals from regression line, summarized in Table 4a, b and c for yield stress sy values of 250,
n is the number of data points and k+1 represents the number 300 and 350 MPa, respectively. From these tables, it can be
of regressors including the constant term [15,16]. observed that the values of the adjusted coefcient of multiple
 Standardized residuals (e*i) provides a measure of the normal- determination (R2) range between 0.96760 for a good pure conical
ized residual with respect to the variance of the residuals as shell with 350 MPa yield stress and 0.99120 for a poor combined
shell with CPr ratio of 45% and 250 MPa yield stress. Those values
Y i  Y^ i are very close to 1.0 indicating excellent t to the data points. This
i (15)
MSE conclusion is in agreement with the estimated values of the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

A.M.I. Sweedan, A.A. El Damatty / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 750759 755

Table 3
Upper 95% condence interval regression coefcients.

Level of imperfection Cap ratio (CPr) (%) Upper 95% condence value of regression coefcient

a b c d e f g h

(a) sy 250 MPa

Good shells 0 1.4697 0.1204 0.5186 1.4526 4.0369 0.1868 1.2608 3.7725
15 1.4885 0.1236 0.4962 1.6519 3.7199 0.2116 1.2483 3.7407
30 1.4746 0.1251 0.4243 1.5952 3.5019 0.2028 1.2517 3.7448
45 1.4451 0.1252 0.3482 1.5758 3.0898 0.1705 1.2413 3.7464

Poor shells 0 1.6439 0.2140 1.0190 1.4204 6.0254 0.0119 0.9547 3.5186
15 1.6560 0.2066 0.9990 1.5495 5.6018 0.0191 0.9425 3.4986
30 1.6113 0.2035 0.8692 1.4294 5.1593 0.0086 0.9254 3.4755
45 1.5494 0.1992 0.7331 1.3446 4.5182 0.0557 0.9104 3.5035

(b) sy 300 MPa

Good shells 0 1.5197 0.1162 0.5219 1.6306 4.9384 0.2342 1.4216 3.9837
15 1.5369 0.1206 0.5021 1.8384 4.6151 0.2605 1.4209 3.9915
30 1.5184 0.1225 0.4250 1.8306 4.2564 0.2469 1.4098 3.9435
45 1.4875 0.1243 0.3383 1.7467 3.7614 0.2239 1.4099 3.9960

Poor shells 0 1.6860 0.2059 1.0401 1.4680 6.7122 0.0353 1.0314 3.6301
15 1.6868 0.2011 1.0074 1.5514 6.1049 0.0435 1.0040 3.5854
30 1.6582 0.1986 0.8869 1.5334 5.6992 0.0178 0.9986 3.5867
45 1.5990 0.1955 0.7221 1.4647 5.0406 0.0199 0.9960 3.5848

(c) sy 350 MPa

Good shells 0 1.5683 0.1134 0.5262 1.8053 6.0803 0.2746 1.5919 4.2543
15 1.5750 0.1179 0.4969 2.0438 5.4505 0.2925 1.5559 4.1255
30 1.5643 0.1213 0.4237 2.0588 5.2421 0.2901 1.5882 4.2325
45 1.5262 0.1234 0.3289 1.9759 4.4686 0.2642 1.5621 4.2091

Poor shells 0 1.7331 0.1991 1.0664 1.5533 7.4125 0.0530 1.1026 3.7514
15 1.7397 0.1960 1.0163 1.6825 6.8637 0.0659 1.0915 3.6985
30 1.7101 0.1939 0.8740 1.6232 6.4603 0.0504 1.0980 3.7093
45 1.6556 0.1931 0.7132 1.5439 5.7265 0.0180 1.0991 3.7592

standard error of the proposed regression model (MSE) that do not
exceed 0.006257 for a poor conical shell with 350 MPa yield stress.
Meanwhile, a very low value of MSE 0.001607 is obtained for a
good combined shell with CPr ratio of 45% and 250 MPa yield
stress. The signicantly low estimates of the standard error
emphasize the low level of variability in the developed regression
model. Moreover, the zero-probability of the F-statistic empha-
sizes the adequacy of the proposed function as it conrms the
rejection of the hypothesis of having zero regression coefcients.
Standardized residuals of the developed regression functions are
also evaluated for all cases considered in the study. Plots of
evaluated standardized residuals show a typical trend of random
distribution about the 0-value with most of their absolute values
not exceeding 2. Samples of the obtained results are presented in
Figs. 3ad for good shells made of steel with sy 300 MPa and
having an inclination angle yv of 301 and cap ratio CPr of 0%, 15%,
30% and 45%, respectively. Similar illustrations are also provided
in Figs. 4ad for poor shells with an inclination angle yv of 301 and
cap ratio CPr of 0%, 15%, 30% and 45%, respectively. From these
gures, it can be noticed that most, if not all, of the absolute
values of the standardized residuals are in the optimum range 72.
This observation adds another validation to the proposed
magnication function as it indicates a good regression model
[15]. Figs. 5ad show the relation between the stress magnica-
tion function b and the overall height of different tanks with cap
ratio CPr of 0%, 15%, 30% and 45%, respectively. Results presented
in these gures are for a sample of tanks having various geometric
parameters. Presented in Figs. 5ad is also a comparison between
the values of the magnication function b obtained from nite
element analysis and those values predicted by the proposed
regression functions. The agreement between both sets of results
veries the reliability and adequacy of the developed design functions.
6. Illustrative numerical examples
In this section, numerical examples are presented to illustrate
the application of the proposed procedure for the design of
various water-lled combined conical tanks. Material and geome-
trical properties of analyzed tanks are summarized in Table 5.
Design of each tank is carried out twice considering two levels of
geometric imperfections that correspond to poor and good shells,
respectively. Detailed description of the procedure involved in the
design of the water-lled tank 2-P is outlined herein:
1. The tank is assumed to have a low level of geometrical
imperfections. Therefore, the shell constituting the tank walls
is classied as a good shell.
2. A shell thickness of ts 16 mm is assumed for the tank. Using
a load factor of 1.4, the specic weight of the contained water
is calculated as: g 1.4  9.81 1000 13,734 N/m3.
3. Knowing that Rb 3.5, hcone 4.25 m, hcap 0.75 m and
yv 601, substitute these values into Eqs. (1) and (2) to
determine the maximum membrane meridional stress
sth
m 65.13 MPa and the maximum membrane hoop stress
sth
h 30.04 MPa.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

756 A.M.I. Sweedan, A.A. El Damatty / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 750759

Table 4
Statistical parameters of the regression model.

Level of imperfection Cap ratio (CPr) (%) Number of included data points R2 MSE Probability of F-statistics

(a) sy 250 MPa

Good shells 0 1006 0.97586 0.002246 0.00
15 1029 0.97790 0.001943 0.00
30 1065 0.97867 0.001857 0.00
45 1131 0.98076 0.001607 0.00

Poor shells 0 830 0.98859 0.003006 0.00

15 855 0.98970 0.002564 0.00
30 894 0.98968 0.002453 0.00
45 966 0.99120 0.002024 0.00

(b) sy 300 MPa

Good shells 0 1077 0.97090 0.003483 0.00
15 1099 0.97266 0.003113 0.00
30 1135 0.97453 0.002793 0.00
45 1195 0.97678 0.002474 0.00

Poor shells 0 909 0.98564 0.004564 0.00

15 934 0.98694 0.003919 0.00
30 975 0.98758 0.003645 0.00
45 1041 0.98874 0.003104 0.00

(c) sy 350 MPa

Good shells 0 1133 0.96760 0.004894 0.00
15 1146 0.96888 0.004260 0.00
30 1180 0.97098 0.003941 0.00
45 1240 0.97420 0.003412 0.00

Poor shells 0 973 0.98347 0.006257 0.00

15 995 0.98493 0.005357 0.00
30 1037 0.98502 0.005141 0.00
45 1109 0.98604 0.004724 0.00

4
Standardized Residuals
Standardized Residuals

3 4
2 3
1 2
1
0
0
-1 -1
-2 -2
-3 -3
-4 -4
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
hT (m) hT (m)

4
Standardized Residuals

4 3
Standardized Residuals

3 2
2 1
1
0
0
-1 -1
-2 -2
-3 -3
-4 -4
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
hT (m) hT (m)

Fig. 3. Standardized residuals for stress magnication function b (good shell with yv 301 and sy 300 MPa). (a) CPr 0%, (b) CPr 15%, (c) CPr 30%, and (d) CPr 45%.

A.M.I. Sweedan, A.A. El Damatty / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 750759
4
Standardized Residuals
2
0 0
-2
-4
2 3 4 5 6 7
hT (m)
4 4
Standardized Residuals
2 2
0 0
-2
-4
2 3 4 5 6 7
hT (m)
Fig. 4. Standardized residuals for stress magnication function b (poor shell with yv 301 and sy 300 MPa). (a) CPr 0%, (b) CPr 15%, (c) CPr 30%, and (d) CPr 45%.
4. The above values of theoretical stresses are then substituted
into Eqs. (6)(9) to obtain the maximum effective membrane
stress slth 84.27 MPa.
5. Based on the grade of steel used in constructing tank 2-P, the
level of geometrical imperfections and CPr 15%, the follow-
ing mean regression coefcients are obtained from Table 2c:
a 1.5900, b 0.2123, c 1.0192, d 1.6724, e 6.8602,
f 0.0634, g 1.0910 and h 3.7013.
6. The stress magnication function that corresponds to the
regression coefcients listed above, along with the geome-
trical parameters of Tank 2-P, is evaluated using Eq. (11) as
b 4.133.
7. Based on the effective membrane stress calculated in step 4
and the magnication factor evaluated in step 6, Eq. (10) is
employed to calculate the maximum anticipated mean stress
value as: sl 4.133 84.27 348.29 MPa.
8. Since sl 348.29 MPa does not exceed the yield strength of
steel (sy 350 MPa), this conrms the adequacy of the
assumed shell thickness of 16 mm for which yielding is not
anticipated. In case sl exceeds sy, this indicates that yielding of
the shell is expected, and therefore a bigger shell thickness ts
should be assumed and re-checked by repeating steps (1)(8).
9. A more conservative design may be produced by replacing the
mean values of the regression coefcients (provided in step 5)
with the corresponding upper 95% coefcients presented in
Table 3c: a 1.7397, b 0.1960, c 1.0163, d 1.6825,
e 6.8637, f 0.0659, g 1.0915 and h 3.6985.
10. Eq. (11) is then used to evaluate the upper 95% magnication
factor b 4.177.
11. The corresponding maximum estimate of the effective
membrane stress is obtained as: sl 4.177  84.27 352
MPa4sy 350 MPa, which indicates that the assumed shell
thickness of 16 mm leads to unsatisfactory design of the shell.
As such, a bigger shell thickness ts should be selected and
checked.
The typical procedure outlined above has been repeated to
assess the mean and upper 95% maximum membrane stresses
ARTICLE IN PRESS
757
4
Standardized Residuals
2
-2
-4
8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
hT (m)
Standardized Residuals
-2
-4
8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
hT (m)
developed in the eight tanks presented in this example. Obtained
results, along with the corresponding nite element stresses, are
summarized in Table 6. An excellent agreement can be observed
between the nite element results and the mean stresses
predicted using the proposed regression model. The tabulated
results show that the predicted mean values may be slightly less
than the stresses obtained from the nite element (e.g., tanks 4-G
and 4-P). This is attributed to the fact that the majority of the
regression residuals uctuate between (2) and (+2) which
indicates the possibility of predicting higher or lower stresses
than the nite element values, respectively. Nonetheless, the use
of the upper 95% condence interval coefcients always provides
conservative estimates of the shell membrane stresses. This can
be conrmed by comparing the predicted upper 95% membrane
stresses to those resulting from the nite element analysis of all
tanks, specially, tanks 4-G and 4-P.
7. Summary and conclusions
The current study presents a simplied approach for the design
of hydrostatically loaded combined conical tanks. The proposed
design approach is based on providing a magnication function
that can be used to relate the maximum overall stresses
developed in the tank walls to the theoretical membrane stresses
resulting from static equilibrium of the shell under internal
hydrostatic pressure. The nite element method is employed to
perform non-linear stability analysis of a wide spectrum of
geometric dimensions and material properties of water-lled
combined conical tanks. Numerical analysis is also used to
determine the maximum overall stresses developed in the tank
walls taking into account the stresses magnication due to the
localized bending effect resulting from the support restraints and
geometric imperfections. An extensive non-linear multiple regres-
sion analysis of the nite element results is performed to
determine an adequate non-dimensional expression for the stress
magnication function. Several statistical measures are utilized to
validate the accuracy of the proposed regression model. All
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

758 A.M.I. Sweedan, A.A. El Damatty / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 750759

Good Shell - FEM Good Shell - Regression Good Shell - FEM Good Shell - Regression
Poor Shell - FEM Poor Shell - Regression Poor Shell - FEM Poor Shell - Regression
3.5 3.5
Rb= 8m, ts = 20mm, v = 60 Rb = 4m, ts= 10mm, v = 30o
Rb = 8m, ts = 20mm, v = 60o Rb = 4m, ts = 10mm, v = 30
3.0 3.0
Magnification Factor ()

Magnification Factor ()
Rb = 6m, ts = 14mm, v= 45o Rb = 6m, ts = 14mm, v = 45
Rb = 6m, ts = 14mm, v = 45 Rb = 6m, ts = 14mm, v = 45
2.5 2.5
Rb = 4m, ts = 10mm, v = 30
2.0 2.0
Rb = 4m, ts = 10mm, v = 30 Rb = 8m, ts = 20mm,
Rb = 8m, ts = 20mm, v = 60
1.5 v= 60 1.5

1.0 1.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
hT (m) hT (m)

Good Shell - FEM Good Shell - Regression Good Shell - FEM Good Shell - Regression
Poor Shell - FEM Poor Shell - Regression Poor Shell - FEM Poor Shell - Regression
3.5 3.5
Rb = 4m, ts = 10mm, v = 30
Rb = 8m, ts = 20mm, v = 60 Rb = 8m, ts = 20mm, v = 60
3.0 Rb = 6m, ts = 14mm, v = 45o
3.0 Rb = 4m, ts = 10mm, v = 30
Magnification Factor ()

Magnification Factor ()

Rb = 6m, ts = 14mm, v = 45

2.5 2.5 Rb = 6m, ts = 14mm, v = 45

Rb = 6m, ts = 14mm, v = 45

2.0 2.0
Rb = 4m, ts = 10mm, v = 30 Rb = 4m, ts = 10mm, v = 30o
Rb = 8m, ts = 20mm,
b = 60 Rb = 8m, ts = 20mm,
1.5 1.5 v= 60

1.0 1.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
hT (m) hT (m)

Fig. 5. Numerical and predicted values of stress magnication function (b). (a) CPr 0% and sy 300 MPa, (b) CPr 15% and sy 300 MPa, (c) CPr 30% and
sy 300 MPa, and (d) CPr 45% and sy 300 MPa.

Table 5
Material and geometric parameters of illustrative examples.

Tank designation Imperfection level sy (MPa) yv (deg.) Rb (m) CPr (%) hT (m) hcap (m) hcone (m) ts (mm)

1-G Good shell 250 30 3.5 0 8.0 0.0 8.0 10

1-P Poor shell 250 30 3.5 0 8.0 0.0 8.0 10
2-G Good shell 350 60 3.5 15 5.0 0.75 4.25 16
2-P Poor shell 350 60 3.5 15 5.0 0.75 4.25 16
3-G Good shell 300 45 4.5 30 9.0 2.7 6.3 20
3-P Poor shell 300 45 4.5 30 9.0 2.7 6.3 20
4-G Good shell 350 30 8.0 45 10.0 4.5 5.5 12
4-P Poor shell 350 30 8.0 45 10.0 4.5 5.5 12

Table 6
Summary of results of illustrative examples.

Tank designation FE results Theoretical stresses Mean regression analysis Upper 95% interval regression

smax (MPa) sth

m (MPa) sth
h (MPa) slth (MPa) b sl (MPa) b sl (MPa)

1-G 156.48 42.19 44.40 75.00 2.131 159.83 2.185 163.88

1-P 228.69 42.19 44.40 75.00 3.089 231.68 3.160 237.00
2-G 206.62 65.13 30.04 84.27 2.530 213.20 2.583 217.67
2-P 339.53 65.13 30.04 84.27 4.133 348.29 4.177 352.00
3-G 175.17 56.35 39.33 83.30 2.094 174.43 2.209 184.00
3-P 259.47 56.35 39.33 83.30 3.109 258.98 3.237 269.64
4-G 248.50 35.70 105.72 127.38 1.889 240.62 2.068 263.42
4-P 333.75 35.70 105.72 127.38 2.538 323.29 2.758 351.31
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.M.I. Sweedan, A.A. El Damatty / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 750759
statistical measures indicate that the proposed function provides
adequate and conservative estimations of the maximum overall
stresses induced in the walls of combined conical tanks.
The proposed function takes into account the wide range of
variation in material and geometrical parameters of combined
tanks including several yield stress of steel, various cap-to-cone
ratios, inclination angles of the conical segment, overall height,
base radius and thickness of the shell constituting the tank walls.
Numerical examples are provided to illustrate the application of
the proposed procedure to several tanks with various material and
geometrical parameters. The excellent agreement between overall
stresses resulting from nite element analysis and the predicted
values validates the accuracy of the proposed stress magnication
function.
Acknowledgment
This study was funded through the Research Grant #01-01-7-
11/08 from the Scientic Research Council of the United Arab
Emirates University.
References
[1] Korol RM. An assessment of Frederictons regent steel tower reservoir failure.
Tech Rep, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, 1991.
759
[2] Dawe JL, Seah CK, Abdel-Zaher AK. Collapse of a water tower. In: Proceedings
of the CSCE Conference, Fredericton, NB, 1993. p. 31534.
[3] AWWA Standards for Welded Steel Tanks for Water Storage. ANSI/AWWA-
D100-05, American Water Works Association, Denver, Colorado, 2005.
[4] API Standard 650. Welded steel tanks for oil storage. 10th ed. Washington, DC:
American Petroleum Institute; 1998.
[5] Buckling of steel shells. 4th ed. In: Proceedings of the European convention
for constructional steel work, 1988.
[6] Vandepitte D, Rathe J, Verhegghe B, Paridaens R, Verschaeve C. Experimental
investigation of hydrostatically loaded conical shells and practical evaluation
of buckling load. In: Ramm E, editor. Buckling of shells. Berlin: Springer; 1982.
p. 37599.
[7] El Damatty AA, Korol M, Mirza FA. Stability of imperfect steel conical tanks
under hydrostatic loading. ASCE 1997;123(ST6):70312.
[8] El Damatty AA, El-Attar M, Korol M. Inelastic stability of conical tanks. Thin-
Walled Struct 1998;31:34359.
[9] El Damatty AA, El-Attar M, Korol M. Simple design procedure for liquid-lled
steel conical tanks. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1999;125(8):87990.
[10] Koziey B, Mirza FA. Consistent thick shell element. Comp Struct
1997;65:53141.
[11] El Damatty AA, Korol M, Mirza FA. Large displacement extension of consistent
shell element for static and dynamic analysis. Comp Struct 1997;62(6):
94360.
[12] Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-05,
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2005, Reston, Virginia, USA.
[13] Ventsel E, Krauthammer T. Thin plates and shells: theory, analysis and
applications. New York, NY, USA: Marcel Dekker Inc.; 2001.
[14] Econometric Views. Quantitative micro software, version 4.1. CA, USA: Irvine;
2004.
[15] Devore JL. Probability and statistics for engineering and the sciences. 5th ed.
CA, USA: Duxbury Press; 2000.
[16] Anderson TW, Finn JD. The new statistical analysis of data. New York, USA:
Springer; 1996.