Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Wind pressures and buckling of cylindrical steel

tanks with a conical roof
G. Portelaa, L.A. Godoyb,
a Department of General Engineering, University of Puerto Rico, Mayagez 00681-9044, Puerto Rico
b Civil Infrastructure Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering and Surveying, University of

Puerto Rico, Mayagez 00681-9041, Puerto Rico

Received 5 July 2004; accepted 19 November 2004

Abstract
Tanks with a conical roof are studied in this paper under wind load, for a roof which is supported
by rafters and columns. Buckling occurs in the form of deflections in the cylindrical shell and the
buckling mode is localized in the windward region. Both bifurcation analysis and geometrically
nonlinear analysis have been performed using finite element discretizations of the structure. The
wind pressures have been obtained from wind tunnel experiments performed as part of the research,
and have been obtained for tank geometries for which information was not previously available. The
results show high imperfection sensitivity of tanks with a conical roof, and buckling loads for wind
velocities in the same order as those expected to occur in the Caribbean region.
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Buckling; Conical roof; Finite element analysis; Imperfections; Steel tanks; Wind pressures; Wind
tunnel

Corresponding address: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Puerto Rico, Mayagez Campus,
006819041 Mayagez, Puerto Rico. Tel.: +1787 265 3815; fax: +1787 833 8260.
E-mail addresses: gportela@uprm.edu (G. Portela), lgodoy@uprm.edu (L.A. Godoy).

0143-974X/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2004.11.002

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

787

1. Introduction
This paper addresses the problem of buckling of thin-walled steel tanks with a conical
roof, and compares the results with those for open-top tanks. The buckling of such
structures has been considered by several authors, using simple estimates of wind pressures
[7,3]. Several limitations were present in such studies, including lack of information
about pressures due to wind for the geometric configurations considered, the type of
computational strategy used to evaluate buckling (eigenvalue analysis), and the lack of
information about imperfection sensitivity.
Other authors have considered the wind pressures on tanks, including Sabransky and
Melbourne [11] and Macdonald et al. [8] for tanks with a conical roof, and Purdy et al.
[10] for tanks with a flat roof. However, the geometries considered in those studies do
not reflect the dimensions of tanks typically found in the Caribbean and the south-eastern
coast of the United States. In such locations, tank farms typically include tanks with a
shallow conical, floating flat, or dome roof, and the aspect ratio (height to diameter for the
cylindrical part) ranges between 0.25 and 0.60 [13].
This paper contributes to both the information about pressures in tanks with a conical
roof, and the nonlinear behavior of the shell leading to static buckling. In a companion
paper [9], the authors investigate the buckling of tanks with a dome roof, and this paper
will show that there are significant differences in the behavior of conical and dome roof
tanks.
The wind tunnel experiments are reported in Section 2, together with experimental
results on pressure distributions. The computational model is described in Section 3,
while computational results are reported in Section 4. Simplified forms of imperfections
are considered in Section 5 by means of a trigonometric representation of imperfections.
Section 6 contains computer results for tanks opened at the top, in order to compare them
with conical roof tanks. The influence of thickness reductions in the buckling load is
discussed in Section 7. Finally, some conclusions are drawn in Section 8.
2. Wind tunnel experiments and results
Wind tunnel experiments were performed using the same facility and methodology as
reported in Ref. [9], and only specific features of conical roof models are included in this
section. The dimensions of the model are shown in Fig. 1(a) with diameter = 269.2 mm,
height of the cylinder = 115.7 mm, and elevation of the roof = 25.4 mm, thus having
height to diameter ratio H /D = 0.43 and Hr /H = 0.22, where Hr is the height of the
roof. The small scale tank constructed is shown in Fig. 1(b). The cylinder was made with
a PVC tube, while the conical roof was constructed using fiber glass. Pressure taps were
located in the model along lines at perpendicular directions for each test, and then the
model was rotated at intervals of 22.5 from 0 to 67.5. The wind velocity in the wind
tunnel was 19.8 m/s at a height of 116 mm, to represent a wind speed of 64.8 m/s at 10 m
in a real situation. Other details of the experiments are similar to what was reported for the
dome roof shells [9].
Fig. 2(a) shows the pressure contours obtained for the conical roof of the tank with a
ratio H :D = 0.43 and inclination angle of the roof (pitch) of 10.7. Due to the symmetry

788

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

Fig. 1. (a) Dimensions and instrumentation of the conical roof model. (b) Cylindrical model with a conical roof.

of the results with respect to the windward meridian, the values from both sides of the
axis were averaged. Only negative values were observed on the roof, which represent

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

Fig. 2. Mean pressure coefficients in model CMT3; (a) roof, (b) cylinder.

789

790

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

suctions or pressures exerted in an outward direction. The maximum values were obtained
on the external region of the roof at the entrance of the airflow. At this zone, high values
are expected due to the separation of flow induced by the abrupt change in the meridian
between the wall and the roof surface. Sabransky and Melbourne [11] found values similar
to those of the present study on the windward region of the roof. However, their study
was aimed at silo structures, with aspect ratios H :D = 0.66 and roof inclination angle of
27 compared to H :D = 0.43 and angle of 10.7 in this study. On the other hand, the
maximum suction in [11] developed at the center of the roof, while in the present study
the maximum suction occurs close to the windward region. A similar behavior (maximum
values at the center of the roof) was also observed in the work of Macdonald et al. [8] for
silos with ratios varying from H :D = 0.5 to H :D = 1.1 and roof inclination angle of 25.
Those results illustrate the large influence of the roof inclination angle on the pressures at
the central part of the roof.
An approximate value of C p = 0.2 was obtained for the roof on the leeward
region. The coefficients found in this region by other authors (for silo structures) were
approximately 0.5, for shells with H :D = 1.0 [8] and H :D = 1.16 [11].
The pressure patterns on the cylindrical wall for conical and dome roofs do not present
very considerable changes, and the magnitudes show differences that are not significant.
Contours of pressure coefficients were plotted along the circumference of the cylinders
and are shown in Fig. 2(b). The peak positive pressures were obtained on the windward
meridian, while the peak suctions were found at an angle near to 90 from windward.
For all cases considered, similar distributions were found about the windward axis. The
maximum values were measured between 50% and 90% of the height of the tank. In
addition, the experimental pressure distribution around the cylinder of the tank was
simplified by means of the Fourier coefficients presented in Eq. (1).
C p = 0.2055 + 0.2943 cos + 0.4897 cos 2 + 0.2624 cos 3 0.0353 cos 4
0.0092 cos 5 + 0.0778 cos 6 + 0.0263 cos 7
(1)
where is the angle measured from the windward meridian.
Some variations were observed between the models of conical and dome roofs in terms
of the values of the maximum positive pressure found. The tank with a conical roof had a
high pressure coefficient of C p = +0.90; the maximum positive values at the windward
meridian were compared with results obtained in Refs. [8,11] and are shown in Fig. 3(a).
The values obtained at this region by each author do not seem to be highly dependent on
the aspect ratio of the tank. Using the values obtained by both references and the present
study, variations of positive C p are in the range between 0.78 and 0.92. In terms of the
maximum suction found at 90 from the windward meridian and at the leeward meridian
of the cylinder (180), the tank presented values of C p = 0.83 and 0.20, respectively.
Notice that the pressure coefficients at the top of the cylinder in the leeward meridian are
similar to those measured in the leeward region of the roof. The maximum negative values
were also compared with the results obtained by other authors, although for this case a
clear influence of the aspect ratio of the tank occurs, as shown in Fig. 3(b). Notice that
an increase in the aspect ratio also increases the magnitude of the negative pressures at
angles close to 90 from windward. This behavior is also observed in Fig. 4, where the

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

791

Fig. 3. (a) Maximum positive mean pressure coefficients around the circumference of tanks with a conical roof.
(b) Maximum negative mean pressure coefficients around the circumference of tanks with a conical roof.

792

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

Fig. 4. Mean pressure coefficients on tanks with a conical roof obtained for different aspect ratios.

distributions around the cylinder are presented for the different aspect ratios studied in
[8,11] and in the present study.
Results obtained by Sabransky and Melbourne [11] with a ratio H :D = 0.66, show
a peak positive pressure of C p = 0.78, slightly smaller than those found in the present
study. However, the peak suction recorded was 1.28, which is 35% higher than the value
obtained in the present study.
3. Computational analysis
The stability response of the tanks was evaluated using the pressure distributions
obtained experimentally for the rigid models discussed in Section 2. The finite element
computer program ABAQUS [1] was used to carry out the analysis. The properties of the
model representing a tank with a conical roof are presented in Fig. 5 and show the tapered
thickness of the wall and the roof of the tank. The bottom part of the tank had a fixed
restraint and the plates are made of carbon steel with modulus of elasticity E = 2108 kPa
and yield strength y = 2.48 105 kPa. The cylindrical part of the model has 1408
quadratic shell elements (designated by ABAQUS as S8R5), with five degrees of freedom
in each of its eight nodes; while the roof has 1916 STRI65 quadratictriangular elements
also with five degrees of freedom per node.

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

793

Fig. 5. Plate thickness at different heights of the walls and the roof of the conical roof tank with rafters.

In a typical conical roof tank, the roof is not self-supported, and a secondary structural
system is required to carry the weight of the roof. This system has steel rafters supported
by girders and columns toward the inside of the tank and the edges of the rafters are pinned
to the walls. Fig. 6 presents the details of the rafters supporting the roof of the tank. The
fluid that may be stored in a tank has not been included in the analysis because it has a
stabilizing effect for buckling. Thus, an empty tank is the worst scenario for wind load
buckling.
The pressure coefficients obtained experimentally were used to define the loading
conditions of the models established. Similar to the case for tanks with dome roofs, the
pressure values are referenced to a full-scale velocity of air Vair = 64.8 m/s (P =
2.39 kPa).
4. Computational buckling results
The computational models were loaded with pressures that represent a given percentage
(based on experimental wind tunnel pressure coefficients) of the reference wind pressure
P = 2.39 kPa at a height of 10 m, which is associated with a wind velocity of 64.8 m/s.
The buckling load factors obtained from the analyses are identified by the multipliers c ,
which scale the reference pressure with the value at the critical load in the tank, assuming
an unchanged wind profile.
The conical roof tank reinforced with rafters was first analyzed by means of an
eigenvalue buckling approach, considering wind pressures and self-weight (static preloads). The first critical load factor obtained had a value of 1.04, representing a wind
pressure of 2.48 kPa and wind velocity of 66 m/s. All critical modes show displacements
only in the cylindrical shell and have circumferential waves as shown in Fig. 7. The
modes are generated in the windward region of the cylinders having three well pronounced

794

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

Fig. 6. Arrangement of rafters and girders on the conical roof tank.

circumferential waves. The modal displacements are very small in the regions close to the
roof and to the bottom of the tank, being comparable to sine functions. The peak values

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

795

Fig. 7. First mode shapes obtained for model CMT3.

of deflections are observed in the windward region at 50% to 80% of the height of the
cylinder, and they are similar to the peak pressure distributions observed experimentally
(C p = 0.90).
A geometrical nonlinear step-by-step analysis using the Riks method was employed
in order to study a more realistic behavior of the structure. Preliminary studies indicated
that plasticity did not develop during the early stages of buckling, so that it was not
included in the analysis. The same loads were applied to the tank using an initial static
self-weight analysis followed by the incremental method applied to the wind pressures. The
maximum deformations were observed in the cylindrical part of the tank, as seen in Fig. 8,
and are similar to the eigenvectors obtained from the bifurcation analysis (Fig. 7). Nodes
located in the windward region of the cylinder at elevations close to 80% of the height of
the cylinder revealed experimentally the maximum displacements during the incremental
loading process. The loaddisplacement curve was computed by selecting a node on the
windward meridian and in the wind direction, in order to study the fundamental and initial
postcritical equilibrium path followed by the structure.
The path of perfect geometry in Fig. 9, shows a 3.4% decrease in the initial critical
load factor of c = 1.00, in comparison to the value obtained from the eigenvalue analysis.
In addition, the fundamental path presents an almost linear behavior, with a relative small
displacement = 7.6 mm in the order of the shell thickness. The close critical loads
obtained in the two analyses and the linear aspect of the fundamental path combined
with small displacements suggest that the eigenvalue analysis is a good indicator of the
buckling behavior presented by this tank. Besides this, it can be seen from Fig. 8 that the
buckling deformation at the step when the critical load was reached is similar to the one
computed from the bifurcation analysis. In terms of the postcritical behavior of the tank,
the buckling response may be described as an unstable bifurcation because of the negative
slope developed by the postbuckling path. Changes in the curvature of the path, producing

796

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

Fig. 8. Fundamental mode shape in model CMT3 at the first critical load computed from the step-by-step analysis;
(a) side view, (b) bottom view.

additional stiffness, were observed at very large displacements (larger than 60 mm), but
the increment in load was very small and certainly would be accompanied with plasticity,
softening the stiffness of the tank.

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

797

Fig. 9. Nonlinear response of model CMT3 with initial perfect and imperfect geometries.

The nonlinear response of the imperfect tank, and the imperfection sensitivity were
also investigated. The buckling response of tanks which are open at the top with an
imperfect geometry has been previously studied in Refs. [4,6]; however similar studies
for tanks with roof have not been reported in the literature. For these imperfection
analyses, the initial geometry of the tank was modified adding the first bifurcation
mode computed for the structure, and multiplying it by an amplitude coefficient . The
similarities between the first mode shape obtained from the eigenvalue analysis and the
deformed shape adopted by the structure after reaching the first critical load justify
the use of the first mode for the shape of the imperfection, instead of a combination
between modes. Imperfections due to eccentricities developed during construction are
very difficult to control and to predict. It is true that these types of imperfections
would not exhibit an identical shape to the deformation observed in the first buckling
mode, but values in the order of 3.0 t have been found in practice for some steel
shells [5].
The modal displacements were transformed to real displacements by referencing them
to a percentage of the minimum shell thickness used in the cylinder. The percentages used
were 10%, 25%, 50%, 100%, and 200%, which represent maximum initial displacements
in the order of 0.79, 1.98, 3.95, 7.9, and 15.8 mm, respectively. Positive imperfections
with the same direction observed in the eigenvectors and negative ones for the opposing
direction were used in the analysis. Numerically, both positive and negative eigenvectors
are real solutions of the eigenvalue problem.

798

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

For imperfections smaller than the shell thickness, the shell presents an unstable
postcritical behavior, while for larger imperfections the maximum in the primary path and
the minimum in the postcritical path approach each other and coalesce in the limit, so
that they form an inflection point. For imperfections larger than those considered in Fig. 9
( > 2 t) the buckling loads are not reduced but the displacement increases in a stable
form.
This suggests that the postcritical behavior depends on the magnitude of the
imperfection; however, in the explanation given by the Catastrophe Theory [12], the
imperfect paths represent a family of equilibrium paths that may be unfolded from the
bifurcation behavior. Besides this, when negative imperfections are considered, they tend
to deform to the inside of the tank (negative displacements) in the same direction that the
positive wind pressures were applied to the structure in. On the other hand, when positive
imperfections are considered, the same point in the shell is deformed in the outer direction
of the tank. Although positive displacements larger than 30 mm were not plotted, at some
displacement larger than this value the structure tends to turn from positive (outward) to
negative (inward) displacements. Notice that all nonlinear curves belonging to geometric
imperfections converge to the minimum load factor obtained for the case with a perfect
geometry. However, the study of postcritical effects far from the first critical point observed
in the structure is beyond of the scope of this research.
For an imperfection of 0.10 t, the critical load is reduced by 3% in comparison to
the perfect geometry, having a value of c = 0.97. This load factor represents a wind
velocity of 63.8 m/s, which is less than the minimum design wind speed of 67 m/s
established by ASCE [2]. A reduction in displacement = 7.34 mm, which is in the
order of 0.9 t, was obtained at the first critical load in Fig. 9. For an imperfection with the
same magnitude but in the opposite direction, a smaller critical load factor of c = 0.94
was reached, representing a 6% reduction with respect to the perfect geometry case. This
value represents a wind speed of V = 62.8 m/s and a maximum reference pressure of
P = 2.25 kPa. On the other hand, the displacements at the first critical point were in the
order of twice the thickness ( = 15.2 mm), revealing a 100% increment compared to
the perfect geometry. In summary, the critical load factors producing instability in the tank
have been only marginally reduced (by less than 10%) for a 1% geometrical imperfection,
although a stiffness softening behavior is observed in the curve.
When a larger imperfection of 0.25 t is considered, the critical load factor is reduced
by 11% (c = 0.89) and 13.3% (c = 0.87) for the positive and negative imperfections,
respectively. These values represent wind velocities at 10 m height of 61 m/s for the
positive imperfection and 60 m/s for the negative one. The first buckling mode computed
is similar to the deformed mode observed for the 1% imperfection, but with larger
displacements. The maximum displacements were observed toward the inside of the tank,
and are in the order of 2.4 t and 150% higher ( = 19.1 mm) than the value obtained for
the case with perfect geometry. The maximum negative displacement was in the order of
1.43 t with a value of = 11.3 mm, representing an increase of 48% with respect to the
results for the perfect geometry.
For an imperfection in the order of 0.50 t, the first buckling load was reduced by 23%
(c = 0.77) for imperfections in the negative direction, and 21% (c = 0.79) in the positive
direction. The former value is in agreement with a reference pressure P = 1.85 kPa

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

799

and wind speed V = 57 m/s, and the latter with P = 1.90 kPa and V = 57.7 m/s.
In the inward direction of the tank (where the maximum deformation was observed),
displacements in the order of 3.11 t were computed, representing an increment in the order
of 220% with respect to the case with perfect geometry. In the other direction, a lower
increment occurred (119%) with a displacement of = 13.2 mm.
For larger imperfections (i.e. 1.0 t and 2.0 t), the response of the structure changes to a
stable path with large deflections. These are points more difficult to identify because the
previous path is also stable. The equilibrium path in these cases is stable and has stable
critical points, the transition in the shape of the nonlinear curve is smooth, and the global
stiffness changes in the structural system are more difficult to determine.
Although these curves present stable states, a smaller load capacity of the tank
throughout the path is achieved. If an arbitrary point in the curve of = 2.0 t is
selected for a displacement of 25.4 mm, then the load factor of the structure is c = 0.28,
representing a reference wind speed of 34 m/s. Therefore, for smaller wind pressures
the structure has large displacements, which eventually may lead to the global collapse
of the structure. Fortunately, the structure continues with a stable behavior until the path
converges to the lowest postcritical load reached by the tank with perfect geometry. This
maximum loading factor, c = 0.75, is associated with a wind velocity of 56.1 m/s and
represents a 25% decrease in the load capacity of the tank. These results give an idea of the
response and load capacity that would be exhibited by a previously buckled tank under new
wind loadings, with maximum permanent displacements in the order of 2.0 t (a magnitude
commonly observed in locally buckled tanks).
5. Simplifications in the analysis of the tank with a conical roof
The shape of the imperfection was assumed to have the form of the eigenvector.
However, it would be interesting to understand the influence of more localized
imperfections on the buckling behavior of the shell. To model local imperfections the
geometry was defined in terms of trigonometric functions. Three different cosine waves
forms were assigned to the initial geometric shape of the tank, with m being the number
of cosine waves used to define the geometry. Two different levels of imperfections were
used, with = 1.0 t and = 2.0 t. From the buckling results in Fig. 10, it was observed
that the number of cosine functions plays an important role in the response of the structure
and that only for m = 25 does a considerable reduction occur in the load capacity of the
tank. Fig. 11 presents the equilibrium path for imperfect shells with the eigenmode and the
trigonometric shape discussed here. For m = 25 the equilibrium path is well represented
by the local imperfection, but for large displacements the results begin to diverge from
those using eigenvectors as imperfections.
Additionally, the influence of simplifications in the loads was considered. First, the
pressures in the cylindrical part were assumed constant in elevation, and second, the
pressures were restricted to the windward region of the tank. A bifurcation critical load
c = 1.02 was obtained for these conditions, representing a difference less than 2% in
comparison to the model with variable pressures along its height. The low sensitivity to the
distribution of pressures in height has been noted before [6] for open tanks.

800

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

Fig. 10. Influence of the wave number in the response of tanks with imperfect geometries.

6. Buckling of an open-top tank

A tank open at the top was investigated in order to compare the sensitivity to
imperfections of the tank with a conical roof previously studied. The same diameter,
cylinder height, shell thicknesses, and external wind pressures were assumed for the model.
From the results, the critical load factors of c = 0.48 and c = 0.46 were found by means
of the eigenvalue and nonlinear analyses, respectively. These values are less than half of the
maximum loads obtained for the tank with a conical roof. Besides this, they represent wind
velocities in the order of 43.9 m/s, that is 32% less than the expected design wind speed
for Puerto Rico. Fig. 12(a) presents the pattern of the first modal deformation obtained
with the linear eigenvalue approach and Fig. 12(b) shows the deformation resulting from
the nonlinear analysis at the first critical point. These modes have similarities with those
obtained in the tank with a roof only along the circumferential direction. On the other hand,
it can be seen that the maximum displacements develop at the top of the cylinder instead of
at a height of 80%, as in the tank with a roof. The displacements computed in the nonlinear
step for the first critical load are 143% higher ( = 18.5 mm) than the displacements
in the conical roof tank. This increment in displacement and reduction in maximum load
suggests that the roof contributes a considerable amount of stiffness to the tank, allowing it
to sustain higher lateral loads. The path for the perfect geometry in Fig. 13 presents the
nonlinear behavior obtained for a selected point at the top of the windward region of the

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

801

Fig. 11. Comparison between imperfections based on the bifurcation response and trigonometric functions.

tank where maximum displacements were obtained. The first critical point is found along
a rather linear fundamental path, followed by an unstable postcritical path.
Geometric imperfections with the shape used in the tank with a conical roof were also
used for the tank without a roof. For an imperfection of 0.1 t, a 1.7% reduction occurs in
the critical load (c = 0.45). If the same imperfection is applied in the opposite direction
(positive imperfection), then an increment in critical load of 3.5% is obtained (c = 0.48).
For a positive imperfection, in Fig. 13 the node selected on the shell begins to displace
in the outward global direction of the tank and then returns back to the inward direction.
This behavior suggests that the tank is trying to overcome the initial imperfection in the
direction opposite to the one that it commonly deforms in and adjust it to its most sensitive
deformed shapes (those observed in the eigenvalue and perfect nonlinear analyses).
For an initial imperfection of 0.25 t, the equilibrium path is very similar to the case
with 0.10 t, but with lower buckling load and larger displacements at the critical state.
The load pressure factor reduces to c = 0.437, representing a difference in the order
of 5% with respect to the perfect geometry. However, for imperfections in the opposite
direction the path is different, as shown in Fig. 13.
The maximum buckling load of the tank is reduced by 8.9% (c = 0.418) and 5.2%
c
( = 0.435) for the = 0.5 t and = +0.5 t imperfect cases. Larger imperfections
present significant reductions in the buckling capacity of the tank, with values of c = 0.38

802

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

Fig. 12. (a) First mode shape from the eigenvalue analysis, (b) deformation obtained at the first critical load using
a step-by-step analysis.

and 0.40 (reductions of 17% and 13%) for the positive and negative imperfections of 1.0 t,
respectively. For imperfections of 2.0 t, c = 0.341 (V = 37.8 m/s) for the negative
imperfection and c = 0.357 (V = 38.7 m/s) for the positive imperfection (26% and 22%
with respect to the perfect geometry).
From the results discussed before and the sensitivity curve of Fig. 14, it seems that
the conical roof tank is more sensitive to imperfections than the open-top tank with
similar dimensions. The open tank has a lower capacity than the conical roof tank, but
it seems that local instability in the open tank is not associated with high reductions in its
initial postcritical capacity. Moreover, small imperfections generate small increments in
the buckling capacity due to changes in the geometrical shape of the tank. On the other
hand, the conical roof tank has more than twice the load capacity of the open-top tank
but suffers more notable reductions when an imperfection (regardless of its direction) is
induced in the original geometry.

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

803

Fig. 13. Nonlinear response of unroofed model CMT3 without a roof with perfect and imperfect geometries.
Table 1
Original and reduced shell thickness
Original thickness (mm)

Reduced thickness (mm)

12.70
9.50
7.94

11.10
7.90
6.34

7. Influence of thickness reductions on the buckling capacity of the tank

Most tanks in the Caribbean region are located near to the coast, to reduce the distance
between the arrival of the product from the sea and its storage. Furthermore, many tanks
were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s, and show clear signs of significant corrosion in
the buckling studies. As a simplified model, a uniform thickness reduction of 1.6 mm was
introduced in the data for the shell. Certainly, not all regions of a tank suffer the same loss
of thickness due to corrosion, but this reduction is used to estimate lower limits of capacity.
The conical roof tank (CMT3) was analyzed by means of bifurcation and nonlinear
analyses. The thicknesses of the different layers of steel in the cylinder were reduced as
presented in Table 1. A bifurcation load factor of c = 0.592 was obtained from the linear
analysis, which represents a 43% reduction with respect to the tank without the thickness
reduction. This load factor is associated with a wind speed of 49.9 m/s. From the nonlinear

804

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

Fig. 14. Sensitivity to imperfections on the initial geometry of the conical tank and the open-top tanks.

Table 2
Critical load factors computed for different imperfection amplitudes
(t)

P c (kPa)

V c (m/s)

Reduction in c (%)

+0.1
0.1
+0.25
0.25
+0.5
0.5

0.543
0.558
0.491
0.503
0.433
0.445

1.33
1.34
1.18
1.20
1.04
1.07

48
48.5
45
46
42.7
43.2

5.00
2.00
14.00
12.00
24.00
22.00

results, the load capacity is c = 0.57, that is, 3% less than the bifurcation. This load
factor is related to a wind velocity of 48.9 m/s, which represents 25% of the design value
established by ASCE [2]. The mode shapes observed were similar to those of the perfect
tank, and for this reason they are not presented again.
An imperfection sensitivity analysis was performed in model CMT3 with reduced
thickness and using the imperfection amplitudes of previous analyses (0.1 t, 0.25 t,
0.5 t, 1.0 t and 2.0 t). Fig. 15 shows the nonlinear equilibrium paths computed for the
tank using again a representative node located in the region where higher displacements
were computed in the analysis. The results are summarized in Table 2.

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

805

Fig. 15. Nonlinear response of model CMT3 with reduced thickness and imperfect geometries.

The reductions in the buckling load computed in model CMT3 with the original
thickness due to imperfections seem to be quite similar to those of the same model with
reduced thickness, even when the capacity of the latter is highly reduced. In the tank opened
at the top, a reduction in load capacity and in imperfection sensitivity was detected.
8. Conclusions
This paper presented contributions in two fields associated with the wind buckling of
the steel tanks: first, wind pressures have been evaluated from wind tunnel experiments,
and second, the structural responses under such pressures have been computed to evaluate
critical loads, postbuckling behavior and imperfection sensitivity. The main conclusions of
the work may be summarized as follows:
1. The aspect ratio of a tank substantially influences the pressures on the cylindrical shell.
For short tanks, with aspect ratio H :D from 0.4 to 0.5, the wall pressures are lower than
for taller tanks, with aspect ratio H :D larger than 0.5. Previous studies in the literature
for conical roof models are restricted to ratios between H :D = 0.5 and 2. Other results
in the literature are available for flat roof models [10].

806

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

2. For shallow conical roofs, the angle of inclination of the meridian of the roof is
responsible for an increase in pressures on the central part of the roof. Thus, great care
must be exercised to decide on the rise in conical roof tanks from the point of view of
structural behavior.
3. The tanks investigated displayed an initially stable equilibrium path followed by an
unstable nonlinear response in the postcritical path.
4. The critical loads of tanks are only marginally affected by the negative pressure
distributions around the tank and by the distribution of pressures along the height of the
cylinder. For tanks with a conical roof, it seems that buckling is induced by local effects
due to positive wind pressures in the windward region. This behavior was observed in
the tank with a conical roof, with only localized positive wind pressures in the windward
region, for which the bifurcation loads were similar to the case in which the pressures
were distributed all around the tank.
5. Previously buckled tanks (due to wind loads or to other effects) with levels of
imperfections higher than = 0.5 t, have a very flexible behavior with large
displacements at low load levels, driving the structure rapidly to reach its maximum
load. Therefore, sustained winds, instead of three-second gusts, begin to be of concern
based on the lower load capacity observed in the nonlinear path of tanks with large
imperfections. This is observed in the 25% reduction of the buckling load computed
from the nonlinear analysis.
6. A tank with a conical roof has a larger buckling load than a similar tank without a
roof; however, the reduction in buckling load due to the influence of small geometric
imperfections is higher in tanks with a conical roof. But, even accounting for the
reduction in buckling load due to imperfections, the buckling capacity of the conical
roof tank is higher than that of the shell without a roof.
7. The loss of shell thickness reduces dramatically the buckling capacity of a tank.
With a thickness reduction in the order of 1.6 mm in a tank with a conical roof and
H :D = 0.43, the wind velocity associated with the first buckling point corresponds
to 49 m/s. These reference velocities are below the ASCE [2] requirements for Puerto
Rico.
8. The roof of a tank provides additional stiffness to the structure, so that the buckling
capacity of the tank with a conical roof is increased by a factor of two with respect to
that for a tank without a roof.

References
[1] Abaqus User Manualversion 5.6. Pawtucket (RI, USA): Hibbit, Karlsson and Sorensen; 1996.
[2] ASCE 7 Standard. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Reston (VA, USA): American
Society of Civil Engineers; 2002.
[3] Briassoulis D, Pecknold DA. Behavior of empty steel grain silos under wind loading: Part 2: The stiffened
conical roof shell. Engineering Structures 1987;10:5764.
[4] Flores FG, Godoy LA. Buckling of short tanks due to hurricanes. Engineering Structures 1998;20(8):
75260.
[5] Godoy LA. Thin-walled structures with structural imperfections: analysis and behavior. Oxford: Pergamon
Press; 1996.

G. Portela, L.A. Godoy / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 786807

807

[6] Godoy LA, Flores FG. Imperfection sensitivity to elastic buckling of wind loaded open cylindrical tanks.
Structural Engineering and Mechanics 2002;13(5):53342.
[7] Godoy LA, Mendez JC. Buckling of aboveground storage tanks with conical roof. In: Zaras J, editor. Thin
walled-structures. Oxford: Elsevier Science; 2001. p. 6618.
[8] Macdonald PA, Kwok KCS, Holmes JH. Wind loads on circular storage bins, silos and tanks: Point pressure
measurements. Research report no. R529, School of Civil and Mining Engineering, University of Sydney,
Sydney, Australia; 1988.
[9] Portela G, Godoy LA. Wind pressures and buckling of cylindrical steel tanks with dome roofs. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research [in press].
[10] Purdy DM, Maher PE, Frederick D. Model studies of wind loads on flat-top cylinders. Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE 1967;93:37995.
[11] Sabransky IJ, Melbourne WH. Design pressure distribution on circular silos with conical roofs. Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 1987;26:6584.
[12] Thompson JMT. Instabilities and catastrophes in science and engineering. London: John Wiley & Sons;
1982.
[13] Virella JC. Buckling of tanks subject to earthquake loadings. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Puerto Rico
at Mayagez, Puerto Rico; 2004.