First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (a joint event of the 13th ECEE & 30th General

Assembly of the ESC) Geneva, Switzerland, 3-8 September 2006 Paper Number: 1123

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF LARGE-DIAMETER LNG TANKS TO RESIST SEISMIC EVENTS
Navin PEIRIS1, Andrew CUSHING2, Zygmunt LUBKOWSKI3, and David SCARR4

SUMMARY On behalf of BP Exploration Company, Ltd., Arup undertook a feasibility study to examine the viability of large-diameter liquefied natural gas (LNG) tanks in areas of low, moderate and high seismicity. For the design of the tank foundations, three generic soil profiles were considered, ranging from dense sand to soft clay. Two primary containment materials were also evaluated: 9% Nickel Steel and Arups All-Concrete (ACLNG) tank, with volumes up to 300,000 cubic meters. This paper describes the design process and analysis techniques adopted in designing LNG tankfoundation systems. Special attention will be paid to the development of design earthquake spectra, site response analysis, evaluation of foundation stiffness for tank seismic analysis to calculate global inertial axial and lateral loads, consideration of kinematic soil loading, and distribution of shear and moment loads to the foundation elements. On the basis of these analyses, foundation designs were adopted for each combination of tank type, diameter, seismic zone, and soil profile. It was found that the construction of a single 300,000 cubic meter LNG tank is technically feasible, and offers a savings relative to the construction of two smaller 150,000 cubic meter tanks.

1.

INTRODUCTION

Natural gas has long been an alternative to petroleum fuels, but its growth has been limited by the higher relative cost of production, transportation, and storage. In the United States, it is anticipated that the total consumption of natural gas will rise from 22.4 trillion ft3 (635 billion m3) in 2004 to 26.9 trillion ft3 (762 billion m3) in 2030 [AEO, 2006]. The rise in the domestic consumption and the anticipated decline of US natural gas production will result in a rise in the level of natural gas imports. Most of the projected growth in natural gas imports is in the form of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). The capacity of US LNG receiving terminals is expected to rise from 1.4 trillion ft3 (40 billion m3) in 2004 to 5.8 trillion ft3 (165 billion m3) in 2030. To achieve economies of scale throughout the LNG chain, the throughput size of liquefaction plants and the cargo size of LNG vessels have steadily increased. Both of these factors demand an increase in the size of LNG storage tanks. Further, there is an opportunity to reduce the capital cost of LNG storage. British Petroleum (BP) has been exploring this possibility through the use of fewer larger tanks rather than multiple smaller tanks. Arup
Arup, 13 Fitzroy Street, W1T 4BQ, LONDON, United Kingdom Email: navin.peiris@arup.com 2 Arup, 155 Avenue of the Americas, 10013, NEW YORK, New York, United States of America Email: andrew.cushing@arup.com 3 Arup, 13 Fitzroy Street, W1T 4BQ, LONDON, United Kingdom Email: zygi.lubkowski@arup.com 4 British Petroleum, Ltd., Chertsey Road, TW16 7LN, Sunbury-on-Thames, MIDDLESEX, United Kingdom Email: david.scarr@uk.bp.com
1

was approached to carry out a study to assess the technical feasibility of constructing large LNG tanks in seismic zones as encountered in the United States. The study considered geotechnical and structural issues, seismic requirements, construction feasibility and cost estimation while taking into account program issues. This paper focuses on the foundation design aspects of the overall feasibility study and how the foundation design interacted with the structural design. Only the design of pile foundation options is considered here. Three generic soil profiles were selected for the study in accordance with American Petroleum Institute Standard 620 [API, 2002], covering a broad range of possible site conditions. Soil properties were derived for each profile in order that they satisfy the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program [NEHRP, 2003] classification for site classes C, D and E. On the basis of these analyses, foundation designs were adopted for each combination of tank type, diameter, seismic zone, and soil profile, which are summarized in the paper. It was found that the construction of a single 300,000 cubic meter LNG tank is technically feasible.

2.

SEISMIC DESIGN PROCESS

The feasibility study considered 200,000m3 and 300,000m3 LNG tanks. For each tank, two tank types have been assessed; a conventional 9% Nickel tank and the Arup all-concrete (ACLNG) tank. A raft foundation was proposed for tanks resting on dense sand, while both driven steel piles and bored reinforced concrete piles were examined for soil profiles consisting of soft clay layers. The seismic design process involved in the raft foundation design is straightforward. However, the process for pile foundations is iterative in nature. First, a trial foundation design was selected on the basis of geotechnical considerations (axial capacity) for the static condition. This design was then assessed relative to the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) and Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE), which correspond to 475 year and 10,000 year return periods, respectively, with adjustments made as necessary to pile number and depth (if applicable). Once the pile layout was selected, period-dependent foundation compliance (stiffness) parameters were developed using the computer program DYNA5 to perform the tank seismic structural analysis, which includes structure, impulse, and slosh modes as well as soil-foundation interaction. This was done following the [Australia/New Zealand, 2003] methodology. The foundation loads (axial, lateral, and moment) for the OBE and SSE seismic conditions were then evaluated and checked to see if they were compatible with the initial tank seismic structural design. In instances where they were found to be compatible, the structural design of the piles could be advanced. If not, further adjustments were made to the pile number and layout and the tank seismic structural analyses were repeated to derive a new set of foundation loads. A schematic diagram outlining the seismic design process for tanks bearing on piled foundations is provided in Figure 1.

3. 3.1 Soil Properties

INPUT DATA

The enveloped design spectra for the foundation design were derived for three soil profiles and three seismic zones. The soil profiles were derived by considering the requirements of American Petroleum Institute Standard 620 [API, 2002], Table L-3 as follows: Soil Profile 1: Stiff or dense sand where soil depth exceeds 60 meters. Soil Profile 2: 21 meters in depth containing more than 6 meters of medium stiff clay, but not more than 12 meters of soft clay. Soil Profile 3: More than 12 meters of soft clay characterized by a shear wave velocity (Vs) of less than 150 m/s.

The soil profiles were derived such that the above three profiles satisfy the [NEHRP, 2003] site classifications C, D and E respectively (based on Vs over the upper 30m) for profiles 1, 2 and 3 as shown in Table 1 and Figure 2.

Figure 1: Seismic Design Process for Piled LNG Tanks

Table 1: Three Soil Profiles and their [NEHRP, 2003] Site Class Soil Profile 1 2 3 Vs over top 30 meters (m/s) 397.6 233.5 127.3 NEHRP Vs Range (m/s) 360 Vs 760 180 Vs 360 Vs 180 NEHRP Site Class C D E

Vs (m /s) 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

10

20

Depth below ground (m)

30

40

Profile 1
50

Profile 2 Profile 3

60

70

(a) Strength Properties

(b) Shear Wave Velocity, Vs

Figure 2: Soil Properties

3.2 Seismic Zones and Earthquake Ground Motions Three zones were considered for the tank design following American Petroleum Institute Standard 620 [API, 2002]. Two seismic levels (475 year and 10,000 year return periods, respectively) were considered for each zone. The bedrock peak ground acceleration (PGA) for the three zones are summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Seismic Zones and Bedrock PGA Values Seismic Zone 1 2A 3 OBE (475 year) 0.075g 0.15g 0.30g SSE (10,000 year) 0.2g 0.4g 0.6g

The OBE (475 year) PGA values were taken from American Petroleum Institute Standard 620 [API, 2002] and the SSE (10,000 year) values were deduced from the hazard curves in Applied Technology Council 3-06 [ATC, 1978]. It is required that the bedrock uniform hazard response spectra (UHRS) are derived from the shape specified in Standard 620 [API, 2002]. For this study, bedrock UHRS derived from site specific probabilistic seismic hazard assessments at three global sites were compared with Standard 620 [API, 2002] spectral shapes for each seismic zone as shown in Figure 3. Hence the ground motions from previous studies at these global sites could be used as bedrock earthquake ground motions for the site response analyses in the present study. The sites used were: Zone 1 - Damietta LNG Plant, Egypt [Arup, 2002] Zone 2A - Malampaya concrete gravity substructure (CGS), South China Sea, Philippines [Arup, 1998] Zone 3 - Tangguh LNG Plant, Bintuni Bay, West Papua, Indonesia [EQE, 2000]

The earthquake ground motions used for each seismic zone and for OBE and SSE are given in Table 3. These motions were scaled to be compatible with the respective bedrock UHRS given in Figure 3 for each selected site.

1.6 1.4 1.2 Acceleration (g) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.01 OBE Rock SSE Rock API OBE API SSE

1.6 1.4 1.2 Acceleration (g) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.01 OBE Rock SSE Rock API OBE API SSE

1.6 1.4 1.2 Acceleration (g) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.01 OBE Rock SSE Rock API OBE API SSE

0.1 Period (s)

10

0.1 Period (s)

10

0.1 Period (s)

10

(a) Zone 1 Damietta LNG

(b) Zone 2A Malampaya CGS

(c) Zone 3 Tangguh LNG

Figure 3: API 620 Rock Spectra and Site-Specific Rock Spectra

Table 3: Summary of Bedrock Earthquake Time Histories Seismic Zone 1 Earthquake Borrego Mtn, CA, USA Montenegro, Yugoslavia San Fernando, CA, USA Mexico City San Fernando, CA, USA Honshu, Japan Imperial Valley, CA, USA Northridge, CA, USA Honshu, Japan Date 08 APR 68 15 APR 79 09 FEB 71 19 SEP 85 09 FEB 71 16 MAY 68 18 MAY 40 17 JAN 94 16 MAY 68 M 6.5 7.0 6.4 8.1 6.4 7.9 6.6 6.8 7.9 Station San Onofore Power Plant Albatros Hotel Ulcinj 3550 Wilshire Blvd LA Calata de Campos 3550 Wilshire Blvd LA Hachinohe Harbour El Centro Castaic Old Ridge Road Hachinohe Harbour

2A

4.

SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS

A series of site response analyses were carried out to derive the envelope design spectra for analysis of the tank seismic behaviour. The site response analyses were carried out using the Oasys SIREN non-linear site response program [Henderson, et al., 1989]. Figure 4 shows a typical example of derivation of smooth spectral ratios and the enveloped design spectra (5% damped) by multiplying the smooth spectral ratios by the bedrock uniform hazard response spectrum. The enveloped design spectra was compared with the actual response spectra determined from the ground motions from Oasys SIREN analyses. The tank seismic structural analyses require design spectra at 5%, 2%, and 0.5% damping. Initially, 5% damped envelope spectra were derived for each site and seismic zone. The 5% damped design spectra were then used to derive the 2% and 0.5% damped design spectra using [Newmark and Hall, 1982] ratios for acceleration. A comparative study found that the relation given in [BS EN-1998-1, 2004] for deriving spectra at other damping levels would result in an underestimation of the ground motion level. The profile 1 spectra were derived from the ground surface motion since the foundation at this dense sand site is to be a raft. For profile 2, the ground motion at the base of soft clay (6m below ground level) was used to derive the design spectra, as the motion at this elevation would present a better representation of the ground motion felt by the base of the structure due to soil-pile interaction. The surface ground motions were used for profile 3, even though it has 30m of soft clay, since it would be difficult to estimate the representative depth in this profile to account for effects of soil-pile interaction. An analysis of Figure 4 indicates that bedrock acceleration spectra has only one peak (at a period of 0.2 sec), while the site response analysis has two peaks (at 0.1 sec and 0.6 sec). This is a consequence of the presence of a 6 m thick soft clay layer. The natural period of the tank lies between these peaks.

3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.01 El Centro 475yr Castaic 475yr Hachinohe 475yr
Acceleration (m/s2 )

12

10

El Centro 475yr Castaic 475yr Hachinohe 475yr Enveloped RS Bedrock

Spectral Ratio

Enveloped SR

6 4

0.1

1 Period (s)

10

100

0 0.01

0.1

1 Period (s)

10

100

3.0

30

El Centro 10,000yr
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.01

El Centro 10,000yr
25 Acceleration (m/s )
2

Castaic 10,000yr Hachinohe 10,000yr Enveloped SR

Castaic 10,000yr Hachinohe 10,000yr Enveloped RS Bedrock

Spectral Ratio

20 15 10 5 0 0.01

0.1

1 Period (s)

10

100

0.1

1 Period (s)

10

100

Figure 4: Determination of Smooth Spectral Ratio and Enveloped Design Spectra Using Bedrock Uniform Hazard Design Spectra for Soil Profile 2, Seismic Zone 3, OBE (475 Year) and SSE (10,000 Year)

5.

GEOTECHNICAL AND SEISMIC FOUNDATION DESIGN

The static axial load capacity of 900mm diameter reinforced concrete bored piles versus embedment depth were evaluated for soil profiles 2 and 3 using Chapter 6 (Foundation Design) of the American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice Document RP 2A-WSD [API, 2000]. A summary of key design parameters for axial geotechnical pile design are provided in Table 4. An overall equivalent factor of safety of 2.5 (based upon equivalent LNG weight simulated during the hydrotest) on the ultimate load capacity has been applied to develop the allowable axial capacities for the static condition. Seismic safety factors of 2.0 and 1.5 were applied to the OBE and SSE conditions, respectively. The resulting relationships between allowable axial capacity and embedment depth for 900mm diameter reinforced concrete bored piles are plotted in Figure 5 (red for soil profile 2 and blue for soil profile 3). While the nominal axial loads for the SSE seismic condition are somewhat higher than those for the OBE, the higher factor of safety required for the OBE resulted in the OBE controlling the geotechnical axial design. Table 4: Parameters for Axial Geotechnical Pile Design Value Parameter Adhesion Factor, / Ratio Nc Nq (Cohesionless Soil Sand) Limiting Unit Side Resistance Limiting Unit End Bearing Axial Efficiency Clay 0.50 -9 ---0.8 Dense Sand -0.67 -40 9.6 MPa 96 kPa 0.8 Very Dense Sand -0.67 -50 12 MPa 115 kPa 0.8

Axial capacity of one pile in the pile group (kN) 0 0

Profile2 Qallow FOS=2.5 (Static) Profile3 Qallow FOS=2.5 (Static)

5000

10000

15000

20000

10

Profile2 Qallow FOS=2.0 (OBE) Profile3 Qallow FOS=2.0 (OBE) Profile2 Qallow FOS=1.5 (SSE)

20 Depth (meters)

Profile3 Qallow FOS=1.5 (SSE)

30

40

50

60

Figure 5: Allowable Axial Geotechnical Capacity of 900mm Diameter Reinforced Concrete Bored Piles Soil Profiles 2 and 3

3.E+10 Horizontal Stiffness (N/m) OBE

6E+11 Vertical Stiffness (N/m)

SSE

2.E+10 1.E+10 0.E+00 -1.E+10 -2.E+10 -3.E+10 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

5E+11 4E+11 3E+11 2E+11 1E+11 0

OBE SSE

1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Period (s)

Period (s)

5.E+14 Rocking Stiffness (N-m/rad) OBE 4.E+14 3.E+14 2.E+14 1.E+14 0.E+00 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Period (s) SSE

Figure 6: Period-dependent Horizontal, Vertical, and Rocking Stiffnesses for 300,000 m3 ACLNG Tank, Soil Profile 2, Seismic Zone 3, OBE and SSE

6.

FOUNDATION COMPLIANCE

To facilitate the structural analysis of the tanks, spring stiffnesses (or compliance functions) were determined using the program DYNA5 for both the OBE and SSE. Since DYNA5 is a linear-elastic program, equivalent linear soil properties derived from the site response analyses have been used. Typical horizontal, vertical, and rocking stiffness results for 300,000 m3 ACLNG tanks (Profile 2, Seismic Zone 3) are shown in Figure 6. As can be seen in this figure the compliance functions are period-dependent. Since the structural analysis method employed for this project can only use a single set of horizontal, vertical and rotational springs to represent the stiffness of the foundation, an iterative process was followed to ensure that the spring coefficients selected were representative of the mode of vibration being considered.

7.

ASSESSMENT OF PILE STRUCTURAL CAPACITY

The assessment of pile structural capacity involves the determination of bending moment and shear force distribution in the piles due to OBE and SSE seismic loads and checking against capacities in the moment-axial force interaction charts. Under seismic loading, piled foundations experience a range of loads, which are derived from the following sources: Inertial lateral and vertical forces from the structure and its contents, Overturning moments, which generate push-pull effects (resulting in additional axial load), and Kinematic interaction with the soil For each seismic zone and soil profile, the following four combinations of inertial and kinematic loading sources were considered: A: 100% Inertial + 30% Kinematic B: 100% Inertial 30% Kinematic C: 30% Inertial + 100% Kinematic D: 30% Inertial 100% Kinematic

Free-field seismic ground displacement profiles were developed using the Oasys program SIREN. The Oasys computer program ALP, which can accommodate both inertial loads and kinematic behavior (ground displacement), was used to evaluate the interaction between the embedded piles and the surrounding soil. The program, which considers the lateral loading of a single pile, was used to evaluate the magnitude and distribution of bending moments in the pile. A sample profile of factored bending moment with depth, assuming a fixed head, is provided in Figure 7 for Seismic Zone 3 (OBE), Soil Profile 2. The results of the seismic structural analyses found that, in most instances, the design of the tanks and the foundations are governed by the operating basis earthquake (OBE); since the tank and foundation system should not yield the seismic forces cannot be reduced by relying on ductile response. The iterative analyses revealed that for the piled tanks, the number of piles arrived at based solely on geotechnical capacity requirements for static loads (test conditions), OBE, and SSE generally were not sufficient to meet the structural capacity requirements (i.e. the loads exceeded the structural bending capacity of the piles.) Hence, the number of piles was selected to meet structural capacity requirements. Both driven steel piles and reinforced concrete bored piles were examined. The cost of steel piling was, however, found to be prohibitive and all designs and cost estimates were based on bored piling. Given the large number of piles required with high bending and shear capacity requirements, the foundation costs represent a significant portion of the total tank construction cost in comparison to non-seismic sites. For the reinforced concrete bored pile option, the adopted strength properties include a concrete compressive strength (fcu) of 40 MPa (C40) and a rebar yield strength (fy) of 460 MPa. A factored design approach was selected for the structural design of these reinforced concrete bored piles, using load factors of 1.2 and 1.0 for the OBE and SSE seismic conditions, and material strength factors of 1.5 for concrete and 1.15 for rebar steel. (It

should be noted that the OBE condition with load factor of 1.2 was generally found to be more critical than the SSE condition with a load factor of 1.0). Using the Oasys program ADSEC, axial-bending interaction diagrams employing the factored strength design approach described above were developed, as reported in Figure 8, for the following longitudinal reinforcement configurations: 20T40 Twenty (20) number 40 Bars (40mm diameter) 4.0% Steel 16T40 Sixteen (16) number 40 Bars (40 mm diameter) 3.2% Steel 16T32 Sixteen (16) number 32 Bars (32mm diameter) 2.0% Steel 16T16 Sixteen (16) number 16 Bars (16 mm diameter) 0.5% Steel

The values of factored axial load generally ranged between 4 to 8 MN per pile. The ultimate bending moment capacity should be consistent with these factored axial loads, following the relationships shown in Figure 8. Significant confining (transverse) reinforcing steel is required to resist the seismically-induced shear loads on the concrete bored piles. In the sections of maximum shear, 20 mm diameter bars at 80 mm center-to-center spacing were called for.
0 20T40 -10 Depth (meters) -20 -30 -40 -50 Concrete Piles Fixed Head Seismic Zone 3 - OBE Soil Profile 2 Factored Forces: Mmax = 2784 kN-m PH = 1178 kN / pile 16T32 A B C D

16T16

-60 -5000

-2500

2500

Bending Moment (kN-m)

Figure 7: Factored Bending Moment Versus Depth, Seismic Zone 3 (OBE), Soil Profile 2

25 Factored Axial Load (MN) 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 Factored Bending Moment, Mult (MN-m) 900 mm OD Concrete Piles C40 Concrete Fy = 460 MPa Rebar Steel

20T40 16T40 16T32 16T16

Figure 8: Factored Axial-Bending Interaction Diagram for Various Reinforcement Configurations 900mm Diameter Reinforced Concrete Bored Piles

8.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This paper has summarized the design process and analysis techniques adopted in designing LNG tankfoundation systems. While both driven steel piles and reinforced concrete bored piles were initially examined, the cost of steel piling was found to be prohibitive and all designs were based on bored piling. The results of the seismic structural analyses found that, in most instances, the design of the tanks and the foundations are governed by the OBE; since the tank and foundation system should not yield the seismic forces cannot be reduced by relying on ductile response. The iterative analyses revealed that for the piled tanks, the number of piles arrived at based solely on geotechnical capacity requirements for static loads, OBE, and SSE generally were not sufficient to meet the structural capacity requirements (i.e. the loads exceeded the structural bending capacity of the piles.) Hence, the number of piles was selected to meet structural capacity requirements. The spread of tank cost with soil condition and seismic loading is significant. There is a penalty associated with situating a tank in a more seismically active area or on a site with less-favorable ground conditions. As an example, situating a tank at a site corresponding to Soil Profile 1 would cost 27% more in Seismic Zone 3 relative to Seismic Zone 1. The 300,000m3 tanks show a 5-10% savings (per unit volume) over the 200,000m3 tanks, reflecting the economies of scale. Adopting 2 x 150,000m3 tanks proved more costly than a single 300,000m3 tank, even allowing for some reduction in overhead and engineering effort on twin tanks. No schedule penalty would be incurred given the staggered completion times normally adopted with multiple tank construction. The study therefore concluded that it was more economic to construct a large LNG tank (300,000m3) than two small tanks (150,000m3).

9.

REFERENCES

AEO (2006), Annual Energy Outlook, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC. API (2002), Design and Construction of Large, Welded, Low-Pressure Storage Tanks, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, 208 p. API (2000), Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed Offshore PlatformsWorking Stress Design (RP 2A-WSD), American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, 208 p. Arup (1998), Preliminary Seismic Hazard and Liquefaction Assessment, Malampaya Field Development CGS Construction Dock Investigations, Report for Shell Philippines Exploration. Arup (2002), LNG Project at Damietta Port in Egypt - Seismic Design Basis, Report for MW Kellogg, Ltd. ATC (1978), Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA. Australia / New Zealand (2003), AS/NZS 1170.4, Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthquake Actions. BS EN 1998-1 (2004), Eurocode 8 Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, British Standards Institute, London, UK. EQE (2000), Seismic Hazard Assessment of the Tangguh LNG Development: Tanan Merah Site, Irian Jaya, Indonesia, Report for Kellogg Brown & Root. Henderson, P., Heidebrecht, A.C., Naumoski, N., and Pappin, J.W. (1989), Site Response Study Methodology, Calibration, and Verification of Computer Programs, EERG Report 89-01, Earthquake Engineering Research Group, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. NEHRP (2003), Recommended Provisions for Buildings and Other Structures, National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DC. Newmark, N.M. and Hall, W.J. (1982), Earthquake Spectra and Design, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, CA.

10