Seismic Performance of Elevated Steel Silos During Van Earthquake, October 23, 2011

Author's personal copy
Nat Hazards
DOI 10.1007/s11069-014-1319-9
ORIGINAL PAPER
Seismic performance of elevated steel silos during Van

earthquake, October 23, 2011
Eren Uckan Bulent Akbas Jay Shen Rou Wen Kenan Turandar
Mustafa Erdik
Received: 23 December 2013 / Accepted: 4 July 2014

Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract Silos are commonly used industrial structures to store dry/granular materials
like cement or wheat. A typical silo consists of a vertical steel tank supported by a braced
steel frame which rests on concrete support. Due to unloading purposes, the tank is generally located at an elevated position. This makes the structure vulnerable to axial loads in
columns due to excessive overturning moments generated at the base of the structure.
During the October 23, 2011 Van earthquake in Turkey, many silos collapsed either due to
column buckling or foundation problems. In this paper, the field observations regarding the
seismic performance of silos after the Van earthquake are first summarized. Then, the
seismic performances of two steel-elevated silos located in the earthquake region are
studied. One of the silos survived the earthquake by some minor damages in the form of
buckling (at bottom horizontal brace) and spalling of concrete support, while the other silo
remained undamaged. Nonlinear dynamic time history analyses are performed to evaluate
the seismic performances of both silos. As the input ground motion, the recorded ground
motion from a temporary aftershock station (about 2 km away from the silos) in the second
earthquake is used. Analyses indicate that design and construction quality of elevated silos
determine the seismic performance. Finally, recommendations are given to improve the
seismic performance of new constructions.
E. Uckan (&) K. Turandar M. Erdik

Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute (KOERI), Bogazici University, Cengelkoy,
Istanbul 34684, Turkey
e-mail: eren.uckan@boun.edu.tr
B. Akbas
Department of Earthquake and Structural Engineering, Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli, Turkey
J. Shen
Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA,
USA
R. Wen
Sharma & Associates, Inc., Countryside, IL, USA
123

Nat Hazards
Keywords
Elevated silos Non-building structures Van earthquake
1 Introduction
Elevated silos are one of the most widely used non-building structures in industry to store
dry materials such as wheat or cement. The center of gravity of these structures is generally
high which makes the structure extremely vulnerable to ground shaking due to the
increased bending moments and axial loads. Collapse of a silo may cause loss of material,
cleaning up of the contamination, replacement costs, and most importantly possible injury
or loss of life. Therefore, they need to be designed to redistribute the forces within the
structure when a local failure occurs. This will also help decrease the insurance premiums
of the companies.
The studies on the seismic performance of silos have gained great attention in recent
years. Silvestri et al. (2012) investigated the lateral loads induced by effective mass of the
grain on ground-supported (flat-bottom) silos in detail. Silo failures were widely observed in
the past earthquakes. In a more recent study, they also carried out shaking table tests of
ground-supported (flat-bottom) silos (Silvestri et al. 2014). In the December 7, 1988 Spitak,
Armenia earthquake, a part of the granary in the flour mill complex was damaged (Dogangun
et al. 2009). In the August 17, 1999 and November 12, 1999 Duzce, Turkey earthquakes at
the SEKA Paper Factory, three reinforced concrete silos containing wastewater completely
collapsed (Erdik and Uckan 2013). In the September 21, M = 7.6, 1999 ChiChi, Taiwan
earthquake, a concrete factory silo collapsed. In May 21, 2003 Zemmouri, M = 6.8, Algeria
earthquake, some storage facilities and equipment were severely damaged. In the recent
M = 7.2 Van Earthquake, 2011, many small-to-medium size companies suffered from
similar problems and also continuing legal issues between the silo manufacturers and plant
owners (Akbas and Uckan 2012; Uckan 2013). In addition to such studies, vibration control
methods in industrial facilities were also studied by Paolacci et al. (2013). This paper deals
with the performance of the silo structures in the Van earthquake.
On October 23, 2011, 1:41:21 p.m. local time, the city of Van in eastern Turkey was hit
by a major earthquake causing heavy loss of human lives and properties. The epicenter of
the earthquake, Tabanli Village, was 30 km north of Van (Fig. 1) in the eastern region of
Turkey by Lake Van (Erdik et al. 2012).
The earthquake is considered to be a very strong damaging earthquake with a magnitude
of Mw = 7.2 and a depth of 19.2 km. It was associated with a reverse faulting mechanism
dipping toward north (Erdik et al. 2012; Atzori et al. 2011; METU/EERC 2011; EERI
2012), caused significant damage in the cities of Van, Ercis as well as in many villages,
caused deaths of nearly 600 people, and injured 2,000, and about 15,000 buildings were
damaged in the region (Bayrak et al. 2013; Taskin et al. 2013). About 58 buildings are
reported to have totally collapsed, 52 of them are located in Ercis, while 6 of them are
located in Van. Earthquake-affected areas are mainly located within a circle of 30 km
radius and around the epicenter (Fig. 1). Peak ground acceleration (PGA) of the main
shock, measured at the Muradiye station, was 0.18 and 0.17 g in NS and EW directions,
respectively, and 0.08 g in vertical direction (Table 1) (AFAD 2011). The number of
aftershocks with M = 4.04.9 reached up to 114, the biggest number of aftershocks ever
recorded after any major earthquake in Turkey (Fig. 1) (Bayrak et al. 2013). Significant
aftershock has been associated with this earthquake.
123

Nat Hazards
Strong motion station

(white) (AFAD)
Location of the silo (red)

and the aftershock station
of KOERI (white)
Fig. 1 Main shock, big aftershocks, and the second (Edremit) earthquake [red stars: M C 5.0, pink circles:
4.0 B MB5.0, yellow stars: the main shock (M = 7.2) and Edremit Earthquake (M = 5.6)] (Kalafat et al.
2012)
Table 1 Characteristics of the Muradiye and Semsibey earthquake records

Date
Record name
Location
Depth
(km)
Magnitude
(Mw)
PGA
(g)
23 October 2011
Muradiye NS
(main shock)
Van Muradiye
Meteorology Directorate
19.02
7.2
0.179
9 November 2011
Semsibey (second
earthquake)
Semsibey Primary
School
5.6
0.09
Two weeks after the main shock, another earthquake with a moderate magnitude
(M = 5.6) hit the town of Edremit, located 10 km south of Van. It was possibly triggered
by the first event and caused by a strike-slip fault. About 30 buildings already damaged in
the main shock collapsed. The water and electric networks were damaged again. No
damage was observed in Ercis.
Many reconnaissance reports and papers have been published after the earthquake, but
none of them specifically investigated the damage to industrial facilities, especially to silos
123

Nat Hazards
(Bayrak et al. 2013; Ozden et al. 2011; Taskin et al. 2013; Onen et al. 2012; Guney 2012).
This paper aims at investigating the damage at silos which collapsed during the main
shock. The seismic performances of two steel-elevated silos located in the earthquake
region with concentrically braced frames are studied. One of them survived the earthquake
by some minor damages in the form of buckling (at bracings) or spalling of concrete due to
insufficient seating widths of the supporting concrete, while the other silo remained
undamaged. Nonlinear dynamic time history analyses are performed to evaluate the
seismic performances of the silos. As the input ground motion, the acceleration records
from the nearest station (Semsibey) are used. The ground motion is scaled by a factor of 2
in order to match the calculated bias adjusted PGA value of PGA = 0.2 g.
2 Seismicity, site observations, and strong motion properties of the Van earthquake
Seismicity of the region mainly consists of continent-to-continent collision of Anatolian
and Arabian plates (Fig. 2). The earthquake is reported to have occurred on a blind oblique
trust fault, namely Van fault, oriented toward the NESW direction (Erdik et al. 2012;
KOERI 2011; Bayrak et al. 2013) and is not marked on the active fault map of Turkey
(Emre et al. 2012).
2.1 Seismicity and site observations
Part of the convergence between these two plates takes place along the BitlisZagros fold
and thrust belt at a rate of approximately 2.4 cm/year (Erdik et al. 2012). The focal region
Fig. 2 Active tectonic plates, major faults, and their movement directions (Gulen et al. 2002) [from KOERI
Report (KOERI 2011)]
123

Nat Hazards
of the earthquake and much of easternmost Turkey lie toward the southern boundary of the
complex zone of continental collision between the Arabian Plate and the Eurasian Plate.
The geology of the surrounding area is composed of lake, river, and land sediments having
layers of loose sand, gravel, and clay (Ozden et al. 2011). Groundwater level is known to
be high especially for the areas close to Lake Van.
Geotechnical observations after the earthquake indicated that there were mainly liquefaction and liquefaction-based lateral spreading and displacement, landslides, slope
failures, and rockfalls. Water transmission/distribution systems suffered from ground
shaking and soil failure problems. In Ercis, water supply system has been interrupted for a
couple of days due to pipe breaks in the main water supply system. Local authorities
indicated that as a result of pressure reduction in the water supply system, it was likely that
it be polluted by the neighboring sewage system due to potential fluid flow. Due to tensile
and compressive soil deformations, pipe crashing and pullout damages were also observed.
However, after minor repairs and reconfigurations, all services were fully functional
(Akbas and Uckan 2012). The heavy precast concrete frames with precast roof beams
suffered from connection problems. Noticeable displacements and deformations were
observed at the beamcolumn connections and footings of the structures with precast
concrete frame systems located around the VanErcis highway. More severe cases were
observed at the industrial zone of Van. The precast concrete beams slipped off from their
seats and collapsed because of inadequate steelconcrete bondage.
2.2 Strong ground motion
In the main shock, the strong motion stations in Van were not operating. Nearest station
was the one in Muradiye (Fig. 1). Following the preliminary field investigation conducted
by KOERI (2011) on October 24, 2011, the deployment of 10 additional seismic instrumentation began on October 25, 2011. Buildings with minor damage seemed to have
experienced only non-structural damage due to mostly separation of infill walls from the
structural frame. This type of damage was also a manifestation of long duration and rather
low amplitude (believed to be \0.2 g).
Distribution of PGA associated with the main shock was obtained by KOERI (2011) by
utilizing the software ELER. The unadjusted estimates of a PGA on the order of 0.6 g and
peak ground velocity (PGV) of 50 cm/s may have been experienced in the epicentral
region. However, there was no evidence from the field to support these levels of ground
motion.
The bias adjusted ground hazard in Van was estimated by (Erdik et al. 2012) from the
nearest stations in Muradiye and Bitlis. The distribution of revised PGAs is shown in
Fig. 3 where the PGA is only about 0.2 g.
The damage observations in Van and Ercis relate to a building stock that has been
exposed only to about 50 % of the reference (or design) acceleration of 0.30.4 g level. As
such, any nearby aftershock (M C 5.5) that can create ground motion above 0.150.2 g
level can cause additional damage and collapses as evidenced in Van city by the November
9, 2011, M5.7 Edremit earthquake (Erdik et al. 2012).
3 Earthquake damage
Almost all elevated cement and wheat silos that were fully loaded during the earthquake
collapsed or seriously damaged. Some suffered from rupture at their base due to excessive
123

Nat Hazards
Fig. 3 Distribution of the bias adjusted PGA (%) associated with the main shock obtained by the ELER
software (PGA = 0.2 g) (Erdik et al. 2012)
Fig. 4 Construction of a tie beam for the collapsed cement silo in Van Industrial Zone due to supporting
concrete failure
bending and bearing stresses. Local buckling and anchorage failures were also observed.
The tall twin silos collided with each other. Figs. 4 through 11 show some of the heavily
damaged or fully collapsed silos during the earthquake. Figs 4 and 5a show collapsed
cement silos in Van Industrial Zone due to supporting concrete failure.
These silos were immediately retrofitted with tie beams after the earthquake. The
buckling load for the gusset plate at the connection (Fig. 5b) is estimated as 190.0 kN for
the two gusset plates with dimensions of 20 mm 9 50 mm 9 200 mm and with yield
stress, Fy, of 250 MPa. A simple analytical study has shown that the axial load to be
transferred by the connection was on the order of 210 kN during the earthquake. Thus,
buckling is the expected behavior for this connection. The deformed shape in Fig. 5b
indicates buckling due to uniaxial compression at the two parallel vertical gusset plates and
bending deformation at the base plate (horizontal) due to axial load in the silo leg. The
cement silos near Ercis in Figs. 6 and 7 are other examples of supporting concrete failure.
A number of elevated wheat silos collapsed due to inadequate design in Van Industrial
123
personal copy
Nat Hazards
b
Silo leg
Silo body
Fig. 5 A collapsed cement silo in Van: a construction of tie beams for the damaged supporting concrete
foundation, b gusset plate buckling due to inadequate design at the leg-to-silo body connection
Fig. 6 A collapsed cement silo near Ercis due to failure of the supporting concrete
Zone (Fig. 8). Brittle welded connection failure caused failure of some silos in Van
(Fig. 9). A minor shell buckling is observed at an elevated gravel silo in Van (Fig. 10).
Fig. 11 shows an undamaged ground-supported and a collapsed elevated wheat silo in the
industrial zone of Van.
123

Nat Hazards
Fig. 7 A collapsed silo due to supporting concrete failure in Ercis
Fig. 8 Collapsed elevated wheat silos due to inadequate design in Van Industrial Zone
Fig. 9 A collapsed silo due to brittle welded connection failure in Van
123

Nat Hazards
Fig. 10 A minor shell buckling at an elevated gravel silo in Van
Fig. 11 An undamaged ground-supported (left) and collapsed elevated wheat silo in Van Industrial Zone
4 Structural framing and design of non-building structures in ASCE 7-10 (2010)

For non-building structures not similar to buildings (elevated tanks, vessels, bins, flatbottom ground-supported tanks, concrete chimneys, cooling towers, etc.), a structural
framing system is selected and assigned appropriate values of seismic load reduction
coefficient (R), over strength factor (X0), and displacement amplification factor (Cd)
(Table 15.42 in ASCE 7-10 2010). Seismic response of a building-like or a non-building
structure is most significantly affected by the following parameters:
a.
b.
Earthquake input: location and soil condition dependent. No difference for any
structure.
Initial structural dynamic properties: initial stiffness and damping.
123

Nat Hazards
c.
d.
e.
Structural configurations: plan and elevation configurations.

Seismic load resisting system (SLRS).
Interaction between structural and non-structural components.
Concentrically braced frames (CBFs) are probably one of the most efficient seismic load
resisting systems (SLRSs) for building-like industrial structures. It has certainly become
the most popular SLRS in buildings after 1994 Northridge earthquake. The seismic performance of CBFs in past earthquakes has been good to excellent, but some brittle damage
patterns were frequently observed including fracture of brace members due to excessive
buckling deformation and fracture of connections. Buckling deformation is desirable;
however, fracture under cyclic load is not. Seismically compact section must be used in
cases where inelastic deformation is expected. Fracture of a connection that is a brittle limit
state has to be prevented by imposing the maximum force possible for inelastic design
(capacity design approach). Special CBF is expected to have significant inelastic deformation supply, and thus, designed with relatively lower strength than otherwise elastic
response would require (on the order of three times). Ductile behavior and corresponding
reduction in design lateral load come from the yielding of the tension brace (diagonal). The
resulting frame deformation necessitates buckling of the compression brace (diagonal).
ASCE 7-10 (2010) gives the design requirements of CBFs. However, ASCE 7-10
(2010) has been primarily developed on seismic performance of building-like structures.
Building is defined as any structure whose intended use includes shelter of human occupants (ASCE 7-10 2010). This definition is in terms of function, but does not mention
anything related to structural characteristics, which include the following:
a.
b.
Diaphragms or other horizontal elements as integral parts of lateral load resisting

system.
Non-structural components consisting of significant portion of total seismic weight,
affecting actual stiffness and damping.
The requirements given for building-like structures in ASCE 7-10 (2010) might be
applicable to industrial structures with non-essential modifications. Structures not similar
to buildings have fundamentally different response and need special attentions by industrial standards in addition to the requirements in ASCE 7-10 (2010). Non-building structures similar to a building have the following features:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Non-buildings structures are designed and constructed in a manner similar to

buildings.
They will respond to strong ground motions in a fashion similar to buildings.
They have basic load carrying systems similar to those used for buildings.
Lateral forces are usually transferred with diaphragms or other elements.
The similarities between the requirements for building-like and non-building structures
similar to buildings allow applying building code provisions directly whenever applicable.
Differences between the building and industrial structures similar to buildings are also
listed as follows (ASCE 7-10 2010):
a.
Non-structural components in buildings mainly serve the human occupants, whereas

they serve mainly specific functions of the structures of particular industry in nonbuilding structures that might have substantial impact on actual damping, stiffness, and
strength. For example, the presence of partition walls and exterior enclosure walls in
conventional buildings may result in large damping and initial stiffness than in nonbuilding structures.
123

Nat Hazards
b.
c.
d.
Building-like structures might have irregularities in mass (affecting distribution of

lateral forces if equivalent lateral force procedure is used and might require response
spectrum procedure) and stiffness (which might cause significant torsional
irregularity).
Differences are reflected in the design process. For instance, the fundamental period of
an industrial structure shall be evaluated by a rational method other than the
approximate period for building-like structures, whereas for conventional buildings,
the fundamental period can be obtained through empirical relations.
Drift limitation for building-like structures (generally 2 % 9 story height) does not
apply to non-building structures, and if analysis indicates, it is not critical for structural
stability.
5 Analytical study
Two silos are used for an analytical study (Figs. 12, 13). Silo-1 in Fig. 12 is a typical silo
in the region. These silos did not experience any significant damage during the earthquake.
Silo-2 experienced some damage at horizontal braces and supporting concrete footing
(Fig. 13). The bottom horizontal brace member has been buckled, and the bearing strength
of the supporting concrete was exceeded and the base plate had some damage. Both silos
are located in northern Van, 10 km to the city center (Fig. 14).
The steel grade for the silos is classified as Fe37 with Fy = 235 MPa for the braces and
rings, whereas FE52 steel grade with Fy = 345 MPa is used for the legs. Modulus of
elasticity is taken as 200,000 MPa. The legs, rings, and braces (Figs. 15a, 16a) are modeled
as steel frame elements, and body of the silo is modeled as thin plate shell. Cross-sectional
properties are given in Table 2. Structural framing of the silos consisted of horizontal legs,
braces, horizontal braces, silo body, and rings inside the body. The total height of the Silo1 and Silo-2 is 17.884 and 14.398 m, respectively. The rings inside Silo-1 are located at the
levels of 8.134, 9.634, 11.134, 12.634, 14.134, 15.724, and 16.384 m, whereas the rings
inside Silo-2 are located at the levels of 4.730, 6.230, 7.730, 9.230, 10.730, 12.259, and
12.919 m. For both silos, 11.0 tons of mass was assigned on center of each ring level
except the upper ring, where 6.0 tons of mass is assigned on the center of upper ring levels
to represent the mass and weight of the dry materials inside the silo, i.e., silo is assumed to
be fully loaded. Thus, the total weight of each silo is assumed to be fully loaded with
(7 9 11.0 tons ? 6.0 tons) 9 9.81 m/sec2 = 830 kN of dry material. The masses are
connected to the rings with infinitely rigid, weightless, and mass-less fictitious frame
members. The silo is assumed to be simply supported to the ground. Moment releases are
assigned on both ends of braces and horizontal braces.
Dynamic properties of the silos are given in Figs. 15b, c and Figs. 16b, c. The first
mode of vibrations of Silo-1 and Silo-2 are found to be 1.09 and 0.63 s, respectively.
Modal mass participating ratio for both silos is about 86 % for the first mode, where it adds
up to 99.5 % for the first two modes.
There was only one ground motion record for the Van earthquake recorded at Muradiye
(Fig. 14). There was another ground motion station in the city center of Van, but the night
watch shut down the electricity the night of the earthquake for some unknown reason
according to local authorities. The distance between the location of the recorded ground
motion station (Muradiye) and the silo location is about 70 km (Fig. 14). On November 9,
2011, a second earthquake hit the region again with a magnitude of 5.6. Fortunately, this
123

Nat Hazards
3@1,952 mm
2,278 mm
17,884 mm
9,750 mm
Fig. 12 A typical undamaged

silo in Van (Silo-1)
2,165
mm
earthquake was recorded at many station around the earthquake region, and one of the
stations, Semsibey, was within a few km of the Silos (Fig. 14). Characteristics and
acceleration time histories of the Muradiye and Semsibey ground motions are given in
Table 1 and Fig. 17, respectively. For comparison, uniform hazard spectra for 5 % critical
damping are constructed for three earthquake levels, namely EQ-1, EQ-2, and EQ-3, based
on RHA (2007). Short-period spectral acceleration, Ss, and 1-sec period spectral acceleration, S1, values corresponding to these earthquake levels are given in Table 3. Effective
PGAs corresponding to these earthquake levels are determined as 0.24, 0.42, and 0.62 for
EQ-1, EQ-2, and EQ-3, respectively. Fig. 18 shows the response spectra corresponding to
Muradiye and Semsibey ground motions. For comparison, design spectra corresponding to
10 % probability of exceedance in 50 years as described in Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC
123

Nat Hazards
Fig. 13 Framing of a minor damaged silo due to horizontal brace buckling and concrete support failure in
Van (Silo-2)
Turkey
Lake Van
Fig. 14 Muradiye (AFAD) and Semsibey Primary School (KOERI) stations and silo locations (source:
Google Earth)
2007) are also given in Fig. 18 for different site conditions. Response spectrum definition
in TEC (2007) is based on effective peak ground acceleration which is given as 0.4 g for
the earthquake site.
123

Nat Hazards
Upper
rings
First ring
Leg
Horizontal
brace
Brace
Fig. 15 Model details and dynamic properties of Silo-1: a structural model, b Mode 1 (T = 1.09 s),
c Mode 2 (T = 0.20 s)
To determine the seismic response of the silos, nonlinear dynamic time history analyses
are carried out. Damping ratio is assumed to be 2 % for dynamic analyses. P-Delta effect is
always included in the analyses. Axial plastic hinges are assigned to the middle of the
braces. Post-buckling behavior of the braces under compression is accounted for (Fig. 19).
In Fig. 19, Ry is ratio of the expected yield stress to the specified minimum yield stress, Fy;
Fcr is the critical stress; Ag is gross area; Pcr is maximum axial buckling load; dyc is the
yield displacement under compression; dyt is the yield displacement under tension; Py is
the maximum tension force; and Presidual is the residual load after buckling of the member.
Dead and live loads are assumed as the initial conditions of the nonlinear dynamic time
history analysis. Semsibey record is used for the nonlinear dynamic time history analyses
and scaled to 0.20 g as justified in Sect. 2.2. To further investigate the nonlinear behavior
of the silos, Semsibey ground motion was scaled to 0.40 g as defined in TEC (2007) for the
site.
Peak axial compression forces and peak drift ratios are summarized in Table 4. Both
silos did not experience any inelastic action when subject to Semsibey ground motion
scaled to 0.2 g, i.e., they remained elastic (Figs. 20, 21). Drift ratios were about 0.57 and
0.41 % for Silo-1 and Silo-2, respectively (Table 4). Axial force in the most critical brace
in Silo-1 was about 180 kN corresponding to a demand/capacity ratio of 0.6. This silo did
not experience any damage during the earthquake, and the analyses indicated the same
way. Axial force in the most critical brace in Silo-2 was about 150 kN corresponding to a
demand/capacity ratio of 0.5 (Table 4). This silo suffered minor damage during the
earthquake in the form of bottom horizontal brace buckling and minor damage in
123

Nat Hazards
14,398 mm
9,668 mm
Upper
rings
mm
2,2278 mm
500 mm 1,952
First ring
Leg
Brace
Horizontal
brace
Fig. 16 Model details and dynamic properties of Silo-2: a structural model, b Mode 1 (T = 0.63 s),
c Mode 2 (T = 0.13 s)
Table 2 Silo properties

Component
Cross-sectional
Silo-1
Silo-2
Legs
/300 9 6 mm hollow pipe section
TS178 9 178 9 6.4 mm
Braces
80 9 80 9 5 mm angle
80 9 80 9 5 mm angle
First ring
UPN120
UPN120
Upper rings
UPN80
UPN80
Horizontal braces
80 9 80 9 5 mm angle
80 9 80 9 5 mm angle
Body of silo
5 mm thin plate
5 mm thin plate
supporting concrete. However, dynamic analyses indicated that axial force level for the
horizontal braces in Silo-2 was way lower than their capacity and axial load demand/
capacity ratio was about 0.10 (Fig. 21). This indicates that damage occurred in the horizontal braces due to some other reason. It should be pointed out that Silo-2 had no tie
beams connecting the supporting concrete.
When subjected to Semsibey ground motion scaled to 0.4 g, the seismic response of
both silos was moderate to heavy (Figs. 22, 23). Drift ratios increased to 1.01 and 0.71 %
123

Nat Hazards
0.2
Acceleration (g)
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
10
20
30
40
50
60
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
Time (sec)
a Muradiye
0.20
EW- November 9, 2011
Acceleration (g)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
- 0.05
10
20
30
40
50
60
- 0.10
- 0.15
- 0.20
Time (sec)
b Semsibey
Fig. 17 Acceleration time history of the ground motions: a Muradiye Station NS component, b Semsibey
Primary School EW component
Table 3 Ss and S1 values (RHA

2007)
Earthquake level
Ss (g)
S1 (g)
PGA (g)
EQ-1 (50 % PE in 50 years)
0.59
0.16
0.24
1.05
0.31
0.42
1.57
0.52
0.62
for Silo-1 and Silo-2, respectively (Table 4). Braces in Silo-1 yielded, whereas only bottom
short legs in Silo-2 experienced inelastic action, but not considered to be significant
(Fig. 23).
6 Comments
This study investigated the effect of Van earthquake, 2011 (M = 7.2) in Turkey on
industrial structures, especially on elevated silos. During the earthquake, some industrial
structures with precast concrete framing systems, water and electric utilities, and elevated
silos in concrete plants were either damaged or fully collapsed. Moreover, most of the silos
were not insured. Therefore, legal issues also arised between the silo providers and owners.
The equipment in these structures moved and/or collapsed, causing major business interruption, loss of market, and stock damage. The loss of capacity in small- and
123

Nat Hazards
1.2
Stiff Soil (TEC)
Stiff Clay (TEC)
1
Soft Clay (TEC)

Soft Soil (TEC)
Sae (g)
0.8
Muradiye NS
Semsibey EW
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
T (sec)
Fig. 18 Response spectra corresponding to Muradiye and Semsibey stations and TEC (2007) (5 % critical
damping)
P
Py =Ry Fy Ag
Py
yc
yt
Presidual 0.3 Pcr
0.3 Pcr
PCR =Ry Fcr Ag
PCR
3 yc
Fig. 19 Force-deformation behavior of a typical brace member: a hysteresis with post-buckling behavior,
b idealized behavior
Table 4 Peak axial compression

force and drift ratios
Silo no.
PGA
(g)
Peak axial force (P)

(kN)
P/Pmax
Peak drift ratio

(%)
Silo-1
0.2
180
0.60
0.57
0.4
300
1.00
1.01
0.2
149
0.50
0.41
0.4
235
0.78
0.71
Silo-2
Pmax Axial compression strength
123

Nat Hazards
Fig. 20 Seismic response of Silo-1 subject to Semsibey EW components scaled to 0.2 g
microenterprises had additional adverse socioeconomic effects due to loss of employment

and production. The earthquake is estimated to have caused a total of 12 billion USD in
total economic losses (Erdik et al. 2012). All these facts pointed out the need for constructing safer new building and non-building structures and retrofitting thousands of
123

Nat Hazards
similar existing vulnerable ones. The uneven damage distribution on silos in the earthquake
posed a new question why not this one?. Damage to infrastructure and utility brought
more reasons for erecting safer non-building structures in industrial facilities.
123

Nat Hazards
7 Conclusions
In this study, seismic performances of the silos in the earthquake based on site observations
are first investigated in detail. Seismic analyses on silos are also carried out to determine
the seismic response of typical silos in the region through nonlinear dynamic time history
analyses. The analytical studies are carried out on two elevated silos, and the results are
123
personal copy
Nat Hazards
discussed. The nonlinear behaviors of the members are modeled by considering the tension
(yielding) and compression (buckling) hysteresis curves. As the input ground motion, the
acceleration records from the nearest station (Semsibey) are used. The response spectrum
of the ground motion is far below the TEC (2007) design spectrum. Therefore, inelastic
behavior is not observed during the analysis. In general, the numerical results are observed
to be consistent with the site observations. This is probably due to the low level of ground
motion. However, when the input motion is scaled up to match the design earthquake,
significant inelastic behavior is observed in one of the silos.
The main outcomes of this study are summarized as follows:
123

Nat Hazards
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The failure of silos were brittle, sudden and generally due to weak detailing,
inadequate design of supporting concrete footings.
Field observations revealed only one cement silo collapsed due to inadequate design of
braces and legs, whereas others collapsed because of supporting concrete failure due to
lack of tie beams between the supporting concrete footings.
Demand to capacity ratios remained well below 1.0 for the silos; that is, Van
earthquake was not considered to be a strong earthquake for the non-building
structures in the region.
Overturning is a major problem for silos. Aspect ratio for the silos in this study was 8.3
for Silo-1 and 6.65 for Silo-2.
In current practice, supporting concrete area is generally equal to the base plate area.
In these cases, tie beams connecting the supporting concrete footings should be used to
prevent failure of the supporting concrete.
Bearing strength of the supporting concrete is exceeded in many cases, and supporting
concrete has no confinement effect when tie beams are not used.
Construction quality and detailing are key issues in enhancing the seismic performance
of the silos.
The silos that survived the earthquake without any damage were designed, detailed,
and constructed well.
The scope of the future studies should be to investigate simple, practical, and efficient
retrofitting methods. This is also expected to have an influence on the earthquake
insurance premiums of likely facilities.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by the Directory of Scientific Research Project of Bosphorus University (Grant # BAP5715) and Directorate of Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research
Institute, Bosphorus University (KOERI).
References
AFAD (2011) Prime Ministry Disaster and Emergency Management Agency. http://www.afad.gov.tr
Akbas B, Uckan E (2012) Seismic and structural observations from Van earthquakes of October 23 and
November 9, 2011. Gebze Institute of Technology, Department of Earthquake and Structural Engineering, Report No. 2012/01-1
ASCE 7-10 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil
Engineers, ASCE
Atzori S, Tolomei C, Salvi S, Zoffoli S (2011) Co-seismic ground displacement and preliminary source
models for the 10/23/2011, Mw 7.2, Van earthquake, Eastern Turkey. SiGRiS activation report
Bayrak Y, Yadav RBS, Kalafat D, Tsapanos TM, Cinar H, Singh AP, Bayrak E, Yilmaz S, Ocal F, Koravos
G (2013) Seismogenesis and earthquake triggering during the Van (Turkey) 2011 seismic sequence.
Tectonophysics 601:163176
Dogangun A, Karaca Z, Durmus A, Sezen HM (2009) Cause of damage and failures in silo structures.
J Perform Constr Fac 23:6571
EERI (2012) Learning from earthquakes Mw 7.1 Ercis -Van, Turkey earthquake of October 23, 2011.
Special Earthquake Report, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
Emre O, Duman TY, Ozalp S, Elmaci H (2012) Site observations and preliminary evaluation of source fault
of 23 October 2011 Van earthquake. Active Tectonics Research Group, MTS Publications, Ankara in
Turkish
Erdik M, Uckan E. (2013) Earthquake damage and fragilities of the industrial facilities. International
Conference on Seismic Design of Industrial Facilities, RWTH, Aachen University
Erdik M, Kamer Y, Demircioglu M, Sesetyan K (2012) 23 October 2011 Van (Turkey) earthquake. Nat
Hazards. doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0263-9
123

Nat Hazards
Gulen L et al (2002) Surface fault break, aftershock distribution, and rupture process of the 17 August 1999
Izmit, Turkey, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92:230244
Guney D (2012) Van earthquakes (23 October 2011 and 9 November 2011) and performance of masonry
and adobe structures. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12:33373342
Kalafat D, Suvarikli M, Ogutcu Z, Kekovali K, Yilmazer M, Ocal MF, Gunes Y (2012) A recent example of
continentcontinent collision: October 23, 2011 Van Earthquake (Mw = 7.2) : Southeastern Turkey,
American Geophysics Union AGU 2012 Fall Meeting, S51B-2420, 3-7 December 2012, San Francisco, CA, USA
KOERI (2011) KOERI Report. http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/depremmuh/deprem-raporlari/Van_Eq_SM_
31102011.pdf
METU/EERC (2011) Site observation of seismic and structural damage on Van earthquake of Mw = 7.2,
October 23. Middle East Technical University, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No.
METU/EERC 2011-04
Onen YH, Dindar AA, Cosgun C, Seckin E (2012) Reconnaissance and on-site evaluation report of Van
Earthquakes: October 23 and November 9, 2013. Istanbul Kultur University
Ozden S, Akpinar E, Atalay H (2011) Reconnaissance report on Van earthquake of October 2011. Kocaeli
University
Paolacci F, Giannini R, De Angelis M (2013) Seismic response mitigation of chemical plant components by
passive control systems. J Loss Preven Proc 26(5):879948
RHA (2007) Seismic code for the construction of harbor and coastal structures, railways, airports. General
Directorate for Construction of Railways, Harbors and Airports, Ankara
Silvestri, S, Ivorra S, Chiacchio LD, Trombetti T, Foti D, Gasparini G,Dietz M, Taylor C (2014) Shakingtable tests of flat-bottom silos containing grain-like material, Earthq Eng Struct D (in press)
Silvestri S, Gasparini G, Trombetti T, Foti D (2012) On the evaluation of the horizontal forces produced by
grain-like material inside silos during earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng 10:15351560
Taskin B, Sezen A, Tugsal UM, Erken A (2013) The aftermath of 2011 Van earthquakes: evaluation of
strong motion, geotechnical and structural issues. Bull Earthq Eng 11:285312
Uckan E (2013) Lifeline damage caused in the 23 October (Mw = 7.2) 2011 and 9 November (M = 5.6)
2011, Van earthquakes in eastern Turkey. International efforts in Lifeline earthquake Engineering,
Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Monograph No: 38, ASCE Edited by: Davis C,
Miyajima M., Yan L
123

Seismic Performance of Elevated Steel Silos During Van Earthquake, October 23, 2011

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Seismic Performance of Elevated Steel Silos During Van Earthquake, October 23, 2011

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Author's personal copy