Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 924e935

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jlp

Seismic response mitigation of chemical plant components by passive

control techniques
F. Paolacci a, *, R. Giannini a, M. De Angelis b
a
Department of Structures, University Roma Tre, Via Corrado Segre 00146, Rome, Italy
b
Department of Struct. and Geotech. Engineering, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, via Eudossiana 18, 00184 Rome, Italy

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

Article history: This paper deals with the applicability of seismic passive control in major-hazard chemical installations.
Received 19 August 2012 The objective is to show numerically and experimentally the applicability of Passive Control Techniques
Received in revised form (PCT) in industrial plants. Consequently, the main components of a process plant are classified and
13 March 2013
collected into a limited number of classes; for each class, the main damages caused by past earthquakes
Accepted 13 March 2013
are described and the most vulnerable components are identified. A synthesis of the effects of earth-
quakes on the different typologies of process components is also presented and the most suitable
Keywords:
innovative seismic protection systems, in particular passive control techniques (PCT), are acknowledged.
Chemical plants
Seismic response
Finally, the effectiveness of PCT in reducing the seismic response of process plant components is proved
Passive control by three representative case studies: a base isolated above-ground storage tank, a distillation column
connected by elastoplastic dampers to the adjacent service frame and an application of non-conventional
Tuned Mass Dampers to a support frame.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction them particularly vulnerable to earthquakes. In fact, in the case of a

The current worldwide situation of industry concerning natural
events, e.g. earthquakes, is particularly critical. This is clearly
demonstrated by the consequences of serious accidents caused by
natural events to industrial plants (Na-Tech events), particularly in
the chemical and oil processing industries. Consequences include
the release of the hazardous materials (fires, explosions), human
injuries and the increasing of overall damage to nearby areas,
proving this to be a key emerging risk issue (Cozzani, Campedel,
Renni, & Krausmann, 2010; Krausmann, Cozzani, Salzano, & Renni,
2011; Talaslidisa et al., 2004; Young, Balluz, & Malilay, 2005). In
fact, chemical accidents triggered by natural events like earthquakes
have been recognized to be the cause of about 5% of accidents with
the release of hazardous substances (Campedel, 2008). Earthquakes
can cause severe damages to industrial plants, initiating major ac-
cidents, as clearly shown in several events (Hatayama, 2008;
Krausmann, Cruz, & Affeltranger, 2010; Moat, Morrison, & Wong,
2000; Nishi, 2012; Sezen & Whittaker, 2006; Suzuki, 2006). The
main reason is that chemical plants are complex systems, and this
complexity, due to numerous connections and components renders
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ39 0657336418.
E-mail addresses: paolacci@uniroma3.it (F. Paolacci), giannini@uniroma3.it
(R. Giannini), maurizio.deangelis@uniroma1.it (M. De Angelis).
seismic event, the earthquake can induce simultaneous damages to
different apparatus, whose effects can be amplified because of the
failure of safety systems or the simultaneous generation of multiple
accidental chains. In addition, activities carried out in process plants
are often arranged in series. Consequently, the “failure” of a single
element may result in the “failure” of the entire system.
In a chemical plant, an earthquake can cause many human
losses as a consequence of component collapses, similarly to
buildings, along with indirect effects such as economic losses,
downtimes, environmental damages due to releases of dangerous
substances, damages due to explosions, fires and the release of
toxic substances. Therefore, the usual safety requirements applied
to civil buildings for ultimate and serviceability limit states and the
consequences of exceptional actions are generally unsuitable for
structures belonging to industrial plants. As a matter of fact, critical
damages that could cause even a modest release of inflammable
substances, such as a flange opening or a welding breaking, can
result insignificant from a structural point of view, but, at the same
time, might cause considerable accidental chains. Consequently, for
process industry it is unavoidable to associate indirect conse-
quences of accidents due to seismic events to direct structural
damages. Therefore, many authors have suggested methodologies
for a quantitative risk analysis (QRA) of the main chemical plant
components for the calculation of their fragility curves and risk
indexes, useful for the assessment of possible reference scenarios

0950-4230/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2013.03.003
 F. Paolacci et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 924e935
triggered by seismic events (Antonioni, Spadoni, & Cozzani, 2007;
Campedel, Cozzani, Garcia-Agreda, & Salzano, 2008; Fabbrocino,
Iervolino, Orlando, & Salzano, 2005; Korkmaz, Ali Sari, Asuman, &
Carhoglu, 2011; Salzano, Iervolino, & Fabbrocino, 2003). They
have shown the general high vulnerability of chemical plant com-
ponents and the need for suitable protection systems e.g. Early
Warning (EW) (Salzano, Agreda, Carluccio, & Fabbrocino, 2009). An
EW system activates interlock systems and fast shut-off valves to
prevent loss of content and consequent accidents.
A different solution is represented by passive control techniques
(PCT). They have been developed during the last 40 years and are
based on the concept of reducing the seismic action instead of
increasing the structural strength (Spencer & Nagarajaiah, 2003).
For civil constructions, these techniques are nowadays considered a
consolidated alternative design tool for new or existing structures
in seismic-prone areas. Unfortunately, PCT is not easily applicable
to industrial structures, for at least two reasons: 1) the large variety
of structural and geometric configurations of plant components, 2)
the different design objectives and working conditions, closely
related to the consequences of possible accidents.
As a matter of fact, until now, PCT have been used for a very
limited number of industrial applications; for example, in Europe
the isolation technique has been adopted only in a few cases: the
seismic protection of Petrochemical LNG terminal of Revythousa,
Greece (Tajirian, 1998) and of ammoniac tanks, at Visp, in
Switzerland, by means of elastomeric isolators (Marioni, 1998).
Friction Pendulum devices were also used for the seismic isolation
of an elevated steel storage tank of the petrochemical plant of Priolo
Gargallo in Sicily (Italy) (Santagelo, Scibilia, & Stadarelli, 2007). In
Korea a couple of LNG tanks have been isolated using high damping
rubber bearings (Koh, 1997). Two large liquefied natural gas (LNG)
tanks for the Melchorita facility (Perù) have been seismically pro-
tected with Triple Pendulum bearings. The facility is located in an
area with high seismic hazard. Use of seismic isolation in these LNG
tanks resulted in an economical tank design with a reduced foot-
print, while providing the most reliable mechanism for accom-
modating the large seismic displacements that occur during an
earthquake.
Nevertheless, analytical and experimental tests have clearly
demonstrated the effectiveness of isolators in reducing the
response of storage tanks (Calugaru and Mahin 2009; Chalhoub &
Kelly, 1990; De Angelis, Giannini, & Paolacci, 2010). Other applica-
tions of PCT to industrial components have been proposed in the
past for the seismic protection of piping systems using yielding or
friction-based bearings (Bakre, Jangid, & Reddy, 2004), or semi-
active dampers (Kumar, Jangid, & Reddy, 2012). For this reason, in
the present paper the use of PCT is investigated, aiming at
providing general applicability criteria. In particular, after a his-
torical survey of the structural behavior and the relevant damages
suffered by oil refinery components during strong earthquakes, a
structural classification of the analyzed components is provided
and an overview on the most suitable protection strategies, based
on passive control techniques, are proposed for each of the recog-
nized structural categories.
Although the identification of the most important damage states
was already provided in literature, especially to identify possible
loss of content (LOC) phenomena and consequences, this paper
concerns the same issue but with a particular attention paid to
structural aspects only; the goal is to explain the close relationship
between structural typology and passive control technologies (base
isolation, energy dissipation, TMD, etc.). In addition, some quali-
tative information on how PCT can help in avoiding possible hazard
accidents is provided and discussed, leaving the identification of
the relationship between the structural and hazard benefits pro-
vided by PCT systems to further works. Thus, the main objective of
925
the paper is to show numerically and experimentally the applica-
bility of PCT in industrial plants; these results could be profitably
used for a further quantitative evaluation of the seismic risk of a
plant in presence of response mitigation systems.
In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the suggested PCT
solutions (isolation, energy dissipation and TMD) in reducing the
seismic response of refinery components, the following three case
studies are analyzed and discussed in the final part of the work: a)
the design of base isolation systems for the seismic protection of
above-ground steel storage tanks, b) the applicability of dissipative
coupling technique to reduce the seismic response of a service
frame and a distillation column belonging to a thermal cracking
plant of a refinery, c) the application of non-conventional TMD
technique to a service frame.
2. Seismic behavior of oil refinery components
Despite different targets, which entail a large variety of plants
with a large variety of configurations, process industry utilizes
common basic operations and consequently similar equipment and
systems that can be collected in a limited number of structural
typologies (Paolacci, Giannini, & De Angelis, 2012; Salzano et al.,
2009).
During transformation processes many dangerous substances
are treated. Consequently, a refinery is equipped with numerous
safety systems. It is worthwhile to highlight that during a seismic
event they could fail, becoming useless. This suggests that the
seismic protection of a refinery must be mainly based on the
reduction of the seismic response of the single component.
The experiences derived from the observation of damages
caused to industrial plants by past earthquakes can be very useful
in identify the most vulnerable components to seismic action and
the evaluation of the consequences. In spite of the difficulties in
obtaining and organizing data, detailed information on the
behavior of refineries in a certain number of earthquakes is avail-
able in certified databases (ICHEME, 2004; MARS, 2006; MHIDAS,
2001;). Based on this information, in the following, the main
equipment of process plants is grouped into a restricted number of
structural classes and the main damages observed during earth-
quakes are analyzed. According to Table 1 the following structural
classes are acknowledged:
 Slim vessels
 Above-ground squat equipment
 Squat equipment supported by column
 Piping systems
 Support structures
The first category includes mainly cylindrical vessels and can be
subdivided in two sub-categories: vertical cylindrical vessels (re-
actors, stacks and flares) and horizontal cylindrical vessels (pres-
surized storage tanks and heat exchangers). The main point of
concern for slim vessels is the various transition zones, i.e. the
connection between shell and skirt, and the connection to the
foundation. Vertical vessels have experienced yielding and partial
pull-out of anchor bolts (Ballantyne, ORourke, Krinitzsky, & Ellis,
1991; Stepp et al., 1990). These limit states have already been
acknowledged and used for the evaluation of the seismic vulnera-
bility of tall columns (Nielsen, Kiremidjian, & Burke, 1988), which
proved their high probability of occurrence, even if bolts-yielding
seems to be the most common. Horizontal vessels have similar
problems at the connection with supporting pedestal and recent
analytical studies have shown their non-negligible seismic
vulnerability (Di Carluccio, Fabbrocino, Salzano, & Manfredi, 2008).
For this category important LOC consequences have been
926 F. Paolacci et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 924e935

Table 1
Seismic damages of industrial process components and passive control techniques.

Structural typology Critical equipment Typical seismic observed damages Other possible damages Passive control techniques
Slim vessels Columns  Leakage of fluid in flanged joints Overturning Dissipative coupling
Reactors  Yielding of anchor bars
Chimney
Torch
Above-ground Big broad tanks Failure of wall-bottom plate welding Uplifting Base isolation
squat equipment with fixed and Elephant foot buckling
floating roof Diamond buckling of tank wall
Settlements of ground
Impact of floating roof to tank wall. Overtopping Torch fire Dissipative spacers
between roof and wall, TMD
Squat equipment Spherical tanks Collapse of structure due to shear Dissipative bracings
placed on short failure of columns Base isolation
columns Dissipative coupling
Process Furnaces Collapse of structure due to shear Leakage from pipes; Base isolation
failure of columns
Collapse of the chimney Increase of temperature Dissipative bracings
Detachment of internal pipes of Furnace wall
Detachment of the internal TMD
refractory material
Cryogenic tanks Collapse of structure due to Base isolation
shear failure of columns
Piping systems and Steel or R.C. frames Collapse for excessive stresses Damages to supported Dissipative bracings
support structure equipment (pipes, tanks,.) Dissipative coupling
Non-conventional TMD

recognized in (Antonioni et al., 2007), where pool fire and VCE or
toxic dispersion of matter have been indicated respectively as
reference scenarios in the case of extended damage for the above
two sub-categories.
Above-ground squat equipment can be grouped in two main
categories, large cylindrical steel storage tanks with fixed or
floating roof and large process equipment (filters and decanters, or
dynamic apparatus like pumps and compressors). Cylindrical steel
tanks have been widely studied in the past. Nevertheless, the in-
terest seems still be high, especially in studying the effects of the
floating roof on the sloshing phenomenon (Matsui, 2009; Matsui &
Nagaya, 2012). Typical damages are essentially due to the wall
buckling (elephant foot buckling, sloshing buckling) or to the fail-
ure of the wall-bottom plate joint (Cortes & Nussbaumer, 2011).
This is confirmed by numerous experimental and numerical works
presented in literature (Maekawa, 2012; Mikami, Sato, Otani,
Iwamoto, & Iijima, 2009). In addition, strong sloshing motion,
even in presence of floating roof, can either cause liquid over-
topping or pool fire due to the crash and friction between roof and
wall as shown during recent seismic events (Izmit and Tokachi-oki
earthquakes). The application of QRA technique has shown a high
probability of occurrence of these damage states that can result in
LOC events with different degrees of severity (Salzano et al., 2003).
Spherical storage vessels and vertical large storage vessels for
cryogenic liquefied gas (LNG tanks) and process furnaces and steam
boilers belong to the category of squat equipment supported by
columns. There are several examples of seismic damages and
consequent LOC events for spherical tanks. The violent VCE (Vapor
Cloud Explosion) followed by a considerable fire caused by big Kern
County earthquake (1952), is a significant one. A more recent
example of damage to LPG tanks comes from the 2011 destructive
Japanese earthquake of Honshu in Ichiara city (Nishi, 2012).
The most representative example of damage for LNG tanks
occurred during the Izmit earthquake, where some oxygen and
nitrogen tanks were subject to important damages followed by the
collapse of the basement, caused by insufficient shear strength of
the support columns (Sezen, Livaog lu, & Dogangün, 2008). This is a
clear example where functionality is in contrast with minimum
structural requirements. The spectacular collapse of the reinforced
concrete chimney stack, during the 1999 Izmit Earthquake in
Turkey, is instead a clear example of damage suffered by third sub-
category (Kilic et al., 2001).
Piping systems typically present in a refinery contain various
components and support structures and operate in a broad range of
working environmental conditions. Depending on the nature of the
working fluids, piping systems are designed to work in a wide range
of temperatures and pressure. Recent seismic events showed a
quite high vulnerability of these structures, where damage ranges
from the simple failure of joints to the failure of supporting struc-
tures (Eshghi & Razzaghi, 2003). Consequences can be character-
ized by several degrees of severity, depending on the material
delivered by pipes.
Actually, metallic pipes themselves are not particularly vulner-
able to seismic actions, as recent contributions have demonstrated
(Paolacci, Reza, & Bursi, 2011). On the contrary, they can suffer
detrimental effects due to differential displacements between pipe
and connected equipment that may not be compatible with the
pipe deformations or the leakage tightness of joints. Given the high
conservatisms of the current design approach for piping systems,
resulting in the elastic behavior of pipes and fittings, new design
methods have been proposed to allow more plastic deformations
toward the more modern Performance-based approach (Bursi,
Reza, Kumar, & Paolacci, 2012).
Finally, piping systems, heaters, pumps, fans and other equip-
ment, require a support structure. The geometrical configuration
depends on different factors; consequently, they present different
structures with irregular distribution of stiffness and strength. In
addition, the structure is often modified according to the produc-
tion requirements that can be necessary during the life-cycle of the
plant with possible detrimental impact on the safety of the struc-
ture. A significant example of damage comes from the Loma Prieta
earthquake where the support frame of a group of fans was sub-
jected to severe damage, especially the beams that collapsed for
elastic instability. In addition, there are significant drawbacks
concerning the determination of seismic forces for the supported
components by means of “response spectra” as given in the current
codes (Evison and Mwoat 1982; Hoffmeister, Gündel, & Feldmann,
2011). Finally, excessive relative displacements between supported
 F. Paolacci et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 924e935 927

equipment and support frame with LOC consequence are always

Force Force
possible, especially caused by the detachment of the connected
pipes.

3. Applicability of passive control to oil refinery components Displ Displ

3.1. Passive control techniques

Innovative seismic control systems belong to the world of the

vibration control techniques of structures, which include passive,
semi-active, active and hybrid systems (Spencer & Nagarajaiah,
2003). The experience acquired during experimental activities
and worldwide applications have indicated passive control tech-
niques as one of the most suitable solutions for the seismic pro-
tection of structures. These systems modify the stiffness and/or the
dissipative properties of the structure and/or the mass, favoring the
reduction of the seismic response. They can be classified in three
different typologies: a) Seismic isolation, b) Energy dissipation, c)
Tuned mass damper (TMD).
Base isolation systems produce a certain level of uncoupling
between structure and ground. At this end, isolator devices are
usually placed at the foundation. Consequently, the structure is
divided in two distinct parts: substructure and superstructure
(Fig. 1a). Isolators modify the dynamic characteristics of the
structure, obtaining a high reduction of inertia forces. Unfortu-
nately, an appreciable increase in displacements between sub-
structure and superstructure is unavoidable. A recent experimental
work has shown the high vulnerability of nozzles reinforcements of
tanks (Wiesholleck, Hoffmeister, & Feldmann, 2013). This incon-
venience can be limited by increasing the energy dissipation
capability of the structure using external dissipation devices or by a
specific dissipative mechanism included in the isolators. Isolation
systems are usually subdivided in two categories: a) conventional
devices, characterized by an elastic behavior, which realizes the
elongation of the fundamental period of the structure, b) dissipa-
tive isolators, which in addition to the period elongation effect,
increase the dissipation capability of the devices.
Differently from base isolation systems, dissipation control
systems put into effect an artificial increase of the structural
damping with a consequent reduction of structural forces and
displacements. Energy dissipation devices can be placed within the
same structure by using dissipative bracings (Fig. 1b), or between
adjacent structures (dissipative coupling, Fig. 1c) with different
dynamic characteristics. Energy dissipation devices can be based on
different dissipation mechanisms (friction, yielding, viscosity,
viscoelasticity), whose cyclic behavior is synthetically shown in
Fig. 2. The first two types belong to the velocity-independent
ELSTOPLATIC FRICTION
Force Force
Displ Displ
VISCOLASTIC VISCOUS
Fig. 2. Dissipative mechanisms.
damper family, whose energy dissipation capability depends only
on the plastic excursion of the damper (Capecchi & de Felice, 2001).
The last two types are instead velocity-dependent and their dissi-
pation capability is essentially governed by frequency of motion
and the temperature of the viscous material (Paolacci, 2013).
Consequently, friction or yielding-based are by far the most used
PCT solutions (Bergami & Nuti, 2013; Ciampi, De Angelis, & Paolacci,
1995; Fraraccio & De Angelis, 2006).
Using mass damping systems, namely TMD (Tuned Mass
Dampers), the control of seismic vibrations is carried out by adding
auxiliary masses connected to the structure (conventional TMD).
The additional damping is due to the transfer of energy from the
structure to the auxiliary mass; this energy is then dissipated by
special devices placed between the structure and the auxiliary
mass (Hoang, Fujino, & Warnitchai, 2008).
3.2. PCT solutions for industrial plant components
The above techniques cannot be indifferently applied to each
type of equipment, because their effectiveness depends on the
dynamic characteristics of the structure to be protected.
The experience provided by the observation of seismic damages
suffered by industrial plant components allows the most vulnerable

Fig. 1. Different passive control techniques.

928 F. Paolacci et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 924e935
components and proper passive control techniques to be recognized.
As a matter of fact, Table 1 summarizes typical observed damages
and consequences due to earthquakes in major-hazard industrial
equipment together with the most suitable passive control tech-
niques. To better understand this proposal, in the following, the
effectiveness of the several PCT is acknowledged and discussed for
each category.
3.2.1. Slim vessels
For slim vessels, the most likely damage in the case of an
earthquake is the yielding of anchorage bars at the foundation level
and the leakage of fluid due to failure of flanged joints caused by
excessive displacements. This behavior suggests base isolation and
energy dissipation as the most proper PCT solution for reducing
seismic response of slim vessels. Actually, energy dissipation de-
vices are to be preferred for high damping capability and the inner
capacity of reducing displacements and thus accident conse-
quences (e.g. failure of flange joints or pipe elbows). An interesting
example of application of the energy dissipation technique is pre-
sented in (Nielsen et al., 1988), where the role of dissipation energy
of anchor bolts in reliability of tall columns was investigated. The
authors demonstrated as the probability of failure associated to
buckling phenomena in the supporting skirt is significantly lower
when the anchor bolts have yielded; this increases highly the
reliability of the structure, both under structural and functional
point of view.
An interesting alternative is represented by dissipative coupling
between vessels and adjacent structures (Basili et al., 2007a). In this
case the two structures are linked with special dissipation devices,
which, because of the different dynamic behavior of the coupled
structures, dissipate a high amount of energy. An interesting
application of dissipative coupling is presented in chapter 4.2.
3.2.2. Above ground squat equipment
Many literature contributions recognize base isolation as the
most suitable protection system against earthquakes, especially for
storage tanks. In fact, the idea of seismic protection of tanks and
similar industrial structures through the base isolation technique is
not new. From 1990, many works on this subject have been pre-
sented (Malhotra, 1997; Shrimali & Jangid, 2002; Wang, Teng, &
Chung, 2001). Unfortunately, few practical applications have also
been proposed and a limited number of experimental activities
have been carried out (Calugaru and Mahin 2009; Maekawa, 2012).
Given the high effectiveness of base isolation, the potential appli-
cability to tanks could be very high.
Friction pendulum bearings are the most used devices in seismic
isolation of storage tanks (Panchal and Jangid 2008), even if simple
sliding bearings or Lead rubber bearings have been proposed. In
fact, dynamic characteristics of an FPS-isolated tank remain un-
changed regardless of the storage level as well as the effectiveness
of the isolation system. A friction coefficient of 5% may guarantees
base shear reduction up to 80% and a restrained base displacement,
for isolation periods around 2 s. The detail of the attachment of
pipes to tank can be redesigned to accommodate relative dis-
placements by using flexible joints.
Unfortunately, isolation systems slightly affect the sloshing
motion of liquid (De Angelis et al., 2010). Consequently accidents
associated to a floating roof could not be avoided. A possible so-
lution to reduce the effects of the impact between a floating roof
and tank wall is represented by damper spacers placed between
roof and wall or by inserting a TMD system into the roof (e.g. Tuned
Mass Damper Column) (Sakai & Inoue, 2008).
As a matter of fact, in chapter 4.1 some results from an experi-
mental campaign on a base isolated big broad tank, will be pre-
sented and briefly discussed.
3.2.3. Squat equipment supported by columns
Squat equipment supported by columns is a clear example in
which both the period elongation and dissipation energy tech-
niques can be profitably used to disconnect the superstructure from
the support columns using isolation bearings. The only drawback is
represented by the increase of relative displacement between the
apparatus and the surrounding ones. For this reason proper
counter-measures should to be adopted to preserve the integrity of
the connected pipes, for example flexible joints.
The use of dissipative bracings can also be very effective
(Gregoriou, Tsinopoulos, & Karabalis, 2011). For example in
(Drososn, Tsinopoulos, & Karabalis, 2005), reductions of about 42%
and 74% of displacement and base shear, respectively, have been
obtained using non-linear viscous dampers. Thus these devices
reduce stress and displacements, but can be invasive and limit the
operation of the equipment. In some cases, like spherical tanks, the
dissipative coupling can also be used in conjunction with auxiliary
reaction structures (Addessi & Ciampi, 2001).
For process furnaces, base isolation technique apart, a so-
phisticated solution may consist of designing the chimney as a
TMD system by adding an auxiliary mass at the top (Balendra,
Wang, & Cheon, 1995). This solution is largely adopted against
wind effects and could represent a simple and effective solution
to control the seismic response of this particular structure
(Nawrotzki, 2008).
3.2.4. Piping systems
A variety of passive devices have been proposed for the struc-
tural response of piping systems including the viscoelastic damper,
the compact dynamic absorber, friction damper and X-plate
damper (XPD) (Bakre, Jangid, & Reddy, 2006; Kelly, 1980; Kunieda,
Chiba, & Kobayashi, 1987; Shimuzu, Suzuki, Watanabe, Ogawa, &
Kobayashi, 1996). An alternative solution consists in using steel
cable dampers (Wire-Ropes). This device allows for thermal
expansion associated with piping systems, but restrains the pipe to
prevent large dynamic deflections. The device acts as an energy
absorbing dashpot in six degrees of freedom utilizing sliding fric-
tion between the strands composing the Wire-Rope (WR). This has
been demonstrated by a series of cyclic tests performed at the
laboratory of the University Roma Tre (Paolacci & Giannini, 2008).
One of the tested WR device and the corresponding cyclic behavior
in the vertical direction are shown in Fig. 3. The highly nonlinear
behavior guarantees a high damping level. For example, tests per-
formed on a simply supported piping system demonstrate that
system damping of 9% is attainable (Loziuk, 1988).
3.2.5. Support structures
Support frames can be effectively protected by several control
techniques. For example, to reduce forces and displacements,
dissipative bracings and dissipative coupling techniques can be
profitably used, similar to slim vessels. To avoid damage in the
supported equipment (compressors, pumps, tanks, etc), the TMD
technique can also be adopted. In fact, an effective way to protect
seismic vulnerable equipment consists in implementing an isola-
tion system between the internal apparatus and the supporting
structure. There are two configurations proposed in literature: the
apparatus to be isolated may correspond either to an individual
raised floor (Hamidi & El Naggar, 2007), on which a group of
equipment is anchored (isolated raised-floor systems or floor
isolation systems, (Alhan & Gavin, 2005)), or to the equipment itself
(equipment isolation systems), especially when a large mass is
present. This latter can be defined as non-conventional Tuned Mass
Damper in which masses already present in the structure are
converted into tuned masses. As a result, the absolute accelerations
transmitted to equipment are considerably reduced and the
 F. Paolacci et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 924e935 929

Fig. 3. Experimental setup and cyclic response of a Wire-Rope isolator.

damages due to excessive inertial forces are prevented. Chapter 4.3 The design of the isolators has been performed neglecting the
is dedicated to the applicability of the non-conventional TMD. influence of wall deformations. In this case, the elastic stiffness of
the isolators (kiso) can be calculated using the vibration period of
4. Application of PCT to industrial plant components the isolated structure (Tiso), approximately given by Eq (1):

In this section, three different applications of PCT (base isola- sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

mi þ Ms þ Mb
tion, energy dissipation, TMD) are developed. Particularly: Tiso z2p (1)
kiso
 Base isolation of an above-ground steel storage tank
 Dissipative coupling of a frame-column system through in which mi is the impulsive part of the liquid mass, Ms and Mb are
yielding-based devices respectively the wall and the bottom plate masses, and kiso is the
 Non-conventional TMD systems for the protection of steel elastic stiffness of the isolators.
support frames It is worthwhile to notice that for broad tanks mi is a small part
of the total mass and this allows a significant reduction of the
The aim is to show, with the help of realistic case studies, ad- isolator dimensions. Moreover, in case of big tanks, the first vi-
vantages and limits of passive control techniques when applied to bration period of the convective motion, Tc >> Tiso, remains prac-
industrial plant components. tically unvaried. Consequently, the base isolation system does not
show any important mitigation effects on the sloshing pressures.
This is not particularly important, since the convective pressure is
4.1. Base isolation of an above-ground steel storage tank
very small because of the long period of the fluid oscillations.
The negative effect of the sloshing concerns only the superficial
In this section, the seismic response of a base isolated tank with
motion, because either the height of the wave can exceed the upper
floating roof is analyzed and briefly discussed. The structure
limit, causing the overtopping phenomenon, or the floating roof
considered here is a big steel liquid storage tank equipped with
motion could cause the failure of the gaskets and the leakage of
metallic floating roof typically installed in petrochemical plants. A
dangerous vapors of inflammable substances. Unfortunately, the
sketch and the main dimensions of the tank are shown in Fig. 4. The
base isolation does not modify this phenomenon. Moreover, the
effectiveness of base isolation technique is investigated through
base isolation can cause high displacements between tank and
shaking table tests on a reduced scale (1:14) model of the tank.
ground, which may induce damage to the pipes-tank connections
The selected mock-up has radius R ¼ 2 m, height Hs ¼ 1.45 m and
wall thickness s ¼ 1 mm (Fig. 5) In order to maintain the mass ratio,
the floating roof of the mock-up has been realized with a wood-
made structure. The gasket has been here realized with a rubber
tube applied along the circumference of the roof.
Two different isolation devices, high damping rubber bearings
(HDRB) and PTFE-steel sliding isolation bearings with c-shaped
elastoplastic dampers (MD), were used.

Fig. 4. Full scale model of the above-ground tank. Fig. 5. Mock-up of the above-ground tank.
930 F. Paolacci et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 924e935
Fig. 6. Prototype of sliding bearings with EP device.
with consequent loss of content. Therefore proper flexible joints
between pipes and tanks must be adopted.
For HDRB isolators the damping ratio x has been assumed equal
to 10% whereas the yielding strength of MD has been designed
according to the method proposed in (Ciampi, 1998).
The prototypes of the isolator devices are shown in Figs. 6 and 7.
The isolators have been characterized by cyclic imposed displace-
ment tests carried out in the experimental laboratory of the Uni-
versity Roma Tre.
The mock-up has been tested in four different configurations:
fixed base tank without floating roof (case A), fixed base tank with
floating roof (case B), isolated tank with HDRB and floating roof
(case C), isolated base tank with MD devices and floating roof (case
D).
Six different natural accelerograms have been used in each
configuration (four natural and two synthetic) accelerograms,
generated according to the European code spectra (Type 1, soil C),
and scaled to different intensity levels. More details on seismic
input and experimental setup can be found in (De Angelis et al.,
2010).
For both the cases, the frequency of the sloshing motion does
not change and it is almost coincident with the theoretical value
(0.4 Hz); a resonant frequency around 18 Hz is also present, which
corresponds to the main natural frequency of the motion of the
impulsive motion.
A damping of 0.5% and 1.0% respectively for case A and B were
measured using the free vibrations of sloshing motion. The
increasing of damping when the floating roof is present is probably
due to the interaction between the liquid surface and the floating
roof and to the friction between rubber gasket and tank wall. A
considerable increasing of the sloshing damping, variable in the
range 2.5e3.0% and for both the isolated configurations has been
detected. This increment was already predicted by numerical non-
classical damping models.
The seismic effects on the tank wall are presented in Fig. 8,
where the total base shear is depicted versus the spectral acceler-
ation Sa, calculated at the impulsive period. The figure clearly shows
the high effectiveness of both the isolation systems, which induce
Fig. 7. Prototype of elastomeric bearings.
70
60
Total base shear (kN)
case B
FBR
50 IBM
case D
IBR
case C
40
30
(a)
20
10
Sa (g)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Fig. 8. Total base shear versus spectral acceleration of the impulsive motion.
considerable reductions of the total shear affecting the tank wall.
However, whereas the effectiveness of HDRB isolators does not
practically vary with Sa, the effectiveness of MD devices is reduced
for low values of spectral acceleration, and it is practically negli-
gible for Sa < 0.3g. This is mainly due to the friction effects, often
neglected for this kind of device, but particularly significant for the
tanks, in which the gravity mass, represented by the entire liquid
volume, is greater than the dynamic mass, which is due by the
impulsive mass only (in the present case only 30% of the total
mass). Therefore, to overcome the friction, appreciable levels of
acceleration are needed. This problem is not present for elastomeric
devices. A similar behavior has been detected for the impulsive
component, not shown here for brevity; on the contrary, the
sloshing component remain practically unchanged for HDRB,
whereas a slight increasing has been observed using MD devices.
The base isolation does not reduce the amplitude of the superficial
waves, although the sensible increasing of damping reduces its
duration and probably the risk of failure of the gaskets, as
confirmed in (Calugaru & Mahin, 2009).
4.2. Dissipative coupling of a frame-column system through
yielding-based devices
In industrial process plants it is usual to find adjacent apparatus,
like columns, reactors, tanks and an ensemble of machines. These
structural arrangements are very interesting because they allow the
application of dissipative coupling, which is a very helpful passive
control technique in reducing the effects of earthquakes, as shown
by several theoretical and experimental research activities (Basili &
De Angelis, 2007a,b; Basili, De Angelis, & Fraraccio, 2013; De Angelis
& Ciampi, 1994). In order to reduce the response, it is essential that
the two adjacent structures have different dynamic properties so
that relative movements may develop during dynamic response. As
a matter of fact, in this paper the dissipative coupling is applied to
typical process-industry equipment: a Vacuum Flash column,
belonging to a thermal cracking plant of a refinery, adjacent to a
steel service frame (Fig. 9).
The column is a steel cylinder, 28 m in height, with a diameter of
3.20 m and a thickness ranging from 12 to 20 mm. Adjacent to this
column, a three-floor steel frame is placed at a distance of about
7 m from the column. The frame is 9.00  5.50 m and 18 m tall.
Some process apparatus are installed on each floor, which are
respectively 3.50 m, 7.50 m and 13.25 m above the ground. The
frame behaves, in the main direction, as a truss structure, whose
stability is guaranteed by steel bracings, whereas moment-resisting
frame behavior is expected along the transversal direction.
The structure has been modeled by using the F.E. software
SAP2000Ò (Fig. 10). The inner damping adopted in the analyses for
the first two vibration modes in X and Y direction is equal to 3%.
 F. Paolacci et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 924e935 931

Fig. 9. (a) Frame and column ensemble (b) mock-up of dissipative coupling system.

Time-history analyses has been carried out applying, along X and Y
directions, artificially generated accelerograms compatible with
Eurocode 8 spectra, for a PGA ¼ 0.372 g and C-soil condition. The
column has been modeled using beam elements with tubular
sections, whose mass, equal to 128 t, has been considered as uni-
formly distributed. The model of the steel frame has been built
using beam elements with double tee-sections.
The bracings are considered only active in tension because of
their high slenderness. The weight of each floor is 107 t and is
placed at the center-of-gravity; the mass of the sustained apparatus
is 166 t. Finally, the hypothesis of rigid floor is also adopted.
The protection system consists in coupling the column and the
frame with a bi-directional yielding-based device, which is placed
13.25 m from the ground. The damper is linked to the column and
frame using a truss structure, as shown in Fig. 9. Because of possible
torsional effects induced by the damper in Y direction, the control
system has been placed near the frame (b ¼ 0, Fig. 9). The dissi-
pative device has been modeled using the classical Bouc-Wen
model.
The characteristics of the damper have been optimized as sug-
gested in (Basili & De Angelis, 2007a; De Angelis & Ciampi, 1994);
the method is based on the maximization of the energy index (EDI)
proposed by (Ciampi & De Angelis, 1996). Yielding strength in X and
Y direction is equal to fy,optX ¼ 208.67 kN and fy,optY ¼ 199.76 kN
respectively, given the damper has a stiffness of 10,679 kN/m and a
hardening ratio of 1%.
To validate these results, a parametric analysis in terms of
normalized yielding strength (fy/fyopt) has been carried out. Figs. 11
and 12 show some of the outcomes.
The graphs shown in Fig. 11 include three typical arrangements:
(i) no connection, fy/fyopt ¼ 0, (ii) dissipative connection, 0 < fy/
fyopt < 100, and (iii) rigid connection, fy/fyopt > 100. The two limit
cases, no connection and rigid connection, respectively, are used for
comparison purposes. Such optimal force produces a simultaneous
reduction of all response quantities. The effectiveness of the dissi-
pative connection clearly results in the comparison of the uncou-
pled and rigidly connected structural cases, since all response
quantities appear substantially reduced. The maximum effect of the
dissipative damper is given by fy/fyopt ¼ 1, resulting in a reduction of
more than 50% of base shear and moment in respect to no
connection, and more than 60% regarding rigid connection. Similar
results are obtained for the displacements (Fig. 11c). Some benefi-
cial effects are also present in the seismic response of the column
(Fig. 11 def), whose shear, moment and displacements are reduced

Fig. 10. Global view of frame-column ensemble.

932 F. Paolacci et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 924e935

fr a m e c o lu m n
1.6 2.2
1.4 2
1.8
1.2 1.6
1 1.4
1.2
0.8 1
0.6 0.8
0.4 0.6
0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
Fy/Fyopt Fy/Fyopt

a) Shear d) Shear
1.6 1.8
1.4 1.6
1.2 1.4
1 1.2
0.8 1
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
Fy/Fyopt Fy/Fyopt

b) Moment e) Moment
1.8 1.6
1.6 1.4
1.4 1.2
1.2 1
1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
Fy/Fyopt Fy/Fyopt

c) Relative displacements f ) Relative displacements

Fig. 11. Seismic response of frame and column.

of about 10e20% with respect to no connection case and 50e60%
regarding rigid connection.
Fig. 12a depicts the relative displacement between frame and
column at different heights, showing a reduction of about 50e60%
with respect to both no and rigid connections, while Fig. 12b il-
lustrates the hysteretic cycles of the damper. The larger area under
the cycle highlights the better performance of the damper in
terms of energy dissipation. A similar behavior, not shown here
only for brevity, has been noticed also along the Y direction.
Experimental activities (see Fig. 9b) confirmed these results (Basili
et al., 2013).
4.3. Non-conventional TMD systems for industrial components
Recent studies have provided a new, non-conventional config-
uration, (see Fig. 13), in which masses already present in the
structure to be protected (equipment) are converted into tuned
masses, retaining structural or architectural functions beyond the
mere control function, (De Angelis, Perno, & Reggio, 2012).
While the mass of a conventional TMD is typically designed to be
a small percentage of the entire structural mass, a non-conventional
TMD stands out for its large mass, existing as 50% of the structural
mass. Similar values are also recognized in applications concerning

1.6 250

1.4 200

1.2
(a) (b) 150
100
1
d/dnc

50
0.8
F (kN)

0
0.6 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 -50 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
0.4
-100
0.2
-150
0 -200
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 -250
Fy/Fyopt u (m)

Fig. 12. Relative displacement between frame and column (a); force-displacement graph (b).
 F. Paolacci et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 924e935 933

Fig. 13. (a) Non-conventional TMD scheme (b) mock-up for non-conventional TMD.

steel frame structures in industrial plants. Even higher values, of up
to 100%, are found in the aforementioned cases when the mass ratio
is computed in terms of modal or generalized masses, as required by
the classic formulas for the design of TMD. The application of this
new technique is expected to be widespread: a non-conventional
TMD is suitable for new constructions as well as for retrofitting,
since its impact on the structure is minimal, and it does not require
additional weights.
Concerning non-conventional TMD, some useful considerations
can be made: (i) A non-conventional TMD with a large mass ratio
(>15%) outperforms a conventional TMD (mass ratio < 2%) leading
to greater reductions of the structural response; (ii) A non-
conventional TMD with a large mass ratio is found to be more
robust against off-optimum deviations resulting from uncertainties
in structural properties or nonlinearities in the structural behavior;
(iii) As the mass ratio becomes larger, the TMD performance is
found to be less frequency-dependent with a beneficial impact on
the seismic effectiveness, mainly in the presence of broad-band
earthquake excitations; (iv) Shaking table tests have proved the
effectiveness of the proposed large mass ratio TMD in reducing both
the Rms and peak structural response under earthquake excita-
tions, as well as its robustness against detuning effects. As a matter
of fact, in Fig. 14 the response of the non-conventional TMD (Fig. 13)
to the 1940 El Centro earthquake is shown in comparison to the

Fig. 14. El Centro accelerogram, PGA ¼ 0.5 g: (a) Absolute acceleration AI at first floor; (b) absolute acceleration AII of second floor; (c) base shear Tb; (d) bending moment Mb at base.
934 F. Paolacci et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 924e935
response of the structure with the equipment rigidly connected.
Base shear and bending moment are suppressed by 40e70%, while
floor absolute accelerations are reduced by 40e70%.
Results obtained under far-field ground motions are better than
those achieved under near-fault ground motions because of the
impulsive character of the latter. Furthermore, although a consid-
erable detuning effect concerns the experimental model, the TMD
performance is only marginally affected thanks to the increased
robustness due to the large mass ratio.
Furthermore, although a considerable detuning effect concerns
the experimental model, the TMD performance is only marginally
affected thanks to the increased robustness due to the large mass
ratio.
5. Conclusions
Lessons learned from past accidents confirm the devastating
impact that natural events can have on industrial facilities. Among
them, earthquakes are considered particularly important for the
high damage potentiality to industrial plants, as shown by the
recent attention paid to the protection systems for industrial fa-
cilities. Consequently, the main objective of the paper is to show
numerically and experimentally the applicability of Passive Control
Techniques (PCT) in industrial plants; these results could be prof-
itably used for a further quantitative evaluation of the seismic risk
of a plant in presence of response mitigation systems.
Accordingly, this paper looked first into historical events con-
cerning the damages caused by past earthquakes in major-hazard
chemical and process plants. Consequently, common equipment
and components used in oil refineries were identified and gathered
in a limited number of structural typologies.
The applicability of some innovative techniques for the seismic
protection of industrial equipment was then analyzed and the most
suitable PCT were identified for each structural typology. In
particular, base isolation systems appeared to be more suitable for
above-ground squat equipment (e.g. tanks), squat equipment on
short columns (spherical tanks, process furnaces and cryogenic
tanks) and piping systems. Instead, energy dissipation devices
appeared more effective for slim vessels using the dissipative
coupling technique, or for spherical tanks, installed in traditional x-
braces. Finally the application of traditional TMD devices has been
suggested for the seismic protection of chimneys, whereas non-
conventional TMD devices have been proposed for the mitigation
of the seismic response of support structures.
In order to show the effectiveness of PCT, three case studies have
been examined and discussed: base isolation of an above-ground
steel storage tank, dissipative coupling of a frame-column system
with yielding-based devices, and non-conventional TMD systems
for the protection of steel support frames. The high efficiency of the
proposed devices has been proved either experimentally or
numerically. For example, important response reductions have been
recognized for base isolated tanks, through shaking table tests, with
the decrease of base shear and wall pressures up to 70%. The high
benefit in using the dissipative coupling technique has also been
shown through the second example. In fact, a reduction of 50e60%
and 10e20% of the frame and column base shear, respectively, have
been predicted numerically. Finally, the high effectiveness of the
non-conventional TMD technique in protecting steel support frames
against earthquakes has been experimentally proved, recording
reduction of base shear and base moment ranging from 40 to 70%.
References
Addessi, D., & Ciampi, V. (2001). Ongoing studies for the application of innovative
anti-seismic techniques to chemical plant components in Italy. In 7th
International seminar on seismic isolation, passive energy dissipation and active
control of vibrations of structures, Assisi, Italy.
Alhan, C., & Gavin, H. P. (2005). Reliability of base isolation for the protection of
critical equipment from earthquake hazards. Engineering Structures, 27, 1435e
1449.
Antonioni, G., Spadoni, G., & Cozzani, V. (2007). A methodology for the quantitative
risk assessment of major accidents triggered by seismic events. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 147, 48e59.
Bakre, S. V., Jangid, R. S., & Reddy, G. R. (2004). Seismic response of piping systems
with isolation devices, 13th WCEE, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1-6, 2004,
Paper No. 2676.
Bakre, S. V., Jangid, R. S., & Reddy, G. R. (2006). Optimum X-plate dampers for
seismic response control of piping systems. International Journal of Pressure
Vessels and Piping, 83, 672e685.
Balendra, T., Wang, C. M., & Cheon, N. F. (1995). Effectiveness of tuned liquid column
dampers for vibration control of towers. Engineering Structures, 17(9), 668e675.
Ballantyne, D., ORourke, G., Krinitzsky, M., & Ellis, L. (1991). Lifelines: Costa Rica
earthquake, April 22, 1991. Earthquake Spectra, 7(Suppl. B 2), 93e117.
Basili, M., & De Angelis, M. (2007a). Optimal passive control of adjacent structures
interconnected with non-linear hysteretic devices. Journal of Sound and Vibra-
tion, 301, 106e125.
Basili, M., & De Angelis, M. (2007b). A reduced order model for optimal design of 2-
mdof adjacent structures connected by hysteretic dampers. Journal of Sound and
Vibration, 306, 297e317.
Basili, M., De Angelis, M., & Fraraccio, F. (2013). Shaking table experimentation on
adjacent structures controlled by passive and semi-active MR dampers. Journal
of Sound and Vibration. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2012.12.040i.
Bergami, A. V., & Nuti, C. (2013). A design procedure of dissipative braces for seismic
upgrading structures. Earthquake and Structures, 4, 1.
Bursi, O. S., Reza Md., S., Kumar, A., & Paolacci, F. (2012). Seismic performance of
bolted flange joints in piping systems for oil and gas industries, 15WCEE, Lisbon,
September.
Calugaru, V., & Mahin, S. A. (2009). Experimental and analytical studies of fixed-
base and seismically isolated liquid storage tanks. In 3rd Int. conf. on advances
in experimental structural engineering, October 15e16, 2009, San Francisco.
Campedel, M. (2008). Analysis of major industrial accidents triggered by natural
events reported in the principal available chemical accident databases. JRC Sci-
entific and Technical Reports, EUR 23391 EN e 2008.
Campedel, M., Cozzani, V., Garcia-Agreda, A., & Salzano, E. (2008). Extending the
quantitative assessment of industrial risks to earthquake effects. Risk Analysis,
28(5), 1231e1246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01092.x.
Capecchi, D., & de Felice, G. (2001). Hysteretic systems with internal variables.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics. ISSN: 0733-9399, 127, 891e898. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2001)127:9(891).
Chalhoub, M., & Kelly, J. (1990). Shake table test of cylindrical water tanks in base-
isolated structures. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 116(7), 1451e1472. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1990)116:7(1451).
Ciampi, V. (1998). A methodology for the design of energy dissipation devices for
the seismic protection of bridges. In U.S.eItaly Workshop on seismic protective
systems for bridges, New York, 27e28 Apr. 1998.
Ciampi, V., & De Angelis, M. (1996). Optimal design of passive control systems based
on energy dissipation for earthquake protection of structures. In
Giuliano Augusti, Claudio Borri, & Paolo Spinelli (Eds.). Third conf. of the europ.
ass. For struct. dynamics, EURODYN 96. Florence, June 5e8, Vol. 1, (pp. 525e532).
Rotterdam: Balkema, ISBN 9054108142.
Ciampi, V., De Angelis, M., & Paolacci, F. (1995). Design of yielding or friction based
dissipative bracings for seismic protection of buildings. Engineering Structures,
17(5), 381e391.
Cortes, G., & Nussbaumer, A. (2011). Experimental study on the seismic behavior of
shell-base connections in large storage tanks. In COMPDYN 2011, 25e28 May,
Corfu, Greece.
Cozzani, V., Campedel, M., Renni, E., & Krausmann, E. (2010). Industrial accidents
triggered by flood events: analysis of past accidents. Journal of Hazardous Ma-
terials, 175, 501e509.
De Angelis, M., & Ciampi, V. (1994). Effectiveness of dissipative connections on
improving the earthquake response of adjacent structures. In 10th European con-
ference on earthquake engineering. Vienna: (pp. 1891e1896). Rotterdam: A. A.
Balkema, ISBN 9054105283.
De Angelis, M., Giannini, R., & Paolacci, F. (2010). Experimental investigation on the
seismic response of a steel liquid storage tank equipped with floating roof by
shaking table tests. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 39, 377e396.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.945.
De Angelis, M., Perno, S., & Reggio, A. (2012). Dynamic response and optimal design
of structures with large mass ratio TMD. Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics, 41, 41e60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1117.
Di Carluccio, A., Fabbrocino, G., Salzano, E., & Manfredi, G. (2008). Analysis of
pressurized horizontal vessels under seismic excitation, 14th WCEE, Oct. 12e17,
2008, Beijing, China.
Drososn, J. C., Tsinopoulos, S.V., & Karabalis, D.L. (2005). Seismic response of
spherical liquid storage tanks with a dissipative bracing system. In 5th GRACM
International congress on computational mechanics, Limassol, 29 June e 1 July,
2005.
Eshghi, S., & Razzaghi, M. S. (2003). The behavior of special structures during the
Bam earthquake of 26 December 2003. Journal of Seismology and Earthquake
Engineering: Special issue on Bam earthquake, 197e207.
 F. Paolacci et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 924e935
Evison, R. D., & Mowat, A. F. (December 1982). The seismic design of industrial plants.
Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 15(4).
Fabbrocino, G., Iervolino, I., Orlando, F., & Salzano, E. (2005). Quantitative risk
analysis of oil storage facilities in seismic areas. Journal of Hazardous Materials,
123(1e3), 61e69.
Fraraccio, G., & De Angelis, M. (2006). Adjacent structures controlled by steel
elastoplastic devices (In Italian). Ingegneria Sismica. Anno XXIII, N.2, maggio-
agosto 2006.
Gregoriou, V., Tsinopoulos, S., & Karabalis, D. (2011). Dynamic analysis of liquefied
natural gas tanks seismically protected with energy dissipating base isolation
systems. In COMPDYN 2011 25e28 May, Corfu, Greece.
Hamidi, M., & El Naggar, M. H. (2007). On the performance of SCF in seismic
isolation of the interior equipment. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dy-
namics, 36, 1581e1604.
Hatayama, K. (2008). Lessons from the 2003 Tokachi-oki, Japan, earthquake for
prediction of long-period strong ground motions and sloshing damage to oil
storage tanks. Journal of Seismology, 12, 255e263.
Hoang, N., Fujino, Y., & Warnitchai, P. (2008). Optimal tuned mass damper for
seismic application and practical design formulas. Engineering Structures, 30,
707e715.
Hoffmeister, B., Gündel, M., & Feldmann, M. (2011). Floor response spectra for
dissipative steel supports of industrial equipment. In COMPDYN 2011, III ECCO-
MAS Thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and
earthquake engineering, Corfu, Greece, 26e28 May 2011.
ICHEME. (2004). The accident database. Version 4.1. United Kindgdom: Institution of
Chemical Engineers.
Kelly, J. M. (1980). The design of steel energy-absorbing restrainers and their incor-
poration into nuclear power plants for enhanced safety. In Development and
testing of restrainers for nuclear piping systems, Vol. 2, . Berkeley, California:
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California. Report no.
UCB/EERC 80/21.
Kikic, S., Moncraz, P., & Noakowsky, P. (March 2001). CICIND ReportA preliminary
analysis of the Tupras Refinery stack collapse during Kocaeli Earthquake of 17
August 1999, Vol. 17, . N 1.
Koh, H. M. (1997). Progress of applications, new projects, R&D and development of
design rules for base isolation of civil buildings, bridges and nuclear and non-
nuclear plants in Korea. In Int. Post-SMiRT conference seminar on seismic isola-
tion, passive energy dissipation and active control of seismic vibrations of struc-
tures, Taormina, Italy, August 25e27, 1997.
Korkmaz, A., Ali Sari, B., Asuman, I., & Carhoglu, A. (2011). Seismic risk assessment of
storage tanks in Turkish industrial facilities. Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries, 24, 314e320.
Krausmann, E., Cozzani, V., Salzano, E., & Renni, E. (2011). Industrial accidents
triggered by natural hazards: an emerging risk issue. Natural Hazards and Earth
System Sciences, 11, 921e929.
Krausmann, E., Cruz, A., & Affeltranger, B. (2010). The impact of the 12 May 2008
Wenchuan earthquake on industrial facilities. Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries, 23, 242e248.
Kumar, P., Jangid, R. S., & Reddy, G. R. (2012). Response of piping system with semi-
active magnetorheological damper under tri-directional seismic excitation. In-
ternational Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, 10(2), 99.
Kunieda, M., Chiba, T., & Kobayashi, H. (1987). Positive use of damping devices for
piping systemsdsome experiences and new proposals. Nuclear Engineering and
Design, 104(2), 107e120.
Loziuk, L. A. (1988)A wire rope seismic support, nuclear engineering and design, Vol.
107, (pp. 201e204), 201 North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Maekawa, A. (2012). Recent advances in seismic response analysis of cylindrical liquid
storage tanks, earthquake-resistant structures e Design, assessment and rehabili-
tation). InTech, ISBN 978-953-51-0123-9.
Major Accident Reporting System (MARS). (2006). European commission, joint
research centre, institute for the protection and security of the citizen, major ac-
cident hazards bureau. http://mahbsrv.jrc.it/. Cited 29 August 2006.
Major Hazard Incident Data Service (MHIDAS). (2001)UK: AEA Technology, Major
Hazards Assessment Unit, Health and Safety Executive.
Malhotra, P. K. (1997). New method for seismic isolation of liquid-storage tanks.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26, 839e847.
Marioni, A. (1998). The use of high damping rubber bearings for the protection of
the structures from the seismic risk. In Jornadas Portuguesas de Engenharia de
Estruturas, Lisboa, LNEC, 25 e 28 de Novembro de 1998.
Matsui, T. (2009). Sloshing in a cylindrical liquid storage tank with a single-deck
type floating roof under seismic excitation. ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel
Technology, 131(2), 021303, 1e10.
Matsui, T., & Nagaya, T. (2012). Nonlinear sloshing in a floating-roofed oil storage
tank under long-period seismic ground motion. Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics, . http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2254.
Mikami, A., Sato, Y., Otani, A., Iwamoto, K., & Iijima T. (2009). The ultimate strength
of cylindrical liquid storage tanks under earthquakes, e Elasto-plastic dynamic
935
analysis with FSI of buckling failure modes. In Proceedings of the ASME 2009
pressure vessels and piping division conference PVP2009, July 26e30, 2009, Prague,
Czech Republic.
Moat, A. M., Morrison, A. J. T., & Wong, S. (2000). Performance of industrial facilities
during 1999 earthquakes: implications for risk managers. In EuroConference
2000. Global Change and Catastrophe Risk Management: Earthquake Risk in
Europe, (Laxenburg, Austria).
Nawrotzki, P. (2008). Tuned-mass systems for the dynamic upgrade of buildings
and other structures. In Eleventh east asia-pacific conference on structural engi-
neering & construction (EASEC-11), November 19e21, 2008, Taipei, Taiwan.
Nielsen, R., Kiremidjian, A., & Burke, B. (1988). Role of energy absorption in reli-
ability of tall columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(5), 1038e1056.
Nishi, H. (2012). Damage on hazardous materials facilities. In International sympo-
sium on engineering lessons learned from the 2011 great east Japan earthquake,
March 1e4, 2012, Tokyo, Japan.
Panchal, V. R., & Jangid, R. S. (2008). Variable friction pendulum system for seismic
isolation of liquid storage tanks. Nuclear Engineering and Design 238.6, 1304e
1315.
Paolacci, F. (2013). An energy-based design for seismic resistant structures with
viscoelastic dampers. Earthquake and Structures, 4(2).
Paolacci, F., & Giannini R. (2008). Study of the effectiveness of steel cable dampers
for the seismic protection of electrical equipment. In 14 World congress on
earthquake engineering, Beijing, China.
Paolacci, F., Giannini, R., & De Angelis, M. (2012). Analysis of the seismic risk of
major-hazard industrial plants and applicability of innovative seismic protec-
tion systems. In Patel Vivek (Ed.), Petrochemicals, ISBN 979-953-307-371-1.
PolySol, Sector-12A, Bokaro Steel City, India.
Paolacci, F., Reza, Md. S., & Bursi, O. S. (2011). Seismic design criteria of refinery
piping systems. In COMPDYN 2011 e Corfu, Greece, 26e28 May 2011.
Sakai, F., & Inoue, R. (2008). Some considerations on seismic design and controls of
sloshing in floating-roofed oil tanks. In 14th WCEE October 12e17, 2008, Beijing,
China.
Salzano, E., Agreda, A. G., Carluccio, A., & Fabbrocino, G. (October 2009). Risk
assessment and early warning systems for industrial facilities in seismic zones.
Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 94(Issue 10), 1577e1584.
Salzano, E., Iervolino, I., & Fabbrocino, G. (2003). Seismic risk of atmospheric storage
tanks in the framework of quantitative risk analysis. Journal of Loss Prevention in
the Process Industry, 16, 403.
Santagelo, A., Scibilia. N., & Stadarelli, R. (2007). Seismic isolation of a tanks at Priolo
Gargallo (in Italian). In Giornate AICAP 2007, 4e6 Ottobre.
Sezen, H., & Whittaker, A. S. (2006). Seismic performance of industrial facilities
affected by the 1999 Turkey earthquake. Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, 20(1). February 1.
Sezen, H., Livaog lu, R., & Dog
angün, A. (2008). Dynamic analysis and seismic per-
formance evaluation of above-ground liquid-containing tanks. Engineering
Structures, 30, 794e803.
Shimuzu, N., Suzuki, K., Watanabe, T., Ogawa, N., & Kobayashi, H. (1996). Large scale
shaking table test on modal responses of 3D piping system with friction sup-
port. Seismic Engineering ASME PVP, 340, 269e275.
Shrimali, M. K., & Jangid, R. S. (2002). Non-linear seismic response of base-isolated
liquid storage tanks to bi-directional excitation. Nuclear Engineering and Design,
217, 1e20.
Spencer, B. F., & Nagarajaiah, S. (2003). State of art of structural control. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 129, 845e855.
Stepp, J. C., Swan, S., Wesselink, L., Haupt, R. W., Larder, R. R., Bachman, R. E., et al.
(1990). Industrial facilities. Earthquake Spectra, 6, 189e238.
Suzuki, K. (2006). Earthquake damage to industrial facilities and development of
seismic and vibration control technology e based on experience from the 1995
Kobe (Hanshin-Awaji) earthquake. Journal of System, Design and Dynamics1e11.
N. 2, 1, 2008.
Tajirian, F. F. (1998). Base isolation design for civil components and civil structures.
In N. K. Srivastava (Ed.), Structural engineering worldwide 1998: Proceedings of
the structural engineers world congress (San Francisco)). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Talaslidisa, D. G., Manolisa, Paraskevopoulosa, E., Panagiotopoulosa, C.,
Pelekasisb, N., & Tsamopoulosc, J. A. (2004). Risk analysis of industrial struc-
tures under extreme transient loads. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
24, 435e448.
Wang, Y., Teng, M., & Chung, K. (2001). Seismic isolation of rigid cylindrical tanks
using friction pendulum bearings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dy-
namics, 30, 1083e1099.
Wiesholleck, M., Hoffmeister, B., & Feldmann, M. (2013). Experimental and nu-
merical investigation on nozzle reinforcements. In Proceedings of the ASME 2013
pressure vessels & piping division conference, PVP2013, July 14e18, 2013, Paris,
France.
Young, S., Balluz, L., & Malilay, J. (2005). Natural and technologic hazardous material
releases during and after natural disasters: a review. Science of the Total Envi-
ronment, 322, 3e20.