2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.07.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performance of stainless steel winery tanks during the 02/27/2010 Maule Earthquake

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, in the 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule, Chile Earthquake, approximately 125 million liters of wine were lost, equivalent to about 250 million US dollars. This loss represented 12.5% of 2009's year production even though the earthquake occurred a few weeks before the 2010 annual grape harvest 25 (i.e., not all tanks were at maximum capacity). The same poor performance was observed again in later events, such as the 2011 Christchurch, 2013 Marlborough, and 2016 Kaikōura Earthquakes in New Zealand, 26,27 the 2012 Emilia Earthquake in Italy, 28 the 2014 South Napa Earthquake in the USA, 29 and again the 2015 Coquimbo Earthquake in Chile.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, in the 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule, Chile Earthquake, approximately 125 million liters of wine were lost, equivalent to about 250 million US dollars. This loss represented 12.5% of 2009's year production even though the earthquake occurred a few weeks before the 2010 annual grape harvest 25 (i.e., not all tanks were at maximum capacity). The same poor performance was observed again in later events, such as the 2011 Christchurch, 2013 Marlborough, and 2016 Kaikōura Earthquakes in New Zealand, 26,27 the 2012 Emilia Earthquake in Italy, 28 the 2014 South Napa Earthquake in the USA, 29 and again the 2015 Coquimbo Earthquake in Chile.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…5). Throughout the years, extensive damage has been found for steel tanks that were not properly designed or detailed against seismic action (González et al 2013;Manos 1991;Niwa and Clough 1982;Zareian et al 2012), with the most common types of damage and failures including the buckling of the tank shell, roof damage due to convective wave motion, settlement of foundations, failure of piping systems connected to the tanks, plasti cation of the base plate in unanchored tanks due to uplifting, sliding of the tank, failure of anchor bolts and spillage of toxic material due to excessive sloshing (Brunesi et al 2015;Niwa and Clough 1982). To account for this, three different tank con gurations with different aspect ratios were considered, each having broad (Tk-1), intermediate (Tk-2), and slender (Tk-3) structural con gurations with different lling levels of 90% and 80% of their total capacity, given its impact on the dynamic response of the structure.…”
Section: Construction Of the Databasementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Buckling in storage tanks is commonly associated with external forces such as wind and earthquakes [13,14]. Uematsu et al [15][16][17] made notable contributions to understanding wind-induced buckling in storage tanks.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%