Sei sulla pagina 1di 25

ANALYSIS OF A CYLINDRICAL WATER TANK

BY:

W.P.R Indrajith (168913V)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF MORATUWA SRI LANKA JANUARY 2017

Contents

 1 Introduction 1 2 Hoope stress resultant and vertical stress resultant 2 3 Choosing of variables R, H, t 3 4 Mesh sensitivity study 3 5 Results compression 10 6 Observations and discussion 19 7 Conclusions 22

1

Introduction

Image below shows a vertical cross section of a cylindrical water tank.

Variables:

Radius of the tank Height of the tank Thickness of the cylinder wall

Results to be discussed Hoop stress-resultant

Vertical stress-resultant

R

H

t

N

N

θ

x

Fig. 1 : Vertical cross section of the water tank with variables

2 Hoop stress-resultant

( N θ )

and Vertical stress-resultant

( N x )

Let's use membrane hypothesis. Considering the pressure by liquid at which the point which we consider is P, then the equilibrium of the half of the cylinder is considered and shown below.

Fig. 2: Forces at equilibrium

Considering a unit height along the cylinder, force equilibrium can be written as follows.

; where are water pressure (P),

By substituting pressure P by, Hoop stress-resultant can be written as

There are two forces acting in the system where water pressure and self weight of the wall. But since we consider only the water pressure loading case, there is no effective force acting along the vertical direction of the wall. Hence the vertical stress resultant should be zero.

N x

=

0

 3 Choosing of variables R, H, t Value (mm) Value Variable Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Variable Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 R 1000 2000 4000 H/R 4 2.5 0.625 H 4000 5000 2500 t/H 0.025 0.03 0.05 t 100 150 125 t/R 0.1 0.075 0.03125 4 Selected values for variables for mesh sensitivity study R 1000 H/R 4 H 4000 t/H 0.025 t 100 t/R 0.1 4.1 Properties & boundary conditions in SAP 2000 for initial analysis Modulus of elasticity 34 x 10 6 kN/m 2 Member - shell - membrane - 100 mm in thickness Fixed at X=0 level 4.2 Modelling of water tank with SAP2000

Define material

Define tank wall section - membrane

Generate the geometry with specified mesh (~100mm both directions)

Extruded view of the generated tank

Assigning boundary conditions - Fixed base

Define a joint pattern to simulate the triangular pressure distribution

Application of water pressure using the joint pattern

Water pressure distribution along the vertical wall

Area local axis in the model

horizontal
dir.
local 2 dir.
vertical dir.
local 1 dir.
local 3 dir.

Red colour arrow shows -

White colour arrow shows - Indigo colour arrow shows -

 Local axis 1 - Results out put F11 - N Local axis 2 - Results out put F22 - N Local axis 3 - Results out put F12

θ

x

Hoop stress resultant distribution of the tank wall

4.3 Sensitivity study to find out a suitable mesh arrangement

Water tank with the selected geometric parameters (H=4m, R=1m, t=100mm) is modelled with 4 types of mesh arrangement and Hoop stress resultant along the vertical wall is compared in different cases.

SAP2000 results along the wall for each mesh arrangement is shown below

 Mesh 1 Mesh 2 Mesh 3 Mesh 4 Manual Size of element after mesh 500mm 250mm 100mm 50mm calculation SAP- Hoop stress location Mesh 1 Mesh 2 Mesh 3 Mesh 4 X = 1000 mm 26.0 29.4 29.6 29.5 29.43 X = 1500 mm 24.2 24.6 24.3 24.5 24.53 ( kN/m ) X = 2000 mm 19.0 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.60 X = 3000 mm 9.6 9.8 9.8 19.8 9.80

All results start to converge well in 100mmx100mm mesh arrangement. Hence let's select 100mmx100mm mesh for the rest of the modelling works.

SAP 2000 Hoop stress-resultant contours with each meshing arrangements

Mesh size 500mmx500mm

Mesh size 50mmx50mm

Mesh size 250mmx250mm

Mesh size 100mmx100mm

 5 Results comparison Considering following geometric parameters of water tank, for each case, finite element models were developed with 3 member formulations as, - Membrane sections - Thin shell sections - Thick shell sections Geometric parameters Value (mm) Value Variable Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Variable Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 R 1000 2000 4000 H/R 4 2.5 0.625 H 4000 5000 2500 t/H 0.025 0.03 0.05 t 100 150 125 t/R 0.1 0.075 0.03125 5.1 SAP2000 Results summary Case 1 - H=4000mm, R=1000mm, t=100mm Location N θ (kN/m) N x (kN/m) X(mm) Membrane Thin shell Thick shell Manual calc Membrane Thin shell Thick shell Manual calc 0 -1 -0.1 -0.1 39.24 -4.8 -0.5 -0.6 0 100 48.9 4.8 6.4 38.26 3.1 -0.2 -0.16 0 200 34.8 14 15.8 37.28 -0.77 0.016 0.06 0 300 36.5 22.8 24.1 36.30 0.13 0.12 0.13 0 400 35.6 29.2 30 35.32 0.04 0.14 0.14 0 500 33.9 32.8 33.1 34.34 -0.07 0.12 -0.12 0 1000 29.6 30.2 30.1 29.43 0.15 -0.004 -0.14 0 1500 24.3 24.4 24.4 24.53 0.08 0.1 0.1 0 2000 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.62 0.11 0.1 0.1 0 2500 14.6 14.7 14.7 14.72 0.01 0.1 0.1 0 3000 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.81 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 3500 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.91 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 4000 0 0 0 0.00 0.1 0.1 0.1 0
 Location B.M x direction (kNm/m) X(mm) Thin shell Thick shell 0 1.05 0.97 100 0.33 0.29 200 -0.07 -0.07 300 -0.23 -0.21 400 -0.25 -0.22 500 -0.2 -0.18 1000 0.006 0.005 1500 0.002 0.002 2000 -0.0004 -0.0003 2500 0.00004 0.00003 3000 0.00003 0.00003 3500 0.000026 0.00003 4000 0.000025 0.000025

Case 2 - H=5000mm, R=2000mm, t=150mm

 Location N θ (kN/m) N x (kN/m) X(mm) Membrane Thin shell Thick shell Manual calc Membrane Thin shell Thick shell Manual calc 0 -2.5 -0.09 -0.13 98.10 -12.6 -0.44 -0.7 0 100 122.9 4.23 6.5 96.14 3.43 -1.06 -1.17 0 200 87.9 14.4 17.8 94.18 -0.47 -1.32 -1.35 0 300 92.9 27.1 30.8 92.21 0.2 -1.35 -1.32 0 400 90.7 40.1 43.1 90.25 0.35 -1.23 -1.18 0 500 87.4 51.9 54.9 88.29 0.03 -1.03 -0.96 0 1000 79.02 79.5 79.5 78.48 0.3 -1.01 0.01 0 1500 68.4 72.3 72 68.67 0.15 0.27 0.27 0 2000 59 59.6 59.5 58.86 0.23 0.24 0.24 0 2500 49 48.9 48.9 49.05 0.19 0.2 0.2 0 3000 39.3 39.2 39.2 39.24 0.19 0.2 0.2 0 3500 29.4 29.5 29.5 29.43 0.19 0.2 0.2 0 4000 19.6 19.7 19.7 19.62 0.19 0.2 0.2 0 4500 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.81 0.19 0.2 0.2 0 5000 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.19 0.2 0.2 0
 Location B.M x direction (kNm/m) X(mm) Thin shell Thick shell 0 3.93 3.7 100 2.2 2.05 200 0.93 0.85 300 0.057 0.04 400 -0.49 -0.47 500 -0.79 -0.74 1000 -0.55 -0.5 1500 -0.05 -0.05 2000 0.04 0.03 2500 0.01 0.01 3000 -0.0007 -0.0002 3500 -0.0015 -0.0012 4000 -0.0001 -0.0003 4500 0.00008 0.00001 5000 0.00002 0.00002

Case 3 - H=2500mm, R=4000mm, t=125mm

 Location N θ (kN/m) N x (kN/m) X(mm) Membrane Thin shell Thick shell Manual calc Membrane Thin shell Thick shell Manual calc 0 -2.41 -0.047 -0.06 98.10 -12.05 -0.24 -0.31 0 100 117.13 2.23 2.92 94.18 7.43 -0.17 -0.16 0 200 88.47 7.8 8.9 90.25 -1.11 -0.1 -0.08 0 300 82.97 15.1 16.4 86.33 -0.47 -0.03 -0.02 0 400 86.52 23 24.35 82.40 0.78 0.01 0.02 0 500 74.6 30.6 31.9 78.48 -0.77 0.04 0.05 0 1000 60.65 51.5 51.9 58.86 0.74 -0.021 -0.009 0 1500 38.44 43.5 43.3 39.24 0.26 0.36 0.38 0 2000 19.91 22.9 22.7 19.62 0.46 0.35 0.47 0 2500 0.13 0.2 0.28 0.00 0.42 -0.45 -0.39 0
 Location B.M x direction (kNm/m) X(mm) Thin shell Thick shell 0 2.77 2.7 100 1.76 1.69 200 0.96 0.88 300 0.31 0.26 400 -0.15 -0.18 500 -0.47 -0.47 1000 -0.67 -0.65 1500 -0.25 -0.25 2000 -0.03 -0.03 2500 0.000016 0.000036
 5.2 Results comparison - General 5.2.1 Variation of N θ and N x vs X , case 1 ( H = 4000mm, R = 1000mm, t =100mm )

H/ R =

4.0

t/ H =

0.0250

t/ R =

0.10

N θ vs X , Case 1 - H=4000mm

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
-10
N θ (kN/m)

X (mm)

SAP Membrane

SAP Thin shelll

SAP Thick shelll

Manual calc

N x vs X , Case 1 - H=4000mm

4
3
2
1
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
N x (kN/m)

X (mm)

SAP Membrane

SAP Thin shelll

SAP Thick shelll

Manual calc

5.2.2 Variation of N θ and N x vs X

H/ R =

2.50

t/ H =

, case 2 ( H = 5000mm, R = 2000mm, t =150mm )

0.030

t/ R =

0.0750

 N θ vs X , Case 2 - H=5000mm 140 120 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 100 N θ (kN/m) 80 SAP Membrane 60 SAP Thin shell SAP Thick shell 40 Manual calc 20 0 -20 X (mm) N x vs X , Case 2 - H=5000mm 6 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 2 0 N x (kN/m) -2 SAP Membrane -4 SAP Thin shell -6 SAP Thick shell -8 Manual calc -10 -12 -14 X (mm)

5.2.3 Variation of N θ and N x vs X

H/ R =

0.6250

, case 3 ( H = 2500mm, R = 4000mm, t =125mm )

t/ H =

0.050

t/ R =

0.03125

 N θ vs X , Case 3 - H=2500mm 140 120 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 100 N θ (kN/m) 80 SAP Membrane 60 SAP Thin wall SAP Thick wall 40 Manual calc 20 0 -20 X (mm) N x vs X , Case 3 - H=2500mm 10 5 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 N x (kN/m) 0 SAP Membrane SAP Thin wall -5 SAP Thick wall Manual calc -10 -15 X (mm)

5.2.4 Bending moment in X direction vs X

H/ R =

4.0

t/ H =

, case 1 ( H = 4000mm, R = 1000mm, t =100mm )

0.0250

t/ R =

0.10

M x vs X , Case 1 - H=4000mm

1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
M x (kNm/m)

X (mm)

SAP Thin shelll

SAP Thick shelll

5.2.5 Bending moment in X direction vs X

H/ R =

2.50

t/ H =

0.030

, case 2 ( H = 5000mm, R = 2000mm, t =150mm )

t/ R =

0.0750

M x vs X , Case 2 - H=5000mm

5
4
3
2
1
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
-1
-2
M x (kNm/m)

X (mm)

SAP Thin shell

SAP Thick shell

5.2.6 Bending moment in X direction vs X

H/ R =

0.6250

t/ H =

, case 3 ( H = 2500mm, R = 4000mm, t =125mm )

0.050

t/ R =

0.03125

M x vs X , Case 3 - H=2500mm

3
2
1
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
-1
M x (kNm/m)

X (mm)

SAP Thin wall

SAP Thick wall

5.3 Results comparison - Varying parameters

Based on the results comparison done in section 5.2, It seems that H/R ratio and thickness of the element may have an influence to stress resultants. In order to further investigate the behaviour, 9 more SAP models were developed using membrane elements as described below.

 H = 2500 mm t = 125 mm R = 4000 mm R = 4000 mm R = 2000 mm R = 1000 mm t = 100 mm t = 125 mm t= 150 mm Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Thin shell Thick shell Thin shell Thick shell Thin shell Thick shell Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9

5.3.1 Variation of N θ , Keeping H and t constant and vary R

 N θ ( kN/m) R = 4000 mm ( H/R = 0.625) R = 2000 mm ( H/R = 1.25) R = 1000 mm ( H/R = 2.5) X(mm) Manual SAP membrane Manual SAP membrane Manual SAP membrane 0 98.10 -2.41 49.05 -1.24 24.53 -0.62 100 94.18 117.13 47.09 60.5 23.54 30.2 200 90.25 88.47 45.13 42 22.56 21 300 86.33 82.97 43.16 43.5 21.58 21.7 400 82.40 86.52 41.20 41.5 20.60 20.8 500 78.48 74.6 39.24 38.8 19.62 19.4 1000 58.86 60.65 29.43 29.7 14.72 14.9 1500 39.24 38.44 19.62 19.5 9.81 9.7 2000 19.62 19.91 9.81 9.9 4.91 4.95 2500 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03
N θ vs X , H=2500mm
140.00
H/R 0.625
Manual
120.00
H/R 0.625
100.00
SAP
H/R 1.25
80.00
Manual
60.00
H/R 1.25
SAP
40.00
H/R 2.5
20.00
Manual
0.00
H/R 2.5
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
SAP
-20.00
X (mm)
N θ (kN/m)

5.3.2 Effect of Thin shell and Thick shell in Variation of N θ , Keeping H and R constant and vary t

 N θ ( kN/m) t=100 mm ( t/H= 0.04, t/R= 0.025) t=125 mm ( t/H= 0.05, t/R= 0.03) t=150 mm ( t/H= 0.06, t/R= 0.038) X(mm) SAP Thin shell SAP Thick shell SAP Thin shell SAP Thick shell SAP Thin shell SAP Thick shell 0 -0.06 -0.07 -0.05 -0.06 -0.04 -0.05 100 2.83 3.4 2.23 2.9 1.83 2.6 200 9.70 10.7 7.80 8.9 6.50 7.7 300 18.60 19.7 15.10 16.4 12.70 14.2 400 27.80 28.9 23.00 24.3 19.50 21.1 500 36.50 37.5 30.70 32 26.40 27.1 1000 56.10 56.2 51.50 51.9 47.20 47.8 1500 43.80 43.7 43.50 43.4 42.50 41.8 2000 21.70 21.6 22.90 22.8 23.90 23.7 2500 1.20 1.1 0.20 0.2 1.80 6.3

N θ vs X , H=2500mm, R=4000mm

120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
-20.00
N θ (kN/m)

X (mm)

t/H 0.04, t/R 0.025 Thin shell

t/H 0.04, t/R 0.025 Thick shell

t/H 0.05, t/R 0.031 Thin shell

t/H 0.05, t/R 0.031 Thick shell

t/H 0.06, t/R 0.038 Thin shell

t/H 0.06, t/R 0.038 Thick shell

Manual

6.0 Observations and discussion

- Values obtained for N θ and N x with manual calculations with membrane theory, SAP2000 using membrane elements, SAP2000 using Thin shell and SAP2000 using Thick shells are not exactly the same.

- Basically the variation shows near to the base ( X = 0) as shown in the following graph.

- As we goes along the vertical axis ( increasing X), all the results start to converge well with membrane theory regardless of the element formulation.

N θ vs X , Case 1 - H=4000mm

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
-10
N θ (kN/m)

X (mm)

SAP Membrane

SAP Thin shelll

SAP Thick shelll

Manual calc

- Situation is quite same in the case of N x as well as shown below. Although N x is zero for entire tank in accordance to the membrane theory, SAP2000 results give a numerical value in all cases, yet they converges to zero after a certain height of the tank.

N x vs X , Case 1 - H=4000mm

4
3
2
1
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
N x (kN/m)

X (mm)

SAP Membrane

SAP Thin shelll

SAP Thick shelll

Manual calc

-

The variation of N θ between Membrane theory and SAP2000 (using membrane elements) shows a little variation with changing H/R ratios as shown in the graph below. Although the variation is not that significant, it can be seen that with higher H/R ratios, values converges better than in the case of lower H/R rations.

N θ vs X , H=2500mm
140.00
H/R 0.625
Manual
120.00
H/R 0.625
100.00
SAP
H/R 1.25
80.00
Manual
60.00
H/R 1.25
SAP
40.00
H/R 2.5
20.00
Manual
0.00
H/R 2.5
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
SAP
-20.00
X (mm)
N θ (kN/m)

-

The effect of using thin shell and thick shells did not make a significant impact even with varied wall thickness with respect to the height and radius of the tank as shown below.

N θ vs X , H=2500mm, R=4000mm

120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
-20.00
N θ (kN/m)

X (mm)

t/H 0.04, t/R 0.025 Thin shell

t/H 0.04, t/R 0.025 Thick shell

t/H 0.05, t/R 0.031 Thin shell

t/H 0.05, t/R 0.031 Thick shell

t/H 0.06, t/R 0.038 Thin shell

t/H 0.06, t/R 0.038 Thick shell

Manual

- The effect of using thin shell and thick shells did not make a significant impact for bending moment Mxx as shown below. Values are almost the same although there is a absolute difference between values.

 M x vs X , Case 2 - H/R=2.5 5 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 M x (kNm/m) 3 2 SAP Thin shell 1 0 SAP Thick shell -1 -2 X (mm) M x vs X , Case 3 - H/R=0.625 3 M x (kNm/m) 2 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 1 SAP Thin wall SAP Thick wall 0 -1 X (mm)

7.0 Conclusions

- Membrane theory is not valid near the base of the tank.

- As the top region is considered, membrane theory is valid.

- As the top region is considered, membrane theory is valid.

- Different H/R ratios show the same variation, in general, but it can be observed that there is an improvement for higher H/R ratios.

- As far as hoop stress resultant concern, use of Thin and Thick shells did not show a remarkable variation of the results, although numerical values show a difference.

- With all the observations, it can be seen that there is a significant effect of the Boundary conditions also. Specially the much higher value of hoop stress and Vertical stress resultant not being zero as expected can lead to that conclusion. Hence a separate model was developed with a different joint restrain to the this effect.

A model was developed with restraining the base only along vertical axis (Z) and the results of Nθ and Nx follow exactly as per Membrane theory. The results are shown below.

- Another important observation was made during the study. During the mesh sensitivity study, several models were required to develop from a coarse mesh to a fine mesh. In general cases which we encounter during daily works, meshing of slabs is a common activity which we do with SAP2000. In this meshing process, the selected area or areas can be meshed as per the required mesh density. But in this assignment, this general meshing process with SAP2000 for membrane sections was not worked as expected.

Following figures show the way of unsuccessful work of general meshing lead to incorrect results

F11- Initial 500mmx500mm mesh

F11- Incorrect results for 250mmx250mm mesh which was obtained from 500mmx500mm model

General meshing produced results which are incorrect. Hence reproducing of the model by specifying meshing intervals at the very beginning produced a correct model. Results out put with the correct model is shown below for comparrison.

F11- correct results for 250mmx250mm mesh which was generated from the beginning.

The reason could not be investigated yet, but further study and reading is required.