Seminar

on

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF LIQUID STORAGE TANKS

Presented by
Ch. Ravichandra
Guide
Dr. R. K. Ingle

Department of Applied Mechanics

VISVESVARAYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Nagpur
2014 - 2015
INTRODUCTION
Water tanks is an important public utility structure.

Must remain functional following any natural calamity

Tanks are designed as crack free structures to eliminate any leakage.

Many water tanks have failed during the earthquake because of

improper analysis.

This should not happen as water tanks is an important public utility

structure.
Classification of Water tanks

Depending on Position with respect to the ground level

i. Under Ground Storage Tanks

Under Ground Storage Tanks (forum.homeone.com.au)

Classification of Water tanks

ii. Tanks on Ground

Ground Storage Tanks (tanksindia.com)

Classification of Water tanks

iii. Overhead or Elevated Tanks

Elevated Tanks (www.engineering.com)

Classification of Water tanks

Depending on the Shape

i. Rectangular Tanks ii. Spherical Bottom Tanks

Rectangular Tanks Spherical Bottom Tanks

(www.engineering.com) (www.engineering.com)
Classification of Water tanks

iii. Conical Bottom Tanks iv. Circular Tanks

Conical Bottom Tanks Circular Tanks

(www.fao.org) (dir.indiamart.com)
Classification of Water tanks

V .Intze Type Tanks.

Intze Type Tanks (designclub.in)

Classification of Water tanks

Based on the type of Material used for construction

i. Steel Tanks

ii. Reinforced Concrete Tanks

iii. Prestressed Tanks.

Components of Water tanks
Literature Review

Housner (1963)

Has done research on elevated water tanks fixed to the base for seismic
forces.

If a closed tank is completely full of water or completely empty, it is

essentially a one mass structure.

If the tank has a free water surface there will be sloshing of water during an
earthquake.

The analysis takes into account the hydrodynamic pressure, when a fluid
container is subjected to horizontal accelerations.

The pressures developed is mainly divided into two components (1)

impulsive component and (2) convective component.
Continue....
Literature Review .Continue

S.K. Jain and U.S. Sameer (1990)

The design seismic force for the water tank depends on its flexibility and
hence on the time period.

An approximate procedure is presented for calculation of staging stiffness.

Sajjad Sameer U. and Sudhir K. Jain. (1994)

Presented lateral-load analysis of frame staging for elevated water tanks.

It is possible to reduce the statically indeterminate system of the staging to

a determinate one by making simplifying assumptions.

Praveen K. Malhotra (2000)

Provides theoretical background of a simplified seismic design procedure

for cylindrical ground supported water tanks.

The formula for calculating time periods for impulsive masses and
convective masses are given.
Continue....
Literature Review .Continue

J.A. Munshi and N.A. Legatos(2003)

presents the seismic design of liquid containing concrete structures as per

ACI standard provisions.

formulas are given for rectangular and circular tanks to calculate period of
vibration, lateral forces , base shear, overturning moment.

A numerical example has done to compare the base shears from UBC
1994,UBC 1997 and ACI 350.3-01 has also presented.

Wang, Wang and Reddy (2005)

critical buckling load of cylindrical shell depends on the material properties,

thickness and radius and it is independent of the length of the cylindrical shell.

Continue....
Literature Review .Continue

IITK-GSDMA Guidelines for Seismic Design of Liquid Storage Tanks

To assist the designers for seismic design of tanks, code for liquid storage
tanks has been prepared.

To facilitate understanding of the provisions, clause by clause commentary

is also provided.

Further, six explanatory solved examples are provides on the provisions of

guidelines given in this code.

Sachin Pavan More (2011-12)

Aim of the author is to evaluate the analysis and design of Ground storage
tanks and Elevated storage tanks.

Author includes detailed analysis and limit state design of ESRs for staging
with different heights and with maximum capacity 100m3.

Continue....
Literature Review .Continue

Mangulkar Madhuri.N and Gaikwad Madhukar.V (2013)

purpose of this paper is to study the response of elevated water tank to

dynamic forces by both equivalents static method as well as dynamic method.

The effect of impulsive and convective hydrodynamic pressure should consider

in the analysis of tanks.

Earthquake forces increases with increase in zone factor and decreases with
increase in staging height.
Analysis and Design of Containers
Analysis of Container
Hydrostatic Analysis
The liquid present in the tank exerts pressure on tank wall and bottom
slab.
The pressure distribution on wall is uniformly.
Varies linearly with depth of liquid.
Acts normal to the surface of the container.
At depth h from liquid top, hydrostatic pressure = h

Continue....
 .Continue

Hydrodynamic Analysis

Liquid in motion exerts additional pressure in the direction of motion

on container.

The most adverse effect will be due to seismic excitation.

Hydrodynamic Pressure has curvilinear variation along wall height

Its direction is opposite to base motion

Continue....
 .Continue

Circular tanks (Plan view)

Continue....
 .Continue

Rectangular tanks (Plan View)

Continue....
 .Continue

Modelling of Liquid
Liquid in bottom portion of the container moves with wall, this is
called impulsive liquid.

Liquid in top portion undergoes sloshing and moves relative to wall,

this is called convective liquid or sloshing liquid.

Continue....
 .Continue

Seismic analysis of ground supported circular water tank has been done
according to IS and Euro.

Euro IS comparison

IS 1893 (part - 2) Eurocode 8 (part 4)

Impulsive Base shear (kN) 3070 2372
Convective Base shear (kN) 430 398
Impulsive Base moment (kNm) 12465 8590
Convective Base moment (kNm) 3300 2114
Impulsive hydrodynamic pressure (kN/m2) 8.5 10.2
Convective hydrodynamic pressure
(kN/m2) 0.3 0.25

Continue....
 .Continue

Method of Design
Limit State Design
Limit state design method consist of Design for Collapse and check
for Serviceability.

In this method the section on tension side is assumed to be cracked

and its tension carrying capacity of concrete is not to be considered.

Limit Stress Design

Crack widths may also controlled by limiting the stress in the tensile
reinforcement under the service conditions to the values given in
Table 4 of IS: 3370.

Continue....
 .Continue

Working stress design

WSM Design for Un-cracked Section

Design of section is on the theoretical basis of 'no cracking' under

service loads.

Concrete sections designed by this method tend to be thick and

have relatively large amounts of reinforcement.

WSM Design for Cracked Section

The design of members shall satisfy adequate resistance to cracking

and strength.

Continue....
 .Continue

Analysis and design of circular container of capacity from 20 m3 to

100 m3 has been done.

Container design
H D Ast for Tension (mm2)
Capac
ity m3 m m L.S.M Limiting Stress W.S.M Euro
20 1.9 4.04 112 208 208 90
30 2.7 4.04 160 296 296 128
40 3.5 4.04 207 383 383 166
50 2.5 5.45 199 369 369 160
60 2.9 5.45 231 428 428 185
70 3.35 5.45 267 495 495 214
80 3.05 6.16 275 509 509 220
90 3.35 6.16 302 559 559 242
100 3.7 6.16 333 618 618 267

Continue....
 .Continue

H D Ast for Moment (mm2)

Capac
m m
ity m3 L.S.M Limiting Stress W.S.M Euro
20 1.9 4.04 28 57 54 22
30 2.7 4.04 80 164 154 64
40 3.5 4.04 172 357 336 140
50 2.5 5.45 63 130 122 51
60 2.9 5.45 99 203 191 79
70 3.35 5.45 151 313 294 122
80 3.05 6.16 115 236 222 92
90 3.35 6.16 151 313 294 122
100 3.7 6.16 203 422 397 165

Continue....
 .Continue

Design charts and tables has been developed for the calculation of
Serviceability and Ultimate moment.

Serviceability

a cr c
W 1 2
dx h x
M s E s A s d x / 3 2
hx 3 a cr

Mu 0.36 f ck b x u d 0.42 x u

Continue....
 .Continue

Design Table for Ms and Mu (Crack width 0.2mm) Clear cover = 45mm, fy = 415 N/mm2, fck = 25
N/mm2, dia = 10mm
Surface Zone Depth (mm)
dia spacing Ast 200 225 250 275 300
Ms Mu Ms Mu Ms Mu Ms Mu Ms Mu
mm mm sqmm kNm kNm kNm kNm kNm kNm kNm kNm kNm kNm
10 100 785 25 39 31 46 37 53 44 60 51 51
10 125 628 21 32 26 37 32 43 37 49 44 44
10 150 524 19 27 23 31 28 36 33 41
10 175 449 17 23 21 27 26 31
10 200 393 16 20
10 225 349
10 250 314
10 275 286
10 300 262

Continue....
Design Tables for Ms and Mu
.Continue

Use of Tables is illustrated in following example.

Calculate Thickness required, Area of steel and spacing for 15 kN-m

service moment, Use Fe415 steel and M25 concrete.

Step 1- Select bar diameter to be used. (Say 10mm diameter.)

Step 2- Select serviceability criteria i.e. limited crack width. (Crack Width

0.2mm and clear cover 45mm)

Step 3- Refer appropriate table. From that for 15kN-m obtain Thickness

(200mm) and spacing.

Step 4- Check for spacing. (S =200mm Thickness D, 300mm)

Continue....
Design Tables for Ms and Mu .Continue

Step 5- Check for Minimum steel. (For this case using 0.35% as per IS

3370-2009 (Part II) on both side = 700mm2.

Ast provided on one side =393mm2 > 350mm2. Hence Ok)

Step 6- Moment capacity available = 16kN-m >15kN-m
Hence OK.
Analysis and Design of Elevated Storage
Tanks
 Loading on ESR

Static Seismic Wind

Dead and Live SDOF System Static

Load

MDOF System Dynamic

Continue....
 .Continue

Static Load
Static load case contains the self weight of ESR components like
container, slab, bracing, columns etc.

Also imposed loads on roof slab and balcony. Weight of water is to

be considered as Dead load in static condition.

Seismic Load

SDOF System

Water and Container with fraction of staging mass will act as a

single mass lumped with stiffness of staging.

This is very approximate method for estimating seismic forces.

Mass (m) = mw+ mc + ms/3

Continue....
 .Continue

MDOF System
When a tank containing liquid vibrates, the impulsive and convective
components will oscillate independently.

Wind Load
Static Wind Load

IS 875-1987 Part-III gives detailed analysis procedure for any type of

structure.

The code has given various coefficients to take into account height
and width of structure, topography, terrain category, shape and region.

Continue....
 .Continue

Dynamic Wind Load

structures of which height to minimum lateral dimension ratio of more

than about 5.0 or natural frequency in the first mode is less than 1.0 Hz.

Normally the time period of ESRs is close to 1.0 Hz.

 .Continue

ESR is analyzed considering seismic forces and wind forces with

dead load and live load.

ESR is analyzed with varying capacity from 20 m3 to 100 m3

Seismic zones II, III ,IV and V are considered in the analysis.

For seismic analysis response reduction factor 2.5 and 4 are taken.

While calculating wind forces both static and dynamic wind effects
are considered.

More emphasis is given to ESRs of three panels and four panels

with staging height varying from 9m to 15m.

Continue....
 .Continue

cases for analysis are listed below

i. EQ (R=2.5) + WS
ii. EQ (R=2.5) + WD
iii. EQ (R=4.0) + WS
iv. EQ (R=4.0) + WD.
Various Load cases considered are listed below
i. Dead Load Tank Full (DLTF)

ii. Dead Load Tank Empty (DLTE)

iii. Earthquake Tank Full (EQXTF)

iv. Earthquake Tank Empty (EQXTE)

v. Wind load Tank Full (WXTF)

vi. Wind load Tank Empty (WXTE)

vii. Live Load (LL).

Continue....
 .Continue

Load combinations considered are as follows

1.5 (DL+LL)

1.2 (DL+LL+EQ/WL)

1.5 (DL+EQ/WL)

0.9DL+1.5EQ/WL.

Totally 49 Load Combinations are used in the analysis

Continue....
 .Continue
Dead Load

Live Load
Load Calculation
Earthquake Load

Wind Load

Mathematical
Modeling

Analysis Load
Analysis and Design of ESR Combinations

Analysis Results

Roof & Base Slab

Roof & Base Beam

Vertical Wall
Design
Braces

Column

Footing

Flow diagram for Analysis and Design of ESR

Continue....
 .Continue

4 panel 50 m3 Capacity

Mathematical Model
Continue....
 .Continue

ESR of 50m3 capacity with staging height 15m is analyzed using calculated
forces and Designed for worst effects.
Bracing Design for Static Wind and Earthquake Forces with R =2.5 & 4
R=2.5 R=4
Mu/bd2 Ast
Mu/bd2 Ast
Soil pt% Soil ( kN/m2) pt% (mm2)
( kN/m2) (mm2)
C50 Zone II
Soft 2.19 0.69 742 Soft 2.19 0.69 738
Medium 2.16 0.68 727 Medium 2.16 0.68 727
Hard 2.14 0.67 722 Hard 2.14 0.67 722
Zone III
Soft 2.84 0.94 1008 Soft 2.19 0.69 738
Medium 2.36 0.75 813 Medium 2.16 0.68 727
Hard 2.14 0.67 723 Hard 2.14 0.67 722
Zone IV
Soft 4.21 1.46 1568 Soft 2.66 0.86 927
Medium 3.50 1.21 1303 Medium 2.21 0.69 746
Hard 2.62 0.86 923 Hard 2.14 0.67 722
Zone V
Soft 6.84 2.12 2022 Soft 3.02 0.92 1023
Medium 4.40 1.62 1806 Medium 2.84 0.75 932
Hard 3.20 0.92 1213 Hard 2.14 0.67 804
 .Continue

Column Design Results (Interaction Factors)

Soil Column
type No Zone II Zone III Zone IV
R = 2.5 R =4.0 R = 2.5 R =4.0 R = 2.5 R =4.0

Upto 3 0.95 0.94 0.95 0.83 1.03 0.65

Soft 4 1.07 1.01 1.02 0.90 1.01 0.79

Upto 3 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 1.01 0.70

Medium 4 1.07 0.96 0.99 0.92 1.03 0.85

Upto 3 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.89 0.80 0.72

Hard 4 1.07 0.95 1.03 0.96 1.03 0.93

Continue....
 .Continue

Behavior of Four Column Staging Configuration

As per IS: 1893-2002 the earthquake forces should be applied

in principle mode of vibration.

If the principle mode of vibration is at an angle to the X-Y axis then

apply 100-30-30 rule or SRSS rule to get the actual response of the
structure.

Continue....
 .Continue

Forces in Bracing
Left End Centre Right End
Description
P V2 M3 P V2 M3 P V2 M3

(kN) (kN) (kNm) (kN) (kN) (kNm) (kN) (kN) (kNm)

without Max 4 25 55 4 25 0 4 25 56
Using 100-
30-30 Rule Min 1 -25 -57 1 -25 -1 1 -25 -57

with Using Max 4 45 72 4 45 0 4 45 73

100-30-30
Rule Min 1 -45 -74 1 -45 -1 1 -45 -74

Continue....
 .Continue

Forces in column
Top End Bottom End
Description
P V2 V3 M2 M3 P V2 V3 M2 M3

(kN) (kN) (kN) (kNm) (kNm) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kNm) (kNm)

with out Max -42 26 3 6 54 -42 26 3 0 19

Using 100-
30-30 Rule Min -188 -19 0 0 -38 -188 -19 0 -2 -24

with Using Max -39 33 3 7 68 -39 33 3 0 25

100-30-30
Rule Min -196 -26 0 -1 -52 -196 -26 0 -2 -30

Continue....
 .Continue

Numerical study
Seismic and Wind Load Calculation
Depth of Footing
Soft strata - 3.0m
Medium strata - 2.5m
Hard strata - 2.0m
Seismic Zone - II, III and IV.

Configuration of ESR
Continue....
 .Continue

ESR Mathematical model

Continue....
 .Continue

Tank Full
SUMMARY Impulsive Convective SRSS Total EQX
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
Zone-II
Soft Soil 32.63 3.24 32.8 32.8
Medium Soil 27.28 2.64 27.4 27.4
Hard Soil 20.54 1.94 20.6 20.7
Zone-III
Soft Soil 52.21 5.19 52.5 52.5
Medium Soil 43.65 4.23 43.9 44.0
Hard Soil 32.87 3.11 33.0 33.0
Zone-IV
Soft Soil 78.32 7.79 78.7 78.7
Medium Soil 65.48 6.34 65.8 65.8
Hard Soil 49.30 4.66 49.5 49.6
Continue....
 .Continue

Tank Empty

SUMMARY EQX
(kN)
Zone-II
Soft Soil 28.8
Medium Soil 24.0
Hard Soil 17.9
Zone-III
Soft Soil 46.0
Medium Soil 38.3
Hard Soil 28.7
Zone-IV
Soft Soil 69.1
Medium Soil 57.4
Hard Soil 43.0
Continue....
 .Continue

Wind load Calculation

Summary Static Wind Dynamic Wind Dynamic Wind

load (kN) load load
As per IS 875- As per IS 875-
1987 (Part III) Draft (Part III)
(kN) (kN)

On Top of each
9 13 8
Col
At intermediate
joints of each
Col 5 5 3

Continue....
.Continue
 Approximate Analysis of ESR

Methods employed for lateral load analysis of rigidly jointed frames

are
The Portal method.
The Cantilever method
The Factor method

The portal method

The following are the simplifying assumptions made in the portal

method

A point of contraflexure occurs at the centre of each beam.

A point of contraflexure occurs at the centre of each column

Continue....
Approximate Analysis of ESR .Continue

The total horizontal shear at each storey is distributed between the

columns of that storey in such a way that each interior column
carries twice the shear carried by each exterior column.

The cantilever method

The assumptions made in the cantilever method are

A point of contraflexure occurs at the centre of each beam.

A point of contraflexure occurs at the centre of each column.

The axial force in each column of a storey is proportional to the

horizontal distance of the column from the centre of gravity of all
the columns of the storey under consideration.

Continue....
Approximate Analysis of ESR .Continue

The factor method

The factor method is more accurate than either the portal method or
the cantilever method

The portal method and cantilever method depend on assumed

location of hinges and column shears, whereas the factor method is
based on assumptions regarding the elastic action of the structure.

For the application of Factor method, the relative stiffness (k = I/L),

for each beam and column should be known or assumed.

Continue....
Approximate Analysis of ESR .Continue

Approximate Analysis for Four Column Staging ESR

Pattern of Moment diagrams and Shear force diagrams are same
only change was with respect to the stiffness of bottom panel.

For which inflection point determination approach by Jain and

Sameer is used.

Determination of Inflection Point (Sameer S. U. & Jain S. K.)

Continue....
Approximate Analysis of ESR .Continue

Distance of inflection point from Base(y)

Continue....
Approximate Analysis of ESR .Continue

For Girder inflection point is at middle.

Column Moment (Mc) = P x Y x H.

Girder Moment (Mb) = McT + McB.

Shear force is calculated by dividing total load into number of

columns.

Axial force is to be calculated by summing up the reactions at joint

for each storey.

Moments are calculated using average of fixed and simply

supported condition.

Approx method

Continue....
Approximate Analysis of ESR .Continue
TOP BEAM
Left End Centre Right End
Analysis
Load Case Zone Shear Moment Shear Moment Shear Moment
Method
(kN) (kN-m) (kN) (kN-m) (kN) (kN-m)
SAP -105 -55 0 78 105 -55
DLTF ALL
Apprx met -104 -54 0 76 104 -54
SAP -30 -16 0 23 30 -16
DLTE ALL
Apprx met -29 -16 0 22 28 -16
SAP/Apprx
LL ALL 0 0 0 0 0 0
met
SAP -6 18 -6 0 -6 -18
II
Apprx met 5 17 5 0 5 -17
SAP 9 26 9 0 9 -26
III
Apprx met 8 26 8 0 8 -26
EQxTF
SAP 12 40 12 0 12 -40
IV
Apprx met 12 40 12 0 12 -40
SAP 19 61 19 0 19 -61
V
Apprx met 18 59 18 0 18 -59
SAP 4 15 4 0 4 -15
II
Apprx met 4 14 4 0 4 -14
SAP 8 24 8 0 8 -24
III
Apprx met 7 22 7 0 7 -22
EQxTE
SAP 10 33 10 0 10 -33
IV
Apprx met 10 33 10 0 10 -33
SAP 15 50 15 0 15 -50
V
Apprx met 15 50 15 0 15 -50
SAP 13 50 13 0 13 -50
WLxTF ALL
Apprx met 13 48 13 0 13 -48
Continue....
Approximate Analysis of ESR .Continue

BRACE
Left End Centre Right End
Analysis
Load Case Zone Shear Moment Shear Moment Shear Moment
Method
(kN) (kN-m) (kN) (kN-m) (kN) (kN-m)
SAP -6 -4 0 3 6 4
DLTF ALL
Apprx met -6 -4 0 3 6 4
SAP -6 -4 0 3 6 4
DLTE ALL
Apprx met -6 -4 0 3 6 4
SAP/Apprx
LL ALL 0 0 0 0 0 0
met
SAP 13 27 13 0 13 -27
II
Apprx met 12 25 12 0 12 -25
SAP 20 42 20 0 20 -42
III
Apprx met 19 40 19 0 19 -40
EQxTF
SAP 29 60 29 0 29 -60
IV
Apprx met 29 59 29 0 29 -59
SAP 45 92 45 0 45 -92
V
Apprx met 43 89 43 0 43 -89
SAP 11 23 11 0 11 -23
II
Apprx met 10 21 10 0 10 -21
SAP 17 34 17 0 17 -34
III
Apprx met 16 33 16 0 16 -33
EQxTE
SAP 24 50 24 0 24 -50
IV
Apprx met 24 50 24 0 24 -50
SAP 36 75 36 0 36 -75
V
Apprx met 36 75 36 0 36 -75
SAP 61 118 61 0 61 -118
WLxTF ALL
Apprx met 60 118 60 0 60 -118
Continue....
Approximate Analysis of ESR .Continue

TOP COLUMN
Top Bottom
Analysis
Load Case Zone Axial Shear Moment Axial Shear Moment
Method
(kN) (kN) (kN-m) (kN) (kN) (kN-m)
SAP -422 -14 36 -422 -14 -12
DLTF ALL
Apprx met -422 -13 35 -422 -13 -11
SAP -185 -3 10 -185 -3 -3
DLTE ALL
Apprx met -185 -3 10 -185 -3 -3
SAP/Apprx
LL ALL 0 0 0 0 0 0
met
SAP 9 8 -19 9 8 10
II
Apprx met 8 7 -17 8 7 9
SAP 14 12 -27 14 12 15
III
Apprx met 13 11 -26 13 11 15
EQxTF
SAP 22 18 -42 22 18 23
IV
Apprx met 20 17 -40 20 17 22
SAP 32 25 -60 32 25 35
V
Apprx met 30 25 -59 30 25 33
SAP 8 8 -15 8 8 9
II
Apprx met 7 6 -14 7 6 8
SAP 12 10 -23 12 10 14
III
Apprx met 11 9 -22 11 9 13
EQxTE
SAP 17 14 -33 17 14 19
IV
Apprx met 17 14 -33 17 14 19
SAP 25 21 -50 25 21 28
V
Apprx met 25 21 -50 25 21 28
SAP 26 20 -50 26 20 20
WLxTF ALL
Apprx met 24 18 -48 24 18 18
Continue....
Approximate Analysis of ESR .Continue

BOTTOM COLUMN
Top Bottom
Analysis
Load Case Zone Axial Shear Moment Axial Shear Moment
Method
(kN) (kN) (kN-m) (kN) (kN) (kN-m)
SAP -422 0 0 -422 0 0
DLTF ALL
Apprx met -422 0 0 -422 0 0
SAP -185 0 0 -185 0 0
DLTE ALL
Apprx met -185 0 0 -185 0 0
SAP/Apprx
LL ALL 0 0 0 0 0 0
met
SAP 51 8 0 51 8 15
II
Apprx met 51 7 0 51 7 14
SAP 81 12 0 81 12 23
III
Apprx met 81 11 0 81 11 22
EQxTF
SAP 124 18 0 124 18 35
IV
Apprx met 122 17 0 122 17 33
SAP 184 25 0 184 25 52
V
Apprx met 183 25 0 183 25 50
SAP 44 8 0 44 8 14
II
Apprx met 43 6 0 43 6 12
SAP 70 10 0 70 10 20
III
Apprx met 69 9 0 69 9 19
EQxTE
SAP 103 14 0 103 14 28
IV
Apprx met 103 14 0 103 14 28
SAP 155 21 0 155 21 42
V
Apprx met 155 21 0 155 21 42
SAP 212 20 0 212 20 78
WLxTF ALL
Apprx met 213 39 -1 213 39 76
Determination of Governing Load Case
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

Seismic force considered to be acting at the centre of mass of the

tank.

Wind force varies with height of tank, so those are applied at the
centre of each bracing level and at centre of container.

To determine the governing load case equivalent point load for wind
loading is calculated and then compared with seismic forces.

Continue....
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

Where
H = height of staging,
a = depth of Foundation

ESR Staging plan

Continue....
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

Equivalent Point Load for Three Panel ESR

To calculate equivalent point load (Peqv) moment at top of foundation

level is considered, also the wind load is applied at top of staging.

Moment due to wind load at base

Mb = W(H+a) +W1(2H/3 + a) +W1(H/3 + a)

Moment due to point load at base

Mb = Peqv(H+a)

Equating both moments

Peqv = W+W1(1 + a/(H+a))

Continue....
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

Equivalent Point Load for Four Panel ESR

Moment due to wind load at base

Mb = W(H+a) +W1(3H/4 + a) +W1(2H/4 + a)+ W1(H/4 + a)

Moment due to point load at base

Mb = Peqv(H+a)

Equating both moments

Peqv = W + 1.5W1 (1 + a/(H+a))

Continue....
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

Using this formulations for terrain category 1 wind forces and

seismic forces are calculated.

For staging height 9m,12m and 15m. With R = 2.5 (OMRF), R=4
(SMRF) by varying capacity from 20 m3 to 100 m3.

By considering Seismic zones II, III , IV and V. And for soil type soft,
Medium, hard.

The governing load case can be found by calculating the Stiffness

from Sap and by Approximate Time period formulae Suggested by
Dr. R.K. Ingle.

Continue....
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

The Approximate Time period formulae by Dr. R.K. Ingle

KS1=

KS2=

KS3=

KS4=

1/Ke = 1/Ks1+1/Ks2+1/Ks3+1/Ks4 , Kx = 1/Ke

Continue....
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

ESR Mathematical model

Continue....
The following data has been used to calculate the governing Load case
Roof Beam Bottom Beam Columnn Brace
Capacity Hs Di Hw Fb Tw Trfs Tbs Stiffness K
B D B D Dia. Lc B D Lb

m3 m m m m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm m mm mm m kN/m

9 4.00 6176
20 12 4.04 1.6 0.3 200 125 - - 200 300 400 400 4.00 300 400 3.0 4200
15 3.75 3252
9 4.00 6410
30 12 4.04 2.4 0.3 200 125 - - 200 300 400 400 4.00 300 400 3.0 4200
15 3.75 3252
9 4.00 5820
40 12 4.75 2.3 0.3 200 125 250 525 200 300 400 400 4.00 300 400 3.5 4200
15 3.75 3252
9 4.00 6684
50 12 5.45 2.2 0.3 200 125 250 525 200 300 500 450 4.00 300 400 4.0 5055
15 3.75 4095
9 4.00 6809
60 12 5.45 2.6 0.3 200 125 250 525 200 300 500 450 4.00 300 400 4.0 5055
15 3.75 4095
9 4.00 6809
70 12 5.45 3.05 0.3 200 125 250 525 225 300 500 450 4.00 300 400 4.0 5055
15 3.75 4095
9 4.00 6809
80 12 6.16 2.75 0.3 200 125 250 525 250 400 500 500 4.00 300 450 4.5 7032
15 3.75 5270
9 4.00 6844
90 12 6.16 3.05 0.3 200 125 250 525 250 400 500 500 4.00 300 450 4.5 7032
15 3.75 5270
9 4.00 6844
100 12 6.16 3.4 0.3 200 125 250 525 250 400 600 500 4.00 300 450 4.5 7032
15 3.75 5270
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

Governing Load Case for R=4

Governing Load Case for R= 4 by Approx method

Governing Load Case for R= 2.5

The following are the figures showing Seismic and wind loads for
capacity 20 m3 to 100 m3.

Continue....
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,

Vb= 39 m/s, Tank Full & Soft Soil for R=4.

Continue....
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,

Vb= 44 m/s, Tank Full & Soft Soil for R=4.

Continue....
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,

Vb= 47 m/s, Tank Full & Soft Soil for R=4

Continue....
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,

Vb= 50 m/s, Tank Full & Soft Soil for R=4

Continue....
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,

Vb= 39 m/s, Tank Full & Medium Soil for R=4

Continue....
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,

Vb= 44 m/s, Tank Full & Medium Soil for R=4

Continue....
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,

Vb= 47 m/s, Tank Full & Medium Soil for R=4

Continue....
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,

Vb= 50 m/s, Tank Full & Medium Soil for R=4

Continue....
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,

Vb= 39 m/s, Tank Full & Hard Soil for R=4

Continue....
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,

Vb= 44 m/s, Tank Full & Hard Soil for R=4

Continue....
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,

Vb= 47 m/s, Tank Full & Hard Soil for R=4

Continue....
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,

Vb= 50 m/s, Tank Full & Hard Soil for R=4

Continue....
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

From all these figures Strength Based governing load cases can be
decided.

Results obtained from load calculation are presented.

Continue....
Determination of governing Load case .Continue

Wind SOFT SOIL MEDIUM SOIL HARD SOIL

Speed
m/s II III IV V II III IV V II III IV V

Height of Staging =12m

39 W EQ EQ EQ W W/E EQ EQ W W W/E EQ

44 W W EQ EQ W W W/E EQ W W W EQ

47 W W W/E EQ W W W EQ W W W W/E

50 W W W EQ W W W EQ W W W W

Governing Load Cases for Tank Full condition (R=4, by Mathematical

model)

Continue....
Observations

Dynamic wind load as per IS 875-1987 (Part III) is giving higher

forces compared to the IS 875 draft (Part III).

Container design by Indian Standard is giving higher steel than Euro

Code.

Seismic forces Calculated by IS 1893 (Part-2), are more higher

compared to the forces calculated by Euro Code 8 (Part IV).

Stiffness of staging calculated using approximate method Proposed

by Dr. R.K. Ingle is found to be close to the Software analysis,
results are varying only by 5-10%.
Conclusions

Design of small capacity tanks with 200mm minimum thickness of

container will be governed by minimum reinforcement to be provided
as per IS 3370-2009 (Part II).

As sections designed by LSD are thinner heat of hydration will be

less as compared to WSM.

For same percentage steel moment capacity by LSD for 0.2mm and
0.1mm crack width is more than that of WSM.

Design of ESRs in zone IV and V in the region of basic wind speed

50m/s will be governed by both the cases.
 Ch. Ravichandra and Ingle, R. K. (2015) Analysis of Cylindrical
water tanks- Wind or Earthquake, Proc., International Conference
on Civil, Mechanical, Biological and Medical Engineering, IRAJ
research forum, Chennai, 10 May.2015. (ISBN: 978-93-85465-11-6)
Technical paper
References

A.Ghali, Circular storage tanks and silos, by E & FN Spon

publication,2000.

Anandal R., Analysis and design of liquid storage structures,

M.Tech. Thesis, VNIT, Nagpur. 2012-13.

Anchor, R.D., Design of liquid retaining concrete structures, Edward

Arnold, London, U.K, 1992.

Ashwini Ratiramji Kshirasagar., Investigation into seismic analysis of

elevated water tanks staging with different configurations, M.Tech.
Thesis, VNIT, Nagpur. 2007-08.

C.M.Wang, C.Y.Wang, J.N.Reddy (2005), Exact Solution for Buckling

Analysis of Structural Members, CRC Press, Page 184-2001.
References

Housner, G.W. (1963), The Dynamic Behaviour of Water Tanks,

Bulletin of the seismological society of America, Vol.53,No.2,
pp.381-387.
Ingle, R.K., (2004), Codal Provisions for Wind Effects on Elevated
Water Towers, Proceedings of Second National Conference on
Wind Engineering (NCWE-04), Nagpur, India.
Ingle, R.K., Time period of elevated water tower, The Indian
concrete Journal, September 1997, 497-499.
Ingle, R.K.,(2010), Design of Liquid Retaining Structures workshop
on revised IS 3370: 2009 (Part I&II) and IS 1893 (Part II), ICI and
IWWA, Nagpur.
IS 11682 (Draft), Criteria for Design of RCC Staging for Overhead
Water Tanks, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
References

IS 11682, Criteria For Design Of RCC Staging For Overhead Water

Tanks, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 1985.

Is 1893, Part I, Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures:

Part 1 general provisions and buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi, 2002.

IS 1893, Part II (Draft) Criteria for Earthquake Resistant design of

Structures: Part 2 Liquid Retaining Tanks Elevated and Ground
Supported, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2006.

IS 3370, Part I& II, code of practise for concrete structure for the
storage liquids, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2009.
References

IS 3370, Part IV, Code of practice for concrete structures for the
storage of liquids, Part IV- Design Tables, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, 1987

IS 456, Plain and reinforced concrete code of practise, Bureau of

Indian standards, New Delhi, 2000.

IS 875, Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for
Buildings and Structures Part 3 Wind Loads, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, 1987

J.A. Munshi and N.A. Legatos(2003), Seismic design of liquid

containing concrete structures as per ACI standard 350.3, Portland
Cement Association.
References

J.Z. Chen, A.R. Ghaemmaghami and M.R. Kianoush (2008),

Dynamic analysis of concrete rectangular liquid storage tanks, the
14th world conference on earthquake engineering October 12-17,
2008, Beijing, china.
Mangulkar Madhuri.N and Gaikwad Madhukar.V (2013), Review on
seismic analysis of elevated water tank, International journal of civil
engineering and technology.
Pankaj R Patil., Hydrodynamic analysis of ground supported fluid
storage tanks,M.Tech. Thesis, VNIT, Nagpur. 2000-01
Praveen K. Malhotra, Thomas wenk, Martin Wieland (2000), Simple
procedure for Seismic Analysis of Liquid-Storage Tanks, Structural
Engineering International, 3/2000.
References

R. Livaoglu & A. Dogangun (2007), An investigation about effects of

supporting systems on fluid structure interaction, Special structures
Paper Id: SS148, Tehran, Iraq.

S. C. Dutta, S. K. Jain and C. V. R. Murthy (2001), Inelastic seismic

torsional behaviour of elevated tanks, Journal of sound and
vibration (2001) 242(1), 151-167.

S.K. Jain, U.S. Sameer, Seismic Design of Frame Staging for

Elevated Water Tanks, Ninth Symposium on Earthquake
Engineering, Roorkee, December 14-16, 1990, Vol.1.

Sachin Pavan More., Analysis and design of liquid storage tanks

using limit state design, M.Tech. Thesis, VNIT, Nagpur. 2011-12.
References

Sajjad Sameer U. and Sudhir K. Jain. (1994), Lateral load analysis of

frame stagings for elevated water tanks. Journal of structural
engineering,pp.1375.1395.

Cheng. R., Design tables to BS 8007 Design of Concrete Structures

for retaining aqueous liquids, Thomas Telford, London.

Gupta L.M., et al. (2004), Development of Equation for Background

Factor, Proceedings of Second National Conference on Wind
Engineering (NCWE 04), Nagpur, India.
Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures Part 1-1 : General rules and
rules for buildings (Authority The European Union Per Regulation
305/2011, Directive 98/34/EC, Directive 2004/18/EC).
References

Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures Part 1-1 : General rules and

rules for buildings (Authority The European Union Per Regulation
305/2011, Directive 98/34/EC, Directive 2004/18/EC)

Eurocode 8, Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 4 :

Silos, tanks and pipelines (Authority: The European Union Per Regulation
305/2011, Directive 98/34/EC, Directive 2004/18/EC)

Eurocode 8, Design of earthquake resistance Part 1: General rules,

seismic actions and rules for buildings, Ref. No. EN 1998-1:2004:E.

Tony Threlfall, Worked examples for the design of concrete structures to

Euro code 2, by CRC press Taylor and Francis group, FL 33487-2742.