Annexure IX

Chintha.Ravichandra 1 and R.K.Ingle2

1
M.Tech Student Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology Nagpur-440010,
Analysis of Cylindrical Water Tanks- Wind or
2
Professor Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology Nagpur-440010
Email: 1chintha.ravichandra007@gmail.com, 2rkingle@rediffmail.com
Earthquake
2H H
Mb Peuv H a W H a W 1 a W 1 a
Abstract Most of the time designer takes decision to 3 3
a
consider either wind or earthquake load for design of staging Peqv W 1.5W 1 1
H a
for Elevated Service Reservoir (ESR) based on his experience; to
save some calculations. This paper aims at providing governing (3)
load case for ESR i.e. whether wind or earthquake force is
governing. Earthquake analysis is done according to IS 1893
Part I & II, Wind analysis is done according to IS 875-1987 (Part
III) & IS 875 draft (Part III). In this paper ESR of staging height
12m is considered with capacity varying from 20 m 3 to 100 m 3.
Analysis has been done using SAP-2000. Three types of soil
conditions, namely soft, medium, hard and seismic zones, Zone-
II, Zone-III, Zone-IV and Zone V are considered. Wind analysis is
done for wind speeds of 39 m/s, 44 m/s, 47m/s and 50m/s. The
results have been presented in terms of graphs, showing
leading load case for staging design.

Index TermsWind static analysis, Wind dynamic analysis,

Earthquake analysis, Equivalent point load, Response reduction
factor

I. INTRODUCTION
The design of ESR staging is of prime importance as it is Fig. 1: ESR Staging Line Plan.
the main cause of failure in most of the cases. So the
adverse effects due to natural calamities like earthquake or
cyclone need to be given due consideration. Seismic force III. PROBLEM FORMULATION
considered to be acting at the center of mass of tank, due In order to find out the governing load case Nine tanks of
to the heavy mass at top in ESR and it acts at mid height of capacity 20 m 3 to 100 m 3 have considered in this paper
container. Wind force varies with height of tank, so those with staging height 12m. Three types of soil: Soft, Medium,
are applied at the center of each bracing level and at And Hard are considered, and depth of foundation is varied
center of container. To determine the governing load case i.e. 3m (Soft), 2.5m (medium) & 2m (hard). So now totally
equivalent point load for wind loading is calculated and 27 tanks are analyzed in SAP-2000 to obtain Stiffness for
then compared with seismic forces. This comparison is calculation of wind and earthquake forces. Static Wind
used to indicate predominant Load case i.e. earthquake or forces have been calculated when frequency > 1 Hz, in
wind. remaining cases dynamic wind forces have been
calculated. Dynamic wind force can be calculated by IS
II. EQUIVALENT POINT LOAD FOR THREE PANEL
875-1987 (Part III) & IS 875 draft (Part III). However in this
To calculate equivalent point load (P eqv) moment at top of paper IS 875-1987 (Part III) code is used. Seismic forces are
foundation level is considered (Refer Fig .1). calculated as per IS 1893 (Part I & II).
Moment due to Wind Load at base
2H H
Mb W H a W 1 a W 1 a
3 3
(1)
A. Moment due to Point Load at base
Mb Peqv H a
(2)

Equating both moments,

The data considered in analyzing the tank is given in I & II.

I: Data of ESR
Capacity Di Hw Roof beam Tbs

(m3) (m) (m) (mm) (mm)

177
 Annexure IX

B D
20 4.04 1.6 - - 200
30 4.04 2.4 - - 200
40 4.75 2.3 250 525 200
50 5.45 2.2 250 525 200
60 5.45 2.6 250 525 200
70 5.45 3.05 250 525 225
80 6.16 2.75 250 525 250
90 6.16 3.05 250 525 250
100 6.16 3.4 250 525 250

II: Data of ESR

Capacity Bottom Column Brace
(m3) beam (mm) (mm)
B D Dia B1 D1 Lb

20 300 400 400 300 400 3.0

30 300 400 400 300 400 3.0

40 300 400 400 300 400 3.5

Fig. 2: ESR Configuration
50 300 500 450 300 400 4.0

60 300 500 450 300 400 4.0

70 300 500 450 300 400 4.0

80 400 500 500 300 450 4.5

90 400 500 500 300 450 4.5

100 400 600 500 300 450 4.5

Thickness of wall, Thickness of roof slab, free board

are maintained constant for all capacities of tanks
respectively i.e. 200mm, 125mm, and 300mm. Earthquake
forces are calculated by considering Response reduction
factor (R) =4. Wind forces are calculated for wind speeds of
39 m/s, 44 m/s, 47 m/s and 50 m/s. Fig.2 is showing a
typical ESR configuration and the mathematical model in
extrude view, is shown in Fig.3.

Fig. 3: ESR Mathematical model

IV.DETERMINATION OF GOVERNING LOAD CASE

The comparison of wind and earthquake forces are
shown in Fig. 4 to Fig. 15.

178

Fig. 4: Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,
Vb= 39 m/s, Tank Full & Soft Soil for R=4
As observed from Fig.4, in zone II wind load governs the
design. In zone III up to 40m 3 capacity seismic load, from
40 to 70 m3 capacity wind load and above seismic load
governs the design. In all other cases seismic load governs
the design.
Fig. 5: Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,
Vb= 44 m/s, Tank Full & Soft Soil for R=4
From Fig.5, it is observed that in zone IV and above seismic
load governs the design, in all other cases wind load
governs the design.
Fig. 6: Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,
Vb= 47 m/s, Tank Full & Soft Soil for R=4
As seen from Fig.6, in zone V seismic load governs the
design. In zone IV up to 40m 3 capacity seismic load, from
40 to 70 m3 capacity wind load and above seismic load
governs the design. In all other cases wind load governs
the design.
Annexure IX
Fig. 7: Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,
Vb= 50 m/s, Tank Full & Soft Soil for R=4
While seeing Fig.7, it is observed that in zone V seismic
load governs the design. In zone IV up to 40m 3 capacity
wind load and above seismic load governs the design. In all
other cases wind load governs the design.
Fig. 8: Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,
Vb= 39 m/s, Tank Full & Medium Soil for R=4
As observed from Fig.8, in zone II & III wind load governs
the design, in all other cases seismic load governs the
design.
Fig. 9: Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,
Vb= 44 m/s, Tank Full & Medium Soil for R=4
From Fig.9, in zone V seismic load governs the design. In
zone IV up to 40m 3 capacity seismic load, from 40 to 70 m 3
capacity wind load and above seismic load governs the
design. In all other cases wind load governs the design.
179

Fig. 10: Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,
Vb= 47 m/s, Tank Full & Medium Soil for R=4
As seen from Fig.10, in zone V seismic load governs the
design. In zone IV up to 40m 3 capacity wind load and
above seismic load governs the design. In all other cases
wind load governs the design.
Fig. 11: Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,
Vb= 50 m/s, Tank Full & Medium Soil for R=4
While seeing Fig.11, it is observed that in zone V up to
40m3 capacity seismic load, from 40 to 70 m 3 capacity wind
load and above seismic load governs the design. In all
other cases wind load governs the design.
Fig. 12: Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,
Vb= 39 m/s, Tank Full & Hard Soil for R=4
As observed from Fig.12, in zone V seismic load governs
the design. In zone IV up to 40m 3 capacity seismic load,
from 40 to 70 m 3 capacity wind load and above seismic
load governs the design. In all other cases wind load
Annexure IX
governs the design.
Fig. 13: Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,
Vb= 44 m/s, Tank Full & Hard Soil for R=4
Fig. 14: Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,
Vb= 47 m/s, Tank Full & Hard Soil for R=4
As seen from Fig.13 and Fig.14, in zone V up to 40m 3
capacity seismic load, from 40 to 70 m 3 capacity wind load
and above seismic load governs the design. In all other
cases wind load governs the design.
Fig. 15: Seismic and Wind Loads on ESR for Ht =12m,
Vb= 50 m/s, Tank Full & Hard Soil for R=4
From Fig.15, it is observed that in zone V up to 40m 3
capacity seismic load and above wind load governs the
design. In all other cases wind load governs the design.
180
 Annexure IX

V. CONCLUSION
Based on above study, following are few conclusions.

1) In all the three types of soil conditions, up to 30 m 3

capacity static wind load is governing, in all other
cases dynamic wind load is governing.
2) Dynamic wind load as per IS 875-1987 (Part III) is
giving higher forces compared to the IS 875 draft (Part
III).
3) For soft soil the effect of wind force for 50 m/s wind
speed is quite significant as compared with the
earthquake forces in Zone II, III, and IV.
4) In medium soil for wind speeds 47, 50 m/s is more
effective as compared with the earthquake forces in
Zone II, III, and IV.
5) For hard soil with wind speeds of 47, 50 m/s is more
significant as compared with the earthquake forces in
Zone II, III, IV, and V.

The results presented in this paper can be utilized in

deciding the governing load case for design of staging.
However results are based on data (structural) considered
and may vary with different sizes and configuration.

VI. NOMENCLATURE

Di = internal diameter of the tank

Hw = height of water
Tbs = thickness of base slab
B = width of bottom beam
D = depth of bottom beam
Dia = diameter of column
B1 = width of brace
D1 = depth of brace
Lb = length of brace

REFERENCES

[1] G.W. Housner, The Dynamic Behaviour of Water Tanks,

Bulletin of the seismological society of America,
Vol.53,No.2, pp.381-387
[2] Is 1893, Part I, Criteria for earthquake resistant design of
structures: Part 1 general provisions and buildings, Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2002.
[3] IS 1893, Part II, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant design of
Structures: Part 2 Liquid Retaining Tanks Elevated and
Ground Supported, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
2006.
[4] 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
[5] J. A. Munshi, N.A. Legatos, Seismic design of liquid
containing concrete structures as per ACI standard 350.3,
Portland Cement Association.
[6] Ingle, R.K., Codal Provisions for Wind Effects on Elevated
Water Towers, Proceedings of Second National Conference
on Wind Engineering (NCWE-04), Nagpur, India .

181