Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Recommendations of Workshop On Revision of I.S. Codes On Liquid Retaining Structures
Recommendations of Workshop On Revision of I.S. Codes On Liquid Retaining Structures
Workshop on
Revision of I.S. Codes on Liquid
Retaining Structures
IS:3370 - Parts 1 and 2, and IS:1893 - Part 2
Introduction
Each year hundreds of all kinds of water tanks and other liquid retaining structures are
being built in different parts of the country. These tanks and reservoirs have faced many
storms and earthquakes. During the past four decades there have been considerable
developments in materials, design philosophies, construction techniques as well as
attitudes of all the stake holders. Therefore, now the endeavour of the engineers is to
produce stronger, durable, economical and aesthetically appealing liquid retaining
structures.
There have been a few instances of failure of tanks and reservoirs. The reasons are many.
There is a need to understand the causes of failures and ways to prevent them in future
without punishing good designers, field engineers and contractors. The objective of the
workshop is to bring planners, designers, contractors, and various state government
agencies associated with such structures on a common platform and help evolve better
codal specifications.
Participation
The Workshop was represented by the Chief engineer, Suprintending engineers and
Executive engineers from U.P. Jal Nigam, Uttranchal Peyjal Nigam, Punjab Water Works
and Haryana Water Works. Besides these very experienced officers, Prof. Anand
Prakash and Prof. S. K. Agarwal, former professors of the IIT Roorkee, who have
designed thousands of LRS over the last 40 years in the various states of Northern India
also participated very actively.
Performance of LRS
One full session was devoted to the performance of various types of LRS during gravity
and lateral loading during the past 50 years or so. The following was the general
consensus:
(1) It was pointed out that in Haryana most of the tanks were shaft type. In Punjab, most
of the tanks were on beam-column frame staging. UP and Uttaranchal had mixed
type of tanks.
(2) No LRS designed in accordance with IS:3370-1965, properly detailed, properly
compacted, cured and constructed as per good construction practices has failed under
gravity and normal lateral loads. This was the unanimous view of all the engineers
from Uttar Pradesh, Uttranchal, Haryana and Punjab.
(3) Detailed survey reports of LRS during the Jabalpur earthquake 1997, Bhuj earthquake
2001 and the recent October 2005 POK earthquake showed that no LRS ground
supported, overhead tank on beam-column frame staging or on shaft staging has
failed due to an earthquake. The tanks in the Kashmir region near the LOC were
designed and constructed on shaft staging by MES. All the tanks escaped unhurt.
(4) It was further pointed out that a few tanks have failed during the first filing itself. It
was attributed to poor concreting excess w/c ratio, inadequate compaction and
curing. During earthquakes LRS with shaft staging developed horizontal cracks at
the level of lifts, that is at construction joints.
(5) A few LRS with shaft staging failed due to the storage of bleaching powder, used for
chlorination of water, inside the shaft staging.
(6) A report of the World Bank on the performance of structures during the Bhuj 2001
earthquake concludes as follows:
Elevated Water Tanks. These stand-alone structures consist of both the traditional
RCC supporting frame type of tanks, as well as the more modern inverted pendulum
type structures. In most cases these appear to have been designed for lateral forces
and have survived without significant distress, even near the epicentral region.
(7) A report on the Jabalpur earthquake of 1997 at the NICEE web site (IIT-K) concludes
as follows:
None of the OHW tanks supported on MR frames were damaged even though most
may not have been designed for the seismic force. This is in line with what was
observed in Latur 1993 Earthquake
IS:3370-part 1
The draft code was discussed clause by clause. The recommendations are as follows:
(1) It was pointed out that the climate in UK is quite different compared to that in India.
Clause 1.2 states that this British Standard (BS:8007-1987) applies particularly to
the UK conditions, and although the principles are applicable to design in other parts
of the world, the designer should take account of the local conditions, particularly
variations in climate and the possibility of earthquakes which have not been
considered for UK conditions. Considerations have been to the storage of liquids at
ambient temperatures or at temperatures up to approximately 35oC such as are found
in swimming pools and industrial structures.
Clause 2.7.1 of BS 8007-1987 says that, For a correctly designed structure and
good quality materials and workmanship, the design life of the structure should be
between 40 years and 60 years. Some components of the structure (such as jointing
materials) have a shorter life than the structural concrete and may require renewal
during the life of the structure.
The existing specifications in IS:3370-1965 are already catering to the design life of
over 50 years in India.
(2) In view of the performance of the LRS during the past 50 years, designed in
accordance with IS:3370-1965, there appears to be absolutely no justification for
increasing the minimum grade of concrete from M20 to M30. All the participants felt
very strongly that M20 grade of concrete must be retained as increasing the grade to
M30 will only lead to theft of cement in practice. It was pointed out that it would not
be possible to produce M30 concrete at site for overhead tanks of small capacity.
This would require revision of Table 1 in Part 1 and Tables 1, 2 and 3 in Part 2. In
Table 1 of Part 1, for pre-stressed concrete tanks the minimum grade of concrete
needs to be M 35, in line with IS:1343.
It was pointed out that the minimum reinforcement is governed by Annexure B as
follows:
B-1.2
Minimum Reinforcement
To be effective in distributing cracking the amount of reinforcement
provided needs to be at least as great as that given by the formula :
crit = fct / fy
(1)
where
crit = the critical steel ratio, that is, the minimum ratio, of steel
area to the gross area of the whole concrete section,
required to distribute the cracking.
fct = the direct tensile strength of the immature concrete
(usually taken at the age of 3 days as 1.15 N/mm2 (MPa)
for M 25 and 1.3 N/mm2 (MPa) for M 30 grade);
fy = the characteristic strength of the reinforcement.
Therefore, if the minimum grade of concrete is increased then it has the undesirable
effect of increasing the minimum percentage of steel required.
(3) There appears to be absolutely no justification for increasing the minimum cover
from 25 mm to 45 mm. A moderate exposure condition as specified in IS:456-2000
appears to be quite justified and must be retained. This will entail review of Table 1
of Part 1, specifying minimum cement content, water-cement ratio and minimum
grade of concrete.
In Table 1 the minimum cement content should be 360 kg/cu.m. for M20 concrete
and the maximum cement content should also be specified owing to the cracking due
to shrinkage and heat of hydration.
Increased shrinkage cracking was reported owing to use of higher grades of cement,
besides their low shelf life. 33 grade of cement was to be preferred.
The tank body is designed on a no-crack basis with low values of permissible stresses
in concrete and steel, and therefore the cover requirements given in IS:456-2000
wherein design is based on Limit State of Collapse are much on the higher side.
It was suggested that IS:3370 should specify the cover requirements for different
exposure conditions for designs on no-crack basis. It was suggested that the exposure
conditions defined in IS:456-2000 be retained, but the cover requirements
corresponding to one-grade lower exposure be used for designs on no-crack basis.
It was also suggested that Portland ground granulated blast-furnace slag cement with
slag < 60% be recommended for the construction of the tank, as it offers the
maximum resistance to chloride penetration a common phenomenon owing to the
necessity of chlorination of potable water.
(4) It was pointed out that since the joints are sources of leakage, movable joints were
never used in LRS in these states. Only construction joints and expansion joints in
very large tanks were used. Part 1 of the Code deals only with concrete and joints. It
may be merged with part 2 of the Code. Only the treatment of construction joints and
expansion joints may be retained in the main body of the Code and other types of
joints may be placed in the annexure, if required.
(5) Few clauses need to be added for lightening conductor for OHT, for ventilation
particularly in GWR, for lining of inner (liquid retaining side) with some sealing
chemical/materials, etc.
IS:3370-part 2
The draft code was discussed clause by clause. The recommendations are as follows:
(1) There is a need to specify minimum thicknesses of various members of an overhead
LRS in the Code for ensuring proper placement of reinforcement. The following
thicknesses are proposed:
Top dome 100 mm
Top slab 120 mm
Vertical wall 120 mm at top and 150 mm at bottom
Bottom dome/ bottom slab 150 mm
Conical/slant wall 150 mm
It was pointed out that higher thickness for top dome/slab is required because of high
chlorine concentration.
(2) The tension in steel on face away from the water face should be retained as 190 MPa
in HSD bars. It was also resolved that TMT bars be also permitted, but with same
permissible stress values as for HSD bars.
(3) The minimum steel should be based on the formula given in Annexure B of the
surface zone with further reduction with increase in thickness as per the existing
specifications.. Up to 150 mm thickness the %steel may be calculated as per formula.
As the thickness increases linearly reduce it to two-thirds of this value for 500 mm
thickness. Linkage of minimum %steel with diameter (15 m) be deleted. Surface
zones be defined to be of 150 mm thick only. Any increase in minimum %steel
requirements will cause heavy congestion of steel at the middle ring beam joint and
bottom ring beam joint. It would also cause congestion problems in the design of
conical tanks at the vertex of cone. It becomes very difficult to pour concrete at these
joints even when the steel is 0.24%.
It was pointed out the minimum percentage of steel is governed by the formula given
in Annexure of IS:3370 (Part 2). According to this formula, higher percentage of
steel is required for higher grades of concrete. Therefore, it is important not to
increase the minimum grade of concrete for LRS.
(4) It was resolved that Clause 4.4.3.1 for limiting the crack widths be modified. To
control crack widths it was important to provide smaller diameter bars at closer
spacing. It was recommended that if the maximum spacing of bars is limited to 150
mm, then no crack width calculations will be necessary. It was also recommended
that the minimum diameter of steel bars be 8 mm.
(5) Regarding clause 5.2, it was resolved that the screed layer be as specified earlier, i.e.,
minimum M 10 concrete and minimum thickness of 80mm or 100 mm.
(6) The limit state design of the container in the present form appears to be mostly of
academic interest.
(7) Annexure A needs to include IS 875, IS 383, IS 2309 (lightening conductor).
(8) The foreword of IS:456-2000 on page 2 says that
In this code it has been assumed that the design of plain and reinforced cement
concrete work is entrusted to a qualified engineer and that the execution of
cement concrete work is carried out under the direction of a qualified and
experienced supervisor.
The same statement should be included in IS:3370-part 2 in place of the existing
statement.
IS:11682
Although this code is not under revision, there is a need to include an equation for
computing the stiffness of beam-column staging.
12 Ec I col N c
Np
h
p =1
=
Where,
3
p
12 Ec I col N c
for bracings at equal intervals
N p h3
Ec = modulus of concrete
I col = moment of inertia of column = D4/64
N c = Number of columns in staging
= 1+
2
Nc
sin
2
Nc
Stiffness obtained from this expression is about 8 to 12 % more that obtained from
3D analysis of staging.
IS:1893-part 2
The draft code was discussed clause by clause. The recommendations are as follows:
(1) There is a drastic increase in seismic force without any logical justification. Even the
recent October 2005 POK earthquake M 7.8 showed that not even a single OHT has
failed even near the LOC of India and Pakistan. Therefore, the R factors should be
de-linked with buildings and appropriately increased so that the existing force levels
are maintained. The earthquake force calculated from IS:1893-part 2 should be
calibrated with that obtained from IS:1893-1984. For this calibration, the Importance
factor for water tanks needs to be higher than 1.0, but may be less than 1.5.
(2) The participants expressed serious concern that in case the seismic forces are
increased as proposed, what will be the fate of the existing LRS? How will these
LRS be strengthened and retrofitted?
(3) Based on the above two recommendation, I = 1.2 and R = 4.0 is proposed for water
retaining tanks. For Zone V, the figure below shows the comparison for design
horizontal seismic coefficient for hard soils as per IS 1893:1984 (using I = 1.5) and
spectra as per IS 1893 (Part 1):2002 for I = 1.2 and R = 4.0.
Hard Soils
Medium Soils
Soft Soils
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
For Zone IV, the figure below shows the comparison for design horizontal seismic
coefficient for hard soils as per IS 1893:1984 (using I = 1.5) and spectra as per IS 1893
(Part 1):2002 for I = 1.2 and R = 4.0.
Comparison of IS 1893:1984 (I=1.5) with proposed I=1.2 and R=4
for Zone IV
IS 1893:1984
Hard Soils
Medium Soils
Soft Soils
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
For Zone III, the figure below shows the comparison for design horizontal seismic
coefficient for hard soils as per IS 1893:1984 (using I = 1.5) and spectra as per IS 1893
(Part 1):2002 for I = 1.2 and R = 4.0.
9
Hard Soils
Medium Soils
Soft Soils
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
The value of R = 4.0 is proposed for staging with OMR frames, implying no ductility,
i.e., 1.0 . Designing a frame/shaft staging for high ductility and lower seismic
coefficient is not warranted, because it implies greater tolerance for damage, which is
not desirable for Overhead Water Tanks. This value of R is, therefore, for all types of
staging masonry shaft, RC shaft, frame, steel, etc.
Table Importance Factor, I
Importance factor I
Type of tank
Tanks used for storing hazardous materials, inflammable
or poisonous gases or liquids
Tanks used for storing non-volatile material, low
inflammable petrochemicals, etc., or for storing water for
emergency services such as fire fighting services,
hospitals, etc.
Tanks used primarily for storing water for drinking,
irrigation, etc.
All other tanks with no risk to life and with negligible
consequences to environment, society and economy.
1.75
1.50
1.20
1.0
In IS 1893:1984 for tanks used for storing inflammable or poisonous gases or liquids,
the importance factor I = 2.0. In draft IS 1893 (Part 2), I = 1.75 has been proposed
for such tanks and with R = 4, the design horizontal seismic coefficient compares as
shown in figure below.
10
Hard Soils
Medium Soils
Soft Soils
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
(4) Concern was expressed that the procedure for seismic analysis was being needlessly
being complicated for considering hydrodynamic effects, even though their
contribution to seismic forces was less than 15% to 25% in most cases. The
imprecision in quantifying the seismic forces is far higher, and does not warrant such
sophisticated analyses. A 33% increase in stresses for the design of container will
easily absorb this hydrodynamic force. Indeed clause 5.2.7.1 of IS 1893:1984 left the
consideration of hydrodynamic effects at the discretion of the designer in the
following words:
When a tank containing fluid vibrates the fluid exerts impulsive and
convective pressures on the tank. The convective pressures during
earthquakes are considerably less in magnitude as compared to
impulsive pressures and its effect is a sloshing of the water surface.
For the purpose of design only the impulsive pressure may be
considered.
Concluding remarks
11
Appendix A
Comments from Prof. S. K. Agarwal, Former Professor, IIT Roorkee
12
It may be noted that the codal provisions may be planned in such a manner that the
designs evolved fulfil the essential requirements of a good engineering design, i.e., the
designs are efficient, economical and are easy to construct. Engineers, contractors and
administrators should not be forced to waste the scarce resources of the country due to
the provisions of codal provisions.
1. IS: 3370 (Part 1)
The proposed draft lists one major deviation from the existing code by mentioning
in Para 4 (Exposure Condition) as severe as per IS 456: 2000.
According to IS 456: 2000, this means that the minimum grade of concrete mix for
container portion shall be M 30 in place of M 20 and the minimum cover to
reinforcement will become 45 mm.
IS 456: 2000 states Exposure conditions in Table 3 as below:
Moderate
Severe
Comments
13
For
Seismic zone
III
193.7
386.5
IV
242.1
579.8
As discussed earlier, none of the tank has failed due to earthquake. Why such a drastic
change is proposed?
In view of the above, the following parameters needs re-evaluation
Two mass model for estimating seismic force
Values of R, I & Z
Sushil K. Agarwal
Former Professor, IIT Roorkee
14
Appendix B
Excerpts from the paper by Dr. Vipul Prakash
Importance Factor
In authors opinion, the value of Importance Factor for tanks used for storing drinking
water should be 1.0 rather than 1.5, because of the following reasons:
1. The scope for direct loss of life due to collapse of overhead tanks is practically
nil. This is in contrast to the significant scope for direct loss of life due to
collapse of ordinary buildings.
2. In India, the scope for indirect loss of life due to collapse of overhead tanks is also
nil. Fires do not occur after earthquakes in India, because cooking gas for
domestic use is supplied in cylinders rather than through pipelines and
houses/buildings are constructed in masonry or concrete rather than in flammable
timber. Every household in India stores water for drinking. In case of scarcity
water is routinely supplied by tankers in most cities and towns. Following an
earthquake, if the water tanks are inoperable for any reason, then water can be
supplied through pumping and motor-driven tankers. If water is unavailable, then
the overhead water tanks are likely to be empty and consequently unlikely to get
even cosmetically damaged during an earthquake.
3. Thus failure of a water tank during an earthquake poses no risk to life and has
negligible consequences for the environment, society and economy. Therefore,
there is no reason to specify an Importance Factor, I = 1.5, for water tanks; and, I
= 1.0 is appropriate.
Response Reduction Factor R
The following justification appears in the proposed draft IS:1893 (Part 2):2002 for
assigning much lower values of R for LRS compared to buildings,
Response reduction factor (R), represents ratio of maximum seismic force on a
structure during specified ground motion if it were to remain elastic to the design
seismic force. Thus, actual seismic forces are reduced by a factor R to obtain
design forces. This reduction depends on over strength, redundancy, and ductility
of structure. Generally, liquid containing tanks posses low over strength,
redundancy, and ductility as compared to buildings. In buildings, non structural
components substantially contribute to over strength; in tanks, such non
structural components are not present. Buildings with frame type structures have
high redundancy; ground supported tanks and elevated tanks with shaft type
staging have comparatively low redundancy. Moreover, due to presence of non
structural elements like masonry walls, energy absorbing capacity of buildings is
much higher than that of tanks. Based on these considerations, value of R for
tanks needs to be lower than that for buildings. All the international codes
15
specify much lower values of R for tanks than those for buildings. As an example,
values of R used in IBC 2000 are shown in Table C-2. It is seen that for a
building with special moment resisting frame value of R is 8.0 whereas, for an
elevated tank on frame type staging (i.e., braced legs), value of R is 3.0. Further,
it may also be noted that value of R for tanks varies from 3.0 to 1.5.
Values of R given in the present guideline (Table 2) are based on studies of
Jaiswal et al. (2004a, 2004b). In this study, an exhaustive review of response
reduction factors used in various international codes is presented. In Table 2, the
highest value of R is 2.5 and lowest value is 1.3. The rationale behind these
values of R can be seen from Figures C-4a and C-4b. In Figure C-4a, base shear
coefficients (i.e., ratio of lateral seismic force to weight) obtained from IBC 2000
and IS 1893 (Part 1) 2002 is compared for a building with special moment
resisting frame. This comparison is done for the most severe seismic zone of IBC
2000 and IS 1893 (Part 1: 2002. It is seen that base shear coefficient from IS
1893 (Part 1): 2002 and IBC 2000 compare well, particularly up to time period of
1.7 sec.
In Figure C-4b, base shear coefficient for tanks is compared. This comparison is
done for the highest as well as lowest value of R from IBC 2000 and present code.
It is seen that base shear coefficient match well for highest and lowest value of R.
Thus, the specified values of R are quite reasonable and in line with international
practices.
Elevated tanks are inverted pendulum type structures and hence, moment
resisting frames being used in staging of these tanks are assigned much smaller R
values than moment resisting frames of building and industrial frames. For
elevated tanks on frame type staging, response reduction factor is R = 2.5 and for
elevated tanks on RC shaft, R = 1.8. Lower value of R for RC shaft is due to its
low redundancy and poor ductility (Zahn, 1999; Rai 2002).
In authors opinion each of the above justifications for low values of R for tanks
compared to buildings can be questioned. Let us examine each justification one by
one:
1. Response reduction factor (R) represents ratio of maximum seismic force on a
structure during specified ground motion if it were to remain elastic to the design
seismic force. Thus, actual seismic forces are reduced by a factor R to obtain
design forces. This reduction depends on over strength, redundancy, and ductility
of structure.
The factor 2R should be thought of merely as a calibration factor to obtain the
desired seismic force for design. Historically low-rise ordinary structures that are
simple, symmetric and regular in plan, regular in elevation, and designed for a
seismic coefficient of 0.08 to 0.12 (depending upon the site-soil conditions as
given in IS 1893:1962) have performed well (i.e., with acceptable damage) when
subjected to strong ground motions. Therefore, no matter what the definition of
MCE, the final value of seismic coefficient for design of ordinary buildings must
be brought to an acceptable value between 0.08 and 0.12 in the severest seismic
zone. To get a seismic coefficient of 0.08 for hard soils, 0.096 for average soils,
16
and 0.12 for soft soils, this factor with a value of 12.5 was implicitly built-in the
S
curve for a in IS 1893:1984. In IS 1893 (Part 1):2002, this factor has a value of
g
10 so as to obtain a seismic coefficient value of 0.09 for all soil types.
Owing to increased strong motion instrumentation, values of Peak Ground
Accelerations (PGAs) well in excess of 0.08g have been recorded during the past
65 years. Even before this instrumentation, during the 1897 Assam Earthquake
witnesses cited phenomenon that would require PGAs greater than 1.0g. PGAs in
excess of 0.36g continue to be recorded in the world. Therefore, Z = 0.36 ,
implying a PGA of 0.36g for MCE in the severest seismic zone, Zone V, of India
is arbitrary. In IS 1893 (Part 1):2002, MCE is arbitrarily defined as, The most
severe earthquake effects considered by this standard. Higher values of Z could
as well have been considered for adoption, because PGAs greater than 1.0g have
been recorded, but then it would have been difficult to offer a rational
explanation for the required Response Reduction Factor. Even, with Z = 0.36 , it
was necessary to split the reduction factor into two parts, a factor 2 to reduce
MCE to DBE (Design Basis Earthquake) level and a factor R to further reduce it
for use in design. Just like MCE, DBE is also arbitrarily defined and means
nothing, because the seismic coefficient for DBE is not really used for design.
For use in design, it is further divided by a factor R, for which a maximum value
of around 5 is justifiable on the basis of maximum displacement ductility
achievable in a structure. The value of R = 3 for OMRF buildings was then
specified on the basis of calibration with IS 1893:1984 so as to obtain about the
same values of design seismic coefficient for OMRF buildings.
Z I Sa
was merely
2 R g
a calibration factor based on actual performance of a class of structures during
earthquakes, then there would have been no difficulty in bringing out parts 2, 3, 4
and 5 of IS 1893 in 2002 itself. In fact there would not have been any need for
splitting IS 1893 fifth revision into five parts. Problems arose, because 2R was
not recognized as merely being a calibration factor, and rational explanations
were sought for this factor. Therefore, to postpone the problem of identifying
rational explanations for this factor for structure other than buildings, it was
decided to split IS 1893 and agree to only Part 1 in 2002.
If it were recognized and accepted that the factor 2R in Ah =
For the case of buildings, the ill-defined terms like over-strength, redundancy
and ductility provided the rationalization.
In authors opinion, the over-strength is already accounted for by the term 2 in
the denominator, and should not be counted again as part of the factor R. If this
opinion is incorrect, then in what way is MCE being considered?
If redundancy is taken to mean degree of static indeterminacy, then a
conscientious designer would have taken its benefits in reducing the size of
structural members, and it is therefore illogical to consider redundancy as a part
17
18
3. All the international codes specify much lower values of R for tanks than those
for buildings. Thus, the specified values of R are quite reasonable and in line
with international practices.
By international practices the practices in USA are mainly being referred to.
The US code, IBC 2000, being referred to is called International Building Code
2000, even though there is nothing international about it. In USA, different
states have traditionally evolved and followed different codes. IBC is to be
followed by all states of US and hence the word, International in the title.
However, let us examine the recommendation of IBC 2000.
The R values in IBC 2000 reported by Jain et al. (2004) are contained in Table
C-2 reproduced below.
19
20
Clearly if a fair comparison was made the R value for Tank supported on
OMRF RC frame should have been equal to 3.0, rather than 1.8. If the R
values in Table 2 above are increased in the ratio 3.0/1.8, then the new
values will be as follows:
Type of Tank
Tank supported on masonry shaft
a) Masonry shaft reinforced with horizontal bands
b) Masonry shaft reinforced with horizontal bands and
vertical bars at corners and jambs of openings
Tank supported on RC shaft
RC shaft with two curtains of reinforcement, each having
horizontal and vertical reinforcement
Tank supported on RC frame
a) Frame not conforming to ductile detailing, i.e.,
ordinary moment resisting frame (OMRF)
b) Frame conforming to ductile detailing, i.e., special
moment resisting frame (SMRF)
Tank supported on steel frame
R
2.17
2.5
3.0
3.0
4.17
4.17
21
Elevated Tank
Type of Tank
Tank supported on masonry shaft
a) Masonry shaft reinforced with horizontal bands
b) Masonry shaft reinforced with horizontal bands and
vertical bars at corners and jambs of openings
Tank supported on RC shaft
RC shaft with two curtains of reinforcement, each having
horizontal and vertical reinforcement
Tank supported on RC frame
a) Frame not conforming to ductile detailing, i.e.,
ordinary moment resisting frame (OMRF)
b) Frame conforming to ductile detailing, i.e., special
moment resisting frame (SMRF)
Tank supported on steel frame
R
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
22
Appendix C
List of Delegates
Design Experts:
S. No.
1.
Uttar Pradesh
S. No.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Haryana
9.
Er. D. R. Yadav
Suprintending Engineer
PWD Public Health Circle (Haryana)
Karnal
23
Punjab
10.
Uttaranchal
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Er. R. N Verma,
Superintending Engineer, IXth Circle,
Uttaranchal Peyjal Nigam, Dehradun.
Er. S. K. Semwal,
Manager Appraisal, Head Office,
Uttaranchal Peyjal Nigam, Dehradun.
Er. S. K. Agarwal,
Executive Engineer, Doon Division,
Uttaranchal Peyjal Nigam, Dehradun.
Er. Avdhesh Kumar,
Executive Engineer, Head Office,
Uttaranchal Peyjal Nigam, Dehradun.
Er. B. K. Jain,
Executive Engineer,
Central Store Division,
Uttaranchal Peyjal Nigam, Dehradun.
Er. M. K. Gupta,
Executive Engineer, Head Office,
Uttaranchal Peyjal Nigam, Dehradun.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Name
Jikum Hiri
B. Sudharshan Reddy
Durga Suneel Chalapaka
Ramanjaneyulu B.
Sadhu Venkata Rajesh
K. Girish Babu
Amol Arvind Mankar
Pisal Yogesh Dattatraya
S. Vamsidhar
B. V. Lokesh
Ajit Singh
Venkata Kishor S.
M.V.S. Ravikumar
Pranay Vasantrao Urewar
Debjyoti Das
Ratheesh Kumar M.V.
Kumar Satyam
Anil Mishra
Jyoti Prasad Jagtap
Amit Cahndra
Arijit Bhakat
Ganesh L. Konar
Surender Kumar Verma
Bharmal Husen Ismaeel
Sadaquat Ali
Tarun Dandotiya
Sachin M. Pore
Krantikumar Boragaonkar
Mohd Shariq
Mohd Shahiq Khan
Dipankar Das
P.V.Mayur Babu
Tesfaye Alemu
V.Giri
E.V.P.Bhanu Prakash
R.Dileep Kumar Reddy
Dinesh Kumar Jain
Ajit Kumar
P. Jayachandra
Specialization
M.Tech. 2nd Year Structural Engineering
M.Tech. 2nd Year Building Science and Technology
M.Tech. 2nd Year Structural Dynamics
M.Tech. 2nd Year Structural Engineering
M.Tech. 2nd Year Building Science and Technology
M.Tech. 1st Year Building Science and Technology
M.Tech. 2nd Year Structural Engineering
M.Tech. 2nd Year Structural Dynamics
M.Tech. 2nd Year Structural Engineering
M.Tech. 2nd Year Geotechnical Engineering
M.Tech. 2nd Year Structural Engineering
M.Tech. 2nd Year Structural Engineering
M.Tech. 2nd Year Structural Engineering
M.Tech. 2nd Year Structural Engineering
M.Tech. 1st Year Structural Engineering
M.Tech. 1st Year Structural Engineering
M.Tech. 1st Year Structural Engineering
M.Tech. 1st Year Structural Engineering
M.Tech. 1st Year Structural Engineering
M.Tech. 1st Year Structural Engineering
M.Tech. 2nd Year Geotechnical Engineering
M.Tech. 1st Year Structural Engineering
M.Tech. 1st Year Structural Engineering
M.Tech. 2nd Year Building Science and Technology
M.Tech. 2nd Year Building Science and Technology
M.Tech. 2nd Year Structural Engineering
Ph.D. Scholar Structural Dynamics
Ph.D. Scholar Structural Dynamics
Ph.D. Scholar Structural Engineering
Ph.D. Scholar Structural Engineering
M.Tech. 2nd Year Structural Dynamics
M.Tech. 2nd Year Structural Engineering
M.Tech. 2nd Year Computer Aided Design
M.Tech. 2nd Year Computer Aided Design
M.Tech. 2nd Year Environmental Engineering
M.Tech. 2nd Year Transportation Engineering
Ph.D. Scholar Structural Engineering
Ph.D. Scholar Structural Engineering
M.Tech 2nd Year-Building Science & Tech.
25