Performance and practice for earthquake resistance

~

_ _ ~
~

BY IAVEED A. MUNSHl AND WILLIAM C.SHERMAN

istorically, reinforced concrete tanks have performed very well against earthquakes. Recent ' reports on the Northridge earthquake of 1994 and the Kobe earthquake of 1995 have given minimal, if any, evidence of damage to these structures. There are various reasons why it is common that many tanks behave elastically during an earthquake, thus are not damaged. The questions then arise: Can there be a simple approach to designing these structures against earthquakes? When do we need to use more elaborate procedures? This article addresses these issues and provides an example of how to apply t h e current design code, ACI 350-01. There are several reasons why these structures escape damage: Concrete tanks are inherently rigid and are often f partially or fully buried in the ground. Because o this, they d o not deform much with respect to the ground. Research' has shown that for buried structures subjected to ground excitation up to 0.3 x acceleration due to gravity 5. nonseismic load combinations control the design. The in-plane shear resistance of the walls is generally adequate to resist seismic loads, with both the concrete and the reinforcement contributing to the structure's strength. Out-of-plane wall deformations are minimal f due to the rigidity o the concrete walls and the structure's boundary conditions: m Concrete tanks have typically been designed using provisions similar to those included in "Code Requirements for Environmental Engineering Concrete Structures (ACI 35Mll) and Commentary (35OR-01):' Those provisions require that concrete tanks minimally crack under static service load f conditions.' Section 21.2.1.6 o ACI 35041 clearly indicates that liquid-tightness should not be f compromised as a result o inelastic action. To achieve this, the load factor used with lateral fluid pressures is increased from 1.4 to 1.7 and an additional environmental durability factor S

H'

ranging from 1.3 for flexure and shear to 1.65 for direct tension is imposed on static load conditions to reduce the service level stresses and minimize crack widths and leakage. This results in the nonseismic load combinations governing over seismic load combinations in many cases: and I Concrete tanks are designed using low response I modification factors Rr to ensure that the structure is not significantly damaged during an earthquake. The response modification factor reduces the elastic response spectrum to account for the structure's ductility, energydissipating properties, values ranging from and redundancy. Typically, RE, 2 to 3 are used, which are much smaller than those for building structures.

PMcncE
mind
The seismic design of tanks varies from that of f buildings in part due to the sloshing effect o the contained fluid. Furthermore, cracking, which may be permitted in the design of buildings, is avoided in liquid-containing structures to prevent leakage. Methods of seismic analysis of tanks, currently f adopted by a number o industry standards, have evolved from earlier analytical work by Housner;L5 Haroun and Housner," Haroun,i,8Veletsos.Y Vestos and f Shivakuinar."' and others. O these, the best known Is Housner's pioneering work published i n the early 1960s in the Atomic Energy Commission's (now the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) Technical information Document (TID) 7024." It is interesting to note that while the dynamic modeling of the tank contents (impulsive and convective components) has remained pretty much as developed by Jacobsen and Housner, the modeling of the tank structure has undergone certain modifications and refinements. For example, where Jacobsen and Housner's early models (for example, in TlD7024) were f based on the impulsive component o the liquid being

design. inside width B (perpendicular to t h e direction of the earthquake force).3-01 uses the previously indicated references. The concepts o ACI 350-01 and ACI 350. like building structures.:'.'" Furthermore. Therefore. particularly the Housner method. several issues related to the analysis. ACi 350. but the shell itself is now flexible. which represents the effect of the sloshing action o the liquid in its fundamental f mode of vibration. and detailing o liquid-containing structures remain f unclear and need to be explored in the interest of providing a simple design procedure.1tiwhile ACI 350.341 is compatible with UBC 1994 service-level (allowable stress) earthquake f design methodology. The seismic f design provisions developed by ACl Committee 350.3-01) and Commentary (ACI 350.3'' Fig.3-01 and the model codes AlwrslgAMDDESI61 ounanircmodeling ACI 350.3-01 are not presently compatible with iBC 2000. has to f conform to the applicable building codes such as the IBC 2000.Undiclurbsd water surface -1 . Figure I shows the typical schematic of a rectangular tank with inside length L (parallel to the direction of the earthquake force [use the inside diameter D for circular tanks]). UBC 1997. all of which use the strength-level earthquake force.. Chapter 21 provisions of ACI 350-01 focus on the resistance of liquid-containing structures to seismic loads (much the same way Chapter 21 of ACI 318 does for building structures). RBCPimdevelouments The design o tanks. the impulsive component is' still modeled as rigidly attached to the tank shell. taken horn ACI 350. is attached to the structure by springs of finite stiffness and damping at height h<. BOCA 1996.3R-01)" that give detailed procedures for determining the loading for the seismic analysis and design of liquid-containing structures. 2: Frequency idealization OF impulsive and convective motion orthe liquid in a tank subject to earthquake forces indicated previously that use strength-level earthquake forces. Despite these developments.'* Note that although these codes d o not contain provisions for detailed seismic analysis and design of liquid-containing structures. and SBC 1997. This has a significant effect on the response o the overall system to ground motions. According to this concept. The impulsive period is . while the equivalent mass of the convective component of the stored liquid W. The committee recently published t h e provisions "Seismic Design of Liquid-Containing Concrete Structures (ACI 350.5 This method essentially assumes that hydrodynamic effects due to seismic loading can be approximated as the sum of the following two parts: 1. The impulsive part. and SBC 1997 for the design of liquidcontaining structures. The equivalent mass of the impulsive component . Both the impulsive and the convective components have periods associated with them that are generally far apart. UBC 1997. u% water CPO!LJ (a) FLUiD MOTION INTANK (b) DYNAMIC MODEL FOR RIGID WALLTANK on ground. f Fig." UBC 1994. The convective part. this results in a two degreeof-freedom system (Fig. later studies (including work by Housner) introduced the concept of wall and foundation flexibility." BOCA 1996. A publication" was recently developed to bridge the gap between ACl 350. they allow the use o consensus industry standards. f Note that ACI 350-01 includes modified portions o ACI 318-95. which represents t h e portion of the liquid that moves in unison with t h e structure in its fundamental mode of vibration: and 2. provisions o ACI 350.3-01 in its current form cannot be used directly with the seismic provisions in these building codes. o the stored liquid f is assumed to be rigidly attached to the structure at height h. meets the requirement of being a nationally recognized consensus standard applicable to liquid-containing structures." UBC 1997. I 1Oscillatin sr. and height of liquid H. Environmental Engineering Concrete Structures.Mi f have been extended for use with the IBC 2000. Thus. For concrete tanks with rigid walls and roof. BOCA 1996.'3and SBC 1997. I: Dynamic model o liquid-containingtank rigidly supported f lmpuiiive W w e Motion rilh Hlgb Fiqwnry rigidly attached to a rigid tank structure. 1).

0 lor 1 Peñod The periods associated with impulsive and convective weights and 7'. and the amount of contained liquid. wall thickness..0 and the response modification factor R". greater than 3.0 7. however. SCmulifiedauuroacli Through a detailed parametric study using the general seismic design parameters given in ACI 350. where Sa elastic spuirum acceleration - wno Fig. or DIH.341. the original method developed by Housner combined impulsive and convective forces by aigebraic sum. < the response will be based on the upper bound shown as a plateau in Fig. the convective component becomes larger.0 4.. 3. This could mean that there is a greater likelihood that response due to impulsive and convective forces would be additive to give the maximum response. boundary renditions.0 3.341 provisions.5 7. as shown in Fig. where V. The equivalent mass of the impulsive component of the stored liquid W. 3. represent the base shear associated with the impulsive and convective equivalent masses.5 4. In fact. the convective component becomes a greater percentage o1 the total lorce relative to the impulsive component and the "simplified" method becomes less conservative. - C.75 for T c T+ Impulsive . 4: Chari for determining the convective period Tcfor llquidcontalning rectangular tanks convective forces (refer to the section in this article deprndsnt on the iiiside wall dimensions. The convective period is dependent on the inside diineiisions of [lie tank. the total horizontal base shear V. = o n the response modilication factor). the simplified method is still conservative. A parametric study conducted by the authors (based on ACI 350. Thus. Furthermore.. It is recommended that because of the near-static nature of convective forces. the parameter Ct per UBC For 1994 would be given by r.110 I I I i r. the impulsive and convective forces should be algebraically added together to get t h e maximum design lorces. the impulsive component becomes less. the authors found that the method of using all the fluid as an impulsive-type force at midheight is a conservative assumption when the site coefficient S is 1. Generally.75. and as R".increase. which is less than the characteristic period of soil T+ as shown in Fig.50 0.5 2.5 8.is 2.. and V. TT. that SRSS may not be the best way to combine impulsive and convective forces. This would simplify the design procedure for situations where T. the SRSS combination negates much of the influence of the convective force on the total response. It should be noted. As S increases. which may be unconservative.0 and/or Rn.'"'i The use o1 SRSS to combine modes of vibration that are out-01-phase with each other is not uncommon.3-01 recommendation to use an Rc value o 1.5 1. 3. The impulsive and convective equivalent masses create diflerent pressure distribution along the height of t h e tank wall. 3: Design spectrum for liquid-containingtank rigidly supporied on ground.4 s Tc Fig. however.3-01) indicated that the majority of fixed-base rectangular and circular tanks have an impulsive period less than 0. As S and Ru. lor at least a 10 ft (3 m) water depth and LIH. respectively. B a s 4 on the ACI 350.5 5. example. because of the relatively small magnitude of the convective force.. 2. such an assumption would not always be conservative. are used to estimate the response associated with them that contributes to the base shear.5 3. includes the weight of tank shell and roof and the portion of fluid acting in unison with the tank shell.75.5 6.0 ML 2. Considering the spectrum shown in Fig. is estimated b y ilir square root o¡ the sum of squares (SRSS) <'onil>ination the iiiipulsive and convective lorces of I).0 1. = 2.0 2. > 2. and So= SJR Ti c 0.0 5. This would also be consistent with the reasoning behind the ACI 350.3 s. it is obvious that for T. when S > 1. increases.0 6. The period of convective oscillations is typically much longer than the impulsive period.

with RESPONSEMODlKAiiON FACTOR I' UBC 1994. J D I I r' ' (a) Anchored..(. however.3-01 for use with any Bearing strength-level building code.% damping over those for 5 % TABLE 2: damping ratio.. This requires that a scale the base only f factor o 1. as indicated previously. 4 (taken from ACI 350.5 be applied to the acceleration values for O.5X damping. Not much research has been performed to date of 1. the convective response damping is given by at S?. 7-95 It is also recognized that the damping ratio for 4.7 (1.3-0lL5 recommends separate R..5 2. is consistent where L is the inside length of a tank in the direction with the ACI 350 recommendations to limit the extent of analysis. One problem.. is that if one were to convert the Ruv values given in ACI 350. values for tank walls are approximately 112 to 213 of 2n T.:rfactor of 1. For example. This is with regard to response modification factors for because the convective periods are usually long and fall in the descendinglflat portion of the spectrum (Fig.0 1. This.. equal to 0.0 I 3.5 2. f lWmonsemod~onftictor as shown in Table 2. should be treated as static COMPARISON OF RVALUS FOR WALLS OFBUllDlNG AND such that an R#. t h e R.5 3.9 of 1..3 as =y& = .75 4.5' 4. Table 1 compares the R. values of reinforced concrete bearing'walls and tanks with a Zn T.5 Table 2.4 s). this is to further modified in ACI 350.. Circular tanks the values used for the design of walls in building structures.0 is used for all tank types (Table 2). and D is the inside diameter (Fig. which seems rather conservative. flexible-base tanks 4.. t h e value would be increased to I (b) Fixed... Rectangular tanks nonflexible base in various model codes.75 I I 1. TABLE i : f because o its low frequency. I o n or 1. These R.5 to 2%) as compared *The comparison is made between walls with rigid connection at with the impulsive force (5X).0 For long periods (> 2. For the convective response. It is believed that the convective force. value would Code wall system (non building structures) become 0.25s Type of structure above grade Buried Rwc C--- The convective period is given in ACI 350.~ increased to 1. ACI 35O. values for Fig. This would also eliminate t h e discrepancy created by IBC 2000 4..0 2.concrete tanks. The o inelastic deformation in tank walls to prevent f parameter 2n/h for rectangular tanks is obtained from excessive crack widths and leakage.4).15 impulsive and convective portions o the base shear.3). This would mean that the convective earthquake force would have to be 6. or contained tanks' (d) Elevated tanks 1.3-0lL5 - c = hS ' T' Effect of dunainic earth and amundwaier pressure The effect of dynamic earth pressure is commonly approximated . Iin be It is recommended that R.0 UBC 1994 increased by 40'%. contained.5 using R. which would be consistent with an overstrength UBC 1997 4. R.0/1.0 For 0.7 with model codes that use strength-level earthquake forces.0 may h e appropriate.or hinged-base tanks (c) Uganchored. ¡(a)).0 convective motion is small (0.5 generally associated with concrete structures. 3).

The load factor to be used for fluid pressure F. dynamic earth pressure should be combined with static earth pressure in a conservative manner (to increase active earth pressure for wall deformations away from the soil or to reduce passive earth pressure for wall deformations into the soil)."*' This involves the use of constant horizontal and vertical acceleration from the earthquake acting on the soil mass comprising Coulombs active or passive wedge.4 when ACI 318-99 basic load combinations are used. Building structures are allowed to sustain some damage during earthquakes. boundary conditions. however. depending on the direction of ground motion with respect to the wall. Computations can get quite complicated. a deformation equal to 0. The dynamic pressure due to the soil wedge will either increase or decrease the static active and passive pressure on the walls due to backfill. W above the base. simplified approaches should be combined with good engineering judgment. LoadrnnnMnañons It is not clear in the model building codes as to how load factors for earthquakes and fluid pressures should be combined. as shown in ACI 31899. should be used to increase or decrease the at-rest pressure when wall deformations are small.2. y.2. particularly for multicell s and circular tanks.. is 1. assumed to act at 0 . Due to the rigidity of concrete tanks. and 0. For the wall moving into the soil.5. The problem. Section 9. Environmental structures. Section 9. medium-dense. or f load combinations consistent with these requirements are given in Reference 17 for different building codes. the wall deformation and consequent movement into the surrounding soil is usually small enough that the active or passive soil wedge is not fully activated. is t h e density of the soil. and 4% of the wall height is required to activate the passive resistance for these sands. Their R. No indication on how earthquake load E should be combined with F I provided.'*. to maintain serviceability. arises because of incompatible design philosophies between building structures and environmental structures.7 rather than 1.5 o f ACI 318 indicates that fluid pressure F should be added to all load combinations that involve live load L. This force. This theory assumes that wall movements are sufficient to fully mobilize the shear resistance along the backfill wedge.2. 2. the active pressure will add to the impulsive force. is the height of soil being retained. Based on this.HT ' where k. may be out-of-phase with the tank wall movement. as indicated in Table 1. of wail height is necessary to activate the active soil reaction. Accordingly.5 o ACI 35041 s f overrides this requirement by clarifying that F should be added to all load combinations so that the effect of L. and loose sands. particularly in regions of high seismicity. respectively. 0.2. Based on Section 21. Accordingly. W . as indicated in Table 2. higher Rmvalues are allowed. a deformation equal to 1. as indicated previously. stringent detailing is required in these building structures. and if. indicating that these structures are not expected to have significant inelastic activity during a design earthquake.7(a) o ACI 350-01.1. values. f Seismic Performance Category (SPC) C and D. ACI 31899 and ACI 350-01 do not give clear guidance in this matter. unless there I a good reason to believe that an elaborate analysis is necessary. it would be prudent to use the intermediate level o detailing associated with f F = kh(. A finite element analysis .1. as recommended in ACI 350-01. Nevertheless. and structure type in an elaborate analysis.1Y Similarly. detailing requirements glven in ACI 318-99 for high levels o seismicity (Zone 3 and 4). Dynamic earth pressure at rest should be included.0 and 4. while for the wall moving away from the soil. Coiiiuiexifuof suumurai responseand boundan! eonliitíons Codes and design aidsLsz2 provide approximate methods to evaluate forces and stresses for the most simple tanks and boundary conditions. are designed for minimal damage. For dense. Thus. DlicIIIIIIG In the absence of clear guidelines for seismic detailing for liquidcontaining structures. is the dynamic coefficient of lateral earth pressure. Therefore. the passive dynamic pressure will oppose the impulsive force acting on the wall. however. additional load factors and environmental durability factors are used that make these structures behave almost elastically during design earthquakes. More importantly. as given by the following equationlx approach would be appropriate to accurately account f for the nature o loading. however. Dynamic movement of soil particles. are limited to between 2. determination of dynamic active and passive pressures may not be necessary when wall deformations are small. the environmental f durability factor does not apply to load combinations involving seismic loads when designed in accordance with the strength design method.by the Mononobe-Okabe theory. To control damage and prevent collapse. and E should not be fully applicable to environmental engineering structures. E does not reduce the effect o F.4%. or Seismic Design Category (SDC) C. on the other hand. if any. Therefore. ACI 318-9923 provides the best detaillng requirements for refnforced concrete structures. D.

64N.8~ From Reference 17 for tanks H = for rectangular 2..66 for I. Total mass of the stored liquid W. = 150 ib/W (2400 ks/m3 Modulus o elasticity o concrete E.2 It (1.49 and Y . to prevent distress. Mass of tank wall (shell) W.2 ft/s' (9.9 (Table 16-P) For 2 = 0.400 MF'a) Inside length. the near-source factors Na = 1 and N.7 m) Equivalent mass of the convective component of the stored liquid W< Equivalent mass of the impulsive component of the stored liquid W.008 s T =2n / =" 32.3 8 (For analysis in N S direction) T =0.3 k W<= 150.. (460 mm) Ec = 3834 ksi (26. Co = 0. excessive deformation. Special considerations should be given to detailing of joints.66Ji85=2. ~ Hi = 2.7) = 4.81 mis? K 3 3834 48 (y) 42 = 6290 k/ft per f t width (79.7 k (1640 kN) where h is the mean height at which the inertia force of the tank and its contents is assumed to act.51 x 295.4 and SPT D Cn = 0.3 1 L Base shear usingUBC 1997 For the tank located in Seismic Zone 4.5 The period associated with the convective component Tc can be determined as follows From Reference 15 or 17. (460 mm) Design depth o stored liquid HL= 8 ft (2.3 k * W. = 3834 ksi f f (26. = 225 + 0 + 144. __ WL = 0.6 k (670 kN) .3 m) = 18 in.400 MPa) g = 32. = 100 Ib/ft3 (1600 Wm3 Average wail thickness I.5 HL W. 0.5x18.moderate levels of seismicity (Zone 2). respectively. Z = 0.5 ft (5.6 m) Inside length.4 (Table 16-1) Seismic Source Type (SST) = B with site located (Table 1&U) 10 km from a known seismic source (Table IS-J) Soil Profile Type (SPT) = D Seismic Importance Factor = 1 (Nonhazardous material) Response Modification Factor R = 2. = 2n - liKK W = Wa+ W. = 144.. and SDC C given in ACI 318-99 for these structures.44N0 = 0. perpendicular t o earthquake force direction B = 28. (Table 16-Q) <.= 0. however. (Table 16-R) From Tables 1 6 s and 16-T.44 w. SPC C .5~8~70 = - loo0 295.3 2rr -= h 0. This would eliminate special requirements for detailing of walls in most cases. = BxLxHLxyL loo0 Z8. f Height of tank walls H Weight L _=-= 18. parallel to earthquake force directton L = 18. = 0. = 1. + W.4 m) f Concrete compressive strength fc' = 4000 psi go MPa) Specific weight of concrete y.7 = 369.800 kN/m) 0.7 x 3) (225 + 144. and leakage.3 k (1310 kN) W.=O Period T.8-0P" Partially burled nonflexible base tank Specific weight of contained liquid yL = 70 Ib/ft' (1000 ks/m3 Speciüc weight of moist soil y.51 WL W.7 k (640 kN) Wr = 0.49 x 295. 2.5 ft (8. = 18 in. APPUcllTlOW OF ACI 850.2~6290~28.44N. Mass o tank roof W. h= (225 x 5 + 144. unless severe inelastic deformations are expected.

=(+" -I' 2. The new ACI 350/350. ) = 140. a Impulsive v.94 2 P + v. Base Shear Convective T c T. 2 = 0. 1 RT Impulsive ~xO.= 0 . 4 ~ 1. ) .. ~-+w..9 k (660 kN) c.3/350. For the tank located in Seismic Zone 4.64x 1 (225+0+144. ACI 35049. Seismic Importance Factor = 1 (Table 4-1.3.= 0.4 x 1 x 520.. in two ways: (1) through the adoption of Chapter 21 of ACi 318 ("Special Provisions for Seismic Design").9 k..5 Cc= 71.C.75 (150.15 = 2. it is the nonseismic . The base shears computed with UBC 1994 and UBC 1997 are 149.3 k (730 kN) 0. When these modifications are applied per ACI 350.3R. 42. Nonhazardous material) Response Modification Factor R. = 0.X C O N C ~ R ~ K a = Total base shear v. because of their inherent rigidity and serviceability-based design. ' w.075 x 0.4 (Table 161) Site Coefficient S = 1.2 k (1340 kN) Use V.6) = 20.6) = 69. the impulsive base shear shall be limited by I..5= C<= .3 and 140.O75UW. Therefore.7CJW = 0. "Code Requirements for Environmental Engineering Concrete Structures.7 x 0. = 0.341.15 147. < T s __fo Convective T2 * impulsive ACI 350. 6x1. C4= 2.64 Using Section 1634. The committee currently does not give any recommendations on how to apply similar modifications for tanks designed according to the UBC 1997 or IBC code.75 Ts can be conservatively taken as 0.4 s and R = 1 for convective motion.5C I R tu'." The example shown illustrates the use of the new provisions for UBC 1994 and extends the concepts of ACI 350.3 k (713 kN) Note that W includes the weight o tank and f contained liquid.8 v J/. in combination with Chapter 21 of ACI 350.2 k (310 kN) = 163.3 = 15.75 (Table 4-2 and Table 4(d) of ACI 350.341 to UBC 1997. R. = 1. =-ZIC.3 k (660 kN) kN) O. Because 1.64xl Total base shear V. (I+'. + W . "Seismic Design of Liquid-Containing Structures.3-01 were essentially developed to be compatible with UBC 1994.15 1 ~ I. no interpretations or extensions were made in application of ACI 350. for flat-bottom rigid tanks v = 0.3-01 recommends using C = t .7)= 302.7)= 2.9 k (630 kN) Baseshear uslngUBC 1994 The provisions of ACI 350.4 k < 302.341. = 140.3 = 160.o 050. Most concrete tanks. respectively. + et:..9x0. = - c.8 k (50 kN) 2. = 140.27 Total base shear V. = (l50. C .341. can be designed using the simplified approach outlined in this article. for T 2 2.6)= 11. and (2) the drafting o detailed seismic analysis f guidelines in a separate Standard. =-L + w.25x1.9 x 2.31 s.25s r T . = 2." has greatly expanded the seismic design provisions of the previous edition.+ w. when ACI recommended modifications for damping ratio and response modification factor for long period convective response are not included.o. The guidelines for use of this method in conjunction with UBC 1997 are given in Reference 17.R-1)1. ACI 350.94 1 v. fills a real need for the design profession.75 (225+0+144.44 x 1 X 520. In many situations. (Y 1 R. = = 149.= 0. T.64N.2 k (1340 ' 2.4xIx2.4 k (625 kN) 6s Note that ACI 350.5 (Table 16-J) (Table 16-9 Soil Profile Type = S.3) Base shear I.3 k (660 k ) N In the short period range. I = RT -W ( ' ) Convective vc = 0 .6 k (90 kN) I' = 0.3 k for UBC 1994 design. the base shear increases to 163. UBC 1997 allows use of alternate procedures such as the one given in ACI 350.3-01 with this building code.6 k c 149.

. C. "Seismic Design u1 Liquid-Containing Concrete Structures (ACI R50. ACI Committee 318. Appendix F . Received and reviewed under Institute publication policies I. 22:V235. Harnun. 13. A." Pn>ceedings o i the Whrld Engineering Congrrss. Rome. eds. M. For certain conditions outlined in t h i s article. 381337... MI. and he is a licensed professional engineer and a licensed structural engineer. V. IL. 1999. G. Housner... 1... it may be efficient to do a quick check using the simplified d e s i g n method d i s c u s s e d in t h i s p a p e r assuming that the tank will remain elastic for the design earthquake. J. pp. 21. Clough. "The Dynamic Behavior of Water T i k . Country Club Hills.W. G. "Stress Analysis of Rectangular Walls Under Seismically Induced Hydrodynamic Loads. 1994. A. J. 2001. 14. Farmington Hills. 2. pp. 1993. 8. "Limit Design of Structures to Resist Earthquakes. Environmental Engineering Concrete Structures. Sherman i s a senior structural engineer with Camp Dresser & McKee. Chapter 6. 1996.34l)and Commentary (350. V Mar." American Concrete Institute. and Ellaithy. Skokie. MI. ACI member Javeedk Munshi is an associate with STS Consultants. l w g n <ifLiquid-Conruining l Smictures for Eurrhquake Forces. Therefore. William C." NCEL Technicul Report. a c l o s e r look using the appropriate R. Bulldlng Officials and Code Administrators International. No.. Farrnington Hills. M. 2001. 1926. AL. 1956. "Dynaniic Response of Tanks Containing Liquids or Solids. pp. A. Earthquake Engineering Series. 19. 271." . M. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. and Matsuo. CA." Bulletin of Ihi Seisnioloyical . ACi Committee 350." Computer Anulysis and Ilesign of Earthquake Resisranr Structures. and Costantino. only earth pressure at rest needs to be included for wall design. 4. Bulletin ais" of the Seismolqicul Socielj ol America. . Separate computations for the i m p u l s i v e and c o n v e c t i v e weights. MI. W. 1963.. Berkley. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory. International Conference o Building Officials (ICBO). & 12.. Farmington Hills. Ltd." American Concrete Institute. "Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 31895) and Commentary (31XR-95). "Seismic Drsign of Liquid Storage Tanks. Foundation Engineering HandknA 2nd Edition." hourno1 of Technicul Topics in Ciuil Engineeriqqy ASCE. 1985. "Seismic Induced Earth Pressuk on Vaults.' Journal of rhe Technicul Councils of the A X E . S3.. Farmington Hills. Computational Mechanics Publications. Okabe. ACi Committee 350. '"Dynamic Pressure on Fluid Containers. 1997. Haroun. C. 17. S. nie BOCA National Building Code. 22.1991. A. . A. 3. factor may be necessary. Miller. P. 7. V." Proceedin@ of lhe World Cr. pp. f Uniform Building Code.." Naluiml Hazard Phrnrmenu und Mil@mon. and Shivakumar. "General Theory o Earth Pressures.. I.A. Portland Cement Aw~ciation. 20. "Chapter ti: Earth Presures. 3. 191-207." Jourriul of f fhe J a p n Societj of Ciuil E q i n w r i n g . 2. 3. pp.. 1929. however. G . M. Housner. M. V ill?." American Concrete Institute. be cognizant of t h e limitations of t h e s e simplifications. 630-639. Veietsos. Designers s h o u l d . No.load combinations that will govern t h e design. 369 pp. A W A Standard fur Circular Prestressed Concrete Water Tanks With Circumferential Tendons. 1995. W. Whittier. V. 15. V.V. 1995. He i 5 an active member of ACI Committee 350. . 9.. He is an active member of ACI Committee 350. 74. Dec. 1994. He has authored several PCA publications on design of concrete tanks. If the fundamental period c a n b e a s s u m e d to be less than 0. "C«de Requirements fnr Environmental Engineering Concrete Structures (ACI 3 5 0 1 ) and Commentary (35OR4l). pp. N. heights. S. 1997. 1997. Ebeling.. Birmingham.. Inlernoti»nul Building Code. CA. U. American Society «I Mechanical Engineers. No. No.S. 1963. G. and base shears a r e not required in this case. Further. Port Hucneme. G. periods. Munshi is a licensed professional engineer and a licensed structural engineer. 12. Inc. it can b e f u r t h e r assumed that all t h e c o n t a i n e d liquid acts at the tanks midheight to get the total base shear.. IL. Stondurd Building Code. Veletsos. Falls Church.nkrriir. TR-939. pp. M.3 s. No. 387 pp. 52 pp. 6. PVP-V. Mononobe. H. one will not have to compute the impulsive period.June 19M. H. 23. ACI Committee 318. f 1 5. 511. TCI. 1-15. international Code Council. Beskns and S.3R-01). Italy. W. W and Duncan. 2000. pp. Atomic Energy Commission. "Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACi 31&99) and Commentary (:31XR-99). Anagnostopoulos. S. 10. 11. E. 391 pp. Because of the rigidity of tank walls. ilMi-iO41. NY. E. If the s t r e n g t h r e q u i r e m e n t s e x c e e d t h o s e under n o n s e i s m i c l o a d c o m b i n a t i o n s . "The Seismic Design of Waterfront Structures. Haroun. A. R. the response modification factor can be assumed to b e t h e same for both impulsive and convective components.. 0. k i e l j ofAmerica. E. CA. 18. 5 to Si3. "Seismic Effects in Flexible Storage Tanks. 3. Technical Infomiation ITID) Ducurnerii 7024. 1974. Southern Building Code Congress International. 1994. Mi. Housner.e on Eurlhquuoke Engineering University o California. and Housner... and Morrison. "Seismically Induced Fluid Forces on Elevated Tanks. "On the Deterniination of Earth Pressures During Earthquakes." Fxxeedings of lhe International Asswiolion for Earthquake Enyine<?rioy. 16. ANSIIAWA D I 15-95. 2ílO2." American Concrete Institute. Environmental Engineering Concrete Structures.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful