Dr.

Badar ul Ali Zeeshan

Structural Engineer

SEISMIC EVALUATION OF TANK

62 CSB, Masrial, Rawalpindi Cantt
Table of Contents
1. PROLOGUE & OBJECTIVES 2
2. METHODOLOGY 2
3. THE TANK 2
3.1. The Structural System 2
3.2. Condition of Existing Structural members 4
4. MATERIAL STRENGTHS 6
5. GRAVITY LOADS 6
6. SEISMIC LOADS 6
6.1 Seismic parameters 6
6.2 Sloshing height of water (Free board) 6
6.3 Seismic Weight 7
6.4 Time period of water tank 7
6.5 Base Shear 8
7. EVALUATION OF STAGING 9
7.1 The Computer Model 9
7.2 Columns 10
7.3 Beams 11
8. EVALUATION OF WALLS 11
8.1 Forces perpendicular to the wall 11
8.1.1 Inertial Forces on wall 11
8.1.2 Impulsive & Convective Forces on wall 12
8.1.3 Hydrostatic Forces on wall 12
8.1.4 Hydrodynamic Forces due to vertical acceleration (𝑞𝑣𝑦) 12
8.1.5 Distribution of lateral forces 13
8.1.6 Design Moment & out of plane shear 13
8.2 Forces parallel to the wall 13
9. CONCLUSIONS 14
10. RETROFIT MEASURES 14
11. APPROXIMATE COST 14

1
1. PROLOGUE & OBJECTIVES

2. METHODOLOGY
Keeping in mind that the water tank was built in 1970’s and that the practice of proportioning
structural members for seismic forces was widely followed only after 2005, and that the current
practice of seismic design is very different from the one that was followed (if at all in Pakistan) in 70’s,
it is prudent to assume that the designer would not have considered seismic forces while
proportioning the members of water tank.

Hence, by comparing the reinforcement requirement of as-built member sizes of water tank for
gravity forces with that of seismic forces, we can estimate the amount of work required to upgrade
the water tank for seismic forces.

The design forces and member strengths of water tank will be determined by following guidelines of
ACI 350.3-06 and ACI 350-06.

The staging of tank will be analyzed by building a model on ETABS. The design seismic forces on the
model will be calculated by following the procedure of Appendix B of ACI 350.3-06.

Seismic forces on walls of the container of water tank will also be calculated by following Appendix B
of ACI 350.3-06. The design of walls will be performed by following provisions of ACI 350-06.

3. THE TANK
The reinforced concrete water tank is located in the Masrial area of the Rawalpindi Cantt— in the
premises of 62 CSB. The tank was constructed in 1970’s. It has a capacity of about 1,50,000 gallons.

3.1. The Structural System

The tank is supported on reinforced concrete frames, referred to as staging in the figure 2. The height
of the staging is 43.5 ft. The height of container is 11.5 feet, as shown in the figure 2. The Staging has
two levels of beams between bottom slab and ground level.

Staging consists of total number of twenty columns, and their size is 18” x 18”. Center to center
spacing of columns is about 11.5ft. The size of beams at bracing level, as well as in bottom slab of
tank, is 12’’ x 24’’.

Container has one partition wall in addition to side walls. The thickness of bottom slab and side walls
is 8 inches, thickness of top slab is 6 inches, and the thickness of inner partition wall is 6 inches. Inner
wall is in the direction of shorter side of the container. All walls in the shorter direction of container
are braced with buttresses having cross-section of 9”x9”. The top slab of the water tank is supported
by four 12”x12” columns in addition to side and inner walls.

2
Figure 1: plan of container of water tank

3
 Figure 2: Elevation of water tank

3.2. Condition of Existing Structural members

Most of the brace beams at first and second level are in deteriorated condition. The bottom
reinforcement of beams is visible and it is corroded as shown in figure 3 because of spalling of
concrete cover.

Corrosion was also observed in the top slab of the water tank in few areas. Reinforcement was
visible from inside the container due to the spalling of concrete cover, see figure 4.

Columns, beams of bottom slab, walls and buttresses of the water tank are in good condition, as
shown in figure 3, 4 and 5. No deterioration of concrete was observed in these structural
members.

4
Figure 3: condition of brace beams and columns

Figure 4: Corrosion of reinforcement in top slab

Figure 5: Buttresses bracing walls of container

5
 4. MATERIAL STRENGTHS
Material Strength (assumed, psi)
Reinforcement 40000
Concrete 2700

5. GRAVITY LOADS
Gravity loads have been based on the unit weight of concrete (150 PCF) and unit weight of 3 inches’
plaster on bottom slab and side walls.

6. SEISMIC LOADS
As mentioned earlier — in section 2 of this report— seismic forces have been computed as per guidelines
of ACI 350.3-06. This section presents seismic parameters, sloshing height of water, seismic weight,
dynamic properties of structure along with its contents and base shear as per the guidelines of the ACI
350.3-06.

6.1 Seismic parameters

Parameter value
Response modification factor, R 1.25
Response modification factor, 𝑹𝒊 1.25
Response modification factor, 𝑹𝒄 1
Importance factor, I 1.25
Soil Profile Type 𝑆𝐷
Seismic Zone factor, Z 0.2
Ground response coefficient, 𝑪𝒂 0.28
Ground response coefficient, 𝑪𝒗 0.4

6.2 Sloshing height of water (Free board)

In order to calculate the seismic weight of impulsive and convective parts, the maximum height of stored
water needs to be determined in order to avoid the dynamic water-pressures on the roof slab. Using the
formulae B-17 of the appendix B of the ACI 350.3-06, the sloshing height (𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) is:
𝐿
𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐶𝑐 (𝐼)
2
The period dependent response coefficient 𝐶𝑐 depends on 𝑇𝑠 and 𝑇𝑐 .
𝐶𝑎 2𝜋
𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 ∶ 𝑇𝑠 = 0.4 = 0.28; 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑇𝑐 = ( ) √𝐿
𝐶𝑣 𝜆

The term 2𝜋⁄𝜆depends on the ratio 𝐿⁄𝐻 . By taking the free board as 3ft, depth of stored water — 𝐻𝐿 —
𝐿
will be limited to 8.5’ and the ratio 𝐿⁄𝐻𝐿 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑠 4.38. From the figure 9.2.4 of ACI 350.3-06, the value
of 2𝜋⁄𝜆 is 0.78 against this ratio (𝐿⁄𝐻𝐿 ). Hence,

6
 𝑇𝑐 = (2𝜋⁄𝜆)√𝐿 = 0.78 × √37.25= 4.76 sec. Since, 𝑇𝑐 ≤ 1.6⁄𝑇𝑠 , 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑐 =
1.5𝐶𝑣 ⁄𝑇𝑐 = 0.126 ≤ 3.75𝐶𝑎 , and the maximum height of sloshing wave will be:
37.25
𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.126(1.25) 2
= 2.93’

Hence, the free board of 3ft is needed in order to avoid dynamic pressure of water on the roof slab.

6.3 Seismic Weight

Component
Top slab, 𝑾𝒓
Side & inner walls, 𝑾𝒘
Ring beam, 𝑾𝑹𝑩
Buttresses, 𝑾𝑩𝑻𝑹
Inner columns, 𝑾𝑪𝑪
Bottom Slab, 𝑾𝑩𝑺
Bottom slab beams,
𝑾𝑩𝑺𝑩
1/3 x Staging, 𝑾𝑺𝑻𝑮 {(1.5 × 1.5 × 43.5 × 20) + (310 × 1 × 2 × 2} × 0.15⁄
Weight of liquid, 𝑾𝑳
Weight (kip)
40 x 50 x 0.5 x 0.15 = 150
{(171.68 × 0.667) + (37.25 × 0.5)} × 11.5 × 0.15 = 230
209.25 × 0.75 × 1 × 0.15 ≅ 24
5.75 × 1 × 1 × 0.15 × 8 ≅ 7
11.5 × 1 × 1 × 0.15 × 4 ≅ 7
50 × 40 × 0.667 × 0.15 ≅ 200
{40 × 5) + (50 × 4} × 1 × (2 − .0667) × 0.15 = 80
3 = 160
{(37.25 × 46.75 × 8) − 68} × 0.0624 ≅ 865

6.4 Time period of water tank

The time period of the water tank has been calculated as per provisions of the section 9.2.4 of ACI 350.3-
06.

The time period associated with convective mode of tank has already been calculated in the section 6.2
of this report.

The time period associated with impulsive mode of tank can be computed by using:

𝑇𝑖 = 2𝜋√W⁄gk

In order to compute the time period for impulsive mode, the weight (W) in above equation includes the
weight of the container, on-third the weight of the staging and impulsive component of accelerating
liquid.

𝑊 = 𝑊𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟 + 1⁄3 𝑊𝑠𝑡𝑔 + 𝑊𝑖

𝑊𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟 = 𝑊𝑟 + 𝑊𝑤 + 𝑊𝑅𝐵 + 𝑊𝐵𝑇𝑅 + 𝑊𝐶𝐶 + 𝑊𝐵𝑆 + 𝑊𝐵𝑆𝐵 = 698 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑝𝑠

𝑊𝑖
For 𝐿⁄𝐻 = 4.38 , ⁄𝑊 = 0.26 from figure 9.2.1 of ACI 350.3-06.
𝐿 𝐿

𝑊 = 698 + 160 + (0.26 × 865) ≅ 1083 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑝𝑠

7
The stiffness of water tank— means the stiffness of the frame supporting the container— has been calculated with
help of computer model on ETABS. Lateral forces were applied at location of center of gravity of the container of
water tank. The center of gravity was connected to the frame through rigid link.

The stiffness of the frame in NS direction is 180k/in, while the stiffness in EW direction is 220 k/in.

The time period of the water in both principle directions is:

(𝑇𝑖 )𝑁𝑆 = 2(3.14)√1083⁄

32.2(2160) = 0.78 𝑠𝑒𝑐

(𝑇𝑖 )𝐸𝑊 = 2(3.14)√1083⁄

32.2(2640) = 0.7 𝑠𝑒𝑐

6.5 Base Shear

The base shear in the impulsive mode will be:
𝐶𝑖 (𝐼)𝑊
𝑉𝑖 =
𝑅𝑖
Where “W” has been calculated in the section 6.4 of this report. “W” contains the weight of container,
one-third of the weight of staging and the weight of water in impulsive mode.
𝐶𝑣
Since, 𝑇𝑖 > 𝑇𝑠 , 𝐶𝑖 = ⁄𝑇 = (0.51)𝑁𝑆 ; (0.57)𝐸𝑊
𝑖

The base shear —impulsive mode— in both directions will be:

0.51(1.25)1083
𝑉𝑖,𝑁𝑆 = ≅ 552 𝑘𝑖𝑝
1.25
0.57(1.25)1083
𝑉𝑖,𝐸𝑊 = ≅ 617 𝑘𝑖𝑝
1.25
The base shear —convective mode— in both directions will be:
𝐶𝑐 (𝐼)𝑊𝑐 0.126(1.25)0.74(865)
𝑉𝑐 = = ≅ 101 𝑘𝑖𝑝
𝑅𝑐 1
Total base shear is obtained by SRSS combination of the contribution from impulsive and convective
modes. The base shear in north-south direction of the tower is:

𝑉𝑁𝑆 = √5522 + 1012 = 563 kip

The base shear in East-West direction of the tower is:

𝑉𝐸𝑊 = √6172 + 1012 = 625 kip

8
 7. EVALUATION OF STAGING
The section will present results of the evaluation of structural members of staging for seismic
forces in north-south (NS) direction.

7.1 The Computer Model

The model was built on ETABS. In the model, internal beams of bottom slab of the water tank were
modelled as T-beams; all other beams are modelled with rectangular cross-section. Stiffness modifier of
0.8 was applied on all beams to take into the account the effect of deteriorations, while it was kept at 1
for columns.

Lateral forces were applied at the level of bottom slab of the container. The actual location of
seismic forces will be at some point above the level of bottom slab. Since the overturning moment is not
the issue for this type of water tank, forces are applied at the level of bottom slab for simplicity.

Forces were distributed, horizontally, by considering bottom slab as rigid diaphragm.

The figure 6 shows screen shots of the computer model of the building on ETABS with applied
loading.

Figure 6: Loading on staging

9
7.2 Columns
The table below shows design forces of few columns located at different locations and at three different
levels of the staging of water tank.

Level Location DESIGN LOADS (Pu, Mu2, Mu3) STEEL REQUIRED

(in²)
Gravity 163 kip, 0, 0 3.24
interior
Seismic 176 kip, 271 k-ft., 0 16.25
Gravity 105 kip, 0, 0 3.24
Footing-1ST Brace Beam edge
Seismic 33 kip, 230 k-ft., 0 13
Gravity 65 kip, 0, 0 3.24
corner
Seismic 59 kip, 224 k-ft., 0 13.4
Gravity 140 kip, 0, 0 3.24
interior
Seismic 140 kip, 259, 0 14
Gravity 78 kip, 15k-ft, 0 3.24
2nd brace - bottom slab edge
Seismic 46 kip, 141 k-ft., 0 5.8
Gravity 44 kip, 11k-ft, 11 k-ft. 3.24
corner
Seismic 16 kip, 126k-ft, 10 k-ft. 5.9

The figure 7 compares the requirement of steel reinforcement for column in the first level against gravity
and seismic forces.

The results show that reinforcement requirement for seismic forces is at least 4 times more than the
requirement for gravity loads. The reinforcement requirement for all the columns is 1% of the gross area
of column cross-section for gravity loads, while it is about 5% for interior columns.

16.25
Reinforcement required (sq. in.)

13 13.4

3.24 3.24 3.24

Gravity (interior) Seismic (interior) Gravity (edge) Seismic (edge) Gravity (corner) Seismic (corner)

Figure 7: Comparison of Reinforcement of columns for gravity and seismic loads (1st level)

10
7.3 Beams
The table below shows top and bottom reinforcement required for bracing beams, as well as bottom-slab
beams, of the water tank for gravity and seismic forces.

The results show that the seismic demand is at least 4 times the demand for gravity forces.

The requirement of shear forces is not reported here. Results show that beams will satisfy shear-demand
for gravity, as well as, seismic forces.

Level Location Design Loads (Mu, Vu) Steel Required (in²) STEEL USED (in²)
Bottom top Bottom top
Interior Gravity 5 k-ft., 2 kip 0.07 0.1
1.32 Not known
1 ST frame Seismic 277 k-ft., 49 kip 5 4
Brace Edge Gravity 3 k-ft., 2 kip 0.06 0.06
1.32 Not known
frame Seismic 260 k-ft., 46 kip 4.8 3.8
Interior Gravity 15 k-ft., 4 kip 0.33 0.16
1.32 Not known
2 nd frame Seismic 273 k-ft., 49 kip 5 4
brace Edge Gravity 9 k-ft., 3 kip 0.1 0.2
1.32 Not known
frame Seismic 251 k-ft., 44 kip 4.6 3.7
Interior Gravity 50 k-ft., 35 kip 1.2 1.2 Not known Not known
Bottom frame Seismic 169 k-ft., 62 kip 2.9 2.6
slab
Edge Gravity 30 k-ft., 21 kip 0.7 0.7 Not known Not known
beams
frame Seismic 133 k-ft., 45 kip 2.3 2.3

8. EVALUATION OF WALLS
This section will compare the reinforcement required by walls for seismic forces with gravity loads.

8.1 Forces perpendicular to the wall

8.1.1 Inertial Forces on wall
𝐶𝑖 (𝐼)𝑊 ′ 𝑤
The inertial force on the wall will be: 𝑃′𝑤 =
𝑅𝑖

Where, “𝑊′𝑤 ” is the weight of one wall perpendicular to the earthquake force.
8 24
𝑊′𝑤 = 47.25 ( ) 11.5(0.15) + ( ) = 59 𝑘𝑖𝑝
12 5
According to the commentary R9.2.4 of ACI 350.3-06 “As an alternative to computing the natural period
of vibration, particularly for end conditions other than cantilever, it is reasonable to assume the wall
rigid”. Hence, assuming 𝑇𝑖 ≤ 𝑇𝑠 , 𝐶𝑖 = 2.5𝐶𝑎 = 0.7.
𝐶𝑖 (𝐼)𝑊 ′ 𝑤 0.7(1.25)59 ′ 42
𝑃′𝑤 = 𝑅𝑖
= 1.25
≅ 42 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ; 𝑃𝑤𝑦 = 11.5 = 3.65 𝑘/𝑓𝑡

′
In above equation, 𝑃𝑤𝑦 is the inertial force per foot of wall height.

11
8.1.2 Impulsive & Convective Forces on wall
The hydrodynamic force on one wall in the impulsive mode will be:
𝐶𝑖 (𝐼)𝑊𝑖
𝑃𝑖 = 0.5
𝑅𝑖
Where “𝑊𝑖 ” is the weight of stored liquid in the impulsive mode. Other components of impulsive weight
are not included in “𝑊𝑖 ”, as the seismic force corresponding to those components will be resisted by
walls parallel to the force. 𝑊𝑖 was calculated in the section 6.4 of this report as:
𝑊𝑖 = 0.26 × 865 ≅ 225 𝑘𝑖𝑝

As calculated in the section 6.5 of this report, 𝐶𝑖 = 0.51. The hydrodynamic force, on one wall, in the
impulsive mode (N-S direction) will be:
0.51(1.25)225
𝑃𝑖 = 0.5 ≅ 57 𝑘𝑖𝑝
1.25
The location of the impulsive force, above the bottom slab, for EBP condition is 0.375(8.5) =3.2 ft.

The hydrodynamic force on one wall in the impulsive mode will be:
𝐶𝑐 (𝐼)𝑊𝑐 0.126(1.25)0.74(865)
𝑃𝑐 = = 0.5 ≅ 51 𝑘𝑖𝑝
𝑅𝑐 1
The location of the convective force, above the bottom slab, for EBP condition is 0.52(8.5) =4.42 ft.

8.1.3 Hydrostatic Forces on wall

The hydrostatic force on the wall will be:
62.4(8.52 )
𝑃ℎ = 2(1000)
23.4 = 52.64 kip

The hydrostatic force for unit-width strip per linear foot of the wall height: 8.5(62.4)/1000 = 0.53 k/ft

8.1.4 Hydrodynamic Forces due to vertical acceleration (𝑞𝑣𝑦 )

The lateral hydrodynamic pressure due to the effect of vertical acceleration of fluid is computed by
using equation 4-14 of ACI 350.3-06.

𝑞𝑣𝑦 = 𝑢𝑣̈ 𝑞ℎ𝑦

By taking the ratio of vertical to horizontal acceleration as 0.66 and knowing that the seismic coefficient,
𝐶𝑡 = 𝐶𝑎 , the effect spectral acceleration, 𝑢̈ 𝑣 , is 0.185 &

𝑞𝑣𝑦 = 0.185(0.53) ≅ 0.1 𝑘/𝑓𝑡

12
8.1.5 Distribution of lateral forces
The figure 8 shows the distribution of lateral forces for unit-foot wide strip of the wall.

Figure 8: Distribution of lateral forces

8.1.6 Design Moment & out of plane shear

The analysis of walls in east-west direction for out-of-plane forces has been done by assuming that they
have fixed support at their bottom edge and pin support at the top edge (roof).

The walls can be assumed to distribute forces along the height only as their aspect ratio is just above 2.

Maximum Moment (k-ft.)

Load Load Type Maximum shear (kip)
Positive Negative
Hydrostatic Non-seismic 1.5 3 2
Inertial Seismic 1.6 2.5 1.2
Impulsive Seismic 1.75 3.5 2.1
Convective Seismic 1.8 3 1.5
𝑞𝑣𝑦 Seismic 0.3 0.6 0.4

Design negative moment for seismic forces = 1.0(√(2.5 + 3.5)2 + 32 + 0.62 ) + 1.2(3) = 10.33 k-ft

Design negative moment for non-seismic forces = 1.4(3) = 4.2 k-ft

Design Shear (seismic) = 1.0(√(1.2 + 2.1)2 + 1.52 + 0.42 ) + 1.2(2) = 6𝑘𝑖𝑝 < ∅𝑉𝑐 ( 4.75 𝑘𝑖𝑝) Not ok

Design Shear for non-seismic forces = 1.4(2) = 2.8𝑘𝑖𝑝 > ∅𝑉𝑐 − − − −𝑜𝑘

8.2 Forces parallel to the wall

The entire base shear will be considered for analysis of walls for the in-plane forces. Each wall in east-west
direction will share 617/2 = 309kip in-plane shear due to seismic forces. The shear capacity of concrete
only is greater than that value for 8 inches thick and 50ft long wall. So, there is no issues regarding the
ability of wall to carry in-plane shear.

In-plane moment of walls will not be issue because of the aspect ratio of the wall.

13
 9. CONCLUSIONS
Following conclusions have been drawn from the results:

 The maximum level of water, in the container of water tank, should not exceed 8.5 feet above
the bottom slab in order to avoid dynamic fluid-forces on roof slab.
 Columns and beams of the staging, and bottom slab, does not meet the demand of design
seismic forces.
 Wall in East-west direction does not meet the demand of out-of-plane seismic forces. They do
meet the demand of in-plane seismic forces.
 Walls in North-south direction should be able to resist in-plane forces. They should also be able
to resist out-of-plane forces, as they are braced by buttresses at their mid-height.

10. RETROFIT MEASURES

11. APPROXIMATE COST

14