Calculation of Response Modification Factor For An Existing All-Concrete Elevated Tank Pedestal

Structures Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1362
Calculation of Response Modification Factor for an Existing All-Concrete

Elevated Tank Pedestal
C. T. Kevit1 and A. A. Liepins2

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Birla Institute of Technology - Pilani on 02/08/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., 1828 L Street NW, Suite 950, Washington, DC
20036; PH (202) 772-4868; email: ctkevit@sgh.com
2
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., 41 Seyon Street, Building 1, Suite 500, Waltham,
MA 02453; PH (781) 907-9212; email: aaliepins@sgh.com
ABSTRACT
A pushover analysis of an existing hollow cylindrical pedestal of a concrete

elevated water storage tank is presented. The analysis is based on the three-stress-
invariant cap model incorporated in LS-DYNA. The computed results include
stresses related to the failure surface of concrete at first damage and at maximum load
and the lateral-load deflection curve. The pushover data is used to approximate the
response modification factor in seismic response analysis of the pedestal.
INTRODUCTION
Elevated water storage tanks, as currently designed and built, fall into three
general categories: all-concrete, composite concrete and steel, and all-steel. Figures
1, 2, and 3 show examples of these types of elevated tanks. The storage capacity of
these tanks is generally in the one-half million gallon (MG) to three MG range, and
the height of these tanks may reach 230 ft. A pedestal supports the water-storing
vessel in all three types of tanks. The pedestals of the all-concrete and the composite
tanks are tall hollow cylindrical reinforced concrete structures. The pedestal of the
all-steel tank shown in Figure 3 consists of four or more cross-braced steel legs. All
three types of tanks are constructed in seismic zones where they depend on their
ductile behavior for dissipating the energy of a seismic event.
Figure 1. All-concrete Figure 2. Composite Figure 3. All-steel

elevated tank. elevated tank. elevated tank.
Structures Congress 2013

REQUIREMENTS FOR DUCTILITY OF ELEVATED TANKS
Ductility is the pedestal’s ability to deform beyond its elastic limit while
resisting additional force and absorbing energy through inelastic deformation. The
importance of ductility in the seismic design of elevated tanks was first addressed by
the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) in their Recommended
Lateral Force Requirements in 1959 (commonly known as the SEAOC Blue Book).
The SEAOC Blue Book recommended base shear force levels for design by the
allowable stress method. The recommended design base shears were proportional to
the lateral force factor, K, assigned to four structural systems and separately for
elevated tanks with “four or more cross braced legs.” This description fits the type of
tank shown in Figure 3. In 1959, the all-steel tank, among the three types of tanks
shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3, was the only type being designed and built. The first
composite tank in the United States was built in 1985, and the first all-concrete tank
in a seismic zone was built in 1998 (Meier 2002). The 1959 SEAOC Blue Book set
the K value for elevated tanks at 1.5 – a higher value than those of the other structural
systems. Later editions of the SEAOC Blue Book further increased this value to 3.
The high value of K implies a low-level ductility for all-steel elevated tanks based on
the collective experience of the SEAOC engineers.
The Applied Technology Council (ATC), in a 1978 report titled ATC-3-06
(ATC 1978), introduced the response modification factor, R, in lieu of K. The R
factor for a specific structural system reduces the seismic demand of an elastic 5%
damped acceleration response spectrum for the purpose of calculating by elastic
analysis the ultimate strength level base shear and forces throughout the pedestal.
The R factors strove to maintain the design lateral force levels, adjusted from
allowable stress to ultimate strength, consistent with the earlier K factors. Additional
detailing provisions aimed to reduce fragility. The inverted pendulum structures,
described as “structures where the framing resisting the total prescribed seismic
forces acts essentially as an isolated cantilever and provides support for vertical
load,” can be interpreted to include elevated tanks. Inverted pendulum structures
were divided into categories according to material and detailing requirements.
“Special moment frames” of steel or reinforced concrete with special detailing
requirements were assigned R = 2.5. The R values in ATC-3-06 represented the
experience and consensus of the experts involved in their development, but lacked a
theoretical basis (ATC 1995).
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) document Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (7-10) (2010) includes a chapter devoted to
seismic design requirements for nonbuilding structures, which requires the seismic
design of concrete pedestals of elevated tanks to use R = 3. The similarity of this R
factor to that of ATC-3-06 and the acceptance of using the equivalent lateral force
method for design of single-degree-of-freedom structures such as elevated tanks
indicates an opportunity to refine design requirements through an examination of R
factors using a sound theoretical approach.
ATC-19 (ATC 1995) recommends that computation of the R factor for an
existing structure consider the structure’s reserve strength, ductility, and redundancy.
The reserve strength, Rs, is the ratio of the limit strength of the structure to the

strength of first significant yield, or first plastic hinge. The ductility, Rμ, is related to
the ratio of the maximum deformation of the structure to the deformation at yield in a
bilinear approximation of the load deformation relation. The redundancy, Rr, is the
structure’s ability to redistribute the seismic demand. These resistance factors are
combined to give R = Rs Rμ Rr.
The SEAOC Seismology Committee (2008) recommends that the reserve
strength, Rs, be further decomposed into reserve due to overdesign, Rsd; material
overstrength, Rsm; and system reserve strength, Rss.

The components of R of the pedestal of an existing all-concrete elevated tank
constructed in a seismic zone are estimated here from the results of a monotonic
pushover analysis obtained with a finite element model. Further computations
required to improve the accuracy of the estimated R factor are discussed.
DESCRIPTION OF PEDESTAL STRUCTURE
The pedestal is a 120 ft tall hollow cylindrical reinforced concrete structure

with an inside diameter of 29 ft and an outside diameter of 32 ft. At its top, the
pedestal is monolithic with the 2.0 MG concrete vessel that contains the stored water.
The center of gravity of the concrete vessel and the stored water is located
approximately 152 ft above the base of the pedestal, which is monolithic with a
circular reinforced concrete slab. Each face of the pedestal wall is reinforced
vertically with #8 bars @ 6 in. for 20 ft above the base, #7 @ 6 in. for 12 ft at the top,
and #5 @ 6 in. between the top and bottom sections of reinforcement. Each face of
the pedestal wall is reinforced circumferentially with #6 bars @ 6 in. for 20 ft above
the base, #6 @ 6 in. for 12 ft at the top, and #5 @ 12 in. between the top and bottom
sections of reinforcement.
The pedestal was designed in conformance to the Standard Building Code,
1999 Edition, which for reinforced concrete inverted pendulum structures with
special moment frames required R = 2.5. The pedestal was designed for a base shear
of 284 kips and overturning moment of 48,000 kip-ft.
MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION
The pedestal is a reinforced concrete structure. The unconfined compressive

strength of the concrete, f’c, is 4,500 psi. The response of the pedestal is computed
with the finite element program LS-DYNA. The selected material model, known as
Material 159, is based on the three-invariant cap model of Schwer and Murray
(1994). The model uses the first invariant of the stresses,
I1 = σ1 + σ2 + σ3 = 3P,
the second invariant of the deviatoric stresses,
J2 = [(σ1 – σ2)2 + (σ2 – σ3)2 + (σ3 – σ1) 2]/6,
and the third invariant of the deviatoric stresses,

J3 = s1s2s3;
where σ1, σ2, σ3 = principal stresses,

s1, s2, s3 = principal deviatoric stresses,
P = hydrostatic pressure, and
positive stresses are considered compressive.
The failure function is based on I1, J2, J3; the cap hardening parameter, κ; and
the Rubin function, R, as follows:
F(I1, J2, J3, κ) = J2 – R2Ff2Fc = 0,
where R(ߚመ ) = Rubin function (Schwer and Murray 1994),

Fc(I1, κ) = cap failure surface function (Schwer and Murray 1994),
Ff(I1, α, λ, β, θ) = α – λexp(–βI1) + θI1 = shear failure surface function,
κ = cap hardening parameter, which increases under plastic volume
compaction,
ߚመ (J2, J3) = polar angle in the deviatoric plane, and
α, λ, β, and θ are parameters determined from calibrations of triaxial
compression tests on plain concrete test specimens (Murray 2007).
The failure surface, F, can be visualized as a surface in Haigh-Westergaard

principal stress space with the hydrostatic axis at equal angles from the principal
stress axes, the deviatoric plane perpendicular to the hydrostatic axis at a distance
from the origin that is proportional to the hydrostatic pressure, a radius in the
deviatoric plane that is a function of √J2, and its polar location at an angle that is a
function of J2 and J3. The intersection of the failure surface by a plane that contains
the hydrostatic axis and deviatoric radius at polar angle of zero is Ff and is known as
the compression meridian. Points on the compression meridian are obtained from
triaxial tests, frequently on cylindrical test specimens but cubes as well, in which the
confining pressure on the cylindrical surface is held constant and the axial stress is
increased to failure. The plot of the compression meridian for f’c = 4,500 psi is
shown in Figure 6.
Two other meridians of the failure surface include the extension meridian and
the shear, or torsion, meridian. Points on the extension meridian are obtained from
triaxial tests where the axial stress is held constant and the confining stress is
increased to failure. Points on the shear meridian are obtained from triaxial tests
where the axial stress is increased and the confining stress decreased, or vice versa, so
that I1 remains constant.
The Rubin function, R, scales the extension, shear, and other meridians to the
compression meridian. Therefore, R = 1 for the compression meridian (Schwer and
Murray 1994).
Reinforcing steel is considered as elastic-plastic with an elastic modulus of
29,000,000 psi and a tangent modulus of 125,000 psi for isotropic hardening.
Poisson’s ratio is considered to be 0.3.

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
The analysis model, illustrated in Figure 4, is based on the all-concrete

elevated water tank shown in Figure 1. Symmetry of both geometry and expected
behavior allow modeling of half of the pedestal, and the water-filled tank above is
represented by a lumped mass with rigid kinematic constraints to the top elements of
the pedestal. Pedestal elements are hexahedral solids with a singly integrated
formulation. The half pedestal is 50 elements in circumference and 120 elements

high. The largest aspect ratio is 1 to 1.65, and one element spans the thickness of the
pedestal wall.
Longitudinal and circumferential reinforcement is included, represented by
truss (two-force resultant) elements on the inner and outer surfaces of the pedestal
model, sharing nodes with the solid elements.
At the edges of the half pedestal, symmetry conditions are enforced, meaning
restriction of rotational degrees of freedom about axes not orthogonal to the
symmetry plane and restriction of the translational degree of freedom orthogonal to
the symmetry plane. At the pedestal base, nodes are restricted in all translational
degrees of freedom.
The pushover is executed by applying a low lateral velocity in the positive X
direction to the lumped-mass node during a nonlinear explicit analysis using
LS-DYNA version ls971d R5.0.
Direction of push Lumped mass

representing
vessel
Kinematic
coupling with
lumped mass
Symmetry
conditions
Z
Y
180 Fixed
X
0° conditions
Figure 4. Analysis model.

RESULTS OF THE PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
The load deflection curve for the monotonic lateral pushover, shown in Figure
5, indicates that the pedestal responds linearly with lateral load until the concrete at
the base fractures at 180°. Concrete fracture continues from 180° to 60° with
increasing lateral load until further lateral-load increase is terminated by concrete
fracture a short distance above the base at 0°. Stress in steel reinforcement does not
reach yield level during the pushover.

The triaxial state of stress relating to the first concrete fracture lies on the
shear failure surface near the extension meridian, as shown in Figure 6. This is
consistent with longitudinal and hoop tension of different magnitudes, resulting in a
large principal stress difference. The triaxial state of stress in the fractured element at
maximum lateral load is also located on the shear failure surface, but instead on the
compression meridian, also shown in Figure 6.
Shear and overturning moment resultants were calculated using nodal
reactions at the base for first fracture and maximum lateral load, as summarized in
Table 1. A bilinear approximation of the load deflection curve was developed by
approximately equalizing the positive and negative areas between the approximation
curve and the actual curve as described in ATC-19 (ATC 1995). The approximation
curve is shown in Figure 5.
Table 1: Summary of design data and key pushover results.

Lateral Lateral Force at Moment at Base,
Displacement of Base, kips kip-ft
Vessel, in.
Design Resultants N/A 284 48,000
First Fracture 2.5 1,710 259,000
Limit Strength* 3.5 2,440 388,000
Maximum Load 9.0 2,720 432,000
*Limit strength is approximated from model results.

2800
2400
Lateral Force (kip)
2000
1600
1200
800
400
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Lateral Displacement (in.)
Pushover Curve Bi-linear Approximation

Design Base Shear First Fracture
Limit Strength Maximum Load
Figure 5. Load deflection curve with bilinear approximation overlay.
7
Principal Stress Diference, σ1-σ3 (ksi)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
First Invariant of Stresses, I1 (ksi)
Compression Meridian
Extension Meridian (Truncated)
First Fracture
Maximum Load
Figure 6. Failure surface meridians (f’c = 4,500 psi) with selected states of stress.

1.0
Element Damage (unitless) Direction of push

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Circumferential Location (degrees)
Figure 7. Circumferential variation of damage in concrete at the base at

maximum lateral load.
CALCULATION OF RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR

CONSIDERING LATERAL LOAD
The calculation of the response modification factor based on lateral load,

equal to base shear, Rv, for the pedestal is based on the pushover results obtained with
the finite element model and follows the desegregation of the overstrength factor into
its three components proposed in ATC 19 (ATC 1995) and the desegregation of Rvs
into three subcomponents (SEAOC 2008) as follows:
Rv = RvsdRvsmRvssRvμRvr,
where Rvsd is the shear reserve strength factor due to design,

Rvsm is the material overstrength factor (equal to 1.25 for reinforced concrete),
Rvss is the system shear reserve strength factor,
Rvμ is the shear ductility factor, and
Rvr is the shear redundancy factor.
The “yield” strength level of the pedestal is taken as the lateral force at which
element damage, indicating concrete fracture, initiates. The load deflection plot in
Figure 5 shows the first fracture at 1,710 kips. With the design base shear of 284
kips, this gives
Rvsd = 1,710/284 = 6.0.

The bilinearized load deflection curve in Figure 5 shows the limit strength of
approximately 2,440 kips, which gives
Rvss = 2,440/1,710 = 1.4.
The shear ductility is based on the bilinearized lateral deflection at the vessel
center of gravity shown in Figure 5. The ductility ratio is taken as the lateral
deflection at maximum lateral force to the lateral deflection at limit strength. The
load deflection plot shown in Figure 5 indicates 9.0 in. and 3.5 in. deflections,
respectfully, which gives μv = 9.0/3.5 = 2.6. The shear ductility, μv, is based on a
monotonic pushover in one direction. Figure 7 shows that due to this loading, the
concrete is fractured over approximately one-half of the circumference of the
pedestal. A reversal of the loading direction can be expected to fracture the other one
half of the circumference and leave no shear resistance for subsequent load cycles.
Therefore, μv = 2.6 is an overestimate. For the present, μv is taken equal to 1.0.
During the design of the pedestal, the fundamental period of the pedestal was
calculated to be 1.75 sec. (frequency of 0.572 Hz). The Newmark and Hall (1982)
relationship between the ductility ratio and the ductility factor for frequencies less
than 1 Hz (ATC 1995) gives
Rvμ = μ = 1.0.
The redundancy factory, Rvr, is based on having multiple load paths. The
elevated tank pedestal is a single column that supports the water storage vessel and
the stored water at its top. If the base were to become cracked over its entire
circumference, the pedestal could slide off its foundation. Therefore,
Rvr = 1.0, and

Rv = (6.0)(1.25)(1.4)(1.0)(1.0) = 10.5.
CALCULATION OF RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR

CONSIDERING MOMENTS
R factors based on the overturning moments, Rmx, are calculated in a similar

manner to the Rvx factors for lateral force. Accordingly, the overturning moment at
the maximum lateral load was reduced to a limit strength in the same proportion as
the bilinear lateral load to the maximum lateral load: (2440/2720)432,000 = 388,000
kip-ft. The R factor based on the overturning moments can then be computed:
Rmsd = 259,000/48,000 = 5.40,

Rmss = 388,000/259,000 = 1.50,
Rmsm = 1.25,
Rmμ = 1.0,
Rmr = 1.0, and
Rm = RmsdRmsm Rmss Rmμ Rmr = (5.4)(1.25)(1.50)(1.0)(1.0) = 10.1.

Table 2: Summary of computed response modification factors and

subcomponents.
Rxsd Rxsm Rxss Rxμ Rxr Rx
Shear 6.0 1.25 1.4 1.0 1.0 10.5
Moments 5.4 1.25 1.5 1.0 1.0 10.1
DISCUSSION
As discussed during the development of the ductility factor for lateral load, a
monotonic lateral pushover is inadequate for calculation of pedestal ductility. Using
Rvμ = 1.0 limits the final response reduction factor, but it is necessary to do that in the
absence of cyclic pushover data. A more accurate ductility should be based on a
maximum lateral deformation that can be sustained over a large number of load
cycles and requires further investigation.
The high computed R factors based on the lateral load and the overturning
moment for this pedestal are principally due to the high reserve shear strength, a
consequence of the effect of compression in the concrete (Liepins and Juneja 2011).
This beneficial effect of compression on shear strength is generally not considered in
design of elevated concrete pedestals. This practice can be expected to continue until
research is conducted to establish design shear strength in the presence of
compression for use in the design of pedestals and is included in design standards
(American Concrete Institute 2008).
At maximum lateral load, the additional damage at 0° of the pedestal model is
not located at the base, where the supports confine the concrete and preclude failure,
but a short distance above the base where concrete confinement is reduced. This
suggests that the accuracy of the computed results could be improved by including
the base slab of the elevated tank in the model, enabling additional degrees of
freedom to more accurately capture relevant states of stress. It also suggests that the
addition of steel spanning across the thickness of the pedestal wall, a feature which is
included in the constructed pedestal but not included in the model for simplicity,
would help the pedestal resist further lateral load by better confining the concrete in
compression. A higher maximum load would further increase the overstrength factor,
but would not address the ductility limitations discussed above.
The low stress levels in the vertical reinforcement, which did not reach the
yield level, suggest that improved results could be obtained by modeling the
discontinuity of stiffness between the pedestal cylinder and the base slab, which can
be expected to increase demand on the vertical steel. This requires the inclusion of
the base slab in the model and the modeling of the wall of the pedestal and the base
slab with sufficient numbers of elements through their thickness to accurately capture
flexure.

REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute Committee 371 (2008). 371R-08: Guide for the analysis,
design, and construction of elevated concrete and composite steel – concrete
water storage tanks. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
American Society of Civil Engineers (2010). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures (7-10). American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,
VA.
Applied Technology Council (1978). “Tentative provisions for the development of
seismic regulations for buildings.” Rep. No. ATS-3-06, Redwood City, CA.
Applied Technology Council (1995). “Structural response modification factors.”
Rep. ATC 19, Redwood City, CA.
Liepins, A. A. and Juneja, G. (2011). “Concrete shear strength of elevated water
storage tank pedestals.” ASCE Proceedings of the 2011 Structures Congress,
Las Vegas, Apr 14-16, 2011.
Meier, S. W. (2002). “Today’s composite elevated storage tanks,” presented at the
2002 AWWA Conference and Exposition, New Orleans, LA.
Murray, Y.D. (2007). “Users manual for LS-DYNA concrete material Model 159,”
FHWA-HRT-05-062, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, McLean, VA.
Newmark, M. N. and Hall, W. J. (1982). Earthquake spectra and design, EERI
Monograph Series, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.
Schwer, L. E. and Murray, Y. D. (1994). “A three-invariant smooth cap model with
mixed hardening.” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, 18, 657-688.
Seismology Committee, Structural Engineers Association of California (1959).
SEAOC Recommended Lateral Force Requirements, Structural Engineers
Association of California, Sacramento, CA.
Structural Engineers Association of California Seismology Committee (2008). “A
Brief Guide to Seismic Design Factors,” Structure, Sep. 2008, 30-32.

Calculation of Response Modification Factor For An Existing All-Concrete Elevated Tank Pedestal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Calculation of Response Modification Factor For An Existing All-Concrete Elevated Tank Pedestal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structures Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1362

Calculation of Response Modification Factor for an Existing All-Concrete

C. T. Kevit1 and A. A. Liepins2

A pushover analysis of an existing hollow cylindrical pedestal of a concrete

Figure 1. All-concrete Figure 2. Composite Figure 3. All-steel

Structures Congress 2013

REQUIREMENTS FOR DUCTILITY OF ELEVATED TANKS

Structures Congress 2013

overstrength, Rsm; and system reserve strength, Rss.

DESCRIPTION OF PEDESTAL STRUCTURE

The pedestal is a 120 ft tall hollow cylindrical reinforced concrete structure

The pedestal is a reinforced concrete structure. The unconfined compressive

the second invariant of the deviatoric stresses,

J2 = [(σ1 – σ2)2 + (σ2 – σ3)2 + (σ3 – σ1) 2]/6,

and the third invariant of the deviatoric stresses,

Structures Congress 2013

where σ1, σ2, σ3 = principal stresses,

F(I1, J2, J3, κ) = J2 – R2Ff2Fc = 0,

where R(ߚመ ) = Rubin function (Schwer and Murray 1994),

The failure surface, F, can be visualized as a surface in Haigh-Westergaard

Structures Congress 2013

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

The analysis model, illustrated in Figure 4, is based on the all-concrete

formulation. The half pedestal is 50 elements in circumference and 120 elements

Direction of push Lumped mass

Figure 4. Analysis model.

Structures Congress 2013

RESULTS OF THE PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

reach yield level during the pushover.

Table 1: Summary of design data and key pushover results.

Structures Congress 2013

Pushover Curve Bi-linear Approximation

Figure 5. Load deflection curve with bilinear approximation overlay.

Structures Congress 2013

Element Damage (unitless) Direction of push

Figure 7. Circumferential variation of damage in concrete at the base at

CALCULATION OF RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR

The calculation of the response modification factor based on lateral load,

where Rvsd is the shear reserve strength factor due to design,

Rvsd = 1,710/284 = 6.0.

Structures Congress 2013

Rvss = 2,440/1,710 = 1.4.

Rvr = 1.0, and

CALCULATION OF RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR

R factors based on the overturning moments, Rmx, are calculated in a similar

Rmsd = 259,000/48,000 = 5.40,

Structures Congress 2013

Table 2: Summary of computed response modification factors and

Structures Congress 2013

Structures Congress 2013

You might also like