STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF A

REINFORCED CONCRETE CYLINDRICAL TANK

Miguel Meneses
miguel.meneses@ist.utl.pt

M.Sc. Thesis in Civil Engineering – Extended Abstract

October 2013

ABSTRACT

This work presents as its main objective the analysis and structural design of a reinforced concrete cylindrical
tank, originally conceived in the middle of the last century. The most relevant aspects in light of the structural
Eurocodes are covered, which include specific regulations that apply to reservoirs.

The main durability requirements in order to ensure proper operation of these constructions over their lifetime
are addressed. It is described how to quantify indirect actions, through a temporal evaluation of the joint effect
of concrete shrinkage and creep, by applying the effective modulus method.

The structural behavior of cylindrical shells in presence of static forces is analyzed in detail, and simplified
calculation methods are introduced. Using the finite element method, it is further assessed the influence of the
deformability of the soil on the stresses generated in the structure.

It is performed a seismic analysis of the tank, in which the distribution of the hydrodynamic pressure on the walls
are found, and different forms for combining the pressure components are examined. In addition, based on the
finite element method, a modal analysis of the structure is carried out and the seismic stresses are attained.

The structure is designed based on the provisions included in the relevant Eurocodes, wherein the criteria for
limiting crack width in tanks stand out. A reinforcement solution for the original structure’s geometry is found
considering a rigid homogeneous foundation soil.

Lastly, a non-linear analysis was conducted on a generic frame corner with different reinforcement detailing, in
order to assess its efficiency in terms of ductility and resistance. Further in, the same type of analysis is applied
to the node joining the wall and the slab bottom of the tank.

Keywords: Cylindrical tanks, Reinforced concrete, Structural analysis, Structural design, Seismic analysis, Non-
linear analysis

1. INTRODUCTION retaining structures (tanks), namely in water supply

Reservoirs are liquid, gas or solid retaining
structures that may be conceived in a wide range of
structural solutions, since there are several types of
different applications that possess different
requirements, which can be in terms of contained
substance aggressiveness, operational conditions,
size, or site conditions.
In Portugal, it has been common practice to use
reinforced or prestressed concrete in liquid
systems and waste-water treatment plants, due to
its lower cost. Reinforced concrete can provide long
life with low maintenance costs, but only if
appropriately designed and constructed. However,
steel structures have advantage when there is a
need for complete tightness.
This work’s main objective is to cover the most
relevant matters of analysis and design for ground
reinforced concrete cylindrical tanks, by studying a

1
tank originally conceived by Santarella [1] (Figure 1),
in light of the new regulations (Eurocodes).
This tank has a full capacity of 1113 m3, by
possessing a 8,2 m radius, and a maximum depth of
5,4 m. The ground slab, walls and dome have,
respectively, 0,1 m, 0,2 m and 0,08 m thickness. The
retained liquid is mineral oil (γ = 9,5 kN/m3).
FIGURE 1 – TANK STUDIED
2. DURABILITY
Traditionally, concrete’s performance is based
exclusively on its compressive strength, which
defines the design of the structure in ultimate limit
state. However, in the last decades, there has been
a growing concern towards the problems RC
structures tend to show during their lifetime.
The ability of concrete to satisfy not only the safety
criteria but functionality and aesthetics as well is
dependent on other parameters, related with its
composition and production, and also with the
execution of the construction in site and the
maintenance and inspection procedures that need
to be carried on.
This topic is even more important in RC tanks,
because this structures experience, during most of
their live span, high permanent loads, and are in
contact with the retained liquid that often induce
corrosion problems to concrete and reinforcement
that need to be evaluated. In case they’re buried,
large areas of the construction are in permanent
contact with potentially aggressive soils. Also,
because of tightness requirements, high demands
for crack control and impermeability take place.
2
In order to define the durability requirements, it is
first necessary to identify the aggressive substances
and its transportation mechanisms, and the
reactions involved in deterioration.
The Portuguese norm Esp. LNEC E 464 [2] classifies
environmental actions into six categories (Table 1),
based on type and severity of exposure that the
construction will experience.
TABLE 1 - EXPOSURE CLASSES
Description Designation
No risk of corrosion or attack X0
Corrosion induced by XC1 / XC2 / XC3 /
carbonation XC4
Corrosion induced by chlorides XD1 / XD2 / XD3
Corrosion induced by chlorides
XS1 / XS2 / XS3
from sea water
Freeze/Thaw attack XF1 / XF2
Chemical attack XA1 / XA2 / XA3
Based on this information, the same norm defines
the protective measures that need to be taken,
which are centered on minimum concrete cover
over reinforcement and concrete mix. For tanks,
this requirements might be higher, due to the
impermeability needs. For example, British norm BS
8007 [3], that regulates design of RC tanks, states
that concrete should possess minimum cement
content of 325 kg/m3, maximum water/cement
ratio of 0,55, or 0,50 if pulverized-fuel ash is
present, and minimum characteristic cube strength
at 28 days not less than 35 MPa.
In the tank studied, the ground slab was classified
as exposure class XC2, while the remainder
elements were set at class XC4. Because of the
elevated slenderness of the slab and dome, they can
only afford one set of reinforcement. The nominal
reinforcement covers were established 3,5 cm at
the walls and dome, and 4 cm at the slab.
3. ACTIONS ON TANKS
Actions on tanks are identified in Eurocode 1-4 [4].
Besides the actions that are accounted in most
cases, there are some loads that apply specifically to
tanks, such as hydrostatic pressure, suction on
unloading due to inadequate ventilation, loads
resultant from filling process, thermal loads from
liquid, or accidental loads (due to overfilling, or Temporal evolution of shrinkage extension was
spills, for example). calculated for the tank and is presented in Figure 2.

Unlike other type of structures, tanks are very Under constant stress, concrete gradually allows for
sensitive to cracking and therefore it is essential to greater deformations, which can be measured as:
correctly quantify actions that will be present in
service limits states. Thus, the definition of indirect 𝜀𝑐𝑐 (𝑡∞ , 𝑡0 ) = 𝜑(𝑡∞ , 𝑡0 ) ∙ (𝜎𝑐 /𝐸𝑐 ) (3.1)

actions (imposed loads), such as temperature

Where 𝜑(𝑡∞ , 𝑡0 ) is creep coefficient, that
variation and concrete shrinkage and creep, achieve
represents the ratio between the deformation at
special relevance and are frequently determinant.
time 𝑡∞ and at time of loading 𝑡0.
In tanks, the following situation should be
Temporal evolution of creep coefficient was
accounted when considering thermal loads [5]:
calculated for the tank, for two different loading
- Thermal actions from climatic effect due to the times (Figure 3).
variation of shade air temperature and solar
𝜙(t0,t)
radiation; 3,5
- Temperature distribution for normal and 3,0
abnormal process conditions; 2,5
- Effects arising from interaction between the 2,0
structure and its contents during changes (e.g. 1,5
shrinkage of the structure against stiff solid 1,0
contents); 0,5
0,0
The total shrinkage strain is composed mainly by the 0 500 1.000 1.500
t0 = 7 days t0 = 40 days t (days)
drying and autogenous components. The drying
shrinkage is a function of the migration of the water FIGURE 3 - TEMPORAL EVOLUTION OF CREEP COEFICIENT

through the hardened concrete and develops slowly

Because of effect of ageing of concrete, namely
over a several year period and it relates more to
creep, in situations where a load is applied during
higher water/cement ratio concretes. On other
large periods of time, the elastic modulus can’t be
hand, the autogenous shrinkage develops in the
assumed as constant. For direct actions, this
early days after casting.
consideration doesn’t change much, as the stresses
ε (-) in structure counter directly the applied loads.
4,0E-04
However, stresses caused by imposed loads (e.g.
3,5E-04
shrinkage) are directly proportional to the
3,0E-04
2,5E-04 material’s stiffness.
2,0E-04
1,5E-04 The effects of creep and shrinkage can’t be
1,0E-04 evaluated separately because they’re
5,0E-05 interdependent: Shrinkage origins creep that
0,0E+00 diminishes its effect over the structure.
0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000
Autogenous Drying Total t (days) For a more rigorous analysis on the evolution of
FIGURE 2 – TEMPORAL EVOLUTION OF SHRINKAGE EXTENSION total deformation, the effective modulus method
can be used, based on the equation:
It is clear that higher strength concrete, that possess
a higher cement mix, will develop lower shrinkage 𝛥𝜎𝑐 (𝑡, 𝑡0 )
𝜀𝑐 (𝑡, 𝑡0 ) = (3.2)
extension. However, higher cement content has its 𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 (𝑡, 𝑡0 )
downside. Heat is evolved as cement hydrates, and
subsequent cooling can cause early cracking, which 𝐸𝑐,𝑒𝑓𝑓 (𝑡, 𝑡0 ) can be calculated by equation (3.3).
can be controlled by appropriate measures.

3
 35
30
25
Ec,effj (GPa)
20
15
10
5 0,5
0 0,0
0 200 400 600 800
Adjusted elasticity modulus
FIGURE 4 – TEMPORAL EVOLUTION OF THE RESULTING TENSION DUE TO RESTRAINED SHRINKAGE
𝐸𝑐
𝐸𝑐,𝑎𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡 = (3.3)
1 + 𝜒(𝑡, 𝑡0 ) ∙ 𝜙(𝑡, 𝑡0 )
𝜒(𝑡, 𝑡0 ) represents the ageing coeficient, and
assumes values less than one. This parameter
relates the deformation caused by a load that grows
concomitantly with creep, such as shrinkage, with
the deformation caused by a constant load. Its
precise value can be obtained in the work of Bazant
[6] but generally 0,8 is a good estimate.
Based on this method, the resulting stress from
shrinkage in the tank, for a fully restrained element,
was obtained (Figure 4). The maximum occurs at
around 3000 days, where σcs=3,2 MPa, εcs=0,36‰
and Ec,eff=8,89 GPa. Because all this values maintain
practically unchanged, the shrinkage can be
obtained at infinite time (it’s easier to calculate),
and the stresses can be calculated applying an
elastic modulus of Ec/3. This observations combine
with those of Camara & Figueiredo [7]. According to
the same authors, the uniform temperature
variation, that take place slowly during months’
time, can be calculated with Ec/2. This value was
also applied in uniform temp. variation to account
for same cracking due to its high value (Table 2).
TABLE 2 – INDIRECT LOADS APPLIED TO THE TANK
Load Value Ec,eff
Shrinkage - 30 °C 10 GPa
Uniform temp. variation ± 20 °C 15 GPa
Diferential temp. variation ± 15 °C 15 GPa
Admitting that the ground slab is cast first, only half
of the shrinkage load was applied in this element.
Both temperature variation loads were applied
solely on the top part of the structure, to account
the 3 m high embankment (Figure 1) sheltering
effect against solar radiation.
4
3,5
3,0
σcs = Ec,eff (t) x εct (t)
2,5
2,0
(MPa)
1,5
1,0
1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600 1.800 2.000
Resultant tension of restrained concrete shrinkage t (days)
4. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
4.1. STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR OF CYLINDRICAL TANKS
A cylindrical tank is an axisymmetric structure. If the
load is also axisymmetric, then the same stresses
will be generated along any meridian section of the
tank.
The lateral deformation resistance of the wall,
facing a hydrostatic load inside out, can be divided
into two components:
- Resistance provided by a set of infinitesimal
horizontal ring beams, that develop axial traction
forces (hoop forces) (Nϕ);
- Resistance provided by a set of infinitesimal
vertical cantilevered beams that develop shear
force and bending moment (M and V).
Logically, the cantilevered beams resistance
depends on the stiffness of the connection between
the wall and the ground slab. For a given height, the
larger the radius of the tank is, more stresses are
absorbed by the vertical cantilevers, because the
sections get increasingly more plane. On other
hand, the higher the tank gets, more stresses are
driven into the ring beams, since the deformed
shape of the cantilevers increase in height, in
opposition to the ring beams, offering lower
stiffness.
The last description represents the typical structure
behavior of a fixed tank wall: predominance of
horizontal axial forces in the middle and upper part
of the wall, and predominance of bending in the
lower part of the wall (Figure 5).

FIGURE 5 – TYPICAL FORCES CONFIGURATION IN A FIXED WALL
The configuration of the forces in the wall, in case
of rigid connection, can change drastically
depending on the behavior of the the ground slab.
Assuming the vertical hydrostatic pressure is
countered directly by the soil above, and
consequently doesn’t generate any stresses, the
main question relies on how does the system
behave under the vertical axial loads and bending
moments transferred from the walls.
FIGURE 6 – STRESSES DISTRIBUTION ON SOIL
On soft soils and stiff slabs, the soil’s reaction will be
distributed along the entire slab (curve 1 on Figure
6). On other hand, having hard soils and relatively
slender slabs, the slab will deform easily near the
edges, which will generate a concentrated reaction
by the soil near those areas (curve 2).
In general, more deformable soils will generate
more stresses in the slab, as the reactions migrate
to the center. This can easily be pictured by
imagining the system inverted, where the walls act
like columns.
In the tank studied, the slab is extended beyond the
walls. In this case, another factor arises under
deformable soil. In the situation where there is no
embankment loads acting on the outside portion
(during test phase), the vertical component of the
hydrostatic pressure will cause displacements on
the ground, which by turn will produce reactions
under the entire slab. Consequently, the outside
portion of the slab will act as a cantilever,
generating large bending moments (Figure 7).
When the tank is empty and the embankment is in
place, the condition is reversed.
FIGURE 7 – OUTSIDE SLAB ACTING AS CANTILEVER
4.2. MODELLING
The structural behavior of the cylindrical tanks are
highly dependent on the type of connection
between the wall and the ground slab that can be
fixed, pinned or simply supported. In this work, the
tank (Figure 1), having rigid connection, was
evaluated through two FEM models, in which one of
them the slab isn’t extended beyond the walls and
has no roofing (model A). The software used was
CSI’s SAP2000.
FIGURE 8 - F.E.M. MODEL B IN SAP2000
To evaluate the influence of deformability, each
model was run under four different soil stiffness
(ks), modeled with Winkler springs (Table 3).
TABLE 3 - WINKLER SPRINGS APPLIED IN F.E.M. MODELS
Soil ks (kN/m3)
Extremely deformable 5.000
Deformable 40.000
Very stiff 200.000
Undeformable 2E10
The results were validated by comparison with the
ones obtained from the Hangan-Soare method, and
with the exact solutions provided by differential
5
equations deduced from elasticity theory (for fixed - Model B
base wall only). When the slab is extended, the soil’s deformability
influence over the stresses on the wall decays,
4.3. RESULTS because the node no longer experiences large
rotation. On other hand, bending moment in the
Due to limited space, only some of the results will
slab is greatly increased due to the difference on
be shown. Except otherwise stated (Figure 15), all
vertical loading between interior and exterior
data refers to the combination of dead load and
sections.
hydrostatic pressure (PP+PH).
Mr (kNm/m)
- Model A -10,0
-5,0
It can be observed in the following figures that, as
0,0
previously discussed, the soil’s deformability plays a
5,0
major role on the stresses in both wall and ground
10,0
slab, due to the rotation of the node linking the PP+PH: Ks=5
15,0 PP+PH: Ks=40
elements, while hoop force is less affected. PP+PH: Ks=200
20,0
PP+PH: Ks=inf.
25,0 [MN/m3]
Mr (kNm/m)
-10,0 30,0
9,02 8,20 7,38 6,56 5,74 4,92
-5,0 r (m)
FIGURE 12 - SLAB - RADIAL MOMENT
0,0
h (m)
5,0 PP+PH: Ks=5 6,0 PP+PH: Ks=5
PP+PH: Ks=40 PP+PH: Ks=40
10,0 PP+PH: Ks=200 5,0 PP+PH: Ks=200
PP+PH: Ks=2E7 PP+PH: Ks=2E7
4,0
15,0 [MN/m3]
[MN/m3]
3,0
20,0
8,20 7,38 6,56 5,74 4,92 2,0
r (m) 1,0
FIGURE 9 - SLAB - RADIAL MOMENT
0,0
h (m) PP+PH: Ks=5 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
6,0 PP+PH: Ks=40 Mv (kNm/m)
5,0 PP+PH: Ks=200 FIGURE 13 – WALL - VERTICAL MOMENT
PP+PH: Ks=2E7
4,0 PP+PH: Encastrado h (m) PP+PH: Ks=5
6,0 PP+PH: Ks=40
3,0 [MN/m3] PP+PH: Ks=200
2,0 5,0 PP+PH: Ks=2E7
4,0 [MN/m3]
1,0
0,0 3,0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 2,0
Mv (kNm/m)
1,0
FIGURE 10 - WALL - VERTICAL MOMENT
0,0
h (m) PP+PH: Ks=5 350 250 150 50 -50
6,0 PP+PH: Ks=40 N (kN/m)
PP+PH: Ks=200
5,0 PP+PH: Ks=2E7 FIGURE 14 - SLAB - RADIAL MOMENT
PP+PH: Encastrado
4,0 [MN/m3] Lastly, it can be observed in Figure 15 that imposed
3,0 deformations can have a big impact on overall wall
2,0 stresses. The slab limitation on the walls contraction
1,0 due to shrinkage causes large hoop forces on the
botton of the wall. The same effect happens
0,0
350 250 150 50 -50 between the bottom and top areas of the wall on
Nϕ (kN/m) account of only the top experiencing uniform
FIGURE 11 - WALL - HOOP FORCE
temperature variation.

6
 h (m) R experiences the spectral acceleration linked to its
6,0 TUN vibration period.
5,0 TDP

4,0
However, it has been shown later that assuming
that the tank is rigid can be non-conservative. In
3,0
fact, due to the tank’s bending flexibility, the
2,0
impulsive liquid and tank’s joint acceleration should
1,0 correspond to the natural fundamental vibration
0,0 frequency of the system, which can be several times
-200 0 200 400
higher than the peak ground acceleration.
Nϕ (kN/m)
FIGURE 15 – WALL – HOOP FORCE (R – SHRINKAGE; TUN –
Therefore, recent models, including the one present
UNIF. NEGATIVE TEMP. VAR.; TDP – DIF. POSITIVE TEMP VAR.)
in Eurocode 8-4 [9], introduce a third, flexible,
component (Figure 16).
5. SEISMIC ANALYSIS

The dynamic response of cylindrical tanks to seismic

loads is a complex problem that involves the
interaction between the retaining liquid and the
deformation of the structure and the ground itself.
Therefore, several simplified mechanical models
have been proposed in order to turn the seismic
analysis simpler through the determination of
equivalent static forces, based on some hypothesis.
FIGURE 16 - MECHANICAL MODEL INCLUDED IN EUROCODE 8-4

One of the first models was presented by Housner The maximum pressure distribution on the tank wall
[8], that assumes the tank being completely relative to the three components were calculated
anchored at their base and the walls rigid. According according to Eurocode 8-4 [9] (Figure 17). This
to this model, under a horizontal acceleration of the distribution varies circumferentially according to
ground, the liquid will produce hydrodynamic function cos(ϕ). It was applied the response
pressures that can be divided into two components: spectrum for most aggravating seismic action in
Portuguese territory.
1 – Impulsive component – The wall’s motion forces
a fraction of the liquid to move combined with the h (m)
structure. Because the structure is assumed rigid, 6,0
the entire system undergoes the same acceleration 5,0
that the ground. 4,0
3,0
2 – Convective component – The tank’s motion
2,0
excites the liquid, generating oscillation at the
surface, whose motion is independent from the 1,0

remainder of the system. This portion exhibit its 0,0

0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0 12,0
own vibration modes, which simpler ones are p (kN/m2)
characterized by high vibrational periods, where Convective Impulsive Flexible

only the first one is accounted for. FIGURE 17 – HYDRODYNAMIC PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION

Thereby, globally this model resumes to two masses
mi and mc rigidly connected to the tank at heights hi
and hc. The first one (impulsive) experiences the
ground’s acceleration (together with the tank’s
mass) while the second one (convective)
It should be noted that the convective component
acceleration should be deduced using the elastic
response spectrum, because it is assumed that the
liquid doesn’t have any energy dissipation capacity.
The other components should limit the behavior

7
coefficient to q=1,5 due to the tank’s low
redundancy.
The flexible component’s acceleration was
calculated using the absolute response spectra
instead of relative (to the ground’s movement)
since there is evidence that within the normal
frequency range where the liquid-structure
normally lies in, the value of these accelerations are
similar.
The three components were combined using the
square root sum of squares rule (SRSS).
h (m)
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
0,0
0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0
SRSS ABS Hydrostatic p (kN/m )
FIGURE 18 - COMBINED HYDRODYNAMIC PRESSURE DIST.
The Eurocode 8-4 also features a simplified method
that quickly provides solely the total basal shear
force and overturning moment, which was also
applied.
Subsequently, it was conducted the procedure
proposed by Virella [10], which consists on adding
masses proportional to the impulsive hydrodynamic
distribution to the tank wall in a F.E.M model, a
modal analysis was carried on (SAP2000 model was
used again). Three models were formed to evaluate
the influence of the wall-slab connection stiffness.
It was observed that the tank possesses a major
vibration mode that shows approximately 80% mass
participation factor (Figure 19). Its deformed shape
resembles that from a cantilever.
Introducing the response spectrum in the software,
seismic induced stresses in the walls were obtained.
This stresses correspond to the impulsive-flexible
component only, as the convective component is
not accounted for in this procedure. It can be
observed in Figure 20 that the seismic stresses (SIS)
are relatively low when compared to the ones
relative to dead load and hydrostatic pressure
(PP+PH). This happens because all hydrodynamic
pressure is applied in a single direction and most of
the force is transmitted to the foundation by
membrane (tangential) shear with only small
vertical bending.
h (m) SIS
6,0 SIS+PP+PH (max)
SIS+PP+PH (min)
5,0 PP+PH
4,0
3,0
50,0 60,0 2,0
2
1,0
0,0
-10 -5 0 5
Mv (kNm/m)
FIGURE 20 – VERTICAL BENDING MOMENT IN WALL
Due to the low seismic stresses, because in tanks
quasi-permanent loads are close to maximum loads
in ultimate state limit, and since high crack
limitation take place in order to fulfill tightness
requirements, it’s clear that the seismic
combination of actions will not be limiting. This
remarks correlate with observed damage resulting
from earthquakes in RC tanks, consisting mainly in
rigid body sliding occurrences and soil rupture.
The EC8 simplified method should therefore
provide with enough information (basal shear force
and overturning moment) to design the base
anchorage and check for global equilibrium.
1,00 Logically, these conclusions don’t apply to steel
Mass participation

0,80 tanks, in which ultimate state limit will be limiting,

0,60 and in addition the flexible component force might
factor

0,40
be higher due to this type of tank’s higher
0,20
vibrational period (the range of periods referred
lays in the initial ascending curve of the response
0,00
0,070 0,060 0,050 0,040 0,030 0,020 spectrum)
Fixed Pinned Rigid T (s)
FIGURE 19 - MASS PARTICIPATION FACTORS
6. STRUCTURAL DESIGN

8
 Eurocode 2-3 [5] introduces specific design
provisions for liquid retaining tanks and classifies
tanks based on its requirements for leakage.
The tank being studied classifies as
tightness class 1, where according to the regulation,
leakage should be limited to a small amount and
some surface staining or damp patches are
acceptable. In this class, any cracks which can be
expected to pass through the full thickness of the
section should be limited to wk1.
Where the full thickness of the section is
not cracked, the provisions of Eurocode 2-1-1 (in
which the cracking limits are based on exposure
classification) apply. This condition is valid if at least
50 mm or 0,2 times the section thickness is
permanently experiencing pressure at all times,
under quasi-permanent loading.
The cracking limit wk1 is calculated as a
function of the ratio between the height of liquid hL
and the element thickness t. For ℎ𝐿 /ℎ ≤ 5, 𝑤𝑘1 =
0,2 𝑚𝑚, and for ℎ𝐿 /ℎ ≥ 35, 𝑤𝑘1 = 0,05 𝑚𝑚. For
intermediate ratios a linear interpolation can be
made (Figure 21).
consequently its stresses, and hence is able, based
on Eurocode 2-1-1 formulation, to calculate crack
width. Therefore, reinforcement was attributed
based on an iterative procedure.
Ultimate limit states were also verified and at no
case was limiting. In fact, that wouldn’t be
expected, because at service the loads have
practically the same values and the cracking
requirements limit stresses in reinforcement at
around 50 to 90 MPa, which represents about 20%
of design strength value for reinforcement steel.
It should be noted that the reinforcement was
designed without altering the structure’s original
geometry and doesn’t represent an optimum
solution, which would imply increasing the
thickness of both the bottom slab and the dome.
Also, this design was possible by considering a very
rigid homogeneous foundation soil (characterized
by 200 MN/m3).
7. FINAL REMARKS
Reinforced concrete water retaining structures
possess some unique characteristics because of
high loads that withstand during most of their
lifespan and the tightness requirements that is the
major parameter on its design, by imposing high
cracking limitations.

Because of these, indirect loads must be careful

FIGURE 21 - RECOMENDED VALUES FOR WK1 quantified and its effects properly analyzed.

The dome, which is not in contact with the retained The structural analysis involving different ground
liquid, had it’s crack width limited to 0,3 mm, stiffness concludes that this is a very important
accordingly to its exposure class XC4. In the other parameter that can greatly increase stresses both in
elements, wk1 applied (Table 4). the ground slab and in the wall.
TABLE 4 - WK1 LIMITS APPLIED IN THE STRUCTURE
Lastly, it was found that seismic loads should
Element z (m) hL (m) t (m) hL/t wk1
(mm)
generally not influence design of reinforcing steel,
o 3,4 2,0 0,2 10 0,175
although its global effect on the links to the
Wall 1,4 4,0 0,2 20 0,125
foundation can’t be ignored.
0,4 5,0 0,2 25 0,100
Slab - 5,4 0,1 54 0,050
Beam - 0,1 0,4 0,25 0,200
MAIN REFERENCES
All elements had their crack width calculated at
every section by a MS Excel application that [1] Santarella, Luigi (1953). Il Cemento Armato,
Volume II – Le Applicazioni alle Construzioni Civili ed
calculates, for a pair of axial force and bending
Industriali - Tridicesima Edizione Rifatta. Editore
moment, the extensions in steel and concrete and Ulrico Hoepli, Milano.

9
[2] LNEC E464 (2007). Betões: Metodologia
prescritiva para uma vida útil de projecto de 50 e de
100 anos face às acções ambientais. Laboratório
Nacional de Engenharia Civil (LNEC), Lisboa.
[3] British Standards Institution (1987). British
Standard 8007: Code of practice for design of
concrete structures for retaining aqueous liquids.
British Standards Institution, London.
[4] EN 1991-4 (2006). Eurocode 1: Actions on
structures – Part 4: Silos and tanks. European
Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels.
[5] EN 1992-3 (2006). Eurocode 2: Design of
concrete structures – Part 3: Liquid retaining and
containment structures. European Committee for
Standardization (CEN), Brussels.
[6] Bazant, Zdenek (1972). Prediction of Concrete
Creep Effects Using Age-Adjusted Effective Modulus
Method. Journal of the American Concrete Institute,
Vol. 69, 212-217.
[7] Camara, José; Figueiredo, Carlos (2012).
Concepção de Edifícios com grande área de
implantação. Encontro Nacional Betão Estrutural –
BE2012, Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade
do Porto, Porto.
[8] Housner, George W. (1963). The dynamic
behavior of water tanks. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, Vol. 53, No.2, 381-
387.
[9] EN 1998-4 (2006). Eurocode 8: Design of
structures for earthquake resistance – Part 4: Silos,
tanks and pipelines. European Committee for
Standardization (CEN), Brussels.
[10] Virella, Juan C.; Godoy, Luis A.; Suárez, Luis E.
(2006). Fundamental modes of tank-liquid systems
under horizontal motions. Engineering Structures,
28, 1450-1461.

10