Tank Support Design Report-Buhuka 05032022 - Reviewed

Client: MINISTRY OF LANDS, HOUSING AND URBAN Job Ref. PR.
2022
IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION DEVELOPMENT

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Project Calc. by : O.B
Construction of Buhuka market at Kyangwali sub-county, Checked. by : E.P
Kikuube district
IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL Date: March/ 2022
SUPERVISION TEAM
(TST) - MLHUD
ALBERTINE REGION
SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT (ARSDP)
A comprehensive Report for the proposed Steel tank stand for Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development
to be constructed at BUHUKA market, Kikuube district
Eng. Patrick Etoko

MUIPE, R.E., ERB No. 757
March, 2022
1
Client: MINISTRY OF LANDS, HOUSING AND URBAN Job Ref. PR.2022

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
Contents
CHAPTER ONE: Overhead Tanks ............................................................................................ 4
1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4
1.2. Forces acting on tank supports .................................................................................... 5
1.2.1. The weight of stored water ............................................................................................. 5
CHAPTER TWO: Structural scheme and analysis of overhead water tank support ................. 6
2.1. Structural scheme of overhead water tank support ..................................................... 6
2.2. The platform................................................................................................................ 6
2.3. Stanchions ................................................................................................................... 7
2.4. Bracings ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.5. Base plate .................................................................................................................... 7
2.6. Foundation .................................................................................................................. 8
CHAPTER THREE: External forces acting on the tank frame ................................................. 9
3.1. Wind Action on tank supports .................................................................................... 9
3.1.1. Basic Wind Velocity ..................................................................................................... 10
3.1.2. Mean Wind Velocity ..................................................................................................... 11
3.1.3. Wind Turbulence IV(Z) ............................................................................................... 11
3.1.4. Application of wind load to the frame to the panels ................................................ 15
3.2. Seismic Considerations ............................................................................................. 16
CHAPTER FOUR: Modelling and analysis on Prota Structure .............................................. 18
4.1. General Arrangement ................................................................................................ 18
4.2. Design Data ............................................................................................................... 18
4.3. Modelling on Prota ................................................................................................... 19
4.4. Step 1: Creation of gridlines ..................................................................................... 19
4.5. step 2: Creation of storey levels ................................................................................ 20
4.6. Step 3: Creation of structural members .................................................................... 20
4.7. Step 4: Model the platform ....................................................................................... 21
4.8. Step 5: Creation of load cases and load combinations .............................................. 21
2

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
4.9. Step 6: Load combinations........................................................................................ 22

4.10. Step 7: seismic loading ............................................................................................. 23
4.11. Step 8: Building analysis .......................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 5: Analysis Results ............................................................................................... 24
5.1. Overview of analysis results ..................................................................................... 24
5.2. Support Reactions ..................................................................................................... 24
5.3. Primary beams .......................................................................................................... 24
5.4. Stanchions ................................................................................................................. 25
5.5. Diagonal Bracings ..................................................................................................... 26
5.6. Horizontal bracings ................................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER SIX: Design and Verification of structural member ............................................. 27
6.1. Design of the Primary Beams ................................................................................... 27
6.2. Design of the stanchions/ Columns........................................................................... 33
6.3. Design of Horizontal beams/bracings ....................................................................... 38
6.4. Design of Diagonal bracings ..................................................................................... 41
6.5. Design of the base plate ............................................................................................ 44
6.6. Member calculations for the 350x350mm typical stub columns. ............................. 48
6.7. Member calculations for the 1600x1600x400mm thick typical Column footings. .. 53
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 57
3

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
CHAPTER ONE: Overhead Tanks
1.1. Introduction
Water storage is essential for effective functioning of homes, offices, industries, and any facility
associated with human activity. This is mainly due to the economic advantage and efficiency of having
water readily available at the point of use. Water tanks are used for storage of water for various
applications such as drinking, domestic usage, firefighting, irrigation, industrial uses, etc. Various
materials can be used in making water tanks such as plastics (polyethylene, polypropylene), fiberglass,
concrete, steel and other polymer composites
For municipal water storage, fiberglass or steel tanks are more commonly used due to their capacity to
withstand larger hydrostatic pressure with relatively smaller material thickness when compared with
plastics.
To enable the stored water flow under gravity to the point of use The tank needs to be placed at a height
so that it will possess some potential energy. This necessitates the need for an isolated steel tank
support.
These isolated steel tank can be constructed integrally with the supporting frame thereby making the
entire structure to behave as a unit. In this type of construction, the reservoir is welded or bolted to the
secondary beams of the platform of the tank. This causes interaction between the frame and the tank.
Depending on the nature of the connection, it is possible for bending moment to be transferred from the
walls of the tank to the members of the steel frame. Also, under the effect of wind, the dynamic air
pressure coming to the face of the tank will transfer bending moment and base shear to the stanchions
of the tank, while the bracings will provide the required lateral stability.
4

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
1.2. Forces acting on tank supports
Tank supports are subjected to various forces in their service life such as;
(i) Self-weight
(ii) Weight of tank and water
(iii) Wind load
(iv) Seismic forces
Due to the height of tank supports above the ground and the nature of loading they are subjected to, the
system is also subjected to additional stresses due to imperfection or secondary effects.
1.2.1. The weight of stored water

During the design of overhead tank frame supporting the overhead tanks, the height of the stored water
was used in computing the pressure load of the water. The pressure load of water was distributed all over
the surface where the tank units will be located.
The two proposed cylindrical tank each has base diameter of 2.2 m and a height of 3.2 m (volume of the
tank is 12.16 m3). Unit weight of water is 9.81 kN/m3, the total weight of the water in the tank is 119.29 kN
It is important to note that this weight is acting over an area that is represented by the diameter of the tank.
Therefore, the uniform pressure load on the tank support platform from the weight of water is;
Force
pressure (p) = Area
p = F/ (𝜋𝑟 2 ) = 119.29/3.14x 1.12) = 31.4 kN/m2
Therefore, it can be seen that this is equivalent to multiplying the unit weight of water with the height of
the tank straight away. Therefore, Total pressure load on the tank stand by the water tank and the water.
Pressure load = (Height of the tank x Unit weight of water)
Pressure load from the stored water = (3.2 x9.81) = 31.4 kNm−2
Tank weight = 160 kg = 1.57 kN
1.57x2
Pressure load from the smart steel tanks = (4.8x2.2) = 0.30 kNm−2
Total Pressure load = (31.4 + 0.30) = 31.70 kNm−2, say 32 kN/m2
5

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
CHAPTER TWO: Structural scheme and analysis of overhead water tank

support
2.1. Structural scheme of overhead water tank support
Basically, the structural elements in this overhead steel tank support are;
(i) The platform - consisting of the primary beams, secondary beams, and a thin plate/mesh
(ii) The stanchions
(iii) The bracings
(iv) The base plate and connections
(v) The foundation
These elements are joined by bolting or welding
2.2. The platform
Figure 1:Section layout of the platform of an overhead steel tank support
The platform consists of UC 152x152x30kg/m primary and secondary beams, a 4mm thick MS thin plate
for distributing the water pressure load to the secondary beams. Rails will be provided to offer protection
to people and workmen during inspection and maintenance of the tank.
The primary and secondary beams will be welded and bolted together as per the structural details
6

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
2.3. Stanchions
The length of the 203x203x52 kg/m universal columns (UC) is continuous from the base plate to the
platform. The stanchions are subjected to buckling, axial forces, and shear forces. By the nature of their
configuration, the stanchions are restrained in both major and minor axes at the intervals where they are
braced.
2.4. Bracings
Universal angle members will be used as bracings for overhead support tanks. These members primarily
resist axial forces irrespective of the connection conditions (fixed or pinned).
Under vertical loads, the diagonal bracings are subjected to compressive stresses, while the horizontal
bracings are subjected to tensile stresses. As a result, the diagonal bracings will not be allowed to go all the
way without some restraint at the center in order to reduce the critical buckling length. This will be achieved
by welding, bolting the members at the point where they intersect and also introducing gusset plates.
Figure 2: Typical bracing system of a tank support
2.5. Base plate

The column base consists of a single plate fillet welded to the end of the column and attached to the
foundation columns using holding down bolts. The holding down bolts are cast into the concrete foundation
with provisions to prevent pull out.
7

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
A 350x350mm simple square base plate is adequate. A high strength grout will be cast between the concrete
pedestal and the base plate with a thickness of 20mm.
2.6. Foundation
Figure 3:Typical base plate arrangement
As with other structures, the choice of foundation for steel tank supports can be largely influenced by the
type of soil and the bearing capacity. Simple isolated footings will be adopted in accordance with the safe
bearing capacity of 300 MPa at the depth of 1.5m given in the geotechnical investigation report.
Figure 4:Foundation footing
8

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
CHAPTER THREE: External forces acting on the tank frame
3.1. Wind Action on tank supports

The framing system of overhead steel tank supports can be described as open lattice structures, and the wind
load acting on them can be analyzed using the method described in clause 7.11 of EN 1991-1-4:2005.
According to EN 1991-1-4, the wind force (Fw) acting on a structure or structural component is given by
equation below
Fw = Cs Cd Cf qp (Ze)Aref
Where;
Cs Cd = Structural factor
Cf = force coefficient of the structure
qp = Peak velocity pressure of wind
qp (Ze) = Peak velocity pressure of wind
Aref = Reference area of the structure or structural element
The procedure below shows how the peak velocity pressure of a wind action can be determined from the basic
wind velocity, terrain category, and reference height of the tank stand. The proposed rectangle tank base is of
Width (=2.2m) and Length (= 4.8 m)
The structural scheme is shown in the figure below and is expected to support cylindrical vertical tanks.
Figure 5:Structural scheme of an overhead water tank
9

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
Figure 6:Larger face of the structure experiencing a greater wind pressure
3.1.1. Basic Wind Velocity

The fundamental value of the basic wind velocity Vb,o is the characteristic 10 minute mean wind velocity
irrespective of wind direction and time of the year, at 10 m above ground level in open-country terrain with
low vegetation such as grass, and with isolated obstacles with separations of at least 20 obstacle heights.
The basic wind velocity Vb,o is calculated from equation below.
Vb = Cdir Cseason Vb,o
Where:
Vb =The basic wind velocity defined as a function of wind direction and time of the year at 10 m above the
ground of terrain category II
Vb,o =The fundamental value of the basic wind velocity
Cdir =The directional factor (defined in the National Annex, but recommended value is 1.0)
Cseason =The season factor (defined in the National Annex, but recommended value is 1.0)
For the steel tank we are considering, let basic wind velocity of the site Vb,0 = 32 m/s
10

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
(Uganda metrological wind speed value at 10-15m).

Therefore;
Vb = Cdir Cseason Vb,o = 1.0 × 1.0 × 32 = 32 m/s
3.1.2. Mean Wind Velocity
The mean wind velocity Vm(z) at a height z above the terrain depends on the terrain roughness and orography,
and on the basic wind velocity, Vb, and should be determined using equation below
Vm (Z) = Cr (Z). CO (Z)Vb
Where;
cr(z) is the roughness factor (defined below)
co(z) is the orography factor often taken as 1.0
Z
Cr(Z) = K r In (Z )
0
Where Zo = is the roughness length and K r is the terrain factor

K r = 0.19 (Z0 / ZII )0.07
As shown in Table 4.1 EN1991 − 1 − 4: 2005
ZIII = 0.3m
Zmin = 5m
K r = 0.19 (0.3/0.05)0.07 = 0.215
Z
Cr(Z) = 0.215 In (Z )
0
Where Z is the tank stand heightfor min = 5.0m and 6.0 m this particular tankstand
5.0
Cr(5.0) = 0.215 In (0.05) = 0.99
6.0
Cr(6.0) = 0.215 In (0.05) = 1.03
Therefore
Mean wind speed Vm(Z) = Cr(Z) CO(Z) Vb
Vm(5.0) = 0.99 x 1 x32 = 31.68 m/s
Vm(6.0) = 1.03 x 1 x32 = 32.96 m/s
3.1.3. Wind Turbulence IV(Z)

𝛔 K1
𝐈𝐕(𝐙) = V 𝐕 = Z Where K1 = 1.0
m C0(Z) x In ( )
Z0
11

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
1
𝐈𝐕(𝟓.𝟎) = 5.0 = 0.22
1x In ( )
0.05
1
𝐈𝐕(𝟔.𝟎) = 6.0 = 0.21
1x In ( )
0.05
2
Therefore peak velocity qp(Z) = [1 + 7IV(Z) ] x 0.5ρVm
ρ is the air density taken as 1.25 kg/m2
qp(5.0) = [1 + 7x0.22] x 0.5x1.25 x 31.682 x10−3 = 1.59 kN/m2
qp(6.0) = [1 + 7x0.21] x 0.5x1.25 x 32.962 x10−3 = 1.68 kN/m2
The application of the peak velocity pressure on the frame of the tank is shown in figure below. The effect of
wind on the tanks wasn’t considered under the assumption that it will not transmit lateral forces to the tank
since they will be fully restrained on the platform and always having water.
Figure 7: Application of peak velocity pressure on the tank support
For lattice structures, the structural factor Cs Cd is usually less than 1.o , but for this design we will
conservatively take it as 1.o.
The force coefficient of lattice structures is given by Cf = Cf,0 ψλ
12

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
Where;
Cf is the force coefficient of lattice structures and scaffoldings without end-effects. It is given by the solidity
ratio (ϕ) and Reynold’s number
A
ψλ is the end-effect factor as a function of the slenderness of the structure The solidity ratio ϕ =
AC
Where;
A = is the sum of the projected area of the members and gusset plates of the face projected normal to the face
Ac = is the area enclosed by the boundaries of the face projected normal to the face
Figure 8:Definition of solidity ratio (Figure 7.37, EN 1991-1-4:2005)
Figure 9:Definition of a panel
Length of panel = 1418 + (75X2) = 1568 = 1.568 m

Width of panel = 2603 + 2400 = 5003 = 5.003 m
Area of panel Ac = 1.568 m x 5.003 m = 7.844 m2
13

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
Area of projected members

Angular diagonals
Length (take) = √1.4182 + 1.12 = 1.80m
Width = 75 mm = 0.075 m
Projected area of the two diagonals = A1 = 4 x (1.8 x 0.075) = 0.54 m2
Columns
Length (take) = 1.568 m Width = 203 mm = 0.203m
Projected area of the two columns = A2 = 3 x (1.568 x 0.203) = 0.955 m2
Horizontal angle bracings
Length (take) = 2.2 m
Width = 75 mm = 0.075 mm
Projected area of the two horizontal angles = A3 = 4 x (2.2 x 0.075) = 0.66 m2
Gusset plates
Dimensions (take 150 mm x 150 mm)
Projected area of the five gusset plates = A4 = 6 x (0.15 x 0.15) = 0.135 m2
A = A1 + A2 + A3 + A4 = 0.54+ 0.955 + 0.66 + 0.135 = 2.29 m2

2.29
The solidity ratio ϕ = = 0.292
7.844
Reading from Figure 7.34, EN 1991-1-4:2005, Cf,0 = 2.0

Since the height of the structure l < 15 m, the slenderness is given by
l
λ = min (2, , 70)
b
6
λ = min (2, , 70)
2.2
λ=2
λ = 2, ϕ = 0.292 and reading the value of the end effect factor from Figure 7.34,
EN 1991-1- 4:2005
ψλ = 0.94
The force coefficient of the lattice structures is therefore given by;
The force coefficient of lattice structures is given by Cf = Cf,0 ψλ
Cf = Cf,0 ψλ = 2.0 x 0.94 = 1.88
Aref = A = 2.292 m2 (clause 7.11(E3)
14

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
Fw = Cs Cd Cf qp (Ze)Aref
For panel 1,2 and 3
Fw1 = 1.0 x 1.88 x 1.59 kN/m2 x 2.292 m2 = 6.85 kN
For panel 4
Rectangular portion Fw4, R = (1.0 x 1.88 x 0.168 kN/m2 x 2.292 m2) = 0.72 kN
Triangular portion Fw4, T = (1.0 x 1.88 x 0.048 kN/m2 x 2.292 m2) = 0.21 kN
For panel 5
Rectangular portion Fw4,R = (1.0 x 1.88 x 0.168 kN/m2 x 2.292 m2) = 0.72 kN
Triangular portion Fw4, T = (1.0 x 1.88 x 0.090 kN/m2 x 2.292 m2) = 0.494 Kn
3.1.4. Application of wind load to the frame to the panels
Figure 10:Application of wind load to the frame to the panels
15

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
3.2. Seismic Considerations
The structural system has been checked assuming good practice as laid out in BS EN 1998 Euro code
8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance (together with the more conservative Uganda
Standard 319:2003 Seismic Code of Practice for Structural Designs) in order to achieve the following
general principles;
 Design to resist a maximum credible earthquake having Peak Ground Acceleration of 0.7 m/s2,
which has a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years and a return period of 475 years
 Clearly defined load paths to transfer the internal forces generated in an earthquake to the
supporting soils
 The structure and their seismic load resistance elements are designed and detailed to perform
in a ductile manner
 Energy dissipation i.e. preventing concentration of the demand for ductility in a few members
 Symmetry of seismic load resisting elements around the center of the mass of the structure
 Avoidance of significant changes in stiffness
 Interconnection of the cantilever beam and its fixed end support (column)
 Interconnection of foundations
SEISMIC
LOAD
Seismic load calculation done as per UBC 1997
Zone = 1
The design base shear V is calculated using equation 30.4 of UBC 97
V= (Cv I / R T ) * w
Cv = Seismic Coeff from Table 16-R
Seismic Zone Factor z = 0.075 (Table 16-I ) Volume 2-2-30
(Stiff Soil) Soil Profile Type = SD (Table 16-J) Volume 2-2-30
Importance factor I = 1 (Table 16-K) Volume 2-2-30
Cv = 0.18 (Table 16-R) Volume 2-2-35
16

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
Over Strength factor R = 4.4 (Table 16-N) Volume 2-2-32
Building Period T = Ct h0.75 Eq.30-8 UBC 97 Volume 2-2-14
Ct = 0.0853 for steel moment frame Volume 2-2-14
Height h = 7.2 m
Total Weight of Structure W = 244133.58 kg
Building Period T = 0.38 sec
BASE SHEAR VB1 = (0.18x1/4.4x0.38)x W ---------------(1)
BASE SHEAR VB1 = 0.11 * W
The total design base shear V, need not exceed that specified in eq 30-5 of UBC 97
V= 2.5 Ca I W / R
Seismic coefficient Ca = 0.12 (Table 16-Q) Volume 2-2-34
BASE SHEAR VB2 = (2.5x0.12x1/4.4)x W ------------------(2)
BASE SHEAR VB2 = 0.07 * W
The total design base shear V, Should not be less than specified in eq 30-6 of UBC 97
BASE SHEAR VB3 = (0.11x0.12x1)x W --------------(3)
BASE SHEAR VB3 = 0.11 Ca I W
0.02 * W
BASE SHEAR VB1 = 26282.32kN
The total design base shear V, need not

exceed that specified in eq 30-5 of UBC
BASE SHEAR VB2 = 16645.47 kN
97
BASE SHEAR VB3 = 4882.67 kN
BASE SHEAR VB = 16645.47 kN
Therefore, design Base shear VB =16645.47 kN since it’s less than VB1 and also greater than VB3 shown in
Equations (1) and (3) respectively.
17

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
CHAPTER FOUR: Modelling and analysis on Prota Structure
4.1. General Arrangement
Figure 11:General Arrangement of Overhead water tank support
4.2. Design Data
Height of frame above the ground = 6.0 m Supporting 2 tanks at the uppermost level
Height of tank = 3.2 m
Diameter of the tank -2.2m
Column section – UC 152 x 152 x 30 kg/m
Primary beam - UC 152 x 152 x 30 kg/m
Secondary beam – UC 152 x 152 x 30kg/m
Diagonal bracings – UA 75 x 75 x 6 mm
Horizontal bracing - UA 750 x 75 x 6mm
Pressure load from stored water = 3.2 x 9.81 = 32 kN/m2
18

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
4.3. Modelling on Prota
Launching prota structure software and the graphical user interface with the default standard code set as
Eurocode
Figure 12:Launching a project in PROTA structures
4.4. Step 1: Creation of gridlines
The axes are crated and the node intersections to represent the six column points of the tank. The
columns are spaced at 2.2m center to center.
Figure 13: Creation of gridlines in prota structures
19

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
4.5. step 2: Creation of storey levels
The storeys were crated taking into consideration the levels of horizontal bracings and beams supporting the
frames
Figure 14:Storey levels in PROTA
4.6. Step 3: Creation of structural members

The columns were inserted at the first level and total height projected to 6m, beams and bracings
inserted at different levels to laterally restrain the columns in in position. The following members were
used in the model.
Column section – UC 152 x 152 x 30kg/m
Diagonal bracings – UA 75 x 75 x 6mm
Horizontal bracing - UA 750 x 75 x 6mm
Figure 15:Creation of structural members
20

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
4.7. Step 4: Model the platform
The platform model to receive the water tanks was then modeled consisting of Primary beams
- UC 152 x 152 x 30 and Secondary beams – UC 152 x 152 x 30
Figure 16:Platform details
4.8. Step 5: Creation of load cases and load combinations
(i) Assigning of water pressure load and tank self-weight of 32 kN/m2 to the plate as a separate load case
Figure 17: Application of tank loads onto the platform
21

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
(ii) Applying of wind pressure as per the site location and wind pressure of 32.kPa.
Figure 18: Wind loads
4.9. Step 6: Load combinations

According to clause 6.4.3.1 of BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, the design values of the effects of actions (E d)
should be determined by combining the values of actions that are considered to be acting on a structure as
shown below
Figure 19: Load combinations
22

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
4.10. Step 7: seismic loading
4.11. Step 8: Building analysis
After a full model check, the analysis of the structural system due to the subjected loading was conducted as
shown below.
Figure 20:Analysis of the entire structure
23

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
CHAPTER 5: Analysis Results
5.1. Overview of analysis results

The analysis was carried out on PROTA structure 2021 software, and the worst effects were observed in
Load Case 2 with the effects of imperfection.
Figure 21:Global behaviour of the frame under loading
5.2. Support Reactions

The maximum vertical support reaction was observed to be 547.1 kN, while the maximum base shear was
observed to be 11.5kN. Maximum design forces from the support reactions were then used in the design of
the base plates.
5.3. Primary beams
As expected, the primary beams behaved like cantilevers, and the bending moment diagram was linear
which suggested that the load of the tank was transferred by the secondary beams as concentrated loads.
The summary of the major internal stresses in the primary beams are shown in the able below and they
were obtained from Load Case 2.
Load MEd VEd NEd
Combination (kNm) (KN) (Compression)
(KN)
1 38.8 38.1 13.9
2 13.4 15.5 7.2
3 12.8 13.0 5.4
24

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
The global bending moment behaviour of the tank stand under the worst load case is shown in figure
below
Figure 22:Load actions on the Platform beams
5.4. Stanchions
The worst effects in the columns were observed in Load Case 2. The maximum bending moment occurred at the
uppermost level for all the load cases.
Figure 23:Load actions on the columns
Summary of Analysis results for columns
25

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
Load My MZ VEd NEd (Compression) Nt (Tension)

Combination (kNm) (kNm) (KN) (KN) (KN)
1 1.6 1.45 20.7 547.1 0
5.5. Diagonal Bracings
The results of the diagonals under the various load cases are shown in the table below.
The forces observed in the members are mainly axial forces.
Summary of Analysis results for diagonal bracings

Load My MZ VEd NEd Nt
Combination (kNm) (kNm) (KN) (Compression) (Tension)
(KN) (KN)
1 0 0 0.1 92.0 0
2 0 0 0.1 91.8 0
3 0 0 0 80.5 0
5.6. Horizontal bracings
The results of the diagonals under the various load cases are shown in the table below.
The forces observed in the members are mainly axial forces.
Summary of Analysis results for horizontal bracings/Beams

(KN) (KN)
1 4.5 0 4.2 78.1 0
2 10.6 0 9.8 14.3 0
3 1.2 0 2.9 10.2 0
26

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
CHAPTER SIX: Design and Verification of structural member
6.1. Design of the Primary Beams
Figure 24:Model of the primary Beams
Summary of Analysis results
Load MEd VEd NEd

Combination (kNm) (KN) (Compression)
(KN)
1 38.8 38.1 13.9
2 13.4 15.5 7.2
3 12.8 13.0 5.4
27

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
MEMBER CALCULATIONS REFERENCES

PRIMARY
Properties of the column section (UC 152x152x30 kg/m)
BEAMS
Depth of cross-section h = 157.6 mm
Width of cross-section b = 152.9 mm
Depth between fillets d = 123.6 mm
Web thickness tw = 6.5 mm

Flange thickness tf = 9.4 mm
Radius of root fillet r = 7.6 mm
Cross-sectional area A = 38.3 cm2
Second moment of area (y-y) Iy = 1750 cm4
Second moment of area (z-z) Iz = 560 cm4
Elastic section modulus (y-y) Wel,y = 22 cm3

Plastic section modulus (y-y) Wpl,y = 248 cm3
Materials properties
Modulus of elasticity E = 210000 N/mm2
Steel grade S275 and thickness of the flange ≤ 16mm
Yield strength fy = 235 N/mm2
235
ε = √275 = 0.92
Section classification.
Cw
tw
= 19.0 ≤ 33ε = 33x0.92 = 30.36
Cw Clause, 5.5
since (19.0) < 33ε (30.36), the Web is of class 1
t
Cf
= 6.98 ≤ 9ε = 9x0.92 = 8.28
tf
Cw
since (6.98) < 9ε (8.28), the flange is of class 1. Hence the entire
t
section is class 1
28

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
Resistance to share (Check) EC3

For share check, VEd < VC , Rd (Condition) Clause,
VEd = 38.1kN 6.2.6 (1).
AV (fy /√3)
VC , Rd = VPL , Rd = ᵞ M0
AV = A − 2bt f + (t w + 2r)t f > ⴄhw t w

Where A = 38.3 cm2
AV = 38.3 x100 − (2x 152.9 x 9.4) + [6.5 + (2x7.6)]9.4
AV = = 3830 – 2874.52 + 203.98
AV = 1159.46 mm2
ⴄhw t w
hw = h − 2t f
hw = 157.6 − (2x9.4)
hw = 138.8 mm and ⴄ = 1.0
ⴄhw t w = (138.8x6.5) =902.2 mm2
AV (= 1159.46 mm2 ) > ⴄhw t w (= 902.2 mm2 )
AV (fy /√3)
1159.46x 275x10−3
VC , Rd = 1x√3
VC , Rd = 184.09 kN
Since VEd (= 38.1 kN) < VC , Rd(= 184.09 kN) OK
Since at midspan , The maximum share VEd (0kN) < 0.5VC , Rd
0 < 0.5x184.09
VEd (0) < VC , Rd (92.05) hence Bending moment is not affected at
that point
Shear Buckling Resistance.

hw ε
> 72 EC3
tw ⴄ
138.8 72x0.92 Clause,
6.5
> 1.0
6.2.6(1)
29

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
hw ε
Since (= 21.35) ≯ 72 ⴄ (66.24),
tw
then Share buckling check is not necessary

Moment resistance.
M
EC3
The design requirement M Ed ≤ 1.0 (for class 1 and 2 sections
C,Rd Clause, 6.2.5
WPly fy
MC,Rd = MPl,Rd = γMo
WPly fy 248 x275 x10−3
= = 68.2 kNm
γMo 1.0
MyEd 38.8
= = (0.57) < 1.0 → OK
MC,Rd 68.2
EC3
Flange Induced buckling.
Clause, 8
hf E A
tf
≤ K. f √Aw
fy fc
hf 123.6
tf
= 9.4 = 13.15
E Aw 0.3x210x103 138.8x6.5
K √( ) = x√( )
fyf Afc 275 123.6x9.4
= 210.88
hf E A
Since tf
(= 13.15) ≤ K. f √Aw (= 210.88), then The Beam is safe from
fy fc
Induced buckling within the Web.

1. Deflection Check.
EC3
Clause, 7
Figure 25:Deflection of the platform
30

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
From the analysis results, the total Actual deflection (δ) = 0

span
Allowable deflection = 360
1200
= 360
= 3.33 mm
Since the actual deflection δ(= 0) is less than the Allowable deflection
(= 3.33 mm) the beam would not fail under deflection
Web buckling (Resistance of the Web to transverse forces)

FRd > VEd (Condition)
fyw Leff tw
FRd = ᵞM1
SS +c EC3
KF = 2 + 6 [ hw
] ≤6
101.1+0
Clause, 6
KF = 2 + 6 [ 138.8
] ≤6
K F = 6.37 ≤ 6
KF = 6
t3w
Fcr = 0.9K F E
hw
(6.5)3
Fcr = 0.9x 6 x210x103 x 138.8
Fcr = 2243694.164N
fyf bf
M1 = [f ]
yw tw
275x152.9
=[ 275x 6.5
]
M1 = 23.52 kN. m
Assuming ƛ > 0.5
h 2
M2 = 0.02 [ tw]
f
138.8 2
M2 = 0.02 [ 9.4
]
M2 = 4.36 kN. m
KF Et2w
le = ≤ SS + C
2fyw hw
S + C = 101.1 + 0 = 101.1
31

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
S + C = 101.1
6.0x210x103 x6.52
le = 2x275x138.8
le = 697.34 ≤ 101.1mm
Therefore: le = 101.1 mm
M1 l 2
ly = le + t f √ 2
+ ⌈ te⌉ + M2
f
23.52 101.1 2
ly = 101.1 + 9.4√ 2
+ ⌈ 9.4
⌉ + 4.36
Therefore: ly = 209.01
ly tw fyw
ƛf = √ Fcr
209.01x6.5x275
ƛf = √ 2243694.164
= 0.41
ƛf = 0.41 < 0.5 Therefore Assumed value is not ok therefore taking ƛf =

0.5
0.5
XF = ≤ 1.0
ƛf
0.5
XF = ≤ 1.0
0.5
X F = 1.0 OK
Leff = X F ly
Leff = 1.0x209.01
Therefore, Leff = 209.01 mm
fyw Leff tw
FRd = ᵞM1
275x 209.01 x 6.5 x10−3

= 1
FRd = 373.61 kN
Since FRd (= 373.61 kN) > VEd (38.1 kN) hence web will not buckle
So the section is suitable to be used
32

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
6.2. Design of the stanchions/ Columns
Figure 26:Orientation oft the columns
Summary of Analysis results

(KN) (KN)
1 1.6 1.45 20.7 547.1 0
33

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022

STANCHIONS
/ COLUMNS Properties of the column section (UC 203x203x52 kg/m)


𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬
Steel grade S275 and thickness of the flange ≤ 16mm
235
ε = √275 = 0.92
𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.
Cw
tw
= 20.4 ≤ 33ε = 33x0.92 = 30.36
EC3
Cw
since (20.4) < 33ε (30.36), the Web is of class 1 Clause, 5.5
t
Cf
tf
= 7.04 ≤ 9ε = 9x0.92 = 8.28
Cw
since (7.04) < 9ε (8.28), the flange is of class 1. Hence the entire
t
section is class 1
34

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
Resistance to share (Check) EC3

For share check, VEd < VC , Rd (𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧) Clause, 6.2.6.
VEd = 20.7 KN
AV (fy /√3)
AV = A − 2bt f + (t w + 2r)t f > ⴄhw t w

Where A = 66.3 cm2
AV = 66.3x100 − (2x 204.3x 12.5) + [7.9 + (2x10.2)]12.5
AV = = 6630 – 5107.5 + 353.75
AV = 1876.25 mm2
ⴄ𝐡𝐰 𝐭 𝐰
hw = h − 2t f
hw = 206.2 − (2x12.5)
hw = 181.2 mm and ⴄ = 1.0
ⴄhw t w = (181.2 x7.9) =1431.48 mm2
AV (= 1876.25 mm2 ) > ⴄhw t w (= 1431.48 mm2 )

AV (fy /√3)
1876.25x 275x10−3
VC , Rd = 1x√3
𝐕𝐂 , 𝐑𝐝 = 𝟐𝟗𝟕. 𝟖𝟗 𝐊𝐍
Since VEd (= 20.7 KN) < VC , Rd(= 297.89 kN) 𝐎𝐊
EC3
Share Buckling Resistance. Clause, 6.3
hw ε
tw
> 72 ⴄ
181.2 72x0.92
>
7.9 1.0
hw ε
Since (= 22.94) ≯ 72 ⴄ (66.24),
tw
then Shear buckling check is not necessary
35

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
EC3
Axial buckling resistance. Clause, 6.3
E
λ1 = π√f = 93.9ε = 93.9x 0.92 = 86.39
y
Lcr = 1.0 x L = (1.0 x 6000) = 6000 mm

Afy Lcr 1
ƛ = √N = iz
xλ
cr 1
6000 1
ƛ= 51.8
x 86.39 = 1.34
Imperfection factor α = 0.49 ( buckling curve a for angles) (table

6.2, EC3)
ϕ = 0.5 [1 + α (ƛ − 0.2) + ƛ2 ]
ϕ = 0.5 [1 + 0.49(1.34 − 0.2) + 1.342 ]
ϕ = 1.68
1
χ= ≤1
ϕ+ √ϕ2 −ƛ2
1
χ= ≤1
1.68+ √1.682 −1.34 2
χ = 0.37 < 1
χAfy 0.37 x 6630 x 275 x 10−3
Nb,Rd = =
γM1 1.0
EC3
Nb,Rd = 674.6 kN
Clause, 6.3
Web buckling (Resistance of the Web to transverse forces)
0.5
π2 EIZ IW L2cr GIt
Mcr = [I + ]
L2cr Z π2 EIZ
0.5
π2 x210x103 x1780x104 167x109 60002 x 81000x318x103
= 60002
[1780x104 + π2 x210x103 x1780x104 ] =
118.99x106 Nmm
Plastic section modulus (y-y) Wy =Wpl,y = 567 cm3
W f 567x10 x275 3
λ̅LT = √ My y = √ 118.99x106 = 1.14
cr
h 206.2
From the above b
= 204.3 = 1.01 < 2 .
Using buckling curve b→ αLT = 0.34

2
ϕLT = 0.5 [1 + αLT (λ̅LT − λ̅LT,0 ) + βλ̅LT ]
36

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
ϕLT = 0.5 [1 + 0.34(1.14 − 0.4) + 0.75x1.142 ] = 1.11

Therefore, ϕLT = 0.88
1 1 1
X LT = ≤ λ̅ = 1.14 = 0.88
2 LT
ϕLT + √ϕLT 2 −βλ
̅LT
1 1 1
X LT = 0.62 ≤ ̅ = = 0.88
1.11+ √1.112 −0.75x1.14 2 λLT 1.14
X LT = 0.62
XLT Wy fy 0.62 x567x103x275 x10−6
Mb,Rd = = = 96.7 kNm
γM1 1.0
BENDING RESISTANCE, Mz,Rd
Wpl,z fy 174x103 x275 x10−6

Mz,Rd = γM1
= 1.0
= 47.85 kNm
Interaction equation
NEd My,Ed M
Nb,z,Rd
+M + 1.5 Mz,Ed ≤ 1
b,Rd z,Rd
NEd My,Ed Mz,Ed

+ + 1.5 ≤1
Nb,z,Rd Mb,Rd Mz,Rd
547.1 1.6 1.45
+ + 1.5x = 0.81 + 0.02 + 0.05 = 0.88 ≤ 1 → ok
674.6 96.7 47.85
37

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
6.3. Design of Horizontal beams/bracings
MEMBER CALCULATIONS REFERENC

ES

Combinati (kNm) (kNm) (KN) (Compressio (Tension
on n) )
(KN) (KN)
1 4.5 0 4.2 78.1 0
2 10.6 0 9.8 14.3 0
3 1.2 0 2.9 10.2 0
Length of the longest horizontal bracing = 2400 mm
We will design the angles as axially loaded members ignoring the bending
and shear forces developed due to fixity.
Steel grade S275 and thickness ≤ 16mm
235
ε = √275 = 0.92
𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 ( 𝐭𝐫𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐄𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝟕𝟓𝐱𝟕𝟓𝐱𝟔𝐦𝐦)
t = 6mm
A = 873mm2
h = 75 mm
b = 75 mm
Radius of gyration iz = 22.7 mm
NEd = 78.1 kN
38

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. EC3

Clause, 5.5
h
t
=≤ 15ε
h 75
t
(= 6 = 12.5) =≤ 15ε(= 15x0.92) = 13.8
h+b
And =≤ 11.5ε
2t
EC3
h+b Clause,
= (12.5) =≤ 11.5ε(= 10.58)
2t 6.2.6.
Therefore , the section is of class 4
𝐓𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
NEd
Nt,Rd
≤ 1.0
Afy 0.9Anet fu
Where Nt,Rd is the smaller of Npl,Rd = γ and Nu,Rd = γM2
M0
873 x 275 x 10−3

Npl,Rd = 1.0
= 240.08 kN
0.9Anet fu
Nu,Rd = γM2
Anet = A = 873 mm2 since the connection is to be welded
0.9 x873 x 410 x 10−3

Nu,Rd = = 257.71 kN
1.25
Therefore Npl,Rd = 240.08 kN

EC3
NEd 78.1 Clause, 6.3
Nt,Rd
= 240.08
= 0.33 ≤ 1.0
Therefore, the Tensional design resistance is adequate.
𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

NEd
≤ 1.0
Nc,Rd
Afy 873x 275 x10−3

Nc,Rd = γ = 1.0
= 240.08 kN
M0
NEd 78.1.0
EC3
Nc,Rd
= 240.08
= 0.33 ≤ 1.0 Clause, 6.3
39

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
Therefore, the compressive design resistance is adequate.
𝐅𝐥𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐮𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
E
λ1 = π√ = 93.9ε = 93.9x 0.92 = 86.39
f y
Lcr = 1.0 x L = (1.0 x 2400) = 2400 mm
Af Lcr 1
ƛ = √N y = iz
xλ
cr 1
2400 1
ƛ= 22.7
x 86.39 = 1.22
Imperfection factor α = 0.34 ( buckling curve a for angles) (table 6.2,
EC3)
ϕ = 0.5 [1 + α (ƛ − 0.2) + ƛ2 ]
ϕ = 0.5 [1 + 0.34(1.22 − 0.2) + 1.222 ]
ϕ = 1.42
1
χ= ≤1
ϕ+ √ϕ2 −ƛ2
1
χ= ≤1
1.42+ √1.422 −1.222
χ = 0.47 < 1
χAfy 0.47 x 873 x 275 x 10−3

Nb,Rd = γM1
= 1.0
Nb,Rd = 112.84 kN
NEd
Nb,Rd
≤ 1.0
78.1
= = 0.69 < 1
112.84
𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝
𝐋 𝟕𝟓𝐱𝟕𝟓𝐱𝟔𝐦𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲
40

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
6.4. Design of Diagonal bracings

Combinati (kNm) (kNm) (KN) (Compressio (Tension
on n) )
(KN) (KN)
1 0 0 0.1 92.0 0
2 0 0 0.1 91.8 0
3 0 0 0 80.5 0
Length of the longest diagonal bracing = 1920 mm
We will design the angles as axially loaded members ignoring the
bending and shear forces developed due to fixity.
Steel grade S275 and thickness ≤ 16mm
235
ε = √275 = 0.92
𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 ( 𝐭𝐫𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐄𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝟕𝟓𝐱𝟕𝟓𝐱𝟔𝐦𝐦)
t = 6mm
A = 873mm2
h = 75 mm
b = 75 mm
Radius of gyration iz = 22.7 mm
41

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. EC3

Clause, 5.5
h
t
=≤ 15ε
h 75
t
(= 6 = 12.5) =≤ 15ε(= 15x0.92) = 13.8
h+b
And =≤ 11.5ε
2t
h+b
2t
= (12.5) =≤ 11.5ε(= 10.58)
Therefore , the section is of class 4

EC3
𝐓𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 Clause, 6.2.6.
NEd
Nt,Rd
≤ 1.0
Afy 0.9Anet fu
Where Nt,Rd is the smaller of Npl,Rd = γ and Nu,Rd = γM2
M0
873 x 275 x 10−3

Npl,Rd = 1.0
= 240.08 kN
0.9Anet fu
Nu,Rd = γM2
Anet = A = 873 mm2 since the connection is to be welded
0.9 x873 x 410 x 10−3

Nu,Rd = = 257.71 kN
1.25
Therefore Npl,Rd = 240.08 kN
NEd 92.0
Nt,Rd
= 240.08
= 0.38 ≤ 1.0
Therefore, the Tensional design resistance is adequate. EC3

Clause, 6.3
𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
NEd
≤ 1.0
Nc,Rd
Afy 873x 275 x10−3
Nc,Rd = γ = 1.0
= 240.08 kN
M0
NEd 92.0
Nc,Rd
= 240.08
= 0.38 ≤ 1.0
42

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
Therefore, the compressive design resistance is adequate. EC3

Clause, 6.3
𝐅𝐥𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐮𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
E
λ1 = π√ = 93.9ε = 93.9x 0.92 = 86.39
f y
Lcr = 1.0 x L = (1.0 x 1920) = 1920 mm
Af Lcr 1
ƛ = √N y = iz
xλ
cr 1
1920 1
ƛ= 22.7
x 86.39 = 0.98
Imperfection factor α = 0.34 ( buckling curve a for angles) (table
6.2, EC3)
ϕ = 0.5 [1 + α (ƛ − 0.2) + ƛ2 ]
ϕ = 0.5 [1 + 0.34(0.98 − 0.2) + 0.982 ]
ϕ = 1.11
1
χ= ≤1
ϕ+ √ϕ2 −ƛ2
1
χ= ≤1
1.11+ √1.112 −0.982
χ = 0.61 < 1
χAfy 0.61 x 873 x 275 x 10−3

Nb,Rd = γM1
= 1.0
Nb,Rd = 145.38 kN
NEd
Nb,Rd
≤ 1.0
92
= = 0.63 < 1
145.38
𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝
𝐋 𝟕𝟓𝐱𝟕𝟓𝐱𝟔𝐦𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲
43

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
6.5. Design of the base plate
MEMBER CALCULATIONS REFERE

NCES
Maximum design forces from the support reactions
NEd = 547.1 kN
VEd = 11.6 kN
Grade of concrete for base plate = 25 MPa
Figure 27:Base plate layout
Properties of the column section
44

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
Checking if the base plate is suitable to resist an axial design load, NEd , of
547.1 kN.
Assuming that the foundations are of concrete of compressive cylinder
strength, fck, of 25 N mm−2 and that the baseplate is made of S275 steel.
Since the plate is between 16–40 mm thick and is made of S275 steel,
fy = 265 Nmm−2
Additional bearing width, x, is
1
fy 2
X = t [3f γ ]
j Mo
EC3
1
fy 2
X = t[ ]
3fj γMo
1
275 2
X= 20 [ ] =57.45< 0.5(350-206.2) =71.9mm
3x11.11x1.0
2
fj = βj k j fcd = x1.0x1.00x 25/1.5
3
45

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
fj = 11.11 Nmm−2
Aeff = (2x + h)(2x + b) − (b − t w )(h − 2t f − 2x)
Aeff =
(2x57.45 + 206.2)(2x57.45 + 204.3) − (204.3 − 7.9)(206.2 − 2x12.5
− 2x57.45)
Aeff = 89473.8 mm2
Figure 28:Effective area of a base plate
AXIAL LOAD CAPACITY
Axial load capacity of the base plate =Aeff . fj EC3
=89473.8x 11.11x10-3
= 994.05 kN > NEd = 547.1 kN
46

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
BENDING IN BASEPLATE
EC3
Bending moment per unit length in base plate MEd is
x2 N 57.452 547
MEd = ( 2 ) . (A Ed )=( 2
) . (89473.8) = 10.09 kN mm/mm
eff
Moment of resistance per unit length in base plate MRd is
t2 f y 252 x275 mm
MRd = = = 28.65 kN > MEd = 10.09 kN mm/mm OK
6γMo 6x1.0 mm
Base plate thickness (t)=20mm
Length and width = 350mm
Welds = 6mm fillet weld
Bolts: Provide 6No of M16 8.8 holding down bolts
47

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
6.6. Member calculations for the 350x350mm typical stub columns.

From analysis in prota structures, the Critical Column with the highest load concentration is as shown below
Design of C1 (highest load impact)
742.9 kN
Pinned 259.8kNm
L=1.2m
350mm
350mm
14.9 kNm Pinned
742.9 kN
MEMBER CALCULATIONS REFERENCE

350mm x Assumptions made EUROCODE
350mm Effective creep coefficient = 0.7 2
Biaxial ∆Cdev = 5mm
column Diameter of longitudinal steel = 25 mm
Diameter of shear reinforcements = 8 mm
Compressive strength of concrete = 25N/mm2
Yield strength of steel reinforcements = 500N/mm2
lo
SLENDERNESS RATIO (‫= )ג‬ Clause.
i
5.8.3.2, EC 2
𝐄𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡 (𝐥𝐨)
For pinned support condition, lo = 1.0 x L
Implying that
lo = 1.0 x 1200
= 1200mm
48

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
bh3
𝐌𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐚 =
12
350x3503
=
12
= 1250520833 mm4
𝐀𝐫𝐞𝐚 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐦𝐧 (𝐀) = bxh

= 350x350
= 122500 mm2
𝐑𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐲𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 (𝐢)

I
i = √(A)
1250520833 0.5
=( 122500
) = 101.04 mm
lo
𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞, 𝐒𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐑𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨 (‫= )ג‬ i
lo 1200
i
= 101.04
= 11.88
Critical Slenderness Ratio (λlim)
20ABC
Critical slenderness ratio =
√n
A = 0.7, B = 1.1 and C = 1.7 − rm Clause
Mo1 14.9
rm = − Mo2 = − 259.8 = −0.06 5.8.3.1, EC.2
therefore C = 1.7 + 0.06 = 1.76
Ned
n=
Ac x fcd
742.9x103
n = 350x350xfcd
But fcd = 0.567xfck
= 0.567x25 = 14.18 N/mm2
742.9x103
n = 350x350x14.18 = 0.43
20ABC 20x0.7x1.1x1.76
= = 41.33
√n √0.43
𝐒𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐬
= 𝟒𝟏. 𝟑𝟑 𝐢𝐬 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐦𝐧
= 𝟏𝟏. 𝟖𝟖. 𝐎𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝
49

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
𝐋𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

lo
℮𝐢 = (θi x 2 )
1 Clause
But θi = 5.8.3.1, EC 2
200
lo 1 1200
℮𝐢 = (θi x 2 ) = 200 x 2
= 3 mm
h
Minimum eccentricity, ℮𝐨 = ≥ 20mm
30
h 350
= = 11.67 < 20mm hence ℮𝐨 = 𝟐𝟎𝐦𝐦
30 30
Minimum Design Moment = ℮𝐨 𝐱 𝐍𝐞𝐝

= 20x10−3 x742.9
= 14.86 kNm.
Clause
6.1(4), EC 2
First order end moment Mo2 = M + ℮𝐢. 𝐍𝐞𝐝
= 259.8 + (3x10−3 x 742.9)
= 262.03 kNm
Therefore the design moment = 𝟐𝟔𝟐. 𝟎𝟑 𝐤𝐍𝐦
Area of Longitudinal Steel

𝐢). 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 (Cnom) = Cmin +∆Cdev
minimum cover for durability Cmin, dur = 20m ≥ Cmin, b

Cmin, b = 20 − 8 = 12mm hence Cmin = 20mm
∴ 𝐂𝐧𝐨𝐦 = 𝟐𝟎 + 𝟓 = 𝟐𝟓𝐦𝐦
Effective Depth calculation (d2)

∅ 25
𝐝𝟐 = + 𝐂𝐧𝐨𝐦 = + 25 = 37.5mm
𝟐 2
Choice of the Curve

𝐝𝟐 37.5 d2
𝐡
= 350
= 0.11, hence using a curve of h
= 0.15
50

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
𝑁𝐸𝑑 742.9x103
= = 0.24
bhfck 350x350x25
𝑀𝐸𝑑 262.03 x106

= = 0.25
bh2 fck 350x3502 x25
From the graph,
fyk 500As
As. bhfck = 350x350x25
0.60x350x350x25
As = = 3675 mm2
500
𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐥 𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐬, 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝟖𝐇𝟐𝟓, 𝐀𝐫𝐞𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝟑𝟗𝟑𝟎 𝐦𝐦𝟐
Check for reinforcement percentages

0.002Ac < As < 0.04Ac
0.002Ac = 0.002 x 350 x350 = 245mm2

As = 3930 mm2
Clause. 9.5.2,
EC 2
0.04Ac = 0.04 x 350x350 = 4900mm2
Since 0.002Ac = 245mm2 <As=3930mm2< 0.04Ac = 4900mm2, the area

of reinforcement provided is sufficient
Shear Reinforcements (Links)

Diameter = 8mm
Spacing of links
Taking a spacing of 200 mm
Clause. 9.5.3,
EC 2
51

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
Check: Lesser of the following

i) 20x∅ = 20x25 = 500 mm
ii) least dimension of the column cross − section = 350mm
iii) 400mm
Hence the spacing of 200 mm is okay
Reinforcement details.
350 mm 8 H25
mm
350 mm
Figure 29: Column reinforcement details.
Figure 30:Section through the ground beam
52

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
6.7. Member calculations for the 1600x1600x400mm thick typical Column footings.
From the conducted geotechnical investigations and laboratory testing of the soil samples obtained from the site,
the lowest obtained general shear value = 300 kN/mm2 a. General shear was considered for use in design
calculations because the site is not water logged. The footing being designed is under C1 which has the highest
Axial load of 742.9 KN exerted onto the pad base.
𝑓𝑐𝑘 = 30𝑁𝑚𝑚−2
𝑓𝑦𝑘 = 500𝑁𝑚𝑚−2
NEd = 742.9 kN
Bearing capacity (BC= 300 kN/mm2)
MEMBER CALCULATIONS REFERENCE

1600 x1600 EUROCODE 2
x400Pad Let 10% of the service load account for the self-weight of the
footing pad footing
1.1(742.9) 742.9
Base area A = = 1.1( ) = 2.48 mm2
Bearing capacity 300
Minimum dimension of the footing =√A = √2.48 = 1.57m

Trying a square footing of 1600mm x1600mm x 400mm trial
depth
Area provided =1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56m2
Loading at ULS = 742.9 kN since the load is already factored
during the analysis.
NEd 742.9
ULS Bearing pressure = A = 2.56
= 290.20 kN/m2
prov
Critical design moment at the face of the column.

290.20 x L2 290.20 x 0.6252
MEd = 2
= 2
= 56.68 kNm
where L is the distance from the edge of the footing to the outer
face of the column
Effective depth, d = h − cover – diameter of bar
d = 400 − 50 − 16 = 334mm
53

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
M 56.68 x 106
k = bd2Ed
f
= 1000 x334 2 x 25
= 0.020
ck
3k0
z = d (0.5 + √0.25 − 3.4
) ≤ 0.95d
3 x0.020
z = 334 (0.5 + √0.25 − 3.4
) ≤ 0.95 x334
z = 328.0 mm ≤ 317.3mm
Therefore , z = 317.3 mm
MEd 70.90x 106
AS = = = 513.67 mm2
0.87fyk z 0.87 x500 x 317.3
𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞, 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐇𝟏𝟔 − 𝟐𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐦 𝐜/𝐜 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬

( Asprov = 1005 mm2 )
Checking for shear effect

Shear failure could arise:
(a) at the face of the column
(b) at a distance d from the face of the column
(c) punching failure of the footing
Clause
Face Shear 6.4.5, EC 2
Load on footing due to column is = 742.9 kN
Design shear stress at the column perimeter, VEd, is
V 742.90∗103
VEd = β uEdd = 1.0 ∗ (4∗350)∗334 = 𝟏. 𝟓𝟗 Nmm−2
o
Where, d = h − cover − diameter of bar

= 400 − 50 − 16 = 334mm
Maximum punching shear resistance at the column perimeter,
VRd,max is
VRd,max = 0.5vfcd = 0.5 ∗ 0.528 ∗ 16.67 =
5.28Nmm−2 ˃VEd OK
Where
ck f
v = 0.6 [1 − (250 )] = 0.528
54

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
f 25
fcd = αcc γck = 1.0 ∗ 1.5 = 16.67Nmm−2
c
Transverse Shear
291 334
From above, design shear force on footing, VEd = 742.9 kN

V 742.9
Earth pressure, pE = baseEd
area
= 1.62
= 290.20 kNm−2
Ultimate load on shaded area is

∆VEd = pE (1.6 ∗ [1.6 − 0.291]) = 607.80 kN
Applied shear force is
VEd,red = VEd − ∆VEd = 742.9 − 607.80 = 135.1 kN
Design transverse shear stress, VEd , is

VEd,red 135.1∗103
VEd = bd
= 1600∗334
= 0.25 Nmm−2
where b = width of footing = 1.6 m

Clause.
fck = 25Nmm−2
6.4.2 and 6.4.4,
0.18 0.18 −2
CRd,c = γc
= 1.5
= 0.12Nmm EC 2
200 200
k=1+√ d
= 1 + √334 = 0.77 < 2.0 OK
Asl,y Asl,x 1005 1005

⍴1 = √⍴1y ⍴1x = √ bd
∗ bd
= √103 ∗334 ∗ 103 ∗334
= 0.003 < 0.02 𝐎𝐊

σcp = 0
3 3 1
1 2 ⁄
Vmin = 0.035k 2 fck = 0.035 ∗ 0.772 ∗ 252 = 0.12
Design shear resistance of concrete, VRd,c is given by
55

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
2d
VRd,c = [CRd,c k(100⍴1 fck )1⁄3 + k1 σcp ] ∗ ( a ) ≥ [Vmin + k1 σcp ] ∗
2d
(a)
= [0.12 ∗ 0.77(100 ∗ 0.003 ∗ 25)1⁄3 + 0] ∗ (2) ≥ (0.12 + 0) ∗ 2

= 0.36 mm−2 ≥ 0.24 Nmm−2
VRd,c = 0.36 Nmm−2
Since VEd (= 0.25 Nmm−2 ) < VRd,c (= 0.36 Nmm−2 ) no shear
reinforcement is required
Punching Shear
Clause.
6.4.5, EC 2
Check punching shear at 2d from face of column. Basic control

perimeter, u1 , is
u1 =column perimeter + 2π(2d)
= 4 × 350 + 2π(2 × 334) = 5597.2 mm
Area within critical perimeter,
A = 4 × 350(2 × 334) +3502 + π(2 × 334)2
= 0.939 x106 mm2
Ultimate load on shaded area, ∆VEd = pE × A =290.20 × 0.939
= 272.50 kN
Applied shear force,
VEd,red = VEd − ΔVEd = 747.9 − 272.50 = 475.4 kN
VEd,red 475.4∗103
Punching shear stress, VEd = du1
= 5597.2∗334
= 0.254 Nmm−2 < VRd,c= 0.36 Nmm−2

Hence, no shear reinforcement is required
56

TEAM (TST)- MLHUD
Kikuube district
Date: March/ 2022
Bibliography
1. Cobb, F. (2015). Engineer's Pocket Book.
2. Obina, U. (2020). Modelling, analysis, and design of overhead steel tank support.
3. EN 1992 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures
4. EN 1993 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures
5. William M. C. (2013). Design of Structural Elements to Eurocodes. palgrave macmillian.
57

Tank Support Design Report-Buhuka 05032022 - Reviewed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Tank Support Design Report-Buhuka 05032022 - Reviewed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Client: MINISTRY OF LANDS, HOUSING AND URBAN Job Ref. PR.

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION DEVELOPMENT

Eng. Patrick Etoko

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION DEVELOPMENT

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION DEVELOPMENT

4.9. Step 6: Load combinations........................................................................................ 22

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER ONE: Overhead Tanks

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION DEVELOPMENT

1.2. Forces acting on tank supports

1.2.1. The weight of stored water

p = F/ (𝜋𝑟 2 ) = 119.29/3.14x 1.12) = 31.4 kN/m2

Pressure load = (Height of the tank x Unit weight of water)

Total Pressure load = (31.4 + 0.30) = 31.70 kNm−2, say 32 kN/m2

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER TWO: Structural scheme and analysis of overhead water tank

2.1. Structural scheme of overhead water tank support

2.2. The platform

Figure 1:Section layout of the platform of an overhead steel tank support

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION DEVELOPMENT

Figure 2: Typical bracing system of a tank support

2.5. Base plate

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION DEVELOPMENT

Figure 4:Foundation footing

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER THREE: External forces acting on the tank frame

3.1. Wind Action on tank supports

Figure 5:Structural scheme of an overhead water tank

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION DEVELOPMENT

Figure 6:Larger face of the structure experiencing a greater wind pressure

3.1.1. Basic Wind Velocity

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION DEVELOPMENT

(Uganda metrological wind speed value at 10-15m).

3.1.2. Mean Wind Velocity

Where Zo = is the roughness length and K r is the terrain factor

3.1.3. Wind Turbulence IV(Z)

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION DEVELOPMENT

ρ is the air density taken as 1.25 kg/m2

qp(5.0) = [1 + 7x0.22] x 0.5x1.25 x 31.682 x10−3 = 1.59 kN/m2

qp(6.0) = [1 + 7x0.21] x 0.5x1.25 x 32.962 x10−3 = 1.68 kN/m2

Figure 7: Application of peak velocity pressure on the tank support

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION DEVELOPMENT

Figure 8:Definition of solidity ratio (Figure 7.37, EN 1991-1-4:2005)

Figure 9:Definition of a panel

Length of panel = 1418 + (75X2) = 1568 = 1.568 m

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION DEVELOPMENT

Area of projected members

A = A1 + A2 + A3 + A4 = 0.54+ 0.955 + 0.66 + 0.135 = 2.29 m2

Reading from Figure 7.34, EN 1991-1-4:2005, Cf,0 = 2.0

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION DEVELOPMENT

3.1.4. Application of wind load to the frame to the panels

Figure 10:Application of wind load to the frame to the panels

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION DEVELOPMENT

3.2. Seismic Considerations

Seismic load calculation done as per UBC 1997

The design base shear V is calculated using equation 30.4 of UBC 97

Cv = Seismic Coeff from Table 16-R

Seismic Zone Factor z = 0.075 (Table 16-I ) Volume 2-2-30

(Stiff Soil) Soil Profile Type = SD (Table 16-J) Volume 2-2-30

Importance factor I = 1 (Table 16-K) Volume 2-2-30

Cv = 0.18 (Table 16-R) Volume 2-2-35

IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL SUPERVISION DEVELOPMENT