A Study On Response Reduction Factor of RC Wter Tank

A STUDY ON RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR OF RC WATER TANK
By
MILAN H MANEK
(Enrolment No. 130540720006)
Guided By
Prof. D.K.JIVANI (M.E. CASAD)
Prof. Civil Engg. Dept., DIET, Hadala
A Thesis Submitted to
Gujarat Technological University
In partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for
The Degree of Master of Engineering
In Civil-Structural Engineering
MAY-2015
DARSHAN INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, RAJKOTMORBI HIGHWAY, HADALA.
CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL:
Water is considered as the source of every creation and is thus a very crucial element for
humans to live a healthy life. High demand of clean and safe drinking water is rising day
by day as one cannot live without water. It becomes necessary to store water. Water is
stored generally in concrete water tanks and later on it is pumped to different areas to
serve the community.
Water tanks are the structure which are used to store a water. Broadly water tanks are
classified in to different categories as given below.
Underground water tanks.
Partial underground water tanks.
Water tanks resting on ground.
Elevated water tanks.
In India, most municipalities have water supply which depends on elevated tanks for
storage. Elevated water tank is a large elevated water storage container constructed for
the purpose of holding a water supply at a height sufficient to pressurize a water
distribution system. Thats why Elevated water tanks are one of the most important
components of water distribution system in India. To support the elevated vessel, a
concrete shaft or a framed assembly has been used. The detailed classification chart of
Elevated service reservoir is shown in Figure-1.1.
Elevated Service Reservoir
According to shape of container
Rectangular
Conical
Circular
According to supporting structure
Intze type
Shaft supported
Column supported
Figure-1.1 Classification of Elevated service reservoir
For the study purpose an elevated Intze type water tank has been considered, because
intze tank is the most common type of concrete water tanks and widely used in India for
water storage. The reason for widely used is its shape, which helps to achieve an economy
particularly for large storage capacity. To support intze shape container column with
braces are provided. These bracings shorten the length of column and thus add the better
margin of safety to the water tank. Figure 1.2 shows elevted intze type water tank.
Figure 1.2 elevted intze type water tank.
1.2 NEED OF STUDY:

Majority of Gujarat portion comes in to higher seismic zone. So, it is important that
whatever water tank constructed in higher seismic zone should not collapse after
earthquake as the demand of water highly increases after earthquake to cater need of
drinking, firefighting etc.
Elevated water tanks consist of large water mass at the top supported on staging which
makes it more crucial and concern for the collapse of the tank during earthquakes. Due
to lack of knowledge of supporting system some of the tanks were heavily damaged or
collapsed. Part earthquake like Bhuj earthquake, are evidences of water tank collapse due
to failure of staging. So there is need to focus on seismic safety of water tank structure.
The figure 1.3 shows some of collapse of water tank due to earthquake forces.
The figure 1.3 collapse of water tank
Current seismic code criteria for water tank was inadequate. So, After the Bhuj
earthquake, revision of current Indian code became inevitable. Hence Indian Institute of
Technology, Kanpur has proposed guidelines along with commentary and explanatory
examples for seismic analysis of liquid storage tanks in association with GSDMA
(Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority). These publications cover seismic
analysis and design of ground supported as well as elevated tanks.
For behavior and performance of water tank during earthquake highly depends on
Response Reduction Factor (R). Which, Reflects the Capacity Of Structure to Dissipate
Energy By Inelastic Behavior.
The values of response reduction factor (R) of RC elevated water tank are given in IS:
1893 draft code or GSDMA Guideline, which is calculated at empirically based on
engineering judgment. The values of response reduction factor of elevated water tank
adopted by difference codes/standards are summaries in Table 1.1. From the comparison
it is clear our codes suggested somewhat conservative values for Response reduction
factor. So, here we tries to find out actual values of response reduction factor for elevated
water tank by static nonlinear analysis.
Table 1.1 R as Per International Standards for Elevated Tanks
Codes/standards
R Factor
IBC 2000/ FEMA 368
1.5 to 3.0
ACI 350.3
2.0 to 4.75
IS:1893-2002(Part -2) RCC frame support (draft code)
1.8 (OMRF)
Or GSDMA Guideline
2.5 (SMRF)
Also the Value of R-Factor Is Fixed 2.5 for staging Supported RC Elevated Tank. One
Constant R-Value For Elevated Water Tank Cannot Reflect The Expected Inelastic
Behavior Of All Elevated Water Tanks Located In Different Seismic Zone And Having
Different Capacities. So It Is Required to Find out Perfect Value of R factor For Various
Type of RC Elevated Tank Individually.
1.3 objectives:
The main objective of this study is to verify the r factor of most common designed
elevated Intze tank through comparing the assumed r factor during design to actual R
factor obtained from non-linear analysis. The specific objectives of the study are to:
Conduct static non-linear (pushover) analysis and calculate R factor of elevated
intze tank
Prepare a spreadsheet to design elevated tank
Compare the calculated r factor with the assumed r factor.
Evaluate ductility, redundancy and over strength factor of elevated Intze tank
Study the effect of staging height and staging type on response reduction factor (r).
To study effect of zone factor on response reduction factor (r).
1.4 SCOPE OF WORK:

The main scope of work is to study the Response Reduction factor for the elevated Intze
type of water tank and other scope of Present work is summarized as below,
To prepare a spreadsheet and design water tank as per is- 3370:2009 (limit state
method).
Understand the procedure of water tank modelling and pushover analyses in sap
software considering hydrodynamic pressure as per iitk-gsdma guidelines.
To perform pushover analysis of elevated water tank for different capacity, height,
zone and compare the results.
Perform a comparative study between different staging patterns in form of variation
in ductility, redundancy and over strength factor etc.
Calculated and compare the calculated response reduction factor with the assumed r
factor
CHAPTER-2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 GENERAL:
Literature survey is always an important as it helps in finalization the scope and objective
of work. For literature survey different relevant research papers, and codes has been
referred. Various research papers have been studied and brief review of the same has been
discussed below.
2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.2.1 Seismic behavior of water tank:
Patricia Pappa, Daniel Vasilikis, Polynikis Vazouras, and Spyros A. Karamanos
(2011): In this paper some special issues on the structural behavior of upright-cylindrical
liquid storage tanks are examines, which are widely used in industrial facilities and for
water storage. The structural response of liquid storage tanks under strong seismic
loading constitutes an important issue for safeguarding the structural integrity of
industrial facilities, especially in refineries and power plants. The mode of tank failure is
in the form of elephants foot buckling at the tank base. Other types of earthquake
damages include buckling of the top of the tank shell, base plate failure due to uplifting,
roof damage due to excessive sloshing, or shell damage at nozzle areas due to non-flexible
connections with piping. Current design practice is based on the application of the API
650 provisions [3]. For the majority of tanks, consideration of only one sloshing
(convective) mode is adequate for the calculation of the total seismic force.
Ahmed Hafez (2012): In This paper study is focused on the nonlinear behavior of
ground-supported open top circular concrete tanks under the effect of seismic loads. The
tank support conditions are considered in this study where both flexible and nonflexible
supports are investigated. A comparison between the behavior of RC and prestressed
concrete tanks is undertaken for flexible base condition. The finite element method is
used to study the nonlinear response of circular tanks under dynamic time-history and
push-over analysis. Further, the response modification factors included in current practice
are evaluated based on the results of nonlinear dynamic and push-over analysis. Several
tank configurations with different aspect ratios, construction method, and base conditions
are used in this study to attain reliable results and to validate the R-values. The behavior
of circular RC tanks under shrinkage effect is also investigated.
MANORANJAN SAHOO and TANDRITA BISWAS (2007): In this study, Wind

Force and Seismic forces acting on an Elevated water tank e.g. Intze Tank are studied.
Seismic forces acting on the tank are also calculated changing the Seismic Response
Reduction Factor(R). IS: 1893-1984/2002 for seismic design and IS: 875-1987(Part III)
for wind load has been referred. Then checked the Design of Intze Tank by using the
software STAAD PRO. Conclusion of this paper is that the Ratio of Base Shear of tank
and building is 6 to 7 for low ductility tanks and 3 to 4 for high ductility tanks. Convective
Mode Base Shear values obtained from API 650 and Euro Code 8 are similar but those
obtained from ACI 350.3 is 2.5 times greater than that of ACI 370. Based on the review
of various International Codes, it is recommended that IS 1893 should have values of R
in range of 1.1 to 2.25 for different types of tanks. Base Shear and Base Moment increases
from Zone 3 to Zone 4 to Zone 5.
Review of Code Provisions on Design Seismic Forces for Liquid Storage Tanks
It Is Well Recognized That Liquid Storage Tanks Possess Low Ductility And Energy
Absorbing Capacity As Compared To The Conventional Buildings. Accordingly, Various
Design Codes Provide Higher Level Of Design Seismic Forces For Tanks. In This
Article, Provisions Of IBC 2000, ACI, AWWA, API, Euro code 8 And NZSEE
Guidelines Are Reviewed, To Assess The Severity Of Design Seismic Forces For Tanks
Vis--Vis Those For Buildings. It Is Seen That, Depending On The Type Of Tank,
Design Seismic Force For Tanks Can Be 3 To 7 Times Higher Than That For Buildings.
Based On The Comparison Of Provisions In These Documents, Various Similarities,
Discrepancies And Limitations In Their Provisions Are Brought Out.
This Article Presents An Assessment Of Design Seismic Force For Tanks Vis- -Vis
Design Seismic Force For Buildings As Mentioned In The Following Documents:
(A) IBC 2000
(B) ACI Standards ACI 371 (1998) and ACI 350.3 (2001)
(C) AWWA D-100 (1996), AWWA D-103 (1997), AWWA D-110 (1995) and AWWA
D-115 (1995)
(D) API 650 (1998)

(E) Euro code 8 (1998)
2.2.2 Response Reduction Factor of Water Tank:

Tejash patel, jignesh amin, bhavin patel (2014): Main objective of this paper is
perform Nonlinear static pushover analysis is done by using ETABS. Moment-rotation
(M-) and load-bending moment (P-M) relationship for flexural and compression
members have been developed. From result it is observed that the first hinge is formed at
8th step. The maximum number of hinges formed in elastic range only. Hence, it
indicates that there is a need of retrofitting for members.
Dr. S. N. Tande and R. V. Ambekar(2013): The present study estimates the seismic
Response reduction factor (R) of reinforced concrete special moment Resisting frame
(SMRF) with and without shear wall using static nonlinear (pushover) analysis.
Calculation of factor(R) is done as per the new formulation of Response reduction factor
(R) given by Applied Technology Council (ATC)-19 which is the product of Strength
factor (Rs), Ductility factor (R) and Redundancy factor (RR). The analysis revealed that
these three factors affects the actual value of response reduction factor (R) and therefore
they must be taken into consideration while determining the appropriate response
reduction factor to be used during the seismic design process. Conclusion of this paper is
that the Response reduction factor without shear wall is almost reduced by 50%
considering displacement ductility ratio as compared to IS Code values. Response
reduction factor with shear wall are almost doubled considering rotational ductility ratio
as compared to IS code values.
Mostafa Masoudi, Sassan Eshghi, Mohsen Ghafory-Ashtiany (2012): This paper

discusses the failure mechanism of elevated concrete tanks with shaft and frame staging
(supporting system) along with seismic behavior of these construction types. In order to
modify the current code-based seismic design methodology, computer models have been
established to determine the R, of the shaft and frame staging elevated tanks. The
computational models have been subjected to an ensemble of earthquake ground motions.
The effects of multi-component earthquakes, fluidstructure interaction and the PD
effects on the inelastic response of elevated tanks have been studied by conducting linear
and nonlinear response history analyses.
R. Sadjadi1 and M.R. Kianoush (2008): Reinforced concrete liquid storage tanks have
been extensively used as a part of environmental engineering facilities. Since
functionality of these structures after an earthquake is very important to meet the
emergency state requirements, seismic damage of these structures is of main concern.
One of the main parameters used in the seismic design of structures is the Response
Modification Factor (R). The values of R for different structural systems and materials
for buildings are well defined and included in the building Codes. For liquid containing
structures (LCS), there has not been a justifiable guideline for determination of the R
and the empirical values have been implemented in the design of such structures. While
the seismic design criteria for the buildings are mainly based on life safety and prevention
of collapse, the concrete storage tanks should be designed to meet the serviceability limits
such as leakage. In this paper the mechanism of leakage in (RC) tanks is discussed. The
response modification factor for (LCS) along with the corresponding experimental tests
will also be discussed. It is concluded that the use of period independent R factor for the
(LCS) may not be appropriate. The current values of R might need to be adjusted as no
leakage was observed prior to the yielding of the wall reinforcement.
Mr. Bhavin Patel and Mrs. Dhara Shah (2010): The present study investigates the
formulation of key factors for seismic response modification factor of RCC framed
staging of elevated water tank. The analysis revealed that three major factors, called
reserved strength, ductility and redundancy affects the actual value of response
modification factor and therefore they must be taken into consideration while determining
the appropriate response modification to be used during the seismic design process. The
evaluation of response modification factor is done using static nonlinear pushover
analysis. Pushover analysis is an advanced tool to carry out static nonlinear analysis of
framed structures. It is used to evaluate nonlinear behavior and gives the sequence and
mechanism of plastic hinge formation. Here displacement controlled pushover analysis

is used to apply the earthquake forces at C.G. of container.
Yi-Hsuan Tu, Shyh-Jiann Hwang and Tsung-Chih Chiou (2006): In Taiwan, many
school buildings suffer severe damage in earthquakes due to their typical architectural
pattern. 4 in-site push over tests of school buildings were carried out to study the effects
of different retrofitting measures and to verify the seismic assessment methods. The
specimens include a 2-floor building with 3 classrooms of Hsin-Cheng Junior High
School, Hualien, and a 2- floor school building of Kouhu Elementary School, Yulin. The
latter was consists of 8 classrooms and cut into 3 specimens, each has 2 classrooms, while
the rest 2 classrooms reinforced by steel bracing to provide reacting support. Specimen
in Hualien was a typical school building with no walls in the longitudinal direction, while
specimens in Yulin has an typical one, one with original brick wing walls, and one with
new RC wing walls as retrofit in the longitudinal direction. 6 hydraulic actuators were
placed at the top of each floor of each specimen to provide lateral loading along the
longitudinal direction. While being lateral loaded, some of the specimens were subjected
to extra vertical loads by added weights on the slabs. The test results show that wing walls
can efficiently improve lateral strength of school buildings.
2.2.3 Push over analysis:

Aditi Patidar* and Swatilekha Guha Bodh (2014): In this paper the lateral loading
pattern for waffle slab structure is adapted to the pushover analysis. The seismic collapse
capacity of waffle slab is to be determined with the help of pushover by using ETAB
9.Main objective of this study is to determine the collapse capacity of waffle slab by
pushover analysis and to analyze the waffle slab with panel and without panels by using
ETAB9. Waffle slab is defined as combination of flat flange plate or deck and equally
spaced ribs. Two way floor roof systems consisting of a reinforced concrete slab poured
with integral joists or ribs in two directions beneath it. The system has a waffle-like
pattern when a reinforced concrete slab with equally spaced ribs parallel to the sides,
having a waffle appearance from below. This system is an efficient and better way of
constructing slabs for new homes or industrial buildings.
Rahul RANA, Limin JIN and Atila ZEKIOGLU (2004): Pushover analysis was
performed on a nineteen story, slender concrete tower building located in San Francisco
with a gross area of 430,000 square feet. Lateral system of the building consists of
concrete shear walls. The building is newly designed conforming to 1997 Uniform
Building Code, and pushover analysis was performed to verify code's underlying intent
of Life Safety performance under design earthquake. Procedure followed for carrying out
the analysis and results are presented in this paper. Building analyzed is a nineteen story
(18 story + basement), 240 feet tall slender concrete tower located in San Francisco with
a gross area of 430,000 square feet. Unique features of the slender concrete tower
presented challenges for seismic design. Typically, a 240 feet tall concrete building in
seismic zone 4 would have a lateral system that combines shear walls and moment
frames. However, two architectural features made the use of moment frames difficult.
First, the 60 feet long open bays limited the number of possible moment frames. Second,
on the southeast side two of the perimeter columns are discontinued at the 6th story and
six new columns are introduced that slope for the lowest six stories at an angle of about
20 degrees from vertical. These sloped columns connect to transverse walls through
horizontal transfer elements at the 6th story and put considerable gravity-induced
horizontal loads on the lateral system at that level. Software SAP2000 version 7 [13] and
ETABS version 7 [14] were used for analysis. SAP2000 was used to perform pushover
analysis and ETABS was used to calculate hinge properties of shear wall and elastic
analysis.
CHAPTER-3
SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
OF ELEVATED TANK
3.1 General:
The main purpose of earthquake resisting design is that the structure should not permitted
to collapse but damage is allowed during earthquake. Water tank is important structure.
Staging type of tanks are generally collapse during earthquake, so it is required to
calculate earthquake load perfectly. Past evidence has shown that the elevated tanks are
vulnerable due to earthquake. The tanks are designed based on linear elastic methods
which are considered only elastic range. In this chapter concept of response reduction
factor and basic component of R factor is discussed with the pushover analysis
methodology.
3.2 Review of basic component of response reduction factor:

Response reduction factor is the factor by which the actual base shear force should be
reduced, to obtain the design lateral force. The response reduction factor reflects the
capacity of structure to dissipate energy by inelastic behavior. This process is combined
effect of over strength, redundancy and ductility. Response reduction factor is also known
as ratio of maximum elastic force to designed force. Response reduction factor is
depended on three factors as mentioned below and also shown in Figure---------.
1) Over strength factor
2) Ductility factor
3) Redundancy factor
Over Strength Factor Accounts For The Yielding Of A Structure At Load Higher Than
The Design Load Due To Various Partial Safety Factors, Strain Hardening, Oversized
Members, Confinement Of Concrete. Non-Structural Elements Also Contribute To The
Over Strength. Nonlinear static analysis (also termed pushover analysis) can be used to
estimate the strength of a building or framing system. The procedure used to estimate the
strength of a building is requires to select a limiting state of response in form of maximum
inter story drift and maximum plastic hinge rotation.
Ductility factor (R) is ratio of ultimate displacement or code specified permissible
displacement to the yield displacement. Higher ductility implies that the structure can
withstand stronger shaking without collapse.

A redundant seismic framing system should be composed of multiple vertical lines of
framing, each designed and detailed to transfer seismic-induced inertial forces to the
foundation. Yielding at one location in the structure does not imply yielding of the
structure as a whole. Hence the load distribution, due to redundancy of the structure,
provides additional safety margin.
Figure 3.1 Horizontal force verses roof displacement.
The ATC-19 Describes the Calculation procedure of response reduction factor (R).The
response reduction factor (R) is depends on Over strength (Rs), Ductility (R),
Redundancy (RR). According to ATC-19, it is described Response Reduction factor (R)
as,
R = Rs * RR * R
Estimation of over strength (Rs) factor:

The Over strength (Rs) factor is the ratio of Maximum Base Shear (from pushover
curve) VO to Design Base shear (as per EQ calculation) Vd.
Rs = Vo / Vd
Estimation of ductility factor:
Equations for estimation of ductility factor is as below:

R = {( - 1 / ) + 1}
Where, R = Ductility Factor
= 1+ {1 / (10T -T)}{(1 / 2T)*e^ (-2(ln (T) 0.6) ^2)} for rock sites
= 1+ {1 / (12T -T)}{(2 / 5T)*e^ (-2(ln (T) 0.2) ^2)} for alluvium sites
= m / y
m = Maximum drift capacity (0.004 H as per IS 1893:2002)
y = Yield drift (from pushover curve)
Estimation of redundancy factor:

The value of redundancy factor as suggested in ATC-19 is summaries in Table 3.
Table 3.1 Redundancy Factor as per ATC-19

Lines of vertical seismic framing
Drift redundancy factor
0.71
0.86
3.3 TWO MASS MODAL METHOD

Housner developed a two mass model for elevated tank in 1963, which is more
appropriate and is being commonly used in most of the international codes including
IITK-GSDMA guidelines. As per this theory, the pressure is generated within the water
due to the dynamic motion of the tank can be separated into two parts, impulsive and
convective. An elevated tank containing liquid with a free surface is subjected to
horizontal earthquake ground motion, tank wall and liquid are subjected to the
horizontal acceleration. The liquid in the lower region of tank acts as a mass that is
rigidly connected to tank wall. This mass is defined as impulsive mass and which
accelerates along with the wall and generates impulsive hydrodynamic pressure on tank
wall and similarly on base liquid mass in the upper region of tank undergoes sloshing
motion, this mass is defined as convective mass and it induces convective
hydrodynamic pressure on tank wall and base. For representing these two masses and
in order to include the effect of their hydrodynamic pressure in analysis, two-mass
model will take for elevated tanks. In this study two mass model is considered. The
parameters of this model depend on geometry of the tank and its flexibility. The
response of two degree of freedom system can be achieved by structural dynamics. For
most of elevated tanks it is observed that both the time periods are well separated. So,
the two mass idealizations can be treated as two uncoupled single degree of freedom
system. Figure 3.2 shows two mass model system for water tank.
(a) Two mass idealization
(d) equivalent uncoupled system
Figure 3.2 Two mass idealization of elevated tank
For the modelling of convective and impulsive, two mass model system is used and
Figure 3.2shows the modelling system used in present study for impulsive and
convective mass of water tank. In the below figure 3.3 Mi is the Impulsive mass and
shall be added to the wall equally on periphery. While Mc is the convective mass which
includes sloshing mass of water which is provided in cylinder and connected with the
side wall with stiffness Kc. The convective mass, impulsive mass and stiff nesses are
calculated as per GSDMA Guideline and equations for same are mentioned in Table
3.2.
Figure 3.3 Two mass computational model of elevated tank
Table-3.2 Expression of Mass and Height for Impulsive & Convective

mode
Impulsive mode
Mass
Height of
h
0.23 tanh (3.68 )
mc
D
=
h
m
D
D
mi tanh (0.866 h )
=
D
m
0.866 ( )
h
hi
= 0.375
h
= 0.5
mass
for h/D 0.75

0.09375
h/D
Convective mode
for h/D > 0.75
h
cosh (3.68 ) 1.0
hc
D
=1
h
h
h
3.68 sinh (3.68 )
D
D
from
Container
Bottom
D
0.866
hi
h
=
0.125
h 2 tanh (0.866 D)
h
= 0.45
Stiffness
for h/D 1.33
hc
cosh(3.68h/D) 2.01
= 1
h
h
h
3.68 sinh (3.68 )
D
D
for h/D > 1.33
----------------------------------
K c = 0.836
3.4 Material Properties:

Property of concrete and steel which is used in water tank is as below:
Grade of concrete: 30N/mm^2
Grade of steel: 415N/mm^2
Density of concrete: 25000N/m^3
Density of liquid: 9810N/m^3
Modulus of elasticity: 27386N/m^2
Permissible stress in concrete:

Direct compression (cc): 8N/mm^2
Bending Compression (cb): 10 N/mm^2
Modular Ratio (m): 9.33
Direct tension (ct): 1.5 N/mm^2
Bending (cb): 2 N/mm^2
mg
h
tanh2 (3.68 )
h
D
Permissible stresses in steel:

Direct Tension (st): 30N/mm^2
Tensile stress (0.87*fy): 361N/mm^2
k = (1/(1+(st/(m*cbc)))): 0.42
j = 1-(k/3): 0.86
3.5 Hinge formation:

The RC beams and columns are modeled as 3-D frame elements with centerline
dimension. Wall and domes are modeled as shell elements. Column foundations are
assumed to be fixed. Default hinges are considered for analysis Flexure moment (M3),
axial biaxial moment (P-M2-M3) and axial compressive shear force (V) hinges are
assigned at the face of beam, column, and bracing respectively using the static pushover
analysis.
3.6 Design methodology:

3.6.1 General:
Storage reservoirs are used to store water, liquid petroleum, petroleum products and
similar liquids. The force analysis of the reservoirs or tanks is about the same
irrespective of the chemical nature of the product. All tanks are designed as crack free
structures for neglecting any leakages. Elevated tanks are mainly designed by two
methods. 1) Limit state method 2) Working stress method.
We have used limit state method for the designing of elevated water tank. In the water
retaining structures a dense impermeable concrete is required so, proportion of fine and
course aggregates to cement should be such as to give higher quality of concrete.
Concrete mix weaker than M30 is not used for the water retaining structure as per IS:
3370. The minimum quantity of cement in the concrete mix shall be not less than 30
kN/m3. The design of the concrete mix will be sufficiently impervious.
Design of liquid retaining structure is different from ordinary R.C.C, structures as it

requires that concrete should not crack and so the tensile stresses in concrete should be
within permissible limits. It should be conform that tensile stress on the liquid face of
the elevated tank of equivalent concrete section does not exceed the permissible tensile
strength of concrete which is given in material property.
After the manual design of elevated tank, a model is prepared in SAP2000 for the
nonlinear analysis of elevated water tank. Model is prepared and analyzed in SAP2000
and pushover curve is generated.
Using pushover curve, over strength, ductility factors are calculated. And finally
Response reduction factor is calculated for elevated water tank.
Methodology of work is shown in flow diagram below.
1 Selection of Water tank for Response reduction

factor study
2 Manual analysis and design of Tank as per IS
3370:2009 considering hydrodynamic pressure using
spread sheet
3 Pushover analysis using SAP software
4 Calculate over strength factor (over strength +

redundancy) and Ductility factor R
5 Calculate Response Reduction factor

R = x R
6 Interpretation of Results in form of

- Redundancy, Over strength , Ductility, Time
period etc.
7 Conclusion
Figure 3.4 Flow chart of work.
This is the work flow chart of our work. We have taken height variation, zone variation
and staging type variation. In the height variation, taking the height 12m, 16m, 20m.For
the height variation zone 4 and staging pattern of 6 columns is fixed. For the zone
variation zone 2, 3, 4, 5 are taken for the study. For the variation in zone staging height
20m and staging pattern of 6 columns is fixed. Variation in staging type is shown in
3.7 bench mark problem study:

3.7.1 General:
Accuracy of any results are depends on its correct modelling procedure and software
capability for particular problems. For that a benchmark problem, it is considered to
checks the capabilities of the SAP Program and it proves the accuracy of modelling and
analysis in SAP for further applications.
3.7.2 Problem Description:
We take an example-3 from GSDMA guidelines for the validation of software.

Following data is given in example-3. This is analyzed in SAP and results of SAP is
compared with the results given in GSDMA guidelines.
Table-3.3 Data of Ex-3 from GSDMA guidelines

component
Size
Top Dome
120 mm thick
Top dome Rise
1.75 MT
Cylindrical dia i/i
8.60 MT
Top Ring Beam
250 X300
Cylindrical wall
200 mm thick
wall height
3.7 MT
free board
300 mm
Middle Ring Beam
500 X300
Bottom Ring Beam
500 X600
Bottom Dome
200 mm thick
conical Dome Rise
1.5 MT
Bottom Dome Rise
1.5 MT
Staging dia
5.78 MT
Conical Dome
250mm thick
Braces
300 X600
Column
650 mm dia
Ht. of Staging
12, 16, 20 MT
No. of Column
Figure 3.5 Members and its size of elevated water tank.
3.7.3 Loading
A three dimensional finite element model is used for modeling, the elevated water tank
are based on the fixed base condition as shown in Figure 3.6. Beams and columns are
modelled as frame elements the walls container and slabs are modelled with
quadrilateral shell elements. In according to draft code water tank model the impulsive
and the convective water mass components and their respective heights are given by
the expressions shown in Table 3.2 These calculated impulsive and convective masses
are applied to the three dimension model which is prepared in SAP2000, at their
respective heights of impulsive and convective height. The static analysis was carried
out using the finite element structural analysis software, SAP2000.
Figure 3.6 Rendering model of elevated tank in SAP.
3.7.4 Results and Discussion:

Comparison of Base-shear and Base-moment of the Draft code and the SAP2000
software has been given in the Table 3.3. It is observed that the Base shear and Base
moment of the elevated water tank obtained from the SAP software and the Draft code
are in good agreement. This indicates that the SAP software can provide acceptable
results.
Table shows the comparison of results of SAP and results of example given in GSDMA
guidelines
Table 3.4 Percentage of error of result in SAP:

Time Period
Fluid
Level
Base Shear (Kn)

Percentage
IITK
Guideline
Tankful 0.86
SAP Difference
(%)
0.9 4.44
Percentage
IITK
Guideline
277
Base Moment (Kn-M)
SAP Difference
(%)
280 1.07
IITK
Guideline
5381
Percentage
SAP Difference
(%)
5230 -2.89
Time Period (sec)

0.95
0.9
Time Period
0.85
0.8
IITK Guideline
SAP
Figure 3.5 Comparison of time period of eater tank of SAP and IITK guidelines.
6000
5381
5230
5000
4000
3000
IITK Guideline
2000
1000
277
SAP
280
0
Base Shear (kN)
Base Moment (kN-m)
Figure 3.6 Comparison of base shear and base moment of eater tank of SAP and
IITK guidelines.
Graph shows the percentage of difference in results of time period, base shear and base
moment. There is 4.44% difference in the result of time period, 2.89% difference in
result of base moment and 1.07% difference in result of base shear.
3.8 Summary:
In this chapter two mass model method is described and with reference of that theory,
Model of elevated water tank is prepared in SAP-2000 software. Capability of SAP is
Checked with bench mark problem mentioned in IITK GSDMA guideline and results
Were compared and matched. Another important thing, Concept of Response reduction
factor and calculation for R factor is described. Material property of steel and concrete
which is used in water tank is mentioned.
CHAPTER-4
NONLINEAR ANALYSIS AND
FORMULATION OF RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

4.1 General:
The tanks are designed based on linear elastic methods which are considered only
elastic range. Factor shows the reserved strength of water tank.in IS 1893-2002(part-2)
value of R factor for RC elevated shaft supported tank is 1.8 and for column supported
2.5.Values of R factor changes by change in height of water tank. In this chapter value
of R is calculated by nonlinear static analysis of 250m^3 and 500 m^3 of water tanks
with varying height of 12m, 16m, and 20m.Nnlinear analysis is done by using SAP
2000.
SAP, Structural Analysis Program, is user friendly widely used, generalized analysis
and design software developed for all kind of structures like buildings, water tanks,
bridges etc. SAP Version 15.1.0 has a powerful graphical interface with modeling,
analytical, and design procedures. It is a full-featured program that can be used for the
simplest problems or the most complex projects, including a wide range of nonlinear
behaviors.
4.2 Description of problem:

A Reinforced concrete elevated tanks with different capacity of 250 m3 and 500 m3
has been considered in this study. These elevated tanks are placed on column supported
framed structure with different staging height of 12m, 16m and 20m, respectively, Zone
4 and staging type of 6 columns is fixed for the varying height. In this study, the column
staging supports are assumed as a fixed while the simple circular tie bracing has been
considered. Since the tank vessel is Intze, there is a symmetric in the loading and shape
of the vessel. This type of tank and supporting system has been widely used in the recent
years around the world.
Figure 4.1 Staging type 6 columns
Table 4.1 Water tank Specification for 250m3 capacity
Table 4.2 Water tank Specification for 500m3 capacity:
A three dimensional model is prepared in SAP2000 for static nonlinear
analysis.
4.3 Static nonlinear analysis of tank:

SAP software is used to perform the nonlinear static pushover analysis. The RC beams
and columns are modeled as 3-D frame elements with centerline dimension. Wall and
domes are modeled as shell elements. Column foundations are assumed to be fixed.
Default hinges are considered for analysis Flexure moment (M3), axial biaxial moment
(P-M2-M3) and axial compressive shear force (V) hinges are assigned at the face of
beam, column, and bracing respectively using the static pushover analysis. Figure
shows the procedure of pushover analysis. Damping ratio is 0.5% considered.
4.3.1 Steps for Static nonlinear analysis of tank:

The following steps for the pushover analysis. Steps 1 through 4 discussing how to
creating the computer model, step 5 runs the analysis, and steps 6 through 10 review
the pushover analysis results.
1. Create the basic computer model (without the pushover data) in the usual manner use
of graphical interface of SAP-2000 makes this a quick and easy.
2. The program includes several built-in default hinge properties that are based on
average values from ATC-40 for concrete members and average values from FEMA273 for steel members. These built in properties can be useful for preliminary analyses,
but user-defined properties are recommended for final analyses. Uses default
properties.
3. Locate the pushover hinges on the model by selecting one or more frame members
and assigning them one or more hinge properties and hinge locations, locate at 0 and 1.
4. Define the push-over load case. Push-over load case can start from the final
conditions of other pushover load-case that was previously run in the same analysis.
Typically the first pushover load case is used to apply gravity load and then subsequent
lateral pushover load cases are specified to start from the final conditions of the gravity
pushover. Pushover load cases can be force controlled, that is, pushed to a certain
defined force level, or they can be displacement controlled, that is, pushed to a specified
displacement. Typically a gravity load pushover is force controlled and lateral
pushovers are displacement controlled. SAP2000 allows the distribution of lateral force
used in the pushover to be based on a uniform acceleration in a specified direction, a
specified mode shape, or a user-defined static load case. Here how the displacement
controlled lateral pushover case that is based on a user defined static lateral load pattern
named PUSH is defined for this example.
5. Run the basic static analysis and, if desired, dynamic analysis. Then run the static
nonlinear pushover analysis.
6. Display the pushover curve. The File menu shown in this display window allows you
to view and if desired, print to either a printer or an ASCII file, a table which gives the
coordinates of each step of the pushover curve and summarizes the number of hinges
in each state.
7. Display the capacity spectrum curve. Note that you can interactively modify the
magnitude of the earthquake and the damping information on this form and
immediately see the new capacity spectrum plot. The performance point for a given set
of values is defined by the intersection of the capacity curve (green) and the single
demand spectrum curve (yellow). Also, the file menu in this display allows you to print
the coordinates of the capacity curve and the demand curve as well as other information
used to convert the pushover curve to Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectrum
format.
8. Review the pushover displaced shape and sequence of hinge formation on a step-by
step basis. The arrows in the bottom right-hand corner of the screen allow you to move
through the pushover step-by- step. Hinges appear when they yield and are color coded
based on their state
9. Review member forces on a step-by-step basis. Often it is useful to view the model
in two side-by-side windows with the step-by-step displaced shape in one window and
the step-by-step member forces in the other. These windows can be synchronized to the
same step, and can thus greatly enhance the understanding of the pushover results.
Figure 4.2 Pushover case 1
Figure 4.3 Pushover case 2
Figure 4.4 Pushover curve for 12m, 250m3 water tank (full condition)
4.4 Results and Discussion:

Results of 250 M3 and 500 M3 elevated tank for varying height is as below.
4.4.1 Results for 250m3 water tank:

Table below shows the Results of R factor, Time Period, Base Shear, Ductility Factor,
Redundancy Factor, over strength Factor and R factor for 12m height, zone 4 for full
and empty both condition:
Table 4.3 Results for 12M height.
Tank Type:Intz Tank

Staging Type6 Col Circular
Staging Height 12m
Time Period
Base Shear
Ductility Factor
Redundancy Factor
Over strength Factor
R
Column Size:650mm Dia

Zone IV
Full
Empty
1.46
0.58
401
369.25
2.23
2.29
0.86
0.86
1.827
1.28
3.51
2.52
Tank Type:Intz Tank

Staging Height 16m
Time Period
Base Shear
Ductility Factor
Redundancy Factor
Overstrength Factor
R

Zone IV
Full
Empty
1.68
0.82
356.17
298
1.11
2.54
0.86
0.86
1.92
1.89
1.83
4.13
Tank Type:Intz Tank

Staging Height 20m
Time Period
Base Shear
Ductility Factor
Redundancy Factor
Overstrength Factor
R

Zone IV
Full
Empty
2.015
1.05
304.5
237
1.49
1.83
0.86
0.86
1.45
1.91
1.87
3.01
Graphs for 250M3:

Graph shows the comparison of staging height verses three factors redundancy,
ductility, and over strength. Results are taken for 250m3 full and empty condition.
Results shows that R factor decrease with increase in staging height. Redundancy factor
is remaining same for all height. Over strength factor is decreasing by increasing
staging height. It shows that reserve strength of tank is decreasing by increasing height.
250m3 (Tank Full)

3
2.5
Factor
2
REDUNDANCY FACTOR
1.5
OVERSTRENGTH FACTOR
R Factor
0.5
0
12
14
16
18
20
Staging Height (m)
Figure4.5 Comparison of staging height verses three factors for empty tank.
250m3 (Empty)
5
Factor
4
3
REDUNDANCY FACTOR
2
OVERSTRENGTH FACTOR
R Factor
0
12
14
16
18
20
Staging Height (m)
Figure4.6 Comparison of staging height verses three factors for full tank.
Graph shows the comparison of time period verses three factors redundancy, ductility,
and over strength. Results are taken for 250m3 full and empty condition. Results shows
that R factor decrease with increase in time period. Redundancy depends upon number
of vertical framing, so Redundancy factor is remaining same for all height. Over
strength factor is increasing by increasing time period.
250m3 (Tank Full)

3
Factor
2.5
2
REDUNDANCY FACTOR
1.5
OVERSTRENGTH
FACTOR
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1.5
Time Period (sec)
Figure4.7 Comparison of time period verses three factors for full tank.
250m3 (Empty)
5
Factor
4
3
REDUNDANCY FACTOR
2
OVERSTRENGTH FACTOR
R Factor
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Time Period (sec)

Figure4.8 Comparison of time period verses three factors for empty tank.
This graph shows the comparison of staging height to time period. This graph shows
the comparison of staging height to time period. Graph shows that by increasing
staging height time period will increasing for full and empty condition of 250m3
water tank.
1.6
Time Period (sec)
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
FULL
0.6
EMPTY
0.4
0.2
0
12m
16m
20m
Staging Height (m)
Figure4.9 Comparison of staging height verses time period for full tank and empty.
This graph shows the comparison of staging height to base shear. Graph shows that by
increasing staging height base shear will decreasing for full and empty condition of
250m3 water tank.
350
Base Shear (kN)
300
250
200
150
FULL
100
EMPTY
50
0
12m
16m
20m
Staging Height (m)
Figure4.10 Comparison of staging height verses base shear for full tank and empty.
This graph shows the comparison of staging height to Redundancy factor. Graph
shows that by increasing staging height Redundancy factor will same for full and
Redundancy Factor
empty condition of 250m3 water tank.
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
FULL
EMPTY
12m
16m
20m
Staging Height (m)
Figure4.11 Comparison of staging height verses redundancy factor for full tank and
empty.
This graph shows the comparison of staging height to over strength factor. Graph
shows that by increasing staging height over strength factor will decrease for full and
empty condition of 250m3 water tank.
3.5
Overstrength Factor
3
2.5
2
FULL
1.5
EMPTY
1
0.5
0
12m
16m
20m
Staging Height (m)
Figure4.12 Comparison of staging height verses Overstrength Factor for full tank and
empty.
This graph shows the comparison of staging height to R factor. Graph shows that by
increasing staging height R factor will decrease for full and empty condition of
R Factor
250m3 water tank.
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
FULL
EMPTY
12m
16m
20m
Staging Height (m)
Figure4.13 Comparison of staging height verses R factor for full tank and empty.
4.4.2 for 500m3 water tank:


Tank Type:Intz Tank
Staging Height 12m
Time Period
Base Shear
Ductility Factor
Redundancy Factor
Over strength Factor
R

Zone IV
Full
Empty
1.46
0.58
401
369.25
2.23
2.29
0.86
0.86
1.827
1.28
3.51
2.52

Tank Type:Intz Tank
Staging Height 16m
Time Period
Base Shear
Ductility Factor
Redundancy Factor
Overstrength Factor
R

Zone IV
Full
Empty
1.68
0.82
356.17
298
1.11
2.54
0.86
0.86
1.92
1.89
1.83
4.13

Tank Type:Intz Tank
Staging Height 20m
Time Period
Base Shear
Ductility Factor
Redundancy Factor
Overstrength Factor
R

Zone IV
Full
Empty
2.015
1.05
304.5
237
1.49
1.83
0.86
0.86
1.45
1.91
1.87
3.01
Graphs for 500M3:

Graph shows the comparison of staging height with three factors redundancy, ductility,
that R factor decrease with increase in staging height. Redundancy depends upon
number of vertical framing, so Redundancy factor is remaining same for all height.
Over strength factor is decreasing by increasing staging height. It shows that reserve
strength of tank is decreasing by increasing height.
Factor
500m3 (Tank Full)

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
REDUNDANCY FACTOR
OVERSTRENGTH FACTOR
R Factor
12
14
16
18
20
Staging Height (m)
Figure4.14 Comparison of staging height verses three factor for full tank.
500m3 (Empty)
5
Factor
4
3
REDUNDANCY FACTOR
2
OVERSTRENGTH FACTOR
R Factor
0
12
14
16
18
20
Staging Height (m)
Figure4.15 Comparison of staging height verses three factor for empty tank.
Graph shows the comparison of time period verses three factors redundancy, ductility,
that R factor decrease with increase in time period. Redundancy depends upon number
of vertical framing, so Redundancy factor is remaining same for all height. Over
strength factor is increasing by increasing time period.
Factor
500m3 (Tank Full)

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
REDUNDANCY FACTOR
OVERSTRENGTH FACTOR
R Factor
0.5
1.5
2.5
Time Period (sec)
Figure4.16 Comparison of time period verses three factor for full tank.
500m3 (Empty)
5
Factor
4
3
REDUNDANCY FACTOR
OVERSTRENGTH FACTOR
R Factor
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Time Period (sec))
Figure4.17 Comparison of time period verses three factor for empty tank.
This graph given below shows the comparison of staging height to time period. Graph
shows that by increasing staging height time period will increasing for full and empty
condition of 500m3 water tank.
Time Period (sec)
2.5
2
1.5
FULL
EMPTY
0.5
0
12m
16m
20m
Staging Height (m)
Figure4.18 Comparison of staging height verses time period for full and empty tank.
This graph given below shows the comparison of staging height to base shear. Graph
shows that by increasing staging height base shear will decreasing for full and empty
Base Shear (kN)
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
FULL
EMPTY
12m
16m
20m
Staging Height (m)
Figure4.19 Comparison of staging height verses base shear for full and empty tank.
This graph given below shows the comparison of staging height to Redundancy
factor. Graph shows that by increasing staging height Redundancy factor will saame
Redundancy Factor
for full and empty condition of 500m3 water tank.
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
FULL
EMPTY
12m
16m
20m
Staging Height (m)
Figure4.20 Comparison of staging height verses Redundancy Factor for full and
empty tank.
This graph given below shows the comparison of staging height to over strength.
Graph shows that by increasing staging height over strength will decreasing for full
and empty condition of 500m3 water tank.
Overstrength Factor
2.5
2
1.5
FULL
EMPTY
0.5
0
12m
16m
20m
Staging Height (m)
Figure4.21Comparison of staging height verses Overstrength Facto for full and empty
tank
This graph given below shows the comparison of staging height to R factor. Graph
shows that by increasing staging height R factor will decreasing for full and empty
R Factor
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
FULL
EMPTY
12m
16m
20m
Staging Height (m)
Figure4.22 Comparison of staging height verses R Facto for full and empty tank
4.5 Formulation of response reduction factor:
Response reduction factor is product of three factor 1) over strength factor 2) ductility
factor and 3) redundancy factor.
R = Rs * RR * R
For the formulation of R factor we take a 500m3(full condition) tank with 12m height,
zone 4, and staging type 6 columns.
Dimensions of all members are shown in figure below:
Static nonlinear analysis is done by using SAP with two nonlinear cases. Push 1and
Push 2. Push 1 includes dead load with full load control. Push 2 includes earthquake
load with displacement control, including multiple state in both cases.
Figure shows the pushover curve for 500m3(full), 12m height of water tank, damping
ratio is considered 5%.
Figure4.23 Pushover curve for 500m3(full condition) tank with 12m height.
From the pushover curve we can take yield drift (y) and maximum base shear (Vo):
y=0.024
Vo=733.65
Time period (t) = 1.45688
Design Base shear (as per EQ calculation) Vd = 401.5
Now, calculation for R:
Estimation of strength factor:
Strength factor is the ratio of Maximum Base Shear (from pushover curve)
VO to Design Base shear (as per EQ calculation) Vd.
Rs = Vo / Vd = 1.827
Estimation of ductility factor:
R = {( - 1 / ) + 1}
= m / y
m = Maximum drift capacity (0.004 H)
y = Yield drift (from pushover curve)
for rock sites: = 1+ {1 / (10T -T)}{(1 / 2T)*e^ (-2(ln (T) 0.6) ^2)}
Using this equations R = 2.23

Estimation of redundancy factor:
The value of redundancy factor as suggested in ATC-19 is summaries in Table 3.
Table 4.8 Results for Redundancy factor.
Lines of vertical seismic framing
Drift redundancy factor
0.71
0.86
We have 3 lines of vertical framing so, RR is 0.86
Now R = Rs * RR * R
R=3.51
4.6 Summary:
In this chapter pushover analysis of 12m, 16m, and 20m height of water tank with
250m3 and 500m3 capacities with full and empty condition are done using SAP and R
factor is calculated. Calculation of R factor of 500m3(full), 12m height is shown.
Comparison of various result and its graphs are included and discussed. Effect of height
on R is studied. Comparison of R with different factors is shown with graph and
discussed about results.
CHAPTER-5
EFFECT OF
SEISMIC ZONE ON RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

5.1 General:
Seismic behavior of water tank is changed in different seismic zones.so, R factor also
varies by changing the seismic zones. In this chapter effect of zones on R factor is
studied. Zone 2, 3, 4, 5 are taken for study of 20mheight of water tank. Change in R
factor for different zones is very important for the seismic design of elevated tank.
5.2 description of problem:

framed structure with different staging height of 20m, respectively, Zone 2, 3, 4, 5 and
staging type of 6 columns is fixed for the varying height. In this study, the column
staging supports are assumed as a fixed while the simple circular tie bracing has been
considered. Since the tank vessel is Intze, there is a symmetric in the loading and shape
of the vessel. This type of tank and supporting system has been widely used in the recent
years around the world.
Figure 5.1 Staging type 6 columns
5.3 Analysis of tank:

Analysis of tank is done by using SAP 2000. First of all 3D model of water tank is
generated. Now material property of concrete and loading is applied. For the loading,
dead load and earthquake load is applied for the zone 2, 3, 4, 5. Finally tank will be
analyzed.
5.4 Results and discussion:

Results of variation in zone are discussed as below. Zone varies from 2 to 5, staging
height is 20M and staging type is 6 columns tie bracing
Table 5.3 for zone II
Tank Type:Intz Tank
Staging Height 20m
Time Period
Base Shear
Ductility Factor
Redundancy Factor
Overstrength Factor
R

Zone II
Full
Empty
1.25223
101
2.41
0.86
1.84
3.99
0.955
87
2.44
0.86
3.79
7.9
Table 5.4 for zone III

Tank Type:Intz Tank
Staging Height 20m
Time Period
Base Shear
Ductility Factor
Redundancy Factor
Overstrength Factor
R

Zone III
Full
Empty
1.25223
161
2.41
0.86
1.87
3.2
0.955
141
2.44
0.86
2.31
4.86
Table 5.5 for zone IV

Tank Type:Intz Tank
Staging Height 20m
Time Period
Base Shear
Ductility Factor
Redundancy Factor
Overstrength Factor
R

Zone IV
Full
Empty
1.25
263
0.8
0.86
1.94
1.34
0.955
233
1.61
0.86
1.93
2.68
Table 5.6 for zone V

Tank Type:Intz Tank
Staging Height 20m
Time Period
Base Shear
Ductility Factor
Redundancy Factor
Overstrength Factor
R

Zone V
Full
Empty
1.25
280
0.5344
0.86
2.42
1.23
0.955
316
2.44
0.86
1.28
2.68
Graphs for 250M3:
Effect of zone on different parameters is shown in graph:

This graph below shows the effect of zone on time period. Graph shows that time period will
remaining same by changing zones.
1.4
Time Period (sec)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
FULL
0.4
EMPTY
0.2
0
II
III
IV
zone
Figure 5.2 Comparison of zone verses time period for full and empty tank.
This graph below shows the effect of zone on base shear. Graph shows that base shear will
increasing by changing zones from 2 to 5.
300
Base shear (kN)
250
200
150
FULL
100
EMPTY
50
0
II
III
IV
seismic zone
Figure 5.3 Comparison of zone verses base shear for full and empty tank.
This graph below shows the effect of zone on R factor. Graph shows that base shear will
decreasing by changing zones from 2 to 5.
10
8
6
4
2
0
II
III
IV
V
FULL
EMPTY
Figure 5.4 Comparison of zone verses R- factor for full and empty tank.
This graph below shows the effect of zone on three factor. Graph shows that R factor will
decreasing by changing zones from 2 to 5 for tank full and empty condition.
250m3 (Tank Full)
5
Factor
4
3
REDUNDANCY FACTOR
OVERSTRENGTH FACTOR
R Factor
0
0
seismic zone
Figure 5.5 Comparison of zone verses three factor for full tank.
250m3 (tank empty)
10
Factor
8
6
REDUNDANCY FACTOR
OVERSTRENGTH FACTOR
R Factor
0
0
seismic zone
Figure 5.6 Comparison of zone verses three factor for empty tank.

Table 5.7 for zone II

Tank Type:Intz Tank
Staging Height 20m
Time Period
Base Shear
Ductility Factor
Redundancy Factor
Overstrength Factor
R

Zone II
Full
Empty
2.015
1.05
126.85
99.12
0.89
3.083
0.86
0.86
0.86
2.96
3.61
7.877
Table 5.8 for zone III

Tank Type:Intz Tank
Staging Height 20m
Time Period
Base Shear
Ductility Factor
Redundancy Factor
Overstrength Factor
R

Zone III
Full
Empty
2.015
1.05
202.96
158
0.89
1.87
0.86
0.86
2.44
2.84
2.24
4.61
Table 5.9 for zone IV

Tank Type:Intz Tank
Staging Height 20m
Time Period
Base Shear
Ductility Factor
Redundancy Factor
Overstrength Factor
R

Zone IV
Full
Empty
2.015
1.05
304.5
237
1.49
1.83
0.86
0.86
1.45
1.91
1.87
3.01
Table 5.10 for zone V
Tank Type:Intz Tank
Staging Height 20m
Time Period
Base Shear
Ductility Factor
Redundancy Factor
Overstrength Factor
R

Zone V
Full
Empty
2.05
1.05
456.68
356.77
0.89
1.88
0.86
0.86
1.3
1.26
1.01
2.04
Graphs for 500M3:
Effect of zone on different parameters is shown in graph:

This graph below shows the effect of zone on time period. Graph shows that time period will
remaining same by changing zones.
Time Period (sec)
2.5
2
2.015
2.015
2.015
2.01
1.5
1
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
0.5
0
II
III
IV
zone
V
FULL
EMPTY
Figure 5.7 Comparison of zone verses time period for full and empty tank.
Base shear (kN)
This graph below shows the effect of zone on base shear. Graph shows that base shear will
increasing by changing zones from 2 to 5.
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
II
III
seismic zone
IV
FULL
EMPTY
Figure 5.8 Comparison of zone verses base shear for full and empty tank.
This graph below shows the effect of zone on R factor. Graph shows that base shear will
decreasing by changing zones from 2 to 5.
10
8
6
4
2
0
II
III
IV
V
FULL
EMPTY
Figure 5.9 Comparison of zone verses R-factor for full and empty tank.
This graph below shows the effect of zone on three factor. Graph shows that R factor will
decreasing by changing zones from 2 to 5 for tank full and empty condition. Over strength
decreases by changing the zone from 2 to 5. Redundancy remains same for every zone for
tank full and empty condition
Factor
500m3 (Tank Full)

5
4
3
2
1
0
REDUNDANCY FACTOR
OVERSTRENGTH FACTOR
R Factor
0
seismic zone
Figure 5.10 Comparison of zone verses three factor for full tank.
500m3 (tank empty)

10
Factor
8
6
REDUNDANCY FACTOR
OVERSTRENGTH FACTOR
R Factor
0
0
seismic zone
Figure 5.11 Comparison of zone verses three factor for empty tank.
5.5 summary:
In this chapter pushover analysis of 20m height of water tank with 250m3 and 500m3
capacities with full and empty condition are done using SAP and R factor is calculated.
A study of variation in zone from 2 to 5 for the same height is made in this chapter.
Comparison of R with different factors and is shown using bar charts. Effect of zone on
R factor is studied and discussed.
CHAPTER-6
EFFECT OF WATER TANK STAGING
PATTERN ON RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

6.1 General:
During the earthquake, bracing fails first in elevated type water tank. So, effect of
staging pattern on R is important to study.in our study, two type of staging pattern is
taken and R factor is calculated for these two staging pattern.
6.2 Description of problem:

framed structure with different staging height of 20m, respectively, Zone 4 is fixed for
the varying staging pattern. In this study, the column staging supports are assumed as a
fixed while the simple circular tie bracing and ross bracing has been considered. Since
the tank vessel is Intze, there is a symmetric in the loading and shape of the vessel. This
type of tank and supporting system has been widely used in the recent years around the
world.
Water tank Specification for 250m3 capacity:
These two staging pattern are taken:
Figure 6.1
Staging Type 1(tie bracing)
Figure 6.2
Staging Type 2 (Ross bracing)
6.3 Analysis of tank:

Analysis of tank is done by using SAP 2000. First of all 3D model of water tank is
generated. Now material property of concrete and loading is applied. For the loading,
dead load and earthquake load is applied for the zone 4. Finally tank will be analyzed.
Height of tank is 20m.Ross bracing and Tie bracing is taken for analysis.
6.4 Results and discussion:
Result of staging effect on response reduction factor is discussed as below. Here height
of water tank is 20M and zone 4 is used. Two types of staging type tie bracing and Ross
bracing is studied for full and empty conditions.

Table 6.3 for tie bracing.
Tank Type:Intz Tank
Staging Height 20m
Time Period
Base Shear
Ductility Factor
Redundancy Factor
Overstrength Factor
R

Zone IV
Full
Empty
1.25
263
0.8
0.86
1.94
1.34
0.955
233
1.61
0.86
1.93
2.68
Table 6.4 For Ross bracing.

Tank Type:Intz Tank
Staging Height 20m
Time Period
Base Shear
Ductility Factor
Redundancy Factor
Overstrength Factor
R

Zone IV
Full
Empty
1.35
309
0.97
0.86
1.89
1.6
Table 6.5 for tie bracing.
0.9
258
0.95
0.86
3.488
2.86
Tank Type:Intz Tank

Staging Height 20m
Time Period
Base Shear
Ductility Factor
Redundancy Factor
Overstrength Factor
R

Zone IV
Full
Empty
2.015
1.05
304.5
237
1.49
1.83
0.86
0.86
1.45
1.91
1.87
3.01
Table 6.6 for Ross bracing.

Tank Type:Intz Tank
Staging Height 20m
Time Period
Base Shear
Ductility Factor
Redundancy Factor
Overstrength Factor
R

Zone IV
Full
Empty
1.25
263
0.8
0.86
1.94
1.34
1.04
272.7
1.6
0.86
1.98
2.74
6.5Summary:
In this chapter pushover analysis of 20m height of water tank with 250m3 and 500m3
capacities with full and empty condition are done using SAP and R factor is calculated.
A study of variation in staging type of 6 columns for the same height is made in this
chapter. Comparison of R with different factors and is shown using bar charts. Effect
staging R factor is studied and discussed.
CHAPTER-7
CONCLUSION
The water tanks Fundamental time period increases with increasing in staging
height. Also time period increases with the tank filling condition (full or empty).
The critical response is occurs in case of full tank conditions. This result may
be due to the fact that the hydrodynamic pressures higher in tank full case as
compared to empty water tank.
The Base shear is decreases as the staging height increases that is due to increase
in Time period and the dispersion of base shear is increased when the percentage
of the filling in the storage tanks are increasing.
The
response
reduction
factor
is
considerably
affected
by
the
fundamental time period of water tanks. It reduces as the fundamental time

period increases.
Estimation of response reduction factor with exact analysis will help in an

economical design.
It is observed that response reduction varies from 1.5 to 4 for tank in full
condition in seismic zone IV.
The response reduction factor is considerably affected by the staging height of

water tanks. It reduces as the height of water tank is increasing.
By changing the pattern of bracing from tie bracing to Ross bracing than R
factor is decreasing. So R-factor is affected by the type of bracing.

A Study On Response Reduction Factor of RC Wter Tank

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

A Study On Response Reduction Factor of RC Wter Tank

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A STUDY ON RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR OF RC WATER TANK

DARSHAN INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, RAJKOTMORBI HIGHWAY, HADALA.

According to shape of container

According to supporting structure

Figure-1.1 Classification of Elevated service reservoir

Figure 1.2 elevted intze type water tank.

1.2 NEED OF STUDY:

The figure 1.3 collapse of water tank

Table 1.1 R as Per International Standards for Elevated Tanks

IBC 2000/ FEMA 368

IS:1893-2002(Part -2) RCC frame support (draft code)

1.4 SCOPE OF WORK:

2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

MANORANJAN SAHOO and TANDRITA BISWAS (2007): In this study, Wind

(D) API 650 (1998)

2.2.2 Response Reduction Factor of Water Tank:

Mostafa Masoudi, Sassan Eshghi, Mohsen Ghafory-Ashtiany (2012): This paper

mechanism of plastic hinge formation. Here displacement controlled pushover analysis

2.2.3 Push over analysis:

SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

3.2 Review of basic component of response reduction factor:

withstand stronger shaking without collapse.

Figure 3.1 Horizontal force verses roof displacement.

Estimation of over strength (Rs) factor:

Estimation of ductility factor:

Equations for estimation of ductility factor is as below:

Estimation of redundancy factor:

Table 3.1 Redundancy Factor as per ATC-19

Drift redundancy factor

3.3 TWO MASS MODAL METHOD

(a) Two mass idealization

(d) equivalent uncoupled system

Figure 3.2 Two mass idealization of elevated tank

Figure 3.3 Two mass computational model of elevated tank

Table-3.2 Expression of Mass and Height for Impulsive & Convective

for h/D 0.75

for h/D > 0.75

for h/D 1.33

for h/D > 1.33

3.4 Material Properties:

Permissible stress in concrete:

Permissible stresses in steel:

3.5 Hinge formation:

3.6 Design methodology:

Design of liquid retaining structure is different from ordinary R.C.C, structures as it

Methodology of work is shown in flow diagram below.

1 Selection of Water tank for Response reduction

4 Calculate over strength factor (over strength +

5 Calculate Response Reduction factor

6 Interpretation of Results in form of

Figure 3.4 Flow chart of work.

3.7 bench mark problem study:

3.7.2 Problem Description:

We take an example-3 from GSDMA guidelines for the validation of software.

Table-3.3 Data of Ex-3 from GSDMA guidelines

Top dome Rise

Cylindrical dia i/i

Top Ring Beam

Middle Ring Beam

Bottom Ring Beam

conical Dome Rise

Bottom Dome Rise

Figure 3.5 Members and its size of elevated water tank.