Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech.

2017 Pronoy Roy Chowdhury and Partha Ghosh, 2017

ISSN 2319-5991 www.ijerst.com

Vol. 6, No. 1, February 2017
© 2017 IJERST. All Rights Reserved

Research Paper

A CRITICAL STUDY OF SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF

R.C ELEVATED WATER TANKS ON SHAFTS TYPE
OF STAGING SYSTEM
Partha Ghosh1 and Pronoy Roy Chowdhury2*

*Corresponding Author: Pronoy Roy Chowdhury  pronoyrc@gmail.com

Elevated water tanks are top heavy structures. These structures have an inherent tendency to
overturn under earthquake induced lateral forces. However it is important to keep such life line
facilities functioning in the post earthquake scenario. Thus such structures should be designed
as earthquake resistant. In recent years elevated water tanks are constructed both on annular
shaft and frame type of staging as per judgment of the Structural Engineer. But from
reconnaissance studies post earthquake it was found that shaft structures have relatively inferior
seismic performance in comparison to frame type of staging due to lack of redundancy and
difficulty in implementing ductile detailing in the shaft portion. In this paper an attempt shall be
made to make a comparative study of seismic design of such elevated water tanks with shaft
staging against frame staging with special reference to seismic codes.

Keywords: Elevated water tanks, Shaft staging, Seismic design, Earthquake resistant design,
Water tank

INTRODUCTION ease of construction and lesser time involved in

Elevated water tanks are top heavy inverted construction in comparison to frame type of
pendulum structures. These structures have an staging. But shaft structures have relatively inferior
inherent tendency to overturn under earth quake seismic performance in comparison to frame
induced lateral forces. However it is important to type of staging due to lack of redundancy and
keep such life line facilities functioning in the post- difficulty to implement ductile detailing in the shaft
earthquake scenario. Thus such structures staging portion. Many of shaft type elevated water
should be designed as earthquake resistant. In tanks have failed in recent earthquakes, at Killari,
recent years R.C.C elevated water tanks are Jabalpur and Bhuj in India (see Figures 2a-2d). In
supported on annular shaft has become popular this dissertation an attempt has been made to
among water supply Engineers due to the relative critically study seismic design of such elevated
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Construction Engineering, Jadavpur University, Saltlake campus, Kolkata, India.
2
Ph.D. Student, Executive Engineer PHE Directorate, Govt. of W.B, 185/186 Shibpur Road Howrah, West Bengal, India, PIN-
711102.

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

65
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017 Pronoy Roy Chowdhury and Partha Ghosh, 2017

water tanks with shaft type staging against frame higher modes are neglected. The SDOF modeling
staging, with special reference to the Indian suggested in the relevant Indian earthquake design
seismic code. Elevated tanks have either on shaft code IS:1893-1984 forms such a structural model
or frame staging which has failed due to so that the fundamental period of the structure is a
earthquake at various places of India which has short period system. Hence the structure shall
been recorded in literature (Rai and Singh, 2004). attract larger seismic forces. It is found that SDOF
Reinforced concrete shaft staging for water tanks model actually overestimates the seismic forces,
are designed typically to sustain gravity loads and experimental verifications (Boyce, 1973) have
some moderate lateral loads. Such shaft staging substantiated the findings and it is also depicted in
systems should be so designed so that they paper (see Figure 1). But multi-degree freedom
behave elastically in the event of severe model gives the effect of the higher modes and
earthquakes. Since many such tanks has failed Figure 1: Comparative Study of SDOF
in the past due to earthquakes it has become a and TDOF Model of Water Tank
crying need of the hour to properly design such
structures. It has been found (Rai, 2003) that the
major cause attributed to the failure of elevated
water tank with shaft staging are circumferential
cracking of concrete near the base zone due to
flexural tension. Whereas elevated water tanks
on frame staging may fail due to shear of beam
and column members of the staging system under
seismic jolts.
It is alarming to find that many elevated tank
structure actually designed for earthquake forces
have failed, raising eyebrows regarding the Figure 2a: Collapsed 265 kL Water Tank
sanctity of the Indian Earthquake codes. This wide in Chobari Village about 20 km from the
Epicenter, The Tank was Approx. Half Full
criticism has invited alternative suggestion from During the Bhuj Earthquake (2001)
various researchers (Rai, 2003). But certain
researchers (Vamshidhar and Jain, 2007) are of
the opinion that elevated water tanks designed
as per Indian codes in the past has performed
successfully in many cases under severe
earthquake forces so the existing codes are
adequate. To support their thought the other
school has sited few example water tanks actually
constructed in at various places in India. The
Single Degree of freedom (SDOF) model as
suggested in the existing code is an
oversimplification of the problem where all the

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

66
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017
Figure 2b: This Type of Failure Occurs Due
to High Shear Force in the End of Beams, 45°
Angle Shear Cracks Appear in the Plastic
Joints, This Type of Failure is Observed
in Chile Earthquake in South America
in 1960 with a Magnitude M = 8.5,
for Elevated Water Tank
Figure 2c: Killery Earthquake Tank of Kautha
Collapsed Straight Down into its Crumpled
Supports, Circumferential Displacement
of about 0.5 m Suggests that Rotational
Vibration Led to its Collapse
Figure 2d: 200 kL Bhachau Water Tank
Developed Tension-Flexural Cracks Up to
One-Third Height of the Staging, Severe
Cracking at the Junctions of the First Two ‘Lift’
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php
67
Pronoy Roy Chowdhury and Partha Ghosh, 2017
hence ensures a more accurate analysis of lateral
forces. Such modeling also gives an idea about
flexibility of the structural system, in this case the
staging part. In fact the fundamental period being
larger the structure shall represent a more flexible
system and response shall be much lower as
compared to SDOF model.
Generally in earthquake analysis it is
customary to consider that the structure is
founded on solid rock, but in actual practice there
is interaction of the structure with soil. It has been
found (Dutta and Dutta, 2003) that if such
interaction is taken into account then there is
lengthening in the fundamental period of the tank
structure. Circular Raft foundations are typically
used for elevated reservoirs; in one of the works
attempt has been made to model the interaction
behaviour of the raft slab and the underlying
foundation soil. Springs with three types of
stiffness are used to model three degrees of
freedom namely translational, rocking and
torsional degrees of freedom. The relevant
expressions of such stiffness are given in
literature (Rai and Singh, 2004). R.C.C elevated
water tanks of various capacities and different
height of staging system both on shaft and frame
type of staging shall be studied against seismic
forces as per I.S codes for SDOF, two degree of
freedom model (TDOF), multi-degree of freedom,
ball and stick model and finite element model and
the cases shall be compared so as to identify the
relative efficiency of each of the modelling
scheme. The work may act as an elaborate
guideline to Structural Engineers while designing
such class of structures.
STRUCTURAL MODELING
AND ANALYTICAL
APPROACH
Housner (1963) proposed a two degree of
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017
freedom model where elevated water tank with
its liquid content has been modeled as a two
degree of freedom system. These types of tanks
are categorized under “inverted Pendulum” class
of structure. When the surmounted tank filled with
water is subjected to seismic shaking,
hydrodynamic pressure develops. Broadly the
hydrodynamic pressure may be classified in two
categories (i) Impulsive pressure, and (ii)
Convective pressure respectively. The portion of
the liquid in the inner part of the tanks acts with
the body of the tank walls and creates the
impulsive pressure. The other part of the liquid
which is near the liquid surface exhibits a sloshing
motion. The oscillatory motion develops
convective pressure on the walls and base of the
tank. The two classifications of hydro-dynamic
pressures have been represented by a simple
mechanical analogy which is represented in the
Figures 3a-3d. The impulsive pressure is
represented as a liquid mass rigidly fixed to the
walls of the tank by rigid links as impulsive mass
mi and the convective pressure is represented
by mass mc attached with a convective spring to
Figure 3: Two Mass Idealization of Elevated
Water Tank
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php
68
Pronoy Roy Chowdhury and Partha Ghosh, 2017
the impulsive mass of stiffness say Kc. For
elevated water tanks the mass of the staging
system is also to be taken into consideration as
ms. As per IS: 1893-1984 vide clause no. 5.2.4 l/
3rd of the staging mass should act together with
the weight of the full tank container. The mass mi
is attached to the base of the staging system via
a vertical member of stiffness that of the staging
system.
The expressions of mi, mc and Kc are given
below (Newmark and Rosenblueth, 1971).
...(1)
...(2)
...(3a)
impulsive and convective masses are located at
a distance hi and hc respectively from the bottom
of the tank container, the expressions for which
are as follows
...(3b)
...(3c)
The time period for the impulsive mode of
vibration is given by
T0 = 2((mi + ms)/Ks) ...(4)
Time period should be calculated for tank full
and tank empty condition of the water tank.
In case of the convective mode of vibration the
time period is
Tc = 2((mc)/Kc) ...(5)
Analysis due to water sloshing induced impact
on overhead liquid storage structures has been
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017
recently done by researchers (Muthu Vijay and
Amarprakash, 2014) elsewhere.
The behaviour of the shaft staging system of
the elevated tank under lateral earthquake force
is like a flexural beam. Damage surveys have also
revealed that the shaft staging system mainly fails
by circumferential cracking near the base by
tension flexure mode (Rai, 2003). Researchers
(Sood and Singh, 1983) have insisted upon
modeling the shaft as a cantilever beam attached
as the base (Figure 4).
Thus Lateral stiffness of the shaft type staging
Kstg = 3EI/13 ...(6)
where 1 = length of the shaft, E = modulus of
elasticity, I = moment of inertia of the section. In
case of annular section we have
I = II(D14-D24)/64 where D1 and D2 are the
outside and the inside diameter of the annular
shaft respectively.
Figure 4: BMD of Elevated Water Tank
on Shaft
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php
69
Pronoy Roy Chowdhury and Partha Ghosh, 2017
Lateral stiffness of the frame type staging is
obtained in the similar way as for building frames.
The natural period for the SDOF model as
suggested by IS: 1893-1984 vide clause no. 5.2.3
is given by the formula.
T = 2(/g) ...(7)
where  = the static horizontal deflection at the
top of the tank under a static horizontal force equal
to a weight W acting at the centre of gravity of the
tank.
and g = Acceleration due to gravity.
The horizontal seismic force as per the IS:
1893-1984 is given by ahW
where ah = design horizontal seismic co-efficient
which is given by
ah = ßIFo Sa/g ...(8)
where ß= A coefficient depending upon the soil-
foundation system, I = A factor dependent upon
the importance of the structure = 1.5 for elevated
water tanks, F0 = Seismic Zone factor for average
acceleration spectra and S a /g = Average
acceleration co-efficient as read from Figure 2 of
the code for appropriate natural period and
damping of the structure.
Natural period of the SDOF model should be
assessed for tank full and tank empty condition.
However from the recent version of the Indian
seismic code IS: 1893-2002 part-(l) we have that
design seismic base shear as
VB = AhW ...(9)
where horizontal Seismic co-efficient is given by
Ah = Z/2 x Sa/g x I/R ...(10)
where Z = zone factor, I = importance factor and
R = response reduction factor
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017
Sa/g = Average acceleration co-efficient as
read from of IS: 1893 part (l)-2002 for appropriate
natural period and damping of the structure.
The importance factor selected I = 1.5 which
as per IS: 1893 part (l)-2002 is for important
structures, which should remain in functional
condition after an earthquake such as hospital,
schools, etc. Elevated water tanks being a lifeline
facility and should remain in functional condition
to ensure water supply by gravity during the power
cut period has been classified under this class of
importance factor.
The parameter Response Reduction factor (R)
represents the ratio of maximum seismic force
on a structure during specified ground motion if it
were to remain elastic to design seismic force.
Thus actually (R) is used to reduce seismic force
to obtain design force. It has been found (Jaiswal
et al., 2007) that the reduction is dependent on
over strength, redundancy and ductility and it is
identified that shaft type elevated reservoir have
comparatively lower redundancy, than elevated
water tanks with frame type of staging which is a
highly redundant space frame structure. Seismic
design codes have specified different values of
Response reduction factors for elevated water
tanks like structure. However there is no specific
prediction regarding shaft type of staging so lower
bound value has been suggested in view the lower
redundancy value of the structure. In this
connection various international codes are
available regarding seismic design of water tanks.
Works on comparative discussions on such
codes are available in literature (Jaiswal et al.,
2007). Draft version of the Indian code for
earthquake resistant design of water tanks are
now available (IITK- GSDMA August, 2005), therein
it has been suggested to adopt two mass model
of the elevated water tank (Housner, 1963). In the
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php
70
Pronoy Roy Chowdhury and Partha Ghosh, 2017
above method the two mass idealized model of
the elevated water tank is represented as an
equivalent uncoupled system (Priestly et al.,
1986). Both of this system now becomes
equivalent SDOF system, which are shown in
figure no.3. However such uncoupling is permitted
when the period, for the impulsive and the
convective modes differ by at least 2.5 Sec. The
draft code recommends response reduction
factor of Tank supported on RC shaft RC shaft
with two curtains of reinforcement, each having
horizontal and vertical reinforcement as 1.8. Again
for Tank supported on RC frame and the frame
does not conform to ductile detailing, i.e., Ordinary
Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF) response
reduction factor is 1.8, for frames conforming to
ductile detailing, i.e., Special Moment Resisting
Frame (SMRF) the response reduction factor is
2.5. The Indian seismic code recommends
response spectrum analysis of a SDOF model
as a cantilever fixed at the base. Stiffness of the
shaft staging is relatively higher so it is expected
that SDOF model as per IS: 1893-1984 version
shall yield a relatively short period system. Such
short period systems, generally pertains to
acceleration sensitive region of the response
spectra. Also IS: 1893-1984 neglects the
convective component of hydrodynamic
pressure. Again the Indian standard for staging
system of elevated water tanks IS: 11682-1985
recommends the following for calculation of
seismic forces “wherever required the effect of
surge due to wave formation due to water should
be considered” which is mutually contradictory.
In the acceleration sensitive region of the
spectrum lengthening of fundamental period of
the structure may sometime cause increase in
response, however in many other cases
response may also reduce if the period
lengthening is very large. Some researchers have
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017
suggested to adopt multi-degree of freedom
model for seismic analysis of shaft supported
elevated water tanks, where the contributions of
the various higher modes of vibration has been
taken into consideration. Dynamic analysis using
response spectrum analysis has been assorted
to and the contribution of various modes has been
combined with SRSS method. Researchers
(Memari and Ahmadi, 1992) has also studied
failure of shaft supported R.C elevated water
tanks during Manjil–Roudbar earthquake in 1990
Iran. They have studied the behaviour of water
towers using finite element method. Thus it
appears that structural models of elevated water
tanks supported on shaft should be studied
through SDOF, TDOF, MDOF and FEM models
to get a comprehensive idea about the seismic
behaviour and vulnerability of such structures.
Design analysis and comparison of INTZ type
water tank for different wind speed and seismic
zones as per Indian codes has also been done
by researchers (Singh and Mohammed, 2015)
elsewhere.
STRUCTURES STUDIED
Five nos. R.C Elevated water tanks of Intz type
construction has been studied in this paper. The
capacity of the tank container varies from 250
Cum, 350 Cum, 600 Cum, 750 Cum and 1000
Cum. It is assumed that the tanks are constructed
of M30 grade concrete to ensure water tightness
and Fe 415 grade steel has been used. It is
assumed that the tanks are constructed on shaft
as well as frame type of staging. The heights of
the staging are varied through 15 m, 20 m, and
25 m respectively for all the tanks under study.
SDOF model as suggested in the IS 1893-1984
version shall be studied. Simultaneously Two
degree freedom model as proposed by Housner
and adopted by IITK-GSDMA guideline shall also
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php
71
Pronoy Roy Chowdhury and Partha Ghosh, 2017
be studied. For shaft type of staging the lateral
stiffness of the shaft has been modelled as
cantilever, Kstg = 3EI/13 whereas for frame type of
staging the lateral stiffness of the columns have
been used as Kstg = 12EI/13. Where 1 = Length of
the shaft, E = modulus of elasticity, I = moment
of inertia of the section. It has been assumed that
the horizontal bracings are very stiff and they do
not undergo any deflection under lateral seismic
load. Lumped mass model has been studied
using response spectrum analysis in STAAD
PRO software. The shaft has been divided into
five small portions vertically and the mass of each
of the portions has been lumped, also the mass
of the tank container with and without water in
the tank has been lumped at appropriate locations
and free vibration analysis has been performed
to take into account the contribution of the higher
modes of vibration, which are neglected in the
SDOF analysis. The lumped masses are
connected with beam elements which have
equivalent sectional area to that of the shaft
staging or the three dimensional frames. The
shaft and the frame elements are conceived as
springs. The columns at a particular level of
bracing are conceived as springs connected in
parallel. W hereas the lateral stiffness of
subsequent bays of columns are conceived as
springs connected in series. The tanks are
assumed to be founded on hard rock, for the
purpose of the present study. Detailed sectional
dimensions of the tanks of five different capacities
and staging systems are tabulated (Table 1) with
the lateral stiffness of their staging systems in
tabular form (Table 2) for ready reference. Beside
this tabular representation of fundamental time
period of the various tanks with different height of
the staging are given for all the various analytical
models. The variation of Bending Moment (BM)
at the base for all the five models, which the
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017 Pronoy Roy Chowdhury and Partha Ghosh, 2017

Table 1: Sectional Dimensions of the R.C Elevated Water Tanks of Five Different Capacities
on Shaft and Frame Type Staging

Component Details Component Details

Capacity of Tank = 250 cum Capacity of Tank = 250 cum
Shaft Type Staging Frame Type Staging
Top Dome 100 mm thick Top Dome 100 mm thick
Top Ring Beam 300 mm x 200 mm Top Ring Beam 300 mm x 200 mm
Cylindrical Wall 200 mm thick Cylindrical Wall 200 mm thick
Bottom Ring Beam 500 mm x 300 mm Bottom Ring Beam 500 mm x 300 mm
Circular Ring Beam 400 mm x 300 mm Circular Ring Beam 400 mm x 300 mm
Bottom Dome 150 mm thick Bottom Dome 150 mm thick
Conical Dome 250 mm thick Conical Dome 250 mm thick
Shaft Wall 150 mm thick Bracing 300mm x 300mm
Column 8 nos. 650 mm dia
Component Details Component Details
Capacity of Tank = 350 cum Capacity of Tank = 350 cum
Shaft Type Staging Frame Type Staging
Top Dome 100 mm thick Top Dome 100 mm thick
Top Ring Beam 300 mm x 200 mm Top Ring Beam 300 mm x 200 mm
Cylindrical Wall 200 mm thick Cylindrical Wall 200 mm thick
Bottom Ring Beam 500 mm x 350 mm Bottom Ring Beam 500 mmx 350 mm
Circular Ring Beam 400 mm x 300 mm Circular Ring Beam 400 mm x 300 mm
Bottom Dome 150 mm thick Bottom Dome 150 mm thick
Conical Dome 250 mm thick Conical Dome 250 mm thick
Shaft Wall 150 mm thick Bracing 300 mm x 300 mm
Column 8 nos. 660 mm dia
Component Details Component Details
Capacity of Tank = 600 cum Capacity of Tank = 600 cum
Shaft Type Staging Frame Type Staging
Top Dome 100 mm thick Top Dome 100 mm thick
Top Ring Beam 300 mm x 250 mm Top Ring Beam 300 mm x 250 mm
Cylindrical Wall 300 mm thick Cylindrical Wall 300 mm thick
Bottom Ring Beam 500 mm x 400 mm Bottom Ring Beam 500 mm x 400 mm
Circular Ring Beam 500 mm x 500 mm Circular Ring Beam 500 mm x 500 mm
Bottom Dome 200 mm thick Bottom Dome 200 mm thick
Conical Dome 300 mm thick Conical Dome 300 mm thick
Shaft Wall 150 mm thick Braces 500 x 400 mm
Columns 8 nos. 670 mm dia

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

72
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017 Pronoy Roy Chowdhury and Partha Ghosh, 2017

Table 1 (Cont.)

Component Details Component Details

Capacity of Tank = 750 cum Capacity of Tank = 750 cum
Shaft Type Staging Shaft Type Staging
Top Dome 100 mm thick Top Dome 100 mm thick
Top Ring Beam 300 mm x 250 mm Top Ring Beam 300 mm x 250 mm
Cylindrical Wall 300 mm thick Cylindrical Wall 300 mm thick
Bottom Ring Beam 500 mm x 400 mm Bottom Ring Beam 500 mm x 400 mm
Circular Ring Beam 500 mm x 500 mm Circular Ring Beam 500 mm x 500 mm
Bottom Dome 250 mm thick Bottom Dome 250 mm thick
Conical Dome 300 mm thick Conical Dome 300 mm thick
Shaft Wall 150 mm thick Braces 500 x 400 mm
Columns 8 nos. 680 mm dia
Component Details Component Details
Capacity of Tank = 1000 cum Capacity of Tank = 1000 cum
Shaft Type Staging Frame Type Staging
Top Dome 200 mm thick Top Dome 200 mm thick
Top Ring Beam 300 x 300 mm Top Ring Beam 300 mm x 300 mm
Cylindrical Wall 400 mm thick Cylindrical Wall 400 mm thick
Bottom Ring Beam 1200 x 600 mm Bottom Ring Beam 1200 mm x 600 mm
Circular Ring Beam 1200 x 600 mm Circular Ring Beam 1200 mm x 600 mm
Bottom Dome 300 mm thick Bottom Dome 300 mm thick
Conical Dome 600 mm thick Conical Dome 600 mm thick
Shaft Wall 200 mm thick Braces 500 mm x 500 mm
Columns 8 nos. 690 mm dia

Table 2: Lateral Stiffness of the Staging System of Tanks

Stiffness (KN/m)
Capacity of Tank (cum) Staging Type
15 m 20 m 25 m
Frame 44863.51 33647.64 26918.11
250
Shaft 249401.04 106261.25 54730.25
Frame 47688.71 35766.53 28613.23
350
Shaft 262669.06 112050.87 57754.69
Frame 50645.29 37983.97 30387.17
600
Shaft 313495.19 133895.3 69064.72
Frame 53737.26 40302.94 32242.36
750
Shaft 361348.43 155452.55 80535.47
Frame 56968.69 42726.52 34181.21
1000
Shaft 476816.43 207072.94 107895.94

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

73
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017 Pronoy Roy Chowdhury and Partha Ghosh, 2017

structural staging shall be subjected to due to the
application of seismic shear, shall also be
represented in a graphical form against height of
staging system for both shaft and frame type of
staging. This shall essentially indicate variation
in seismic shear values, bending stress in the
tank staging due to cantilever type bending with
variation in the staging height of tank.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
From the tabular representation (Table 2) of the
lateral stiffness it is found that as the height of the
tank staging increases from 15 m to 25 m both for
shaft and the frame the lateral stiffness decreases.
Drawing comparison between the two, lateral
stiffness of the shaft is greater than frame type of
staging. It is seen from the tabulated data on time
period (Tables 3, 4 and 5) that as the staging height
increase there is lengthening in the natural period
of the system. The period is much longer in the
tank full condition than in tank empty condition. For
shaft type of staging system the period of the
system is much shorter in comparison to the frame
type of staging. The convective mode of the TDOF
model is of much longer period in comparison to
the impulsive mode. It is also found that the
impulsive period is smaller in comparison to the
period of the SDOF model. In the MDOF model
and the FEA model contribution of the higher
modes are obtained (Figures 5a and 5b) and it
provides for a more elaborate structural analysis.
The graphical representation showing variation in
B.M at the base of the tank with variation in height
of the staging is given in graphs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
and 8) for tank full and tank empty condition for all
SDOF, TDOF, MDOF and FEA models.

Table 3: (a) and (b) Showing Variation in Time Period for 250 cum Capacity of Tank with Both
Types of Staging System, Height of Staging has been Change from 15 m Through 25 m

Time Period (sec)

Capacity Height of
Staging Tank TDOF Model MDOF Model FEA Model
of Tank Staging SDOF
Type Condition
(cum) (m) Model Impulsive Convective Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Mode Mode
Tank Full 0.261 0.224 0.344 0.027 0.011 0.405 0.055 0.038
15 3.137
Tank Empty 0.167 0.166 0.209 0.024 0.009 0.222 0.058 0.04
Tank Full 0.406 0.349 0.497 0.04 0.015 0.568 0.066 0.05
250 Shaft 20 3.137
Tank Empty 0.265 0.264 0.307 0.036 0.013 0.32 0.069 0.05
Tank Full 0.574 0.496 0.67 0.056 0.02 0.751 0.077 0.064
25 3.137
Tank Empty 0.381 0.38 0.421 0.051 0.018 0.438 0.08 0.063
Time Period (sec)
Capacity Height of
Staging Tank TDOF Model MDOF Model FEA Model
of Tank Staging SDOF
Type Condition
(cum) (m) Model Impulsive Convective Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Mode Mode
Tank Full 0.615 0.526 0.807 0.059 0.202 1.443 0.472 0.148
15 3.137
Tank Empty 0.391 0.391 0.487 0.053 0.018 0.942 0.488 0.152
Tank Full 0.721 0.62 0.877 0.068 0.024 1.962 0.594 0.238
250 Frame 20 3.137
Tank Empty 0.468 0.468 0.541 0.062 0.021 1.29 0.606 0.24
Tank Full 0.817 0.706 0.95 0.078 0.027 2.441 0.704 0.343
25 3.137
Tank Empty 0.541 0.541 0.596 0.072 0.025 1.622 0.713 0.337

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

74
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017 Pronoy Roy Chowdhury and Partha Ghosh, 2017

Table 4: (a) and (b) Showing Variation in Time Period for 350 cum Capacity of Tank with Both
Types of Staging System, Height of Staging has been Change from 15 m Through 25 m

Time Period (sec)

Capacity Height of
Staging Tank TDOF Model MDOF Model FEA Model
of Tank Staging SDOF
Type Condition
(cum) (m) Model Impulsive Convective Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Mode Mode
Tank Full 0.293 0.249 0.4 0.029 0.011 0.468 0.064 0.04
15 3.334
Tank Empty 0.179 0.178 0.231 0.025 0.009 0.245 0.067 0.045
Tank Full 0.454 0.387 0.572 0.042 0.016 0.65 0.076 0.052
350 Shaft 20 3.334
Tank Empty 0.282 0.281 0.336 0.037 0.013 0.348 0.079 0.054
Tank Full 0.639 0.548 0.765 0.058 0.021 0.855 0.087 0.066
25 0.334
Tank Empty 0.404 0.403 0.458 0.052 0.018 0.469 0.09 0.654
Time Period (sec)
Capacity Height of
Staging Tank TDOF Model MDOF Model FEA Model
of Tank Staging SDOF
Type Condition
(cum) (m) Model Impulsive Convective Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Mode Mode
Tank Full 0.689 0.586 0.932 0.065 0.022 1.279 0.451 0.144
15 3.334
Tank Empty 0.42 0.42 0.538 0.056 0.019 0.783 0.464 0.146
Tank Full 0.805 0.688 1.005 0.074 0.025 1.636 0.551 0.217
350 Frame 20 3.334
Tank Empty 0.501 0.501 0.591 0.066 0.224 1.008 0.561 0.214
Tank Full 0.911 0.782 1.085 0.084 0.029 1.967 0.643 0.296
25 3.334
Tank Empty 0.578 0.578 0.643 0.075 0.025 1.226 0.651 0.285

Table 5: (a) and (b) Showing Variation in Time Period for 600 cum Capacity of Tank with Both
Types of Staging System, Height of Staging has been Change from 15 m Through 25 m

Time Period (sec)

Capacity Height of
Staging Tank TDOF Model MDOF Model FEA Model
of Tank Staging SDOF
Type Condition
(cum) (m) Model Impulsive Convective Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Mode Mode
Tank Full 0.349 0.314 0.548 0.038 0.013 0.613 0.084 0.047
15 3.365
Tank Empty 0.211 0.211 0.315 0.03 0.011 0.324 0.087 0.057
Tank Full 0.538 0.484 0.76 0.051 0.018 0.836 0.098 0.059
600 Shaft 20 3.365
Tank Empty 0.329 0.329 0.442 0.043 0.015 0.446 0.101 0.066
Tank Full 0.754 0.68 0.994 0.068 0.024 1.083 0.111 0.073
25 3.365
Tank Empty 0.467 0.466 0.585 0.059 0.02 0.586 0.114 0.077
Time Period (sec)
Capacity Height of
Staging Tank TDOF Model MDOF Model FEA Model
of Tank Staging SDOF
Type Condition
(cum) (m) Model Impulsive Convective Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Mode Mode
Tank Full 0.868 0.782 1.353 0.087 0.025 1.527 0.564 0.15
15 3.365
Tank Empty 0.526 0.526 0.777 0.071 0.022 0.912 0.575 0.15
Tank Full 1.011 0.911 1.421 0.095 0.03 1.927 0.681 0.22
600 Frame 20 3.365
Tank Empty 0.621 0.621 0.827 0.081 0.026 1.154 0.689 0.215
Tank Full 1.039 1.029 1.498 0.104 0.034 2.298 0.785 0.295
25 3.365
Tank Empty 0.708 0.708 0.882 0.091 0.03 1.385 0.792 0.284

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

75
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017 Pronoy Roy Chowdhury and Partha Ghosh, 2017

Table 6: (a) and (b) Showing Variation in Time Period for 750 cum Capacity of Tank with Both
Types of Staging System, Height of Staging has been Change from 15 m Through 25 m

Time P eriod (sec)

Capacity Height of
Staging Tank TDOF Model MDOF Model FEA Model
of Tank Stag ing SDOF
Type Condition
(cum) (m) Model Impulsive Convective Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Mode Mode
Tank Full 0.377 0.34 0.604 0.041 0.013 0.6 83 0.101 0.05 4
15 3.558
Tank Empty 0.242 0.242 0.369 0.032 0.011 0.3 71 0.104 0.06 2
Tank Full 0.578 0.521 0.832 0.054 0.018 0.9 23 0.118 0.06 6
750 Shaft 20 3.558
Tank Empty 0.374 0.374 0.514 0.045 0.016 0.5 09 0.12 0.07 1
Tank Full 0.807 0.729 1.084 0.07 0.024 1.1 87 0.133 0.07 9
25 3.558
Tank Empty 0.526 0.526 0.676 0.06 0.021 0.6 65 0.135 0.08 1
Time P eriod (sec)
Capacity Height of
Staging Tank TDOF Model MDOF Model FEA Model
of Tank Stag ing SDOF
Type Condition
(cum) (m) Model Impulsive Convective Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Mode Mode
Tank Full 0.979 0.882 1.563 0.097 0.027 1.68 0.675 0.15 7
15 3.558
Tank Empty 0.63 0.63 0.955 0.079 0.024 1.0 41 0.68 0.15 1
Tank Full 1.138 1.027 1.628 0.104 0.032 2.1 07 0.809 0.22 5
750 Frame 20 3.558
Tank Empty 0.738 0.738 1.005 0.088 0.028 1.3 11 0.813 0.21 5
Tank Full 1.28 1.157 1.71 0.112 0.037 2.5 04 0.929 0.29 9
25 3.558
Tank Empty 0.838 0.838 1.066 0.098 0.032 1.5 67 0.932 0.28 4

Table 7: (a) and (b) Showing Variation in Time Period for 1000 cum Capacity of Tank with Both
Types of Staging System, Height of Staging has been Change from 15 m Through 25 m

Time P eriod (sec)

Capacity Height of
Staging Tank TDOF Model MDOF Model FEA Model
of Tank Stag ing SDOF
Type Condition
(cum) (m) Model Impulsive Convective Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Mode Mode
Tank Full 0.387 0.355 0.647 0.044 0.013 0.7 25 0.113 0.06 2
15 3.716
Tank Empty 0.255 0.255 0.406 0.034 0.011 0.3 98 0.116 0.07
Tank Full 0.59 0.542 0.888 0.057 0.018 0.97 0.132 0.07 3
1000 Shaft 20 3.716
Tank Empty 0.392 0.392 0.558 0.046 0.016 0.5 39 0.134 0.07 8
Tank Full 0.821 0.755 1.148 0.072 0.024 1.2 38 0.148 0.08 5
25 3.716
Tank Empty 0.548 0.548 0.727 0.06 0.021 0.6 98 0.151 0.08 7
Time P eriod (sec)
Capacity Height of
Staging Tank TDOF Model MDOF Model FEA Model
of Tank Stag ing SDOF
Type Condition
(cum) (m) Model Impulsive Convective
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Mode Mode
Tank Full 1.121 1.028 1.851 0.11 0.027 1.9 55 0.81 0.16 6
15 3.716
Tank Empty 0.739 0.739 1.161 0.088 0.025 1.23 0.813 0.15 5
Tank Full 1.3 1.194 1.93 0.118 0.034 2.4 51 0.972 0.23 3
1000 Frame 20 3.716
Tank Empty 0.863 0.863 1.221 0.097 0.03 1.5 48 0.975 0.21 9
Tank Full 1.461 1.343 2.016 0.125 0.039 2.9 04 1.115 0.30 8
25 3.716
Tank Empty 0.976 0.976 1.286 0.106 0.035 1.8 43 1.117 0.29 1

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

76
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017
Figure 5a: Typical Mode Shapes of First Three
Modes for Elevated Tank with Lumped Mass
Model
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Fig. 5(a) Typical mode shapes of first three
From the modes
limitedforscope
elevatedoftankstudy following
with lumped mass
discussions may
modelbe elaborated below.
1) The shaft type staging system generates a
more rigid system in comparison to the frame
type of staging system. As the shaft staging is
a relatively shorter period system.
2) It is seen that as the height of the staging
system increases the fundamental period of
the elevated tank system lengthens for both
the type of staging system.
3) As the shaft staging appears to be more rigid,
the natural period of the system is in the
acceleration sensitive zone of the response
spectrum. A slight variation in the fundamental
period may widely affect the design seismic
coefficient values.
4) As the tank container increases in capacity the
fundamental period of the system also
increases.
5) With increase in height and mass of the tank
container the fundamental period also
increases. For longer period system, the
seismic behavior is governed by the
displacement sensitive character. Thus with
lateral thrust of the seismic force there is
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php
77
Pronoy Roy Chowdhury and Partha Ghosh, 2017
Figure 5b: Typical Mode Shapes of First Three
Modes for Elevated Tank with Finite Element
Model
Mode 2
Mode 1 Mode-3
significant lateral displacement inducing P-
effect.
6) The two degree of freedom model is an
improvement as it takes into consideration the
convective component of vibration generated
due to seismic force induced by sloshing of
water in the tank container. But the convective
period is a much longer period and hence the
corresponding ordinate of the response
spectra is generally much lesser. Thus the
contribution of the convective mode is
generally meager in comparison to the
impulsive mode. Thus it appears for smaller
capacity tanks SDOF model may be
sufficiently used without any major error in
analysis (issue was more elaborately
discussed by Chandrasekaran and Jaikrishna,
1965). The major lateral thrust is contributed
by the impulsive mode. This lateral thrust
induces B.M at the tank base causing both
direct and bending stresses in the shaft. Direct
stress in induced due to the vertical loading.
This induced B.M generates circumferential
tension cracks. With load reversals during
seismic events this heavy B.M at the base of
the shaft induces plastic hinge which opens
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017 Pronoy Roy Chowdhury and Partha Ghosh, 2017

Graph Showing Variation of B.M at the Base of Shaft Staging Due to Seismic Base Shear
for Elevated Water Tank with Variation in Staging Height Considering IS 1893-2002 Seismic
Loading

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

78
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017 Pronoy Roy Chowdhury and Partha Ghosh, 2017

Graph Showing Variation of B.M at the Base of Shaft Staging Due to Seismic Base Shear
for Elevated Water Tank with Variation in Staging Height Considering IS 1893-1984 Seismic
Loading

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

79
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017 Pronoy Roy Chowdhury and Partha Ghosh, 2017

Graph Showing Variation of B.M at the Base of Frame Type Staging Due to Seismic Base Shear
for Elevated Water Tank with Variation in Staging Height Considering IS 1893-2002 Seismic
Loading

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

80
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017 Pronoy Roy Chowdhury and Partha Ghosh, 2017

Graph Showing Variation of B.M at the Base of Frame Staging Due to Seismic Base Shear
for Elevated Water Tank with Variation in Staging Height Considering IS 1893-1984 Seismic
Loading

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

81
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017
up the circular ties which binds the longitudinal
reinforcement in the shaft and may cause
catastrophic failures by crushing of concrete
and bulging out of reinforcements. For biggest
tank capacities however the convective
sloshing of water induces considerable hydro-
dynamic forces in the in the walls and base of
the tank container. But the code allows that
for transient loads such as wind and
earthquakes a 331/3 % increase in permissible
stresses may be considered during design.
Thus as the factor safety against hydro-
dynamic stresses in tank walls and floors
increases the designer may in general neglect
the convective component of vibration on the
premise of this additional factor of safety.
7) It has been found from the graphical
representation that the response spectra of IS
1893-1984 version generates relatively lesser
value of design seismic coefficient in comparison
to that what is obtained from 2002 version.
8) However of all the analytical model studied it
is found from graphs that the SDOF model
adopting 2002 codal provisions are generally
on the higher side for all tank capacities in tank
full condition. Among the frame and the shaft
type of staging system the B.M obtained is the
highest for the shaft staging type elevated
tanks. In most of the cases empty conditions
yields lesser B.M at the tank base than the tank
full condition. As the height of the tank
increases bending moment also increases at
the tank base due to greater lever arm of the
over turning couple.
CONCLUSION
The results obtained from such limited study
though not exhaustive but may be considered as
indicative of the following conclusions.
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php
82
Pronoy Roy Chowdhury and Partha Ghosh, 2017
• SDOF model of the elevated water tanks on
shafts yields a short period system and hence
attract more seismic forces in comparison to
the frame type staging system. Thus it is better
to adopt frame type staging for elevated water
tanks because it is a three dimensional space
frame and ductile detailing may be
implemented at the beam-column junction of
the staging. But shaft is relatively easy to
construct in lesser time using slip form than
beam column staging. Thus R.C elevated
tanks on shafts are becoming popular choice
for Structural Engineers.
• TDOF model is structurally more accurate
than SDOF model. But for smaller tanks
SDOF model may be sufficient as hydro-
dynamic pressure on the tank walls shall
considerable only for the largest capacity
tanks.
• The structural engineers should preferably go
for all types of analytical models such as
SDOF, TDOF, MDOF and FEA model and find
the worst possible B.M values at the base of
the tank and logically decide the appropriate
value of B.M which should be adopted for
design. FEM approach naturally provides the
most elaborate analytical model and the mode
shapes gives a comprehensive idea about the
deflected shape of the structure under seismic
jolts. Such deflected patterns give fairly good
opportunity to the structural designer to
implement appropriate detailing in the tank
staging to ensure protection against severe
seismic jolts. MDOF model gives better idea
about the flexural behavior of the tank staging
system.
• Structurally elevated water tanks on shafts fail
due to circumferential tension cracks at the
base of the shaft where B.M due to lateral
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017
seismic jolt is maximum. A single plastic hinge
may cause failure. Whereas frame staging
being a highly indeterminate structure sufficient
nos. of plastic hinges should form to convert it
into a mechanism before failure. From this
point of view frame staging system is usually
preferred.
It is grossly concluded from discussion that
shaft type of staging is much more prone to
collapse under seismic forces thus elevated water
tanks on shafts must be carefully designed
considering all service loads and off course
including seismic forces. It must also be checked
for wind forces.
REFERENCES
1. Boyce W H (1973), “Vibration Test on a
Simple Water Tower”, Proceedings of 5 th
W orld Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. I, pp. 220-225, Rome.
2. Chandrasekaran and Jaikrishna (1965),
“Water Towers in Seismic Zones”,
Proceedings of the 3rd World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Newzealand.
3. Dutta S C and Dutta S (2003), “Inelastic
Seismic Response of Elevated Tanks
Incorporating Period Lengthening Due to
Soil-Flexibility”, European Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 3, pp. 36-41.
4. Housner G W (1963), “The Dynamic
Behaviour of Water Tanks”, Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, Vol. 53,
No. 2, pp. 381-387.
5. IBC (2000), “International Building Code”,
International Code Council, Falls Church, VA.
6. IITK- GSDMA (2005), “Guidelines for Seismic
Design of Liquid Storage Tanks of ITT Kanpur
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php
83
Pronoy Roy Chowdhury and Partha Ghosh, 2017
and Gujarat State”, Disaster Management
Authority, August.
7. IS: 456-2000, “Indian Standard Plain and
Reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice”,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
8. IS: 1893 (Part-I) (2002), “Indian Standard
Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Structures,
Part-I, General Provisions and Buildings”,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
9. IS: 1893-1984, “Indian Standard Criteria for
Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
10. IS: 11682-1985 (Reaffirmed in 1998), “Indian
Standards Criteria for Design of RCC
Staging for Overheard Water Tanks”, Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
11. Jain A and Vamsidhar S (2007), “Analysis of
Water Tanks in Accordance with IS: 1893-
Part 2 Draft Code”, Indian Concrete Journal,
January-March, pp. 21-26.
12. Jaiswal O R, Rai D and Jain S K (2007),
“Review of Seismic Codes on Liquid
Containing Tanks”, Earthquake Spectra,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 239-260.
13. Memari A M and Ahmadi M M (1992),
“Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Water
Towers During Manjil-Roudbar Earthquake
of June 1990”, Proceedings of the 10th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Balkema, Rotterdam.
14. Muthu Vijay and Amar Prakash (2014),
“Analysis of Sloshing Impact on Overhead
Liquid Storage Structures”, International
Journal of Research in Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 2, No. 8, pp. 127-142.
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017
15. Newmark N M and Rosenblueth E (1971),
“Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering”,
Prentice Hall, NJ.
16. Priestlay M J N et al. (1986), “Seismic Design
of Storage Tanks”, Recommendations of a
Study Group of the New Zealand National
Society for Earthquake Engineering.
17. Rai D (2003), “Performance of Elevated
Tanks in Mw 7.7 Bhuj Earthquake of January
26th 2001”, Proceedings of Indian Academy
of Science, Vol. 112, No. 3, pp. 421-429.
18. Rai D and Singh B (2004), “Seismic Design
of Concrete Pedestal Supported Tanks”,
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php
84
Pronoy Roy Chowdhury and Partha Ghosh, 2017
Proceedings of the 13th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver
Canada, Paper No. 230.
19. Sood V K and Singh S (1983), “Seismic
Analysis of Shaft Supported Elevated Tanks”,
Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India),
CV Vol. 64, November, pp. 143-148.
20. Singh N and Mohammed I (2015), “Design
Analysis & Comparison of INTZ Type Water
Tank for Different Wind Speed and Seismic
Zones as per Indian Codes”, International
Journal of Research in Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 4, No. 9, pp. 291-299.