See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283592317

Seismic Behaviour of R/C Elevated Water Tanks with Shaft Stagings: Effect of
Biaxial Interaction and Ground Motion Characteristics

Article · December 2015

DOI: 10.1007/978-81-322-2193-7_94

CITATIONS READS

4 450

2 authors, including:

Rana Roy
Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur
38 PUBLICATIONS   853 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic demand under bi-directional shaking accounting site characteristics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rana Roy on 26 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Seismic Behaviour of R/C Elevated Water
Tanks with Shaft Stagings: Effect
of Biaxial Interaction and Ground Motion
Characteristics

Aparna Roy and Rana Roy

Abstract An important lifeline facility such as elevated water tanks with R/C shaft
staging has been observed to be potentially damaged during earthquakes in the past.
Seismic demand of lateral load-resisting members are seldom evaluated accounting
bi-directional interaction. Existing guideline to estimate total response combining
100 % of the maximum response for excitation in one direction and 30 % of the
maximum responses for excitation in the other horizontal direction (as per ‘30 %
rule’) is evidently deficient at least for systems excited well into inelastic range.
Present investigation aims to explore the response of shaft-supported reinforced
concrete elevated water tank under bi-directional near-fault records with forward-
directive signature. Following detailed review, shaft staging of elevated tank is
modelled through distributed plasticity element. Hydrodynamic action is also
adequately modeled following established standards. Bi-directional interaction may
considerably amplify global response particularly at tank-empty condition. Com-
plex combination of bi-directional load-path may lead to adverse system response.
Increase of ground motion characteristics such as mean period, significant duration
relative to the impulsive period of the tank, with some scatter, leads to increase
interaction effect.

Keywords RC elevated water tanks
Bi-axial interaction
Ground motion

Hydrodynamics

A. Roy
Department of Civil Engineering, University Institute of Technology, University of Burdwan,
Burdwan, India
R. Roy (&)
Department of Aerospace Engineering and Applied Mechanics,
Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur,
Botanic Garden, Howrah 711103, West-Bengal, India
e-mail: rroybec@yahoo.com

© Springer India 2015 1205

V. Matsagar (ed.), Advances in Structural Engineering,
DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-2193-7_94
1206 A. Roy and R. Roy

1 Introduction

In the accepted practice, structures are expected to be in linear range only under
minor shaking and experiences post-elastic range vibration during moderate to
strong earthquakes. Thus, seismic design relies on the ductile behavior of structures
in order to ensure safety with limited cost. Such inelastic damage of reinforced
concrete (R/C) structures are associated with permanent cracking, spalling of
concrete, fracture or buckling of reinforcing bars etc. To comply with the design
requirements in the performance based seismic design (PBSD), assessment of
behavior at each performance state is essential [1].
Elevated water tanks are important structures in water supply networks. Liquid
storage tanks are used extensively by municipalities and industries for storing
water, inflammable liquids and other chemicals. Thus these type of structures are
very important for public utility and for industrial purpose to secure necessary water
supply. Reinforced concrete circular shafts type support (staging) is widely used for
elevated tanks of low to very high capacity. It is extremely essential for these
systems to remain operational after earthquakes for post-earthquake damage miti-
gation. The poor seismic performance of these inverted pendulum-type construc-
tions has been reported frequently during major earthquakes [2–8]. Inadequate
performance of these tanks also prevented fire-fighting and other emergency
activities in the past.
It is well-known that during seismic shaking elevated tanks are usually subjected to
bi-directional shaking which is recognized to pose stronger seismic vulnerability.
However, principles for capacity estimate primarily bases on the experimental
results of uniaxial tests without accounting for simultaneous action along two
principal directions [9]. On the other hand, design forces are also evaluated without
explicit account of bi-axial interaction (e.g., ASCE/SEI 7-05 [10]). Code only
recommends simple combination rule of ‘100 % of the forces for one direction plus
30 % of the forces for perpendicular direction’ for systems with a specific form of
irregularity (Type 5). In principle, total response is computed as 100 % of the
maximum response for excitation in one direction plus 30 % of the maximum
response for excitation in the other horizontal direction; the combination leading to
the largest response is considered for design [11]. Responses under uni-directional
components separately applied to 100 and 30 % along the principal directions of the
structures are often combined by SRSS [12]. The obvious limitation of such sim-
plified approaches are intuitive [12] at least in the post-elastic range.
Relatively simple representation yet severe destructive potential of near-fault
earthquakes has been demonstrated during several earthquakes (e.g., 1978 Tabas,
Iran; 1995 Kobe, Japan; 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan; 2003 Bam, Iran and 2009 L’
Aquila, Italy) in the past. Such pulses involving forward-directivity (FD) effect are
well-known to bring about havoc in many historical events and also noted in the
literatures (for example, [13, 14]). In fact, it is believed that the “near-fault FD fault-
normal components of motion are especially severe and potentially destructive”
[17]. It may be noted that the existing methods to implicitly consider inelastic
Seismic Behaviour of R/C Elevated Water Tanks … 1207

demands by amplifying the design spectra do not provide a reliable basis for
representing near-fault ground motions [18].
With theses in view, this investigation focuses on the response of shaft supported
elevated water tanks in case of bi-directional seismic attack close to a causative
ground fault. On close scrutiny of different analytical models, a state-of-the-art
numerical scheme is adopted. Response of the elevated tank both at tank-empty and
tank-full conditions are analyzed under uni-directional and bi-directional near-field
FD records. Seismic behavior under FD near-field events are explained unfolding
the impact of bi-directional interaction. The study is believed to be useful to realize
the consequence of limitation of current codal provisions.

2 System Idealization

2.1 Hydrodynamic Action

Behaviour of elevated water tank undergoing lateral vibration at the bottom

physically induces two different types of vibration in the water of the tank. While a
part of the water at the upper portion of tank participates in sloshing motion
(convective) with a longer period [19, 20], the rest of the water vibrates rigidly with
the tank wall. The former one is recognized as convective mass of water, while the
latter is known as impulsive mass of water. The impulsive mass of water experi-
ences the same acceleration as the tank container and contributes predominantly to
the base shear and overturning moment [3, 7]. Thus, the behaviour of elevated tanks
can be represented by an equivalent two-mass model as suggested in the literature
[7]. For the sake of convenience, this two degrees of freedom system is schemat-
ically shown in Fig. 1a. The effective structural mass, Ms; i.e., the mass of the tank

(b)
KC /2 KC /2 Container mass
Mc
Rigid link

HC
Mi Hcont /2
(a) Unconfined cover Hi

1/3rd staging mass

Confined core

Steel bar Hstg

Concrete Shaft staging

Fig. 1 a Cross-section of concrete model. b Two mass model for lateral vibration as proposed by
Housner [17]
1208 A. Roy and R. Roy

container and one-third mass of the staging [3, 5, 7] as well as the equivalent mass
of water participating in impulsive mode, Mo; is considered to be rigidly attached to
the tank container. The one-third mass of the staging is located at the top of
the staging and the container mass is located at the mid-height of the container
(Hcont/2). The convective mass, Mc; is attached to the staging through a vertical
member of height, Hc; attached at the top of staging level. The lateral stiffness, Kc;
which is the equivalent stiffness involved in sloshing vibration is attached to Mc The
expressions for these masses and stiffness quantities were originally proposed in a
literature [7] and were finally reported further with minor modification in another
literature [21]. The expressions for various equivalent mass and stiffness quantities
according to the literature [21] are also given here for convenience.

tanhð1:7R=hÞ tanhð1:8h=RÞ gh
Mo ¼ M ; Mc ¼ 0:71M ; Kc ¼ 4:75Mc2
1:7R=h 1:8h=R MR2

In these expressions, M denotes total mass of the water, R represents radius of

container and g denotes acceleration due to gravity. The impulsive and convective
masses are considered to be located at a height of Ho and Hc, respectively, from the
bottom of the tank container. The expressions for these heights according to the
same literature [21] are as follows:


3 4 M
Ho ¼ H 1þ 1
8 3 Mo
(
 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

 )
M R 2 R RM
Hc ¼ H 1  0:21 þ 1:1 0:15 1
Mc H H HMc

2.2 Modeling of Shaft Staging

Lateral load resisting staging of the shaft is modeled using distributed inelasticity
fiber models that represent the cross-section behavior through uni-axial stress-strain
relationship of the discrete fibers. A detailed review of the available models is
presented elsewhere [22, 23]. Simplicity of the input data for numerical schemes is
also essential as otherwise such models become ‘inaccessible to designers’. Con-
sidering pros and cons, the present investigation models RC shaft staging using
distributed plasticity elements in the framework of standard finite element software
SeismoStruct: Version 6 (Seismo-Soft 2012). Sectional details of the shaft is fur-
nished in Fig. 1b.
Fibre discretization is adopted to represent the member at the section level,
where each fibre is associated with a uniaxial stress-strain law. The sectional
moment-curvature state is then obtained through the integration of the nonlinear
uniaxial stress-strain response of the individual fibers that constitutes the section.
Seismic Behaviour of R/C Elevated Water Tanks … 1209

The global inelasticity of the shaft is then obtained by integration of the contri-
bution provided by each controlling section. Cross-section is discretized into three
hundred fibers. Shaft is discretized into four sub-elements considering ten Gauss
sections (at least six recommended in [24]) per element. The Gauss-Lobatto
quadrature rule is used to numerically integrate the forced-based elements [25].
Typical section consisting of unconfined concrete, confined concrete and rein-
forcing steel are modified using established scheme. It is assumed that once ultimate
conditions are reached, R/C members continue to have a residual strength as pro-
posed elsewhere [26]. The concrete constitutive behavior is modeled using non-
linear constant confinement concrete model originally proposed by Mander et al.
[27] and later modified by Martinez-Rueda and Elnashai [28]. Confinement effect
due to lateral reinforcement is taken into account through the definition of the
confinement factor of section core [27]. Thus, the loss of member strength due to
spalling of concrete cover is accounted. Constitutive behavior for reinforcement
steel is modeled using Menegotto-Pinto steel model [29] modified by Filippou et al.
[30]. This model assumes a bilinear backbone curve with isotropic strain hardening.
The model takes into account the Bauschinger effect to adequately represent the
stiffness degradation of columns under cyclic loading.

3 Ground Motions, Methodology and System Parameters

Limited studies conducted herein select seven near-fault records with forward
directivity signature. Details of the ground motions along with the different
important characteristics are presented in Table 1.
Moment magnitude for the ground motions ranges between 5.8 and 6.9. Closest
site-to-fault-rupture distance ranges between 4.0 and 8.5 km. Average shear wave
velocity in the top 30 m of the site (Vs30), by and large, represents a site class D
[31]. Under specified ground acceleration histories, standard equations of motion

Table 1 Details of ground motions adopted

Sl. Nomen-clature Seismic Station Date Magnitude in Distance from
no used events Richter epicentre (km)
1 A-A1 Chalfant Zack Brothers 07.20.86 5.8 6.4
Valley ranch
2 B-B1 Coyote Gilroy Array 06.08.79 5.7 7.4
Lake #3
3 C-C1 Dinar, Dinar 01.10.95 6.4 3.4
Turkey
4 D-D1 Imperial El Centro 10.15.79 6.5 12.9
Valley Array #3
5 E-E1 Imperial El Centro 10.15.79 6.5 4.0
Valley Array #5
6 F-F1 Imperial Sahop Casa 10.15.79 6.5 9.6
Valley Flores,
7 G-G1 Loma Saratoga— 10.18.89 6.9 8.5
Prieta Aloha Ave
1210 A. Roy and R. Roy

(refer to [11]) of the system are solved in the time domain using Hilber-Hughes-
Taylor integration scheme [32]. WhileHilber-Hughes-Taylorparameters α, γ and β
are chosen respectively as −0.1, 0.6 and 0.3025, time step of integration is taken to
be sufficiently small to ensure convergence. A tangent-stiffness proportional viscous
damping of 5 % and displacement/rotation based criterion (tolerance limits: 0.1 mm
and 10−4 rad) is selected to ensure convergence in analysis.
Elevated water tanks (Fig. 1b) with varying capacities of 380–1,050 kl with
diameter of shaft staging ranging between 7.0 and 12.24 m are chosen as the
reference system. Geometric and structural details of the tank stagings and con-
tainers are listed in Table 2.
Shell thicknesses of the stagings are taken as 150 mm throughout reinforced with
0.8 % steel in both longitudinal and circumferential directions [33, 34]. Capacity
curve of the shaft is established by conducting a conventional static pushover
analysis where lateral load is applied employing automatic response control algo-
rithm [35] implemented in standard software (SeismoStruct: Version 6). It is
important to note that capacity is determined without accounting axial load. Yield
capacity (Fy) and yield displacement (uy) of the structure is estimated from such
capacity curve. Subsequently, the ground motion is suitably scaled to simulate a
response reduction factor (R) of 2. Standard response history analysis is then per-
formed for systems so idealized following the methodology outlined.

4 Results and Discussions

Limited studies conducted herein select seven near-fault records with forward
directivity signature. With the intent of assessing influence of bi-directional effect,
drift is measured from two set of nonlinear response history analysis. In the first,
each component of a ground motion is applied separately. Drifts measured under
two components of a ground motion are compared and the greater one is regarded
as the drift of the pier under uni-directional shaking (ΔU). In the second, both the
components of each ground motion are simultaneously applied along two mutually
orthogonal directions and drifts under two orthogonal directions, viz., Δθ and Δπ/2+θ
are noted. These are geometrically combined as [Δ2θ + Δ2π/2+θ]0.5 to estimate the drift
under bi-directional excitation (ΔB). Values of ΔU and ΔB so computed for each
record are plotted in the form of bar chart (Fig. 2). It is observed that the drift tends
to consistently increase even to the extent of 50 % due to bi-directional interaction.
Such increase may generally be greater in tank-empty condition. During tank empty
condition, period of the system becomes even stiffer and hence the impact of bi-
directional interaction is expected to be more prominent [34, 35]. Similar response
in terms of normalized hysteretic energy ductility demand (NHEDD), although not
presented, also reveal a parallel trend.
Table 2 Structural details and dynamic characteristics of tanks
Tank Capacity Mass of Height of Diameter Thickness of Mass of Impulsive Convective Impulsive period (s) Convective
(m3) container shaft staging of shaft shaft wall staging mass of mass of Tank- Tank- period (s)
(×103 kg) (m) c/c (m) (m) (×103 kg) water water fullcondition empty
(×103 kg) (×103 kg) condition
Seismic Behaviour of R/C Elevated Water Tanks …

1 380 19.60 12.0 7.0 0.15 9.30 249.1 114.4 0.12 0.04 3.3
2 1,050 66.16 27.8 12.24 0.15 40.08 488.6 456.5 0.25 0.10 4.4
1211
1212 A. Roy and R. Roy

(a)
Tank 1 Tank 2
Max. Drift (%)

T = 0.12 s T = 0.25 s

A-A1 B-B1 C-C1 D-D1 E-E1 F-F1 G-G1 A-A1 B-B1 C-C1 D-D1 E-E1 F-F1 G-G1

(b)
Tank 1 Tank 2
T = 0.04 s T = 0.10 s.
Max. Drift (%)

A-A1 B-B1 C-C1 D-D1 E-E1 F-F1 G-G1 A-A1 B-B1 C-C1 D-D1 E-E1 F-F1 G-G1

Fig. 2 Change of drift (%) due to bi-directional interaction under different ground motions (R = 2)

5 Influence of Ground Motion Characteristics

Dynamic response of structural systems are significantly influenced by the fre-

quency content of earthquake motions (e.g., [38]). Earthquake motions comprised
of a range of frequencies are often described by characteristic periods such as mean
period (Tm) [38, 39]. Thus, the mean period
P is 2derived
 Pfrom2 the Fourier amplitude
spectrum of acceleration-time history as i i f
C i Ci [39] where Ci are the
Fourier amplitudes of the accelerogram and fi the corresponding discrete Fourier
transform frequencies between 0.25 and 20 Hz. Significant duration, based on the
accumulation of energy in the accelerogram and defined as the interval over which a
certain portion (in which the motion is deemed strong taken herein as 5–95 %) of
the total Arias intensity is accumulated, is also believed to be an influential
parameter. Responses of structures thus are presented as a function of Tm to T ratio
and the variation of the similar quantities as a function of Tsig/T in Fig. 3. Average
values of components Tm and Tsig are considered to represent response under bi-
directional shaking. Figures display, with some scatter, an increasing trend in
response under both uni-directional and bi-directional shaking.
Seismic Behaviour of R/C Elevated Water Tanks … 1213

(a)

Max. Drift (%)

T mean / T T sig / T
(b)
Max. Drift (%)

T mean / T T sig / T

Fig. 3 Change of drift (%) due to bi-directional interaction with respect to mean period and
significant duration of ground motions (R = 2)

6 Summary and Conclusions

Current design generally evaluates inelastic seismic demand under bi-directional

shaking through combining responses under uni-directional excitation using simple
empirical rule. This study is an attempt to assess the consequence of bi-directional
interaction using under near-fault records with forward directivity. Reviewing the
available state-of-the-art analytical models, an appropriate model for RC elements
is selected. Subsequently, response of five shaft-supported elevated water tanks are
evaluated, at both tank-empty and tank-full conditions, under both uni-directional
and bi-directional shaking. The present work thus leads to following conclusions:
1. Bi-axial interaction seems to amplify the peak deformation demand around 50 %
for shaft supported elevated water tanks which are dynamically stiff system.
Such increase tends to further amplify at tank-empty condition as the system
becomes even stiffer under such situation.
2. Increase of relative values of ground motion characteristics such as mean period
and significant duration with respect to the period of the tanks, with some
scatter, tend to increase the response.
Conclusions above collectively epitomize the significance of bi-directional
interaction during near-fault forward directivity events.
1214 A. Roy and R. Roy

References

1. SEAOC Vision 2000 (1995) Performance based seismic engineering of buildings. Conceptual
framework, Sacramento (CA), Structural Engineers Association of California, vols I and II
2. Astaneh A, Ghafory-Ashtiany M (1990) The Manjil, Iran, earthquake of June 1990. EERI
Special Earthquake Rep, EERI Newslett 24:5–13
3. Jain SK, Murty CVR, Chandak N, Seeber L, Jain NK (1994) The September 29, 1993, M6.4
Killari, Maharashtra, earthquake in central India. EERI Special Earthquake Rep, EERI
Newslett 28:1–8
4. Mehrain M (1990) Reconnaissance report on the Northern Iran earthquake of June 21, 1990.
State University of New York at Buffalo, NCEER, Buffalo, New York
5. Rai DC (2003) Performance of elevated tanks in Mw 7.7 Bhuj earthquake of January 26th,
2001. Proc Indian Acad Sci—Earth Planet Sci 112(3):421–429
6. Saffarini HS (2000) Ground motion characteristics of the November 1995 Aqaba earthquake.
Eng Struct 22:343–351
7. Steinbrugge KV, Moran DF (1954) An engineering study of the southern California
earthquake of July 21, 1952 and its aftershocks. Bull Seismol Soc Am 44:201–462
8. Steinbrugge KV (1970) Earthquake damage and structural performance in the United States.
In: Wiegel RL (ed) Earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
9. EN 1998-1 (2003) Design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 1: general rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings. Eurocode 8, European Standard
10. ASCE/SEI 7-05 (2005) Minimum design loads for buildings and structures. American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston
11. Clough RW, Penzien J (1993) Dynamics of structures. McGraw-Hill, New York
12. Dutta SC, Kunnath SK (2013) Effect of bi-directional interaction on seismic demand of
structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 52:27–39
15. Iwan WD, Huang CT, Guyader AC (2000) Important features of the response of inelastic
structures to near-fault ground motion. In: Proceedings of 12th world conference on
earthquake engineering, Auckland, New Zealand
16. Singh JP (1985) Earthquake ground motions: implications for designing structures and
reconciling structural damage. Earthq Spectra 1:239–270
17. Bray DJ, Marek RA, Gillie LJ (2009) Design ground motions near active faults. Bull NZ Soc
Earthq Eng 42(1):1–8
18. Kalkan E, Kunnath SK (2006) Effects of fling step and forward directivity on seismic response
of buildings. Earthq Spectra 22(2):367–390
19. Housner GW (1963) Behaviour of inverted pendulum structures during earthquake. Bull
Seismol Soc Am 53(2):403–417
20. Newmark NM, Rosenblueth E (1971) Fundamentals of earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall,
New Jersy
21. Haroun MA, Ellaithy MH (1985) Seismically induced fluid forces on elevated tanks. J Tech
Topic Civil Eng 111(1):1–15
22. CEB (1996) RC frames under earthquake loading: state of the art report Comité euro-
international du béton, Thomas Telford, London, England
23. Fardis MN (1991) Member-type models for the nonlinear structure in experimental and
numerical methods in engineering D.A.P.M jones. In: Kluwer (ed) Academic publishers,
Dordrecht, Netherland
24. Calabrese A, Almeida JP, Pinho R (2010) Numerical issues in distributed inelasticity
modelling of R/C frame elements for seismic analysis. J Earthq Eng 14(S1):38–68
25. Alemdar BN, White DW (2005) Displacement, flexibility and mixed beam-column finite
element formulations for distributed plasticity analysis. J Struct Eng ASCE 131(12):1811–
1819
Seismic Behaviour of R/C Elevated Water Tanks … 1215

26. Mpampatsikos V, Nascimbene R, Petrini L (2008) A critical review of the R.C. frame existing
building assessment procedure according to Eurocode 8 and Italian seismic code. J Earthq Eng
12(SP1):52–58
27. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress—strain model for confined
concrete. J Struct Eng ASCE 114(8):1804–1823
28. Martinez-Rueda JE, Elnashai AS (1997) Confined concrete model under cyclic load. Mater
Struct 30(197):139–147
29. Menegotto M, Pinto PE (1973) Method of analysis for cyclically loaded RC plane frames
including changes in geometry and non-elastic behaviour of elements under combined normal
force and bending. In: Symposium on the resistance and ultimate deformability of structures
acted on by well defined repeated loads, international association for bridge and structural
engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, pp 15–22
30. Filippou FC, Popov EP, Bertero VV (1983) Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic
behaviour of reinforced concrete joints. Earthquake engineering research center, University of
California, Berkeley, CA, report no. UCB/EERC 83/19
31. FEMA 356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.
Federal emergency management agency (FEMA) report 356, Washington DC, USA
32. Hilber HM, Hughes TJR, Taylor RL (1977) Improved numerical dissipation for time
integration algorithms in structural dynamics. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 5(3):283–292
33. Dayaratnam P (1983) Design of reinforced concrete structures. M. Primlani Publisher, New
Delhi
34. Krishnaraju N (2003) Advanced reinforced concrete design (IS456-2000). CBS Publishers,
New Delhi
35. Izzuddin BA (1991) Nonlinear dynamic analysis of framed structures. Ph.D. thesis, Imperial
College, University of London, London, UK
36. Pecknold DA (1974) Inelastic structural response to 2D ground motions. J Eng Mech Div
ASCE 100(EM5):949–963
37. Nigam N (1967) Inelastic interactions in the dynamic response of structures. Earthquake
Engineering Research Laboratory (EERL6764), California Institute of Technology, Pasadena,
California
38. Rathje EM, Abrahamson NA, Bray JD (1998) Simplified frequency content estimates of
earthquake ground motions. J Geotech Eng 124:150–159
39. Dimitrakopoulos E, Kappos AJ, Makris N (2009) Dimensional analysis of yielding and
pounding structures for records without distinct pulses. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(7):1170–1180
 .

View publication stats