REINFORCED CONCRETE TANKS Performance and practice for earthquake resistance

By JAVEEO A. MUNSHI and WILLIAM C. SHERMAN Historically, reinforced concrete tanks have performed very well against earthquakes. Recent reports on the Northridge earthquake of 1994 and the Kobe earthquake of 1995 have given minimal, if any, evidence of damage to these structures. There are various reasons why it is common that many tanks behave elastically during an earthquake, thus are not damaged. The questions then arise: Can there be a simple approach to designing these structures against earthquakes? When do we need to use more elaborate procedures? This article addresses these issues and provides an example of how to apply the current design code, ACI 35001. There are several reasons why these structures escape damage: Concrete tanks are inherently rigid and are often partially or fully buried in the ground. Because of this, they do not deform much with respect to the ground. Research1 has shown that for buried structures subjected to ground excitation up to 0.3 x acceleration due to gravity g, nonseismic load combinations control the design. The in-plane shear resistance of the walls is generally adequate to resist seismic loads, with both the concrete and the reinforcement contributing to the structure's strength. Out-of-plane wall deformations are minimal due to the rigidity of the concrete walls and the structure's boundary conditions; Concrete tanks have typically been designed using provisions similar to those included in "Code Requirements for Environmental Engineering Concrete Structures (ACI 350-01) and Commentary (350R-01). "Those provisions require that concrete tanks minimally crack under static service load conditions.2 Section 21.2.1.6 of ACI 350-01 clearly indicates that liquid-tightness should not be compromised as a result of inelastic action. To achieve this, the load factor used with lateral fluid pressures is increased from 1.4 to 1.7 and an additional environmental durability factor S ranging from 1.3 for flexure and shear to 1.65 for direct tension is imposed on static load conditions to reduce the service level stresses and minimize crack widths and leakage. This results in the nonseismic load combinations governing over seismic load combinations in many cases; and Concrete tanks are designed using low response modification factors Rw to ensure that the structure is not significantly damaged during an earthquake. The response modification factor reduces the elastic response spectrum to account for the structure's ductility, energy-dissipating properties, and redundancy. Typically, Rw values ranging from 2 to 3 are used, which are much smaller than those for building structures. PRACTICE Background The seismic design of tanks varies from that of buildings in part due to the sloshing effect of the contained fluid. Furthermore, cracking, which may be permitted in the design of buildings, is avoided in liquidcontaining structures to prevent leakage. Methods of seismic analysis of tanks, currently adopted by a number of industry standards, have evolved from earlier analytical work by Housner,3-5 Haroun and Housner,6 Haroun,7,8 Veletsos9, Vestos and Shivakumar,10 and others. Of these,

the best known is Housner's pioneering work published in the early 1960s in the Atomic Energy Commission's (now the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) Technical Information Document (TID) 7024.5 It is interesting to note that while the dynamic modeling of the tank contents (impulsive and convective components) has remained pretty much as developed by Jacobsen and Housner, the modeling of the tank structure has undergone certain modifications and refinements. For example, where Jacobsen and Housner's early models (for example, in TID- 7024) were based on the impulsive component of the liquid being rigidly attached to a rigid tank structure, later studies (including work by Housner) introduced the concept of wall and foundation flexibility. According to this concept, the impulsive component is still modeled as rigidly attached to the tank shell, but the shell itself is now flexible. This has a significant effect on the response of the overall system to ground motions. Recent developments The design of tanks, like building structures, has to conform to the applicable building codes such as the IBC 200011, UBC 199712, UBC 199412, BOCA 1996,13 and SBC 1997.14 Note that although these codes do not contain provisions for detailed seismic analysis and design of liquid-containing structures, they allow the use of consensus industry standards. The seismic design provisions developed by ACI Committee 350, Environmental Engineering Concrete Structures, meets the requirement of being a nationally recognized consensus standard applicable to liquid-containing structures. The committee recently published the provisions "Seismic Design of Liquid-Containing Concrete Structures (ACI 350.3-01) and Commentary (ACI 350.3R-01)" that give detailed procedures for determining the loading for the seismic analysis and design of liquid-containing

structures.15 Furthermore, Chapter 21 provisions of ACI 350-01 focus on the resistance of liquid-containing structures to seismic loads (much the same way Chapter 21 of ACI 318 does for building structures). Note that ACI 350-01 includes modified portions of ACI 318-95,16 while ACI 350.301 is compatible with UBC 1994 servicelevel (aIlowable stress) earthquake design methodology. Thus, provisions of ACI 350.3-01 are not presently compatible with IBC 2000, UBC 1997, BOCA 1996, and SBC 1997, all of which use the strength-level earthquake force. Therefore, ACI 350.3-01 in its current form cannot be used directly with the seismic provisions in these building codes. A publication17 was recently developed to bridge the gap between ACI 350.3-01 and the model codes indicated previously that use strength-level earthquake forces. The concepts of ACI 350-01 and ACI 350.3-01 have been extended for use with the IBC 2000, UBC 1997, BOCA 1996, and SBC 1997 for the design of liquid containing structures. Despite these developments, several issues related to the analysis, design, and detailing of liquid-containing structures remain unclear and need to be explored in the interest of providing a simple design procedure. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Dynamic modeling ACI 350.3-01 uses the previously indicated references, particularly the Housner method.3-5 This method essentially assumes that hydrodynamic effects due to seismic loading can be approximated as the sum of the following two parts: 1. The impulsive part, which represents the portion of the liquid that moves in unison with the structure in its fundamental mode of vibration; and 2. The convective part, which represents the effect of the sloshing action of the liquid in its fundamental

mode of vibration. Figure 1 shows the typical schematic of a rectangular tank with inside length L (parallel to the direction of the earthquake force [use the inside diameter D for circular tanks]), inside width B (perpendicular to the direction of the earthquake force), and height of liquid HL. The equivalent mass of the impulsive component of the stored liquid Wi is assumed to be rigidly attached to the structure at height hi, while the equivalent mass of the convective component of the stored liquid Wc is attached to the structure by springs of finite stiffness and damping at height hc. For concrete tanks with rigid walls and roof, this results in a two degree-of-freedom system (Fig. 1). Both the impulsive and the convective components have periods associated with them that are gene rally far apart. The impulsive period is dependent on the inside wall dimensions, wall thickness, boundary conditions, and the amount of contained liquid. The convective period is dependent on the inside dimensions of the tank. Based on the ACI 350.3-01 provisions, the total horizontal base shear VT is estimated by the square root of the sum of squares (SRSS) combination of the impulsive and convective forces VT = Vi2 + Vc2 where Vi and Vc represent the base shear associated with the impulsive and convective equivalent masses, respectively. The equivalent mass of the impulsive component of the stored liquid Wi includes the weight of tank shell and roof and the portion of fluid acting in unison with the tank shell. The impulsive and convective equivalent masses create different pressure distribution along the height of the tank wall.15,17 The use of SRSS to combine modes of vibration that are out-of-phase with each other is not uncommon. It should be noted, however, that SRSS may not be the best way to combine impulsive and convective forces. The period of convective oscillations is typically much longer than the impulsive period, as shown in Fig. 2. This could mean that there is a greater likelihood that response due to impulsive and convective forces would be additive to give the maximum response. Furthermore, because of the relatively small magnitude of the convective force, the SRSS combination negates much of the influence of the convective force on the total response, which may be unconservative. It is recommended that because of the nearstatic nature of convective forces, the impulsive and convective forces should be algebraically added together to get the maximum design forces. In fact, the original method developed by Housner combined impulsive and convective forces by algebraic sum. This would also be consistent with the reasoning behind the ACI 350.3-01 recommendation to use an

Rw value of 1.0 for convective forces (refer to the section in this article on the response modification factor). Simplified approach Through a detailed parametric study using the general seismic design parameters given in ACI 350.3-01, the authors found that the method of using all the fluid as an impulsive-type force at midheight is a conservative assumption when the site coefficient S is 1.0 and the response modification factor Rwi is 2.75. As S and Rwi increase, however, such an assumption would not always be conservative. As S increases, the convective component becomes larger, and as Rwi increases, the impulsive component becomes less. Thus, when S > 1.0 and/or Rwi > 2.75, the convective component becomes a greater percentage of the total force relative to the impulsive component and the "simplified" method becomes less conservative. Generally, for at least a 10 ft (3 m) water depth and L/HL or D/HL greater than 3, the simplified method is still conservative. Period The periods associated with impulsive and convective weights Ti and Te are used to estimate the response associated with them that contributes to the base shear. A parametric study conducted by the authors (based on ACI 350.3-01) indicated that the majority of fixed-base rectangular and circular tanks have an impulsive period less than 0.3 s, which is

less than the characteristic period of soil Ts, as shown in Fig. 3. Considering the spectrum shown in Fig. 3, it is obvious that for Ti < Ts, the response will be based on the upper bound shown as a plateau in Fig. 3. This would simplify the design procedure for situations where Ti < Ts,. For example, the parameter Ci per UBC 1994 would be given by Ci. = 2.75 for Ti < Ts Impulsive

The convective period is given in ACI 350.3 as Tc = 2 L Rectangular tanks

Circular tanks Tc = 2 D where L is the inside length of a tank in the direction of analysis, and D is the inside diameter (Fig. 1 (a)). The parameter 2n/A for rectangular tanks is obtained from Fig. 4 (taken from ACI 350.3).15 Response modification factor Not much research has be en performed to date with regard to response modification factors for concrete tanks. Table 1 compares the Rw values of reinforced concrete bearing walls and tanks with a nonflexible base in various model codes. These Rw values for tank walls are approximately 1/2 to 2/3 of the values used for the design of walls in

building structures. This, as indicated previously, is consistent with the ACI 350 recommendations to limit the extent of inelastic deformation in tank walls to prevent excessive crack widths and leakage. ACl 350.3-0115 recommends separate Rw values for impulsive and convective portions of the base shear, as shown in Table 2. For the convective response, Rwc of 1.0 is used for all tank types (Table 2). This is because the convective periods are usually long and fall in the descending/flat portion of the spectrum (Fig. 3). It is believed that the convective force, because of its low frequency, should be treated as static such that an Rwc factor of 1.0 mar be appropriate. One

problem, however, is that if one were to convert the Rwc values given in ACI 350.301 for use with any strength-level building code, the Rwc value would become 0.7 (1.0/1.4). This would mean that the convective earthquake force would have to be increased by 40%, which seems rather conservative. lt is recommended that Rwc be increased to 1.5 in Table 2, which would be consistent with an over strength of 1.5 generally associated with concrete structures. This would also eliminate the discrepancy created by using Rwc equal to 0.7 with model codes that use strengthlevel earthquake forces. It is also recognized that the damping ratio for convective motion is small (0.5 to 2%) as compared with the impulsive force (5%). This requires that a scale factor of 1.5 be applied to the acceleration values for 0.5% damping over those for 5% damping ratio. For example, with UBC 1994, the convective response at 5% damping is given by Cc = 1.25 S Tc2/3 For 0.5% damping, the value would be increased to Cc = 1.5 1.25 S Tc2/3 For long periods (> 2.4 s), this is further modified in ACl 350.3-0115 to Cc = 6 S Tc 2 Effect of dynamic earth and ground water pressure The effect of dynamic earth pressure is commonly approximated by the Mononobe-Okabe theory.18-21

This involves the use of constant horizontal and vertical acceleration from the earthquake acting on the soil mass comprising Coulomb's active or passive wedge. This theory assumes that wall movements are sufficient to fully mobilize the shear resistance along the backfill wedge. The dynamic pressure due to the soil wedge will either increase or decrease the static active and passive pressure on the walls due to backfill, depending on the direction of ground motion with respect to the wall. For the wall moving into the soil, the passive dynamic pressure will oppose the impulsive force acting on the wall, while for the wall moving away from the soil, the active pressure will add to the impulsive force. Dynamic movement of soil particles, however, may be out-ofphase with the tank wall movement. Thus, dynamic earth pressure should be combined with static earth pressure in a conservative manner (to increase active earth pressure for wall deformations away from the soil or to reduce passive earth pressure for wall deformations into the soil). Due to the rigidity of concrete tanks, the wall deformation and consequent movement into the surrounding soil is usually small enough that the active or passive soil wedge is not fully activated. For dense, medium-dense, and loose sands, a deformation equal to 0.1, 0.2, and 0.4%, respectively, of wall height is necessary to activate the active soil reaction.18,19 Similarly, a deformation equal to 1, 2, and 4% of the wall height is required to activate the passive resistance for these sands. Therefore, determination of dynamic active and passive pressures may not be necessary when wall deformations are small. Dynamic earth pressure at rest should be included, however, as given by the following equation.18 F = khsHs 2 where kh is the dynamic coefficient of

lateral earth pressure; s is the density of the soil; and Hs is the height of soil being retained. This force, assumed to act at 0.6H above the base, should be used to increase or decrease the at-rest pressure when wall deformations are small, as indicated previously. Complexity of structural response and boundary conditions Codes and design aids15,22 provide approximate methods to evaluate forces and stresses for the most simple tanks and boundary conditions. Computations can get quite complicated, particularly for multicell and circular tanks. Therefore, unless there is a good reason to believe that an elaborate analysis is necessary, simplified approaches should be combined with good engineering judgment. A finite element analysis approach would be appropriate to accurately account for the nature of loading, boundary conditions, and structure type in an elaborate analysis. Load combinations It is not clear in the model building codes as to how load factors for earthquakes and fluid pressures should be combined. ACI 318-99 and ACI 350-01 do not give clear guidance in this matter. Section 9.2.5 of ACI 318 indicates that fluid pressure F should be added to all load combinations that involve live load L. No indication on how earthquake load E should be combined with F is provided. Section 9.2.5 of ACI 350-01 overrides this requirement by clarifying that F should be added to all load combinations so that the effect of L, W, or E does not reduce the effect of F. Based on this, load combinations consistent with these requirements are given in Reference 17 for different building codes. The load factor to be used for fluid pressure F, as recommended in ACI 350-01, is 1.7 rather than 1.4 when ACI 318-99 basic load combinations are used. Based on Section 21.2.1.7(a) of ACI 350-01, the environmental durability factor does not

apply to load combinations involving seismic loads when designed in accordance with the strength design method. DETAILING In the absence of clear guidelines for seismic detailing for liquid-containing structures, ACI 318-9923 provides the best detailing requirements for reinforced concrete structures. The problem, however, arises because of incompatible design philosophies between building structures and environmental structures. Building structures are allowed to sustain some damage during earthquakes, particularly in regions of high seismicity. Accordingly, higher Rw values are allowed, as indicated in Table 1. To control damage and prevent collapse, stringent detailing is required in these building structures, as shown in ACI 31899. Environmental structures, on the other hand, are designed for minimal damage, if any. Their Rw values, as indicated in Table 2, are limited to between 2.0 and 4.5, indicating that these structures are not expected to have significant inelastic activity during a design earthquake. More importantly, to maintain serviceability, additional load factors and environmental durability factors are used that make these structures behave almost elastically during design earthquakes. Accordingly, detailing requirements given in ACI 318-99 for high levels of seismicity (Zone 3 and 4), Seismic Performance Category (SPC) C and D, or Seismic Design Category (SDC) C, D, and E should not be fully applicable to environmental engineering structures. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to use the intermediate level of detailing associated with moderate levels of seismicity (Zone 2), SPC C, and SDC C given in ACI 318-99 for these structures, unless severe inelastic deformations are

expected. This would eliminate special requirements for detailing of walls in most cases. Special considerations should be given to detailing of joints, however, to prevent distress, excessive deformation, and leakage. APPLICATION OF ACI 350.3-0115,17 Partially buried nonflexible base tank

Specific weight of contained liquid L = 70 lb/ft3 (1000 kg/m3) Specific weight of moist soil S = 100 lb/ft3 (1600 kg/m3)
Average wall thickness tw = 18 in. (460 mm) Design depth of stored liquid HL= 8 ft (2.4 m) Concrete compressive strength fc = 4000 psi (30 MPa) Specific weight of concrete c = 150 lb/ft3 (2400 kg/m3) Modulus of elasticity of concrete Ec = 3834 ksi (26,400 MPa) Inside length, parallel to earthquake force direction L = 18.5 ft (5.6 m) Inside length, perpendicular to earthquake force direction B = 28.5 ft (8.7 m) Equivalent mass of the convective component of the stored liquid Wc Equivalent mass of the impulsive component of the stored liquid Wc Total mass of the stored liquid WL Mass of tank wall (shell) Ww Mass of tank roof WR Height of tank walls H Seismic load analysis Weight L=18.5=2.3 (For analysis in N-S direction) HL 8 From Reference 17 for L = 2.3 for rectangular tanks HL Wi = 0.49 and Wc = 0.51 WL WL WL = BxLxHLxL

WL

1000

(79,800 kN/m) Ti = 2 369.7 32.2x6290x28.5 = 0.008 s

=28.5x18.5x8x70=2.95 k (1310 kN) 1000 Wi = 0.49 x 295.3 k Wi = 144.7 k (640 kN) Wc = 0.51 x 295.3 k Wc = 150.6 k (670 kN) Ww = 2([B+tw ] +[L+tw]) x H x tw x c 1000 lb k Ww = 2(20+30) x 10 x 1.5 x 150 = 1000 225 k (1000 kN) WR= 0 Period Ti = 2 W gk W=Ww +WR +Wi =225+0+144.7= 369.7 k (1640 kN) K = Ec (Tw)3 48 h where h is the mean height at which the inertia force of the tank and its contents is assumed to act. h=(225x5+144.7 x 3) = 4.2 ft (1.3m) (225 + 144.7) tw = 18 in. (460 mm) Ec = 3834 ksi (26,400 MPa) g = 32.2 ft/s2 (9.81 m/s2) K =3834(18)3=6290 k/ft per ft width 48 4.2

The period associated with the convective component T can be determined as follows Tc = 2 L From Reference 15 or 17,2=0.66 for L=2.3 HL Tc = 0.66 18.5 = 2.8 s Base shear using UBC 1997 For the tank located in Seismic Zone 4, Z = 0.4 (Table 16-1) Seismic Source Type (SST) = B with site located 10 km from a known seismic source (Table 16-U) Soil Profile Type (SPT) = D (Table 16-J) Seismic Importance Factor = 1 (Nonhazardous material) Response Modification Factor R = 2.9 (Table 16-P) For Z = 0.4 and SPT D Ca = 0.44Na (Table 16-Q) Cv = 0.64Nv (Table 16-R) From Tables 16-S and 16-T, the nearsource factors Na = 1 and Nv = 1, respectively. Ca = 0.44Na = 0.44 Cv = 0.64Nv = 0.64 Using Section 1634.3, for flat-bottom rigid tanks V= 0.7Ca IW =0.7x0.44x1x520.3=160.3k(713 kN) Note that W includes the weight of tank and contained liquid. UBC 1997 allows use of alternate procedures such as the one given in ACI 350.3-01. The guidelines for use of this method in conjunction with UBC 1997 are given in Reference 17. Base Shear Vi = CvI (Ww + WR + Wi) Impulsive RTi

Vi=0.64x1(225+0+144.7)=302.2k(1340 kN) 2.9 x 0.27 In the short period range, the impulsive base shear shall be limited by Vi = 2.5CaI(Ww + WR + Wi) = 140.4k R <302.2k(1340kN) Use Vi = 140.4 k (625 kN) Vc = CvI (Wc) Conective RTc Vc = 0.64 x 1 (150.6) = 11.8 k (50 kN) 2.9 x 2.8 Total base shear VT = Vi2 + Vc2 = 140.9 k (630 kN) Base shear using UBC 1994 The provisions of ACI 350.3-01 were essentially developed to be compatible with UBC 1994. Therefore, no interpretations or extensions were made in application of ACI 350.3-01 with this building code. For the tank located in Seismic Zone 4, Z = 0.4(Table 16-1) Site Coefficient S = 1.5 (Table 16-J) Soil Profile Type = S3 (Table 16-J) Seismic Importance Factor = 1(Table 4-1, Nonhazardous material) Response Modification Factor Rw = 2.75 (Table 4-2 and Table 4(d) of ACI 350.3) Base shear Vi = ZICi (Ww + WR + Wi) Rw Vc = ZICc (Wc) Rc Ci = 1.25S for Ti< Ts T12/3 Cc = 1.25S 2.8c2/3 Impulsive Convective Impulsive Convective

Ts can be conservatively taken as 0.31S. Because Ti< Ts Ci = 2.75 Cc = 1.25 x 1.5 = 0.94 2.82/3 Vi = 0.4 x 1 x 2.75 (225+0+144.7)= 2.75 = 147.9 k (660 kN) Vc = 0.4 x 1 x 0.94 (150.6) = 20.6 k (90 kN) 2.75 Total base shear VT=Vi2+Vc2=149.3k (660 kN) 0.075ZIW= 0.075 x 0.4 x 1 x 520.3 = 15.6 k < 149.3 k (660 kN) Note that ACI 350.3-01 recommends using Cc = 6S TC2 2 for Tc 2.4 s and R = 1 for convective motion. Cc = 6 x 1.5 = 1.15 2.82 Vc = 0.4x1x1.15 (150.6) = 69.2 k (310 kN) 1.0 Total base shear VT=Vi2+Vc2= 163.3 k (730 kN) CONCLUDING REMARKS ACI 350.3-01, in combination with Chapter 21 of ACI 350, fills a real need for the design profession. The new ACI 350/350.R-Ol, "Code Requirements for Environmental Engineering Concrete Structures," has greatly expanded the seismic design provisions of the previous edition, ACI 350-89, in two ways: (1) through the adoption of Chapter 21 of ACI 318 (Special Provisions for Seismic Design"); and (2) the drafting of detailed seismic analysis guidelines in a separate Standard, ACI 350.3/350.3R, "Seismic Design of Liquid-Containing Structures." The example shown illustrates the use of

the new provisions for UBC 1994 and extends the concepts of ACI 350.3-01 to UBC 1997. The base shears computed with UBC 1994 and UBC 1997 are 149.3 and 140.9 k, respectively, when ACI recommended modifications for damping ratio and response modification factor for long period convective response are not included. When these modifications are applied per ACI 350.3-01, the base shear increases to 163.3 k for UBC 1994 design. The committee currently does not give any recommendations on how to apply similar modifications for tanks designed according to the UBC 1997 or IBC code. Most concrete tanks, because of their inherent rigidity and serviceability-based design, can be designed using the simplified approach outlined in this article. In many situations, it is the nonseismic load combinations that will govern the design. Therefore, it may be efficient to do a quick check using the simplified design method discussed in this paper assuming that the tank will remain elastic for the design earthquake. lf the strength requirements exceed those under nonseismic load combinations, a closer look using the appropriate Rw factor may be necessary. lf the fundamental period can be assumed to be less than 0.3 s, one will not have to compute the impulsive period. For certain conditions outlined in this article, it can be further assumed that all the contained liquid acts at the tank's midheight to get the total base shear. Separate computations for the impulsive and convective weights, heights, periods, and base shears are not required in this case. Further, the response modification factor can be assumed to be the same for both impulsive and convective components. Because of the rigidity of tank walls, only earth pressure at rest needs to be included for wall design. Designers should, however, be cognizant of the limitations of these simplifications.

REFERENCE 1. MiIler, C. A, and Costantino, C. l, "Seismic Induced Earth Pressures on Vaults," Natural Hazard Phenomena and Mitigation, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, PVp-v. 271, 1994, pp. 3-11. 2. ACI Committee 350, "Code Requirements for Environmental Engineering Concrete Structures CACI 350-01) and Commentary C350R-01)," American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2001, 387 pp. 3. Housner, G. w., "The Dynamic Behavior of Water Tanks," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, V. 53, No. 2, 1963, pp. 381-387. 4. Housner, G. W, "Limit Design of Structures to Resist Earthquakes," Proceedings of the World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, University of California, Berkley, CA, 1956, pp. 5-1 to 513. 5. Housner, G. W, "Dynamic Pressure on Fluid Containers," Technical information (TID) Document 7024, Chapter 6, Appendix F, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1963. 6. Haroun, M. A, and Housner, G. w., "Seismic Design of Liquid Storage Tanks," Joumal of the Technical Councils of the ASCE, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, V. 107, No. TCI, 1994, pp. 191-207. 7:Haroun, M. A., "Stress Analysis of Rectangular Walls Under Seismically Induced Hydrodynamic Loads," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, V. 74, No. 3, June 1984, pp. 1031-1041. 8. Haroun, M. A, and ElIaithy, H. M., "Seismically Induced Fluid Forces on Elevated Tanks," Journal of Technical Topics in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 3, No. 1, Dec. 1985, pp. 1-15. 9. Veletsos, A S., "Seismic Effects in Flexible Storage Tanks," Proceedings of the international Association for Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy, 1974, pp. 630-639. 10. Veletsos, S. A, and Shivakumar, P., "Dynamic Response of Tanks Containing

Liquids or Solids," Computer Analysis and Design of Earthquake Resistant Structures, Computational Mechanics Publications, Earthquake Engineering Series, D. E. Beskos and S. A Anagnostopoulos, eds., V. 3, 1997. 11. International Code Council, international Building Code, Falls Church, VA, Mar. 2000. 12. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), Uniform Building Code, Whittier, CA, 1994, 1997. 13. Building Officials and Code Administrators International, The BOCA National Building Code, Country Club Hills, IL, 1996. 14. Southern Building Code Congress International, Standard Building Code, Birmingham, AL, 1997. 15. ACI Committee 350, "Seismic Design of Liquid-Containing Concrete Structures CACI 350.3-01) and Commentary C350.3R-01),"American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2001, 52 pp. 16. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete CACI 318-95) and Commentary C318R95)," American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1995, 369 pp. 17. Portland Cement Association, Design of Liquid-Containing Structures for Earthquake Forces, Skokie, IL, 2002. 18. Ebeling, R. M., and Morrison, E. E., "The Seismic Design of Waterfront Structures," NCEL Technical Report, TR939, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, CA, 1993. 19. Clough, G. W., and Duncan, J M., "Chapter 6: earth pressures, Foundation Engineering handbook, 2nd Edition, NY 1991, pp.223-235 20. Okabe, S., General Theory of Earth Pressures, Journal of the Japan Society of Civil Engineering, V.12, No. 1, 1926 21. Mononobe, N., and Matsuo, H. On the Determination of Earth Pressures During Earthquakes," Proceedings of the World Engineering Congress, 1929. 22. AWWA Standard for Circular Prestressed Concrete Water Tanks With

Circumferential Tendons, ANSl/AWWA Dl15-95, 1995. 23. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (318R99)," American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999, 391 pp.
Received policies. and reviewed under Institute publication

ACI member Javeed A. Munshi is an associate with STS Consultants, Ltd. He has authored several PCA publications on design of concrete tanks. He is an active member of ACI Committee 350, Environmental Engineering Concrete Structures. Munshi is a licensed professional engineer and a licensed structural engineer. WilIiam C. Sherman is a senior structural engineer with Camp Dresser & McKee, lnc. He is an active member of ACI Committee 350, Environmental Engineering Concrete Structures, and he is a licensed professional engineer and a licensed structural engineer.
FUENTE: Concrete International Febrero, 2004g