Design recommendations for reinforced concrete cylindrical storage structures for

aqueous materials'
J. C. JOFRIET
School of Engineering, University of C~telph,Cuelph, Ont., Canada N I C 2 W l
R. GREEN
Civil Engineering Departrrzerlt, University of Wr~terloo,Waterloo, Ont., Canada N2L 3G1
AND

T. I. CAMPBELL
Civil Engineering Deprrrtmerzt, Q~teerl'sU~~iversiry,
Kirzg.ston, Ont., Canada K7L 3N6
Rcceived May 12, 1986
Revised manuscript accepted March 24, 1987

The design of cylindrical non-prestressed concrete storage structures in Ontario does not appear governed by any standard
or building code. Many aboveground water storage reservoirs In Ontario have deteriorated badly in a relatively short period
of use. Many farm silos suffer from problems similar to those of the watcr storage reservoirs. This paper is concerned with
the selection of the wall thickness and the hoop reinforcement for cylindrical storage tanks and silos for llquids or wet materials
where tensile cracking of the concrete is to be limited.
Three design criterla are presented. The first limits the circumferential tenslle stress in the concrete from lateral wall pressure,
shrinkage, and temperature gradients in the wall. The second is concerned with the tension in the hoop reinforcement and
guards against collapse. The thlrd limits the crack widths of the cracked concrete section. The most important design loads
are discussed. Maximum values for hoop tension are provided for liquid pressures. A design temperature gradient of 15°C is
recommended for design in southern Ontario. As well, appropriate values of shrinkage tensile stress are suggested. The collapse
limit state criterion must be evaluated for the hoop steel stresses due to the lateral wall loads. The limit state criterion related
to the hoop tensile stress in the concrete must be investigated for all possible load combinations of lateral wall load, shrinkage,
and temperature gradients. Reasonable load combination factors have been recommended. Recommendations on the tensile
strength of concrete and on appropriate strength factors have been made.
Key words: cylindrical tank, design criteria, hoop stresses, reinforced concrete, silo, standpipe, storage of liquids, storage
of saturated bulk materials.

La conception des structures de stockage cylindriques en bCton non-prkcontraint ne semble soumise 51 aucune norme ou aucune
exigence en Ontario. De nombreux rkservoirs d'eau en surface ont subi des dCsordres strieux durant une periode d'utilisation
relativement courte. De nombreux silos ont connu des problkmes semblables a ceux des rCservoirs d'eau. Cette communication
examine le choix de I'Cpaisseur de la paroi et du frettage dans le cas des rCservoirs de stockage cylindriques et des silos pour
liquides ou matCriaux dCtrempCs lorsque la fissuration du bCton doit &trelimitCe.
Trois critkres de conception sont prCsentCs. Le premier limite la contrainte de traction circonfCrentielle dans le bCton, causte
par la pression de la paroi laterale, le retrait et les gradients de temperature dans le mur. Le second tient compte de la traction au
niveau du frettage et prkvient l'effondrement. Le troisikme limite la largeur des fissures de la section de bCton ICzardt. Les plds
importantes charges de calcul sont discuttes. Les valeurs maximales de traction du frettage sont fournies pour les pressions de
liquide. Un gradient de tempirature de calcul de 15°C est recommand6 dans le sud de I'Ontario. De plus, des valeurs approprites
de contrainte de traction due au retrait sont proposCes. Le critkre d'effondrement B 1'Ctat limite doit &tre CvaluC pour les
contraintes circonfCrentielles causCes par les charges de la paroi laterale. Le critkre aux Ctats limites reliC i la contrainte de
traction circonfCrentielle dans le bCton doit &treCtudit pour toutes les combinaisons possibles de charges (charge de la paroi
lattrale, retrait et gradients de tempkrature). Des coefficients de simultanCitC de charges raisonnables sont recommandCs. Des
recommandations relatives a la rCsistance 51 la traction du bCton et a des coefficients de resistance appropriCs sont Cgalement
incluses.
Mots clds : rCservoirs cylindriques, critkre de conception, contraintes circonftrentielles, bCton armC, silo, tuyau d'adduction,
stockage de liquides, stockage de matCriaux en vrac saturCs.
[Traduit par la revue]
Can. J. Civ. Eng. 14, 542-549 (1987)

Introduction Non-prestressed reinforced concrete design of structures ne-

cylindrical non-prestressed reinforced concrete structures glects the contribution of concrete in tension. The concrete is
have for years provided economical and containers assumed to be cracked under service loads and the reinforcing
for the storage of liquids and solids in mild climates. cases steel provided takes care of the tensile stresses present. How-
where the height of the silo or tank is small to the ever, tensile cracking of the concrete is not acceptable in many
diameter ( ~ i 1)~ bending
. in the wall dominates. H ~in storage
~ structures
~ ~if these are
~ to contain
~ liquids
, or saturated
tall containers circumferential tension controls the design. solids. For instance, there is evidence that freezing will cause
deterioration of the walls of water reservoirs until, eventually,
NOTE: Written discussion of this paper is welcomed and will be leakage results (Campbell 1984; Campbell and Kong 1985;
received by the Editor until November 30, 1987 (address inside front S1ater 19857 1986). In tower the presence Of cracks
cover). allows the acidic silage juices to gain access to and severely
%is paper was presented at the Annual Conference of the Cana- corrode the reinforcing steel.
dian Society for Civil Engineering, Toronto, Ontario, May 1986. The Ontario Building Code (OBC 1984) includes elevated
 :T ET AL.
A Ground Tanks (G)
r Standpipes (S)
4-
FIG. 1. Squat and tall cylindrical storage structures.
water reservoirs as part of the jurisdiction but does not provide
any special provisions for the design of such structures. Slater
(1985) has described the poor condition of many concrete water
standpipes in southern Ontario, and indicates that design rec-
ommendations covering the design of these water-retaining
structures is overdue.
Little or no guidance can be found by designers of concrete
silo structures in North American building codes, especially
where it concerns performance in cold regions (CSA 1984; ACI
1983). Such codes include sections dealing with axially loaded
compression members but none with respect to members sub-
jected to axial tension except for shear capacity. ACI Commit-
tee 350 (1983) does make recommendations for cylindrical
tanks. These recommendations accept cracking and attempt to
minimize the resulting crack widths by specifying an extremely
low allowable steel tensile stress (96 MPa (14 ksi)). Klein et al.
(1981) pointed out that such a low allowable stress for the
circumferential reinforcing steel leads to the use of increased
steel percentages; this in turn causes high shrinkage tensile
stresses in the concrete and defeats in part the objective of the
specification to minimize tensile stress in the wall.
The use of limit states applied only to the cracked cross
section of a wall in circumferential tension, proposed by ACI
Committee 350, allows the selection of the amount of rein-
forcing steel. The limits placed on the maximum crack width
affect the size and spacing of the reinforcing steel. The concrete
wall thickness must be chosen in some other way; rules of
thumb, related to depth of water, economy of section, and
others, are in use. The authors are aware of at least one stand-
pipe with 3.5% circumferential reinforcing steel in the bottom
portion of the wall!
Jofriet (1982) has suggested that it may be possible to in-
clude tensile cracking of the silo or tank wall as an additional
limit state allowing the selection of a wall thickness. This
proposition is explored here. The major loads causing circum-
ferential stresses in cylindrical storage structures will be dis-
cussed, load combinations and load factors will be examined,
and design criteria will be proposed. The proposed load factors
are based on a comparison of the loads on storage structures
with those on buildings for which load factors are well accepted
and regulated.
The paper is restricted to considering loads and design cri-
543
teria related to concentric and eccentric ring tension in cylindri-
cal storage structures. Loads that are typical of structures, such
as dead, occupancy, wind, and earthquake loads, are not
considered.
Loads
The loads and restrained deformations that have an effect on
the circumferential stress in a cylindrical storage structure are
those due to the lateral wall pressure exerted by the contained
materials, including ice, shrinkage of the concrete, temperature
gradients, and creep of the concrete. A discussion of each of
these loads follows.
Lateral wall pressure
The variation of the lateral pressure with depth in storage
structures for liquids and saturated materials is usually known,
and the lateral pressure at any depth can be used to calculate the
resulting ring tension. Boundary conditions that restrict the
circumferential expansion and rotation of the bottom or the top
of the wall affect the ring tension and cause the maximum to
occur some distance from the boundary.
Away from the boundaries, a lateral wall pressure, w , in a
cylindrical container with a thin wall (D/b > 10) causes a ring
tension T :
in which D is equal to the inside diameter of the container if the
wall is considered uncracked, and a value between the inside
and outside diameters if the wall is cracked.
A Portland Cement Association publication (PCA 1947) pro-
vides tables for the calculation of the hoop tension and the
boundary bending moments and shear forces in shallow tanks.
Figure 2 provides the maximum value of ring tension for taller
and more slender tanks and silos (H2/Db > 15) with fixed and
hinged conditions at the wall-floor junction. Figure 2 also
includes a curve to determine the position of the maximum
hoop tension, a H . In both figures the wall pressure is assumed
to increase linearly from zero at the top to a value of pgH at the
bottom, where p is the mass density of the liquid, g the gravita-
tional acceleration, and H the maximum liquid depth.
Lateral wall pressure may also be exerted by an ice cap
or ice cylinder within a cylindrical structure (Slater 1985;
Tuomioja et al. 1973). At below-freezing temperatures an ice
cap may form at the top surface of the contents, while an ice
cylinder may form on the inside perimeter of the wall. Pressure
due to expansion of an ice cap under increasing temperature is
concentrated over the thickness of the ice cap and causes both
circumferential tension and longitudinal bending in the wall.
An approach to determining these stresses has been proposed
by Kong and Campbell (1987). A similar approach may be
used to determine the pressure, and related stresses in the wall,
due to an expanding ice cylinder. Development of charts suit-
able for this process is underway at present.
Temperature
During operation of the cylindrical container substantial tem-
perature differences can occur between the inside and outside
faces of the wall, during both summer and winter seasons. If
the temperature difference, AT, is uniform around the circum-
ference, the cylinder will retain a circular shape; tensile stresses
will develop on the cold face and compressive ones on the
warm side. A constant temperature gradient through the wall
thickness is a reasonable assumption for design. A linear stress
544 C A N , J . CIV. ENG. VOL. 14, I987
1.05
Fixed Bow
r PCA limit 1
temperature gradient, AT.
FIG.2. Maximum hoop tension, T.,,,, and position of maximum
hoop tension, Z, in tall cylindrical tanks. Upper graphs for fixed-base,
lower graphs for pinned-base assumption.
variation will result. The overall diameter will increase or de-
crease as determined by the temperature change at the centre of
the wall, AT/2, and maximum stresses, f,,, at the extreme
fibres will be
AT
[2] f,, = -E,a, *
2
in which a, and E , are the coefficient of linear expansion and
Young's modulus of the concrete, respectively.
The stresses in [2] act on a curved circular shell and cause a
secondary radial stress, which varies quadratically from zero at
the outside fibres to a maximum on the neutral axis. For small
ratios of the wall thickness, b , to the diameter, D , the maxi-
mum radial stress is b/2D times the value found from [2j (see
Fig. 3). The radial stress is tensile when f,, is compressive on
the outside face, i.e., when the outside wall temperature is
higher than that of the inside face.
The radial stress would be quite small under normal circum-
stances. However, if heavy concentrations of reinforcing steel
are placed in the centre of the wall this secondary effect of the
through-the-wall temperature gradient should be calculated on
the net available concrete area. The resulting stress should be
multiplied by an appropriate stress concentration factor (Peter-
son 1953). A single layer of reinforcement placed at the centre
of the wall is frequently used in practice. Such an arrangement
must be considered ineffective for walls subjected to stresses
due to a temperature gradient ([2]) and detrimental when sub-
jected to a radial tensile stress. The use of a single layer of
reinforcement placed in the centre of the wall should be
discouraged.
FIG. 3. Radial tensile stresses, f,, in a cylindrical wall due to a
The selection of the temperature difference AT for design is
difficult. The outside of the wall is subjected to ambient condi-
tions that, in most cases, vary diurnally and from site to site.
The inside temperature will be a function of the outside tem-
perature, the wall thickness, and the thermal properties of the
wall concrete and of the material stored. In addition, for fluids,
convective currents at the wall-fluid interface, and possible
heat input to the contents, have an effect. As an added compli-
cation, nonuniform solar radiation and cooling by wind cause
the exposed face of the wall to heat and cool nonuniformly,
leading to changes in shape of the circular reservoir and re-
sulting in circumferential bending moments.
Priestley (1975) carried out a study of thermal stresses in
cylindrical water reservoirs in New Zealand. Thermal analyses
included the influence of solar radiation, wind effects, and the
water temperature. For a "worst summer day" analysis with a
diurnal ambient temperature variation from 10 to 32"C, Priest-
ley calculated a maximum outside wall temperature of 48°C at
a fairly constant inside temperature of 11°C for a 200 mm thick
prestressed concrete wall of a water reservoir.
Wood and Adams (1977) measured inside and outside wall
temperatures of a 39.6 m diameter, 7.9 m wall height precast
concrete water reservoir with a 178 mm thick wall near Upper
Hutt City, New Zealand. The measured peak radiation of about
800 W/m2 resulted in peak temperature differences of 18-
20°C. Typical maximum ambient temperatures were 24-27°C
and water and inside wall temperatures were 12-14°C.
Jofriet and Jiang (1986) measured outside wall temperatures
of a 6.1 m diameter by 22 m high concrete tower silo with a
140 mm thick wall near Baden, Ont. The silo was filled with
50% moisture content alfalfa silage. The highest outside wall
temperature recorded was 41°C on August 4, 1985, on the east
face. This resulted in a gradient, AT, through the wall of about
15°C. Similar differences were also observed in February on
the south face.
Reinforced concrete tanks will typically have thicker walls
than those tested by Wood and Adams (178 mm) and by Jofriet
and Jiang (140 mm). This additional wall thickness provides
greater thermal inertia and therefore moderates the diurnal vari-
ation. For southern Ontario, a design gradient of 15°C for the
 TABLEI. Tensile stresses in concrete wall due to shrinkage
Method of calculation p = 0.005
Step-by-step analysis
30 days from casting 0.28
Step-by-step analysis
60 days from casting 0.39
Eq. [31 (A€,,, = 300 1 . ~ ~ 1 0.29
NOTE:f: = 25 MPa, E, = 25 000 MPa, curing time
through-the-wall temperature gradient would seem adequate
for a water tank. Other containers must be analyzed, bearing in
mind the temperature conditions that might occur inside.
The temperature gradient through the wall will not be uni-
form around the perimeter of the storage structure, since it is
caused mainly by incident radiation from the sun, which is
moving relative to the structure. Jofriet and Jiang (1986) mea-
sured a maximum difference in outside-face temperature of
12°C on August 16, 1985, between the north- and south-facing
sides. This nonuniformity in temperature gradient causes the
circular cross section of the cylinder to deform into an elliptical
shape. A single finite element analysis of a 5.0 m inside diam-
eter ring with 0.6 m wall thickness subjected to a linear tem-
perature gradient through the wall but a nonuniform one around
the circumference indicates that the tensile stresses given by [2]
are increased by about 0.8 MPa around the circumference.
Shrinkage
Moisture loss from the concrete wall of a silo or tank occurs
with time, causing drying and shrinkage; 30-60% of this
movement is not recovered even if the concrete becomes satu-
rated at a later time. Typical values of shrinkage of concrete
specimens with an aggregate to cement ratio of 7 are 200 and
500 microstrain for waterlcement ratios of 0.4 and 0.7
respectively, stored at 50% relative humidity and 21°C for
6 months (Neville 1973).
The internal restraint offered by the reinforcing steel as
drying and shrinkage take place results in tensile stresses in the
concrete. Additional stresses are introduced when the wall
dries gradually from the surface inward. Fortunately, drying
and shrinkage are fairly slow processes, so that the resulting
stress is relieved partially by creep of the concrete.
If a net increment of shrinkage strain, Ae,,, is assumed
uniform across the wall thickness, the tensile stress increase,
Af,,, that results in the concrete can be expressed as
in which Ec is Young's modulus of the concrete, n the modular
ratio, both at the time the increment Ae,, occurs, and p is the
reinforcing steel ratio A ,/Ac. The Portland Cement Association
(PCA 1947) recommends a single-step application of shrinkage
strain of 300 pe at 28 days.
A step-by-step analysis for shrinkage and creep (ACI Com-
mittee 209 1971) was carried out for steel to concrete area
ratios of 0.005, 0.010, 0.015, and 0.020. The time steps were
1 day starting at day 3 after casting. In the analysis it was
assumed that at time t (in days):
Tensile stress (MPa)
p = 0.01 p = 0.015 p = 0.02
0.52 0.74 0.93
0.73 1.04 1.30
0.56 0.81 1.05
= 3 days
in which f;(t) is the compressive strength at time t (days) and
to is the loading age in days.
For each time step the shrinkage strain increment Aesh(t)was
reduced by a creep strain Ae,(t) calculated on the bases of
a long-term creep function of 2.5ti0.Il8 assuming moisture
curing.
Table 1 provides the tensile stresses 30 and 60 days after
placing of the concrete assuming a 3 day curing period. The
stresses are shown for steel quantities, p , of 0.005, 0.01,
0.015, and 0.02. The values found with [3] using a single-step
shrinkage strain of 300 pe are also given. It is evident from the
values in Table 1 that the tensile stresses introduced by shrink-
age can become very high if a high percentage of steel ap-
proaching 0.02 is used in design. With 2% reinforcing steel,
the tensile stress would reach about 40% of the tensile strength
of 30 MPa concrete. The simple shrinkage stress calculation
based on [3] using a single increment of shrinkage strain of
300 pe predicts stresses that are 4-12% larger than those
calculated using the incremental analysis over a period of
30 days. The simple stress calculation appears to be quite
acceptable for design unless special circumstances exist. The
300 pe shrinkage strain applies at 30 days and should be in-
creased to about 400 pe for shrinkage calculations over a
period of 60 days.
Creep
Creep of the concrete will generally have a beneficial effect
in reducing deformation-induced tensile stress considered in
the design of cylindrical containers. The tensile stresses in-
duced in an uncracked wall will be partially transferred to the
reinforcing steel, thus reducing the maximum value in the
concrete. The creep reduction in the tensile stresses induced by
the lateral wall pressure is probably going to be minimum (thus
causing a maximum stress) at initial filling. The value will
depend, therefore, on the initial filling rate. For example, an
initial filling 60 days after casting would lead to a long-term
creep function of 2.5 x 60-0."8 = 1.54 and using a filling rate
of 7 days would give a creep coefficient c$ of (ACI Committee
209):
This would reduce the effective concrete Young's modulus
to 72% of the modulus at 60 days. An instantaneous modular
ratio of 8 would be increased to 11; the equivalent concrete
section would be increased by 2.8% for a wall with 1% steel.
This would reduce the concrete stresses obtained from an
uncracked-section analysis by 2.8%, which is a fairly insignifi-
cant amount.
546 CAN. J . CIV. ENG. VOL. 14. 1987
The effect of creep on the temperature stresses is minimal in
the case of diurnal variations but should be considered when
seasonal changes are considered for the analysis of an un-
cracked concrete wall. For a cracked-section analysis, creep
reduction is not appropriate.
The effect of creep on shrinkage stresses constitutes a reduc-
tion in concrete tensile hoop stresses. These were taken into
account in the earlier discussion on shrinkage-induced stresses
and the values in Table 1 from the step-by-step shrinkage
analysis include the creep effect.
Design criteria
This paper is restricted to actions that result in tensile stress
in the circumferential direction in cylindrical storage contain-
ers, and the design criteria that follow relate to these effects.
Not included in the discussion are those related to vertical
wall stresses, the overall stability of the structure, and to the
foundations.
Some concrete water storage tanks subjected to the type of
climate typical for most of Canada have deteriorated fairly
rapidly with time as a result of ice action (Slater 1985).
Freezing and thawing action increases the width of stress cracks
to the extent that leakage occurs. Also, vertical delamination
develops in the saturated concrete wall. The Slater (1985) sur-
vey of a large number of water standpipes confirms that rapid
deterioration has occurred in Ontario, especially with rein-
forced concrete tanks.
A design criterion is required to reduce to a minimum the
development of vertical tensile cracking of the wall of those
containers where leakage is to be avoided. Alternatively, the
concrete silo or tank can be equipped with an effective water-
proof liner. A cost analysis can provide the most economical
solution. In cold regions, such as northern Ontario, a water-
proof liner is a necessity if a water tank is not insulated.
The Portland Cement Association publication for the design
of nonprestressed tanks (PCA 1947) suggests that the wall
thickness of reinforced concrete tanks should be determined by
limiting the circumferential tensile stress in the concrete. Many
design engineers appear to neglect this concept, and the recom-
mendations of ACI Committee 350 (1983) do not make direct
reference to this procedure.
The maximum tensile stress in the concrete due to hoop
tension effects, including lateral wall pressure, shrinkage,
creep, and thermal gradients, can be limited by the following,
which has the same format as used in the Ontario Building
Code (OBC 1984):
where +, = resistance factor for concrete in tension, r , =
resistance of concrete in tension, y = importance factor, $ =
load combination factor, L = stress due to lateral load, T =
restraining stress due to temperature gradients, S = restraining
stress due to shrinkage, C = stress due to creep, and a are the
associated load factors.
To guard against yield of the reinforcing steel, and thus
collapse, the following applies:
in which 4, = resistance factor for the reinforcing steel and
f, = yield strength of the reinforcing steel.
As a serviceability limit state, the reinforcing steel should be
distributed in such a way as to limit crack widths. Cracking can
occur owing to lack of concentricity of the tank, variations in
wall thickness, and moments in the tank wall due to un-
symmetrical heating and shrinkage. Reasonable limits on crack
widths are those suggested by ACI Committee 350 (1983):
W,,, < 0.25 mm for noncorrosive liquids
[ 101
W,, < 0.20 mm for corrosive liquids
where W,,, = maximum crack width. Both lateral load and
restrained deformations due to temperature gradients should be
used when applying [lo].
Load factors and load combinations
The most unfavourable effect has to be determined by con-
sidering stresses L , T, S , and C in [8] acting alone with
$ = 1, or in combination.
ACI Committee 350 recommendations (1983) for sanitary
structures introduce strength design as an alternative to allow-
able stress design. The load factors presented are those used
for buildings but increased by sanitary durability coefficients
(Gogate 1981) in an attempt to create waterproof structures.
The authors consider that the use of these large load factors,
which can exceed 2 for hydrostatic pressure, does not clearly
indicate the possible limit states being considered. A more
direct approach is preferred.
For [8] the authors propose, in the case of liquids, a load
factor for the lateral pressure equivalent to that for dead load,
i.e. 1.25. Positive, foolproof provisions should be in place to
limit the maximum liquid level or tank pressure. In the absence
of such provisions the designer should consider liquid pres-
sures exceeding those associated with normal operation. For
solid materials, including ice, the choice of lateral pressures
for design is more difficult than for liquids. The variability
is comparable to typical live loads and a factor of 1.5 is
appropriate.
The calculated stresses induced by nonuniform heating and
cooling of the storage structure and by shrinkage or creep of the
concrete should be multiplied by the load factor of 1.25 as
recommended in the Ontario Building Code (OBC 1984).
Equation [8] does not deal with a life-threatening limit state.
It may be appropriate to use an importance factor, y, of 0.8,
similar to that used for low human occupancy buildings and
structures. This inclusion of the importance factor with the load
factors will not be suitable for all storage structures. The use of
non-prestressed unlined concrete construction for the storage of
materials for which leakage is a critical limit state is inap-
propriate and not recommended.
The load factors appropriate for [9] are identical to those for
[8] except for the importance factor. A value of 1.0 would
generally apply. Farm tower silos can in most instances be
designed as low-occupancy structures, allowing an importance
factor of 0.8. Potable water storage tanks could be classified as
essential in a postdisaster situation and should be designed with
an importance factor of 1.2.
The limit state considered in [lo] is a serviceability-type
limit state and thus the load factors would be 1.0.
Equation [8] includes a large number of load combinations.
The manner in which loads must be combined will depend on
the probable mode of operation of the storage structure. How-
ever, some general comments can be made.
Stresses due to the lateral wall load and the temperature
gradient across the wall depend upon the content of the storage
tank. If the tank or bin is filled to a design level most of the
 lOFRlET ET AL.
time, it would appear reasonable to design for the full com-
bined effect of both the lateral wall load and the temperature
gradient. The effect of creep can be taken into account to get
a reasonable estimate of the tensile concrete h o o ~ stress. If the
content level fluctuates, it would be reasonable to assume a
load factor appropriate for combining two loads that vary with
time and the Ontario Building Code (OBC 1984) load combi-
nation factor of 0.7. In this case, creep should not be included.
Since an ice cap forms only at the top surface level of the
contents, lateral pressure due to ice and to contents should not
be combined. he maximum of the hoop tensions due to ice
pressure and to liquid pressure should be considered for all
levels where an ice cap may form.
Shrinkage tensile stresses will develop before the tank or silo
is first filled. For the design criterion of [8] one load combina-
tion should consider shrinkage multiplied by the appropriate
load factor. After filling starts, some shrinkage will be re-
covered and the amount of shrinkage remaining must be com-
bined with maximum lateral load. The maximum combined
effect depends on the rate of first filling, which is usually not
-
under the control of the structural designer
The authors consider that for a reasonably slow filling rate of
approximately 1 week to operating level, 50% of the shrinkage
stress present at the time of filling should be added to the
stresses due to lateral load (L) $us temperature (T) with
+ = 0.7. The shrinkage stresses should be reduced by creep
(Table 1).
Equation [lo] includes two loads, since both lateral pressure
and temperature gradient need be considered. The same load
+
combination factors, = 1.0 or 0.7, as were recommended for
[8] are appropriate.
It is difficult to generalize concerning all possible load com-
binations. Each designer should be familiar with the way in
which the structure is built, tested, commissioned, and even-
tually used. Only then can reasonable decisions be made about
load combinations and load combination factors using the guid-
ance of the available codes for buildings.
Resistance
The design criteria ([8]-[lo]) are expressed in terms of fac-
tored resistances. For [8], a concrete tensile strength is re-
quired. The tensile strength can be measured in a number of
ways, each leading to a different strength value (ACI Commit-
tee 224 1986). Common types of measurement are (a) direct
tensile strength, (b) splitting strength, and (c) modulus of rup-
ture. The direct tensile strength is appropriate when consid-
ering a predominantly uniform tensile stress across the wall.
This is the case with the hoop stress due to the lateral wall
pressure, provided the wall thickness is small relative to the
diameter (less than 0. ID). Uniform shrinkage and creep also
give a uniform stress. The modulus of rupture is the applicable
strength when considering the differential temperature stress
f,,. When combining effects from the temperature load with
a uniform stress distribution, the interaction equation is
recommended.
It is convenient to relate the tensile strengths to the 28-day
compressive cylinder strength. Raphael (1984) recommends
the following for the direct tensile strength, f,', under static
loads:
[ l l ] f,' = 0.32(f:)~/~
and for the modulus of rupture, f::
[12] f: = 0.44(f:)'/~
547
in which f: is the 28-day compressive strength in MPa. The
values obtained from [ l l ] are 20-25% higher than those in
Table 3.2 of the report by ACI Committee 224 (1986). The
moduli of rupture calculated with [12] agree well with those
listed by ACI Committee 224. The direct tensile strength values
are similar to those given by the CEB-FIP model code (CEB
1978).
Standard CAN3-A23.3-M84 (CSA 1984) specifies a
strength reduction factor of 0.6 for concrete at the ultimate limit
state. No strength or stiffness reduction factor is used for ser-
viceability limit states. The selection of the appropriate
+,
strength reduction factor, , for use in [8] requires an accept-
able value for the probability of cracking during the life of the
structure.
Considering past experience (PCA 1947) and allowing a
probability of approximately 3-5% that cracking will occur,
the authors find that a strength reduction factor of 0.75 is
appropriate for direct tension and flexural tension. This is based
on a mean to specified strength ratio of 1.2, a separation factor
of 0.7, a safety index of 2 corresponding to a probability of
0.002, and a coefficient of variation of 15%.
Equation [9] applies to a cracked-section analysis and hence
the yield strength of the circumferential reinforcing steel applies.
The strength reduction factor of 0.85 (CAN3-A23.3-M84)
should be used.
For the determination of crack width due to direction tension
for [lo], the work by Broms and Lutz (1965) is recommended
over that by Gergely and Lutz (1968) incorporated in the ACI
Committee 350 (1983) standard. Broms and Lutz recommend
that
[13] W,,, = ~ , c d 1 6+ ( s / c ) ~
where W ,, is the maximum crack width, c is the cover to the
centre of the steel, E, is the strain in the reinforcing steel
assuming a cracked section, and s is the spacing of the hoop
steel. For a typical value of c = 60 mrn and a typical spacing
of 150 mm, [13] limits the working stress in the steel to about
180 MPa at working loads. This limit agrees with CEB recom-
mendations (Walther 1982).
Finally, the authors recommend that an upper limit be placed
on the amount of circumferential reinforcement. Such a limita-
tion would indirectly guard against high shrinkage and radial
tensile stresses if [8] is not properly applied or neglected. A
limit of 1% of the gross cross-sectional area is recommended.
Such a limit would lead to a minimum wall thickness of
575 mm in the lower portion of a 10 m diameter reservoir with
30 m water height reinforced with 400 MPa steel.
Summary and recommendations
The design of cylindrical non-prestressed concrete storage
structures for the hoop stresses has been examined in detail.
This review was initiated through the apparent lack of design
standards or codes that could be used in the design of concrete
storage structures, and by the poor performance of some above-
ground water tank designs in cold regions.
This paper is not an in-depth research of hoop stresses in
cylindrical non-prestressed concrete tanks and silos. However,
it reflects the experience of the authors in reinforced concrete
design and behaviour, and with cylindrical tanks and silos in
particular. The paper was written with the intention of pro-
voking discussion. It is the expectation that eventually a design
standard or code may be developed.
The recommendations presented include three design cri-
548 CAN. 1. CIV. ENG. VOL. 14. 1987
teria. The first attempts to guard against vertical cracking of the
cylinder wall by limiting the tensile hoop stresses in the con-
crete. It provides a first estimate of wall thickness. The lateral
load from the stored material, shrinkage, creep, and the various
effects of temperature fluctuations are considered as force ef-
fects in this first criterion.
The second criterion deals with a "cracked section" collapse
limit state. Shrinkage, temperature gradients, and creep are not
considered here. Finally, the third design criterion suggests
limits for the crack widths and so provides a serviceability limit
state in the event of cracking.
The paper includes initial recommendations on the mag-
nitude of temperature gradients, shrinkage, and creep stresses,
and on applicable load combinations. It provide's tentative rec-
ommendations for load factors, importance factors, and load
combination factors, and for strength reduction factors.
T o illustrate the recommendations, they have been applied to
the partial design of the wall of a potable water standpipe with
7 m inside diameter and a maximum water depth of 30 m. The
design calculations (see Appendix) are for the wall thickness
and the circumferential reinforcement near the bottom and at
mid-height.
The implication of the recommendations in this paper is that
the design of trouble-free cylindrical storage structures for
liquids or wet materials will require proportionally less circum-
ferential steel and thicker walls than has been the case in some
tanks and silos constructed in the past.
Acknowledgement
The authors appreciate the helpful comments made by
Mr. W. M. Slater of W. M. Slater and Associates Inc. during
the preparation of this paper.
ACI. 1983. Building Code requirements for reinforced concrete and
commentary (ACI 318-83). American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
MI.
ACI COMMITTEE 209. 1971. Prediction of creep, shrinkage, and tem-
perature effects in concrete structures. American Concrete Institute,
Special Publication SP-27, pp. 51 -94.
ACI COMMITTEE 224. 1986. Cracking of concete members in direct
tension. Journal of the American Concrete Institute, 83(1): 3- 13.
ACI COMMITTEE 350. 1983. Concrete sanitary structures. Journal of
the American Concrete Institute, 80(6): 467-486.
BROMS,B. B., and LUTZ,L. A. 1965. Effects of arrangement of
reinforcement on crack width and spacing of reinforced concrete
members. Journal of the American Concrete Institute, 62(11):
1395- 1410.
CAMPBELL, T. I. 1984. Environmental loading in concrete water
tanks. 1st interim report to Ministry of the Environment, Ontario.
CAMPBELL, T. I., and KONG,W. L. 1985. Environmental loading of
concrete water tanks. 2nd interim report to Ministry of the Environ-
ment, Ontario
CEB. 1978. Comitk Euro-International du BCtonlFkdCration Inter..
nationale de la Prkcontrainte model code for concrete. ComitC
Euro-International du Bkton, Paris, France, Bulletin d'information
no. 1251125-E.
CSA. 1984. Design of concrete structures for buildings. National
Standard CAN3-A23.3-M84, Canadian Standards Association,
Rexdale, Ont.
GERGELY, P., and LUTZ,L. A. 1968. Maximum crack width in rein-
forced concrete flexural members. American Concrete Institute,
Spacia Publication SP-20, pp. 87-117.
GOGATE, A. B. 1981. Structural design of reinforced concrete sanitary
structures - past, present and future. Concrete International: De-
sign & construction, 3(4): 24-28.
JOFRIET,J. C. 1982. Discussion of: Application of strength design
methods to sanitary structures by F. Klein et al. Concrete Inter-
national: Design & Construction, 4(2): 58-59.
JOFRIET, J. C., and JIANG, S. 1986. Measured temperatures of haylage
in a 6.1 m diameter silo. Annual Meeting, North Atlantic Region,
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Quebec City, Que.
KLEIN,F., HOFFMAN, E. S., and RICE,P. F. 1981. Application of
strength design methods to sanitary structures. Concrete Inter-
national: Design & Construction, 3(4): 35-40.
KONG,W. L., and CAMPBELL, T. I. 1987. Ice pressure in elevated
water tanks. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 14(4):
519-526.
NEVILLE,A. M. 1973. Properties of concrete. Pitman Publishing,
London, England.
OBC. 1984. Ontario Building Code. Ontario Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing, Toronto, Ont., 0. Reg. 549184.
PCA. 1947. Circular tanks without prestressing. Portland Cement
Association, Publication no. IS072D.
PETERSON, R. E. 1953. Stress concentration design factors. John
Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
PRIESTLEY, M. J. N. 1975. Thermal stresses in cylindrical prestressed
concrete water reservoirs. Department of Civil Engineering, Uni-
versity of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, Research report
75/13.
RAPHAEL, J. M. 1984. Tensile strength of concrete. Journal of the
American Concrete Institute, 82(2): 158- 165.
SLATER, W. M. 1985. Concrete water tanks in Ontario. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, 12(2): 325 -333.
1986. Inspection, maintenance, repair and strengthening of
above ground concrete water tanks damaged in cold region environ-
ments. loth International Congress of the Fkdkration Internationale
de la Prkcontrainte, New Delhi, pp. 245-248.
TuoMIOrA, M., JUMPPANEN, P., and RECHARDT, T. 1973. Jaan
lujuudesta ja muodonmuutoksista (The strength and deformation of
ice). Rakennustekniika, 1: 233-326.
WALTHER, R. 1982. Fkdkration Internationale de la Prkcontrainte
recommendations on practice design. Ecole Polytechnique FCdkrale
de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
WOOD,J. H., and ADAMS,J. R. 1977. Temperature gradients in a
cylindrical concrete reservoir. 6th Australasian Conference on the
Mechanics of Structures and Materials. University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand.
Appendix
The design recommendations are applied to a potable water
standpipe, 7 m inside diameter, 30 m absolute maximum water
depth. The water level fluctuates with water demand. The
design temperature gradient through the wall is 15°C. An addi-
tional tensile stress of 0.5 MPa (estimated) allows for non-
uniform heating of the outside face of wall by solar radiation.
Materials: Concrete: fi = 35 MPa; E, = 29 600 MPa;
a, = 11 x 10-6/0C; eq. [ l l ] , f; = 3.42 MPa; eq. [12],
f: = 4.71 MPa. Reinforcing steel: f, = 400 MPa; E , =
200 000 MPa.
Two depths will be considered: the first is where the maxi-
mum circumferential tension occurs near the bonom of the
standpipe, the second at 15 m water depth. The wall will be
considered fixed at the bonom.
( a ) Near the bottom
Assume b = 700 mm, H2/bD = 184, a = 0.89, P = 0.925
(Fig. 2):
T,, = 0.925 X 9.81 X 30 X 7.012 = 953 kN/m
(uncracked)
(cracked)
 JOFRIET ET AL. 549

Reinforcing steel applying [9]: aL = 1.25, y = 1.O, S + C acting alone is insignificant.

+, = 0.85 L + T + 0.5(S + C ) acting together: y = 0.8, JI = 0.7:
L = T6,,/AS
0.85 X 400 > 1.0 X 1.25 X 1055 OOO/A,
A, > 3880 m2/m
(20 M at 150 E.F. provides 4000 mm2/m) In summary, at about 26 m depth (&), a 700 mm thick wall
Equation [lo] limits maximum crack width to 0.25 mm. As- with 20 M at 120 circumferential steel each face appears
suming a cover of 50 mm: adequate.
(b) At 15 m below top water level
Eq. [13]: W, = 1055000 x60\/16+2S2 Assume b = 375 mm:
4 000 x 200 000
T = 9.81 X 15 X 7.012 = 515 kN/m (uncracked)

Reduce spacing to 120 mm, A, = 5000 mm2/m, and s/c = T' = 9.81 X 15 X 7.37512 = 543 kN/m (cracked)
120160 = 2: Reinforcing steel applying [9]: clL = 1.25, y = 1 .O,
Eq. [13]: W, = OS5 O0O X 60-
+, = 0.85
5 000 x 200 000 L = T/A,

Acceptable: use 20 M at 120 E.F. A, > 2000 mm2/m

Wall thickness applying [8]; try a thickness of 700 mm (15 M at 200 E.F. provides 2000 mm2/m)
Stress due to lateral load, L:
Check maximum crack width. Assuming a cover of 40 mm:
L = T,,,/& where A, = A, + (n - 1)A,
L = 953 000/(700 000 + 5.75 X 5 000) = 1.308 MPa Eq. [13]: W, = 543 Oo0
2 000 x 200 000
x 50-
L acting alone: y = 0.8, JI = 1, clL = 1.25, 4, = 0.75: = 0.383 mm
Eq. [8]: 0.75 X 3.42 > 0.8 X 1 X 1.25 X 1.308 Reduce spacing to 150 mm, A, = 2667 mm2/m:
543 000
Eq. [13]: W,, = x 50-
Restraint stress due to uniform temperature gradient of 15°C: 2 667 x 200 000
T = 1512 X 29000 X 11 x = 2.44 MPa =0.254mm OK

Add 0.5 MPa tension to allow for nonuniform heating: Use 15 M at 150 E.F.

T = 2.44 + 0.5 = 2.94 MPa Wall thickness applying [8]; try 375 mm

T acting alone: y = 0.8; JI = 1; a7 = 1.25; 4, = 0.75: L = 515 000/(375 000 + 5.75 X 2 667) = 1.319 MPa
Eq. [8]: 0.75 x 4.71 > 0.8 x 1 x 1.25 x 2.94 OK L acting alone: y = 0.8, JI = 1, aL= 1.25, +, = 0.75:
L and T acting together: y = 0.8; JI = 0.7; aL= a~ = 1.25; Eq. [8]: 0.75 X 3.42 > 0.8 X 1 X 1.25 X 1.319
+, = 0.75: OK
Temperature stresses are not wall thickness dependent:
T = 2.94 MPa
+
L T acting together about the same as before.
Shrinkage and creep:
Restraint stress due to shrinkage, S , and creep, C: p = 2 6671375 000 = 0.0071 1 same as before
L + T + 0.5(S + C) about the same as before.
Say drying period is 30 days; Table 1 provides an estimate for In summary, at 15 m depth the wall thickness can be reduced
+
S C of 0.38 MPa. to 375 rnm with 15 M at 150 circumferential steel each face.

View publication stats