Seismic design of RC water tanks in Afghanistan

Stewart Mcilwraith
MSc EEDM
Supervisors: Carmine Galasso, Yasmine Didem, Ioanna Ioannou
Aim:
To provide the ICRC with a design model using capacity design for
elevated RC potable water tanks in Afghanistan, a highly seismic,
mountainous country that is prone to earthquakes up to Mw=8.01.
The model must reflect local construction conditions: low strength
concrete, simplicity of design, a minimal number of reinforcing bar
sizes and as easy to build as possible. It must be applicable to the
following variations:
Heights: 10m and 20m
Volumes: 20m3, 50m3 and 100m3
Soils: Hard rock soft clay
Seismic accelerations up to 1.2g
Procedure:
As
there
are
no
construction codes in
Afghanistan, a seismic
hazard map (fig.1) was
first
established
by
breaking down existing
acceleration data into 4
seismic zones. Zone 4 is
not considered in this
study as the seismicity is
too
high
for
the
application of a standard
design model.

Results:

Table 2: Modal analysis results for case 5 - Seismic loads

UX (mm)
UY (mm)
UZ (mm)
Total
Height
storey drift
(m) Total Storey Total Storey Total Storey
(mm)
30 ground
0
0
0
0
0.00
30 1st beam level
4 21.8 21.8
6.3
6.3
4.1
4.1
23.01
30 2nd beam level
8 57.3 35.6 17.0 10.7
7.2
3.2
37.29
30 3rd beam level
12 95.3 37.9 28.4 11.4
9.5
2.2
39.67
30 4th beam level
16 131.5 36.3 39.3 10.8 10.9
1.4
37.89
30 Base of tank
20 161.3 29.8 48.4
9.1 11.6
0.7
31.15
30 Top of tank
24.2 177.6 16.3 53.1
4.8 11.6
0.0
16.94

Case

Location

Table 3: Drift at each level of structure

1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3

Drift
limit
(mm)
0
46.2
46.2
46.2
46.2
46.2
48.5

Figures 3a-3e FEM results from left to right: drift, primary bending moment,
primary shear

Modal mass participation was

above 90% in both horizontal
directions (table 1).
Drift was within reduced limits for
structures in seismic design
categories D, E or F (table 2).
Moment, shear and axial force
results were obtained (fig.3).
Each element was dimensioned
and reinforced to meet the criteria
of ACI-318 special moment
frames
for
non-building
structures. This includes elevated
shear capacity, moment-axial Fig. 4: Moment-axial force interaction of columns
force interaction (fig.4) and the
assurance that column moment
capacity is greater than beam
moment capacity at joints (fig.5)
The
pad
foundation
was
dimensioned using reactions from
strength design. Bearing capacity
was defined using allowable
Fig. 5: Reinforcing detailing
for special RC moment frames
stress reactions.
Construction plans:
A full example set of construction plans were developed based on the
model results and code detailing criteria
42

5.6.5 Seismic detailing for earthquake-resistant structures (ACI-3187)

! ": "! "$ G&0&/( *,

This section is taken from ACI-318 11, the chapter references preceding detailing
requirements are references from ACI-318.

The articles included here reflect the major differences between designing special
moment frames and ordinary structures. For a full list of detailing requirements
please see APPENDIX III.

Strength reduction factors shall be applied to all members depending on the actions
the member is subject to.

Type of failure / element

Strength reduction factor (# )

Tension

Compression

Shear

member

member

member

0.9

0.65

0.6

Table 5-24 Strength reduction factors for reinforced concrete elements

sb

Fig. 1: Seismic hazard classification

Given

the lack of local codes, the ICRC wanted the design process to
follow the IBC 2012 where possible, an American code that is the
most recognised in Afghanistan. Site classes, modified accelerations
and seismic design categories were defined in accordance with this
standard and ASCE-7, where the IBC makes reference.
Bar one exception, all possible combinations of seismic zone and site
class fall within the severe seismic design categories D or above.
For seismic zone 3, site class E and all of seismic zone 4, 1s
acceleration is greater than short period. The design model is not
applicable to these extreme seismicity cases.
Modified accelerations were
used
to
define
the
acceleration spectra (right).

sb0

Joints

0.85

5cm

bh

0.5sc0

ss

2bh

l0

sc0

sc

ch

Behaviour

modification factor, over strength factor and deflection

amplification factor were defined based on structural system (special
RC moment frame for elevated tanks) as per ASCE-7.

Table 1: Design coefficients and factors for seismic force-resisting system2

Finite element modelling was used to analyse

the structures behaviour under seismic and
other load combinations. The water was
modelled as a rigid mass located at the
centre of gravity. The first structure analysed
was a severe case: 20m high, 50m3 volume,
in seismic zone 3 and on site class D.

1
2

Figure 2: Structural model with rigidly connected

fluid mass (left) and true sections (right)

Fig.5a and 5b: Exerts from reinforcing plans developed for the first case studied

Conclusions:
The model uses locally available materials and is geometrically simple to realise with a minimum of different cross sections and reinforcing sizes
The model is applicable to many different combinations of seismicity zones, site classes and size parameters
The model can be said to respond to seismic design criteria set forth in IBC 2012 for highly seismic zones
Geotechnical studies are very important to the design of the model as lower limit bearing capacity assumptions are difficult to respect
Short beam spans tend towards shear dominated elements and as such are heavily overdesigned in capacity design
Seismic zone 3 appears to be close to the limit of applicability of the model

Preliminary Earthquake Hazard Map of Afghanistan; Oliver S Boyd, Charles S Mueller and Kenneth S Rukstales for USAID and USGS
ASCE-7 10 Table 15.4.2