Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: A new angle on "Sliding" - unanchored tanks

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I think I would differ with you on this. On a tank with this radius to
height ratio only a very small part, if any, of the bottom will ever be in
the uplift condition and the anchorage actually results in increased  demand
on the tank because of  loss of damping and energy absorption that is
present when the tank can move a small amount.  This has been shown in some
of the recent papers on the subject and I was told by Warren Mitchell who
wrote the paper with Wozniak in 1978 for API which was the basis for 650
App. E, that the intent was not to promote more anchorage, but rather, to
promote designing tanks with  larger r/h ratios wherever possible to prevent
rupture during major seismic events.  You have to be very careful in
designing and constructing the subbase and base, but then it is better to
let it move a little.  As long as it does not rupture, it is a minor thing
to jack up a portion of the tank and repair the base  if and when the big
one occurs.
Richard Hess S.E.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sherman, William" <ShermanWC(--nospam--at)cdm.com>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 4:13 PM
Subject: RE: A new angle on "Sliding" - unanchored tanks


> AWWA D100 does permit "unanchored" tanks in seismic regions, although it
> states that "properly designed anchored tanks retain greater reserve
> strength to seismic overload than unanchored tanks". A study of seismic
tank
> failures by the American Lifelines Alliance (associated with FEMA and
ASCE)
> indicated that "anchored tanks should perform better than unanchored
tanks."
> Consequently, I specify that tanks in seismic regions "shall be anchored
> tanks". Tank designers often request an option to provide an unanchored
tank
> but I stick with my specified requirements based on the improved seismic
> performance.
>
>
> William C. Sherman, PE
> CDM, Denver, CO
> Phone: 303-298-1311
> Fax: 303-293-8236
> email: shermanwc(--nospam--at)cdm.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yousefi, Ben [mailto:Ben.Yousefi(--nospam--at)ci.sj.ca.us]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 4:37 PM
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject: A new angle on "Sliding"
> >
> >
> > We are currently reviewing a steel water tank that is
> > approximately 300 feet
> > in diameter and approximately 40 feet high. The designer is
> > proposing to not
> > have any anchorage from the tank to the perimeter ring
> > foundation that the
> > tank wall is resting on. His point is that, there is
> > sufficient friction
> > between the tank wall and the foundation to resist the
> > seismic forces from
> > the tank itself and any sloshing forces from the water!
> >
> > I have not in, my entire professional life, seen a case where
> > a structure of
> > this magnitude would not use any positive anchorage from the
> > superstructure
> > to the foundation. There is some code language in the UBC,
> > such as sections
> > 1605.2.3 and 1809.3, that deal with anchorage of walls and
> > buildings. And to
> > me it is clear that what is being referred to in those
> > sections is positive
> > anchorage. However, the designer is insisting that using
> > friction is an
> > acceptable method of resisting seismic forces in tank design.
> > Any input from
> > those experienced with this type structure is appreciated.
> >
> > Ben Yousefi, SE
> > San Jose, CA
> >
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********