Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

# Re: seismic design of storage tanks, UBC 97

• To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
• Subject: Re: seismic design of storage tanks, UBC 97
• From: Rick.Drake(--nospam--at)Fluor.com
• Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:25:04 -0800
• Cc: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org

```UBC Sec. 1634 applies to nonbuilding structures that are self-supporting.

UBC Sec. 1632 applies to parts of structures and equipment that is
supported by a structure.

1) Flat Bottom Tanks should be designed in accordance with UBC Sec. 1634.3.
This section allows design either as a rigid structure per Sec 1634.3 (the
reference to Sec. 1632 is errata) using the entire weight of tank and
contents or per a national standard that separately accounts for the weight
and contents.

2) Hopper bottom tanks supported on braced legs should be designed in
accordance with UBC Sec. 1634.5 with an R value of 2.2 taken from Table
16-P.  The base shear should be determined in accordance with equations
30-4 and 30-5 (the reference to Sec. 1645.2 is errata).  Base shear
minimums should be determined with equations 34-2 and 34-3.

Regards,

Rick Drake, SE
Fluor, Aliso Viejo, CA

*********

s s
<steven1870@yahoo.c      To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
om>
01/21/03 02:36 PM        cc:
seaint                   Subject:  seismic design of storage tanks, UBC 97

.....

Which are the appropriate equations in UBC 97 for base
shear in:
1) a bolted steel tank (flat bottom, anchored to
foundation), and
2) a bolted steel tank (hopper bottom supported on
braced legs), both storing granular material?

1) flat bottom tank on concrete - is this covered by
section 1634.5 Other Nonbuilding Structures, with
V=0.56CaIW (equ 34-2)?  If so, two more questions:  is
equ 34-2 used instead of equ 30-4 thru equ 30-7 or in
addition to them, and is it appropriate to reduce V by
R=2.9 as mentioned in section 1634.1.2?

2) hopper bottom tank supported on braced legs - is
this covered by section 1634.4, which refers back to
section 1632, so that base shear would be Fp=4.0CaIpWp
(equ 32-1)?  And again, is it appropriate to reduce by
R=2.9?

Any guidance or suggestions would be greatly
appreciated, thanks
Steven Stoppkotte

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient
of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review,
retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any
action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you
material from any computer.  Any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect
the views of the company.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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