ANALYSIS OF A CYLINDRICAL WATER TANK

BY:
W.P.R Indrajith (168913V)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF MORATUWA
SRI LANKA
JANUARY 2017
Contents

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................. 1

2.0 Hoope stress resultant and vertical stress resultant................................................ 2

3.0 Choosing of variables R, H, t.................................................................................... 3

4.0 Mesh sensitivity study ............................................................................................. 3

5.0 Results compression ............................................................................................... 10

6.0 Observations and discussion ................................................................................... 19

7.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 22

1 Introduction

Image below shows a vertical cross section of a cylindrical water tank.

Variables:
Radius of the tank R
Height of the tank H
Thickness of the cylinder wall t

Results to be discussed
Hoop stress-resultant N
Vertical stress-resultant Nx

Fig. 1 : Vertical cross section of the water tank with variables

Page 1
2 Hoop stress-resultant ( N ) and Vertical stress-resultant ( Nx )

Let's use membrane hypothesis. Considering the pressure by liquid at which the point which we
consider is P, then the equilibrium of the half of the cylinder is considered and shown below.

Fig. 2: Forces at equilibrium

Considering a unit height along the cylinder, force equilibrium can be written as follows.

; where are water pressure (P),

By substituting pressure P by, Hoop stress-resultant can be written as

There are two forces acting in the system where water pressure and self weight of the wall. But since
we consider only the water pressure loading case, there is no effective force acting along the vertical
direction of the wall. Hence the vertical stress resultant should be zero.

Nx = 0

Page 2
3 Choosing of variables R, H, t

Value (mm) Value

Variable Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Variable Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
R 1000 2000 4000 H/R 4 2.5 0.625
H 4000 5000 2500 t/H 0.025 0.03 0.05
t 100 150 125 t/R 0.1 0.075 0.03125

4 Selected values for variables for mesh sensitivity study

R 1000 H/R 4
H 4000 t/H 0.025
t 100 t/R 0.1

4.1 Properties & boundary conditions in SAP 2000 for initial analysis
6 2
Modulus of elasticity 34 x 10 kN/m
Member - shell - membrane - 100 mm in thickness
Fixed at X=0 level

4.2 Modelling of water tank with SAP2000

Define material

Page 3
Define tank wall section - membrane

Generate the geometry with specified mesh (~100mm both directions)

Page 4
Extruded view of the generated tank Assigning boundary conditions - Fixed base

Define a joint pattern to simulate the triangular pressure distribution

Page 5
Application of water pressure using the joint pattern

Water pressure distribution along the vertical wall

Page 6
Area local axis in the model

horizontal
dir.

local 2 dir.

vertical dir.
local 1 dir.

local 3 dir.

Red colour arrow shows - Local axis 1 - Results out put F11 - N
White colour arrow shows - Local axis 2 - Results out put F22 - Nx
Indigo colour arrow shows - Local axis 3 - Results out put F12

Page 7
Hoop stress resultant distribution of the tank wall

4.3 Sensitivity study to find out a suitable mesh arrangement

Water tank with the selected geometric parameters (H=4m, R=1m, t=100mm) is modelled with 4
types of mesh arrangement and Hoop stress resultant along the vertical wall is compared in
different cases.

SAP2000 results along the wall for each mesh arrangement is shown below

Mesh 1 Mesh 2 Mesh 3 Mesh 4

Manual
Size of element after mesh 500mm 250mm 100mm 50mm
calculation
SAP- Hoop stress location Mesh 1 Mesh 2 Mesh 3 Mesh 4
X = 1000 mm 26.0 29.4 29.6 29.5 29.43
( kN/m )

X = 1500 mm 24.2 24.6 24.3 24.5 24.53

X = 2000 mm 19.0 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.60
X = 3000 mm 9.6 9.8 9.8 19.8 9.80

All results start to converge well in 100mmx100mm mesh arrangement. Hence let's select
100mmx100mm mesh for the rest of the modelling works.

Page 8
 SAP 2000 Hoop stress-resultant contours with each meshing arrangements

Mesh size 500mmx500mm Mesh size 250mmx250mm

Mesh size 50mmx50mm Mesh size 100mmx100mm

Page 9
5 Results comparison
Considering following geometric parameters of water tank, for each case, finite element models
were developed with 3 member formulations as,
- Membrane sections
- Thin shell sections
- Thick shell sections

Geometric parameters
Value (mm) Value
Variable Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Variable Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
R 1000 2000 4000 H/R 4 2.5 0.625
H 4000 5000 2500 t/H 0.025 0.03 0.05
t 100 150 125 t/R 0.1 0.075 0.03125

5.1 SAP2000 Results summary

Case 1 - H=4000mm, R=1000mm, t=100mm

Location N (kN/m) Nx (kN/m)

X(mm) Membrane Thin shell Thick shell Manual calc Membrane Thin shell Thick shell Manual calc
0 -1 -0.1 -0.1 39.24 -4.8 -0.5 -0.6 0
100 48.9 4.8 6.4 38.26 3.1 -0.2 -0.16 0
200 34.8 14 15.8 37.28 -0.77 0.016 0.06 0
300 36.5 22.8 24.1 36.30 0.13 0.12 0.13 0
400 35.6 29.2 30 35.32 0.04 0.14 0.14 0
500 33.9 32.8 33.1 34.34 -0.07 0.12 -0.12 0
1000 29.6 30.2 30.1 29.43 0.15 -0.004 -0.14 0
1500 24.3 24.4 24.4 24.53 0.08 0.1 0.1 0
2000 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.62 0.11 0.1 0.1 0
2500 14.6 14.7 14.7 14.72 0.01 0.1 0.1 0
3000 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.81 0.1 0.1 0.1 0
3500 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.91 0.1 0.1 0.1 0
4000 0 0 0 0.00 0.1 0.1 0.1 0

Location B.Mx direction (kNm/m)

X(mm) Thin shell Thick shell
0 1.05 0.97
100 0.33 0.29
200 -0.07 -0.07
300 -0.23 -0.21
400 -0.25 -0.22
500 -0.2 -0.18
1000 0.006 0.005
1500 0.002 0.002
2000 -0.0004 -0.0003
2500 0.00004 0.00003
3000 0.00003 0.00003
3500 0.000026 0.00003
4000 0.000025 0.000025

Page 10
Case 2 - H=5000mm, R=2000mm, t=150mm

Location N (kN/m) Nx (kN/m)

X(mm) Membrane Thin shell Thick shell Manual calc Membrane Thin shell Thick shell Manual calc
0 -2.5 -0.09 -0.13 98.10 -12.6 -0.44 -0.7 0
100 122.9 4.23 6.5 96.14 3.43 -1.06 -1.17 0
200 87.9 14.4 17.8 94.18 -0.47 -1.32 -1.35 0
300 92.9 27.1 30.8 92.21 0.2 -1.35 -1.32 0
400 90.7 40.1 43.1 90.25 0.35 -1.23 -1.18 0
500 87.4 51.9 54.9 88.29 0.03 -1.03 -0.96 0
1000 79.02 79.5 79.5 78.48 0.3 -1.01 0.01 0
1500 68.4 72.3 72 68.67 0.15 0.27 0.27 0
2000 59 59.6 59.5 58.86 0.23 0.24 0.24 0
2500 49 48.9 48.9 49.05 0.19 0.2 0.2 0
3000 39.3 39.2 39.2 39.24 0.19 0.2 0.2 0
3500 29.4 29.5 29.5 29.43 0.19 0.2 0.2 0
4000 19.6 19.7 19.7 19.62 0.19 0.2 0.2 0
4500 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.81 0.19 0.2 0.2 0
5000 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.19 0.2 0.2 0

Location B.Mx direction (kNm/m)

X(mm) Thin shell Thick shell
0 3.93 3.7
100 2.2 2.05
200 0.93 0.85
300 0.057 0.04
400 -0.49 -0.47
500 -0.79 -0.74
1000 -0.55 -0.5
1500 -0.05 -0.05
2000 0.04 0.03
2500 0.01 0.01
3000 -0.0007 -0.0002
3500 -0.0015 -0.0012
4000 -0.0001 -0.0003
4500 0.00008 0.00001
5000 0.00002 0.00002

Page 11
Case 3 - H=2500mm, R=4000mm, t=125mm

Location N (kN/m) Nx (kN/m)

X(mm) Membrane Thin shell Thick shell Manual calc Membrane Thin shell Thick shell Manual calc
0 -2.41 -0.047 -0.06 98.10 -12.05 -0.24 -0.31 0
100 117.13 2.23 2.92 94.18 7.43 -0.17 -0.16 0
200 88.47 7.8 8.9 90.25 -1.11 -0.1 -0.08 0
300 82.97 15.1 16.4 86.33 -0.47 -0.03 -0.02 0
400 86.52 23 24.35 82.40 0.78 0.01 0.02 0
500 74.6 30.6 31.9 78.48 -0.77 0.04 0.05 0
1000 60.65 51.5 51.9 58.86 0.74 -0.021 -0.009 0
1500 38.44 43.5 43.3 39.24 0.26 0.36 0.38 0
2000 19.91 22.9 22.7 19.62 0.46 0.35 0.47 0
2500 0.13 0.2 0.28 0.00 0.42 -0.45 -0.39 0

Location B.Mx direction (kNm/m)

X(mm) Thin shell Thick shell
0 2.77 2.7
100 1.76 1.69
200 0.96 0.88
300 0.31 0.26
400 -0.15 -0.18
500 -0.47 -0.47
1000 -0.67 -0.65
1500 -0.25 -0.25
2000 -0.03 -0.03
2500 0.000016 0.000036

Page 12
5.2 Results comparison - General

5.2.1 Variation of N and Nx vs X , case 1 ( H = 4000mm, R = 1000mm, t =100mm )

H/ R = 4.0 t/ H = 0.0250 t/ R = 0.10

N vs X , Case 1 - H=4000mm
60

50

40

SAP Membrane
N (kN/m)

30
SAP Thin shelll
20 SAP Thick shelll
Manual calc
10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
-10
X (mm)

Nx vs X , Case 1 - H=4000mm
4
3
2
1
0 SAP Membrane
Nx (kN/m)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 SAP Thin shelll

-1
-2 SAP Thick shelll

-3 Manual calc

-4
-5
-6
X (mm)

Page 13
5.2.2 Variation of N and Nx vs X , case 2 ( H = 5000mm, R = 2000mm, t =150mm )

H/ R = 2.50 t/ H = 0.030 t/ R = 0.0750

N vs X , Case 2 - H=5000mm
140

120

100

80 SAP Membrane
N (kN/m)

60 SAP Thin shell

SAP Thick shell
40
Manual calc
20

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
-20
X (mm)

Nx vs X , Case 2 - H=5000mm
6
4
2
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
-2 SAP Membrane
Nx (kN/m)

-4 SAP Thin shell

-6 SAP Thick shell

-8 Manual calc

-10
-12
-14
X (mm)

Page 14
5.2.3 Variation of N and Nx vs X , case 3 ( H = 2500mm, R = 4000mm, t =125mm )

H/ R = 0.6250 t/ H = 0.050 t/ R = 0.03125

N vs X , Case 3 - H=2500mm
140

120

100

80 SAP Membrane
N (kN/m)

60 SAP Thin wall

SAP Thick wall
40
Manual calc
20

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-20
X (mm)

Nx vs X , Case 3 - H=2500mm
10

0 SAP Membrane
Nx (kN/m)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 SAP Thin wall

-5 SAP Thick wall

Manual calc

-10

-15
X (mm)

Page 15
5.2.4 Bending moment in X direction vs X , case 1 ( H = 4000mm, R = 1000mm, t =100mm )

H/ R = 4.0 t/ H = 0.0250 t/ R = 0.10

Mx vs X , Case 1 - H=4000mm
1.5

1
Mx (kNm/m)

0.5 SAP Thin shelll

SAP Thick shelll
0

-0.5
X (mm)

5.2.5 Bending moment in X direction vs X , case 2 ( H = 5000mm, R = 2000mm, t =150mm )

H/ R = 2.50 t/ H = 0.030 t/ R = 0.0750

Mx vs X , Case 2 - H=5000mm
5
4
3
Mx (kNm/m)

2
SAP Thin shell
1
SAP Thick shell
0
-1 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
-2
X (mm)

5.2.6 Bending moment in X direction vs X , case 3 ( H = 2500mm, R = 4000mm, t =125mm )

H/ R = 0.6250 t/ H = 0.050 t/ R = 0.03125

Mx vs X , Case 3 - H=2500mm
3

2
Mx (kNm/m)

1 SAP Thin wall

SAP Thick wall
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
X (mm)

Page 16
5.3 Results comparison - Varying parameters

Based on the results comparison done in section 5.2, It seems that H/R ratio and thickness of the
element may have an influence to stress resultants. In order to further investigate the behaviour, 9
more SAP models were developed using membrane elements as described below.

H = 2500 mm
t = 125 mm R = 4000 mm
R = 4000 mm R = 2000 mm R = 1000 mm t = 100 mm t = 125 mm t= 150 mm
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Thin shell Thick shell Thin shell Thick shell Thin shell Thick shell

Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9

5.3.1 Variation of N , Keeping H and t constant and vary R

N ( kN/m)
R = 4000 mm ( H/R = 0.625) R = 2000 mm ( H/R = 1.25) R = 1000 mm ( H/R = 2.5)
X(mm) Manual SAP membrane Manual SAP membrane Manual SAP membrane
0 98.10 -2.41 49.05 -1.24 24.53 -0.62
100 94.18 117.13 47.09 60.5 23.54 30.2
200 90.25 88.47 45.13 42 22.56 21
300 86.33 82.97 43.16 43.5 21.58 21.7
400 82.40 86.52 41.20 41.5 20.60 20.8
500 78.48 74.6 39.24 38.8 19.62 19.4
1000 58.86 60.65 29.43 29.7 14.72 14.9
1500 39.24 38.44 19.62 19.5 9.81 9.7
2000 19.62 19.91 9.81 9.9 4.91 4.95
2500 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03

N vs X , H=2500mm
140.00 H/R 0.625
Manual
120.00
H/R 0.625
100.00 SAP

80.00 H/R 1.25

N (kN/m)

Manual
60.00
H/R 1.25
40.00 SAP

H/R 2.5
20.00 Manual
0.00 H/R 2.5
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 SAP
-20.00
X (mm)

Page 17
5.3.2 Effect of Thin shell and Thick shell in Variation of N, Keeping H and R constant and vary t
N ( kN/m)
t=100 mm ( t/H= 0.04, t/R= 0.025) t=125 mm ( t/H= 0.05, t/R= 0.03) t=150 mm ( t/H= 0.06, t/R= 0.038)
X(mm) SAP Thin shell SAP Thick shell SAP Thin shell SAP Thick shell SAP Thin shell SAP Thick shell
0 -0.06 -0.07 -0.05 -0.06 -0.04 -0.05
100 2.83 3.4 2.23 2.9 1.83 2.6
200 9.70 10.7 7.80 8.9 6.50 7.7
300 18.60 19.7 15.10 16.4 12.70 14.2
400 27.80 28.9 23.00 24.3 19.50 21.1
500 36.50 37.5 30.70 32 26.40 27.1
1000 56.10 56.2 51.50 51.9 47.20 47.8
1500 43.80 43.7 43.50 43.4 42.50 41.8
2000 21.70 21.6 22.90 22.8 23.90 23.7
2500 1.20 1.1 0.20 0.2 1.80 6.3

N vs X , H=2500mm, R=4000mm
120.00

100.00

80.00

t/H 0.04, t/R 0.025 Thin shell

60.00 t/H 0.04, t/R 0.025 Thick shell
N (kN/m)

t/H 0.05, t/R 0.031 Thin shell

t/H 0.05, t/R 0.031 Thick shell

40.00 t/H 0.06, t/R 0.038 Thin shell

t/H 0.06, t/R 0.038 Thick shell
Manual

20.00

0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

-20.00
X (mm)

Page 18
6.0 Observations and discussion

- Values obtained for N and Nx with manual calculations with membrane theory, SAP2000 using
membrane elements, SAP2000 using Thin shell and SAP2000 using Thick shells are not exactly the
same.

- Basically the variation shows near to the base ( X = 0) as shown in the following graph.

- As we goes along the vertical axis ( increasing X), all the results start to converge well with
membrane theory regardless of the element formulation.

N vs X , Case 1 - H=4000mm
60

50

40
SAP Membrane
N (kN/m)

30
SAP Thin shelll
20
SAP Thick shelll
10 Manual calc
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
-10
X (mm)

- Situation is quite same in the case of Nx as well as shown below. Although Nx is zero for entire
tank in accordance to the membrane theory, SAP2000 results give a numerical value in all cases,
yet they converges to zero after a certain height of the tank.

Nx vs X , Case 1 - H=4000mm
4
3
2
1
0 SAP Membrane
Nx (kN/m)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 SAP Thin shelll

-1
-2 SAP Thick shelll

-3 Manual calc

-4
-5
-6
X (mm)

Page 19
- The variation of N between Membrane theory and SAP2000 (using membrane elements) shows a
little variation with changing H/R ratios as shown in the graph below. Although the variation is not
that significant, it can be seen that with higher H/R ratios, values converges better than in the
case of lower H/R rations.

N vs X , H=2500mm
140.00 H/R 0.625
Manual
120.00
H/R 0.625
100.00 SAP

80.00 H/R 1.25

N (kN/m)

Manual
60.00
H/R 1.25
40.00 SAP

H/R 2.5
20.00 Manual
0.00 H/R 2.5
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 SAP
-20.00
X (mm)

-
The effect of using thin shell and thick shells did not make a significant impact even with varied
wall thickness with respect to the height and radius of the tank as shown below.

N vs X , H=2500mm, R=4000mm
120.00

100.00

80.00
t/H 0.04, t/R 0.025 Thin shell
t/H 0.04, t/R 0.025 Thick shell
60.00
N (kN/m)

t/H 0.05, t/R 0.031 Thin shell

t/H 0.05, t/R 0.031 Thick shell
40.00
t/H 0.06, t/R 0.038 Thin shell
t/H 0.06, t/R 0.038 Thick shell
20.00 Manual

0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

-20.00
X (mm)

Page 20
- The effect of using thin shell and thick shells did not make a significant impact for bending
moment Mxx as shown below. Values are almost the same although there is a absolute difference
between values.

Mx vs X , Case 2 - H/R=2.5
5
4
3
Mx (kNm/m)

2
SAP Thin shell
1
SAP Thick shell
0
-1 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
-2
X (mm)

Mx vs X , Case 3 - H/R=0.625
3

2
Mx (kNm/m)

1 SAP Thin wall

SAP Thick wall
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
X (mm)

Page 21
7.0 Conclusions

- Membrane theory is not valid near the base of the tank.

- As the top region is considered, membrane theory is valid.

- As the top region is considered, membrane theory is valid.

- Different H/R ratios show the same variation, in general, but it can be observed that there is an
improvement for higher H/R ratios.

- As far as hoop stress resultant concern, use of Thin and Thick shells did not show a remarkable
variation of the results, although numerical values show a difference.

- With all the observations, it can be seen that there is a significant effect of the Boundary
conditions also. Specially the much higher value of hoop stress and Vertical stress resultant not
being zero as expected can lead to that conclusion. Hence a separate model was developed with a
different joint restrain to the this effect.

A model was developed with restraining the base only along vertical axis (Z) and the results of N
and Nx follow exactly as per Membrane theory. The results are shown below.

Page 22
- Another important observation was made during the study. During the mesh sensitivity study,
several models were required to develop from a coarse mesh to a fine mesh. In general cases
which we encounter during daily works, meshing of slabs is a common activity which we do with
SAP2000. In this meshing process, the selected area or areas can be meshed as per the required
mesh density. But in this assignment, this general meshing process with SAP2000 for membrane
sections was not worked as expected.

Following figures show the way of unsuccessful work of general meshing lead to incorrect results

F11- Initial 500mmx500mm mesh F11- Incorrect results for 250mmx250mm mesh which
was obtained from 500mmx500mm model

General meshing produced results which are incorrect. Hence reproducing of the model by specifying
meshing intervals at the very beginning produced a correct model. Results out put with the correct
model is shown below for comparrison.

F11- correct results for 250mmx250mm mesh which

was generated from the beginning.

The reason could not be investigated yet, but further

study and reading is required.

Page 23