ACI SUBCOMMITTEE 350-F SEISMIC PROVISIONS

MINUTES OF MEETING
March 20, 2012 Dallas, TX
ATTENDANCE:
MEMBERS
Reza Kianoush
Andrew Minogue
Larry Tabat
Carl Gentry
Ramon Lucero
Bill Sherman
Chuen-Shiow Chen
Rolf Pawski
Risto Protic
Sanjay Mehta

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
Karl Kuebitz
Kevin Monroe
Nazar Sabti
Victor Pavon
VISITORS
Philip Loh
Brett Henning
Abdul Akhand

1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Agenda Approved
B. Minutes of Cincinnati Meeting of October 18, 2011 Approved.
C. Correspondence & General Announcements

Subcommittee chairs shall provide Bill Sherman the changes to the roster by
April 10th since there are no longer Associate or Consulting Members on the
subcommittee level.

Associate or Consulting Members should discuss their intentions with Reza.

2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Resolution of negatives on the Subcommittee Letter Ballot LB 350-F-11-02 that closed
on 10-18-2011 (Item 2)
Ballot Item #2:
Add the following paragraph to R4.1.1: Increased R-values for buried tanks, including but not limited to circular
and rectangular tanks, are intended to apply to components whose dynamic response is influenced by soil
damping at the exterior walls. As an example, where the exterior walls of a multi-cell basin are below grade, the
interior walls are influenced only by fluid forces, the exterior walls may use the Ri-values for buried tanks but the
interior walls should use the Ri-values for on or above grade tanks.
Add a footnote to table 4.1.1(b) When considering the design of individual walls, the Ri value for buried multicell tanks applies only to a wall in contact with soil. Walls not in contact with soil shall use the Ri value for on or
above grade tanks.
2
Mehta,
N
The proposed change implies different R Persuasive Rewrite
values for components of the same footnote and
Sanjay
structure. This is very unusual practice, to commentary as
say the least. Normal design practice is to indicated below.
apply R-values to the structure as one unit,
not individual components. Even for dual
systems (for instance buckling-restrained
braced frame in combination with special
moment frames has R=8) ASCE 7-05, Table
12.2-1 allows only single R value. The Rvalue for BRBF alone is 7 and R value for
320285893.doc

Munshi,
Javeed

special moment frame alone is 8.

ASCE 7-05 allows different R-values only
under special circumstances when all three
conditions listed in Section 12.2.3.2 are
satisfied. One of them is the presence of
flexible diaphragm. The concrete roof
covering the tank walls is rigid diaphragm.
Applying different R-values will result in
different energy dissipation and ductility
demand from interior and exterior walls. It is
not clear how a rigid diaphragm can
maintain compatibility between interior and
exterior
walls
in such a situation.
If it is necessary to account for increased
damping for the outer walls, the better way
is to use response spectrum with higher
damping instead of playing with R-values.
This is a wrong treatment and explanation
of how the soil damping works. First of all
soil damping tends to reduce the force side
of the equation (or input ground spectra)
not the response or the response
modification factor. R is a characteristic of
the structure and has nothing to do with soil
that it is embedded in. Because we are
treating the soil damping effect in R, we run
into this weird situation of having to use
different R for external walls and internal
walls. There is no support for this kind of
seismic design philosophy anywhere I know.
We should let users include the soil
structure interaction effects into the calc by
including the damping effect. But R should
be one value for the structure as it relates
to the global behavior.

Non-Persuasive
Treat as New Business
Sanjay and Javeed
will work on code
change proposal to
remove the
connection between
buried tanks and R
values.

Discussion on Ballot #2:

Components should be treated separately. A new section could be added on

components.

Historically, R-values in 350.3 include overstrength.

After extensive discussions, this will be tabled for Sanjay and Bill to have a
discussion.

Sanjay and Javeed will work on code change proposal to remove the
connection between buried tanks and R values.

Final agreed upon wording:

Add the following to the first footnote in table 4.1.1(b) Ri presented in the
table applies for computation of impulsive and inertial seismic base shear.
When designing interior walls of buried or partially buried tanks, the design
seismic impulsive and inertial forces shall be multiplied by the ratio of (Ri for
buried or partially buried tanks)/(Ri for on or above grade tanks).
Add the following paragraph to R4.1.1:
When determining the base shear for buried or partially buried multi-cell tanks,
all components should have their individual impulsive and inertial loads
contributing to base shear based on the Ri for the buried or partially buried
condition. The diaphragm force, where there is a top slab, should be
determined from wall reactions, based on the Ri for the buried or partially
buried condition.

320285893.doc

Since walls in contact with soil and those only in contact with water respond
differently, the impulsive and inertial force acting on the interior walls of multicell tanks should be adjusted accordingly to be equivalent to force determined
using the Ri for above grade tanks. The impulsive force is due to the liquid and
the inertial force is due to the tributary mass as applicable.

B. Dynamic soil pressure- Monroe and Sanjay

Kevin will modify his proposal and move the force will be applied 0.6 height
above the base to the commentary. See draft information at the end of
minutes.

Kevin will provide additional wording on the importance of obtaining the

information from a geotechnical report.

Kevin will also add a discussion on why I/R is included in the equations.

Sanjay provided the subcommittee with additional soil dynamic pressure

information from ASHTO.

C. Wave forces on roof structures-Monroe

The FHWA has published a method to estimate wave forces on bridge decks.
The method will calculate both the vertical and horizontal forces. For our case
of a tank roof structure, only the vertical force will be used.

See draft information at the end of minutes.

An additional approach is to use New Zealand Code.

A comparison of Kevins proposed procedure and the New Zealand Code will
be conducted by Kevin.

D. Use of R for calculating sliding stability- Gentry

Carl presented the draft information at the end of the minutes.

This document could be placed in 350.3 commentary or 350.4.

There was discussion on utilizing the overstrength factor for sliding stability in
lieu of R-value.

Carl will work on this further for Toronto.

A topic that should be researched further and potentially added to the code is
Minimum Design Displacements for Piping Attachments similar to ASCE 7
Table 15.7-1. A task group of Reza, Larry, Karl and Carl will look at this. Bill will
send correspondence with ASCE to the task group.

E. Review on the status of assigned tasks

Item

Task Group

Task

320285893.doc

Decision
and Status

Pawski
Kianoush
Mehta
Munshi

Rolf to provide a proposal on pedestal

tanks for incorporation into ACI350.3

Karl to send Reza the draft revised Spring 2010

wording on Chapter 7 C&C discussed Chicago
at the meeting for balloting
IP

Kuebitz
Kianoush
Munshi
Mehta
Kianoush

Kuebitz

Kianoush
Monroe

Sherman

Gentry
Chen
Monroe
Mehta
Tabat

8
9
10

11

Wording to be prepared by Reza on

sloshing at the corners of rectangular
tanks for balloting
Karl to address site specific and
importance factor for sloshing

Spring 2010
Chicago
IC
Spring 2010
Chicago
IC
Negative convective pressure at base Spring 2010
of tank
Chicago
IP
Bill to determine the R-factors for Spring 2010
interior walls that are not exposed to Chicago
soil
IC
The task group to work on Multi-Cell Sping 2010
tanks. An outline to be prepared for Chicago
the Fall Pittsburgh meeting
IC
Sanjay to propose shear distribution Spring 2009
at cables and bearing pads
San Antonio
IC
Provide guidelines and/or equations for Fall 2008
calculating the period of vibration of St. Louis
empty tanks
IC
Derive guidelines for the seismic design of Fall 2008
inner tanks (tanks inside tanks) and baffle St. Louis
walls
IC
Fall 2008
St. Louis
IC
Analysis of very large rectangular tanks
Fall 2008
St. Louis
IC
Computation of breathing mode Fall 2008
(vertical acceleration) period for site St. Louis
specific response spectrum
IV
Design the roof structure to resist the Fall 2008
resulting uplift pressures
St. Louis
IC
Sloshing for open top tanks: If the Fall 2008
sloshing height is greater than the St. Louis
freeboard, should this be allowed IC
since ASCE 7 does not allow this or
should a reduction be taken?
Ti for tank type 2.3 (sliding base tank) [Eq.
(9-26)]

12
13

Sherman

14

Monroe
Chen
Lucero

15

Spring 2010
Chicago
IC

320285893.doc

Rolf
has
written a
proposal
and
will
have
a
draft
for
Toronto.
Completed

Completed

Carl
is
working on
this.
Removed

Could
added
350.4.
Move
No. 7

be
to
to

16

Kianoush

Detailed study on R- factors for At

several
rectangular and circular tanks
Conventions
IP

3. NEW BUSINESS
A. Review of ACI 350- Chapter 13
Not discussed

Meeting adjourned.
Andrew Minogue
UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM 2-B FROM MONROE
Additions to Chapter 8:
8.3 Earthquake-induced earth pressure in the absence of groundwater
In the absence of a geotechnical report that provides the earthquake-induced earth
pressures, the following may be used in locations without groundwater:
For walls that can move sufficiently to develop active earth pressures (yielding walls), the
earthquake-induced earth pressure, Peg, may be determined by:
Peg = (3/8) (SDS/2.5)H2(I/R)

(8-1)

For walls that can not move sufficiently to develop active earth pressures (non-yielding walls),
the earthquake-induced earth pressure, Peg, may be determined by:
Peg = (SDS/2.5)H2(I/R)

(8-2)

R8.3 Earthquake-induced earth pressure in the absence of groundwater

Equations (8-1) and (8-2) are taken from FEMA 450-2 / 2003 Edition - NEHRP Recommended
Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures see the
commentary to Chapter 7. Theses are the simplified Monobe-Okabe (M-O) formulation for
the increased lateral pressures on retaining structures during earthquakes.
8.4 - Earthquake-induced earth pressure where groundwater is present
The equivalent horizontal seismic may be determined by:
Yielding walls:
Peg = (3/8)khwH2(I/R)

(8-3)

Non-Yielding walls:
Peg = khwH2(I/R)

(8-4)

khw = (s/b)(SDS

/2.5)

(8-5)

Where:
s = saturated unit weight of the backfill
b = buoyant unit weight of the backfill = s w
R8.4 - Earthquake-induced earth pressure where groundwater is present
320285893.doc

The equations for earthquake-induced earth pressure where groundwater is present are taken
from Ebeling, R. M., and E. E. Morrison. 1992. The Seismic Design of Waterfront Retaining
Structures, Technical Report ITL-92-11. Vicksburg, Mississippi: Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station. The equations given here assume that groundwater is at
grade.

R8.5 Alternative methods

ASCE 7 requires a geotechnical investigation report for structures assigned to seismic design
categories C, D, E, and F. This report should include recommends for earthquake-induced
earth pressures.
Note to committee ASCE 7 only requires the geotechnical report to include dynamic earth
pressures when the structures are in SDCs E, and F.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM 2-C FROM MONROE

A Method for Estimating Wave Forces on Roof Structures

The FHWA has published a method to estimate wave forces on bridge decks. The
method will calculate both the vertical and horizontal forces. For our case of a tank
roof structure, only the vertical force will be used.
The vertical force has two components a buoyant component and an impact component.
The FHWA says:

The two types of loads, "impact" and slowly "varying" [buoyant] will
be additive but not necessarily in phase, i.e. they won't both be at
their peak at the same moment in time. However, given the
uncertainties inherent in this recommended interim guidance, adding
the two together is reasonable when the short-duration impact loads
are deemed to be important.
The vertical force on the roof is given by:
Fv = (cv-va + cv-im) F*v

(1)

cv-va = an empirical coefficient for the vertical varying load

cv-im = an empirical coefficient for the vertical impact load
F*v = a reference vertical load
F*v = zv)Av
= unit weight of fluid
zv = Distance from the bottom surface of the roof to the crest of the wave
Av = the area the roof impacted by the wave

(2)

The FHWA recommend the following values for the empirical coefficients cv-va and cv-im
cv-va = 1.0 (no factor of safety), or 2 (factor of safety of 2)
cv-im = 3.0
But given that the two components will not necessarily be in phase, and to be consistent with
the approach elsewhere in 350.3, a SRSS of the coefficients could be used.
SRSS = 3.2, with cv-va = 1.0, and cv-im = 3.0
SRSS = 3.6, with cv-va = 2.0, and cv-im = 3.0
If a value of 3.6 is used in lieu of (cv-va + cv-im), Equation 1 becomes:
320285893.doc

Fv = 3.6zv)Av

(3)

Note that the paper Earthquake-induced hydrodynamic forces on reservoir roofs by

Michael Isaacson (Can. J. Civ. Eng. 37: 11071115 (2010) ) states:

The maximum force corresponds either to the maximum impact

force, occurring at time t0 when the buoyancy force is zero, or to the
maximum buoyancy force occurring at time t1 when the impact force
is zero.
This paper recommends taking the maximum of the buoyant force or the impact force. So
using SRSS should be conservative.
Av is the area of the roof that will see the wave impact, a simplified method for determining A v
is the approach used by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). See sketch
below. In the SFPUC formulation, the water surface elevation is assumed to vary linearly
between walls as indicated in the sketch. X denotes the distance from the reservoir wall at
which the unconstrained surface elevation coincides with the roof elevation, and thus:
X = zv (L/2)/dmax
(4)
The water that would otherwise lie above the roof must instead be displaced laterally, so that
the water is actually in contact with the roof over a distance 2X rather than X from the wall.
For a rectangular tank, the force Fv would act over an area of 2XB, where B is the width of the
tank perpendicular to the direction of the earthquake.
L/2
2X
X
dmax

zv

FHWA Web site with this method:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/07096/appe.cfm
Paper that the FHWA method is based on:
http://www.southalabama.edu/usacterec/waveforces.pdf

UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM 2-D FROM GENTRY

USE OF R AND I FOR LOCAL SLIDING STABILITY
An example of local sliding stability, would be sliding of a wall and wall foundation where they are not
connected to the rest of the structure. This condition could occur when the wall foundation is separated
from the rest of the structure by an expansion joint.
Global sliding stability refers to the sliding stability of the structure as a whole. An example would be a
tank where the roof is connected to the top of the walls and the bottom of the walls are connected and
320285893.doc

supported by a mat foundation.

Multiplying the seismic load by the importance factor I, increases seismic design loads for improved
performance. This has the same effect for local and global sliding stability as increasing the required
minimum safety factor.
The response modification factor R for the structure is used to reduce the seismic load. The R value is
set taking into account structure properties such as ability of the structure to resist overstress,
redundancy, .. and ductility for short term seismic loading. R also takes into account historical
performance of similar structures in past earthquakes.
Sliding resistance is typically resisted by some combination of friction on the foundation and passive
pressure on the foundation. Neither friction nor passive pressure have the structural properties of
redundancy and ductility. Passive pressure in particular has a higher ultimate passive pressure than the
design passive pressure typically provided in the project geotechnical report. For short term seismic
load difference between the ultimate passive pressure (failure load) typical several times the design
passive pressure in the project geotechnical report. The design passive pressure is less than the
ultimate passive pressure to avoid large displacement from occurring under long term load. It is
appropriate in increase design passive pressure by multiplying it by Rpp. A reasonable values for r
Rpp is (2)(2.5)(3)(?). In many project geotechnical reports, a single value for the coefficient of friction is
provided that is for use for both static and seismic loads. This coefficient of friction value is generally
considered to be conservative for resisting sliding loads combinations that include seismic loads. It is
appropriate to increase the sliding coefficient of friction by multiplying it by Rs. A reasonable value for
Rs when friction is combined with passive pressure to rest sliding is (1.0) (1.25)(1.5). The normal force
between the foundation and the soil should be reduced by vertical acceleration.
When friction is acting alone to resist sliding, an Rs equal to 1.0 is recommended. The normal force
between the foundation and the soil should be reduced by vertical acceleration.
For project geotechnical reports that provide both a static and a seismic coefficient of friction, an Rs
equal to 1.00 should be used.
For conditions where there is an unbalanced soil load, both the static load and load combinations
including seismic loads should be check for an adequate factor of safety against sliding.
The coefficient of sliding friction is maximum for the static condition. Once sliding occurs, then the
coefficient of friction decreases. In order for passive pressure to occur, the structure must move into the
soil. This movement is likely to be sufficient to result in the reduction of the coefficient of friction.

320285893.doc