ANALYSIS OF A CYLINDRICAL WATER

TANK


NAME : TISSERA P.M.R.
INDEX NO : 110582T
DATE OF SUB : 18.09.2014
Summary of parameters varied during the analysis
Modeling of the cylindrical shell was done selecting a set of values for following parameters of
the cylinder.
Radius R
Height H
Shell thickness t
Element type
Mesh density
End conditions
A basic model was selected with following dimensions and made alterations as necessary.
R=2m
H=4m
t=250mm
The list of models developed in SAP2000 varying H is given below.
Model H (m)
1 2.0
2 4.0
3 6.0
4 8.0

Model 2 was analyzed with varying other parameters to get an insight idea. The models
generated with this is as follows.

Varying t
Model t(mm)
5 60
6 125
2 250

Varying R
Model R(m)
8 1.0
2 2.0

Varying end conditions
Model End condition
2 Pinned
9 Fixed


Manual calculations using membrane theory


Graphical representation of the representative FEM


Reasons for selecting the particular shell element
The area element was selected by observing the F11 values for model 3 at selected z values (at
selected node points) with assignment of different shell type elements. The procedure followed is
briefed below.



Observing the data presented here, we can come to the final decision of utilizing the shell-thin
area element for the modeling of the structure.
Shell-thin element gives an acceptable variation.
The plate element does not take any membrane forces
Membrane element is not compatible for applied out of plane pressure force

F11 (kN/m)
Area element
Shell type
Shell-thin Plate Membrane
20-1 -0.56 0 -57094.57
50-1 103.28 0 -38056.65
80-1 80.65 0 2.4
110-1 58.24 0 1687.45
140-1 39.08 0 -366.02
170-1 19.61 0 244.94
3D view of the FEM developed
Selecting a suitable mesh density
It was tried to keep the element a square as possible by keeping the aspect ratio closer to 1.0 in
selecting the meshes. The mesh density was selected by using certain mesh densities and
selecting the mesh density which first yields a difference less than 1% for a selected area element
(it is assumed to be representative when the area is away from the bottom). The observations are
shown below.

F11 (kN/m)
Area element
Mesh size
418x1000 418x500 209x200
80-1 85.6 81.17 80.65

Here when going from 418x500 to 209x200 we obtain 0.64% variation with mesh density of 2x5
for our initial element. Hence we will select that element size and use that size to mesh each and
every model hereafter.

Assigned boundary conditions

The boundary conditions to be used were decided to be pinned at bottom end assuming the
bottom of the water tank does not provide enhanced resistance against rotation due to applied
water pressure. The application of the pin supports were done on the node points following the
general steps of assigning pin supports.
Application of water pressure

The application of water pressure was done using a joint pattern with assignment type of X,Y,Z
multipliers with following values representing the pressure distribution given by (H-z) where
the symbols used have their usual meanings with usual metric units.
Multiplier Value
A 0.0
B 0.0
C -9.81
D 9.81H




Local axes and stress resultants

Local axes
The orientation of local axes for a 2D element is shown below. The axes 1 and 2 lie in the plane
of the element as specified by the user and the axis 3 is always normal to the surface of the
element. This is shown in the CSI analysis reference manual as below.

Stress resultants
Stress resultants are as follows according to the CSI reference manual.

The F
ij
acts on a plane perpendicular to the axis i towards the direction j. According to that
definition and the local axes orientation in our models, the stress resultant we need (ring tension)
is given by F11.

Variation of bending moment
The membrane theory does not take the effect due to bending when computing the stress
resultants. Hence, we should concentrate how the bending moment vary along the axis so that
when it is having negligible values, we may use the membrane theory alone and predict the stress
resultants with high precision.
Here are the graphs obtained from the finite element models for bending moment variation.

-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
M
1
1

(
k
N
m
/
m
)

z/H
M11 vs. z/H
H=2m
H=4m
H=6m
H=8m
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
M
1
1

(
k
N
m
/
m
)

z/R
M11 vs. z/R
H=2m
H=4m
H=6m
H=8m
Variation of stress resultants with effects of varying a certain parameter at once
The variation of stress resultants were studied in different perspectives before coming in to a
conclusion. As stated before, several models were developed varying different parameters and
the difference the result from membrane theory shows from the finite element model is plotted
against both z/H and z/R for respective data sets. The obtained graphs are shown below.

Varying height


-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
d
i
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

i
n

r
i
n
g

t
e
n
s
i
o
n

(
k
N
/
m
)

z/h
Difference in ring tension vs z/h
h=2
h=4
h=6
h=8
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

i
n

r
i
n
g

t
e
n
s
i
o
n

(
k
N
/
m
)

z/R
Difference in ring tension vs. z/R
h=2
h=4
h=6
h=8


Varying radius





-90.00
-80.00
-70.00
-60.00
-50.00
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00
0.00
10.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

i
n

r
i
n
g

t
e
n
s
i
o
n

(
k
N
/
m
)

z/R
Difference in ring tension vs. z/R
r=1m
r=2m
-90.00
-80.00
-70.00
-60.00
-50.00
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00
0.00
10.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

i
n

r
i
n
g

t
e
n
s
i
o
n

(
k
N
/
m
)

z/H
Difference in ring tension vs. z/H
r=1m
r=2m

Varying thickness








-90.00
-80.00
-70.00
-60.00
-50.00
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

i
n

r
i
n
g

t
e
n
s
i
o
n

(
k
N
/
m
)

z/H
Difference in ring tension vs. z/H
t=125mm
t=250mm
t=60mm
-90.00
-80.00
-70.00
-60.00
-50.00
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
D
i
f
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

i
n

r
i
n
g

t
e
n
s
i
o
n

(
k
N
/
m
)

z/R
Difference in ring tension vs. z/R
t=50mm
t=125mm
t=250mm

Varying end conditions

-90.00
-80.00
-70.00
-60.00
-50.00
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00
0.00
10.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

i
n

r
i
n
g

t
e
n
s
i
o
n

(
k
N
/
m
)

z/H
Diffference in ring tension vs. z/H
pinned
fixed
-90.00
-80.00
-70.00
-60.00
-50.00
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00
0.00
10.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

i
n

r
i
n
g

t
e
n
s
i
o
n

(
k
N
/
m
)

z/R
Diffference in ring tension vs. z/R
pinned
fixed
Validity of membrane theory
According to the graphs shown above, the result from membrane theory deviates from the finite
element solution in all the incidents considered.
Looking at the variation presented, we can see that the graphs difference in ring tension vs.
z/H will not be useful to predict any limits that the membrane theory will be valid for the type
of structure considered. The reason for this is that they doesnt seem to be convergent as the
variable parameter varies. The same thing can be seen with varying thickness and varying radius
in z/H plots. Using these graphs, we cannot come to a limiting value, but we can come to the
conclusion that when the radius becomes smaller compared to the height and when the thickness
becomes lesser, the validity of the membrane theory goes up. (Membrane theory becomes valid
in a larger portion from the top free edge to the bottom.) When the fixity changes, the graphs
show that for a fixed ended structure, the deviation of the results from membrane theory will be
vary a little when compared to a pinned structure.
The graph Difference in ring tension vs. z/R with varying H can lead us to limiting values as it
seems to be convergent. With the utilization of the above results, we can suggest the acceptable
limits for the membrane theory. The validation/development of this limits is yet to be carried out
with more sophisticated modeling-analyzing iterations.
When pin-end condition is assumed, for values above z/R 1.3 the membrane theory will
be valid.
For fixed-end conditions, the value z/R will become a little lower than for the pinned
condition.

Conclusion
In the analysis of shells of rotation under axisymmetrycal loading using membrane theory, we
neglect the bending moments that are likely to be induced in the structure due to external load
applied. But in reality bending moments are induced in the structure and the finite element model
we built in SAP2000 depicts it due to the type of shell element we utilized. As we go away from
the bottom of the cylindrical structure, we find the bending moment gets reduced and hence the
stress resultants obtained from membrane theory alone become more realistic.







References
CSI Analysis Reference Manual
Lecture note on computer modeling
Modern structural analysis Ian A. MacLeod