Download
Skip this Video
Créer une présentation
Télécharger la présentation
1 / 12
Bartholomew Culinary Water Tank
155 Vues
Download Presentation
Backbone Engineering Clark Larsen, Kendrick Shepherd, and Brett Thomas. Bartholomew Culinary Water Tank. Background Information. Bartholomew Culinary Water Tank is located up Hobble Creek Canyon. The current tank is a 1.4 million gallon steel tank. Problem Statement.
Updated on
Télécharger la présentation
Bartholomew Culinary Water Tank
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
of 5
Presentation Transcript
Backbone Engineering Clark Larsen, Kendrick Shepherd, and Brett Thomas Bartholomew Culinary Water Tank
Background Information • Bartholomew Culinary Water Tank is located up Hobble Creek Canyon. • The current tank is a 1.4 million gallon steel tank.
Problem Statement • The current water tank was deemed structurally unsound. • A new tank needs to be designed.
Design Requirements • Determine optimal sizing for the tank. • Based on the water users needs. • Determine new location of tank near the existing tank. • Design new tank to withstand avalanche and earthquake loads.
Geotechnical Design • Not completed due to snow cover • Neglect settlement and bearing capacity • Uphill excavation approximately 25 feet • Downhill excavation approximately 15 feet • Preconsolidation pressure greater than overburden pressure • Neglect heaving due to French drain • Alluvial deposits • Friction angle – 45° • Unit weight – 125 pcf
Hydraulic Design • Overflow Structure • Must allow more than the max inflow of (15,000 gpm) to flow out. • Piping • Checked to ensure adequate head • Venting • Must meet venting requirements according to API 2000.
Structural Design • Walls • Used vertical and horizontal prestressing. • 12 inch thick core wall and 2 inches of shotcrete covering. • Foundation • 2 foot thick and 5 foot wide ring foundation. • 7 inch thick base slab in the middle. • Temperature and shrinkage reinforcement.
Structural Design • Domed roof • Circumferential and radial reinforcing. • Horizontal prestressing around the rim of the roof. • Seismic • Designed according to ACI 350.3-01 and ACI 350.3R-01 • Conservative estimates were made when necessary.
Construction/Cost • Transition • Disrupt water flow as little as possible. • French drain • Difficult construction because of limited space. • 3 – 3.75 million dollars
Conclusions • The avalanche load caused excessive reinforcing and concrete to be used. • Possible different site location. • Geotechnical analysis should be completed for more accurate results.