Seismic analysis of an intake tower may be carried out using one or more methods from thernmethods Seismic Coefficient (SCM), Equivalent Lateral Force (ELFM), Response Spectrumrn(RSM) and Modal-Time history (MTHM) Methods. SCM, ELFM or RSM may produce responsernquantities with magnitudes bigger or smaller than those of refined method (MTHM). How big orrnsmall are the magnitudes in comparison with those of the refined method? In other words, are thernmagnitudes of SCM, ELFM or RSM overestimated or underestimated when contrasted with those ofrnthe refined method (MTHM)? Answering these questions through detail investigation is the corernobjective of this study.rnIn order to meet the core objective, an investigation of the seismic analysis methods of intakerntowers was conducted. The investigation was conducted by performing elastic seismic analysis of arnsquat free-standing intake tower, using the conventional and refined methods; and comparing thernresults of the analysis.rnThe investigation started by selecting a suitable intake tower and its location for the study. In thisrnregard, the squat free standing intake tower in kesem Dam irrigation project, in Afar Regional State,rnwas found to be suitable. The project is located in East African Rift Valley which is largely prone tornearthquake excitations.rnAfter selecting the intake tower and its location, the next step was structural, material andrnhydrodynamic modeling. Following the modeling, in put ground motions in form of response spectrarnand ground acceleration time-histories were developed. Next, seismic analysis of the intake towerrnwas carried out using the models and the input ground motions; and applying each of the methodsrnat a time. Finally, the results of the analysis were examined.rnFrom the examination, the study concluded that the magnitude of response quantities computedrnwith SCM, ELFM or RSM were significantly different from those of the refined method. Moreover,rnthe study concluded that the magnitudes of the response quantities computed with three methodsrnwere underestimated. So, SCM, ELFM or RSM, especially SCM, are inappropriate for detail seismicrnanalysis of squat free-standing intake towers.rnAs result, the study decided that MTHM shall be used for final and detail elastic seismic analysis ofrnfree-standing squat intake towers. However, further investigation are required in order to extendrnvirnthe conclusion to other classes of intake tower such as free-standing slender intake towers andrninclined intake towers. Similarly, other investigations are desirable in order to extend thernconclusions of this study to inelastic analysis methods of intake tower.