Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Settlement Criteria For Steel Oil Storage Tanks
Settlement Criteria For Steel Oil Storage Tanks
deflection
in meter, L= arc length between measurement points in meter. It is equal to 6 m for
large tanks (Figure 2-6) and equal to 3.53 m for small tanks.
=
y
yield strain,
(conservatively equal to 0.001), and H=tank height in meters. According to this
formula the allowable outline settlement between adjacent measurement points is equal
to 10 mm for large tanks with length of 6 m is equal to 0.8 mm and with length of 3.53
m on small tanks.
Bottom-Edge differential settlement: The maximum allowable bottom-edge settlement
is shown in Figure (2-7). Conservatively
ew edge bottom
B =
031 . 0
.
Figure 2-7. Allowable Bottom-edge differential settlement, (From API 653 (1995), Appendix-B).
(D) Case histories data presented by D'Orazio and Doncan (1987) are very valuable because
they are real data of settlement for steel tanks which are used to store oil materials. D'Orazio and
Duncan (1987) wrote a paper on differential settlement of steel tanks which has been extensively
cited by design codes and guidelines. Based upon 31 case histories and finite element simulation,
D'Orazio and Duncan (1987) concluded that allowable bottom settlement of steel tanks depends on
the shape of the deformation. Steel tanks could deform into 3 profiles, as shown in Figure (2-8).
Tanks with settlement shapes of a settle most at the center, and their settlement decrease smoothly
Vol. 13, Bund. B 5
toward the edge. Tanks with settlement profile of Shapes B have relatively flat interiors, with
settlements decreasingly rapidly toward the tank wall. Tanks with settlement profile shapes of C
settled most at locations about 2/3 of the distance from the center to the edge of the tank. Shape A
is the least severe with respect to distortion, and Shape C is the most severe. Because of the
importance of settlement profile shape and resulting bottom distortion, it is of interest to examine
what factors control the shape. From this report, a number of useful facts may be noted:
Tanks may be stable even though the minimum factor of safety against undrained
failure is less than unity. This has occurred in cases where loading was slow, or
drainage was rapid, or both.
Tanks with min
F
(based on undrained strength) greater than 1.1 and
4 / < T D
e
, had
settlement profile A, (D
e
is the effective diameter of the tank, D
e
=D+T
p
, D=Actual
diameter of tank, T=Thickness of clay layer and T
p
= Thickness of any granular layers
or compacted clay pad between the base of the tank and the top of the clay layer
beneath the tank).
Most tanks with
min
F
(based on undrained strength), greater than 1.1 and
4 / > T D
e
,
had settlement profiles shape B.
Figure 2-8. Differential Settlement Profiles of Bottom Plate of Steel Tank
Most tanks with
min
F
(based on undrained strength), less than had settlement profiles
of shape C, whenever the tank was stable or unstable when filled.
Using information in this paper, criteria have been selected tolerable amount of differential
settlement, as follows: profile shape A
025 . 0 ) / ( =
D
center bottom
; profile shape B
015 . 0 ) / ( =
D
center bottom
D
center bottom
.
It should be noted that large tanks of tank farm (D=53.6m, H=18.3m) and small tanks of the
P.L.D area (D=9m, H=8m), confirm the profile A, shown in Figure (2-8), because
m 5 . 2 T
p
=
and
depth of clay layer is more than 50m. Therefore tolerable settlement could be considered.
Iran Khak Company (IKCE, 2006) performed a geotechnical investigation in the P.L.D area of
this project. They recommended total measured settlement should not exceed ) ( 4 . 1 week mm in
Vol. 13, Bund. B 6
the last week of hydrostatic test of the tanks. By this criteria, it is ensured that much settlement will
not take place after the end of hydrostatic test of tanks. However this rate might be used to estimate
total allowable settlement. It is not necessary to add that settlement rate much faster at the
beginning of hydrostatic test. Conservatively, it could be assumed that, settlement rate of each
week is equal to 60% of settlement rate of its past 7 days. By this conservative assumption, total
settlement in 120 days of hydrostatic test is about 150(mm). It should be noted that, total settlement
of tanks happens in years. So the measured settlement in 120 days of hydrostatic test is less than
total settlement of the tanks in their service period. Therefore the recommended value of IKCE
(2006) could be used only for hydrostatic test.
COMPARISON OF CITED ALLOWABLE SETTLEMENTS
FOR STEEL TANKS
According to references cited in Section (2-2), a comparison of cited allowable settlements for
the steel tanks of Mahshahr oil product terminal revamp project is presented in Tables (2-1) to (2-
3).
Table 2-1. Comparison of Allowable Settlements from Different References
Total Settlement (mm) Differential Settlement Tilt
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
T
a
n
k
t
y
p
e
(Figure2-
1)
max
ave
(
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
2
)
bottom
shell
w
(Figure2-3)
C
e
n
t
e
r
E
d
g
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
(
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
5
)
E
d
g
e
(
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
4
)
O
u
t
l
i
n
e
(
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
6
)
V
i
s
i
b
l
e
U
l
t
i
m
a
t
e
API 653
(1995)
Large
Small
- - - 0.031(R)
Figure2-
7
0.0055(L2)/H - -
Klepikov
(1989)
Large - - 180 0.004(D) - 0.01(L)
0.004(H) 0.007(H)
Small - - 110 0.008(D) - 0.008(L)
USACE
(1990)
Large
Small
- - - 0.008(R) - - - -
D'Orazio
and
Duncan
(1987)
Large
Small
- - - 0.025(D) - - - -
As it can be seen in Table (6-1), the allowable settlement depends on the dimensions of steel
tanks. Therefore different values could be calculated for large tanks in the tank farm area
(D=53.6m, H=18.3m) and small tanks in P.L.D area (D=9m, H=8m). Tables (2-2) and (2-3)
compare various values for large and small tanks respectively.
Table 2-2. Allowable Settlements from Different References for large tanks of the tank farm.
Total Settlement (mm)
Differential Settlement
(mm)
Tilt (mm)
Reference:
max
ave
bottom
shell
w
Center* Edge Center Edge Outline Ultimate Visible
API 653
(1995)
1106 - - 830 170 10 - -
Klepikov
(1989)
285 - 180 214 - 60 128 73
USACE
(1990)
285 - - 214 - - - -
Vol. 13, Bund. B 7
D'Orazio
and
Duncan
(1987)
1786 - - 1340 - - - -
Table 2-3. Allowable settlements from different references for small tanks of the P.L.D area.
Total Settlement (mm)
Differential Settlement
(mm)
Tilt (mm)
Reference:
max
ave
bottom
shell
w
Center* Edge Center Edge Outline Ultimate Visible
API 653
(1995)
186 - - 139.5 75 2.4 - -
Klepikov
(1989)
- - 110 36 - 60 56 32
USACE
(1990)
48 - - 36 - - - -
D'Orazio and
Duncan
(1987)
300 - - 225 - - - -
*Conservatively assumed as: ) ( 75 . 0
max center center bottom
=
PROPOSED ALLOWABLE SETTLENEMTS
API 653 (1995) and D'Orazio and Duncan (1987) recommended values which are more related
to large tanks used for oil material so they could be mainly used to select allowable in this project.
Based upon Tables (2-1) to (2-3) the allowable settlements are conservatively proposed in Table 2-
4 for the steel tanks of Mahshahr oil product terminal revamp project. Although API 653, (1995) is
the most used references for the design of steel tanks, it may gives fairly un-conservative values for
this project. The writer recommends API values to be used.Therefore about half of the API values
for allowable total and differential settlements, as shown in Table 2-4, have been conservatively
considered for presented design. Allowable tilt is proposed based upon visible limit of tilt.
Table 2-4. Proposed Allowable Settlements for Steel Tanks in Mahshahr Oil Export Port.
Tape of
Tank
D(m) H(m)
Total
Settlement (mm)
Differential
settlement (mm)
Tilt
(mm)
Large 53.6 18.3 500 375 73
Small 9 8 100 75 32
Allowable settlement for ordinary buildings, such as residential and office buildings, water
towers and shelters, is more restricted but the proposed values are commonly agreed in the
literature and text books and Table (2-5) is used in different projects.
Table 2-5. Proposed Allowable Settlements by Skempton and MacDonald for Conventional
Buildings.
Type of Soil Type of Foundation Differential Settlement Total Settlement
Sand Isolated 25 mm 40 mm
Sand Raft 25 mm 40~65 mm
Clay Isolated 40 mm 65 mm
Vol. 13, Bund. B 8
Clay Raft 40 mm 65~100 mm
Although clayey soil exists in site but considering that it is likely that a layer of compacted
gravel and sand to be constructed beneath the foundations so the allowable total settlement
presented in Table (6-6) have been considered for buildings. Where a large loaded area is founded
on a relatively incompressible stratum (e.g. dense gravel) overlying compressible soil, settlement of
the structure will occur due to the consolidation of the latter layer, but it will not take the form of
the bowl-shaped depression. The effect of the dense layer, if thick enough, is to form a rigid raft
which will largely eliminate differential settlement. Therefore, the allowable settlement of ordinary
buildings is suggested in this project as if they are founded on sandy layers.
Table 2-6. Proposed Allowable Settlements for Buildings in P.L.D Area.
Type of Foundation Total Settlement
Isolated 40 mm
Raft 65 mm
For pump stations and heater, no allowable settlement is recommended by design codes like
API 610, but it is noted that the differential settlement values should be very small. According to
definitions of NIOEC-SP-00-01 (2006) pumps in this project are heavy machinery because total
weight of as pumps is greater than 23kN. It suggested that the weight of the heavy rotary
machinery foundation like the pumps in Mahshahr project shall be at least 3 times the weight of
machinery. Therefore the pump itself should be placed on a fairy rigid raft foundation to avoid
relative movement between pump supports. However tilt and total settlement could be a problem
for the connections of pump and pipes so the use of expansion loop or expansion joint or both of
them is highly recommended. Design of such expansion loop needs flexible analysis. Therefore the
allowable settlement of pumps is a function of pipe-pump connections design, but it assumed as 2
cm for foundation selection and land reclamation design.
REFERENCES
1-API 653, Appendix-B. TENTH EDITION, NOVEMBER 1998, ADDENDUM 1, JANUARY
2000 ADDENDUM 2, NOVEMBER 2001
2-Timothy B.Dorazio, A.M. ASCE and James M. Duncan, F. ASCE (1987) "Differential
settlements in steel tanks"journal of Geotechnical Engineering,vol. 113,NO 9,pp 967-83
3- DOrazio T, Ducan JM, Bell RA. (1989) Distortion of steel tank due to settlement of their walls.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division ASCE 115(6):87190.
4-T.Y. Wu, G.R. Liu (2000)" Comparison of design methods for a tank-bottom annular plate and
concrete ringwall", International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping,NO 77,pp. 511-517
5-L.A. Godoy, E.M. Sosa (2003) "Localized support settlements of thin-walled storage tanks"Thin-
Walled Structures,NO 41,pp 941955
6- Brown GD, Peterson WG. (1964) Failure of an oil storage tank founded on sensitive marine
clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal;1:20514.
Vol. 13, Bund. B 9
7- Green PA, Hight DW (1964) The failure of two oil storage tanks caused by differential
settlement, Proc. of the Conf. Settlement of Structures, British Geotechnical Society, Cambridge,
UK, 353-60.
8- Clark JS (1969) Survey of oil tank failure. Annales de lInstitute Belge du Petrol; 6:1524.
9- Myers P. (1997) Aboveground storage tanks. New York: McGraw-Hill
10-D'Orazio, T. B and Duncan J. M. (1982) CONSAXA: Computer Program for Axisymmetric
Finite Element Analysis of Consolidation." Research report No UCB/GT/82-01, Dept. of Civil
Engineering. Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif
11-Kamyab H, Palmer S C (1991) Displacements in oil storage tanks caused by localized
differential settlement. J Pressure Vessel Technol, Trans ASME; 113:7180.
12-Kamyab H, Palmer S C (1989) Analysis of displacements and stresses in oil storage tanks
caused by differential settlement. J Mech Eng Sci, Proc IMechE Part C 203:6170.
13-Teng J G (1996) Buckling of thin shells: recent advances and trends. Appl Mech
Rev;49(4):26374.
2009 ejge