Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Api 650 Tank

    Uploaded by

    mumm
    13 views24 pages
    api650tank

    Original Title

    api650tank

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    api650tank

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    13 views24 pages

    Api 650 Tank

    Uploaded by

    mumm
    api650tank

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 24
    Mechanica Engineering News For the Power, Petrochemical and Related Industries ‘The COADE Mechanical Engineering News Bulletin is published periodically fromthe COADE offices in Houston, ‘Texas. The Bulletin is intended to provide information about software applications: and development for Mechanical Engineers serving the power, petrochemical, snd related industries. Additionally, the Bulletin will serve asthe official notification vehicle for software errors discov- «ered in those Mechanical Engineering programs offered by COADE. (Please note, this bulletins published only two 0 tree times per year.) Table Of Contents PC Hardware for the Engineering User (Part 20) What's New at COADE Pipelines & Terminals Conference Compuserve Access. CAESAR II Version 3.22... A Preview of the New Vessel Program ‘Technology You Can Use ‘Common Network Questions & Answers... Impact of API-650 Addendum. Applying API-6S3 Did You Know that CAESAR Ii Could... Seismic Analysis of Tall Vertical ProvessTOWER .ronanni Commonly Asked CAESAR IT Questions Program Specifications CAESAR II Specifications "TANK Specifications CodeCate Specifications Announcements FEVPipe Version 2.8 . CATIA Partnership COADE, Inc. Volume 20 Eva PC Hardware & Systems for the 0) Engineering User (Part ‘The Pentium Problem ‘The news broke over the Thanksgiving Holiday, a law (error) had been found in Intel's Pentium chip. The November 24 edition of The New York Times indicated that ‘Intel had known about the problem since June, and that the problem was corrected then. However, by mid-December, rho supplier that we know of had corrected chips. On December 13, IBM halted shipment of their Pentium machines. Inthe December 14 edition of The Houston Post, aan Intel spokesman stated that “.. the average chip goes through seven redesigns to correct esoteric flaws”. In late December, Intel finally decided to become responsible and replace the chips. However, as of mid-January, no new chips were available. Finally, in late January, PC Magazine and Dr. Dobbs Journal disenssed the problem and its potential effects from a ncutral point of view. How do these events affect Pentium nncers, and specifically. users of COADE software products? CADCENTRE announces an interface between PDMS and CAESAR IL The interface, run from within PDMS nerates a complete, bidirectional CAESAR II neutral file. For additional please contact CADCENTRE, Cambridge, England detail First te problem with the Pentium chip must be understood. Intel has writtenathirty-one page document ttled“Statistical Analysis of Floating Point Flaw in the Pentium Processor”, ‘This paper describes how the error occurred, the tests ancl analysis Iutel hay performed, characteristics of the error, and specifically which CPU instructions ae affected by the error, The couclusion is drat here are five binary bit pattems of a divisor which can cause the error in the divider COADE Mechanical Engineering News April, 1995 hardware. Furthermore, the divider hardware is used for: floating pointdivision, floating point remainder, and flosting point transcendental functions (sin, cos, tan). When the error occurs, the result is inaccurate in the fourth significant decimal digi This paper then goes on to describe the statistical analysis performed on the problem, by Intel, which led to the following Intel conclusion regarding engineering/scientfic use of the Pentium. “Technical users running other applications requiring unusual precision and employing millions of divides per day should employ either an updated Pentium processor without the flaw or a software work around.” IBM on the other hand, concluded that even with the statistical analysis, an average spreadsheet user could ‘encounter the problem. (Note that this description ofthe erroris more ominous than ‘most newspaper reports state. Most media coverage refers totheproblemas “only affecting rare, complex mathematical algorithms”. This isa great disservice to the general public = division is not a rare, complex operation!) ‘The article from The New York Times contained an example equation which will reveal the error on the Pentium: A-(A/B)*B=0 or the result is supposed to be zero! Using a value for A of 4,195,835.0 and 2 value for B of 3,145,727.0 produces a result of 25600n a Pentium. Similarly, values of 5,505,001.0 and 294,911 Oyield 192. Are thaseerrors significant? Ifthe error occurs during a stress calculation, probably not. However, what ifthe error occurs during the first division of a matrix decomposition? Then the error propagates thrnnigh out the entire solution -. who knows what results will be produced! COADE Research Services, developer of FEJPipe, has formally changed its name to Paulin Research Group. Anyone interested in finite element analysis of piping components can ‘contact Paulin Research Group Phone: Fax: BBS: 713-251-8084 713-251-1830 713-251-4092 ‘To reveal whether or not COADE’s Pentium machine had the flaw, a small FORTRAN program was written using the above test equation. When compiled with the Microsoft FORTRAN compiler, the Pentium produced a result of 256. ‘The same program running on 486 and 386 processors produced a result of 0. Next, the same program was ‘compitedusing the WATCOM FORTRAN compiler. Agai ‘the Pentium produced aresult of 256. Surprisingly, the 486 and 386 machines also produced the incorrect result of 256. A study of the assembly language code produce by the ‘compiler revealed that the WATCOM compiler performs “constant folding”, i. it rocognized the equation as & ‘constant, the compiler then performed the math, and stuffed the result in the program. This isa plus for WATCOM in the “speed of execution” category. However, due to the Pentium error, this program will now generate the wrong ‘answer on any machine itis run on! Did any of these statistical analysis consider this possibility? This discovery ‘means that not only do users need to be wary of Pentium produced results, but software developers now need to uestion the quality of the software generated on Pe machines! ‘Some readers may recall that in the last issue of Mechanical Engineering News, we noted that our software had been tested successfully on the Pentium. The tests consisted of ‘erunning our standard series of QA jobs. None of these Jobs exhibited the divider unit flaw discussed here, What should Pentium users of COADE software products| do? COADE has had its Pentium chip replaced by Intel. No additional Pentiums will be purchased by COADE unless they are assured tobe flaw-ree, so no distributed programs «will be compiled on machines with a flawed Pentium CPU. In addition, the COADE system check program, SYSCHK, hhas been modified to detect the Pentium and test for the divider unit error. This new version of SYSCHK can be down loaded from the“Miscellancous" file area of our BBS, and CompuServe. Our recommendation to users is that they contact Intel and obtain corrected Pentium chips. ‘With the new (corrected) Pentium chip, testing has yielded expected (correct) results on a variety of QA jobs. Additionally, the division error has been corrected, In late February, Intel announced plans to publicly document and disclose flaws inits processors, through addenda to design handbooks. COADE Mechanical Engineering News April, 1995 Pipelines & Terminals Conference During the first week of February'95, COADE exhibited its ‘TANK program along with othersoftware) atthe Pipelines, ‘Terminals, & Storage Conference in Houston, Texas This conference/show received over 10,000 reviewing the products of over 650 exhibitors, tends, COADE also exhibited at the Petro- Houston in late March. Expo Conference in CompuServe Access COADE, Inc. has arranged tobe oncof the vendors supported through CompuServe's CAD/CAMICAE forum. We intend {ouse this forum to more quickly and efficieutly provide our users with program sevisions and product news. CompuServe is a worldwide computer network providing members with online access to a wide vatiety of services Users of COADE products, can benefit from a Comput membership through the rapid acquisition of data files and program revisions. Additionally, E-mail can be sent directly fo COADE. In most eases this can be done through a local telephone call, unlike the long distance call to our Bulletin Board Service. Thereare other benefits of CompuServe membership, suppurt forums fora wide variety of software and hardware vendors, forums for mail and news, travel service forums, and forut for hobbies and reference. Using the message areas of these forums you ean keep abreast of developments at IBM, Novell, Microsolt, and Intl To access the COADE section of CompuServe, issue the CADDYEN" command at any “!” prompt, Select Section #I, forthe general CAD/CAMICAE vendors. From this area, you can leave mail, upload or download files (These processes are easier if you utilize one of the CompuServe Information Managers, either DOSCIM or WINCIM,) Public messages may be posted by addressing them (from within the forum) wo COADE, private messiyzes may be sent to COADE at CompuServe address 73078,362 To join CompuServe, you should contact CompuServe directly. With the introductory iemibership, you receive ‘one month of unlimited access 10 basic services ti connect charges, a free subscription 10 CompuServe Magazine, and a $15 credit for extended and premium services, he mont "AESAR II Version 3.22 Version3.22 of CAESAR Il is in “heza test” and is nearing completion. This release includes many chan; result Of user suggestions, and several important technical additions. Listed below are the most important changes and enhancements included in CAESAR IL Version 3. + The Harmonic solver has been updated to provide “damping”. Harmonic analysis can now include or exclude damping as the user deems necessary + Center of Gravity calculations have been added, with results displayed in the error checker, + Bill of Materials report has been added. + The following codes have been reviewed (and) any necessary changes made) for compliance to the latest editions: B31.3, B31.4, B31.5, B31.8, NC, and ND. + Thefotlowing additional piping codeshave been added: RCCM-D, CODETI, TBK 5-6. + Yield criterion stresses can be computed as either Von Mises or as 3D Maximum Shear Stress intensity *+ Hoop Stresscan be computed based on Outer Diamet Inner Diameter, Mean Diameter, or Lame’s equation, + ‘Thespring hanger design spreadsheet hasbeen modified to default to a 25% load variation, In adltion, the ‘acu! hanger load variation now appears in the hanger ‘ouput reports. ‘+A new command (WIND) has been added to the structural steel preprocessor. This allows selective wind loading on an element by element b COADE Mechanical Engineering News April, 1995 +A new key-combination (AIt-D) is available in the input processor to compute the distance between (wo nodes. ‘+ User specified absolute coordinates for up to 30 nodes are saved inthe input file + The input title page has been expanded from 19 0 60 lines. + Automatic node numbering abilities have been added to the spreadsheets of the main piping input module, + Expansion Joint data bases fron: IWK (Gentmany) are provided. + Expansion Joint data base from Senior Flexonics provided. A Preview of the New Vessel Program ‘By DavidDihl This article is an introduction to our new Pressure Vessel Design/Analysis program. ‘This article will be ot special interest to vessel engineers and designers who have expenence with CUADE’s pRoVESSEL program. By reviewing these notes, the PoVESSEL user will quickly Tear about our New Vessel Program (NVP), and its advantages overPRoVESSEL. (This article will refer to this program as NVP, since the name has not been decided at this time.) With the initial release of NVP, COADE will no longer Issue updates to PROVESSEL. COADE will continue to support PeoVESSEL users. rRoVESSEL users who are currently on the “Support, Maintenance, and Update” plan will receive NVP as their PROVESSEL update, Users will continue to receive NVP updates throughout the period of their maintenance plan. PROVESSEL users who are not currently on the “Support, Maintenance, and Update” plan may rejoin the program (to receive NVP) by paying the standard lapsed update fee for PROVESSEL. Most PRoVESSEL users would find no reason to switch to a new package; the program is a reliable tool. However, COADE has recognized several characterises of the package which have prevented from growing andreceiving, ‘a wider acceptance in the engineering community. Some ot these limiting characteristics involved internal data siructures, analysis assumptions, and input data organization In order to resolve these issues, COADE decided to start ‘with a “clean sheet of paper”, and develop acompletely new program, which will in the long run, produce a better product. The NVP package will combine many of dhe ‘comments and suggestions from our user community with new development (vols anu interface technology, Program Input One of the most noticeable differences between FROVESSEL ‘and NVP is the input processor. NVP uses an event driven Graphical User Interface, a GUI. While rRoVESSEL ‘operates in text mode for data specification, NVP operates in graphics anode. ‘This allows the vessel yeomeuy 0 be viewed simultaneously with the input specification. The vessel uuudel is now displayed ay it is created. This combination of input data and graphics presents more information tothe user, and aids in both model specification and verification. | titi bee all ‘Upon starting NVP, the user is placed immediately in the input of the current vessel job. Vertical vessels, horizontal vessels, nozzles, and flanges are no longer segregated in multiple job files - they can all be specified whenever necessary. Through the use of pull down menus, the user can control the input specification, the analysis of the vessel, and the utility functions of the package. The vessel description can be specified in two modes. The “Build Mode” allows users to graphically build the vessel by assembling components from a tool bar shown on the sereen. In the “Define Mode”, the specific data for each vessel component can be defined. AS the details of each component (nozzles, rings, lugs, etc.) are specified, the graphics display ofthe vessel is simultaneously updated as necessary COADE Mechanical Engineering News April, 1995 Vessel Analysis ‘The heart of NVP is the analysis engine, the number ceruncher, This module is a completely new program, developed to allow the package to address more complex ‘vessels and loading combinations. Users can now consider vertical vessels supported on legs, lugs, rings, or skirts at any elevation. The effects ofthese various support types are reflected in the deadweight, wind, earthquake, and buckling calculations. In the load specification category. NVP includes ‘considerations for the latest editions of ASCE #7, the Uniform Building Code (URC), and the National Building Code (NBC) of Canada. Users also have a great deal of flexibility in defining exactly what londs are considered in ‘what load case. For example, itis now possible to check ‘wind loads on an empty vessel, or an earthquake during a hhydrotest, all ina single execution, with results in a single ‘output report ‘The analysis of the vessel details (langes. rings, nozzles. ete.) willrely on the computation engines of another COADE vessel program, CodeCale. The initial specification of these items is used by NVP for weight contributions, The actual analysis and compliance of these detailed components is carried out in the CodeCale engines. The CodeCale ‘output is automatically appended tothe overall NVP vessel ‘output reports. During the actual vessel analysis, NVP places control inthe hands of the user. As with proVESSEL, NVP allows the sero specify how various design decisions should be made atthe input level. Both programs can be set to 1) no change, straight rerate mode, or 2) automatic adjustment, design mode. With NVP, there ig a third option, allow user intervention, interactive mode. During the analysis, intermediate results are displayed to the user. who may interactively alter the analysis path. ‘This intermediate isplay and possible interactive control takes many of the questions out ofthe design path chosen by the program, and places the design back in the hands of the user. Program Output "The NVP package uilizes the same robust output processor as does COADE’s CodeCale program. Reports are available for each step of the analysis (input echo. error ‘checking, load specification), as well as the results of each load case. Users simply select a topic and its destination (screen, printer, oF file) to obtain a concise report of the requested item, Availability “The NVP package is reaching the end of the development ceycle for Version 1.0. The “beta test” release is expected in late April, wth he official release of Version |.0 anticipated in late June, COADE has always respected the opinions of the user community to suggest and guide program development, This is especially true of a new product. We therefore encourage all users of NVP to contact COADE and discuss ‘any problems, comments, or suggestions as necessary Common Network Questions & Answers — By Richard Ay ‘This article discusses the common questions and associated answers pertaining to COADE software running on Network. installations 1) What COADE products support the “network” ESL? As of summer 1994, all COADE products support the network ESL, Details ofthe specific ESLs supported are described in point #3 below. 2) Where is the software loaded? ‘The program executables can be loaded (installed) on either the local workstation or on the network file ‘This i strictly a matter of user preference. However, by installing the software on the network file server, it ean be accessed from any workstation, ‘Additionally, user disk space is saved since only one copy resides on the server, not one copy on each ‘workstation COADE Mechanical Engineering News April, 1995 Froma performance point of view, the software will run slightly faster if installed on @ local workstation. This is because the transmission of the -EXE files over the network (to the workstation's memory) is avoided. 3) How is the External Software Lock (ESL) utilized i network environment? Asof Summer 1994, COADE software products support three different ESLs. These devices and their operation, are described below. a) A™local” (green) ESL from Software Security Inc. ‘This is the device COADE has becn using since 1990. This ESL must be attached to the parallel port of the workstation, regardless of where the software is loaded. b) A “local” (white) ESL from Aladdin Software Security Inc. This device is new for COADE software in 1994 and is an alternative to solve access problems (i.e. hardware compatibility problems) some users experience with the (green) ESLe from Software Security. As before, the local ESL must be attached to the parallel port of the workstation, regardless of where the software is loaded. ‘A “network” (red) ESL from Aladdin Software Security Inc. This device is new for COADE software in 1994 and is intended to provide access for multiple users/programs over the network. Only one such ESL is needed, ° In order for the “network” ESL to function properly, a ‘small management program must be run wherever the ESL is attached (to either the file server or the workstation). Once this manager program is running, users across the network can access the software, regardless of where the software is loaded. Instructions for installing the “network” ESL can be found in the program documentation, 4) Can a “local” ESL be used as a “network” ESL? NO! Attaching a “local” ESL tothe file server will not allow access to the software. In all probability, it will ‘crash the network, 5) Can the “network” ESL be used on a local machine (in ‘case the network crashes)? 6 D 9% 10 No, the “network” ESL will not allow access to the software unless the management program is running. on the network. (Can additional licenses be added to the “network” ESL once itis ata custom's site. No, at the present time there is no software which allows a remote update of the number of licenses allowed by a “network” ESL. Additional licenses can be acquired by exchanging the current ESL for one with the new required seats. Can the software be moved/copied frown the file server to a workstation or notebook computer? Yes, the software can be moved freely between machines, ‘There are no machine specific restrictions or requirements built into the software. Can the “network” versionberunona “local” machine? ‘There is no “network” specific version. All software products search forall three ESLsin the order presented in point #3 above. Can a network installation support both a “network” ESL and “local” ESLs. Yes, the software searches forall throc ESL types. This ESL search is independent of where the software ‘actually resides. ‘The search concludes when the first ESLisfound. Ifa“local” ESLis found, the search stops and no licenses are locked on the “network” ESL. Ifno “local” ESL is found, the “network” ESL is located and the availability of licenses checked. If a license is available, itis locked and access to the software is allowed. Ifno licenses are available, the uses veceives an error message and access to the software is denied. How should a site allocate “network” and “local” ESLs? ‘COADE recommends that only 70 to 80 percent of the licenses be assigned to the “network” ESL. This will provide several “local” [SLs which can be attached workstations atthe site. This provides added flexibility in that these “local” ESLs can then be used for uff site access, ic. when traveling, One draw back to the “network” ESL is that the ‘network must be up and running, and you have to have access to the network in order to use the software. COADE Mechanical Engineering News April, 1995, 11) Can multiple ESLs be attached to the same parallel port? Yes, as long as they are for different programs. The software stops searching for the ESL as soon as one is, recognized. This is nota problem for “local” ESL, but ‘could bea problem on anetwork. You can not have wo COADE network (red) ESLs on the same network - the software will never find the second device. 12) Whatnetworks and what operating systems re supported by the Network ESL? ‘The network ESL from Aladdin Software Security has beenused with COADE software on Novell, Pathworks, and Banyon networks, Operating. systems include DOS, Windows, and Windows/NT. 13 Does asite wth multiple COADE products need multiple network ESLs? [No- in fact, as point #11 stated, multiple ESL with the same ID code can not reside on the same network. The COADENetwork ESL hasbeen setuptosupportmultiple products, each with a specified number of licenses. Only one “network” ESL per network is required (possible). Impact of API-650 Addendum 1 By Richard Ay In December 1994, API issued Addendum 1 to the ninth dition of the API-650 standard. While a number of pages inthis code were revised by Addendum 1, there are only two {hanges which affect design or analysis computations (and therefore users of COADE’s TANK program), ‘The firstchange of interest concerns the API materials listed in Table 3-2, and their groups listed in Table 2-3. Addendum 1 has removed materials FE 42, FE 44, and FE 52 from these tables. In place of these materials, API hes added FE 430 and FE $10. ‘The second item of interest is a change in the scope of Appendix P, for nozzle Aexiblities and limiting loads ‘Addendum 1 has added a phrase, limiting the applicability ‘of this appendix. As paragraph P.1 now reads, the use of Appendix Pi recommended only fortaiksn excess of 120, feet (36.6 meters) in diameter. How will these Addendum I changes affect TANK? The ‘material database willbe revised to reflect the new materials, and remove the old FE materials. This new data base will be available for download from the COADE BBS as well as CompuServe. In addition, an “International” version of this data base will also be included. This “fnternational” version will include several materials commonly used outside of the U.S. The revised API material data base will be designated A650_94.MAT, and the “International” data base will be designated A6S0_941.MAT. Both material ‘databases will becontainedin the download ite U120_C-ZP. To utilize cither ofthese new material data base files, place the ZIP file in the TANK program directory. Extract the data base files using PKUNZIP. Then, use the TANK, ‘configuration option to select the desired data base from the necessary data directories. ‘The new scope limitation of Appendix P will appear as a waming message in the next version of TANK. This ‘modification to the software will simply war the user if nozzles are specified on a tank with a diameter less than 120 feet (36.6 meters). This will not prevent the program from running or applying the rules and equations of Appendix P. Applying API-653 By Vincent Carucel The following article has heen submitted for publication by Vincent Carucci, Vice President of Carmagen Engineering, Inc, 7 Waverly Place, Madisan, NI 07940. API-653 and Tank Shell Thickness Assessment ‘The primary focus of this article Is to discuss API-633 requirements for the shell thickness of atmospheric storage tanks. It will begin by first briefly summarizing the background and scope of API-653 to establish a foundation ‘for what will follow, It will then generally describe tank inspection requirements and then focus on the shell. The article assumes that the readers are generally familiar with both API-650 and API-653 Background ‘One catastrophic brittle fracture of a storage tank that ‘occurred in 1988 spilled approximately 750,000 gallons of diesel fuel into adjacent storm sewers that then emptied into nearby river. The owner ofthe tank spent several million dollars in cleanup costs and fines because of this one incident. This failure, along with two other spills that ‘occurred within about a year of this one, focused a great deal of atention on the condition of existing storage tanks and the potential consequences of a failure. One result of this attention was the publication of API-653 in January 1991. ‘API-653 addresses the condition of existing, aboveground, atmospheric pressure storage tanks that were originally 7 COADE Mechanical Engineering News April, 1995 designed using API-650 or its predecessor, API-12C. API- 653 presents requirements that are intended to prevent @ tank failure due to brittle fracture, However, API-653 requirements go beyond those that are necessary to prevent a brittle fracture. API-653 requires that existing tanks be pesiodically inspected to ensure that they are structurally sound, within the required allowable stresses, and will not leak before the next opportunity for inspection. Ensuring ‘that a tank wall not leak before the next inspection is more than just ensuring tha it wll not fail eatastrophically. Even a small leak is unacceptable. Inspection and Engineering Evaluation ‘An API-653 inspection program addresses four main ‘components of the tank: the roof, shell, bottom. and foundation. These are the tank components that directly affect the structural integrity and liquid storage capability of the tank. API-653 does not specify the exact inspection procedures that must be followed nor the quantity of data that must be collected. It only specifies what must be inspected and the acceptance criteria. API-653 goes beyond ‘merely requiring that the main tank components be inspected. requires that an engineering evaluation be made of the inspection data to ensure thatthe structural condition ofthe tank meets specified acceptance criteria. This engineering ‘evaluation must go beyond confirming that the tank is structurally sound at the time of inspection: it must confirm that the tank will remain structurally sound during the entire next period of operation. For example, assume that portions of the tank shell have thinned due to corrosion. You must assume that the corrosion will continue as the tank remains in operation, An API-653 evaluation of the shell thickness requires confirmation that the shell will not thin to an unacceptable level before itis inspected again. ‘Therefore, evaluation of the shell thickness inspection data must confirm that each portion of the shell has sufficient corrosion allowance remaining for the entire next period of operation. Shell Inspection ‘The tank shell must be visually examined for obvious flaws (eg. weld defects) and other forms of deterioration (¢.g. plate distortion or corrosion). ‘The most common form of eterioration that must be addressed is corrosion, and shell wall thickness measurements must be made to evaluate the ‘remaining thickness of the shell. While corrosion may be uniform over large areas of the shell, the shell is normally not uniformly corroded in its entirety. Large areas ofthe shell may not have corroded at all, whereas other areas may have experienced significant corrosion, For example: ‘+ The portion of the shell that corresponds to the normal ‘operating liquid level may corrode more than the rest of the shell due (othe liquid/vapor interface. + Sludge and wax deposits may accumulate at the tank bottom near the shell and cause more corrosion in the lower portion of the bottom course than elsewhere. A. Targe amount of corrosion in this area, but on the ‘outside, may also be caused by rainwater accumulation ‘due to poor tank pit drainage. + One side of the tank may corrode more than the rest due to the prevailing wind direction. ‘Therefore, evaluation of tank shell integrity must consider tho required chell thicknesses (which vary with clevation on ‘the shell) and the actual thicknesses measured. The actual ‘measured thicknesses will vary by tank course, and may vary by position around the tank circumference, by elevation within the course, or even by specific location within a ‘given tank plate. Shell Integrity Evaluation [API-653 provides procedures for calculating the minimum required shell course thicknesses and acceptance eriteria for both uniformly corroded and pitted areas of the shell. This article focuses only on uniformly corroded areas ‘The minimum required shell plate thickness will normally be calculated using the following equation (Ref. Para. 2.3.3 ‘of API.653), as long as the tank is no larger than 200 ft. in diameter: Where: \, Minimum acceptable thickness, in. Cannot be less than 0.1 in. for any shell course, D_ = Nominal tank diameter, ft H_ = Height from the bottom of the most severely corroded area in each shell course to the maximum design liquid level. ft G = The highest specific gravity of the tank contents, including water if the tank may be hydrotested in the future, COADE Mechanical Engineering News April, 1995 SS = Maximum allowable stress, psi. The smaller of 0.80Y or 0.4267 for the bottom or second courses. ‘or the smaller of 0.88Y or 0.4727 for all other ““Y" is the specified minimum yield strength ofthe plate-or 30,000 psi ifthe plate material is unknown. “T" is the smaller ofthe specified minimum tensile strength ofthe plate or 80,000 psi, or 55.000 psi if the plate material is unknown, E = The original weld joint efficiency used in the tank design, Use E = 0.7 ifthe original B is unknown. if a corroded area that is being evaluated is far enough away from the welds, with the distance as defined by API-653. ‘This. is obviously a very simple equation, but this can deceive you into thinking that a complet shell evaluation is simpler than it really is. We will now look at some things to be careful of, + As previously mentioned, this equation can only be used if the tank diameter is no greater than 200 ft. That is because this equation is based on the One-Foot shell, thickness calculation method of API-650. For larger diameter tanks, the evaluation must be made using the variable design point method of API-650. This is a ‘more complicated, iterative calculation procedure (but use of COADE’s TANK program makes it simple. [Note that the Variable Design Point Method may be ‘used for smaller diameter tanks if desired. + The evaluation must be made for every shell course. ‘+ “His measured from the bottom of the most severely corroded areaiin each shell course, not necessarily from the bottom of the course. However, when inspection data are provided for evaluation, you often just get the ‘minimum thickness or a range of thicknesses measured in each course with no indication of the elevations ‘within the course where the measurements were made. Therefore, without additional information, the evaluation must be made using the conservative ‘assumption that the corrosion i at the bottom of the ‘course in question. ‘+ "G"mustconsider both the specific gravity ofthe stored liquid and whether the tank will be hydrotested in the future. Hydrotesting is required if major repairs or alterations are needed. However to maximize the permitted fill height of the stored liquid, calculating the ‘minimum required thickness for both the stored liquid and water is acceptable. Then an acceptable fill height for each liquid can be back-calculated based on the measured thicknesses “S” varies with shell course and isthe same for both the stored liquid case and the hydrotest case. In these respects. it differs from API-650. API-650 uses the saame material allowable stress regardless of the course that is being checked. and it uses a higher allowable sess forthe hydrotestcase, The values of the allowable stresses also differ from those that are in API-650 for the same material specifications. Note also that API-653 permits a shell integrity evaluation even if the shell material specification is ‘unknown, with the assumption that the shell material is low in strength (ie., Y = 30,000 psi and T = 55,000 psi). This can be large penalty ifthe shell was actually fabricated using higher strength steel. Putting this in perspective, a tank may have been designed and constructed five years ago using A-516 Grade 70 plate for the shell (Y = 38,000 psi and T 70,000 psi. However, if all the tank records are lost ‘nd the materials cannot be confirmed. the tank cannot be filled to its original design fill height even if no corrosion at all has occurred (assuming that no excess thickness was provided in the original design). If nothing else. this emphasizes the importance of record- keeping. “B" must be assumed to be 0.7 if the “E” used in the original design is unknown. Here again, this can be an ‘extreme penalty to pay if the actual joint efficiency was ‘much higher than this. The reason for this low value is that even as late as 1970, tanks may have been designed with this low weld oint efficiency (depending ‘on the shell weld detail and inspection specified). ‘Note that “E" can be assumed to be equal to 1.0 (1e.,do not worry about the welds) if you are evaluating a corroded area that is far enough away from the welds. Unfortunately, the initial inspection data that you receive may not show how close the corroded areas to the welds. Calculating the minimum required thickness for each shell couse (and in corroded regions) is really a means to anend. Th that you really want i the following: COADE Mechanical Engineering News April, 1995 + How much corrosion allowance do I have left at the relevant elevations in the shell? + How long can the tank stay in operation based on. the available corrosion allowances? + What are the maximum permitted tank fil heights forboth the stored liquid and for any future hydrotest? Note that future corrosionallowance mustbe considered even for the hydrotest case when doing an API-653 evaluation, which differs from an API-650 design valuation, API-650isadesign standard, whichassumes that the tank is hydrotested right after it has been built and the plates are all at their new thicknesses, and does not consider Future hydrotests. API-653 addresses the actual condition of existing tanks (ie., considers deterioration). ‘The API-653 evaluation must consider all loads that can be applied (i.c., must consider future hydrotests). Shell Evaluation Example ‘We'll now put all these words to a practical test using the ‘TANK Program. Assume that a shell thickness inspection thas just been done of the extemal floating roof, crude cil storage tank shown in Figure 1. Thistank was built 10 years ago, but all the design and fabrication records have been lost. From the thickness measurements made, only one area ‘of corrosion was found in the bottom shell course, and this corrosion extends for a maximum vertical distance of 40 in. ‘The minimum thickness reported in this corroded area was 1.125in, No corrosion was noted elsewhere inthe shell, and the original nominal course thicknesses are as shown in the figure ( based on the thickness measurements made). ‘The design fill height for the tank is 56 ft, and the specifi gravity of the crude oil is 0.8, Ttis your job to decide if the tank can remain in service at the desired design fill height. Figure 1 Example Problem Several things are going against you in this problem, 1. The shell material is unknown; therefore, you must use the API-653 default material yield and tensile strengths. 2. Since thereare no original records, you do not know for ‘sure what shell weld inspection was done or the weld joint efficiency used in the design. Therefore, API-653 forces you to use E = 0.7. 3. The inspection data only gave the minimum thickness ‘measured and did not say exactly what elevation in the otlom course the minimum thickness was at ‘Therefore, you must assume that the entire corroded area is at the bottom of the course and that itis all 1.125, in. thick Figure 2 shows the initial input data used for this problem, ‘and Figure 3 shows the portion of the output that is relevant for our purposes. ‘Sires (Sa Tifa. tn Test stress (Sei OB Siageter (0) “ek ue eine eteteney (App ar 659) Ce. ing vetoes ine Ince: of shi Curses roi couree #2 Ge pelt aurae # te Stel) curse # 2 ‘ose "C0 [Stell Course # 2 Corroasar Aiiouece (EAH tn feurse §& Thickness Ge fauree #4 Corrector nivousnee ECA) - 2-2 (i Esurse #$ bevpet a [Stell Curae 9 § Thickness oes... tn sett course # 8 carroston awe Yah (i [Shell curse 9 § Tiekness tn [Stell Course # & Corrosion Aiiowence (EAD (tn Stell Curae # 7 eone a [Stell Curae # 7 Thikness 5 Gn Snel! courae 9 7 corrosion Aiiounes (és. lsnell courae # @ Retant we SReN) urge # a Phiekness i [Stell Curse # 8 corrosian Aiiouence (EAD === 4m Figure 2 Input Data for Case 1 ‘Unknown Material - E 10 COADE Mechanical Engineering News April, 1995 SHELL. COURSE THICKNESS DATA Thickness Values for Three Cases aia coURSE DESIGN Test user (deo F Gm) a) Gnd 1 zor 1.5288 1azsa mA 2 Mow 113038 aias0 We 3 fez 37650, ‘a7s00 WA 2 Tease “ares 75000 WA 6 Tanoa “A758 ‘sso 7 ‘ate “arse 37500 WA @ 110000 ‘10000 iars00 mk Retiring Thickness Remaining Corrosion Design Test Design Test Gna Gn) Gnd Gn) 1 Lz 1.8258 o66s7e-01 -.40082 2 Woes 1'3038tgsae-o1 “17868 3 tieiz0 “$7650. “9s7oae-01 | - 10150 4 “e206 “77619, ‘tase 261946-01 5 lagu) “57509 Ste4ea_ = dantae-o1 & [snow “arse 74ssae-01 *.s7781€-03 5 lanes “sar Tgaera i073 & [00000 © “ooo0a 378007500 SHELL COURSE ALLOMED FLUID MEISHTS Fluid Weights for three Cases course pesi6n Test equine (ey to eo) 1 sles 41.ss2 6.000 2 Ste At s62 48000, 3 talees—3sio05 40-000 4 Sear 30958 32000 S mime aise 2.000 6 isa ig.srr 16.000 > ise. Asis77 8.0000 8 iszetas.arr 0000 Figure 3 Output Data for Case 1 ‘The first pass evaluation shows that you have a couple of problems ‘+ The remaining shell thickness in the bottom course 1s notsuificientforeitherthe desig liquid or thehydrotest water (note the negativeavailable corrosion allowances). However, more disturbing is that Courses 2, 3, 4 and 6 ‘are also no good although no corrosion a all was found. This clearly illustrates the importance of maintaining tank records since an API-653 evaluation could force downrating a tank (ie. limiting its fil height) even i no deterioration is found. + The second part of the output shows the maximum permitted fll heights based on the shell thickness data [Note that the bottom course limits the permitted fill height of crude oi 1051.69 ft. Future hydrotests would be limited 10 an even lower height, 41.552 ft. Also do not ignore the hydrotest fill height limits that the upper courses would impose, even if you decide to repair the bottom course. ‘+ The conclusions that were presented do not consider any future corrosion that would take place during the next period of operation since the input did not include a corrosion allowance. Therefore, future corrosion ‘mustbe considered in conjunction with theseevaluation results in order to arrive at an acceptable operating, interval before the next inspection. Note that Para 4.3.3.2c of API-653 requires that when the corrosion rate is known (as in this case) the maximum shell inspection interval must be the smaller of RCA/2N or 15 years, where RCA is the remaining corrosion allowance in milsand Nis the corrosion rate in mils per vyear. At this point, you have a couple of decisions to make. As it stands now, the tank cannot be filled with erude oil to a height of more than 51.69 fl, representing a capacity reduction of almost 8%, and you still have to reduce this further to account for future corrosion until the next inspection. You also have to be sure that the tank is not filled with water beyond its limiting height. Again note that future corrosion must also be considered for the hydrotest ccase. Ifthe particular site is “rich” in tank capacity, then ‘you can just determine the desired inspection interval, calculate the required corrosion allowance in order to achieve this interval, and redo the calculations to arrive at final fill height limitations. However. it would probably be preferable to do a bit more inspection and evaluation first ‘This tank was built 10 years ago, and the 8th edition of API- 6650 was in effect at that time. Starting with the 7th edition of API-650, it can be safely assumed that the design weld Jointefficiency was 1.0. as long as the tank was not designed in accordance with Appendix A. An Appendix A design ‘would only apply ifthe maximum shel plate thickness was Yain, Since this tank's shell is thicker than ¥ in, it could not have been designed per Appendix A. Therefore as long asthere is still an API-650 nameplate on the tank (confirming that it was designed and erected in accordance with API {650 atthe time) it would be reasonable to use B=1.0 forthe API-653 evaluation (which still conforms to the intent of API-653). Now let’s see how using E = 10 affects the conclusions. Figure 4 provides the output for this case 1 COADE Mechanical Engineering News April, 1995 Retiring Thickness Rensining Corrosson Desion Test Design Test cine) cin) Gay” da 185s 1.068 270s 2 ipso? stare sees 5 eee 68955 Seale 4 later 54334 This 5 lkzeso “aoa “0280 6 ‘ate3e 26290 ease. > isic-o1 “12268 27408 @ ‘0000 90000 37500 SHELL COURSE ALLOWED FLUID HEIGHTS: Fluta Weights for Three Cases COURSE DESIGN rest RequiReD cs ct ah 274d 58.931 56,000 2 7aad $8931 48,000 3 elton 09230000 4 selaep 3.791 2-000 5 isle aes 000 6 aims 2396 000 7 ms 2396 ©4000 8 2s 22.396 60000 Figure 4 Case 2 Output Unknown Material - E=1.0 ‘This change in “E” has made a big difference; there is actually a corrosion allowance left even for the hydrotest case. You can now determine the required inspection interval based on these results and sce if this suits your inspection, maintenance, and operations planning needs. First calculate the corrosion rate, N, based on the maximum ‘covtusion that hay occured. N= (Ovigiual Thichess ~ Minitnu Measured Thickness)/Years of Operation (1.375 - 1.125)10 = (025 in year. ‘This corrosion rate is quite severe, ‘The minimum remaining corrosion allowance is 0.057 in. (Based on the buttomeouse). Therefore de misxinuusn shell inspection interval is calculated as follows: ‘Shell Inspection Interval = RCA/2N Shell Inspection Interval = 0,057/2 x 0.025 = 1.14 years This says you have to inspect the shell again in just over a year in order to still operate the tank at its maximum fill height without repairing the corroded area. This is still not fan attractive conclusion. At this point, it probably would be worthwhile to ask the inspectors to go out and take more thickness measurements in the corroded area to better define the extent of the corrosion and the actual elevation that it starts at. The evaluations that have been made thus far were based on the ‘minimum thickness that was measured; however, API-653 permits that the measured shell thicknesses be “averaged, and that the evaluation be made considering both the average and minimum thicknesses in the corroded region (Ref, Paras. 2.3.2 and 2.3.3.1 of API-653). There is no advantage to finding out how close the corrosion is tothe welds in this case since we are already using E = 1.0. Let's now assume that the following additional inspection data have been obtained: + The worst portion ofthe corroded area really does start at the bottom of the course. ‘+ Five thickness measurements, equally spaced per API- 68% criteria, result in the following measurements: 1.2, 1.25, 1.3, 1.2, 1.125. This yields an average thickness of 1.215 in, Using the previous results, there now is a (1.215 - 1.0681) 0.147 in. corrosion allowance remaining. Recalculating the required inspection interval yields the allowing result: ‘Shell Inspection Interval = 0.147/2 x 0.025 = 2.9 years ‘Thisishotterthan before butnot great. Operating companies ‘want to maximize their inspection intervals, usualy targeting for atleast 10 years or more. Note that the complete API- 6653 evaluation of this case would also require checking that the minimum measured thickness (1.125 in. in this case) is at least 60% of the required thickness plus the needed corrosion allowance, but we can easily see that this second criterion does not govern here At this point, you might choose to repair the shell in order ta achieve complete flexibility for future hydrotesting; however, it’s worth pointing out one more thing before concluding this example. There may be situations where the site cannot take the time to make the repair now and ‘needs to get the tank hack into service. Itis possible to use the TANK program to calculate the fill height limitations assuming the needed corrosion allowance until the next inspection, 12 COADE Mechanical Engineering News April, 1995 Inthis case assume that you want to place the tank back into service and inspect it again in five yeas. For this situation, you need a comosion allowance of (5x2 x 0.025) =0.25 in ‘This corrosion allowance is then used as input data and the fil-heigh limits can be calculated. ‘The results are shown in Figure 5. Note that when you run this case, you must reset theTANK program defaulto consider the corrodedhydrotest case foran API-653 evaluation (i, within the Computation Control section of the program configuration menu), API-65 THICKNESS/CORROSION RESERVES Retiring Thickness Renaining Corrosion Deston Test Design Test Gay am) Gn on) 1 10681 360s 14692 2 91272 ‘39483 “ztzee 3 ‘55 Tels Tletas 4 54334 ‘3633 6 26290, Ti6t63 7 “opisie-ot 12268 “rea SWELL COURSE ALLOWED FLUID HEIGHTS Fluid Welgnts for Three Cases course -oesign Test eaureeo (ft) oe ae 2 gas 50.692 56.000 2 S732 46.058 «48.000, 3 aber 3ol89 ‘0000 4 Mees 20°827 432000 5 zine 221396 24.000 6 ita Bias 16.000, 7 9's B38 8.0000 & ois alae 60000 Figure 5 Case 3 Output Unknown Material - CA = 0.25 in, B= 10 [As yon can see from Figuee S, the tank can remain in service forfive years (actually more) at the design fill height of crude cil without repairs as long as hydrotest is not a consideration

    You might also like