You are on page 1of 4

Comparison

Fixed and floating roof design


The requirements here are similar to that of BS 2654 and API 650

Floors
The requirements for tank floors is similar to BS 2654 and API 650 Minimum plate thickness for stainless floors is given as 5 mm for lap-welded floors and 3 mm for butt-welded floors. For Carbon steel floors this are 6 mm and 5 mm respectively

Shells
Minimum nominal shell thickness. The table of minimum nominal shell thickness for carbon steel tanks is similar to that of BS 2654 except that at the larger tank diameters, thinner platting than BS2654 is allowed, although this is still thicker than that in API 650. A table of minimum nominal shell plate thickness is included for stainless steel shells

Calculated shell plate thickness.


Each shell course thickness is established from the greater value derived from two formulae. This is similar to the API 650 one-foot method except that: In the first formula, the design stress is 2/3 of the material minimum yield stress and the formula includes the design pressure (in the roof space) which can be neglected if < 10 mbar, and the corrosion allowance (if any). In the second formula, the test stress is 3/4 of the material minimum yield stress and this formula includes only the test pressure (in the roof space), which is higher than the design pressure.

For both of these formulae, the maximum permitted design stress is 260 N/mm2 (as is the case in BS 2654). The API 650 "variable point" method of shell thickness calculation is not included in the Standard. Roof-to-shell compression zone

The requirements here are similar to that of BS 2654 and API 650. Primary and secondary wind girders

The requirements here are similar to that of BS 2654 and API 650 except that, for negative pressures more than -8.5 mbar, a design methodology has to be agreed between the tank purchaser and manufacturer.

secondary wind girder requirements


The differing secondary wind girder requirements, between the British and American Codes, can be compared by designing a tank shell to both Codes using the same overall dimensions and design parameters. Take the British tank design illustration in Section 3.5.2.3. Here it was demonstrated that the shell required two secondary wind girders, each being an angle section of 200 x 1OO x 12 (27.3 kg/m). Designing the shell to the American Code, and using the same design parameters (i.e. external floating roof tank 96 m diameter and 19 m high having eight2.375 m wide courses), the shell is to be designed for a wind speed of 60 m/sec and the primary girder is 1 m down from the top of the shell. Note: The shell, being over 60 m diameter, is designed to the "variable design point" method. Also, due to the lower allowable stress for the American Code, which is based on the ultimate tensile stress of the shell material, rather than the minimum yield stress in the case ofthe British Code, the lower courses are thicker than those to the British Code, whereas the two upper courses are to the minimum allowable nominal thickness for construction purooses to the American Code. (.e. 10 mm to APl, and 12 mm to BS).

allowable compressive stress


Due to the difference in the values used for the allowable compressive stress S, (120 N/mm2 in the BS Code and 137.5 N/mm2 in the API Code), the compression area required to the BS Code is 14.6% greater than that required to the API Code.

Internal working pressure:


BS 2654 limits the internal working pressure to 56 mbar, but it is possible to design tanks for higher pressures by using the alternative Codes listed here: BS7777 (incorporating BS 4741 & 5397- Storage of products at low temperatures) and pressures up to 140 mbar. This pressure may be exceeded subject to agreement between the purchaser and contractor but for large diameter tanks the design of the roof-to-shell joint and anchorage might be limiting.

API 650 Appendix F Pressures up to 2y2lbs/in2 c (172 mbar) API 620 Pressures up to 15lbs/in2 G (1034 mbar) As is the case for BS 2654, these Codes also only allow for a small internal vacuum to be present in the tank. prEN 14015 Pressures up to 500 mbar, and vacuum up to 20 mbar. Except that for a vacuum condition above 8.5 mbar, the design methodology is not given in the Code but it shall be agreed between the purchaser and the manufacturer.

Conclusion:
Main Differences between BS 2654 and API 650
The following are the principal differences between the British Standard, BS 2654 [1] and the American Petroleum Institute Standard, API650 [2]: (a) API 650 specifies different allowable stresses for service and water testing. BS 2654 specifies an allowable stress for water testing only, which will allow oils with any specific gravity up to 1 to be stored in the tank. (b) The allowable design stresses of BS 2654 are based on guaranteed minimum yield strength whereas the design stresses of API 650 are based on the guaranteed minimum ultimate tensile strength. (c) BS 2654 specifies more stringent requirements for the weldability of the shell plates. (d) The notch ductility requirements of BS 2654 are based on the results of a great number of wide pl ate tests. This system considers a steel acceptable if, for the required thickness, the test plate does not fail at test temperature before it has yielded at least 0,5%. This system gives the same safety factor for all thicknesses. In API 650 a fixed value and test temperature is given for the impact tests for all thicknesses. As the tendency to brittle fracture increases with increasing plate thickness it means that API 650 in fact allows a lower safety f actor for large tanks than f or smaller ones. (e) The steels specified by API 650 guarantee their notch ductility by chemical analysis but without guaranteed impact values. BS 2654 requires guaranteed impact values where necessary. (f) BS 2654 gives a clearer picture of how to determine the size and location of secondary wind girders.

Choosing BS or API shell thickness design methods


The logical question which comes to mind when considering the BS and API methods for shell thicknesses is - which one is most advantageous from a commercial point of view? i.e. which gives the thinner shell for a given material? This question is not easily answered, because of the effect of the following variables in the equations; Specific gravity (SG) of the stored product. Any corrosion allowance (CA) which might be required. The varying ratio of minimum yield strength to minimum tensile strength of the range of steels used for the design of shells.