Proceedings of the ASME 2012 31st International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2012
July 1-6, 2012, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

OMAE2012-84035

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF LNG STORAGE TANKS

Pascinthe Saad
ConocoPhillips
Houston, TX, USA

ABSTRACT
A number of LNG storage tank designs have been
implemented on past and current projects. Such designs include
full containment tanks with a 9%Ni inner liner for primary
containment and storage of LNG at cryogenic temperature, a
carbon steel liner for secondary liquid containment, thermal
corner protection and vapor barriers on the inner tank and a
concrete outer tank for resistance to external loads.
LNG storage tanks are a key component of an LNG
liquefaction or regasification facility and there is only a handful
of specialized contractors that possess the tank technology and
track record of the materials involved and the construction
know how required for successful execution. This paper will
focus on factors influencing LNG storage tanks design
selection and construction execution strategies which can be a
function of functional requirements as well as project location.

INTRODUCTION
Selection of LNG Storage Tank design type is the first
of several steps in concept development. The selection of LNG
storage tank design typically considers siting and spacing
requirements specified in various safety standards for liquefied
natural gas facilities and NFPA 59A Standard for the
Production, Storage and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas. In
selecting a specific LNG storage tank design, the applicability
and suitability of the following design concepts are typically
evaluated: Single Containment Tanks, Double Containment
Tanks and Full Containment Tanks. There are several
advantages and disadvantages for each tank type. There are
also parameters which are dependent on project specific
regional and logistical constraints that drive an optimized
design that is best suited for fabrication and construction.
LNG STORAGE TANK DESIGNS

The following design concepts are typically evaluated: Single

Containment Tanks, Double Containment Tanks and Full
Containment Tanks.
x Single Containment Tanks (SCT) - A conventional single
containment LNG storage tank consists of an inner
container with material selection that is suitable for
cryogenic applications (9% nickel steel has been widely
selected for a number of LNG storage applications)
designed to contain the liquid LNG and a carbon steel
outer tank designed to contain the natural gas vapors at
pressures in the range of 1.5-2 psig. This pressure limit is
driven by the design and detailing of the roof to wall joint.
Insulation surrounds the inner tank to control heat leak into
the tank. The outer tank is not designed to contain LNG in
the event of an inner tank leak. A secondary means of
LNG containment (in case of a rupture of the inner tank) is
generally provided, such as an engineered earthen dike
designed to contain 110% of the full volume of LNG
contained within the inner tank. Many existing LNG tanks
in both, import and liquefaction terminals in the US and
world-wide are single containment tanks.
x Double Containment Tanks (DCT) - A conventional
double containment LNG storage tank is essentially a
single containment tank surrounded by a reinforced open
top concrete outer container designed to contain any spill
or leak from the inner tank, but not to hold any vapor
released during a spill. Similar to the single containment
design, the double containment tank consists of a suitable
cryogenic metal inner container (9% nickel steel has been
widely selected for a number of LNG storage applications)
designed to contain the LNG, surrounded by a carbon steel
outer wall designed to contain the natural gas vapors at
pressures ranging from 1.5-2 psig. The outer carbon steel
tank is not designed to contain LNG in the event of an
inner tank leak. The design relies on concrete outer

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/10/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2012 by ASME

container which functions as a secondary means of LNG

containment. This outer container is an engineered
reinforced concrete cylinder surrounding the outer carbon
steel tank shell and is designed to contain the full tank
volume plus some safety margin. Double containment
tanks are generally less advantageous than single and full
containment alternative. In fact, only a single double
containment tank has ever been built at a North American
LNG import terminal: the 160,000 m3 LNG storage tank at
the EcoElectrica facility in Puerto Rico. This tank has
been successfully operating since July 2000.
Full Containment Tanks - A conventional full containment
LNG storage tank consists of a suitable cryogenic metal
inner container (9% nickel steel has been widely selected
for a number of LNG storage applications) designed to
contain the LNG with a reinforced concrete outer tank
designed to contain the natural gas vapors at pressures
ranging from 1.5- 4 psig. The outer concrete tank is also
designed to contain cryogenic LNG in the event of an
inner tank leak or rupture. Insulation surrounds the inner
tank to control heat leak into the tank, thereby reducing
overall boil off gas ratio. Additionally the outer tank is
designed to act as the secondary LNG containment. As
such, no additional external spill containment is required.
This design has been predominant with the new North
American LNG import terminals due to the benefits such a
design offers on site layout in terms of overall footprint.

Advantages
Lowest installed $/m3
Fastest schedule
Regulatory approval has
been consistent
Side and bottom LNG
outlets can be used

Disadvantages
No containment of LNG or
vapor in a spill event
Requires an external dike for
secondary containment.
Thermal radiation and vapor
dispersion zones are very large
and require large acreage to
maintain proper exclusion zone
Increased maintenance cost
for periodic repair of the outer
tank
Paint system to prevent
corrosion.
accumulated storm water runoff
inside the secondary
Containment dike.
Poor resistance to external
forces
Breach of outer shell is more
likely than other tank designs
considered.
Lower design pressure may
result in increased size and cost
of vapor handling systems.

COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF TANK TYPES

Single Containment Tank
Double Containment Tank

Advantages
Lower installed cost per
cubic meter of LNG storage
than Full Containment.
Engineering and
construction schedule can
likely be reduced
Regulatory approval of

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/10/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Disadvantages
Higher installed $/m3.
Will not contain the LNG or
vapors in a spill condition
Lower pressure design
increases the size and
cost of the vapor handling
system when compared to full

Copyright 2012 by ASME

DCT design has set a

precedent for future
approvals.
Smaller thermal exclusion
zones and reduced
conventional onshore land
requirement (due to
protection provided by
outermost concrete
container)
Resistance to external
forces is improved with the
high reinforced
concrete dike.

containment.
Increased soil bearing
requirements and higher
foundation loads due to the
weight of the outer concrete
containment dike.
Added maintenance cost to
periodically repair and recoat
the outer tank
paint system to prevent
corrosion.
Accumulated storm water
runoff inside the secondary
containment dike
Personnel entry into the
annular space between the
outer tank shell and
the concrete dike for
maintenance is generally
considered as a confined
space and requires special
procedures

Full Containment Tank

or DCT; allows the

use of a smaller capacity
vapor handling system,
reducing the capital and
operating costs for the vapor
recovery system.
Best resistance to external
forces with complete
reinforced concrete outer
shell.
Concrete finish minimizes
coating maintenance of the
outer tank.

OTHER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

In parallel with tank type selection, overall configuration
and footprint is determined based on volume requirements of
the facility. Size and dimensions of an LNG tank are
parameters that are generally a function of the required storage
capacity as well as size and arrival frequency of LNG cargo
ships. Sizes of LNG tanks vary from the smaller capacity,
typically used in peak shaving facilities to the larger capacity
up to 200,000m3 or larger tanks used in high output
liquefaction and regasification facilities. Historically, tank
sizes have been limited by a variety of factors including:
x
x
x
x
x
x

Advantages
Highest integrity design: in
the event of an inner tank
failure, the outer
tank is designed to contain
both LNG and vapor.
No side or bottom
penetrations; all piping runs
through the roof,
Smallest thermal exclusion
zone; resulting in the smallest
footprint, most efficient use
of land.
Inherent higher pressure
capabilities than either SCT

Disadvantages
Highest installed $/m3.
Marginally the longest
engineering and construction
schedule (nominally 36 months
from tank contractor approval
to proceed).
Increased soil bearing
requirements and foundation
loads compared to Single and
double containment due to the
higher weight for the outer
concrete wall.

Site specific geotechnical conditions

Site specific seismic conditions
Availability and access to insulation material
(specifically bottom insulation)
9% Ni plate thickness
Internal pressure
Maximum free span of the suspended deck

Factors such as commodity pricing (specially nickel) has given

rise to alternative tank designs such as the membrane above
ground tank and the all concrete tank.
The ability to efficiently execute on site fabrication and
erection work as well as logistic considerations for importing
pre-fabricated modules may play a key role in accelerating
schedule and improving quality control.

REFERENCES
API Standard 620, Design and Construction of Large
Welded, Low-Pressure Storage Tanks
NFPA 59A, Standard for the Production, Storage and
Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/10/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2012 by ASME