TANQUES

© All Rights Reserved

0 views

TANQUES

© All Rights Reserved

- 预应力钢筋混凝土构件有限元模拟方法对比
- El bambú como material de construcción
- Fiber reinforced polymer composites: effect of off-axis loading
- Download.kaoyan.com
- 应力分析基础理论
- Edx Hydraulics Syllabus
- 螺栓计算报告
- Finite Element Analysis of Journal Bearing in Planet-Gear.pdf
- 1.pdf
- 78304009-Buried-Pipe
- d99572a5f3de4735acdce69e10207021
- Comparative Study of Rotating Angle-softened Truss Model and Modified Compression Field Theory
- Simulated Vehicle Loads of Asphalt Stress Relaxation Testing Research.pdf
- 带隔板圆形截面压力容器应力分析_高炳军
- 建筑结构
- geostudio-slope手册中文翻译.pdf
- CH06-P195繂P223
- Use Limitation of One Third of Stress Rising Method in American Code
- 双柱联合基础的设计方法
- Single Member

You are on page 1of 68

$3,7DQN,QVSHFWLRQ

)HEUXDU\

3ORLHVWL5RPDQLD 3DJHRI

1R]]OHDQG$SSXUWHQDQFH7DEOH6KHOO

&/ 5HLQIRUFLQJ3ODWH 1HFN )OQJ &RYHU :HOG

,WHP 'HVFULSWLRQ 6L]H (OHY /HQJWK :LGWK 7KLFN 6KDSH 7KLFN 7KLFN 7KLFN 7HOO 6SDFH &RPPHQWV

LQ PP PP PP PP PP PP PP WDOH 3DVV)DLO

0DQKROH % 12 2. )$,/

)LUHOLQH )$,/

2XWOHW % 12 127 )$,/

2XWOHW % 12 127 )$,/

'UDLQ % 12 2. )$,/

,QOHW % 12 2. )$,/

,QOHW % 12 2. )$,/

0DQKROH % 12 127 )$,/

8QNQRZQ 5RRI

)LUHOLQH

)LUHOLQH

)LUHOLQH

)LUHOLQH

)LUHOLQH

6KDSH

$ % & ' ( ) * + , -

5(9

Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 2461–2474

www.elsevier.com/locate/apm

liquid storage tanks using a simple beam model

M.N. Hamdan, Osama Abuzeid, Ahmed Al-Salaymeh *

Received 4 October 2005; received in revised form 17 August 2006; accepted 9 October 2006

Available online 1 December 2006

Abstract

Analysis of deformation and bending moment distributions along sections of the bottom plate of a large unanchored

cylindrical liquid storage tank with appreciable out-of-plane localized diﬀerential edge settlement is considered. The anal-

ysis uses approximate simple slender beam bending theory to model localized edge settlements of the plate and takes into

account the eﬀects of foundation compliance, initial settlement shape, shell and hydrostatic loadings and the shell-bottom

plate junction stiﬀness. The obtained model is solved, in the elastic range, using a combined analytical–numerical proce-

dure for the deﬂection and bending moment distributions along the beam. The obtained approximate solutions were dis-

played graphically for selected values of system parameters: edge settlement amplitude, plate thickness, foundation

stiﬀness, and hydrostatic load. The maximum allowable edge displacement amplitudes based on the plate yielding stress

predicted by the present study are compared for the selected values of system parameters with those recommended in

the API standard 653.

2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Unanchored large liquid storage steel tanks, depending on their design characteristics, soil stiﬀness and

loading history, are known to be prone to various shell and bottom plate settlement patterns. These settlement

modes may originate from diﬀerent causes and may be considered to be one or a combination of shell and

bottom plate basic settlement patterns: uniform, planar tilt, and out-of-plane settlement patterns [1,2]. Fur-

thermore, the out-of-plane settlement of a tank bottom plate may be one or combination of the following

three main types [2]: dish type, localized dispersions and/or bulged type, and edge settlement. Due to structural

ﬂexibility, a large tank is more likely to settle into a non-planar mode. Furthermore, while uniform and planar

rigid body tilt settlements of a tank are not known to cause a serious threat to its structural integrity, the out-

of-plane settlements can cause tank failures and thus are of main concern to engineers. They are the result of

*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +962 6 53 55 000; fax: +962 6 53 55 588.

E-mail address: salaymeh@ju.edu.jo (A. Al-Salaymeh).

0307-904X/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.apm.2006.10.001

2462 M.N. Hamdan et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 2461–2474

localized and usually randomly distributed deformations and thus induce localized overstresses and radial dis-

tortions, known as ovality. Beyond permissible displacement (e.g. strain) limits the induced localized stresses

can cause rupture and spillage of tank content. And an excessive ovality can cause ﬂoating roof malfunction.

Evaluation of the maximum allowable settlement amplitude, and consequently the decision on the ﬁtness-to-

service and the choice of an appropriate repair procedure for a tank with a given deformation proﬁle requires

in general a rigorous stress analysis of the tank structure, especially for the areas of the tank with noticeable

deformations. Such a stress analysis is, however, rather involved when carried out numerically, and, even after

introducing signiﬁcant simplifying assumptions, is complicated when done analytically. Therefore, various

researchers and engineers have in many cases used simpliﬁed stress–strain relations of simple beam bending,

thin plate or thin shell theories, simpliﬁed geometric considerations and boundary conditions, and ﬁeld data to

develop criteria deﬁning the allowable limits for various principal patterns of settlement of above ground

unanchored liquid storage cylindrical steel tanks, e.g. [1–14]; reviews of relevant literature are found in

[1,2,11–14]. Each of these criteria is usually concerned with a particular element of the tank structure (e.g.

the shell or the bottom plate) and with a single failure mechanism for a speciﬁed loading and boundary

conditions.

Marr et al. [2] analyzed the measure performance of 90 large cylindrical steel tanks used to store liquid at

ambient pressure and temperature. They used approximate stress analysis of simple beam bending theory and

arbitrary factors of safety to study the performance and reﬁne various available criteria for the allowable dis-

placement limits in various patterns of tank settlements. Their study has shown that in many cases the avail-

able criteria are over-conservative and are far from being standardized. Kamyab and Palmer [13] derived

expressions to radial deﬂections and stresses in the shell of large, ﬂoating roof, oil storage tanks with a har-

monic shape diﬀerential shell settlement at the shell base. They obtained these expressions using solutions of a

beam on an elastic foundation model for the shell and primary wind girder (top ring stiﬀener), obtained as a

simpliﬁed version of the modiﬁed Donnell equation for a thin-walled circular cylinder [15], as well as a sim-

pliﬁed membrane solution. Their model assumed the shell (e.g. the beam) to be prevented from radial move-

ment at the base and thus ignored eﬀects of base plate–shell interactions. Their analysis showed that the ratio

of the circumferential bending stiﬀness of the primary wind girder and the bending stiﬀness of the shell as well

as the shell extensional stiﬀness have signiﬁcant eﬀects on the shell out-of-plane displacement induced by the

out-of-plane shell settlement as the circumferential wave number exceeds certain critical values. Godoy and

Sosa [14] used a ﬁnite element method to investigate the displacements of the shell under out-of-plane settle-

ment of thin-walled cylindrical tanks with a ﬁxed top roof. Their analysis also ignores the eﬀect of the inter-

action between the tank base plate and the shell.

This work is concerned with an approximate theoretical analysis of bending stresses and deformation pat-

terns of a localized bottom plate edge type settlement pattern shown in Fig. 1 which is of major interest to

engineers as it is frequently found in large storage tanks and can lead to tank failure or costly unnecessary

repair if not evaluated properly. This edge type settlement develops when the tank shell vertical settlement

is not uniformly distributed around the periphery of the plate–shell junction (e.g. due to non-homogenous

geometry or material properties of the supporting foundations) leading usually to excessive and localized bot-

Tank Shell

Breakover Point

L

x

w0 (x) Q

w( x ) S

Kr

Bottom Plate Kt

M.N. Hamdan et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 2461–2474 2463

tom plate deformations near the plate–shell junction as shown for example in Fig. 1. Studies concerned with

this type of localized bottom plate out-of-plane settlements, which may take diﬀerent patterns (API standard

635 [1]), are, to the authors best knowledge, not readily available in the open literature.

It is noted that the API standard 635 provides guidelines for measurement of the localized depression type

edge settlement and recommends using the following criterion to evaluate the allowable edge deﬂection limit,

S/L 6 0.03083 (S and L have the same units), where S is plate edge maximum deﬂection and L is the radial

length of the plate settled area as shown in Fig. 1. The API standard 635 also provides a set of curves for eval-

uating S for diﬀerent values of the tank diameter in cases where the area of the localized edge includes ﬂoor

lap-welds approximately parallel to the shell and another for edge settled areas with no ﬂoor welds, or only

ﬂoor butt-welds, or lap-welds in the ﬂoor that are approximately perpendicular to the shell. The API standard

635 indicates that these curves which were developed for a plate thickness of 1/4 in. in thickness may be used

with reasonable accuracy for plate thickness in the range of 5/16 to 3/8 in. and it also provides an interpolation

formula for evaluating S for the case for which the area of the localized edge settlement has welds at an arbi-

trary angles to the shell. The API standard 635, however, does not indicate the deformation analysis procedure

and the failure mode used in developing these curves, nor do these curves show the eﬀects of plate thickness,

and foundation and shell ﬂexibilities where these ﬂexibilities tend to relax part of the stresses induced in the

bottom plate by local settlements adjacent to the shell. Guber [6] developed a set of curves for the allowable

settlement limits for partial ring type depressions of the bottom plate adjacent to the shell which may be as

long as d < D/4 and d < 2d, where d is diameter of the largest horizontal circle that can be inscribed inside

the depression, D is the tank diameter and d is the length of the partial ring depression as shown in Fig. 2.

These curves show that at failure the allowable settlement limits for local edge depressions range from d/17

to d/33 for depression with single pass welds and from d/13 to d/26 for depression with multiple pass welds.

Marr et al. [2] indicated that the limits in these curves may be expressed by the approximate relation:

S 6 d (2.25rfD/d 0.75EFSh)0.5, where E is the modulus of elasticity, FS is a factor of safety, h is the tank

height, and rf is the ultimate stress of the weld in the bottom plate; (S, d, D, and h are measured in meters).

They concluded that, based on their evaluation of performance study of large steel cylindrical liquid storage

tanks at various facilities, the above relation provides a ‘‘rational’’ limit on the maximum allowable bottom

plate settlement adjacent to the shell and recommended that the factor of safety FS should be 64 in cases

where localized yielding is possible and 62 in case where severe overstress and rupture may occur. Recently

Hamdan [11] used simple beam theory to analyze a localized edge settlement depression in a tank bottom

plate which is assumed to be resting on a Winkler foundation, elastically restrained against translation and

rotation at one end (i.e. took into account of ﬂexibility of the shell–plate connection) and hinged at the other

end as shown in Fig. 1. He used a linear model in which the initial beam deformation does not explicitly

h

d

2464 M.N. Hamdan et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 2461–2474

appear in the governing equation but was taken into account in the evaluation of the axial (e.g. membrane)

force. He obtained an approximate analytical solution for the beam deﬂection and the associated bending

moment distribution by assuming a constant axial force, which was evaluated using only the beam initial

depression proﬁle. It is noted that a similar approximate approach (e.g. use of a linear beam element model

to study the bottom plate deformation) has been used by Malhotra and Veletsos [16,17] to study the uplift-

ing resistance of the base plate of large cylindrical liquid storage tanks. Their results showed that the

approximate beam model yields reasonably accurate predictions of the behavior of the uplifted bottom

plate. Plaut and Johnson [18] used the classical simple beam bending theory to model the free vibration

of a loaded elastic shallow arc about its static equilibrium conﬁguration. They assumed the arch has an ini-

tial shallow half-sinusoidal shape, pinned ends, subjected to a sinusoidal static lateral load and attached to a

linear elastic foundation. They used linear diﬀerential equation theory to solve for the static deﬂection of the

beam (i.e. arc) taking into account the fact that the axial force is independent of the axial coordinates but is

dependent on the loaded (i.e. initial) as well as loaded beam deﬂections. They were able to obtain a simple

formula for the static deﬂection of the loaded arch, which is independent of the static lateral load. They

indicated that they were able to obtain this simple and unusual result because of the special choice of

the initial shape and load distribution. Fung and Kaplan [19] used an ‘‘elaborate’’ general Fourier series

solution to determine the buckling load for a shallow-half-sine-arc under static lateral loading and with axial

and lateral elastic end supports, but not attached to an elastic foundation. They used the usual Euler–Ber-

noulli beam theory for a small defection to derive the governing equation.

In the present work the model presented in [11], which accounts for an edge settlement in the form of a 1/4-

sine initial deﬂection only partially in the imposed boundary conditions and in the calculation of the axial

force, is modiﬁed as in [18,19] so that it accounts for the initial beam deﬂection in the governing equation

as well. The modiﬁed model, which takes into account the dependence of the axial force on the actual as well

as initial beam deﬂections, is solved using a combined iterative-linear diﬀerential equation approach. The

obtained results in this work are plotted and used to assess the eﬀects of various system parameters on the

maximum allowable edge settlement amplitude using, as in [11], the yield stress criterion (that is: for given sys-

tem parameters, a settlement amplitude which results in yielding anywhere along the beam span is considered

above the maximum allowable edge settlement). To assess the usefulness of the present approach, the maxi-

mum allowable edge settlement predicted in the present work are compared to those suggested by the API

Standards 653 [1].

The localized edge depression of a uniform bottom plate resting on Winkler foundation of stiﬀness K per

unit area with settlement extending over a plate section of radial length L and having a maximum displace-

ment amplitude S at the plate edge is analyzed by considering the beam model shown in Fig. 1.

The uniform beam model representing the deformed strip is assumed to be of thickness t, width c, cross-

sectional area ﬂexural rigidity EI, resting on elastic foundation of stiﬀness K and subjected to a uniform liquid

pressure Q. At the interior (break-over) end point (e.g. at x = 0) the beam vertical deﬂection w and bending

moment M are assumed, as was done in [11,16,17], to be zero. And at the connecting end to the shell, the beam

is assumed to be elastically constrained against both rotation and axial displacement by a rotational and a

translational linear springs of stiﬀness Kr and Kt, respectively. These end springs are assumed to be induced

by a linearly elastic and inﬁnitely long cylindrical shell subjected at its base, due to hydrostatic loading, to

an axi-symmetric bending moment Ma and transverse shearing force Na, where Ma, Na, Kr and Kt are given

by [20]

0:5

Ect2s ðts =RÞ

Kr ¼ ; ð1Þ

2½3ð1 l2 Þ0:75

1:5

Ecðts =RÞ

Kt ¼ 1:5

; ð2Þ

½3ð1 l2 Þ

M.N. Hamdan et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 2461–2474 2465

1 ccRhts

Ma ¼ 1 ; ð3Þ

bh ½12ð1 l2 Þ0:5

1 ccRhts

N a ¼ 2b ; ð4Þ

R ½12ð1 l2 Þ0:5

0:25

where b ¼ ð3ð1 l2 Þ=R2 t2s Þ , ts is the shell wall thickness, R is the tank radius, h is the tank (liquid) height, c

is the store liquid speciﬁc weight, and l is the Poisson’s ratio.

Using the classical Euler–Bernoulli bending beam linear theory the equilibrium total deﬂection y of the

above described beam shown in Fig. 1, in the presence of a constant force N normal to the beam cross-sec-

tional area, may be described by the following ordinary diﬀerential equation [18,19]:

d4 ðy y 0 Þ d2 y

EI N þ Kðy y 0 Þ ¼ Q; ð5Þ

ox4 ox2

where y0 is the initial deﬂection of the unloaded beam, and N is the axial force, positive when it produces

tension, given by

N ¼ K t U þ N a ; ð6Þ

where U is the axial displacement of the end translational linear spring Kt. In this work the beam is assumed to

be inextensible; thus U becomes equal to the axial shortening of the bent inextensible beam, which is given by

[19,21]:

Z l " 2 2 #

1 dy dy 0

U ¼ dx: ð7Þ

2l 0 dx dx

Detailed derivation of a more general version of Eq. (5) may be found in [19]. Based on the assumptions given

in the previous section, the four boundary conditions associated with Eq. (5), considering the case where yield-

ing may take place at the bottom plat (beam)–shell junction (which in the sequel will be simply referred to as

beam–shell junction) but not at any point along the beam span, may be speciﬁed as follows [16–19]:

d2 ðy y 0 Þ

At x ¼ 0 : y ¼ 0 and ¼ 0;

dx2 8

dðy y 0 Þ ð8Þ

d2 ðy y 0 Þ < k r þ Ma for MðLÞ < M y ;

At x ¼ L : y ¼ S and M ¼ EI ¼ dx

dx 2 :

M y for MðLÞ P M y ;

where S is a constant localized diﬀerential edge settlement of the shell and My is the yielding moment at the

beam–shell junction, i.e. at x = L. It is noted that in this work, the shell thickness is assumed, as in a typical

tank, to be greater than (about twice) the plate thickness so that yielding at the beam–shell junction, if it oc-

curs, is initiated in beam and not in shell. Therefore, My in Eq. (8) will be taken to be the beam yielding mo-

ment. Without loss of generality, the initial shape of the beam before loading (e.g. the localized edge settlement

proﬁle) is assumed to be given by

y 0 ðxÞ ¼ S sinðpx=2Þ; ð9Þ

where S, as deﬁned above, is a shell localized diﬀerential settlement at the beam–shell junction. Upon intro-

ducing the dimensionless quantities:

NL2 N a L2 K t L3

w ¼ y=L; S ¼ S=L; w0 ¼ y 0 =L; n ¼ x=L; N¼ ; Na ¼ ; Kt ¼ ;

EI EI EI

K rL K f L4 QL3 M yL M aL LMðnÞ d2 wðnÞ

Kr ¼ ; K¼ ; Q¼ ; My ¼ ; Ma ¼ ; MðnÞ ¼ ¼ ð10Þ

EI EI EI EI EI EI dn2

2466 M.N. Hamdan et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 2461–2474

and using Eqs. (7) and (9), the above model in Eqs. (5), (6) and (8) takes the dimensionless form:

d4 w d2 w

N þ Kw ¼ Q þ S e sinðpn=2Þ; ð11Þ

dn4 dn2

Z 2

K t 1 dw p2

N ¼ dn þ K t S 2 þ N a ð12Þ

2 0 dn 16

subject to the dimensionless boundary conditions:

d2 w

At n ¼ 0; w ¼ 0 and ¼ 0;

dn2

8

>

> dw p2 S ð13Þ

2 < K r þ Ma for Mð1Þ < M y ;

dw dn 4

At n ¼ 1; w ¼ S and Mð1Þ ¼ 2 ¼

dn >

> p2

S

: M for Mð1Þ P M y ;

y

4

where

p4

Se ¼ Kþ S ð14Þ

16

is a dimensionless deﬂection parameter and S is a dimensionless parameter as deﬁned in Eq. (10). Note that,

since the integral in Eq. (12) is a deﬁnite integral, the dimensionless axial force N parameter in Eq. (11) is an

unknown constant which depends on the unknown deﬂection w. Also, the parameter K in Eq. (11) is a known

constant. Consequently, Eq. (11) is a linear non-homogenous diﬀerential equation with constant coeﬃcients,

which can be implicitly solved using standard methods of linear diﬀerential equations with constant coeﬃ-

cients. Accordingly, the solution of Eq. (11) is written as

wðnÞ ¼ wp ðnÞ þ wH ðnÞ; ð15Þ

where wp is the particular solution, given by

Q

wp ¼ þ S a sinðpn=2Þ; ð16Þ

K

where

4

p4 p p2 N

Sa ¼ K þ S þ þK ð17Þ

16 16 4

and wH is the homogenous solution, which may be assumed in the form:

wH ¼ Aern ; ð18Þ

where A and r are constants. Substituting Eq. (18) into the homogenous part of Eq. (11), leads to the following

fourth-order characteristic equation:

r4 N r2 þ K ¼ 0: ð19Þ

The four roots of the above equation are

N 1 2 1=2

ri ¼ N 4K ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; 4: ð20Þ

2 2

It is noted that the behavior of the solutionwH, and thus that of the total beam static deﬂection w, will depend

on weather the roots ri in Eq. (20) are real, complex, or pure imaginary, and on being repeated or non-

repeated. The diﬀerent types of characteristic roots ri give rise to the possibility of diﬀerent bifurcation points.

In the present work, based on preliminary numerical simulation results, the analysis will be limited to the case

N 2 < 4K, which is usually satisﬁed in many practical designs. For such a case, the four characteristic roots ri in

Eq. (20) become the set of two complex conjugate pairs:

M.N. Hamdan et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 2461–2474 2467

r3;4 ¼ ða1 b1 Þ1=2 ; ð21Þ

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

where a1 ¼ N =2 and b1 ¼ 4K N 2 =2 are real constant parameters. For convenience, the above characteristic

complex roots ri are represented in a simpler rectangular form as follows: the root r1 may be rewritten as

1=2 1=2 1=2

r1 ¼ ðR1 ejh Þ ¼ R1 ejh=2 ¼ R1 ðcosðhÞ j sinðhÞÞ ¼ a jb; ð22Þ

qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ pﬃﬃﬃﬃ pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ!

b 1 4K N 2

R1 ¼ a21 þ b21 ¼ K ; h ¼ tan1 ¼ tan1 ; ð23Þ

a1 N

where

h h

a ¼ K 1=4 cos ; and b ¼ K 1=4 sin :

2 2

Following a similar procedure as above yields:

r2 ¼ a þ jb; r3 ¼ a jb; and r4 ¼ a þ jb; ð24Þ

where a and b are real constant as deﬁned before in Eq. (23). Substituting for the characteristic roots ri from

Eqs. (22) and (24) into the homogenous solution in Eq. (18), using Euler identity e±jh = cos(h) ± j sin(h) and

Eq. (16), yields the following general solution for the beam dimensionless static deﬂection w(n):

Q pn

wðnÞ ¼ þ S a sin þ ean ½A1 cosðbnÞ þ A2 sinðbnÞ þ ean ½A3 cosðbnÞ þ A4 sinðbnÞ; ð25Þ

K 2

where Ai, i = 1, . . . , 4 are unknown constants to be determined from the boundary conditions speciﬁed in Eq.

(13). Substituting Eq. (25) and its derivatives into the two sets of boundary conditions in Eq. (13), and using a

direct substation procedure to solve for the constants Ai, leads to the following two solutions for the beam

static deﬂection wi(n):

Q

wðnÞ ¼ þ S a sinðpn=2Þ

K

þ ean ½A3 ðe2an 1Þ Q=K cosðbnÞ þ ½G þ ða1 þ a2 A3Þðe2an 1Þ sinðbnÞ ; ð26Þ

where

ðb2 a2 Þ Q

K

S KQ S a ea þ KQ cosðbÞ G sinðbÞ

ð1 e2a Þ cosðbÞ

G¼ a1 ¼ ; ; a 2 ¼ ; ð27Þ

2ab ð1 þ e2a Þ sinðbÞ ð1 þ e2a Þ sinðbÞ

8h 2 i

>

> p

ðS a SÞ þ M a ea a3 cosðbÞ a4 sinðbÞ

>

> 4

>

< for Mð1Þ < M y ;

a5 cosðbÞ þ a6 sinðbÞ

A3 ¼ h 2 i ð28Þ

>

> p

ðS a SÞ þ M a ea a7 cosðbÞ a8 sinðbÞ

>

> 4

>

: for Mð1Þ P M y

a9 cosðbÞ þ a10 sinðbÞ

with

a3 ¼ 2aba1 ðe2a 1Þ ða2 b2 ÞðQ=KÞ 2abG þ K r ½aQ=K þ bG þ ba1 ðe2a þ 1Þ;

a4 ¼ Gða2 b2 Þ 2abQ=K þ a1 ða2 b2 Þðe2a þ 1Þ þ K r ½bQ=K aG þ aa1 ðe2a 1Þ;

a5 ¼ ða2 b2 þ 2aba2 Þðe2a 1Þ þ K r ½ða þ ba2 Þðe2a þ 1Þ;

a6 ¼ ðe2a þ 1Þ½a2 ða2 b2 Þ 2ab þ K r ðaa2 bÞðe2a 1Þ;

ð29Þ

a7 ¼ 2aba1 ðe2a 1Þ ða2 b2 ÞðQ=KÞ 2abG;

a8 ¼ Gða2 b2 Þ 2abðQ=KÞ þ a1 ða2 b2 Þðe2a þ 1Þ;

a9 ¼ ða2 b2 þ 2aba2 Þðe2a 1Þ; and

2 2 2a

a10 ¼ ½a2 ða b Þ 2abðe þ 1Þ:

2468 M.N. Hamdan et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 2461–2474

Note that Eqs. (26) and (28) deﬁne two solutions for the beam static elastic deﬂection wi(n). The ﬁrst of the two

solutions uses the value of A3 from Eq. (28) corresponding to the case where the beam maximum bending mo-

ment Mð1Þ at the beam–shell junction does not reach the yield value M y . The second of these solution uses the

other value of A3 value from Eq. (28) corresponding to the case Mð1Þ P M y . Both of these solutions, however,

are valid provided that the dimensionless maximum bending moment d2w(n)/dn2 at any point along the beam

span (except for the point at the beam–shell junction) does not exceed the yield moment M y , where, by diﬀer-

entiating Eq. (26), one obtains:

d2 wðnÞ p2 an 2an 2 2 Q

¼ S a sinðpn=2Þ þ e 2aba 1 ðe 1Þ þ ðb a Þ 2abG cosðbnÞ

dn2 4 K

2 2 Q 2 2 2an

þ Gða b Þ 2ab þ a1 ða b Þð1 þ e Þ sinðbnÞ

K

2 2

2an 2 2

2an

þ ða b Þ þ 2aba2 ðe 1Þ cosðbnÞ þ a2 ða b Þ 2ab ð1 þ e Þ sinðbnÞ A3 ; ð30Þ

where A3 ; S a ; a1 , a2, G, a and b are parameters as deﬁned by Eqs. (17), (23), (27)–(29). It is to be noted that all

of the parameters in these equations needed to evaluate the beam deﬂection wi(n) in Eq. (26) and the associated

bending moment distribution in Eq. (30) are function of the yet unknown axial force N deﬁned by Eq. (12)

which involves a deﬁnite integral of the dimensionless slope dw dn

, given by

dwðnÞ p Q

¼ S a cosðpn=2Þ þ ean a þ bG þ ba1 ðe2an þ 1Þ þ A3 ða þ ba2 Þðe2an þ 1Þ cosðbnÞ

dn 2 K

Q 2an 2an

þ b aG þ aa1 ðe 1Þ þ A3 ðaa2 bÞðe 1Þ sinðbnÞ ; ð31Þ

K

which is also involves some of above parameters that are function of the unknown axial force N . Thus the

present solution in Eq. (26) along with Eq. (12) is an implicit one that, for a given set of system parameters,

is solved iteratively using a specially designed MATLAB program. The iteration process starts with an initial

2

guess for the axial force N ¼ N 0 ¼ p16 K t S 2 þ N a . Then a new value of the axial force N is calculated using Eq.

(12) along with Eq. (31) where all of the parameters in these equations were calculated using the value of A3

from Eq. (28) corresponding to the case of no yielding at the beam–shell junction. The iteration used Simp-

son’s rule to evaluate the deﬁnite integral in Eq. (12) and was assumed to converge when the diﬀerence

between the newly calculated value of N and the previous one is less than 1 · 105. Then the maximum

bending moment at the beam right end Mð1Þ, obtained using Eq. (30), is compared with the yielding moment

M y : if Mð1Þ is found to be greater than or equal to M y the iteration process is repeated but with the expression

for A3 is replaced with that corresponding to the case Mð1Þ P M y as deﬁned in Eq. (28). Results of the numer-

ical simulation obtained using the present solution are presented and discussed in the next section.

The behavior of the elastic deﬂection conﬁguration w(n) given by Eq. (26) and the associated bending

moment distribution along the beam span given by Eq. (30) of the beam model shown in Fig. 1, is analyzed

using the simulation procedure discussed in the previous section. The analysis was carried out for selected

range of values of the following system parameters: edge settlement, S, foundation modulus, K, tank (liquid

level) height, h, and the plate thickness t. Samples of the obtained results are displayed in Figs. 3–9. The solu-

tions displayed in all of these ﬁgures are for water ﬁlled mild steel tanks for which E = 2.06 · 1011 N/m2

(except those in Figs. 3 and 4 for which E = 2.06 · 1010 N/m2), yield stress ry = 6 · 108 N/m2, Poisson’s ratio

m = 0.3, shell thickness ts = 15 mm, speciﬁc weight of stored liquid c = 9820 N/m3; all of the system para-

meters I; Q; K t ; K r ; N a ; M a , and N are calculated per beam width. In obtaining these results, the beam dimen-

2

sionless bending moment MðnÞ ¼ ddnw2 was, for each given set of system parameters and edge settlement S,

compared at each point along the beam span with dimensionless yield moment M y , which for the present beam

is given by

M.N. Hamdan et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 2461–2474 2469

3Lry

My ¼ ; ð32Þ

Et

where ry and t are as deﬁned above. If jM(n)j P jMyj at any of the beam interior points (e.g. for any n < 1)

then the corresponding edge settlement S is considered above the allowable limit. And the edges settlement S

was considered below the allowable limit when jM(n)j < jMyj even when yielding takes place at beam–shell

junction (i.e. even when jM(1)j = jMyj. It is noted that the above settlement evaluation procedure assumes

yielding at a beam section to take place when the maximum bending stress at that section exceeds the beam

(e.g. plate) material yield stress ry and thus ignores the eﬀect of the normal (e.g. membrane) stress due to the

axial force N . This is justiﬁed by the fact that the normal stress due to N is usually small (i.e. <5%ry), [12], so

that ignoring this normal stress is not expected to have a signiﬁcant eﬀect on the obtained results. As noted in

Section 1, the API Standard 653 recommends evaluating the allowable edge settlement limit using the general

relation:

S

S¼ 6 :0308 ðS and L have same unitsÞ: ð33Þ

L

Fig. 3 shows the beam deﬂection and associated bending moment distributions along the beam length for the

case Kf = 5 · 105 N/m2, h = 8 m, E = 2.06 · 1010 N/m2, t = 5 mm and S = 3 cm, which can generally be con-

sidered as a moderately loaded beam on a moderately compact foundation. It can be seen from this ﬁgure that

the beam defection tends to reverse curvature at a point close to its junction point with the shell and does not

show yielding at any point along its span or at its junction with the shell.

Fig. 4 shows the beam deﬂection and associated bending moment distributions along the beam length for

the case Kf = 5 · 106 N/m2, h = 12 m, E = 2.06 · 1010 N/m2, t = 7 cm and S = 4 cm, as well as the initial beam

deﬂection (e.g. the unloaded, h = 0, beam deﬂection). In this case the foundation is more compact and the load

is higher than those in the previous case. In this case the beam shows yielding at its junction point with shell,

with no yielding or noticeable reversal of curvature at any intermediate point along its span.

Fig. 3. Beam deﬂection and moment. (a) Deﬂection, (b) moment. h = 8 m, Kf = 5 · 105 N/m2, t = 5.0 mm, ts = 0.015 m, ry = 6 · 108

N/m2, s = 0.03 m; (- - -) initial deﬂection.

2470 M.N. Hamdan et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 2461–2474

Fig. 4. Beam deﬂection and moment. (a) Deﬂection, (b) moment. h = 12 m, Kf = 5 · 106 N/m2, t = 7.0 mm, ts = 0.015 m, ry = 6 · 108

N/m2, s = 0.04 m; (- - -) initial deﬂection.

Fig. 5. Beam deﬂection and moment. (a) Deﬂection, (b) moment. h = 15 m, Kf = 5 · 104 N/m2, t = 4.0 mm, ts = 0.015 m, ry = 6 · 108

N/m2, s = 0.03 m; (- - -) initial deﬂection.

Fig. 5 displays the beam deﬂection and associated bending moment for the case Kf = 5 · 104 N/m2,

h = 15 m, E = 2.06 · 1011 N/m2, t = 4 cm and S = 3 cm. In this case the foundation is relatively soft, the

load is higher and the beam is thinner than those in the previous cases. In this case the beam undergoes

yielding at its junction point with shell as well as along a section of signiﬁcant length near the point of

M.N. Hamdan et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 2461–2474 2471

Fig. 6. Foundation modulus eﬀect. (a) Deﬂection, (b) moment. t = 7.5 mm, h = 12 m, s = 0.03 m, ts = 0.015 m, ry = 6 · 108 N/m2. (—)

Kf = 2.2 · 106 N/m2, (- -) Kf = 5 · 106 N/m2, (- Æ - Æ) Kf = 1 · 107 N/m2, ( ) Kf = 5 · 107 N/m2.

Fig. 7. Liquid height eﬀect. (a) Deﬂection, (b) moment. t = 7.5 mm, Kf = 5 · 106 N/m2, s = 0.03 m, ts = 0.015 m, ry = 6 · 108 N/m2. (—)

h = 10 m, (- -) h = 11 m, (- Æ - Æ) h = 12 m, ( ) h = 13 m.

its junction with the shell. It is noted that the present analytical solution in Eqs. (26) and (30) are valid only,

as indicated above and in Section 3, provided that no plastic yielding takes place along any intermediate

2472 M.N. Hamdan et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 2461–2474

Fig. 8. Plate thickness eﬀect. (a) Deﬂection, (b) moment. h = 12 m, Kf = 5 · 106 N/m2, s = 0.03 m, ts = 0.015 m, ry = 6 · 108 N/m2. (—)

t = 5.5 mm, (- -) t = 7.0 mm, (- Æ - Æ) t = 7.5 mm, ( ) t = 8.5 mm.

Fig. 9. Edge settlement eﬀect. (a) Deﬂection, (b) moment. h = 14 m, Kf = 5 · 106 N/m2, t = 6.0 mm, ts = 0.015 m, ry = 6 · 108 N/m2. (—)

s = 0.03 m, (- -) s = 0.04 m, (- Æ - Æ) s = 0.05 m, ( ) s = 0.06 m.

M.N. Hamdan et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 2461–2474 2473

point along the beam span (yielding is allowed only at the beam–shell junction). Despite their invalidity, the

results in Fig. 5 are used to indicate that the combination of a relatively high load and a relatively soft foun-

dation can lead to yielding failure at a signiﬁcant section length of the beam near the beam–shell junction. It

is noted that all solutions which showed yielding at intermediate points along the beam length were

excluded.

It is noted that the behavior of beam defection and associated bending moment is sensitive to the combined

eﬀect of its various system parameters. This behavior may exhibit a wide variation for a small deviation in any

of the presently studied, or other, system parameters. However, based on the example results presented in

Figs. 3–9, the following remarks may be made:

• The system parameters, namely the plate thickness and elastic foundation modulus, have a signiﬁcant eﬀect

on the edge settlement allowable limit, equilibrium deﬂection shape and associated bending moment

distribution.

• The eﬀect of the liquid height on the allowable edge settlement, deﬂection shape and associated moment

distribution becomes more signiﬁcant only when the tank foundation is relatively soft or is highly rigid.

• The evaluation of the permissible edge settlement limit using the above API Standard 653 relation in Eq.

(33) is, depending on the system parameters, in many cases appears to fairly conservative. For example, it

can be seen from Fig. 9 that for a base plate thickness t = 6 mm, settlement radial length L = 1 m and foun-

dation stiﬀness K = 5 · 105 N/m2, the obtained allowable edge settlement is S 45 mm which is about 46%

higher than the allowable limit S = 30.8 mm allowed by the above API Standard 653.

• For a relatively soft foundation, the proﬁle of the beam deﬂection (e.g. settlement) as well as that of the

corresponding bending moment tend to have only a single maximum located at a point within the beam

span (e.g. n < 1): that is, no reverse of curvature of the beam deﬂection is observed at any point along the

beam span. As the foundation modulus is decreased and the lateral load (e.g. liquid height h) is increased,

the amplitude of the maximum deﬂection and that of the maximum bending moment tend to increase and

move away from the beam–shell junction towards the center of the beam. For a relatively low foundation

modulus the amplitude of this maximum deﬂection becomes greater than the allowable limit, i.e. the cor-

responding maximum bending moment reaches the yield limit at a point n < 1 due to excessive deforma-

tion, even when the amplitude of the settlement S is kept well bellow the allowable limit.

• For a relatively rigid foundation, the deﬂection proﬁle and associated bending moment proﬁle tend to

exhibit local maximum(s) and reversal of curvature sign, e.g. the static deﬂection proﬁle tends to develop

localized bulge(s). The induced bulge becomes more localized; its maximum amplitude increases, and tends

to move closer to the bottom plate (beam)–shell junction as the foundation stiﬀness of the loaded tank is

increased. In this case the maximum of the deﬂection proﬁle and that of the bending moment tend to be at

the beam–shell junction (i.e. yielding is ﬁrst initiated at the beam–shell junction and wmax ¼ S. It is noted

that an induced bulge is usually associated with highly localized stresses, which may cause serious problems

if their maximum amplitude exceeds a certain limit.

• Based on the above results, one may conclude that a moderately rigid foundation is the best practical choice

for reducing the possibility of bulge formation and yielding due to excessive deﬂection at points along the

beam span.

5. Conclusion

The simple bending theory of a linear beam has been used to obtain an approximate analytic solution for

the deformation proﬁle and associated bending moment distribution in the bottom plate area close to a local-

ized diﬀerential shell settlement of a large liquid storage tank. The present approach has the advantages of

being simple and requires signiﬁcantly less computational eﬀorts when compared to other approximate ana-

lytical and numerical methods using plate theory. Despite its limitations such as, i.e. its inability to account in

a more rigorous way for the shell–plate interaction, the present approximate solution may be used to gain

insight into the eﬀects of various system parameters on the allowable edge settlement amplitude and the ini-

tiation of localized base plate bulges.

2474 M.N. Hamdan et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 31 (2007) 2461–2474

References

[1] American Petroleum Institute Publication, API standards 653, Washington DC, USA 1995; B1–B11.

[2] W.A. Marr, J.A. Ramos, T.W. Lambe, Criteria for settlement of tanks, J. Geotechn. Eng. Div., Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Eng., ASCE 108

(GT8) (1982) 1017–1039.

[3] R.A. Bell, J. Iwakiri, Settlement comparison used in tank-failure study, J. Geotechn. Div., ASCE 106 (GT2) (1980) 153–169.

[4] E.E. DeBeer, Foundation problem of petroleum tanks, Ann. L’Inst. Belge du Petrole 6 (1969) 25–40.

[5] D.A. Greenwood, Diﬀerential settlement tolerance of cylindrical steel tanks for bulk liquid storage, in: Proceedings of the Conference

on Settlement of Structures, Cambridge University, British Geotechnical Society, A Halsted Press Books, John Wiley and Sons Inc.,

New York, NY, 1974, pp. 35–97.

[6] F.H. Guber, Design engineering contributions to quality of tankage, International Institute of Welding Annual Assembly, Budapest,

Hungary 1974, pp. 99–129.

[7] K. Hayashi, Evaluation of localized diﬀerential tank bottom settlement, Internal report, EXXON Research and Engineering Co.

1973, Report No. EE12TR.73.

[8] J.M. Langeveld, The design of large steel storage tanks for crude oil and natural gas, in: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the

International Institute of Welding, 1974, pp. 35–95.

[9] Z. Malik, J. Morton, C. Ruiz, Ovalization of cylindrical tanks as a result of foundation settlement, J. Strain Anal. 12 (4) (1977) 339–

348.

[10] J.E. Rinne, Tanks on soft soils are economic challenge, Pet. Chem. Eng. 35 (10) (1963) 56–58.

[11] M.N. Hamdan, A simpliﬁed analysis of edge settlement of a large above ground liquid storage tank, in: Proceedings Sixth Saudi

Engineering Conference, KFUPM, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 3, 2002, pp. 19–35.

[12] S. Yoshida, M. Tomiya, Behavior of localized bottom bulge in above ground oil storage tanks under liquid pressure, in: Proceedings

of the ASME 1999 PVP Conference, 395, pp. 67–73.

[13] H. Kamyab, S.C. Palmer, Analysis of displacements and stresses in oil storage tanks caused by diﬀerential settlement, Int. J. Mech.

Sci. 203 (1989) 61–70.

[14] L.A. Godoy, E.M. Sosa, Localized support settlements of thin-walled storage tanks, Thin-Walled Struct. 41 (2003) 941–955.

[15] L.S.D. Morley, An improvement on Donnell’s approximation for thin-walled circular cylinder, Quart. J. Mech. 12 (1959) 90–99.

[16] P.K. Malhotra, A.S. Veletsos, Beam model for base-uplifting analysis of cylindrical tanks, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE 120 (12) (1994)

3471–3488.

[17] P.K. Malhotra, A.S. Veletsos, Uplifting analysis of base plate in cylindrical tanks, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE 120 (12) (1994) 3489–3505.

[18] R.H. Plaut, E.R. Johnson, The eﬀects of initial thrust and elastic foundation on the vibration frequencies of a shallow arch, J. Sound

Vib. 78 (4) (1981) 565–571.

[19] Y.C. Fung A. Kaplan, Buckling of low arches or curved beams, US National Advisory Council for Aeronautics, NACA, Technical

Notes 2840, Washington 1952.

[20] S.P. Timoshenko, S. Woinowsky-Krieger, Theory of Plates and Shells, McGraw-Hill International Book Co., New York, NY, 1984.

[21] R.S. Langley, The eﬀect of linearization and longitudinal deformation on the predicted response of non-linear beams, J. Sound Vib.

116 (2) (1987) 390–393.

)HEUXDU\

3ORLHVWL5RPDQLD 3DJHRI

$FFHVV6WUXFWXUH±&KHFNOLVW

/DGGHUDWWDFKPHQWVWRFRQFUHWHEDVHFRUURVLRQEURNHQ

%ROWVDQGIDVWHQHUVRQVWDLUZD\VDQGODGGHUVWULQJHUV

:HOGVRQVWDLUZD\VDQGODGGHUVWULQJHUVFRUURVLRQEURNHQ

6WDLUZD\VDQGODGGHUVFRUURVLRQSDLQWIDLOXUH

7UHDGDWWDFKPHQWVWRVWULQJHUVFRUURVLRQEURNHQ 1$

6DIHW\GURSEDURUVDIHW\FKDLQSURYLGHVDGHTXDWHSURWHFWLRQ 1(

*DXJHUSODWIRUPIUDPHDQGVXSSRUWVFRUURVLRQEURNHQ

*DXJHUSODWIRUPGHFNFRUURVLRQWKLQQLQJZHOGIDLOXUH

*DXJHUZDONZD\IRUWKLQQLQJDQGVORWV

$FFHVV6WUXFWXUH&RPPHQWV

7KHURRIDFFHVVVWUXFWXUHRIWDQNLVLQVDWLVIDFWRU\FRQGLWLRQ$VSLUDOVWDLUZD\DQGD

YHUWLFDOODGGHUDUHSUHVHQWWRDFFHVVWKHURRI0LQRUSDLQWIDLOXUHDQGFRUURVLRQKDVEHHQ

REVHUYHGLWLVUHFRPPHQGHGWRUHSDLUWKHVHVSRWVDVDSUHYHQWLYHPHDVXUH

5(9

)HEUXDU\

3ORLHVWL5RPDQLD 3DJHRI

)L[HG5RRI&RQH'RPH&KHFNOLVW

5RRISODWHGLVWRUWLRQV 8$

5RRISODWHVFRUURVLRQSLWWLQJKROHV$3, 8$

5RRISODWHVFRDWLQJRUSDLQWIDLOXUH 8$

5HPQDQWZHOGV$3,$3, 8$

5RRISODWHODSMRLQWV$3, 8$

,QGLFDWLRQVRISURGXFWVWDLQLQJ 8$

([WHUQDOUDIWHUVSDFLQJ$3, 8$

(PHUJHQF\YHQWLQJ1)3$ 8$

87WKLFNQHVVVXUYH\IRULQWHUQDOFRUURVLRQEHIRUHDFFHVVLQJURRI& 8$

5DLQZDWHUVWDQGLQJVDJRIURRI& 8$

7KHURRILVQRWDFFHVVLEOHGXHWRWKHSUHVHQFHRILFHDQGVQRZRQWKHURRISODWHV

,QVSHFWLRQRIWKHURRIDQGURRIILWWLQJVDFFHVVRULHVE\PHDQVRIDGHWDLOHGYLVXDO

LQVSHFWLRQDQG1'7VKDOOEHSHUIRUPHGDWDFRQYHQLHQWWLPHWKLV\HDUDFFHVVLELOLW\

VKRXOGEHJXDUDQWHHGEXWVKDOOEHFDUULHGRXWEHIRUH2FWREHULQFOXGLQJWKH

LQWHJULW\DVVHVVPHQWZKLFKLVWKHUHYLHZRIWKH1'7GDWDDQGWKHYLVXDOREVHUYDWLRQV

6RPHVSRW87FKHFNVFRXOGKDYHEHHQSHUIRUPHGIURPWKHXQGHUVLGH7KHORZHVWYDOXH

UHFRUGHGZDVPPLWFDQEHDVVXPHGWKDWORFDOWKLQQLQJRIWKHURRISODWHVLVSUHVHQW

([WUDSUHFDXWLRQVKDOOEHJLYHQZKHQHQWHULQJWKHURRIIRUIXUWKHULQVSHFWLRQ

5(9

)HEUXDU\

3ORLHVWL5RPDQLD 3DJHRI

5RRI$SSXUWHQDQFHV&KHFNOLVW

)UHHYHQW*HQHUDOFRQGLWLRQFRUURVLRQ 8$

39%UHDWKHUYHQWV*HQHUDOFRQGLWLRQFRUURVLRQGLVFVPRYHIUHHO\ 8$

9HQWVFUHHQV$3, 8$

1R]]OHVtPP>LQ@UHLQIRUFHPHQW$3,WDEOHQRWHRSWLRQDO 8$

*HQHUDOFRDWLQJFRQGLWLRQRIWKHURRIDSSXUWHQDQFHV 8$

)L[HGURRIVFDIIROGVXSSRUWV$3, 8$

$XWRJDXJH*HQHUDOFRQGLWLRQFRUURVLRQ& 8$

5RRIPDQKROH*HQHUDOFRQGLWLRQFRUURVLRQGDPDJHV 8$

/LTXLGOHYHOJDXJH7DSHJDXJH*HQHUDOFRQGLWLRQFRUURVLRQ 8$

$7*V\VWHP*HQHUDOFRQGLWLRQFRUURVLRQ 8$

5RRI$SSXUWHQDQFHV&RPPHQWV

$WKRURXJKLQVSHFWLRQRIWKHURRIDSSXUWHQDQFHVZDVQRWSRVVLEOHGXHWRWKHSUHVHQFHRI

LFHDQGVQRZ

,QVSHFWLRQRIWKHURRIDQGURRIILWWLQJVDFFHVVRULHVE\PHDQVRIDGHWDLOHGYLVXDO

LQVSHFWLRQDQG1'7VKDOOEHSHUIRUPHGDWDFRQYHQLHQWWLPHWKLV\HDUDFFHVVLELOLW\

VKRXOGEHJXDUDQWHHGEXWVKDOOEHFDUULHGRXWEHIRUH2FWREHULQFOXGLQJWKH

LQWHJULW\DVVHVVPHQWZKLFKLVWKHUHYLHZRIWKH1'7GDWDDQGWKHYLVXDOREVHUYDWLRQV

5(9

7DQN

$3,7DQN,QVSHFWLRQ

)HEUXDU\

3ORLHVWL5RPDQLD 3DJHRI

1R]]OHDQG$SSXUWHQDQFH7DEOH5RRI

5HLQIRUFLQJ3ODWH 1HFN )OQJ &RYHU

,WHP 'HVFULSWLRQ 6L]H /HQJWK :LGWK 7KLFN 6KDSH 7KLFN 7KLFN 7KLFN &RPPHQWV 3DVV)DLO

LQ PP PP PP PP PP PP

5(9

)HEUXDU\

3ORLHVWL5RPDQLD 3DJHRI

7DQN2IIOLQH,QVSHFWLRQ

([WHUQDOIORDWLQJURRI&KHFNOLVW

)ORDWLQJURRIFOHDQOLQHVVFOHDQDQGIUHHRIGHEULV 1$

5RRISODWHVFRUURVLRQSLWWLQJKROHV$3, 1$

5HPQDQWZHOGV$3,$3, 1$

/HYHOQHVVRIIORDWLQJURRI 1$

6WDQGLQJZDWHURUSURGXFWRQIORDWLQJURRIGHFN 1$

:DWHURUSURGXFWLQWKHSRQWRRQFRPSDUWPHQWV 1$

6LWHPHFKDQLFDOFRQWUDFWRUWRUHPRYHDOOSRQWRRQPDQKROHFRYHUV 1$

)OH[LELOLW\DQGUHVLOLHQFHRIZHGJHW\SHZLSHUVHDOV 1$

&UDFNVRUWHDUVLQZHGJHW\SHZLSHUVHDOV 1$

:LSHUVHDOVWDWLFFDEOHV 1$

0HFKDQLFDOVKRHVGDPDJLQJVKHOORUFRDWLQJ 1$

&RQGLWLRQRIWKHIORDWLQJURRIJURXQGFRQQHFWLRQV 1$

7LJKWQHVVRIULPDQGFROXPQVHDOV&R 1$

3ULPDU\VKRHVHDOIDEULFSXOOLQJDZD\IURPVKHOO 1$

'HWHULRUDWLRQKROHVWHDUVDQGFUDFNVLQSULPDU\VHDOIDEULF 1$

%LQGLQJZLWKVKHOORUFROXPQV 1$

5RRI5ROOLQJODGGHUFRUURVLRQZHOGIDLOXUH 1$

5RRI5ROOLQJODGGHUKDQGUDLOFRUURVLRQZHOGIDLOXUH 1$

5RRI5ROOLQJODGGHUDQGKDQGUDLOFRDWLQJRUSDLQWIDLOXUH 1$

5RRI5ROOLQJODGGHUDWWDFKPHQWWRVKHOOFRUURVLRQZHDU 1$

5RRI5ROOLQJODGGHUUDLOVZHOGVFRUURVLRQZHDU 1$

5RRI5ROOLQJODGGHUZKHHOVDQGVHFXULQJSLQVWRD[OHV 1$

5RRI5ROOLQJODGGHUWRURRIVWDWLFFDEOHIUD\HGFRQQHFWLRQV 1$

5RRI5ROOLQJODGGHUWRVKHOOVWDWLFFDEOHIUD\HGFRQQHFWLRQV 1$

)ORDWLQJURRIVXSSRUWOHJVFRUURVLRQSLWWLQJEHQGLQJ 1$

5RRIOHJVOHHYHVEHQGLQJFRUURVLRQ 1$

5RRIOHJSLQVFRUURVLRQVWLFNLQJ 1$

5RRIOHJUHLQIRUFHPHQWSDGVEHQGLQJFUDFNLQJ 1$

$OOURRIOHJVDWVDPHOHYHO 1$

(PHUJHQF\RYHUIORZVFUHHQVFOHDQDQGIUHHRIGHEULV 1$

5RRIGUDLQVXPSVFOHDQDQGIUHHRIGHEULVFRUURVLRQ 1$

3RQWRRQPDQKROHVHDOVFRQGLWLRQ 1$

5(9

)HEUXDU\

3ORLHVWL5RPDQLD 3DJHRI

$QWLURWDWLRQJXLGHSROHVUROOHUVIRUJURRYLQJ 1$

1XPEHURIYDFXXPEUHDNHUV& 1$

5LPYHQWIXQFWLRQDO& 1$

&KHFNJRRVHQHFNYHQWRQSRQWRRQFRYHUQRWSOXJJHG& 1$

3XOOEDFNZHDWKHUVKLHOGDQGPHDVXUHJDSPLQWHUYDOV& 1$

&KHFNIRUYDSRUULPDURXQGXQGHUVLGHRIURRI 1$

&KHFNSRQWRRQFRYHUORFNGRZQGHYLFHV 1$

&KHFNULPVHDOPHFKDQLVPVDQGVHDOVKRHV 1$

$GHTXDWHRSHQLQJRIYDFXXPEUHDNHUV 1$

+DPPHUWHVWSLSHVRIURRIGUDLQ 1$

,QOHW2XWOHWQR]]OHV5HFRUGLIHOERZXSRUGRZQ 1$

1RWHHOERZXSOLQHVGLUHFWWRURRIDQGQRWULPVHDOJDS 1$

&KHFNWKHFRQGLWLRQRIIOH[LEOHURRIGUDLQKRVH 1$

([WHUQDOIORDWLQJURRI&RPPHQWV

1RH[WHUQDOIORDWLQJURRISUHVHQW

5(9

)HEUXDU\

3ORLHVWL5RPDQLD 3DJHRI

)L[HG5RRI,QWHUQDO&KHFNOLVW

8QGHUVLGHRIURRI9LVXDOFKHFN

5RRIFRDWLQJFRQGLWLRQ 1$

5RRISODWHODSMRLQWV$3, 8$

5RRIVXSSRUWUDIWHUVFRQGLWLRQ9LVXDOFKHFN

5DIWHUVSDFLQJ$3,

5DIWHUDWWDFKPHQWWRVKHOO$3, 8$

6KHOOFOLSVEUDFNHWVFRQGLWLRQ 8$

5RRIFROXPQV9HUWLFDOLW\FRQGLWLRQ

&ROXPQVXSSRUWV

5RRIYHQWLQJQR]]OHVWULPPHGIOXVK$3,ILJ

7KHXQGHUVLGHRIWKHURRIKDVEHHQYLVXDOO\LQVSHFWHGIURPWKHWDQNERWWRPZLWKDLGRID

WRUFKQROLJKWZDVSUHVHQWLQWKHWDQNGXULQJWKHLQVSHFWLRQ

7KHURRIVXSSRUWVWUXFWXUHVHHPVWREHLQJRRGFRQGLWLRQQRHYLGHQFHRIGLVWRUWLRQVRU

ORRVHVXSSRUWV

$FHQWHUFROXPQLQVDWLVIDFWRU\FRQGLWLRQLVSUHVHQWWRVXSSRUWWKHURRIVWUXFWXUH$ULQJLV

FRQQHFWHGWRWKHFROXPQZLWKJXVVHWSODWHV/DWHUDOPRYHPHQWRIWKLVULQJLVSUHYHQWHG

E\/%HDPVZKLFKDUHZHOGHGWRWKHWDQNERWWRPKRZHYHUWKHEHDPVDUHDOVRZHOGHG

WRWKHULQJ,WLVUHFRPPHQGHGWRUHPRYHWKHFRQQHFWLRQZHOGVIURPWKHULQJWRWKH

EHDPVDVDWWKHPRPHQWWKHURRIKDVDULJLGFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKHWDQNERWWRP7KHDUHD

LQEHWZHHQWKHJXVVHWSODWHVLVFRYHUHGE\GXVWDQGGHEULVLWLVUHFRPPHQGHGWRFOHDQ

WKLVDUHDDQGSHUIRUPDWKRURXJKYLVXDOLQVSHFWLRQ

5(9

)HEUXDU\

3ORLHVWL5RPDQLD 3DJHRI

,QWHUQDO)ORDWLQJ5RRI&KHFNOLVW

)XOOFRQWDFWDOXPLQXPKRQH\FRPEIORDWLQJSDQSUHVHQW 1$

6KHOOVHFRQGDU\PDQKROH 1$

)ORDWHUSDQHOVYDSRUWLJKW$3,+ 1$

(YLGHQFHRIOHDNLQJSDQHOVZDWHUVSRWVRQLQWHUQDOIORDWHU 1$

5LPRUVNLUWILWWHGDURXQGDOORSHQLQJ$3,+ 1$

5RRIVKHOOVWDWLFFDEOHV$3,+ 1$

7LJKWQHVVRIULPDQGFROXPQVHDOV$3,+ 1$

)RDPORJVILOOURRIULPVSDFH 1$

)RDPORJVRUIDEULFGHWHULRUDWLQJ 1$

'DPDJHRUVODFNLQDQWLURWDWLRQDOFDEOH 1$

'DPDJHWRODGGHURUFROXPQZHOOVDQGFRYHUV 1$

)ORDWLQJFRYHUOHJV 1$

2YHUIORZVORWVSUHVHQW 1$

5RRIPRXQWHGYHQWVFOHDQIUHHRIGHEULV 1$

,QWHUQDO)ORDWLQJ5RRI&RPPHQWV

1RLQWHUQDOIORDWLQJURRISUHVHQW

5(9

)HEUXDU\

3ORLHVWL5RPDQLD 3DJHRI

6KHOO,QWHUQDO&KHFNOLVW

6KHOOLQWHUQDOFRDWLQJFRQGLWLRQ 1$

'DPDJHVGHQWVVFUDWFKHVRQWKHVKHOOSODWHVSUHVHQW

6KHOOFRUURVLRQ$3,

6HDPZHOGXQGHUFXW$3,

5HPQDQWZHOGV$3,&$3,$3,

*DXJHZHOOVFRUURVLRQSLWWLQJ

*DXJHZHOOVDWWDFKWRVKHOOZHOGFRUURVLRQFUDFN

*DXJHZHOOVVORWWHGSURSHUO\

*URRYLQJGXHWRULVHWDOORIIORDWLQJURRIUXEELQJRQVKHOO& 1$

7KHVWLOOLQJZHOOLVDWWDFKHGWRWKHVKHOODQGSURSHUO\VXSSRUWHG+RZHYHULWLVFORJJHGXS

ZLWKGHEULVXSWRWKHWKLUGKROHIURPWKHERWWRP,WLVUHFRPPHQGHGWRUHPRYHDOOWKH

GHEULVDQGFOHDQWKHVWLOOLQJZHOO,QDGGLWLRQWRWKDWLWFDQEHFRQVLGHUHGWRH[WHQGWKH

KROHVWRVORWVWRSUHYHQWIXUWKHUFORJJLQJXS

7KHVKHOOLVEXFNOHGLQZDUGVLQWKHYLFLQLW\RIWKHYHUWLFDOODSZHOG'XHWRWKLVRQH

JXVVHWSODWHIURPWKHZLQGJLUGHULVORRVH,WLVUHFRPPHQGHGWRUHIDVWHQWKLVJXVVHW

SODWH

5(9

)HEUXDU\

3ORLHVWL5RPDQLD 3DJHRI

7DQNERWWRPDQGLQWHUQDODSSXUWHQDQFHV&KHFNOLVW

7DQNERWWRPSODWHFRQGLWLRQFRUURVLRQSLWWLQJ

5HPQDQWZHOGV$3,$3,

%XOJHVGHSUHVVLRQV$3,%

7DQNERWWRPFRDWLQJFRQGLWLRQ 1$

6WDQGLQJZDWHU

6WULNHUSODWHFRQGLWLRQ 1$

%RWWRPZHOGMRLQWV$3,

(GJHVHWWOHPHQW$3,%

7KUHHZD\MRLQWVSDFLQJ$3,

%RWWRPVKHOOMRJJOHMRLQWV$3, 1$

$QQXODUSODWHZLGWK$3,

%RWWRPSODWHSDWFKHV7\SHORFDWLRQ$3, 1$

%RWWRPSODWHMRLQWVIURPVKHOOYHUWLFDOMRLQWV$3,)LJ

6KHOOWRERWWRPILOOHWZHOG$3,

,QWHUQDOSLSLQJJHQHUDO&RDWLQJFRUURVLRQ

,QOHWSLSLQJ'LIIXVRUSUHVHQWVXSSRUWVFRUURVLRQ

2XWOHWSLSLQJ0DLQDQGORZVXFWLRQSUHVHQWVXSSRUWVFRUURVLRQ

'UDLQDJHSLSLQJ&RUURVLRQVXSSRUWV

6KHOOWRERWWRP+$=87VXUYH\ 1(

6XPSFRQGLWLRQ9LVXDO87VXUYH\ 1$

7DQNERWWRP,QWHUQDO&RPPHQWV

7KHWDQNERWWRPZHOGZRUNRIWDQNLVRISRRUTXDOLW\,WLVUHFRPPHQGHGWRFKHFN

RIWKHZKROHZHOGOHQJWKE\03,WRPDNHVXUHQRFUDFNLQJLVSUHVHQW3DUWLFXODU

DWWHQWLRQVKRXOGEHJLYHQWRWKHFRUQHUZHOG9LVLEO\SRRUDUHDVXQGHUFXWODFNRIIXVLRQ

SRRUVWDUWVWRSHWFVKRXOGEHUHSDLUHGSULRUWRLQVSHFWLRQ

87WKLFNQHVVPHDVXUHPHQWVRIWKHERWWRPSODWHVLQGLFDWHWKDWWZRGLIIHUHQWSODWH

WKLFNQHVVHVZHUHXVHGGXULQJWKHERWWRPFRQVWUXFWLRQRUVHYHUDOERWWRPSODWHVKDYH

EHHQUHSODFHGHQWLUHO\

$QDEDQGRQHGUHPDLQRIDVXSSRUWEHDPLVSUHVHQWLQWKHFULWLFDO]RQH,WLV

UHFRPPHQGHGWRUHPRYHWKLVUHPDLQJULQGWKHVXUIDFHIOXVKDQGSHUIRUP03,WRHQVXUH

QRFUDFNLQJLVSUHVHQWLQWKLVDUHD

5(9

)HEUXDU\

3ORLHVWL5RPDQLD 3DJHRI

$YLVXDOLQVSHFWLRQLQGLFDWHGWKDWHGJHVHWWOHPHQWLVSUHVHQWKRZHYHUVWLOOZLWKLQWKH

OLPLWVRI$3,%

7KHWDQNERWWRPKDVEHHQVFDQQHGE\DIORRUVFDQQHUXVLQJ0)/5HSRUW1XPEHU)5

3/22QHLQGLFDWLRQGHHSHUWKDWWLVSUHVHQW

5HPDLQLQJOLIHFDOFXODWLRQVVKRZWKDWWKHWDQNLQLWVFXUUHQWVWDWHZLOOQRWUHDFKWKH

HVWLPDWHGUHPDLQLQJOLIHWLPHRIWHQ\HDUV,WLVUHFRPPHQGHGWRUHSDLUDOOFRUURVLRQ

DERYHDQGLQFOXGLQJWRQWKHERWWRPSODWHVDERYHDQGLQFOXGLQJWLQWKHFULWLFDO

]RQHDQGDERYHDQGLQFOXGLQJWRQWKHDQQXODUSODWHVDFFRUGLQJWR0)/UHSRUW)5

3/2DQGDSSO\DQLQWHUQDOERWWRPFRDWLQJDFFRUGLQJWR$3,53

WRDYRLGDQ\LQWHUQDOFRUURVLRQ7KHUHSDLUZRUNVKDOOEHFDUULHGRXWLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK

$3,

%RWKIORDWHUVIURPWKHVZLYHORXWOHWDUHKHDYLO\GDPDJHGDQGGHIRUPHGUHDVRQLV

XQNQRZQ,WLVUHFRPPHQGHGWRH[FKDQJHERWKIORDWHUV

7KHOHJVIURPWKHVZLYHOVXSSRUWVDUHVWDQGLQJGLUHFWO\RQWKHWDQNERWWRP,WLV

UHFRPPHQGHGWROLIWWKHOHJVDQGLQVSHFWWKHDUHDXQGHUQHDWK$IWHUWKDWIXOOVHDOZHOGHG

EHDULQJSDGVVKDOOEHDSSOLHG

1RLQOHWGLIIXVHULVSUHVHQWLQWDQNWKHILOOSLSHLVFXWDSSUR[LPDWHO\PPEHKLQG

WKHVKHOO7KHLQOHWILOOSLSHVKRXOGKDYHDGLIIXVHUWRPLQLPL]HIORZVSHHGDQG

HOHFWURVWDWLFFKDUJH:KHQLWVHHPVQHFHVVDU\IURPRSHUDWLRQDOSRLQWRIYLHZ

FRQVLGHUDWLRQVKRXOGEHJLYHQWRLQVWDOODGLIIXVHUDFFRUGLQJWRFXUUHQWUHFRPPHQGHG

SUDFWLFHV

5(9

)HEUXDU\

3ORLHVWL5RPDQLD 3DJHRI

7DQNERWWRPLQWHUQDO6HUYLFH,QWHUYDO

7KH QH[W LQWHUQDO LQVSHFWLRQ VKRXOG EH FRQGXFWHG ZLWKLQ \HDUV VXEMHFW WR LQWHUPHGLDWH

FRQILUPDWLRQRIFRQWLQXLQJFRDWLQJLQWHJULW\

%RWWRP3ODWH &ULWLFDO=RQH $QQXODU3ODWH

$3, $3, $3,

7DEOH 3DUD 7DEOH

$YHUDJH%RWWRP3ODWH7KLFNQHVV

0D[LPXP8QGHUVLGH&RUURVLRQ'HSWK0$;8&

0D[LPXP,QWHUQDO&RUURVLRQ'HSWK0$;,&

<HDURI,QVSHFWLRQ<L

<HDURISUHYLRXVLQVSHFWLRQ<R 1$ 1$ 1$

0LQLPXP5HPDLQLQJ7KLFNQHVVIURP8QGHUVLGH&RUURVLRQ

DIWHU5HSDLUV57EF

0LQLPXP5HPDLQLQJ7KLFNQHVVIURP,QWHUQDO&RUURVLRQDIWHU

5HSDLUV57LS

0LQLPXP5HPDLQLQJ7KLFNQHVVDW1H[W,QVSHFWLRQ057

8QGHUVLGH&RUURVLRQ5DWH83U

,QWHUQDO&RUURVLRQ5DWH6W3U

0$; 8&

83U

'< P LQ 57EF RU57LS 0 57

2U

6W35

0$; ,& 6 W 3U 8 3U

'<

,QWHUYDOWRQH[WLQVSHFWLRQDIWHUUHSDLUV

1RWH$VWKHLQWHUQDOFRUURVLRQUDWHLVXQNQRZQGXHWRODFNRISUHYLRXVLQVSHFWLRQGDWDDFRQVHUYDWLYHFRUURVLRQUDWHLVGHULYHG

IURPWDQNVLQVLPLODUVHUYLFH7KHH[WHUQDOFRUURVLRQUDWHKDVEHHQGHULYHGDFFRUGLQJWR$3,%³6RLO6LGH&RUURVLRQ´

5(9

)HEUXDU\

3ORLHVWL5RPDQLD 3DJHRI

:DUUDQW\

7KH $3, LQVSHFWRU KDV HYDOXDWHG WKH FRQGLWLRQ RI WKLV WDQN EDVHG RQ WKH REVHUYDWLRQV DQG

PHDVXUHPHQWV DV PDGH E\ XV :KLOH RXU HYDOXDWLRQ DFFXUDWHO\ GHVFULEHV WKH FRQGLWLRQ RI WKH

WDQNDWWKHWLPHRILQVSHFWLRQWKHWDQNRZQHURSHUDWRUPXVWLQGHSHQGHQWO\DVVHVVWKHLQVSHFWLRQ

LQIRUPDWLRQUHSRUW SURYLGHGE\ XV DQG DQ\FRQFOXVLRQVUHDFKHGE\WKH WDQNRZQHURSHUDWRUDQG

DQ\ DFWLRQ WDNHQ RU RPLWWHG WR EH WDNHQ DUH WKH VROH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ RI WKH RZQHURSHUDWRU :LWK

UHVSHFW WR LQVSHFWLRQ DQG WHVWLQJ ZH ZDUUDQW RQO\ WKDW WKH VHUYLFHV KDYH EHHQ SHUIRUPHG LQ

DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK DFFHSWHG LQGXVWU\ SUDFWLFH ,I DQ\ VXFK VHUYLFHV IDLO WR PHHW WKH IRUHJRLQJ

ZDUUDQW\ZHVKDOOUHSHUIRUPWKHVHUYLFHWRWKHVDPHH[WHQWDQGRQWKHVDPHFRQGLWLRQVDVWKH

RULJLQDOVHUYLFH

7KHSUHFHGLQJSDUDJUDSKVHWVIRUWKWKHH[FOXVLYHUHPHG\IRUFODLPVEDVHGRQIDLOXUHRURIGHIHFW

LQPDWHULDOVRUVHUYLFHVZKHWKHUVXFKFODLPLVPDGHLQFRQWUDFWRUWRUWLQFOXGLQJQHJOLJHQFHDQG

KRZHYHULQVWLWXWHGDQGXSRQH[SLUDWLRQRIWKHZDUUDQW\SHULRGDOOVXFKOLDELOLW\VKDOOWHUPLQDWH

7KHIRUHJRLQJZDUUDQW\LVH[FOXVLYHDQGLQOLHXRIDOORWKHUZDUUDQWLHVZKHWKHUZULWWHQRUDO

LPSOLHGRUVWDWXWRU\12,03/,(':$55$17<2)0(5&+$17$%,/,7<25),71(66)25

385326(6+$//$33/<QRUVKDOOZHEHOLDEOHIRUDQ\ORVVRUGDPDJHZKDWVRHYHUE\UHDVRQ

RILWVIDLOXUHWRGLVFRYHUUHSRUWUHSDLURUPRGLI\ODWHQWGHIHFWVRUGHIHFWVLQKHUHQWLQWKHGHVLJQRI

DQ\WDQNLQVSHFWHG,QQRHYHQWZKHWKHUDUHVXOWRIEUHDFKRIFRQWUDFWZDUUDQW\RUWRUWLQFOXGLQJ

QHJOLJHQFHVKDOOZHDUHOLDEOHIRUDQ\FRQVHTXHQWLDORULQFLGHQWDOGDPDJHVLQFOXGLQJEXWQRW

OLPLWHGWRORVVRISURILWRUUHYHQXHVORVVRIXVHRIHTXLSPHQWWHVWHGRUVHUYLFHVE\XVRUDQ\

DVVRFLDWHGFODLPVRIRWKHUGDPDJHV

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF7DQNRYHUYLHZ

3LF%URNHQGLNHZDOO

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF$FFHVV6WUXFWXUHFUDFNLQGLNHZDOO

3LF&UDFNLQGLNHZDOORYHUZKROHKHLJKW

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF3UHYLRXVO\UHSDLUHG"FUDFNLQWKHGLNHZDOO

3LF'LNHGDUHD

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF3LSHZRUNLQWKHGLNHGDUHD3LSHVDUHUXQQLQJWKURXJKPHWDOVOHHYHVDQGDUHVXUURXQGHGE\

KHDY\YHJHWDWLRQ

3LF3LSHVOHHYHFORVHXS

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF3LSHZRUNFRQFUHWHEULGJH+HDY\YHJHWDWLRQLVSUHVHQWDOORYHU

3LF0LVDOLJQHGFRQFUHWHEULGJH1RKDQGUDLO

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF0LVDOLJQHGFRUURGHGDQGGLVWRUWHGEULGJHRYHUSLSHZRUN+DQGUDLOIDFLQJWKHWDQNPLVVLQJ

3LF&RQFUHWHEDVHRIWKHEULGJH

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF3LSHZRUNO\LQJRQDFRQFUHWHEULFN

3LF3LSHZRUNO\LQJRQDPHWDOEHDP

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF3LSHZRUNFRQQHFWHGWRWKHWDQN

3LF3LSHZRUNSXUSRVHRIWKHSLWLVXQNQRZQ

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF0DQKROH1RWHOOWDOHKROHSUHVHQWLQWKHUHLQIRUFHPHQWSODWH

3LF6DWLVIDFWRU\ZHOGZRUNRQWKHPDQKROH

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF/DFNRIZHOGVSDFHEHWZHHQWKHUHLQIRUFHPHQWSODWHV

3LF5HLQIRUFHPHQWSODWHPDGHRIWZRKDOYHV

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF5HLQIRUFHPHQWSODWHFORVHXS

3LF&RQFUHWHEORFNVKDQJLQJDOORYHUWKHWDQNFLUFXPIHUHQFH

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF9HJHWDWLRQEHKLQGFRQFUHWHEORFN

3LF&RQFUHWHEORFNFRQQHFWLRQ3DLQWIDLOXUHDQGEHJLQQLQJFRUURVLRQRQWKHVKHOOSODWH

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF'DPDJHGFRQFUHWHULQJELJJDSEHWZHHQFRQFUHWHULQJDQGWDQNERWWRPSURMHFWLRQ

3LF'DPDJHGFRQFUHWHULQJKHDY\YHJHWDWLRQ6RLOXQGHUWKHWDQNERWWRPZDVKHGRXW

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF)RXQGDWLRQFORVHXS%RWWRPSURMHFWLRQLQIDLUFRQGLWLRQKRZHYHUVRLOZDVKHGRXWDQGJUDYHO

YLVLEOH

3LF7DQNVHWWOHGDERXWPPLQWRWKHIRXQGDWLRQ

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF%RWWRPSURMHFWLRQ

3LF([FDYDWLRQIRUVRLOH[DPLQDWLRQ

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF*URXQGLQJVWUDSDERXWPPVHWWOHPHQW

3LF6SLUDOVWDLUZD\LQIDLUFRQGLWLRQPLQRUSDLQWIDLOXUHDQGFRUURVLRQYLVLEOH

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF3ODWIRUPRQVSLUDOVWDLUZD\

3LF6XSSRUWIRUVSLUDOVWDLUZD\ODFNRIZHOGVSDFH

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF9HUWLFDOODGGHUVOLJKWO\PLVDOLJQHG

3LF&RUURGHGUXQJFRQQHFWLRQ

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF3DLQWIDLOXUHFRUURVLRQDQGSURGXFWVWDLQVRQWKHVKHOO2ULJLQRIVWDLQLQJLVWKHURRIKRZHYHU

H[DFWORFDWLRQXQNQRZQ

3LF3URGXFWVWDLQVSDLQWIDLOXUHFRUURVLRQ

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF3URGXFWVWDLQVFRPLQJIURPWKHURRI

3LF5RRIDSSXUWHQDQFHV

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF5RRIWRVKHOOFRQQHFWLRQ1R7RS&XUE$QJOH7&$SUHVHQW

3LF3DLQWIDLOXUHDQGFRUURVLRQDWWKHWRSRIWKHVKHOO

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF5RRIDSSXUWHQDQFHV

3LF$7*5DGDUFRQQHFWLRQGDPDJHG

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF5RRIRYHUYLHZILUHOLQHV

3LF)LUHOLQHFRQQHFWLRQ

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF&HQWHUFROXPQ

3LF/DWHUDOIL[DWLRQIRUFHQWHUFROXPQ

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF&ROXPQODGGHU

3LF2XWOHWVZLYHO6XSSRUWQRWIXOO\ZHOGHGWRWKHERWWRP

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF6ZLYHOVXSSRUWSDGVQRWVHDOZHOGHGWRWKHERWWRPSODWH

3LF0DVVLYHGHIRUPDWLRQRIWKHVZLYHOIORDWHUV

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF%ROWVQRWSURSHUO\WLJKWHQHGRQWKHRXWOHWFRQQHFWLRQ

3LF'UDLQFRQQHFWLRQ

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF3DWFKSODWHRUDEDQGRQHGVWULNHUSODWH

3LF9HUWLFDOVKHOOODSZHOG

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF9HUWLFDOVKHOOODSZHOG

3LF6KHOODQGZLQGJLUGHUGHIRUPDWLRQLQWKHYLFLQLW\RIWKHYHUWLFDOVKHOOZHOG

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF/RRVHJXVVHWSODWHGXHWRGHIRUPDWLRQ

3LF+HDY\XQGHUFXWDQGODFNRIIXVLRQDWWKHERWWRPZHOGV

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF8QGHUFXWDQGXQGHUILOOSUHVHQWRQWKHERWWRPZHOGV

3LF3RRUZHOGZRUNRIWKHFRUQHUZHOG

5(9

3KRWR/RJ )HEUXDU\

3LF$EDQGRQHGEHDPUHPDLQVLQWKHFULWLFDO]RQH

3LF8QGHUFXWRQWKHFRUQHUZHOG

5(9

1RQ 'HVWUXFWLYH([DPLQDWLRQ )HEUXDU\

3DJHRI

%(TXLSPHQW8VHG

(TXLSPHQW 0DQXIDFWXUHU 7\SH 6HULDO1XPEHU &DOLEUDWLRQ

(TXLSPHQWSURFHGXUHDQGSHUVRQQHODFFRUGLQJWR$UF7HFKQLFLQVSHFWLRQUHSRUW

5(9

1RQ 'HVWUXFWLYH([DPLQDWLRQ )HEUXDU\

3DJHRI

%%RWWRP3ODWH870HDVXUHPHQWV

8OWUDVRQLFWKLFNQHVVPHDVXUHPHQWV

ZHUHFDUULHGRQWKHIORRUSODWHVZLWKD

PLQLPXPRIILYHUHDGLQJVSHUSODWH

1RWH7KHGLDJUDPLVJHQHULF,WLV

LQWHQGHGWRFRQYH\RQO\WKHJHQHUDO

SDWWHUQRI87¶VRQIRXUVLGHGSODWHVYV

WKUHHVLGHGVNHWFKSODWHDQGLVQRW

LQWHQGHGWRUHSUHVHQWWKHJHRPHWU\RIWKH

WDQNERWWRP 87,QVSHFWLRQ3ODQ

x 7KHSODWHVLQVSHFWHG3$66('

WKHWKLFNQHVVFULWHULDRI$3,

03 03 03 03 03

3ODWH1U

PP PP PP PP PP

5(9

1RQ 'HVWUXFWLYH([DPLQDWLRQ )HEUXDU\

3DJHRI

5(9

1RQ 'HVWUXFWLYH([DPLQDWLRQ )HEUXDU\

3DJHRI

1RWH$OOPHDVXUHPHQWVH[FOXGLQJFRDWLQJ3ODWHVWRDUHDQQXODUSODWHV

5(9

1RQ 'HVWUXFWLYH([DPLQDWLRQ )HEUXDU\

3DJHRI

%6XPS LQWHUQDOSLSLQJPHDVXUHPHQWV

6XPSSRLQW (GJHPP %RWWRPPP

1$ 1$

1$ 1$

1$ 1$

1$ 1$

'LDPHWHU$ 1$

'LVWDQFH% 1$

1RWH6XPSPHDVXUHPHQWVDWORFDWLRQVRQWKHVKHOODQGWKHERWWRPDWDQGR¶FORFN

,QWHUQDO ,QOHWPP 2XWOHW 'UDLQPP 5RRI

SLSLQJ PP FROXPQ

1$ 1$ 1$

1$ 1$ 1$

1$ 1$ 1$

1$ 1$ 1$

1$ 1$ 1$

1$ 1$ 1$

1$ 1$ 1$

1RWH,QWHUQDOSLSLQJPHDVXUHPHQWVDWPHWHULQWHUYDOVIURPWKHVKHOOWRWKHFHQWHUDWDQGR¶FORFN7KHORZHVWYDOXH

LVQRWHG

5(9

1RQ 'HVWUXFWLYH([DPLQDWLRQ )HEUXDU\

3DJHRI

%6KHOOPHDVXUHPHQWV

8SWRPHDVXUHPHQWVZHUHWDNHQRQ

HDFKSODWHRIWKHERWWRPFRXUVHIURPRQ

WKHVHFRQGWRWKHWRSFRXUVH

PHDVXUHPHQWVZHUHWDNHQRQHDFKSODWH

DFFRUGLQJWRWKHVNHWFK

x 7KHSODWHVLQVSHFWHG3$66('WKH

WKLFNQHVVFULWHULDRI$3,

6HHFDOFXODWLRQVLQ6KHOO 87,QVSHFWLRQ3ODQ

7KLFNQHVV&DOFXODWLRQV

&RXUVH &RXUVH

+HLJKW PP +HLJKW PP

QXPEHU QXPEHU

$YJ $YJ

0LQ 0LQ

0D[ 0D[

$YJ $YJ

0LQ 0LQ

0D[ 0D[

$YJ $YJ

0LQ 0LQ

0D[ 0D[

$YJ $YJ

0LQ 0LQ

0D[ 0D[

1RWHV

&RXUVHQXPEHULVWKHERWWRPFRXUVH$YHUDJHPLQLPXPDQGPD[LPXPYDOXHVQRWHGKHUH$OORULJLQDOYDOXHVFDQEHIRXQGLQ

WKHRULJLQDO1'7UHSRUW

5(9

1RQ 'HVWUXFWLYH([DPLQDWLRQ )HEUXDU\

3DJHRI

%%RWWRPSURMHFWLRQFRUQHUZHOGDQGLQVLGH+$=

8OWUDVRQLFWKLFNQHVVPHDVXUHPHQWVZHUH

FDUULHGRQWKHERWWRPSURMHFWLRQDQG

LQVLGHDVFORVHWRWKHFRUQHUZHOGDV

SRVVLEOH,QDGGLWLRQWRWKDWWKHWKURDW

WKLFNQHVVDQGSURMHFWLRQZLGWKZHUH

FKHFNHG$OOPHDVXUHPHQWVZHUHWDNHQDW

PHWHULQWHUYDOVFLUFXPIHUHQWLDOO\

1RWH7KHGLDJUDPLVJHQHULFDQGLVLQWHQGHG

WRFRQYH\RQO\WKHJHQHUDOFRQFHSWRIWDNLQJ

87¶VDQGZLGWKPHDVXUHPHQWVDORQJWKH

FLUFXPIHUHQFHDQGLVQRWLQWHQGHGWRUHSUHVHQW

WKHVHLQWHUYDOV

x 7KHLQVSHFWLRQ3$66('WKH

FULWHULDRI$3,

2XWVLGHERWWRPSURMHFWLRQ ,QVLGH+$=DQGFRUQHUZHOG

SRLQW PP PP

8$ 8$

8$ 8$

5(9

1RQ 'HVWUXFWLYH([DPLQDWLRQ )HEUXDU\

3DJHRI

8$ 8$

8$

5(9

- 预应力钢筋混凝土构件有限元模拟方法对比Uploaded bycaojin259
- El bambú como material de construcciónUploaded byGregorio Perez Hernandez
- Fiber reinforced polymer composites: effect of off-axis loadingUploaded byLeon Mishnaevsky
- Download.kaoyan.comUploaded byHuang Chen
- 应力分析基础理论Uploaded bynjjyl723
- 螺栓计算报告Uploaded by胡成明
- Finite Element Analysis of Journal Bearing in Planet-Gear.pdfUploaded byivy_publisher
- d99572a5f3de4735acdce69e10207021Uploaded byChaz Chen
- Edx Hydraulics SyllabusUploaded byRodger Millar Munthali
- 1.pdfUploaded byTRUNG TÂM ĐÀO TẠO ĐỒ HỌA AN NAM
- Comparative Study of Rotating Angle-softened Truss Model and Modified Compression Field TheoryUploaded bySahith Gali
- 78304009-Buried-PipeUploaded bymabrouk2013
- Simulated Vehicle Loads of Asphalt Stress Relaxation Testing Research.pdfUploaded byivy_publisher
- 带隔板圆形截面压力容器应力分析_高炳军Uploaded byhuangjl
- 建筑结构Uploaded byjajaytt
- geostudio-slope手册中文翻译.pdfUploaded by王贺
- CH06-P195繂P223Uploaded byWenChen
- Use Limitation of One Third of Stress Rising Method in American CodeUploaded byapirakq
- 双柱联合基础的设计方法Uploaded byW
- Single MemberUploaded byW
- 3应力分析Uploaded byzhdk911
- BOJ170520000040UqXt1w.pdfUploaded byjie
- ACI 318M-05（中文版）.pdfUploaded byccq0707
- 烟道加固肋计算和支架设计问题Uploaded bykevin1023
- 烟道加固肋计算和支架设计问题.pdfUploaded bykevin1023
- 钢结构人行天桥设计Uploaded byma
- Pro Mechanica提高装载机工作装置的设计水平Uploaded byEric Chu
- 基于Drucker- Prager系列准则的边坡安全系数%0A计算方法Uploaded bySlim Salim
- AutoPIPE basic trainingUploaded byzhu221
- mylinUploaded by林孟郁