STABILITY OF OIL TANK FOUNDATIONS

A DISSERTATION

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree
of
MASTER OF ENGINEERING
in
CIVIL ENGINEERING
(With Specialization in Geotechnical.Engineering)

O
N,z1G4.9c v
o 3L _.. r_ty p

Rf?E3FI~F~e
VINAY KRISHNA PANDEY

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF ROORKEE
ROORKEE-247667 (INDIA)

MARCH, 1994
 CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work being presented in this

dissertation entitled STABILITY OF OIL TANK FOUNDATIONS in partial

fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of MASTER

OF ENGINEERING IN CIVIL ENGINEERING with specialization IN

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING submitted in the Department of Civil

Engineering University of Roorkee, Roorkee, is an authentic record of

my own work carried for a period of seven months, from September 1993

to March 1994, under the supervision of Dr. G. Ramaswamy, Prof.

A.S.R.Rao and Dr. Swami Saran, Professors, in the Department of Civil

Engineering, University of Roorkee, Roorkee.

The matter embodied in this dissertation has not been submitted

by me for the award of any other degree anywhere else or in the

University.

U "
Date: 21 arch 1994 (Vinay ishna Pandey)

This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate is

correct to the best of our knowledge. \ /~

Prof A.S.' Dr.Swami Saran Dr. G. Ramasamy

Prof.of Civil Engg. Prof.of Civil Engg. Prof.of Civil Engg.

4
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At first sight, any work may seem to be a consequence of our

individual attempts, but the fact that -many more hearts are poured

into its roots to see the tree of expectations flourishing cannot be

ignored. This dissertation is not only the result of my own efforts

but it ought to be taken as a combined effort of many more luminary

personalities whose direct and indirect help acted as nutrients to it.

I consider my self extremely lucky for getting an opportunity to

work under the valuable guidance of Dr. G. Ramasamy, Dr. Swami Saran

and Prof. A.S.R Rao, Professors at the Department of Civil

Engineering, University of Roorkee, Roorkee. Their cooperation and

encouraging suggestions was a privilege to me'.

I express my deep sense of gratitude to Dr. A.-D.Penman and Prof.

James, M. Duncan for their invaluable suggestions and discussions.

The interest that they took in my work was praiseworthy.

The author is highly indebted to• his noble friends S.K.Garg,

S.Dubey , Rajesh Singh, Ravindra and others who helped in each and

every respect to make the task easy.

( V I NAYv KRISHNA PANDEY)

 "MRI 1

Oil storage tanks form an important component of petroleum

refineries and chemical plants. An oil tank mainly consists of a

bottom plate, shell and a roof which may be of the fixed or floating

type. The loading pattern in an oil tank is quite different compared

to normal structure. It is essentially a case/of circularly loaded

area. In the case of oil tanks, however, almost all of the tank

loading is brought to bear on the soil suddenly, after the completion

of the structure.

One of the basic features of the flexible oil storage tank is its

ability to sustain a large magnitude of uniform settlement. However,

it is the differential settlement which causes problems because its

occurrence may lead to a rupture of the tank base. The shear criterion

has two main components, namely, 'base shear' and 'edge shear' , in

the case of oil tanks, the 'edge shear' criterion is more critical

then the 'base shear'.

The current exercise is an attempt to compute the settlement of

oil tank foundations resting on sand/and or clay soils and computation

of factor of safety value for 'edge shear' failure conditions. The

program developed has been used to compute settlements at the tank

base and to examine the effect of replacing a certain thickness at the

top, of the clay layer by a dense, granular layer.

The analysis carried out shows that

(i) I,t is possible to work out the pattern of settlement at the base

of the oil tank foundation using an interactive - computer

analysis.

(i )
(ii) Replacement of a 2m thick clay layer at the top by a

compacted/granular layer resulted in a reduction of settlement by

22.6% at the centre and 24.6% at the tank edge, while the

reduction was 37.8% at the centre of the tank and 39.6 % at the

tank edge for a 4m replacement.

(iii) The factor of safety against `edge shear' failure for a certain

case was found to be 3.2.

 CONTENTS
PAGE NO.

CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

ABSTRACT (1)
(iii)
LIST OF TABLES
(iv)
LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF NOTATIONS (viii

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. OIL TANK FOUNDATIONS AND THEIR STABILITY 3

2.1 GENERAL 3

2.2 TYPES OF OIL STORAGE TANKS AND FEATURES 4

2.2.1 Fixed Roof Type 4

2.2.2 Floating Roof Type 4

2.3 TYPES OF OIL STORAGE TANK FOUNDATIONS 5

2.4 FAILURE CRITERION 10

2.4.1 Settlement Criterion 10

2.4.2 Shear Failure Criterion 16

2.5 CASE HISTORIES ON OIL TANK FOUNDATIONS WITH
GROUND IMPROVEMNT 2q
3.0 ESTIMATION OF SETTLEMENT OF OIL TANK FOUNDATIONS 25

3.1 GENERAL 25

3.2 SETTLEMENT OF FOUNDATIONS ON SANDS 25

3.3 SETTLEMENT OF FOUNDATIONS ON CLAYS 27

3.3.1 Immediate Settlement in Clays 27

3.3.2 Consolidation Settlement 28

3.3.3 Correction factor for three dimensional
Consolidation 29
3.4 FEATURES OF THE PROGRAM 30
4. STABILITY OF OIL TANK FOUNDATION AGAINST SHEAR FAILURE 31
4.1 GENERAL 31

4.2 METHOD OF STABILITY ANALYSIS 32

4.3 FEATURES OF THE PROGRAM 33

4.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE PROGRAM[ 34

4.5 SEQUENCE AND EXPLANATION OF COMPUTATIONS 35

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 38

5.1 INTRODUCTION 38
5.2 ANALYSIS OF A TYPICAL TANK FOUNDATION SUBSOIL
SITUATION 38
5.2.1 Settlement values 38

5.2.2 Factor of safety for edge shear condition 38

5.3 TANK FOUNDATIONS ON GRANULAR DEPOSITS 39

5.4 TANK FOUNDATIONS ON COHESIVE DEPOSITS 39

5.5 INFLUENCE OF COHESIVE LAYER SANDWICHED WITHIN
A GRANULAR STRATUM 40
5.6 EFFECT ON SETTLEMENT WHEN A CLAY DEPOSIT IS REPLACED

BY A DENSE GRANULAR LAYER 41

6.0 CONCLUSIONS 42

REFERENCES 42

APPENDIX

FLOW CHARTS

FIGURES

TABLES
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.

NO.

1. Differential settlement criteria from literature 92

2. Summary of pertinent tank data 93

3. Table for computation of stress factors 94

4. Table for calculation of influence factors 95

S. Table for computation of settlement factor 96

6. Table for computation of Modulus factor 9~

7. Data file for the typical problem shown in Fig. 5.1. 97

8. Results for typical problem shown in Fig 5.1 98

9. Data file for edge shear analysis of oil storage 99

tank shown in Fig 5.1.

10. Output file for edge shear analysis of problem 100

shown in Fig 5.1.

 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.

2.1 Typical fixed roof tank showing standard appurtenances 54

2.2 Typical open top tank with floating roof-sectional

view 56

2.3 Typical pad type of foundation 56

2.4 Typical pad foundation for good soil condition 57

2.5 Edge failure conditions 57

2.6 Typical concrete ring wall foundation 58

2.7 Ring walls to prevent lateral movement of weak soils 59

2.8 Piled Foundation with crushed rock pile cap 60

2.9 Durley dome foundation for oil tanks 60

2.10 Factor of safety and settlement shapes for tanks

studied 61

2.11 Shape of settlement of large flexible loaded areas.

(i) Raft on uniform compressible soil (ii) Raft on

dome incompressible stratum overlying compressible

soil 61

2.12 Influence factors for surface settlement of elastic

Layer overlying rigid layer subjected to uniform

circular load 62

2.13 Chart for estimating undrained modulus of clay 62

2.14 Contours of 6o- /q due to uniform circular load 63

2.15 Chart for determining settlement factor (after

Skempton and Bjerrum, 1957) 64

2.16 Base shear failure mechanism 65

(iv)
2.17 Edge shear failure mechanism 66

2.18 Averaging shear strengths for edge shear 66

2.19 Plan and elevation of experimental tank 67

2.20 Developed pore pressure and settlement 68

2.21 Compressibility characteristics 69

2.22 Tank foundation 70

2.23 Tank shell settlements 70

4.1 Top soil layer-soft clay 71

4.2 Top soil layer-firm granular 71

4.3 Computation of Trial Centre Exit point and Coordinates

of slip circle 72

5.1 Typical assumed field conditions 73

5.2 Relationship between angle of shearing resistance and

cone resistance for an uncemented normally

consolidated quartz sand 74

5.3 Comparison of total settlement values for a 15m tank

diameter (tank on a granular soil) 75

5.4 Total settlement vs R/RT plot for tank dia.= 20m (tank

on a granular deposit) 76

5.5 Comparison of total settlement values for 50 m tank

diameter (tank on a granular soil) 77

5.6 Comparison of total settlement values for different

tank diameters resting on 0 = 36o sand 78

5.7 Soil conditions for different cases 79

5.8 Immediate settlement vs R/RT plot for tank diameter

20m 80

(v)
5.9 Actual consolidation settlement vs FLIRT plot for a

tank of diameter 20m 81

5.10 Total settlement vs R/RT plot for tank dia = 20m 82

5.11 Total settlement vs tank diameter plot for different

cases 83

5.12 Differential settlement vs tank diameter plot for

different cases 84

5.13 Plot showing variation of immediate settlement for

different clay thickness for case I. 85

5.14 Plot showing variation of immediate settlement for

different clay thickness for case II 86

5.15 Plot showing variation of immediate settlement for

different clay thickness for case III 87

5.16 Comparison of actual consolidation settlement by

varying thicknesses of clay layers for ISm tank

diameter for case I 88

5.17 Comparison of actual consolidation settlement by

varying thicknesses of clay layer for Ism tank

diameter for case II 89

5.18 Comparison of actual consolidation settlement by

varying thicknesses of clay layer for case III 90

5.19 Effect of replacement of clay deposit by dense

granular layer. 91

(vi)
 LIST OF NOTATIONS

A = pore pressure coefficient ;

D = diameter of circular loaded area

d = diameter of circle inscribed in depression of bottom

plate;De =effective tank diameter = DT + T = actual tank

diameter plus thickness of granular Or compacted clay pad

beneath tank

DT = tank diameter

E = average value of Young's modulus

Eu = undrained Young's modulus ;

F = factor of safety against bearing capacity failure

H = height of tank;

minimum factor of safety, the smaller of the factors of

Fmin
safety against bearing capacity failure

I p = settlement influence factor

K = modulus factor

q = bearing pressure

ultimate bearing capacity for base shear ;

gbult
q = bearing pressure at top of clay layer
c
ultimate bearing capacity for edge shear ;
geult
RI = tank radius

allowable change in radius of roof seal

ARtol
R = radial distance

SAG =. ASmax for quarter points of shell

Si = out-of-plane settlement of point i

S = maximum out-of-plane settlement of any point

max
Su = undrained shear strength ;

T = thickness of granular layers and pad beneath tank

t max thickness of shell at base of tank

p = settlement correction factor

p = settlement ;

pac = actual consolidation settlement

pcC = conventional consolidation settlement ;

pi = immediate elastic settlement

Ault ultimate settlement ;

to = change in vertical stress due to surface load

8 = difference in settlement between diametrical points

a max maximum difference in settlement between diametrical points

 CHAPTER -I
INTRODUCTION

A cylindrical storage tank is an inexpensive structure for its

size. Unlike most structures, the cost of a tank foundation can exceed

the cost of the tank itself. The oil storage tank is unique with

respect to the nature of the load which is essentially a uniformly

distributed load on a circular area.

Foundations, in general, are proportioned based on allowable

bearing pressure which satisfies both the shear failure criterion and

the settlement criterion. The importance of the settlement criterion

cannot be overemphasized, because it is associated with important

facets of the tank , such as its appearance and utility. Settlement

can cause a tilt larger enough to be detected by human eye. The shear

criterion. has two components, namely, the edge shear criterion and the

base shear criterion. In an oil tank foundation the edge shear

criterion becomes the controlling factor in most cases.

The current exercise is an attempt to compute the settlement of

oil tank foundations resting on sand and clay soils and the factor of

safety value for the edge shear failure condition. A computer program

has been developed, to compute the settlement using the appropriate

input data. The program takes into account subsoils situations

consisting of layered soil strata. The program is of interactive type,

that is, the user can interact during the execution of the program.

A program has also been developed modifying an available program

SARC to estimate the factor of safety against edge shear failure.

The scheme of presentation in this thesis is as follows;

I
 In Chapter 2, a thorough literature review dealing with the type

of oil tanks and the types of foundations has been presented. The

chapter also includes a discussion on the settlement and shear failure

criteria.

In Chapter 3, the methods of estimating settlement for oil tank

foundations are discussed. This chapter also details the features and

limitations of the program developed to compute settlement. Chapter 4,

deals with the stability analysis of the foundation. The details of

the method adopted, sequence of computation as well as the important

features of the program are discussed.

Chapter 5, presents the results obtained by the use of the

programs for some typical data. Chapter 6, lists the conclusions

arrived at on the basis of these results.

2
 CHAPTER -11
OIL TANK FOUNDATIONS AND THEIR STABILITY

2.1 GENERAL

Cylindrical storage tanks form a important component of petroleum

refineries, chemical plants and many other manufacturing plants.

A cylindrical storage tank is an inexpensive structure for its

size. Unlike most structures, the cost of a tank foundation can exceed

the cost of the tank itself. The loading pattern in an oil tank is

quite different compared to that of a normal structure. There is a

gradual increase In the foundation loads during construction of most

buildings. In the case of oil tanks however, almost all of the tank

loading is brought to bear on the soil suddenly after the completion

of the structure. Thus, it is often possible to separate "elastic"

deflection from movements resulting from the gradual consolidation

settlement.

The bottom of an oil storage tank COST) is thin and will remain

in contact with the subsoil during settlement. Thus, the OST is unique

with respect to the nature of load which is essentially a case of

uniformly distributed load on a circular area. The tank foundations

are flexible in nature, with a sole purpose to allow for and adjust to

any distortion that may incur in the tank base. Since most theories of

soil mechanics assume uniform application of pressures, the sub

surface stress conditions and deflections can thus be predicted with a

sufficient degree of accuracy.

One of the basic features of an oil storage tank is its ability

to sustain a large magnitude of uniform settlement. It has been found

that most tanks remain in use even after undergoing settlements as

J
large as 0.90m (Roberts, 1961). It is primarily the differential

settlement which causes problems because its occurrence leads to

rupture of tank base and even tilting of the tank in certain cases.

2.2 TYPES OF OIL STORAGE TANKS AND FEATURES

A cylindrical storage tank is a simple structure. It consists of

a nearly flat metal bottom, a thin cylindrical shell, and either a

fixed or a floating roof. The diameter of oil storage tanks ranges

from 4.5m to 75 m while the tank height normally range from 4.8m to a
.h,
maximum of 17.Om (Roberts, 1961). The tank bottom normally extends a

minimum of 0.03m beyond the tank shell; this permits field erection by

means of welding both inside and outside of the shell to the tank

bottom.

The oil storage tanks are of two main types, namely

I) Fixed roof type

ii) Floating roof type

2.2.1 Fixed Roof Type:

The cone roof in such cases is permanently attached to the tank

shell and is supported by a series of rafters, girders and columns.

Fixed roofs are used In tanks as having nominal or no internal

pressures where the resultant upward force does not exceed the normal

weight of metal in tank shell, roof and any framing supported by the

shell or roof. (Fig. 2.1).

2.2.2 Floating Roof Type:

A floating roof is free to rise and fall with the variation in

level in tank contents. The floating roof is kept in the center of the

tank by special devices.A critical feature of a floating roof tank Is

that the clearance between the roof and the tank shell is fairly

al
small. The floating roof will not function if the tank shell becomes

distorted. Malfunctioning of a floating roof can result in serious

explosions or roof collapse, should a vacuum be created between the

tank contact and roof (Roberts, 1961).

Floating roof controls evaporation which is characteristic of

some crude oil and other petroleum products. They eliminate filling

losses and the vapour space above the product, thus minimizing

possible fire hazard and reaction of the product with air. Use of

floating roofs can be extended to products having absolute vapour

pressure up to 12.25N/cm2 and containing small percentages of air

vapour explosive mixture.

The accessories of floating roof tanks are designed to enable

the tank to overflow and then return to a liquid level which floats

the roof well below the top of the tank shell without damage to any

part of the roof, tank or appurtenances (Fig. 2.2).

2.3 TYPE OF OIL STORAGE TANK FOUNDATIONS

Oil storage tanks are fairly flexible structures and transmit the

weight of their liquid contents to their foundation as a uniformly

distributed load. Therefore, a foundation must be designed to

withstand this load with an adequate margin of safety agains9t bearing

capacity and settlement failures.

The various types of oil storage tank foundations used in

practice, have been listed below:

a) Pad type of foundation

b) Oiled sand pad type

c) Crushed rock or concrete ring wall

d) Skirted ring wall type

e) Piled foundation with crushed rock pile cap.

f) Durley dome foundations for oil tanks

g) Use of end bearing piles

The above listed foundation types are suitable for different soil

conditions.

(a) Pad Type Foundation

The cheapest form of foundations is a pad of compact fill placed

directly on the stripped ground surface (Fig. 2.3, 2.4). The pad is

placed after site stripping and recompacting the exposed subgrade. The

pad is usually a minimum of 0.12m thickness and is normally elevated

to provide satisfactory drainage. The centre of tank is generally

crowned or elevated above tank edge. A slope of one in hundred is

often recommended. The crown is some times limited to a maximum of

0.15 for large storage tanks. The purpose of elevating the centre of

tank bottom is to permit adequate drainage within tank bottom

following settlement (Roberts, 1961).

A foundation pad provides a firm surface for tank construction

and provides good drainage. To improve the stability of tank pad, it

should be extended beyond the edge of the tank to a distance equal to

the deptff of critical edge shear slip surface. A granular foundation

pad, one or two metre thick, can improve edge shear stability in some

cases.

{b) Oiled Sand Pad Type

It is also a sort of pad foundation. It is generally preferable

to place the tank on a layer of oiled sand. However, pouring oil

directly on the sand pad is rarely permissible, since too much oil

could result in a fire when the bottom of tank is welded. (Roberts,

1961)

0
(c) Crushed Rock or Concrete Ring Wall Type

The use of these type of foundation was due to a phenomenon

called 'edge failure'. As the weight of the tank shell and roof is

high, it can lead to a concentration of loads along the base of tank

shell. Since the shell is attached to a flexible tank bottom, abrupt

'edge cutting' can result,as ilustrated in Fig.2.5. Such edge cutting

may result in abrupt deflections from 0.08m to 0.10m where the tank is

constructed directly over clean sand. To reduce the amount of edge

deflection, a ring of angular crushed rock can be installed.

A concrete ring wall (Fig. 2.6) serves the purpose of spanning

local zones of more compressible soils. The ring wall may require

continuous reinforcing to resist hoop tension if there is a danger

that the subsoil may move laterally under the applied tank loads.

When concrete ring walls were first employed, it was felt that

the wall should be placed immediately outside tank perimeter. However,

from experimentation it was concluded that the placement of the- shell

directly on ring wall is preferred, since this aids in tank erection

and maintenance (Roberts, 1961). The significance of edge failure and

its consequence on tank design has been controversial because

designers feel that edge cutting is rarely a determinant to tank

structure and that cost of special edge treatment cannot be normally

justified. By contrast, other designers feel that the use of a

concrete ring wall in particular, facilitates tank erection and

reduces maintenance cost.

It, has been observed that granular pads thickened to provide a

ring wall around the circumference of the tank, with a cushion under

the base, have been used to improve the factor of safety for both base

7
shear and edge shear failure. A design of such type would allow for

the use of a pad thinner than 1 to 2m under the base of tank. Ring

walls too are not free from problems_ For example ring walls found on

dissimilar soils can result in a variable support, which can

contribute to failure.

{d) Skirted Ring Wall Type

It is possible to prevent tank failure by restraining the lateral

movement of the weak subsoils by means of a concrete ring wall,

interlocking sheet piling, or by a ring of gravel which, extends

through the weak soil layer. Such installation are illustrated in Fig.

2.7. The use of such ring wall, however, can result in a very large

differential settlement between the edge and the centre.

These are quite expensive and hence are rarely used. Such

solutions have been used, however, as a corrective measure following

tank failure. The dimensions of the crushed rock ring are selected in

such a way that the passive soil resistance outside the ring wall and

the base friction of the ring wall exceed the outward thrust of

confined weak soil.

Such foundation types have been successfully used on areas

underlain by weak clays up to 4.5 m thickness.

(e) Piled Foundation with Crushed Rock Pile Cap

Pile'foundations with crushed pile (Fig. 2.9) cap are generally

avoided due to the high cost involved. The cost of the conventional

pile foundation with a reinforced concrete cap can be extremely high

in relation,to the cost of the tank.

As an alternative to the concrete cap, a layer of crushed rock or

other granular soil is sometimes placed directly above the piles. With
this system, the loads are transmitted to the piles as the result of

arching within granular cap. Granular pile caps have been successfully

used for nearly 50 years. However, the design of the crushed rock pile

cap is still more or less empirical.

(f) Durley Dome Foundation for Oil Storage Tanks

It offers an ingenious and economical solution without piles. The

concrete dome is provided with a heavily reinforced ring beam, all the

stresses in the dome are compressive and it requires only light

reinforcement to transmit load to the ground (Fig. 2.9).

(g) Use of End Bearing Piles

These are used when a soft soil is underlain by a very strong

soil of considerable thickness. The use of end bearing piles to

transmit the tank load to the strong stratum is often regarded as the

safest solution, even though it may be expensive and is often used

when the client is in a hurry and does not wish to be associated with

anything that resembles an experimental procedure. The piles are

usually capped with a reinforced concrete slab on which the steel tank

is constructed. (Penman et.al. 1977).

Oil companies are very reluctant to provide piled foundation for

their tanks, even in very poor soil conditions, except in cases where

large differential settlements must be prevented i.e. for the floating

roof kind of storage tank. Piled foundations are uneconomical when

compared to the different foundation alternatives available to the

designer.
2.4 FAILURE CRITERIA

2.4.1 Settlement Criterion

Settlement connotes change in elevation of a point from the time

that point becomes joined to the tank. The importance of settlement

cannot be neglected, because it is associated with important facets of

the tank, namely its appearance and utility. Settlement can also cause

a tank to tilt enough for it to be detected by human eye. The tilt can

either be a planar or a nonplanar one.

Settlement can cause a structure to fail structurally and

collapse even though the factor of safety against a shear failure in

the foundation is high. The degree of damage caused by settlement is

to some extent dependant on the sequence and time of construction

operation. As the superstructure is erected, the foundation soil

consolidates and would deform to a certain specific shape, depending

upon the soil type dish type. D'Orazio et.al (1987) have discussed

different settlement profile shapes. Steel tank bottoms can undergo a

wide variety of types of distortion as they settle. In some cases the

center of the tank settled most, while in other cases, the greatest

settlement occurred at a location between the center and the edge

(Fig. 2.10). It has been observed that shape A is least severe with

respect to distortion and shape C most severe.

In general, settlements are of two types:

(i) Uniform settlement

(ii) Differential settlement

The categorisation of types of the settlement varies, if we take

into account the different components of the oil storage tank. The

different categories have been reported by Marr et.al. (1982) as

10
follows,

(i)Shell

- Planar tilt

- Nonplanar settlement

(ii) Bottom Plate

- Dish type settlement

- Localized type settlement

(iii) Shell bottom plate connection

- Nonplanar settlement

(Refer Table 1)
Table 1 describes differential settlement patterns that a tank

foundation may develop, the probable foundation condition which

produce each pattern and the adverse consequences that could result
from each.

Uniform Settlement

As far as uniform settlement is concerned, it causes very little

concern to designers. It means that all the points around the tank

periphery, or at any point below the tank base undergo equal magnitude

of vertical strain. The criticality of uniform settlement is highly

questionable because most of the designers 'permit high values of

uniform settlement of the order of 15 to 30 cm (Roberts 1961).

Uniform settlement of the shell may damage piping connections due to

the differential settlement between the shell and the external pipe

supports and thus it may hinder operation. One can avoid such problems

by using flexible connector or by periodically repositioning the

pipe supports. Excessive uniform settlement may produce operation

problems when one considers tanks, but one can best handle such

differences on a case-by-case basis. Uniform settlement of the annular

11
ring causes no problem to the structural integrity of the shell bottom

plate connections. (Marr et.al. 1982).

Differential Settlement

A study of literature clearly indicates that in oil storage

tanks, the critical settlement is the differential settlement.

s
In most of the cases, it is the differential settlement which

acts as the governing parameter because it can lead to the rupture of

tanks culminating in excessive oil spillage. Secondly, it may even

lead to malfunctioning of floating roof oil storage tanks.'

Differential settlement means differences in vertical deformation

between two points at foundation structure interface. Differential

settlement between parts of a structure may occur as a result of

a) Variation in soil strata : One part of a structure may be founded

on a compressive soil while the other part on an incompressible

material.

b) Variations in foundation loading : Nonuniform distribution of the

load applied to the foundation and uniform stress acting over a

limited area of stratum.

c) Large loaded areas on flexible foundations : The settlement of

flexible foundations when constructed directly on a compressible

soil take a characteristic dish type shape with the maximum

settlement at the centre gradually decreasing towards edges.

However, when a large loaded area is founded on a relatively

incompressible stratum (eq. dense gravel) overlying compressible

soil (Fig. 2.11), settlement will occur due to consolidation of

the latter layer.

12
(d) Variation in site conditions : One part of the area may have been

occupied by a heavy structure which had earlier been demolished.

On an a sloping site, it may be necessary to remove a

considerable thickness of overburden to form a level site. These

variations result in different stress conditions both before and

after loading, with consequent differential settlement on

swelling. (Tomlinson 1980)

Settlement Profile Shapes:

Settlement profile have been observed on thirty one cases as

listed in Table 2. Out of the thirty one cases, twenty six are cases

where settlements were observed across tank bottom and requisite

information was available about the thickness of compressible strata,

depth and properties of the underlying soil mass.

Based on these data D'Orazio et.al 1987) have reported three

settlement profile shapes. They are

a) The center of the tank settled most as compared to the edge,

commonly, referred to as the dish shaped type, represented by

profile shape A in Fig. 2.10. The profile shapes of tanks having

relatively flat interior with settlements decreasing rapidly,

towards tank wall have been represented by shape B, Fig. 2.10.

b) It has been found in another case, that tanks settled most at a

location about two thirds the distance from the center to the

edge of the tank. This settlement profile has been represented by

shape C, Fig 2.10.

It was found that shape A is the least severe with respect to

distortion, and shape C is the most severe, It is primarily on account

of the importance of the settlement profile shape and the resulting

13
tank bottom distortion that it becomes extremely necessary to examine

the factors controlling the shape.

Factors Governing Profile Shapes

The shape A corresponds to the case of a typical settlement

profile obtained by elastic theory for a flexible foundation over a

deep compressible layer. This shape is the one predicted by the

conventional elastic theory when the loading is uniform the case -of a

circular loaded area.

The shapes B anc C are governed by

i) Ratio of (De/T)

Where De = effective tank diameter

T = thickness of clay layer

With the increase in the ratio of De/T the likelihood that

maximum settlement occurs more at the edge increase.

ii) Factor of Safety (FOS) with respect to shear failure in the

foundation. As the factor of safety decreases, it become

increasingly likely that maximum settlement will occur off

centre.

The minimum factor of safety (FOS min) is the smaller of the FOS

against bearing capacity failure beneath the edge of the tank and

against overall bearing capacity failure.

The different combinations of FOS and D IT which would result in

e
different profile shapes have been enlisted below:

a) Tanks with FOS min (based on undrained strength) > 1.1 and D /T.
e
<4.0 had settlement profiles of shape A.

b) Most tanks with FOS min > 1.1 and D /T>4 had settlement profiles
e
of shape B.

14


c) Most tanks with FOS min. <1.1 had settlement profiles of shape C,

whether the tank was stable or unstable when filled.

Method of Estimation of Settlement

Conventional settlement analyses techniques can be used to

estimate the amount of settlement that the centre of tank would

undergo However, these techniques do not take into account a large

number of factors which have significant effects on the magnitude of

settlement. These factors and the procedures recommended for

accommodating them are described below:

a) Immediate settlement is that portion of the settlement which

occurs immediately upon application of the load, even though the

foundation soil may be saturated and may drain slowly.

q
pi = Lp.2ED
(2.1)
where pi = immediate elastic settlement

I = influence factor
p
q = bearing pressure

D = diameter of circular loaded area

E = average value of Young's modulus of

compressible foundation soil.

The value of influence factor was calculated from a chart shown

in fig.2.12 developed by D'Orazio et.al (1982). As the difference

between the field and the laboratory modulus may be a factor of three

or even more, it is preferable to estimate the soil modulus using a

correlation of modulus with undrained strength and plasticity

characteristics rather than to use a modulus value from laboratory

test. Such a correlation is shown in Fig. 2.13 .

15
b) Convenient charts as shown in Fig.2.14 were developed by D'Orazio

et. al. (1982). Changes in vertical stress can be estimated using

the charts. These can be used to calculate consolidation

settlements for the compressible soil layer beneath the tanks.

c) The excess pore pressure induced by undrained loading of the

foundation soil beneath a tank may not be equal to the ohange in

vertical stress in the soil. The correction factor 'p' developed

by Skempton and Bjerrum (1957) as been shown in Fig.2.15 The

actual consolidation settlement Is estimated as follows:

Pac° P Pcc (2.2)

where pac = actual consolidation settlement

= conventional consolidation settlement

Pcc

The final settlement, after the consolidation is complete, can be

estimated using the following equation:

pull = Pi + Pac (2.3)

where pult = final settlement

pi = immediate settlement from Eq. 2.1

p = actual consolidation settlement from Eq.2.2

ac

2.4.2 Shear failure Criterion

In practice, two modes of foundation instability with respect to

shear have been observed:

a) Base shear failure

b) Edge shear failure.

The basic premise on which the two modes of failure are based is

that in the former case, the tank fails as a single unit while in the

latter case, only a limited portion of the tank base comes into play.

16
It has been found that the latter case Is more critical than the

former one because it may also, lead to tank base distortion, thereby

culminating into loss of contents, environmental damage and even loss

of human life.

Base shear failure

The mechanism is very similar to the mechanism of bearing failure

of a shallow footing on clay Fig.2.16. If the clay layer is thicker

than 0,7De, the slip surface will probably not extend to the base of

the layer. For any of 'these cases, the net ultimate base shear

bearing capacity can be expressed as,

Qbult = Su N (2.4)
where

gbult = ultimate bearing capacity for base shear

S = average undrained shear strength of clay .

N = dimensionless bearing capacity factor for base shear

For a clay layer thicker than one sixth of tank diameter (D /T <_
e
6) Meyerhof, (1981) vide Duncan et.al (1983) has shown that the value

of N is the same as for a circular footing on a deep clay layer:

Nc = 6.1 for De/T s 6.0 (2.5)

For a thinner clay layer, Meyerhof suggested that the value of N c

can be determined from the following expression:

Nc = 4.1 + De/3T for De/T>6 (2.6)

in which T = clay layer thickness

17
 The value of N increases as the clay layer becomes thinner,

because the mechanism of failure is increasingly restricted due to the

fact that the clay is sandwiched between the bottom of the tank and

the underlying firm layer. Thus, with very thin clay layers, base

shear becomes a less likely mode of failure.

The factor of safety against base shear is defined as:

Fb _ gbqlt
(2.7)

Where q= bearing pressure as the top of the clay layer

c
bult = ultimate bearing capacity for base shear
g

Equation 2.7 may be expressed as,

S N
F = u c
(2.8)
l rD + Tp 2
(
D_l 2 •1

b Dei P P L De J
where,

De = diameter of the loaded area at top of clay

D = tank diameter

Tp = pad thickness

TP = unit weight of pad material

S = average undrained shear strength of clay

In applying Eq.2.8 to cases where the clay strength varies with

depth beneath the tank, a weighted average value of shear strength is

suggested by Duncan et.al (1983). The weighting factors can be

estimated by considering the length of slip surface within each

segment of the failure zone within the clay layer. The shape of the

0
slip surface within the clay can be approximated as a semicircle,

which can be shown to correspond to the following equation

Su 0.17Su + 0.18Su2 + O.21Su3 + 0.445u4 (2.9)
av 1

in which S = weighted average strength along entire failure one

av
Sul = average strength within upper one fourth of failure zone ; S
u2 =
average strength in upper middle one-fourth of failure zone ; 5 3

average strength in lower middle one-fourth of failure zone; and 5 4

average strength in lower one-fourth of failure zone.

Edge Shear Failure

The mechanism of edge shear failure shown in Fig.2.17 is possible

because the tank bottom is flexible, so that a portion of width B can

move independently of the adjacent area of the tank bottom. In such

cases, the degree of spreading is dependent on the width B. For the

purposes of analysis, the net load was calculated using the

expression ;
(2.11)
gaPP = q + 7p Tp
where

gapp = applied load at the top of the clay layer

The ultimate bearing capacity for edge shear mode can be

calculated using the expression,

geult Su Nc v p Tp (2.12)

where

eult = ultimate bearing capacity for edge shear mode

g
N= bearing capacity factor for edge shear
c
Bjerrum, et.al (1975) suggested that the value of N for edge
c
shear failure can be expressed as

19
 NC = 5.2 + (B/D) (2.13)

where B = width of segment involved in edge shear

D = tank diameter

The value of Su to be used is a weighted average value along the

slip surface.

For each trial, the slip surface is considered to be a segment of

a circular arc with radius B with its center at base of tank wall.

Each trial involves assuming a value of B, calculating N using Eq.

c
2.13, evaluating the average shear strength using factor shown in

Fig.2.18 and calculating the edge shear FOS using the following

equation:

Fe = geult
(2.14)
gapp

In cases where edge shear is more critical than base shear,

stability can sometimes be improved by a foundation pad. To improve

stability, the pad should extend beyond the edge of the tank upto a

distance equal to the depth of the critical edge shear slip surface.

2.5.3 Case histories on oil tank foundation with ground improvement

Of the numerous ground improvement techniques available the

common ones which are applicable to oil storage tanks have been

enlisted below;-

1. Preloading techniques

2. Use of, reinforced earth mats

3. Soil replacement techniques

4. Use of vibratory methods

20
5. Use of stone/gravel columns

6. Prefabricated drains, vertical and horizontal sand

drain.

The applicability of a particular technique is governed solely by

the soil conditions available at the site and the extent to which the

ground would be stressed on construction of the structure.

In the following paragraphs, a few case histories involving

ground improvement are discussed.

(i) Preloading under the weight of Test Load

Consolidation to improve the strength of soft soil under the

weight of the test load in the tank itself has been described by

Penman et.al (1965). The initial strength of the soil was too low to

support the weight of a full tank and the method was proved by an

experiment with a tank 13.7 in dia. and 14.5m high. (Fig 2.19)

Stability analysis indicated that the developed pore pressure must be

less than 60 percent of the applied bearing pressure under the full

tank and the results from oedometer tests on samples taken during an

initial site investigation suggested that the rate of dissipation of

pore pressure could require a slow loading rate that would take 3

months to fill the tank. A more detailed inspection of the soil

profile made when instruments were being installed revealed two

horizontal sand layers which divided the soft soil into three layers

of almost equal thickness. The original estimate of 3 months was based

on the assumption that the soil would drain only from its upper and

lower •surfaces. Because the time for drainage is proportional to the

square of the length of the drainage path, the two sand layers, which

if drained, would reduce the drainage path length to a third, would

21
reduce the time for filling the tank to about 10 days. To ensure

drainage of the sand layers, a ring of vertical sand drains, 0.30 in

dia. at 1.5m centres, was placed under the tank periphery. The

foundation pad for the tank was made from quarried blast furnace slag

placed in 0.25m layers, compacted by a light vibrating roller. It was

built 1.2m thick at the edge and 1.4m thick at the centre to allow for

the expected large settlements.

Test loading of the tank was controlled by the rate of pore

pressure increase an the uniformity of edge settlement. Two short

halts during loading showed that the pore pressure rise was

immediately stopped at cessation of loading without any overrun; so it

was felt to be safe to allow the pore pressure to rise to the limit

and in the event, the tank was filled in only 44 hours. it was kept

full for a further 20 days before being emptied, painted and put into

service, a plan and elevation of the tank showing the positions of the

instruments is given by Fig. 2.19. The developed pore pressures and

settlements are shown in Fig. 2.20.

(ii) Case 2- (Sullivan and Nowicki, 1975)

A major expansion to a refinery in Columbia, South America,

included constructing four cylindrical steel storage tanks in 1966

over weak marsh deposits. The tanks were supported at grade and were

preloaded by controlled water testing (Darragh, 1964) over periods of

several months to improve tank stability by densifying and

strengthening the foundation soils, and to force substantial

settlements, of the tanks to occur prior to placing them in service

thereby minimizing later operational settlements.

22
Soil Condition:-

General soil stratigraphy at the two tank sites is depicted by

the profiles in Fig. 2.21.

The surface fill is 1 to 2.5 m thick consisting of well compacted

sand, silt, clay and gravel. The ground water level fluctuates within

the fill.

The uppermost stratum of the deposits is soft to firm clays

having undrained shear strengths ranging from 12 to 45 kN/m2. To about

6 m depth, the soils are grey clays and silty clays with moisture

contents between 30 and 40%; below 6 m, the clay becomes highly

plastic with organic matter and moisture contents ranging from 50 to

90%. Compressibility characteristics of these lightly overconsolidated

clays are presented in Fig. 2.21 with pertinent classification

properties. The middle stratum consisting of silty fine sand is medium

dense in condition based on standard penetration -test results, the

lowest stratum is soft and highly compressible organic clay containing

with moisture contents generally greater than 140%.

Tank Foundations:-

The tanks 12 m high for storing refined product having'a specific

gravity of about 0.8 are supported on compacted fill pads as

illustrated in Fig. 2.22. Tanks A and B are 41m in diameter with a

cone roof supported by interior columns bearing on the tank floor.

Tanks C and D have floating roofs and are 20.5m in diameter.

Loading and Settlements Observed

The rate of water loading in each tank is shown by the loading

diagrams on Fig.2.23. The foundation soils beneath the cone-roof tanks

were precompressed for a substantial period with a surcharge ratio of

23
0.165 and for a short time with a ratio of 0.33, where surcharge ratio

is defined as the ratio of the excess load to the sustained load.

Soils beneath the floating roof tanks were similarly surcharged.

24
 CHAPTER - III
ESTIMATION OF SETTLEMENT FOR OIL TANK FOUNDATIONS

3.1 General

The settlement of a foundation has two main component, namely,

immediate settlement and consolidation settlement.

St = Si+ Sc (3.1)

where,

St = Total settlement

S. = Immediate settlement
I.

S = Consolidation settlement
C

For sands, the consolidation settlement is almost negligible.

Therefore, the total settlement is equal to the immediate settlement.

However, for clays, consolidation settlement forms a major part of

total settlement. In situations, where rapid application of load takes

place, as in the case of oil tanks, immediate settlement shall also

occur. In clays, therefore, total settlement is the sum of the

immediate settlement and consolidation settlement.

3.2 SETTLEMENT OF FOUNDATIONS ON SANDS

The method of computation of settlement in sands is based on

Plate Load Test(PLT). Standard Penetration Test (SPT) or Static Cone

Penetration Test (SCPT). However, of the different methods available,

a method based on SCPT has been used in the present case.

The results of the Static Cone Penetration Test (SCPT) are

recorded as

(i) dppth vs corresponding cone penetration resistance (qc)

(ii)depth vs friction resistance (fs)

The cone resistance is used for computing the settlement.

25
 There are two methods widely cited in literature, for estimating

settlement using static cone penetration test data. They are:

(i) De-Beer and Marten's Method (1957, 1965)

(ii)Schmertmann's Method. (1970)

In the present work, the former one has been adopted, De Beer and

Marten (1957) and De Beer (1965) proposed a method for computing the

settlement based on semi-empirical Terzaghi-Buisman forumula in the

following form :

Si = C1
loge
r
H. p. + A p.
1 1 1
(3. 2)
L pi J

where,

Si = Settlement of a layer of sand of thickness HI

p. = Mean effective overburden pressure for the layer considered.

1

Apt = Increase in vertical stress in a layer due to imposed load.

C = A constant of compressibility which is related to static

cone resistance q by the following equation.

c
C = 1.5 (qc/PI ) (3.3)

q = static cone resistance

c
For circularly loaded areas, the stress at any point is obtained

using the stress factors. The stress factors obtained (vide Kaniraj)

have been reported in Table 3. The stress factors are function of

RI and Si where,

R1 = R/RT (3.3a)

SI = Z/RT (3.3b)

where R = Coordinate of the point where settlement is desired, with

the centre of tank as origin

NE


RT = Radius of the tank

Z = Depth measured from the ground level

Using the above functions the stress any point below the tank

base can be obtained using the following equation.

Api = q x Stress Factor (3.4)

where, q = load intensity

qc versus depth curve is broken into several parts each having

approximately same value of qc. The average resistance of each layer

is taken for calculating the constant of compressibility; pi and Api

values at the middle of each layer are representative to that layer.

3.3 SETTLEMENT OF FOUNDATIONS ON CLAYS

3.3.1 IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT IN CLAYS

The magnitude of immediate settlement which occurs due to

distortion in the foundation soils, may be estimated using elastic

theory. Accordingly, the immediate settlement is given as,

Pi = I p 2D (3.5)

p l = Immediate elastic settlement

I = Dimensionless settlement influence factor

p
q = load intensity

D = Diameter of circular loaded area

E = Average value of Youngs Modulus of compresisble

foundatioon expressed in same units as q.

The value of E is obtained as the product of a modulus factor K

and average undrained strength Su (Duncan et.al. 1987) K is a function

of over-consolidation ratio and plasticity index as given in Fig.

2.13.

27
3.3.2 CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT

The procedure of calculation of settlement for normally

consolidated and overconsolidated clays has been given below :

Normally consolidated clays The equation used for the

computation of settlement in normally consolidated clays is given

below

C H pi i + Ap
pcc = l+ eo log10 [ P ] (3.6)

where,

Conventional consolidation settlement

pcc
C = Compression index

H = Thickness of the layer undergoing settlement

e = Initial void ratio

0

pi = Mean effective overburden pressure for the layer

ApI = Increase in vertical stress in the layer due to imposed

load.

Api , which is the increase in vertical stress in a layer due to

imposed load is calculated as explained earlier (Eq. 3.4).

The compression index Cc for normally consolidated clays of low

to medium sensitivity is given by,

C = 0.009 (WL - 10) (3.7)

c
where, WL = Liquid limit In percent

Overconsolidated/Underconsolidated clays For such type of

clays, e vs, log p plot is directly used to obtain comsolidation

settlement values. The computation is carried out in the following

manner


Cl) The initial void ratio corresponding to initial overburden stress

is obtained from the e vs log p curve, say e0

(ii) The final void ratios corresponding to the final stresses is

obtained from the e vs log p curve, say e l

(iii)The settlement of each layer Is then computed based on the

following relation

_
pH
Ae• 1 (3.8)
_ l 1 + eo J

where, pcc = Conventional Consolidation Settlement

H = Thickness of each layer

e = Initial void ratio

0

Ae = Change in void ratio, i.e. (eI - eo)

3.3.3 Correction For Three Dimensional Consolidation

In the primary consolidation settlement computation, one

dimensional consolidatin theory is used. That is, the increase in pore

water pressure due to foundation loading is assumed to be equal to the

increase in the vertical stress. But in a three dimensional

consolidation situation this assumption is not valid hence correction

proposed by Skempton and Bjerrum (1957) is widely used in practice.

Accordingly,

pac = µ pcc
where,

Actual consolidation settlement corrected for three

pac
dimensional effects.

p cc = Conventional consolidation settlement computed from one

dimensional consolidation theory.

29
 = Correction factor dependent on type of clay (governed by

A factor) and foundation geometry (Fig 2.15).

The actual consolidation settlement value is then added to the

immediate settlement to get the final settlement value.

3.4 FEATURES OF THE PROGRAM

A program is developed for computation of settlement of

foundation of oil tanks. The program is of interactive type, that is,

the user is asked various question during the execution of the program

which is to be answered in the form of various input data.

The program takes into account layered effect that is, different

type of soil strata can be handled at a time for computation of

settlement.

The program uses different charts as shown in Fig. 2.12, 2.13, &

2.15 in the form of in built input data, Stress factors, settlement

factor and influence factors for different cases can thus be computed

separately and later transferred into suitable equations to obtain

settlement values.

30
 CHAPTER-IV
STABILITY OF OIL TANK FOUNDATION AGAINST SHEAR FAILURE

4.1 GENERAL

Steel oil storage tanks are frequently constructed, at siteswhere

the foundation soils are weak and compressible Bearing capacity

failures in the foundations of tanks have resulted in severe damage

and even rupture of tanks. It is thus evident' that evaluating the

stability of tanks founded on weak soils is an important aspect of

design.

Two modes of foundation instability have been observed in

practice namely base shear and edge shear. Base shear involves failure

of the tank as a unit, where as edge shear involves local failure of a

part of the tank perimeter and a significant portion of' the base. Base

shear failure is quite similar to the conventional bearing capacity

failure, while the mechanism of edge shear failure is different from

the former one.

The mechanism of edge shear is possible because the tank bottom

is flexible, that a portion of the width of the tank can move

independently of the adjacent area of tank bottom. Two methods for

computation of factor of safety values under edge shear conditions

have been suggested in literature.

The first method is based on averaging foundation shear strengths

values. This concept enables the use of bearing capacity equations to

conditions where shear strength of foundation varies with depth.

However, this concept assumes the centre of the failure slip circle at

the edge of the tank (Fig 4.1 ). This seems to be inappropriate

because the centre can be located at the point of minimum factor of

31
safety only, and varies with soil parameters. A circular failure does

take place in soils but the centre of the slip circle (Fig 4.2) may be

above ground level.

The second method is the Bishop's simplified method, which uses

the circular wedge mode of failure and can be suitably used to

calculate factor of safety values corresponding to the critical slip

circle. As this method is not associated with any basic limitations,

it has been used corresponding to edge shear conditions.

4.2 METHOD OF STABILITY ANALYSIS

Oil tanks may be constructed on weak clay foundations or in

situations where clay in overlain by a granular overburden layer or a

compacted soil pad or both. The general mode of shear failure quoted

in literature has already been discussed in the previous chapters. In

the present case, the simplified Bishop's equation where vertical

slices are considered for factor of safety computations is adopted.

The general Bishop's equation to be used for computing factor of

safety value is

5 r C.b + W 1-B tan m

F. _ E. (4. 1)
E I W sin a

where,

F = factor of safety of slope

b = width of slice

W = weight of slice

a = angle of the base of slice with the horizontal

sec a
m - tan
1 + F 0 tan a

32
 = pore water pressure/W

Bishop's method gives fairly accurate results with the advantages

of simplicity in concept and operation. Bishop's equation has the term

'factor of safety' on both sides of equation This necessitates

iterative calculations. Moreover, different trials are required to

locate critical slip circle for edge shear conditions. Therefore, a

computer program Is it mu nt. Lo solve the stability equations.

Compulei hus made the torLuous ulabilily computtiLlons cuilor and

more accurate. Now the accuracy of analysis depends mainly on the

accuracy of soil strength parameters i.e. cohesion and angle of

internal friction. These parameters are generally evaluated by

laboratory and field tests.

4.3 FEATURES OF THE PROGRAM

A program already available on the stability of slope (SARC) is

modified incorporating the following features:-

a) The program facilitates stability analysis of soil thereby

enabling calculation of factor of safety for edge shear

criterion,

b) The soil layering system, with soils having different values of

cohesion, angle of internal friction has also been taken into

account.

c) A uniform surcharge intensity starting form the edge of the tank

to the other end has been considered.

d) The thickness and the number of slices can be varied.

e) Variation of ground water table has also been incorporated.

f) Given the entry and exit points of the slip circle, the centre of

the slip circle is chosen automatically along the perpendicular

33


bisector of the line journing the entry and exit points, (Fig.

4.3 ).

g) The entry point of the slip circle may be assumed to lie anywhere

on the ground profile.

h) If the number of slices are less than twenty the same is

subdivided to give more slices.

Number of entry points may be given.

Option is available to get all the values of factor of safety

corresponding to different exit points or only the minimum values

of factor of safety in the output.

k) Number of layers have to be specified, with their corresponding

soil strength parameters.

1) Co-ordinates of the different horizontal layers with respect to

origin (as chosen) have to be given.

m) The output consists of all input data and results. The results

are obtained in a tabular form as follows;

(i) Factor of safety values

(ii) Weight of failed wedge

(iii) Coordinate of centre points of slip circles

(iv) Coordinate of exit points of slip circles

(v) Radius of slip circle

n) The program can be run in any system of units. Use of

Tonne-metre-degree is recommended.

4.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE PROGRAM

a) Only those slip circles can be analysed which pass above the hard

strata

34


' b) The program does not take into account the earthquake forces for

factor of safety computations.

c) A surcharge of limited length likely to fail within the exit

point of the critical slip circle and surcharge of non-uniform

intensity can not be analysed.

4.5 SEQUENCE AND EXPLANATION OF COMPUTATION

The sequence of computations, as shown In the flow chart (Fig.

4.4). is explained in detail in the following steps:

Step 1: Input Data

Choosing a conventional origin, the coordinates of various

profile points which define the surface of slope (X(I), Z(I)), the

reduced level of hard strata (ROCK), water level (WL), surcharge etc.

are specified, soil parameters of different layers are also given as

input data. Corresponding to one entry point of assumed slip circle,

different exit points are also given as input data.

Step 2: Computation of YEXIT

X coordinates of exit point of slip circle being known, YEXIT is

calculated by simple interpretation. Firstly, the profile point next

to the exit point is searched out [X(L),Z(L)1 (Fig.4.4). YEXIT is then

computed by following equation:

YEXIT = Z(1-1) + - X(L-1) (XEXIT - X(L-1) (4.2)

X(L)

Step 3: Computation of Radius and Centre of Slip Circle

Knowing the coordinate of entry and exist points of assumed slip

circle, the distance between them (D) is computed by following

equation

35


D = J (XEXIT — ENTX)` + (YEXIT — ENTYY (4.3)

The first radius of the slip circle is assumed as

R = D/2 + DELR (4.4)

where DELR is the increment in the radius which is firstly chosen as

D/4.

Knowing the radius the centre is computed

A = Sin 1 (D/2R) (4.5)

B = tan 1 [
EXIT — ENTY
XEXIT — ENTX (4.6)

The coordinates of centre (XC. YC) are given by

XC = R Sin (A-B) + ENTX (4.7a)

XC = R Cos (A-B) + ENTX (4.7b)

If YC comes out to be less than YEXIT, next radius is chosen.

Step 4 : Division of Failure Wedge into slices

Firstly the width of the slices is taken as the horizontal

distance between two consecutive profile points. The number of slices

then counted. If these slices are less than the minimum number of

slice specified (20), the average slice width is calculated for given

minimum number of slice (i.e., average width = (XEXIT -ENTX)/ minimum

number of slice). The distance between the profile points are, then,

compared with this width (between entry and exit points only). Any

slice which is wider than the above width is subdivided until the

width of the slice becomes equal to or less than the above specified

width. The number of slices, therefore, may be more than the specified

minimum number of slices. The coordinates of the slip circle are

computed by simple geometry using the following equation

36
 Cl = R2 (XK — XC)2 (4.8)

YK = YC - (4.9)
Step 5 . Modification of the program SARC to take into account
layering effect

Initially the coordinates of the different layers along with the

different soil parameters are specified. The Y-coordinates (YK(K) &

YK(K-1) at the base of the vertical slices are compared with the

coordinates of the layers Yd (II).

Values of YK(K) and YK(K-1) are separately compared with YD(I1)

and depending upon the existing situations, average values are

assigned as per the following equation.

CH (11-1) { YK(K) - YD (I1) } + CHI1 { YD(fl) - YK (K-1)~

C = (4.10)
{YK(K) - YK(K-1)}

TPHI (I1-1)(YK(K) - YD (Ii)} + TPHI (Ii){YD(I1)- YK(K-1)}

TANP = (4.11)
{YK(K) - YK(K-1))

In order to take into account the variability of unit weight of

different layers, weight of each of the layers incorporated with in a

given vertical slice are computed separately and added to give the

weight of each individual slice.

Step 6 Computation of factor of safety.

The factor of safety is computed 'using equation 4.1 for

various values of radius, repeating the above steps until a minimum

value of factor of safety is obtained. The process is repeated for

different exit points and the corresponding critical factor of safety

values are obtained.

37
 CHAPTER-V
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Introduction

The interactive program developed has been used to analyse

certain typical problems. The results of these analysis are discussed

below.

5.2 Analysis of Typical Tank Foundation Subsoil Situtation

5.2.1 Settlement values

Settlement values namely immediate settlement, actual

consolidation settlement and total settlement have been computed for

an oil tank of diameter 15m resting on foundation of lm thick pad of

compacted gravel. The soil starta consists of foundation material

consists of layered depost of clay and sand having thicknesses 4m and

5m respectively as shown in Fig 5.1. The data is fed by responding to

a series of questions flashed on the screen as shown-in Table 7.

It may be noted from Table 8b while the clay stratum (layers 2 to

5) undergoes both immediate and consolidation settlements, the sand

stratum (layers 6 to 10) exhibits only immediate settlement. The sum

of the immediate and consolidation settlement values is also given in

Table 8(c). Further, it may be noted that the settlement value

reported at the mid point of the first layer is the settlement at the

tank base. The program computes settlement values at any radial

distance from the tank centre, thus enabling differential settlement

to be estimated.

5.2.2 Factor of Safety For Edge Shear Condition

Factor of safety values for the tank conditions shown in Fig 5.1

is obained for edge shear condition. The input file prepared as per
Appendix for the problem is shown in Table 9. The output file giving

the details of the input parameters, the factor of safety, the

location of the critical slip circle is shown in Table 10-

5.3 TANK FOUNDATIONS ON GRANULAR DEPOSITS

To study the effect of tank foundations resting on granular

deposits, different tank diameters resting on a granular soil having

different values of 0 have been considered . Tank diameters of 15m,

20m and 50m while the 0 values were varied as 32°, 34° & 36°

respectively. The variation of q with depth given by Durgunoglu and

c
Mitchell (1975), with the angle of shearing resistance 0, as the third

parameter has been used Fig. 5.2, Settlement values are computed by

the De Beer Marten method.

Typical plots of total settlement vs R/RT (R = radial distance

from the centre, RT = radius of the tank) are made for different tank

diameters and shown in Figs 5.3 to S.S. The plots shown in Fig 5.3,

5.4, 5.5 for different tank diameters indicate that as the value of

angle of shearing resistance 0 increases from 320 to 360 , the total

settlement decreases substantially. Further it is evident from Fig.

5.6 with the increase in tank diameter, the total settlement

increases. The slope of the settlement curve is very steep close of

the edge (i.e for R/RT= 0.8 to 1.0) suggesting that any weak pocket

close to the edge can cause large differential settlement in the tank

foundation. It has seen that if confinement effect in case of sands is

not considered, the profile is identical to that of clays.

5.4 TANK FOUNDATIONS ON COHESIVE DEPOSITS

To analyse the influence of variation of properties of cohesive

deposits on settlement three typical soil parameter variations were

WHO
chosen. These soil conditions are shown in Fig 5.7. The corresponding

immediate settlement, actual consolidation settlement and the total

settlement plots for different tank diameters were obtained. A loading

intensity of 15 t/m2 was assumed. Tank diameters of 15m, 20m and 50m

were considered. The settlement values obtained for the tank of 20m

dia are shown in Fig 5.8 to 5.10 giving the total settlement, actual

consolidation and immediate settlements respectively. The total

settlement and differential values obtained at the centre and edge for

all the three diameter tanks are shown in Fig 5.11. & 5.12. These

plots help to estimate the order of settlement expected for a tanks of

various sizes resting on cohesive soils of different compressibility.

5.5 INFLUENCE OF COHESIVE LAYER SANDWICHED WITHIN A GRANULAR STRATUM

To study the effect of the presence of eompressible layers within

a granular soil stratum, a tank of diameter equal to 15m and supported

on a soil with q5 = 32o is considered. The load intensity is taken as

15t/m2. The thickness of the clay layer was varied from 0 m to Sm at

intervals of 2m each. The properties of clay depost have been

discussed earlier in Section 5.4.

The results of immediate settlement have been shown in Fig 5.13,

5.14, 5.15 for Case 1, Case 2, and Case 3 respectively. It is evident

from the these plots that as the thickness of clay deposits increases,

the immediate settlement decreases. However, the trend of decrease in

immediate settlement value from the centre to the edge of the tank is

clearly indicated by the plot.

Fi,g 5.16, 5.17 & 5.18 indicate the plots of actual consolidation

settlement for Case 1, Case 2 and Case 3 respectively. The plots

indicate that as the thickness of clay layer within the granular

stratum increases from 2m to Sm the values of actual consolidation

settlement increases. For R/RT values upto 0.4 , the values of actual

consolidation settlement are found to be uniform for the three cases

of clay layer considered in the analysis.

S.6 EFFECT ON SETTLEMENT WHEN A CLAY DEPOSIT IS REPLACED BY A DENSE

GRANULAR LAYER

To analyse the impact of replacement of the top portion of thick

clay deposit by a dense gravel/sand layer on the settlement, a tank

having a diameter of 15 m and resting on a clay deposit 14m thick is

considered. The clay is replaced at the top by 2m and 4m thick dense

sand layers having angle of shearing resistances as e = 36°. The

property of the clay soil is similar to the one as discussed in Case 1

of Section 5.4.

When the top soil is replaced by Gravel/sand layer deposits of 2

m, 4m the settlement values get reduced the computed settlement values

are presented in Fig. 5.19. For a 2m replacement at the top the

settlement value is reduced by 22.6% at the centre of the tank while

24.6% at the edge of the tank and for 4m replacement at the top the

settlement is reduced by 37.8% at the centre of the tank while 39.6%

at the other tank.

41
 CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS

A procedure for the computation of settlement below an oil

storage tank, which takes into account the layered condition of the

subsoil deposit is presented. An interactive computer program is

written to carry out the computations. This analysis enables one to

know the variation of settlement across the tank base, thus giving the

differential settlement at the tank base.

The replacement of the clay layer at the ground surface by a

compacted/granular layer will help in the reduction of settlement. In

one analysis when the top 2m of clay was replaced, the settlement was

reduced by 22.6% at tank centre and 24.6% the tank edge. A 4m

replacement resulted in a settlement reduction of 37.8% at the centre

of the tank and 39.6% at the tank edge.

The analysis carried out enables a designer 'to make a suitable

choice of the oil tank diameter and other design decisions provided

that the tolerable settlement values are known.

'Edge shear' condition is not, generally speaking a critical,

criterion in the performance of an oil tank foundation. In one

example, the factor of safety for 'edge shear conditions is found to

be 3.2.

42
 REFERENCES

1. Bjerrum, L. and Overland, A.(1957), 'A contribution to settlement

analysis of foundations on clay', Geotechnique, Vol.7, pp

168-175.

2. Bjerrum, L. and Overland, A. (1975), Foundation failure of an oil

tank in Fredrikstad, Norway'. Proc.Fourth Int. Coni. Soil Mech.&

Foundation Engg., Vol.1, pp. 287-290.

3. D'Orazio, T.B. and Duncan, J.M. (1987), 'Differential settlement

in steel tanks', Journal of Geotech. Engg.Div. ASCE Vol.113 No.9,

pp 967-981

4. Duncan, J.M. and D'Orazio, T.B. (1983),'Stability of steel

storage tanks'; Journal of Geotech. Engg. Div. ASCE Vol. 110, No.

9, pp. 1219-1238.

5. Duncan, J.M. and D'Orazio, T.B. (1989),'Distortion of steel tanks

due to settlement of their walls', Journal of Ceotech. Engg.Dly.

ASCE Vol. 115, No. 6, pp. 871-890.

6. D'Orazio, T.B. andDurican, J. M.(1982),'CONSAX: A computer program

for axisymmetric finite element analysis of consolidation,'

Research report No. UCB/GT/82-01, Deptt. of Civil Engg., Univ.of

Calif. Berkeley -

7. IS 803-1976, 'Code of Practice for Design. Fabrication and

Erection of Vertical mild steel cylindrical welded oil storage

tanks'First Revision, Indian Standards Institutions, New Delhi.

8. kanira,j (1980) , 'Design Aids In Soil Mechanics and Foundation

Engg.' TMH Publishers, pp 263-268.

43
9. Kurian, P.Ninan (1982), 'Modern Foundations' TMH Publishers, pp

339-341.

10. Harr, W. Allen, and Ramos, A. Jose and Lambe T. (1982),

'Criteriafor settlement of tanks' , Journal of Geotech. Engg.

Div.ASCE Vol. 108, GTS , pp. 1017-1037.

11. Penman, A.D.M. and Watson, G.H (1977), 'Soil structure

interaction and deformation problems with large oil tanks',

Proc. Int. Symp. on Soil Structure Interaction, Roorkee India,

pp. 521-535.

12. Penman. A.D.M and Watson, G.H. (1963), 'Settlement observations

on oil tank',. Proc. Europ Conf. Soil Mech. & Found, Engg. Vol.1,

pp. 163-171.

13. Penman, A.D.M. and Watson G.H. (1965), 'The improvement of a

tank foundation by the weight of its own test load, ' Proc. Sixth

Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Foundation Engg. Montreal, Vol 2, pp.

169-173.

14. Roberts,D.V. (1961), 'Foundation for cylindrical storage tanks',

Proc. Fifth Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Foundation Engg. Paris, pp.

785-788.

15. Singh, B. and Ramasamy, G. (1979), 'Back analysis of natural

slopes for evluation of strength parameters', Int. Conf. on

computer applications in Civil Engg. U.O.R. Roorkee.

16. Sullivan, R.A. and Nowicki, J.M (1975), 'Differential settlement

of cylindrical oil tanks', Proc. BGS. Conf. Settlement of

Structyres, Pentech Press, London pp. 420-424.

17. Tomlinson, W.J. (1980), 'Foundation Design and Construction',

Pitman Publishing Ltd., pp 247-249.

 APPENDIX

USER MANUAL FOR PROGRAM 'MSARC'

Ihls pr•ogr•am !'rxcI I It.at,es the stability unalysIs of oil tank

foundations against 'edge shear condition.

Give data in the following sequence

(i) N
(ii) X(I), Z(I), I = 1 to N
(III) ROCK, WL, XS, WI, ZC, ZWR
(iv) GAMAW, BBAR, AH, AVR
(v) NL
(vi) YD(I1), C(I1), TPHI(I1), GAMA(I1), I1= 1 to NL
(vii) NENP, (ENTX(I), ENTY(I), I = i to NENP)
(viii) NEP, NOPT
(ix) XEXITI, XEXITL, GAP —9 This line is needed only when NEP=O
(x) X£XIT(I), I=1 to NEP—* This line Is needed only when NEP>O

N = Number of profile coordinates

(X,Z) = Coordinates of profile points
ROCK = Reduced level of hard strata below ground
WL = Reduced level of water table
XS = X-Coordinate of point from which surcharge starts
WI = Uniform surcharge intensity
NL = Number of horizontal layers
YD = Coordinate of horizontal layer.
20 = Depth of tension crack
ZWR = Depth of water in tension crack/ZC
C Cohesion of soil
TPHI = Tangent of angle of internal friction
LAMA = Unit weight of soil
GAMAW = Unit weight of pore water
BEAR = Pore water pressure/(GAMA "' Average height of slices)
AH = Horizontal component of EQ acceleration
AVR a Veil 1cal component of EQ nccelerntion /All
NENP = Number of entry points of slip circles
ENTX = X-Coordinate of entry point of circle
ENTY - Y-CoordInnt.e of entry point. of circle
NEP = Number of exit points. (=0, When no Inulivldual point Is
given
NOPT = 0, When only minimum factor of safety is required
1, When all FS . corresponding to each exit point is also
required
XEXITI - X-Coordinate of' First exit point of circle
XEXITL = X-Coordinate of last exit point of circle
CAP = Horizontal distance between consecutive exit points
XEXIT = X-Coordinate of exit points of circle

45
 START

CALL CDATA
CALL SDATA

CALCULATE PQ

CALL ASTZ
CALCULATE PZ

IF
N I T V P E =0

CALL DSMTS j CALL SETCL

1

CALCULATE
• Pi Pac , 2P

r R i NT Pa c, Pa
R1NT Z , SCP'f , E, PG
c

N ALL LAVE
ARE
EXHAUST

STOP

Flow chart of main program

 START

CALL AMUPA
CALL AKUA

CALCULATE
Eu

1 Y
IF X = 1

;ALCULATE ST
CALL DETAE
BY USING
LCULATE ST CC VALUES

CALCULATE Pi
foci F

El URN

Flow chart for subroutine SETCL

47
 START

READ NCASE.N

FOR I=1,N
READ 011 (1)
GBLK1(1),GSUB1(I)
E1(i),ITYPE1 (I)

FOR 3=1, NCASE

READ R1 (J )
READ ZWT,D,O,A
OCR,PI, SO,THMAX
X

IF x = 1

READ NP
FOR I1 ,NP READ WL
READ EA(I),PACI)

CULATL
TT

_CU LATE
NL

(READ
V THMAX
JL>50

ETURN

Flow chart of subroutine CDATA

W
 START

READ DATA ASTZ FOR

Rl/RT AND ZIRT

ALCULATE AST2

ETURN

FIow chart of function, AST7

START

READ DATA Ip FOR

Ri/RT AND 0/IT

CALCULATE I.

RETURN

Flow chart of !unction A!P

49
 S TAU -r

READ NUS
q

READRUSCPNUHHER
T!I}~OC II}

CA LCtj
t
Aoc

E TUnN

Flew
chart of
S ~ br OUttn e
'F~A7t1

STAR T

Rtt0IL FJ I E
Rf{0 tJa

TUF?N

Flow Chart or SU
2.46~2j- ...r ;ice ~BMTS
 TART

n AD DATA AMUPA
FOR A AND 0/IT

f CALCULATE AMUPA
VALUES

CTURN

Flow churt ot -func4iorf aMUPA

START

READ OATA KCL F70"

OCR S PI VALUES

(CALCULATE Ku

RETuf U} '

Flow chart of tunction AKUA

51
 START

fiEAD
..eI ..(1), 1=l,II
ROCF'. RUL, MS. III, GAtAH .B
EHIY(1),(IITR I).1=1.IEHF
YE XI! 1),'iE?L IT(1). 1=1. REP

READ HL
FOR 1=1,RL
'1'b(l) , Chi),
TP1{1([) 6AISA(L1

SET
J = 1

:f T
In
D

COMPUTE
VEYIT, I .DISTAMCF,
BETUEEII (MIT A (11TH?
FO IHTS
T_Dt2, DELR=T:4

1.1 = I

COhPUTE
RAB.(R)=T+DFLR*id
i:•'C,YC)THE CFHTER
LI

):1=LI+1

Cil8 PUT E
7(3..).8,11,oC
Hli1R. OF 1q.5.1
DEHR. or £q.5.1

52
 n

I X = x.t I

7 110
COMPUTE
FS = FACTOR OF SAFETY

!Ii = l.t + 1 1

/ Is
iES /
C
fS)FS(MIH

---l0
WRITE
F9,lIEtnIVT,1k~,YS1,lkCkIT,YE7fIT~,RA411i5

I I = t , t I

ISt
L IFS [.LE.IIEP

tl0
f J-J+1

75`
—\+ YES
T. H Eli P

80
WRITE
ABSOLUTE MIHIMUII VALUE OF FS

STOP

FIG_ 4_4 FLOC-I CtlART FOR THE PPOGPAM ON

S T A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S O F OIL
TANI< FOU NDAT I OHS

53
 Fraa vant
\Gouge nozzla (Substitute pressure vacuum
valva for prassura tank)
Roof manhole
5 Tank root

-Laval
indicator

Sp1r ~I
stalry , ay

Tank
She 11

4
J -

^turzning
Inlat
—uuciac
manhole

`Draw off Sump boss - Tank bottom

Fig .2.1 Typical tixad roof tank showing standard

appurtanoncas

54
 Top Ioodinglgaugars
Spirot plattorm
stai rway Curb angle
Railing

Rolling
loddar
Rim vant
Deck
Wind manhole BIG odor
girder vent
Rolling
Iadd or tick
track
weather
shield'
Swin
Soot check
'Control volva Pontoom
ipa support drain Drain plug

Gouge well
pipe

Base plate for

C Swing jointed
pipe drain

pipe support

Fig .2.2 Typical open top tank with floating
roof — sectional viaw

55
 75mm min of compacted crushed
stona,scrarnings.fina grovel.,
clean Land or similar matariol
Imixed in hot aspolt 8 to to
5 parcant by volume and
rollad or compacted
900min

Slope & of tank —~

n100min from contraofto

t _ • 1a .r
Q ~f O .,.. O

1 ' 'Thoroughly compacted

till of gravel,coorsa
sand or other stable
Coarse stone or
coarse gravel mate riai

Fig. 2.3 Typical pad type of foundation (IS: 803-1976)

56
 Centre line
of tank

Storage
• oil 0
tank
2 01k2
0.15m 0-3Bm E
PA# nIn InImum to
0.1 rm. minimum - um 0

Sub grad
Dralnoga
Sand cushion ditch

Fig .2.4 Typical pad foundation for good soil

conditions ( Roberts , 1961 )

0.3 m t h 0.9w

Fig.2.5 Edge failure

57
 75rnm min of compacted crushad
stona,ccraanings,tina gravel,
clean sand or similar motarial
mixed in hot aspalt S to 10
26 naval
percent by volume and rolled
or compacted

of tank
Slope
100 min from centre of tank

300 tifj `,;

Slopri `Remove unsuitable
material and replace
Coarse stone with cuitabla till ,then
or courcagravel . .a • thoroughly compact

600 berm
surrounding.. •: -PCC wall
0.
gradalstow .'•,..

36 Typical concrete ringwall foundation

(All dimensions in mm)

Fig. 2.6 Typical concrete ring wall foundation (IS: 803 - 1976 )

Sf
 Shoat pila ring wall

Paint arcad concrata ring wall

I 111
NH_I
Compacted rock till

( Fill IC: Weak clay ® Firm soil

Fig .2.7 Ring walls 'to prevent 12t¢rat movement of

weak soils

59
 Compacted
fill

Crush ad
rock pile
Pilas

Fig. 2.8 Piled foundation with crushQd rock pile cap

Granular
filling
iir Concrate
ckln

Light rainfgr'camant
in dome
Sit¢
con crate Heavily rainfor-
cad ring beam

Fig .2.9 burley dome foundation for oil tanks

(Kurion P. Ninon ,13$2)


A •
E • It
IL r S A

d 1.0
yilurs-___.s/yn%I%auni! do A-
n Of
Jo/daneaM took edge

Failure
c
0•y S/ow~ood/n+
r Qapid draino9e
(loft rinfcr Clan& (offers)
ed5i) s/ow loading
0 and rapid d~.vnafC (Pack droins)
0 5 10 15 20
De/T

■ I~ l~ Profila A [ ii. •il

Shear
faiIura
• I I Proflla B I „:Il

A Ilii`l i Profile C rl 'lr Dafinitio ns

7p
T
1Q ..D r t TP

Fig •2.10 Factors of safety and settlement shapes

for tanks studied

Bowl thope .
• 1^~
, . Dansa gravel `
, j Compressible soil

Differential settlement

Fig .2.11 Shape of settlement of large flexible loaded areas.

(i) Raft on uniform corn pressible. (ii). Raft on dome
incompressible stratum overlying compressible soil-

61
 1

ri iii L 1Q

L ~R. -

r /p
1.0 15
0 0.5 1.0
0

3.0

w+Q 0.5 2.0

N lo
0-7 1 .0

04
p_I QD
0.04 1 p 2E
15

Fig 22 Influence factors for surface settlement of elastic

layer overlying rigid layer subjected to uniform
circular load

16C^

14 00

12 00

P1<30 Eu = KS u
10 oa Eu a Undralnad modulus of clay
K = Factor from chart above
B 00 -
K Su z Undralnad chaar strength
of clay
6 00

4 00 30 <p1<50

2 00 pl>50

0
1 2 4 6 810
Ovarconsolidotion ratio

Fig .2.13 Chart for estimating undrained modulus

of clay

62
 ffiiiiflisi il liifl+i
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0 0.50
u

0.5

10 0/T=10 ,
0•

0
0•
1.5

0,05 0.5
D/T>2.0, V=05
2.0
0/T=0

Fig.2.14 Contours of ioZ/q due to uniform circular Toad

63
 la o
t
Clay
e
9

= o0
0 T ~~~

0.75

O
p
Ileaviiy

0 0.5 1.0
5ensitivc
D.C cby9.0.C.cIaysN .C. clays cto L

Pore pressure cocfflcIcnt X

Fig.2.15 Chart for determining settlement factor

(after Skernpton and Bjerrum, 1957)
 For D¢ /T)6
No = 4.1+1/3 (DQ/T)
su Is ov¢ragod over anti re
(o) DQ /T:6 J+ i I depth of layer
Failure mechanism Is intluancad
by firm base

For 1.4ç DQ(T < 6

Nc=6.1
I Su Is
Da/7=3.5

For DafT S 1•4 , Nc = 6.1

Su is averaged only to dq¢pnst
( c ) o/ J
D Ts1 I
2 I point on shear surface
Failure mechanism Is as shown

0.1 Da

Fig.2.16 Base shear failure mechanisms

65
 Assumad shear surtoca
for strangth calculation

Fig.2.17 Edge shear failure mechanism

k7 =0.17 oil k, aU,U9 granular

k2 =01r cOh¢; k2 *0.20 — iT
k3=0.21 — — - X3'0.23 ~~~
— — ~4=0.4 4 — 4 =0.48

kj = 0.70 I k1 =042
k =077~ -granular — — --
— z _ 2 °0.73 granular
— --
-

Suavg = k 1 Sul + k z S ul + k 3
Su3 + k4 Su4

Fig.2.18 Averaging shear strQngths for edge shear -

r
 Tank
13.7m die x14- 6m
high Sand drains 30cm dla
at 1.5rn centres on
tonic periphery

Sand layers
Mon urn ants
000
attlamant ' 0
1gauga
x 10 Instrumant
~x 4ySl 7s x9 , h
3 so
3S5x Jr

1
•

xN
0 3m
Scale

Fig.2.19 Plan and elevation of experimental tank

6. 7
 Tank full

c
o Piaxomatar no.
.mac
,b

\
d

35719
tel
] 10 20 30 LO 50 60 70 RO 90 ,nn to

0
rf9Ca of sand
to

E 20 rank
ad9 min
30 Tank a
C
40
7a
s0 ~ntro

60
I
Time from beginning tast : H

Fig.2.20 Developed pore pressure and settlement

 Tank Tank Tank Tank
A S c D
Sand Cloy fI ll ;, 0
Soft to firm
5 Sott to firm clay 1 1 5
Madium
sand dansa E
£ 10 Medium I Idens
clay 1
d 15
oldcana Soft or
' gravelly ''
sand 1S a
C stiff clay soft
20 ' 20
T¢rtiory clanse sand Tertiary
25 25
Soil profiles

1.75

1.50

1.25
AL
Curve Location D °o timz w! / IvP wL
0 1 Tank A 4,0 1.017 1.35 37 26 52
2 9 7.5 1.698 1.03 56 30 53
a
0 1.00 3 C 4.4 1.132 1.28 33 30 55
V
> 0.75

0.501. I 11111111 1 11111111

0.1 0.5 1.0 6 10 20
vertical pr¢ssur¢,kglcm2

Fig .2.21 Compressibility charactgrstics



125cm asphalt
layer 0.1 m layar of
oiled sand I Slope 3Cm in 1m
0.6 m
1.5

1 Cruoned
stone •Compacted nand
and gravel
TA N It A B • TANK C$ 0
Fig. 2.22 Tank foundation

25 50 75 100 125 150 175 0 25 50 75 100

tl 15
10
0 Load dlagrom
E D Lood diagram

E 10
U © ......... '
20

E 30

t40
LA
4 T A k 2 - u:•-.- __ 'r. 4 T C k 2
50
0 60 3 3
10
o 5
Load diagram tgrarh-.
E 0 \

10
E
Li
20

30 _ \ \ .. .... ... .
C
E 40
4 THnk 2 4 Tpk 2
50
3 3
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 0 25 50 75 100
Tirna In days

Fig .2-23 Tank shell settlement

70
 U

f Cmin

CO `

SOFT CLAY (0.12m to O.6Om)

FIRM GRANULAR

FIG.4.1 TOP SOIL LAYER—SOFT CLAY

Cmin
r .

-D
r -
I
r Co -

P FIRM Ci = 2O ft ■O.B1m
GRANULAR
SOFT CLAY c z -30 ft' 91m

FIG-t..2 TOP SOIL LAYER — FIRM GRANULAR

71
 O
Z

z
0
a
I--
X
CU
W
U of
Z w J
Q U
I"-

5 W U
U
J
C
r Q J
p — to
1-
CY U-
O li. O
= O
Z ln
o w

Q Z
Do
~ O
Co
00

3onLIL1v

n
72
 15m

15 t! m 2
0.0m C D C
i(— COMPACTED GRAVEL
A 1.0 m ($ ❑ 38° ) W.T.
13

CLAY G 0 :Q.5
5.0 m

SAND $ 0 320 , ¢° =0 7

10..0 m

( FIG NOT TO SCALE )

4c(tIm2)

a
d
C
8

10

FIG.5.1 TYPICAL ASSUMED FIELD CONDITIONS

73
 CONE RESISTANCE (Mn/m 2 )
U Z0 40 60
0

N = 46°
E
z 10 0
.31

4 4°
b
V)
cn
LU ZO 0

w 42
U
w
t 30 O
U)
J
Q
U
i-
LX
w
> 32 4 36° 38° 40'
00

S 00

FIG. 5.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANGLE OF SHEARING

RESISTANCE AND CONE RESISTANCE FOP AN
UNCEMENTED NORMALLY-CONSOLIDATED QUARTZ
SAND ( attcr Durgunoglu and Mitchell ,1975)

74
 15m
15t;m2.
0.0m
1.Orn COMPACTED GRAVEL

0 = 32° , 340 .€ 36°

16.0Tn

R — RADIAL COORDINATES

SO(

45(

1 40
E

20

15
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
R/RT

FIG.E-3 COMPARISON OF TOTAL SETTLEMENT VALUES FOR

15m TANK DIAMETER (TANK ON A GRANULAR SOIL)
75
 20m
I15t~mZ
0.0m
1 .0 m COMPACTED GRA TtNN

j m 32° , 34° 36°

16.0 m

5Si

50

4S'

E
E
40

J
30
0
r

25

1F
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.0
R /RT

FIG. 6•4 TOTAL SETTLEMENT VS R/RT PLOT FOR TANK DIA. =20m
(TANK ON A GRANULAR DEPOSIT
76
 50 m
15tIm2
0.0m

1.Om COMPACTED (,RAVEL

O 0 n

65

5~

21
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
R /RT

FIG.S•S COMPARISON OF TOTAL SETTLEMENT VALUES FOR SOm

TANK DIAMETER ( TANK ON A GRANULAR SOIL

77


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.0

RIRT

FIG. 5.6 COMPARISON OF TOTAL SETTLEMENT VALUES

FOR DIFFERENT TANK DIAMETERS RESTING
ON Ø'36° SAND

78
 -- 20 m -
15 t/m 2
0.0 m
t.Om/ COMPACTED GRAVEL

COHESIVE DEPOSIT
PROPERTIES REPRESENTED
16.0 BY CASES 1, II AND III

LL ('!.) Su (tlml) PI ¢o

CASE 1 35 10 15 0.6
CASE II 38 8 16 0.6
CASE I1I 40 5 18 0.6

LL - LIQUID LIMIT
Su - AVERAGE VALUE OF UNDAAINED STRENGTH
P1 - PLASTICITY INDEX
C0 - INITIAL VO[D RATIO

FIG.S•7 SOIL CONDITIONS FOR DIFFERENT CASES

79
E
E
I-
z
w
F
Ui
J
H
W
in

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

P /RT

FIG. 5.8 IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT VS R/RT PLOT

FOR TANK OF DIAMETER 20

80
 IC

So

R/RT

FIG. 5.9 ACTUAL CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT VS R /RT

PLOT FOR A TANK OF DIAMETER 20m

IE
 16

E 14(
E

1:1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

R / RT

FIG. 5.10 TOTAL SETTLEMENT VERSUS R /RT

FOR TANK DIA. = 20m
 15~

14'

13

12'

II

TANK DIAMETERS ( m )

FIG. 5.11 TOTAL SETTLEMENT VS TANK DIAMETER

PLOT FOR DIFFERENT CASES
 650

E
E
600
z
w
z
w
550
w

J
Q
500
z
U
w
(A-
4S,0
0

40C

35C

TANK DIAMETERS (mm)

F1&.5.12 DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT VS TANK DIAMETER

FOR DIFFERENT CASES

84
 _ . . L .r_rr, -- -

tlmZ
Si ATUM ;

41

z 3
W
I
w
J
r
w 3

R / pi

FIG.5.13 PLOT SHOWING VARIATION OF IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT

FOR DIFFERENT THICKNESSES

m
 ~t/m 2

aTUM :

R/RT

FIG. 5.14 PLOT SHOWING VARIATION OF IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT

FOR DIFFERENT CLAY THICKNESSES
 550

5tlm 2
TUM :

450

r 400
z
I
w
350
w
N
W
r
C 300
a
w

250

20C

150

100

A /RT

FIG.5.15 PLOT SHOWING VARIATION OF IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT

FOR DIFFERENT CLAY THICKNESSES

87
 15m
THICKNESS
15 t1m2
VARIES AS
0.0 m
2m. 4m $6m
10 COMPACT ED GRAVEL
2.0 m CLAY Su:10tlm 2 ,LL=35°f°; PI:15

SAND C - 0 , =32°
15.0 in

E
25
r-
z
w
I
U)
-J 5I
r
r
W

Z
0
C
C
0
0
z
0
U
a
I-
I-

I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.0
R / PT

FIG.S.16 COMPARISON OF ACTUAL CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT

DY VARYING THICKNESS OF CLAY LAYERS FOR 15M
TANK DIAMETER
 TANH DIAMETER 15m
LOAD INTENSITY = l5t/m 2

-i
E

z
0
C
0
J
0
V1

O
U

R /RT

F I G.5.17 CO M PARISON OF ACTUAL CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT
BY VARYING THICKNESS OF CLAY LAYER FOR
15m TANK DIAMETER
 TANK DIAMETER = 15m
LOAD INTENSITY = 1St/m 2
CLAY PROPERTIES:
LL - 40%, PI = 20, Su; 5tlm 2
E 700 PROPERTIES OF SAND STRATUM:
E C = 0. %% 320
I- CLAY THICKNESS
= 6m
U) 600
w

N 500
z 4m
0
2
° 400
N
z
O
U
300
J
a 2m
r
v
a

100 L

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
RfPT

FIG. 5.18 COMPARISON OF ACTUAL CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT
BY VARYING THICKNESS OF CLAY LAYER
 15m _
15tlm 2
0.0m VARYING
THICKNESS
1.O m COMPACTED GRAVEL AND
MEDIUM DENSE SAND LAYERS
/PROPERTIES

CLAY DEPOSIT
LL = 35°1,, PI - 15 Su = 10 t/m 2
15.Dm

1000

0 =36`
Ør35

30C
E
s
1--
z 700
UJ
W
J
I
600

'- 50C

40(

30(

R/RT

FIG.S.19 EFFECT OF REPLACEMENT OF CLAY DEPOSIT BY

DENSE GRANULAR LAYERS

91
 O ° v O
LL a
O 0
o O
v °
a ? o a 6

• V
as V O
a
V V afl V
N a ... .. N

E -E o
~e

° 4 ('n cn C J l
is
e 'z 3 7 2

o_
° '
a L "' ° 1 m
2 V 1 A~ 1 5 a .
° £m Vi ° Wo V e 4
3— ro =

°
E

E 1 g g
Li
~ V D
6 9 1 v
Li

-
b S o
C_ n o as
9 ° 1

- °m
° V 1 V ° -

N
E

o -„ } E v

Q) N g m ° / ° W `
m
N
2 N N S ° Z
~ r d

Ct

a v a e h U E_ Uj .. _ Y
» F g S s e

z s 4
2

ill $ s Y
N N e
G J t u

~f6~
E C

uS i i~.
~ a ~ ~i
'~
y3 N
4 f
O- H O

92
 Table 2 Summary of pertinent tank data

D
4,)L
Its) Dt'T Co+nenla F.In C~..Q nle 1.1 1.1 1.1 Shape
191 (101 1111 (12) 1131 flnl (15) 1 IS) 4171 1181

38 O 15.0 2.53 Ringwl1 1.91 f:ud or 0.62 0.62 D.25 e

first Left
39 11 15.0 2.5] RLngroll 1 22 Enrl or 0.90 0.90 0.48 A
Ii sL LedL
20 1 10.0 2.]I Re<I.L.ed 1.62 Ruptured 0.949 0.949 0.498 A
lend

23 I 10.0 2.31 R.cIel.ed 1.62 Rnrtured 1.48 1.46 0.732 A

I."
l
46 I 13.0 1.79 Preload. Motto. 0,50 0.60 0,23 A
rinf•r+ll Vlstae.
11.0 d.wweed

70,0 17.5 4.]S 0.59 0.55 0.28 A

23.1 10.0 2.31 Reel.l.ed 1.62 0.89 0.60 O.]4 A

Land
46 4 12.0 3.97 1.17 - 1.10 1.14 0.60 B
49.5 12.0 3.00 1.19 - 1.79 1.44 0.90 B
55.8 10.0 9.96, Pr.law, 1.28 Repld 0.62 0.02 0.34 B
dr.Lns dr.Ln.Be
..nd
49.] 9.5 5.85 0.48 Celu.n 0.05 0.65 0,29 B
Ironies
r'n le~eleA

99.A 90 6.20 Preload. 1:1:1 Ihn1l.•Irr 0.71 0.71 G. 9

•Pn4 111 snl'Y ice

540 9.0 9.00 1.18 - 0.68 0.69 0.33 B

stn 00 9.55 ExtejMed I AS 0.64 0.Be 0.30 R

attester pa

87.1 7.0 9.59 1.22 0.99 0.88 0.40 R

07 I 1.0 9.59 1.22 0.85 0.85 0.40 8

87.1 7.0 9,50 1.22 - 0.05 0.80 0.48 R

44 2 4.5 9.62 1.24 - 1.21 1.21 0.50 6

49.6 8.0 8.20 e.nd drain 0.44 RnpIC 0.75 1.10 0,68 C
drainage,
slob,
Ioad lne

49.6 8.0 6.20 •sod drains 0.44 Rapid 0.75 0.99 0.59 C
drtl nnge

109.2 L9.0 9.29 Overburden 1.95 £ds. 0.29 0,34 0.17 C

cespscted rel.Yeled

40.0 CO 10. Thin sand 0.54 Rspld 0.41 0.47 0.31 C

I eye. dr.l ruse

97.6 5.9 10.47 Thln •.2d 0.63 Rapid 0.30 0.39 0.23 C
I.re dransp

00,0 6.0 13.33 0.94 Shur - - - -

rwlLurr

29 0 In 1 2.34 1.02 Slaver -

r.lI,,-
L.
rup Lllre
300 IS 2 2.37 0.17 Sheer 0.49 0.80 0.29 C
1.1 lure
260 9.0 2.99 Ringvnit 1.10 Sheer - - - -
rnllure

52 16.0 3.29 O 9f. She.. 7.10 2.84 IRS C.

eI l are
n9 7 3.0 16.23 0,4.4 Slicer 0.02 0.26 0.03
(.pure
Leff
vpLUre

14 9 50 90 1.64 0.40 - 0.30

93


O 1 O- O O_ O O O O o O S- 4 m- to a-a
o
o If[ o O O O O O O O O O O O ^ N! to W
O 000900 a 0 o O o O
04oOoOoOeOoO0O0 O0DoOea
yes i o 0 0 0 a 0 0 a o 0- 0 0
o
o I o o-
o to o
00)0 W o
O o o in € F
.tea o o a !
p CO 0000
oa00oO
o 0-00 0
O 9000 O O O O O dOOOOO o--
O o O O O O O -
it o e e o 0 0 0 0 a o o a a 0 0 o e
O O-to
0 o N oO
o O o O O O O M NP-
N
0 e
0 O o
o e N0
o O0N o
0 Oo
p 0 Om .A
a^ ry ,- W
o O
Q O O O O O O O O O P' O P o O o 0
C o 0 0 o e o 0 o e o o e o e c o 0
O
0 O
o - W COinO OrsOO
oOoO O fl ^fl N 0 ^ .n
q
0 O om
o 0 0 O
o
~va
e o
l 00
O Oo d in Na
Y -) to
N to
o 00000090900000000 0! to to
N O O O1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O
O O^
O <IOO m!!Oto
NO O N to O c+f In
O
O O O
p - to
O O fV Q
V O W
O 01 of ~f
to
O
W
t0 min
to to a! tV
to m to
W it
in 0O900090-r tV ^ ^ O W
99 to
^ O O O o O o O O O O C o b 4 O O O
O I O (O ! _m M- Ol M O O O N0 in O O O
it -a- CI to
O O I- fO fa W N e F9
F 1- 'a n it.-
O O O N M r) c+f t~ [V C CC [7 O f~
N O O O N N N N N N N N O
^ O O O O O O o O O d O O o O O O O

o O a-) O o O O o O O p fl to c I O• _
N N
¢ O O O to Min _
a W O fl O O
O O O I~ in m N O m N' to VY
e
e o o m m v C-, .- o to C ~ r o
O v v ra f f
W
_ _
f es N o
in

o 0 a o e o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

o a o o O o a o 0 o O o 0 o e a
O o W a fm us ('11 m CO eJ ! O to
o O in a a-) -s in O v - '•f - (O Ca) to .- N
O
O O to W _ V W V O f0 O N to

0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 o p
a a o 0 0 0 o in
O O ./a O - O in sV c-, a d of . - if e O LI
N
O 4 W Cd CO DI r - - [V it in it to CI to
[D O W Oa fO m .if of t7 N ^ O
6
o ^ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 0

o c 0 4 0 0 0 0 O O o O O o O O O 0 W
0 0 C-) to a to CO CO O 10fl to
O O m m tom) W DI CI in m l O- N to O- V
O O W to Os it W a W N O! `C to
it O W Ol Ol W W m r m m ul M O
O ^ d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O_ O O O O f0 O O O O O O 0 n1 N
o O 10 O in N it m N W W
O O m {7 N- N 0 N t- CI N if -a it
O O W Of O O W R m W it
N O OJ q ~l Of Ol m m m N! N O
o -- a c 0 o 0 o 0 o a o o v o 0 o e

O e d O O O m O N d O O O O O O CI
O o a R N- in to V N to V CO W e in Ci
O O W N f0 to O G an d p to c-i if W to to
O O W a it.- O in C. it it N m W it O
O O W W W Ol ~ m m fO ill V N
o - 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o e

a N 0 m m O N in O O O

ry
 TABLE 4 TABLE FOR CALCULATION OF INFLUENCE FACTOR

R/RT v/s 1p for varying D/T values

R/RT D/T
0.04000 0.40000 1.00000 2.00000 3.00000 6.00000

0.0 1.34300 1.29680 0.89000 0.43750 0.21870 0.04680

0.1 1.32800 1.26500 0.89000 0.45310 0.21870 0.03125
0.2 1.32100 1.25000 0.87500 0.45310 0.21870 0.03125
0.3 1.29600 1.21800 0.85900 0.43750 0.21870 0.04687
0.4 1.26500 1.18750 0.84300 0.42180 0.21870 0.04687
0.5 1.25000 1.14060 0.81250 0.42180 0.23430 0.06250
0.6 1.20300 1.09300 0.76560 0.40620 0.21870 0.07810
0.7 1.15600 1.03120 0.70310 0.39060 0.21870 0.09370
0.8 1.07800 0.93750 0.62500 0.34370 0.20310 0.07810
0.9 0.98400 0.82810 0.51560 0.28120 0.17180 0.07810
1.0 0.87500 0.70310 0.40620 0.20310 0.10930 0.04687
1.1 0.71870 0.54600 0.26560 0.07800 0.01560 0.00000
1.2 0.62500 0.45310 0.18750 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
1.3 0.56200 0.39060 0.12500 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

95
TABLE 5 TABLE FOR COMPUTATION OF SETTLEMENT FACTOR

A v/s Mu for varying D/T values

D/T A
0.0000 1.2500

0.25 0.2496 1.1856

1.00 0.3016 1.1544
2.00 0.4992 1.1128
4.00 0.6552 1.0816

TABLE 6 TABLE FOR CALCULATION OF MODULUS FACTOR

OCR v/s Ku for varying PI values

OCR I PI
: 0.000 30.000 50.000 100.000

1.0 1542.780 600.000 300.000 142.850

1.5 1514.210 589.900 285.700 142.850
2.0 1400.000 571.400 271.410 114.280
3.0 1200.000 499.970 228.500 85.710
4.0 999.950 399.000 185.705 71.420
5.0 771.390 342.840 142.850 57.140
6.0 628.540 285.700 128.560 42.850
7.0 542.800 228.560 100.000 28.570
8.0 471.400 200.000 85.710 28.570
9.0 442.830 171.420 71.420 28.570
0.0 399.980 157.350 71.420 28.5701


TABLE 7 DATA FILE FOR THE TYPICAL PROBLEM SHOWN IN Fig 5.1
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR HOW MANY RADIAL COORDINATES SETTLEMENT IS REQUIRED
6
SPECIFY-NUMBER OF STRATA
3
SPECIFY TYPE OF STRATA GIVE- [0]FOR CLAY, [1)FOR SAND
1 0 1
GIVE-THICKNESS OF EACH MAIN LAYER(m)
1.00 4.00 5.00
SPECIFY UNIT WEIGHT OF STRATA(T/cum)
2.30 1.70 2.10
SPECIFY SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT OF STRATA(T/cum)
1.30 7.00E-001 1.10
GIVE-VOID RATIO OF EACH MAIN LAYER
8.00E-001 6.00E-001 7.00E-001
ENTER VALUES OF RADIAL COORDINATES
.00 1.50 3.00 4.50
6.00 7.50
DEPTH OF WATER TABLE(m),
1.00.
DIAMETER OF THE TANK(m),
15.00
LOAD INTENSITY(T/sqm),
15.00
GIVE MAX. THICKNESS OF A SUB LAYER(m)
1.00
GIVE VALUE OF PORE PRESSURE COEFF
1.00
GIVE-OVER CONSOL RATIO,PLASTICITY INDX,AV UNRND STRH
1.00 15.0000000 20.0000000
SPECIFY TYPE OF DATA
[1]NORMALLY LOADED
[2]Ea v/s Log(P) PLOT IS KNOWN
2.00
GIVE - NO. OF INPUT DATA POINTS
7
GIVE VALUES OF ARRAY AS PA(I),I=1,NP&EA(I),I=1,NP
2.00 9.00E-001 5.00 8.60E--001
10.00 8.40E-001 60.00 7.00E-001
100.00 6.40E-001 200.00 5.50E-001
300.00 4.90E-001
HOW MANY DEPTHS AND THE CORRESPONDING
SCPT VALUES YOU HAVE ?
GIVE THE NUMBER=
7
GIVE THE DEPTHS(in m)AND THE CORRESPONDING SCPT
VALUES(Qc in t/sq'm)AS:DEPTH,Qc,DEPTH,Qc......AND SO ON.
.000 100.000
1.000 100.000
2.000 61.000
4.000 76.000
6.000 115.000
8.000 143.000
10.000 171.000

97
 TABLE 8 RESULTS FOR TYPICAL PROBLEM SHOWN IN Fig 5.1
--------------------------------------------------------
O..)IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT(mm)
LAYER MID DEPTH RADIAL COORDINATES(M)
NO. VALUES(M) 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5
1 .500 188.9 186.9 179.7 167.3 147.8 116.3
2 1.500 168.7 166.7 159.5 147.1 127.7 101.0
3 2.500 165.2 163.2 156.2 144.0 125.1 99.4
4 3.500 161.7 159.7 152.9 140.9 122.6 97.8
5 4.500 158.2 156.2 149.5 137.9 120.0 96.2
6 5.500 154.8 152.7 146.2 134.8 117.5 94.6
7 6.500 117.6 116.0 110.7 101.8 88.7 72.3
8 7.500 80.3 79.1 75.3 69.1 60.3 49.6
9 8.500 50.8 50.0 47.6 43.7 38.2 31.6
10 9.500 22.5 22.1 21.1 19.3 16.9 14.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
b)ACTUAL CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT(mm)
LAYER MID DEPTH RADIAL COORDINATES(M)
NO. VALUES(M) 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5
1 .500 166.3 165.4 162.4 154.4 134.2 76.1
2 1.500 166.3 165.4 162.4 154.4 134.2 76.1
3 2.500 118.4 117.6 114.7 107.3 90.0 51.7
4 3.500 74.9 74.2 71.8 66.2 54.1 31.8
5 4.500 35.4 35.0 33.7 30.6 24.6 14.8
6 5.500 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
7 6.500 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
8 7.500 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
9 8.500 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
10 9.500 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

C)TOTAL SETTLEMENT(mm)
LAYER MID DEPTH RADIAL COORDINATES(M)
NO. VALUES(M) 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5
1 .500 355.2 352.4 342.1 321.8 282.0 192.5
2 1.500 335.0 332.1 321.8 301.5 261.8 177.1
3 2.500 283.6 280.8 270.8 251.4 215.1 151.1
4 3.500 236.6 233.9 224.6 207.1 176.7 129.6
5 4.500 193.7 191.3 183.2 168.4 144.6 111.0
6 5.500 154.8 152.7 146.2 134.8 117.5 94.6
7 6.500 117.6 116.0 110.7 101.8 88.7 72.3
8 7.500 80.3 79.1 75.3 69.1 60.3 49.6
9 8.500 50.8 50.0 47.6 43.7 38.2 31.6
10 9.500 22.5 22.1 21.1 19.3 16.9 14.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 TABLE 9 DATA FILE FOR EDGE SHEAR ANALYSIS OF OIL STORAGE TANK

SHOWN IN FIG 5.1

4
-50. 0
0.0 0.0
1.0 1.0
50.0 1.0
-9.0 0.0 3.0 15.0 0.0 0.0
1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3
0. 0.0 0.78 2.3
-4.0 10.0 0.0 1.7
-9.0 0.0 0.63 2.1
1 0 0
00
2.0 10.0 2.0
 TABLE 10. OUTPUT FILE FOR EDGE SHEAR ANALYSIS OF PROBLEM

SHOWN IN FIG. 5.1

UNITS USED ->TONNE-METER-DEGREE

INPUT FILE NAME ->ve.dat
OUTPUT FILE NAME ->ve.out

COORDINATES OF POINTS ALONG SLOPE->

X(1)= -50.00000 Z(1)= .00000

X(2)= .0000o Z(2)= .00000
X(3)= 1.00000 2(3)=1.000000
X(4)= 50.00000 Z(4)=1.000000

ROCK = -9.000 RWL = .000 XS = 3.000 WI=15. 000

ZC = .000 ZWR = .000
NL 3
YD(1)= .00 CH(1)= .000 TPHI(1)=.7800 GAMA(1)=2.300
YD(2)= -4.00 CH(2)= 10.000 TPHI(2)=.0000 GAMA(2)=1.700
YD(3)= -9.00 CH(3)= .000 TPHI(3)=.6300 GAMA(3)=2.100
ENTX= .00 ENTY= 0.000
NEP = 0 NOPT = 0
XEXITI= 2.000 XEXITL = 10.000 GAP = 2.000

F.S. : WEIGHT OF COORDINATES OF COORDINATES OF RADIUS

: WEDGE(T) CENTER(XC,YC) EXIT POINT (M)

3.2239 0.12E+03 ( 1.98, 6.63) ( 6.00, 1.00) 6.92

100