17261 AUGUST 1982 GT8 CRITERIA FOR SETTLEMENT OF TANKS By W. Allen Marr,! M. ASCE, Jase A. Ramos,? and T. William Lambe,’ F, ASCE ‘Avsrnact; Performance criteria for the settlement of large steel tanks used to store fiuids at ambient temaperais and pressure are presented. Where pos- sible, the criteria include a iuctor of safety, defined as the ratio of tensile stress to developed stress. Permissible values of factor of safety for safe op- eration are indicated. The performance criteria are developed by interpreting and expanding previous shidies, making approximate analyses, and analyzing the measured performance of 90 large tanks, including the tanks at Toa Nenryo Kogyo's site at Kawasaki City, Japan. For each criterion, the mechanism of failure, the structural element to which the criterion applies, and the basis for the criterion are identified. (Nature oF Founpation SerriemeNt ‘This paper presents performance criteria for the differential settlement of steel tanks used to store fluids. We use work of other engineers, simplified analyses, and measurements of field performance to establish these criteria, Many engineers incorrectly believe that differential settlemeat poses little threat to large, flexible storage tanks. However, differential settlement has led to rupture of large tanks (Bell, 1980; Clarke, 1969; and Green and Hight, 1974). Disagreement exists among engineers, builders, and regulators on limiting values of settlement. Fig. 1 shows criteria for settlement of various facilities. At Toa Nenryo Koygo's (TONEN) refinery in Kawasaki City, Japan, (Lambe, 1969), tanks 64 m (210 ft) in diam have undergone average settlements of up to 1.8 m © fi). TONEN engineers have measured average tilts of up to 1/152, and nomuniform settlement of up to 0.5 m (1.6 ft}, Clearly, measured deformations of TONEN’s tanks have exceeded criteria given in Fig. 1. However, surveillance has revealed no evidence of structural distress to any of these tanks. Fig. 2 shows patterns of settlement, Most tanks settle in a combination of these pattems. The geotechnical engineer considers differential settlement as the dif- "Research Assoc., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Rm. 1-376, Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., Cambridge, Mass. 02139. *Consulting Geotechnical Engr., Foxboro, Mass. *prof, Emeritus, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., Rm, 1-378, Cam- bridge, Mass. 02139. iscussion open until January 1, 1983. To extend the closing date one month, ‘a written request must be filed with the Manager of Technical and Professional Publi- cations, ASCE. Manuscript was submitted for review for possible publication on August 24, 1981. This paper is part of the Joural of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, GASCE, Vol. 108, No. GT8, August, 1982. ISSN 0093-6405/82/0008-1017/S01.00, 1017AUGUST 1982 GT8 1018 ANGULAR DISTORTION ae Lt ak ab : 706 tb 30006 mw * 50 1 { [i tae ditcatios wh mochnary | teratve i satis Tobe Toad | Lamit of danger for fvomes. with eigen { ' Sole imit for buiings where cracking. oot permisibie { Lindl ere tat croching i panel well. lo be expected | ! Limit wher duttcuies with overneod cranes ore (0 be expec { q Limit where tilting of high, rigid buildings might become visible HLe-consinoie crocs in pom won ont bik se {Lesote tit for nba Wick wll, 4 < U8 {Loe unin were stir coname of bung 10 O4 fees ! i te Observed tilt of TONEN tanks {edapted from Bjerrum, 1963) LIMITING ANGULAR DISTORTION TYPE OF | MAXIMUM [MEASURED ON| MOVEMENT | LIMITING FACTOR | see ITONEN TANKS| [Sime 10-300 I hace | 300-600 mn rorat Provebity of scouniterm stlement i ‘SETTLEMENT Masonry wolled structure: \ 25-S0mm 1,800 mm { | Fromed:sirsctores | $0-100mm | | Shotesock, ‘8 75-200nm Vgtabiinty. ogainst over turning Depends on height [ene wisn | | rating ot smokesock, towers cos | Fling of trucks, ete \ oo | runs | Stasi of ones oon 0.0072 | | ctioe eperoton= cotton tom 008s Machine operation urbopenercoe ocooet | {Crone rote | 90282 | reimpeet tore aci-ooee | ynen ‘contingous brick wolle 0.0005-0,0012 t [one sty tik ll bain. el cracking! 0.001- 0.0024 | | . Plaster crochion. tqypeunt | coors pin enen TA Reinforced concrete building frame | 90025-00044 \ 0.08k MOVEMENT Reinforced concrete building curtain walls 0.0032 | Steet trome, continaoue | o0022 | | Simi Seek tome ooo2 | From Sewer, 82 SITU watwaan odjcent examen thet sate dilfetet omauni, oe betvten ony two. pint Teena aeeete ter ian are"tr Tegur stitamentt ond move wlan "srclare. Cra eta efor dgulraeiamante and onic strlen, Inch = Zhcemm | ALLOWABLE SETTLEMENT LIMIT FIG, 1.—Settlement Criteria for Typical FacilitiesGT SETTLEMENT OF TANKS 1019 DEFINITIONS : eu) Beiworrpoite 2 ye eeunteranit ‘manta AP, + angler astertion etnnen poate 2 sitincance in satinmars betwann somatic! 12, * component wf aattlaninn of pact due (0 tener te 51+ gompenant of santiment of pole eon to ‘SeUbicpoe Stentor BS + $)-0515ie1* Sietd a pine wn? Stone] max maoseremant paints Dish TYPE GOTTOM PLATE SETTLEMENT — nt ecruemons: 2 write camber LOCALIZED GOTTOM PLATE SETTLEMENT ee oernsrions : eoath oh part ring a FIG, 2.—Nomenclature for Settlement of Tank ference in vertical deformation between two points at the foundation-structure interface. Differential settlement origi nonhomogencous geometry or compressibility of the soil deposit, nonuniform distribution of the load applied to the foundation, and uniform stress acting over a limited area of the soil stratum, These causes exist to varying degrees of ism: portance in every tank foundation. The engineer assesses their importance in developing an acceptable design, He secks to minimize differential settlement1020 AUGUST 1982 GT8 by keeping: (1) The applied load less than the bearing capacity of the foundation; and (2) deformations arising from volume and shear strains in the foundation within permissible limits, This paper recommends permissible limits. DircenenTiaL SerTemeNT For Sree TANKS A storage tank consists of four main structural elements: shell, bottom plate, connection of shell to bottom plate, and roof. Each settlement pattern may in- fluence each of these components. Fig. 3 describes detrimental scttlement pat- tems that a tank foundation may develop, the probable foundation conditions which produce each pattern, and adverse consequences that could result from each, Each of these settlement patterns may produce one or more modes of failure. Failures of most concern are: (1) Distortion of shell such that the floating roof malfunctions; and (2) rupture of the shell or bottom plate or shell-bottom plate connection, Fig. 3 also relates the principal modes of failure to each settlement pattern. Criteria must protect against all failure modes. Engineers and design groups have proposed various criteria for differential settlement of tanks, These criteria usually focus on a particular structural element of the tank and a single mode of failure for a particular set of conditions. Some practicing engineers generalize these specific criteria too far and apply them in- correctly. For the criteria described in this paper, we identify the mechanism of failure implied by each criterion, the structural clement to which it applies, and the basis for each criterion. We use the symbols and notation shown in Fig. 2 and defined in Appendix III to standardize the results quoted from the literature. By settlement, we mean the change in elevation of a point from the time that point becomes structurally joined to the tank, Practically, measurements of change in elevation usually start when the bottom plate and shell are completed. Appendix I describes several methods of analyzing measured settlement data that various engineers use to calculate differential settlement parameters. Fig. 3 summarizes the principal criteria in use today. This figure shows several apparent and significant differences in criteria for cach tank component. The remaining sections of this paper use these criteria and arrive at recommended ctiteria for each tank component. Crrreria For SHELL Uniform Settlement,—Uniform settlement causes little concem to engineers, Uniform settlement of the shell may damage piping connections due to the dif- ferential settlement between the shell and external pipe supports, and, thus, it may hinder operations, One can avoid this minor problem by using flexible con- nections or by periodically repositioning the pipe supports. Planar Tilt,—Planar tilt of the shell by itself has relatively little importance. Tiling of the shell reduces freeboard, alters the shape of the fluid surface, and places additional stresses in the shell. Using statics and geometrical considera- tions, one can show that the maximum tlt one can sustain without overstressing the shell equals:SETTLEMENT OF TANKS 4024 GT8 aunyes9y1] wos} & HO MeUaTHeS jeHUALAWG—E “OL 38 = 83. oovas s of OFS -avodeus vonopuney £28 OF 61 985 5 enone oe} azA wove 01 oad sues used one Ron Ys gee od vonepug} 08 votiopueos | fuyyds vouaeadoa sans | eiqusserdtse> yo ah Deinded sen] peses0> yon fmapsina wn ____ | Moeed SA] SaalsSelianases | sxetSee pannaady a oases os7P 0 067P oer 5 ws) g >s a d eiqissasdusoa A = pesapcs ton warn! an | po savpod peyo201 2 ~ | a cove Sm occa Sm os/d % 06/0 ola Sm i Sa sn enyte sind wos si ist an wo wy wungord on [a atte ene nave ibs Toy oT , ii tau me ino waa | aca. Kusano | MuC{gSeO59¥5| yuo yons jsst seers 001705 4y| woasearss(reen| MOF 4] ogi sz7éy PPrmaH/~EOBS) 15 ssaane [Rose nN Ho vaLorIOg| cic peed er es tel | woo ma 5 Seay at ‘ - sauna -wooe 5% saad cova 5 ¢ oozra 5 @ e span sass Gueduns| Aipqssndens os “wa Nae pus uvusmna| essen swoyqans worgoud ae wagout on| “Hawa iowverna | syganon Aionury| dnd 2000Id VGaety aon (eI6I) eqn: (ZN 11981) TSanaq r apeauang | suo | sletbivn [ey wmoton| _pitisiey send esduer| 3ON3NDSHOO Pus] WoLLWaNNO| | SNUBL INE SNOTLVONSWNOOSH ONY Vi8aildo INSAS ILLS Sere Ne 0004 BS eee | ee1022 AUGUST 1982 GT8 -a 4a, A) — 21 Gne ~CA) _ nay Sax = FS-y,°G,-D 2(H - Ah) in which H = tank height; Ah, = design freeboard; o, = rupture stress of the steel in the shell; f,., = thickness of shell; CA = corrosion allowance to shell thickness; FS = factor of safety against rupture of shell; y,, = unit weight of water; G, = specific gravity of stored fluid; and D = diameter of tank. Design procedures for tank shells usually require a factor of safety of 2.4. Substituting typical values into Eq. 1 shows that a 10% increase in hoop stress at the bottom of the shell results from a planar tilt of about D/20, Langeveld (1974) recom- mends limiting the maximum differential settlement between diametrical points to 50 cm (20 in.), combined with a 30 cm (12 in.) limit to the out-of-plumb projection of the tank wall. These restrictions limit the additional hoop stress to less than 2% of the maximum hoop stress from normal fluid pressure and prevent radial distortion of the top of the shell from exceeding 2,5 cm (1 in.). Failure of the shell from planar tilt alone seems unlikely. As a practical consideration, maximum tilt, Baq,, mst not exceed 2A, to avoid spilling oil from floating roof tanks or stressing the roof of cone-roof tanks. Furthermore, one must restrict the tilt for floating roofs so that the change in diameter caused by rotation of the shell relative to the roof does not exceed the tolerance of the seal. This require- ment restricts tilt to Ber S2°VRyD seve wteeeFees Lebe spelen Gd aeaep eens beceeeenes @ in which AR, equals the tolerance of the seal. Nonplanar Settlement.—Nonplanar settlement may radially distort the shell or overstress the shell. Radial distortion of the shell, called ovality, may cause a floating roof to malfunction, Overstress may cause rupture and spillage of contents ‘of the tank, Ovality Fig. 4 summarizes existing criteria for nonplanar settlement of the shell, and identifies whether each criterion is based on limiting ovality or stress, Lambe (1961), Langeveld (1974), Malik, et al. (1977) and Penman (1977) give criteria for limiting ovality. These criteria differ in several aspects. The two most important are: 1. Lambe (1961) and Penman (1977) considered general dishing of the shell across the tank diameter, while Langeveld (1974) and Malik, et al. (1977) con- sidered Jocal distortions around the shell circumference. 2. Each used a different measure of differential settlement to establish his criterion. In an attempt to compare these criteria for equivalent conditions, we have adapted the Langeveld and Malik, et al. criteria to fit the case of general sagging of the shell. We made the adaptation by assuming that the out-of-plane distortion caused by general sagging of the shell, S, equals approximately $= Susy, C08 (2) ceseeeeeeedaes peceeceeeeeeeteeeeaeeneeaneees > for all three criteria. (Fig. 5 defines these symbols.) Model tests.on tanks (Malek,1023 SETTLEMENT OF TANKS: GT8 {184g Jo JHOULE)}0g eUR|dUON) 10 BHOWD BoUBLIOHed—y “OL wso%'0 weeg'2 130 wGownp snauss aoe <¥/S7 | — sozyy-.tytaraips osp/is(a/Ev) sown, ieione jose Pim ical spout aim dbaeby ya3E30 wares —| ; ——— moe wort <7 sou s4uoi Joos Byjoay ea 1 Sona 0 = wog'y-0e Wooly 10g yy : sv -025%s feat Joo) Supa OMS Ne promion | St NVArTIns fe 5 + T's)g0. J-ovs [ ~ T _ is +l!s)s0-'s= su wogza twog5'™s| — syu0j yoo Buyoo)s 42 pue tattitgyaue (ws) ssuouiuijag WOSSA tWoyS™s) joo paxy 2z yim souapadey GooANIaYD t— — ee - loco XP / $20(2/HO}-=89 4 Phyvt axe 7 sinter (e260) ss0seeH8 suSUAL “1K -@ UPLAH/ACZOTS o/yeyye'toug.txg iouneey | UE MeVONOWLA | GERSON ees sa muah 12 Sepa z/ugy=uv | (2z6) fsro0qoy wor naa eee aXPASPLZ/HO)-= 8 tuas0 Whyvcangsissy | Mit Parepton ¥om uo iu9 | (2z6t"ev0r)suouowsojep ia BSV2-= X,0/S,P sounssy | ss0}u0|SUa}X9 Jo As0Iyy awa iW 40 au0} aborBA@ joiueE OuSIa/H)OD=Ue . ceanre [2OU:AItO% pulp 1 -pepsnBarsip ‘ zen TUV(HE/OISONS | oq und jays ey jo suoyow | 1145 70 BU}650s vo pase NVPINSd -a0jap [ouolsualKe ssewnsey ‘UoWDIes JoasF9u099 pepoaueese Souove poo ovsta/Weee= By sen . Su “Souoyo toipos Se = llye(ne/a)s O¥s | o ows yoo! Jo soupioyo, 10 Japs | HOME 10 BuBbos uo pasng aenvt taaoxo nary - fe ume 40 Busvong 44 pajouion ye Woyoje4 ppoow099 “ULa8 TIIHS WYN Td-NON NowaLius ir ~Buntiva JO” ae BONVWYOIESd BONVWNosusa | NOWALINO Bos sisva WSINVHO3W ce ES 40 Loads¥1024 AUGUST 1982 GT8 et al., 1977) support the reasonableness of this assumption. Fig. 5 graphically illustrates the basis for the modified expressions of differ- ential settlement and compares these criteria for the equivalent condition of gen- eral sagging of the shell. The criteria differ in the expression used to define radius of curvature of the shell. Langeveld (1974) and Malik, et al. (1977) de- termine radius of curvature from a smooth curve fitted through three adjacent points of measurement. Langeveld (1974) fits a sine curve while Malik, ct al. (1977) fit a cricle. Lambe (1961) and Penman (1977) estimate radius of curvature from a curve passing through the quarter points giving the maximum SAG. (Fig. 2 defines SAG.) Lambe (1961) and Penman (1977) use the correct radius of curvature as Jong as the tank settles in a sagging mode, As the number of points of measurement, n, increases, Lengeveld’s estimated radius of curvature tends to underestimate the maximum radius of curvature, whereas, Malik, et al. (1977) estimate that a maximum radius of curvature that approaches the exact maximum value. The right side of Fig. 5 shows the similarity of the criteria for cases where the sagged shape approximates a cosine curve and the measuring points exceed 16. Significant ovality may occur from local out-of-plane distortion as well as general sagging. Langeveld’s assumption that a sine curve describes locat dis- tortions underestimates the Jocal irregular distortions that actually occur. Criteria of Lambe and Penman do not consider local distortion of the sbell. In Malik, et al, the criterion works with local distortion as well as general sagging, pro- vided 2 sufficient number of measuring points is used. ‘The criterion in Malik, ot al. (1977) agrees with those of Langeveld (1974), Lambe (1961) and Penman (1977) for general sagging, and considers the effect of local distortions on ovality. Therefore, we conclude that the criterion in Malik, et al. ¢ Ss Tp Aka Beet See eee Cree cee Eee eeeeeaa 4) in which £ = the distance between points of measured settlement, gives the best current criterion for ovality resulting from out-of-plane distortion of floating-roof tanks. Little data and few analyses exist to set a criterion for the ovality of coned- roof tanks. Data from floating roof tanks in TONEN’s Kawasaki Refinery suggest large tanks can tolerate more differential settlement than indicated by Eg. 4. We think large but localized differential settlement produces localized radial distortions. ‘The roof may shift so that binding does not occur, even for differential settlement twice the limit given by Eq. 4. Overstress.—In the past, most foundation designers considered ovality and its effect on operation of floating roofs to dictate allowable nonplanar settlement of the shell. While this assumption probably held for old, small-diameter tanks, it may no longer apply. Many new tanks have a larger diameter-to-height ratio and, thus, can accommodate larger distortions without ovality problems. In ad- dition, new seals for floating roofs tolerate much more radial distortion, thus, allowing larger ovalization of the shell, Consequently, overstressing of the tank shell from differential settlement becomes a distinct possibil1025 SETTLEMENT OF TANKS GTs8 HeuS 30 Aerg 405 EHAD—'s “OL H zor PFseai] Pls ier| ocx | 02 simjod a Uszsit Usces| sivas | or Suunsoaujoraquau= U “9 [pa7Bsoei| was | aan | a waxe=1 Gg SuZt 1sy. ae | worse 'y (his+ Ws)go-!s= sy ¢ Whay-qzeros Hs (wien poo[ior ts4*Isjgo-!s]-ovs 2 u 20g pos sg Plug sey | vw ve wn Ee pontoon -4 2 1 SNOLLINIEIO lay Hestos"s x0U52 s0vs Q=u 04 rows u Phy czas ts (2261) NYWNAd| o Py gH gz BOG SZOFONS | rgiyaanv (Aigorayay: z ahs 4 Isve'e/e1= a els — Bhav-q zoros Ns plaxabuny | _ e 8204 | Parte {xp/szp 20) suoydunssy tezen hav th ezrosts 2X 2 why Stasis | a1an39N @ Sr" 8 foeo” ky SE 404 ze * aiGelouaya fo doo weed STDS 40 ONIOo¥S TWeINIS NOALNO GALIGOW| NOLLVOISIGOW HOS SISV@ |NOIMSLIO TYNIOINO| 3ONSH3IIY |SONVWHOANId JO LOads¥1026 AUGUST 1982 GTs Fig. 4 shows that DeBeer (1969) gives the only treatment of out-of-plane set- tlement specifically: related to overstressing of the shell. He related out-of-plane distortion at a point, AS,, to radius of curvature of the shell at that point, Rie as a : R= “RS we Beer eee eeeeet eee Et ® He concluded that an R, greater than 1,500 m (5,000 fi) causes overstress in coned-roof tanks with diameters less than 20 m (66 ft). DeBeer concluded that large, floating-roof tanks can safely sustain a AS/€ of 1/450. Our evaluation of this criterion leads us to try to develop a more direct relation between differential settlement and magnitude of overstress in the tank shell. From the theory for bending of beams, we note that the radius of curvature used by DeBeer relates to bending stress in the shell, o, 28 follows: in which E = the Young’s modulus of the shell, Combining Eqs. 5 and 6 and replacing o with the rupture stress of the shell, o;, gives in which K = a constant that includes the nonelastic behavior of the shell ma- terial, secondary effects of the tank geometry, and other factors. By studying performance of tank shells, especially failures, we would hope to find empirical values of K that relate out-of-plane settlement to rupture of the shell. DeBeer’s ‘use of an R, of 1,500 m (4,900 ft) for a tank with a diameter of 20 m (66 ft) implies a K of 2-3. His recommendation of a AS,/€ of 1/450 to prevent structural damage in large, floating-roof tanks corresponds to a K of 1.5-3.3, depending on the ‘geometry and properties of the tanks treated by DeBeer. ‘Greenwood’s (1974) proposal of an absolute limit to differential settlement translates roughly to a X of 3.3 to prevent overstressing of the shell. Fig. 6 summarizes data on measured shell settlements and calculated values ‘of K for 90 tanks. The majority of these data come from published cases that emphasize Jarge or unusual deformations. We located no documented case where the shell ruptured due to differential settlement. Thus, we could not determine maximum values of X associated with rupture of the shell. ‘Although several tanks were releveled for various reasons, including excessive settlement of the bottom plate, none developed rupture in the shell. The largest measured value of K is 12.1. ‘We can obtain one estimate of K at failure from considering beam theory, For deformation of a simple beam in the elastic and plastic range in which e = tensile strain in the extreme fiber; € = distance between pointsGT8 SETTLEMENT OF TANKS 1027 Riva eae RT [wee ios lait Steal fore Eton [Serres Jonorones le ae cms ee aa ear (ont LiS8 | ST fmntton tote Hieee Ou, | iioe8 |: ek pie cen {oven one °e foga ere SELES RoneutssneseseES BH AAAGA ANS HaARAR ANT ATA aA an Fan EAN FApo Aa Nana Asha NBANANeTwsaaT Tee EARAATAnORDONADAe anal 12 Fy ia i 8 py 3 | vag | iar | 0 BIE Bee |e we] Ba | woo wees | TEREET Toe re mvaenora w Gn mide S| A) Tw SB Hig Nom OOOH 2 fisting Coe IE 5h bnmetn eres A FIG, 6 —Measured Performance of Shells used to measure AS,; H = the height of the beam. For 36 ksi (1.6 X 20° N) steel, Salmon and Johnson (1971) give the following strains for various stress levels: at the yield stress, axial strain equals 0.00125; at the initiation of strain hardening, axial strain equals 0.014; and, at the tensile1028 AUGUST 1982 GT8 strength, axial strain equals 0.11. From Eq. 8, AS, at tensile failure of a simple beam would be -®) Multiplying Bg. 9 by 1 in the form of o,/E+E/o, and using oy = 58 X 10° psi and E = 29 X 10° psi for 36 ksi (1.6 X 10* N) steel gives 2 G7 29X10 _ eo Exile HE ‘Tensile failure of a simple beam should occur at a K of 55. The corresponding value of K at the yield strain equals 0.6 and that at the initiation of strain hard- ening equals 7. Considering the results for a simple beam and the values of K calculated from. measurements, we recommend a value of K of 7 for a performance criterion, Settlements reaching this criterion should produce some yielding in the upper course of the shell, but the strains should not reach the strain hardening range. Stress in the yielded zone should equal the yield stress of the steel. One of the 31 TONEN tanks exceeded this limit with no signs of distress. Two of 59 other tanks exceeded this limit with no reported ruptures of the shell. To facilitate use of the criterion we replace o; in Eq. 7 with the yield stress, oy, to obtain AS,= 0.11 sc iE H for a K of 7. Settlement equal to this criterion gives a factor of safety against rupture (de- fined as o,/0,) of 1.6. ‘The criterion in Eq. 11 does not consider buckling of the shell. We assume that buckling resulting from differential settlement would occur in the top course, would not rupture the shell and would not result in loss of oil. However, failure by buckling requires more study. Crireria For Borrom PLate ‘Uniform Settlement.—Regardless of its cause, uniform settlement of the bot- tom plate creates no threat to the structural integrity of a tank. Excessive uniform settlement may produce operational problems when one empties tanks, but one can best handle such deficiencies on a case-by-case basis. Planar Tilt.—The bottom plate may tilt in a plane similar to the tilt of the shell. Such tilt appears to have no detrimental consequence to the structural in- tegrity of the bottom plate. ‘Nonplanar Settlement.—Fig. 7 summarizes performance criteria for non- planar settlement of the bottom plate. Two important deformation modes exis Gish-shaped settlement and localized depressions. All work (except Hayashi's (1973) and Guber’s (1974) for local depressions adjacent to the shell) uses de- flection analyses of thin circular plates with fixed-end boundary conditions to1029 SETTLEMENT OF TANKS 818jd Woyog JO puaWERIeS ABUEdUORY 105 ENOIO—Z “DIY guru es = 1d, ‘aino} OF YONIOIND POSING 70) O= 9M PUD 2W/NLCOOORE= Ip Fa10Nd q eo Ss 2U/) 61a = S440 HH $4.3 gro] — ol D” seapPrs sKappunog ajqixeis YUM otoid apjnouip Jo vousayep 96107 Pry 0S. woqapuno} siqupane-ued Cy] = ga (e261) 29qn9 30d ayia "p> Woyopuno) siqopO.e Q'Z4g4 10m 1H) £9 ple sey ase ads (e261) s0KoH Hed 42th £25 8} u/xo0d'o82 = 40 me fananasar aoa plem iets s608 ojbur ps 2U/ NY 002'dBI = 10 AS 198zo/Pss apelooned BIeM 188s OG, 1 (G61 ‘oyuaysount)y BIV'Id WOLLOS 3328 abe “p'>S) — cropunog pibis Witm efoid Areata il 40 LNBNFILLIS sonoparey aigepO |__spInouia Jo Uoyo}ep ehioye | " @3z11v207 piem oa 295 2W/N4 O00'0Iz= 4.0 (9961) 20q104 a “he bes Ol 3 Sd ls. ESM Suv S449) 14 Bu wa fe D Tot fa58 wood Payojass ie2enptonatnary 4 NO 0} Aroays eunsquiay » | 40 einjdns aysues _ {2 + Sb Sd om ran dt aod mu, Irs a 4) 24/N4 000'08Z = 1.0 BSm Ssav Q 2d, in which d = the diameter of the largest horizontal circle that can be inscribed in the depres- sion; d = the length of partial ring depression. These curves give limits for local depression at failure which range from d/17—d/33 for single pass fillet welds, and d/13-d/26 for multiple pass welds. Eq. 14 describes approximately the relation expressed in Guber’s family of control curves for local depression of the bottom plate adjacent to the shell: (4) in which 5 and d are in meters. Guber recommends an allowable strength (o/FS) of 42,190 KN/m (6,000 psi), This corresponds to safety factors of 4.2 and 6.6 for single pass and multiple pass fillet welds, respectively. ‘We conclude that Eq. 14 provides a rational approach to limit local depressions of the tank bottom in areas adjacent to the shell. Again, we belive that factor of safety relates to performance of tank bottom in the following fashion: (1) FS = 4 in which localized yielding is possible; and (2) FS = 2 in which severe overstress and rupture are possible. ‘The criteria for nonplanar settlement of tank floors examined to this point assume that the bottom plate shows dish-type settlement of local depression. ‘Tank floors that deform in a combination of these two modes may experience stresses in their bottom plates larger than those predicted by either criterion alone. Fortunately, failures of several bottom plates have been sufficiently docu- ‘mented to allow evaluation of these criteria, Fig. 8 summarizes data for 30 tanks with structural failures occurring in 8 cases. Fig. 8 shows that the criteria cor- rectly predict factors of safety Jess than one for all cases where structural failure occurred, except 7-16(0) and T-1701, which had factors of safety of 1.1. The criteria predict factors of safety greater than one for all cases of no failure except for one tank (7-39). This agreement of predicted and measured failures provides considerable support to the applicability of these criteria for settlement of the bottom plate. Crivenia ron SHett-Bottom Piate Connection Uniform Settlement.—Uniform settlement of the annular ring causes no prob- Jem to the structural integrity of the shell-bottom plate connection. Planar Tilt.—As indicated in the section on the shell, planar tilt causes ad- ditional stresses in the shell. These effects must transfer to the shell-bottom plate connection. These additional stresses do not seem large enough to cause over- stressing, Furthermore, the criterion to limit planar tilt of the shell seems suf-AUGUST 1982 GT8 1032 Se}eld WoNog Jo suEUUOHed peInseaW~g “Dl (a) Neus wo sjowey f(y) Hays oF suaRaIpy (2 youl GeO 2 wot “ee = ty (YN) Hiaa}Jox0 fou vojousajy4 (f lips (1_1s320N r z{v vt [om>ay G2 | bb- ees] 09 | posses} gt | 8 sy °>%| €2 | ov- exo | 65 penenaiaa) ob |v OL |om>a! ze | gs sea | es a jy siz Joma] ‘ge | zp- eco | us a) SZ [oK>«! oz | as- ego | 9s porisrores | or | a Sm>e) Ob | Ob- ers | ss paljersjes |Z 2 °m>m| gi | Ze 69 os i |v Oma! az | Zh ero | ¢9 eco) 2g poesia] st | wy | 9 | oe |em>a] oi | o2- evo | is NaNO. a}v js} z lssel ot [eo ose [10008] painjdm anid woueg wN | ww | zo] 18 | 20 vee PeAnjdns ej0jd wWo}oq vA | WN | 8e0] sb | 20 sb (2261) wowues ‘anjpo} tounonays wy | wn | svo| ze | bz vee | ie | (ble) Won @4ni19} DAMON wn | wy | 250] 9p | si abt | @ usaig ean) joinjonais| gz'o| uw | zz |e | ea | ge | o ges | ey | (zen ano19 1 SION 98s Jeo/a'g H/V| GF | 89 | BG | Ge] iz ae | 68-4 |ti9Gi} 19 wosy03 Beunjdnu ejojd woriog au |e | of |omoal o | iz Zoe | iozhL poinidas ajoyd wong ato { t [oma] 6 | si se | (olsi-t wy | ot | 89 | 6 wee | 224 wy | re | ae | io 919 | 2op-L WN [MDM] be | 12 gia | bOb-1 ez | u | ot | 2 [>a] ae | 913 | Lob wn | wy | ez | ze | 0 Ese | zee WN | gun [D6] Bz | te gaa | ogt ul] [fu [sz] iz]o sob | zsev-1 uj] se fale jo Stet | tov rij ue jor | 9 | iw] a | o sob |ecee-1 su{ ufo] 2 [e>a) 2 | 2s 296 | bt pemidns sod wong! wea | uy | se | 9 | %m>! oz | os greg | one 9 |v je | & |m>s| sz | o€ sits | ove (oasi) ea cs “wa wy FiaD Up aay ON uae svowne s4 [2r0a] “e sa [ee ssjauota|_yuo, | "veeine @3Z11¥907 aaavHs HSIGT8 SETTLEMENT OF TANKS 1033 ficient to ensure that additional stresses in the connection are kept within allow- able limits. Nonplanar Settlement.—Two situations require consideration. One consists of the condition where the shell and bottom plate settle together. This condition compares to Guber’s (1974) analysis for local depressions of the bottom plate adjacent to the shell, Satisfaction of the criterion for the bottom plate as shown in the bottom of Fig. 7 should also prevent overstressing of the connection due to this mode of deformation. ‘The second situation arises when the shell bridges over a soft spot, but the bottom plate tries to settle with the soft spot. Severe stretching of the connection can result and can lead to rupture of the connection. Engincers indicate an awareness of this potential failure mode in the literature, but we could find no criterion for design to prevent failure. Apparently, engineers consider this mode of failure so critical that one should take all practical steps during construction and operation to prevent its development. If one finds local separation of the shell from the foundation, he should immediately pack this zone with acceptable bearing material, such as sand or soil cement. "This approach seems acceptable as long as the surveillance program can detect such conditions. However, the portion of the annular ring which extends outward from the shell can possibly conceal the separation of the shell from the foun- dation. In this case, one can only determine bridging by measuring the settlement of the annular ring inside the tank and by comparing it with the settlement of the shell, However, removal of the tank contents before making these measure- ments can allow the bottom plate and connection to rebound so that one may not detect the bridging. Performance of the connection seems important to us, yet we conclude that no criterion exists to evaluate the condition of the connection, and most sur- veillance programs are insufficient to indicate the severity of deformations at the connection. Performance of this component of the tank demands further study. Oren ConsipeRATIONS Traditionally, engineers have not considered the effects of horizontal move- ments of tank foundations on the tank, Such movements occur from shear of the foundaiton, effects of nearby facilities, and effects of earthquake shaking, To our knowledge, no criteria exist to limit lateral movements of a tank foundation. Several questions remain unanswered. How do horizontal displacements relate to stresses in the components of a tank? Can horizontal strains rupture the bottom plate or shell? Should engineers consider a combination of vertical and horizontal modes of displacement? The proposed criteria consider each mode of failure as independent from other modes, Furthermore, they consider limiting stresses in the tank components de- termined with no consideration of stresses developed from other causes, including the stress induced by contained fluid, except the criterion in Eg. 1 which rarely controls. Approximate calculations indicate these simplifications have little in- fluence for most cases, However, the engineer should consider the possible ef- fects of combined overstressing if more than one stressing mode appears im- portant, As an example, we believe the combination of large dish-shaped1034 AUGUST 1982 GTB settlements with large localized depressions of the bottom plate is more severe then either of the settlement patterns considered separately, Definition of settlement becomes unclear upon releveling a tank, We suggest using the original elevations to find settlement for releveling accomplished with- out structurally disassembling the tank components. If releveling invokes dis- mantling the tank, one should use new elevations for settlement determinations. Cowc.usions This paper presents performance criteria for the deformation of large tanks used to store fluids at ambient temperature and pressure. Fig. 9 summarizes these performance criteria. Where possible, the criteria include a factor of safety, de- fined as the ratio of tensile stress to developed stress, We indicate permissible values of factor of safety for safe operation. We developed the performance criteria by: (1) Interpreting and extending the work of others; (2) making approximate analyses; and (3) analyzing the measured performance of lange tanks, especially the tanks at TONEN’s site in Kawasaki City, Japan, Several important questions remain about the performance of tanks subjected to differential settlement. We encourage engineers to document performance of tanks,-especially tanks which fail duc to setdlement. Such documentation should include, as a minimum, properties and dimensions of the tank; settlement of the shell for at least eight points; and settlement of the bottom plate at enough points to detect localized depressions. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writers appreciate the technical and financial support provided by Toa Nenryo Kogyo K. K. of Tokyo, Japan. TONEN also provided valuable field data. The writers particularly thank S. Ikeda, M. Abe, K. Nishida, K. Omori, and K. Komatsu of TONEN for their support and assistance. Nancy Petrova drafted the figures and tables. Appenpix I.—DETERMINATION OF AvERAGE PLANE oF TILT In order to compute the differential settlements, S;, one must determine and remove settlements resulting from tilt. The three most widely used methods de- ‘termine the average plane of tilt of the shell. Calculated settlement due to the tilting of the tank is subtracted from each measured settlement of the shell and the bottom plate. Figs. 2 and 10 define symbols. All methods consider Eq. 15 to describe the settlement from planar tilt; Z,= Ay + Ay 00 (b; +B) veesereeees oe ose Sullivan and Nowicki (1974) assume that the orientation of the plane of tilt coincides with the diameter having the maximum difference in measured settle- ment, DeBeer (1969) recognized that the diameter coinciding with the plane of average tilt does not necessarily coincide with measured points. He described1035 SETTLEMENT OF TANKS GT Syuey Jo yuOWERROS JeAUAIEYIG 40} eNOYYD eoUBUOHed PapUaLIWOD®y—~G “DI my suajawoind yuow wopppune) pup iii. gournieg, NOILI3NNOO jays Jo uolosedas ods jos SUV twanaid of sououajujow | s9n0 sa6pnq [9Us <0 oa 440) pawioseg, Wos.t08 T73HS| uo aaupjjaning “WA} uowioouven Jo anid “IK Huawoyag 20U0}d -UON Tana g pup (HASIczofl (apaseet os s4 Hays oF jusso{pe “9 so! 28055 “0 | ays wos, sjowas “a so m BIT suojssaidep WoLtos poxyooo) woxs ganjdnyy- 75 aes 583 rood pink parse, 65.3 2) 0 wawsnias ee padoys-ysyp wos} aanidny “76 squawia|n9g s0v91d-voN an 5 : Busey “am | ows yo sseusieng “at "2 Wiyy fH sey “mm | oss yoo Jo Suspuig “nr 2 ANSNLL3S UYNYd-NON T3HS auvAzse I {08s 3001 Jo $807 “TT Pyy2se - : 019 a eoeran av2s@ “1 | nnwso uddouio cr) gto am | Coal Ju avNytd caer +b SLNSWWOO pu sNattitnaad | NORALINO auNTIVd 40 300W BONYWHOsad Jo Loadsy | LNANOAWCOAUGUST 1982 ore 1036 ‘SUO}}10}81q eUe][g-JO-INE oM|UUEIEG OF sPOIW—oL “DIL womge'9 +494 oz ew won > hao POMHON BvOAIAS——p ~~ || or 2-4 * juswasias 40 Juavodisos uojd-jo-1no = S gon i 4 204014 = Zz 3 Woy yuowayy}93 yo yuouedwod = Z uawayjas pamsoaw = 2 SN axe «# een NH 20unjd eBos0A0 jo aySuD=0/7%% | i a _ 1 oz quawojyee joys sboiono = gt a z£ 3 g b € iG 1 4 8601000 SANIOd ONIUNSW3H JO uoId jo UoLoJUaHIO = Ff SUOHJOISIG. @UDid JO INQ (9 e ae 4 — za ao, {.6°21+#) s092'1- 0°68 « ; ; ; (2260) ~~ PusgiePs0002-a6¢=2| 42% ee 6a 19 18 OW > (ie#) 80012-0768 =2] 992 oe ait | (6960) 499820 3, = rw ee eine (east) HaHKON of? fers y #80907 - O68 =Z 92 oe 0 eK x a 210 TMU, B9vaaAy 40 [evopEorg] (we) BNV'id J NolLvnoa | g/1¢ ¢ g BONSY3438 @ ¢ suiza, jo vouiuyed (q HILL ebosary Jo aubjy JO soystezo0s049 ('DGT8 SETTLEMENT OF TANKS 1037 a graphical means to locate the diameter giving the plane of average tilt. Malik, Norton, and Ruiz (1977) use linear regression techniques and the measured data define, statistically, the direction of the plane of average tilt. They determine coefficients for Eq. 15 as 1& ay 2 Ps = average measured settlement of shell; a 1-3[ (Sam) «(So we] p =a |(S arsina)(S n-o08) Pee ee ne 18) ima Ay = Out-of-plane settlement results from $= 7% As shown in Fig. 10, both DeBeer (1969) and Malik, et al. (1977) give similar results for out-of-plane settlement. Sullivan and Nowicki’s method tends to ov- erestimate maximum out-of-plane settlement. We recommend Malik et al. as a consistent, reliable means to remove tilt from the measured settlements of the shell and the bottom plate. Aprenoix Il—BipuiogRarHY Bell, R. A., and lwakiri, J., “Settlement Comparison Used in Tank-Failure Study nal of the Geotechnical Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. GT2, Feb., 1980, pp. 153-169. Bjemum, L., Discussion to European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation En« gineering, Vol. TL, 1963, pp. 135. Carlson, E. D., and Fricano, S. P., “Tank Foundation in Eastern Venezuela," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 87, No. SM10, Oct., 1961, pp. 69-89. Clatke, J. S.. “Survey of Oil Storage Tanks,”” Annales de L’Instinut Belge du Petrote, No. 6, 1969. p. 15. Clarke, J. $., "Recent Tank Bottom and Foundation Problems,"' Proceedings of American Petroleum Inistinte, 36th Midyear Meeting, Division of Refining, Mey, 1971, p. 1. Costa Nunes, A, J. ‘*Foundation of Tanks O.C.B-9 at Alemoa-Santos-Brazil,"” Pro- ceedings of the 2nd International Conference in Soil Mechanies and Foundation Engi- neering, Rotterdam, Vol. 4, 1948, pp. 31-40. Davisson, M. T.. and Salley, J. R., "Settlement Histories of Four Large Tanks on Sand, "* Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty Conference on Performance of Earth Supported Struc» ners, Vol. 1, Part 2, 1972, pp- 961-966. DeBeer, E. E., “Foundation Problems of Petroleum Tanks," Annales de L'Instina Belge du Petrole, No, 6, 1969. pp. 25-40. Green, P. A., and Hight, D. W., "The Failure of Two Storage Tanks Caused by Dif- ferential Sotiloment,"" Proceedings of the Conference on Setilement of Structures, Cam1038 AUGUST 1982 GTs bridge University, British Geotechnical Society, A Halsted Press Book, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y., Apr., 1974, pp. 353-360. Greenwood, D, A., “Differential Settlement Tolerance of Cylindrical Steel Tanks for Bulk Liquid Storage,” Proceedings of the Conference on Settlement of Structures, Cambridge University, British Geotechnical Society, A Halsted Press Book, John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York, N.Y., Apr., 1974, pp. 35-97. Guber, F, H., Design Engineering Contributions to Quality Tankage, International Insti- inte of Welding Annual Assembly, Budapest, Hungary, 1974, pp, 99-129. Hayashi, K., ‘Evaluation of Localized Differential Tank Bottom Settlement,” Internal Report, EXXON Research and Engineering Co., Report No. EE.!2TTR.73, 1973. Herber, K. H., ‘‘Eckverbindungen yon Tanken und Behaltern,”* Del Stahibau, Vols. 10 and 11, pp. 225-228 and 252-257, 1955. Lambe, T. W., ‘‘Reclaimed Land in Kawasaki City,"* Proceedings of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE Vol. 95, No. SMS, 1969, Langeveld, I. M.,. “The Design of Large Steel Storage Tanks for Crude Oil and Natural Gas,” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the International Instirute of Welding, 1974, pp- 35-95, Love, A. E. H.,A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Elastici England, 1927. Malik, Z., Morton, J., and Ruiz, C., “‘Ovalization of Cylindrical Tanks as a Result of Foundation Settlement,"" Journal of Strain Analysis, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1977, pp. 339-348. ity, 4th ed., Cambridge, Penman, A. D. M., ‘*Soil-Stucture Interaction and Deformation Problems with Large Oil Tanks,” Proceedings of the International Symposiven on Soil-Structure Interaction, Uni- versity of Roorkee, Roorkee, India, Vol. 1, Jan., 1977. pp. 521-526. “Regulations for Tanks,"’ Japanse Fire Defense Agency, 1977. Rinne, J. E., “Tanks on Soft Soils are Economic Challenge," Pesro/Chem Engineer, Vol. 35, No. 10, Sept., 1963, pp. 56-58. Salmon, C. G., and Johnson, J. E., Steei Structures: Design and Behavior, Imext Edu- cational Publishers, 1971, p. 2. Sowers G. F., ‘Shallow Foundations,"* Foundation Engineering, G. A, Leonards, ed., ‘McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.¥., 1962. Sullivan, R. A.,, and Nowicki, J. F., “Differential Settlement of Cylindrical Oil Tanks Proceedings of Conference on Settlement of Structures, Cambridge University, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y., Apr., 1974, pp. 420-424. Timoshenko, S., Theory of Plates and Shells, MeGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, Y¥., 1955, p. 410. Appenpix Il,—Notation The following symbols are used in this paper; AyA, = coefficients in equation for tilt;2 ga sabe tOdmand SETTLEMENT OF TANKS 1039 reduction to wall thickness to allow for corrosion; diameter of tank; diameter of circle inscribed in depression of bottomplate; length of depression of bottom plate; Young’s Modulus of steel; factor of safety, equal to ratio of tensile strength to existing stress; specific gravity of stored fluid; height of tank: height of wall: twice the distance between measuring points on shell; distance between measuring points on shell; mumber of points on shell at which settlement is measured; radius of curvature; ASwux for quarter points of shell out-of-plane settlement of point i; maximum out-of-plane settlement of any point; thickness of shell at base of tank; maximum out-of-plane dish-shaped settlement of bottom plate: initial camber of bottom plate; coordinate along circumference of tank; component of settlement at point i due to planar til; angle from reference to diameter along average plane of tilt: unit weight of water; design freeboard of tank; allowable change in radius of roof seal; S,— 0.5 (Sins + Shas) maximum settlement of bottom plate from initial position; difference in measured settlement between two points; difference in settlement between diametrical points; maximum difference in settlement between diametrical points; horizontal movement of top of shell due to planar tilt; strain; measured settlement of point i; average measured settlement of shell; stress; allowable stress in steel; tensile strength of steel; yield strength of steel; and angle from reference to point i.