sity. The use of the facilities of the Civil Engineering Department p“efully acknowledged, nering Deparment ls Appenoix REFERENCES 1. Black, DK, and Lee, KL Jj D.K, and Lee, K,L, “Satuatng Laboratory Samples by Back-Pres- bey” Journal of Guten! Enginesting Diao, ‘i att A apalaae lanai Shi aney, RYE, “Saturation Eifects on the Cyclic Strength of Sands,” Pro- tale of te ASCE Gein! Engrewring Pision Spray Conference on Earnie Ennering ad Sl yr Vy are, Ca oe tow Gy Sa Bch He, and Rad Ny "Canaries er Static Loads” Jounal of Ceca Engnearing Dion Je Bp a cays ees reltnds DAE, "Density and Compressbly Characteristic of Air Water Motes,” Canadian Conta outa, Val, 1, 1976, pp 986-396 TH, atmatng Conatton one ete Ried Earth Daa, raceings Sco Intrationl Confrence on Sol Mechanics and Foundton fren Vol i, 1948 pp, 254 30, o Foundaton Ev «Ewer, ta fhe, Pc eof tacos oe Deg Sst of nl Feat Specie Presto he 0 ASCE Rach antes enpih of Cohesive Sols, Boulder, Cola. 1960, pp. Rad, N.S, “Static and Dynamic Behavior of Cemented Sands,” thesis Sent to Stanford Univer at Sanford, Calf n 982m postal tele trent ofthe requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Rad. N, Sv and Clougi GW. "State and Dynamic Bchavict of Cemented Sanday the John A. Blame Center, Stanford University, Report No. 33, Pre pare forthe Und Sts Geog Survey, Otc of Echguae Sts, 9. Schuurman, E., "The Compressbility of an Aie/Water Mi sibility of an Air/Water Misture and a The telcal Kelton Between Ar and Water Pressure,” Geneon _ eee 1 Getetinigue, Vol 16, NO. Shen, M.A, Mhibaci, Ly and Tsuchiya, C., “Saturation Efets on Initia Bil Liquefaction Technical Note, Joural of Gesetnal Enginesring Divi, ‘ASCE, Vol. 103, No. GIB, Aug., 1977, pp. 914-917. " Skemnpton, A: Wy “The Fore Pressure Coefficients A and B,” Gesteciqe Vol. Wy, Mar., 1938, pp. 143-147 me aL ‘Appenoic l—NotaTion The following symbols are used in this paper VypsVpp = initial and final volume of water in t volume of water in the specimes Var¥e al and final volume of ai in the specimen > = total volume of voids; VgeVa = volume of free and dissolved air; 1 We = otal volume of ae ° “Pe = initial and final absolute pressure inside th Pe-B Tintin and fia! ab sure inside the air bubbles; re tal and final absolute pressure in pore water; surface tension force; initial and final radii of air bubbles; Henry's constant; initial and final degree of saturation; and pore pressure coefficient. 1218 STABILITY OF STEEL UIL DIUKAGE BANKS tuncan,’ F. ASCE and Timothy B. D’Ora ALM. ASCE By James W. pesrucr: Oil storage tanks built on weak and compressible foundations have Aes Oi ee Bitunes due to foundation instability. These experiences Suffered ceneoP ced to eablish simple procedures fo evluating factors of See ese theatre and cage seat fale, Methods fo averaging wueb seeder suengn vos foxes to modes of fae ate dese, toa re ft oppiy emple beeing capacity formulas to conditions whlch mabe I pease Pe foundation varie eth depth and where the WS Fae ta ae scr ty ovetan by layers of sand or gravel, Recommend foundation canting Cron values of factor of safety againat undrained foun on. ne ovided, In cazes where the Birt loading ofthe foundation dation fale 2 Reve divinage is accelerated Uy sand dra, wick aig, or is very on ot prea rage and srenglh gn occrs during water tural sor ethode 0 rehablitatig tanks after faite of the foundation are revlowed, avn oor & = x = Inrnopucion Steet oil storage tanks are frequently constructed at sites where the foundation soils are weak and compressible. In a number of well-doc- timented cases bearing capacity failures in the foundations of tanks have Winalted in severe damage and rupture of tanks, loss of contents, en~ Vronmental damage, and even loss of human life: It is thus evident that Gvaluating the stability of tanks founded on weak soils is an important aspect of their design. See Two modes of foundation jpstbility have been observed in practice— base shear and edge shear. Base shear involves failure of the entire tank acting as @ nee ‘edge shear involves local failure of a part of the tank perimétér and a contiguous portion of the base. Both of these tnodes of failure can be evaluated using available bearing capacity the- Tigce that take into account the thickness of the weak soil layer beneath the tank in comparison with the tank width, ‘When bearing capacity theories are applied to practical problems of tank stability analysis, it is often found that the real conditions differ arewhat from the idealized conditions on which the theories are based. Rent sites frequently have a gravel foundation pad beneath the tank, layers of sand or other soils overlying the weak foundation clays, Hayore of granular soll within the weak foundation clay, or clay strength that Gates significantly with depth in the foundation. Accounting for such Complications in a realistic manner is perhaps the most important aspect ot applying bearing capacity theories to real-world tank stability studies Te esess the usefulness of bearing capacity theories for tank stability evaluations, a study has been made of 40 steel oil storage tanks, shx of roof Cv. Eng. Unie of Calor, Berkley, Cal Research Engr.» Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Meet th cutsion open until February 1, 1985, To extend the closing date one mmbuth a written request must be fled with the ASCE Manager of Technical and Fart a Publications. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for re- Troe and poseble publication on Seplember 16, 1963, This paper is part of the Jentual of Geotechtieal Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 9, September, 1984. OASCE, {SSN 738-9410/84/0009-1219/801.00, Paper No. 19125. 1219TABLE 1 chiaraotoristios cof Tanks Studled Tank and Foundation Parametors _ a. Diam- | tons Sein Height, | ter, | per tons per Root | in| in’ |squere| T,, in Tain square | D..in | Tin Tank Reference type | meters | meters | meter | moters meters | Description | motor | meters | meters | D,/T | Comment att) @ @ |w |e Lo} oa @ @ co | ay | aa | 4) R bel & aki’ [Unknown | 17.5 | 32.0 | 125 | 00 60 [Chayey sit, | 15-35 | 380 | 150 | 259 [Ringwall (1980) eat 12 Bell & twakirt unknown | 175 | 320 | 16.5 | 0.0 60 |ctayey sit, | 15-35 | 380 | 150 | 259 |Ringwall (1980) peat ta |carison & Fricano [Cone | 146 | 45,7 | 142 | 07 0.0 | silty sandy 464 | 120 | 387 1961) clay t38 lcarison & Fricano cone | 146 | 45.7 | 140 | 07 00 |sity sandy | 25-48 | 465 | 20 | 388 (1961) lay tak be te twakisi Dome | 23.7 | 523 | 237 | 15 20 |sity day | 40-80 | 558 | 100 | 5.58 |Pretoad, sand (1980) drains Ts Jsell & twakit cone | at | 45.7 | 16.0 | 15 25 |clayey sit | 13avg | 497 | 85 | 5.85 Vise 1 agg) ella iwakiri [Dome | 23.7 | 52.3 | 235 | 15 20 |sitty day 40-80 | 588 | 9.0 | 6.20 |Preload, sand (1960) drains lel! te iwakiri [Floating | 14.6 | 475 | 146 | 20 45 |chay, sity day] 25avg | 510] 60 | 9.00 (1380) let & Iwaki [cone | 146 | 533 | 85 | 20 2.0 |Clay, sandy | 18-27 | 573 | 60 | 9.55 | Extended ai- (1980) lay, clayey ameter pad sand Tot; bet &twakisi floating | 146 |. é1.6 | 128 | 20 35 |cly, sandy | 25avg | 671 | 7.0 | 9.59 sae | 0980) clay ‘tod lel! de fwakisi floating | 146 | 61.6 | i28 | 20 35 |cty, sandy | 25avg | 671 | 70 | 9.59 yg i [89 clay Td bell te twakiri —|rtoating | 146°] 1.6 | 128 |. 20 as |clay, sandy | 25avg | 71 | 7.0 | 9.59 19 cay ‘pata let & watt cone | t46 | 334 | t46 | 18 40 |Clay, sandy | 25avg | 442] 45 | 9.82 (1980) it tases lsat ae twakist fone | 146 | 45.6] 145 | 15 15. [silty cay 1savg | 49.6 | 8.0 | 6.20 |Sand drains (1980) 14356 let &efwakist —|cone | 146 | 45.6 | 145 | 15 15 |sity day 1savg | 496 | 8.0 | 620 |Sand drains : (1980) ‘Ancona jamiolkowski floating | 22.0 | 962 | 21.0 | 30 10.0 |Graveny ait, | 40-70 | 1092 | 15.0 | 7.28 | overburden . (1975) sandy clay compacted Nesoo0F [Penman & Watson [Floating | 165 | 39.0 | 15.7 | 10 0.0 |sity cay (ott | 08-23 | 40.0 | 40 | 10.00 [thin sand : (1967) to firm) layers tai0LD - [Penman & Watson [Floating | 16.5 | 56.6 | 165 | 1.0 0.0 |sity day Gott | 08-23 | 576 | 55 | 10.47 | Thin sand (1967) to firm) layers 407 jet etwakist floating | 146 | 745 | 149 | 15 4.0. | sity day 1530 | 00} 60 | 1333 (1980) (soft) ‘Shetthavén « :fvixon (1949) . Unknown | 9. | 67 | 82] tt ; 00 |cay 1a 78 | 137 | 057 ‘Quebee [Brown & Paterson Unknown | 13.4 | 213 | 125 | 37 00 clay 10-30 | 250 | 107 | 234 (0964) Graiygemotith [saurin (1945) unknown | 92 | 54 | 94 | 06 0.0 _|sity dy 10 360 | 152 | 237 1220 224Veta Continued __ Wy (2) 3) } 8) 6) 7) (8) (9) (10) (ty (t2)_ | 03) (14) my [Bjemum & Over [Unknown | 12.2] 25.0 [ 112 | 10 10 [Silty day & [18-40 | 250 | 9.0 | 2.9 [Ringwall Tand (1957) chy 19 lcarloon & Fricano \cone | 46 | 457 | 146] 12 58 |sity cay, | 1893 | 527 | 160 | 3.29 (0361) sandy clay Tarot parivats fom | ue | a7 | see | 00 a0 {sue os 7 | 30 | 1623 C TH Jorceh and Hight fone | ize | 17.1 | 28 | 10 50 |Peatandclay | 1.2-45 | 231 | 100 | 23 ie (1975) ‘rawr’ |Penman & Watson Unknown | 146 | 137 | 146 | 13 oo |sity day — | os-23 | 150 | 47 | 32 |thinsand (1967) layers, nesommr [Penman & Watson [Unknown | 9.1 | 146 | 9.4 | 13 0.0 |sity cay | 08.23 } 59 | 47 | a4 [thin sana i) layers Santos iva (1953) luntnown | 91 | 366] 75 | 15 35 |oranicday | 14-50 | a6 | 95 | 44 |Sand drains 140 Penman & Watson [Floating | 9:1 | 194 | 82 | 09 00 |sitycay | ra70 | 23 | 37 | 35 (1963) ‘N-3001F |Perman & Watson |Unknown | 14.6 | 244 | 146 | 13 0.0 | Silty clay 08-23 2.7 47 | 5.5 |Thin sand ‘as67) layers TKA lkalinovsky (1988) |cone’ | 04 | 183 | 76 | 00 27 | cay osas| a0 | 37 | 57 TKB Ikalinovsky (1958) [Cone wo4 | 23 | 76 | 00 27 |Cay no | 37 | 57 TOA. ty.1 [Bll Iwakisi [Cone ai'| 762 | 82 | 15 60 [cay 7 | 20 | 70 | a960) TSA IMcCletland (1967) Cone 10 | 41.0 | 122 | 10 20 |clay ao] 60 | 73 18 IMecietand (1967) |cone | 20 | 410 | 122 | 10 20 |cay 12-45 | 40] 60 | 73 TC, ifKaltovsky (1958) [Cone tts | 24] 73 | 00 27 |Clay 05-12 | wi] 37 | 73 PRD, scr [Kalinovsky (1958) [Bloating | 91) 259 | 73 | 00 27 |cay ozs | 26 | 37 | 77 Isle of Grain [Cooling and \Cone 7.6 | 4.0 | 5.0} 10 0.0 |Clay 1.0-1.8 49 5.0 9.0 Gibeb (1955) Raveniia __|Bellof et al. (1975) [Floating | 147_| 67.0 | 13.3 | 2.0 5.0_|Sandy silt 25 7.0 | 50 | 148 r geen oe el which suffered foundation failures, and 34 of which were stable, It was b=213m WEE an found that bedtiig capacity theory provided an effective means of sta- Ueto sigipele Thee | bility analysis for these cases, and that the complicating factors men- fie tioned previotisly can be accommodated in the ahalyses through simple aml Hil | and systematic ptocediures. The studies also show that when sand drains Ee ate installed Within the foundation days, of wher the foundation clays 2° cobtaln:saitd Jhyets that serve to accelerate the fate of drainage, signif- & feant coftoliddtion atid strength gain may occur during the period of £0 wwatet load tesling & “Taw FOUNBAHION FaiLunes % “The tahk ail foundation data for the tanks studied are summarized 310 foie in Table'1. OF these 40 tanks, six suffered foundation shear failure, and . tivo fiptuted atid Spilled their contents aé a restllt. One of thé 40 tanks Bs (1-270) tiptitdd during service due to excessive seltlement, even though 4 theté wa8 nto Sheaf fallure within the foundation. The foundation and c oy I i foaditig cotiditions for the six foundation shear failures are shows in retain 16. We Quiebec tank (4) was built ata site where the foundation consisted 02 FIG. 1—Quebee Tank 1228Settlement, m Sond (Fine tomed) Cinders Silt lust) 9 setllement between oa Stigma constuction od fast rptare od ~tatemant beeen fist vetevel on 9 ‘second rupture oal ‘surfoce crust 0; 2 to Groy clay(sott) — Sutlt/m 20! 15, ‘e 3 IV shear zr 5 °0 264 6 8 10 Time, months FIG. 3.—Shelthaven Tank 1208 of sensitive Leda cay. TI. ank-as not wate lested, and it failed about 24 he afer iy fist Complete filing with ol, The tank ruptured com pletely and the contents spied. Using the methods described in the Fatowng setion the factor of safety genet base shear mas found to 1.05, and the factor of safety against edge shear was found to itz, These values of Frand Feclesate using peak stength lnc appear fo provide a good aasesesent of foundation sabi, and ithus seems to be unnecessary to apply 2 feducton factor fo account for sonatvity, even for clays as highly sensitive a6 the Lada cay "Tank T-170L Q) was constracted at a site containing a layer of very soft sit as shown in Fig 2, I filed during water load testing, and was Feleeled: Subsequent, when iled again with water it failed a second time; the measured seltiements afer the to failures are shown in Fig 2. he factors of safety calculated for this case were Fy = O44 and F. O78 After the second failure the tank was reconstructed ona pile fan dation, and wes then stable “The Shellhaven Tank (11) was built on a chalk mat over a thick layer of soft day {ote Fig. 3) wa filed over a five-day pesiod, and failed within afew hours after filing was competed, The catesated base sheat factor of safely was Fy 0.86 The edge shea factor of safety could not te evaluated acuraely for this case Because data was not availabe for the died crust ontop ofthe clay. The properties ofthis dred crust have a much smaller influence on the deeper sated base shear slip surface ing fo the fact thatthe thickness ofthe soft clay was large compared to the tank diameter, it would be expected that base shear would be more eft, Tonk '8 @) was built on avery thin concrete mat and a gravel pad cover soft fo sf marine cays. In an effort to put the tank in service Guicly, i was filed vith water in 95 hr, and i failed ater two hours being fully Toaded ao indicated In Fig The failure occurred on the Side of fhe site where bedrock was shallower and an investigation showed eee ieee 3 _———— FIG. 4.—Tank T-8 12051h § of. ty deter bas un il Sysco tte ff) SSH ‘eitseiet et + ‘; -— a i oe i a i Sy dnt ey ec FIG, 6.—Tank 7-39 that the tlay was weaker in this area, Interestingly, Bjertum ad Over- latid:ftbted that itis commonly fouind that Norwegiat clays are weakest where bedtock is shallowest. The factors of éafety calculated for this case using Ut eliodsdescibed in this paper wer F = 1.80 aha F, = 110. ‘Batu dd Overland (3) calculated similat values using slightly diff tht ptdcedutes, The foundation of the tank was repaired after the fail- ‘ute, alte the tank Was teflled Very slowly with water, over a period of 2 yk. This slow filling was successful ih consolidatitig and strengthening the ay, arid the tank was stibsequently used satisfactorily “Tank 1-39 (6) was built in eastern Venezuela at a site where the foun- dation gulls were very éoft lo stiff clays extending to a depth of about 50 m, the tank was filled nearly full in a period of 33 days, and the rate ‘bf seltletitent decreased steadily after fling stopped, as indicated in Fig 5, However, after the lank was filled completely, the tank failed, settling tapidly and titing. The factors of safety calculated for this case were Fs = 10d anid F, = 0.96. After about two months, the tank had settled 1.75, m at ohe point on the edge, and it was taken out of service. An inves- ligation of the tank bottom revealed that a shear feilure had taken place along the southwest edge of the tank. To repair the tank the site was flooded aind the tank was floated to a nearby location. The site was then drdined afd the upper soft clay ldyer was removed and replaced with a layer of compacted shale. The tank was then floated back into position, and a surcharge berm was built around it. Subsequently the tank was ‘water load tested and put into service sttccessfully. 1208 FIG. 6.—Grangemouth Tank ‘The Grangemouth Tank (15) was built on an 0.6 m pad of compacted shale overa deep layer of very soft cay, as shown in Fig. 6. During the watet load test a gradual shear failure occurred, and this was noticed after the tank had been full for 42 days. The measured settlement at one locatiott on the tank bottom exceeded 50 cm; about 7 cm of ground heave ‘was measured adjacent to the tank edge. The factors of safety calculated for this case were Fy — 0.81 and F, ~ 0.72. : ‘These case histories illustrate a number of important points: 1, Foundation instability may develop quickly or slowly. It often re- stilts in large nontuniform settlements and tilting of the tank, and can lead to complete rupture of the tank and loss of contents, 2, Either base shear or edge shear may be the critical failure mecha- nism, and both should be evaluated. 3. Thin layers neat the surface have a greater effect on the edge shear factor of safety than on the base shear factor, because the edge shear mechanism is shallower |. It appears to be unnecessary to apply a reduction factor to the peak strength of sensitive clays to alow for clay sensitety. Peak strength values, together with the methods outlined in this paper, appear to pro- Vide reasonable evaluations of stability even for clays as sensitive as the Leda clay. 5, Tanks have been successfully stabilized after failure by: (1) Recon- struction on pile foundations; (2) repair, releveling, and very slow fl 207and con Paoposto Mettion oF Srabitity AnaLysis tit matty cases where tank’ are consttucted on weak clay foundations, the clay #8 overlain by a granular overbutden layet, or a compacted soil ppad, of both. A typical condition is shown in Fig. 7. For such cases the hnflieice of the overlying granular layers can be taken into account by aditig Out thé load over a larger diameter at the top of the clay layer. In the aitalyses performed during this study, the load spread was suited be be 2:1 as shown in Fig. 7, and the equivalent diameter (D,) can this be expressed DpS D4 Ty Ta eee -) in which D, = diameter of loaded area at top of clay; D = tank diameter; T, = pad thickness; and T= overburden thickness. The bearing pres- stire acting on this area at the top of the clay can be expressed as (2) bam (OZB) aatercsrnrnnn in which 9, = bearing pressure at top of clay; q = bearing pressure due to liquid tank and weight of tanks 4, ~ pad unit weight, and ‘yo = overburden unit weight. {Habe Sheat Failure, —The mechanism of base shear failure is very sim- ilar to the mechanism for bearing failute of a shallow footing on clay, as shown in Fig. 8. Ifthe clay layer is. thicker than 0.7 Dz, the slip stir- face wll probably tot extend to the base of the layer, as shown in Fig 8(0.lf the clay layer is thinner, as shown in Fig: 8(a) and &(6), the slip alitface Will most likely extend to the base of the layer. Wheh the layer is vety thin Compared to the tank diameter, as in Fig, 6(a), the inode of faut volves the clay being squeezed ouvard laterally from beneath ‘the tank. Te Geinae ” obirden \ a — eee FIG. 7.—Load Spread Through Granular Overburden Layer 1208 For /t>8 Fetes airs vo 7] Sa : Fa O/T 614 of sSeee For any of these cases, the ultimate base shear bearing capacity can be expressed as Gua = SNet Yo Tw 5 ; ® in which qj) = ultimate bearing capacity for base shear; $, = average tundrained shear strength of clay; and N= dimensionless bearing ca- pacity factor for base shear. For a clay layer thicker than one-sixth of the tank diameter (for D./T = 6), Meyerhof (lecture given at the Univ. of Calif, Berkeley, on the Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations, in 1981) has shown that the value of Nis the same as for a circular footing on a deep clay layer: N.261 for Pes oe for = -& Fora thinner clay layer, Meyerhof suggested that the value of N, can be determined from the following simple expression: D Dy Now At +55 for > 6 ° in which T = clay layer thickness ‘The value of N- increases as the clay layer becomes thinner, because 1229the mect...ism of failure is increasingly restricted due to ti act that the clay is sandwiched between the bottom of the tank and the unde lying firm layer. Thus, with very thin clay layers, base shear becomes a less likely mode of failure. For conditions where the clay layer beneath a tank contains embedded layers of sand, their thicknesses are subtracted from the total thickness to determine the value of T for use with Eqs. 4 and 5. ‘The factor of safety against base shear is defined as cs © which may be expressed as A SNetyeTs ai Although including the term y..Tu in both the numerator and the de- nominator as shown in Eq. 7 has 2 fully logical basis, it has the effect of biasing the value of F, toward unity. In the analyses performed dur- ing this investigation, the term y.sT,» was subtracted from both the nu- merator (the bearing capacity) and from the denominator (the bearing pressure) resulting in the following expression for F. SuNe AGG) even Eq. 7 may be viewed as an expression for Fy based on gross load at the top of the clay layer, and Eq. 8 as an expression for F; based on net load. Both give the same result when F, ~ 1.00, but Eq. 8 is more sen- sitive to the shear strength of the clay. Its recommended for that reason that Eq, 8 be used to evaluate Fy; the principal reason for evaluating Fy is to compare its value to the possible range of uncertainty in the clay strength, which is nearly always the quantity with which the greatest ‘uncertainty is associated, and Eq, 8 seems betier suited to this assessment. In applying Eq. 8 to cases where the clay strength varies with depth beneath the tank, a weighted average value of shear strength is used. ‘The weighting factors can be estimated by considering the length of slip surface within each segment of the failure zone within the clay layer. For the studies summarized in this paper, the shape of the slip surface within the clay was approximated as a semicircle, which can be shown to correspond to the following weighting equation: Sem = O:17Sy, + 0:185y, + 0.214, + 0.445,, ° in which $,,, = weighted average strength along entire failure zone; Sy, = average strength within upper one-fourth of failure zone; S,, average strength in upper middle one-fourth of failure zone; S,, = av~ erage strength in lower middle one-fourth of failure zone; and S,, average strength in lower one-fourth of failure zone. @) 1230 If the slip surface being _estigated subtends embedded layers of sand, their strengths can be estimated using the equation Spe ey tang! ao) in which oy = effective notmal stress on vertical plane = (1 ~ sin 6”) o}, where a = vertical effective stress; and i’ = effective stress friction angle for sand. Using oy in Eq. 10 corresponds to the approximation that the failure plane crosses the sand layer vertically, and provides a conservative es- timate of the sand strength for any other orientation, since oy, is smaller than the stress on any other plane. The shear strength of a granular foundation pad or naturally occurring, layer of granular material overlying the foundation clay layer is not in= cluded in the stability Eqs. 7 or 8. The slip surfaces are assumed to begin and to end at the top of the clay layer (the base of the granular layer) and not to extend through the granular layer, as indicated by the re- search studies described by Meyerhof and shown in Fig. 8. The weight of a granular layer beneath a tank adds to the load on the foundation, and its presence has the effect of spreading the tank load over an area larger than the base of the tank. Alongside a tank, the weight of a gran- ular layer provides a stabilizing surcharge load, ‘As discussed in the following section a granular layer has a somewhat different effect on edge shear siability because the shear surface extends upward to the base of the tank in that case, as shown in Fig. 9. The outer end of the slip surface stops at the base of the granular layer, however, for both base shear and edge shear failure mechanisms. In cases where there isa significant variation of soil strength with depth, it is not possible to determine in advance how deep the critical base shear slip surface will extend beneath the tank. For these cases, several trials may be needed to determine the minimum value of Fy. Each trial involves assuming a depth to which the slip surface extends, calculating the corresponding value of N. using Eq. 4 or 5, evaluating the average shear strength over this depth using Eq. 9, and calculating F, using Eq. 8. Edge Shear Failure.—The mechanism of edge shear failure shown in Fig. 9 is possible because the tank bottom is flexible, so that a portion, of hsdth B can move independently of the adjacent area ofthe tank ottom, assumed sheor surface for strength calculation FIR rr FIG. 8.—Edge Shear Fallure Mechanism 231Inar_,zing edge shear stability, the loads were not spr__out with. depth through the tank pad and overburden. Although load spreading. may occur to some degree, itis less important than for base shear, and the degree of load spreading is dependent on the width B. For purposes of analysis the net load was calculated using the expression: Fon = 94 197 a in which gay = applied load at the top of the clay layer, and the other terms are as defined previously. ‘The ultimate bearing capacity for the edge shear mode can be calcu- lated using the expression fon = Suet Ty : (2) in which gan = ultimate bearing capacity for the edge shear mode; S, = average undrained shear strength; and N, = bearing capacity factor for edge shear. Bjerrum (3) suggested that the value of Nr for the edge shear failure mode could be expressed as WN. B 24 aD ceseseees (3) dD in which B = width of segment involved in edge shear failure; = tank diameter. The values of N for edge shear vary fron(5 while those for base shear are greater than or equal to 6.1 The value of S, to be used in Eq. 12 is a weighted average value along the slip surface. Unlike the shear strength that resists base shear, the shear strength that resists edge shear includes the strength of the pad and the overburden beneath the tank. Although these granular layers contribute shearing resistance beneath the lank, Meyerhof has found that ‘when strong soils overlie weak soils (such as a granular overburden over a soft clay) the shear surface will not extend upward through the strong soil at the sides of the loaded area. Instead the strong layer will be bulged up, and the slip surface will end at the base of the granular layer, as shown in Fig. 10. The weighting factors shown in Fig. 10 can be used to calculated the average value of S, for these cases. The shear strength of the pad and overburden layers can be estimated using Eq. 10. The Critical slip surface depth for edge shear (or the critical value of B) is determined by repeated trial. For each trial the slip surface is con- sidered to be a segment of a circular arc with radius B, with its center at the base of the tank wall, as shown in Fig. 9. Each teal involves as- suming a value for B, calculating the corresponding value of N, using, Eq. 13, evaluating the average shear strength using the factors shown in Fig. 10, and calculating the edge shear factor of safety using the fol- lowing equation: 4) Ion ‘Summary.—The procedures for calculating F, and F, described in the preceding paragraphs evolved through a study of the stability of 42 steel tanks on weak clay and silt foundations. It was found that to apply bear- 1232 Use the weighting factors from one of the figures shown above to average Strength values. Choore the one mst appropriate depending on the presence fand thickness of granular overburden. FIG, 10—Averaging Shear fengths for Edge Shear ing capacity theory to these cases requited adjustments for the effects of granular layers overlying and interbedded within the clays and silt, and for variations of the strengths of the cohesive soils with depth. The procedures described in the previous sections were found to be reason- ably simple to use and applicable toa wide variety of realistic conditions: Judging from the results discussed in the next section, they appear to provide quite reasonable evaluations of tank stability Factons oF SAFETY Examination of the calculated values of factor of safety for the 40 tanks in Table 1 indicate that the results are generally in good agreement with field experience, and appear to be free of systematic bias, The minimum, acceptable values of safety factor against base shear and edge shear thus depend in large part on the degree of certainty or uncertainty with which the undrained shear strength of the foundation can be evaluated. In cases ™ where the strength of the foundation clay can be evaluated with minimal uncertainty, and the consequences of failure do not ingolve'yisk to life or catastrophic financial loss, factors of safety as low a8.1.3 dre accept. able. In cases where the foundation strength evaluations involve greater uncertainty, and where the consequences of failure are severe, larger safety factors should be used. Comparison oF CALCULATIONS WITH FIELD PERFORMANCE ‘The principal factors governing stability and the calculated factors of safety for the tanks studied are shown in Table 2, together with an in- 1239