See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/239359217

Stress and deflection analyses of floating roofs based on a load-modifying

method

Article  in  International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping · October 2008

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2008.03.003

CITATIONS READS

8 1,783

4 authors, including:

Xiushan Sun
Lloyd’s Register
41 PUBLICATIONS   554 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Xiushan Sun on 15 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 728– 738

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

Stress and deflection analyses of floating roofs based

on a load-modifying method
Xiushan Sun, Yinghua Liu , Jianbin Wang, Zhangzhi Cen
Department of Engineering Mechanics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

a r t i c l e in f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper proposes a load-modifying method for the stress and deflection analyses of floating roofs
Received 22 June 2007 used in cylindrical oil storage tanks. The formulations of loads and deformations are derived according
Received in revised form to the equilibrium analysis of floating roofs. Based on these formulations, the load-modifying method is
24 March 2008 developed to conduct a geometrically nonlinear analysis of floating roofs with the finite element (FE)
Accepted 27 March 2008
simulation. In the procedure with the load-modifying method, the analysis is carried out through a
series of iterative computations until a convergence is achieved within the error tolerance. Numerical
Keywords: examples are given to demonstrate the validity and reliability of the proposed method, which provides
Floating roof
an effective and practical numerical solution to the design and analysis of floating roofs.
Rainwater load
& 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Load-modifying method
Deflection
Nonlinear analysis

1. Introduction required to possess good performances such as strength and

Floating roofs are widely used in the middle- and large-scale
cylindrical tanks for crude oil and other liquid hydrocarbon
storages around the world because of their advantages such as
reducing product evaporation, improving safety, overall operating
economy, etc. After a history of over 80 years with continual
development and improvement, modern floating roofs with larger
diameters for open-top tanks can be classified usually into two
common types: single-deck type and double-deck type [1–5]. The
single-deck floating roof consists of characteristically a circular
deck plate and a pontoon (i.e. a compartmented buoyant ring)
which are both constructed with thin plates and jointed together
by a connection component, e.g. an angle-iron ring. To meet the
increasing capacity of oil storage tanks and to improve the
performance of the traditional single-type and double-type
floating roofs, a new-style floating roof with continuous
beams was also developed [6]. This floating roof has more
complex components, which increases somewhat the difficulty
of structural analysis.
In the practical operation, the floating roof is usually subjected
to rainwater loading resulting from the accumulated rainfall.
The rainwater loading will result in a much larger deformation
(or deflection) in the deck compared with the plate thickness. In
many codes for the design of floating roofs, the whole structure is
 Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 62773751; fax: +86 10 62781824.
E-mail address: yhliu@tsinghua.edu.cn (Y. Liu).
stability under a standard rainfall of 250 mm over the tank [7,8],
i.e. no failure modes such as fracture, buckling or sinking should
occur in this rainwater loading. Accordingly, stress and deforma-
tion analyses of floating roofs under rainwater loading are
practical problems to be solved.
However, the floating roof is actually subjected to complex
loads and deformations during the operation. The loads and
deformations of floating roofs are nonlinearly coupled with each
other, which results in the difficulty of analysis. Mitchell [9]
investigated the problem of floating roofs with pontoon, in which
the deck plate was treated as membrane and the membrane large
deflection equations were solved numerically by assuming a range
of starting values. But the proper selection of these values was
usually difficult and, of course, important to the solution. A similar
method was also used by Epstein et al. [3,10,11] to analyze
deformations and stresses for different types of floating roofs,
including pan floating roofs, pontoon floating roofs with accumu-
lated rainwater loading or with punctures in the deck, in which
the effects of various parameters such as tank diameter and
pontoon geometry were also examined. Umeki and Ishiwata [12]
improved Epstein’s solution and better computational efficiency
was achieved, and they replaced the original Runge–Kutta
numerical method by the Milne method. Another analytical
method, i.e. the ODE-solver (ordinary differential equation solver)
method, was proposed by Yuan et al. [13]. This method was used
to solve the large deflection equation of floating roofs based on the
bending theory rather than the membrane theory. To simplify the
problem, some authors [4,14] also presented calculating formulas

0308-0161/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2008.03.003
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

X. Sun et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 728–738 729

Nomenclature R1,R̄1 radius of the outer rim of the pontoon before and after
deformation, respectively
a displacement vector in the FE equation R2,R̄2 radius of the deck plate or the inner rim of the
c1,c2 deformation coefficient of the outer rim and inner rim pontoon before and after deformation, respectively
of the pontoon, respectively Rm mean radius of the pontoon
C ratio of increments of water and liquid heads Rw radius of the area of rainwater filling the deck plate
E Young’s modulus of the floating roof t thickness of the deck plate
f(r) deflection of the deck plate t1, t2 thicknesses of the outer rim and inner rim of the
fmax maximum deflection of the deck plate pontoon, respectively
F restoring load vector in the FE equation t3, t4 thicknesses of the top and bottom plates of the
g 9.8 N/kg, gravitational acceleration pontoon, respectively
Gs weight of the floating roof excluding the deck plate V1, V2 two parts of water volume on the deck plate due to
h0 typical rainfall redistribution
hc equivalent deflection of the deck plate Ve water volume on the deck plate
hs liquid head in the tank wA, wB vertical displacements of the bottom of the outer rim
hw water head on the deck plate and inner rim, respectively
ha sinking depth of the floating roof due to slope of the z vertical coordinates of the floating roof
pontoon’s bottom plate a tilt angle of the pontoon’s bottom plate
H0 installing height of the deck plate d1, d2 radial displacements of the outer rim and inner rim of
H1, H2 heights of the outer rim and inner rim of the pontoon, the pontoon, respectively
respectively Dh0 rainfall increment
Hg sinking depth of the floating roof due to its weight Dhw water head increment
i number of iteration in the load modification Dhs liquid head increment
KL, KNL linear and nonlinear stiffness matrices in the FE DH difference between installing height of the deck plate
equation, respectively and sinking depth of the floating roof
M total mass of the floating roof e error tolerance
Mc mass of the deck plate l0 coefficient of determining the water distribution
Nr number of radial continuous beams status on the deck plate
Na number of annular continuous beams lw ratio of equivalent water volumes on the deck plate
Nv number of vertical ribs n Poisson’s ratio of the floating roof
pb(r) net pressure on the bottom plate of the pontoon y time of deformation progression
q(r) net pressure on the deck plate r0 water density, 1.0  106 kg/mm3
qc weight of deck plate per unit area r1 liquid (oil) density in the tank
qs liquid pressure applied on the deck plate in the tank t; t̄ ratio of the inner rim’s and outer rim’s radii of the
qw rainwater loads on the deck plate pontoon before and after deformation, respectively
Q applied load vector in the FE equation tw ratio of water distribution’s and deck plate’s radii
r radial coordinates of the floating roof f rotation angle of the pontoon
R0 radius of the tank

for the large deflection of the deck in floating roofs. These
formulas, however, were based on a water test condition in which
the loads on the deck plate distribute uniformly. In addition, with
the development of computer modeling and corresponding
numerical methods in modern engineering and sciences, the
finite element method (FEM) was also employed in the structural
analysis of floating roofs. Uchiyama et al. [15] and Yoshida [16]
analyzed floating roofs under rainwater load by a nonlinear
axisymmetric FEM, and special program codes for analysis of
floating roofs, THANKS V-III and KOSTRAN, were, respectively,
used in these two studies to compute the deformation and stress.
The above methods for analysis of floating roofs were usually
based on the axial symmetry theory, and the floating roof is
simplified to a plane structure with this theory and the
components such as bulkheads (necessary to divide the pontoon
into several compartments) in the pontoon were neglected. These
methods would be no more applicable when floating roofs with
nonaxial symmetry or with 3-D complex structures such as the
newly developed floating roof with continuous beams mentioned
above, are used. Moreover, the rainwater was usually assumed to
fill the whole deck plate in these methods. The rainwater,
however, would fill only part of the deck plate if the floating roof
has a large enough diameter. On the other hand, although some
FEM solutions were used to conduct the analysis of floating roofs,
these solutions were based on a simple axisymmetric method and
only simple plane problem was dealt with. Accordingly, it is
necessary to develop a general numerical method for practical
analysis of floating roofs with 3-D structures in order to ease and
aid implementations of structure design, analysis and optimiza-
tion of floating roofs.
This paper proposes a general and practical finite element (FE)-
based numerical method, i.e. the load-modifying method (LMM),
for the 3-D structural analysis of floating roofs under rainwater
load. A relationship between loads and deformations is developed
firstly according to the equilibrium of the floating roof, in which
two cases of rainwater distribution on the deck plate are
considered, one case in which the rainwater fills only part of the
deck plate and the other case in which the rainwater fills the
whole deck plate. Then the FE analysis of the floating roof with
this relationship is conducted based on the LMM. In the analysis
procedure with the LMM, an initial condition (e.g. the condition
with no deformation) is assumed to begin the nonlinear FE
analysis with iterative computations, and then the load magni-
tudes in the current iteration are modified with computational
results in the previous iteration and are ready for a new iterative
analysis if necessary. Before each iterative analysis, the case of
rainwater distribution on the deck plate is determined by results
of the previous iteration. This analysis process is carried out
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

730 X. Sun et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 728–738

continuously until the computational results converge to the real

solutions. In numerical examples for applications of the proposed
method, the present computational results are compared with
those from other numerical or experimental methods. The validity
and reliability of the proposed method are demonstrated.

2. Equilibrium analysis of the floating roof

A typical single-deck floating roof consists of a circular plate,

Fig. 2. Simplified loads on the floating roof.
i.e. deck, and a compartmented buoyant ring, i.e. pontoon, and its
geometry and characteristic dimensions are sketched in Fig. 1.

2.1. Loads on the floating roof

In the practical operation, the loads on the floating roof

includes: weight (including that of appurtenances), rainwater
loading on the deck, buoyancy and linearly distributed side
pressures along the inner rim and outer rim. In general, the side
pressures along the inner rim and outer rim are slight and
contribute little to the deformation and stress of the floating roof,
and these pressures can be neglected in order to simplify the
analysis. In other words, only three typical loads, i.e. weight,
rainwater loading and buoyancy, are considered in the following
analysis. Additionally, the weight of the deck, buoyancy on the Fig. 3. Deformation of the floating roof in case the rainwater fills only part of the
deck and the rainwater loading can be further simplified with a deck plate.
net pressure q(r) on the deck, as shown in Fig. 2.
The weight of the floating roof and rainwater loading on
the deck are balanced with the buoyancy produced by liquid in
the tank, and the buoyancy is relevant to the liquid head (i.e. the
liquid surface height, hs, see Fig. 3 or Fig. 4). As it has been pointed
out, the deck plate is usually subjected to a large deflection under
rainwater loading, and this deflection also has an influence on the
value of buoyancy. Accordingly, the loads on the floating roof are
coupled with its deformations. The proper relationship between
the loads and the deformations is necessary to carry out the
analysis of the floating roof.

2.2. Relationship between deformations and loads

Fig. 4. Deformation of the floating roof in case the rainwater fills the whole deck
plate.
When there is a rainfall h0 on the top of the tank, the
rainwater will accumulate into the deck plate and redistribute its
volume. If the floating roof is too large, the rainwater will fill In these two cases, the pressures on the bottom plate of the
only part of the deck plate since the deck plate is subjected to a floating roof are similar, but the load distributions on the deck
larger deflection (as shown in Fig. 3); but if the floating roof is not plate are a little different.
very large, the rainwater will fill the whole deck plate (as shown For the case that the rainwater fills only part of the deck plate
in Fig. 4). (Fig. 3), the net pressure q(r) on the deck plate can be written with
two different load distributions as
(
qc þ qw þ qs ; 0prpRw
qðrÞ ¼ (1a)
qc þ qs ; Rw orpR2

where Rw is the radius of the area of rainwater filling the deck

plate (Fig. 3); qc, qw and qs are loads resulted from the deck
weight, rainwater on the deck plate and liquid pressure in the
tank, respectively, and
Mc g
qc ¼  2
(2)
pR̄2

qw ¼ r0 g½f ðrÞ  ðt=2Þ þ hw  (3)

qs ¼ r1 g½f ðrÞ þ ðt=2Þ þ hs  (4)

where the negative sign ‘‘’’ denotes the loading direction
opposite to that of z-coordinate; Mc is the mass of the deck plate
Fig. 1. Geometry of the floating roof. and g ¼ 9.8 N/kg is the gravitational acceleration; R̄2 is the radius
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

X. Sun et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 728–738 731

of the deck plate after deformation; r0 ¼ 1.0  106 kg/mm3 and r1 after deformation; d1 and d2 denote respectively the horizontal
are the rainwater density and liquid density, respectively; hw and displacement or radial displacement, of the outer rim
hs are the water head and liquid head (Fig. 3), respectively; and inner rim (Figs. 3 and 4). The equivalent deflection hc in
f(r) is the deflection of the deck plate in the middle plane and Eq. (9) can be computed with the regular numerical integration
always takes a positive value; and t is the thickness of the deck method.
plate. The water head hw takes a negative value in Eq. (1a). Both In Eqs. (8) and (10), Hg is the sinking depth due to weight of the
the water head hw and the liquid head hs are relevant to the floating roof and ha is the sinking depth of the floating roof due to
deflection f(r). slope of the bottom plate of the pontoon. The case that the
For the case that the rainwater fills the whole deck plate rainwater fills whole or part of the deck plate can be determined
(Fig. 4), the net pressure q(r) on the deck plate can be written as with the following ratio:
qðrÞ ¼ qc þ qw þ qs (1b) 2
R̄2 hc
l0 ¼ (14)
where qc, qw and qs have the same meanings as in Eq. (1a), but it R20 h0
should be noted that the water head hw takes a positive value in
where R0 is the radius of the tank. If l0p1, the rainwater fills the
Eq. (1b).
whole deck plate; otherwise, the rainwater fills only part of the
In Eq. (3), the water head hw is defined as positive value when
deck plate.
the rainwater surface is above the installing position of the deck
Additionally, the ratio of equivalent volumes, lw, can also be
plate and as negative value when the rainwater surface is below
computed with the following formula:
this installing position (Figs. 3 and 4). It can be found that Eq. (1b)
8
can be obtained with Eq. (1a) when Rw ¼ R̄2 . Accordingly, without > 1; l0 p1
>
< 2
loss of generality, Eq. (1a) is used to carry out the following 2
lw ¼ R0 h0 þ Rw f ðRw Þ; l 41 (13b)
derivations unless specified otherwise. >
> 2 0
: R̄2 hc
The deflection of the deck plate can be treated as same along
the circumference at a given position, r, and the equilibrium
If Rw ¼ R̄2 , which results in tw ¼ 1 and lw ¼ 1, Eq. (7a) can be
equation of the floating roof in the vertical direction can be
simplified to the case in which the rainwater fills the whole deck
written as
plate, which can be rewritten as
Z Rw Z R̄2     
2p qðrÞr dr þ 2p qðrÞr dr  ðM  Mc Þg r r t r0
hs ¼ 0 hw þ hc 0  1  þ 1 t̄2
0 Rw r1 r1 2 r1
Z R̄1
þ 2p pb ðrÞr dr ¼ 0 (5)  ðDH  ha Þð1  t̄2 Þ (7b)
R̄2
Eqs. (7a) and (7b) provide the relationships between the water
where M is the total mass of the floating roof; pb(r) is the pressure head hw and the liquid head hs.
applied on the bottom plate of the floating roof (Fig. 2) and As it is pointed out, the redistributions of the rainwater due to
deflection of the deck plate are different for cases that rainwater
pb ðrÞ ¼ r1 g½hs þ H0  ðR̄1  rÞ tanða þ fÞ (6)
fills whole or part of the deck plate. For the case that the rainwater
where a and f are the tilt angle of the pontoon’s bottom plate and fills only part of the deck plate (l041), the water head hw can be
rotation angle of the pontoon, respectively. obtained as (Fig. 3)
The liquid head hs can be derived from Eq. (5) as
     hw ¼ f ðRw Þ (15a)
r r t r0 2
hs ¼ 0 t2w hw þ hc 0 lw  1  tw þ 1 t̄2 where Rw can be computed with the following formula of
r1 r1 2 r1
2 equivalent volume:
 ðDH  ha Þð1  t̄ Þ (7a)
Z Rw
and 2p r½f ðrÞ  f ðRw Þ dr ¼ pR20 h0 (16)
0
M
DH ¼ H0  Hg ; Hg ¼ 2 2
, (8) This integral equation can be solved with the numerically
pr1 ðR̄1  R̄2 Þ
iterative method.
R R̄2 For the case in which the rainwater fills the whole deck
2 0 rf ðrÞdr plate (l0p1), the volume Ve can be divided into two parts,
hc ¼ 2
(9)
R̄2 one for capacity related to the water head hw and the other for
capacity related to the deflection f(r), i.e. Ve ¼ V1+V2, as shown
1 þ 2t̄ in Fig. 5.
ha ¼ ðR̄1  R̄2 Þ tanða þ fÞ (10)
3 þ 3t̄ According to the equivalent volume in Fig. 5, the following
equation can be obtained:
R̄2 c2 R2 Rw
t̄ ¼ ¼t ; t¼ ; tw ¼ (11) R20 t
R̄1 c1 R1 R̄2 hw ¼ h0  hc þ (15b)
2 2
  R̄2
dk 
ck ¼ 1  ; R̄k ¼ ck Rk ðk ¼ 1; 2Þ (12) where t/2 is the additional term resulting from the thickness of
Rk
the deck plate and usually can be neglected since it is a very small
R Rw value.
rf ðrÞ dr
lw ¼ R0 (13a)
R̄2
0 rf ðrÞ dr
where H0 is the installing height of the deck plate (vertical
distance between the deck plate and the outer rim’s bottom
of the pontoon); R̄1 is the outer rim’s radius of the pontoon Fig. 5. Redistribution of rainwater due to deflection.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

732 X. Sun et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 728–738

"  
R20 r0 t
pb ðrÞ ¼ r1 g h0 2r
þ DH   hc t̄2 þ Hg
R̄1 1 2
2

þha ð1  t̄ Þ  ðR̄1  rÞ tanða þ fÞ ; R̄2 prpR̄1 (19b)

 
R20 r0 t 2
hs ¼ h0 2r
 hc þ t̄  ðDH  ha Þð1  t̄2 Þ (20b)
R̄ 1 2
1

Eqs. (18a)–(20b) show that the variables q(r), pb(r), hs and also
hw in Eqs. (15a) and (15b) are all relevant to the deflection f(r).
Fig. 6. Rotation of the pontoon. Usually, the net pressure q(r) distributes nonuniformly along the
radial direction on the deck plate and is a function of the
deflection f(r) when the liquid density is not equal to the water
density, i.e. r16¼r0.
The rotation angle of the pontoon f in Eq. (10) can be
Generally speaking, the radial deformations of the pontoon,
computed numerically with the following equation (Fig. 6):
i.e. d1 and d2, are much smaller compared with the radii R1
180 wB  wA and R2, and the coefficients c1 and c2 can be taken as c1 ¼ c2 ¼ 1 in
f¼ (17) order to simplify the computation. That is to say, the variable
p R1  R2
values in all above equations can be computed with the initial
where wA and wB are the vertical displacements of point A in the dimensions (no deformation) of the floating roof, i.e. R̄1 ¼ R1 , R̄2 ¼
bottom of the outer rim and point B in the bottom of the inner R2 and as a result that t̄ ¼ t. In addition, the rotation angle of
rim, respectively, and they are computed numerically. It should be pontoon, f, is also a tiny value. If f is small enough and
noted that wA and wB are positive values in the direction of contributes little to the pressure pb(r) in Eqs. (19a) and (19b) or
z-coordinate (Fig. 6). The rotation angle f is selected as a positive to parameter ha in Eq. (10), it can also be neglected in order to
value in the counterclockwise direction and it usually has a simplify the computation.
negative value in Eq. (17). The value of f in Eq. (17) includes two
parts that result from the deformation and rigid rotation of the 2.3. Water test condition
pontoon, respectively. Actually, Eq. (17) is an approximation on
the rotation of the pontoon since the bottom plate of the pontoon
Now consider a special but practical condition, the so-called
would curve inward under the liquid pressure. This approxima-
water test condition, when liquid in the tank is water and r1 ¼ r0.
tion, however, is reasonable because the angle f usually is a tiny
For example, for the case that the rainwater fills the whole deck
value [10,11].
plate (l0p1), substituting r1 ¼ r0 into Eq. (18b), we see the net
By substituting Eqs. (7a) and (15a) into Eqs. (1a) and (6), or by
pressure
substituting Eqs. (7b) and (15b) into Eqs. (1b) and (6), the net " ! #
pressure q(r) on the deck plate, the pressure pb(r) on the bottom of R2 t Mc
pontoon and the liquid head hs for two cases of load distribution qðrÞ ¼ r0 g h0 02 þ DH   hc  ha ð1  t̄2 Þ þ 2 (21)
R̄ 2 pR̄ r
2 2 0
(l041 or l0p1) can be obtained:
(1) For the case that the rainwater fills only part of the deck Eq. (21) demonstrates a uniform load applied on the deck
plate (l041): plate in the water test condition when r1 ¼ r0. However, the net
h  pressure q(r) is still relevant to the deflection f(r) since hc in
8   
>
> r0 g rr1 DH  2t  ha ð1  t̄2 Þ  f ðRw Þ þ 2t ð1  t2w t̄2 Þ Eq. (21) must be computed with f(r) and Eq. (9). The pressure pb(r)
>
> 0
>
>
>

 on the bottom plate of the pontoon in Eq. (19b) and the liquid
>
> 2 r1 Mc r1
head hs in Eq. (20b) can also be simplified respectively to
< hc t̄ lw  r0 þ pR̄22 r0 þ f ðrÞ 1  r0 ; 0prpRw
>
qðrÞ ¼ h  "  
   R2 t
>
> r0 g rr1 DH  2t  ha ð1  t̄2 Þ þ f ðRw Þ þ 2t t2w t̄2
>
> pb ðrÞ ¼ r0 g h0 02  hc þ  DH t̄2 þ Hg
>
>
0
 2
>
>
R̄1
>
> hc t̄2 lw  rr1 þ M2 c  f ðrÞ rr1 ; Rw orpR̄2
: 0 pR̄ r 0
2
þha ð1  t̄ Þ  ðR̄1  rÞ tanða þ fÞ ; R̄2 prpR̄1 (22)
2 0

(18a)  
R20 t 2
hs ¼ h0 2
 h c þ t̄  ðDH  ha Þð1  t̄2 Þ (23)
     R̄ 2
1
r r t r0 2
pb ðrÞ ¼ r1 g hc 0 lw  1 þ DH  0 t2w f ðRw Þ  tw þ 1 t̄2
r1 r1 2 r1 The water head hw has the same formulation as that in Eq. (15b).

þHg þ ha ð1  t̄2 Þ  ðR̄1  rÞ tanða þ fÞ ; R̄2 prpR̄1 (19a)
3. Load-modifying method
    
r r t r0 2
hs ¼ hc 0 lw  1  0 t2w f ðRw Þ  tw þ 1 t̄2
r1 r1 2 r1 Eqs. (18a)–(20a) or Eqs. (18b)–(20b) provide the basic
 ðDH  ha Þð1  t̄2 Þ (20a) formulations for analysis of the floating roof with FE simulation.
This analysis is actually a geometrically nonlinear problem
(2) For the case that the rainwater fills the whole deck resulting from the deflection of the deck plate. Followed with a
plate (l0p1): standard modeling and discretization in the FE analysis [17,18],
("  # the typical equation of solution can be established with the
R20
r1 t principle of virtual displacement in the total Lagrange formulation
qðrÞ ¼  r0 g h0
2
þ DH   ha ð1  t̄2 Þ
R̄2 r0 2
   ) ðy K L þ y K NL Þa ¼ yþDy Q  y F (24)
r Mc r
hc 1  1 t̄2 þ 2 þ f ðrÞ 1  1 (18b) y y
where KL and KNL denote the linear and nonlinear stiffness
r0 pR̄2 r0 r0
matrices, respectively; y+DyQ and yF are the applied and restoring
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

X. Sun et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 728–738 733

load vectors, respectively; the superscript y denotes the time of
deformation progression.
Eq. (24) can be solved with an equilibrium iteration method,
such as Newton–Raphson method [18], in which step-by-step
loading (or loading with sub-steps) usually is necessary to obtain
a satisfactorily converged solution.
However, the loads of q(r) and pb(r) are coupled nonlinearly
with the deformations of f(r) and f, and the above regular FE
analysis faces difficulty. To solve this problem, an LMM is
presented here to carry out the FE analysis. The concept of this
method is based on an idea of iterative computation with the
load–deformation relationship and the analysis consists of three
basic sequential parts. Firstly, assume an initial condition, e.g. the
undeformed condition when f0(r) ¼ 0 and f0 ¼ 0, and then the
loads of q(r) and pb(r) are computed with these initial values
according to Eqs. (18a) and (19a), or Eqs. (18b) and (19b),
respectively. Secondly, a nonlinear FE analysis on the floating roof
is carried out using the loads and conditions given above, and then
solutions including f(r) and f are obtained. Lastly, the loads of q(r)
and pb(r) are modified with new values of f(r) and f, and a new
analysis is restarted with the modified q(r) and pb(r) until the
difference between the current modified and previous values is
within the error tolerance specified by the user.
In the above analysis procedure, after the deformations, i.e. f(r)
and f, are determined (obtained initially by assumption and then
by computation), the case of rainwater distribution on the deck
plate must be determined successively with Eq. (14), which is
necessary for computation of loads q(r) and pb(r).
This analysis can be summarized as follows:
(1) construct the FE model according to the geometry of the
floating roof;
(2) compute Hg, DH and t with Eqs. (8) and (11), respectively;
(3) assume an initial conditions, e.g. f0(r) ¼ 0 and f0 ¼ 0;
(4) determine if parameter l041 or l0p1 (the case of rainwater
distribution on the deck plate) with Eq. (14);
(5) compute hc and ha with Eqs. (9) and (10), respectively, then
determine the values of R̄1 , R̄2 and t̄, and usually the
simplifications that R̄1 ¼ R1 , R̄2 ¼ R2 and t̄ ¼ t are used;
(6) if l041, i.e. the rainwater fills only part of the deck plate,
compute Rw with Eq. (16), then compute tw with Eq. (11) and
lw with Eq. (13a) or (13b);
(7) compute net pressure on the deck plate q(r) with Eq. (18a) or
(18b), and compute pressure on bottom plate of the pontoon
pb(r) with Eq. (19a) or (19b);
(8) load on the FE model and start a geometrically nonlinear
solution;
(9) modify the loads of q(r) and pb(r) with the solutions of f(r)
and f according to the steps above (4)–(7); and
(10) check whether the inequality |qi(r)/qi1(r)1|oe holds
true, where qi(r) and qi1(r) respectively denote load in the
current and previous iterative computation (iteration or
modification i and i1) and e is the user-specified error
tolerance; if it does, qi(r) (and also pib(r)) is the final solution;
otherwise, return to step (8) and restart a new computation
with the current modified loads until the inequality holds
true.
After q(r) and f(r) are obtained with this method, the water
head hw and the liquid head hs also can be computed with Eq.
(15a) or (15b) and Eq. (20a) or (20b), respectively.
In each modification and iteration, the computation is based on
the undeformation condition with the modified loads. Usually, the
solution converges to the real value with a process of fluctuation
between the maximum and minimum. For example, in the water
test condition, the first modified load q(r) according to the initial
values that f0(r) ¼ 0 and f0 ¼ 0 has a maximum value qmax(r)
which also results in a maximum deflection fmax(r), and the
next modified load according to this maximum deflection will
have a minimum value qmin(r). The convergence process is shown
in Fig. 7.
4. Numerical examples
Two typical floating roofs are presented in this section to
demonstrate the applications of the proposed method. The first
example is about a traditional single-deck floating roof with larger
diameter [12,13], which is used to demonstrate the reliability of
the present method for the analysis of general single-deck floating
roofs. The other example is an experimental model of floating roof
with continuous beams in both the top and the bottom plates of
the pontoon [6]. This example is used to demonstrate the validity
of the present method for analysis of floating roofs with 3-D
complex structures or components. The operation condition and
water test condition are considered in these two examples,
respectively. Additionally, the case of rainwater filling only part
of the deck plate is demonstrated in the first example and the case
of rainwater filling the whole deck plate is demonstrated in the
other example.
4.1. A traditional single-deck floating roof
A traditional floating roof with a larger diameter in operation
condition under a total 250 mm rainfall is examined in this
example to demonstrate the application of the present method.
Fig. 7. Process of the solution convergence in water test condition.
Table 1
Parameters of the single-deck floating roof
Parameter Value
R0 40,000 mm
R1 39,600 mm
R2 34,600 mm
H0 300 mm
H1 800 mm
H2 450 mm
t 4.5 mm
t1 8.0 mm
t2 12.0 mm
t3, t4 4.5 mm
a 01
r1 0.7  106 kg/mm3
Mc 152,000 kg
M 307,000 kg
E 210,000 MPa
n 0.3
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

734 X. Sun et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 728–738

The design parameters of this floating roof are listed in Table 1
[12,13], where ti (i ¼ 1,2,3,4) denotes the thickness of outer rim,
inner rim, top and bottom plates of the pontoon, respectively.
Since the floating roof is a rotationally periodic structure which
usually is simplified to axisymmetic problem, one thirty-sixth of
the whole structure is adopted as a compartment in the 3-D FE
analysis, and the 3-D shell elements are adopted to simulate all
the plate components in the FE model. The displacements along
z-direction in the bottom of the outer rim are constrained in order
to avoid the rigid body displacement in this direction, and the
symmetric boundary conditions are applied to the circumferential
sections of the concerned one thirty-sixth (1/36) part structure.
The initial values for computation are f0(r) ¼ 0, f0 ¼ 0 and the
error tolerance for iterative load-modifying computation is 1%.
The change of net pressure on the deck plate, q(r), with iteration i
is plotted in Fig. 8. It can be found that the net pressure q(r)
changes little after 16 iterations, and therefore the equilibrium
solution of the floating roof is obtained. Fig. 9 plots the loads of
the floating roof, q(r) and pb(r), in the equilibrium state. The radius
of the area of rainwater filling the deck plate, Rw, is about
31,000 mm (oR2 ¼ 34,600 mm), which means that the rainwater
fills only part of the deck plate.
The numerical results of deflection and radial stress of the deck
plate by the present method are compared with the results from
other methods in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively. The deflections and
radial stresses near and away from the bulkheads are both given

1.5
i=0
1.0 i=1
net pressure on deck plate, q(r) (x10-3MPa)

i=4
i=7
i=8
0.5 i=10
i=13
i=15
0.0 i=16

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

-2.5
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
radius r (mm)

Fig. 8. Procedures of the modified computation for net pressures on the deck plate.

Fig. 9. Loads of the floating roof.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

X. Sun et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 728–738 735

1600

present method (near bulkhead)

1400 present method (away from bulkhead)
Milne method (Umeki and lshiwata, 1985)

deflection of the deck plate, f (mm)

KOSTRAN (Umeki and lshiwata, 1985)
1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
radiums, r (mm)

Fig. 10. Deflection of the deck plate under rainfall h0 ¼ 250 mm.

180 pontoon results in an additional rotation of the deck plate, the

deflections near the center area of the deck plate from the present
160
radial stress of the deck plate, σr (MPa)

present method (near bulkhead) numerical method are a little larger than those from the methods
present method (away from bulkhead)
140 given by Umeki and Ishiwata [12] in which the pontoon is
Milne method (Umeki and lshiwata, 1985)
KOSTRAN (Umeki and lshiwata, 1985)
assumed as a rigidity.
120
4.2. A new type of floating roof with continuous beams
100

80 In this example, an experimental model of floating roof with

60
40
20
0
0 5000 10000
Fig. 11. Radial stress of the deck plate under rainfall h0 ¼ 250 mm.
to demonstrate the present numerical results. The deflection of
the deck plate near the bulkhead is nearly the same as that away
from the bulkhead. However, there are different stress distribu-
tions near and away from the bulkheads, and a significant radial
stress appears near the bulkhead. The results by the present
method agree well with the results given by Umeki and Ishiwata
[12], except for the stress in the edge area of the deck plate where
the deck plate is jointed with the pontoon. It should be noted that
the bending effect is neglected in the results by Umeki and
Ishiwata [12] since only the membrane stress is concerned and
the bulkhead is also not considered. It is known that the bending
effect appears locally near the edge area of the deck plate, and
there is usually a significant bending stress near the connections
of deck plate and pontoon, especially the area near the bulkhead
with considerable bending tendency. The effect of the bulkhead
on the stress in the deck plate will be further demonstrated in the
next example. Moreover, because the elastic deformation of the
continuous beams is numerically simulated under rainwater
loading in the water test condition, and the numerical results
are compared with the experimental ones. This model is one fifth
scale of the designed floating roof with continuous beams [6]. This
floating roof has a pontoon with radial and annular continuous
beams in both of its top and bottom plates, and the intersections
15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
of these beams are jointed by vertical ribs between the top and
bottom plates, which results in a more complex structure (Fig. 12).
radius, r (mm)
The characteristic geometric properties and material properties of
the floating roof model are listed in Table 2, where Nr, Na
and Nv denote the number of radial, annular continuous beams
(in both top and bottom plates of the pontoon) and vertical
ribs (beam structure), respectively, all beams with L-section
10 mm  10 mm  1 mm.
This model is also tested with the experimental method. Water
is filled into a cylindrical container to lift up the model roof, which
is used to simulate the floating roof in operation (Fig. 12a).
A controlled-volume water pump is used to fill water onto the
deck plate to simulate rainfall. The deflections and strains are
measured by the staff gauges and the electrical resistance stain
gauges, respectively, and then the stresses are computed with
the strains obtained from the experiment. A load of rainfall
h0 ¼ 50 mm is applied to the floating roof (i.e. R0 ¼ R1) to simulate
a typical rainfall required in the design codes. Through the above
process, we have obtained the experimental results in the water
test condition [6].
In the numerical analysis, one-eighteenth of the floating roof,
i.e. one compartment, is used for the FE model since the floating
roof is a rotationally periodic structure consisting of 18 identical
compartments, and the rotation angle of pontoon, f, is neglected
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

736 X. Sun et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 728–738

Fig. 13. FE mesh of the floating roof with continuous beams: (a) one-eighteenth
structure (one compartment); and (b) pontoon with continuous beams (view
without the top plate).

Fig. 12. Model of the floating roof with continuous beams: (a) experimental
model; and (b) pontoon with continuous beams (top—oblique view without the
top plate). Table 3
Procedures of the modified computation under rainfall h0 ¼ 50 mm

Modification i fmax (mm) hc (mm) q(r) (  103 MPa)

Table 2
Parameters of the model of floating roof with continuous beams 0 0 0 0.27646
1 55.032 30.210 0.19499
Parameter Value 2 48.881 26.770 0.20427
3 49.659 27.206 0.20309
R1 4010 mm 4 49.561 27.151 0.20324
R2 3414 mm 5 49.574 27.158 0.20322
H0 57.5 mm 6 49.572 27.157 0.20323
H1 170 mm
H2 140 mm
t 1.0 mm
t1, t2, t3, t4 1.0 mm
a 01 condition) in each modified procedure under rainfall h0 ¼ 50 mm.
Nr 4  2  18
It can be found that the values of q(r) or hc in the current and
Na 22
Nv 8  18 previous iterations are nearly unchanged after about five iterative
r1 1.0  106 kg/mm3 modifications, and these values can be treated as the final results.
Mc 286 kg Table 4 lists the water head increment Dhw, the liquid head
M 734 kg increment Dhs and the ratio C ¼ Dhw/Dhs ¼ (R1/R2)2 in different
E 200,000 MPa
n 0.334
rainfall increments. The results from the present method, the
approximate method [4] and the experimental method are
compared, and good agreements are observed. The numerical
results are more consistent with the theoretical values since the
because it is a very tiny value. In the FE model, the continuous numerical model is more similar to the theoretical model.
beams, vertical ribs and all the plates are simulated with the 3-D Fig. 14 plots the deflections of the deck plate under different
beam elements and 3-D shell elements, respectively, and the rainfalls, i.e. h0 ¼ 50, 65 and 80 mm, and the present numerical
meshes of the one-eighteenth structure and corresponding results are compared with the experimental results. It can be
pontoon are shown in Fig. 13(a and b). It should be noted that found that the results from the present numerical method
the mesh of the pontoon’s top plate is not illustrated in Fig. 13b in agree well with those from experiment. Fig. 15 shows compa-
order to demonstrate the inside structures of the pontoon. The rison of the deflections of the deck plate for the roofs with
displacement boundary conditions are similar to those in the first and without bulkheads under h0 ¼ 50 mm. The deck plate is
example. usually subjected to larger deflection for the roof without
Table 3 shows the maximum deflection fmax, the equivalent bulkheads since the bulkheads somewhat strengthen the rigidity
deflection hc and the net pressure q(r) (constant in water test of the pontoon.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

X. Sun et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 728–738 737

Table 4
Comparison of coefficient C with different rainfall increments

Parameter Methods Rainfall increments Dh0

50 mm-65 mm 65 mm-80 mm 50 mm-80 mm

Dhw (mm) Present method 18.8 18.6 37.4

Approximate method 18.53 18.79 37.32
Experimental method 18.35 17.65 36.00

Dhs (mm) Present method 13.7 13.4 27.1

Approximate method 13.43 13.63 27.06
Experimental method 11.50 13.75 25.25

C Present method 1.372 1.388 1.380

Approximate method 1.380 1.378 1.379
Experimental method 1.596 1.284 1.426
Theoretical method 1.38 1.38 1.38

60 100

numerical results (near bulkhead)

radial stress of the deck plate, σr (MPa)

50
deflection of the decak plate, f (mm)

80 numerical results (away from bulkhead)

numerical results (without bulkhead)
experimental results (near bulkhead)
40
60

30
40

20
20

10 numerical results experimental results

h0 = 50 mm h0 = 50 mm 0
h0 = 65 mm h0 = 65 mm
0 h0 = 80 mm h0 = 80 mm
-20
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
radius, r (mm) radius, r (mm)

Fig. 14. Deflections of the deck plate under different rainfalls. Fig. 16. Radial stress of the deck plate under rainfall h0 ¼ 50 mm.

60 50
numerical results (top beam)
numerical results (bottom beam)
deflection of the decak plate, f (mm)

50 40
stress of the radial beams,σ (MPa)

experimental results (top beam)

experimental results (bottom beam)

40 30

30 20

20 10

10 0
the floating roof with bulkhead
the floating roof without bulkhead

0 -10
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800 3900 4000 4100
radius, r (mm) radius, r (mm)

Fig. 15. Deflections of the deck plate for the roofs with and without bulkheads Fig. 17. Stress distributions of the radial beams under rainfall h0 ¼ 50 mm.
under rainfall h0 ¼ 50 mm.

The radial stress in the deck plate is shown in Fig. 15 with the eliminated near the edge which is away from the bulkhead. The
present numerical results and experimental results. Both the comparison of the radial stresses of the deck plate for the roof
numerical and experimental results indicate that there are with and without bulkheads under h0 ¼ 50 mm is also shown in
significant stresses near the bulkhead at the edge of the deck Fig. 16. These results demonstrate that the bulkhead has
plate, as shown in Fig. 16. These significant stresses, however, are significant effects on the radial stress near the edge of the deck

738
80
numerical results
vertical stress
60 annular stress
stress of the inner-rim, σ (MPa)
40
20
0 with the present method.
-20
-40
0 20 40
Fig. 18. Stress of the inner rim under rainfall h0 ¼ 50 mm.
plate, which was not considered in the other methods foremen-
tioned since, wherein the bulkhead was usually neglected.
Furthermore, at locations away from the edge of the deck plate,
the membrane stress dominates the stress states, and the stress
distributes relatively uniformly at these locations.
Figs. 17 and 18 demonstrate the stress distributions in typical
components of the pontoon under rainfall h0 ¼ 50 mm. The stress
of the radial beams in the top and bottom plates of the pontoon is
illustrated in Fig. 17. The results indicate that the radial beams in
the pontoon are tensioned and there are significant stresses near
the connections with the inner rim. Fig. 18 gives the vertical and
annular stress distributions of the inner rim of the pontoon. The
present numerical results are compared with the experimental
results, and good agreements are observed, which demonstrates
the present numerical method can simulate the structural
problems of the floating roof with reasonable and reliable results.
5. Conclusions
The LMM is proposed in this paper for analysis of floating roofs
under rainwater loading. According to the equilibrium analysis of
floating roofs in practical operation, the relationship between
loads and deflections is derived, and two cases of the rainwater
distribution on the deck plate are considered. The analyses of
stress and deformation of floating roofs are developed with a
geometrically nonlinear FE simulation based on the LMM. The
loading magnitudes are modified with a series of iterative
computations until the computational results meet the given
accuracy requirements within the user-specified error tolerance in
the analysis process. Numerical examples demonstrate that the
proposed method is valid and reliable for analysis of floating roofs
based on 3-D model. The numerical results indicate that the deck
plate is usually subjected to larger deflection under rainwater
loading and the bulkhead has significant effects on the radial
View publication stats
ARTICLE IN PRESS
X. Sun et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 728–738
stress near the edge of the deck plate. Bending stress usually
experimental results appears near the connections of deck plate and pontoon, whereas
vertical stress the membrane stress dominates the stress states at locations
annular stress
away from the edge of the deck plate.
The proposed method provides an effective and practical 3-D
numerical solution to the design and analysis of floating roofs. The
present solution can be further applied to structural analysis of
floating roofs with more complicated components and load
conditions, and a detailed analysis in a local structure or
component of floating roofs can even be potentially conducted
Acknowledgments
The research work in this paper is funded by the National
60 80 100 120 140
Foundation for Excellent Doctoral Thesis of China (No. 200025)
height, H (mm)
and the National ‘‘Tenth Five-Year’’ Key Technology Research
Special Funds of China (No. 2001BA803B). The authors are grateful
to Mr. Wang Fuan in Design Institute of China Petroleum Pipeline
Engineering Co. for his generous help with the floating roof model
data referred in the research.
References
[1] de Wit J. Floating roof tanks. Engineering 1970;210:55–8.
[2] Young WB. Floating roofs—their design and application. In: Proceedings of
the ASME petroleum mechanical engineering conference, Los Angeles, CA,
73-Pet-44, 1973.
[3] Epstein HI. Stresses and displacements for floating pan roofs. Comput Struct
1982;15(4):433–8.
[4] Pan JH. Design of cylindrical metal tanks. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press;
1984 (in Chinese).
[5] Gallagher TA. Floating-roof technology advances with lessons learned from an
80-year history. Hydrocarbon Process 2003;82(9):63–7.
[6] Wang FA, Sun XS. Research on the technology of the floating roof with
continuous beams and dome frames. Technical Report, Design Institute of
China Petroleum Pipeline Engineering Co., Langfang, Hebei Provice, China,
2004 (in Chinese).
[7] ANSI/API STD 650-1988. Welded steel tanks for oil storage. Washington, DC,
USA: American Petroleum Institute; 1988.
[8] SH3046-92. Chinese standard specification for design of vertical steel welded
storage tanks for the petroleum industry. Beijing, China: China Petroleum and
Chemistry Co.; 1992 (in Chinese).
[9] Mitchell GC. Analysis and stability of floating roofs. J Eng Mech Div 1973;
99(EM5):1037–52.
[10] Epstein HI, Buzek JR. Stresses in floating roofs. J Struct Div 1978;104(ST5):
735–48.
[11] Epstein HI, Buzek JR. Stresses in ruptured floating roofs. J Pressure Vessel
Technol 1978;100(2):291–7.
[12] Umeki T, Ishiwata M. Deflection and stress analyses of floating roofs under
rainwater loading. Piping Eng 1985;27(5):64–9 (in Japanese).
[13] Yuan S, Wang JL, Zhong HZ. Analysis of floating roofs by ODE-solver method. J
Eng Mech Div 1998;124(10):1129–34.
[14] Institute of Mechanics, CAS. Calculation formulas of strength and stability of
oil tanks with floating roofs. Mech Pract 1982;4(2):36–40 (in Chinese).
[15] Uchiyama S, Oka T, Oikawa T. The stress analysis of floating roof in the
petroleum storage tank under rain-water load by FEM. J High Pressure Inst
Japan 1981;19(2):81–6 (in Japanese).
[16] Yoshida S. Geometrically nonlinear stress analysis of floating roofs by finite
element method. Piping Eng 1983;25(8):51–7 (in Japanese).
[17] Bathe KJ. Finite element procedures. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall;
1996.
[18] Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The finite element method. 5th ed. Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann; 2000.