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

net/publication/323372744

Numerical Study of Oil Storage Tanks during Planar Settlement

Article  in  Applied Mechanics and Materials · February 2018

DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.878.95

CITATIONS READS

0 4,721

2 authors:

Joko Wisnugroho Sutomo Guntoro

Pertamina Pertamina
4 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Storage Tank Reliability View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Joko Wisnugroho on 26 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Applied Mechanics and Materials Submitted: 2017-08-28
ISSN: 1662-7482, Vol. 878, pp 95-103 Revised: 2017-09-18
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.878.95 Accepted: 2017-09-29
© 2018 Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland Online: 2018-02-22

Numerical Study of Oil Storage Tanks during Planar Settlement

Joko Wisnugroho1,a* and Sutomo1,b
1
Technical Services Region Kalimantan, Pertamina (ltd.) Marketing Operation Region VI,
Jl. Yos Sudarso 148, Balikpapan 76123, East Kalimantan - Indonesia
a
joko.wisnugroho@pertamina.com, bsutomo@pertamina.com

Keywords: Oil storage tank, Planar settlement, Criteria of planar settlement, Finite element

Abstract. Inspection and maintenance are necessary to maintain the continuity of critical equipment
operations such as oil storage tank. The criteria for the various types of settlement specified in
American Petroleum Institute (API) 653. However, the criteria for planar settlement could not be
determined. In this paper, a finite element model is developed to study the hoop stress of the tank
during planar settlement. In this paper, 384 finite element models were built in order to predict the
most effective allowable planar settlement at oil storage tanks. Each model is variation of the tank
size, shell plate thickness, seismic zone and planar tilt of the tank. Based on size of tank population in
Pertamina, 8 of standard tank size from 500-10.000 m3 were simulated. The simulation results are
validated by case study in 500-5.000 m3 full scale oil storage tank. From the results, equation for
criteria of planar settlement has been created.

Introduction
Above-ground oil storage tanks used in various industries such as petroleum refineries,
petrochemical plants, water processing and many other industries. Most of their usual support
configuration is by soil/gravel compaction, ringwall, concrete slab or pile with pile cap supported
foundation. Failure of this tanks can lead to serious environmental, human life and financial losses
issues because they hold large volumes of hazardous products. Oil storage tanks can be assumed as
thin-walled-flexible structure that can tolerate large differential settlement.
Settlement is necessity in new built or existing tanks. API 653 divided settlement as two types of
settlement [1]. Immediate settlement usually occurs on the new built tank as effect of foundation
compaction during hydrostatic test. Consolidation settlement occurs on existing tank caused by
differences of soil properties. Type of settlements according to API 653 (2014) are uniform
settlement, planar settlement, non-planar settlement, edge settlement, bottom settlement near shell
and bottom settlement remote from shell as depicted in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Settlement in oil storage tanks (API 653): (a) Uniform settlement, (b) Planar settlement,
(c) Non-planar settlement, (d) Edge settlement, (e) Bottom settlement near shell,
(f) Bottom settlement remote from shell.

All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of Trans
Tech Publications, www.scientific.net. (#105715576-22/12/17,02:02:15)
96 Civil, Architectural, Structural and Constructional Engineering II

Planar settlement caused an increase of liquid level and hoop stress in tank shell [1]. Also,
excessive tilting could affect stress at nozzles and tank appurtenances. Planar settlement may cause
three modes of failure: (a) buckling of shell, (b) high stress at the base of joint between shell and
annular plate, (c) stress at interconnecting pipe and nozzles. Table 1 presents a comparison of
allowable criteria for planar settlement from different references [2-6].
Table 1. Allowable settlement criteria from different references.
Settlement Criteria and Recommendations
Mode of Hoyashi Japanese
Settlement Probable Green Klepi-
Failure and Lambe Langeveld (1973) Fire
Type Foundation wood kov
Consequence (1961) (1974) Guber Defense
(1974) (1989)
(1974) Agency
Differential
settlement
Linearly variable
between shell δ≤
Planar soil thickness or No δ ≤ 50 cm Little δ≤ 0.007
and pipe D/100
Tilt soil problem problem D/200 (H)
support
compressibility
causes breaks
in pipe
The cost of tank reparation could be expensive and availability of the tanks could decrease caused
tank should be off-stream during reparation process. This study investigates of 500-10.000 m3 fixed
roof oil storage tanks built in Pertamina. In this paper, 384 finite element models were built in order to
predict the most effective allowable planar settlement criteria in oil storage tanks.

Finite Element Modelling

In this paper, 384 finite element models were built. Each model are combination of the tank size,
shell plate thickness, seismic zone and planar tilt of the tank. Based on size of tank population in
Pertamina, 8 of standard tank size from 500-10.000 m3 were simulated. Static simulation is done by
performing dead load of the shell and roof structure, hydrostatic load due to fluid inside the tanks and
seismic load depending on the zones. Finite element model and flow chart of simulations respectively
shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.

Fig. 2 Illustration of simulation and meshing of finite element model.

Considering the ratio of shell thickness to radius of the tank, 2D quadrilateral shell elements with
four nodes (CQUAD4) were used to model the shell of the tanks. Dead load of roof and roof structure
were modeled as lump mass that connected to the shell using multi point constraint (RBE3).
MPC-RBE3 has been choosen because it can distribute the load to the tank shell in proportion to the
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 878 97

slope of the planar tank. To model hydrostatic load distribution, a spatial field will need to be created
using PCL function.

Fig. 3 Simulation flow chart.

Corrosion is the main issue causes wall thinning on the existing tank. Shell plates thickness greatly
affect the structural integrity and strength of the tank due to planar settlement. Shell plate thickness
expressed in minimum percentage of initial shell plate thickness and divided into 100%, 80%, 60%
and 40%. It is important to ensure the actual shell plate thickness not less than shell plate thickness
recommended by API 653. Tank dimensions and initial shell plate thickness shown in the Table 2.
Table 2. Tank dimensions and shell plates thickness.
3 3
Capacity (m ) Diameter (m) Height (m) Plate Thickness (m) Capacity (m ) Diameter (m) Height (m) Plate Thickness (m)
Annular & Bottom 0.008 Annular & Bottom 0.01
Shell I 0.006 Shell I 0.008
500 9.7 7.32 Shell II 0.006 Shell II 0.008
Shell III 0.006 2500 17.46 10.97 Shell III 0.006
Shell IV 0.006 Shell IV 0.006
Annular & Bottom 0.008 Shell V 0.006
Shell I 0.006 Shell VI 0.006
Shell II 0.006 Annular & Bottom 0.01
1000 11.64 10.97 Shell III 0.006 Shell I 0.008
Shell IV 0.006 Shell II 0.008
Shell V 0.006 3200 19.51 10.97 Shell III 0.006
Shell VI 0.006 Shell IV 0.006
Annular & Bottom 0.01 Shell V 0.006
Shell I 0.006 Shell VI 0.006
Shell II 0.006 Annular & Bottom 0.01
1500 13.58 10.97 Shell III 0.006 Shell I 0.01
Shell IV 0.006 Shell II 0.01
Shell V 0.006 5000 25.23 10.97 Shell III 0.008
Shell VI 0.006 Shell IV 0.006
Annular & Bottom 0.01 Shell V 0.006
Shell I 0.008 Shell VI 0.006
Shell II 0.006 Annular & Bottom 0.01
2000 15.52 10.97 Shell III 0.006 Shell I 0.014
Shell IV 0.006 Shell II 0.012
Shell V 0.006 10000 34.93 10.97 Shell III 0.01
Shell VI 0.006 Shell IV 0.008
Material Properties of Unknown Material according API 653 Shell V 0.006
Density 7,850 kg/m3 Elongation 0.22 Shell VI 0.006
Tensile 380 MPa Allowable Hydrotest Stress 185 MPa Bulk Modulus 210 GPa

In this simulation, acceleration load caused by seismic also considered since Indonesia area are
prone to earthquake. Additional load of the shell will occur from the sloshing of fluid inside the tank.
Static analysis performed in this study so that the maximum magnitude earthquake acceleration will
be taken at 0-0.2 second period shown at Fig. 4. This additional load was approached as a static load
with inertia force due to sloshing of the fluid inside the tanks. Seismic zone of Indonesia has been
98 Civil, Architectural, Structural and Constructional Engineering II

updated by ministry of public works and to be implemented in all regions of Pertamina, the seismic
zone are classified into zone A-D according maximum acceleration in 0-0.2 second period as depicted
in Fig. 5.

Static

Fig. 4 Seismic acceleration response.

Fig. 5 Earthquake zones of Indonesia by Ministry of Public Works.

Limitation of maximum stress in the API 653 refers to the yield strength of the material so that
deformation mode or buckling in this case are not the main concern. The maximum stress at the tank
shell near the annular connection are the major concern as a suspected area of a maximum stress.

Result and Discussion

In this study, validation is performed in the real conditions planar settlement tank. In 2009, a
3.200 m3 tank found experiencing planar settlement that have exceeded Klepikov criteria. However,
the tank remains operated while monitoring the rate of settlement and visual state of the tank is
needed. As mentioned above, the shell plate thickness are also a factor in determining planar
settlement allowable criteria. Measurements of planar and shell plate thickness that occured in 2009
was 155 mm settlement and 7.07 mm (78%) plate thickness. While in 2016 was 207 mm settlement
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 878 99

and 5.95 mm (66%) plate thickness. The pilot project 3.200 m3 tank are located in an seismic zone D.
While the planar settlement criteria according Klepikov 0.007(H) is approximately 77 mm and the
thickness of the plate was ignored. The maximum stresses occured at 3.200 m3 tank in various
seismic zones, plate thicknesses and planar tilt are shown in Fig. 6-8.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
3
Fig. 6 Stress at 3.200 m tank at different seismic zones, 100% plate thickness, 0 degree tilt: a. Zone A
1-1.5 MCEr, b. Zone B 0,8-1 MCEr, c. Zone C 0,2-0,8 MCEr, d. Zone D 0-0,2 MCEr.

(a)

(b) (c)
3
Fig. 7 Stress at 3.200 m tank at different degree of tilt, seismic zone A, 60% plate thickness:
a. 0 degree tilt, b. 1 degree tilt, c. 2 degree tilt.
100 Civil, Architectural, Structural and Constructional Engineering II

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
3
Fig. 8 Stress at 3.200 m tank at different plate thicknesses , seismic zone A, 1 degree of tilt:
a. 100% plate thickness, b. 80% plate thickness, c. 60% plate thickness, d. 40% plate thickness.
As shown Fig. 6-8, it can be seen the effect of the shell plate thickness directly improve hoop stress
as well as the influence due to the seismic zone and degree of planar tilt. Stress was increased in the
more severe seismic zone. It caused by the acceleration generate sloshing of the fluid inside the tanks.
As expected before, critical area are located at the base of joint between shell and annular plate.
Similiar simulations carried out on the 500-10.000 m3 tanks. All simulation results can be displayed
in Fig. 9 and Table 3.

Fig. 9 Graphics of simulation results.

 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 878 101

Table 3. Table of simulation results.

Tank Capacity, based on population at Pertamina Stress Max (Mpa) Tank Capacity, based on population at Pertamina Stress Max (Mpa)
Capacity (M3) Diameter (m) Height (m) Plate Thickness (%) Seismic Zone 0 Degree 1 Degree 2 Degree Capacity (M3) Diameter (m) Height (m) Plate Thickness (%) Seismic Zone 0 Degree 1 Degree 2 Degree
A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 70 71 72 A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 100 101 102
B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 67 68 69 B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 92 93 94
100% 100%
C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 67 67 68 C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 90 91 92
D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 63 64 64 D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 83 83 84
A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 84 85 86 A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 119 120 122
B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 82 83 84 B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 112 113 114
80% 80%
C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 81 82 83 C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 111 111 113
D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 78 79 80 D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 103 104 105
500 9.7 7.32 2500 17.46 10.97
A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 117 119 120 A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 150 151 153
B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 115 116 117 B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 144 145 147
60% 60%
C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 114 115 117 C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 143 144 146
D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 110 111 113 D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 136 137 138
A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 182 184 187 A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 235 236 239
B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 179 181 184 B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 229 231 233
40% 40%
C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 179 181 183 C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 228 229 232
D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 174 176 179 D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 219 221 224
A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 126 127 128 A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 120 122 123
B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 118 119 120 B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 114 116 118
100% 100%
C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 117 118 119 C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 113 115 117
D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 110 111 112 D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 105 107 109
A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 150 151 153 A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 152 154 156
B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 143 144 146 B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 146 148 150
80% 80%
C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 142 143 145 C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 145 147 149
D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 135 136 138 D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 137 139 141
1000 11.64 10.97 3200 19.51 10.97
A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 203 205 207 A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 205 209 212
B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 198 200 201 B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 199 203 206
60% 60%
C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 197 198 200 C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 198 202 205
D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 190 191 193 D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 189 193 196
A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 322 325 328 A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 311 317 322
B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 316 319 322 B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 305 311 322
40% 40%
C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 315 317 321 C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 304 310 315
D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 306 309 312 D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 295 301 306
A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 155 156 158 A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 150 151 153
B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 143 144 145 B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 148 149 152
100% 100%
C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 141 142 143 C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 148 149 152
D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 129 130 132 D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 147 149 151
A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 184 186 188 A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 188 190 193
B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 173 175 177 B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 186 188 192
80% 80%
C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 171 173 175 C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 185 186 190
D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 160 162 163 D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 184 186 190
1500 13.58 10.97 5000 25.23 10.97
A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 235 238 240 A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 261 261 266
B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 226 228 230 B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 259 260 264
60% 60%
C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 224 226 229 C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 258 259 263
D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 213 215 218 D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 242 243 247
A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 373 377 381 A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 395 396 402
B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 364 368 372 B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 384 385 392
40% 40%
C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 362 366 370 C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 384 385 391
D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 350 353 357 D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 371 374 380
A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 135 137 139 A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 145 149 153
B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 128 129 131 B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 137 141 145
100% 100%
C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 126 127 129 C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 135 139 143
D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 117 118 120 D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 124 128 132
A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 164 166 168 A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 183 188 193
B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 157 159 161 B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 176 180 185
80% 80%
C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 156 157 159 C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 174 179 183
D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 147 148 151 D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 163 168 172
2000 15.52 10.97 10000 34.93 10.97
A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 215 217 220 A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 246 252 258
B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 208 210 213 B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 238 244 250
60% 60%
C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 206 208 211 C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 236 242 248
D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 197 199 202 D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 225 231 237
A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 316 319 323 A (1-1,5 g) MCEr 358 368 377
B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 309 312 316 B (0,8-1 g) MCEr 350 359 369
40% 40%
C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 307 310 314 C (0,2-0,8 g) MCEr 349 358 367
D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 298 301 305 D (0-0,2 g) MCEr 338 346 356
Maximum Stress for ASTM A 283 Grade C according to API 650 Chapter 5 Table 5.2a are 205 MPa

Planar settlement will increase stress at the shell caused by the change of fluid level inside the tank.
Stress at tank shell affected by tilt tank and seismic can be determined with this following equation.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 10 Schematic of tank: a. Perpendicular tank, b. Planar tilt tank, c. Perpendicular tank with
constant acceleration, d. Planar tilt.
𝑃𝑃(𝑎𝑎) = ρ. g. ℎ𝑡𝑡 (1)
in case shown at Fig. 9b planar tilt tank, w can expressed as
102 Civil, Architectural, Structural and Constructional Engineering II

w = ℎ𝑡𝑡 + 𝑟𝑟 tan 𝜃𝜃 (2)

when applicable
ℎ𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = 𝑤𝑤 cos 𝜃𝜃 (3)
so, obtained
ℎ𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = (ℎ𝑡𝑡 + 𝑟𝑟 tan 𝜃𝜃) cos 𝜃𝜃 = ℎ𝑡𝑡 cos 𝜃𝜃 + 𝑟𝑟 sin 𝜃𝜃 (4)
so, hydrostatic equation can be expressed as
𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛
𝑃𝑃(𝑏𝑏) = ρ. g. ℎ𝑡𝑡 cos 𝜃𝜃 + 𝜌𝜌. 𝑔𝑔. 𝑟𝑟 sin 𝜃𝜃 (5)
the earthquake load are simulated as an acceleration with maximum magnitude. The resultant
acceleration effect that works can be expressed as
𝑎𝑎 𝑔𝑔
sin 𝛼𝛼 = ; cos 𝛼𝛼 = . (6)
�𝑎𝑎2 +𝑔𝑔2 �𝑎𝑎2 +𝑔𝑔2

while to get hnew of geometry and trigonometric relations as follows

ℎ𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = (ℎ + 𝑟𝑟 tan α) cos 𝛼𝛼 = ℎ cos 𝛼𝛼 + 𝑟𝑟 sin 𝛼𝛼 (7)
then the hydrostatic pressure equation can be expressed as
P = ρ. �𝑎𝑎2 + 𝑔𝑔2 . (h cos 𝛼𝛼 + 𝑟𝑟 sin 𝛼𝛼),
𝑔𝑔 𝑎𝑎
P = ρ. �𝑎𝑎2 + 𝑔𝑔2 . �h + 𝑟𝑟 �,
�𝑎𝑎2 +𝑔𝑔2 �𝑎𝑎2 +𝑔𝑔2

P = ρ. g. h + ρ. a. r (8)
API has been determined how to calculate the maximum stress on the tank shell expressed by the
equation below
4.9D(H−0.3)𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌
Smax = 𝑡𝑡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 .E
(9)

Substituting Eq. (4) to (9) an equation for calculating stress max in the planar tilt tank has been
derived. While the earthquake relation is obtained by substituting Eqs. (6), (7), (8) to (9) as follow
4.9D�(𝐻𝐻−0.3) cos(𝜃𝜃+𝛼𝛼)+𝑟𝑟 sin(𝜃𝜃+𝛼𝛼)���𝑎𝑎2 +G 2 �
Smax = 𝑡𝑡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 .E

4.9D�(𝐻𝐻−0.3)(cos 𝜃𝜃.cos 𝛼𝛼−sin 𝜃𝜃.sin 𝛼𝛼)+𝑟𝑟(sin 𝜃𝜃.cos 𝛼𝛼+cos 𝜃𝜃.sin 𝛼𝛼)���𝑎𝑎2 +G 2 �

=
𝑡𝑡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 .E

G 𝑎𝑎 G 𝑎𝑎
4.9D⎛(𝐻𝐻−0.3)�cos 𝜃𝜃 −sin 𝜃𝜃 �+𝑟𝑟�sin 𝜃𝜃 +cos 𝜃𝜃 �⎞��𝑎𝑎2 +G 2 �
�𝑎𝑎2 +G 2 �𝑎𝑎2 +G 2 �𝑎𝑎2 +G 2 �𝑎𝑎2 +G 2
⎝ ⎠
= 𝑡𝑡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 .E

(10)

ϴ is tilt angle of the tank (degree);

a is maximum magnitude of seismic acceleration (m/s2)
G is fluid density (kg/m3);
H is the height from bottom of the shell course under consideration to the maximum liquid level
when evaluating an entire shell course, in meter (m);
D is nominal diameter of tank, in meter (m);
r is radius of tank, in meter (m)
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 878 103

tmin is the minimum acceptable thickness in milimeter (mm) for each course as calculated from the
above equation; however tmin shall not be less than 0.1 inch (2.54 mm) for any tank course;
E is joint efficiency factor; 1= Full RT, 0.85=Spot RT, 0.7=Unknown.
After a statistical test to obtain the empirical formula with the minimum error, it found that
Eq. (10) yields the maximum error result of the simulation result less than 2%. When compared with
other methods, previously empirical equations have been synthesized using statistical relationships
through distribution patterns, Eq. (10) give the minimum error compared to the simulation result.
The minimum acceptable shell plate thickness for continued service shall be determined by one or
more of the methode herein. These methods are limited to tanks with diameters equal to 200 feet or
less [1]. Degree of planar settlement and seismic load are involved in hoop stress equation above. In
this study, the hoop stress equation for planar settlement criteria has been developed. Planar tilt and
seismic zone were considered in the equation.

Summary
In this paper, 384 cases a numerical study has been conducted on the tank capacity 500-10.000 m3.
The simulation results show an increase of hoop stress due to the planar settlement caused by the
thickness of the plate, degree of planar tilt and seismic load. The maximum stress on the tank shell
near the annular connection are the major concern as a suspected area of a maximum stress. The real
validation has been performed at 500-5.000 m3 tanks owned by Pertamina. For planar settlement,
allowable criteria presented on Table 1 are very conservative.
With the results of 384 simulation results, it has been considered sufficient data basis for making
new empirical equation. This study offers new criteria of allowable planar settlement for the oil
storage tank shown in Eq. (10). These criteria are influenced by factors plate thickness, degree of
planar tilt, and also the seismic zone. These criteria only analyzed the tank safety, stress analysis of
the equipment attached, or other tank appurtenances needs to get a safe operating condition.

References
[1] API 653 Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction, Appendix-B, Fifth Edition,
USA. 2014.
[2] A. A. Zanjani, A. Fakher and S. R. M Sadatieh, A Numerical Study on Effect of Uneven
Settlements of Oil Storage Tank, International Conference of New Developments in Soil Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering, North Cyprus. 2009.
[3] W. A. Marr, J. A. Ramos, T. W. Lambe, Criteria for Settlement of Tanks, ASCE, USA. 1982.
[4] T. B. D’Orazio and J. Duncan, Differential Settlements in Steel Tanks, J. Geotech. Eng. 113
(1987) 967-983.
[5] T. B. D’Orazio and J. Duncan, Stability of Oil Storage Tanks, J. Geotech. Eng. 110 (1984)
1219-1238.
[6] H. Kamyab and S. C. Palmer, Analysis of Displacements and Stresses in Oil Storage Tanks
Caused by Differential Settlement, J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 203 (1989) 61-70.

View publication stats