CONTRACT NO.: GC20105600 / 4299: Contract Title: Epic For New Gasoline and Jet Storage Facilities in Mic

CLASSIFICATION: C1 - CONTROLLED
CONTRACT NO.: GC20105600 / 4299
CONTRACT TITLE: EPIC FOR NEW GASOLINE AND JET STORAGE FACILITIES IN MIC
DOCUMENT TITLE:
DESIGN CALCULATION FOR TANK FOUNDATION - CRUSHED STONE FOUNDATION
ROTARY ENGINEERING PTE. LTD.

17 TUAS AVENUE 20
SINGAPORE 638828
18/01/2022 0 Issued For Comments TG ABK NM

Approved
Date Rev Description Prepared Checked Approved
QatarEnergy
Document No. 4299-21A-17-22-0001 Page: 1 of 45

DESIGN CALCULATION FOR TANK FOUNDATION – CRUSHED STONE

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 4
1.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 4
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES........................................................................................ 5
1.3 PROJECT SCOPE ................................................................................................. 5
1.4 PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT .................................................................................. 5
1.5 ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS .......................................................................... 6
1.6 DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................... 6
2. CODES, STANDARD AND REFERENCES ....................................... 7

2.1 REFERENCE STANDARDS .................................................................................. 7
2.2 SHELL DEPS – VERSION 43 ................................................................................ 7
2.3 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND DRAWINGS .................................................... 8
2.4 INTERNATIONAL CODES AND STANDARDS ...................................................... 9
3. SITE AND GROUND CONDITIONS ................................................. 10
4. GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS ................................................... 12

4.1 PARAMETERS OF SOILS AND ROCKS ............................................................. 12
4.2 EFFECTS OF DYNAMIC COMPACTION............................................................. 14
5. TANK FOUNDATION AND LOADING DETAILS ............................. 15
6. FOUNDATION STABILITY CHECKS .............................................. 17

6.1 STABILITY ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 17
6.2 DESIGN APPROACH ........................................................................................... 19
6.3 RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 20
7. FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS ...................................... 23

7.1 METHOD OF ANALYSIS...................................................................................... 23
7.2 SETTLEMENT CRITERIA .................................................................................... 28
7.3 RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 28
8. CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 41
Page 2 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
APPENDIX - A - FOUNDATION STABILITY CHECK

APPENDIX - B – DESIGN CALCULATION FOR LEAK DETECTION SUMP PIT
APPENDIX - C - TANK LOADING DATA
APPENDIX - D - GENERAL ASSEMBLY DRAWINGS
Page 3 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW
Qatar’s demand for gasoline and diesel are primarily supplied via Abu Hamour depot.
In addition to this depot, small quantities of diesel is supplied via Receiving and Loading
Facility (RALF) located within RLIC. Abu Hamour depot currently receives Gasoline
and Light Gas Oil (LGO – i.e., Diesel) from QatarEnergy Refinery located in
Mesaieed Industrial City (MIC) via an 18” multi-product pipeline, where the product is
loaded via loading gantry into trucks for distribution to fuel stations across the state.
QatarEnergy Refinery not only produces LGO, Jet A1 and Gasoline grades but it can
also import these products via the existing Berth 6 as required.
Being the only major distribution facility within Qatar, Abu Hamour depot poses risk
of supply disruption, in the event of any incident in the facility.
As a part of the long-term strategic planning for State of Qatar’s domestic refined
products supply chain (RPSC), COMPANY has decided to upgrade the refined
products infrastructure from Ras Laffan in the north to MIC in the south by
constructing an additional refined products distribution depot called New Fuel Depot
(NFD) to achieve supply chain resiliency for Gasoline (R91 &R95) grades, LGO and
Jet A1. New Fuel Depot (NFD) is not part of this Project Scope.
In order to further strengthen the supply chain, COMPANY intends to provide a New
Tank Farm (NTF) in Mesaieed Industrial City (MIC) comprising mainly storage tanks
for Gasoline (R91 & R95) grades and Jet A1 and associated import & distribution
pipelines. The facility development includes additional import capability for Gasoline
(R91 and R95) grades and Jet A1 via the existing Multi-Product Berth (MPB) and
Berth 6 located in MIC. It will also include export capability for Gasolines (R91 & R95)
grades and Jet A1 via the existing Multi-Product Berth (MPB) and Berth 6 located in
MIC. It also includes export capability for Gasolines grades and Jet A1 Future New
Fuel Depot (NFD) and Hamad International Airport (HIA) respectively. It is also
intended to provide Gasoline loading gantry facilities (Provisional EPIC Scope) as
part of New Tank Farm in MIC. This truck loading gantry facility (Provisional EPIC
Scope) will act as back-up/alternate Gasoline truck loading capability in the event of
outage or disruption to the Future New Fuel Depot.
Page 4 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The project objectives include the Engineering, Procurement, Installation and

Commissioning (EPIC) for a new storage and distribution facilities for Gasoline (R91
& R95) grades and Jet A1. This includes providing the ability to import refined product
through two berths (MPB & Berth 6) located in Mesaieed Industrial City (MIC), new
products storage tanks, associated pipelines for transferring products across the
network and a new Gasoline trucks loading gantry as Provisional EPIC Scope.
The primary intent of the design is to ensure sufficient product storage capacity and
transmission redundancy to ensure security of continuous supply of refined products
to the distribution whilst minimizing impact to Health, Safety & Environment. The
proposed facilities for import, storage and further distribution of refined products shall
meet the functionalities/resiliency at Mesaieed as required by the long-term strategic
planning for State of Qatar’s domestic refined products supply chain (RPSC).
The design shall ensure distributed product meets the required product certification
by preventing product contamination outside the tolerances.
The design shall also include any requirements to enable COMPANY to carry out
hydrocarbon accounting internally and between its Joint Venture partners.
1.3 PROJECT SCOPE
The scope of service shall be in accordance to CONTRACT No. GC20105600 / 4299
EPIC CONTRACTOR shall cover the below scope:
• New Tank farm in Mesaieed for Gasoline and Jet Fuel storage.
• Gasoline R91 & R95 Loading Gantry (Provisional EPIC Scope)
• Modifications to allow tie-ins at QatarEnergy Tank Farm.
• Berth 6 Modifications for replacing 3 existing loading arms.
1.4 PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT
This document is to present the assessment of the stability and the settlement of the
storage tanks’ foundations. Only crushed stone foundation is considered in this
document. A separate document is designated to cover the storage tanks on
concrete ring beam foundation (refer to Doc. No. 4299-21A-17-22-0002). Three-
dimensional finite element analysis is used for estimation of the foundation
Page 5 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
settlement. The assessment considers the effects of soil improvement by dynamic

compaction.
1.5 ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS
ABBREVIATION MEANING
BH Borehole
c Cohesion of soil
CPT Cone Penetration Test
Es Modulus of elasticity
QNHD Qatar National Height Datum
 Angle of internal friction of soil
γs Unit weight of soil
v Poisson’s ratio
1.6 DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this document the following definition shall apply:
COMPANY QatarEnergy
EPIC CONTRACTOR Rotary Engineering Pte. Ltd. (REL)
EPIC for New Gasoline and Jet Storage

PROJECT
Facilities in MIC
Use of the word “shall” indicates a mandatory

SHALL
requirement
Use of the word “should” indicates a strong

SHOULD recommendation to comply with the
requirements of this document
New Tank Farm and Multi-Product Pipeline and

FACILITY
Berth Modifications in Mesaieed
Page 6 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
2. CODES, STANDARD AND REFERENCES
2.1 REFERENCE STANDARDS
DOCUMENT NO. TITLE
QP Amendment to Shell DEP, Site preparation and

QPAD-1-14-0002 earthworks including tank foundations and tank
farms – 34.11.00.11-Gen
QP Amendment to Shell DEP, Reinforced concrete
QPAD-1-14-0003
structures – 34.19.20.31-Gen
QP Amendment to Shell DEP, Structural design and
QPAD-1-14-0004
engineering of onshore structures – 34.00.01.30-Gen
QP-ENG-STD-018 QP Standard for Development of Technical Drawings
2.2 SHELL DEPS – VERSION 43
DOCUMENT NO. TITLE
Structural design and engineering of onshore

34.00.01.30
structures
34.11.00.10 Onshore and near shore site investigations
Site preparation and earthworks including tank
34.11.00.11
foundations and tank farms
34.11.00.12 Geotechnical and foundation engineering – onshore
Roads, paving, surfacing, cable trenches, slope
34.13.20.31
protection and fencing
34.14.20.31 Drainage systems and primary treatment facilities
34.19.19.11 Grouting of equipment and structure bases
34.19.20.31 Reinforced concrete structures
34.28.00.31 Onshore steel structures

34.28.00.33 Onshore ancillary steel structures
Conceptual tank foundation with tank leak detection
S12.003
and management system for new tanks
S51.045 Concrete ring beam typical details
Page 7 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
S51.046 Holding-down bolts - typical details

30.00.60.10 Human factors engineering in projects
2.3 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND DRAWINGS
DOCUMENT NO. TITLE
4299-00-00-36-0001 Design Basis Memorandum

4299-00-13-22-0001 Overall Plot Plan – QatarEnergy Refinery
4299-21A-13-22-0001 Area Plot Plan – New Tank Farm
4299-21A-13-17-0002 Area Plot Plan – New Tank Farm
4299-00-14-17-0002 Plot Plan Design Basis
4299-21A-14-17-0005 Technical Note for Soil Improvement Working Platform
for Dynamic Compaction
4299-21A-14-17-0006 Technical Note on Soil Improvement Work for Tank
Foundations
4134-QPR-1-17-0005 Geotechnical Factual Report for Tank Farm
4299-00-14-20-0001-001 & General Notes & Legends - Civil
002
4299-00-18-11-0001-001 & General Notes & Legends – Structural
002
4299-00-14-20-0002-001 & General Notes & Legends – Utilities
002
4299-21A-14-20-0001-001 Site Grading Layout – Key Plan
4299-21A-14-20-0002-001 Site Grading Layout – Area 1

4299-21A-14-20-0006-001 Site Grading Sections
to 003
4299-21A-17-21-0001-001 Overall Layout of Tank Foundations
4299-21A-17-21-0002-001 Typical Plan and Details of JET A1 Tank Foundation
4299-21A-17-21-0002-002 Typical Section and Details of JET A1 Tank Foundation
Page 8 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
4299-21A-17-21-0003-001 Typical Plan and Details of R95 Tank Foundation

4299-21A-17-21-0003-002 Typical Section and Details of R95 Tank Foundation
4299-21A-17-21-0004-001 Typical Plan and Details of R91 Tank Foundation
4299-21A-17-21-0004-002 Typical Section and Details of R91 Tank Foundation
4299-21A-17-21-0005-001 Typical Plan and Details of Fire Water Tank Foundation
Typical Section and Details of Fire Water Tank
4299-21A-17-21-0005-002
Foundation
4299-21A-25-11-0001-001 General Assembly for Gasoline R95 Tanks
4299-21A-25-11-0031-001 General Assembly for Gasoline R91 Tanks
4299-21A-25-11-0063-001 General Assembly for Jet A1 Tanks
4299-21A-25-11-0109-001 General Assembly for Fire water Tanks
2.4 INTERNATIONAL CODES AND STANDARDS
DOCUMENT NO.API 650 Welded Tanks for Oil Storage

ACI 318-14 Building code requirements for Structural Concrete
BS EN 1990 Eurocode 0: Basis of structural design
NA to BS EN 1990 UK national Annex to BS EN 1990 (Eurocode 0)
BS EN 1991 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures
BS EN 1992 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures
BS EN 1997 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design
Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for earthquake
BS EN 1998
resistance
Karagkounis, N., Latapie, B., Sayers, K. & Mulinti, S. R.
(2016). Geology and geotechnical evaluation of Doha
Technical Paper
rock formations. Geotechnical Research, 2016, 3(3),
119-136.
Book Bowles, J. E. (1997). Foundation Analysis and Design.
Page 9 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
3. SITE AND GROUND CONDITIONS
Geotechnical investigation field work was conducted from 17th October 2019 to 14th
November 2019 as reported in Geotechnical Factual Report for Tank Farm (Doc. No.
4134-QPR-1-17-0005). A total of 58 boreholes, 51 trial pits, and 9 cone penetration tests
(CPT) were conducted for the entire tank farm site.
Figure 1 shows the layout of the geotechnical field investigations. In general, five
boreholes are carried out for each large-diameter fuel storage tank, with three boreholes
being deep ones (more than 50 m deep) and the remaining two boreholes being shallow
ones (15 m deep). A CPT test and two or three trial pits are conducted for each large-
diameter fuel storage tank. The trial pits were carried out to depths of 2 m with the primary
purpose of identifying presence of sabkha. It is important to note that sabkha will be
removed and replaced by fill material as part of the design of the tank foundation.
Based on the boreholes, the geology of the site is mainly of the Quaternary and Tertiary
rocks, which were covered by sandy soils. These sandy soils are composed mainly of
light brown silty sand with gravels, and are directly overlying residual soil, Simsima
Member of the Eocene, Midra Shale, and Rus Formation.
Figure 2 shows a typical vertical section of geological profile on site. The subsurface
stratigraphy in the vertical order is summarised as follows.
• Silty/gravelly sand (marine sand) layer of thickness generally ranging from 3 m

to 7 m
• Caprock or weathered Simsima limestone of thickness generally ranging from
0.5 m to 4 m
• Simsima limestone of thickness ranging from 10 m to 21 m
• Basal Simsima limestone of thickness ranging from 2 m to 8 m
• Midra shale of thickness ranging from 7 m to 15 m
• Rus Formation (calcisiltite)
Page 10 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
FIGURE 1. LAYOUT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Page 11 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
FIGURE 2. TYPICAL GEOLOGICAL PROFILE
4. GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
4.1 PARAMETERS OF SOILS AND ROCKS
Table 1 shows the interpreted geotechnical parameters for the soil and rock materials
considered in the present assessment. For each soil or rock material, the geotechnical
parameters are estimated primarily based on 1) geotechnical investigation data as
presented Geotechnical Factual Report for Tank Farm, and 2) typical range of
parameters for similar geology gathered from past technical papers/publications. In
addition, references to Specialist Consultant’s past projects are made to aid the
parameter estimation.
The parameters for marine sand are estimated based on the soil classification as well as
the SPT and the CPT data reported in the geotechnical factual report. The SPT N-values,
which are mostly ranging between 10 and 40, suggest that the marine sand is likely
medium dense. The CPT data show a scatter with a lower-bound cone resistance (qc)
value of 6 MPa. Using a correlation of Es = 3qc, the modulus of elasticity (Es) is
conservatively estimated to be 18 MPa. This conservative approach is deemed
appropriate given the limited number of CPTs that have been carried out so far. This
Page 12 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
may, however, be revisited when more test data become available after the completion
of the pre-CPTs carried out as part of the soil improvement work.
The parameters for Simsima limestone, Midra shale and Rus Formation layers are
estimated based on the measured RQD data and modulus of deformation of intact rock
from the geotechnical factual report. In addition, the reported typical ranges of
parameters by Karagkounis et al. (2016) are used as a basis for narrowing down the
likely values of the parameters.
The parameters for the fill materials (i.e. uncompacted bulk-filling material, structural fill
and crushed stone) are estimated based on values typically used in geotechnical
analysis. A modulus of elasticity of 30 MPa is conservatively used for structural fill
considering the likely degree of compaction produced by the layer-by-layer compaction
method.
TABLE 1. SOIL AND ROCK PARAMETERS
Drained
Unit Angle of Coefficient
modulus Permeability
weight Poisson’s Cohesion internal of earth
Layer of coefficient k
s ratio v c (kPa) friction  pressure
elasticity (m/s)
(kN/m3) (°) at rest
Es (MPa)
Marine sand 19 18 0.3 0 32 0.7 1×10-6

Caprock /
weathered
20 125 0.3 10 33 0.8 1×10-6
Simsima
limestone
Simsima
22 300 0.2 20 35 0.8 1×10-6
limestone
Basal Simsima
22 400 0.2 20 35 0.8 1×10-6
limestone
Midra shale 23 800 0.2 50 40 0.8 1×10-7
Rus Formation 23 800 0.2 50 40 0.8 1×10-7

Uncompacted
bulk-filling 19 10 0.3 0 30 0.5 1×10-6
material
Structural fill 20 30 0.3 4 32 0.7 1×10-6
Crushed stone 22 30 0.3 5 38 0.7 1×10-6
Page 13 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
4.2 EFFECTS OF DYNAMIC COMPACTION
Dynamic compaction is proposed as a soil improvement method to be carried out after

the removal of sabkha and the subsequent replacement with bulk-filling material to +0.95
m QNHD. The proposed dynamic compaction is expected to improve the fill material as
well as the underlying marine sand layer up to a depth of 6 m or so based on Technical
Note on Soil Improvement Work for Tank Foundations (Doc. No. 4299-21A-14-17-0006).
Table 2 shows the estimated properties of marine sand and bulk-filling material following
the proposed dynamic compaction. The improved modulus of elasticity (Es) is 30 MPa
for both materials. This is based on the estimated average qc of 10 MPa within the
influence depth of the compaction as given by the specialist contractor for soil
improvement work.
TABLE 2. PARAMETERS OF SOILS IMPROVED BY DYNAMIC COMPACTION
Drained
Unit Angle of Coefficient
modulus Permeability
weight Poisson’s Cohesion internal of earth
Layer of coefficient k
s ratio v c (kPa) friction  pressure at
elasticity (m/s)
(kN/m3) (°) rest
Es (MPa)
Compacted marine
sand and bulk-
19 30 0.3 2 32 0.7 1×10-6
filling material
(post-DC)
Note: DC refers to dynamic compaction.
Page 14 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
5. TANK FOUNDATION AND LOADING DETAILS
Figure 3 shows the layout of 9 storage tanks on crushed stone foundation considered in
the present assessment. Table 3 lists the details of these tanks.
FIGURE 3. LAYOUT OF STORAGE TANKS ON CRUSHED STONE FOUNDATION
Page 15 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
TABLE 3. STORAGE TANKS ON CRUSHED STONE FOUNDATION
Tank tag Tank diameter

S. No. Tank Tank height (m)
number (m)
1 Jet A1 21A03FA 54 20.2
2 Jet A1 21A03FB 54 20.2
3 R95 Gasoline 21A01FA 51 20.2
4 R95 Gasoline 21A01FB 51 20.2
5 R91 Gasoline 21A02FA 51 20.2
6 R91 Gasoline 21A02FB 51 20.2
7 R91 Gasoline 21A02FC 51 20.2
8 Fire Water 21A51FA 42 18
9 Fire Water 21A51FB 42 18
Table 4 summarises the key load parameters for these storage tanks based on the
provided tank loading data.
TABLE 4. LOAD PARAMETERS FOR TANK FOUNDATION
Total weight
Total Live Horizontal Wind Seismic
in operating
empty load for wind load Wind uplift overturning overturning
Tank Nos. / hydrotest
weight roof on shell load (ton) moment moment
condition
(ton) (ton) (ton) (ton.m) (ton.m)
(ton)
21A03FA/B
945 47,895 275 74 255 7,610 22,200
(54 m dia.)
21A01FA/B &
21A02FA/B/C 837 42,681 255 70 230 6,480 20,820
(51 m dia.)
21A51FA/B
650 25,588 150 51 155 3,700 12,400
(42 m dia.)
Page 16 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
6. FOUNDATION STABILITY CHECKS
6.1 STABILITY ANALYSIS
The tank foundations are checked for stability against collapse under the self-weight of
the tank and its contents as well as external loads such as roof live load, wind load and
seismic load. Four types of stability analysis are carried out: 1) bearing capacity, 2)
sliding, 3) overturning checks for tank foundation, and 4) slope stability check for tank
foundation berm. Figure 4 illustrates the mechanisms of instability considered.
FIGURE 4. SCHEMATIC OUTLINE OF FOUNDATION STABILITY CHECKS
6.1.1 BEARING CAPACITY

The bearing capacity of foundation soil is calculated using Vesic's bearing capacity
theory for drained condition. The bearing capacity is given by
𝑞𝑢 = 𝑐𝑁𝑐 𝑏𝑐 𝑠𝑐 𝑖𝑐 + 𝑞 ′ 𝑁𝑞 𝑏𝑞 𝑠𝑞 𝑖𝑞 + 0.5𝛾 ′ 𝐵 ′ 𝑁𝛾 𝑏𝛾 𝑠𝛾 𝑖𝛾
Page 17 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
where:
c is cohesion of bearing stratum;
q’ = ƴ’D, which is effective vertical pressure at depth of foundation level;
’ is effective unit weight of soil;
B’ is effective foundation width;
Nc, Nq, N are bearing capacity factors;
bc, bq, b are foundation base inclination factors;
sc, sq, s are shape factors;
ic, iq, i are load inclination factors.
6.1.2 SLIDING
Frictional resistance on the tank base provides sliding resistance against horizontal
action due to wind loads. The sliding resistance is given by
𝑉𝑠 = 𝜇𝑊
where:
 is friction coefficient for tank sliding;
W is net vertical force acting on tank base.
A friction coefficient of 0.3 is assumed between the tank bottom plate and sandy ground.
This is based on a friction angle of 17° at the interface between a steel plate and sandy
soil as recommended by Bowles (1997). This coefficient is within the maximum allowable
limit of 0.4 specified in API 650.
6.1.3 OVERTURNING
Horizontal action induced by wind or seismic loads produces overturning moment about
the bottom edge of the tank (which is the point of rotation). This is counteracted by
stabilising moment due to the weight of the tank. The overturning stability is evaluated
by performing a vectorial sum of all the overturning and stabilising moments about the
point of rotation.
6.1.4 SLOPE STABILITY FOR TANK FOUNDATION BERM

The slope stability for tank foundation berm is analysed using Plaxis, which is a
geotechnical finite element software. A model of the circular tank foundation is developed
in Plaxis, with the input soil parameters as given in Section 4. The slope stability is
evaluated by means of phi-c reduction approach in Plaxis. In this approach the shear
Page 18 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
strength parameters (tan and c) of the soil are successively reduced until a failure
mechanism is obtained.
The total multiplier ΣMsf is used to define the values of the soil strength parameters at a
given stage in the phi-c reduction analysis.
tan 𝜑𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡
∑ 𝑀𝑠𝑓 = =
tan 𝜑𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑
where the strength parameters with the subscript ‘input’ refer to the soil parameters given
as input into the model, and parameters with the subscript ‘reduced’ refer to the reduced
values used in the analysis.
The strength parameters are successively reduced until failure occurs, and the factor of
safety (FOS) for the slope stability check is given by
FOS = (input shear strength)/(shear strength at failure) = value of ΣMsf at failure
6.2 DESIGN APPROACH
Based on Design Basis Memorandum, the applicable load combinations for the
foundation stability checks are summarised in Table 5. Foundation stability checks are
carried out in accordance with Shell DEP 34.11.00.12.
For these stability checks, unfactored working loads are used. The minimum factors of
safety (FOS) are summarised in Table 6.
TABLE 5. LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR TANK FOUNDATION STABILITY CHECKS
Type Load combination Remark

1.0DL + 1.0LL + 1.0DE + Loads at operating/hydrotest condition
Bearing capacity 1.0DO (or 1.0DT) (base)
check 1.0DL + 1.0LL + 1.0DE + Loads at operating condition with wind
1.0DO + 1.0WL load
Loads at empty tank condition with wind
Sliding check 0.9DL + 0.9DE + 1.0WL
load
Loads at empty tank condition with wind
0.9DL + 0.9DE + 1.0WL
load
Overturning check
1.0DL + 1.0DE + 1.0DO + Loads at operating condition with
1.0EQ seismic load
1.0DL + 1.0LL+ 1.0DE + Loads at operating/hydrotest condition
Slope stability check
1.0DO (or 1.0DT) (base)
Notes:
1. DL refers to self-weight of foundation.
2. LL refers to roof live load.
3. DE refers to self-weight of tank in empty condition (empty load).
Page 19 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
4. DO refers to fluid weight in operating condition (operating load).

5. DT refers to water weight in hydrotest condition (test load).
6. WL refers to wind load.
7. EQ refers to seismic load.
TABLE 6. FACTORS OF SAFETY FOR FOUNDATION STABILITY CHECKS
Design factors of safety

Stability check
(FOS)
Bearing capacity 3
Sliding 1.5
Overturning 1.75
Slope stability 1.5
6.3 RESULTS
Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9 summarise the results for bearing capacity, sliding and
overturning checks, respectively, for all the nine tanks considered in the present
assessment. The calculated FOS are all greater than the minimum design requirements.
Hence, the tank foundation stability checks are satisfactory.
Figure 5 shows the results for the slope stability checks for the tank foundation berms.
The plots of incremental strain contours from Plaxis show the mechanisms of slope
failure at the end of the phi-c reduction analysis. The corresponding FOS are all greater
than 1.5. Hence, the slope stability checks are satisfactory.
Detailed calculation sheets for foundation stability checks are given in Appendix A.
TABLE 7. RESULTS FOR BEARING CAPACITY CHECKS
Load combination 1: Load combination 2:

1.0DL + 1.0LL + 1.0DE + 1.0DL + 1.0LL + 1.0DE +
1.0DO (or 1.0DT) 1.0DO + 1.0WL
Tank Nos. Foundation Foundation Check
bearing bearing
FOS FOS
pressure* pressure*
(kN/m2) (kN/m2)
21A03FA/B
215 17.5 215 17.4 FOS > 3 (OK)
(54 m diameter)
21A01FA/B &
21A02FA/B/C 213 16.8 213 16.7 FOS > 3 (OK)
(51 m diameter)
Page 20 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
21A51FA/B
187 16.2 187 16.1 FOS > 3 (OK)
(42 m diameter)
Note: *Foundation bearing pressure refers to bearing pressure at base of tank foundation.
TABLE 8. RESULTS FOR SLIDING CHECKS
Tank Nos. Load combination FOS Check
21A03FA/B
2.4 > 1.5 (OK)
(54 m diameter)
21A01FA/B &
21A02FA/B/C 0.9DL + 0.9DE + 1.0WL 2.2 > 1.5 (OK)
(51 m diameter)
21A51FA/B
2.5 > 1.5 (OK)
(42 m diameter)
TABLE 9. RESULTS FOR OVERTURNING CHECKS
FOS
Tank Nos. Load combination 2: Check
Load combination 1:
1.0DL + 1.0DE + 1.0DO
0.9DL + 0.9DE + 1.0WL
+ 1.0EQ
21A03FA/B
2.1 58.3 > 1.75 (OK)
(54 m diameter)
21A01FA/B &
21A02FA/B/C 2.1 52.3 > 1.75 (OK)
(51 m diameter)
21A51FA/B
2.4 43.3 > 1.75 (OK)
(42 m diameter)
Page 21 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
(a) Tank Nos. 21A03FA/B (54 m diameter)
(b) Tank Nos. 21A01FA/B & 21A02FA/B/C (51 m diameter)
(c) Tank Nos. 21A51FA/B (42 m diameter)
FIGURE 5. RESULTS FOR SLOPE STABILITY CHECKS

Page 22 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
7. FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
7.1 METHOD OF ANALYSIS
7.1.1 3D FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

The analysis of tank foundation settlement is carried out using Plaxis 3D, which is a three-
dimensional (3D) geotechnical finite element software. 3D models of tank foundation are
created for the settlement analysis, thereby allowing representation of non-uniform soil
profiles as well as non-uniform loads on the tank foundation.
Figure 6 shows the 3D finite element model for Tank 21A02FA, which is selected here to
illustrate the key modelling features. The side boundaries of the model are assumed to
be fixed horizontally but free to move vertically, while the bottom boundary is assumed
to be fixed in both vertical and horizontal directions.
Soil layer information from the available boreholes is incorporated to generate non-
uniform soil profile across the model domain. Figure 7 shows the sectional views of the
generated soil profile for the 3D model.
FIGURE 6. 3D MODEL OF TANK FOUNDATION

Page 23 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
(a) Section A
(b) Section B
FIGURE 7. SOIL PROFILE VIEWED ON SECTION A AND SECTION B
The soil modelling approach described above is carried out for all the tanks considered
in the present assessment. Table 10 summarises the boreholes that are used to generate
non-uniform soil profiles for each tank foundation model.
Page 24 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
Except for the fire water tanks (21A51FA and 21A51FB), all the tanks are modelled as
single-tank models (i.e. a single tank in a 3D model). The fire water tanks are modelled
together in a dual-tank model as they are located near to each other. This is in order to
capture any interaction effects between the two water tanks when they are subjected to
the applied loads.
TABLE 10. LIST OF BOREHOLES USED FOR TANK FOUNDATION MODELS
S. No. Tank No. Boreholes used in 3D modelling
1 21A03FA BH-1, BH-8, BH-9, BH-32, BH-33
2 21A03FB BH-2, BH-10, BH-11, BH-34, BH-35
3 21A01FA BH-4. BH-14, BH-15, BH-38, BH-39
4 21A01FB BH-5, BH-16, BH-17, BH-40, BH-41
5 21A02FA BH-3, BH-12, BH-13, BH-36, BH-37
6 21A02FB BH-6, BH-18, BH-19, BH-42, BH-43
7 21A02FC BH-7, BH-20, BH-21, BH-44, BH-45
8 21A51FA
BH-22, BH-23, BH-24, BH-25, BH-26,
BH-46, BH-47
9 21A51FB
Figure 8 shows the details of the tank foundation in the 3D model. The tank base plate
is modelled as plate elements. The tank foundation berm is modelled as a soil cluster
filled with crushed stone and structural fill in accordance with the tank foundation drawing
(Dwg. No. 4299-21A-17-21-0002). A layer of compacted bulk-filling material as a
replacement of sabkha is also modelled beneath the tank foundation berm. The extent
and thickness of the bulk-filling layer are in accordance with the site grading drawing
(Dwg. No. 4299-21A-14-20-0006).
Page 25 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
FIGURE 8. 3D MODEL SHOWING TANK FOUNDATION DETAILS
7.1.2 FOUNDATION LOADS

Based on Design Basis Memorandum, the applicable load combinations for the
foundation settlement analysis are as follows. The definitions of DL, LL, DE, DO, WL and
EQ are as given in Table 5.
1. Load combination 1: 1.0DL + 1.0LL + 1.0DE + 1.0DO
2. Load combination 2: 1.0DL + 1.0LL + 1.0DE + 1.0DO + 1.0WL
3. Load combination 3: 1.0DL + 1.0DE + 1.0DO + 1.0EQ
Figure 9 illustrates the modelling of the various types of foundation loads. Dead load and
live load are uniform in nature, and are modelled as uniform loads on the tank base plate.
On the other hand, wind load and seismic load produce overturning moments on the tank
foundation. The overturning moment is represented by a line load on the tank base
circumference that is linearly varying along the radial direction. The orientation of the
seismic or wind load is chosen such that it produces the most onerous impact on the
differential settlement of the tank foundation for a conservative approach.
Page 26 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
(a) Modelling of dead load and live load
(a) Modelling of wind load and seismic load
FIGURE 9. SCHEMATICS OF TANK FOUNDATION LOAD MODELLING
Page 27 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
7.1.3 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE

The construction sequence for the foundation settlement analysis is as follows.
1. Generate initial stresses in soil

2. Install tank foundation and reset displacements
3a. Apply load combination 1
3b. Apply load combination 2
3c. Apply load combination 3
7.1.4 MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS

The following assumptions are adopted for the foundation settlement analysis.
• All soil layers are modelled as elastic-perfectly plastic soil materials satisfying the
Mohr Coulomb failure criteria with parameters as given in Table 1.
• All soil layers are modelled as drained materials with effective strength
parameters for conservative settlement predictions.
• The groundwater level is assumed at approximately 2.5 m below the existing
ground level based on the available boreholes.
7.2 SETTLEMENT CRITERIA
Based on Design Basis Memorandum, the settlement criteria for the tank foundation
design are as follows.
• Total/uniform settlement: 80 mm
• Differential settlement along circumference/edge: 13 mm per 10 m of
circumference
• Differential settlement in radial direction: Radius of tank “R” / 350
7.3 RESULTS
Two types of analysis are carried out in the present assessment:
1) Analysis without considering dynamic compaction. The results of this analysis are
referred to as pre-compaction settlements.
2) Analysis with considering dynamic compaction. The results of this analysis are
referred to as post-compaction settlements.
The settlements presented herein are obtained from analysis considering drained
material behaviour. Hence, they represent the final settlements of the tank foundation.
Page 28 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
As the foundation soil consists of sandy materials having permeability in the order of
1×10-6 m/s, the final settlement of the tank foundation is expected to be reached
immediately upon the application of loading (i.e. at the point of hydrotest loading). No
further settlement with time (due to consolidation) is anticipated.
Creep effects are excluded in the present assessment.
7.3.1 PRE-COMPACTION SETTLEMENTS

Figure 10 to Figure 13 show the pre-compaction settlements for load combination 1 for
all the tanks considered in the present assessment. The settlement contours on the tank
base are seen to be non-uniform. This is attributable to the non-uniform soil profiles used
in the models. The settlement zone generally extends to a depth of about one times the
tank diameter. This extent is relatively small due to the presence of hard rock layers
below the marine sand layer.
Table 11 summarises the pre-compaction settlements for all the three load combinations
considered in the present assessment. Five tanks exceed the maximum allowable total
settlement of 80 mm for at least one load combination. In addition, seven tanks exceed
the maximum differential settlement of 13 mm at the circumference for at least one load
combination. Hence, the pre-compaction settlements do not satisfy the specified
settlement criteria for majority of the tanks.
Page 29 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
Plan view Plan view
Tank 21A03FA Tank 21A03FB
Section
Section
Section view Section view
Tank radial settlement profile (along section line) Tank radial settlement profile (along section line)
Tank edge settlement profile Tank edge settlement profile
FIGURE 10. PRE-COMPACTION SETTLEMENTS FOR LOAD COMBINATION 1 FOR

TANKS 21A03FA AND 21A03FB
Page 30 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
Plan view Plan view
Section Section
Tank 21A01FB
Tank 21A01FA

Page 31 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
Plan view Plan view
Section Section
Tank 21A02FB
Tank 21A02FA

Page 32 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
Plan view Plan view
Tank 21A02FC
Tank 21A51FB Tank 21A51FA
Section Section
Tank 21A02FC Tank 21A51FB Tank 21A51FA

TANKS 21A02FC, 21A51FA AND 21A51FB
Page 33 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF PRE-COMPACTION SETTLEMENTS FOR ALL LOAD

COMBINATIONS
Load Max differential Max differential

Max total settlement
Tank No. combi. settlement for 10m of settlement (slope) in
(mm)
(LC) circumference (mm) radial direction
LC1 92 8.4 1:750
21A03FA LC2 92 11.8 1:660
LC3 95 22.1 1:460
LC1 103 5.5 1:780
21A03FB LC2 103 7.2 1:600
LC3 103 15.6 1:440
LC1 71 5.3 1:1240
21A01FA LC2 71 8.2 1:1030
LC3 76 16.7 1:580
LC1 84 4.6 1:1010
21A01FB LC2 84 7.4 1:800
LC3 89 15.6 1:500
LC1 96 6.7 1:710
21A02FA LC2 96 8.9 1:570
LC3 100 17.2 1:410
LC1 86 5.3 1:850
21A02FB LC2 86 6.8 1:650
LC3 89 15.4 1:460
LC1 69 6.0 1:1260
21A02FC LC2 69 5.2 1:970
LC3 76 14.5 1:540
LC1 70 5.1 1:780
21A51FA LC2 70 6.9 1:590
LC3 70 12.5 1:470
LC1 61 3.3 1:1160
21A51FB LC2 61 4.7 1:860
LC3 65 10.8 1:560
Note: LC1, LC2 and LC3 refer to load combinations 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
Page 34 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
7.3.2 POST-COMPACTION SETTLEMENTS

Figure 14 to Figure 17 show the post-compaction settlements for load combination 1 for
all the tanks considered in the present assessment. The total and differential settlements
are significantly smaller than in the pre-compaction case.
Table 12 summarises the post-compaction settlements for all the three load
combinations considered in the present assessment. All the tanks satisfy the maximum
allowable total settlement of 80 mm for all the load combinations. In addition, all the tanks
satisfy the maximum differential settlement of 13 mm at the circumference for all the load
combinations. Hence, the post-compaction settlements for all the tanks meet the
specified settlement criteria.
Page 35 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
Plan view Plan view
Tank 21A03FA
Tank 21A03FB
Section Section
FIGURE 14. POST-COMPACTION SETTLEMENTS FOR LOAD COMBINATION 1 FOR

Page 36 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
Plan view Plan view
Tank 21A01FA
Tank 21A01FB
Section
Section

Page 37 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
Plan view Plan view
Tank 21A02FA
Tank 21A02FB
Section
Section

Page 38 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
Plan view Plan view
Tank 21A02FC
Section Section
Tank 21A02FC

TANKS 21A02FC, 21A51FA AND 21A51FB
Page 39 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF POST-COMPACTION SETTLEMENTS FOR ALL LOAD

COMBINATIONS
Load Max differential Max differential

Max total settlement
Tank No. combi. settlement for 10m of settlement (slope) in
(mm)
(LC) circumference (mm) radial direction
LC1 59 5.0 1:1000
21A03FA LC2 59 7.1 1:910
LC3 59 12.8 1:730
LC1 66 3.4 1:1050
21A03FB LC2 66 7.5 1:1020
LC3 66 9.5 1:670
LC1 49 2.7 1:1370
21A01FA LC2 49 7.9 1:1720
LC3 48 8.1 1:930
LC1 54 3.6 1:1200
21A01FB LC2 54 6.2 1:1360
LC3 54 8.4 1:830
LC1 67 6.2 1:780
21A02FA LC2 68 9.2 1:790
LC3 68 11.7 1:580
LC1 56 3.6 1:1060
21A02FB LC2 56 5.6 1:1100
LC3 56 9.3 1:740
LC1 48 3.3 1:1350
21A02FC LC2 48 7.9 1:1590
LC3 48 7.4 1:890
LC1 46 2.8 1:940
21A51FA LC2 46 3.4 1:830
LC3 46 6.4 1:690
LC1 40 1.9 1:1380
21A51FB LC2 40 2.6 1:1140
LC3 40 6.1 1:910
Note: LC1, LC2 and LC3 refer to load combinations 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
Page 40 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
8. CONCLUSION
Stability checks as well as settlement analysis have been presented for the nine storage
tanks on crushed stone foundation. 3D finite element analysis has been carried out for
the tank foundation settlement analysis.
The stability checks show that the tanks satisfy the required factors of safety for bearing
capacity, sliding and overturning. Slope stability checks for the tank foundation berms
show that the berm slopes meet the design requirements.
The settlement analysis considering the improved soil properties due to dynamic
compaction shows that the total and differential settlements of the tank foundations
satisfy all the design criteria.
The settlements presented herein represent the final settlements of the tank foundation.
As the foundation soil consists of sandy materials having permeability in the order of
1×10-6 m/s, the final settlement of the tank foundation is expected to be reached
immediately upon the application of loading (i.e. at the point of hydrotest loading). No
further settlement with time (due to consolidation) is anticipated.
The present assessment may be revisited when additional soil test data become
available after the completion of pre-CPTs and compaction trial tests carried out as part
of the soil improvement work.
Page 41 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
APPENDIX A – FOUNDATION STABILITY CHECK
Page 42 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
APPENDIX B – DESIGN CALCULATION FOR LEAK DETECTION PIT
Page 43 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
APPENDIX C – TANK LOADING DATA
Page 44 of 45

FOUNDATION
DOC NO: 4299-21A-17-22-0001 REV. 0
APPENDIX D – GENERAL ASSEMBLY DRAWINGS
Page 45 of 45

CONTRACT NO.: GC20105600 / 4299: Contract Title: Epic For New Gasoline and Jet Storage Facilities in Mic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONTRACT NO.: GC20105600 / 4299: Contract Title: Epic For New Gasoline and Jet Storage Facilities in Mic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLASSIFICATION: C1 - CONTROLLED

CONTRACT NO.: GC20105600 / 4299

DESIGN CALCULATION FOR TANK FOUNDATION - CRUSHED STONE FOUNDATION

ROTARY ENGINEERING PTE. LTD.

18/01/2022 0 Issued For Comments TG ABK NM

Document No. 4299-21A-17-22-0001 Page: 1 of 45

DESIGN CALCULATION FOR TANK FOUNDATION – CRUSHED STONE

2. CODES, STANDARD AND REFERENCES ....................................... 7

3. SITE AND GROUND CONDITIONS ................................................. 10

4. GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS ................................................... 12

5. TANK FOUNDATION AND LOADING DETAILS ............................. 15

6. FOUNDATION STABILITY CHECKS .............................................. 17

7. FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS ...................................... 23

DESIGN CALCULATION FOR TANK FOUNDATION – CRUSHED STONE

APPENDIX - A - FOUNDATION STABILITY CHECK

DESIGN CALCULATION FOR TANK FOUNDATION – CRUSHED STONE

DESIGN CALCULATION FOR TANK FOUNDATION – CRUSHED STONE

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The project objectives include the Engineering, Procurement, Installation and

1.3 PROJECT SCOPE

The scope of service shall be in accordance to CONTRACT No. GC20105600 / 4299

EPIC CONTRACTOR shall cover the below scope:

1.4 PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT

DESIGN CALCULATION FOR TANK FOUNDATION – CRUSHED STONE

settlement. The assessment considers the effects of soil improvement by dynamic

1.5 ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS

CPT Cone Penetration Test

QNHD Qatar National Height Datum

 Angle of internal friction of soil

γs Unit weight of soil

EPIC CONTRACTOR Rotary Engineering Pte. Ltd. (REL)

EPIC for New Gasoline and Jet Storage

Use of the word “shall” indicates a mandatory

Use of the word “should” indicates a strong

New Tank Farm and Multi-Product Pipeline and

DESIGN CALCULATION FOR TANK FOUNDATION – CRUSHED STONE

2. CODES, STANDARD AND REFERENCES

2.1 REFERENCE STANDARDS

DOCUMENT NO. TITLE

QP Amendment to Shell DEP, Site preparation and

2.2 SHELL DEPS – VERSION 43

DOCUMENT NO. TITLE

Structural design and engineering of onshore

34.19.20.31 Reinforced concrete structures

34.28.00.31 Onshore steel structures

DESIGN CALCULATION FOR TANK FOUNDATION – CRUSHED STONE

S51.046 Holding-down bolts - typical details

2.3 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND DRAWINGS

DOCUMENT NO. TITLE

4299-00-00-36-0001 Design Basis Memorandum

4299-21A-14-20-0003-001 Site Grading Layout – Area 2

DESIGN CALCULATION FOR TANK FOUNDATION – CRUSHED STONE

4299-21A-17-21-0003-001 Typical Plan and Details of R95 Tank Foundation

2.4 INTERNATIONAL CODES AND STANDARDS

DOCUMENT NO.API 650 Welded Tanks for Oil Storage

DESIGN CALCULATION FOR TANK FOUNDATION – CRUSHED STONE

3. SITE AND GROUND CONDITIONS

• Silty/gravelly sand (marine sand) layer of thickness generally ranging from 3 m

DESIGN CALCULATION FOR TANK FOUNDATION – CRUSHED STONE

FIGURE 1. LAYOUT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS

DESIGN CALCULATION FOR TANK FOUNDATION – CRUSHED STONE

FIGURE 2. TYPICAL GEOLOGICAL PROFILE

4.1 PARAMETERS OF SOILS AND ROCKS