Yuqi Ding

College of Mechanical Science and Engineering,

Northeast Petroleum University,
Daqing 163318, Heilongjiang, China
e-mail: jslx2004@163.com
Jubao Liu
College of Mechanical Science and Engineering,
Northeast Petroleum University,
Daqing 163318, Heilongjiang, China
e-mail: jslx2000@163.com
Zengtao Chen
Mem. ASME
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Alberta,
10-219 Donadeo ICE Building,
Edmonton, AB T6G 1H9, Canada
e-mail: Zengtao.Chen@ualberta.ca
Feng Qiu
College of Mechanical Science and Engineering,
Northeast Petroleum University,
Daqing 163318, Heilongjiang, China
e-mail: qiufeng1a2b3c@163.com
Qifa Lu
College of Mechanical Science and Engineering,
Northeast Petroleum University,
Daqing 163318, Heilongjiang, China
e-mail: 738393342@qq.com
Calculating Failure Pressure
Under Different Failure
Modes in the Roof-to-Shell
of a Vaulted Tank
In this study, two failure modes, yield buckling of the compression ring section and
strength failure in the roof-to-shell of the tank, have been proposed for a vertical vaulted
tank. The failure criteria of the two failure modes in the roof-to-shell of vault tanks are
established via finite element analysis of three tanks of 640 m3, 3200 m3, and 6800 m3 in
volume. The finite element models are built with axisymmetric elements and spatial multi-
elements. Based on the strength failure criterion, the failure pressure formula in the
vaulted tank roof-to-shell is derived. The maximum relative error between the theoretical
calculation and numerical simulation is 9.7%. Finally, we verify the strength failure cri-
terion through a tank failure test; the maximum relative error between the test and theo-
retical calculation is 9.6%. The failure pressure of both failure modes has been
compared and analyzed. The failure pressure of the yield buckling in the compression
ring section is about 1.65 times that of the strength failure in the roof-to-shell of the tank.
[DOI: 10.1115/1.4035935]
Keywords: vaulted tank, roof-to-shell, yield buckling, strength failure, failure pressure

1 Introduction research report used SAFEROOF software to show the results of fail-
ure pressure on the roof-to-shell connection with the axisymmetric
Vertical vaulted storage tanks can be damaged by increases in
element [9]. To obtain the failure pressure in the roof-to-shell con-
internal pressure during normal use. Failure usually occurs at the
nection, some researchers also considered the influence of edge
roof-to-shell connection or the bottom-to-shell connection of the
load [10–12] or used the finite element method and experimental
tank. The bottom-to-shell connection of the tank is mainly failed
method to modify the calculation formula of the stress distribution
by the liftoff of the bottom of the tank under the inner pressure.
of the tanks [13–16]. However, most of the calculations and analy-
The large circumferential stress at the bottom-to-shell connection
ses focused on predicting the local yield buckling under internal
will cause plastic hinge and local instability and lead to failure of
and external pressure [17–19]. There is currently a lack of
the tank [1,2]. In all the failure modes, the roof-to-shell connec-
research regarding calculating the strength failure in the roof-to-
tion of the tank is expected to be the failure point of storage tanks
shell of the tank. Therefore, we attempt to establish the spatial
during normal use [3]. Under the same internal pressure, when the
finite element model of the storage tank using three kinds of stor-
roof-to-shell connection of the tank is destroyed earlier than the
age tanks that were used in the API650-2005 report [9]. Also, the
bottom-to-shell connection, the tank is called a weak roof struc-
failure criterion in the roof-to-shell connection of the tank has
ture. In the case of an overpressure failure, for two fixed roof
been established and the strength failure pressure in the roof-to-
tanks with the same specifications, in a weak roof tank, the roof
shell connection of the tank has been calculated according to the
will be separated completely or partially from the shell, and the
JB4732 standard [20]. Finally, the strength failure criterion has
tank pressure is released while the content below the shell remains
been verified by the tank failure test. This study could improve the
intact. Although the residual liquid in the tank will be on fire, the
prediction of failure modes and failure pressure in the roof-to-
risk of damage to the staff around the tank will be limited. How-
shell connection of the tank and provide more accurate theoretical
ever, a nonweak roof tank fails like a launching rocket, where the
results on the actual tank destruction process.
tank is blasted off with a flame and a storm, leading to possible
human injury or fatality. Eventually, the tank will collapse leading
to large economic loss [4,5]. Thus, it is necessary to calculate the
2 Analysis of Different Failure Modes
failure pressure and construction of the damage criteria in the
roof-to-shell of tanks. Many researchers had calculated the failure in the Roof-to-Shell Connection of the Internal
pressure in the roof-to-shell of tanks [6–8]. The API650-2005 Overpressure Vaulted Storage Tank
Two kinds of failure modes generally occur in the weak roof
tank caused by overpressure in the vaulted storage tank: compres-
Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received June 10, 2016;
sion ring section yield buckling failure and strength failure in the
final manuscript received January 31, 2017; published online March 10, 2017. roof-to-shell connection. As shown in Fig. 1, compression ring
Assoc. Editor: Akira Maekawa. section yield buckling failure in the roof-to-shell connection

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright V

C 2017 by ASME AUGUST 2017, Vol. 139 / 041201-1

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 1 Local compression ring section yield buckling failure mode in the roof-to-shell of the tank

Fig. 2 Strength failure mode in the roof-to-shell of the tank

causes localized buckling in the roof-to-shell connection, which
leads to tank structure buckling failure and irregular deformation.
It is very difficult to repair this damage, and the relevant mainte-
nance cost is very high.
As shown in Fig. 2, when strength failure occurs in the roof-to-
shell connection, the position of the weld seam is split by the tank
internal pressure, which leads to strength failure in the roof-to-
shell connection. After the strength failure, the tank internal pres-
sure can be quickly released because the geometry of the damaged
part is more regular. It could be restored by mechanical deforma-
tion more easily and at much lower cost compared with trying to
restore from the damage caused by a compression ring section
yield buckling failure [21].
3 Numerical Method for Calculating the Failure
Pressure in the Roof-to-Shell Connection
3.1 Establishing a Finite Element Model of the Tank. The
640 m3 (tank no. 1), 3200 m3 (tank no. 2), and 6800 m3 (tank no.
3) vertical storage tanks in the API650-2005 research report [9]
were selected to calculate the failure pressure in the roof-to-shell
connection of the tank. The tank consisted of a roof plate, shell,
bottom plate, angular plate, and the connection welds between
adjacent components. The extra radial dimension of the edge plate
out of the perimeter of the tank is 75 mm. Table 1 shows the geo-
metric parameters of the three tanks of different volumes. The
tanks are made of ASTM A36 steel with a yield strength of
250 MPa, a modulus of 2.07  105 MPa, and a Poisson’s ratio
of 0.25.
The diameter-to-thickness ratio of the tanks is very large; as a
result, the tanks are qualified as thin-wall cylindrical shells. In the
API650-2005 research report [9], an axisymmetric model was
built for the tanks of exactly the same volumes (tank nos. 1, 2, and
3). Here, a similar axisymmetric model is built by ANSYS with
the two-node axisymmetric element shell51, as shown in Fig. 3.
The results are compared with the API650-2005 research report
[9] to validate the effectiveness of the commercial finite element
(FE) code.
To consider the weld geometry, the spatial, nonlinear FE model
is established for the entire tank structure by employing various
element types available in ANSYS, as shown in Fig. 4. The model
mainly considers the axisymmetry of the storage tank with the
roof, shell, bottom plate, tank weight, and internal pressure. To
balance the computational effort and accuracy of the numerical
model, the shell93 element and the solid45 element are used to

Table 1 Geometric parameters of the three tanks of different volumes

Tank Volume Diameter Height Down shell Up shell Bottom Roof thickness Angle
number (m3) (m) (m) thickness (mm) thickness (mm) thickness (mm) (mm) (mm)

1 640 9.14 9.75 4.76 4.76 6.35 4.76 50.8  4.76

2 3200 18.29 12.19 7.94 6.35 6.35 4.76 50.8  6.35
3 6800 24.38 14.63 11.91 6.35 6.35 4.76 76.2  9.53

041201-2 / Vol. 139, AUGUST 2017 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 employed in meshing the weld seam to ensure the mesh at the
welding of roof-to-shell connection of the tank is fine enough for
calculating the stress. The gradient gridding algorithm works in
such a way that when the stress of the weld seam gradually con-
verges to a stable value, the mesh is considered appropriate. After
calculation, a weld grid size of 0.25 mm  0.25 mm is selected.
Contact friction between the bottom plate and foundation only
occurs through the contact171 and contact174 elements. To calcu-
late the tank failure pressure based only on the roof-to-shell con-
nection failure modes, a spatial model is established without
considering the rib structure, and the top weld is assumed to be a
full weld seam. The three different volume storage tanks are mod-
eled with spatial models of 30 deg, 20 deg, and 15 deg, respec-
tively, based on the number of arc-shaped rind plates. Particularly,
roofs of larger tanks are welded with more rind plates than smaller
tanks, and the number of rind plates is obtained by dividing
360 deg by the size of spatial model, where a single rind plate is
used instead of the entire structure.

3.2 Loading Conditions for Tank Finite Element Calcula-

Fig. 3 Two-node axisymmetric element model
Fig. 4 Spatial finite element model
discretize the tank roof and shell. Solid elements are used for
welding the roof-to-angle, angle-to-shell, shell-to-shell, and shell-
to-bottom as well as the angle plate and the foundation structure.
The element types used for generating different tank models are
summarized in Table 2. The gradient gridding algorithm is
tion and Failure Criterion. To compare our FE results with the
results of the API650-2005 research report [9], we assume that the
internal gas pressure in the tank increases steadily before the tank
ruptured. During the process, the tank is subjected to its weight,
the hydrostatic pressure, and the internal gas pressure. The follow-
ing loading conditions are used:
loading condition 1: tank weight and internal gas pressure
loading condition 2: tank weight, hydrostatic pressure (half
tank), and internal gas pressure
loading condition 3: tank weight, hydrostatic pressure (full
tank), and internal gas pressure
According to the failure pressure of the tank calculated by the
SAFEROOF in the API650-2005 research report [9], combined with
the JB4732 standard on the stress classification method to estab-
lish the strength evaluation criteria, different failure criteria can
be established based on the FE solutions of the axisymmetric and
spatial models.
Criterion 1: The tank fails when the compressive circumferen-
tial stress of the compression ring section at the top of the storage
tank (roof-to-shell) equals the material yield stress. This failure
mode qualified as compression ring section local buckling failure;
the criterion was proposed based on the results of the API650-
2003 research report [22]. This failure criterion could be used for
both the two-node axisymmetric element and the spatial models.
In the application, the average compressive circumferential stress
of the compression ring section needs to be greater than or equal
to the material yield strength, namely: rhA  rs .
Criterion 2: The tank failed when the highest value of the aver-
age equivalent stress in the roof-to-shell connection of the storage
tank equals the material yield stress. This failure mode qualifies as
strength failure in the roof-to-shell connection; criterion is pro-
posed for the spatial model. Failure occurred along all the possible
linear paths (section planes) through the thickness of the plate,
when the maximum value of the average equivalent stress reaches
the material yield limit, namely: rpath
max  rs , where,
rpath
max ¼ maxðrpath1 ; rpath2 ; rpath3 ; …Þ.
Criterion 3: The tank fails when the maximum equivalent stress
in the roof-to-shell connection reaches the material strength limit.
This criterion can be used for both the two-node axisymmetric

Table 2 Various element types used for the two tank models

Tank Contact between

model Roof Shell Bottom Angle Weld Edge plate Foundation bottom and foundation

Axisymmetric model Shell51 Shell51 Shell51 Shell51 / Shell51 Shell51 Contact171

Spatial model Shell93 Shell93 Solid45 Solid45 Solid45 Solid45 Solid45 Contact174

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology AUGUST 2017, Vol. 139 / 041201-3

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 and the spatial models. It is more convenient than criterion 2
because the calculated results can be directly used. In the axisym-
metric model, the calculated middle plane stress is employed and
the failure criterion is rmid
max ¼ rb . For the spatial model, the failure
criterion becomes: rmax ¼ rb .
3.3 Finite Element Results of the Tank. The axisymmetric
and spatial models are used to calculate the von Mises stress dis-
tribution for different volume storage tanks under different load-
ing conditions, as described in Sec. 3.2. Figure 5 shows the stress
distribution for tank no. 1 using the axisymmetric model under

Fig. 5 Von Mises stress distribution for tank no. 1 using the axisymmetric model in the roof-
to-shell (loading condition 1): (a) yield of the compression ring section (criterion 1) and (b)
strength failure (criterion 3)

041201-4 / Vol. 139, AUGUST 2017 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 loading condition 1 in the roof-to-shell connection; Fig. 6 shows
the results of the spatial model. The failure criteria proposed in
Sec. 3.2 are used to predict failure in the roof-to-shell connection.
Table 3 shows the predicted failure pressure values for the three
tanks based on the axisymmetric and spatial models.
From Fig. 5(a), it can be seen that the compression ring section
is mainly under a compressive stress state when the compression
ring section reaches the yield state based on the axisymmetric
model. Far from the compression ring section, the shell changed
into a tension stress state. At the same time, the deformation in

Fig. 6 Von Mises stress distribution for tank no. 1 using the spatial model in the roof-to-shell
(loading condition 1): (a) yield of the compression ring section (criterion 1) and (b) strength
failure (criterion 2)

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology AUGUST 2017, Vol. 139 / 041201-5

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 the tank roof-to-shell connection is similar to what was shown in
Fig. 1. The yield buckling failure mode will occur and the tank
will be destroyed in this position. As shown in Fig. 6(b), when the
spatial model is used to calculate the failure pressure in the tank
roof-to-shell connection, the stress of the inner surface in the roof-
to-shell connection is greater than that of the outer surface. This
shows that the tank shows protruded deformation outside of the
shell. When the highest value of the equivalent stress in the roof-
to-shell connection reaches the material yield strength, the strength
failure mode will occur and the tank will be destroyed in this posi-
tion. Comparing Fig. 5(a) with Fig. 6(a), when the compression
ring section of the tank yields, the distribution of stress state on the
compression ring section is the same regardless of the FE models
used. However, the actual stress values over the entire section are
different: the axisymmetric model only provides a single point
value of 352 MPa at the weld seam, while the spatial model is able
to provide the actual distribution along the weld seam, ranging
between 217 and 323 MPa, which reflects the influence of the weld
seam structure at the roof-to-shell connection of the tank.
From Table 3, it can be seen that when the failure in the roof-
to-shell connection is evaluated with different failure criteria, cri-
terion 3 results in the maximum failure pressure. For criteria 1 and
2, the failure pressure at the yield of the compression ring cross
section is significantly greater than that of the strength failure.
Therefore, failure criterion 2 is the most conservative.
When failure criterion 1 is used for the axisymmetric finite
element storage tank model established in this paper, the results of
the calculation are close to the results of the API650-2005
research report [9], and the relative error was 0.3%, which implies
the effectiveness of the ANSYS commercial FE code. So, it is reason-
able to conclude that the two-node axisymmetric finite element
model in this paper could achieve the same calculation accuracy
as the API650-2005 research report [9]. When criterion 1 is used
to evaluate failure for the spatial multi-element model, the maxi-
mum relative error of the calculation results and the API650-2005
research report [9] is 4.8%. It can be shown that the results
obtained from the spatial multi-element model without consider-
ing the influence of rib case are similar to using the two-node axi-
symmetric elements in the API650-2005 research report [9]. The
spatial finite element model can consider the actual storage tank
structure. It can be used to simulate the weld structure of the tank
and describe the strength failure mode more accurately, such that
the predicted failure pressure is more accurate and reliable.
4 Analytical Calculation Method of Strength Failure
in the Storage Tank Roof-to-Shell
The method for calculating the critical failure pressure value
that causes damage in the case of overpressure is given in the
API650-2003 research report [22]. In accordance with this analysis
Table 3 Failure pressure values of three tanks of different volumes calculated by different models and different evaluation
methods
Tank number Model Criterion 1 pressure (kPa)
1 Axisymmetric finite element model of this paper
Axisymmetric finite element model of Ref. [9]
Spatial finite element model of this paper
2 Axisymmetric finite element model of this paper
Axisymmetric finite element model of Ref. [9]
Spatial finite element model of this paper
3 Axisymmetric finite element model of this paper
Axisymmetric finite element model of Ref. [9]
Spatial finite element model of this paper
Note: “*” means this model cannot be used in this criterion.
041201-6 / Vol. 139, AUGUST 2017
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
method, the connection of the storage tank roof-to-shell is simpli-
fied as a compression area. The storage tank structure will be dam-
aged when compression ring section of the tank is completely
overall yield. Figure 2 and Sec. 3 show the finite element calcula-
tion. There is a significant difference in the tank failure pressure
value when there is a compression ring section yield buckling fail-
ure versus a strength failure. If taking into account of local buck-
ling failure at the compression ring section, the damage value can
be much greater than the damage value caused by a weld strength
failure. The API650-2003 research report [22] only gave the calcu-
lation method of the failure pressure of the compression ring sec-
tion yield buckling failure. To accurately describe the calculation
method of the failure pressure in roof-to-shell, it is necessary to
analyze the problem via theoretical calculation.
4.1 Simplified Mechanics Model and Force Analysis of the
Storage Tank. According to the structural property of the tank,
the connection of the roof-to-shell is considered as a combination
of a cylindrical shell and a spherical shell. Figure 7 shows the
force diagram. The storage tank is subject to internal pressure P,
the weight of the tank, and the supporting force of the ground.
The roof-to-shell has edge force Q and edge bending moment M.
Because the connection in the roof-to-shell belongs to the overall
structure discontinuity, stress rapidly increases in the local area.
Combined with the analysis in Sec. 3, when the bending moment
is not considered, the film stress exceeds the material yield stress,
which will result in major deformation. When the bending
moment is considered, the secondary stress exceeds the material
yield stress, which could lead to local yielding or minor deforma-
tion. Shell deformation at the edge of the connection can be coor-
dinated. Thus, a more favorable stress distribution result is
obtained. The final solution of the overall structure of the com-
bined shell can be obtained by superposition of these two solu-
tions. The total stress is composed of thin film stress and
secondary stress.
According to the condition of deformation compatibility, in the
roof-to-shell connection of the storage tank, the displacement and
the rotation angle of the tank should be equal, such that
x1 ¼ x2 u1 ¼ u2 (1)
where subscripts “1” and “2” indicate the quantities of the roof
and the shell, respectively. After the superposition of the bending
deformation and film deformation, the total roof and shell defor-
mation must be equal at the connection of the tank; then, the
deformation compatibility equation can be rewritten as
xP1 þ xQ M P Q M
1 þ x1 ¼ x2 þ x2 þ x2
(2)
up1 þ uQ M p Q M
1 þ u1 ¼ u2 þ u2 þ u2
Failure criterion and pressure
Criterion 2 pressure (kPa) Criterion 3 pressure (kPa)
7.27 * 10.57
7.25 * 10.55
7.07 4.68 10.4
3.21 * 4.71
3.21 * 4.65
3.09 1.86 4.63
2.19 * 3.52
2.19 * 3.59
2.30 1.63 3.54
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 7 Tank force diagram based on the shell theory with moments

In the above formulae xp ; xQ ; xM and up ; uQ ; uM , the radial pR

rp2h ¼
displacement and warp angle occurred in the roof-to-shell caused t (5)
by P, Q, M. The outward displacement along the center line of the p pR
r2z ¼
tank and the rotation angle in a counterclockwise direction were 2t
set to be positive. The relationship between P, Q, M, and their dis-
placement, rotation angle can be calculated using the nonmoment Considering the effect of the edge load, the circumferential
theory and moment theory, respectively [23]. stress and axial stress at the edge of the tank shell can be obtained

4.2 Analysis for the Roof-to-Shell of Storage Tank Using E 6lM

rMþQ
2h ¼ ð b2 M þ QÞ6
Moment Theory 2b32 RD2 t2
4.2.1 Analysis of the Tank Roof Using Moment Theory. For 6M
rMþQ
2z ¼6 (6)
the tank roof, the stress under internal pressure P can be calcu- t2
lated by using the following formula [24,25]:
h i In the formula, R is the midplane radius of the tank shell, t is the
3
p ðRo =Rs Þ þ 2 tank shell thickness, b2 is p theffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
dimensionless attenuation coeffi-
rp1h ¼ rp1z ¼ h i (3) ffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 ðRo =Ri Þ3  1 cient which satisfies b2 ¼ 4 Et=4D2 R2 ¼ 4 3ð1  l2 Þ=R2 t2 , and
D2 is the tank shell flexural rigidity, D2 ¼ ðEt3 =12ð1  l2 ÞÞ.
In the formula, Ro is the outer radius of the tank roof, Ri is the
inner radius of the tank roof, Rs is the midplane radius of the tank
roof, subscripts h and z represent the circumferential and axial 4.2.3 Combined Stress Analysis for the Tank Roof and Shell.
parameters, respectively, the right subscript for the stress-symbol The stress equation for the inner pressure P, edge force Q, and
indicates the direction of stress, the right superscript indicates the edge bending moment M of the tank roof can be combined, and
stress causes, and P represents the stress caused by internal the three-direction stress at the tank roof edge can be obtained
pressure. h i
Considering the effect of the edge load, the stresses at the edge p ðRo =Rs Þ3 þ 2 2b2 2b sin u 6l
of tank roof are r1h ¼ h iþ 1Mþ 1 Q6 2 M
3
2 ðRo =Ri Þ  1 R s d d d
2b21 2b sin / 6l h i
rMþQ
1h ¼ Mþ 1 Q6 2 M (7)
Rs d d d (4) p ðRo =Rs Þ3 þ 2 cos u 6
cos / 6 r2z ¼ h iþ Q6 2 M
rMþQ
1z ¼ Q6 2 M 3
2 ðRo =Ri Þ  1 d d
d d
In the above formula, d is the roof thickness, b1 is the dimension- r1u ¼ 0
less attenuation coefficient which satisfies 4b41 ¼ ðEdRs 2 =D1 Þ, and
D1 is the roof flexural rigidity, D1 ¼ ð Ed3 =12ð1  l2 ÞÞ. When taking the basic parameters of tank roof and the internal
pressure P as known quantities, the three-direction stress at the
4.2.2 Analysis of the Tank Shell Using Moment Theory. The edge of tank roof can be obtained.
stress generated by the internal pressure in the tank shell was uni- Similarly, combining the inner pressure P, edge force Q, and
formly distributed along the shell thickness direction. The circum- edge bending moment M of the tank shell makes it possible to
ferential stress and axial stress, respectively, are [25–27] obtain the three-direction stress at the tank shell edge

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology AUGUST 2017, Vol. 139 / 041201-7

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 4 Numerical results of the failure pressure compared
with theoretical results for three tanks of different volumes

Failure pressure (kPa)

Tank Spatial finite- Theoretical Relative

number element model derivation error (%)

1 4.68 4.28 8.5

2 1.86 1.68 9.7
3 1.63 1.56 4.3

pR 6lM E
r2h ¼ 6 2 þ 3 ð b2 M þ QÞ
t t 2b2 RD2
pR 6M (8)
r2z ¼ 6 2
2t t
r2/ ¼ 0
When taking the basic parameters of the tank shell and the internal
pressure P as known quantities, the three-direction stress at the
edge of tank shell can be obtained.
In practical engineering applications, the tank roof and tank
shell are connected as a whole structure. Therefore, displacement
and stress are continuous in the connection between the tank roof
and shell, so the edge stress for the tank roof and tank shell can be
combined. Provided that the stress proportion at the edge of tank
roof is k1, the proportion of tank shell will be 1  k1, and the
expression of stresses at the connection can be written as
r1 ¼ k1 r1h þ ð1  k1 Þr2h
r2 ¼ k1 r1z þ ð1  k1 Þr2hz (9)
r3 ¼ 0
This obtains the three-direction stress of the connection
between the tank roof and shell. To determine the value of k1, a
comparison analysis is carried out between the results from finite
element analysis and theoretical calculation. According to the
numerical results, the coefficient after the integrated solution is
k1 ¼ 0.879 [28].
Substituting the coefficient k1 into Eq. (9), we obtain
r01 ¼ 0:879r1h þ 0:121r2h
r02 ¼ r1z r2z (10)
r02 ¼ 0
The three-direction stress at the connection between the tank roof
and shell can be obtained by Eq. (10), which can be seen as the
stress expression of unknown internal pressure P. Through Eq.
(10), it can be seen that the failure criterion 2 is used as the
strength evaluation criterion for the connection of the roof and
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
shell. When r1 2 þ r2 2  r1 r2 ¼ rs , strength failure occurred
in the roof-to-shell, at which point, the strength failure pressure P
in the roof-to-shell can be obtained. Using the above failure
assessment method, the failure pressure is calculated for all the
three tanks of different volumes; Table 4 shows the results.
From Table 4, the strength failure pressure in the roof-to-shell
calculated by the theoretical method is slightly smaller than that
by numerical simulation; the maximum relative error of the two is
9.7%. This is mainly because the result of the radial stress was
neglected in the theoretical calculation.
5 Experimental Verification of the Strength Failure
Criterion in the Roof-to-Shell
The failure pressure can be determined by the corresponding
average stress of the dangerous section in the roof-to-shell
Fig. 8 Equivalent stress distribution at the dangerous paths
(sections) in the roof-to-shell of the tanks
connection based on the analytical solution. According to the
strength failure criterion, the average stress in the dangerous sec-
tion will reach the yield strength at failure, which can then be sub-
stituted into the analytical solution to determine the failure
pressure. In order to verify the strength failure criterion, a small-
scale experiment of the storage tank has been conducted.
5.1 Design of Experimental Tank Model. According to the
characteristics of the tank structure, and considering the unity of
data for the experimental and the real tank structural, the experi-
mental tank structure is designed based on the principle of struc-
tural geometry similarity, stiffness similarity, and mass similarity.
Figure 8 shows the spatial distribution of the equivalent stress
along the dangerous paths (sections) of storage tanks of three dif-
ferent volumes as well as the experimental tank. The variation
trend of the equivalent stress at the dangerous section of the roof-
to-shell of the experimental storage tanks is similar to those in the
actual tank. Therefore, the experimental model can be used to
indirectly verify the failure evaluation criterion in the roof-to-
shell of an actual tank.
The experimental storage tank is made of Q235, a normal car-
bon constructional steel (steady-state deformation of tank material
with increasing pressure according to 5 mm/min, and the tested
dynamic yield strength of the material is about 250 MPa [29,30]),
the tank height is 200 mm, the tank diameter is 168 mm, the shell
thickness is 4 mm, the height of the tank roof is 28 mm, the roof
radius curvature is 2.4R, the tank roof thickness is 4 mm, and the
angle is 25  4 mm. In order to recast the two failure modes in the
actual tank, namely, the strength failure in the tank roof-to-shell
and the local compression ring section yield buckling failure, the
angle and the shell are welded in two different arrangements: lap
and butt. In lap welding, the roof-to-shell connection will see a
higher buckling resistance due to larger cross section area than the
butt welding, as shown in the inserted diagram in Fig. 9. The weld
foot height is 3 mm, and the tank roof starting angle is 28.8 deg. In
order to determine roof-to-shell stress, a total of 16 circumferen-
tial and axial strain gauges are arranged in pairs, one on the tank
roof and another on the angle distributed along the circumferential
direction in 0 deg, 90 deg, 180 deg, and 270 deg, respectively. The
strain gauges on the tank roof are located 4 mm from the weld
seam, one along the generatrix of the tank roof and the other along
the horizontal circle. The strain gauges on the angle are located
8 mm from the weld seam and oriented along the axial and hori-
zontal directions, respectively.
5.2 Design of the Experimental Device. The experimental
setup is mainly composed of three parts, as shown in Fig. 9. The

041201-8 / Vol. 139, AUGUST 2017 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 9 Schematic diagram of the experimental setup for the tank: 1—dynamic signal test sys-
tem, 2—bottom support, 3—experimental tank model, 4—high-pressure hose, 5—pressure
gauge, 6—reciprocating pump, and 7—reservoir

first part is the main part of the storage tank, mainly composed of
the experimental tank model and the bottom support. The bottom
support is fixed during the experiment, and the bottom of tank is
not fixed, and therefore, it can be used to accurately simulate the
process where bottom of the tank is lift off as the pressure
increases. The second part is the pressurized part; in order to meet
the needs of gas space pressure in the failure process, we dynami-
cally increase pressure using a reciprocating pump. The third part
is the test part: through the dynamic test system, we test the stress
in the roof-to-shell via boosting until the tank is damaged.
During the experiment, the liquid in reservoir flows through
reciprocating pump and then passes through the high-pressure
hose into the experimental tank. The tank gradually deforms under
high pressure. The dynamic signal testing system collects the
strain in the roof-to-shell and then converts it to a stress signal.
The pressure is increased until the connection of roof and shell is
damaged. At the same time, the tank failure pressure could be
observed and recorded by pressure gauge. Figure 10 shows the
experimental device.
5.3 Experimental Results. Overall, eight experimental tanks
are tested. They are divided into two groups of four, one with the
lap welding for the strength failure test in the tank roof-to-shell
and another with the butt welding for local compression ring sec-
tion yield buckling failure. Figure 11 shows the strength failure in
the tank roof-to-shell. Figure 12 shows the local compression ring
section yield buckling failure of the storage tank.
From Fig. 11, although the strength failure occurs in the roof-
to-shell, the circular shape of the cross section of the tank roof
and tank shell is still retained after damage. As can be seen from
Fig. 12, after the tank roof and shell are damaged by the yield
buckling of the compression ring section, the section shape of the
tank changes obviously. This verifies the two damage modes types
for the tank roof in Sec. 2.

Fig. 10 Experimental tank and testing devices

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology AUGUST 2017, Vol. 139 / 041201-9

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 is closest to the experimental value; it considers the average of the
equivalent stress at the dangerous section as the yield strength,
and the maximum relative error of the damage pressure is 9.6%
between the experimental and numerical simulations. This proves
that the method can assess damage by judging whether the aver-
age value of the equivalent stress in the dangerous section of roof-
to-shell reaches the material yield stress.
We analyze vertical storage tanks with different volumes
(640 m3, 3200 m3, and 6800 m3) to compare and analyze the dif-
ference failure pressures between the two failure modes for the
roof-to-shell. In addition, we calculate the failure pressure using
the formula of the compression ring section yield buckling failure
of the storage tank in the API650-2003 research report [22] and
strength failure theory method for the tank roof-to-shell, and the
finite element numerical calculation. Table 6 shows the results.
From Table 6, the failure pressure calculated using the method
in the API650-2003 research report [22] is a conservative estimate
Fig. 11 Strength failure in the roof-to-shell of the experimental
as it is the maximum value. In this paper, the strength failure pres-
tank sure in the roof-to-shell calculated by the calculation formula is
smaller than that calculated by numerical simulation. This is
mainly because the results of the numerical simulation considered
the effect of the tank angle, the actual weld structure, and the
radial stress. For the compression ring section, the ratios of yield
failure pressure (column 3) and strength failure pressure (column
4) of the three tanks of different volumes, which are 1.66, 1.84,
and 1.47, respectively, as shown in Table 6, are averaged at about
1.65. Therefore, for the compression ring section, the yield failure
pressure is 1.65 times that of the strength failure pressure in the
roof-to-shell of the tank.

Conclusion
(1) In this paper, two failure modes in the tank roof-to-shell
have been proposed: compression ring section yield buck-
ling and strength failure. The finite element model of the
tank has been established by using an axisymmetric and
spatial model. Then, a comparative analysis has been made
Fig. 12 Local compression ring section yield buckling failure on the failure modes and the corresponding failure pressure
in the roof-to-shell of the experimental tank in the roof-to-shell under internal overpressure. Evaluation
methods have also been established for both failure modes.
Table 5 shows the experimental data and finite element calcula- The finite element calculation results show that the yield
tion results for the pressure calculation method considering the buckling failure pressure of the compression ring section is
strength failure in the roof-to-shell of the tank. The failure pres- much larger than the strength failure pressure. The adopted
sure obtained by the assessment method (criterion 2) in this paper spatial model exhibits more advantages than the two-node

Table 5 Experimental results of the failure pressure of the tank compared with numerical results based on strength failure
criterion

Failure pressure

Experimental Experimental Criterion 2 Relative Criterion 3 Relative

tank number value (MPa) (MPa) error (%) (MPa) error (%)

1 12 11.3 5.8 16.2 35

2 11 2.7 47.3
3 12 5.8 35
4 12.5 9.6 29.6

Table 6 The failure pressure values in the roof-to-shell of tanks obtained from different methods

Failure pressure (kPa)

Strength failure in the Compression ring Strength failure in The ratio of yield failure
Tank roof-to-shell connection section yield buckling the roof-to-shell pressure to strength failure
number (numerical simulation spatial model) failure (theory) connection (theory) pressure (theory)

1 4.68 7.1 4.28 1.66

2 1.86 3.1 1.68 1.84
3 1.63 2.3 1.56 1.47

041201-10 / Vol. 139, AUGUST 2017 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 axisymmetric element model as it provides more accurate
calculation results and accommodates a variety of welding
seam structures.
(2) The tank roof and tank shell are, respectively, analyzed via
the moment theory. Through displacement coordination
and stress continuity conditions, the edge stress of the tank
roof and shell has been obtained under the combined action
of the internal pressure, edge force, and edge moment. The
relationship between the failure pressure and the strength
failure stress in the roof-to-shell has been derived. The
maximum relative error of the failure pressure between the
theoretical calculation and numerical simulation is 9.7%.
(3) The strength failure criterion in the roof-to-shell is verified
through the overpressure failure experiment. The failure
path (section) is determined such that when the mean value
of the equivalent stress on this path (section) reaches the
material yield strength, the tank will fail. This criterion for
strength failure prediction in the roof-to-shell connections
exhibits a 9.6% difference between the numerical simula-
tion results and experimental results.
(4) The failure pressures in the roof-to-shell connections of dif-
ferent volume storage tanks under different failure modes
are compared and analyzed. The calculation results show
that the yield buckling failure pressure of the compression
ring section is about 1.65 times that of the strength failure
pressure in the roof-to-shell connection. The failure pres-
sure in the roof-to-shell should be calculated based on dif-
ferent failure modes according to the corresponding failure
criteria rather than a single criterion.
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful for the support from the National Natu-
ral Science Foundation of China (No. 51604080), funding from the
Science and Technology Project of China Petroleum and Chemical
Industry Association (No. 2016-01-01), and the youth fund of
Northeast Petroleum University (No. NEPUQN2015-1-09).
Nomenclature
D1 ¼ the roof flexural rigidity
D2 ¼ the tank shell flexural rigidity
E¼ elastic modulus
M¼ edge bending moment in the roof-to-shell
P¼ internal pressure of the tank
Q¼ edge force in the roof-to-shell
R¼ the midplane radius of the tank shell
Ri ¼ the inner radius of the tank roof
Ro ¼ the outer radius of the tank roof
Rs ¼ the midplane radius of the tank roof
t¼ the tank shell thickness
b1 ¼ the dimensionless attenuation coefficient of the tank roof
b2 ¼ the dimensionless attenuation coefficient of the tank shell
d¼ the roof thickness
l¼ Poisson’s ratio
rb ¼ material ultimate strength
ri ¼ the stress of the roof-to-shell connection of the tank;
i ¼ 1 h or 2 h represents the circumferential contribution
from the roof or the shell, i ¼ 1z or 2z represents the axial
contribution from the roof or the shell, and i ¼ 1 u or 2 u
represents the radial contribution from the roof or the
shell
rs ¼ material yield strength
rji ¼ the stress of the roof-to-shell connection of the tank from
different sources, j ¼ P, Q, M represents the contribution
from internal pressure, edge force, and bending moment,
respectively
rpath
max ¼ the maximum of the equivalent stresses along all the pos-
sible linear paths (section planes) in the finite element
calculation
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
rhA ¼ the average compressive circumferential stress of the
compression ring section
/i ¼ the rotation angle of the roof-to-shell connection of the
tank; i ¼ 1 represents the contribution from the roof, and
i ¼ 2 represents the contribution from the shell
/ji ¼ the rotation angle of the roof-to-shell connection of the
tank from different sources, j ¼ P, Q, M represents the
contribution from internal pressure, edge force, and bend-
ing moment, respectively
xi ¼ the displacement of the roof-to-shell connection of the
tank; i ¼ 1 represents the contribution from the roof, and
i ¼ 2 represents the contribution from the shell
xji ¼ the displacement of the roof-to-shell connection of the
tank from different sources, j ¼ P, Q, M represents the
contribution from internal pressure, edge force, and bend-
ing moment, respectively
References
[1] Yoshida, S. C., 1993, “A Consideration on Frangible Roof Joint Design Due to
Recent Oil Tank Explosion,” J. High Pressure Inst. Jpn., 47(6), pp. 378–385.
[2] Yoshida, S. C., 2014, “Review of Earthquake Damages of Aboveground Stor-
age Tanks in Japan and Taiwan,” ASME Paper No. PVP2014-28116.
[3] Sun, Z. G., 1991, “Weak Connection Structure of Oil Storage Tank Top to
Shell,” Oil Gas Storage Transp., 10(1), pp. 1–5.
[4] Taveau, J., 2011, “Explosion of Fixed Roof Atmospheric Storage Tanks, Part 1:
Background and Review of Case Histories,” Process Saf. Prog., 40(4), pp.
381–392.
[5] Lu, Z., Swenson, D. V., and Fenton, D. L., 1996, “Frangible Roof Joint Behav-
ior of Cylindrical Oil Storage Tanks Designed to API 650 Rules,” ASME J.
Pressure Vessel Technol., 118(3), pp. 326–331.
[6] Liu, J. B., and Xu, Y. B., 2011, “Weak-Roof Structure Analysis and Evaluation
of Vertical Dome Tank Based on GB-50341,” Chem. Eng. Mach., 38(4),
pp. 423–427.
[7] Zhou, Y. H., and Hong, Y., 2015, “Numerical Study of Water Tank Under Blast
Loading,” Thin-Walled Struct., 90, pp. 42–48.
[8] Mandal, K. K., and Maity, D., 2015, “Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of
Elastic Water Storage Tanks,” Eng. Struct., 99, pp. 666–676.
[9] Thunderhead Engineering Consultants, 2005, “Study to Establish Relations for
the Relative Strength of API650 Cone Roof Roof-to-Shell and Shell-to-Bottom
Joints,” Thunderhead Engineering Consultants Incorporated, New York.
[10] Xu, Y. C., and Li, H., 2002, “Analysis of Ultimate Internal Pressure of Steel
Chemical Tanks,” J. Ning Bo Univ., 15(3), pp. 50–54.
[11] Xu, Y. C., and Li, H., 2002, “Analysis of Stress Distribution of a Tank Com-
posed of Cone-Shells,” J. Guang Xi Sci., 9(2), pp. 104–107.
[12] Wang, J. H., and Koizumi, A., 2010, “Buckling of Cylindrical Shells With Lon-
gitudinal Joints Under External Pressure,” Thin-Walled Struct., 48(12),
pp. 897–904.
[13] Sathyanarayanan, S., and Adluri, S. M. R., 2015, “Fatigue Stress Evaluation at
Shell-to-Bottom Joint With Double Plastic Hinge in Elevated Temperature
Steel Tanks on Concrete Ring Walls,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol.,
137(4), p. 041408.
[14] Choong, K. K., and Ramm, E., 1998, “Simulation of Buckling Process of Shells
by Using the Finite Element Method,” Thin-Walled Struct., 31(1–3), pp. 39–72.
[15] Kisioglu, Y., 2011, “Burst Pressure Determination of Vehicle Toroidal Oval
Cross-Section LPG Fuel Tanks,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 133(3),
p. 031202.
[16] Fukuchi, N., Okada, K., and Sugita, N., 2006, “An Elastic-Plastic Analysis of
Large Deflection of Thin Shell Structure Using a Delta-Sequence Function,”
Thin-Walled Struct., 44(1), pp. 91–101.
[17] Karcher, G. G., Ward, P. E. M., and Spoelstra, G. P., 2013, “Buckling of
Cylindrical, Thin Wall, Trailer Truck Tanks and ASME Section XII,” ASME J.
Pressure Vessel Technol., 135(4), p. 041001.
[18] Burgos, C. A., Batista-Abreu, J. C., Calabro, H. D., Jaca, R. C., and Godoy, L.
A., 2015, “Buckling Estimates for Oil Storage Tanks: Effect of Simplified Mod-
eling of the Roof and Wind Girder,” Thin-Walled Struct., 91, pp. 29–37.
[19] Kobayashi, T., Mihara, Y., and Fujii, F., 2012, “Path-Tracing Analysis for Post-
Buckling Process of Elastic Cylindrical Shells Under Axial Compression,”
Thin-Walled Struct., 61, pp. 180–187.
[20] Sinopec Group, 2003, “Steel Pressure Vessel-Analysis Design,” China Petro-
leum & Chemical Corporation, Beijing, China, Standard No. JB4732-2003.
[21] Ayari, H., Truong, D., Sehn, J., and Truong, K. T., 2014, “A Nonlinear Finite
Element Study on Settlement and Releveling Procedure of a Large Deformed
Steel Tank,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 136(3), p. 034502.
[22] API, 2003, “Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage,” American Petroleum Insti-
tute, Washington, DC, Standard No. API-650-2003.
[23] Søren, R. K., Jesper, W., and Stærdahl, L. A., 2007, Plate and Shell Theory,
Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, Chap. 2.
[24] Zamani, J., Soltani, B., and Aghei, M., 2014, “Analytical Investigation of Elas-
tic Thin-Walled Cylinder and Truncated Cone Shell Intersection Under Internal
Pressure,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 136(5), p. 051201.
AUGUST 2017, Vol. 139 / 041201-11
 [25] Zheng, J. Y., 2010, Process Equipment Design, Chemical Industry Press,
Beijing, China, Chap. 2.
[26] Azzuni, E., and Guzey, S., 2015, “Comparison of the Shell Design Meth-
ods for Cylindrical Liquid Storage Tanks,” Eng. Struct., 101, pp. 621–630.
[27] Xu, X. S., Sun, J. B., and Lim, C. W., 2013, “An Analytical Symplecticity
Method for Axial Compression Plastic Buckling of Cylindrical Shells,” ASME
J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 135(5), p. 051204.
[28] Liu, J. B., and Ding, Y. Q., 2012, “A Study on Failure Mechanism Around the
Top Wall Junction of Dome Tank and Experiment Verification,” Pressure
Vessel Technol., 29(7), pp. 1–8.
[29] Wu, X. M., and Meng, X. C., 1992, “Research and Analysis of Dynamic Yield
Stress Experiments of Materials,” J. Tai Yuan Inst. Mach., 13(1), pp. 1–5.
[30] Hou, R. L., and Peng, J. X., 2010, “Dynamic Yield Strength Measurement for 2A12
Aluminum Alloy at High Pressure,” J. Wu Han Univ. Technol., 32(13), pp. 38–40.

041201-12 / Vol. 139, AUGUST 2017 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/10/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use