Fatigue Stress Evaluation

at Shell-to-Bottom Joint With

Sridhar Sathyanarayanan
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science,
Memorial University of Newfoundland,
St. John’s, NF A1B 3X5, Canada
e-mail: ssridhar@mun.ca
Seshu M. R. Adluri1
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science,
Memorial University of Newfoundland,
St. John’s, NF A1B 3X5, Canada
e-mail: adluri@mun.ca
Double Plastic Hinge in Elevated
Temperature Steel Tanks
on Concrete Ring Walls
The shell-to-bottom joint of hydrocarbon storage tanks is a critical location which may
experience fatigue cracking and requires evaluation of the local cyclic stresses especially
in the case of elevated temperature tanks. The fill/draw down cycle of the stored liquid
causes low cycle fatigue near this joint and hence a fatigue evaluation is recommended.
The peak alternating stress at this location, used to enter the fatigue curves is currently
determined using a pseudo-elastic analysis that represents strain range due to inelastic
deformations. API 650 employs beam on elastic foundation theory for this analysis. This
theory is being used for tanks resting fully on earthen foundation as well as those on con-
crete ring wall. This paper studies the validity of using this theory for tanks with concrete
ring wall foundation which are much more rigid compared to earthen foundations. Some
of the difficulties in the current practice are highlighted. An alternative to the current
model is presented for the determination of stresses in such tanks. The results are vali-
dated using finite element analysis. The results show that the current practice needs to be
revised or rejustified in an alternative manner. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4027202]

Keywords: API 650, steel storage tank, elevated temperature tank, low cycle fatigue,
peak alternating stress, FEA

1 Introduction 10 yr. The shell to bottom joint is perhaps the most important
location that is inspected for leaks and crack initiation to ensure
In the petroleum process industry, above ground steel storage
operating integrity of the tank. In Appendix M of API 650 [5], the
tanks are widely used to store process liquids. The majority of
peak alternating stress to be used for fatigue analysis of this joint
tanks are vertical cylinders with flat bottoms resting on prepared
is determined using the original work by Karcher [7,8]. It remains
subgrade or concrete ring wall with suitable infill. Design life
to be one of the few studies ever done on this topic and has been
(and failure) of such storage tanks has a major impact on the pro-
in use for over three decades. Karcher proposed a set of design
cess cycle and the environment. The design and fitness for service
equations to determine the tank wall stress and the fatigue life of
procedures for tanks are a concern for international standards and
elevated temperature tanks. Jones and Seshadri [9] studied the va-
are continually improved upon to ensure better safety and
lidity of Karcher’s model using elastic finite element analysis of
serviceability.
the shell with an assumed hinge condition at the bottom.
The shell (tank wall) to bottom joint of the vertical storage tank
Karcher used shell theory [10] for the tank wall while the bot-
is a critical location expected to yield during load cycles, espe-
tom plate is assumed to be a beam on elastic foundation. The
cially for an elevated temperature tank. Denham et al. [1,2], Wu
resulting equations were derived basically for tanks on earthen
and Liu [3] and Sathyanarayanan and Adluri [4] have proposed
foundations. The same were applied to concrete ring wall founda-
methods to determine the stresses in the bottom plate near this
tions except that two plastic hinges were assumed in the bottom
joint for ambient temperature tanks. This joint is subjected to low
plate instead of one plastic hinge as in the case of an earthen foun-
cycle fatigue due to fill/draw down cycles and the temperature
dation. However, it must be noted that the bottom plate looses
fluctuations of the stored liquid. API 650 [5] considers tanks with
contact with subgrade in the immediate vicinity of the inside face
liquid infill in the temperature range 200  F–500 F (93  C–260 C)
of the tank wall. This was recognized by previous research [1–4]
as elevated temperature tanks and provides additional guidelines
as well as the seminal work by Zick and McGrath [11]. The uplift,
for its design and operation. This standard considers the fatigue
although small is sufficient to cause clear separation from the
aspect of the shell to bottom joint in detail and provides simplified
foundation (top of the concrete ring wall) on the inside. Hence,
procedures for determination of safe cyclic life of the tank based
the stresses in this region are not directly governed by beam on
on the fatigue analysis of this joint. API 653 [6] requires using
elastic foundation model. The applicability of the current equa-
API 650 Appendix M guidelines to ensure the structural integrity
tions is examined in the present study in light of direct determina-
of elevated temperature tanks after repairs or changes in loading
tion of the bottom plate stresses accounting for the uplift of the
conditions. It also mandates internal inspection at least once in
plate on the inside.

1
Corresponding author.
Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication 2 Behavior of Tank at Shell to Bottom Joint
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received August 16,
2012; final manuscript received March 13, 2014; published online February 23, The cylindrical shell of a tank is mainly designed for hoop
2015. Assoc. Editor: Marina Ruggles-Wrenn. stress while the bottom plate is designed as a simple membrane/

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright V

C 2015 by ASME AUGUST 2015, Vol. 137 / 041408-1

Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/18/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 barrier between liquid and subgrade. At the shell (tank wall) to
bottom joint, bending in the bottom plate can cause significant
yielding especially in elevated temperature tanks. The radial
growth due to the temperature change is partially restricted at the
bottom of the shell because of the presence of friction forces. This
induces discontinuity stresses near this joint. The bottom portion
of the shell is influenced by these stresses due to bending of the
shell. The full theoretical hoop stress is not realized until a height
of (Dts)0.5 above the shell-to-bottom joint, where D is the nominal
diameter of the tank wall [12].
Figure 1 shows the rotation of shell to bottom joint of a tank
resting on a concrete ring wall. This rotation causes the bottom
plate to lift off the ground over a small distance (say, uplift length
L). Beyond this, the downward liquid pressure acting on the plate
is sufficient to make the plate fully rest on the foundation. The in-
ternal moment that forces the rotation is caused by the hydrostatic
pressure on the wall and is balanced by the moments (on either
side of the wall) in the bottom plate. Because of this bottom
moment, the bottom plate on the inner and outer side of the shell
is subjected to high bending stresses in the radial direction. The
thickness ratios of the shell and bottom plates are such that in
many tanks the bottom/annular plates yield substantially near this
joint. When the tank is cyclically loaded (hydrostatic and ther-
mal), the bottom plate near the shell joint is subjected to low cycle
fatigue. The fatigue strength of this joint has to be evaluated in
order to determine the number of load cycles the tank can safely
withstand.
In order to analyze the bottom plate near the tank wall, Denham
et al. [1] proposed a simply supported beam model that is compat-
ible with the shell rotation at the shell-to-bottom junction and zero
slope at inner end of uplift length. They assumed a fixed projec-
tion length of 3 in. (76 mm) for the bottom plate outside the tank
wall. The uplift length inside the tank is a variable that changes
depending on the applied forces and geometry of the tank. How-
ever, they assumed that the bottom plate lifts clear off the founda-
tion near the shell-to-bottom junction. The same assumption is
also used by Zick and McGrath [11]. This is also shown by the nu-
merical analyses in the present study.
The theoretical calculations of Denham et al. [1] indicated
that the stresses in the bottom plate would reach yield in the
region close to the shell. This was confirmed from the field data
[1,2]. Sathyanarayanan and Adluri [4] used a similar model
where the projection length “a” is not a fixed value of 3 in. They
studied the effect of increasing this projection on various aspects
of the bottom plate behavior. If we increase the projection
slightly, a theoretical limit will be reached for the usable part of
the projection length. There are some advantages to such an
increase.
Fig. 1 Shell-to-bottom joint in the tank with ring wall
foundation
041408-2 / Vol. 137, AUGUST 2015
Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/18/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
3 Design for Fatigue
The bottom plate on the inner and outer side of shell bottom
will be subjected to high bending stresses as mentioned above.
For most tanks with short projection lengths (such as the mini-
mum prescribed value of 50 mm), the bending moment in the bot-
tom plate on the inside will be larger than that on the outside. The
inside portion is evaluated for fatigue in the present study. Since
the material yields due to high stress in the bottom plate, strain
range analysis (pseudostress) is used for fatigue evaluation. The
rotation of the shell as shown in Fig. 1 induces the bending strain.
The magnitude depends upon the tank parameters R, H, ts, tb, the
specific gravity of the stored liquid (G), and the total weight of
shell, roof and attachment which contributes to the downward
load at the shell to bottom joint. It should be noted that, during the
load cycle the actual variation of liquid infill will not be from tank
bottom level to height H, as there could be a dead storage which
will be emptied only a few times in the entire life of the tank.
However, API 650 [5] conservatively uses the entire height of liq-
uid infill (H) for calculation purposes. The same is used in the cur-
rent study. In addition to these factors, the type of foundation
directly beneath the tank shell influences the magnitude of this
moment. In earthen foundations, a single hinge may form on the
inner side, whereas in concrete ring wall cases, hinges can form
on both the sides of tank wall [11]. In addition to these, the type
of weld used (double fillet/full penetration, etc.) will also influ-
ence the fatigue evaluation. API 650 [5] considers these issues fol-
lowing Karcher [7,8]. The basis for the current procedure is
outlined briefly below:
• Using shell theory [8], the radial deflection of the tank wall
(w) can be found from the following equation. It assumes a
moment (Mo) as the boundary condition of the shell at the
bottom
  
cR2 aDTEts CaDTEts
w¼ Hxþ  ebx H þ cos bx
Ets cR cR

2b2 Mo
þ sin bx (1)
c
where, R is the radius of tank, H is the height, ts is the (shell)
thickness of the tank wall, c is the unit weight of stored liquid, a is
the coefficient of thermal expansion, DT is the uniform tempera-
ture rise, E is the Young’s Modulus, C is a factor defined by
Karcher [8], Mo is the moment at the shell-to-bottom joint,  is
the Poisson’s ratio, and “x” is the coordinate along the ffi tank wall.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
The shell parameter is given by b ¼ 4 3ð1   2 Þ=R2 t2s .
In the actual field conditions, the free expansion of the shell
wall and the bottom plate is restrained by the friction forces
between the bottom plate and the foundation subgrade. The
amount of radial expansion (or the amount of restraint) directly
influences the stresses in the shell and bottom plate. This partial
radial expansion of the tank bottom is accounted for by employing
a reduction factor (C). A value of “1” implies 0% expansion,
whereas a value of “0” implies 100% expansion (free expansion).
Sathyanarayanan and Adluri [13] studied this issue and correlated
the factor C with the coefficient of friction for homogeneous base
friction effect. Adluri [14] made an elaborate study to examine
various effects such as nonuniform friction, selection of friction
coefficients, etc.
• From Eq. (1), assuming a fully plastic annular plate moment
at the shell bottom (i.e., Mo ¼ 2MP for concrete ring wall
foundation, where MP is the plastic moment capacity of the
bottom/annular plate), the slope at the bottom of the tank
wall can be found as
 
dw cR2 bCaDTEts b3 SY t2b
hS ¼ ¼ 1  bH  þ (2)
dx x¼0 Ets cR 2c
Transactions of the ASME
 where, SY is the specified minimum yield strength of bottom
plate at the design temperature and tb is the bottom/annular
plate thickness.
• In order to find the strain range in the annular plate at the
shell-to-bottom junction, it is assumed that annular plate reacts
like a beam on elastic foundation. Following Hetenyi [15], the
3
moment in the ffi plate is found as M ¼ Kh/4X , where,
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
X ¼ 4 3K=Et3b and K is the modulus of the subgrade reaction.
• The value of slope as obtained from Eq. (2) is used in M with
the following coefficients [7,8] to obtain Eq. (3) (as given in
API 650) to determine the peak alternating stress:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
b ¼ 4 1:285=500Dts , c ¼ G  9.81  106 N/mm3; E
¼ 191,000 MPa (corresponding to 200 C); K ¼ 0.2715 N/mm2/


mm; a ¼ 11.7  106/  C, where, D and H are in “meters” and ts

and tb are in “mm,” G is the specific gravity of the liquid, B ¼ 2
for earthen foundation and 4 for concrete ring wall foundation.
The pseudobending stress (strain range) at the bottom plate,
Sb ¼ 6M/(tb)2. S is one-half of the maximum stress range (Sb) that
occurs in the annular plate at the shell-to-bottom junction, in MPa
( )
0:028D2 t0:25
b 58HG 26:2CDTt0:5
s 4:8BSY t2b
S¼ þ   G (3)
ts ðDts Þ0:5 D1:5 ðDts Þ1:5

Equation (3) is valid only if the following condition is true

( ) ( )
58HG 26:2CDTt0:5s 4:8BSY t2b
þ  G > (4)
ðDts Þ0:5 D1:5 ðDts Þ1:5

This condition is prescribed to ensure that the tank is loaded such

that boundary conditions (plastic hinges) assumed for developing
these equations are valid.
It is stated that the stress created here can be classified as sec-
ondary bending stress (as per ASME Section VIII Div. 2 [16]) and
hence should be limited to twice the yield strength of the annular
plate material to assure shakedown to an elastic action. The shell
theory [10] used in this method basically assumes that the influ-
ence of the radial expansion of the bottom plate due to the hydro-
static load is negligible. In the current practice, the same
procedure is used for tanks on earthen foundations and concrete Fig. 2 Slope in the shell at the bottom joint
ring wall foundations except that in the former case, a single plas-
tic hinge is used and in later case two plastic hinges are used, as
mentioned earlier. In both cases the beam on elastic foundation 0:25 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
theory is used. where, bH ¼ ð3ð1   2 ÞÞ ððH=RÞÞððH=ts ÞÞ and ðH=ts Þ
 ððSd =cHÞÞðH=RÞ
The validity of this condition for various situations can easily
be examined. The following ranges are considered:
4 Issues With Existing Procedure
4.1 Necessity of the Condition in Eq. (4). Equation (4) is tb E H
0:3   0:8; 550   800; 0:3   6;
specified as a necessary condition [8] for the assumed plastic ts SY R
hinges to form. Satisfying the equation ensures that the stress SY
determined from Eq. (3) is not negative. Essentially, it determines 1300   7300; 0:25  C  1; a ¼ 12  106 = C;
cH
whether the slope of the shell at the bottom, after the application
93 C  DT  260 C
of load, is inward or outward. This is based on the sign of stress S
determined by the sign of the term fbH þ bCaDTEts =cR
b3 SY t2b =2c  1g. Although API 650 does not say so, satisfying Calculations show that the condition is satisfied for practical
Eq. (4) is not a sufficient condition to confirm the formation of ranges of variables. The only exceptions are tanks where the
two complete hinges at the bottom. design thickness of tank wall comes to be less than what the mini-
Figure 2(a) shows the tank wall and bottom plate. Figure 2(b) mum thickness rule prescribes.
represents a positive value for the stress S from Eq. (3) while
Fig. 2(c) represents a negative value for the stress. 4.2 Use of Beam on Elastic Foundation Theory. As men-
The condition from Eq. (4) can be rearranged in nondimen- tioned earlier, the existing procedure in API 650 assumes that the
sional terms as beam on elastic foundation theory is valid for the immediate vi-
       2 cinity of tank bottom. It is clearly applicable to tanks on earthen
H SY E CaDT ðbH Þ3 SY tb foundations with appropriate conditions. However, it is not suita-
bH þ bH  1  0:5 ble for concrete ring wall foundations as explained below.
R cH SY H=ts H=ts cH ts
If the shell-to-bottom joint is supported on a rigid concrete ring
>0 (5) wall, the internal moment (Mo) lifts the bottom plate slightly

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology AUGUST 2015, Vol. 137 / 041408-3

Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/18/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 thereby loosing contact with the foundation (Fig. 3). This uplift is
present even after accounting for the effect of liquid (hydrostatic)
head, self-weight of the plate and compression from the wall
(including roofing weight, wind girder weight, etc.). Typical uplift
lengths range from 150 to 400 mm [4]. Annular plates (Cl.5.5.2 of
API 650) have widths typically larger than this. This is also
explained in detail by Long and Garner [12] as shown in Fig. 3. In
addition to theory [4,12], detailed finite element analyses of tanks
(described below) also confirm the uplift pattern.
The direction of the internal moment Mo is such that it lifts the
bottom plate on the inside (see point “F” in Fig. 3) since the
moment cannot push the projection part into the concrete ring Fig. 4 Target element geometry (ANSYS)
wall. Because of this, the deflection of the plate is not significantly
influenced by the foundation modulus. Only if there is a signifi-
cant uneven settlement, the foundation modulus might have some on the surfaces of the shell elements that form the base of the
influence on a tank resting on a concrete ring wall. Evaluating this contact/target surfaces. It has the same geometric characteristics
is not the objective of the present investigation. Since the uplift as the shell element face with which it is connected. Contact
zone is supported only at the ends of the uplift length, a regular occurs when the element surface penetrates one of the target seg-
beam/shell model is more appropriate than a beam on elastic foun- ment elements (TARGE169) on a specified target surface. Cou-
dation model. The uplift pattern is affected to a certain degree by lomb and shear stress friction is allowed. This element allows
the self-weight of the tank wall, etc. Although there is some uplift stick/slip/separation of contact surfaces. Augmented Lagrangian
on the outside as well, in the present study only the inside portion contact algorithm is used [18] for the analysis. This method basi-
is assumed to uplift and the bottom of the shell is assumed to be in cally uses a contact "spring" model to establish a relationship
touch with the foundation. between the two contact surfaces in an iterative series. The con-
tact tractions (pressure and frictional stresses) are augmented dur-
ing equilibrium iterations so that the final penetration is smaller
5 Finite Element Modeling than the allowable tolerance.
Because of the contact interaction, the problem becomes non-
Finite element analyses were carried out using ANSYS [17]. The linear and the Newton–Raphson method with the unsymmetrical
foundation is assumed to be a concrete ring wall with highly com- matrix option is used to solve the problem. The 2D contact surface
pacted infill. Axisymmetric shell elements were used for modeling elements are associated with the 2D target segment elements
the tank wall and bottom plate. Both elastic and elastic perfectly (TARGE169) via a shared real constant set. Axisymmetric plane
plastic material models were used. elements (PLANE183) were also used in addition to the shell ele-
The shell elements (SHELL208) used are suitable for modeling ments to model the tank wall and bottom plate. The advantage of
thin to moderately thick axisymmetric shell structures, such as oil using plane elements is that the elastoplastic stress/strain profiles
tanks, pipes, and cooling towers. They have three degrees of free- and the formation of plastic hinges can be explicitly viewed,
dom at each node: translations in the x and y directions, and rota- whereas in shell models which are line elements, the through the
tion about the z-axis. Finite strain is assumed while the transverse thickness stress profile cannot be seen. However, the plane ele-
shear effect is neglected. The tank wall thickness is modeled using ment model needs very large computational effort and time in
three layers with three integration points in each layer. The bot- comparison to the shell model. Figure 5 shows the finite element
tom plate thickness is modeled with eight layers each with three mesh for plane axisymmetric elements (for 6 mm bottom plate).
integration points. This ensures better integration of element
moments, etc., when the plate yields partially or fully.
Contact elements (CONTA171) as shown in Fig. 4 are used to
represent contact and sliding between 2D target surfaces repre-
sented by target elements (TARGE169) and a deformable surface.
For the present problem, the tank bottom is considered to be a de-
formable surface. The contact element is applicable to 2D struc-
tural and coupled field contact analyses. This element is located

Fig. 3 Uplift at shell-to-bottom joint of a tank on concrete ring

wall [12] Fig. 5 Typical plane element axisymmetric mesh

041408-4 / Vol. 137, AUGUST 2015 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/18/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 used to quantify the strain range. The rotation of the shell-to-
bottom joint during the cyclic loading determines the strain range
at “F,” which in turn controls the fatigue life of the joint. The cal-
culation of this rotation depends on the loading, geometry of the
tank and the double plastic hinge assumption used in the model. It
should be noted that, for a given geometry and loading, a single
plastic hinge in bottom plate will cause more rotation and hence
shorter fatigue life estimation than the assumption of a double
plastic hinge. However, the current practice is to use two plastic
hinges (one on the inside and another on the outside) for the esti-
mation of peak alternating stress. This is retained in the current
study and follows the recommendation by Karcher [7,8] and Zick
and McGrath [11].
Fig. 6 Dimensions of tank used for finite element analysis The bottom plate near the shell can be idealized as a beam
shown in Fig. 8. Using elastic beam theory, the uplift length (L)
An example tank (Fig. 6) with the following data has been used and the moment (Mbp) in the bottom plate near the shell can be
to study the effects of bottom moment. Unless otherwise men- determined as follows:
tioned, the same tank with a friction coefficient of 0.8 is used for
all the finite element analyses. Although the value is larger than qL2
Mbp ¼ (6)
the norm, it has been selected to as an example of the upper end 4
of the foundation effects. Practical values are likely to be signifi- sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3 24EIp hs
cantly lower as discussed by Adluri [14]. L¼ (7)
q
5.1 Geometric Data
Following on the same lines as the current practice except for
Diameter: 60 m the equations above, the alternating pseudo-elastic stress range is
Height: 12 m given by
Thickness of shell wall: 18 mm
 2 2=3
Projection of bottom plate: 50 mm (beyond shell) R bCaDTEts b3 SY t2b
Sb ¼ 62:536cH bH þ  1 (8)
5.2 Material Data Hts cR c
A841M Grade steel This equation generally gives higher stress than that predicted
Young’s modulus: 200,000 MPa by Eq. (3) because it does not have the benefit offered by the elas-
Yield strength: 345 MPa tic subgrade.
Product design stress: 194 MPa The “C” factor in the equation above can be replaced by the
Hydrostatic test stress: 208 MPa equivalent friction coefficient term as suggested in Refs. [13,14].
Specific weight of liquid: 9.81 kN/m3 The safe design cycle life, N, is then given by [5]
Density of steel: 77.1 kN/m3  
Poisson’s ratio: 0.3 9700 2:44
N¼ (9)
Figure 7 shows the uplift and stress profiles at the shell to bottom Kc S
joint from the FEA using plane elements. Detailed results of the fi-
where, S is the alternating stress (¼Sb/2) in MPa, Kc is the stress
nite element analysis confirm the uplift pattern obtained by
concentration factor which can be conservatively taken as 4.0 for
theory.

6 Maximum Stress Determination Without Using

Beam-on-Elastic Foundation Assumption
The safe cyclic life (number of safe load cycles) is determined
from the strain range of the bottom plate at point F (see Fig. 3).
The stress (Sb) in the existing procedure is only a pseudostress

Fig. 7 Uplift of bottom plate and stresses using nonlinear FE

model with plane elements Fig. 8 Idealized beam model

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology AUGUST 2015, Vol. 137 / 041408-5

Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/18/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 9 Uplift deformation of bottom plate
Fig. 11 Radial stress in bottom plate along the radius

lap welded bottom plates/butt-welded annular plate (examined as

detail. The figure shows that even though the yield strength of the
per API 650 Specification). In case of butt-welded annular plate
material is 345 MPa, Sx reached 400 MPa indicating the effect of
with 100% surface examination and blend grinding, it is suggested
multi-axial stress field. The combined effect of all the stresses at
that Kc could be taken as 2.0 [8].
any point represented by von Mises equivalent stress is still within
The basic idea of the procedure is that the strain in the bottom
the yield limit. The bending stress and von Mises stress in the bot-
plate is governed by the rotation of the shell bottom, and the maxi-
tom plate near the shell to bottom joint are plotted in Fig. 12 for
mum strain occurs at the limiting condition of a double plastic
two complete loading cycles. The tank is gradually loaded to full
hinge of the bottom plate. A more accurate analysis can perhaps
height, unloaded gradually, and the cycle is repeated one more
be obtained by using nonlinear plate theory. However, past
time.
research [1–4] seems to indicate that beam theory may work
Each loading or unloading is considered to be one load cycle
reasonably.
stage. Therefore, stage 4 ends when the tank is fully loaded and
unloaded twice. As can be seen, the first stage of full loading ends
7 Results and Discussion with the bottom plate (on the inside) yielding. At the end of stage
2, the tank is unloaded where the bottom plate shows residual
Figure 9 shows the uplift deformation of the 6 mm bottom plate
stresses. The next cycle (shown by stages 3 and 4) is fully elastic
from nonlinear FEA for the example tank operating with a differ-
indicating shake down behavior. The radial direction stress Sx
ential temperature of 175  C (DT).
varies from 219 to 398 MPa and hence the range from FEA is
Figure 10 shows the deformation pattern at the shell to bottom
617 MPa, whereas the predicted stress range using API 650 (Eq.
joint as determined by finite element shell model. As can be seen,
(3)) is 419 MPa. For the same tank, Eq. (8) gives a stress range of
the bottom plate has an uplift region with a length of approxi-
612 MPa. The partial radial expansion from FEA is 47 mm (com-
mately 375 mm and a maximum uplift of nearly 2.75 mm.
pared to the free expansion of 63 mm) and hence the C factor is
Although the finite element analysis figure shows an exaggerated
computed as 0.25. For the same problem, Fig. 13 shows the radial
deflection profile, this uplift is not large enough to be noticed eas-
stress in the bottom plate near the outer face of shell-to-bottom
ily with the naked eye especially since it occurs mostly on the
joint.
inside when the tank is fully loaded with liquid. However, it
For the same example tank, a practical bottom plate would be
clearly shows that the behavior is not according to the beam on
8 mm thick (excluding corrosion allowance, etc.). The tank was
elastic foundation theory. Temperature corrections to yield limit
analyzed with this thickness as well and the bending stress (Sx)
and Young’s modulus have not been applied in the calculations
and von Mises Stress are plotted in Fig. 14. Here the stress Sx
but can be included as necessary. The comparison holds for gen-
varies from 75 to 398 MPa. Hence, the range of Sx from FEA is
eral cases of tanks where a double plastic hinge forms at the bot-
473 MPa. The stress range predicted using current API 650 (Eq.
tom irrespective of the actual value of yield limit imposed in
(3)) is 305 MPa. The stress range obtained by the proposed equa-
theoretical and FEA calculations.
tion (Eq. (8)) is 470 MPa.
Figure 11 shows the radial direction bending stress (Sx) along
The partial radial expansion of the bottom plate due to tempera-
the radius. It is plotted for a 6 mm bottom plate which was
ture as determined by FEA is 51 mm compared to the free
selected in order to examine the effects of hinge formation in

Fig. 12 Bending and von Mises stress in 6 mm thick bottom

Fig. 10 Uplift deformation from FE model with shell elements plate (on the inside)

041408-6 / Vol. 137, AUGUST 2015 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/18/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 The question then would be that since there are no reported fail-
ures, should the change be made—especially since cost issues are
associated? It is possible that the current practice has excess mar-
gin embedded in the stress concentration factors, in the assump-
tion of the formation of double hinges, etc., or in some other
operational issue. For example, the existing design procedures in
API 650 as well as the theory in this paper assume that double
hinges are completely formed at the bottom. This is only an
assumption to circumvent the need for nonlinear analysis of tanks
by the designer. If the bottom does not actually develop double
hinges and yet the design equations are based on that assumption,
there could be a considerable excess margin (in bottom plate
strains) due to the assumption. It is also likely that there are other
sources of overestimation in the current practice and hence the
embedded margin has been helping avoid failures. If this is the
case, it is necessary to keep the embedded design margin reason-
Fig. 13 Bending (radial) stress in 6 mm bottom plate (on the ably consistent for the full range of parameters. This cannot be
outside) done unless a systematic evaluation of stresses is made [14]. The
present study partially addresses this issue and could be the basis
for further work, if deemed necessary.
To reiterate, the current API 650 procedure, although not
reported publicly to be problematic in the field, is not directly ap-
plicable to concrete ring walls (or slabs) in comparison to the
model presented here. On the other hand, the model presented
here seems to reduce the life cycle estimates from current levels.
In view of this, the current procedures as well as the model devel-
oped in the paper should be looked at thoroughly by relevant API
committees to arrive at a rational, safe and economical
alternative.

7.1 Influence of Plastic Hinges. Apart from the influence of

the foundation, the other important factor that contributes to the
fatigue design is the assumption of single/double hinge boundary
Fig. 14 Bending and von Mises stress in 8 mm thick bottom condition at the shell bottom. Figure 15 shows the locations where
plate (on the inside) high bending moments are induced due to the liquid infill. From
results of a detailed study on tank wall stresses, Zick and McGrath
Table 1 Fatigue stress prediction for example tank [11] suggested that “where the resisting moment of the tank bot-
tom is to be evaluated, a reasonable approach would be to use the
Fatigue stress range, MPa full yielding moment in the bottom plate on one side (inner side)
for an earth foundation and to use two moments (one on each
Bottom plate (mm) FEA API 650-2013 [5] Present study side) for concrete ring wall foundation.” The influence of the
assumed bottom moment on tank wall bending stress is shown in
6 617 419 612 Fig. 16 for the example tank from earlier.
8 473 305 470

expansion of 63 mm and hence the C factor can be computed as

0.19 which is used in both API 650 and beam equations. The idea
that the strain and hence the stress range of the bottom plate is
controlled by the shell rotation (as originally proposed by Karcher
[8]) is conservatively reasonable for concrete ring wall founda-
tions as well as earthen foundations. However, since the bottom
plate lifts up near the joint for the concrete ring wall, the beam on
elastic foundation theory could be under predicting the stresses
significantly. As can be seen from the results, the beam model
used in the current research predicts stress results close to FEA
results. The results are summarized in Table 1.
It is to be noted that the stress range computed in FEA is indica-
tive of the elastic strain range during all the shakedown load
cycles after the first cycle. These results indicate that the model
used in the present work is more appropriate for concrete ring
walls than that of the current API 650. However, the present
model predicts higher stresses than those given by API 650 and
hence a lower fatigue life cycle estimate. It must be pointed out
that this procedure, originally developed by Karcher, has been in
practice for about 30 yr. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no
major failures due to fatigue have been reported in the public do-
main. This is likely because no failures actually occurred or
because failures were not recognized to be due to this issue. Fig. 15 Bending of bottom plate at shell-to-bottom joint [11]

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology AUGUST 2015, Vol. 137 / 041408-7

Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/18/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 EIP ¼ flexural rigidity of bottom plate per unit width
G¼ specific gravity of liquid
H¼ tank filling height
K¼ foundation modulus
Kc ¼ stress concentration factor at shell-to-bottom joint
Mbp ¼ inelastic moment in the bottom plate
Mo ¼ moment at the bottom of the shell
MP ¼ plastic moment capacity of the bottom/annular plate
N¼ number of load cycles estimated for the design life ¼ ca-
pacity of tank
q¼ hydrostatic pressure
R¼ nominal radius of tank
S¼ alternating stress range in the bottom plate near shell to
bottom joint (Sb/2)
Fig. 16 Influence of bottom moment on tank wall bending Sb ¼ pseudo-elastic bending stress (strain range) in the bottom
stresses plate near shell-to-bottom joint
SX ¼ stress in bottom plate in the radial direction
SY ¼ specified minimum yield strength at the design
temperature
For a concrete ring wall foundation, the two plastic hinges
tb ¼ annular/bottom plate thickness.
assumption is used. However, in actual field conditions, two com-
ts ¼ thickness of the bottom shell course of the tank
plete hinges may or may not form at the bottom because the load-
w¼ radial deflection of tank wall
ing and geometry do not necessarily allow it to happen. A smaller
x¼ distance from the tank bottom along the height of tank
moment supplied by the bottom plate implies a change in maxi-
a¼ coefficient of thermal expansion ffi
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
mum tank wall stresses and the location of maximum hoop stress.
b¼ shell parameter 4 3ð1   2 Þ=R2 t2s
This has bearing on the design of bottom plates as well as tank
DT ¼ change in temperature
walls. This issue also needs to be looked at more thoroughly by
c¼ unit weight of stored liquid
relevant API committees.
l¼ coefficient of friction
¼ Poisson’s ratio (0.3 forq carbon steel)
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
8 Conclusion X¼ foundation parameter, 4 3K=Et3b
The paper traces the development of the API 650 procedure for r¼ normal stress
life cycle evaluation of elevated temperature steel storage tanks hs ¼ slope of the shell at the bottom
subjected to low cycle fatigue. The current procedure uses a beam
on elastic foundation model for tanks resting on earthen founda-
tions as well as those using concrete ring walls. In the vicinity of References
the ring wall, the inside portion of the bottom/annular plate looses [1] Denham, J. B., Russel, J., and Wills, C. M. R., 1968, “Comparison of Predicted
contact with the foundation due to the outward rotation of the tank and Measured Stresses in a Large Storage Tank,” Proc. of Division of
Refining—API, pp. 1034–1074.
wall at the bottom. Hence, the theory of beam on elastic founda- [2] Denham, J. B., Russell, J., and Wills, C. M. R., 1968, “How to Design a
tion is not directly applicable to tanks with a concrete ring wall 600,000-BBL Tank,” Hydrocarbon Process., 47(5), pp. 137–142.
below the wall to plate joint. Appropriate modifications have been [3] Wu, T. Y., and Liu, G. R., 2000, “Comparison of Design Methods for a Tank-
carried out in this paper to arrive at an alternative estimate for Bottom Annular Plate and Concrete Ring Wall,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping,
77, pp. 511–517.
pseudo-elastic peak alternating stress (strain range). Detailed finite [4] Sathyanarayanan, S., and Adluri, S. M. R., 2011, “Effect of Annular Plate Pro-
element analysis using non linear models and friction-contact ele- jection Length on the Stresses in the Above Ground Steel Storage Tanks on
ments were carried out. The results show that the alternative Rigid Ring Wall Foundations,” ASME Paper No. PVP2011-57988.
model is quite close to FEA results, whereas the current proce- [5] API 650, 2013, Welded Tanks for Oil Storage—API 650, 12th ed., American
Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.
dures under predict the stress. The current procedure is clearly
[6] API 653, 2009, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration and Reconstruction—API
less rational than that developed in this paper. However, the cur- 653, 4th ed., American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.
rent procedure is long standing without major problems in the [7] Karcher, G. G., 1978, “Thermal Stresses in Tanks Operating at Elevated Tem-
field. Hence, it is recommended that relevant API committee take peratures,” Proceedings—API Division of Refining, American Petroleum Insti-
tute, New York, Vol. 57, pp. 515–521.
a close look at this issue in order to arrive at a rational, economi- [8] Karcher, G. G., 1981, “Simplified Stress Equations for Elevated Storage
cal and acceptably safe decision on the matter. The committee Tanks,” Hydrocarbon Processing, Gulf Pub. Co., Huston, TX, pp. 515–521.
might wish to conduct additional study or reinterpret the current [9] Jones, R., and Seshadri, R., 1989, “Analysis and Design of High Temperature
procedures (without modification) to justify them in light of the Storage Tanks,” Design and Analysis of Pressure Vessels and Components—
present study. Related issues regarding the inequality condition 1989 (ASME PVP Conference), Vol. 175, pp. 45–52.
[10] Timoshenko, S., and Woinowsky-Kreiger, S., 1989, Theory of Plates and
and the assumption of two full plastic hinges at the bottom are Shells, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York
also discussed. [11] Zick, L. P., and McGrath, R. V., 1968, “Design of Large Diameter Cylindrical
Shells,” Proceedings—API Division of Refining, American Petroleum Institute,
New York, Vol. 48, pp. 1114–1140.
Acknowledgment [12] Long, B., and Garner, B., 2004, Guide to Storage Tanks and Equipment, Profes-
sional Engineering Publishing, London, UK.
The authors like to express their deep gratitude to Dr. R. Sesha- [13] Sathyanarayanan, S., and Adluri, S. M. R., 2013, “Incorporation of Friction
dri for his invaluable advice and support. Coefficient in the Design Equations for Elevated Temperature Tanks,” ASME
J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 135(2), p. 021205.
[14] Adluri, S. M. R., 2012, “Effects of Friction on the Bottom Plate of Large Ele-
Nomenclature vated Temperature Steel Tanks,” Res. Report, Memorial University, St. John’s,
NL, Canada.
B ¼ foundation factor [15] Hetenyi, M., 1971, Beams on Elastic Foundation: Theory With Applications in
C ¼ reduction factor to account for the partial expansion due to the Fields of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan Press,
temperature change Ann Arbor, MI.
[16] ASME, 2002, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division.2,
D ¼ nominal diameter of tank American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
Ds ¼ flexural rigidity of tank wall [17] ANSYS, 2011, University Research Version 11.0, SASIP, Inc., Canonsburg, PA.
E ¼ Young’s modulus [18] ANSYS, 2011, Contact Technology Guide, SASIP, Inc., Canonsburg, PA.

041408-8 / Vol. 137, AUGUST 2015 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: https://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/18/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use