Proceedings of the ASME 2017 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
PVP2017
OIL STORAGE TANK SETTLEMENT ASSESSMENT BASED ON STANDARD AND
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES
Lei Shi
Fushun Research Institute of Petroleum and
Petrochemicals, SINOPEC
Fushun, Liaoning, China
Email:missstone@163.com
Jian Shuai Kui Xu
China University of Petroleum- China University of Petroleum-
Beijing Beijing
Beijing, China Beijing, China
Email: sjclass@126.com Email: xukui611@126.com
ABSTRACT
It is well known that foundation settlement of tank is
particularly severe, and can produce distortion and stress of the
tank, especially differential settlement around the circumference
of the foundation below the shell of large-volume tank. The
settlement standards involving European EEMUA 159-2003,
American API 653-2009, and Chinese codes SH/T 3123-2001,
SY/T 5921-2011 for in-service assessment of large-scale
storage tank were reviewed and discussed. Finite element model
for strength assessment of large-scale oil storage tank was
developed based on actual field data of tank foundation
settlement. The whole stress distributions and deformation of
seven large-scale oil storage tanks in a depot in China were
analyzed under the conditions of the practical pressure test
through finite-element method. It also provides a comparison
between an analytical model based on settlement criteria and a
finite element model that replicates field operating loading and
settlement conditions of storage tanks. A basis for comparison
between models was established from the maximum allowable
settlement and stress values. It was found that results from
settlement standards of tank in China and other countries were
more conservative than those from FEA, and SY/T 5921 in
China made most stringent requirements for the tank settlement.
The evaluation indicators of differential foundation settlement
around the tank circumference are unreasonable in standards
and rules mentioned above, the structural response of tank such
1 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
July 16-20, 2017, Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA
PVP2017-65018
Xiaolin Wang
Fushun Research Institute of Petroleum and
Petrochemicals, SINOPEC
Fushun, Liaoning, China
Email: cupwxl@126.com
Ming Li
Fushun Research Institute of
Petroleum and Petrochemicals,
SINOPEC
Fushun, Liaoning, China
Email: 23760552@qq.com
as stress and deformation under foundation settlement should be
considered sufficiently.
INTRODUCTION
As the special facilities for oil storage in the petroleum and
chemical industry, storage tanks are developing towards large-
scale trend. The biggest oil storage tank is the tank of 240, 000
cubic meters throughout the world, by contrast, the biggest oil
storage tank which has been constructed and used is the tank of
150, 000 cubic meters in China and the storage tanks of 100,
000 cubic meters have been used widely [1]. As the capacity
and diameter of the tank are increasing, the structural behaviors
of the storage tank as a short cylindrical shell structure are also
deteriorating. In addition, because of poor soil foundations,
large-scale steel oil storage tanks which are generally built in
the soft soil regions, such as Zhejiang, Shanghai, Shandong and
other coastal cities, are prone to suffer various types of
settlement under non-uniform external load [2]. These
settlement modes may originate from different causes and may
be considered to be one or a combination of shell and bottom
plate basic settlement patterns: uniform, planar tilt, and out-of-
plane settlement patterns. Furthermore, the out-of-plane
settlement of a tank bottom plate may be one or combination of
the following three main types: dish type, localized dispersions
and/or bulged type, and edge settlement. Due to structural
flexibility, a large tank is more likely to settle into a non-planar
mode. Furthermore, while uniform and planar rigid body tilt
 settlements of a tank are not known to cause a serious threat to marked locations around the tank circumference are compared
its structural integrity, the out-of-plane settlements can cause to a fixed datum situated a distance away from the storage tank.
tank failures and thus are of main concern to engineers [3-4]. Settlements for seven large-scale floating roof tanks of 100,
They are the result of localized and usually randomly 000 cubic meters in China were recorded by taking elevation
distributed deformations and thus induce localized overstresses measurements around the tank circumference. The inner
and radial distortions, known as ovality. Beyond permissible diameter of the storage tank is 80 m. The total height of tank
displacement limits the induced localized stresses can cause shell is 21.8 m. The ultimate liquid level is 19.5 m. The roof is
rupture and spillage of tank content. And an excessive ovality single-deck pontoon floating roof. The type of tank foundation
can cause floating roof malfunction. Evaluation of the is the concrete ringwall foundation and the tank bottom plate is
maximum allowable settlement amplitude, and consequently the unanchored and rested on foundation. All the tanks have the
decision on the fitness-to service requires in general a rigorous same geometrical properties and the detailed geometric
stress analysis of the tank structure, especially for the areas of parameters of storage tank are shown in Table 1. There were 24
the tank with noticeable deformations. equally-spaced settlement measuring points located around the
There are many researches on the settlement of large-scale tank circumference for each tank. Accumulative settlement data
oil storage tank at present. Marr and DeBeer proposed the of tank foundation for seven oil storage tanks were collected
settlement standards of tank, respectively. But these settlement during oil filling and shown in Table 2. The elevation data were
standards mostly depend on empirical and semi-empirical collected every day until fully filled with oil, since settlement of
formulas derived from the principles of soil mechanics, and storage tank is maximum under the condition of full load.
they are rarely involved in structural behavior of storage tank Liquid level of T01-T07 tanks were 18.27m, 18.37m, 18.46m,
under foundation deformation [5-6]. To ensure the integrity of 18.27m, 18.37m, 18.80m, 18.97m in turn.
tank structures and the safety during operation of oil storage
Table 1 Structure parameters of the tanks
tanks, many countries have developed their own settlement Allowable
standards of storage tank based on the above-mentioned Thickness Height
Name Material stress
research, such as EEMUA 159-2003, API 653-2009, SH/T /mm /mm
/MPa
3123-2001 and SY/T 5921-2011 in China [7-10]. Bottom
Compared with above-mentioned settlement standards, it 12 — Q235B 160.7
sketch plate
can be seen that the evaluation indicators of settlement for oil Bottom 1980
storage tank are different in China and other countries, and the 20 12MnNiVR 226
annular plate (width)
same index differs in the allowable values. Moreover, the 1st shell
settlement data gathered first-hand for large-scale oil storage 32 2420 12MnNiVR 226
course
tank are also in short supply. Therefore, based on field 2nd shell
measurement of foundation settlement for large-scale oil storage 27 2420 12MnNiVR 226
course
tank, the authors develop the finite element model to analyze 3rd shell
the effects of foundation settlement on the structural integrity of 21.5 2420 12MnNiVR 226
course
storage tank, and analyze the differences of the settlement 4th shell
standards in China and other countries, which can provide 18.5 2420 12MnNiVR 226
course
references for settlement assessment of large-scale oil storage
5th shell
tank. The paper also points out that settlement indicators of
course with
storage tank specified in the current codes are not reasonable, 15 2420 12MnNiVR 226
stiffening
the settlement standards should take full account of the
ring
geometric parameters of storage tank and the response of
6th shell
structure under foundation deformation.
course with
12 2420 12MnNiVR 226
stiffening
SETTLEMENT MEASUREMENTS
ring
Settlement is the main cause for deformation of oil storage
7th shell
tank foundation. Excessive settlement may impact structural
course with
integrity of storage tank and bring significant potential risk. In 12 2420 12MnNiVR 226
stiffening
order to ensure the safety during operation of oil storage tanks,
ring
it is necessary to carry out regular inspection and maintenance.
8th shell
Settlement measurements is an important item [8]. To
course with 12 2380 16MnR 218.6
evaluate foundation settlement, elevation survey measurements
wind girder
are obtained from equally-spaced data points. The elevation
measurements required for the foundation settlement assessment 9th shell
are collected using field surveys, where the elevations of course with 12 2380 Q235B 160.7
wind girder

2 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 2 Accumulative settlement data of tank foundation Table 3 Standards of tank settlement
(mm) allowable
standards evaluation indicators
Tank No. settlement/mm
Data
SH/T planar tilt 0.24
Points T01 T02 T03 T04 T05 T06 T07 3123-
2001 out-of-plane tilt △S/l≤0.0025
1 242 350 122 140 270 300 287
2 236 354 133 152 285 309 293 API 653-
differential settlement Si  32
2009
3 238 348 150 169 294 305 292
settlement difference of
4 250 346 172 195 310 305 271
adjacent measurement
≤12
5 259 319 190 204 319 301 246 points within 10m arc
SY/T length
6 287 282 201 206 314 300 206 5921-
settlement difference of
7 306 236 200 195 298 295 163 2011
diametrical measurement ≤0.28
8 336 198 176 168 275 294 126 points
9 362 173 163 143 267 292 100 differential settlement as API 653
settlement difference of two
10 392 165 146 119 266 283 88
EEMUA measurement points on the ≤100
11 418 167 134 100 268 269 94 159-2003 arbitrary 10 meters
12 425 192 127 91 282 255 120 differential settlement as API 653
Each type of settlement can affect the structural integrity of
13 430 234 125 90 279 219 169
large-scale oil storage tanks, especially the differential
14 429 283 127 93 268 186 227 settlement shown in Figure 1. Differential settlement, also
15 431 321 131 96 246 161 278 referred to as out-of-plane settlement, is the most likely scenario
to occur due to the flexibility of the tank structure and its ability
16 434 347 132 100 225 152 321
to settle in a non-planar configuration. This type of settlement
17 410 340 136 104 216 150 307 could possibly cause additional non-uniform stresses in the tank
18 388 339 137 107 209 156 302 shell and its attachments. The out-of-plane settlements of the
shell can lead to out-of-roundness at the top of the shell, and
19 347 325 132 114 195 164 296
depending on the extent of the induced out-of-roundness, may
20 297 338 127 114 193 178 280 impede the proper functioning of the floating roof in such a way
21 268 325 121 121 195 193 267 that re-leveling is required. The out-of-roundness caused by
settlement may also affect internal roof support structures such
22 249 328 121 126 213 212 265
as columns, rafters, and girders.
23 249 344 121 130 235 242 266
24 237 345 119 134 256 270 274

STANDARDS COMPARISON FOR FOUNDATION

SETTLEMENT OF TANK
1. Settlement standards in different countries
Settlement standards of large-scale floating roof oil storage
tank are not consistent in China and other countries, but overall
there are three main evaluation indicators, including settlement
difference across the tank diameter (planar tilt), settlement
difference of adjacent measurement points and differential
settlement. Table 3 shows the settlement standards for the large-
scale oil storage tank of 100, 000 cubic meters, referring to
SH/T 3123-2001 “petrochemical monitoring code for controlled
water test to preload steel storage tanks subgrade”, SY/T 5921-
2011 “code for repair of vertical cylindrical welded steel crude
oil tanks” in China , API 653-2009 and EEMUA 159-2003.
Fig. 1. Differential Settlement
The optimum cosine curve is commonly used to fit the
measured data accurately, by which differential shell settlement
is separated from other types of settlement. According to API
653, a graphical representation is shown in Figure 2. The
vertical distance between the abscissa and the lowest point on
this curve (Point 22) is the minimum settlement, and it is called
the uniform settlement component. A line through this point,
parallel to the abscissa, provides a new base or datum line for
settlement measurements called adjusted settlements. The

3 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 vertical distances between the irregular curve and the cosine Table 4 Maximum settlement differences of diametrical and
curve represent the magnitudes of the out-of-plane settlements adjacent measurement points
(Ui at Data Point i). Si is the out-of-plane deflection at Point i. Tank Liquid Load/
a/mm b/mm
No. level/m Kpa
U i 1  U i 1 T01 18.27 166 193 49.9
Si  U i  (1)
2 T02 18.37 167 176.5 49.2
T03 15.46 141 68.3 24.4
The optimum cosine curve is only considered valid if the
2
coefficient of determination, R , is greater than or equal to 0.9. T04 18.27 166 99.9 27.0
T05 18.37 167 104.6 22.9
2 S yy  SSE
R 
S yy
(2) T06 18.80 171 153.1 35.3
T07 18.97 173 176.8 58.4
Where, S yy is the sum of the squares of the differences
Table 5 Differential settlement of tanks
between average measured elevation and the measured No. T01 T02 T03 T04 T05 T06 T07
elevations, SSE is the sum of the square of the differences
Si 10.3 16 11 6.9 9.13 11 28.08
between the measured and predicted elevations.
The settlement of each tank is quite different, the settlement
difference of diametrical measurement points for T01 tank is the
biggest, up to 193 mm. It indicates that the planar tilt of oil
storage tank T01 is the most obvious. The settlement difference
of adjacent measurement points for T07 tank reaches up to 58.4
mm and differential settlement reaches 28.08 mm. The
settlement of T07 tank is the most serious among all tanks, the
result conforms to the status in the field. Failure of pipeline
brace for T07 induced by foundation settlement is shown in
Figure 3.

Fig. 2. Graphical representation of tank shell settlement Fig. 3. Failure of pipeline brace induced by settlement

2. Evaluation of foundation settlement for oil storage
tanks
According to the accumulative settlement data of tank
foundation in Table 2, the settlement difference of diametrical
measurement points a, the settlement difference of adjacent
measurement points b and the differential settlement Si for
seven oil storage tanks are evaluated, and then the differences
of settlement standards in China and other countries are
compared. The evaluation results are shown in Table 4 and
Table 5.
The following evaluation results can be obtained from the
aforementioned standards.
(1) The settlement differences of diametrical measurement
points for seven oil storage tanks do not exceed 240 mm and
280 mm required by SH/T 3123-2001, SY/T 5921-2011
respectively, as shown in Figure 4.

4 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 4. Assessment of settlement differences of diametrical
measurement points
(2) The evaluation results of settlement difference of
adjacent points are quite different. There are five tanks
exceeding 26.2 mm specified by SH/T 3123-2001, all of tanks
go beyond 12 mm allowed by SY/T 5921-2011, but not exceed
100 mm required by EEMUA 159-2003, as shown in Figure 5.
Fig. 5. Assessment of settlement differences of adjacent
measurement points
(3) Differential settlement of all oil storage tanks meet the
requirement of API 653-2009, less than 32mm, as shown in
Figure 6.
Fig. 6. Assessment of differential settlement of tanks
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
Young’s modulus of the tank material is 2.06 × 105 MPa,
the Poisson ratio is 0.3, the density of the tank material is 7850
Kg/ m3. The elastic modulus of concrete ringwall and center
elastic soil are 2×1010 Pa, 1.6×107 Pa respectively. The
coefficient of friction between tank foundation and bottom plate
is 0.2.
According to the geometrical parameters in Table 1, a
three-dimensional finite element model was developed by
ANSYS involving the wall thickness tapering from the base to
the top, the wind girders and supports, the stiffening rings and
support plates, the contact problem between tank bottom and
foundation and a range of boundary conditions. In the numerical
model, the shell and bottom plates of the tank were modeled by
four-node shell elements. The modeling of the top angles at top
of the shell and the supports of wind girders were reflected by
the use of 3-dimensional beam elements. The wind girders,
stiffening rings and support plates were modeled by using four-
node shell elements, identical to the tank shell elements. The
eight-node solid element was adopted to simulate the tank
foundation. The contact condition between the tank bottom and
the foundation was modeled by the use of contact element.
5 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
The weight of the tank was included in the analysis. The
tank wall and bottom were loaded by the linearly distributed
hydraulic pressure.
The radial displacement and the circumferential
displacement are constrained at the lower surface of tank
foundation, while the axial displacement is settlement
measurement. The settlement is imposed along the
circumference at the lower surface of tank foundation. This is
justified in view of the deformation of tank bottom plate arising
from both liquid pressure and settlement of tank foundation.
Furthermore, the settlement value of tank bottom plate often
does not align perfectly with settlement of foundation due to
unanchored structure. The settlement of the foundation center is
assumed to be the average of the edge displacement values. The
foundation settlement along the radius is assumed to vary
linearly [11]. The finite element model is shown in Figure 7.
Fig. 7. FEA model of Tank
The results of settlement evaluation by means of finite
element model suggest that the maximum radial deformation
happens at the top of the tank shell, and the stresses at the first
and second shell course are higher than others at the tank shell.
The stress at the vicinity of shell-to-bottom fillet welds changes
rapidly along the height of tank. Furthermore, the stress of the
bottom plate decreases rapidly along the radial direction, as
shown in Figure 8. Hence, the stresses at the tank shell and
shell-to-bottom fillet welds are the key to evaluate the
consequence of settlement. The maximum Mises stress of each
tank is shown in Table 6.
(a) Stress of tank bottom (b) Stress of tank shell
 allowable stress 226 MPa, but they are less than yield strength
490 MPa of tank material. Thus, evaluation results of seven
tanks meet strength requirements because tank materials are in
elastic range, as shown in Figure 10.

(c) Axial displacement (d) Maximum deformation of tank shell

Fig. 8. Stress distribution and deformation of T06 tank
Table 6 Max Mises stress of settlement tanks
Tank No. T01 T02 T03 T04 T05 T06 T07
Stress Fig. 10. Stress assessment of tanks by FEA
265 395 291 275 317 343 459
（Mpa）

The maximum Mises stress of tank T07 reaches 459 MPa
which is the largest among all storage tanks. The
circumferential stress distributions at inner surface of tank T07
shell before and after foundation settlement are displayed in
Figure 9 in order to compare the change of stress caused by
settlement. The main stress from the first to sixth tank shells is
hoop stress. The peak of circumferential stress that appears in
the girth weld between the first shell and the second tank shell
reaches 210.93 MPa, 258.8 MPa respectively before and after
foundation settlement. The latter exceeds the allowable stress
226 MPa of tank material. Before foundation settlement, the
inner surface of tank shell subjects to tension in the
circumferential direction. As the height of tank shell increases,
the circumferential stress increases rapidly and reaches the peak
at the first girth weld, and then it fluctuates in the tiny range. At
the sixth tank shell, the stress gradually declines due to the
effect of the wind girders and stiffening rings until it becomes
zero. After foundation settlement, the inner surface of tank shell
suffers from circumferential compression at lower elevations.
The compressive stress reduces rapidly to zero and then turns
into tensile stress which rises to the biggest value at the first
girth weld and then changes in small fluctuations. The
circumferential stress at the sixth tank shell course and the
higher position reduces gradually until becomes zero on
account of the effect of stiffening ring and hydraulic pressure.
20
COMPARISON BETWEEN SETTLEMENT STANDARDS
AND FEA RESULTS
Results obtained from EEMUA 159-2003，API 653-2009
and FEA model show that settlement indicators for seven oil
storage tanks conform to the requirements of the standards. All
of assessment methods adopt field survey data for foundation
settlement. The FEA obtains stresses on a highly detailed level
because of considering material properties, loads, foundation,
and geometric construction. To contrast standards to FEA
results, the ratios of bmax/ballow, Simax/Siallow, are compared to
Smax/бs. Although these ratios cannot represent the accurate
same quantity, they were regarded as an acceptable basis for
comparison between different methods. The corresponding
ratios are shown in Figure 11. It reveals that the calculated
results from API 653-2009 are more conservative than the
evaluation results from FEA model. In particular, there are five
and seven of storage tanks beyond requirements from SH/T
3123-2001 and SY/T 5921-2011 respectively owing to large
differences of evaluation index between both Chinese standards.
before foundation settlement
after foundation settlement

the 7th shell course 218.6MPa

Fig. 11. EEMUA 159, API 653 and FEA results comparison
Height of tank wall（ m）

15
the 6th shell course 226MPa EEMUA 159-2003, API 653-2009 and SY/T 5921-2011
10
the 5th shell course
recommend the differential settlement as an important indicator
the 4th shell course
for tank settlement. Figure 12 illustrates the relationship
5
the 3th shell course
between the differential settlement measured around the tank
the 2th shell course
circumference and the equivalent stress of tank bottom at full
0
the 1th shell course
fillet weld in the circumferential direction calculated by the
FEA. The results suggest that there is a certain relationship
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Hoop stress of tank inner wall（ MPa）

between the differential settlement and the equivalent stress of
Fig. 9. Circumferential stress at inner surface of T07 tank
shell
the tank bottom, but the regularity is not obvious. With the
settlement increasing, the stress of the tank shell increases or
Table 6 demonstrates that the maximum Mises equivalent decreases respectively.
stresses of the shells for seven oil storage tanks exceed the

6 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


270 Differential settlement
Stress of tank bottom before settlement
Stress of tank bottom after settlement
260
Equivalent stress (MPa)
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
0 50 100 150 200
Location Around Circumference (°)
Fig. 12. Relationship between differential settlement and
equivalent stress of tank bottom at full fillet weld
CONCLUSIONS
With the number of large-scale oil storage tanks increasing,
the foundation settlement of the tank has become an
increasingly prominent issue. How to choose the appropriate
settlement standards to ensure the safe and stable operation of
tank has been a major challenge faced by the oil depot
operators. The FEA and standards involving SH/T 3123-2001,
SY/T 5921-2011, API 653-2009 and EEMUA 159-2003 were
adopted to perform evaluation of foundation settlement for
seven oil storage tanks in an oil depot. There are five and seven
of storage tanks beyond requirements according to Chinese
standards SH/T 3123-2001 and SY/T 5921-2011 respectively,
both of standards make more stringent requirements for
foundation settlement, especially the settlement difference of
adjacent measurement points. Settlement indicators for the
seven oil storage tanks subject to the requirements of API 653-
2009 and EEMUA 159-2003 that focus on differential
settlement of tank foundation and allow loose settlement
difference of adjacent measurement points relatively. Settlement
analysis was also carried out by means of the FEA model based
on the foundation settlement. It is shown that the strength of oil
tanks satisfies the material and structure requirements.
Compared with FEA method, results from standards in
American and China are more conservative, especially Chinese
standards are most stringent.
There are three main evaluation indicators used to
determine the severity of tank settlement in the current
standards, including settlement difference of diametrical
measurement points, settlement difference of adjacent
measurement points and differential settlement. However, their
allowable values are not consistent in different standards.
Moreover, evaluation results obtained from these rules are
closely related to the number of measurement points. The
criteria of assessment for tank foundation settlement mentioned
above, which is solely based on field measurements, were put
forward by scholars and geotechnical engineers with experience
in a large number of engineering practice and are not rigorously
scientific. For example, the deformation of tank shell is
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
associated with geometric parameters of tank, including ratio of
height to diameter, ratio of radius to thickness, settlement
6
distribution and compression characteristic of foundation, load
level, type of foundation, etc. However these parameters are not
Differential settlement (mm)
reflected in settlement standards of storage tank. Some
4
engineering practice also reveal the defects of settlement
2
standards. For example, the differential settlement of tank
exceeds requirements of standards, but it can, in fact, be secure.
Hence, it is necessary to carry out further research about
0
settlement standards of tank foundation in China and other
countries.
250 300 350
NOMENCLATURE
D is the inner diameter of the tank ; a is the settlement
difference of diametrical measurement points; b is the
settlement difference of adjacent measurement points; S is
settlement difference of adjacent measurement points on the
tank periphery; l is arc length of adjacent measurement points
on the tank periphery; S i is out-of-plane deflection in the tank
shell; U i is out-of-plane settlement in the tank shell; L is arc
length between measurement points; Y is yield strength of the
tank material; E is Young’s modulus of the tank material;
H is tank height.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank SINOPEC for providing
analysis data for this research.
REFERENCES
[1] Chen, L.Q., 2012, “An improved oil reserve system for
national oil security”, Journal of Strategy and Decision-Making,
3, pp. 14-21
[2] Yang, B.W., Zheng, J.Y., 2011, “The construction current
situation of state crude oil reserve bases in China”, China
Petroleum and Chemical Standard and Quality, 31, pp. 201-202
[3] Zhao, Y., Cao, Q.S., Xie, X.Y., 2007, “Settlement and
structure behavior of large steel storage tanks”, Industrial
Construction, 37, pp. 65-68
[4] Yang, L., Chen, Z., Cao, G. et al., 2013, “An analytical
formula for elastic–plastic instability of large oil storage tanks”,
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 101, pp.
72-80
[5] Marr, W.A., Ramos, J.A., Lambe, T.W., 1982, “CRITERIA
FOR SETTLEMENT OF TANKS”, Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, 108, pp. 1017-1039
[6] D' Orazio, T.B., Duncan, J.M., Bell, R.A., 1989, “Distortion
of steel tanks due to settlement of their walls”, Journal of
geotechnical engineering, 115, pp. 871-890
[7] Engineering Equipment and Materials Users Association,
2003, “EEMUA 159 Users' Guide to the Inspection,
Maintenance and Repair of Aboveground Vertical Cylindrical
Steel Storage Tanks: 3rd ed”, Engineering Equipment and
Materials Users Association, London
7 Copyright © 2017 ASME
 [8] American Petroleum Institute, 2009, “API Std 653 Tank
Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction: 4 th ed”,
API Publishing services, Washington
[9] The State Economic and Trade Commission in People's
Republic of China, 2001, “SH/T 3123 Petrochemical
monitoring code for controlled water test to preload steel
storage tanks subgrade”, The State Economic and Trade
Commission in People's Republic of China
[10] State Bureau of Petroleum and Chemical Industries, 2000,
“SY/T 5921-2000 Code for repair of vertical cylindrical welded
steel crude oil tanks”, State Bureau of Petroleum and Chemical
Industries
[11] Chebaro, M.R., Yoosef-Ghodsi, N., Yue, H.K., 2008,
“Steel storage tank shell settlement assessment based on finite
element and API standard 653 analyses”, 2008 ASME
International Pipeline Conference, IPC 2008, September 29,
2008 - October 3, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Calgary, AB, Canada, pp. 395-399
[12] Gong, J., Cui, W., Zeng, S. et al., 2012, “Buckling analysis
of large scale oil tanks with a conical roof subjected to
harmonic settlement”, Thin-Walled Structures, 52, pp. 143-148
[13] Cao, Q., Zhao, Y., 2010, “Buckling strength of cylindrical
steel tanks under harmonic settlement”, Thin-Walled Structures,
48, pp. 391-400
[14] Akhavan-Zanjani, A., 2009, “Settlement Criteria for Steel
Oil Storage Tanks”, EJGE, 13B, pp. 1-9
[15] Godoy, L.A., Sosa, E.M., 2003, “Localized support
settlements of thin-walled storage tanks”, Thin-Walled
Structures, 41, pp. 941-955

8 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/28/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use