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

net/publication/280740447

BLAST PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION AROUND LARGE STORAGE TANKS

Article · July 2015

CITATIONS READS

5 3,402

1 author:

Sirous Yasseri
Brunel University London
135 PUBLICATIONS   355 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Remaining useful life prediction of subsea equipment for prognosis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sirous Yasseri on 07 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Research & development

BLAST PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION

AROUND LARGE STORAGE TANKS
Written by:
S. Yasseri
Safe-Sight Technology, United Kingdom

Abstract
Correct distribution of the blast loading is important for storage tanks,
as it is the local load acting on local imperfections, especially for thin
walled structure, that can cause collapse. This paper reports results of
a series of experiments on the distribution of blast pressure around a
large storage tank. These results are applicable for tanks (LNG or oil)
whose height is less than their diameter. Using regression analysis,
expressions that fit the experimental results very well were derived. The
derived expressions are also compared with results reported in the literature.

Keywords: LNG Storage tanks; Oil storage tanks; Blast load distribution

Figure 1 Tank Farm in Wilmington, California

1 Introduction
Large hydrocarbon storage tanks are vulnerable to external pressure due to
their sensitivity to imperfections. Blast pressure can accentuate imperfec-
tions, which enhances storage tanks vulnerability to collapse. Collapse
of tanks in a tank farm (Figure 1) can put other tanks at risk of fire and
explosion. Hence, correct load determination and analyses are important.

There have been several accidental explosions in tank farms around

the world which led to collapse of other tanks (Figure 2). In all cases,
investigators attributed collapse to the intensity of the blast pressure and
its distribution did not receive as much attention. As tanks are sensitive
to imperfections, naturally the distribution of blast pressure is worthy of
equal attention. This issue is addressed much better for tanks subjected Figure 2 Puerto Rico Refinery/Tank Farm Explosion on 23 October 2009
to the effect of hurricanes; see for example Godoy & Flores [5].
2 Review of Blast Time-history
This paper presents analytical expressions which can be used to determine
the pressure distribution around large tanks. The investigation considered TNT is used as a reference for determining the blast overpressure and
LNG tanks (Figure 3), which have heavier walls than oil storage tanks. a scaled distance, Z (Equation 3). For this purpose, the explosive mass

22 FABIG NEWSLETTER - ISSUE 67: JUL 2015

 There are more correlation relationships reported in literature, e.g. Miles
[7] proposed the following expression:
1772 114 108
ps = + 2 + - 0.019, kPa (4)
Z3 Z Z

Brode [2] also proposed the following expression for p--, the maximum
value of negative pressure (pressure below ambient pressure) in the
negative phase of the blast.

p- = - 0.35 , bar for Z > 1.6 (5)

Z
The explosion wave front speed, Us, and the maximum dynamic
pressure, qs, are defined by Mays & Smith [6]

Us = a0 6ps + 7p0 (6)

7p 0

Figure 3 Typical LNG tank 5p s2

qs = 2 ( p + 7p ) (7)
s 0
is converted into and equivalent mass of TNT. To do this, the mass of
fugitive gas is multiplied by a correlation factor based on the specific Where:
energy of the explosive charge (usually TNT) and the gas. The specific
ps = peak static wave front overpressure in bar
energies of different explosive types and their correlation factors to
p0 = ambient air pressure (atmospheric pressure) in bar
that of TNT can be found in Table 1 (from [15]).
a0 = speed of sound in the air in m ⁄ s

SPECIFIC TNT As the wave propagates through the air, the wave front encircles the
ENERGY EQUIVALENT
EXPLOSIVE Qx (kJ/kg) Qx/QTNT structure and all its surfaces so that the whole structure is exposed
to the blast pressure. The magnitude and distribution of the structural
Compound B (60 % RDX, 40 % TNT) 5190 1.148
loading depends on the following factors:
RDX (Ciklonit) 5360 1.185
ÔÔ the characteristics of explosives that depend on the type of
HMX 5680 1.256
explosive material, released energy (size of explosion) and
Nitroglycerin (liquid) 6700 1.481
weight of explosive,
TNT 4520 1.000 ÔÔ the explosion location relative to the structure, intensity and
Explosive Gelatin (91% Nitroglycerin, 7,9% magnification of pressure through interaction with the ground
4520 1.000
nitrocellulose, 0,9 % Antracid, 0,2 % water) or the structure itself.
60 % Nitroglycerin dynamite 2710 0.600
The profile of the explosion pressure wave is usually described as
Semtex 5660 1.250 an exponential function in the form of Friendlander’s equation [9], in
C4 6057 1.340 which b is the parameter of the waveform:
Table 1 Conversion factors for explosives t
p (t) = ps 1- t exp - bt
t0 (8)
0

Brode [2] gives the following expressions for the peak static over-
Where:
pressure for a medium to far distance:
t0 = duration of the positive phase during which the pressure is greater
6.7
ps = Z 3 + 1, bar for ps > 10 bar (1) than the pressure of the surrounding air.

For many purposes, such approximation is satisfactory and the

0.975 1.455 5.85
ps = + 2 + 3 - 0.019, bar for 0.1< ps< 10 bar (2) pressure profile (over time) is shown in Figure 4.
Z Z Z
Rankine and Hugoniot [17] derived an equation for refracted
where Z is the scaled distance, given by: overpressure Pr :
pr = 2ps + (γ + 1) qs (9)
R
Z = 3 , where (3) For air, γair 1.4 [17]
√W
R = distance from the centre of a spherical charge in meters Substituting Equation 7 into Equation 9:
W = mass of explosive expressed in kilograms of TNT 7p0 + 4ps
Pr = 2ps (10)
7p0 + ps

FABIG NEWSLETTER - ISSUE 67: JUL 2015 23

 Research & development BLAST PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION AROUND LARGE STORAGE TANKS
Figure 4 Schematic of the blast wave
3 Literature review
A limited literature review is presented in this section. Figure 5
shows the flow field around a single cylinder. The transition from a
laminar to a turbulent flow depends on the Reynolds number, and
at some stage the flow becomes fully turbulent. The drag and lift
coefficients are closely related to these transitions. Figure 5 shows
that the pressure distribution around a large cylinder is not uniform.
Thus, applying the total blast load to the front of a tank does not
predict how the tank fails.
Figure 5 Flow Field around Circular Cylinder
Most articles addressing the design of storage tanks apply the blast
over-pressure to the front face of the tank. A departure from that
approach is used by Noret et al [10]. They have generated four different
overpressure time histories (as shown in Figure 6) representing the
positive phase of an exponential detonation (Signal 1), a typical
vapour cloud deflagration (Signal 2), a quick deflagration (Signal 3)
and a classical linear signature used for detonation (Signal 4).
Overpressure (mbar)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200
Figure 6 Various overpressure signatures (P (t)-Pa ) (ps=0.50 MPa, t0 = 50ms)
24
Considering a cylindrical shell engulfed in a blast wave due to a
major explosion of chemicals or hydrocarbon products, the blast
load results from the reflected pressure and the drag loading
based on the dynamic pressure. The effective pressure depends
on time and the angle between the wave front and the cylindrical
wall (Noret et al [10]):
Pr (Ө, t ) = p (t) ∙ (Ө) + q (t) ∙ Cd (11)
V
The tank is considered to be in the far-field from the explosion origin
so that drag loading is neglected (q(t)=0). It is further assumed that
the pressure is positive and constant along the height. The function
Λ(θ) is considered uniform around the shell for buckling behaviour.
For the global behaviour of the tank, Λ(θ) is considered as a cosine
function. Noret [10] don’t provide the shape of Λ(θ), but it can be
deduced from the calculation that cos θ is used, which equals to
one at the front face θ=0. The fluid-solid interactions are neglected.
Rotzer, J. and Douglas [11] proposed a distribution as shown in Figure 7.
This figure shows a peak at 60 degrees, which is very different from
what is known about pressure distribution.
1.25∙p
0.5∙p
60°
p 0.1∙p
Figure 7 Distribution of blast pressure around an LNG tank according to Rotzer, J.
and Douglas [11]
The effect of hurricane wind on the storage tank cannot be very
dissimilar. There is a large amount of literature on the collapse
of storage tanks in hurricanes. Figure 8 presents circumferential
variations of wind pressure around cylinders based on different
experimental results, and measured from the angle of wind incidence
to one half of the diameter. The values presented correspond to the
ACI-ASCE Committee 334 [1] and Rish [14]. Other distributions
have been developed for long as well as short tanks.
Signal 1 Detonation b=1
Signal 2 Deflagration b=1
Signal 3 Deflagration b=0
Signal 4 Detonation b=0
250
Time duration (ms)
Figure 8 Wind pressure distribution around a cylinder
FABIG NEWSLETTER - ISSUE 67: JUL 2015
In some circumstances, when a cylindrical structure comprises
openings, an additional uniform negative pressure is added due to
the internal suction generated. Similar behaviour is possible in tanks
with opened roofs as presented in Schmidt [13], which sometimes
are reinforced with a ring stiffener at the top. Figure 8 also presents
differences between the wind pressure distributions of close and
open tanks (Resinger and Greiner [12]).
The Rish [14] and ACI-ASCE [1] expressions are the two most popular
distributions. Both have the following format:
of the negative phase is very small and hence the drag force can
be neglected. The free field incident blast overpressure time-history
curve is described by a triangle, which is commonly assumed to
have equal rise and fall.
This section describes a method for determining the average pressure
on projected areas of cylindrical objects when the direction of blast
wave propagation is normal to the axis of the cylinder. Figure 9
shows a blast wave approaching a cylindrical object.

p = ∑ 70 Ci cos (iӨ) (12)

Where:

Ci = Coefficient of external pressure. The ACI-ASCE [1] equation has

8 terms while the Rish [14] equation has 7 terms.

p = External wind pressure

λ = Parameter used to increase the pressure

Table 2 gives Ci for both expressions.

Ci ACI-ASCE 1991 Rish 1967 Figure 9 Blast wave approaching a cylindrical object

C0 0.2765 0.387
The interaction of blast waves with cubical objects which are now
C1 -0.3419 -0.338
commonly used (see [16] for example) may be generalised for
C2 -0.5418 -0.533
cylindrical objects such as storage tanks and pressure vessels.
C3 -0.3872 -0.471 The ratio of reflected overpressure to the incident overpressure
C4 -0.0525 -0.166 at the blast front depends on the angle at which the blast wave

C5 0.0771 0.066
strikes the object. For a curved surface, the reflection varies from
point to point on the front surface. The time of decay from reflected
C6 0.0039 0.0550
to stagnation pressure then depends on the size of the object and
C7 -0.0341 N/A location on the front surface where the blast wave strikes.
Table 2 Coefficients for ACI-ASCE and Rish equations
The drag coefficient varies with the shape of the structure. In most
cases, an average drag coefficient is adequate to determine the
4 Blast Pressure on Closed Cylindrical net blast forces. The rise time of average pressure on the back
Objects surface depends on the size and, to some extent, on the shape of
the object.
There are two types of structures when calculating blast wave loading:
If parts of the object can be blown out by the initial impact of the
ÔÔ Diffraction type;
blast wave, then the shape of the object changes and the subsequent
ÔÔ Drag type.
loading may also change. For example, when windows of a
A diffraction-type structure is primarily sensitive to the peak building are blown out, the blast wave enters the building and
overpressure of the shock wave; a large storage tank without tends to equalise the inside and outside pressures. If a structure
opening for example. When the pressure on different areas of can be designed so as to allow certain parts to be blown out,
a structure rapidly equalise due to its small size, the diffraction then the net effect of blast on other portions of the building will
forces only last for a very short time. The response of such reduce. In principle, the response of certain portions/elements
structure is then primarily due to the dynamic pressure (or drag of a structure may alter the overall blast loading on the structure.
forces) of the blast wind. There is some interaction between blast and deformation of the
structure, but such integration is neglected for design purpose.
The loading analysis of a diffraction dominated structure considers
only the positive phase of the overpressure until it falls to zero on The blast loading on an object is a function of both the incident blast
the front surface. This is due to the fact that the dynamic loading wave characteristics i.e. the peak overpressure, dynamic pressure,

FABIG NEWSLETTER - ISSUE 67: JUL 2015 25

 Research & development BLAST PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION AROUND LARGE STORAGE TANKS

decay, duration, size, shape, orientation, and the response of the

object. The interaction of the incident blast wave with an object is
a complex phenomenon. To reduce the complex problem of blast
loading for practical use, it is assumed that (a) the over-pressures
are less than 3.5 bar (dynamic pressures less than ~2.75 bar), and
(b) the object being loaded is in the region of Mach reflection.

Figure 10 shows a cylindrical tank with a diameter/height ratio

lower than 3. The blast wave strikes the surface of the tank at a
zero angle at time t=0 and the time of arrival at point A (Figure 10)
is equal to X ⁄ Us regardless of its position (whether it is on the front
or back half). At time t1, the overpressure rises to the reflected
Figure 10 Approaching of a blast wave - cross-section of Figure 9
value P1. t1 is therefore the rise time. The reflected pressure P1 varies
with the position of A on the tank. Vortex formation causes the
above pressure to drop to P2; and is then followed by an increase to
P3 , the stagnation pressure. From then on, the pressure is equal to
(t)+Cd q(t); where Cd is the appropriate drag coefficient, which decays
in the normal manner.

The dependence of the pressures P1 and P2 and the drag coefficient

Cd on the angle θ is discussed later in this paper. The pressure values
are expressed as the ratios to Pr, where Pr is the ideal reflected
pressure for a flat surface. When θ is zero i.e. where the blast wave
first strikes the tank, P1 is the same as Pr, but for larger angles its
value decreases. The rise time t1 and the time intervals t2 and t3,
respectively corresponding to vortex formation and attainment of the
Figure 11 The pressures P1 and P2 and the drag coefficient Cd are dependent on
stagnation pressure once the blast wave has passed the tank, are
the angle θ (see Figure 10)
also shown in Figure 11 (expressed as the time unit H/U, with H being
the radius of the tank). There is a zero rise time for the front half of the
arc i.e. for θ between 0° and 90°, but it increases on the back half
i.e. for θ between 90° and 180°. The times t2 and t1 are independent
of the angle θ.

Since the procedures described above give the loads normal to the
surface at any arbitrary point A (see Figure 10), the net horizontal
loading is not determined by simply subtracting the loading on the
back from that on the front. To determine the net horizontal loading,
it is necessary to sum the horizontal components of the loads over
the two areas and then subtract them. In practice, an approximation
may be used to obtain the required result, if the net horizontal loading
is considered to be important. For large storage tanks, because of
sensitivity to imperfections, it is the local loading rather than the net Figure 12 Approximate equivalent net horizontal force on cylindrical structure
loading which is damaging [13].
5 Experiments
In the approximate procedure for determining the net loading, the
overpressure loading during the diffraction stage is considered to Three small scale experiments were conducted using a disused
be equivalent to an initial impulse equal to Pr A(2H⁄U), where A is the 2.5m diameter and 2m high tank as the target. The maximum
projected area normal to the direction of the blast propagation. It will be pressure was measured via two rows of pressure transducers
noted that 2H⁄U is the time taken for the blast front to pass the structure. spaced around the perimeter 10 degrees from each other and on
The net drag coefficient for a single cylinder is about 0.4 in the considered two planes at 0.9m and 1.5m above the foundation (Figure 13).
range of blast pressures [15]. Hence, in addition to the initial impulse, The TNT charge was placed 2m away from the tank on the zero
the remainder of the net horizontal loading may be represented by the degree line. The intention was to determine pressure distribution
force 0.4 q (t) A, as seen in Figure 12, which applies to a single structure. around the tank from a nearby explosion. The blast wave was

26 FABIG NEWSLETTER - ISSUE 67: JUL 2015

 Figure 17 compares the fitted curves (lines) with results reported
in Reference 4 (shown as dots). For all parameters the difference is
less than 6%; this is acceptable and there is no need to complicate
the equations.

Figure 13 Experimental set up
normal to the tank face (zero degree). The measurements from
these six experiments at 18 locations were averaged. The scatter
of results was not large and the difference between the fitted
curves and the experimental results, at any θ, was less than 12%.
This gap could be closed by adding more terms in Equation 13,
but the accuracy of the experimental results doesn’t warrant
more complexity.
6 Fitting Curves to the Experimental results
A collection of cosine curves can represent circumferential
pressures on shells. For this reason, most of the formulations
which define circumferential patterns of pressure employ
Fourier cosine series. The equation of the fitted curves has the
following general form:
p = ∑ 6i = 0 ci cos iӨ
The variable “i” stands for terms of the series (seven terms) and an
increment of the angle measured from windward direction.
C i is a constant representing the contribution of each term and the
amplitude of the pressure coefficient wave. The pressure value at a
specific height (λ) is multiplied by the external pressure coefficient
represented by the summation expression. Table 3 gives the values
for C i for the fitted curve as shown in Figures 14 to 16.
Points shown as shapes in these figures correspond to the
experimental values. The solid lines are the fitted curves using
the cosine function.
Coefficient P2 / Pr P1 / Pr
C0 -0.23174 -0.44481
C1 -0.36981 -0.35193
The rise time t1 and the time intervals t2 and t3, respectively
corresponding to vortex formation and attainment of the stagnation
pressure, and measured from the time when the blast wave first
reaches the tank, are shown in Figure 18 (in terms of the time unit
H/U). The rise time t1 is zero for θ between 0° and 90°. It increases
but remains finite for a θ between 90° and 180°. The times t1 and t2
are independent of the angle θ (Glasstone and Dolan 1977).
The difference between the fitted curves at any angle θ is less than
12% for smaller values, and the difference is less for the larger
numbers. This gap could be closed by adding more terms, but the
accuracy of the experiment doesn’t warrant more complexity.
7 Pressure distribution Over the Roof
The distribution of the blast loading on the roof is not well researched.
A suggested distribution is schematically shown in Figure 19.
8 Concluding Remark
Expressions which are suitable for determining the distribution of
the blast pressure around a large storage tank are given in this
paper. These expressions are for isolated thanks. In principle, tanks
(13) within tank farms are separated enough from each other for these
expressions to be applicable.
The modification of the flow by adjacent structures is known as
interference. If tanks are in close proximity to each other or to other
buildings, they influence each other. However, interference with an
adjacent structure can be accounted using a gust factor, similar to
what is used in design for wind loading.
The internal hydrostatic pressure by liquid can significantly enhance
the buckling strength, but high internal pressures also lead to severe
local bending near the base. Local yielding then precipitates an
early elastic-plastic buckling failure. A damaged geometry due to
blast triggers imperfection-sensitivity. API allowable buckling stress
Cd is based on the classical value of buckling stress under axial load,
significantly factored down due to shell imperfections and also
0.151097
increased to account for the effects of internal liquid pressure.
-0.64308

C2 -0.20195 -0.21914 -0.46442

9 Acknowledgements
C3 0.014578 -0.02269 -0.08304
The author acknowledges the support provided by his colleagues
C4 -0.02533 0.021064 0.016145
David Walker, and Chris Millyard in testing and collating the material
C5 0.017159 0.028561 0.065007
used in this paper. Many helpful comments of Mr Guillaume Vannier
C6 -0.00399 -0.00365 -0.01317 are also gratefully acknowledged.
Table 3 Parameters of fitted curves shown in Figures 14 to 16

FABIG NEWSLETTER - ISSUE 67: JUL 2015 27

 Research & development BLAST PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION AROUND LARGE STORAGE TANKS

Figure 14 Variation of drag coefficient around a tank

Figure 15 Variation of pressure ratios around a tank

Figure 16 Variation of pressure ratios for a tank

28 FABIG NEWSLETTER - ISSUE 67: JUL 2015

Figure 17 Comparison of the current results with results in [4]

Figure 18 Interval time

Figure 19 (a) Roof uplift pressure will occasionally damage tanks, (b) Roof to shell
Joint may tear and “peel” away roof plate, (c) Roof structure may be
dislodged by distortion of shell

FABIG NEWSLETTER - ISSUE 67: JUL 2015 29

 Research & development BLAST PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION AROUND LARGE STORAGE TANKS

10 References [16] Yasseri, Portable Building within Processing Plants, FABIG

Newsletter No. 51.
[1] ACI-ASCE Committee 334 (1991), Reinforced concrete [17] Wikipedia, Rankine–Hugoniot conditions, last accessed
cooling tower shells-practice and commentary, ACI 13/06/2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
334,2R,91. American Concrete Institute, New York. Rankine%E2%80%93Hugoniot_conditions.
[2] Brode, H. L. Numerical solution of spherical blast waves,
Journal of Applied Physics, American Institute of Physics,
Ney York, 1955.
[3] James I. Chang, Cheng-Chung Lin, 2006, A study of storage
tank accidents, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
Industries 19, pp 51–59.
[4] Glasstone, S. and Dolan, P., The effect of Nuclear Weapon,
DOE & DOD, 1977. Chapter IV. Also available on https://
www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/effects/eonw_4.pdf.
[5] Godoy, L.A. and Flores, F.G., 2002, Imperfection sensitivity
to elastic buckling of wind loaded open cylindrical tanks,
Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 13, No. 5.
[6] Mays, G. C.; Smith, P. D; Blast Effects on Buildings – Design
of Buildings to Optimize Resistance to Blast Loading, Tomas
Telford, 2001.
[7] Mills, C. A. The design of concrete structure to resist
explosions and weapon affects, Proceedings of the 1st Int.
Conference on concrete for hazard protections, Edinburgh,
UK, pp. 61-73, 1987.
[8] Newmark, N. M.; Hansen, R. J. Design of blast resistant
structures. // Shock and Vibration Handbook, Vol. 3, Eds.
Harris and Crede. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA. 1961.
[9] Ngo, T.; Mendis, P.; Gupta, A.; Ramsay, J. Blast Loading and
Effects on Structures – An Overview, EJSE Special Issue:
Loading on Structures, 2007.
[10] Noret, E., Prod’homme, G., Yalamas, T., Reimeringer, M.,
Hanus, J-L. And Duong, D-H, Safety of atmospheric storage
tanks during accidental explosions, Revue. Volume X – n°
x/année, pages 1 à X.
[11] Rotzer, J. and Douglas, H., Hazard and Safety Probes for
LNG tanks, LNG journal, February 2006, pp27-28.
[12] Resinger F., and Greiner R. (1982), “Buckling of wind-
loaded cylindrical shells-application to unstiffened and
ring-stiffened steel tanks”, in Buckling of shells, Ramn E.
(ed.), Springer, Berlin, pp. 217- 281.
[13] Scmidt H., Binder B., and Lange H. (1998) “Postbuckling
strength design of open thin walled cylindrical tanks under
For further information, please contact:
wind load”. First International Conference on Thin Walled
Structures. Elsevier Science Ltd., pp. 203-220. Sirous Yasseri
[14] Rish, R. F. (1967), “Forces in cylindrical shells due to wind”, Safe-Sight Technology Ltd
in: Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers. Vol. 36, pp. 791-803. E: sirous.yasseri@gmail.com

[15] Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), Structures to Resist the

Effects of Accidental Explosions, U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Air Force
Civil Engineer Support Agency, UFC 3-340-02, 5 December
2008.

30 FABIG NEWSLETTER - ISSUE 67: JUL 2015

View publication stats