Revise storage tank inspections

10.01.1997 | Carucci, V. A., Carmagen Engineering Inc., Madison, New Jersey; Ay, R. L.,
COADE, Inc., Houston, Texas

Recent changes in API standards affect mechanical integrity evaluations of atmospheric storage
tanks

Keywords:

V. A. CARUCCI, Carmagen Engineering, Inc., Madison, New Jersey; and R. L. AY, Coade, Inc.,
Houston, Texas

To avoid catastrophic failures and other product-loss incidents, operators must periodically inspect
atmospheric storage tanks. Realizing the serious impact of these evaluations, API published an
inspection document, API-653,1 to help operators fully scrutinize a storage tank's current condition
and future service life. Recent articles2,3 have discussed and interpreted the intent of API-653 and
the engineering analysis that must accompany these inspections.

Especially for older tanks (Fig. 1), problems can occur when vital design information, particularly
weld-joint efficiency data is missing. The case history shows how to inspect and evaluate an older
storage tank when corrosion is found on the lower shell concourse and critical design information is
lost. This example is a step-by-step evaluation of the corrosion's impact and extent. More important,
the example identifies some pitfalls when using default assumptions for corrosion. Because storage
capacity is critical, operating facilities must use all resources to their full capabilities. Operating
tanks with compromised fill heights can incur losses. Use these guidelines to confirm that the tank-
shell thickness satisfies API-653 requirements.

Inspection and engineering evaluation. An API-653

inspection program addresses four main tank components: the
roof, shell, bottom and foundation. These components directly
affect the tank's structural integrity and liquid storage
capability. API-653 does not specify exact inspection
procedures nor quantities of data that must be collected. It
only specifies what must be inspected and the acceptance
criteria. It goes beyond merely requiring that the main tank Visual evidence of
components be inspected. An engineering evaluation of Fig. 1
corrosion in progress on an
inspection data is required to ensure that the tank's structural atmospheric storage tank.
condition meets specified acceptance criteria. Also, this
engineering evaluation: 1) ensures that the tank is structurally sound at inspection and 2) also
confirms that the tank will remain structurally sound until the next inspection.

For example, assume portions of the tank shell have thinned due to corrosion. It is also assumed that
corrosion will continue as the tank remains in operation. An API-653 evaluation of the shell
thickness determines that the shell will not thin to an unacceptable level before it is inspected again.
Therefore, evaluating shell-thickness data must prove that each shell portion has sufficient
corrosion allowance remaining.
Shell inspection. The tank shell is visually examined for obvious flaws (e.g., weld defects) and
other deterioration (e.g., plate distortion or corrosion). The most common deterioration is corrosion,
and thickness measurements are used to determine the shell's remaining thickness. While corrosion
may be uniform over large areas, the shell is normally not uniformly corroded in its entirety. Large
areas may not have corroded at all, whereas other areas may have experienced significant corrosion.
For example:

• The shell portion that corresponds to the normal operating liquid level may corrode more
than the rest of the shell due to the liquid/vapor interface.
• Sludge and wax deposits may accumulate at the tank bottom near the shell and cause more
corrosion in the lower portion of the bottom course than elsewhere. Corrosion on the outside
in this area may also be caused by rainwater accumulation due to poor tank-pit drainage.
External corrosion may be also caused by rainwater ingress under the insulation.
• One tank side may corrode more due to prevailing wind direction.

Therefore, evaluating the tank shell integrity must consider the required shell thicknesses, which
vary with elevation on the shell, and the actual thicknesses measured. Actual measured thicknesses
will vary by tank course, by position around the tank circumference, by elevation within the course
or even by specific location within a given tank plate.

Shell integrity evaluation. API-653 provides procedures for calculating the minimum required
shell course thicknesses and acceptance criteria for both uniformly corroded and pitted areas. The
minimum required shell plate thickness is normally calculated using Eq. 1 (Reference Paragraph
2.3.3 of API-653), if the tank is no larger than 200 ft in diameter:

Where:
tmin = Minimum acceptable thickness, in. Cannot be less than 0.1 in. for any shell course
D = Nominal tank diameter, ft
H = Height from the bottom of the most severely corroded area in each shell course to the
maximum design liquid level, ft
G = Highest specific gravity of the tank contents, including water if the tank may be
hydrotested in the future
S = Maximum allowable stress, psi. The smaller of 0.80Y or 0.426T for the bottom or second
courses or the smaller of 0.88Y or 0.472T for all other courses.
Y is the plate's specified minimum yield strength or 30,000 psi if the plate material is
unknown. T is the smaller of the plate's specified minimum tensile strength or 80,000 psi
or 55,000 psi if the plate material is unknown.
E = The original weld-joint efficiency used in design. Use Table 2-1 (based on API edition,
year and weld joint type) if the original E is unknown. E = 1.0, if a corroded area that is
being evaluated is far enough away from the welds, with the distance as defined by API-
653.
This is a simple equation, but can be deceptive. Key concern items are:

• Use Eq. 1 only if the tank diameter is no greater than 200 ft. This equation is based on the
One-foot shell thickness calculation method of API-650.4 For larger diameter tanks, the
evaluation uses the variable-design point method of API-650. This is a more complicated,
iterative calculation procedure, but a computer program5 can provide fast, accurate results.
Note that the variable design point method may also be used for smaller diameter tanks if
desired.
• The evaluation must be made for every shell course.
• H is measured from the bottom of the most severely corroded area in each shell course, not
necessarily from the course bottom. However, inspection data are normally provided as
minimum thickness or a range of thicknesses measured in each course with no indication of
the elevations within the course. Therefore, without additional information, the evaluation
must be made using the conservative assumption that the corrosion is at the course bottom.
• G considers both the specific gravity of the stored liquid and whether the tank will be
hydrotested. Hydrotesting is required if the tank has major repairs or alterations. However,
to maximize permitted fill height, calculating the minimum required thickness for both
stored liquid and water is acceptable. Then an acceptable fill height for each liquid can be
back-calculated based on measured thicknesses.
• S varies with shell course and is the same for both stored liquid and hydrotest cases. In these
respects, it differs from API-650. API-650 uses the same material allowable stress regardless
of the course being checked. Also, it uses a higher allowable stress for the hydrotest case.
The allowable stress values in API-653 also differ from API-650 for the same material.

Also, API-653 permits a shell integrity evaluation even if the shell material specification is
unknown, assuming the shell material is low in strength (i.e., Y = 30,000 psi and T = 55,000 psi).
This is a large penalty if the shell was actually fabricated using higher strength steel. A tank may
have been designed and constructed five years ago using A-516 Grade 70 plate for the shell (i.e., Y
= 38,000 psi and T = 70,000 psi). However, if all tank records are lost, the materials cannot be
confirmed and an integrity evaluation is being done, the tank cannot be filled to its original design
fill height even if no corrosion has occurred (assuming that no excess thickness was provided in the
original design). This emphasizes the importance of recordkeeping.

• Before December 1995, API-653 required that E be assumed as equal to 0.7 if the E used in
the original design was unknown. This was an extreme penalty if the actual joint efficiency
was much higher than 0.7. The reason for the low E value was that even as late as 1970,
tanks may have been designed with low weld-joint efficiency (depending on the shell-weld
detail and inspection specified).

Table 2-1, which was added in the API-653 second edition, relaxes the weld-joint efficiency
penalty. Using this new table, the weld-joint efficiency is determined by the year of tank
construction and weld-joint type, if it can be confirmed that the tank was designed in accordance
with API-650 or API-12C in effect at that time. If still in place the tank nameplate would provide
this confirmation. Joint efficiencies of 0.85 or even 1.0 could be used for butt-type welds.

E can be assumed to equal 1.0 (i.e., do not worry about the welds) if the corroded area is far enough
away from the welds. Unfortunately, initial inspection data may not show how close the corroded
area is to the welds; therefore, weld-joint efficiency must be considered.

• Calculating the minimum required thickness for each shell course (and in corroded regions)
is really a means to an end. This information is what is really needed:
o How much corrosion allowance remains at relevant shell elevations?
 o How long can the tank stay in operation based on available corrosion allowances?
o What are the maximum permitted tank-fill heights for both stored liquid and any
future hydrotest?

Future corrosion allowance must be considered even for the hydrotest case when doing an API-653
evaluation, which differs from an API-650 design evaluation. API-650 is a design standard, which
assumes that the tank is hydrotested right after it is built and the shell plates are all at new
thicknesses and does not consider future hydrotests. API-653 addresses the actual condition of
existing tanks, i.e., considers deterioration. The API-653 evaluation must consider all loads that can
be applied, i.e., it must consider future hydrotests.

Evaluation example. Assume that a shell thickness inspection has just been done of an external
floating-roof, crude oil storage tank (Fig. 2). The following inspection data has been obtained:

Shell concourse thickness

Fig. 2
measurements of a tank under
inspection.

• All design and fabrication records are lost and no information indicates the construction year
or even that the tank was built in accordance with API requirements.
• Shell plates are butt welded to each other.
• From the thickness measurements made, only one corrosion area was found at the bottom
shell course. This corrosion extends for a maximum vertical distance of 40 in. Minimum
thickness reported in this corroded area was 1.125 in. No corrosion was noted elsewhere.
• Original nominal course thicknesses are shown in Fig. 2 (based on the thickness
measurements made).
• Design fill-height for the tank is 56 ft.
• The specific gravity of the crude oil is 0.8.

Your job: decide if the tank can remain in service at the design fill height. Several things are going
against you in this problem:

1. The shell material is unknown since the fabrication records were lost. Therefore, the API-
653 default material yield and tensile strengths must be used.
2. Without fabrication records, the original shell-weld inspection and the weld-joint efficiency
are unknown. No information was provided on the construction year or even that API-650 or
API-12C were used; Table 2-1 of API-653 requires that E = 0.7.
3. Inspection data only gave the minimum thickness measured and did not say exactly what
elevation in the bottom course that the minimum thickness was at. Therefore, the entire
corroded area must be assumed to be at the course bottom and it is all 1.125 in. thick.
Table 1 shows the initial input data used to evaluate this tank problem with a computer program.5
Relevant output from a program is shown in Table 2. The first pass evaluation shows several
concern areas.

TABLE 1. Evaluation data from the inspection of a tank,

unknown material, E = 0.7
Design temperature, (°F) 15.000
2
Design pressure at top,(lb./in. ) 0.00000
Shell material, unknown
2
Shell design stress [Sd], (lb./in. ) 0.00000
2
Shell hydro test stress [St], (lb./in. ) 0.00000
Tank nominal diameter [D], (ft) 175.00
Tank shell height [HTK], (ft) 64.000
Design liquid level [H], (ft) 56.000
Liquid specific gravity [G], 0.80000
Weight of attachments & structures, (lb) 0.00000
Distance down to top wind girder, (ft) 3.0000
Joint efficiency (App A or 653) [E], 0.70000
Wind velocity, (mph) 100.00
Number of shell courses 8
Shell course #1 Height, (ft) 8.0000
Shell course #1 Thickness. (in.) 1.1250
Shell course #1 Corrosion allowance, (in.) 0.00000
Shell course #2 Height, (ft) 8.0000
Shell course #2 Thickness, (in.) 1.1250
Shell course #2 Corrosion allowance, (in.) 0.00000
Shell course #3 Height, (ft) 8.0000
Shell course #3 Thickness, (in.) 0.87500
Shell course #3 Corrosion allowance, (in.) 0.00000
Shell course #4 Height, (ft) 8.0000
Shell course #4 Thickness, (in.) 0.75000
Shell course #4 Corrosion allowance, (in.) 0.00000
Shell course #5 Height, (ft) 8.0000
Shell course #5 Thickness, (in.) 0.62500
Shell course #5 Corrosion allowance, (in.) 0.00000
Shell course #6 Height, (ft) 8.0000
Shell course #6 Thickness, (in.) 0.37500
Shell course #6 Corrosion allowance, (in.) 0.00000
Shell course #7 Height, (ft) 8.0000
Shell course #7 Thickness, (in.) 0.37500
Shell course #7 Corrosion allowance, (in.) 0.00000
Shell course #8 Height, (ft) 8.0000
Shell course #8 Thickness, (in.) 0.37500
Shell course #8 Corrosion allowance, (in.) 0.00000
 TABLE 2. Analysis of inspection data
Shell course thickness data
Thickness values for three cases Min Temp, °F
Course Design, in. Test, in./ User, in.

1 1.2207 1.5258 1.1250 NA

2 1.0431 1.3039 1.1250 NA
3 0.78120 0.97650 0.87500 NA
4 0.62096 0.77619 0.75000 NA
5 0.46071 0.57589 0.62500 NA
6 0.30046 0.37558 0.37500 NA
7 0.14022 0.17527 0.37500 NA
8 0.10000 0.10000 0.37500 NA

API-653 Thickness/corrosion reserves

Retiring thickness Remaining corrosion
Design, in. Test, in. Design, in. Test, in.

1 1.2207 1.5258 -.95657E-01 -0.40082

2 1.0431 1.3039 81893E-01 -0.17888
3 0.78120 0.97650 93798E-01 -0.10150
4 0.62096 0.77619 0.12904 -.26194E-01
5 0.46071 0.57589 0.16429 .49114E-01
6 0.30046 0.37558 .74538E-01 -.57781E-03
7 0.14022 0.17527 0.23478 0.19973
8 0.00000 0.00000 0.37500 0.37500

Shell course allowed fluid heights

Fluid heights for three cases
Course Design, ft Test, ft Required, ft

1 51.690 41.552 56.000

2 51.690 41.552 48.000
3 44.683 35.946 40.000
4 38.442 30.954 32.000
5 32.202 25.962 24.000
6 19.721 15.977 16.000
7 19.721 15.977 8.000
8 19.721 15.977 0.000

• The remaining shell thickness in the bottom course is not sufficient for either the design
liquid or hydrotest water; negative available corrosion allowances are indicated. More
disturbing, however, is that Courses 2, 3, 4 and 6 are also no good although no corrosion
was found. This clearly illustrates the importance of maintaining tank records since an API-
653 evaluation could force downrating a tank, i.e., limiting its fill height, even if no
deterioration is found.
 • The second part of the analysis shows the maximum permitted fill heights based on shell
thickness data. The bottom course limits the permitted fill height of crude oil to 51.69 ft.
Future hydrotests would be limited to an even lower height – 41.552 ft. Do not ignore the
hydrotest fill-height limits that the upper courses would impose, even if the bottom course is
repaired.
• The presented conclusions do not consider any future corrosion that may occur during the
next operation period. The input did not include a corrosion allowance. Therefore, future
corrosion must be considered with these evaluation results to get an acceptable operating
interval before the next inspection. Paragraph 4.3.3.2b of API-653 requires that when the
corrosion rate is known, the maximum shell inspection interval must be the smaller of
RCA/2N or 15 years, where the remaining corrosion allowance (RCA) is in mils and N is the
corrosion rate, mils/yr. Because we currently do not know when the tank was built, we
cannot calculate a corrosion rate. Therefore, Paragraph 4.3.3.2a requires a five-year
inspection interval.

Decisions. Some decisions must be made. The tank cannot be filled with crude oil to a height of
more than 51.69 ft, representing a capacity reduction of almost 8%. The fill height is further
reduced for future corrosion until the next inspection. Also, the tank cannot be filled with water
beyond its limiting height. Again, future corrosion must be considered for the hydrotest case. If the
particular site is rich in tank capacity, then estimate the required corrosion allowance for a five-year
inspection interval and redo the calculations for final fill-height limitations. However, it would be
preferable to do more inspection and evaluation first. Ask field personnel to see if there is an API-
650 nameplate on the tank and get a rubbing of it. For our case, we will assume that an API-650
nameplate was found and indicates that the tank was built in 1986.

Starting with the seventh edition of API-650, it can be safely assumed that the design weld-joint
efficiency was 1.0 as long as the tank was not designed in accordance with Appendix A (Reference
Table 2-1 of API-653.) An Appendix A tank would have a joint efficiency of either 0.85 or 0.70
depending on the radiographic examination. It would only apply if the maximum shell plate
thickness was 1/2 in. Since this tank's shell is thicker than 1/2 in., it could not have been designed
per Appendix A. Because an API-650 nameplate is on the tank (confirming that it was designed and
erected in accordance with API-650 in 1986), E = 1.0 may be used for the API-653 evaluation.
Table 3 summarizes the results using E = 1.0.
 TABLE 3. API-653 Thickness and corrosion reserves for a tank
with unknown material, E = 1.0
Retiring thickness Remaining corrosion

Design, in. Test, in. Design, in. Test, in.

1 0.85446 1.0681 0.27054 .56925E-01

2 0.73017 0.91272 0.39483 0.21228
3 0.54684 0.68355 0.32816 0.19145
4 0.43467 0.54334 0.31533 0.20666
5 0.32250 0.40312 0.30250 0.22188
6 0.21032 0.26290 0.16468 0.11210
7 .98151E-01 0.12269 0.27685 0.25231
8 0.00000 .00000 0.37500 0.37500

Shell course allowed fluid heights

Fluid heights for three cases
Course Design, ft Test, ft Required, ft

1 73.414 58.931 56.000

2 73.414 58.931 48.000
3 63.404 50.923 40.000
4 54.489 43.791 32.000
5 45.574 36.659 24.000
6 27.745 22.396 16.000
7 27.745 22.396 8.000
8 27.745 22.396 0.000

The change in E makes a big difference; there is a corrosion allowance left even for the hydrotest
case. The required inspection interval can now be based on these results and then compared to the
desired inspection, maintenance and operations planning needs.

First calculate the corrosion rate, N, using the maximum corrosion that has occurred:

N = (Original thickness - Minimum measured thickness)/years of operation

N = (1.375 - 1.125)/10 = 0.025 in./yr.

The corrosion rate is quite severe; consequently the minimum remaining corrosion allowance is
0.057 in. (based on the bottom course). Therefore, the maximum shell inspection interval is:

Shell inspection interval = RCA/2N

Shell inspection interval = 0.057/2 ´ 0.025 = 1.14 years

The shell must be inspected again in just over a year to operate the tank at its maximum fill height
without repairing the corroded area. This is still not an attractive conclusion.
More data. At this point, it is worthwhile to ask the inspectors to take more thickness
measurements in the corroded area. The data will better define the extent of corrosion and the actual
elevation at which it starts. Present evaluations were based on the minimum thickness that was
measured; however, API-653 permits that the measured shell thicknesses be averaged, and that the
evaluation consider both the average and minimum thicknesses in the corroded region (Reference
Paragraphs 2.3.2 and 2.3.3.1 of API-653). There is no advantage in finding how close the corrosion
is to the welds, since E = 1.0 is already being used.

To show how additional thickness measurements may be used, assume that the following additional
inspection data is obtained:

• The worst corroded area starts at the course bottom.

• Five thickness measurements, equally spaced per API-653 criteria, result in these
measurements: 1.2, 1.25, 1.3, 1.2, 1.125. This yields an average thickness of 1.215 in.

Using the previous results, there now is a (1.215 - 1.0681) = 0.147 in. corrosion allowance
remaining. Recalculating the required inspection interval yields:

Shell inspection interval = 0.147/2 ´ 0.025 = 2.9 years.

This is better, but not great. Operating companies want to maximize inspection intervals, usually
targeting for at least 10 years or more. The complete API-653 evaluation also requires checking that
the minimum measured thickness (1.125 in.) is at least 60% of the required thickness plus the
needed corrosion allowance. In this example, the second criterion does not govern.

You may choose to repair the shell to achieve complete flexibility for future hydrotesting. However,
there may be situations where the site cannot take the time to make the repair and needs to put the
tank back into service. Under these conditions, the operator can use software5 to calculate adjusted
fill-height limitations using the assumed corrosion allowance until the next inspection.

In this example, assume that the tank will be placed back into service and scheduled for another
inspection in five years. For this situation, a corrosion allowance of (5 ´ 2 ´ 0.025) = 0.25 in. is
needed. Using this corrosion allowance, the fill-height limits can be recalculated. Table 4 shows the
recalculated fill heights.
 TABLE 4. API-653 Thickness/corrosion reserves for a tank
with unknown material, CA = 0.25 in., E = 1.0
Retiring thickness Remaining corrosion

Design, in. Test, in. Design, in. Test, in.

1 0.85446 1.0681 0.36054 0.14692
2 0.73017 0.91272 0.39483 0.21228
3 0.54684 0.68355 0.32816 0.19145
4 0.43467 0.54334 0.31533 0.20666
5 0.32250 0.40312 0.30250 0.22188
6 0.21032 0.26290 0.16468 0.11210
7 .98151E-01 0.12269 0.27685 0.25231
8 0.00000 0.00000 0.37500 0.37500

Shell course allowed fluid heights

Fluid heights for three cases
Course Design, ft Test, ft Required, ft

1 63.115 50.692 56.000

2 57.322 46.058 48.000
3 45.574 36.659 40.000
4 36.659 29.527 32.000
5 27.745 22.396 24.000
6 9.9148 8.1319 16.000
7 9.9148 8.1319 8.000
8 9.9148 8.1319 0.000

As shown in Table 4, the tank can remain in service for five years (actually more) at the design fill
height of crude oil without repairs as long as a hydrotest is not considered during this time.
Depending on the circumstances, it is not necessary to make any repairs now.

The last consideration is the impact that the weak material assumption has on the evaluation. Table
5 uses the same evaluation data as Table 4 except that it assumes the entire shell was fabricated
from A-516 Grade 60 plate. Possibly, the tank contractor still has the original design information.
Table 5 clearly shows the difference that the material specification can make. There is now only a
minimal fill height limitation even for the hydrotest case. An evaluation of the preceding analysis
shows that:
 TABLE 5. API-653 Thickness/corrosion reserves for a tank
fabricated from A-516 Grade 60 Plate, CA = 0.25 in., E = 1.0
Retiring thickness Remaining corrosion

Design, in. Test, in. Design, in. Test, in.

1 0.78326 0.97907 0.43174 0.23593

2 0.66933 0.83666 0.45567 0.28834
3 0.50412 0.63015 0.37088 0.24485
4 0.40071 0.50089 0.34929 0.24911
5 0.29730 0.37163 0.32770 0.25337
6 0.19389 0.24237 0.18111 0.13263
7 .90483E-01 0.11310 0.28452 0.26190
8 0.00000 0.00000 0.37500 0.37500

Shell course allowed fluid heights

Fluid heights for three cases
Course Design, ft Test, ft Required, ft

1 68.762 55.210 56.000

2 62.442 50.154 48.000
3 49.352 39.681 40.000
4 39.681 31.945 32.000
5 30.011 24.209 24.000
6 10.670 8.7363 16.000
7 10.670 8.7363 8.000
8 10.670 8.7363 0.000

• Maintaining accurate tank records is essential. Even if the original design information and
prior inspection data are not available, keep records of all new inspection, maintenance and
repair activity.
• Obtaining sufficient inspection data and properly interpreting it is needed to make cost-
effective maintenance and operating decisions.
• Performing the proper calculations, based on inspection results, is necessary to determine
the appropriate response when tank deterioration is found. This response may be: do
nothing, i.e., the tank is fine, repair the tank, reduce the maximum liquid storage level, or
retire the tank.

API-653 also permits tank structural integrity evaluation by performing a detailed stress analysis in
accordance with the ASME Code Section VIII, Division 2. This approach can be advantageous in
situations where the corrosion is localized, especially in the bottom-to-shell junction region where
bending stress rather than membrane stress actually governs structural integrity evaluations. A
complete API-653 structural integrity evaluation includes the bottom, roof, nozzles and foundation
as well as the shell.
As more governing bodies require compliance with API-653 either directly or indirectly, the
analysis approach described here will become a standard procedure for owners/operators of
aboveground atmospheric storage tanks. HP

LITERATURE CITED

1. API-653, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction, American Petroleum

Institute, 1995.
2. Pietrucha, B., "Engineering Analysis Can be an Alternative to Tank Repair," Terminals,
November–December 1994.
3. Hendrix, D. E., and V. A. Carucci, "Improve Storage Tank Inspections," Hydrocarbon
Processing, January 1995.
4. API-650, Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage, American Petroleum Institute, 1995.
5. TANK - API 650/653 Analysis, COADE, Inc. 1996.

Vincent A. Carucci is President and owner of Carmagen Engineering, Inc., Madison,

New Jersey. Mr. Carucci holds BS and MS degrees in mechanical engineering from
Stevens Institute of Technology. He specializes in mechanical engineering aspects of
storage tanks, pressure vessels, piping systems and heat exchangers. In this work, Mr.
Carucci has developed engineering standards and specifications for new equipment,
performed design audits of work done by contractors and equipment suppliers,
provided field technical support during the startup of new processing units, solved
problems on operating equipment and systems and developed engineering training
courses. Before forming Carmagen Engineering in 1986, Mr. Carucci was with Exxon
Research and Engineering company for 16 years where he provided mechanical
engineering consulting support to Exxon's worldwide affiliates.

Richard L. Ay is Vice President of software development at COADE, Inc. Mr. Ay

has twenty years of experience in engineering consulting and software development.
He holds a BS degree from Florida Institute of Technology and an MS degree from
the University of Houston, Mr. Ay is a licensed professional engineer in the state of
Texas.
> 4 36.659 29.527 32.000 5 27.745 22.396 24.000 6 9.9148 8.1319 16.000
7 9.9148 8.1319 8.000 8 9.9148 8.1319 0.000

As shown in Table 4, the tank can remain in service for five years (actually more) at the design fill
height of crude oil without repairs as long as a hydrotest is not considered during this time.
Depending on the circumstances, it is not necessary to make any repairs now.

The last consideration is the impact that the weak material assumption has on the evaluation. Table
5 uses the same evaluation data as Table 4 except that it assumes the entire shell was fabricated
from A-516 Grade 60 plate. Possibly, the tank contractor still has the original design information.
Table 5 clearly shows the difference that the material specification can make. There is now only a
minimal fill height limitation even for the hydrotest case. An evaluation of the preceding analysis
shows that:
 TABLE 5. API-653 Thickness/corrosion reserves for a tank
fabricated from A-516 Grade 60 Plate, CA = 0.25 in., E = 1.0
Retiring thickness Remaining corrosion

Design, in. Test, in. Design, in. Test, in.

1 0.78326 0.97907 0.43174 0.23593

2 0.66933 0.83666 0.45567 0.28834
3 0.50412 0.63015 0.37088 0.24485
4 0.40071 0.50089 0.34929 0.24911
5 0.29730 0.37163 0.32770 0.25337
6 0.19389 0.24237 0.18111 0.13263
7 .90483E-01 0.11310 0.28452 0.26190
8 0.00000 0.00000 0.37500 0.37500

Shell course allowed fluid heights

Fluid heights for three cases
Course Design, ft Test, ft Required, ft

1 68.762 55.210 56.000

2 62.442 50.154 48.000
3 49.352 39.681 40.000
4 39.681 31.945 32.000
5 30.011 24.209 24.000
6 10.670 8.7363 16.000
7 10.670 8.7363 8.000
8 10.670 8.7363 0.000

• Maintaining accurate tank records is essential. Even if the original design information and
prior inspection data are not available, keep records of all new inspection, maintenance and
repair activity.
• Obtaining sufficient inspection data and properly interpreting it is needed to make cost-
effective maintenance and operating decisions.
• Performing the proper calculations, based on inspection results, is necessary to determine
the appropriate response when tank deterioration is found. This response may be: do
nothing, i.e., the tank is fine, repair the tank, reduce the maximum liquid storage level, or
retire the tank.

API-653 also permits tank structural integrity evaluation by performing a detailed stress analysis in
accordance with the ASME Code Section VIII, Division 2. This approach can be advantageous in
situations where the corrosion is localized, especially in the bottom-to-shell junction region where
bending stress rather than membrane stress actually governs structural integrity evaluations. A
complete API-653 structural integrity evaluation includes the bottom, roof, nozzles and foundation
as well as the shell.
As more governing bodies require compliance with API-653 either directly or indirectly, the
analysis approach described here will become a standard procedure for owners/operators of
aboveground atmospheric storage tanks. HP

LITERATURE CITED

1. API-653, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction, American Petroleum

Institute, 1995.
2. Pietrucha, B., "Engineering Analysis Can be an Alternative to Tank Repair," Terminals,
November–December 1994.
3. Hendrix, D. E., and V. A. Carucci, "Improve Storage Tank Inspections," Hydrocarbon
Processing, January 1995.
4. API-650, Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage, American Petroleum Institute, 1995.
5. TANK - API 650/653 Analysis, COADE, Inc. 1996.

Vincent A. Carucci is President and owner of Carmagen Engineering, Inc., Madison,

New Jersey. Mr. Carucci holds BS and MS degrees in mechanical engineering from
Stevens Institute of Technology. He specializes in mechanical engineering aspects of
storage tanks, pressure vessels, piping systems and heat exchangers. In this work, Mr.
Carucci has developed engineering standards and specifications for new equipment,
performed design audits of work done by contractors and equipment suppliers,
provided field technical support during the startup of new processing units, solved
problems on operating equipment and systems and developed engineering training
courses. Before forming Carmagen Engineering in 1986, Mr. Carucci was with Exxon
Research and Engineering company for 16 years where he provided mechanical
engineering consulting support to Exxon's worldwide affiliates.

Richard L. Ay is Vice President of software development at COADE, Inc. Mr. Ay

has twenty years of experience in engineering consulting and software development.
He holds a BS degree from Florida Institute of Technology and an MS degree from
the University of Houston, Mr. Ay is a licensed professional engineer in the state of
Texas.
Revise aboveground storage tank inspections
10.01.1998 | Hendrix, D. E., The Hendrix Group, Inc., Houston, Texas

Quick review highlights recent addendums to API 653

Keywords:

The American Petroleum Institute (API) published Standard 653, "Tank Inspection, Repair,
Alteration, and Reconstruction," in January 1991. This guidance document has a wide scope; it
encompasses the maintenance, inspection, repair, alteration, and reconstruction of existing
aboveground, atmospheric storage tanks constructed to API 650, and its predecessor, API 12C.

API 653 addresses suitability-for-service, repair and alteration of aboveground storage tanks. Since
the original publication, this guidance document has undergone many changes. In December 1995,
API published the Second Edition of API 653, the first major revision.1 To improve operating
performance and maintenance of these large tanks, API has since amended and made notable
revisions to several sections of the second edition of API 653. The following checklist summarizes
significant changes made in Addendum 1 (December 1996) and Addendum 2 (December 1997).
Use this amended list to note concerns and possible revisions in your tank inspection program.

Section 2 – Suitability-for-service. In paragraph 2.2.2, Addendum 2 adds a new requirement.

Now, distorted roof support members shall be evaluated and repaired or replaced, in addition to
corroded or damaged members.

Minimum thickness calculation for welded tank shell. Changes in paragraph 2.3.3, address how
to calculate the minimum thickness for tank shells. According to Addendum 2, the minimum shell
thickness formula now substitutes H for H-1 in the formula: 2.6 ¥ DHG/SE. Why API made this
change is not clear. The term, H-1, originated during the early days of tank design. It was
recognized that the greatest hoop stress in a tank shell course was approximately 1 ft above the
horizontal butt weld joining two shell courses, or 1 ft above the shell-to-bottom joint. This is due to
the restraining effect of the joints on hoop strains. Since the shell thickness formula locates H at the
bottom of a locally corroded area, rather than at a shell course butt weld, API may be recognizing
this difference. However, the change is not consistent with tmin calculations for existing tanks
containing no locally corroded areas where the H-1 term should apply as it does to new tank shell
calculations. Substituting H for H-1 to makes the tmin calculation more conservative for uncorroded
tanks.

Also added to Addendum 2 is a formula for calculating a maximum hydrostatic test height, based
on the minimum thickness in the locally corroded area. It uses greater allowable stresses than that
permitted for calculating product tmin.

Bottom thickness measurements. Addendum 1 adds three new paragraphs (2.4.7.5, 2.4.7.6 and
2.4.7.7) that clarify requirements for repairing tank floor pit repairs and specifying minimum
dimensional requirements for the floor extension on the outside of the tank. Pit repairs are limited to
pit welding, overlay welding and lap patching. Welding within the "critical zone" is still limited as
before. The minimum thickness of the floor projection shall be at least 0.1 in. and shall extend a
minimum of 38 in. from the outside toe of the floor-to-shell weld.
Minimum thickness for annular plate ring. The minimum outside dimensional requirements
specified in 2.4.7.7, for lap welded floor extensions, also apply to annular rings. This change is
noted in Addendum 1.

Section 4 – Inspection. Besides changing the title of the paragraph from Scheduled inspection to
External inspection, paragraph 4.3.2.1. formalizes the requirement that the external inspection be
conducted by an authorized inspector. This replaces paragraph 4.10, which defines inspector
qualifications. API 653 now defines an authorized inspector as ". . . an employee of an authorized
inspection agency that is qualified and certified to perform tank inspections under this standard."
Implicit in this requirement is that the authorized inspector must hold an API 653 certification.

Internal inspection. Paragraph 4.4.1.2 now requires the authorized inspector to review the tank
NDE inspection results, in addition to conducting the visual inspections.

Section 7 – Tank repair and alteration. Section 7 significantly departs from the original second
edition; it now permits lap welded shell patch plates, within certain restrictions. The first and
second editions of API 653 were overly conservative and prohibited shell lap patches. Lap patch
repairs were not permitted to shell plates of any tank, based on brittle fracture considerations.
However, Section 3 – Brittle fracture considerations, explicitly states that brittle fracture of tanks
with shell plates less than 12-in. thickness is not a concern. Addendum 1 remedies that conundrum.

Lap patch repair plates can now be used to repair tank shells less than 12-in. thick with certain
restrictions on size, placement and dimensions. The following examples note changes within this
section:

Paragraph Revision

7.3.1.3. Patch plates shall be the smaller of 12-in. thick or the thickness of the shell plate, but not
less than 316 in.

7.3.1.4 Corners shall be rounded to a minimum 2-in. radius, except at the shell-to-bottom joint

7.3.1.5 Lap patches may cross flush ground shell butt welds, provided that they extend at least 6 in.
beyond the butt weld

7.3.1.6 Lap patches may extend to, and intersect with, the external shell-to-bottom joint at a 90°
angle.

7.3.1.7 Maximum dimensions are 48 in. ¥ 72 in., and minimum dimensions are 6 in. ¥ 6 in.

7.3.1.8 Shell openings cannot be positioned within a lap patch

7.3.1.9 Shell plates under lap patches have to be ultrasonically inspected for plate defects and
remaining thickness

7.3.1.10 Lap patches cannot be placed over lap-welded or riveted shell seams, other lap patch
plates, distorted areas or areas containing shell defects.

Also, lap welded patch plates can be used to close holes in shell plates due to corrosion or removal
of shell penetrations. These patches must meet a host of requirements, defined in paragraphs 7.3.2.1
through 7.3.4.6, including the maximum 12 in. existing shell plate thickness criteria.
Alteration of existing shell penetrations. Addendum 2 revises old paragraph 7.8.2.2, with 7.9.2.2,
and restricts removing of an existing reinforcing plate and adding a new one to unstress relieved
assemblies.

Repair of tank bottoms. Addendum 2 adds a new paragraph – 7.10.2.30 – which revises 7.9.2.3. It
adds spacing requirements (3 in. or 5t) between floor plate or annular ring welds and tank shell
vertical welds for shell plates of unknown toughness.

Hot Taps. The hot tap requirements have been updated and tightened to reflect and clarify brittle
fracture considerations in Addendum 1. Specifically, the new requirements add more restrictions
when hot tapping tanks containing shell plates of unknown toughness greater than 12 in. that did not
exist in the original second edition.

Section 8 – Dismantling and reconstruction. Paragraph 8.3.2.2, covering reuse of existing tank
bottoms, has been revised. It prevents reusing the portion of the tank containing the floor-to-shell
weld and the floor extension. The original second edition allowed the entire floor to be reused intact
by removing the shell 12 in. above the shell-to-floor weld.

Shells. Shell plates 12 in. or thinner can now be cut, leaving part of the weld and all of the heat
affected zone. The original second edition made no allowance for thin shell plates.

Section 10 – Examination and testing. Paragraph 10.1.4.2 clarifies the inspection requirements for
new, permanent attachments and attachments that have been removed on tanks with shell materials
of Groups IV, IVA, V or VI. The previous paragraph included no inspection requirements for
removed attachments. Also, the revised paragraph only permits the purchaser to substitute magnetic
particle inspection with liquid penetrant inspection. This revision presumably recognizes the
increased sensitivity of the magnetic particle method to detect defects in carbon steel material,
compared with liquid penetrants. HP

The author
David E. Hendrix is President of The Hendrix Group, Inc., Houston, Texas. Mr. Hendrix
holds a BS degree in metallurgical engineering from the University of Alabama and has over
21 years of experience with material selection and equipment failure from mechanical and
corrosion-related causes. He performs engineering-integrity assessments of pressure vessels
and aboveground-storage tanks and provides technical support to inspection companies and
operating companies in the development of inspection-management programs, inspection
procedures, and repair specifications. Mr. Hendrix is a registered professional engineer in the
state of Texas, a NACE Corrosion Technologist and an API-certified API 653 Aboveground
Storage Tank Inspector. He has authored many papers in the areas of equipment failures, high-
temperature metallurgy, paint and coating standards development, and storage tank
maintenance. He is a member of NACE International, ASM International, Steel Structures
Painting Council and ASME.