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

net/publication/360345415

Design guidance for evaluating storage tank settlements and acceptable tank
settlement criteria

Conference Paper · May 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 1,985

2 authors:

Indrasenan Thusyanthan Henrique Enriquez

University of Cambridge Mott MacDonald Group
59 PUBLICATIONS   801 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Shaft Friction of Grouted Piles in Rock View project

Case Study View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Indrasenan Thusyanthan on 03 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Sydney 2022

Design guidance for evaluating storage tank settlements and acceptable tank
settlement criteria
Guide de conception pour évaluer les tassements des réservoirs de stockage et les critères de
tassement des réservoirs acceptables

Indrasenan Thusyanthan
Gavin & Doherty Geosolutions Ltd. (GDG), London, United Kingdom

Henrique Enriquez
Mott MacDonald, Prague, Czech Republic

ABSTRACT: Large scale industrial storage tanks are essential for continuous operation of refineries, industrial processing plants
and domestic supplies. Foundation settlements of such structures play a critical role in their integrity and operation throughout their
design life. Thus, it is critical that the design of tank foundations ensures that short and long-term settlements can be tolerated by the
tank and associated piping systems. Therefore, design engineers must evaluate tank settlements accurately and if predicted
settlements cannot be tolerated by the tank, then alternative foundation systems or soil improvement need to be considered prior to
tank construction. This paper provides key steps for design engineers to follow from geotechnical site investigation to evaluation of
tank settlements (uniform and differential settlements) under different soil conditions. Insight into the fundaments of soil behaviour
that govern storage tank foundation settlements is provided. This paper also summarises the key international standards and
guidelines that provide acceptable tank settlement criteria. Numerical analysis was carried out to provide a simple design chart that
can be used by engineers to predict preliminary tank settlements, for tanks with diameters ranging from 20m-100m, for some typical
soil conditions.

RÉSUMÉ : Les réservoirs de stockage industriels à grande échelle sont essentiels pour le fonctionnement continu des raffineries, des
usines et des approvisionnements domestiques. Les installations de fondation de ces réservoirs jouent un rôle essentiel dans leur intégrité
et leur fonctionnement tout au long de leur durée de vie. Ainsi, il est essentiel que la conception de ces fondations de réservoir garantisse
que les tassements à court et à long terme puissent être tolérés par le réservoir et les systèmes de tuyauterie associés. Par conséquent, les
ingénieurs concepteurs doivent évaluer avec précision les tassements des réservoirs et si les tassements prévus ne peuvent pas être tolérés
par les réservoirs, une amélioration appropriée du sol doit être entreprise avant la construction des réservoirs. Cet article fournit aux
ingénieurs concepteurs les étapes clés à suivre, de l'étude géotechnique du site à l'évaluation du tassement des réservoirs (tassements
uniformes et différentiels) dans différentes conditions de sol. Un aperçu des fondements du comportement du sol qui régissent les
tassements des fondations des réservoirs de stockage est fourni. Ce document résume également les principales normes et directives
internationales qui fournissent des critères acceptables de règlement des citernes. Une analyse numérique a été effectuée pour fournir
des tableaux de conception simples qui peuvent être utilisés par les ingénieurs pour prédire les tassements préliminaires des réservoirs,
pour les réservoirs d'un diamètre allant de 20 m à 100 m, pour certaines conditions de sol typiques.
KEYWORDS: Tank foundation, settlement, foundation, ring beam.

1. INTRODUCTION.

Storage tanks have always played a vital role in the operation of

refineries, plants in oil and gas industry and also in domestic
supplies such as water supply. Thus, foundation settlements of
storage tanks must be limited such that their integrity and
operation throughout their design life is not affected. There are
several standards that provide guidance on tank foundation
designs and acceptable levels of foundation settlements.
American Petroleum Institute (API), Engineering Equipment and
Materials Users' Association (EEMUA) and Process Industry
Practices (PIP) are the common sources for standards and
guidelines for tank foundations designs and performance. Figure 1. Modes of Tank settlement: (a) Uniform settlement (b)
Differential settlement Center to periphery (c) Planar Tilt (d) Differential
There are several modes of tank settlements that need to be
settlement around circumference (e) Edge settlement (f) Localized
limited to ensure tank integrity. These are pictorially provided in Bottom Settlement.
Figure 1. A summary of how API, EEMUA and PIP standards
outline the tank settlement modes is provided in Figure 2. The key tank settlement modes. During the design stage, uniform
uniform settlement, center to periphery settlement, differential settlement and center to periphery settlement are often evaluated
settlement around the tank circumference and planar tilt are four to assess whether or not soil improvement is required at the site.
 Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Sydney 2022

to Table 3. Uniform settlements are not prescribed since these are

typically better tolerated by the tank structure. However,
consideration shall be given to its impact on structural
connections between the tank and adjacent structures.
Table 4 provides acceptable settlement for tank diameters of
20m, 50m and 100m considering the guidance outlined in the
above standards. It is noted that API 653 is applicable to above-
ground oil storage tanks, API 625 is applicable to LNG storage
tanks; EEMUA 159 and PIP are applicable to non-refrigerated
above ground steel storage tanks.

Table 1. Allowable differential circumferential settlement

Standard Assessment criteria*

CASE 1: Tank shell settlement with a clear plane of
rigid tilt defined by a cosine curve.
(11000 ∗ 𝑌 ∗ 𝐿2 )
𝑆𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
2∗𝐸∗𝐻
𝑺𝒎𝒂𝒙 = permissible out-of-plane settlement [mm]
𝑳 = arc length between measurement points [m]
API 653
Y = yield strength of shell material [MPa]
E = Young’s modulus of shell material [MPa]
𝐇 = tank height [m]
Figure 2. Summary of different modes of tank foundation settlements
highlighted in different standards (in the same order as in standards). CASE 2: For settlement profiles without a well-
defined rigid tilt plane alternative guidance to
determine the permissible out-of-plane settlement is
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE provided in section B.3.2.2 of the Standard.
10 mm in an arc of 10 m
2.1 Tank foundation API 625
(tangential settlement < 1/1000)
Above ground large diameter storage tanks are relatively flexible a) limited to 1/100 between any two adjacent points
structures that may accommodate significant amounts of (1% of the arc length).
settlement. Nevertheless, given that settlements ultimately
control the tank dimensions and foundation systems, these must b) 300mm between any two points for fixed roof large
be accurately estimated during the design stage. Therefore, EEMUA diameter tanks (D ≥ 36 m) without internal floating
appropriate design methodologies must be adopted to 159 cover.
characterize site specific ground conditions and subsequently c) As per API 653 for large diameter (D ≥ 40 m)
design appropriate foundation systems or ground improvement floating roof tanks and large fixed roof tanks with
solutions to ensure that settlements are kept within permissible internal floating cover.
limits. Excessive settlements may induce high stresses and 𝐿⁄
distortions in the tank floor or shell resulting in serviceability and PIP 450 or as API 653
potentially ultimate limit states. STE03020 𝑳 = length between settlement readings.
Tank distortion is of particular concern and may be induced *Note: API 650 recommends 13mm per 10m circumference and 50mm
by sagging of the floor plate, differential settlement around the
uniform settlement as screening values during hydrotest.
periphery of the tank and planar tilt. On the other hand, uniform
settlements are better tolerated, however these may also induce Table 2. Allowable centre-to-edge differential settlement (sagging)
unacceptable strains in the connecting piping systems.
Differential settlement is critical to tank performance and has Standard Assessment criteria
been studied in detail by numerous authors. A comprehensive
review of tank settlement data was carried out by Rosenberg & API 653 Not specified
Journeaux (1982) and Marr, Ramos & Lambe (1982). In both
API 625 < 𝑅 /240, R = tank radius
publications the authors suggest performance criteria for the
differential settlement of large steel storage tanks based on 𝑑 𝑓0 ∗ 100 𝑌
available data and their own studies. The distortion limits 𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥 = ∗ √( ) + 3280 ∗ , 𝑜𝑟
100 𝐷 𝐸
recommended by the former as an appropriate means for
assessing the probability of tank damage are 1:45 and 1:450 for 𝐷⁄50 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑓0 = 0 𝑚𝑚
edge-to-centre settlement and out-of-plane perimeter movements,
respectively. Marr, Ramos & Lambe (1982) provide detailed 𝐟𝐦𝐚𝐱 = maximum allowed centre-to-edge settlement in
EEMUA
recommendations on performance criteria for differential tank bottom [mm]; 𝒅 = diameter of dish in floor [mm];
159
settlement of tanks and summarise for each criterion the failure 𝐃 = tank diameter [mm]; 𝐟𝟎 = as-built difference in
mechanism and the structural element to which the criterion height of the floor between the centre and the tank shell,
applies. with a maximum of 300mm; 𝑌 = maximum specified
yield strength of the floor plate material with maximum
2.2 Acceptable settlement from guidelines & Standards of 250 MPa; 𝐄 = Young’s modulus of the floor plate
material at operating temperature [MPa]
Internationally recognized storage tank compliance documents
𝐷⁄50 𝑡o 𝐷⁄100
such as API Standards 625 and 653, EEMUA 159 and PIP PIP
STE02030 provide guidance on permissible foundation STE03020 𝑫 = tank diameter
settlements. Allowable displacements are summarised in Table 1
 Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Sydney 2022

Table 3. Allowable planar tilt Primary Compression (Sp)

This component of settlement is a time-dependent process due to
Standard Assessment criteria rearrangement of soil particles or crushing of soil particle with
API 653 Not specified dissipation of excess pore water pressures. In clay and silty soils,
primary compression is also known as consolidation and the rate
< 5 ∗ (𝐷⁄𝐻 ) at which it happens depends on the permeability of the soil and
API 625
𝑫 = tank diameter, 𝑯 = tank height the boundary conditions. The consolidation settlement is
completed when the excess pore water pressures, generated due
Max. planar tilt is a function of the ratio shell to loading, are fully dissipated and effective stress remains
EEMUA 159
height / tank diameter (0.5 – 2% of shell height) constant.
Full details provided in section 6.5.1 and Figure 6-
14. Secondary Compression or Creep (Ss)
When soil is subjected to a constant load, it deforms over time
PIP STE03020 Not specified and this is usually called creep. It is also known as secondary
compression or long-term soil settlement under constant loading.
Table 4. Allowable settlements for tank diameters 20m, 50m and 100m
Hydrocompression
Standard Tank diameter, m Certain types of soil, due to their geological nature and structure,
exhibit collapse settlement when wetted (wetting collapse). This
20 50 100 phenomenon is known as hydrocompression. These soils could
be wind-blown sands, loess, or alluvial deposits (Kalantari,
Allowable circumferential differential settlement 2013).
API 653 27.5 mm (H=25m, E=200kN/mm2, Y=200 N/mm2)

API 625 10 mm in an arc of 10 m

1/100 between any two adjacent points (1% of the

EEMUA 159
arc length) or as b) and c) in Table 1

PIP STE03020 Same as API 653 or L/450

Allowable center-to-edge differential settlement (sagging)

API 653 Not specified

API 625 42 mm 104 mm 208 mm

EEMUA 159 400 mm 1000mm 2000 mm
(𝑓0 = 0𝑚𝑚; 𝐷/50)

PIP STE03020 200-400mm 500-1000 mm 1000-2000 mm

Allowable planar tilt

API 653 Not specified Figure 3. Schematic of total settlement of a tank foundation with time.

API 625 5 mm 12.5 mm 25 mm 3.2 Contact pressures and settlement profiles

EEMUA 159 200 mm 400 mm
PIP STE03020 Not Specified
3. FUNDATMENTALS OF SETTLEMENT IN SOIL
3.1 Components of foundation settlement
Settlement of tank foundations in soil depends mainly on the
loading magnitude, soil type and time duration of load
application. The total settlement, ST, can be considered to be from
three different components as shown below in Eq. 1. Figure 3
presents an overview of foundation settlement vs time.
400 mm The settlement profile within the tank foundation area will
depend on whether the foundation is rigid or flexible. For
example, considering a 30m diameter tank with 200kPa uniform
load on uniform soil of 30MPa stiffness, the settlement profile
across the tank diameter predicted by Settle3 software is as
shown in Figure 4. It can be seen that the maximum settlement
of a rigid tank foundation is about 70% of that of a flexible
foundation.

𝑆𝑇 = 𝑆𝑖 + 𝑆𝑝 + 𝑆𝑠 (1)

Immediate settlement (Si)

This happens in soil due to elastic compression or distortion of
the soil and it happens as soon as it is loaded. Immediate
settlement in fully-saturated soil is due to shear deformation at Figure 4. Settlement profile of Rigid vs Flexible foundation
constant volume, and in partially-saturated soil it is due to both
shear deformation and volume reduction.
 Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Sydney 2022

4. TANK FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT EVALUATION samples at proper stress levels would be required.

Accurate predictions of tank foundation settlements are essential
to ensure that the tank can operate without any integrity issues
throughout its design life. Estimated settlements also govern the
selection of the most appropriate type of foundation and whether
soil improvement is required or not at a particular site. The key
steps for ensuring safe tank foundation design are provided below.
Step 1 - Assess ground conditions at the project site:
a. Perform Geotechnical Investigation (GI)
b. Perform geophysical survey (Multispectral Analysis
of Surface Wave (MASW)) at the site (MASW is
preferred as it provides full layer profile at the tank
area)
Step 2 - Derive soil properties from in-situ and laboratory
testing on representative samples.
Step 3 - Undertake foundation settlement assessment (Figure 5).
Step 4 - Compare the predicted tank settlement with acceptable
design values. If the predicted foundation settlement
exceeds the acceptable value, then consider
appropriate soil improvement or alternative foundation
solution.
Step 3: Once the subsurface conditions are known and the
compressibility properties of the soil layers determined,
settlement calculations can be undertaken using analytical or
numerical methods. The depth of the compressible soil layer to
be considered when calculating settlement is a function of the
size and shape of the foundation, the variation in soil stiffness
with depth and the spacing of foundation elements. This depth
may normally be taken as the depth at which the effective vertical
stress due to the foundation load is 20 % of the effective
overburden stress. Typically considering an influence zone of up
to 1.5 times the diameter of the tank is sufficient. This is
illustrated in Figure 7 where the vertical stress with depth at the
center and at the edge of a tank is provided considering the
Boussinesq stress distribution.
Step 4: If predicted tank settlements exceed permissible values,
then some level of soil improvement would need to be considered.
The type and degree of soil improvement would depend on the
soil conditions at site.

Figure 6. Example of a Geophysical survey results of Multichannel

Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW)

Figure 5. Summary of relevant data and procedure for evaluating tank

foundation settlement.
Step 1: Settlement of tank foundations in soil depends mainly
soil stratigraphy, stiffness properties of the soil and the
foundation loading. Thus, understanding the stratigraphy and soil
properties below the foundations is critical. This can be achieved
by undertaking proper site-specific geotechnical and geophysical
investigations. Geotechnical investigation would allow for in-
situ measurements of soil properties with Standard Penetration
Testing (SPT) and Cone Penetration Testing (CPT) testing and
also provide samples for laboratory testing.
As intrusive geotechnical investigations can only be
undertaken in a limited number of locations, geotechnical
investigation alone would not enable designers to confirm that
that the soil layers are uniform across the tank foundations.
Therefore, a geophysical survey such as MASW would provide Figure 7. Normalized vertical stress distribution at the center and edge of
a flexible tank foundation (from Settle3 software).
additional results to confirm the uniformity of the soil layers and
enable the designer to identify any soft spots and cavities within
the foundation influence zone. An example of MASW survey 5. GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES REQUIRED FOR
results is provided in Figure 6 where two types of soil layers and TANK BEARING CAPACITY AND SETTLEMENT
bedrock (layer3) are clearly identified at the project site. The ASSESSMENT
MASW is preferred over other methods since it provides a full
layer profile across the tank area. 5.1 Friction angle and undrained shear strength from SPT
and CPT in-situ tests
Step 2: Soil properties required for settlement calculation depend
on the soil type. SPT and CPT data can be used to derive the Bearing capacity assessment of tank foundation would require
stiffness appropriately using well known published empirical soil strength parameters such as friction angle for sands and
correlations. In clay soils, consolidation properties would be undrained shear strength for clays to be determined. SPTs and
required to assess time-dependent long-term settlements and CPTs are the most common in-situ tests for characterizing soil
hence specification for oedometer testing on undisturbed soil strength. Test data from SPTs and CPTs are subsequently used to
 Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Sydney 2022

obtain soil strength parameters from published empirical
correlations. When using SPT data in geotechnical design, it is
important that conversion from SPT-N values to N60 is
undertaken using SPT hammer energy efficiency (ASTM D4633,
Thusyanthan & Nawaz (2017)).
Friction angle () from SPT and CPT tests
The friction angle for cohesive soils shall be obtained from
drained direct shear tests or triaxial shear tests. In the absence of
laboratory tests, in granular soils the following equations can be
used to estimate the friction angle () from SPT or CPT test data
(Peck et al. 1974, Kulhawy & Mayne, 1990).
 (𝑑𝑒𝑔) = 27.1 + 0.3𝑁60 − 0.00054 [𝑁60 ]2 (2)
Where 𝑁60 is the SPT blow count corrected to 60% energy
efficient hammer.
𝑞𝑐
 (𝑑𝑒𝑔) = 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 [0.1 + 0.38 𝐿𝑜𝑔 ( )] (3)
𝜎′0
5.3 Consolidation properties in Clay
In cohesive soils, consolidation settlement would occur with time
and hence oedometer testing with appropriate stress levels needs
to be undertaken. Compressibility and permeability properties
obtained from oedometer testing can then be used to evaluate the
time-dependent settlement due to tank foundation loading.
5.4 Estimation of Stiffness (E) in rock
In order to undertake a settlement assessment in rock layers, rock
mass modulus (Em) which represents the behaviour of the rock
mass is required (Ciria 181). This cannot be obtained from
laboratory tests on intact rock samples as the fracture behaviour
of the rock mass would not be captured. A recommended method
to obtain Em is to measure the intact rock stiffness (Ei) while
undertaking Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) testing
and then using the RQD and Ei to obtain Em via a correlation
proposed by Zhang & Einstein (2004) as presented in Figure 8.

where 𝑞𝑐 is the cone resistance and 𝜎′0 is the effective vertical

stress.

Undrained shear strength (cu) from SPT and CPT tests

The following equations (Ciria 143, 1995) can be used to
estimate the undrained shear strength of cohesive soils from SPT
or CPT test data.
𝑐𝑢 = (6 𝑡𝑜 12) 𝑁60 (4)
(𝑞𝑐 − 𝜎0 )
𝑐𝑢 = (5)
𝑁𝑘

where Nk can be taken as 15 for normally consolidated clays

(ranges from 11-19 for normally consolidated clays) and 25 for Figure 8. Obtaining Rock Mass Stiffness (Em) from Rock intact stiffness
over consolidated clays. (Ei) and RQD.

5.2 Estimation of Stiffness (E) in granular soils

Based on published literature (Bowles (2017), Ciria 143
(1995)), the correlations below can be conservatively used to
estimate soil stiffness for settlement analyses based on SPT N60
values. Eurocode 7 (BS EN 1997-2 2007) provides correlations
to estimate drained stiffness from CPT cone resistance qc.
In Normally consolidated sands
𝐸 (𝑘𝑃𝑎) = 1000 𝑁60
In Silts, sandy silts or clayey silts
𝐸 (𝑘𝑃𝑎) = 330 𝑁60 + 1800
In Gravelly sands
6. NUMERICAL SETTLEMENT PREDICTIONS
The settlement at the center of a tank, founded on non-cohesive
soils, was assessed with the numerical software Settle3 for tank
diameters (D) of 20m, 50m and 100m and foundation soil
stiffness values ranging from 10 MPa to 50 MPa. The tank
loading adopted in the numerical analysis was 100 kPa and the
foundation was considered flexible. Boussinesq stress
distribution was used in the numerical model. The model
(6) geometry was large enough to ensure that no boundary effects
affected the settlement predictions. The results are presented in
Figure 9.
(7)

𝐸 (𝑘𝑃𝑎) = 1300 𝑁60 + 7200 (8)

The foundation layer of the tank foundation often consists of
compacted structural fill material. The stiffness of this layer may
be needed for settlement estimates prior to site preparation.
FHWA 2002 states, “In the absence of other SPT data in
structural fills, the settlement of a footing supported on structural
fill can be estimated using an assumed corrected N-value of 32”.
Thus, compacted site fill can be assumed to have a stiffness of
about 30MPa for settlement assessment.
It shall be noted that some software requires 1D stiffness
(oedometer stiffness) as input and hence appropriate conversion
to 1D stiffness (E1D) from the stiffness E is required.
Figure 9. Tank center settlement for ranging foundation soil stiffness and
tank diameters (obtained from parametric numerical analysis undertaken
in Settle3 software).
 Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Sydney 2022
The ratio of edge to center settlement was 0.54 for 20m diameter
tank and 0.46 for 50m and 100m diameter tanks for all stiffnesses.
The settlement profiles are provided for 100kPa uniform loading
and hence if settlement is required for other loading magnitude,
the settlement values can be factored compared to 100kPa, i.e for
a 150kPa uniform loading, the settlement values would be 1.5
times the values presented in Figure 9 for a given tank diameter.
It is noted that the non-linearity of stiffness with strain level is
not captured in this analysis and hence this assessment provides
only a preliminary estimate of tank settlement.
7. EARLY WORKS CONTRACT & SOIL IMPROVEMENT
In large tank farm projects, it is common for the client to
appoint an early works contractor to undertake site preparation
and any required soil improvement works. Site preparation works
usually involve site leveling (cutting and filling) and fill
compaction to the specified final grade level. The site is then
handed over back to the client by the early works contractor.
Subsequently, the client hands the site to an EPC contractor.
Option A in Figure 10 provides this sequence of work. However,
this option has several risks sometimes leading to a situation
where the EPC contractor does not accept the level of soil
improvement undertaken at the site and claims for further soil
improvement to meet the contractual tank settlement criteria. It
is also very difficult for the client to assess early on in a project
what degree of soil improvement is required in tank farm areas.
Figure 10. Options for managing soil improvement contracts for tank
farm projects.
There are other alternatives for managing contracts for large
tank farm projects (Option B and C) as shown in Figure 10. In
option B, the early works contractor is requested by the client to
only carry out site preparation works without any soil
improvement. Should soil improvement be required to meet tank
settlement limits, the EPC contractor has then to undertake soil
improvement. This may mean that the soil underneath the fill
compacted during site preparation by the early works contractor,
needs to be improved, which often leads to delays in project
schedule. In Option C, the EPC contractor is scoped with both
the site preparation works and any necessary soil improvement
at the site. This mitigates the risks for claims during site handover
View publication stats
and potential disputes from EPC contractor when compared to
Option A. Therefore, it is recommended that Options B or C are
considered for large tank farm projects.
8. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a summary of acceptable settlement criteria
from various international guidelines and standards (Table 1 to
3). Key steps for undertaking tank foundation settlement
evaluation in sands, clays and rock are presented. Settlement
predictions for tank diameters ranging from 20m to 100m
founded on non-cohesive soils are also presented for typical soil
conditions of varying stiffness.
9. REFERENCES
American Petroleum Institute (API) 2014. Tank inspection, repair,
alteration, and reconstruction. API Standard 653, 5th ed., API
Publishing Services, Washington DC.
American Petroleum Institute (API) 2018. Tank systems for refrigerated
liquefied gas storage. API Standard 625, 1st ed., API Publishing
Services, Washington DC.
ASTM 2016. ASTM Standard D4633: Standard test method for energy
measurement for dynamic penetrometers, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Bowles J.E., 2017, Foundation Analysis And Design, Publisher:
McGraw-Hill; Fifth Edition, ISBN-10 : 9781259061035
BS EN 1997-2 2007. Eurocode 7. Geotechnical design, Part 2 – ground
investigation and testing, BSI, London, UK.
Buschmeier, B., Masse, F., Swift, S. and Walker, M. 2012. Full scale
instrumented load test for support of oil tanks on deep soft clay
deposits in Louisiana using controlled modulus columns. ISSMGE -
TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement,
Brussels.
CIRIA 143,1995, Report 143, The standard penetration test (SPT):
methods and use, London, UK.
CIRIA 181,1999, Report 181, Piled foundations in weak rock. London,
UK.
EEMUA (2017). Above ground flat bottomed storage tank – A guide to
inspection, maintenance and repair. EEMUA 159, 5th ed., London,
UK.
FHWA 2002, FHWA-SA-02-054, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
CIRCULAR NO. 6, Shallow Foundations
Kalantari, B., 2013. Foundations on collapsible soils: A review. In
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Forensic
Engineering, 166 (2), pp. 57-63.
FHWA 2002. Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 6, Shallow
Foundations. FHWA-SA-02-054, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington D.C. USA.
Kulhawy, F. H., and Mayne, P. W. 1990. Manual on Estimating Soil
Properties for foundation design, Electric power Research Institute,
Palo Alto, California.
Marr, W.A., Ramos, J.A., Lambe, T.W. 1982. Criteria for settlement of
tanks. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 1982, Vol.
108, Issue 8, Pg. 1017-1039, ASCE, USA.
PIP STE03020., 2005 Guidelines for Tank Foundation Designs, Process
Industry Practices
Process Industry Practices Structure 2005. PIP STE03020: Guidelines for
tank foundations, Process Industry Practices, Construction Industry
Institute, Austin, TX, USA.
Rosenberg, P. and Journeaux, N.L. 1982. Settlement limitations for
cylindrical steel storage tanks. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 19,
232-238.
Shi, L., Wang, X., Shuai, J., Xu, K., Li, M. 2017. Oil storage tank
settlement assessments based on standard and finite element
analysis. In Proceedings of the ASME 2017 Pressure Vessels and
Piping Conference, Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA.Sciences, 41, 337–341
Thusyanthan, I. and Nawaz, B. 2017, “Effect of SPT Hammer Energy
Efficiency in the Bearing Capacity Evaluation in Sands”,
Proceedings of CSEE Barcelona, Paper No. ICGRE 123 ISSN: 2371-
5294
Zhang, L., & Einstein, H. H. 2004. Estimating the deformation modulus
of rock masses. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining