Proceedings of the ASME 2010 Pressure Vessels & Piping Division/K-PVP Conference
PVP2010
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF LPG STORAGE BULLETS SUPPORTED ON MULTIPLE SADDLES
Radoslav Stefanovic
Fluor Canada
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
radoslav.stefanovic@fluor.com
ABSTRACT
The use of large, high pressure Liquid Petroleum Gas
(LPG) storage bullets has become a common, and often
assumed safe, practice in the petrochemical industry. The
Engineering Equipment and Materials Users Association
(EEMUA) is an organization that attempted to address design
aspects related to mounded or buried bullets. Publication No.
190 published by the EEMUA [1] became a standard practice
in the industry. However, the design recommended, and
therefore addressed, by Publication 190 is for bullets directly
supported by soil (i.e. without saddle supports). However, it
has been noticed by the authors that many users are requesting
these storage bullets be supported by saddles resting on
foundations in order to minimize the chance of unexpected
settling and any motion of the bullets under ground. The large
span of these bullets requires more than two saddles adding to
the complexity of the design due to statically indeterminate
construction, differential settlement and uneven supports.
This paper focuses on major issues related to the
design of such bullets. First, the loads induced by mound
weight, pressure due to mound, and the loads due to
longitudinal thermal expansion and soil resistance to this
expansion is analyzed. Next, a method for calculating the
multiple saddle reactions and bending moments at spans and
supports is provided. A simplified method for assessing the
effect of differential settlement between saddles is proposed.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years many owners request design of
mounded underground bullets instead of conventional LPG
storage in above ground spherical or cylindrical tanks.
Increased safety concern for above ground storage equipment
requires large spacing between tanks within tank farms and
large clearances with other nearby facilities. Space becomes
critical when upgrading existing facilities or for new facilities
that are close to populated areas. In addition, fire protection
systems and fireproofing become more complex and
expensive. For the above safety and economic reasons,
1 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 06/18/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
July 18-22, 2010, Bellevue, Washington, USA
PVP2010-25052
Yaser Noman
Fluor Canada
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
yaser.noman@fluor.com
mounded bullets have become the preferred storage method
for a significant number of users.
Many of these bullets were supported directly by soil
without using additional supports such as saddles. In order to
prevent movement or minimize the chance of unexpected
settling, many users request that bullets be supported on
saddles resting on a foundation (see Figure 1). Diameters and
lengths of bullets are significant and using a common
foundation for all of the saddles is not economical. As a result,
saddles are usually supported on separate independent
foundations resting on piles. This construction represents a
challenge for the designer because it is much more complex
than conventional design analysis for a vessel supported on
two saddles. Horizontal vessels supported by two saddles can
be analyzed as a beam resisting the uniform load [2]. A
methodology for this design is well known and has been used
for many years.
There is lack of sufficient guidance for the design of
vessels supported on multiple saddles. Codes and authors
such as ASME B&PV Code Section VIII Div 2 [7] and
Bednar [3] recognize the possibility that a vessel could be
supported by more than two saddles but do not provide a
method for the actual design. Using a similar approach as
used for two saddles that is, analyzing the vessel as a
continuous beam resting on multiple supports contains
complexity because the beam is statically indeterminate and
any settlement or unevenness in supports changes the
distribution of the loads on the saddles and vessel.
Furthermore, covering the vessel with the mound adds to the
complexity by imposing loads due to the weight of the mound,
pressure due to mound, as well as friction load due to the
relative movement of the vessel to the mound from changes in
vessel temperature. This paper recommends a methodology
for the calculation of loads due to the action of the mound and
uneven settlement. The methodology shown in the paper is for
underground bullets supported on five saddles. However, the
same approach can be used for any number of saddles. Loads
and stresses that can be derived from the already established
methodology are not elaborated further in this paper.
 Wm = Weight of mound resting on shell
Ws = Snow load applied on the vessel
 s = Soil density
 = Friction coefficient between the saddle and
foundation.
 s = Friction coefficient between the vessel shell and soil
δs = Deformation of the vessel at support due to
settlement

Figure 1: Mounded Underground Bullet

LOADS
NOMENCLATURE
EEMUA Publication 190 [1] provides a method for
A = Distance between tangent line and end saddles. calculating loads and stresses for bullets directly supported by
c = Soil pressure coefficient per reference [1] soil. Although this publication was specifically written to
Di = Inner diameter of the vessel address loads and stresses encountered in bullets directly
supported by soil, some of these loads are still applicable to
Do = Outer diameter of the vessel
bullets supported by multiple saddles. Loads other than those
E = Modulus of elasticity of the vessel material addressed in EEMUA Publication 190 [1] that are encountered
Fo =The shear force at the head to shell junction by bullets supported on multiple foundations are discussed
Fd = Force due to settlement below.
F f = Force due to friction
Loads on Vessel due to Mound
Fs = The longitudinal force due to mound acting on the
heads. Loads due to mound used for the analysis in this
H = Vessel head depth paper are as identified in reference [1].
H m = Height of earth mound above center line of the
vessel Weight resting on shell is assumed to be (see figure 2):
H s = Height from the bottom of saddle to top of mound D 2 H 2 m
Wm  (Do H m  o  )  Le   s (1)
I = Moment of inertia o cross section of the vessel 8 3
L = Distance between the saddles
4 External pressure on the shell due to mound:
Le = Equivalent beam length of vessel ( Le  Lt  H )
3 Wm
Pm  (2)
Lt = Tangent to tangent length DoLe
MA,B,C,D,E = Bending moments at supports without
settlement External pressure on the heads due to mound:
MAs,Bs,Cs,Ds,Es = Bending moments at support with D
settlement Pd  c   s  ( H m  o ) (3)
2
Mo = Moment at head to shell junction. The value for the soil pressure coefficient c shall be used as
P = Internal design pressure
identified EEMUA Publication 190 [1]. This pressure is used
Pd = External pressure on shell due to for thickness calculations of the heads. It will also result in
mound longitudinal stresses in the vessel shell, as discussed later in
Pe = External Vacuum Pressure this paper.
Pm = External pressure on shell due to Longitudinal force acting on the head due to mound:
mound D D 2 
Fs  c   s  ( H m  0 )  o (4)
Ps = Pressure on saddles due to soil’s resistance to 2 4
vessel thermal expansion. The value of the external pressure and longitudinal
RA,B,C,D,E = Reactions at supports without force acting on the heads can be significantly reduced by using
settlement compressible foam in the head areas (as shown in Figure 1).
RAs,Bs,Cs,Ds,Es = Reactions moments at support with To get the advantage of this design, the foam must be applied
settlement in such a way that no possibility of sand entrapment between
t h = Head thickness the heads and the foam is possible. Foam manufacturers
t s = Shell thickness typically provide specification sheets on which values for
foam pressure due to a certain percentage of compression are
w = Total distributed load applied on the bullet. tabulated
WD = Dead weight of vessel.
WL = Weight of the operating liquid

2 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

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

 saddle to shell junction. The resisting pressure can be
calculated per EEMUA Publication 190 [1]. The resulting
pressure applied on the saddles will be:

Ps  c   s  H s (5)

The value for the soil pressure coefficient c shall be

used as identified EEMUA Publication 190 [1]. As was
discussed with soil pressure on vessel heads, compressible
foam material can be used to significantly reduce the soil
resistance forces on the saddles. See Figure 1 for an
illustration of how this foam can be applied.

Loads on the Vessel and Saddles due to Settlement

ASME B&PV Code Section VIII Div 2 [7]

recognizes the possibility that a vessel could be supported by
more than two saddles and identifies that the differential
settlement should be considered in the design. However, the
Figure 2: Mound Contribution to Load
Code does not provide any guidance for the design of such
vessels. Bednar [3] also acknowledges the need for a design
.
with multiple saddles and suggests increasing loads on the
saddles by 20-50% as a safety factor for settling without
Axial loads on the vessel due to friction between the soil
elaborating on how this safety factor is established. H.M.
and vessel:
Shang et al [2] used a 50% increase in bending moments and
saddle reactions referencing the Bednar [3] approach without
EEMUA Publication 190 [1] provides a methodology
further justification of the value of this safety factor. This
for calculating the friction forces acting on the vessel wall due
paper recommends the following step-by-step methodology
to friction between the vessel and soil when vessel is
for establishing the loads due to settlement.
expanding or contracting. The maximum frictional force is on
the bottom of the vessel. This methodology is applicable if the
a) Analyze the horizontal vessel on multiple supports as
vessel is supported by soil. For vessels supported by saddles,
a continuous beam resisting the uniform load of the
the weight will be supported by the saddles and the contact
weight of the vessel operating liquid, mound, and
between the bottom part of the vessel shell and the soil is
other applicable weight (i.e. snow load) utilizing the
minimal, therefore the frictional force can be neglected.
same approach as Bednar [3] for a vessel on two
Frictional force on the top half of the vessel is a result of
saddles. Note that the assumption of the applicability
multiplication between the weight of the mound resting on the
of beam behaviour of the vessel supported on two
shell and a friction coefficient. EEMUA Publication 190 [1]
saddles has been utilized in design methodologies
suggests that a friction coefficient of 1.0 shall be used which
presented by Bednar [3], ASME Sec. VIII Div. 2 [7],
corresponds to an angle of 45°. However, this value is
and British Specification PD 5500 [10]. Similarly,
extremely conservative and a more adequate value of friction
German Standard AD-Merkblatt S3/2 (9) and Shang
coefficient can be found in NAVAC Manual DM-7.02 [6].
et al (2) for analysis purpose to model horizontal
From the NAVAC Manual,  s = 0.25 for the friction vessel on multiple support as continuous beam. The
coefficient between the sand and vessel shell which same approach is used in this paper. Following that,
corresponds to a friction angle of 14°. the total distributed load on the vessel is given by:

Loads on Saddles due to Friction with Foundation W D  W L  Wm  W s

w (6)
Le
Loads due to saddle friction with the foundation
when the vessel is expanding or contracting can be evaluated
with the same methodology used for a vessel on two saddles b) Find the moments and vertical reactions utilizing
using the maximum vertical force acting on the saddles. To three moment theorem for the statically indeterminate
minimize frictional force, a Teflon slide plate should be used continuous beam [4]. This method is analyzed by
below the sliding saddles. H.M. Shang et al [2] and the results for the beam on
five supports are given as follows:
Loads on Saddles Due to Soil Resistance to Thermal
Expansion or Contraction Equations for bending moments at supports:

When the vessel expands or contracts, the soil in the wA 2

saddle area will resist the saddle movements. This resistance M A  M0   AF0 (7)
2
will produce a resisting force which induces stresses at the
3 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

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

 3 8
MB   wL2  MA (8)
28 28 M Ds  M Bs (19)

MC 
1
14

 wL2  2M A  (9)
solving:
MD  MB (10) 1 3F L 9
M Bs   M As  C  wL2 (20)
ME  MA (11) 7 16 32
Equations for the reactions at the supports: M Es  M As (21)
M F w M
RA  B  0 ( A  L)  ( A  L) 2  0 (12)
L L 2L L
MC F0 w M
RB   (A 2L)  (A 2L)2  2Q1  0 (13)
L L 2L L
MB F0 w M0
RC   (A3L)  (A3L) 3Q1 2Q2 
2
(14)
L L 2L L
RD  RB (15)
RE  R A (16)

c) Using the same principle as used in the method of

superposition [4], remove the middle support and
replace it by the vertical reaction force determined in
step b), then add the equivalent elastic deformation
force corresponding to a displacement equal to
settlement.

Elastic deformation force is:

6 EI s
Fd  (17)
L

Expected settlement shall be established based on the

geotechnical evaluation of the soil and type of saddle
foundation. To obtain this information, the vessel
design engineer should consult with the geotechnical,
civil and structural engineers.

d) Find the moment and vertical reaction forces for the

maximum allowable settlement of the middle saddle
for the cases where the middle saddle is above all
other supports and for the case where the middle
saddle is below all other supports. The three moment
theorem shall be used to find the moments and
reactions. Performing the analysis mentioned in (c)
and (d) above, the equations for bending moments at
the supports in the case of a vessel supported on five
supports with the middle support settling (upwards or
downwards) are given below.

Using the moment theorem (see figure 3e) the

following equation can be written:
Figure 3: Three Moment Theorem
wL3 w(2 L) 3
M As L  2 M Bs ( L  2 L)  2M Ds   
4 4 Using the three moment theory (see Figure 3f) and
FC [(2 L)  L )]
2 2 setting the sum of moments at the support to be 0, the
 equations defining the support reactions are derived
2L
as follows:
Where:
wA 2
M As  M 0   AF0 (18) M Bs  M 0 F0 ( L  A) w( L  A) 2
2 R As    (22)
L L 2L
and

4 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

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

 M 0  2M Bs F0 A (3L2  A2 ) FC
RBs   w  (23)
L L 2L 2
Where
FC  RC  Fd
And
R D s  R Bs (24)
RE s  R As (25)

The moment at “C” can be found using beam theory:

w(A 2L)2
MCs  M0  F0(A L)   2RAsL  RBsL (26)
2

Where support “C” is the settling support. The

maximum bending moments between saddles can be
found by drawing a shear force diagram and
identifying the location at which the shear force is
equal to zero at each span.

For all the equation mentioned above M 0 and F0 are

calculated as per methodology explained in Bednar
[3]:
3
M 0  H 2w (27)
4
2
F0  Hw (28)
3
The expression for M As is only valid when one of the
middle supports settle. Another expression should be
obtained when analyzing the settlement of the other
supports by applying the same methodology
explained above. For he end support the elastic
deformation force s expressed as:

3EI s
Fd  (29)
8L3
e) Plot the moment and force shear diagrams for all
three load cases (see Figure 4).

f) Find the maximum shear force at saddles and

maximum bending moments at saddles and spans.
Note that the methodology suggested by this paper is
general, and can be applied to horizontal vessels supported on
different number of supports. However, for explanation
purposes, the case of a vessel supported on five supports is
being used in the derivation of the equations. The equilibrium
condition (i.e. sum of reaction forces should equal the total
load applied) and this is one of the check that shall perform to
verify the accuracy of the analysis.
The Appendix attached to this paper provides a
numerical example of the methodology explained above for
the case of horizontal vessel supported on five (5) supports.
Figure 4: Moment and Shear Force Diagrams
STRESSES
Stresses at the vessel are evaluated using the same
methodology as for vessels supported on two saddles. The
maximum shear force and moment over the saddle and
between the saddles found in step (f) above shall be used for
the stress evaluation. In addition, longitudinal stresses due to
F f and Fs shall be considered and combined with other
longitudinal stresses. Furthermore, the stresses at the saddle-
to-shell junction shall be evaluated. The authors recommend
using Finite Element Analysis for the evaluation of these
stresses.

5 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

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

 DESIGN
The design of bullets should start by considering the
internal design pressure (including static head of operating
liquids) and external design pressure, in the same manner as
with any other vessel. The external pressure in this case should
include vacuum pressure plus mound external pressure as
explained earlier in this paper. Furthermore, the heads shall be
designed for vacuum pressure plus external pressure due to
vessel expansion. It needs to be noted that any stiffening rings
to be used for bullets shall be installed inside the vessel.
Saddle supports should be stiffened with internal rings as well.
CONCLUSION
6. Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC)
Manual: DM-7.02 Foundation and Earth Structures.
September 1986.
7. ASME Section VIII Division 2: Alternate Rules for
Construction of Pressure Vessel. American Society for
Mechanical Engineering. 2007 Edition.
8. ASME Section II part D: Material Properties. American
Society for Mechanical Engineering. 2007 Edition.
9. AD-Merkblatt S3/2: Verification of Load-Carrying
Capacity for Horizontal Vessels on Saddle Supports, DIN,
1995.

Due to safety and economic considerations 10. PD 5500:2009: Specification for Unfired Fusion Welded
underground storage bullets are becoming a preferred solution Pressure Vessels, British Standards Institute, 2009.
for users. Due to the lack of published methodology for the
design of the vessels on multiple saddle supports covered by
mound, designers are faced with the challenge how to ensure
proper design of these vessels. This paper provides a
methodology for the analysis of the loads and for such design.
The paper provides methodology and gives equations for the
situation where middle support is uneven with the rest of the
supports. The same methodology can be implemented for the
situations when the rest of the supports are uneven relative to
each other. Once this methodology is established and with the
help of computers any possible situation can be examined. The
methodology shown in this paper is for underground bullets
supported on five saddles. The same approach can be
implemented to any number of saddles. It shall be noted that
establishing allowable settlement is an extremely important
step in the design of underground bullets. A multidisciplinary
team consisting of geotechnical, civil and structural engineers
shall work together to establish this value.

REFERENCES

1. The Engineering Equipment and Materials Users

Association (EEMUA): Guide for the Design,
Construction and Use of Mounded Horizontal Cylindrical
Vessels for Pressurized Storage of LPG at Ambient
Temperatures. Publication No 190:2000.

2. H.M. Shang et al: A Simple Solution to Cylindrical

Pressure Vessels on Multiple Supports. Proceedings of
Seminar on Design, Fabrication, and Certification of
Pressure Vessels, pp.120-127, Singapore, 1986

3 H.H.Bednar: Pressure Vessel Design Handbook. Second

Edition. Kreiger Publishing Company, 1991.

4. Fa-Hwa Cheng : Statics and Strength of Materials.

Second Edition. Glencoe / McGraw-Hill 19997.

5. S. Sengupta et al: Buried bullets – Alternate Method of

LPG Storage. Canadian Society for Civil Engineers,
1992.

6 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

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

 APPENDIX

7 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

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

 8 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

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

 9 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

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