© All Rights Reserved

0 vues

© All Rights Reserved

- 30120130406015
- AdvancedSteelDesign FireEngineering Presentationv0.4 2016
- engrmae 157
- Esfuerzos y Deformaciones en Pavimentos
- <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <HTML><HEAD><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <TITLE>ERROR: The requested URL could not be retrieved</TITLE> <STYLE type="text/css"><!--BODY{background-color:#ffffff;font-family:verdana,sans-serif}PRE{font-family:sans-serif}--></STYLE> </HEAD><BODY> <H1>ERROR</H1> <H2>The requested URL could not be retrieved</H2> <HR noshade size="1px"> <P> While trying to process the request: <PRE> TEXT http://www.scribd.com/titlecleaner?title=Intro-ESO202A-13.pdf HTTP/1.1 Host: www.scribd.com Proxy-Connection: keep-alive Proxy-Authorization: Basic cmFqZWs6cmtwZDA5 Accept: */* Origin: http://www.scribd.com X-CSRF-Token: 412efe4310081e7bac9df9ba21fb838f6bd54718 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Ubuntu Chromium/28.0.1500.71 Chrome/28.0.1500.71 Safari/537.36 X-Requested-With: XMLHttpRequest Refere
- U3 - Fluid Mechanics - Hydrostatic Pressure.pdf
- PEB and IS-800-2007
- Lrfd Design Spreadsheet
- Lecture8-Fluid Mechanics.pdf
- 125760133 Buckling of Thin Metal Shells 213
- 136_Vanlaere
- Design of Machine Elements I
- thermal_01.pdf
- Hydrostatic Pressure Apparatus gunt
- FM2005-WangZD-1
- Is 801 Code of Practice for Use of Cold-Formed Light Gauge .183135618
- Xu Buckling Analysis of Tri Axial Woven Fabric Composite Structures Part I Non Linear Finite Element Formulation
- Assignment 6 question
- 1974 - [VTB74]
- Mme 0215

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

s c Palmer, MA, CEng, FIMechE

Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge

Vertical cylindrical tanks for bulk storage of oil and liquefied gas are sometimes constructed on soils that are susceptible to settlement.

The types of foundation settlement and their structural effects on the tank are reviewed. An arbitrary operational limit of 1 in 200 is

sometimes quoted for the foundation tilt of atmospheric storage tanks. This limit is based on aesthetic considerations and on the effects

on pipework connections and other attachments. Many tanks reach this limit before the end of their design life, and tank owners face

dificulties in assessing the effects of foundation tilt since the current design and inspection codes give no guidance.

The purpose of this paper is to present a simple method for calculating the overturning moment, shear force and associated stresses

caused by tilt of a tank, and to present a rational design basis. The procedures can be used in the design of new tanks to withstand a

speci$ed magnitude of foundation tilt and also to predict the maximum allowable tilt for existing tanks. Similarities with the overturning

effects caused by wind and seismic loading are identifed. The possibilities of axial buckling and Ahear buckling are investigated, and

allowable stresses are discussed. For anchored tanks, the effects of tilt on the shell hold-down anchors are shown to be significant, and

for unanchored tanks the possibility of shell uplift is discussed. A diagrammatic representation of the results is presented which allows

stresses caused by tilt to be compared with stresses caused by other tank loads and the prediction of stresses caused by future tilt.

Experimental tests on a model open-top tank are reported, and indicate that tilt did not cause significant distortion of the tank.

combined cross-sectional area of shell hold-down to settlement, particularly for tanks constructed on

A, weaker soils, as found in some coastal locations. The

anchors

E Young’s modulus of elasticity various forms of foundation settlement, as recently dis-

h height of liquid cussed by the Institution of Structural Engineers (l),

height of centre of gravity of W, above base and their structural effects on storage tanks are

hs reviewed below.

h, height of centre of gravity of above base

I second moment of area of lowest shell course

about a diameter = nR3t 1.1 Forms of settlement

1 height of tank shell 1.1.1 Uniform settlement

M overturning moment at base of shell

overturning moment caused by wind loading Uniform settlement can be considered to cause a rigid-

Mw

allowable overturning moment caused by wind body vertical displacement of the tank base, in which

Mwa

loading the tank base retains its original profile. Uniform settle-

ment will thus not cause any general distortion of the

Q shear force at base of shell, in direction of

tank. The allowable limit for uniform settlement will

maximum tilt HL

r radial tolerance of floating-roof seals normally be dictated by the flexibility of attached pipe-

R radius of shell work and other connections, which will determine the

S direct stress magnitude of settlement at which the loads on tank

t thickness of lowest shell course nozzles and other connections reach their maximum

U maximum differential settlement across diameter allowable values. Additionally, provisions may be

(Fig. la) required to prevent accumulation of rainwater around

U uplift force on tank the base of the tank.

wb weight of base of tank

1.1.2 Planar tilt

w, weight of contents of tank

w, weight of snow on tank roof This type of differential settlement corresponds to a

w weight of tank shell and roof rigid-body rotation of the tank base, in which the tank

base again retains its original profile, as shown in Fig. 1.

8 angular coordinate (Fig. lc) Since the perimeter of a tank base is normally con-

V Poisson’s ratio structed to lie in a horizontal plane, when the tank has

P density of liquid suffered pure tilt the perimeter of the base will lie in an

*

7 shear stress

angle of tilt (small)(Fig. lb)

inclined plane, which can be considered as the ‘tilt

plane’.

The tank design codes specify foundation level toler-

ances for construction purposes, but these tolerances

1 INTRODUCTION are not intended to be considered as limits for sub-

Vertical cylindrical tanks are widely used for bulk sequent settlement. For atmospheric tanks, BS 2654 (2)

storage of oil and liquefied gas. Given that the weight of limits the maximum tilt of the foundation during con-

the contents of a large tank may exceed 1000oO tonnes, struction to 24 mm across the diameter and requires

that the shell should not be out of vertical by more than

The MS WQS received on 14 April 1992 and WQS accepted for publication on 1 in 200. For refrigerated tanks, BS 4741 (3) and BS

28 July 1992. 5387 (4) limit the maximum tilt of the foundation to the

E00392 @ IMechE 1992 0954-4089/92 $3.00 + .05 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 206

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

84 S C PALMER

Low point L

y2

- I

Yl

Section XX

(c)

Fig. 1 (a) Vertical tank and hydrostatic pressure distribution pa

(b) Tilting tank (exaggerated)and hydrostatic pressure distribution pb

(c) Change in pressure on shell, Ap = p b - pa = (pgu/2) cos 0

1200) and restrict the maximum deviation from shell Out-of-plane settlement of a tank base, whether in the

verticality to the range 1 in 400 to 1 in 250, depending form of a general dishing or a more localized depres-

on the tank diameter. sion, can cause overstressing and rupture of the tank

For subsequent operation an arbitrary limit of 1 in base and the base-to-shell joint, and can cause problems

200 is sometimes quoted (1)for the maximum allowable for tanks with column-supported roofs.

tilt of atmospheric tanks, based on aesthetic considera- Out-of-plane settlement of the perimeter of the base

tions and on the effects on pipework connections and can cause distortion of the shell of open-top tanks SUE-

other attachments. However, many tanks reach this cient to cause jamming of the floating roof. If adequate

limit during their design life, and tank owners and oper- settlement data are available, Malik et al. (6) have

ators can face difficulties, since the tank design codes shown how to estimate the radial deflection of the shell,

and inspection code API 653 (5) give no guidance on based on the assumption that the deformation of the

assessing the effects of tilt. This paper will address these shell is inextensional. A more refined procedure, in

dificulties. which the shell is considered to act as a membrane, has

been presented by Kamyab and Palmer (7) to analyse

any form of perimeter settlement. This procedure has

1.1.3 Out-of plane settlement

also been applied to present simple design charts for

Out-of-plane settlement (settlement from the tilt plane) localized perimeter settlement (8). Their model tests (9)

is perhaps the most severe form of tank foundation set- have also indicated that out-of-plane settlement of

Part E: Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering @ IMechE 1992

STRUCTURAL EFFECTS OF FOUNDATION TILT ON STORAGE TANKS 85

anchored tanks could lead to overstressing of the diametpr of the wet shell, between the high and low

anchors or to buckling of the tank shell. sides, is p g u at all depths, except near the liquid surface.

From Fig. l c it can be seen that at a typical cross-

section XX, the change in pressure Ap (= pb - pa)

1.2 Objectives and scope caused by tilt varies with the angular coordinate 0

The remainder of this paper is devoted to the effects of around the circumference of the shell according to

planar tilt on the tank structure, in combination with

other normal tank loadings. The purpose of this paper

is to present a simple method for calculating the over-

turning moment, shear force and associated stresses

Ap=

eu>

- cos 8

caused by tilt of a tank and to present a rational design hence the changes in liquid depth are small, in calcu-

basis. The procedures can be used in the design of new lating the shell loading it is assumed that this pressure

tanks to withstand a specified magnitude of foundation distribution acts on an area of constant height h of the

tilt and also to predict the maximum allowable tilt for shell, corresponding to the wet area of the shell before

existing tanks. Both anchored and unanchored tanks the tank was tilted. Hence the change in the hydrostatic

are considered. Excluded from the scope are considera- force d F acting radially outwards on an elemental strip

tions of: of shell of height h and width R dO is given by

(a) out-of-plane settlement, that is only planar tilt is d F = Ap(hR do)

considered,

(b) the combined effects of tilt with seismic and other The contribution of this force to the overturning

abnormal loads, moment dM, exerted by the tank contents on the shell,

(c) the effects of tilt on the tank foundation and the about the diametrical axis Y,Y, of the base of the shell,

possibility of foundation failure. is given by

dM,=dF - (3 C O S ~

The main structural effect of foundation tilt is the over- Hence the overturning moment, caused by tilt of the

turning effect caused by the weight of the liquid con- contents, acting on the shell is

tents of the tilting tank. The overturning effect is similar

in nature to that experienced by a tank subjected to

lateral ground motion or wind loading. Tilt results in an

overturning moment and a shear force and the stresses Therefore

caused are considered separately below. The method of

calculation is presented with reference to the lowest

course of the tank shell, where the overturning moment

and shear force have their maximum values. All other

shell courses of a tilting tank could be assessed in a However,

similar manner, as in the procedure for assessing wind W, = pgnR2h

and seismic loading.

Some storage tanks, particularly fixed-roof tanks, are Therefore

anchored to their foundations to prevent uplift of the

tank shell when subjected to vertical loads caused by

internal vapour pressure acting on the roof, wind loads

M, = (. k) sin

and seismic loads. Anchor bolts or straps normally This overturning moment is of the same nature as that

secure the tank shell to a concrete base slab or ring- caused by wind loading and by lateral motion of the

beam. Anchorage effectively increases the stiffness of a liquid during earthquakes. To this must be added the

tank shell, thereby helping to retain circularity of the overturning moments M , and M, caused respectively by

shell and simplifying calculations. The stresses caused the combined dead-weight of the tank shell and roof &

by tilt of an anchored tank are considered below. For and the design weight of snow on the tank roof W,,

unanchored tanks, the possibility of shell uplift must be given similarly by

considered, and this is discussed further in Section 3.

M, = W ,h, sin t

j

2.1 Overturning moment calculation and

Considering firstly a tank with no tilt, the hydrostatic M , = W,h, sin i+b

pressure distribution ?a is shown in Fig. la. The pres- Hence the total overturning moment M , on the shell

sure exerted on the shell at a given depth is constant caused by tilt is given by

across any diameter. If the tank is then tilted through a

small angle $, the maximum change in elevation across M, =M, + M , + M,

the base is given by

u = 2 R sin I) (3)

and the hydrostatic pressure distribution pb is shown in The moment causes vertical stresses in the shell.

Fig. lb. The difference in hydrostatic pressure across a Assuming the shell to behave as a beam with second

0 IMechE 1992 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol206

86 S C PALMER

moment of area I = nR3t, from engineering bending the tank is tilted through a small angle $, the weight of

theory the maximum axial stress So caused by tilt is the contents has a component W, sin $ acting parallel

given by to the inclined base of the tank. This lateral force acts

on the tank shell, which is held in equilibrium by the

(4) shear force Q, acting on the base of the shell, and hence

Q, = & sin $, as above. Furthermore, although the

centre of gravity of the contents does not remain on the

The maximum compressive stress occurs at point L and

axis of symmetry of the tank, it does remain at a con-

the maximum tensile stress at H.

stant elevation h/2 above the plane of the tank base.

Note that since in practice the angle of tilt $ is small,

Hence the overturning moment exerted by the tank

it follows that sin 9 w $, and hence the overturning

contents on the shell about the diametrical axis Y,Y, of

moment and stresses increase linearly with the angle of

the base is M , = Wc(h/2) sin $, as above.

tilt. Note also that the stress caused by the effects of the

Note that throughout this paper the only overturning

contents alone is given by

moment considered is that acting on the tank shell. The

& = + I = *

nR t

(): ):

- sin 9

total overturning moment acting on the complete tank,

which would be relevant to foundation design, includes

a further contribution from the moment exerted by the

However, since the tank shell thickness in the lowest hydrostatic pressure distribution on the tank base, as

course generally depends on the product of liquid shown in Fig. lc.

height and tank radius, that is t a hR, it follows that for

a given angle of tilt 9,

3 POSSIBLE FAILURE MECHANISMS

h FOR ANCHORED TANKS

S , a-

R Possible failure mechanisms for anchored tanks sub-

Hence, overturning stresses are greater for higher values jected to tilt, in combination with other normal tank

of the tank height-radius ratio. It is also important to loadings, are illustrated below with reference to a single-

note that the maximum overturning moment and stress walled steel tank for storage of a refrigerated liquefied

have been determined from the inclination of the shell, gas, such as butane, designed in accordance with BS

which has been assumed to be the same as the planar 4741 (3) and shown schematically in Fig. 1. Such tanks

tilt of the base. However, the inclination of the shell are often constructed on a concrete base slab. Where

may differ from the tilt of the foundation on account of there is no deformation of the concrete base slab, planar

construction tolerances and, to a lesser extent, shell flex- tilt is the only form of differential settlement that the

ibility. The approach is equally valid for a tilting tank steel tank can experience.

shell constructed on a horizontal foundation. This sug-

gests that the first step in assessing foundation tilt 3.1 Axial buckling

should be to ascertain by physical measurement the

overall verticality of the shell at several stations around The overturning effects of tilt could in principle lead to

the circumference (for example using a plumb-line), various forms of axial buckling of the tank shell, includ-

when the tank is full of liquid, in addition to normal ing the 'elephant's foot' buckling phenomenon, as dis-

foundation level measurements. cussed by Priestley et al. (10) in connection with seismic

loading. To assess the possibility of axial buckling, the

2.2 Shear force calculation maximum compressive axial stress that could occur on

the low side of the shell at L is calculated below and

Similarly, the hydrostatic force change d F acting on an

compared with the maximum allowable shell stress.

elemental strip of the shell causes a shear force dQ, at

the base of the shell, in the direction HL, given by Causes of compressive axial stresses in the shell

include :

dQ, = d F cos 0

(a) dead-weight of the shell, roof, fittings and insulation,

Hence the shear force Q, caused by tilt of the contents (b) snow load on the tank roof,

of the tank is found by integration as (c) internal vacuum on the tank roof,

(d) piping loads and live loads,

Q, = W, sin t,h

(e) the overturning effects of wind loading, tilt and

The total shear force Q at the base of the shell of a seismic loading.

tilting tank is thus given by

The compressive shell stresses caused by these loads

Q = (W, + + W,) sin $ (6) (omitting seismic loads) can be added, and the variation

of stress with the angle of tilt $ is shown schematically

The maximum resulting shear stress z in the tank shell

in Fig. 2, assuming sin )I = $. The maximum compress-

acts at points Y, and Yz and is thus given by

ive stress occurs at point L on the low side of the shell,

and it is assumed conservatively that the wind flow is in

r=- Q (7) the direction HL.

nRt

Determination of allowable values for axial stress

The simple expressions for M , and Q, derived above requires careful consideration, since the axial buckling

can be explained by the following argument. The weight of imperfect cylinders is still not fully understood and

of the tank contents W, always acts vertically down- BS 4741 (3) gives no guidance. The classical buckling

wards through the centre of gravity of the liquid. When stress S,, for a perfect, axially loaded unpressurized

Part E: Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering @ IMechE 1992

STRUCTURAL EFFECTS OF FOUNDATION TILT ON STORAGE TANKS 87

Compressive axial I

stress in lowest I

shell course at L I

Tilt of liquid contents I

I

I

A I

nd snow f’ I

A I

Allowable

shell stres! Wind overturning moment I

I

Piping loads and live loads 4 1

I

Internal vacuum

I

I

t

I

1

I

allowable tilt

Fig. 2 Variation of maximum compressive axial stress in lowest shell course

at location L with angle of tilt t,b

cylinder is given by ECCS (11) as predicted from equation (8) for all relevant com-

binations of loadings. Other shell courses can be assess-

0.6Et

’c, =R ed in a similar manner, interpreting h as the height of

the liquid surface above the bottom of the shell course

However, to account for the dramatic reduction in axial under consideration.

buckling strength which can be caused by imperfections On the above basis, the ability of a tank to tolerate

in the shell, for the outer tank of a double-walled tank tilt will depend on the margin between calculated and

BS 5387 (4) incorporates a ‘knock-down’ factor of allowable stress when the tank was initially designed.

approximately 0.1 for ‘static’ loading (dead-weight, Designers strive to minimize this margin for economic

snow, vacuum and 50 per cent piping loads), that is reasons, and thus allowable tilts may be small when

computed on this basis. However, there is a strong

‘allowable = o.lscl argument for using allowable stress values greater than

Hence the corresponding formula in BS 5387 (4) can be those predicted by equation (8), and this argument is

expressed as presented below.

Equation (8), which applies to an outer tank that

does not normally contain liquid, takes no account of

the hydrostatic pressure in a liquid-filled tank. This

hydrostatic pressure is beneficial in inhibiting buckling.

where As an indication of this effect, Appendix G of BS 2654

(2) permits an increased maximum allowable compress-

t = shell thickness excluding corrosion allowance ive stress in the lowest shell course of a large tank full

r =joint efficiency factor of liquid subjected to seismic loads, given by

G =a factor for increase in allowable stress, when

wind loads and seismic loads are included (G lies 0.2Et

in the range 1.0-1.33) Sallowable =-

R (9)

Equation (8) is based on a similar formula in API 620 Equation (9) incorporates a knock-down factor of 0.33

(12), but with different values of G and q. [compared to 0.1 in equation (8)], equivalent to a value

Figure 2 shows the maximum tilt at which the total of G = 3.33, reflecting the stabilizing effect of the hydro-

compressive shell stress at L reaches the allowable value static pressure. As for seismic loading, the overturning

0 IMechE 1992 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 206

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

88 S C PALMER

effects of tilt are greatest when the tank i s full of liquid, resulting from the total uplift force U , the dead-weight

and it is therefore justifiable to take some account of Ft( and the shell overturning moment M caused by the

hydrostatic pressure in determining allowable stresses. combination of the above loads can be found from

On the basis of equation (9), much larger magnitudes of

U - w 2M

tilt would be tolerable. Equation (9) is based on a s, = ___ +-

similar formula in Appendix E of API 650 (13). Aa AaR

It is important to note that inherent in the code for- Equation (10) assumes a linear elastic anchor stress dis-

mulae for calculating allowable compressive stresses is tribution across the tank, as incorporated in Appendix

the assumption that the tank has been fabricated within G of BS 2654 (2). The last term in equation (10) is

the design code tolerances. Where tilt is significant, it obtained by considering the anchors to be equivalent to

may be desirable (though not easy) to ascertain by a cylindrical shell with the same total cross-sectional

measurement that the magnitudes of deviations of the area A , , as shown in Fig. 3. The cylinder therefore has

shell from its nominal cylindrical shape lie within the thickness t , = AJ(27cR) and second moment of area

design code tolerances. If the deviations are found to I , = 7cR3t, = A, R2/2.

exceed these tolerances, assessment of the tank buckling However, the ductility of the anchors and the magni-

strength poses great difficulties and warrants specialist tudes of the loadings may influence the stress distribu-

advice. In principle the buckling strength could be tion, as discussed by Priestley et al. (10) and Leon and

assessed in accordance with the procedures employed Kausel (14). If the ductility of the loaded anchors is suf-

by the ECCS (ll),but the ECCS recommendations are ficient to allow a slight uplift of the shell and the base

confined to shells with imperfections not exceeding 50 near the shell from the foundation, the weight of liquid

per cent of the tank wall thickness, which may be less supported on the uplifted base will provide a restoring

than normal tank construction tolerances, and specific- moment, of unknown magnitude. To take account of

ally excludes tanks with significant foundation tilt. the beneficial effects of this restoring moment in calcu-

Figure 2 allows comparison of the stresses caused by lating anchor stresses would be contrary to the pro-

tilt with those caused by other tank loads, and can be cedures in the design codes for anchored tanks, but it

used to predict the stress increases caused by future tilt.

If the calculated shell stresses for an existing tank are

considered unacceptably high, stresses may be reduced

by :

(a) reducing the maximum operating height h of the

tank, thereby reducing the effects of tilt, since for a

given tank the stress S, a h2, from equation ( 5 ) (a

reduced operating height may also be beneficial in

reducing the rate of future settlement);

(b) reducing the maximum operational vacuum, to

compensate for the effects of tilt.

The analysis above concerns the compressive vertical

stresses induced in the low side of the shell at L. On the

high side of the shell the overturning moment tends to

induce tensile vertical stresses at H. The magnitude of

these tensile stresses will normally have little effect on

the shell itself, but can be very significant for the

anchors used to hold down the shell.

For an anchored tank, the combined cross-sectional Anchor stress

area of the anchors A , is much less than that of the

lowest shell course, by a factor of the order of 30. Thus,

the additional tensile stresses in the shell at H caused by

tilt become magnified in the anchors at H. Hence the

anchors may be the limiting feature in the determina-

tion of maximum allowable tilt.

Causes of tension in the anchors at H include:

(a) the uplift force from internal vapour pressure acting

H L

on the tank roof,

(b) the uplift force from wind suction acting on the roof, Layout of anchors, with combined cross-sectional

(c) the overturning effects of wind, tilt and seismic area A,

loading. Equivalent cylindrical shell

Anchor stress distribution for tank subjected to

These loads are offset by the dead-weight W, of the tank uplift U,dead-weight and overturning moment

shell and roof. The maximum tensile anchor stress S, M

Part E: Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering @ IMechE 1992

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

STRUCTURAL EFFECTS OF FOUNDATION TILT ON STORAGE TANKS 89

Tensile stress in

anchors at H

I I

I A Wind suction on roof

I

I

I Internal

I Angle of tilt q~ vapour

I pressure

Dead-weight of Maximum

shell and roof allowable tilt

angle of tilt 1(/

may be deduced that equation (10) is likely to be con- stress z caused by tilt plus the shear stress caused by

servative for anchor design. wind flow in the direction HL (and seismic loads).

The variation of anchor stress at H with the angle of Allowable stresses may be determined from ECCS (11)

tilt IJ is shown schematically in Fig. 4, assuming which suggests that the geometry of many tanks is such

sin IJ = t,b and omitting seismic loads. Figure 4 shows that

the maximum tilt at which the calculated anchor stress

at H reaches the allowable value specified in the design 20 < z < 7 5 ( y

code for all relevant combinations of loadings. Com-

parison of Figs 2 and 4 illustrates schematically that where

anchor stress may be the limiting feature, since anchors 12

are often designed to operate at close to their allowable

stress and an increase in allowable anchor stress cannot

be justified. and

If the calculated anchor stresses for an existing tank

are considered unacceptably high, Fig. 4 suggests that 1 = height of the tank shell

stresses may be reduced by : For perfect cylinders of this geometry, the critical shear

(a) reducing the maximum operating height of the tank, stress for elastic buckling is given by

thereby reducing the effects of tilt;

(b) reducing the maximum vapour pressure, to compen-

sate for the effects of tilt.

For tanks with imperfections not exceeding 0.01R,

If calculated anchor stresses are close to their allowable ECCS (11) recommends a knock-down factor of 0.65, so

limits, it may be prudent to inspect the anchors and

that

their attachments for evidence of deterioration and

signs of looseness or overtightening. An analysis of the

stresses at the junction of the anchor to the shell could

be performed, as required by Appendix L of API 620

(12). This formula does not take account of the beneficial

effects of hydrostatic pressure. Where tilt is significant,

the interaction of shear loading, axial loading and ex-

3.4 Shear buckling of sheU

ternal pressure (due to wind and vacuum) should be

The lateral force Q could in principle lead to failure of considered.

the tank by shear buckling. The maximum shear stress In addition to the above considerations of buckling

occurs at points Y, and Y, and will comprise the shear and overturning effects, three other possible per-

Q IMechE 1992 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 206

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

90 S C PALMER

formance criteria are described by Marr st al. (15), and Equation (12) therefore suggests a convenient and

are outlined below. conservative method for evaluating the effects of tilt;

namely it suggests that the total overturning moment,

3.5 Circumferential overstressing of shell caused by wind and tilt combined, could be limited to

The maximum increase in hydrostatic pressure of p&2

at and above L will cause an increase in circumferential

stress. These increases are not likely to be significant for L

small tilts. that is

3.6 Loss of freeboard

Tilt will cause a reduction by an amount 4 2 in the free-

board between the maximum level of the liquid surface

If the allowable tilt based on equation (13) is unaccept-

and the top of the tank shell, which could eventually

ably low, a larger value may be justifiable, based on the

lead to spillage from open-top tanks or overstressing of

maximum allowable overturning moment from the

the shell-to-roof joint of fixed-roof tanks. This may be

wind load M,, determined from the design codes, and

particularly important for tanks designed to withstand

discussed below, using

seismic loads. Some adjustment of the level monitoring

instrumentation may be necessary. M, < M,, - M,

3.7 Evaporation from floating-roof seals The value of the overturning moment Mi which could

cause instability and toppling of an empty rigid tank

Assuming that a tilting shell retains its circularity, the about L is found from the equilibrium of moments

free surface of the liquid will adopt an elliptical shape. about L as

The semi-minor axis will remain equal to the nominal

tank radius R, but the semi-major axis will increase by Mi = (W, Wb)R +

an amount R ( l - cos t,b)/(cos I)). For tanks incorpor- Thus Mi exceeds Mu by a factor greater than 2. Values

ating a roof or cover that floats on the liquid surface to

of overturning moment in between Mu and M i will

minimize evaporation losses, this increase can be com-

cause limited uplift of the shell and lift-off of the tank

pared with the amount of radial extension r that can be base near the tank shell, with the weight of any liquid

tolerated by the roof edge seals, to find the critical value

supported on the uplifted base providing a significant

of u for seal leakage given by restoring moment.

u = 2(2Rr)’’2 The design codes differ in their requirements for

determining the maximum allowable moment from

wind loading. API 650 (13) states that where over-

4 UNANCHORED TANKS turning stability is specified by the purchaser, the allow-

For ambient temperature storage tanks, particularly able overturning moment M,, from wind pressure shall

those with floating roofs, anchors are often unnecessary. not exceed two-thirds of the dead-weight resisting

If uplift does not occur, unanchored tanks can be moment, excluding any tank contents, so that

assessed in an identical manner to anchored tanks, as (& - U)2R

above, and the maximum overturning moment acting Mwa = 3

on the shell can again be considered as the sum of the

moments caused by tilt and wind (and seismic loads). The tank dead-weight should be calculated after deduct-

However, if uplift does occur, the analysis becomes ing any corrosion allowance. Thus M,, exceeds Mu by

far more complicated. Tank uplift behaviour is still not a factor of 4/3.

fully understood. The ratio of the stiffness of the tank BS 2654 (2) does not include such a simple expression

compared to the stiffness of the foundation is an import- for allowable overturning moment from wind load. BS

ant parameter. As a portion of the shell, and the base 2654 (2) states that tank anchorage shall be provided for

near the shell, lift off the foundation, the change in fixed-roof tanks if, with one of the following conditions,

geometry of the tank will influence the magnitudes of there may be a tendency for the shell and the bottom

the overturning moments by tilt and wind, and will plate, close to the shell, to lift off its foundations:

mobilize a restoring moment provided by the weight of

the liquid contents supported by the uplifted base. Fur- (a) uplift on an empty tank due to internal design pres-

thermore, there will be a significant redistribution of the sure, counteracted by the effective weight of roof

stresses between the tank shell and the foundation. and shell (that is if U > WJ;

The value of overturning moment Mu corresponding (b) uplift due to internal design pressure in combination

to the onset of uplift at H can be equated to the with wind loading, counteracted by the effective

moment at which an anchored tank would first experi- weight of roof and shell, plus the effective weight of

ence tension in its anchors. This moment can be pre- product considered by the user to be always present

dicted from equation (10)as in the tank.

BS 2654 (2) gives no guidance on the calculation of the

‘effective weight of product’, which can be considered to

resist overturning by wind loads, although the pro-

where & = dead-weight of the shell and roof, after cedure given in Appendix G for determining the resist-

deducting any corrosion allowance. ance of unanchored tanks to seismic overturning gives

Part E: Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering @ IMechE 1992

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

STRUCTURAL EFFECTS OF FOUNDATION TILT ON STORAGE TANKS 91

some pointers. Tt is interesting to note that since real above the points corresponding to H, L, Y, and Y2

tanks are not rigid, these requirements of both API 650 shown in Fig. 1. A series of tests were performed in

(13) and BS 2654 (2) effectively permit a limited amount which the tilt was increased in increments up to a

of uplift, since this enables the restoring moment pro- maximum of 5".

vided by the dead-weight of the tank to approach its

maximum value and also mobilizes the weight of any 5.1 Anchored tank

stored product supported on the uplifted portion of the In this first series of tests, the tank base was held in

base. contact with the foundation by weights placed on the

tank base, close to the tank shell. The outwards radial

5 MODEL TESTS

displacement measured by the gauge on the low side of

As a preliminary experimental investigation of the the tank, corresponding to a location 140 mm above

effects of tilt, tests were performed in Cambridge on a point L in Fig. 1, gradually increased with tilt to a

model tank, shown in Fig. 5. The model had been used maximum valuc of approximately 0.22 mm at a tilt of

in an earlier set of tests (9)to investigate the effects of 5". There were no significant displacements at the other

out-of-plane settlement of the perimeter of the base. The three gauges. The largest measured increase in diameter

open-top model tank was 440 mm in radius and of 0.22 mm over 880 mm at a tilt of 5", equivalent to a

180 mm high. The shell and base were fabricated from 0.005 per cent increase in diameter per degree of tilt,

0.25 mm thick Melinex polyester sheet. Tests revealed supports the common assumption that tilt does not

average values of Young's modulus E of 4.0 x lo9 N/ cause significant distortion of tanks stiffened at the top.

m2 and Poisson's ratio v of 0.31. In order to model the

strains induced by hydrostatic loading when the tank 5.2 Unanchored tank

contains liquid, the model scale factor must be chosen For the second series of tests the base weights were

as the ratio of the Young's modulus of Melinex to that removed, so that the tank was unanchored. To simulate

of steel and is thus approximately 1 : 50. Thus the model the dead-weight of a steel tank shell, additional weights

represents a full-scale tank 22 m in radius and 9 m high. were positioned on the top of the ring girder. There

The shell was stiffened at its top with an external ring were 32 weights, equally spaced, each with a mass of 30

of rectangular cross-section, of width 5.33 mm and grams. Feeler gauges were used to monitor uplift, by

depth 4.2 mm, cut from a sheet of Darvic PVC. The measuring the gap between the steel foundation plate

dimensions were chosen to model the circumferential and the Melinex tank base, directly below the shell.

stiffness of the girder required for the full-scale tank, as With the tank containing 140 mm of water and the tank

determined from BS 2654 (2). Values of E and v for the foundation horizontal, it was observed that because of

ring were found to be close to those of Melinex. construction tolerances in the tank and its foundation, a

The tank was filled with water to a height of 140 mm. gap of up to 0.1 mm was observed at a number of loca-

Four dial gauges were mounted to detect any large tions. Sliding feeler gauges around the circumference of

changes in radial displacement of the outer surface of the tank base revealed significant variations in contact

the shell at a constant height of 140mm above the pressure between the tank base and the steel founda-

tilting base of the tank. The dial gauges were located tion.

Anchored Unanchored

Wind Shell weight

Dial gauge

Y

0.25 rnm thick Melinex shell and base -I1

7.5 x 7.5 x 0.25 mm Melinex reinforcing angle _t

Ilh

Fig. 5 Schematic cross-section of model tank

M

@ IMechE 1992 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 206

Downloaded from pie.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

92 S C PALMER

During the tilt tests, the magnitudes of uplift were possibility of shell uplift exists. A diagrammatic repre-

small, and the precise onset of uplift was very difficult to sentation of results allows the stresses caused by tilt to

identify. The first signs of uplift occurred at a tilt of just be compared with stresses caused by other tank loads

over 2", as can be predicted by equation (12). At the snd allows prediction of the stress increases caused by

final tilt of 5", the maximum uplift at H was estimated future tilt. Operational measures to alleviate the effects

as approximately 0.3 mm. The uplifted portion took the of tilt have been identified.

form of a narrow crescent. as reported by Clough et u1. Experimental model tests suggest that tilt does not

(16) and Cambra (17), extending around an arc of cause significant distortion of open-top tanks that are

approximately 120" of circumference, centred on H. The stiffened at the top.

radial depth of the crescent could not be determined Tilt may reduce the resistance of a tank subjected to

precisely, but did not appear to extend more than seismic loading, and further work on this topic is

7.5 mm inside the shell, corresponding to the edge of recommended.

the internal 7.5 mm angle used to join the model base

to the shell.

The uplifted portion of the tank shell exhibited a sig- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

nificant loss in stiffness, and required only small dis- The author is grateful to Mr R. 0. Long of Whessoe

turbance loads to cause displacements and vibration, Projects for suggesting the method of analysis contained

radially and vertically. As predicted from equations (41, in Section 2.1.

(7), (9) and (1l), no evidence of buckling was observed.

To allow closer examination and measurement of

uplift, it would be desirable to perform a further set of REFERENCES

tests on a new model tank designed to display greater

1 IStructE/ICE,'IABSE, Joint report on Soil-strurture interaction:

magnitudes of uplift and the possibility of buckling, the real behauiour of structures, Sec. 7, Cylindrical storage-tank

incorporating the following features: structures, March 1989, pp. 53-65 (Institution of Structural En-

gineers, London).

(a) a larger height-radius ratio, 2 BS 2654: 1989 Munujacture of verticai steel welded non-refrigerated

(b) a more realistic construction of the shell-to-base storage tunks with butt-welded shells for the petroleum industry

joint and (British Standards Institution, London).

(c) a rigid floating roof to allow observation of changes 3 BS 4741: 1971 Vertical, cylindrical, weided steel storage tunksfor

low-temperature service: single-wall tanks for temprrarures down to

in edge clearance. -50°C (British Standards Institution, London).

4 BS 5387: 1976 Vertical, cylindrical, welded storage tanks for low-

temperature service: double-wall tanks for temperatures down to

6 CONCLUSIONS ~ l96"C (British Standards Institution, London).

A simple method for calculating the overturning 5 APT Standard 653: 1991 Tank inspection, repair, alteration and

reconstruction, 1st edition (American Petroleum Institute).

moment, shear force and stresses caused by tilt has been 6 Malik, Z., Morton, J. and Ruiz, C. Ovalisation of cylindrical tanks

presented. The method can be used in the design of new as a result of foundation settlement. J . Strain Analysis, 1977, 12,

tanks for a specified magnitude of foundation tilt and to 339-348.

predict the maximum allowable tilt for existing tanks. I Kamyab, H. and Palmer, S. C. Analysis of displacements and

stresses in oil storage tanks caused by differential settlement. Proc.

The arbitrary limit of 1 in 200 sometimes quoted for Instn Mech. Engrs, Part C , 1989,203(C1),60-70.

tilt of existing atmospheric tanks can be quite mislead- 8 Kamyab, H. and Palmer, S. C. Displacements in oil storage tanks

ing, since the allowable tilt will vary considerably caused by localised differential settlement. Trans. A S M E , J . Pres-

depending on the type and geometry of the tank. Tilt sure Vessel 'I'echnol., 1991, l l y l ) , 71-80.

effects are greatest for tanks with large values of the 9 Kamyab, 11. and Palmer, S. C. Experimental investigation of the

displacements in oil storage tanks caused by differential settle-

height-radius ratio h/R. ment. In Applied Solid Mechanics, Vol. 3 (Eds I. M. Allison and C.

The calculations are based on the inclination of the Ruiz), 1989 (Elsevier).

shell, which may differ from the tilt of the foundation on 10 Priestley, M. J. N., Wood, J. H. and Davidson, B. J. Seismic

account of construction tolerances and, to a lesser design of storage tanks. Bull. N . 2. Natn. Soc. Eurthquake Engng,

extent, shell flexibility. This suggests that the first step in 1986, 19(4), 272-284.

11 ECCS, Europeun recommendations for steel Construction; buckling

assessing foundation tilt should be to ascertain by of' steel shells, 4th edition, 1988 (European Convention for Con-

physical measurement the overall verticality of the shell structional Steelwork, Brussels).

at several stations around the circumference (for 12 API Standard 620: 1990 Design and construction of large, welded,

example using a plumb-line), when the tank is full with low-pressure storage lanks, 8th edition (American Petroleum

Institute).

liquid, in addition to normal foundation level measure- 13 API Standard 650: 1988 Welded steel tanks for oil sturuge, 8th

ments. edition (American Petroleum Institute).

Methods have been presented to assess the effects of 14 Leon, G. S. and Kausel, A. M. Seismic analysis of fluid storage

tilt on possible tank failure mechanisms, including axial tanks. ASCE J . Strurt. Engng, 1986,112(1), 1 18.

15 Marr, W. A., Ramos, J. A. and Lambe, T. W. Criteria for settle-

and shear buckling of the shell. Similarities with the ment of tanks. J . Geotech. Engng Div. ASCE, 1982, 1DS(GT8),

overturning effects caused by wind and seismic loading 1017-1039.

have been identified. The need for further work to iden- 16 Clough, R. W., Niwa, A. and Clough, D. P. Experimental seismic

tify the buckling strength of axially loaded cylinders study of cylindrical tanks. J . Struct. Die. ASCE, 1979, 105(ST12),

with large imperfections has been highlighted. 2565-2590.

17 Cambra, F. J. A study of liquid storage tank seismic uplift beha-

For anchored tanks, the effects of tilt on the anchors viour. Conference on Pressure vessels and piping, 1983, pp. 37-46

can be significant, while for unanchored tanks, the (ASME).

- 30120130406015Transféré parIAEME Publication
- AdvancedSteelDesign FireEngineering Presentationv0.4 2016Transféré parغنية لتكون غنية
- engrmae 157Transféré parrickosnals
- Esfuerzos y Deformaciones en PavimentosTransféré parJuan Manuel Delgado Gomezcoello
- U3 - Fluid Mechanics - Hydrostatic Pressure.pdfTransféré parSaifullah Mohd
- <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <HTML><HEAD><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <TITLE>ERROR: The requested URL could not be retrieved</TITLE> <STYLE type="text/css"><!--BODY{background-color:#ffffff;font-family:verdana,sans-serif}PRE{font-family:sans-serif}--></STYLE> </HEAD><BODY> <H1>ERROR</H1> <H2>The requested URL could not be retrieved</H2> <HR noshade size="1px"> <P> While trying to process the request: <PRE> TEXT http://www.scribd.com/titlecleaner?title=Intro-ESO202A-13.pdf HTTP/1.1 Host: www.scribd.com Proxy-Connection: keep-alive Proxy-Authorization: Basic cmFqZWs6cmtwZDA5 Accept: */* Origin: http://www.scribd.com X-CSRF-Token: 412efe4310081e7bac9df9ba21fb838f6bd54718 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Ubuntu Chromium/28.0.1500.71 Chrome/28.0.1500.71 Safari/537.36 X-Requested-With: XMLHttpRequest RefereTransféré pardaskhago
- PEB and IS-800-2007Transféré parGautam Paul
- Lrfd Design SpreadsheetTransféré parwgao2010
- Lecture8-Fluid Mechanics.pdfTransféré parSata Ajjam
- 125760133 Buckling of Thin Metal Shells 213Transféré parpawkom
- 136_VanlaereTransféré parZaoui
- Design of Machine Elements ITransféré parNilesh Gurjar
- thermal_01.pdfTransféré parAlfia Bano
- Hydrostatic Pressure Apparatus guntTransféré par11111111
- FM2005-WangZD-1Transféré parMahendra Rathore
- Is 801 Code of Practice for Use of Cold-Formed Light Gauge .183135618Transféré paramithcivil
- Xu Buckling Analysis of Tri Axial Woven Fabric Composite Structures Part I Non Linear Finite Element FormulationTransféré parAnonymous zXVPi2Ply
- Assignment 6 questionTransféré paramin alzuraiki
- 1974 - [VTB74]Transféré parJorge Llimpe
- Mme 0215Transféré parKing1971
- 2657Transféré parhitesh_tilala
- Steele Asymptotics ShellsTransféré parougueway
- bukling calculation kpeterTransféré parlive4sankar
- Burj Vista F1 12 Panel Design Rev0 22Feb16Transféré parKilaru Hareesh
- SFD-OlderCodesTransféré parsaraviad
- Finite element Analysis of Honeycomb filled Metallic Tubes Subjected to Axial LoadingTransféré parIJAERS JOURNAL
- ΑΣΚΗΣΗΣ 2 - 10528.pdfTransféré parspartakid
- 49521447-MITTransféré parrony
- Pump Foundations - DynamicTransféré parMuthukumaran Sivalingam
- 2012 Ijss Veenendaal Block 1380094819Transféré pardenis1808scribd

- 48954 Standards Spec Brochure ME WEBTransféré parReza Tamba
- 10 Pile Foundation SpecificationTransféré parAnonymous YN4aNl
- Cargo shipsTransféré parKumararaja Konikki
- CHEMCAD SIZING TOOLSTransféré parparedanil
- SpotQAassessments_2Transféré parl_aguilar_m
- Specifiers Guide to Steel ProtectionTransféré parKumararaja Konikki
- Process Industry Practices - Grounding Installation DetailsTransféré parKumararaja Konikki
- Marine Geotechnics(1).pdfTransféré parwidayat81
- IGS-TC04-GI-Manual-2016.pdfTransféré parVidhyabharti Umarakh
- A_piping Joint HandbookTransféré parCharles Tauk
- Gipp t Safety AuditTransféré parmuhammad_asim_10
- qa_qc_guidelines.pdfTransféré parKumararaja Konikki
- Storage TanksTransféré paribson045001256
- CASTI ASME SECTION IX 2013.pdfTransféré parKumararaja Konikki
- Water HammerTransféré parMarcelo Favio Palacios Solórzano
- chapter 4Transféré parLasandu Wanniarachchi
- roof-extractors.pdfTransféré parKumararaja Konikki
- 7_Project Close Out Report Template.docTransféré parkasun
- [Estimator's Man-Hour Library] John S. Page - Cost Estimating Manual for Pipelines and Marine Structures (1977, Gulf Professional Publishing).pdfTransféré parKumararaja Konikki
- Cable Tray Manual for Electrical Engineers and DesignersTransféré parKumararaja Konikki
- Industrial LightingTransféré parrsgk75
- Cable Tray ManualTransféré parkaiju85
- Clearances for Electrical LinesTransféré parKumararaja Konikki
- CHEMICAL CLEANING PROCEDURE.pptTransféré parMerifie Renegado
- Paints-Coating-Failure-Defects-GOOD.pdfTransféré parVasileios Iliopoulos
- 20130826155739 - InsulationTransféré parSH1961
- Painting specTransféré parashim_scribd
- EIL - UNDER GROUND PROTECTION.pdfTransféré parKumararaja Konikki

- As NZS 4029.2-2000 Stationary Batteries - Lead-Acid Valve-Regulated TypeTransféré parSAI Global - APAC
- Aquatherm Losses.pdfTransféré parAslam
- Chapter 2Transféré parzetseat
- SBE12E Chapter 22Transféré parlee
- BCG PDT&DRS Team_RV Campus Visit Details_2018Transféré parShashank S Kudlur
- 8 Sortation Module 2 Sorters AftersortsTransféré parautomotionconveyors
- (Measure Theory) D. H Fremlin-Measure Theory-Torres Fremlin (2001)Transféré parmnemonia
- Lowenthal mTransféré parSTr Dinu
- Press Release CaneInfoTransféré parputhira
- NewsTransféré parnita mishra
- (eBook)Object Oriented Programming in C++ - Basics of OOPTransféré parPerez Wa Mugoha
- Design Fabrication and Testing of a Laboratory Size Hammer Mill1Transféré parEsteban San Martín Maulén
- Transformation Manager Job DescriptionTransféré parworldfedksimc
- IJPEM-1261129-1141Dec2011EnergyHarvesting.PDFTransféré parChimzy Iwumune
- Chapter 13 Readings_0001Transféré parkung_pao22
- Drew 2004 Biogeography and Speciation in DaciniTransféré paroscarbuku
- Huffman CodingTransféré parSyed Umair Anwer
- 22691410 IEC 60071 Insulation Coordination Abb LiteratureTransféré parreza515hei
- The Value of Economic Incentives in International Politics.pdfTransféré parCesarSanchezRico
- management notesTransféré parDeepali Sengar
- Steps to Debug Routines in BITransféré parmig007
- chrysler dakota part6Transféré parSašo Brunšek-Bruno
- Background of Rumah Titian KASEHTransféré parbukubook
- Atheists vs ChristiansTransféré parLucas Hsiung
- System Integration Smart Grid With Renewable Energy Mrs. N. v. VaderTransféré parShubham Sharma
- Schema presentation.pptTransféré parjimlougabs
- Sylvania Understanding Lighting Brochure 1988Transféré parAlan Masters
- Gantt ChartTransféré parhermas67
- Frank Frazetta Signs with Vanguard ProductionsTransféré parselvamsuresh
- academic success group lessonsTransféré parapi-341978441